Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-RD-99-194
Date: June 2000

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 Pressureu/Sigmav'v Aong the Shaft (h/rGreater than or equal to7) 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, SigmarWith Time, MDMP Test NB2

(b) Total Radial Stress, Sigmar With Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including a possible adjustment)

Figure 52 (a) Total Radial Stress, SigmarWith Time, MDMP Test NB2

(b) Total Radial Stress, SigmarWith Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including a possible adjustment)

Figure 53 (a) Effective Radial Stress, Sigmar' With Time, MDMP Test NB2

(b) Effective Radial Stress, Sigmar' With Time, MDMP Test NB2 (including radial stress measurement adjustment)

Figure 54 (a) Effective Radial Stress, Sigmar' With Time, MDMP Test NB2

(b) Effective Radial Stress, Sigmar' 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 Pressureu/Sigma'v along the shaft (h/r Greater than or equal to 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

 

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration