212Steve Megivern <strong>of</strong> this research project for their guidance. Special thanks are due to SherifS. AbdelSalam, Matthew Roling and Douglas Wood for their assistance with the field testsand to Donald Davidson and Erica Velasco for their assistance with the laboratory soil tests.5.10. ReferencesAbdelSalam, S. S., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T. (2010). ―Current Design andConstruction Practices <strong>of</strong> Bridge Pile Foundations with Emphasis on Implementation<strong>of</strong> LRFD.‖ Journal <strong>of</strong> Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 15(6), pp. 749-758.American Association <strong>of</strong> State Highway and Transportation Officials. (AASHTO). (2003).LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2 nd Edition. 1998 with 2003 Interim.,Washington, D.C.American Association <strong>of</strong> State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2010).LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Customary U. S. Units 4 th Edition. 2008 Interim,Washington, D.C.Anderson, T. W., and Darling, D. A. (1952). ―Asymptotic Theory <strong>of</strong> Certain "Goodness-<strong>of</strong>-Fit" Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes.‖ Annals <strong>of</strong> Mathematical Statistics, 23,pp. 193-212.Barker, R., Duncan, J., Rojiani, K., Ooi, P., Tan, C., and Kim, S. (1991). NCHRP Report343: Manuals for the Design <strong>of</strong> Bridge Foundations. Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C.Fellenius, B. H. (2002). ―Pile Dynamics in Geotechnical Practice-Six Case Histories.‖Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116: Proceedings <strong>of</strong> International DeepFoundations Congress 2002, ASCE, Feb 14–16, Edited by M. W. O’Neill and F. C.Townsend, Orlando, Florida, pp. 619-631.Huang, S. (1988). ―Application <strong>of</strong> Dynamic Measurement on Long H-Pile Driven into S<strong>of</strong>tGround in Shanghai.‖ Proceedings <strong>of</strong> 3 rd International Conference on the Application<strong>of</strong> Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Edited by B. H. Fellenius, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,pp. 635–643.Komurka, V. E., Winter, C. J., and Maxwell, S. (2005). ―Applying Separate Safety Factors to
213End-Of-Drive and Set-up Components <strong>of</strong> Driven Piles Capacity.‖ GeotechnicalApplications for Transportation Infrastructure: Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 13 th Great LakesGeotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Edited byH. H. Titi. Geotechnical Practice Publication 3, ASCE, pp. 65-80.Long, J. H., Maniaci, M., and Samara, E. A. (2002). ―Measured and Predicted Capacity <strong>of</strong>H-Piles.‖ Geotechnical Special Publication No.116: Advances in Analysis, Modeling& Design, Proceedings <strong>of</strong> International Deep Foundations Congress 2002, ASCE,Feb 14–16, Edited by M. W. O’Neill and F. C. Townsend, Orlando, Florida, pp.542-558.Lukas, R. G., and Bushell, T. D. (1989). ―Contribution <strong>of</strong> Soil Freeze to Pile Capacity.‖Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, Vol. 2. Edited by Fred H.Kulhawy, ASCE, pp.991-1001.<strong>Ng</strong>, K. W., Suleiman, T. M., Roling, M., AbdelSalam, S. S., and Sritharan, S. (2011).Development <strong>of</strong> LRFD Design Procedures for Bridge Piles in Iowa – Volume II:Field Testing <strong>of</strong> Steel Piles in Clay, Sand and Mixed Soils. IHRB Project No. TR-583. Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation, Iowa State Univeristy, Ames, IA.Nowak, A. (1999). Calibration <strong>of</strong> LRFD Bridge Design Code. NCHRP Report 368,Transportation Research Board, Washington, D. C.,.Paikowsky, S.G. with Contributions from Birgisson, B., McVay, M., <strong>Ng</strong>uyen, T., Kuo, C.,Baecher, G., Ayyab, B., Stenersen, K., O’Malley, K., Chernauskas, L., and O’Neill,M. (2004). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations.NCHRP Report 507, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.Pile Dynamic, Inc. (2005). GRLWEAP Wave Equation Analysis <strong>of</strong> Pile Driving: Proceduresand Model Version 2005, Cleveland, OH.Roling, M. J., Sritharan S., and Suleiman M. T. (2010). ―Electronic Database for PIle LOadTests in Iowa (PILOT-IA): Paradigm for Data Archiving Needed for Regional LRFDCalibration.‖ Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, January 10–14,Washington, D.C., pp. 10-1023.Romeu, J. L. (2010). Anderson-Darling: A Goodness <strong>of</strong> Fit Test for Small SamplesAssumptions. START 2003-5, Vol. 10, Number 5, Reliability Analysis Center,
- Page 1:
Pile Setup, Dynamic Construction Co
- Page 5:
v2.5.8. Soil profile input procedur
- Page 8 and 9:
viii6.2. Introduction .............
- Page 10 and 11:
xLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1: Typical
- Page 12 and 13:
xiiresistances using the proposed p
- Page 14 and 15:
xivLIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: Summary
- Page 16 and 17:
xviABSTRACTBecause of the mandate i
- Page 18 and 19:
xviiiFurthermore, using these calib
- Page 20 and 21:
2soil strength. The gain in effecti
- Page 22 and 23:
4check pile integrity; (5) evaluate
- Page 24 and 25:
6confidently accounted for in curre
- Page 26 and 27:
8Board (IHRB) sponsored research pr
- Page 28 and 29:
10collected undisturbed soil sample
- Page 30:
12correction factors to estimated p
- Page 33 and 34:
15Chapter 7 - An Improved CAPWAP Ma
- Page 35 and 36:
17Procedures and Models Version 200
- Page 37 and 38:
19Section 2.8.2.2. Historical Summa
- Page 39 and 40:
21A = pile cross sectional area at
- Page 41 and 42:
23compressive force pulse expands d
- Page 43 and 44:
25When a uniform free end rod is im
- Page 45 and 46:
27RTLR sC vJ cv b= total soil resis
- Page 47 and 48:
29For a pile with very hard driving
- Page 49 and 50:
Force∆R∆u31( )(2.12)where,BTA =
- Page 51 and 52:
33Hammer efficiency defines the per
- Page 53 and 54:
35ForceMinimal Shaft ResistanceMini
- Page 55 and 56:
372.4. Case Pile Wave Analysis Prog
- Page 57 and 58:
39computation is stable only when t
- Page 59 and 60:
41,( ) ( ) - (2.17)( ) ( ) ( ) (2.1
- Page 61 and 62:
43been carried by many researchers
- Page 63 and 64:
Table 2.5: Summary 2 of dynamic soi
- Page 65 and 66:
472.4.3.1. Pile modelPile Dynamics,
- Page 67 and 68:
49Pile Segment iSoil Segment kJ kR
- Page 69 and 70:
̇̇̇̇51= pile bottom velocity at
- Page 71 and 72:
534. Constant dynamic soil paramete
- Page 73 and 74:
(a) Schematic (b) ModelExternal Com
- Page 75 and 76:
572.5.4. Pile modelPile model is di
- Page 77 and 78:
59model calculates the dynamic soil
- Page 79 and 80:
61where,a ij= acceleration at a pil
- Page 81 and 82:
Table 2.6: Summary of static analys
- Page 83 and 84:
65Table 2.9: Empirical values for
- Page 85 and 86:
Ultimate Capacity (kips)Stroke (ft)
- Page 87 and 88:
69blows/ft) or less is required to
- Page 89 and 90:
71methods is obscure and it cannot
- Page 91 and 92:
73Case Reference Pile type7891011Le
- Page 93 and 94:
75Case Reference Pile type910111213
- Page 95 and 96:
77Case Reference Pile type192021222
- Page 97 and 98:
79Case Reference Pile type333435363
- Page 99 and 100:
Days (Ahead)/DelayFigure 2.15: A gr
- Page 101 and 102:
83construction procedures used by t
- Page 103 and 104:
85f(g)βσ gFailure RegionArea = p
- Page 105 and 106:
87Table 2.14: AASHTO assumed random
- Page 107 and 108:
89(2.47)( ) ( ) (2.48)( ) ( ) (2.49
- Page 109 and 110:
912.7.4 Recommended LRFD resistance
- Page 111 and 112:
932.8. Pile Setup2.8.1 Introduction
- Page 113 and 114:
Ratio of Final to Initial Pile Resi
- Page 115 and 116:
97be determined. The challenges wit
- Page 117 and 118:
99Based on about 70 test piles at m
- Page 119 and 120:
101Komurka et al. (2003) noted that
- Page 121 and 122:
103developed by Wathugala and Desai
- Page 123 and 124:
105dynamic analysis methods. They s
- Page 125 and 126:
107Factors for LRFD Foundation Stre
- Page 127 and 128:
109New Jersey.Coyle, H. M, Bartoske
- Page 129 and 130:
111Hannigan, P. J. and Webster, S.
- Page 131 and 132:
113Theory to Piles, Petaling Jaya,
- Page 133 and 134:
115PDCA Specification 102-07, PDCA
- Page 135 and 136:
117Soderberg, L. O. (1962). ―Cons
- Page 137 and 138:
119Driven Piles in Clay.‖ Canadia
- Page 139 and 140:
1213.2. IntroductionMany researcher
- Page 141 and 142:
123with CAPWAP analysis at differen
- Page 143 and 144:
125Disturbed soil samples were coll
- Page 145 and 146:
1273.4.3. InstrumentationAll test p
- Page 147 and 148:
129embedded length before and after
- Page 149 and 150:
131(R EOD ) from CAPWAP analyses. T
- Page 151 and 152:
133due to restrike and SLT as well
- Page 153 and 154:
1353.5.6. Quantitative studies betw
- Page 155 and 156:
1373. The experimental investigatio
- Page 157 and 158:
139Geotechnical Special Publication
- Page 159 and 160:
abcTable 3.1: Summary of soil profi
- Page 161 and 162:
TestpileISU2ISU3ISU4ISU5ISU6HammerD
- Page 163 and 164:
1453.02.82.6Reported Soil Informati
- Page 165 and 166:
Vertical Coefficient of Consolidati
- Page 167 and 168:
Depth Below Ground (m)Depth Below G
- Page 169 and 170:
Percent Increase in Total Resistanc
- Page 171 and 172:
Depth Below Ground (m)Depth Below G
- Page 173 and 174:
155CHAPTER 4: PILE SETUP IN COHESIV
- Page 175 and 176:
157proposed pile setup method in a
- Page 177 and 178:
159consider the immediate gain in p
- Page 179 and 180:
161companion paper also show that p
- Page 181 and 182: 1632. Accounting for the actual tim
- Page 183 and 184: 165were compared using the proposed
- Page 185 and 186: 167(17 ft) well-graded sand (SW) an
- Page 187 and 188: 169( )√ ( ) √ (4.10)where μ =
- Page 189 and 190: 1714.8. Integration of Pile Setup I
- Page 191 and 192: 173diameter smaller than 600 mm). F
- Page 193 and 194: Pile Resistance (kN)175geotechnical
- Page 195 and 196: 177R m , R t = Measured pile resist
- Page 197 and 198: 179Field Testing of Steel Piles in
- Page 199 and 200: 181Table 4.1: Summary of existing m
- Page 201 and 202: Table 4.3: Summary of five external
- Page 203 and 204: 183Soil LayerTable 4.5: Soil inform
- Page 205 and 206: (R t /R EOD ) × (L EOD /L t )(R t
- Page 207 and 208: Measured Pile Resistance (kN)Measur
- Page 209 and 210: 189Measured Pile Resistance at Time
- Page 211 and 212: Ratio of Measured and Predicted Pil
- Page 213 and 214: 193surrounding the pile and the con
- Page 215 and 216: 195Method (FORM) to calculate resis
- Page 217 and 218: 197estimated using Eq. (5.1a), was
- Page 219 and 220: 199Table 5.2: Comparison of Resista
- Page 221 and 222: Percent201E(g) = expected value or
- Page 223 and 224: 203( ( )) ( ̅) ( ) (5.7)( ) ( ) (5
- Page 225 and 226: 205φ setup values. At a fixed dead
- Page 227 and 228: 207conditions and design practices,
- Page 229 and 230: 209procedure in pile designs. Two c
- Page 231: 211estimation methods (e.g. Skov an
- Page 235 and 236: 215CHAPTER 6: INTEGRATION OF CONSTR
- Page 237 and 238: 217Bridge Design Specifications hav
- Page 239 and 240: 219Chapter 5. The resistance factor
- Page 241 and 242: 2216.4.3. Calibration methodFirst-O
- Page 243 and 244: 223The LRFD resistance factors cali
- Page 245 and 246: 225a. For sand and mixed soil profi
- Page 247 and 248: 227for the Iowa Blue Book. To evalu
- Page 249 and 250: 229Book method computed by AbdelSal
- Page 251 and 252: 231modified resistance factor (Пξ
- Page 253 and 254: 233Furthermore, these LRFD recommen
- Page 255 and 256: 235Revisions, Washington, D.C.Abdel
- Page 257 and 258: Table 6.1: Summary of data records
- Page 259 and 260: Testpile IDISU1ISU2ISU3ISU4ISU5ISU6
- Page 261 and 262: Table 6.4: Summary of adjusted meas
- Page 263 and 264: 243SourceIowaNCHRPReport 507Soilpro
- Page 265 and 266: PercentPercent2459990501010.10.2STI
- Page 267 and 268: PercentPercent2479990501010.51.0STI
- Page 269 and 270: PercentWEAP over Blue Book with Con
- Page 271 and 272: 2517.2. IntroductionAlthough dynami
- Page 273 and 274: 253difficulty in pile setup investi
- Page 275 and 276: 255Liang (2000) calculated an avera
- Page 277 and 278: 257model shown in Figure 7.1. Based
- Page 279 and 280: 259which were identified as ISU2, I
- Page 281 and 282: 261figure, a power relationship in
- Page 283 and 284:
263relationship between the f s val
- Page 285 and 286:
2657.5.4. EOD condition for cohesio
- Page 287 and 288:
267were plotted against the SPT N-v
- Page 289 and 290:
269correlation between dynamic soil
- Page 291 and 292:
271Application of Stress-Wave Theor
- Page 293 and 294:
273Table 7.4: Summary of measured s
- Page 295 and 296:
275Table 7.5: Summary of measured s
- Page 297 and 298:
Soil Resistance (R)Soil DampingResi
- Page 299 and 300:
Upward Traveling Wave, W u (kN)F(t)
- Page 301 and 302:
Shaft Quake Value, qs (mm)Shaft Dam
- Page 303 and 304:
Depth Below Ground (m)Depth Below G
- Page 305 and 306:
Shaft Quake Value, q s (mm)Smith's
- Page 307 and 308:
Shaft Dampinf Factor, J s (s/m)Shaf
- Page 309 and 310:
289CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS
- Page 311 and 312:
291increased immediately and rapidl
- Page 313 and 314:
293improved. The regionally-calibra
- Page 315 and 316:
295relationship was conclusively dr
- Page 317:
297ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI was one of the