Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5804/LHIJ.2017.8.4.233

Estimation of resistance coefficient of PHC bored pile by Load Test  

Park, Jong-Bae (한국토지주택공사 토지주택연구원)
Kwon, Young-Hwan (한국토지주택공사 토지주택연구원)
Publication Information
Land and Housing Review / v.8, no.4, 2017 , pp. 233-247 More about this Journal
Abstract
In Europe and the USA, the use of limit state design method has been established, and the Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has implemented the bridge substructure design standard based on the critical state. But Korean piling methods and ground conditions are different from Europe and USA, the limit state design method can not be used immediately. In this study, the resistance coefficient was proposed by comparing and analyzing the results of the static load test(9 times) and dynamic load tests(9 times of EOID and 9 times of Restrike) with the bearing capacity calculated by Meyerhof(LH design standard, Road bridge design standard) method and surcharge load method(using Terzaghi's bearing capacity coefficient and Hansen & Vesic's bearing capacity coefficient). The previous LHI study showed the resistance coefficient of the LH design standard was 0.36 ~ 0.44, and this research result showed the resistance coefficient was 0.39 ~ 0.48 which is about 8% higher than the previous study. In this study, we tried to obtain the resistance coefficient mainly from the static load test and the resistance coefficient was 0.57 ~ 0.69(Meyhof method : LH design standard) based on the ultimate bearing capacity and the resistance coefficient was 0.49 ~ 0.60(Meyhof method : LH design standard) based on the Davissons bearing capacity. The difference of the resistance coefficient between the static and dynamic load test was greater than that we expected, we proposed the resistance coefficient(0.52 ~ 0.62 : Meyerhof method: LH design standard) using the modified bearing capacity of the dynamic load test. Summarizing the result, the coefficient of resistance obtained from the static and dynamic load tests was 0.35 ~ 0.76, which is greater than 0.3 suggested by the Road bridge design standard, so the economical design might be possible using the coefficient of resistance proposed by this study.
Keywords
PHC bored pile; Dynamic Load Test; Static Load Test; Resistance coefficient; Modified bearing capacity of dynamic load test;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official(AASHTO, 2004), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Fifth Edition AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official(AASHTO, 2010), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Fifth Edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
3 Whitiam, J.L., Voytko, E., Barker, R., Duncan, M., Kelly, B., Musser, S., and Elias, V.(1998), Load and Resistance Factor Design(LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructures, FHWA HI-98-032, FHWA.
4 국토해양부(2012), 도로교 설계기준(한계상태설계법)
5 김성렬, 정성교(2007), 말뚝 지지력 산정에 이용되는 한계깊이 개념에 대한 고찰, 한국지반공학회 학회지, 제23권 제10호, pp. 26-33.
6 박종배, 김상연, 이범식, 박용부, 임해식, 최경륜, 김동수, 김범주(2011), 말뚝기초의 설계법 선진화 및 시공법 다양화, 토지주택연구원 연구보고서.
7 박종배, 김정수, 임해식(2004), 개선된 기준으로 시공된 SIP 말뚝의 지지력 평가에 관한 연구, 한국지반환경공학회, 제5권 제3호, pp. 5-15.
8 박종배, 박용부, 이창현, 권영환(2017), 한계상태설계법 시행에 따른 도로교 매입말뚝의 설계기준 정립에 관한 연구(II), 토지주택연구원 연구보고서.
9 박종배, 이범석, 박용부, 이선웅, 유호원, 이종섭(2014), 공사 PHC 말뚝 설계지지력 개선 방안 수립, 토지주택연구원 연구보고서.
10 한국지반공학회(2009), 구조물 기초 설계기준 해설, 구미서관, pp. 179-312.
11 NAVFAC(1982), SOIL MECHANICS DESIGN MANUAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, PP.197-200.