EVALUATION OF LOAD TESTS FOR DRIVEN PILES FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. Jacob Wayne Hill Certificate of Approval: _______________________ _______________________ David J. Elton Dan A. Brown, Chair Associate Professor Gottlieb Associate Professor Civil Engineering Civil Engineering _______________________ _______________________ Wesley C. Zech George T. Flowers Assistant Professor Interim Dean Civil Engineering Graduate School EVALUATION OF LOAD TESTS FOR DRIVEN PILES FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Jacob Wayne Hill A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 10, 2007 iii EVALUATION OF LOAD TESTS FOR DRIVEN PILES FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JACOB WAYNE HILL Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon the request of individuals or institutions at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. __________________________ Signature of Author __________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Jacob Wayne Hill, son of J. Wayne Hill and Teresa Henderson Hill, was born on December 28, 1983 in Gadsden, AL. He completed high school with distinction at Plainview High School in 2002. He attended Gadsden State Community College on a golf scholarship until December 2003 prior to attending Auburn University. He then entered Auburn University in May 2004 and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in May 2006. He entered graduate school at Auburn University in May 2006. v THESIS ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF LOAD TESTS FOR DRIVEN PILES FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Jacob W. Hill Master of Science, May 10, 2007 (B.C.E., Auburn University, 2006) 122 Typed Pages Directed by Dan A. Brown A study was carried out to evaluate load testing methods for driven piles for the Alabama Department of Transportation. Dynamic and static load test data were assembled to form the database used in this study. The field reported resistances predicted by the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) were compared to 2.5 times the design load for each pile in the study. Blow measurements from the PDA were analyzed using the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) to determine an estimate of ultimate resistance, and compared to the ultimate resistance predicted by the PDA. PDA beta values were compared with results from CAPWAP to confirm pile integrity. Recommendations and conclusions are described for effectively testing driven piles in Alabama. Correlation is shown between PDA beta values and damage indicated from CAPWAP, in addition to correlations between PDA and CAPWAP. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Dr. Dan Brown for his help and guidance throughout the course of this thesis. Special thanks are also due to Mr. Alan Douglas and Ms. Kaye Chancellor from the Alabama Department of Transportation for providing data and/or technical assistance towards this thesis. The author would also like to thank Dr. Wesley Zech and Dr. D.J. Elton for their help towards the completion of this thesis. vii Style manual or journal used ASCE Authors? Guide to Journals, Books, and Reference Publications Computer Software Used Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, CAPWAP viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1 ? INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2 ? LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 3 ? LOAD TEST DATA............................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 4 ? CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................. 35 REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 39 APPENDIX ? PROJECT INFORMATION, SOIL BORINGS, LOAD TEST DATA, CAPWAP RESULTS............................................................................ 41 ix LIST OF FIGURES 1-1. Typical Static Load Test Arrangement with Reaction Piles.................................. 2 1-2. Pile Driving Analyzer............................................................................................. 3 1-3. Strain Transducer and Accelerometer Bolted to a Pipe Pile.................................. 3 2-1. Model of the Hammer, Pile, and Soil System and the Soil Resistance Model...... 8 3-1. Graphical Depiction of the Davisson Criteria........................................................ 19 3-2. Pile that did not Achieve Davisson Failure Criteria............................................... 19 3-3. Pile that did Achieve Davisson Failure Criteria..................................................... 20 3-4. Projects that did or did not Achieve Davisson Failure Criteria.............................. 21 3-5. Maximum Settlement Observed During the Static Load Test................................ 22 3-6. PDA Test Results.................................................................................................... 24 3-7. 1 st Iteration of a CAPWAP Analysis...................................................................... 27 3-8. 2 nd Iteration of a CAPWAP Analysis..................................................................... 29 3-9. 3 rd Iteration of a CAPWAP Analysis...................................................................... 30 3-10. CAPWAP Analysis Results Normalized With that of the PDA............................. 32 3-11. CAPWAP Integrity Results.................................................................................... 34 x LIST OF TABLES 2-1. Summary of CAPWAP Capacity Prediction at Different Time Ratios...................... 14 3-1. Descriptions of Piles Used in this Study..................................................................... 17 3-2. Typical Soil Damping Factors.................................................................................... 23 3-3. Damping Factors and Available Toe Resistance for Each Value of PDA/CAPWAP........................................................................................................... 32 3-4 Beta Guidelines...........................................................................................................33 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) frequently uses driven piles to support bridges and other transportation-related structures. Current load test methods for driven piles used in ALDOT bridge projects are evaluated. Historically, static load tests have been relied upon as an accurate measure of a pile?s ultimate resistance. Ultimate resistance is the maximum resistance mobilized by the positive shaft resistance and toe bearing in the soil(s) in which the pile is bearing. Static load testing involves loading the pile statically by placing increments of load and recording settlements as the load is applied. Because the pile resistance may setup (resistance increases with time) or relax (resistance decreases with time), static load tests often are performed after some wait period so that equilibrium conditions are re- established (FHWA, 1997). These tests can be very time consuming because reaction piles must be installed adjacent to the test pile so that load can be applied. Figure 1-1 is an illustration of a typical static load test arrangement with reaction piles. Typically, load is applied incrementally until the test pile has failed or until the pile?s resistance is at least some factor above the design resistance (usually 2.5 to 3). In most situations, especially in marine environments, static load tests are more time consuming and more expensive compared to the PDA. 2 Figure 1-1. Typical Static Load Test Arrangement with Reaction Piles (FHWA, 1992) The PDA is a computer system which is connected to two strain transducers and two accelerometers bolted to diametrically opposite sides of the pile to monitor strain and acceleration through the theory of wave propagation (Hannigan, Goble, Thendean, Likins, and Rausche, 1997). Figure 1-2 is an illustration of the PDA. These gages can be attached in less than 15 minutes and enable the PDA to analyze each blow as to analyze various parameters. Figure 1-3 shows the arrangement of the transducer and accelerometer arrangement. In addition to capacity, the PDA analyzes each blow for transferred energy, driving stresses, and structural integrity based on input pile properties such as pile length below the transducers, specific weight, wave speed, elastic modulus, and cross-sectional area. The PDA allows the inspector to monitor the pile for damage throughout driving which is not possible with static load tests. All of this testing can occur as a test pile is installed. Although the PDA has been in routine use for over 30 years with obvious performance and economic benefits, skepticism still exists because dynamic testing doesn?t allow the inspector to actually see the pile being loaded. 3 Figure 1-2. Pile Driving Analyzer (FHWA, 1997) Figure 1-3. Strain Transducer and Accelerometer Bolted to a Pipe Pile (FHWA, 1992) 4 Limitations Many benefits exist with the PDA, however certain limitations exist. The PDA?s estimated resistance of a pile can be interpreted in different ways, thus possibly introducing human subjectivity. The reliability of these different values is a function of the type of pile, soil, and damping factor (PDA manual, 2001). During testing, the PDA operator must choose a damping factor that he/she determines is the best indication of the soil present at the pile tip. The estimated resistance is a function of the selected damping factor. Therefore, the results are subject to the knowledge of the operator which can result in error. Research has shown that PDA measurements from end of drive measurement are often highly variable. On a particular project, the PDA underpredicted static resistance by 44 percent (Long, Maniaci, and Samara, 2002). Underpredicted static resistance may be attributed to setup in the soil over time after initial driving. The same research study reports that the PDA just slightly underpredicts resistance by 7 percent when used during restrike. A restrike is the act of driving the pile after some wait period after initial driving to obtain a more reasonable estimate of long term resistance. Restriking the pile after some wait period (hours or days) allows the soil to equilibrate, thus producing a better estimate of the pile?s ultimate resistance. This suggests that the precision of the long-term resistance from PDA measurements is highly uncertain at the end of drive and improves with the beginning of restrike measurements in soils with anticipated time dependent changes. Although the PDA can offer reasonable results when used in conjunction with a restrike, it has been shown that the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) offers 5 the best estimation of long-term resistance when used on restrike blow measurements (Long, Maniaci, and Samara, 2002). CAPWAP is a more rigorous and time consuming analytical method that combines field measured data with wave equation type procedures to predict the pile?s static bearing capacity, resistance distribution, and soil quake and damping characteristics (FHWA, 1997). CAPWAP can be performed on any single hammer blow; however it is typically used to analyze blows at the end of driving or beginning of restrike. CAPWAP is an iterative process that involves measuring and calculating forces and plotting those forces as a function of time (Hussein, Likins, Rausche, 1988). The soil model is changed and the process repeated until no further improvement in the force match can be obtained. The resulting soil model is then considered the best estimate of static bearing capacity, soil resistance distribution along the pile shaft, and the soil quake and damping characteristics (Hannigan, Goble, Thendean, Likins, and Rausche, 1997). Objective The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate dynamic load testing methods for driven piles for ALDOT. Methodology This study progressed in the following manner: 1.) Assemble a database of dynamic load test data and static load test data. 2.) Compare field reported estimated resistance from the PDA with 2.5 times the design load. 3.) Perform CAPWAP analyses on dynamic load test data collected from the PDA. 6 4.) Evaluate reliability of ALDOT dynamic load test methodology with anticipated static resistance using CAPWAP results. 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Driven piles have long been used to support various structures such as buildings, dams, bridges, and offshore structures. Primarily, deep foundations are used to transfer loads to deeper, stronger soils while also controlling settlements. Piles can be installed in a variety of soils in a multitude of environments. Regardless of the situation, the static bearing resistance of piles must be confirmed through testing, thus ensuring that it can support the service loads for which it was designed. Traditionally, static load testing of driven piles and drilled shafts has been deemed the most reliable method of determining static bearing resistance, although there are other methods to supplement static load tests such as dynamic testing, dynamic formulae and neural networks. Pile load tests are often used on preliminary and production piling to confirm bearing resistance and increase quality control. Unfortunately, there are certain constraints such as large capacity piles or offshore environments that prohibit the use of static load tests. In these cases, dynamic load tests are often performed, but the reliability of these tests in determining static bearing capacity is often questioned. Background Over a century ago, it was recognized that pile driving was a phenomenon that could be better approximated by wave propagation (Hussein, Likins, Rausche, 1988). 