Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 201-Capacity CPT PDF

    Uploaded by

    Piotr Zieliński
    8 views19 pages

    Original Title

    201-Capacity_cpt.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views19 pages

    201-Capacity CPT PDF

    Uploaded by

    Piotr Zieliński

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories Abolfaz! Estami and Bengt H. Fellenius Abra Six methods o trina pile capacity erst fom cone penetration est (CPT a ae presenta, iscsi and comport. Five ofthe methods ae CPT mcthos th py al sess and fired arithmetic average toe resistance One cel declped method, CP. hat considers pore water pes snd applies an. uid tome average of one resistance. To determine vi shal esac, fhe new men uses new siping chart based ‘on CPT dia The six methods are applied t 102 cae hsors combining CPT das and capa oboe ie sai ding es in compression and tson. The ile caps range fom 800 S000 kN. Te oi rile range From 0 lay, medium to dese sand and mitre of ly sil a sand. The ple embednent ngs rng rom 467 mat the ple dame rage from 200090 nin. The sew CPT mtd for dctericing pci) demas heer scene wth he opty determined in ati ding west and es sate than by CPT methods Keyword cone pence pile capacity, oe este sal esistance sl clsiieton, Résumé: Six méthode ils pour dermis a capi axa dun peu pan des suas 6 essai pénératon aw lie sont senses, discus et compares, Cing ec hades on dst CPT (es de pnérton a ce) ‘Seeprimen en contin toes tar ne moyenne arin de aressance en poime. La dere method plus cent, est base sare CPTo pectin et renden compe la pression ines et une moyene gorge mon fie de la réstance en pointe. Das cst methde sistance d par uni de surface est ering par un nowel shague qui pile sol en fosion des sais CPT, Las i modes ont applqnes 3102 eas en combinant es rests CPTu av ls capaci Menus hrs sas de chargement sigue en compression tn tension. Les capt es ie vont de AN 8000 KN Pari lesSl os trouve des aries lle ies, des bles moyenne ices 3 denes ces mlanes ape de silt et sb Les longus 'efoisement ds ie vent e 5267 mt eer ‘iam de 290390, Laruvelle tds CPT pour termine a capa iw et pls proche ds sul es ‘suk agus ees mois disperse qu ls mthodes CPT. Mos és esi pinion au cine, pent, aps piu, stance da i clasiiaton dss [Traduit para eda Introduction The geotechnical engineering practice has developed sever methods and approaches to estimate axial pile capacity. The ‘methods by nocessiy include simplifying assumption nd (or) empirical sppeoaches regarding soil statgraphy and loud transfer. Therefore, the design often becomes somewhat of 3 guessing game and rather subjective exercise. The work pe Sened inthis paper aims toward ameliorating the situation in the area of static analysis of load transfer, basing the approach ‘on init testing wing the cone penetrometer, specifically he piezocone, CPT The cane penetration tes (CPT) is simple, fst, and rela- tively economical, supplies continuous records wth dept, and allows a variety of sensors tobe incorporated withthe pene ‘wometer. The advantage of wing CPT data for pile design. 2s ‘opposed to basing the analysis on a theoretical model, is hat ‘dependency on “undisturbed” sampling and subsequent con ‘ertional laboratory testing ae avoided. Moreover, iti not Restne mary 30, 1997 Accepted Jane 28, 197 A. Fst Deparment of Cl Eisen, Universy of ‘haa, Ones, ON KIN 6NS, Coa BH. aliens, Uke Tectlogy Lid, 1010 Palek Sues, Unit Otawa, ON KL 9H, Canad (Ca Ge 33 886-508 (197 necessary 10 fumish intermediate parameters, such as earth pressure and bearing capacity coefficients, Ky and Ny, Because ‘of similares beween the cone penetomcter and a pile, the penetrometer canbe considered asa rode! pile In fat, es ‘mation of pile capacity from CPT data was one ofits fist, applications. (Case histories from full-scale tests are compiled and ana lyzed by means of five dreet CPT methods for pile capacity cstimation employed in current Nom American practice and ‘the authors recently developed direct CPT method, Case records database and soil profiling from CPTu data A database of ease histories from the resus of 102 full-scale pile louding tests is compiled with infomation on soil ype and rests of CPT sounding performed close tothe pl locations. ‘The eases were obained from 36 sources reporting daa from 40)sites in 13 coutres. Table | summarizes the min case re ‘otd data as to reference pile charactors, ple loading test rests and sil profiles. ‘The majority ofthe case revords are from the United Stats The sols athe sites consist of sediments of cay (ot clay. sf lay, sity clay, sandy clay, silt (clayey silt sandy st, and sand (clayey san, silty sand, gravelly sand). About 807% sla and Felenius ‘Table 1. Case record summary. Pik shopeand Pe dameer, Embednent Toul capac, No. Case __ Reference __Site location materia nvm) length Dm) __RyyikN) Sol profile Group 1 UBC3 — Camparellaetal, BC, Canad P.S a4 168 630 Softcliy, snd 1989 2 UBCS—Campanetiaetal. BC.Canata —P.S 304 sit 1100 Soft cay, sand, 1989 sit 3 NWUP Fin 1989 ML, USAL BS 450 132 1020 Sand, ely 4 FHWASF O'Neil 1988, USA. PS 23 on 290 Sand 5 BGHDI Altace eta sac 235 10 1000 Uniform sand 19824, 19925 6 BHD? Alec etal ra sac 285 130 1600 Uniform sand 19922, 19920 7 POLAL —CHZMHUILI987 CalE.USA. O%C 610 28 5455. send § POLAZTOE Urkhada 1995 Calif, USA, Ox. 610 ms 43650 Sit sand 9 TWNTPE Yenetal 1989 Taiwan PS oo 33 4330 Sand, clay sand 10 TWNTPS Yonetal 1989 Taivan Bs oo a3 2500 Sand, lay sand 11 TWNTP5 Yenetal 1989 Taiwan Ps oo 33 4460 Sand, lay. sand 12 LRDSIA Briand. 1989 USA, HP,S 360 20 1170 Sand 13 LADSS—Briaudetal. 1989 USA B.S 350 30 Sand 14 LD316 Baudet. 1989 TILUSA. HPS 360 m2 S70 Sand 15 LAD Braudetal 1989 MLLUSA. PS 300 110 500 Sand 16 LADS Briaudetal 1989 MUSA. PLS 400 a 385 Sand 17 L&DSS Braudetal 1989 TLUSA, HPS 360) 3 817 Sand 18 ARN2—Hastorferané— Ausraia S.C 450 By 4250 Sand Pesiots 1988 19 NASHL4S Nowingham 97S FAUSA PAS. 270 2s 168 Sand 20 QBSA.— Kowadand Roy Que, Canada P.S 20 13 33 Sensitive clay 1987 21 UHUC! O'NEII981 Tex USA. PS Ba 780 Clay, sandy clay 22 UNUTI ONGiII98I Tex USA PS mm a 485 Clay, sandy chy 23 UHUCIL O'NSII987 —TexUSA PS 2 Be 300 Chay, sandy clay 24 UHUTID O'NeII9I —Tex,USA PS 2 ne 520, Chay. sandy oly Group I 2 UBC2 —Campanellaetal. BC. Canada PS ao 138 290 Softelay, sand 1989 2% UBCA —Campanellactal. BC,Canaa PS ois 0. 7500 Softcay. sang 1989 sit 27 NWUH Fino 1999 PAUSA HPS 450 32 1010 Sand, clay 28 JPNOTI— Matwumotoetal. Japan Ps 00 82 4700 Sand clay (ot 1995 29 LSUAL —Twmayand ——Calie,USA S.C 30 os 0 aro 1981 30° SUNIL Tomayand Calf USA. Sq,C 450 365 2950 Fahkroo 1981 31 LSUNIS Tumayand Cali, USA, PS 00 ans 2800 Silty cay silly ahiroo 1981 sand 52 LSUNDE Tumayand Cali, USA, The 500 30s 2160 Chay silty Fahkroo 1981 sand clay 33 LSUNDIS Tumayand Clit, USA PS 350 sa imo hy, sity Fahkvoo 1981 sand, cay St LSURWO Tumayand Call. USA. SqQC 150 os 2610 Fill sandy clay Fano 1981 35 MINTS — Resseetal. 1988 Tex,USA. RUC 810 2a 730 Stiffelay, sand ‘Table I (continued) ‘Can. Geotech, J. Vol $4, 1997 Pie shape and Pile Game, Emboumen Total cmp No Case Reference __Sitelocation materia” (mm) length, Dm) Ry (KN) Soil profite 36 LING Tucker 1986 Calif, USA. RUC 30) 76 750 Sily std, clay, sand ST LINTED Reese etal 1988 Tex,USA. RAC 310 2a 5850 Sulfeay, sand 38 NETH2 —Vergever 1982 The sac 256 93 700 Fill. clay sly Netherlands sand 39 MILANO Gambini 1985 Tay Ps 330 100 625 Chay sity snd, clay 40 OKLACO Nevelesand Okla, USA REC 660, wea 3600 Sand, sity clay Donald 1998 (shale) LAD31 Beaudet 1989 ULUSA. B.S 300 142 1310 Sand SEATW — Horvitetal. 1981 Wash, Rac 350) 15a 900 Sand USA 8 GT Maye 1993. GALUSA RAC. 750 168 4500 Fil sity sand 4 Ker Weber 1987 Belgian He, S 400 Mo 3500 Softsoil,dense ‘snd 4S MPL Weber 1987 France HRs 400 M40 2125 Softclay, si 46 KALOISA Vanimpeetal, —Helgium Ra. 0 0 530) 1988 47 KALOMB Van impe etal, Belgium Rac oo Ro 6100 1988 48 ARN3—Hlastorferand Australis sac 385 woz 1300 Pesots 1988 48 USPBI Abbot etal. 1995. Brazil Rac 350) 94 os 50 USPB2_——Albier etal. 1995 Braz Rac 400 94 ns silty sand Sl NASWPBI Notinghum 1975 FA.USA — $q.€ 450 80 1140 Siky snd 52 N&SWPE2 Notingham 1975 Fl,USA.— Sq.C 450 us 530 Silty sand 53 N&SBI43 Nottingham 1975 FulUSA PS 270 2s 1620 Sand, dense ‘and St NQSBI38 Nottingham 1975 PA, USA. Sq 450 149 1720 Sand dense sand 55 PRS ikke 1995 Puerto Rico PS. 300 284 1240 Peat, sand, soft lay 56 PRL Urkkads 1996 Puerto Rico 300 314 1890 Peat, sand lay 57 UHIS3—Avasiraluetal Fla, US. 390 204 1260 Sand, si 1998 58 MUMB Hun 1993 We.USA PS. 218 Ro 1686 il 59 SPB Decourtand Bra Re 500 87 3000 Silty sand Niayama 1998 60 YOGI —Milovoc and——Yugoslavin— Ra 500 10 40 Cay Stovanovie 1982 GL AGNI Hastrfersed—Avstalia S.C 450 140 3850 Dense sand, Plesiots 1988 limestone 62 PNTRAS Almeidactal UK. Ps 219 250 199 Sisfetay sit, 1996 olay 63 PNTRAG Almehlaetal UK. Ps 219 32s 460 Sith clay, sit, 1996 clay 6£ —CVVDNC Aimeidactal. UK. Ps 205 00 400 Sith ela. i, 1996 sity sand 65 CWDNDAimeidaetal. UK, Ps 3s 100 404 Suite. 1996 sity sand 66 CWDNE Almeidaecal UK, Ps sas 100 380 Sif ly tl 1996 silty sind 67 CWDNP—Almeideeral UK, Ps 30s Joo 390 SIF ly cl 1996 silty sand 280 Pie shape and Pile dane TEmbedmen Tom pa No Cae Reference __Stelocaton mera” (mm) length. Dim) Rak) Soil profile (& CWDNGAlmeidsctal. UK. PS 20s 100 SIL Suifelay til 196 sity sand 69 CWDNH Almeidzetal. UK. Ps 208 too 380 Suffeay al 1296 sity sand 7 CWDNIAlmeiéactal, UK. Ps 208 100 290 Suit eay. al, 1956 silky sind J CWDNI—Almekinetal UK. Bs 208 100 280 Sif ely. il, 106 sihy snd 72 CWDNK Almeidaetal. UK. Bs 203, 100 350, Sif clay. il, 96 sity sand 73 ONSYAL —Almwiduetal. Norway bs 2109 180 os Softcay 1996 76 ONSYBIAlmwidaetal Norway Bs a 180 44 Softelay 1996 75 LSTDAT —Almcidaetal Norway Ps 219 Iso 7% Softelay 1996 76 LSIDAS —Almeidactal, Norway Ps 219 ns 86 Softelay 196 77) LSTDE2 —Almeiiact al. Noray Ps si 150 374 Sotclay 196 Group 1 78 JPNOT2 —Matsumotoetal. Japan Bs 800) 82 3190 Stiteclay (ott 1995, rock) 79 JPNOT3— Matsumoto etal. Japan Ps 300) 82 3250 Sut clay (ott 1988 reek) 80 LSUBIZ,Tumayand —CAIIELUSA. RAC 300) 378 3960 Sil sty clay, Fahlrvo 