International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2019, pp.520–534, Article ID: IJCIET_10_01_049
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
©IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
AVAILABLE METHODS OF PREDICTING
CAPACITIES OF BORED PILES EMBEDDED IN
BASRA SOIL
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair
Asst. Prof.-Member of the ISSMGE, Dept. of Civil Eng.-Univ. of Basra
Mushtaq R. Daham
Chief Engineer, Basra Oil Company
ABSTRACT
The ultimate capacities of single piles utilized in ten projects in Basra-Iraq are
evaluated using: various interpretations of pile load test results; several static
methods based on site investigation programs; and the finite element method via
(PLAXIS-3D).For the well-behaved tests, it is realized that the load-settlement data
can be best fitted by a hyperbola. Accordingly, Rollberg method well-harmonizes the
test results and allows various interpretation methods to be applied on the
extrapolated curves. It is found that, the static methods spread over a wide range of
values. Finite element analyses exhibited good agreement to the measured values. It
produces failure loads, almost, similar to that obtained from Rollberg method. The
finite element analyses revealed local settlement of (0.6% - 1.8%) of the pile diameter
to mobilize the ultimate skin resistance.
Key words: Bored Piles, Ultimate Capacity, Static Approach, Skin Resistance, Point
Bearing, Finite Element.
Cite this Article: Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham, Evaluation and
Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology
(IJCIET), 10 (1), 2019, pp. 520–534.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=1
1. INTRODUCTION
Pile foundations are widely used in Basra citydue to the presenceof a shallowsaturated soft
cohesive soil layer of variable thickness in soil profile.In order to provide the geotechnical
engineers with reliable estimates to the capacity of vertical piles embedded in Basra soil, the
following tasks are accomplished:
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
520
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham

The available equations derived based on the static approach are evaluated to select and/or
modify those found suitable.

The methods of interpreting the pile test data are assessed in regard to the definition of
capacity.

The soil-pile interaction is investigated by means of a finite element model.
The are a covered by the study is located within the administrative, commercial, and
residential center of Basra city. Ten projects utilizing bored pile foundations serve as case
studiesFigure1. The provided data sets from those projects comprise: geotechnical
investigation reports and results of loading tests on both trial and working piles.
Figure 1 Locations of the projects taken into consideration
2. STATIC APPROACH
For a pile of (n) segments and/or penetrating a soil profile of (n) sublayers, the ultimate
compressive capacity can be expressed as [2, 3]:
∑
The unit pile point resistance is usually calculated as:
Where:
Qu ,Qp , Qs:
ultimate capacity, point bearing, and skinresistance
qp:
unit point bearing
Ap:
area of the pile point
qsi:
unit shaft resistance within the segment or sublayer (i)
Asi:
corresponding surface area
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
521
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
:
:
bearing capacity factors adjusted for depth and shape.
effective overburden stress at pile point.
c:
soil cohesion around pile point.
φ:
soil angle of internal friction.
The (N'c) factor can be predicted from [3]:
(
)
Whereas the (N'q) factor can be obtained from Figure 2.The unit point bearingcan also be
predicted based on the standard penetration blows as[3]:
(
)
Reese and Wright (1977);
(
)
Reese and O’Neil (1988);
Figure 2 Variation of (
) values with the angle of internal friction, (Meyerhof 1976) [9]
The unit skin resistance can be predicted using the following general equation
Where:
α:
adhesion factor.
:
K:
:
effective overburden pressure at themid-depth of penetration in soil layer.
lateral earth pressure coefficient.
friction angle between the soil and pile material.
The values or formulas for estimating the necessary parameters, suggested by different
authors are summarized in Table (1).The unit skin resistance can also be predicted based on
the standard penetration blows as [3]:
Meyerhof (1976);
( )
Quiros and Reese (1977);
kPa
(
)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
522
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham
(
Reese and Wright (1993);
)
3. PILE LOAD TEST
The most common test procedure in Iraq is the slow maintained load test according to The
ASTM-D1143 [1].The true failure occurs when the pile plunges down into the ground without
any further increase in load [9] but, many settlement based failure criteria are also in use.
Other interpretation methods have been developed like [6, 8]: Davisson; Chin; Hansen (80%
and 90%); Dee-Beer; Fuller and Hoy; Butler and Hoy; van der Veen; and Rollberg methods.
4. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
For the three-dimensional stress analysis, the matrix equations are [7]:
[ ]⃗
⃗
Where: [ ]=global stiffness matrix, ⃗⃗⃗ =global vector of nodal displacements ⃗ = global nodal
load vector
Table 1 Summary of the skin resistance parameters
Cohesive Component
α
Source
Viggiani (1993) [10]
Range of application
0.70
0.35
0.55
(
O' Neil and Reese (1999) [3]
)
0.45
Salgado (2006) [10]
( )]
[
Friction Component
Source
K and
Range of application
Touma and Reese (1974) [3]
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
523
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
O’Neil and Hassan (1994) [3]
(
)
(
)
z: the average depth of the layer in meters.
PA : atmospheric pressure (PA=100 kPa) and OCR: over consolidation ratio.
A time limited license of PLAXIS-3D Foundation (2015) is used in the current study. The
soil is modeled using Mohr-Coulomb criterion whereas, a linear elastic model is selected to
represent pile material.In order to reduce the effect of boundaries on the results, the soil
mediaare extended to minimum distances of ten times pile width from the pile edge in the
lateral directions, and five times pile width below the pile tip [2].In order to model the
construction process of bored piles, the excavated hole is supported byslurry with a shear
strength of (10 kPa) to simulate the drilling process before pouring concrete. The excavation
geometry is considered as identicalto the pile geometry. Soil properties are drawn from the
geotechnical investigation reports and some parameters are specified based on correlative
relations in case of lack of data [11-30].
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All the input data and output results are presented for the first project only. For the remaining
nine projects, partial inputs / outputs are presented in the summary Tables. The first project is
a sixty thousand spectator main stadium, supported on (800mm diameter) bored and cast-inplace piles to a depth of (24 m). The soil profile is shown in the measured load-settlement
curve is shown in Figure 3 [11, 12]. The capacities obtained from the various interpretation
methods are shown in Figures 4 through 6.
The pile design load is (1400 kN), and the static load test was performed to maximum
load of (2100 kN). The maximum load could not bring the test pile to plunging.
All the applicable interpretation methods produced ultimate value beyond the test load.
The greatest value is obtained by Chin’s method (3626.0 kN), as illustrated in Figure 4.
Rollberg’s (20%D) comes after by (3597.0 kN) as in Figure 6. Rollberg’s [(10% D), (6% D)
and (Elastic +D/30)] are [(3274.0 kN), (3164.0 kN), and (3015.0 kN)], respectively. vander
Veen's method yields (2350.0 kN), which is the minimum value among all,
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
524
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham
Figure 3 Soil profile and load load-settlement curve for maintained load test (project No. 1)
Figure 4 Ultimate capacity by Chin’s method (Project No.1)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
525
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
Figure 5 Ultimate pile capacity by Vander-Veen’s method (project No. 1).
Figure 6 Ultimate pile capacity by Vander-Veen’s method (project No. 1).
It is clear that, the Chin’s capacity is very close to the plunging load, as calculated via
Rollberg extrapolated curve at a settlement of (160 mm = 20% D). The ultimate values of
vander Veen’s capacity is very close to the Rollberg's value associated with a settlement of
(9.4 mm = 1.2% D).
The small level of test loading, the associated settlement values, and the produced trends
of data rendered Davisson’s, Brinch Hansen's 80%, Brinch Hansen's 90%, De Beer’s, Fuller
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
526
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham
& Hoy’s and Butler & Hoy’s methods as well as net-settlement criterion inapplicable for this
project.
The existence of numerous static methods for skin and point resistances estimation
produce a big number of combinations for pile capacities. The maximum and minimum
capacities are summarized in Table (2).
Table (2) Ultimate extremism values by the static methods (project No. 1).
Minimum values
Maximum values
Method
Method
Value (kN)
Method
Value (kN)
Skin Resistance
(Cohesive)
Viggiani [10]
1029.5
O'Neil and Reese [3]
1211.3
Skin Resistance
(Cohesionless)
Meyerhof [3].
263.9
Toma and Reese [3]
903.4
Point Bearing
Reese & Wright [3]
1069.4
Meyerhof[9]
5150.7
Resistance
Component
Total Ultimate Capacity
2362.8
7265.4
The minimum ultimate static load is higher than the test load and it is almost equivalent to
the value obtained by van der Veen’s method. Projecting the minimum ultimate static load on
the Rollberg’s curve, gives a settlement of (9.5mm), which is equivalent to (1.25%D)
whereas, the maximum value overestimates the capacities obtained by the methods of
interpretation. The skin resistance component ranges from (1293.4 kN) to (2114.7 kN) while,
the point bearing component ranges from (1069.4 kN) to (5150.7 kN). These two components
shall be further discussed after the presentation of the finite element results.
The input parameters for the finite element analysis are listed in Table 3. The finite
element mesh is shown in Figure 7 whereas, the displacement contours are demonstrated in
Figure 8 for a sample load.
The predicted behavior is compared to the measured one in Figure 9 whereas, the
computed load-settlement curves for the different resistance components are shown in Figure
10. The analysis is terminated at an ultimate load of (5650.0 kN).
Figure 11 illustrate the load transferred from pile to soil, whereas the variations of pile
displacement with depth are illustrated in Figure 12, for various multiples of the design load.
It is realized that at the design load, the point bearing has small contribution in load
resistance (54.0 kN),while the skin resistance component, which is fully mobilized at a butt
settlement of around (10.5mm = 1.3% D) or local displacements around (9mm = 1.1% D),
and an applied load of (161% Qdesign). The point bearing component continues to increase and
reaching its maximum value at a butt settlement of around (80 mm = 10.0% D), which is
associated with plunging.
The contributions of soil layers in skin resistance are calculated from the load differences
at layer boundaries. The results are listed in Table (4).According to the transferred force
within each layer and the associated pile surface area, the skin resistance parameters (α i and
) are back calculated for the static method, from the finite element results, as:
i 
Qsi
As i  cui
  K . tan  
Qs4
As 4   oav 4
and the results are listed in Table (5).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
527
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
Adhesion factors of (0.74) for medium stiff clay, (0.84) for soft clay, and (0.69) for stiff
clay are higher than the values obtained by Viggiani method (0.5, 0.7 and 0.3) respectively
[10]. In addition to that, the predicted -value gives a unit shear stress within the cohesionless
layer that is close to the average value given by O’Neil and Hassan method [3].
The point bearing value of (3394.0 kN) is intermediate between the maximum value
obtained by Meyerhof [9] and the minimum valueobtained by Reese and O’Neil [3]. The soil
stress under the pile toe is (6774.0 kN/m2).
Figure 7 Finite element mesh
Figure 8 Displacement contours at an
(project No.1).applied load of (2900.0 kN)(project No.1).
Table 3 Input parameters for the finite element analysis (project No. 1)
Parameter
Medium Stiff Clay
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Medium Dense Sand
Bored Pile
Diameter
(800) mm
(0.0-5.0) m
(5.0-15) m
(15-21) m
(21-35.0) m
(0.0-24.0) m
Mohr-Coulomb
Liner Elastic
Symbol Unit
Material F.E. Model
Model
--
Mohr-Coulomb
Drainage Type
Type
--
Undrained
Undrained
Undrained
Drained
Non-porous
Unit weight above phreatic level
γunsat
kN/m3
16.5
17.0
17.0
17.0
24.0
Unit weight under phreatic level
γsat
3
18.5
19.0
20.0
20.0
24.0
2
kN/m
Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Young's Modulus
E'
MN/m
27.0
8.5
65.0
56.0
28 000
Poisson's Ratio
ν'
--
0.31
0.37
0.25
0.31
0.15
2
Cohesion
cu
kN/m
45.0
19.0
75.0
0.0
N/A
Friction Angle
φ'
Degree
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.0
N/A
Dilatancy Angle
ψ'
Degree
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
N/A
Lateral Earth Pressure
Coefficient
k0
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.384
N/A
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
528
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham
Table 4 Contributions of soil layers in load resistance (project No. 1)
Depth (m)
0 to 5
5 to
15
15 to
21
21 to
24
Load (kN)
Qs1
Qs2
Qs3
Qs4
Value
%
Value
%
1400.0
190
335
625
196
1346
96.1
54
3.9
2100.0
374
412.5
763.5
420
1970
93.8
130
6.2
2800.0
419
403
780
654
2256
80.6
544
19.4
3500.0
432
393
777
637
2256
64.0
1261
36.0
4200.0
419
403
780
654
2256
53.7
1944
46.3
4900.0
437
393
772
654
2256
46.0
2644
54.0
2256.0
39.9
3394.0
60.1
5650.0
Skin
Resistance
Point
Bearing
Table 5 Predicted skin resistance parameters (project No. 1)
Load (kN)
3800
4200
4900
5650
α1 for
cu1=45 kPa
0.76
0.74
0.75
0.74
α2 for
cu2=19 kPa
0.82
0.84
0.84
0.84
α3 for
cu3=75 kPa
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.69
for
N=37
0.307
0.308
0.308
0.309
The results for all projects are summarized in Tables6& 7.
Figure (9) Predicted load-settlement curve vs
measured one (projectNo. 1).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
Figure (10) Predicted ultimate capacities (project
No. 1).
529
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
Figure 11 Load transfer vs depth (project No. 1)
Figure 12 Pile displacement versus depth (project
No. 1)
Table 6 Summary of the interpretations, and static methods
Project No.
Pile dia. (mm) x length (m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8
9
10
800x24
600x24
800x27
1500x31
800x24.5
1000x24
800x24
1000x29
800x28
1000x30
Load Test
Design/Test
loads (kN)
MaximumButt Settlement (mm)
1400/2100 750/1500 1400/2100 3500/5250 1250/1875 2000/4000 1250/1875 3000/4500 1600/3200 3000/4500
6.5
2.8
Davisson
Chin
12.7
2.6
1500
3626
3510
Hansen 80%
Vander-Veen
14.2
2350
6.25 mm net
2000
16.3
2.6
2200
2846
7937
2667
2809
6980
2149
2400
5700
2150
1920
7884
2722
23
19
16
2220
2620
2600
7452
3558
7992
2149
6800
3600
2400
3234
5000
3350
7000
4000
2870
4340
Rollberg 6%,10%
3164,3274 3279,3412 2619,2737 7787,7871 2685,2710 6551,7253 2685,2710 6232,6876 3373,3458 6744,7406
Elas+B/30, 20%
3015,3597 3135,3520 2463,2832 7645,7936 2650,2730 5779,7888 2650,2730 5560,7454 3286,3525 6056,7996
Static
Min/max skin
1293,2115 792,1276 1450,2109 2925,7769 1087,2049 1436,2634 1066,1341 1598,3474 1081,2118 1942,3949
Min/max point
1069,5151 471,1705 1156,7691 3760,18237 1127,5555 1761,8004
Min/max ultimate
2363,7265 1263,2981 2606,9800 6685,26006 2214,7604 3197,10638 1609,1884 3404,14784 2237,9356 3613,12054
543,543 1806,11310 1156,7238 1761,8105
* Cohesive bearing stratum.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
530
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham
Table 7 Summary of the finite element method
Project No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8
9
10
Pile dia. (mm) x length (m) 800x24 600x24 800x27 1500x31 800x24.5 1000x24 800x24 1000x29 800x28 1000x30
FEM
Skin
(kN)
2256
1210
2495
6000
1737
2234
1900
3788
1900
3400
Point
(kN)
3394
1940
2945
8900
3383
5206
870
3902
2960
4740
Ultimate (kN)
5650
3150
5440
14900
5120
7440
2770
7690
4860
8140
Local sett. at ult.
skin resist. (mm)
9
11
9
9
8
1.1% D 1.8% D 1.1% D 0.6% D 1% D
Butt sett. at ult
point resist. (mm)
80
69
91
145
93
86
105
114
104
120
10.0% D 11.5% D 11.4% D 9.7% D 11.6% D 8.6% D 13.1% D 11.4% D 13% D 12% D
cu1 (kPa) / α1
45/ 0.74 50/0.73 48/0.73 50/0.74 55/0.75 45/0.79 48/0.78 50/0.76 55/0.72 45/0.75
cu2 (kPa) / α2
19/ 0.84 25/0.83 25/0.83 12/0.88 12/0.84 12/0.83 12/0.88 25/0.85 12/0.89 12/0.87
cu3(kPa) / α3
75/ 0.69
N / φo
37/38
29/36
40/39
37/38
0.309
0.354
0.396
0.312
90/0.66 65/0.71
8
9.5
9.5
10.5
11
0.8% D 1.2% D 0.95% D 1.3% D 1.1% D
75/0.68 80/0.61
39/38.7 39/38.7
0.326
0.301
Unit skin (kPa)
87
71
99
84
72
69
Unit Point (kPa)
6774
6865
5863
5039
6734
6631
1736
90/0.61 90/0.62
40/39
40/39 39/38.7
0.334
0.310
0.313
94
69
69
4880
5891
6028
* Cohesive bearing stratum.
The variations of adhesion factor with undrained cohesion, and skin friction factor with
the standard penetration blows, as obtained from the finite element method, are shown in
Figures 14 and 15. It should be mentioned that single (average)-valued (α or ) factors are
assigned for soils with similar (cu or N)-values.
Figure 13 Adhesion factors for bored piles in Basrah soil
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
531
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
Figure 14 Skin friction factor vs. standard penetration blows for bored piles in Basrah soil
Table (8) lists the ultimate bored pile capacities, as calculated based on Figures 13 and
14for ultimate skin resistance components, and Reese and O'Neil's (1988) method for point
bearing component. The allowable loads adopting a safety factor of (3) and the associated butt
settlement values, as obtained from the measured load-settlement relations, are also tabulated.
The maximum settlement is (4.9 mm), which is equivalent to (1.7%D), and is accepted for
most structures.
Table 8 The predicted bored pile capacities and the associated settlement values
Project
No.
Pile dia.
(mm)
Qs
(kN)
Qp
(kN)
Qu
(kN)
Qall
(kN)
Butt Settlement
at Qall (mm)
1
800
2091.6
1069.4
3161.0
1053.7
1.8
2
600
1098.7
471.5
1570.2
523.4
0.6
3
800
2176.6
1156.1
3332.7
1110.9
3.0
4
1500
5794.9
3759.6
9554.5
3184.8
3.7
5
800
1694.0
1127.2
2821.2
940.4
0.7
6
1000
2381.4
1761.3
4142.7
1380.9
3.6
7
800
1727.9
542.9
2270.8
756.9
0.5
8
1000
3235.4
1806.4
5041.8
1680.6
4.9
9
800
1911.4
1156.1
3067.5
1022.5
2.0
10
1000
3454.1
1761.3
5215.4
1738.5
4.0
6. CONCLUSIONS
For the studied ten projects, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Pile load tests in Basrah are usually used as proof tests, even for the trial piles. Piles are rarely
tested to failure.

