0 Up votes0 Down votes

52 views36 pages05b

Nov 06, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

05b

© All Rights Reserved

52 views

05b

© All Rights Reserved

- Critical State Shale Mechanics
- Pile Capacity Calculation (12!12!2011)
- ASTM-D3080.pdf
- 16532_01
- Application of Iterative Technique (IT) Using SPT N-Values
- Soil Mechanics
- PLAXIS Bulletin 28
- What is Foundation and Its Role
- 11. Analyses of Embankments With Partial Consolidation of Weak Foundations
- CVNG 3005 foundation Engineering 2008
- CORDEK_GROUNDMOVEMENT
- 32.Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled-Raft Foundation in Clay Soils
- Geotechnical Engineering Circular
- Remedial Measures to a building Settlement Problem.pdf
- 11th Int Conf Dfi-effc_2010
- Cyclic Pile Load Test on Large Diameter Piles_ a Case Study
- EM_1110-2-2503
- Architectural Engineering Syllabus.docx
- Soil Tests-Brief Method Statement
- Asda Bridgewater- Cohesive Piling Platform - RevA

You are on page 1of 36

253

distribution of skin friction.

B9P

- 0*03

12 x 58.88

Q 58.88

q, = L!= -kips/in.

A,

113

S, = 0.094 in.

s,

=sQf.

from equation (5.37)

Df 4,

= 0.93 + 0 . 1 6 J m * 0 . 0 3 = 0.054

C, = 0.93

spa

360 x 58.88

S,= Ss+ S p + S p s

= 0.01 1

+ 0.094 + 0.0033

2. Empirical Method

S, =

100

+ QUIl

L from equation (5.39)

APE,

- l 2 + 31 x 360 x 1000

-100 26.496 x 30 x lo6

=0.12 +0.014=0.134in. (3.35mm)

The settlement of a pile group (S,) is normally greater than the settlement of a

single pile (S,) at equal load per pile because of the larger depth of influence (De)

of a group as compared to that of a single pile (De,) (shown conceptually in

Figure 5.14). No general theory to predict pile group settlements in cohesionless

soils is available. Many empirical and semiempirical methods with gross

approximations are available but cannot be recommended without reservations.

254

(a)

(b/

Figure 514 Zone of influencesfor a pile group and a single pile. (a)Zone of influence for

settlement of pile group. (b) Zone of inlluence for settlement of a single pile.

(Vesic, 1977), according to which,

sG

=s

t

m

(5.40)

where

SG = group settlement at load per pile equal to that of the single pile

S, = settlement of a single pile estimated or determined from pile load test

7; = width of pile group (smaller dimension)

A similar empirical relationship for estimating the settlement of pile groups has

been provided by Skempton (1953). This is a very conservative approach and is

255

not generally used in practice. In the absence of field load test data on pile groups,

and Earth Structures Design Manual DM 7-2, 1982 and Canadian Foundation

Engineering Manual, 1985) and can be used to obtain pile group settlements in

cohesionless soils.

Meyerhof (1976) presented conservative empirical expressions for preliminary

estimatesof the total settlements of pile foundations in cohesionless soil using the

results of standard penetration test (N)and static cone penetration (4J values as

follows:

1. Based on standard penetration (N) values:

sG= 2 p J m j

(5.41)

where

p = net foundation pressure, in tons/ft*

6 = the width of pile group, in feet

# = the average corrected standard penetration test values, in blows/ft

(blows per 0.3m) within the seat of settlement (roughly equal to 6

in homogeneous soils)

1 = [l - Df/86] 2 0.5

D, =effective depth in the bearing stratum = pile length

For silty sand, the values of SG obtained from equation (5.41) should be

doubled.

2. Based on static cone penetration '(qe)values:

All these preliminary estimates are based on the assumption that the soil is

uniform within the zone of influence. None of these methods provides an

accurate value for settlements of pile groups. Only load tests on a pile group

can provide representative settlement estimates.

Example 5.8 A pile group consisting of nine 12411. (300mm) diameter steel piles

driven 4 ft center to center to 30 ft into sand at a site is shown in Figure 5.2. The

sand had (b = 36" and y = 125 Ibft3 (19.8 kN/m3). Similar data were also used in

Examples 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, and 5.7. Estimate the pile group settlement.

B = lft

6 = 9 ft (square arrangement)

n = 9 piles

(QG).II

= 281 kips

256

From Example 5.2: within the zone of influence, 9ft, (equal to 6 depth below

group base) the average N = (12 14 14)/3cv 13. From Example 5 . 7

S,=0.134in.

+ +

From equation (5.40):

p = - (Qc).ii

281 - 3.47 kips/ft2= 1.74 tons/ft2

--6x6 9x9

= [1 - 30/(8 x 9)] = 0.58 > 0.5

SG=2p&m=2x

1.74,/-=0.5in.

(13mm)

1. Soil Profile. From proper soils investigations, establish the soil profile and

groundwater levels, and note soil properties on the soil profile based on the

field and laboratory tests (see Chapter 4 for details).

2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. Select a pile type, length,

and diameter and calculate allowable bearing capacity based on the formulas

used for the available soil parameters as follows:

(a) Static analysis by utilizing soil strength

The values of N, and K, are provided in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, respectively.

(b) Empirical analysis utilizing the Standard Penetration Test values

For Sands

257

0.4N

Q, (tons) = B D f A ,

G 3RA,

Q, = (f,)(perimeter)(embedment length)

(5.9)

(5.1 1 )

f, = A150 < 1 tsf

(5.12)

The ultimate capacity (QJUI1is then the summation of Q, and Q f from the

above. These equations are for driven piles. For drilled piles use one-third of

Q , and one-half of Qf from these equations.

Empirical Analysis Utilizing the Static Cone Penetration Test Values

Q, = A,q,

(5.13)

QJ = (f,)(perimeter)(embedmentlength)

(5.14)

The (Qu)ultis then the summation of Q, and Q,. These equations are for driven

piles. For drilled piles, use one-half of the above values. Because of the

uncertainties in soil parameters and the semiempirical nature of bearing

capacity formulas, a factor of safety of 3 should be used to obtain the allowable

bearing capacity from the foregoing equations. The allowable bearing

capacity used in the design is then the lowest of these values.

3. Number of Piles and Their Arrangement. Determine the number of piles

required by dividing the column load with the allowable bearing capacity of a

pile and arrange the piles in the group so that pile spacing is three to four times

the pile diameter. Establish pile cap size with reference to column spacing and

other space restrictions. If the pile cap size becomes too large, increase pile

length and/or pile diameter and repeat step (2) to obtain reasonable pile

dimensions and capacity. Determine pile group capacity by simply adding the

individual pile capacities.

