Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Predicting axially and laterally loaded pile behaviour using in-situ testing methods Davies, Michael Paul 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A7 D38.pdf [ 21.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0062630.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0062630-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0062630-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0062630-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0062630-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0062630-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0062630-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0062630-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0062630.ris

Full Text

PREDICTING AXIALLY AND LATERALLY LOADED PILE BEHAVIOUR USING IN-SITU TESTING METHODS by MICHAEL PAUL DAVIES B.A.Sc. (Hons)., The Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of C i v i l Engineering We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1987 ©MICHAEL PAUL DAVIES, 1987 In presenting t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , i n whole or i n part, may be granted by the Head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Michael Paul Davies The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: SepfeMbef 30y f<30J. ABSTRACT The prediction of axial and lateral pile behaviour is a complex engineering problem. Traditional methods of data collection and subsequent analyses are frequently in error when compared to full-scale,load tests. In-situ testing, using advanced electronic tools, provides a means by which representative field data may be obtained. This study investigates the use of such in-situ data in predicting axially loaded pile capacity and later-ally loaded pile load-deflection behaviour. A total of twelve static axial pile capacity methods were evaluated to predict the results obtained from eight full-scale pile load tests on six different piles. These methods, separated into direct and indirect classes, used data obtained from the cone penetration test. Extensive use of commercially available microcomputer software significantly simplified the analyses. In addition, several dynamic pile capacity predictions are presented including results from in-situ dynamic measurements obtained with a pile driving analyzer during pile emplacement. An attempt has been made, with the use of tell-tales, to differentiate the shaft resistance and end-bearing components of the load test results. These results are then compared to the prediction methods investigated. Two methods of predicting lateral load-deflection behaviour using in-situ data have been investigated. One method uses pressuremeter test data and the other, a new method proposed in this study, uses f u l l -displacement flat plate dilatometer test data. These predictions are compared with full-scale lateral load tests on three piles of differing size. In both the a x i a l and l a t e r a l load cases, the preferred raethod(s) of analyses are i d e n t i f i e d . I t i s shown that excellent agreement can be obtained for p r e d i c t i n g measured p i l e behaviour using several methods. The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study are noted, and recommendations for further research are proposed. Advisors: Dr. Peter K. Robertson Dr. Richard G. Campanella TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i i i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Outline - 1 1.2 Thesis Objectives 2 2.0 PILE DESIGN 3 2.1 A x i a l l y Loaded P i l e s 5 2.1.1 Introduction 5 2.1.2 S t a t i c Capacity P r e d i c t i o n Methods 8 2.1.2.1 F a i l u r e Mechanisms 8 2.1.2.2 Pred i c t i o n Methods 15 2.1.3 Dynamic Capacity P r e d i c t i o n Methods 19 2.2 L a t e r a l l y Loaded P i l e s 22 2.1.1 Introduction 22 2.1.2 Mechanism of Behaviour 25 2.1.3 Behaviour P r e d i c t i o n Methods 27 3.0 RESEARCH SITE 34 3.1 Regional Geology 35 3.2 S i t e Description 37 4.0 IN-SITU TESTS PERFORMED 39 4.1 Introduction 39 4.2 In-Situ Testing Methods 40 4.2.1 Piezometer Cone Penetration Testing 44 4.2.1.1 Test Description 44 4.2.1.2 Results 46 4.2.2 Pressuremeter Testing 46 4.2.2.1 Test Description 46 4.2.2.2 Results 50 4.2.3 F l a t Plate Dilatometer Testing 52 4.2.3.1 Test Description 52 4.2.3.2 Results 54 4.2.4 Other Methods 54 4.3 Summary 57 5.0 PILE INSTALLATION AND LOAD TESTING 60 5.1 P i l e I n s t a l l a t i o n 60 5.1.1 Driving Records 60 5.1.2 Dynamic Measurements 63 5.2 A x i a l Load Testing 65 5.2.1 Introduction 65 5.2.2 Methodology 66 5.2.3 Results 67 - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.3. Late r a l Load Testing 84 5.3.1 Introduction 84 5.3.2 Methodology 86 5.3.3 Results 89 6.0 PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED AXIAL PILE CAPACITY 95 6.1 Introduction -. 95 6.2 Use of Spreadsheets 107 6.3 Direct Methods 107 6.3.1 Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method 110 6.3.1.1 Outline 110 6.3.1.2 Results I l l 6.3.2 deRuiter and Beringen CPT Method 113 6.3.2.1 Outline 113 6.3.2.2 Results 114 6.3.3 Zhou, Zie, Zuo, Luo, and Tang CPT Method 114 6.3.3.1 Outline 114 6.3.3.2 Results l l 6 6.2.4 Van Mierlo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method ... 116 6.2.4.1 Outline 116 6.2.4.2 Results 118 6.3.5 Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees (LCPC) CPT Method 118 6.3.5.1 Outline 118 6.3.5.2 Results 120 6.4 Indirect Methods 120 6.4.1 American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e (API) RP2A Method 122 6.4.1.1 Outline 122 6.4.1.2 Results 123 6.4.2 Dennis and Olson Method 123 6.4.2.1 Outline 123 6.4.2.2 Results 125 6.4.3 Vijayvergiya and Focht Method 125 6.4.3.1 Outline 125 6.4.3.2 Results 127 6.4.4 Bur land Method 127 6.4.4.1 Outline 127 6.4.4.2 Results 129 6.4.5 Janbu Method 129 6.4.5.1 Outline 129 6.4.5.2 Results 131 6.4.6 Meyerhof Conventional Method 131 6.4.6.1 Outline 131 6.4.6.2 Results 133 6.4.7 Flaate and Seines Method 133 6.4.7.1 Outline 133 6.4.7.2 Results 135 6.5 Dynamic Methods 135 6.5.1 Introduction 135 - v -TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.5.2 Results 137 6.6 S e n s i t i v i t y to Input Parameters 141 6.6.1 S t a t i c Methods 141 6.6.2 Dynamic Methods 146 6.7 Discussion of A x i a l P i l e Capacity Predictions 150 7.0 PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR 162 7.1 Introduction 162 7.2 Program LATPILE 162 7.3 La t e r a l P i l e Behaviour 163 7.3.1 F u l l Displacement Pressuremeter Test P-Y Curve Method 164 7.3.1.1 Outline 164 7.3.1.2 Results 167 7.3.2 F l a t Plate Dilatometer P-Y Curve Method 172 7.3.2.1 Theoretical Development 173 7.3.2.2 Programs LATDMT.UBC 182 7.3.2.3 Results 183 7.3.3 Other Methods 191 7.4 Discussion of La t e r a l P i l e Behaviour Predictions 192 8.0 RECOMMENDED CORRELATIONS 194 8.1 A x i a l P i l e Capacity 194 8.2 La t e r a l P i l e Behaviour 195 8.3 Limitations and Precautions 195 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 196 9.1 P i l e I n s t a l l a t i o n and Load Testing 196 9.2 A x i a l P i l e Capacity P r e d i c t i o n Methods 197 9.3 Later a l P i l e Behaviour P r e d i c t i o n Methods 197 9.4 Recommendations for Further Research 198 REFERENCES ' 200 APPENDICES I Reduced In-Situ Test Data for UBCPRS 207 II P i l e Driving Records for UBCPRS 235 III A x i a l P i l e Load Tests for UBCPRS 245 IV Late r a l P i l e Load Tests for UBCPRS 291 V Dynamic A x i a l Capacity P r e d i c t i o n Methods for UBCPRS .. 296 VI LATDMT.UBC Programs L i s t i n g 299 - v i -LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 P r i n c i p a l Advantages and,Disadvantages of Di f f e r e n t P i l e Types (adapted from Vesic, 1977) 6 4.1 Summary of In-Situ Tests Performed 41 5.1 UBC P i l e Research S i t e P i l e Driving Records Summary 62 5.2 UBC P i l e Research Site PDA Summary 64 5.3 UBCPRS P i l e Driving and Testing Schedule 65 5.4 MOTHPRS P i l e Driving and Testing Schedule 66 5.5 Summary of T e l l - T a l e Data for UBCPRS 82 5.6 Summary of A x i a l P i l e Loading Testing at UBCPRS and MOTHPRS 86 6.1 P i l e Capacity Pr e d i c t i o n Methods Evaluated 97 6.2 Design Methods for Calculating A x i a l P i l e Capacity 98 6.3 Predicted Shaft Resistance as a Percentage of Total Measured A x i a l Capacity for P i l e No. 5 159 6.4 Predicted Shaft Resistance as a Percentage of Total Predicted A x i a l Capacity for P i l e No. 5 160 7.1 Values of J Recommended by Matlock (1970) 177 - v i i -LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Situations i n Which P i l e s May be Required (adapted from Vesic, 1977) 4 2.2 Methods of I n s t a l l a t i o n of P i l e s (adapted from K e z d l i , 1975) 7 2.3 Types of F a i l u r e Mechanisms (adapted from Vesic, 1963) ... 10 2.4 F i e l d s for D i f f e r e n t Types of F a i l u r e For Shallow and Deep Foundations (adapted from Kezdi, 1975) 11 2.5 Assumed F a i l u r e Mechanisms Under P i l e Foundations (adapted from Vesic, 1967) 12 2.6 Bearing Capacity Factors for Deep C i r c u l a r Foundations (adapted from Vesic, 1967) 14 2.7 Schematic Representation of Driving System for Wave Equation Model 21 2.8 Schematic Representation of CAPWAP Model 23 2.9 Dynamic P i l e Analysis: Methods and Results 24 2.10 Observed Displacements Around L a t e r a l l y Loaded P i l e (after Robertson et a l . , 1986) . 26 2.11 S o i l Flows Around L a t e r a l P i l e at Depth (adapted from Randolph and Houlsby, 1984) 28 2.12 S o i l Movement at Shallow Depth Due to La t e r a l P i l e Displacement (adapted from Broms, 1964) 29 2.13 Model of L a t e r a l l y Loaded P i l e Using Discrete Winkler Springs 30 2.14 Shape of a Typi c a l P-y Curve Used for Nonlinear Subgrade Reaction Method 32 3.1 General Location of Research S i t e 36 3.2 S i t e Plan of UBCPRS and MOTHPRS 38 - v i i i -LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 4.1 Locations of In-Situ Tests Performed at P i l e Sites 42 4.2 Locations of In-Situ Tests Performed at UBCPRS 43 4.3 Schematic of E l e c t r i c Cone Developed at UBC -. 45 4.4 CPT Interpreted P r o f i l e Used for UBCPRS 47 4.5 CPT Interpreted P r o f i l e Used for MOTHPRS 49 4.6 Conceptual Design: UBC Cone Pressuremeter (after Campanella and Robertson, 1986) 51 4.7 Schematic Representation of F l a t Plate Dilatometer 53 4.8 Intermediate Geotechnical Parameters from DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS 55 4.9 Interpreted Geotechnical Parameters from DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS 56 4.10 UBC P i l e Research Site Undrained Strength P r o f i l e s 58 5.1 UBC/MOTH Test P i l e Embedments 61 5.2 A x i a l P i l e Load Test Set Up for P i l e No. 5 68 5.3 T y p i c a l A x i a l P i l e Set Up for P i l e s 1 to 4, Inclusive 69 5.4 MOTHPRS A x i a l P i l e Load Test Set Up (after Robertson et a l . , 1985) 70 5.5 Load-Displacement Diagram of a Hypothetical Test P i l e Drawn to Two Di f f e r e n t Scales 71 5.6 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l Load Test Results - P i l e No. 1 73 5.7 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l Load Test Results - P i l e No. 2 74 5.8 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l Load Test Results - P i l e No. 3 75 5.9 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l Load Test Results - P i l e No. 4 77 - i x -LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 5.10 UBC P i l e Reseach S i t e : A x i a l Load Test Results - P i l e No. 5 78 5.11 Summary of P i l e Load Test Results 79 5.12 Schematic Outline of T e l l - t a l e System Used for UBCPRS 80 5.13 Schematic Concept of Load-Transfer 81 5.14 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : P i l e No. 5 T e l l - T a l e Summary 83 5.15 UBCPRS: Chin's Method to Predict F a i l u r e Load for P i l e Nos. 4 and 5 85 5.16 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : L a t e r a l Load Test Set Up 87 5.17 UBC P i l e Research S i t e : Inclinometer Set Up for La t e r a l Load Testing 88 5.18 MOTHPRS Later a l P i l e Load Test Arrangement (after Robertson et a l . , 1985) 90 5.19 UBCPRS: Later a l P i l e Load Test Results - P i l e No. 3 91 5.20 UBCPRS: La t e r a l P i l e Load Test Results - P i l e No. 5 92 5.21 MOTHPRS: La t e r a l P i l e Load Test Results 94 6.1 de Beer Scale E f f e c t Diagram for CPT P i l e Predictions (adapted from Nottingham, 1975) 109 6.2 Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method 112 6.3 deRuiter and Beringen CPT Method 115 6.4 Zhou et a l . (1982) CPT Method 117 6.5 Van Mierlo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method 119 6.6 LCPC CPT Method 121 6.7 American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e RP2A Method 124 6.8 Dennis and Olson Method 126 6.9 Vijayvergiya and Focht Method 128 - x -LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 6.10 Burland Method 130 6.11 Janbu Method 132 6.12 Meyerhof Conventional Method -. 134 6.13 Flaate and Seines Method 136 6.14 UBC P i l e Research Site WEAP86: P i l e No. 5. Varying Hammer E f f i c i e n c y 138 6.15 UBC P i l e Research Site WEAP86: P i l e No. 5. Varying Shaft Resistance to Tip Resistance Ratio 139 6.16 UBCPRS: de Ruiter and Beringen CPT Method. Undrained Strength No. 1 143 6.17 UBCPRS: de Ruiter and Beringen CPT Method. Undrained Strength No. 2 144 6.18 UBCPRS: de Ruiter and Beringen CPT Method. Undrained Strength No. 3 145 6.19 Proposed C o r r e l a t i o n Between CPT Data and Case Damping Constant, J c 148 6.20 E l a s t o - P l a s t i c S o i l Model (adapted from C h e l l i s , 1951) ... 149 6.21 Bar Charts of Predicted Versus Measured P i l e Capacity for S t a t i c P r e d i c t i o n Methods Evaluated 151 6.22 Bar Charts of Predicted Versus Measured P i l e Capacity for P i l e s Analyzed 155 7.1 Schematic Representation of Development of P i l e P-y Curves from Pressuremeter Curves 165 7.2 V a r i a t i o n of Mul t i p l y i n g Factor with Relative Depth 165 7.3 Reduction Factors for Pressuremeter Test Results at Shallow Depth (adapted from Robertson et a l . , 1986) 168 7.4 FDPMT Method: Predicted Versus Measured L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour - MOTHPRS P i l e 169 7.5 FDPMT Method: Predicted Versus Measured L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 3 170 - x i -LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 7.6 FDPMT Method: Predicted Versus Measured Late r a l P i l e Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 5 171 7.7 Cubic Parabolic P-y Curve for St r a i n Hardening S o i l s (adapted from Matlock, 1970) , 17A 7.8 E f f e c t of Making Reference De f l e c t i o n a Function of D ° ' 5 for Cohesive S o i l s (adapted from Stevens and Audibert, 1979) 177 7.9 P u and Y c calculated Output from DMT 18A 7.10 Flowchart for Determining P-y Curves from DMT Data 185 7.11 Average Values of P u and Y c Chosen from DMT 186 7.12 DMT Method: Predicted Versus Measured Late r a l P i l e Behaviour - MOTHPRS P i l e 188 7.13 DMT Method: Predictd Versus Measured Late r a l P i l e Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 3 189 7.1A DMT Method: Predicted Versus Measured L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 5 190 - x i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank my advisors, Drs. P.K. Robertson and R.G. Campanella for their guidance throughout this study. Particularly the support of Dr. Robertson for both his suggestion of, and enthusiasm for, such a rewarding research topic. Alex Sy of Klohn Leonoff who, besides being my unofficial third advisor, designed and supervised a l l pile driving and load testing; thank you Alex. Appreciation is extended to my colleagues Don Gillespie, John Howie, Jim Greig, Bob Chambers, Ralph Kuerbis, Damika Wickremesinghe and Carlos Meija for their assistance during data collection. Don and John also provided critical evaluation of much of this dissertation. The Civil Engineering Technical staff, Dick Postgate, Art Brookes, Harald Schrempp, and Guy Kirsch are acknowledged for their talents. The patience and typographical skills of Kelly Lamb in preparing this dissertation are extremely appreciated. The financial support of the Civil Engineering Department, the University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship, NSERC, and the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways is gratefully acknowledged. Donations of equipment and/or personnel from the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways; Klohn Leonoff; Franki Canada; Dywidag Canada; and Weir Jones Engineering are most appreciated. A special thanks to my parents for their continued encouragement and support throughout my university studies. To my wife, Carolyn, whose friendship and support I treasure, my warmest thanks. This dissertation is dedicated to her. - x i i i -1 CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION 1.1 Outline In order that a p i l e d foundation may be designed s a f e l y and economic-a l l y , either an accurate p r e d i c t i o n of i t s behaviour under load i s made or a f u l l - s c a l e p i l e load t e s t i s performed. F u l l - s c a l e load t e s t s are very expensive and are therefore often i m p r a c t i c a l . P r e d i c t i v e methods require an accurate assessment of the s o i l properties into which the p i l e i s to be placed. I n - s i t u t e s t i n g methods o f f e r an excellent means by which, to accurately obtain these s o i l properties. In 198A, the B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Transportation and Highways (BCMOTH) performed p i l e t e s t i n g , a x i a l and l a t e r a l , on a 915 mm diameter p i l e as part of the design phase for the Alex Fraser Bridge project. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC) In-Situ Testing Group became involved i n the evaluation of the t e s t i n g data and the subsequent p r e d i c t i o n of p i l e behaviour using i n - s i t u t e s t i n g methods (Robertson et a l . , 1985). Due i n part to the encouraging r e s u l t s of the UBC p r e d i c t i o n s , the BCMOTH agreed to support a research program whereby several 32A mm diameter p i l e s would be i n s t a l l e d and tested both a x i a l l y and l a t e r a l l y . This study i s the r e s u l t of that research program. This thesis i s organized i n the following manner: Chapter 2 presents an overview of p i l e design and. the r o l e i n - s i t u t e s t i n g can play i n provid-ing more accurate data than most t r a d i t i o n a l methods. Chapter 3 introduces the research s i t e used for t h i s study. In Chapter A, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n - s i t u tests performed and of the data obtained i s presented. D e t a i l s of the i n s t a l l a t i o n and load t e s t i n g of the p i l e s investigated comprises 2 Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents predicted versus measured a x i a l p i l e capacity r e s u l t s using both s t a t i c and dynamic p r e d i c t i v e methods. In Chapter 7, the r e s u l t s of the l a t e r a l p i l e p r e d i c t i o n methods investigated are compared to the measured te s t behaviour. Chapter 8 presents the recommended method(s) of p r e d i c t i n g both a x i a l and l a t e r a l p i i e behaviour from i n - s i t u t e s t i n g data. The thesis closes with a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for areas of further study. 1.2 Thesis Objectives The major objectives of t h i s study are l i s t e d as follows: a) Perform and i n t e r p r e t several f u l l - s c a l e a x i a l and l a t e r a l p i l e load t e s t s b) Compare the r e s u l t s of both the a x i a l and l a t e r a l p i l e load t e s t s to the predictions made from i n - s i t u t e s t i n g data c) Propose and evaluate a method of determining l a t e r a l p i l e behaviour from f l a t p l ate dilatometer data d) Recommend the preferred methods for p r e d i c t i n g a x i a l and l a t e r a l p i l e behaviour using i n - s i t u t e s t i n g data 3 CHAPTER 2  PILE DESIGN The use of p i l e s , dating back to p r e h i s t o r i c lake v i l l a g e s , i s man's oldest method of overcoming the d i f f i c u l t i e s of inadequate earth materials (Poulos and Davis, 1980). E f f o r t s have been reported i n l i t e r a t u r e since the p u b l i c a t i o n of " P i l e s and P i l e D r iving" edited by Wellington of the "Engineering News" i n 1893. Since t h i s time, p i l e design has progressed from being purely empirical to having an ever increasing t h e o r e t i c a l basis. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , p i l e design has meant p r e d i c t i n g the ultimate a x i a l load capacity of the given foundation and to assess whether t o l e r a b l e settlements w i l l be exceeded. This ultimate load i s calculated either by " s t a t i c " methods, which use empirical and t h e o r e t i c a l bearing and shaft capacity formulae; or by "dynamic" methods, which use measured or modelled p i l e d r i v i n g data. P i l e settlement i s generally predicted from empirical c o r r e l a t i o n s (Peck et a l . , 1974). Extensive experience e x i s t s i n the area of a x i a l p i l e design as can r e a d i l y be deduced by the large number of both t e c h n i c a l papers written and a n a l y t i c a l methods proposed. In addition to a x i a l loads, however, p i l e s are often required to r e s i s t l a t e r a l loads . The l a t e r a l behaviour of p i l e s has not received nearly as much attention as the a x i a l p i l e problem although since the mid-1970's t h i s has been changing. V e s i c (1977) summarized the p r i n c i p a l s i t u a t i o n s where p i l e s may be needed (Fig. 2.1). The most common s i t u a t i o n requiring a p i l e d foundation i s where the upper s o i l stratum i s e i t h e r too compressible and/or generally too weak to support the desired structure. In addition, p i l e d foundations FIG. 2.1. SITUATIONS IN WHICH_ PILES MAY' BE REQUIRED (Adapted from Vesic', 1977) 5 are also frequently required because of the relative inability of shallow footings to transmit inclined, horizontal, or uplift forces and overturning moments (Vesic, 1977). Once i t has been determined that a piled foundation is required, design of that foundation must reflect the selection of pile type. There are basically three main material pile types used (either separately or together to form composite materials). Table 2.1 lists the principal design advantages and disadvantages of each type. As well as pile type, the emplacement technique used to install the pile must be considered in the design. There are four main methods of pile installation: i) Driven piles i i ) Bored or cast-in-place piles i i i ) Driven and cast-in-place piles iv) Screw piles. In Fig. 2.2, an example of each of these methods is presented. In this chapter, a brief review of methods of designing piles subject to both axial and lateral loads will be presented. For each loading case the general behaviour mechanism developed during the application of load will also be presented. In addition, a brief justification for the use of in-situ testing methods for axial and lateral pile design is included. 2.1 Axially Loaded Piles 2.1.1 Introduction All piles, due to their own self-weight, impart an axial load on the soil even when isolated from any external forces. There are likely an infinite number of examples where vertical piles could be used to support structural loads. However, in each case, their use is generally for the 6 PILE TYPE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Timber Easy t o ha n d l e or c u t - o f f , R e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e m a t e r i a l R e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e (N.A.) N a t u r a l l y t a p e r e d Decay above water t a b l e L i m i t e d i n s i z e and b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y Prone t o damage by hard d r i v i n g D i f f i c u l t t o exte n d N o i s y t o d r i v e S t e e l Easy t o h a n d l e , c u t o f f , e x t e n d A v a i l a b l e i n any s i z e Can p e n e t r a t e hard s t r a t a C o n v e n i e n t t o combine w i t h s t e e l s u p e r s t r u c t u r e S u b j e c t t o c o r r o s i o n F l e x i b l e H - p i l e s may d e v i a t e from a x i s o f d r i v i n g R e l a t i v e l y e x p e n s i v e N o i s y t o d r i v e C o n c r e t e : P r e c a s t D u r a b i l i t y i n almo s t any environment C o n v e n i e n t t o combine w i t h c o n c r e t e s u p e r s t r u c t u r e Cumbersome t o ha n d l e and d r i v e D i f f i c u l t t o c u t o f f or e x t e n d N o i s y t o d r i v e C o n c r e t e : C a s t - i n - p l a c e i ) c a s i n g l e f t i n ground A l l o w s i n s p e c t i o n b e f o r e c o n c r e t i n g Easy t o c u t o f f or e x t e n d C a s i n g cannot be r e - u s e d T h i n c a s i n g may be damaged by impact or s o i l p r e s s u r e i i ) c a s i n g w ithdrawn or no c a s i n g No s t o r a g e space r e q u i r e d Can be f i n i s h e d a t any e l e v a t i o n Can be made b e f o r e e x c a v a t i o n Some t y p e s a l l o w l a r g e r d i s p l a c e m e n t s i n weaker s o i l s I n s o f t s o i l s s h a f t may be damaged by s q u e e z i n g In case o f heavy compaction of c o n c r e t e , p r e v i o u s l y completed p i l e s may be damaged I f c o n c r e t e i s p l a c e d t o f a s t t h e r e i s danger of c r e a t i o n o f a v o i d TABLE 2.1. PRINCIPAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT PILE TYPES (Adapted from V e s i c , 1977) w d r i v i n g energy i)•INSTALLATION BY DRIVING b o r i n g v e l o c i t y i i ) INSTALLATION BY BORED OR CAST-IN-PLACE T T p r e s s i n g f o r c e i i i ) INSTALLATION BY DRIVING AND CAST-IN-PLACE moment i v ) INSTALLATION BY SCREWING FIG. 2.2. METHODS OF INSTALLING PILES (Adapted from Ke'zdi, 1975) 8 same reason; to transfer the structural loads to more competent and/or less compressible earth material(s). In designing axially loaded piles the following three criteria must be considered, structural failure of the pile, bearing capacity failure of the soil, settlement of the piled foundation. Excluding buckling-and bending due to lateral loads and failure due to excessive energy input during pile driving, structural failure is assumed to occur when the stress in the foundation equals the critical stress for the shaft material (e.g., the yield stress for steel pipe piles). Structural failure is seldom a concern unless very dense soil or rock is encountered. In many cases i t is tphe bearing capacity of the soil or the settlement which determines the maximum foundation load. For predicting axial pile capacity both static and dynamic capacity predictions are available. 2.1.2 Static Capacity Prediction Methods For this study, only the prediction of axial capacity of driven piles will be addressed. The problem of estimating the settlement of axially loaded piles will not be addressed. Brief descriptions of possible failure mechanisms under axial loading and the prediction of axial capacity are presented in this section. 2.1.2.1 Failure Mechanisms In order to evaluate any bearing capacity prediction method, whether theoretical or empirical, i t is often useful to review whether or not the failure mechanism used in its formulation is representative of the in-situ conditions. The mode of failure depends mainly on; the shear strength of 9 the surrounding soil, the length to diameter ratio of the pile and the pile type (Kezdi, 1975). It is often assumed that bearing capacity failure occurs as a shear failure in the soil supporting the foundation structure. Three principal modes of shear failure were recognized by Vesic (1963). These failure modes are shown in Fig. 2.3. General shear failure (Fig. 2.3a) is characterized by the existence of some well-defined failure pattern consisting of a continuous slip surface from one edge of the foundation to the ground surface. Local shear failure (Fig. 2.3b) is characterized by a failure pattern defined only beneath the foundation level. A punching shear failure (Fig. 2.3c) is less well-defined and is often difficult to observe. Unlike the general and local shear failure modes, the punching shear failure involves practically no movement of the soil toward the free surface. The punching shear failure generally fits the observed soil behaviour around most piles during driving (Vesic, 1977). Vesic (1963) conducted extensive laboratory studies in granular soils of variable density to define the various failure mechanisms. These mechanisms are also present in cohesive soils, but are more readily observable in cohesionless soils. Vesic's work is summarized graphically in Fig. 2.4. In Fig. 2.4, D = depth of foundation and b = pile width. It is important to note that the limits of failure zone depend upon material compressibility (Vesic, 1963). More compressible materials will tend to have small D/b ratios to generate a punching shear failure. It is interesting to note from Fig. 2.4 that for circular foundations (i.e. most piles), a punching failure will occur below a relative depth of 4. Fig. 2.5 presents some of the existing proposed failure patterns for pile foundations. It can be seen that most of the proposed failure (a) G e n e r a l Shear F a i l u r e % ( C a q u o t , 1934; Buisman, 1935; w T e r z a g h i , 1943) FIG 2.3. TYPES OF FAILURE MECHANISMS (Adapted from V e s i c , 1963) I - G e n e r a l Shear F a i l u r e I I - L o c a l Shear F a i l u r e I I I - P u n c h i n g Shear F a i l u r e R e l a t i v e D e n s i t y 0 0.5 1.0 IG. 2.4. FIELDS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF FAILURE FOR SHALLOW AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS (Adapated from K e z d i , 1975) (a) P r a n t l R e i s s n e r Caquot Buisman T e r z a g h i (b) DeBeer J a k y Meyerhof (C) B e r e z n a n t s e v and Yaroshenko V e s i c B i s h o p , H i l l , and Mott Skempton FIG. 2.5. ASSUMED FAILURE MECHANISMS UNDER PILE FOUNDATIONS (Adapted from Vesic / 1967) 13 patterns model eit h e r the general shear f a i l u r e or the l o c a l shear f a i l u r e conditions. F i g . 2.6 shows how much v a r i a b i l i t y r e s u l t s i n the derived b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y f a c t o r , N^, due to the use of these d i f f e r e n t f a i l u r e mechanisms. For f r i c t i o n a l s o i l s the following formula i s commonly accepted for the p i l e point resistance, Q^: Q = A (r • d • N ) (2.1) P P q where: A^ = area of p i l e t i p Y - t o t a l u n i t weight of s o i l d = depth of t i p embedment It i s therefore d i s t r e s s i n g that F i g . 2.6 shows a v a r i a b i l i t y i n that i s i n excess of one order of magnitude. Independent studies by Norlund (1963) and V e s i c (1967) show t h a t the v a l u e s of proposed by Berezantsev cor r e l a t e most c l o s e l y with measured point resistance at f a i l u r e . I t i s worth noting that the assumed f a i l u r e mechanism proposed by Berezantsev (Fig. 2.5) most c l o s e l y resembles the d e s c r i p t i o n of punching shear f a i l u r e described e a r l i e r . For c o h e s i v e s o i l s , the v a l u e of i s not important but another bearing capacity f a c t o r , N c > i s commonly used to give the following formula for p i l e point resistance, Q^: Q p = A p ( S u * N c + r ' d ) ( 2 ' 2 ) where: = undrained shear strength. Although the v a l u e of N £ doesn't vary as much as N , Ladanyi (1967) shows 25* 30* 35* 40* 45* 50* Friction Angle, 0 F I G . 2 . 6 . BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DEEP CIRCULAR FOUNDATIONS ( A d a p t e d -from V e s i c ' , 1967) 15 that N c can vary over a significant range depending on the stress-strain properties of the soil. 2.1.2.2 Prediction Methods Despite the amount of attention the subject has receivedthe problem of predicting the axial load carrying capacity of driven piles s t i l l challenges engineers. Static prediction methods are based upon evaluating the properties of the soil into which the pile is to be or has been driven. This is usually done by considering the shaft (or side) resistance and end bearing as independent components of the total pile resistance. The shaft resistance in cohesive soils is usually estimated using an approach similar to the one proposed by Tomlinson (1957). This method estimates the unit shaft resistance (f g) as being equal to the undrained shear strength of the soil reduced by a factor dependent on the magnitude of the undrained shear strength in the form: f = a • S (2.3) s u where: f = unit shaft resistance s S^  = undrained shear strength a = adhesion coefficient = func11 (S ) The adhesion coefficient, a, is an empirical quantity first proposed by Tomlinson (1957) to correlate the undrained pile cohesion with the undrained shear strength. One problem with the approach in Eq. 2.3 is that 16 the value of undrained strength used w i l l be highly dependent upon the method by which i t was obtained. Another problem i s that i t seems inconsistent to use an undrained strength to p r e d i c t the drained f r i c t i o n a l resistance of a p i l e . The shaft resistance i n cohesionless s o i l s i s often estimated using an equation of the following form (Meyerhof, 19-76): f = K • o' • tan 6 (2.A) s v where: K = c o e f f i c i e n t of l a t e r a l earth pressure = average e f f e c t i v e v e r t i c a l stress 6 = f r i c t i o n angle between s o i l and p i l e One problem with t h i s approach i s that the value of K i s often d i f f i c u l t to s e l e c t . Investigators have reported values of K ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 (Lambe and Whitman, 1969). Another problem i s that Eq. 2.4 suggests that shaft resistance increases l i n e a r l y with depth. D i f f i c u l t y also e x i s t s i n estimating 6. The end bearing capacity of a driven p i l e i s most commonly predicted using the Buisman-Terzaghi equation which has the form: Silt = C ' N c + \ B ' ^ N r + r' d'\ ( 2' 5 ) where: Silt = u l t i m a ' t e u n i t t i p bearing capacity c = s o i l cohesion Nc,N^,N^ = bearing capacity factors Y = u n i t weight of s o i l at p i l e t i p d = depth of p i l e t i p B = p i l e width 17 For cohesionless soils, Eq. 2.5 reduces to: q (2.6) since c=0 and is negligible in most cases. For cohesive soils Eq. 2.5 is usually reduced to: \ l t = C' Nc + r ' d ' N q (2.7) Note that for cohesive soils N =1. The major drawback with using Eq. 2.5, and its reduced forms, is that the Buisman-Terzaghi equation is a general solution for the general shear mode of failure. As was shown in the preceding section, i t is the punching shear failure mechanism that appears to govern most pile foundations. As well, the Buisman-Terzaghi equation is not a rigorous solution; i t is a superposition of solutions (e.g. Prandtl and Reissner solutions) which leads to an intentionally conservative result. In cohesionless soils another problem that exists is that a value of N must be obtained. As was shown in the preceding section, there is a wide v a r i a t i o n of opinion concerning the actual form of the <t>~^^ relationship (<j) = angle of internal soil friction). As well, an accurate determination of <f> is often difficult. For cohesive soils the problems are generally less severe, since the value of Nc is known with more confidence than the value of N^. However, the contribution of end bearing to total resistance in cohesive soils is usually small, especially for long piles, and therefore an accurate prediction of end bearing doesn't improve the accuracy of the total resistance prediction considerably. 18 Considering the above, i t is difficult to understand why these traditional prediction methods are s t i l l commonly used. Nottingham (1975) suggests three reasons as to why this is the case: 1. Dynamic prediction methods often do not provide any better results and the predictions are not available until the pile is driven. 2. It is often difficult to justify the cost of a pile load testing program on small projects. 3. Even when pile load testing can be justified, i t is desirable to evaluate the probable performance of different pile types, sizes, and lengths during the design stage of a project in order to intelligently plan the field testing program. In-situ testing, in particular the cone penetration test (CPT), offers an alternative solution to the pile capacity prediction problem. Deter-mination of pile capacity from the CPT was one of the earliest applications of the cone test. The CPT can be thought of as an "in-situ model" of a driven displacement pile. CPT soundings provide a nearly continuous record of cone bearing and sleeve friction data allowing nearly continuous pile resistance profiles to be developed. Laboratory testing and the need for evaluating intermediate values (K, N^ , etc.) are generally eliminated using the CPT "directly" to predict axial pile capacity. The available "direct" methods are empirical and rely upon an accurate assessment of the effects due to the size differential between the cone penetrometer and the pile. The major effects between the CPT and a pile are scale effects, installation effects, and material effects. The study of these effects began with the original work at the Delft Laboratories in Holland by Van 19 Mierlo and Koppejan (1952). Scaling CPT data to predict pile capacity is now usually done using the method by Begemann (1965) or some variation of his method. An elaboration of scaling CPT data to predict pile capacity is presented in Chapter 6. Other in-situ tests, most notably the pressuremeter (PMT) and the standard penetration test (SPT),-can also be used to predict axial pile capacity. This study, however, only evaluated the use of the cone penetrometer for predicting axial pile capacity. 2.1.3 Dynamic Capacity Prediction Methods Pile capacity can be determined by dynamic methods using two tech-niques. The first is a prediction, the second an in-situ test (Rausche et al., 1984). Prediction methods require that an accurate static soil analysis be performed and that the effects of pile driving on the soil are estimated. Predictions may be done by either dynamic formulae or by the wave equation. Dynamic formulae have been used for over 100 years by engineers. An astonishing amount of effort and ingenuity had been expended prior to the 1960's in developing pile driving formulas (Smith, 1960). Smith (1960) reports that by 1959 the editors of "Engineering News Record" had on file 450 such formulas. These original formulae a l l had the same form: Q. dynamic [(Set) - (Energy Losses)] (2.8) where: W, H hammer weight H hammer drop height Q, dynamic dynamic capacity. 20 These formulae considered the pile as a rigid mass experiencing motion caused by Newtonian impact of a mass. The energy delivered per blow, W^ 'H, can be equated with the sum of energy spent in displacing the pile over a distance (set) against the soil resistance (Qdynamic^  an<^ ^he energy lost in elastic rebound and plastic deformations. These formulae, although widely used, rarely supply consistently accurate results as they fa i l to model the true nature of dynamic stress impact on hammer-pile impact. In 1950 E.A.L. Smith proposed a numerical solution which could be used to solve extremely complex pile-driving problems. Smith (1960) carried this another step and applied his numerical solution to wave theory; the ini t i a l use of the wave equation in pile design. Today, wave equation analyses can be performed using commercially available programs and enter-ing the appropriate values that represent the soil, hammer system and pile system. Fig. 2.7 shows a schematic representation of the wave equation model. The most common commercially available programs for performing wave equation analysis of piles are either the TTI (Texas Transportation Institute) series or the WEAP (Wave Equation Analysis of Piles) series. The in-situ dynamic pile tests require measurements of the response of a pile to a hammer blow. The most basic of these measurements is the permanent set (permanent pile penetration for a given hammer strike) or blow count. Interpretation is then made by using either dynamic formulae or a wave equation analysis. In-situ pile tests may also be used in a more sophisticated manner by using the measurements of force and motion of the pile near its top during driving. Calculation of pile capacity from these measurements may be accomplished by a simple formulae (e.g., Case method), or by numerical analysis (e.g., CAPWAP). The Case method is a name that refers to the methods developed at the Case Institute of Technology in the (A) Actual System Diesel (B) Model Velocity °< Displacement F I G . 2 . 7 . SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DRIVING SYSTEM FOR WAVE EQUATION MODEL 22 last 1960's. An excellent summary of the Case Method is given by Gravare et al. (1980). CAPWAP (CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) was initially developed by Rausche (1970). The CAPWAP analysis uses the same mathematical model of the pile and the soil as is used in the wave equation programs. However, with CAPWAP the model does not include the hammer and driving system, but only that portion of the pile below the measuring gauges. These gauges are used to measure forces and accelerations in the pile (see Fig. 2.8). Fig. 2.9 presents a summary of the various techniques of predicting pile behaviour using dynamics. Even with the amount of attention pile dynamics has received, however, reliable results are often not realized when comparisons with static load tests are made. This is mainly because the dynamic capacity is seldom equal to the static capacity due to differ-ences in soil strength or resistance. Disregarding this problem a severe limitation of in-situ dynamic methods is that the pile must be driven before a load capacity prediction can be made. 2.2 Laterally Loaded Piles 2.2.1 Introduction Piles generally tend to be rather slender structural elements, usually vertical or only slightly inclined, and therefore they generally cannot carry high loads which act perpendicularly to their axis. Thus, i t is usually not economical to use vertical piles where primarily lateral loads act; batter piles, tiebacks, deadmen or thrust surfaces are preferred. However, piles are primarily used for supporting vertical loads and are therefore placed vertically. This is because, among other reasons, the axial pile capacity decreases markedly due to load inclination (Meyerhof F I G . 2 . 8 . SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF CAPWAP MODEL PREDICTION IN SITU TEST PERFORM ACCURATE STATIC SOIL ANALYSIS MEASURE BLOW COUNT MEASURE PILE TOP FORCE AND MOTION APPROXIMATE STATIC SOIL ANALYSIS ASSUME SOIL DAMPING FACTOR ASSUME HAMMER AND ORIVNG SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANO PILE PROPERTIES ASSUME HAMMER ANO DRIVING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WAVE EQUATION DYNAMIC FORMULA HAVE EQUATION BLOW COUNT STRESSES PREDICTED BLOW COUNT VS DEPTH OYNAM1C FORMULA CASE METHOO BEARING CAPACITY VS DEPTH CAPWAP STRESSES ACTUAL HAMMER ANO ORIVING SYST. EFF. PILE INTEGRITY RESISTANCE DISTRIBUTION DAMPING ANO QUAKE SIMULATED LOAD TEST F I G . 2 . 9 . DYNAMIC P I L E ANALYSIS: METHODS AND RESULTS and Sastry, 1985) and the placement of inclined piles is more difficult. Examples of strucures where substantial lateral loads can be induced upon primarily vertical piles include: i) offshore oil/gas drilling platforms exposed to current, storm, ice and vessel loads ii ) bridge piers/piles exposed to current, ice and vessel loads i i i ) electrical transmission towers exposed to wind loading iv) marine structures such as a dock v) building foundations subject to wind and earthquake loading. In designing for lateral loads on piles, the following two criteria must be satisfied, ultimate structural failure of the pile cannot occur; and there must be an acceptable deflection at anticipated working loads. The second criterion is most often used for design as i t usually ensures that the first is satisfied. 2.2.2 Mechanism of Behaviour Horizontal loads on vertical piles are resisted by the mobilization of resistance in the soils confining the pile as the soil deflects. Based upon field and laboratory observations (Goldsmith, 1979), when a circular pile is loaded the soil moves radially away from the front face and inwards towards the back face (Fig. 2.10). Fig. 2.10 shows that there is l i t t l e or no slip along the pile sides and hence a very small contribu-tion of side friction to the overall lateral resistance. Smith and Slyh (1986), among others, disagree with this, however, and suggest that a marked amount of slip along the pile sides exists. At depth, below the influence of a free surface, Randolph and Houlsby (1984) offer the concept 26 I G . 2 . 1 0 . OBSERVED DISPLACEMENTS AROUND LATERALLY LOADED P I L E ( A f t e r R o b e r t s o n e t a l . , 1986) of soil "flowing" around the laterally displaced pile (Fig. 2.11). Near the surface, where confining stresses are low, the soil being stressed by the displacement of the pile moves towards the free surface. This movement of soil at shallow depth is shown in Fig. 2.12. Below some "critical depth" the soil no longer has a vertical component to its movement. This concept of critical depth is also shown schematically in Fig. 2,12, The behaviour mechanisms shown in Figs. 2.10 through 2.12 assume that no torsional component exists in the applied load. Torsional loading, due to eccentricity of the applied load is addressed by Randolph (1981,a), among others, and will not be considered in this study. 2.2.3 Lateral Load Behaviour Prediction Methods The problem of predicting the behaviour of piles subject to lateral loads is a difficult analytical question. Although not as plentiful as for axially loaded piles, proposed solutions to the lateral pile problem are numerous. The most common of these approaches will be briefly presented in the following section. The simplest model for the laterally loaded pile problem is that of a vertical elastic beam, loaded transversely and restrained from movement by uniform linear Winkler springs along the beam. The stiffness of these springs is commonly called the subgrade reaction modulus for the soil. Hetenyi (1946) solved closed form solutions for several cases of loading and pile fixity. The model used is as shown in Fig. 2.13. The equation Hetenyi solved was of the form: EI • + P ^ + E • y = 0 dx* x dx2 s (2.9) s l i d i n g c o n c e n t r i c c y l i n d r i c a l s h e l l s FIG. 2.11. SOIL FLOW AROUND LATERALLY LOADED PILE AT DEPTH (Adapted from Randolph and Houlsby, 1984) K3 CO FIG. 2.12. SOIL MOVEMENT AT SHALLOW DEPTH TO LATERAL PILE DISPLACEMENT (Adapted from Broms, 1964) 30 •x i \WLumm—I wmuiui F I G . 2 . 1 3 . MODEL OF LATERALLY LOADED P I L E USING DISCRETE WINKLER SPRINGS 31 where: EI = f l e x u r a l s t i f f n e s s of p i l e E g = subgrade reaction modulus From t h i s e a r l y work, a n a l y t i c a l approaches have developed i n two separate d i r e c t i o n s (Randolph, 1981,b). One development has u t i l i z e d the i n t e g r a l equation (or boundary int e g r a l ) method of a n a l y s i s , modelling the s o i l as a homogeneous e l a s t i c continuum (Poulos, 1971). This method i s very computationally intensive and much experience i n d i s c r e t i z i n g boundary elements i s necessary for accurate r e s u l t s (Evangelista and V i g g i a n i , 1976). The general use of the i n t e g r a l equation i n routine geotechnical p r a c t i c e i s seen as s t i l l being some time away. The other development retains the conceptual model of modelling the s o i l r e s t r a i n t as d i s c r e t e Winkler springs. Improvements to t h i s model began when spring s t i f f n e s s e s along the p i l e were allowed to vary (Reese and Matlock, 1956). The most important improvement came with the introduc-t i o n of the nonlinear subgrade reaction method proposed by Matlock and Ripperger (1956), among others. The nonlinear subgrade reaction method i s now widely used for the design of l a t e r a l l y loaded p i l e s . This method replaces the s o i l r eaction with a ser i e s of independent Winkler springs. The nonlinear behaviour of the s o i l springs i s represented by P-y curves which r e l a t e s o i l r eaction (P) and p i l e d e f l e c t i o n (y) at points along the p i l e length. A t y p i c a l P-y curve i s shown i n F i g . 2.14. Most t r a d i t i o n a l methods of obtaining P-y curves (e.g. Matlock, 1970; API RP2A, 1980) involve using laboratory data from samples that may or may not be representative of the actual i n - s i t u s o i l conditions around the p i l e . I n - s i t u t e s t i n g methods, i n p a r t i c u l a r the pressuremeter, have / Pu P i l e Deflection, y FIG. 2.14. SHAPE OF A TYPICAL P-y CURVE USED FOR NON-LINEAR SUBGRADE REACTION METHOD 33 allowed the development of semi-empirical methods to obtain P-y curves using data obtained in the field. Several methods have been proposed for the development of P-y curves and subsequent design of laterally loaded piles using pressuremeter data (Briaud et al., 1983; Baguelin et al., 1978; Robertson et al., 1983; Baguelin, 1982). Other in-situ tests r such as the flat plate dilatometer test (using a method developed as a part of this study), can also be used to develop P-y curves. 34 CHAPTER 3 o RESEARCH SITE In 1984, the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways (B.C. MOTH) installed a 915 mm diameter steel pipe test pile as- part of the design phase for the proposed Alex Fraser Bridge Project. The University of British Columbia (UBC) became involved in the subsequent prediction of the pile's axial and lateral behaviour by the use of in-situ testing methods. Robertson et al. (1985) published these results and demonstrated how accurately the measured load test results could be predicted by the use of in-situ tests. To further study the prediction of pile behaviour using in-situ testing methods, and to provide UBC with a full-scale field teach-ing site, the B.C. MOTH generously provided six piles for research and teaching on a site directly adjacent to the location of the 1984 load test. The B.C. MOTH provided a l l piling materials and the labour needed for specially preparing the site and for pile installation. In addition, instruments and personnel were provided for dynamic monitoring during pile installation and for some portions of the load testing program. All data from the 1984 pile load testing was made fully available for inclusion within this study. Throughout this thesis, the UBC Pile Research Site (UBCPRS) and the MOTH Pile Research Site (MOTHPRS) will mainly be discussed as separate sites. The reason for this is that the pre-planning, pile driving and pile load testing performed at the UBCPRS was done mainly by UBC personnel whereas UBC had l i t t l e direct involvement with these areas for the MOTHPRS. The two research sites are, however, within 100 m of one another and so in 35 this chapter, especially with respect to the discussion of area geology, the separation will be largely ignored. 3.1 Regional Geology The research site is located on Lulu Island which is within the post-glacial Fraser River delta (Fig. 3.1). Blunden (1975) correctly identifies the Fraser Delta region sediments as marine deltaic deposits that have been formed upon basal layers that have undergone isostatic rebound for roughly the last 11,000 years at a rate greater than the rate of recent (i.e. post-glacial) marine transgression. The total thickness of the deltaic deposits varies but they are, on average, roughly 200 m thick (Blunden, 1975). The Fraser Delta area now known as Richmond, Delta, and New Westminster has been above mean sea level for approximately 8,000 years when the sea level was about 10 m below present levels. The surficial geology of the Lulu Island region is typical of a former marine environment no longer dominated by tidal action. There is a preva-lent deposit of organic silty clays that has been laid down in a swamp or marsh environment. Below this upper layer, which extends to roughly 15 m depth, a medium dense sand deposit, locally silty, prevails to roughly 25-30 m depth. This deposit is indicative of a very high energy deposi-tional period and most likely represents a former channel bank of the Fraser River. Next, prevailing to roughly 60 m depth, exists a normally consolidated clayey s i l t containing thin sand layers. These materials were laid down in a much lower energy environment than the sand above. Below this, probably extending for up to 150-200 m depth, is a similar deposit except that the sand layers are much more prevalent and thicker (up to 0.5 m thick). The non-uniformity of the deposits below 30 m indicate a 3 6 F I G . 3 . 1 . GENERAL LOCATION OF RESEARCH S I T E 37 depositional history most likely consisting of alternating turbulent and quiescent environments associated with either tidal flat facies, marginal bank, or an alluvial floodplain depositional environment. The CPT profiles presented in the following chapter present a clear picture of the strati-graphic detail at the site. 3.2 Site Description As shown in Fig. 3.1, both the UBCPRS and MOTHPRS are located on the north side of the Annacis Channel within the South Arm of the Fraser River. Fig. 3.2 shows the relative locations of the UBCPRS and the MOTHPRS. Upon the entire site, 2 to A m of heterogeneous f i l l exists at the surface. For the purpose of facilitating in-situ testing, making pile driving possible, and studying lateral pile behaviour, the f i l l material was removed in the general area of both pile sites. This material was replaced with clean river sand and at the UBCPRS this sand was placed at varying densities (see Chapter 4) . The purpose of the different densities for the sand was to allow the behaviour of the piles to be studied under lateral loads with different soil stiffnesses near ground surface. This effect, however, has not been investigated for this study and is left as some of the future suggested research for the site. The site directly underlies a connector bridge to the new Alex Fraser cable-stayed bridge linking Annacis Island with Surrey and Delta. The piles used for the connector bridge are 1.5 m diameter piles driving to depths in excess of 70 m. The purpose of the MOTHPRS was to assess the capacities of these piles. F I G . 3 . 2 . S I T E PLAN OF THE UBCPRS AND THE MOTHPRS 39 CHAPTER A  IN-SITU TESTS PERFORMED A.1 Introduction In-situ testing, traditionally consisting of geotechnical engineers pushing their heels or a stick into the soil to make qualitative measures, has always played a major role in the art of foundation engineering (Robertson, 1985). Modern in-situ tests that can supply economic and repeatable results are becoming increasingly available to the geotechnical engineer. The four main reasons that these tests are becoming increasingly popular are listed by Mitchell et al. (1978), as follows; 1) The ability to determine properties of soils, such as sands and off-shore deposits, that cannot be easily sampled in the undisturbed state. 2) The ability to avoid some of the difficulties of laboratory testing, such as sample disturbance and the proper simulation of in-situ stresses, temperature, and chemical and biological environments. 3) The ability to test a larger volume of soil than can be conveniently tested in the laboratory. A) The increased cost effectiveness of an exploration and testing program using in-situ methods. In addition, a laboratory test must reproduce the in-situ state of stress whereas an in-situ test invariably begins at or close to this state. The fact that an in-situ test must be conducted with reference to the existing in-situ stress state is, however, an important limitation. 40 In-situ testing somewhat alters the stress field around the device due to the insertion of the device into the ground. However, in contrast to laboratory testing, in-situ testing cannot generally simulate large changes in stress. Robertson (1985) and Wroth (1984) provide excellent discussions of the in-situ testing methods available and the interpretation of these tests for foundation design purposes. Pile foundations, like any engineered subsurface structure, require an accurate assessment of the properties of the soil from which they are to derive their resistance. In this chapter, several of the most common in-situ testing methods used to design pile foundations are briefly described and the summarized data obtained for this study are presented. Later in this study conclusions will be made regarding the accuracy of the soil properties obtained using these tests. These conclusions will be made by assessing the ability of the data obtained to predict measured pile behaviour using various analytical techniques. Table 4.1 presents a summary of the in-situ tests performed for this study. The test locations are shown on Fig. 4.1 (full site plan) and Fig. 4.2 (expanded scale for detail of UBCPRS). The numbered locations relate to the numbers listed in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 and Figs. 4.1 and 4.2 should be used as a guide for those wishing to use the research sites in the future. 4.2 In-Situ Testing Methods In this section only, the three testing procedures used in this study for predicting axial and lateral pile behaviour are described. The summarized results from these tests are also included. 41 No. Test Name Date Performed 1 Seismic Cone Pressuremeter Test FDPMT87-1 3 APR 87 2 Self Boring Pressuremeter Test SBPMT87-3 16 FEB 87 3 Self Boring Pressuremeter Test SBPMT87-2 12 FEB 87 4 Self Boring.Pressuremeter Test SBPMT87-1 11 FEB 87 5 Seismic Cone Penetration Test SCPT87-1 7 FEB 87 6 Nilcon Field Vane Test SPT86-1 31 OCT 86 7 Piezometer Cone Penetration Test NFVT86-1 31 OCT 86 8 Piezometer Cone Penetration Test CPT86-2 31 AUG 86 9 Piezometer Cone Penetration Test CPT86-1 22 AUG 86 10 Piezometer Cone Penetration Test CPT85-1 13 JUL 85 11 Piezometer Cone Penetration Test CPT84-1 22 AUG 84 12 Flat Plate Dilatometer Test DMT85-2 29 AUG 85 13 Flat Plate Dilatometer Test DMT85-1 22 AUG 85 14 Full Displacement Pressuremeter Test FDPMT84-1 18 AUG 84 15 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test DCPT85-1 30 AUG 85 16 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test DCPT85-2 30 AUG 85 17 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test DCPT85-3 30 AUG 85 18 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test DCPT85-4 30 AUG 85 19 Becker Hammer Test BDT85-2 20 AUG 85 20 Becker Hammer Test BDT85- 1 20 AUG 85 Table 4.1 Pile Research Sites In-Situ Tests Performed The results from the other tests performed (see Table 4.1) are not included within this study. These results may be found filed at the UBC In-Situ Testing Group Library, Room 1208, in the Civil Engineering Building at U.B.C. FIG. 4.1. LOCATIONS OF IN-SITU TESTS PERFORMED AT PILE SITES o o to CM -V-o o CO V o o o o to CM © © © © © © © VD MD MD 3<L0 ©3 -© *15 X 1 2 * 1 X l 6 1300 1300 X8 l o c a t i o n of t e s t *see T a b l e 4.1 f o r l i s t i n g of t e s t s X 1 3 * 8 VD 9x -* 5 X 17 18 X -dcale 1:50 VD : very dense D : dense MD : medium dense F I G . 4 .2 . LOCATIONS OF IN-SITU TESTS PERFORMED AT UBCPRS 44 4.2.1 Piezometer Cone Penetration Testing 4.2.1.1 Test Description The cone penetration test (CPT) is a quasi-static penetration test. The CPT was originally developed in Europe but is now gaining increasing acceptance in North America and elsewhere. For this study electric cones with built in load cells that measure the end resistance (q ) and sleeve friction ->(f ) continuously were used. A c s schematic of UBC6, an electric cone developed at UBC, is shown in Fig. 4.3. It is this cone that was mainly used in this study. This cone, in accordance with ASTM D3441-79, has a 10 cm2 cone tip with a 60° conical tip. The friction sleeve has a standard 150 cm2 surface area. In addition to the q£and f measurements, many cones (e.g. UBC6) now incorporate a pore pressure transducer. The addition of the pore pressure transducer allows continuous measurement of pore pressures during penetration as well as equilibrium pore pressures obtained from dissipation data. The advantages of the CPT are: rapid procedure; continuous logging; good repeatability; and easy standardization. Some of its limitations include: inability to penetrate gravel; no sample obtained; high i n i t i a l cost; and requirement for technical back-up facilities. As for any electronic instrument, proper calibration and periodic calibration checks are essential to ensure a l l electric cones are function-ing properly. Robertson and Campanella (1986) provide a comprehensive review of equipment, testing procedures and data interpretation for electric cone testing. FIG. 4.3. SCHEMATIC OF ELECTRIC CONE DEVELOPED AT UBC 46 4.2.1.2 Results Figs. 4.4 and 4.5 show, respectively, interpreted CPT profiles for the UBCPRS and MOTHPRS. It is data from these two CPT profiles that is used in Chapter 6 to predict axial pile capacity. For the UBCPRS, CPT85-1 (see Table 4.1) is used. As shown in Fig. 4.4, this sounding was carried out to nearly 36 meters in depth. The extremely soft nature of the soft organic silty clay between 2.5 and 14.5 meters is very apparent on Fig. 4.4. See Fig. 4.2 for the location of CPT85-1. For the MOTHPRS, CPT84-1 (see Table 4.1) is used. This sounding (Fig. 4.5) is as described by Robertson et al. (1985). CPT84-1 is located on Fig. 4.1. Note the differences in scale between Figs. 4.4 and 4.5. 4.2.2 Pressuremeter Testing 4.2.2.1 Test Description The pressuremeter was initially developed by L. Menard in 1954 in France as a "specific test" tool to obtain a measure of strength and stiffness of soils and rocks. Menard-type pressuremeters are generally placed in pre-bored holes and are therefore often difficult to use in cohesionless or swelling soils. Self-boring pressuremeters were then developed in 1972 in an effort to eliminate soil disturbance associated with a pre-bored hole. However, self-boring pressuremeters are usually expensive, require a great deal of technical backup, and are often limited to use in soils where D 5 0 < 5 mm (where D 5 0 is the mean grain size of the material to be tested). One of the latest developments is a full displacement pressuremeter test (FDPMT). This test does cause soil disturbance due to the full U B C I N S l t a L o c a t i o n ! ANNA P L T On S i t a L o c i CPT PR1 D I T U T E ! CPT Data < 850813 MD AS DV C o n * Uaadi UBC8 STD T I P T I M G Pago Not 1 / 2 C o n w i n t t i NEAR CASING PDR£ PRESSURE U (M. of vatar) 0 100 SLEEVE FRICTION (bar) 0 2.5 ONE BEARING Ot (bar) FR CTION RATIO Rf CD DIFFERENTIAL P.P. RATIO AU/Ot 0 1 INTERPRETED PROFILE 10-20-30 SAND f i l l D o p t h I n c r o m a n t • . 025 m Max D o p t h FIG. 4.4. CPT INTERPRETED PROFILE USED FOR u&cPRS 3 5 . 9 7 5 n s o f t o r g a n i c s i l t y CLAY m e d . d e n s e SAND m i n o r s i l t y SANp l e n s e s s e e o v e r U B C I M S l t a Loctrt.lom ANNA PUT On S l t « Loc i CPT PR1 3 I T U T E I S CPT Data i 850813 MO AS DV Cone U«odi UBC8 STO TIP T I M G Pags Not 2 / 2 Comnantai NEAR CASING P0R€ PRESSURE SLEEVE FRICTION U (fc of »at«r) «ba-> CONE BEARING Ot (bar) CO L (V a» E 0_ UJ a FRICTION RATIO Rf CD 200 0 5 30 40-50-60 DIFFERENTIAL P.P. RATIO AU/Ot 0 1 INTERPRETED PROFIUI - 40-50-60-• 40-30T SO 60-n o r m a l l y c o n s o l i d a t e c l a y e y S I L T w/ t h i n SAND l a y e r s Depth Inc ra ran t • . 025 m Mew Dopthr i 35. G75 HI CO F I G . 4.4. C O N T . COME 9CARIMC ttt Cfcar) SLEEVE rnicTiw Ptwc rorssune rnicncH mm oirrrRwtm r.r. (bw) U (-. of .ol«r> Bf «) RAF JO JO/Bl inrrnwciro nrariLt SAND f i l l soft organic s i l t y CLAY medium dense SAND normally consolidated clayey SILT with thin SAND layers normally consolidate! clayey SILT with SAND layers Equilibrium pore pressure , u 0 FIG. 4.5. CPT INTERPRETED PROFILE USED FOR -IOTMPBS 50 displacement inflation, but the disturbance is essentially repeatable each time. Hughes and Robertson (1985) suggest that for sands, the stress paths followed by soil elements near the advancing probe are such that before pressuremeter inflation, the radial stress on an element adjacent to the probe has reduced close to the • in i t i a l in-situ stress state. The pressuremeter test supplies a pressure expansion curve relating applied pressure to cavity strain. For the UBCPRS, the UBC Cone Pressuremeter (Fig. A.6) was used. This instrument has a 15 cm2 cross-sectional area. The cone portion of the probe was not utilized. Campanella and Robertson (1986) briefly summarize the research and development of the UBC Cone Pressuremeter. For the MOTHPRS, a self-boring pressuremeter, pushed in a full-displacement manner, was used. Details of this probe can be found in Hughes and Robertson (1985). A.2.2.2 Results The pressuremeter curves used to predict lateral pile behaviour for the UBCPRS piles are from FDPMT87-1 (see Table A.l and Fig. A.2). These pressuremeter curves are included in Appendix I. The depths of the tests in FDPM87-1 were: i) 0.17 m ii ) 1.0 m i i i ) 2.0 m iv) 3.0 m v) A.O m vi) A.8 m vii) 6.35 m 51 P.D. Controller Pressure Developer (P.D.) Pressuremeter (P.M.) Developmental Module (D.M.) P.M. & D.M. Electronics Cone Electronics Cone Module Adapter to 10 cm Cone Rod or other Controlled AVol/Atime Total Pressure 3-polnt Radial Displacement Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Lateral Stress F r i c t i o n Sleeve R e s i s t i v i t y ? Thermal Conductivity? Environmental Analysis? D.C. Regulation, Amplification Multiplexer, A/D Mlrcoprocessor Seismic Sensors Multiple Pore Pressure F r i c t i o n (225 cm ) Temperature Slope Bearing (15 cm ) 60° Tip FIG. 4.6. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : UBC CONE PRESSUREMETER ( A f t e r Campanella and R o b e r t s o n , 1986) 52 vii i ) 7.9 m ix) 9.4 in x) 10.4 ra xi) 12.4 ra xii) 15.5 m • -These test depths can be compared with the stratigraphy for the UBCPRS shown in Fig. 4.4. The pressuremeter curves used to predict lateral pile behaviour for the MOTHPRS pile are from FDPMT84-1 (see Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.1). Full details of the pressuremeter testing for the MOTHPRS can be found in Brown (1985) . 4.2.3 Flat Plate Dilatometer Testing 4.2.3.1 Test Description The flat plate dilatometer test (DMT) was developed in Italy by S. Marchetti in 1980. The dilatometer is a flat plate 95 mm wide, 14 mm thick and 220 mm in length. A flexible stainless steel membrane 60 mm in dia-meter is located on one side of the blade. A schematic representation of the dilatometer is shown in Fig. 4.7. The dilatometer test involves inflating the flexible membrane to achieve a one millimeter deflection. The first reading (A) corresponds to the membrane l i f t - o f f pressure and the second reading (B) to the pressure required to cause the one millimetre deflection at the center of the membrane. Readings A and B are corrected for both free-air effects of membrane seating and the effect of membrane curvature. The DMT is performed at 20 cm intervals of depth. This leads to a comprehensive, however discrete, profile. 9 5 mm FIG. 4.7. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF FLAT PLATE DILATOMETER 54 Using the corrected dilatometer data of A and B (P0 and P1, respectively), Marchetti (1980) developed empirical correlations to find several soil parameters. These correlations are a l l based upon three index parameters Marchetti gets from P0 and Pl. These are Material Index, 1^ ; Horizontal Index, K^ ; and Dilatometer Modulus, E^. Much more detailed discussions of the DMT and testing procedures are given in Marchetti (1980), Brown (1983), Campanella and Robertson (1983), and in Schmertmann (1986). 4.2.3.2 Results The DMT results used for both the UBCPRS and the MOTPRS are shown in Figs. 4.8 and 4.9. The "raw" DMT data can be found in Appendix I. Fig. 4.8 shows the intermediate geotechnical parameters obtained from the DMT whereas Fig. 4.9 shows the interpreted geotechnical parameters from the DMT. The DMT test used was DMT85-2 (see Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.2). The intermediate geotechnical parameters and the interpreted geotechnical parameters are obtained by using correlations developed by Marchetti (1980). Details of the computer program used to evaluate these parameters can be found in MacPherson (1984). 4.2.4 Other Methods As shown in Table 4.1, a number of in-situ tests were performed at the UBCPRS and the MOTHPRS. Due to space restrictions, only the test results used to predict axial and lateral pile behaviour have been included within this dissertation. However, the locations of a l l tests performed (see Figs. 4.1 and 4.2) are included so that this study can be used as a guide for those wishing to use the research sites in the future. PO,PI,Vertical Stress Horizontal Dilatometer Modulus fflPaJ Stress Index (MPa) FIG. 4.8. INTERMEDIATE GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FROM DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS Material Index Co n s t r a i n e d Modulus (MPa) Undr.Cohesion (KPa) F r i c t i o n Rngle (deg) 10" 3 5 10» 3 5 I0« 0.0 0.6 1.8 Id (P1-P0)/fP0-u) M=l/m.v Cu (cohesive) 0 (granular) FIG. 4.9. INTERPRETED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FROM DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS The r e s u l t s for the Nilcon F i e l d Vane Test (NFVT86-1) are presented herein as t h i s t e s t was used i n d i r e c t l y i n assessing the capacity of the a x i a l l y loaded t e s t p i l e s . F i g . A.10 presents the r e s u l t s of NFVT86-1 along with an estimate of undrained strength from the CPT (CPT85-1) using: (A.l) where: N, = 15 k It i s apparent from F i g . A.10, excepting the material above 5 metres depth, that the undrained strengths estimated from CPT r e s u l t s agree well with measured i n - s i t u NFVT values. The discrepancy i n the upper 5 metres i s due to the fibrous nature of the organics i n t h i s zone. These fibrous organics w i l l have l i t t l e e f f e c t on the CPT values but w i l l cause the NFVT to record excessively high r e s u l t s . Also a spike i n the NFVT p r o f i l e at 13.5 metres i s most probably due to a fin e sand or s i l t lense not encountered at the l o c a t i o n of CPT85-1. The locations of CPT85-1 and NFVT86-1 are shown i n F i g . A.2. A.3 Summary For t h i s study, several i n - s i t u t e s t i n g methods were performed. In most cases, to determine s i t e homogeneity and ensure instrument repeat-a b i l i t y , t e s t r e p e t i t i o n has been performed. Only the r e s u l t s used i n t h i s study for the p r e d i c t i o n of a x i a l and l a t e r a l p i l e behaviour have been included i n Appendix I. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100 UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH So CkPa) FIG. 4.io. UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE UNDRAINED STRENGTH PROFILES The c o l l e c t i o n of the data was greatly aided by the use of the UBC Geotechnical Research Vehicle (see Campanella and Robertson, 1981, for a de t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s v e h i c l e ) . In a l l cases possible, ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standard designation t e s t i n g methods have been used. Where no standard designations were a v a i l a b l e , t e s t i n g methods standard to the l o c a l geotechnical community were used. 60 CHAPTER 5  PILE INSTALLATION AND LOAD TESTING In this chapter, the details of pile installation and the axial and lateral pile testing performed will be presented. More emphasis will be placed on describing the UBCPRS piles although a brief summary of work performed on the MOTHPRS is included. As mentioned previously, a l l of the pre-planning, pile driving and pile load testing at the UBCPRS was done mainly by UBC personnel whereas UBC had l i t t l e direct involvement with these areas for the MOTHPRS. 5.1 Pile Installation Six piles were driven (four 324 mm dia., 9.5 mm wall thickness; one 324 mm dia., 11.5 mm wall thickness; one 610 mm dia., 11.5 mm wall thick-ness) at the UCBPRS. The five smaller (324 mm dia.) piles are the focus of this study. The larger (610 mm dia.) pile (pile no. 6) has been left for future instrumentation and testing. In addition, a seventh pile was driven at the UBCPRS to investigate the dynamic pile capacity. This pile will be discussed in Section 5.1.2. At the MOTHPRS, one pile (915 mm dia., 19 mm wall thickness) was driven. The relative embedments of the five UBCPRS piles and the MOTHPRS pile are shown in Fig. 5.1. Note that pile no. 1 had a larger diameter sleeve for the first 2.5 m to remove any frictional resistance in the upper sand f i l l . 5.1.1 Driving Records A summary of the driving records for the UBCPRS piles is shown in Table 5.1. Complete driving records can be found in Appendix II. All Pile No. I 0 -9 5 — Sleeve 10 -I 5 - , 4,ip " C t o ^ d 1 ' ^ ? c l o s e d - T Pile No.2 Pile No.3 P'»« No.4 P <n&mmw>l h*'"*-w*w« £ 2 0 -i r-£L O 25 — 30 -16.76-' ' - T m Closed Soil plug level -T i leNo.5 GROUND SURFACE MOTH PILE - T « telltale 23.I7- 1 L T m Open a » a a » Note ehonge in depth ecole 60 -70 -80 -90 -31.10-SAND f i l l toft orgonic t i l ty CLAY med. dens* SAND minor silty SAND lenses n.c.cloyey SILT with thin » » a Note « ^interruption^ as » S3 a » SAND loyers to > 150 m 67m-76m-94 m-SOIL PLUG LEVEL TEST A TEST B l TEST C OPEN FIG. 5 . 1 . UBC/MOTH TEST PILE EMBEDMENTS 62 Pile Total Depth Hammer Drop Height Total No. Driving No. Feet (m) Weight feet , of Blows Date 1 47' (14.33 m) 4,400 lb %4' 42 19 AUG 85 2 45' (13.72 ra) 6,200 lb •x.3' 69 16 AUG 85 3 55' (16.76 m) 6,200 lb •\,4' 84 16 AUG 85 4 76' (23.17 ra) 6,200 lb •v5' 261 16 AUG 85 5 102' (31.10 m) 6,200 lb •v.6-7' 364 15/16 AUG 85 6 103' (31.39 ra) 6,200 lb ^10' max. 1512 IV15 AUG 85 7 94' (28.65 m) 3,500 lb %8' 1457 19 NOV 86 Table 5.1 UBC Pile Research Site Pile Driving Records Summary piles were driven with a steel drop hammer using a metal helmut and plywood cushion. Piles 1,2,3 and 5 were driven closed-ended with the base-plate flush with the diameter of the piles, pile no. 4 was driven open-ended. Soil plug monitoring on pile no. 4 during driving was performed. After final driving, the top of the soil plug was 8.07 m below ground surface; thus the total length of the soil plug was 15.1 m. No anomalies such as buckling, splitting or creasing of the piles were encountered during driving. After pile driving, a l l piles (except no. 4) were inspected for straightness and integrity by lowering a light to the bottom of the pile. In each case the piles were essentially straight and no structural defects were observed. A summary of the driving records for the MOTHPRS pile is given in Eisbrenner (1985) . The pile was driven initiall y using a 3400 kg drop hammer (average drop height 1.2 m) down to a depth of 19.9 m. Below this depth, the pile was driven using a Delmag D-62-22 single acting diesel hammer. The cap block used was alternating layers of aluminum and canvas reinforced phenolic resin. The pile was driven open-ended and the soil plug monitored. The pile was driven three times; initiall y to a depth of 67 m and later to 78 m and 94 m after axial load tests to failure had been 63 performed. A more complete account of the MOTHPRS pile installation can be found in Eisbrenner (1985). 