You are on page 1of 443

OCTOBER 12, 2018

DEEP FOUNDATIONS
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
DEEP FOUNDATIONS - NDT
7:30 am
7:45 am
Registration
Breakfast service begins AGENDA
8:20 am Welcome and Opening Remarks
8:30 am QA/QC of Deep Foundations (pre or during-installation)
Overview: why do we test?
Pile Installation Recorder (PIR)
Testing bottom cleanliness with Shaft Quantitative Inspection Device (SQUID)
Measure foundation excavation with Shaft Area Profile Evaluator (SHAPE)
Low strain integrity testing using Pile Integrity Tester (PIT)
10:00 am Coffee Break and Networking
10:15 am QA/QC of Deep Foundations (post-installation)
Crosshole Sonic Logging
Thermal Integrity Profiling
11:45 am Wave Equation Analysis
12:15 pm Lunch and Networking
1:15 pm Load Testing of Deep Foundations
Static Load Testing Options
Dynamic Testing
CAPWAP Analysis
3:00 pm Coffee Break and Networking
3:15 pm High Strain Load Testing of Drilled Shafts
4:00 pm ASD and LRFD methods; Codes and Economics
4:30 pm Discussion
5:00 pm Closing Remarks
Why Do We Test
Why Test ? We cannot risk failures
How to test Structural Integrity
• Low Strain Integrity Testing
• Cross-hole Sonic Logging
• Calipers

? • Thermal Integrity Profiling

Q We need to assess capacity


How to test Geotechnical Capacity
• Inspection devices
• Static Load Testing
• Bi-directional Load Testing
R? • Dynamic Load Testing
“One test result is worth a thousand
expert opinions”
Werner Von Braun
Father of the Saturn V rocket

Measurements are
better than Guesses
Unknowns = Risk = Liability

Actual testing removes unknowns and


therefore reduces risks and liability

State-of-Practice includes testing


Shaft Quantitative
Inspection Device
(SQUID)
Shaft Quantitative Inspection Device (SQUID)
• Measures the cleanliness of the Drilled Shaft/Bored
Pile bottom
• Quick connect to Kelly bar or drill stem for fast
simple operation
• Quantifies the extent of bottom sediment/debris at
base of drilled shafts
• Measure force versus displacement as penetrometers
are pushed into the shaft bottom
• 3 cone penetrometers with individual displacement
measurements
• Determines the thickness of the soft soil layer and the
load vs. displacement for the bearing layer
• Wired or wireless versions available
SQUID
Quick Attachment to Kelly Bar
SQUID Tablet
SQUID Body

Kelly Bar Adapter

Swivel Plate

SQUID Body
SQUID

Cone Penetrometer

Mud Plate for Depth


Sensing
SQUID
SQUID
• Several system Configurations available:
• Wired System
• Wire Connected between SQUID body and SQUID Tablet
• Hybrid Wired/Wireless System
• Wire connecting SQUID Body to surface, Wireless box transmitting data
from top of pile to SQUID Tablet
• Fully Wireless System
• Wireless connection from SQUID Body to SQUID Tablet
• Data only visible on SQUID Tablet once the SQUID Body has returned to the
surface
• Can NOT see real time data with this configuration
SQUID Data Cable

Wireless Box

SQUID Data Cable


SQUID with Cable Connection
SQUID
Partially Wireless
SQUID
Fully Wireless
• Data collection begins
when movement in the
displacement sensor is
detected
• Data collection rate is
automatically adjusted
based upon a change in
any penetrometer or
depth sensor
• Typical storage capacity
is approximately 35
pushes before memory
is filled
SQUID
Fully Wireless
SQUID Screen Shot

FTH Value
Cone Zero
LOG Scale
Cone Zero line
FTH
SQUID Before Cleaning
SQUID After Cleaning
SQUID Summary
• SQUID measures
– thickness of debris layer
– cone tip resistance to penetration
• Three cone penetrometers with
separate depth measurements
• Standard 60o - 10 cm2 cones
• Quick deployment accelerates
inspection and minimizes debris settling
from slurry
• Can be operated remotely with SiteLink
Technology
• Safer - No need to approach the open
hole
Shaft Area Profile
Evaluator
(SHAPE)
SHAPE
• Multi Channel Ultra sonic device to scan
the sidewall condition in wet pour drilled
shafts
• Determines shaft profile, radius,
volume, and verticality
• Measures 558 mm high and 457 mm
dia.
• Weighs approximately 31.75 Kg
• Quick connects to the Kelly bar
• Data acquired at approximately 2 scans
per second
• All 8 channels scanned simultaneously
• Drilling stem advances at approximately
300 mm per second
• System is wireless, so no electronic
cables required while deploying in the
shaft
SHAPE
• SHAPE typically attached to Kelly bar
• Alternately can be independently operated with a cable
winch located at top of borehole
• Requires no cable connections during acquisition
• Built-in calibration pulse automatically corrects for wave
speed and slurry density changes with depth
• When SHAPE is removed from the borehole the processed
data is transmitted to the SHAPE main unit wired via
ethernet or wirelessly via Bluetooth
• Raw data can be separately downloaded via wired or
wireless methods
• Can be very large data files
SHAPE
• Multiple pressure sensors located at known distance apart for depth
measurement
• Wave Speed calibration via transmitter and receiver sensors located at
fix separation
• Built in accelerometers to correct for any inclination in the system
during deployment
• Built in compass to track any rotation in the SHAPE during deployment
• Can be operated remotely with SiteLink technology
SHAPE
SHAPE
Battery Box

Pressure Sensor
Status LEDs
Electronics Unit

Ultra-Sonic distance sensors


SHAPE

Pressure Sensor

Calibration Sensors
SHAPE
Calibration
Sensors
Travelling SHAPE
Downward
at 300 mm
Per Second
SHAPE Output
SHAPE Output
SHAPE Output
Automated Monitoring
Equipment
Automated Monitoring Equipment
(AME) for ACIP Piles
Pile Installation Recorder (PIR)
Major pile
defects cause
foundation
failures
PIR Components
• Depth Sensor measures auger tip position
• Magnetic Flow Meter measures incremental grout volume
• Pressure sensor measures grout line pressure
• Pressure sensor measures auger torque
• Proximity switch to measure auger rotation
• Control unit measures, records, and displays drilling and grouting
data
PIR Main Unit

PIR readout
guides crane operator to
more uniform pile
The Deep Foundations Institute’s Cast-in-Place Piling Seminar- KC '09

PIR Depth Sensor


Magnetic Flow Meter
• Magnetic flow meters create a
magnetic field in the tube.

• Faraday's Law of Induction: "a


conductive medium moving
through a magnetic field will induce
a voltage in the medium that is
proportional to its average flow
velocity."

• This measurement depends only


on conductivity and is independent
of density, viscosity, or any other
parameter.
Normal grout pressure
250

200

.
150

pressure psi
100

50

0
19
37
55
73
91
109
127
145
163
181
199
217
235
253
271
289
307
325
343
361
379
397
415
433
451
469
487
505
1

Grout line Pressure versus Time


(fairly uniform & consistent)
50
100
150
200
250

0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
341
361
381
401
Missing stroke

421
441
461
Single missing pump stroke

481
501
Missing Cycle

521
541
561
581
601
50
100
150
200
250

0
1
23
45
67
89
111
133
155
177
199
221
243
265
287
309
331
353
375
Many Missing Strokes

397
419
441
463
485
507
529
551
573
595
UNSTABLE PUMP OPERATION

617
639
661
683
Volume Rate and Pump Pressure vs. Time
70 300

60

Pumped Volume Rate (ft3/min)


250

50
200

Pressure (psi)
40

150

30

100
20

50
10

0 0
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Pressure
Time (min)
Vol. Rate

Pumped Volume Rate is low during times of


pump malfunctions
PIR Volume Rate and Withdrawal Rate vs. Time

Volume Rate and Withdrawal Rate vs. Time

16 70

14
Auger Withdrawal Rate (ft/min)

60

Pumped Volume Rate (ft3/min)


12
50

10
40
8
30
6

20
4

10
2

0 0
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Vol. Rate
Time (min)
Withdrawl Rate
Withdrawal Rate Slows
as Volume Rate Slows
Volume and Withdrawal Rate vs. Auger Depth

16 6.0

.
14
5.0

Auger Withdrawal Speed

Normalized Volume (ft3/ft)


12

4.0
10

(ft/min) 8 3.0

6
2.0

1.0
2

0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Withdrawl Rate
Depth (ft)
Normalized Volume
Theoretical Volume (100%)

Even with pump malfunction, by monitoring with PIR,


the pile was installed with adequate incremental volume
versus depth
Drilling Screen

Figure : Collect Screen - Auger


Grouting Screen – Stem Filling
PIR Grouting Screen

Increments with low


grout appear as red to
alert operator
Low Strain Pile Integrity Testing
Why Test?
• Finds major defects
• Assesses quality
• Reduces risk
Which pile do we test?
Which pile can we test?

Any of these piles could have a defect.


Pit Motivation and Advantages

• prime function is to locate major defects


(to evaluate questionable shafts)
• easily test many piles
(good for quality assurance)
• no advance selection required
(good for forensic purposes)
Pile Integrity Testing Equipment
PIT Main Unit
• 24 bit A/D
• Touchscreen
• High graphics resolution
• Memory & data transfer with USB
Drive

Various impact hammers


Accelerometer
Pile Integrity Testing…...looks for major defects
Small hand-held hammer Accelerometer measures response
applies impact
A stress wave propagates along a uniform elastic rod unchanged at
wave speed c. Reflections occur where pile impedance changes.

t=0 L/c 2L/c

time

Downward Wave
L
Upward Wave
Pulse Echo Method Results
GRL Engineers, Inc.
Sample
1/4/2008

C:\Program Files\PDI\PIT- W 2003\Example Data\sample .pit PIT- W™ 2003- 2

5: # 9 40 FT GOOD
in/s
0.20 1.55 LB

9/1/2000 10:56:12 AM
Hi 100.0 f t 63.0 Hz
2W 2.50 f t 2520 Hz
0.10

Pile Properties
D = 286 mm
0.00
L=12.2 m
WS = 3840 m/s
L/D=43 (D=11.28 in)
-0.10 V 0.174 in/s (0.186)
40.00 f t (12600 f t/s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 f t

Plot of filtered, un-amplified test record


Pile Integrity Testing…...looks for major defects
Small hand-held hammer Accelerometer measures response
applies impact

(defect)
A stress wave propagates along a uniform elastic rod unchanged at
wave speed c. Reflections occur where pile impedance changes.

t=0 x/c 2x/c L/c 2L/c

time
x

Downward Wave
L
Upward Wave
Pulse Echo Method Results

Shaft Properties
D = 1524 mm
L=21.2 m
WS = 4054 m/s

Plot of filtered, amplified test record

Major Defect at 10.7m (35 ft.) on 1.5 m (5 ft.)


Diameter Shaft
Coring Results on Shaft
0.0 ft

4.0 ft

34.5 ft

39.0 ft

69.5 ft
A stress wave propagates along a uniform elastic rod unchanged at
wave speed c. Reflections occur where pile impedance changes.

t=0 x/c 2x/c L/c 2L/c

time
x

Downward Wave
L
Upward Wave
PIT - Basic Interpretations

Local Defect: small medium large

Local Bulge: small medium large


Normal test Drilled Shafts Tests
(pile top “free”)
Good
Pile

Bad
Pile

L = 25 m, D = 0.8 m
(L/D = 31)
Low Strain Integrity Testing

PREPARATION OF PILE TOP


• Remove loose
contaminated or
fractured concrete
from core
• Cut rebar to min
lengths
• Grind flat spots for
hammer impact and
to attach
accelerometer
Low Strain Integrity Testing

DATA ACQUISITION AND CONDITIONING


Real data is not perfect, so...

