Eighth Southeast Aslan Geotechnical Conference/11~15 March 1985/Kuels Lumpur A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DESIGN METHODS FOR PILE FOUNDATIONS WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE DRY DOCKS OF COCHIN SHIPYARD D. RAJAH BABU Cochin Shipyard, Cochin, India, BABU T. JOSE University of Cochin, Cochin, Indi. SYNOPSIS Numerous methods are available for the estimation of pile capacity for various soil profiles and installation techniques. But even in the case of methods which are very popular among foundation designers, the estimated capacities vary widely, making the identification of the actual capacity a difficult task. This paper prosents @ comparative study of the diferent methods of design applicable to Cochin Shipyara site, Based on the results of extensive soil investigations carried out and the details of about 4,000 piles driven at the site for the dry dock, eleven representative piles, for which actual pile capacities were known through pile load tests, were designed by six different methods. ‘These methods were selected as they were considered most suitable for the soil profile available at the site. ‘The computed values were then compared with the results of the pile load test to identify the most rellable method. The Japanese method and Sanglerat's method were found most suitable for near-shore structures in Cochin area. NOTATIONS A area of pile tip © sum of all the temporary elastic compressions of the pile in centimeters. depth of pile diameter of the pile height of free fall of hammer in centrimetres mean Nevalue of or the portion of the pile, 103 of the total length from tip Nevalue at pile tip bearing capacity factor efficiency of blow ultimate bearing capacity az yt sao average static cone resistance over a depth of 2d below the base level of the pile qq, Minimum static cone resistance ‘1 over the same 2d below the pile tip gq average of the minimun cone resis- tance values in the diagran over a height of 84 above the base level of the pile Sc average value of cone resistance for a total depth of 4a te, 34 above the tip of the pile and d below thetip of the pile S final set of penetration per blow centimetres W mass of hanmer in tonnes Y unit weight of soil INTRODUCTION Even since the wide-spread adoption of pile as a type of foundation especially for waterfront structures and highrise buildings, the estimation of pile capacity has been a problem vexing the foundation engineers. Despite the numerous methods available in the literature, the problem is made more intriguing’by the large variations in the estimated capacities - at tines 200 to 300 percent - given by the different methods. Thus the selection of the method of capacity is still left to individual judgement, in the absence of any Universally accepted rationale. ‘This paper attempts to make a compara- tive study of some design procedures recommended and practised by foundation engineers, based on the piling data of a large number of piles driven in Cochin Shipyard for some near shore structures, and a representative selection of eleven pile load tests conducted, and to recommend a reliable procedure for the assessment of pile capacity for near shore structures along the shore line at Cochin. The scope of study is Limited to the performance of individualpiles and no consideration is given to the group behaviour of the pile foundations. ‘The first part of this paper is con- cerned with the computation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity of piles by various analytical methods. The second part deals with the load testing of selected piles and comparison of the ultimate loads assessed from pile test data with those computed in the first part. SOIL DATA 3.1 A detailed soil investigation was done by different agencies viz. M/s Rodio-Hazarth, M/s Cementation and Co. and M/s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan. It consisted of taking borings generally to a depth of 50M. and at a few places up to a depth of about 80 metres, conducting standard penetration tests, vane shear tests, dutch cone penetration tests, and tests on disturbed and undisturbed soil samples and underground water. Pig.1 gives the location of the bore holes and Fig. 2 gives the typical soil profile. 3.2. From the soil exploratory data, the sub soil can be divided into various zones as below. Zone Description Approxi- Range of mate Nevalue depth in metres 1. Grey fine sand with shells o-10 35 2. Soft bluish 10-15 3-40 grey silty clay 3, Stiff bluish 15-38 15-38 grey sandy clay 4. compact yellow- ish brown 38-50 40-96 coarse sand 5. Compact sand mixed with 50-80 very high decayed wood 3.3. ‘The upper most stratum is of loose and soft esturine and consists of sand, silt and their mixture. ‘This is underlain by a recent clay deposit which 1s moderately preconsel lasted. The depth of this stratun and the degree of preconsolidation varies. Generally the stiffness of clay improves near the lower boundary. The layer of sandy clay beneath the above layer 1s distinctly stiffer and also indurated. ‘There are a few pockets of lateritic material also. Below this stratum, there is sand and gravelly soil. This is a complex layer made of sand, showing considerable variation in’depth as well as the composition thereof. Therefore, the Nevalue of this layer shows substant~ dal fluctuation. The stratum beneath the above is a well compacted one, containing widely graded quart2-sand. Same parts of this layer appeared to be solidified. 3.4. Particle size distribution curves indicate the predominance of sand from a depth of about 37,00 metres. Above this level, the amount of silt and clay dominates the behaviour of the soil. 3.5 Based on laboratory test results, the shear strength parameters of the cohesive strata is as below. Depth Cohesion kg/cm? o-20 0.20 10-20 0:25 10-30 0.39 30-35 ola 3.6 The specific gravity of the soil ranges from 2,52 to 2,7 4, COMPUTATION OF ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 4.0 ‘The piles considered in this work are all driven cast-in-situ type. They are end bearing in a layer of dense sand, after having penetrated weak strata above. For such piles, accord ing to Thomas Whitakar (27), the major portion of the ultimate bearing capacity is supplied by base resistance. Hence in the computation of ultimate bearing capacity of the piles friction has not been considered. Apart from load tests, bearing capacity of piles can be calculated from the following. a. Measured or estimated shear strength of the soil surrounding the pile. b. Static penetration test methods, where the penetration resistance of a probe, which is slowly pushed into the soil, is measured. ©, Dynamic penetfation tests, where the number of blows required to penetrate a standard sampler through a certain distance into a soil is measured. d, Pile driving formulae, which are based on the nunber of blows req- uired to drive a pile through a certain distance.| LOCATIONS OF BORE HOLES | AND_TEST PLES i | | | rest rues a & " s * ° | | ene on 2 4%. | . s | 3 g g g &%| E% | & 3 # a 2 = e FIG.1 SOlL_PROFILE _STANOARD PENETRATION STATIC CONE_PENETRATION Snes SS eeeance cern nevattes—e tg fot = go 40 - 200. mie i. : | Ry i | wer |" | | KY maar a 4 Eg \ " | Soon ee = | IN : LU |4.1 Ultimate bearing capacity from Shear strengeh paraneters 4.1.1 The assessment of the ultimate bearing capacity of piles from the knowledge of soil properties is the most logical method but the correctness of prediction depends to a large extent on the accuracy with which the soil Parameters are determined during the Soil investigation. 4.1.2 Rankine's theory of conjugate stresses, for a material having inter- nal friction, formed the starting point of some bearing capacity theories. Paton (1895) applied Rankine's theory of conjugate stress to obtain a solution for the bearing capacity of a pile. Subsequentiy other engineers also developed expressions for the bearing capacity of piles in terms of "g", but none gave results that could be felied upon, when applied to prac- tical cases and the early static form ulae did not get universal acceptance. 4.1.3 In 1943, Terzaghi (17) published his well known golution for calculating bearing capacity of piles from soil properties. This was further modified by Meyorhof (1951) (10), (1853) (11) and (2959) (13). For practical design pur- poses, Terzaghi and Peck (1967) (19) suggested that for piles driven through compressible materials to a firm base, ‘the base resistance could be calculated from the equation 1.3 No + 2D N+ ‘c ‘a + 0.6(B/2) 'N a ‘Thomas Witaker (1976) (27) suggested that when a pile penetrates weak strata to obtain end bearing in a bed of noncohe- sive soil, the terms containing 'c' in Terzaghi's equation become zero and the ultimate bearing capacity can be calculated from the equation Qe ALN. YD +12) and the same is used in this work. 4.2 Ultimate bearing capacity from static cone penetration tests 4.2.1 ‘The static cone penetration test is widely used in Holland and Belgium where most of the structures are founded on piles driven through peats and stiff clays to a suitable bearing on medium dense to dense sands and considerably experience has been gained in the interpretation of static cone penetration tests in relation to piled foundations in sands. The concept underlying this test is to treat the cone as a reduced scale model to simulate the action of pile, and interpret the results for obtaining the ultimate load of a pile. 4.2.2 The Dutch sounding apparatus was originally devised for locating resistant strata to which piles might be driven. The methods by which the bearing resistance of a pile may be calculated from cone penetration tests have been modified with increasing experience. In the direct method the ultimate point resistance of a pile is calculated by multiplying the cross section of the base of the pile by the measured cone resistance per unit area at the sane level. 