PILETALK INTERNATIONAL '91 1514 Au 1991 . Lumpur, Malia BEARING CAPACITY OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS FROM DYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS AND STATIC TESTS - TEN CORRELATION CASES M, HUSSEIN, Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. Orlando, Florida, USA. F. RAUSCHE, Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. ABSTRACT: Bearing spaciy of deep foundations is often confirmed by means of static lad tests. This procedure, however, is expensive time ‘onsuming, and in some cases phytialy imposible to perform. ue fo these limitations, only afew piles ate statically lad tested on bg projects, {nd pethape aoae on smaller jobs. In recent years, dynamic pile top measurements performed under an impacting mass have been weed 10 evaluate deep foundations for bearing capacity. Being quick and relatively inexpensive these ests are becoming routine ia many covattes around the word Continuous developments of snaiss and messurements have improved ther economy and reliably. This paper considers tea case histories where oth dynamic and static tess were performed onthe tame piles The cases cover crven plies and drilled shat. Drvea piles were installed with Gicsel and ac/steam hammers Special loning devices were constrsctea for the testing of drilled shafts. Soli conditions cover snd, sil, clay. Calerious sil and rock. It is concluded that pile top dyeamie measurements can be wed to compute deep foundations state bearing capacity ‘rihin 10% ofthat determined from sate tests under a variety of conditions. 1. INTRODUCTION ‘Te static bearing capability of pile is imited by either the structural strength ofthe ple shaft of te capacity of the supporting colt. Pile ‘ucdtucal capacity is limited by allowable ile stresses whic are based ‘5 aerial properties sod building code requirement The pacity ‘ofthe esol stem may be evaluated by sate soala taking into ‘count soll sieagin parameters derived from both In-situ and iboratory geotechaical test methods. Various analytical procedures have eed described in the soil mechanic terature. However, sate analysis is considered preliminary and must be supported by additonal feld teats in mort cates. Either stati led testing, which consis of applying loads of knows magnitude to the pile top 2nd measuring ‘arrespondig pile movement, or dynamic measurements and analyses of ple force and motion records during impact ofa fling mass are ederally used to evaluate deep foundation elements for axial stat Bearing capacity. ‘This paper presen cave histories where both stile and dynamic ests were performed on tem ples. It describes te dynam ple testing and Suapss methods and ducuses the use and merit of both state and yaar tests. All case histories were recoded and are presented in ‘he English unit stem. Conversion factors between Eaglsh and ST unis af included in the Appendix. 2, STATIC LOAD TESTS Traditionally, pile testing has meant the application ofa static load ‘est and the measurement of the resulting ple top movement. The Galore load is defined at that load which causer cxcesive ple ‘ovement. Various definitions exit for the excesive pile set (2). For igh capacity often a proof teat to s certain load level & conducted whea its too expensive to load the piles to failure. This ‘ype of ple testing is expensive, time consuming, and in some cases payscally impossible to perform. Because ofthese restraints, oaly 2 few ples ate tested oa larger projects, and perhaps none on smal jobs In many instances, information obtained from only one loading testis uted to judge the rest of the ples in a foundation. Many factors such at subsurface variability, adequacy of contrition techniques, and workmanship that affect pile beeing capacity and structural integrity can, of course, spoll such “engineering by 49 sociation” approach, It has beea reported inthe literature (2) at, ‘or 20% relative tothe true value. Static tests ean even be totaly ‘misleading in some eases (1). Neverteles, static oud testing is stl ‘considered the best and only means for esablising a reference or Standard pile static bearing capacity. Examples of static test resus wil be eicusted in the Case studies presented below. AS a failure Citerion, the method of Daveson wat seualy chosen [eee 20 (2) DYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSES 3M Background Dynamie methods for bearing capacity evaluation were utilizes by cay ple drivers centuries Before the underying principles were {ecognized and understood. I seemed logal hat higher lod should be supported by a ple fr which more efor was needed to advance {timo the ground. Also it was intltvely clea that impacting a ple ‘with an excessively large mass or drop height, and was mos likely (0 ‘ause pile damage though it would advance the ple faster. Eagincers have ied to expres the relationship between effort needed ro drive pile and its bearing capacity in a simple formula (8) based on Paciples of Newionian physics of bodies in motion. Actually Newton himelf warned againat