首页> 外文OA文献 >Design verification on bored pile within Kenny Hill formation via static load test
【2h】

Design verification on bored pile within Kenny Hill formation via static load test

机译:通过静载荷测试对肯尼山地层中的钻孔桩进行设计验证

摘要

Due to variation in soil layers, it is not easy for engineer to be assured that theoretical design of piles comply with the actual site condition. Thus, every design of piled foundations carries its own uncertainty and risk. This study evaluates the applicability of six methods to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of bored pile by static load test at site. Analyses and evaluation were conducted on six bored piles of different sizes and length. The methods are Chin-Kondner’s Method, Brinch Hansen’s Method, DeBeer’s Method, Butler & Hoy’s Method, Fuller & Hoy’s and Decourt’s Method. The pile capacities determined using the different methods were compared with the theoretical method such as semi-empirical method and simplified soil mechanic method within Kenny Hill formation. Results of the analyses show that the best performing method is DeBeer’s Method. Fuller & Hoys’s and Butler & Hoy’s methods is the recommended method for bored pile design practice as it is consistent in predicting the bored pile capability. Chin-Kondner’s method is the over predicted most than the others interpretation methods.
机译:由于土层的变化,工程师不容易确保桩的理论设计符合实际工地条件。因此,桩基的每种设计都有其自身的不确定性和风险。本研究评估了六种方法通过现场静载荷试验预测钻孔桩的极限承载力的适用性。对六个不同大小和长度的钻孔桩进行了分析和评估。方法包括Chin-Kondner方法,Brinch Hansen方法,DeBeer方法,Butler&Hoy方法,Fuller&Hoy方法和Decourt方法。将使用不同方法确定的桩容量与Kenny Hill地层中的半经验方法和简化土力学方法等理论方法进行了比较。分析结果表明,效果最好的方法是DeBeer方法。富勒&霍伊斯(Fuller&Hoys)和巴特勒&霍伊(Butler&Hoy)的方法是钻孔桩设计实践的推荐方法,因为它在预测钻孔桩能力方面是一致的。与其他解释方法相比,Chin-Kondner的方法被过度预测了最多。

著录项

  • 作者

    Mohamed Zalina;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2010
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号