1981 sad, si 81 LSUNZI6 Tumiyand —CELUSA, B.S. 400 41s. 1990 Cay. sly Faro 1981 Sanu, clay 2 LSU Tumayand Cait, USA, Sq. 450 0 1935 Clay, sand, clay Fahiroo 1981 LSUR2A —Tumayand Calif, USA, S.C 00 wos 2025 Fil. sandy clay ahkroo 1981 URL22 — Avasaniaetal. Fa,USAL SRC 350 160 1330 Sand 1998 SS UFLS2— Avasarlaetal, FAUSA— S3.C 110 2010 Sand 1994 8% OKLAST Nevelesand Ola USA. PLS. oo 182 3880 Sand silty clay Donald 1994 (shale) 87 ALABA Lier 1994 ALLUSAL—HP,S. 310 363 2130 Sandsilly lay, snd 88 LADISA Beaudet al 1989 MLLUSA, HPS. 300) 2900 Sand 89 LADI6—Briaudetal 1999 THLUSA. ——HP.S. 300) 3000 Sand 0 Brisudetal 1989 HLUSA. B.S. 360) 1300 Sand oL Briaudetal. 1989 TLUSA PLS 300 1800 Sand 2 Brisodetal 1989 ILLUSA. HPS 360) 1170 Sand 2 Briaudetal. 1989 USA HPS. 360 1260 Sand o Milovie and Yugoslavia 0 10) Chy Stevanovic 1982 9s Richman and CaWELUSA. RAC 400 6s 1385 Silty sand and Speer 1989 96 LINGSE —Richmane and CaELUSAL RAC 400 93 1570S gravelly Speer 1989) sand 97 PTSER —Appendino 1981 Taly Rac so 388 5500 Sandy sti, ‘dense sand 98 T3601 ——Appeadino 981 tly Rac so 20 ‘000 Sily sand, clay, sind 990 ‘Tablet (concluded) Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997 Pileshapeand PleGameicr, Embedment Toul capaciy, Ne Gwe Reference __Siteloration _mucria” (mm) length, P(r) Rw t&N) Soil profile 99 NESICI_—Notingham 1975 Fla, USA. qc 350) 92 1835 Sand, clay 00 NASBIRIS Nowinghum 1973 Fa,USA — Sq,C 250 23 10 Sand sity sand TOL N&SBISI6 Nowingham 975 Fa USA. | Sa.C 350 139 1885 Fil sity sand 102 N&SBIH2 Nowingham 975 Fla, USA. PS. 20 152 660 Fill sind, dense sand TP pe Bg, spares Onooagona HP, Hass RG, ans Tap © Gece Se Fig. 1. Typical piezocon profile (data fom Yen etl. 1989, Ry. ton rato: pore presi, q.MPa (MPa MPa, ‘Soll Profle " Cy ome = a = 2s A 20 e | da 2 2s| asi suk ofthe CPT cases included in the data are obtained by electrical cone and 20% by mechanical cone, All eases from silt and clay soils. about half the total, nelude pore-pressure measurements, Most of the CPT measurements are at a vertical spacing of 300 mm or smaller. A typical CPTu profile taken from one of the records is shown in Fig. 1 “Most ofthe piles have a square or round cross section and the pile materials are stel and concrete, All but 10 ofthe piles \were installed by driving. The pile embedment lengths range from 5 t 67 m, the pile diameters from 200 to 900 min, and the pile capacities fom 80 10 8000 KN. The cases have been Separated into three groups as follows. Group 1 (cases 1-24 in Table 1) includes 14 compression static loading tests where the toe and shaft resistances were determined separately, and 10 tension tests, Thus, the database Includes 14 cases of known toe resistance and 24 cases of | kknoven shaft resistance, Group If (cases 25-77 in Table 1) includes 34 compres- sion static loading tests for which no separation of shaft and toe resistances is reported, and 19 tensioa tests, where the cone data do aot include recor of sleeve friction, Group Il (cases 78-102 in Table 1) includes cases where the ultimate resistance was not indisputably reached in the static loading tes. The maximum loads, therefore, considered a lower-bound capacity in these cases. Some of the producers ofthe data designated the maximum test load tobe the capacity ‘ofthe ple, which may actually be the eas for some of the test AA primary purpose of the CPT is to identify the sol layer ‘boundaries and determine sol type in terms ofthe grain size, ic, sol profiling. Begemann (1953, 1963, 1965) pioneered soil slam and Felenivs profiling based on mechanical cone data and pointed out that fhe soil type can be related to the CPT ftition ratio (rato of sleeve friction to cone resistance). The Begemann soil profil ing chart presents cone resistance against sleeve friction (me- chanical cone data only), Later investigations Campanella and Robertson 1988) have shown the need for correcting the cone resistance for the pore pressure generated at the cone shoulder ‘The advent of the piezacone enabled sol rofling that includes cone resistance, sleeve fiction, and pore pressure measurements Robertson etal. (1986), Roberson (1990), and Campanella etal. (1989) proposed soil profiling chars based on piczocone data by plotting the cone resistance versus friction ratio. This ‘manner of plotting means that a variable i ploted versus its ‘own inverse value inthe charts, which violates the fundamen- tal rue that dependent and independent variables must be rig- forously separated and distorts the data. The authors prefer to ‘se a profiling diagram similar to that presented by Begemann (1965), with two differences Firs, the cone resistance, qi cor rected forthe pore presse acting onthe shoulder. (The comected resistance is denoted q,) Second, an “effective” cone resistance, {9 8 used instead ofthe cone resistance. 4 (ge = dW Where this the pore pressure measured behind the cone point). The diagram uses log-log pioto magnify te elations in soft and Toose soil as opposed to the linear plot used by Begemann (1968), ‘The database contains a large amount of cone test data, which have been plotted in a cone resistance (q,) versus sleeve fiction (diagram. The datapoints were found o segregate on five main sail categories: collapsive-sensitve soil, sft clay ~ soft sil silty clay stiff clay, silly sand, and sand and gravel, as delineated in Fig, 2. The boundaries shown inthe diagram were obtained by enveloping approximately 90% of all points of each main soll category. A detailed presentation ofthe profiling method ‘ill be presented in a separate paper. Pile capacity from CPT data Two main appreaches for application of cone data to pile de~ sign have evolved: indirect and direct methods. Indirect CPT ‘methods employ soil parameters, such asthe friction angle and tindrained shear strength estimated from the cone data as evaluated from bearing capacity and (oF) cavity expansion theories, which insoduce significant uncertainties. The indirect metho disregard horizontal sess, includ srip-footing bear ing capacity theory, and neglect soil compressibility and strain softening. The authors consider the indirect methods les suitable for use in engineering practice and will not refer to them further Direct CPT methods more or less equate the measured cone resistance to the pile unit resistance. As detailed below, some ‘of the methods use the cone sleeve friction in determining unit shaft resisance, Others proportion the shaft resistance to the cone resistance. Several methods modify the resistance values to the difference in diameter between te pile andthe cone. As ‘opposed to the indirect methods, mean effective ses, soil compressibility, and rigidity affect the pile and the cone in @ Similar manner, which eliminates the need to supplement the field data wit laboratory testing and to calculate intermediate values, such as the earth pressure coefficient, K, and the bear- ing capacity coefficient, Ny ar Fig. 2, New sil profiling chart To relate the cone resistance to the pile unit toe resistance, cumrent CPT methods determine the anthmetic average of the CPT data over an “influence zone Often, the test data include a small amount of randomly distributed extreme values, “peaks and troughs,” that may be repesenative forte response ofthe cone to the local soil characteristics, but not fora pile having a much larger diameter. Keeping the extreme values could result in an average that snot representative of the pile resistance atthe site ‘Therefore, before averaging, its common practice to manually fier and smooth the daa, ether by applying "minimum path rule (Schmertmann 1978) or, more subjectively, by simply 1e- moving the peaks and troughs from the records. Current CPT direct methods The following direst methods, curenly used in Noh American practice, are considered: () Schmertmann and Nottingham, Ui) DeRuiter and Beringen (commonly called the European ‘methou), (i) Bustamante ané Gianselli (commonly called the French method), (i) Meyerhof, and (») Tumay and Fakhroo “The Schmerimann and Notinghan mesos asd ona sum: rary of the work on model and full-scale piles presented by [Nottingham (1975) and Schmertmani (1978). The unit toe ress tance, 18 taken as equal to the average ofthe cone resistance ‘over an influence rone extending from 6b to Rb above the pile toe, here b isthe pile diameter, and 0.7b to 4b below the pile toe (see eg, [I]. The average i determined ater frst tering the ta to “minimum-path” values. Details on the fitering {nd minimum-path rules ae given by Schmertmann (1978). An Upper limit of 15 MPa is imposed forthe unt te resistance U1) r= Goce dex where fis the pile unit toe resistance: Cac is the corelation ‘oeicient governed by the overconsolidation ratio, OCR, ofthe soil, and q, isthe arithmetic average of qin an influence zone. “The extent ofthe influence zone depends on the tend of the 4, values and follows recommendations by Begemann ee (1963), who based the zone extent on an assumed logarithmic spiral failure pattem forthe pile toe. ‘The pile unit shaft resistance, r, may be determined from the sleeve friction as expressed by [2]: Bl neKR where Kis dimensionless coefficient. The K coefficient de pends on pile shape and material, cone type, and embedment ratio. In sand, the K coefficient ranges from 0.8 t0 2.0, and in clay itranges from 0.20 1.25. Within a depth ofthe first eight pile diameters below the ground surface, the unit shal tess tance is linearly interpolated from zeroat the ground surface to the value given by [2] ‘Allematively, in sand, but notin clay, the shaft resistance may be determined from the cone resistance BI n= Ca “where Cis dimensionless coefficient, which is a function of the pile type and ranges from 0.8 t0 18%. An upper limit of 120 kPa is imposed on the unit shaft resistance, ry whether determined by (2) or [3]. For uplift capacity (tension resis- tance), the shaft resistance is reduced to 70% of that deter mined by 2] 0 [3], ‘The European method (DeRuiter and Beringen 1979) is based on experience gained from offshore construction inthe [North Sea. For unit te resistance ofa pile in sand, the method is the same as the Schmertmann and Notingham method. In clay, the unit te resistance is determined from total tess analysis according to conventional bearing capacity theory as indicated in (4) and (5} 4 NS, (5) SR where Nis the conventional bearing capacity factor: 5, isthe undrained shear stength; and Ny isa dimensionless coeficient, ranging from 15 020, reflecting local experience. An uppet limit fof 15 MPa is imposed forthe unit ce resistance, Schmereman (1978) also states, but without providing details, that the toe resistance value is governed by the overconsolidation ratio, ‘OCR, of the sil The unit shaft resistance in sand is determined by either (1) with X= [or [2] with C= 0.3. Inlay, the uit shaft resistance may also be determined from the undrained shear strength, S, as piven in (6) (6) Kaas, here cis the adhesion factor equal to 1.0 and0.5 for normally consolidated and overconsolidaed clays, respectively ‘An upper limit of 120 kPa is imposed on the tnit shaft resistance. For tension capacity, the shaft resistance is reduced 1 75% of the shalt resistance in compression ‘The French method (Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982) is based on experimental work by Laboratoire Central des Ponts {et Chausees (LCPC). The sleeve friction, f. is neglected and the unit toe and unit shaft resistances are hoth determined from the average cone resistance, q. Bustamante and Gianeseli (1982) provide detailed fering rules for selecting the average ‘cone resistance, The unit toe resistance, r, is estimated to range ‘Gan, Geotech, J. Vol 34, 1997 from 40 to 58% of the average value of q, over a zone of 1.55 above and 1.5b below the pile toe (bis pile diameter), ‘The unit shal resistance is determined from [3] withthe coefficient ranging from 0.5 0 3.0%, as governed by the mag: nitude of the cone resistance. type of Soil, and type of pile Upper limits of the unit shaft resistance are imposed, ranging from 15 to 120 kPa depending on soi type, pile type. and pile installation method, The Meyerhof method (Meyerhot 1956, 1976, 1983) is based on theoretical and experimental studies of deep founda: sions in sand, The unit te resistance in sand is given by {71 and te influence of scale effet of ples and shallow penetration in dence sand sata is eonsdered By applying two mediication factors, C, and C,.to the q- average. The unit toe resistance of bored pile is reduced to 304 ofthat determined from (7} (1 = GCs where q, isthe arithmetic average of gin zone ranging fom 4b above to 1b below the pile toe: C, = (b+ 0.5)2b) is a ‘modification factor for scale effect when b> 0.5 m, otherwise C= 1:Cy= Dy/10bis amodificaton for penetration into dense sttata when D, < 10, otherwise C= 1; nis an exponent equal to [for loose Sand, for medium dense sand, and 3 for dense sand; and Dy isthe embedment (in m) ofthe plein dense sand ‘The unit shaft resistance is determined from ether {2} with K=1,0r 2] with C= 0.56. For bored ples, reduction factors of 70 and 50%, respectively, ate applied tothe calculated val es of shaft resistance. The Tunay aed Fakhroo method! Tumay and Fakhzoo 1981) is based on aa experimental study in clay soils in Louisiana, ‘The unit toe resistance is determined the same way as in the Schmertmann and Nowtingham method. The unit shaft resis tance is determined according to [2} with the K coefficient

    You might also like