You are on page 1of 19

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.

Dvnanatcnnu S'rnrrc TnslrNGrN Sorl Exrrrnrlrnc Snr'-Up


Ily llengt H. Fellenius,rRichard li. Riker,2 Arthur .I. O'Brien,l and Gerald R. Tracy,a Melrrbers, ASCE
Aasrnacr: P i l e f o u n d a t i o r r s t u d i e s w e r e c o n d u c t e c lo n f < r u r t y p e s o f s t e e l p i l e s driven through estuarinc deposited soils and into a highly variable glacial deposit 'I'wcnty t() total dcpths of 33-48 rn (l l0-15(r ft). pilcs wcrc subjected to dynarnic r n o r r i l < l r i r r gl u r i r r g i n i t i a l t l r i v i n g a n r l r c s t r i k i r r g . l ' - o r a l l t l r c r r l r r r i t o r e t l p i l c s , s t a t i c t I o a c l i n g t c s l s w c r c c a r r i e d o u t t o I a i l u r e a n d t h c r c s u l t s c o r r r p a r c ( lt ( ) u l t i n r a t e r e s i s t a n c e s d e t e r n r i n e c li n a C A I ' W A P a n a l y s i s . W i t h t w o e x c c p t i o n s , t h e d r i v i n g u'as generally very easy above a depth of 46 nr ( l-50 ft). Restriking at dif'ferent t i n r c s a { t c r c l r i v i n g s h o w c d t h a t t h e p c n e t r a t i ( ) nr c s i s ( a n c ei r r c r c a s c dd u e l o t h e d e v t l o p r r c r r t o f s o i l s c t - u p o t c u r r i r r g w i t h i n t h c l i l s t r v c c k a l t t r i r r i t i t l r l r i v i r r ga n t l t h a t l h c l i n a l p i l c c r p a c i t i c s v a r y c o n s i t l c r a b l ya r r t l n r r r t l o n r l y c r o s s t h c s i t c . ' l h c a CAPWAP-dcterrnined pile capacitics at rcstriking agreed well with the results ol' the static loading tests (whcn thc latter coultl be clcarly rlefined and the harnrner had hccn able to rnovc thc pilc in thc rcstriking). Whcn thc capacity could not be < l c l i r t c r il t r t l t c s t u t i c t c s t , t l r c ( ' n I ' W n t ' d c t c r r r r i n c r lt r l t i r r r i r t lcc s i s t r r r r c w . r s i l s u s c i t b l c : t s t l t c c r t t t v c n l i o r u rrlr r c t l r o t l si r r t l c ( c r r r r i r r i r r ur c l o u d l i r r r i to l t l l c s t u l i c l c s t . l tl

lHtnooucnoru In 1980, Milwaukcc the Metropolitan District began extenan Seweragc


s i v e p r o . i c c t t o u p g r a c l ei t s f a c i l i t i c s f o r i n t c r c c p t i n g a n d t r c a t i n g s a n i l a r y scwagc and storrnwatcr runol-[. A significant part of thc pro.iect involves 'I-reatrnent i r n p r o v e r n c l l tt o t h e e x i s t i n g J o n e s l s l a n d W a s t c w a t e r Plant loc a t e d n e a r M i l w a u k c e H a r b o r a t t h e c o n l l u c n c eo l ' t h c K i n n i c k i n n i c a n d M i l waukee Rivers. I ' h e $ 3 - 5 0m i l l i o n J o n e s I s l a n d p r o j e c t i n c l u d e s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p r e l i r n i n a r y . p r i r n a r y , a n d s e c o n d a r y t r e a t n r c n t{ ' a c i l i t i c sa l o n g w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n s 'fhe to exisling lacilities. t s o i l c o n d i t i o n s n c c e s s i t a l c h c i n s t a l l a t i o no f 3 , 0 0 0 t o 4 , 0 0 0 p i l e s a t a n c s t i n l a t e dc o s t o f $ 2 0 n r i l l i o n . P i l c f o u n d a t i o n s t u d i e s w c r e c o n d u c t e dd u r i n g d c s i g r ra n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o n lirur pilc typcs: L 2. 3. 4. N o r n r a l - w a l lp i p e p i l e s . H-piles. Mandrel-driven ipe piles. p S r n a l l - d i a m e t eh e a v y - w a l lp i p e p i l e s . r

A l l p i p e p i l e s w e r e d r i v e n c l o s e d t o e . ' l - h e s t u d i e s i n t e g r a t e dc o n v e n t i o n a l s t a t i c t e s t i n g w i t h d y n a r r r i cn r o n i t o r i n g a n d a n a l y s i s a n d w e r e p e r f o r n l e d t o s e l e c t a n d q u a l i f y p i l e t y p e s a n d h a l n r n e r s ,d e t e n n i r ) c p i l e c a p a c i t i e s , a n d ' P r o f . , U n i v . o [ O t t a w a .I ) c p t . , o f C i v . E , n g r g .O t t a w a .C a n a d a . tCtt2tvt-ttilt, orvallis, R. C O 'Cttztr,t-llitt. ashincron. C. w D octtztr,t-ttitt, C o r v a l l i s .O R . N o t e . D i s c u s s i o n p e n u n t i l D e c e r n b e lr, 1 9 8 9 . ' l - oc x t c n d t h e c l o s i n gd a t e o n e o nrontlr, a written requestmust be filed with the A,SCE Managerof Journals.The rnanuscript this paperwas submitted review and pcrssible publication March on for for 8, 1988. This papcr is part of theJournal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. I l-5, No. 7, July,1989. 984

