Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GARY CHAPMAN
9/6/2010
The Old code was dated 1995 and was over 14 years old and in need of
updating
New piling systems have become available over the last 14 years
9/6/2010
9/6/2010
OUTLINE OF CHANGES
9/6/2010
9/6/2010
9/6/2010
9/6/2010
Tangible benefits for conducting load testing through the testing benefit
factor
9/6/2010
You must now consider all of the site risks more specifically
There is an incentive for pile load testing by using the testing benefit
factor to increase fg
Can also allow for the benefits arising from the design of a redundant
foundation system. Single piles are not redundant and now attract a
reduced fg value for a low risk site rating fg is 0.67 for a non redundant
system versus 0.76 for a redundant system.
9/6/2010
Rd,g = fg . Rd,ug
fg,b
10
The value of fg,b depends upon the assessed site risk factors & the
weighted sum of individual risks x risk weighting factors
9/6/2010
11
9/6/2010
RISK LEVEL
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
12
9/6/2010
Risk
Category
Risk Factor
Site
Geological complexity
of the site
Extent of Ground
Investigation
13
Weighting
factor
9/6/2010
Risk
Category
Risk Factor
Design
14
Weighting
factor
9/6/2010
Risk
Category
Risk Factor
Installation
Level of construction
control
Level of performance
monitoring (during &
after construction)
0.5
15
Weighting
factor
9/6/2010
16
9/6/2010
17
(wi)
IRR
Wi . IRR
Sums
ARR = S (wi. IRRi )/ S wi
9/6/2010
15
49
3.27
18
Overall Risk
Category
ARR<= 1.5
Very low
0.67
0.76
1.5<ARR<2.0
Very low-low
0.61
0.70
2.0<ARR<2.5
Low
0.56
0.64
2.5<ARR<3.0
Low mod
0.52
0.60
3.0<ARR<3.5
Moderate
0.48
0.56
3.5<ARR<4.0
Mod High
0.45
0.53
4.0<ARR<4.5
High
0.42
0.50
ARR>4.5
Very High
0.40
0.47
19
fg,b
9/6/2010
20
9/6/2010
9/6/2010
22
1
0.8
Static
Dynamic
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
% Piles Tested
9/6/2010
23
40
50
Phi gd
0.8
0.75
Static Testing
Dynamic Testing
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0
9/6/2010
10
15
% Piles Tested
24
20
25
30
Serviceability
Requires an analysis which takes into account the
interaction amongst the piles, the raft or shallow footing
and the soil. Usually a 2 or 3D FE analysis.
9/6/2010
25
9/6/2010
26
9/6/2010
27
Structural Design
9/6/2010
28
9/6/2010
29
9/6/2010
30
9/6/2010
31
9/6/2010
32
9/6/2010
9/6/2010
34
9/6/2010
35
9/6/2010
Ps L / A E + 0.01d
Ps L / A E -0.5 FnfLnf/AE +
max (0.01d,5)
Max (0.01d,5)
Pg L / A E + 0.05 d
10 +0.05 d
37
Ps
Ps L / AE + 0.01 d
1.5 Ps
Ps L/A E + 0.05 d
38
9/6/2010
39
Integrity Testing
Procedures set out in Appendix D for pulse echo, vibration and impulse
response methods. Cross hole and sonic logging methods are also
described with the opportunity to use other test methods if applicable
Acceptance criteria are stated in general terms. Tests are deemed
acceptable unless results show a likely impediment of the ability of the
pile shaft to perform its intended function
9/6/2010
40
9/6/2010
Thank You!!
Questions (?s)
and
Answers (!!!s)
9/6/2010
42