Details:

Creators:
McVay, Michael C. ; Bloomquist, David ; Tran, Khiem T.
McVay, Michael C. ; Bloomquist, David ; Tran, Khiem T. Less -
Corporate Creators:
University of Florida. Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering
Corporate Contributors:
United States. Dept. of Transportation
Subject/TRT Terms:
[+]
Data Collection Design Load Instruments For Measuring Loads Or Pressure Pile Driving Pile Foundations Piles (Supports) Resistance Tests Skin Friction Strain Gages
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.


Format:
PDF
Collection(s):
US Transportation Collection
Main Document Checksum:
[+]
urn:sha256:93b26bd3eb474396ee312bce750e97564259ce21c75125c406d7ea13d4fca28b
Download URL:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26849/dot_26849_DS1.pdf
File Type:

Supporting Files

• No Additional Files

More +