Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile

12/11/2018 (PDF) Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile
See all › See all › See all › Join for free Login
Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
8 Citations 12 References 10 Figures
Ad
More than 130 years of engineering experience
Maccaferri
Visit Site
of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile
F Available) · January 2012 with 4,778 Reads
Yogendra Tandel
C Rajagopal C H Solanki
6.11 · Government Engineering College, Dahod
nt decade, dynamic load test is increasingly being used for pile load testing. Compare to static pile loading test, dynamic load test offers a
erable savings of time, cost and requires less space. This paper discuss the results of three dynamic and static load test on cast-in-situ
pile of length to diameter ratio 28, 25.5 and 23.47. The load-settlement response of dynamic and static load tests are compared. The load-
ment response of both tests are in good agreement upto 0.50-1.3 times design load. Also, load in the pile and unit friction developed along the
of pile was presented.
ver the world's research
million members
+ million publications
k+ research projects
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267798693_Comparison_of_Static_and_Dynamic_Load_Test_of_Pile 1/27
k+ research projects
See all › See all › See all › Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
oin 8forCitations
free 12 References 10 Figures
ploaded by Yogendra Tandel Author content
+6
operties at the Test Pile 3 Load settlement behaviour of Test Load distribution along the length Unit friction along the length of Test
Pile 1 of Test Pile 1 Pile 1
Ad
Marine HVAC and Refrigeration System Design
Heinen & Hopman
Visit Site
uploaded by Yogendra Tandel Author content

Download full-text PDF
Comparison of Static and Dynamic

Load Test of Pile
C. Rajagopal
Post Graduate Student
Applied Mechanics Department., S. V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat-395007, India
rajapreethigopal@rediffmail.com
C. H. Solanki
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics Department, S. V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat-395007, India
chs@amd.svnit.ac.in
Y. K. Tandel
Research scholar
Applied Mechanics Department, S. V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat-395007, India
tandel.yogendra@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In recent decade, dynamic load test is increasingly being used for pile load testing. Compare
to static pile loading test, dynamic load test offers a considerable savings of time, cost and
requires less space. This paper discuss the results of three dynamic and static load test on
cast-in-situ bored pile of length to diameter ratio 28, 25.5 and 23.47. The load-settlement
response of dynamic and static load tests are compared. The load-settlement response of both
See all › See tests

all › aredeveloped
friction
in good agreement
along
See all › the
upto 0.50-1.3 times design load. Also, load in the pile and unit
length of pile was presented. Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
KEYWORDS:
Pile, static load test, dynamic load test.
INTRODUCTION
Ordinary static pile load tests using kentledge or reaction piles are used in India. Owing to
increasing time and cost, particularly with the difficulties associated with transporting static load
testing accessories into congested city centers and the lack of space on many sites, contractors are
seeking an alternative system for pile testing. The tendency is for contractors to use dynamic
techniques in order to supplement ordinary static tests.
Dynamic load test (or PDA test) has become a common pile test procedure for evaluating pile
capacity and pile integrity for the driven and cast-in-situ pile. The derived pile capacity generally
shows satisfactory agreement with the static load carrying capacity (Rausche et al. 1985). The
most attractive advantages are the cost of the test is much cheaper as compared with the cost of
ordinary static load test and the duration of the test is very short. The dynamic test is common for
- 1905 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1906
driven piles mainly because similar driven or hammer used for the pile installation can be used
for the test. As for the cast-in-situ pile especially the large diameter piles, the dynamic test is
relatively less common because extra effort to bring in hammer for the test is required. In
addition, design pile capacity for large diameter cast-in-situ pile is generally large, a very heavy
hammer is required. As a general guideline, in order to verify the pile capacity, the required
See all › hammer weight
See all › is about 1.5%
See all › of the pile static load
carrying capacity (Hussein et al. 1996).
8 Citations Many researchers reported the results of static
12 References 10 Figures and dynamic load tests (Davisson 1991; Gue
and Chen 1998; Nayak et al. 2000; Uddin and Tungsanga 2001; Liew et al. 2004; Vaidya 2006;
Long 2007; Basarkar et al. 2011). The results of static and dynamic load tests reported by above
researchers are in good agreement. Exceptional test results were also found for some of the Test
Piles in the mention literatures.
Therefore attempt is made in this study to correlate the results of static and dynamic load tests
on bored piles. The results include load transfer mechanism through pile for dynamic load test,
the load-settlement comparison between static and dynamic load tests.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Sub soil conditions at different Test Piles are described in the following paragraph.
Test pile 1: 0-3m (filled up soil); 3-6m (blackish low plastic silty clay with sand); 6-12
(yellowish low plastic silty clay with sand and gravel); 12-16.5m (yellowish low plastic silty clay
with sand and gravel); 16.5-28.5m (blackish coarse sand with gravel); 28.5-36m (yellowish
plastic silty clay with sand); 36-45m (sand with gravel). Figure 1 summarizes the variation of the
main geotechnical properties of the sub soil with depth at Test Pile 1. Ground water level can be
found at a depth of 5 m below the ground surface.
Test pile 2: 0-1.5m (blackish high plastic clay with sand and gravel); 1.5-3m (yellowish high
plastic clay with sand); 3-6m (yellowish low plastic silty clay with sand and gravel); 6-9m
(yellowish low plastic silty clay with sand and gravel); 9-13.5m (yellowish low plastic silty clay
with sand and gravel); 13.5-15m (blackish silty sand with gravel); 15-18m (yellowish low plastic
silty clay with sand and gravel); 18-30m (yellowish plastic clayey sand with gravel).
Geotechnical parameters for the different sub soil strata are shown in Figure 2. The water table
was at 16.50 m from the natural ground surface.
Test pile 3: 0-7.25m (blackish low plastic silty clay); 7.25-10.25m (blackish medium to
coarse sand); 10.25-18m (coarse sand); 18-24m (yellowish low to high plastic clay with sand);
24-35m (yellow high plastic clay with sand and conglomerate). Figure 3 shows the various
geotechnical properties of the site at Test Pile 3. The water table at this site was found at 5m
below ground level.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1907
SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

0 40 80 120 content (%) 0 20 40 60 0 25 50 75100 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
0 0 20 40 0 0 0
0
5 5 5
5
10 5 10 10
15 15 10
15
10
20 20
Depth (m)
20 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 25 25
Depth (m)
25
30 30 20
30 20 35 35
See all › See all › See all › 25
35
8 Citations 12 References 10 Figures 40 40
25
40 45 45 30
30
45 50 50
Liquid limit (%) Gravel (%) 35
Sand (%) Bulk density
50 35 Plasticity index (%) Finer (%) Dry density
Figure 1: Soil properties at the Test Pile 1

0 50 100 content (%) 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 100 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
0 0 25 50 0 0 0
0
5 5
5 5
5
10
10
10 10 10
15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15
Depth (m)
15 15
Depth (m)
15
20
20
20 20
25 20
25 25
25 30 25
30 30 35
30 Gravel (%) 30
Liquid limit (%) Sand (%) Bulk density
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1908

0 25 50 75 content (%) 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 100 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0 25 50 0 0 0
0
2
5 5 5
5 4
10
10 10
10 6
15
15 15 8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15
20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
20 20
20
25 12
25 25
25 14
30
30 30 16
30
35
18
35 35 35
40 Gravel (%) 20
Liquid limit (%) Sand (%) Bulk density

TESTING METHODOLOGY
Dynamic load test was carried out using 11 tons hammer with a series of impact starting from
0.5 to 3m. Cushion system consisting of plywood sheets of 50 mm was applied for transferring
impact load to pile top. The displacement after each impact was measured to assess the load
carrying capacity. Two types of sensors namely, strain gauge and accelerometer were installed at
2 times the pile diameter below the top of the pile. Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) was used for
recording forces and motion after each drop of hammer. The pile load carrying capacity was
analyzed by CASE method. A computer program, CAPWAP was used to compute the pile
capacity in later stage based on the recorded data.
For static load test, kentledge reaction system was used. The load is applied through a
hydraulic jack resting on the kentledge girder. The applied load was measured by load cell. The
load is applied in a series of vertical downward incremental each increment being of about 20
percent of safe load on the pile. Settlement on top of the pile was be recorded with four dial
gauges, each positioned at equal distance around the piles and normally held by datum bars
resting on immovable supports at a distance of three time pile diameter from the edge of the piles.
Test pile1 was cast-in-situ of 1.5 m diameter and 42 m long from ground surface, Test Pile 2
was cat-in-situ of 1m diameter and 25.5 m long form ground surface and Test Pile 3 was 1.5m
diameter, 35.2 m long from ground surface. Typical load test arrangement for dynamic and static
load test is seen in Figure 4 and 5 respectively.
8 Citations Vol. 17 [2012],
12 References Bund.
10 Figures M 1909
Figure 4: Dynamic load test at site Figure 5: Static load test at site
DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS

Dynamic load test is commonly carried out as an alternative to ordinary static load test owing
to high cost and time consuming of the static load test. Also, pile integrity assessment is an
additional advantage of dynamic load test.
Test Pile 1: Load settlement response of top of the pile measured by dynamic and static pile
tests are plotted in Figure 6. Figure 7 and 8 shows the vertical load and unit friction measured by
the dynamic load test along the pile length. Form the Figure 5, it is seen that, at the initial stage of
load (i.e. upto 0.75 times design load), the settlement measured from static load test is consistent
with settlement predicted by dynamic load test. As the test load increase, the settlement predicted
by dynamic load test is quite less than the settlement measured from static load test.
Test
See allPile
› 2: FigureSee9allshows the load settlement response of pile top measured by dynamic and
See all ›
static
8 Citationstests12
pile tests. Similar to›
test pie 1, here also settlement measured by dynamic and static citation
Download load Share Download full-text PDF
isReferences
consistent only for smaller load i.e. upto 0.5 times design load. Vertical load and unit
10 Figures
friction measured along the pile length by the dynamic load test were presented in Figure 10 and
11.
Test Pile 3: Load settlement graph is plotted for static and dynamic load test for pile 3 in
Figure 12. Test pile 3 was design for 4600 kN load carrying capacity. Form the Figure 12, is
observed that static and dynamic load test correlate well upto 1.3 times design load. Berserker et
al. (2011) reported that the static and dynamic load tests are well compare upto 1.5 times the
design load. Figure 13 and 14 presents the vertical load on the top of the pile and unit friction
measured through dynamic load test.
Ad
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1910
Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
5
See all › See all › See all ›
Settlement (mm)
10
15
20
25
Dynamic load test Static load test
Figure 6: Load settlement behaviour of Test Pile 1
Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

0 25 50 75 100
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
0
0
5
5
10
10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
See all › 40 all ›

See See all › 40
45 45
Figure 7: Load distribution along the length of Figure 8: Unit friction along the length of
Test Pile 1 Test Pile 1
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1911
Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
4
Settlement (mm)
10
12
14
16 Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
8 Citations 12 References 10 Figures Dynamic load test Static load test
Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 0 100 200 300 400
0 0
5 5
10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
Figure 10: Load distribution along the length Figure 11: Unit friction along the length of Test
of Test Pile 2 Pile 2
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1912
Likins et al. (2000) reported that the shaft friction could be fully mobilized if the penetration
of pile after each impact is more than 2.5 mm. The pile capacity derived from dynamic load test
for both projects could be underestimated due to very low penetration of piles after each impact.
Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
1
2
3
Settlement (mm)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dynamic load test Static load test
See all › See all › Load

See all › (kN) Unit friction (kPa) Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
8 Citations 1500 4000
12 References 6500
10 Figures 9000 11500 0 20 40 60 80
0 0
5
5
10
10
15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 20
25
20
30
25
35
30 40
Figure 13: Load distribution along the length Figure 14: Unit friction along the length of
of Test Pile 3 Test Pile 3

