Ziyara 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1067 012050

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- A Fast-Charging Study on the Lifetime of
An experimental study of the load carrying Power-Optimized Lithium Titanite Batteries
By Electrochemical Impedance
capacity of straight shaft and underreamed piles in Spectroscopy
Md Sazzad Hosen, Theodoros
Kalogiannis, Joris Jaguemont et al.
expansive soil
- Sensitivity and Reliability of Global
Electrochemical Lithium Detection
To cite this article: H M Ziyara and B S Albusoda 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1067 012050 Signatures
Parameswara Chinnam, Tanvir R. Tanim,
Eric J. Dufek et al.
- A methodology for evaluating the effects of

climate change on climatic design
View the article online for updates and enhancements. conditions for buildings and application to
a case study in Madison, Wisconsin
Gesangyangji, Daniel J Vimont, Tracey
Holloway et al.
This content was downloaded from IP address 49.35.193.188 on 15/12/2023 at 12:49

4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012050 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012050
An experimental study of the load carrying capacity of straight

shaft and underreamed piles in expansive soil
H M Ziyara1,3 and B S Albusoda2,3
1
PhD Candidate, University of Baghdad hzeyara@yahoo.com
2
Professor, University of Baghdad dr.bushra_albusoda@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq
3
Civil Eng. Dept., Iraq
Abstract. This research aimed to determine and evaluate the load carrying capacity of underreamed
piles embedded in expansive soils. Eight models of concrete piles were developed to examine the
influence of piles’ bulb number and length on ultimate load carrying capacity. The piles used in this
work had 20 mm stem diameters and 40 mm bulb diameters, and multi-layer soils (expansive soil above
dense sand) were used. The piles used in the experiments were divided into two groups, each with four
piles. The first group with l/d=14 had all piles embedded in the expansive soil layer and the pile’s tip set
on dense sand while the other group, with l/d=24, had the pile stems embedded in the expansive soil and
all bulbs in the dense sand. Experiments were then done under two conditions: optimum moisture content
and soil completely saturated with water, with results that showed that the percentage of ultimate load
carrying capacity increased in proportion to the l/d ratio on adding one bulb to a straight shaft pile and
then increased slowly for piles with 2 or 3 bulbs in saturation conditions. The percentage of ultimate
load carrying capacity increased similarly in optimum moisture content conditions. The results also
showed a decrease in ultimate load carrying capacity between the two conditions of tests for piles with
the same l/d and the same number of bulbs, however.
KEY WORDS: Underreamed piles, bulb, swelling pressure, expansive soils.
1. Introduction
Underreamed piles of compaction concrete and are bored and cast in situ with one bulb or more, created by
suitable enlargement of the borehole pile shaft using an appropriate cutting machine. Underreamed piles can
be employed in multiple different types of soils, including clay, sandy (loose and medium), and silty soils.
These piles are widely used for multistorey buildings, towers, and bridge abutments, and any structures
subjected to axial compressive loads in addition to horizontal loads and uplift forces. The presence of bulbs
increases the Qu of the pile significantly as compared to using longer piles and larger diameters. However,
the behaviours of underreamed piles are heavily dependent on the soil state at site. For instance, the
application of underreamed piles in expansive soils generates broadening at the pile enclosures, stabilising
the pile. The placement of a bulge heave on piles can also increase load carrying capacity of underreamed
piles in remoulded and soft soils, where bulb diameters are two to three times shaft diameters (IS:2911 PART
III-1980).
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Piles were used in the state of Texas to treat swollen soils for the first time in the 1930s in a form
containing one or more bulbs near the pile tip, though the first methodical studies on such piles took place in
1949 in South Africa. After that, they were used in India in 1950, in black soils [2].
Zhang and et al [3] conducted a study of the behaviours of underreamed piles in five different soil
locations, with varying lengths, diameters, and bulbs. In the first round, different lengths were used with the
same bulb diameter (lengths from 7 to 18 m and the bulb diameter =2.5 m in silty clay soil. The results
showed an increase in the ultimate pile load capacity from 3,000 to 6,000 KN and an increase in pile
settlement to a rate of 49 to 58 mm. The study also indicated that, by increasing the bulb diameter of the pile
from 1.8 m to 2.5 m for the same length, the ultimate pile load capacity was increased by 36, while the
presence of a bulb at the bottom of the pile gave an increase in the ultimate pile load capacity of up to three
times and reduced the settlement of the pile by almost half.
Soldo et al [4] began a study on the efficiency of underreamed piles with normal straight shaft piles
using two normal piles of 0.13 and 0.24 meters in diameter; their Qu values were 33 and 56 KN, respectively.
further testing was conducted by adding one bulb to the first pile, increasing the Qu to 52 KN, making it
clear that adding even one bulb to the straight shaft eliminated the need for an increase in the diameter of
the whole pile by achieving approximately the same Qu.
Farokhi et al [5] used Plaxis 3D foundation software to examine three types of piles, straight shaft,
half underreamed, and full underreamed. In terms of axial loading, the ultimate load capacity of the half
underreamed pile was about 13% more than that of the full underreamed pile and nearly 73% more than that
of ordinary piles of the same l/d ratio.
Vali et al [6] used the finite element method to compare straight shaft piles and underreamed piles,
with results that showed that the carrying capacity of normal piles with a length of 10 m and a diameter of
0.7 m reached 1,500 KN, while the piles with half bulbs at the bottom reached a load carrying capacity of
3,100 KN and the piles with one bulb, two bulbs, and three bulbs had load carrying capacities up to 3,000,
3,600, and 4,500 KN, respectively. In addition, the results showed that the subsidence values of the piles in
the order given above were 10, 12, 13, 13, and 14 mm, respectively.
Christopher and Gopinath [7] used 14 models of straight shaft piles and underreamed piles to study the
effects of changing the number of bulbs and the distance between them alongside the influence of pile length and
bulb distance from the pile tip. The soil used was loose sand and the lengths of the piles investigated were 300
mm and 350 mm. The results showed a clear effect from increasing the number of bulbs in the pile, with the
bearing strength of the pile increasing from 0.62 KN in the straight shaft to 1.11, 2.08, and 2.51 N with the increase
in the number of bulbs from 1 to 3, respectively. Increasing the length of the pile did not show a clear effect on
the Qu, however, with the percentage of increase ranging between 2 and 5%. The results did, however, show a
clear influence from increasing the distance of the last bulb from the pile tip: as the distance increased, the load
carrying capacity decreased until the bulb was fixed in the middle of the pile. The settlement also increased as
the bulb moved away from the tip of the pile. The study further showed the effect of the distance between the
bulbs in the pile, with increasing distance increasing Qu by 82%, while simultaneously decreasing pile settlement.
The increase was confirmed when the distance was equivalent to 2.6 m.
2
Shetty et al [8] conducted an analytical study using Ansys on the effect of bulb diameter, pile length, and
bucket length on the Qu and settlement of a pile in multi-layered clay soil; the results showed that there was no
significant effect from increasing the bucket length on the Qu and settlement, though there was a slight effect from
increasing the pile length for both factors: the Qu increased by 5% when the pile length increased from 3.5 m to
6 m, and the settlement increased by approximately 3% under the same conditions. The results also showed a
clear effect from increasing the diameter of the pile and the diameter of the bulb, with the Qu of the underreamed
pile increasing approximately 128% when the bulb diameter was four times the diameter of the stem as compared
to that measured in the underreamed pile with a bulb diameter of twice the stem. The Qu also increased on
increasing the diameter of the stem, by approximately 273% when the diameter of the stem was increased from
200 mm to 500 mm while maintaining a bulb diameter 2.5 times the diameter of the shaft.
Rao and Vijayawada [9] conducted a practical and numerical study on the effect of swelling pressure on
underreamed piles’ behaviours in multi-layered soils. The study included examining the effects of bulb diameter,
shaft length, effective layer depth, and swelling pressure intensity. The results showed that the load required to
causes settlement in expansive soil is more than the load required to prevent heave from occurring, regardless of
swelling intensity. It also clarified that increasing the length of the underreamed piles reduced the load needed to
achieve equilibrium with the swelling pressure while maintaining the effective depth: thus, the length of the
underreamed pile must be increased to reach an equilibrium state. In terms of the effect of bulb diameter, the
results showed that increasing the diameter of the bulb in the active layer led to an increase in the load required
to prevent heave, based on increasing the effective depth and stabilising the diameter of the bulb.
Al-Busoda and Alanbary [10] studied the effect of the length of piles and the presence of bulbs on
the pull-out force and the height to the top, and found that the movement of the underreamed pile upward
decreased by 20 to 30% in the presence of a bulb as compared to that seen in the straight shaft pile, with
the pull-out force also decreasing by 10 to 20%. Al-Busoda and Abbas [11] studied the effect of using
helical piles as compared to normal piles on pulling forces and the height of the pile to the top; the
behaviours of these helical piles were similar to those of underreamed piles, and the results indicated that
the presence of the helix in the shaft reduced the swelling pressures by 5 to 8 times those in the normal
shaft; the height of the helical pile also reduced by up to 80%.
Multiple researchers ([12],[13],[14] and [15]) conducted theoretical studies on the effect of the pile
diameter, length, bulb diameter, distance from bulb to pile tip, effect of the ratio of the bulb diameter to the shaft
diameter, and the ratio of the length of the pile to the diameter on the pile, on Qu. Many also studied the effect of
these factors on pile settlement. Overall, the results clearly indicate that an increase in length and number of bulbs
leads to an increase in QU and a decrease in pile settlement.
The aim of the current study is to determine the ultimate pile load capacity of underreamed piles as
compared to that in straight shaft piles, in addition to determining the effect of changing the number of bulbs in
piles on the their carrying capacity in swollen and multi-layered soils under both optimum moisture content and
fully saturated conditions.
3
2. Experimental Work and Material Properties
The properties of models and soil used in this study are discussed in separate sections below:
2.1 Soil Properties

