Abstract
In the case where a shallow foundation does not satisfy with design requirements alone, the addition of a pile may be suitable to improve the performance of the foundation design. The lack of in-situ data and the complexity of the issues caused by lagging in the research area of pile foundations are notable. In this study, different types of piles were used under the same geometric conditions to determine the load-settlement relationships with various sandy soil relative densities. The ultimate pile capacity for each selected pile is obtained from a modified California Bearing Ratio (CBR) machine to be suitable for axial pile loading. Based on the results, the values of Qu for close-ended square pile were increased by 15.2, 19.3, and 9.1 % for different pile lengths of 100, 150, and 200 mm in comparison with the H-pile. At the same time, the open-ended square pile had a lower capacity in comparison with closed-ended square pile tested in medium sand. Also, in the dense sand, the values of Qu for close-ended square pile were increased by 49.7, 47.8, and 69.6% for the same pile length in comparison with the H-pile. Notably, sand's density has a significant effect on the ultimate load capacity for different types of piles.
Highlights
The fast growth of high and heavy buildings in the developing cities globally led to an increase in the demand for a pile foundation
This study aims to determine the ultimate capacity of three steel pile types, namely: H-pile, close-ended pile, and open-ended pile driven in loose, medium, and dense sand under the application of static load test
The open-ended square pile showed more capacity compared with the closed-ended square pile
Summary
The fast growth of high and heavy buildings in the developing cities globally led to an increase in the demand for a pile foundation. For the last six decades, several methods have been used for piles' settlement calculation Those methods can be categorized as (1) experimental or semi-experimental method (Meyerhof, 1963; Vesic, 1977), (2) equivalent pier or raft method (Fellenius, 1991; Poulos, 1993; Terzaghi et al, 1996; Yamashita et al, 2015), (3) interaction factor method (Randolph and Wroth, 1979; Poulos and Davis, 1980), and (4) mathematical analysis method (Chow, 1986; Clancy and Randolph, 1996). The difference in those calculations indicates a considerable issue inaccuracy for pile settlements
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
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 call