For a well-conducted test (with no problems), the load-settlement data can be fitted with a
considerable degree of accuracy by a hyperbola. According to that, Rollberg method simulates
the test results in a good manner and permits the application of many interpretation criteria on
the extrapolated curves.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
532
editor@iaeme.com
Dr. Haider S. Al-Jubair and Mushtaq R. Daham

Davisson’s, BrinchHansen 90%, De-Beer’s, Fuller-Hoy’s, and Butler-Hoy’smethods could not
be applied for small settlement load test data ranges. The same is applicable for the (0.25 in)
net-settlement criterion.

The ultimate pile capacities obtained from the load tests using Chin’s method are almost equal
to their counterparts obtained from Rollberg method at failure (plunging). Brinch Hansen's(80%) and van der Veen's methods give lower values.

The ultimate pile capacities obtained using the various static methods of predicting skin
resistance and point bearing components, spread over a wide range.

The finite element analyses via PLAXIS show good agreement to the measured data. They
produce failure loads, almost, similar to that obtained from Rollberg interpretation method.

The finite element analyses revealed local settlement of (0.6%D – 1.8%D) to mobilize the
ultimate skin resistance. The computed unit skin friction ranges between (69 kPa) and (99
kPa).

The butt settlement values necessary to produce the ultimate frictional point resistance are
(8.6%D – 13.1%D).The computed ultimate bearing stress range is (4880 kPa – 6865 kPa).

Figures (14 and 15) can be utilized to calculate the ultimate skin resistance and Reese and
O'Neil's (1988) method can be used to calculate the point bearing component. A safety factor
of (3) is recommended to predict the allowable pile capacity.

