You are on page 1of 19
Fellenius, B.H., Riker, R.E., O'Brien, A.O., and Tracy, G.R., 1989. Dynamic and static testing in

Fellenius, B.H., Riker, R.E., O'Brien, A.O., and Tracy, G.R., 1989. Dynamic and static testing in a soil exhibiting set-up. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(7) 984-1001.

Dvnanatcnnu S'rnrrc TnslrNGrNSorl ExrrrnrlrncSnr'-Up Ily llengt H. Fellenius,rRichard l i . Riker,2 Arthur

Dvnanatcnnu S'rnrrc TnslrNGrNSorl ExrrrnrlrncSnr'-Up

Ily llengt H. Fellenius,rRichard li. Riker,2 Arthur .I. O'Brien,l and Gerald R. Tracy,a Melrrbers,ASCE

Aasrnacr: Pile foundatiorr studies were conducteclon f<rurtypes of steel piles

driven through estuarincdeposited soils and 'I'wcnty into t() total dcpths of 33-48 rn (l l0-15(r ft).

rnorril<lrirrgtlurirrg initial tlriving anrl rcstrikirrg. l'-orall tlrc rrlrrritoretlpilcs, static

Ioaclingtcsls wcrc carried out to Iailure and thc rcsults corrrparc(lt() ultinrate re- sistancesdeternrineclin a CAI'WAP analysis. With two exccptions, the driving u'as generally very easy above a depth of 46 nr ( l-50 ft). Restriking at dif'ferent tinrcs a{tcr clriving showcd that the pcnetrati()nrcsis(anceirrcrcascddue lo the de- vtloprrcrrt of soil sct-up otcurrirrg within thc lilst rvcck alttr irrititl rlrivirrgantl that lhc linal pilc crpaciticsvary consitlcrablyarrtlnrrrtlonrlyacrossthc sitc.'lhc- CAPWAP-dcterrnined pile capacitics at rcstriking agreed well with the results ol' the static loading tests (whcn thc latter coultl be clcarly rlefined and the harnrner had hccn able to rnovc thc pilc in thc rcstriking). Whcn thc capacity could not be <lclirtcrlitr tltc stutictcst, tlrc ('n I'Wn t'dctcrrrrincrltrltirrrirtclcsistrrrrccw.rs ils us- itblc:ts tltc crtttvcnliorurlrrrctlrotlslirr tlc(crrrrirrirrutlrc loud lirrritol tllc stulic lcst.

a highly variable glacial deposit pilcs wcrc subjectedto dynarnic

lHtnooucnoru In 1980,theMilwaukccMetropolitanSeweragcDistrictbegananexten-

sive pro.icctto upgracleits facilitics for intcrccpting and trcating sanilary

scwagc and storrnwatcr runol-[. A significant part of thc

irnprovernclltto the existing Jones lsland Wastcwater

cated near Milwaukce Harbor at the conllucnceol'thc Kinnickinnic and Mil- waukee Rivers. I'he $3-50million Jones Island project includes constructionof prelirni- nary. prirnary, and secondarytreatnrcnt{'aciliticsalong 'fhe with modifications

to exisling lacilities.

pro.iect involves

'I-reatrnent Plant lo-

soil conditionsnccessitalcthc installationof 3,000

to 4,000 piles at an cstinlatedcost of $20 nrillion. Pilc foundationstudieswcre conductedduring dcsigrrand constructionon lirur pilc typcs:

L

Nornral-wallpipe piles.

2.

H-piles.

3.

Mandrel-drivenpipe piles.

4.

Srnall-diameterheavy-wallpipe piles.

All pipe piles were driven closed toe.'l-he studies integratedconventional

static testing with dynarrricnronitoringand analysisand were perfornled to select and qualify pile types and halnrners,detennir)cpile capacities,and 'Prof.,

tCtt2tvt-ttilt, Univ. Corvallis,OR. o[ Ottawa.I)cpt.of Civ. E,ngrg.,Ottawa.Canada.

'Cttztr,t-llitt. washincron.DC. octtztr,t-ttitt, Corvallis.OR.

Note. Discussionopenuntil Decernberl, 1989.'l-ocxtcndthe closingdateone nrontlr,a written requestmust be filed with the A,SCEManagerof Journals.The rnanuscriptfor thispaperwassubmittedfor reviewandpcrssiblepublicationon March 8, 1988.This papcris partof theJournal of GeotechnicalEngineering,Vol. I l-5, No. 7, July,1989.

984

March 8, 1988.This papcris partof theJournal of GeotechnicalEngineering,Vol. I l-5, No. 7, July,1989. 984
providereferenceinfonnationto u s e i n c o n s t r u c t

providereferenceinfonnationto usein constructionpile inspectionandqual- ity control. Early in the testingprogram,it was ftrundthat the piles could be driven to bcdrock and thcre obtain a geotechnicalcapacityin excessof that re- quired. It was also lbund that the soilsexhibitedsignificantincreasein pile capacitywith tinre afterdriving,i.e., soil set-up.Therefore,a secondary purposeof the testingbecameto find the minimurn lengthof pile required to supportthe loads(without having to reachthe bedrock)for piles with serviceloadsof 90 kN (100 tons).l'his necessitatedthat the soil set-upbe studiedand consideredin the design. The resultsfrom nine piles includedin the designtestingprogramand l'rotttclcvcttol-thcproductionpilcsarcprcscntcdin tlrispaper.Filtcenstatic

lcstswcre pcrlirrlrrcd-eight

driving of

tcstingprogramsat the 1983ASCE conferenceon Dynamic Measurements of PilesandPiers(Felleniuset al. 1983).Thesepreviouslypublishedresults arc sunlrnarizcdhereinand conrpiledwith thc resultsof the productionpile tcsting.

in the initial tcstilrgpr()gratnand scvenduring

productionpiling. 'l'he writersreportedthe resultsof preliminary

GeHenll lHronmalon

Geotechnicalinvestigationsrcvealcdftrur 't'he ntain strataat the site, as pre-

scntedin Table | .

and is hydrostaticallydistributed. Stratum2 is a compressibleestuarinedepositthat variesin thicknessand colnpositionbetwecnboreholes.All piles were foundedin stratum3, the glacialnraterial,which containsdistinctlayersor lessof comparativelyho- mogeneousclay and silt, sand,and gravel, and heterogeneousmixturesof all thesematerials.The glacialsoil is highly variablein profile and density throughoutthe projectsite.

groundwatertablelics about2.5 rn (8 ft) below grade

Of the four pile typesincludedin the designphasetestingprogrammes, threewere top-drivenpiles-norrnal and heavywall closed-toe(flush end-

TABLE 1.

Soll Condltlons

Average Estimated undrained angleol

 

Unit

shear

effective

Stratum

Type of material

Thickness

weight

strength

friction

(1)

(2)

I

Miscellaneousearthlill

2

Soft to nredium stiff cornpressiblepostglacialsilty clay and clayey silt with organics(estuarine)

3

Glacial soil deposits

4

Dolomite bedrock

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

l5-25 fr

I l0

pcf

30'

60-70 fr

105 pcf

SOOprf

26-29"

85-95 ft

I 15pcf

4,(M) psf

35-38"

At depth

165-215ft

Note: Groundwater table is 8 ft below grade, and pore pressureis hydrostatically dis-

tributed: I

ft

:

0.3(X8 m; and I

pcf

:

0. 16 kN/mr.

985

h y d r o s t a t i c a l l y d
TABLE2. TestPlles Area(sq in.) Steel Concrete Type Designation Size(in.) area,A. atea,4,. (1) (21 (3) (4)
TABLE2. TestPlles
Area(sq in.)
Steel
Concrete
Type
Designation
Size(in.)
area,A.
atea,4,.
(1)
(21
(3)
(4)
(5)
'l'hin wall pipe
H-pile
Thin wall pipe,
rnandrel-driven
A
12.75x 0.375
14.6
I t3.l
B
l2 HP63
t8.4
0
C
14.00x 0.188
(14.00x 0.312,/lower
2D ft)
9.63 x 0.-545
8.2
145.8
t3.4
140.5
Ilcavy wall pipe
(srnall diarneter)
D, E, F-
G,H,I
ls.5
57.2
:
Note: I
in.
:
25.40 mnr; I sq in. :645.2
mm2; I
ft
0.3048 m.
plate)steelpipepiles,andsteelH-piles-and onewasa mandrel-driventhin-
wall pipe pile. l'he productionpileswereheavy-wallpipe piles.The design
phasetest piles have beendenotedlettersA, B, C, and D, while the pro-
ductionpileshavebeendenotedlettersE, 'fable F, G, /{. and/. Detailson these
piles are given in
2. Fig. I showsa plan view of the treatmentplant
and the locationsof the testpiles.
The test piles were driven to depthsof 33 to 48 rn (ll0
to 156 ft) and
the productionpilesweregenerallyinstalledto a depthof about42 to 46 m
(140 to 150 ft). T'hedesiredserviceload on the piles in the projectranged
from 900 to 1,300kN
(100 to 150tons).
'I'able
The A-piles (see
2) were driven and restruckwith a Vulcan 200C
doubleactinghammerhavinga nominal(rated)energyof 68 kJ (50 ft-kips).
Exceptas noted,all otherpilesweredriven andrestruckwith a Vulcan 010
single-actinghamrnerwith a nominalenergyof 44 kJ (32.5 ft-kips).Selected
restrikingof B and C piles was performedwith an 7l kN (8 ton) drop-
hammerfalling0.9 rn (3 ft), i.e., a nominalenergyof 65 kJ (48 ft-kips).
Dynamicmonitoringusingthe PileDriving Analyzer(Cobleet al. 1980)
was ctrtploycclduringthe designphasetcstingprograrnsas well as during
tltc cottstructionpltasc.Monitorirrgwaspcrlirrrrrcdduringinitialdriving, as
wcll as durilrgrestriking.
Dynamic monitoringof pile driving usesdata from transducersattached
to the pile near the pile head. The impact from the pile driving hammer
producesstrainandaccelerationin the pile which arepickedup by the trans-
ducersand transmittedvia a cableto the Pile Driving Analyzerplacedin a
near-bymonitoringstation.The Analyzeris a cornputerfor acquisitionand
analysisof the data,translatingstrainandaccelerationto forceand velocity
and displayingthesedataon an oscilloscope.
When the force and velocity measuredby the analyzerduring the impact
are plottedas wave tracesin a diagram,the incidentforce and velocity are
proportionalvia the pile inrpedance(EAfc: areatimes Young's modulus
over wave speed).With the velocity scaleproportionalto the impedance,
initially, force and velocity plot on top of eachother. However, when the
impact wave meetssoil resistance,a portionof the wave is reflectedback
toward the pile headsuperimposingthe downwardtravelingwave. There-
fore, the reflected force wave in combinationwith the incident force wave
986
LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C
LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C
LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C
LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C

LrJi

LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C PILES
LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C PILES

N

\,""."

HAREoR)

LrJi N \,""." HAREoR) Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo   Fl--l B and C PILES
Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo
Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo
Fr- o rTEI r@ 2@ 3oo

Fr-

o

rTEI
rTEI

r@

2@

3oo

 

Fl--l

B and C PILES

050rm

 
 
 

\ oo", o,

MILWAUKEE DOCKING FACILITYl )
MILWAUKEE
DOCKING
FACILITYl
)

'04\\

./t\

o\"

,/'

FlG. 1.

Plan Vlew of Jonew lslandTreatmentPlantShowlngTest Plle Locatlons

o \ " ,/' FlG. 1. Plan Vlew of Jonew lslandTreatmentPlantShowlngTest P l l e L
can exceedthe force at inrpact,i.e., the maxirnumforce be largerthan the impactforce. A key to visual
can exceedthe force at inrpact,i.e., the maxirnumforce be largerthan the
impactforce.
A key to visual interpretationof the wave-tracediagramis that the mea-
suredforce and velocitytracesreactdifl'erentlyto the reflectionfronr resis-
tancealong the pile: force incrcasesand vclocity dccreases.1'hc resulting
separationof the two traccsare, therefore,an indicationof the size of the
lg5istsngs-dynanric and static-and the locationand magnitudeof shaft
resistanceis evidentfrorn the traces.
The dynarnicresistanceis a functionof pilc velocity,calleddamping.'I'he
staticresistancedependson the movetncnt,called quake, requiredto mo-
bilize 'l'he the ultimatestaticresistance.
two rneasurements-forceand velocity-are independentfrom each
other. However,they arecausedby the sameimpactfrom the hammerand
affectedby the samesoil resistanceand they haveto follow the samephys-
ical laws of wave propagation.T'heCAPWAP analysisnrakesuseof this
situationby nreansol'a signalrnatchingproceduretakingas inputone mca-
surcment,usually the velocity, and moderatingit by reflectionscomputed
Iiom an assunreddistributionof darnping,quake, and soil resistance,and
transferringit to force by meansof wave mechanicscomputation.Through
a trial and error procedure,the input dataare adjusteduntil the computed
forcetraceplotson top of the nreasuredforcetrace.The CAPWAP analysis
has then calibratedthe site conditionsand providedthe static bearingca-
pacityof the pilc as wcll as indicatedthe dynarnicparametcrsgoverningthe
particularhamnrer/pile/soilconrbination.
Resuurs
Penetrationand Dynamic Monitoring Data
All pilesexperiencedvery little penetrationresistancein soil strataI and
2. ln stratum3, the glacial material,however, the penetrationresistance
variedconsiderablybetweenthe testlocations.
Figs. 2 and 3 show driving diagramsplottedfronr data obtainedduring
the rnonitoringof pilesA-l and B-2, respectively,which driving behavior
representstherangeof drivingconditionsencountered.Thc diagrarnincludes
thc penetrationresistance(PRES),the nraximurnfrrrce(FMAX), the inrpact
force (FIMP), and the nraximurntransferredcnergy(EMAX), as a function
of depthof the pile toe.
Pile A-l encountered"refusal"driving, i.e., a pcnetrationresistancein
cxccssol'600 blows/m (200blows/ft) at a relativelyshallowdepthof 37.5
(123ft), whereaspile B-2 wasterminatedat a depthof 47.2 m (155ft) with
a resistanceof only 30 blows/m (9 blows/ft). Although a wide rangeof
penetrationresistancewasobtainedon the rernainingpiles,their driving be-
haviorwasgenerallysimilarto thatof pile B-2.
To avoid testing"refusal" driven piles during the piles A designphase,
the driving of pilesA-2 and A-4 (conrpression-testpiles)was terminatedat
a penetrationresistanceof 26 blows/0.3 m and 45 blows/0.3 nt. respec-
tively, at a penetrationinto theglacialsoil about1.5m (5 ft) aboveexpected
"refusal" level.
Extrapolatingfrom the observationsmadewhen driving piles A, it was
expectedthatpilesdrivenat otherlocationsat the sitewould alsomeetwith
practical"refusal"sornewherearoundthe depthof 38 m (125 ft), i.e., in
988
(FMAX = FIMP) F lrl lt, 5 ul o t^' E f 6 o z

(FMAX = FIMP)

F

lrl

lt,

5

ul

o

t^'

E

f

6

o

z

t

o

E

o

=

o

E

l!

I

F

o.

ut

o

a

o

(o

(!

O

('

a

f 6 o z t o E o = o E l! I F o. ut

t_

lr

///

{

I

1

1'r

|

IMPACT

llYlr

nu

(FtMP)

''i""'

1

l*

|

,"or

FORCE

I blow/ft = 3.28blows/m

1tl-kiP=1356KJ

rkip = 4446*"

Toe

-

EgE+

RSTR-2 i

1

PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT)TRANSFERREDENERGY(FT.KIPS)

0,

,90

FlG.2.

490

690

8q0

FORCE(KIPS)

DrlvlngDlagramfor PlleA-1

lq

the denselayerwhich pile A-l encounteredat the depthof 37.5 m (123 ft). However, and indicativeof the highly variablesite conditions,in the con- tinuedtestingat otherlocations,with the exceptionof two piles,only mod- eratepenetrationresistancewas obtainedin initial driving abovea depthof

about46 m (150 ft).

exceptionpiles are piles E-3 and E-5. Pile E-3

met "refusal" at a depthof 43.6 m (143 ft) and pile E-5 met "refusal" at

32.3m (106ft)].

[The

989

"refusal" at a depthof 43.6 m (143 ft) and pile E-5 met "refusal" at 3 2
o (! U) = 6 = (t) o) ul o C' C) lt (FMAX =
o
(!
U)
=
6
=
(t)
o)
ul
o
C'
C)
lt
(FMAX = FIMP)
E
f
o
o
z
PENETRATION
D
o
RESISTANCE
E,
f
(PRES)
o
=
o
\
E
=
lr
\
6
I
\
t-
r
o.
D
UJ
I
o
o
a
\
T
\
\
f -
\ I
I
blow/tl = 3.28blows/m
1 ll-kip = t.356 KJ
I kiP = 4.446 *"
RSTR-3
L
-
h-fh
,
I tl = 0.30t18m
PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT)
EDENERGY (FT.KIPS)
200
400
600
800
1000
FORCE(KrPS)
FlG. 3.
DrlvlngDlagramfor PlleB'2
Table 3 summarizesthe driving observationsfor all testpiles.
The driving of testpilesB-D andproductionpilesE-I wasterminatedat
"nonrefusal"conditionsof penetrationresistances(PRES)at end of initial
driving (EOID) rangingfrom l-5 blows/inch.
To illustratetheobservedsoil set-up,Figs.4-6 showwavetracesobtained
from the end of initial driving (EOID) and restriking(RSTR-I-RSTR-S) of
pile B-2. Each set of wave tracesshows the measuredforce and velocity
TABLE3. DrlvlngData Drivingcondition Time PenetrationResistance Depth (EOIDand RSTR) after Hammertype | = 200C
TABLE3.
DrlvlngData
Drivingcondition
Time
PenetrationResistance
Depth
(EOIDand RSTR)
after
Hammertype
| = 200C
(PRES)
of pile
or statictesting
EOID
il:010
Pile
toe (ft)
(srAr)
(days)
Blows/in.
Blows/1.0in.
III :
DROP
(1)
(21
(3)
(4)
(s)
(6)
(7)
A-l
t23
EOID"
242/t2.U
20
I
RSTR.I"
I
24/O.50
48
I
RSTR-2"
5
20/O.25
80
I
ST'N'T
l2
A-2
tt7
EOtD"
26/t2
2
I
RST'R-I"
I
20/t.65
t2
I
RS-t'R-2"
r90/3.90
49
I
A--1
Ito
l1()lt)
1t /t2.u)
6
I
STN 'T
t3
A-4
n7
EOID"
4s / t2oo
4
I
S'TAT
9
45/t2.U)
4
B-2
155
EOID"
9/t2.00
I
;
RST'R.I"
2
s/2.N
II
-t
RST'2-2
6
s/ |.00
5
tl
RS'tR-r"
7
s/0.80
6
tl
s1'A't-
l5
RSTR-4"
t6
5/t,2s
4
III
RSl'R-5-blow# l'
RSTR-5-blow# 100'
132
II
t32
II
B-3
t42
tsolD'
t2/t2.u)
;
II
RSI'R-r"
I
il /-5.s0
2
II
STA'[ (PULL)
RSTR-2"
8
6/2.75
II
STAT
l0
RSTR.3"
t3
3/1.2s
: z
'
B-4
l5-5
EOID
ts/t2.uJ
I
II
RS'|-R-l',
I
-slI.88
3
II
RSTR.2"
9
3/0.63
)
III
c-3
r55
EOII)
2t / 12.00
II
RSTR-I
I
s
/2.4O
z
II
S'TAT
t2
RSTR.2"
t3
3/2.U)
; z
III
RSTR-3
t24
2t /4.00
.5
II
D-4
r56
EOID'
5/6.0O
I
II
RS'I'R-r"
I
5/ r.-50
3
II
STAT
7
E-l
156
EOID
t8/t2.uJ
z
II
RSTR-I
5
60/O.2O
30
II
RSTR-2"
6
8/0.rs
60
II
STAT
t5
E-2
t40
EOID
ss/t2.ffi
5
II
RSTR-I
8
8/0.25
32
II
RSTR-2
8
6/O.t3
45
II
RSTR-3"
9
6/0.0o
STAT
l5
E-3
t43
EOID"
22s/t2.OO
t9
;
RSTR.I
I
8/0.2s
32
II
991
TABLE3. (Continuedl (1) (2) (3) (s) (4) (6) (7) E-4 l-s3 EOID" 24/t2.0O 2 II
TABLE3.
(Continuedl
(1)
(2)
(3)
(s)
(4)
(6)
(7)
E-4
l-s3
EOID"
24/t2.0O
2
II
RS'IR-I"
I
s /0.7s
7
n
E-5
106
EOtt)
300/r2.00
25
II
RSTR.I"
t 2
7 /0.2s
28
II
F-l
142
EOID"
r0lr2.00
I
II
RSTR-I'
I r0l0.63
t6
il
STA'T
5 l
RS't'R-2"
52 50/|.00
50
II
G-l
140
EOID"
n /t2
I
II
RS'I'R-l"
I 20/l
II
RS'TR,2"
\/
-t
II
S'INT
2 l
H-|
t44
lloll)
6/t2
0.5
tl
RS'[R-r"
-5 r5lr.3
t2
II
STAT
t4
H-2
t42
EOID
te/t2
2
II
RSTR-I'
t5/
II
.J
RSTR-2
l5
20/
II
l- l
r39
EOII)
t4/t2
l
II
RS-I'R-r^
7 40/4
l 0
II
STA'f
l8
l-2
t39
EOII)
t3/t2
l
II
'l
RSTR-I'
28/7
4
II
RSTR-2
)\ /\
l4
8
II
"Signifiesthat CAPWAP analysisis perforrned.
Note: I
blow/ft = 3.28 blows/nr;I fr:0.3048
nr
and, for the first four sets,also the transferredenergywave at days 0,2,
7, 16, and 132.A cornparisonbetwccnthc traccsindicatesclearlythatthe
soil resistarrceat EOID is srnalland increascswith tinre afterdriving, as
evidenccdby the scparationol'the lorcc and vckrcitytraces.For a principal
discussionon visualinterpretationof wavetraces,seeRauscheet al. (1972),
and Authierand Fellenius ( 1983).
CAPWAP Analyses
Selectedwave traceswere analyzedusing the CAPWAP computerpro-
'fable gram (Rausche et al. 1972).The resultsaresumnrarizedin Tables4 and 5.
gives the evaluatedvaluesof stress,energy,and mobilized total,
shafi, and toe staticresistances.
Table5 givesthedampingfactorsandquakevaluesusedto obtaina CAP-
WAP rnatchand the calculatedmaximumtoe displacementobtainedin the
CAPWAP analysis(thecalculatedmaxinrumtoe displacementarenot avail-
able for piles E and F).
The CAPWAP analysisof thepile capacityassumesthatthe pile displace-
mentequalsor exceedsthe soil quakevalues.However,severalof the CAP-
WAP analyseswereperformedon dataobtainedfrom pilesdriven againsta
penetrationresistancegreaterthanaboutl0 blows/in., thatis, the maximum
pile toedisplacemcntwassmallerthanthe actualsoil quake.In sucha case,
4
992
o E UJ ul z st; x F 6 o J u, ut o ll

o

E

UJ

ul z

st;

x

F

6

o

J

u,

ut

o

ll

o lr

5OOKIPS

20 FT.KIPS

250KIPS

IOFT-KIPS

zLil

T

"'t

-r.-

r't'

o

lE

l!

ut z

Sl"

x

6

o

J

ul

ut (J

G

o

lt

500KrPs

20FT.KIPS

250KIPS

IOFT-KIPS

I fl-tip = I 356XJ

Itip=laaSKN

TIME

FlG. 4.

PlleB-2Force,Veloclty,and EnergyWaveTraces(EOIDand RSTR-I)

the staticsoil resistanceis not fully rnobilizedandtheCAPWAP determined resistanceis smallerthantheavailableultimateresistance.Suchlower bound CAPWAP resistancevaluesareshownin bracketsin Table4. For additional discussionon CAPWAP analysisandquake,seeAuthierand Fellenius(1980). PilesG, H, and/ wereall the samesize, installedwith the samehammer to essentiallythe samedepth,i.e.,42-44 m (139-144ft), andall the CAP- WAP analyseswere performed on driving records taken during restriking (RSTR) within the first sevendays after the initial driving. Therefore,it would be expectedthat the piles shouldhave approximatelythe sanreca- pacity. However,the resultsof the CAPWAP analysesindicatea spreadof ultimateresistancefrom 1,650to 2,500kN (186to 280tons),assummarized in Table 4, which further demonstratesthe variability of the glacial soils.

Static Loading Tests Six staticaxial compressiontestswere performedduring designphasetest- ing using a 4,500 kN (500 tons) loadedplatform (deadweight) arrangement. An additionalsevencompressiontestswereconductedduring productionpile driving. By meansof a full lengthtelltale,the displacementof the pile toe was

993

o

G

500KtPs

u,

2

20FT-KIPS

u,

dlo

x

F

6

o

2s0KtPs

IO FT-KIPS

J

UJ

ut

o

E

o

lt

C'

E

5OOKIPS

lrJ

20 FT.KIPS

z

ln

fit;

x

F

6

o

250KtPS

.IO FT.KIPS

J

u,

ui

o

E

o

tt

| fi-kip. t 356KJ

I kio = il 4,18XN

0 2L '*

c '""-.- ------.-/"

20ms

TIME

FlG. 5.

PlleB-2Force,Veloclty,and EnergyWaveTraces(RSTR-3and RSTR-4)

rneasuredin the axial compressionpiles.The telltalearrangementfollowed the 'l'wo reconnnendationsin ASTM D-l143-81.

axial tensiontests(piles A-3 and B-3) were also performedduring designphasetesting.Thesepiles were driven in a 9 m (30 ft) deepcased hole to elirninatethe direct influenceof stratuml, the fill. As indicatedin Table 'lhe 3, pile B-3 was testedfirst in compressionand then in tension. arrangernentsfor the conrpressionand tensiontestsfollowed the ASTM Dl143-81 and D3689-78designations,respectively.The quick maintained-

load methodof testing was applied using small constantincrementsof load appliedevery l0 minutes.For compressiontesting,the rangeof load incre- mentsusedwas 7l kN (8 tons)for pile F-l to 133kN (15 tons)for pile A-

l. For tensiontesting,the load increnrentwas 44 kN (5 tons). All loads

weremeasuredby meansof

manometeronly asa back-upgage.The pipepileswerefilled with concrete, which was curedfor at least5 daysbeforestatictesting. Figs. 7 and 8 show the compressiontestload-movementbehaviorof two of the piles, piles A-4 and B-2. The diagramsshow the pile-headand pile- toe movementsand the compressionof the full length of the pile, as mea- sured from the telltales.

a full-bridgestrain-gageloadcell usingthe jack

the full length of the pile, as mea- sured from the telltales. a full-bridgestrain-gageloadcell usingthe jack
500KtPs fi1" 20FT-KIPS x F 6 o J u, 250KIPS 1OFT-KIPS ui o CE o
500KtPs
fi1"
20FT-KIPS
x
F
6
o
J
u,
250KIPS
1OFT-KIPS
ui
o
CE
o
lt
fi1"
500KtPs
x
20FT-KIPS
6
o
lrl
250KIPS
ui
()
1OFT.KIPS
G
o
lt
I
tl-kip = 135511.,1
20ms
I
k i p = 4 a 1 8 X N
FlG. 6.
PlleB-2Force,Veloclty,and EnergyWaveTraces(RSTR-S)
'l'hc pilc-hcadrnovelncntcurveswcre alralyzcdlilr load lirtritsusing the
ntethodsby Davisson,Butlerand Hoy, Fullerand Hoy (Nordlund),Brinch-
Hansen,andChin (Kondner), assummarizedby Fellenius(1980).The load
limits obtainedare indicatedin the load-nlovernentdiagrarns.
Most of thecompression-testedpilesshowa load-movementbehaviorsinr-
ilar to that of pile A-4 (Fig. 7), i.e., the pile-headload-movementis ap-
proximatelylinearup to a headmovementof about25 mm (1.0 in.) and a
toe movementof about l0 mm (0.5 in.), whereafterthe movementbecomes
very largefor little or no increasein load. In contrast,the testresultsfrom
piles B-2, B-3, and C-3 do not show this plungingbehavior.Instead,the
load-movementcurve continuesto rise in a slightly bendingcurve even at
an appreciablylargepile-headmovement(120rnm,5 in., for pile B-2). For
thesetests,the load limit evaluations(e.g., Brinch-Hansen807ocriterion)
indicatethat ultimatefailurehasnoi beenreached.
CAPWAP and Static Test Capacity versusTime
The capacitiesof the pilesasdeterminedby meansof CAPWAP analysis
and static testinghave been compiled in Table 6. The compilationis re-
strictedto the resultsof the CAPWAP analysesmadeon blows where the
full resistanceof the piles wasmobilized.i.e. wherethecalculatedmaximum
99s
TABLE4. Summaryof Stress,TransferredEnergyand MoblllzedStatlcSoll Re- slstance Maximum lmpact lransferred

TABLE4.

Summaryof Stress,TransferredEnergyand MoblllzedStatlcSoll Re-

slstance

Maximum

lmpact

lransferred

Stress

energy(EMAX)

(srMP)

MobilizedStatic Soil

Resistancelrom

CAPWAP (kips)

Pile

BlowSet

(ft-kips)

(1)

(2)

(3)

n-l

EOID

28

RS'[R-l

28

RSTR-2

3

l

A-2

EOID

I

6

RSTR-I

25

RSTR-2

t

9

A-4

EOID

25

B-2

EOID

25

RSTR-I

t

8

RSTR.3

2

l

RSTR.4

35

RSTR-5-blow# I

23

RSTR-S-blow#l0O

22

B-3

EOID

l

9

RSTR.I

l

4

RSTR-2

t

9

RSTR.3

28

B-4

EOID

2

l

RSTR.I

2

l

RSTR.2

3

t

c-3

RSTR.2

38

D-4

EOID

))

RSTR.I

t8

E-l

RSTR-2

I

9

E-2

RSTR-3

l

9

E-3

EOID

20

E-4

EOID

l

8

E-5

RSTR.I

l

9

RSTR-I

22

F-l

EOID

r8

RSTR.I

22

RSTR.2

t

5

c-l

EOID

2

l

RSTR-I

20

RSTR-2

l

9

H-t

EOID

t

8

RSTR-I

t

8

H-2

EOID

RSTR.I

t

9

RSTR-2

20

t-|

EOID

26

RSTR.I

23

l-l

EOID

RSTR.I

l

8

RSTR-2

2

l

(ksi)

Shatl

Toe

Total

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

26

(r29)

(26t)

(390)

28

(274)

(rer)

(46s)

3

t

(329)

(189)

(5r8)

t

6

lt6

96

2t2

25

278

144

422

25

(294',)

(il3)

(4o7)

r9

t-5|

t20

271

24

7 l

39

ll0

22

230

40

270

24

298

42

340

22

379

7 l

450

25

(4s2)

(63)

(515)

28

(406)

(72)

(478)

23

70

35

r05

l

8

t9'l

38

235

22

202

t

8

220

20

2't9

56

335

20

t05

40

r45

22

242

33

275

) 1

328

72

400

r50

240

390

;

llt

39

r50

25

268

t

2

340

24

(416)

(rr4)

(530)

23

(376)

(t24)

(50o)

25

(l r5)

(l2s)

(240',)

2

l

68

t52

220

26

289

129

418

26

(252)

(183)

(43s)

25

t72

l

5

187

26

368

92

460

26

(sr0)

(65)

(57s)

24

t42

t

3

t55

25

422

25

447

23

424

30

454

24

 

20

395

5

400

24

;

; i,

22

26

25

; ;

 

;

20

346

l

9

365

25

 

Note: Parenthesesaround mobilized static resistanceindicate lower bound values. i.e

movenrent was insufficient to mobilize the full static resistance.I kJ; I ksi : 6.895 kPa.

the toe

kip = 4.443 kN; I ft-kip = 1.356

996

TABLE 5. Summaryot DynamlcSoll Parameters DAMPINGFACTORS Smilh Maximumtoe Cass Quake(in.) Shaft Toe displacement
TABLE 5.
Summaryot DynamlcSoll Parameters
DAMPINGFACTORS
Smilh
Maximumtoe
Cass
Quake(in.)
Shaft
Toe
displacement
Pile
Blowset
Shafl
Toe
(sec/ft)
(sec/ft)
Shafl
Toe
(in.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
(6)
(8)
(e)
{7)
A-l
EOID
0.50
o.40
0.l0t
0.040
0.l0
0.t5
0.l6
RSTR-I
0.45
0.05
0.43
0.007
0.04
o.04
0.04
RSTR.2
o.70
o.o5
0.055
0.o07
o.o3
o.03
0.03
A-2
EOtt)
0.30
o.20
0.067
o.054
0.l0
o.20
o.47
RSTR-I
0.50
o.40
o.o47
0.o72
0.r0
o.25
o.26
RSTR-2
0.40
o.02
0.o35
o.005
0.07
0.06
0.07
A-4
EOID
0.30
0.30
0.052
0.065
0.08
o.75
B-2
EOIT)
0.l5
0.l0
0.07|
0.086
0.l 2
0 .I 2
1.63
RSTR-I
0.55
0.l0
0.080
0.084
o.t2
0.l 2
0.46
RS'I'R.3
0.70
0.I0
0.079
0.080
0
.l 2
o.t2
o.37
RSTR-4
0.70
0.l5
0.065
0.064
0.r2
0.t2
o.32
RSTR-5-blow-I
o.95
o.22
o.76
o.126
0
.l 2
0.t2
RSTR-5-blow-100
0.78
0.r3
0.069
o.065
0.09
0.09
ts-3
EOID
0.25
0
.l 2
0.t20
0 . tr 5
0.l0
o.lo
rloa
RSTR.I
o.64
0.l0
0.109
0.087
0.l0
0,to
0.38
RSTR.2
0.70
0.05
0 . 11 6
0.091
0.08
0.to
0.ff
RSTR.3
0.87
0.il
0.104
0.068
o.t2*o.22
o.t2
0.58
B-4
EOII)
0.45
0.t0
o.144
0.084
o.12
o.t2
0.97
RSTR.I
0.45
0.07
0.062
0.071
o.12
o.l2
0.63
RSTR-2
0.80
0.t0
0.082
o.o4'l
0.t2
o.t2
0.43
c-3
RSTR-2
0.25
0.l0
0.076
0.037
o.t2
0.50
0.82
D-4
EOID
0.20
0.t5
0.050
0.106
0.l5
0.80
0.98
RSTR.I
o.25
0.70
0.026
o.269
0.l5
o.22
o.24
E-l
RSTR-2
0.45
0.35
0.030
0.085
0.06-0.|5
0.05
E-2
RSTR-3
0.45
0.t8
0.033
0.040
0.t0
0.t0
E-3
EOID
0.40
0.30
0.096
0.066
0
.t 5
0.t0
E-4
EOII)
o.27
0
.t 7
o.ilo
0.03t
0
.t 5
0.30
RSl'R.I
o.45
0.20
0,043
o.04-1
o.09
0.09
E-5
RS'I'R.I
0.2tt
o.22
o.03|
o.o.t3
o.to
0.05
F-l
EOID
0.02
0.01
0.023
0.r33
o.l5
0.l5
RSTR.I
0.80
0.20
0.064
0.064
0.l4
0.t4
RSTR.2
0.45
0.45
0.039
0.031
0
.t 5
o .l 3
c-l
EOID
0.39
0.20
0.076
0.045
0.06
0.06
;
RSTR.I
0.95
0.t0
0.062
0.lll
0
.l 2
o.t2
0.l0
RST'R-2
0.90
0.l5
0.058
0.138
0.08
0.08
0.09
H-l
EOID
RSTR-I
L20
0.07
0.085
0.359
o.t2
o.08
o.l0
H-2
EOID
RSI'R.I
o.72
o.06
o.056
o.096
0.06
t*
;
RSTR-2
I-|
EOID
RSTR-I
t.84
0.t0
0.099
o.172
t*
0.05
0.05
RSTR-2
Nore:I ft :
0.3048m: I in. :
25.40mm.
toe movement is greaterthan the quake.
The data are alrangedfour groups: piles A-2 and A-4, both with length
of 36 m (l17 ft); piles B-2 and B-4, both with length47 m (155 ft); piles
E-2,F-1, G-I, H-I, H-2, I-1, andl-2, allwith a lengthof about43 m (140

IOE

MOVEMENT

----;-.>*=t

/

!'

r,,

if i

/-

/HEAO

z'li'ci,t"en,t

--\.

i !

---ir

t

!

! i

tt'

l l

, a

I t

prr-e

coMPREssroN

^

tn 400

g

I

o

5 soo

J

J

F

o

'

F

200

100

0

I

I

05

ktp = 4 446111

inch = 2540 mm

|.0

2.O

MOVEtTENT(tNCHES'

1.5

FlG. 7.

Plle A-4

800

700

600

500

PI!E

coMPRESSTON-

.t

-:

i/'

'/ f

.a

'

-.-'t

."ii .j-

.-

-

,-

-

'

l1t',*.'r-'--.--

-1

-'\-

.i

.a

FlG. 8.

Plle B-2

998

f .a ' -.-'t ."ii .j- .- - ,- - ' l1t',*.'r-'--.-- -1 -'\- .i .a
f .a ' -.-'t ."ii .j- .- - ,- - ' l1t',*.'r-'--.-- -1 -'\- .i .a

TABLE6.

Compllatlonof Dynamlcand StatlcTesilngData

Blowtype

(3)

Pile

(1)

A-2

A-4

B-2

Length(ft)

(2)

Day

Rult(kips)

(4)

(5)

o

2t2

I

422

0

270

9

508

0

lt0

2

270

7

340

l5

314-570

t6

4.50

o

t46

I

272

9

400

t5

660

0

188

I

460

5t

660

0

t56

I

448

3

454

2l

660

5

400

t4

380

3

372

7

530

l8

560

7

366

0

r06

I

236

t0

204-348

l3

336

0

220

l

4t8

n7

EOII)

RSTR-I

tt7

EOID

STAT

t55

EOII)

RSTR-I

RSTR-3

STAT

RS'rR-4

l-5-5

EOII)

RS'I'R.I

RSTR-2

t40

STAT

t42

EOID.

RSTR-I

STA'T

t40

EOII)

RSTR-I

RSTR-2

STAT

144

RS'TR.I

STAT

142

RSTR-I

t39

RSTR-I

STAT

139

RSTR-I

t42

EOID

RSTR.I

STAT

RSTR-3

r53

EOID

RS R-I

4.448kN.

It-4

E-2

F-l

G-t

H-l

H-2

I-l

t-2

B-3

E-4

Note:I ft = 0.3048m; I kip :

ft); and piles B-3 and E-4, which differ in rengthfrom thoseof the other groups.

The datain Table6 havebeenplottedin

Fig.

9 showingcapacityversus

tirne in daysafterdriving.

First, the cAPwAP

"l"hree main aspectsareeviclcntfrom thii figure.

detenninedcapacityincreasesrapidlyover the firsl day

or two, and continuesthereafterto increaseat a slow but steadyrate. Sec-

ond, thereis a considerablescatterbetweenthecapacitiesobtainedreflecting

the variablesoil

testingof piles E-2 andH-1. Thesepilesareequarin

thecapacityof pile E-2 is almost75vogreaterthanthatof pile

in the staticloadingtestsperformedon the two piles after aboutthe same

numberof days after initial driving. Third, and lnost important,when the

effect of time and soil set-upis considered,the cApwAp

conditionsat the site.See,for initance,the resultsof statii

sizeand length. yet,

H-1, asfound

determinedca-

999

r e s u l t s o f s t a t i i sizeand
o irer 2m 1W ----c - .+ H-r STAT 4.3 r r -r-T -T-T'-T---r-T--t 5t015
o irer 2m 1W ----c - .+ H-r STAT 4.3 r r -r-T -T-T'-T---r-T--t 5t015

o irer

2m

1W

----c -

.+

H-r

STAT

4.3

r r -r-T -T-T'-T---r-T--t
r r -r-T
-T-T'-T---r-T--t

5t015

llXE

S'AT

8,2

 

LECEXO

a

A.2,A.1

B

8'2.Br

O

E-2

a

F-r,G-1,r-r

O

H.r.H-2.r.2

t

B-3

a

€-4

 

20

(d.tr)

TOTES:

SYMBOTSAFE USEO IO SPARATEPILS INTOGFOUPS HAVING THE APPROXIMAT€ SAME LNGIH ANO CAPACITY

'SIAI

tN a slalc

INDICAIES TAAT THf CAFACITYIS O€T€NMINEO

roAotNG

rEst

I lip ' 4aa8XN

FlG. 9.

CapacltyversusTlme

F.rs

5l dayt

pacitiesagreewell with the resultsof the statictesting.Where there is a rangeof load limits found in the statictest, the CAPWAP determinedca- pacity is as representativea valueas any of the load limits. The bearingcapacityconditionsat the site areobviouslyhighly variable. Therefore,had the dynamicmonitoringand subsequentCAPWAP analysis not beenavailableto the engineers,it is probablethat the variationswould havecausedseveredecisionproblemsat the siteduring both the designand constructionphases.Most ceftainly,the piles would havebeeninstalledmuch deeperthan necessary.

CoNcr-usroHs

For the pilesdriven to a depthof about43 m (140 ft), the initial driving of all but two piles was terminatedat a penetrationresistanceof I to 5 blows/in. When restrikingthe piles, increasedpenetrationresistancewas observedindicatingthe occurrenceof soil set-up.The soil set-upwas con- firmed both visually front the wave tracesand in the CAPWAP analyses showing that the increasein resistancewas not due to a reducedhammer efficiency or other random influence. The testinginvolvedsevenheavy-wallpipe piles, all about43 m (140 ft) in length,which wereanalyzedby meansof CAPWAP and five pilestested to failure in staticcompressionloading.Both the capacitiesdeterminedby meansof CAPWAP analysisand by statictestingshow that the staticresis- tancefor the piles varieswidely and randomlyover the site.

A studyof capacityversusdaysaftcr driving (Fig. 9) showsthat the soil

set-upoccurredrapidlyduringthe first day afterinitial driving andthencon-

1000

tinued at a slow but steadyrate for at leastseveralweeks. When comparingthe capacitiesdetbnninedin a CAPWAP analysisand a staticload tcst, it is lirundthatthc CAPWAP arralysisis in gtxrdagrccnrcnt with the resultsol'the statictesting,providedtheCAPWAP analysisis per- formedon a blow wherethe hammerhasbeenableto mobilizethe full soil resistanceand that the effectof tinre and soil set-upare considered. T'hecompilationshownin Fig. 9 indicatesthat the bearingcapacitycon- ditionsat the sitearc highly variable.l{ad thc dynalnicnronitoringand sub- sequentCAPWAP analysisnot beenavailableto theengineers,it is probable that the variationswould havecausedseveredecisionproblemsat the site duringboththc dcsignandconstructionphascs.

AcxnowleDcMENTS

The geotechnicalinvestigationsfor this projectwere one elementof the overall designof the Joneslsland WastewaterTreatmentPlant expansion conductedfor the MilwaukeeMetropolitanSewerageDistrict(MMSD). Per- rtrissionof 'Ihe MMSD to presentthe datais gratefullyacknowledged.

writers wish to thank EdwardE. Gillen Companyfor providing ad- ditional restrikingbeyondtheir contractualobligationsand for valuableas- sistancein obtainingthe data.

ApprHorx. RereneNces

Authier,J., andFellenius,B. H. (1980)."Quakevaluesdeterminedfromdynamic

measurements."Proc.Int. Seninaron theApplicationof Stress-WaveTheoryon Piles,Stockholrn,1980,H. Bredenberg,Ed., A. A. Balkema,Rotterdam,197-

2t6.

Authier,J.,andFellenius,B. H. (1983)."Waveequationanalysisanddynamicmon-

itoringof pile driving." Civil Engineering for

Vol. 2, PergamonPressInc.,NewYork,N.Y., l-20.

Prac'tisingand DesigtrEngineers,

Fellenius.B. H.

(1980)."Theanalysisof resultsftornroutinepileloadingtests."

Lonclon,l3(5), 395*397.

()rttuttd [ingineering,FounclationPublishingLtd

[:cllenius.B. tl., et al. (1983)."Dynamicrnonitoringanclconventionalpile testing

procedures."Proc., CortJ'.ort Dlnanic SpringConvention,Philadelphia,PA.

Measurementsof Pile.sand Piers, ASCE

Goble,G. G., Rausche,F., andMoses,F. (1970). *Dynamic studieson thebearing

capacityof piles." Phaselll.

and 2, Divisionof Solid

Mechanics,Structures,andMechanicalDesign,CaseWesternReserveUniversity,

Cleveland,OH.

Goble,G. G., Rausche,F., andLikins,G. E.(1980). "The analysisof piledriving.

ReportNo. 48, Vol. I

A state-of-the-art."Proc., lst Itrt. Sentinaron tlrcApplicationof Stre.ss-WaveThe-

orl ot, Pilc.s,Stockholrn,1980,H. Bredenberg,Ed., A. A. Balkema,Rotterdarn,

t3t-t62.

Rausche,F., Moses,F., andGoble,G. G. (1972). 'Soil resistancepredictiorrsfrom pile dynanrics." "/. Sor/Mech. and Found. Engrg., 98(SM9), 917-937.

1001