provide reference infonnationto use in construction pile inspection and quality control. Early in the testing program, it was ftrund that the piles could be driven to bcdrock and thcre obtain a geotechnical capacity in excessof that required. It was also lbund that the soils exhibitedsignificantincrease pile in capacitywith tinre after driving,i.e., soil set-up.Therefore,a secondary purposeof the testing becameto find the minimurn length of pile required to support the loads (without having to reach the bedrock) for piles with service loads of 90 kN (100 tons). l'his necessitated the soil set-upbe that studiedand considered the design. in The results from nine piles included in the design testing program and l'rottt clcvcttol-thc production pilcsarc prcscntcd tlrispaper.Filtcenstatic in lcsts wcre pcrlirrlrrcd-eight in the initial tcstilrgpr()gratn and scvenduring 'l'he driving of productionpiling. writers reportedthe resultsof preliminary tcsting programsat the 1983 ASCE conference Dynamic Measurements on of Pilesand Piers(Fellenius al. 1983).Thesepreviously published et results arc sunlrnarizcd herein and conrpiledwith thc resultsof the productionpile tcsting. GeHenll lHronmalon Geotechnicalinvestigations rcvealcd ftrur ntain strataat the site, as pre't'he scntedin Table | . groundwater table lics about2.5 rn (8 ft) below grade and is hydrostatically distributed. Stratum2 is a compressible estuarine depositthat varies in thicknessand colnposition betwecn boreholes.All piles were founded in stratum 3, the glacial nraterial,which containsdistinct layersor less of comparativelyhomogeneous clay and silt, sand, and gravel, and heterogeneous mixtures of all thesematerials.The glacial soil is highly variablein profile and density throughoutthe project site. Of the four pile types included in the design phasetesting programmes, three were top-drivenpiles-norrnal and heavy wall closed-toe(flush endTABLE 1. Soll Condltlons

Stratum (1)
I 2

Type of material (2)

Average Estimated undrainedangleol Unit shear effective Thickness weight strength friction (5) (3) (4) (6)
l5-25 fr 60-70 fr
I l0 pcf 105 pcf

3
4

M i s c e l l a n e o ue a r t h l i l l s Soft to nredium stiff cornpressible postglacialsilty clay and clayey silt with organics (estuarine) Glacial soil deposits Dolomite bedrock

prf SOO

30' 26-29"

85-95 ft I 15 pcf 4,(M) psf At depth 165-215t f

35-38"

Note: Groundwater table is 8 ft below grade, and pore pressure is hydrostatically distributed: I ft : 0.3(X8 m; and I pcf : 0. 16 kN/mr.

985

TABLE 2. Test Plles


Area (sq in.) Steel area,A. (4) 14.6 t8 . 4 8.2 t3.4 ls.5 Concrete atea,4,. (5) I t3.l 0 145.8 140.5 57.2

Type (1)
wall pipe H-pile Thin wall pipe, rnandrel-driven Ilcavy wall pipe (srnall diarneter) Note: I in. : 'l'hin

Designation (21 A B C

S i z e( i n . ) (3) 1 2 . 7 5x 0 . 3 7 5 l2 HP63 x 14.00 0.188 ( 1 4 . 0 0x 0 . 3 1 2 , / l o w e r 2D ft) 9.63 x 0.-545

D, E, FG,H,I

25.40 mnr; I sq in. :645.2

mm2; I ft : 0.3048 m.

plate)steelpipe piles, and steelH-piles-and one was a mandrel-driven thinwall pipe pile. l'he productionpiles were heavy-wallpipe piles. The design phasetest piles have been denotedlettersA, B, C, and D, while the production piles have been denotedlettersE, F, G, /{. and /. Details on these piles are given in 'fable 2. Fig. I shows a plan view of the treatmentplant and the locationsof the test piles. The test piles were driven to depthsof 33 to 48 rn (ll0 to 156 ft) and the productionpiles were generallyinstalledto a depth of about 42 to 46 m (140 to 150 ft). T'hedesiredserviceload on the piles in the project ranged from 900 to 1,300kN (100 to 150 tons). 'I'able The A-piles (see 2) were driven and restruckwith a Vulcan 200C double acting hammerhaving a nominal (rated)energyof 68 kJ (50 ft-kips). Except as noted, all other piles were driven and restruckwith a Vulcan 010 single-acting hamrnerwith a nominalenergyof 44 kJ (32.5 ft-kips). Selected restriking of B and C piles was performed with an 7l kN (8 ton) drophammerfalling 0.9 rn (3 ft), i.e., a nominalenergyof 65 kJ (48 ft-kips). Dynamic monitoringusingthe Pile Driving Analyzer(Coble et al. 1980) was ctrtployccl during the designphasetcstingprograrns well as during as tltc cottstruction pltasc.Monitorirrg was pcrlirrrrrcd during initial driving, as wcll as durilrgrestriking. Dynamic monitoring of pile driving usesdata from transducers attached to the pile near the pile head. The impact from the pile driving hammer produces strainand acceleration the pile which are picked up by the transin ducersand transmittedvia a cable to the Pile Driving Analyzer placed in a near-bymonitoring station.The Analyzer is a cornputerfor acquisitionand analysisof the data, translating strain and acceleration force and velocity to and displayingthesedata on an oscilloscope . When the force and velocity measuredby the analyzerduring the impact are plotted as wave tracesin a diagram, the incident force and velocity are proportionalvia the pile inrpedance (EAf c: area times Young's modulus over wave speed).With the velocity scale proportionalto the impedance, initially, force and velocity plot on top of each other. However, when the impact wave meetssoil resistance, portion of the wave is reflectedback a toward the pile head superimposing downward traveling wave. Therethe fore, the reflected force wave in combination with the incident force wave
986

