18 views

Uploaded by eliarestrepo

Estudio de suelos

- Metode Konstruksi Reklamasi Pantai
- Settlement Prevision of Piles Under Vertical Load_castelli2003
- Compressive Pile Load Test on CFA Piles & on a Driven Timber Pile
- 110001 Blue Plains Project Summary
- Gz 2412431253
- 9 Numerical Evaluation of Deep Foundations in a Tropical Soil
- 5 - Piles
- 1114civej05.pdf
- Calculation All
- 67_Massimino
- Cyclic Axial Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups in Sand
- Glina - Conclusions (Eng) - 06.10.2017
- Proceedings on Design and Construction of Deep Foundation FHWA
- 359 Wide Storage Tanks on Piled Foundations.pdf
- Five Dif Methods for Det Pile Capacity.pdf
- 6)Pile Foundations
- Modeling Sheet Pile in STAAD
- RCC Detail Design of Bridge No.-422
- STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE WITH & WITHOUT SOIL INTERACTION
- Top Down Method

You are on page 1of 17

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

founded in a tropical soil of the Midwestern Brazil

C.C. Mendoza a,, R. Cunha b, A. Lizcano c,1

a

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Braslia, Braslia, DF, Brazil

c

SRK Consulting, Vancouver, Canada

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 7 July 2014

Received in revised form 3 September 2014

Accepted 12 September 2014

Available online 3 April 2015

Keywords:

Standard pile group

Piled raft

Hypoplasticity

Finite element analysis

Load test

Tropical soil

Foundation design

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents and discusses the behavior of standard groups and piled rafts constructed with helical screw piles founded in the typical soil of the Federal District of Brazil (DF). The paper initially

characterizes the soil deposit of a new Experimental Site in the DF via laboratory (standard characterization, triaxial) and eld (standard penetration and at dilatometer) tests. It then moves to explain a

recently adjusted (hypoplasticity) constitutive model that takes on consideration the inherent soils structure to simulate the behavior of this typical geotechnical material. The model was calibrated via point

load test analyses and incorporated into a nite element methodology (FEM) routine internal to the traditional Abaqus software. Real scale eld load tests on standard pile groups and piled rafts executed with

this pile type were carried out in the new site. FEM analyses were used to calibrate the model and to

expand the knowledge on the shearing mechanisms, generated stresses, displacement elds, load sharing, group efciency, and on the contribution of the supporting raft to the overall systems performance.

Conclusions of practical and academic interest are given for this new type of foundation employed in the

region.

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The city of Brasilia, the Brazilian capital, is situated in the

Midwest central area of the country, a at plateau with a common

(tropical) soil deposit. Generally speaking, this region contains in

its initial few meters a highly weathered, laterized and collapsible

clayey type soil, locally known as the Braslia porous clay. Research

theses and past publications from the University of Braslia (UnB),

as those from Araki [1], Cunha et al. [2], Cardoso [3], Mota [4] or

Anjos [5] have already extensively studied this material and others

in the DF. Since it covers more than 80% of the districts surface, it is

also logical to study the behavior of deep foundation systems in a

site with similar characteristics, specially for piled rafts where the

soil-raft contact do intervene in the mechanical performance of the

system.

Alluvial Anker piles, as locally known in Braslia, are a modied

type of the common helical screw pile (well described by Clayton

[6]). It has recently been introduced in construction sites in this

city [7] where the soil reinforcement is done underneath bridge

or viaduct abutments. It can also be adopted for light foundations

Corresponding author.

1

Previously with Geotechnical Research Group at the University of Los Andes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.09.010

0266-352X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Although it is not a new foundation technology, its usage, design,

and mechanical behavior, still lacks a better understanding for

the tropical deposits in which it is currently being founded.

Therefore, this paper focuses on the experimental behavior, on

the numerical simulation, and on the derived traditional variables

for group and piled raft systems, constructed in the tropical soil of

the DF with this pile type.

Real (large) scale load tests on several foundation systems constructed in a new Experimental Site in this city were carried out.

The site was thoroughly investigated via laboratory and in situ

tests in order to provide backbone data to calibrate geotechnical

models. The hypoplasticity was then adopted as the framework

for the constitutive model to be assessed herein. This model, with

the incorporation of the soils cementing structure, was further

developed and incorporated into a numerical FEM (Abaqus)

routine. With this tool, it was possible to carry out numerical simulations in which the load curves, the stress and strain regimes, the

failure and working loads, and the load share from the systems

components (soil, pile, raft), among other variables, could be

assessed. Some of them were directly compared to the experimental instrumented data (as the load versus displacement curves),

enabling conclusions on the mechanical behavior of the loaded

systems.

188

that are undoubtedly of interest for practical design engineers or

researchers in this area. It is based on a recently defended D.Sc.

Thesis [8] of the University of Braslia.

2. Experimental Site

All the experiments are related to a new Experimental Site

located in Solotrat Ltds headquarters in the DF, in the outskirts

of the city of Braslia. Fig. 1 graphically depicts the location of

the city within the national (Midwest), regional (DF) and local (district) context. Approximate coordinates of the site are 15 480 5900 (S)

and 47 570 5800 (W), with a mean elevation of 1084 m above sea

level.

Within this site several standard penetration tests with (SPTT)

and without (SPT) torque measurements were carried out, together

with Marchetti Dilatometer tests (DMT), and load tests on foundation systems (isolated-I, standard groups-PG and piled rafts-PR),

within a particular arrangement depicted in Fig. 2. Undisturbed soil

blocks were also retrieved from a trench excavated in the site (see

this same gure).

As previously noted, the main difference between the loaded

systems was the contact (PR), or not (PG), of the top raft with

the supercial soil during tests. In the particular conditions of

the former case, it was strictly followed the general denition of

Janda et al. [9] for PR systems.

As one can nally note in Fig. 2, systems of 16 piles (PG and PR)

were tested with distinct internal arrays for some cases, which

demanded a multitude of reaction piles (also depicted) all around

the systems.

3. Soil characteristics

3.1. In situ tests

SPT, SPTT and DMT tests were carried out in the site to geotechnically characterize it and to provide an initial basis of model

parameters for subsequent analyses. Disturbed samples from the

SPT thick-walled standard tube were also retrieved, and helped

in the visual & tactile assessment of the distinct soil layers. All tests

were carried out in accordance to the Brazilian NBR6484 (2001)

standard [10].

Fig. 3 presents both SPT and SPTT results, in terms of blow

counts and peak torque. It also describes the general division for

the layers at the site, in accordance to the following depths:

05 m: reddish, very soft to soft, laterized silty sand (Braslia

porous clay), with water level around 4.5 m;

58 m: brownish, medium to stiff, laterized sandy silt (Braslia

porous clay);

89 m: white, stiff to hard sandy silt (transition layer);

914 m: brownish, very stiff to hard silty clay (saprolite of

slate);

Deeper than 14 m: yellowish hard sandy silt (saprolite of slate).

Flat Marchetti dilatometer tests were carried out, in accordance

to the U.S.A. ASTM D6635-01 standard [11]. Unfortunately just one

sounding with this test was possible, as the blade got stuck at

around 8 m depth, and damaged the rods.

Fig. 4 presents the intermediate variables from the unique DMT

carried out (respectively the indexes for horizontal stress and

material). From this data one concludes that the material behaves

as normally consolidated silty sand up to around 5 m and as an

overconsolidated sandy silt from 5 to 8 m.

Laboratory tests were performed not only to complement the

assessment of parameters of this new site, but also to evaluate

the performance (and calibrate) a new rheological model for the

soil. All tests were done with an undisturbed block sample

retrieved at around 3 m deep in the site, inside a trench (see

Fig. 2) excavated for this purpose.

Characterization tests were composed of sieving and sedimentation analyses, plus Atteberg limits. Based on that, the sample

was classied as CH by the Unied Classication system, with a

plastic Index of 12% and a natural unit weight around 15 kN/m3.

Ten triaxial tests in total were also performed, some of them with

distinct (shearing) velocities, others with relaxation of stresses,

some with distinct stress path trajectories and one test with an

unstructured sample. All tests were done in saturated conditions.

Four samples were initially submitted to an anisotropic consolidation in the triaxial chamber, with stress ratios (g = deviatoric/

mean stress q/p0 ) respectively equal to 0.50.0, 0.3, and 0.5.

Fig. 5 presents such results.

The rst consolidation was performed with a stress ratio of

g = 0.3 (Fig. 6) to a constant vertical strain velocity, and the point

where relaxation begins, and nishes, has a mean effective stress

of 335 kPa. After that, consolidation continued till a p0 of 535 kPa,

being unloaded to 5 kPa afterwards. The sample was then loaded

again to a p0 of 580 kPa. In addition, a test with this same stress

path was made in a sample without structure (Fig. 6). Two other

samples were then anisotropically consolidated from the initial

unload stage, with g equals to 0.00.5 and 0.5, as noticed in this

same Fig. 5.

The second consolidation was performed with a stress ratio of

g = 0.5 to a mean effective stress (p0 ) of 140 kPa, under a constant

vertical strain velocity, being followed by an unloading to the isotropic state (g = 0.0). Subsequently, in the same sample, consolidation was performed in isotropic conditions (g = 0.0) to a p0 of

590 kPa. Fig. 7 shows the consolidation curve for the sample at g

equals to 0.50.0, while Fig. 8 a similar one to an g respectively

equal to 0.5.

From Fig. 7 it is observed the change of preconsolidation stress

with the change of the stress trajectory. Note nevertheless that

both two trajectories do return to the same consolidation line.

In Fig. 8 a stress ratio of 0.5 was adopted, together with variable

velocities of vertical strain. The test was performed with a deformation rate of 0.01 mm/min, being suddenly changed to

0.001 mm/min afterwards. This variation was done at two distinct

effective stress levels to check the response to velocity rate effects.

The results are also consistent with the work presented by

Tatsuoka et al. [12], but on a smaller scale.

Six extra triaxial tests were also made, under drained and

undrained shearing conditions. Such results were used to obtain

both the critical state parameters and the deformability moduli

of the supercial soil. Fig. 9 presents the stress paths in the q x p0

environment.

The three samples sheared under undrained conditions (with p0

of 110, 200 and 300 kPa) had a constant vertical deformation rate

of 0.05 mm/min. Results in this gure show that the paths reach

the critical state line and continue through it, leading to a gain of

shearing resistance with strain. This is not a typical behavior for

clays, as illustrated by Roscoe et al. [13].

Moreover, it was also observed that the higher were the conning pressures the higher were the obtained peak deviator stresses

at unitary strain (Fig. 10b). A typical behavior in soil mechanics,

according to Whitlow [14].

The other three samples sheared under drained conditions

(equally with p0 of 110, 200 and 300 kPa) were tested with distinct

values of deformation rate, as shown in Fig. 10a. Again, to check on

Fig. 1. Approximate location of Solotrats site (Google Maps and Earth and Arcview).

189

190

show that the paths reached the critical state line. Its noticeable

that shear velocity has no inuence on test results, indicating that

this soil has virtually no viscous effect.

An important aspect is the presence of cementation, similar to

those reported by Lagioia and Nova [15] for cemented soils.

Basically one notices that, to a mean effective stress of 110 kPa,

the cementing inuence in the soil stiffness corresponds to 7% of

the axial strain. To 200 kPa of stress, the inuence reduces to

24% of the axial strain, and to 300 kPa the corresponding inuence of the cementation decreases to values as lower as 1.5% of

the axial strain (Fig. 10a). This is an important aspect since these

values are similar to instrumented deformations of typical geotechnical structures.

Using the interpreted data from in situ tests via well known

(empirical) equations proposed by Skempton [16], Meyerhof [17],

Clayton [18], Marchetti [19] and Lacasse and Lunne [20], together

with previously shown lab. (triaxial) data, it was possible to derive

estimates for strength and deformation parameters at each soil

strata.

191

had this contact with the top block (which needed to be constructed to load it), being also considered as a PR system. PG systems were simulated by excavating a gap underneath the raft

before the tests.

For the purpose of this paper only the tests loaded in the vertical direction will be presented, although laterally loaded tests were

also performed (see Mendoza 2013 [8]).

4.1. Alluvial Anker pile

This geotechnical interpretation set was complemented by published results from the traditional UnB Experimental Site, which

has a similar soil prole (see Araki [1], Mota [4] and Anjos [5]).

Table 1 presents the original derived parameters, valid in the

context of a Mohr Coulomb rheological model, as initially interpreted for the Solotrat site. Laboratory results have also conrmed

that shearing velocity is not a key aspect of the problem, hence,

constitutive models without the viscous effect can be undoubtedly

used without detriment to the analyses.

In Fig. 6 the effect of the structure of the soil is related to the differences between the consolidation line of the unstructured sample and the corresponding one of the structured sample. Similar

effect is observed in Fig. 9, where cohesion is noted (in the space

q p0 ) basically given by the structure of the soil.

4. Pile load tests

Several foundation systems were constructed in the

Experimental Site, side by side in a layout surrounded by reaction

piles that has facilitated the load tests.

The tests started on December 2010 (isolated pile) and nished

on June 2011 (6 piles PR). For each system (or no. of piles), the tests

with the soil in contact with the raft (PR) were always carried out

rst, followed by those without contact (PG), done in the same previously tested system.

One should note however that by the fact that PG systems were

carried out at the same previously tested ones (PR), and that an

excavation process took place from one series of tests to the others,

that some inherent input error may be included in the results,

given loadingunloading effects. Nevertheless, it is believed that

the errors may be of small magnitude to hinder the tendencies of

the correct results.

Fig. 11 depicts the general characteristics of the tested systems.

The triangular shaped system with 3 piles was solely tested

with the contact soil with raft (hence a PR). The single pile also

formed the basis of the foundation type in the loaded systems.

