{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

107_HWKTTE 4004c - 97 3 For the total static capacity...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
97 3. For the total static capacity prediction, the suggested method (COV R = 0.29) was the most accurate of the three methods evaluated, followed by the PDA (COV R = 0.32) and the CAPWAP procedure (COV R = 0.45). 4. In terms of the skin static resistance, the suggested method ( λ R = 1.04, COV R = 0.39) proved to be the best method followed by CAPWAP ( λ R = 0.80, COV R = 0.43) and Method 1 ( λ R = 1.29, COV R = 0.89). 5. The tip static prediction from the suggested method ( λ R = 0.96, COV R = 0.17) was superior to the predictions of CAPWAP ( λ R = 1.08, COV R = 0.55) and Method 1 ( λ R = 1.94, COV R = 1.27). 6. The relation of tip to skin ratio versus the Case damping, J c , allows the user to recalibrate the suggested method as more pile driving information is used. In a sensitivity analysis, the coefficient of variance of the static capacity changed by only 10 percent when the coefficient of variance of the Case damping was modified by 30 percent. 7. The suggested method is simple to determine pile capacity. It does not require a high level of expertise, since all the calculations can be performed automatically.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}