4.2.3 Pimm and Gower (1938) (14) Huizinga (1951) (9) van der veen (1953) (23) and Meyorhof (1956) (12) examined the reliability of the Dutch cone penctrometer. Van der veen (1957) (24) Begman (1963) (2), ‘Thorburn and Mac Vicar (1970) (7) Vesic, A.S. (1973) (25) Gregersen (1973) (7) Gruteman (1873) (8) Vesic a.S. (1973) (26) Thorburn $ (1976) suggested various methods for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity from static cone penetration tests and the factors to be taken into account for accurate predic: tion. The ultimate bearing capacity suggested by Sanglerat is Seo + Ser Q =a os —el +3) * So2 + and according to Van der veen, the ultimate capacity is equal to'A x a. 4.2.3 the ultimate bearing capacity is calculated here using both the above methods. 4,3 Ultimate bearing capacity from seandaré penetration tests 4.3.1 the standard penetration test is an empirical dynamic penetration test developed in the USA in 19203. Terzaghi in his early work noted that the blow count on a sampling spoon during boring operations was related to the bearing capacity of soils. 4.3.2 The dynamic penetration tests simulate driving of piles with the following limitations. a) In the dynamic penetration test, end resistance make a smaller contribution to total resistance than in piles, except in except- sonally hard Strata such as rock. In the standard penetration test, S011 is pushed into the sampling tube, hence resistance due £0 displacements of the soil sideways at the pile point is not reflected fully.b) As friction developes over the entire length of the pile a ‘set! can be obtained by increase in length without appreciable increase in unit frictional resistance of individual strata. No such ‘set’ can be obtained in the dynamic penetration test as it measures the resistance of individual strata over a short fixed length. 4.3.3. Terzaghi and Peck (1948) (18) Gibbs and Holtz (1957) (6) Thorburn (1963) (20) have suggested modification to the N-value obtained from tests Camberfert (1949) (4) Neyorhof# (1956) (12), B.B. Broms (1966) (3) and Thorn- burn’ et al (1970) (22) suggested various methods for calculating ultimate bearing capacity from standard penetra- tion test data, 4.3.4 According to a method used by the Japanese engineers, who were’ the consultants for the construction of Cochin Shipyard, the ultinate bearing capacity Os mea e Wnere, N, = 15 + 1/2 (Nt-15) and w= 4.3.5 As per the method suggested by 5.8.Broms the ultimate bearing capacity is given by (4) 3) = Ax 2.5 x N, x 10.9366., ° Nx 1 4.3.6 Both the above methods are used for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity in this work. 4.4 Ultimate bearing capacity from pile driving formule 4.4.1 The resistance to penetration of a pile being driven by a constant energy from a standard weight hanmer has led to many empirical formulae for computing the capacity of piles such as Engineering News Formula, Wiley Formula etc. ‘These dynamic’ formulae are based on the laws governing dynamic impact of elastic bodies. They, in general, equate the energy of hanmer blow to'the work done in overcoming resistance of the ground to the penetration of the piles. 4.4.2 Cummings (1940) (5), Terzaghi (1942) (16) Soresen and Hanson (1937) (15) and Agerschou (1962) (1) compared the ultimate bearing capacity calculated using various pile driving formulae with that computed from pile load tests. 4.4.3 Because of the numerous and widely varying elastic conditions, in the dynamic pile driving system, and because of many varying properties of soil, engineers have come to conclude that it is impossible to arrive at a universal pile driving formula that will give absolutely dependable inform ation relative to the ultimate bearing capacity of piles. In this work, Modified Heiley formula as given’ below is used. o Ween c s+§ B = (6) 4.5 The ultimate bearing capacity computed using the various methods enunerated above is given in table I. Tt may be observed that for most of the piles there are large variations in the computed ultimate load given by different methods, one method giving 3 times the ultimate load given by yet another method, for the same piles. To determine the acceptability of any particular method it becane, therefore, necessary to compare these Computed loads with the ultimate loads assessed from test loading of these piles. 