Contribution to Estimating Bearing Capacity of Pile in Clayey Soils

Abstract

The estimation of real geotechnical parameters is key factor for safe and economic design of geotechnical structures. One of these are pile foundations, which require proper design and evaluation due to accessing more deep foundation soil and because remediation work of not bearable piles or broken piles is a crucial operation. For this reason, geotechnical field testing like cone penetration test (CPT), standard penetration (SPT) or dynamic penetration test (DP) are realized in order to receive continuous information about soil strata. Comparing with rotary core drilling type of survey with sampling, these methods are more progressive. From engineering geologist point of view, it is more important to know geological characterization of locality but geotechnical engineers have more interest above the real geotechnical parameters of foundation soils. The role of engineering geologist cannot be underestimated because important geological processes in origin or during history can explain behaviour of a geological environment. In effort to streamline the survey, investigation by penetration tests is done as it is able to provide enough information for designers. This paper deals with actual trends in pile foundation design; because there are no new standards and usable standards are very old. Estimation of the bearing capacity of a single pile can be demonstrated on the example of determination of the cone factor Nk from CPT testing. Then results were compared with other common methods.

Prediction of Pile Bearing Capacity Using XGBoost Algorithm: Modeling and Performance Evaluation

“…Pile foundations are used to support structures that cannot be supported economically on shallow foundations. The most significant factor when designing a pile foundation is pile carrying capacity (P u ) [2]. Various ways to determine pile carrying capacity have been used during the years of research and development [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], including dynamic analysis, high strain dynamic test, pile load test, cone penetration test (CPT) and in situ tests.…”

“…In the testing part, the XGBoost model had the best prediction results with respect to R2 , MAE, RMSE, MARE, NSE and RSR (i.e., R 2 = 0.955, MAE = 59.929, RMSE = 80.653, MARE = 6.6, NSE = 0.950, and RSR = 0.225) compared to AdaBoost (i.e., R 2 = 0.950, MAE = 70.383, RMSE = 90.665, MARE = 8.252, NSE = 0.936, and RSR = 0.253), RF (i.e., R 2 = 0.945, MAE = 69.030, RMSE = 86.348, MARE = 8.014, NSE = 0.942, and RSR = 0.241), DT (i.e., R 2 = 0.0.925, MAE = 74.450, RMSE = 99.822, MARE = 8.775, NSE = 0.923, and RSR = 0.278) and SVM (i.e., R 2 = 0.878, MAE = 98.320, RMSE = 128.027, MARE = 10.991, NSE = 0.873, and RSR = 0.357) as shown in Table5.…”

Design deep neural network architecture using a genetic algorithm for estimation of pile bearing capacity

“…In pile foundation design, the axial pile bearing capacity (P u ) is considered one of the most critical parameters [ 1 ]. Throughout years of research and development, five main approaches to determine the pile bearing capacity have been adopted, namely the static analysis, dynamic analysis, dynamic testing, pile load testing, and in-situ testing [ 2 ].…”

Accuracy of pile capacity assessment on the basis of piling reports

“…There are many methods enabling to assess the bearing capacity listed by Fellenius [2] and recently Sobala [3]. The most popular include: static pile load test [4] with critical discussion [5], estimation based on subgrade investigation [6] and Cone Penetration Test [7,8], dynamic pile load test and capacity estimation based on driving report (dynamic formulae) [9]. Most of these methods generate additional costs, hence testing are made to the number required by current regulations only to reduce these costs.…”