Está en la página 1de 73

The Case Method

and the
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)

2013
Frank Rausche
Pile Dynamics, Inc.

Outline
Testing Objectives
Hardware
Standard
Wireless testing
Remote testing

Methods
Stresses
Integrity
Capacity

Examples
Summary
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Static Testing

Dynamic Testing

Testing Objectives: Economical Load Testing

Testing Objectives: Installation Monitoring


Stresses, Integrity, Resistance, Energy (Case Method)

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Basically We
Have to Measure
Pile Top Force and
Velocity
and Process Data with the
Pile Driving Analyzer

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Measuring Strain and Acceleration


(need to do it on opposite pile sides)

Strain transducer
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Accelerometer
6

PDA testing data acquisition


Need Minimum 2 strain measurements per pile to
compensate for bending

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Mounting the sensors

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Measurements on cylinder piles

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Wireless testing components using


smart sensors

Transmitter
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

10

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Under Water

Wireless

Strain and Acceleration Sensors

11

Sensor Installation/Protection
H-piles

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Pipe piles

12

Lofting pile into leads

PDA

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

13

Concrete Piles

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

14

Smart and Wireless Sensors


Make for Happy Testers

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

15

SiteLink and Wireless Testing

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

16

PAX - SiteLink Connect Operation

PDA is being operated by office engineer


Office computer acts as a remote keyboard and monitor
PAX is used with PDA-L
Data resides on PAX until downloaded
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

17

SiteLink Advantages

No traveling/scheduling cost/delays/issues
Immediate analysis and quick report submittal
Increased efficiency of test engineer
Remote supervision of inexperienced personnel avoids errors

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

18

Measurements on a follower, nearshore

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

19

Basic Strain and Acceleration Measurements

1(t), 2(t), one strain on each side

a1(t), a2(t), one acc. on each side

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

20

Standard Presentation
F = (S1 + S2 ) (EM * AR)

v = (a1 + a2 ) dt

Fu = (F - vZ)
Fd = (F + vZ)
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

21

Maximum Force, FMX

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

22

Compresisve Stress Results


At Gage Location (CSX and CSI) and at Bottom (CSB)

CSX = 233 MPa (33.8 ksi)

CSI = 245 MPa (35.5 ksi)

Calculated at Bottom: CSB = 264 MPa (38.2 ksi)


PDPI June 2013 Case Method

23

Calculating Tension Stresses Below Pile Top


From Force in Wave-down and Wave-up

vZ

Fd
Fu
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

24

Wave Superposition for Force Below Sensors


Fd1

2x/c

t=0

2L/c

Fd3
L/c

Downward
Wave

Fu2

Upward
Wave

Fx = Fu2 + Fd3

L
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

25

Tension Stress Calculation (Wave-Up)


Minimum Compression - down

Fu
Fd

Max. Tension - up

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

26

Tension Stress Maximum and Distribution


Point of max tension

t3
toe

top

Equal
Max. Tension Wave Up

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

27

Another Tension Stress Example

toe

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

top

28

Pile Damage: BTA, LTD


A pile impedance reduction
(damage?) causes a tension
reflection before 2L/c
The time at which the tension
reflection arrives at the gage
location indicates the depth to the
damage: LTD = (tdamage / 2) c

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

29

t=0

L/c

2x/c

2L/c

Fd,1

Z1

Fu1
A

Fd2

B
Z2

FA = FB: Fu,1 + Fd,1 = Fd,2


vA = vB: vu,1 + vd,1 = vd,2

2nd equation:

(Z2/Z1)(Z1vu,1 + Z1vd,1) = Z2 vd,2

with = Z2/Z1:

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


= (Fu,1 + Fd,1) / (- Fu,1 + Fd,1)

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

30

Damage Assessment Example


Fd,1 = (Ft1+Zvt1)

t1
Fu,1 = (Fu,t3 - Zvt3)
t3

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

31

Resistance Waves

Fd,1
Fd,1

Fu,2

-Fd,1

Ri

RB

L
Ri

Ri
-Ri

RB

L/c

Upward traveling wave at time 2L/c:


Fu,2 = -Fd,1 + Ri + Ri + RB
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

RTL = Fu,2 + Fd,1


32

The Case Method Equation


RTL = Fd,1 + Fu,2
RTL is the total pile resistance:
Dynamic + static; shaft resistance + end bearing
RTL is mobilized during time 2L/c following time t1

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

33

The Static Resistance is Total Resistance - Damping

RS= RTL RD
Assuming RD = Jv v

[kN/m/s][m/s]

Introducing: Jc = Jv / Z .. Case Damping Factor


Then RD = Jc Z v

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

34

Using pile toe velocity as representative


vtoe = 2 Fd,1- RTL
Rstatic= RTL - Jc(2 Fd,1 RTL)
vtoe

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

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

35

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


F= 5450 kN

F =2,820 kN

F = 2,730 kN
F= 50 kN

RTL = 5,450 + 2,730 = 8,180 kN


For example with Jc= .3
Rstatic = (1 - .3) 5,450 + (1 + .3) 2,730 = 7,350 kN
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

36

Time of Fd,1
and Fu,2
We calculate
Rstatic at the
time when it
gives the
maximum
activated value

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

t1

2L/c

t2

37

Pile with shaft resistance:


Equilibrium and Continuity
Compressive upward wave
R/2
x
x

R/2

Fur = R; vur = -R/Z

Tensile downward wave


Fdr = -R; vdr = -R/Z

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

38

Shaft and Toe Resistance


t=0

L/c

2L/c

Fd,1

Rf

L
RB
Rf

-Fd,1

Rf

-Rf

RB
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

39

Friction Pile Records


F

vZ

Fd

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Fu

40

Wave-up Force Change Due to Friction

Rf

Rf

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

41

PDA Soil Resistance Results


End of Driving

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

42

PDA Soil Resistance Results


Restrike; Blow No. 1

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

43

Restrike Blow No. 2

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

44

Restrike, Blow No. 4

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

45

Another Method of Capacity Calculation: iCAP


(a subset of CAPWAP)
iCAP :
Ru 493 kips
MQ 2.12

Quick signal
matching
Total Capacity
Shaft vs end bearing
Tension stresses
Compression strs.
Recommended Jc
Match Quality
Computed match
Load test curve
Distribution

Best Results on uniform driven piles!


PDPI June 2013 Case Method

46

A Monitoring Example: Rigolet Bridge

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

47

Cylinder Piles 66 dia.

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

48

PDA Measurements
including circumferential
strain measurements

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

49

Cylinder Pile Data (EOD)

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

50

Case Method Monitoring Results

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

51

An Example: Wave equation + Testing


Depth

Description

m (ft)

qu
kPa (ksf)

4 (13)

Sand

8 (26)

Sand

13

13.4 (44)

Clay

180 (3.8)

22 (72)

Clay with Sand Lenses

300 (6.2)

Water Table at 3 m or 10 depth

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

52

GRLWEAP Static
Soil Analysis
Based on SA analysis
using:
N-value
qu

Ru = 1700 kN
Rshaft = 1200 kN
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

53

Wave Equation analysis input

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

54

Wave Equation analysis: Bearing Graph


For 1700 kN capacity we would expect 170 bl/m = 51 bl/0.3m
GRL Engineers, Inc.
GRLWEAP Example

08-Aug-2012
GRLWEAP Version 2010

Tension Stress (MPa)

20

16

12

16

12

DELMAG

D 30-32

Ram Weight
29.37 kN
Efficiency
0.800
Pres s ure
9645 (99%) kPa
Helm et Weight
17.79 kN
Ham m er Cus hion19259 kN/m m
Pile Cus hion
1009 kN/m m
COR of P.C.
0.500

4000

Skin Quake
Toe Quake
Skin Dam ping
Toe Dam ping

3200

mm
mm
s ec/m
s ec/m

Skin Friction
Dis tribution

2400

1600

800

0
0

2.500
10.160
0.650
0.500

Pile Length
20.50 m
Pile Penetration
14.01 m
Pile Top Area
3716.12 cm 2

Pile Model

Stroke (m)

Ultimate Capacity (kN)

Compressive Stress (MPa)

20

60

120

180

240

300

Blow Count (blows /.30m )

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

0
360

Res . Shaft = 71 %
(Proportional)

55

Wave Equation analysis: Bearing Graph

At the statically predicted capacity of 1700 kN we would expect a


blow count of 51 bl/0.3m)
We would expect a transferred energy of 26 kJ at a stroke of 2.4 m
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

56

Wave Equation analysis: Bearing Graph


At Refusal we would expect a 4000 kN capacity
GRL Engineers, Inc.
GRLWEAP Example

08-Aug-2012
GRLWEAP Version 2010

Tension Stress (MPa)

20

16

12

16

12

DELMAG

D 30-32

Ram Weight
29.37 kN
Efficiency
0.800
Pres s ure
9645 (99%) kPa
Helm et Weight
17.79 kN
Ham m er Cus hion19259 kN/m m
Pile Cus hion
1009 kN/m m
COR of P.C.
0.500

4000

Skin Quake
Toe Quake
Skin Dam ping
Toe Dam ping

3200

mm
mm
s ec/m
s ec/m

Skin Friction
Dis tribution

2400

1600

800

0
0

2.500
10.160
0.650
0.500

Pile Length
20.50 m
Pile Penetration
14.01 m
Pile Top Area
3716.12 cm 2

Pile Model

Stroke (m)

Ultimate Capacity (kN)

Compressive Stress (MPa)

20

60

120

180

240

300

Blow Count (blows /.30m )

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

0
360

Res . Shaft = 71 %
(Proportional)

57

Wave Equation analysis: Bearing Graph

At refusal (1210 bl/m or 370 bl/ft) we would expect 4000 kN


capacity at a stroke of 2.5 m and a transferred energy of 26.8 kJ

Lets check the analysis!


PDPI June 2013 Case Method

58

PDA Testing + CAPWAP


Measure force and motion near the pile top
Calculate transferred energy, bearing capacity, stresses

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

59

PDA Results and Comparison GRLWEAP


Blow
Count

Transfd
Energy

Comp.
Stress

Tension
Stress

Bl/m
(Bl/ft)

kJ
(ft-kips)

MPa
(ksi)

MPa
(ksi)

Measured
by PDA

1460
(445)

21
(15.5)

13.5
(1.9)

2.4
(0.35)

GRLWEAP
at Refusal

1210
(370)

27
(20)

17.5
(2.5)

1.1
(0.15)

Stroke in m
in ft
Transfer Ratio(%)

PDA
2.7
8.8
21

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Wave Equation
2.5
8.3
27

Rated/Mean
3.5
11.3
29
60

CAPWAP Results
Best Signal Match

Measured,
Measured F
and vZ

CAPWAP (Signal Matching) is a one-dimensional dynamic


analysis of the pile which uses the measured signals to determine
static and dynamic soil resistance values.
Based on the static results, a simulated static test is performed
leading to a load-set curve, representation a (very) quick load test.

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

61

CAPWAP Results
Best Signal Match

Load-Set
Curve
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

62

CAPWAP Numerical Results


Ru= 2100 kN

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Rshaft = 1110 kN

Rtoe = 990 kN

63

Summary of Capacities Based on EOD


Static
Analysis
Capacity
kN
(kips)
1,700
(382)

Actual
Blow
Count
Bl/m
(Bl/ft)
1482
(445)

Wave
Equation
Capacity
kN
(kips)
4,000
(900)

CAPWAP
Capacity
kN
(kips)
2,100
(470)

Check whether additional capacity can be gained with


time by doing a restrike test.
Pile is driven 6 inches after 24 hours waiting time.
Blow Count now is 300 Bl/m (90 bl/ft)
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

64

Hammer Performance Results


End of Drive
Stroke in m
in ft
Transfer Ratio(%)

PDA
2.7
8.8
21

Wave Equation
2.5
8.3
27 (Refusal)

Rated/Mean
3.5
11.3
29

Beginnning of Restrike
Stroke in m
in ft
Transfer Ratio(%)

PDA
3.3
10.7
35

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Wave Equation
2.5
8.3
26 (90 bpf)

Rated
3.5
11.3
N/A
65

Revisiting the Wave Equation Bearing Graph


At 300 bl/m or 90 bl/ft we would expect 2500 kN capacity
with again 26 kJ transferred energy and a stroke of 2.5 m

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

66

Capacity Summary Based on EOD and BOR


Static
Analysis
Capacity
kN
(kips)

Actual
Blow
Count
Bl/m
(Bl/ft)
1482
(445)

1,700***
(382)

300
(90)

End of
Driving

Restrike

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Wave
Equation CAPWAP
Capacity Capacity
kN
kN
(kips)
(kips)
4,000*
2,100**
(900)
(470)

2,500
(560)

2,550
570

67

Capacity Summary Based on EOD and BOR


Static
Analysis
Capacity
kN
(kips)

Actual
Blow
Count
Bl/m
(Bl/ft)
1482
(445)

1,700***
(382)

300
(90)

End of
Driving

Restrike

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

Wave
Equation CAPWAP
Capacity Capacity
kN
kN
(kips)
(kips)
4,000*
2,100**
(900)
(470)

2,500
(560)

2,550
570

68

Capacity and (LRFD) Safe Load Summary

Method

Nominal Resistance Equivalent


Resistance Factor,
Safe Load
F.S.
(kN)
(kN)
(AASHTO 2009)

Static
Formula

1700

0.40 (avg)

3.50

485

ENR
Gates

31,352
4,510

0.10
0.40

14.0
3.50

2,240
1,290

WE-EOD
WE-BOR

4,000
2,500

0.50
0.50

2.80
2.80

1,430
890

CW-EOD
CW-BOR

2,100
2,550

0.65
0.65

2.15
2.15

977
1,190

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

69

Back-calculation of Hammer Efficiency

PDPI June 2013 Case Method

70

Results from Wave Equation after Matching EOD and


BOR Test Results
EOID
Quantity

Normal or
CAPWAP

Hammer Efficiency (%)


Hammer Cushion
- Elastic Modulus (ksi)
Combustion Pressure
(%)
Pile Cushion
- Elastic Modulus (ksi)*

Pile Cushion
- Coeff. of Restitution

BOR

GRLWEAP

Normal or
CAPWAP

GRLWEAP

80

50

80

73

550

275

550

550

100

100

100

120

60 - 90

70

60 - 90

110

0.50

0.25

0.50

0.25

The hammer may have overheated at EOD after 4230


blows. and, therefore, had poor energy transfer.
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

71

Summary
The PDA processes pile top force and velocity records
according to the (closed form solution) Case Method;
results allow for assessment of

Pile Stresses
Hammer Performance
Soil Resistance
Pile Integrity

These results are diplayed in Real Time and, therefore,


allow for real time monitoring of the pile installation
For Dynamic load testing Restrikes + CAPWAP are
usually necessary
After PDA+CAPWAP the GRLWEAP analysis can be
refined
PDPI June 2013 Case Method

72

Thank you for your


attention
For further information see:
www.pile.com

QUESTIONS?

frausche@pile.com