Embedded data collector (EDC) evaluation, phase II - comparison with instrumented static load tests.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Embedded data collector (EDC) evaluation, phase II - comparison with instrumented static load tests.

Filetype[PDF-3.62 MB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Creators:
  • Corporate Creators:
    University of Florida. Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering
  • Corporate Contributors:
    United States. Dept. of Transportation
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    BDK75 977-24
  • Resource Type:
    Tech Report
  • Geographical Coverage:
    Florida
  • Corporate Publisher:
    Florida. Dept. of Transportation
  • Abstract:
    A total of 139 piles and 213,000 hammer blows were compared between the Embedded Data Collector

    (EDC), the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA), and the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) along with

    SmartPile Review versions (3.6, 3.72, 3.73, 3.76 and 3.76.1):

     Fixed EDC/PDA ratio was consistent (0.89 to 0.97) for all version numbers, with little variability (max

    coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.17);

     UF EDC/PDA ratio was slightly unconservative (1.12) for earlier versions (3.6), but conservative (0.89 to

    0.93) for later releases, with little variability (max CV = 0.18);

     Top pile compressive stresses, CSX (EDC/PDA), were consistent (0.91 to 0.93) for all versions, with little

    variability (max CV = 0.09);

     Bottom pile compressive stresses, CSB (EDC/PDA), ranged from 0.77 for earlier version (3.6), but quickly

    stabilized at 0.74 for all subsequent versions (3.72-3.761), with maximum variability (CV = 0.25);

     Pile tension stress, TSX (EDC/PDA), was slightly unconservative (1.2) for earlier versions (3.6), but was

    conservative (0.87 to 0.90) for all later releases, with max variability (CV = 0.29);

     UF EDC/CAPWAP total capacity ratio varied from 1.0 (ver 3.6) to 0.89 (ver 3.761), with R2 = 0.89;

     UF EDC/CAPWAP skin friction ratio varied from 0.78 to 1.04, with R2

    = 0.57;

     UF EDC/CAPWAP tip resistance ratio varied from 0.85 to 0.93, with R2

    = 0.76.

    A total of 12 static pile test were collected in Florida and Louisiana. From the 12 piles, a total of 17 independent

    measurements (i.e., total, skin, and tip capacities) were recorded. EDC and SmartPile had a bias or  (ratio of

    measured/predicted) of 0.96, CVR, of 0.258 for combined (total, tip and skin) resistances. Using AASHTO,

    2012, the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)  was determined to be 0.65, for a reliability, , of 2.33.

    CAPWAP had a bias, , of 0.91, CVR = 0.311, and LRFD  = 0.54 for =2.33 with inclusion of side friction

    and tip resistance.

  • Format:
    PDF
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov