High Strain Testing

with the
Pile Driving Analyzer

Ryan C. Allin, Pile Dynamics, Inc.

 40,000

Why PDA
Unconservative
30,000
(potentially unsafe) &
CAPWAP [kN]

CAPWAP?
20,000 N=303

Likins, G.E., Rausche, F. | August 2004

Correlation of CAPWAP with Static
Load Tests
10,000 Conservative Proceedings of the Seventh
(residual strength) International Conference on the
Application of Stresswave Theory to
Piles 2004: Petaling Jaya, Selangor,
Malaysia; 153-165. Keynote Lecture
0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

Static Load Test [kN]

 Overview
• Why was dynamic testing developed?
• As replacement for static load test

• Methods arose from the wave equation, mainly at the Case

Institute of Technology in the late 1960s and early 1970s
under FHWA sponsorship

• Looked at instrumentation and interpretation techniques to

predict resistance while driving pile
The Wave Equation (GRLWEAP)
 The Wave Equation
• GRLWEAP uses a model of wave propagation in a rod to predict,
for a hammer-pile-soil system:
• Blow Count (given a capacity)
• Capacity (given a blow count)
• Tensile and Compression stress in the pile during driving
• Estimate hammer energy, stroke and performance
• Pre-construction or during construction
• Workshop: Cleveland September 11, 2019
 Pile Top

Overview
• Instrumentation
• Two to four strain transducers
• From strain, get force, stress
• Two to four accelerometers
Pile Toe
• From acceleration, get velocity, displacement
• Mounted 2 or more pile diameters below
the pile top
• From these two readings (strain and
acceleration), we can directly measure or
calculate a number of quantities.
 Instrumentation
• Why two strain transducers?
No
Eccentricity
Eccentric
Impact
• Bending! F F
• For Pipes, PSC, etc, eccentric
impact means big difference
in two strains S1 S2 S1 S2
• Average does away with
difference S1=S2 S1>S2
Bending, an Example
 Overview
• Measured
• Force, velocity at gage location
• Compressive stress, tension stress at gage location
• Energy transferred to the gage location

• Calculated
• Stresses at other locations in the pile
• Estimated total, dynamic and static pile resistance
• Hammer Stroke (open end diesel only)
• Pile Integrity
 Overview
• Calculations come from the Case Method
• Assumes Uniform Pile (area and material) with depth
• Assumes damping at the pile toe dominates
(resistance only)
• Reduces unknowns, allows calculation on every blow
• Must estimate a Case damping factor (dimensionless)
• CAPWAP and iCAP models overcome this limitation
 Applications
• Driven Piles
• EOD--Dynamic Monitoring (stress, energy, integrity)
• BOR--Dynamic Load Tests (capacity, longer term)

• Drilled shaft, auger cast, minipiles, micropiles,

helical piles (Dynamic Load Tests only)
• Requires hammer or other drop weight, otherwise the
same as dynamic Load test

• Field log
• Devices available to record blow count, stroke only
Driven Piles
 Pile Preparation for Testing

PIPE

H-PILE CONCRETE
Gage Attachment at
Beginning of Driving

QUESTION

Why not wait to attach the gages when

the top of pile is closer to ground ?
 Gage Attachment at
Beginning of Driving
Pile lofting with covers

Gage and radio attachment

Attaching protective cover

Dynamic Load Testing
 PROPORTIONALITY

• The Pile has a known section area, 𝐴𝐴, and

Modulus of Elasticity, 𝐸𝐸

∆𝑢𝑢 • The Compression will cause a strain, 𝜀𝜀

Δ𝐿𝐿 𝑣𝑣
∴ 𝐹𝐹 = 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀
𝑐𝑐

• The Compression also causes a particle velocity, 𝑣𝑣,

and wavespeed, 𝑐𝑐
∴ 𝑐𝑐 = ∆𝐿𝐿�∆𝑡𝑡

𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 + ∆𝑡𝑡 17
 PROPORTIONALITY

• A deformation, ∆𝑢𝑢, is created by strain, 𝜀𝜀, over distance ∆𝐿𝐿

∴ 𝜀𝜀 = ∆𝑢𝑢⁄∆𝐿𝐿
and by substitution

Δ𝐿𝐿
∆𝑢𝑢 𝜀𝜀 = ∆𝑢𝑢�𝑐𝑐∆𝑡𝑡
𝑣𝑣
𝑐𝑐 • A particle travelling distance ∆𝑢𝑢 over time ∆𝑡𝑡 has a velocity, 𝑣𝑣
𝑣𝑣 = ∆𝑢𝑢�∆𝑡𝑡
• Finally by solving for ∆𝑢𝑢 and substituting into the previous
equation we can establish:
𝒗𝒗
𝜺𝜺 =
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 + ∆𝑡𝑡 𝒄𝒄 18
PARTICLE VELOCITY VS. WAVESPEED

Stress wave travels down pile

much faster and farther than particle
 Theory
• Restated: 𝑣𝑣 = 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐
• Strain is directly proportional to velocity!

• Wave speed, c = 𝐸𝐸/𝜌𝜌

• So, 𝑐𝑐 is a material property
• For a given pile material, 𝑐𝑐 will be constant
• Steel—16,800 ft/s (5120 m/s)
• Concrete—11,000 to 14,000 ft/s (3352 to 4267 m/s)
• Timber—10,000 to 13,000 ft/s (3048 to 4267 m/s)
 Theory
• v/c = ε
• (Multiply both sides by E, Elastic modulus)
• (E/c) v = εE = σ
• (Multiply both sides by A, Pile Area at gages)
• (EA/c) v = εEA = σA = F
• F is force, σ is stress
• (EA/c) = Z
• All constants for a pile!
• So… F=Zv
• Only if no resistance, or interference by other waves
 Example, Proportionality

Impact
begins Note: F and
ZV are on
top of one
another.
Good data.

F=Force, V=Velocity; both at gage location

TS is Time Scale (ms); TB is time at left side of screen (ms)
A34, F34 are active gages
Example 2, Proportionality
Example 3, Data Quality
 Theory
• Proportionality

• Downward and Upward Travelling waves

• End Effects
• Integrity and Resistance

• Hammer Performance
SIGN CONVENTIONS

Force:
•Compression positive (+)
•Tension negative (-)

Velocity:
•Downward positive (+)
•Upward negative (-)
26
Compression Compression wave DOWNWARD
Wave begins travelling down TRAVELLING
the pile
WAVES
Sign convention:
Small particle located force is positive
somewhere along the (compression)
length of the pile velocity is positive
(downward direction)

Therefore:
Once the compression wave
encounters the particle; the
+𝑭𝑭 → +𝒗𝒗
particle is instantaneously i.e. downward
travelling waves will
accelerated down the pile have same sign
conventions

27
 UPWARD
Once the compression wave TRAVELLING
encounters the particle; the
particle is instantaneously WAVES
accelerated up the pile
Sign convention
force is positive
Small particle located ( compression)
somewhere along the velocity is negative
length of the pile (upward direction)

Therefore:

+𝑭𝑭 → −𝒗𝒗
Compression wave
Compression
Wave
begins travelling UP
the pile 28
 UPWARD
Once the tension wave TRAVELLING
encounters the particle; the
particle is instantaneously WAVES
accelerated down the pile
Sign convention:

Small particle located force is negative

(tension)
somewhere along the velocity is positive
length of the pile (downward direction)

Therefore:

−𝑭𝑭 → +𝒗𝒗
Tension
Tension wave begins
Wave travelling UP the pile
29
Wave up, Wave Down Examples

(Force Units)
Reflection of Tensile
Wave up off Pile Top

Wave up Tensile
Wave Up, Wave Down Examples

Reflection of Tensile
Wave up off Pile Top

Wave up Compressive
 Free End vs. Fixed End
Force Force
Velocity Force
Velocity*Z Velocity*Z
Reflection Reflection

32
 The “Power” of Wave Up and Wave
Down
• From wave up and wave down, we can back out:
• Estimated Stresses at other points in the pile
• Tension, compression
• Compression at the toe
• Approximate shaft resistance from wave up
• Integrity from wave up
• Total and dynamic resistance from both
• And, Static Resistance = Total - Dynamic
 Pile Forces at
any Location
2 Forces
at any
location Downward
are the Travelling waves
net sum
from the hammer
of
WU&WD
combine with the
upward travelling
wave reflected at
time 𝐿𝐿/𝑐𝑐

𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡0.5𝐿𝐿� 𝑡𝑡𝐿𝐿� 𝑡𝑡1.5𝐿𝐿� 𝑡𝑡2𝐿𝐿�

𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐

34
 Computed
Wave Up Tension
𝑡𝑡3 - Minimum
Wave Down value of the Wave Force
Down Curve
Toe Head between The maximum
𝑡𝑡1and 𝑡𝑡2 Tensile force is
Max Tensile Stress for all depths on pile computed by
summing the value
of the wave up
curve at 𝑡𝑡2 and the
minimum value in
wave down curve
at 𝑡𝑡3 (between 𝑡𝑡1
& 𝑡𝑡2 )

Value of the
Wave Up
𝒕𝒕𝟏𝟏 Curve at 𝑡𝑡2 𝒕𝒕𝟐𝟐
35
Tension Stress

Max. Tension Wave Up

Tension Stress

Pile Dynamics, © 2012

Bottom Stress
Wave Travel: Integrity

V>F: Cracked
Splice
Separation = Shaft
Resistance
Pile Integrity

Pile Dynamics, © 2012

YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE PILE DAMAGE
WHEN …

It’s Visually Obvious !

YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE PILE DAMAGE
WHEN …

The Pile Falls Over

After Driving !
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE PILE DAMAGE
WHEN …

You Can’t
Drive
Home !!

Courtesy of Dr. Bengt Fellenius

 Records Indicate ?
Restrike of HP 14x89 Length = 64 m

34.7 m 44.5 m
BTA=82 BTA=39

0 2L/c
 Theory
• Proportionality

• Downward and Upward Travelling waves

• End Effects
• Integrity and Resistance

• Hammer Performance
 Hammer Performance
• Transferred Energy:
• 𝐸𝐸 = ∫ 𝐹𝐹(𝑡𝑡)𝑉𝑉(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
• Max (E) is ENTHRU (WEAP) or EMX (PDA)
• EMX/Rated Energy = “Global” Efficiency
• Used for SPT calibration

• Open End Diesel Stroke

• 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑔𝑔/8 ∗ 60/𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵2 – ℎ
• Where g is gravitational acceleration
• BPM is hammer blows per minute
• H is a loss (usually 0.3 ft or 0.1 m)
Hammer variability – S/A hydraulic
Longitudinal study through project

Courtesy Advanced Foundation Technologies 2017

Energy Example

EMX (Max.
Transferred)

Energy and
Displacement
Diesel Hammers
Hammer Performance--EOD
Hammer Performance--BOR
SPT Energy Monitoring
 Why do we correct?
• Transition to automatic hammers

• Standardize analysis results

• Different drill rigs, different design results?

• Reduce risk
• LRFD Resistance Factors
Example-Safety hammer, two drillers
“experienced” “inexperienced”
EFV 63% EFV 12%
SPT Energy Calibration on the PDA-S
The EASY button
Summary Report
 Resistance
• Case Method
• Static Resistance = Total - Dynamic
• Dynamic resistance directly related to velocity
• All dynamic resistance at the toe
• Rdyn = Jc*Z*vtoe
• Jc is unitless Case Damping factor
• As fines in soil increase, Jc increases
• Sands Jc ~ 0.5
• Silts Jc ~ 0.7
• Clays Jc ~0.9
 Resistance
• At time of test
• Time dependent changes: Set-up or Relaxation

• Mobilized by hammer
• Must move pile by at least 3 mm (1/8 inch)
• Requires a sufficiently large hammer

• Two Examples
North Section Intermodal Transit System Guideway
Orlando International Airport

Ref: Wayne Waters, Ed Waters & sons,

PDCA Winter Roundtable, Orlando 2004
 Borings 7 & 8

final

plan

Recommended Design Load 100 T

for 18” PSC or 24” pipe at 120 ft depth
Design/Build Proposal: save$ - 18” pipe, shorter depth
 Field Verification

Bent #9 Bent #16

• Req. Cap. = 250 tons
• Req. Cap. = 224 tons

• EOD PDA = 135 tons (9 bl/ft)

• 5 day BOR = 256 tons (64 b/ft) • EOD PDA = 160 tons (16 bl/ft)
• 15 min. BOR = 180 tons (22 bpf)
• 38 day BOR = 302 tons (40 bpf)
 Both proof tests held over 250 tons

Load Test Results Bent #9

(500 kips)

Bent 16
Bent 9
• 303 piles - 10% testing by restrike – use set-up
– Average length = 22m; 71.5 ft ( about half of original design )
• $1 million savings versus original design
• Adjoining jobsite: larger and longer PSC piles (costly)
Identifying Soil Relaxation
from Dynamic Testing
Morgano & White, GRL Engineers

Ohio Turnpike (I80)

Piles drive in clayey silt (N=30) to weathered siltstone/shale (N=50/1”)

Pre-Construction Wave Equation Analysis suggests:
20 blows per inch (1.3 mm set) at 9.3 ft (2.8m) stroke at 300 tons
Pile Test Date Blow Count Transfer Hammer Case Method
No. Energy Stroke Capacity
(Blows/inch) (Kip-ft) (ft) (tons) Test Type

13 2/15/02 20 16 9.2 290 EOID

2/16/02 15 12 8.5 200 BOR1
2/16/02 20 18 9.6 270 EOR1
2/23/02 10 14 8.5 170-200 BOR2
2/23/02 24 19 9.6 315 EOR2
BOR had 55%
18 2/23/02 7 of EOD
17 capacity
9.0 172 BOR1
2/23/02 27 at ½ blows
18 - ¾ energy
9.7 EOR
330

Notes: 1. Pile 13 drove additional 5 inches during restrike sequences

2. Pile 18 drove additional 18 inches during restrike sequences
 Static Load Test, Pile #23, Pier 14 Load vs. Displacement

Davisson's Failue
300

Applied Load (tons)

200
198 tons
Capacity
100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Top Displacement (inch)

Static test on Undisturbed “sister”

pile
 Soils with relaxation potential
• Weathered bedrock formations
• Weathered shale is most susceptible
• Rule of thumb: more weathered bedrock = more relaxation
• Seeping water effectively softens bedrock surface
• High normal force after driving plastically creeps away with time;
reduces friction

• Rock fracturing from driving adjacent piles

• Saturated dense to v.dense sands & sandy silts

• Due to negative pore water pressure during driving
increases effective stresses of end bearing
• Pore water pressure equalizes after wait causing reduced
soil strength
 Field Results
• The above results are generated in real time

• Once collected, we can plot together

• Graphically
• Tabular

• Allows us to review, for dynamic monitoring, trends over drive

Case Method Summary
Case Method Summary
Case Method Results—End of Drive
 Ultimate Capacity
• Case Method
• Quick, simple method
• Uncertainty with Damping
• iCAP
• More robust model than Case Method
• Simplified for uniform piles
• CAPWAP
• Most versatile analysis
• Drilled shafts, broken piles, etc.
 CAPWAP
• CAPWAP is a computer program similar to the wave equation,
but…
• …no need for hammer model!
• Pile and soil are modeled as lump masses, with pile segment ~1 m.
• Soil segments are attached (spring and dashpot) to every other pile
segment.
• Now, we know input (wave down or measured Force), we know
output (wave up or measured velocity
• We do not know the system
WDM

Model

1. Set up pile and soil model and assume Rshaft and Rtoe

2. Apply measured WDM to pile model at top and calculate

complementary

3. Compare with measured

Rshaft
4. Adjust Rshaft and Rtoe

5. If not satisfactory
Repeat until match
match: Go to Step 2 is satisfactory
Rtoe
 CAPWAP
Adjust Unloading Parameters
is an
iterative
process
Increase Total Capacity

Adjust Soil Quakes

Adjust Damping

Redistribute Soil Resistance

Initial Analysis (poor)

 m 1,
Pile Model: k1 The
m 2, Combined
Impedance k2
Pile & Soil
Zi = EiAi/ci
m 3,
k3
Model
m 4, Soil segments
k4 are nominally
Pile m 5, assigned every
Segment k5
Soil segment length: other pile
Length ∆Li
m 6,
segment (≈2m)
k6
∆LSi = Nfac ∆Li
m 7,
k7

m 8,
Wave Travel k8
time in Pile m 9,
k9 Spring (static resistance)
∆t = ∆Li/ci m10,
Dashpot (dynamic resistance)
k10
 CAPWAP
• CAPWAP is a reverse or system identification analysis.
• Measured wave down is input into lumped mass model
• The model’s output is a computed wave up vs. time curve
• Compare the computed wave up to the measured wave up
• Change model, repeat until the difference between the
computed and measured curves is minimized.
 CAPWAP
Rui: NS values at shaft +1 value at toe
qi: NS values at shaft +1 value at toe
Ji: NS values at shaft +1 value at toe
1 shaft + 1 toe unloading quake multiplier
1 shaft unloading level + 1 toe plug + 1 toe gap

1 toe damping option + 4 rad. damping values

Total 3 NS + 13 unknowns
For 20 m pile penetration: 43 unknowns
 CAPWAP
• Fortunately, we usually reduce these 43 unknowns by assuming:
• Quake and damping along the shaft are constant
• No radiation damping
• 3Ns +13 reduces to Ns +11
• Unfortunately, we don’t have that many equations
• So, we iterate and use some judgment
 CAPWAP Record Divisions
Shaft resistance begins to develop
400 16.7

350
Toe res. begins, total capacity develops 14.6

300 12.5

250 10.4
Unloading period begins
200 8.4

150 6.3

Velocity
Force

100 tr 4.2

50 2.1

0 0.0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
-50 -2.1

-100 -4.2
Force WaveUp Velocity
-150 -6.3

-200 -8.4
 Match Quality Time Periods
400
Period I: 2L/c IV: 25 ms 16.7

350 14.6
III: tr+5ms
300 12.5
II: tr+3ms
250 10.4

200 8.4

Velocity
150 6.3
Force

100 4.2
tr
50 2.1

0 0.0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
-50 -2.1

-100 -4.2
Force WaveUp Velocity
-150 -6.3

-200 -8.4
 CAPWAP Match Quality
MQ is the sum of the absolute values of differences
between computed and measured values at individual
points in time divided by the maximum pile top force
plus a blow count penalty, BCP (BCP > 0)
MQ = ΣPeriodΣtime|[FM -FC]/FX | + BCP

BCP = 0 if ΔSET < 1 mm

BCP = ΔSET - 1 if ΔSET ≥ 1
ΔSET = |Measured Set – Computed Set |
 CAPWAP Match Quality
• Generally, the lower the MQ, the better the two curves match

• But, engineering judgment wins over the number

• Additional features in CAPWAP 2014 limiting output

 iCAP
• Simplified signal matching analysis
• Quick correlation of damping factor
• Computes
• Ultimate Resistance (Shaft, Toe)
• Compressive Stress maxima and bottom
• Tension Stress maxima
• Equivalent Jc, Match Quality
• Saved as quantities in PDA
iCAP—HP to Rock
CAPWAP Results—HP to Rock
CAPWAP Results--Graphical

Measured and Computed Measured Force and Velocity

Force (Quality of Match) (Quality of Data)
 CAPWAP Results--Graphical
• Things to look for
• Measured/Computed Curve:
• Is computed often higher than measured?
• Could be unconservative if yes.
• Is match between 0 and ~3L/c close?
• Measured Force and Velocity Curve
• Proportional?
• Do values return to zero at the end of the record?
• What’s happening at 2L/c?
• Signs of shaft resistance?

Brent Robinson, P.E., April 2007

 CAPWAP Results--Graphical

Simulated Static Load-Set Curve Shaft Resistance Distribution

(t-z analysis!) Increasing Depth 
Pile Top and Pile Bottom Displacement Bottom is the sum of the forces in the
pile
Distribution along shaft and toe at side
 CAPWAP Results--Graphical
kN kPa
• Things to look for:

9
5

8
• Static Load Set curve

5
0

0
0
0

0
• Note maximum displacements
• Note distribution between shaft and toe
• Shaft Resistance Distribution
• High resistance very near the top?
• (Usually a data quality issue)
• Low resistance in element above the toe?
• (Usually just sloppy CAPWAP-ing)

