Pile Tes(ng State-of-the-Art

Garland Likins, P.E.

Pile Dynamics, Inc.
USA

8th Seminar on Special Founda@ons Engineering and Geotechnics
June 23, 2015
What piles are we trying to test?

Driven piles (Estacas cravadas)

Bored piles (Estacas escavadas)

Augercast piles (Estacas hlice con@nua)

Because of installa@on method dierences,

we must consider dierent tes@ng solu@ons.
Why Test ? How to test Structural Integrity
Low Strain Integrity Tes(ng
Cross-hole Sonic Logging
Calipers
Automated Monitoring Equipment
Thermal Integrity Proling
?

How to test Geotechnical Capacity

Q Inspec(on devices
Wave Equa(on Analysis
Sta(c Load Tes(ng
Bi-direc(onal Load Tes(ng
R? Dynamic Load Tes(ng
Benets of Load Tes(ng
Force Pulse (Rapid) Load Tes(ng
Structural Integrity Evalua@ons
 Low Strain Integrity Testing
looks for major defects
Small hammer
Pile Integrity Tester
impact device
Accelerometer
measures response

er
me t
lero

mer
acce

ham
(defect)

ASTM D5882
 Basic Interpreta@on

Good Pile

Bad Pile
 PIT shows major
defect

SLT failed at
< half required
coring confirms defect
contaminated concrete
over silt/sand

900 mm dia.
L=25m
6m rock socket
 Low Strain Integrity Testing
Advantages
Cost Effective even apply to all concrete piles
Finds MAJOR defects

Limitations / Disadvantages
Limited to 30 to 50 L/D on concrete piles
Difficult interpretation if highly non-uniform
Cannot locate defect quadrant

8
 Pull
Probes
From
Cross-hole Sonic Logging
Bo4om
To Top CSL
Top view of shaft
with 4 access tubes

Fill Tubes
with water
Test all paths
ASTM D6760
Transmit Receive 9
 How to find defects ?

Good

Defect

1. Reduced signal strength ( lower energy )

2. Delayed First Arrival Time (low wavespeed)
Core
Tomography
CSL cannot find defects
outside the rebar cage
Cross-hole Sonic Logging
Advantages
Check concrete inside cage by depth & quadrant
Tomography available

Limitations / Disadvantages
Wait 3 to 7 days prior to test
Cannot evaluate concrete outside cage
Debonding, bleeding are issues
leads to unnecessary coring
 Gamma Density Logging
Advantages
Gives data on concrete cover
Compliments CSL testing

Disadvantages
Very local range (100 mm) near PVC tubes
Radioactive materials
Thermal Integrity Profiling

80

70
Temperature !

60

50

40

30 S46
S37
S28

ASTM D7949
20 S19
1
4

S10
7
10
13
16

16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
4
7
 THERMAL WIRE cable Installa@on

TAP Data Logger

Thermal cable

17
Thermal Integrity Profiling

80

70
Temperature !

60

50

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4

S10
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
4
7
 8.4 ft

8 ft
17 ft

2 ft
17 ft

16.1 ft
 11.5 Hours 25 Hours 48 Hours
(Peak)

!Center
!West
near cage

Defect found best at early @me 48 inch sha^

Iowa Test Sha^ August 2014
Temperature at 11 hours
Top 15 D 2.00 m dia.
Rest of shaD 1.83 m
6
6

40oC

60oC
4 ft dia shafts - Michigan
first shaft second shaft

4.5

dia

bad good
4
TIP can look outside cage also
and estimate the shaft profile
 Thermal Integrity Proling
Advantages for bored/augered piles
! Use early curing temperature (speeds construction)
! Evaluates concrete quality, cover & alignment

Limitations / Disadvantages
! Need THERMAL cables (replaces CSL tubes)
! Can test only during early curing
 Thermal Integrity Proling
Advantages
! Use temperature vs. depth vs. quadrant
! Test early after casting (speeds construction)
! Evaluates concrete quality, cover & alignment
! Not susceptible to debonding, bleeding

Limitations / Disadvantages
! Use on bored piles, augercast piles
! Need THERMAL WIRE cables
! Can test only during early curing
 Calipers
Advantages
Estimates shape and volume required

Limitations / Disadvantages
Slurry sometimes obscures testing
Assumes no further change
before concreting
 Automated Monitoring Equipment
Pile Installation Recorder (PIR)
1.
2.
PIR Computer
Depth Monitor
Incremental volume vs
3. Grout Pressure depth during CFA install
4. Magne@c Flow Meter
2 Avoids defects

1
3 4
DFI Augered Cast-In-Place Piles Manual
grout volume placed for each increment of depth is the
single most important installation control used during
ACIP pile construction. Section 1.3

AME with 2 ^
depth increments
AME produces very uniform piles
2000 piles (460 mm O.D.)

OK
Instrumentation: (encoder)
tracks depth
Get incremental volume
versus depth during grouting
Depth solely from
depth monitor

Volume solely from

magnetic flow meter
(NOT by counting strokes)

Pressure solely to
evaluate pump
Volume from pump strokes is not
accurate !

Normal

Grout Pressure vs Time

Unstable - missed 8 pump strokes

GEC#8 - AME SHALL be used and MUST include:
Grout Volume for every 2 ft (600 mm) increment (8.3.10)
Flow meter MUST be used to measure volume (8.3.4)

Geotechnical Engineering Circular (GEC) No.8 Design and Construction of

Continuous Flight Auger Piles, April 2007, prepared for FHWA

Automated monitoring with flow meter is mandatory in U.K.

31
 Augered Pile Project
2000 piles (460 mm O.D.)
Installation guided by AME
produces very uniform piles

Grout Return

OK
Automated Monitoring Equipment
Advantages
Guides installation to prevent defects
Documents volume vs. each depth increment

Limitations / Disadvantages
Only use is for augercast piles

33
Geotechnical Capacity Evalua@ons
Static analysis is not accurate
This is WHY we test

International Prediction Event Behaviour of Bored, CFA,

and Driven Piles in Residual Soil, ISC2 Experimental
Site, 2003, by Viana da Fonseca and Santos
 Inspec@on Devices Mini-SID

Downhole camera

SID !
Inspec@ng cleanout & bearing layer strength
SQUID: Measuring the shaD bo4om:
Debris layer thickness
Bearing pressure 0 25 50 75 100 125
0

-1

-2

Penetra@on (inch)
-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

Patent pending -8
Penetrometer Pressure (ksf)
Wave Equa@on Analysis
Wave Equa@on Analysis

soil
Bearing Graph: Variable Capacity, One depth
SI-Units; Clay and Sand Example; D19-42; HP 12x53;
 Wave Equa@on Analysis
Advantages
!Accurate models for hammer, pile, soil
!Predicts driving stresses
!Evaluates capacity versus set / blow
Limitations / Disadvantages
!Assumes normal hammer performance
 Static Load Testing

Deadload Testing

React. Piles/Anchors

ASTM D1143
Sta@c Load Tests are the standard

Costly: Need 100% load + long @me

 Top Instrumenta@on
Reac^on beam

Spherical Bearing Plate

Load Cell
Hydraulic Jack
Reference Beams
Dial
Gages
Wire and Mirror
Test
pile
Fully automated recording systems
are commercially available
 Addi@onal Pile Instrumenta@on
Goal: Determine resistance distribu^on
Strain gages, sister bars Telltales

Extra Costs
 Result is a load versus displacement curve
but, Failure Criteria is not unique
Chin 250
1.30
Brinch-Hansen 80% 1.17
200
Mazurkiewicz 1.15

Load (tons)
Van Der Veen 1.13
150
Fuller and Hoy 1.12
De Beer 1.03
100
Butler and Hoy 1.02
Davisson 50
1.00
D/20 0.90
0
D/30 + elas@c 1.04 0,000 0,500 Movement (inch)
ADer Fellenius, 1990.
1,000 1,500 2,000
D/10 1.10 Guidelines for the Interpreta^on of

sta^c loading tests
 Sta@c Load Test
Advantages
!Measures load versus defection
!Indirectly checks integrity (will it carry load?)

Limitations / Disadvantages
!Cost (expense and time)
!Result at one depth and one time
!Often proof test not to failure
Bi-direc@onal Load Test
Hydrodynamic Expansive Cell (Expancell)
Patented 1981 by Eng. Pedro Elisio Da Silva (Arcos)
Bi-directional Load Test
jack near bottom of bored pile

Brazil: Eng. Pedro Elisio da Silva (Arcos) patent 1981

USA: Dr. Jorg Osterberg, 1984 publica^on
 Mul@ple jacks at mul@ple levels

Mul@ple jacks for high capaci@es

Bi-direc@onal Load Tests
Advantages
!Static test ( large loads, often at pile bottom )
!Generally conservative results
!Safety improved

Limitations / Disadvantages
!Cost (expense and time jack not recovered)
!Result at one depth and one time
!Load at pile top is zero (no integrity check)
!Generally conservative results
 Dynamic Pile Tes(ng
Driven Piles Bored Piles
Sensors on pile Top transducer

Pile Driving
ASTM Analyzer
D4945 (PDA)

CAPWAP signal matching

Load (kN) Pile Top

Bottom
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0
0.00

Ru = 3425.2 kN
CW versus SLT combined (N=303)5.00 (80, 96, SW) Rs =
Rb =
1458.6 kN
1966.6 kN
Dy = 18.8 mm
Dx = 18.8 mm

Displacement (mm)
40,000
10.00

Measure force 30,000 15.00

and velocity and

CW [kN]

20.00

compute sta@c 20,000

load test curve 10,000

0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
SLT [kN]
CAPWAP is an iterative process
Final match (good)
Input V
Compute F

First try (poor)

 CAPWAP - Results

+20%
SLT
-20%

CAPWAP
St. Johns River Bridge $20 million saved
Aug 11
End of Drive
82 Blows/meter

Capacity increase with @me

Set-up Sept 16
Restrike
492 Blows/meter

600 x 13mm c.e.pipe, ICE 120S

Scales & Wolcott, FDOT, presentation at PDCA Roundtable Orlando 2004

 Tes@ng
bored
piles

APPLE
drop weight
Thick cushion with 28 tons

20 80 tons
available
 Benets of Load Tes@ng
Example (AASHTO ASD pre 2007):
load to support 40,000 kN
Ul@mate capacity per pile 2,000 kN
Allowable Stress Design: Design load Pile capacity / F.S.
Determina@on method F.S. Design load # of Piles
kN/ pile required
Dynamic formula 3.5 571 70
Wave equa@on 2.75 727 55
Dynamic tes@ng 2.25 889 45
Sta@c tes@ng 2.0 1000 40
Sta@c & Dynamic tes@ng 1.9 1053 38
 Benets of Load Tes@ng
Example (AASHTO LRFD a^er 2007):
load to support 40,000 kN
Ul@mate capacity per pile 2,000 kN
Assumes factored load = (1.25 D + 1.75 L), and D/L = 3
LRFD: Pile capacity * Factored load
Factored
Determina@on method Equiv resistance # of piles
F.S. kN / pile required
Gates formula 0.40 3.44 800 69
Wave equa@on 0.50 2.75 1000 55
Dynamic test (min.2% or 2#) 0.65 2.12 1,300 43
Sta@c or 100% Dynamic test 0.75 1.83 1,500 37
Sta@c and >2% Dynamic test 0.80 1.72 1,600 35
 Peter Narsavage Year Driven Pile Cost Testing Cost
Ohio Dept of Transportation 2005 $10,705,041 $305,921
2011 PDCA seminar, Orlando 2006 $18,836,927 $313,315
2007 $15,948,151 $379,750
2008 $26,591,945 $587,882
2009 $25,308,605 $450,863
$2.5M / $123.6 M = 2% 2010 $26,211,622 $518,557
Test / driven pile cost Total $123,602,290 $2,556,288

Method AASHTO PHI Rela@ve cost

(LRFD) of piles Savings
Formula (Gates) 0.40 1.00 0%
Wave Equa@on 0.50 0.80 20% Savings
2% PDA 0.65 0.62 38% $92,700,000
2 # PDA Ohio DOT 0.70 0.57 43%
100%PDA or SLT 0.75 0.53 47%
PDA + SLT 0.80 0.50 50%
 Dynamic Pile Tes(ng
For each blow determine
Capacity

Hammer performance
Pile stresses
Pile integrity
Last three items detect
or prevent problems
Dynamic tes@ng also detects pile integrity (damaged piles)

Good

Bad
High Strain Dynamic Tes@ng
Advantages
Assesses pile capacity and distribu^on
Stress informa^on to avoid damage
Evaluates integrity
Op^mizes founda^on reduces founda^on cost

Limita@ons / Disadvantages
Bored pile tests more complicated
Need large hammer or drop weights
Rapid - Force Pulse Tests Statnamic
Event lasts < 0.2 seconds
Reac@on
Weights
> 5% of Ru
Combus^on
Chamber
Load Cell
Pile
Gas propulsion
 Rapid - Force Pulse Test - Dynamic

Tes@ng
with heavy ram and thick cushion
>5% Ru

Heavy cushioning and a

heavier ram (>5% Ru)
meet force pulse test
requirements
 The equivalent load-displacement curve for
Force Pulse Tests
RUPM = Rtotal at v=0
Rsta@c = (freduc@on) RUPM

(clay) 0.5 < freduc@on 1.05 (sand)

Rtotal
Various interpreta@on methods by Rsta^c
Brown, Powell RUPM
Hajduk et al
Matsumoto et al
Middendorp et al
Miyasaka et al
Schellingerhout, Revoort
Schmuker
Weaver, Rollins
Lateral Rapid Force Pulse Tests
 Force Pulse Tes@ng
Advantages
Applies forces up to 30 MN
Can test lateral dynamic response

Limita@ons / Disadvantages
Best use: bored piles
S^ll a dynamic test
No consensus on interpreta^on method
One type uses combus^ve materials
 April 2004

Consequences of no redundancy, site variability, and only

minimal testing, caused disastrous sudden failure.
TAMPA Tribune Nov 23, 2004 Almost half of the foundations
supporting the new elevated portion of the Lee Roy Selmon
Expressway need major repairs, and the cost of
fixing them has grown to $78
million. (eventual total cost was $120 M)
 Summary
Remedia@on of failed founda@ons is very expensive
Tes@ng reduces risk of failures
Tes@ng should be specied in project documents
Prefer defect preven@on or early detec@on/resolu@on
Sa@sfactory founda@ons require:
Structural integrity
Sucient geotechnical capacity
Integrity Evalua@on:
Automated Monitoring for augered piles
Thermal Proling for bored piles, or augered piles
Dynamic Tes@ng for driven piles
Capacity Evalua@on:
Conven@onal or Bi-Direc@onal sta@c tests
Dynamic Tes@ng
 Pile Tes(ng State-of-the-Art

Thank you for your aQen(on

Garland Likins, P.E.
engineer@pile.com