GEVORA-Test Pile HSDPT Report#22662

Report # GSPT/PTD/PDA/GIHM/22662

Reporting Date: February 7, 2022

HIGH STRAIN DYNAMIC PILE TESTING

GEVORA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL
Bridge#1, 38+900
AND MALL, GULBERG ISLAMABAD
Test Pile (750mm Ø Dia &23.45 meter Depth)

Pile Tested: Test Pile (760mm Dia & 21.34m Depth)

PREPAREDFOR:

Client: GEVORA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL & MALL

Consultant: DEVELOSCAPE ARCHITECTS & CONSULTANT

Contractor: GEOCRUST ISLAMABAD

Testing By: CAPWAP Analysis By:

GeoScience Pile Test GRL Engineers Incorporation – USA

High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing at
GEVORA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL & MALL, GULBERG‐ISLAMABAD
Table of Contents
Description Page
Section‐1 1.0 Executive Summary 1
1.1 Project Location Map 1
1.2 General 2
Section‐2 2.0 Summary of Test Results 3
Definitions 4
Section‐3 3.0 Discussion 5
3.1 Pile Behavior During Testing 5
3.2 Pile Integrity 6
3.3 CAPWAP Analysis 6
Section‐4 Appendixes
I PDA Field Testing and Results
II CAPWAP Analysis Results
III Field Photographs
IV Pile Installation Record
Section‐5 Attachments
I Wave Equation Theory
II Detail of CAPWAP Method of Analysis
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the Restrike High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing (HSDPT)
carried out at GEVORA International Hotel & Mall, Gulberg Islamabad. Test on 01 Test
Pile was conducted on February 02, 2022 using Pile Driving Analyzer® of USA.
The Dynamic Pile Test field data was collected by Geoscience Pile Test and sent via e‐mail to
GRL Engineers, Inc. ‐ USA for final interpretations. The CAPWAP Analysis has been
performed by Brent R. Robinson, (Ph.D., P.E.) & Seth Robertson, (Ph.D., P.E.) of GRL
Engineers, Inc. – USA and final evaluation is presented in this report.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Report # GSPT/PTD/PDA/GIHM/22662 February 2022
Page 1 of 6

1.2 GENERAL

High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing (HSDPT) was conducted in accordance with
ASTM D4945 on 760mm diameter cast‐in‐situ 01 Pile using 12 Tons Air Drop Hammer at
GEVORA International Hotel & Mall, Gulberg Islamabad Project.

The PDA and subsequent CAPWAP analysis results obtained on Pile showed the following
capacities:‐

Shaft
Sr. Sequence of Total Mobilized Capacity End Bearing
Pile Identification Friction
No. Testing (Tons) (Tons)
(Tons)
1. Test Pile Re‐Strike 830 747 83

Page 2 of 6
2.1 DEFINITIONS
RMX Case Static Capacity field estimate
FMX Maximum measured Pile Top Force
CSX Maximum Compressive stress at pile top
EMX Maximum Energy Transmitted past the gauges
SET Pile Permanent Displacement
Blow No. Hammer Blow Number for data acquisition
PILE TYPES
T Timber pile
RC Reinforced Concrete pile
PSC Pre‐stressed Spun Concrete pile
H Steel H pile
SP Steel Pipe pile
BP Bored pile
UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT
The Accelerometers and Strain Gauges used in the measurement are subject to allowable
calibration errors of ±3%. The PDA has been calibrated using a PDA Calibration Box to not
exceeding 2% of the maximum signal expected. The combined error should not exceed 5%
of the maximum results expected. This is in compliance with ASTM D4945.
NOTES
Standard Test Method: ASTM D4945
The pile and hammer details are furnished by Client's Representative and/or
GSA is strictly treated it to be correct and accurate.
Page 4 of 6
3.0 DISCUSSION
The objective of the High Strain Dynamic Pile Test was to evaluate the activated Static
Capacity, Driving Stresses, and Hammer Performance and to assess the structural integrity
of the pile during the testing. To accomplish these goals, pile top measurements of Force
and Acceleration were evaluated by the CASE method using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)
for immediate results.
Subsequent analysis was performed on the tested piles for accurate determination of the
Ultimate Static Capacity. This analysis included the Case Pile Wave Analysis Program
(CAPWAP) which is used to calculate the Dynamic characteristics of the soils and the
resistance distribution along the shaft and the toe of the pile.
3.1 Pile Behavior During Testing;
 Test Pile:
Tested Pile reveals that the Maximum Energy (EMX) imparted from 12.0 Tons Air Drop
Hammer was about 2.93 tn‐m. The Tensile Stress (TSX) was 1.7 MPa during testing. The peak
Maximum Dynamic Force (FMX) for the pile was 871 Tons. This force corresponds to the Pile
Top Stresses (CSX) of 18.8 MPa and Pile Bottom Stresses (CSB) of 7.8 MPa. All these stresses
are allowable driving stresses.
Page 5 of 6
3.2 PILE INTEGRITY
The PDA monitors the pile for damage by checking the recorded traces for the presence of
any velocity wave return prior to the arrival of return wave from the pile toe.
Recorded traces showed that the pile has no structural abnormality at the time of testing.
3.3 CAPWAP ANALYSIS
The analysis result from CAPWAP is based on a mathematical model simulation and the
result reported is from the best matched model attained during the analysis. The CAPWAP
analysis result is as under;
 Test Pile:
Mobilized capacity calculated by CAPWAP for Test Pile is 830 Tons. The Resistance
Distribution showed that the Skin has contributed almost 90% of all the Mobilized
Resistance and the Average Shaft Unit Resistance with respect to Area is 15.33 tons/m2.
Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX I
PDA FIELD TESTING AND RESULTS
PDA FIELD TESTING AND RESULTS
Dynamic testing on the pile was conducted by an impact loading caused by 12.0 Tons Air Drop
Hammer. During impact, complete analyzer readout (which can also be printed out) of the
dynamic pile measurements were obtained for each hammer blow delivered to the pile.
01 Pile was tested and obtained field results are summarized in section 2.0 “Summary of Test
Results” of the report. However, onsite submitted Performa and PDA‐DLTField Sheet are
appended here.
Four Strain Transducers and Two Piezo‐Resistive Accelerometers were attached to a Load Cell
place on Pile Top however Two Piezo‐Electric Accelerometers were attached to pile. Gadgets
were mounted on opposite sides of the Load Cell and Pile for cancellation of bending effects
during each strike of hammer. The signals of Strain and Acceleration were conditioned and
processed by the PDA‐DLT.
The PDA‐DLT Program based on Case‐Goble solutions to compute static pile capacity from the
pile top force and velocity data. The portion of total resistance which is computed as static
resistance by the analyzer (RMX) is determined by the Soil Damping Factor (J) set into the
analyzer. The methods of computation used by the PDA have been explained in more detail in
Attachment II.
APPENDIX II
CAPWAP ANALYSIS RESULTS
February 3, 2022
Mr. Faraz Junaid

GeoScience Pile Test
84-B Gulberg-2
Lahore Punjab 54000 Pakistan
Re: CAPWAP Analyses

Test Pile
Gevora International Hotel & Mall, Gulberg
Islamabad, Pakistan
GRL Job No. 221012-1

Dear Mr. Junaid:
GRL is pleased to present the results of our CAPWAP analysis for dynamic testing of the Test
Pile at the Gevora International Hotel & Mall project. This data was provided to GRL via e-mail by
GeoScience Pile Test on February 3, 2022. The shaft name, drop hammer weight, drop height,
set per blow, shaft embedment, and total shaft length were not observed by GRL. The shaft name,
drop hammer weight, drop height, set per blow, shaft embedment, and total shaft length were not
observed by GRL. The shaft designation and dimensions (e.g. diameter, relevant lengths, and
concrete placement information) were transmitted by GeoScience Pile Test. All other essential
information, such as the set per blow, were assumed based on the dynamic measurements
provided to us. The test pile had a reported concrete volume in excess of the theoretical volume,
potentially indicating oversized sections.
The CAPWAP analysis results for the Test Pile performed on the last applied blow are attached.
Based on descriptions of the shaft reported to us, we have modelled a 21.3-m-long drilled shaft
from the sensor location with 20.4-m total embedment. The mobilized resistance was estimated
as 830 tonnes.
Please use these results in light of the geotechnical studies and other experiences in the area.
The impacts resulted in reportedly low sets, and thus may provide a minimum capacity, which
also likely affects the mobilized toe response reported.
We have enjoyed performing this analysis for you. If you have further questions or concerns,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully,
GRL Engineers, Inc.
Seth Robertson, Ph.D., P.E. Brent R. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
30725 Aurora Rd. • Solon, OH 44139 California • Colorado • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Illinois • Louisiana
+1 216-831-6131 • www.GRLengineers.com Massachusetts • North Carolina • Ohio • Pennsylvania • Texas • Washington
Corporate Office 30725 Aurora Rd., Solon, OH 44139, +1 216-831-6131

Gevora Intl. Hotel & Mall; Pile: TP; 760 mm Dia; 21.34m; Blow: 3 (Test: 02-Feb-2022 14:48:) 03-Feb-2022
GRL Engineers, Inc. CAPWAP(R) 2014-3
1000 1000
Force Msd Force Msd
tons tons
Force Cpt Velocity Msd
500 500
5 105 ms 5 105 ms
0 0
15 L/c 15 L/c
-500 -500
Pile Impedance
75
Shaft Resistance Length b. Sensors 21.3 m
Load (tons) Pile Top
Distribution Embedment 20.4 m
60 Top Area 0.45 m2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Bottom
0.000 End Bearing Area 0.45 m2
Top Perimeter 2.39 m
45
tons/m
Top E-Modulus 400 tons/cm2
Top Spec. Weight 2.5 tons/m3
RU = 830 tons 30 Top Wave Spd. 4000 m/s
2.000 Overall W.S. 4000 m/s
SF = 747 tons
EB = 83 tons
15
Displacement (mm)
Dy = 6.369 mm Match Quality 0.65

Dx = 6.865 mm Top Compr. Stress 0.2 tons/cm2
4.000 SET/Bl = 0.500 mm 0 Max Compr. Stress 0.2 tons/cm2
0 EB Max Tension Stress -0.00 tons/cm2
200 Avg. Shaft Quake 1.037 mm

6.000 Toe Quake 0.990 mm
400 Avg. Shaft Smith Dpg. 1.51 s/m
SF Toe Smith Damping 1.31 s/m
tons
600
8.000
800
Pile Force
10.000 at Ru
1000
CAPWAP(R) 2014-3 Licensed to GRL Engineers, Inc.

Gevora Intl. Hotel & Mall; Pile: TP Test: 02-Feb-2022 14:48
760 mm Dia; 21.34m; Blow: 3 CAPWAP(R) 2014-3
GRL Engineers, Inc. OP: GSPT
About the CAPWAP Results
The CAPWAP program performs a signal matching or reverse analysis based on

measurements taken on a deep foundation under an impact load. The program is based
on a one-dimensional mathematical model. Under certain conditions, the model only
crudely approximates the often complex dynamic situations.
The CAPWAP analysis relies on the input of accurately measured dynamic data plus
additional parameters describing pile and soil behavior. If the field measurements
of force and velocity are incorrect or were taken under inappropriate conditions
(e.g., at an inappropriate time or with too much or too little energy) or if the
input pile model is incorrect, then the solution cannot represent the actual
soil behavior.
Generally the CAPWAP analysis is used to estimate the axial compressive pile
capacity and the soil resistance distribution. The long-term capacity is best
evaluated with restrike tests since they incorporate soil strength changes
(set-up gains or relaxation losses) that occur after installation. The calculated
load settlement graph does not consider creep or long term consolidation settlements.
When uplift is a controlling factor in the design, use of the CAPWAP results to assess
uplift capacity should be made only after very careful analysis of only good
measurement quality, and further used only with longer pile lengths and with nominally
higher safety factors.
CAPWAP is also used to evaluate driving stresses along the length of the pile.
However, it should be understood that the analysis is one dimensional and does not
take into account bending effects or local contact stresses at the pile toe.
Furthermore, if the user of this software was not able to produce a solution with
satisfactory signal “match quality” (MQ), then the associated CAPWAP results may be
unreliable. There is no absolute scale for solution acceptability but solutions with
MQ above 5 are generally considered less reliable than those with lower MQ values and
every effort should be made to improve the analysis, for example, by getting help
from other independent experts.
Considering the CAPWAP model limitations, the nature of the input parameters,
the complexity of the analysis procedure, and the need for a responsible application
of the results to actual construction projects, it is recommended that at least one
static load test be performed on sites where little experience exists with dynamic
behavior of the soil resistance or when the experience of the analyzing engineer with
both program use and result application is limited.
Finally, the CAPWAP capacities are ultimate values. They MUST be reduced by means
of an appropriate factor of safety to yield a design or working load. The selection
of a factor of safety should consider the quality of the construction control,
the variability of the site conditions, uncertainties in the loads, the importance
of structure and other factors. The CAPWAP results should be reviewed by the Engineer
of Record with consideration of applicable geotechnical conditions including, but not
limited to, group effects, potential settlement from underlying compressible layers,
soil resistances provided from any layers unsuitable for long term support,
as well as effective stress changes due to soil surcharges, excavation or change
in water table elevation.
The CAPWAP analysis software is one of many means by which the capacity of a deep
foundation can be assessed. The engineer performing the analysis is responsible for
proper software application and the analysis results. Pile Dynamics accepts
no liability whatsoever of any kind for the analysis solution and/or the application
of the analysis result.
Analysis: 03-Feb-2022
CAPWAP SUMMARY RESULTS
Total CAPWAP Capacity: 830.00; along Shaft 746.66; at Toe 83.34 tons
Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Quake
Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist.
No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area)
m m tons tons tons tons/m tons/m2 mm
830.0
1 2.0 1.1 41.38 788.6 41.38 36.67 15.36 1.090
2 3.0 2.1 41.38 747.2 82.76 40.80 17.09 1.089
3 4.1 3.2 45.09 702.1 127.85 44.45 18.62 1.089
4 5.1 4.2 45.09 657.1 172.94 44.45 18.62 1.089
5 6.1 5.2 45.09 612.0 218.03 44.45 18.62 1.089
6 7.1 6.2 52.32 559.6 270.35 51.58 21.60 1.089
7 8.1 7.2 55.45 504.2 325.80 54.67 22.90 1.089
8 9.1 8.2 57.08 447.1 382.88 56.28 23.57 1.089
9 10.1 9.2 56.35 390.8 439.23 55.56 23.27 1.089
10 11.2 10.3 53.55 337.2 492.78 52.80 22.11 1.089
11 12.2 11.3 49.25 288.0 542.03 48.56 20.34 1.089
12 13.2 12.3 42.32 245.6 584.35 41.72 17.48 1.089
13 14.2 13.3 29.37 216.3 613.72 28.96 12.13 1.041
14 15.2 14.3 13.86 202.4 627.58 13.66 5.72 0.973
15 16.2 15.3 21.26 181.2 648.84 20.96 8.78 0.910
16 17.2 16.3 19.95 161.2 668.79 19.67 8.24 0.854
17 18.3 17.4 18.78 142.4 687.57 18.52 7.75 0.804
18 19.3 18.4 18.97 123.5 706.54 18.70 7.83 0.759
19 20.3 19.4 19.62 103.8 726.16 19.34 8.10 0.719
20 21.3 20.4 20.50 83.3 746.66 20.21 8.47 0.688
Avg. Shaft 37.33 36.60 15.33 1.037

Toe 83.34 183.71 0.990
Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Shaft Toe
Smith Damping Factor 1.51 1.31

Case Damping Factor 2.49 0.24
Damping Type Viscous Sm+Visc
Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 100 30
Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100
Unloading Level (% of Ru) 18
Soil Plug Weight (tons) 1.565
CAPWAP match quality = 0.65 (Wave Up Match) ; RSA = 0

Observed: Final Set = 0.500 mm; Blow Count = 2000 b/m
Computed: Final Set = 0.721 mm; Blow Count = 1388 b/m
Transducer F5 (V484) CAL: 145.2; RF: 1.00; F6 (V485) CAL: 143.0; RF: 1.00
F7 (V487) CAL: 150.3; RF: 1.00; F8 (V488) CAL: 145.2; RF: 1.00
A1 (69186) CAL: 1027; RF: 1.00; A2 (68953) CAL: 1061; RF: 1.00
*Not Active A3*(K12012) CAL: 381; RF: 1.00; A4*(K12013) CAL: 379; RF: 1.00
Page 2 Analysis: 03-Feb-2022

max. Top Comp. Stress = 0.2 tons/cm2 (T= 28.7 ms, max= 1.018 x Top)
max. Comp. Stress = 0.2 tons/cm2 (Z= 2.0 m, T= 28.9 ms)
max. Tens. Stress = -0.00 tons/cm2 (Z= 2.0 m, T= 39.6 ms)
max. Energy (EMX) = 3.02 tons-m; max. Measured Top Displ. (DMX)= 4.815 mm
EXTREMA TABLE
Pile Dist. max. min. max. max. max. max. max.
Sgmnt Below Force Force Comp. Tens. Trnsfd. Veloc. Displ.
No. Gages Stress Stress Energy
m tons tons tons/cm2 tons/cm2 tons-m m/s mm
1 1.0 889.5 -1.0 0.2 -0.00 3.02 0.7 4.615
2 2.0 905.4 -12.5 0.2 -0.00 2.87 0.6 4.230
3 3.0 854.0 -2.0 0.2 -0.00 2.48 0.6 3.872
4 4.1 805.8 -0.9 0.2 -0.00 2.16 0.5 3.606
5 5.1 753.2 -0.8 0.2 -0.00 1.85 0.5 3.353
6 6.1 701.5 -0.7 0.2 -0.00 1.58 0.4 3.111
7 7.1 648.0 -0.6 0.1 -0.00 1.32 0.4 2.838
8 8.1 585.5 -0.6 0.1 -0.00 1.08 0.4 2.578
9 9.1 516.7 -0.5 0.1 -0.00 0.87 0.3 2.329
10 10.1 446.9 -0.4 0.1 -0.00 0.68 0.3 2.113
11 11.2 391.6 -0.4 0.1 -0.00 0.53 0.3 1.925
12 12.2 335.9 -0.3 0.1 -0.00 0.41 0.3 1.763
13 13.2 282.2 -0.3 0.1 -0.00 0.32 0.2 1.625
14 14.2 240.2 -0.2 0.1 -0.00 0.24 0.2 1.508
15 15.2 213.6 -0.2 0.0 -0.00 0.20 0.2 1.405
16 16.2 202.2 -0.2 0.0 -0.00 0.17 0.2 1.312
17 17.2 182.6 -0.2 0.0 -0.00 0.14 0.2 1.231
18 18.3 164.4 -0.2 0.0 -0.00 0.12 0.2 1.160
19 19.3 145.9 -0.1 0.0 -0.00 0.10 0.2 1.097
20 20.3 125.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.00 0.08 0.2 1.041
21 21.3 103.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.00 0.05 0.2 0.992
Absolute 2.0 0.2 (T = 28.9 ms)

2.0 -0.00 (T = 39.6 ms)

CASE METHOD
J = 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
RP 605 611 617 622 628 634 640 645 651 657
RX 714 687 661 638 617 606 606 606 606 606
RU 738 757 776 795 814 833 852 871 890 910
RAU = 605 (tons); RA2 = 605 (tons)
Current CAPWAP Ru = 830 (tons); Corresponding J(RP)= 0.00; J(RX) = 0.00
VMX TVP VT1*Z FT1 FMX DMX DFN SET EMX QUS KEB
m/s ms tons tons tons mm mm mm tons-m tons tons/mm
0.8 22.82 268 281 871 4.815 0.499 0.500 3.15 1186 84
PILE PROFILE AND PILE MODEL

Depth Area E-Modulus Spec. Weight Perim.
m m2 tons/cm2 tons/m3 m
0.0 0.45 399.7 2.450 2.39
21.3 0.45 399.7 2.450 2.39
Toe Area 0.45 m2
Segmnt Dist. Impedance Imped. Tension Compression Perim. Wave

Number B.G. Change Slack Eff. Slack Eff. Speed
m tons/m/s % tons mm m m/s
1 1.0 453.34 0.00 1 1.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0

2 2.0 463.01 2.13 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
3 3.0 503.58 11.08 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
4 4.1 630.78 39.14 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
5 5.1 614.61 35.57 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
6 6.1 598.89 32.11 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
7 7.1 499.94 10.28 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
8 8.1 487.47 7.53 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
9 9.1 453.34 0.00 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
21 21.3 453.34 0.00 0 0.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0
Wave Speed: Pile Top 4000.0, Elastic 4000.0, Overall 4000.0 m/s
Pile Damping 2.00 %, Time Incr 0.254 ms, 2L/c 10.7 ms
Total volume: 10.297 m3; Volume ratio considering added impedance: 1.066

APPENDIX III
FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS
HIGH STRAIN DYNAMIC PILE TESTING AT GEVORA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL & MALL



APPENDIX IV
PILE INSTALLATION RECORD
BORELOG
Ground Engineering Services & Solutions
BOREHOLE NO.
(Geotechnical Engineering Department)
BH-01
PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION - GEVORA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL & MALL Drilling Started on:
23-11-2021
LOCATION: PLOT NO. 16, BLOCK-E, GULBERG GREENS, ISLAMABAD. Drilling Completed on:
29-11-2021
CLIENT: GEVORA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL & MALL Engineer:
DRILLING INFORMATION Zia/Fahad
PROJECT NO: AJK/GT/101- Driller:
METHOD OF DRILLING: Straight Rotary
DIA. OF BORING: NX CO-ORDINATES: Mohsin
BIT: Clay / Carbide Rock Level: 3.5m North: 33.61131 East: 73.19152 Direction / Inclination:
SPT HAMMER WEIGHT: 63.5 kg Drop: 76cm GROUND WATER TABLE: Encountered at 0ft depth. Vertical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
SPT Std. Penetration
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
BLOWS Test Data

RUN
NO.
Subsurface Description Remarks
RQD %
(cm)
RC %
Blows per 30cm
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0 2 3 4 7 0.0
3 7 8 15
1.0 S-1 SILTY CLAY 1.0
Brown, Stiff, Medium Plasticity,
2.0 S-2 Brown, Hard, Medium Plasticity, 6 16 27 43 2.0
3.0 S-3 Brown, Very Hard, Medium Plasticity, 7 18 35 53 3.0
Run-1 = 3.5m - 4.0m

R-1
SANDSTONE (3.5m - 7.0m)
78 Nil
4.0 4.0
Greyish Brown, Moderately Fractured, Weak to Very
Weak, Interbedded Shale layers,
R-2 Run-2 = 4.0m - 5.0m
74 12
5.0 5.0
R-3 Run-3 = 5.0m - 6.0m
88 54
6.0 6.0
R-4 Run-4 = 6.0m - 7.0m
86 11
7.0 7.0
SHALE (7.0m - 10.0m)

R-5 Run-5 = 7.0m - 8.0m
Reddish Brown, Highly Fractured, Weak to Very
Weak, Interbedded Sandstone layers,
74 Nil
8.0 8.0
R-6 Run-6 = 8.0m - 9.0m
78 34
9.0 9.0
R-7 Run-7 = 9.0m - 10.0m
10.0 80 32 10.0
L E G E N D:
SPT/S Standard Penetration Test & Number CPT/C Cone Penetration Test & Number
RUN/R Rock Core Run and Number UDS Undisturbed Sample
RC Rock Core Recovery RQD Rock Quality Designation SHEET 1 OF 3
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Verifcation:
Contractor Representative Client Representative

BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-01
23-11-2021
29-11-2021
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
BLOWS Test Data

RUN
NO.
RQD %
(cm)
RC %
Blows per 30cm
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
10.0 10.0
SANDSTONE (10.0m - 30.0m) Run-8 = 10.0m -

R-8 11.0m
Greyish Brown, Slightly Fractured, Weak to Medium
95 56
11.0 Strong, Interbedded Mudstone layers, 11.0
Run-9 = 11.0m -
R-9 12.0m
86 80
12.0 12.0
Run-10 = 12.0m -
R-10 13.0m
SHALE (12.5 - 13.0m)
85 38
13.0 13.0
Reddish Brown, Slightly Fractured, Weak to Medium
Strong, Interbedded Sandstone layers,
R-11 Run-11 = 13.0m -
14.0m
87 21
14.0 14.0
Run-12 = 14.0m -
R-12 15.0m
80 46
15.0 15.0
Run-13 = 15.0m -
R-13 16.0m
94 72
16.0 16.0
Run-14 = 16.0m -
R-14 17.0m
84 52
17.0 17.0
Run-15 = 17.0m -
R-15 18.0m
91 64
18.0 18.0
Run-6 = 18.0m -
R-16 19.0m
88 14
19.0 19.0
Run-7 = 18.0m -
R-17 20.0m
20.0 95 29 20.0
L E G E N D:
Verifcation:

BORELOG
BOREHOLE NO.
BH-01
23-11-2021
29-11-2021
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
SAMPLE TYPE /
N VALUES
Rock
Depth (m)
PROFILE
BLOWS Test Data

RUN
NO.
RQD %
(cm)
RC %
Blows per 30cm
15 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
20.0 20.0
SANDSTONE (20.0m - 30.0m) Run-18 = 20.0m -

R-18 21.0m
Greenish Grey, Slightly Fractured, Weak to Medium
Strong, Interbedded Mudstone layers, Fine to Medium 90 18
21.0 21.0
Grain
Run-19 = 21.0m -
R-19 22.0m
93 38
22.0 22.0
Run-20 = 22.0m -
R-20 23.0m
97 36
23.0 23.0
R-21 Run-21 = 23.0m -

24.0m
91 89
24.0 24.0
Run-22 = 24.0m -
R-22 25.0m
90 33
25.0 25.0
Run-23 = 25.0m -
R-23 26.0m
90 16
26.0 26.0
Run-24 = 26.0m -
R-24 27.0m
97 32
27.0 27.0
Run-25 = 27.0m -
R-25 28.0m
89 41
28.0 28.0
Run-26 = 28.0m -
R-26 29.0m
80 23
29.0 29.0
Run-27 = 29.0m -
R-27 30.0m
30.0 80 10 30.0
L E G E N D:
Verifcation:

ATTACHMENT I
WAVE EQUATION THEORY

WAVE MECHANICS
When a pile is suddenly loaded by a force, P, at one end, a stress wave is generated which
begins to travel at a speed c down the pile. The wave speed, c, is a function of the material
properties of the pile since it can be shown, using Newton’s Second Law, that
c = E/rho
2
(1)
where E is Young’s modulus and where rho is the mass density, both of the pile material.
Using Hooke’s Law, the change of particle velocity, du’, for a specific point on the pile can be
shown to be related to the pile force, P, at the point.
du ' = Pc/EA (2)
It is important to distinguish between the “Wave Speed” (speed of the compression or

tension wave moving along a pile) from the “Particle Speed” (speed of a particle in the pile
as a wave passes by).
Often velocity, u ' , instead of change of velocity, du ', is used, but then proportionality holds
if only one wave traveling in a given direction is present. The force-velocity proportionality
constant is also called the “impedance”. This term implies that the pile offers a resistance to
(impedes) the change in velocity (the term Zu ' has units of force). Note the following
alternate forms of impedance.
Z = EA/c = rho (c) A = Mc/L (3)
The basic one dimensional wave equation is
rho (∂2u/ ∂t2) = E (∂2u/ ∂x2) (4)
and has a general solution for the pile particle displacement
u = g(x+ct) + f(x-ct) (5)
consisting of two components, g and f with time; the g and f waves merely shift positively
and negatively without changing shape at a speed c. Within the downward input wave (f),
there are compressive forces, causing proportional downward particle velocities (denoting
the wave forces by F)
Fd = Zu ' (down) (6)
With no soil resistance, as the wave arrives at the pile tip it has no mass to accelerate and a
reflection occurs. In fact, because the pile tip is free, the tip force must be zero, and due to
force equilibrium an equivalent upward wave in tension is generated which pulls the pile
particles downward.
We can state that compressive wave particle velocities have the same direction as the wave
propagation while for tension waves, particle velocities and wave propagation have the
opposite sign (velocity is positive downward and compression is a positive force). Thus, for
upward traveling waves
Fu = -Zu ' (up) (7)
The total force, P, and velocity, u ‘, measured at any location in a pile is the result of
superposition of all downward and upward traveling waves
P = Fd + Fu
u ' = u ' d+ u ' u (8)
Multiplying the velocities by the impedance Z, the forces in the upward and downward
waves can be obtained from these two simultaneous equations
Fd = (P+Zv)/2
Fu = (P-Zv)/2 (9)
CAPACITY
If a resistance force starts to act at time t = x/c at some intermediate point, x, along the
pile(caused by an impact at time t = 0 at the pile top), then two waves are created, each
having a magnitude of Rx/2. To satisfy equilibrium and continuity, the upward wave is in
compression and the downward wave in tension. The upward compressive resistance wave
reaches the top at time t = 2x/c. The tensile resistance wave reaches first the pile bottom at
time t = L/c ,where it is reflected in compression. It then travels upward to the top where it
arrives at time t
= 2L/c.
If a resistance force, Rb, starts to act at time t = L/c at the pile bottom, then it will create a
compressive upward traveling wave of magnitude Rb, which arrives at the pile top at time t =
2L/c.
If all resistance forces act constant throughout the time x/c‹t‹2(L-x)/c, then at time 2L/c the
force and velocity records contain the effects of
(1) The upward traveling tension wave due to reflection at the pile bottom of the
initial downward moving compression input at a time 2L/c earlier, -Fd(t1)
(2) The summation of all upward traveling compression resistance waves (Rx/2)
(3) The initially downward traveling tension resistance waves now traveling upward in
compression after reflection at the bottom (Rx/2) and the upward wave from the tip
resistance (Rb), both arriving at the pile top together with (1)
(4) All downward traveling waves, Fd(t2).
Wave (2) and wave (3) have a total magnitude, R (R = Rx ÷ Rb) since they contain both half
waves of skin friction and the full end bearing. Thus, the combination of all upward traveling
waves contains the resistance and the bottom reflected (negative) impact wave of time t1.
(P2 - Zu ' 2)/2 = -(P1+Zu '1)/2 + R (10)
Rearranging, we can now solve for the total resistance
R = (P1+Zu '1 + P2 - Zu ' 2)/2 (11)

Where the indices 1 and 2 refer to times t1 and t2 = t1 + 2L/c.
R is the total resistance encountered during a complete passage of the wave (during a time
period of 2L/c). There are differences between this resistance and the ultimate static
capacity of the pile and various considerations are necessary to predict Rs.
(1) Elimination of soil damping
(2) Proper choice of time t1 such that R is already at full magnitude when P and u '
samples are taken
(3) Correction for an Rs that decreases during 2L/c because of early pile rebound
(negative velocity before 2L/c)
(4) Time dependent soil strength changes (setup or relaxation). Since the dynamic
methods give the resistance at the time of testing, it is always recommended to test
piles at the end of driving for the strength of remolded soil, or by restrike after a wait
period for the long-term service load, and at both times to determine strength
changes. It should not be surprising that the capacity at the end of driving may not
be equal to the service capacity after a wait due to reconsolidation, dissipation of
excess pore pressures, etc. Static test correlations should always be made with
restrike data.
(5) The pile must experience permanent set during the testing. If no° (or very little)
movement is achieved then the indicated capacity relates to the mobilized value
only, roughly analogous to a static proof test not run to failure but rather still in the
elastic range.
Considerations 4 and 5 above are self explanatory. The first three considerations will now be
investigated in more detail.
Damping is associated with velocity. We can obtain the tip velocity from our top
measurements as
u ' b (t) = Fd(t-L/c)/Z – Fu(t+L/c)/Z=(P1 + Zu '1 – R)/Z (12)
By defining the damping force Rd = Jc Zu 'b (Jc is a dimensionless damping constant), we can
also solve for the damping. Since the total resistance is the sum of the static and damping
forces, the static resistance can be obtained from
Rs (t) = R(t) – Rd (t) =R-Jc (P1+ Zu '1-R) (13)
Or expanding into terms of only P and u ',
Rs =(1-Jc)[P1+ Zu '1]/2 + (1+Jc)[P2- Zu '2]/2 (14)

The damping constant relates to the soil grain size near the pile tip or can be computed
directly from the Rs equation if measurements and the failure load (from static test or total
static resistance from CAPWAP) are known, since Jc is the only unknown in the equation.
Resistance mobilized is also a function of displacement. The usual assumptions of elasto-

plastic resistance are valid and have a resistance which increases linearly to a maximum at
some specified displacement (termed and “quake”) and then remains constant (plastic) until
the displacement decreases. Typical quakes are 0.1 inch (2.5mm), although values up to 1.0
inch (25mm) have been observed.
For each time t, a resistance R may be determined. Usually, the time of the first major
velocity peak is selected for time t1. In most cases, the integral of the velocity (i.e.
displacement) at the first arrival of the peak input at any point along the pile is larger than
the soil quake, assuring that the full resistance in mobilized. However, it may be necessary
to delay this time to get to a (a) second major peak or (b) wait until a maximum resistance,
Rmax, is found. Item (a) is always applicable if a second major velocity peak is still at a time
where force and velocity are proportional. Item (b) is applicable if a large quake soil
condition exists, i.e., if it takes a considerable compression of the soil before its ultimate
capacity is reached. Large quakes are most often observed for displacement piles with large
diameters or in saturated soils. Item (b) may also be necessary if the velocity integral is small
(low input or sharp rise time) at the initial peak.
If the expression for Rd (damping forces) is set to zero, this implies that the pile tip velocity is
zero and any resistance which is present at this time is static and therefore independent of a
damping constant. This solution occurs when graphically the resistance versus time curves
for R(t) and Rs(t) are for the first time equal. Since this equation assumes resistance to be at
the pile tip, it is generally applicable when the resistance is primarily end bearing.
This is the basis for the R auto Method. For piles with little skin friction, the pile toe force,
velocity and displacement can be computed directly from the pile top measurements and
one dimensional wave theory.
Pb(t) = Fd(t-L/c) + Fu(t+L/c) (15a)
u'b =[Fd(t-L/c) – Fu(t+1/c)]/Z (15b)
ub = ∫ u'b dt (15c)
A static toe resistance force-displacement graph may be obtained by reducing Ptoe by the
damping JZu'b and plotting this force for each time increment against the displacement of
the toe (integral of equation 15b). This is the PEBWAP procedure.
The Case Method of capacity prediction “measures” the resistance (capacity) acting
simultaneously. For long piles having a significant portion of resistance coming from shaft
friction, the Case Method may under predict during hard driving, i.e., when the pile top
velocity becomes negative before time 2L/c; the pile top is moving upward and some skin
friction begins to unload. The basic Case Method can be “corrected” for this situation by
adding the resistance in this upper portion of the pile that has unloaded. The dynamic
component is then subtracted.
STRESSES
Pile damage is usually the result of either poor hammer alignment (high local contact
stresses) or high driving stresses. For concrete piles, tension stresses are important. From
the upward wave, we can easily investigate whether tension is present. The input
compression stress wave will be reflected as an upward tension wave from the pile bottom
at time L/C and will arrive at time 2L/c. This upward tension force has been transmitted
along the entire pile shaft, but is not necessarily the net tension at any location since
downward waves exist. The maximum net tension (CTN) occurs when the downward
compression stress is a minimum (time force) and can be found mathematically by
CTN = Fu (t2=2L/c) + Fd(t3‹2L/c)min≤0 (16)
High compression stresses can also be of concern. In general, the maximum compression
force at the measuring location is very close to the maximum force in the pile (absolute
upper limit is the total resistance R if it is greater than the maximum pile top force).
DAMAGE DETECTION
For a uniform pile, an upward traveling tension wave should be observed only after
reflection from the pile tip and should therefore come at time 2L/c. If an upward tension
wave is observed prior to 2L/c, it must be due to a change in impedance (reduced section
area, modulus, or possible damage). Consider the equilibrium conditions for downward Fd,1
and Fd,2 and upward Fu,1 and Fu,2 waves at a cross section change with impedance Z1 Z2,
respectively.
Fd,1 + Fu,1 = Fd,2 + Fu,2 (17)

Requiring velocity continuity, and solving for the input wave reflection (Fu,2 will be zero), we
obtain for the relative cross sectional change BETA = Z1/Z2,
BETA = [Fd,1 + Fu,1 ]/[ Fd,1 - Fu,1] (18)
The force Fd,1 at any location x can be found from the superposition of the initial downward
wave with the downward resistance tension waves.
Fd,1 = Fd(t1) – Rx/2 (19)

The upward wave at time 2x/c = t4 is the sum of the resistance effects above location x and
the cross section change effect (negative if Z2 ‹ Z1)
Fu(t4) = Rx/2 + Fu,1 (20)
We can then solve
BETA = [(F(down,t1) – Rx + F(up, t4)]/[F(down,t1) – F(up,t4)] (21)
Where t4 is the time of a local minimum in Fu after a peak Rx/2 compression increase. For a
uniform pile, Fu(t4) will be a monotonic increasing function equal to Rx/2 and BETA will then
be equal to 1.0. If a uniform pile should indicate a BETA less than 1.0 prior to 2L/c, the pile is
damaged at location X = ct4/2 and the cross section reduction can be calculated. The
following classification scale has been proposed:
BETA = 1.0 Uniform

0.8-1.0 Slight Damage
0.6-0.8 Damage
Below 0.6 Broken
HAMMER PERFORMANCE
The energy in the pile can be found from the work done on the pile which we can obtain if
we integrate the product of force P and velocity u' over time.
W = ∫ Pdu = ∫ p u' dt (22)
The maximum value is the maximum transferred energy EMX. It is important to realize that
only this transferred value EMX is capable of actually doing work on pile and soil, rather
than the hammer’s rated energy.
For air steam or drop hammers with ram mass, mr, the principles of impulse and momentum
can be used to obtain the maximum ram velocity, u' r’ prior to impact from
u'= 0
MFO = ∫ P(t)dt = Mr u'r (23)
0
From this the ram kinetic energy, KE, may be calculated and compared with the ram
Potential Energy, P.E., to obtain hammer efficiency. Comparing the kinetic energy with the
maximum transferred energy EMX will demonstrate the effectiveness of the driving system
(capblock,helmet, cushion).
Three energy ratios of importance are:
eh = hammer efficiency = KE/PE
ed = drive system efficiency = EMX/KE (24)
et = total transfer ratio or efficiency = EMX/PE
For diesel hammers, the maximum kinetic energy is not as meaningful due to the
compression of the gasses just prior to impact. This is especially true in cases with
preignition.
DETERMINATION OF PILE PROPERTIES
Dynamic measurements used to determine bearing resistance require that elastic
properties, such as the modulus of elasticity, E, or stress wave speed, c, be known. For steel
piles this is a simple matter since steel is a homogeneous medium and its stress wave speed
and elastic modulus are known to be 16,800 ft/sec (5120 m/sec) and 30,000 ksi (210
kn/mm2). However, the elastic properties of concrete depend upon the amount of cement
used, quality of aggregate, curing methods, and a number of other factors. This non-
uniformity is also common among wooden piles, therefore, it becomes necessary to
measure either the stress wave speed or elastic modulus.
The most convenient property to measure in the field is the speed of wave propagation.
Since it is known that the elastic modulus is related to the stress wave speed through the
specific mass, p, as:
E = pc 2
There are two procedures which are commonly used to determine wave speed. The first is
measurement of longitudinal waves; the second is the measurement of transverse waves. In
both cases a force is suddenly applied to the pile. Since the effects of this action are not
transmitted instantly to all parts of the pile, the more remote sections remain undisturbed.
A stressed “region” is generated which propagates through the length at a specific speed, c.
When the stressed region reaches a free end a reflection occurs and the wave propagates
back to the end where the force was applied. In most cases an accelerometer is placed near
the end which is struck with a light hammer. An oscilloscope is used to monitor the
accelerations and the first observed maximum peak is referred to an impact. Additional
peaks occur each time the wave returns. Thus, knowing the pile length and time difference
between peaks (as given by the oscilloscope), the stress wave speed becomes:
n2L
C= -------
∆tn
where “n” is the number of cycles corresponding to time, ∆tn. In general, the first peak is
ignored since non-uniform impacts and slightly different cycle times are usually present.
This is exactly the procedure used to estimate longitudinal waves.
Transverse measurements are usually performed when free piles are not available or, since
concrete properties can vary along the length, to determine local properties. In this method,
an accelerometer is attached perpendicular to one side of the pile and the opposite side is
struck with the hammer. Since the traveled length in this case is actually the width of the
pile, reflections occur at a high frequency. Tape recorders are therefore prohibited in this
technique as they usually possess filters which dramatically alter these frequencies. Thus, it
is best to use the latest noticeable reflection for wave speed calculations and count the
number “n” of peaks after impact.
DETERMINATION OF WAVE SPEED AND ELASTIC MODULUS
Pile wave speed WS (and modulus EM) must be correct for capacity determination. For
steel, wave speed is 16,800 ft/sec (5121 m/sec). The wave speed for concrete and timber
must be determined for each pile. Choosing the wrong wave speed results in force, energy
and capacity calculation errors. Determine wave speed by two methods.
DURING DRIVING
If wave up has tension (“valley” at 2L/C), wave speed determination is possible. Records
during easy driving are best. Investigate the WD and WU screen display. Use the correct
length below gages [LE]. The first rise time marker is automatically positioned at time A;
shift the second dashed rise time marker (using left and right arrows) to the time B (the
beginning of the wave up valley at 2L/C). The PDA calculates the computed wave speed WC;
enter this value into WS.
FREE PILE SOLUTION
a) For pile lying on ground, attach P.I.T. accelerometer (on A1) to pile bottom.
b) Strike the pile top several times with a small hammer. Increase the A1 calibration (A1
2000). Trigger on A1 (TG command and [F9] function key).
c) A typical record is shown below. Place T1 time marker on FIRST PEAK. The signals
repeat at regular intervals of 2L/C (L in this case, is TOTAL pile length). Place T2
marker several cycles later using the right arrow key. Compute the wave speed c
from
n cycles as c = WC * n (User could try pressing a regular accelerometer to the side
near the pile top, but then use the T1 marker starting at the second cycle).
ELASTIC MODULUS
The PDA can determine the elastic modulus automatically from the wave speed WS and
specific weight SP by entering “EM←”. Modulus values are in tonne/cm2, MPa, or ksi. The
elastic modulus for steel is 2100 tonne/cm2 (210,000 MPa, 30,000 ksi) and for concrete is
around 350 tonne/cm (35,000MPa, 05,000ksi). (Type “EMS←”for Steel.) WS, SP and EM
2
should be appropriately related as below; if this equation is not satisfied then a CAUTION is
displayed is lower left (check WS and SP values and then enter “EM←”).
E = (SP/g) (WS) 2
Where SP is 2.45 tonnes/m3 (0.150 kips/ft3, 24 kN/m3) and g is 9.81 m/sec2 (32.2 ft/s2) for
concrete. Timber density should be measured from a small sample. Example: concrete pile
(c= 13,260 ft/s = 4041 m/sec).
E = [0.150 kips/ft (1326O ft/sec ] / [(12 in/ft) (32.2 ft/s ] = 5700 KSI
3 2 2 2
ENGLISH
E = [2.45 tonnes/m3 (4041 m/sec) 2] / [(100cm/m)2(9.81 m/sec2)=407.8tonnes/cm2 METRIC
E = [24 kN/m (4041 m/sec) ] / [9.81 m/sec ]=39,950 MPa

