Professional Documents
Culture Documents
J.G.Cannon
ABSTRACT: Dynamic pile testing is used frequently to prove the performance of driven pre-formed piles
in Australia. It is either specified by the designer or is offered as an alternative to conventional static testing
by piling contractors. However, its use on cast in place piles is much less frequent. This paper describes a
project at Noosa Heads in Queensland, Australia where an excellent Grade A correlation has demonstrated
that dynamic testing can provide a good prediction of the load vs displacement behaviour of cast in place piles
even when the pile shaft is not as designed.
The static test pile had the highest over-consumption of concrete at the site, with more than 2 times the
design quantity of concrete used during construction. A non-uniform shaft is known to make dynamic testing
more difficult and probably less accurate. Nevertheless a very good correlation was obtained between the
static test and the dynamic test results for both overall mobilized resistance and the stiffness response of the
pile.
The static test included measurements that demonstrate potential problems with static testing and these
will also be discussed.
1 THE SITE
The site is on Hastings St, which is the commercial/tourist centre of Noosa Heads in Queensland,
Australia. This is located only a few metres behind
a popular surf beach and is immediately adjacent to
a tidal inlet and small river. A geotechnical investigation of the site had been conducted and 4 borehole
logs were provided that described subsoil conditions.
The logs suggest that the site is underlain by coastal
sand dune or beach sand material to a depth of
about 10m and this sand is underlain by very stiff to
hard clays with SPT results generally 35 but some as
low as 18. The sand is loose to moderately dense
with standard penetration test results generally in the
range 10 to 20 but with some higher and some lower
measurements. The SPT results in the sand did not
necessarily increase steadily with depth.
2 THE PILES
The foundation contract was let as a design and construct package and the contractor adopted 600mm
nominal diameter cfa cast in place concrete piles
founded at a depth of about 10m (ie entirely within
the near surface sand with the toe being influenced
by the underlying hard clays). These piles were
of its travel. However the measurements of the reaction beam, which was also deflecting elastically,
show the same behaviour, with almost no deflection
during the last load application cycle. This is shown
in figure 3. The Author considers that the maximum
load applied to the pile did not exceed 1700kN.
Load vs Displacement - Reaction Beam
2500
Applied Load (kN)
The contractor supplied a Hydroquip HQ5 hydraulic piling hammer to strike the piles. Some rebuilding of the hammers hydraulic valving had been
conducted to increase energy transfer efficiency.
Highest energy transfer efficiency during this testing
was 76%, which we consider to be high for a hydraulic hammer with a 5tonne ram striking a solid
concrete pile of this diameter.
Testing generally commenced with one or two
small blows (0.5m stroke) to ensure hammer alignment was satisfactory and then two or three blows of
high energy (1.2m stroke) were applied to gather test
data for later analysis with CAPWAP.
During CAPWAP analysis the pile was modeled
using the construction record but some additional
enlargement of the shaft was required near the top.
The Author considers the additional pressure created
by the shaft extension after the contractors monitoring record was completed justifies this. The model
pile volume in the CAPWAP model was very close
indeed to the recorded volume of 205% of the nominal design
2000
Measured
1500
Expected
1000
500
0
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
5 RESULTS
The static results are summarized in Figure 2,
below together with the CAPWAP load vs deflection
prediction plotted on the same axes.
Hastings St Pile 68B Load vs Displacement
2500
Load (kN)
2000
1500
Static Load
(kN)
1000
Dynamic
Load (kN)
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (mm)
7 REFERENCES
3000
2500
Load (kN)
2000
68 Static
Load (kN)
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
Displacement (mm)
have not experienced high loading and deflection before the test as did the static test pile. However the
initial stiffness in these other dynamic tests is still
maintained to higher loads than shown in the first
cycle of the static test. The Author considers the
small blows applied to the pile at the start of each
test cause this and owing to the previous loading by
the small blows the dynamic test results should be
plotted some distance to the right. The pile with
more preliminary blows prior to the test blow also
showed a higher break point in the prediction of
static load vs deflection, however there were insufficient tests to say that this behaviour has been
proven. Further analysis of the test data may provide more information on this behaviour. In particular it may be worthwhile analyzing several blows
from the one test to assess the change in break
point. It is suggested that if it is hoped to avoid this
behaviour that the number of small blows applied
before the full test blows should be minimized. This
would appear to minimize the preliminary loading
of the pile and thus provide the best prediction of the
first loading deflection behaviour of a cast in place
pile.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic testing appears to be just as valid for
bored cfa piles as for driven pre-formed piles.
Accuracy of the results for bored piles appears similar to driven pre-formed piles provided the pile shaft
can be realistically modeled. This requires some
knowledge of the shape of the pile shaft.