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

Dvnanatc nnu S'rnrrc TnslrNG rN SorlExrrrnrlrnc Snr'-Up

Ily l lengt H. Fellenius,r Richard l i. Riker,2 Arthur .I. O'Brien,land Gerald R. Tracy,a Melrrbers, ASCE

Aasrnacr: Pi le foundat iorr studies were conductecl on f

provide reference infonnation to use in construction pile inspection and qual-ity control.

Early in the testing program, it was ftrund that the piles could be drivento bcdrock and thcre obtain a geotechnical capacity in excess of that re-quired. It was also lbund that the soils exhibited significant increase in pilecapacity with t inre after dr iv ing, i .e. , soi l set-up. Therefore, a secondarypurpose of the testing became to find the minimurn length of pile requiredto support the loads (without having to reach the bedrock) for piles withservice loads of 90 kN (100 tons). l 'his necessitated that the soil set-up bestudied and considered in the design.

The results from nine piles included in the design testing program andl ' rot t t c lcvctt ol- thc product ion pi lcs arc prcscntcd in t l r is paper. Fi l tcen stat iclcsts wcre pcrlirrlrrcd-eight in the initial tcstilrg pr()gratn and scven duringdriving of production piling. 'l 'he writers reported the results of preliminarytcsting programs at the 1983 ASCE conference on Dynamic Measurementsof Pi les and Piers (Fel lenius et al . 1983). These previously publ ished resultsarc sunlrnarizcd herein and conrpiled with thc results of the production piletcst ing.

GeHenll lHronmalon

Geotechnical investigations rcvealcd ftrur ntain strata at the site, as pre-scnted in Table | . 't 'he groundwater table lics about 2.5 rn (8 ft) below gradeand is hydrostatically distributed.

Stratum 2 is a compressible estuarine deposit that varies in thickness andcolnposition betwecn boreholes. All piles were founded in stratum 3, theglacial nraterial, which contains distinct layers or less of comparatively ho-mogeneous clay and silt, sand, and gravel, and heterogeneous mixtures ofall these materials. The glacial soil is highly variable in profile and densitythroughout the project site.

Of the four pile types included in the design phase testing programmes,three were top-driven piles-norrnal and heavy wall closed-toe (flush end-

TABLE 1. Soll Condltlons

Stratum( 1 )

Type of material(2)

Thickness(3)

Unitweight

(4)

Averageundrained

shearstrength

(5)

Estimatedangle oleffectivefriction

(6)

I2

34

Misce l laneous ear th l i l lSoft to nredium stiff

cornpressible postglacial si l tyclay and clayey si l t withorganics (estuarine)

Glacial soi l depositsDolomite bedrock

l5-25 f r60-70 fr

85-95 ftAt depth

165-215 f t

I l0 pc f105 pcf

I 15 pcf

SOO prf

4,(M) psf

30'26-29"

35-38"

Note: Groundwater table is 8 ft below grade, and pore pressure is hydrostatically dis-tr ibuted: I f t : 0.3(X8 m; and I pcf : 0. 16 kN/mr.

985

TABLE 2. Test Plles

Type( 1 )

Designation(21

Size ( in . )(3)

Area (sq in.)

Steelarea, A.

(4)

Concreteatea,4,.

(5)' l 'hin

wall pipeH-p i leThin wall pipe,

rnandrel-driven

I lcavy wa l l p ipe(srnal l diarneter)

ABC

D, E, F-G , H , I

12.75 x 0.375l2 HP631 4 . 0 0 x 0 . 1 8 8

(14.00 x 0.312, / lower2D ft)

9.63 x 0.-545

14.6t 8 . 48 . 2

t3.4

l s . 5

I t 3 . l0

145 .8140.5

57 .2

Note : I in . : 25 .40 mnr ; I sq in . :645.2 mm2; I f t : 0 .3048 m.

plate) steel pipe piles, and steel H-piles-and one was a mandrel-driven thin-wall pipe pile. l 'he production piles were heavy-wall pipe piles. The designphase test piles have been denoted letters A, B, C, and D, while the pro-duction piles have been denoted letters E, F, G, /{. and /. Details on thesepiles are given in 'fable 2. Fig. I shows a plan view of the treatment plantand the locations of the test piles.

The test piles were driven to depths of 33 to 48 rn (ll0 to 156 ft) andthe production piles were generally installed to a depth of about 42 to 46 m(140 to 150 ft). T'he desired service load on the piles in the project rangedfrom 900 to 1,300 kN (100 to 150 tons).

The A-piles (see 'I 'able 2) were driven and restruck with a Vulcan 200Cdouble acting hammer having a nominal (rated) energy of 68 kJ (50 ft-kips).Except as noted, all other piles were driven and restruck with a Vulcan 010single-acting hamrner with a nominal energy of 44 kJ (32.5 ft-kips). Selectedrestriking of B and C piles was performed with an 7l kN (8 ton) drop-hammer fal l ing 0.9 rn (3 f t ) , i .e. , a nominal energy of 65 kJ (48 f t -k ips).

Dynamic monitor ing using the Pi le Driv ing Analyzer (Coble et al . 1980)was ctr tployccl dur ing the design phase tcst ing prograrns as wel l as duringt l tc cottstruct ion pl tasc. Monitor i rrg was pcr l i r rrrrcd during ini t ia l dr iv ing, aswcl l as duri l rg restr ik ing.

Dynamic monitoring of pile driving uses data from transducers attachedto the pile near the pile head. The impact from the pile driving hammerproduces strain and acceleration in the pile which are picked up by the trans-ducers and transmitted via a cable to the Pile Driving Analyzer placed in anear-by monitoring station. The Analyzer is a cornputer for acquisition andanalysis of the data, translating strain and acceleration to force and velocityand displaying these data on an oscilloscope .

When the force and velocity measured by the analyzer during the impactare plotted as wave traces in a diagram, the incident force and velocity areproportional via the pile inrpedance (EAf c: area times Young's modulusover wave speed). With the velocity scale proportional to the impedance,initially, force and velocity plot on top of each other. However, when theimpact wave meets soil resistance, a portion of the wave is reflected backtoward the pile head superimposing the downward traveling wave. There-fore, the reflected force wave in combination with the incident force wave

986

N

LrJi \ , " " . "HAREoR)

B and C PILES

\ oo", o,MILWAUKEEDOCKINGFACIL ITYl

)

r T E IFr-o r@ 2@ 3oo

Fl--l0 5 0 r m

./t\'04\\o\"

,/'

FlG. 1. Plan Vlew of Jonew lsland Treatment Plant Showlng Test Plle Locatlons

can exceed the force at inrpact, i.e., the maxirnum force be larger than theimpact force.

A key to visual interpretation of the wave-trace diagram is that the mea-sured force and velocity traces react difl 'erently to the reflection fronr resis-tance along the pile: force incrcases and vclocity dccreases. 1'hc resultingseparation of the two traccs are, therefore, an indication of the size of thelg5istsngs-dynanric and static-and the location and magnitude of shaftresistance is evident frorn the traces.

The dynarnic resistance is a funct ion of pi lc veloci ty, cal led damping. ' I 'hestatic resistance depends on the movetncnt, called quake, required to mo-bilize the ultimate static resistance.'l 'he two rneasurements-force and velocity-are independent from eachother. However, they are caused by the same impact from the hammer andaffected by the same soil resistance and they have to follow the same phys-ical laws of wave propagat ion. T'he CAPWAP analysis nrakes use of thissi tuat ion by nreans ol 'a signal rnatching procedure taking as input one mca-surcment, usually the velocity, and moderating it by reflections computedIiom an assunred distribution of darnping, quake, and soil resistance, andtransferring it to force by means of wave mechanics computation. Througha trial and error procedure, the input data are adjusted until the computedforce trace plots on top of the nreasured force trace. The CAPWAP analysishas then calibrated the site conditions and provided the static bearing ca-pacity of the pilc as wcll as indicated the dynarnic parametcrs governing thepart icular hamnrer/pi le/soi l conrbinat ion.

Resuurs

Penetration and Dynamic Monitoring DataAll piles experienced very little penetration resistance in soil strata I and

2. ln stratum 3, the glacial material, however, the penetration resistancevaried considerably between the test locations.

Figs. 2 and 3 show driving diagrams plotted fronr data obtained duringthe rnonitor ing of pi les A-l and B-2, respect ively, which dr iv ing behaviorrepresents the range of driving conditions encountered. Thc diagrarn includesthc penetration resistance (PRES), the nraximurn frrrce (FMAX), the inrpactforce (FIMP), and the nraximurn transferred cnergy (EMAX), as a functionof depth of the pile toe.

Pi le A-l encountered "refusal" dr iv ing, i .e. , a pcnetrat ion resistance incxccss ol '600 blows/m (200 blows/f t) at a relat ively shal low depth of 37.5(123 f t) , whereas pi le B-2 was terminated at a depth of 47.2 m (155 f t) witha resistance of only 30 blows/m (9 blows/ft). Although a wide range ofpenetration resistance was obtained on the rernaining piles, their driving be-havior was general ly simi lar to that of pi le B-2.

To avoid testing "refusal" driven piles during the piles A design phase,the driving of piles A-2 and A-4 (conrpression-test piles) was terminated ata penetration resistance of 26 blows/0.3 m and 45 blows/0.3 nt. respec-tively, at a penetration into the glacial soil about 1.5 m (5 ft) above expected"refusal" level.

Extrapolating from the observations made when driving piles A, it wasexpected that piles driven at other locations at the site would also meet withpract ical "refusal" sornewhere around the depth of 38 m (125 f t) , i .e. , in

988

Flrllt,5ulot^'Ef6oztoEo=oEl!

IFo.uto

ao(o

(!

O

('a

Toe

(FMAX = FIMP)

IMPACT FORCE I blow/ft = 3.28 blows/m/// l lYlr nuI (F tMP)

1 t_ 1.. 1- { ' ' i " " ' 1 t l - k i P = 1 3 5 6 K J

EgE+ lr 1'r l* ,"or r kip = 4 446 *"RSTR-2 i | |

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/ FT) TRANSFERRED ENERGY (FT.KIPS)

0, ,90 490 690 8q0 lqFORCE (KIPS)

FlG. 2. Drlvlng Dlagram for Plle A-1

the dense layer which pile A-l encountered at the depth of 37.5 m (123 ft).However, and indicative of the highly variable site conditions, in the con-tinued testing at other locations, with the exception of two piles, only mod-erate penetration resistance was obtained in initial driving above a depth ofabout 46 m (150 ft). [The exception piles are piles E-3 and E-5. Pile E-3met "refusal" at a depth of 43.6 m (143 ft) and pile E-5 met "refusal" at32 .3 m (106 f t ) ] .

989

o(!U)

=6

=(t)

o)C'

C)

=6D

oa

uloltEfoozDoE,o=oElrIt-o.UJo

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/ FT) ED ENERGY (FT.KIPS)

FORCE (KrPS)

FlG. 3. Drlvlng Dlagram for Plle B'2

Table 3 summarizes the driving observations for all test piles.The driving of test piles B-D and production piles E-I was terminated at

"nonrefusal" conditions of penetration resistances (PRES) at end of initialdriving (EOID) ranging from l-5 blows/inch.

To illustrate the observed soil set-up, Figs. 4-6 show wave traces obtainedfrom the end of initial driving (EOID) and restriking (RSTR-I-RSTR-S) ofpile B-2. Each set of wave traces shows the measured force and velocity

(FMAX = FIMP)

f

\\\rI\T\

\f -

\I

PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(PRES)

RSTR-3 L____ -h - f h ,

I b low/ t l = 3 .28 b lows/m

1 l l -k ip = t .356 KJ

I kiP = 4.446 *"

I tl = 0.30t18m

200 400 600 800 1000

TABLE 3. Drlvlng Data

Pile( 1 )

Depthof piletoe (ft)

(21

Driving condition(EOID and RSTR)

or static testing(srAr)

(3)

TimeafterEOID(days)

(4)

Penetration Resistance(PRES)

Hammer type| = 200Ci l : 0 1 0

II I : DROP(7)

Blows/in.(s)

Blows/1.0 in .(6)

A - l

B -3

B-4

c-3

D-4

E - l

E-3

A-2

A--1

A-4

B-2

E-2

t t 7

I t o

n7

1 5 5

t23

t42

l5-5

r56

156

t40

r 5 5

t43

EOID"RSTR. I "RSTR-2"ST'N'TEOtD"RST'R- I "RS-t'R-2"l1()l t)STN 'T

EOID"S'TATEOID"RST'R. I "RST'2-2RS' t R-r"s1'A't-RSTR-4"RSl 'R-5-b low # l 'RSTR-5-blow # 100'tsolD'RSI'R- r"STA'[ (PULL)RSTR-2"STATRSTR.3"EOIDRS'|-R- l',RSTR.2"EOII)RSTR- IS'TATRSTR.2"RSTR-3EOID'RS'I 'R- r"STATEOIDRSTR-IRSTR-2"STATEOIDRSTR-IRSTR-2RSTR-3"STATEOID"RSTR.I

I5

l 2

I

t 3

9

267

l 5t 6

132t32

I

8l 0t 3

I9

It 2t 3

t24

I7

56

t 5

889

l 5

I

242 / t2 .U24/O.5020/O.25

26 / t 220 / t . 65r 90/3.901t / t2 .u)

4s / t2oo45/ t2 .U)9 / t2 .00s /2 .Ns/ | .00s/0.80

5 / t , 2 s

t 2 / t 2 . u )il /-5.s0

6/2 .75

3 / 1 . 2 st s / t 2 . u J-sl I .883/0.632t / 12.00s /2 .4O

3/2.U)2t /4.005/6.0O5/ r .-50

t8 / t2 .uJ60/O.2O8/0. r s

ss/t2. f f i8/0.256 / O . t 36/0.0o

22s/t2.OO8/0.2s

204880

2t 2496

44I-t

56

4

;2

:zI3)

z

;z

.5I3

z

3060

53245

t 932

III

IIII

I

;I It lt l

I I II II II II I

I I

'I II II I II II I

I I II II III

I II II I

I II II I

;I I

991

( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) (s) (6) (7)E-4

E-5

F - l

G - l

H - |

H-2

l - l

l-2

l -s3

106

142

140

t44

t42

r 3 9

t39

EOID"RS' IR- I "EOtt)RSTR. I "EOID"RSTR- I 'STA'TRS't'R-2"EOID"RS'I'R- l"RS'TR,2"S'IN Tlloll)RS'[R- r"STATEOIDRSTR- I 'RSTR-2EOII)RS-I'R- r^STA'fEOII)RSTR- I 'RSTR-2

I

t 2

I5 l5 2

I-t

2 l

-5t 4

.J

l 5

7l 8

'l

l 4

24/ t2 .0Os /0.7s300/ r2.007 /0.2sr0 l r2 .00r0l0.63

50/ | .00n / t 220/ l\ /

6 / t 2r 5 l r . 3

t e / t 2t 5 /20/t 4 / t 240/4

t 3 / t 228/7) \ / \

27

2528

It 6

50I

0 . 5t 2

2

ll 0

l48

I InI II II Iil

I II II II I

t lI I

I II II II II I

I II II I

TABLE 3. (Continuedl

"Signif ies that CAPWAP analysis is perforrned.N o t e : I b l o w / f t = 3 . 2 8 b l o w s / n r ; I f r : 0 . 3 0 4 8 n r

and, for the first four sets, also the transferred energy wave at days 0,2,7, 16, and 132. A cornparison betwccn thc traccs indicates clear ly that thesoi l resistarrce at EOID is srnal l and increascs with t inre after dr iv ing, asevidenccd by the scparation ol'the lorcc and vckrcity traces. For a principaldiscussion on visual interpretation of wave traces, see Rausche et al. (1972),and Authier and Fel lenius ( 1983).

CAPWAP AnalysesSelected wave traces were analyzed using the CAPWAP computer pro-

gram (Rausche et al. 1972). The results are sumnrarized in Tables 4 and 5.'fable 4 gives the evaluated values of stress, energy, and mobilized total,shafi, and toe static resistances.

Table 5 gives the damping factors and quake values used to obtain a CAP-WAP rnatch and the calculated maximum toe displacement obtained in theCAPWAP analysis (the calculated maxinrum toe displacement are not avail-able for piles E and F).

The CAPWAP analysis of the pile capacity assumes that the pile displace-ment equals or exceeds the soil quake values. However, several of the CAP-WAP analyses were performed on data obtained from piles driven against apenetration resistance greater than about l0 blows/in., that is, the maximumpile toe displacemcnt was smaller than the actual soil quake. In such a case,

992

5OO KIPS20 FT.KIPS

250 KIPSIO FT-KIPS

500 KrPs20 FT.KIPS

250 KIPSIO FT-KIPS

I fl-tip = I 356 XJ

I t i p = l a a S K N TIME

FlG. 4. Plle B-2 Force, Veloclty, and Energy Wave Traces (EOID and RSTR-I)

the static soil resistance is not fully rnobilized and the CAPWAP determinedresistance is smaller than the available ultimate resistance. Such lower boundCAPWAP resistance values are shown in brackets in Table 4. For additionaldiscussion on CAPWAP analysis and quake, see Authier and Fellenius (1980).

Piles G, H, and / were all the same size, installed with the same hammerto essent ial ly the same depth, i .e. ,42-44 m (139-144 f t) , and al l the CAP-WAP analyses were performed on driving records taken during restriking(RSTR) within the first seven days after the initial driving. Therefore, itwould be expected that the piles should have approximately the sanre ca-pacity. However, the results of the CAPWAP analyses indicate a spread ofultimate resistance from 1,650 to 2,500 kN (186 to 280 tons), as summarizedin Table 4, which further demonstrates the variability of the glacial soils.

Static Loading TestsSix static axial compression tests were performed during design phase test-

ing using a 4,500 kN (500 tons) loaded platform (dead weight) arrangement.An additional seven compression tests were conducted during production piledr iv ing.

By means of a full length telltale, the displacement of the pile toe was

z L i lT "'t..-r.-..r't'

oEUJzul

st;x

F6oJu,

utollolr

olEl!zut

Sl"x

6oJul

ut(JGolt

993

oGu,2u,

dlox

F6oJUJ

utoEolt

C'ElrJzln

fit;x

F6oJu,

uioEott

500 KtPs20 FT-KIPS

2s0 KtPsIO FT -K IPS

5OO KIPS20 FT.KIPS

250 KtPS.IO FT.KIPS

0

20 ms

2L '*..c

TIME

'""-.-..------.-/"| f i - k ip . t 356 KJ

I kio = il 4,18 XN

FlG. 5. Plle B-2 Force, Veloclty, and Energy Wave Traces (RSTR-3 and RSTR-4)

rneasured in the axial compression piles. The telltale arrangement followedthe reconnnendat ions in ASTM D-l143-81.'l 'wo

axial tension tests (piles A-3 and B-3) were also performed duringdesign phase testing. These piles were driven in a 9 m (30 ft) deep casedhole to elirninate the direct influence of stratum l, the fil l. As indicated inTable 3, pile B-3 was tested first in compression and then in tension.'lhe arrangernents for the conrpression and tension tests followed the ASTMDl143-81 and D3689-78 designat ions, respect ively. The quick maintained-load method of testing was applied using small constant increments of loadapplied every l0 minutes. For compression testing, the range of load incre-ments used was 7l kN (8 tons) for pile F-l to 133 kN (15 tons) for pile A-l. For tension testing, the load increnrent was 44 kN (5 tons). All loadswere measured by means of a full-bridge strain-gage load cell using the jackmanometer only as a back-up gage. The pipe piles were fil led with concrete,which was cured for at least 5 days before static testing.

Figs. 7 and 8 show the compression test load-movement behavior of twoof the piles, piles A-4 and B-2. The diagrams show the pile-head and pile-toe movements and the compression of the full length of the pile, as mea-sured from the telltales.

500 KtPs20 FT-KIPS

250 KIPS1O FT-KIPS

500 KtPs20 FT-KIPS

250 KIPS1O FT.KIPS

I tl-kip = 1 355 11.,1

I k i p = 4 a 1 8 X N

FlG. 6. Plle B-2 Force, Veloclty, and Energy Wave Traces (RSTR-S)

'l 'hc pilc-hcad rnovelncnt curves wcre alralyzcd lilr load lirtrits using thentethods by Davisson, Butler and Hoy, Fuller and Hoy (Nordlund), Brinch-Hansen, and Chin (Kondner), as summarized by Fel lenius (1980). The loadlimits obtained are indicated in the load-nlovernent diagrarns.

Most of the compression-tested piles show a load-movement behavior sinr-i lar to that of pi le A-4 (Fig. 7), i .e. , the pi le-head load-movement is ap-proximately l inear up to a head movement of about 25 mm (1.0 in.) and atoe movement of about l0 mm (0.5 in.), whereafter the movement becomesvery large for little or no increase in load. In contrast, the test results frompi les B-2, B-3, and C-3 do not show this plunging behavior. Instead, theload-movement curve continues to rise in a slightly bending curve even atan appreciably large pi le-head movement (120 rnm,5 in. , for pi le B-2). Forthese tests, the load limit evaluations (e.g., Brinch-Hansen 807o criterion)indicate that ultimate failure has noi been reached.

CAPWAP and Static Test Capacity versus TimeThe capacities of the piles as determined by means of CAPWAP analysis

and static testing have been compiled in Table 6. The compilation is re-stricted to the results of the CAPWAP analyses made on blows where thefull resistance of the piles was mobilized. i.e. where the calculated maximum

fi1"x

F6oJu,

uioCEolt

fi1"x

6olrl

ui()Golt

20 ms

99s

TABLE 4. Summary of Stress, Transferred Energy and Moblllzed Statlc Soll Re-slstance

Pile( 1 )

Blow Set(2)

Maximumlransferred

energy (EMAX)(ft-kips)

(3)

lmpactStress(srMP)(ksi)(4)

Mobilized Static SoilResistance lromCAPWAP (kips)

Shatl(5)

Toe(6)

Total(7)

n - l

A-2

A-4B-2

B-3

B-4

c-3D-4

E - lE-2E-3E-4E-5

F - l

c - l

H - t

H-2

t - |

l - l

EOIDRS'[R-lRSTR-2EOIDRSTR-IRSTR-2EOIDEOIDRSTR-IRSTR.3RSTR.4RSTR-5-blow # IRSTR-S-blow #l0OEOIDRSTR.IRSTR-2RSTR.3EOIDRSTR.IRSTR.2RSTR.2EOIDRSTR.IRSTR-2RSTR-3EOIDEOIDRSTR. IRSTR- IEOIDRSTR.IRSTR.2EOIDRSTR-IRSTR-2EOIDRSTR-IEOIDRSTR. IRSTR-2EOIDRSTR.IEOIDRSTR.IRSTR-2

28283 lI 625t 92525t 82 l352322l 9l 4t 9282 l2 l3 t38))t 8I 9l 920l 8l 922r 822t 52 l20l 9t 8t 8

t 9202623

l 82 l

26283 tt 62525r 924222422252823l 822202022) 1

;252423252 l26262526262425232420

24222625

2025

( r 2 9 )(274)(329)l t 6278

(294',)t -5 |7 l

230298379

(4s2)(406)

70t9'l2022't9t05242328r50l l t268

(416)(376)( l r 5 )

68289

(252)t72368

(s r0)t42422424

395

;

;

346

(26t)( r e r )( 1 8 9 )

96144

( i l 3 )t203940427 l

(63)(72)3538t 856403372

24039t 2

( r r 4 )(t24)( l 2 s )t52129

( 1 8 3 )l 592

(65)t 32530

5

;

;

l 9

(390)(46s)( 5 r 8 )2t2422

(4o7)271l l 0270340450

( 5 1 5 )(478)r05235220335r45275400390r50340

(530)(50o)(240',)2204 1 8

(43s)187460

(57s)t55447454

400

i,

;

365

Note: Parentheses around mobilized static resistance indicate lower bound values. i.e.. the toemovenrent was insufficient to mobilize the full static resistance. I kip = 4.443 kN; I ft-kip = 1.356kJ; I ks i : 6.895 kPa.

996

Pile( 1 )

Blow set(2)

DAMPING FACTORS

Quake ( in.)Maximum toedisplacement

(in.)(e)

CassSmilh

Shaft(sec/ft)

(s)

Toe(sec/ft)

(6)Shafl

(3)Toe(4)

Shafl{7)

Toe(8)

A - l

B-4

c-3D-4

E - lE-2E-3E-4

E-5F - l

c - l

H - l

H-2

I - |

A-2

A-4B-2

ts-3

EOIDRSTR- IRSTR.2EOtt)RSTR- IRSTR-2EOIDEOIT)RSTR- IRS'I'R.3RSTR-4RSTR-5-blow- IRSTR-5-blow- 100EOIDRSTR. IRSTR.2RSTR.3EOII)RSTR. IRSTR-2RSTR-2EOIDRSTR. IRSTR-2RSTR-3EOIDEOII)RSl 'R . IRS'I 'R.IEOIDRSTR.IRSTR.2EOIDRSTR. IRST'R-2EOIDRSTR- IEOIDRSI'R.IRSTR-2EOIDRSTR- IRSTR-2

0.500.45o.700 . 3 00.500.400.300 . l 50 .550.700.70o.950 . 7 80 . 2 5o.640.700.870.450.450.800.250.20o . 2 50.450.450.40o . 2 7o.450.2 t t0 .020.800.450.390.950.90

L20

o . 7 2

t . 8 4

o.400.05o.o5o.20o.40o.020.300 . l 00 . l 00 . I 00 . l 5o . 2 20 . r 30 . l 20 . l 00 .050 . i l0 . t 00.070 . t 00 . l 00 . t 50 .700.350 . t 80 .300 . t 70 .20o . 2 20 . 0 10.200.450.200 . t 00 . l 5

0.07

o.06

0 . t 0

0 . l 0 t0 .430.0550.067o.o470.o350.0520.07 |0 .0800.0790.065o.760.0690 . t 2 00 . 1 0 90 . 1 1 60 . 1 0 4o . 1 4 40.0620.0820.0760.0500.0260.0300.0330.096o. i lo0 ,043o.03 |0.0230.0640.0390.0760.0620.058

0.085

o.056

0.099

0.0400.0070.o07o.0540.o72o.0050.0650.0860.0840.0800.064o.126o.0650 . t r 50.0870.0910.0680.0840 . 0 7 1o.o4' l0 .0370 . 1 0 6o.2690.0850.0400.0660.03 to.04-1o.o.t30 . r 3 30.0640 . 0 3 10.0450 . l l l0 . 1 3 8

