Scribd
Upload
121 views

Dynamic Testing Methods of Deep Foundations

The document discusses various dynamic testing methods for deep foundations including conventional dynamic testing, wireless dynamic testing, and recent developments in remote testing technologies. It also covers evaluating hammer and drive system performance, driving stresses and pile integrity, soil resistance distribution, and static pile capacity from dynamic test data.

Uploaded by

gaur79
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
121 views

Dynamic Testing Methods of Deep Foundations

The document discusses various dynamic testing methods for deep foundations including conventional dynamic testing, wireless dynamic testing, and recent developments in remote testing technologies. It also covers evaluating hammer and drive system performance, driving stresses and pile integrity, soil resistance distribution, and static pile capacity from dynamic test data.

Uploaded by

gaur79
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 52

Dynamic Testing Methods

of Deep Foundations
Mohamad Hussein, P.E.
Patrick Hannigan, P.E.
GRL Engineers, Inc.
www.pile.com

2011 Louisiana Transportation Conference


Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Conventional Dynamic Testing


Engineer on site for
field monitoring.

Wireless Dynamic Pile Testing

Recent Development:
SiteLink

Engineer off site

Wireless Remote Testing

Dynamic Pile Testing


provides information for evaluating:
Hammer and Drive System Performance
Pile Driving Stresses
Pile Integrity
Soil Resistance Distribution
Static Capacity

Hammer and Drive System Performance

Hammer and Drive System Performance

W
Potential Energy

?
Transfer Energy, EMX

EMX = F v dt

Driving Stresses and Integrity

Pile force at any location


The force at x equals the sum of the upward wave at the pile
top a time x/c later and the downward wave at the pile top x/c
earlier: F [x,(2L-x )/c] = F[0,2L/c] + F[0,(2L-2x)/c]

t=0

(2L-2x)/c

(2L-x)/c
x/c

x/c

2L/c

Pile Integrity Assessment


85 ft long, 24 OD, Steel Pipe Pile

PDA Beta = 68%

BETA guidelines

Condition

100

Uniform

80 - 100

Slight damage

60 - 80

Significant damage

<60

Broken

Capacity of broken piles


is unreliable

Static Pile Capacity Assessment

Dynamic Testing

Static Testing

Dynamic Load Testing (DLT) for Bearing Capacity Assessment

Driven Pile Restrike

Auger-cast pile

Drilled Shaft

Rtotal
using Wave down and Wave up
total
Rtotal
= Fd,1
+ Fu,2
total
d,1
u,2
F= 545 kips

F = 273 kips

Rtotal
total = 545 + 273 = 818 kips

Hammer Input and Resistance Reflected Waves


t=0

L/c
Fd,1

Ri

2L/c

x/c

-Fd,1
RB

L
Ri

RB

Ri
-R

Total Resistance and Static Capacity:


Fu,2 = -Fd,1 + Ri + Ri + RB

Rtotal = Fu,2 + Fd,1


Rstatic = (1-Jc)Fu,2 + (1+Jc)Fd,1

Conventional PDAs Case Method is used for


each hammer blow; but Jc Damping Factor
must be calibrated.

with static load test or CAPWAP

CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program


(CAPWAP)
Measurements
+
Numerical analysis of traveling wave
+
Signal matching
=
Solution

F
a

Ru
=Ri

a system identification process by


signal matching techniques.
Final match (good)

Adjustments

First try (poor)

Structure B-40-1111, Unit 2; Pile: Pier 10, Pile #6, BOR; Delmag D46-32 (#884), 14" O.D. x 0.5" CEP; Blow: 5 (Test: 23-Feb-2006 08:59:)

24-Feb-2006

GRL Engineers, Inc.

CAPWAP(R) 2006

kips

1000

1000

Force Msd
Force Cpt

500

ms

70

L/c

-500

1.00
1.20

L/c

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

16

Pile Top
Bottom

1000

14
12

Shaft Resistance
Distribution

10

0.20

0.80

ms

70

-500

Load (kips)

0.60

8
0

0.40

Force Msd
Velocity Msd

500

0.00

kips

Ru =
Rs =
Rb =
Dy =
Dx =

864.0 kips
432.0 kips
432.0 kips
1.44 in
1.58 in

8
6
4
2
0
100
200

Pile Force
at Ru

300
400
500
600

1.40

700
800

1.60

900
1000

1.80

CAPWAP(R) 2006 Licensed to GRL Engineers, Inc.

CAPWAP analyses and Static Load Test Results Correlations

New Development:

iCAP instantaneous signal


matching analysis
iCAP analysis is performed automatically by the PDA in
real-time during pile testing.
One (unique) automatic solution for each test record analysis.
Immediate analysis result on site.
Instant pile load-set graph for each test record.
Does not require high expertise.

iCAP Result Screen

Pile
load-set
graph

Integrity Assessment Tools


for Drilled Deep Foundations
PIT Low Strain Integrity Testing
CSL Crosshole Sonic Logging
TIP - Thermal Integrity Profile

Integrity Test Result


Good Shaft
Plot of filtered, amplified shaft top velocity versus time.
0.20

5: # 9

in/s

40 FT GOOD
1.55 LB
9/1/2000 10:56:12 AM
Hi
100.0 f t
2W
2.50 f t

0.10

63.0 Hz
2520 Hz

0.00

L/D=43 (D=11.28 in)

-0.10

V 0.174 in/s (0.186)

40.00 f t (12600 f t/s)


0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70 f t

Integrity Test Result

Major Defect at 35 Ft

Coring Results

Pull
Probes
From
Bottom
To Top

Crosshole Sonic Logging


(CSL)
Place probes
in bottom
of tubes.

Fill Tubes
with water

Transmit

(Same test
for each tube
pair)

Receive

For n tubes,
(n-1)n/2
combinations

Stress Waves, emitted


in one tube are received
in another one if concrete
quality is satisfactory

Crosshole Sonic Logging


Output
Waterfall plot of arrival time and processed plots of
arrival time (or wave speed) and energy.
Raw Signal
Depth

FAT
Energy

Processed Plots

Waterfall Plot (raw signal)

Waterfall Diagrams
- Diagonal Profiles
CSL Found Defects at:
12.0 to 14.0 ft

Top of Concrete

20.75 to 22.5 ft
Bottom 0.3 to 1.3 ft
(Ref: top of concrete)
Socket

Concrete Core Results

Coring Found Defects at:


Voids & Loose Aggregate
11.75 to 12.25 ft

Voids & Loose Aggregate


20.0 to 22.0 ft
Voids & Loose Aggregate
At bottom

Cross Hole Sonic Logging


3-D Tomography

2D horizontal slice
view of a defect

3-D body view

Thermal Integrity Profiling


Use temperature vs. depth vs. quadrant
Infra-red probe scans via CSL tubes
Thermal strings on cage cast in shaft
Test reveals anomalies both inside and

outside the reinforcing cage

Assess cage alignment


Minimum cover can be evaluated

ThermalTestingTimeframe
4000PMixDesign
4ftDiameter
160

6ftDiameter
8ftDiameter

Temperature(degF)

140

10ftDiameter

120

100

80

OptimalTestingWindow
AcceptableTestingWindow
60
0

20

40

60

80
Time(hrs)

100

120

140

TestProcedureusingProbes
To
Depth
Encoder

Transfer water from tube into water container


Insert IR probe into tube
Lower probe to collect data (top bottom)
Transfer water from second tube into first
Repeat IR scan in second tube

CSL
Tubes

Continue for all remaining tubes

WaterContainer

Thermal Integrity Profiler (TIP) - Probe Testing

ThermalStrings
TAP transmits
thermaldata
tocomputer

Computer
TransmitData
offsiteviaaircard

ThermalStrings
Attachtorebarcage

TAP

TAP

ThermalDataExamples
DataInterpretation
Cagealignmentissue
110

DegreesF
130

140

150

90

10

10

15

15
A1
A2

25

AVG

20
Depth(ft.)

20
Depth(ft.)

120

DataInterpretation
LocalDefectnearC2
100

110

DegreesF
120
130

140

150

C1
C2

25

30

30

35

35

40

40

45

45

50

50

Average

Thermal Integrity Profiling


Advantages
Use temperature vs. depth vs. quadrant

Reveals anomalies both inside and

outside the reinforcing cage

Assess concrete cover (cage alignment )


Evaluated soon after concrete casting

Limitations / Disadvantages
Preplan CSL tubes or thermal strings
Difficult to assess soft bottoms

Questions?
Questions?

www.pile.com

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy