A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Comparison of Five Different Methods for Determining Pile Bearing Capacities. Final Report
The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy and precision with which five methods can predict axial pile capacity. The methods are the Engineering News formula currently used by Wisconsin DOT, the FHWA-Gates formula, the Pile Driving Analyzer, the Washington State DOT. Further analysis was conducted on the FHWA-Gates method to improve its ability to predict axial capacity. Improvements were made by restricting the application of the formula to piles with axial capacity less than 750 kips, and to apply adjustment factors based on the pile being driven, the hammer being used, and the soil into which the pile is being driven. Two databases of pile driving information and static or dynamic load tests were used evaluate these methods. Analysis is conducted to compare the impact of changing to a more accurate predictive method, and incorporating LRFD. The results of this study indicate that a “corrected” FHWA-Gates and the WSDOT formulas provide the greatest precision. Using either of these two methods and changing to LRFD should increase the need for foundation (geotechnical) capacity by less than 10 percent.
Comparison of Five Different Methods for Determining Pile Bearing Capacities. Final Report
The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy and precision with which five methods can predict axial pile capacity. The methods are the Engineering News formula currently used by Wisconsin DOT, the FHWA-Gates formula, the Pile Driving Analyzer, the Washington State DOT. Further analysis was conducted on the FHWA-Gates method to improve its ability to predict axial capacity. Improvements were made by restricting the application of the formula to piles with axial capacity less than 750 kips, and to apply adjustment factors based on the pile being driven, the hammer being used, and the soil into which the pile is being driven. Two databases of pile driving information and static or dynamic load tests were used evaluate these methods. Analysis is conducted to compare the impact of changing to a more accurate predictive method, and incorporating LRFD. The results of this study indicate that a “corrected” FHWA-Gates and the WSDOT formulas provide the greatest precision. Using either of these two methods and changing to LRFD should increase the need for foundation (geotechnical) capacity by less than 10 percent.
Comparison of Five Different Methods for Determining Pile Bearing Capacities. Final Report
Long J. H. (author) / Hendrix J. (author) / Jaromin D. (author)
2009
176 pages
Report
No indication
English
Highway Engineering , Transportation Safety , Road Transportation , Construction Equipment, Materials, & Supplies , Pile capacity , Bearing capacity , Highway engineering , Construction , Safety , Stress analysis , Resistance factor , Driving piles , Bridges , Highway structures , Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Pile capacities by load tests at five locations in Turkey
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1991
DETERMINATION OF DESIGN PILE UPLIFT CAPACITIES USING DYNAMIC PILE TESTING METHODS
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1995
Mono pile foundation. Final report
| NTIS | 1997