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 U n i v e r s i t y o f 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  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f C i v i l  We a c c e p t t h i s  Engineering  t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1987  ©MICHAEL PAUL DAVIES, 1987  In  presenting this  dissertation  in partial  fulfilment  for  an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  the  Library  further  shall  agree  make  that permission  in  whole or i n p a r t , may  or  her  this  i t freely  be  representatives.  dissertation  for  available  for reference  g r a n t e d by the Head of my  financial  gain  of t h i s  not  be  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date:  SepfeMbef  30  y  Columbia  f<30J.  study.  I  dissertation,  or p u b l i c a t i o n  allowed  written permission.  M i c h a e l Paul  and  department or by h i s  t h a t copying  shall  requirements  Columbia, I agree t h a t  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying  I t i s understood  of the  Davies  without  of my  ABSTRACT  The  prediction  engineering problem.  of axial  and lateral  pile  behaviour  i s a complex  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 i n predicting axially loaded pile capacity and laterally 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 endbearing components of the load test results.  These results are then  compared to the prediction methods investigated. Two methods of predicting  lateral  in-situ data have been investigated. data  load-deflection behaviour  One method uses pressuremeter  and the other, a new method proposed  displacement  flat  plate  using  dilatometer test  in this  data.  study, uses  test full-  These predictions are  compared with full-scale lateral load tests on three piles of differing size.  In both the a x i a l analyses obtained  are  identified.  It  load  i s shown  cases, that  the p r e f e r r e d excellent  f o r p r e d i c t i n g measured p i l e behaviour u s i n g  limitations research  and l a t e r a l  of  this  study  are  noted,  and  raethod(s)  agreement  can  s e v e r a l methods.  recommendations  for  are proposed.  Advisors:  Dr.  Peter K. Robertson  Dr.  Richard  G. Campanella  of be The  further  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1.0  i i v i i viii xiii  INTRODUCTION 1.1 Outline 1.2 Thesis Objectives  -  1 1 2  2.0  PILE DESIGN 2.1 A x i a l l y Loaded P i l e s 2.1.1 Introduction 2.1.2 S t a t i c C a p a c i t y P r e d i c t i o n Methods 2.1.2.1 F a i l u r e Mechanisms 2.1.2.2 P r e d i c t i o n Methods 2.1.3 Dynamic C a p a c i t y P r e d i c t i o n Methods 2.2 L a t e r a l l y Loaded P i l e s 2.1.1 Introduction 2.1.2 Mechanism o f Behaviour 2.1.3 Behaviour P r e d i c t i o n Methods  3 5 5 8 8 15 19 22 22 25 27  3.0  RESEARCH SITE 3.1 R e g i o n a l Geology 3.2 Site Description  34 35 37  4.0  IN-SITU TESTS PERFORMED 4.1 Introduction 4.2 I n - S i t u T e s t i n g Methods 4.2.1 Piezometer Cone P e n e t r a t i o n T e s t i n g 4.2.1.1 T e s t D e s c r i p t i o n 4.2.1.2 R e s u l t s 4.2.2 Pressuremeter T e s t i n g 4.2.2.1 T e s t D e s c r i p t i o n 4.2.2.2 R e s u l t s 4.2.3 F l a t Plate Dilatometer Testing 4.2.3.1 T e s t D e s c r i p t i o n 4.2.3.2 R e s u l t s 4.2.4 Other Methods 4.3 Summary  39 39 40 44 44 46 46 46 50 52 52 54 54 57  5.0  PILE INSTALLATION AND LOAD TESTING 5.1 Pile Installation 5.1.1 D r i v i n g Records 5.1.2 Dynamic Measurements 5.2 A x i a l Load T e s t i n g 5.2.1 Introduction 5.2.2 Methodology 5.2.3 Results  60 60 60 63 65 65 66 67  - iv -  TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.3. L a t e r a l Load T e s t i n g 5.3.1 Introduction 5.3.2 Methodology 5.3.3 Results 6.0  84 84 86 89  PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED AXIAL PILE CAPACITY 95 6.1 Introduction -. 95 6.2 Use o f Spreadsheets 107 6.3 D i r e c t Methods 107 6.3.1 Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method 110 6.3.1.1 O u t l i n e 110 6.3.1.2 R e s u l t s I l l 6.3.2 d e R u i t e r and B e r i n g e n CPT Method 113 6.3.2.1 O u t l i n e 113 6.3.2.2 R e s u l t s 114 6.3.3 Zhou, Z i e , Zuo, Luo, and Tang CPT Method 114 6.3.3.1 O u t l i n e 114 6.3.3.2 R e s u l t s ll6 6.2.4 Van M i e r l o and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method ... 116 6.2.4.1 O u t l i n e 116 6.2.4.2 R e s u l t s 118 6.3.5 L a b o r a t o i r e C e n t r a l des Ponts e t Chaussees (LCPC) CPT Method 118 6.3.5.1 O u t l i n e 118 6.3.5.2 R e s u l t s 120 6.4 I n d i r e c t Methods 120 6.4.1 American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e (API) RP2A Method 122 6.4.1.1 O u t l i n e 122 6.4.1.2 R e s u l t s 123 6.4.2 Dennis and Olson Method 123 6.4.2.1 O u t l i n e 123 6.4.2.2 R e s u l t s 125 6.4.3 V i j a y v e r g i y a and Focht Method 125 6.4.3.1 O u t l i n e 125 6.4.3.2 R e s u l t s 127 6.4.4 Bur l a n d Method 127 6.4.4.1 O u t l i n e 127 6.4.4.2 R e s u l t s 129 6.4.5 Janbu Method 129 6.4.5.1 O u t l i n e 129 6.4.5.2 R e s u l t s 131 6.4.6 Meyerhof C o n v e n t i o n a l Method 131 6.4.6.1 O u t l i n e 131 6.4.6.2 R e s u l t s 133 6.4.7 F l a a t e and Seines Method 133 6.4.7.1 O u t l i n e 133 6.4.7.2 R e s u l t s 135 6.5 Dynamic Methods 135 6.5.1 Introduction 135  - v -  TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page  6.6  6.7 7.0  6.5.2 Results S e n s i t i v i t y t o Input Parameters 6.6.1 S t a t i c Methods 6.6.2 Dynamic Methods Discussion of A x i a l P i l e Capacity Predictions  137 141 141 146 150  PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR 7.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 7.2 Program LATPILE 7.3 L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour 7.3.1 F u l l Displacement Pressuremeter T e s t P-Y Curve Method 7.3.1.1 O u t l i n e 7.3.1.2 R e s u l t s 7.3.2 F l a t P l a t e D i l a t o m e t e r P-Y Curve Method 7.3.2.1 T h e o r e t i c a l Development 7.3.2.2 Programs LATDMT.UBC 7.3.2.3 R e s u l t s 7.3.3 Other Methods 7.4 D i s c u s s i o n o f L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour P r e d i c t i o n s  162 162 162 163  8.0  RECOMMENDED CORRELATIONS 8.1 A x i a l P i l e C a p a c i t y 8.2 L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour 8.3 L i m i t a t i o n s and P r e c a u t i o n s  194 194 195 195  9.0  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9.1 P i l e I n s t a l l a t i o n and Load T e s t i n g 9.2 A x i a l P i l e C a p a c i t y P r e d i c t i o n Methods 9.3 L a t e r a l P i l e Behaviour P r e d i c t i o n Methods 9.4 Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research  196 196 197 197 198  REFERENCES  '  164 164 167 172 173 182 183 191 192  200  APPENDICES I Reduced I n - S i t u T e s t Data f o r UBCPRS 207 II P i l e D r i v i n g Records f o r UBCPRS 235 III A x i a l P i l e Load T e s t s f o r UBCPRS 245 IV L a t e r a l P i l e Load T e s t s f o r UBCPRS 291 V Dynamic A x i a l C a p a c i t y P r e d i c t i o n Methods f o r UBCPRS .. 296 VI LATDMT.UBC Programs L i s t i n g 299  - vi-  LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1  P r i n c i p a l Advantages and,Disadvantages o f D i f f e r e n t  Pile  Types (adapted from V e s i c , 1977)  6  4.1  Summary o f I n - S i t u T e s t s Performed  41  5.1  UBC P i l e Research S i t e P i l e D r i v i n g Records Summary  62  5.2  UBC P i l e Research S i t e PDA Summary  64  5.3  UBCPRS P i l e D r i v i n g  65  5.4  MOTHPRS P i l e D r i v i n g and T e s t i n g  5.5  Summary o f T e l l - T a l e Data f o r UBCPRS  5.6  Summary o f A x i a l P i l e Loading T e s t i n g  6.1  P i l e C a p a c i t y P r e d i c t i o n Methods E v a l u a t e d  97  6.2  Design Methods f o r C a l c u l a t i n g A x i a l P i l e C a p a c i t y  98  6.3  P r e d i c t e d Shaft R e s i s t a n c e as a Percentage o f T o t a l Measured A x i a l C a p a c i t y f o r P i l e No. 5 P r e d i c t e d Shaft R e s i s t a n c e as a Percentage o f T o t a l P r e d i c t e d A x i a l C a p a c i t y f o r P i l e No. 5  6.4  7.1  and T e s t i n g  Schedule Schedule  V a l u e s o f J Recommended by Matlock  - vii -  66 82  a t UBCPRS and MOTHPRS  (1970)  86  159 160  177  LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1  2.2  S i t u a t i o n s i n Which P i l e s May be R e q u i r e d (adapted from V e s i c , 1977) Methods o f I n s t a l l a t i o n o f P i l e s  4  (adapted from K e z d l i ,  1975)  7  2.3  Types o f F a i l u r e Mechanisms (adapted from V e s i c , 1963) ...  10  2.4  F i e l d s f o r D i f f e r e n t Types o f F a i l u r e F o r Shallow and Deep Foundations (adapted from K e z d i , 1975)  11  Assumed F a i l u r e Mechanisms Under P i l e Foundations (adapted from V e s i c , 1967)  12  B e a r i n g C a p a c i t y F a c t o r s f o r Deep C i r c u l a r (adapted from V e s i c , 1967)  Foundations 14  Schematic R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f D r i v i n g System  f o r Wave  2.5  2.6  2.7  E q u a t i o n Model  21  2.8  Schematic R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f CAPWAP Model  23  2.9  Dynamic P i l e A n a l y s i s : Methods and R e s u l t s  24  2.10  Observed Displacements Around L a t e r a l l y Loaded ( a f t e r Robertson e t a l . , 1986)  2.11  2.12  2.13  S o i l Flows Around L a t e r a l P i l e a t Depth Randolph and Houlsby, 1984)  Pile . 26  (adapted from  S o i l Movement a t Shallow Depth Due t o L a t e r a l Displacement (adapted from Broms, 1964)  28 Pile 29  Model o f L a t e r a l l y Loaded P i l e Using D i s c r e t e W i n k l e r Springs  30  Shape o f a T y p i c a l P-y Curve Used f o r N o n l i n e a r Subgrade R e a c t i o n Method  32  3.1  G e n e r a l L o c a t i o n o f Research S i t e  36  3.2  S i t e P l a n o f UBCPRS and MOTHPRS  38  2.14  - viii -  LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 4.1  L o c a t i o n s o f I n - S i t u T e s t s Performed a t P i l e S i t e s  42  4.2  L o c a t i o n s o f I n - S i t u T e s t s Performed a t UBCPRS  43  4.3  Schematic o f E l e c t r i c Cone Developed a t UBC  4.4  CPT I n t e r p r e t e d P r o f i l e Used f o r UBCPRS  47  4.5  CPT I n t e r p r e t e d P r o f i l e Used f o r MOTHPRS  49  4.6  Conceptual D e s i g n : UBC Cone Pressuremeter  -.  45  (after  Campanella and Robertson, 1986)  51  4.7  Schematic R e p r e s e n t a t i o n  53  4.8  I n t e r m e d i a t e G e o t e c h n i c a l Parameters from DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS I n t e r p r e t e d G e o t e c h n i c a l Parameters from DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS  4.9  of F l a t Plate Dilatometer  55 56  4.10  UBC P i l e Research S i t e Undrained S t r e n g t h P r o f i l e s  58  5.1  UBC/MOTH T e s t P i l e Embedments  61  5.2  Axial  68  5.3  Typical Axial  5.4  MOTHPRS A x i a l P i l e Load T e s t Set Up ( a f t e r et a l . , 1985)  5.5  5.6  5.7  5.8  5.9  P i l e Load T e s t Set Up f o r P i l e No. 5 P i l e Set Up f o r P i l e s  1 t o 4, I n c l u s i v e Robertson  Load-Displacement Diagram o f a H y p o t h e t i c a l T e s t Drawn t o Two D i f f e r e n t S c a l e s UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l - P i l e No. 1  Load T e s t  UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l - P i l e No. 2  Load T e s t  UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l - P i l e No. 3  Load T e s t  UBC P i l e Research S i t e : A x i a l - P i l e No. 4  Load T e s t  69  70 Pile 71  Results 73  - ix -  Results 74 Results 75 Results 77  LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 5.10  UBC P i l e Reseach S i t e : A x i a l Load T e s t R e s u l t s - P i l e No. 5  78  5.11  Summary o f P i l e Load T e s t R e s u l t s  79  5.12  Schematic O u t l i n e o f T e l l - t a l e System Used f o r UBCPRS  80  5.13  Schematic Concept o f L o a d - T r a n s f e r  81  5.14  UBC P i l e Research S i t e :  83  5.15  UBCPRS: Chin's Method t o P r e d i c t F a i l u r e Load f o r P i l e Nos.  P i l e No. 5 T e l l - T a l e Summary  4 and 5  85  5.16  UBC P i l e Research S i t e :  5.17  UBC P i l e Research S i t e : I n c l i n o m e t e r Set Up f o r L a t e r a l Load T e s t i n g MOTHPRS L a t e r a l P i l e Load T e s t Arrangement ( a f t e r  88  Robertson e t a l . , 1985)  90  5.19  UBCPRS: L a t e r a l P i l e Load T e s t R e s u l t s - P i l e No. 3  91  5.20  UBCPRS: L a t e r a l P i l e Load T e s t R e s u l t s - P i l e No. 5  92  5.21  MOTHPRS: L a t e r a l P i l e Load T e s t R e s u l t s  94  6.1  de Beer S c a l e E f f e c t Diagram f o r CPT P i l e (adapted from Nottingham, 1975)  5.18  L a t e r a l Load T e s t Set Up  87  Predictions 109  6.2  Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method  112  6.3  d e R u i t e r and B e r i n g e n CPT Method  115  6.4  Zhou e t a l . (1982) CPT Method  117  6.5  Van M i e r l o 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 O l s o n Method  126  6.9  V i j a y v e r g i y a and Focht Method  128  - x -  LIST OF FIGURES  (Continued) Page  Figure 6.10  B u r l a n d Method  130  6.11  Janbu Method  132  6.12  Meyerhof C o n v e n t i o n a l Method  6.13  F l a a t e and Seines Method  136  6.14  UBC P i l e Research S i t e WEAP86: P i l e No. 5. V a r y i n g Hammer E f f i c i e n c y  138  UBC P i l e Research S i t e WEAP86: P i l e No. 5. V a r y i n g S h a f t Resistance to T i p Resistance Ratio  139  UBCPRS: de R u i t e r and B e r i n g e n CPT Method. Undrained S t r e n g t h No. 1  143  UBCPRS: de R u i t e r and B e r i n g e n CPT Method. Undrained S t r e n g t h No. 2  144  UBCPRS: de R u i t e r and B e r i n g e n CPT Method. Undrained S t r e n g t h No. 3  145  Proposed C o r r e l a t i o n Between CPT Data and Case Damping Constant, J  148  6.15  6.16  6.17  6.18  6.19  -.  c  134  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 ,  6.21  Bar C h a r t s o f P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured P i l e C a p a c i t y f o r S t a t i c P r e d i c t i o n Methods E v a l u a t e d  151  Bar C h a r t s o f P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured P i l e C a p a c i t y for P i l e s Analyzed  155  6.22  7.1  1951) ... 149  Schematic R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Development o f P i l e P-y Curves from Pressuremeter Curves  165  7.2  V a r i a t i o n o f M u l t i p l y i n g F a c t o r w i t h R e l a t i v e Depth  165  7.3  R e d u c t i o n F a c t o r s f o r Pressuremeter T e s t R e s u l t s a t Shallow Depth (adapted from Robertson e t a l . , 1986)  168  7.4  FDPMT Method: P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured L a t e r a l Behaviour - MOTHPRS P i l e  Pile 169  FDPMT Method: P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured L a t e r a l Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 3  Pile  7.5  - x i-  170  LIST OF FIGURES  (Continued) Page  Figure 7.6  7.7  7.8  FDPMT Method: P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured L a t e r a l Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 5 Cubic P a r a b o l i c P-y Curve f o r S t r a i n Hardening (adapted from Matlock, 1970)  Pile 171 Soils ,  17A  E f f e c t o f Making Reference D e f l e c t i o n a F u n c t i o n o f D°' f o r Cohesive S o i l s (adapted from Stevens and A u d i b e r t , 1979)  177  7.9  P  18A  7.10  F l o w c h a r t f o r Determining P-y Curves from DMT Data  7.11  Average  7.12  DMT Method: P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured L a t e r a l Behaviour - MOTHPRS P i l e  5  7.13  7.1A  u  and Y  c  c a l c u l a t e d Output  Values o f P  u  and Y  c  from DMT  Chosen from DMT  DMT Method: P r e d i c t d Versus Measured L a t e r a l Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 3 DMT Method: P r e d i c t e d Versus Measured L a t e r a l Behaviour - UBCPRS P i l e No. 5  - x i i-  185 186  Pile 188 Pile 189 Pile 190  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  colleagues  testing;  thank you Alex.  Don Gillespie,  Appreciation  i s extended  to my  John Howie, Jim Greig, Bob Chambers, Ralph  Kuerbis, Damika Wickremesinghe and Carlos Meija for their assistance during data collection.  Don and John also provided c r i t i c a l evaluation of much of  this dissertation.  The C i v i l Engineering Technical staff, Dick Postgate,  Art Brookes, Harald Schrempp, and Guy Kirsch are acknowledged for their talents. The patience and typographical s k i l l s of Kelly Lamb in preparing this dissertation are extremely appreciated. The  financial  support  of the C i v i l  Engineering  Department, the  University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship, NSERC, and the B.C. Ministry Donations  of Transportation of equipment  and Highways  and/or  personnel  i s gratefully from  acknowledged.  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 warmest thanks.  This dissertation is dedicated to her.  - xiii -  I treasure, my  1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  1.1  Outline In order t h a t  ally, a  e i t h e r an  full-scale  expensive and an  a p i l e d f o u n d a t i o n may  pile  load  are  test  therefore  In-situ  accurately In  obtain  198A,  testing  i s performed. often  as  part  University i n the  the  of  British  to  pile  the  evaluation  the  be  installed  Columbia M i n i s t r y  (UBC)  r e s u l t of that research  excellent  means  of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  r e s u l t s of  lateral,  Alex Fraser  the  the  which, to  and  Highways  mm  diameter  axially  Bridge p r o j e c t . Group became  (Robertson et UBC  and  a 915  a l . , 1985).  predictions, 32A  mm  laterally.  the  in-situ the  i s organized  t e s t s performed and and  pile  Due  in  BCMOTH agreed  diameter p i l e s would This  study  is  the  program. i n the  following  s i t e used f o r t h i s study.  installation  The  involved  subsequent p r e d i c t i o n of  program whereby s e v e r a l both  on  manner: Chapter 2  i n g more a c c u r a t e data than most t r a d i t i o n a l methods. research  be  by  an overview of p i l e d e s i g n and. the r o l e i n - s i t u t e s t i n g can p l a y  the  require  i n t o which the p i l e i s to  In-Situ Testing  t e s t i n g methods  tested  P r e d i c t i v e methods  very  properties.  d e s i g n phase f o r the  in-situ  support a r e s e a r c h  thesis  an  t e s t i n g , a x i a l and  encouraging  and  offer  o f the t e s t i n g data and  to  This  s o i l properties  o f B r i t i s h Columbia  behaviour u s i n g part  economic-  F u l l - s c a l e l o a d t e s t s are  impractical.  methods  these s o i l  (BCMOTH) performed pile  designed s a f e l y and  a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n o f i t s behaviour under l o a d i s made or  a c c u r a t e assessment of the  placed.  be  load  of the testing  Chapter 3  in  provid-  introduces  In Chapter A, a d e s c r i p t i o n of  data o b t a i n e d i s p r e s e n t e d . of  presents  the  piles  investigated  Details  the of  comprises  2 Chapter capacity Chapter are  5.  Chapter  results  6  using  presents both  predicted  static  and  compared  to  the  from i n - s i t u t e s t i n g  measured  test  predictive  behaviour.  data.  both a x i a l  Chapter  methods.  8  and l a t e r a l  axial  pile In  investigated presents  piie  the  behaviour  The t h e s i s c l o s e s w i t h a summary, c o n c l u s i o n s ,  and recommendations f o r areas o f f u r t h e r  study.  Thesis Objectives The major o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s  a)  dynamic  measured  7, the r e s u l t s o f the l a t e r a l p i l e p r e d i c t i o n methods  recommended method(s) o f p r e d i c t i n g  1.2  versus  Perform  and i n t e r p r e t  study are l i s t e d as f o l l o w s :  several  full-scale  axial  and l a t e r a l  pile  load  tests b)  Compare the r e s u l t s  o f both the a x i a l  and l a t e r a l p i l e  the p r e d i c t i o n s made from i n - s i t u t e s t i n g c)  Propose  and  e v a l u a t e a method  load t e s t s to  data  of determining  lateral  pile  behaviour  from f l a t p l a t e d i l a t o m e t e r data d)  Recommend the p r e f e r r e d methods  for predicting  b e h a v i o u r u s i n g i n - s i t u t e s t i n g data  axial  and l a t e r a l  pile  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 l a k e  o l d e s t method o f overcoming the (Poulos and the  Davis,  publication  "Engineering from  1980).  of  "Piles  and  purely  Pile  Driving"  Since  empirical  to  this  edited  time, p i l e  having  i s man's  of inadequate e a r t h  E f f o r t s have been r e p o r t e d  News" i n 1893.  being  difficulties  villages,  an  ever  materials  in literature by  Wellington  design  has  increasing  since of  the  progressed theoretical  basis. Traditionally, load  capacity  settlements  of  will  pile the  be  given  methods,  capacity  formulae; or by  d r i v i n g data.  correlations  technical axial  the  This  use  design  Pile  settlement  as  can and  however, p i l e s  pile  and  to  ultimate and  problem  the  assess  load  whether  often  although  not  tolerable  and  shaft  from  empirical  e x p e r i e n c e e x i s t s i n the  deduced by  required  to  area  the l a r g e number o f both  resist  In a d d i t i o n lateral  loads  r e c e i v e d n e a r l y as much a t t e n t i o n  since  the  by  measured or modelled  a n a l y t i c a l methods proposed. are  axial  i s calculated either  i s generally predicted  r e a d i l y be  ultimate  t h e o r e t i c a l bearing  Extensive  l a t e r a l b e h a v i o u r of p i l e s has axial  predicting  "dynamic" methods, which use  papers w r i t t e n  loads,  meant  empirical  (Peck et a l . , 1974).  of a x i a l p i l e  The  which  has  foundation  exceeded.  "static"  pile  design  mid-1970's  this  has  to . as  been  changing. Vesic needed  (1977) s u m m a r i z e d  ( F i g . 2.1).  The  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  most common s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g 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 c o m p r e s s i b l e and/or too weak t o support the  desired structure.  In a d d i t i o n , p i l e d  be  generally  foundations  FIG. 2.1. SITUATIONS IN WHICH_ PILES MAY' BE REQUIRED (Adapted from V e s i c ' , 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  separately or together to form composite materials).  Table 2.1 l i s t s the  principal design advantages and disadvantages of each type. pile  (either  As well as  type, the emplacement technique used to install the pile must be  considered  i n the  design.  There  are  four main methods of  pile  installation: i)  Driven piles  ii)  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 i s presented. In this chapter, a brief review of methods of designing piles subject to both axial and lateral loads w i l l be presented.  For each loading case  the general behaviour mechanism developed during the application of load w i l l also be presented.  In addition, a brief justification for the use of  in-situ testing methods for axial and lateral pile design i s included.  2.1 2.1.1  Axially Loaded Piles Introduction A l l 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 i s generally for the  6 PILE  TYPE  ADVANTAGES  DISADVANTAGES  Timber  Easy t o handle or c u t - o f f , Relatively inexpensive material 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 tapered  Decay above water t a b l e L i m i t e d i n s i z e and bearing capacity P r o n e t o damage b y h a r d d r i v i n g D i f f i c u l t t o extend Noisy t o drive  Steel  Easy t o handle, c u t o f f , extend 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 h a r d s t r a t a Convenient t o combine w i t h steel superstructure  Subject t o corrosion 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 expensive Noisy t o drive  D u r a b i l i t y i n almost any environment Convenient t o combine w i t h concrete superstructure  Cumbersome t o h a n d l e a n d drive D i f f i c u l t t o c u t o f for extend Noisy t o drive  Allows inspection before concreting Easy t o c u t o f f or extend  C a s i n g c a n n o t be r e - u s e d T h i n c a s i n g may be damaged by i m p a c t o r s o i l p r e s s u r e  No s t o r a g e s p a c e r e q u i r e d Can be f i n i s h e d a t a n y elevation Can be made b e f o r e excavation 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 soils  In  Concrete: Precast  Concrete: Cast-in-place i) casing l e f t i n ground  ii)  casing withdrawn o r no casing  TABLE 2.1.  s o f t s o i l s s h a f t may be damaged b y 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 c o m p l e t e d p i l e s may be damaged If concrete i s placed to f a s t t h e r e i s danger o f creation of a void  P R I N C I P A L ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT P I L E TYPES (Adapted from V e s i c , 1977)  w  driving  energy  pressing  force  T T  iii)  i)•INSTALLATION BY DRIVING  boring  ii)  INSTALLATION BY DRIVING AND CAST-IN-PLACE  velocity  INSTALLATION BY BORED OR CAST-IN-PLACE  FIG.  moment  iv)  INSTALLATION BY SCREWING  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 s o i l , 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 c r i t i c a l 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  w i l l be addressed.  The problem of estimating the settlement of axially  loaded piles w i l l 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 i t s formulation is representative of the in-situ conditions.  The mode of failure depends mainly on; the shear strength of  9  the surrounding s o i l , 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 f a i l u r e were recognized by Vesic (1963). modes are  shown in Fig. 2.3.  characterized  by  the  General shear  existence  of  failure  some well-defined  These failure  (Fig. 2.3a) failure  is  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 shear failure observe.  (Fig. 2.3c)  level.  A punching  is less well-defined and is often d i f f i c u l t to  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 f i t s  the  observed  soil  behaviour around most piles during driving (Vesic, 1977). Vesic (1963) conducted extensive laboratory studies in granular soils of variable density mechanisms are observable in Fig. 2.4.  to define  also present  the  various  in cohesive  in cohesionless soils.  failure  soils, but  mechanisms. are  These  more readily  Vesic's work is summarized graphically  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 w i l l 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 w i l l occur below a relative depth of 4. pile  Fig. 2.5 presents foundations.  some of the existing proposed failure patterns for  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; B u i s m a n , 1935; Terzaghi, 1943)  FIG  2.3.  % w  TYPES OF F A I L U R E MECHANISMS (Adapted from V e s i c , 1963)  I - G e n e r a l Shear II  - L o c a l Shear  III-  Failure  Punching Shear  Failure  Relative Density 0.5  0  IG.  Failure  2.4.  1.0  F I E L D S FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF F A I L U R E FOR SHALLOW AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS (Adapated from K e z d i , 1975)  (a) Prantl Reissner Caquot Buisman Terzaghi  (b) DeBeer Jaky Meyerhof  FIG. 2.5.  (C)  Bereznantsev and Y a r o s h e n k o Vesic  ASSUMED FAILURE MECHANISMS UNDER PILE FOUNDATIONS (Adapted from V e s i c / 1967)  B i s h o p , H i l l , and Mott Skempton  13 p a t t e r n s model e i t h e r conditions. bearing  F i g . 2.6  capacity  mechanisms.  For  the g e n e r a l shear f a i l u r e shows  factor,  how  N^,  frictional  much v a r i a b i l i t y  soils  where:  = A  P  results  shear  failure  i n the d e r i v e d  due t o t h e u s e o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n t the  a c c e p t e d f o r the p i l e p o i n t r e s i s t a n c e ,  Q  or the l o c a l  following  formula  is  failure commonly  Q^:  (r • d • N )  P  (2.1)  q  A^ = a r e a o f p i l e t i p Y  - t o t a l u n i t weight  d  = depth o f t i p embedment  of s o i l  I t i s t h e r e f o r e d i s t r e s s i n g t h a t F i g . 2.6 shows a v a r i a b i l i t y i n i n excess o f one o r d e r o f magnitude. and  Vesic  correlate  ( 1 9 6 7 ) show t h a t  most  closely  w i t h measured p o i n t  noting  (Fig.  2.5) most c l o s e l y resembles  described For  that  the assumed  failure  proposed  resistance  mechanism  by  (1963)  Berezantsev  at f a i l u r e .  proposed  by  the d e s c r i p t i o n o f punching  It i s  Berezantsev  shear  failure  but  another  i s commonly used t o g i v e the f o l l o w i n g  formula  earlier. cohesive s o i l s ,  the value of  bearing capacity factor, N  c >  for p i l e point resistance,  Q  where: Although  Independent s t u d i e s by Norlund  the values of  worth  that i s  p  i s not important  Q^:  =  A  p  ( S  u  * c N  +  r  '  d  )  ( 2  '  2 )  = u n d r a i n e d shear s t r e n g t h .  the value of N  £  doesn't v a r y as much as N , L a d a n y i  (1967) shows  25*  30*  35*  40*  45*  Friction Angle, 0  FIG.  2.6.  BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DEEP CIRCULAR FOUNDATIONS ( A d a p t e d -from V e s i c ' , 1967)  50*  15 that N  c  can vary over a significant range depending on the stress-strain  properties of the s o i l .  2.1.2.2 Prediction Methods Despite the amount of attention the subject has r e c e i v e d t h e of predicting the  axial load  carrying  capacity  of driven  problem  piles  still  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  end  considering  the  shaft  (or side) resistance and  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 ) as being equal to the undrained g  shear strength of the soil reduced by a factor dependent on the magnitude of the undrained shear strength in the form:  f  where:  f  s  s  = a • S  (2.3)  u  = unit shaft resistance  S^ = undrained shear strength a  = adhesion coefficient = func  The  11  (S )  adhesion coefficient, a, is an empirical quantity  Tomlinson  (1957)  to  correlate  undrained shear strength.  the  undrained  pile  f i r s t proposed by cohesion  with  the  One problem with the approach in Eq. 2.3 is that  16 the  value  method  of  by  undrained  which  it  i n c o n s i s t e n t t o use  was  K  will  obtained.  The  be  Another  an e q u a t i o n o f the  problem  shaft  The  seems  frictional  s o i l s i s often  stress  values  pile  of K i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o  of K  ranging  Another problem i s t h a t Eq.  resistance increases  estimating  using  have r e p o r t e d  Whitman, 1969).  it  pressure  = f r i c t i o n angle between s o i l and  Investigators  (Lambe and  that  the  (2.A)  problem w i t h t h i s approach i s t h a t the v a l u e  select.  is  upon  = K • o' • t a n 6 v  s  = average e f f e c t i v e v e r t i c a l  One  dependent  f o l l o w i n g form (Meyerhof, 19-76):  = c o e f f i c i e n t of l a t e r a l e a r t h  6  highly  shaft resistance i n cohesionless  f  where:  used  an u n d r a i n e d s t r e n g t h t o p r e d i c t the d r a i n e d  r e s i s t a n c e of a p i l e . estimated using  strength  l i n e a r l y w i t h depth.  from 0.3 2.4  to  suggests  3.0 that  D i f f i c u l t y also exists i n  6.  end  bearing  capacity  of  a driven p i l e  the Buisman-Terzaghi e q u a t i o n which has  Silt Silt  where:  c  =  u  l i t  =  C  m  a  ' c \ '^ N  '  t  e  +  u  B  n  i t  N  + r  r  the  i s most commonly p r e d i c t e d form:  ' '\ d  t i p bearing  (2  capacity  = s o i l cohesion  N ,N^,N^ = b e a r i n g c  capacity  factors  Y  = u n i t weight o f s o i l a t p i l e t i p  d  = depth o f p i l e t i p  B  = pile  width  '  5)  17  For cohesionless soils, Eq. 2.5 reduces to:  (2.6)  q since c=0 and  i s negligible in most cases.  For cohesive soils Eq. 2.5 i s usually reduced to:  \lt  =  C  ' c N  Note that for cohesive soils N =1.  +  r  (2.7)  ' ' q d  N  The major drawback with using Eq. 2.5,  and i t s reduced forms, i s that the Buisman-Terzaghi equation i s a general solution  for the general shear mode of failure.  As was shown in the  preceding section, i t i s the punching shear failure mechanism that appears to govern most pile foundations.  As well, the Buisman-Terzaghi equation i s  not a rigorous solution; i t i s a superposition of solutions (e.g. Prandtl and  Reissner  result. of N  solutions) which  leads  to an intentionally  conservative  In cohesionless soils another problem that exists i s that a value must be obtained.  As was shown in the preceding section, there i s a  wide v a r i a t i o n of o p i n i o n concerning relationship  the a c t u a l form of the <t>~^^  (<j) = angle of internal soil friction).  determination of <f> i s often d i f f i c u l t .  For cohesive soils the problems are  generally less severe, since the value of N than the value of N^.  As well, an accurate  c  i s known with more confidence  However, the contribution of end bearing to total  resistance in cohesive soils i s usually small, especially for long piles, and therefore an accurate prediction of end bearing doesn't accuracy of the total resistance prediction considerably.  improve the  18  Considering  the  above,  i t is  difficult  to  understand  traditional prediction methods are s t i l l commonly used.  why  these  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 d i f f i c u l t  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  driven displacement pile.  can be thought of as an "in-situ model" of a  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  installation effects, and material effects.  a  pile The  are  scale effects,  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 i s  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  i n Chapter  6.  Other  in-situ  t e s t s , 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 f i r s t i s a prediction, the second an in-situ test (Rausche et  a l . , 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 f i l e 450 such formulas.  These original formulae a l l had the same form:  Q.dynamic  where: W,  H  [(Set) - (Energy Losses)]  hammer weight  H  hammer drop height  Q,dynamic  dynamic capacity.  (2.8)  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<  in  elastic  rebound  and plastic  deformations.  ^he energy lost  These formulae, although  widely used, rarely supply consistently accurate results as they f a 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; initial  use of the wave equation in pile design.  the  Today, wave equation  analyses can be performed using commercially available programs and entering the appropriate values that represent the s o i l , hammer system and pile system. model. equation  Fig. 2.7  shows a schematic representation of the wave equation  The most common commercially available programs for performing wave 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 i s 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 i t s 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  FIG.  2.7.  SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DRIVING SYSTEM FOR WAVE EQUATION MODEL  °< Displacement  22  last 1960's. et a l .  An excellent summary of the Case Method is given by Gravare  (1980).  developed  by  CAPWAP (CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) was  Rausche  (1970).  The  CAPWAP  analysis  uses  initially the  same  mathematical model of the pile and the soil as is used in the wave equation programs. driving  However, with CAPWAP the model does not include the hammer and  system, but  gauges.  only that portion of the pile below the measuring  These gauges are used to measure forces and accelerations in the  pile (see Fig.  2.8).  Fig. 2.9 presents pile behaviour using dynamics has  a summary of the various techniques of predicting dynamics.  Even with the amount of attention pile  received, however, reliable results are often not  when comparisons with static load tests are made.  realized  This is mainly because  the dynamic capacity is seldom equal to the static capacity due to differences in soil strength or resistance. limitation  Disregarding this problem a severe  of in-situ dynamic methods is that the pile must be  driven  before a load capacity prediction can be made.  2.2 2.2.1  Laterally Loaded Piles 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  However, piles are primarily used for supporting therefore placed vertically.  are preferred.  vertical loads and  are  This is because, among other reasons, the  axial pile capacity decreases markedly due to load inclination  (Meyerhof  FIG.  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 HAMMER AND ORIVNG SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANO PILE PROPERTIES WAVE EQUATION  ASSUME SOIL DAMPING FACTOR  ASSUME HAMMER ANO DRIVING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE  DYNAMIC FORMULA  HAVE EQUATION  BLOW COUNT  OYNAM1C FORMULA  CASE METHOO  CAPWAP  BEARING CAPACITY VS DEPTH  STRESSES  STRESSES ACTUAL HAMMER ANO ORIVING SYST. EFF. PILE INTEGRITY  PREDICTED BLOW COUNT VS DEPTH  RESISTANCE DISTRIBUTION DAMPING ANO QUAKE SIMULATED LOAD TEST  FIG.  2.9.  DYNAMIC P I L E A N A L Y S I S :  METHODS AND R E S U L T S  and Sastry, 1985)  and the placement of inclined piles is more d i f f i c u l t .  Examples of strucures where substantial lateral loads can be induced upon primarily vertical piles include: i)  offshore oil/gas d r i l l i n g 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 f i r s t 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 i s 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 contribution of side friction to the overall lateral resistance. (1986), among others, disagree with  this, however, and  marked amount of slip along the pile sides exists.  Smith and Slyh suggest that a  At depth, below the  influence of a free surface, Randolph and Houlsby (1984) offer the concept  26  IG.  2.10.  OBSERVED DISPLACEMENTS LOADED P I L E (After  Robertson  et  AROUND  al.,  1986)  LATERALLY  of soil "flowing" around the laterally displaced pile (Fig. 2.11).  Near  the surface, where confining stresses are low, the s o i l being stressed by the displacement of the pile moves towards the free surface. of soil at shallow depth is shown in Fig. 2.12.  This movement  Below some " c r i t i c a l  depth" the soil no longer has a vertical component to i t s movement.  This  concept of c r i t i c a l depth is also shown schematically in Fig. 2,12,  The  behaviour mechanisms torsional  shown in Figs. 2.10 through 2.12 assume  component exists in the applied load.  eccentricity  that no  Torsional loading, due to  of the applied load i s addressed by Randolph (1981,a), among  others, and w i l l 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 d i f f i c u l t 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 w i l l be briefly presented in  the following section. The simplest model for the laterally loaded pile problem i s that of a vertical elastic beam, loaded transversely and restrained from movement by uniform linear  Winkler springs along  springs i s commonly  called  the beam.  The stiffness  of these  the subgrade reaction modulus for the s o i l .  Hetenyi (1946) solved closed form solutions for several cases of loading and pile f i x i t y .  The model used is as shown in Fig. 2.13.  The equation  Hetenyi solved was of the form:  EI •  + P dx*  x  ^ dx  + E 2  s  •y = 0  (2.9)  sliding concentric cylindrical shells  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  FIG.  2.13.  MODEL OF L A T E R A L L Y LOADED P I L E USING D I S C R E T E 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 r e a c t i o n modulus  From t h i s e a r l y work, a n a l y t i c a l directions One  (Randolph,  approaches have developed  has  utilized  the  integral  i n t e g r a l ) method o f a n a l y s i s , m o d e l l i n g  the  continuum  (Poulos,  i s very  and  experience  accurate r e s u l t s integral  1971). in  T h i s method  discretizing  soil  boundary  ( E v a n g e l i s t a and V i g g i a n i ,  equation  separate  1981,b).  development  much  i n two  equation  (or  boundary  as a homogeneous computationally  elements  1976).  The  i n routine geotechnical practice  elastic  intensive  i s necessary  for  g e n e r a l use o f the  i s seen  as  still  being  some time away. The soil  other  restraint  development  retains  as  Winkler  discrete  began when s p r i n g s t i f f n e s s e s and Matlock,  1956).  tion  nonlinear  of  the  Ripperger now  widely  replaces The  (1956), used  the  among o t h e r s .  p i l e length.  the p i l e  design  of  reaction  A t y p i c a l P-y  the  of a  RP2A, 1980)  not  be  pile.  testing  laterally series  soil  proposed  of  loaded  to vary  by  actual in  piles.  independent  model (Reese  Matlock  deflection  in-situ  and  method  springs.  P-y  curves  (y) a t p o i n t s a l o n g  the  2.14.  curves  (e.g. Matlock,  samples t h a t may  soil  particular  This  Winkler  s p r i n g s i s r e p r e s e n t e d by  curve i s shown i n F i g .  methods,  this  the  n o n l i n e a r subgrade r e a c t i o n method i s  (P) and p i l e  the  to  were a l l o w e d  i n v o l v e u s i n g l a b o r a t o r y d a t a from  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of In-situ  Improvements  method  Most t r a d i t i o n a l methods of o b t a i n i n g P-y API  model o f m o d e l l i n g  improvement came w i t h the i n t r o d u c -  reaction The  reaction with  n o n l i n e a r behaviour  which r e l a t e s o i l  along  subgrade  conceptual  springs.  The most important  f o r the  soil  the  1970; or  c o n d i t i o n s around  the  pressuremeter,  may the have  / Pu  Pile 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 using data obtained in the field.  curves  Several methods have been proposed for  the development of P-y curves and subsequent design of laterally loaded piles using pressuremeter data (Briaud et a l . , 1983; Baguelin et a l . , 1978; Robertson et a l . , 1983;  Baguelin, 1982).  flat plate dilatometer test  Other in-situ t e s t s such as the r  (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. of British Columbia the pile's methods.  axial  The University  (UBC) became involved in the subsequent prediction of and lateral behaviour by the use of in-situ  testing  Robertson et a l . (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 teaching  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.  A l l data  from the 1984 pile load testing  inclusion  was made fully available for  within this study. Throughout this thesis, MOTH Pile Research sites.  Site  the UBC Pile Research Site  (UBCPRS) and the  (MOTHPRS) w i l l mainly be discussed as separate  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. postglacial) marine transgression.  The total thickness of the deltaic deposits  varies but they are, on average, roughly 200 m thick (Blunden, 1975). Fraser Delta area now  known as Richmond, Delta,  The  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 s i l t y 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 s i l t y , prevails to 25-30 m depth.  This deposit is indicative of a very high energy deposi-  tional period and Fraser River.  roughly  most likely  represents  a former channel bank of the  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. this, probably extending  Below  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  36  FIG.  3.1.  GENERAL LOCATION OF RESEARCH  SITE  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 i n the following chapter present a clear picture of the stratigraphic detail at the site.  3.2  Site Description As shown i n 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 i n 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 i s 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 i n excess of 70 m. capacities of these piles.  The purpose of the MOTHPRS was to assess the  FIG.  3.2.  SITE  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 i n the art of foundation  (Robertson, 1985).  Modern in-situ tests that  can supply  engineering 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 a l . (1978), as follows; 1)  The ability to determine properties of soils, such as sands and offshore deposits,  that  cannot be easily  sampled i n 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 i n 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  existing  in-situ  stress  state  i s , however,  an important  to the  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 in-situ  resistance.  testing  In this chapter, several of the most common  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 w i l l 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). to the numbers listed in Table 4.1.  The numbered locations relate  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.  summarized results from these tests are also included.  The  41 No.  Name  Test  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  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  Test  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, i n the C i v i l Engineering Building at U.B.C.  F I G . 4.1.  LOCATIONS OF I N - S I T U TESTS PERFORMED AT P I L E S I T E S  © © © © © © © VD  o o  to CM  VD  MD  MD  X12  X13  * 1  *8  9x -  -V-  o o  CO  -©  V  o o  * 5  3<L0  o o to  ©  CM  3  *15  1300  1300  X 17  Xl6  X8 l o c a t i o n o f  test  *see T a b l e 4 . 1 f o r l i s t i n g of t e s t s  18 X -  dcale 1:50 VD : very dense D : dense MD : medium dense  FIG.  4.2.  LOCATIONS OF I N - S I T U TESTS PERFORMED AT UBCPRS  44 4.2.1  Piezometer Cone Penetration Testing  4.2.1.1 Test Description The  cone penetration test  The CPT was  (CPT) is a quasi-static penetration test.  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. c s  A  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  accordance with ASTM D3441-79, has a 10 cm  2  tip.  2  £  surface area.  In addition  measurements, many cones (e.g. UBC6) now incorporate a pore  pressure transducer. continuous  This cone, in  cone tip with a 60° conical  The friction sleeve has a standard 150 cm  to the q and f  study.  The addition of the pore pressure transducer allows  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  good repeatability; and  easy standardization.  logging;  Some of i t s limitations  include: inability to penetrate gravel; no sample obtained; high i n i t i a l cost; and requirement for technical back-up f a c i l i t i e s . As  for any  electronic instrument,  proper  calibration and periodic  calibration checks are essential to ensure a l l electric cones are functioning properly. Robertson and  Campanella  (1986) provide  a comprehensive review of  equipment, testing procedures and data interpretation for electric cone testing.  F I G . 4.3.  SCHEMATIC OF E L E C T R I C 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 i s 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) i s used. 4.4,  this sounding was  As shown in Fig.  carried out to nearly 36 meters in depth.  The  extremely soft nature of the soft organic s i l t y clay between 2.5 and 14.5 meters i s 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. 4.5)  is as described by Robertson et a l . (1985).  Fig. 4.1.  4.2.2  This sounding (Fig.  CPT84-1 i s located on  Note the differences in scale between Figs. 4.4 and 4.5.  Pressuremeter Testing  4.2.2.1 Test Description The pressuremeter was France as a "specific  i n i t i a l l y developed by L. Menard in 1954 in  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 d i f f i c u l t 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  50  < 5 mm  (where D  50  i s the mean grain size of the  material to be tested). One of the latest developments test  (FDPMT).  This test  i s a f u l l displacement pressuremeter  does cause soil  disturbance due  to the f u l l  U B C  I  N  Slta Location! On S i t a Loci  ANNA P L T CPT PR1  PDR£ PRESSURE U (M. of vatar) 0 100  SLEEVE FRICTION 0  (bar)  D  I T U  T E !  T  CPT Data < 8 5 0 8 1 3 MD AS DV CCONE o n *BEARING U a a d i UBC8 STD FRICTION TIP RATIO Rf CD Ot (bar)  2.5  I M P a g o Not Conwintti  G 1 / 2 NEAR C A S I N G INTERPRETED PROFILE  DIFFERENTIAL P.P. RATIO AU/Ot 0 1  SAND  f i l l  soft organic silty  CLAY  10-  med. dense  20-  SAND  minor silty  SANp lenses  30 Dopth  Incromant  •  . 025 m  FIG. 4.4.  Max D o p t h  CPT INTERPRETED PROFILE USED FOR  35.975 u&cPRS  n  see  over  U B C  I  M  3  T  U  T  E  I  S  T I  CONE BEARING Ot (bar)  SLEEVE FRICTION «ba->  MG  Pags Not 2 / 2 Comnantai NEAR CASING  CPT Data i 850813 MO AS DV Cone U«odi UBC8 STO TIP  S l t a Loctrt.lom ANNA PUT On S l t « L o c i CPT PR1 P0R€ PRESSURE U (fc of »at«r)  I  FRICTION RATIO Rf CD 200 0 5 30  DIFFERENTIAL P.P. RATIO AU/Ot 0 1  INTERPRETED PROFIUI 30T  normally consolidate clayey SILT thin  w/ SAND  layers  40-  -  •  40-  40-  CO L  (V a» E  0_ UJ a  Depth I n c r a r a n t • FIG.  4.4.  . 025 m CONT.  50-  50-  60  60Mew Dopthr i  SO  60-  35. G75 HI CO  COME 9CARIMC ttt Cfcar)  SLEEVE  rnicTiw  (bw)  Ptwc  rorssune  rnicncH  U (-. of .ol«r>  Bf  mm  «)  oirrrRwtm r.r. RAF JO  JO/Bl  inrrnwciro nrariLt SAND f i l l soft organic silty CLAY  medium dense SAND  normally consolidated clayey SILT with thin SAND layers  normally consolidate! clayey SILT with SAND layers Equilibrium pore pressure , u  FIG. 4.5.  CPT INTERPRETED  0  PROFILE USED FOR  -IOTMPBS  50 displacement inflation, but the disturbance i s 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 • i n 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. instrument has a 15 cm  2  probe was not utilized.  cross-sectional area.  This  The cone portion of the  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 i n 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 i n Appendix I. The depths of the tests in FDPM87-1 were: i)  0.17 m  ii)  1.0 m  iii)  2.0 m  iv)  3.0 m  v)  A.O m  vi)  A.8 m  vii)  6.35 m  51  Adapter to 10 cm Cone Rod or other  P.D. C o n t r o l l e r  Pressure Developer (P.D.)  Pressuremeter (P.M.)  Developmental Module (D.M.)  Controlled AVol/Atime  Total Pressure 3-polnt Radial Displacement Pore Pressure Pore Pressure L a t e r a l Stress F r i c t i o n Sleeve Resistivity? Thermal Conductivity? Environmental Analysis?  P.M. & D.M. E l e c t r o n i c s D.C. Regulation, A m p l i f i c a t i o n M u l t i p l e x e r , A/D Mlrcoprocessor Cone E l e c t r o n i c s  Cone Module  F I G . 4.6.  Seismic Sensors M u l t i p l e Pore Pressure F r i c t i o n (225 cm ) Temperature Slope Bearing (15 cm ) 60° T i p  CONCEPTUAL DESIGN  : UBC CONE PRESSUREMETER  ( A f t e r Campanella  and R o b e r t s o n , 1 9 8 6 )  52 v i i 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 i n Brown (1985) .  4.2.3  Flat Plate Dilatometer Testing  4.2.3.1 Test Description The  flat plate dilatometer test  Marchetti i n 1980.  (DMT) was developed i n Italy by S.  The dilatometer is a flat plate 95 mm wide, 14 mm thick  and 220 mm i n length.  A flexible stainless steel membrane 60 mm i n dia-  meter i s located on one side of the blade.  A schematic representation of  the dilatometer i s shown i n Fig. 4.7. The  dilatometer  test  involves  achieve a one millimeter deflection.  inflating  the flexible membrane to  The f i r s t reading (A) corresponds to  the membrane l i f t - o f f pressure and the second reading (B) to the pressure required membrane. membrane  to cause the one millimetre deflection at the center  of the  Readings A and B are corrected for both free-air effects of seating  and the effect  of membrane curvature.  performed at 20 cm intervals of depth. however discrete, profile.  The DMT i s  This leads to a comprehensive,  9 5  mm  FIG.  4.7. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF FLAT P L A T E DILATOMETER  54 Using  the corrected  dilatometer  data  of A and B  (P  0  and P , 1  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 P and P . 0  l  These are Material Index, 1^;  Horizontal Index, K^; and Dilatometer Modulus, E^. Much more detailed discussions of the DMT and testing procedures are given i n 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 i n Figs. 4.8 and 4.9.  The "raw" DMT data can be found i n 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 parameters (1980).  geotechnical  parameters  are obtained by using  and the interpreted  correlations  geotechnical  developed by Marchetti  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 fflPaJ  FIG.  Horizontal Stress Index  4.8. INTERMEDIATE GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FROM DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS  Dilatometer Modulus (MPa)  Material Index 10"  3  5  10»  0.6  3  C o n s t r a i n e d Modulus (MPa) 5  I0«  Undr.Cohesion (KPa)  Friction Rngle (deg)  0.0  1.8  Id  M=l/m.v  (P1-P0)/fP0-u) FIG.  4.9.  Cu (cohesive)  INTERPRETED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FROM DMT UBCPRS/MOTHPRS  0 (granular)  The herein  results  as  axially  f o r the  N i l c o n F i e l d Vane T e s t  this  test  was  used  loaded  test  piles.  (NFVT86-1) are  i n d i r e c t l y i n a s s e s s i n g the F i g . A.10  alon g w i t h an e s t i m a t e of u n d r a i n e d  presents  the  c a p a c i t y of  results  s t r e n g t h from the CPT  presented  of  the  NFVT86-1  (CPT85-1) u s i n g :  (A.l)  where: N, = 15 k  It depth,  i s apparent  from F i g . A.10,  t h a t the u n d r a i n e d  strengths estimated  w i t h measured i n - s i t u NFVT v a l u e s . is  due  to the  f i b r o u s nature  o r g a n i c s w i l l have l i t t l e to  metres  encountered  is at  most the  probably  NFVT86-1 are shown i n F i g .  A.3  this  cases,  ability, study  of  due  results  agree w e l l  i n the upper 5 metres zone.  These f i b r o u s  v a l u e s but w i l l  cause the NFVT  A l s o a s p i k e i n the NFVT p r o f i l e a t to  a  fine  CPT85-1.  lense  not  CPT85-1  and  methods were performed.  In  The  sand  or  silt  l o c a t i o n s of  A.2.  Summary For  most  from CPT  discrepancy  on the CPT  results.  location  The  the m a t e r i a l above 5 metres  o f the o r g a n i c s i n t h i s  effect  record excessively high  13.5  excepting  study, to  several i n - s i t u testing  determine  site  homogeneity  t e s t r e p e t i t i o n has been performed.  for  the  prediction  i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I.  of  axial  and  and  ensure  instrument  Only the r e s u l t s  lateral pile  repeat-  used i n t h i s  behaviour  have  been  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  UNDRAINED SHEAR S T R E N G T H So CkPa)  FIG. 4.io. UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE UNDRAINED STRENGTH PROFILES  BO  90  100  The  collection  Geotechnical detailed  Research  Vehicle  d e s c r i p t i o n of  (American methods  o f t h e data  Society  this  for Testing  have been used.  t e s t i n g methods s t a n d a r d  was  g r e a t l y aided  (see Campanella vehicle).  In  by t h e use o f t h e UBC  and Robertson, a l l cases  and M a t e r i a l s ) s t a n d a r d  Where no  standard  1981, f o r a  possible,  designation  designations  were  ASTM  testing  available,  t o the l o c a l g e o t e c h n i c a l community were used.  60 CHAPTER 5 PILE INSTALLATION AND LOAD TESTING  In this chapter, lateral pile testing placed  the details  of pile installation and the axial  performed w i l l be presented.  on describing the UBCPRS piles  and  More emphasis w i l l be  although a brief summary of work  performed on the MOTHPRS is included. As mentioned previously, a l l of the pre-planning, pile load testing  at the UBCPRS was  pile driving  and  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 324 mm  dia., 9.5 mm wall thickness;  one  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 w i l l be  discussed in Section 5.1.2. At the MOTHPRS, one driven.  