the use of his impact theory in pile Akiving nays). This early dynamic approach was acrude analysis fof the ram impact on a pile. Early ia the iat century, was ‘recognized that pile driving dyeamics is better modeled by wave propagation rather then by idealized rigid Body impacts. Mathematical loted form solutions for special cases were developed, but general [purpose solutions were not easly obtained due to the complexity of the problem. ‘The frst measurements were taken during arving in 1938 in England in an attempt to better understand and more realisically control ple sresses and sil resistance. In the 1950, the aviability of digital computers made a discrete solution of elastic One dimensional wave propagation posible and computer programs were written (7). This ype of analysis became Known asthe ‘wave equation”. The method models hammer, pl, and soll with a felavely hgh degree of realism Results (rom wave quation analyses are widely wed for assessing pile civailiy and fate bearing capacity durig diving, or afer installation with 3‘estike, Further discussions on this ype analysis may be found inthe literature (48). The wave equation i an excellent analytical tol for \whataf type studies before going into the Geld. However, because the {olution depends on assumptions, accirate stressor bearing capacity results can only be asesied through actual measurements of hammer or ple dyaamic quaatites oecurrag during a hammer blow in the tel 42 Cate Method ‘The technique most widely employed today for both measurement and {eld sna of piles were developed under the dicetion of Profesor GG. Goble at Case Insitute of Technology. The teehnique is therefore called the Cate Method (3). The Cate Method encompases the measurement of force and velocity during a hammer blow andthe Computation of some 40 dynamic varables in ceal time by employing reusable stain transducers, piezoelectric accelerometers, and Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The PDA is a data acquisition system and tserieadly Geld computer that provides power supply and signal ‘conditioning for the transducer. Tt applies Case Method solutions to ‘the measured dat to calculate: lle static bearing eapaciy, diving Induced pile sesses(compresive and tensile) hammerrvingsjtem performance parameters, anda structural ple integrity relate value. ‘Required PDA inputs include ple length, eros sectional area, easie ‘modulus, and deni, in addition to specifi calibration factors for the ‘measuring gages, and an assumption of a soil damping factor that {represents Soll dynamie behavior under impact. [i can be shown (6) tat given pile top records of force (F) and velocity (0) under a bammer impact on 4 uniform elastic ple, the total, toll existance can be calculated from: R= (FA) + FO) + (ty) + Wey} ZH ® here ty = +216 ia selected time during the hammer blow, Z [the pile impedance, equal to Me/L (L isthe pile length, M pile ‘mass, and c the wave Wansmission speed related to material deasity {nd clastic modus). This total resistance, B, isthe sum of fesstance Day be. approximated by the product of a non imeasionalized damping factor, jy and the calculated pile toe sect. S=R- GF) + 204) -R] @ ‘The oe velocity times pile impedance is found from ple 1p free and velocity and resistance as shown ia the right hand term of Equation 2. ‘The damping factor, j, can be solved dreetl trom the above equation Cte failure load from a tale load text a eubtituted for S. Ia this ‘ay, the damping fctor was found tobe related to the sol grin size. (Griginally, the Case Method capacity, 8, was calculated at the ime, ff highest pile velocity with ‘enaltve damping factor, ‘Today, the time, ti unualy chosen sch that i yields the maximum static redutance, Le, at a ime when the pile reaches maximum ‘temporary penetration and starts to rebound. The pile velocity then low and the calculated sale reastance becomes Insensive to the choice of je Case studies 41 and 42 ilustrate the data provided by the PDA and lug Cave Method interpretation to compute pile static capacity for 8 Concrete and a steel ple, anda comparison wit full scale static load 33 caPwar CAPWAP (the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) is » procedure ‘which allows the computation of soil tesstance forces and theie Aiatutio, along wth ocher dynamic sll parameters fom measured pile top force and velocity histories during a hammer blow (6). ‘The CAPWAP pile model const of series of segments of qual stress wave travel time corresponding to approximately oy length “The sol reaction forces ace tepresented by pusive, static (eno. plastic) and dynamic (linesty viscous) components, os orginally proposed by Smith (7). Such reutance forces at both along the sha sd below he pil tip. Tey canbe ealeulaed from pile displacement tnd veloiy given at each segment, an ultimate sate resistance and {quake value (sate component) tnd" dnsnpot constant (Sync Component. Note that ultimate renistancedivtied by quake yes the Soil stiffness. The sum of al segment ultimate resistance