Classical and Finite Difference Method to Estimate pile Capacity Compared With Pile Load Test Results Yogesh Prashar, P.E., GE Force Pulse Conference,

Classical and Finite Difference Method to Estimate pile Capacity Compared With Pile

Load Test Results

Yogesh Prashar, P.E., GE

Force Pulse Conference, DFI

January 2012

Oakley, California

www.m2consultantsinc.com

http://www.m2consultantsinc.com/

Presentation Outline• Description & Background• Pile Load Testing & Results ETC

– 3 Conventional Uplift Tests– 12 RLT Compression

• Theoretical Load Settlement Calculations• FLAC Simulation of Uplift & RLT• Comparisons & Rapid Loading• BART, UCSF, & N4 West• Conclusions

Site Map Site Air Photo

Emeryville, N. California

900’

400’

15-test Pile Locations

12 RLT

3 Uplift -Pile Load Test

16-in Square pre-cast concrete piles

RLT

Conventional Uplift Test

Site Plan & Boring Locations

Cross Section Line A-A’ & B-B’

12 Borings & 7 CPT’s

Laboratory Testing

A’

NTEST AREA

Site Plan & X-Section Line

900-ft

Soil Profile

CU Triaxial TestingDEVIATOR STRESS VS. AXIAL STRAIN

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Axial Strain - %

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s

Confining P ressure = 1.000 ksf Confining P ressure = 2.000 ksfConfining P ressure = 3.000 ksf

Emeryville Soil Profile

*=Friction angle and Cohesion parameters were increased 25 & 50% in parametric analysis

Fill: (pre-drilled)

Soft - Silty Clay

Firm Sandy Clay

Stiff Sandy Clay

V. Stiff Sandy Clay

10’

35’

10’

18’

115 20 0 NA

110 5 200 0.9

125 20/24.5/28.6* 400/500/600* 0.9

130 24/27.9/32.5* 600/750/900* 0.8

130 27/32.5/37.4* 1000/1250/1500* 0.75

No. 16” Square Pile Soil Type g (pcf) f (deg) C (psf) Ca/C

1

2

3

4

5

86’

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

-80.0

-70.0

-60.0

-50.0

-40.0

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

EL

EV

AT

ION

(F

T)

SPT N-VALUE (BLOWS PER FOOT)

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-1

0B

-11

B-1

2B

-13

10.00.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.025.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

PIL

E L

EN

GT

H (

ft)

PILE DRIVING (BLOWS PER FOOT )

IP7

IP8

IP9

IP10

IP5

IP11

IP12

IP13

Pile Driving Blow Counts & N-Values

ASTM D 1143Static Pile Load Test

• Three piles were tested• Load applied with hydraulic jacks• Deflection by Dial indicators• Plotted Measured Load versus deflection• Material Parameters were back calculated to

fit Conventional load deflection curves• Parameters fit within a range of field and lab

tests results

ASTM D 1143

Test Frame

Test Pile

Reinforcing Bars

Wooden Planks

Wooden Planks

Subsurface Soils

Dial Indicators (deformation)

Load Cell (Load)

Ca

RLT Procedure

• 25,000 kg mass dropped on pile from varying heights

• Deflection Measured @ Point of Impact• Force applied to pile top for 200-ms duration• Energy transmitted to pile via anvil and

dampened via springs• Springs recoil and push load up to unload

pile

FUNDEX-PLT BLACK BOX

TEST SETUP

RLT Equipment

Hydraulic Clamp

25,000 kg mass

Damping Springs

Test Pile

Anvil

Subsurface Soils

Black Box Data Rec.

RLT Procedure

RLT Load Application

Rate of LoadingLadd 1974 & Graham 1983

• Su/(Su for e =1%/hr)=1.0+0.1*Log s

• Where:

• Su = Undrained shear strength

• s= Strain

• The resulting loading rate for the RLT is:

3.6X106 Percent/Hour.

