Embedded data collector (EDC) evaluation, phase II - comparison with instrumented static load tests.

Details

• Creators:
  McVay, Michael C. ; Bloomquist, David ; Tran, Khiem T.
• Corporate Creators:
  University of Florida. Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering
• Corporate Contributors:
  United States. Dept. of Transportation
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Piles (Supports)
  • Pile driving
  • Data collection
  • Pile foundations
  • Design load
  • Resistance tests
  • Skin friction
  • Strain gages
  • Instruments for measuring loads or pressure
• Publication/ Report Number:
  BDK75 977-24
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  Florida
• Corporate Publisher:
  Florida. Dept. of Transportation
• Abstract:
  A total of 139 piles and 213,000 hammer blows were compared between the Embedded Data Collector ; (EDC), the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA), and the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) along with ; SmartPile Review versions (3.6, 3.72, 3.73, 3.76 and 3.76.1): ;  Fixed EDC/PDA ratio was consistent (0.89 to 0.97) for all version numbers, with little variability (max ; coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.17); ;  UF EDC/PDA ratio was slightly unconservative (1.12) for earlier versions (3.6), but conservative (0.89 to ; 0.93) for later releases, with little variability (max CV = 0.18); ;  Top pile compressive stresses, CSX (EDC/PDA), were consistent (0.91 to 0.93) for all versions, with little ; variability (max CV = 0.09); ;  Bottom pile compressive stresses, CSB (EDC/PDA), ranged from 0.77 for earlier version (3.6), but quickly ; stabilized at 0.74 for all subsequent versions (3.72-3.761), with maximum variability (CV = 0.25); ;  Pile tension stress, TSX (EDC/PDA), was slightly unconservative (1.2) for earlier versions (3.6), but was ; conservative (0.87 to 0.90) for all later releases, with max variability (CV = 0.29); ;  UF EDC/CAPWAP total capacity ratio varied from 1.0 (ver 3.6) to 0.89 (ver 3.761), with R2 = 0.89; ;  UF EDC/CAPWAP skin friction ratio varied from 0.78 to 1.04, with R2 ; = 0.57; ;  UF EDC/CAPWAP tip resistance ratio varied from 0.85 to 0.93, with R2 ; = 0.76. ; A total of 12 static pile test were collected in Florida and Louisiana. From the 12 piles, a total of 17 independent ; measurements (i.e., total, skin, and tip capacities) were recorded. EDC and SmartPile had a bias or  (ratio of ; measured/predicted) of 0.96, CVR, of 0.258 for combined (total, tip and skin) resistances. Using AASHTO, ; 2012, the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)  was determined to be 0.65, for a reliability, , of 2.33. ; CAPWAP had a bias, , of 0.91, CVR = 0.311, and LRFD  = 0.54 for =2.33 with inclusion of side friction ; and tip resistance.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26849/dot_26849_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 3.62 MB]
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:93b26bd3eb474396ee312bce750e97564259ce21c75125c406d7ea13d4fca28b