Scholarlink

<p>An evaluation of five prominent codes, CHBDC, AASHTO, FHWA, AS2159, and CEN is conducted to assess their approaches to ultimate limit state design for an H-pile under negative skin friction. The examination includes a direct field measurement, numerical simulations, dynamic and static analysis. Findings revealed that adhering to AASHTO and CEN guidelines may result in considering longer piles, heavier sections, or specific techniques to meet the design requirements based on both static and dynamic analysis where the drag force in considerable. According to the dynamic analysis results, CHBDC provision was found to be more conservative than codes that exclude drag force in ULS design, owing to variations in load and resistance factors. Using pile capacities derived from restrike testing, rather than from initial driving, provides higher geotechnical ULS resistance when soils exhibit setup phenamenon. Moreover, static analysis yields more conservative ULS pile designs compared to dynamic analysis. Based on this experiment conditions, the AASHTO code did not satisfy ULS requirements under static analysis, resulting in a potentially more challening design if followed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ultimate Limit State Design for Piles under Negative Skin Friction Due to Bridge Approach Embankment Filling: A Code-Based Evaluation

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月13日

查看全文
  • Sepehr Chalajour,
  • James A. Blatz

摘要

An evaluation of five prominent codes, CHBDC, AASHTO, FHWA, AS2159, and CEN is conducted to assess their approaches to ultimate limit state design for an H-pile under negative skin friction. The examination includes a direct field measurement, numerical simulations, dynamic and static analysis. Findings revealed that adhering to AASHTO and CEN guidelines may result in considering longer piles, heavier sections, or specific techniques to meet the design requirements based on both static and dynamic analysis where the drag force in considerable. According to the dynamic analysis results, CHBDC provision was found to be more conservative than codes that exclude drag force in ULS design, owing to variations in load and resistance factors. Using pile capacities derived from restrike testing, rather than from initial driving, provides higher geotechnical ULS resistance when soils exhibit setup phenamenon. Moreover, static analysis yields more conservative ULS pile designs compared to dynamic analysis. Based on this experiment conditions, the AASHTO code did not satisfy ULS requirements under static analysis, resulting in a potentially more challening design if followed.