Comparison of three methods for driven pile capacity

A significant cost for foundations is the design and installation of piles when they are required due to poor ground conditions. Not only is it important that piles be designed properly, but also that the installation equipment and total cost be evaluated. To assist in the evaluation of piles a number of methods have been developed. In this research three of these methods were investigated, which were developed by the Federal Highway Administration, the US Corps of Engineers and the American Petroleum Institute (API). The results from these methods were entered into the program GRLWEAPTM to assess the pile drivability and to provide a standard base for comparing the three methods. An additional element of this research was to develop EXCEL spreadsheets to implement these three methods. Currently the Army Corps and API methods do not have publicly available software and must be performed manually, which requires that data is taken off of figures and tables, which can introduce error in the prediction of pile capacities. Following development of the EXCEL spreadsheet, they were validated with both manual calculations and existing data sets to ensure that the data output is correct. To evaluate the three pile capacity methods data was utilized from four project sites from North America. The data included site geotechnical data along with field determined pile capacities. In order to achieve a standard comparison of the data, the pile capacities and geotechnical data from the three methods were entered into GRLWEAPTM. The sites consisted of both cohesive and cohesionless soils; where one site was primarily cohesive, one was primarily cohesionless, and the other two consisted of inter-bedded cohesive and cohesionless soils. Based on this limited set of data the results indicated that the US Corps of Engineers method more closely compared with the field test data, followed by the API method to a lesser degree. The DRIVEN program compared favorably in cohesive soils, but over predicted in cohesionless material.

THE DARK PERSONALITY AND JOB SUCCESS IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY: USE OF INTERPERSONAL MANIPULATION IN THE WORKPLACE

This dissertation relates job desires and outcomes to the Dark Personality (Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Low Agreeableness, Low Honesty-Humility) in the United States Army. It purports that individuals high on the Dark Personality desire more power, money, and status, and that they obtain jobs that afford them these luxuries by using manipulation at work. Two pilot studies used samples of United States Army members to create and test index variables: Dark Personality, Total Manipulation in the workplace, Desire for Job Success, and Total Job Success in the Army. Individual personality traits, manipulation tactics, and job desires were examined in secondary analyses. Using a sample of 468 United States Army Members, central analyses indicated that Army members high on the Dark Personality desired Job Success. Likewise, army members higher on the Dark Personality used more Manipulation tactics at work, including the egregious tactics. Yet, using more Manipulation tactics at work predicted lower levels of Job Success in the Army. Most manipulation tactics had a negative impact on Job Success, with the exception of soft tactics like Reason and Responsibility Invocation. Together, these results indicate that selective use of soft manipulation predicted Job Success, but use of more manipulation tactics predicted less Job Success in the Army. Curvilinear results indicated that being either very low or very high on the Dark Personality predicted more Job Success in the Army, whereas having intermediate levels of the Dark Personality predicted less Job Success. Finally, possessing the Dark Personality and using more Manipulation tactics at work, together, predicted less Job Success in the Army. Collectively, the results indicate that army members with intermediate levels of the Dark Personality want more powerful and high paying jobs, yet their strategy of manipulating their coworkers to move up the job ladder does not result in higher ranking, higher paying Army positions. However, Army members highest on the Dark Personality achieved job success, defying the maladaptive influence that antisocial personality traits and manipulative behaviour had on job success for most Army members. Therefore, this dissertation indicates that successful corporate scoundrels exist in the Army, but there are few of them.

The ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Everett, and Grays Harbor, Washington.

At head of title: War Department. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army and United States Shipping Board ..

Statistical and harmonic analysis of gravity /

Project no. MO-011.

The ports of southern New England. (Revised 1937)

Reports on the ports of Providence and Newport, Rhode Island; New Bedford and Fall River, Mass.; New Haven, New London, Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stamford, Conn. cf. p. v.

Mapping of the countries in Danubian and Adriatic Basins /

Project no. MO-011.

The ports of Galveston, Houston, Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas

At head of title: War Department. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army and United States Shipping Board .

The ports of Portland and Astoria, Oreg., and Longview and Vancouver, Wash. ...

At head of title: War Department. Corps of Engineers, United States Army and United States Shipping Board ..

The Ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Everett, and Grays Harbor, Washington /

At head of title: War Department. Corps of Engineers, United States Army and United States Shipping Board.

The ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego and San Luis Obispo, California ... (Revised, 1930)

The frontispiece in pt. 2 and part of the plates, maps and tables are folded.

Trafficability of soils.

At head of title: War Department, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Mississippi River Commission.

Upper Snake River Basin: Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Oregon. Public hearings. Boise, Idaho, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 1.

Hearings held at Idaho Falls, Idaho, Dec. 7, 1960; Twin Falls, Idaho, Dec. 8, 1960; Caldwell, Idaho, Dec. 9, 1960.