Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 3-13
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 3... ...
The performance of different prediction methods, categorized according to the examined methods of analysis and controlling parameters, are also discussed in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, the results of these analyses are used for the development of the resistance factors recommended for the revision of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
|
From page 4... ...
. In LRFD, partial safety factors are applied separately to the load effect and resistance.
|
From page 5... ...
. The American Petroleum Institute (API)
|
From page 6... ...
1.3.5 LRFD for Deep Foundations Several efforts have been made to develop LRFD-based codes for deep foundation design. 1.3.5.1 2001 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Driven Piles LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2001)
|
From page 7... ...
. Detailed recommendations are provided for resistance factors to be used with the dynamic methods ranging between 0.45 to 0.65 for methods without dynamic measurements (including WEAP)
|
From page 8... ...
Upon construction initiation, static load testing and/or dynamic testing, or dynamic analysis based on driving resistance (using dynamic formulas or wave-equations) are carried out on selected elements (i.e., indicator piles)
|
From page 9... ...
Yes Geomaterial Strength & Deformation Parameters Static Analysis of Deep Foundations Laboratory Testing Deformation and Settlement Bearing Capacity Vertical and Lateral Resistance Single/Group Deep Foundation Type/Construction Method Dynamic Analysis of Driven Piles Design • Geometry • Configuration • Installation Criteria Superstructure Loading Evaluation Substructure Loading Requirement Completed Substructure Testing • Material • Performance • Driving • Integrity QC Monitoring Construction Design Verification/ Modification • Dynamic testing • Static testing ? OK No Field Exploration & Testing Figure 3.
|
From page 10... ...
, its accuracy and LT procedure effect Calculating the Ratio of the Nominal Strength to Predicted Capacity LT-Static Load Test DP-Driven Piles DS-Drilled Shafts SGP 4/7/02 Evaluate the Nominal Strength of all casesDevelop Statistical Parameters for the Performance of each Analysis Method/Correlation Combination Calculating the Resistance Factors and Evaluating the Results Recommended Resistance Factors State of Practice Driven Piles and Drilled Shafts Design and Construction Figure 4. Stages of the research approach outlining the framework for LRFD calibration of the current study.
|
From page 11... ...
where = mean value of the basic random variable Xi, =standard deviation of the basic random variable. The mean value of the vector of basic random variables is often used as an initial guess for the design point.
|
From page 12... ...
Notes: ST = structural MC = Monte Carlo µ = mean G(x) = performance function of the limit state = limit state function G(x)
|
From page 13... ...
Calibrations of existing design codes are needed to make the new design formats as simple as possible and to put them in a form that is familiar to designers. For a given reliability index β and probability distributions for resistance and load effects, the partial safety factors determined by the FORM approach may differ with failure mode.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.