Development and Field Testing of Multiple Deployment Model Pile (MDMP)
View Table of Contents
FOREWORD
An Instrumented Multiple deployment Model Pile (MDMP) was developed for monitoring pile/soil interaction including pile capacity gain with time. The MDMP instrumentation and field installation allows to accurately obtain parameters applicable to full scale pile design. The MDMP was successfully deployed in Newbury, MA. The obtained results demonstrate the ability to predict the time-dependent behavior of full scale piles and hence to improve the design and construction of driven piles.
This report will be of interest to geotechnical researchers and practitioners dealing with structures involving driven piles.
T. Paul Teng, P.E.
Director, Office of Infrastructure
Research and Development
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The
U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
The
U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
| 1. Report No.
FHWA-RD-99-194 |
2. Government Accession No. |
3 Recipient's Catalog No. |
| 4. Title and Subtitle
Development and Field Testing of Multiple Deployment Model Pile (MDMP) |
5. Report Date
June 2000
|
|
6. Performing Organization Code
|
| 7. Author(s)
Samuel G. Paikowsky and Leo J. Hart |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
|
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Pruitt Energy Sources, Inc.
4307 Jefferson St., Suite 101
Hyattsville, MD 20781
UMASS-Lowell
Geotechnical Engr. Research Laboratory
1 University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854
|
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
|
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-95-Z-0081
|
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
Massachussetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510
Boston, MA 02116
|
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
May 1995 - March 1998 |
|
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
15. Supplementary Notes
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) - Carl Ealy, HRDI-08
Technical Consultant: Jerry DiMaggio, HIBT-20
|
| 16. Abstract
A model pile is a calibrated tool equipped with instrumentation capable of monitoring the pile/soil interaction over the pile history. Monitoring includes the installation, pore pressure dissipation combined with consolidation and soil pressure equalization, and ultimately the pile behavior under loading and failure. The model pile installation and soil-structure interaction simulate the actual field conditions of full-scale piles. As such, the obtained information can be utilized directly (e.g., skin friction) or extrapolated (e.g., pore pressure dissipation time) to predict the soil's response during full-scale pile installation.
The Multiple Deployment Model Pile (MDMP) was developed as an in situ tool for site investigations. The MDMP instrumentation is capable of monitoring the pile/soil interaction throughout the life cycle of a driven pile: (1) dynamic force and acceleration readings at the pile top and along the pile during driving; (2) pore water pressure and radial stresses during
equalization; and (3) skin friction, end-bearing resistance, and local (subsurface) displacement during static loading. These measurements allow the observation of pile capacity gain (a.k.a. "set-up" or "freeze") and accurately monitor the load-transfer relations.
The MDMP was successfully deployed twice in Newbury, MA during March 1996. The obtained
dynamic measurements allowed the evaluation of the pile's static capacity and clarified the difficulties associated with dynamic analysis of small-scale penetration. Pile capacity gain with
time was examined based on normalization procedures developed by Paikowsky et al. (1995). The excess pore water pressure dissipation, variation in radial effective stresses, and pile capacity gain with time were determined for the two tests.
The obtained results show that the MDMP is capable of providing accurate soil-structure interaction relations during static load testing. The measurements indicate a complex mechanism governing capacity gain that combines pore pressure dissipation and radial stress redistribution over time. These findings are used to predict the time-dependent behavior of full-scale instrumented piles and to re-evaluate the capacity gain phenomenon. The obtained results explain some unanswered questions and allow the development of procedures incorporating pile capacity gain in design and construction.
|
| 17. Key Words
Model Pile, Load Test, In Situ, Capacity Gain, Set-Up, Dynamic Measurements. |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 |
|
19. Security Classification
(of this report)
Unclassified
|
20. Security Classification
(of this page)
Unclassified
|
21. No. of Pages
284
|
22. Price |
| Form DOT F 1700.7 |
Reproduction of completed page authorized |
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The Dual Piezo Friction Cone Penetrometer (De Ruiter, 1982)
Figure 2 Typical Locations of Pore Pressure Measurements for Piezocone Penetrometers
Figure 3 The Piezo-Lateral Stress (PLS) Cell (Morrison, 1984)
Figure 4 Detailed Cross-Section of the Piezo-Lateral Stress (PLS) Cell (Morrison, 1984)
Figure 5 Details of the Axial Load Cell in the Piezo-Lateral Stress (PLS) Cell (Morrison, 1984)
Figure 6 The Grosch and Reese (G&R) Instrumented Model Pile (Grosch and Reese, 1980)
Figure 7 The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) Instrumented Test Pile (after Karlsrud and Haugen, 1985)
Figure 8 The 7.62-cm (3.0-in) Instrumented Model Pile (Bogard and Matlock, 1985)
Figure 9 The X-Probe (Bogard and Matlock, 1985)
Figure 10 Details of 7.62-cm (3-in) Model Pile Axial Load Cells (after Patent Number 5,259,240)
Figure 11 Details of 7.62-cm (3-in) Model Pile Pressure Instruments (after Patent Number 5,259,240)
Figure 12 Configuration and Instrumentation of the In Situ Model Pile (IMP) (after Lehane, 1992)
Figure 13 The Imperial College Instrumented Model Pile (Bond and Jardine, 1991)
Figure 14 Typical Imperial College Model Pile Instrument Cluster (Bond et al., 1991)
Figure 15 The Surface Stress Transducer (Bond et al., 1991)
Figure 16 The Combined Axial Load Cell and Pore Pressure Unit (Bond et al., 1991)
Figure 17 Typical Configurations of the MDMP
Figure 18 Tip Configurations of the MDMP
Figure 19 Typical Soil Profile for the Boston Area
Figure 20 Hypothetical Soil Profile of Dense Sand
Figure 21 Drop Hammer Configuration Modeled in the Wave Equation Analyses
Figure 22 Photograph of the MDMP Load Cell with Sleeve
Figure 23 Photograph of the Transducer Housing With the Pore Pressure Transducer and Total Radial Stress Cell
Figure 24 Photograph of the Slip Joint with DCDT
Figure 25 (a) Schematic of the Calibration Frame for the MDMP , (b) Photograph of the Calibration Frame for the MDMP
Figure 26 Pressure Instrumentation Calibration Setup
Figure 27 (a) Photograph of the Dynamic Instrumentation Testing Setup
(b) Schematic of the Dynamic Instrumentation Testing Setup
Figure 28 Schematic of the MDMP Data Acquisition System
Figure 29 Hewlett Packard Data Acquisition System (HP DAS)
Figure 30 Pile-Driving Analyzer (PDA) Data Acquisition System
Figure 31 Connection Box, Back Faceplate
Figure 32 Connection Box, Front Faceplate
Figure 33 (a) Schematic of the MDMP Static Load Frame, (b) Photograph of the MDMP Static Load Frame
Figure 34 Newbury Site Locus Plan
Figure 35 Newbury MDMP Site Plan
Figure 36 Representative Soil Stratigraphy at the Newbury MDMP Test Site (Chen, 1997)
Figure 37 Soil Profile of the Newbury Test Site (North-South)
Figure 38 Groundwater Elevations at the Newbury Test Site
Figure 39 Profiles of Vertical Effective Stress, Maximum Past Pressure, and OCR at the Newbury Site (Chen, 1997)
Figure 40 Profiles of Vertical Effective Stress, and Calculated and Measured Undrained Shear Strength at the Newbury Site (Chen, 1997)
Figure 41 Initial Excess Pore Pressure Distribution (only reading for 1 <OCR< 10 included) (Paikowsky et al., 1995)
Figure 42 Effects of OCR on  u/ v'v Aong the Shaft (h/r 7) for r/R=1 (Paikowsky et al., 1995)
Figure 43 Predicted Pore Pressure Dissipation and Capacity Gain for the MDMP at the Newbury Site
Figure 44 Site Layout During MDMP Tests at the Newbury Site: (a) Initial Setup, (b) During Snowstorm, and (c) Static Load Test
Figure 45 Steps for Installation and Testing of the MDMP at the Newbury Site
Figure 46 (a) MDMP Being Driven and (b) Static Load Frame Assembled
Figure 47 Pore Pressure Build-Up and Dissipation With Time for Model Pile Test NB2
Figure 48 Pore Pressure Build-Up and Dissipation With Time for Model Pile Test NB2
Figure 49 Pore Pressure Build-Up and Dissipation With Time for Model Pile Test NB3
Figure 50 Pore Pressure Build-Up and Dissipation With Time for Model Pile Test NB3
Figure 51 (a) Total Radial Stress, rWith Time, MDMP Test NB2
(b) Total Radial Stress, r With Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including a possible adjustment)
Figure 52 (a) Total Radial Stress, rWith Time, MDMP Test NB2
(b) Total Radial Stress, rWith Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including a possible adjustment)
Figure 53 (a) Effective Radial Stress, r' With Time, MDMP Test NB2
(b) Effective Radial Stress, r' With Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including radial stress measurement adjustment)
Figure 54 (a) Effective Radial Stress, r' With Time, MDMP Test NB2
(b) Effective Radial Stress, r' With Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including radial stress measurement adjustment)
Figure 55 Force Measurements in Top and Middle MDMP Load Cells for Test NB2: (a) Unadjusted records based on
initial readings before driving and (b) Adjusted records based on zero loads assumed prior to the initial load test
Figure 56 Internal Load Measurements, MDMP Test NB2
Figure 57 Adjustments to Internal Load Measurements, MDMP Test NB2
Figure 58 Frictional Forces Along the Friction Sleeve for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 59 Shear Transfer Along the Friction Sleeve for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 60 Internal Load Measurements, MDMP Test NB3
Figure 61 Frictional Forces Along the Friction Sleeve for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 62 Shear Transfer Along the Friction Sleeve for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 63 Force and Displacement Measurements Following the MDMP Installation of Test NB2, Including Heave Effect and Initial Load Test
Figure 64 Force and Displacement Measurements Following the MDMP Installation of Test NB2, Adjusted for Heave prior to the Initial Load Test
Figure 65 Comparison Between the Surface and the Internal Load Cell Measurements for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 66 Comparison Between the Surface and the Internal Load Cell Measurements for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 67 Static-Cyclic Load Test Results for MDMP Test NB2: (a) Load cell measurements versus time, (b) Displacement measurements versus time, and (c) Pore pressure measurements versus time
Figure 68 Static-Cyclic Load Test Results for MDMP Test NB3: (a) Load cell measurements versus time, (b) Displacement measurements versus time, and (c) Pore pressure measurements versus time
Figure 69 (a) Load-Displacement Relationship for Static-Cyclic Final Load Test for MDMP Test NB2, (b) Shear Resistance-Displacement Relationship Along
the Friction Sleeve During Static-Cyclic Final Load Test for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 70 (a) Load-Displacement Relationship for Static-Cyclic Final Load Test for MDMP Test NB3, (b) Shear Resistance-Displacement Relationship Along the Friction Sleeve During Static-Cyclic Final Load Test for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 71 Blow Count and Energy Delivered Versus Penetration Depth for the Installation of MDMP Test NB2
Figure 72 (a) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 25 ms, (b) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 5 ms, (c) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 25 ms, (d) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 5 ms
Figure 73 (a) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 25 ms, (b) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 5 ms, (c) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 25 ms, (d) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB2: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 5 ms
Figure 74 Blow Count and Energy Delivered Versus Penetration Depth for the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2
Figure 75 (a) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 50 ms
(b) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 20 ms
(c) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 50 ms
(d) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 20 ms
Figure 76 Blow Count and Energy Delivered Versus Penetration Depth for the Installation of MDMP Test NB3
Figure 77 (a) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB3:Surface Force and Velocity Records Over25 ms (at the upper location), (b) PDADynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB3:Surface Force and Velocity Records Over5 ms (at upper location), (c) PDADynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB3:Surface Force and Velocity Records Over25 ms (at the lower location), (d) PDADynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB3:Surface Force and Velocity Records Over5 ms (at the lower location), (e) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation of MDMP Test NB3: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 25 ms, (f) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Installation
of MDMP Test NB3: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 5 ms
Figure 78 Blow Count and Energy Delivered Versus Penetration Depth for the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3
Figure 79 (a) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 50 ms, (b) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3: Surface Force and Velocity Records Over 12 ms, (c) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 50 ms, (d) PDA Dynamic Measurements During the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3: Internal Force and Velocity Records Over 12 ms
Figure 80 Maximum Dynamic Forces Measured During Installation of MDMP Test NB2
Figure 81 Maximum Dynamic Forces Measured During Restrike of the MDMP Test NB2
Figure 82 Maximum Dynamic Forces Measured During Installation of MDMP Test NB3
Figure 83 Maximum Dynamic Forces Measured During Restrike of MDMP Test NB3
Figure 84 Maximum Dynamic Velocities Measured During Installation of MDMP Test NB2
Figure 85 Maximum Dynamic Velocities Measured During Restrike of MDMP Test NB2
Figure 86 Maximum Dynamic Velocities Measured During Installation of MDMP Test NB3
Figure 87 Maximum Dynamic Velocities Measured During Restrike of MDMP Test NB3
Figure 88 Normalized Excess Pore Pressure and Shear Transfer Gain, Model Pile Test NB2
Figure 89 Normalized Excess Pore Pressure and Shear Transfer Gain, Model Pile Test NB3
Figure 90 Initial excess pore pressure distribution for soils with 1<OCR<10 including the MDMP data (based on Paikowsky et al., 1995)
Figure 91 Effects of OCR on u/'v along the shaft (h/r 17) for r/R=1 with MDMP data included (based on Paikowsky et al., 1995)
Figure 92 Measured Pore Pressure Dissipation and Capacity Gain for MDMP Tests at the Newbury Site With Predicted Ranges
Figure 93 Effects of Pile Radius on t50 (Time for 50% Excess Pore Pressure Dissipation) for NC Clays (OCR=1-2), Including MDMP Data (based on Paikowsky et al., 1995)
Figure 94 Changes in Pore Pressure, and Total and Effective Radial Stresses: (a) Log Time Scale and (b) Linear Time Scale
Figure 95 Relationships between Shaft Friction, Radial Stress, and Vertical Stress for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 96 Final Load Test for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 97 Final Load Test for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 98 Shear Transfer Along the Friction Sleeve for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 99 Shear Transfer Along the Friction Sleeve for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 100 Shear Transfer Along the Friction Sleeve as a Function of the Degree Consolidation for MDMP Test NB2
Figure 101 Shear Transfer Along the Friction Sleeve as a Function of the Degree Consolidation for MDMP Test NB3
Figure 102 Undrained Shear Strength of the BBC at the Newbury Test Site: (a) Variation With Depth Along With Results of Different Testing and (b) Details of CPT and SHANSEP Parameters Between the Depths of 6.1 and 13.7 m (20 to 45 ft) (based on Paikowsky and Chen, 1998)
Figure 103 Details of the Various Segments that Made Up the MDMP (from the point of surface measurements to the upper inner load cell)
Figure 104 The Relationship Between the Pile Impedance and Measured Signals (modified after Rausche, 1981)
Figure 105 Surface Force and Velocity Records of the MDMP Test NB2 Restrike, Blow 1
Figure 106 Test NB2 Restrike CAPWAP Modeling of MDMP Case (1): (a) Best Match Between Measured and Calculated Force at Top and (b) Drill Rods and Pile Geometry Modeling
Figure 107 Test NB2 Restrike CAPWAP Modeling of MDMP Case (2): (a) Best Match Between Measured and Calculated Force at Top and (b) Drill Rods and Pile Geometry Modeling
Figure 108 Test NB2 Restrike CAPWAP Modeling of MDMP Case (3): (a) Best Match Between Measured and Calculated Force at Top and (b) Drill Rods and Pile Geometry Modeling
Figure 109 Modeling of Case (1), Calculated and Measured Forces at the Internal Load Cell Locations for the MDMP Test NB2 Restrike Blow 1 (analysis based on a force match at the surface measurement location only)
Figure 110 Modeling of Case (2), Calculated and Measured Forces at the Internal Load Cell Locations for the MDMP Test NB2 Restrike Blow 1 (analysis based on a force match at the surface measurement location only)
Figure 111 Modeling of Case (3), Calculated and Measured Forces at the Internal Load Cell Locations for the MDMP Test NB2 Restrike Blow 1 (analysis based on a force match at the surface measurement location only)
Figure 112 Surface Force and Velocity Records for MDMP Test NB3 Restrike, Blow 2
Figure 113 Test NB3 Restrike CAPWAP Modeling of MDMP, Case (1): (a) Best Match Between Measured and Calculated Force at Top and (b) Drill Rods and Pile Geometry Modeling
Figure 114 Test NB3 Restrike CAPWAP Modeling of MDMP, Case (2): (a) Best Match Between Measured and Calculated Force at Top and (b) Drill Rods and Pile Geometry Modeling
Figure 115 Modeling of Case (1), Calculated and Measured Forces at the Internal Load Cell Locations for the MDMP Test NB3 Restrike Blow 2 (analysis based on a force match at the surface measurement location only)
Figure 116 Modeling of Case (2), Calculated and Measured Forces at the Internal Load Cell Locations for the MDMP Test NB3 Restrike Blow 2 (analysis based on a force match at the surface measurement location only)
Figure 117 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Installation of MDMP Test NB2 (Cases 1 and 2) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 9.88 m (32.4 ft))
Figure 118 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2 (Cases 1 and 2) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 9.88 m (32.4 ft))