• Therefore SI for Cohesive soils is 1.7

Davisson Method - Pile Capacities

• Plot Load versus Deflection• Plot pile elastic shortening line• Compute offsett

d=0.15+0.1(B/12)

• Plot line parallel to elastic shortening line• Compute pile capacity form curve

Theoretical Pile Capacities

• NAVFAC 7.2

• Input parameters:

– Khc=1.5 Kht=0.75 d=0.75

– Ep,=4.415E6-psi Cp,=0.03 as =0.33

• Total Elongation: dt = dp + dfric.

• Total Settlement: dt = dp + dfric. + dtip

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

Uplift Load, kips

Dis

pla

ce

me

nt,

in

ch

es

TP 2

TP 5

TP 11

FLAC Solution

Theoretical Solution

D=0.27-inP=300-KipsL=86-feetA=256-in^2Ec=4.415X10^6psi

=0.283-in

Davisson Limit Offset Line

Uplift Test Analysis & Results

Summary of Results

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Test Pile Number

RLT

Cap

acity

/ Th

eore

tical

Cap

acity

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0

Load (kips)

Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acm

ent (

in)

TP1TP3TP4TP6TP7TP8TP9TP10TP12TP13TP14TP15Theoretical - SI=1.0Theoretical - SI=1.25Theoretical - SI=1.5

=0.73-inP=800-KipsL=86-feetA=256-in^2Ec=4.415X10^6psi

=0.283-in

Upper Bound of All Data


Lower Bound of All Data

RLT & Theory

Numerical Modeling - FLAC• FLAC – 2D Finite Difference Model• Cohesion parameter from CU Triaxial• Mohr Coulomb Model• Pile Element to model 16-inch square pile• Soil pile interaction parameters calibrated to uplift

Test then soil pile stiffness parameters were increased by a factor of 2 for RLT simulations

• Sinusoidal Loading function applied at pile head to simulate RLT

FLAC – Cohesion Block Values FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND

8-Jul- 2 7:07 step 313814 -8.133E+01 <x< 8.133E+01 -1.403E+02 <y< 2.233E+01

cohesion 0.000E+00 3.400E+02 5.100E+03 6.800E+03 8.500E+03

Boundary plot

0 5E 1

Pile plot

-1.300

-1.100

-0.900

-0.700

-0.500

-0.300

-0.100

0.100

(*10^2)

-7.000 -5.000 -3.000 -1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 7.000(*10^1)

JOB TITLE : RLT Simulation With SI 2.0

Kleinfelder Numerical Modeling GrPleasanton, California

y

x

Cohesion in PSF

FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND

8-Jul- 2 7:07 step 313814 -8.133E+01 <x< 8.133E+01 -1.403E+02 <y< 2.233E+01

Boundary plot

0 5E 1

Y-displacement contours 0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02 4.00E-02 5.00E-02 6.00E-02 7.00E-02 8.00E-02 9.00E-02

Contour interval= 1.00E-02Pile plot

-1.300

-1.100

-0.900

-0.700

-0.500

-0.300

-0.100

0.100

(*10^2)

-7.000 -5.000 -3.000 -1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 7.000(*10^1)



FLAC - Y-Displacement Contours

Apply tension load till equilibrium

y

x

Contours in Feet

FLAC – RLT Simulation SI=1.0 FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND

8-Jul- 2 7:06 step 313801 HISTORY PLOT Y-axis :Y Displacement (Nd 2) X-axis :Axial Force (El 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(10 )+04

-4.000

-3.500

-3.000

-2.500

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

(10 )-01



y

x Load (Pounds)

Def

orm

atio

n (F

t)

4.2-inches @ 800,000 lbs

2.2-inches @ 700,000 lbs

Cohesion parameter same as Triaxial Test Results

FLAC – RLT Simulation SI=1.5 FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(10 )+04

-1.200

-1.000

-0.800

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

(10 )-01



y

x Load (Pounds)

