Pile Driving Analyzer® (PDA)

and CAPWAP®
Proven Pile Testing Technology:
Principles and Recent Advances

Frank Rausche, Ph.D., P.E. ● Pile Dynamics, Inc.

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 1
 Outline
• Introduction
– The PDA History
– Basics of PDA testing
– Recent developments
• Wave Equation Analysis
• Stresses, damage prevention and detection
• Bearing capacity from CAPWAP and iCAP®
• Vibratory testing and analysis
• Dynamic pile testing and the LRFD approach
• Summary

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 2

 Pile Dynamics, Inc. - founded in 1972
Our Objective: to provide the necessary methods,
hardware and software for reliable quality assurance of
deep foundations

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 3

 The Pile Driving Analyzer®
a long history of improvements
1965
1997

1958

1982
1992
2007

Conforms to
1973 ASTM D 4945
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 4
 What is required?
Accurate, Reliable and Efficient Pile Top Force and
Velocity Measurements

Reusable lightweight
strain and acceleration
transducers for testing
any pile type
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 5
 Transducers Requirements

• Accurately calibrated
• Rugged and Reliable
• Allow for self checking
• Adapt to any pile type
• Cost efficient
• Allowing for testing
“after-the-fact” - when or if
needed
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 6
 Transducer Placement

Traditionally:
2 strain sensors +
2D
2 accelerometers.
But frequently we
must use 4 strain
sensors for accuracy!
(large piles, spiral
welded, all drilled
shafts/piles, …)

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 7

 Smart, wireless Sensors
calibration transmitted with signal

 Sensors 

Transmitter

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 8

 Sensor-Transmitter Protection

• H-piles – no issue

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 9

 Sensor-Transmitter Protection
• H-piles – no issue
• Pipe piles – use protectors

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 10

 Lofting pile into leads

PDA

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 11

 Sensor-Transmitter Protection
• H-piles – no issue
• Pipe piles – use protectors
• Concrete piles – protectors
or - sensors in indentations

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 12

Sensor-Transmitter Protection by
Indentation

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 13

 ® -
SiteLink Remote PDA
USA Patent #6,301,551

Pile Driving Analyzer

Site B
Site A

Pile
Pile

Engineer
- controls several PDAs
simultaneously as if on-site Contractor
- monitors piles in real time - schedules easily
- reports within short time - keeps project going
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 14
Design and Construction of Driven
Piles*
• Soil Borings
• Static pile analysis
• Pile Type and Length selection
• Wave Equation analysis to check driveability
• Initial Pile Testing program by PDA
• Develop driving criterion
• Production pile installation to criterion
• Dynamic testing of production piles as needed
*See Hannigan et al., 2006. Manual on the Design and Construction of Driven Piles; FHWA

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 15

 Wave Equation Analysis (GRLWEAP)

Thermodynamic model
predicts stroke for diesels

Enter
soil profile

Predicts Driveability
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 16
 Wave Equation Analysis (GRLWEAP)

Updated hammer/driving
system input

Updated soil parameters

Refined capacity vs. blow count after testing

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 17
 Dynamic Pile Testing Objectives
• Finding optimal installation procedure with
Dynamic Monitoring by Case Method for:
• Hammer Performance
• Driving Stresses
• Pile Integrity
• Soil Resistance at the time of testing
• Dynamic Load Testing:
• Capacity vs. time EoD/BoR – setup/relaxation
• CAPWAP® Signal matching
• iCAP® Real time signal matching

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 18

 Allowable Driving Stresses
Related to pile material strength
For Example, AASHTO provides the following limits:

• Steel Piles in Compresssion or Tension:

90% of Steel Yield Strength
• Prestressed Concrete Piles in Compression:
85% of concrete strength – Effective Prestress
• Prestressed Concrete Piles in Tension:
Prestress + 50% of concrete tensile strength
• Timber - Southern Pine/Douglas Fir:
3.2/3.5 ksi

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 19

 Damage Detection
Example Records for a Spliced Pile
Good Pile: No early reflection

Time of Impact Toe Reflection Time of Impact Toe Reflection

Bad Pile: Splice should not cause an early reflection

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 20
 Toe Damage Detection: Early Record
24 inch PSC L = 56 ft WS 14,000 ft/sec

BN 220

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 21

Toe Damage Detection: First indication
24 inch PSC L = 56 ft WS 14,000 ft/sec

BN 260

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 22

 Toe Damage Detection: End of Drive
24 inch PSC L = 56 ft WS 14,000 ft/sec

7 ft

BN 220
BN 1094 - EOD

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 23

 CAPWAP - “Signal Matching”
State-of-practice; required by specs/codes

We know both Input and Response

I R
(wave down and wave up)
This is the information needed to calculate
static and dynamic soil model parameters

• Always (to be) used for capacity calculation

from dynamic load test
• Evaluates stresses vs. depth
• Models uniform or non-uniform piles

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 24

 Pile and Soil Model

Spring (static resistance), i.e.,

Pile Segment Capacity and Distribution
+ Soil Stiffness
Impedance
Dashpot (dynamic resistance)
Zi = EiAi/ci

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 25

 CAPWAP Result Summary

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 26

 Toe Dynamic Resistance: Measured and CAPWAP
Grävare, 1980. “Pile Driving Construction Control by the Case Method” Ground Engineering.

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 27

 CAPWAP – Different Users, Static Test

+20%
SLT
-20%

Case
CAPWAP Method CAPWAP

CAPWAP Uniqueness? Pretty good

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 29
 CAPWAP: Comparison with Static Tests
CW versus SLT combined (N=303) (80, 96, SW) Distribution of CW / SLT Ratios (96&SW: N=226)

25.0%
40,000
20.0%

Unconservative

Frequency
15.0%

(potentially unsafe) 10.0%

30,000 5.0%

0.0%
0 4 9 4 9 4 00 5 0 5 0 5 0 0
r7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -9 -1 10 11 11 12 12 13 13
de 70 75 80 85 90 1- 6- 1- 6- 1- 6- er
CW [kN]

n 95 10 10 11 11 12 12 ov
u
Ratio
20,000
Distribution of CW / SLTmax Ratios (96&SW: N=179)

25.0%

20.0%
10,000
Conservative

Frequency
15.0%

(residual strength) 10.0%

5.0%

0 0.0%
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

0
0

11 0

11 5

12 5

ov 0
4

00

13
r7

-7

-7

-8

-8

-9

10

11

11

12

12

13
-1
70

75

80

85

90
de

1-

6-

1-

6-

1-

6-

er
95

10

10

12
un

SLT [kN] Ratio

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 31

 Pile Top
Bottom
SC test data: T6P1 – 18 inch solid concrete pile
=
=
=
=

=
BOR 7 Day BN 4 (CAPWAP) Static test (14D)
Ru

Rb
Rs

Dy
Dx
800

Dynamic: 180 k
700

end bearing
600
500
Load (kips)
400
300
200

Static: 176 k
100

end bearing
0
0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

D is p la c e m e n t (in )

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 32

 Superposition:
When Restike is Done with Insufficient Energy
Thus not Activating Full End Bearing
30 inch
concrete pile Max. Trans Static Capacity, Kips
Blows/ Energy Skin End Total
Length 65 ft
foot Kip-ft Friction Bearing Capacity
End of Drive 130 47 198 880 1078

Static Load Test 1630

Restrike 120 27 737 228* 965

Superposition 737 880 1617

* Not fully activated (low energy)

Hussein, M., Sharp, M., Knight, W., “The Use of Superposition for Evaluating Pile Capacity”, Deep
Foundations 2002, An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construction, and Performance,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, American Society of Civil Engineers: Orlando, February, 2002

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 33

 Considering Soil Setup Capacity
St. Johns River Bridge:
Increased loads by 33%
with substantially shorter piles
(set-up considered)
Total project:
• $110 million (actual)
• $20 million (savings)
• $130 million (estimate)
Scales & Wolcott, FDOT, presentation at PDCA Roundtable
Orlando 2004

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 34

 iCAP®
Signal matching program, executed during monitoring,
i.e., in real time, automatically, for immediate results.

Results:
• Total Capacity, with distribution
• Load test curve
• Compression stresses (max and toe)
• Tension stress maximum

• Also: Case Damping factor and Match Quality

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 35

 iCAP on PDA

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 36

iCAP comparison with CAPWAP (2010)

Pipe Piles H-Piles Concrete Piles

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 37

 PDA Testing of Vibratory Driven Piles

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 38

 PDA Testing of Vibratory Driven Piles
Measured - End of Driving
1500 1
0.8
1000
0.6
0.4
500

Velocity - m/s
0.2
Force - kN

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.2
-500
-0.4
-0.6
-1000
-0.8
-1500 -1
Time - L/c (3.7 ms)

Force Inertia Velocity

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 39

 PDA Testing of Vibratory Driven Piles
• Soil resistance calculated from
PDA force and velocity test
results based on either power or
force (Case Method) approach
• Unfortunately, soil reistance
and bearing capacity often differ
significantly, thus impact restrike
testing still necessary for dynamic
capacity evaluation
• GRLWEAP driveability
predictions reasonable but
sensitive to assumptions

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 40

 PDCA LRFD - 2000
Load and Resistance Factor Design

AASHTO (2010): φRn ≥ f1 Q1 + f2 Q2 + ….

Φ = 0.50 wave equation analysis (no testing)

0.65 2% or at least 2 dynamic tests
0.70 several DOTs specs - dynamic
0.75 static or 100% dynamic tests
0.80 static and 2% dynamic tests

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 41

 PDCA LRFD - 2000
Load and Resistance Factor Design

Example Calculation:

a) Assume 1.375 average load factor

b) Overall factor of safety: FS=1.375/φ
c) Assume Rn (nominal pile resistance)
of 200 kips

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 42

 PDCA LRFD - 2000
Load and Resistance Factor Design

Calculating
Overall safety factor and
No. of piles required for a 2000-kip load

Φ = 0.50 FS = 2.75 Rn/FS= 72 Npile= 28

0.65 2.11 (kips) 95 21
0.70 1.96 102 20
0.75 1.83 109 18
0.80 1.72 116 17

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 43

 Reasons for Dynamic Pile Testing
• We spend a lot on deep foundations in the USA:
$4,000,000,000
• We want low risk of failure - remediation is
expensive
• We want safe bridges and other structures
• With LRFD less risk translates into less cost
• Testing allows for optimizing a foundation

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 44

 Summary: Pile Driving Analyzer
• Continuous improvements help obtain more
information faster (wireless, remote) and at
lower cost
• Test all pile types (steel, concrete, timber)
• Dynamic pile testing to supplement or replace
static load tests

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 45

 Summary: Pile Driving Analyzer

• Driving stress control to prevent damage

• Identify damaged piling
• Detect bad hammers for reliable application of
driving crieria
• Economical dynamic testing allows for more
tests and higher resistance factors

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 46

 Summary: CAPWAP
• CAPWAP test analysis for reliable capacity
prediction including resistance distribution and
end bearing
• 40 years experience; large database
• Capacity at time of testing (EOD or BOR) for
assessment of soil setup
• iCAP Signal Matching for operator independent
and immediate results

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 47

 Thanks for your attention

Frank Rausche
Pile Dynamics, Inc.
www.pile.com
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 48