8 Although the theory was unrealistic at first, the invention of the computer made wave propagation practical for pile driving; thus resulting in what is known today as the wave equation. The wave equation has the ability to realistically consider the entire hammer- cushion-pile-soil system. The entire driving system is modeled as a series of masses and springs where the size and stiffness of the springs reflect the mass and stiffness of various components of the system while the soil is modeled by a series of elasto-plastic springs and linear viscous dashpots (Hussein, Likins, Rausche, 1988). A schematic of the entire system model is shown in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-1. Model of the Hammer, Pile, and Soil System and the Soil Resistance Model (Rausche, Liang, Allin, and Rancman, 2004) 9 Wave equation analysis can be instrumental in answering one or both of the following questions (Hussein, Likins, Rausche, 1988): 1.) Can the pile be safely driven to the required capacity given a complete description of pile, soil, hammer, and cushion properties? 2.) What is the static bearing capacity of the pile based on recorded pile driving observations? Although the wave equation can offer answers to these questions, piles should be monitored during driving in order to assure accurate results (Hussein, Likins, Rausche, 1988). One of the first attempts to actually take measurements during pile driving dates back to 1948 in Sweden when Bror Fellenius, head of Swedish State Railroads Geotechnical Department, attempted to take measurements during the hammer impact (Fellenius, 1996). Fellenius used three nickels sandwiched between two smooth steel plates. When the hammer struck the pile, each nickel left a lasting circular impression on the steel plates. The diameter of the impressions was then used to determine a force measurement. Unfortunately, nothing ever became of this experiment. Later in 1956, Fellenius met with Dr. Hans Christian Fischer, who had previously performed dynamic tests on drill rods using strain gages. Fischer was able to test steel piles with strain gages and show the effect of various hammers on the magnitude of the reflected stress waves using graphodynamic representation. This advancement allowed the Swedish State Railways to establish a means for hammer selection and termination criteria. 10 In the late 1950?s and early 1960?s, the Swedish began to learn more about dynamic pile testing through the Gubbero testing program. It was during this program that short duration strain measurements allowed information to be obtained on soil response and driving stresses. While the Swedish were researching testing of driven piles, so were researchers in the United States. The first noted research of dynamic testing techniques of driven piles took place in 1958 by R.J. Eiber and Professor H.R. Nara by performing lab studies of rods driven into dry sands (Hannigan, Goble, Thendean, Likins, and Rausche, 1997). Later in 1964, a study began by Professors R.H. Scanlan and G.G. Goble. Unlike the Swedish researchers, Scanlan and Goble performed research on transducers that could measure force and velocity during pile driving. These measurements allowed engineers to realize qualitatively the distribution of shaft resistance and the significance of toe resistance (Fellenius, 1996). Although Scanlan left this research effort after two years, Goble continued and created what is known today as the PDA. The PDA was implemented into Ohio Department of Transportation pile driving projects in 1968, and was commercialized in 1972. Now, the PDA is recognized as the standard inspection tool for pile installations. The PDA system typically consists of two strain transducers and two accelerometers bolted to diametrically opposite sides of the pile to monitor strain and acceleration. The transducers and accelerometers can be attached to most any pile in 15 minutes or less, thus decreasing construction time while increasing quality control (Likins, 1984). These gages enable the PDA to analyze each blow as to analyze various parameters. In addition to capacity, the PDA analyzes each blow for transferred energy, driving stresses, and structural integrity. In the event a 11 problem is detected such as reduced cross-sectional area, the operator will receive a warning. All warnings shall be evaluated to avoid issues that could compromise the structural integrity of a pile. Although the PDA has been in routine use now for over 30 years, concerns still arise regarding the reliability of it. Although the PDA and the CASE method can offer reasonable results, selected blows should be analyzed using the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP). CAPWAP is a more rigorous analytical method that combines field measured data with wave equation type procedures to predict the pile?s static bearing capacity, resistance distribution, and soil quake and damping characteristics (Hannigan, Goble, Thendean, Likins, and Rausche, 1997). Typically, CAPWAP is performed on a single hammer blow from the end of driving or beginning of restrike. CAPWAP is an iterative process that involves measuring and calculating forces and plotting those forces as a function of time (Hussein, Likins, Rausche, 1988). If the forces do not match, the soil model is changed and the process repeated until no further improvement in the force match can be obtained. The resulting soil model is then considered the best estimate of static bearing capacity, soil resistance distribution, and the soil quake and damping characteristics. Estimation of static resistance of driven piles is also possible through the use of neural networks. Neural networks are computer models that mimic the organizational skills and knowledge acquisition of the human brain (Goh, 1996). Neural networks use data from previous case records to predict the static resistance, thus force and velocity records from historical projects can be input into the network as a basis for estimating static resistance on future projects (Teh, Wong, Goh, and Jaritngam, 1997). 12 Correlation Studies Long, Maniaci, and Samara evaluated results from two static load tests in Jacksonville, Illinois compared with dynamic method predictions on steel H-piles (Long, Maniaci, and Samara, 2002). Static load tests were performed on the morning of August 27, 1997 and September 11, 1997, respectively. Restrike of each pile was performed on the same day of its respective static load test. Axial capacity was evaluated by six prediction methods including CAPWAP, Engineering News formula, Wave Equation, Gates Formula, PDA, and the Measured Energy approach. The ratio of predicted capacity by CAPWAP to measured capacity (Q p /Q m ) for the first pile was 1.05, while the second pile reported a ratio of 0.90. It was concluded that the use of CAPWAP with beginning of restrike data provides the greatest precision of all methods investigated. Another conclusion was formed indicating that there was no significant difference between predictions made for H-piles and predictions made for other piles. Holm, Jansson, and Moller performed a study on dynamic and static load testing of friction in loose sands (Holm, Jansson, and Moller, 1985). The piling project was located in Fittja, ten km south of Stockholm, Sweden. The five piles were 270 mm square precast concrete piles ranging in length from 16 ? 28 meters. The piles were statically tested and failure was defined by the Davisson criteria. Restrike was performed within one week of static load testing, and a CAPWAP analysis was performed on selected restrike blows. Reasonable agreement was obtained based according to CAPWAP and static load test. The ratio of static bearing capacity by CAPWAP (Q p ) to the actual static load test (Q m ) results were 0.83 ? 1.16. The authors concluded that these dynamic load 13 tests of friction piles have given about the same bearing capacity as static load tests and could be used in place of static load tests in this case. Long and Wysockey performed a study on the accuracy of methods for predicting axial capacity of deep foundations (Long and Wysockey, 1999). A collection of approximately 100 load tests, all of which were loaded to failure, from an FHWA database were used in this study. It was noted that including only tests conducted to failure would produce conservative results because including unfailed load tests would serve to decrease the mean and standard deviation of the sample. Unfailed tests are likely the stronger materials, therefore a sample which excludes the strongest results in a biased sample. They investigated the accuracy of six different methods including CAPWAP. The ratio of beginning of restrike prediction to measured prediction by CAPWAP was 0.86. Although times between static load tests and restrike were not noted, it was concluded that CAPWAP results in the greatest precision when a restrike is performed. A study was performed by Dr. Dan Brown on the comparison of dynamic and static measurements on the Tampa Crosstown Freeway in Tampa, Florida (Brown, 2005). Brown used data that included a total of nine tests from both drilled shafts and smaller diameter augercast piles with capacities exceeding 560 tons. The mean predicted bearing capacity ratio from CAPWAP to the measured capacity by static load testing was 0.90 with a coefficient of variation of 0.186. It was concluded that CAPWAP estimated a static resistance that is on average considered to be equal to the actual static resistance. Likins, Rausche, Thendean, and Svinkin conducted a CAPWAP correlation study on 82 piles from the GRL database (Likins, Rausche, Thendean, and Svinkin, 1996). The database consists of piles from all over the world. The cases used in this study were 14 performed over a number of years, and thus included different versions of CAPWAP and analysis by different engineers. Due to this fact, the dynamic data was reanalyzed with CAPWAP, Version 1.993-1 using the automatic function for a consistent comparison. These data were later analyzed with a best match soil model and a radiation damping soil model. After the analyses were completed, a comparison was made after finding the ratios of predicted static resistance by CAPWAP to the measured static resistance. See Table 2-1 for results. It was concluded that CAPWAP restrike results are clearly superior to other resistance prediction methods. Table 2-1: Summary of CAPWAP Capacity Prediction at Different Time Ratio (Likins, Rausche, Thendean, and Svinkin, 1996) Mean (CW/LTP) Coefficient of Variation Time Ratio 1 No. of Piles Automatic Best Match Radiation Damping Automatic Best Match Radiation Damping less than 0.33 30 0.94 0.89 1 0.29 0.17 0.21 0.33 - 1.25 41 0.98 0.95 1.03 0.18 0.15 0.09 greater than 1.25 11 0.97 0.96 1.04 0.2 0.16 0.13 Note: 1 ? ?Time Ratio? is ratio of ?time after driving until restrike? divided by ?time after driving until static test?. Conclusion Past research show that dynamic testing predictions by CAPWAP prove to correlate reasonably well with static load test measurements when using restrike data at similar time after installation. The restrike should be performed at about the same time as the static load test because soil setup or relaxation could cause an error between the predicted and measured results. Also, static load tests should be carried to failure defined 15 by a criteria such as the Davisson criteria so that the ultimate resistance can be accurately defined, thus creating a more reliable comparison. The proper damping model should be used to create the best soil model. Although certain project constraints can prevent these things from occurring, attempting a restrike as soon as possible after the static load test should create the best possible correlation. 16 CHAPTER 3 LOAD TEST DATA Introduction Thirty projects from the Alabama Department of Transportation database were selected to form the database for which research was performed. A table of project information is shown in Table 3-1. More detailed information for each specific project including soil boring, CAPWAP output, and load-settlement plots are provided in the Appendix. Data were gathered from projects that took place between the years of 2001 and 2005 with the addition of one project from 1995. Other data were available from that period, however not all pile-driving projects had dynamic load tests and static load tests performed on the same pile. The projects selected consisted of projects that had both a dynamic load test using the PDA and static load tests performed on the same test pile so that comparisons could be performed. Projects older than 2001 did not have sufficient records of dynamic load test data for use in this research. 17 Table 3-1. Descriptions of Piles Used in this Study. 18 Static Load Tests The Alabama Department of Transportation carries out static load tests to confirm the static resistance of driven piles. The data gathered indicated that piles are not typically tested to failure. Instead, ALDOT tests piles to a prescribed load, either 2.5 or 3 times the design load and evaluates failure according to the Davisson Criteria. The Davisson criterion was proposed by M.T. Davisson in 1972, and has become a commonly accepted criteria to determine whether or not pile resistance has been fully mobilized. According the the Davisson Criteria, failure corresponds to the elastic shortening of the pile plus 0.15 inches plus a factor for the diameter of the pile (d/120) as shown in Figure 3-1 (FHWA, 1997). This criterion is based on the assumption that a pile acts a free column. According to the Davisson Criteria, a pile is deemed to fail when the settlement due to the applied load crosses the Davisson line on the load-settlement plot. If the load- settlement line does not intersect the line, then the pile has an ultimate resistance greater than the maximum applied load. The Davisson Criteria is defined as follows: S f = AE PL + 0.15 + 120 d Where: S f = Settlement at Failure (inches) P = Applied Load L = Length of Pile (inches) A = Cross-Sectional Area E = Elastic Modulus d = Pile Diameter (inches) 19 Figure 3-1. Davisson Failure Criteria (Kyfor, Schnore, Carlo, and Baily, 1992) See Figure 3-2 for a pile that did not achieve Davisson failure criterion and see Figure 3-3 for a pile that did achieve the Davisson failure criterion. NHF-0001 (512) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 3 9 15 2 1 2 7 33 39 45 5 1 5 7 63 69 75 8 1 8 7 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTL EM EN T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT DAVISSON Figure 3-2. Pile that did not achieve Davisson failure criterion 20 ER-7527(2) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 2040608010120 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET T L E M E N T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT DAVISSON Figure 3-3. Pile that did achieve Davisson failure criterion Failure criteria were evaluated for all projects in the database. Of all thirty projects reviewed, only one static load test pile was observed to fully mobilize the axial resistance according to the Davisson criterion, and this ?failure? occurred at approximately three times design. These data indicate that pile design may be conservative. Therefore, piles could carry much higher loads or be driven less hard for the given loads. See Figure 3-4 for the number of projects that achieved or failed to achieve Davisson criteria during a static load test. 21 Evaluation of Static Load Tests 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Did not Achieve Davisson Achieved Davisson Test Results # of Te s t s Figure 3-4. Projects that did or did not achieve Davisson Failure Criterion 22 Settlement of a pile during a transient loading event is of interest to engineers because excessive settlements may cause catastrophic failures. ALDOT provided load ? settlement plots from the static load tests of all thirty projects. None of the projects exhibited more than one inch of settlement. See figure 3-5 below for maximum settlement observed during the static load test. Settlement at Maximum Applied Load 0 5 10 15 20 25 0.25 or less 0.26 - 0.5 0.51 - 0.75 0.76 - 1.0 Settlement (inch) # o f P r o j ect s Figure 3-5. Maximum Settlement Observed During the Static Load Test Dynamic Load Tests All of the selected projects were subjected to a dynamic test by the PDA either during initial driving or after a brief waiting time or both. The PDA resistances used in this study were the actual resistances selected and recorded by ALDOT?s PDA operator which is understood to be a single operator. Obviously, operator selection of the soil parameters can introduce subjectivity into the selection of pile resistance. 23 Estimated static resistance from the PDA is a function of the soil damping factor selected by the operator. The soil damping factor is the relationship between resistance and velocity, assuming a linear relationship. This dimensionless factor is based on soil type near the pile toe (FHWA, 1997). Typical values of Case damping factors are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Case Damping Factors (FHWA, 1997). Soil Type at Pile Toe Case Damping Ranges Pile Dynamics (1996) Clean Sand 0.10 to 0.15 Silty Sand, Sand Silt 0.15 to 0.25 Silt 0.25 to 0.40 Silty Clay, Clayey Silt 0.40 to 0.70 Clay 0.7 or higher Since only one of the static load tests was carried to failure, the estimated static resistance from the PDA cannot be directly compared to the measured resistance indicated from the static load tests. However, a comparison can be made relating to the following question: -Did the PDA test correctly indicate that the test pile would support 2.5 times the design load, as indicated by the static load test on all 30 piles? As illustrated in Figure 3-6, the PDA measurements indicated sufficient static resistance in 26 of the 30 piles. The 4 projects that did not achieve 2.5 times the design load may imply one or more of the following: -The driving system may not have mobilized all the soil resistance acting on the pile. 24 -H-piles which do not bear on rock may behave differently under dynamic and static loading conditions, thus a difference between predicted and measured resistance occur (FHWA, 1997). -Pore pressures could build up during driving, thus decreasing resistance. -Dynamic testing estimates the static pile capacity at the time of testing, thus setup or relaxation could occur since there is often several hours, or even days, before a static load test is performed. PDA Test Results 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Achieved 2.5 times design Did not achieve 2.5 times design Test Results # of Te s t s Figure 3-6. PDA Test Results 25 CAPWAP Of the thirty selected projects, twenty were subjected to a CAPWAP analysis, performed as a part of this research. The other ten projects were no longer available on a data file; therefore CAPWAP could not be performed. CAPWAP was performed to compare with predicted resistances selected by the PDA operator, in addition to confirming integrity of the tested piles. CAPWAP utilizes PDA measurements from a specific blow obtained during driving to obtain a more realistic estimate of ultimate resistance. PDA measurements of force and velocity at the pile top are compared in order to determine the forces reflected from the soil resistance acting along the pile length. The reflected forces are termed ?wave-up? measurements. CAPWAP is an iterative process comparing the predicted wave-up response versus the measured wave-up response from a computer simulation of the test. Match quality is a computed index of the correlation between measured and computed response which gives the user an idea of the accuracy of the resulting pile capacity. For example, a match quality of 20 would indicate a bad estimate of static resistance, whereas a match quality of 2 would indicate a reasonable estimate of static resistance. In theory, CAPWAP provides a more accurate interpretation of ultimate resistance from the PDA measurement. However, if an operator were to pick a blow for analysis that does not have adequate transferred energy or contains disproportional wave- up and wave-down curves, then the resulting estimated resistance will not result in an accurate estimate of resistance. In the event the pile driving hammer does not mobilize the full resistance of a pile, the resulting resistance will be inaccurate. 26 CAPWAP analysis is very time consuming because much iteration with operator input is usually necessary to obtain a good match quality. For this effort, it was common for the CAPWAP user to spend 2 hours or more to obtain a good estimate of static resistance. At this time, CAPWAP is too time-consuming to perform in the field; therefore it is often carried out in the operator?s office. An example CAPWAP analysis procedure is shown below: 1.) The user should select a blow measurement from the PDA with good proportionality and adequate transferred energy and permanent set to mobilize the full resistance along the pile. 2.) Import that blow into CAPWAP 3.) Input the blow count or set per blow. 4.) Input the cross-sectional area of the pile. 5.) Build pile model with initial estimates of soil resistance along the pile length. CAPWAP automatically has default pile segments of 1 meter. Segment lengths can be changed if the CAPWAP engineer believes 1 meter segments are not appropriate for the given project. 6.) Run CAPWAP. The user can choose to perform a single analysis or an automatic analysis in which CAPWAP automatically perform the iterations to find the best match. If the automatic analysis is performed, the results should be checked thoroughly by an experienced engineer to be sure that it is in fact a reasonable solution. The single analysis allows the user to modify the soil parameters and resistance distribution to improve the match quality and most reliably model the resistance on the test pile. 27 After performing the analysis, the screen like the one shown in Figure 3-7 below should appear. Figure 3-7. 1 st iteration of a CAPWAP analysis 28 The user would like to match the dashed line (wave-up computed) with the solid line (wave-up measured). As shown in Figure 3-7, the measured and computed wave up curves do not match. The match quality of 1001 is shown in the top left-hand corner of the screen. An ideal match quality might be between 0.5 and 5, so this is a bad match. For this particular iteration, it was assumed that all the resistance was along the pile shaft. Based on the match quality, toe resistance must be available so a second iteration must be performed as shown in Figure 3-8. 29 Figure 3-8. 2 nd iteration of a CAPWAP analysis For the second iteration, a toe resistance of 61 kips was entered into the resistance distribution with a corresponding decrease in shaft resistance. The resistance distribution is shown in the left-hand side of the screen. The analysis was performed and it was 30 noticed that the measured and computed waves matched much better than the previous iteration. This is obvious due to the fact the match quality decreased from 1001 to 3.22. Although the match quality may be acceptable, a third iteration will be performed to determine if further improvement can be obtained. Figure 3-9. 3 rd iteration of a CAPWAP analysis 31 For the 3 rd iteration, a toe resistance 110 kips was entered into the resistance with a corresponding decrease in shaft resistance. The toe damping factor was also increased from 0.42 to 0.65 to account for fine grain soils near the pile toe. This analysis resulted in another improvement of match quality. As one can see, the measured and computed waves match up very well. The resulting match quality of 2.37, an improvement from the previous match quality of 3.22, indicates an acceptable match. No further iterations aided in the further improvement of match quality, therefore the resistance distribution and soil parameters shown in Figure 3-9 are assumed to be the best model of resistance distribution and soil parameters. For each CAPWAP analysis, a specific blow or multiple blows were analyzed until a desired match quality was obtained. Every effort was made to select a hammer blow for analysis that was at or near end of drive with sufficient energy transfer such that reasonable results could be obtained. After analysis was performed, the predicted ultimate resistance obtained from CAPWAP was compared with the predicted ultimate resistance from the PDA. In theory, CAPWAP offers a better estimate of ultimate resistance than the PDA. The estimated static resistances from CAPWAP were normalized with that of the PDA as a means of determining the reliability of the PDA field measurements. From these data, the average PDA/CAPWAP was 1.23 with a standard deviation of 0.46 and a coefficient of variation of 0.38. These data suggests that PDA may be overestimating static resistance relative to CAPWAP. This could imply that CAPWAP analyses should be carried out to confirm the estimated resistance measured by the PDA. No correlations could be made between the damping factors and the ratio of static resistance predicted by 32 PDA to that of CAPWAP. See Figure 3-10 below for the ratios of static resistance indicated by the PDA and CAPWAP. Table 3-3 provides damping factors and percentage of available toe resistance for each value of PDA/CAPWAP. CAPWAP Analysis Results 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.75 or less 0.76 - 1.00 1.01 - 1.25 1.26 - 1.50 1.51 and greater PDA/CAPWAP # o f A n al yse s Figure 3-10. Ratio of Static Resistance Indicated by PDA to that of CAPWAP Table 3-3. Damping Factors and Available Toe Resistance for each value of PDA/CAPWAP CAPWAP Damping Factors PDA/CAPWAP PDA Damping Factor Toe Shaft % Toe Resistance 0.4 0.15 0.24 0.87 4 0.8 0.2 0.27 0.7 15 0.93 0.1 0.44 0.16 84 0.96 0.4 0.65 1.25 40 1.07 0.1 0.36 0.19 62 1.07 0.15 0.26 0.36 76 1.16 0.62 0.36 0.72 25 1.17 0.11 0.28 0.46 31 1.17 0.3 0.55 0.43 23 1.28 0.45 0.8 1.25 51 1.3 0.3 0.16 1.26 26 1.31 0.1 0.29 0.3 20 1.55 0.1 0.35 0.53 30 1.81 0.15 0.18 0.52 47 2.44 0.1 0.1 0.5 21 33 CAPWAP reports damage at some point along the pile based on blow data obtained from the PDA. During monitoring, the PDA checks for changes in impedance (EA/C) throughout driving. Measured values of elastic modulus, cross-sectional area, and wavespeed are entered into the PDA prior to driving the pile. With each blow, the PDA checks for a change in impedance which would indicate a discontinuity at some point along the pile which could be due to cracks for example. Any change in impedance (EA/C) detected will be compared to the measured impedance originally entered into the PDA and the ratio of the detected impedance to the measured impedance is reported as beta as shown below. A discontinuity should cause a tensile wave reflection. Thus, a wave reflected from some point along a pile other than the toe means that a possible discontinuity exists. Beta guidelines are shown in Table 3-3. Beta is reported as a percentage as follows: [(EA/C) detected /(EA/C) measured ] x 100 Where: E = elastic modulus A = cross-sectional area C = wave speed (function of pile material) Table 3-4. Pile Damage Guidelines (FHWA, 1997). Beta (%) Severity of Damage 100 Undamaged 80 to 100 Slightly Damaged 60 to 80 Damaged Below 60 Broken 34 Beta values for all piles in this study were evaluated for possible damage. 5 of the steel HP piles in this study had beta values ranging from 74% to 78%, respectively. These beta values were compared with damage reported by CAPWAP, and the beta values agreed with CAPWAP reported damage in all 5 cases. Based on these data, it is possible that 5 piles in this study were damaged. See Figure 3-11 below for results. CAPWAP Integrity Results 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Damaged No Indicated Damage Results # o f A n al y ses Figure 3-11. CAPWAP Integrity Results It was observed that each damaged pile was a steel H-pile. Damage could have occurred due to buckling or bending during overdriving. However, damage was not reported on any of the driving records obtained from ALDOT. No concrete piles used in this study indicated damage from either CAPWAP or the PDA. 35 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Description of the Study A study was carried out on a database consisting of thirty pile projects from ALDOT bridge projects. The projects selected consisted of projects with both a dynamic and static load test performed on the same pile. Of the thirty selected projects, twenty were subjected to a CAPWAP analysis based on the PDA data provided by ALDOT. All of this information was analyzed as a means of evaluating driven pile load testing methods used on ALDOT bridge projects. The static load tests were evaluated according to the Davisson criteria as an indication of failure. 29 of the 30 piles in the database did not achieve Davisson failure criteria. Therefore, a direct comparison between the PDA estimated resistance and measured resistance could not be performed. In order to evaluate the PDA measurements by more rigorous methods, CAPWAP analysis of static representative blows were performed and compared with field PDA reports to give an indication of the reliability of the PDA predicted resistances. PDA values were obtained from records obtained from ALDOT. The resistances used in this study were the actual values selected and recorded by ALDOT?s PDA operator and were not modified in any manner. These estimated resistances were 36 compared to 2.5 times the design load and it was realized that the PDA predicted resistance was not adequate in 4 of the 30 projects. Twenty of the thirty projects were subjected to a CAPWAP analysis from PDA data provided by ALDOT. CAPWAP was performed on specific blows selected by the operator. The selected blows were believed to offer the best possible indication of static resistance based on the provided data. Derived static resistance from CAPWAP was compared with PDA values provided by ALDOT. Summary Conclusions 1.) Pile design for the ALDOT projects surveyed appears to be conservative with respect to axial resistance. According to the Davisson failure criteria, only one project had a static load resistance less than three times the design load, and at the end of the test it exhibited only 0.7 inches of settlement. None of the projects exhibited a maximum settlement greater than 1 inch. Damage was indicated by CAPWAP on five of the twenty projects analyzed. All projects with indicated damage consisted of steel H-piles. However, no prestressed concrete piles in this study indicated damage. Beta values available in the PDA records confirmed the possible damage. Nothing in the driving records showed that damage was noted by the operator in any of the projects. 2.) PDA indicated a static resistance equal to or greater than 2.5 times the design load in 26 of the 30 projects surveyed. These data could be subject to the following: i.) The pile driving system may not have fully mobilized resistance, thus exhibiting resistance estimations lower than the ultimate static resistance. 37 ii.) These values are operator dependent and could vary with the reliability of selected soil parameters. 3.) CAPWAP analysis indicated that the PDA may have overestimated static resistance in 11 of the projects. On the other hand, CAPWAP indicated that the PDA may have underestimated static resistance on 4 projects. CAPWAP values were normalized with that of the PDA. From this data, the average PDA/CAPWAP was 1.23 with a standard deviation of 0.46 and a coefficient of variation of 0.38. This might suggest the following: i.) The PDA indication of resistance is subject to variability due to the simple algorithm used and operator-selected parameters. ii.) PDA predicted capacities can overpredict static resistance when compared with CAPWAP resistance estimates. Summary Recommendations 1.) Based on this study, piles could typically be designed for much higher loads or driven less hard for the given loads on ALDOT projects. 2.) More attention should be given to beta values from the PDA during driving, and note any possible damage on the driving records. 3.) Perform CAPWAP analysis on projects where beta values indicate damage to confirm the possibility. If damage is confirmed by CAPWAP, then appropriate measures should be take by ALDOT to ensure that piles are not overdriven. 38 Thoughts on Future Research In order to evaluate the reliability of dynamic load tests, ALDOT should perform static load tests to failure and perform restrikes on all piles subjected to a static load test. This would allow a statistical reliability study to be performed comparing the estimated resistance to the failure resistance from the static load tests as defined by criteria such as the Davisson failure criteria. Other states such as the Illinois Department of Transportation have conducted such studies and have found that good correlation exists between static load test measurements and predicted ultimate resistance from CAPWAP on restrike measurements (Long, Maniaci, and Samara, 2002). 39 REFERENCES Brown, D.A., ?Report to the Florida Department of Transportation on Large Diameter Drilled Shafts on the Tampa Crosstown Freeway, January 2005. Fellenius, B.H., (1996), ?Reflections on Pile Dynamics?, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, FL. September 11-13, 1996, keynotes 1-15. Goble, G.G., and Likins, G.E., Jr., ?On the Application of PDA Dynamic Pile Testing?, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, FL. September 11-13, 1996, p.263-273. Goble, G. G., and Hussein, M. H., (2000), ?Deep Foundation Capacity ? What is it??, Performance Confirmation of Constructed Geotechnical Facilities, ASCE. p. 115-123. Goh, A.T.C., (1996), ?Pile Driving Records Reanalyzed Using Neural Networks?, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, p. 492-495. Goh, A.T.C., The, C.I., Wong, K.S., Jaritngam, (1997). ?Prediction of Pile Capacity Neural Networks.? ASCE, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11, p. 129-137. Hannigan, P.J., Goble, G.G., Thendean, G., Likins, G.E., and Rausche, F. Design and Construction of Driven Piles Foundations, Federal Highway Administration., January 1997, Washington D.C. Hussein, M., Likins, G., and Rausche, F., (1988),?Testing Methods of Driven Piles?, Pile Buck Manual. Holm, G., Jansson, B., and Moller, B., (1985), ?Dynamic and Static Load Testing of Friction Piles in a Loose Sand?, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory on Piles, Stockholm. May 27-30, 1984, p. 240-243. Kyfor, Z.G., Schnore, A.R., Carlo, T.A., and Baily, P.F. Static Testing of Deep Foundations, Federal Highway Administration. February 1992, Washington D.C. 40 Likins, G.E., Jr. ?Field measurements and the pile driving analyzer?, Proceedings ofthe Second InternationalConference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory on Piles, Stockholm. May 27-30, 1984, p. 298-305. Likins, G., Rausche, F., Thendean, G., and Svinkin, M., (1996), ?CAPWAP Correlation Studies?, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, FL. September 11-13, 1996, p.447-455. Likins, G., Rausche, F., (2004), ?Correlation of CAPWAP with Static Load Tests?, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles 2004. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Long, J.H., Maniaci, M., and Samara, E.A., (2002), ?Measured and Predicted Capacity of H-Piles?, Proceedings of the International Deep Foundations Congress, February 14-16, 2002. p. 542558. Long, J.H., and Wysockey, M. H., (1999), ?Accuracy of Methods for Prediction Axial Capacity of Deep Foundations? Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Research Center Conference, April 29-30, 1999. p. 180-195. Rausche, F., Liang, L., Allin, R., Rancman, D., August, 2004. ?Applications and Correlations of the Wave Equation Analysis Program GRLWEAP.? Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles 2004: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia; 107- 123. 41 APPENDIX PROJECT INFORMATION, SOIL BORINGS, LOAD TEST DATA, AND CAPWAP RESULTS This appendix contains detailed information about each project including location, pile type, pile driving system, soil data, PDA results, static load test records and CAPWAP results. 42 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: delmag D 48-46 BR-193(500) SR 193 over Fowl River RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 107.28 @ 10.5' DIVISION: 9 WEIGHT (KIPS): 10.217 LOCATION: Mobile Co. HAMMER ACTION: single BENT/LANE: Sta 35+24, Bent #12 CL AIR/DIESEL: diesel PILE NO.: 6 OPEN/CLOSED: open DATE DRIVEN: 5/27/2005 HAMMER CUSHION: ALUMINUM PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: PSCP 24" x 24" EOD FURNISHED PILE LENGTH (FT.): 101 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 345 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): 24 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 489.41 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (TONS): 115 DATE: 7/28/2005 SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): 60 PILE CUSHION: OAK PDA CAPACITY (tons): 499 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS FINISHED TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 94.08 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 328.5 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 80.28 GRADE ELEVATION (FT.): -8.3 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION (FT.): -88.58 GW ELEVATION (FT.): N/A DATE TESTED: 6/22/2005 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 345 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-14 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): Loose gray sand 20' and below 43 BR-0193 (500) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTLE M E N T ( I N C H E S ) BR-0193(500) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP -25 FAT CLAY (CH) very soft, saturated -40 SAND (SP) saturated, very loose -50 SAND (SW) saturated, loose -51.5 FAT CLAY (CH) very soft, wet, with sand and trace gravel -56.5 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) firm, wet, trace very fine sand -75 SILTY SAND (SM) wet TIP ELEV. -100 SILTY SAND (SM) saturated, loose -108.5 SAND (SP) dense, saturated 44 br0193-500; Pile: 052705B12 Test: 27-May-2005 d46; Blow: 826 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 657.0; along Shaft 246.8; at Toe 410.2 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 657.0 1 9.9 3.9 20.3 636.7 20.3 3.06 0.42 0.167 0.080 2 16.6 10.5 2.3 634.4 22.6 0.35 0.05 0.167 0.080 3 23.2 17.1 0.0 634.4 22.6 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.080 4 29.8 23.7 0.0 634.4 22.6 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.080 5 36.4 30.4 0.0 634.4 22.6 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.080 6 43.1 37.0 5.5 628.9 28.1 0.83 0.11 0.167 0.080 7 49.7 43.6 13.3 615.6 41.4 2.01 0.27 0.167 0.080 8 56.3 50.2 19.0 596.6 60.3 2.87 0.39 0.167 0.080 9 62.9 56.9 22.4 574.2 82.7 3.38 0.46 0.167 0.080 10 69.6 63.5 22.2 552.0 104.9 3.35 0.45 0.167 0.080 11 76.2 70.1 21.3 530.8 126.2 3.21 0.44 0.167 0.080 12 82.8 76.7 26.6 504.2 152.8 4.01 0.54 0.167 0.080 13 89.5 83.4 40.5 463.7 193.2 6.11 0.83 0.167 0.080 14 96.1 90.0 53.6 410.2 246.8 8.08 1.10 0.167 0.080 Avg. Skin 17.6 2.74 0.36 0.167 0.080 Toe 410.2 120.76 0.194 0.340 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.186 0.359 Smith Type Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 100 65 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 18 45 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: Delmag D19-32 Bilbo Creek on US hwy 43 (state road 13) Project # BRF - 98 (29) RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 42.8 @ 10.2' WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.19 DIVISION: 8 HAMMER ACTION: single LOCATION: washington, co AIR/DIESEL: diesel BENT/LANE: bent 9 NBL OPEN/CLOSED: open PILE NO.: 4 HAMMER CUSHION: phelonic DATE DRIVEN: 5/1/2002 PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: Steel 14 x 73 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 54.75 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 145 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 21.4 DESIGN CAPACITY: 63 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: 5/6/2002 PILE CUSHION: Phenolic SETUP TIME (DAYS): 5 PDA CAPACITY (tons); 205 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 54.75 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 10.63 GRADE ELEVATION: 32.88 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: N/A DATE TESTED: 5/3/2002 GW ELEVATION: 8 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): MAX. APPLIED LOAD (tons): 189 SOIL INFORMATION DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B5 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: clay 46 BRF-98(29) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 50 100 150 200 APPLIED LOAD(TONS) SET TLEMENT ( I N CHE S) BRF - 98 (29) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 7 CLAY WITH SAND (CL) gray, moist to wet, very soft alluvium -8 SAND (SP) very fine to fine grained trace organics, wet, loose, alluvium TIP ELEV. -50 CLAY WITH SAND (CL/ML) trace mica, blueish gray moist, firm to stiff -55 Very Stiff to Hard Gray CLAY (CL) -59 Medium Dense SILTY SAND, Moist (SC) 47 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: Kobe K-25 BR - 0006(015) U.S. 84 Five Runs Creek RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 51.519 DIVISION: 7 WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.51 LOCATION: Covington, co HAMMER ACTION: single BENT/LANE: Abut 9 WBL AIR/DIESEL: diesel PILE NO.: 4 OPEN/CLOSED: open DATE DRIVEN: 11/25/2003 HAMMER CUSHION: Micarta PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP-steel 10 x 42 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 116 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 12.4 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY: 42 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 42 GRADE ELEVATION: 257.53 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 216.18 GW ELEVATION: DATE TESTED: 12/1/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (tons) 126 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-5 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: silty sand ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): 48 BRF-0006(15)-A 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SETT L EM EN T ( I NC HES) BRF - 0006(015) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 235 VERY SOFT CLAY AND VERY LOOSE FINE SAND (CL,SP) 228 Firm and Loose Coarse to Fine SAND (SP) TIP ELEV. 198 Firm to Dense SILTY FINE SAND with Weathered LIMESTONE Lenses (SM,SP) 190 Very Dense SILTY FINE SAND with WEATHERED LIMESTONE LENSES (SM) 165 Boring Terminated at approximately 70 feet - Dense and Firm SILTY Coarse to Fine Sand with Weathered Limestone Lenses (SM) 49 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: Kobe K-25 BR - 0006(015) U.S. 84 Five Runs Creek RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 51.519 DIVISION: 7 WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.51 LOCATION: Covington, co HAMMER ACTION: single BENT/LANE: Bent 5 WBL AIR/DIESEL: diesel PILE NO.: 4 OPEN/CLOSED: open DATE DRIVEN: 12/8/2003 HAMMER CUSHION: micarta PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: Steel HP 14 x 73 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 141 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 21.4 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 57 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 120.7 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 43 GRADE ELEVATION: 240.17 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 198.26 GW ELEVATION: N/A DATE TESTED: 12/11/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (tons): 171 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-3 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: silty sand ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): 50 BRF-0006(15)-B 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 50 100 150 200 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SE TT LE M E NT ( I NCH ES) BRF - 006(15) Bent 5 WBL Pile #4 Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 236 Very Loose SANDY SILT and SILTY FINE SAND 233 Firm and Loose Coarse to Fine SAND (SP) TIP ELEV. 192 Firm to Dense SILTY FINE SAND with Weathered LIMESTONE Lenses (SM,SP) 180 Hard Fine SANDY CLAY with Weathered LIMESTONE Lenses (CL) 175 Boring Terminated at approximately 70 feet - Dense and Firm SILTY Coarse to Fine Sand with Weathered Limestone Lenses (SM) 51 brf-0006(015); Pile: 120803 Test: 08-Dec-2003 k-25 bt 5 wb epd; Blow: 434 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 241.4; along Shaft 166.9; at Toe 74.5 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 241.4 1 23.5 8.5 19.2 222.2 19.2 2.86 1.85 0.104 0.120 2 30.2 15.2 9.7 212.5 28.9 1.44 0.94 0.104 0.120 3 36.9 21.9 27.3 185.2 56.1 4.07 2.64 0.104 0.120 4 43.6 28.6 42.8 142.4 99.0 6.39 4.14 0.104 0.120 5 50.3 35.3 45.9 96.5 144.9 6.85 4.44 0.104 0.120 6 57.0 42.0 22.0 74.5 166.9 3.28 2.12 0.104 0.120 Avg. Skin 27.8 3.97 2.69 0.104 0.120 Toe 74.5 501.28 0.143 0.270 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.463 0.284 Smith Type Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 51 94 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.02 52 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: Kobelco Project No. BRF-98(31) Bridge repl. On US 43 over Bassetts Creek RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 54.2 DIVISION: 8 WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.51 LOCATION: Washington Co. HAMMER ACTION: single BENT/LANE: Abut 16 AIR/DIESEL: Diesel PILE NO.: 5 OPEN/CLOSED: closed DATE DRIVEN: 5/14/2001 HAMMER CUSHION: Micarta 2.0" PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 10 x 42 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 120 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 12.4 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 40 DATE: SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (tons): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 44.67 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 42 GRADE ELEVATION: 35.96 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: -6.46 GW ELEVATION: DATE TESTED: 5/18/2001 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (tons): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (tons): 120 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-6 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: clay ESTIMATE ULTIMATE CAPACITY (tons): 53 BRF-98(31) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 5 1 0 5 1 15 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTLE M E N T ( I N C H E S ) BR-98(31) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 24.69 Very Loose to Loose Tan SILTY Fine SAND (SM) with ORGANICS 19.69 Stiff Gray Fine SANDY CLAY (CL) 14.69 Dense Tan Medium to Fine SAND (SP-SM) 9.69 Firm Gray SILTY Fine SAND (SM) 4.69 Hard Gray, Red and Yellow CLAY, with trace SAND (CH) -0.31 Very Stiff Gray CLAY, with SAND (CL) TIP ELEV. -18.56 Hard to Very Stiff Gray and Red CLAY, with trace SANDSTONE (CH) 54 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: Kobelco Project No. BRF- 98(31) Bridge repl. On US 43 over Bassetts Creek RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 54.2 DIVISION: 8 WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.51 LOCATION: Washington Co. HAMMER ACTION: single BENT/LANE: 5 AIR/DIESEL: diesel PILE NO.: 3 OPEN/CLOSED: closed DATE DRIVEN: 5/25/2001 HAMMER CUSHION: micarta PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: Steel HP 14 x 73 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 185 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 21.4 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 63 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: added 15.18 ft. DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: Micarta SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 60.25 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 30 GRADE ELEVATION: 23.55 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: -6 6/1/2001 GW ELEVATION: 19 DATE TESTED SOIL INFORMATION DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): 190 MAX. APPLIED LOAD (tons): Yes BORING NUMBER: B-2 DID FAILURE OCCUR: 185 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: Hard red and gray clay ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): 55 BRF - 98(31)-B 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 5 15 2 5 35 4 5 55 65 75 85 9 5 10 5 11 5 12 5 13 5 1 4 5 15 5 1 6 5 17 5 1 85 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET T L EM EN T ( I N C H ES) BRF-98(31)-B Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 20.95 Loose Brown SILTY Medium to Fine SAND with trace GRAVEL (SM) GW 11.7 Firm to Loose Light Gray Fine SAND (SP) 1.7 Very Stiff to Hard Light Gray, Yellow and Red CLAY (CH) TIP ELEV. -8.3 Hard Red and Gray CLAY (CL) -15.8 Hard Red and Gray CLAY (CH) -18.3 Dense Gray CLAYEY Fine SAND (SC) -28.3 Hard to Very Stiff Gray and Red CLAY, with SAND (CL) -36.55 Hard Gray, Yellow and Red CLAY (CH) 56 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR- 1608(200)-A MAKE/MODEL: Kobe DIVISION: 7 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 27.983 @ 9.75 ft. LOCATION: Coffee Co WEIGHT (KIPS): Not Recorded BENT/LANE: Abut 1 HAMMER ACTION: single PILE NO.: 5 AIR/DIESEL: diesel DATE DRIVEN: 9/4/2002 OPEN/CLOSED: open HAMMER CUSHION: Foster Low PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 12 x 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 40.3 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 77 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 40.3 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 33 GRADE ELEVATION: 163.5 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 131.57 GW ELEVATION: 147 DATE TESTED: 9/6/2002 SOIL INFORMATION DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 BORING NUMBER: B-1 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: firm to dense silty sand ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS); 57 BR-1608(200)-A 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 3 9 1 5 2 1 2 7 3 3 39 4 5 5 1 5 7 63 6 9 7 5 8 1 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTLE M E N T ( I N C H E S ) BR-1608(200)-A Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 152.9 Firm to Loose Brown Fine SAND (SP-SM) GW 140.45 Firm White Brown and Orange Fine SAND (SP) TIP ELEV. 127.95 Firm to Dense Gray SILT (SM) 102.95 Dense to Very Dense Gray and Black SILTY fine SAND (SM) 97.95 VERY DENSE gray SILTY fine SAND (SM) 92.95 VERY DENSE gray SILTY fine SAND (SM) 82.95 VERY DENSE Fine SAND (SP-SM) 79.7 Hard Gray Fine SANDY CLAY (CL) 58 br1608(102) relief; Pile: 090402 Test: 04-Sep-2002 k-13 relief abt 1 tp; Blow: 535 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 146.5; along Shaft 134.7; at Toe 11.9 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 146.5 1 10.2 5.9 20.7 125.9 20.7 3.05 2.32 0.049 0.100 2 16.9 12.7 22.8 103.1 43.4 3.36 2.56 0.049 0.100 3 23.7 19.5 38.6 64.5 82.1 5.70 4.35 0.049 0.100 4 30.5 26.2 38.9 25.6 121.0 5.75 4.38 0.049 0.100 5 37.3 33.0 13.7 11.9 134.7 2.02 1.54 0.049 0.100 Avg. Skin 26.9 4.08 3.03 0.049 0.100 Toe 11.9 110.36 0.152 0.100 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.238 0.065 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 59 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR-1608(200) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE DIVISION: 7 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): DIESEL LOCATION: COFFEE CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): N/A BENT/LANE: BENT 4 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 4 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 7/16/2002 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: FOSTER LOW PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 50.3 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 88 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 45 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: 7/18/2002 PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): 2 PDA CAPACITY (TONS): 138 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 50.3 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 39 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A GRADE ELEVATION: 157.03 TIP ELEVATION: 118.03 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA GW ELEVATION: APPROX. 145 DATE TESTED: 7/18/2002 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 135 BORING NUMBER: B-1 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: FIRM TO DENSE SM ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): 60 BR-1608(200)-B 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 4. 5 13 . 5 22 .5 31 . 5 40 . 5 49 . 5 58 . 5 67 .5 76 . 5 85 . 5 94 .5 10 3 . 5 11 2. 5 12 1. 5 13 0 . 5 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET T L E M E N T ( I N C H ES) BR-1608(200)-B Davisson Failure Line 61 DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 148.67 Firm to Loose Brown SAND (SP) 138.67 Firm to Dense Light Gray SILTY Fine SAND (SM) 133.67 Dense Gray Fine SANDY SILT (ML) TIP ELEV. 113.67 Dense to Very Dense Gray and Silty fine SAND (SM) 88.67 Dense to Very Dense Gray and Black Coarse Sand (SP- SM) 83.67 Hard Greenish Gray CLAY, with SAND (CH) 78.67 Very Dense to DENSE Gray SILTY Fine SAND (SM) 75.17 Hard Greenish Gray CLAY, with SAND and Weathered LIMESTONE Lenses (CL) 50.22 Very Dense Greenish Gray SILTY Fine SAND, with Weathered LIMESTONE Lenses (SM) 35.12 Very Dense Gray SILT, with SAND (MH) 30 Very Dense Gray SILTY Coarse to Fine SAND with LIMESTONE (SM) 62 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR-1608(200) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-13 DIVISION: 7 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 27.983 @ 9.75 FT. LOCATION: COFFEE CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): 2.870051282 BENT/LANE: ABUT. 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 4 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 11/15/2002 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: FOSTER LOW PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 37 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 114 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 45 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 37 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 36 GRADE ELEVATION: 164.3 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 128.3 GW ELEVATION: APPROX.145 DATE TESTED: 11/18/2002 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 135 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-1 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: DENSE GRAY AND BLACK SAND 63 BR-1608(200)-C 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 4 . 5 1 3 .5 2 2 .5 3 1 .5 40. 5 49. 5 58. 5 6 7. 5 7 6 . 5 8 5 . 5 9 4 .5 1 0 3. 5 1 1 2. 5 121 . 5 130 . 5 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SETT L EM EN T ( I N C H ES) BR-1608(200)-C Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 152.95 Firm to Loose Brown Fine SAND (SP-SM) GW 140.45 Firm White Brown and Orange Fine SAND (SP) 127.95 Firm to Dense Gray SILT (SM) TIP ELEV. 102.95 Dense to Very Dense Gray and Black SILTY fine SAND (SM) 97.95 VERY DENSE gray SILTY fine SAND (SM) 92.95 VERY DENSE gray SILTY fine SAND (SM) 82.95 VERY DENSE Fine SAND (SP-SM) 79.7 Hard Gray Fine SANDY CLAY (CL) 64 br1608 (200) main; Pile: 111502 Test: 15-Nov-2002 k-13 abt 1 tp set chk; Blow: 51 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 105.6; along Shaft 104.9; at Toe 0.7 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 105.6 1 10.4 9.3 0.0 105.6 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.060 2 17.3 16.2 0.0 105.6 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.060 3 24.2 23.1 0.0 105.6 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.060 4 31.2 30.1 14.9 90.7 14.9 2.15 1.64 0.149 0.060 5 38.1 37.0 90.0 0.7 104.9 12.99 9.90 0.149 0.060 Avg. Skin 21.0 2.83 2.31 0.149 0.060 Toe 0.7 6.51 0.458 0.080 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.573 0.012 Smith Type Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 100 97 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 22 65 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR-6619(103) GOOSE CREEK RELIEF MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-22 DIVISION: 8 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 41.3 @ 8.5 FT LOCATION: WILCOX CO WEIGHT (KIPS): 12.35 BENT/LANE: ABUT. 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 3 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 5/16/2002 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: SINGLE PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 41.59 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 150 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 60 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: 5/16/02 - STCK PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): 30 MINUTES PDA CAPACITY: 159 TONS ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 41.59 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 41 GRADE ELEVATION: 76.74 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 37.149 GW ELEVATION: 58 DATE TESTED: 5/23/2002 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 180 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-1 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: SANDY CLAY 66 BR-6619(105) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 6 1 8 3 0 4 2 5 4 6 6 7 8 9 0 102 114 126 138 1 50 1 62 1 7 4 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTL EM EN T ( I N C H ES) BR-6619(105) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 69.4 FAT CLAY (CH) trace organics, brown, moist, firm 64.4 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), gray, wet, soft to firm 59.4 SAND (SP), with fines, medium density 54.4 CLAYEY SAND (SC) brown to gray, wet loose TIP ELEV. 25 SILT (ML), with thin clay layers, VERY HARD 67 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: DELMAG HPP-0192(2) ANNISTON EAST BYPASS RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 42.8 DIVISION: 4 WEIGHT (KIPS): 4190 LOCATION: CALHOUN CO. HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE BENT/LANE: ABUT.1 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL PILE NO.: 6 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN DATE DRIVEN: 2/21/2002 HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 12 X 84 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 116.5 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 61.3 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 24.6 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: ADDED 60' DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 116.5 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 113 GRADE ELEVATION: NOT RECORDED STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: NOT RECORDED GW ELEVATION: 18' BELOW G.S. DATE TESTED: 2/28/2002 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-2 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: RED CLAY 68 HPP-0192(2) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E T T L E M E NT ( I NCHE S ) HPP-0192(2) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP NOT RECORDED 636 CLAY Fill GW 615 CLAY 613 CLAY 598 SILT 570 SILT 555 CLAY/LIMESTONE 69 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: PROJECT NO. BR-98(32) MAKE/MODEL: DELMAG D-19-42 DIVISION: 8 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): N/A LOCATION: WASHINGTON CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): N/A BENT/LANE: ABUT. 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 2 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 3/4/2001 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: HP 10 X 42 PILE LENGTH (FT.): 85 EOD SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 12.4 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 97.5 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 40 SPLICE DETAILS: 2 SPLICES APPROX. 50 FT RESTRIKE PILE CUSHION: N/A DATE: 3/13/2001 SETUP TIME (DAYS): 9 PDA CAPACITY (TONS): 110 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 85 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 83 GRADE ELEVATION: 39.5 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: -43.5 GW ELEVATION: 40.1 DATE TESTED: 3/8/2001 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 120 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: N/A ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION; DENSE DAMP GRAY SAND & GRAVEL 70 BR-98 (32) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 4 12 20 28 3 6 44 52 60 68 76 84 9 2 10 0 10 8 116 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET T L EM EN T ( I N C H E S ) BR-98(32) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 29.3 Loose Damp Brown and Tan Silty Sand 19.1 Loose Damp Tan Silty Sand 9.5 Medium Damp Gray Silt 4.2 Very Stiff Damp Gray Sandy Silt -13.9 Medium Damp Gray and Brown Sand and Gravel -28 Dense Damp Tan Sand and Gravel TIP ELEV. -53.2 Hard Moist Gray SILTY CLAY 71 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: NHF-0001(512) MAKE/MODEL: DELMAG D-19-42 DIVISION: 4 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 20.54 @ 6' LOCATION: RUSSELL WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.19 BENT/LANE: ABUT 1 SB HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 6 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 1/13/2005 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA/ALUM. PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 50 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 89 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 29 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY (TONS): ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 50 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 23 GRADE ELEVATION: 235.84 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 214.16 GW ELEVATION: NOT ENCOUNTERED DATE TESTED: 1/21/2005 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: N/A ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: CLAYS NEAR TOP WITH SAND AND SILT NEAR TIP 72 NHF-0001 (512) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 3 9 1 5 2 1 2 7 3 3 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTL EM EN T ( I N C H ES) NHF-0001(512) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 215 TIP ELEV. 206 CLAYEY SANDY SILT (ML) 201 Dense, Moist, Dark Gray, Silty, fine grained SAND with Micas, Clay and Fossil Shells - SM 191 SANDY SILT w/ Pyrite Crystals (ML) 180 Hard, Dry, Gray, ClAYEY Micaceous, SANDY SILT (ML) 73 US 431 Hatchecubbee; Pile: 011305A1SB Test: 13-Jan-2005 delmag d19-42; Blow: 90 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 4.8; along Shaft 4.8; at Toe 0.0 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 4.8 1 9.9 8.9 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.73 0.56 0.289 0.120 2 16.4 15.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.00 0.00 -1.490 0.120 3 23.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.120 Avg. Skin 1.6 0.22 0.19 0.220 0.120 Toe 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.510 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.038 0.000 Smith Type Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 32 2 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 0 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.05 74 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR-0014(500) MAKE/MODEL: APE D-19-42 DROP DIVISION: 6 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 37.710 @ 9' LOCATION: AUTAUGA/DALLAS CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): 7.8 BENT/LANE: ABUT. 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 5 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 10/1/2004 OPEN/CLOSED: HAMMER CUSHION: FOSTER LON PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 PILE LENGTH (FT.): 50.33 EOD SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 179 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 SPLICE DETAILS: N/A RESTRIKE PILE CUSHION: N/A DATE: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY (TONS): ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 50.33 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 137.7 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 36 GRADE ELEVATION: 130.58 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 94.17 GW ELEVATION: 110 DATE TESTED: 10/12/2004 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-1 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: RED CLAY AND GRAVELS AT TOP/ SANDY SILT NEAR TIP 75 BR-0014(500) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 3 9 1 5 2 1 2 7 3 3 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTL EM EN T ( I N C H ES) BR-0012(500) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 127 FILL, SANDY CLAY (CL) reddish-brown, soft 116.5 SILTY SAND (SM), reddish tan GW 102 SANDY SILT (ML), olive-gray 97 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM) dense TIP ELEV. 92 SANDY SILT (ML), olive-gray very stiff 64 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM) very dense 76 br-0014 (500) autauga / dallas; Pile: 100104a1tp Test: 01-Oct-2004 aped19-42 abt 1 dl = 30 tns; Blow: 75 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 275.4; along Shaft 204.5; at Toe 70.9 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 275.4 1 6.8 -5.0 0.0 275.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.080 2 13.5 1.7 0.0 275.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.080 3 20.3 8.5 8.4 267.0 8.4 1.24 0.95 0.168 0.032 4 27.0 15.2 23.6 243.4 32.0 3.49 2.66 0.168 0.032 5 33.8 22.0 83.7 159.8 115.6 12.38 9.44 0.168 0.032 6 40.5 28.7 46.1 113.6 161.8 6.83 5.20 0.168 0.032 7 47.3 35.5 42.7 70.9 204.5 6.32 4.82 0.168 0.032 Avg. Skin 29.2 5.76 3.30 0.168 0.032 Toe 70.9 658.62 0.060 0.230 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 1.264 0.156 Smith Type Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 100 87 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 32 77 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME PROJECT ST-063-171- 001 MAKE/MODEL ICE 32S DIVISION 5 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT) N/A LOCATION TUSCALOOSA CO. WEIGHT (KIPS) 3 BENT/LANE ABUT 1 HAMMER ACTION SINGLE PILE NO. 5 SOUTH AIR/DIESEL DIESEL DATE DRIVEN 9/25/2003 OPEN/CLOSED OPEN HAMMER CUSHION N/A PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL HP 12 X 53 PILE LENGTH (FT.) 50' 1" EOD SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ) 15.5 PDA CAPACITY (tons) 110 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons) 30 SPLICE DETAILS N/A RESTRIKE PILE CUSHION N/A DATE 9/29/2003 SETUP TIME (DAYS) 4 PDA CAPACITY (TONS) 132 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.) 50'1" ULTIMATE RESISTANCE(tons): 137 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.) 32 GRADE ELEVATION 335.55 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION 297.45 GW ELEVATION DATE TESTED 9/29/2003 APPROX 40 FT. BELOW GS DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS) SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS) 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR NO BORING NUMBER N/A ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS) BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION SANDY CLAY 78 ST-063-171-001 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTLE M E N T ( I NCHE S ) ST-063-171-001 Davisson Failure Line 79 sr171 mitt lary rd; Pile: 092903 Test: 29-Sep-2003 ice 32-s restrike; Blow: 20 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 273.9; along Shaft 163.2; at Toe 110.7 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 273.9 1 7.0 4.0 10.7 263.2 10.7 1.53 1.16 0.212 0.120 2 14.0 11.0 26.2 237.0 36.9 3.74 2.85 0.212 0.120 3 21.0 18.0 60.4 176.6 97.3 8.63 6.57 0.212 0.120 4 28.0 25.0 53.1 123.6 150.4 7.58 5.78 0.212 0.120 5 35.0 32.0 12.9 110.7 163.2 1.84 1.40 0.212 0.120 Avg. Skin 32.6 5.10 3.56 0.212 0.120 Toe 110.7 1028.11 0.163 0.240 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 1.251 0.652 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 100 98 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 63 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.30 80 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-25 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 51.519 NHF-197(13) RD BTWN NORTHPORT AND GORDO WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.07 DIVISION: 5 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE LOCATION: TUSCALOOSA CO. AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL BENT/LANE: ABUT 1 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN PILE NO.: 3 HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA DATE DRIVEN: 4/23/2003 PDA INFORMATION PILE DETAILS EOD PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 100 PILE LENGTH (FT.): 36'4" SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 36'4" ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 107.4 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 35 GRADE ELEVATION: 221.75 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 186.7 GW ELEVATION: 211.5 DATE TESTED: 4/24/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-1 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: RED-BROWN CLAY NEAR TOP/FIRM MOIST TO WET GRAY POORLY- GRADED SAND W/ SILT AT TIP 81 NHF - 197 (13) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 3 9 1 5 2 1 2 7 3 3 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SETT L EM EN T ( I N C H ES) NHF-197(13) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 217 FIRM TO VERY SOFT MOIST REDDISH-BROWN SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) GW 191 VERY LOOSE TO VERY FIRM MOIST GRAYISH-BROWN POORLY-GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) TIP ELEV 166 DENSE TO VERY FIRM MOIST TO WET GRAY POORLY-GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 161 VERY STIFF WET GRAY SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) 156 VERY STIFF WET DARK GRAY SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 140 BORING TERMINATED AT 80 FEET - HARD WET GREENISH-GRAY SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) 82 nhf-197 (13) Box Crk; Pile: 042203c Test: 23-Apr-2003 k-25 abt 1 tp ; Blow: 318 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 214.7; along Shaft 33.6; at Toe 181.2 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 214.7 1 14.1 6.8 0.0 214.7 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 2 21.2 13.8 7.1 207.7 7.1 1.01 0.77 0.133 0.100 3 28.2 20.9 10.8 196.9 17.9 1.53 1.17 0.133 0.100 4 35.3 27.9 7.4 189.5 25.3 1.05 0.80 0.133 0.100 5 42.3 35.0 8.3 181.2 33.6 1.18 0.90 0.133 0.100 Avg. Skin 6.7 0.96 0.72 0.133 0.100 Toe 181.2 1683.24 0.067 0.370 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.161 0.440 Smith Type Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 2 39 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.11 83 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: NHF-197(13) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-25 DIVISION: 5 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 51.519 LOCATION: TUSCALOOSA CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.07 BENT/LANE: 2 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 5 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 4/23/2003 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 14 X 89 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 39.11 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 140 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 26.1 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 45 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: 5/2/2003 PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): 10 PDA CAPACITY: 183 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 39.11 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 140.2 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 33 GRADE ELEVATION: 217.9 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 184.9 GW ELEVATION: 214 DATE TESTED: 4/23/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 135 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-3 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: RED AND BROWN CLAY NEAR TOP/ VERY FIRM WET GRAY CLAYEY SAND W/ GRAVEL AT TIP 84 NHF-197 (13) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 4. 5 13 . 5 2 2 .5 31 .5 40 . 5 49 . 5 58 . 5 6 7 .5 7 6 .5 85 .5 94 . 5 10 3. 5 11 2. 5 12 1. 5 1 3 0. 5 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SETT L EM EN T ( I N C H ES) NHF-197(13) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 213 STIFF MOIST TO WET MOTTLED RED AND BROWN SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 197 LOOSE WET BROWNISH-GRAY POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 193 VERY FIRM WET GRAY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC) TIP ELEV. 176 VERY FIRM TO VERY DENSE WET GRAY POORLY- GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 85 nhf-197 (13) Box Crk; Pile: 050203b Test: 02-May-2003 k-25 bnt 2 tp restrike; Blow: 11 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 280.3; along Shaft 225.6; at Toe 54.7 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 280.3 1 10.2 8.9 7.4 272.9 7.4 1.09 0.64 0.061 0.080 2 17.0 15.6 20.8 252.1 28.2 3.06 1.80 0.061 0.080 3 23.8 22.4 47.0 205.1 75.2 6.92 4.06 0.061 0.080 4 30.5 29.2 75.1 130.0 150.2 11.06 6.49 0.061 0.080 5 37.3 36.0 75.4 54.7 225.6 11.10 6.52 0.061 0.080 Avg. Skin 45.1 6.27 3.90 0.061 0.080 Toe 54.7 301.64 0.248 0.290 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.295 0.292 Smith Type Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 5 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.12 86 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: M-7510(6) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-22 DIVISION: 9 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 41.3 LOCATION: MOBILE/ESCAMBIA WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.85 BENT/LANE: OUT OF STRUCT. HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: TP 1 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 10/27/1995 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: FOSTERLON MICARTA PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: 14" PSC EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 90 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 180 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 196 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 50 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: PLYWOOD SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY (TONS): ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 90 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 65 GRADE ELEVATION: 117.65 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 52 GW ELEVATION: 112 DATE TESTED: 11/17/1995 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 150 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: ABUT #1 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: MED/WET/DENSE /BROWN SILTY SAND 87 M-7510(6) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 85 95 105 115 1 25 1 35 1 4 5 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SE TTLE M E N T ( I N C H ES) M-7510(6) Davisson Failure Line 88 DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 111 Very Loose Damp Brown Clayey Sand with organics 108 Loose Wet Brown and Gray CLAYEY SAND (SC) 92 Medium Wet Brown CLAYEY SAND (SC) 84 Loose Wet Brown and Gray CLAYEY SAND (SC) 62 Medium Wet Brown Sand 57 Very Loose Wet Brown and Gray Silty Sand 53 Dense Wet Brown and Gray Silty Sand TIP ELEV. 39 Very Dense Wet Brown and Gray Clayey Silty Sand 89 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR-3406(102) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-13 DIVISION: 7 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 27.983 LOCATION: HENRY CO WEIGHT (KIPS): 2.87 BENT/LANE: ABUT 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 5 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 5/7/2002 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: N/A PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 39.5 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 104.5 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: 5/14/2002 PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): 7 PDA CAPACITY: 150 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 39.5 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 35.73 GRADE ELEVATION: 188.91 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 153.44 GW ELEVATION: 182 DATE TESTED: 5/14/2002 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-1 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND (SC) AT TOP/ SILTY SAND (SM) NEAR BOTTOM 90 BR-3406(102) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 3 9 15 2 1 2 7 3 3 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SE TTLE M E N T ( I N C H E S ) BR-3406(102) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 182.3 FILL, CLAYEY SAND (SC), reddish-brown, loose GW 175.3 SILTY SAND (SM), blueish-gray, firm 167.3 SILTY SAND (SC-SM) olive-gray, dense TIP ELEV. 134.3 SILTY SAND (SM), very firm to very dense 91 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MAKE/MODEL: 3000# DROP NHF-65-1(246) COBBS FORD RD TO N OR S.R. 14 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 21 AT 7' STROKE DIVISION: 6 WEIGHT (KIPS): 3 LOCATION: MONTGOMERY CO. HAMMER ACTION: DROP BENT/LANE: ABUT. 1 SB AIR/DIESEL: PILE NO.: 4 OPEN/CLOSED: DATE DRIVEN: 8/8/2001 HAMMER CUSHION: 4" WOOD PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 10 X 42 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 23.13 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 90 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 12.4 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 23.13 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE: N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 20 GRADE ELEVATION: 389.6 TIP ELEVATION: 367.43 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA GW ELEVATION: 370 DATE TESTED: 8/10/2001 SOIL INFORMATION DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 60 BORING NUMBER: N/A DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: RED SANDY CLAY ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): 92 NHF-65-1 (246) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 3 6 9 1215182124273033363942454851545760 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET TLEM E N T ( I N C H ES) NHF-65-1(246) Davisson Failure Line DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 390 Medium Moist Silty Sandy Clay GW 378 Brown and Red Gravelly Clay 370 Wet Tan Silty Sand 335 Very Stiff Damp Gray and Tan Silty Clay TIP ELEV. 300 Medium Damp, Yellow and Tan Silty Sand 280 Hard, Damp, Tan, Brown Silty Clay 93 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MGF-0012(500) U.S. 84 S OF OPP MAKE/MODEL: DELMAG D19-32 DIVISION: 7 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 42.8 - 5' STROKE LOCATION: COVINGTON CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.19 BENT/LANE: ABUT 1 EB HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 3 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 5/29/2003 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: 1" ALUM 1" CONBAST PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 40 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 59.5 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 30 DATE: 5/29/03 - SETCK SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME: 60 MIN PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: 108 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 40 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 101.4 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 37 GRADE ELEVATION: 246.95 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 207.4 GW ELEVATION: 232.7 DATE TESTED: 6/5/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 90 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-5 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: DENSE TO FIRM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND 94 MGF-0012(500) AB1P3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 3 9 15 2 1 2 7 33 39 45 5 1 5 7 63 69 75 8 1 8 7 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SETT L EM EN T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT DAVISSON DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP GW 222.05 Very Loose light brown SILTY fine SAND (SM) 217.05 Very Dense yellow and red coarse to fine SAND (SP-SM) TIP ELEV. 202.05 Dense to Firm gray SILTY fine SAND (SM) 177.05 Dense to Firm gray weathered LIMESTONE (ML) 167.05 Dense gray and white CLAYEY coarse to fine SAND, with weathered LIMESTONE (SC) 95 mgf-0012(500); Pile: 052903 Test: 29-May-2003 d19-32 abt 1 eb pile 3 set check; Blow: 11 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 202.7; along Shaft 64.4; at Toe 138.3 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 202.7 1 7.4 6.4 1.9 200.8 1.9 0.26 0.20 0.154 0.040 2 14.8 13.8 9.2 191.6 11.1 1.24 0.95 0.154 0.040 3 22.2 21.2 17.1 174.6 28.2 2.31 1.76 0.154 0.040 4 29.6 28.6 17.3 157.3 45.5 2.33 1.78 0.154 0.040 5 37.1 36.0 19.0 138.3 64.4 2.56 1.95 0.154 0.040 Avg. Skin 12.9 1.79 1.33 0.154 0.040 Toe 138.3 1284.69 0.051 0.590 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.359 0.257 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 2 14 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.02 96 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: MGF-0012(500) DIVISION: 7 MAKE/MODEL: DELMAG D19-32 LOCATION: COVINGTON CO. RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 42.8 - 5' STROKE BENT/LANE: 3 EB WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.19 PILE NO.: 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE DATE DRIVEN: 7/29/2003 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: 1" CONBEST 1" ALUM PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 40 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 209.5 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 70 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 40 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 163.7 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 36 GRADE ELEVATION: 226.68 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 191.36 GW ELEVATION: 230.5 DATE TESTED: 8/8/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 210 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER B-3 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION HARD TO VERY STIFF LIGHT GREENISH GRAY WEATHERED LIMESTONE (CH) 97 MGF-0012(500) B3EBP1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 7 21 3 5 4 9 6 3 7 7 91 1 0 5 1 1 9 1 3 3 1 47 161 1 7 5 1 8 9 2 0 3 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTL EM EN T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT DAVISSON DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 235.6 Loose red SILTY fine SAND (SM) GW 231.35 VERY Loose red and brown CLAYEY coarse to fine SAND (SC) 226.35 VERY Loose dark brown SILTY fine SAND, with ORGANIC fines and WOOD (SM) 221.35 SOFT Yellow and Light Gray CLAY (CL) 216.35 FIRM Greenish gray SILT (ML) 201.35 FIRM Greenish gray SILTY fine SAND (SM) TIP ELEV. 181.35 DENSE to VERY DENSE light greenish gray weathered LIMESTONE (ML) 166.35 VERY DENSE yellow fine SAND (SP-SM) 131.35 VERY DENSE pale yellow fine SAND (SP) 98 mgf-0012(500)bnt3; Pile: 072903 Test: 29-Jul-2003 d19-32; Blow: 579 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 327.1; along Shaft 161.3; at Toe 165.8 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 327.1 1 10.1 8.0 9.8 317.3 9.8 1.45 1.11 0.214 0.100 2 16.9 14.8 35.4 282.0 45.2 5.25 4.00 0.214 0.100 3 23.6 21.5 56.5 225.5 101.6 8.38 6.38 0.214 0.100 4 30.3 28.3 44.1 181.4 145.7 6.54 4.98 0.214 0.100 5 37.1 35.0 15.6 165.8 161.3 2.31 1.76 0.214 0.100 Avg. Skin 32.3 4.61 3.65 0.214 0.100 Toe 165.8 1540.45 0.134 0.150 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 