PREDICTION OF HORIZONTAL LOAD AND DEFLECTION

FOR VERTICALLY LOADED PILES

G. E. ABDELRAHMAN1

ABSTRACT

Vertical piles which designed to carry vertical load, may tested under lateral load after
installation and before loading it with its vertical load. The lateral test load is suggested within
small limit, and the measured deflection has no references to compare with. Actually there is
no specific guide to limit the value of ultimate lateral load in the test or the measured
deflections. This paper presents a comparison between prediction methods and measured
lateral loads and horizontal deflections on vertically loaded piles. Results of twenty-three
lateral static loading tests on different types of vertical piles were analyzed and compared with
those predicted. A hyperbolic method of fitting was used to predict the ultimate lateral load
on vertical piles. The ultimate lateral deflections were calculated using Poulos and Hull
method and compared to measured load test deflections. The aim of this study is to define the
deflection limit or the ultimate lateral load for vertically loaded piles subjected to horizontal
load.
“KEYWORD: Lateral load tests; Pile deflection; Pile load; Elastic theory.”

1. INTRODUCTION
Vertical piles may be subjected to lateral forces due to earth pressure, wind, earthquakes,
impact forces, and breaking forces on bridges, etc. Generally, vertical piles resist lateral loads
or moments by deflecting until the necessary reaction in the surrounding soil is mobilized.

1
Lecturer of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Cairo University, Fayoum Branch.
1
 The behavior of the foundation under such loading conditions depends essentially on the
stiffness of piles and the strength of soil.
Results of twenty-three lateral load tests were analyzed using hyperbolic model to estimate
the ultimate lateral load. Hardin and Drnevich [1]. Mayne, et al. [2], and Agaiby, et al. [3]
used the hyperbolic model to present the load-deflection behavior of laterally loaded piles in
clay and sand, respectively, using measured data from laboratory model-tests. Prediction of
lateral pile deflection was calculated using Poulos and Hull [4] and was compared to those
measured from lateral load tests.

2. FAILURE CRITERION

According to the Egyptian Code of Deep Foundation [5], vertical piles design should verify
satisfy the following conditions:
• Adequate factor of safety against pile failure.
• Adequate factor of safety against soil failure.
• Lateral pile deflection within the allowable limits.

3. LATERAL LOAD TEST PROCEDURES

Lateral load tests are usually performed by jacking a pile head and recording deflections.
The procedure employed for the test varies, but typically the loads are applied in a number of
increment, and each increment is left on until a specified rate of movement is reached. The
maximum load reached is about one and half to two times the design load. Alizadeh and
Davisson [6] used for each increment a minimum period of one hour, or until the pile head
movement was less than 0.25 mm per hour. The allowable design load is that required to

2
produce a specified deflection divided by a factor of safety.
The values of the subgrade-reaction modulus or the elastic modulus of the soil may be
correlated to other soil properties, or back figured from lateral loading test results.

4. LATERAL LOAD TEST DATA

For the purpose of this study, results of twenty-three lateral load tests on different pile types
were compiled. The tested piles included driven, bored, and auger piles with different
diameter sizes as shown in Table 1. The tests were carried out at various locations; fifteen
tests in Alexandria, three tests in Kena, (Upper Egypt), two tests in Sinai and three tests in
Cairo. The soil profile in most of the tests in Alexandria consisted of fill, (sand and gravel to
sand) for three to four meters, followed by eight to ten meters of soft clay, then dense sand to
great depths. Kena subsoil consisted of loose fine sand down to ten meter, followed by dense
sand till the end of the boreholes. Sinai subsoil consisted of fill, (sand and gravel) for first
eight and half meters, followed by very stiff brown silty clay down to thirty meter, a layer of
sand at a depth of fourteen and half till sixteen and half. In Cairo, no boreholes were available
for the pile load tests. CPT tests results in the field were included with boreholes and the pile
load test.

