S - Kam Ng PhD Dissertation Final.pdf - Digital Repository of CCEE ...

xLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1: Typical locations of the PDA transducers and the accelerometers ...........................21Figure 2.2: Typical PDA graphical and numeric summary outputs ............................................22Figure 2.3: Wave propagation in a pile (adapted and modified from Cheney and Chassie,1993) ................................................................................................................................23Figure 2.4: A typical pile damage force and velocity record (after Rausche and Goble, 1979) ..31Figure 2.5: Typical force and velocity records for various soil resistance conditions (afterHannigan et al. 1998) .......................................................................................................35Figure 2.6: Smith’s Model (after Smith 1962).............................................................................38Figure 2.7: Stress strain diagram of the soil resistance at a pile point (after Coyle and Gibson,1970 and Smith, 1962). ....................................................................................................40Figure 2.8: CAPWAP model (after Goble & Rausche, 1980 and Hannigan et al., 1998) ...........46Figure 2.9: CAPWAP soil model (after Pile Dynamic, Inc. 2000) ..............................................49Figure 2.10: The extended CAPWAP soil resistance model includes toe gap, plug mass, andradiation damping (after Pile Dynamic, Inc. 2000) .........................................................50Figure 2.11: Windows of CAPWAP analysis ..............................................................................53Figure 2.12: Wave equation models for different hammers (adapted from Hannigan et al.1998) ................................................................................................................................55Figure 2.13: Force deformation curve for slack model (after Pile Dynamic Inc., 2005).............58Figure 2.14: Sample output of WEAP bearing graph analysis ....................................................67Figure 2.15: A graph illustrates the effect of mean ratios of CAPWAP and static load testswith the day delay or ahead .............................................................................................81Figure 2.16: Probability density functions for load and resistance (Adapted after Paikowskyet al. 2004) .......................................................................................................................84Figure 2.17: Combined PDFs that represents the safety margin and reliability index (Adaptedafter Paikowsky et al. 2004) .............................................................................................85Figure 2.18: Idealized schematic of pile setup zones (after Komurka et al. 2003) ......................95Figure 2.19: The development of Skov and Denver (1988) pile setup relationship ....................100Figure 3.1: Summary of steel H-pile resistance ratio from literatures .........................................145Figure 3.2: Locations of steel H-piles tested in the state of Iowa ................................................145Figure 3.3: Soil profiles, soil test results, and test pile instrumentation schematics....................146Figure 3.4: Proposed relationships between horizontal and vertical coefficients ofconsolidation and SPT N-value .......................................................................................147Figure 3.5: Pile instrumentation with strain gauges.....................................................................147Figure 3.6: Plan view of test configuration for reaction piles and test pile (a) for ISU2, ISU3,ISU4, and ISU5; and (b) for ISU6 and ISU7 ...................................................................148