4. Settlement of a Single Pile. Estimate the settlement of a single pile by the

following methods:

(a) Semiempirical method

s,= s, + s, + s,

(5.34)

where

(5.35)

258

S p = C,Q,/Bq,

Sps= CsQfaIDfqp

(5.36)

(5.37)

S, = B/lOO

+ Q,L/A,E,

(5.39)

The settlement is then higher of the values obtained from the foregoing

methods.

5. Settlement of Pile Group and Check on Deign. Estimate pile group settlement

(a) Vesic's method

(5.40)

(b) Meyerhof's method

1. If Standard Pentration (N)values are available:

(5.41)

where

The largest of the values obtained from Vesic and Meyerhofs methods should

be equal to or less than the allowable settlement values.

6. Pile Load Test and Pile-Driving Criteria. Recommend a pile load test to fine

tune the allowable bearing capacity. If a driven pile is selected, specify the

driving criteria that should be supplemented with pile load test and dynamic

monitoring. On large projects the pile load test should be carried out on a test

pile that is loaded to failure. On smaller projects, one of the actual piles should

be tested by loading it to two times the design load. For details of a pile

load test, see Chapter 9.

Example 5.9 A 236-kip (1050 kN) vessel is to be supported on a pile foundation

in an area where soil investigations indicated soil profile (shown in Figure 5.15).

Depth below

ground

To

f-/

soil profile

Top soil

sc

soft clay

8 (2.4)

12 (3.6)

LOO*

sand

SP

16(4.8)

20 16.0)

24 (7.2)

28 (8.4)

32 (9.6)

Gp

Gravel

SP

ML

sill

SP

Compact

sand

s:

;r ;r

II

II

II

(u

8

N

<

_

I

440 + 1250

= 1690 Ib/ft

36 (10.8)

40 (12.0)

(a)

Figure 5.15 Soil profile and soil properties used in Example 5.9. N = standard penetration

value, ob = effective vertical stress, 4 = 36" for sand, y(c1ay) = 1 101b/ft3, y(sand) = 125 Ib/ft3,

?'(sand) = 125-62.5 = 62.5 Ib/ft3.

260

Design a pile foundation so that the maximum allowable settlement for the group

does not exceed 0.6 in. (15 mm).

SOLUTION

1. Soil Profile (Shown in Figure 5.15)

2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. Top 4 ft of soil consists of

top soil and soft clay. These are low strength materials and lie in the zone of

seasonal variation. Contribution of this depth to pile side frictional

resistance can therefore be neglected.

increasing N values with depth except at 24 ft depth where N = 20. This anomaly

results because of gravel particles that cause obstruction and higher resistance to

split spoon. This higher N value at 24ft can therefore be neglected.

Try a 34-ft (10.3 m) long with 3 0 4 (9.1 m)net penetration into sand and 1241.

(305 mm) diameter steel-driven frictional pile. This pile will have 0.75411. (19 mm)

wall thickness and is closed at the bottom. Allowable bearing capacity of this pile

can be calculated as follows:

Static Analysis by Utilizing Soil Strength

I . =I .

(Qu)ult= A,a:N,

+ p K , tan 6 -X-aLIAL

L=O

(5.7)

Values of a: at various depths are shown in Figure 5.1%. In this figure, a: as

discussed earlier, has been considered increasing linearly up to (208) pile length.

Below this depth, the a: value is assumed to be constant for pile design.

a:

p = x B = ~ ( 1=

) 3.14ft

6 = (2/3)4 = (2/3) x 36" = 24"

(QJul,

x

= 79.6

(QJal1

+ 3.14 x 1.0tan 24

1690) x 20 + 1690 x lO1lb

2

= 0.785 x 1690 x 60

+

+ 43.7 = 123.3kips

261

Point Bearing (Qp)

= 1,15t/ft2

12.

rs-

1, therefore,

= CN*N

(5.8)

which is greater than 4 x 12 x 0.785 = 37.7 tons (say 38 tons), therefore, use

Q, = 38 tons.

Shafr friction (Qf)

Average N value along pile shaft = (4 + 6 + 6 + 8 + 12)/5 = 7.2 (say 7)

f, = (N/50)

Q 1 tsf = 7/50 = 0.14 tsf

(5.12)

Therefore,

+ Q,

(QJult

= Q,

(QAii

= (38

where (Qp)nll= 25.3 kips and (Qr).ll = 8.8 kips; these values will be later used in

settlement estimation.

Empirical Analysis Utilizing Cone Penetration Values

Cone penetration values are not available therefore allowable bearing capacity

on this basis has not been calculated.

The allowable bearing capacity will be the lower of the values obtained

previously. Therefore, (Qv)a,I= 34 kips (151.3 kN).

3. Number of Piles and Their Arrangement

The number of piles required to support 236 kips vessel load will be:

n = Qv,,/(Q,Jall

= 236/34 = 6.9

Try a group of nine piles arranged in a square pattern with 3 piles on each side.

Place the piles at 4 4 center to center spacing. Thus, a loft x 10ft square concrete

pile cap will be required. Assume that the pile cap is 3 ft thick. This means that

the pile cap width b is loft, and the square surrounding outer periphery of piles

has 6 = b - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9ft (b and 6 dimensions have been explained in

Figure 5.14).

262

Total weight on pile group = 236

+ 45 = 281 kips

Pile group capacity = 34 x 9 = 306 kips > 28 1 kips

4. Settlement of a Single Pile

s, = ss+ s,

+ s,

(5.34)

where

Ss = (Q, + a,Q&/(ApEp)

(5.35)

Since the allowable load on each pile is 34 kips while the actual load is 31 kips, the

point resistance and skin friction can be proportionally reduced without any

significant error in calculations. Therefore,

(Qp)nc,a,= 25.3(31/34)= 23 kips = Q

,

(Q/)rctual=

8*8(31/34)= 8 kips = Q / o

uniform distribution of skin friction. This is reasonable since, as discussed in

Section 5.1.4, the total settlement calculated based on uniform or triangular

distribution are not sensitive to a, values. Substituting these values in the

equation for S, we get S, = (23 + 0.5 x 8)30 x 12 x 1000)/(n/4)(122- 10.52)

(30 x lo6) = 0.012in.

where

c, = 0.03 from Table 5.6

Qpo= 23 kips

B = 12in.

q, = Q p / A p= 76/113.09

where

Q , = 76 kips

A , = (n/4)(12) = 113.09in.2

Therefore,

S, = [(0.03 x 23)/(12 x 76/113.09)] = 0.086 in.

263

where

= 0.054 from equation

5.38

Qfa = 8 kips

D f = 3 0 x 12in.

qp = Q,/A, = 76/113.09 = 0.67 kip~/in.~

Then,

S, = (0.054 x 8)/(30 x 12 x 0.67) = 0.0018 in.

S,= S, + S,

Si = B/1W + QvaUApEp)

= 12/100 + (31 x 30 x 12 x 1000)/(~/4)(12~

- 10.5*)30x lo6

= 0.12

(5.39)

+ 0.014

From above, consider the larger of the two settlement values for a single pile that

is equal to 0.134 in.

B = 1ft, 6 = 9 ft square arrangement n = 9 piles within the zone of influence

of 9ft (equal to 6 depth below group base) the average N value is

N = (12 + 14 + 14)/3 N 13 actual load on group, QG = 281 kips. Total

settlement of a single pile, S,= 0.134 in.

Group Settlement Based on Vesic's Method

SG =

s,m

(5.40)

264

where

p = QG/(iI

= 1.74tons/ft2

= (1 - 30/8 x 9) = 0.58

Then,

SG = 2 x 17.4/,-

From above, take S , = 0.5 in. (13 mm). This is less than the allowable settlement

of 0.6 in. Therefore, the designed pile diameter, length, and group arrangement is

acceptable.

6. Pile Load Test and Piledriving Criteria

Driving Criteria

S = 2 x 5000 x 6.5134000 - 1 = 0.9 in./blow

N 6/7 (i.e., for last 6 in. of driving it would require 7 blows for a drop hammer

with a driving energy of 32,500ft-lb = ( 5 W l b x 6.5ft))

driven with a 32,500 ft-lb energy requiring 7 blows for the last 6 in. of driving,

carry out a compression pile load test as per ASTM D 1143-81 to confirm the

design load and settlement values. The load test shall be carried to two times the

design load. On small-sized projects, this load test can be carried out during

actual installation of the piles to confirm that the design criteria are being met.

For large projects, a full-scale pile load test (testing a pile to failure) should be

conducted. This will permit the selection of optimum pile type and design load.

Pile load test methods and related details are provided in Chapter 9.

5.1.7 Bearing Capacity of a Single Pile in Cohesive Soils

As discussed in the beginning of this chapter and shown by equation (5.1) the

ultimate axial compression load capacity (Q& of a pile is the sum of end-bearing

capacity ( Q p )and the frictional capacity (Q,). These two components Q, and Q,

for cohesive soils are further discussed as follows.

265

(ep)

End-bearing Capacity

For cohesive soils, the bearing capacity of piles is

critical on a short-term basis because clay strength will increase due to

consolidation or strength regain of disturbed soils in the long term. This was

discussed in Chapter 1. Therefore, for piles in clays 4 = 0 concept applies for

bearing capacity evaluation. Thus, undrained strength, S , = c, = c and 4 = O*

and bearing capacity factors N , = 0 and N , = 1. Equation (5.2) then becomes:

(5.43)

When adjustment for pile weight is made then equation (5.43) can be approximated to the following:

(5.45)

Friction Capacity (Ql) For cohesive soils, applying the concept of 4 = 0, shaft

friction f, can be written as follows (See Figure 5.1):

f, = c + ohtan6

where

c = ca = adhesion between soil and pile, 6 = 2/34 = 0

fs=

ca

L=L.

(5.46)

Ultimate bearing capacity (Qv)ult for a pile in cohesive soil can then be expressed

in the following form:

(5.47)

where

c, =the minimum undrained shear strength of clay at pile point level (Le.,

cohesion of the bearing stratum ( c = c, = S, = 4,/2))

N c = the bearing capacity factor (obtained from Tables 5.7 and 5.8)

p = pile paremeter

+Total stress parameters will be used for the

C#J

= 0 case.

266

c, = soil-pile adhesion (obtained from Figure 4.27)

Since the unit weight of soil does not appear in this expression, the position of

groundwater has no effect on pile capacity.

Undrained Shear Strength of Bearing Stratum ( c = c,) The soil near the driven

pile is displaced and may get remolded to a distance of about one pile diameter.

Within this disturbed zone, the pore water pressure caused by the pile-driving

operation dissipates quickly and after consolidation the soil may be stronger.

However, in very sensitive clays or stiff, overconsolidated clays due to the loss of

soil structure, the final shear strength may be smaller than that in the undisturbed

state. Near bored piles, the clay is usually softened to a distance of about 1 in.

(25mm) due to pile installation, and experience has shown that there is no

significant shear strength change of the soil with time (Meyerhof, 1976).

For most practical purposes, it can be assumed that the shear strength of a

bearing stratum consisting of low to medium sensitivity homogeneous clay

remains unchanged during pile installation. Shear strength (c,) values for bearing

capacity estimation should be obtained from laboratory tests done on undisturbed clay samples. The c, value from laboratory tests is generally obtained by

testing 1.5 in. (37.5 mm)-diameter intact clay samples. However, in stiff, fissured

clays, the undrained shear strength (c,) decreases as the size of test specimen

increases. This reduction is primarily due to the greater involvement of fissured

material in controlling soil strength on larger soil samples than on the smallersized 1.5 in. (37.5mm) diameter laboratory samples. For stiff, fissured clay, the

undrained shear strength (c,) should therefore be corrected for scale effects

(Meyerhof, 1983). This is given by the following relationship.

(5.48)

where

is the undrained shear strength obtained from conventional triaxial

compression tests. R , is the reduction factor and is obtained from following

relationships.

1. For driven piles into stiff, fissured clay, R, is given by:

R, = ( B + 0.5)/(2B)< 1 for B 2 0.5 m

(5.49)

2. For bored piles into stiff, fissured clay, R , is given by:

R, =( B

+ 1)/(2B+ 1 ) < 1

(5.50)

reduction factor, R,.

In cases where bearing stratum is under high artesian pressures and drilling

during pile installation has caused the base clay to swell resulting in decreased

shear strength, swelled soil samples should be tested in the laboratory for shear

strength determination. Undrained shear strength (c,) from these results should

267

Diameter (D,/B) Ratios"

D,lB

NC

6.2

7.8

8.5

9

a4

"These values have been obtained from the graph presented in the

Foundationsand Earth Structures Design Manual NAVFAC, DM

1.2, 1982.

(Canadian Foundation Engineering Design Manual, 1985)

Less than 0.5m ( N 1.5 ft)

Between 0.5 to 1 m ( z 1.5 to 3 ft)

Greater than 1 m ( z 3 ft)

~~

NC

9

7

6

then be used for bearing capacity estimation (Sharma et al., 1984). In highly

plastic soft clays, the undrained shear strength should be obtained from field vane

tests. Bengtsson and Sallfors (1983) present a method of determining the bearing

capacity of axially loaded floating piles in such soils.

Bearing Capacity Factor (N,) As shown in Table 5.7, N, values increase as the

depth-to-pile-diameter ratio increases until it reaches a value of 9 for D,/B 3 4

(Skempton, 1951). For most pile foundations, the depth-to-diameter ratio ( D f / B )

is greater than 4; N, = 9 may therefore be used for such cases. Table 5.8 provides

recommendations for N,values for various drilled pile base diameters. N , values

provided in Table 5.7 and 5.8 can therefore be used for design purposes, as

applicable.

The average value of soil-pile adhesion (c,) for

homogeneous saturated clay is usually related to the average undrained shear

strength (c,) of undisturbed clay within pile embedment length. The ratio (c,/c,)

depends on various factors such as (1) nature and strength of clay (2) dimensions

and method of installation of pile, and (3) time effects (Meyerhof, 1976). This has

also been discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2). Kraft et al. (1981) provide

correlations to relate soil-pile adhesion to (1) pile length (2) relative soil-pile

stiffness, and (3) soil stress history. These correlations need further field test

confirmation before they can be used in practice. Figure 4.27 provides the (c,/c,)

values for various soil consistency and unconfined strength values for driven

piles. Where a pile penetrates several different layers the soil-pile adhesion can be

approximated by the weighted average value of c, for individual layers. For

Soil-pile Adhesion (c,)

268

drilled piles, the values provided for (c,) in Table 4.7 may be used for preliminary

design calculations.

EJective Pile Length ( L e ) Effective pile length is the length that is assumed to

contribute to frictional capacity of the pile. This may be different from actual pile

embedment length (L) because, for most piles, the upper part of the pile may not

be in close contact with soil due to such factors, as disturbances caused by

humans and machines and softening and cracking caused by seasonal variations.

This length should be evaluated for specific geographical location or job site. For

most situations, this may vary from about 3 ft (1 m) to 5ft (1.5m).

For drilled-belled piles, the author's (Sharma) experience indicates that in

addition to the above seasonal depths, soil around the shaft-bell neck gets

disturbed due to a tendency for the soil to move down in that area. This disturbed

length is about two times the shaft diameter. Therefore, soil-pile adhesion along

this length should be neglected and effective pile length (Le)should be calculated

accordingly (Tomlinson, 1977; Sharma et al., 1984). In general, the criteria given

in Table 5.9 may be used for estimating effective pile lengths (Le)when L is the

total pile embedment or length. In equation (5.47), the length L should therefore

be replaced with Le.

Example 5.10 A straight-shafted drilled pile was installed through clay till to

bear on clay shale. The pile had a 20411. (500mm) shaft diameter and was 31 ft

(9.5m) long. Undrained shear strength (c,) for clay till was 9501b/ft2(45.5kN/m2)

and for clay shale was 6576 Ib/ft2 (315 kN/m2). Estimate the allowable bearing

capacity of this pile.

SOLUTION

B=20in.

D , = L = 3 1 x 12in.

D f / B = 31 x 12/48 = 7.75

TABLE 5.9 Effective Pile Length (Le)of Driven and Drilled Piles"

r,

Type of Piles

Driven and

Straight shaft drilled

Drilled and belled

L - (depth of seasonal

variation)

L -(depth of seasonal

variation + 2 x pile shaft

diameter)

(1984).

269

The lower of the above two N , values is 7 and will be used for these calculations.

c, = 6576 Ib/ft* for the clay shale on which the pile tip will bear

p = RB = x x 20112 = 5.24ft

C, = 9501b/ftz, c,/c, = 0.6,

C, = 0.6 x 950 = 570 Ib/ft2

Le = 31 - 5 = 26 ft (assuming that 5 ft is the depth of seasonal variation)

(5.47)

= 178 kips

(Qu)all= 178/3 = 59 kips (262 kN), if a factor of safety of 3 is used

(Qu)ult

If (Qu)ullis the ultimate capacity of a single pile and (Q,,G),,ll is the ultimate capacity

of a pile group in cohesive soils then, in general, the following applies:

(5.5 1)

There is, at present, no acceptable rational theory of bearing capacity of pile

groups (Vesic, 1977). The basic mechanism of group action of piles was discussed

in Chapter 1 (Section 1.3). For most practical purposes, the ultimate load of pile

group,

can be estimated from the smaller of the following two values:

Group Action

imaginary perimeter and bearing at the base as shown on Figure 5.16 (Terzaghi

and Peck, 1967; Meyerhof, 1976). Using equation (5.47), the ultimate capacity for

the group failure of Figure 5.16 can be estimated from the following relationship:

(5.52a)

Individual Action If there is no group action, the total load the group can take is

n times the load of the single pile

If the piles are spaced closely enough, the load in group action is smaller than

that in individual action. The ratio of ultimate load capacity of the group to the

----

-a

n 3 number of piles

variation

Df = L

+

(bl

Figure 5.16 Bearing capacity of pile group in cohesive soils. (a) Plan (b) Section

270

271

total individual capacity is defined as the pile group eficiency G,. Therefore,

Thus

The value of group efficiency (G,) depends on (1) soil parameters, (2) size and

shape of pile group, (3) pile length, and (4) pile spacing (Whitaker, 1957; Kerisel,

1967). A number of efficiency formulas are available in the literature (Chellis,

1961; Moorhouse and Sheehan, 1968). The following group efficiency or

reduction factors (G,) as given in Table 5.10 can be used for practical design

estimates of pile group capacities in cohesive soils. Thus, ( Q U G ) " l , will be the lower

of the values estimated from equations (5.52a) and (5.53b).

Example 5.11 Using the data of Example 5.10, estimate the pile group bearing

capacity if the piles are placed 5 ft (1500mm) center to center and joined at the top

by a square pile cap supported by nine piles.

5 20112) ft = 10.67ft, n = 9.

(a) Block Failure of Pile Group

s = 5ft (1500mm), 8 = (5

+ +

C,

= 6576 lb/ft2

D l / 6 = 31/10.67 = 2.9

From Table 5.7: N , 'Y 9 for D,/B = 2.9

From Table 5.8: N , = 6 for base width 6 > 3 ft

The lower of these N, values is 6 and will be used in these calculations

c,, = 5701b/ft2 along the shaft, from Example 5.10.

B = 5 ft, 6 = 10.67 ft

Le = 31 - 5 = 26ft (assuming 5ft is the seasonal variation depth)

Then

= cuNc(6)' + 4ca(E)Le

= 6576 x 6(10.67')

570(4 x 10.67)26 lb = 5124 kips

(Qu~)u~t

(QuG)ulr

(5.52a)

Pile spacing(s)

3B

0.7

48

0.75

5B

0.85

6B

0.9

88

1.o

'These values are based on the experimental data obtained by Whitaker (1957) and presented in

graphs in Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual, DM-7.2 (1982).

272

Pile spacing = s = 5 ft = 3 8

From s and G, relationship,

Also, from Example 5.10,

(QuG)ul,= 0.7 x 9 x 178 = 1121 kips

(QvG).,l

= (QUG)ult/FS

= 1121/3 = 374 kips (1663 kN)

5.1.9

The settlement of piles in cohesive soils primarily consists of the sum of the

following two components:

1. Short-term settlement occurring as the load is applied.

2. Long-term consolidation settlement occurring gradually as the excess pore

Generally, the short-term settlement results from elastic compression of

cohesive soils. This component of settlement constitutes a significant portion of

the total settlement for partially saturated and overconsolidated saturated

cohesive soils. The overconsolidated soils are soils whose past effective vertical

overburden pressures are larger than the present effective vertical overburden

pressures. Methods of settlement estimation discussed in Section 5.1.4 also apply

here to calculate short-term settlements when pertinent soil properties for clays

are used.

The method of estimating long-term consolidation settlement of a pile group

is presented in the Section 5.1.10 and Example 5.12.

5.1.10

The settlement estimation of pile groups in cohesive soils is complex. Figure 5.17

shows a simple method that can be used for settlement estimation of pile groups

in cohesive soils.

273

Soil properties

2f

7:e,c,

0)

Figure 5.17 Stress distribution for settlement estimation for friction piles in clay. (a) Plan

(b) Section.

1. The allowable soil pressure = qall= (QuG)a,l/(6x 0, where 6 and Tare the

base dimensions of pile group at the tip.

2. The pressure qlll is transferred to, (2/3) x L, depth below ground surface.

The settlement of the soil above this depth is assumed to be small and

therefore is neglected.

274

pressure qallis placed at fLdepth below ground surface. The presence of

pile below this depth is disregarded.

4. Once the pressure qallis applied on top of a clay layer of thickness (H-fL),

then consolidation settlement, A H , can be calculated from the following

relationship:

where

AH = consolidation settlement

0:

= present effective (vertical) overburden pressure at the middle of the

layer ( H - 2/3L), determined as shown in Figure 5.17.

ACT; = increased pressure from pile load at the middle of the layer (H-2/3L).

C, = coefficient of consolidation

eo = initial void ratio of the soil

Figure 5.17 and Example 5.12 further explain these terms and the method of

calculating consolidation settlement. Figure 5.17 shows a pile group having b x 1

size pile cap. There are 9 piles having 6 x Trectangular dimension at the base of

the pile group. The piles are of length L. The soil conditions assumed are clay to a

depth H below ground underlain by rock.

If it is assumed that the load (QUG).I1 is transferred to 3L depth below ground.

The increased stress at his depth (level xx) is then:

(5.55)

For stress distribution below this level (xx), it is assumed that the pressure (or

stress) is distributed at 2 K l H slope as shown in Figure 5.17. Based on this

assumption, the increased stress on plane yy at depth z = H can be obtained

from the following:

=

= (QuG)oll/(6

+ H -3 N +

-3 ~ )

(5.56)

The increased stress at any intermediate level between x x and yy can then be

obtained by interpolation.

The consolidation settlement (AH)

of this pile group due to an applied load of

(QuG)O = (QuG)sll can then be estimated by using equation (5.54). In this equation

a: is the present effective vertical pressure, Aa: is obtained by using equations

(5.55) and (5.56), C, and e, are laboratory-determined soil parameters, and H is

the thickness of the clay stratum. Empirical relations for estimating C, are

presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2).

Equation (5.54) is used when the clays are normally consolidated. For

overconsolidated clays, the settlement calculation requires that the settlement be

275

H =AH1 +AH2

(5.57)

where

AH1 = settlement due to applied load in the recompression zone

AH2 = settlement due to applied load in the virgin curve zone

Thus AH, and AH2 can be estimated from the following:

(5.58)

(5.59)

occur. Therefore, only short-term settlementsare calculated. This is because their

pc is very high and additional pressure due to Aa; will not result in consolidation.

When the soils are underconsolidated, they settle due to their own weight and

result in imposing downward loads along the pile shaft. This is discussed in

Section 5.1.12. The definitions of underconsolidated, normally consolidated,

overconsolidated, C,, C,,and pet were presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2).

Example 5.12 For the pile arrangement shown in Figure 5.17, let:

= 323 kips

b=10.67ft=T

L = 30ft

H = 50ft, unit weight of soil, y = 1251b/ft3

(Q~G).!

Initial soil void ratio, eo = 0.7, compression index, C,= 0.17, soil is normally

consolidated, water level is at ground surface, and eo remains constant for the

entire soil mass. Estimate the total settlement of the pile group.

SOLUTION

(a) Effective Overburden Pressure (a:)

a; (at depth = j L = 20ft) = (125 - 62.5)20/1000= 1.25kips/ft2

a;(at depth = H = Soft) = (125 - 62.5)50/1000 = 3.125 kips/ft2

(b) Increased Pressure Due to Loads on Pile (Ab:)

From equation (5.55):

Aa; (at depth = $ L = 20ft) = (QU&,,/( 10.67 x 10.67)

= 323/(10.67)' = 2.83 ksf

276

10

ksf

20

*1

5n

30

40

50

*

(a)

Figure 5.18 (a) Existing vertical stress, o:, and (b) the increased stress,

consolidation settlement calculations in Example 5.12.

Ab:,

for

= 323/(10.67

- 5L)

These values are plotted in Figure 5.18b. As shown in this figure, the total clay

layer between 20 to 50 ft depth is then divided into three layers. The pressures at

the middle of each layer are then calculated as follows:

Layer 1:

0:

= 1.25

1.875

+x 5 = 1.56;

30

1.875

Layer 2: a: = 1.25 + -x 15=2.19;

30

Layer 3:

0:

= 1.25

1.875

+ -x 25 = 2.81;

30

Ani = 0.195

2.635

x 25 = 2.39

+30

2.635

x 15 = 1.52

A~:=0.195+30

ACT;= 0.195

2.635

x

+30

5 =0.63

The soil thickness below depth 2/3L (= 20ft) is 30ft. This soil will be

277

calculation purposes as already mentioned, this 30-ft-thick clay has been divided

into three equal layers. u: and AuL are determined at their mid-depths, and the

settlements (AH) are then estimated as follows. In equation (5.54) the total depth

of clay that will undergo consolidation is (H - 2/3L) = 30. If we divide this total

thickness into three equal layers each of thickness H, = 30/3 = loft, the equation

(5.54) can be modified as follows:

1.56 + 2.39

0.17

x 12010g1,

= 4.84 in.

Layer 1: AHl =1 +0.7

1.56

0.17

2.19 1.52

Layer 2: AH, = -x 12010g1,

= 2.74 in.

1 +0.7

2.19

Layer 3: AH, = 0*17 x 12010g1,

1 +0.7

2.81 + 0.63

= 1.05 in.

2.8 1

Total settlement = AH = AH1 + AH2 + AH,, AH = 4.84 + 2.74 + 1.05 = 8.63 in.

(say 9 in.).

5.1.11

1. Soil Profile. From proper soils investigations, establish the soil profile and

groundwater levels and note soil properties on the profile based on field and

laboratory tests.