3
 Table (1) Details of tested piles
δ
Test Location Pile Type Date of test Lp dp T. L

No. m mm ton mm
A1 Lube oil, Alex. Driven 27/02/99 16.25 600 15 8.680
A2 Abu QirTP1, Alex. Driven 13/05/96 16.75 500 10 24.540
A3 Abu QirTP5, Alex. Driven 16/05/96 20.75 500 10 11.600
A4 Abu QirTP7, Alex. Driven 28/05/96 24 600 10 4.340
A5 Abu QirTP8, Alex. Driven 18/05/96 22.9 420 6.15 5.460
A6 Abu QirTP9, Alex. Driven 26/05/96 22.9 400 6.15 2.670
A8 NaphthaV2, Alex Driven 03/11/98 14 400 15 22.150
A9 NaphthaV4, Alex Driven 05/11/98 13.4 400 15 24.885
A10 Ayoun Mosa 26, Sinai Bored pile 15/08/97 32 600 12 2.190
A11 Ayoun Mosa 39, Sinai Board pile 23/06/97 31.8 600 12 0.380
A12 AMOC.730, Alex. Driven 13/02/99 19.5 400 15.3 13.610
A13 AMOC 750, Alex. Driven 29/06/99 17.5 400 6 9.550
A14 AMOC 770, Alex. Driven 30/06/99 17.5 600 15 3.543
A7 Webco, CFA 01/06/98 14 600 3 0.080
A15 AMOC OIL, Alex. Driven 10/07/99 19 400 6 2.863
A16 Vibro, Cairo, Autostrad Driven 23/04/00 8.7 600 11.5 2.310
A17 Vibro Driven 25/10/90 17 400 1.5 1.250
A18 Sharkaw25 Driven 25/10/90 17 400 1.5 1.400
A19 Webco, Cairo, Tanash Driven 20/09/83 17.7 550 8 5.840
A20 Webco, Cairo, Tanash Driven 29/10/83 17.5 550 8 7.640
A21 Ar/5991, kena C. F.A 16/01/02 16.25 700 10 1.046
A22 Ar/5992, kena C. F.A 23/01/02 16.25 700 10 0.900
A23 Ar/323, kena C. F.A 30/12/01 16.25 700 10 1.260
Lp = Pile length
dp = Pile diameter
T.L =Test load
δ = Pile head deflection

4
5. LATERAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP
Hyperbolic relationships are often used to characterize nonlinear stress-strain relationships.
Chin [7] assumed that the relationship between load and settlement is hyperbolic. In this
method each settlement value is divided by its corresponding load value. These are plotted
against the settlement. The plotted values lie on a straight line approximately. The inverse
slope of the straight line indicates Chin Extrapolation Limits. This method was used to
determine the load-deflection curve for which the Chin plot is a straight line throughout. It is
given by the following equation:
Q =δ / (a + bδ ) (1)

Where: S = settlement of pile at pile load Q; a, and b = slope and Y-axis intercept of the
straight line, respectively.

Chin [7] stipulated that it approaches a straight line on a δ/Q versus δ diagram. This straight
line describes a hyperbolic relationship and the inverse of the slope of this line represents the
ultimate load as shown in Figures 1.
Qult.= 1/b (2)

Lube Oil

0.8 Measured
0.6 Linear Regression
Defl./Q

0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 5 6 7 9
y = 0.057x + 0.1237
Deflection (mm) 2
R = 0.9664

Figure 1: Linear regression for hyperbolic method.

5
When sufficient data is available during the test to reach the hyperbolic line, the subsequent
load-deflection curve can be predicted using Equation (1) as shown in Figures 2.

Lube Oil

20
Lateral Load Q (ton)

16
Measured Load-Defl.
12

8 Calculated Load-Defl.

0
0.0 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.8 4.6 5.6 7.0 8.7 10. 12. 14. 16.
Deflection (mm)

Figure 2: Ultimate lateral pile load using hyperbolic model.

As mentioned before, the lateral test load is usually chosen as a percentage of vertical load
(10% of vertical design load) or chosen by the superstructure designer considering any lateral
force or moment on the structure. In table (2), comparison was made between the chosen test
load and the calculated lateral load using the hyperbolic approach. Failure took place in tests
A2, A3, A8, and A9 due to that, the test load was over the ultimate load as shown in table (1).
The percentage of test load to predicted ultimate load should not higher than one (QTL/ Qult ≤
1).