“data enhancements” play an important part


in evaluating low strain integrity tests

• Collect multiple blows:


averaging reduces “random” effects

• Use best possible equipment


low noise, high A/D resolution
signal processing options
Hi Pass
Filter Add “HI”
HiPass Filter

Altered shape Too small


Min HI =
10x P.W.
Lo Pass “noise” or “ringing” complicates evaluation
Filter ( where does noise come from? )

“smoothing” the curve with LoPass filter (“LO”)


helps simplify evaluation
Lo Pass

2x/c = 1 / Δf
f = c/2x = 13000/2x4
= 1625 Hz

Wavelet

“Wavelet”
Low Strain Integrity Testing
DECIDING WHAT SIZE/TYPE HAMMER TO USE
450 g (1 lb.) hammer (28 m , 1.8 m shaft) 8.2 Kg (18 lb.) hammer

center

north

Larger hammers sometimes makes inspection of


largewest
shafts easier.
Try different hammers on same pile.
east

south
CASE STUDIES
PIT indicated a defect at 4.1 m depth

Defect

Defect confirmed by coring


Failed static load test often prompts testing.
Reaction pile OK

Test pile defective

350 mm (14 inch) CFA piles with 4.6 m (15 ft.) rebar.
3.6Kg MA12

900g MA25
Static test failed at 85 tons.
Design load = 90 ton design load ( S.F. < 1 )

450g MA30

Pile: 350 mm (14 inch) diameter, 12.2 m (40 ft.) long CFA pile, reported grout overrun 26%.
L/D = 24

Soils: soft/loose layers of silty sand, max. N-value of 10, with N-value of 1 near 7.6 m (25 ft.)
depth.
PIT shows
major defect

coring confirms defect


as contaminated conc.
over soil at same
location
SLT failed at
less than half
required
900 mm dia.
L=25m
6m rock socket
Conclusions
• Interpretation looks for:
• Good data (consistent & reasonable)
• Similarity or differences for different piles
• Rapidly changing features in data (structural)
• Slowly changing features in data (soil related)
• Toe signal (tension or compression)
• Shaft uniformity
• Indications of major defects (+/- cycle)
• Comparison with soil profile, installation records

• Integrity testing locates major defects.


• It is limited to general interpretations rather than exact detail.
Do not use “heroic effort” to read more than data really tells.
Classifications
(5 categories used by GRL)

• AA - Good Pile
• Clear toe response, no obvious defect; sound shaft
• AB(x) – No Major Defect (to a depth of x)
• No indication of defect; no apparent toe response
• PF(x) - Probable Flaw (at a depth of x)
• Early impedance decrease; toe response apparent
• perform additional quantitative analysis
• PD(x) – Probable Defect (at a depth of x)
• Clear identification of serious defect; no toe response
• re-test, other tests, reduce capacity or replace
• IV/IR – Inconclusive Results
• poor pile top quality, or complex geometry
• fix pile top & re-test
Testing Foundations In
Service
Tests show pile lengths of 16.5 m (54 ft.)
Special application:
Side-mounted accelerometer for
testing an existing structure
Wave Speed Determination
WS = (Z2 – Z1)/t

Accelerometers
Hammer Z1
Z2 A1

A2
Profile Analysis –  & Profile
40 FT BAD
5: # 13
1.55 LB
0.08
in/s

Low Pass: 2.00 ft 3175 Hz

0.04

0.00

-0.04
40.00 ft (12700 ft/s) V 0.076 in/s (0.080)
x1
Magn
0.75
29.4 ft 0.33
42.9 ft
1
Beta
0
0.97 0.85
12.1 ft 30.8 ft

Relative Vol.: 0.98


Construct. Vol. 1.00
Max Profile: 1.17 at 25.72 ft
Min Profile 0.85 at 30.81 ft

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 diam

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 ft
Frequency Analysis: Velocity+Force
Instrumented Accelerometer
hammer

Force measurement allows


for the calculation of mobility
and dynamics stiffness
Frequency Domain Analysis of a Sound Pile
in/s 5: # 7 40 FT GOOD
0.20
2 LB

0.10
Impedance: 40.47 kips/ft/s
Mass: 2.0 lb

0.00

L/D=43 (D=11.28 in)


-0.10 V 0.180 in/s (0.180)
40.00 ft (12500 ft/s)
F/Z 0.159 in/s (0.159)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 ft

Norm. Amplitude
1.50
Force V: 7.317 mil/s
F: 0.007 kips
1.00
Velocity
0.50 Fds 32.0 Hz
Dyn. Stiffn. 9.2 x1000 kips/ft
Low 1/Z(Q) 0.316
0.00 High 1/Z(P) 3.716
1.50 Sqrt(PQ) 1.083
155.4 Hz 155.4 Hz 155.4 Hz 155.4 Hz
VMX 0.180 in/s
40.2 ft 40.2 ft 40.2 ft 40.2 ft FMX 0.537 kips
1.00 P

0.50
Dyn. Stiffn 1/Z
V/F: 3.716 1/Z
Q
0.00
0 250 500 750 1000 Hz
Conclusions - Pile Integrity Testing
• Fast, Inexpensive
• Mobile equipment, minimum site support
• Test many or even all piles on site
• No advance planning required
• Minimal pile surface preparation
• Finds major defects
• Cannot locate defect in cross section
• Can be difficult to locate defects in the upper portion
• Potential length limitation (L/D > 30)
• Non-uniform pile difficult to interpret
• Cracks or joints block waves
Cross Hole Sonic Logging
ASTM D6760
• Drilled shafts have little or no redundancy;
therefore, integrity of each shaft is critical
Cross hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is frequently specified
to detect defects on drilled shaft construction
Anomaly Location (anomaly is not always a defect)
Percentage of Shafts with Anomalies

Middle Mid 1/3


10% 11%

37% Top 1/3


44% 38%
Bottom 2D Top 2D Bottom 1/3
32% 58% 45%

Jones & Wu, Geotechnology, Inc.


Billy Camp, S&ME Inc.
Missouri and Kansas
Southeast USA
“Crosshole Sonic Logging of South “Experiences with Cross-hole Sonic
Carolina Drilled Shafts: A Ten Year Logging and Concrete Coring for
Summary” - Presentation to ADSC Expo Verification of Drilled Shaft Integrity”,
2012, San Antonio March 2012 ADSC GEO3 Construction Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Technical
Conference, Dallas Nov 2005
Pull

Put probes in
Probes
From Cross Hole Test
bottom of Bottom
tubes. To Top Repeat test
Top view of pile with 4
for each access tubes
tube pair

Fill Tubes
with water Stress Waves, emitted
in one tube are received
in another one if concrete
quality is satisfactory
Transmit Receive
Cross Hole Sonic Logging
Tubes (Perimeter & Major Diagonals)

# Tubes All Paths Measurements required to


define geometry
4 6 5
5 10 7
6 15 9
7 21 11
8 28 13
9 36 15
10 45 17
n n(n-1)/2 (n-2)*2 + 1
Cross-hole Sonic Logging

Shaft

Reinforcement Cage

Anomaly in CSL Logging Tubes


direct
transmission
path easily
detected with
CSL
Cross-hole Sonic Logging

Shaft

Anomaly Reinforcement Cage

Anomaly outside CSL Logging Tubes


the direct
transmission
path will NOT be
detected with
CSL
Total Cross-Section Tested with CSL
100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%
Testing Coverage

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Borehole Diameter (m)


Potential issue with concrete flow
Upcoming problem with CSL
CHAMP
PDI Probes

All Probes both


Transmit and Receive
Cross Hole Sonic Logging
PDI Tripod
Encoders at Access Tubes
How to find defects ?

Good

Defect
Reduced signal strength
Delayed arrival time
(slow wave speed)
18
Signal amplitude provides additional information

Energy

“Energy” is
integration of
signal amplitude
Could evaluate
either energy or
signal amplitude
Cross Hole
Sonic Logging

Black
White

Texas shaft 1

Traditional
“water fall”

Project circa 1990


Cross-hole Analyzer

Signal

Defects

Arrival
First Arrival Time
“FAT” Defect

“EDGE FINDER”
to find arrival times
signal image processing & Defect
user interactive controls
Rating Guide

Relative Energy Reduction

12dB
9dB
A B C

0
0 15% 30%
First Arrival Time Delay
Proposed guidance
Category B:
1. Rule out de-bonding (flood pile top)
2. Retest after longer wait time
3. Tomography
4. Consider depth location and # of affected profiles
Category C:
1. Rule out debonding (flood pile top)
2. Retest after longer wait time
3. Tomography
4. Consider depth location and # of affected profiles
5. excavation if near ground surface
6. core drilling if deep location (pressure grout, etc)
7. other test (low strain, high strain)
8. repair or replacement
Case Studies
PDI shaft – when to test?
ASTM D6760 suggests test after 3 days
ICE Specification suggests test 7 days after
casting

day 1 day 2 day 3 day 4


Top Anomaly

Shaft was
rejected

Concrete placed through water for top 3m (10 ft.)


due to a tremie problem
Bottom Anomaly

Minimal or No Recovery
Canary Wharf Testing
Pile 448 - large shell defect

Cannot see outside cage


“De-bonding”
 Weakening of bond between tube and concrete
 Almost always relatively near top
 Lateral impact on tube
 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion difference
•Concrete & steel – 12 x10-6/oC;
•PVC 50 x10-6/oC
 To minimize:
 Use steel access tubes
 fill tubes with water ASAP
 To mitigate: flood shaft top with water
Initial test 30 min later

Test after
Initial Test flooding top
and Test of shaft
Repeated 30
minutes later
after flooding
top of shaft
Bleed water channel effect

31
Tomography
Evaluation of “local defect”

Defect in some scans


but not all scans.
If defect in all scans
it is a full layer defect.

Tomography
Tomography: “PDI-Tomo”
Runs on Windows 7 or higher
Requires minimal user input
Improved analysis techniques
Single-hole Sonic Logging (SSL)
To test small diameter piles
with wave path shown
through concrete

and wave path shown


through water

PVC tubes required


Samples with full and half cross sections

Full Half
Single Hole Testing
ASTM D6760 – 5.2.2 For Single hole tests, the access ducts
must be plastic tubes. Testing must therefore be performed as
soon as practical since plastic tubes are prone to debonding
issues. Because the generated pulses travel through the
concrete around the access duct, unless a defect is
massive and very near the duct, the defect may not
be detected by this method.

