• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.106-111
• /
• 2002

The estimation of pile bearing capacity is important since the design details are determined from the result. There are numerous ways of determining the pile design load, but only few of them are chosen in the actual design. According to the recent investigation in Korea, the formulas proposed by Meyerhof based on the SPT N values are most frequently chosen in the design stage. In the study, various static and dynamic formulas have been used in predicting the allowable bearing capacity of a pile. Further, the reliability of these formulas has been verified by comparing the perdicted values with the static and dynamic load test measurements. Also, in most cases, these methods of pile bearing capacity determination do not take the time effect consideration, the actual allowable load as determined from pile load test indicates severe deviation from the design value. The principle results of this study are summarized as follows : As a result of estimate the reliability in criterion of the Davisson method, t was showed that Terzaghi & Peck >Chin>Meyerhof > Modified Meyerhof method was the most reliable method for the prediction of bearing capacity. Comparisons of the various pile-driving formulas showed that Modified Engineering News was the most reliable method. However, a significant error happened between dynamic bearing capacity equation was judged that uncertainty of hammer efficiency, characteristics of variable, time effect etc... was not considered. As a result of considering time effect increased skin friction capacity higher than end bearing capacity. It was found out that it would be possible to increase the skin friction capacity 1.99 times higher than a driving. As a result of considering 7 day's time effect, it was obtained that Engineering news, Modified Engineering News, Hiley, Danish, Gates, CAPWAP(CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) analysis for relation, repectively, $Q_{u(Restrike)} / Q_{u(EOID)} = 0.98t_{0.1}$ , $0.98t_{0.1}$, $1.17t_{0.1}$, $0.88t_{0.1}$, $0.89t_{0.1}$, $0.97t_{0.1}$.

• Journal of Bio-Environment Control
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.287-294
• /
• 2021

In order to expand facility agriculture and reduce greenhouse construction costs in reclaimed land, a greenhouse foundation method that satisfies economic feasibility and structural safety at the same time is required. As an alternative, the allowable bearing capacity and settlement were reviewed when the DCM(Deep cement mixing) method was applied among the soft ground reinforcement methods. To examine the applicability of the greenhouse foundation, the allowable bearing capacity and settlement were calculated by applying the theory of Terzaghi, Meyerhof, Hansen, and Schmertmann. In case of the diameter of 800mm and the width and length of the foundation of 4m, the allowable bearing capacity was 179kN/m² and the settlement was 7.25mm, which satisfies the required bearing capacity and settlement standards. The calculation results were verified through FEM(Finite element method) analysis using the Mohr-Coulomb material model. The allowable bearing capacity was 169kN/m² and the settlement was 2.52mm. The bearing capacity showed an error of 5.6% compared to calculated value, and the settlement showed and error of 65.4%. Through theoretical calculations and FEM analysis, it was confirmed that the allowable bearing capacity and settlement satisfies the design criteria as a greenhouse foundation when the width and length of the foundation were 4m. Based on the verified design values, it is expected to be able to present the foundation design criteria for greenhouses through empirical tests such as bearing capacity tests and long-term settlement monitoring.

• Journal of the Korean GEO-environmental Society
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.47-55
• /
• 2007

Using the results of the Piezocone Penetration Test (PCPT) which were executed at the Yangsan-Mulgum site, the applicability of the interpretation methods for estimating the coefficient of consolidation ($C_v$) of soft clay was evaluated. At the same time, laboratory soil tests using the total of 172 undisturbed soft clay samples from the 44 regions of the Yangsan-Mulgum site were performed to study the differency in the coefficient of consolidation ($C_v$) compared to the results of PCPT. The calculated constrained modulus ($M_{\varepsilon}$) and coefficient of consolidation ($C_v$) using the results of consolidation laboratory tests which are based upon the consolidation theory of Terzaghi were compared with the predicted constrained modulus ($M_p$) and coefficient of consolidation ($C_{v-{M_p}}$) from the PCPT. The relationship between the predicted constrained modulus ($M_p$) and the calculated constrained modulus($M_c$) were showed good correlation. The $M_p$ by the Jones & Rust method were showed mostly similar to the calculated constrained modulus ($M_c$). The relationship between the coefficient of consolidation ($C_v$) obtained from the consolidation tests and the calculated coefficient of consolidation ($C_{v-{M_p}}$) were showed a linear relationship. The results of the calculated coefficient of consolidation ($C_{v-{M_p}}$) were about 54% of the value of the coefficient of consolidation ($C_v$) obtained from the consolidation tests.