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