Pile Dynamics does NOT recommend SSL tests


Cross-hole Sonic Logging
Advantages
• Not limited by L/D ratio
• Check concrete inside cage by depth & quadrant
• Installed tubes inspire better construction
• Tomography available
Limitations / Disadvantages
• Wait 3 to 7 days prior to test
• Access tubes required (steel preferred)
• Cannot see outside cage; limited x-section tested
• Small defect near tube can appear large
• Debonding, bleeding are issues
• leads to delays and unnecessary coring
Thermal Integrity Profiling
ASTM D7949
Typical Inspection
Dry Cast
• Generally visual inspection only
Wet Cast
• Since visual inspection is impossible
some NDT is needed. Options include:
1. PIT (pulse echo) ASTM D5882
2. CSL ASTM D6760
3. Thermal Profiling ASTM D7949
Thermal Integrity Profiling
• Measures the elevated temperatures during the
hydration process to determine pile integrity
• Temperature during curing is directly related to
concrete quality, volume, and radius (cover)
• Reductions in temperature indicate necking, inclusions, or poor
quality concrete
• Increases in temperature indicate bulges or increased concrete
cover
• Variance in temperature between diametrically
opposite wires indicates cage alignment/cover issues
• Acquiring Volume data allows temperature to be
converted to radius
Thermal Integrity Profiling
• Thermal Integrity Profiler evaluates concrete
both inside and outside the cage
• Assessing both cover and alignment
(100% testing – entire section)
• Evaluates shaft during curing (as early as 12 hrs.
depending upon mix design and pile diameter)
• Allows construction to progress much faster
• Significant cost savings can be achieved if we can
save many days or weeks on a project
• ASTM D7949
Thermal Integrity Profiling
 Use temperature vs. depth vs. quadrant

Cement
Quantity
Strength
Concrete
Shaft Temperature
Serviceability versus depth
during curing
Durability at cage

Cover

low local temperature caused by either


1. Local reduction in shaft radius (e.g. low cover)
2. Low cement content (e.g. weak concrete) 43
For uniform shaft, temperature is constant,
except 1 diameter at top and bottom roll-off
Shaft Heat Signature

80

Temperature → 70

60
70-80
60-70
50-60
50 40-50
30-40
20-30

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4
7

S10
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
4
7
0
Shaft Heat Signature

80

Temperature → 70

60
70-80
60-70
50-60
50 40-50
30-40
20-30

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4
7

S10
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
4
7
0
Thermal Integrity Profile
Data Interpretation - Local Defect near
C2
Drilled Shaft Degrees F

Anomaly 0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150

10

15

C1
20
C2

Depth (ft.)
25 Average

Reinforcement 30

Cage 35

Interrupted Heat 40
Signature Logging Tubes 45

50
Shaft Heat Signature

80

Temperature → 70

60
70-80
60-70
50-60
50 40-50
30-40
20-30

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4
7

S10
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
4
7
0
2.6 m

2.6 m
5.2 m 5.2 m

4.9 m
For uniform shaft, temperature is constant,
except 1 diameter at top and bottom roll-off
Toe Adjustment Toe Adjustment
Temperature (F) Temperature (F)
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
80 80

avg avg
85 85
toe
toe
tanh
90 tanh
90
corrected
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
95 95

100 100

105 105

110 110
Toe Adjustment Example
Thermal Integrity Profiling

1 hour 4.5 hours 8 hours 18 hours


Thermal Integrity Profiling

2 hours 4.5 hours 8 hours 18 hours


Thermal Integrity Profiling
Prior to pour completion Peak Temperature
TIP Testing Equipment
• Thermal Wire® cable
- Embedded in grout or concrete
- Digital sensors sample
temperature data

• TAP or TAG Box


- Data collection with TAP
- Data collection and
transmission to cloud

• TIP Main Unit


- Project set up
- Download data from TAP box
- View field results
TAG – Thermal AGgregator

• Wireless Cloud Based System that


aggregates information from TAP
boxes
TAG
• Data retrieved in office (user
TAP TAP TAP password protected internet
site)

• TAG doubles as TAP box


Considerations for Acceptance Criteria
• Load carrying requirements can be controlled by:
• Geotechnical side shear
• Compression
• Structural bending
• These are directly related to:
• Circumference surface area of the shaft
• Cross sectional area
• Moment of Inertia
• Each have different effects:
• Circumference is linear with radius
• Area related to square of radius
• Moment of Inertia related to fourth power of radius
• Is defect in zone of flexure?
Strength loss vs. radius reduction
Recommended TIP Criteria
Satisfactory (S)
< 6% Radius Reduction and
Cover Criteria Met
Anomaly requiring further Evaluation (E)
Radius Reduction > 6% or
Cover Criteria Not Met
(a uniform 6% reduced radius is a 12% area reduction)
minimum cover – 102 mm (4 inch) - AASHTO
minimum cover – 76 mm (3 inch) - ACI
Need larger design cover to allow for cage
eccentricity so net cover is sufficient
Field Examples
Example 1 – Time Savings
•~ 350 Drilled Shafts
• Length 11.9 m to 17.1 m.
• Temporary Casing Installed to 7.9 m
• Groundwater at 1.2 m below pile top
• 1.2 m to 2.4 m diameters
• All shafts TIP tested
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1 Speed of construction

71
Example 1 Summary
• 100% TIP testing on all shafts
• TIP identified 6 shafts with defects all in upper 2 m
• groundwater at approximately 1.2 m below top of shaft is washing out the
concrete when the casing is pulled
• Coring has revealed voids in all 6 shafts where TIP identified a
problem
• Construction techniques modified to avoid further issues
• Early detection saved considerable cost and delays for the project
I-5 Bridge over Puyallup River
Tacoma, Washington
TIP Example 2
• Wet cast Shaft in Washington State
• 3 m diameter
• 10 TIP wires installed
• Cage Diameter 2.6 m
• 38.4 m shaft length
• TIP testing begins immediately after casting
• Data recorded during pour as well as cure
• Data recorded for approximately 90 hours after casting
• Shaft peak temperature occurs approximately 40 hours after casting
• Shaft analysis done at time of one half peak temperature (20 hours)
TIP Data at Peak Temperature
TIP Data at time of one half Peak
Temperature

Temperature drop is
approximately 23 °C (41 °F)
between average shaft
temperature and local
temperature near wires 7, 8,
and 9
TIP Data at one half Peak Temperature
6
5 7

4 8
Coring Locations

3
9

2 10
1
Coring Results at approximately 90’ depth
• Coring result
close to wires 7
and 8, where
largest reduction
occurred
• Coring confirms
TIP test results
• Zone was hydro-
blasted and
pressure
grouting was
performed
Example 2 Summary
• Shaft shows a local reduction near wires 6 through 9
• Design radius = 1.5 m
• Local effective radius at wires 7 & 8 = 1 m
• Reduction in Local Radius = 32.2%
• Cover is also reduced to zero in these regions
• Anomaly extends inside the reinforcing cage
• Coring is done in several locations in the shaft
Example 3
• Drilled Shaft
• Length: 7.5 m
• Shaft Diameter: 1.07 m (0 - 6.28 m)
• Socket Diameter: 970 mm (6.28 – 7.48 m)
• Cage Diameter: 762 mm
• Volume: 6.93 m3 installed
• Temporary casing installed to top of rock.
Example 3 Initial TIP results
Example 3 Conversion to Radius
Example 3 Coring results
Example 3 Summary
• Field logs indicate 6.93 m3 installed
• Theoretical volume 6.49 m3
• 107% of theoretical volume installed
• TIP indicates severe problem at base of shaft
• Shaft is cored
• Coring shows no concrete in lower portion of shaft
Example 4: Free fall concrete into wet base

Shaft Details:
Diameter 2.4 m
Length 12.8 m
What is wrong with this shaft?

• Engineer requested that contractor to


use tremie (request denied)
• Concrete placed free fall method
• Reportedly 1.5 m of water present at
the base prior to placement
• Core revealed collapsed shaft and
contaminated concrete
Example 5 Iowa test shaft – August 2014

Concrete prisms–
5% of X-section

Clay spoils –
7% of X-section

Tube 6

1.83 m nominal diameter


Iowa
test
shaft
Observe Temperature versus Time – Iowa Shaft
30o C – Air
17.8o C - Ground

6 6
Ability to detect
Optimum time to Defects fading by
detect defects peak temperature
(11 hours) 6 6
(+19 hours)

Cage
alignment

Start
+Filled
+concreting
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
11
40:30
5
6
7
8
92:00
1:30
1:00
hours
hours
2:20
Example 5 Iowa test shaft After peak time it is
harder to see defects
Top 4.6 m – 1.98 m dia.
Rest of shaft 1.82 m
78”
dia.
6 72”

Optimum time
to see defects

11:12 hrs 19:33hrs 43:52 hrs


Peak temperature One day past peak
Wisconsin Project

Main Diagonal
Perimeter
18 hours 36 hours
0.75 days 1.5 days
“Peak”

19oF vs peak 13oF vs peak

Pile cored: “Good, clean concrete


above and below a 6 inch void”
(Due to tremie problem)
559 mm x 4.9 m depth CFA Pile
(one TW cable attached to center bar)
Shaft B-1
(extracted)

Top

Middle

Bottom

No local cool spots → no significant defect


Much more definitive test than SSL
Los Angeles – 549 mm CFA pile – July 2017
Pile Diameter in inches
0 10 20 30
0

10

20

Depth in Feet
30

40
measured
peak temp
50

60

70
TIP provided area versus depth to properly convert
embedded strain sensor data to force for a static load test
TIP on Micro Piles

• 273 mm
diameter micro
pile
• 19.5 m depth
TIP on Micro Piles
TIP on Micro Piles
Barrettes / Wall panels – not circular
Can they be tested with TIP?

Soil
YES
- Use symmetry -
Barrette test - 1.2 x 2.8 m (cover 100 mm)
L = 97.8 m / 321 ft

• No major cool zones – no defects


• Cage alignment not perfect
• Peak temperature at 40 hr 40 min
• 344 m3 concrete - 4.5% overage
• 23.5 hr to excavate
• 2.5 d to install cage; 6.8 hr to fill
Peak Differential 1 6

12 7
1, 12 Tremie sections removed
at 15 and 9 m
Cage shifted toward end
of wires 1 and 12
1, 12

1, 12

Sweden – Barrette A - May 2017


Thermal Integrity Profiling
Advantages
 Uses temperature vs. depth vs. quadrant
 Test early after casting (speeds construction)
 6 to 48 hours (depends on diameter)
 Evaluates concrete quality, cover & alignment
 Evaluates shape (look at peak temperature time)
 Finds significant defects (look at “half peak time”)
 Inspires quality construction
 Avoids CSL issues of debonding, bleeding
Limitations / Disadvantages
 Use: Drilled/augercast shafts, barrettes, micropiles…
 Preplan thermal wire cables
 Can test only during early curing
Static Load Testing Options
Why We Test For Capacity ?
Safety Economics
ASD LRFD
pre 2007 after 2007
AASHTO: F.S. f
SLT (≥1) + DLT (≥2 and ≥2%) 1.90 0.80
SLT (≥1) 2.00 0.75
DLT (100%) --- 0.75
DLT (≥2 and ≥2%) 2.25 0.65
Wave Equation Analysis 2.75 0.50
FHWA mod. Gates Formula 3.50 0.40

With More Testing


Pier suddenly dropped 3.3 m (11 ft) Reduced number of piles
Shorter pile lengths = less $
Reduced risk
How We Test For Capacity ?

Static Load Test Dynamic Load Test


1000 Tons 20 Ton Ram (2.0%)
Types of Static Load Tests

Axial compression load test on 1724 mm O.D. Axial tension load test on a 1724 mm O.D.
(68 inch) open end pipe pile (68 inch) open end pipe pile
Types of Static Load Tests

Lateral load test on 356 and 406 mm O.D. 20 MN (2250 ton) bi-directional jack being lowered
(14 and 16 inch) concrete filled pipe piles into a 1520 mm O.D. (60 inch) drilled shaft excavation
Instrumentation Measurements
in a Static Load Test
• Load • Displacement
• VW SG Load Cell • LVDT
• Resistive SG Load Cell • Electronic Digital Indicator
• VW Displacement Transducer
• Pressure • Digital Level
• String Pot
• VW Pressure Transducer
• Resistive Pressure Transducer
• Voltage Output (4-20 mA)
• Tilt
• Strain • VW Tiltmeter
• VW Strain Gage
• Resistive Strain Gage
Conventional Static Load Test Procedure
Q1+Q2+Q3, etc.
Q1+Q2+Q3
Q1+Q2
Q1 Load (Q)

Telltale “B”
Telltale “A”
Telltale “A”

Pile Head
Movement

Telltale “B”
Conventional Static Load Test
Load is applied at the pile head
(compression, tension, or lateral)

Potential above-grade instrumentation:


• Load Cell
• Jack Pressure Gage
• Displacement (test pile, reaction piles)
• Strain (test pile, reaction piles)
• Tilt
Above-Grade Instrumentation

Load Cell

Jack
Pressure

LVDT’s Dial Gages


Above-Grade Instrumentation

VW Strain Gages
Load vs Movement Curves

Load - movement curve from a compression load test Load - movement curve from a tension load test
Load vs Movement Curves

Load - movement curve from a lateral pile load test


Below-Grade Instrumentation
Legend
In a conventional compression, tension,
- Data Logger
or lateral load test, the load is applied
Stiff - Strain Gage at the pile head.
Clay

Potential below grade instrumentation:


• Strain
Dense • Telltales
Sand • Tilt
Below-Grade Instrumentation

Accelerometer
Resistance Strain Gage
VW Strain Gage VW Strain Gages
Below-Grade Instrumentation
Below-Grade
Instrumentation

For concrete filled pipe piles, sister


bar strainmeters can be inserted into
the pile prior to concreting
Below-Grade Instrumentation
Resistance Strain
Gage on Rebar

For prestressed concrete piles, sister bar VW or resistance


strainmeters can be installed in the casting yard
Load – Transfer Information
Calculated Axial Compression
Calculated Load
Axial Compression LoadininPile (tons)
Pile, tons
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
605
600
595
590
(ft) Datum)

Measuring 
585
580
feet (USGS

575 EA = Load


Elevation

570
565
Elevation,

560
555
550 53.9, 549.7
545 16.3 tons / [ 12.3 ft (3.67 ft) ] = 0.36 tsf
540 145 kN / [ 3.75 m (1.12 m) ] = 34.5 kPa
37.6, 537.4
535
Bi-Directional Static Load Test

In a bi-directional static load test, the


load is applied at a location below
Stiff
Clay
grade.

Above grade instrumentation read:


• Displacement
Dense
Sand
Upward
Movement
Break
in
Downward
Shaft
Movement
Above Grade Instrumentation
Leica INVAR Barcode Scale on Cage
(2 measure shaft top movement)

Leica Digital Levels

LVWDT’s atop Telltales


(2 measure top plate movement)
(2 measure shaft toe movement)

Backhoe Operator Effect


Below Grade Instrumentation

In a bi-directional load test, the load is


- Strain Gage
applied at a location below grade.
Stiff
Clay

Below grade instrumentation read:


• Jack pressure
• Jack expansion
Dense
Sand • Strain
• Telltales
13.3 MN (1500 ton) bi-directional jack being lowered 29 MN (3,300 ton) bi-directional jack being lowered into a
into a 1372 mm O.D. (54 inch) shaft excavation. 1520 mm O.D. (60 inch) drilled shaft excavation
Begin Pumping
Water into Cell
Sister-bar
Strainmeter

Telltale to Top Plate


LVWDT’s Attached
to Rod at Pile Head

LVWDT’s Measure
Cell Expansion

Expanding Cell
Cracks Shaft
Concrete
- RS

RS

RT
Load vs Movement Curves

Upward load-displacement
curve above jack assembly

Displacement
Applied load

Downward load-displacement
curve below jack assembly

Bi-Directional Test Initial Results


Load vs Movement Curves
Pile head load
Constructed ETL curve
using original method
(Rigid body approach)
Net Elastic Shortening
(d ES-NET)
Pile head displacement

Constructed ETL curve using


modified method
(Top-Down Elastic Shortening)

ETL Curves Constructed from Original and Modified Methods


Load vs Movement Curves
Pile head load
Sum of Top Plate
Upward and
Bottom Plate Downward
Top Plate (ETL Curve)
Upward
Pile head displacement

Extrapolated Portion
(Top Plate Upward)

Bottom Plate
Downward

ETL Curve Construction Based on Bi-Directional Load Test Initial Results


Results from 58.7 MN
Internal (13,200 kip) Jack Assembly

Force
Profile
from
BDSLT
Need for a Datalogger
• Static load tests may
require many types of
instrumentation to be read
by a datalogger.

• Static load tests may


require many numbers of
instrumentation to be read
by a datalogger.
Need for a Datalogger

• In photo at right:

• Test pile had 74 below-


grade strain gages.

• Took an entire day to


wire the datalogger in
the field.
Another Reason for a Datalogger
Static Load Tester (SLT) - Data Acquisition Box (DAB)

• Compact, lightweight, water-resistant.

• Reads virtually all types of static load test


instrumentation.

• 30 hours of battery life.

• Storage capacity for 4,000 readings


(additional capacity available
with software upgrade).

• 16 input channels per box:


12 analog, 4 digital.
Static Load Tester (SLT) - Data Acquisition Box (DAB)

• Additional boxes can be connected to provide as


many channels as required.

• All channels configured by user, or automatically


when using PDI sensors with a smart chip.

• PDI will install smart-chip connectors on


customers’ existing instrumentation at no charge.

• Termination box to connect flying lead


instruments (embedded / consumable).
Static Load Tester (SLT) - Tablet
• Consists of a dedicated SLT Tablet.

• Interfaces with SLT Data Acquisition Box


via proprietary serial data cable, or
Bluetooth®, (wifi in future).

• Saves all readings it receives.

• SiteLink® capable.
Static Load Tester (SLT) - Tablet
• Programmable save intervals.
• User-configurable real-time graphical
presentation of:
• Load vs. Displacement.
• Load vs. Time.
• Strain vs. Time.
• Jack Extension (BDSLT).

• Generates user-configurable data


tables, and plots, in PDF and JPG
format for download to user’s PC.
Force vs. Time

37
Load vs. Displacement – Conventional
Load vs. Displacement – Bi-Directional

39
Bi-Directional Jack Extension

40
Tabular Results
Questions / Comments?
High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing
Dynamic Pile Testing
• Background
• Applications
• Pile Preparation for Testing
• Theory
• Example Test Records
• CAPWAP Analysis
• Brief Case Histories
Background
Why was dynamic testing developed?
As replacement for static load test

Started at Case Institute of Technology – 1958


Looked at instrumentation and interpretation techniques to predict
resistance during pile driving

Funded research project – 1964 to 1976

First commercial PDA and CAPWAP use – 1972


Background
International conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory
in Piles held in Stockholm, Sweden – 1980

Further implementation of dynamic testing methods in the US


resulted from FHWA Demonstration Project 66 in the mid 1980’s

Dynamic testing equipment and analysis techniques currently


used in over 80 countries

ASTM D 4995, Standard Test Methods for High Strain Dynamic


Testing of Piles
Applications
● Compare measured energy transfer (EMX) to rated hammer
Driving System energy or wave equation predicted transferred energy (enthru).
Performance
● Determination of drive system performance at difference
hammer strokes, operating pressures, batter angles, with
different cushion materials or thicknesses, after extended use,
or after hammer maintenance.

● Identification of hammer performance problems such as


pre-ignition problems in diesel hammers or pre-admission
in air/steam hammers.

● Determination of whether soil behavior or hammer


performance is responsible for changes in the observed
penetration resistance or blow count.
Applications
● Calculation of compression and tension stresses.
Driving Stresses
Results compared to specified driving stress limits and
used to adjust installation procedures if necessary.

● Determination and the extent and location of pile


structural damage.

● Determination of compression and tension stresses


throughout the pile obtained from CAPWAP signal
matching analysis.
Applications
● Evaluation of the mobilized geotechnical capacity at the time of
Static Capacity
testing. Must move pile by at least 3 mm (1/8 inch) per blow.

● Changes in capacity with time, soil setup or relaxation,


determined from restrike tests.

● Assessments of variation in the geotechnical capacity versus


pile penetration depth.

● Assessments of variation in geotechnical capacity across the


site. Helpful in profiling the depth to the bearing stratum.

● CAPWAP analysis for refined estimates of soil resistance


distribution and dynamic soil properties (quake and damping).
Overview
Instrumentation
● Two to four strain transducers
- From strain, get force, stress
● Two to four accelerometers
- From acceleration, get velocity, displacement

Gages attached 2 or more pile diameters below the pile top.

From these two readings (strain and acceleration), we can directly measure
or calculate a number of quantities.
Why Two Strain Transducers ?
No Eccentric
Eccentricity Impact
Bending! F F
• For pipes, PSC, etc, eccentric impact
means big difference in two strains
S1 S2 S1 S2
• Average does away with difference
S1=S2 S1>S2
Overview
Measured
• Force and velocity at gage location
• Compressive stress, tension stress at gage location
• Energy transferred to the gage location

Calculated
• Stresses at other locations in the pile
• Pile integrity
• Hammer stroke (open end diesel only)
• Estimated total, dynamic and static pile resistance
Pile Preparation for Testing
Pile Preparation for Testing

PIPE

H-PILE CONCRETE
Gage Attachment at
Beginning of Driving

QUESTION

Why not wait to attach the gages when


the top of pile is closer to ground ?
Gage Attachment at
Beginning of Driving
Pile lofting with covers

Gage and radio attachment

Attaching protective cover


Embedded Strain Gages and Accelerometer
Strain Gage

Accelerometer

Strain Gage

Strain Gage
Strain and Acceleration Measurements
Measuring strain and acceleration at one point

Strain Transducer Accelerometer (PR)


Strain and Acceleration Measurements
𝑴𝑬𝑿 = 𝒎𝒂𝒙 ½ (𝟏 + 𝟐)

𝜀1(𝑡), 𝜀2 (𝑡), one strain on each side

𝑨𝑴𝑿 = 𝒎𝒂𝒙 ½ (𝒂𝟏 + 𝒂𝟐)


𝑎1(𝑡), 𝑎2(𝑡), one acc. on each side
Force and Velocity Records
𝑭𝑴𝑿 = 𝒎𝒂𝒙 ½ (𝑭𝟏 + 𝑭𝟐)
𝐹1(𝑡) = 𝜀1 (𝑡) 𝐴 𝐸
𝐹2(𝑡) = 𝜀2 (𝑡) 𝐴 𝐸

𝑽𝑴𝑿 = 𝒎𝒂𝒙 ½ (𝒗𝟏 + 𝒗𝟐)


𝑣1(𝑡) = 𝑎1 𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑣2(𝑡) = 𝑎2 𝑡 𝑑𝑡
Force and
Velocity
Records From
Multiple Gage
Locations
Pile Driving Analyzer Model 8G

Measurements transferred to PDA via


WiFi, Bluetooth, or Cable
PDA Screen Display

Pile Input Graphical


Properties Results

Numerical
Results
Time (ms)
Basic 0 2L/c

Wave
Mechanics
Wave Travel Time = 2L/c
Wave Propagation L L = Pile Length (ft)
c = Wave Speed (ft/s)
Basic
Wave Mechanics
Fv Gages mounted near
the top of the pile

1 – Stress wave arrives at


the gage location

2 – Stress wave reaches


its initial peak velocity

3 – Stress wave arrives at


the pile toe and starts to
reflect up the pile

4 – initial response from


the pile toe arrives at the
gage location

5 – Peak response from


the pile toe arrives at the
gage location
Force
Velocity * Z

Basic
Wave
Mechanics
Proportionality

Wave Mechanics 101


Force = V (EA/c) until reflections from soil resistances
or cross sectional changes arrive at gage location.
Force
Velocity*Z

Basic
Wave
Mechanics
Wave Down Wave Up (𝑭𝒎 + 𝒗𝒎𝒁) (𝑭𝒎 − 𝒗𝒎𝒁)
Wave Down 𝑾𝑫 = 𝑾𝑼 =
and 𝟐 𝟐
Wave Up
Basic Wave Mechanics
Free End vs Fixed End
Force
Velocity*Z

Wave Up
Wave Down

69
Basic Wave Mechanics

Soil resistance effects cause a increase in the Force wave and a


proportional decrease in the Velocity wave.
The reflection time corresponds to the depth of the soil resistance, and
the magnitude change corresponds to the resistance magnitude.

Cross sectional reductions causes a decrease in the Force wave and a


proportional increase in the Velocity wave.

The reflection time corresponds to the depth of the cross sectional change, and
the magnitude change corresponds to the cross sectional change.
Basic
Wave
Mechanics
Theoretical Soil Resistance Effects
Force
2500
V EA/c

Basic
kN

Wave
Minimal Shaft and
Toe Resistance
Head Toe

Mechanics 2500
kN Large Toe
Resistance

Soil Resistance Effects

2500 Large Shaft


kN Resistance
Wave Down and Wave Up
From wave down and wave up, we can:
• Estimate stresses at other points in the pile
o Compression and tension
o Compression at the toe

• Approximate shaft resistance from wave up


• Assess pile integrity from wave up
• Determine total and dynamic resistance from both
• Calculate static resistance = total resistance – dynamic resistance
Pile
Forces
at Any
𝑡_1 𝑡_2 Forces
at any

Location
location
are the
net sum of
WU & WD

• Downward travelling
waves from the
hammer combine
with the upward
travelling wave
reflected at time 𝐿/𝑐

𝑡1 𝑡0.5𝐿 𝑡𝐿 𝑡1.5𝐿 𝑡2𝐿


𝑐 𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
Driving Stresses - CSX

FMX = 3537 kN CSX = 3.537 MN / .209 m2 = 16.9 MPa


Driving Stresses - CSI

F1MX = 4376 kN CSX = 4.376 MN / .209 m2 = 20.9 MPa


Driving Stresses - CSB

CFB = RX0 – 0.5(SFT) = 5009 kN - 0.5 (342 kN) = 4838 kN


CSB = CFB / AR = 4.838 MN / 0.209 m2 = 23.1 MPa
Driving Stresses - TSN

CTN = WUmin + WDmin = -274 kN + 200 kN = -74 kN


TSN = CTN / AR = 0.074 MN / 0.209 m2 = 0.4 MPa

WDmin
WUmin
Driving Stresses - TSX

CTX = WUmin + WDmin = -685 kN + -462 kN = -1147 kN


TSX = CTX / AR = 1.147 MN / 0.209 m2 = 5.5 MPa

WDmin WUmin
Driving Stresses – Tension Envelope
Driving Stresses – Tension Envelope

-1685 kN
Driving Stresses – Tension Envelope

-1746 kN
Driving Stresses – Tension Envelope

Pile
Head
1746 kN
Pile
Toe

-1746 kN
YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE PILE DAMAGE
WHEN …

It’s Visually Obvious !


YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE PILE DAMAGE
WHEN …

The Pile Falls Over


After Driving !
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE PILE DAMAGE
WHEN …

You Can’t
Drive
Home !!

Courtesy of Dr. Bengt Fellenius


Records Indicate ?
Restrike of HP 14x89 Length = 64 m

34.7 m 44.5 m
BTA=82 BTA=39

0 2L/c
Pile Integrity – BN 934
Pile Integrity – BN 938
Pile Integrity – BN 944
Pile
Integrity
Pile Integrity
Hammer or Soil Problem ?
Hammer and Driving System Performance
Transferred Energy
𝐸(𝑡) = 𝐹(𝑡)𝑉(𝑡)𝑑𝑡

Where: Max (E) is ENTHRU (WEAP) or EMX (PDA)


ETR or Energy Transfer Ratio = = EMX / Rated Energy

Open End Diesel Hammer Stroke


𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒 = 𝑔/8 ∗ 60/𝐵𝑃𝑀2 – ℎ
Where: g is gravitational acceleration
BPM is hammer blows per minute
H is a loss (usually 0.3 ft or 0.1 m)
Hammer and Driving System Performance

EMX (Max. Transferred)

𝑬(𝒕) = 𝑭(𝒕)𝑽(𝒕)𝒅𝒕
Driving
System
Performance
Single Acting Diesel Hammers
Piston

Cylinder

Piston Rings

Exhaust Ports

Combustion
Chamber

Anvil Rings

Anvil
Striker Plate

Hammer Cushion
Helmet
Single Acting Diesel Hammer – BN 3
Pre-igniting Diesel Hammer – BN 986
Capacity Evaluation Methods
• Case Method
• Quick, simple method
• Uncertainty with damping

iCAP
• More robust model than Case Method
• Simplified for uniform piles

CAPWAP
• Most versatile analysis method
• Non-uniform piles, drilled shafts,
• Tension cracking, slacks, variable time increment, broken piles, etc.
Case Method Capacity
• Closed form solution of one dimensional wave equation
• Static capacity = total resistance – dynamic resistance
• Dynamic resistance directly related to velocity
• All dynamic resistance at the toe
• Rdynamic = Jc*Z*vtoe where Jc is unitless Case damping factor
Recommended Recommended
Original Case
Range in Case Damping Range in Case Damping
Soil Type at Damping
Constant Constant
Pile Toe Correlation Range
for RSP Equation for RMX Equation
Goble et al. (1975)
Pile Dynamics (2015) Pile Dynamics (2015)

Clean Sands 0.05 to 0.20 0.10 to 0.15 0.40 to 0.50


As the fine content
in the soil increase, Silty Sands 0.15 to 0.30 0.15 to 0.25 0.50 to 0.70
Jc increases Silts 0.20 to 0.45 0.25 to 0.40 0.60 to 0.80
Silty Clays 0.40 to 0.70 0.40 to 0.70 0.70 to 0.90
Clay 0.60 to 1.10 0.70 or higher 0.90 or higher
Standard Case Method, RSP
Maximum Case Method, RMX

Dynamic Measurement &


Analysis Proficiency Test
Offered by PDI and PDCA
RTL, RSP, RMX, and RX0

RT = ½ [FT1 + FT2] + ½ [VT1 - VT2] (EA/c)


RT = WD1 + WU2

RS = RT - RDYNAMIC
RS = RT – Jc [VT1 (EA/c) + FT1 – RT]
RS = (WD1 + WU2 ) – Jc [WD1 – WU2]
RTL, RSP, RMX, and RX0

RX0
RTL
RMX
RSP
iCAP Method
• Simplified signal matching analysis
• Quick correlation of damping factor
• Computes
• Mobilized shaft, toe and total resistance
• Compression stress maxima, maxima location, and compression stress at toe
• Tension stress maxima and maxima location
• Equivalent Jc for maximum Case Method
• iCAP Match Quality
• Results saved as quantities with blow number in PDA file
iCAP on H-pile Driven to Rock
Benefits of CAPWAP Analysis
• Most accurate dynamic assessment method for capacity

• Check of Case Method or iCAP capacity

• Essential for capacity evaluation of non-uniform piles

• Provides soil resistance distribution; shaft vs toe

• Quantifies dynamic soil properties for GRLWEAP

• Determines driving stress profile throughout pile.


CAPWAP
CAPWAP is a signal matching computer program.
• Program has similarities with the wave equation without needing a hammer model.
• Pile modeled be a series of segments with each segment having uniform
properties. For a uniform pile the segments are approximately ~1 m in length

• Soil modeled by springs and dashpots (static and dynamic resistance)


attached to every other pile segment.

• We know input (wave down or measured Force)

• We know output (wave up or measured velocity)

• We do not know the system (soil model)


CAPWAP Signal Matching Process
1. Set up pile and soil model. Assume
Rshaft, Rtoe, and Rultimate.

2. Apply measured Wave Down, WDn to


model at pile head and compute
Wave Up, WUc.

3. Compare computed Wave Up, WUc


with measured Wave Up, WUm

4. Adjust Rshaft, Rtoe, and Rultimate,


quake and damping.

5. Return to step 2 and iterate until


satisfactory match is obtained.
CAPWAP Record Divisions
1.8
Shaft Resistance L/c Unloading Behavior
Period I: 2L/c IV: 25 ms
400 16.7
0
Ultimate Capacity
350 14.6
III: tr+5ms
300 12.5
Toe Res.
250 II: tr+3ms 10.4

200 8.4

Velocity
150 6.3
Force

100
tr 4.2

50 2.1

0 0.0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
-50 -2.1

-100 -4.2
Force WaveUp Velocity
-150 -6.3

-200 -8.4
Adjust Unloading Parameters
CAPWAP
is an
iterative process
Increase Total Capacity

Adjust Soil Quakes

Adjust Damping

Redistribute Soil Resistance

Initial Analysis (poor)


CAPWAP Results — H-pile to Rock

Measured and computed Measured force and


force (quality of match) velocity (quality of data)

Simulated static load-set plot Shaft resistance distribution


Pile top and toe displacement Sum of the forces in the pile
Resistance distribution Pile and soil information
CAPWAP Results - Graphical
Things to check and evaluate:
• Measured / Computed Curve:
• Is computed often higher than measured? - If yes, result could be unconservative
• Is match between 0 and ~3L/c close?

• Measured Force and Velocity Curve


• Is data proportional? - If not, why? May indicate unacceptable record quality
• Do values return to zero at the end of the record? - If no, unacceptable record quality
• What’s happening at 2L/c?

• Signs of shaft resistance?

• Static Load Set curve


• Note maximum displacements
• Note resuistance distribution between shaft and toe

• Shaft Resistance Distribution


• High resistance very near the top? - If yes, usually a data quality issue
• Low resistance in element above the toe? - If yes, usually poor CAPWAP technique
CAPWAP
Output
Total Resistances

- Tabular

Summary
Results

Match Quality
CAPWAP Output - Tabular

Extrema Table
Results
CAPWAP Output - Tabular
Case Method
Results

Pile Profile
CAPWAP Results - Tabular
Things to review and consider:
• Is the toe resistance higher than you would expect? ESPECIALLY in clays (9 su)

• Is total resistance at or near yield strength of the pile?

• Mobilization
• Blow Counts Less than about 79 blows per meter (24 blows per foot) OVERPREDICTION
Pile set of 12 mm per blow (0.5 inch per blow) is possible

• Blow Counts Greater than 788 blows per meter (240 blows per foot) UNDERPREDICTION
Pile set of 2.5 mm per blow (0.1 inch per blow) LIKELY

• Time of driving
• Again, CAPWAP predicts capacity at time of driving
• Long term restrikes better for comparison with static load test results
CAPWAP—The Gold Standard
• First database (~100 piles) compiled for FHWA in 1996

• Updated in paper in 2004

• Available on our website


• http://www.pile.com/Reference
CAPWAP vs iCAP
D is p la c e m e n t ( m m )

Load (kN)
Pile Top
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Bottom
0

10 RU = 3572 kN
SF = 503 kN
EB = 3069 kN
Dy = 32.7 mm
20 Dx = 34.3 mm
SET/Bl = 1.7 mm

30

40
Pile Top
500 3000 3500 4000 Bottom

50

RU = 3572 kN
SF = 503 kN
EB = 3069 kN
Dy = 32.7 mm
Dx = 34.3 mm
SET/Bl = 1.7 mm
Dynamic Testing Reports
• Main Parts
• Description of the test situation/set-up
• Description of the method
• Summary of test results (text and tabular)
• Conclusions, Recommendations
• Appendices
• Case Method Appendix
• CAPWAP Appendix
• Relevant Project Information
Dynamic Testing Reports
• Results
• Hammer Performance
• Maximum transferred energy, EMX (usually end of drive)
• Energy transfer ratio (EMX/Rated Energy)
• Hammer stroke (open end diesel)
• Driving Stresses
• Measured compression stress at gages,
• Computed compression stresses at other locations
• Computed tension stress
• Pile Integrity
• Toe damage, splice damage, pile top damage
• Capacity
• Case Method capacity estimates
• iCAP Results (if applicable and specified)
• CAPWAP Results
• Shaft, toe and total resistance
• Comparisons to required ultimate capacity
• Driving Criteria ?? (if required and specified)
Case Method Tabular Summary
Case
Method
Graphical
Summary
Soils with Setup Potential
Soil setup frequently occurs for piles driven in saturated clays as
well as loose to medium dense silts and fine sands as the excess
pore pressures generated during driving dissipate.

The magnitude of soil setup depends on soil characteristics as well


as the pile material and type.
Soil Setup
2500 kN

End of Initial Driving

Restrike 8 Days Later Shaft = 3+ x EOID


2500 kN
Soil Setup Factors
(after Rausche et al., 1996)

Range in Recommended Number of Sites


Predominant Soil Type
Soil Set-up Soil Set-up and (Percentage
Along Pile Shaft
Factor Factors* of Data Base)

Clay 1.2 - 5.5 2.0 7 (15%)


Silt - Clay 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 10 (22%)
Silt 1.5 - 5.0 1.5 2 (4%)
Sand - Clay 1.0 - 6.0 1.5 13 (28%)
Sand - Silt 1.2 - 2.0 1.2 8 (18%)
Fine Sand 1.2 - 2.0 1.2 2 (4%)
Sand 0.8 - 2.0 1.0 3 (7%)
Sand - Gravel 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 1 (2%)
* - Confirmation with Local Experience Recommended
18 inch PSC with Bi-Directional Cell at bottom
2500
Aucilla, Dynamic Test
Aucilla, Static Test
Pile Side Shear QS (kN) 2000

mS = 293.4 kN
1500

QS0 =1021 kN (at t0 = 1day )


1000
60 min
15 min
500
1 min

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Elapsed Time, t (days)
Bullock et al., (2005) – Side Shear Setup: Results from Florida Test Piles
Soils and Rocks with Relaxation Potential
Saturated dense to very dense sands and sandy silts
• Due to negative pore water pressure during driving increases effective
stresses of end bearing
• Pore water pressure equalizes after wait causing reduced soil strength

Weathered bedrock formations


• Weathered shale is most susceptible
• Rule of thumb: more weathered bedrock = more relaxation
• Seeping water effectively softens bedrock surface
• High normal force after driving plastically creeps away with time; reduces frictio
• Rock fracturing from driving adjacent piles
Relaxation 4142 kN

2500 kN

End of Initial Driving

3378 kN
Restrike 24 Hours Later
2500 kN Toe = ½ EOID
Typical PDA Testing Process
Test Pile Program Construction Testing
• Perform full length dynamic monitoring of test piles • Periodically monitor a select number of piles during
during initial driving to the targeted capacity or to the initial driving and during restrike for capacity
required penetration depth. documentation, driving stress control, and check of
driving system performance.
• Monitor and evaluate driving stresses, pile integrity,
energy transfer, and capacity versus test pile penetration • If production pile driving performed with a different
depth. pile driving system than the one used in the test
program, or if the original driving system was
• Restrike test piles after an appropriate time interval. demobilized and remobilized, recalibration of the
• Perform CAPWAP analyses on all EOID and BOR data. driving criteria is required.

• Review capacity results relative to available • Perform CAPWAP analyses on dynamic test data as
geotechnical and static load test data. needed for confirmation or adjustments to the
established driving criteria or for development of a
• Evaluate capacity versus depth, soil setup profile, driving new driving criteria.
stresses, and hammer performance requirements for
pile section selection, estimated pile length, installation • Review capacity results relative to available
equipment requirements, construction specifications, geotechnical, static load test, and dynamic
and driving criteria (if appropriate). test data.
Orlando International Airport

Ref: Wayne Waters, Ed Waters & Sons,


PDCA Winter Roundtable, Orlando 2004
Borings 7 & 8

final

plan

Recommended Design Load 100 Tons on 18” PSC or 24” pipe at 120 ft depth
Design/Build Proposal: save $$$ using 18” pipe at shorter penetration depth
Field Verification

Bent #9 Bent #16


• Req. Cap. = 250 tons • Req. Cap. = 224 tons

• EOD PDA = 135 tons (9 bl/ft) • EOD PDA = 160 tons (16 bl/ft)
• 5 day BOR = 256 tons (64 b/ft) • 15 min. BOR = 180 tons (22 bpf)
• 38 day BOR = 302 tons (40 bpf)
Proof Tests Held over 250 Tons

Bent 9 Bent 16

• 303 piles - 10% testing by restrike – use set-up


– Average length = 22m; 71.5 ft ( about half of original design )
• $1 million savings versus original design
• Adjoining jobsite: larger section and longer PSC piles (costly)
Identifying Soil Relaxation
from Dynamic Testing
Morgano & White, GRL Engineers

Ohio Turnpike (I80)

Piles drive in clayey silt (N=30) to weathered siltstone/shale (N=50/1”)


Pre-Construction Wave Equation Analysis suggests:
20 blows per inch (1.3 mm set) at 9.3 ft (2.8m) stroke at 300 tons
Pile Test Date Blow Count Transfer Hammer Case Method Test
No. Energy Stroke Capacity Type
(Blows/inch) (Kip-ft) (ft) (tons)

13 2/15/02 20 16 9.2 290 EOID


2/16/02 15 12 8.5 200 BOR1
2/16/02 20 18 9.6 270 EOR1
2/23/02 10 14 8.5 170-200 BOR2
2/23/02 24 19 9.6 315 EOR2

18 2/23/02 7 BOR17had 55%


9.0of 172 BOR1
2/23/02 27
EOD
18
capacity.
9.7 330 EOR
½ blows, ¾ energy

Notes: 1. Pile 13 drove additional 5 inches during restrike sequences


2. Pile 18 drove additional 18 inches during restrike sequences
Static Load Test, Pile #23, Pier 14 Load vs. Displacement

Davisson's Failue
300 Curve

Applied Load (tons)


200
198 tons
Capacity
100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Top Displacement (inch)

Static test performed on


undisturbed “sister” pile
Conclusions
Dynamic testing allows:
• Monitoring of hammer and drive system performance
• Measurement and calculation of driving stresses:
• Assessment of pile integrity
• Calculation of pile capacity in real time
• Evaluation and quantification of time dependent soil strength changes
Conclusions
Capacity Assessment:

• Case Method – allows a capacity calculation in real time dependent


upon appropriate damping parameter selection

• iCAP – allows real-time signal matching for unique capacity solution

• CAPWAP – allows for capacity calculation in post test analysis, can


accommodate non-uniform pile model
High Strain Dynamic Load
Testing of Drilled Shafts
For driven piles we already have a dynamic loading system
For drilled shafts, CFA,
and ACIP piles we must
design and mobilize an
appropriately sized
dynamic loading system
for the test
High Strain Dynamic Load Testing
of Drilled Shafts and ACIP Piles
Need a large drop weight
• approximately 2% or more of ultimate capacity
• e.g. 20 ton weight to assess 1000 tons capacity
• GRLWEAP to assess weight and cushion
Pile top preparation very important
• top transducer
• excavate or build up pile top - 4 strains
• flat top protected by cushion
Analysis method (CAPWAP®)
4
DLT on Drilled Shafts and ACIP Piles
CAPWAP must also model non-uniform pile
Know the area at sensor location
• measure circumference
• consider casing (composite), if applicable

Know the total concrete volume !


• shape from calipers or TIP – recommended

Use soil profile information

Add impedance increases or shaft plug


DLT on Drilled Shafts and ACIP Piles

Can evaluate and design the DLT “system” with wave


equation analysis for a given:
• pile geometry,
• soil condition, and
• required ultimate capacity.
DLT Drop Weight Requirements
Typically need a drop weight between 1% and 2% of
the required test load
• 1% rock socket
• 1.5% friction pile
• 2% end bearing in granular soils
(e.g. test to 1000 ton by 20 ton ram)
More weight is generally better (up to 5%)
Modular (for versatility)
Important Drop System Characteristics
• Adjustable Drop Heights - control and measure

• Sufficient Drop Height - produce desired pile sets


Set ideally between 6 to 3 mm or 1/4 to 1/8 inch

• Weight Release Mechanism - ideally “free fall”

• Guide / Alignment - ideally non- eccentric blows


Record Drilled Shaft/Pile Movement
or Set per Blow
Measured Independently by
1. survey equipment
2. laser device
3. PDM (Pile Driving Monitor)
4. piano wire / mirror setup
Level

PDM
laser
DLT on Drilled Shafts and ACIP Piles
First dynamic test on bored pile was performed in
1974 in Mexico.

Impact systems specifically designed for DLT


available in several countries

Thousands of cast-in-place piles tested worldwide


DLT - Las Truchas Mexico, June 1974
Testing barrette
DLT – Tampa , FL – Early 1982
Sunshine Skyway Bridge

DLT on Drilled Shaft


DLT - Melbourne, Australia 1982
Westgate Freeway
Rock Socketed Drilled Shafts in Mudstone
- Ru = 2000 tons
Dynamically Tested 100 shafts
- 200 kN ram, 2.5 m drop
- 1.5 m diameter, 60 m long
Design and Performance of Dynamic Tests of Large Diameter Drilled
Shafts, by: Rausche, F., Seidel, J.
Correlation of Static and Dynamic Pile Tests on Large Diameter Drilled
Shafts; by: Seidel, J., Rausche, F.
Both papers presented at: Second Int’l Conference on Application of Stress
Wave Theory on Piles: Stockholm, Sweden, May 1984. DLT program saved $2,000,000
PDA testing saved 20 ton drop weight
1% of Ru
$2,000,000
(OK for rock socket piles)
Westgate Freeway,
Australia, 1982
PDA testing saved
$2,000,000
Correlation between static and CAPWAP capacities
DLT Systems from Around the World

Ireland - 3 ton ram Trinidad – 5.5 ton ram Germany - 10 ton ram Bahrain - 25 ton ram
DLT Systems from Around the World

Malaysia - 30 ton ram Thailand - 40 ton ram Portugal – 43 ton ram Venezuela - 60 ton ram
DLT Systems from Around the World

USA: GRL - 60 ton ram


DLT on Drilled Shafts and ACIP Piles
Standard Test Procedure:

Apply blows of increasing drop height, until either:

1. Permanent set > 3 ~ 4 mm per blow (0.12 ~ 0.16 inches).


Stop increasing drop height if set > 5 mm (0.2 inch) or more.
Cumulative set for all blows should exceed D/60 where D is
the pile diameter.
or
2. Stresses reach the material limits.
or
3. Capacity prediction > Required test load.
Force Measurement Options
Traditional F = ma Load Cell

Single
mass
F = ma
only
F = AE F = AE

V =  a (t) dt V =  a (t) dt V =  a (t) dt

Accelerometer

Strain Transducer

24
F = ma

Use 4 strains

Load Cell
Note: In every case
the accelerometers
are on the pile
25
Traditional Method for DLT on
Drilled Shafts and CFA Piles
Preparation of the Pile Top for DLT
On method commonly used in the USA

Build up pile top with steel casing


• Reduces excavation
• Protects reinforcing steel

4 strain transducers highly recommended


(2 or 4 accelerometers)
Traditional Method

Pile top preparation: remove steel casing for small diameter piles / shafts
Shaft Top Preparation for
Load Cell or F=ma Methods

28
Load Cell Method

A
DLT with Load Cell
• Force is more accurate
• No “windows” in casing
• Area and Modulus are known
• Less pile preparation
• Eliminate excavations
• 8 strains (4 pairs: in/out)
• Accelerometer on pile

30
DLT over Water with Load Cell
Shaft Diameter: 1.68 m (5.5 ft)
Load Cell Diameter: 600 mm (24 in)

Thin cushion
DLT on Drilled Shafts

APPLE drop
weight system
with 28 tons
1 – 80 tons available

Thick cushion
DLT on Pile Below Slab
F = ma Method
Force from accelerometer mounted on the ram
instead of from strain transducers.

Velocity from accelerometers on the pile.

8000

7000 Force from Ram

6000 Force from Pile

5000
Pile Force (kN)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0.015
-1000
0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Note: F = ma requires
Time (s)
a single mass ram
DLT CASE HISTORIES
Tampa Expressway
$120 million repair cost
One year delay

Pier suddenly dropped


3.3 m (11 feet)
Tampa Expressway
DLT with an APE 750 hydraulic hammer
54,431 kg ram at 1.37 m drop = 732 kJ
(60 ton ram at 4.5 ft drop = 540 ft-kips)
1.83 m (6 ft) diameter shafts (under pier)
Tampa DLT Test Details
Tampa DLT Results for Two Shafts
50000 kN Shaft A 50000 kN Shaft B
Force Measured
Force Measured
Velocity Measured
Velocity Measured

25000
25000

40 ms
0 40 ms
0
0
6 L/c
6 L/c

-25000 Shaft -25000 Shaft


1.83 m (6 ft)
2500 2500
diameter shafts
Shaft Resistance Distribution, kN/m
2000 2000
Shaft Resistance Distribution, kN/m
1500 1500

1000 1000
500 500

0 0
Shaft Force at Ru, kN Shaft Force at Ru, kN
10000 10000

20000 20000

Shaft A 30000

40000
30000

40000
Shaft B
Ru = 34.7 MN Ru = 21.1 MN
Rb = 15.7 MN 0
Load versus Movement, kN vs mm

10000 20000 30000 40000 Shaft Top 0


Load versus Movement, kN vs mm

10000 20000 30000 40000 Shaft Top


Rb = 4.8 MN
0 Shaft Bottom 0 Shaft Bottom

5 Ru = 34705.0 kN 5 Ru = 21130.1 kN
Rs = 18969.0 kN Rs = 16295.4 kN
Rb = 15736.0 kN Rb = 4834.7 kN
10 Dy = 12.8 mm 10 Dy = 17.5 mm
Dx = 14.3 mm Dx = 21.7 mm
15 15

20 20

25 25

Large-scale Dynamic High-Strain Load Testing of a Bridge Pier Foundations. Hussein, M.H., Bullock, P.J., Rausche, F.,
McGillivray, R., Eighth Int’l Conf. on Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles Lisbon, Portugal 2008
Recommended DLT Analysis Procedure
Recommended DLT Analysis Procedure
1. Obtain all available records for the load tested pile including any automated
installation records from the drill rig, inspection records, concrete placement
records, integrity test results, and closest soil boring.