5. TEST PILES AND LOAD TESTS 5.1 The piles are driven cast-in-situ type. The location of the test piles are given in Fig. 1. out of eleven test piles, seven are 580 mm and four 490 mm in diameter. ‘The casings with hexagonal shaped steel shoes, were driven using a4 tonne single acting vibrohanmer with a constant hanmer drop of 1.2 metres until they reached a layer whose N-value is not less than 50, The final set per blow ranges from 0.30 mm to 5.0 mm. The relationship between the number of blows and the depth of penetration of the casing tube of each test pile is given in Figure 3. The driving of the casing and the concreting were done to conform to the relevant Indian standard Specifica~ tion. ‘The piles were reinforced for its entire length and the concrete used was M 250, 5.2 ‘The load testing of the pile was conducted only after 28 days had elapsed after constructing the pile. ‘The test loads were applied by a hydraulic jack positioned between the top of the pile cap and the under side of a steel grillage platform which was connected to eight anchor piles. The vertical movement of the test pile was measured by means of four dial gauges. A fifth dial guage was connected to the end of a free rod inserted into the test pile and from this the compression in concrete was directly measured, The loading was done in stages of $0 tonnes. The test wasi conducted by cyclic loading. None of the piles was tested to destruction. 5.3 Based on the Pile test data graphs with load Vs Settlement, Settlement Vs log time, load Vs S/log t and Load Vs settlement’ in log scale were plotted. The ultimate load assessed from the graph with load Vs Steelement on log log scale, was finally selected since the rate of change of settlement was more clear in this plot. The ultimate load of each Test Pile is given in Table 1. DETALE OF TEST PRES AND ULT TEst_LoADs nj | | aose | eer | aso jae | is wo | 2 | ara | s.00 | 400 to | seo | | aves | 500 | aso 1 6. prscussrons 6.1 Ultimate load from pile tests 6.1.1 This work, is a comparison of the ultimate load’of piles computed by different analytical methods and that assessed from pile load tests. But unfortunately none of the published works define the ultimate bearing capacity. Some authors, nave emphasised the dependence of settlement on time and defined ultimate bearing capacity in this back ground. Skempton defines the ultimate bearing capacity in London clay as ‘that load under which the pile continues to settle at steady rate with respect to time’. 6.1.2 In practice, it is difficult to define such a point on the load settlement curve. Personal judgement plays an important role in fixing this point. There have been several attempts to evolve procedures which would eliminate the personal factor in the computations, but such a proce- dure is not yet known. Hence it can be stated in conclusion, that the ultimate bearing capacity can be un- ambiguously defined from load settle ment curves only when the curves attain @ vertical tangent, as in tests made on end bearing piles in stiff clay or in some friction piles. In all other cases, for the selection of ultimate bearing capacity from load settlement curve, arbitrary procedures are adopted. In this work after tryingvarious methods, available in literature, the ultimate bearing capacity is calcu- lated from the plot with load Vs Settle- ment on log-log scale, since the rate of change of load settlement curve was more precise in that. 6.2 Ultimate load from shear strength paranetres 6.2.1 The correctness of the analy tical computation will depend on the accuracy with which the soil parametres are determined. In soil mechanics, either it is impossible in many cases to determine the value of certain parameters to the required accuracy at the time of investigations or it may be considered as not essential even with the best engineering judgement. Another aspect is the inadequacy of certain theories. One example is that most theories do not take into account ‘the compaction of sand, resulting from pile driving. The value of 'N," used in the calculation is that applicable to 'g" of the soil in its undisturbed state prior to piling. 6.2.2 Al] the eleven test piles were driven into dense sand layer through cohesive material. There are certain limitations that arise in the applica- tion of the plastic theory of failure. The plastic theories, such as Meyerhof's assume that the soil'is basically in- compressible. It is reasonable to assime that this assumption would be realised in dense sands up to a certain depth below the surface. At greater depths, however, the assumption that the dense sand is incompressible may not be tenable. Moreover, numerical validity of plastic failure theories is dependent upon the appropriate choice of '9' value applicable to the whole rupture surface. All plastic theories assume that 'p' is uniform for the entire failure surface and is independent of the load intensity. practice, this assumption cannot be realised, mn 6.2.3 In this work, the ultimate bearing capacity from the shear strength paranetres of soil is rable COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE LOADS FROM VARIOUS