6
 Table (2) Comparison between predicted and measured lateral pile load.
Pile Type Test No QTL Q ult QTL/ Qult
Ton ton
Driven A1 15 14.9 1.01
Driven A2 10 2.6 3.88*
Driven A3 10 6.8 1.47*
Driven A4 10 14.9 0.67
Driven A5 6.15 9.2 0.67
Driven A6 6.15 19.6 0.31
Driven A8 15 9.5 1.58*
Driven A9 15 5.1 2.94*
Driven A12 15.3 16.4 0.93
Driven A13 6 6.3 0.96
Driven A14 15 38.2 0.39
Driven A16 11.5 41.7 0.28
Driven A17 1.5 8.6 0.17
Driven A18 1.5 7.7 0.20
Driven A19 8 10.7 0.75
Driven A20 8 7.6 1.05
CFA A21 10 53.0 0.19
CFA A22 10 17.2 0.58
CFA A23 10 30.4 0.33
AVER. 1.0

QTL = Measured lateral test load

Qult= Ultimate lateral load using hyperbolic method
QTL/ Qult* Failure at test load

6. LATERAL PILE DEFLECTIONS

Broms [8] defined failure load for a laterally loaded pile as that corresponding to a
displacement equal to 2% of pile diameter. The attractiveness of this method is its
simplicity, and accuracy in the field.
To analyze the lateral test result Poulos and Hull [4] presented solutions for the lateral
deflection of single piles embedded in an elastic continuum.

7
6.1 Poulos and Hull Solution
By using Poulos and Hull [4] method, a linear elastic soil response due to lateral pile
movements was assumed. A critical length, Lc, exists for a laterally-loaded pile, over which
any increase in pile length has no influence on the ground line deflection, δ. The critical pile
length, Lc is a function of the relative stiffness of pile and soil. For uniform soil, Lc can be
calculated from the following equations:
Lc =4.44 (EpIp/Es)0.25 (3)
Where: EpIp = bending stiffness of pile, Es = Young's modulus of soil.
Finite element analysis, leads to the following equation for calculating the ground line
deflection, δ, in case of a free head pile:
δ = [Q I1 / Es Le] + [M I2 / Es L2e ] (4)
Where: Q = applied horizontal load at ground line, M = applied moment at ground line,
Es = equivalent Young's modulus of soil, Le= effective pile length (Le= Lc in case of flexible
pile), and I1, I2 = influence factors.
All piles in this study are considered as "flexible piles" because they have lengths greater than
the critical length Lc. The ultimate lateral resistance was calculated from the yield moment of
the pile, which occurs in this case before full mobilization of the ultimate soil resistance.
The horizontal force in the tests was applied at ground surface level on free head piles, which
means zero eccentricity and zero moment at pile head.
The elastic influence factors I1 was determined using finite element analysis and was found to
depend on slenderness ratio (L/d) and relative pile stiffness. Poulos and Hull [4] evaluated the
influence factor for flexible piles as follows:
I1,2 = A1,2 + B1,2 Log (Le/d) (5)
Where: A1,2 + B1,2 =constants, and Le/d= effective slenderness ratio.

8
6.2 Modulus of Elasticity
As mentioned before, the tests were carried out in non homogeneous soil. In order to
compare the theoretical and measured free pile head deflections, the “equivalent” initial
elastic modulus for the soil, Esi, was back figured from field lateral load tests using the
linear portion of the load-deflection curve.
McClelland and Foch [9] and Matlock and Reese [10] defined the elastic soil modulus as
follow:
Es = P / y (6)

Where: Es is the secant modulus, P is soil reaction per unit length of pile, and y is the
horizontal pile deflection. So the initial elastic modulus for the soil, Esi, was calculated by
dividing the initial stiffness, Ki over the critical pile length (case of flexible piles) as
following:
Esi = Ki / Lc (7)

The initial stiffness, Ki, (lateral load / deflection) was measured from Chin approach as the y-
intercept of the straight line, or from linear regression for hyperbolic method as shown in
Figure 1. According to the Egyptian Code for Deep Foundation [5] the pile elastic modulus Ep
is taken in case of cast in situ concrete piles 140 ton / mm2. Table 3 shows typical values of
measured initial stiffness, Ki, and the computed lateral deflection, δp, for each test.