pile  (915 mm  dia., 19 mm  wall thickness)  was  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 f i r s t 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  Table 5.1.  Complete driving  records records  for the UBCPRS piles  is shown in  can be found in Appendix II.  All  Pile No.2  Pile No. I  0-  5 —  Pile No.3  <n&mmw>l  9  P'»« No.4 h*'"*- * « w  MOTH PILE  P ileNo.5 GROUND SURFACE  w  Soil plug level  Sleeve  SAND  fill  toft orgonic  SOIL PLUG LEVEL  t i l t y CLAY -T  10 -  I5 -  £20 i  ,4  -T ,ip " C t o ^ d ' ^ ? c l o s e d 1  med. dens* SAND  16.76-' '-T m Closed  -  minor silty  r£L  23.I7T m Open 1  O 25 —  -  T « telltale  L  30 a » a a »  31.10-  Note ehonge in depth ecole  SAND lenses  n.c.cloyey SILT with thin » » a SAND loyers to > 150 m  60 -  Note « ^interruption^ as » S3 a  TEST A 67m-  70 -  »  TEST B l  76m-  80 -  TEST C  90 -  94 mOPEN FIG. 5 . 1 .  UBC/MOTH TEST PILE EMBEDMENTS  62 Pile No.  Total Depth Feet (m)  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  47' 45' 55' 76' 102' 103' 94'  (14.33 (13.72 (16.76 (23.17 (31.10 (31.39 (28.65  Hammer Weight  m) ra) m) ra) m) ra) m)  4,400 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 3,500  lb lb lb lb lb lb lb  Drop Height feet  Total No. , of Blows  %4' •x.3' •\,4' •v5' •v.6-7' ^10' max. %8'  42 69 84 261 364 1512 1457  Driving Date 19 16 16 16 15/16 IV15 19  AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG NOV  85 85 85 85 85 85 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 i s given in Eisbrenner  (1985) .  The pile was driven i n i t i a l l 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. plug monitored.  The pile was driven open-ended and the soil  The pile was driven three times; i n i t i a l l 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  protect this instrumentation.  in spite of valiant attempts to  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 meaningful  value  Attempting  of ultimate  dynamic  pile  to remove the undesirable  resistance could  be calculated.  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 measurements 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 i s  not the case because: i)  pile no. 7 was driven nearly 3 m short of the anticipated depth;  ii)  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 i n 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 i n 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. of  The driving dates are also included in order to ilustrate the amount  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 ) was equal to 30 minutes for measurements behind the cone 9 0  tip.  Comparing the 36 mm diameter cone to the 324 mm diameter pile would  therefore yield  t  values of 2A30 minutes  9 0  method outline by Gillespie  (1980).  (roughly 2 days) using the  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)  1 2 3 4 5  14.3 13.7 16.8 23.2 31.1  6  31.4  Table 5.3  Testing Date(s)  Driving Date(s) 19 16 16 16 15 16 14 15  AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG AUG  85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85  09 NOV 85 01 MAR 85 09 NOV 85 01 MAR 85 22 SEP 85 06 OCT 85 NOT YET TESTED  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 Calculations  by  surface  Robertson et a l . (1985), based  dissipation data, show that t  9 0  on  (see Table 5.4). CPT  pore pressure  for the 915 mm pile would be approximately  66 Test  No.  P i l e Length  A  67.0  B C  78.0 94.0  T a b l e 5.4  20  days.  affected  This by  The  d r i v e p i l e t o 67  ii)  w a i t 21  iii)  axial  iv)  d r i v e p i l e t o 78  v)  w a i t 21  vi)  axial  v)  d r i v e p i l e t o 94  5.2.2  load  as  Testing  test as  09 MAY  84  01 JUN 29 JUN  84 84  Schedule-  values  21  may  days was  be taken  slightly as  the  follows:  m  days (Test  A)  (Test  B)  (Test  C)  m  days  l o a d t e s t to f a i l u r e m  days  load t e s t to f a i l u r e  Methodology For the UBCPRS, the  "Quick Load T e s t Method" o f a x i a l l o a d i n g ( s i m i l a r  to ASTM D1143-81 S e c t i o n 5.6) roughly Test  the  pore p r e s s u r e s  load t e s t to f a i l u r e  v i i i ) w a i t 21 axial  excess  that  t e s t i n g sequence was  i)  ix)  10,11,13,16, 17 APR 84 11 MAY 84 09 JUN 84  indicate  transient  T e s t i n g Date  D r i v i n g Date(s)  MOTHPRS P i l e D r i v i n g and  may  testing interval.  (m)  5%  increments  Method'  cohesive  was  soils.  electronic  load  of  used The  measured w i t h s m a l l e r  the to  axial  cell.  was  used w i t h the a x i a l l o a d being  anticipated  minimize l o a d was  The  load.  time-dependent  measured u s i n g  reaction  load c e l l s .  the  failure  loads  on  The  applied i n 'Quick  effects  in  Load the  a 500,000 l b c a l i b r a t e d  the  remaining  piles  were  D e t a i l s on the l o a d i n g system used  (e.g.  67 pump type) and calibration data for the 500,000 lb load cell are given in Appendix  III.  installations.  The  deflections were measured by  A level survey was  multiple  dial  gauge  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 The  also tested using the 'Quick Load Test Method".  load test arrangement is shown schematically in Fig. 5.4.  details can be found in Robertson et a l . (1985) and in Eisbrenner  5.2.3  Further (1985).  Results Analysis of the results from axially loaded vertical test piles is  more complicated  than generally realized (Brierley et a l . , 1978).  For a  pile (generally assumed to be stronger than the s o i l ) , 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 p i l e - s o i l 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  (upper figure) or a predominately end bearing pile  'floating'  (lower figure).  pile The  SCALE  load -0  1:25  load  cell  cell  m  test beams  dywidag rods  EC  J  0  load cell. hydraulic jack refererence beam  0  -dial gage pipe pile  >A\V/A\VA  PARTIAL  SECTION  ONLY F I G . 5.2.  AXIAL P I L E LOAD TEST SET UP FOR P I L E NO. 5  Co  n  n LOAD CELL SCALE  1:25  test beams  s:  3 LOAD CELL  dywidag rods  hydraulic jack - load cell  pipe pile  0  dial gage  refererence beam  c PARTIAL SECTION ONLY  F I G . 5.3.  T Y P I C A L AXIAL P I L E LOAD TEST SET UP FOR P I L E S 1 TO 4 (INCLUSIVE)  Circular R e o c t i o n Frame  -Spherical Bearing Plate •57mm o*) Dywidag Bar  •Load Cell (13 OOOkN) 57mm cjb Dywidag Bar-  4 Vertical Displacement Potentiometer Potentiometer •  1 1  (Led  i i  ___  2 Hydraulic Jacks •Reference  Beam  •69MPa Pressure Gauges  5 3 / — 7 6 2 m m o i Reaction Pile  762mmaS Reaction Pile—•>  915mm <fi Test Pile  F I G . 5.4. MOTHPRS AXIAL P I L E LOAD TEST SET UP ( A f t e r R o b e r t s o n e t a l . , 1985)  F I G . 5.5.  LOAD-DISPLACEMENT DIAGRAM OF A HYPOTHETICAL TEST P I L E 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  i s 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. results  5.6  through  5.10  for the UBCPRS.  present the  For  axial  each of the five piles  deflection-time records of the testing are shown. for each pile was  load-displacement test complete  load-  The pile top deflection  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 f i r s t load increment.  One possible explanation of this behaviour i s  that pile No. 1 i s cased over the upper 2 m and therefore unrestrained compression can occur near the pile head. large movement at low loads.  But this would not explain  The "theoretical compression line" i s  for a pile with no shaft resistance (i.e. a column).  Possibly the  large movement was related to previous failure in tension, and therefore  an  unusual  load  distribution.  The  overall  pile  behaviour  indicates that i t i s predominantly a friction pile. ii)  Pile no. 2 (Fig. 5.7) i s seen as a predominantly friction pile.  i i i ) Pile no. 3 (Fig. 5.8) i s seen as having both friction and end-bearing components to the total resistance.  The slope of the unload-reload  oj O  ro u,  ro O  DEPTH (metres) _ — 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  loading.  not be failed  in axial compression  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 a l . (1985). Besides the pile head load-deflection data, extensive tell-tale data was also obtained for the UBCPRS piles.  By definition, a tell-tale i s a  device used to measure the deflection at locations along the pile length other than at the pile head. estimate the load  From tell-tale data i t can be possible to  distribution as well  as to infer  the load transfer  mechanism present, but the interpretation of this data i s often d i f f i c u l t because of the complex distribution of residual stresses after driving (Fellenius, 1980).  The location of tell-tale placements for the piles i s  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  ro cn  O  cn  ro o  ro  V,  D E P T H (metres) cn s.NI  o  •a «  %  TJ  1*  J  3  °1  V  3 «  a.  • •2  w  * a.  G 03  n  cn Z O o 3  to J>  z o  '/I  w PI cn  >  n EE  1-3  > X M >  o > o >-3 PJ CO >-3  PJ cn cn  p]  o  LL  AXIAL PILE  TOP cn  D E F L E C T I O N (mm)  o  D E P T H (metres) _  O  AXIAL  (a)  L O A D ( kN )  U B C PILE RESEARCH SITE AXIAL LOAD T E S T R E S U L T S  AXIAL  (b) 5.11.  L O A D ( kN )  MOTH PILE R E S E A R C H S I T E SUMMARY OF PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS  telltales for piles 1,2,3  & 5  dial gage  f  2  1 refererence beam  2 inch diamet] tube welded to outside of p i l e telltales for pile 4  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 P I L E TOP A.  FIG.  CLAY  5.13.  MOVEMENT OF P I L E TOP B. SAND  SCHEMATIC CONCEPT OF LOAD-TRANSFER  82 typical of  load transfers f o r a x i a l l y  shaft  static  of the p i l e  axial  Note t h a t t h e peak v a l u e s  r e s i s t a n c e and p o i n t r e s i s t a n c e do n o t m o b i l i z e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y as  many t r a d i t i o n a l toe  loaded p i l e s .  feels  deflection  c a p a c i t y formulae the e f f e c t  must occur  imply.  In other words b e f o r e t h e  of the a p p l i e d a x i a l  at the p i l e  load,  head i n most c a s e s .  significant  " A l s o , as i s  seen i n F i g . 5.13, the l o a d t r a n s f e r 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  soil  type(s)  present.  The t e l l - t a l e data  obtained  presented  several  problems f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes,  p o s s i b l y because o f the complex l o a d i n g  history  The t e l l - t a l e data  for piles  ultimately  1, 2, 3 and 4.  regarded  as o f b e i n g  little  use.  Piles  from  pile  2,3 and 5, however,  p r o v i d e d data from which i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c o u l d be made.  P i l e 4, because i t  wasn't f a i l e d , p r o v i d e d o n l y data on t h e s o i l p l u g b e h a v i o u r . end b e a r i n g t o s k i n f r i c t i o n f o r p i l e s tell-tale  data,  i s shown i n T a b l e  no. 1 was  The r a t i o o f  2, 3 and 5 p i l e s , as determined  5.5.  from  F i g . 5.14 shows a summary p l o t o f  the t e l l - t a l e data f o r p i l e no. 5.  Pile  R a t i o o f Toe: S h a f t R e s i s t a n c e  2 3 5  30:70 50:50 20:80  T a b l e 5.5  As  mentioned  application of a x i a l ended.  Summary o f T e l l - T a l e Data f o r UBCPRS  previously, p i l e load.  no.  4  was  never  failed  under  the  T h i s was the o n l y UBCPRS p i l e t o be d r i v e n open  Two methods have been used  t o extrapolate the f a i l u r e  f i r s t method was t h e method developed by Chin  (1970).  Chin  load  The  (1970) proposed  a computational method whereby the e s t i m a t i o n o f the u l t i m a t e l o a d o f 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. pile nos. 4 and 5.  Fig. 5.15 shows Chin's method plotted for both  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. all  piles  applied.  at any given  depth, the load deflection technique could be  One assumption made i s that pile no. 4 behaved as a closed-ended  pile under static loading. plug  By assuming that the soil acted the same on  From the t e l l - t a l e data taken from the soil  this assumption appears valid.  However, i t must be noted that at  higher loads the pile may have unplugged. that this would not be the case. study, i t was assumed that failure. 1250 kN.  Calculations, however, suggest  For a l l calculations carried out for this  the pile would not unplug at loads  up to  This second method predicts the failure load of pile no. 4 to be 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 i s presented in Table 5.6.  5.3 5.3.1  Lateral Load Testing 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  CHIN'S METHOD PILE NO. S  0.04  0.035  0.03  -  0.023  -  0.02  -  0.016  -  0.01  -  0.005  -  0 -O MOVEMENT (mm)  CHIN'S METHOD PILE N0.4  0.008  0.007  -  0.006  -  0.006  0.004  -  0.003  -  0.002  -  0.001  PILE DEFLECTION (mm)  FIG. 5.15.  UBCPRS: CHIN'S METHOD TO PREDICT FAILURE LOAD FOR PILE NOS.  4 AND 5  86 Pile/Test No.  Length (m)  Diameter (m)  Wall Thickness (mm)  1 2 3 A 5  1A.3 13.7 16.8 23.2 31.1  0.32A 0.32A 0.32A 0.32A 0.32A  9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 11.5  A B C  67.0 78.0 9A.0  0.915 0.915 0.915  19 19 19  L/D  Open/Closed Ended  Capacity (kN)  AA A2 52 72 96  C C C 0 C  170 220 610 1200 1070  73 85 103  0 0 0  7500 7000 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 adjacent piles.  by jacking between  In this manner two piles were tested at one time. The  lateral loads were applied i n increments of 20 kN and held for approximately 15 minutes to allow time for readings to be taken. consisted of dial gauge and inclinometer readings.  These 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 i n Fig. 5.16. A schematic of the inclinometer casing set-up i s shown in Fig. 5.17. The deflection of adjacent piles at ground surface was also measured but, due to measurement resolution d i f f i c u l t i e s , these values are  not considered  calibrated load c e l l .  reliable.  The lateral  load was measured using a  Calibration data for the load cell used is given in  87  SCALE  1:25  load cell .steel strut  dial gage  refererence beam  jteel plat  PILE 3  PILE 5  PILE 1  test piles 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  i n both piles i n order  to prevent  possible buckling of the piles at the points of load application. The MOTHPRS pile was loaded as shown i n Fig. 5.18. Further details can be found in Robertson et a l . (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 w i l l remain d i f f i c u l t to compare results between different researchers and hence, d i f f i c u l t 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 i s  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 f i r s t point of contraflexure i s 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  i s at a depth  of roughly  3.5 metres  90  915mm  TEST PILE •Oiol Gouges  762mm Reoction Piles  Reference Plate  \ \  F I G . 5.18.  MOTHPRS LATERAL P I L E LOAD TEST ARRANGEMENT ( A f t e r R o b e r t s o n e t a l . , 1985)  91  2  PILE DIMENSIONS  • <  LENGTH IB. 8 m DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 9.5 mm  o <  K UJ  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 i s 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 f i r s t point of contraflexure at a depth of approximately 10 metres. depth.  Essentially, no significant  deflection i s recorded  below this  94  PILE  DIMENSIONS  LENGTH 94 m DIAMETER WALL  9 1 4 mm 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)  LATERAL P I L E  FIG.  5.21.  D E F L E C T I O N (cm)  MOTHPRS: LATERAL P I L E 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  formulae to predict capacity.  as methods  that  use static  pile  capacity  For this study the term "direct method" i s  applied to any static prediction method that uses CPT data directly without the  need  to evaluate  pressure, bearing  any intermediate  values  (coefficients of earth  capacity factors, friction angle, etc.).  An "indirect  method" i s taken to refer to static prediction methods that require intermediate 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.  methods may not be due solely to problems inherent The correlations between the CPT values  parameters may lack sufficient accuracy.  to these  and the intermediate  This should be kept i n 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 i s used in each case. is  In general this input data set  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 i s 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 borehole  information  supplied  linear increase.  by the BCMOTH indicates  that  Available a linear  increase i n parameters i s a reasonable assumption. Details of the dynamic measurements used in the dynamic methods are found i n Chapter 5. For each method, two plots w i l l be presented.  One plot w i l l 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. 6.2  summarizes  evaluated. section.  the formulation  of the 12  static  However, Table  prediction methods  Each method will also be briefly outlined in the appropriate For a more detailed account of any method evaluated, i s 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  1  Schmertmann & Nottingham, CPT  Nottingham (1975), Nottingham &. Schmertmann (1975), Schmertmann (1978)  CPT  Static-Direct  2  d e R u i t e r & Beringen, CPT  d e R u i t e r & B e r i n g e n (1979)  CPT  Static-Direct  3  Zhou e t a l . (1982), CPT  Zhou e t a l . (1982)  CPT  Static-Direct  4  L a b o r a t o i r e C e n t r a l des Ponts e t Chausees (LCPC) CPT  Bustamante &. G i a n e s e l l i (1982)  CPT  Static-Direct  5  Van M i e r l o & Koppejan "Dutch" CPT  Van M i e r l o &. Koppejan (1952)  CPT  Static-Direct  6  API RP2A  American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e (1980)  CPT  Static-Indirect  7  Dennis & O l s o n ( M o d i f i e d API) Dennis & O l s o n (1983a,b)  CPT  Static-Indirect  8  V i 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  Static-Indirect  9  Burland  Burland (1973)  CPT  Static-Indirect  10 Janbu  Janbu (1976)  CPT  Static-Indirect  11 Meyerhof Conventional  Meyerhof (1976)  CPT  Static-Indirect  12 F l a a t e &. Seines  F l a a t e & Seines (1977)  CPT  Static-Indirect  13 E n g i n e e r i n g News Record Dynamic Formula  Cummings (1940)  P i l e i n s t a l l a t i o n blowcounts, hammer s i z e , s e t  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 blowcounts, hammer s i z e  Dynamic-Wave E q u a t i o n (Prediction)  15 Case Method  Gravare e t a l . (1980)  Dynamic  measurements  Dynamic-Case  16 CAPWAP  Rausche (1970)  Dynamic  measurements  Dynamic-Wave E q u a t i o n (In-Situ)  Reference(s)  Test Data  Type  Method  TABLE 6.2. DESIGN METHODS FOR CALCULATING AXIAL PILE CAPACITY FORMULATION METHOD* End  Shaft Resistance 1. Schmertmann and  SAND:  f = most a p p r o p r i a t e * * from f , ,  q  Nottingham CPT 8D f, = K [ Z ( — ) • f Nottingham  L + X  « 8D  i  = Func  (1975),  f  and Schmertmann (1976)  s  = CPT s l e e v e f r i c t i o n  considered  q^  = 1 5 MPa c l e a n sands 1  = 0.12 MPa  f, = c • q c = empirical coefficient = Func q  c  n  (pile  type)  = CPT t i p b e a r i n g v a l u e  Methods 1 t o 5 a r e " d i r e c t " CPT methods. Methods 6 t o 12 a r e " i n d i r e c t " CPT methods ** Most a p p r o p r i a t e = minimum v a l u e where l a c k o f l o c a l e x p e r i e n c e  value  = 30 MPa maximum c u t o f f  L = p i l e length 2  = CPT t i p b e a r i n g  value  D = p i l e width  f  = l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f q above and c below p i l e t i p  q  (L/D, m a t e r i a l , shape)  £ = depth t o f  and q^  f ]  8D  11  q^ = minimum o f q^  2  p  K = empirical coefficient  (1975),  Nottingham and Schmertmann  SAND:  Bearing  *  exists.  = 10 MPa v . s i l t y  sand  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION METHOD 1. (cont'd)  Shaft Resistance CLAY:  End  f = most a p p r o p r i a t e * from f , ,  CLAY: q^  f. = o' S** u a' = e m p i r i c a l c o e f f i c i e n t  q^  ( f , material) s = undrained shear s t r e n g t h  S f, = V  u  along p i l e length  u  = a • cjp f o r h i g h l y OC c l a y s  S  o §  above and  a = Woodward's (1961) adhesion ratio ** Schmertmann suggests u s i n g q -o „ _ ^c vo u" N  (p"' + 2 S )  p' = ave. o  c  below p i l e t i p = cjp f o r NC and s l i g h t l y OC c l a y s  2  11  q^ = minimum o f q^ and g^  = linear function of q 1  1  = Func  Bearing  R  where N  = ave. undrained shear s t r e n g t h  R  = 10-20, a d j u s t t o r e f l e c t  l o c a l experience.  along p i l e length X' = e m p i r i c a l c o e f f i c i e n t = Fun" (L) 8D . L  2. de R u i t e r and Beringen  SAND:  f = most a p p r o p r i a t e * from f , ,  SAND:  CPT f j = 0.12 MPa ( l i m i t value) de R u i t e r and Beringen  f, = CPT sleeve f r i c t i o n , f  (1979)  f , = q /300 c  (compression)  = q /A00 (tension)  = minimum o f q^ and  q  n = Func (q , OCR, D, L)  q  OCR = o v e r c o n s o l i d a t i o n r a t i o = 1 5 MN/m 1  Pj  c  CLAY:  CLAY:  f = a • S*** u a = 1 f o r N.C. c l a y  N  c  q = N • S*** c u = bearing c a p a c i t y f a c t o r f o r 0 = 0  = 9  = 0.5 f o r O.C. c l a y  *  Most a p p r o p r i a t e = minimum v a l u e where l a c k o f l o c a l experience  ***de R u i t e r and Beringen suggest S  y  from CPT: S  y  appropriate values t o r e f l e c t l o c a l experience.  = q / N where N c  R  R  exists. = 15-20 f o r North Sea c l a y s .  Use  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION  METHOD Shaft Resistance 3. Zhou et a l (1982) CPT Zhou, Zie, Zuo, Luo and Tang (1982)  End Bearing  f = KB • f ) f = average local CPT friction of the "s" layer B = empirical coefficient = Func (f , soil type) _ s soil type I: q £ 2 MPa  Op - a • i q = interpreted cone resistance at toe level (computed over a range of ± 4B about toe a = empirical coefficient = Func (q » s o i l type)  f /q £ 0.014 s ^c soil type I I : other than I B_ = 0.23 (f ) I _s _ n 55 B = 0.22 (f )  B = D = pile width - -0 25 ttj = 0.71 (q )  s  11  c  - 0  U  ,  4 5  D  c  c  11  c  c  a  u  - 1.07  (i )-°'  3 5  c  D  ir  4. Van Mierlo and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT  f = 1(0.4% of q )  % %-  + q  a  2  q^ = average q 2xdiameter below pile t i p q = average q 8xdiameter above c  Van Mierlo and Koppejan (1952)  3.  pile tip  C  i  1  o o  TABLE 6 . 2 (cont'd) FORMULATION  METHOD  5. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees (LCPC) CPT Bustamante and Gianeselli  (1982)  End Bearing  Shaft Resistance i f =Z q  %  *q = the limit skin friction at ^s. l the level of the layer i q  = cone resistance corresponding to the given level  a = empirical coefficient = Func (pile type, soil type, q ) *limit values exist 11  c  = Func  11  (pile type, s o i l type,  =  q  c  * c a K  e  q  = equivalent cone resistance a at the level of the pile point  = Func (q , a) 3 a = §D K = penetrometer bearing capan  c  city factor = Func c>  q  n  (pile type, soil type,  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION METHOD Shaft Resistance 6. API RP2A  End B e a r i n g  SAND:  f = K o' t a n 6 v o K = c o e f f i c i e n t of l a t e r a l earth pressure  American P e t r o l u m I n s t i t u t e (1980)  = 0.5 t o 1.0 f o r compressive  SAND: Nq = b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y f a c t o r  axial  = Func  11  (0')  [see s k i n  friction]  loading = e f f e c t i v e overburden p r e s s u r e  o' o  6 = a n g l e o f s o i l f r i c t i o n on p i l e wall S o i l Type  •  6  c l e a n sand s i l t y sand sandy s i l t silt  35° 30° 25° 20°  30° 25° 20° 15°  N  q AO 20 12 8  0 = a n g l e o f i n t e r n a l f r i c t i o n of soil CLAY  f = a  (S /o' ) Pi ° ; : Pi U V o o = u n d r a i n e d shear s t r e n g t h (i)  highly plastic  CLAY:  s  (P.I.>25)  NC: a = 1 OC: a = 1, b u t f } t h e l a r g e r of  1 K s f o r (S ) U  ( i i ) low S ( K stfo) medium p l a s t i c i t y u  < 0.5  NL  Note:  clay  a1  0.5 - 1.5 1 - 0.5 ( l i n . v a r ) 11  > 1.5  0.5  no d e f i n e d method t o o b t a i n S or * u T  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION METHOD Shaft 7. Dennis and Olson (modified API RP2A)  SAND:  f =F  Resistance  End  tan 6  SD  SAND:  Fgp = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t  N  D = p i l e diameter  (1983 a) and Dennis and Olson (1983 b)  L = embedded length K = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t = 0.8 unless local experience dictates otherwise  c  n  = 1/[0.15 + 0.008 L]  Dennis and Olson  F  = F o' D v  Fp = empirical c o e f f i c i e n t  = l/[0.6 exp (L/60»D)]  CLAY:  Bearing  = bearing capacity factor = Func  q  f = a • S • F •F u c L = empirical correction for strength  CLAY:  = obtain from l o c a l experience, or:  S  T  U.C.T. (high q u a l i t y ) : F = 1.1 c  U.C.T. (driven sampler): F  c  11  (0')  q_ = 9 • S • F T> u c = as per skin f r i c t i o n  F u  = undrained shear strength near the pile t i p  = 1.8  F i e l d vane: F =0.7 c U.C.T. = unconfined compression test ot = adhesion factor = the adhesion factor varies l i n e a r l y as follows: S F (psf) u c y  600 1200 5000  1.0 1.0  0.5  0.3 0.3  = average undrained shear strength over p i l e length = empirical correcton for depth L(ft) 1.0  100  175  1.0  1.8  1.8  Note: - no defined method to obtain S or d> u  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION  METHOD 8. Vijayvergiya and Focht Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972)  Shaft Resistance  End Bearing  SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.)  SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.)  CLAY:  CLAY: q_ = 9 • S T  f = X (o + 2 S ) vm urn  u  X = empirical coefficient = Func" (L) S = mean undrained shear strength urn along pile o = mean o' along pile vm vo L = pile penetration  Note: - no defined method to obtain S u  SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.)  SAND: • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's criteria (6.)  6  9. Burland Burland (1973)  CLAY: f = P • o' CLAY: q = 9 • S vo T> u 1. NC: p = (1-sin <fr')tan <J>' Note: - no define method to dbtain <p' <f>' = effective angle of or S internal friction u 2. If <f>' not known: P = 0.25 - 0.40 (ave = 0.32)  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION METHOD Shaft Resistance SAND:  10. Janbu Janbu (1976)  S  v  f = S (o' + a) v v o  = t a n $' [VI + u  + il + r»] '  1  End Bearing SAND: N  q  = (N -1)(o' +a)  = bearing c a p a c i t y f a c t o r = Func" (u,40  u = t a n (|>'/|r|  * = angle o f p l a s t i f i c a t i o n  r = roughness number = Func" (L) a = soil  attraction Note: - no defined method t o o b t a i n  = c • cot cj> c = cohesion CLAY: • as f o r SAND 11. Meyerhof Conventional  SAND: K  Meyerhof  (1976)  CLAY:  g  f = K • o' • tan b <;f„ s v J o = average c o e f f i c i e n t of earth pressure on p i l e shaft = Func  p i l e type, i n s t a l l a -  n  • as f o r SAND SAND: q = o' T V N  • N Sq„  q i H  q  = bearing c a p a c i t y f a c t o r = Func" (<J>' , D, L)  qg = l i m i t i n g value o f u n i t point resistance  tion) fi = angle of s k i n  friction  = 0.5 N  q  tan <f>* (units = t s f )  f j = l i m i t i n g value of average u n i t skin  friction  = from l o c a l  experience  Note: - no defined method to obtain *' or S u r  TABLE 6.2. (cont'd) FORMULATION METHOD Shaft Resistance 11. (cont'd)  CLAY:  End Bearing  f = B o' iS v u  q = c • N + o' • N Sq T> c v q P  CLAY:  0  NC: P = Func (L) N  = bearing capacity factor c = Func" (<J>*, D, L) c = ave. unit cohesion near p i l e point = u s u a l l y taken as c = S and N •* 0 u q  OC: B = 1.5 (1-sinoy) tano)' /OCR OCR = overconsolidation r a t i o  q^ = l i m i t i n g value of unit point resistance = e m p i r i c i a l ( l o c a l experience) 12. Flaate and Seines Flaate and Seines  SAND:  SAND:  • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's  • recommend use of Dennis and Olson's  c r i t e r i a (6.)  c r i t e r i a (6.)  (1977) CLAY:  CLAY:  q  = 9 •S  f = U t(0.3 - 0.001 I ) • /OCR • o' L p v T  R  + 0.008 I  •S]  or s i m p l i f i e d  0  Note: - no defined method to obtain *' or S u r  f = u. [0.3 to 0.5] • /OCR o' L V o = length function = (L+20)/(2L+20) (L i n metres) I  = p l a s t i c i t y index  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 i s also included.  6.2  Use of Spreadsheets Many pile prediction methods are relatively d i f f i c u l t and time consum-  ing  to implement without the aid of a computer.  when near continuous CPT data i s used.  This i s especially true  For each of the prediction methods  used in this study a computer program was written using commercially available spreadsheet software. ing  computational  design. tivity  The spreadsheet is seen as a powerful engineer-  tool that i s well suited to geotechnical engineering  The spreadsheet i s particularly well adapted for performing sensianalyses  and  therefore rapid  evaluation of  input  parameters.  Perhaps the greatest attraction of using spreadsheets, however, i s that the programmer/operator requires l i t t l e computer programming background.  It i s  doubtful that the number of methods investigated could have been possible within  the  required time  frame without  this  computational assistance.  Davies et a l . (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  using  this section, five methods of directly predicting pile capacity 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 intermediate 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). diameter  As shown in Fig. 6.1, i f a probe of zero  penetrates into a soil layer, the penetration resistance would  follow the idealized curve ABCD.  This i s to say that the device would  "feel" the entire effect of the lower soil layer immediately upon penetration.  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. c r i t i c a l depth (D ). c  This depth i s often termed the  De Beer (1963) showed that i t is reasonable to assume  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 is  not possible to use  electric cones (35.7 mm condition  £  were known. Although i t  a probe of zero diameter,  the standard  sized  in diameter) can be assumed to approximate this  (curve ABCD), especially for large diameter piles.  (1951), de Beer (1963), and others have shown that D  Meyerhof  i s a function of c  foundation size and  soil  stiffness.  Therefore, i t i s more logical to  express c r i t i c a l depth as a ratio (D/B) where B i s the foundation diameter. c  This  concept  i s complicated  in highly layered materials where  thicknesses can be less than D  £  for the large diameter piles.  layer  In these  situations the f u l l penetration resistance may be mobilized on the cone but may not be realized for the pile before the influence of another layer i s  109  PENETRATION  F I G . 6.1.  RESISTANCE  DE BEER SCALE EFFECT DIAGRAM FOR P I L E PREDICTIONS (ADAPTED FROM NOTTINGHAM, 1975)  CPT  110 felt. depth is,  The way  i n which the d i f f e r e n t  and l a y e r i n g  effects  f o r both  direct  methods d e f i n e the c r i t i c a l  sleeve f r i c t i o n  and p o i n t  resistance  f o r the most p a r t , what s e p a r a t e s the methods a v a i l a b l e .  6.3.1  Schmertmann and Nottingham  6.3.1.1  Outline  The summary  CPT Method  Schmertmann o f the work  Nottingham  (1975)  Florida.  This  and Nottingham on both  in  method  his  CPT Method  model and  doctoral  uses  both  (Schmertmann, 1978)  full-scale  dissertation  CPT  values  piles at  presented  the  is a by L.  University  o f cone b e a r i n g  of  and s l e e v e  friction. Although strength,  seen  S^,  relationship  as  a  direct  i s required. used  should  method,  an  Schmertmann  reflect  local  estimate  of undrained  shear  (1978) suggests t h a t the CPT-S^ experience.  e x p e r i e n c e and d a t a o b t a i n e d f o r t h i s study  Based  (see Chapter  upon  local  4) , the u n d r a i n e d  s t r e n g t h was taken t o be:  S  where:  = undrained strength  q  = cone b e a r i n g  c  vo  = in-situ vertical total  formulation of undrained  investigated strength  - £ J 2 )  S^  o  This  u  for this  profile.  shear  study t h a t  (6-1,  stress  s t r e n g t h was  required  used  i n a l l CPT methods  an e v a l u a t i o n  o f the u n d r a i n e d  Ill Being a combination of many previous works, precise limitations of the Schmertmann and researchers,  Nottingham method are d i f f i c u l t  to ascertain.  Various  Robertson et a l . (1985), among others, have reported good  correlations with f u l l 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  1  LEGEND shaft resistance t o t a l resistance  1  I 20-  p  —  LEGEND shaft total  ^  \  1  — I  J > -  15-  -  \S  P i1e No. 3  50-  P i l e No. 4  -  80  \  \  . Test  A  P i 1 e No. 5  »^  \  \ \  \ \  y  \  100 SCO  1000  1SO0  2000  5000  \  Test  c  \ 10000  15000  JO0O0  PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY tktO  PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY <kN5  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method (a) FIG. 6.2.  Test B  v  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Schmertmann and Nottingham CPT Method '  SCHMERTMANN AND NOTTINGHAM CPT METHOD  (b)  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  conservative prediction resulting.  a  non-  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  gained in the North Sea by Fugro Consultants  International.  experience  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 i s an empirical method that, as can  be  seen in Table  friction.  6.2,  utilizes  both CPT  cone bearing  and  sleeve  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 d i f f i c u l t to note specific limitations . The de Ruiter and Beringen method i s 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 capacitywas predicted extremely well by the deRuiter and Beringen method. nos.  For pile  2,4 and 5 there i s 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 a l . (1982) CPT Method is based upon Chinese experience gained using predict  the cone bearing  axial pile  capacity.  and the sleeve This  relating the CPT values with 96 f u l l stratigraphic profiles.  friction from the CPT to  experience consists of empirically scale pile load tests in various  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 a l . (1982) method is relatively simple to understand and i t i s simple to implement.  A limitation,  noted by Zhou et a l . (1982), i s 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  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE deRuiter and Beringen CPT Method (a)  FIG. 6 . 3 .  DERUITER AND BERINGEN CPT METHOD  PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY O.N>  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE deRuiter and B e r i n g e n CPT Method (b)  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. especially  true of pile nos. 2,3 and 4.  This is  Pile no. 5 had i t s 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 f i r s t 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 i s based upon purely empirical observations comparing CPT results with static pile load tests.  As can be seen in Table 6.2, this i s  an extremely simple method to use and has the advantage of only needing CPT bearing values.  This advantage i s important as obtaining accurate sleeve  friction values from CPT data i s often an area of concern. One major limitation  of this method i s that i t was developed  solely  with mechanical cone data.  Using electric cone data, as in this study, i s  not  acceptable  completely  valid  but  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 Zhou et a l CPT Method  MOTH PILE LOAO TEST SITE 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. capacities were somewhat underpredicted  for pile nos.  The  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 capacities 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  loading  (or extraction) tests.  The  full-scale static pile  tests involved 96 deep foundations  distributed on 48 sites containing materials such as: clay, s i l t , gravel, weathered rock, mud,  peat, weathered chalk, and marl.  piles included driven, bored, grouted, barrettes and piers. for  the driven piles were 300  to 640 mm  sand,  The types of The sizes used  in diameter and 6 to 45 m in  Von  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE M j e r l o and Koppejan "Dutch" CPT Method  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE V a n M i e r l o 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 i s very simple to use and understand and offers no ambiguities.  The validation of the method i s 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 i s 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 i s 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 i s  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  are presented.  engineers  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). methods  The justification of this is that many of these "cohesive suggest  using  the API RP2A  (Section 6.A.l) cohesionless  soil" soil  LEGENO  LEGENO  shaft total  shaft total  PMf  No. 4  P11 a N o . 5  S»  1000  ISO  2000  2500  PWOICTfD PJLg CAPACITY <MO  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE LCPC CPT Method  i5ooo  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE LCPC CPT Method (b)  (a) F I G . 6.6.  loom  PftCDfCTtO PI LI CAPACITY OtfO  LCPC CPT METHOD  122 recommendations.  The Dennis and Olson method i s a modified API RP2A method  and i s seen by many as a preferred method to the original API RP2A. As well, i n engineering pratice this combination of methods can be used for comparison purposes and to define c r i t i c a l 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 Institute  for piled  offshore d r i l l i n g  platforms.  Petroleum  This method i s used  extensively for onshore design and i s considered by many as the major offshore prediction method. As can be seen i n 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 indirect  (1983).  This correlation i s used throughout this study for  CPT methods requiring  friction  angle values.  The undrained  strength i s determined as described in Section 6.2.1.1. The API RP2A method has been used for design i n many offshore piling projects.  The major limitation of this method, and a l l of the indirect  methods used i n this study, i s that the accuracy of the parameters used i n the implementation of the method (e.g. <f>, S^) are highly dependent upon the accuracy and r e l i a b i l i t y of the empirical relationships used to obtain the parameter from the in-situ test data.  123  The API RP2A method i s simple to use and computer assistance i s not necessary.  However, the method i s subject to different levels of interpre-  tation and therefore no unique answer i s possible between individual users.  6.A.1.2  Results  As shown i n Fig. 6.7(a), the API RP2A method was somewhat successful in predicting the capacity of the UBCPRS piles while pile no. 2 had i t s 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) i s a modification of the API RP2A method. From Table 6.2, i t i s seen that the main difference between the Dennis and Olson and API RP2A method i s 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  friction on the pile wall  soils, the value of the angle of s o i l  (6) i s 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 i n cohesive  soils and 66 full-scale pile load  tests i n cohesionless soils with those predictd by the method.  A l l of the  25000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY  <KN)  PREDICTED  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e RP2A Method (a) FIG.  6.7. AMERICAN  P I L E CAPACITY  (kN)  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e RP2A Method (b) PETROLEUM  I N S T I T U T E R P 2 A 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 i s simple to use and not open to interpretation 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 i n Fig. 6.8(b), a l l three test results are overpredicted by a large amount. predicted by more than 100%.  In particular, tests B and C are over-  This i s 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 f i r s t widely used method to encorporate two concepts now considered essential to pile design i n cohesive materials. Firstly, the prediction of pile capacity was not solely based upon undrained  shear  Vijayvergiya  and  strength but upon effective Focht  realized  friction will govern pile capacity.  that,  vertical  under  static  stress  as well.  loading, drained  Secondly, this method encorporates a  term (X) which i s a dimensionless coefficient dependent upon pile penetration.  In e f f e c t ,  a term  to address  scale  effects  i s included.  Unfortunately, pile diameter was excluded from the original formulation of  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Dennis and Olson Method (a) FIG. 6 . 8 .  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Dennis and Olson Method (b) 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 i s based upon 47 full-scale pile load tests on piles ranging i n length from 2.5 to 100 m in length and in capacity from 27 to 7800 kN.  No mention of pile diameter i s 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 i s both simple to understand and to implement.  A large advantage of the method i s that i t i s 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  a l l 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 a l l greatly overpredicted. Tests B and C were overpredicted by more than 100%.  The performance  of this method on these tests i s 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).  LEGENO  LEGENO  shaft total  shaft total  P i l e Ho. 3  •  P11e No. 4  30H P i l e No. 5  — l  500  V  1  r-  P _  1000 1500 2000 PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY OtN>  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE V i j a y v e r g i y a and Focht Method (a)  F I G . 6.9.  5000  10000 15000 20000 PREOICTEO PILE CAPACITY U,N>  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE V i j a y v e r g i y a and Focht Method (t>>  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  pressure.  of the unit skin friction  over the  Burland found that B ranged from 0.25  effective overburden  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.  capacity is generally at least 100%  For  a l l three  too large.  tests the  predicted  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 P I L E CAPACITY (KM)  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Burland Method  MOTH PILE LOAO TEST SITE B u r l a n d 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 plastification). and  Janbu (1976) is somewhat vague about how to obtain these parameters  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. 15 to nearly 100 percent.  This overprediction ranged from  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 The eleventh  Outline Meyerhof conventional Terzaghi  method i s as presented  lecture to the American  Society  i n 1976 as the  of C i v i l  Engineers  (Geotechnical Engineering Division). This method, as can be seen in Table 6.2, The  i s similar to that of the American Petroleum Institute (API RP2A). main difference i s that Meyerhof suggests the use of limiting skin  friction and end bearing values based upon field observations. Meyerhofs method i s 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  2X0  —  PREDICTED P I L E CAPACITY OtfO  loooa  isooo  P*EDICTEO P I L E CAPACITY <WO  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Janbu Mothod (a)  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Janbu Method (b) FIG.  6.11.  JANBU METHOD  anoo  133  This  method  i s 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 i s i n 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 i n terms of effective  stress, plasticity  and overconsolidation ratio.  An  empirical factor, u^, was defined as a factor to relate the above parameters 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 P I L E CAPACITY  (WO  PREDICTED P I L E CAPACITY  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE Meyerhof Conventional Mathod (a) FIG. 6.12.  (WO  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE Moyerhof Conventional Method (b) 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  plasticity index and overconsolidation ratio; two  obtaining  values  of  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  capacity is generally at least 100% too large. as poor as for the Janbu method, which was  tests the  predicted  These results were almost  considered  the worst method  evaluated.  6.5  Dynamic Methods  6.5.1  Introduction As  discussed  in Chapter  2,  "prediction" and "in-situ" classes. used were the Engineering equation.  dynamic methods can  be  divided  into  For this study the prediction methods  News Record (ENR)  dynamic formula and the wave  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 V I .  LEGEND  LEGEND  Shaft total  shaft total  P i l e No. 3  P <1e No. 4  i  soc  1000  isoo  2000  5000  15000  PREDICTED P I L E CAPACITY O.N)  20000  PREDICTED P I L E CAPACITY OOO  UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE F l o a t e and S e i n e s Method  MOTH PILE LOAD TEST SITE F l a a t e and S e i n e s Method  (a)  (b)  • 6.13.  FLAATE  AND SELNES METHOD LO  137  6.5.2  Results  The ENR formula has the following form:  2 •W R  =  • H  S 0.1  ( 6  +  where:  R  = capacity under working conditions (kips)  W„ n  = weight of hammer (kips)  H  = hammer drop height (feet)  S  = set (inches)  -  x )  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 i n i t i a l  capacity was 1944 kN.  driving of pile no. 5 the predicted  ultimate  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  i s illustrated.  Depending  upon whether  a hammer  efficiency of 60% or 70% i s chosen (typical ranges for drop hammers) , a different dynamic capacity will result.  The other problem that arises i s  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  initial  restrike hammer blowcount  data  it  is  justifiable to assume that this ratio can be used to calculate dynamic  BLOVCOUNT (blow, par matrs) F I G . 6.14.  UBC P I L E RESEARCH S I T E WEAP86: P I L E NO. 5 VARYING HAMMER E F F I C I E N C Y  M LO CO  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  i s 20:80, a capacity can be predicted.  From i n i t i a l  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 a l l 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  provided  predicted results  (PDA).  The case method  of 1903 kN and 1080 kN depending upon the  damping value, J , used (see Appendix VI) for calculation details). a J The  c  Using  value of 0.70, the 1903 kN (and overpredicted) result is obtained.  value of 0.70 was suggested  by a Goble, Rausche and Likens (GRL)  representative present during the dynamic measurements upon the restriking of p i l e 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.  6.6.2, the choice of J predictions  of static  c  As will be discussed further in section  i s the single largest factor affecting accurate  pile  capacity using dynamic methods.  A CAPWAP  capacity of 1646 kN (50% overprediction) was predicted using J = 0.70. c  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 w i l l always  depend not only upon the method used but upon the "quality" of the input parameters used in that method. be  expected  behaviour)  to  perform  unless  well  input  A pile capacity prediction method cannot (give accurate  parameters  subsurface conditions are used. parameters such as undrained  predictions of measured  representative  of  the  existing  For the indirect methods, estimates of  strength, angle of internal friction,  others are required by each method.  and  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. results,  careful  essential. repeatable  field  Regardless and  To ensure the accuracy of the actual CPT  techniques of  the  and properly calibrated equipment is  CPT  data  representative), the  being  assumed accurate (i.e.  correlations  used  to  estimate  parameters using CPT data must be accurate as well or non-representative results w i l l 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 ($ ) has been u  calculated using three different CPT correlations.  These results have then  been used to check the sensitivity of the de Ruiter and Beringen method (assumed S . u  to be a direct method as explained in Section 6.3) to the value of  142 Figure 6.16 presents the results of the de Ruiter and Beringen method using:  c u = 15 q  S  ( 6  '  2 )  This i s the value (where local correlations are unavailable) proposed by de Ruiter and Beringen (1979) but i s based upon North Sea data.  As can be  seen in Fig. 6.16, non-conservative predictions generally result.  However,  if  a value that i s more appropriate for local conditions i s 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 very well. was used required.  shear strength this method predicts the measured pile capacity It was this value of undrained strength, as noted earlier, that for this  study  wherever an undrained  strength estimate was  Finally, Fig. 6.18 presents the de Ruiter and Beringen method  using yet another formulation for S^:  q -o _ ^c vo s  u "— l b —  . (6  -  . A)  Once again, as with Eqn. 6.2, a significant descrepancy between predicted and measured pile capacity i s evident (non-conservative predictions).  143  LEGEND • Shin F r i c t i o n Total Resistance  P <1e No. 3  2(H  25H  30  qc Su  =  15  40-  —r— 500  T  1000  1500  2000  PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY <hN>  F I G . 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 a n d 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 a n d B Q r i n g Q n CPT M e t h o d  1  1  1  500  1000  1500  1  2000  PREDICTED PILE CAPACITY (UN) F I G . 6.18.  UNDRAINED STRENGTH NO. 3  UBC P I L E RESEARCH S I T E d e R u i t Q r a n d B e r i n g Q n CPT M e t h o d  2500  146 This  simple  sensitivity  example  illustrates  analyses when performing  the  pile  importance  of  performing  capacity analyses.  This is  especially true when, as i s 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 i n i t 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 determined  are  to  result.  Unfortunately,  such that over  values.  values  are  seldom  on a site specific basis and "recommended" values from opera-  tions manuals are usually used. ranges  these  100%  These values are generally quoted in  in variation can result from using extreme  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  and the ratio  c >  between cone resistance (q ) and f r i c t i o n ratio (FR,%), q /FR,%, can be c  c  proposed as shown i n Fig. 6.19. al.  (1985).  experience.  The data used for J  Note that Fig. 6.19  £  i s after Rausche et  should be adjusted to reflect  local  It is interesting to note that for UBCPRS pile. no. 5, the  (q /FR,%) r a t i o near the p i l e t i p ranges from 7 to 11. c  Thus, using a  conservative upper bound trend line, Fig. 6.19 yields a case damping value of approximately  1.0.  This i s i n 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, i s 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^,  i s also required.  value of 0.1 inch (2.5 mm)  i s generally used for a l l soils, based on the  original work of Smith (1960). a simplistic manner.  Traditionally a standard quake  However, real soil does not behave in such  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 i s 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  F I G . 6.19.  PROPOSED CORRELATION BETWEEN CPT DATA AND CASE DAMPING CONSTANT, J c  149  F I G . 6.20.  ELASTO-PLASTIC SOIL MODEL (ADAPTED FROM C H E L L I S , 1 9 5 1 )  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 pilesoil condition.  However, this is not s t r i c t l y 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. A l l 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 a l . (1982) method to a lesser extent, also predicted the capacity of the larger pile quite satisfactorily. methods  had  conservative  predictions  that  However, without exception, the indirect were  significantly  in  error  when compared to the measured results for the  and  non-  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  Method 0  1: Schmertmann and Nottingham  CPT  PREDICTED/MEASURED CAPACITY («) 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 I BO -J I I I I I I I I  200 48  o a  D  97 IU  100  d a  86 86  113  o  126  2  Ave -94% M e t h o d 2: de Ruiter and B e r i n g e n 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  o co D  z io  2  b 2 z 3 Ul 4 (V S o* A z H B  m m 1-  I  Sd = 2 5 %  94 135 100 99 103 114  C  118  A v e - 1 0 9 % Sd = l4% M e t h o d 3: Z h o u , Z i e . Z u o . L u o and Tang C P T PREDICTED/MEASURED CAPACITY (*) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 % I I O  o  2  2  110 135 99 129  3  CD u 3 -J 4  5  o 2  A  141  B  177  C  192 Ave = M e t h o d 4: V a n Mierlo and Koppejan C P T PREDICTED/MEASURED CAPACITY ( « ) 100 120 140 160 180 20 40 60 80 ' I I I L. _j I  O  u  CD 3  O  2  z  140%  Sd =  34%  200 49 133 102 74 73 91 94 Ave-88%  Sd-26%  FIG. 6.21. BAR CHARTS OF PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED PILE CAPACITY FOR STATIC PREDICTION METHODS EVALUATED  152  Method  5: L C P C  CPT  PREDICTED/MEASURED 0  20  C A P A C I T Y (%)  40  60  80  100  120  140  I  1  1  1  I  I  _J  160  160  200  o 2  95  z  ui  125  3  d 4 a. . 3  x  O 2  °  88 96  A  80  z A  105  B  w a c  109  Method  6:  API  Ave =100%  RP2A  Sd=l5%  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 I  O m 3  O 2  40 I  60 I  80 I  100 I  120 I  140 I  160 I  180 I  200  2  75  3 •  158  4  113  5•  114  A  156  B  223  C  247  Ave = 155% M e t h o d 7: Dennis and O l s o n PREDICTED/MEASURED CAPACITY 60  60  100 J  120 I  140 I  Sd = 6 2 %  (%)  160 1  180  200 58  o  122  0 3  76 77  141 204  O 2  214  Ave =127%  Sd=63%  M e t h o d 8: V i j a y v e r g i y a 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 (%) 20  o a 3  o  40  60  80  100  120  140  i  160 _]  180 I  200  % 127  z  158  Ul  -J  92  107  f  174  8  223  o *2*  m  231  ui  Ave = 1 5 9 % FIG. 6.21. CONT...  Sd»54%  153  M e t h o d 9: 0  I  Burland  P R E D I C T E D / M E A 8 U R E D C A P A C I T Y (%) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 160 200 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  '  2 o 3 0 3 4 5 o A X z B o s C  104 148 88 102 206 267 286 Ave = 172% Sd = 8 2 % M e t h o d 10: J a n b u 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 %  o a 3  o  s  2 3 4• 5 A B  126 232 135 114 165 226  C  248 Ave = 178% 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 (%) 20 40 60 80 I00 I20 I40 I60 IBO 200 J_ _J I L_  CB  18 I 252 285  X H O  2  o  Ave = 168% M e t h o d 12: F l a a t e and S e i n e s 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 (%) 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2 0 0 20 -J I I I I -JL-  Sd«74%  134 170 95 98 174 231 234  o * D  % 98 120 I 10 I29  u  3  Sd=56%  m  =!  OL  o  2 Ave =162% FIG.  6.21. CONT.  Sd»57%  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 i n 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 i s interesting to note  that, as shown in Table 6.3, the average ratio for a l l twelve methods i s 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  components.  resistance  between  the  shaft  resistance  and  end  bearing  155  UBCPRS  PILE  No.2  PREDICTED/MEASURED  O  o o  60  80  100  120  2 oz  5  o Q  9 10  or o_  1 1 12  Z  o ho  180  200  %  104 126 98 134  PILE  40 1  60 1  Ave =93%  Sd = 3 0 %  180  %  No.3  PREDICTED/MEASURED  hLU  160  7 8  20 J  I  140  6  UBCPRS  o o  J.  48 94 110 49 95 75 58 127  3 4  LU  40  (*)  2  I  rLU  20  CAPACITY  80 1  100 1  CAPACITY  120 I  140 I  («)  160 I  L.  200  97 2  135 135 1 33 125  3 4 5 6  158 122  7 8  158  9 10 QC 1 1 CL 12  ED  148 232 120 170  Ave= 144% F I G . 6.22.  BAR CHARTS OF PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED CAPACITY FOR P I L E S ANALYZED  PILE  Sd = 3 4 %  156  UBCPRS PILE No.4 PRE0ICTED/MEA8URE0  20  Q O I w  z  80  1C-0  120  140  160  j_  160  200  i  o 5 LU  9 10  % 100 100 99  3 4 5 6 7 8  rr 0-  60  (tt)  2  o  h-  40  CAPACITY  102 88 I 13 76 92 88 135 110 95  1 1 12  Ave = 100% Sd = 15%  UBCPRS PILE No.5 PREDICTED/MEASURED  20  Q O I LU  z O O O  UJ  40 I  60 I  80  100  CAPACITY  120  140  I • 2 34567 8 9  («)  160  180 J_  200  % 86 99 129 74 96 114 77 107 102 114 129 98  10  OC I I °" .2  Ave = 102% Sd = l8% F I G . 6.22.  CONT.  157  MOTHPRS TEST A PREDICTED/MEASURED  20  40  60 -i  80 1  100  J—  CAPACITY  120  I  140  L_  (%)  160 l  180 200 _j  86  I  Q  24  I  3 4 5 6 7 8-  O r— LU Z  o  rO Q LU fX 0.  % 103 14 1  73 80 156 141 174 206 165 181 174  9 10 I I  12  Ave = 140% Sd = 44%  MOTHPRS TEST B PREDICTED/MEASURED  20 I  Q  23' 456  O I  r-  LU  2 Z  40  III  60  80  100  II  CAPACITY  120  — f o  180  200  % 11 3 114  204 223 267  9-  I  (%)  177 9 1 105 233  Q 10LU  or  160  I I I I  78  o  140  226 252 231  I  Q. 12  Ave =186% Sd = 64% F I G . 6.22.  CONT.  158  MOTHPRS TEST C PREDICTED/MEASURED  0  20  40 I  1i  80 Ii  100 T  140  160  I  I  I  I  r-  4  LU  5  Z  O  6 7  i— 8-f 9Q |0 LU  a a.  180 2 0 0  % 126 118 192 94 109 247 214 231 286 248 285 234  2 3  O  (%)  120  I -i  Q  o  60  CAPACITY  1112  Ave = 190% Sd = 76%  F I G . 6.22.  CONT.  159  TABLE 6.3  PREDICTED SHAFT RESISTANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEASURED AXIAL CAPACITY FOR PILE NO. 5  Method  Predicted Shaft Resistance/ Measured Total Resistance (%)  1.  Schmertmann & Nottingham CPT  82  2.  deRuiter & Beringen CPT  95  3.  Zhou et a l . CPT  120  4. Van Mierlo &. Koppejan CPT  49  5.  LCPC CPT  86  6.  API RP2A  108 75  7. Dennis & Olson  102  8. Vijayvergiya & Focht Burland  95  10.  Janbu  86  11.  Meyerhof Conventional  12.  Flaate & Seines  9.  123 90  Ave:  92.6  Sd:  20.1  160 TABLE 6.4  PREDICTED SHAFT RESISTANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PREDICTED AXIAL CAPACITY FOR PILE NO. 5  Method  Predicted Shaft Resistance/ P r e d i c t e d T o t a l R e s i s t a n c e (%)  1.  Schmertmann & Nottingham CPT  96  2.  d e R u i t e r & B e r i n g e n CPT  95  3.  Zhou e t a l . CPT  93  4.  Van M i e r l o &. Koppejan CPT  77  5.  LCPC CPT  91  6.  API RP2A  95  7.  Dennis  94  8.  V i j a y v e r g i y a & Focht  96  9.  Burland  95  10.  Janbu  76  11.  Meyerhof C o n v e n t i o n a l  97  12.  F l a a t e & Seines  94  & Olson  Ave: Sd:  91.6 7.2  161  The  dynamic methods, only considered  showed a considerable scatter of results.  for UBCPRS Pile no. 5, also With the dynamic methods i t was  shown that the in-situ measurement methods (such as the Case Method) can only be expected analyses  to give results as accurate as the simpler predictive  (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 pressuremeter test (FDPMT) method and the flat plate dilatometer test (DMT) method. The former method i s only briefly described here. by Robertson et a l . this  study.  (1986).  Full details are given  The DMT methods is a new method proposed^ in  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 displacement piles are presented and the results obtained compared with pile load test data from 3 different piles MOTHPRS pile).  (piles 3 and 5, UBCPRS, and the  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. which was the original program. f i r s t version of LATPILE.  Reese (1977) developed COM622  Reese and Sullivan (1980) then created the  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 i s a finite difference program that can handle different P-y curves.  up to 20  The program can analyze any one of three boundary  conditions at the pile top along with any combination of 1) lateral deflections along the free field, 2) lateral loads along the pile, 3) a lateral load at the pile top, and A) axial load. between P-y curves.  Soil response i s interpolated  Full details of the system documentation, operating  documentation and governing  difference equations  can be found i n Reese  (1977). The use of LATPILE i s straightforward and a minimum of input data i s required.  There are some disadvantages to using this program i n lieu of a  finite element program.  The finite element method can permit realistic  three-dimensional effects and computation and around the piles.  of stresses and deformations in  LATPILE, however, i s seen as adequate for this study  as only load-deflection behaviour i s 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  curves from FDPMT results i s used. results presented. where this  et a l . (1983) for obtaining P-y  This method i s briefly outlined and the  Robertson et a l . (1986) document four case histories  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 i s shown i n F i g . 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  i s done to remove the effects  of the in-situ  lateral  pressure present upon the pressuremeter before expansion.  soil  This value  (lift-off) i s 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 r a d i a l pressure (o ) i s 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 i s multiplied by the pile radius. These two  steps in themselves  resulting  curves  have  been  create a P-y compared  discrepancies have been noted.  with  curve. measured  However, when the pile  behaviour,  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:  D = Diameter of Pile P = tT x D r  4  Pressuremeter Curve  P'le P - y Curve  Curve shift to  Lift-off  Lift-off  Strain , —  ,  AR  Stra in , -pc  Displacement, y  y= F I G . 7.1,  AR .  D  R  SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF P I L E P-y CURVES FROM PRESSUREMETER CURVES  Multiplying Factor, ex. 0  CD \ M  a. a> Q  0  0.5  1.0  1.5  2.0  2  4  Cohesionless Soils  > or  8  F I G . 7.2. VARIATION OF MULTIPLYING FACTOR WITH R E L A T I V E 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 a l . (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 i s 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  (Atukorala and Byrne, 1984).  finite  element  pressuremeter  modelling  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 c r i t i c a l depth for lateral pile response i s important for a correct prediction of lateral behaviour under loading.  Above the c r i t i c a l depth, the  free (ground) surface w i l l 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 a l . (1986).  The reduction of lateral resistance i s 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 a l . (1983).  Thus when a  pressuremeter test is' performed within four pile diameters of the ground surface the soil multiplication factor i s to be reduced as shown in Fig. 7.2, otherwise no reduction i s applied. consider variations in pile stiffness.  Note that this method does not  However, Briaud et a l . (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 c r i t i c a l depth, the pressuremeter effects.  test  results  themselves  must  be corrected  for surface  The c r i t i c a l depths ( z ) for a pressuremeter were proposed by £  Baguelin et a l . (1979), as follows,  where:  z c  =15 D-.,™ for cohesive soils PMT  z c  =30 D _ for cohesionless soils MPT WTir  Op^, = diameter of unexpanded pressuremeter.  The pressuremeter curve is then corrected using:  P' = |  where:  (7.1)  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 a l . (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.  pile's profile  deflection both  at ground surface  show very  good  In Fig. 7.4 the MOTHPRS  and deflected  shape versus depth  agreement between mesured  and predicted  168  0  0.2  0.4  0.6  0.8  1.0  REDUCTION FACTOR, /3  F I G . 7.3.  REDUCTION FACTORS FOR PRESSUREMETER TEST RESULTS AT SHALLOW DEPTH (ADAPTED FROM ROBERTSON ET A L . , 1 9 8 6 )  169 I200  r  0  50  100  150  200  Lateral Deflection at Ground Surface (mm)  Resultant Pile Deflection -0.05  0.0  0.05  0.10  0.15  (m)  0.20  0.25  12 -  14 -  16 -  -  ie  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 P I L E DEFELCTION (cm) o-r  MEASURED PREDICTED  LATERAL LOAD i 120 KN  a. ui o  FIG. 7 . 5 .  FDPMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR UBCPRS PILE NO. 3  171  LATERAL PILE DEFLECTION (cm)  LATERAL LOAD i 120 kN  0. o  UJ  is-  FIG.  7.6.  FDPMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL BEHAVIOUR - UBCPRS P I L E NO. 5  PILE  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. driven piles,  has  One  approach, using the FDPMT to model  been outlined in the previous  provide good results.  section and  shown to  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 i s a d i f f i c u l t and costly test to perform, the pressuremeter has a large installation size and therefore i t is d i f f i c u l t 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 i n the form  P/P = 0.5 (y/y u c  where:  (7.2)  ) i ' J  P/P = ratio of soil resistance u y/y  c  = ratio of soil deflection,  This cubic parabola i s 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 i s in non-  dimensional form with P to be obtained as described later. The horizontal u coordinate i s 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, i s 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  F I G . 7.7.  CUBIC PARABOLIC P-y CURVE FOR STRAIN HARDENING S O I L S (ADAPTED FROM MATLOCK, 1 9 7 0 )  The value of p i l e deflection at point 1 in Fig. 7.7 (y=y ) is based c  upon a  concept  elasticity  proposed  theory,  by  ultimate  Skempton  (1951).  strength  methods,  properties and showed that the strain e  This and  concept  combined  laboratory  soil  related to y , i s that which  c >  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:  = A • e •D c  (7.3)  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 i s 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 dimensions.  Studies by Stevens and Audibert (1979) among others, suggest that  in cohesive s o i l s the reference deflection, y , i s not linearly dependent upon pile diameter but i s instead approximately defined as:  = B • e  •D c  where: B = empirical coefficient = 1A.2 for cm D = pile diameter in cm.  0.5  (7.A)  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 f i g . 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. ) must be evaluated from a stress-strain curve c 5 0 n  for  the soil i n question.  proposed  Using the hypobolic curve fitting expression  by Duncan and Chang (1970), the following relationship can be  derived (see Appendix VII):  (7.5)  where:  = r a t i o of d e v i a t o r i c  failure  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 &  = i n i t i a l tangent modulus  which simplifies to:  e  5 0  =  1.67 • S g ~ i  The i n i t i a l tangent modulus, E., can be estimated from the DMT as:  (7.6)  177  01 TJ TJ 0)  >  w  01 10 .Q ^ ' C  trend based on soft clay c r i t e r i a ,»  Tj ,„ •H IW  01 TJ TJ i/> • 01  —?  °—" tf -: 1  trend based upon Stevens and Audibert  a E  O  L>  00 O  10  10  SO  40  so  to ro  p i l e diameter i n inches  •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 0.5 0.25  S o i l Type  Soft clay S t i f f clay  S o i l Tested  Sabine clay Lake A u s t i n 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. obtained (1980).  from DMT  The undrained strength of the s o i l , S^, can be  results using the correlation proposed  by Marchetti  Therefore, combining Eqs. 7.A, 7.6 and 7.7 yields:  23.71 • S  where: y J  c  5  = in cm.  D  in cm  F  = 10 (cohesive soils)  c  • D°'  The evaluation of the static ultimate resistance, P plasticity theory.  u  , is based upon  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 u p u  where: N = non-dimensional ultimate resistance coefficient P S^ = undrained soil strength (from DMT) D  = pile diameter.  (7.9)  179  At considerable depth i t i s generally accepted that the coefficient, N^, should be equal to 9.  Near the surface, due to the lower confining stress  l e v e l , 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  where: N P x  3+  vo + J u  I*  9  (7.10)  £9 = 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 i s 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  , i n 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:  &  where: E  -  .(g>  (7.11)  b  = elastic deformation modulus  a  = power function mutliplier = 0.4  b  = power function exponent  =0.5  It i s 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 c r i t i c a l comparisons with the cubic parabolic function can be made. As for cohesive s o i l s , the values of P and y must be determined in u c J  terms of values obtained from DMT  test data.  The lateral ultimate soil  resistance, P , i s determined from the lesser value given by the following two equations: P = r ' x [D(K -K ) + x • K • tan* • tanB] u P a P  (7.12)  P = r • D • x (K + 2K • K* • tan* - K ) u ' p o p a  (7.13)  or 3  r  where: x Y  = depth below the ground surface = unit weight of soil (buoyant or total, as appropriate)  181  D  = pile diameter  4> - angle of internal friction K  a  = Rankine active coefficient l-sinft l+sin<f>  K = Rankine passive coefficient P * ' K  o  B  1 / K  a  = coefficient of earth pressure at-rest r  = 45° + <p/2  Eqs. 7.12 and 7.13 are after Reese et a l . (1974) and Murchison and O'Nej.11 (1984) . results  The value <J> can be estimated by correlation from DMT (Marchetti, 1980).  However, experience  gained  at  inflation UBC  (e.g.  Robertson, 1982 and McPherson, 1985) suggests increasing the friction angle determined  using Marchetti's original  value between 3 and 9 degrees. study.  correlation from the DMT  by some  An increase of 5 degrees was used for this  It i s 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 o Further refinements of this method could include using the K o r  to be 0.5.  value obtained from DMT results by correlation. The reference pile deflection, y  c >  for cohesionless soils i s evaluated  from: y  c  = 2.5 • e  where: y = in cm c J  D  = pile diameter in cm.  5 0  • D  (7.14)  182  The value of e  5 0  i s evaluated, as for cohesive soils, using Eq. 7.5.  The  failure deviatoric stress, a , i s taken to be (Duncan and Chang, 1970): f  ,2»sin<K . o_ = (•; r—t) o' f 1-sinf v  The value of  ,.. . (7.15) 1 C  (with the 5° increase) i s estimated from the DMT test.  for cohesive s o i l s ,  As  i s taken to be equal to 0.8. The i n 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 i s suggested.  However, for the prediction of lateral pile  response, the use of an FS value of 2 i s supported by this study (Section 7.3.1.3). Therefore, combining Eqs. 7.1A through 7.16 yields:  y  c  =  A.17 • sin* • a v E • FS • (l-sin<j>) n  (7.17)  where: y = in cm. c J  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 i s 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) p r o f i l e s of both P^ (ultimate resistance) and y (reference c  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 i s  complete, program PY-UBC can be used to generate P-y curves based upon the cubic parabola. dissertation  Both PU-YC.UBC and PY.UBC listings are appended to this  (Appendix VII).  Once the P-y curves have been generated,  LATPILE.UBC i s 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 i s presented in Fig. 7.10.  In Fig. 7.10 i t cn be seen that engineering judgement i s  necessary to discretize  the results of PU-YC.UBC into a maximum of 20  layers.  7.3.2.3 Results As described e a r l i e r , the averaged P and y values must be chosen ° u c from those computed for the DMT data (DMT85-2, see Chapter 4). Figure 7.11 J  I . I  J  I 1 TTTI  1  1 I I I I 11  1  1  1 I I | I II  1  1  1 I I I II  13-  E  x  *  0. UJ  a  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  •  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  -i—1111111—  ULTIMATE LATERAL SOIL RESISTANCE Pu iao(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  -  E -  I •—  a. ID  a  .  U = » %  *  r — — l  p  1  1  1  1  1  1  • REFERENCE DEFLECTION  <  1  ie ii (cm)  UBC/MOTH PILE RESEARCH SITES REFERENCE DEFLECTION FROM DMT FIG. 7 . 9 .  Pu AND  Yc CALCULATED OUTPUT FROM  DMT  •  II  1  i>  l  M  u  185  | J ) M T FIELD D A T A ^ J  DMT.UBC Interpretation of DMT Data (Based on Marchetti.1980)  TI s T: E P "II  PU-YC.UBC Calculation of P and y e a c h test depth u  c  COMPUTER PROGRAM  at  I  A V E R A G E V A L U E S CHOSE.N  Discretize |^  • emi-continuout  profiles of  Rj,y -depth c  P .Yc D A T A u  r  PY.UBC Generation of P-y curves using cubic parabola  LATPILE  "1  DATA  LATPILE . UBC P C version of L A T P I L E a d a p t e d at U B C from Reese,1980  . RESULTS  TABULAR  }  GRAPHICAL  DEFL.  i »a.  V  UJ  TOP D E F L .  F I G . 7.10.  o  FLOWCHART FOR DETERMINING P-y CURVES FROM DMT DATA  I I I 111  1  1—I—I I I 111  1—I I I I 111  1  r0. O  I  I  I I I I I 11  I  I  ULTIMATE  I I I I l 11  I  10  LATERAL  I I I 1111—  I  100  I—I I I I 111  1000  S O I L R E S I S T A N C E P u (kN/cm>  UBC/MOTH PILE RESEARCH SITES ULTIMATE LATERAL SOIL RESISTANCE FROM DMT  »  *  »  •  REFERENCE  »  •  •  10  II  II  ||  D E F L E C T I O N (cm)  UBC/MOTH PJLE RESEARCH SITES REFERENCE DEFLECTION FROM DMT FIG. 7.11. AVERAGE VALUES OF Pu and Yc CHOSEN FROM DMT  |4  11  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 i s shown in Fig. 7.12 and Figs. 7.13 and 7.14 for the MOTHPRS and UBCPRS respectively. noted.  The three piles in question are a l l of differing sizes as  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 i s approximately 25% larger than the measured deflecton at the pile head under large load (1100 kNO and agreement i s 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 i s 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 i s 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)  FS=1=2  /  PREDICTED  LATERAL LOAD i CL  lU O  1100 kN  IJ  FIG. 7.12. DMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR - MOTHPRS PILE  189 i  i  .  FS-2 FS-1  z x  MEASURED  a < a <  ui  /  /  /  1  '  PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH 16.8 m DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 9.5 mm  A ' / /  /  PREDICTED  2  1  4  LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE (cm)  LATERAL PILE DEFELCTION (cm) 0  I  2  3  4  MEASURED  LATERAL LOAD i 120 KN X t-  OUlL •  FIG. 7.13.  DMT METHOD: PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED LATERAL PILE BEHAVIOUR - UBCPRS PILE NO. 3  190  1  1  PREDICTED MEASURED  z J:  /  /  y  y  <  o  PILE DIMENSIONS LENGTH 31.1 n DIAMETER 324 mm WALL 11.5 nm  < UJ  LATERAL DEFLECTION AT GROUND SURFACE  LATERAL PILE DEFLECTION  __, 0  MEASURED I  1  2  3  (cm)  (cm) *  L  ""FS=1  PREDICTED  LATERAL LOAD i 120 kN  W  E  X I0. Ul Q  FIG.  7.14.  D M TM 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 BEHAVIOUR - UBCPRS PILE NO. 5  LATERAL  PILE  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. must s t i l l  be regarded  as fairly good agreement.  This  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 a l . , 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. points  obtained  with  supplies a continuous From this continuous  Beyond the traditional two data  the Marchetti dilatometer, a research DMT load-deflection curve i s available curve, which resembles  that  (Tsang, 1987).  a FDPMT curve, a method of  192 constructing a P-y curve i s 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 i n i 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 i s 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 a l . , 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 w i l l be realized.  7.A  Discussion of Lateral Pile Behaviour Predictions Both the FDPMT and the DMT methods performed well i n predicting the  measured lateral behaviour  of the three piles investigated.  The FDPMT  method, as proposed by Robertson et a l . (1983), i s a proven method that was further validated by this research.  The DMT method, however, i s a new  193 method proposed by this  study.  Further field studies are necessary i n  order to evaluate the DMT method for other soil profiles and pile types. Overall, this  study has shown that in-situ testing  i s a reliable  method of accurately predicting laterally loaded pile behaviour i n the soil types as investigated.  194  CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDED CORRELATIONS  8.1  Axial Pile Capacity As was shown i n 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 i s apparent. results presented  i n Chapter  Based upon the  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  capacities.  error of 5% when compared with  measured axial  pile  The LCPC (French) method i s 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 i s a desirable  feature since the cone bearing i s 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  dilatometer methods were shown to be very effective measured lateral pile behaviour.  the f l a t  plate  in predicting the  The dilatometer method, being a new  method, needs further validation and hence this method must be used with caution.  At this time i t i s 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 intended  the suitability  application  should  be  of any empirical design method, the compared with  the method's  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.  data bank  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 i s realized, i t will remain d i f f i c u l t to compare results between researchers.  197 9.2  Axial Pile Capacity Prediction Methods This  thesis compared twelve static  methods with  the results from eight  different piles. deposits. to 100.  axial pile  full-cale pile  capacity prediction load tests on six  The piles were steel pipe piles driven into deltaic soil  The length to diameter ratios (L/D) for the piles ranged from AO 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 i n clayey s i l t soils. The main conclusion from the brief evaluation of dynamic prediction methods i s that the accuracy of the prediction i s 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 f l a t  dilatometer are seen as useful tools for assesing laterally loaded behaviour.  plate pile  198 The  pressuremeter  method i s an existing method (Robertson et a l . ,  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 i t s small size, the DMT offers an excellent means of obtaining considerable data even at shallow depths below the ground surface.  This i s 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  prediction  of the preferred direct  methods.  Local  correlations  axial would  pile be  capacity  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 which test.  axial  and  of equipment like UBC's cone pressuremeter from  lateral pile behaviour can be predicted  from one  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 C i v i l 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 EndBearing 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 C i v i l 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 C i v i l 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.  (1951), Pile Foundations, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,  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 C i v i l 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 C i v i l 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 Project," Unpublished BCMOTH report.  Load  Tests,  Annacis Bridge  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 i n 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 C i v i l 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 Loads," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aukland, New Zealand.  Static  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 C i v i l 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. Inc., Toronto.  (1969), Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons,  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 C i v i l 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 P i l e 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 V i l l e t , 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. C i v i l 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 C i v i l 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 C i v i l Engineering. Robertson, P.K. (1985) , "In-Situ Testing and i t s 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 C i v i l 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 L a t e r a l l y 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 i t s 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-78209, 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 H i l l 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 C i v i l Engineering, University of British Columbia, June. Van Mierlo, W.C. and Koppejan, A.W. Heipalen," Bouw, January.  (1952), "Lengte en Draagvermogen van  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, C P . (1984), "The Interpretation Geotechnique, 34, No. 4, pp. 449-489.  of  In-Situ  Soil  Tests,"  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 C i v i l 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. 957961.  APPENDIX I REDUCED IN-SITU TEST DATA  Listing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3031 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  of DMT-PR-A5-1 a t  •  12:21:40 on SEP  DMT PR 8 OUEENSBOROUGH, LULU I SLA 23-08-85 0.08 0.55 0 . 0 2.00 O.060 34.600 O 0 .40 1 .40 7 .40 O,.60 1 .70 4 .20 0 .80 1 .70 6 .00 1 .OO 1 .60 6 .40 1.,20 1 .90 8 .50 1,40 , 1 .90 9 .00 1..60 1 .80 5,.80 1 .50 5 .50 1 ,80 . 2. OO 1 .50 5 .90 . 2.,20 1 .00 4 ,20 2. 40 1 . 10 2,.30 2.,60 0 .80 2 ,.00 2. 80 1 .35 2..20 3. OO 1 .35 2 . 10 3.,20 1 . 10 2.. 10 3..40 1 .35 2 .20 3. 60 1 .40 , 2 .20 3. 80 1 .50 2..40 4 .oo 1 .50 , 2..40 4.,20 1 .50 2..40 4..40 1 .40 2 .20 4.,60 1 .55 2..30 4..80 1 .60 2 .40 5.,00 1 .40 2 .30 5.,20 1 .50 2,.30 5.,40 1 .40 2.. 10 5.,60 1 .40 2..20 5..80 1 .50 2 .20 6.,00 1 .60 2..30 6.,20 1 .70 2.,40 6.,40 1 .60 2,.30 6..60 1 .70 2..50 6,.80 1 .80 2 .55 7..00 1 .75 2 .55 7,.20 1 .80 2 .55 7,.40 1 .80 2 .60 7 .60 1 .80 2 .50 7..BO 1 .90 2 .70 8..00 1 .90 2..70 8 .20 2 .05 3 .OO 8 .40 2 . 10 2 .90 8 .60 2 .00 2 .80 8 .80 2 . 10 2 .90 9 .00 2 .05 2 .90 9 .20 2 .20 3.. 10 9. .40 2 .20 3.. 10 9 .60 2 . 10 3 OO 9. .80 2 .30 3..20 10 .OO 2 .30 3,. 10 10 .20 2 .20 3. oo 10 .40 2 .30 3,. 10  1.  1985 f o r CC1d=SITU Page  FILE NAME:DMT-PR-85-1 LOCATION:OUEENSBOR0UGH. LULU ISLADATE:23-08-85 TEST NUMBER:DMT PR INTERMEDIATE DILATOMETER PARAMETERSFROM 0.40M T013.40M. NUMBER OF DATA POINTS: 66 DB= 0 . 5 5 2W= 2. OOM. DA = 0. 08 PO PI ED DEPTH A 8 0.4 1 .4 1 .2 6.8 195. 1 7 .4 1 .7 3.6 67 .9 0.6 1 .7 4 .2 1 .6 5.4 133.3 0.8 1 .7 6 .0 5.8 151.5 1 .5 1 .6 6 .4 1 .0 1. 7 7.9 216.9 1.2 1 .9 8 .5 1 .7 8.4 235. 1 1 .9 9 .0 1.4 1 .7 5.3 122.4 1.6 1 .8 5 .8 1 .4 4.9 122 .4 1.8 1 .5 5 .5 1 .4 5.3 137.0 1 .5 5 .9 2.0 1 .0 4 .2 1 .0 3.6 93.4 2.2 2.4 1 .2 1 .8 20.7 , 1. 1 2 .3 1.4 20.7 0 .9 2.6 2 .0 0 .8 2.8 1 .4 1 .6 8.0 1 .4 2 .2 1 .4 1 .6 4.4 1 .4 3.0 2.1 1 .2 1 .6 13.4 3.2 1. 1 2.1 3.4 1 .4 2 .2 1 .4 1 .6 8.0 3.6 1.5 1 .6 6.2 1 .4 2 .2 1 .6 1 .'8 9.8 3.8 1 .5 2 .4 1 .6 1 .8 9.8 1 .5 4.0 2 .4 1 .6 1 .8 9.8 4.2 1 .5 2 .4 1.5 1 .6 4.4 6.2 1 .4 2 .2 1 .6 1 .8 4.4 4.6 1 .6 2 .3 1 .7 1.8 4.8 6.2 2 4 •: i .6 1 .5 1.8 9.8 i .4 2 3 5.0 S.2 2 3 1 .6 1 .8 6.2 i .5 1 .5 1 .6 2.5 i .4 5.4 2.1 1 .5 1 .6 6.2 5.6 1 .4 2 2 5.8 i .5 1 .6 1 .6 2.5 2 2 1.8 2.5 i .6 1 .7 2 3 6.0 1 .8 1 .8 2.5 1 .7 6.2 2 4 1.8 1 .7 2.5 6.4 1 .6 2 3 1 .8 1 .9 6.2 6.6 i .7 2 5 1 .9 4.4 2.0 6.8 i .8 2 6 1 .8 2.0 6.2 7.0 •: i • 8 • 2 6 1 .9 2.0 4.4 1 .8 2 6 7.2 1 .9 6.2 2.1 7 . 4 . •'• i .8 2 6 1 .9 1 .9 2.5 7.6 i .8 2 5 2.1 6.2 7.8 •: 1.9 •:' 2 7 - 2 .0 2 0 2. 1 6.2 : 1.9 *f 2 7 8.0 2.1 2.4 11.6 3 0 8.2 2.1 2.3 8.4 2 2 6.2 2.1 2 9 2 1 2.3 6.2 8.6 2 .0 2 8 2 2 2.3 6.2 8.8 2 1 2 9 2.1 2.3 8.0 9.0 2.1 2 9 2.6 9.8 9.2 2 .2 3 1 , 2 .3 2 .3 2.6 9.8 9.4 2 .2 3 1 2.4 9.8 9.6 2 .2 2.1 3 0 2 4 2.6 9.8 9.8 3 2 2 .3 2 .4 2.6 -6.2 10.0 2 .3 3 1 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 2 S 2.8 13.4 10.8 2 .4 3 4 3 .4 2 .6 2.9 11.6 11 .0 2 .5 1  85-1  U.B.C.INSITU F i l e Name:DMT-PR-85-1 Locat1on:QUEENSB0R0UGH. LULU ISLAND Calibration  Informat1on:DA=  0.08  TESTING RESEARCH GROUP. ' Record of D i l a t o m e t e r Date:23-08-85 DB=  Bars  0,55  (m)  0.40 . 1  o.6o : 0.80 1 .OO 1 .20 1 .40 1 .60 1 .80  2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3 .CO  21  69 60 1 47 1 68 1 66 1 71 1 41 1 1  1  2 . 0 0  3 9  95 15 0 85 1 42 1 42 1 16 1 42 1 47 0 1  3 . 2 0  3.40 3.60 3 . 8 0 •> 1 . 5 7 4 .OO 1 5 7 1 57 4.20 1 47 4.40 4.60 1 62 1 67 4.80 5.00 1 47 ;  5 . 2 0  5.40 5.60 5 . BO 6 .OO 6". 2 0 6.40 6.60 Z (m)  Ed (Bar)  PO : PI (Bar) (Bar)  1  5 7  1 48 1 47 1 58 1 68 1 78 1 68 1 77  6 3 5 5 7 8 5 4 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1  1 1  .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1  85 65 45 85 95 45 2 5 9 5  35 65 75 45 65 55 55 65 65 85 85 85 65 75 85 75 75 55 65 65 75 85 75 9 5  PO . P 1 (Bar) (Bar)  . ; : ; :  195. 68. 133. 151 . 217 . 235. 122. 122. 137. 93. 21 . 21 . 8. 4. 13. 8. 6. 10. 10. 10. 6. 4. 6. 10. 6. 3. 6. 3. 3.  Uo (Bar) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 1 2 2. 3. 4. 2 2 2 2 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Uo (Bar)  Id  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 0 0 18 0 20 0 22 0 24 0 26 0 28 0 30 0 32 0 34 o 36 0 38 0 40 0 42 3 . 3. o 44 6. 0.'46  Ed (Bar)  Id 65 16 41 98 73 10 07 51 84 90 . 54 76 17 10 37 18 14 20 21 21 14 09 13 24 14 06 16 06 06 05 06 14  Gamma (t/CM) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  80 70 80 80 80 BO 80 80 80 70 60 60 50 50 60 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50  Sv (Bar) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Bars  zw=  2.00  metres  INTERPRETED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS Ko = I n s i t u e a r t h press.coeff. OCR=OverconsolIdation R a t i o M - C o n s t r a i n e d modulus Cu -Undrained cones1on(cohesive) PHI=Frict1on A n g l e ( c o h e s l o n l e s s )  Gamma-Bulk u n i t weight Sv -Effective over.stress Uo =Pore p r e s s u r e Id ^Material index Ed - D i l a t o m e t e r modulus Kd - H o r i z o n t a l s t r e s s Index 2  0.0  ZM=  Bars  t e s t No:DMT PR 85"* I  Kd  OCR  060 20 2 * * * * * 094 17 9 30 65 130 12 3 56 00 166 8 9 30 05 202 8 3 26 65 238 7 0 18 93 274 6 2 15 40 4 6 8 42 310 346 4 0 6 64 2 6 2 86 360 1 87 372 3 0 384 2 1 1 05 394 3 4 2 29 404 3 3 2 16 1 42 416 2 5 426 3 0 1 88 436 3 0 1 89 446 3 1 1 99 456 3 0 1 88 466 2 9 1 78 476 2 6 1 49 486 2 8 1 70 496 1 70 2 8 506 2 3 1 25 516 2 4 1 35 526 2 2 1 13 536 2 1 1 06 546 2 2 1 15 556 2 3 1 24 566 2 4 1 33 576 2 1 1 12 586 2 2 1 19  Gamma Sv (t/CM) (Bar)  Kd  OCR  Pc (Bar) 8 69 2 88 7 28 4 99 5. 3B 4. 51 4 22 2 61 2 30 1 03 0. 70 0. 40 0. 90 0. 87 0. 59 0. 80 0 82 0. 89 0. 86 0. 83 0. 71 0 82 0. 84 0. 63 0. 70 0. 59 O. 57 0. 63 0 69 0. 75 0. 64 0. 70 Pc (Bar)  KO 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  79 61 09 70 64 46 36 09 99 69 78 56 87 84 67 79 79 81 78 76 69 74 74 62 65 59 56 60 62 65 58 61  KO  Cu (Bar)  PHI (Deg) 40 6  0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.  14 09 17 16 12 16 16 17 17 16 14 16 17 13 14 13 12 13 15 16 14 15  Cu (Bar)  33 34 35 36 30 30 31 29  6 2 9 2 5 7 1 8  PHI (Deg)  M (Bar)  S o i l Type  DescrIptIon  . Z (m)  607. 207. 359. 363 . 508. 514. 253. 219. 233. 123 . 26. 19. 11 . 6. .15. 10. 8. 13. 12. 12. 7. 5. 7. 10. 6. 2. 5. 2. 3. 3. 2. 6.  SAND SILT SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SAND SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY CLAY CLAYEY SILT MUD MUD SILTY CLAY MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD  CEMENTED LOW DENSITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY LOOSE SOFT COMPRESSIBLE  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  M (Bar)  S o i l Type  Description  SOFT  Z (m)  ••V V. • f -.•'•''hj.':''• ;  (Bar) 1 87 6.80 7.00 ' 1 82 1 87 7.20 7.40 '=.'1 87 1 88 7.60 7.80 f 1 97 97 8.00 8 . 2 0 ?a 11 8.40 : 2 17 2.07 8.60 8.80 : 2 17 9 . 0 0 'i 2 1 2 9 . 2 0 ; 2 27 9.40 i 2 27 2 17 9.60 2 37 9.80 2 37 1 0 . O O 2 27 1 0 . 2 0 1 0 . 4 0 . 2 37 2 37 10.60 1 0 . 8 0 • 2 46 2 56 11.OO 11 . 2 0 2 67 2 77 11.40 2 87 11.60 3 25 11.80 3 70 1 2 . O O 4 14 1 2 . 2 0 4 05 12.40 12.60 3 85 1 2 . 8 0 :J 3 25 3 65 13.00 4 04 13.20 3 56 13.40 ;  Z (m)  (Bar)  (Bar) 2 2 2 2 , 1 : 2 2 X2 iii 2 2 2 .:' 2 •;' 2 5 2  00 00 O O  05 95 15 15 45 35 25 35 35 55 55 ; 2 45 2 65 1 2 55 2 45 2 55 2 65 2 85 2 90 2 95 3 05 . 3 15 3 85 4 40 95 ; ' 4 65 ! 4 45 : 3 85 4 35 4 .85 4 05 ;  4  Uo Id (Bar)  4. 0.48 6. 0.50 i 4. 0.52 0.54 • • • 1 6 . 3. 0.56 :" 6. 0.58 6. 0.60 > 0.62 • 6. 1 2 . 0.64 6. 0.66 6. 0.68 !• i" 8. 0.70 0.72 10. 10. 0.74 10. 0.76 0.78 1 0 . , 6. 0.80 i 6. '0.82 6. 0.84 1 0 L 0.86 ; • i 3 . 0.88 U 1 2 . 0.90 , 1 0 . 0.92 ' 10. 0.94 : l O . 0.96 : 21 . 0.98 i- '': 24. 1 . O O 28. 1.02 ! 21. 1.04 1.06 2 1 . 1.08 2 1 : 24. ! 1. 10 28. 1.12 17. '1.14  7  ;  :  1  P1 ; Ed .-I; Uo PO (Bar) ( B a r ) } ( B a r ) ; ( B a r )  Gamma (t/CM)  Sv (Bar)  1 50 0 596 0. 09 1 50 0 606 0. 14 1 50 0 616 0. 09 0. 13 1 50 0 626 1 50 0 636 0. 06 0. 13 1 50 0 646 0. 13 1 50 0 656 1 50 O 666 0. 22 o.12 1 50 0 676 0. 13 1 50 0 686 o.12 1 50 0 696 0. 16 1 50 ; 0 706 0. 18 1 50 O 716 0. 19 1 50 0 726 o.20 1 50 0 736 o.18 1 50 0 746 o.11 1 50 0 756 0. 12 1 50 0 766 o.12 1 50 0 776 0. 19 1 50 0 786 1 60 0 798 0. 25 o.20 1 50 0 808 0 . 16 1 50 0 818 0. 16 1 50 o 828 0. 15 1 50 . 0 838 1 60 0 850 0. 26 1 60 0 862 0. 26 0. 26 ; 1 70 0 876 0. 20 I ' 1 60 0 888 1 60 0 900 0. 21 1 60 0 912 0. 28 1 60 0 924 0. 28 1 .70 0 938 0. 28 o.20 1 60 0 950 Id  Gamma (t/CM)  Sv (Bar)  Kd 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2  OCR  Pc (Bar) 76 69 71 69 O . 67 0. 73 0. 70 0. 80 0. 82 0. 72 0. 78 0. 71 0. 81 0. 78 O 69 0. 82 0. 80 0. 70 0. 76 0. 74 0. 79 0. 85 0. 91 0. 96 1 02 1 34 . 1 .73 2. 16 2. 02 1 78 1 20 1 52 1 87 1. 38  3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1  1 .28 1 . 14 1 . 16 1 . 10 1 .06 1 . 12 1 .07 1 .20 1.21 1 .05 1.11 O i 1 .01 2i 1 . 13 1: 1 .08 9 0.93 1 1 . 10 i 1 .06 9 0.92 0 0.98 9 0.94 0 0.99 1 1 .05 1 1.11 2 1 . 17 3 1 .22 7 1 .57 1 2.01 6 2.46 4 2.28 1 1 .98 4 1.31 8 1 .65 1 2.00 5 1 .46  Kd  OCR  0. 0. 0. 0.  i  Pc (Bar)  KO 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 KO  Cu (Bar)  PHI ' ' M (Deg) (Bar) 4. 6. 4. 6. 2. 6. 6. 11 . 6. 5.i 6. i 7. 9. 9. 8. 9. 5. 5. 5. 8. 11 . 10. 9. 9. 10. 24. 32. 40. 29. 27. 21 . 29. 36 . 19.  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 Cu (Bar)  PHI (Deg)  M (Bar)  Soil  Type  Description  z (m)  MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD CLAY MUD MUD MUD MUD CLAY CLAY CLAY CLAY . CLAY CLAY CLAY CLAY CLAY Soil  Type  SOFT  SOFT SOFT LOW CONSISTENCY SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT LOW CONSISTENCY SOFT Description  7 .OO 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8.00 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.40 9.60 9.80 10.00 10.20 10.40 10.60 10.80 1 1 .OO 1 1 .20 1 1 .40 1 1 .60 1 1 .80 12.OO 12.20 12.40 12.60 12.80 13.00 13.20 13.40 ' Z  NOTES: :1.For 0.9>Id>1.2 n e i t h e r Cu nor Phi c a l c u l a t e d . 2.1Bar»100KPa , 3.# =1mm D e f l e c t i o n not reached. COMMENTS!  to  UM.C. INSITU Location: QUEENSBOROUGH INTERPRETED o in  j  PILE RESEARCH SITE  GEOTECHNICAL cn) mdaa  O'l  1  TESTING.  1  ire 1  1  0*S  1  PARAMETERS.  O'L  1  1  1  0'6 1  O'U  1  1  Test No. DMT 85-1 Test Date; 23-08-85 OCT  1  1  U£.C.  INSITU  TESTING.  Location: QUEENSBOROUGH  PILE RESEARCH SITE  INTERMEDIATE GEOTECHNICRL  PARAMETERS  Test No. DMT 85-1 Test Date; 23-08-85  (Hi) Mldaa  0"9  O'Z.  J  L  cn  ZD  •—I  ZD  -a a  0. I  i_  -oSb  + -• n cu QJ  Q_  LU *  CD  E= CO  O • M  ro  —i  x u  ro " ° +- *1  C  M  M  CO  a  -as ^ i  a Q_  —i cn L_ QJ  a t_ X +-CO  cn cn cu CO  ro cn cu  > CD Q_  o o'  i  O'l  i  i  O'E  i  i  0'9  I  i  O'L  (M) mdan  i  I  0'6  i  r  O ' U O'EI  L i s t i n g of DMT-PR-85-2  at  12:22:26 on SEP  dmt 85-2 . 2 ... • queensborough .. 29-08- 85 :., U'/ •- i 3 . ' 0.14 0 13 ,0 0 ; 2 00 ;."i4-I0.100 , -£ 1 '.' •'• . 5 ; 34.600 . r i i L ,6i--'.0 . .Is- • '' S3 • 0 . 6 0 3 5014 20 .8 0 . 8 0 4 5013 80 .9 1 .00 2 50 9 70 10 1 .20 2 301 1 40 : 11 1 .40 3 601 1 20 12 • • 1 .60 1 30 6 70 , 13. : 2.00 2 7011.00. 14 ; 2.20 3 10 8 80 15 ; ' 2 i 4 0 1 20 1 90 16! 2.60 1 00 2 40 \7) 2.80 1. 30 2 30 1 , 18; 3.00 1 40 2 20 19? 4 . 0 0 1 40 2 20 20 , 5.00 1 40 2 1 0 21 . 6.00 1 80 2 60 •' 22 7.00 1 80 2 60 23S.OO 1 90 2 80 24 , 9.00 2 00 2 70 25 10.00 2 40 3 20 26 11 .00 2 50 3 20 27 12.00 3 40 4 60 28 13.00 3 60 4 60 . 29 14.00 3 20 4 OO. 30 • 14.20 3 50 4 30 • 31? . ' 14.40 4.00 5 00 32 r 14.60 3 20 .4 20 33 i 14.80 3 20 4 OO • 34-i 15.00 3 20 5 50 " 35 15.20 2 80 4 00 36 37 . '• 15.40 4 00 7 60 15.60 9 6024 20 • 38 : '.• 15.80 8 8020 40 39 16.OO 5 8012 80 40 16.20 5 4013 80 41 16.40 9 0024 80 42 16.60 9 0022 00 43 44; 16.80 7 8022 80 17.00 9 0020 20 45 17.20 4 6010 80 46 17.40 9 6021 60 : 47 17.60 6 6013 40 . : 48' 17.8011 .0024 .00', : 49 18.0010 2023 00 ; 50 18.2010 2023 6 0 ' 51 18.40 8 4019 0 0 52" 18.60 7 8017 80 53 18.80 7 1016 SO 54 19.00 6 9016 60: 55 19.20 7 5017 80 56 19.40 7 5018 20 57 19.60 7 8018 80 58 , 1:  :  ;  :  :  1.  1985 f o r CC1d=S?TU Page  L i s t i n g of DMT-PR-85-2 at 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  31.40 31.60 -.31 .80 : 32.00 32.20 32.40 32.60 32.80 : 33.OO 33.20 33.40 33.60  12:22:26 on SEP  1,  1985 f o r CC1d=SITU Page  5.40 7.00 8.7017.00 5.80 7.30 6.20 7.30 8.0013.00 7.7013.40 8.9015.70 6.2010.20 7.1011.30 5.70 8.00 6.60 8.00 8.8014.40  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 ZW- 2. OOM DA- 0. 14 DB » 0. 13 2M= 0 . 0 PI ED DEPTH A B PO 0.6 3 . 1 14 . 1 378.9 3 .5 . 14 .2 0.8 4 .5 ;! 13 .8 , 4 .2 13 .7 328 . 1 9 .6 251 .8 9 .7 ) 2 .3 1.0 V 2 • 5 11 .4 i 2 .0 1 1.3 320 .8 2 .3 1.2 . 1 266 .3 11 .2 i 3 .4 i 1 1 3 .6 : 1.4 1.6 6 .6 186 .4 1 .3 •- 6 .7 •.> 1 .2 10 .9 291 .7 2.0 2 .7 ; 1 1.0 : 2 .4 3 .0 8 .7 197 .3 2.2 3 . 1 • 8 .8 15 .6 1 .9 1. 3 1 .8 2.4 1 .2> 2.6 1 .0 2 . 4 , 1. 1 2 .3 41 . 1 1 .4 2 .2 26 .5 2.8 i 1 .3 • 2 .3 1 .5 2 1 19 .3 3 . 0 • 1.4 : 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 19 .3 . 4 . 0 » 1. 4 1 .5? 1 .4 < 2 . 1 : 1 .5 , 2 O 15 6 : 5.0 19 3 2 5 6.0 1 .8 i 2 .6 : 1 .9 1 9 • 2 5 i 19 3 7.0 " 1 .8 i 2 .6 • 8.0 1 .9 •? 2 .8 ; 2 .0 . 2 .7 22 .9 ; 2.1 2 6 ' 15 6 9 . 0 1 2 .0 '•• 2 .7 3 1 -• 19 3 : 2 .5 10.0 ' 2 .4 \ 3 .2 3 1 •' 15 6 2 .6 W.O' 2 . 5 •-• 3 .2 4 .6 3 .5 4 5 33 8 12.0 ' 3 .4 4 .6 3 7 4 5 26 5 13.0 3 .6 4 .O 3 3 3 9 19 3 14.0 3.2 4 3 3 6 : 4 2 i 19 3 ., 14.2 3 5 4 1 4 9 26 5 14.4 4 0 ; 5 .0 3 3 4 1 - 26 5 14.6 3 2• 4 2 3 3 3 9 - 19 3 14.8 3 2- 4 0 5 5- 3 2• 5 4 73 8 15.0 ' 3 2 2 9 3 9 • 33 8 15.2 - •2 8 ' 4 0 15.4 - 4 0 - 7 6 7 5 121 0 4 0 9 O 24 1 520 6 15.69 6 24 2 8 4 20 3 411 6 15.8 < 8 8 20 4 5 6 12 7 244 5 16.0 5 8 > 12 a 5 1 13 7 295 4 16.2 ' 5 4 • 13 .8 a 4 24 7 564 2 16.4 9 0 24 8 8 5 21 9 462 5 16.6 9 0 22 0 16.8 7 8 22 8 7 2 22 7 535 1 8 6 20 1 397 1 9 0 20 .2 17.0 4 4 10.7 215 4 10 8 17.2 4 6 9 2 21 5 426 2 17.4 9 6 21 6 13 4 6 4 13 3 237 2 17.6 6 6 17.8 ' 11 O 24 0 ' 10 5 23 9 462 5 9 7 22 9 455 2 18.0 10 2 ' 23 0 9 7 23 5 477 0 1 8 . 2 - 10.2 ' 23 6 19 o : 18.4 * 8 4 •i 8 0 18 9 375 3 17 a 7 5 17 7 353 5 ' 18.6 f 7 8 6 8 16 7 342 6 18.8 :' 7 . 1 16 8 16 6 6 6 •' 16. 5 342. 6 6 9 19.0* 7 1 17. 7 364. 4 19.2 7 5 ' 17 8 18 2 ' 7 1 18 1 378 9 ' 19.4 7 5 7 4 18 7 389 8 7 .8 18 .8 19.6 7 8 20 3 429 8 8 .3 20 4 19.8 23 .8 9 .5 8 9 23 7 509 7 20.0 11 O 30 1 658 7 1 18 30 2 20.2 :  :  ;  i  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  :  1  :  to ON  U.B.C.INSITU F i l e Name:dmt-pi—85-2 Locat ion:queensborough Calibration  Informat1on:DA=  0.14  TESTING RESEARCH GROUP. Record of Dilatometer Date:29-08-85  Bars  DB=  0.13  Bars  2  0 60 0 80 1 OO 1 20 1 40 1 60 2 OO 2 20 2 40 2 60 2 80 3 00 4 OO 5 00 6 00 7 00 8 OO 9 OO 10 OO 1 100 12 OO 13 OO 14 .00 14 20 14 40 14 60 14 80 15 OO 15 20 15 40 15 60 15 80 Z (m)  PO (Bar) 3 4 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 9 8  12 19 29 00 37 18 44 97 32 08 40 51 51 52 91 91 01 12 51 62 49 70 31 61 10 30 31 24 89 97 02 37  PO (Bar)  P1 (Bar) 14 13 9 11 11 6 10 8 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 3 7 24 20  07 67 57 27 07 57 87 67 77 27 17 07 07 97 47 47 67 57 07 07 47 47 87 17 87 07 87 37 87 47 07 27  PI (Bar)  Ed (Bar) 379. 328. 252. 321 . 266. 186. 292. 197. 16. 41 . 27. 19. 19. 16. 19. 19. 23. 16. 19 . 16. 34 . 27. 19. 19. 27. 27 . 19. 74 . 34 . 121 . 521 . 412. Ed (Bar)  Uo (Bar)  Id  0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00 1 10 1 20 1 22 1 24 1 26 1 28 1 30 1 32 1 34 1 36 1 38  3 2 3 4 2 4 3 1 O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1  Uo (Bar)  Id  51 26 17 64 28 55 46 93 35 16 58 39 42 37 37 39 47 32 32 26 39 29 26 23 27 38 27 10 62 33 96 70  Gamma (t/CM) 1 90 1 90 1 90 1 90 1 90 1 80 1 90 1 90 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 70 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 70 1 60 1 60 1 70 1 60 1 70 2 .00 1 95  Sv (Bar) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  0.0  Bars  ZW =  85-2 2.00  metres  INTERPRETED GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS Ko =Insitu e a r t h press.coeff. 0CR=0verconsolIdatIon Ratio M " C o n s t r a i n e d modulus Cu =Undra1ned cohes1on(cohes1ve) PHI = F r l c t 1 o n Ang1e(cohes1 o n ! e s s )  Gamma=Bulk u n i t weight * Sv "Effective over.stress Uo =Pore p r e s s u r e Id =Mater1a1 Index Ed =D11atometer modulus Kd " H o r i z o n t a l s t r e s s ' Index (m)  ZM =  t e s t No:dmt  100 138 176 214 252 288 364 382 394 406 4 18 430 490 550 610 670 730 790 850 910 980 040 100 112 126 138 150 164 176 190 210 229  Sv Gamma (t/CM) (Bar)  Kd 31 30 13 9 13 4 6 7 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 5  2 4 0 3 4 1 7 7 2 5 2 3 7 2 5 1 9 8 0 9 5 5 9 2 5 8 8 7 3 2 3 7  Kd  OCR  Pc (Bar)  * * * * * 33 21 * * * * * 43 52  62 33 66 6 17 21 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 15 9  72 19 03 92 60 13 13 43 05 17 58 17 40 09 95 85 01 91 46 42 94 12 45 85 83 75 53 28 11 06  OCR  1 104 7 10 16 64 1 99 6 41 8 07 0 84 0 58 0 86 0 93 0 77 0 65 0 85 0 73 0 69 0 67 0 86 0 83 1 43 1 48 1 03 1 25 1 64 0 96 0 95 0 87 0 63 1 53 18 28 1 1 14  Pc (Bar)  KO 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  o o 1 1  56 51 16 76 20 01 42 56 84 68 82 85 71 60 67 57 53 49 55 51 68 67 52 58 68 49 48 45 35 60 37 27  KO  Cu (Bar)  PHI (Deg)  M (Bar)  38 35 35 38 33 35 34 30 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  16 18 16 14 18 16 15 15 19 19 29 30 23 27 33 22 22  O 16  Cu (Bar)  8 1322 3 1 165 9 687 4 783 4 739 0 322 5 628 7 445 21 47 35 26 22 15 21 17 19 13 17 13 37 29 16 18 29 23 16 63 29 26 1 124 30 2 1079 29 1 808 PHI (DegJ  M (Bar)  S o i l Type SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SAND SILTY SAND SAND SAND SILTY SAND SILTY CLAY SILT SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY CLAY CLAY CLAY SILTY CLAY CLAY CLAY CLAY CLAY SILTY CLAY CLAY SILT CLAYEY SILT SANDY SILT SILTY SAND SANDY SILT Soil  Type  Descr1pt1 on  Z (m)  CEMENTED CEMENTED CEMENTED CEMENTED MEDIUM RIGIDITY LOW RIGIDITY MEDIUM RIGIDITY MEDIUM RIGIDITY SOFT COMPRESSIBLE SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT LOW CONSISTENCY SOFT SOFT SOFT LOW CONSISTENCY SOFT SOFT LOW DENSITY COMPRESSIBLE LOW DENSITY RIGID DENSE  0 60 0 80 1 00 1 20 1 40 1 60 2 00 2 20 2 40 2 60 2 80 3 OO 4 00 5 OO 6 00 7 00 8 OO 9 OO 10 OO 1 1OO 12 OO 13 00 14 00 14 20 14 40 14 60 14 80 15 OO 15 20 15 40 15 60 15 80  Description  Z (m)  fo  (—  1  Z (m)  PO (Bar)  P1 (Bar)  16 00 16 20 16 40 16 60 16 80 17 00 17 20 17 40 17 60 17 80 18 OO 18 20 18 40 18 60 18 80 19 00 19 20 19 40 19 60 19 80 20 00 20 20 20 40 20 60 20 80 21 00 21 20 21 40 21 60 21 80 22 OO 22 20 22 40 22 60 22 80 23 00 23 20 23 40 23 60 23 80 24 OO 24 20 24 40 24 60 24 .80 25 .00  5 60 5 13 8 36 8 50 7 20 8 59 4 44 9 15 6 41 10 50 9 71 9 68 8 02 7 45 6 77 6 57 7 14 7 12 7 40 7 85 8 94 1 103 12 58 15 07 9 41 11 45 10 34 7 16 9 02 8 60 7 26 7 78 1 103 6 17 9 74 8 23 12 09 14 03 15 47 14 42 13 30 13 31 9 41 9 05 9 81 8 04  12 13 24 21 22 20 10 21 13 23 22 23 18 17 16 16 17 18 18 20 23 30 34 33 24 25 22 15 21 19 13 15 23 18 20 18 27 39 37 37 30 28 20 21 20 18  Z (m)  PO (Bar)  P1 (Bar)  67 67 67 87 67 07 67 47 27 87 87 47 87 67 67 47 67 07 67 27 67 07 87 27 67 87 87 07 97 87 07 27 87 17 27 97 87 37 97 87 97 57 57 37 97 47  Ed Uo (Bar) (Bar) 245. 295. 564. 462. 535. 397 . 215. 426. 237 . 462. 455. 477 . 375. 353. 343. 343. 364. 379. 390. 430. 510. 659. 771 . 630. 528. 499. 433. 274. 448. 390. 201 . 259. 444 . 415. 364 . 372. 546. 877 . 779. 811. 611. 528. 386. 426. 386. 361 .  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90. 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30  Id  1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  Ed Uo Id (Bar) (Bar)  Gamma (t/CM)  68 30 36 90 70 62 13 62 41 50 62 71 70 76 95 03 94 04 00 05 06 07 08 38 03 51 49 51 83 70 10 30 43 92 38 75 58 13 69 92 59 38 56 81 48 82  1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2  80 90 00 OO 00 95 90 95 80 95 95 95 95 95 00 00 00 OO 00 00 00 15 15 10 00 10 95 95 00 95 80 95 95 OO 95 95 10 15 10 15 10 10 95 00 95 00  Sv (Bar)  Kd  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  3 2 5 5 4 5 2 5 3 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 4 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 5 6 6 6 5 5 3 3 3 2  245 263 283 303 323 342 360 379 395 414 433 452 471 490 510 530 550 570 590 610 630 653 676 698 718 740 759 778 798 817 833 852 871 891 910 929 951 974 996 019 041 063 082 102 121 141  Gamma Sv (t/CM) (Bar)  4 9 4 4 3 3 1 5 5 3 7 6 3 9 4 2 5 4 5 8 4 6 4 8 4 5 8 9 9 6 9 1 8 2 0 2 1 0 7 1 4 4 4 2 5 7  Kd  OCR  Pc (Bar)  KO  3 51 3 65 1 164 10 37 7 63 7 23 2 01 7 80 2 88 8 53 8 19 8 76 5 58 4 90 4 50 4 25 4 81 4 89 5 21 5 87 7 81 12 39 16 16 10 42 7 83 6 83 5 29 2 38 5 35 4 10 1 76 2 17 5 00 2 05 3 51 3 37 6 56 14 37 1 186 13 12 7 38 5 68 3 24 3 67 3 18 2 62  4 37 4 61 14 94 13 51 10 10 9 71 2 73 10 76 4 02 12 07 1 173 12 72 8 217 30 6 79 6 50 7 45 7 68 8 29 9 45 12 74 20 48 27 09 17 69 13 46 11 88 9 31 4 22 9 62 7 45 3 22 4 02 9 35 3 87 6 71 6 50 12 80 28 37 23 67 26 50 15 07 1 171 6 74 7 72 6 74 5 60  0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0  OCR  Pc (Bar)  KO  Cu (Bar)  86 77 23 23 05 21 58 24 89 36 27 25 05 . 96 86 82 89 87 90 94 05 25 38 57 06 24 13 77 97 92 76 81 13 59 99 82 18 32 42 33 23 22 88 83 90 71 Cu (Bar)  PHI (Deg)  27 29 30 29 31 28 27 28 27 28 28 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 28 29 28 28 27 28 28  9 0 8 6 0 7 9 8 3 8 9 1 5 4 5 6 6 8 7 0 4 1 6 9 3 5 1 2 6 1  26 27 29 27 27 28 30 29 29 28 28 27 28 27 27  7 9 4 4 9 5 5 5 9 7 0 6 1 5" 7  PHI (Deg)  M (Bar)  S o i l Type  358. 408. 1094 . 889. 940. 750. 232 . 823. 350. 950. 890. 925. 640. 567 . 507 . 491 . 552 . 569. 597 . 684 . 883. 1289. 1609. 1420. 914 . 958 . 775. 360. 725. 600. 254 . 351 . 795 . 484 . 586. 524 . 1013. 1781 . 1645. 1647 . 117 1. 1001 . 569. 610. 578 . 453.  SILT SAND SAND SAND S l l T Y SAND SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SILT SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND SANDY S I L T SILTY SAND  M (Bar)  Soil  SANDY SILTY SILTY SILTY  Type  Description MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM RIGIDITY RIGID RIGID RIGID DENSE MEDIUM RIGIDITY DENSE MEDIUM DENSITY DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE RIGID RIGID RIGID RIGID RIGID RIGID RIGID VERY RIGID VERY RIGID VERY DENSE RIGID VERY DENSE DENSE DENSE RIGID DENSE MEDIUM DENSITY DENSE DENSE RIGID DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY RIGID 'VERY DENSE VERY RIGID VERY DENSE VERY DENSE DENSE RIGID DENSE RIGID  Description  Z (m) 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 25  00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00  Z (m)  (ro) 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33  20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60  Z (m)  PO (Bar)  PI (Bar)  8 7 8 5 9 11 13 11 10 11 11 11 14 13 11 15 8 8 7 8 9 7 5 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 5 5  18 87 16 57 16 97 a 27 20 67 26 97 29 37 24 27 21 87 23 67 26 27 27 87 33 37 31 87 30 47 36 07 18 27 14 47 15 87 18 47 20 87 15 87 8 67 15 17 14 07 12 17 12 47 8 07 11 97 7 27 6 97 6 87 16 87 7 17 7 17 12 87 13 27 15 57 10 07 11 17 7 .87 7 .87 14 27  86 72 54 93 09 08 06 11 60 35 33 35 23 99 96 77 47 66 54 88 71 12 38 58 63 99 66 04 11 08 68 47 a 44 5 88 6 30 7 90 7 57 8 71 6 15 7 04 5 74 6 .68 8 .67  PO (Bar) NOTES:  P1 (Bar)  Ed (Bar)  Uo (Bar)  346. 2 306. 2 292. 2 81. 2 401. 2 550. 2 564. 2 455. 2 390. 2 426. 2 517. 2 571 . 2 662. 2 619. 2 640. 2 702. 2 339. 2 201 . 2 288. 2 332. 2 386. 2 303. 2 1 14. 2 263. 2 223. 2 179. 2 201 . 2 70. 2 168. 2 41 . 2 45. 2 48. 2 292. 2 45. 2 30. 3 172. 3 197. 3 237. 3 136. 3 143. 3 74. 3 41 . 3 194. 3 Ed (Bar)  32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16  Uo (Bar)  Id 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1  Gamma Sv (t/CM) (Bar) 53 65 36 66 73 83 53 52 39 39 70 87 64 57 98 54 68 97 71 55 60 OO 25 58 33 24 52 64 15 37 47 55 54 45 26 02 26 21 27 05 81 33 02  Id  1 95 1 95 1 95 1 80 1 95 2 00 2 10 1 95 1 95 1 95 1 95 2 15 2 10 2 10 2 15 2 10 1 95 1 95 1 95 1 95 1 95 1 90 1 70 1 80 1 80 1 80 1 80 1 70 1 SO 1 70 1 70 1 70 1 95 1 70 1 70 1 80 1 80 1 95 1 80 1 .80 1 .70 1 70 1 80  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  160 179 198 214 233 253 275 294 313 332 351 374 396 418 441 463 482 501 520 539 558 576 590 606 622 638 654 668 684 698 712 726 745 759 773 789 805 824 840 856 870 884 900  Gamma Sv (t/CM) (Bar)  Kd  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 Kd  OCR  Pc (Bar)  KO  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..35 1 .12 0..96 O..71 0..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  5 48 4 27 4 28 1 57 6 64 11 61 12 14 8 38 6 61 7 60 10 08 1 193 15 40 13 59 14 47 16 67 4 59 3 32 3 36 4 51 5 76 3 30 0 91 2 93 2 51 1 87 1 89 1 19 1 85 1 18 0 94 0 82 3 44 1 01 1 23 2 27 2 08 2 85 1 12 1 60 0 84 1 35 2 68  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Pc (Bar)  KO  OCR  I . F o r 0.9>Id>1.2 n e i t h e r Cu nor Ph1 c a l c u l a t e d . 2.1Bar=100KPa 3.# »1mm D e f l e c t i o n not reached.  Cu (Bar)  79 66 74 43 0 78 96 11 94 89 95 94 93 14 11 95 22 64 65 53 66 73 46 23 50 50 43 38 30 0 42 29 0 23 0 20 0 54 25 0 30 0 48 44 55 26 36 19 0 31 0 52  37  PHI (Deg) 27 3 27 2 26 7 27 28 28 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 27  8 5 2 7 2 4 1 6 6 3 9 5 2  26 26 27 27 25 26 25 25 25  9 9 3 2 0 5 7 0 7  31 31 26 23 27 32  26 5  25 0 25 3 25 0 24 35  (Bar) 467. 356. 368. 69. 542. 878 . 996. 710. 577. 664 . 809. 895. 1200. 1 100. 1027 . 1331 . 379. 215. 269. 378. 484 . 257. 97 . 230. 189. 152. 171 . 60. 143. 35. 38. 41 . 276 . 38 . 26. 146. 168 . 217 . 1 15. 121 . 63. 35. 165.  Cu PHI M (Bar) (Deg) (Bar)  Soil  Type  SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT CLAYEY SILT SANDY SILT SILTY SAND SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SILTY SAND SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SILTY SAND SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SILTY SAND SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT CLAYEY SILT SILT SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY SANDY SILT SILTY CLAY CLAY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SANDY SILT SILT SILT SILTY CLAY SILT Soil  Type  Description  (m)  DENSE DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSITY DENSE RIGID VERY DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE VERY RIGID VERY DENSE VERY DENSE VERY RIGID VERY DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE MEDIUM RIGIDITY LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY LOW CONSISTENCY LOW CONSISTENCY LOW CONSISTENCY DENSE LOW CONSISTENCY LOW CONSISTENCY MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY DENSE MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY LOW DENSITY LOW CONSISTENCY MEDIUM DENSITY  25 20 25 40 25 60 25 80 26 00 26 20 26 40 26 60 26 80 27 00 27 20 27 40 27 60 27 80 28 00 28 20 28 40 28 60 28 80 29 OO 29 20 29 40 29 60 29 80 30 OO 30 20 30 40 30 60 30 80 31 00 31 20 31 40 31 60 31 80 32 00 32 20 32 40 32 60 32 80 33 00 33 .20 33 .40 33 60  DescrIptIon  Z (m)  Test No. DMT 85-2 Location: QUEENSBOROUGH PILE RESEARCH SITE Test Date; I N T E R M E D I A T E G E O T E C H N I C A L P A R A M E T E R S 29-08-85  UJB.C. INSITU  O'E  06  TESTING.  o'si  OLZ  o'\z  J  A  U  o*ee  I  I  o*6e  I  L  cn  ZD  >—I  ZD  T D  O CL  I  - a 9= UJ *  QJ CL •H  QJ EE O  n  CD  ^  CO  • M  ro  -I  ro  4_>  c a  x  OJ  ^  I—  H  -O3  N cn —i cn t_ cu  O  L_  X +-• CO  cn CO QJ C•H  CO ro ro  QJ  C D Q_  1  1 0*91  1  1 0-12  1  1 OLZ  1  1— Q'££  0'B£  220  UJ3.C. INSITU  TESTING.  Location: QUEENSBOROUGH INTERPRETED  PILE RESEARCH SITE  GEOTECHNICAL (ii) gidaa O'SI  7  1  c a —i cn cu o CJ c_* •a c  cr  0' 12  S  ro  cn ZD —I ZD X) o  2Z  QJ y =  ro cn c a CJ  ro  x  •—(  QJ  •t:  i—i  C_ T D QJ C  ro  i  r  OSI  (ii)  0' 12 mtiaQ  PARAMETERS.  Test No. DMT 85-2 Test Date; 29-08-85  221  SUPPLEMENTARY. DMT DATA UBC PILE RESEARCH SITE. QUEENSBOROUGH. LULU ISLAND DMT-PR-85-1 Depth< m> 3.4  4.0  5.0  DELA=0.08 A 1.35 . 1.1 1.0 1.0  DELB=0.55 22Aun85 B C Time(min) 0 7 17 2.0 0.4 36  1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.05  0.B  0 5 10 15 20  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  2.1  3.2  1.4  0 5  2.75  4.0  1.9  0 20  3.2  •4.6  2.4  0 5  11.0 12.0 13.0 DMT-PR-95-2 Depth(m ) 33.2  DELA=0.14 A 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7  DELB=0.13 B  7.6  C  29AUQ85  2.5  Time<min) 0 13 24 40 50 62  222  Natural Strain  Average Strain (%)  UBC S e i s m i c Cone  Pressuremeter—3/4/87  Annacis Pile Site—Depth= 1.0m  -j  r  2  — |  , 4  r  — , — 6  T  — , — 8  , — t '  7  10  Average Strain -  Compliance removed  12 (%)  T ^r~~\ 14  1 — i 16  r 18  UBC S e i s m i c Cone  Pressuremeter—3/4/87  Annacis Pile Site-Depth~2.0m  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=3.0m  o  ©  u  P)  0) ID I.  Q. TJ ©  o © o  O  Average Strain (%)  N5  UBC S e i s m i c Cone Pressure m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 / Annacis Pile Site--Depth=4.0m 300 280 260  |  4 J  i  i  240  i  !  220  J  200  —»  180  i  m n o  160  -\  D_  140  o 0.  3  i 1 j i  \  X)  o  120  —•  L. l_  100  —*  (J  80  *•> o 0  o  i i  60 40 20  i  —4 1 J  i i  0  Average Strain +  Corrected  (%')  UBC S e i s m i c Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r — 3 / 4 / 8 " Annacis Pile S i t e - D e p t h = 4 . 8 m 300 280 260 240  -}  220  -I t i  200 180  -i -i i  160 140  -j  -i i  120 100  -j  A  /  i  80  1 -4  A  60 40 20 0  •~r6  10  Average Strain Corrected  18  14 {%)  22  U3C S e i s m i c 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 260  -  240  -  220  -  200  -  180  -  160 140  HT  120 100  -\  80 60  H/  40  -  20  -  0  -  /  1/ T 8  12 Average Strain  • Corrected  16  "~r~ 20  2  Average Strain (%) Corrected  K3  CO O  Average Strain Corrected  (%)  Average Strain  (%).  to  UBC Sefsmlc Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r - 3 / 4 / 8 7 600  Annacls Pile SIte-Depth=12.4m  500 -\  o  400  2  nn  300 H  ©  u 0  200 H  o  100  Average Strain (%) Natural Strain  UBC Seismic Cone P r e s s u r e m e t e r - 3 / 4 / 8 7 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600  Annacis Pile Site-Depth=15.5m  -i -  0  2  4  6  8  10  12  Average Strain, (%)  14  16  18  20  APPENDIX II PILE DRIVING RECORDS FOR UBCPRS  i  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N A-U(r- & ST  nATF  NO. BLOWS  TECHNICIAN  NO. BLOWS  NO. BLOWS  21  41  61  1-2  22  42  62  23  43  63  24  44  64  r- 6  25  45  65  26  46  66  27  47  48-  29  49  69  10  30  50  70  11  31  51  71  32  52  72  53  73  12  z  13  1  33  '•'IE I  35  55  75  16  36  56  76  17  37  57  77  Z  1 1  — 10 •J 1  ._  i1  38  58  78  19  39  59  79  40  i  j 1 [r  20  H  i' i 1  30  i  |  UJ  111  | 40  1 1 1 \  ,1  t  | i 1 1i  1  1  i—  1  —f~  1  i' i i i  1  1 1  1  1 i i —1— 1 ! i 11i 1 i  11 1 |j 1  60  DATA  1  1  1  1 |  —— ! I  ^ f OOlis - l  Ctcife p W & f c P  DIMENSIONS PILE  tJ2  ft***^V'  N*^ '  • i  1  * ^  '' L~>  ;  1  i  i  ' |  1 ' j |  fe'L ECH.  i  1  Pif'C  JOB No. UNIVERSITY  i  1  70  HT. DROP  BRITISH  i  ;  i  WT. H AM M FR  THE  i  !  