values ithe {otal sktimaie capacity of the pile. At fst, a complete set of ‘assumptions (Le, static capacity, quakes and damping at each pile ‘segment) slong wit ple model are entered ino the compute. A tial ‘alysis i then made and one of the calelated pile top quaatities compared with the equivalent measured valves. Additional tal Soalyes are then performed interactively by the engineer sing 2 personal computer in an attempt to beter and better approximate the SBemured. values. The program can. also. obtain solutions “automaticaly in is “expert system" mode. samples 43 and 44 present case histories where a CAPWAP analysis fon ples that were also subjected to stati loud tests Comparisons of ‘result include ultimate atic beating capacity snd pile top load ‘movement relationship. 4 CASE STUDIES 41 12inch Square Concruse Pe in Sandy and Clayey Sits- Case Method Predicion A prestressed concrete pile, (length of 60 ft and area 144 in?) was driven wits a Conmaco 65ES single acting air hammer (65 kip ram, 5 stoke, 325 kip-(t rate energy) to a depth of 455 f and 4 deving resistance of 3 blows per inch (BPI). Three days ater installation, the pile was estruck and had adeving resistance of 10 BPL. The pile was Synamicaly monitored daring both initial srving nd restke. The ‘Sands conse of ena alscompae ofan and ey sil. "Dynami records of pile top force and velocity aloag with 2 Complete ‘Cate Method interpretation for static capaciy during 2 ‘estrike hammer blow are presented ia Figue 1. 1a ths example, the For Mad aval hed Fu) = S30 kin) = 340 kipe ZA) = AO Roe 2x & 0 FRG) = Rep ® Zu) Zaye 1 (330 4'340"Fo50 9/2 = 035 pe s Tey) +z) A] 2 eS 180 2 60655) = 2 pe Figue ts Cae Method Results, Cse 41~4 se pa fre TOP se7 (ew) Fgute 2: Static Load Test Reslis and Interpretation, Cate 41 inet: bad been chosen atthe time of maximum ple top velocity ‘Using damping factor) = 0.35, s recommended fr silty cle in the PDA 'mabual, the computed static capacity was 423 kips. The ple was sisal load tested on the same day ofthe restrke. Test results ‘of ple top loademovement are included in Figure 2 slong withthe Devatoa'sfailare erteriafor determining ultimate capacity, whichis sows to be 410 Kips (2 12nch Stel H Plein Weathered Rock, Case Method Prediction ‘Aeel Hepile having a length of 76 (and an area of 15.6 in? was Siento a rextance of 8 BPI and s depth of 72 with an ICE 640 ‘loed end diesel hammer (ram weight 6 kis, rated energy 406 kip- [b) Toe ple was restruck a few days later encountering a resistance of 16 BPL The soll condition cam be described as 2 layer of ‘Bkcelianeous fil, loose to frm alluvial sits and residual soi ‘reayng partially weathered rock. Dynamic measurements were ‘performed Guring pile installation and restrike. Case Method com- pated capacity atthe ead of driving was 392 bps and ducing restrike ‘is S15 kip (Figure 3 agaiacontatas a complete example with at {Be ine of maximum pile top velocity and j,=0.). A tate ltd fst ‘wu performed on thi lle and indicated failure load of 390 kip, ‘sell below anticipated. Alter reviewing the testing procedure, it was {od that the loading system indicator was malfunctioning and the static lad test was redone. The ple top load vs movement curve ‘own ia Figure 4. It indicated aa ultimate pile capacity of 480 ips, me we 2 Wwalocity) 23 Linke ity vou R= Fy) + Flt) + Zoe) - Zed (eas ta = ee s I Reis (FQ) + Ze) Tease is PP at = 51s woe Figure 5: Cate Method Computation, Case 42 51 Figure Static Load Test Results and Interpretation, Case 42 43 24inch Octagonal Prestressed Conerete Pile, Silty Sand over (Calcareous Sand» CAPWAP Prediction ‘A presresed concrete pile with a length of 79 ft and an aten of 477 in® was driven with Vulcan $20 singe acting ar hammer (20 kip ram ‘weight, 5 f¢ maximum stroke, 100 Kip-t rated energy. wsing only 23 Tsteoke) toa depth of 78 (and a blow count of BPI. The ple was reatruck with the same hammer (out with a 5 {€ suoke) and ‘encountered a resistance of 2 BPL. The subeutface conditions can be described as 44 ft layer of silty sand under which a two foot thick limestone eap exised over a deep layer of medium 10 very dense oars caleateous sand. The pile was monitored dynamically during the restike. Analysis performed according tothe CAPWAP method vas performed on data dusing the tence tet. Results (om 2 CAPWAPC include (see Figure 5): measured pile top force and ‘velocity record (upper ight), comparisons of measured and computed forces (upper lett), both soil restance distribution and pile forces along the shaft at ultimate capacity (ower right) and # statialy ‘calculated lond-set curve based on CAPWAP's predicted resistance and quake values (ower left), Furthermore, fr each pile segment, ‘luimate state sol resistance, (unt fiction and unit end bescing values) sol quake and dampig factors are tabulated. “The resulis indicate a CAPWAP computed ultimate pile capacity of, ‘S50 kips Figure 6 presents results of «static lad test performed on ‘he same ple (indicating an ultimate capacity of $12 kip), long with