2. Input pile model in CAPWAP using the theoretical design volume of the
drilled shaft / pile.

3. Assign the initial resistance distribution based on the soil strength


information from the closest soil boring.

4. Adjust the impedances of all CAPWAP pile model segments to a


percentage of the theoretical drilled shaft / pile volume based on
construction records, construction methods, soil / rock conditions,
and local experience. Typical ranges provided in following table.
Recommended DLT Analysis Procedure
Typical
Foundation Type
Concrete Volumes
Drilled Displacement Pile 105 to 120%

ACIP / CFA Pile up to 24 in 110 to 125%

Drilled Shaft 24 to 48 in 115 to 125%

Drilled Shaft 48 to 96 115 to 120%

Drilled Shaft > 96 in 110 to 115%

Variables to consider include foundation diameter, soil type, rock socket, rock type, concrete
type, concrete placing method, rebar cage and CSL tubes, spacers, spirals, drilling fluid, and
water table. Very soft ground conditions may dictate the use of higher pile model volumes.
Rock socketed drilled shafts may require lower pile model volumes.
Recommended DLT Analysis Procedure
5. Perform a CAPWAP analysis on each DLT applied blow.

6. For each blow, adjust the soil resistances, dynamic soil parameters and
CAPWAP pile model impedances (if required) consistent with the soil/rock
conditions, integrity test results, or other construction information.

7. Cumulatively plot the CAPWAP simulated load-deflection curves of the


drilled shaft / pile top and toe for each blow. Subsequent analyses should
start at the permanent set from any previously applied blows.

8. Determine the ultimate capacity from the DLT load-displacement envelope


in accordance with the recommended DLT failure criteria.
Interpretation Criteria for DLT
Suggested criterion for ultimate load determined in a DLT

The ultimate load in a DLT is the load where the sum of permanent set of previous blows
plus toe maximum elastic displacement is > D/60

2500 kN CAPWAP result for each blow


applied to a 510 mm CFA Pile
D/60 = 510/60 = 8.5 mm

Toe movement > 8.5 mm in Blow 3

Ultimate Capacity = 2500 kN

Ref: Rausche et al. (2008); Analysis of Post-Installation Dynamic Load Test


Data for Capacity Evaluation of Deep Foundations
Differences Between Dynamic Tests
on Driven Pile and Drilled Shafts
Driven Piles Drilled Shafts or Bored Piles
• Continuous monitoring of • Require as few blows as
hundreds or thousands of blows necessary

• Observation of pile depth during • Set measured after each blow


driving used to determine
driving resistance in blows / m • Force measurement may be
obtained in various ways
• Force measurement taken from  Traditionally on drilled shaft or pile
the pile top  On single mass ram (F=ma)
 Atop shaft using a load cell
Dynamic Load Testing of
Drilled Shafts, ACIP, and CFA Piles
Allows for Multiple Configurations
of Force Measurement

Translation

Load Cell

Traditional

F = ma
Proceeding to Data Collection
Traditional Configuration
when measurements are made on the pile

Hammer is
custom defined
for the user’s
drop weight
Display
confirms
measurement
location
F = ma Configuration
when measurements are made on the ram

% Ram Mass below


the sensors allows
for inertial correction

Helmet Mass allows


for inertial correction
Load Cell Configuration
when measurements are made using a load cell

Load Cell
appears when
activated User fabricated
load cell may
be recalled
Pile Stresses Calculated From
Load Cell Measurements

Helmet Mass
allows for inertial
correction
Load Cell Database Stored in System

Users often require


load cells of various
sizes to appropriately
match the Load Cell
to the pile size and
required load
Enter Properties of Your Load Cell
Calculated FMX
value is based on the
entered area and the
yield strength of the
load cell

This can be used to


check the appropriate
size of the load cell
for the loads required
Cal Pulse Displays the Active Channels
Force vs. Displacement Plot

Blow 1
Blow 2
Total Resistance (Case Method)
vs. Displacement

Blow 1
Blow 2
Static Resistance (Case Method)
vs. Displacement

Blow 1
Blow 2
Set and Drop Height Entry
Auto Populated Summary Graph
Summary
table entry
during data
collection.
QUESTIONS ??
ASD and LRFD Design Methods
and
Codes and Economics
Accuracy of Static Analysis Methods

International Prediction Event “Behaviour of Bored, CFA and Driven Piles in Residual Soil,” ISC’2
Experimental Site, 2003, by Viana da Fonseca and Jaime Santos
Static Load Testing
ASTM D1143

Deadload Testing Reaction Piles/Anchors

Static Load Tests are the “standard”


Costly: Need 100% load + long time
CAPWAP Results

+20%
SLT
-20%

International Prediction Event on the Behaviour of Bored, CFA and Driven Piles in
CEFEUP/ISC’2 experimental site – 2003

A. Viana de Fonseca, president of iSC’2


Jaime Santos, Coordinator of the experimental site
Design Concepts – Factors of Safety

Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

Ru > Qd * F.S. (F.S. = Factor of Safety)


Design Concepts – Factors of Safety

AASHTO: ASD F.S. IBC: ASD F.S.


Gates 3.50 SLT or DLT 2.00
Wave Eqn 2.75
DLT 2.25
SLT 2.00
SLT + DLT 1.90
AASHTO Standard Specifications (ASD)
Ru > (F.S.) Qd (15th Ed. 1992) – code for bridges

Application: 2000 ton total structure load


200 ton ultimate capacity piles

Design Load # of Piles


F.S. per pile needed
3.50  200/3.50 = 57 t  35 dynamic formula
2.75  200/2.75 = 72 t  28 wave equation
2.25  200/2.25 = 89 t  23 dynamic test
2.00  200/2.00 = 100 t  20 Static (SLT)
1.90  200/1.90 = 105 t  19 SLT + dynamic
Lower F.S. Fewer Piles Less Cost
Design Concepts – Factors of Safety
Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
Ru > Qd * F.S. (F.S. = Factor of Safety)

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)


φ Ru > fDLD + fLLL + fiLi + …

ASD “Factor of Safety” split into Load and


Resistance factors  F.S. ~ favg / φ)
(1.25D + 1.75L)
F.S.= φ (D + L)
ASD LRFD AASHTO
AASHTO: F.S. ɸ ɸ F.S.
Gates 3.50 0.41 0.40 3.54
Wave Eqn 2.75 0.52 0.50 2.83
DLT (>2%) 2.25 0.63 0.65 2.18
DLT (100%) 0.75 1.89
SLT 2.00 0.71 0.75 1.89
SLT + DLT 1.90 0.75 0.80 1.77

SLT or DLT 2.00 0.71 IBC


From ASD Conversion (D/L = 2)
High-Rise Building
Project
33 Story Building
2 Levels Below Grade
Savings from Testing the Driven Pile
Foundation for a High-Rise Building
Presented at IFCEE 2018,
Orlando, March 2018

By: Van Komurka, & Adam Theiss

Pile type: 406 mm O.D. x 12.5 mm inch wall CEP


16 inch O.D. x 0.5 inch wall CEP

Concrete: Piles filled with 41.4 MPa concrete


Piles filled with 6000 psi concrete

Cost comparisons include pile cap size and thickness


78 m (257 ft)

71 m
(235 ft)
DESIGN PHASE TEST PILE PROGRAM
 Dynamic testing on 13 piles during initial driving with Delmag D46-32
Dynamic
(5 indicator pile locations, 5 piles at a load test site, 3 at start of production)
Load
Testing  All piles were 406 mm O.D. x 12/5 mm wall CEP (16 in. O.D. x 0.5 in. wall)
Component ASTM A-252, Gr. 3, Fy = 310 MPa (45 ksi)
Section driveability limited to approximately 3560 kN (800 kips)

 Indicator piles restruck:


 Between 2.5 and 12 hours after driving with installation pile hammer
 Between 12 and 16 days after driving (now concrete filled) with APPLE drop system

 Piles at load test sites restruck:


 At 2.5 hours and 24 hours after driving (except SLT pile) with installation hammer
 Between 9 to 21 days (now concrete filled) with APPLE drop system

 All dynamic test events on piles analyzed by CAPWAP


DESIGN PHASE TEST PILE PROGRAM

Static Load • Load frame capable of loading to 6,800 kN (1,530 kips) which
Testing was 2.5 x design load of 2,720 kN (600 kips)
Component
• One axial compression test to be performed

• Load test pile internally instrumented with VWSG at 12 levels

• Load test performed 36 days after initial driving

• Load test pile restruck after SLT for DLT correlation

Total Test Program Cost $236,260


Static Load Test
Result
5983 kN
Urban Fill – Sand and Gravel,
Some Debris
General Soil
Silty Sand (SM) N = 10 to 25 bpf

Profile
Lean Clay (CL)
And Su = 1.0 to 3.0 ksf

Cumulative
Silty Sand (SM) to
Silt with Sand (ML)
Soil Set-up N = 15 to 30 bpf

Silty Sand (SM) to


Silt with Sand (ML)
N = 25 to >50 bpf
Savings from Testing the Driven Pile Foundation for a High-Rise Building
Taking advantage of Soil Set-up

Construction Design Total Foundation Testing Cost Cost


Control Safety Load Cost Cost Cost Penalty Difference
Method Factor (kips) # piles $ $ $ $ %
WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 600 456 2,513,762 2,277,502 236,260 0

Remember: Piles were driven to the required ultimate capacity. Therefore the pile lengths are known.
Savings from Testing the Driven Pile Foundation for a High-Rise Building
Taking advantage of Soil Set-up

Construction Design Total Foundation Testing Cost Cost


Control Safety Load Cost Cost Cost Penalty Difference
Method Factor (kips) # piles $ $ $ $ %
WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 600 456 2,513,762 2,277,502 236,260 0
WE & DLT 2.5 480 572 2,983,308 2,795,349 187,959 469,546 19%

Remember: Piles were driven to the required ultimate capacity. Therefore the pile lengths are known.
Savings from Testing the Driven Pile Foundation for a High-Rise Building
Taking advantage of Soil Set-up

Construction Design Total Foundation Testing Cost Cost


Control Safety Load Cost Cost Cost Penalty Difference
Method Factor (kips) # piles $ $ $ $ %
WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 600 456 2,513,762 2,277,502 236,260 0
WE & DLT 2.5 480 572 2,983,308 2,795,349 187,959 469,546 19%
WE 3.0 400 684 3,307,287 3,305,287 2,000 793,525 32%

Remember: Piles were driven to the required ultimate capacity. Therefore the pile lengths are known.
Savings from Testing the Driven Pile Foundation for a High-Rise Building
Taking advantage of Soil Set-up

Construction Design Total Foundation Testing Cost Cost


Control Safety Load Cost Cost Cost Penalty Difference
Method Factor (kips) # piles $ $ $ $ %
WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 600 456 2,513,762 2,277,502 236,260 0
WE & DLT 2.5 480 572 2,983,308 2,795,349 187,959 469,546 19%
WE 3.0 400 684 3,307,287 3,305,287 2,000 793,525 32%
Formula 3.5 343 806 3,835,023 3,834,523 500 1,321,261 53%
Remember: Piles were driven to the required ultimate capacity. Therefore the pile lengths are known.

