Abstract
Different methods have been used to determine the pile bearing capacity such as static equations, dynamic equations, empirical methods (EMs), numerical methods, computer software programs, and the pile static load test, these methods were giving different values for pile bearing capacity. In this paper, three empirical methods (Ems) have been selected (Brinch-Hansen, Chin-Kondner, and Decourt) and (AllPile 6) software (AP) has been applied to determine the capacity load of piles for six cases study of drilled concrete piles with a diameter ranging from 800 mm to 1500mm and embedded length ranged 10.5m to 26m. Four of those six piles are located at Portsudan city near the red seacoast and two piles are located in Khartoum city. The results of the pile bearing capacity (PC) calculations obtained using the above-mentioned different methods were compared with results produced by the pile load test. In all six cases study, the settlement of piles was limited, settlement failure was not reached. The results show that the AllPile 6 (AP) and the three mentioned empirical methods (Ems) gave reasonable piles bearing capacity, the (AP) and (BHM) gave the better result than the CKM and DM. While (DM) gave results similar to results determined using the (CKM). However, it was not preferred to use the (CKM) and (DM), unless the failure settlement has occurred in the pile load test.
Highlights
Many studies and researches were conducted on the comparison of different methods for determining piles bearing capacity such as the following
Gehan showed a comparison between various prediction methods to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile, this study compared the measured result of ultimate pile load capacity for forty-four piles with results obtained using four empirical methods (Brinch-Hansen,1963; Chin-Kondner, 1970), Modified (Chin, 1980; Decourt, (1999) and two semi-empirical methods, these data of soil collected from different Egyptian soils
The results were obtained by application of (AP) and referring to soil data of selected sites and by application of empirical methods (EMs) (Brinch-Hansen, Chin- Kondner and Decourt) which has been explained in section 3 were illustrated in Tables [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
Summary
Many studies and researches were conducted on the comparison of different methods for determining piles bearing capacity such as the following. E. Gehan showed a comparison between various prediction methods to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile, this study compared the measured result of ultimate pile load capacity for forty-four piles with results obtained using four empirical methods (Brinch-Hansen,1963; Chin-Kondner, 1970), Modified (Chin, 1980; Decourt, (1999) and two semi-empirical methods (using correlation with in situ results of SPT and CPT), these data of soil collected from different Egyptian soils. The study concluded that (BHM) and (DM) gave satisfactory results of ultimate load capacity of piles (Abdelrahman et al, 2003). Eslami et al (2014) provided a study for determining piles axial capacity based on in-situ tests and static analysis. The results obtained by these methods were more accurate pile s load capacity (Eslami et al, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Material and Mathematical Sciences
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