2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. Select a pile type, length,

and diameter and calculate allowable bearing capacity of a single pile based on

the following equation:

(5.47)

column load with the allowable load or bearing capacity of the single pile.

Arrange the piles in the group such that pile spacing is three to four times

the pile diameter. Establish pile cap size with reference to column spacing

and other space restrictions. If it becomes too large, increase pile length

and/or pile diameter and repeat item (2) to obtain reasonable pile dimensions

and arrangement. The pile group capacity is then the lower of the values

278

4. Settlement of Piles. The settlement of piles in cohesive soils is the sum of the

short-term and the long-term settlements. For short-term settlements the

settlement of a single pile is first calculated. Then this value is used to estimate

the short-term settlement of pile group.

( a ) Short-term settlement

The short-term settlement of a single pile is determined as follows:

(i) Semiempirical Method

(5.34)

st = s,

s, sps

where

(5.35)

Ss = (Qpa + asQ/a)L/(ApEp)

+ +

(5.39)

The settlement is then higher of the values obtained from (i) and (ii) above.

The settlement of a pile group is then determined from the following:

(5.40)

(b) brig-term (consolidation) settlement

(i) The long-term (consolidation) settlement for normally consolidated

clays is determined from the following:

determined from the following:

279

equations. The Aa: values at any intermediate depth can then be obtained by

interpolation.

( A a u ) z - + L = (Quo)ail/(E

(Aou)z = H = (QuG)ad(g

(5.55)

+ H - $L)(r+H - 3L)

(5.56)

5. Pile Load Test and Driving Criteria. Recommend a pile load test to fine tune

the allowable bearing capacity. If driven piles are selected, specify the driving

criteria that should be supplemented with the pile load test.

Example 5.13 In an industrial project one column of a steel frame supporting a

heavy equipment carries an axial load of 500 kips (2225 kN). Soils investigation

indicated the soil profile as shown in Figure 5.19a. Design a pile foundation such

that the maximum settlement of the group does not exceed 0.75 inch (19 mm).

SOLUTION

1. Soil Profile. Soil profile and test values with depth are shown in Figure 5.19a.

Soil profile

Depth below

ground

io

SM

Topsoil

Silty sand

4 (1.2)

8 (2.4)

( 129 kN/m.

Water Table V

12 (3.6)

Clay till

CL

q,, = 2728 psf

( 1 31 kN/m . 2 )

28 (8.4)

32 (9.6)

Clay shale

36 (10.8)

q,= 13152 sf

(630k$rn.2)

40 (12.0)

Figure5.19a Soil profile and soil properties along the depth used in Example 5.13.

qy = unconfined compressive strength; over consolidation ratio for the clay till = 4 to 5;

over consolidation ratio for clay shale 6 to 8. w = natural moisture content.

6 = 12.5'

-I

6 = 11.67'

@5----

-@-----It-

I

I

IC

-I

-a

I

B=B,

8

= 5

I

I

I

-I

@

a

I

I

I

I

I

Q w = 500 kips

L = D f = 31'

1

I.

5'J

I-

Bb = 30'

+ 10/12 = 12.5'

Figure 5.19b

-I

280

281

2. Pile Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity. The top 5 ft of the soil lies in

the zone of seasonal variation. Below this depth, the clay till appears to have a

uniform moisture content and shear strength. The average undrained shear

strength c, = f{ (2700 + 2728)/2) = 1357 psf.

Consider a 3 1 4 (9.5 m) long, 2041. (500mm) shaft diameter cast-in-place

bored concrete pile. Assume that a 30-in. diameter bell is made at the pile base.

From equation (5.47) the ultimate bearing capacity is:

(5.47)

where

A , = X/4(Bb)' = ~/4(30/12)~

= 4.9 ft2, where Bb is the bell diameter

c, = 13 152/2 = 6576 psf at pile base in clay shale

Df/Bb = 31 X 12/30 = 12.4

Then, from Table 5.7, N , = 9. The pile base diameter of 30 in. = 2.5 ft. Then, from

Table 5.8, N, = 7. The lower of these two N, values is 7 and will be used here.

p = AB,= II x 20/12 = 5.24 it,

From Table 4.7, for drilled concrete pile, if c, for clay along pile shaft is

1357 Ib/ft2, then c,/c, = 0.30.

C,

Le = L-(depth of seasonal variation

+ 2 x 20/12) = 22.7ft

(QJult = 4.9 x 6576 x 7 + 5.24 x 407 x 22.7 lb

= 31 -(5

= 225.56

= Q,

(QJnll

+ Qf;

Q, = 225.56 kips ;

Q = 48.41 kips

support 500 kips equipment load will be:

n = QuG/(Qu)all

= 500/91 = 5.5 (say 6)

Since in cohesive soils, group capacity is normally less than the sum of

282

individual pile capacity, a greater number of piles should be used. Try a group

of nine piles arranged in a square pattern with three piles on each side. Place

the piles at 5ft (125mm) center-to-center spacing with 12.5ft x 12.5ft x 4ft

thick concrete cap. The pile group arrangement is shown in Figure 5.19b.

The allowable bearing capacity of this pile group can be calculated by the

following two methods:

(5.52a)

For straight-shafted piles, the pile base width will be 6. For belled piles this will

be increased to (6 10112)= 12.5' (shown in Figure 5.19b).

+

D f / B = Of/@+ 10112)= 31112.5 = 2.48

Also,

The lower of the above two N, values is 6 and will be used in these calculations.

Values c,, c,, and Le were obtained above.

(Q,,G),,lt

= 6165

(QuG)aII

( Q ~ G ) ~ I=

( Ge

xnx

s = 5ft,

(5.53b)

(QAt

B = 20/12 = 1.67ft,

SIB = 3

(QJulc= 274 kips for a single pile as calculated above

(QvG),,lt

(QvG)ail

The lower of (QuG)aII calculated from equations (5.52a) and (5.53b) above is

575 kips (2559 kN).

Therefore,

( Q ~ G ) ~ I=

I 575 kips.

Total load on pile group = 500 + 93 = 593 kips

283

The group capacity is 575 kips, which is approximately equal to the load

593 kips on the group. Therefore, it is acceptable from a bearing capacity point

of view.

4. Settlement of Single Pile and Pile Group

(a) Short-term settlement

(i) Semiempirical Method

s,= s, + s, + s,,

(5.34)

Total load on pile group = 593 kips. Therefore, the load per pile = 593/9

= 66 kips. From section (2) above, Q, = 225.56, (Qp)all

= 225.56/3 = 75 kips.

Also, Q f = 48.41, (Qf).,,

= 48.4/3 = 16 kips and total allowable load is 75 16

= 91 kips while the actual load on each pile is 66 kips. The values of actual Q,

and Q f can be proportioned as shown without any significant error in

calculations.

(Qp)actual=

(Q/)nctual

= 16(66/91) = 12 kips = Q / a

a, = 0.5 by assuming uniform distribution of skin friction. This is a reason-

able assumption. As discussed in Section 5.1.4, the total settlement calculated based on uniform or triangular distribution are not sensitive to a,

values. From Table 5.6, C , = 0.03, B,, = B, = 30 in. q, = QJAbarC

= 225.56/(n/4)(30/12)2 = 46 kips/ft2, D, = 31ft, and from equation (5.38) C,

= (0.93

+ 0.16,/mC,,

(0.93

+0

. 1 6 J m x 0.03 = 0.048.

Substituting above values in the expression for S,, we get:

5:

s,= (54 2.18

x 144 x 3.6 x IO6

0.03 x 54 x 144

30 x 46

0.048 x 12 x 144.

in.

+ 31x12~46

S, = 0.019 + 0.168

(5.39)

284

= 314.16in2.

E, = E, = 3.6 x lo6psi

Sf = 20/100

Sf = 0.2

x 106)

The higher of the above two values estimated by the semiempirical and

empirical methods is 0.22 in. (5.5 mm)

Settlement of pile group can be calculated by using equation (5.40)

(5.40)

S,=S,J@

SG = 0.22,/(12.5 x 12/20) = 0.60in. (15.3mm)

(Figure 5.19a), both the clay till and clay shales are highly overconsolidated

since their overconsolidation ratio is 4 or more. As, an example Aa; at pile

base is equal to 11 ksf while pi at that level is 14.6 ksf. Therefore, the consolidation settlement due to loads on pile foundations would not occur. This

has been discussed in Section 5.1.10. That Section and Example 5.12

also provide the details of estimating consolidation settlement for normally

consolidated soil. The calculated settlement of pile group is 0.60in. (1 5.3 mm).

This is less than the allowable settlement .of 0.75 in. (19 mm). Therefore, the

designed pile diameter, length, and group arrangement is acceptable.

5. Pile Load Test and Driving Criteria. These are cast-in-place bored concrete

piles, therefore, no driving criteria are required. Pile load tests as per

ASTM D1143-81 should, however, be recommended to confrm the design

load and settlement values estimated above. Conservative design values

should be used where the cost of pile load tests cannot be justified. On

small-size projects, a pile load test can be performed to two times the design

load on an actual foundation pile. On large projects, where economicsjustifies

it, pile load test should be carried out to failure on a test pile that shall not

be used as a part of the actual foundation and will be abandoned after the test.

5.1.12 Pile Design for Negative Skin Friction

In Figure 5.20a, a pile embedded in layered clay is loaded axially. The pile

has a tendency to move downward with reference to the surrounding soil. This

would result in the mobilization of upward (positive) resistance or friction along

the pile shaft. This upward or positive resistance Qf along with point baring

Q p act in the same direction and thus help support the external load (Qv&,.

In Figure 5.20b, the pile is driven through a recent fill resting over an old deposit

of clay. The recent fill is underconsolidated and is consolidating under its own

285

Figure 5.20 Conceptual comparison between positive and negative skin friction development. (a) Positive friction development. (b) Negative skin friction when recent fill

consolidates due to its self-weight. (c) Negative skin friction when soft clay consolidates

due to dewatering and/or addition of recent fill.

weight after the pile has been installed. Therefore, the recent fill may settle

more than the pile. Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2) provides the definition for underconsolidated clays.

In Figure 5.20c, the pile has been driven through the recent fill overlying a

soft clay and its tip rests on a stiff medium clay. A dewatering operation may

lower the water table, and the soft clay starts consolidating under the increased

effective stresses. The recent fill is also underconsolidated. The pile tip is not

settling.

The foregoing two and other similar situations may cause the pile side friction

or resistance to act in the same direction as the externally applied load (QVG)all.

286

This is called negative skin friction because the soil resistance along the pile

surface operates in the downward direction, which is opposite to the conventional resisting forces Q, and Q, shown in Figure 5.20a. Thus, negatioe skin

friction develops when the settlement of surrounding soil exceeds the downward

movement of the pile shaft. This downward movement of the surrounding soil is

due to its consolidation. This is also called down drag because it pulls the pile

downward.

This downward pull on the pile would exert additional axial force on the pile

and may result in excessive settlements of the pile or even failure in extreme cases.

Vesic (1977) reported that observations had indicated that a relative downward

movement ofO.6in. (15 mm) of the soil with respect to the pile might be suDFicient

to mobilize full negative skin friction.

In areas where there is a potential for negative skin friction development,

batter piles should be avoided. This is primarily due to (1) the magnitude of this

down drag on the outer side of batter piles being significantly larger than the

inner vertical piles and (2) the settling soil moving away from the inner piles.

These phenomena can induce excessive bending on piles.

According to Vesic (1977), negative skin friction, (Qj)ncg,for both cohesionless

and cohesive soils can be estimated by the following expression:

where

N o = nondimensional factor that can be obtained from Table 5.11

Po = the mean normal effective stress

and

A = the area of the shaft in the zone of settling soil (e.g., A = xBL for a pile with

diameter B and length L in the zone of settling soil).

In Table 5.11 uncoated and coated piles have been mentioned. Uncoated piles are

the regular piles that have no surface treatment. The coated piles are piles that

have been coated with bitumen or bentonite. These coatings reduce the adhesion

-, Various Conditions'

Soil and Pile Condition

(a) Uncoated pile

(i) In soft compressible layers of silt

and clay

(ii) In loose sand

(b) Pile coated with bitumen or

bentonite

150

~~

0.15-0.3

0.3-0.8

0.01-0.05

287

Soil Type

Negative Skin Friction

sand

0.35 to 0.5a:A

0.25 to 0.35 a:A

0.20to 0.25a: A

Silt

Clay

Note:

the zone of settling soil. The units of a: and A have to be

consistent to yield a force unit for the negative skin

friction.

or bond between the soil and the pile surface. Thus the negative skin friction is

lower for coated piles than the uncoated piles.

Negative skin friction can also be estimated by an empirical relationship

originally proposed by Garlanger (1973) and recommended for use in the

Foundation and Earth Structures Design Manual (1982). According to this,

negative skin friction, (Q,)nep, can also be estimated from Table 5.12.

A simple method to estimate negative skin friction is by using positive skin

friction values in downward direction in the zones of settling soils. Negative skin

friction can be estimated as follows:

1. For cohesionless soils: From equation (5.6):

(5.46)

In both these relations, Lor Le is the pile length in the zones of settling soils.

These relations normally yield higher (conservative) values.

Observations suggest that approximately 0.75 times the pile length (L) in

compressible layer should be considered as contributing to negative skin friction

(Endo et al., 1969). This is based on the observation that at about 0.75La neutral

point exists below which there is no relative movement between the pile and the

adjacent soil. However, other investigations show that neutral point can be

located higher or lower than 0.75L(Vesic, 1977). Until there is a definitivemethod

of determining the depth of this neutral point, it is recommended that total pile

length in the zone of settling soil be used for such calculations.

Estimated value of (Q,),,# should be subtracted from the allowable pile load

for the design. The mechanics of negative skin friction is complex. The estimation

method for negative skin friction on pile group is still not well understood. At the

present time, the negative skin friction on a pile group can be conservatively

Next Page

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

288

calculated by taking the total weight of fill and/or compressible soil enclosed by

the piles in the group as follows:

In Figure 5.20b:

(5.61)

(5.62)

where y' is the effective unit weight of settling fill and 6, I, and LI and L are shown

in Figure 5.20.

Example 5.14 In Figure 5.2Oc, consider that each pile is spaced such that they

act individually and piles are end bearing. Further assume the following: steel

pile, B = 12 in., L1= 5 ft, L, = 10 ft, groundwater is at ground surface and soil

properties for the two layers are:

Layer

1

2

C,

C'

0

= 300 1 b/ft2

(14.37kN/m2)

30"

0

Soil Type

y 1 b/ft

110 (17.5kN/m3)

120 (19 kN/m3)

Sand

Clay

Estimate the negative skin friction along pile for the above case.

SOLUTION

Method 1: Empirical Relations

a:

at 5' depth = (110 - 62.5) 5 = 237.5 psf

cv at

15' depth = 237.5 + (120- 62.5) 10= 237.5 + 575 = 812.5 psf

(237.5 812.5)n

(Qf)neg= 0 . 5 ' i~ O)r

~ x~ 1~x ~5 + 0.25

2

2

= 932.66

L=LI

Aa:,AL

L=o

for layer 1

+p

L=Lz

L=O

p = nB = n x 1,

6 = 2/34 = 20"

- Critical State Shale MechanicsUploaded byNagaLangit69
- Pile Capacity Calculation (12!12!2011)Uploaded bynsureshbabu
- ASTM-D3080.pdfUploaded byJhun Castro
- 16532_01Uploaded byltu_12
- Application of Iterative Technique (IT) Using SPT N-ValuesUploaded byJoph Hunks Cahoybes
- Soil MechanicsUploaded byHareesh Manchikanti
- PLAXIS Bulletin 28Uploaded byMihael Iulian Theodorescu
- What is Foundation and Its RoleUploaded bySneha Anbalagan
- 11. Analyses of Embankments With Partial Consolidation of Weak FoundationsUploaded byararrati
- CVNG 3005 foundation Engineering 2008Uploaded byDeoraj Toolsie
- CORDEK_GROUNDMOVEMENTUploaded bythe_red_jester
- 32.Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled-Raft Foundation in Clay SoilsUploaded byAli Rezayi
- Geotechnical Engineering CircularUploaded byTanCM
- Remedial Measures to a building Settlement Problem.pdfUploaded byAntony Prasanth M A
- 11th Int Conf Dfi-effc_2010Uploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Cyclic Pile Load Test on Large Diameter Piles_ a Case StudyUploaded byPrashant Garg
- EM_1110-2-2503Uploaded byjnf
- Architectural Engineering Syllabus.docxUploaded byUjjwal Shrestha
- Soil Tests-Brief Method StatementUploaded byDr Wong Kim Yuen
- Asda Bridgewater- Cohesive Piling Platform - RevAUploaded byAnonymous qEPNPwA
- BP-03Uploaded bysidiq7
- ER288- Piling Test Plan_090610Uploaded byalfie
- Soil Displacement due to pilingUploaded byAlex Crispim Fortunato
- Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive SoilUploaded byAke Ben
- cv631108091.pdfUploaded bylim kang hai
- Wrana-2015-4a (2)Uploaded bycelalunal58
- soilmech-1Uploaded byAlfonsius Reynaldo
- Tech 1Uploaded byAnonymous 0KyW21
- Latteral Load PIle.pdfUploaded byYasela
- 20194 Dcp Reviewed _ 091117 One Hyde Park DFI PaperUploaded bytamlb0507

- dke78_Ch8Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- Berlin Tie-back WallUploaded bymaylda
- dke78_fmUploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch19Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch20Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch21Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch18Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch17Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch16Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch15Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch13Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch12Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch11Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch10Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch9Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch6.pdfUploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch4Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch3Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch2Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- dke78_Ch1Uploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_07bUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_07aUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_06bUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_06aUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_05cUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_05aUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_04cUploaded byHồ Thắng
- 16532_04bUploaded byMoises Guilherme Abreu Barbosa

- 201215 Hard Coral Identification GuideUploaded byramontranquilo
- Zaleha and Wiesemann 2005Uploaded bySedPaleo
- Recent hydrocarbon exploration in Greece, 2004Uploaded byVassilios Kelessidis
- PRESENTATION on ShreeCement.pptxUploaded byDinesh Suthar
- A Study of Promotion Policy of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC)Uploaded byKrishna Jadav
- 2009_BariantoUploaded byGilang
- Investor Presentation [Company Update]Uploaded byShyam Sunder
- WaleUploaded bymsea
- The Geotechnical Baseline Report as Risk Allocation ToolUploaded byAdeshola Funmilayo
- INSA-09Uploaded bySambit Shuvankar Panda
- ACG Open Pit Onsite TrainingUploaded byjuan Perez
- wolkersdorfer_minewaterUploaded byNoer Misoeary
- 2-44 Behaviour of Miniature Penetrometers CPT14Uploaded bybiles1234
- Pre ContractUploaded byNyanya Rizky II
- kristallin_10Uploaded byTsurayaki48
- Drilling StandardsUploaded byYougchu Luan
- IBC2009E2Uploaded byDas Tadanki
- Virginia Stormwater Managment Handbook Volume_II.pdfUploaded bygugi
- Some Simple Methods for Refining Permeability Estimates From NMR Logs And Generating Capillary Pressure CurvesUploaded byari_si
- Lithotypes, Macerals and Coal Facies StudiesUploaded bysandro0112
- Advances in Porous Media, Volume 3Uploaded byEmeka Chinaka
- 078.pdfUploaded bySynths
- Glg220 r2 Week Three Groundwater Lab Report-1Uploaded bysppatchen
- G09AP00077aaUploaded bymizonex
- Building DesignUploaded byJommel Gonzales
- SSG Black Land Navigation courseUploaded byEddie Black
- Glenridding Heights NSP ConsolidationUploaded bySlav Kornik
- D1556.pdfUploaded byEsteban Garcia
- USGS Bulletin 1857 - Gold in Porphyry Coppers Systems [by.geolibros]Uploaded byJHOEL_GEO
- development of new air port at sikkimUploaded bymanideep

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.