5.1.2 Dynamic Measurements On each of the five UBCPRS piles, pile head acceleration and f u l l -bridge strain gauge information was recorded during driving. This informa-tion was recorded using a pile driving analyzer (P.D.A.), Model EBA from Goble, Rausche and Likins (GRL) Associates, supplied by the B.C. M.O.T.H. Significant difficulties were encountered during the collection of the PDA data. On two of the five piles, the strain gauges and/or the accelero-meters became separated from the pile in spite of valiant attempts to protect this instrumentation. A general unfamiliarity with the equipment by the UBC and M.O.T.H. personnel contributed to the rather poor quality data being collected. Studies performed later by Mr. B. Miner (1986) using the data collected indicated a problem with the tape speed and instrument flutter which led to signal distortion. Table 5.2 summarizes the results of a visual review of the data during playback. Upon further study of the data from pile nos. 2,3, and A, no meaning-ful value of ultimate dynamic pile resistance could be calculated. Attempting to remove the undesirable frequencies using a Fast Fourier Transform did not improve the data sufficiently for successful analyses. As mentioned earlier, an additional pile (pile no. 7) was driven at the UBCPRS. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the driving record. This pile was monitored using a different PDA (Model GC from GRL Associates) than was used for the original five piles. Again the PDA was supplied by the B.C. M.O.T.H. but an engineer from GRL (Mr. B. Miner) was also present. Pile no. 7 (32A mm dia. , 11.5 mm wall thickness) was driven to 28.7 m closed 64 Pile No. Remarks 1 some consistency in the data, force and velocity measure-ments not proportional 2 useful data 3 useful data 4 unreliable data 5 unreliable data 6 some consistency but generally unreliable data, force and velocity measurements not proportional Table 5.2 UBC Pile Research Site PDA Summary ended and was intended as a model of pile no. 5. Unfortunately, this is not the case because: i) pile no. 7 was driven nearly 3 m short of the anticipated depth; i i ) the base plate was oversized and not flush with the outside of the pile. During the time that pile no. 7 was driven, restrike data was also obtained from pile nos. 2,3 and 5. The results and discussion of interpretation of the restrike data on pile no. 5 can be found in Section 6.5. For the MOTHPRS pile, dynamic monitoring was carried out by Trow Ltd., Whitby, Ontario. In addition to the PDA, CAPWAP analyses were also performed on the MOTH pile. A summary of the monitoring program can be found in B.C. M.O.T.H. report project D470E. A summary of the results of the PDA and CAPWAP analyses are also included within D470E. 65 5.2 Axial Load Testing 5.2.1 Introduction For the UBCPRS, the axial pile testing program is summarized in Table 5.3. The driving dates are also included in order to ilustrate the amount of time between driving and pile testing. From the CPT pore pressure dissipation data, the maximum time for 90% of the excess pore pressure to dissipate (t 9 0) was equal to 30 minutes for measurements behind the cone tip. Comparing the 36 mm diameter cone to the 324 mm diameter pile would therefore yield t 9 0 values of 2A30 minutes (roughly 2 days) using the method outline by Gillespie (1980). Therefore, the CPT pore pressure dissipation data indicate that the time periods between pile driving and pile testing were sufficient to allow a l l excess pore pressures to dissipate. Pile No. Pile Length (m) Driving Date(s) Testing Date(s) 1 14.3 19 AUG 85 09 NOV 85 2 13.7 16 AUG 85 01 MAR 85 3 16.8 16 AUG 85 09 NOV 85 4 23.2 16 AUG 85 01 MAR 85 5 31.1 15 AUG 85 22 SEP 85 16 AUG 85 06 OCT 85 6 31.4 14 AUG 85 NOT YET TESTED 15 AUG 85 Table 5.3 UBCPRS Pile Driving and Testing Schedule The MOTHPRS pile was tested axially to failure when the tip was at depths of 67, 78 and 94 m below the ground surface (see Table 5.4). Calculations by Robertson et al. (1985), based on CPT pore pressure dissipation data, show that t 9 0 for the 915 mm pile would be approximately 66 Test No. P i l e Length (m) Driving Date(s) Testing Date A 67.0 10,11,13,16, 09 MAY 84 17 APR 84 B 78.0 11 MAY 84 01 JUN 84 C 94.0 09 JUN 84 29 JUN 84 Table 5.4 MOTHPRS P i l e Driving and Testing Schedule-20 days. This may i n d i c a t e that the load t e s t values may be s l i g h t l y a ffected by transient excess pore pressures as 21 days was taken as the t e s t i n g i n t e r v a l . The t e s t i n g sequence was as follows: i ) drive p i l e to 67 m i i ) wait 21 days i i i ) a x i a l load t e s t to f a i l u r e (Test A) iv) drive p i l e to 78 m v) wait 21 days vi) a x i a l load t e s t to f a i l u r e (Test B) v) drive p i l e to 94 m v i i i ) wait 21 days ix) a x i a l load t e s t to f a i l u r e (Test C) 5.2.2 Methodology For the UBCPRS, the "Quick Load Test Method" of a x i a l loading (similar to ASTM D1143-81 Section 5.6) was used with the a x i a l load being applied i n roughly 5% increments of the a n t i c i p a t e d f a i l u r e load. The 'Quick Load Test Method' was used to minimize the time-dependent e f f e c t s i n the cohesive s o i l s . The a x i a l load was measured using a 500,000 lb c a l i b r a t e d e l e c t r o n i c load c e l l . The reaction loads on the remaining p i l e s were measured with smaller load c e l l s . D e t a i l s on the loading system used (e.g. 67 pump type) and calibration data for the 500,000 lb load cell are given in Appendix III. The deflections were measured by multiple dial gauge installations. A level survey was also conducted but proved to be less sensitive than the dial gauges. The load test set-ups used for testing the UBCPRS piles .are shown in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3. These figures show the set-up used for pile no. 5 and for the four perimeter piles, respectively. The MOTHPRS pile was also tested using the 'Quick Load Test Method". The load test arrangement is shown schematically in Fig. 5.4. Further details can be found in Robertson et al. (1985) and in Eisbrenner (1985). 5.2.3 Results Analysis of the results from axially loaded vertical test piles is more complicated than generally realized (Brierley et al., 1978). For a pile (generally assumed to be stronger than the soil), the ultimate failure load is reached when the pile plunges; rapid settlement under sustained or only sligthly increased load. This definition, however, is often inade-quate because plunging requires very large displacements and is often less a function of the pile-soil system and more a function of the capacity of the man-pump system (Fellenius, 1980). To be useful, a failure definition should be based on a simple mathematical rule that can generate repeatable results independent of the individual using the method and of the scale relations chosen for plotting the load test data. For example Fig. 5.5 show the results of a hypothetical pile load test plotted to different scales. The hypothetical test pile could be interpreted, based on a visual inspection of results, as a predominately friction or 'floating' pile (upper figure) or a predominately end bearing pile (lower figure). The SCALE 1:25 -0 m J load c e l l load c e l l test beams PARTIAL SECTION ONLY 0 load cell. refererence beam E C hydraulic jack -dial gage 0 dywidag rods pipe pile > A \ V / A \ V A FIG. 5.2. AXIAL PILE LOAD TEST SET UP FOR PILE NO. 5 Co n n LOAD CELL pipe pile test beams dywidag rods 0 LOAD CELL SCALE 1:25 3 s: hydraulic jack dial gage - load cell c refererence beam PARTIAL SECTION ONLY FIG. 5.3. TYPICAL AXIAL PILE LOAD TEST SET UP FOR PILES 1 TO 4 (INCLUSIVE) Circular Reoction Frame •57mm o*) Dywidag Bar 4 Vertical Displacement Potentiometer Potentiometer • 1 1 (Led i i —762mmoi Reaction Pile -Spherical Bearing Plate •Load Cell (13 OOOkN) 57mm cjb Dywidag Bar-___ 2 Hydraulic Jacks •Reference Beam •69MPa Pressure Gauges 5 3 / 762mmaS Reaction Pile—•> 915mm <fi Test Pile FIG. 5.4. MOTHPRS AXIAL PILE LOAD TEST SET UP ( A f t e r Robertson et a l . , 1985) FIG. 5.5. LOAD-DISPLACEMENT DIAGRAM OF A HYPOTHETICAL TEST PILE DRAWN TO TWO DIFFERENT SCALES 72 method recommended by the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1985, Part 3, Subsection 22.5.1) is that by Davisson (1973) and involves a simple graphical manipulation of the theoretical elastic compression line for the pile in question, (the calculation of the theoretical elastic compression for the UBCPRS piles is included in Appendix III). Davisson's method (1973) has been used in this study to determine failure loads. Fellenius (1980) studied nine commonly used failure criteria and found Davisson's method to be among the most conservative. Figs. 5.6 through 5.10 present the axial load-displacement test results for the UBCPRS. For each of the five piles complete load-deflection-time records of the testing are shown. The pile top deflection for each pile was taken as an average of two diametrically opposed dial gauges at the pile head. The following are some specific comments about each pile: i) Pile no. 1 (Fig. 5.6) exhibits unexpected large deflection at low loads such that the theoretical compression line is crossed beyond the first load increment. One possible explanation of this behaviour is that pile No. 1 is cased over the upper 2 m and therefore unrestrained compression can occur near the pile head. But this would not explain large movement at low loads. The "theoretical compression line" is for a pile with no shaft resistance (i.e. a column). Possibly the large movement was related to previous failure in tension, and there-fore an unusual load distribution. The overall pile behaviour indicates that i t is predominantly a friction pile. i i ) Pile no. 2 (Fig. 5.7) is seen as a predominantly friction pile. i i i ) Pile no. 3 (Fig. 5.8) is seen as having both friction and end-bearing components to the total resistance. The slope of the unload-reload DEPTH (metres) oj ro ro _ — O u, O cn O cn O DEPTH (metres) 76 curves are seen to be approximately parallel the theoretical elastic compression line. iv) Pile no. 4 (Fig. 5.9) could not be failed in axial compression loading. The reaction frame could not supply the necessary axial force before i t began to buckle. The failure load was interpolated as described later in this section. v) Pile no. 5 (Fig. 5.10) failed predominantly as a friction pile. The plunging nature of the failure is easily observed. Fig. 5.11(a) presents a summary of the five UBCPRS pile load tests to the same scale. Fig. 5.11(b) presents a summary of the load-displacement results for the three tests on the MOTHPRS pile. The results from the MOTHPRS axial load tests indicate that the pile behaved predominantly as a friction pile. The reduction in measured load observed occurred because, with rapid axial deflections, the hydraulic jacks were unable to sustain the load. Full details of the test program for the 915 mm (MOTHPRS) pile is given by Robertson et al. (1985). Besides the pile head load-deflection data, extensive tell-tale data was also obtained for the UBCPRS piles. By definition, a tell-tale is a device used to measure the deflection at locations along the pile length other than at the pile head. From tell-tale data i t can be possible to estimate the load distribution as well as to infer the load transfer mechanism present, but the interpretation of this data is often difficult because of the complex distribution of residual stresses after driving (Fellenius, 1980). The location of tell-tale placements for the piles is shown in Fig. 5.1. Fig. 5.12 presents a schematic outline of the tell-tale system used for the five piles. Fig. 5.13 presents a schematic concept of TJ G 03 n w PI cn > n EE 1-3 > X M > o > o >-3 PJ CO >-3 PJ cn cn p] o cn O ro cn V, 1 * J V cn Z O o 3 '/I ro ro o DEPTH (metres) cn s.NI o •a « % 3 ° 1 • • 2 w 3 « a. to J> z o * a. o A X I A L P I L E T O P D E F L E C T I O N ( m m ) cn LL DEPTH (metres) _ O AXIAL L O A D ( kN ) (a) UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE AXIAL LOAD TEST RESULTS AXIAL L O A D ( kN ) (b) MOTH PILE RESEARCH SITE 5.11. SUMMARY OF PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS telltales for piles 1,2,3 & 5 dial gage f 2 2 inch diamet] tube welded to outside of p i l e telltales for pile 4 1 refererence beam 2 inch diameter tube welded to outside of p i l e 1/2 in.oiled rod NTS FIG. 5.12. UBCPRS TELLTALE INSTALLATIONS 81 Q i i MOVEMENT OF PILE TOP MOVEMENT OF PILE TOP A. CLAY B. SAND FIG. 5.13. SCHEMATIC CONCEPT OF LOAD-TRANSFER 82 t y p i c a l load transfers for a x i a l l y loaded p i l e s . Note that the peak values of shaft resistance and point resistance do not mobilize simultaneously as many t r a d i t i o n a l s t a t i c capacity formulae imply. In other words before the toe of the p i l e f e e l s the e f f e c t of the applied a x i a l load, s i g n i f i c a n t a x i a l d e f l e c t i o n must occur at the p i l e head i n most cases. "Also, as i s seen i n F i g . 5.13, the load transfer m o b i l i z a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s depend upon the s o i l type(s) present. The t e l l - t a l e data obtained presented several problems for i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes, p o s s i b l y because of the complex loading h i s t o r y for p i l e s 1, 2, 3 and 4. The t e l l - t a l e data from p i l e no. 1 was ult i m a t e l y regarded as of being l i t t l e use. P i l e s 2,3 and 5, however, provided data from which in t e r p r e t a t i o n s could be made. P i l e 4, because i t wasn't f a i l e d , provided only data on the s o i l plug behaviour. The r a t i o of end bearing to skin f r i c t i o n for p i l e s 2, 3 and 5 p i l e s , as determined from t e l l - t a l e data, i s shown i n Table 5.5. F i g . 5.14 shows a summary p l o t of the t e l l - t a l e data for p i l e no. 5. P i l e Ratio of Toe: Shaft Resistance 2 30:70 3 50:50 5 20:80 Table 5.5 Summary of T e l l - T a l e Data for UBCPRS As mentioned previously, p i l e no. 4 was never f a i l e d under the ap p l i c a t i o n of a x i a l load. This was the only UBCPRS p i l e to be driven open ended. Two methods have been used to extrapolate the f a i l u r e load The f i r s t method was the method developed by Chin (1970). Chin (1970) proposed a computational method whereby the estimation of the ultimate load of p i l e s 84 not carried to failure can be made by plotting the trend of the normalized load-deflection data. In order to test the method, the test data from pile no. 5 was also analyzed. Fig. 5.15 shows Chin's method plotted for both pile nos. 4 and 5. For pile no. 5 the method estimates 1100 kN, approxi-mately 30 kN larger than the Davisson failure load (1070 kN) obtained from load testing. For pile no. 4 Chin's method predicts 1100 kN. The second method of estimating the failure load of pile no. 4 was by using the shape of the load deflection curves from the other 4 piles. Each pile, being of different lengths, has different components of resistance due to the varying lengths. By assuming that the soil acted the same on al l piles at any given depth, the load deflection technique could be applied. One assumption made is that pile no. 4 behaved as a closed-ended pile under static loading. From the tell-tale data taken from the soil plug this assumption appears valid. However, i t must be noted that at higher loads the pile may have unplugged. Calculations, however, suggest that this would not be the case. For a l l calculations carried out for this study, i t was assumed that the pile would not unplug at loads up to failure. This second method predicts the failure load of pile no. 4 to be 1250 kN. Therefore, roughly averaging both methods, the failure load of pile no. 4 was assumed to be 1200 kN. A summary of a l l calculated capacities from the axial load testing is presented in Table 5.6. 5.3 Lateral Load Testing 5.3.1 Introduction For the UBCPRS, the lateral pile testing program consisted of load testing one of the 9.5 mm walled pile (pile no. 3) and the larger 11.5 mm 0.04 0.035 CHIN'S METHOD PILE NO. S 0.03 -0.023 -0.02 -0.016 -0.01 -0.005 -0 -O MOVEMENT (mm) 0.008 0.007 -0.006 -0.006 0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 CHIN'S METHOD PILE N0.4 PILE DEFLECTION (mm) FIG. 5.15. UBCPRS: CHIN'S METHOD TO PREDICT FAILURE LOAD FOR PILE NOS. 4 AND 5 86 Wall Pile/Test Length Diameter Thickness L/D Open/Closed Capacity No. (m) (m) (mm) Ended (kN) 1 1A.3 0.32A 9.5 AA C 170 2 13.7 0.32A 9.5 A2 C 220 3 16.8 0.32A 9.5 52 C 610 A 23.2 0.32A 9.5 72 0 1200 5 31.1 0.32A 11.5 96 C 1070 A 67.0 0.915 19 73 0 7500 B 78.0 0.915 19 85 0 7000 C 9A.0 0.915 19 103 0 8000 Table 5.6 Summary of Axial Pile Load Testing at UBCPRS and MOTHPRS walled pile (pile no. 5). The MOTHPRS pile had also been tested under lateral loading. 5.3.2 Methodology For the UBCPRS the lateral loading was achieved by jacking between adjacent piles. In this manner two piles were tested at one time. The lateral loads were applied in increments of 20 kN and held for approxi-mately 15 minutes to allow time for readings to be taken. These readings consisted of dial gauge and inclinometer readings. The dial gauge readings were checked by the use of LVDTs (Linear Voltage Displacement Transducer) on the two test piles (pile nos. 3 and 5). A schematic of the load set up is shown in Fig. 5.16. A schematic of the inclinometer casing set-up is shown in Fig. 5.17. The deflection of adjacent piles at ground surface was also measured but, due to measurement resolution difficulties, these values are not considered reliable. The lateral load was measured using a calibrated load cell. Calibration data for the load cell used is given in 87 SCALE 1:25 load cell .steel strut refererence beam dial gage PILE 3 jteel plat PILE 5 test piles PILE 1 SECTION A-A FIG. 5.16. UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE: LATERAL LOAD TEST SET UP FIG. 5.17. UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE: INCLINOMETER SET UP FOR LATERAL LOAD TESTING 89 Appendix IV. Stiffners were placed in both piles in order to prevent possible buckling of the piles at the points of load application. The MOTHPRS pile was loaded as shown in Fig. 5.18. Further details can be found in Robertson et al. (1985) and in Eisbrenner (1985). 5.3.3 Results Unlike the axial load case, no standard method of interpreting lateral load test results exists. The effects of creep (time effects) can be very pronounced during lateral pile testing. Until standardization of testing is realized, i t will remain difficult to compare results between different researchers and hence, difficult to confidently use design methods based on correlations with load test data. The results of the UBCPRS lateral load tests are shown in Figs. 5.19 and 5.20. In Fig. 5.19 the ground surface deflection and deflected shape versus depth profile is presented for pile no. 3. In each case, any creep present driving any 15 minute load increment has been encorporated in the plots. A maximum deflection at the ground surface of approximately 30 mm is measured under the peak lateral load of 140 kN. Note that 30 mm is nearly 20% of the pile radius and thus would probably be larger than most maximum design deflections. The deflected shape profile for a load of 120 kN indicates that the depth of the first point of contraflexure is at a depth of approximately 3 metres (approximately 9 pile diameters) and that below this point almost no further deflection is evident. For pile no. 5, as shown in Fig. 5.20, the maximum ground surface deflection, under the lateral load of 140 kN, was approximately 22 mm. The deflected shape profile for a load of 120 kN, also shown in Fig. 5.20, indicates that the first point of contraflexure is at a depth of roughly 3.5 metres 90 762mm \ Reoction Piles \ 915mm TEST PILE •Oiol Gouges Reference Plate FIG. 5.18. MOTHPRS LATERAL PILE LOAD TEST ARRANGEMENT ( A f t e r R o b e r t s o n e t a l . , 1985) 91 2 • < o < K UJ PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH IB. 8 m DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 9.5 mm I J 3 < LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE (cm) LATERAL PILE DEFELCTION (cm) o. u o FIG. 5.19. UBCPRS: LATERAL PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS - PILE NO. 3 PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH 31. 1 m DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 11.5 mm LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE (cm) LATERAL PILE DEFLECTION (cm) 0 1 2 1 O. LU a IG. 5.20. UBCPRS: LATERAL PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS - PILE 93 (approximately 11 pile diameters). Once again, below this point almost no further deflection is apparent. The ground surface deflection and deflected shape profile for the MOTHPRS pile are both shown in Fig. 5.21. A maximum deflection at the ground surface of approximately 150 mm occurred under an applied load of 1100 kN. The deflected shape profile, at a corresponding 1100 kN load, indicates a first point of contraflexure at a depth of approximately 10 metres. Essentially, no significant deflection is recorded below this depth. 94 P I L E D I M E N S I O N S LENGTH 94 m DIAMETER 914 mm WALL 19 mm L A T E R A L D E F L E C T I O N AT GROUND S U R F A C E (cm) L A T E R A L P I L E D E F L E C T I O N (cm) FIG. 5.21. MOTHPRS: LATERAL PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS 95 CHAPTER 6 PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED AXIAL CAPACITY 6.1 Introduction In this chapter, the various methods of predicting axial pile capacity evaluated for this study are compared to the pile load test capacity values obtained and described in Chapter 5. The prediction methods will be separated into groups as follows: i) Static methods - direct - indirect ii ) Dynamic methods Static methods are defined as methods that use static pile capacity formulae to predict capacity. For this study the term "direct method" is applied to any static prediction method that uses CPT data directly without the need to evaluate any intermediate values (coefficients of earth pressure, bearing capacity factors, friction angle, etc.). An "indirect method" is taken to refer to static prediction methods that require inter-mediate correlations in order to predict pile capacity from CPT data. It must be realized that, unlike the direct methods, most indirect methods were not formulated specifically for use with CPT data. As such, any discrepancies between the predicted and measured pile capacities using the indirect methods may not be due solely to problems inherent to these methods. The correlations between the CPT values and the intermediate parameters may lack sufficient accuracy. This should be kept in mind when comparisons are made between direct and indirect methods. 96 Dynamic methods are defined as methods that use either predicted or measured pile driving stress wave data to predict pile capacity at the time of driving. In order to ensure that no bias in imparted to any one method, the same input data set is used in each case. In general this input data set is comprised of two CPT soundings, one for each of the UBCPRS piles (CPTPR85-1) and the MOTHPRS pile (CPTPR84-1). Details of the in-situ testing data used in this chapter is given in Chapter 4. To predict the capacity of the 915 mm diameter (MOTH) pile at depths greater than 75 m the CPT profile was predicted assuming a continued linear increase. Available borehole information supplied by the BCMOTH indicates that a linear increase in parameters is a reasonable assumption. Details of the dynamic measurements used in the dynamic methods are found in Chapter 5. For each method, two plots will be presented. One plot will compare the predicted and measured pile capacities for the UBCPRS piles and the other will show the predicted and measured capacities for the MOTHPRS pile. In each case, the components of the predicted shaft resistance and total resistance are presented, the end bearing component being the difference between the two. Detailed descriptions of each of the twelve prediction methods evaluated, as listed in Table 6.1, will not be presented. However, Table 6.2 summarizes the formulation of the 12 static prediction methods evaluated. Each method will also be briefly outlined in the appropriate section. For a more detailed account of any method evaluated, is consult the complete l i s t of references given in Table 6.1. In addition to the 12 TABLE 6 . 1 . PILE CAPACITY PREDICTION No. Method Reference(s) Test Data Type 1 Schmertmann & Nottingham, CPT Nottingham (1975), Nottingham &. Schmertmann (1975), Schmertmann (1978) CPT S t a t i c - D i r e c t 2 deRuiter & Beringen, CPT deRuiter & Beringen (1979) CPT S t a t i c - D i r e c t 3 Zhou et a l . (1982), CPT Zhou et a l . (1982) CPT S t a t i c - D i r e c t 4 Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausees (LCPC) CPT Bustamante &. G i a n e s e l l i (1982) CPT S t a t i c - D i r e c t 5 Van Mierlo & Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Van M i e r l o &. Koppejan (1952) CPT S t a t i c - D i r e c t 6 API RP2A American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e (1980) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 7 Dennis & Olson (Modified API) Dennis & Olson (1983a,b) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 8 Vi j a y v e r g i y a & Focht V i j a y v e r g i y a & Focht (1972) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 9 Burland Burland (1973) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 10 Janbu Janbu (1976) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 11 Meyerhof Conventional Meyerhof (1976) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 12 Flaate &. Seines Flaate & Seines (1977) CPT S t a t i c - I n d i r e c t 13 Engineering News Record Dynamic Formula Cummings (1940) P i l e i n s t a l l a t i o n blow-counts, hammer s i z e , set Dynamic-Rigid P i l e 14 WEAP86 Goble & Rausche (1986) P i l e i n s t a l l a t i o n blow-counts, hammer s i z e Dynamic-Wave Equation (Pred i c t i o n ) 15 Case Method Gravare et a l . (1980) Dynamic measurements Dynamic-Case Method 16 CAPWAP Rausche (1970) Dynamic measurements Dynamic-Wave Equation (In-Situ) TABLE 6.2. DESIGN METHODS FOR CALCULATING AXIAL PILE CAPACITY METHOD* FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 1. Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Nottingham (1975), Nottingham and Schmertmann (1975), and Schmertmann (1976) SAND: f = most appropriate** from f , , 8D L f, = K [ Z ( — ) • f + X f ] « 8D 8D K = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t = Func 1 1 (L/D, material, shape) f = CPT sleeve f r i c t i o n value s £ = depth to f considered D = p i l e width L = p i l e length f 2 = 0.12 MPa f, = c • q c = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t = Func n ( p i l e type) q c = CPT t i p bearing value SAND: q^ = minimum of q^ and q^ q = l i n e a r function of q above 2and p i c below p i l e t i p q = CPT t i p bearing value = 30 MPa maximum cut o f f q^ =15 MPa clean sands 1 = 10 MPa v. s i l t y sand * Methods 1 to 5 are "d i r e c t " CPT methods. Methods 6 to 12 are " i n d i r e c t " CPT methods ** Most appropriate = minimum value where lack of l o c a l experience e x i s t s . TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 1. (cont'd) CLAY: f = most appropriate* from f,, f. = o' S** 1 u a' = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t = Func 1 1 (f , material) s S = undrained shear strength f, = V (p"' + 2 S u) p' = ave. o along p i l e length o § u = ave. undrained shear strength along p i l e length X' = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t = Fun" (L) 8D . L CLAY: q^ = minimum of q^ and g^ q^ = l i n e a r function of q c above and 1 below p i l e t i p q^ = cjp f o r NC and s l i g h t l y OC clays 2 = a • cjp f o r h i g h l y OC clays a = Woodward's (1961) adhesion r a t i o ** Schmertmann suggests using q -o „ _ ^ c vo S u " N R where N R = 10-20, adjust to r e f l e c t l o c a l experience. 2. de Ruiter and Beringen CPT de Ruiter and Beringen (1979) SAND: f = most appropriate* from f,, f j = 0.12 MPa ( l i m i t value) f, = CPT sleeve f r i c t i o n , f f, = qc/300 (compression) = qc/A00 (tension) CLAY: f = a • S*** u a = 1 for N.C. clay = 0.5 for O.C. clay SAND: = minimum of q^ and n q = Func (q , OCR, D, L) OCR = overconsolidation r a t i o q =15 MN/m1 Pj CLAY: q = N • S*** c u N c = bearing capacity factor for 0 = 0 = 9 * Most appropriate = minimum value where lack of l o c a l experience e x i s t s . ***de Ruiter and Beringen suggest S y from CPT: S y = q c/N R where N R = 15-20 for North Sea cla y s . Use appropriate values to r e f l e c t l o c a l experience. TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 3. Zhou et al (1982) CPT Zhou, Zie, Zuo, Luo and Tang (1982) f = KB • f s) f = average local CPT friction of the "s" layer B = empirical coefficient = Func11 (f , soil type) _ s soil type I: q c £ 2 MPa f /q £ 0.014 s ^c soil type II: other than I B_ = 0.23 (f ) - 0 - 4 5 I _s _n 55 B i r = 0.22 (f ) U , D D Op - a • i c q c = interpreted cone resistance at toe level (computed over a range of ± 4B about toe a = empirical coefficient = Func11 (qc» soil type) B = D = pile width - -0 25 ttj = 0.71 (qc) a u - 1.07 ( i c ) - ° ' 3 5 4. Van Mierlo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Van Mierlo and Koppejan (1952) f = 1(0.4% of q ) % + q a %- 2 q^ = average q c 2xdiameter below pile tip q = average q 8xdiameter above 3. C pile tip i 1 o o TABLE 6.2 (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 5. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees (LCPC) CPT Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) i f = Z q *q = the limit skin friction at ^s. l the level of the layer i q = cone resistance corres-ponding to the given level a = empirical coefficient = Func11 (pile type, soil type, qc) *limit values exist = Func11 (pile type, soil type, % = qc * K c e a q = equivalent cone resistance a at the level of the pile point = Funcn (q , a) 3 c a = §D K = penetrometer bearing capa-city factor = Funcn (pile type, soil type, qc> TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 6. API RP2A American Petrolum I n s t i t u t e (1980) SAND: f = K o' tan 6 v o K = c o e f f i c i e n t of l a t e r a l e a r t h pressure = 0.5 to 1.0 f o r compressive a x i a l l o ading o' = e f f e c t i v e overburden pressure o 6 = angle of s o i l f r i c t i o n on p i l e w a l l 0 CLAY S o i l Type • 6 N q cl e a n sand 35° 30° AO s i l t y sand 30° 25° 20 sandy s i l t 25° 20° 12 s i l t 20° 15° 8 = angle of i n t e r n a l f r i c t i o n of s o i l f = a Pi ° ; : Pi o (S /o' ) U V o = undrained shear strength ( i ) h i g h l y p l a s t i c (P.I.>25) NC: a = 1 OC: a = 1, but f } the l a r g e r of 1 Ksf or (S ) U NL ( i i ) low to medium p l a s t i c i t y c l a y a S u ( K s f ) < 0.5 0.5 - 1.5 > 1.5 1 1 - 0.5 ( l i n . var 1 1) 0.5 SAND: Nq = bearing c a p a c i t y f a c t o r = Func 1 1 (0') [see s k i n f r i c t i o n ] CLAY: s Note: no d e f i n e d method to o b t a i n S or * u T TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 7. Dennis and Olson (modified API RP2A) Dennis and Olson (1983 a) and Dennis and Olson (1983 b) SAND: f = F SD tan 6 Fgp = empirical coefficient = l/[0.6 exp (L/60»D)] D = pile diameter L = embedded length K = empirical coefficient = 0.8 unless local experience dictates otherwise CLAY: f = a • S • F • F T u c L F c = empirical correction for strength = obtain from local experience, or: 1.1 = 1.8 U.C.T. (high quality): F c = U.C.T. (driven sampler): F c Field vane: F =0.7 c U.C.T. = unconfined compression test ot = adhesion factor = the adhesion factor varies linearly as follows: S F (psf) u c y 1.0 600 1.0 1200 0.5 5000 0.3 0.3 = average undrained shear strength over pile length = empirical correcton for depth L(ft) 1.0 100 1.0 175 1.8 1.8 SAND: = F n o' D v Fp = empirical coefficient = 1/[0.15 + 0.008 L] N = bearing capacity factor q = Func11 (0') CLAY: q_ = 9 • S • F T> u c F = as per skin f r i c t i o n S u = undrained shear strength near the pil e t i p Note: - no defined method to obtain S or d> u TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 8. Vijayvergiya and Focht Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972) SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.) CLAY: f = X (o + 2 S ) vm urn X = empirical coefficient = Func" (L) S = mean undrained shear strength urn 6 along pile o = mean o' along pile vm vo L = pile penetration SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.) CLAY: q_ = 9 • S T u Note: - no defined method to obtain S u 9. Burland Burland (1973) SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.) CLAY: f = P • o' vo 1. NC: p = (1-sin <fr')tan <J>' <f>' = effective angle of internal friction 2. If <f>' not known: P = 0.25 - 0.40 (ave = 0.32) SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.) CLAY: q = 9 • S T> u Note: - no define method to dbtain <p' or S u TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 10. Janbu Janbu (1976) SAND: f = S (o' + a) v v o S v = tan $' [VI + u 1 + il + r»] ' u = tan (|>'/|r| r = roughness number = Func" (L) a = s o i l attraction = c • cot cj> c = cohesion CLAY: • as for SAND SAND: q = (N -1)(o' +a) N = bearing capacity factor = Func" (u,40 * = angle of p l a s t i f i c a t i o n Note: - no defined method to obtain CLAY: • as for SAND 11. Meyerhof Conventional Meyerhof (1976) SAND: f = K • o' • tan b <;f„ s v J o K g = average coefficient of earth pressure on p i l e shaft = Func n p i l e type, i n s t a l l a -tion) fi = angle of skin f r i c t i o n f j = limiting value of average unit skin f r i c t i o n = from local experience SAND: q = o' • N Sq„ T V q q Hi N = bearing capacity factor = Func" (<J>' , D, L) qg = limiting value of unit point resistance = 0.5 N q tan <f>* (units = tsf) Note: - no defined method to obtain *' or S r u TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) METHOD FORMULATION Shaft Resistance End Bearing 11. (cont'd) CLAY: f = B o' iS v u 0 NC: P = Func (L) OC: B = 1.5 (1-sinoy) tano)' /OCR OCR = overconsolidation ratio CLAY: q = c • N + o' • N Sq T> c v q P N = bearing capacity factor c = Func" (<J>*, D, L) c = ave. unit cohesion near p i l e point = usually taken as c = S and N •* 0 u q q^ = limiting value of unit point resistance = empiricial (local experience) 12. Flaate and Seines Flaate and Seines (1977) SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's c r i t e r i a (6.) CLAY: f = UT t(0.3 - 0.001 I ) • /OCR • o' L p v R 0 + 0.008 I • S ] or simplified f = u. [0.3 to 0.5] • /OCR o' L V o = length function = (L+20)/(2L+20) (L in metres) I = plast i c i t y index SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's c r i t e r i a (6.) CLAY: q = 9 • S Note: - no defined method to obtain *' or S r u t 107 static prediction methods presented four dynamic prediction methods, also listed in Table 6.1, are included. In total, sixteen methods of predicting axial pile capacity are presented and compared with pile load test data from six different piles at eight different depths. A discussion of the sensitivity of the prediction methods to the input parameters chosen is also included. 6.2 Use of Spreadsheets Many pile prediction methods are relatively difficult and time consum-ing to implement without the aid of a computer. This is especially true when near continuous CPT data is used. For each of the prediction methods used in this study a computer program was written using commercially avail-able spreadsheet software. The spreadsheet is seen as a powerful engineer-ing computational tool that is well suited to geotechnical engineering design. The spreadsheet is particularly well adapted for performing sensi-tivity analyses and therefore rapid evaluation of input parameters. Perhaps the greatest attraction of using spreadsheets, however, is that the programmer/operator requires l i t t l e computer programming background. It is doubtful that the number of methods investigated could have been possible within the required time frame without this computational assistance. Davies et al. (1987) provide a more complete discussion on the use of spreadsheets, specifically with CPT input data, for foundation engineering design. 6.3 Direct Methods In this section, five methods of directly predicting pile capacity using CPT data are presented. As mentioned previously, a l l of these 108 methods have been formulated specifically for use with CPT data and can therefore be expected to give better results than the indirect methods. Direct methods apply CPT data directly by the use of theoretical and/or empirical scaling factors without the need to evaluate any inter-mediate values (coefficients of earth pressure, bearing capacity factors, friction angle, etc.). The scaling factors, in a l l cases, resemble the original work of de Beer (1963). As shown in Fig. 6.1, i f a probe of zero diameter penetrates into a soil layer, the penetration resistance would follow the idealized curve ABCD. This is to say that the device would "feel" the entire effect of the lower soil layer immediately upon penetra-tion. However, i f a large diameter pile were pushed into the layer, the point resistance would not equal that of the zero diameter probe until the pile reached a greater depth, at point E. This depth is often termed the critical depth (D ). De Beer (1963) showed that i t is reasonable to assume c that the pile resistance curve between points B and E varies linearly; thus, the pile resistance at any intermediate depth could be determined i f the idealized penetration resistance curve and D£ were known. Although i t is not possible to use a probe of zero diameter, the standard sized electric cones (35.7 mm in diameter) can be assumed to approximate this condition (curve ABCD), especially for large diameter piles. Meyerhof (1951), de Beer (1963), and others have shown that D is a function of c foundation size and soil stiffness. Therefore, i t is more logical to express critical depth as a ratio (D/B)cwhere B is the foundation diameter. This concept is complicated in highly layered materials where layer thicknesses can be less than D£ for the large diameter piles. In these situations the fu l l penetration resistance may be mobilized on the cone but may not be realized for the pile before the influence of another layer is 109 PENETRATION RESISTANCE FIG. 6.1. DE BEER SCALE EFFECT DIAGRAM FOR CPT PILE PREDICTIONS (ADAPTED FROM NOTTINGHAM, 1975) 110 f e l t . The way i n which the d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t methods define the c r i t i c a l depth and layering e f f e c t s for both sleeve f r i c t i o n and point resistance i s , for the most part, what separates the methods a v a i l a b l e . 6.3.1 Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method 6.3.1.1 Outline The Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method (Schmertmann, 1978) i s a summary of the work on both model and f u l l - s c a l e p i l e s presented by L. Nottingham (1975) i n h i s doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n at the Un i v e r s i t y of F l o r i d a . This method uses both CPT values of cone bearing and sleeve f r i c t i o n . Although seen as a d i r e c t method, an estimate of undrained shear s t r e n g t h , S^, i s r e q u i r e d . Schmertmann (1978) suggests that the CPT-S^ r e l a t i o n s h i p used should r e f l e c t l o c a l experience. Based upon l o c a l experience and data obtained for t h i s study (see Chapter 4) , the undrained strength was taken to be: S u - £ J 2 ) (6-1, where: S^ = undrained strength q c = cone bearing o = i n - s i t u v e r t i c a l t o t a l stress vo This formulation of undrained shear strength was used i n a l l CPT methods investigated for t h i s study that required an evaluation of the undrained strength p r o f i l e . I l l Being a combination of many previous works, precise limitations of the Schmertmann and Nottingham method are difficult to ascertain. Various researchers, Robertson et al. (1985), among others, have reported good correlations with full scale pile load test results. The Schmertmann and Nottingham method is relatively difficult to implement with some of the procedures being open to interpretation. As can be seen in Table 6.2, i t requires a great number of calculations and, therefore, without the aid of a computer, errors are likely. 6.3.1.2 Results The results of predicted versus measured pile capacity for the UBCPRS and the MOTHPRS pile are shown in Figs. 6.2(a) and 6.2(b) respectively. For this method, and a l l subsequent methods, only piles 2,3,4 and 5 will be plotted for the UBCPRS since, the predicted capacities include the shaft resistance from the 2 m of sand f i l l . Pile no. 1 and pile no. 2 behaved essentially the same except that pile no. 1, being cased at the surface, had no contribution to capacity from the upper 2 m of sand f i l l . Both the skin friction and total resistance profiles are presented for each method. The difference between these two components is the end bearing component of the total resistance. Note that for the MOTHPRS pile below a depth of 78 m the skin friction and total resistance were projected to depth using the trend of the plot above 78 m. This seems justified due to the consistent nature of the deposit as verified by deep d r i l l hole testing carried out at the site by B.C.M.O.T.H. As shown in Fig. 6.2(a), the predicted capacity agrees very well with the load test results at the UBCPRS. For pile nos. 3 and 4, the predic-tions are almost identical to the measured capacities. For pile nos. 2 and 15-P i1e No. 3 LEGEND shaft resistance total resistance P i l e No. 4 P i 1 e No. 5 SCO 1000 1SO0 2000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY <kN5 20-50-80 100 1 1 — I 1 I LEGEND p — ^ shaft t o t a l \ J > -\S --\ \ . Tes t A -» ^ Tes t B \ v \ \ \ \ y \ Te s t c \ \ -5000 10000 15000 JO0O0 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY tktO UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method (a) MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method ' (b) FIG. 6.2. SCHMERTMANN AND NOTTINGHAM CPT METHOD 113 5 there is some discrepancy but the error in prediction is of a conservative nature. Noting the scale changes to both axes in Fig. 6.2(b), the MOTHPRS also shows good agreement between predicted and measured pile capacity. For test A and B the results are very good with only slight discrepancies. For test C, however, a larger degree of disagreement exists with a non-conservative prediction resulting. Nevertheless, the error is small (^ 25%) and, i t is suggested, within acceptable limits. 6.3.2 de Ruiter and Beringen CPT Method 6.3.2.1 Outline The de Ruiter and Beringen (1979) method is based upon experience gained in the North Sea by Fugro Consultants International. The original development of the method can be found in de Ruiter (1971) and de Ruiter (1975). It is also commonly referred to as the "European Method" by North American Engineers. The de Ruiter and Beringen CPT Method is an empirical method that, as can be seen in Table 6.2, utilizes both CPT cone bearing and sleeve friction. This method, as was the case with Schmertmann and Nottingham's, requires correlating CPT data to undrained shear strength. The inaccura-cies introduced by this correlation are discussed in Section 6.6. de Ruiter and Beringen make no comment as to the method of validation for their method and therefore i t is difficult to note specific limita-tions . The de Ruiter and Beringen method is relatively simple to implement as i t is well explained by the authors. However, the method requires a great number of computations and is therefore best suited for use with the aid of a computer. 114 6.3.2.2 Results For the UBCPRS, as shown in Fig. 6.3(a), the measured axial capacity-was predicted extremely well by the deRuiter and Beringen method. For pile nos. 2,4 and 5 there is essentially no difference between predicted and measured capacity. For pile no. 3 a slight overprediction exists. For the MOTHPRS, the predicted versus measured capacities yield good agreement a shown in Fig. 6.3(b). Tests B and C had their capacities slightly overpredictd but by less than 20 percent in each case. For test A the measured capacity was almost identical to the predicted value. 6.3.3 Zhou, Zie, Zuo, Luo and Tang CPT Method 6.3.3.1 Outline The Zhou et al. (1982) CPT Method is based upon Chinese experience gained using the cone bearing and the sleeve friction from the CPT to predict axial pile capacity. This experience consists of empirically relating the CPT values with 96 full scale pile load tests in various stratigraphic profiles. The majority of this work was performed by the China Academy of Railway Sciences in Beijing. As can be seen in Table 6.2, the Zhou et al. (1982) method is rela-tively simple to understand and i t is simple to implement. A limitation, noted by Zhou et al. (1982), is that neither debris f i l l or loess has yet been validated with this method. Another limitation is that the only piles to have been used for validation were driven precast concrete piles. The size of the piles used ranged form 0.25 to 0.55 m in diameter and were from 6.5 to 31.25 m in length. PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY <WO PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY O.N> UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE deRuiter and Beringen CPT Method deRuiter and Beringen CPT Method (a) (b) FIG. 6 . 3 . DERUITER AND BERINGEN CPT METHOD 116 6.3.3.2 Results As can be seen in Fig. 6.4(a), the predicted pile capacities agreed quite well with the measured capacities for the UBCPRS piles. This is especially true of pile nos. 2,3 and 4. Pile no. 5 had its capacity over-predicted by approximately 30 percent. The MOTHPRS results, also shown in Fig. 6.4(b), show relatively poor agreement between predicted and measured behaviour. In fact, test C is overestimated by nearly one hundred percent. 6.3.4 Van Mierlo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method 6.3.4.1 Outline The Van Mierlo and Koppejan "Dutch" Method represents what was probably the first comprehensive CPT pile capacity method to be formulated in the Netherlands, Van Mierlo and Koppejan (1952) did their studies in conjunction with Delft Laboratories, Holland. This method is based upon purely empirical observations comparing CPT results with static pile load tests. As can be seen in Table 6.2, this is an extremely simple method to use and has the advantage of only needing CPT bearing values. This advantage is important as obtaining accurate sleeve friction values from CPT data is often an area of concern. One major limitation of this method is that i t was developed solely with mechanical cone data. Using electric cone data, as in this study, is not completely valid but acceptable for comparative purposes. For commercial design using this method i t may be advisable to use equivalent mechanical cone values are determined from the electric cone data using the method outlined by Schmertmann (1978). UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAO TEST SITE Zhou et a l CPT Method Zhou et a l (1982) CPT Method (a) (b) FIG. 6 . 4 . ZHOU ET AL. (1982) CPT METHOD 118 6.3.4.2 Results From Fig. 6.5(a) i t can be seen that the Van Mierlo and Koppejan method predicted the actual capacities of the UBCPRS piles quite well. The capacities were somewhat underpredicted for pile nos. 2 and 5 and over-predicted for pile nos. 3 and 4. The predicted behaviour for the MOTHPRS, shown in Fig. 6.5(b), is such that a l l three load test results are underpredicted. Test A was under-predicted by approximately twenty-five percent whereas the measured capaci-ties of tests B and C were within ten percent of the predicted values. 6.3.5 Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausees (LCPC) CPT Method 6.3.5.1 Outline The LCPC CPT Method (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982) is a result of experimental work by the French Highway Department to validate the original French CPT pile prediction method (which can be found in the FOND72 (1972) document). The experimental data, consisting of a large number of f u l l -sale loading tests, resulted in the re-adjustment of the original French method and the formation of the LCPC CPT method. The LCPC CPT method has the same advantage as the original Dutch methods in that only CPT bearing values are needed (except to define soil type). This method is based on a series of 197 full-scale static pile loading (or extraction) tests. The tests involved 96 deep foundations distributed on 48 sites containing materials such as: clay, s i l t , sand, gravel, weathered rock, mud, peat, weathered chalk, and marl. The types of piles included driven, bored, grouted, barrettes and piers. The sizes used for the driven piles were 300 to 640 mm in diameter and 6 to 45 m in UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Von Mjer lo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method V a n Mier lo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method (a ) ( b ) FIG. 6.5. VAN MIERLO AND KOPPEJAN "DUTCH" CPT METHOD 120 length. However, i t is interesting to note that very few of the piles were driven pipe piles. The LCPC CPT Method is very simple to use and understand and offers no ambiguities. The validation of the method is well documented by Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982). 6.3.5.2 Results The comparison between predicted and measured capacities by the LCPC method for the UBCPRS piles is shown in Fig. 6.6(a). Excellent agreement between predicted and measured pile capacity is evident for a l l piles. The capacities for pile nos. 2,3 and 5 are a l l slightly underpredicted whereas pile no. 3 is slightly overpredicted. Excellent agreement between predicted and measured pile capacity also exists for the MOTHPRS as shown in Fig. 6.6(b). The capacity of test A is slightly underpredicted while the capacities of tests B and C are slightly overpredicted. 6.A Indirect Static Prediction Methods In this section twelve methods commonly used by foundation engineers are presented. In each case, a l l of the input parameters required have been obtained from in-situ testing (usually using the CPT unless otherwise specified) using appropriate correlations. Several of the methods (e.g. Vijayvergiya and Focht) have originally been formulated for use solely in cohesive soils. In these cases, the cohesionless soil contribution to the pile capacity has been obtained using the Dennis and Olson method (Section 6.A.2). The justification of this is that many of these "cohesive soil" methods suggest using the API RP2A (Section 6.A.l) cohesionless soil LEGENO shaft total P M f No. 4 P11 a N o . 5 S» 1000 ISO 2000 2500 PWOICTfD PJLg CAPACITY <MO LEGENO shaft total loom i5ooo PftCDfCTtO PI LI CAPACITY OtfO UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE LCPC CPT Method (a) MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE LCPC CPT Method (b) FIG. 6.6. LCPC CPT METHOD 122 recommendations. The Dennis and Olson method is a modified API RP2A method and is seen by many as a preferred method to the original API RP2A. As well, in engineering pratice this combination of methods can be used for comparison purposes and to define critical input parameters. This section wil also briefly examine empirical design -methods for penetration tests not as common as the CPT or SPT (e.g. Becker Hammer test). 6.A.l American Petroleum Institute (API) RP2A Method 6.A.1.1 Outline The API RP2A (1980) method was created by the American Petroleum Institute for piled offshore drilling platforms. This method is used extensively for onshore design and is considered by many as the major offshore prediction method. As can be seen in Table 6.2, this method requires an estimation of the angle of internal friction (<f>) for cohesionless soils and an estimation of undrained shear strength (S^) for cohesive soils. The values of cf> can be obtained from CPT data using the correlation proposed by Robertson and Campanella (1983). This correlation is used throughout this study for indirect CPT methods requiring friction angle values. The undrained strength is determined as described in Section 6.2.1.1. The API RP2A method has been used for design in many offshore piling projects. The major limitation of this method, and a l l of the indirect methods used in this study, is that the accuracy of the parameters used in the implementation of the method (e.g. <f>, S^ ) are highly dependent upon the accuracy and reliability of the empirical relationships used to obtain the parameter from the in-situ test data. 123 The API RP2A method is simple to use and computer assistance is not necessary. However, the method is subject to different levels of interpre-tation and therefore no unique answer is possible between individual users. 6.A.1.2 Results As shown in Fig. 6.7(a), the API RP2A method was somewhat successful in predicting the capacity of the UBCPRS piles while pile no. 2 had its measured load slightly underpredicted, the measured capacities for pile nos. 3,4 and 5 were a l l overpredicted. For the MOTHPRS (as seen in Fig. 6.7(b)), the predicted pile capacity was considerably overpredicted when compared to the measured test results. 6.4.2 Dennis and Olson Method 6.4.2.1 Outline The Dennis and Olson Method (Dennis and Olson, 1983a and 1983b) is a modification of the API RP2A method. From Table 6.2, i t is seen that the main difference between the Dennis and Olson and API RP2A method is the use of empirical correction factors by the former. These correction factors are functions of pile embedment for both cohesive and cohesionless soils, and of undrained shear strength for cohesive soils. For cohesionless soils, the value of the angle of soil friction on the pile wall (6) is obtained as outlined for the API RP2A method. The validation of this method consisted of comparing the results of 84 full-scale pile load tests in cohesive soils and 66 full-scale pile load tests in cohesionless soils with those predictd by the method. All of the 25000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY <KN) PREDICTED P I L E CAPACITY (kN) UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE American Petroleum Ins t i tu te RP2A Method American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e RP2A Method (a) (b) F I G . 6.7. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE RP2A METHOD 125 piles tested were steel pipe piles with pile diameters ranging from 0.3 m to 1.0 m and test embedments up to 83 m. The Dennis and Olson method is simple to use and not open to interpre-tation like the API RP2A method. 6.A.2.2 Results As can be seen in Fig. 6.8(a), Dennis and Olson's method under-predicted the measured capacity of a l l the UBCPRS piles except pile no. 3. The capacity of pile no. 3 was slightly overpredicted. S t i l l , a l l four predictions are quite good. For the MOTHPRS, as shown in Fig. 6.8(b), a l l three test results are overpredicted by a large amount. In particular, tests B and C are over-predicted by more than 100%. This is somewhat surprising since the method was developed and validated for large diameter, long steel pipe piles. 6.A.3 Vijayvergiya and Focht Method 6.A.3.1 Outline The Vijayvergiya and Focht method (Vijayvergiya and Focht, 1972) was the first widely used method to encorporate two concepts now considered essential to pile design in cohesive materials. Firstly, the prediction of pile capacity was not solely based upon undrained shear strength but upon effective vertical stress as well. Vijayvergiya and Focht realized that, under static loading, drained friction will govern pile capacity. Secondly, this method encorporates a term (X) which is a dimensionless coefficient dependent upon pile penetra-tion. In effect, a term to address scale effects is included. Unfortunately, pile diameter was excluded from the original formulation of UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Dennis and Olson Method Dennis and Olson Method (a) (b) FIG. 6 . 8 . DENNIS AND OLSON METHOD 127 the method. Schmertmann (1978), among others, suggests that X be evaluated as a function of pile length and pile diameter. The Vijayvergiya and Focht method is based upon 47 full-scale pile load tests on piles ranging in length from 2.5 to 100 m in length and in capacity from 27 to 7800 kN. No mention of pile diameter is included. As shown by Table 6.2, this method has been developed for cohesive soils only and therefore Dennis and Olson's method has been used for the cohesionless soils. The Vijayvergiya and Focht method is both simple to understand and to implement. A large advantage of the method is that i t is straightforward and hence different users should obtain approximately the same results. 6.4.3.2 Results For the UBCPRS, as shown in Fig. 6.9(a), this method did a reasonable job of predicting the measured pile capacities. Pile nos. 2,3 and 5 were all overpredicted but never by much more than 25 percent. Pile no. 4 was slightly underpredicted. As can be seen in Fig. 6.9(b), the MOTHPRS measured capacities were all greatly overpredicted. Tests B and C were overpredicted by more than 100%. The performance of this method on these tests is very poor, and worse than the method by Dennis and Olson. 6.4.4 Burland Method 6.4.4.1 Outline The Burland Method (Burland, 1973) , like the Vijayvergiya and Focht method, was originally developed only for cohesive soils (see Table 6.2). 30H LEGENO shaft total P i l e Ho. 3 • P11e No. 4 P i l e No. 5 V — l 1 r - P _ 500 1000 1500 2000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY OtN> shaft total LEGENO 5000 10000 15000 20000 PREOICTEO PILE CAPACITY U,N> UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Vi jayverg iya and Focht Method (a) MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Vi j a y v e r g i y a and Focht Method (t>> FIG. 6.9. VIJAYVERGIYA AND FOCHT METHOD oo 129 This method formulated an expression to determine shaft resistance in terms of effective stress. An empirical factor, B, was defined to be equal to the ratio of the unit skin friction over the effective overburden pressure. Burland found that B ranged from 0.25 to 0.40 (average = 0.32) for driven piles and that i t is approximately independent of clay type. This method was validated using reults from 41 full-scale load tests. The size of the piles used is not reported. Pile types included steel, concrete and timber. This method is simple to use but the range of B given can cause a variation in results of up to 60%. For this study the recommended value,of 0.32 was used. 6.4.4.2 Results The results for the prediction of pile capacity at the UBCPRS using the Burland method are shown in Fig. 6.10(a). Good agreement between predicted and measured behaviour is seen, especially for pile no. 5. For the MOTHPRS, shown in Fig. 6.10(b), the predicted results grossly overpredict the measured capacity. For a l l three tests the predicted capacity is generally at least 100% too large. These results were the poorest obtained for any method applied to the MOTHPRS. 6.4.5 Janbu Method 6.4.5.1 Outline The Janbu method (Janbu, 1976) uses an effective stress analysis. As seen in Table 6.2, both the skin friction and end bearing formulations are in terms of effective overburden stress level. Janbu (1976) makes no PREDICTED CAPACITY (WO PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY (KM) UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAO TEST SITE Burland Method Burland Method ( a ) ( b ) FIG. 6.10. BURLAND METHOD O 131 reference to any validation of his method. In addition, no specific limitations of the method are noted. Although computationally straightforward, this method requires the evaluation of several uncommon parameters (e.g. i|) = angle of plastifica-tion). Janbu (1976) is somewhat vague about how to obtain these parameters and no direct references are supplied. For this reason unique answers between individual users of this method are unlikely. 6.A.5.2 Results As shown in Fig. 6.11(a), the Janbu method overpredicted a l l of the measured capacities for the UBCPRS piles. This overprediction ranged from 15 to nearly 100 percent. The method predicted very large end bearing capacities in the sand (15 m to 30 m). For the MOTHPRS, larger overpredictions result. As shown in Fig. 6.11(b), the predicted pile capacity is greater than 200% larger the actual measured capacity for test C. 6.A.6 Meyerhof Conventional Method 6.A.6.1 Outline The Meyerhof conventional method is as presented in 1976 as the eleventh Terzaghi lecture to the American Society of Civil Engineers (Geotechnical Engineering Division). This method, as can be seen in Table 6.2, is similar to that of the American Petroleum Institute (API RP2A). The main difference is that Meyerhof suggests the use of limiting skin friction and end bearing values based upon field observations. Meyerhofs method is validated by comparing measured field results from many authors. Unfortunately, Meyerhof offers no mention as to the size range of the piles involved in the field load tests. LEGENO shaft total P n e No. 2 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY OtfO UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Janbu Mothod (a) 2X0 — loooa isooo anoo P*EDICTEO P I L E CAPACITY <WO MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Janbu Method (b) FIG. 6.11. JANBU METHOD 133 This method is simple to use and, unlike the API RP2A method, recommended values for parameters such as the coefficient of lateral earth pressure are clearly presented. 6.4.6.2 Results As shown in Fig. 6.12(a), the Meyerhof conventional method predicted the capacities for the UBCPRS piles quite well. The capacity of pile no. 2 was almost precisely predicted whereas the capacities of the other three piles were only slightly overpredicted. For the MOTHPRS, large overpredictions of measured capacity result. As shown in Fig. 6.12(b), the predicted pile capacity is in the order of 200-300% of the measured capacity for tests A, B and C. 6.4.7 Flaate and Seines Method 6.4.7.1 Outline The Flaate and Seines method (Flaate and Seines, 1977), like the Vijayvergiya and Focht and Burland methods, was originally developed only for cohesive.soils (see Table 6.2). This method formulated an expression to determine shaft resistance in terms of effective stress, plasticity and overconsolidation ratio. An empirical factor, u^, was defined as a factor to relate the above para-meters and the pile length. Pile length was included so that the reduction in mobilized side friction with increased pile length could be included. This method was validated using results from 44 full-scale load tests. The piles were mainly timber pies up to 200 mm in diameter and ranging in length from 7 to 24 metres. In addition several concrete and steel pipe 25000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY (WO PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY (WO UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Meyerhof Conventional Mathod Moyerhof Conventional Method (a) (b) FIG. 6.12. MEYERHOF CONVENTIONAL METHOD 135 piles, up to 470 mm in diameter and 23 metres in length, were also investigated by the authors. This method is simple to use but requires obtaining values of plasticity index and overconsolidation ratio; two quantities that cannot yet be determined confidently with CPT. 6.4.7.2 Results The results for the prediction of pile capacity at the UBCPRS using the Flaate and Seines method are shown in Fig. 6.13(a). Good agreement between predicted and measured behaviour is seen, especially for pile no. 5. For the MOTHPRS, shown in Fig. 6.13(b), the predicted results greatly overpredict the measured capacity. For a l l three tests the predicted capacity is generally at least 100% too large. These results were almost as poor as for the Janbu method, which was considered the worst method evaluated. 6.5 Dynamic Methods 6.5.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 2, dynamic methods can be divided into "prediction" and "in-situ" classes. For this study the prediction methods used were the Engineering News Record (ENR) dynamic formula and the wave equation. WEAP86, is an interactive wave equation program to simulate the soil-pile system. The "in-situ" measurements used for dynamic prediction were the Case Method (using Goble, Raushe and Likens Ltd. PDA) and CAPWAP. In a l l cases, pile no. 5 from the UBCPRS was used. A summary of the calculations performed for a l l methods are presented in Appendix VI. LEGEND s h a f t t o t a l P i l e No. 3 P <1e No. 4 i soc 1000 isoo PREDICTED P I L E CAPACITY O.N) 2000 UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Floate and Seines Method (a) LEGEND S h a f t t o t a l 5000 15000 20000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY OOO MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE F laate and Seines Method ( b ) • 6.13. FLAATE AND SELNES METHOD LO 137 6.5.2 Results The ENR formula has the following form: 2 • W • H R = S +0.1 ( 6 - x ) where: R = capacity under working conditions (kips) W„ = weight of hammer (kips) n H = hammer drop height (feet) S = set (inches) In the above equation a factor of safety of 6 is recommended. Therefore to get the predicted ultimate capacity the result obtained must be multiplied by 6. For the ini t i a l driving of pile no. 5 the predicted ultimate capacity was 1944 kN. During restrike, when the result should be more indicative of the static capacity, the predicted ultimate capacity was 3114 kN. The results of the wave equation analysis on pile no. 5, using WEAP86, are presented in Figs. 6.14 and 6.15. In Fig. 6.14 the effect of varying hammer efficiency is illustrated. Depending upon whether a hammer efficiency of 60% or 70% is chosen (typical ranges for drop hammers) , a different dynamic capacity will result. The other problem that arises is that a tip resistance to shaft resistance ratio must be chosen. As can be seen in Fig. 6.15, the influence of the value of this ratio chosen has a significant effect on the result. From the static analysis using CPT, an approximate tip resistance to shaft resistance ratio of 20:80 for pile no 5 was determined. Using in i t i a l restrike hammer blowcount data i t is justifiable to assume that this ratio can be used to calculate dynamic BLOVCOUNT (blow, par matrs) M LO CO FIG. 6.14. UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE WEAP86: PILE NO. 5 VARYING HAMMER EFFICIENCY 140 capacity. Also, during i n i t i a l restrike the effects of pile set up are reflected in the measured blow count, therefore i t appears reasonable that this will approximate a static capacity prediction. Therefore, assuming that the efficiency of the hammer is 60% and that the tip resistance:shaft resistance ratio is 20:80, a capacity can be predicted. From initial restrike data on pile no. 5 the blowcount was 80 blows per metre. This results in a predicted capacity (using Fig. 6.15) of 1230 kN. Note that all other input values (damping, quake, etc.) used were as suggested by the WEAP86 manual. Using in-situ data, the Case Method and CAPWAP capacities were also obtained for pile no. 5 using a pile analyzer (PDA). The case method provided predicted results of 1903 kN and 1080 kN depending upon the damping value, J , used (see Appendix VI) for calculation details). Using a J c value of 0.70, the 1903 kN (and overpredicted) result is obtained. The value of 0.70 was suggested by a Goble, Rausche and Likens (GRL) representative present during the dynamic measurements upon the restriking of pile no. 5. A value of J equal to 1.07, as suggested by static load test results using the GRL PDA manual (see Appendix VI) yields the 1080 kN (and highly accurate) result. As will be discussed further in section 6.6.2, the choice of J c is the single largest factor affecting accurate predictions of static pile capacity using dynamic methods. A CAPWAP capacity of 1646 kN (50% overprediction) was predicted using J c = 0.70. Unfortunately, CAPWAP program results using a more appropriate damping value were not available for inclusion within this dissertation. 141 6.6 Sensitivity to Input Parameters 6.6.1 Static Methods The accuracy of the results for any prediction method will always depend not only upon the method used but upon the "quality" of the input parameters used in that method. A pile capacity prediction method cannot be expected to perform well (give accurate predictions of measured behaviour) unless input parameters representative of the existing subsurface conditions are used. For the indirect methods, estimates of parameters such as undrained strength, angle of internal friction, and others are required by each method. For the direct methods only the accuracy of the CPT is of concern (except for the de Ruiter and Beringen, and Schmermann and Nottingham methods where both require undrained shear strength estimates). For this study, only CPT data has been used to estimate (directly or indirectly) input parameters. To ensure the accuracy of the actual CPT results, careful field techniques and properly calibrated equipment is essential. Regardless of the CPT data being assumed accurate (i.e. repeatable and representative), the correlations used to estimate parameters using CPT data must be accurate as well or non-representative results will result. Most of the CPT parameter correlations are empirical and cannot therefore be expected to be universal. Local correlations will almost always be preferred (unless the method used indicates otherwise). As an example, the value of undrained shear strength ($ u) has been calculated using three different CPT correlations. These results have then been used to check the sensitivity of the de Ruiter and Beringen method (assumed to be a direct method as explained in Section 6.3) to the value of S . u 142 Figure 6.16 presents the results of the de Ruiter and Beringen method using: qc Su = 15 ( 6 ' 2 ) This is the value (where local correlations are unavailable) proposed by de Ruiter and Beringen (1979) but is based upon North Sea data. As can be seen in Fig. 6.16, non-conservative predictions generally result. However, i f a value that is more appropriate for local conditions is used, the result is much better. Figure 6.17 shows this method using: This value was chosen from field vane correlations obtained in similar soils at the UBCPRS (Greig, 1985) and in comparison with vane results at the UBCPRS as described in Chapter 4. With Eqn. 6.3 used as an estimate of undrained shear strength this method predicts the measured pile capacity very well. It was this value of undrained strength, as noted earlier, that was used for this study wherever an undrained strength estimate was required. Finally, Fig. 6.18 presents the de Ruiter and Beringen method using yet another formulation for S^ : q - o _ ^ c vo . . su " — l b — ( 6- A ) Once again, as with Eqn. 6.2, a significant descrepancy between predicted and measured pile capacity is evident (non-conservative predictions). 2(H 25H 30 P <1e No. 3 143 LEGEND • Shin F r i c t i o n Total Resistance qc S u = 15 40- —r— 500 T 1000 1500 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY <hN> 2000 FIG. 6.16. UNDRAINED STRENGTH NO. 1 UBC P I L E RESEARCH S I T E c t a R u i t G r and B o r i n g o n CPT MQthod 2500 UBC P I L E RESEARCH S I T E d c R u i t G r and B Q r i n g Q n CPT Me thod 1 1 1 1 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY (UN) FIG. 6.18. UNDRAINED STRENGTH NO. 3 UBC P I L E RESEARCH S I T E d e R u i t Q r and B e r i n g Q n CPT Me thod 146 This simple example illustrates the importance of performing sensitivity analyses when performing pile capacity analyses. This is especially true when, as is the case using CPT data, correlations that may not reflect local conditions are to be used. 6.6.2 Dynamic Methods As was shown in Section 6.5.2, using damping values obtained from correlations with full-scale load test results, the Case Method can provide an excellent prediction of static axial capacity when init i a l restrike data is analyzed. It was also shown that choosing a value without the advantage of load test results can lead to significant error. For accurate dynamic analyses of piles, the damping characteristics of the soil must be properly evaluated. Unfortunately, l i t t l e improvement in the manner by which damping values are chosen can be noted in published literature over the past 10-15 years. Damping values are also important input parameters for other wave equation analysis of piles (e.g., WEAP86 or CAPWAP). In addition, wave equation methods require accurate assessments of soil quake and skin friction distrbution profile along the pile length i f accurate predictions are to result. Unfortunately, these values are seldom determined on a site specific basis and "recommended" values from opera-tions manuals are usually used. These values are generally quoted in ranges such that over 100% in variation can result from using extreme values. In addition, these recommended values may not reflect at a l l the actual site charateristics of interest. In-situ testing methods, particularly the CPT, have the potential to vastly improve the accuracy of input parameters such as soil damping, soil quake and skin friction distribution. For the soil damping, a simple 147 empirical correlation between the case damping constant, J c > and the ratio between cone resistance (q c) and friction ratio (FR,%), qc/FR,%, can be proposed as shown in Fig. 6.19. The data used for J £ is after Rausche et al. (1985). Note that Fig. 6.19 should be adjusted to reflect local experience. It is interesting to note that for UBCPRS pile. no. 5, the (qc/FR,%) ratio near the pile tip ranges from 7 to 11. Thus, using a conservative upper bound trend line, Fig. 6.19 yields a case damping value of approximately 1.0. This is in close agreement with the J c value computed from static load test results, as was shown in Section 6.5.2. Soil quake, or the elastic ground compression, is a concept based on a simplistic elasto-plastic soil model proposed by Chellis (1951). The quake, Q, is the displacement at which the soil becomes plastic as shown in Fig. 6.20. Note also in Fig. 6.20 that a determination of ultimate static s o i l resistance, R^ , is also required. Traditionally a standard quake value of 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) is generally used for a l l soils, based on the original work of Smith (1960). However, real soil does not behave in such a simplistic manner. Using either CPT data, to develop parameters for a more representative soil model, or modified PMT curves seems a more logical approach of evaluating the stress-strain soil behaviour necessary for wave equation analysis. Finally, the shaft resistance distribution profile for the pile-soil system must be estimated in order to perform a wave equation analysis. Usually either a constant value with depth or a triangular distribution is chosen with l i t t l e regard for the prevailing stratigraphy. Using the CPT sleeve friction values, scaled from 0 to 100, provides a profile (with 148 FIG. 6.19. PROPOSED CORRELATION BETWEEN CPT DATA AND CASE DAMPING CONSTANT, J c 149 FIG. 6.20. ELASTO-PLASTIC SOIL MODEL (ADAPTED FROM CHELLIS, 1951) 150 appropriate scaling) of pile-soil interaction. These values of CPT sleeve friction should only be used, however, for analyzing the start of restrike condition when approximately static resistance is measured. This is because the CPT value will generally not accurately model the dynamic pile-soil condition. However, this is not strictly correct because the CPT is not a truly static penetration test but must be considered a "quasi-static" penetration test. This is especially true in soft clays where the CPT penetration will cause large excess pore pressures to be generated. All of the above is presented to demonstrate that careful selection of input parameters for dynamic pile analysis is crucial. The use of pile dynamics, particularly in-situ dynamic measuring methods, will increase i f the methods can be shown to provide accurate results. At present, this accuracy is inhibited by the poor quality of the soil input parameters. More representative soil parameters and soil models must be adapted. 6.7 Discussion of Axial Pile Capacity Prediction Figure 6.21 summarizes the results of a l l the static methods evaluated in the form of bar charts for each method. Note that, with few exceptions, both the direct and the indirect methods provided reasonable predictions of the measured capacities of the smaller piles. The direct methods, the Zhou et al. (1982) method to a lesser extent, also predicted the capacity of the larger pile quite satisfactorily. However, without exception, the indirect methods had predictions that were significantly in error and non-conservative when compared to the measured results for the large pile. Since the indirect methods generally did reasonably well in predicting the capacity of the smaller piles, and since the piles are a l l in the same deltaic soil deposits, the results suggest that scale effects are extremely 151 M ethod 1: Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y ( « ) 0 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 I BO 200 - J I I I I I I I I o a IU D d a o 2 4 8 97 100 8 6 8 6 113 1 2 6 M e t h o d 2: de Ruiter and Beringen C P T P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I t Y {%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Ave -94% Sd = 25% b 2 o z 3 co Ul D 4 (V S o* A z z i-o H B 2 m m C 1-I 94 135 100 99 103 114 1 1 8 Ave-109% Sd = l4% M e t h o d 3: Zhou,Z ie .Zuo.Luo and Tang CPT P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y ( * ) 20 O o 2 CD u 3 -J o 2 2 3 4 5 A B C 40 I 60 I 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 % 110 135 99 129 141 177 192 M e t h o d 4: Van Mierlo and Koppejan CPT P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y ( « ) Ave = 140% Sd = 34% u CD 3 O 2 O z 20 40 I 60 _ j 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ' I I I L . 49 133 102 74 73 91 94 A v e-88% S d - 2 6 % FIG. 6.21. BAR CHARTS OF PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED PILE CAPACITY FOR STATIC PREDICTION METHODS EVALUATED 152 M e t h o d 5: L C P C C P T P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 _ J I 1 1 1 I I x O 2 O m 3 O 2 o 0 3 O 2 o a 3 o 2 z ui 3 d 4 a. . 3 ° A z A B w a c 9 5 1 2 5 8 8 9 6 8 0 1 0 5 1 0 9 M e t h o d 6: A P I R P 2 A Ave =100% Sd=l5% 2 3 • 4 5 • A B C P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0 0 I I I I I I I I I 7 5 1 5 8 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 5 6 2 2 3 2 4 7 Ave = 155% M e t h o d 7: Dennis and Olson P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 6 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0 0 J I I 1 Sd = 62% 5 8 1 2 2 7 6 7 7 141 2 0 4 2 1 4 M e t h o d 8: Vi jayvergiya and Focht P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) Ave =127% Sd=63% 2 0 o z Ul -J f 8 o *-2 m * ui 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 i 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0 0 _ ] I % 1 2 7 1 5 8 9 2 1 0 7 1 7 4 2 2 3 2 3 1 Ave = 159% S d » 5 4 % FIG. 6.21. CONT... 153 M e t h o d 9: B u r l a n d P R E D I C T E D / M E A8URED C A P A C I T Y (%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 160 200 I I I I I I I I 1 ' o 0 3 o X z o s o a 3 o s u CB X H O 2 2 3 4 5 A B C o 2 104 148 88 102 206 267 286 Method 10: Janbu P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 0 20 40 60 80 I00 I20 I40 I60 I80 200 Ave = 172% Sd = 82% 2 3 4 • 5 A B C % 126 232 135 114 165 226 248 Ave = 178% Sd=56% M e t h o d 11: Meyerhof Conventional P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 80 I00 I20 I40 I60 IBO 200 % 20 40 60 _ J I L_ J_ 98 120 I 10 I29 18 I 252 285 M e t h o d 12: F laa te and Seines P R E D I C T E D / M E A 3 U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) Ave = 168% S d « 7 4 % 20 o o * D m 3 =! OL 40 -JL-60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 -J I I I I 134 170 95 98 174 231 234 Ave =162% S d » 5 7 % FIG. 6.21. CONT. 154 important for the large diameter pile. Most of the indirect methods are empirical in nature and based upon observed results from piles considerably smaller than 915 mm in diameter and 100 m in length. The direct methods, on the other hand, while also themselves generally empirical, a l l have scaling factors in their make-up (as described in Section 6.3_) that allow the problem of pile size to be addressed in a consistent fashion. When the bar charts are drawn for each pile (Fig. 6.22, see Table 6.1 for the prediction method corresponding to each number listed) the effect described above becomes even more apparent. In Chapter 5, when the tell-tale data was analyzed, the calculated raito of shaft resistance to total resistance was shown to be approximately 80%. To further evaluated the twelve static predictions methods, Tables 6.3 and 6.4 present the predicted shaft resistance ratios versus measured and predicted total resistance respectively. It is interesting to note that, as shown in Table 6.3, the average ratio for a l l twelve methods is quite close to the calculated value (93% versus 80%). The.method that was closest to the actual shaft resistance/total resistance ratio was the Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT method. This method ws also shown earlier to predict very well the capacities of a l l the piles investigated. Table 6.4 shows that, with only two exceptions, the predicted shaft resistance to predicted shaft resistance to predicted total resistance ratios were a l l greater than 90%. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 demonstrate that while many methods were shown to predict the total resistance of pile no. 5 quite well, few actually predicted the assumed correct (as calculated by tell-tale data) ratio of resistance between the shaft resistance and end bearing components. 155 UBCPRS PILE No.2 P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y ( * ) O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 o 2 o I 3 r- 4 LU 2 5 6 z o 7 8 o 9 Q 10 LU or 1 1 o_ 12 J . % 48 94 110 49 95 75 58 127 104 126 98 134 Ave =93% Sd = 30% U B C P R S PILE No.3 o 2 o I 3 h- 4 LU 5 Z 6 o 7 h- 8 o 9 ED 10 QC 1 1 CL 12 P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y ( « ) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 J 1 1 1 1 I I I L. % 97 135 135 1 33 125 158 122 158 148 232 120 170 Ave= 144% Sd = 34% FIG. 6.22. BAR CHARTS OF PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED P I L E CAPACITY FOR PILES ANALYZED 156 UBCPRS PILE No.4 P R E 0 I C T E D / M E A 8 U R E 0 C A P A C I T Y (tt) i Q 2 O I 3 4 w 5 6 z o 7 h- 8 o 9 5 10 LU 1 1 rr 0- 12 20 40 60 80 1C-0 120 140 160 160 2 0 0 j _ % 100 100 99 102 88 I 13 76 92 88 135 110 95 Ave = 100% Sd = 15% UBCPRS PILE No.5 Q O I LU z O O I • 2 3-4-5-6-7 8 9 10 O UJ OC I I °" .2 P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y ( « ) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 I I J_ % 86 99 129 74 96 114 77 107 102 114 129 98 Ave = 102% Sd = l8% FIG. 6.22. CONT. 157 MOTHPRS TEST A Q O I r— LU Z o r-O Q LU fX 0. I 24 3 4 5 6 7 8-9 1 0 I I 12 P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 - i 1 J — I L_ 160 l 180 _j 200 % 86 103 14 1 73 80 156 141 174 206 165 181 174 Ave = 140% Sd = 44% MOTHPRS TEST B Q O I r -LU 2 Z o f— o Q LU or Q. I 2-3' 4-5-6 7-8 9 -10-I I 12 P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 I I I II I I I I % 11 3 114 177 9 1 105 233 204 223 267 226 252 231 Ave =186% Sd = 64% FIG. 6.22. CONT. 158 Q O I r-LU MOTHPRS TEST C P R E D I C T E D / M E A S U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 I i i T I - i 2 3 4 5 6 7 Z o i— 8-f O 9-Q |0 LU a 11-a. 12 1 I I I I 200 % 126 118 192 94 109 247 214 231 286 248 285 234 Ave = 190% Sd = 76% FIG. 6.22. CONT. 159 TABLE 6.3 PREDICTED SHAFT RESISTANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEASURED AXIAL CAPACITY FOR PILE NO. 5 Predicted Shaft Resistance/ Method Measured Total Resistance (%) 1. Schmertmann & Nottingham CPT 82 2. deRuiter & Beringen CPT 95 3. Zhou et al. CPT 120 4. Van Mierlo &. Koppejan CPT 49 5. LCPC CPT 86 6. API RP2A 108 7. Dennis & Olson 75 8. Vijayvergiya & Focht 102 9. Burland 95 10. Janbu 86 11. Meyerhof Conventional 123 12. Flaate & Seines 90 Ave: 92.6 Sd: 20.1 TABLE 6.4 PREDICTED SHAFT RESISTANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PREDICTED AXIAL CAPACITY FOR PILE NO. 5 160 Predicted Shaft Resistance/ Method Predicted Total Resistance (%) 1. Schmertmann & Nottingham CPT 96 2. deRuiter & Beringen CPT 95 3. Zhou et a l . CPT 93 4. Van Mierlo &. Koppejan CPT 77 5. LCPC CPT 91 6. API RP2A 95 7. Dennis & Olson 94 8. Vijayvergiya & Focht 96 9. Burland 95 10. Janbu 76 11. Meyerhof Conventional 97 12. Flaate & Seines 94 Ave: 91.6 Sd: 7.2 161 The dynamic methods, only considered for UBCPRS Pile no. 5, also showed a considerable scatter of results. With the dynamic methods i t was shown that the in-situ measurement methods (such as the Case Method) can only be expected to give results as accurate as the simpler predictive analyses (such as a Wave Equation Analysis) i f appropriate values of parameters such as soil damping are used. 162 CHAPTER 7 PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL BEHAVIOUR 7.1 Introduction In this chapter, methods of predicting lateral pile behaviour will be compared to pile load test values obtained as described in Chapter 5. The two in-situ test methods used are the full-displacement pressure-meter test (FDPMT) method and the flat plate dilatometer test (DMT) method. The former method is only briefly described here. Full details are given by Robertson et al. (1986). The DMT methods is a new method proposed^ in this study. Both of these methods use the nonlinear discrete Winkler spring approach (P-y curves) described in Chapter 2. In each case, the P-y curves obtained were analyzed with the program LATPILE (Reese and Sullivan, 1980). This program is briefly described in this chapter. The two methods of predicting the lateral behaviour of driven dis-placement piles are presented and the results obtained compared with pile load test data from 3 different piles (piles 3 and 5, UBCPRS, and the MOTHPRS pile). In each case predicted versus measured results are included for both pile head deflection and deflected shape versus depth profiles. In addition, other available and potential methods of predicting laterally loaded pile behaviour are briefly discussed. 7.2 Program LATPILE The P-y curves developed as described in the following sections are used as input data for the program LATPILE. Reese (1977) developed COM622 which was the original program. Reese and Sullivan (1980) then created the first version of LATPILE. The version of LATPILE used for this study is a 163 microcomputer version modified at UBC to be used with IBM-PC and compatible microcomputers. LATPILE is a finite difference program that can handle up to 20 different P-y curves. The program can analyze any one of three boundary conditions at the pile top along with any combination of 1) lateral deflec-tions along the free field, 2) lateral loads along the pile, 3) a lateral load at the pile top, and A) axial load. Soil response is interpolated between P-y curves. Full details of the system documentation, operating documentation and governing difference equations can be found in Reese (1977). The use of LATPILE is straightforward and a minimum of input data is required. There are some disadvantages to using this program in lieu of a finite element program. The finite element method can permit realistic three-dimensional effects and computation of stresses and deformations in and around the piles. LATPILE, however, is seen as adequate for this study as only load-deflection behaviour is of interest. Reese and Desai (1979) have shown that no major differences of pile deflection are seen when comparing the finite difference method to the finite element method with comparable input data. 7.3 Lateral Pile Behaviour As mentioned previously, two methods of predicting lateral pile behaviour are compared with lateral load test results from three different piles. The DMT and the PMT methods are presented. In addition, other possibilities of using in-situ data to predict lateral pile behaviour are briefly discussed. 164 7.3.1 Full Displacement Pressuremeter Test P-y Curve Method The method proposed by Robertson et al. (1983) for obtaining P-y curves from FDPMT results is used. This method is briefly outlined and the results presented. Robertson et al. (1986) document four case histories where this method has been shown to provide very good preditions of measured behaviour. 7.3.1.1 Outline The method by which FDPMT curves are developed into P-y curves is shown in Fig. 7.1. From the original data, (radial pressure) and AR/R (cavity strain), three steps are necessary in order to obtain a P-y curve: i) The pressuremeter curve must be corrected for the l i f t - o f f pressure. This is done to remove the effects of the in-situ lateral soil pressure present upon the pressuremeter before expansion. This value (lift-off) is subtracted in order that the lateral stresses around the pile, the vector sum of which are zero, can be accurately modelled. ii ) The presuremeter curve must then be converted into the units of a P-y curve. The radial pressure (o ) is converted to a lateral load (P) r per unit length of pile by multiplying the radial pressure by the pile diameter, D, To convert the cavity strain (AR/R) to displacement units (y), the cavity strain is multiplied by the pile radius. These two steps in themselves create a P-y curve. However, when the resulting curves have been compared with measured pile behaviour, discrepancies have been noted. The main reason for these discrepancies is that i t requires a difference force to expand a pressuremeter than i t does to deflect a pile laterally. Therefore a third step becomes necessary: Pressuremeter Curve L i f t - o f f Strain , — Curve shift to L i f t - o f f D = Diameter of Pile P = tTr x D 4 P'le P-y Curve c , AR Stra in , -p- Displacement, y AR . D y = R FIG. 7.1, 0 0 CD 2 \ M a. a> Q 4 > or 8 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF PILE P-y CURVES FROM PRESSUREMETER CURVES Multiplying Factor, ex. 0.5 1.0 1.5 Cohesionless Soils 2.0 FIG. 7.2. VARIATION OF MULTIPLYING FACTOR WITH RELATIVE DEPTH 166 i i i ) Due to the reason noted above, a soil multiplication factor, a, must be applied. Based upon field observations, Robertson et al. (1983) suggest soil multiplication factors of 2.0 for cohesive soils and 1.5 for cohesionless soils (see Figure 7.2). The a factor chosen is then multiplied by the P value obtained in step ( i i ) . The values of a for cohesive and cohesionless soil suggested above are shown to be appropriate by finite element pressuremeter modelling (Atukorala and Byrne, 1984). This modelling found soil multiplication factors of between 1.9 and 2.6 for cohesive soils and of between 1.4 to 1.7 for cohesionless soils. The range in values is due to changes in the radial strain level assumed for the pressuremeter test. As was discussed in Chapter 2, an understanding of the concept of a critical depth for lateral pile response is important for a correct predic-tion of lateral behaviour under loading. Above the critical depth, the free (ground) surface will allow a vertical component of movement to exist in the soil in front of and behind the pile. The influence of the free surface thus reduces the lateral resistance that the soil applies to the pile. Fig. 7.2 shows the variation of the soil multiplication factor, a, with relative depth (depth = z, pile diameter = B) proposed by Robertson et al. (1986). The reduction of lateral resistance is reflected in reductions in a below a relative depth of 4. The reduction values presented in Fig. 7.2 are similar to those proposed by Briaud et al. (1983). Thus when a pressuremeter test is' performed within four pile diameters of the ground surface the soil multiplication factor is to be reduced as shown in Fig. 7.2, otherwise no reduction is applied. Note that this method does not consider variations in pile stiffness. However, Briaud et al. (1983) offer 167 a method that encorporates pile stiffness but this was not used for this study. In addition to correcting the pile P-y curve for a critical depth, the pressuremeter test results themselves must be corrected for surface effects. The c r i t i c a l depths (z £) for a pressuremeter were proposed by Baguelin et al. (1979), as follows, z =15 D-.,™ for cohesive soils c PMT z =30 DWTir_ for cohesionless soils c MPT where: Op^, = diameter of unexpanded pressuremeter. The pressuremeter curve is then corrected using: P' = | (7.1) where: P' = corrected pressure B = reduction in mobilized pressure at a l l strains Fig. 7.3 presents the values of B suggested by Briaud et al. (1983). 7.3.1.2 Results The results of computed versus measured lateral pile behaviour using the FDPMT method are shown in Figs. 7.4 to 7.6. In Fig. 7.4 the MOTHPRS pile's deflection at ground surface and deflected shape versus depth profile both show very good agreement between mesured and predicted 168 0 0 .2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1.0 REDUCTION FACTOR, /3 FIG. 7.3. REDUCTION FACTORS FOR PRESSUREMETER TEST RESULTS AT SHALLOW DEPTH (ADAPTED FROM ROBERTSON ET AL., 1986) 169 I200 r 0 50 100 150 200 Lateral Deflection at Ground Surface (mm) Resultant Pile Deflection (m) -0.05 0.0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 12 -14 -16 -i e -20 1 -FIG. 7.4. FDPMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR MOTHPRS PILE 170 MEASURED PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH 16. B m DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 9. 5 mm LATERAL DEFLECTION AT CROUND SURFACE (cm) LATERAL PILE DEFELCTION (cm) o-r a. ui o MEASURED PREDICTED LATERAL LOAD i 120 KN FIG. 7 . 5 . FDPMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR UBCPRS PILE NO. 3 171 0. UJ o LATERAL PILE DEFLECTION (cm) LATERAL LOAD i 120 kN is-FIG. 7.6. FDPMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR - UBCPRS PILE NO. 5 172 behaviour. The predicted deflection at the pile head is within 20% of the measured values. Any discrepancy in prediction is generally shown as being conservative in nature. For the UBCPRS, Figs. 7.5 and 7.6 show that good agreement between predicted and measured behaviour is again evident with the predictions of pile head deflection generally being within 30 to 50% of the measured values. The predicted values for pile no. 3 (Fig. 7.5) were closer to the measured results than those for pile no. 5 (Fig. 7.6). For both the UBCPRS and MOTHPRS piles, the predicted versus measured depths of contraflexure agree very well. 7.3.2 Flat Plate Dilatometer P-y Curve Method Several methods of determining P-y curves from in-situ testing methods exist using the pressuremeter. One approach, using the FDPMT to model driven piles, has been outlined in the previous section and shown to provide good results. However, in general, several problems exist in using the pressuremeter to obtain P-y curves. Some of these difficulties can be stated as follows: the PMT is a difficult and costly test to perform, the pressuremeter has a large installation size and therefore i t is difficult to assess the results close to the ground surface (where lateral pile response is most influenced); there are usually only a small number of test results; and there are differences in the soil failure mechanisms during loading between laterally loaded piles and the PMT (symmetric versus non-symmetric) . The flat plate dilatometer test (DMT) is seen as avoiding many of the problems that exist with the PMT. Because of this, the use of DMT data to derive P-y curves is postulated. Being a new method, both the theoretical 173 development and a detailed description of how to implement i t are presented. 7.3.2.1 Theoretical Development  Cohesive Soils Matlock (1970) performed lateral load tests on a steel pipe pile, 324 mm in diameter, using 35 pairs of electric resistance strain gauges installed along the 12.8 metre embedded portion. Using both data from these tests and existing data, Matlock proposed the use of a cubic parabola to predict P-y curves in the form P/P = 0.5 (y/y ) i ' J (7.2) u c where: P/P = ratio of soil resistance u y/y = ratio of soil deflection, c This cubic parabola is only valid for short-term, one-way static loading and for soils that behave in a strain hardening manner under this loading. Fig. 7.7, shows the cubic parabolic P-y curve. This curve is in non-dimensional form with P to be obtained as described later. The horizontal u coordinate is the pile deflection divided by the deflection at a static resistance equal to one-half of the ultimate resistance, P . The form of ^ u the pre-plastic portion of the static resistance curve, up to point 2 on Fig. 7.7, is based on semilogarithmic plots of the experimental curves which Matlock found to f a l l roughly along straight lines at slopes yielding the exponent 1/3. 174 FIG. 7.7. CUBIC PARABOLIC P-y CURVE FOR STRAIN HARDENING SOILS (ADAPTED FROM MATLOCK, 1970) The value of pile deflection at point 1 in Fig. 7.7 (y=yc) is based upon a concept proposed by Skempton (1951). This concept combined elasticity theory, ultimate strength methods, and laboratory soil properties and showed that the strain e c > related to y , is that which occurs at 50% ultimate stress from the laboratory unconfined- compression stress strain curve. From the work of Skempton, Matlock (1970) proposed his "Soft Clay Method" which had the form: where: D = pile diameter A = empirical coefficient = 6.35 for pile diameter in cm and y in cm. * c An important consideration when using empirical relationships is the scale effect. Piles commonly in use for supporting offshore structures are up to 15 tiroes larger than those upon which Matlock based his linear "Soft Clay Method", (Stevens and Audibert 1979). It is not reasonable to expect this linear relationship to exist over such a large range of pile dimen-sions. Studies by Stevens and Audibert (1979) among others, suggest that in cohesive soils the reference deflection, y , is not linearly dependent upon pile diameter but is instead approximately defined as: = A • e • D c (7.3) = B • e • D c 0.5 (7.A) where: B = empirical coefficient = 1A.2 for cm D = pile diameter in cm. 176 However, Stevens and Audibert (1979) compared Matlock's linear method with their nonlinear approximation on several full-scale lateral load tests with varying pile diameter and showed that their method agreed more closely with observed results (see fig. 7.8). Therefore, Stevens and Audibert's equation has been used for this study to determine y c for cohesive soils. The value of e (or e.n) must be evaluated from a stress-strain curve c 5 0 for the soil in question. Using the hypobolic curve fitting expression proposed by Duncan and Chang (1970), the following relationship can be derived (see Appendix VII): (7.5) where: = ra t i o of deviatoric f a i l u r e stress over deviatoric ultimate stress (take equal to 0.8) o = deviatoric failure stress f = 2»S for cohesive soil u S = undrained shear strength u & = ini t i a l tangent modulus which simplifies to: 1.67 • S e 5 0 = g ~ (7.6) i The ini t i a l tangent modulus, E., can be estimated from the DMT as: 177 01 TJ TJ 0) w > 01 10 .Q ^ ' C trend based on Tj ,„ soft clay •H c r i t e r i a ,» IW 01 TJ TJ i/> • —? °—" tf1-: 01 a E O 00 L> O 10 10 SO 40 so to ro p i l e diameter in inches trend based upon Stevens and Audibert •FIG. 7.8. EEFJ2CT OF MAKING REFERENCE DEFLECTION A FUNCTION OF D ' FOR COHESIVE SOILS (ADAPTED FROM STEVENS AND AUDIBERT, 1979) TABLE 7.1. VALUES OF J RECOMMENDED BY MATLOCK (1970) Value of J S o i l Type S o i l Tested 0.5 0.25 Soft clay S t i f f clay Sabine clay Lake Austin clay 178 where: = empirical stiffness factor E n = dilatometer modulus (Marchetti, 1980) From experience gained within the UBC In-Situ Testing Group (e.g. by McPherson, 1985) a F^ value of approximately 10 is suggested and this value is supported by this study. The undrained strength of the soil, S^ , can be obtained from DMT results using the correlation proposed by Marchetti (1980). Therefore, combining Eqs. 7.A, 7.6 and 7.7 yields: 23.71 • S • D°' 5 where: y = in cm. J c D in cm F = 10 (cohesive soils) c The evaluation of the static ultimate resistance, P u , is based upon plasticity theory. In clay, soil is confined so that plastic flow around a pile (at depth) occurs only in horizontal planes (Matlock, 1970). This may be expressed as follows: P = N • S • D (7.9) u p u where: N = non-dimensional ultimate resistance coefficient P S^  = undrained soil strength (from DMT) D = pile diameter. 179 At considerable depth i t is generally accepted that the coefficient, N^ , should be equal to 9. Near the surface, due to the lower confining stress level, the value of N^ reduces to the range of 2 to A. Matlock (1970), among others, proposed the following equation to describe this variation: N 3 + vo u + J I* 9 (7.10) where: N £ 9 P x = depth o' = effective vertical stress level at x vo J = empirical coefficient. Eq. 7.10 closely resembles that presented by Reese (1958). Reese, however, proposed a value of 2.8 for J which does not agree with experimental results. Matlock (1970) proposed values for J as shown in Table 7 . 1 . It is these values that have been used for this study. Cohesionless Soils It has been suggested that for cohesionless soils the continuous hyperbolic tangent function is to be used to describe P-y curves (O'Neill and Murchison, 1983). This, however, requires a determination of the modulus of lateral soil reaction, K^. Preliminary studies into determining K from DMT data have been presented (Marchetti, 1980; Motan and Gabr, 198A) but sufficient validation does not exist and therefore, for this study, the simpler cubic parabolic P-y curve (Eq. 7.2) function has been used. This, however, probably isn't fundamentally correct as the use of an ultimate pressure, P , in cohesionless soils is not supported by recent 180 research using nonlinear finite element analyses (Yan, 1986). Yan (1986) found that the P-y curves for cohesionless soils closely approximate the bilinear model proposed by Scott (1980); and, in fact, can be represented by a simple power function in the form: & - .(g>b ( 7 . 1 1 ) where: E = elastic deformation modulus a = power function mutliplier = 0.4 b = power function exponent =0.5 It is suggested that future refinements of this DMT method should attempt to include either the continuous hyperbolic tangent function and/or a form of the above power function so that critical comparisons with the cubic parabolic function can be made. As for cohesive soils, the values of P and y must be determined in u J c terms of values obtained from DMT test data. The lateral ultimate soil resistance, P , is determined from the lesser value given by the following two equations: P = r ' x [D(K -K ) + x • K • tan* • tanB] (7.12) u P a P or P = r • D • x (K3 + 2K • K* • tan* - K ) (7.13) u ' p o p r a where: x = depth below the ground surface Y = unit weight of soil (buoyant or total, as appropriate) 181 D = pile diameter 4> - angle of internal friction K = Rankine active coefficient a l-sinft l+sin<f> K = Rankine passive coefficient P * ' 1 / K a K = coefficient of earth pressure at-rest o r B = 45° + <p/2 Eqs. 7.12 and 7.13 are after Reese et al. (1974) and Murchison and O'Nej.11 (1984) . The value <J> can be estimated by correlation from DMT inflation results (Marchetti, 1980). However, experience gained at UBC (e.g. Robertson, 1982 and McPherson, 1985) suggests increasing the friction angle determined using Marchetti's original correlation from the DMT by some value between 3 and 9 degrees. An increase of 5 degrees was used for this study. It is recognized that the friction angle could also have been determined more accurately using Durgunoglu and Mitchell's bearing capacity theory (Schmertmann, 1982) but the DMT pushing force needed for this method was not recorded. The coefficient of earth pressure at-rest, K , was taken r o to be 0.5. Further refinements of this method could include using the K o value obtained from DMT results by correlation. The reference pile deflection, y c > for cohesionless soils is evaluated from: y c = 2.5 • e 5 0 • D (7.14) where: y = in cm J c D = pile diameter in cm. 182 The value of e 5 0 is evaluated, as for cohesive soils, using Eq. 7.5. The failure deviatoric stress, af, is taken to be (Duncan and Chang, 1970): ,2»sin<K . ,.. 1 C. o_ = (•; r—t) o' (7.15) f 1-sinf v The value of (with the 5° increase) is estimated from the DMT test. As for cohesive soils, is taken to be equal to 0.8. The in i t i a l tangent modulus, E., can be determined from the DMT as: l E i = FS • E Q (7.16) where: FS = empirical stiffness factor E n = dilatometer modulus (Marchetti, 1980) From experience gained at UBC (e.g. by McPherson, 1985), a FS value of approximately 1 is suggested. However, for the prediction of lateral pile response, the use of an FS value of 2 is supported by this study (Section 7.3.1.3). Therefore, combining Eqs. 7.1A through 7.16 yields: A.17 • sin* • a v y c = E n • FS • (l-sin<j>) (7.17) where: y = in cm. J c 7.3.2.2 Programs LATDMT.UBC Programs LATDMT.UBC refers to a series of four FORTRAN programs that are required for the DMT method. These four programs are: 183 1) DMT.UBC 2) PU-YC.UBC 3) PY.UBC 4) LATPILE.UBC The program DMT.UBC is a program to interpret " dilatometer data based upon the correlations of Marchetti (1980). This program was originally written by John Schmertmann but has been updated at UBC by Ian McPherson. LATPILE.UBC is an available program that has been modified at UBC (see Section 7.2). The other two programs, PU-YC.UBC and PY.UBC, were developed by the writer. PU-YC.UBC takes DMT.UBC output and creates semi-continuous (every 20 cm) profiles of both P^  (ultimate resistance) and y c (reference deflection) with depth (see Fig. 7.9). From these continuous profiles, average value (trend) lines must be chosen and the profiles discretized as LATPILE can only accept up to 20 P-y curves. Once this discretization is complete, program PY-UBC can be used to generate P-y curves based upon the cubic parabola. Both PU-YC.UBC and PY.UBC listings are appended to this dissertation (Appendix VII). Once the P-y curves have been generated, LATPILE.UBC is then used to generate the predicted pile behaviour. A flowchart describing the steps involved in producing P-y curves using DMT data and then predicting lateral pile behaviour using LATPILE is presented in Fig. 7.10. In Fig. 7.10 i t cn be seen that engineering judgement is necessary to discretize the results of PU-YC.UBC into a maximum of 20 layers. 7.3.2.3 Results As described earlier, the averaged P and y values must be chosen ° u Jc from those computed for the DMT data (DMT85-2, see Chapter 4). Figure 7.11 13-E x * 0. UJ a I . I I 1 TTTI J 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 1 I I | I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - i — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — iao ULTIMATE LATERAL SOIL RESISTANCE Pu (KN/cm) UBC/MOTH PILE RESEARCH SITES ULTIMATE LATERAL SOIL RESISTANCE FROM DMT - -J-—1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T — — I 1 1 1 1 --U = » . % * r — — l p 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 • 1 l E I •— a. ID a • ie ii II i> M u REFERENCE DEFLECTION (cm) UBC/MOTH PILE RESEARCH SITES REFERENCE DEFLECTION FROM DMT FIG. 7.9. Pu AND Yc CALCULATED OUTPUT FROM DMT 185 | J ) M T FIELD D A T A ^ J D M T . U B C Interpretation of DMT Data (Based on Marchetti.1980) P U - Y C . U B C Calculation of Pu and y c at each test depth I Pu.Yc D A T A r P Y . U B C Generation of P - y curves using cubic parabola L A T P I L E D A T A "1 TsTEP "I I : I COMPUTER P R O G R A M A V E R A G E V A L U E S CHOSE.N Discretize • emi-continuout |^ profiles of R j , y c - d e p t h L A T P I L E . U B C PC version of L A T P I L E a d a p t e d at U B C from Reese,1980 . R E S U L T S } T A B U L A R G R A P H I C A L DEFL. i »-a. UJ o TOP D E F L . V FIG. 7.10. FLOWCHART FOR DETERMINING P-y CURVES FROM DMT DATA I I I 111 1 1—I—I I I 111 1 1—I I I I 111 r-0. O I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I l 11 10 I I I I 1111— 100 I I—I I I I 111 1000 ULTIMATE LATERAL S O I L RESISTANCE Pu (kN/cm> UBC/MOTH PILE RESEARCH SITES ULTIMATE LATERAL SOIL RESISTANCE FROM DMT » * » • » • • 10 II II | | |4 11 REFERENCE DEFLECTION (cm) UBC/MOTH PJLE RESEARCH SITES REFERENCE DEFLECTION FROM DMT FIG. 7.11. AVERAGE VALUES OF Pu and Yc CHOSEN FROM DMT 187 shows the average values chosen from the P , y^ profiles for the data used. These values were used as input P-y curves as calculated according to the equations presented earlier. A summary of the calculated and measured load deflection curves is shown in Fig. 7.12 and Figs. 7.13 and 7.14 for the MOTHPRS and UBCPRS respectively. The three piles in question are a l l of differing sizes as noted. In each case two values of FS (1 and 2) are used in the evaluation of both the pile head and deflected shape deflection profiles. This is to show that while previous work with the DMT suggested an FS value of close to 1, the results of this study suggest that a value of 2 may be more appropriate. Studies showed that the value of FC was, as was predicted by previous work, about equal to 10. The results in Fig. 7.12 for the MOTHPRS pile show that the predicted deflection agrees well with the measured deflection. Not much difference was seen here between FS=1 and FS=2, especially a higher loads. The curve for FS=1, however, resembled the measured load deflection curve shape better than did the curve for FS=2. For both modulus factors (FS=1 and 2), the predicted deflection is approximately 25% larger than the measured deflecton at the pile head under large load (1100 kNO and agreement is generally closer at lower loads. The deflected shape versus depth profiles at a load of 1100 kN also agree closely with the points of contraf lexure both occurring at about a depth of 11 metres. The results in Fig. 7.13 for the smaller (pile no. 3) of the two UBCPRS piles tested again show excellent agreement between predicted and measured deflection. This is particularly true for the curve corresponding to the modulus factor FS=2. For the FS=2 curve, the difference between the predicted and measured results is generally never more than 25% for the 188 PREDICTED PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH 94 m DIAMETER 914 mm WALL 19 mm S 10 13 20 LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE (cn) LATERAL PILE DEFLECTION (cm) CL lU IJ O FS=1=2 / PREDICTED LATERAL LOAD i 1100 kN FIG. 7.12. DMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR - MOTHPRS PILE 189 z x a < a < ui i i . FS-2 FS-1 MEASURED / / ' PILE DIMENSIONS A ' / / / / PREDICTED LENGTH 16.8 m DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 9.5 mm 1 2 1 4 LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE (cm) LATERAL PILE DEFELCTION (cm) 0 I 2 3 4 X t -O L Ul • MEASURED LATERAL LOAD i 120 KN FIG. 7.13. DMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR - UBCPRS PILE NO. 3 190 z J : < o < UJ 1 1 PREDICTED MEASURED / / y y PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH 31.1 n DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 11.5 nm LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE (cm) E W X I-0. Ul Q LATERAL PILE DEFLECTION (cm) 0 1 2 3 * __, L MEASURED I " " F S = 1 PREDICTED LATERAL LOAD i 120 kN F I G . 7 . 1 4 . D M T M E T H O D : P R E D I C T E D V E R S U S M E A S U R E D L A T E R A L P I L E B E H A V I O U R - U B C P R S P I L E N O . 5 191 entire range of loads with the predicted values being higher. The deflected shape versus depth profiles for 120 kN load are of similar good agreement with a l l three curves showing essentially the same depth of contraflexure. The results in Fig. 7.14 for UBCPRS pile no. 5 showed poorer agreement between predicted and measured deflection. However, with the value of FS=2 (the better prediction) being used, the pile head deflection predictions were generally only 35% larger than the measured results. This must s t i l l be regarded as fairly good agreement. The deflected shape versus depth profiles also show similar good agreement between predicted and measured behaviour. 7.3.3 Other Methods Other in-situ methods are available for predicting laterally loaded pile behaviour. However, these are mainly pressuremeter methods. Besides the FDPMT method present, methods using self-boring pressuremeter test data (e.g. Baguelin, 1982) or pre-bored pressuremeter test data, using a Menard type pressuremeter, (e.g. Briaud et al., 1983) also exist. Schmertmann (1978) has attempted to correlate CPT data with the Menard PMT and then use the values obtained for an appropriate PMT design method. Schmertmann's method was briefly examined but meaningful results could not be obtained and therefore none are presented. Schmertmann (1978) readily admits that this method should only be used for the most preliminary of design. Potential exists for using DMT, PMT and CPT data in new methods for predicting laterally loded pile behaviour. Beyond the traditional two data points obtained with the Marchetti dilatometer, a research DMT that supplies a continuous load-deflection curve is available (Tsang, 1987). From this continuous curve, which resembles a FDPMT curve, a method of 192 constructing a P-y curve is possible. This method would probably not be unlike the current FDPMT method. Both the PMT and CPT could be used to predict laterally loaded pile behaviour using the method presented for the DMT in the previous section. This method requires estimates of undrained strength, friction angle, and ini t i a l tangent Young's modulus. Both the CPT and PMT offer several means by which these parameters can be obtained. The value of performing this exercise with PMT data seems small, however, due to the more direct and proven methods available. On the other hand, this would be of great interest as far as the CPT is concerned. Being the preferred in-situ test-ing instrument for predicting axial pile capacity, having the capability of also estimating lateral behaviour would mean that a single instrument for pile foundation design would be available. The CPT has shown good ability in estimating drained friction angle and unrained shear strength. However, the accuracy of modulus estimates from CPT data are highly affected by the stress and strain history of the soil (Baldi et al., 1985). Other methods of predicting lateral pile behaviour from in-situ testing methods, using not only the previously mentioned tests but other in-situ testing methods are possible. As in-situ testing becomes more commonly used in geotechnical practice for foundation design, many of these methods will be realized. 7 .A Discussion of Lateral Pile Behaviour Predictions Both the FDPMT and the DMT methods performed well in predicting the measured lateral behaviour of the three piles investigated. The FDPMT method, as proposed by Robertson et al. (1983), is a proven method that was further validated by this research. The DMT method, however, is a new 193 method proposed by this study. Further field studies are necessary in order to evaluate the DMT method for other soil profiles and pile types. Overall, this study has shown that in-situ testing is a reliable method of accurately predicting laterally loaded pile behaviour in the soil types as investigated. 194 CHAPTER 8  RECOMMENDED CORRELATIONS 8.1 Axial Pile Capacity As was shown in Chapter 6, due mainly to their ability to deal with the scale differences between piles of differing size, a preference for using the direct static prediction methods is apparent. Based upon the results presented in Chapter 6 the following three direct methods are preferred: 1. LCPC CPT (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982) 2. de Ruiter and Beringen CPT (1979) 3. Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT (1978) For the piles tested, these three methods supplied a maximum error of 52% and an average error of 5% when compared with measured axial pile capacities. The LCPC (French) method is shown to be the best method with a maximum error of 25%, an average error of 0%, and a standard deviation (S^) of 15%. In addition, the LCPC method does not directly require the CPT sleeve friction value other than to define soil type. This is a desirable feature since the cone bearing is generally obtained with more accuracy and confidence than the sleeve friction. The results of this study indicate that indirect CPT methods to predict axial pile capacity may significantly overpredict the capacity of large diameter, long piles (L/D > 75) supported in deltaic soils. No preference was seen between the dynamic methods briefly evaluated however the dynamic formula investigated (Engineering News Record) was shown to easily be the most unreliable. 195 8.2 Lateral Pile Behaviour Both the full-displacement pressuremeter and the flat plate dilatometer methods were shown to be very effective in predicting the measured lateral pile behaviour. The dilatometer method, being a new method, needs further validation and hence this method must be used with caution. At this time i t is therefore felt that a preference must be shown for using the pressuremeter method. 8.3 Limitations and Precautions Any emprical prediction method (axial or lateral pile behaviour) can be expected to yield accurate results only i f the conditions under which i t is applied resemble those in the data bank used to formulate the method. When determining the suitability of any empirical design method, the intended application should be compared with the method's data bank conditions such as: i) pile installation technique ii ) pile material type i i i ) pile shape iv) pile size (diameter and embedment) v) soil conditions vi) special considerations Designers should use any empirical method with caution. 196 CHAPTER 9  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The major objective of this study was to evaluate methods of predicting axial and lateral pile behaviour as measured from full-scale pile load tests. The following sections present a sumary of the significant findings from this research. 9.1 Pile Installation and Load Testing The "Quick Load Test Method" of axial loading (similar to ASTM D1143-91 Section 5.6) was used for axial pile load testing. The "Quick Load Test Method" was used to minimize time-dependent effects. This method was found to work well with an average testing time of 4 to 6 hours per pile. To calculate the axial pile load test failure load, the method by Davisson (1973) was found to be repeatable. The tell-tale data obtained at the UBCPRS, other than for pile no. 5 (which ws load tested first) presented several problems for interpretive purposes. This is possibly because of the complex loading history for the other piles. Unlike with the axial load case, no standard method of interpreting lateral load test results exists. The effects of creep (time effects) can be very pronounced during lateral pile testing. Until standardization of testing is realized, i t will remain difficult to compare results between researchers. 197 9.2 Axial Pile Capacity Prediction Methods This thesis compared twelve static axial pile capacity prediction methods with the results from eight full-cale pile load tests on six different piles. The piles were steel pipe piles driven into deltaic soil deposits. The length to diameter ratios (L/D) for the piles ranged from AO to 100. The measured axial capacities ranged from 170 kN to 8,000 kN in soils that included organic s i l t , sand and clay. CPT data was used for the prediction of pile capacity for the twelve methods evaluated. The direct methods, which incorporate CPT-pile scaling factors, provided the best predictions for the piles and methods evaluated. Based on the results of this research the following three direct methods are preferred: 1. LCPC CPT 2. de Ruiter and Beringen CPT 3. Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT The results of this research indicate that indirect CPT methods used to predict axial pile capacity may significantly overpredict the capacity of large diameter, long piles (L/D > 75) supported in clayey s i l t soils. The main conclusion from the brief evaluation of dynamic prediction methods is that the accuracy of the prediction is extremely dependent on the input parameters chosen. Unfortunately, systematic and reliable methods for choosing these input parameters are not yet available. 9.3 Lateral Pile Behaviour Prediction Methods Both the full-displacement pressuremeter and the fl a t plate dilatometer are seen as useful tools for assesing laterally loaded pile behaviour. 198 The pressuremeter method is an existing method (Robertson et al., 1983) with significant validation. The results of this research are seen as further validation of this method. Further field studies are necessary in order to evaluate the dilatometer method for other soil profiles and pile types. -The proposed method must be used with caution until further validation has taken place. However, due to both the ability of the dilatometer to obtain a near continuous profile of soil response and to its small size, the DMT offers an excellent means of obtaining considerable data even at shallow depths below the ground surface. This is very important for the design ^  of laterally loaded piles since very l i t t l e deflection occurs below a depth of approximately five pile diameters under typical design loads (Poulos and Davis, 1980). 9.4 Recommendations for Further Research The areas listed below are some of those which the author believes additional research could improve the ability to make accurate predictions of axially and laterally loaded pile behaviour from in-situ testing data. i) Development of a standard method of performing lateral pile load tests so that data between researchers can be easily compared. ii ) Further validation of the preferred direct axial pile capacity prediction methods. Local correlations would be especially beneficial. i i i ) Development of a systematic and repeatable method of obtaining parameters for pile dynamic analyses from in-situ tests. iv) Further validation of the proposed DMT method for predicting lateral pile behaviour. 199 v) Continued development of equipment like UBC's cone pressuremeter from which axial and lateral pile behaviour can be predicted from one test. 200 REFERENCES American Petroleum Institute (1980), "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms," API RP 2A, 11th edition. Atukorala, U. and Byrne, P.M. (1984), "Prediction of P-y Curves from Pressuremeter Tests and Finite Element Analyses," University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering, Soil Mechanics Series No. 66. Baguelin, F. (1982) , "Rules for the Structural Design of Foundations Based on the Selfboring Pressuremeter Test," Symposium on the Pressuremeter and  its Marine Applications, Paris, April. Baguelin, F. , Jezequel, J.F. and Shields, D.H. (1976), The Pressuremeter  and Foundation Engineering, Trans. Tech. Publications, Rockport, Mass. Baldi, G. , Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M. and Pasqualini, E. (1985), "Penetration Resistance and Liquefaction of Sands," 11th ICSMFE, San Francisco. Begemann, H.K.S. Ph. (1965), "The Maximum Pulling Force on a Single Tension Pile Calculated on the Results of the Adhesion Jacket Cone," Proceedings of the 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engng., Montreal, Vol. 2, p. 229. Blunden, R.H. (1975), "Urban Geology of Richmond, British Columbia," Adventures in Earth Sciences Series No. 15, B.C. Govt. Publications. Briaud, J.L., Smith, T.D. and Meyer, B.H. (1983), "Laterally Loaded Piles in the Pressuremeter: Comparison of Existing Methods", ASTM STP 835 on the Design and Performance of Laterally Loaded Piles and Pile Groups, June. Brierley, G.S., Thompson, D.E. and Eller, C.W. (1979), "Interpreting End-Bearing Pile Load Test Results," Behaviour of Deep Foundations, ASTM STP 670. Raymond Lundgren, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 181-198. Broms, B.B. (1965), "Design of Laterally Loaded Piles," Proc. ASCE, Jour. SMFE Div., Vol. 91, SMM, pp. 79-99. Brown, P.T. (1985), "Predicting Laterally Loaded Pile Behaviour Using the Pressuremeter," M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering. Brown, S.G. (1983), "In-Situ Testing Techniques Applied to Embankments Over Soft Organic Soils," M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering, October, 1983. Burland, J.B. (1973), "Shaft Friction of Piles in Clay - A Simple Fundamental Approach," Ground Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 30-42. 201 Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. (1982), "Pile Bearing Capacity Prediction by Means of Static Penetrometer CPT," Penetration Testing, ESOPT II, Amsterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 493-500. Campanella, R.G. and Robertson, P.K. (1981), "Applied Cone Research," Symposium of Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Oct. 1981, pp. 343-362. Campanella, R.G. and Robertson, P.K. (1983), "Flat Plate_Dilatometer Testing: Research and Development at UBC," First International Conference on the Flat Plate Dilatometer, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 4 Feb., 1983. Campanella, R.G. and Robertson, P.K. (1986), "Research and Development of the UBC Cone Pressuremeter (for the Offshore)," Contribution to 3rd Canadian Conference on Marine Geotechnical Engineering, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, June 11-13, 1986. Chellis, R.D. (1951), Pile Foundations, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1951. Chin, F.K. (1970), "Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles not Carried to Failure," Proc. 2nd Southeast Asian Conf. on Soil Engng., pp. 81-90. Cummings, A.E. (1940), "Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas," J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng., Vol. 27, pp. 6-27. Davies, M.P., Madsen, J.D. and Robertson, P.K. (1987), "Applications of CPT Data to Foundation Design Using Microcomputer Software", 1st Canadian Symposium on Microcomputer Applications to Geotechnique, Regina, Oct. 1987. Davisson, M.T. (1973), "High Capacity Piles," Proceedings, Lecture Series, Innovations in Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois Section, Chicago, 52 pp. de Beer, E.E. (1963), "The Scale Effect in Transportation of the Results of Deep Sounding Tests on the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles and Caisson Foundations," Geotechnique, Vol. 8, p. 39. de Ruiter, J. and Beringen, F.L. (1979), "Pile Foundations for Large North Sea Structures," Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 267-314. Dennis, N.D. and Olson, R.E. (1983a), "Axial Capacity of Steel Pipe Piles in Clay," Amer. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, Austin, pp. 370-387. Dennis, N.D. and Olson, R.E. (1983b), "Axial Capacity of Steel Pipe Piles in Sand," Amer. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, Austin, pp. 389-402. Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C.-Y. (1970), "Non-Linear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils," J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Engng. Division, SCE, Vol. 96, No. SM5, September, pp. 1629-1653. 202 Eisbrenner, W. (1985), "Analysis of Pile Load Tests, Annacis Bridge Project," Unpublished BCMOTH report. Evangelista, A. and Viggiani, C. (1976), "Accuracy of Numerical Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Half-Space," Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geomech., Blacksburg, Virginia, Vol. 3, pp. 1367-1370. Fellenius, B.H. (1980), "The Analysis of Results from Routine Pile Test Loading," Ground Engineering, Foundation Publications Ltd., London, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 19-31. Flaate, K. and Seines, P. (1977), "Side Friction of Piles in Clay," Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 517-522. Gillespie, D. (1980), "The Piezometer Cone Penetration Test," M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering. Goble, G.G. and Rausche, F. (1976), "Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving, WEAP Program," U.S. Dept. of Trans., FHWA, Office of Research and Development, Implementation Package, 76-14.1, Washington, D.C. Goldsmith, P.P. (1979), "Aspects of Soil-Pile Interaction Under Static Loads," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aukland, New Zealand. Gravare, C.J., Goble, G.G., Rausche, F. , and Likins, G.E. (1980), "Pile Driving Construction Control by the Case Method," Ground Engineering, March, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 20-25. Greig, J. (1985) , "Estimating Undrained Shear Strength of Clay from Cone Penetration Tests," M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering. Hetenyi, M. (1946), Beams on Elastic Foundations, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hughes, J.M.O. and Robertson, P.K. (1985), "Full-Displacement Pressuremeter Testing in Sand," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, August, pp. 298-307. Janbu, N. (1976), "Static Bearing Capacity of Friction Piles," Proceedings of the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1.2, pp. 479-488. Kezdi, A. (1975), "Pile Foundations", Ch. 19, Handbook of Foundation  Engineering, Winterkorn and Fang Eds., Van Nostrand, New York, pp. 556-600. Ladanyi, B. (1967), "Deep Punching of Sensitive Clays," Proceedings of the 3rd Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Caracas, Vol. 1, p. 533. 203 Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1969), Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Toronto. Matlock, H. (1970), "Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay," Proc. 2nd Offshore Tech. Conf., Texas, Vol. 1, pp. 557-594. Matlock, H. and Ripperger, E.A. (1958), "Measurements of Soil Pressure on a Laterally Loaded Pile," Proc. Amer. Soc. Test. Mater., Vol. 58, pp. 1245-1259. Marchetti, S. (1980), "In-Situ Tests by Flat Dilatometer," ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 106, No. GT3, pp. 299-321. McPherson, I.D. (1985), "An Evaluation of the Flat Dilatometer as an In-Situ Testing Device," M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, January. Meyerhof, G.G. (1951), "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations," Geotechnique, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 301. Meyerhof, G.G. (1976), "Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations," ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 102, No. GT3, pp. 197-228. Meyerhof, G.G. and Sastry, V.V.R.N. (1985), "Bearing Capacity of Rigid Piles Under Eccentric and Inclined Loads," Can. Geot. Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 267-277. Miner, B. (1986), "UBC Pile Research Site, P.D.A. Assessment," unpublished internal report. Mitchell, J.K., Guzikowski, F. and Villet, W.C.B. (1978), "The Measurement of Soil Properties In-Situ," Report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Contract W-7405-ENG-48, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, March, 67 pp. Motan, E.S. and Gabr, M.A. (1984), "A Flat-Dilatometer Study of Lateral Soil Response," Proceedings of ASCE Symp. on Analyses an Design of Pile Foundations, Oct. 1984, pp. 232-247. Murchison, J.M. and O'Neill, M.W. (1984), "Evaluation of P-y Relationships in Cohesionless Soils," Proceedings of ASCE Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, October. Norlund, R.L. (1963), "Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils," Proceedings, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, May, pp. 1-35. Nottingham, L.C. (1975), "Use of Quasi-Static Friction Cone Penetrometer Data to Predict Load Capacity of Displacement Piles," Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Florida. 204 O'Neill, M.W. and Murchison, J.M. (1983), "An Evaluation of P-y Relationships in Sands," A Report to the American Petroleum Institute, Report PRAC 82-41-1, University of Houston, May. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T. (1974), Foundation Engineering, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2nd Ed., Toronto. Poulos, H.G. (1971), "Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles: I-Single Piles," Proc. Amer. Soc. Test. Mater., Vol. 58, pp. 1245-1259. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley and Sons Inc., Toronto. Randolph, M.F. (1981a), "Piles Subjected to Torsion," Journal of SMFE Div., ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT8, pp. 1095-1111. Randolph, M.F. (1981b), "Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading," Geotechnique, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 247-259. Randolph, M.F. and Houlsby, G.T. (1984), "The Limiting Pressure on a Circular Pile Loaded Laterally in Cohesive Soil," Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 613-623. Rausche, F. (1970), "Soil Response From Dynamic Analysis and Measurements on Piles," Ph.D. Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Rausche, F. , Goble, G.G. and Likins, J. (1984), "Performance of Pile Driving Systems," Submitted to U.S. Dept. of Trans. Fed. Highway Admin., Washington, D.C. Rausche, F., Goble, G.G. and Likins, G.E. (1985), "Dynamic Determination of Pile Capacity," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. I l l , No. 3, March, pp. 367-383. Reece, L.C. and Matlock, H. (1956), "Non-Dimensional Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles with Soil Modulus Proportional to Depth," Proc. 8th Texas Conf. Soil Mech. Fedn Engng., pp. 1-41. Reese, L.C. (1958), "Discussion of Soil Modulus for Laterally Loaded Piles," by Bramlette McClelland and John A. Focht, Transactions, American Society of Engineers, Vol. 123, pp. 1071-1074. Reese, L.C. (1977), "Laterally Loaded Piles: Program Documentation," Journal of the Geotech. Engineering Div., ASCE, GT4, April, pp. 287-305. Reese, L.C, Cox, W.R. and Koop, F.D. (1974), "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand," Paper No. OTC 2080, presented at the 1974 Fifth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. Reece, L.C. and Sullivan, W.R. (1970), "Documentation of Computer Program C0M624," Bureau of Engineering Res., University of Texas at Austin, Texas. 205 Robertson, P.K. (1982), "In-Situ Testing of Soil with Emphasis on Its Application to Liquefaction Assessment," Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering. Robertson, P.K. (1985) , "In-Situ Testing and its Application to Foundation Engineering," Colloquium presented at the 38th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Edmonton. Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1986), "Guidelines for Use and Interpretation of the CPT and CPTU, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Soil Mechanics No. 105, University of British Columbia. Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Brown P.T., Grof, I. and Hughes, J.M.O. (1985), "Design of Axially and Laterally Loaded Piles Using In-Situ Tests: A Case History," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 518-527. Robertson, P.K., Hughes, J.M.O., Campanella, R.G. and Sy, A. (1983), "Design of Laterally Loaded Displacement Piles Using a Driven Pressuremeter," ASTM STP 835, Design and Performance of Laterally Loaded  Piles and Pile Groups, June, Kansas City, MO. Robertson, P.K., Hughes, J.M.O., Campanella, R.G., Brown, P. and McKeown, S. (1986), "Design, of Laterally Loaded Piles Using the Pressuremeter," The Pressuremeter and its Marine Applications: Second International Symposium, ASTM STP 950, J-L Briaud and J.M.E. Audibert, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 443-457. Schmertmann, J.H. (1978), "Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test, Performance and Design," Federal Highway Administration, Report FHWA-TS-78-209, Washington, July, 145 pp. Schmertmann, J.H. (1982) , "A Method for Determining the Friction Angle in Sands From the Marchetti Dilatometer Test," Proc. ESOPT II, Amsterdam, 1982. Schmertmann, J.H. (1986), "Suggested Method for Performing the Flat Dilatometer Test," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GT-JODJ, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 1986, pp. 93-101. Scott, R.A. (1980), Foundation Engineering, McGraw Hill Inc., New York. Skempton, A.W. (1951), "The Bearing Capacity of Clays," Building Research Congress, Division I, Part 3, London. Smith, E.A.L. (1960), "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation," Journal of SMFE Div., Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 86, No. EM4. Smith, T.D. and Slyh, R. (1986), "Side Friction Mobilization Rates for Laterally Loaded Piles from the Pressuremeter," The Pressuremeter and Its  Marine Applications: Second International Symposium ASTM STP 950, J.L. Briaud and J.M.E. Audibert, Eds., ASTM, pp. 478-491. 206 Stevens, J.B. and Audibert, J.M.E. (1979), "Re-examination of P-y Curve Formulations," 11th Offshore Technology Conference, Paper 3402, May 1979, Vol. I, pp. 397-403. Tomlinson, M.J. (1957), "The Adhesion of Piles Driven in Clay Soils," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engng., London, Vol. 2, pp. 66-71. Tsang, C. (1987), "UBC Research Dilatometer," M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, June. Van Mierlo, W.C. and Koppejan, A.W. (1952), "Lengte en Draagvermogen van Heipalen," Bouw, January. Vesic, A.S. (1963), "Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations in Sand," Highway Research Record, No. 39, pp. 113-151. Vesic, A.S. (1967), "Ultimate Loads and Settlements of Deep Foundations in Sand," Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, A.S. Vesic Ed., Duke University, Durham, N.C., pp. 53-68. Vesic, A.S. (1977), Design of Pile Foundations, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Vijayvergiya, V.A. and Focht, J.A. (1972), "A New Way to Predict Capacity of Piles in Clays," Proc. Fourth Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol. 2, pp. 865-874. Wroth, CP. (1984), "The Interpretation of In-Situ Soil Tests," Geotechnique, 34, No. 4, pp. 449-489. Yan, L. (1986), "Numerical Studies of Some Aspects With Pressuremeter Tests and Laterally Loaded Piles," M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering. Zhou, J., Xie, Y., Zuo, Z.S., Luo, M.Y. and Tang, X.J. (1982), "Prediction of Limit Load of Driven Pile by CPT," Penetration Testing, Proc. 2nd European Symp. Penetration Testing, ESOPT II, Amsterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 957-961. APPENDIX I REDUCED IN-SITU TEST DATA L i s t i n g of DMT-PR-A5-1 at 12:21:40 on SEP 1. 1985 for CC1d=SITU Page 1 DMT PR 8 2 OUEENSBOROUGH, LULU I SLA 3 23-08-85 4 0.08 0.55 0.0 2.00 5 O.060 6 34.600 7 O 8 0 .40 1 .40 7 .40 9 O, .60 1 .70 4 .20 10 0 .80 1 .70 6 .00 11 1 . OO 1 .60 6 .40 12 1. ,20 1 .90 8 .50 13 1 , ,40 1 .90 9 .00 14 1. .60 1 .80 5, .80 15 1 . ,80 1 .50 5 .50 16 2. OO 1 .50 5 .90 17 2. ,20 1 .00 4 . ,20 18 2. 40 1 . 10 2, .30 19 2. ,60 0 .80 2 , .00 20 2. 80 1 .35 2. .20 21 3. OO 1 .35 2 . 10 22 3. ,20 1 . 10 2. . 10 23 3. .40 1 .35 2 .20 24 3. 60 1 , .40 2 .20 25 3. 80 1 .50 2. .40 26 4 . oo 1 , .50 2. .40 27 4. ,20 1 .50 2. .40 28 4. .40 1 .40 2 .20 29 4. ,60 1 .55 2. .30 30- 4. .80 1 .60 2 .40 31 5. ,00 1 .40 2 .30 32 5. ,20 1 .50 2, .30 33 5. ,40 1 .40 2. . 10 34 5. ,60 1 .40 2. .20 35 5. .80 1 .50 2 .20 36 6. ,00 1 .60 2. .30 37 6. ,20 1 .70 2. ,40 38 6. ,40 1 .60 2, .30 39 6. .60 1 .70 2. .50 40 6, .80 1 .80 2 .55 41 7. .00 1 .75 2 .55 42 7, .20 1 .80 2 .55 43 7, .40 1 .80 2 .60 44 7 .60 1 .80 2 .50 45 7. .BO 1 .90 2 .70 46 8. .00 1 .90 2. .70 47 8 .20 2 .05 3 .OO 48 8 .40 2 . 10 2 .90 49 8 .60 2 .00 2 .80 50 8 .80 2 . 10 2 .90 51 9 .00 2 .05 2 .90 52 • 9 .20 2 .20 3. . 10 53 9. .40 2 .20 3. . 10 54 9 .60 2 . 10 3 OO 55 9. .80 2 .30 3. .20 56 10 .OO 2 .30 3, . 10 57 10 .20 2 .20 3. oo 58 10 .40 2 .30 3, . 10 FILE NAME:DMT-PR-85-1 LOCATION:OUEENSBOR0UGH. LULU ISLADATE:23-08-85 TEST NUMBER:DMT PR 85-1 INTERMEDIATE DILATOMETER PARAMETERSFROM 0.40M T013.40M. NUMBER OF DATA POINTS: 66 2W= 2. OOM. DA = 0. 08 DB= 0 . 5 5 DEPTH A 8 PO PI ED 0.4 1 .4 7 .4 1 .2 6.8 195. 1 0.6 1 .7 4 .2 1 .7 3.6 67 .9 0.8 1 .7 6 .0 1 .6 5.4 133.3 1 .0 1 .6 6 .4 1 .5 5.8 151.5 1.2 1 .9 8 .5 1 . 7 7.9 216.9 1.4 1 .9 9 .0 1 .7 8.4 235. 1 1.6 1 .8 5 .8 1 .7 5.3 122.4 1.8 1 .5 5 .5 1 .4 4.9 122 .4 2.0 1 .5 5 .9 1 .4 5.3 137.0 2.2 1 .0 4 .2 1 .0 3.6 93.4 2.4 , 1 . 1 2 .3 1 .2 1 .8 20.7 2.6 0 .8 2 .0 0 .9 1.4 20.7 2.8 1 .4 2 .2 1 .4 1 .6 8.0 3.0 1 .4 2 . 1 1 .4 1 .6 4.4 3.2 1 . 1 2 . 1 1 .2 1 .6 13.4 3.4 1 .4 2 .2 1 .4 1 .6 8.0 3.6 1 .4 2 .2 1 . 5 1 .6 6.2 3.8 1 .5 2 .4 1 .6 1 .'8 9.8 4.0 1 .5 2 .4 1 .6 1 .8 9.8 4.2 1 .5 2 .4 1 .6 1 .8 9.8 4.4 1 .4 2 .2 1 . 5 1 .6 6.2 4.6 1 .6 2 .3 1 .6 1 .8 4.4 4.8 •: i .6 2 4 1 .7 1.8 6.2 5.0 i .4 2 3 1 .5 1.8 9.8 S.2 i . 5 2 3 1 .6 1 .8 6.2 5.4 i .4 2 . 1 1 .5 1 .6 2.5 5.6 1 .4 2 2 1 .5 1 .6 6.2 5.8 i .5 2 2 1 .6 1 .6 2.5 6.0 i .6 2 3 1 .7 1.8 2.5 6.2 1 .7 2 4 1 .8 1 .8 2.5 6.4 1 .6 2 3 1 .7 1.8 2.5 6.6 i .7 2 5 1 .8 1 .9 6.2 6.8 i .8 2 6 1 .9 2.0 4.4 7.0 •: i • 8 • 2 6 1 .8 2.0 6.2 7.2 1 .8 2 6 1 .9 2.0 4.4 7 .4 . •'• i .8 2 6 1 .9 2.1 6.2 7.6 i .8 2 5 1 .9 1 .9 2.5 7.8 •: 1 .9 •:' 2 7 - 2 .0 2.1 6.2 8.0 : 1 .9 *f 2 7 2 0 2. 1 6.2 8.2 2 . 1 3 0 2 . 1 2.4 11.6 8.4 2 . 1 2 9 2 2 2.3 6.2 8.6 2 .0 2 8 2 1 2.3 6.2 8.8 2 1 2 9 2 2 2.3 6.2 9 .0 2 . 1 2 9 2 . 1 2.3 8.0 9.2 2 .2 3 1 , 2 .3 2.6 1 9.8 9.4 2 .2 3 1 2 .3 2.6 9.8 9.6 2 . 1 3 0 2 .2 2.4 9.8 9.8 2 .3 3 2 2 4 2.6 9.8 10.0 2 .3 3 1 2 .4 2.6 -6.2 10.2 2 .2 3 0 2 3 2.4 6.2 10.4 2 .3 3 1 2 4 2.6 .6.2 10.6 : 2 .3 3 2 2 4 2.6 9.8 10.8 2 .4 3 4 2 S 2.8 13.4 11 .0 2 . 5 3 .4 2 .6 2.9 11.6 U.B.C.INSITU TESTING RESEARCH GROUP. ' F i l e Name:DMT-PR-85-1 Record of Dilatometer test No:DMT PR 85"* I Locat1on:QUEENSB0R0UGH. LULU ISLAND Date:23-08-85 C a l i b r a t i o n Informat1on:DA= 0.08 Bars Gamma-Bulk unit weight Sv - E f f e c t i v e o v e r . s t r e s s Uo =Pore pressure Id ^Material index Ed -Dilatometer modulus Kd -Hor izonta l s t ress Index DB= 0,55 Bars ZM= 0.0 Bars zw= 2.00 metres INTERPRETED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS Ko =Insitu earth p r e s s . c o e f f . OCR=OverconsolIdation Ratio M -Constra ined modulus Cu -Undrained cones1on(cohesive) PHI=Frict1on Angle(coheslonless) 2 PO : PI (m) (Bar) (Bar) Ed Uo Id (Bar) (Bar) Gamma Sv Kd (t/CM) (Bar) OCR Pc (Bar) KO Cu PHI M So i l Type (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) DescrIpt Ion . Z (m) 0 . 4 0 . 1 2 1 6 85 195. 0 0 4 65 1 80 0 060 20 2 ***** 8 69 2 79 40 6 607. SAND o.6o : 1 69 3 65 68. 0 0 1 16 1 70 0 094 17 9 30 65 2 88 2 61 207. SILT 0 . 8 0 1 60 5 45 . 133. 0 0 2 41 1 80 0 130 12 3 56 00 7 28 2 09 33 6 359. SILTY SAND 1 .OO 1 47 5 85 ; 151 . 0 0 2. 98 1 80 0 166 8 9 30 05 4 99 1 70 34 2 363 . SILTY SAND 1 .20 1 68 7 95 : 217 . 0 0 3. 73 1 80 0 202 8 3 26 65 5. 3B 1 64 35 9 508. SAND 1 .40 1 66 8 45 ; 235. 0 0 4. 10 1 BO 0 238 7 0 18 93 4. 51 1 46 36 2 514. SAND 1 .60 1 71 5 2 5 : 122. 0 0 2 07 1 80 0 274 6 2 15 40 4 22 1 36 30 5 253. SILTY SAND 1 .80 1 41 4 9 5 122. O 0 2 51 1 80 0 310 4 6 8 42 2 61 1 09 30 7 219. SILTY SAND 2 . 0 0 1 3 9 5 35 137. 0 0 2 84 1 80 0 346 4 0 6 64 2 30 0 99 31 1 233. SILTY SAND 2 . 2 0 0 95 3 65 93. 0 02 2 90 . 1 70 0 360 2 6 2 86 1 03 0 69 29 8 123 . SILTY SAND 2 . 4 0 1 15 1 75 21 . 0 04 0. 54 1 60 0 372 3 0 1 87 0. 70 0 78 0. 14 26. SILTY CLAY 2 . 6 0 0 85 1 45 21 . 0 06 0. 76 1 60 0 384 2 1 1 05 0. 40 0 56 0. 09 19. CLAYEY SILT 2 . 8 0 1 42 1 65 8. 0 08 0. 17 1 50 0 394 3 4 2 29 0. 90 0 87 0. 17 11 . MUD 3 .CO 1 42 1 55 4. 0 10 0 10 1 50 0 404 3 3 2 16 0. 87 0 84 0. 16 6. MUD 3 . 2 0 1 16 1 55 13. 0 12 0 37 1 60 0 416 2 5 1 42 0. 59 0 67 0. 12 .15. SILTY CLAY 3 . 4 0 ; 1 42 1 65 8. 0 14 0 18 1 50 0 426 3 0 1 88 0. 80 0 79 0. 16 10. MUD 3 . 6 0 1 47 1 65 6. 0 16 0. 14 1 50 0 436 3 0 1 89 0 82 0 79 0. 16 8. MUD 3 . 8 0 •> 1 . 5 7 1 85 10. 0 18 0 20 1 50 0 446 3 1 1 99 0. 89 0 81 0. 17 13. MUD 4 .OO 1 5 7 1 85 10. 0 20 0. 21 1 50 0 456 3 0 1 88 0. 86 0 78 0. 17 12. MUD 4.20 1 57 1 85 10. 0 22 0 21 1 50 0 466 2 9 1 78 0. 83 0 76 0. 16 12. MUD 4.40 1 47 1 65 6. 0 24 0 14 1 50 0 476 2 6 1 49 0. 71 0 69 0. 14 7. MUD 4.60 1 62 .1 75 4. 0 26 0 09 1 50 0 486 2 8 1 70 0 82 0 74 0. 16 5. MUD 4.80 1 67 1 85 6. 0 28 0 13 1 50 0 496 2 8 1 70 0. 84 0 74 0. 17 7. MUD 5 . 0 0 1 47 1 75 10. 0 30 0. 24 1 50 0 506 2 3 1 25 0. 63 0 62 0. 13 10. MUD 5 . 2 0 1 5 7 1 75 6. 0 32 0 14 1 50 0 516 2 4 1 35 0. 70 0 65 0. 14 6. MUD 5 . 4 0 1 48 1 55 3. 0 34 0 06 1 50 0 526 2 2 1 13 0. 59 0 59 0. 13 2. MUD 5 . 6 0 1 47 1 65 6. o 36 0 16 1 50 0 536 2 1 1 06 O. 57 0 56 0. 12 5. MUD 5 . BO 1 58 1 65 3. 0 38 0 06 1 50 0 546 2 2 1 15 0. 63 0 60 0. 13 2. MUD 6 .OO 1 68 1 75 3. 0 40 0 06 1 50 0 556 2 3 1 24 0 69 0 62 0. 15 3. MUD 6". 2 0 1 78 1 85 3 . 0 42 0 05 1 50 0 566 2 4 1 33 0. 75 0 65 0. 16 3. MUD 6.40 1 68 1 75 3. o 44 0 06 1 50 0 576 2 1 1 12 0. 64 0 58 0. 14 2. MUD 6.60 1 77 1 9 5 6. 0.'46 0 14 1 50 0 586 2 2 1 19 0. 70 0 61 0. 15 6. MUD CEMENTED LOW DENSITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOOSE SOFT COMPRESSIBLE SOFT 0.40 0.60 0.80 1 .OO 1 . 20 1 .40 1 .60 1 .80 2 .OO 2 . 20 2.40 2.60 2 .80 3 .00 3.20 3.40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 OO 5.20 5.40 60 80 00 20 40 60 Z PO . P 1 Ed Uo Id Gamma Sv Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI M So i l Type D e s c r i p t i o n (m) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (t/CM) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) Z (m) ••V; V. • f -.•'•''hj.':''• Uo Id Gamma Sv Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI ' ' M So i l Type (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) D e s c r i p t i o n (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (t/CM) (Bar) (Bar) 6.80 1 87 2 00 4. 0.48 0. 09 1 50 0 596 2 3 1 .28 0. 76 7.00 ' 1 82 2 00 6. 0.50 0. 14 1 50 0 606 2 2 1 . 14 0. 69 7 . 2 0 1 87 2 O O i 4. 0.52 0. 09 1 50 0 616 2 2 1 . 16 0. 71 7.40 '=.'1 87 2 05 • • • 1 6 . 0.54 0. 13 1 50 0 626 2 1 1 . 10 0. 69 7.60 1 88 , 1 95 3. 0.56 0. 06 1 50 0 636 2 1 1 .06 O . 67 7.80 f 1 97 : 2 15 :" 6. 0.58 0. 13 1 50 0 646 2 2 1 . 12 0. 73 8.00 97 2 15 > 6. 0.60 0. 13 1 50 0 656 2 1 1 .07 0. 70 8 . 2 0 ?a 11 X 2 45 7 • 1 2 . 0.62 0. 22 1 50 O 666 2 2 1 .20 0. 80 8.40 : 2 17 iii 2 35 6. 0.64 o. 12 1 50 0 676 2 3 1.21 0. 82 8.60 2.07 2 25 6. 0.66 0. 13 1 50 0 686 2 1 1 .05 0. 72 8.80 : 2 17 2 35 6. 0.68 o. 12 1 50 0 696 2 1 1.11 0. 78 9.00 'i 2 1 2 .:' 2 35 !• i"; 8. 0.70 0. 16 1 50 ; 0 706 2 O i 1 .01 0. 71 9 . 2 0 ; 2 27 •;' 2 55 1 0 . 0.72 0. 18 1 50 O 716 2 2i 1 . 13 0. 81 9.40 i 2 27 5 2 55 10. 0.74 0. 19 1 50 0 726 2 1 : 1 .08 0. 78 9.60 2 17 ; 2 45 10. 0.76 o. 20 1 50 0 736 1 9 0.93 O 69 9.80 2 37 2 65 1 0 . 0.78 o. 18 1 50 0 746 2 1 1 . 10 0. 82 1 0 . O O 2 37 1 2 55 , 6. 0.80 o. 11 1 50 0 756 2 i 1 .06 0. 80 1 0 . 2 0 2 27 2 45 i 6. '0.82 0. 12 1 50 0 766 1 9 0.92 0. 70 1 0 . 4 0 ;. 2 37 ; 2 55 6. 0.84 o. 12 1 50 0 776 2 0 0.98 0. 76 1 0 . 6 0 2 37 2 65 1 0 L 0.86 0. 19 1 50 0 786 1 9 0.94 0. 74 1 0 . 8 0 •2 46 2 85 ; • i 3 . 0.88 0. 25 1 60 0 798 2 0 0.99 0. 79 1 1 . O O 2 56 2 90 :U 1 2 . 0.90 o. 20 1 50 0 808 2 1 1 .05 0. 85 11 . 2 0 2 67 2 95 , 1 0 . 0.92 0. 16 1 50 0 818 2 1 1.11 0. 91 11.40 2 77 3 05 ' 10. 0.94 0. 16 1 50 o 828 2 2 1 . 17 0. 96 11.60 2 87 . 3 15 : lO. 0.96 0. 15 1 50 . 0 838 2 3 1 .22 1 02 11.80 3 25 3 85 : 21 . 0.98 0. 26 1 60 0 850 2 7 1 .57 1 . 34 1 2 . O O 3 70 4 40 i- '': 24. 1 . O O 0. 26 1 60 0 862 3 1 2.01 1 . 73 1 2 . 2 0 4 14 ; 4 95 28. 1.02 0. 26 ; 1 70 0 876 3 6 2.46 2. 16 1 2 . 4 0 4 05 ' 4 65 ! 21. 1.04 0. 20 I ' 1 60 0 888 3 4 2.28 2. 02 1 2 . 6 0 3 85 ! 4 45 2 1 . 1.06 0. 21 1 60 0 900 3 1 1 .98 1 78 1 2 . 8 0 :J 3 25 : 3 85 1 2 1 : 1.08 0. 28 1 60 0 912 2 4 1.31 1 20 13.00 3 65 4 35 24. ! 1. 10 0. 28 1 60 0 924 2 8 1 .65 1 52 1 3 . 2 0 4 04 4 .85 28. 1.12 0. 28 1 .70 0 938 3 1 2.00 1 87 13.40 3 56 4 05 17. '1.14 o. 20 1 60 0 950 2 5 1 .46 1. 38 z (m) 0.63 0.59 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.59 0.57 0.61 0.61 0.56 0.58 0.55 0.59 0.57 0.52 0.58 0.57 0.52 0.54 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.71 0.81 0.90 0.87 0.81 0.64 0.73 0.81 0.68 16 15 15 15 15 16 15 17 17 16 17 16 17 17 15 18 17 O. 16 0.17 0. 16 0. 17 O. 18 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.40 0.38 0.34 0.25 0.30 0.36 0.28 4 . MUD 6. MUD 7 .OO 4. MUD 7.20 6. MUD 7.40 2. MUD 7.60 6 . MUD 7.80 6 . MUD 8.00 1 1 . MUD 8.20 6. MUD 8.40 5 . i MUD 8.60 6. MUD 8.80 i 7. MUD 9.00 9. MUD 9.20 9 . MUD 9.40 8. MUD 9.60 9. MUD 9.80 5. MUD 10.00 5. MUD 10.20 5. MUD 10.40 8. MUD 10.60 1 1 . CLAY SOFT 10.80 10. MUD 1 1 .OO 9. MUD 1 1 .20 9. MUD 1 1 .40 10. MUD 1 1 .60 24. CLAY SOFT 1 1 .80 32. CLAY SOFT 12.OO 40. CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 12.20 29. CLAY . SOFT 12.40 27. CLAY SOFT 12.60 21 . CLAY SOFT 12.80 29. CLAY SOFT 13.00 36 . CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 13.20 19. CLAY SOFT 13.40 M Soi l Type D e s c r i p t i o n ' Z Z PO (m) (Bar) P 1 ; Ed .-I; Uo Id (Bar) } (Bar); (Bar) Gamma Sv Kd (t/CM) (Bar) OCR i Pc (Bar) KO Cu PHI (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) NOTES: :1.For 0.9>Id>1.2 nei ther Cu nor Phi c a l c u l a t e d . 2.1Bar»100KPa , 3.# =1mm Def lec t ion not reached. COMMENTS! to UM.C. INSITU TESTING. Location: QUEENSBOROUGH PILE RESEARCH SITE Test No. DMT 85-1 Test Date; 23-08-85 I N T E R P R E T E D GEOTECHN ICAL PARAMETERS . cn) mdaa o O ' l i re 0*S O 'L 0'6 O ' U OCT in 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j U£.C. INSITU TESTING. Location: QUEENSBOROUGH PILE RESEARCH SITE INTERMEDIATE GEOTECHNICRL PARAMETERS Test No. DMT 85-1 Test Date; 23-08-85 cn ZD •—I ZD -a a i_ QJ Q_ +-• n cu E = O • M ro x —i u ro " ° +-1 *-C M a M C O —i cn L_ QJ a t_ X +--CO cn cn cu CO ro cn cu > CD Q_ (Hi) Mldaa 0"9 O'Z. J L 0 . I -oSb LU * CD C O - a s ^ i a Q_ o o' i i i i i I i i I i r O'l O'E 0'9 O'L 0'6 O'U O'EI (M) mdan L i s t i n g of DMT-PR-85-2 at 12:22:26 on SEP 1. 1985 for CC1d=S?TU Page , 1 : dmt 85-2 . 2 ... • : queensborough .. •- i 3 . ' 29-08- 85 :., U'/ ; . " i 4 - I - 0.14 0 13 ,0 0 ; 2 00 '•  .5 ; 0.100 , -£ 1 '.' ,6i--'.- 34.600 . r i i L . .Is- • 0 '' S3 • .8 0.60 3 5014 20 .9 0.80 4 5013 80 10 1 .00 2 50 9 70 11 1 .20 2 301 1 40 : 12 1 .40 3 601 1 20 13. : • • 1 .60 1 30 6 70 , 14 ; 2.00 2 7011.00. 15;; ' 2.20 3 10 8 80 16! 2i40 1 20 1 90 \7) 2.60 1 00 2 40 18; 2.80 1. 30 2 30 1 , 19? 3.00 1 40 2 20 20 4.00 1 40 2 20 21 . 5.00 1 40 2 1 0 - , •' 22 6.00 1 80 2 60 23- 7.00 1 80 2 60 24 , S.OO 1 90 2 80 25 9.00 2 00 2 70 26 10.00 2 40 3 20 27 11 .00 2 50 3 20 28 12.00 3 40 4 60 . 29 13.00 3 60 4 60 30 • 14.00 3 20 4 OO. 31? . ' 14.20 3 50 4 30 • 32 r 14.40 4.00 5 00 33 i 14.60 3 20 .4 20 • 34-i 14.80 3 20 4 OO 35 15.00 3 20 5 50 " 36 15.20 2 80 4 00 37 . '• 15.40 4 00 7 60 • 38 : '.• 15.60 9 6024 20 39 : 15.80 8 8020 40 40 16.OO 5 8012 80 41 16.20 5 4013 80 42 16.40 9 0024 80 43 16.60 9 0022 00 4 4 ; 16.80 7 8022 80 45 17.00 9 0020 20 46 : 17.20 4 6010 80 47 17.40 9 6021 60 : : 48' 17.60 6 6013 40 . : 49 17.8011 .0024 .00', 50 18.0010 2023 00 ; 51 18.2010 2023 60' 52" 18.40 8 4019 0 0 -53 18.60 7 8017 80 54 18.80 7 1016 SO 55 19.00 6 9016 60: 56 19.20 7 5017 80 57 19.40 7 5018 20 58 19.60 7 8018 80 L i s t i n g of DMT-PR-85-2 at 12:22:26 on SEP 1, 117 31.40 5.40 7.00 118 31.60 8.7017.00 119 -.31 .80 5.80 7.30 120 : 32.00 6.20 7.30 121 32.20 8.0013.00 122 32.40 7.7013.40 123 32.60 8.9015.70 124 32.80 6.2010.20 125 : 33.OO 7.1011.30 126 33.20 5.70 8.00 127 33.40 6.60 8.00 128 33.60 8.8014.40 1985 for CC1d=SITU Page Cn FILE NAME:dmt-pr-85-2 LOCATION:queensborough DATE:29-08-85 TEST NUMBER:dmt 85-2 INTERMEDIATE DILATOMETER PARAMETERSFROM 0.60M T033.GOM. NUMBER OF DATA POINTS: 121 2M= 0.0 ZW- 2. OOM DA- 0. 14 DB » 0. 13 DEPTH A B PO PI ED 0.6 3 .5 . 14 .2 3 . 1 14 . 1 378.9 0.8 4 .5 ;! 13 .8 , 4 .2 13 .7 328 . 1 1.0 V 2 • 5 9 .7 ) 2 .3 9 .6 251 .8 1.2 2 .3 11 .4 i 2 .0 1 1 .3 320 .8 : 1.4 3 .6 11 .2 i 3 .4 i 1 1 . 1 266 .3 1.6 1 .3 •- 6 .7 .•> 1 .2 6 .6 186 .4 2.0 2 .7 ; 1 1 .0 : 2 .4 10 .9 291 .7 2.2 3 . 1 • 8 .8 3 .0 8 .7 197 .3 2.4 1 .2> 1 .9 1 . 3 1 .8 15 .6 2.6 1 .0 2 . 4 , 1 . 1 2 .3 41 . 1 2.8 i 1 .3 • 2 .3 1 .4 2 .2 26 .5 3.0 • 1 .4 : 2 .2 1 .5 2 1 19 .3 4.0 » 1 . 4 2 .2 1 .5? 2 . 1 19 .3 . 5.0 1 .4 < 2 . 1 : 1 .5 , 2 O 15 6 : 6.0 1 .8 i 2 .6 : 1 .9 2 5 19 3 7.0 " 1 .8 i 2 .6 • 1 9 • 2 5 i 19 3 8.0 1 .9 •? 2 .8 ; 2 .0 . 2 .7 22 .9 ; 9.0 1 2 .0 '•• 2 .7 2 . 1 2 6 ' 15 6 10.0 ' 2 .4 \ 3 .2 : 2 .5 3 1 -• 19 3 : W.O' 2 . 5 •-• 3 .2 2 .6 3 1 •' 15 6 12.0 ' 3 .4 4 .6 3 .5 4 5 33 8 13.0 3 .6 4 .6 3 7 4 5 26 5 14.0 3 . 2 4 .O 3 3 3 9 19 3 14.2 3 5 4 3 3 6 : 4 2 i 19 3 ., 14.4 4 0 ; 5 .0 4 1 4 9 26 5 14.6 3 2 • 4 2 3 3 4 1 - 26 5 14.8 3 2 - 4 0 3 3 3 9 - 19 3 15.0 ' 3 2 5 5 - 3 2 • 5 4 73 8 15.2 - •2 8 ' 4 0 2 9 3 9 • 33 8 15.4 - 4 0 - 7 6 4 0 7 5 121 0 15.6- 9 6 : 24 2 9 O 24 1 520 6 15.8 < 8 8 ; 20 4 8 4 20 3 411 6 16.0 5 8 > 12 a 5 6 12 7 244 5 16.2 ' 5 4 • 13 .8 5 1 13 7 295 4 16.4 - 9 0 24 8 a 4 24 7 564 2 16.6 9 0 22 0 8 5 21 9 462 5 16.8 7 8 22 8 7 2 22 7 535 1 17.0 9 0 20 .2 8 6 20 1 397 1 17.2 4 6 10 8 4 4 10.7 215 4 17.4 9 6 21 6 9 2 21 5 426 2 17.6 i 6 6 13 4 6 4 13 3 237 2 17.8 ' 11 O ; 24 0 ' 10 5 23 9 462 5 18.0 ; 10 2 ' 23 0 ; 9 7 22 9 455 2 18.2- 10.2 ' 23 6 ; 9 7 23 5 477 0 18.4 * 8 4 ; 19 o :• i 8 0 : 18 9 375 3 18.6 f 7 8 17 a 7 5 17 7 353 5 ' 18.8 :' 7 . 1 16 8 1 6 8 16 7 342 6 19.0* 6 9 16 6 6 6 •' 16. 5 342. 6 19.2 : 7 5 ' 17 8 7 1 17. 7 364. 4 19.4 7 5 18 2 ' 7 1 18 1 378 9 ' 19.6 7 .8 18 .8 7 4 18 7 389 8 19.8 8 .3 20 4 7 8 20 3 429 8 20.0 9 .5 23 .8 8 9 23 7 509 7 20.2 1 1 8 30 2 11 O 30 1 658 7 to O N U.B.C.INSITU TESTING RESEARCH GROUP. F i l e Name:dmt-pi—85-2 Record of Dilatometer test No:dmt 85-2 Locat ion:queensborough Date:29-08-85 C a l i b r a t i o n Informat1on:DA= 0.14 Bars DB= 0.13 Bars ZM = 0.0 Bars ZW = 2.00 metres Gamma=Bulk unit weight * Sv "E f fec t i ve over .s t ress Uo =Pore pressure Id =Mater1a1 Index Ed =D11atometer modulus Kd "Horizontal s t ress ' Index INTERPRETED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS Ko =Insitu earth p r e s s . c o e f f . 0CR=0verconsolIdatIon Ratio M "Constrained modulus Cu =Undra1ned cohes1on(cohes1ve) PHI = Fr lc t1on Ang1e(cohes1 on!ess) 2 PO P1 Ed Uo Id (m) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) Gamma Sv Kd (t/CM) (Bar) OCR Pc KO (Bar) Cu PHI M Soi l Type (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) Descr1pt1 on Z (m) 0 60 3 12 14 07 379. 0 0 3 51 1 90 0 80 4 19 13 67 328. 0 0 2 26 1 90 1 OO 2 29 9 57 252. a 0 3 17 1 90 1 20 2 00 11 27 321 . 0 0 4 64 1 90 1 40 3 37 11 07 266. 0 0 2 28 1 90 1 60 1 18 6 57 186. 0 0 4 55 1 80 2 OO 2 44 10 87 292. 0 0 3 46 1 90 2 20 2 97 8 67 197. 0 02 1 93 1 90 2 40 1 32 1 77 16. 0 04 O 35 1 60 2 60 1 08 2 27 41 . 0 06 1 16 1 60 2 80 1 40 2 17 27. 0 08 0 58 1 60 3 00 1 51 2 07 19. 0 10 0 39 1 60 4 OO 1 51 2 07 19. 0 20 0 42 1 60 5 00 1 52 1 97 16. 0 30 0 37 1 60 6 00 1 91 2 47 19. 0 40 0 37 1 60 7 00 1 91 2 47 19. 0 50 0 39 1 60 8 OO 2 01 2 67 23. 0 60 0 47 1 60 9 OO 2 12 2 57 16. 0 70 0 32 1 60 10 OO 2 51 3 07 19 . 0 80 0 32 1 60 1 1 00 2 62 3 07 16. 0 90 0 26 1 60 12 OO 3 49 4 47 34 . 1 00 0 39 1 70 13 OO 3 70 4 47 27. 1 10 0 29 1 60 14 .00 3 31 3 87 19. 1 20 0 26 1 60 14 20 3 61 4 17 19. 1 22 0 23 1 60 14 40 4 10 4 87 27. 1 24 0 27 1 70 14 60 3 30 4 07 27 . 1 26 0 38 1 60 14 80 3 31 3 87 19. 1 28 0 27 1 60 15 OO 3 24 5 37 74 . 1 30 1 10 1 70 15 20 2 89 3 87 34 . 1 32 0 62 1 60 15 40 3 97 7 47 121 . 1 34 1 33 1 70 15 60 9 02 24 07 521 . 1 36 1 96 2 .00 15 80 8 37 20 27 412. 1 38 1 70 1 95 Z PO PI Ed Uo Id Gamma (m) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (t/CM) 0 100 31 2 ***** 33 21 3 56 38 8 1322 0 138 30 4 ***** 43 52 3 51 35 3 1 165 0 176 13 0 62 72 1 1 04 2 16 35 9 687 0 214 9 3 33 19 7 10 1 76 38 4 783 0 252 13 4 66 03 16 64 2 20 33 4 739 0 288 4 1 6 92 1 99 1 01 35 0 322 0 364 6 7 17 60 6 41 1 42 34 5 628 0 382 7 7 21 13 8 07 1 56 30 7 445 0 394 3 2 2 13 0 84 0 84 0 16 21 0 406 2 5 1 43 0 58 0 68 47 0 4 18 3 2 2 05 0 86 0 82 0 16 35 0 430 3 3 2 17 0 93 0 85 0 18 26 0 490 2 7 1 58 0 77 0 71 0 16 22 0 550 2 2 1 17 0 65 0 60 0 14 15 0 610 2 5 1 40 0 85 0 67 0 18 21 0 670 2 1 1 09 0 73 0 57 0 16 17 0 730 1 9 0 95 0 69 0 53 0 15 19 0 790 1 8 0 85 0 67 0 49 0 15 13 0 850 2 0 1 01 0 86 o 55 0 19 17 0 910 1 9 0 91 0 83 0 51 0 19 13 0 980 2 5 1 46 1 43 0 68 0 29 37 1 040 2 5 1 42 1 48 0 67 0 30 29 1 100 1 9 0 94 1 03 0 52 0 23 16 1 112 2 2 1 12 1 25 0 58 0 27 18 1 126 2 5 1 45 1 64 0 68 0 33 29 1 138 1 8 0 85 0 96 0 49 0 22 23 1 150 1 8 0 83 0 95 0 48 0 22 16 1 164 1 7 0 75 0 87 0 45 63 1 176 1 3 0 53 0 63 o 35 O 16 29 1 190 2 2 1 28 1 53 o 60 26 1 124 1 210 6 3 15 11 18 28 1 37 30 2 1079 1 229 5 7 9 06 1 1 14 1 27 29 1 808 Sv Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI M (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (DegJ (Bar) SAND CEMENTED 0 60 SILTY SAND CEMENTED 0 80 SILTY SAND CEMENTED 1 00 SAND CEMENTED 1 20 SILTY SAND MEDIUM RIGIDITY 1 40 SAND LOW RIGIDITY 1 60 SAND MEDIUM RIGIDITY 2 00 SILTY SAND MEDIUM RIGIDITY 2 20 SILTY CLAY SOFT 2 40 SILT COMPRESSIBLE 2 60 SILTY CLAY SOFT 2 80 SILTY CLAY SOFT 3 OO SILTY CLAY SOFT 4 00 SILTY CLAY SOFT 5 OO SILTY CLAY SOFT 6 00 SILTY CLAY SOFT 7 00 SILTY CLAY SOFT 8 OO CLAY SOFT 9 OO CLAY SOFT 10 OO CLAY SOFT 1 1 OO SILTY CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 12 OO CLAY SOFT 13 00 CLAY SOFT 14 00 CLAY SOFT 14 20 CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 14 40 SILTY CLAY SOFT 14 60 CLAY SOFT 14 80 SILT LOW DENSITY 15 OO CLAYEY SILT COMPRESSIBLE 15 20 SANDY SILT LOW DENSITY 15 40 SILTY SAND RIGID 15 60 SANDY SILT DENSE 15 80 Soi l Type Descr ip t ion Z (m) fo (—1 Z PO P1 Ed Uo Id Gamma Sv Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI M So i l Type D e s c r i p t i o n (m) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (t/CM) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) Z (m) 16 00 5 60 12 67 245. 1 40 1 68 1 80 1 245 3 4 3 51 4 16 20 5 13 13 67 295. 1 42 2 30 1 90 1 263 2 9 3 65 4 16 40 8 36 24 67 564. 1 44 2 36 2 00 1 283 5 4 1 1 64 14 16 60 8 50 21 87 462. 1 46 1 90 2 OO 1 303 5 4 10 37 13 16 80 7 20 22 67 535. 1 48 2 70 2 00 1 323 4 3 7 63 10 17 00 8 59 20 07 397 . 1 50 1 62 1 95 1 342 5 3 7 23 9 17 20 4 44 10 67 215. 1 52 2 13 1 90 1 360 2 1 2 01 2 17 40 9 15 21 47 426. 1 54 1 62 1 95 1 379 5 5 7 80 10 17 60 6 41 13 27 237 . 1 56 1 41 1 80 1 395 3 5 2 88 4 17 80 10 50 23 87 462. 1 58 1 50 1 95 1 414 6 3 8 53 12 18 OO 9 71 22 87 455. 1 60 1 62 1 95 1 433 5 7 8 19 1 1 18 20 9 68 23 47 477 . 1 62 1 71 1 95 1 452 5 6 8 76 12 18 40 8 02 18 87 375. 1 64 1 70 1 95 1 471 4 3 5 58 8 18 60 7 45 17 67 353. 1 66 1 76 1 95 1 490 3 9 4 90 7 18 80 6 77 16 67 343. 1 68 1 95 2 00 1 510 3 4 4 50 6 19 00 6 57 16 47 343. 1 70 2 03 2 00 1 530 3 2 4 25 6 19 20 7 14 17 67 364. 1 72 1 94 2 00 1 550 3 5 4 81 7 19 40 7 12 18 07 379. 1 74 2 04 2 OO 1 570 3 4 4 89 7 19 60 7 40 18 67 390. 1 76 2 00 2 00 1 590 3 5 5 21 8 19 80 7 85 20 27 430. 1 78 2 05 2 00 1 610 3 8 5 87 9 20 00 8 94 23 67 510. 1 80 2 06 2 00 1 630 4 4 7 81 12 20 20 1 1 03 30 07 659. 1 82 2 07 2 15 1 653 5 6 12 39 20 20 40 12 58 34 87 771 . 1 84 2 08 2 15 1 676 6 4 16 16 27 20 60 15 07 33 27 630. 1 86 1 38 2 10 1 698 7 8 10 42 17 20 80 9 41 24 67 528. 1 88 2 03 2 00 1 718 4 4 7 83 13 21 00 11 45 25 87 499. 1 90. 1 51 2 10 1 740 5 5 6 83 11 21 20 10 34 22 87 433. 1 92 1 49 1 95 1 759 4 8 5 29 9 21 40 7 16 15 07 274. 1 94 1 51 1 95 1 778 2 9 2 38 4 21 60 9 02 21 97 448. 1 96 1 83 2 00 1 798 3 9 5 35 9 21 80 8 60 19 87 390. 1 98 1 70 1 95 1 817 3 6 4 10 7 22 OO 7 26 13 07 201 . 2 00 1 10 1 80 1 833 2 9 1 76 3 22 20 7 78 15 27 259. 2 02 1 30 1 95 1 852 3 1 2 17 4 22 40 1 1 03 23 87 444 . 2 04 1 43 1 95 1 871 4 8 5 00 9 22 60 6 17 18 17 415. 2 06 2 92 2 OO 1 891 2 2 2 05 3 22 80 9 74 20 27 364 . 2 08 1 38 1 95 1 910 4 0 3 51 6 23 00 8 23 18 97 372. 2 10 1 75 1 95 1 929 3 2 3 37 6 23 20 12 09 27 87 546. 2 12 1 58 2 10 1 951 5 1 6 56 12 23 40 14 03 39 37 877 . 2 14 2 13 2 15 1 974 6 0 14 37 28 23 60 15 47 37 97 779. 2 16 1 69 2 10 1 996 6 7 1 1 86 23 23 80 14 42 37 87 811. 2 18 1 92 2 15 2 019 6 1 13 12 26 24 OO 13 30 30 97 611. 2 20 1 59 2 10 2 041 5 4 7 38 15 24 20 13 31 28 57 528. 2 22 1 38 2 10 2 063 5 4 5 68 1 1 24 40 9 41 20 57 386. 2 24 1 56 1 95 2 082 3 4 3 24 6 24 60 9 05 21 37 426. 2 26 1 81 2 00 2 102 3 2 3 67 7 24 .80 9 81 20 97 386. 2 28 1 48 1 95 2 121 3 5 3 18 6 25 .00 8 04 18 47 361 . 2 30 1 82 2 00 2 141 2 7 2 62 5 37 0 86 27 9 358. SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 16 00 61 0 77 29 0 408. SILTY SAND MEDIUM RIGIDITY 16 20 94 1 23 30 8 1094 . SILTY SAND RIGID 16 40 51 1 23 29 6 889. SILTY SAND RIGID 16 60 10 1 05 31 0 940. Sl lTY SAND RIGID 16 80 71 1 21 28 7 750. SANDY SILT DENSE 17 00 73 0 58 27 9 232 . SILTY SAND MEDIUM RIGIDITY 17 20 76 1 24 28 8 823. SANDY SILT DENSE 17 40 02 0 89 27 3 350. SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 17 60 07 1 36 28 8 950. SANDY SILT DENSE 17 80 73 1 27 28 9 890. SANDY SILT DENSE 18 00 72 1 25 29 1 925. SANDY SILT DENSE 18 20 21- 1 05 . 28 5 640. SANDY SILT DENSE 18 40 30 0 96 28 4 567 . SANDY SILT DENSE 18 60 79 0 86 28 5 507 . SILTY SAND RIGID 18 80 50 0 82 28 6 491 . SILTY SAND RIGID 19 00 45 0 89 28 6 552 . SILTY SAND RIGID 19 20 68 0 87 28 8 569. SILTY SAND RIGID 19 40 29 0 90 28 7 597 . SILTY SAND RIGID 19 60 45 0 94 29 0 684 . SILTY SAND RIGID 19 80 74 1 05 29 4 883. SILTY SAND RIGID 20 00 48 1 25 30 1 1289. SILTY SAND VERY RIGID 20 20 09 1 38 30 6 1609. SILTY SAND VERY RIGID 20 40 69 1 57 28 9 1420. SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 20 60 46 1 06 29 3 914 . SILTY SAND RIGID 20 80 88 1 24 28 5 958 . SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 21 00 31 1 13 28 1 775. SANDY SILT DENSE 21 20 22 0 77 27 2 360. SANDY SILT DENSE 21 40 62 0 97 28 6 725. SILTY SAND RIGID 21 60 45 0 92 28 1 600. SANDY SILT DENSE 21 80 22 0 76 254 . SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 22 00 02 0 81 26 7 351 . SANDY SILT DENSE 22 20 35 1 13 27 9 795 . SANDY SILT DENSE 22 40 87 0 59 29 4 484 . SILTY SAND RIGID 22 60 71 0 99 27 4 586. SANDY SILT DENSE 22 80 50 0 82 27 9 524 . SANDY SILT DENSE 23 00 80 1 18 28 5 1013. SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 23 20 37 1 32 30 5 1781 . SILTY SAND VERY RIGID 23 40 67 1 42 29 5 1645. SANDY SILT 'VERY DENSE 23 60 50 1 33 29 9 1647 . SILTY SAND VERY RIGID 23 80 07 1 23 28 7 117 1. SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 24 00 71 1 22 28 0 1001 . SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 24 20 74 0 88 27 6 569. SANDY SILT DENSE 24 40 72 0 83 28 1 610. SILTY SAND RIGID 24 60 74 0 90 27 5" 578 . SANDY SILT DENSE 24 80 60 0 71 27 7 453. SILTY SAND RIGID 25 00 Z PO P1 Ed Uo Id Gamma Sv Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI M So i l Type Descr ip t ion (m) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (t/CM) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) Z (m) PO PI Ed Uo Id Gamma Sv Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI So i l Type Descr ip t ion (ro) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar) (t/CM) (Bar) 25 20 8 86 18 87 346. 2 32 1 53 1 95 2 160 25 40 7 72 16 57 306. 2 34 1 65 1 95 2 179 25 60 8 54 16 97 292. 2 36 1 36 1 95 2 198 25 80 5 93 a 27 81. 2 38 0 66 1 80 2 214 26 00 9 09 20 67 401. 2 40 1 73 1 95 2 233 26 20 11 08 26 97 550. 2 42 1 83 2 00 2 253 26 40 13 06 29 37 564. 2 44 1 53 2 10 2 275 26 60 11 11 24 27 455. 2 46 1 52 1 95 2 294 26 80 10 60 21 87 390. 2 48 1 39 1 95 2 313 27 00 11 35 23 67 426. 2 50 1 39 1 95 2 332 27 20 11 33 26 27 517. 2 52 1 70 1 95 2 351 27 40 11 35 27 87 571 . 2 54 1 87 2 15 2 374 27 60 14 23 33 37 662. 2 56 1 64 2 10 2 396 27 80 13 99 31 87 619. 2 58 1 57 2 10 2 418 28 00 11 96 30 47 640. 2 60 1 98 2 15 2 441 28 20 15 77 36 07 702. 2 62 1 54 2 10 2 463 28 40 8 47 18 27 339. 2 64 1 68 1 95 2 482 28 60 8 66 14 47 201 . 2 66 0 97 1 95 2 501 28 80 7 54 15 87 288. 2 68 1 71 1 95 2 520 29 00 8 88 18 47 332. 2 70 1 55 1 95 2 539 29 20 9 71 20 87 386. 2 72 1 60 1 95 2 558 29 40 7 12 15 87 303. 2 74 2 OO 1 90 2 576 29 60 5 38 8 67 1 14. 2 76 1 25 1 70 2 590 29 80 7 58 15 17 263. 2 78 1 58 1 80 2 606 30 00 7 63 14 07 223. 2 80 1 33 1 80 2 622 30 20 6 99 12 17 179. 2 82 1 24 1 80 2 638 30 40 6 66 12 47 201 . 2 84 1 52 1 80 2 654 30 60 6 04 8 07 70. 2 86 0 64 1 70 2 668 30 80 7 11 11 97 168. 2 88 1 15 1 SO 2 684 31 00 6 08 7 27 41 . 2 90 0 37 1 70 2 698 31 20 5 68 6 97 45. 2 92 0 47 1 70 2 712 31 40 5 47 6 87 48. 2 94 0 55 1 70 2 726 31 60 a 44 16 87 292. 2 96 1 54 1 95 2 745 31 80 5 88 7 17 45. 2 98 0 45 1 70 2 759 32 00 6 30 7 17 30. 3 00 0 26 1 70 2 773 32 20 7 90 12 87 172. 3 02 1 02 1 80 2 789 32 40 7 57 13 27 197. 3 04 1 26 1 80 2 805 32 60 8 71 15 57 237. 3 06 1 21 1 95 2 824 32 80 6 15 10 07 136. 3 08 1 27 1 80 2 840 33 00 7 04 11 17 143. 3 10 1 05 1 .80 2 856 33 20 5 74 7 .87 74. 3 12 0 81 1 .70 2 870 33 40 6 .68 7 .87 41 . 3 14 0 33 1 70 2 884 33 60 8 .67 14 27 194. 3 16 1 02 1 80 2 900 (Bar) (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) (m) 5 48 0 79 27 3 467. SANDY SILT DENSE 25 20 4 27 0 66 27 2 356. SANDY SILT DENSE 25 40 4 28 0 74 26 7 368. SANDY SILT DENSE 25 60 1 57 0 43 0 37 69. CLAYEY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 25 80 6 64 0 78 27 8 542. SANDY SILT DENSE 26 00 11 61 0 96 28 5 878 . SILTY SAND RIGID 26 20 12 14 1 1 1 28 2 996. SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 26 40 8 38 0 94 27 7 710. SANDY SILT DENSE 26 60 6 61 0 89 27 2 577. SANDY SILT DENSE 26 80 7 60 0 95 27 4 664 . SANDY SILT DENSE 27 00 10 08 0 94 28 1 809. SANDY SILT DENSE 27 20 1 1 93 0 93 28 6 895. SILTY SAND VERY RIGID 27 40 15 40 1 14 28 6 1200. SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 27 60 13 59 1 11 28 3 1 100. SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 27 80 14 47 0 95 28 9 1027 . SILTY SAND VERY RIGID 28 00 16 67 1 22 28 5 1331 . SANDY SILT VERY DENSE 28 20 4 59 0 64 27 2 379. SANDY SILT DENSE 28 40 3 32 0 65 215. SILT DENSE 28 60 3 36 0 53 26 9 269. SANDY SILT DENSE 28 80 4 51 0 66 26 9 378. SANDY SILT DENSE 29 OO 5 76 0 73 27 3 484 . SANDY SILT DENSE 29 20 3 30 0 46 27 2 257. SILTY SAND MEDIUM RIGIDITY 29 40 0 91 0 23 25 0 97 . SANDY SILT LOW DENSITY 29 60 2 93 0 50 26 5 230. SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 29 80 2 51 o 50 25 7 189. SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 30 OO 1 87 0 43 25 0 152. SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 30 20 1 89 0 38 25 7 171 . SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 30 40 1 19 0 30 0 31 60. CLAYEY SILT LOW DENSITY 30 60 1 85 0 42 143. SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 30 80 1 18 0 29 0 31 35. SILTY CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 31 00 0 94 0 23 0 26 38. SILTY CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 31 20 0 82 0 20 0 23 41 . SILTY CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 31 40 3 44 0 54 26 5 276 . SANDY SILT DENSE 31 60 1 01 0 25 0 27 38 . SILTY CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 31 80 1 23 0 30 0 32 26. CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 32 00 2 27 0 48 146. SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 32 20 2 08 0 44 25 0 168 . SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 32 40 2 85 0 55 25 3 217 . SANDY SILT DENSE 32 60 1 12 0 26 25 0 1 15. SANDY SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 32 80 1 60 0 36 121 . SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 33 00 0 84 0 19 0 24 63. SILT LOW DENSITY 33 .20 1 35 0 31 0 35 35. SILTY CLAY LOW CONSISTENCY 33 .40 2 68 0 52 165. SILT MEDIUM DENSITY 33 60 1 .0 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1 .2 1 .6 1 .2 1.0 0.9 2.0 1 . 1 1.2 1 .8 1.6 2.0 1 . 1 1 .4 0.9 1 .2 1.9 2 .54 1 .96 1 .95 0.71 2 .97 5. 15 5.33 3.65 2.86 3.26 4.29 5.03 6.43 5.62 5.93 6.77 1 .85 1 .33 1 .33 1 .78 2.25 1 .28 O. 1 . 0. O. 0. .35 12 .96 .71 .71 0.45 0.69 0.44 0.35 0.30 1 .25 0.37 0.44 0.81 O. 74 1 .01 0.40 0.56 0.29 0.47 0.92 Z (m) PO P1 (Bar) (Bar) Ed Uo Id (Bar) (Bar) Gamma Sv (t/CM) (Bar) Kd OCR Pc KO Cu PHI M Soi l Type (Bar) (Bar) (Deg) (Bar) DescrIptIon NOTES: I .For 0.9>Id>1.2 nei ther Cu nor Ph1 ca lcu la ted . 2.1Bar=100KPa 3.# »1mm Def lec t ion not reached. Z (m) UJB.C. INSITU TESTING. Location: QUEENSBOROUGH PILE RESEARCH SITE I N T E R M E D I A T E GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS Test No. DMT 85-2 Test Date; 29-08-85 220 cn ZD >—I ZD T D O QJ CL • H n QJ ^ EE O • M ro x - I O J ro ^ 4_> I— c H a N cn —i cn t_ cu O L_ X +-• CO cn CO Q J C -• H CO ro ro Q J C D Q _ O'E A 0 6 o'si o'\z OLZ o*ee o*6e J U I I I L CL I -a 9= UJ * CD CO - O 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1— 0*91 0-12 OLZ Q'££ 0'B£ UJ3.C. INSITU TESTING. Location: QUEENSBOROUGH PILE RESEARCH SITE I N T E R P R E T E D GEOTECHN ICAL PARAMETERS . Test No. DMT 85-2 Test Date; 29-08-85 221 (ii) gidaa O'SI 0' 12 7 1 c r S c a —i cn cu o C J c_* • a c ro cn ZD —I ZD X ) o 2Z QJ y = ro cn c a C J ro x •—( Q J C_ T D QJ C •t: i—i ro i r O S I 0' 12 (ii) mtiaQ SUPPLEMENTARY. DMT DATA  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE. QUEENSBOROUGH. LULU ISLAND 222 DMT-PR-85-1 Depth< m> 3.4 DELA=0.08 DELB=0.55 22Aun85 A B C Time(min) 1.35 . 0 1.1 7 1.0 17 1.0 2.0 0.4 36 4.0 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.05 0.B 0 5 10 15 20 5.0 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 2.0 0.65 0 5 11 16 6.0 1.6 1.4 2.25 0.8 0 5 7.0 1.75 1.5 2.4 0.9 0 5 8.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.8 0.8 0 5 7 9.0 2.05 1.8 2.75 1.0 0 5 10.0 2.3 1.75 1.6 1.65 2.8 0.8 0 10 20 31 11.0 2.1 3.2 1.4 0 5 12.0 2.75 4.0 1.9 0 20 13.0 DMT-PR-95-2 Depth(m ) 33.2 3.2 DELA=0.14 A 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7 •4.6 DELB=0.13 B 2.4 0 5 7.6 29AUQ85 C Time<min) 0 13 24 40 50 2.5 62 Average Strain (%) Natural Strain UBC Seismic Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 7 Annacis Pile Site—Depth= 1.0m -j r — | , r — , — T — , — 7 , — t ' T ^ r ~ ~ \ 1 — i r 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Average Strain (%) - Compliance removed UBC Seismic Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 7 Annacis Pile Site-Depth~2.0m Average Strain (%) Compliance removed o © u P) 0) ID I . Q. TJ © o © o O UBC Seismic Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 7 Annacis Pile Site-Depth=3.0m Average Strain (%) N 5 UBC Seismic Cone Pressure m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 / Annacis Pile Site--Depth=4.0m o 0. 3 m n o D_ X) o *•> o 0 L. l _ o ( J 300 | 280 4 i 260 J 240 i i 220 ! J i 200 1 — » j 180 i i 160 -\ \ 140 120 — • 100 — * 80 i i 60 i 40 — 4 1 20 J i 0 i Average Strain (%') + Corrected 300 280 260 240 -} 220 -I t i 200 -i 180 -i i 160 -j 140 -i i 120 -j 100 A i 80 -4 60 40 20 0 UBC Seismic Cone Pressu remete r—3/4 / 8" Annacis Pile Site-Depth=4.8m 1 A / 6 10 14 Average Strain {%) Corrected •~r-18 22 260 -240 -220 -200 -180 -160 140 HT 120 100 - \ 80 60 H 40 -20 -0 -/ 1/ / U3C Seismic Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 7 Annacls Pile S?te-Depth=6.35m T 8 12 16 Average Strain • Corrected "~r~ 20 2 Average Strain (%) Corrected K3 CO O Average Strain (%) Corrected Average Strain (%). to 600 UBC Sefsmlc Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r - 3 / 4 / 8 7 Annacls Pile SIte-Depth=12.4m 500 -\ o 2 n n © u 0 o 400 300 H 200 H 100 Natural Strain Average Strain (%) UBC Seismic Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r - 3 / 4 / 8 7 Annacis Pile Site-Depth=15.5m 2000 -i 1900 -1800 -1700 -1600 -0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Average Strain, (%) APPENDIX II PILE DRIVING RECORDS FOR UBCPRS i PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM n A T F A-U(r- & ST TECHNICIAN A ^  PILE NO. . 236 o-i 1-2 r- 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NO. BLOWS be* 3. z 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NO. BLOWS 1 Z 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NO. BLOWS '•'IE I 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 PILE D A T A ELEVATION GROUND. TYPE HAMMER-WT. H AM M FR ^ - l f O O l i s HT. DROP NO. BLOWS TYPE PI I F" C t c i f e p W & f c P Pif'C  DIMENSIONS PILE tJ2 * ^ '' L~> REMARKS N*^ ' ft*** ^ V' fe'L T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A PENETRATION RESISTANCE - BLOWS/FT. 10 20 H UJ 111 L L 30 40 50 60 70 20 40 60 1 i i 1 — i 1 •J — 1 —) — 1 ._ i i 1-4-4-j ' "r 1 I 1 t i > ! ; i i j 1 [ r i 1 ' i i i | | 1  1 ,1 \ t 1 | i 1 i i — 1 1 1 —f~ 1 i ' i i i 1 i i 1 i —1—1 1 1 ! i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 j 1 1 | 1 1 | —!— I i i 1 i • i 1 1 1 i ; i ' 1 ' | j | i Ll_i . i l l l i i U B C IN-SITU T E S T I N G JOB No. ECH. J' PROJECT LOCATION E S M i g c C v(--+•+ , UU La tj HOLE No. DATE > "1 A^vtr^s. P L A T E PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM D A T E , TECHNICIAN. , P I L E N O . . 237 2 0-1 1-2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NO. BLOWS 7 Z Z 7_ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NO. BLOWS 2. 2 Z 41 42 43 44 45 '4# 4* 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NO-BLOW'S 3 2. 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NO-BLOWS PILE D A T A ELEVATION G R O U N D . T Y P E H A M M E R (.83 P i t * P 3 WT. HAMMER HT. DROP T Y P E P I I F C IcSG fct^OfcP ?lfC R E M A R K S . DIMENSIONS PILE 3 r P E N E T R A T I O N R E S I S T A N C E 20 B L O W S / F T . 10 20 i -W LL) u. 30 40 50 0. LI Q 60 70 40 60 i - — j 1 -j— 1 -r ! I i i i i 1 1 1 i , ! i i ] - i i i i 1 I ! ! ! j i i TV] ! j L i i i 1 I 1 • r i l i [ i i I 1 1 1 i I j i ! ! i i —1 1 1 1 i ' : i i , i — r— ! i 1 ! 1 II i ! ! 1 i | — i t ' l l 1 L l._ _ : l 1 ! 1 | \ i i i i i 1 : i T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I T U T E S T I N C JOB No. TECH. A_S PROJECT uGC P'ut LOCATION " S L U E - E K ^ gC'R&u frH , n i L u To HOLE No. PlLt "2 DATE 14 r\ut S3T P L A T E F - 1 ? PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM DATE_ 16 A i/. G g s- TECHNIC1AN- AS P I L E N O . . 238 3 , DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH MO. BLOWS 0-1 21 I 41 z 61 1-2 1 22 1 42 1 62 3 1 23 1 43 1 63 4 24 1 44 ^ . 64 5 25 1 45 z 65 6 "2. 26 1 46 z 66 7 1 27 I 47 2. 67 8 \ 28 1 48 3 68 9 \ 29 i 49 Z 69 10 I 30 i 50 3 70 11 Z 31 i 51 5 71 12 l 32 i 52 7 72 13 I 33 i 53 1 o 73 14 1 34 l 54 74 15 1 35 i 55 1 75 16 \ 36 z fiue 76 17 \ 37 l 1 .it pi* 77 18 1 38 i 58 U 78 19 1 39 59 79 20 1 40 i 60 80 PILE D A T A ELEVATION G R O U N D -T Y P E H A M M E R D ( l C P H M M M E R WT. H A M M E R HT. DROP T Y P E P I L E . D 1MENS10NS ^ V ^ P * -P E N E T R A T I O N R E S I S T A N C E - B L O W S / F T . 20 40 10 20 h-UJ uj 30 40 50 0. Ixl a 60 70 60 \ i . 4 1 1 ' j l 1 ' 1 ' 1 j i ! - 4— i \ 1 i i I 1 1—'— l . 1 i T j i 1 r 1 i i 1 j 1 i ; i ' M l i i i i M i l i ! MM I ! ! 1 1 ! i ' ' I : : ; 1 ' i • i 1 1 i • 1 ! 1 1 • 1 ! ! M , 1 i i ' i ! i -n>f} j / ' A- I T - J O ] \ ' ! ! i 1 i 1 i T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN-SITU TESTING JOB No. TECH. j \ 5 PROJECT UBC f>LE R-E3£AgCM LOCATION GLUEENJ S c t X o H 6 - H y Lu U A X j HOLE No. DATE \ t <\U(r 8 5 P L A T E F-12 PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM n A T F U iK^dr %S T E C H N I C I A N A c T  239 P I L E NO. i t NO. BLOWS 0-112 A 1-2 1 7. L/C* 2. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NO. BLOWS 2 Z 1 X z 41 42 43 44 45 46 • * 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NO. BLOWS 1 2 Z 7 V" 68 G 6 7 7 1 61 62 63 64 65 67 NO. BLOWS 7 7 G 6 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 10 1/ IO fe o Or " L PILE D A T A E L E V A T I O N G ROUND-T Y P E H A M M E R WT. H A M M E R HT. D R O P •IS T Y P E P I L E . t-W C-ivJ 0 £ - 0 f ' p £. P - u D I M E N S I O N S P I L E _ P E N E T R A T I O N R E S I S T A N C E 20 BLOWS/FT. 40 60 10 1 ' i . ^ K C i ^ O UJ 111 30 40 H 50 a. 60 L A . t 70 T 1 i 1 1 [ 1 , 1 i I | "t j-1 .1 1 I 1 . J i i .1 11 1 l r i | l 1. 1 T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I T U T E S T I N G JOB No. TECH. A - 3 PROJECT U 3 C P I L £ It&Se^g-CH  LOCATION Q,u^ersi5S sre-oum , L A ? L U xv>, HOLE No. P l U E 4 DATE U P L A T E F-12 PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM D A T E . 15" A U G - ^ 5 T E C H N I C I A N . AS P I L E NO. 240 t3 / o-i 1-2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NO. BLOWS 4 * 4 rev 3 ^ 2 X 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NO. BLOWS 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NO. BLOWS 2 Z JUL 1 7 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 -•>68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NO. BLOWS 1 2 IO C/l" Z 11 \ 6 IS" PILE D A T A E L E V A T I O N G R O U N D -T Y P E H A M M E R P P W T . H A M M E R b ^- l O H T . D R O P T Y P E P I L E . L L - O S £ 0 - O1 D L P f ^ P ^ ( k . -D I M E N S I O N S P I L E 1 2 ^ " ° ' ° ' ' ^ ' ^ ' 1 R F M A R K S -v. '< yU~..~-fV' V^ -*^  - f d i T ~ & J > ~ * * ) - f ' P E N E T R A T I O N R E S I S T A N C E - BLOWS/FT. 20 40 H til kl LL 50 60 70 60 h 1 i -*» -J. !M. i 1* 1 1 I \ "i • 1 I , 1 1 i. (S r r \ i i 1 \ r i I 1 fe i > I r 1 1 1— I L 1 i + 'i 1 8 h r 1 n I- d » ft 1 r !* f /» / O f 1 r * i i— 1 ln A r A i J7 I Hi j 1. i / / J- \ b 1^ T-1 j I 1 1 —^—4 1 i 1 1 1 ! 1 i 1 | i ; 1 ! ! ! \ I ! i • ! . ! " r T T OB No. rECH. A J T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN-SITU T t S T I N C PROJECT U M c P iu t n - t ^ e A ^ C H  LOCATION £ L U £ £ ^ 6 3 O R . C X . I C - U J L U L U r HOLE No. p\\^.E b> DATE I S ' - i b A U t ? 3 " P L A T E 1 c f 2. DATE-PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM TECHNICIAN. P;LE NO. 241 DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO. BLOWS goat l 5 41 61 f-2 u IC2 II 42 62 53 P,Ll 5 43 63 ft 2/ tb ^ 44 64 S5 u fs 45 65 ?6 h 26 46 66 87 27 47 67 *8 28 48 68 $9 n 29 49 69 30 31 l o L 0 51T< > 0flc r l \ ( $Fr 72 II 32 13 33 P ( * OfLl 4^ l o 34 54 74 35 55 75 13 36 56 76 V 12. 37 57 77 <*8 10 38 58 78 19 10 39 59 79 »0 S 40 60 80 PILE D A T A ELEVATION GROUND-TYPF H ' M M F " i r « " W T H A M M F R zx HT, H R O P i-T Y P F PH F DIMENSIONS PILE. REMARKS /gftgiT fi'<T C ? N'* T fl-1 & . 80 10 100 30 H UJ LI Ii. 40 h 50 0. Ill Q 70 P E N E T R A T I O N R E S I S T A N C E - BLOWS/FT. 20 40 60 \ 1 ! 1 L — r * i — i — 1 1 L i 1 i j 1 1 : j 1 i L| 1 j i T — i — 1 J i 1 I ! 1 i 1 i j i | [ 1 1 1 ! 1 j 1 i 1 i i —*— ! i i (• • 1 1 ' , 1 1 1 ! 1 ' —;— i \ Ii • 1 1 ' ! 1 i i 1 i ; 1 ! ! i i ; j i THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I T U T E S T I N G JOB No. TECH. A J PROJECT V \ S C P . u t H E i c A O C H LOCATION Q u e e . i ^ iJo^oUCru . L W L W U HOLE No. DATE A-Utr*S P L A T E 1. PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM nA T F 14-fVUCrS? T E C H N I C I A N PAH\<-A> , T O P I L E NO. 242 Jc V k t P E N E T R A T I O N R E S I S T A N C E - BLOWS/FT. 0 >o 20 40 60 T Y P E H A M M E R F WT. H A M M E R b LP t ( ^   HT. D R O P 10 (,'-* «1«L T Y P E PILE D I M E N S I O N S R E M A R K S P I L E p • , i g f • / e —!—1— 1 " 1 . 1 1 }' r 0 ,f •4-1 t 1 I 1 T-. . i 1— r-— i ! 1 i 1 1 ! 1 : 1 1 1 T T T 1 1, ! 1 ! 1 T I ' 1 ri ! 1 1 1 ! 1 1 j [ 1 . 1 1 t. . : 1 I 1; | 1 I 1 ^ 1 i li 4- 1 r • i * 1 1 I i r ! • 1 | 1 1 J /f 0 -H V • !l a • • • 1 1 I 1 ! 1 1 \  1 ; | , I i i 1 i i 1 1 1 J j _ i • • , I W 1 1 J 1 1 ' ' : 1 • 1 ' t It r C it! 1 A/ 1 ,4 -1 „ I i [ * ; F T 1 r d' ' IJJ t .i » | J . j 1 T ',1 I, .1 •j , 1 i f V • **• V '/ I » 1 ! 1 1 | i 1 1 1 | 1 —r 1 •'t ! ! 1 I ! : 1 1 1 1 i ! • : i ! 1 i j i i : ! 1 t 1 1 i 1 : 1 i ! I 1 i j 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 i ; 1 i i T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A grig U B C I N - S I T U T E S T I N G JOB No. TECH. P W , T o PROJECT UKc f 'LC ilfc^fcA^Ci-v LOCATION <<wue(>j- B t r ^ *A&-H , Luu.^ ~u HOLE No. f 1 US. t DATE \<V-(S fnUife-aS PLATE t •»£ 2. PILE PENETRATION DIAGRAM H A T F 1 r ft U G- g S~ T E C H N I C I A N . 243 P I L E NO. ... iK*<-1 X DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEFT H NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO. BLOWS DEPTH NO, BLOWS lOl 23 41 61 PA 102 42 62 ?3 £3 IG3 43... Op <t' 63 £4 2 4 TA 44 lO j 5 64 S5 s i 25 (X A* r 45 65 / 26 O 46 66 r7 / 27 47 67 88 39 28 48 68 99 29 49 69 10 37 30 50 70 11 28 31 51 71 12 2_7 32 52 72 13 23 33 53 73 14 26 34 54 74 15 2 ^ 35 55 75 16 25 36 56 76 17 3\ 37 57 77 18 31 38 58 78 P 29 39 59 79 l00 27 40 60 80 PILE D A T A E L E V A T I O N G ROUND-TY P E H A M M E R WT. H A M M E R , HT. DROP G I C J (' r T Y P E P I L E . 11 (r. L D I M E N S I O N S P I L E _ LL 80 P E N E T R A T I O N RESISTANCE: 20 BLOWS/FT. 40 60 U J U J U -0. LU o Pi •7 V o I 1 1 1 : ! I i 1 1 I -- T ITTT"I ! — i T T T _ _ 1. J i T~ 1 " 1 • T ; ; r - t~t - l - i j j — - - T • ! i -U-L. 1 -i- -I - ~ J - J —t - 4 — ] ! ; , j V ! i I — . — > — - r T , T ! . i ..[."TTTT": i J. IJ ' M i l - T i f t l 1 . J. L U . I T T ! L \ _ ™ 1 , —-t - t i l ! —i—r— i .LA T- * • -t T ! ! T \ i r T i 1 - i 1 i i ! 1 1 i i 1 1 ! 1  If I i 1 i i J 1 i | ! I L ! ! i ' , i 1 j ~~T-LA \ i 1 | i \ 1 i 1 1 | i I !— 1 i I i j 1 ! i i , i j ! 1 i 1 ; j T 1 1 1 i i i I i ] 1 t | I i * ; | L. . 1 i 1 J j J ] .1 ! 1 1 r i i IT '1 ; i i i i 1 i i ! i i — — , — i — i 1 i i 1 • ' i • : 1 1 1 | i i 1 ! '; i i i i i i 1 !  i ' _ L 1 j i i 1 i | i l l ] 1 1 j I -U4-U j j 1 ! 1 1 : I 1 i i i 1 : i 1 F ' • ' 1 i 1 j 1 1 1 i 1 ! I 1 1 i , : 1 ] i r i _L 1 1 1 1 t 1 I ' ! ! i 1 i • If 1 1 i I 1 i i i 1 i i 1 1 1 1 ; i i ! ! 1 t ' i l l I 1 | 1 j I 1 1 1 ; ; i I l l I \ ^ t ' : [A L. . ' , ! : ! I ; 1 1 j | t- i — ! , i 1 I ; i j | I 1 i i ! ; ! : 1 ! j ' ! ! ! 1 i 1 1 ' . 1 i —i—)—»— l i ! 1 ' 1 1 : | ] 1 I i | : 1 ; ! ' , J i I i 1 1 i i \ • \ • ' . i 1 i i : ! i ; i 4 i n r < 1 A • I I I ^ H C r ( i < > r -> : 1 , I ! H~T~ ! I 1 1 1 I ! T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F SI5BHB" JOB No. 1 fECH. DvO , T-o PROJECT U B c f.L£ Ht5cA(iCi-l B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A 1Q^ 5™ *^ LOCATION O M £ E M i 3 =• R.o^ CJ- W , Lu Lu IJ U B C IN-SITU TESTINC HOLE No. P«t_E DATE If-IS" AUG- S S P L A T E I 2. SAXIMETER NO. PILE NO. PROJECT 0 Fc f-K 5 </ PPA r a & / / - j PILE TYPE/SIZE , v r 7 BLOW COUNT/STROKE PILE DRIVING RECORD DRIVING ORDER NO. _______ DATE 244 EVAT ION: GROUND LOCATION Pi.e LENGTH *"c%--WER TYPE/SIZE r s :f CAP/HELMET/CUSHION L> 1 CONTRACTOR ; T ~ PILE TIP BATTER CUTOFF THROTTLE SETTING" FOREMAN OBSERVER Depth f t Blows foot Stroke Depth f t Blows foot Stroke Depth f t Blows foot Stroke Depth ft" Blows fobt Stroke 0-1 25-26 5 50-51" ft 75-76 • •4 -'-1 u 1-2 7- 26-27 6 51-52 76-77 14 • • 2-3 27-28 S 52-53 Z 5 77-78 \ 2. 3-4 —1 28-29 53-54" ~<~o \^ 78-79 I S 4-5 > 29-30 5 54-55 4TL. 79-80 I'-5-6 (o 30-31 55-56 (? i. 1.0 80-81 . l l 6-7 S 31-32 5 56-57 4-G 81-82 ' 2_ 7-8 32-33 57-58 S ~ i 1 82-83 -- - ' • 8-9 z 33-34 58-59 31 83-84 ^ ^ -9-10 Z- 34-35 h 59-60 • • - i 0 ' 84-85 3 Z 10-11 0 35-36 60-61 2 3 85-86 H 'IT—•* ^ *: 7 - i 2 .2-13 3 36-37 • - - 61-62 2 ? -10' 86-87 - -2 37-38 4 62-63 2.1 87-88 13-14 38-39 4 63-64 33 —t»-* 2^' 88-89 5i 14-15 3 39-40 > 64-65 5 8 89-90 - _ ^ 15-16 —' 40-41 65-66^ i ; ' 90-91 . 16-17 2 41-42 66-67 1 1 -^ / 0 ' 91-92 17-18 A 42-43 67-68 n 92-93 18-19 ' 3 43-44 68-69 12- -v II ' 93-94 19-20 5 44-45 69-70 8 94-95 • 20-21 . 4 45-46 70-71 3 95-96 21-22 3 46-47 f3 71-72 96-97 22-23 2. 47-48 72-73 a 97-98 23-24 4- 48-49 - JO 73-74 to 98-99 24-25 49-59 5 74-75 >3 99-100 i i i REMARKS \ ~Z' J , STOP .<• ft •• • • "" TIME 0 F START j : DEPTH MIN. INTERRUPTION REASON ) " tr • * PILE DYNAMICS, INC., 4423 EMERY INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY, WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS, OHIO 44128 TELEPHONE: (216) 831-6131 TELEX: 985662 PILE DYN CLHS APPENDIX III AXIAL PILE LOAD TESTS FOR UBCPRS UBCPRS : ELASTIC COMPRESSION CALCULATIONS PILE NO. 1 O.D = 0.32385 metres I.D. = 0.3048 metres Length = 14.326 metres E l a s t i c Modulus, E = 2.065 x 10 kPa Delta = --- P = a P P i i e d a x i a l load during load t e s t i n g A E A = c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area of p i l e L = p i l e length E = e l a s t i c modulus of p i l e m a t e r i a l Delta = P ( 14.3^6 metres) (1000 millimetres/metres) (0.32385 - 0.3048 ) PI/4 (2.0565 x 10 KN/ metres squared) Delta (mm.) = P(kN) (7.4063 x 10~ 3 mm./kN) si m i l a r c a l c u l a t i o n s for p i l e s 2 to 5 PILE NO. 2 Delta (mm.) = P(kN) (7.0910 x 10~ 3 mm./kN) PILE NO. 3 Delta (mm.) = P(kN) (8.6667 x 10~ 3 mm./kN) PILE NO. 4 Delta (mm.) = P(kN) (1.1976 x 10~ 2 mm./kN) PILE NO. 5 Delta (mm.) = P(kN) (1.3862 x 10~ mm./kN) UBC P ILE RESEARCH PROJECT HYDRAULIC JACK L LOAD C j _ CftL I BRAT IONS C a l i b r a t i o n Date C a l i b r a t e d By Test Machine 13th September 1985 A lex 5y B a l d w i n 400,000 lb c a p . i±^nsL___ Jack 300 ton c a p a c i t y Rcgers Jack S / N C1300A13; Uni t f 8-066 C l o s e d He ight 30 m s Base D iamete r J2 .125 i n 5 Weight 590 l b s ( F r a n k i Canada L i m i t e d ) H y d r a u l i c , Pump E n e r p a c Model P4B2 U n i t * 8-095 ( F r a n k i Canada L i m i t e d ) P r e s s u r e Gauge 10,000 p s i c a p a c i t y Enerpac G l y c e r i n e f i l l e d ( F r a n k i Canada L i m i t e d ) L o i d C e l l 500 ,000 lb c a p . BLH E l e c t r o n i c s Type C2P1S; S /N 36881 Diam 10 i n s ; He ight 14 i n s (UBC S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n . ) S t r a i n Readout Budd Ins t ruments D a t r a n D i g i t a l S t r a i n I n d i c a t o r (UBC S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n . ) P r e s . G a u g e Load C e i l A c t u a l Load Load C e l l A c t u a l Load ( p s i ) Eudd Rdg ( l b s ) Budd Rdg ( l b s ) RUN 1 M in ima l ram e x t e n s i o n b e f o r e t e s t i n g i n B a l d w i n machine 0 0 0 2 500 500 60 32 ,500 69 34 ,500 1000 3 34 71 ,500 144 72 ,500 1500 212 110,500 220 111,000 2000 253 149,000 299 151,000 25C0 370 189,750 378 1 8 1 , 0 0 © 300S 443 228 ,000 445 225 ,500 3500 522 266 ,500 528 268 ,000 4000 599 305,000 608 308 ,500 450O 680 346,500 5030 753 334 ,500 RUN 2 Ram ex tended 1" p r i o r to j a c k i n g a g a i n s t B a l d w i n machine 0 0 0 1 0 500 60 30 ,500 72 37 ,500 100S 135 69 ,250 '145 76 ,000 1500 214 110,500 222 134,500 2000 233 150,000 297 154,750 2500 372 190,250 334 195,000 3000 447 229,000 454 233 ,500 3500 525 268 ,500 538 273 ,000 4C00 605 305 ,000 517 314,50O 4500 632 351,250 657 355 ,000 5000 762 388 ,000 DATA SHEET _ 248 T E S T P I L E - ^ 111 bp h< J DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L READINGS R E M A R K S ' j o 111 ! 3 j DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 2 P I L E PILE PILE SETTLE. C ~> l! 3 ° i f . / » : 7-? 3 ^ 2 7 c ^  7 ? - ^ ^ ". 7 7 ^ 2 i ^ o t f . ^ ^ f ^ < 7 -1 I f 2 2- if-7£ 1 t - > \'b>1* n j - 2. i '•" '••.«•* * If 2.1 y t 3> / i'u~ - 2 '• 1 3-31 t>-?8 7 L 1 UK 300 t f - " i j / i ' /•' i+ '2-r • / C* . / f t 3^7 ^ -zr s 2 7 / -'A-.- 2 5 2 . < C? 2 -7' H 7 / /< 0 2 _ 3- 7« i f . 4,1^  i f / V 0 | t f 6-7 2-7^-3 M- j Li i f . 67 11 f . j ,2-^ 2 - an. / , : f V - 2 > ' l_ - 0 i<-f ^ < 2 -27 ' 7 7 i 2 - 2 C . 3 i i -, 1 2 : 4 -J, 2 2_l f _ J ' j 0 - - . - <r 17 •/ • 3 ' il3 f H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B l R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C 1N-SI1U 1 f 5 I I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD TEST 1 N. .v . SHEET / r i-DATA SHEET 249 " T E S T P I L E fa I < o UJ cr - J ZD -< ^ ,A — if) w CC CL UJ M -E X T E N S O M E T E R R E A D I N G S J3i£_L 2 PILE T I P L E V E L R E A D I N G S PILE PILE S E T T L E . R E M A R K S 11c 12 14, *-2L2_ 6 7 /3 6 r o 2 o / 1 • (r • I 6 / 10 13- 11 7_L_ o '3 ID 13 I" 07 (3 7 /3 - o o 6 • t o * -2^v3 -7> •"71. f T V o 2<T'o Q . O C / O 11-3^ 7- 02. 2 7 0 12- 23 ^ 9-2- 7>/2_ 7: 7 7 2 . II 1 + 7-13 ^•2£ 7 2 1 - i££f_ 12 1 \1U r; \r T 11-if 7 >bo 11*. • 2 o 7- «K 4 or 7 •» 6-r 7 ' / r 6 - n 7 . T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B J R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD TEST SHEET 2 . r, DATA SHEET 250 < o DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E R E A D I N G S R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. S U 2 P I L E T I P PILE PILE S E T T L E . , 7 ^ " ( ' ' I ;-2? f • n -r n -11 0 r ^ • 2 5 " T o 7- IO | , /../).' ' • n ' IS"2o o 7*6/ f r i-'" (• l H I<|U- r ' -> 211,* l 12 2. -n 7 K'| f 7 / ' i •; - , / v -O 3 > £>.<To =j \ > 4- £> Z J , [ Ct>UL^ Kor TACK j 0 To H'dh/tn: LoAjs-t -rr— 7o » (*HCH M'*L • Iff* ) / V >- t l c ^ r O,J /*• >-£ & / f ** *— j L »A 0 r- /i C c t~, > /«' ^  O 1 17 Li i.i ("> • (2.' o 6 /)/ 3 -T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S l l U T f 5 r I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T SHEET 2 DATA SHEET 251 DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E R E A D I N G S * . L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. Me Top 1 A b f'iit i»r' c P I L E ?\yt S E T T L E . mhi* mm «« 0 0 Mi 9 Ml > 3 T * 10 0 I Hie in 1 ST i I t M e no 0 Ifl a if *5 Ijl / Mr r /• J?3 tiff *»» ?<f  IS if 1J,c 0 l i p liti fi-7« i M M / Kb 0 Ref ft**, U\k hat rwaijAthc b*J2 i '77 If-2 2 1*7 Rle SO 0 l i q •r f 1ST pile ^ Sr t u t xv G O 0 1 IS • r 1 ii n> 1-fe % n . . . . Tffl U N I V E R S I T Y OF * e s BRITISH C O L U M B I A *@ FL.I • P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. FL.I • A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T I N - S I T U T 1 S T I N C T O T P)Lt # 2 SHEET 1 of 3 DATA SHEET 252 LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. EXTENSOMETE READINGS R L E V E L READINGS REMARKS LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 A 2 C Pi LE T d P PILE PILE SETTLE. J.iit> • 3 i 5" , 70 0 ' *r 3 JTJT ',1 1 ' • » / 42 15 5* 1 J J t go 0 * /'i>V M y 1 1 i * | M ° 5 1 . J/1 H I i i t / 0 Hit 1 i- t\f* *• 4- 12- 9** 12-7 iO r —< . . . M - . '00 0 /•AS] +2Sc "S. \c-•5 /• u r \" so fa . (*i ) 1 p. Of 5" ic $ss 6 OS- ( ' » ^ /to 0 6 i? <7* -ST f '11 7-sr / t- IS/ 7-7> ('*•*) f-10 C r * ) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN-SI I U 1 ( SI INC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD TEST o* II S H E E T X of 3 c z < m Ln —( -< O IT' 4 r m -1 c/> X m m (7 -t-> X > r m r o > o H m H M tr1 M » w cn W > w n a: •d w o u a o IO G M M 2 cn w o o G O an h s o O © <3 8*> O -0» O O o - A o o o OR. o o o Ii <3» L O A D DIAL P R E S S U R E P. S . l . T IME HRS. A T MINS. 5 m -IS 2 r-* 9 m x m rn > 2 o 2 to O 2 oo H m 3) m r > rn o < 00 -*• 3 D ^ CO DATA SHEET Pik 254 O j ( / < ~i DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. EXTENSOMETE READINGS R LEVEL * READINGS REMARKS DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. V2 ' PILE i PILE PILE SETTLE. 0 fa 1 L 0 5"- */ 1 i-t>q b'Of 5 -ci. f- ' 4 . I H - it] 1 i 0 0 IbOif. I -Sit I loj i • m 1 Uf 1 frCy i ?e /c I-COY / / X\ fa l+ -- $ 0 1 7 0 i-m I^Z / » yi2 n i w i W2-5T I i'li *>•>-/'tO 7 ' " s ft 1 T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A 'Q' U B C IN-SITU T t S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T SHEET DATA SHEET , . , „ 4»> 1 =—.* LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. EXTENSOMETE READINGS R LEVEL READINGS REMARKS 1 =—.* LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 PILE TIP P I L E PILE S E T T L E . C -> / i Hi i s 7f-3 1 S i t I 7» / 9fit i SS?- 4 fc 10 i- S t y i a \ 0 I f>0 0 /-*s7 7-3J / / ^7 /-V/ / •>> i 7/ V** b" ini iO ' • 5 It* to 0 1 i-ffj 77' / St 2-1 -tfj / < ft " -7*-X ^ L c THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A UBC I N - S t I U l ESI INC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T ° * H \ K.V.V-IT | S H E E T I -DATA SHEET TEiuvt** 2 5 6 LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. EXTENSOMETE READINGS R LEVEL READINGS REMARKS LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 PILE TIP PILE PILE SETTLE. 70 J v y / 2L / sn- i > i 8h / 0 f ib It 7^-r L I .* » / ?o 0 i i 1-8^1 / iry-> f / >yc i ns / jy-c It f l V V .0 r 0 /•#/ / / • ^ > l til fu -u>v Li ' H ft 6 T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I l U T C S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T IE SHEET J DATA SHEET T E K ,V£ t i 2 5 7 LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. EXTENSOMETE READINGS R LEVEL READINGS REMARKS LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 PILE TIP PILE PILE SETTLE. loo 0 / feo f i > 7 / f a ; i / yvv it 7k ^  / r TV? f < i 0 rift is* r 7f> / ve-r~^ -' , ~- --er i ft 7 / W *, l/l AJ UObC I fC 0 /• w * 7 ^ 0 0 /•£b7 lif : c s j IH ^ p-LW * 7? * 1 T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN-SI I U r t s i i N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T D A It 4 ft' SHEET « f. y DATA SHEET TEST C-LL # 3 258 LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. EXTENSOMETE READINGS R LEVEL READINGS REMARKS LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 PILE TIP P I L E PILE SETTLE. 0 f i r f- (• . r. i o i. J . / M » At ^ 2- 2_ o v n ft- S J.~ WA. I h ¥ f f J 0 m-t / > JJl-t i . i f s <i\ • fo- , L ie - •JL r fe.' f-f t i i 0 if- 7>'o (?A 0 i ?cr cj. 3c Ifr S i i** ii. 1 i frH }- ^ ——— 1 IP^™ , •> • i U f " 1] o t u p A n d , Au * T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A f t R '^n U B C I N - S I I U T f S1 INC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T DA I i S H E E T *» '/ ZC r> O i— c CD c z 73 - I -< o C O I m m > X > r r m r o > D H m co H M SI W CO W > n EG » O M n a M M z cn w o » o a o a to K> vr, =1 O o' -•Jp c> I —o O 4 4 ^ A D DIAL P R E S S U R E P. S . I. T I M E HRS. A T MINS. -0 fn r* m m -tj m m x m m > 2 2 o CT> m m ZD m r-> rn O < o r co 3 rn > zo CO D > > I m m H rn r m TT D A T A S H E E T 260 c _ DIAL PRESSURE P. S. |. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. |. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 P I L E T I P PILE PILE S E T T L E . • It c c D iO-03 1 , 7cc / 10 |. i K M 0 I kJL , t W ; i \ip 0 /•of/ "in / >-3fb / f i J U / i f = 1 (v. S ~ / t • r * * If 3 ... T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I l U T f S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T 0*t{ SHEET 7 C3 ~ * 73 Zt zz z TO n O l— c 1 < > O CO X m m —( > X > r r* m o > o H m to H M tr1 w W W in W n SG JO o u M o >-3 lO G M M z cn W O o G O h re 4: O •4: o >I1 4-Or. v. 1= 2> c \ o o LOAD DIAL P R E S S U R E P. S . I . TIME HRS. A T MINS. ro -0 m I -m oo H T3 m m n x m m > 2 CO o o rn oo —i m 33 33 m r > rn o < E m or 00 33 m > 33 to D A T A S H E E T 262 < o _ l DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L READINGS R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 P I L E T I P P I L E PILE S E T T L E . 0 i ! W 10-37 1 ISC -i I f c ! 2(Jf_ \ 0 1-375 1 M2. 37,-. 7 M U S * l-0<)le ( to - 3i / 7"7? C?SJ.' ~ .'CO •/•;> '.. • IT ! J 7/,( - L f / y / „ 8v V**r * -b— (/M LO, T<? •> £ ru> ] T o £ O0SE.K/ 0 j»0 c 2, i M3> J 0 '7fc? /• 2/Z /• 1 7fl 0 * / H«r w*-— j cc 0 • 2.CC • 77° ii' bt i t c / i 2-3. 0 1-I 2-i> i >7* 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF Hlgl BRITISH C O L U M B I A ^*s(l* P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T U B C I N - S I 1 U 1 £ 5 1 I N C 0 A ' ^ N * . -\- S H E E T a ,f <j C3 H c 2 n O r-c ro 73 -< X m m H > X > r r m r o > H m co H M ra » ra to w > w o re •d W O u ra o IO c ra ra z co w o » o G O tB 68 O T 5 0 4c C he o O, 30 <4> r -A O 00 r 0 \ l ° N -0 1° o r1 v (A Q 0 5 s 0 fc f Itr-0 IN/- •r -f X 4-S> i cr>-t 1 o <V0 r-. wee LOAD C » . i | DIAL P R E S S U R E P. S . I. T I M E HRS. A T MINS. r o r~ ^ 0 in ' : . ?" or y 5 ~ 3 ) m > x CO > > CO X m m H > <-\ r L— c r D A T A S H E E T , , jf./. o < o < Q or 3 -' co • to w Ul oJ oc a. W co' 2 cr ft I, 2. P'tr $e R E M A R K S T 7c<, mi 7 y y 21 21Z / 7 </ 2 i t I r. *\ 7 ttV^C> I 6 6 -a 122, _2£ / 0 i in ay-11 i i : - L L L & : 1* I 0 1<L£I nil 3 6 o 3o4 ^ Q ft /to j i l t •V l l : •4-3-%-118-JL2£ i f A , T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I T U T f S T I N C P I L E R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T , Q U E E N S B O R O U G H , B . C . A X I A L PILE LOAD TEST SHEET l c ( 1 265 D A T A S H E E T T & T P , L £ J iff .3 LOAD \ DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. • R E M A R K S LOAD \ DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. P/It 1 r ( . Aft 4-0 U. 1 K ° IK . f H o s^if r> ^- -lo r o >Hv —1— w p* 1 i > 4 ) * L i * — \ i? i 1 3 Ptc £ #/ THAT EAJO OA/ T> So C- ' 0 •> D£ : T'0\/ r———' T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN-SI1U K S 1 I N C PILE RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T 266 D A T A S H E E T * Q < O _J DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. A/V f • 0 ? • -If* ~ < > . - / • • • • • . - • • ' • / / *u - I l k 0 > o 1 1 y ^  1 1 Wo j Xx> hp I v ' ^ / Sri 6 m (: > \ ^ .j — -1 I \oo > ) A 1 ^ 4 i. i-C ' - -iv--. c< d> (*i & nm mil ' 1 - 1 >/fr 1 tfo I /, \ 6 -LO 1 i - ^ | 0 1 V t I' ( K y -c? S a y 1 <*> I 'Z -L S c^~I 2 t I b (/ - C _ I I —*— ^ THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA U B C IN-SIlU KS1INC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T •SHEET 4 „f 7 267 D A T A S H E E T LU cc J D -- CO w O UJ oJ cc a. W CO 2 cc R E M A R K S 0 7° V 4 us 2££ i i i ? l i b ~ ~ 7 ~ I i*v . — j 7 ^ J2££ I n 2^ "JTn :/< try LP 0 "> jr, t >/ f it i *7 O A T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F JSISl B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A ^•BJ* P I L E R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T , Q U E E N S B O R O U G H , B . C . A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T U B C IN-SI1U TESTINC '• > ° * u S H E E T S ?( 7 268 D A T A S H E E T Test frJ LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P.S.I. TIME HRS. I - z < i R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P.S.I. TIME HRS. ._ *—• -V ? 6 ! y :ih i ^ r-r M v o / I r 1 o £ k * • mfc f l df, I IbL U V ¥ IT1-V t 1 " ^ ft'/ . : * ,. •> f . * 1 / a * l * f r ;—•'•»*_> , , - . '1 , \ *>» I* yo H i if - * '<5|7S - :. Im M b > 1 / T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S U 11 l i i l l N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T c u cry 269 D A T A S H E E T Wt-ir Jon<J Lo-^cf Ce//s °1 Q < O _J DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. a, \ ^ (— " 7 'v > 6 / : - / u * 1 / (3 r a O i T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B^j. A X I A L PILE LOAD TEST •sy' / 270 D A T A S H E E T / , - < o -J DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. ^ /V,A-.J R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. P I L E Top P I L E TOP a T ! T SotU T / T 1 . T / T T / T 3 -0 0 0-1-7 /•7^ f :. ! 0 /•-)*< • 1$ i /•78/ 1 l ? i r I--?*' l-7?o G Z0 o-zi / • $ 7 1 & -r f o -1 3 37--JO ^ r -t~v A 1 u : 0 --I r- ! ( r . « / , . 7; \7S\ o 1 0-3/ 0-37 Z.e.. ' r- (', I, I "z /•776o / l 7 l ^ f 77 k° 1 -7? of '777 1 i L- (I j t W - . i d It- ?1 o i-iifc 1-8$ 5 3 v ' 0 1-7*7^  1 l - fU I f I l- (2?j Or a f fi-'20 O /•77?«. ''•> c f f 1 7"?'0 5 0 - 7 D ? 9 I f Ul f • f . a — — — — — i T H E UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T 271 D A T A S H E E T Q < *• o DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. P l L G T O P u P I L E T O P R T | T S O I L T / T 1 T / T 2 T | T 3 I' O 0 •7/' 0-2-3 . /I U K * \f. < V 1 1 '77^? 1 y \ j 0-1/ 3 0 • 12 / • L-0. M g 13 :/t 0 (5 -%S I « 4 ??a • / z '• 1 "2 1 7 u r 1 * 0 - 8 3 3 ' 7 9 0 2-' i-i. • -0 1 "? l W 1 1 / 7T ? r •> //£/<> 111 ft L <U\- fa r? ( U l - & 1 ; 1 7 K - 1 i-Vi I ' l O 3 - 7<>r oil hit r ' 7 5 9 /It I. 1 /:• 0 1 -7t2_ 6 0 V I- 1 3 f - T i l |.7<V i< \ / 7<r [ r / • 3 7 3 • 6 v (5 • 0 / M i T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T T E S T P I L E #4 t Mftr i t S H E E T i of 5 D A T A S H E E T 272 < Q < O _J DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. < i R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. P\ L G T O P u P I L E T O P T | T S O I L . T / T 1 T / T 2 T / T 3 I- • ( ? 7 6 * > ) • 5t> i ^' j ^ ,<7 0 • C o ~ - • 7 * ' • ' ' ' ii a> / • 7 < 2 ^ 1 i o ^ r < l - 7 < 3 to 1 7 M - L L- dx n- 3 i fee i ~. f u (<Wv><) o ( •7<f 9 / •C; T L I ''I J-75<rt 1-lH-lf ' W ll*l< i - 7 rv-r (J • • i r r / a i * 'to 1 0( * . N • tt. D /• «f 7-1 i • iti< ( l^o 1 1 , -)(fU-0 f l - l ^ " /a I ' 1 1 M S © '070/,; |tf ;• ? i -o h74<" '•73? 3. 37 - 6 -1 c f 7 3 2 I / m 1 - 7 3 7 \ 1 Y 4 1 7 3 7 / 7 3 7 0 / . 7 3 < o < ~ < " , a / • 7 3 7 o t - /m J ^ - 0 'cf/ /• n THE U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L . P I L E L O A D T E S T T E S T P I L E # 4 SHEET 3 of $ D A T A S H E E T 273 < o UJ cc _ J ZD -< 0 0 - C O W O UJ CL cr a. Z> or T O P u P I L £ T O P T I T S o l U PLUCr T / T 1 T / T 2 T / T 3 R E M A R K S 3 o f i - - o 3 5 f ho' - « f l " -0 fl fir-* f L r>> .i -hU% I' 02 33 ^ • ( e g j .22 /Z. / M . 1 0 7^ 3 fii - o °l o 1111 iin •Ifl •7* 3 • CTO / ^ r°> h i S i •111 _ 7 £ 7 _ 01 0 <f>> / 4V 7/- 2ZZ V -32 ? • ' 7 / 7>t 7l^f i -T i f l 6» C7 6 3-C r 4 0 o f 67t •67' T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T T E S T PIL.E. #4 S H E E T H- of 5" 274 D A T A S H E E T < o LU CC _ J ZD — <r CO - CO CO O LU Q." cc a. W co' 2 cr P\L£ T o p L, PILE T O P TIT S O I L T / T 1 T / T 2 T / T 3 R E M A R K S o . ( , 3 . 0 8 ^ >C3 /•o7_ M o * ft } ^ f c p f c ^ w A > C K - » S . / - X i AL " <7 SSr 1,0 3 3 z 2 q 3* « t0 aco Kr«c 7 * 6 US- i~« 300 1> /¥ 5 '> h%TJ 1 if 3 UL 2 7 1 3 t>8 f *-c S3* ILL J>oQ 33 206 1 a r -4 f * * 21k. 3 ? / 3 3f U S 7* i l l ±27 X-Sf t$6t I 6S TTjr T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC 1 1 s 1 1 N <; P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T -rcr c-r Di 1 c it A °-"( 1 - e> 1 I C M C c r C A T C 275 D A T A S H E E T •4-< ; - J O * c £ •'Us DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. LU V- « i R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. if. Led C*(| •C 0 o o * (< \ W 8 * I 0 7 * Sr _ ^ -•— 1 , 4 1 / <r ^ i * lo a o " 7 7 ^ ( fr £> — — . o 0 </-( f t \ \ I ^ <r 6 7 < ^ £ 1 O 1 o "1 o _ — — ^ _ — — - , ' fro 6 a o %l O O 0 6 1 o~u — — — — - v , , .... • — ^ — \ C O U/k J o 0 1 H p J V x l / v • f 6 \\% 1 / t o d - - ~ \ . V - . — c 0 r ' ~ i \ C H o , I i 2-6 & T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC I N - S I 1 u ir 5 1 I N c P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T I , V 6 , 1 SHEET , ^ X 276 D A T A S H E E T LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. LU -1- * AT MINS. R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. AT MINS. Lv 6, U c , %v f 6 O • i r 1 . — — 6 H i 1 im ti-st> — — — —H*— V i" fc- Q 7" , (crc U ( U b Sty / s- r fo i — " V 1 I 0 i ~Uo&L> h i (o .-Si- lJr7b • — — , — — • e> \\(o s-u A 1 1-toy. . — - — _ 3 1 i • 1. s « G lit* 1 774, 3> oit> fo I ~L4> £ ( f 0 3©/4 THE U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBCI I N - S M U 1 I 5 I I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T 1 0*1 I K J . 1 v 7T SHEET h f(.1_ O T . . 1 ' i f *5 r . L , -DATA SHEET UJ DC J D -- CO 0 0 o ui a." cc Cu UJ OT-2 cr CO E X T E N S O M E T E R READINGS T o ? T O P 2 v 5 V TellU! P I L E T I P J22 L E V E L R E A D I N G S P I L E P I L E S E T T L E . R E M A R K S • 0 I-^' o) / i f II I. '•12 i • (TO r.-TT I 7 t fv.. -H-/f<: • - 3 3 I • "£ 1 r: lb-34 3 ^ 1 ^ 1 r /•Si £2. 2 2 M o T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I 1 U 1 E SI I N C P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B . C . A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T T E S T P I L E #5 D*!f S H E E T i cf % 278 D A T A S H E E T LOAD i DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. « i EXTENSOMETE READINGS R LEVEL READINGS REMARKS LOAD i DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. 1 r<-\ 2 7 ; PILE TIP/- P I L E P I L E S E T T L E . iO ^ /•7-7'7< 2 <?i ! r / I-11% % <T , , ' -'J ^ - -' ! o i-7?9e i-ir^ / •{? -. ^ • l y- o / r -, 0 l • 72^f /• 0/o 1 l ' 7 ? K .' 7££* -\ / O f . l-V ft /• 0 /I 7. ?7~L /o i - < ? /If': 1 • K*0 -1 e. ! •<T^/ ) ' c ii- n o 1 ' 7 - j f 1 • 02Z V7 i-ll/z '•lUnS I < • l'llt< ho:.' 2-is* /•7^°f '•c ' ' -1' --> / • 77/r hl(,W I-02S 1 -"ft ! ' • 7723 1 • /' f: • Ah ' 2 /t>3 3' :7/'7o - ^ i J ' \ ftjj II-3 o O l"7^?o /•!<'? J ' O f 0 2 i' 10 i 1 ' 7ft / '-4 7 1 I 7 u s f / • 0^/7 _ , - -t 2--/.ou-i s J i -]^?\ 2 - l ^ 1 o / • 7 ^ i /•7^? ; ' 2 IV-1' . /'I P Co - tfo •' ^ 7 7 • cro T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I 1 U T E S T I N C PILE RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T \<SS\ P I L E # S SHEET 2. c{ ^  279 (2) D A T A S H E E T LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E R E A D I N G S R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 ( « ) P I L E P I L E P I L E S E T T L E . ,-, '>>!{', /'Ott 2 <iVo ' •> 1 -73a f . / . — r hi ( • 7 3 3 ^ - M - z <-i' 1 7 r^t ( 7 3 / < hose, 1 • - Y <r I < 7 * T O /•-> 2 • 7 f a 3 7 / ' 7 f AH • APl •2. • / $7 ft,' 2. Lfi l\ ' -o 1 - T h ) a l -7 /7f 2 -o jo t 1 - I t f-o' l ' 7 ' 7 f f l-iui>< hot? )-lL+oi \ - n i i / • 0 7 0 1 • 9 J ? 0 /•7«-o2 I - 7 I T 3 / ' 0 7 2 _ -2- V W--70 /<•> /•725>3 17 /1 ' !• 072 2 - 3 ^ 3 ° ) i 7 ° -ytfn - 2 • ofcS ft 1 2 - 0 ^ 0 1-7^11 ' • 3.1.' 7 " / 7 2 - 7 0 1 • 0 7 c " _ , . -1 1 -7QTo ' • 4 ^ 3 _ / — \ /•07<l 2 7 ^ 3 ° / - 7 ^ < f • f f o 2 -f'tr 1 I26S 1 4 - 3 * 5 2 -7^1 / i f " ' / I f? • 2 • 0 0 (<t i • D .... , 1 6 -T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C PILE RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L PILE LOAD T E S T T e n f*uE & * 0*11 SHEET 3 c f 8 D A T A S H E E T 2hQ J < o - J UJ tr J D -- C O 0 0 Q LJ Ou <r a. W CO 2 or , < 0 EXTENSOMETER READINGS P I L E T I B L E V E L READINGS PILE PILE SETTLE. R E M A R K S W-lo •7 i i p / • 7 / z o 2 • 37'-7 7 •7! I 9 2 9 7 9 3^/-7fe ( ll< 1 -7? o i f A f 3 2 •cmo 3 7 / '73 ft fir, 1-7313 ' "6^27 /•2fo 2 '<tSo h^U-2 I -3 /o 6" 2 • CTTT-£6> O 1-77 /o /•72T 2 c>^' / • 77/< / ' 7 3 / £ 7fo 2. • W o l a 17'c 2. 76-o / • 7 3 9 « / • 7 4 « / -2.?; 7 ? c / -2<" 2, 7 ? o o ;-73^. ^ 77^ 3?/-<v /•2*f 3 ^32 Ah Af3 5- rtf 7. : ^  < bi If, J r i--*97l /•2<f<. a - 3 7 o ^7 /-^2 0 0 7 T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I T U T E S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T TfciT P I U 6 M 5 I 22- C - ) - ? JT I S H E E T 4 281 D A T A S H E E T LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 f O 2 r* ;.• P I L E T I P , ) PILE PILE S E T T L E . fay:- o /'iSo 1 r 1 .<- . / ' 7 ^ 5 c ^ ' • i ' 7 'i 22io£ 0 /•7/T3 / • 3 0 \ /• "7/r. / •6 ' /7 9 I /•l!72 — • -/ • 7 H 2 /•t/>7 v 2 7 S /3 . -2S o l'7o3/ 1-1 ,' k "2 /• 7^' i-u?r 1 -2 / o i 1 r i /•7o/o 3 1 / ' ^ I hldlo f-7 '0 — *) 1 lots' / j/» _ , . _ 1 • ' • .... y / • ^ 7 3 />2|o / M' ( - /if 7 , 3 - 9So rf:, d • 2 ^ • r e : t & J . # 7 % • • V'' r . ' 0 ( W ' \ v ? / U ; ^ / 3<?o :-•<••;?<> 3.' /•6f72 / 31O - 11— / • >7-"'. , , — 'i ^  2-of : 1 - - > . f r - 2 • 67 /-ft. ^•J7o / *> - 2 ° 7 *2 ; 1 0 - ; . ,.<• T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I l U 1 E S I I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T ~[Z±T Pi LU n S SHEET 5 c ( S 282 D A T A S H E E T \ LOAD i DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S \ LOAD i DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 tt~>. T) P I L E T I P / P I L E PILE SETTLE. j ] ;U-1 0 I • / • t e c _ f b 7 ^ i ••S'T • / • U*i /•6<o 2 - 7 ? \ 2- «tf J '72 0 l-Ulo 2 ^ - 3 ^  2 • o f'l < 7 ' 3 / j f 3-n-i o My- / i f ^ .-/ 04 i (ii ill 's 1 o / • k+u 2 • ?? * • ' •< . -KkM, \ 2 ^ 7 • f 3 r 1 toTC U r 2 - T ^ O 7^70 2.' <Ha \ • 4^/ 1• 6o3S / Uo 3 = 7 • 'w ? • 0 f 0 (o 1-6^22 hit 2 • i f 0 A h . -1 1 i 2 o ? 14--. < i "? 1 • ^ i l o / • 6xic / • ^ '•77o 2 •<??/ ?'73^ / • to / • ^ /• <fU 3 -<rr>-\ l-lfo 2, - 5 ^ 3r-2''? 1 >) I - r'/'. 7 z>.'- A f ? • / - U'r, h'\ 1 [y. ire ...... -t 1 • T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S M U T I S 1 IN C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T T E H p, L L *" D ^ D V K I S H E E T L cf S 283 D A T A S H E E T r • LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 ft-) • T ) P I L E T I P Q PILE PILE S E T T L E . m~ o $ o \-loOl% 3 v.. 1 • (o v-n '<Kt> ' h C.577 t L'l -•1 ^ •.'• ' i-i>on 11 r/ 3 C 2 - t t 3 - ' ^ / ' ) > > • > ("7 ! o 1-601(0 i Kit - / o • 2 7 ( f •' - '• AQi • fry U~-U - / - o 7 " = f n-/o r ^ 7 T -IV- V 0 1 • 5762. 1 -SU-'o 2 -oyf 3 • V i (. 7 '«(,0 ! 2 <J / / . ^ _ 7- / •< f3 i 2. ok* _ r - / / . 7 1 ^ / o ,7 • C ? /<f7<5o 3 c ; ? • 3 o '2 /• TOO /.fo • O-Blo ft. kc. 1 . V Y l(o — C L It'll ' ' 53</o / • 5L; o 2 • o U J .fir • / 2 • ° ^ '• ' •• <" ; -» , 1 f • < i * -r 7 . - ' . : 11-2 • II / • ^ 2 o t r ti ^ , f ^' • < 3 ° i 2 . 7 ? •l, i r~ > 1 T ' *~ - -" Z • o f > ^ 7 2 i i " • - 0 ' II /• i ; • / / i • • ^7<o 7 • % Ml -• • t • • -- 0 - !' , L j . 3l<Zo ' P r '0,.. 1 '•" ' ; • • ^ - , •- ^ /<"-' •  '7/-<--T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN-SIIu 1 E S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C, A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T TEST PILE #5" °*TI r ~ S H E E T 7 o f g 284 D A T A S H E E T DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E R E A D I N G S R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 r: ) P I L E T1P / , P I L E P I L E S E T T L E . L- '•-3t>< 1 L ^ ; „ 2 -iir - '6 • -• ''? / '•^(, /•</-• 2.- 17 /•C{?72 z • n 2 - 1 7 - <•• - 3 1 2 - - L f o 2 . ; ^ /V -far* t 4oo t pjt 4 ' / Co / ' . ' • ' 7 • ; • ' > o / • f 7 3 l-<2o 3 9 2 O o 2_ ' i ' 7^0 i Pr. ° 7 •o " 3 ; . r - ? u 7 r r< * 1 2 b : J / i f . ii o K 3 * r 3 7 ^ ' " f i / i f / . 9 3 •/ o Q /•7 / o a 3-6^ 2 _ - . . • 7 3 a s o 3 ffT-• >r..V 7 , /•I Mr! • T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C iN - s n i) l c si INC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T "TfeA-r P i t _ l - I " . { l l ^ . U f I S H F F T "< rX 'A 285 D A T A S H E E T 6 DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. W to 2 tr •7 z E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S -J DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. « i fin ) 1 M " Lin) 2 - P l L E ^ T I P . . PILE PILE SETTLE. ( J T P ' ? >•?-;/ 3 t " ^ r : — * i ? • ^ r ID- i f . ! < ;. '• < . . . ^ i ' 2— c 3 3 i y a - y . K Is,; i 9 7 • ^ C - J3 • *" • ••- ~ ' ' A If-l ' •  •• - -7~- 3. r i • '• r //^ 35" l - n 3 o-1 fe £ 3 ? * t . - . - . . , l-77<? i o :.<:<. 0 - 7 6 , r- - - • 5 " ! > o 7 7 o ' 7 ; : ID / • 7 7 ? / • *37o o 7 ~ 6 • z n r ^ • 2 0 5" Af }> : (3 • OTP fc{ & ^ 7 ' < 3 ' ' 7o-^ H ••<+<" o - 7 7 6 . . r , ~ ('' ' J ,• 1 /^r 1 - 7 7 ^ g-bi 1 3?z 2 i 7 . ' 3 ' / ' • * > ' • 7 o o ? • n Hi ? 7 M / M ; 2 ' ^ f 7 7 3 ^ ' ^ e fo/ (J z i 3'' (• loir /0 - ' 3 '' - it '•ten 0 • / (7 3 f 3 ° i s • —^ •• ; / <• • ; (J ' r> • ' 7 ' 7 ', . • ~~~ / D • C' m •• "7 ' r> c - M: • 7 - 2 > / 7 . 0 - r l-lo-f i 3 _ ^ V h;.. (.•-. /,' ; ; • 7 o o T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I T U T f S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T T £ b T P i L k *+ S" | 0 > M t - .o- S H E E T 1 ^  i 286 ^ D A T A S H E E T LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S.L TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L READINGS R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S.L TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 2 f H»: * f- -r • •' ' • P I L E T I P PILE PILE S E T T L E . 1? :05 O 12 • c5T3 2 ! / a - i : : • -d i <r ! 2 • 2, 6 3 / 3 - 2 3-iz. 11-l+l / i f - 3 • £ 5 o /•»:--- •^32- fh IJ'57<> /(- = firj ii : 27" ? k\ . tea*- (U-12. :2.1 0 / ' ^ 3 7 1 ! f i 7 o 3-Uo l 3 * ?•; 2 -2>f& 7«3 ' J 13- 2 3^ 3-3 / • • h 7f3 2 3-3< ' Af? • At /' 3g Afw--r<x. i : , 2n $ > 7-\2-V o \lo~J 2 -If? /2-6L 12. 3 3 a f 3^- ^ « -A. • -<— /'07 /? / O f /' r r , • t / i f / - 7.5^ff Af3- /2-2o-r 1 - 7 ^ / 2 -34 . 2. l-7o/f O i • <3«* / 3f3o< o .1 /•532C i f - i ? ^ r , If / • f 2 . 7 f / • i ' 77< /, < Z Z c / • j V Z <" /3 • Jj'i' /•ir < • - ) / / T: - //> ^  f 2 . tl-T • --P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. i nc u IN i v t K a i i r u r i—i|rj| BRITISH COLUMBIA ^•S}"' A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T UBC I N - 5 1 1 U 1 1 51 I N C T e n f . L f c °*fe-io-^ S H E E T 2 t£lL 287 D A T A S H E E T Q < O _J DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. E X T E N S O M E T E READINGS R L E V E L R E A D I N G S R E M A R K S DIAL PRESSURE P. S.I. TIME HRS. AT MINS. 1 r 2 P I L E TJP PILE PILE S E T T L E . ! 3 : l(o 0 3-^1 ) : ^ /u- .30 5" * lo /•hid '•'4-11 flf''- Af3 * /if c/ r U[ 3 =. t It 0 J'll 2 .7 / ft- Ho r / • ^ /<*> / 3 70 10 l'3%' J-70 : J.-lt ft] * / o v-o .3 2_ • Li t '3: 3? 0 3^-o /'/IO Z4--36 3^ -3 - ty- o°\i<; ^ 3 f I | 701 019) 0 770 3 •if /^•3H 38^  f ( 3 ? / 5-; T Hi 5" M 1L 3^-2. o O 0-fH< it O 3f6- / 1 25 £? 0'^2 ' 3 < W / ' J 0-<ff /•7i IZ-12- 3 ^ 5 - 7 O 0 0 -731/ 3/^ >T A// 4/ f,, 2l- 1 (Ik & r f° T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I l U T t S T I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T Test -if b SHEET ? v f t 288 D A T A S H E E T LOAD ;* DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. R E M A R K S LOAD ;* DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I. TIME HRS. ^ / / W < - . -Jr > / ' CA*>-«f - • . ' • / —> r— ( t - y . - \ - <S (?. ' - n s v 0 t r • .:.*• r C' • H - - • -> 0 7 icy ! r I V f... / , \ i " ! c. 1 i 76 in ! . • / " ; ( / 5fe J ^< - '. .' ' •? r'c ! n % r • •J /•'.'" t" : . / - V ' : 7^ * c • * / . L y f : <^ WC ? f ? r- 0 /*> —, r- ,-\ » 1 / A - , ; v / / y /> ' f b 1» T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F • B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C IN'SItU 1 ESTINC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T P < L E * 4 S 0*11 I SHEET 4 »f0 289 D A T A S H E E T LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. - - / ' •" -/ --•!:• " t / **- a ; - , v • / j) • . - ' / '. • v no £> >C-7t? / i c £ o o 7-v . - " -o c <;» O iHC 0 • o - . f-/ C 7-Ts7- hi-. 6 v ? A /. C 7.7 " f' T7 ( o ? 71--*- i. J , 1 1 / T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U B C I N - S I 1 U T l S I I N C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T 0* H SHEET «J e f t 290 A ^ C. H r a. pi L t t v. ^ . 0 ( C-LL D A T A S H E E T LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. R E M A R K S LOAD DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1. TIME HRS. AT MINS. / * -• 6 - 9 > , j-~ \"' * * * I. r~> (0 -i. ^  a 0 ?zi e L f ? w <r ? -- ? ' ( . «• o j v £ a — - /• ' • • ? / / f{l * (c'l / ft h •> 0 0 > i T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC I N - S I l U T I S I I N C PILE RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. A X I A L P I L E L O A D T E S T | SHEET £ ,1 (, 291 APPENDIX IV LATERAL PILE LOAD TESTS CJ —i 73 X O £ -A -< O r cn m m r > ro 5 r r m O > D H m (j) H n cr* PI PI cn PJ > 33 O a: 30 o p] o O C PI PI z c n c o O 33 o C o o "5. 5 5: -to •ft »0 <>0 PS «*•••> ft 0 N CI Js. °0 Ni n Si E L N be ft vj xi 3 W I T . «6 -fe vt Ni «x «*3 AO \ vQ tor to ' LOAD* DIAL PRESSURE TIME 1 i n j . A T MINS. •5> * 2s » « •ft,-z §5 • ° L ^ • ro 2 2 -xi w ill ft t In w i i V C m I LA () , P rn « « - ^ D A T A S H E E T 2 9 3 * < q oJ tr _1 13 + - 00 "3 Q U J e'-er l i e <I D I A L - GfVjGE. R E & f c l K J G S C L O ^ D W G * 5 ar id * 3 /vi-S*) R E M A R K S £ PILE »OO . t) (e$ re-fertntre, \ P I L E AJO. 3 w-5 PlUB NO. Z P i L r w-s PILE P I L E MO, 4 P t L e If If, CM ^.22-7 4U- ^ . * 2 ^ r -* 1 • 2 .^3^7 > ! 5" 0.2?/ 0.133 V.66 ! i . i - 01}3 0331 i 1 2*£7 c *.3 cS * 0.3(2 1 ? ! 25; c w O r. /2 5-32. 1 1 2- QSl/ 3 2 t 1 5" o s u /0 rn 0.57j> ^.^ /= 7-41 cm sr. ^2 * 30f ooo y . r i <? r.77 r-lo P,/c f - 7/2 Z 0469 "'/iff P'/i 1 - I-/* JT Dkci<f * -05 Plant tv-rt^m-ici • P \ 1 -02 A 7? i> Z l-ol ^ '•"At />:/<- / * Lc? 7 Oil? A- U3 P-23y f.l< Is 6 U "• / CDC 7 i3 b Of t •THE U N I V E R S I T Y O F ' B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. L A T E R A L PILE LOAD TEST P/L6S I t 3 I SHEET lor*- j j ca H 73 X -i m l/> C 2 n < o m >o i— c —• V —1 -< QJ > o TJ r m (/> C/1 T m m r > ro r r m r o > o H m co —I ra a cn cn pi-s' 73 n a: •a 50 O C l ra o *3 lO c ra ra z CO 03 o o c o to h Si i. v. T ^ 4 c T"1 T 0 (I 1tr ft fa -A Ft if <3 N N N • L O A D * /IE. D I A L P R E S S U R E s . K U Q J S TIME A T MINS. ui R n» ^ 5 ^ - ro 2 ^ 5 i in f" * ^ rn V r o o 5. $ 3 i 8 A r ^ 9> D A T A , T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A UBC I N - I I I U 1 I I I I M C P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. L A T E R A L , P I L E L O A D T E S T I 0 » I t J SHEET ii=-f APPENDIX V DYNAMIC AXIAL CAPACITY PREDICTION METHODS 297 A. Engineering News Record (ENR) Dynamic Formula 2 • W • H p _ " S + 0.1 - See Section 6.5.2 for explanation of symbols. i) Pile no. 5 original driving - end of driving: set = 1.09 inches W J J =6.2 kips H = 7 feet p - (2) * (6.2)(7) _ R " (1.09 + 0.1) " 7 3 k i p s factor of safety = 6 ••• ultimate capacity = 478 kips = 1944 kN ii ) Pile no. 5 restrike data - beginning of restrike: set = 0.5 inches W„ =3.5 kips n H = 10 feet v 2 * (3.5)(10) 1 1 7 . . = (0.5 + 0.1) = 1 1 7 k l ? S factor of safety = 6 ••• ultimate capacity = 700 kips = 3114 kN WFAPaS: WftVE £SUAT10N fl.MAL.YSIS OF" PILE FOUNDATIONS VERSION i.004 Hft*#CR MODEL OF: UBC ELEMENT MADE! BY: UPC C A P / R A M WEIGHT STIFFNESS COEFF. OF D NL. (KN) (FN/MM) RESTITUTION (MM) i 13. 790 £ 13.790 9935E.3 1.000 3. 04S0 3.560 483.4 .500 3.0000 HAMMER OPTIONS: HAMMER NO. FUEL BETT6. STROKE OP" CAP DAMPG (KN/M/S) J3.. 0 HAMMER TYPE DAMPNG-HAMR 311 1 HAMMER PERFORMANCE DATA RAM WEIGHT RAM LENGTH (KN) (MM) £7. 58 1££0. 00 •RTD PRESS. (KPA) . 00 ACT PRESS. (KPA) . 00 MAX STROKE (M) 13 STROKE (M) EFF. AREA IMPACT VEL. (CME) . 00 (M/S) 5. 41 EFFICIENCY . 700 HAMMER CUSHION AREA (CMS) 900.00 -MODULUS (MPA) £05. 6 THICKNESS (MM) 38.100 STIFFNESS (KN/MM) 485. 8 APPENDIX VI LATDMT.UBC PROGRAMS LISTING DERIVATION OF e 5 0 RELATIONSHIP FROM HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP ° 3 = i e Duncan and Chang (1970) S T T ^ T V £ 5 0 (of/Rf) L i s t i n g of PU-YC.UBC at 19:24:09 on JAN 18. 1987 for CC1d=DMPY Page 1 ^ £ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 C UBC IN-SITU TESTING GROUP * 3 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 C * * * PROGRAM FOR CALCULATON OF PU-YC FROM DILATOMETER RESULTS * * * * g £ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 C * 8 C WRITTEN BY MICHAEL P. DAVIES. OCTOBER, 198G UPON * 9 C ADAPTATION FROM PROGRAM BY TSO TIEN-HSING * 10 C FORMAL DEVELOPMENT OF ALL EQUATIONS USED CAN BE * 11 C FOUND IN M.A.Sc . THESIS BY PROGRAM AUTHOR + 12 C * 13 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 C * 15 C RUNNING INSTRUCTIONS: * 16 C * 17 C RUN *FORTRANVS SCARDS=PU-YC.UBC SPUNCH=-OUT * 18 C RUN -OUT 1=DMT DATA FILE 5=FACT0R FILE 6=-DMT ECHO * 19 C 7=(PU,DEPTH) 8=(YC.DEPTH) * 20 C * 21 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 REAL KO,M.ID.KD.MU 23 COMMON /L1/X.D,ESV,PHI .SNPH 24 COMMON /L4 /PU.K0 25 COMMON /L5 /CU 26 COMMON /L6 /ED 27 COMMON /L7/EPS50,EIC,FACC 28 COMMON / L 8 / U 29 COMMON /L15/PU1.PU2 30 COMMON /L22/P0.P1,RK1.RK2.EIS1.EIS2.SF 31 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32 C * FEC. FES=CORRECTION FACTORS TO DILATOMETER MODULII * 3 3 Q ******************************************************** 34 READ(5,*)FEC.FES 35 PRINT * , ' FEC= ' , F E C , ' F E S = ' . F E S 3 6 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 37 C * READ IN OUTPUT FROM DMT.UBC (DMT DATA REDUCING * 38 C * PROGRAM) * 39 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 40 100 READ(1,*,END=111)X,P0,P1,ED.U,ID,GAMMA,ESV.KD,OCR 41 * .PC.KO.CU.PHI,M 42 WRITE(6,299)X,P0,P1,ED,U,ID,GAMMA,ESV,KD,OCR 43 * .PC.KO.CU.PHI,M 44 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 45 C * D=PILE DIAMETER IN CM * 46 C * NOTE: ENSURE THAT THIS IS CHANGED APPROPRIATELY * ' 47 C * FOR THE PILES BEING USED * 48 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 49 D=91.5 50 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 51 C * * * * * CHANGE UNIT TO KN-CM, XX=DEPTH,M * * * * 52 C * * * * * PU=KPA-M, YC=CM * * * * - U, 5 3 c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * O 54 FA=0.01035986 M 55 PO=PO*FA 56 P1=P1*FA 57 ED=ED*FA 58 U=U*FA L i s t i n g of PU-YC.UBC at 19:24:09 on JAN 18. 1987 for CC1d=DMPY Page 2 59 ESV=ESV*FA 60 PC=PC*FA 61 CU=CU*FA 62 M=M*FA 63 XX=X 64 X=X*100. 65 RPH=PHI QQ Q ********************************** 67 C * PHI IS INCREASED BY 5 DEGREES * gg c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 69 PHI=PHI+5. 7Q Q *************************************** 71 Q * * * * * CALCULATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 72 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 73 IF(RPH.EO.O.)THEN 74 CALL PUCLAY 75 ELSE 76 CALL PUSAND 77 END IF 78 PPU=PU 79 Q **************************************** 80 C * * YC CALCULATIONS * * * * * g1 Q **************************************** 82 RF=0.8 83 MU=0.4 84 RD=0.6 85 IF(RPH.EQ.O.)THEN 86 SF=2.*CU 87 EIC=FEC*38.2*(P1-P0) 88 EPS50=(SF/EIC)/ (2. -RF) 89 YC=14.2*EPS50*(D**0.5) 90 ELSE 91 SF=(2*SNPH/(1.-SNPH))*ESV 92 EIS=FES*38.2*(P1-PO) 93 EPS50=(SF/EIS) / (2. -RF) 94 YC=2.5*EPS50*D 95 END IF 9G WRITE(7,99)PPU.XX 97 WRITE(8.99)YC.XX 98 99 F0RMAT(2F15.4) 99 199 F0RMAT(4F15.4) 100 299 F0RMAT(7F7.2,F7.3,7F7.2) 101 GO TO 100 102 111 STOP 103 END 104 r ,******************************************** 1 105 SUBROUTINE PUCLAY 106 REAL NP.J 107 COMMON / L 1 / X , D , E S V 108 COMMON /L4 /PU 109 COMMON /L5 /CU 110 J=0.5 111 Q ********************************************************* 112 C * NOTE THAT d SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 0.25 FOR STIFF CLAYS * 113 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 114 NP=(3.+(ESV))/CU+(J*X/D) 115 IF(NP.GT.9.)THEN 116 NP=9. L i s t i n g of PU-YC.UBC at 19:24:09 on JAN 18. 1987 for CC1d=DMPY Page 3 1 17 END IF 1 18 PU=NP*CU*D 1 19 RETURN 120 END 121 £ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 122 SUBROUTINE PUSAND 123 REAL KA.KP 124 COMMON /L1/X,D,ESV.PHI .SNPH 125 COMMON /L4/PU.RK0 126 COMMON /L15/PU1.PU2 127 PH=PHI/180.*3.141593 128 A=PH/2. 129 B=3.141593/4.+A 130 c **************************************** 131 c * * 132 c * CHECK IF KO FROM DILATOMETER OUTPUT = RKO * 133 c * * 134 c ********************************************** 135 RK0=0.5 136 TNPH=TAN(PH) 137 TNB=TAN(B) 138 SNPH=SIN(PH) 139 KA=(1-SNPH)/(1+SNPH) 140 KP=1./KA 141 R=D*(KP-KA)+X*KP*TNPH*TNB 142 T=(KP**3.)+2.*RKO*(KP**2.)*TNPH+TNPH-KA 143 PU1=ESV*R 144 PU2=ESV*0*T 145 IF(PU1.GT.PU2)THEN 146 PU=PU2 147 ELSE 148 PU=PU1 149 END IF 150 DD=4.*D 151 IF(X.LE.DD)THEN 152 PU=PU/DD*X 153 END IF 154 RETURN 155 END to o L i s t i n g of P-Y.UBC at 19:24:19 on JAN 18, 1987 for CC1d=DMPY Page 1 ^ C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ' 2 c * * * * * * * * * * * U B C IN-SITU TESTING GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 C PROGRAM FOR THE CALCULATION OF P=Y CURVES USING * 4 C A CUBIC PARABOLA FROM PU=YC DATA DERIVED FROM * 5 C DILATOMETER RESULTS * Q £************************************************************** 7 C * 8 C WRITTEN BY MICHAEL P. DAVIES. DECEMBER 1986 * 9 C UPON ADAPTATION FROM TSO TIEN-HSING * 10 C * 11 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 DIMENSION Y(50),P(50) 13 COMMON/L1/X.PU,YC,K,RK 14 C0MM0N/L2/Y,P,0 15 c **************************************************** 16 C * LATPILE INPUT DATA. CAN CHANGE "PRINT' VALUES * 17 C * HERE OR LATER FROM P-Y.UBC OUTPUT BEFORE RUNNING * 18 C * LATPILE * ig Q **************************************************** 20 PRINT * , 'LATERAL LOAD PILE(DATA-NEW)' 21 PRINT * . ' 5 , 3 ' 22 PRINT * , '110O ,0 , 9 1 . 5 , 1 0 0 , 0 . 0 5 , 3 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ' 23 c *************************** 24 C * N=NO. OF P-Y CURVES * 25 c *************************** 26 N=10 27 PRINT * , ' 9 , 12' 28 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 C * * 30 C * RK=0. FOR CLAYS * 31 c *********************** 32 c **************************************** 33 C * X=0(USING RK=0.PU=0.001,YC=0.01) * 34 C * X(CM), PU(KN/SQ.CM-CM), YC(CM) * 35 C * RK(KN/CU.CM), RK=0(CLAY) * 36 C * * 37 Q **************************************** 38 222 READ(5,*,END=88)X,PU,YC 39 X=X*100. 40 D=91.5 41 CALL PARAB 42 WRITE(6.99)X 43 WRITE(6,99)((Y(I ),P(I )),I = 1,K) 4 4 99 F0RMAT(2F20 .4) 45 GO TO 222 46 Q ***************************************** , 47 * MORE LATPILE DATA TO CHANGE HERE OR * 48 * FROM P-Y.UBC OUTPUT * 4 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 88 PRINT * , ' 1 ' 51 PRINT *, '11134180000.,30' 52 STOP 53 END g 5 4 c********************************************************* 4>* 55 SUBROUTINE PARAB 56 DIMENSION Y(50),P(50) 57 COMMON/L1/X,PU,YC,K 58 C0MM0N/L2/Y,P,D L i s t i n g of P-Y.UBC at 19:24:19 on JAN 18, 1987 for CCid=DMPY Page 59 WY=8.*YC 60 YY=0. 61 DO 100 1=1,100 62 K = I 63 A=(YY/YC)** (1 . /3 . ) 64 PP=0.5*PU*A 65 Y(K)=YY 66 P(K)=PP 67 IF ( YY.GT.WY)THEN 68 GO TO 5 69 ELSE 70 YY=YY+WY/10. 71 END IF 72 100 CONTINUE 73 5 YY=YY+D 74 Y(K)=YY 75 P(K)=PU 76 RETURN 77 END 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0062630/manifest

Comment

Related Items