Literature Review of EndBearing Capacity of PileFoundations

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/309533940
End Bearing Capacity of Pile Foundations
Presentation · January 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21744.46080
CITATIONS READS
0 4,547
1 author:
Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
21 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Foundation Design on Problematic Soils View project
DEM for Geotechnical Engineering Applications View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi on 29 October 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
College of Engineering Sciences and Applied Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Geotechnical Engineering Section
CE552 Foundation Engineering
End Bearing Capacity of Pile Foundations

PROF. SAHEL ABDULJAUWAD
By: Hamzah M. Al-Hashemi / g201552950

LUGEON TESTING NUCLEAR GAUGE TESTING (NDT) VisCPT
SCPT End Bearing Capacity of Pile Foundations
BI-DIRECTIONAL TESTING
Introduction
End Bearing Piles:
 These piles transfer their load on to a firm stratum located at a
considerable depth below the base of the structure and they derive
most of their carrying capacity from the penetration resistance of
the soil at the toe of the pile.
 Load is transmitted to the soil through friction or cohesion. But
sometimes, the soil surrounding the pile may adhere to the surface
of the pile and causes "Negative Skin Friction" on the pile.
2
Introduction
End Bearing Piles:

 This, sometimes have considerable effect on the capacity of the
pile. Negative skin friction is caused by the drainage of the ground
water and consolidation of the soil. The founding depth of the pile
is influenced by the results of the site investigate on and soil test.
3
Schmertmann Method
Schmertmann proposed the following relationship to predict the unit

tip (end) bearing capacity of the pile (qt) from the cone tip resistance
(qc):
4
Schmertmann Method
Where
 qc1: is the minimum of the average cone tip resistances of zones
ranging from 0.7D to 4D below the pile tip
 qc2 is the average of minimum cone tip resistances over a distance
8D above the pile tip.
 To determine qc1, the minimum path rule is used
5
Schmertmann Method
 The described zone (from 8D above to 0.7D-4D below the pile tip)
represents the failure surface, which is approximated by a
logarithmic spiral.
 Schmertmann suggested an upper limit of 150 TSF (15 MPa) for
the unit tip bearing capacity (qt).
6
Schmertmann Method
7
Tumay and Fakhroo Method (Cone-m Method)
 Tumay and Fakhroo proposed this method to predict the ultimate

pile capacity of piles in clayey soils.
8
Tumay and Fakhroo Method (Cone-m Method)
Where
 qc1 is the average of qc values 4D below the pile tip.
 qc2 is the average of the minimum qc values 4D below the pile tip.
 qa is the average of the minimum of qc values 8D above the pile
tip.
 Tumay and Fakhroo suggested an upper limit of 150 TSF (15
MPa) for the unit pile tip bearing capacity (qt).
9
Aoki and De Alencar Method
Aoki and De Alencar Velloso proposed the following method to

estimate the ultimate load carrying capacity of the pile from CPT data
10
Aoki and De Alencar Method

where qca (tip) is the average cone tip resistance around the pile tip,
and Fb is an empirical factor that depends on the pile type.
11
Reese & O’Neill, 1989

the unit base resistance (𝑞𝑏) can be also calculated using direct
empirical correlations with the field SPT N-value as follows
12
Reese & O’Neill, 1989

 In which 𝑁60 is the average SPT N value (corrected for hammer
efficiency but not for overburden) between the base 2D beneath
the base.
 The above equation is limited to cohesionless soils with SPT N-
values of 50 blows or less.
 In cases where N-values exceed 50, load testing is recommended;
otherwise unit base resistance should be limited to the upper-
bound value indicated in the equation.
13
Thank you
14
View publication stats

Literature Review of EndBearing Capacity of PileFoundations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature Review of EndBearing Capacity of PileFoundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

End Bearing Capacity of Pile Foundations

Presentation · January 2016

Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

Foundation Design on Problematic Soils View project

DEM for Geotechnical Engineering Applications View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

End Bearing Capacity of Pile Foundations

By: Hamzah M. Al-Hashemi / g201552950

End Bearing Piles:

Schmertmann proposed the following relationship to predict the unit

Tumay and Fakhroo Method (Cone-m Method)

 Tumay and Fakhroo proposed this method to predict the ultimate

Tumay and Fakhroo Method (Cone-m Method)

Aoki and De Alencar Method

Aoki and De Alencar Velloso proposed the following method to

Aoki and De Alencar Method

Reese & O’Neill, 1989

Reese & O’Neill, 1989

You might also like