Cover Image

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

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

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ramli, Muhd. Harris
Format: Thesis
Language:English
Published: 2006
Subjects:
TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
Online Access:http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/1/MuhdHarrisRamliMFKA2006.pdf
http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.utm.4797
record_format eprints
spelling my.utm.47972018-02-28T06:47:42Z http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/ A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test Ramli, Muhd. Harris TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Since the early of pile static formula suggested by Meyerhof (1956) up until now, several pile design method is being proposed. Between one method and another, result differences are still questionable. This study is conducted base on driven pile 300 mm diameter spun pile constructed in Malaysia on sand or fine soil. This is to determine the differences between several pile design methods by Meyerhof (1976), Janbu (1976), Vesic (1977), Coyle and Castello (1981), ?? method (1985) and ?? method (1972) with the End-bearing capacity and Skin Resistance capacity value from dynamic load test using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). All the design method is also analyzed by using soil friction angle correlation by Schmertmann (1975), Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) and Hatanaka and Uchida (1996). From analysis it can be found that Meyerhof, Coyle and Castello, and ?? method are the most conservative which its value lower or almost near the PDA value. Then follow by Janbu method and ?? method which its value almost near PDA or slightly above it. Vesic method is found to be very unconservative which it value well above PDA value. From this study it can be conclude that it is recommended to use either Meyerhof or Janbu Method for estimating end-bearing capacity in sand and silt. For skin resistance in sand it recommended using Meyerhof method. Finally for estimating skin resistance in clayed soil it is recommended to use ?? method. 2006-07 Thesis NonPeerReviewed application/pdf en http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/1/MuhdHarrisRamliMFKA2006.pdf Ramli, Muhd. Harris (2006) A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test. Masters thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Civil Engineering.
institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
building UTM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
content_source UTM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://eprints.utm.my/
language English
topic TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
spellingShingle TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
Ramli, Muhd. Harris
A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
description Since the early of pile static formula suggested by Meyerhof (1956) up until now, several pile design method is being proposed. Between one method and another, result differences are still questionable. This study is conducted base on driven pile 300 mm diameter spun pile constructed in Malaysia on sand or fine soil. This is to determine the differences between several pile design methods by Meyerhof (1976), Janbu (1976), Vesic (1977), Coyle and Castello (1981), ?? method (1985) and ?? method (1972) with the End-bearing capacity and Skin Resistance capacity value from dynamic load test using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). All the design method is also analyzed by using soil friction angle correlation by Schmertmann (1975), Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) and Hatanaka and Uchida (1996). From analysis it can be found that Meyerhof, Coyle and Castello, and ?? method are the most conservative which its value lower or almost near the PDA value. Then follow by Janbu method and ?? method which its value almost near PDA or slightly above it. Vesic method is found to be very unconservative which it value well above PDA value. From this study it can be conclude that it is recommended to use either Meyerhof or Janbu Method for estimating end-bearing capacity in sand and silt. For skin resistance in sand it recommended using Meyerhof method. Finally for estimating skin resistance in clayed soil it is recommended to use ?? method.
format Thesis
author Ramli, Muhd. Harris
author_facet Ramli, Muhd. Harris
author_sort Ramli, Muhd. Harris
title A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_short A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_full A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_fullStr A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
title_sort comparison of pile performance base on static formulas and dynamic load test
publishDate 2006
url http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/1/MuhdHarrisRamliMFKA2006.pdf
http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/4797/
_version_ 1643644151655301120
score 13.211869

Similar Items