Table (3) Calculated lateral pile deflection using Poulos and Hull [4] method.
Test dp Lp Ip Lc Ki QTL I1 Es=Ki/Lc δp

9
 No cm cm cm4 cm kg/cm kg kg/cm2 mm
1500
A1 60 1625 635850 913.30 80800 5.66 88.47 1.05
0
306640. 1000
A2 50 1675 479.01 530800 4.98 1108.12 0.09
6 0
306640. 1000
A3 50 2075 722.28 127200 5.58 176.11 0.44
6 0
1000
A4 60 2400 635850 822.07 181800 5.51 221.15 0.30
0
152667.
A5 42 2290 599.26 147500 6150 5.57 246.14 0.23
6
A6 40 2290 125600 713.45 60400 6150 5.89 84.66 0.60
1500
A8 40 1400 125600 759.84 28700 5.99 37.77 3.13
0
1500
A9 40 1340 125600 589.36 75900 5.61 128.78 1.11
0
1200
A10 60 3200 635850 997.99 111600 5.79 111.83 0.62
0
1200
A11 60 3180 635850 708.46 436700 5.29 616.41 0.15
0
1530
A12 40 1950 125600 544.95 151100 5.50 277.27 0.56
0
A13 40 1750 125600 530.23 151300 6000 5.46 285.35 0.22
1500
A14 60 1750 635850 843.14 119800 5.54 142.09 0.69
0
A15 40 1900 125600 856.74 24100 6000 6.16 28.13 1.53
1150
A16 60 870 635850 658.26 160300 5.18 243.52 0.37
0
A17 40 1700 125600 786.89 30300 1500 6.04 38.51 0.30
A18 40 1700 125600 785.60 30500 1500 6.04 38.82 0.30
448952.
A19 55 1770 871.35 75000 8000 5.72 86.07 0.61
5
448952.
A20 55 1750 821.84 93700 8000 5.63 114.01 0.48
5
1000
A21 70 1625 1177991 956.42 124470 5.50 130.14 0.44
0
1000
A22 70 1625 1177991 876.58 176400 5.37 201.24 0.30
0
1000
A23 70 1625 1177991 931.55 138300 5.46 148.46 0.39
0
Ki = Initial slope of actual load displacement curve
I1 = Influence factor according to Poulos
δp = Lateral deflection using Poulos and Hull method

10
 Lp = Pile length
QTL = Measured lateral test load

A comparison of the measured and calculated lateral deflections using Poulos and Hull
[4] method at test load is shown in Fig. 3, the linear elastic soil response is convenient to
analyze lateral pile movement in elastic stage. Poulos and Hull solution may be considered
as a maximum deflection with a factor of safety equal 2 on the average. Another
comparison between measured deflection and pile diameter, Broms [8] suggested that the
maximum resistance is reached when the deflection at ground surface is
approximately equals to 2.0% of the pile diameter. Comparing to the measured
deflection, as shown in table 4 Broms suggestion neglected the soil and the pile
properties which gave unreasonable estimation of lateral pile deflection.

20
Predicted Deflection (mm)

18
16
14
Poulosand
12
Hull Method
10
8 Measured
6 Deflection
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)

Figure 3 Comparison of measured and predicted deflection.

11
 Table 4 Comparison between predicted and measured lateral pile deflection.

Test No δm Dp δp δm /dp δp / δm
mm mm mm %
A1 8.7 600 10.51 1.45 1.2
A4 4.4 600 3.03 0.74 0.7
A5 5.5 420 2.32 1.30 0.4
A6 2.7 400 6.00 0.67 2.2
A10 2.2 600 6.23 0.37 2.8
A11 0.4 600 1.45 0.06 3.8
A14 3.5 600 6.94 0.59 2.0
A16 2.3 600 3.71 0.39 1.6
A17 1.3 400 2.99 0.31 2.4
A18 1.4 400 2.97 0.35 2.1
A19 5.8 550 6.10 1.06 1.0
A20 7.6 550 4.81 1.39 0.6
A21 1.0 700 4.42 0.15 4.2
A22 0.9 700 3.05 0.13 3.4
A23 1.0 700 3.95 0.15 3.8
Average 0.6 2.2
δm=Measured test deflection
dp=Pile diameter
δp=Poulos and Hull deflection
CONCLUSIONS
The problem in all the lateral load tests on vertical loaded pile is that the piles were
designed to resist vertical loads. The analyses were interpreted in two ways: to define the
ultimate horizontal loads; and /or, to define the ultimate lateral deflections.
• The hyperbolic model extrapolates the ultimate lateral load test from field data;
it gives reliable estimate of the ultimate lateral capacities.
• To predict lateral pile deflection, Poulos and Hull method [4] was used. The
solution may be considered as a maximum deflection with a factor of safety equal
2 on the average. The initial elastic modulus of the soil Esi was back figured from
lateral load test results.
• Broms suggestion neglected the soil and the pile properties which gave

12
 unreasonable estimation of lateral pile deflection.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author gratefully acknowledges to Professor Mostafa E. Mossad for his valuable
comments. Also the Arab Company for Foundation, VIBRO, and Misr Raymond
Company, for made the data available for this study. Results of a number of lateral-pile
load tests, together with soil reports were gratefully presented to the author as a part of
the database.

REFERENCES
1. Hardin, O.B., and Drnevich, P.V., “ Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils:
Design Equations and Curves,” Journal of The Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol.98,
No.SM7, July p.677-692, 1972
2. Mayne, P.W., Kulhawy, F.H., and Trautmann, C.H., "Experimental Study of
Undrained Lateral and Moment Behavior of drilled Shafts During Static and Cyclic
Loading"EPRI TR-100221-Project 1493-4, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
1992.
3. Agaiby, S. W., Kulhawy, F.H., and Trautmann, C.H.,"Experimental Study of
drained Lateral and Moment Behavior of drilled Shafts During Static and Cyclic
Loading" EPRI TR-100223-Project 1493-4, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
1992.
4. Poulos, H.G., and Hull, T.S., "The Role of Analytical Geomechanics In
Foundation Engineering.", Current Principles and Practices (GSP 22), Vol. 2, Ed.
F.H Kulhawy, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering, New
York, p. 1578-1606,1989.
5. Egyptian Code of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Part 4, 1995.
6. Alizadeh, M. and Davisson, M.T., “Lateral Load Tests on Piles-Arkansas River
Project.” Journal of The Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol.96, No.SM5,p. 583-1604,
1970.
7. Chin, F. K., and Vail, A. J., "Behavior of Piles in Alluvium", Proceedings Eighth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2,
p.47-52, 1973.
8. Broms, B.B., “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol.90, No. SM2, March, p. 27-63, 1964.
13
 ‫‪9. McClelland, B. and Focht, J.A., "Soil Modulus for laterally loaded piles", Trans.‬‬
‫‪Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol.123, 1958.‬‬
‫‪10. Matlock, H. and Reese, L. ,"Non-dimensional Solution for Laterally Loaded Piles‬‬
‫‪with Soil Modulus Assumed Proportional to Depth", Proceedings, Conference on‬‬
‫‪Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Texas, USA, 1956.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺒﺆ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﻞ ﻭ ﺍﻷﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻰ ﻟﻠﺨﻮﺍﺯﻳﻖ ﺍﶈﻤﻠﺔ ﺭﺃﺳﻴﺎ‬

‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳋﻮﺍﺯﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻤﻤﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺃﲪﺎﻝ ﺭﺃﺳﻴﺔﻭﺍﻟﱴ ﺗﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﲢﻤﻴﻞ ﺃﻓﻘﻴﺔﻭ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺑﺄﲪﺎﻝ ﺃﻓﻘﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﻭ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻰ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﳍﺬﺓ ﺍﻷﲪﺎﻝ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻯ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻻ ﻳﻌﱪ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻰ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻭﺽ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﲪﻞ ﺃﻓﻘﻰ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺯﻭﻕ ﻭ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻰ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔﺑﺄﻗﺼﻰ ﺍﺯﺍﺣﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻯ ﺃﻯ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﳒﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺸﻞ ﻫﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ‪ .‬ﳛﺘﻮﻯ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺒﲑﺑﻮﻻ ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﲡﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻤﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ ﻭ ﺍﻷﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻰ ﻭ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺒﺆ ﺑﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﲪﻞ ﺃﻓﻘﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺎﺯﻭﻕ ﺭﺃﺳﻰ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﺣﺪﻯ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﰱ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻮﻟﻮﺱ ﻭ ﻫﻞ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٨٩‬ﳊﺴﺎﺏ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﱯ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﱯ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﲡﺎﺭﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﻓﻘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﰱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ‪ ٢٤‬ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﲢﻤﻴﻞ ﺃﻓﻘﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻮﺍﺯﻳﻖ ﺭﺃﺳﻴﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﲢﻤﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﲪﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻤﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻮﺍﺯﻳﻖ) ﺍﺯﺍﺣﺔ ﻭ ﺣﻔﺮ( ﻭ ﰱ ﻋﺪﺓ ﳏﺎﻓﻈﺎﺕ ﲜﻤﻬﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪14‬‬