Figs. 1214 show the general aspects of this particular foundation, as well as a typical drilling hydraulic machine.

The piles were either executed with a nominal diameter of

17 cm and 12 m in length (reaction piles), or 13 cm dia. and 8 m

in length (tested piles).

The piles are done by continuous drilling with simultaneous

injection of a coolant uid, which can be water or a watercement

mixture (the latter was adopted herein).

The uid is injected through a rigid hollow steel tube with an

enlarged base (cone shaped cutting edge. See Fig. 12). The tube

itself forms the structural element of the pile, and is not withdrawn

after soil excavation. It is totally immersed, and surrounded, by the

pressurized watercement uid injected during self-drilling and

post drilling stages. Once cured, this uid forms the corrugated

shaft of the pile.

Fig. 15 schematically depicts the distinct execution stages of

this pile type, from the assemblage in the drilling machine to the

nal injection stage.

Perhaps one of the main advantages of the Alluvial Anker is the

execution time. Given the fact that it practically has in the same

stage both soil excavation and piles shaft reinforcement and execution, it can be indeed done in a fast manner.

Figs. 16 and 17 bring the average execution times for each of

aforementioned diameters, during drilling and subsequent postdrilling (injection) phases.

As one can notice, for the (optimum) conditions of the

Experimental Site, and taking on account that no major drawbacks

happened during eld operations (i.e., Murphys Law did not apply

in this case), an average execution time of 15 min. was accomplished per pile. This relates to the total time considering all execution phases.

4.2. Load test procedures

All tests were done in accordance to the Brazilian NBR 12131

(2006) [21] standard for slow maintained pile load tests.

Therefore, they consisted of equal increments by no more than

20% of the piles workload, followed by the load stabilization for at

Fig. 9. Stress path in drained and undrained conditions for normally consolidated

soil.

192

Fig. 10. Stress and strain curves from for (a) CID triaxial tests and (b) CIU ones.

Table 1

Elasto-plastic (Mohr Coulomb) parameters interpreted for Solotrats Experimental

Site.

Parameter

First layer

Friction angle

Elasticity modulus

Cohesion

Poissons ratio

Second layer

Friction angle

Elasticity modulus

Cohesion

Poissons ratio

Third layer

Friction angle

Elasticity modulus

Cohesion

Poissons ratio

Fourth layer

Friction angle

Elasticity modulus

Cohesion

Poissons ratio

Symbols

/

E

c

l

/

E

c

l

/

E

c

l

/

E

c

Unit

Value

MPa

kPa

29

9

14

0.35

MPa

kPa

35

38

20

0.29

MPa

kPa

39

60

50

0.27

MPa

kPa

35

43

28

0.29

30 min) are taken. The testing load is raised to a nal value equals

to two times the predicted workload of the pile, when the system is

nally unloaded.

For the load tests a hydraulic jack of 2000 kN capacity was

adopted, together with a load cell of 1 kN of internal resolution.

Displacements were measured by four analogical dial gauges with

resolution of 0.01 mm each, installed all around the base plate of

the jack.

Fig. 18 shows the arrangement of the testing elements on top of

the supercial rigid raft, while Fig. 19 a typical set up with reaction

frames and reaction piles.

In total, twelve load tests were carried out in this site, being

seven related to PR systems and 5 to PG ones. Figs. 20 and 21

respectively show the obtained results for both systems.

Both gures contains a linear load x settlement relationship

that represents the conventional failure load criterion, in accordance to the Brazilian NBR 6122 (2010) [22] standard. It was

therefore based on this criterion that the ultimate load of each system was dened, in the intersection between the standard line and

the experimental load test result.

In some few cases where such intersection did not occur, due to

an insufcient displacement of the tested pile, the results had to be

extrapolated by the Van der Veen (1953) technique [23] (red line in

Figs. 20 and 21).

Fig. 22 shows the failure loads estimated by aforementioned

methodology, for both foundation systems. It is clearly noticeable

that PR systems do have a reasonable increase in load given the

contact of the raft with the supercial soil. The average increase

was in the range of 18% of the conventional failure load of the

PG systems, which is not negligible.

5. Constitutive models used in FEM

The selected constitutive models to the nite element simulations were, respectively, the hypoplastic with structure, the

standard elastoplastic one and the simple elastic model.

5.1. Hypoplastic with structure model

The rst tested model was the hypoplastic with structure. This

model was adopted in the rst layer of the strata (see Table 1),

where the soft Braslia porous clay prevails. It was further incorporated into the nite element simulations, yet to be presented.

In the present paper the proposal made by Masn [24] was chosen given the simplicity required to implement it into the code, as

well as recorded good accuracy. However, a brief discussion of the

soils structure and the constituent models with structure is presented next.

5.1.1. Introduction in the structured soils and constitutive models

The structure models were developed by research of Burland

[25], Leroueil and Vaughan [26], Adachi, et al. [27],

Anagnostopoulos, et al. [28], Cuccovillo and Coop [29], Cotecchia

and Chandler [30] among others. It has shown the difference in

the behavior of reconstituted and natural soils, explained such differences as the lack of structure (arrangement of particles and

bonds between particles) associated to natural soils. Based on that,

some researchers tried to develop constitutive formulations that

could take on consideration the structures effect. Among them,

one can name Gens and Nova [31], Vatsala, et al. [32], Liu and

Carter [33], Masn [24], Yan and Li [34]. The majority of formulations change the shape and size of the state boundary surface

193

Fig. 11. Arrangement, location and characteristics of the tested foundation systems.

Fig. 12. Self-drilling steel tube and open tip-Alluvial Anker piles base and body.

(SBS) of the soil by two state variables (in functions of the stress

state): the rst is sensitivity (s) and second is the shift of the SBS

towards the tensile stresses zone (natural cohesion). It means that

the stress tensor (r) of the model is the tensor without structure

(rReconstituted ), besides of the stress tensor for the soil structure

(rStructure ) (Eq. 1), with a parallel coupling. This proposal has already

been made by Baudet and Wu [35] and Vatsala et al. [32], where

the stress tensor for soil structure (rStructure ) is a simple linear elastic relation which disappears with the increasing stress.

r_ r_ Reconstituted r_ Structure

The theoretical framework of hypoplasticity was developed by

Kolymbas [36] and dened with a continuous tangential stiffness

of the strain rate [37]. Afterwards Kolymbas performs the

been several modications as presented by Wu [38],

Wolffersdorff [39] and Niemunis [37] among others. Previous

194

been extensions to represent the behavior of ne soils as proposed

by Niemunis [37] and Masn [24] to natural soils (with structure).

incorporation of a structure degradation law by means of the proposal made by Baudet and Stallebras [40]. The proposal consists in

the incorporation of a larger size swept-out-memory (SOM) surface (this is a close approximation of the SBS), by altering

Hvorslevs equivalent stress by a scalar (s) value (in a constant volume section through SOM), as illustrated in Fig. 23.

The modication done by Masn [24] basically adds 3 new

parameters (s0 ; k; A). The rst (s0 ) is the initial value of the state

variable of the structure factor or sensitivity (s), shown in Eq. (3)

(law of degradation). The other factors in the equation are the

(sf ) factor, which is the limit to a stable state with a value of 1

(Fig. 23); the (k) factor, which is a parameter that controls the

degradation of the structure; k which is the slope of the virgin isotropic compressibility line, in a double natural logarithm chart; (d )

(Eq. (4)) which is a damage strain that depends on the volumetric

and shear strain rates; and the (A) factor which controls the importance of the shear strain, with values in the range 0 < A < 0:5. A

complete mathematical formulation of the model is given in

Appendix A.

stress rate, D is the Eulers stretching tensor, L and N are fourth

Fig. 15. Schematic phases of the Alluvial Anker pile execution (after Barbosa [7]).

195

materials in the Abaqus software. It was written in Fortran code,

and inputs increases of strains and returns stress increments.

Given the previously mentioned (Section 3) anisotropic consolidations, CID and CIU triaxial data, it was possible in this stage to

directly compare numerical and experimental results. Figs. 2426

show such comparisons, illustrating a reasonably good agreement

of all trajectories, in the spaces e x p0 ; q x p0 and q x a . Table 2

species the derived model parameters, from aforementioned

calibrations.

The rst tested model was the hypoplastic with structure. This

model was adopted in the rst layer of the strata (see Table 1),

where the soft Braslia porous clay prevails. It was further

incorporated into the nite element simulations, yet to be

presented.

5.2. Elasto-plastic model

Fig. 16. Average time spent for drilling phase.

and second order [24] invariants. The model is written as a nonlinear increasing function of time to correlate stresses and strains.

T L : D NkDk

j

s_ s sf _ d

rk

A

_ d _ 2v

_ 2

1A s

2

3

4

natural or a reconstituted sample, tested in a triaxial isotropic consolidated chamber.

The variables (k ; j ; N) are similar to those in the Cam-Clay (CC)

model, and can be assessed in a double logarithm chart. The variable (r) is obtained from undrained triaxial tests as the ratio

between the undrained bulk and the shear moduli. The (/c ) angle

is analogous to the (M) parameter, i.e., the slope of the critical state

line on the CC model.

The hypoplastic model with structure was then implemented,

and validated, with the incremental driver program [41]. This is

the program to implement constitutive models to the level of a

The second model tested herein was a simple, standard, elastoplastic model that responds to the known Mohr Coulomb failure

criteria. This model has been implemented for the nite element

simulation. Due to fact that this model has only four parameters

and due to the fact that all of them have a physical explanation,

it has a great popularity in the geotechnical practices [42]. Given

its simplicity (and lack of data from a deeper prole), this model

was adopted in the remaining 3 layers of the strata (see parameters

in Table 1). It was also further incorporated into nite element simulations, yet to be presented.

In the elastic range, the relationship between stress and strain

tensor is linear, with two parameters: Youngs modulus (E) and

Poissons ratio (l). This behavior is valid until the stress-path

reaches the yield envelope, at which time plastic deformation

starts. The yield envelope is of a Mohr Coulomb type and there

are with it two soil parameters (/ = friction angle of the soil and

c = cohesion) associated.

5.3. Elastic model

The third model is an elastic model. This is a very simple model

where the relationship between the stress and strain tensor is linear by means of a elastic modulus, which is function of the Youngs

modulus (E) and Poissons ratio (l) [43]. This model is used in FEM

analyses of pile foundations under assumptions that the piled raft

is innitely rigid in comparison with the soil (therefore the soil

deforms rst and to a larger extent).

196

Finite element (FEM) analyses of all foundation systems were

carried out in order to verify the geotechnical parameters and

adopted layering (from previous sections), and the suitability of

the rheological models to properly simulate the physical phenomena. Besides, the FEM analyses were used to further calibrate the

parameters (allowing slightly value changes) in order to use this

technique to predict testing scenarios in a subsequent future stage

(which, by the way, is not covered here given space limitations).

The initial simulation steps and the nal calibration have also

expanded the knowledge on the shearing mechanisms, generated

stresses, displacement elds, load share, pile efciency, and on

the contribution of the supporting raft to the overall systems performance to be presented in this section.

6.1. FEM environment

Abaqus environment was used to enable the 3D analyses of the

systems. In all cases, boundary effects were avoided by placing the

center of the raft 30 (individual pile) diameters away from lateral

frontiers. Likewise, a distance of 1=2 pile length was left between

pile tips and the lower end. Fig. 27 schematically depicts the

geometry for the 6-pile (PG and PR) cases.

was the generation of the 3D mesh. In order to reach a nal, optimum, condition in terms of simulation time, stability and quality

of response, several elements were tested in terms of type, size,

distribution and number (see Mendoza 2013).

Hence, C3D8 (continuous and 8 nodes), C3D8R (continuous, 8

nodes, and reduced integration) and C3D8P (continuous, 8 nodes

with pore pressure measurement) were respectively selected for

the dry soil/pile elements and the saturated soil. Fig. 28 shows

the geometry for the 1-pile (PG and PR) cases, and delineates contour conditions that were similarly adopted for all analyses.

Once the geometry was created, loads in the model were

applied in three sequential stages, as follows: Geostatic initial

overburden stresses; individual pile excavations (via element

extraction); and system loading (via constant strain rate till a total

vertical displacement of 15 cm).

The latter stage was carried out in drained mode, once raft elements were inserted into analyses (with gap, PG, or without, PR, to

supercial soil). The water level and a naturally consolidated K 0

were also considered for the soil layers.

Fig. 29 depicts the initial conditions adopted throughout the

analyses.

Comparisons between the numerical predictions after initial

adjustments and calibrations, and experimental data, are presented in Figs. 30 and 31 in terms of the overall load versus settlement curve.

The results clearly show that the FEM simulation was able to

grasp the overall physical behavior obtained in the eld, at least

in terms of the generated external displacements. Assuming that

this outcome sufces to assure a reasonable understanding on

the other aspects of the shearing mechanism, some extra (numerical) results will be presented and discussed next.

Fig. 32 for instance depicts the vertical displacements and stresses generated in the surrounding soil of the 5 pile PR system.

Although not shown here (but presented in Mendoza 2013 [8]) this

result is somehow similar to those from the other PR systems. It

was noticed that, in general, the stress bulb (inuence of up to

10% of applied stresses on raft) and the displacement bulb (likewise for raft displacement) can stretch vertically and horizontally

around the raft. A practical average number would be 4 times the

shorter dimension of the raft in the vertical direction, and 2 times

in the horizontal one.

197

Fig. 23. Isotropic compression behavior of natural and reconstituted soil (after

Masn [24]).

Fig. 24. Comparison to triaxial results: (a) Compression test with g = 0.00.5. (b)

Compression test with g = 0.3. (c) Compression test with g = 0.5.

Besides, the bulbs also extend vertically from the tip of the piles

to a dimension of around 23 times the piles diameter.

The main results from the numerical analyses in terms of the

direct comparison, and individual assessment, of the distinct PG

and PR systems are given next.

6.3. Main results from FEM analyses

6.3.1. Pile efciency

Efciency factor (g ) was calculated in accordance to the definition expressed in Eq. (5). It is basically a relationship between

the ultimate capacity of the group over the ultimate capacity of a

single pile similar to those in the group, without inclusion of any

effect of the raft. Group efciency (Ge ) on the other hand was calculated in accordance to Eq. (6). This variable expresses the

relationship of the average (pile) load in the group divided by the

load of a (similar) single pile at the same vertical displacement of

the group. Both equations are solely valid for the PG systems.

PPG

np

X

g P P

i1

where P PG = ultimate load capacity of the group; g = efciency factor; np = number of piles; and P P = ultimate capacity of a similar single pile.

Fig. 25. Comparison of stress paths for CID and CIU triaxial tests.

Ge

P wrk

np

Psng

(equal to ultimate/1.5); np = number of piles; and P sng = load of a

similar single pile at same group displacement.

Given the fact that the single pile had a contact of the raft with

the soil (being considered as a PR), its experimental value could not

198

Fig. 26. Left: Comparison of stress paths in drained conditions; Right: Similar for undrained conditions.

Table 2

Model parameters with simulations.

j

k

/c

0.0022

0.060

2.13

31

0.35

0.4

1.5

2.5

presents the results from the numerical simulations.

An average efciency factor of 0.97, i.e., approximately one, was

obtained indicating that with the given geometric disposition of

the systems (pile to pile distances), there were almost zero detrimental effects given by the superposition of individual stress and

displacement (pile) bulbs. It also means that pile group failure

rather than block failure did happen (taking on account nomenclature given by Mandolini et al. [44]), thus conrming the pseudoindependent behavior from each of the piles of the group.

Moreover, an average group efciency of 92% was obtained,

indicating that under similar displacements, a pile within the

group had a slight smaller load than the equivalent one of a similar

single pile. It points out to a small, but existing, interaction

between the piles of the group.

Load share between each element of the PR foundation system,

i.e., piles and raft, was also derived with the numerical simulations.

These individual loads were then divided by the systems ultimate

loads (capacity) and by their working loads (ultimate/2.0), as

respectively presented in Figs. 33 and 34.

In both cases similar tendencies were noticed. That means, the

higher is the number of piles in the system, the lower is the (percentage) load share taken by each pile individually. For instance,

note that for the single 1pile-PR, the pile contributed with more

than 80% of both ultimate and working loads of the system,

whereas for the 6piles-PR the individual contribution has

decreased to values lower than 20%.

Besides, in terms of the load absorbed by the raft and by the

group itself (sum of each piles contribution), it is also clearly seen

that the higher is the number of piles, the higher will also be the

importance of the raft to the overall systems capacity (with the

exception of the larger 6piles-PR system). For instance, note again

that for the single 1pile-PR, the relative weight of the raft to the

overall (ultimate and working) capacity is very low compared to

the piles importance. Nevertheless, although still small, as one

move towards higher (pile) number PR systems, the relative contribution and weight of the raft slightly increases.

199

6.4.1. Rafts performance

A direct comparison between PG and PR systems yields a

quantitative (and indirect) measurement of the performance of

the raft to the overall systems behavior, or, in other words, how

much the system improves by having a close contact between the

raft and the supercial soil.

Thus, a practical result gathered from previous numerical analyses would be the average value of the raft contribution (in percentage) to either ultimate or working loads of the systems. In both

cases, and for all systems, an average raft load of 12% was calculated with such analyses.

Perhaps this performance is related to the (poor) supercial

characteristics of the porous Braslia clay. Indeed, Janda et al. [9]

have already noticed similar behavior from numerical analyses of

CFA (continuous ight auger) pile-PR systems founded in the

UnB Experimental site. In this particular case, the raft had the ability to increase the bearing capacity by only 15% for the simulated

systems.

Another way of checking this performance is given by the bearing capacity coefcient fPR , as dened by Eq. 6.

fPR

PPR

PGP

where fPR = capacity coefcient; P PR = load capacity of the PR system; and PGP = similar capacity of the PG system.

According to Mandolini et al. [44] fPR may be assumed as a measure of the increase of bearing capacity due to raft-soil contact. It

was calculated and presented in Table 4 with experimental, rather

than numerical, results.

Results from Table 4 clearly indicate the small, but benecial

effect of the raft (in average 18%, as noticed for Fig. 22 too).

Besides, it agrees with Mandolini et al. [44] accounts that such factor should decrease with an increasing No. of piles.

Also according to these authors, there is a critical spacing ratio

(scrit /d) for a PR system above which the failure changes from block

failure to a pile group one. This latter case is related to an almost

(pseudo) independent pile behavior, that fails without much of

interaction with adjacent piles, or with the systems components

200

generated in the simulation.

simulation.

Fig. 32. Soil displacements and stresses around 5 pile PR system and along depth.

Table 3

Efciency factors from numerical simulations from PG systems.

System

1pile-PG

2piles-PG

3piles-PG

4piles-PG

5piles-PG

6piles-PG

Ultimate

Load [kN]

g

[]

Ge

[]

419

850

1100

1800

1900

2520

1.01

0.88

1.07

0.90

1.00

91

97

88

90

93

Fig. 34. Load share between components of the PR system, in relation to the

working loads.

(raft and soil around). Moreover, PR systems that fail as a pile group

tend to have fPR greater than one.

Taking on account results from Table 4, and the fact that spacing ratios above 4 are noticed for the systems of Fig. 11, one can

conclude that they indeed failed as pile group ones (which by the

way has already been noted in the section of load share).

Fig. 33. Load share between components of the PR system, in relation to the

ultimate loads.

Cunha and Sales [45] report a eld investigation on the behavior

of piled raft foundations in the UnB Experimental Site, where four

Table 4

Experimental bearing capacity coefcients using data from both PG and PR systems.

System

2piles-PG

3piles-PG

4piles-PG

5piles-PG

6piles-PG

Ultimate load

P PR [kN]

P PG [kN]

fPR

[]

1000

1200

2000

2190

2700

650

1100

1780

1950

2520

1.53

1.09

1.12

1.12

1.07

Table 5

Experimental results using data from the PR systems.

3.

System

Ultimate values

P PR [kN]

D [mm]

Breadth

B [mm]

D/B [%]

2piles-PG

2piles-PG

3piles-PG

4piles-PG

5piles-PG

6piles-PG

480

1000

1200

2000

2190

2700

500

350

350

580

580

580

1.36

2.85

3.08

2.55

2.74

3.29

6.8

10.0

10.8

14.8

15.9

19.1

2.

PR systems were loaded at distinct conditions of soils water content and individual geometries. The settlements attained during

the tests ranged between 20 and 45 mm, and in any case, the

PR systems did not reach a settlement larger than 3% of B (systems

breadth) at the maximum load.

Using the available data for the experimental PR systems, it was

also possible to construct Table 5. This table presents the values of

load (PPR ) and displacement (D) at ultimate conditions (in accordance to the Brazilian conventional failure load criterion). It also

brings the breadth of each of the systems and the relationship D/B.

As noticed, the systems reached an average settlement around

2.6% of B, the shortest rafts dimension. This value agrees with

aforementioned results for similar soil conditions. Similarly as

other (previously given) numbers in this paper, this relationship

can be adopted as a practical design number in a rst rough

assessment.

4.

5.

6.

7. Conclusions

7.

This paper focused on the experimental and numerical behavior

of standard groups and piled rafts constructed with helical screw

piles (a novel feature in the region), founded in the typical soil of

the Federal District of Brazil. This is a particular tropical and laterized soil, which characteristics that can be somehow found in other

deposits of the Midwest region of this country.

The paper investigated and characterized a new Experimental

Site, presenting an overview of the main geotechnical parameters

for a simple elasto-plastic model via laboratory and in situ tests.

Specic point load (lab) tests were coupled to numerical FEM

analyses to calibrate a new (modied) hypoplastic model that

can incorporate the soils structure. This model was further adopted

into numerical simulations to include some of the complex features of the supercial porous clay strata of the site.

The calibrated numerical tool aimed the expansion of the

knowledge on the behavior of the tested foundation systems, in

terms of traditional (piled raft) variables, design considerations,

and overall (shearing and displacement) mechanisms. Practical

and academic conclusions of real added value for professionals of

the studied region or elsewhere are given, as follows:

1. Hipoplasticity with the modications proposed in the present

paper has proved to grasp reasonably well the main, complex,

geotechnical characteristics of the supercial tropical soil of

the Federal District of Brazil. This rheological model can

201

denitively be used into numerical simulations as those presented herein, to acquire knowledge on the approximate behavior of common engineering structures founded on this

particular strata.

For (pile group) systems under similar conditions as those studied herein, the average efciency factor is close to unity, indicating that detrimental effects given by the superposition of

individual stress and displacement bulbs are negligible. It also

means, and conrms, that individual pile failures, rather than

block failures, are the main shearing mechanisms that takes

place underneath the systems during soil plastication.

Besides, at identical displacement levels, a pile within the (pile

group) system has a slight smaller load than the equivalent one

of a similar single pile. This feature leads to a conclusion that,

although small, there is indeed some interaction between the

piles of the group.

For (piled raft) systems under similar conditions as those studied herein, the region of inuence (stress and strain bulbs)

around the raft can stretch to around 4 times the rafts breadth

in the vertical direction, and 2 times in the horizontal one. This

bulb also extends downwards below the pile tips, within a zone

of around 23 times the piles diameter.

Besides, for such (piled raft) systems, there is a load share

between the elements that compose the system, i.e., raft, piles

and surrounding soil. The contribution of the raft to the total

load is not high, but nevertheless not insignicant. It has been

shown that the raft was able to absorb a value in the range of

12% of the total (ultimate or working) load. As one move

towards systems with higher number of piles, hence with larger

raft dimensions, the relative importance of the raft to the total

systems capacity slightly increases, as it also decreases the percentage of load share taken by each pile individually.

Finally, it is clearly noticeable that (piled raft) systems do have a

reasonable increase in load given the contact of the raft with the

supercial soil. It has been shown an average increase in the

range of 18% of the conventional failure load of standard (pile

group) systems, which is by no means negligible. Moreover, at

such ultimate conditions, it has also been shown that (piled

raft) systems do not displace more than around 3% of the rafts

breadth in the vertical direction.

Helical screw piles have shown to be feasible to be employed in

the region under certain construction characteristics (viaducts,

soil reinforcement, small structures, and so on), where the fast

speed of execution (15 min) and eld behavior (slender friction

piles for compression or tension loads), add a striking competitiveness to this pile when compared to other solutions.

paper was limited in scope and dimension, generalized conclusions

have been drawn, and knowledge was undoubtedly generated. The

provided information can of course be referenced as an initial

guideline in the design of similar foundation systems for the

region, or perhaps in others that equal conditions apply. It also

serves as a rough insight in the complex soil-structure problem

that is related to particular foundation systems constructed in

regions of structured, laterized and tropical soil deposits.

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible through an existing joint technical co-operation research program from the Pilot and Los Andes

Universities in Colombia and the University of Braslia in Brazil,

where students and professors from both institutions were able

to correspond and interact.

The authors also thank the Brazilian sponsorship organizations

CNPq and CAPES for all related support in this and in all other

202

studies carried out by the second author, either in terms of personal research grants, or via sabbatical and student scholarships.

One of such scholarships allowed the rst author to pursue his

Doctorate in Brazil, strengthening the cooperation links between

this country and his homeland.

The rst author thanks to the project Study of the mechanical

behavior of bases for pavements constructed with soilcement

mixes for the nancial support.

Appendix A

T f s L : D f s f d NkDk

A:1

time, (D) as the rate of change of strain in time, the fourth-order

tensor (L) (Eq. (A.2)) and the second-order tensor (N) (Eq. (A.9)).

1 2

bT

b

c1 F I c2 a2 T

b

b

T:T

A:2

b (the Cauchy stress tensor (T) divided by the trace

stress tensor ( T)

tensor) and the criterion of the critical state of MatsuokaNakai

(F) (Eq. (A.3)), a ) (Eq. (A.4)), as well as scalars of the factor (c1 )

(Eq. (A.5 and (c2 ) (Eq. (A.6)), and nally (I) is a fourth order tensor

unit.

s

1

2 tan2 w

1

p

tan2 w

F

p tan w

8

2 2 tan w cos 3h 2 2

p

33 sin /c

p

a

2 2 sin /c

A:3

A:4

(a) (Eq. (A.7 and (r) is a constant of the ratio between bulk modulus

and the undrained shear modulus. Also, it is already taken into

account the inuence of the structure factor (Si ) (Eq. (A.8)).

c1

p1

trT

f s Si 3 a2 2a a 3

k

a

2p

fd

spe

A:12

A:13

References

material) for Abaqus program are given below:

The basic equation is shown in Eq. (A.1).

scalar (s) with the addition of the structure.

p !

23 a2 2a 3a

9rSi

3

c2 1 1 c1 2

a

1

k j Si 3 a2

p

ln

a

k j Si a 3

ln 2

s s sf

Si

s

A:5

A:6

A:7

A:8

Tensor (m) (Eq. (A.10)) and function (Y) (Eq. (A.11)) can be used

to obtain the tensor (N) (Eq. (A.9)) with the materials ow rule.

Function (Y) (Eq. (A.11)) relates the critical stress with the stress

tensor invariants function.

m

N L : Y

kmk

"

!#

b 6T

b:T

b1

a b b T

TT

m

b:T

b

3 a 2 T

F

F

!