Def

orm

atio

n (F

t)

1.4-inches @ 800,000 lbs

Cohesion parameter 1.5 times Triaxial Test Results

FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(10 )+04

-8.000

-7.000

-6.000

-5.000

-4.000

-3.000

-2.000

-1.000

0.000

(10 )-02



FLAC – RLT Simulation SI=2.0

y

x Load (Pounds)

Def

orm

atio

n (F

t)

1.0-inches @ 800,000 lbs

Cohesion parameter 2.0 times Triaxial Test Results

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0

Load (kips)

Pile

Hea

d D

isp

lacm

ent

(in

)

TP1TP3TP4TP6TP7TP8TP9TP10TP12TP13TP14TP15FLAC - SI=1.0FLAC - SI=1.5FLAC - SI=2.0

=0.73-inP=800-KipsL=86-feetA=256-in^2Ec=4.415X10^6psi

=0.283-in Upper Bound of All Data

Lower Bound of All Data


RLT & FLAC

CONCLUSIONS

• Classical theoretical values deviate from observed data at higher loads

• RLT capacity results were about 2.0 X higher than the theoretical values

• A 1.7 X Strength Increase correlates well with published data

• Dynamic nature of the RLT mimic seismic conditions

CONCLUSIONS (CONT.)

• Designer could test several piles per day with RLT in cohesive material calibrate material parameters to match the observed data and then apply strength reduction to “Calibrated” parameters and establish “Ultimate Pile Capacities”

• Lower Factor of Safety could be applied to the “Allowable Pile Capacity”

CONCLUSIONS

• Classical theoretical values deviate from observed data at higher loads

• RLT capacity results were about 2.0 X higher than the theoretical values

• A 1.7 X Strength Increase correlates well with published data

• Dynamic nature of the RLT mimic seismic conditions

Richmond BART and UCSF Mission Bay

Project Type of Pile Pile ID Type of Load Test Observed E (psi)

C-757 Tension 25,000,000

T-754 Tension 22,000,000

T-747 Tension 20,000,000

C-755 Compression 24,000,000

T-747 Compression 25,000,000

Test #5 Compression 15,000,000

Test #3 Compression 15,000,000

Test #7 Tension 17,000,000

Richmond Bart Parking Structure

UCSF Building 19-A

12.75 inch EDTTEX Pile (t = 0.375 inch)

16x22 inch Tubex Grout Injection (TGI) (t = 0.375

inch)

Project Type of PileAverage Observed E

(psi)Calculated E (psi)

Calculated E / Average Observed E

E Correction Factor

0.39

0.45

2.55

2.21

Richmond Bart Parking Structure

UCSF Building 19-A

12.75 inch EDTTEX Pile (t = 0.375 inch)

16x22 inch Tubex Grout Injection (TGI) (t = 0.375

inch)

23,200,000 9,100,000

7,100,00015,666,667

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

De

pth

bel

ow

gro

un

d s

urf

ace

(ft)

Ultimate Capacity (Kips)

Ulti

ma

te C

om

pre

ssiv

e C

ap

acity

Sin

gle

Pile

Ulti

ma

te U

plif

t Ca

paci

ty S

ing

le P

ile

Ulti

ma

te U

plif

t Ca

paci

ty S

ing

le P

ile w

ith S

I Eff

ect

s

Ulti

ma

te C

om

pre

ssiv

e C

ap

acity

Sin

gle

Pile

with

SI E

ffe

cts

BART RLT

BART RLT

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

Pil

e L

eng

th (

ft)

Total Settlement (in)

150

KIP

S T

otal

Se

ttle

men

t (in

)

200

KIP

S T

otal

Se

ttle

men

t (in

)

250

KIP

S T

otal

Se

ttle

men

t (in

)

300

KIP

S T

otal

Se

ttle

men

t (in

)

400

KIP

S T

otal

Se

ttle

men

t (in

)