8 Citations Vol. 17 [2012],
12 References Bund. M
10 Figures 1913
CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses the reliability of dynamic tests by comparing the results of dynamic and
static tests on piles from the same site. The following conclusions can be drawn.
 The load settlement behaviour of piles show good agreement with the static load test
when the test load is low. When the test load increase, the dynamic load test may
underestimate the settlement.
 Dynamic load test could play an important role for predicting the pile capacity and pile
integrity provided proper care should be taken in comparison.
 Dynamic load test could be cost effective and also less time consuming for larger
diameter bored pile as compare to static load test.
 From the present study, it is suggested that dynamic test should be calibrated by at least
one static load test for a given project.
REFERENCES
1. Basarkar, S.S., Manish, K. and Vaidya, R. (2011) “High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing
Practices in India-Favourable Situations and Correlation Studies,” Proceedings of
Indian Geotechnical Conference, Kochi, India, 1039-1042.
2. Davisson, M. T. (1991). “Reliability of Pile Prediction Methods,” Proceedings of
Deep Foundation Institute Conference, Chicago.
3. Gue, S. S. and Chen, C.S. (1998) “A Comparison of Dynamic and Static Load Tests
on Reinforced Concrete Driven Pile,” Proceedings of the 13th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 497-501.
4. Hussein, M., Likins, G. and Rausche, F. (1996) “Selection of a Hammer for High-
Strain Dynamic Testing of Cast-in-Place Shafts,” Proceedings of Fifth International
Conference on the Applications of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, Florida,
USA.
5. Liew, S. S., Ng, H. B. & Lee, K. K. (2004) “Comparison of High Strain Dynamic
Pile Test Results, Pile Designs and Static Load Test Results of Driven Concrete Pile
See at
all › Residual See
See all › Soils
all › in
Malaysia,” Malaysian Geotechnical Conference, Sheraton
8 Citations Subang, Petaling
12 References Jaya,
10 FiguresMalaysia.
6. Likins, G. Rausche, F. And Goble, G. (2000) “High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing,
Equipment and Practice,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the
Application of Stress-wave Theory to Piles, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
7. Long, M. (2007), “Comparing Dynamic and Static Test Results of Bored Piles,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering 160, Issue
GE1, 43-49.
8. Nayak, N. V., Kanhere, D.K. and Vaidya, R. (2000) “Static and High Strain Dynamic
Test Co-relation Studies on Cast-in-situ Concrete Bored Piles,” Proceedings of Deep
Foundation Institute 2000, New York, USA.
9. Rausche, F., Goble, G. and Likins, G. (1985) “Dynamic Determination of Pile
Capacity,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111 (3), 367-383.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1914
10. Uddin, M. K. and Tungsanga, K. (2001) “Dynamic Pile Testing and its Correlation
with Static Load Test,” journal of Civil Engineering, The Institution of Engineers,
Bangladesh, 29 (1), 2001.
11. Vaidya, R. (2006) “Introduction to high strain Dynamic Pile Testing and Reliability
Studies in Southern India,” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Chennai,
See all ›
India, 901-904.
See all › See all › Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
© 2012 ejge
s (8) References (12)
of Maintained Load Test (MLT) and Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) in Measuring Bearing Capacity of Driven Reinforced Concrete Piles
Soil Mech Found Eng

r Mosallanezhad · Ramli Nazir · Hossein Moayedi
ow abstract
ИЕ ПРЕДЕЛЬНОЙ НЕСУЩЕЙ СПОСОБНОСТИ ЗАБИВНЫХ СВАИ, ОПРЕДЕЛЯЕМОЙ СТАТИЧЕСКИМИ И ДИНАМИЧЕСКИМИ

И ИСПЫТАНИЙ
Soil Mech Found Eng

r Mosallanezhad · Ramli Nazir · Hossein Moayedi
ow abstract
response to the shortcomings of UPM several methods of analysis have 23 been developed to improve RLT analysis. These methods attempt
orate the 24 soil specific nature of rate effects (Brown 2008 , Schmuker 2005 ). The recently 25 developed and existing techniques for
are described and their performance 1 compared for of field pile tests in two different clay soils. ...
n of8Rapid Load Test
Citations 12 Analysis Techniques
References in Clay Soils
10 Figures
Full-text available
J GEOTECH GEOENVIRON
well · Michael John Brown
ow abstract
ntly the rate effect parameters are derived from direct comparison of the RLT load-settlement behaviour with that of a static pile test on the
e or an identical pile installed in close proximity. Alternatively the parameters may have their origin in high strain rate laboratory element
for example Schmuker 2005 ). Unfortunately in the former case there is a lack of high quality case study data upon which to confidently
ate effect parameters especially in fine grained soils such as clays or silts. ...
o the tendency for increased static capacity of displacement piles in clay it is therefore necessary to investigate this effect on both RLT analysis
ameter selection. For instance the technique proposed by Schmuker (Krieg and Goldscheider 1998 , Schmuker 2005 , Middendorp et al 2008)
rigins in low strain rate laboratory element testing which cannot easily replicate pile-soil interface behaviour, complicated variations in insitu
stress or the effects of the high soil strain levels encountered during pile driving. The analysis method proposed by Powell and Brown (2006)
wn and Hyde (2008) derives the majority of its soil dependant rate parameters from both back analysis of RLT field studies on non-
ment cast insitu piles and high strain rate (push-in) probing tests (Brown 2008). ...
al methods have been developed to analyse RLT tests which aim to derive the static equivalent load-settlement behaviour through removal of
rtial and soil dependant rate effects. These are commonly referred to as the unloading point method (UPM, Middendorp et al. 1992,
orp 2000) and the Schmuker method ( Schmuker 2005 , Middendorp et al. 2008). Brown and Hyde (2008) proposed a non-linear velocity
nt technique (referred to simply as the Brown method) based upon Eq. (3) of the form: ...
rapid load pile testing for driven and CFA piles in London Clay
e Paper Full-text available
ow abstract
n between dynamic and static pile load testing
man · E.M.A. Ahmed · O.B.E.M. Ahmed
ow abstract
ponse to the shortcomings
8 Citations of UPM several
12 References methods of analysis have been developed to improve RLT analysis. These methods
10 Figures attempt to
ate the soil specific nature of rate effects (Brown 2008, Schmuker 2005 ). The recently A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t N o t C o p y e d i t e d
t the analysis assumes that the pile can be modelled as a single lumped mass or rigid body. ...
n of Rapid Load Test Analysis Techniques in Clay Soils

Full-text available
J GEOTECH GEOENVIRON
ow abstract
tes in Computer Science

e Paper
Di Lonardo · Vittoria De Nitto Persone
ow abstract
ntly the rate effect parameters are derived from a direct comparison of the RLT load-settlement behaviour with that of a static pile test on the
e or an identical pile installed in close proximity. Alternatively, the parameters may have their origin in high strain rate laboratory element
for example Schmuker, 2005 ). Unfortunately, in the former case there is a lack of high quality case study data upon which to confidently
ate effect parameters especially in fine grained soils such as clays or silts. ...
mining rate effect parameters from laboratory element testing is appealing from the point of view of material consistency and control of testing
ns, but, historically, testing has been undertaken at strain rates much lower than those experienced in full scale RLT (Leinenkugel,
eahan et al., 1996;Katti et al., 2003). Rate effect analysis techniques developed on this basis ( Krieg and Goldscheider, 1998; Schmuker,
ay then not be appropriate when applied to RLT tests. ...
o the tendency for increased static capacity of displacement piles over non-displacement piles in clay, it is necessary to investigate this effect
RLT analysis and parameter selection. For instance, the technique proposed by Schmuker (Krieg and Goldscheider, 1998; Schmuker,
ddendorp et al., 2008) has its origins in low strain rate laboratory element testing, which cannot easily replicate pile- soil interface behaviour,
ated variations in situ effective stress or the effects of the high soil strain levels encountered during pile driving. The analysis method proposed
ll and Brown (2006) and Brown and Hyde (2008) derives the majority of its soil dependant rate parameters from both back analysis of RLT
dies on non-displacement cast in situ piles and high strain rate (push-in) probing tests (Brown, 2008). ...
n of rapid load pile testing of driven and CFA piles installed in high OCR clay
Full-text available
SOILS FOUND
ow abstract
Recommendations
Discover more publications, questions and projects in Piles
SeeProject
all › See all › See all › Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
Ground improvement by pervious concrete column
Yogendra Tandel
Laboratory and numerical analyses of effectiveness of previous concrete column for compressive and uplift load carrying capacity. Hydro-
mechanical analyses of an embankment supported on pervious ... [more]
View project
Article Full-text available
Comparison Between Dynamic and Static Pile Load Testing