All the predicted allowable loads are less than the proposed design loads.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
ASTM D1143/ D1143M,(2013), “Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Static Axial Compressive Load”, 11 pp.
Fleming, K. and Weltman, A. (2009), “Piling Engineering-3rded.”,Taylor and Francis
Group, London and New York, 407 pp.
Gunaratne, Manjriker (2006),“The Foundation Engineering Handbook-st ed.”, Tayler &
Francis Group, Boca Raton, London and New York, 625 pp.
PLAXIS 3D Foundation (2015),"Scientific manual", 66 pp.
Poulos H. and Davis E. (1980), “Pile Foundation Analysis and Design-1st ed.”, Rainbow
Bridge Co. Canada, 410 pp.
Prakash, S. and Sharma, H. (1990), “Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice-1st ed.”,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York Chichester, 759 pp.
Rao, S.S. (2004),“Finite Element Method in Engineering-4thed.”, USA: Elsevier Science
& Technology Books, 747 pp.
Shrof, A. and Shah D. (2003), “Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering-1st ed.”, A.
A. BalkemaPuplishers. Lisse, Abingdon, Exton, Tokyo, 463 pp.
Tomlinson, M. and Woodward, J. (2015), “Pile Design and Construction Practice-6th
ed.”, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York, 597 pp.
Viggiani, C. and Mandolini, M. (2012), “Piles and Pile Foundations-1st ed.”, Spon Press,
London and New York, 229 pp.
Site investigation and pile load test reports
National Center for Construction Labs, (Jan, 2008), “Soil Investigation Report, Basra
Sport City”, (No. 1-1-23-2008).
Al-Tariq Engineering Bureau, (Nov, 2009), “Pile Static Load Test, Basra Sport City Main
Stadium”, (No. 371).
University of Technology, Engineering Consulting Bureau, (Jan, 2009), “Soil
Investigation Report, Basra Sewage Treatment Plant 4 & 5”, (No. Jan-2009).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
533
editor@iaeme.com
Evaluation and Development of The Available Methods of Predicting Capacities of Bored Piles
Embedded In Basra Soil
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
Al-Meazan Co for Pile Test, (Mar, 2015), “Pile Static Load Test, Basra Sewage Treatment
Plant Stages 4 & 5”, (No. 35).
University of Basra, Engineering Consulting Bureau, (April, 2012), “Soil Investigation
Report,Specialist University Hospital”, (No. 26/SI/2012).
DEREC for Pile Test, (Feb, 2014), “Pile Static Load Test, Specialist University
Hospital”, (No. Xx2.007).
National Center for Construction Labs, (Jul, 2012), “Soil Investigation
Report,AlMahakim Bridge”, (No. 2-1-42).
Al-Liqa’a Engineering Bureau, (April, 2012), “Pile Static Load Test, Al Mahakim
Bridge”, (No. 295).
National Center for Construction Labs, (Jul, 2011), “Soil Investigation Report, Saafat Al
Basra Project”, (No. 2-1-42).
Al-Liqa’a Engineering Bureau, (April, 2012), “Pile Static Load Test, Saafat Al Basra
Project”, (No. 295).
National Center for Construction Labs, (Jan, 2008), “Soil Investigation Report, Highway
Bridge”, (No. 1-1-23-2008).
Al-Tariq Engineering Bureau, (Nov, 2009), “Pile Static Load Test, Highway Bridge”,
(No. 371).
Al Fao Company for Geotechnical and Soil Investigation (Oct, 2013), “Soil Investigation
Report, Shatt Al Arab Residential”, (No. 432).
Al Fao Company for Geotechnical and Soil Investigation (April, 2015), “Pile Static Load
Test, Shatt Al Arab Residential”, (No. 101).
National Center for Construction Labs, (Jan, 2008), “Soil Investigation Report, Building
in Estiklal Street”, (No. 1-1-23-2008).
Al-Liqa’a Engineering Bureau, (April, 2012), “Pile Static Load Test, Building in Estiklal
street”, (No. 295).
National Center for Construction Labs, (Jan, 2014), “Soil Investigation Report, Al Omali
Hotel”, (No. 2-1-46).
Al Fao Company for Geotechnical and Soil Investigation (April, 2015), “Pile Static Load
Test, Al Omali Hotel”, (No. 101).
National Center for Construction Labs, (Apr, 2015), “Soil Investigation Report, Al
Haramaim Building”, (No. 2-1-1).
Al Fao Company for Geotechnical and Soil Investigation (Mar, 2017), “Pile Static Load
Test, Al-HaramaimBuilding”, (No. 45).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
534
editor@iaeme.com