Ignoring Soil Set-up


WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 400 684 3,477,927 3,305,287 172,640 964,165 38%
WE & DLT 2.5 320 885 4,361,508 4,231,169 130,339 1,847,746 73%
WE 3.0 267 1050 4,992,764 4,990,764 2,000 2,479,002 98%
formula 3.5 229 1222 5,814,673 5,814,173 500 3,300,911 131%
Savings from Testing the Driven Pile Foundation for a High-Rise Building

Time
Construction Safety Design Cost Construction Penalty
Control Method Factor Load # piles Total Cost Penalty days (days)
(kips)
WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 600 456 2,513,762 0 85 0
WE & DLT 2.5 480 572 2,983,308 469,546 107 22
WE 3.0 400 684 3,307,287 793,525 127 42
formula 3.5 343 806 3,835,023 1,321,261 150 65
Above: Taking advantage of Set-up

Below: Ignoring Set-up


WE, DLT, SLT 2.0 400 684 3,477,927 964,165 127 42
WE & DLT 2.5 320 885 4,361,508 1,847,746 165 80
WE 3.0 267 1050 4,992,764 2,479,002 196 111
formula 3.5 229 1222 5,814,673 3,300,911 228 143
Conclusions
• Main cost is the foundation and its installation, not the testing costs. The benefit to cost
ratio for dynamic testing is very favorable for the contractor, engineer, and the owner
• Testing needed to get most benefit (low F.S. or high PHI)
• Significant set-up allows significant savings

• Dynamic Testing is highly beneficial (lowers total costs)


• Particularly to design build or value engineering
• Lowest project cost results from more testing

• Guard against relaxation in some soils ( fortunately fairly rare and soils generally known )
• Lack of adequate testing can cause failures, and the remediation can be very expensive
• Testing reduces risk

For more information visit www.pile.com


Questions ???
Wave Equation Analysis with
GRLWEAP
Welcome to Winnipeg !
Comparison of Testing Methods
Analysis Estimated Measured LRFD
Method Capacity Stress Energy Capacity Stress Energy Φ
0.10
Dynamic Formula X to
0.40

Wave Equation X X X 0.50

0.65
Dynamic Testing X X X to
0.75
0.75
Static Load Test X to
0.80
Pile Driving Issues

Minimum Tip Requirement

Pile Head Damage Toe Damage Tension Cracking


Wave Equation Applications
Check Driveability
Blow Count vs. Penetration Depth
Driving Stresses vs Penetration Depth

Develop Driving Criterion


Blow Count for a Required Ultimate Capacity
Blow Count for Capacity as a Function of Energy / Stroke

Determine Optimal Driving Equipment


Driving Time

Refined Matching Analysis


Adjust Input Parameters to Fit Dynamic Measurements
Required Information
• Hammer
• Model
• Stroke and Stroke Control
• Any Modifications

• Driving System
• Helmet Weight (including Striker Plate & Cushions)
• Weight of Insert (if any)
• Hammer Cushion Material (E, A, t, er)
• Pile Cushion Material (E, A, t, er)
Required Information
• Pile
• Length,
• Cross Sectional Area
• Taper or Other Non-uniformities
• Specific Weight
• Splice Details
• Design Load
• Ultimate Capacity
• Pile Toe Protection
Required Information

• Soil
• Boring Locations with Elevations
• Soil Descriptions
• N-values or Other Strength Parameters vs Depth
• Elevation of Excavation
• Elevation of Pile Cut-off
• Elevation of Water Table
• Scour Depth or Other Later Excavations
Contract No.: _________________________________ Structure Name and/or No.: ___________________________________________

Hammer Project: ___________________________________________ Location: ____________________________________________________


Contractor: _________________________________________ Pile Driving Contractor or Subcontractor: __________________________
Project Location: _________________________________________________________________________________________________

R
Manufacturer: ________________________ Model No.: _________________________
a Hammer Type: ________________________ Serial No.: _________________________
m Manufacturers Maximum Rated Energy: _______________________________ (Joules)

Submittal Anvil
HAMMER Hammer Stroke at Maximum Rated Energy: ____________________________ (meters)
Range in Operating Energy: __________________ to ___________________ (Joules)
Range in Operating Stroke: ___________________ to ___________________ (meters)
Ram Weight: ________________________________________________________ (kg)
Modifications: ___________________________________________________________

STRIKER PLATE Striker Weight: ____________________ (N) Diameter: ____________________ (mm)


Plate Thickness: ___________________ (mm)

Form Material #1

Name: _________________________
Material #2
(for Composite Cushion)
Name: _________________________
HAMMER CUSHION Area: _____________________ (cm2) Area: _____________________ (cm2)
Cushion Thickness/Plate: ______ (mm) Cushion Thickness/Plate: ______ (mm)
No. of Plates: ____________________ No. of Plates: ___________________
Total Thickness of Hammer Cushion: ____________________________________ (mm)

HELMET Weight: ____________________ (kN)


(Drive Head)

HELMET INSERT Weight: ____________________ (kN)

PILE CUSHION Pile Cushion Material: _____________________________________________________


Cushion Area: _______________ (cm2) Thickness/Sheet: ______________ (mm)
No. of Sheets: ___________________
Total Thickness of Pile Cushion: ________________________________________ (mm)

PILE Pile Type: ______________________________________________________________


Wall Thickness: ____________________ (mm) Taper: __________________
Cross Sectional Area: _______________ (cm2) Weight/Meter: __________________
Design Load: _______________ (kN) Ultimate Pile Capacity: _______________ (kN)
Total Pile Length: _________________ (m) Pile Section Lengths: _______________ (m)
Driving Shoe/Closure Plate Description: _______________________________________
Description of Splice: ______________________________________________________

Submitted By: ____________________________________ Date: __________________


Telephone No.: ______________________ E-mail: _____________________________
Wave Equation Analysis Software
Description

Hammer

Ultimate
Capacities
Pile Material

Helmet
and
Cushions
Geotechnical
Modelling
Pile
Properties
Wave Equation Hammer Models
Wave Equation Dynamic Soil Models
RS
Static Soil
Resistance

q
Displacement

Dynamic Soil Rd
Rd = JS V Rs
Resistance

Js

Velocity
Recommended Shaft and Toe Quake
Parameters For Impact Driven Piles*
Quake Quake
Soil Type Pile Type or Size
(in) (mm)
Shaft Quake All soil types All Types 0.10 2.5

Non-displacement piles** i.e.


Toe Quake All soil types, soft Rock 0.10 2.5
driving unplugged

Displacement Piles*** of
Very dense or hard soils D/120 D/120
diameter or width D

Soils which are not very Displacement Piles*** of


D/60 D/60
dense or hard diameter or width D

Hard Rock All Types 0.04 1.0


* For vibratory driven piles in cohesive soils, quakes should be doubled. Note that vibratory recommendations are somewhat speculative due to limited data and experience.
** Non-displacement piles are sheet pile, H-Piles, or open-ended pipe piles which are not plugging during driving. Normally it can be assumed that pipe piles with diameters of 30 inches
(900 mm) or more will not plug during driving while H-Piles and pipe piles of diameter 20 inches (500 mm) or less will plug during driving into a bearing layer. Between 20 and 30
inches (500 and 750 mm), pipe piles may or may not plug.
*** Displacement piles are closed-ended pipe piles, pipe piles, or H-Piles that are plugged during driving and solid concrete piles. Normally, we would analyze H-Piles and pipe piles with
diameters 20 inches (500 mm) or less as displacement piles.
Recommended Damping Values
for Impact Driven Piles*
Soil Damping Factor Damping Factor
Type (s/ft) (s/m)

Non-cohesive
Shaft Damping 0.05 0.16
soils**

Cohesive soils** 0.20 0.65

Toe Damping In all soil types 0.15 0.50

* For vibratory driven piles, use double values (Smith-viscous).

** For mixed soils, intermediate values may be appropriate; for example, a sandy silt or clayey sand may
be modeled with 0.10 s/ft (0.33 s/m), a cohesive silt or a sandy clay with 0.15 s/ft (0.50 s/m).
Wave Equation Analysis Procedure

1. Soil model and ultimate capacity assumed.

2. Set analysis in motion by selecting hammer efficiency.

3. Impact velocity of hammer mass elements


calculated from efficiency.

4. For each time step, the acceleration, velocity, force,


and displacement for each element and the pile toe
are calculated based on force equilibrium (F = ma).

5. Process continues until pile toe rebounds.

6. Final set calculated for capacity.


Definition of Pile Driveability

Pile driveability refers to the ability of a pile to be driven to the


desired depth and / or capacity at a reasonable driving resistance
without exceeding the material driving stress limits.
Typical Driving Stress Limits
Pile ASD LRFD
Type Compression Tension Compression Tension

Steel 0.9 Fy 0.9 Fy 0.9 Fy 0.9 Fy

PS Concrete1* 0.85 f ’c – fpe 3(f ’c)1/2 + fpe 0.85 f ’c – fpe 0.095(f ’c)1/2 + fpe

PS Concrete2 0.85 f ’c – fpe fpe 0.85 f ’c – fpe fpe

R. Concrete 0.85 f ’c 0.70 Fy 0.85 f ’c 0.70 Fy

Timber 3 sa 3 sa 2.99 Fco 2.99 Fco


Terms: Fy = steel yield strength sa = allowable design stress 1 – normal conditions
f’c = concrete compressive strength Fco = reference design value 2 – severe conditions
fpe = effective prestress • - Concrete strength in psi for ASD
and ksi for LRFD
Pile Design Example
Pile Properties Static Analysis Results
0m
HP 360 mm x 132 kg/m (14 x 89) H-pile driven 1.6 m into Shale
1.5 m
As = 168.38 cm2 Rs = 985 kN (31% of Ru)
6.1 m of Loose Sand
Fy = 345 MPa Rt = 2173 kN
DL = 1575 kN Ru = 3158 kN
6.1 m FS of 2, Ru = 3150 kN
sdesign = 93.5 MPa (0.27 Fy)
sdriving = 0.9 Fy = 310 MPa

9.7 m of Stiff Clay


Proposed Hammer

15.8 m Delmag D 30-52:


Ram = 29.37 kN, Max Stroke = 3.5 m, Rated Energy = 102.3 kJ
17.4 m Weathered Shale
244 MPa

GRLWEAP
Bearing
Graph 3.03 m

3150 kN

100 blows / 0.25 m


GRLWEAP
Inspector’s
Chart
> 3150 kN

< 3150 kN
Pile Design Example - Driveability
Pile Properties Static Analysis Results
0m
HP 14x89 H-pile driven 1.6 m into Shale
1.5 m
As = 168.38 cm2 Rs = 985 kN (31% of Ru)
6.1 m of Loose Sand
Fy = 345 MPa Rt = 2173 kN
DL = 1575 kN Ru = 3158 kN
6.1 m FS of 2, Ru = 3150 kN
sdesign = 93.5 MPa (0.27 Fy)
sdriving = 0.9 Fy = 310 MPa

9.7 m of Stiff Clay


Proposed Hammer

15.8 m Delmag D 30-52:


Ram = 29.37 kN, Max Stroke = 3.5 m, Rated Energy = 102.3 kJ
17.4 m Weathered Shale
GRLWEAP Driveability Results
GRLWEAP Driveability Results
GRLWEAP Calculated
Force and Velocity Record at EOID
Additional Wave Equation Resources
Visit www.pile.com

Click on

Select
Additional Wave Equation Resources
Visit: www.pile.com
Click on

Select

Also: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/pubs/gec12/index.cfm
GEC 12 - Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Vol I and Vol II
Wave Equation Analysis. See Chapter 12 of Volume II, pp 153-260.
Comparison with Dynamic Measurements or Refined Wave Equation Analyses . See Section 12.6.9