PILE DRIVING,
TIE BACKS and ANCHORS
Pile Load Testing- All Types
to ASTM Standards
• COFFERDAMS
• SEWER & WATER LINES
• BRIDGES
• MARINE CONSTRUCTION
• DAMS
• SLURRY & BARRIER
WALLS
• HEAVY & INDUSTRIAL
FOUNDATIONS
INTERNATIONAL PROJECT SPOTLIGHT
VALUE ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
TO DIFFICULT PROBLEMS
PILE DRIVING,
TIE BACKS and ANCHORS
Pile Load Testing- All Types
to ASTM Standards
• COFFERDAMS
• SEWER & WATER LINES
• BRIDGES
• MARINE CONSTRUCTION
• DAMS
• SLURRY & BARRIER WALLS
• HEAVY & INDUSTRIAL
FOUNDATIONS
131 California Drive, Williamsville, NY 14221
(716) 632-1125 FAX (716) 632-0705
e-mail piling@HFDarling.com
SERVING NEW YORK, OHIO
and PENNSYLVANIA
of underwater conditions. Besix welded a protective channel to the
pile to maximize the instrumentation survivability.
Both piles were dynamically tested during initial driving.
Restrike testing was also performed after a setup period of seven
days, defined by the engineer. All of the dynamic tests were performed
prior to the static load tests. The main goals of the test
program were to predict skin friction distribution; to estimate total
resistance values to determine pile lengths; and to correlate static
and dynamic testing results. The latter was done in an effort to use
dynamic testing to verify working pile installations and capacities.
Indeed with such soil profiles, the blow counts observed would not
be a good design indicator. Therefore, additional PDAs where performed
to guarantee the pile capacities. GRL Engineers, Inc. was
selected to provide the monitoring on the piles for both static and
dynamic testing procedures.
Test results
Both tension and compression tests were taken to geotechnical
failure loads to optimize foundation pile designs. The failure load
determined by Davisson criterion was estimated to be close to 11.5
MN for the compression test pile (although additional resistance
was evidenced up to a plunging load of 13.3 MN). Of the failure
load, 8.1 MN was estimated to be inside friction while the additional
3.4 MN was estimated in end bearing. Testing proved that
the lower boundary design conditions were vastly exceeded (11.5
MN in total capacity compared to the original minimum boundary
condition with a total capacity estimation of 5 MN) and thus
potential cost savings were evidenced during the test. Figure 1 rep-
Embedded pile instrumentation
Protective channels for embedded instrumentation
90 | QUARTER 1 2016
link
