DYNAMIC AND STATIC LOAD TESTING OF MODEL PILES DRIVEN INTO

DENSE SAND
By D. Bruno1 and M. F. Randolph2

ABSTRACT: Systematic studies of pile response during static and dynamic load tests are generally too expensive
to conduct in the field, and at model scale may be limited by scaling effects and the ability to obtain accurate
stress waves. This paper describes such a study, conducted at model scale in a geotechnical centrifuge, for piles
driven into dense sand. Adverse scaling effects were minimized by the use of extremely fine sand (silica flour),
and accurate stress waves were obtained using high-frequency data logging, together with a Hopkinson bar
arrangement for the measurement of pile-head velocity. The overall aim of the study was to compare dynamic
and static test data, for open- and closed-ended piles driven into dense sand, for a range of delivered hammer
energies. Open- and close-ended model piles were driven into dense sand and statically load tested at different
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

penetrations, without stopping the centrifuge. Stress-wave data were collected, during continuous driving and
from single blows immediately prior to the commencement of static load testing. An assessment of the accuracy
of the mobilized soil resistance estimated from dynamic testing, using different levels of analysis, has been made
by direct comparison with the static load test data. Particular emphasis has been placed on the performance of
the dynamic analyses in light of different driving conditions and delivered hammer energy. From measurements
of the delivered hammer energy, the efficiency of the centrifuge pile driving system was also assessed.

INTRODUCTION
The assessment of the static bearing capacity of piles using
dynamic testing is of major interest because of the lower cost
of dynamic testing, and also in situations such as offshore
operations, where static loading is generally not feasible. Com-
parisons between dynamic and static estimates of pile capacity
have been reported widely in the literature (Broms 1981, 1985;
Fellenius 1988; Barends 1992; Goble and Likins 1996; Town-
send 1996). Open-ended piles are an area of particular diffi-
culty because of the different modes of penetration under
dynamic and static loading conditions. Systematic studies are
needed in uniform soil conditions, where differences between
dynamic and static loading can be evaluated for both open-
and closed-ended piles, for a range of delivered hammer
energy.
The high cost of field testing necessitates that such studies
are undertaken, at least initially, at model scale. An extensive
centrifuge testing program has been performed with the aim
of examining the drivability of open- and closed-ended piles
in dense sand, and comparing capacities measured under both
dynamic and static loading conditions. Because it is difficult,
at model scale, to obtain accurate measurements of the high
accelerations associated with pile driving, the pile velocity
during a hammer blow has been determined using a Hopkin-
son bar arrangement (Zelikson 1991; Bruno and Randolph
1998). In this approach, the pile velocity is deduced directly
from the stress wave traveling in a light plastic rod attached
near the pile head. Measurement of both force and velocity at
the pile head during hammer blows allows dynamic analyses
of varying degrees of sophistication to be undertaken to esti-
mate the static capacity of the model piles, in addition to as-
sessing impact energy and hammer efficiency. The deduced
pile capacities may then be compared with results from direct
static loading of the pile.
A potential problem in comparing dynamic and static load
1
PhD Student, Sp. Res. Ctr. for Offshore Found. Sys., Univ. of Western
Australia, Nedlands 6907, Perth, Australia.
2
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Sp. Res. Ctr. for Offshore Found. Sys., Univ. of
Western Australia, Nedlands 6907, Perth, Australia.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2000. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on October 9, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 11,
November, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/99/0011-0988–0998/$8.00
⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 19420.
988 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999
tests arises for open-ended piles, where the mode of penetra-
tion under dynamic conditions, with soil moving up inside the
open pipe pile, differs from that during static loading, where
the pile will generally behave as fully plugged. It might be
expected that dynamic testing would significantly underesti-
mate the fully plugged pile capacity under static loading, par-
ticularly under the relatively high-energy levels needed to
cause sufficient displacement of the pile under dynamic con-
ditions.
This paper presents results from an experimental study of
pile capacity under dynamic and static conditions, with the
main focus being the effect of delivered hammer energy on
the dynamic response (and estimated soil resistance), and the
effect of the pile tip conditions (open- and closed-ended) on
the dynamic and static responses. Both compression and ten-
sion load tests were performed, at varying pile embedment
ratios. However, the present paper is restricted to a comparison
of the responses in compression only.
CENTRIFUGE MODELING
Centrifuge modeling has a number of advantages over al-
ternative modeling techniques in geotechnical engineering, al-
lowing a wide range of soil and pile parameters to be varied
independently while maintaining correct scaling of the self-
weight stress gradient in the soil inside and outside the model
pile. Correct reproduction of internal and external stresses ad-
jacent to the pile wall allows an accurate assessment of the
mobilization and degradation of shaft and end-bearing resis-
tance during pile installation and loading.
The experimental work presented in this paper was carried
out on the fixed beam geotechnical centrifuge facility at the
University of Western Australia. The facility houses an Acu-
tronic 661 centrifuge with a capacity of 40 g-tonnes and a
platform radius of 1.8 m. A detailed account of the geotech-
nical centrifuge and associated equipment may be found in
Randolph et al. (1991). The tests conducted here were per-
formed in a strongbox of width 390 mm, length 650 mm, and
height 325 mm, containing between 260 and 275 mm depth
of soil.
Centrifuge modeling laws have been discussed in general
terms by Schofield (1980), and in the context of modeling pile
driving by de Nicola (1996). Relevant scaling relationships are
summarized in Table 1. It may be seen that all accelerations
are scaled by the modeling ratio N. The tests described here
were undertaken at a scale of 1:100, so that acceleration levels

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998

 TABLE 1. Scaling Ratios for Centrifuge Modeling
Quantity Scaling ratio
(1) (2)
Stress 1
Strain 1
Acceleration N
Length 1/N
Velocity 1
Force 1/N2
Time (inertia) 1/N
Time (diffusion) 1/N2

during impact are approximately 100 times higher than at field

scale, and may reach levels of 15,000–40,000g. The disparity
between scaling of time for inertia and diffusion events (such
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as consolidation) was partly compensated for in the present

tests by the use of very fine-grained soil, with much lower
permeability than a typical field sand.
FIG. 2. CPT Data (All Test Samples)

SOIL SAMPLE TABLE 3. Centrifuge Sample Properties

Model testing allows preparation of reasonably uniform soil Property Test C Test E Test H Test I Test J
samples under controlled conditions of density, water table, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
etc. However, there is a potential problem with scale effects Bulk unit weight, ␥bulk 20.0 19.4 19.7 19.8 19.2
arising from the relative magnitudes of the soil grains and the Water content, w(%) 23 24 24 23 25
primary structural dimensions of the model piles, such as di- Voids ratio, e 0.60 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.70
ameter and wall thickness. This problem has been minimized Relative density, ID (%) 95 86 90 91 82
by reducing the grain size of the sand medium to a fine-grained
silica flour or silt (de Nicola 1996), with a mean particle size
d50 of 45 ␮m and a d10 of 6 ␮m. The well-graded nature of A comprehensive series of constant normal stiffness direct
the soil, as shown by the particle size distribution curve in Fig. shear tests were conducted by Maslen (1997) to assess the
1, allows it to be densely compacted, with the potential to gain frictional and dilatational characteristics of the silica flour used
very high strengths. All centrifuge tests reported here were in the centrifuge tests. Similar tests were conducted on coarser
conducted in the silica flour, under normally consolidated, sat- (field scale) sand and it was concluded that, while the silica
urated conditions. Table 2 summarizes key properties of the flour had a mean particle size an order of magnitude smaller
soil. than the coarser sand, it correctly modeled the mechanical
properties of a field scale sand.
Within the centrifuge, the variation of cone resistance qc
with depth was determined using a 7-mm-diameter model cone
penetrometer (CPT). Up to four CPTs were conducted in any
individual soil sample. There was excellent reproducibility
between the CPTs performed in each sample, indicating a
high level of (lateral) homogeneity. Fig. 2 shows the average
CPT profiles for the five different soil samples that were used
for the dynamic and static pile load tests presented in this
paper. Generally, the trend is for qc to increase with depth until
a prototype depth of around 17 m, where the proximity of
the strongbox base (at about 23 m) led to increasing gradients
of qc.
Because the silica flour is too fine for pluviation, each sam-
ple was prepared by pouring a saturated slurry into the strong-
box, and then densifying the sample on a vibrating table to
achieve a final (average) density. Some variations in soil den-
sity, due to different durations of vibration, are evident from
the cone profile. It is also evident that the vibration table
FIG. 1. Particle Size Distribution Curve for Silica Flour tends to concentrate the densification in the bottom third of
the sample. By placing a perforated board with a 20-kg mass
TABLE 2. Mechanical Properties of Silica Flour on it (Sample C), a more uniformly densified sample was
Property Value produced. For Sample I, no vibration was used, and as a
(1) (2) result, a degree of nonhomogeneity was present in the central
band of the sample. Table 3 summarizes the average density
Mean particle size, d50 45 ␮m
Void ratio, e 0.57–1.30
of each sample.
Minimum saturated density, ␥min 16.9 kN/m3
Maximum saturated density, ␥max 22.0 kN/m3 PILE TESTING APPARATUS
Permeability, k 2 ⫻ 10⫺6 m/s
Specific gravity, Gs 2.66 Miniature Pile Driving Hammer
Critical friction angle, ␾ ⬘cv 37.8 degrees
Steel/soil friction angle, ␦s 29.2 degrees
In the centrifuge, the model piles have been installed in-
flight using a pneumatically operated drop hammer, which
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999 / 989

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998

 simulates a prototype drop hammer of 28 tonnes (ram mass),
such as would be used for an equivalent prototype pile.
The hammer may operate continuously, or with single blows
to permit stress-wave data measurements. de Nicola and Ran-
dolph (1994) have given a more detailed description of the
miniature pile driving actuator.

Model Piles
A detailed description of the model piles has been given by
Bruno (1998), so only the key features are summarized here.
Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of the model piles used
throughout the centrifuge testing program. At 100g the model
piles have a prototype diameter of 0.95 m, with a wall thick-
ness of 0.05 m and a maximum embedment depth of 20 m.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Both piles are fabricated from a stainless-steel section that has