E
B
F

D
S
istrib
h aftR
u
e
a
P

tio
sista
tR
ileF

n
u
o

n
rce

ce
iCAP vs CAPWAP
CAPWAP Results--Tabular
Total Resistances

Match Quality
 CAPWAP Results--Tabular
• Things to Look For:
• Is Toe resistance higher than you would expect?
• ESPECIALLY in clays (9su)
• Is total resistance at or near yield strength of the force?
• Mobilization
• Blow Counts Less than about 24 blows per foot
• OVERPREDICTION is possible
• Blow Counts Greater than 240 blows per foot
• Likely a lower bound prediction of capacity
• Time of driving
• Again, CAPWAP predicts capacity at time of driving
• Long(er) term restrikes better match Static Load tests
 Shaft Resistance (Ru Column)
• Shaft Resistance vs. Depth
• Assess set-up
• Need end of drive and restrike
• Consider Downdrag, Scour
• Remove upper resistances, reverse direction
• Sum of Ru also helps
• Shorten Piles--friction
 CAPWAP Results--Tabular
• Things to look for
• Do unit resistances make sense?
• Usually, any skin friction greater than about 3 ksf gives pause
• Is toe quake bigger than skin quake?
• Unusual, unless driven to very hard rock, blow counts are nearing refusal, or
there’s very little toe resistance
• Match Quality
• Usually less than 2 is pretty good, but watch for high numbers
• Calculated and Measured Blow Count
• Ideally the same, but this may be difficult for blow counts greater than around
100 blows/ft
CAPWAP Results--Tabular

Brent Robinson, P.E., April 2007

CAPWAP Results--Tabular
 CAPWAP Results--Tabular
• Tabular Results (First Page)
• Model Parameters, Quality of Match
• Extrema Tables
• Stresses, energy, velocity along the pile length
• Case Method Table
• Useful for Calibrating other dynamic tests
• Pile Profile
• Shows pile model
 CAPWAP—The Gold Standard
• First database (~100 piles) compiled for FHWA in 1996

• Updated in paper in 2004

• Available on our website

• http://www.pile.com/Reference
 Putting it all together
• The Case Method is used for field control

• iCAP refines the Case Method on selected blows in the field, in

real time

• CAPWAP for difficult cases and to verify quick iCAP

• Now--reporting
 Dynamic Testing Reports
• Main Parts
• Description of the test situation/set-up
• Description of the method
• Summary of Test Results (Prose and Tabular)
• Conclusions, Recommendations
• Appendices
• Case Method Appendix
• CAPWAP Appendix
• Relevant Project Information
 Dynamic Testing Reports
• Description of the test
• Pile type tested
• Length, dimensions, yield strength
• Soil type encountered
• From soil borings, usually reported by others
• Usually some distance from the test pile location
• Hammer and driving system used
• Rated energy, ram weight, cushions and helmets, if available
• Required Capacity
• Ultimate, Design and Factor of Safety
 Dynamic Testing Reports
• Description of the Method
• Description of the Case Method (brief)
• Description of CAPWAP (brief)
• Description of instrumentation used
• Number of strain transducers
• Number of accelerometers
• Equipment manufacturer
• Calibration sheets should be in appendix
• ASTM says calibration of strain transducers and accelerometers should happen every
two years
 Dynamic Testing Reports
• Results
• Compressive Stresses at gages
• Estimated Tension, Compression at other locations (if applicable)
• Hammer Performance
• Maximum Transferred Energy, EMX (usually end of drive)
• Energy transfer ratio (EMX/Rated Energy)
• Hammer stroke (open end diesel)
 Dynamic Testing Reports
• Results
• Pile Integrity
• Toe damage, splice damage, pile top damage
• Capacity
• Case Method Estimates
• CAPWAP Results
• Total capacity, shaft resistance, end bearing
• Comparisons to required ultimate capacity
• Driving Criteria (?)
 Project Information
• Often included in an Appendix
• Soil Borings
• Field Driving Logs (Blow Count vs. Depth)
• Calibration sheets for gages
• Hammer information
• Drawings
 An Example
• Contractor calls for preconstruction wave equation, then
dynamic testing

• Driving HP14x89, 90 ft long (27.4 m), 85 ft (26 m) penetration,

750 kips (3300 kN) ultimate capacity

• Loose Sand overlying hard rock

• Would prefer to use an MKT DE 70B

 In the Field
• Gages placed 2.5 feet
below pile top

• Dynamic testing starts

after splice
PDA Data and iCAP
CAPWAP Result Near End of Drive
 Refined GRLWEAP
• Given CAPWAP and the blow count
• Use quakes, dampings, resistance to “refine”
• Compare to EMX, maximum stress, stroke
• Make changes to soil and hammer model (+/-10%)

• Now, we can run inspector’s chart to determine required blow

count vs. stroke
v
Inspector’s Chart