500

KIP

S T

otal

Se

ttle

men

t (in

)

All

settl

emen

t val

ues

corr

espo

nd to

sin

gle

pile

load

sA

def

lect

ion

of 0

.5"

is u

sed

to d

efin

e th

e fa

ilure

crit

erio

n of

a s

ingl

e pi

le

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

Pil

e L

eng

th (

ft)

Total Settlement (in)

150

KIP

S T

ota

l Se

ttle

me

nt (

in)

200

KIP

S T

ota

l Se

ttle

me

nt (

in)

250

KIP

S T

ota

l Se

ttle

me

nt (

in)

300

KIP

S T

ota

l Se

ttle

me

nt (

in)

400

KIP

S T

ota

l Se

ttle

me

nt (

in)

All

settl

emen

t val

ues

corr

espo

nd to

sin

gle

pile

load

sA

def

lect

ion

of 0

.5"

is u

sed

to d

efin

e th

e fa

ilure

crit

erio

n of

a s

ingl

e pi

le

0.0000.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.6000.7000.8000.9001.0001.1001.2001.3001.4001.5001.6001.7001.8001.9002.0002.1002.2002.3002.4002.5002.6002.7002.8002.9003.000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Applied Load (kips)Pi

le H

ead

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

)

T-749 Compression Test

Elastic Compression of Pile

Davisson Failure Criterion

Ultimate Capacity

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

Applied Load, Kips

De

fle

ctio

n, I

nch

W/o SI W/SI

=0.15+0.1(13/12)=0.25-in

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Applied Load (kips)

Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent (

in)

Test #5 Compression Test


UCSF - Test 19A #5 - Davisson


0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Applied Load (kips)

Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent (

in)


Elastic Deformation of Pile

CALCULATE COMPOSITE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY FOR PIPE PILES

Parameter Value Units Description

Concrete

f'c= 5000.0 PSI Concrete Strengthf'c= 720000.0 PSF Concrete StrengthEc 4030508.7 PSI Elastic Modulus of ConcreteEc 48366103.8 PSF Elastic Modulus of Concrete

Steel 4.8366E+07 PSF Elastic Modulus of ConcreteEs 30000000.0 PSI Elastic Modulus of SteelEs 4320000000.0 PSF Elastic Modulus of Steel

CONCRETEDi 12.8 IN Pile Diameter

Di 1.06 FT Pile Diameter

Ai 127.7 IN^2 AreaAi 0.887 FT^2 AreaIc 1297.0 IN^4 MOIIc 0.063 FT^4 MOI

WALL THICKNESSt 0.38 IN Wall Thicknesst 0.03 FT Wall Thickness

TOTALDt 13.5 IN Pile perimeterDt 1.125 FT Pile perimeterAt 143.1 IN^2 AreaAt 0.994 FT^2 AreaIt 1630.2 IN^4 MOIIt 0.079 FT^4 MOI

STEEL ONLYAs 15.461 IN^2 AreaAs 0.107 FT^2 AreaIs 333.188 IN^4 MOIIs 2.314 FT^4 MOI

COMPOSITE ParametersECOMPOSITE 9338154.6 PSIECOMPOSITE 1344694256.8 PSF

P 300000 Pounds Applied LoadL 972.00 IN Pile LengthL 81.0 FT Pile Length

0.218 in

Dt

Di

Steel Pipe

Concrete

t

TOTAL

CCSSTOTAL I

IEIEE

+=

COMPOSITET EA

LP

=


0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400Applied Load (kips)

Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent (

in)



Davisson Failure Criterion

Ultimate Capacity

UCSF - Test 19A #5 – Chin-Konders - 1

y = 5.25E-04x + 6.10E-04R2 = 9.61E-01

0.00E+00

5.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.50E-03

2.00E-03

2.50E-03

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000

PIle Head Displacement (in)Pi

le H

ead

Dis

plac

emen

t/Lo

ad (i

n/ki

ps)

Test #5 Compression Test Chin-Konders Mehod

Linear (Test #5 Compression Test Chin-Konders Mehod)



UCSF - Test 19A #5 Chin-Konders-2

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000


Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent (

in)

Observed

Calculated

UCSF - Test 19A #5 – Hansen - 1

0.001000

0.001100

0.001200

0.001300

0.001400

0.001500

0.001600

0.001700

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000

Pile Head Displacement (in)

Squa

re R

oot o

f Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent/

Appl

ied

Load

(sqr

t(in

)/ki

ps)

Test #5 Compression Test Hansen Method

UCSF - Test 19A #5 – Hansen 2

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000


Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent (

in)

Measured

Calculated

UCSF - Test 19A #3 – De Beers

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000

Applied Load (kips)

Pile

Hea

d D

ispl

acem

ent (

in)

Test #5 Compression Test De Beers Method

N4 West0 YLABEL Max Vibration0 XLABEL Blow0 LEGENDIFCOBV measurementsoftware. Operator : Donovan0 XDIVISIONS 100 TITLE PSPLT MeasurementN4WEST ########

-1 LABEL Pile 1041 1 0.000551 2 0.001151 3 0.0021271 4 0.0021831 5 0.0017871 6 0.0017621 7 0.0017131 8 0.002238

-2 LABEL Pile 1082 1 0.0006182 2 0.0022072 3 0.0029932 4 0.0037352 5 0.0040072 6 0.003407

-3 LABEL Pile 1143 1 0.0004883 2 0.0036053 3 0.0045633 4 0.006353 5 0.0048173 6 0.011191

Pile 104: Max Vibration vs. Blow

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Blow Number

Vib

rati

on

Pile 108: Max Vibration vs Blow

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

0.003

0.0035

0.004

0.0045

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Blow Number

Vib

rati

on

Pile 114: Max Vibration vs Blow

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Blow Number

Vib

rati

on

0 YLABEL Displacement[inch]0 XLABEL Blow0 LEGENDIFCOBV measurementsoftware. Operator : Donovan0 XDIVISIONS 100 TITLE PSPLT MeasurementN4WEST ########

-1 LABEL Pile 104 adjustmenttotal adjustmentBlow Corrected Displacement 1 0.5 0 = 0 0.5 0 01 1 -0.098954 0 0 1 -0.098954 -0.0989541 1.5 -0.023669 -5.9E-17 5.9E-17 1.5 -0.023669 -0.0236691 1.5 -0.023669 0 1.5 -0.023669 6.5167551 2 -0.223153 0 2 -0.223153 -0.2231531 2.5 -0.028198 -5.55E-17 5.55E-17 2.5 -0.028198 -0.0281981 2.5 -0.028198 0 2.5 -0.028198 -0.8003591 3 -0.365904 0 3 -0.365904 -1.1380651 3.5 -0.040448 0.001138 -0.001138 3.5 -0.041586 -0.8126091 3.5 -0.041586 0.001138 3.5 -0.040448 -0.8137471 4 -0.568704 -0.001138 4 -0.569842 -1.3408651 4.5 -0.060814 0.002847 -0.001709 4.5 -0.062523 -0.8329751 4.5 -0.063661 0.001709 4.5 -0.061952 -0.8358221 5 -0.729697 -0.001709 5 -0.731406 -1.5018581 5.5 -0.096037 -0.009404 0.011113 5.5 -0.084924 -0.8681981 5.5 -0.086633 -0.011113 5.5 -0.097746 -0.8587941 6 -0.891168 0.011113 6 -0.880055 -1.6633291 6.5 -0.114007 -0.013909 0.002796 6.5 -0.111211 -0.8861681 6.5 -0.100098 -0.002796 6.5 -0.102894 -0.8722591 7 -1.101531 0.002796 7 -1.098735 -1.8736921 7.5 -0.138871 -0.018524 0.015728 7.5 -0.123143 -0.9110321 7.5 -0.120347 -0.015728 7.5 -0.136075 -0.8925081 8 -1.437151 0.015728 8 -1.421423 -2.2093121 8.5 -0.174352 -0.174352 0.158624 8.5 -0.015728 -0.946513

0-2 LABEL Pile 108 adjustmenttotal adjustmentBlow Corrected Displacement 2 0.5 0 = 0 0.5 02 1 -0.056339 0 0 1 -0.0563392 1.5 -0.003128 -0.00523 0.00523 1.5 0.0021022 1.5 0.002102 0 1.5 0.0021022 2 -0.327564 0 2 -0.3275642 2.5 -0.016484 -0.00206 0.00206 2.5 -0.0144242 2.5 -0.014424 0 2.5 -0.0144242 3 -0.493572 0 3 -0.4935722 3.5 -0.041575 -0.001099 0.001099 3.5 -0.0404762 3.5 -0.040476 -0.001099 3.5 -0.0415752 4 -0.753945 0.001099 4 -0.7528462 4.5 -0.085644 -0.003087 0.001988 4.5 -0.0836562 4.5 -0.082557 -0.001988 4.5 -0.0845452 5 -0.974413 0.001988 5 -0.9724252 5.5 -0.128047 -0.013823 0.011835 5.5 -0.1162122 5.5 -0.114224 -0.011835 5.5 -0.1260592 6 -1.28542 0.011835 6 -1.2735852 6.5 -0.177318 -0.177318 0.165483 6.5 -0.011835

-3 LABEL Pile 114 adjustmenttotal adjustmentBlow Corrected Displacement 3 0.5 0 = 0 0.5 03 1 -0.091494 0 0 1 -0.0914943 1.5 -0.004316 -0.004245 0.004245 1.5 -7.1E-053 1.5 -0.000071 0 1.5 -0.0000713 2 -0.453654 0 2 -0.4536543 2.5 -0.018358 0.007116 -0.007116 2.5 -0.0254743 2.5 -0.025474 0 2.5 -0.0254743 3 -0.660334 0 3 -0.6603343 3.5 -0.050331 -0.002022 0.002022 3.5 -0.0483093 3.5 -0.048309 -0.002022 3.5 -0.0503313 4 -0.970742 0.002022 4 -0.968723 4.5 -0.08897 -0.017414 0.015392 4.5 -0.0735783 4.5 -0.071556 -0.015392 4.5 -0.0869483 5 -1.222297 0.015392 5 -1.2069053 5.5 -0.136416 -0.010231 -0.005161 5.5 -0.1415773 5.5 -0.126185 0.005161 5.5 -0.1210243 6 -1.674981 -0.005161 6 -1.6801423 6.5 -0.419077 -0.419077 0.424238 6.5 0.005161

Pile 104: Displacement vs Blow

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Blow Number

Dis

pla

ce

me

nt

(in

)

Pile 108: Displacement vs Blow

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Blow Number

Dis

pla

ce

me

nt

(in

)

Pile 114: Displacement vs. Blow

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Blow Number

Dis

pla

ce

me

nt

(in

)

Pile 104: Max Force vs. Max Displacement

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Force (ton)

Dis

pla

cem

ent

(in

)


-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Force (ton)

Dis

pla

cem

ent

(in

)


-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Force (ton)

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (i

n)

Pile 104: Filtered Displacement vs. Filtered Force

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Force (ton)

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (i

n)

Classical and Finite Difference Method to Estimate pile Capacity Compared With Pile

Load Test Results

Yogesh Prashar, P.E., GE

Force Pulse Conference, DFI

January 2012

Oakley, California

www.m2consultantsinc.com

http://www.m2consultantsinc.com/

Documents

Classical and Finite Difference Method to Estimate pile Capacity Compared With Pile Load Test Results Yogesh Prashar, P.E., GE Force Pulse Conference,