"

#

p

2

I1 I2 9I3 1 sin uc

3a

1

Y

2

3 a2

8I3 sin uc

A:9

A:10

A:11

factors (f s ) (Eq. (A.12 and (f d ) (Eq. (A.13)) representing picnotropy

and barotropy factors of the material. They are affected by the soils

structure (f sr ) factor (factor unstructured model f s ) multiplied by a

[1] Araki MS. Aspects related to the properties of the porous and collapsible soils

of the Federal District. M.sc. thesis; University of Braslia; Braslia, DF, Brazil;

1997.

[2] Cunha R, Jardim N, Pereira J. In situ characterization of a tropical clay via

dilatometer tests. In: Geo-congress 99 on behavioral characteristics of residual

soils, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 92, Charlotte, vol. 1; 1999. p. 113

22.

[3] Cardoso F. Properties and mechanical behavior of soils from the Brazilian

Central Plateau. Ph.d. thesis; University of Braslia; Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2002.

[4] Mota NMB. Advanced in situ tests in the porous unsaturated clay of Braslia:

interpretation for foundation projects. Ph.d. thesis; University of Braslia;

Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2003.

[5] Anjos GJ. Study of the behavior of bored foundations in tropical soils. Ph.d.

thesis; University of Braslia; Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2006.

[6] D.J. Clayton, Basic helical screw pile design. Internal report earth contact

products, vol. 1. LLC; 2005. p. 13.

[7] Barbosa M. Alluvial anker as alternative to foundations in soft clay. Tech rep 1;

Solotrat Engenharia Geotcnica Ltda.: Braslia, Brazil; 2009.

[8] Mendoza CC. Experimental and numerical behaviour of deep foundations

made up by anker alluvial type piles founded in a porous soil of federal district

(in portuguese). Ph.d. thesis; University of Braslia; Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2013.

[9] Janda T, Cunha RP, Kuklk P, Anjos GM. Three dimensional nite element

analysis and back-analysis of CFA standard pile groups and piled rafts founded

on tropical soil. Soils Rocks 2009;32(1):318.

[10] ABNT-6484. Simple identication sounding with the SPT testing procedure.

Brazilian association of technical norms ABNT; 2001.

[11] ASTM-D6635-01. Standard test method for performing the at plate

dilatometer, 2001; 2007.

[12] Tatsuoka F, Santicci de Magistris F, Hayano K, Momoya Y, Koseki J. Some new

aspects of time effects on the stress and strain behavior of stiff geomaterials.

Geotech Hard Soils Soft Rocks 2000;1:1285371.

[13] Roscoe KH, Schoeld AN, Thurairajah A. Yielding of clays in states wetter than

critical. Geotechnique 1963;13(3):21140.

[14] Whitlow R. Basic soil mechanics. 1st ed. New York: Wiley; 1995. ISBN 968-261239-x.

[15] Nova R, Lagioia R. An experimental and theoretical study of the behaviour of a

calcarenite in triaxial compression. Geotechnique 1995;45:63348. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1995.45.4.633.

[16] Skempton AW. The bearing capacity of clay. In: Building research congress,

ICE, vol. 1; 1951. p. 1809.

[17] Meyerhof GG. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesion less soils. J

Soil Mech Found Div 1956;82(1):119.

[18] Clayton C. The standard penetration test (SPT) methods and use. Tech rep

funder report/CP/7. Construction Industry Research and Information

Association (CIRIA): London, England; 1993. p. 129.

[19] Marchetti S. In situ tests by at dilatometer. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE

1980;106(3):299321.

[20] Lacasse S, Lunne T. Calibration of dilatometer correlations. In: Proceeding

international of penetration testing, ISOPT-1, vol 1; 1998. p. 53948.

[21] ABNT-12131. Piles static load test method of test. Brazilian association of

technical norms ABNT; 2006.

[22] ABNT-6122. Design and construction of foundations. Brazilian association of

technical norms ABNT; 2010.

[23] Vander V. The bearing capacity of a pile. In: Proc third international conference

soil mechanics foundation engineering, vol. 2; 1953. p. 8490.

[24] Masn D. Hypoplastic models for ne-grained soils. Thesis of doctor of

philosophy; Charles University; Prague, Czech Republic; 2006.

[25] Burland JB. On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays.

Geotechnique 1990;40:32978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.329.

[26] Leroueil S, Vaughan PR. The general and congruent effects of structure in

natural soils and weak rocks. Geotechnique 1990;40:46788. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.467.

[27] Adachi T, Oka F, Hirata T, Hashimoto T, Pradhan T, Nagaya J, et al. Triaxial and

torsional hollow cylinder tests of sensitive natural clay and an elastoviscoplastic constitutive model. In: Proc Xth European conference on soil

mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 1; 1991. p. 36.

[28] Anagnostopoulos AG, Kalteziotis N, Tsiambaos GK, Kavvadas M. Geotechnical

properties of the Corinth Canal marls. Geotech Geol Eng 1991;9:126. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00880981.

[29] Cuccovillo T, Coop MR. On the mechanics of structured sands. Geotechnique

1999;49:74160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.741.

[30] Chandler RJ, Cotecchia F. A general framework for the mechanical behaviour of

clays.

Geotechnique

2000;50:43147.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.

2000.50.4.431.

[31] Gens A, Nova R. Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded soils and

weak rocks. In: Int conf on hard soils-soft rocks, vol. 1; 1993, p. 48594.

[32] Vatsala A, Nova R, Murthy BRS. Elastoplastic model for cemented soils. J

Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127:67987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/

(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:8(679).

[33] Liu MD, Carter JP. A structured cam clay model. Tech rep research report no.

R814; University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering: Sydney,

Australia; 2006.

[34] Yan WM, Li XS. A model for natural soil with bonds. Geotechnique

2011;61:95106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.P.061.

[35] Bauer E, Wu W. A hypoplastic constitutive model for cohesive powders.

Powder

Technol

1995;85:19.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00325910(95)02999-I.

[36] Kolymbas D. Ein nichtlineares viskoplastisches Stoffgesetz fr Boden (in

german). Thesis of doctor of philosophy. University of Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe,

Germany; 1977.

[37] Niemunis A. Extended hypoplastic models for soils. Tech rep Heft 34. Institut

fur Grundbau und Bodenmechanik der Ruhr Universitat Bochum: Bochum,

Germany; 2003.

203

granular materials. Thesis of doctor of philosophy. University of Karlsruhe:

Karlsruhe, Germany; 1992.

[39] Wolffersdorff P. A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a

predened limit state surface. Mech Cohes-Frict Mater 1996;1:25171.

[40] Baudet B, Stallebrass S. A constitutive model for structured clays.

Geotechnique

2004;54:26978.

http://dx.doi.org/

10.1680/geot.54.4.269.36354.

[41] Niemunis A. Incremental driver. Users manual. University of Karlsruhe KIT;

2008. 20p.