LrJi
o

\,""."
HAREoR)

Fr-r@

rTEI

2@ 3oo

B and C PILES

050rm

Fl--l

\ oo", o,
MILWAUKEE DOCKING FACILITYl

'04\\
./t\

o\"

,/'

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

can exceedthe force at inrpact,i.e., the maxirnumforce be larger than the impact force. A key to visual interpretation the wave-trace of diagram is that the measured force and velocity tracesreact difl'erentlyto the reflectionfronr resistance along the pile: force incrcases 1'hc resulting and vclocity dccreases. separation the two traccsare, therefore,an indicationof the size of the of lg5istsngs-dynanric and static-and the location and magnitudeof shaft resistance evident frorn the traces. is The dynarnic resistance a functionof pilc velocity,calleddamping.'I'he is static resistance dependson the movetncnt,called quake, required to mobilize the ultimate static resistance. 'l'he two rneasurements-force and velocity-are independent from each other. However, they are causedby the sameimpact from the hammer and affectedby the samesoil resistance and they have to follow the samephysical laws of wave propagation. T'he CAPWAP analysisnrakesuse of this situation nreans by ol'a signalrnatching procedure taking as input one mcasurcment,usually the velocity, and moderatingit by reflectionscomputed Iiom an assunred distributionof darnping,quake, and soil resistance, and transferringit to force by meansof wave mechanics computation.Through a trial and error procedure,the input data are adjusteduntil the computed force trace plots on top of the nreasured force trace. The CAPWAP analysis has then calibratedthe site conditionsand provided the static bearing capacity of the pilc as wcll as indicatedthe dynarnicparametcrs governingthe particular hamnrer/pile/soil conrbination.

Resuurs
Penetration and Dynamic Monitoring Data All piles experienced very little penetration resistance soil strata I and in 2. ln stratum 3, the glacial material, however, the penetrationresistance varied considerably betweenthe test locations. Figs. 2 and 3 show driving diagramsplotted fronr data obtainedduring the rnonitoring piles A-l and B-2, respectively, of which driving behavior represents rangeof driving conditions the encountered. Thc diagrarnincludes (PRES),the nraximurnfrrrce(FMAX), the inrpact thc penetration resistance force (FIMP), and the nraximurntransferred cnergy (EMAX), as a function of depth of the pile toe. Pile A-l encountered "refusal" driving, i.e., a pcnetration resistance in cxccssol'600 blows/m (200 blows/ft) at a relatively shallowdepthof 37.5 (123 ft), whereas pile B-2 was terminated a depthof 47.2 m (155 ft) with at a resistance only 30 blows/m (9 blows/ft). Although a wide range of of penetration resistance was obtainedon the rernaining piles, their driving behavior was generally similar to that of pile 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 terminatedat a penetration resistance 26 blows/0.3 m and 45 blows/0.3 nt. respecof tively, at a penetration into the glacial soil about 1.5 m (5 ft) aboveexpected "refusal" level. Extrapolatingfrom the observations made when driving piles A, it was expectedthat piles driven at other locationsat the site would also meet with practical"refusal" sornewhere aroundthe depth of 38 m (125 ft), i.e., in
988

( F M A X= F I M P )

F lrl lt,

5
ul

a o
(o
(!

t^' E f 6

o z t o
E

(' a

o = o
E
l!

I F o. ut

Toe
-

///

IMPACT FORCE nu
llYlr

= blows/m I blow/ft 3.28


1tl-kiP=1356KJ

EgE+1 RSTR-2

t_ 1'r l* lr 1.. 1 ,"or | i |

I {

(' F" t M P ) ' i "'

= *" r kip 4446

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

0,

,90

490

690

8q0

lq

(KIPS) FORCE FlG.2. DrlvlngDlagram PlleA-1 for at the denselayer which pile A-l encountered the depth of 37.5 m (123 ft). However, and indicativeof the highly variablesite conditions,in the continued testingat other locations,with the exceptionof two piles, only modwas obtainedin initial driving above a depth of eratepenetration resistance about 46 m (150 ft). [The exceptionpiles are piles E-3 and E-5. Pile E-3 met "refusal" at a depth of 43.6 m (143 ft) and pile E-5 met "refusal" at 32.3 m (106ft)].
989

o U)
(!

= 6

(t) o)
C'

ul

o
lt E f

C)

( F M A X= F I M P )

o z
D
f

= 6
D

o a

E lr I to. UJ

o E, o = o

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (PRES)

\ \ \ r I \ T \ \
f-

\ I
I blow/tl = 3.28blows/m 1 ll-kip = t.356 KJ

RSTR-3
h-fh ,

L____-

I kiP = 4.446 *" I tl = 0.30t18m

(BLOWS/ PENETRATION FT) RESISTANCE

(FT.KIPS) ED ENERGY

200

400

600 (KrPS) FORCE

800

1000

for FlG. 3. DrlvlngDlagram Plle B'2 for the Table 3 summarizes driving observations all test piles. The driving of test piles B-D and productionpiles E-I was terminatedat (PRES) at end of initial "nonrefusal" conditionsof penetration resistances driving (EOID) ranging from l-5 blows/inch. soil set-up,Figs. 4-6 show wave tracesobtained To illustratethe observed from the end of initial driving (EOID) and restriking(RSTR-I-RSTR-S) of pile B-2. Each set of wave traces shows the measuredforce and velocity

TABLE 3. DrlvlngData
Depth of pile Pile toe (ft) (1) (21 A-l t23 Drivingcondition (EOIDand RSTR) or static testing Time Hammer type Penetration Resistance | = 200C after (PRES) EOID il:010 (days) Blows/in. B l o w s / 1 . 0 n . III : DROP i (4) (6) (s) (7) I 5 l2 I 242/t2.U 24/O.50 20/O.25 2 6 /t 2 2 0 /t . 6 5 r9 0 / 3 . 9 0 1 t/ t 2 . u ) 20 48 80 2 t2 49 6 4 4 I
-t

(srAr)
(3)

A-2

tt7

A--1 A-4 B-2

Ito

n7
155

EOID" RSTR.I" RSTR-2" ST'N'T EOtD" RST'RI" RS-t'R-2" l1()lt) 'T STN EOID" S'TAT EOID" RST'R. I" RST'2-2 RS't -r" R s1'A'tRSTR-4" RSl'R-5-blow l' # RSTR-5-blow 100' #

I I I I I I I I ; II tl tl III II II II II II

t3

4s/ t2oo
9 2 6 7 l5 t6 5/t,2s 132 t32 I 8 l0 t3 I 9 I t2 t3 t24 I 7 5 6 t5 8 8 9 l5 I

45/t2.U) 9/t2.00 s/2.N s/ | .00 s/0.80

5 6 4

B-3

t42

tsolD' RSI'Rr"
STA'[ (PULL) RSTR-2" STAT RSTR.3" EOID RS'|-Rl', RSTR.2" EOII) R S T RI S'TAT RSTR.2" RSTR-3 EOID' RS'I'Rr" STAT EOID RSTR-I RSTR-2" STAT EOID RSTR-I RSTR-2 RSTR-3" STAT EOID" RSTR.I

t2/t2.u) il /-5.s0 6/2.75 3/1.2s ts/t2.uJ -slI .88 3/0.63 2t / 12.00 s/ 2 . 4 O 3/2.U) 2t /4.00 5/6.0O 5/ r .-50 t8/t2.uJ
60/O.2O

; 2

:z
I 3

' II II III II II III II II II II II II II II II

B-4

l5-5

)
z

c-3

r55

;z
.5 I 3
z

D-4

r56

E-l

156

8/0.rs ss/t2.ffi 8/0.25 6/O.t3 6/0.0o 22s/t2.OO 8/0.2s

30 60 5 32 45

E-2

t40

E-3

t43

t9 32

; II

991

TABLE 3. (Continuedl
(1) E-4 E-5 F-l

(2) l-s3 EOID"

(3)

(4)
I t2 I 5l 52 I
-t

(s)
24/t2.0O

(6) 2 7 25 28 I t6 50 I

(7) II

G-l

H-|

H-2

l- l

l-2

RS'IR-" I 106 EOtt) RSTR.I" 142 EOID" R S T RI ' STA'T RS't'R-2" 140 EOID" RS'I'Rl" RS'TR,2" S'INT t44 lloll) RS'[R-r" STAT t42 EOID RSTR-I' RSTR-2 r 3 9 EOII) RS-I'Rr^ STA'f t 3 9 EOII) RSTR-I' RSTR-2

s/0.7s 300/r2.00 7/0.2s r 0 lr 2 . 0 0 r0l0.63 50/| .00 n /t2 20/l \/ 6/t2 r 5 lr . 3 te/t2 t5/ 20/ t4/t2 40/4 t3/t2 28/7 )\ /\

n
II II II il II II II II tl II II II II II II II II II

2l -5

0.5 t2 2

t4
.J

l5 7 l8 'l l4

l l0 l 4 8

"Signifies 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 betwccnthc traccsindicates clearly that the soil resistarrce EOID is srnall and increascs at with tinre after driving, as evidenccdby the scparation ol'the lorcc and vckrcity traces.For a principal discussion visual interpretation wave traces,seeRausche al. (1972), on of et ( and Authier and Fellenius 1983). CAPWAP Analyses Selectedwave traceswere analyzedusing the CAPWAP computer program (Rausche al. 1972).The resultsare sumnrarized Tables4 and 5. et in 'fable 4 gives the evaluatedvalues of stress,energy, and mobilized total, shafi, and toe static resistances. Table 5 gives the dampingfactorsand quakevaluesusedto obtain a CAPWAP rnatchand the calculatedmaximum toe displacement obtainedin the CAPWAP analysis(the calculated maxinrumtoe displacement not availare able for piles E and F). The CAPWAP analysis the pile capacityassumes of that the pile displacement equalsor exceeds soil quakevalues.However, severalof the CAPthe WAP analyses were performedon data obtainedfrom piles driven againsta penetration resistance greaterthan about l0 blows/in., that is, the maximum pile toe displacemcnt was smallerthan the actualsoil quake. In such a case,
992

o E

UJ

z ul
x

KIPS 5OO 20 FT.KIPS

st;
F

6 o J u, ut o ll o lr

250 KIPS I OF T - K I P S

zLil
T "'t..-r.-..r't'

o
lE l!

ut

z
x

500KrPs 20 FT.KIPS

Sl"
6 o J
ul (J G

2 5 0K I P S I OF T - K I P S

ut

o lt
I fl-tip = I 356 XJ Itip=laaSKN

TIME

FlG. 4. Plle B-2 Force,Veloclty,and EnergyWaveTraces(EOIDand RSTR-I) the staticsoil resistance not fully rnobilizedand the CAPWAP determined is resistance smallerthan the availableultimateresistance. Such lower bound is CAPWAP resistance valuesare shown in bracketsin Table 4. For additional discussion CAPWAP analysis on and quake,seeAuthier and Fellenius(1980). Piles G, H, and / were all the samesize, installedwith the samehammer to essentially samedepth,i.e.,42-44 m (139-144 ft), and all the CAPthe WAP analyseswere performed on driving records taken during restriking (RSTR) within the first seven days after the initial driving. Therefore, it would be expectedthat the piles should have approximatelythe sanrecapacity. However, the resultsof the CAPWAP analyses indicatea spreadof ultimateresistance from 1,650to 2,500 kN (186 to 280 tons), as summarized in Table 4, which further demonstrates the variability of the glacial soils. Static Loading Tests Six static axial compressiontestswere performedduring design phasetesting using a 4,500 kN (500 tons) loaded platform (dead weight) arrangement. An additional sevencompression testswere conductedduring production pile driving. of By meansof a full length telltale, the displacement the pile toe was
993

u, 2 u, dlo
x F

500KtPs 20FT-KIPS

UJ

6 o J

2s0KtPs
IOFT-KIPS

ut o E o lt

C' E lrJ

z ln

5OO KIPS 20 FT.KIPS

fit; x
F

6 o J
E

250 KtPS .IO FT.KIPS

u, ui o

o tt
| f i - k i p . t 3 5 6K J I kio = il 4,18XN

0 20 ms

2L '*.. '""-.-..------.-/" c TIME

FlG. 5. Plle B-2 Force,Veloclty, and RSTR-4) and EnergyWaveTraces(RSTR-3 rneasured the axial compression in piles. The telltale arrangement followed the reconnnendations ASTM D-l143-81. in 'l'wo axial tensiontests(piles A-3 and B-3) were also performedduring design phasetesting. These piles were driven in a 9 m (30 ft) deep cased hole to elirninatethe direct influenceof stratum l, the fill. As indicatedin Table 3, pile B-3 was testedfirst in compression and then in tension. 'lhe arrangernents the conrpression tensiontestsfollowed the ASTM for and Dl143-81 and D3689-78designations, respectively. The quick maintainedload method of testing was applied using small constant incrementsof load appliedevery l0 minutes.For compression testing,the rangeof load increments used was 7l kN (8 tons) for pile F-l to 133 kN (15 tons) for pile Al. For tension testing, the load increnrentwas 44 kN (5 tons). All loads were measured meansof a full-bridgestrain-gage by load cell using the jack manometer only as a back-upgage.The pipe piles were filled with concrete, which was cured for at least 5 days before static testing. Figs. 7 and 8 show the compression test load-movement behaviorof two of the piles, piles A-4 and B-2. The diagramsshow the pile-headand piletoe movementsand the compressionof the full length of the pile, as measured from the telltales.

fi1" 20500KtPs FT-KIPS


x F

6 o J

u, ui o
CE

250KIPS 1O T-KIPS F

o lt

fi1"
x

500KtPs 20FT-KIPS

6 o
lrl

ui ()
G

250 KIPS 1 OF T . K I P S

o lt

I tl-kip = 1 355 11.,1 I kip=4a18XN

20 ms

FlG. 6. Plle B-2 Force,Veloclty,and EnergyWaveTraces(RSTR-S) pilc-hcad rnovelncntcurves wcre alralyzcdlilr load lirtrits using the ntethodsby Davisson,Butler and Hoy, Fuller and Hoy (Nordlund), BrinchHansen,and Chin (Kondner), summarized Fellenius (1980).The load as by limits obtainedare indicatedin the load-nlovernent diagrarns. Most of the compression-tested show a load-movement piles behaviorsinrilar to that of pile A-4 (Fig. 7), i.e., the pile-head load-movement apis proximately linearup to a headmovement about25 mm (1.0 in.) and a of toe movementof about l0 mm (0.5 in.), whereafter movementbecomes the very large for little or no increase load. In contrast,the test resultsfrom in piles B-2, B-3, and C-3 do not show this plungingbehavior.Instead,the load-movement curve continuesto rise in a slightly bending curve even at (120 rnm,5 in., for pile B-2). For an appreciably largepile-head movement (e.g., Brinch-Hansen these tests, the load limit evaluations 807o criterion) indicatethat ultimate failure has noi been reached. CAPWAP and Static Test Capacity versus Time The capacities the piles as determined meansof CAPWAP analysis of by and static testing have been compiled in Table 6. The compilation is restrictedto the resultsof the CAPWAP analyses made on blows where the full resistance the piles was mobilized.i.e. wherethe calculated maximum of 99s 'l'hc

TABLE 4. Summaryof Stress,Transferred Energyand Moblllzed StatlcSoll Reslstance


Maximum lransferred (EMAX) energy (ft-kips) (3)
28 28 3l I6 25 t9 25 25 t8 2l 35 23 22 l9 l4 t9 28 2l 2l 3t 38

Pile (1) n-l

BlowSet (2)
EOID RS'[R-l RSTR-2 EOID RSTR-I RSTR-2 EOID EOID RSTR-I RSTR.3 RSTR.4 RSTR-5-blow I # RSTR-S-blow #l0O EOID RSTR.I RSTR-2 RSTR.3 EOID RSTR.I RSTR.2 RSTR.2 EOID RSTR.I RSTR-2 RSTR-3 EOID EOID RSTR. I RSTRI EOID RSTR.I RSTR.2 EOID RSTR-I RSTR-2 EOID RSTR-I EOID RSTR. I RSTR-2 EOID RSTR.I EOID RSTR.I RSTR-2

lmpact Stress (srMP) (ksi) (4)


26 28 3t t6 25 25

Mobilized Static Soil Resistancelrom CAPWAP (kips) Shatl (5) (r29) (274) (329) lt6 278 (294',) t-5| 7l 230 298 379 (4s2) (406) 70 t9'l 202 2't9 t05 242 328

Toe (6)
(26t)

Total (7)
(390) (46s) (5r8) 2t2 422 (4o7) 271 ll0 270 340 450 (515) (478) r05 235 220 335

(rer)
(189) 96 144 (il3) t20 39 40 42 7l (63) (72) 35 38 t8 56 40 33 72 240 39 t2

A-2

A-4 B-2

r9
24 22 24 22 25 28 23 l8 22 20 20 22
)1

B-3

B-4

r45
275 400 390 r50 340 (530) (50o) (240',) 220 418 (43s) 187 460 (57s) t55 447
454 400

c-3
D-4 E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 F-l

)) t8
I9 l9 20 l8 l9 22

r50 ; 25
24 23 25 2l 26 26 25 26 26 24 25 23 24 20 24 22 26 25 20 25 llt 268 (416) (376) (l r5) 68 289 (252) t72 368 t42 422 424 395

( rr 4 )
(t24) (l2s) t52 129 (183) l5 92 (65) t3 25 30 5

r8
22 t5 2l 20 l9 t8 t8 t9 20 26 23 l8 2l

(sr0)

c-l

H-t H-2

; ;
346

; ;
l9

i,
;
365

t -| l-l

Note: Parenthesesaround mobilized static resistance indicate lower bound values. i.e.. the toe movenrent was insufficient to mobilize the full static resistance. I kip = 4.443 kN; I ft-kip = 1.356 kJ; I ksi : 6.895 kPa.

996

TABLE 5. Summaryot DynamlcSoll Parameters


DAMPING FACTORS Smilh

Cass
Pile (1)
A-l

Blow set (2) EOID RSTRI RSTR.2 EOtt) RSTRI RSTR-2 EOID EOIT) RSTRI RS'I'R.3 RSTR-4 RSTR-5-blowI RSTR-5-blow100 EOID RSTR. I RSTR.2 RSTR.3 EOII) RSTR. I RSTR-2 RSTR-2 EOID RSTR.I RSTR-2 RSTR-3 EOID EOII) RSl'R.I RS'I'R.I EOID RSTR.I RSTR.2 EOID RSTR. I RST'R-2 EOID RSTR-I EOID RSI'R.I RSTR-2 EOID RSTR-I RSTR-2

Shafl (3) 0.50 0.45 o.70 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.30 0 .l 5 0.55 0.70 0.70 o.95 0.78 0.25 o.64 0.70 0.87 0.45 0.45 0.80 0.25 0.20 o.25 0.45 0.45 0.40 o.27 o.45 0.2tt 0.02 0.80 0.45 0.39 0.95 0.90 L20 o.72

Toe (4)
o.40 0.05 o.o5 o.20 o.40 o.02 0.30 0.l0 0.l0 0.I0 0.l5 o.22 0.r3 0 .l 2 0 .l 0 0.05 0.il 0 .t 0 0.07 0 .t 0 0 .l 0 0.t5 0.70 0.35 0.t8 0.30 0 .t 7 0.20 o.22 0.01 0.20 0.45 0.20 0 .t 0 0 .l 5 0.07 o.06

Shaft (sec/ft)

(s)

Toe (sec/ft) (6)

Quake(in.) Shafl {7) Toe (8) 0.t5 o.04 o.03 o.20 o.25 0.06 o.75 0 .I 2 0 .l 2 o.t2 0.t2 0.t2 0.09 o .l o 0 ,t o 0 .t o o.t2 o.t2 o.l2 o.t2 0.50 0.80 o.22 0.05 0 .t 0 0 .t 0 0.30 0.09 0.05 0 .l 5 0 .t 4 o .l 3 0.06 o.t2 0.08 o.08 t*

Maximumtoe displacement (in.)

(e)
0 .l 6 0.04 0.03 o.47 o.26 0.07 1.63 0.46 o.37 o.32

A-2

A-4

B-2

ts-3

B-4

c-3 D-4 E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 F-l

c-l

0 .l 0 t 0.43 0.055 0.067 o.o47 0.o35 0.052 0.07 | 0.080 0.079 0.065 o.76 0.069 0.t20 0.109 0.1 6 1 0.104 o.144 0.062 0.082 0.076 0.050 0.026 0.030 0.033 0.096 o. ilo 0,043 o.03 | 0.023 0.064 0.039 0.076 0.062 0.058 0.085 o.056

0.040 0 .l 0 0.007 0.04 o.o3 0.o07 o.054 0 .l 0 0.o72 0 .r 0 o.005 0.07 0.065 0.08 0.086 0 .l 2 0.084 o.t2 0.080 0 .l 2 0.064 0.r2 0 .l 2 o.126 o.065 0.09 0 . tr 5 0 .l 0 0 .l 0 0.087 0.091 0.08 0.068 o . t 2 * o . 2 2 0.084 o.12 0.071 o.12 o.o4'l 0.t2 0.037 o.t2 0 .l 5 0.106 0 .l 5 o.269 0.085 0.06-0.| 5 0 .t 0 0.040 0 .t 5 0.066 0 .t 5 0.03 t o.09 o.04-1 o .t o o.o.t3 o .l 5 0.r33 0.064 0 .l 4 0.031 0 .t 5 0.045 0.06 0 .l 2 0.lll 0.138 0.08 0.359 o.096 o.t2 0.06

rloa
0.38 0.ff 0.58 0.97 0.63 0.43 0.82 0.98 o.24

;
0 .l 0 0.09 o .l 0

H-l H-2

; 0.05

I -|

t.84

0 .t 0

0.099

o.172

t*

0.05

Nore: I ft : 0.3048m: I in. : 25.40mm.

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); piles E-2,F-1, G-I, H-I, H-2, I-1, and l-2, all with a lengthof about43 m (140

z'li'ci,t"en,t ----;-.>*=t_._.
/ ^ 400 tn g /prr-e --\. ---ir

IOE MOVEMENT

/HEAO

ii f !' r,,

coMPREssroN

i !

i !

5 soo
J J F
F

o '

200

, i t !

100

! , !
t

,t

05

|.0

1.5

2.O

(tNCHES' MOVEtTENT
I k t p = 4 4 4 61 1 1 I i n c h = 2 54 0 m m

FlG. 7. Plle A-4


800

700

600

HAO MOVEMENT\ PI!E coMPRESSTON -

l1t',*.'r-'--.--...-1

-:

.--*tl
|

500

'/
f .t

i/' ..'

-.-'t

,-

' -'\-

.-...-...."j -i i

\
tt i
It l! tl

|
t,
i

.a

.a

.i..

It l.t t, r.

t!

.l

ti
it ll
tt' ll ,a It

.,'

FlG. 8. Plle B-2

998

TABLE 6. Compllatlon Dynamlcand StatlcTesilng Data of


Pile (1) A-2 A-4 B-2

Length (ft) (2)

Blowtype (3)
EOII) RSTR-I EOID STAT EOII) RSTR-I RSTR-3 STAT RS'rR-4 EOII) RS'I'R.I RSTR-2 STAT EOID. RSTR-I STA'T EOII) RSTR-I RSTR-2 STAT RS'TR.I STAT RSTR-I RSTR-I STAT RSTR-I EOID RSTR.I STAT RSTR-3 EOID RS R-I

Day (4)

Rult(kips) (5)
2t2 422 270 508 lt0 270 340 314-570 4.50 t46 272 400 660 188 460 660 t56 448 454 660 400 380 372 530 560 366

n7 tt7
t55

o
I 0 9 0 2 7 l5 t6

It-4

l-5-5

o
I 9 t5 0 I 5t 0 I 3 2l 5 t4 3 7 l8 7 0 I t0 l3 0 l

E-2 F-l

t40 t42 t40

G-t

H-l

144 142 t39 139 t42

H-2 I -l t-2 B-3

r06 236
204-348 336 220 4t8

E-4

r53

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

ft); and piles B-3 and E-4, which differ in rength from those of the other groups. The data in Table 6 have been plotted in Fig. 9 showing capacityversus tirne in days after driving. "l"hree main aspects eviclcntfrom thii figure. are First, the cAPwAP detennined capacityincreases rapidly over the firsl day or two, and continuesthereafter increase a slow but steadyrate. Secto at ond, thereis a considerable scatter between capacities the obtainedreflecting the variablesoil conditionsat the site. See, for initance, the resultsof statii testingof piles E-2 and H-1. Thesepiles are equarin size and length. yet, thecapacityof pile E-2 is almost75vo greater than that of pile H-1, as found in the static loading tests performedon the two piles after about the same number of days after initial driving. Third, and lnost important, when the effect of time and soil set-up is considered, the cApwAp determinedca999

o irer

F . rs
5l dayt

----c H - r
.+
STAT
S'AT 8,2

4.3

LECEXO a A . 2 ,A . 1 8'2.Br E-2 F-r,G-1,r-r H.r.H-2.r.2 B-3 -4

2m

B O a O t a

1W

5t015

r -r-T

-T-T'-T---r-T--t
20
llXE (d.tr)

TOTES:

SYMBOTSAFE USEO IO SPARATE PILS INTO GFOUPS HAVING THE APPROXIMAT SAME LNGIH ANO CAPACITY INDICAIES TAAT THf CAFACITYIS OTNMINEO tN a slalc roAotNG rEst 'SIAI

I l i p ' 4 a a 8X N

FlG. 9. Capacltyversus Tlme pacities agree well with the results of the static testing. Where there is a range of load limits found in the static test, the CAPWAP determinedcapacity is as representative value as any of the load limits. a The bearingcapacityconditionsat the site are obviously highly variable. Therefore,had the dynamic monitoring and subsequent CAPWAP analysis not been availableto the engineers, is probablethat the variationswould it have causedseveredecisionproblemsat the site during both the design and construction phases.Most ceftainly, the piles would have been installedmuch deeperthan necessary. CoNcr-usroHs For the piles driven to a depth of about 43 m (140 ft), the initial driving of all but two piles was terminatedat a penetrationresistance I to 5 of blows/in. When restriking the piles, increasedpenetrationresistance was observedindicatingthe occurrence soil set-up.The soil set-up was conof firmed both visually front the wave tracesand in the CAPWAP analyses showing that the increasein resistance was not due to a reduced hammer efficiency or other random influence. The testinginvolved sevenheavy-wallpipe piles, all about 43 m (140 ft) in length, which were analyzedby meansof CAPWAP and five piles tested to failure in static compression loading. Both the capacities determinedby meansof CAPWAP analysisand by statictestingshow that the static resistance for the piles varies widely and randomly over the site. A study of capacityversusdays aftcr driving (Fig. 9) shows that the soil set-upoccurredrapidly during the first day after initial driving and then con1000

tinued at a slow but steady rate for at least several weeks. When comparingthe capacities detbnninedin a CAPWAP analysisand a static load tcst, it is lirund that thc CAPWAP arralysis in gtxrd agrccnrcnt is with the results ol'the statictesting,providedthe CAPWAP analysis peris formed on a blow where the hammerhas been able to mobilize the full soil resistance and that the effect of tinre and soil set-upare considered. T'he compilation shown in Fig. 9 indicates that the bearingcapacityconditions at the site arc highly variable.l{ad thc dynalnic nronitoringand subsequent CAPWAP analysis not beenavailableto the engineers, is probable it that the variationswould have causedseveredecision problems at the site during both thc dcsignand construction phascs. AcxnowleDcMENTS The geotechnical investigations this project were one element of the for overall design of the Jones lsland WastewaterTreatmentPlant expansion conductedfor the Milwaukee MetropolitanSewerage District (MMSD). Perrtrissionof MMSD to presentthe data is gratefully acknowledged. 'Ihe writers wish to thank Edward E. Gillen Company for providing additional restrikingbeyond their contractual obligationsand for valuable assistancein obtainingthe data. ApprHorx. RereneNces Authier,J., and Fellenius, H. (1980)."Quake B. values determined from dynamic measurements." Proc. Int. Seninaron the Application Stress-Wave of Theoryon Piles,Stockholrn, 1980,H. Bredenberg, A. A. Balkema, Ed., Rotterdam, 1972t6. Authier, andFellenius, H. (1983). J., "Wave B. equation analysis dynamic and monitoring of pile driving." Civil Engineering Prac'tising DesigtrEngineers, and for Vol. 2, Pergamon Press Inc., New York, N.Y., l-20. Fellenius. H. (1980). B. "The analysis results pile loading of ftornroutine tests."

()rttuttd [ingineering,Founclation PublishingLtd.. Lonclon, l3(5), 395*397. [ : c l l e n i u s . . t l . , e t a l . ( 1 9 8 3 ) ." D y n a m i c r n o n i t o r i n g n c lc o n v e n t i o n ap i l e t e s t i n g B a l procedures." Proc., CortJ'. Dlnanic Measurements Pile.sand Piers, ASCE ort of Spring Convention,Philadelphia, PA. G o b l e ,G . G . , R a u s c h eF . , a n d M o s e s ,F . ( 1 9 7 0 ) .* D y n a m i cs t u d i e s n t h e b e a r i n g , o c a p a c i t yo f p i l e s . " P h a s el l l . R e p o r tN o . 4 8 , V o l . I a n d 2 , D i v i s i o n o f S o l i d Mechanics, Structures, and Mechanical Design,CaseWesternReserve University, C l e v e l a n dO H . , G o b l e ,G . G . , R a u s c h eF . , a n d L i k i n s , G . E . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . " T h e a n a l y s i s f p i l e d r i v i n g . , o A state-of-the-art." Proc., lst Itrt. Sentinar tlrc Applicationof Stre.ss-Wave on Theorl ot, Pilc.s,Stockholrn,1980, H. Bredenberg, Ed., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdarn, t3t-t62. R a u s c h eF . , M o s e s ,F . , a n d G o b l e ,G . G . ( 1 9 7 2 ) .' S o i l r e s i s t a n cp r e d i c t i o r rfs o m , e r pile dynanrics.""/. Sor/ Mech. and Found. Engrg., 98(SM9), 917-937.

1001