Purpose: Despite many previous articles and tests on the subject “analysis methods for concrete slabs on ground subjected to concentrated loading” there is still uncertainty on which analysis method to use and if the results correspond to real failure loads. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate and compare different analysis methods for slabs on ground subjected to concentrated loading.Method: Initially literature studies was performed where different analysis methods were studied. Three methods were chosen based on different aspects. It was found that A. Losbergs (1961) method was mainly used in Sweden while other countries in Europe used Meyerhofs (1962) method. Rao & Singhs (1986) method has a similar approach compared to Meyerhofs but ads two different types of failure modes. Two peer re-viewed articles were also chosen from which secondary data could be retrieved. The articles described tests where concrete slabs were loaded until failure. The test condi-tions were used to perform calculations with the three analysis methods. A comparison was made between the test results and the results from calculations.Findings: It is concluded that there are some differences between Losbergs, Meyerhofs and Rao & Singhs analysis methods. Largely the three methods require the same input, they differ in selection of analysis solution, but despite a degree of variation of the calculation results the overall picture for the different loading cases are quite unified. For central loading all analysis methods result in a capacity lower than the test values, varying from 56% to 93% of the failure load. Concerning edge and corner cases the spread of results is even wider. Calculations for the reinforced slab results in a capacity higher than the test values while calculations for the plain concrete slab results in a capacity considerably lower than the test values.Implications: The results in this study indicates that the three analysis methods are applicable for internal loading. The spread of the results makes it difficult to estimate the margin to the actual failure load, but the safety factors according to Eurocode 2 should provide a safe failure margin. Regarding edge and corner cases it is more diffi-cult to draw conclusions due to the large spread of results. Further research and testing is needed.Limitations: The study is limited to three analysis methods and the results from two articles where two different concrete slabs were tested. Inclusion of additional analysis methods and articles with test results would expand the generalizability of the study. However due to the limitations of the extent of the study and disposable time this was not possible.Keywords: Meyerhof, Rao & Singh, Losberg, concrete slab on ground, concrete slab on grade, point load, concentrated load.

Piles have been used since prehistoric times in areas with weak subsurface conditions either to reinforce existing ground, create new ground for habitation or trade, and support bridges and buildings. Originally piles were composed of timber and driven with drop hammers using very heavy ram weights. As technology improved so did the materials that piles are composed of as well as the equipment itself. Currently, piling is a multibillion dollar a year industry, thus the need to develop more accurate prediction methods can potentially represent a significant savings in cost, material, and man power. Multiple predictive methods have been developed to estimate developed pile capacity. These range from static theoretical formulae based on geotechnical investigation prior to pile driving even occurring using specific pile and hammer types to semi empirically based dynamic formulae used during actual driving operations to more recently developed computer modeling and signal matching programs which are calibrated with site condition during initial geotechnical investigations or test piling to full scale static load tests where piles are loaded to some predetermined value or failure condition. In this thesis, dynamic formulae are used to predict pile capacity from those installed by drop and diesel hammers and are compared to the results from pile load tests, which are taken as the true measure of developed bearing capacity. The dynamic formulae examined are the Engineering News Record (ENR), Gates, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) modified Gates, Hiley, and Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) modified Hiley formulae. Methods of investigation include calculating pile capacities from the formulae as they are, omitting the factors of safety, revising the formulae with averaged coefficients and conducting multi regression analysis to solve for one or two coefficients simultaneously and revising the dynamic formula to determine if more accurate bearing capacity prediction are possible. To objectively determine which formulae provide the most accurate bearing capacities, the predicted capacities will be compared to results obtained from static pile load tests and simple statistics on the resulting data set will be calculated including regression analysis, standard deviations, coefficients of variation, coefficients of determination, and correlation values.

Piles have been used since prehistoric times in areas with weak subsurface conditions either to reinforce existing ground, create new ground for habitation or trade, and support bridges and buildings. Originally piles were composed of timber and driven with drop hammers using very heavy ram weights. As technology improved so did the materials that piles are composed of as well as the equipment itself. Currently, piling is a multibillion dollar a year industry, thus the need to develop more accurate prediction methods can potentially represent a significant savings in cost, material, and man power. Multiple predictive methods have been developed to estimate developed pile capacity. These range from static theoretical formulae based on geotechnical investigation prior to pile driving even occurring using specific pile and hammer types to semi empirically based dynamic formulae used during actual driving operations to more recently developed computer modeling and signal matching programs which are calibrated with site condition during initial geotechnical investigations or test piling to full scale static load tests where piles are loaded to some predetermined value or failure condition. In this thesis, dynamic formulae are used to predict pile capacity from those installed by drop and diesel hammers and are compared to the results from pile load tests, which are taken as the true measure of developed bearing capacity. The dynamic formulae examined are the Engineering News Record (ENR), Gates, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) modified Gates, Hiley, and Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) modified Hiley formulae. Methods of investigation include calculating pile capacities from the formulae as they are, omitting the factors of safety, revising the formulae with averaged coefficients and conducting multi regression analysis to solve for one or two coefficients simultaneously and revising the dynamic formula to determine if more accurate bearing capacity prediction are possible. To objectively determine which formulae provide the most accurate bearing capacities, the predicted capacities will be compared to results obtained from static pile load tests and simple statistics on the resulting data set will be calculated including regression analysis, standard deviations, coefficients of variation, coefficients of determination, and correlation values.