been sandblasted to produce a lightly roughened surface. The
pile roughness R was measured with a diamond stylus to pro-
duce a centerline average of 2.2 ␮m.
For the model pile roughness to correctly scale with the
prototype roughness, the ratio of the mean sand particle size
d50 and the steel roughness was conserved, with a normalized
roughness R/d50 of 48.8 ⫻ 10⫺3. The normalized roughness of
the model pile, and corresponding peak and residual soil-pile
interface angles, are compared in Fig. 4 with studies performed
by Kishida and Uesugi (1987) and Jardine et al. (1992). The
good agreement between the silica flour, used in the centrifuge
tests, and the (often larger) soils tested by the two studies
indicates that an appropriate representation of the frictional
interaction at the pile/soil interface was achieved in the model.
The uninstrumented pile (UP) has only one set of strain
gauges, near the pile head, to provide force measurements dur-
ing dynamic pile testing as well as total bearing capacity mea-
surements during static loading. On the other hand, the instru-
mented pile (IP) has seven levels of axial strain gauges, which
provided additional information regarding the distribution of
shaft friction along the embedded length of the pile during
static load testing. These gauges were glued to the outside
of the pile, protected by a uniform, but sandblasted, layer of
epoxy.
For piles installed open-ended, progression of the soil plug
was monitored by a lightweight mass resting on the soil plug
and attached to a kevlar line that passed up the inside of the
FIG. 4. Interface Friction Angles and Normalized Roughness
(after Kishida and Uesugi 1987; Jardine et al. 1992)
pile and through a series of pulleys to a potentiometer (de
Nicola 1996). Piles were also installed closed-ended, sealing
the toe of the piles with a flat end-cap that was flush with
respect to the outside diameter of the pile.
Hopkinson Bar Arrangement
For model pile tests in the centrifuge, the transient force of
a stress wave may be measured with strain gauges. However,
it is difficult to miniaturize the accelerometer needed for ve-
locity measurements, owing to the high levels of acceleration
(requiring accelerometers capable of withstanding 100,000g)
and distortion of any measurements due to the mass of the
instruments themselves. This problem was overcome, using a
technique known as Hopkinson bar (Zelikson 1991).
The Hopkinson bar itself is a thin rectangular strip of PVC
that is attached adjacent to the strain gauges, at the pile head.
To measure strain, the PVC strip is strain gauged with two
diametrically opposed, high-resistance strain gauges located at
the end attached to the model pile. A schematic diagram of
the arrangement is shown in Fig. 5.
As the point of attachment moves, a wave is generated in
the strip, which travels up to the end of the strip where it is
reflected. By virtue of the low wave speed in the PVC, no
reflected waves reach the strain-gauged end of the strip until
the main stress-wave response within the pile is complete. This

FIG. 3. Schematic of Model Piles FIG. 5. Schematic of Hopkinson Bar Arrangement

990 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998

 allows measurement of a one-directional stress wave through
the strip during the impact of the ram mass on the pile. The
one-directional wave induced in the PVC is a crucial factor
because the pile-head velocity v is only proportional to strain
for unidirectional waves (upward or downward, not both). The
pile-head velocity may be calculated from the following re-
lationship:
v = εc
where ε = strain; and c = wave speed in the PVC.
Because the wave speed in the 200-mm-long steel model
pile is around 5,000 m/s, a high-speed data acquisition system
is required to capture the dynamic event, which has a return
time of 90 ␮s. This is achieved using a card manufactured by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with fixed prototype drop heights ranging between 1.0 and 1.7
m. Once the desired penetration depth was achieved, a series
of dynamic load tests were followed by static tests.
The dynamic tests were performed several minutes after
driving, by striking the piles with single blows from the ram
mass. Often, at any one penetration, individual blows were
delivered and recorded from different drop heights.
For the UP, static tests were performed immediately after
(1) the dynamic tests, generally in compression first, followed by
tension, although this order was reversed for some tests. To
assess the mobilization of local shaft friction and end bearing,
where possible, the IP was installed to the same penetration
depths at a neighboring site and tested statically. Few dynamic
tests were conducted on the IP because early testing indicated
that the presence of the epoxy coating corrupted the quality

Bakker, in a standard personal computer. The card has a max-

imum allowable sampling rate for the two channels (pile gauge
and the PVC strip gauge) of 400 kHz, so that the data may be
discretized at intervals of 2.5 ␮s.
PILE TESTING PROCEDURE
Prior to any pile installation and testing, two CPTs were
performed in each sample at a minimum of 10 pile diameters
D from the nearest boundary or pile test site. Up to seven piles
could be installed along the centerline of the testing container
while ensuring a minimum separation of 7D between sites. The
piles were driven continuously with the miniature pile driving
actuator, which delivered the 28-tonne (prototype) ram mass
of the dynamic data (presumed to be due to the different wave
speeds in epoxy and steel).
PILE TEST DATA
Dynamic and static tests were performed on 36 piles, 22
open-ended and 14 closed-ended, at prototype penetration
depths varying between 4.7 and 20 m. Each test indicator is
represented by a letter followed by two numbers, signifying
the test sample (C, E, H, I, and J), test drive (between 1 and
6 in any sample), and test depth (between 1 and 3 at any site).
A summary of the pile tests is presented in Table 4. All pre-
sented data are discussed in terms of prototype units.

TABLE 4. Pile Test Details

Test Dynamic test Plug Permanent
Test depth Pile toe drop heights height set Qstatic
indicator (m) condition Static tests (m) (m) (mm) (MN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
C1-1 7.60 Open C-T-C 1 5.14 7.84 7.27
C1-2 14.00 Open C-T-C 1.7 9.20 3.99 12.91
C1-3 18.30 Open C-T-C 1.7 10.50 2.80 10.50
C2-1 6.00 Closed C-T-C 1 — 7.80 8.88
C4-1 7.44 Open C-T-C 1 5.68 3.33 7.12
C4-2 14.00 Open C-T-C 1.7 8.60 4.44 12.32
C4-3 18.30 Open C-T-C 1.7 9.70 1.31 11.20
E6-1 6.61 Open C-T-C 1.7 2.76 3.88 7.61
E6-2 12.56 Open T-C-T 1.7 6.40 1.97 10.07
H2-1 4.86 Open C-T-C-T 0.9 2.20 2.88 5.68
H2-2 12.33 Open C-T-C-T 1, 1.2 12.33 4.03 8.10
H2-3 17.33 Open C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 13.70 4.26 11.49
H3-1 4.71 Open T-C-T-C 1.6 1.92 2.86 5.11
H3-2 13.75 Open T-C-T-C 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 10.31 7.87 9.28
H3-3 18.76 Open T-C-T-C 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 15.36 5.10 12.50
H5-1 4.86 Closed C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.7 — 5.81 7.43
H5-2 12.57 Closed C-T-C-T 1.2 — 8.20 8.00
H6-1 4.67 Closed T-C-T-C 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 — 3.33 5.60
I2-1 7.91 Open C-T-C-T 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.6 3.40 3.22 9.62
I2-2 12.13 Open C-T-C-T 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 7.01 0.31 13.52
I3-1 9.08 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 — 1.80 7.92
I3-2 13.38 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 — 0.46 11.52
I3-3 16.78 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 — 0.44 17.01
I4-1 7.76 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 — 2.99 10.79
I4-2 11.96 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8 — 1.84 13.99
I4-3 17.37 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 — 0.31 16.95
J1-1 10.73 Open C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9 6.30 2.81 6.20
J1-2 14.93 Open C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 10.00 2.22 10.12
J1-3 20.03 Open C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 14.40 0.60 16.37
J2-1 7.15 Open C-T-C-T 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 4.10 4.37 5.74
J2-2 12.05 Open C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 8.27 3.06 9.40
J2-3 18.60 Open C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 12.94 0.67 13.38
J3-1 10.58 Closed C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 — 2.25 9.09
J3-2 14.79 Closed C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 — 0.31 12.15
J4-1 7.17 Closed C-T-C-T 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 — 2.23 5.12
J4-2 12.04 Closed C-T-C-T 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 — 1.80 8.48
Note: C = compression; T = tension; Qs = taken at pile-head displacement of 10% of pile diameter.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999 / 991

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998

 Pile Installation
As described earlier, all model piles were driven into the
samples with the miniature pile driving hammer system using
a 28-tonne prototype drop hammer. A preset drop height was
maintained throughout driving, usually starting with a 1-m
drop height for the first 5 m and then increasing to 1.7 m until
ultimate pile penetration.
Several driving records from the installation of the model
piles are shown in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6(a), the soil strength stra-
tigraphy (reflected in the CPT data) follows a similar profile
to the driving record of the open-ended pile. Increasing drop
heights were necessary as the pile became harder to install.
Fig. 6(b) shows the cumulative hammer blows measured dur-
ing driving for three open- and one closed-ended pile driven
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
into Sample E. Installation effects due to different hammer
drop heights and pile toe conditions were examined in this
sample. At an embedment depth of around 5.5 m, the drop
height for two of the open-ended piles was increased to 1.7
m, whereas 1 m was maintained for the third open-ended pile.
FIG. 6. (a) Drivability of Open-Ended Pile (Test I); (b) Driving
Record for Open- and Closed-Ended Piles (Test E)
992 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998
As expected, considerably more blows are required to install
the piles for a 1-m drop height as opposed to a 1.7-m drop
height. For a 1.7-m drop height, the closed-ended pile required
slightly more blows than the open-ended piles. Typically, the
tests have shown that close-ended piles require around 25%
more blows than open-ended piles, on average.
Soil Plug Formation
Generally, all open-ended piles remained partially plugged
throughout installation, with Fig. 7 showing the typical de-
velopment of the internal soil plug with depth. Due to a high
level of reproducibility in each sample, only a single curve has
been shown to represent the average of several measured plug
lengths. A linear fit has been added to the data to emphasize
the distinct transition in the incremental filling ratio (IFR),
after a depth of around 5 m, where the IFR is given by (Brucy
et al. 1991)
change in plug height
IFR = (2)
change in pile penetration
This is believed to be due primarily to the change in drop
height, from 1 to 1.7 m, at which the ram mass is delivered
during driving. Brucy et al. (1991) also observed that the IFR
was strongly affected by the input energy, with increased en-
ergy leading to a higher IFR.
It is interesting to observe that, over most of the installation
with a 1.7-m drop height, the IFR is steady at about 0.9. Per-
haps the main factor that limits the IFR to 0.9 is the relatively
large pile wall thickness (or small internal pile diameter) com-
pared with the mean soil grain size. This may be responsible
for inhibiting the initial ingression of soil into the pile.
Static Pile Tests
For simplicity, the bearing capacity Qstatic was taken as the
load required to displace the pile head by 10% of the pile
diameter (or 0.1D). Applying the Davisson criterion, where the
displacement required for Qstatic is 0.1D ⫹ PL/EA [see (4)],
increases the quoted static pile capacities by <8%. Fig. 8
shows typical load-displacement data measured from static
tests performed on an open-ended pile in Sample J at three
different penetrations at the same site. The static tests were
performed in compression followed by tension, and then cy-
cled twice more. In compression, there is a clear tendency for
the bearing capacity to continue to increase with increasing
pile displacement. Conversely, in tension, the peak tensile load
FIG. 7. Formation of Soil Plug during Driving, All Tests
 pile was installed in a partially plugged mode. This transition
from plugged to partially plugged behavior has also been ob-
served at model scale (O’Neill and Raines 1991; Paik and Lee
1993; de Nicola 1996), as well as at field scale (Brucy et al.
1991).

Dynamic Pile Tests

Typical data measured from dynamic tests conducted on
open- and closed-ended piles, embedded at a depth of 7.15 m,
are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The large mismatch
between the force and Zv curves (product of pile impedance
Z = EA/c and velocity v, where E is Young’s modulus, A is
the net cross-sectional area of the pile, and c the wave speed),
is due to the large change in impedance that is present 30 mm
(prototype return time of 1.2 ms) from the point of instru-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mentation. The impedance of the model pile is 595 Ns/m com-

FIG. 8. Typical Static Test Data (Drive J 2, Open-Ended Pile)
is usually achieved within a displacement of 0.1D with the
displacement required to mobilize the peak tensile load in-
creasing with pile penetration.
The majority of the soil resistance mobilized by the model
piles was end-bearing resistance, comprising 75, 65, and 60%
of the total bearing capacity of the piles for tests conducted at
7.15, 12.05, and 18.60 m, respectively.
It should be noted that all open-ended piles failed in a fully
plugged mode with no change in the measured height of the
soil plug. After the completion of a static test, any subsequent
redriving continued the progression of the soil plug and the
pared with only 16 Ns/m for the Hopkinson bar (Bruno and
Randolph 1998). Therefore, any distortions in the proportion-
ality between the force and Zv curves due to the Hopkinson
bar itself would be minimal because the combined impedance
of the pile and the Hopkinson bar is only 2.7% greater than
that of the pile alone.
The extent of the stress-wave reflection from the pile toe,
at a return time of 2L/c, is normally characterized by the ten-
sile dip in force near the pile head and a corresponding local
maximum in pile-head velocity. The magnitude of these per-
turbations decreases with increased embedment of the pile, due
to increased capacity and a subsequent reduction in reflected
stress wave from the pile toe. There is also a distinct difference
in the magnitude of the tensile reflection between open- and
closed-ended piles [compare Figs. 9(a) and 10(a)]. The down-
ward traveling dynamic force tends to be dissipated by the

FIG. 9. Typical Stress-Wave Data from Open-Ended Pile, Depth 7.15 m (Test J ) Hammer Delivered at Drop Height of 1.8 m: (a) Force
and Zv Data; (b) Integrated Energy and Displacement

FIG. 10. Typical Stress-Wave Data from Closed-Ended Pile, Depth 7.15 m (Test J ) Hammer Delivered at Drop Height of 1.7 m: (a) Force
and Zv data; (b) Integrated Energy and Displacement

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999 / 993

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998

 time the stress wave reaches the base of the pile, due to the
additional load transfer from internal shaft friction mobilized
along the soil plug height. If the residual stresses locked into
the pile by driving are large enough, the base resistance will
be mobilized very rapidly, and no tensile wave will be re-
flected. However, the residual stresses measured for both piles
were similar and represented only a small proportion of the
bearing capacity.
The pile-head displacements could not be measured directly
during the hammer impact, and hence, were calculated by in-
tegrating the velocity data for the duration of the dynamic
perturbation [Figs. 9(b) and 10(b)]. However, the displace-
ments could not be computed beyond a time of about 30 ms,
owing to reflections emanating from the free end of the Hop-
kinson bar. As such, it was only possible to compute pile-head
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
displacements up to the maximum displacements, which com-
prised both temporary compression and permanent displace-
ment. The permanent pile sets were taken from the driving
records immediately preceding the static pile test sites, en-
abling the magnitude of temporary compression to be esti-
mated. This procedure gave values of temporary compression
that were similar to those deduced from (4).
DYNAMIC STRESS-WAVE ANALYSES
Energy Balance Analysis
The simplest approach to estimating the static capacity of
the pile (or more correctly, the mobilized soil resistance) is
from an energy balance between the input energy from the
hammer and the work done by the pile movement. There is a
variety of pile driving formulas in common use, many of
which have been reviewed by Whitaker (1975). Rather than
describe all of the different approaches here, the basic for-
mulation will be outlined and some of the main variables dis-
cussed.
The basis of the fundamental pile driving formula is rep-
resented by
␩/Wh
Rs =
(s ⫹ c/2)
where Rs = mobilized soil resistance; ␩ = hammer efficiency;
W = weight of the hammer; h = drop height; s = permanent
set; and c = elastic movement of the pile. The average per-
manent set was taken from the driving records, whereas the
temporary set was estimated from (de Nicola 1996)
Fp L
c=
(EA)p
where Fp = measured peak impact force; L = length of the
pile; and (EA)p = cross-sectional rigidity of the pile.
The efficiency of a hammer blow ␩ can be determined from
the following equation:
冕 Fv dt
␩=
mgh
where the energy measured during the impact is given by in-
tegrating the product of the pile-head force F and velocity v
over time. The efficiency of the hammer is therefore the ratio
of the energy measured during the impact, to the maximum
possible energy delivered by the hammer of mass m at a drop
height h.
The miniature pile driving hammer performed relatively
well with most hammer blows delivered with average effi-
ciencies of around 60%, which is in a similar range to field
scale steam or hydraulic hammers and it is slightly higher than
994 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998
diesel hammers. The energy losses arise partly from the impact
(the steel ram striking the pile cap directly) and partly from
the frictional resistance encountered by the ram as it is forced
laterally against its bearing by the Coriolis force (de Nicola
1996).
Effect of Delivered Hammer Energy
Different amounts of delivered hammer energy were im-
parted to the piles by varying the drop height of the ram mass
from around 0.6 to 1.9 m. At any one pile penetration, up to
five different drop heights were used in the dynamic tests, with
the resulting stress waves measured and used as input into the
different dynamic analyses. Fig. 11 shows the variation of de-
livered hammer energy with drop height. There is considerable
scatter, due to varying hammer efficiencies, but a trend of in-
creasing efficiency of the driving system as the hammer drop
height increases. This trend was also observed in a study of
dynamic tests conducted on field scale piles by Hussein et al.
(1992), and is perhaps due to certain energy losses that are
largely independent of drop height.
An increase in input hammer energy results in an increase
in pile displacements (s and c), and hence, leads to higher
mobilized soil resistance. This is reflected in Fig. 12, which
shows a clear trend of increasing Rs with increasing drop
height.
The dynamic tests were grouped into four main categories,
depending on the drop height at which the dynamic tests were
performed. The static pile capacity estimates from each cate-
gory were then compared with the pile capacity measured dur-
ing the static tests (at a pile-head displacement of 0.1D), with
the results summarized in Table 5. On average, all estimated
mobilized soil resistances underestimate the measured static
capacity, with the best estimates obtained from dynamic tests
conducted at 1.5-m drop heights or greater. At low hammer
drop heights (and hence, low impact energy), the driving for-
mula approach tends to be conservative by around 35% and
improves to within 15% of the static pile capacity at higher
impact energies. Fig. 13 shows how the individual dynamic
(3)
tests, conducted at drop heights of 1.7 m or greater, compare
with the measured static pile capacities. Generally, consider-
able scatter is present in the calculated soil resistance Rs, with
most of the estimates underpredicting the measured static ca-
pacities Qs, particularly for values in excess of 12 MN.
(4)
(5)
FIG. 11. Delivered Hammer Energy as Function of Hammer
Drop Height
 where at a position z along the bar and a time t, the pile
displacement is w and the wave speed is c (Timoshenko and
Goodier 1970).
By solving (6) and deriving the upward and downward com-
ponents of force F from the net force and particle velocity v
at the instrumentation level, an expression for the static pile
capacity Rs is given by (Rausche et al. 1985)

Rs = 0.5(1 ⫺ jc)(F ⫹ Zv)t ⫹ 0.5(1 ⫹ jc)(F ⫺ Zv)t⫹(2L/c) (7)

where jc = Case damping coefficient; and Z = impedance of

the pile. The return time is simply given by 2L/c, which is the
time taken for the stress wave to propagate down the pile
(length L) and return to the instrumentation level.
The deduced mobilized soil resistance Rs can be very sen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sitive to the value adopted for the damping parameter jc. How-
ever, the above expression can provide useful guidance on the
static pile capacity, where it is possible to calibrate the param-
eter jc for a particular site, either by performing static tests or
by full numerical dynamic analyses of the stress wave data as
described later. Where no static load tests are carried out,
guidelines for jc, as given in Table 6, may be adopted (Rausche
FIG. 12. Estimated Static Pile Capacity Rs for Driving Formula
et al. 1985).
Approach

TABLE 5. Average Ratios ␮ and Standard Deviations ␴ of Cal- Modified Case Analysis
culated to Measured Static Pile Capacity
Eq. (7) must be modified to take into account the large
Hammer drop heights Driving change in impedance that is present in the model piles tested
used in dynamic Formula Case* IMPACT
in the centrifuge (Fig. 14). Consider a downward traveling
pile tests
wave of velocity vd arriving at a point in the pile where the
(m) ␮ ␴ ␮ ␴ ␮ ␴
impedance changes from Z1 to Z2. The incidence wave will
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
give rise to a reflected wave with a velocity vu in Region 1,
<1.0 0.66 0.18 0.84 0.19 — — and a transmitted wave with a velocity vd in Region 2. Assum-
1.2 0.71 0.18 0.87 0.23 — —
1.5 0.86 0.20 0.96 0.18 — —
ing that there is no incidence upward traveling wave from
>1.7 0.84 0.18 0.97 0.18 0.98 0.05 Region 2 (which may be treated in an analogous way), the
particle velocity and force at the boundary of the two regions
just after arrival of the downward wave are given by (Ran-
dolph 1990):

v = vincidence ⫹ vreflected = (vd ⫹ vu)1 = (vd ⫹ vu)2 (8)

TABLE 6. Suggested Values for Case Damping Coefficient,

Rausche et al. 1985

Soil type in bearing Suggested range of Correlation value of

strata jc jc
(1) (2) (3)
Sand 0.05–0.20 0.05
Silty sand/sandy silt 0.15–0.30 0.15
Silt 0.20–0.45 0.30
Silty clay/clayey silt 0.40–0.70 0.55
Clay 0.60–1.10 1.10

FIG. 13. Driving Formula Approach, All Test Data for Drop
Heights of >1.7 m

Case Analysis
The governing equation that describes the motion of the
stress wave through an elastic rod in the axial direction is
given by
⭸2w 2 ⭸ w
2

2 = c (6)
⭸t ⭸z2 FIG. 14. Schematic of Change in Pile Impedance

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999 / 995

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998

 F = Z1(vd ⫹ vu)1 = Z1vincidence ⫺ Z1vreflected (9a)
F = Z2(vd ⫹ vu)2 (9b)
From these sets of equations, it may be shown that

v= 冉 2Z1
Z1 ⫹ Z2 冊 vincidence (10)

The corresponding transmitted force, at the impedance change,

is given by

Fd2 = 冉 2Z2
Z1 ⫹ Z2 冊 Fd1 (11)

Fu1 = 冉 2Z1
Z1 ⫹ Z2
冊 Fu2 (12)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Eq. (11) and (12) can now be substituted into the standard
Case (7) to yield a modified formulation of the estimated static
pile capacity Rs, which will be referred to as the Case* method,
given by

Rs = 0.5(1 ⫺ jc) 冉 2Z2

Z1 ⫹ Z2
冊 (F ⫹ Zv)t FIG. 16.
>1.7 M
Case* Approach, All Test Data for Drop Heights of

⫹ 0.5(1 ⫹ jc) 冉Z1 ⫹ Z2

2Z1
冊 (F ⫺ Zv)t⫹2L/c
(13)
Case* Damping Parameter jc
As described earlier, the Case* analysis is highly sensitive
to the choice of parameter jc. Because there was no previous
experience in stress-wave analysis in silica flour, a study was
undertaken to examine the effects of adopting different values
of jc to the estimated static pile capacity. Once again, the dy-
namic pile tests were grouped in accordance with the drop
heights used, and a range of jc values was explored in each
group, comparing the deduced pile capacities with those mea-
sured from the static tests. Fig. 15 summarizes the results of
varying jc that provides the closest approximation to the static
capacity varies with the drop height (or impact energy) that is
used in the dynamic tests.
In a similar fashion to the driving formula approach, where
the closest approximations to the static data came from the
dynamic tests conducted at higher impact energies, a value of
0.25 for jc is judged as appropriate for silica flour. Fig. 16
shows the correlation between the measured and computed
FIG. 15. Selection of Case* Damping Parameter jc
996 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999
static pile capacities for dynamic tests conducted at drop
heights of 1.7 m or greater, adopting a value of 0.25 for
jc. This approach yields an average ratio of mobilized soil
resistance to measured static capacities (Rs/Qs) of 0.97, with
most estimates lying within ⫾25% of the measured capaci-
ties. As was the case with the driving formula approach, the
Case* method underestimates static pile capacities in excess
of 12 MN.
Numerical Stress-Wave Analysis
Predictions of pile capacity for the stress-wave measure-
ments, using an expression such as the Case* method, is rarely
used in isolation without calibration either through static load
tests or by means of a full dynamic analysis of the pile and
matching of the stress-wave data.
The process of matching the measured stress-wave data is
an iterative one, where the soil parameters for each element
down the pile are varied until an acceptable fit is obtained
between measured and computed results.
In the numerical analysis, limitations in the simple spring-
dashpot models for the pile-soil interaction entail that the com-
puter simulation will not match the measured data exactly. A
consequence is that the final distribution of soil parameters
should not be considered as unique, but rather as a best fit
obtained by one operator. Generally, the total static resistance
computed will show little variation among different operators,
or sets of parameters, provided a reasonable fit is obtained,
but the distribution of resistance between shaft and base may
vary (Fellenius 1988).
IMPACT (Randolph 1994) was used to match the stress-
wave data collected in the centrifuge tests. Only the dynamic
data collected from the tests using 1.7-m drop heights or
greater were analyzed with typically good fits obtained be-
tween the measured and calculated stress waves. Where static
pile test data was available, the local shaft friction and end-
bearing pressures were used as the initial input to the numer-
ical analysis. These initial values were often sufficient to pro-
vide a good fit, with only minor adjustments required to
improve the quality of the fit.
Fig. 17 is an example of how the numerical output compares
with measured values for the closed-ended pile previously re-
ferred to in Figs. 10(a and b). Fig. 18 shows the comparisons
between the estimated mobilized soil resistance and measured
static pile capacities for each test. Generally, the IMPACT

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 17. Calculated (IMPACT) versus Measured Stress-Wave
Data
FIG. 18. IMPACT Analysis, All Test Data
analysis provides an excellent estimation to the static capacity
with the ratio of Rs /Qs = 0.98. With a standard deviation of
0.05, there is considerably less scatter in the estimates com-
pared to both the Driving Formula and Case* analyses, which
both had standard deviations of 0.18. As discussed earlier, a jc
value in the range of 0.15–0.25 provided the best fit, with the
capacities deduced either from the IMPACT analyses or the
static load tests.
FAILURE MODES DURING STATIC AND
DYNAMIC LOADING
It is interesting to consider the different failure mechanisms
that occur in pipe piles during dynamic and static loading. As
mentioned earlier, it is generally accepted that a pile remains
substantially fully plugged in the static loading state, but be-
comes unplugged under the dynamic impact loading condition.
For a fully plugged pipe pile, sufficient inside shaft resistance
can be mobilized between the pile and the soil plug, and hence,
an equivalent end-bearing capacity over the full cross-sectional
area is considered. For an unplugged pile, the integrated inside
shaft resistance must be less than the sum of the end-bearing
resistance of the plug and the inertial resistance of the plug
(Stevens 1988).
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999 / 997
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998
Regardless of the different failure mechanisms that occur
during static and dynamic loading, the numerical stress-wave
fits from IMPACT managed to estimate the static pile capacity
sufficiently accurately. As was demonstrated by the soil plug
formation during installation (Fig. 7), under dynamic loading
the plug was failing with an IFR close to 1. Instrumented field
scale pile tests conducted by Brucy et al. (1991) have shown
that, under dynamic loading while the pile is in an unplugged
or partially plugged mode, the contribution of internal shaft
resistance mobilized along the soil plug is only a small pro-
portion of the total mobilized soil resistance. Instrumented pile
tests conducted at model scale by Paik ad Lee (1993) and
O’Neill and Raines (1991) also confirm this observation.
On average, the piles were permanently displaced around
0.04D at the shallow test sites, reducing to 0.02D at the ulti-
mate penetration depths. It is surprising that while the piles
were displaced <0.1D during a dynamic blow (which is the
reference displacement for the static bearing capacity), the mo-
bilized soil resistance was comparable with the static pile ca-
pacity, even though the major proportion of the static capacity
emanated from the pile base.
A partial explanation may be that the amount of shaft re-
sistance mobilized along the plug height during loading com-
pensates for the incomplete mobilization of end bearing pres-
sure. As a result, the estimation of total soil mobilization from
the dynamic data corresponds well to that measured at greater
pile-head displacements during static loading.
CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic stress-wave data measured from centrifuge pile
tests have been used as input in three common methods of
dynamic analysis. Estimations of the static pile capacity (or
mobilized soil resistance) were derived from the dynamic anal-
yses and compared with the measured pile capacities from
static tests. It was evident that the dynamic tests performed
with the highest input energy provided the most accurate es-
timations of the static pile capacity because greater pile-head
displacements (and hence soil mobilization) were achieved.
The simplest approach was based on a fundamental energy
balance and it provided reasonably good approximations, typ-
ically underpredicting the static pile capacity by 15%. Pile
capacity estimates from the energy balance method were
highly dependent on input energy and provided less accurate
estimations as the measured static pile capacity increased.
A modified Case method, which incorporated large changes
in pile impedance, was also applied to the dynamic data. A
value of 0.25 for the damping parameter jc provided the best
approximation to the measured static capacity and also com-
pared well with the suggested value from Rausche et al.
(1985). This value of jc was determined from the dynamic
tests, conducted at the highest delivered energy, and calibrated
with the static pile test data.
Of the three dynamic analyses, the numerical analysis using
IMPACT provided, consistently, the best estimates for static
pile capacity. This was expected because considerable effort is
needed to determine a suitable profile of soil resistance along
the pile shaft and base to match the measured and computed
stress waves. The deduced total soil resistance therefore tends
to give an accurate prediction of the static pile capacity.
The resulting good agreement between pile capacity de-
duced from dynamic and static load testing must still be
viewed in the light of significant differences between the two
types of test, particularly for open-ended piles. In the dynamic
test, the pile movement is much less than the static displace-
ment at which the capacity is quoted. Additionally, failure for
open-ended piles occurs in a (largely) unplugged mode, com-
pared with a fully plugged mode during static testing. The
good agreement therefore implies that, during continuous driv-
 ing the total internal shaft friction maintains a close balance
with the (potential) gross end-bearing resistance, giving com-
parable dynamic unplugged, or static plugged, capacities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described in this paper forms part of an extensive research
program into driven piles in sand, in the Special Research Centre for
Offshore Foundation Systems at the University of Western Australia, es-
tablished and supported under the Australian Research Council’s Re-
search Centres Program. D. Bruno holds a university postgraduate award
and a William Lambden Owen supplementary scholarship funded by the
University of Western Australia. This financial support is gratefully ac-
knowledged.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aalborg University on 01/23/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Barends, F. B. J. (1992). Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Application of Stress-
Wave Theory to Piles.
Broms, B. B., ed. (1981). Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Application of Stress-
Wave Theory to Piles.
Broms, B. B., ed. (1985). Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Application of Stress-
Wave Theory to Piles.
Bruno, D. (1998). ‘‘Centrifuge modeling of driven piles in dense sand.’’
Proc., 3rd ANZ Young Geotech. Profl. Conf., 9–14.
Bruno, D., and Randolph, M. F. (1998). ‘‘Dynamic testing of driven piles
in dense sand.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. CENTRIFUGE 98 (ISSMFE Centri-
fuge 98).
Brucy, F., Meunier, J., and Nauroy, J. F. (1991). ‘‘Behaviour of pile plug
in sandy soils during and after driving.’’ Proc., 23rd Annu. Offshore
Technol. Conf., 145–154.
de Nicola, A. (1996). ‘‘The performance of pipe piles in sand,’’ PhD
thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Fellenius, B. H., ed. (1988). ‘‘Variation of CAPWAP results as a function
of the operator.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Application of Stress-Wave
Theory to Piles, 814–825.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., and Elson, W. K.
(1992). Piling engineering 2nd Ed., Black Academic & Professional.
Goble, G., and Likins, G. (1996). ‘‘On the application of PDA dynamic
pile testing.’’ Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on the Application of Stress-Wave
Theory to Piles, 263–273.
Hussein, M., Rausche, F., and Likins, G. (1992). ‘‘Dynamics of pile driv-
998 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1999
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(11): 988-998
ing at a function of ram drop height.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Appl.
Stress Wave Theory to Piles, 421–424.
Jardine, R. J., Lehane, B. M., and Everton, S. J. (1992). ‘‘Friction coef-
ficients for piles in sands and silts.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Offshore Site
Investigation and Found. Behaviour, Soc. of Underwater Technol.,
661–680.
Kishida, H., and Uesugi, M. (1987). ‘‘Tests of the interface between sand
and steel in the simple shear apparatus.’’ Géotechnique, London, 37(1),
45–52.
Maslen, C. (1997). ‘‘Constant normal stiffness testing of silica soils.’’
Undergraduate Honours Project, University of Western Australia, Perth,
Australia.
O’Neill, M. W., and Raines, R. D. (1991). ‘‘Load transfer for pipe piles
in highly pressured dense sand.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(8),
1208–1226.
Paik, K. H., and Lee, S. R. (1993). ‘‘Behaviour of soil plugs in open-
ended model piles driven into sands.’’ Marine Georesources and Geo-
technology, 11, 353–373.
Randolph, M. F. (1990). ‘‘Analysis of the dynamics of pile driving.’’
Developments in soil mechanics—IV: Advanced geotechnical analysis,
P. K. Banerjee and R. Butterfield, eds., Elsevier Science.
Randolph, M. F. (1991). ‘‘Establishing a new centrifuge facility.’’ Proc.,
Int. Conf. Centrifuge 91, 1, 3–9.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). ‘‘IMPACT: Dynamic analysis of pile driving.’’
User Manual, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Rausche, F., Goble, G. G., and Likins, G. E. (1985). ‘‘Dynamic deter-
mination of pile capacity.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(3), 367–
383.
Schofield, A. N. (1980). ‘‘Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge opera-
tions.’’ Géotechnique, London, 30(3), 227–268.
Smith, E. A. L. (1960). ‘‘Pile driving analysis by the wave equation.’’ J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 86, 35–61.
Stevens, R. F. (1988). ‘‘The effect of a soil plug on pile drivability in
clay.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Applied Stress Wave Theory to Piles,
861–868.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N. (1970). Theory of elasticity. 3rd
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Townsend, F. C., ed. (1996). Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Appl. Stress Wave
Theory to Piles.
Whitaker, T. (1975). The design of piled foundations. 2nd Ed., Pergamon,
Oxford. Tarrytown, N.J.
Zelikson, A. (1991). ‘‘Transient signals from below-ground transducers
during pile-driving and static loading: a hydraulic gradient simulation
study.’’ Géotechnique, London, 41(4), 553–569.