0.359

o.096

o . 1 7 2

0 . l 00.04o.o30 . l 00 . r 00.070.080 . l 2o . t 20 . l 20 . r 20 . l 20.090 . l 00 . l 00 .08

o. t2*o .22o . 1 2o . 1 20 . t 2o . t 20 . l 50 . l 5

0.06-0. | 50 . t 00 . t 50 . t 5o.09o . t oo . l 50 . l 40 . t 50 .060 . l 20 .08

o . t 2

0.06

t *

0 . t 5o.04o.03o.20o.250.06o.750 . I 20 . l 2o . t 20 . t 20 . t 20.09o . l o0 , t o0 . t oo . t 2o . t 2o . l 2o . t 20 .500.80o.220.050 . t 00 . t 00 . 3 00.090.050 . l 50 . t 4o . l 30.06o . t 20 .08

o.08

t *

0.05

0 . l 60.040.03o.47o.260.07

1 . 6 30.46o.37o.32

rloa0.380.ff0 .580.970.630.430.820.98o.24

;0 . l 00.09

o . l 0

;

0.05

TABLE 5. Summary ot Dynamlc Soll Parameters

Nore: I f t : 0.3048 m: I in. : 25.40 mm.

toe movement is greater than the quake.The data are alranged four groups: piles A-2 and A-4, both with length

of 36 m (l17 ft); piles B-2 and B-4, both with length 47 m (155 ft); pilesE-2,F-1, G-I , H-I , H-2, I -1, and l-2, al l wi th a length of about 43 m (140

IOEMOVEMENT /HEAO

z'li'ci,t"en,t- - - - ; - .>*=t_._./ /- prr-e

--\. ---ir

i ! ' coMPREssroN i i

i f ! !r , ,

!t,it!

t,t

t,!,!

t

^ 400tngIo5 sooJJ

FoF'

200

100

800

700

600

500

0 0 5 | . 0 1 . 5 2 . O

MOVEtTENT (tNCHES'

I k tp = 4 446 111

I inch = 25 40 mm

FlG. 7. Plle A-4

FlG. 8. Plle B-2

P I ! Ec o M P R E S S T O N -

i / 'f . . '' /

.t .a

.i... a

H€AOMOVEMENT\

l1t ' ,*. ' r- ' -- .--. . .-1 .--*t l- :- . - ' t , -

' - ' \ - |

.-...-..- \ |t ,t t

. j - i i. " i iI tl !t lt !I tl . tt ,r. .l! .,'t ii tl lt t 'l l, aI t

998

Note: I ft = 0.3048 m; I kip : 4.448 kN.

ft); and piles B-3 and E-4, which differ in rength from those of the othergroups.

The data in Table 6 have been plotted in Fig. 9 showing capacity versustirne in days after driving. "l"hree main aspects are eviclcnt from thii figure.First, the cAPwAP detennined capacity increases rapidly over the firsl dayor two, and continues thereafter to increase at a slow but steady rate. Sec-ond, there is a considerable scatter between the capacities obtained reflectingthe variable soil conditions at the site. See, for initance, the results of statiitesting of piles E-2 and H-1. These piles are equar in size and length. yet,thecapacity of pile E-2 is almost 75vo greater than that of pile H-1, as foundin the static loading tests performed on the two piles after about the samenumber of days after initial driving. Third, and lnost important, when theeffect of time and soil set-up is considered, the cApwAp determined ca-

TABLE6. Compllatlon of Dynamlc and Statlc Tesilng DataPile( 1 )

Length (ft)(2)

Blow type(3)

Day(4)

Rult (kips)(5)

A-2

A-4

B-2

It-4

E-2F - l

G - t

H - l

H-2I - l

t -2B-3

E-4

n7

tt7

t 5 5

l-5-5

t40t42

t40

144

142t 3 9

1 3 9t42

r53

EOII)RSTR-IEOIDSTATEOII)RSTR-IRSTR-3STATRS'rR-4EOII)RS'I 'R.IRSTR-2STATEOID .RSTR-ISTA'TEOII)RSTR-IRSTR-2STATRS'TR.ISTATRSTR-IRSTR-ISTATRSTR-IEOIDRSTR.ISTATRSTR-3EOIDRS R- I

oI09027

l 5t 6oI9

t 50I

5 t0I3

2 l5

t 437

l 870I

t 0l 30l

2t2422270508l t 0270340

314-5704.50t462724006601 8 8460660t56448454660400380372530560366r06236

204-3483362204 t 8

999

o i rerF . r s5l day t

- H - r----cSTAT

.+4 . 3

r r -r-T -T-T'-T---r-T--t5 t 0 1 5

S'AT8 , 2

2m

1W

LECEXO

a A . 2 , A . 1

B 8 ' 2 . B r

O E - 2a F - r , G - 1 , r - rO H . r . H - 2 . r . 2

t B - 3a € - 4

llXE (d.tr)

TOTES: SYMBOTS AFE USEO IO S€PARATE PIL€S INTO GFOUPSHAVING THE APPROXIMAT€ SAME L€NGIH ANO CAPACITY

'SIAI INDICAIES TAAT THf CAFACITY IS O€T€NMINEOtN a s la lc roAotNG rEs t

20

I l i p ' 4 a a 8 X N

FlG. 9. Capaclty versus Tlme

pacities agree well with the results of the static testing. Where there is arange of load limits found in the static test, the CAPWAP determined ca-pacity is as representative a value as any of the load limits.

The bearing capacity conditions at the site are obviously highly variable.Therefore, had the dynamic monitoring and subsequent CAPWAP analysisnot been available to the engineers, it is probable that the variations wouldhave caused severe decision problems at the site during both the design andconstruction phases. Most ceftainly, the piles would have been installed muchdeeper than necessary.

CoNcr-usroHs

For the piles driven to a depth of about 43 m (140 ft), the initial drivingof all but two piles was terminated at a penetration resistance of I to 5blows/in. When restriking the piles, increased penetration resistance wasobserved indicating the occurrence of soil set-up. The soil set-up was con-firmed both visually front the wave traces and in the CAPWAP analysesshowing that the increase in resistance was not due to a reduced hammerefficiency or other random influence.

The testing involved seven heavy-wall pipe piles, all about 43 m (140 ft)in length, which were analyzed by means of CAPWAP and five piles testedto failure in static compression loading. Both the capacities determined bymeans of CAPWAP analysis and by static testing show that the static resis-tance for the piles varies widely and randomly over the site.

A study of capacity versus days aftcr driving (Fig. 9) shows that the soilset-up occurred rapidly during the first day after initial driving and then con-

1000

tinued at a slow but steady rate for at least several weeks.When comparing the capacities detbnnined in a CAPWAP analysis and a

static load tcst, it is lirund that thc CAPWAP arralysis is in gtxrd agrccnrcntwith the results ol ' the stat ic test ing, provided the CAPWAP analysis is per-formed on a blow where the hammer has been able to mobilize the full soilresistance and that the effect of tinre and soil set-up are considered.

T'he compilation shown in Fig. 9 indicates that the bearing capacity con-ditions at the site arc highly variable. l{ad thc dynalnic nronitoring and sub-sequent CAPWAP analysis not been available to the engineers, it is probablethat the variations would have caused severe decision problems at the siteduring both thc dcsign and construct ion phascs.

AcxnowleDcMENTS

The geotechnical investigations for this project were one element of theoverall design of the Jones lsland Wastewater Treatment Plant expansionconducted for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). Per-rtrission of MMSD to present the data is gratefully acknowledged.'Ihe writers wish to thank Edward E. Gillen Company for providing ad-ditional restriking beyond their contractual obligations and for valuable as-sistance in obtaining the data.

ApprHorx. RereneNces

Authier, J., and Fellenius, B. H. (1980). "Quake values determined from dynamicmeasurements." Proc. Int. Seninar on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory onPiles, Stockholrn, 1980, H. Bredenberg, Ed., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 197-2 t 6 .

Authier, J. , and Fel lenius, B. H. (1983). "Wave equat ion analysis and dynamic mon-itoring of pile driving." Civil Engineering for Prac'tising and Desigtr Engineers,Vol. 2, Pergamon Press Inc., New York, N.Y., l -20.

Fel lenius. B. H. (1980). "The analysis of results f torn rout ine pi le loading tests."()rttuttd [ingineering, Founclation Publishing Ltd.. Lonclon, l3(5), 395*397.

[ :c l len ius. B. t l . , e t a l . (1983). "Dynamic rnoni tor ing ancl convent ional p i le test ingprocedures." Proc., CortJ'. ort Dlnanic Measurements of Pile.s and Piers, ASCESpring Convention, Philadelphia, PA.

Goble, G. G. , Rausche, F. , and Moses, F. (1970). *Dynamic studies on the bear ingcapaci ty of p i les." Phase l l l . Report No. 48, Vol . I and 2, Div is ion of Sol idMechanics, Structures, and Mechanical Design, Case Western Reserve University,Cleveland, OH.

Goble, G. G. , Rausche, F. , and L ik ins, G. E.(1980). "The analys is of p i le dr iv ing.A state-of-the-art." Proc., lst Itrt. Sentinar on tlrc Application of Stre.ss-Wave The-orl ot, Pilc.s, Stockholrn, 1980, H. Bredenberg, Ed., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdarn,t3t - t62.

Rausche, F. , Moses, F. , and Goble, G. G. (1972). 'Soi l res is tance predict ior rs f rompile dynanrics." "/. Sor/ Mech. and Found. Engrg., 98(SM9), 917-937.

1001