January 2013
Elfatih Ali
Based on experience and extrapolation, it is found that the best way to predict pile behavior is to perform a pile loading test. In this study a
comparison between the static and dynamic load tests results was made to evaluate the ability of the High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing (HSDPT)
using SIMBAT method to estimate the static capacity of bored concrete piles. Four case studies conducted in Red ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
See Article
all › See allavailable
Full-text › See all › Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
Field behaviour geotextile reinforced sand column
February 2014 · Geomechanics and Engineering
Yogendra Tandel · A.K. Desai · C.H. Solanki
Stone columns (or granular column) have been used to increase the load carrying capacity and accelerating consolidation of soft soil. Recently, the
geosynthetic reinforced stone column technique has been developed to improve the load carrying capacity of the stone column. In addition,
reinforcement prevents the lateral squeezing of stone in to surrounding soft soil, helps in easy formation of ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Deformation behaviour of ground improved by reinforced stone columns

June 2012 · Australian Geomechanics Journal
Yogendra Tandel · C.H. Solanki
Stone columns are extensively used for ground improvement for supporting various flexible and rigid structures. However, in very soft soil they
encounter excessive settlement due to inadequate lateral confinement by surrounding soil. Reinforcing the stone column with geosynthetic
enhances the performance of stone columns. The reinforcement makes the column stronger and stiffer. Also lateral ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
See Article
all › See allavailable
Full-text › See all › Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
3D FE Analysis of an Embankment Construction on GRSC and Proposal of a Design Method
March 2013
Stone column is often employed for strengthening of an embankment seated on deep soft clay. But in very soft clay having undrained shear
strength less than or equal to 15 kPa, stone column may not derive adequate load carrying capacity and undergo large lateral deformation due to
inadequate lateral confinement. In such circumstances, reinforcement to individual stone column by geosynthetics ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Laboratory Experimental Analysis on Encapsulated Stone Column

September 2013 · Archives of Civil Engineering
The application of stone column technique for improvement of soft soils has attracted a considerable attention during the last decade. However, in a
very soft soil, the stone columns undergo excessive bulging, because of very low lateral confinement pressure provided by the surrounding soil.
The performance of stone column can be improved by the encapsulation of stone column by geosynthetic, ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Discover more
Last Updated: 01 Aug 2018

Ad
About Support Business solutions
News Help center Recruiting

Company FAQ Advertising
Careers
© ResearchGate 2018. All rights reserved. Imprint · Terms · Privacy

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

12/11/2018 (PDF) Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile

of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile

F Available) · January 2012 with 4,778 Reads

ver the world's research

ploaded by Yogendra Tandel Author content

uploaded by Yogendra Tandel Author content

Comparison of Static and Dynamic

See all › See tests

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1906

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1907

SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1908

SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

Figure 3: Soil properties at the Test Pile 3

DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1910

Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

See all › 40 all ›

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1911

Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1912

See all › See all › Load

See all › See all › See all ›

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1914

s (8) References (12)

Soil Mech Found Eng

ИЕ ПРЕДЕЛЬНОЙ НЕСУЩЕЙ СПОСОБНОСТИ ЗАБИВНЫХ СВАИ, ОПРЕДЕЛЯЕМОЙ СТАТИЧЕСКИМИ И ДИНАМИЧЕСКИМИ

Soil Mech Found Eng

well · Michael John Brown

n between dynamic and static pile load testing

man · E.M.A. Ahmed · O.B.E.M. Ahmed

n of Rapid Load Test Analysis Techniques in Clay Soils

tes in Computer Science

Di Lonardo · Vittoria De Nitto Persone

Article Full-text available

Comparison Between Dynamic and Static Pile Load Testing

Yogendra Tandel · A.K. Desai · C.H. Solanki

Article Full-text available

Deformation behaviour of ground improved by reinforced stone columns

Yogendra Tandel · C.H. Solanki

Yogendra Tandel · A.K. Desai · C.H. Solanki

Article Full-text available

Laboratory Experimental Analysis on Encapsulated Stone Column

Yogendra Tandel · A.K. Desai · C.H. Solanki

Last Updated: 01 Aug 2018

About Support Business solutions

News Help center Recruiting

© ResearchGate 2018. All rights reserved. Imprint · Terms · Privacy

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen