Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and CAPWAP

Proven Pile Testing Technology: Principles and Recent Advances

Frank Rausche, Ph.D., P.E.

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Pile Dynamics, Inc.

1

Outline
Introduction
The PDA History Basics of PDA testing Recent developments

Wave Equation Analysis Stresses, damage prevention and detection Bearing capacity from CAPWAP and iCAP Vibratory testing and analysis Dynamic pile testing and the LRFD approach Summary
2

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Pile Dynamics, Inc. - founded in 1972

Our Objective: to provide the necessary methods, hardware and software for reliable quality assurance of deep foundations

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

The Pile Driving Analyzer

a long history of improvements 1965 1997 1958 1982 1992 2007

1973

Conforms to ASTM D 4945

4

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

What is required?
Accurate, Reliable and Efficient Pile Top Force and Velocity Measurements

Reusable lightweight strain and acceleration transducers for testing any pile type
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 5

Transducers Requirements
Accurately calibrated Rugged and Reliable Allow for self checking Adapt to any pile type Cost efficient Allowing for testing after-the-fact - when or if needed
6

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Transducer Placement
Traditionally: 2 strain sensors + 2 accelerometers. But frequently we must use 4 strain sensors for accuracy! (large piles, spiral welded, all drilled shafts/piles, )
7

2D

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Smart, wireless Sensors calibration transmitted with signal

Sensors

Transmitter

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Sensor-Transmitter Protection
H-piles no issue

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Sensor-Transmitter Protection
H-piles no issue Pipe piles use protectors

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

10

Lofting pile into leads

PDA

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

11

Sensor-Transmitter Protection
H-piles no issue Pipe piles use protectors Concrete piles protectors or - sensors in indentations

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

12

Sensor-Transmitter Protection by Indentation

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

13

 - Remote SiteLink
USA Patent #6,301,551

PDA

Pile Driving Analyzer Site B

Site A

Pile

Pile

Engineer - controls several PDAs simultaneously as if on-site - monitors piles in real time - reports within short time
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Contractor - schedules easily - keeps project going

14

Design and Construction of Driven Piles*

Soil Borings Static pile analysis Pile Type and Length selection Wave Equation analysis to check driveability Initial Pile Testing program by PDA Develop driving criterion Production pile installation to criterion Dynamic testing of production piles as needed

*See Hannigan et al., 2006. Manual on the Design and Construction of Driven Piles; FHWA

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

15

Wave Equation Analysis (GRLWEAP)

Thermodynamic model predicts stroke for diesels

Enter soil profile

Predicts Driveability
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 16

Wave Equation Analysis (GRLWEAP)

Updated hammer/driving system input

Updated soil parameters

Refined capacity vs. blow count after testing

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 17

Dynamic Pile Testing Objectives

Finding optimal installation procedure with Dynamic Monitoring by Case Method for:
Hammer Performance Driving Stresses Pile Integrity Soil Resistance at the time of testing

Dynamic Load Testing:

Capacity vs. time EoD/BoR setup/relaxation CAPWAP Signal matching iCAP Real time signal matching

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

18

Allowable Driving Stresses

Related to pile material strength
For Example, AASHTO provides the following limits:

Steel Piles in Compresssion or Tension:

90% of Steel Yield Strength

Prestressed Concrete Piles in Compression: 85% of concrete strength Effective Prestress Prestressed Concrete Piles in Tension: Prestress + 50% of concrete tensile strength Timber - Southern Pine/Douglas Fir: 3.2/3.5 ksi
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 19

Damage Detection
Example Records for a Spliced Pile Good Pile: No early reflection

Time of Impact

Toe Reflection

Time of Impact

Toe Reflection

Bad Pile: Splice should not cause an early reflection

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 20

Toe Damage Detection: Early Record

24 inch PSC L = 56 ft WS 14,000 ft/sec

BN 220
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 21

Toe Damage Detection: First indication

24 inch PSC L = 56 ft WS 14,000 ft/sec

BN 260
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 22

Toe Damage Detection: End of Drive

24 inch PSC L = 56 ft WS 14,000 ft/sec

7 ft

BN 220 - EOD BN 1094

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 23

CAPWAP - Signal Matching

State-of-practice; required by specs/codes
We know both Input and Response (wave down and wave up) This is the information needed to calculate static and dynamic soil model parameters
Always (to be) used for capacity calculation from dynamic load test Evaluates stresses vs. depth Models uniform or non-uniform piles
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 24

Pile and Soil Model

Pile Segment

Impedance
Zi = EiAi/ci

Spring (static resistance), i.e., Capacity and Distribution + Soil Stiffness Dashpot (dynamic resistance)

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

25

CAPWAP Result Summary

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

26

Toe Dynamic Resistance: Measured and CAPWAP

Grvare, 1980. Pile Driving Construction Control by the Case Method Ground Engineering.

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

27

CAPWAP Different Users, Static Test

+20%

SLT
-20%

CAPWAP

Case Method

CAPWAP

CAPWAP Uniqueness? Pretty good

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 29

CAPWAP: Comparison with Static Tests

CW versus SLT combined (N=303) (80, 96, SW)
25.0%

Distribution of CW / SLT Ratios (96&SW: N=226)

40,000

Unconservative (potentially unsafe)

30,000
CW [kN]

20.0%

Frequency

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

4 70 -7 er 70 nd u

9 4 9 -7 -8 -8 75 80 85

4 30 00 05 10 15 20 25 30 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 r1 90 95 01 06 11 16 21 2 6 ove 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ratio

20,000
Distribution of CW / SLTmax Ratios (96&SW: N=179)
25.0%

20.0%

10,000

Conservative (residual strength)

0 10,000 20,000 SLT [kN] 30,000 40,000

Frequency

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

un de r7 0 70 -7 4 75 -7 9 80 -8 4 85 -8 9 90 -9 4 95 -1 00 10 110 5 10 611 11 0 111 11 5 612 0 12 112 12 5 613 ov 0 er 13 0

Ratio

31

Pile Top Bottom

SC test data: T6P1 18 inch solid concrete pile

= = = = =

BOR 7 Day BN 4 (CAPWAP)

800

Static test (14D)

Dynamic: 180 k end bearing

Load (kips)

200

300

400

500

600

700

Ru Rs Rb Dy Dx

D is p la c e m e n t (in )

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

Static: 176 k end bearing

100

32

Superposition: When Restike is Done with Insufficient Energy Thus not Activating Full End Bearing
30 inch concrete pile Length 65 ft
End of Drive Static Load Test Restrike Superposition
Blows/ foot Max. Trans Energy Kip-ft Static Capacity, Kips Skin Friction End Bearing Total Capacity

130

47

198

880
228*

1078 1630

120

27

737 737

965

880

1617

* Not fully activated (low energy)

Hussein, M., Sharp, M., Knight, W., The Use of Superposition for Evaluating Pile Capacity, Deep Foundations 2002, An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construction, and Performance, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, American Society of Civil Engineers: Orlando, February, 2002

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

33

Considering Soil Setup Capacity

St. Johns River Bridge: Increased loads by 33% with substantially shorter piles (set-up considered) Total project: $110 million (actual) $20 million (savings) $130 million (estimate)
Scales & Wolcott, FDOT, presentation at PDCA Roundtable Orlando 2004

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

34

 iCAP
Signal matching program, executed during monitoring, i.e., in real time, automatically, for immediate results. Results: Total Capacity, with distribution Load test curve Compression stresses (max and toe) Tension stress maximum

Also: Case Damping factor and Match Quality

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

35

iCAP on PDA

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

36

iCAP comparison with CAPWAP (2010)

Pipe Piles

H-Piles

Concrete Piles

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

37

PDA Testing of Vibratory Driven Piles

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

38

PDA Testing of Vibratory Driven Piles

Measured - End of Driving
1500 1000 500 Force - kN 0 0 -500 -1000 -1500 Force 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1

0.8
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 Time - L/c (3.7 ms) Inertia Velocity -1 Velocity - m/s

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

39

PDA Testing of Vibratory Driven Piles

Soil resistance calculated from PDA force and velocity test results based on either power or force (Case Method) approach Unfortunately, soil reistance and bearing capacity often differ significantly, thus impact restrike testing still necessary for dynamic capacity evaluation
GRLWEAP driveability predictions reasonable but sensitive to assumptions
2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 40

PDCA LRFD - 2000

Load and Resistance Factor Design AASHTO (2010): Rn f1 Q1 + f2 Q2 + .

= 0.50
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 wave equation analysis (no testing) 2% or at least 2 dynamic tests several DOTs specs - dynamic static or 100% dynamic tests static and 2% dynamic tests

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

41

PDCA LRFD - 2000

Load and Resistance Factor Design

Example Calculation:
a) Assume 1.375 average load factor b) Overall factor of safety: FS=1.375/ c) Assume Rn (nominal pile resistance) of 200 kips

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

42

PDCA LRFD - 2000

Load and Resistance Factor Design

Calculating Overall safety factor and No. of piles required for a 2000-kip load

= 0.50 FS = 2.75
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 2.11 1.96 1.83 1.72

Rn/FS= (kips)

72 Npile= 28 95 21 102 20 109 18 116 17

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

43

Reasons for Dynamic Pile Testing

We spend a lot on deep foundations in the USA: $4,000,000,000 We want low risk of failure - remediation is expensive We want safe bridges and other structures With LRFD less risk translates into less cost Testing allows for optimizing a foundation

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

44

Summary: Pile Driving Analyzer

Continuous improvements help obtain more information faster (wireless, remote) and at lower cost Test all pile types (steel, concrete, timber) Dynamic pile testing to supplement or replace static load tests

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

45

Summary: Pile Driving Analyzer

Driving stress control to prevent damage Identify damaged piling Detect bad hammers for reliable application of driving crieria Economical dynamic testing allows for more tests and higher resistance factors

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

46

Summary: CAPWAP
CAPWAP test analysis for reliable capacity prediction including resistance distribution and end bearing 40 years experience; large database Capacity at time of testing (EOD or BOR) for assessment of soil setup iCAP Signal Matching for operator independent and immediate results

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

47

Thanks for your attention

Frank Rausche Pile Dynamics, Inc. www.pile.com

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference 48