###### Static Load Test on Instrumented Pile – Field Data and Numerical Simulations

(2), 35–38 and 20(3) 25–29. [6] F ellenius B.H., Determining the true distributions of load in instrumented piles , ASCE International Deep Foundation Congress, Orlando, Florida, 2002. [7] F ellenius B.H., Unified design of piled foundations with emphasis on settlement , ASCE, Current Practice and Future Trends in Deep Foundations, GSP No. 125, Los Angeles, California, 2004, 253–275. [8] F ellenius B.H., K im S.R., C hung S.G., Long-term monitoring of strain in strain-gage instrumented piles , ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

###### Complex analysis of uniaxial compressive tests of the Mórágy granitic rock formation (Hungary)

.05 0.28 184.59 394.9 BK1-3_U-03 0.19 69.164 0.065 71.75 0.14 132.66 0.22 133.62 517.6 BK1-3_U-04 0.18 71.860 0.045 47.93 0.113 112.28 0.18 153.60 467.8 BK1-3_U-08 0.23 70.137 0.059 80.36 0.147 142.79 0.22 172.55 406.5 BK1-3_U-12 0.25 57.425 0.066 67.99 0.13 134.11 0.27 135.14 424.9 BK2-1_U-03 0.21 74.228 0.057 74.61 0.09 131.78 0.19 146.65 506.2 BK2-3_U-07 0.28 77.332 0.036 59.84 0.068 119.12 0.19 143.71 538.1 BK2-3_U-15 0

###### Numerical Approach in Recognition of Selected Features of Rock Structure from Hybrid Hydrocarbon Reservoir Samples Based on Microtomography

.J., WARCHOL M., Koncepcja projektu otworu kierunkowego w mioceńskich utworach zapadliska przedkarpackiego, Wiadomości Naftowe i Gazownicze, 2009, 3(131), 4-13. [25] PETCHSINGTO T., KARPYN Z.T., Deterministic Modeling of Fluid Flow through a CT-scanned Fracture Using Computational Fluid Dynamics, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2009, 31(11), 897-905, DOI: 10.1080/15567030701752842. [26] PSTRUCHA A., MACHOWSKI G., KRZYŻAK A.T., Petrophysical characterization of the miocene sandstones of the carpathian

###### Effective Width Rule in the Analysis of Footing on Reinforced Sand Slope

, the number of geogrid layers ( N ) and the depth of the first geogrid layer below the ground surface ( μ ). Table 3 summarizes the experimental programme conducted on geogrid-reinforced slopes with following notations: Table 3 Parameters and conditions of performed tests. Test reference N μ/ B e / B d / B C0 0 0 0.5 T01, F01 0.1 T02, F02 0.2 T03, F03 0.3 C250 1 0.25 0 T251, F251 0.1 T252, F252 0.2 T253, F253 0.3 C500 0.5 0 T501, F501

###### Repeated Loading of Cohesive Soil – Shakedown Theory in Undrained Conditions

and compressibility of clay, Soils and Foundations, 1992, 32(1), 100-116. [25] YU H. S., KHONG C. D., WANG J., ZHANG G., Experimental evaluation and extension of a simple critical state model for sand, Granular Matter, 2005, 7(4), 213-225, DOI: 10.1007/s10035-005-0209-y. [26] YU H.S., Plasticity and Geotechnics, Springer, New York, 2006. [27] YU H.S., HOSSAIN M.Z., Lower bound shakedown analysis of layered pavements using discontinuous stress fields, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1998, 167

###### Effects of Surrounding Earth on Shell During the Construction of Flexible Bridge Structures

the bar shown in Fig. 3 , are to be calculated, then using axial forces n and bending moments m , one can formulate the following two equations for the corrugation crest: [ 8 ] Figure 3 Corrugated plate cross section and distribution of unit strains. (1) ε g = n E A + m E I v g $${{\varepsilon }_{g}}=\frac{n}{EA}+\frac{m}{EI}{{v}_{g}}$$ and for the corrugation valley: (2) ε D = n E A − m E I v D , $${{\varepsilon }_{D}}=\frac{n}{EA}-\frac{m}{EI}{{v}_{D}},$$ where v g and v D are the distances of the points from the

###### Tests of steel arch and rock bolt support resistance to static and dynamic loading induced by suspended monorail transportation

samples did not rupture 4 0.04 0.89 30.2 2.5 ŁPV29 support frame sliding joint load capacity under static and dynamic load V29 sliding joint static load capacity tests were conducted according to the applicable standard [ 14 ] in a tensile testing machine for static testing where loading is applied by means of a hydraulic actuator. The strain gauge force sensor (accuracy class 1) and potentiometric displacement sensor (accuracy class 1) were connected to a measuring amplifier (accuracy class 0.03) coupled to a computer. The measurement

###### Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral Load

Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil Unit weight, γ ’ kN/m 3 20.0 18.0 Young’s modulus, E ’ MPa 1.3 × 10 4 1.0 × 10 4 Poisson’s ratio, ν ’ - 0.3 0.35 Cohesion intercept, c ’ MPa 0.1 5.0 Angle of internal friction, ϕ ’ - 30 25 4.1 Influence of lateral load intensities The lateral pile deformation and lateral soil resistance because of the lateral load are always influenced by the lateral load intensity and soil type as well as a pile slenderness ratio ( L/B ). Figure 4 presents the effect of

###### On consistent nonlinear analysis of soil–structure interaction problems

properties for concrete is used in this case study: E cm = E 28 = 31000 MPa. ν = 0.2, γ = 25 kN/m 3 , f c = 25 MPa, f cbo / f c = 0.4, f cbo / f c = 1.16, D̃ c = 0.435 at σ̃ c /f c =1.0, G c = 13.5 ∗ 10 -3 MN/m, f t = 1.8 MPa, D̃ t = 0.5 at σ̃ t /f t = 0.5, G t = 0.135 ∗ 10 -3 MN/m, S o = 0.2, α p = 0.2 and α d =1.0. Notion of all these parameters is explained in the original paper by Lee and Fenves [ 3 ] and in a previous paper by the author [ 5 ]. The above set of parameters yields sufficiently good match with the EC2 uniaxial stress

###### Treatment of a collapsible soil using a bentonite–cement mixture

Algeria) and cement CPJ 42.5 CEM II/A produced by the cement CPJ 42.5 CEM II/A produced by the cement factory of Ain touta in Batna region (Eastern Algeria). The tests were carried out on reconstituted soil SNT “untreated soil” (sand: 75% and kaolin: 25%), which is considered as a collapsible soil according to the different collapse criteria reported by several authors (e.g. Abbeche et al. [ 2 ], Houston et al. [ 3 ] and Ayadat et al. [ 7 ]). The granulometric curve, the Proctor curves and the geotechnical characteristics of the various materials are represented