Comparison of Structure Design Between Bored Pile Foundations and Pile Foundations (Case Study: Industrial Worker I Batang Flower House Construction Project)

M. Negara, Nasyiin Faqih, Agus Juara
{"title":"Comparison of Structure Design Between Bored Pile Foundations and Pile Foundations (Case Study: Industrial Worker I Batang Flower House Construction Project)","authors":"M. Negara, Nasyiin Faqih, Agus Juara","doi":"10.30736/cvl.v8i1.1028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Field surveys and laboratories found dense soil layers up to a depth of 14 m, so an alternative to drilled pile or pile foundations was used. This study aims to compare the pile and drilled pile foundation plans with the same soil data, loads, and dimensions. Analysis by calculating the pile foundation plan compared to the drilled pile foundation so that the planning results are obtained, soil bearing capacity, pile group efficiency, number of piles and drilled piles, RAB (budget plan), and drilled pile plans. Compared to 50cm square piles and 40×40cm square piles, the bearing capacity of a single pile (Qult) is 44.5 tons, and the bored pile foundation is 54.72 tons. The pile resistance (f) is 38.79 tons for piles with a diameter of 40 x 40 cm and 38.79 tons for drilled piles with a diameter of 50 cm. One pile's allowable pressure-bearing capacity (Pa) is 14.48 tons, and one drilled pile is 17.48 tons. The permissible tensile strength (Pta) for one pile is 11.64 tons, and for one drilled pile is 14.46 tons. The pile foundation requires 263 piles, and the bored pile foundation requires 258 piles.","PeriodicalId":282199,"journal":{"name":"Civilla : Jurnal Teknik Sipil Universitas Islam Lamongan","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civilla : Jurnal Teknik Sipil Universitas Islam Lamongan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30736/cvl.v8i1.1028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Field surveys and laboratories found dense soil layers up to a depth of 14 m, so an alternative to drilled pile or pile foundations was used. This study aims to compare the pile and drilled pile foundation plans with the same soil data, loads, and dimensions. Analysis by calculating the pile foundation plan compared to the drilled pile foundation so that the planning results are obtained, soil bearing capacity, pile group efficiency, number of piles and drilled piles, RAB (budget plan), and drilled pile plans. Compared to 50cm square piles and 40×40cm square piles, the bearing capacity of a single pile (Qult) is 44.5 tons, and the bored pile foundation is 54.72 tons. The pile resistance (f) is 38.79 tons for piles with a diameter of 40 x 40 cm and 38.79 tons for drilled piles with a diameter of 50 cm. One pile's allowable pressure-bearing capacity (Pa) is 14.48 tons, and one drilled pile is 17.48 tons. The permissible tensile strength (Pta) for one pile is 11.64 tons, and for one drilled pile is 14.46 tons. The pile foundation requires 263 piles, and the bored pile foundation requires 258 piles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
钻孔灌注桩基础与桩基础结构设计比较(以产业工人一期巴塘花房建设工程为例)
实地调查和实验室发现,密实土层深达14米,因此采用钻孔桩或桩基础的替代方案。本研究旨在比较具有相同土壤数据、荷载和尺寸的桩基础方案和钻孔桩基础方案。通过计算分析,将桩基础方案与钻孔桩基础方案进行对比,从而得到规划结果,土体承载力、群桩效率、桩数与钻孔桩数、RAB(预算方案)、钻孔桩方案。与50cm方桩和40Ã-40cm方桩相比,单桩(Qult)承载力为44.5吨,钻孔桩基础承载力为54.72吨。直径为40 × 40 cm的桩阻力f为38.79吨,直径为50 cm的钻孔桩阻力f为38.79吨。单桩允许承压能力Pa为14.48吨,单桩允许承压能力Pa为17.48吨。单桩允许抗拉强度(Pta)为11.64吨,单桩允许抗拉强度为14.46吨。桩基础需要263根,钻孔桩基础需要258根。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Concrete Strength Analysis K-250 With Additional Asbestos Waste Powder as a Substitute of Fine Aggregate The Shear Strength of Clay Stabilized with Palm Bunch Ash and Cement Evaluation of Wastewater Management System Implementation in Tarakan City Selumit Beach Area Analysis of Determinants of Consumer Decisions on the Use of Trans Banyumas and Gojek Cost and Time Comparison Analysis Using Microsoft Project (Case Study: Phase VII Work of the Surabaya Tanjung Perak Berlian Pier Structure Strengthening Project)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1