Grundlagen der Geotechnik

Schmidt, Hans-Henning; Buchmaier, Roland Fritz; Vogt-Breyer, Carola

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-14931-4

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From an illustration provided by Abuel-Naga et al [25], presented in the context of rod friction of dynamic probes, it may be inferred that for DPH tests with a maximum depth of 10 m, an undrained shear strength of about c u = 30 kPa (soft consistency acc. to [26]) is suffi cient to support the cavity opened by the cone. For tests up to a depth of 20 m about c u = 60 kPa (soft/stiff consistency acc.…”

Section: Aufsatz Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors influencing correlations between CPT and DPH

Henzinger¹,

Krösbacher²,

Vogt

2022

Geotechnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the widespread availability and superior information provided by the cone penetration test (CPT), dynamic probes like the DPH (dynamic probe heavy) remain an important soil investigation method under certain circumstances. In order to make use of the results of the DPH in the context of the vast body of interpretation and design methods developed for CPT tests, the drop count N10 of the DPH is correlated to the tip resistance qc of the CPT. There are numerous correlations between both values available in the standards and in the literature. However, any soil‐related differences, limitations, and factors influencing those correlations are not necessarily obvious. The present paper presents a simple framework for the illustration of influencing factors and the interpretation of correlations between DPH and CPT. The proposed framework is based on the information provided in EN ISO 22476‐1 and published scientific literature. Linear correlation factors based on the proposed framework are derived. These factors are then compared with our own field data and information from the literature.

show abstract

Section: Aufsatz Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For tests up to a depth of 20 m about c u = 60 kPa (soft/stiff consistency acc. to [26]) should suffi ce.…”

Section: Aufsatz Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors influencing correlations between CPT and DPH

Henzinger¹,

Krösbacher²,

Vogt

2022

Geotechnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In design situations, where the cost-effectiveness of pile caps are of primary interest, pile spacings should be kept as close as possible [68]. The optimal pile layout, however, should also ensure the effectiveness of resisting piles, which is primarily achieved through sufficiently large pile spacings [72]. The assessment of optimal pile spacings may be based on the evaluation of settlement profiles at different pile depths [52].…”

Section: Displacements Induced In Surronding Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice-Oriented Validation of Embedded Beam Formulations in Geotechnical Engineering

Granitzer

Tschuchnigg

2021

Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The numerical analysis of many geotechnical problems involves a high number of structural elements, leading to extensive modelling and computational effort. Due to its exceptional ability to circumvent these obstacles, the embedded beam element (EB), though originally intended for the modelling of micropiles, has become increasingly popular in computational geotechnics. Recent research effort has paved the way to the embedded beam element with interaction surface (EB-I), an extension of the EB. The EB-I renders soil–structure interaction along an interaction surface rather than the centreline, making it theoretically applicable to any engineering application where beam-type elements interact with solid elements. At present, in-depth knowledge about relative merits, compared to the EB, is still in demand. Subsequently, numerical analysis are carried out using both embedded beam formulations to model deep foundation elements. The credibility of predicted results is assessed based on a comprehensive comparison with the well-established standard FE approach. In all cases considered, the EB-I proves clearly superior in terms of mesh sensitivity, mobilization of skin-resistance, and predicted soil displacements. Special care must be taken when using embedded beam formulations for the modelling of composite structures.

show abstract

Ingenieurbau – Baugruben

Vogt

2024

Erfolgreich Studieren

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grundlagen der Geotechnik

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Factors influencing correlations between CPT and DPH

Factors influencing correlations between CPT and DPH

Practice-Oriented Validation of Embedded Beam Formulations in Geotechnical Engineering

Ingenieurbau – Baugruben

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About