A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test

Since the early of pile static formula suggested by Meyerhof (1956) up until now, several pile design method is being proposed. Between one method and another, result differences are still questionable. This study is conducted base on driven pile 300 mm diameter spun pile constructed in Malaysia on...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Ramli, Muhd. Harris
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English
Published:	2006
Subjects:	TA Engineering (General) Civil engineering (General)
Online Access:	http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/1/MuhdHarrisRamliMFKA2006.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utm-ep.4797
record_format	uketd_dc
spelling	my-utm-ep.47972018-02-28T06:47:42Z A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test 2006-07 Ramli, Muhd. Harris TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Since the early of pile static formula suggested by Meyerhof (1956) up until now, several pile design method is being proposed. Between one method and another, result differences are still questionable. This study is conducted base on driven pile 300 mm diameter spun pile constructed in Malaysia on sand or fine soil. This is to determine the differences between several pile design methods by Meyerhof (1976), Janbu (1976), Vesic (1977), Coyle and Castello (1981), ?? method (1985) and ?? method (1972) with the End-bearing capacity and Skin Resistance capacity value from dynamic load test using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). All the design method is also analyzed by using soil friction angle correlation by Schmertmann (1975), Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) and Hatanaka and Uchida (1996). From analysis it can be found that Meyerhof, Coyle and Castello, and ?? method are the most conservative which its value lower or almost near the PDA value. Then follow by Janbu method and ?? method which its value almost near PDA or slightly above it. Vesic method is found to be very unconservative which it value well above PDA value. From this study it can be conclude that it is recommended to use either Meyerhof or Janbu Method for estimating end-bearing capacity in sand and silt. For skin resistance in sand it recommended using Meyerhof method. Finally for estimating skin resistance in clayed soil it is recommended to use ?? method. 2006-07 Thesis http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/ http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/1/MuhdHarrisRamliMFKA2006.pdf application/pdf en public masters Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Civil Engineering Faculty of Civil Engineering
institution	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
collection	UTM Institutional Repository
language	English
topic	TA Engineering (General) Civil engineering (General)
spellingShingle	TA Engineering (General) Civil engineering (General) Ramli, Muhd. Harris A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
description	Since the early of pile static formula suggested by Meyerhof (1956) up until now, several pile design method is being proposed. Between one method and another, result differences are still questionable. This study is conducted base on driven pile 300 mm diameter spun pile constructed in Malaysia on sand or fine soil. This is to determine the differences between several pile design methods by Meyerhof (1976), Janbu (1976), Vesic (1977), Coyle and Castello (1981), ?? method (1985) and ?? method (1972) with the End-bearing capacity and Skin Resistance capacity value from dynamic load test using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). All the design method is also analyzed by using soil friction angle correlation by Schmertmann (1975), Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) and Hatanaka and Uchida (1996). From analysis it can be found that Meyerhof, Coyle and Castello, and ?? method are the most conservative which its value lower or almost near the PDA value. Then follow by Janbu method and ?? method which its value almost near PDA or slightly above it. Vesic method is found to be very unconservative which it value well above PDA value. From this study it can be conclude that it is recommended to use either Meyerhof or Janbu Method for estimating end-bearing capacity in sand and silt. For skin resistance in sand it recommended using Meyerhof method. Finally for estimating skin resistance in clayed soil it is recommended to use ?? method.
format	Thesis
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Ramli, Muhd. Harris
author_facet	Ramli, Muhd. Harris
author_sort	Ramli, Muhd. Harris
title	A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_short	A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_full	A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_fullStr	A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_full_unstemmed	A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_sort	comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
granting_institution	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Civil Engineering
granting_department	Faculty of Civil Engineering
publishDate	2006
url	http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/1/MuhdHarrisRamliMFKA2006.pdf
_version_	1747814547567149056

A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test

Similar Items