TYPE HAMMER-  REMARKS  ii  i >  ELEVATION GROUND.  TYPE PI I F"  60  — i—)1— 1-4-4-j I 1 t ' "r  80  60  BLOWS/FT.  40  1  50  18  PILE  RESISTANCE 20  LL  34  20  PENETRATION  i  74  15  PILE NO. .  68  54  14  236  67  28  3.  A^ NO. BLOWS  o-i  be*  DIAGRAM  Ll_i .  i i  lllii  J'  PROJECT  OF  LOCATION  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SITU TESTING  ESMi gc C  v(--+•+ , UU L a tj  HOLE No. DATE  > "1 A ^ v t r ^ s .  PLATE  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N DATE,  TECHNICIAN., NO. BLOWS  NO. BLOWS 0-1  DIAGRAM  7  1-2 Z  NOBLOW'S 41  61  22  42  62  23  43  24  44  3  PENETRATION  RESISTANCE 20  45 '4#  26  i 1  -j—  r i  i ,  i  65  1  !  —  i  I  1  1  ]  -  i  i ii i I ! !  i  !  1 i 1  -  i ! j  TV]  i  ! j i  L  66  2.  27  60  40  j  64  2.  BLOWS/FT.  -  63  10 25  2  PILE NO. . NOBLOWS  21  237  67  28  4*  68  29  49  69  10  30  50  70  11  31  51  71  32  52  72  20  i i  1 I1 i-  30 •  12  Z  13  33  14  53  73  34  54  74  15  35  55  75  16  36  56  76  17  37  57  77  2  r i  W  LL)  u.  Z  40  l  1  50 18 19  7_  20  38  58  78  39  59  79  40  60  80  PILE  ii  i [  I  1  i I j i ! !  0.  1  LI Q 60  DATA  i  (.83  ELEVATION G R O U N D .  Pit* P  TYPE HAMMER  i  i '  —  WT. H A M M E R  i ,! ii 1 ! 1 II i ! ! 1 i | —  70  3  HT. D R O P  — r  —1 1 1 : i1  i t ' l l  TYPE P I I F  C IcSG  fct^OfcP  1  ?lfC  L  : l l._ _ 1 !  D I M E N S I O N S PILE REMARKS.  3  1 | \  r  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  ii  1 TECH.  JOB No. THE  i  PROJECT  OF  LOCATION  C O L U M B I A  UBC  IN-SITU TESTINC  HOLE No. DATE  uGC  i  : i i  A_S  P'ut  " S L U E - E K ^ gC'R&u frH  PlLt  14 r \ u t S3T  , n i L u To  "2 PLATE F-1?  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N 16  DATE_ DEPTH  A i/. G  NO. BLOWS  DEPTH  g s-  1-2  1  22  3  1  23  NO. BLOWS  DEPTH  I  21  0-1  41  1 1  42 43  DEPTH  z 1 1  62  1  44  ^.  64  5  25  1  45  z  65  26  1  46  z  66  27  I  47  2.  67  7  \  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 55  1  35  i  16  \  36  z  17  19 20  1  39  i  40  PILE  TYPE HAMMER  40 ji  .it  l  20 i  h-  30  \  U J  uj  1  i i  40  I  76  1  1—— ' l  pi*  77 78  0.  59  79  Ixl  60  80  1  r  a  i  i 60  1  H M M M  E  R  70  j i ;i ' M iM iil il ii M!M! 1 I 1  !  TYPE PILE. V  ^  P  *  i ! i  n>f}  -j  /  ]  JOB No. THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  LOCATION  C O L U M B I A  UBC  IN-SITU TESTING  \  ' A- I T - J O ' ! i 1i  TECH.  PROJECT  OF  i  ' ' I :: 1 ! ; 1' i • 1 i • 1 1 • 1 !M !, 1 i' i  i 1  HT. D R O P  ^  i  1  !  MENS10NS  1  j  WT. H A M M E R  D1  i  .  T  50  58  P  1 l 1 1 ' 1  - 4—  DATA  C  60  1 ' . 4  1 (  BLOWS/FT.  j i!  ELEVATION G R O U N D D  -  '  75  1 fiue  i  38  RESISTANCE  \  U  1 1 1  18  3,  20  74  l  37  \  PILE NO. .  10  8  15  PENETRATION  238  63  24  "2. 1  MO. BLOWS  61  4  6  AS  TECHNIC1AN-  NO. BLOWS  DIAGRAM  UBC  f>LE  !  1  i  j \ 5  R-E3£AgCM  GLUEENJ S c t X o H 6 - H  y  Lu U A X j  HOLE No. DATE  \t  <\U(r 8  5  PLATE F-12  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N nATF  U  iK^dr %S  A  NO. BLOWS  NO. BLOWS  NO. BLOWS 21  41  22  42  1  23  43  7.  24  0-112 1-2  L/C*  2  25  AcT  TECHNICIAN  62  7  63  G  44  64  6  45  65  2 Z  27  47  67  48  68  10  29  49  69  1/  10  30  50  70  11  31  51  71  12  32  52  13  33  14  34  54  15  35  55  16  36  56  17  37  57  18  38  19  39  BLOWS/FT.  T  V"  ' i.^  1  KCi^O  Z 1  G  53  X  z  1 30  72  UJ  fe  111  [ 1 ,  74  1  40  o i  76  I  |"t  77  7  58 59  IO  75  7  i  1  73  6  Or "  L  50  H  78  1  60  40  10  46  28  RESISTANCE  1  26 2.  •* 7  PENETRATION 20  7  it  P I L E NO.  NO. BLOWS 61  1  239  DIAGRAM  j-  a. 1  79  .1 40  20  80  60 PILE  1 60  DATA  •IS  ELEVATION GROUND-  I  TYPE HAMMER LA  WT. H A M M E R HT. D R O P t-W  TYPE PILE. DIMENSIONS  C-ivJ 0 £ - 0  f ' p £.  P -u  1  . J  .  t  i  1  l  70  BRITISH  li  1  PILE_  UNIVERSITY  r  |  1.  TECH.  JOB No. THE  i  .1 11  PROJECT  OF  U3C  P I L £  A-3  It&Se^g-CH  LOCATION Q,u^ersi5S sre-oum , L A ? L U xv>,  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SITU TESTING  HOLE No. DATE  U  P l U E  4 PLATE F-12  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N DATE.  15"  ^5  AUG-  4  o-i  *  1-2  NO. BLOWS  21  41  22  42  2  62 63  24  44  64  25  45  26  46  66  27  47  67  2  28  48  -•>68  X  29  3 ^  PENETRATION  61  43  4 rev  PILE  NO. BLOWS  23  Z  I  2  31  51  12  32  52  72  13  33  53  73  14  34  54  74  15  35  55  16  36  17  37 38  i  1* !M.  1  "i •  , 1r (S  i.  r  IO  i 1  \r iI 1 fe i  71  1  7  >  I  H til  Z  kl LL  11  r  1  75  1  56  76  I  57  77  39  59  79  20  40  60  80  PILE  1—  L1  78  19  1  1  i—  1  Hi  I  /  b  60  i  ^1  1  j  P b ^- l  1  O  1  RFMARKS  LL-OS£0 - O PILE -v.  1  2  ^  1  DL P  " ° ' °  < ' yU~..~-fV' V^-*^  '  i 1  1  !  |  ^  ' ^  '  BRITISH  PROJECT LOCATION  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SITU TtSTINC  \  ! "  -fdiT~&J>~**) - f '  OF  i ;  ! !  i• !  .  OB No. UNIVERSITY  1  I !  1  r  THE  i  1  !  f ^ P ^ ( k . '  I  —^—4  1  1 P  1  DIMENSIONS  A i J7  \ T-  G R O U N D -  PILE.  n A1r j  J-  ft  l  /  IS"  DROP  TYPE  *i  hr  d» rO !* f  /  r  1.  8  1  f/»  \6  DATA  i  +'i n I-  70 HT.  i  70  58  H A M M E R  60  1  50  H A M M E R  BLOWS/FT.  C/l"  11  WT.  I  1  -  JUL 50  TYPE  i -J.  \  /  40  \  30  ELEVATION  RESISTANCE  -*»  1  t3  NO.  20  h  1  1  65  10  18  240  AS  TECHNICIAN.  NO. BLOWS  NO. BLOWS  DIAGRAM  HOLE No. DATE  rECH.  U M c Piut £LU££^6 p\\^.E  IS'-ibAUt  TT A J  n-t^eA^CH  3 O R . C X . I C - U  J  L U L U  b>  ?3"PLATE  1 c f  2.  r  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N DATE-  TECHNICIAN.  NO. BLOWS  DEPTH  goat  l5  f-2  u  DEPTH  IC2  53  NO. BLOWS  II P,Ll 5  2/  ft  S5  tb ^  u  ?6  42  62  43 44  63 64 65  26 27  46 47  87 *8  28  $9  61  45  L  j  i T  100  1  —i— J  i  1  35 36 37  55 56 57  75 76 77  <*8 10  38  58  78  19  10  59  »0  S  39 40  79 80  12.  51  I !  (  $Fr  H  i i  PILE  OfLl  74  j i  30  |  UJ  60  1  [1  LI Ii.  1  40  ! h  50  0. 1 Ill Q  j  DATA  ELEVATION GROUND-  HT,  ii  zx  70  i-  HROP PH  (• •  i 11 ' , 1 1 !1' 1  —;—  F  \  DIMENSIONS PILE. REMARKS  THE  ! i  —*—  HAMMFR  TYPF  1 1  i  ir«"  TYPF H ' M M F " WT  i 1  i  j  54  V  L|  —i—  j :  1  ( *  60  !— ri *1  1  1  P  40  1  68 69  r  BLOWS/FT.  1  67  l o L 0 T< > 0flc l \  -  1 i  1 1  10  lo  13  20  \ L  33 34  ^4  RESISTANCE  1  II  13  PENETRATION  80  31 32  72  NO. BLOWS  66  48 49  29 30  n  P;LE NO.  DEPTH  41  fs  h  NO. BLOWS  DEPTH  241  DIAGRAM  /gftgiT  fi'<T  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  C  ?  '* T fl- &  N  1  Ii •  1 i  i 1 i 1 !! ij ii  JOB No. PROJECT LOCATION  COLUMBIA IN-SITU  ;  ;  .  OF  UBC  i1 ' !  1  TECH. V\SC  P.ut  A J  HEicAOCH  Q u e e . i ^ iJo^oUCru  . L W L W  HOLE No.  T E S T I N G  DATE  A-Utr*S  PLATE  1.  U  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N nATF  14-fVUCrS?  TECHNICIAN  DIAGRAM  242  PAH\<-A> , T O  Jc  P I L E NO.  PENETRATION  0  >o  -  40  20  —!—1—  BLOWS/FT.  1 "  r 0 ,f  11  60  1  .1  }'  1  RESISTANCE  V k t  •4-  t  I  1  T-.  1  !  1 !  :  1  1  T T  TI '  ri  1  1  ! !1 j  1  1 [  .11  1  1  :  t. .  1 ^  4-  i  1  i r  I  1  !  1 |  •  1  1  J  0-  / Hf V I  • !la • • •  1  1  1  1  !  1 1 |  \  1  ; ,  I  i  i  1 i  Jj_  1  ,WI  J  i  1 1  ' ' :  1 1  r  1  i  | I  f »  1  •1  A/ I  C it!  ',1  1  „  r  V  HT. D R O P  10  (,'-*  1  DIMENSIONS  p • ,i g  PILE  REMARKS  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  i  1  OF  COLUMBIA  f •/ e  1  I  grig  UBC  IN-SITU  TESTING  |  1  ! I !  : 1  •'t  1  t  T  , 1  1  !  !  1i !i  «1«L  T Y P E PILE  THE  1  1  »  **• V '/  |  1 1  F b LP t ( ^  1  j  -  t .i  ' IJJ  •  —r  WT. H A M M E R  ,4 F T  1  d'  .1 •j  It  't  i [*;  J .  I,  1 TYPE HAMMER  i  1  1  • •  1  1 I  i  1  1  •  *  1;  I  |  li r  r-— !  1  T  1  !  1  1— i  1  1  1 1,  .i  i  1  i 1 1 i  1 1 1  i  1  1  •:i! : ! 1 j  i  1 : i !  1 i j 1 1  ; 1 i ; 1 i i TECH. P W , T o f ' L C ilfc^fcA^Ci-v  1  JOB No. PROJECT  UKc  LOCATION  <<wue>j-  HOLE No.  f 1 US.  (  B  tr^  *A&-H ,  Luu.^ ~u  t  DATE \<V-(S fnUife-aS P L A T E  t •»£ 2.  PILE P E N E T R A T I O N 1 r ft U G- g S~  HATF  NO. BLOWS  DEPTH  ?3 £4 S5  £3 2  41  IG3  43...Op  44  TA  26  46  66  47  67  88  27  39  28  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 P l00  37 28 2_7 23 26  50  70  31  51  71  32  52  72  53  —  -  -  -  4  ] !  34  2^  _  ™  .LA - * • i  If1  25 3\ 31 29 27  58  78  39  59  79  PILE  1  i  |  !  1 j  i  ii  UJ  I  t  i  1  1 1 i 1  i  ]  1 |  1  1  !  LU  i i  1  1  (' r  I  .  j|  BRITISH  —  I i i  C O L U M B I A  *^  SI5BHB" 1Q^5™  UBC  IN-SITU TESTINC  V  o  i  4 i  n  ^ HC  JOB No. PROJECT  r  r  (  i  < <>  1  r ->  1  A  i  H~T~  i i  j  F  '  1  I'!! i i 1  1  1 1  t  I  '  I ;  , ! : ! : [A ! L.  i! i 1 '  1 I; ! 1  ; !  1  1 :  i j | i 11 1! :  |  ' 1  ; ! ' , J.  \  •  \  •  f.L£  ] 1 1  1 1 i  '  .: ! ii ; III : 1 , I ! ! I 1 1 1  ii  i •  1fECH. DvO , T-o UBc  • '  i 1i i !1 : 1]  Ill  , i  1  (r. L  1  I  ^'  1  ]  1 1  ; i  i  ii  i ! ! ' iI l 1l 1  j  i  :  1 1 ;  ' ! ! j —i—)—»— l |iI !i:  LL  O F  ; iii  |  1 1 t-  1 1  1  1 ii I• If 1 i i 1 i 1  1 i t  11  U N I V E R S I T Y  1  1 : i1 : I1 1 1  1  o  Pi •7 THE  i !  -U4-U 1 ! 1 1  I  HT. D R O P  DIMENSIONS P I L E _  1  ] .1  L. .  i _L j ii li il  |  i1 j j  j 1 1 i, i r i t _L 1i  I  TYPE H A M M E R  TYPE PILE.  I  1  \  I C J  ||  IT '1 —— , — i —  i ! i i i i 1 • ' i• 1 i i 1 ! '; i '  1  0.  1  Jr i ij J  i  i  j  Ti  * ;  DATA  G  i  ,1i  j  ;  !  i  ,  j  !  UJ  1 1  1 ~~T-LA\i 1 |1  1 ;  ,  J !  1 1 i | i I !—  GROUND-  WT. H A M M E R  iL  I  '  !  i! 1i  1  1 ! i i  80  60  1  1  ii i  I  -i  T  I i  77  38  40  1i  1  \  76  57  37  r ii  T ! !i T  -t  T  \  75  56  —  ; ,j V ! —.—>—r , T ! . i ..[."TTTT": i J.IJ ' Mil Tiftl ! L 1 . J. L U . I T T til! —i—r— —-t1 - ,  74  55  J —t  -i- -I - ~  1  T  -  73  54  36  -U-L.  J  I  i  \  -  U-  35  ELEVATION  1  1  33  1 : ! I i 1 1 T ITTT"I ! — i TTT _ _ •1. T J i; T~ ; r j j " 1T • ! - t ~ t - l - i i  69  30  60  40  1 1  --  68  49  29  99  10  48  BLOWS/FT.  20  I  64 65  RESISTANCE:  I  63  <t' lO j 5  45  O  80  62  25 (X A* r /  /  NO, BLOWS  61  42  si  DEPTH  *<-1 X  K i  P I L E NO. ...  PENETRATION  102  4  r7  NO. BLOWS  DEPTH  23  lOl PA  TECHNICIAN.  NO. BLOWS  DEFT H  243  DIAGRAM  I !  Ht5cA(iCi-l  LOCATION O M £ E M i 3 =• R.o^ CJ- W , L u Lu IJ HOLE No.  P«t_E  DATE If-IS" AUG- S S P L A T E  I  2.  SAXIMETER PILE NO. PROJECT  NO.  </  BLOW COUNT/STROKE PILE DRIVING RECORD DRIVING ORDER NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATE LOCATION Pi.e LENGTH *"c%-r BATTER PILE TIP CUTOFF THROTTLE SETTING"  0 Fc f-K 5  PPA r a & / / - j  PILE TYPE/SIZE , v EVAT ION: GROUND WER TYPE/SIZE r s :f CAP/HELMET/CUSHION L> 1 CONTRACTOR ; T ~  Depth ft  Blows foot  Stroke  0-1 1-2  7-  2-3  7  FOREMAN  Depth ft  Blows foot  —1  50-51"  26-27  6  51-52  S  6-7  (o  30-31  S  31-32  7-8  9-10  Z-  34-35  10-11  0  35-36  *: - i 2  3  36-37  2  13-14  • -  76-77  14  77-78  \ 2.  I'-  55-56  80-81 .  4-G 1  31 i  0'  85-86  60-61  23  61-62  2?  4  62-63  2.1  38-39  4  63-64  33  64-65  58  -10'  —t»-* 2^'  88-89  39-40  15-16  —'  40-41  65-66^  . 16-17  2  41-42  66-67  1 1  17-18  A  42-43  67-68  n  3  43-44  68-69  12-  5  44-45  69-70  8  94-95  . 4  45-46  70-71  3  95-96  19-20 • 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24  46-47  3 2.  47-48  4-  48-49 -  24-25 i  49-59  ii  REMARKS  JO  ft  ••  • •  i; '  90-91  ^- / 0 '  91-92  -v  II '  DEPTH  73-74  to  98-99  MIN.  'IT—•* ^  H  -  -  5i -  _^  99-100  >3  STOP  j:  INTERRUPTION REASON " tr •  PILE DYNAMICS, INC., 4423 EMERY INDUSTRIAL TELEPHONE: (216) 831-6131  Z  96-97 97-98  J,  -  93-94  a  "" TIME 0 F START  3  ^  92-93  72-73  74-75  5 \ ~Z'  .<•  89-90  71-72  f3  ^  •  87-88  3  '  -- - '  86-87  14-15  18-19  u  ' 2_  82-83  84-85  -'-1  • •  83-84 ••-  Stroke  l l  81-82 S ~ i  37-38  >  • •4  79-80  59-60  -  75-76  i. 1.0  56-57  h  Z 5  Blows fobt  54-55  58-59  33-34  ft  Depth ft"  IS  (?  5  Stroke  78-79  57-58  z  .2-13  5  Blows foot  ~<~o \^ 4TL.  32-33  8-9  7  52-53 53-54"  29-30  >  Depth ft  5  28-29  4-5 5-6  Stroke  OBSERVER  25-26  27-28  3-4  244  )  *  PARKWAY, WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS, OHIO 44128 TELEX: 985662 PILE DYN CLHS  APPENDIX I I I AXIAL PILE LOAD TESTS FOR UBCPRS  UBCPRS : ELASTIC COMPRESSION CALCULATIONS PILE NO. 1 O.D = 0.32385 metres Length = 14.326 metres D e l t a = --A E  I.D. = 0.3048 metres E l a s t i c Modulus, E = 2.065 x 10 kPa P  PP a x i a l load during load testing A = c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area o f p i l e L = p i l e length E = e l a s t i c modulus o f p i l e m a t e r i a l =  a  i i e d  D e l t a = P ( 14.3^6 metres) (1000 m i l l i m e t r e s / m e t r e s ) (0.32385 - 0.3048 ) PI/4 (2.0565 x 10 KN/ metres squared) D e l t a (mm.) = P(kN) (7.4063 x 1 0 ~ similar  calculations for piles  mm./kN)  3  2 to 5  PILE NO. 2 D e l t a (mm.) = P(kN) (7.0910 x 1 0 ~ PILE NO. 3 D e l t a (mm.) = P(kN) (8.6667 x 1 0 ~ PILE NO. 4 D e l t a (mm.) = P(kN) (1.1976 x 1 0 ~  3  mm./kN)  3  mm./kN)  2  mm./kN)  PILE NO. 5 D e l t a (mm.) = P(kN) (1.3862 x 10~ mm./kN)  UBC P I L E HYDRAULIC Calibration  Date  Calibrated Test i±^nsL___  RESEARCH PROJECT  JACK L LOAD C j _ CftL I BRAT IONS 13th Alex  By  Machine  Jack  September 5y  Baldwin  300  400,000  ton c a p a c i t y  S / N C1300A13; Closed Base  H y d r a u l i c , Pump  Height  Weight  590  (Franki  Canada  Enerpac  Model  Loid  Gauge  30  in5  lbs Limited) P4B2  Canada  Limited)  Readout  Budd  Instruments Digital  Strain  (UBC S t r u c t u r a l  Pres.Gauge  Load C e i l  (psi )  E u d d Rdg  (lbs)  ram e x t e n s i o n  before  Minimal  ms  J2.125  5 0 0 , 0 0 0 l b c a p . BLH E l e c t r o n i c s T y p e C 2 P 1 S ; S / N 36881 Diam 10 i n s ; H e i g h t 14 i n s (UBC S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n . )  Datran  RUN 1  Jack  8-066  10,000 p s i c a p a c i t y Enerpac Glycerine filled ( F r a n k i Canada L i m i t e d )  Cell  Strain  Rcgers  8-095  (Franki Pressure  lb c a p .  Uni t f  Diameter  Unit*  1985  Actual  Load  Indicator  Engin. )  Load C e l l  Actual  Budd Rdg testing  in Baldwin  0 60 3 34  1500 2000  212 253  110,500 149,000  220 299  111,000 151,000  25C0 300S  370 443  189,750 228,000  378 445  181,00© 225,500  3500 4000  522 599  266,500 305,000  528 608  268,000 308,500  450O  680  346,500  5030  753  334,500  Ram e x t e n d e d 0  1" 0  prior  to  jacking 0  2 69 144  machine  0 500 1000  RUN 2  0 32,500 71,500  Load  (lbs)  against  Baldwin 1  500 34,500 72,500  machine 0  500 100S 1500  60 135 214  30,500 69,250 110,500  72 '145 222  37,500 76,000 134,500  2000 2500 3000 3500 4C00 4500  233 372 447 525 605 632  150,000 190,250 229,000 268,500 305,000 351,250  297 334 454 538 517 657  154,750 195,000 233,500 273,000 314,50O 355,000  5000  762  388,000  DATA  111 !  3  j C~>  : 7-? 3  2  ^  I f 2 2-  * '•"  7 ? - ^ ^  ".  77  ^ < 7 -  if-7£  \'b>1*  ->  i  SETTLE.  c^  2 7  tf.^^f  1  t  PILE  2  o  1  PILE  if. / » ^  i ^  ^  REMARKS PILE  3 °  l!  PILE-  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  bp J h< ' j o  248  TEST  EXTENSOMETE R  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I.  111  _  SHEET  n j -  2.  I f 2.1  '••.«•*  y  3>  t  /  1  7L  UK  i'u~ - 2 '•1  t>-?8  3-31 300  tf-"ij / i ' /•' •  i+ '2-r  / C* . s  /  f t  ^ -zr  3^7  -'A-.- 2 5 2 .  27/  2  C?  <  /  H7 i f M-  -7'  7«  if.  4,1^  /V0|  tf  j  6-7  if.  67  /< 0 2 _  3-  Li  2-7^-3  11  f.j  ,2-  ^ 2-  0  -  i  '77  i<-f ^ <  i  an. /  ,:fV-  2 > 'l_  2-27 3  2-2C.  i -,  1  2 : 4 -  J,  2 2_l  f _ J ' j0  - -  17 •/  fHE  UNIVERSITY  BlRITISH  . - <r  • 3  ' il3  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  1N-SI1U 1 f 5 I INC  1  N.  .v.  TEST SHEET / ri  cr  ZD < ^ ,A -J  — if)  UJ  M  PILE  fa  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  -  REMARKS  w  PILE  2  CC CL  PILE  TIP  J3i£_L 12  11c  "TEST  EXTENSOMETER  UJ  < o  249  SHEET  DATA  PILE SETTLE.  *-2L2_  14, 6 7  /3  6  / 1 • (r • I 10  ro  2 o  6/  13-  11 7_L_  o  '3  ID I"  13  07 (3  7  /3 - o o  6 • t o 2^v3  *-  o  TV Q . O C /  O  7^  02.  270  7>/2_  9-2-  7:  772. II  7-13  1+  ^•2£ 1 -  12 1  r;  \1U  T  \r  f  2<T'o  11-3^ 12- 23  •"71.  -7>  i££f_  7  >bo  • 2o  7-  «K  or  7  •»  11-if  7 2  7'/r  11*. 4 6-r 6-n 7.  THE  UNIVERSITY  BJRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  TEST SHEET  2 . r,  I  ,7^" '' (  S  REMARKS  U  PILE  2  PILE  TIP  PILE SETTLE.  I;-2?  •n  f 11  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  HRS.  TIME  < o  SHEET  EXTENSOMETE R  PRESSURE P. S . I .  DIAL  DATA  250  -r  n  -  0  r  T o  ^•25"  7/../).'  '•n  |,  o  IS"2o  IO  '  7*6/  f r i-'"  (• l  r  I<|U'  H  211,* l  ->  / ' i •; -  K'| f 7  ,  \  £>.<To =j  >  j  -n  0  To  -rr—  £> Z J  > 4-  Ct>UL^  , [  Kor  H'dh/tn:  TACK LoAjs-  V>- t l c ^ r  /  )  f  j  ** *—  L »A 0  O,J /*• >-£ & /  - /i C  r  O  > /«' ^  17  1 Li i.i ("> •  3  (2.' o 6 /)/  THE  t  7o » (*HCH M'*L •  Iff*  -  7  / v -  3  O  12 2.  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  T E S T  IN-SllU  Tf5  r INC  SHEET 2  c t~,  SHEET  AT MINS.  HRS.  EXTENSOMETE TIME  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1.  DATA  REMARKS  Me Top 1  f'ii i»r' b  0  10  mm  Mi 9  Ml  I Hie  in  1  no  c  SETTLE.  ««  ST  i It  Me  0  Ifl  a if  *5  Ijl  >  r  /• J?3  tiff  *  ?<ff IS if 1J,c  *»»  fi-7«  M /  Kb  Refft**,U\k  0  i  0  T  l i p  liti iM  SO  3  Mr  /  0  ?\yt  PILE  t  A  0  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS*.  mhi* 0  251  '77  If-2  1*7  2  hat  rwaijAthc b*J2  Rle  liq  •r f Sr  v  tut  0  GO  •r  1  ii n>  1-fe  ^  IS  % n  ....  •  1  pile  1ST  x  BRITISH  COLUMBIA  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. * es *@  FL.I  Tffl U N I V E R S I T Y O F  A X I A L IN-SITU T1STINC  TOT  PILE  P)Lt # 2  LOAD  T E S T  SHEET 1 of 3  SHEET  EXTENSOMETE R READINGS  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1 .  LOAD  DATA  1  A  C  J.iit> •  70  ' *r  0  go  *  3  i  5"  42 15  '•»/  ',1  1 JJt  0  My  /'i>V  1  5 0  1  1  1.  i*|  HI  J/1  M° ii t  /  Hit i-  t\f*  *•  9** 12-7  4- 12-  iO r  PILE  REMARKS  PILE SETTLE.  3 JTJT  1 5*  LEVEL READINGS Pi L E TdP  2  252  —< . . . M - .  '00  0  •5  /•AS]  +2Sc "S. \c-  /• u r  \" sofa. (*i ) p. Of  1  5" /to  ic  $ss  6 OS  0  6 i?  < 7* 7-sr  -ST  f '11  /  t- IS/ f-10  -  77>  ('»^  ('*•*) Cr*)  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. THE  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SI I U  1  ( SI I N C  PILE o*  LOAD II  TEST S H E E T X of 3  ,  O  © <3  LOAD  O  o  c z  DIAL PRESSURE P. S . l .  <  m Ln  —( -<  TIME  HRS.  s o  O  AT MINS.  -A  O  o o  o o  OR.  o  m  x  m rn > to o O 2 2 oo m 3)  <3»  2  O0»  IT' 4  r m  >  c/> X  m m  (7 -t-  tr M  » w  r  w n a:  >  o  H  1  X  m  -1  M  Ii  cn W >  •d w  o  5 m  o  -IS 2  u a  r o > o  IO G M M 2 cn  H  G  m > rn o < r  00  r-  *9  w o o O  m  an  H  h  8*>  -*• 3 D ^  CO  SHEET  Pik  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  AT MINS.  HRS.  TIME  P. S. 1.  O j ( / < ~i  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  V  2 '  254  LEVEL * READINGS  PILE  i  PILE  PILE  REMARKS  SETTLE.  0 fa 1 L  0 1  5"- */ i-t>q  b'Of 5 -ci.  f- ' 4 .  Hi  -  I  it] 1 0  0  IbOif. -Sit  I loj  i•m  1 Uf  I  1 frCy  /c  i ?e  I-COY  /  /  X\  fa l+ -- $ 0  1  7 0  i-m  I^Z  i w  i  » yi2  /  n 5T  I  W2i'li  *>•>-  /'tO  7 '  s  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  ft  1 P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  COLUMBIA  "  AXIAL  'Q'  UBC  IN-SITU TtSTINC  PILE  LOAD  TEST SHEET  AT  , . , „ »> 4  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  P. S. 1.  DIAL PRESSURE  LOAD  SHEET  1  LEVEL READINGS  PILE TIP  2  1  =—.*  DATA  PILE  SETTLE.  C >  REMARKS  PILE -  i  i Hi 1Sit  /  i SS?-  10  i-  4  S t y  7f-3  7»  I  / 9fit  s  fc  i  a  \  0 I  0  f>0  /  /-*s7 / ^7 /  •>>  b"  ini  iO  ' •  7-3J  /-V/ 7/  i  V**  5  It* 0  to  1  77'  i-ffj / St 2-  ft  <  1 -tfj  /  " -7*-  X  ^L  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  c  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-StIU l ESI I N C  PILE  LOAD  °* \ H  TEST  K.V. -IT | S H E E T V  I  -  AT  1  70  SHEET  PILE TIP  2  J  /  >  i  8h  256  PILE  PILE SETTLE.  REMARKS  v y i  // sn0  2L  TEiuvt** LEVEL READINGS  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  P. S. 1.  DIAL PRESSURE  LOAD  DATA  f ib  It  7^-r  LI ?o  .*  /  i  0  i It  »  f  / iry-> / >yc i ns/ jy-c  1-8^1  f  V  l  V  .0  r  /•#/  0  / • ^  /  >  l til  fu  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  -u>v  'H  Li  ft  6  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SIlU TCSTINC  PILE  LOAD  IE  TEST SHEET  J  AT  1  E K ,V£ t i  257  LEVEL READINGS PILE TIP  2  T  REMARKS  PILE PILE SETTLE.  / feo  0  loo  SHEET  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1.  LOAD  DATA  i  f  > 7 /  f a  / yvv  ; i  it 7k ^  / r  i  TV? f < 0  rift  is*  7f>  i  ft 7  fC  0  /• w  0  0  /•£b7  /  ve- ~^ -' , ~- --er r  /W  *, l/l AJ UObC  I  *7^  j  lif : c s IH  r  ^  * 7? *  p-LW  1  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SI I U rtsiiNC  PILE DA  LOAD It  4  ft'  TEST SHEET « . y f  SHEET  AT  TEST  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  P. S. 1.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  1  PILE  f  0  /M  i  » At ^  2ft- S  258  LEVEL READINGS PILE TIP  2  C-LL # 3  2_  ov  WA.  J.~  ¥f  REMARKS  PILE SETTLE.  r  f-  (•  . r. i o  i.  J.  n Ih J  f  m-t  0  / >  JJl-t  i.  i f  s  <i\ • fo-  , L i e - •JL  r fe.'ff i0  if-  7>'o (?A  0  i ?cr  i  i**  ii. ———  1  cj. 3c  i frH  }- ^ • i •>  Uf  tup  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  t  '^n  " 1]  o  And  , Au *  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  C O L U M BI A  fR  Ifr S  IP^™ 1  ,  THE  t i  U B C  IN-SIIU Tf S1INC  PILE DA I i  LOAD  TEST SHEET  *»  '/  O  ZC  r> O i— c CD  c z  4^AD  DIAL PRESSURE  73  P. S . I.  -I -<  TIME  o  HRS. A T MINS.  O  I vr,  =1  —o  o'  m x  D >  m m >  >  2  4  2 o CT> c>  > X  M  r  n  > r m r o > D  CO  I  m m  H m co H  SI  W CO W > EG  » O  m  a  M M z cn  w o » o a o a to  I  K>  -•Jp  m m  -0 fn  H  ZD  r* m  m r-  > rn O <  M  n  m  m -tj  or  co  m  3 rn  >  zo CO  rn  r m TT  • It  c  AT  REMARKS 1  c  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  MINS.  HRS.  c _  260  SHEET  EXTENSOMETE R TIME  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. |.  DATA  PILE TIP  2  PILE  PILE SETTLE.  iO-03  D  1 , 7cc  /  |.  10  i  KWM  0  IkJL,  t  ;  i  \ip  0  /•of/  "in >-3fb  / /  i  f  J U  /  if =  1  S~  (v.  / t•  r * * If 3  ...  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SIlU Tf S T I N C  PILE 0*t{  LOAD  TEST SHEET 7  C3  73  Zt  zz  z  n O l—  LOAD  c  o  ~*  \  O  o o  DIAL PRESSURE P.  TO  c  1  <  >  O  S.I.  TIME HRS. AT MINS.  re  4:  •4:  1=  Or.  2>  >I1  > X > r  r* m o > o CO X  m m —(  H  m  to H  M  n x m m  ro  >  2  CO  o  o rn oo —i m 33  tr w  1  W W in W  -0 m  n SG  v.  JO o u M o  z  cn W O  o  33  -  m > rn o <  m  r  E or  oo  >-3  lO G M M  I  m  H T3 4-  m  00  m  33  G O  m  h  33  >  to  262  AT  HRS.  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  MINS.  _l  TIME  < o  SHEET  EXTENSOMETE R P. S . I .  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  REMARKS  1  PILE  2 i!W  0  PILE  TIP  PILE SETTLE.  10-37  1 ISC  -  i Ifc !  2(Jf_  \  M  0  1-375  1 M2.  US*  l-0<)le  37,-. 7  (  to -  3i  /  IT  J  7/  ,( -  /  !  7"7? C?SJ.'  ~ .'CO •/•;> '.  Lf/y  „ 8v V**r * -  b— (/M  LO,  T o £ O0SE.K/ •> £ ru> ]  T<?  j»0 c 2,  0  M3>  i  J  0 '7fc?  /• 2/Z /• 1 f l 7  *  0  H«r  /  w*-—j cc 0 •  2.CC / i 2-3.  itc  0  THE  1-  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  OF  COLUMBIA  • 77°  >7* 1  I 2-i> i  Hlgl ^*s(l* UBC  ii' bt  P I L E RESEARCH  AXIAL IN-SI 1 U 1 £5 1 INC  PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  PILE 0 A  LOAD ' ^ N * . -\-  TEST SHEET  a ,f <j  wee  -A C3  H  O  v  00  (A  LOAD C».i|  c n O  DIAL PRESSURE  2  P. S . I.  73  r-  c  TIME  ro -<  HRS.  AT MINS.  T  IN/-  r  o  f  •r -f  50  C  o  o  > >  X r~  0 \  t  l°N  4c  r  cr>-  Itr-  O,  y 1  30  > X > r  r m r  o > X  m m H  H m co H  o  CO X  M  ra  Q  » ra to  w > w o re •d W O  u  ra o  he  <4>  r  -0 1°  r  1  0  0  5  <V0  4-S>  0  m m  ?  or  0 s  ^  in':. "  H  5~  fc  >  IO  c ra ra z co w o » o G  i 3)  O tB 68  O  <-\ r  m  r-.  L—  >  c  x CO  r  SHEET  DATA or  o < o  3 -' co • < to w  Q  Ul  oc a.  W 2  , ,  jf./.  co' cr  REMARKS  oJ  ft I, 2.  P'tr $e T  7c<,  mi 7yy  21 / 7 </  21Z  2it I  *\ 7  r.  -a  I 6 6  ttV^C>  122, / 0  11  i in ayii: 1*  - L L L & :  I  _2£  0  1<L£I  nil  36o 3o4  ^Q jilt  /to  ft  JL2£  if  A,  •4-3-%118-  •Vll:  P I L E  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  RESEARCH  PROJECT,  QUEENSBOROUGH,  B . C .  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  U B C  IN-SITU Tf S T I N C  PILE  LOAD  TEST SHEET l c ( 1  265  SHEET  P , L £  J  AT  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  P. S. 1 .  P/It  1  Aft 4-  U.  K°  1 IK  .  lo 1  .3  REMARKS  r ( .  0  —— w  iff  •  \  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  T & T  o  r p*  1  s^if  f H o  r>  ^- -  >Hv  i 4  >  ) *  i  L  i?  *—\  i  13  Ptc £  #/ THAT So  OA/ T>  EAJO '0  C-  •>  D£  :  T'0\/  r———'  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH,  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SI1U KS1INC  PILE  LOAD  B.C.  TEST  266  Q < O _J  0 ?  SHEET  AT MINS.  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1.  *  TIME HRS.  DATA  REMARKS A/V f •  •  -If*  ~ >. <  /•••••.-••'• /  /  >  *u  0  - I l k  o  1  1  1  y^  Wo  Xx> hp  j  1  Iv '  ^  m  Sri 6  /  (:  >  \  —  .j  ^  1  I  )  >  i-C  iv--. c< -  '-  d>  \oo  1^4  A  i.  -  nm mil '  1  (*i &  1  >/fr  I /,  1 tfo \  6  -LO  1 i - ^  |01V  (Ky-  t I'  Say  c?  <*>  1 S c^~I  I 'Z-L t I b (/  2  II  -C _  —*—  ^  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  THE UNIVERSITY OF  AXIAL  BRITISH COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  TEST  IN-SIlU  KS1INC  •SHEET 4  „f 7  267  DATA  SHEET  LU  cc  J D -  O  CO UJ  cc a.  w  W CO 2 cc  REMARKS  oJ  0 7°  us  V4  2££ iii?  l i b  ~ ~ 7 ~ I  i*v . — j  J2££  7 ^  I  :/< try  n 2^  "JTn  LP  jr,  t >/ f  0 ">  it i  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  OF  COLUMBIA  *7  A  O  P I L E  JSISl  ^•BJ* UBC  RESEARCH  AXIAL IN-SI1U TESTINC  '•  >  PROJECT,  QUEENSBOROUGH,  PILE °*  LOAD u  B . C .  TEST S H E E T S ?( 7  268  TIME HRS.  P.S.I.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  Test  SHEET  I z < i  frJ  -  ._  REMARKS  *—•  V  ?  6  !  y ih :  i ^r-  r  Mvo  /  I  r 1 o£k  *  • mfc f l df,  I IbL U V ¥  IT1-V t  1"^  ft'/  . : *,. •>  .  f 1  /  *  —•'•»*_>  ;  a  ,,-.'1,  *l*fr  \  *>»  I* yo H i if -  *  '<5|7S -  Im  :.  1  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  /  Mb>  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  I N - S U 11 l i i l l N C  PILE  LOAD  TEST cu  cry  269  "7  AT  MINS.  HRS.  Q < O _J  TIME  DIAL PRESSURE  °1  P. S. I.  DATA  SHEET  a, \  ^  /:-/  1  *  Jon<J Lo-^cf Ce//s  REMARKS  6  'v >  Wt-ir  (—  u  /  (3  r  a  O  i  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  B^j.  OF  COLUMBIA  AXIAL  PILE  LOAD  T E S T •sy'  /  270  DATA  SHEET  /  AT  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  P. S . I .  -J  DIAL  - < o  PRESSURE  ,  ^  /V,A-.J  PILE  PILE  T!T  Top  TOP  SotU  a  T / T  T/T  1  r  1 &  • 1$  /•78/ I--?*'  i  -  0-1-7 / • 7 ^  /•-)*<  f :. ! 0  3  .  0  0  REMARKS  T/T  1l?i  l-7?o G  o-zi  Z0  /•$7  f  -r  o  -1  3 37--JO ^  1u (  \7S\  o  1  0-3/  r.  :0  --I  «/,.  Z.e.. '  0-37  r-  r -t~v A  r- !  7;  (', I,  /•776o  "z  l l^  /  f 77 k° '777  7  1 -7? of  L- (I j  1  i  tW-.  i d  It- ?1  o  i-iifc  1-8$  5 3  v  '0  1-7*7^  l-fU  1  I  f lf  I (2?j  Ora '20  fi-  /•77?«.  O  ''•> c  f  1 7"?'  0  f  5 I f  a  0 -  Ul  f.  f•  —  D ?9  7  —  —  —  —  i  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  OF  COLUMBIA  AXIAL  PILE  LOAD  TEST  271  SHEET  AT  PlLG  PILE  T|T  TOP  TOP  SOIL  O \f.  /I U K *  V  T/T  T / T  T|T  2  1  R  u  I' .  MINS.  HRS.  TIME  o  S. 1.  Q <  P.  *•  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  REMARKS  3  0-2-3  0 •7/'  <  1  1 '77^?  1  y  j\  0-1/  3  (5 -%S  I  0  3'79  0 • 12  / •  L0.  13 :/t '•  g  M  0  1  "2  «4  ??a • / z  1 ur 7  1 *  -83  0  2-'  i-  i.  • -  0  1  "? 1  l 1  W  / 7T ? r //£/<>  •>  ft  1  L  <U\-  fa  r?  (Ul-  &  ;  1 7K 1  i-Vi  r  '759  -  /It /:•  0  1 -7t2_  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  oil  6  hit  I- 1 3  0V  |.7<V /  r  [  3 - 7<>r  I.  \  < i  I'lO  1  f -Til  THE  111  7<r /•3  7  3 • 6v  (5 •  0/  M i  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT,  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  TEST  PILE  PILE #4  QUEENSBOROUGH,  LOAD t Mftr i t  B.C.  TEST SHEET  i  of 5  <  I-  DIAL  Q < O _J  •  ( ? 7  6  * >  )  TIME HRS.  PRESSURE P. S. I .  DATA  i ^'•  < i  T/T  1  SOIL.  TOP  ii a> io^r  2  3 ~  • Co  - • 7 • '  * ' ' '  l - 7 < 3  to  M - L  1 7  n- 3  L- dx fee  / • ; TL C  o  (<Wv><) I  T / T  / • 7 < 2 ^  <  i  REMARKS  T / T  0  ^ ,<7  j 5t>  1  i ~. f u  T|T  PILE  P\ L G TOP u  272  SHEET  (•7<f  9  ''I  J-75<rt 1-lH-lf  (J  ' W i rv-r • •irr  ll*l<  -7  i * 'to  1 0( * .  N • tt.  /  D  /• «f 7-  1  i•  ( l^o  iti<  1 f  1 , -)(fU-0  l-l^"  /a MS©  '070/,;  |tf ;•  ? i  a  I '11  h74<"  -o  3.  '•73?  37  -  6 -  1  c  f  /  I  \  m 1 Y 4  7 3 2  1 - 7 3 7 1 7 3 7 /  0 <~  / .  7 3 7  7  3 < o  / • 7 3 7 o  <",a  t - /m  J  - 0 ' f/ c  ^  /• n  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  OF  AXIAL.  COLUMBIA  UBC  TEST  PILE  PILE #4  LOAD  TEST S H E E T 3 of $  DATA  273  SHEET  UJ  cc _J  <  <  o  -  O  ZD 0  0  CO  Z>  or  PIL£  W  UJ CL  TOP  T O P  cr a.  u  TIT  T/T  T / T  2  3  1  SolU PLUCr  REMARKS  T / T  3of  i--  3  o  -«  5  -0 fl  fl"  L  fir-* f  hU%  ^  •  (eg  j  ho'  f  r>> .i  -  I' 02  33  .22  /Z. / M .  7^  10 1111 •Ifl  3 fii  - o  °l  o  iin  •7*  3  • CTO  / ^r°>  hi Si •111  2ZZ  7// 7l^f  C7 6  6»  01  _7£7_  0  <f>>  / 4V  V  ?•  -32  ' 7  7>t  i-Tifl  3-C r  4 0 of  67t •67'  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  TEST  PIL.E.  PILE #4  LOAD  TEST S H E E T H- of 5"  274  DATA  SHEET  LU  CC  <  o  _ J ZD — <r CO - CO CO O LU Q."  W co' 2 cr  P\L£  cc a.  Top  PILE  TIT  TOP  SOIL  T/T  o  2  3  .(,3.  0  Mo*  ft  }  8^  /•o7_  >C3  33  Kr«c  / - X i  A>CK-»S.  ^fcpfc^w  AL  aco  T / T  1  L,  REMARKS  T / T  z  " <7  SSr  2  3*  q  7*6  US-  1> /¥  300 h%TJ  5  1  i~«  if3 f  S3*  *-c  ILL  2 7 1  33  J>oQ  1 a r  206  -4  «t0  '>  3 t>8  UL  1,0  21k. ill  f * * t$6t  3?/  3  3f  U S  7*  X-Sf  ±27 I 6S  TTjr  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT,  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  11  s 1 1 N <;  -rcr c-r  Di  1  c  QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  PILE it A  °-"  LOAD (  1  -  e>  1  TEST I  CMC c r  C  AT  C  275  •4<  ;  -JO* c £ •'Us  P. S. 1.  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  SHEET  LU « i  V-  if.  0  o  W  8*  •C *  (<  \  I  0  Sr  -•—  1  ,  /  1  <r  i  ^  a  lo  o  7 *  _ ^  4  REMARKS  L e d C*(|  o  *  "77^  ( £>  fr —  .  —  o  0  </-  '  6  <r  _  —  7<^£  —  —  6  —  —  -v  C  ,  O  0 —  -  o O  %l  1 o "1 o  O  a  6  fro  1  —  — ^_  \\ I ^  f t  (  O  J  o  f  6  1 o~u ....  ,  ,  U/k 1  0  1  \\%  V  xl/ v  •  /tod V-.—  c  0  \  C  UNIVERSITY  ,  I i  2-6 &  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  COLUMBIA  H  r'~i  o  BRITISH  J  Hp  --~\.  THE  — \  • — ^  AXIAL  UBC  PILE  LOAD  TEST  IN-SI1u  ir 5 1 I N c  I , V 6, 1 SHEET  ,  ^  X  276  LU  -  1-  *  SHEET  AT MINS.  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1.  LOAD  DATA  U  Lv 6 ,  REMARKS  c,  %v 6  f  •  O 1  i  6  H  —H*—  (crc  U  r —  . —  im  1  — — —  i  ti-st> i"fc-Q  V  (Ub  7" ,  Sty  /  r  s-  i  fo  —  " V  1 I 0  i ~Uo&L> h i  .-Si-  (o  lJr7b —  • —  e>  toy. -  —  3  _  lit*  1  774, fo  THE  I ~L4>  COLUMBIA  3> oit>  3©/4  £(f0  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B . C .  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  •  i  1  G  • 1. s «  —  A  1—  —  s-u  \\(o  1  .  ,  UBCI  AXIAL I N - S M U 1 I 5 I I N C  PILE  LOAD  1 0*1 IK  J .  1  v  TEST  7TS H E E T  h f(.1_  O  *5  f  r.L,  -  CO  LEVEL READINGS  EXTENSOMETER 0 0  2  o cc ui a."  -  READINGS  CO  cr OT  ' i  SHEET  DATA  DC UJ  1  -  UJ  J D -  T..  To?  TOP  2  Cu  v  I-^'  •0  REMARKS  5V  PILE  TellU!  TIP  PILE  J22  PILE SETTLE.  o) /if  II I.  '•12 i • (TO r.- TT  I7t fv..  -H-/f<: •-3  3  I • "£ 1 r:  lb-34 1 ^  3 ^ 1  r /•Si £2.  2  2  M o  PILE THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  RESEARCH P R O J E C T ,  QUEENSBOROUGH,  B.C.  OF  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SI1U 1 E SI I N C  TEST  P I L E  PILE #5  D*!f  LOAD  T E S T SHEET  i cf %  278  LEVEL READINGS  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  HRS.  TIME  P. S . I .  SHEET  «i  1  2 7 ;  r<-\  REMARKS  PILE TIP/-  PILE  PILE  SETTLE.  i  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  iO !  ^  2 <?i  /•7-7'7<  r  / % <T , , ' -  I-11%  ^  'J i-7?9e  ! o /•{?  -. ^  i-ir^  • l y- o l • 72^f  0  l'7?K  1  - -'  / r -, /• 0 / o  .' 7££*  \  -  /Of. l-V ft /o  /• 0 /I  7. ?7~L  i - < ?  1 • K*0  /If':  -1 e. ! • T^ <  /  ) ' c  V  I  1 '7-jf  o  ii- n  ho:.'  l'llt<  < •  /•7^°f /•  ->  02Z  '•lUnS  i-ll/z  7  1•  77/r hl(,W  2-is*  I-02S  i J'\  ftjj  II-3 o  3' 7/'7o  2 /t>3  Ah '  :  1 -"ft !  1 •  ' • 7723 /' f •  -1' -  '•c ' '  :  ^ O  l"7^?o  /•!<'?  10 i  ' 7ft /  i'  1  1  I 7  t 2-s J 1 o  /•7^i  -  tfo  us  f  J'Of 0  2 '-4  / • 0^/7  7  _ ,--  /.ou-i i -]^?\  2 -l^  /•7^? '  2  ;  IV-1'  . /'I P  THE  Co  PILE RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  UNIVERSITY O F  BRITISH  ^ 7 7 • cro  •'  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  T E S T  IN-SI1U TESTINC  \<SS\  PILE  # S  SHEET 2. { ^ c  279  SHEET LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  MINS.  AT  HRS.  TIME  EXTENSOMETE R P. S. I.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  REMARKS 1  PILE  2  PILE  (« )  ,-,  '>>!{',  r  hi  <-i'  (•733^  17  r^t  <r  -Y  (73/<  .  -  / .  •  l\  I<7*TO 2 •7 fa  2. -o  '  t  f  37/' 7 f  •2. • / $ 7 Lfi  1 -Th)a l-7/7f 1 -Itf-o'  2 -ojo  l'7'7f  l-iui><  hot? 1 • 9J?  )-l +oi  \-nii  / •07 0  /•7«-o2  I-7IT3  /'072_  -2-  VW--70  /•725>3  17/1 '  !• 072  2 - 3 ^  3 ° ) i 7 °  L  /<•>  —  1 •  hose,  APl  ft,'  SETTLE.  z  M -  /•->  AH  PILE  2 <iVo  /'Ott  1 -73a f  •>  '  (2)  2 • ofcS  ytfn -  -  0  ft 12-0^  0  1 \  ' •  / 72-70  1 •07c"  1  i  _  —  2 7 ^  f• ffo  2  3°/- 7 ^  -f'tr  2 -7^1 2  •D  /  -  /•07<l  I26S 1 4 - 3 * 5  /If? • (<t  _ , .  1 -7QTo ' • 4 ^ 3  <  /if"'  3.1.' 7 "  1-7^11  • 0 0  .... , 1 6 -  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, THE  QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  Ten  f*uE  & *  PILE 0*11  LOAD  TEST SHEET 3 c f 8  2hQ  DATA  EXTENSOMETER READINGS  UJ tr  J D -  < o  W  -CO Q LJ Ou 0 0  -J  CO  ,  <0  J  SHEET LEVEL READINGS  2 or  PILE  <r a.  PILE  TIB  •7  W-lo  PILE SETTLE.  REMARKS  i i p  /•7/zo  37'-7 7  2 •  •7! I 9  2  979 3^/-7fe  (  2  Af3  i f  1 -7? o  ll<  ft  •cmo  fir,  /•2fo 1-7313 ' "6^27 h^U-2  I  2 '<tSo  -3/o  6"  2  £6>  1-77/o /•72T  O  / • 77/<  la  • CTTT-  2  c  >^'  / ' 7 3 / £  7fo  2. • W o  76-  17'c 2. o  3 7 / '73  /•739«  /•74«  / -2<"  2, 7 ? o  ^ 77^  ;-73^.  o  7?c  / -2.?;  3?/-<v  /•2*f 3  ^32  Af3  Ah  5-  7. : ^ <  rtf  i--*97l  J r 0  0  bi  If,  /•2<f<.  a-37o  ^7/-^2  7  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SITU TESTINC  TfciT  PIU6 M 5  PILE  I  LOAD  T E S T  22- C - ) - JT? I S H E E T 4  281  SHEET  REMARKS 1 fO  PILE  2 r  *  PILE  TIP,)  0  \  I  /•7/T3 /• "7/r. / • 6 ' / 7 /•l!72 /•7H2  /3.-2S i  1  "2  /• 7^'  i  /•7o/o  I  / •3 0 9  —  i-u?r  1 -2  /if 7  ,  k  /o  f-7 '0 / j/»  1 lots'  3 - 9 S o rf:,  -  31/'^ —  _,.  1  _  • ' • .... y  />2|o  / • ^ 7 3  (/ M'  •  2 7S  hldlo *)  'i  1-1 ,'  l'7o3/  r  r1. < - .  ^'•i'7  /•t/>7 v  o  1  SETTLE.  /'iSo /'7^5c  22io£  PILE  ;.•  o  fay:-  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  HRS.  EXTENSOMETE R TIME  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I.  LOAD  DATA  d•2^  •re:  .  &J  #  7  t  % •  •  V'' r . '  ( W  0  \  '  v  / U  ?  ;  ^  / 3<?o  3.'  / 31O  /•6f72  :-•<••;?<>  11—  -  >7-"'.  / •  ,,  —  'i ^ 2 - o f  : 1- - >. 2 • 67  fr-  /-ft.  ; 1  ^•J7o  /  *> -  *2  2°7  0 - ; . ,.<•  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  OF  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  T E S T  IN-SIlU 1 ESI I N C  ~[Z±T  Pi LU n S  SHEET 5 c ( S  282  SHEET  REMARKS PILE  1  T)  tt~>. j]  ;U-1  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  EXTENSOMETE R  i  \  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. I .  DATA  I•  0  PILE  PILE  TIP/  SETTLE.  /•tec fb7^  / • U*i  _  i ••S'T • /•6<o 2-7?  \  2- «tf  J '72  2  3 ^2• o  l-Ulo 3-n-i o  7'3/jf  f'l <  04  /  1  's  My-  / i f ^ .-  (ii ill  i  / • k+u  o  ^-  0  2 • ?? *  \ •'•<.-KkM,  1 toTC  U r  3  2 ^  7 • f  2  7^70  - T ^ O  r  2.' <Ha \ • 4 ^ / 1• 6o3S  (o  2• i  f  1-6^22  / Uo hit  14--. <  ?  i  1• ^ilo /• 6xic /•  to  /  •  ^  '•77o  2 •<??/  /  •  ^  /• <fU  3 -<rr>-  l-lfo I - '/'.  2, - 5 ^  \  r  [y. ire ...... t  1  -  •  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  3 -2''?  / - U'r,  Af? •  h'\ 1  THE  ?'73^  r  1 >)  z>.'-  0  1  "?  7  ? • 0f  • 'w  Ah.-  0  1 i 2 o  3=7  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  T E S T  IN-SM U T IS  1 IN C  TEH  p,  L L  *"  D  ^  D  V  K  I S H E E T  L cf S  283  SHEET  AT MINS.  REMARKS PILE  o  \-loOl%  v..  1 • (o v-n  '  h C.577  'l  PILE SETTLE.  3 '<Kt>  t  i-i>on !o  PILE  TIPQ  •T)  L  •1  11  r/  ^  3 2-tt  IV- V  f  7  '«(,0  !  2  <J  /•<f3i  2. ok*  3  •  / /  ,7  3  /<f7<5o /.fo •  /• TOO  ' ' 53</o / • 5L; o 2 • o U  It'll  c  ;  ?  •  3o  • C  ?  '2  l(o  J .fir  • / 2 •° ^ 11-2  7.-'.:  f • < i * -r  _  O-Blo kc. 1 . V Y  ft.  ^  .  //. 7  _ r -  1^ / o  '• ' •• < " ; - » ,  •' - '•  r^ 7 T -  n-/o  ( .  7-  1  (  - /o• 2 7 ( f  1 • 5762. 1 -SU-'o 2 -oyf  0  i  L  '  - /-o7"  =  — C  •.'•  / ' ) > > • > "7  3-'^  C  Kit  i  1-601(0  -  fry U~-U  V  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  1 ft-)  m~ o $  AQi •  r•  EXTENSOMETE R TIME HRS.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1 .  DATA  •  II  ti  2 otr  / • ^  ^  <  3°i2.7?  i i" •  Ml -•  - 0 ' II  /• i ;  •t•• -,  /  i  •  •  '0,..  1  '•"  '  ;  • • ^ -  •-  ,  /<"-' THE  ••  ^  '7/-<--  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C,  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  %  3l<Zo  - 0 - !'  'Pr  •  /  • ^7<o 7  Lj.  ^'  >^72  Z• o f •  , f  •l, i r~ > 1 T ' *~ - -"  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SIIu 1 ESTINC  TEST  PILE  PILE #5"  LOAD  °*  TI  T E S T  r ~ SHEET 7 o f g  284  SHEET  REMARKS  1  L-  PILE  2 1 L^;„  '•-3t><  -•  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  HRS.  TIME  EXTENSOMETE R P. S . I .  DIAL  PRESSURE  DATA  2  PILE  T1P/,  r: ) -iir  PILE SETTLE.  '6 •  -  ''?  '•^(,  /  /•</-•  /•C{?72  2.- 17 z • n 2 - 1 7  -far* t  /V  pjt  -  <••  2_  ' i'7^0 Pr.  l-<2o  i f . ii  o  /'.' •  ;.r-?u  • ; •  '  "  ° 7 •o 7  r< * 3 7^'"f  K 3 * r  i  /if / .  Q  ^  3 9 2 Oo  r  /  2.;  '7  /•f73  3  :  L  4oo t  o i  bJ  312-- fo  4 ' / Co  >  12  -  9 3 •/ o  3-6^  /•7/oa  -  2_  .. •  73 as  3 ffT-  o  •  >r..V 7 , /•I  Mr! •  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. THE  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  i N - s n i) l c s i INC  "TfeA-r P i t _ l -  PILE  LOAD  I ".{ll^.Uf  TEST I SHFFT  "< rX 'A  285  6  -J (J  P. S. I.  DIAL PRESSURE  DATA  SHEET  EXTENSOMETE R  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  W to 2 tr  •7 z fin )  « i  REMARKS  Lin) 2  1  -  PlLE^  PILE  TIP..  M "  >•?-;/  T P ' ?  PILE SETTLE.  3t"^r  :  —  ?•  * i ;  K l' •  < ...  '•  .  <  ID-  ^ r  i  Is,;  if.!  ^  i '  3  3  2— c y  i  a -  9 7 •^ C -7~-  •• -  - J3  i  3. r  y . •  *" • ••-  ~'  ' A If-  •  //^ 35"  '• r  l-n 3 l-77<? 5" ID  /•77? ^ • 2 0 5"  fc{ & H ••<+<" r , ~  £  o-1 fe i  r-  0-76,  o :.<:<.  !>o77  o'7;  / • *37o  o7~  Af }>  ,• 1  /^r  •  6 • z n r  (3 • OTP  :  ' ' 7o-^  ^7'<3  g-bi  1-77^  3?z 2 i 7.'3 '  ^e  7  M  /  / M  ? •n  '•7oo  ' • * > ;  2'^f  '' - it  /0-  -  M: •  (J z  •  ^—  ' 3  0 • / (7  '•ten s  "7 ' r> c  ?  i  (•loir i  Hi  7 7 3 ^ '  fo/  3''  ••  ; /  <•  • ; (J  ',  . • ~~~  ' r> • '  V  3f3  7  °  '7  m ••  / D • C'  7.0-r  7-2>/ i 3 _ ^  l-lo-f /,' ; • h;.. (.•-. 7o ;  o  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISH  - -  :  -776..  o  ('' ' J 1  THE  *t.-.-..,  3?  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SITU Tf STINC  T£bT  PiLk  PILE *+ S"  |  0 > M  LOAD t - .o-  T E S T SHEET  1^ i  286  DATA  SHEET  EXTENSOMETE R  1 1?  2  H»: * f- -  i  PILE  O  12 • c5T3  2!  /a- i :  <r 3 • £5o  ^•32-  /•»:---  firj  12.  :2.  1  fh  =  k\ . tea*- (U-  At  r<x. i  3  l  2 -2>f&  3-3< ' Af? •  13- 2  3^3-3  h  7f3 2  2  -If?  /2-6L «  3^- ^  /'07  /? 7.5^ff A f 3 -  2. O  o .1  /•ir  • -  r  t  /2-2o-r  /  1-7^  -A.  /' r , •  /Of  /if/-  • •  > 7-  f  <—  /  Afw--  /' 3g  \lo~J  *  7«3'J  : , 2n $  o  a  /(-  ! f i 7 o 3-Uo  /' ^371  ?•;  12. 3 3  • -d  11-l+l  IJ'57<>  ii : 2 7 "?  0  \2-V  :  REMARKS  PILE SETTLE.  ! 2 • 2, 6 3 / 3 - 2  3-iz. /if-  PILE  TIP r • •' ' •  f  :05  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE P. S.L  ^  2-34.  l-7o/f  i • <3«*/ /•532C  3f3o<  /•i'77<  /,  / • j V Z <"  < Z Z c  < • - ) /  ^ r , If  if-i?  /•f2.7f  / T: -  /3 •  Jj'i'  f2  //> ^  . tl-T •  --  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  i n c u IN i v t K a i i r u r BRITISH COLUMBIA  i—i|rj|  A X I A L  ^•S}"'  UBC  PILE  LOAD  TEST  IN-511U 11  51  INC  Ten  f.Lfc  °*fe-io-^  SHEET  2 t£lL  287  DATA  EXTENSOMETE R  1  PILE  2  : l(o  PILE  TJP  r !3  LEVEL READINGS  READINGS  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  DIAL PRESSURE P. S . I .  Q < O _J  SHEET  0  PILE SETTLE.  REMARKS  3-^1  :  )  ^  /u- .30  5"  /•hid  lo  *  '•'4-11 /if c/ r  Af3 *  flf''U[ 3  =.  t  It  0  J'll  ft-  2.7/  r  /•^  3  l'3%'  J-70  ft] *  / o v-o  10 :  J.-lt  Li  •  '3: 3?  70  /  /<*>  Z4--36 ^  o°\i<; 019)  701  0  770  3 •if  5"  0-fH<  O  3^-3  /^•3H  38^ f  M 1L  3^-2.  O  T  0  '3<W /•7i  IZ-12-  3^5-7 3/^ >T  (Ik & r  f°  0 -73 / 1  A// 4/ f,, THE  |  it  0'^2  0-<ff  / 'J  ( 3 ? / 5-;  3f6- /  £?  25  I  3f  O  1  2_  3^-o  0  - ty-  o  .3 t  /'/IO  Hi  Ho  2l- 1  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C. UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  U B C  IN-SIlU TtSTINC  Test  -if b  PILE  LOAD  TEST SHEET  ? ft v  288  HRS.  TIME  I.  S. P.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE  ;*  DATA  ^  /  /  W  SHEET  REMARKS  <  -  Jr  . -  >  / '  CA*>-«f  - •.' •  r—  —>  /  (  t '-  - y  n s  v  ! r  c.  1 i 76  - '. .' ' !n  •  -  icy  f...  i"!  / ,\  5fe J  !.•/";(/  ^<  •?  r'c  /  . L  % r •  :  t  r  .:.*•  H- -  in  (?.  0  07 I V  <S  \ -  t r• C' •  >  •J /•'.'" "  . -  7^  ./-V':  y  f:  *  c  •  *  <^  WC  ?f  0  ? r-  —, r- ,-\ »  /*>  1  /  /  A - , ; v  y  /  />  ' f  b  1»  THE  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  UNIVERSITY OF  •BRITISH  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN'SItU 1 ESTINC  PILE  P<LE*4S  0*11  LOAD  TEST I SHEET 4 »f0  289  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1.  DATA  -- / '  SHEET  REMARKS  -  •" -  /  a  " t / **-  -•!:•  ;  -  '  •.-  , v  j)  •/  /  '. • v o n  >C-7t?  £>  /  i  c £  7-  o  o v.  -  c  o  "  -  <;»  O  iHC  0 •  o - .  f-/  C  ?  (o  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  A  /. C  ? 71-*- i. , J  7-Ts7-  hi-.  7.7 "  6v T7  f'  1 1  /  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  AXIAL  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN-SI1U  Tl SI INC  PILE 0* H  LOAD  TEST SHEET «J f t e  290 ^ C. H  A  r  a.  pi t  t v. ^. 0  L  AT MINS.  TIME HRS.  LOAD  DIAL PRESSURE P. S. 1.  DATA  ( C-LL  SHEET  REMARKS /*  -•  -  6  9  > , j-~ * *  \"'  (0  I. r~>  -i. ^ a  ?zi e  0 L f  ?w  ? -- ? ' ( . «• o  <r  j  *  a  v £  —  f{l *  •  //  - /• ' •  ?  /  (c'l  ft  h 0  •>  0  >  i  THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  PILE RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  A X I A L  COLUMBIA  UBC  PILE  LOAD  TEST  IN-SIlU TISIINC  | SHEET  £ ,1 (,  291  APPENDIX IV LATERAL PILE LOAD TESTS  tor CJ  73  —i X  ' LOAD*  W  DIAL PRESSURE O  ft  £  TIME  -A -<  0  "5.  5  O  3  Js.  AT MINS.  to z  PS  •ft  ro  5 r  IT.  ft  N  N  CI  vj  O > cn  m m  D  be  n cr* PI  cn  w  vQ  C  -xi  m  ill ft  t In w  »0  PJ > 33 O  -fe  Ni  a: o  I  xi  p] o O C  PI PI  2  vt  Ni  ii  \  V  »«  «*•••>  <>0  LA  s  AO  z cn co O  33  C  o  m  (j) H  *  PI  •ft,-  o  H  •5>  «6  30  r m  L ^• ° • ro  «x  «*3  2 2  5: r >  §5  °0  -to  r  j.  1 in  EL  n Si  o  () , P rn  ««-  ^  DATA  S H E E T 293  tr  *  < q oJ  If  DIAL-  <I  _1 13 + Q  "3  00 U J e'er  l i e  If, CM  *  1 •  2  >  !  5"  ! i i 1  2*£7  c  RE&fclKJGS  GfVjGE.  * 5 arid  CLO^DWG PILE AJO. 3 w-5  PlUB NO. Z  ^.22-7  4U-  * 3 /vi-S*)  PILE  PiLr  PILE MO,  w-s  4  PtLe  (e$ re-fertntre, \  r  ^ . * 2 ^  REMARKS PILE »OO . t)  £  -  ^.3^7  0.2?/  0.133 V.66 . i - 01}3  0331  *.3 cS 0.3(2  *  1  ?  ! 25; c w  r./2  O 1  1  t 1  5-32.  2-  QSl/  5"  o s u  /0  cm  rn  32  0.57j>  ^.^  7-41  /=  sr. ^2  *  30  f  ooo y . r i  r.77  <?  Z JT  r-lo  P,/c  Dk i<f c  *  P'/i 1  "'/iff  0469  •  P \ A  l-ol  Z  U3  "•  7? i>  '•"At  ^  Oil?  7 A-  / CDC  7  i3  - I-/*  Plant tv-rt^m-ici  -05  02  f - 7/2  P-23y  1 -  />:/<- / * Lc? f.l<  Is  6  U  b Of t  •THE  P I L E RESEARCH P R O J E C T , QUEENSBOROUGH,  UNIVERSITY OF  'BRITISH  COLUMBIA  L A T E R A L  UBC  P/L6S  I t 3  PILE  LOAD  B.C.  TEST  I  SHEET  lor*-  jj  ca 73  -i l/>  n o i— cV QJ  >  T^  H X m C  4  • LOAD*  /IE. DIAL PRESSURE s. K  2 < m >o  UQJS  1tr  — • —1 -<  T"  1  TIME  o  -A T  AT MINS.  N  ft fa  ui R V n» ^  (I 0 TJ  r m  (/>  r > ro  r  <3 N Ft  ra a cn cn pis'  73  n  5  ^-  ro  2^  5  3  i  in f"  * ^ rn  50  r  o > o C/1 T  m m  H  m co —I  O  Cl  ra o *3  c  lO  c ra ra z  if N  CO 03  o o c o  5. $  Si  a:  •a  r m  r o o  i.  8  A  v. to  h  9>  r ^  i  DATA  ,THE  UNIVERSITY  BRITISH  P I L E RESEARCH PROJECT, QUEENSBOROUGH, B.C.  OF  L A T E R A L ,  COLUMBIA  UBC  IN- II I U 1 I I I IMC  PILE I J  0 » It  LOAD  T E S T SHEET ii=-f  APPENDIX V DYNAMIC AXIAL CAPACITY PREDICTION METHODS  297 A.  Engineering News Record (ENR) Dynamic Formula  2 • W p _  - ee Section 6.5.2  S + 0.1  for explanation of symbols.  S  i)  • H "  Pile no. 5 original driving - end of driving:  set = 1.09 WJJ  =6.2  H  inches kips  = 7 feet  p - (2) * (6.2)(7) _ " (1.09 + 0.1) " R  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„ n  H v  2 =  =3.5  kips  = 10 feet  * (3.5)(10) (0.5 + 0.1)  =  factor of safety = 6 ••• ultimate capacity = 700 kips = 3114 kN  1 1 7 1 1 7  . . ?  k l  S  WFAPaS: WftVE £SUAT10N fl.MAL.YSIS OF" P I L E FOUNDATIONS VERSION i . 0 0 4  Hft*#CR ELEMENT  i £ C A P / R A M  MODEL OF: WEIGHT (KN) 13. 790 13.790 3.560  UBC  MADE! BY:  S T I F F N E S S COEFF. OF (FN/MM) RESTITUTION 9935E.3 483.4  1.000 .500  HAMMER OPTIONS: HAMMER NO. FUEL BETT6. STROKE OP" 311 1 HAMMER PERFORMANCE DATA RAM WEIGHT RAM LENGTH (KN) (MM) £7. 58 1££0. 00 •RTD PRESS. (KPA) . 00  ACT PRESS. (KPA) . 00  HAMMER CUSHION  AREA (CMS) 900.00  MAX  STROKE (M) 13  UPC D NL. (MM) 3. 04S0 3.0000  CAP DAMPG (KN/M/S) J3.. 0  HAMMER TYPE DAMPNG-HAMR  STROKE (M)  EFFICIENCY . 700  EFF. AREA (CME) . 00  IMPACT VEL. (M/S) 5. 41  -MODULUS (MPA) £05. 6  THICKNESS (MM) 38.100  STIFFNESS (KN/MM) 485. 8  APPENDIX VI LATDMT.UBC PROGRAMS LISTING  DERIVATION OF e RELATIONSHIP FROM HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP 5 0  °3  =  i  ST £  5 0  (o /R ) f  f  e  T^TV  Duncan and Chang (1970)  L i s t i n g of ^  2  PU-YC.UBC at  19:24:09 on JAN 18.  1987  for  CC1d=DMPY  Page  £*****************************************************************  C  UBC IN-SITU TESTING GROUP  *  3  c*****************************************************************  4 5 g 7 8 9 10 11 12  C***************************************************************** C * * * PROGRAM FOR CALCULATON OF PU-YC FROM DILATOMETER RESULTS * * * * £***************************************************************** C * C WRITTEN BY MICHAEL P. DAVIES. OCTOBER, 198G UPON * C ADAPTATION FROM PROGRAM BY TSO TIEN-HSING * C FORMAL DEVELOPMENT OF ALL EQUATIONS USED CAN BE * C FOUND IN M . A . S c . THESIS BY PROGRAM AUTHOR + C * c*****************************************************************  13  14 15 16 17 18 19 20  C C C C C C C  RUNNING INSTRUCTIONS: RUN *FORTRANVS SCARDS=PU-YC.UBC SPUNCH=-OUT RUN -OUT 1=DMT DATA FILE 5=FACT0R FILE 6=-DMT ECHO 7=(PU,DEPTH) 8=(YC.DEPTH)  * * * * * * *  c*****************************************************************  21  22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  REAL KO,M.ID.KD.MU COMMON / L 1 / X . D , E S V , P H I . S N P H COMMON / L 4 / P U . K 0 COMMON / L 5 / C U COMMON / L 6 / E D COMMON / L 7 / E P S 5 0 , E I C , F A C C COMMON / L 8 / U COMMON /L15/PU1.PU2 COMMON / L 2 2 / P 0 . P 1 , R K 1 . R K 2 . E I S 1 . E I S 2 . S F  31  c  *******************************************************  32  C  *  33  Q  FEC. FES=CORRECTION FACTORS TO DILATOMETER MODULII * ********************************************************  34 35  READ(5,*)FEC.FES PRINT * , ' F E C = ' , F E C , ' F E S =  '.FES  36  c  ********************************************************  37 38  C C  * *  39  c  40 41 42 43  READ IN OUTPUT PROGRAM)  FROM DMT.UBC  (DMT  DATA REDUCING  * *  ********************************************************  100 * *  READ(1,*,END=111)X,P0,P1,ED.U,ID,GAMMA,ESV.KD,OCR .PC.KO.CU.PHI,M WRITE(6,299)X,P0,P1,ED,U,ID,GAMMA,ESV,KD,OCR .PC.KO.CU.PHI,M  44  c  ****************************************************  45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  C C C C C C C  * D=PILE DIAMETER IN CM * * NOTE: ENSURE THAT THIS IS CHANGED APPROPRIATELY * * FOR THE PILES BEING USED * **************************************************** D=91.5 ********************************************* ***** CHANGE UNIT TO KN-CM, XX=DEPTH,M **** ***** PU=KPA-M, YC=CM ****  53  c  *********************************************  54 55 56 57 58  1  FA=0.01035986 PO=PO*FA P1=P1*FA ED=ED*FA U=U*FA  '  -  U, O M  L i s t i n g of 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 QQ 67 gg 69 7Q 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 g1 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 9G 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116  PU-YC.UBC at 19:24:09 on JAN 18. 1987 f o r CC1d=DMPY  Q C c Q Q C  Q C Q  Page  ESV=ESV*FA PC=PC*FA CU=CU*FA M=M*FA XX=X X=X*100. RPH=PHI ********************************** * PHI IS INCREASED BY 5 DEGREES * ********************************** PHI=PHI+5. *************************************** ***** CALCULATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *************************************** IF(RPH.EO.O.)THEN CALL PUCLAY ELSE CALL PUSAND END IF PPU=PU  **************************************** YC CALCULATIONS ***** **************************************** RF=0.8 MU=0.4 RD=0.6 IF(RPH.EQ.O.)THEN SF=2.*CU EIC=FEC*38.2*(P1-P0) EPS50=(SF/EIC)/(2.-RF) YC=14.2*EPS50*(D**0.5) ELSE SF=(2*SNPH/(1.-SNPH))*ESV EIS=FES*38.2*(P1-PO) EPS50=(SF/EIS)/(2.-RF) YC=2.5*EPS50*D END IF WRITE(7,99)PPU.XX WRITE(8.99)YC.XX 99 F0RMAT(2F15.4) 199 F0RMAT(4F15.4) 299 F0RMAT(7F7.2,F7.3,7F7.2) GO TO 100 111 STOP END r,******************************************** SUBROUTINE PUCLAY REAL N P . J COMMON / L 1 / X , D , E S V COMMON / L 4 / P U COMMON / L 5 / C U J=0.5 Q ********************************************************* C * NOTE THAT d SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 0.25 FOR STIFF CLAYS * C ********************************************************* NP=(3.+(ESV))/CU+(J*X/D) IF(NP.GT.9.)THEN NP=9. **  1  2  L i s t i n g of PU-YC.UBC at 1 17 1 18 1 19 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155  19:24:09 on JAN 18.  1987 f o r CC1d=DMPY  Page  3  END IF PU=NP*CU*D RETURN END £***************************************  c c c c c  SUBROUTINE PUSAND REAL KA.KP COMMON / L 1 / X , D , E S V . P H I . S N P H COMMON / L 4 / P U . R K 0 COMMON /L15/PU1.PU2 PH=PHI/180.*3.141593 A=PH/2. B=3.141593/4.+A  **************************************** *  *  *  CHECK IF KO FROM DILATOMETER OUTPUT = RKO *  * * **********************************************  RK0=0.5 TNPH=TAN(PH) TNB=TAN(B) SNPH=SIN(PH) KA=(1-SNPH)/(1+SNPH) KP=1./KA R=D*(KP-KA)+X*KP*TNPH*TNB T=(KP**3.)+2.*RKO*(KP**2.)*TNPH+TNPH-KA PU1=ESV*R PU2=ESV*0*T IF(PU1.GT.PU2)THEN PU=PU2 ELSE PU=PU1 END IF DD=4.*D IF(X.LE.DD)THEN PU=PU/DD*X END IF RETURN END  to o  L i s t i n g of ^ 2  3 4 5 Q 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  P-Y.UBC at  19:24:19 on JAN 18,  1987  for  CC1d=DMPY  c  U  B  15  c  ****************************************************  C C C Q  23  c  * LATPILE INPUT DATA. CAN CHANGE "PRINT' VALUES * * HERE OR LATER FROM P-Y.UBC OUTPUT BEFORE RUNNING * * LATPILE * **************************************************** PRINT * , ' L A T E R A L LOAD PILE(DATA-NEW)' PRINT * . ' 5 , 3 ' PRINT * , ' 1 1 0 O , 0 , 9 1 . 5 , 1 0 0 , 0 . 0 5 , 3 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 '  24  C  26 27 28 29 30  31 32  33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  50 51 52 53  54  55 56 57 58  1  C  16 17 18 ig 20 21 22  25  Page  C**************************************************************' *********** IN-SITU TESTING GROUP ************** C PROGRAM FOR THE CALCULATION OF P=Y CURVES USING * C A CUBIC PARABOLA FROM PU=YC DATA DERIVED FROM * C DILATOMETER RESULTS * £************************************************************** C * C WRITTEN BY MICHAEL P. DAVIES. DECEMBER 1986 * C UPON ADAPTATION FROM TSO TIEN-HSING * C * C************************************************************** DIMENSION Y ( 5 0 ) , P ( 5 0 ) COMMON/L1/X.PU,YC,K,RK C0MM0N/L2/Y,P,0  *************************** *  N=NO. OF P-Y CURVES  *  c  ***************************  C C C  N=10 PRINT * , ' 9 , 12' *********************** * * * RK=0. FOR CLAYS *  c c  C C C C Q 222  99 Q  88  *********************** **************************************** * * * *  X=0(USING RK=0.PU=0.001,YC=0.01) X(CM), PU(KN/SQ.CM-CM), YC(CM) RK(KN/CU.CM), RK=0(CLAY)  * * * * **************************************** READ(5,*,END=88)X,PU,YC X=X*100. D=91.5 CALL PARAB WRITE(6.99)X WRITE(6,99)((Y(I ),P(I )),I = 1,K) F0RMAT(2F20.4) GO TO 222 ***************************************** * MORE LATPILE DATA TO CHANGE HERE OR * * FROM P-Y.UBC OUTPUT *  ,  *****************************************  PRINT PRINT STOP END  *,'1' *,'11134180000.,30'  c********************************************************* SUBROUTINE PARAB DIMENSION Y ( 5 0 ) , P ( 5 0 ) COMMON/L1/X,PU,YC,K C0MM0N/L2/Y,P,D  g 4>*  L i s t i n g of P-Y.UBC at 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  100 5  19:24:19 on JAN 18,  1987 f o r CCid=DMPY  WY=8.*YC YY=0. DO 100 1=1,100 K=I A=(YY/YC)**(1./3.) PP=0.5*PU*A Y(K)=YY P(K)=PP IF ( YY.GT.WY)THEN GO TO 5 ELSE YY=YY+WY/10. END IF CONTINUE YY=YY+D Y(K)=YY P(K)=PU RETURN END  Page  

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