Efficacy of Design Methods for Predicting the Capacity of Large-Diameter Open-Ended Piles

Rizk, Andrew; Kodsy, Antonio; Iskander, Magued; Machairas, Nikolaos

doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002824

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The degree of plugging is related to soil properties, pile dimensions, the pile's frictional resistance, the driving hammer characteristics, and the plug drainage conditions. However, when plugging information is absent, which is common, the unplugged assumption is safest and consistent with prior studies (26,27). For the steel pipe piles, the USACE method performed best among the SPT-based methods in relation to both average Q c /Q m and standard deviation.…”

Section: Observations For Spt-based Methodssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…The authors can make the following observations, based on the work presented in this study, integrated with observations from several recent studies (26,27,30).…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…USACE was also the best performing method for the other pile types as well, with a 4% error on average and 0.7 standard deviation. The performance of USACE was also acceptable for LDOEPs (26). However, the superior performance of USACE may simply stem from its over predicting the capacity in clays and underpredicting the capacity in sands, with the two effects canceling each other out.…”

Section: Observations For Spt-based Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A comparison of the performance of various design methods to that obtained by Rizk et al (26) for LDOEPs offers several insights (Table 1). First, nearly all methods performed better in this study than for LDOEPs because the methods were used for piles with dimensions close to those that were used in their development.…”

Section: Effect Of Pile Sizementioning

confidence: 93%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of Several Design Methods for Predicting the Axial Compressive Capacity of Piles

Ozturk¹,

Kodsy²,

Bazi³

et al. 2023

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of design methods for determining piles’ axial compressive load capacity are routinely employed in current practice. These range from methods specified in building codes to proprietary methods developed and employed by an assortment of engineering firms. In this study, the performance of eight commonly used design methods was evaluated using a database of 505 load tests and associated geotechnical design parameters compiled from Professor Olson’s database and that of the Iowa State Department of Transportation. The methods investigated included standard penetration test (SPT)-based methods, such as those recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, American Petroleum Institute, and Revised Lambda; and cone penetration test (CPT)-based methods such as those recommended by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Imperial College, Fugro, and University of Western Australia. Pile capacities were calculated using APILE software and were compared with the measured capacities interpreted using the standard Davisson criterion and stored in the databases. The performance of all design methods was evaluated in relation to accuracy, precision, effect of soil type, diameter, and length. Both SPT and CPT methods exhibited similar accuracies, however, CPT-based design methods exhibited significantly better precision compared with SPT-based methods. All methods had shortcomings and appeared to work best under certain conditions, which are documented in this paper. The authors believe that this evaluation will permit practicing engineers and regulating bodies to better understand the efficacy of various design approaches in common use.

show abstract

Section: Observations For Spt-based Methodssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…The authors can make the following observations, based on the work presented in this study, integrated with observations from several recent studies (26,27,30).…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Observations For Spt-based Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Effect Of Pile Sizementioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of Several Design Methods for Predicting the Axial Compressive Capacity of Piles

Ozturk¹,

Kodsy²,

Bazi³

et al. 2023

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A third limitation is that the authors were not able to account for plugging of open-ended pipe piles nor pile setup because of the absence of this information in the available database. Plugging has been shown to affect the behavior of pipe piles (16)(17)(18)(19), as well as their capacity (20,21), but it is not believed to affect the interpretation criterion used for a load test. A fourth limitation is that the proposed criterion, like nearly all other pile load test interpretation criteria, does not account for different stress and strain demands on the soil-foundation interface for drilled and driven foundations.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Several Interpretation Criteria for Tensile Axial Load Tests on Deep Foundations

Kodsy¹,

Ozturk²,

Bazi³

et al. 2023

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Axial tensile load tests on deep foundations are increasingly significant because of the expansion in their usage for a myriad of projects requiring support of tensile loads as well as for being a less costly alternative to compression load tests. A variety of interpretation criteria for compression load tests is available, which are often also used for tensile tests, but a few have been proposed specifically for tension load tests. In this study, the performance of seven of the available widely used interpretation criteria was evaluated using a data set of 80 tensile load tests. These criteria are (i) original Davisson, (ii) AASHTO, (iii) New York City building code, (iv) French building code, (v) 5% diameter, (vi) 10% diameter, and (vii) New York University (NYU) compression criteria. Their performance was evaluated for applicability, accuracy, precision, and the diameter and length effects. The AASHTO criterion exhibited the best accuracy and a moderate precision, which is promising. The study also presents efforts to identify a better performing criterion, which yields the introduction of the NYU tension criterion where capacity is defined as that corresponding to the smallest displacement of (i) half the elastic elongation of the pile plus 0.25 in.; (ii) pile head displacement corresponding to the first incidence of pull-out or strain-softening resulting in loss of more than 5% of capacity; and (iii) pile head displacement of 0.5 in., unless modified by the structural engineer of record. The NYU tension criterion achieved a similar accuracy to the AASHTO criterion and a better precision, which is optimal.

show abstract

Forecasting of pile plugging using machine learning

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy of Design Methods for Predicting the Capacity of Large-Diameter Open-Ended Piles

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

Efficacy of Several Design Methods for Predicting the Axial Compressive Capacity of Piles

Efficacy of Several Design Methods for Predicting the Axial Compressive Capacity of Piles

Assessment of Several Interpretation Criteria for Tensile Axial Load Tests on Deep Foundations

Forecasting of pile plugging using machine learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About