[42] Johnson K, Lemcke P, Karunasena W, Sivakugan N. Modelling the load

deformation response of deep foundations under oblique loading. Environ

Model Softw 2006;21:137580.

[43] Desai CS, Siriwardane HJ. Constitutive laws for engineering materials with

emphasis on geologic materials. 1 ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,

USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1984. ISBN 0-13-167940-6.

[44] Mandolini A, Russo G, Viggiani C. Pile foundations: experimental

investigations, analysis and design. In: XVI international conference on soil

mechanics and geotechnical engineering, vol. 1; 2005. p. 177213.

[45] Cunha R, Sales M. Field load tests of piled footings founded on a tropical

porous clay. In: 3rd Int geotech seminar on deep foundations on bored and

auger piles, vol. 1; 1998. p. 4338.

- Metode Konstruksi Reklamasi PantaiUploaded byHosea Luahambowo
- Settlement Prevision of Piles Under Vertical Load_castelli2003Uploaded byMarcos Ma
- Compressive Pile Load Test on CFA Piles & on a Driven Timber PileUploaded bypatybag
- 110001 Blue Plains Project SummaryUploaded byviraj
- Gz 2412431253Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- 9 Numerical Evaluation of Deep Foundations in a Tropical SoilUploaded bygiagia2
- 5 - PilesUploaded byclearcasting
- 1114civej05.pdfUploaded bytrannguyenviet
- Calculation AllUploaded byHendri Hermawan
- 67_MassiminoUploaded byAhmad Waal
- Cyclic Axial Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups in SandUploaded bytamlb0507
- Glina - Conclusions (Eng) - 06.10.2017Uploaded byAlexandru Plesca
- Proceedings on Design and Construction of Deep Foundation FHWAUploaded bySharif
- 359 Wide Storage Tanks on Piled Foundations.pdfUploaded byIzam Fatima
- Five Dif Methods for Det Pile Capacity.pdfUploaded byJahid Jahidul Islam Khan
- 6)Pile FoundationsUploaded byVishnu Shaji
- Modeling Sheet Pile in STAADUploaded byalainmelcrescini
- RCC Detail Design of Bridge No.-422Uploaded byshashibhushan singh
- STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE WITH & WITHOUT SOIL INTERACTIONUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Top Down MethodUploaded bysinlekm
- Determination of Piles Settlement by Load TestUploaded bygrbuca
- 10.1007@s11204-010-9082-8Uploaded byFahmy Ardhiansyah
- Method Statement - Test PilingUploaded byMcr Kumara
- DSheetPiling Verification ReportUploaded byChrist Huynh
- ER420-130623-5014-CV-ULT - Method Statement for Bakau Piling to 1500mm RC Box DrainUploaded byWr Ar
- Geo PublicationUploaded byTigerinzoo
- Pile Test 300diaUploaded byTarkeshwar Lal Srivastava
- bore pile.pdfUploaded bytanjungulie
- Goh_EC7_Pile_CPG_July2013.pdfUploaded byHT Binh

- Proyecto Aula (Entrega 1) 1Uploaded byeliarestrepo
- Laboratorio de DensidadUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Equivalente de ArenaUploaded byeliarestrepo
- actividadesUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Arist Iz Bal 2015Uploaded byeliarestrepo
- LeasingUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Trabajo Imprimir FinalUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Trabajo Imprimir FinalUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Proyecto de Aula 2 HidraulicaUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 Generalidades_def_clases_ Pavimentos [Modo de Compatibilidad]Uploaded byeliarestrepo
- Memorias de CalculoUploaded byeliarestrepo
- TrabajoUploaded byeliarestrepo
- mapaUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Superficie y QuebradaUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Salini DadUploaded byFranco Villacorta Carranza
- Presentación- Proyectos de Expansión, Metro de Medellín Ltda., 2007Uploaded byeliarestrepo
- Its en ColombiaUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Manual de Cub i Ertas 2012Uploaded byelgato0253212
- LABORATORIO GRANULOMETRIAUploaded byeliarestrepo
- 07 Factores de SeguridadUploaded byeliarestrepo
- c++-Anexo-guia-aap1Uploaded byeliarestrepo
- Trayectorias de EsfuerzosUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Lindsay (2003) ADRA, New Flow AlgorithmUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Porcentaje de Partículas Fracturadas en Un Agregado GruesoUploaded byeliarestrepo
- VOLUMEN DE TRANSITO.pptUploaded byNeomar Velasquez
- Estimativos de Para Metros de Resist en CIA Con SptUploaded byGonzalo Quispe
- Estimativos de Para Metros de Resist en CIA Con SptUploaded byGonzalo Quispe
- Tomografía geoeléctricaUploaded byeliarestrepo
- Introducción_a_dispositivos_móviles_imprimibleUploaded byRicardo José Trullo Guerrero

- 57269219 Elastic Modulus of SoilUploaded byKruno Ivančić
- 1.SOM Objective by S K MondalUploaded byAnshul Tiwari
- Introduction to Concrete Design EurocodesUploaded byhero
- gap_c1Uploaded byjuanperezpinto
- Textile Based stretchable sensorUploaded byrehanabbaci
- Experimental Investigations on Welding Behaviour of Sintered 2014 MaterialsUploaded bykrishna
- Water WeldingUploaded byHusen Kapasi
- Plane Stress and Strain 2Uploaded byAkash Prabhakaran
- AE1254 Aircraft Structures-1Uploaded byRodriguez Arthurs
- FatigueUploaded byshah_aditk
- FE Mechanical SpecsUploaded byJeremy Priest
- Design PilecapUploaded byAnya Zhee Zhee Threez
- Bq Stair DesignUploaded byAyodele Oluwaseyi Dina
- NIST TN 1714_High-Temperature Tensile Constitutive Data and Models for Structural Steels in Fire (Nov 2011Uploaded bytt3340
- Bergamo ACI Italy ChapterUploaded bytorob_version229093
- Hypoplasticity for BeginnersUploaded bynoussnoussa
- ImportantUploaded byDaniela Mihaiela Boca
- XRD basics tutorialUploaded bySiluvai Antony Praveen
- Mlep Sem05 RevisedUploaded byphase_shekhar21
- Thermodynamics Properties of FluidsUploaded byCesar Bravo
- Analysis of TIG Welding Process on Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Aa6063 Aluminum Alloy JointsUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- IPS+ClassicUploaded byhot_teeth
- eBook - Advanced science and Technology of SinteringUploaded byThaiThanh Phan
- Tensile behavoiur of squeeze cast AM100 magnesium alloy and its Al2O3 ﬁbre reinforced compositesUploaded byDhanashekar Manickam
- TPE BlendingUploaded byanant_z12
- Shiozaki_2006-03-03Uploaded bylutfi adji
- Drawing SteelsUploaded byvkms
- TENSILE TEST.docUploaded byNazmul Hasan
- AFM Study of Multilayer Sol-Gel BaxSr1-xTiO3 Thin FilmsUploaded byIntan Purnamasari
- DFM Notes of ExtrusionUploaded byyeswanth