METHODS WITH ULTIMATE LOAD FROM PILE TEST DATA cond Seeteis Feom scr Fron se fered trece ley se : : - ts te rest ous | wares | smncucears | —anoue wed | iene Brows mame, | sommes mts metho serie tens ae Faeno For [eames] For oF Jeawats | ¥ o lomo | top ucub [utes ue tew fee acter forts coxe [acess fia cowo fares ones | [Ses [138 SS [es [| Nwes”[E tr [ose Jes an [oe | seo [or | soe fom | oe | isc] we | oe | aso v2 | we [as | zoe | sa | wo | 20 | 256 | 02 | isa | se | 202 | sr | 260 ra foe | faa fs] aoe five | aor | | 22 | roe | zor | es | aso ra Joan | | oe | zo] on fim | ae | co | 2 | se } 208 | ao | 520 ts | 7 | ao] a9 | m | ox | uo | 20a | ee | toe | se | aor | as | aco te | 200 | ss | ase | oe | sos | ta | 60 | re | aor | os | 0 | or | ato me fs foe] an [eet ro fies | om for | soo | isa | ue | ee | aso te | se fun] ase foe | ase [us | siz | ze | cox | iso | is | a | coo we | ace | ioe | 307 | iso | aoe fice | aso | res | sar | ice | wr | oo | 2a ro | wo far] aes | os | coo fuss | se fur | eas | ia | uo | os | aso te | ace feo | se |v | rer fae | are | oo | ae2 | or | are | a2 | s00 moavcrmen of t203} 2 7 e G 2 f Dan em oF ot . aczimicr mney} aor 0 wep | 587 rorrs¢ | 26f 10957 | sot ro msp | supe uop | 244 054calculated using the formula suggested by Whitakar (27). From the results, it can be seen that the percentage deviation over the ultimate load from pile test data varies from 40 to 198. Out of eleven piles, there is not even a single pile within the deviation range 4 10% of the ultimate test load afd there are only two piles within the range of + 208. -SQMEAESON OF OMEVTED UH. \0805 AO WL LOAD FROM PLE TEST A 6.3 ULtimate load from static cone penetration tests 6.3.1 The main drawback of the assessment of ultimate bearing capacity based on the static cone penetration test is that, in this method, no recognition is given to the scale effect. The ultimate bearing capacity is calculated here using Sanglerat's method and Van der Veen's method using data from the static cone penetrometer tests done on the location of the test piles. The ultimate capacity calculated with Sanglerat's method are within a percentage deviation of 5% to 17.58 over the ultimate test load. 4 piles are within a deviation range of + 108 and 7 piles within + 20% when compared to the ultimate test load. As far as the Van der Veon's method is concerned the percentage error varies from 28 to 189. One pile is within the deviation range of #103 and two piles within + 208. 6.4 Ultimate load from standard Penetration tests 6.4.1 As regards the calculation of ultimate pearing capacity from standard penetration test data, the result is liable to be affected because the blow count is frequently not indicative of the actual bearing capacity and stiff ness of the soil wnere the soil is soft and compressible strata is Liguified by the dynamic impulses or where the particles are crushed by the impact of spoon in granular soils. ‘The ultimate bearing capacity is calculated in this study using the Japanese method ané 5.8. Brom's method. In the Japanese method the percentage deviation varies from 11 to 85. No pile was within a deviation range of +108. There are six piles within the @eviation range of 80 - 1208. 6.5 Ultimate load from pile driving Formulae 6.5.1 Pile driving formulae represent only the dynamic resistance and not the static resistance, Also, physical characteristics of the soil 40 not appear in nost of the pile driving formalae and hence can lead to dangerous misinterpretation of results since they Fepresent conditions at the time of driving. They do not take into account the soli conaitions which affect the dong tern carrying capacity and settle- nent of piles, such as effects of Fenoulding and reconsolidation, negative skin friction and grovp effects. The range of deviation of the computed ultimate load in comparison to the Ultimate test loag is 24 to 83%. There Ss one pile within a range of + 208 and no pile within the deviation of + 10¢- MM1"piles gave ultimate load about 40 to 508 bolow the ultinate test load. conctuszons 7.1 Out of the several design néthods available in literature, for the calculation of pile capacity for Griven-cast-in-situ piles, it is felt that the methods applicable for the design of piles, bearing on sand, and passing through’ clay are the six methods adopted for the analysis in this work, 7.2 Eventhough the design pile capacities are compared with ultimate test load, it is conceded that the assessment of the ultimate test load itself is questionable due to the fact that it is based on personal judgement in identifying the point of failure. The results of this work may be viewed in this background.7.3 Im the case of piles where the failure point in the load settlement curve is not obvious and distinet, the assessment of pile capacity is suscep- tible to errors due to personal judge- ment and use of arbitrary methods in the absence of a universally accepted procedure. 