BsOCR_V01를 이용하여 이미지를 검색키워드용으로 변환한것으로 다소 내용이부정확할 수 있습니다.
첨부된 원본으로 확인하여 주시기 바랍니다.

1 2018 년도설계실무자료집4-1교량 말뚝기초설계 적용 절차 개선4-2탄성 받침 써 구조 제거에 따른설계개선방안4-3한계 상태설계법도 입에 따른 전단설계 적용방안검토4-4교량 점검시설설계및 시공 개선방안검토4-5연속 교 슬래브 익스텐션 적용방안4-6콘크리트거 더교 상 하부 일체화 설 방안계검토4-7교량 내구성및 유지 관리 성 향상을 위한 무 조 인 트 교량7=Sore mE, afr! [34d설계 -471처(2018.02.12)검토질차 정립을 통해 합리적 말뚝설계도모2) #712및 문제점디말뚝형식선정 기준(2015.72,설계 처)@ 지반조건@ PSAs풍화암 두께 확인 ：ㆍ말뚝 예상 길이 검토eadBE ad ㅣㆍ말뚝종류및 연장별지지 검토경제성 고디말뚝 형식 선정현황및문 제접6 최근설계 노선 말뚝 형식 현황aAAeseene구분계강관말뚝 | 복 합 말뚝 | 으 으 다 랄서 뚝~La‘)43,1903본38.7293본2.620,본1.841;본2006 ~ 2015(100%) |(89.7%)6.1%)(4.2%)2015 년이후 9 | 05.095본11,338 본21.589 본2.168본Toa(100%)(32.3%)(61.5%)(6.2%)*" 동 홍천-양 양등 15 개 노선 580 개 교량 /포항- 영 덕등 6 개 노선 %2 개 교량의설계가 대부분 임주 으| 후 현장타설 발 뚝이 다소 증가, 여전히 기성 말뚝 비율이i Oo©. 프su0ㅇ읍어1정을 위한 상세 절차 마련으로 최적의 공법선정필요토 시, " 자재비 "와 " 시공 비 " 위주비교형식별로 "가시설" 필요여부부 , 지지력 시험 비용등 상이마뜨형식별특성비교Al,2 전성,경제성 성 ,시공성에대한 종 합 검토 필요TABSI115fepe 더바 TE _Aa도HO00변경©awMeOoㅜBeㅠㅇ자a A 애일 현장 타 말뚝능함)반 특성 고려,Al er Br | Br xO oy= 호00ㅜ|aM|구동형식 결정| a at] a ge fb은가ㆍ감이가 업보TF el | jor OWxOfqoOㆍ직접 기초no nT | ar Dloe30Ke(※도 선 / 지말뚝 길이별 검 대상lo 02비교 -) 최종ㆍ단eSoh ojo x은고려, 대상 말뚝 형식feWRiiKoYes전aYl me©z|*ma& || aral brpw || arau arpw gya|BK 개말뚝 형식별 개략 특성TH tot | TH oD KOKo =(지지NO ODT | 0페00ro 20(x과 5})설계부족 =o0 oO조사농과10도a ©푸 팅 설치공간 |근접, 하상말뚝기초 상세0 지반° | arur drg| aagm BrS| wtaae al%0(| ww“)xo| fo oe에 arRl)( 지장 물OAva a K|죠NK =e물공+)며더모고구조116디안전성검토 0 [시험]지지정재ㅎ| 시험,도재하시험 (EOID, Restrike), + 평 재ㅎ | 시험, 건 전도ㅅaulo=ㅁㅁ- (FH입말뚝)한계 상태설계법 기준 수 전까지,립 헌| 용 응력설겨 |법적1-(항타/ 현장타설 말)한계 상태설계법 적용=ㅎ적용장타) ©한A) u} Tt=.설계법에서" 처 항 계수의80%*”eas)계상 테*＊한계 상태설계법이 보호편된i해 외의 경4로 지지ㅎ「uw”[때브Al 흐=항 계수의 80%적용토 록 규정【^&9110 (2007), FHWA (2010)]=임】D 4alaae- 자재비, 시공 비, 시현ㅁㅠ비 ,가시설, AH) SEH)등 일체소요 비용 비교DAS’az ㅇ 현장여건(장비운영 , 접근성등),102ㅁ 본 방침시행일현재설계중 ㅇ]LLaAAHㄱㄱ터 적용구조물2Sㅣ117단일 현장타설 말뚝에 대한해외한계 상태설계법 기준L] AASHTOLRFDBridge Design Specifications (2007)0612AASHTO LRFD BridgeDesign SpecificationsSI Units4th Edition2007(0)AmericanAssociationof StateHighway WEYand TransportationOfficials118|구 물조 공10-40 AASHTO LRFD BripGe DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (SI)Table 10.5.5.2.3-3 Number of Dynamic Tests with Signal Matching Analysis per Site to Be ConductedDuring ProductionPile Driving (after Paikonsky et al., 2004). Low’NumberLocated£1516-25=I101-aSee commentary,10.5.5.2.4 Drilled ShaftsC16,5.5.2,4Resistance factors shall be selected based on theThe resistance factors in Table 1 were developedmethod used for determining the nominal shaftusing either statistical analysis of shaft load testsresistance. When selecting a resistance factor for shaftscombined with reliability theory (Paikowsky er al.,in clays or other easily disturbed formations, local2004), fitting to allowable stress design (ASD), or both.experience with the geologic formations and withWhere the two approaches resulted in a significantlytypical shaft construction practices shall be considered.different resistance factor, engineering judgment wasWhere the resistance factors provided in 18016 | areused to establish the final resistance factor, consideringto be applied to a nonredundant foundation such as athe quality and quantity of the available data used in thesingle shaft supporting a bridge pier, the resistancecalibration. The available reliability theory calibrationsfactor values in the Table should be reduced bywere conducted for the Reese and O'Neill (/988)20 percent to reflect a higher target B value of 3.5, anmethod, with the exception of shafts in intermediateapproximate probability of failure of 1 in 5,000, to begeo-materials (IGMs), in which case the O'Neill andconsistent with what has been used generally for designReese (/999) method was used. In Article 10.8, theof the superstructure, Where the resistance factor isO'Neill and Reese (/999) method is recommended. Seedecreased in this manner, the na factor provided in' Allen (2005) for 4 more detailed explanation on theArticle 1.3.4 shall not be increased to address the lack ofdevelopmentof the resistance factors for shaftfoundation redundancy.foundation design, and the implications of the differences in these two shaft design methods on the selection of resistance factors.For the statistical calibrations using reliability theory, a target reliability index, 6, of 3.0, an approximate probability of failure of | in 1,000, was used. The selection of this target reliability assumes a small amount of redundancy in the foundation system is present, which is typical for shaft groups containing at least two to four shafts in the group (Paikowsky et al., 2004). For single shafts, less redundancy will be present. The issue of redundancy, or the lack of it, is addressed in Article 1.3.4 through the use of na. The values for nz provided in that Article have been developed in general for the superstructure, and no specific guidance on the application of ng to foundations is provided. The nxfactor values recommended in Article 1.3.4 are not adequate to address the difference in foundation redundancy, based on the results provided by Paikowsky et al. (2004) and others (see also Allen, 2005). Therefore, the resistance factors specified in Table |should be reducedto account for the reducedredundancy.L] Drilled Shafts : Construction Procedures and LRFD DesignMethods(FHWA,2010)QU.S. Department of TransportationFederal HighwayAdministrationPublication No. FHWA-NHI-10-016FHWAGEC010May2010NHI CourseNo.132014DrilledShafts:ConstructionProcedures andLRFDDesignMethodsDeveloped following:AASHTO LRFD Bridge DesignSpecifications,4th Edition, 2007, with 2008and 2009 Interims.120 ㅣ 구조물공 221ㅋ ㄴㄷ =3410.4.2Foundation RedundancyAn important issueresistance factors Is redundancy. The resistance factors piven in Table 10-5for drilled shaft side andresistance. for strength limit states are based rayassumption ofredundancy consistent with drilled shafts used in groups of two to four shafts. According to AASHTO,for shafts in groups of five or more, the factorsin Table 10-5 for side and base resistance can be increased10 20nl. Forshaft foundations, the factors in Table 10-5 for side and base resistanceshould be eat to account for the lower redundancy.AASHTO(2007) notes that for single shafifoundations “the resistance factor values in the table should be reduced by 20 percent to reflect a highertarget 6 value of 3.5, an approximate probability of failure of 1 tn 5,000, to be consistent with what hasbeen used generally for designof the superstructure”. Note that these adjustments for redundancy are notapplicable to service limit states, structural strength, or lateral resistance. Also, the resistance factorsshown in Table 10-5 for cases with static compression and static tension load tests are maximum valueswhich should not be decreased for non-redundant foundations.10.4.3Comparison with Driven Pile:A comparison of the resistance factors given by AASHTO (2007) for driven piles (Table 10.5.5.2.3-1) tothose presentedabove for drilled shafts will show that. In general, the drilled shaft resistance factors arehigher. The same general approach was used to establish resistance factors for both deep foundationhaSSof target reliability index were used for both piles and drilled shafis forign under static loading (Allen, 2005). However, the design equations used to establish nominalgeotechnical resistances are different for piles and drilled shafts and therefore have different valuos ofbias. Historically, design equations for drilled shaft have been conservative, (Le., lower-bound estimatesof resistance have been used for design). This philosophy evolved to account for uncertainties associatedwith drilled shafi construction. [t ts logical to expect higher resistance factors when calibration Isconducted using more conservative design equations. In addition, as noted by Allen (2005), the LRFDspecifications imply that the reliability of the nominal pile resistance ts a combination of the reliability ofthe static analysis method used and the field resistance verification method used (for example, dynamic=Far these reasons, resistance factors for the two types of deep foundationscannot be compared10.6CALIBRATION TO REGIONAL CONDITIONS OR AGENCY PRACTICEThe resistance factors presented in this manual as well as in AASHTO (2007) are intendedto cover awide range of conditions commonly encountered by transportation agencies involved in drilled shaftdesign using LRFD. However, given the wide range of geologic environments, natural variability offeomatorials, and different construction practices. there will always be design problems that do not fitwithin the general framework of these methods. Moreover, design methods with carefully caltbratedresistance factors that are specific to local or regional geologic conditions and construction practices offerthe potential for cost-effectiveand safe designs that work well for the agency willing to invest in theirdevelopment.Acommion starting point for converting existing ASD design methods to LRFD format ts to use fitting tothe factorof safety used in current practice. It is emphasized that calibration by fitting does not addressthe variability or bias of the prediction method and It ts not possible to assess the probability of failure,Whatevermargin of safety was implied by the ASD safety factor ts simply carried over to the LRFDformat without any change. Fitting should be considered an interim approach or as a check on reliability-based calibrations.FHWA-NHI-10-016 10-LRED for Drilled Shaft DesignDrilled Shafts Manual10-16May 2010C25sacesyPASH| 1211 2018 년도설계실무자료집4-1교량 말뚝기초설계 적용 절차 개선4-2탄성 받침 써 구조 제거에 따른설계개선방안4-3한계 상태설계법도 입에 따른 전단설계 적용방안검토4-4교량 점검시설설계및 시공 개선방안검토4-5연속 교 슬래브 익스텐션 적용방안4-6콘크리트거 더교 상 하부 일체화 설 방안계검토4-7교량 내구성및 유지 관리 성 향상을 위한 무 조 인 트 교량7=Sore mE, afr! [34d설계 -471처(2018.02.12)검토질차 정립을 통해 합리적 말뚝설계도모2) #712및 문제점디말뚝형식선정 기준(2015.72,설계 처)@ 지반조건@ PSAs풍화암 두께 확인 ：ㆍ말뚝 예상 길이 검토eadBE ad ㅣㆍ말뚝종류및 연장별지지 검토경제성 고디말뚝 형식 선정현황및문 제접6 최근설계 노선 말뚝 형식 현황aAAeseene구분계강관말뚝 | 복 합 말뚝 | 으 으 다 랄서 뚝~La‘)43,1903본38.7293본2.620,본1.841;본2006 ~ 2015(100%) |(89.7%)6.1%)(4.2%)2015 년이후 9 | 05.095본11,338 본21.589 본2.168본Toa(100%)(32.3%)(61.5%)(6.2%)*" 동 홍천-양 양등 15 개 노선 580 개 교량 /포항- 영 덕등 6 개 노선 %2 개 교량의설계가 대부분 임주 으| 후 현장타설 발 뚝이 다소 증가, 여전히 기성 말뚝 비율이i Oo©. 프su0ㅇ읍어1정을 위한 상세 절차 마련으로 최적의 공법선정필요토 시, " 자재비 "와 " 시공 비 " 위주비교형식별로 "가시설" 필요여부부 , 지지력 시험 비용등 상이마뜨형식별특성비교Al,2 전성,경제성 성 ,시공성에대한 종 합 검토 필요TABSI115fepe 더바 TE _Aa도HO00변경©awMeOoㅜBeㅠㅇ자a A 애일 현장 타 말뚝능함)반 특성 고려,Al er Br | Br xO oy= 호00ㅜ|aM|구동형식 결정| a at] a ge fb은가ㆍ감이가 업보TF el | jor OWxOfqoOㆍ직접 기초no nT | ar Dloe30Ke(※도 선 / 지말뚝 길이별 검 대상lo 02비교 -) 최종ㆍ단eSoh ojo x은고려, 대상 말뚝 형식feWRiiKoYes전aYl me©z|*ma& || aral brpw || arau arpw gya|BK 개말뚝 형식별 개략 특성TH tot | TH oD KOKo =(지지NO ODT | 0페00ro 20(x과 5})설계부족 =o0 oO조사농과10도a ©푸 팅 설치공간 |근접, 하상말뚝기초 상세0 지반° | arur drg| aagm BrS| wtaae al%0(| ww“)xo| fo oe에 arRl)( 지장 물OAva a K|죠NK =e물공+)며더모고구조116디안전성검토 0 [시험]지지정재ㅎ| 시험,도재하시험 (EOID, Restrike), + 평 재ㅎ | 시험, 건 전도ㅅaulo=ㅁㅁ- (FH입말뚝)한계 상태설계법 기준 수 전까지,립 헌| 용 응력설겨 |법적1-(항타/ 현장타설 말)한계 상태설계법 적용=ㅎ적용장타) ©한A) u} Tt=.설계법에서" 처 항 계수의80%*”eas)계상 테*＊한계 상태설계법이 보호편된i해 외의 경4로 지지ㅎ「uw”[때브Al 흐=항 계수의 80%적용토 록 규정【^&9110 (2007), FHWA (2010)]=임】D 4alaae- 자재비, 시공 비, 시현ㅁㅠ비 ,가시설, AH) SEH)등 일체소요 비용 비교DAS’az ㅇ 현장여건(장비운영 , 접근성등),102ㅁ 본 방침시행일현재설계중 ㅇ]LLaAAHㄱㄱ터 적용구조물2Sㅣ117단일 현장타설 말뚝에 대한해외한계 상태설계법 기준L] AASHTOLRFDBridge Design Specifications (2007)0612AASHTO LRFD BridgeDesign SpecificationsSI Units4th Edition2007(0)AmericanAssociationof StateHighway WEYand TransportationOfficials118|구 물조 공10-40 AASHTO LRFD BripGe DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (SI)Table 10.5.5.2.3-3 Number of Dynamic Tests with Signal Matching Analysis per Site to Be ConductedDuring ProductionPile Driving (after Paikonsky et al., 2004). Low’NumberLocated£1516-25=I101-aSee commentary,10.5.5.2.4 Drilled ShaftsC16,5.5.2,4Resistance factors shall be selected based on theThe resistance factors in Table 1 were developedmethod used for determining the nominal shaftusing either statistical analysis of shaft load testsresistance. When selecting a resistance factor for shaftscombined with reliability theory (Paikowsky er al.,in clays or other easily disturbed formations, local2004), fitting to allowable stress design (ASD), or both.experience with the geologic formations and withWhere the two approaches resulted in a significantlytypical shaft construction practices shall be considered.different resistance factor, engineering judgment wasWhere the resistance factors provided in 18016 | areused to establish the final resistance factor, consideringto be applied to a nonredundant foundation such as athe quality and quantity of the available data used in thesingle shaft supporting a bridge pier, the resistancecalibration. The available reliability theory calibrationsfactor values in the Table should be reduced bywere conducted for the Reese and O'Neill (/988)20 percent to reflect a higher target B value of 3.5, anmethod, with the exception of shafts in intermediateapproximate probability of failure of 1 in 5,000, to begeo-materials (IGMs), in which case the O'Neill andconsistent with what has been used generally for designReese (/999) method was used. In Article 10.8, theof the superstructure, Where the resistance factor isO'Neill and Reese (/999) method is recommended. Seedecreased in this manner, the na factor provided in' Allen (2005) for 4 more detailed explanation on theArticle 1.3.4 shall not be increased to address the lack ofdevelopmentof the resistance factors for shaftfoundation redundancy.foundation design, and the implications of the differences in these two shaft design methods on the selection of resistance factors.For the statistical calibrations using reliability theory, a target reliability index, 6, of 3.0, an approximate probability of failure of | in 1,000, was used. The selection of this target reliability assumes a small amount of redundancy in the foundation system is present, which is typical for shaft groups containing at least two to four shafts in the group (Paikowsky et al., 2004). For single shafts, less redundancy will be present. The issue of redundancy, or the lack of it, is addressed in Article 1.3.4 through the use of na. The values for nz provided in that Article have been developed in general for the superstructure, and no specific guidance on the application of ng to foundations is provided. The nxfactor values recommended in Article 1.3.4 are not adequate to address the difference in foundation redundancy, based on the results provided by Paikowsky et al. (2004) and others (see also Allen, 2005). Therefore, the resistance factors specified in Table |should be reducedto account for the reducedredundancy.L] Drilled Shafts : Construction Procedures and LRFD DesignMethods(FHWA,2010)QU.S. Department of TransportationFederal HighwayAdministrationPublication No. FHWA-NHI-10-016FHWAGEC010May2010NHI CourseNo.132014DrilledShafts:ConstructionProcedures andLRFDDesignMethodsDeveloped following:AASHTO LRFD Bridge DesignSpecifications,4th Edition, 2007, with 2008and 2009 Interims.120 ㅣ 구조물공 221ㅋ ㄴㄷ =3410.4.2Foundation RedundancyAn important issueresistance factors Is redundancy. The resistance factors piven in Table 10-5for drilled shaft side andresistance. for strength limit states are based rayassumption ofredundancy consistent with drilled shafts used in groups of two to four shafts. According to AASHTO,for shafts in groups of five or more, the factorsin Table 10-5 for side and base resistance can be increased10 20nl. Forshaft foundations, the factors in Table 10-5 for side and base resistanceshould be eat to account for the lower redundancy.AASHTO(2007) notes that for single shafifoundations “the resistance factor values in the table should be reduced by 20 percent to reflect a highertarget 6 value of 3.5, an approximate probability of failure of 1 tn 5,000, to be consistent with what hasbeen used generally for designof the superstructure”. Note that these adjustments for redundancy are notapplicable to service limit states, structural strength, or lateral resistance. Also, the resistance factorsshown in Table 10-5 for cases with static compression and static tension load tests are maximum valueswhich should not be decreased for non-redundant foundations.10.4.3Comparison with Driven Pile:A comparison of the resistance factors given by AASHTO (2007) for driven piles (Table 10.5.5.2.3-1) tothose presentedabove for drilled shafts will show that. In general, the drilled shaft resistance factors arehigher. The same general approach was used to establish resistance factors for both deep foundationhaSSof target reliability index were used for both piles and drilled shafis forign under static loading (Allen, 2005). However, the design equations used to establish nominalgeotechnical resistances are different for piles and drilled shafts and therefore have different valuos ofbias. Historically, design equations for drilled shaft have been conservative, (Le., lower-bound estimatesof resistance have been used for design). This philosophy evolved to account for uncertainties associatedwith drilled shafi construction. [t ts logical to expect higher resistance factors when calibration Isconducted using more conservative design equations. In addition, as noted by Allen (2005), the LRFDspecifications imply that the reliability of the nominal pile resistance ts a combination of the reliability ofthe static analysis method used and the field resistance verification method used (for example, dynamic=Far these reasons, resistance factors for the two types of deep foundationscannot be compared10.6CALIBRATION TO REGIONAL CONDITIONS OR AGENCY PRACTICEThe resistance factors presented in this manual as well as in AASHTO (2007) are intendedto cover awide range of conditions commonly encountered by transportation agencies involved in drilled shaftdesign using LRFD. However, given the wide range of geologic environments, natural variability offeomatorials, and different construction practices. there will always be design problems that do not fitwithin the general framework of these methods. Moreover, design methods with carefully caltbratedresistance factors that are specific to local or regional geologic conditions and construction practices offerthe potential for cost-effectiveand safe designs that work well for the agency willing to invest in theirdevelopment.Acommion starting point for converting existing ASD design methods to LRFD format ts to use fitting tothe factorof safety used in current practice. It is emphasized that calibration by fitting does not addressthe variability or bias of the prediction method and It ts not possible to assess the probability of failure,Whatevermargin of safety was implied by the ASD safety factor ts simply carried over to the LRFDformat without any change. Fitting should be considered an interim approach or as a check on reliability-based calibrations.FHWA-NHI-10-016 10-LRED for Drilled Shaft DesignDrilled Shafts Manual10-16May 2010C25sacesyPASH| 121

아래 이미지는 원본이 10페이지 이상일 경우 9페이지 까지만 만들어진 사항으로 전체내용을 보려면 아래 첨부된 원본 PDF를 참고 하시기 바랍니다