Figure 3 – uploaded by A. Mandolini

Table 3 * Pile C underwent a brittle failure at a load of 18 MN. As stated elswhere, the value of Qiim reported in the table is intended only as a geometrical parameter of the hyperbola fitting the initial part of the load—settlement curve. Table 3. Data resulting from the load tests on single piles

Related Figures (24)

Fig. 1. Comparison between results of computations carried out with different codes Figure 1 (Randolph, 1994; Mandolini, 1994b) shows the computed overall pile group stiffness for square groups of piles embedded in an elastic half- space, with L/d=25, E,/G= 1000, v,=0-5, and s/d=2-5 and 5. The group stiffness Ky is defined as the ratio between the total load acting on the pile group and the average settlement of the group. In Fig. 1, the stiffness is normalized as Kp/(sGn°°), where G is the shear modulus of the soil and n the number of piles in the group. The

Table 1. Essential features of the analysed case histories

Table 2. Computed and observed average settlement w,, and maximum differential settlement Ona ‘ (a) ‘core’ foundation; (b) ‘dog-leg’ foundation; (c) ‘hammerhead’ foundation; (d) overall.

Fig. 3. Case history No. 2: typical soil profile and properties at building site; the subsoil model adopted in the analysis is shown on the right-hand side

Fig. 2. Case history No. 2: layout of foundations of the building; pile locations are shown as solid circles, pile caps as full lines and columns as filled rectangles; overall dimensions are 33-6 m X 24-4 m

Fig. 5. Case history No. 2: comparison between predicted and observed settlements Fig. 4. Case history No. 2: load—settlement curves of two loading tests on piles

Fig. 6. Case history No. 5: schematic of the molasses tank and subsoil model adopted in the analysis

Fig. 8. Case history No. 5: comparison between predicted and observed settlements Fig. 7. Case history No. 5: loading test results on single pile

Fig. 9. Case history No. 8: layout of the test and subsoil profile It may be seen that the LE analysis allows a rather good prediction of the actual settlement up Considering that the predrilled hole disconnects the pile from the upper gravelly layer, a subsoil model with five elastic layers resting on a rigid base has been adopted in the analysis; it is also shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 10. Case history No. 8: comparison between predicted and observed load—settlement curves; the ELE curve has been obtained using at each load level the secant modulus evaluated at the same level from the load test on a single pile

Fig. 11. Case history No. 9: subsoil profile and subsoil model adopted in the analysis; the geometry of the model and the ratio between the moduli of any | layers are the same as assumed by Poulos (1993)

Fig. 12. Case history No. 9: comparison between predicted and observed settlements

Fig. 13. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: layout of the foundation

Fig. 14. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: schematic plan and section of the structure

Fig. 15. Case histories Nos. 10, 11 and 12: subsoil profile and properties, and subsoil model adopted in the analysi:

Figure 3 – uploaded by A. Mandolini

Related Figures (24)

Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field