7.4 out of the six methods investi- gated it could be concluded with a fair degree of confidence that the Japanese method and Sanglerat's method are the most reliable ones, the percentage of error being around’ 25. 7.5 the ultimate load calculated using pile ériving formula is almost unformly less by about 458 compared to that calculated from load test data. Hence the Heiley's pile driving for- mula can also be used for computation of ultimate load by multiplying the computed ultimate Load with a factor of 1.80. REFERENCES 1, Agersochou, H.A., (1962), ‘analysis of the Engineering News Pile For- mula", Journal of the Soil Mechan~ ics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 8%, No. SM 8, PP.13-34- Broms, B.B., (1966), 'Metheds of calculating’ the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles - a sunmary', Soils - Solis, Vol 18 - 1¥, PP 21-31. Begeman, H.K.S.P (1963) "The Use of Static Cone Penetrometer in Holland? N.Z.Eng 19 (2), 1963 PP. 41-49, + Cambefort, H., (1949), A aiscussion of a paper by'Willian. W. Moore ‘Experience with Predetermining pile Lengths’, ASCE Transactions, Vol. 114°pp. 580 Cummings, A.E., (1940), ‘Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas". Contri- butions to Soil Mechanics, Boston Society of Cwvil Engineers, Boston Mass., pp. 392-413, Gibbs, H.J. and Holtz, W.G. (1957) "Research on determining the den- sity of Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing’, Proceedings of the Fourth International conference on Soil Mechanics, London, Vol.1, Pp. 35-39, Gregersen, 0.5. et. al, (1973) "Load Test on Friction’Piles in Loose Sand’ Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Moscow, USSR, vol. 2.1, pp 109-117. 10. is 12. 43. 44. 15. 16. A 18. ay. Gruteman, .S., (1973), 'Determi- nation of Pile Resistance by means of Large Scale Probes and Pile Foundation Analysis Based on Allowable Settlements', Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Moscow, vol. 2.1 pp. 131-136. Huizinga, T.K., (1951) ‘Application of Results Of Deep Penetration Tests to Foundation Piles Proceedings of the Building Research Congress, London, England Vol. 1, pp. 173-179. Meyornor, G.G., (1953) ‘A study of the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of piles’ Annis, Inst. Tech, Batim 63-64 pp. 371-373. Meyorhof, G.G. (1956) ‘Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils*, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol 52, No. SM 1, paper No. 866 pp. 866-1-19. Meyorhof. G.G. (1951) ‘The ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations," Geotechnique, London, England Vol 2, pp 301 - 332 Meyorhof, G.G. (1959), ‘Compaction of Sands’and Booring Capacity of piles’, Journal of the soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, pp.1-30 Pimm, Gower, B.R. (1938) ‘Recent Developments in Deep Ground Testing! Strat Engg., July 1938 pp 210-221 Sorensen, T. and Hensen, B., "Pile driving Formulae ~ an investigation Based on Dimentional Considerations and statistical Analysis" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics, London, vol. 2, pp. 61155. (1957) Terzaghi, K. (1942) ‘Discussion of the Progress Report of the Committee on Bearing Value of Pile Foundations! Proceedings of the ASCE, vol. 6%, pp. 311-323 Terzaghi, XK. (1944) ‘Theoretical Soil Mechanics* John Wiley and Sons, New York. Terzagni, K and Peck, R.B. (1948) "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice 1st edition, Jonn Wiley and Sons, New York, Terzaghi, K and Peck, R-B. (1967) ‘Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.20. ats a2: 23. Thorburn, S. (1963) ‘Tentative Correction Gnart for Standard Penetration Test in non-cohesive soils’ Civil Engineering Public Works Review, Vol. 58, pp 752-753 Thornburn, S. (1976) *Static Pene- tration Tést and Ultimate Resistance of Driven Piles in Fine-grained Non-cohesive Soils'. The Structural Engineer, June 1976, vol. 54, pp. 208-211, ‘Thorburn, S. and Mac Vicar, R.S. (1970) Proceedings of the conference on Behaviour of Piles, Discussion pp. 54 Vander Veen, C (1953) ‘Tne Bearing Capacity of'a Pile' Proceedings of ‘The Third International Conference fon Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering vol. 2, pp. 84-90 24. 25. 26. 27. Vander Vee C (1957) *The bearing Capacity of a Pile pre-determined by a Cone Penetration Test’ Proceedings of the Fourth Interna~ tional Conference on Soil Mechanics, London, vol. 2, pp 72-75 Vesic, A.S. (1970) ‘Tests on Instrumented Piles" Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, vol. 96, pp 78-80 Vesic, A.S. (1973) - Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Moscow, vol 4.3, pp. 78-80. Whitakar T (1976) "The Design of Piled Foundations’ Second edition Pergamon Press, Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford, England.