Two types of soil were used in the study. The first was sandy soil from the city of Karbala and the second a mixture of
75% bentonite and 25% sand. The classical tests were carried out in the soil mechanics laboratories at the University of
Baghdad, including a sieve analysis test, as shown in Figure 1, to determine the ratings within the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS); the soil types were identified as CH and SP. Other soil properties were determined as
shown in Table 1.
Figure 1. Particle Size Distribution of Soils.
Table 1. Geotechnical properties of soils used.
4
Test Name Standard Soil Property Value
Specific Gravity ASTM D-854 Specific Gravity Clay 2.78

Sand 2.67
Liquid Limit (LL). 100
Atterberg Limit ASTM D-4318 Plastic Limit (PL). 45.7
Plasticity Index (PI). 54.3
Clay 30%
Silt 45%
Sand 25%
Grain Size Analysis ASTM D-422 Gravel 0%
Unified Soil
Classification Clay (CH)
System (USCS) Sand (PS)
Standard Compaction Test ASTM D-1557 Maximum Dry Unit Weight, 14.27
(KN/mᵌ)
Optimum Moisture Content 27.5
(O.M.C)
Initial Void Ratio (eₒ) 0.91
Unit Weight Of SOIL ASTM D-4253 Maximum, γd, max 16.32 KN/mᵌ
ASTM D-4254 Minimum, γd, min 17.775 KN/mᵌ
Dry Unit Weight Used 17.75 KN/mᵌ
Direct Shear Test for sand ASTM D-3084 Angel of Internal Friction, φ 39°
Unconfined Compressive 240
Unconfined Compression ASTM D-2216 Strength (Qu) KPa
Undrained Cohesion (Cu) KPa 120
One Dimensional Swell or ASTM D-3084 Swelling Pressure, (KPa) 250
Consolidation Swell Percent, (%) 11
2.2 Pile Models

Eight models of concrete piles were used in this study, distributed in groups of two lengths, 35 cm and 55 cm, with four
models for each length. Three of these had bulbs, with 1, 2, and 3 bulbs, respectively, and the fourth was a straight shaft
of 20 mm in diameter. All bulbs were twice the diameter of the shaft, at 40 mm, and the distance between bulb centres
in shafts with more than one bulb was 60 mm (3d) as shown in Figure 2. These piles were designed according to IS:2911
PART III-1980, with laboratory models scaled to a field prototype at the ratio 1:22.5. Beijer et al [17] noted that the
ratio of the diameter of the pile to the mean grain size (D50) should be more than 35; in this study, D50=0.3 mm, so the
ratio was 66.
.
5
Figure 2. Dimensions and shapes of studied under-reamed piles.
2.3 Physical Test

In this study, a model was designed and manufactured from an iron box with dimensions of 80 x 80 x 80 cm and a
thickness of 6 mm, which was open from the top and had six water inlets at the bottom and on the sides, with three
for each side at 22 cm from the top of the box. The base had a height of 30 cm. The box was linked to a water tank
in order to saturate the soil with water. Two “I” beams containing a piston for the purpose of applying a load to the
model hung from the top, with the capacity to offer a force of 2 tons to the load cell. The piston was connected to a
motor in order to deliver the load at the required rate, as shown in Figure 3. The model dimensions were chosen to
ensure that the stress bulb did not touch the edge or base of the box, so the distance from the centre of the
underreamed pile to the edge of the box was 13 times the shaft diameter, more than 5d, and the pile tip was at a
distance of 12.5d, more than the recommended 10d [18]
To affix the underreamed piles vertically inside the soil, an anchor was made with two small beam supports, with a
distance between them of 27 cm. Each support had four holes with diameters of 21 mm to hold the piles, and the
distance between each hole was 18 cm.
6
Figure 3. Experimental Test

Setup.
4. Results and Discussion
In this work, tests were carried out in two stages. The first stage involved examining the piles in soil containing the
optimum moisture content and the second stage was assessed in soil fully saturated with water. Each test included eight
piles, four piles embedded in the clay soil with bases on the sandy soil, with the other four divided into two parts, the
first with the section that did not contain bulbs in the clay soil, and the other in the sandy soil. For both sections, a free
head of pile outside the soil with a length of 7.5 cm as used for loading purposes, and tests were conducted according to
ASTM D-1143. A load drop rate of 1 mm per minute was used and failure was also determined by the drop reaching
15% of the pile diameter.
Three factors potentially affecting the Qu of the piles were identified: the embedment ratio of the
pile, the number of bulbs, and the state of the test. The effects of these factors assessed based on the results
of the tests.
7
4.1 Number of bulbs
The presence of bulbs had a significant effect on the Qu of the piles. The straight shaft pile in the clay soil
had a Qu of 380 N, while for underreamed piles containing one bulb, the Qu increased by 86%, with this
percentage increasing by a further 39% and 8.7% for two bulbs and three bulbs, respectively, in the soil with
the optimum moisture content. For fully saturated soil, the increases were even higher, at 139%, 7.8%, and
11%, respectively, as shown in Figure 4. For a pile with two or more bulbs, the soil between the bulbs tends
to act as part of the pile, increasing the friction force based on the surface area of the soil between the bulbs
as well as creating additional bearing forces resulting from the bulb base [19].
Figure 4. Relationship between number of bulbs and Figure 5. Relationship between number of bulbs and
Qu for underreamed piles in clay soil. Qu for underreamed piles in clay and sandy soil.
Comparing the cases for the same pile, a significant decrease in Qu occurs between the saturation
and optimum moisture content conditions, with the decrease in Qu ranging between 41% to 54% due to
factors such as the fact that the angle of internal friction in clay soil in the saturated state become zero rather
than 18°. Likewise, the angle of internal friction of sand in the state of saturation was 37° rather than the
39° in the case of dry soil, and there was a decrease in cohesion in the clay soil when it was saturated.
There are many typical curves related to load settlement, including the curve that represents the pile being
lifted off a seating on hard rock due to soil heave and thus being pushed down by the test load, similar to
the case in Figure 6, where the swelling causes the appearance of two curvatures similar to those mentioned.
The first area in the curve represents the pile heave and the second area is the normal behaviours, per
Tomlinson [19]. For piles embedded in two layers of soil, the results indicated that, in the case of clay soil
with optimum moisture content and dry sandy soil, the Qu of the straight shaft pile was 1,243 N, and this
capacity increased by 64% with one bulb, then by a further 11.8% and 14.4% in the presence of two and
8
three bulbs, respectively. In the case of both soils being fully saturated, the carrying capacity of the straight
shaft pile was 449 N, and this gradually increased by 84%, 19.8% and 23% for shafts with one, two, and
three bulbs, respectively, as shown in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9. A significant decrease in the Qu of between
47% and 64% was observed between the saturation and the optimum moisture content conditions.
Figure 6. Load settlement profile of underreamed Figure 7. Load settlement profile of underreamed
piles in fully saturated expansive soil. piles in expansive soil with optimum moisture
content.
Figure 8. Load settlement profile of underreamed Figure 9. Load settlement profile of underreamed
piles in expansive soil and dense sand (fully saturated piles in expansive soil with optimum moisture
soil). content and dry dense sand soil.
9
4.2 Embedment Ratio:
The embedment ratio of the pile and the presence of layers had clear effect son the Qu of the pile; piles
embedded in two layers had much higher carrying capacity than piles embedded in the clay layer only in
both cases (saturation and the optimum moisture content); these increase ranged between 100% and 159%
for the fully saturated state and between 117% and 227% in the case of optimum moisture content, as shown
in Table 2.
Table 2. Ultimate pile load capacity.
Pile Length (cm) Straight shaft pile Underreamed pile Underreamed pile Underreamed pile
(one bulb) (two bulbs) (three bulbs)
Optimum
Moisture content
Qu (27.5 Cm) N 380 708 984 1070
Qu (47.5 Cm) N 1243 2037 2278 2330
Increasing % 227 187 131 117
Fully Saturated
Soil
Qu (27.5 Cm) N 173 414 449 501
Qu (47.5 Cm) N 449 828 992 1225
Increasing % 159 100 121 144
4.3 Test State
The results clearly showed movement of the piles embedded in the clay layer that was not seen in piles
embedded in two layers; this is due to the swelling pressure, which results from the state of total saturation
of the soil, as shown in Figure 5, where the first area of the curve represents the movement of the pile upward
from between 1.5 mm to 2 mm. For the other piles, there was no noticeable upward movement, as shown in
Figure 6. The reason for this is that the bulbs in the underreamed piles and the piles’ location in the dense
sandy soil acted as anchors, preventing the piles from moving upward. In addition, a clear decrease in Qu
was observed. The differences between the two states of total saturation and optimum moisture content are
due to the fact that increasing the moisture content in the soil reduces the forces of cohesion at very high
rates, while swelling pressure leads to more divergence between soil particles, causing the contact areas
between the particles to decrease, leading to an additional decrease in the cohesion forces, per Xiong and
Wang [20]. The movement of the soil upward in this work was approximately 20 mm.
10
5. Conclusion
1. There is a clear difference in the Qu of piles between the two cases of water-saturated soil and soil with
optimum moisture content; the Qu of the piles in the second case is much higher than in the first, with an
increase rate of over 170%.
2. The presence of bulbs in the piles offers further significant increases in Qu, whether these are embedded
in one layer or in two layers; these increases range between 60 and 80% in the case of one bulb, with
decreasing returns to 8.6% in the presence of three bulbs.
3. The Qu of a pile embedded in two layers is greater than that of one embedded in one layer, so that the Qu
increases with the increase in the length of the pile; this increase exceeds 200%, whether the soil is
completely saturated with water or not.
4. The underreamed piles embedded in expansive soil moved approximately 1.5 to 2 mm upwards; this was
not seen in the underreamed piles embedded in the multi-layered soil.
6. References
[1] IS:2911 (Part III-1980): IS code for design and construction of underreamed piles.
[2] Goalait Y S, Satyanarayana V, Rajua S 2009 “Concept of under reamed cemented stone columns for
soft clay ground improvement,” Indian Geotechnical Society. pp 356-360.
[3] Lie Z, Qingsheng C, Guang-yun G, Sanjay N, Gabriele C. 2017 “A New failure load criterion of
large diameter under-reamed piles; practical perspective”. International Journal of Geotechnical and
Ground Engineering. (2018) 4:3.
[4] Soldo B, Ivandic K, Koprek T. 2008 “Contribution to the efficiency of the underreamed piles in
clay” In proceeding the 12th International Conference of international association for computer methods
and advanced in geomechanics. pp 3174-3181.
[5] Farokhi A S, Alielahi H and Mardani Z. 2014 “Optimizing the performance of underreamed piles
in clay using numerical method”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EGJE). V.19; pp 1507-
1520.
[6] Vali R, Khotbehsara E M, Sabrian M, Li J, Mehrinejad M and Jahandari S. 2017 “A three dimensional
numerical comparison of bearing capacity and settlement of tapered and under-reamed piles”. International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
[7] Christopher T, Gopinath G. 2016 “Parametric study of underreamed piles in sand”. International
Journal of Engineering research & Technology.V5 pp 577-581.
[8] Shetty P, Naveen B S and Kumar N B S 2015 “Analytical study on geometrical of underreamed
pile by Ansys”. International Journal of Modern Chemistry and Applied Science. 2015,2(3), pp174-180.
11
[9] Rao P, Kanura and Vijayawada A P 2019 “Generalized analysis of underreamed pile subjected to
anisotropic swelling pressure”. GeoMEast 2018, SUCI, pp.165-187.
[10] Al-Busoda B S and Alanbary L A. 2015 “Performance assessment of pile embedded in expansive
soil”. Al-Khwarizmi Engineering Journal.
[11] Al-Busoda B S and Abbas H O. 2017. “Performance assessment of single and group of helical
piles embedded in expansive soil” International Journal of Geo-Engineering.
[12] Goalait Y S, Padade A H. 2018 “Enhancement in effectiveness of cemented stone columns for
soft clay ground improvement by providing underreamed bulbs”. International Geomechanics.
[13] Lee C Y. 2007. “Settlement and load distribution analysis of underreamed piles”. Journal of
Engineering and Applied Science.V.2 No.4pp36-40.
[14] Shrivastava S and Bhatia N 2008. “Ultimate bearing capacity of underreamed pile finite element
approach”. The 12th International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods in
Geomechanics. pp 34903497.
[15] George B E. and Hari G. 2015. “Numerical investigation of under reamed piles”. The 6thInternational
Geotechnical Symposium India.
[16] ASTM, Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (1995), “Standard
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes”, West Conshohocken, 4.08.
[17] Beijer L A, Dijkstra J. and Van T F 2012. “On the modelling of piles in sand and small geotechnical
centrifuge”. Proceeding of Conference Delft University of Technology and Deltares Netherland., pp.24-33.
[18] Springman S M, (2007). “Physical modeling in geotechnics”, ETH-Institute for Geotechnical

Engineering Professorship for geotechnical Engineering, South American Travelling Tour.
[19] Tomlinson M J. (1994) “Pile design and construction practice 4th”. Viewpoint Publications, London,
UK.
[20] Wu X and Wang Z. (2017). “The relationship between the swelling pressure and shear strength
of unsaturated soil: the Yanji Basin as a case study”. Arab Journal Geo Sci. pp 330-341.
12

Ziyara 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1067 012050

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Ziyara 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1067 012050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- A methodology for evaluating the effects of

This content was downloaded from IP address 49.35.193.188 on 15/12/2023 at 12:49

An experimental study of the load carrying capacity of straight

H M Ziyara1,3 and B S Albusoda2,3

KEY WORDS: Underreamed piles, bulb, swelling pressure, expansive soils.

2. Experimental Work and Material Properties

2.1 Soil Properties

Figure 1. Particle Size Distribution of Soils.

Table 1. Geotechnical properties of soils used.

Test Name Standard Soil Property Value

Specific Gravity ASTM D-854 Specific Gravity Clay 2.78

2.2 Pile Models

Figure 2. Dimensions and shapes of studied under-reamed piles.

2.3 Physical Test

Figure 3. Experimental Test

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Number of bulbs

4.2 Embedment Ratio:

Table 2. Ultimate pile load capacity.

4.3 Test State

[18] Springman S M, (2007). “Physical modeling in geotechnics”, ETH-Institute for Geotechnical

You might also like