3 2 2
S.I.
ATTACHMENT II
DETAIL OF CAPWAP METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The CAPWAP Method (CAse Pile Wave Analyses Program)
Either pile top force or pile top velocity can be used in a dynamic analysis as a boundary
value (both together would not lead to satisfactory results). An analysis can then be
performed either in closed form or in a so-called wave analysis procedure, i.e., in a discrete
form. Of course it is then necessary to describe the soil resistance forces.
The soil reaction forces are passive and up to now it have been found sufficiently accurate
to express them as a function of pile motion only. It is furthermore assumed that the soil
reaction consists of a static (Elasto-Plastic) and a dynamic (linear damping) component. In
this way the soil model has at each point three unknowns (elasticity, plasticity and viscosity).
The dynamic analysis is performed in the CAPWAP Method after the procedure that was
introduced by Smith. This procedure divides the pile in a number of mass points and springs.
In this way there are three times as many unknown soil parameters as pile elements. First, a
reasonable assumption is made regarding the soil parameters, and then the motion of the
pile is assumed using the measured pile top acceleration as a boundary value. Output
results are not only the pile element motions and soil resistance forces, but also the
computed pile top force, all as a function of time.
The computed and the measured pile top force will in general not agree with each other. It
is necessary to improve this match iteratively by changing the assumed soil resistance
parameters. Finally, a computed pile top force will be obtained which cannot be further
improved. The corresponding parameters of the soil model are then considered the correct
values. The results of the CAPWAP analysis then are the magnitude and location along the
pile of both static and dynamic resistance forces. Static computations can be used to predict
the static load test curve of the pile.
In 1970 a program was written that performed the necessary computations and decisions
automatically. This program resulted in satisfactory solutions for piles which were not more
that 75 feet in length. For longer piles computation times became excessive. A recent
program performs the computations “interactively”. In the interactive mode one analysis is
obtained using a minicomputer, and then the engineer determines the necessary changes of
soil parameters for the next analysis. This method uses a machine with approximately 16k
core memory. Of course, one also needs a plotter to draw the measured and the predicted
pile top force curves. Even for longer piles it is usually sufficient to analyze 10 to 20 times.
(CAPWAP Analyses using the Continuous Pile Segments)
CAPWAP/C is a program that in general works like CAPWAP, except that it uses the
characteristics method rather than the lumped mass approach for analyses. The
characteristics method divides the pile into Np segments which are of uniform cross-section.
Each element, i, has a length, dti, equals the analysis time increments, dt. Thus for variable
pile properties Ei, Wi (elastic modulus, specific weight), the wave speed of a segment is;
Ci = (Ei g/Wi)1/2
Where Ci, Ei, and Wi, may be average properties over a segments length if the properties
change within the corresponding length increment, dLi, and g is the earth gravitational
constant.
dLi = (dt) ci
Note that the segments are not of equal length. Resistance forces Rk may act at the bottom
of
any segment. They are the sum of the usual elasto-plactic and linearly viscous resistance
values.

GEVORA-Test Pile HSDPT Report#22662

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

GEVORA-Test Pile HSDPT Report#22662

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEVORA-Test Pile HSDPT Report#22662

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. Test Pile Re‐Strike 830 747 83

Mr. Faraz Junaid

Re: CAPWAP Analyses

GRL Job No. 221012-1

Seth Robertson, Ph.D., P.E. Brent R. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.

Corporate Office 30725 Aurora Rd., Solon, OH 44139, +1 216-831-6131

Dy = 6.369 mm Match Quality 0.65

200 Avg. Shaft Quake 1.037 mm

CAPWAP(R) 2014-3 Licensed to GRL Engineers, Inc.

The CAPWAP program performs a signal matching or reverse analysis based on

Avg. Shaft 37.33 36.60 15.33 1.037

Smith Damping Factor 1.51 1.31

CAPWAP match quality = 0.65 (Wave Up Match) ; RSA = 0

Page 2 Analysis: 03-Feb-2022

Absolute 2.0 0.2 (T = 28.9 ms)

Page 3 Analysis: 03-Feb-2022

PILE PROFILE AND PILE MODEL

Toe Area 0.45 m2

Segmnt Dist. Impedance Imped. Tension Compression Perim. Wave

1 1.0 453.34 0.00 1 1.000 -0.00 0.000 2.39 4000.0

Page 4 Analysis: 03-Feb-2022

BLOWS Test Data

Subsurface Description Remarks

Brown, Stiff, Medium Plasticity,

2.0 S-2 Brown, Hard, Medium Plasticity, 6 16 27 43 2.0

3.0 S-3 Brown, Very Hard, Medium Plasticity, 7 18 35 53 3.0

Run-1 = 3.5m - 4.0m

R-3 Run-3 = 5.0m - 6.0m

R-4 Run-4 = 6.0m - 7.0m

SHALE (7.0m - 10.0m)

R-6 Run-6 = 8.0m - 9.0m

R-7 Run-7 = 9.0m - 10.0m

Contractor Representative Client Representative

BLOWS Test Data

Subsurface Description Remarks

SANDSTONE (10.0m - 30.0m) Run-8 = 10.0m -

Contractor Representative Client Representative

BLOWS Test Data

Subsurface Description Remarks

SANDSTONE (20.0m - 30.0m) Run-18 = 20.0m -

R-21 Run-21 = 23.0m -

Contractor Representative Client Representative

du ' = Pc/EA (2)

It is important to distinguish between the “Wave Speed” (speed of the compression or

The basic one dimensional wave equation is

rho (∂2u/ ∂t2) = E (∂2u/ ∂x2) (4)

and has a general solution for the pile particle displacement

u = g(x+ct) + f(x-ct) (5)

(4) All downward traveling waves, Fd(t2).

(P2 - Zu ' 2)/2 = -(P1+Zu '1)/2 + R (10)

Rearranging, we can now solve for the total resistance

R = (P1+Zu '1 + P2 - Zu ' 2)/2 (11)

(1) Elimination of soil damping

u ' b (t) = Fd(t-L/c)/Z – Fu(t+L/c)/Z=(P1 + Zu '1 – R)/Z (12)

Rs (t) = R(t) – Rd (t) =R-Jc (P1+ Zu '1-R) (13)

Or expanding into terms of only P and u ',

Rs =(1-Jc)[P1+ Zu '1]/2 + (1+Jc)[P2- Zu '2]/2 (14)

Resistance mobilized is also a function of displacement. The usual assumptions of elasto-

u'b =[Fd(t-L/c) – Fu(t+1/c)]/Z (15b)