Figure 119 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Installation of MDMP Test NB2 (Case 3) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 8.72 m (28.6 ft))
Figure 120 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Restrike of MDMP Test NB2 (Case 3) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 8.72 m (28.6 ft))
Figure 121 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Installation of MDMP Test NB3 (Case 1) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 13.84 m (45.4 ft))
Figure 122 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3 (Case 1) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 13.84 m (45.4 ft))
Figure 123 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Installation of MDMP Test NB3 (Case 2) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 12.68 m (41.6 ft))
Figure 124 Predicted Pile Capacity for the Restrike of MDMP Test NB3 (Case 2) Based on the Energy Approach Method and the Case Method With Varying Jc Values (assuming pile length is 12.68 m (41.6 ft))
Figure 125 Comparison Between the Measured Static Capacity for MDMP Test NB2 and Predictions Based on the Dynamic Measurements Utilizing Various Methods of Analysis
Figure 126 Comparison Between the Measured Static Capacity for MDMP Test NB3 and Predictions Based on the Dynamic Measurements Utilizing Various Methods of Analysis
Figure 127 Typical Configuration of the Modular MDMP
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of Various Instrumented Model Piles
Table 2 MDMP Static Load Resistance in Soft BBC (Lower Limiting Case)
Table 3 MDMP Static Load Resistance in Dense Sand (Upper Limiting Case)
Table 4 Dynamic Loads and Accelerations in the MDMP during Easy or Hard Driving
Table 5 Summary of Load Cell Capacity Requirements
Table 6 Summary of the MDMP Required Instrumentation Ranges
Table 7 MDMP Component List
Table 8 Top Load Cell Calibration Results
Table 9 Middle Load Cell Calibration Results
Table 10 Bottom Load Cell Calibration Results
Table 11 Dynamic Calibration Results of the MDMP Load Cells
Table 12 Pore Pressure Transducer Calibration Results
Table 13 Total Pressure Cell Calibration Results
Table 14 List of Components as Shown in Figure 28
Table 15 MDMP Data Acquisition and Instrumentation Configuration
Table 16 Sampling Performed at Boring NB1
Table 17 Sampling Performed at Boring NB4
Table 18 Sampling Performed at Boring NB5
Table 19 Sampling Performed at Boring NB2
Table 20 Summary of Soil Properties at the Newbury Site (based on the preliminary test results of Y.L. Chen)
Table 21 The MDMP Static Load Tests During Test NB2
Table 22 The MDMP Final Loading Sequence During Test NB2
Table 23 The MDMP Static Load Tests During Test NB3
Table 24 The MDMP Final Loading Sequence During Test NB3
Table 25 Legend of Events for Pore Pressure Build-Up and Dissipation With Time for Model Pile Test NB2 (see Table 21 for a time schedule)
Table 26 Legend of Events for Pore Pressure Build-Up and Dissipation With Time for Model Pile Test NB3 (see Table 23 for a time schedule)
Table 27 Initial Adjustments to Internal Load Cell Measurements
Table 28 Average Peak Forces Measured at Three Locations in the MDMP
Table 29 Average Peak Velocity Measured at Three Locations in the MDMP
Table 30 Summary of Excess Pore Pressure Dissipation Parameters and their Comparison to a Large Data Set
Table 31 Evaluated Pore Pressure Dissipation Time (Adjusted to the PLS Diameter) Based on the Newbury Test Results Compared With a Large Data Set
Table 32 Summary of Gain of Capacity Parameters and Their Comparison to a Large Data Set
Table 33 Evaluated Gain of Capacity (Adjusted to 152.4-mm Radius Pile) Based on the Newbury Test Results Compared With a Large Data Set
Table 34 Shear Transfer Recorded During NB2 Final Load Test
Table 35 Average Shear Transfer Recorded During NB2 Final Load Test
Table 36 Shear Transfer Recorded During NB3 Final Load Test
Table 37 Average Shear Transfer Recorded During NB3 Final Load Test
Table 38 Variations in the Cross-Section / Impedance Between the Drilling Rods and the MDMP218
Table 39 Energy Approach Capacity Predictions for the MDMP
Table 40 Cross-Sectional Areas for CAPWAP Modeling of the MDMP
Table 41 CAPWAP Results of Test NB2 Restrike, Case (1), Assuming a 9.88-m (32.4-ft) Model Pile Without a Slip Joint
Table 42 CAPWAP Results of Test NB2 Restrike, Case (2), Assuming a 9.88-m (32.4-ft) Model Pile With Slip Joint Modeling
Table 43 CAPWAP Results of Test NB2 Restrike, Case (3), Assuming a 8.72-m (28.6-ft) Model Pile With Pile Ending at Slip Joint
Table 44 CAPWAP Results of Test NB3 Restrike, Case (1), Assuming a 13.84-m (45.4-ft) Model Pile With Slip Joint Modeling
Table 45 CAPWAP Results of Test NB3 Restrike, Case (2),Assuming a 12.68-m (41.6-ft) Model Pile With Pile Ending atthe Slip Joint
Table 46 Summary of the MDMP Final Static Capacities During the Tension (Pull-Out) and Compression Load Tests
Table 47 Summary of the MDMP Instrumentation Ranges
Next
|
