본 연구에서는 설계 대상인 현장타설말뚝기초에 대하여 상사율을 고려한 하중전이 대형토조 모형시험과 3차원수치해석을 수행함으로써 현장타설말뚝 선단부와 주면부의 하중전이 특성을 분석하고 하중분담율을 산정하였다. 대형토조 모형시험 및 3차원 수치해석 결과에서 나타난 현장타설말뚝의 선형적 거동으로부터, 본 연구의 설계 조건에 대한 주면하중전이곡선은 Baquelin 등의 제안식, 선단하중전이곡선은 Baquelin 등의 제안식, 수평하중전이곡선은 Reese 등의 제안식이 적정한 것으로 확인되었다. 암반근입부에서 축하중은 시험값이 수치해석값보다 약간 크게 측정되었지만 암반 근입부에서 하중분담율은 연직하중이 증가함에 따라 평균적으로 약 27.8%의 분담율을 나타내었다. 연직재하 시에 말뚝두부의 침하량은 해석값이 시험값보다 약간 작게 평가되었으며, 모형시험 및 해석 최대 연직하중에서 말뚝두부의 최대 침하량은 시험치 10.6mm, 해석치 10.0mm 이고, 말뚝선단에서 최대 침하량은 시험치 2.0mm, 해석치 1.9mm로 나타났다. 수평재하 시에 기둥 두부(지표)와 말뚝 두부에서 수평변위는 시험값과 해석값이 비교적 잘 일치하는 것으로 나타났고, 모형토조시험 결과 최대 수평변위 38.0mm에서 측정된 수평하중은 24,713kN, 수치해석에서의 수평하중은 26,073kN으로 평가되었다.
본 연구에서는 설계 대상인 현장타설말뚝기초에 대하여 상사율을 고려한 하중전이 대형토조 모형시험과 3차원 수치해석을 수행함으로써 현장타설말뚝 선단부와 주면부의 하중전이 특성을 분석하고 하중분담율을 산정하였다. 대형토조 모형시험 및 3차원 수치해석 결과에서 나타난 현장타설말뚝의 선형적 거동으로부터, 본 연구의 설계 조건에 대한 주면하중전이곡선은 Baquelin 등의 제안식, 선단하중전이곡선은 Baquelin 등의 제안식, 수평하중전이곡선은 Reese 등의 제안식이 적정한 것으로 확인되었다. 암반근입부에서 축하중은 시험값이 수치해석값보다 약간 크게 측정되었지만 암반 근입부에서 하중분담율은 연직하중이 증가함에 따라 평균적으로 약 27.8%의 분담율을 나타내었다. 연직재하 시에 말뚝두부의 침하량은 해석값이 시험값보다 약간 작게 평가되었으며, 모형시험 및 해석 최대 연직하중에서 말뚝두부의 최대 침하량은 시험치 10.6mm, 해석치 10.0mm 이고, 말뚝선단에서 최대 침하량은 시험치 2.0mm, 해석치 1.9mm로 나타났다. 수평재하 시에 기둥 두부(지표)와 말뚝 두부에서 수평변위는 시험값과 해석값이 비교적 잘 일치하는 것으로 나타났고, 모형토조시험 결과 최대 수평변위 38.0mm에서 측정된 수평하중은 24,713kN, 수치해석에서의 수평하중은 26,073kN으로 평가되었다.
In this study, the load transfer characteristics of the base and skin of drilled shafts were analyzed and the load sharing ratio was calculated by performing a load transfer large-scale model test and three-dimensional numerical analysis considering the similarity of drilled shafts, which is the des...
In this study, the load transfer characteristics of the base and skin of drilled shafts were analyzed and the load sharing ratio was calculated by performing a load transfer large-scale model test and three-dimensional numerical analysis considering the similarity of drilled shafts, which is the design target. From the linear behavior of drilled shafts shown in the large-scale model test and 3D numerical analysis results, the skin load transition curve for the design conditions of this study was proposed by Baquelin et al., and the base load transition curve was proposed by Baquelin et al. For the horizontal load transition curve, the formula proposed by Reese et al. was confirmed to be appropriate. The test value was slightly larger than the numerical analysis value for the axial load at the rock socketing, but the load sharing ratio at the rock socketing increased, on average, about 27.8% as the vertical load increased. The analysis value of the vertical settlement of the pile head under the vertical load was evaluated to be slightly smaller than the test value, and the maximum vertical settlement of the pile head in the model test and analysis maximum vertical load was 10.6 mm in the test value and 10.0 mm in the analysis value, and the maximum vertical settlement value at the base of the pile was found to be a test value of 2.0 mm and an analysis value of 1.9 mm. The horizontal displacement at the head of the column (ground surface) and the head of the pile during the horizontal load was found to agree relatively well with the test value and the analysis value. As a result of the model soil test, the horizontal load measured at the maximum horizontal displacement of 38.0 mm was evaluated to be 24,713 kN, and the horizontal load in the numerical analysis was evaluated to be 26,073 kN.
In this study, the load transfer characteristics of the base and skin of drilled shafts were analyzed and the load sharing ratio was calculated by performing a load transfer large-scale model test and three-dimensional numerical analysis considering the similarity of drilled shafts, which is the design target. From the linear behavior of drilled shafts shown in the large-scale model test and 3D numerical analysis results, the skin load transition curve for the design conditions of this study was proposed by Baquelin et al., and the base load transition curve was proposed by Baquelin et al. For the horizontal load transition curve, the formula proposed by Reese et al. was confirmed to be appropriate. The test value was slightly larger than the numerical analysis value for the axial load at the rock socketing, but the load sharing ratio at the rock socketing increased, on average, about 27.8% as the vertical load increased. The analysis value of the vertical settlement of the pile head under the vertical load was evaluated to be slightly smaller than the test value, and the maximum vertical settlement of the pile head in the model test and analysis maximum vertical load was 10.6 mm in the test value and 10.0 mm in the analysis value, and the maximum vertical settlement value at the base of the pile was found to be a test value of 2.0 mm and an analysis value of 1.9 mm. The horizontal displacement at the head of the column (ground surface) and the head of the pile during the horizontal load was found to agree relatively well with the test value and the analysis value. As a result of the model soil test, the horizontal load measured at the maximum horizontal displacement of 38.0 mm was evaluated to be 24,713 kN, and the horizontal load in the numerical analysis was evaluated to be 26,073 kN.
Baquelin, F. R. and Jezequel, J. F. (1982), Parameters for friction?piles in marine soils, 2nd International Conference in Numerical?Methods for Offshore Piling, Austin, April, pp. 46~58.
Castelli, F., Maugeri, M. and Motta, E. (1992), Anlisi non lineare?del cedimento di un Palo Singlo, Rivista Italiana di Geotechnica,?Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 115~135.
Goh, A. T., Teh, C. I. and Wong, K. S. (1997), Analysis of?piles subjected to embankment induced lateral soil movements,?Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,?Vol. 123, No. 9, pp. 75~91.
Kondner, R. L. (1963), Hyperbolic stress-strain response; cohesive?soils, Journal SMFD, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM1, pp. 115~143.
Matlock, H. and Reese, L. C. (1960), Generalized solutions for?laterally loaded piles, American Society of Civil Engineers 86,?No. SM5, pp. 63~91.
McClelland, B. and Focht J. A. (1958), Soil modulus for laterally?loaded piles, American Society of Civil Engineers 123, pp.?1049~1063.
O'Neill, M. W. and Hassan, K. M. (1994), Drilled shafts: Effects?of construction on performance and design criteria, Proceedings?of International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep?Foundations, Vol. 1, FHWA, Orlando, pp. 137~187.
Reese, L. C. (1997), Analysis of laterally loaded piles in weak?rock, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,?Vol. 123, No. 11, pp. 1010~1017.
Reese, L. C. and Nyman, K. J. (1978), Field load test of?instrumented drilled shafts at Islamorada, Florida. A report to?Girdler Foundation and Exploration Corporation, Clearwater,?Florida, pp. 95.
Timoshenko, S. and Goodier, J. N. (1951), Theory of elasticity,?McGraw-Hill, NY, pp. 83~102.
Vijayvergiya, V. N. (1977), Load-movement characteristics of?piles. Ports '77: 4th Annual Symposium of the Waterway, Port,?Coastal, and Ocean Division, ASCE, Los Angeles, pp. 269~284.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.