1.250 0.805 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 50 100 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 99 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.16 99 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BR-0203(511) MAKE/MODEL: DELMAG D19-42 DIVISION: 5 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 42 LOCATION: LAMAR CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): 4 BENT/LANE: 6 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 4 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 8/17/2004 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: A-36 - 3 INCHES PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 14 X 73 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 50.25 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 134 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 21.4 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 54 DATE: 30 MIN. SETCK SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY (TONS): 173 ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 50.25 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 216.4 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 23 GRADE ELEVATION: 268.5 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 245.33 GW ELEVATION: 268 DATE TESTED: 8/19/2004 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 162 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: B-3 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: MOIST BROWN CLAY W/ SILT AND CLAY AT TOP/ VERY DENSE WET BROWN SAND W/ THIN ROCK LAYERS AT TIP 100 BR-0203(511) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0 50 100 150 200 Applied Load (tons) S e ttl e m e n t (i n c h ) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 262 Medium Moist Gray Clay w/ Silt & Fine Sand 257 Medium Wet Gray Sand w/ Silt and Small Rock Fragments TIP ELEV. 223 Very Dense Wet Orange Sand w/ Gravel 217 Very Dense Wet Tan Silt w/ Sand 209 Very Dense Wet Brown and Gray Silt w/ Fine Sand Clay Rock Fragments 204 Hard Moist Red and Gray Clay w/ Small Rock Fragments 196 Hard Moist Red and Gray Clay w/ Silt 101 br-203 (511) Lamar Co; Pile: 081704B6tp Test: 17-Aug-2004 del d19-42 bent 6; Blow: 288 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 432.3; along Shaft 369.4; at Toe 62.9 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 432.3 1 27.0 2.7 0.0 432.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 2 33.8 9.5 61.0 371.3 61.0 9.03 5.85 0.071 0.100 3 40.6 16.2 0.0 371.3 61.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 4 47.3 23.0 308.4 62.9 369.4 45.61 29.58 0.071 0.100 Avg. Skin 92.4 16.06 8.86 0.071 0.100 Toe 62.9 423.48 0.162 0.420 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.696 0.272 Smith Type Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 30 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.05 102 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: ER-7527(2) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-13 DIVISION: 9 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 25.4 LOCATION: ESCAMBIA WEIGHT (KIPS): 2.87 BENT/LANE: ABUT 6 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 5 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 10/29/2003 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA-3.5" PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 45 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 120 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 33 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY (TONS): ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 45 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 66.2 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 44 GRADE ELEVATION: 94.85 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 50.85 GW ELEVATION: DATE TESTED: 11/5/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 99 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: RB-3 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND 103 ER-7527(2)-A 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 2040608010120 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET TLEM E N T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 80 Soft to Firm SILTY CLAY TIP ELEV. 8 Loose to Dense SAND and SILTY SAND 104 cr 4; Pile: 10/29/03b Test: 29-Oct-2003 k-13; Blow: 355 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 132.3; along Shaft 70.5; at Toe 61.8 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 132.3 1 6.7 2.6 0.0 132.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 2 13.5 9.3 9.9 122.4 9.9 1.47 1.12 0.203 0.100 3 20.2 16.0 17.0 105.5 26.9 2.52 1.92 0.203 0.100 4 27.0 22.8 19.4 86.1 46.2 2.88 2.19 0.203 0.100 5 33.7 29.5 16.2 69.9 62.4 2.40 1.83 0.203 0.100 6 40.4 36.3 8.1 61.8 70.5 1.20 0.91 0.203 0.100 7 47.2 43.0 0.0 61.8 70.5 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 Avg. Skin 10.1 1.64 1.14 0.203 0.100 Toe 61.8 574.33 0.078 0.270 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.516 0.175 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 25 100 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 55 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.03 105 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME ER-7527(2) MAKE/MODEL KOBE K-13 DIVISION 9 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT) 25.4 LOCATION ESCAMBIA WEIGHT (KIPS) 2.87 BENT/LANE ABUT 1 HAMMER ACTION SINGLE PILE NO. 4 AIR/DIESEL DIESEL DATE DRIVEN 6/11/2003 OPEN/CLOSED OPEN HAMMER CUSHION MICARTA-3.5" PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL STEEL HP 12 X 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.) 51.74 PDA CAPACITY (tons) 120 WALL THICKNESS (IN.) SIZE/CS. AREA (IN2) 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons) 32 DATE N/A SPLICE DETAILS N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS) PILE CUSHION N/A PDA CAPACITY (TONS) ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.) 51.74 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 41.4 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.) 50.74 GRADE ELEVATION 97.78 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION 47.04 GW ELEVATION N/A DATE TESTED 6/11/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS) SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS) 96 DID FAILURE OCCUR NO BORING NUMBER N/A ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS) 110 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND 106 ER-7527(2)-B 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 2040608010120 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTL EM EN T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 90 25 Soft to Very Stiff CLAY with Loose to Firm SAND and SILTY SAND TIP ELEV 7 Loose to Dense SAND and Dense to Hard SILTY SAND with some Hard CLAY seams 107 cr 4 main bridge abt 1; Pile: 061103 Test: 11-Jun-2003 k-13 set check; Blow: 13 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 98.1; along Shaft 77.1; at Toe 21.0 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 98.1 1 10.2 6.2 3.6 94.5 3.6 0.53 0.40 0.178 0.040 2 17.0 13.0 5.2 89.3 8.8 0.76 0.58 0.178 0.040 3 23.8 19.8 8.2 81.1 17.0 1.20 0.92 0.178 0.040 4 30.6 26.6 13.3 67.8 30.3 1.95 1.49 0.178 0.040 5 37.4 33.4 17.7 50.2 48.0 2.60 1.98 0.178 0.040 6 44.2 40.2 16.7 33.5 64.6 2.45 1.87 0.178 0.040 7 51.0 47.0 12.5 21.0 77.1 1.84 1.40 0.178 0.040 Avg. Skin 11.0 1.64 1.23 0.178 0.040 Toe 21.0 194.93 0.026 0.090 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.497 0.020 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 30 43 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 9 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.01 108 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: ER-7527(2) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-25 DIVISION: 9 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 5 LOCATION: ESCAMBIA WEIGHT (KIPS): 5.5 BENT/LANE: 3 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 3 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 11/4/2003 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA- 3.5" PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 14 X 89 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 67.53 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 150 SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 26.1 DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 57 RESTRIKE SPLICE DETAILS: N/A DATE: N/A PILE CUSHION: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PDA CAPACITY (TONS): ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 67.53 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 96.9 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 57 GRADE ELEVATION: 86 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 28.99 GW ELEVATION: DATE TESTED: 11/6/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 171 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: RB-3 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: DENSE TO SILTY SAND 109 ER-7527(2)-C 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 50 100 150 200 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET TLEM E N T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 72 Soft to Firm SILTY CLAY 28.99 7 Loose to Dense SAND and SILTY SAND 110 er-7527 (2) ; Pile: 11/04/03b Test: 04-Nov-2003 k-25 set chk R1B3TP; Blow: 13 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 193.7; along Shaft 135.3; at Toe 58.4 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 193.7 1 10.4 8.7 10.0 183.7 10.0 1.45 0.85 0.184 0.060 2 17.3 15.6 10.1 173.6 20.1 1.46 0.86 0.184 0.060 3 24.2 22.5 10.2 163.4 30.3 1.48 0.87 0.184 0.060 4 31.1 29.4 27.4 136.0 57.7 3.96 2.33 0.184 0.060 5 38.0 36.3 40.2 95.8 97.8 5.82 3.42 0.184 0.060 6 44.9 43.2 32.7 63.2 130.5 4.73 2.78 0.184 0.060 7 51.8 50.1 4.8 58.4 135.3 0.69 0.41 0.184 0.060 8 58.7 57.0 0.0 58.4 135.3 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.060 Avg. Skin 16.9 2.37 1.44 0.184 0.060 Toe 58.4 321.97 0.276 0.240 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.535 0.345 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 50 100 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 17 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.04 111 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: ER-7527(2) MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-25 DIVISION: 9 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 5.07 LOCATION: ESCAMBIA CO WEIGHT (KIPS): 5071 BENT/LANE: 10 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 3 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 9/17/2002 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 14 x 89 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 64.2 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 128 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 26.1 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 57 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS); PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 64.2 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 55 GRADE ELEVATION: 87.08 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 32.08 GW ELEVATION: N/A DATE TESTED: 9/17/2002 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 171 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: RB-12 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: DENSE TO SILTY SAND 112 ER-7527(2)-D 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 50 100 150 200 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET TLEM E N T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 80 Soft to Very Stiff CLAY with Loose to Firm SAND and SILTY SAND TIP ELEV. 7 LOOSE TO VERY DENSE SAND TO SILTY SAND WITH SOME CLAY SEAMS 113 er7527(2) relf#3 eod; Pile: 091702 Test: 17-Sep-2002 k-25 b10 relf 3 eod; Blow: 770 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 328.2; along Shaft 118.3; at Toe 209.8 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 328.2 1 10.1 7.8 0.0 328.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.060 2 16.9 14.5 1.4 326.8 1.4 0.21 0.12 0.200 0.060 3 23.6 21.3 8.1 318.7 9.5 1.20 0.70 0.200 0.060 4 30.4 28.0 16.0 302.7 25.5 2.37 1.39 0.200 0.060 5 37.1 34.8 27.0 275.7 52.5 4.00 2.35 0.200 0.060 6 43.9 41.5 33.0 242.7 85.5 4.89 2.87 0.200 0.060 7 50.6 48.3 23.9 218.8 109.4 3.54 2.08 0.200 0.060 8 57.4 55.0 9.0 209.8 118.3 1.33 0.78 0.200 0.060 Avg. Skin 14.8 2.15 1.29 0.200 0.060 Toe 209.8 1157.56 0.029 0.560 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.508 0.129 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 2 10 Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 114 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: ER-7527(2)- MAKE/MODEL: KOBE K-13 DIVISION: 9 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 2.87 LOCATION: ESCAMBIA CO WEIGHT (KIPS): 2.87 BENT/LANE: ABUT 1 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 5 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 7/15/2003 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: MICARTA PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 x 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 38.2 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 88 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 33 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 38.2 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 74.9 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 36 GRADE ELEVATION: 95.28 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 57.08 GW ELEVATION: N/A DATE TESTED: 7/17/2003 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): 98 SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 99 DID FAILURE OCCUR: YES BORING NUMBER: RB-4 ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): 98 BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: LOOSE TO VERY DENSE SAND TO SILTY SAND 115 ER-7527(2)-E 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 2040608010120 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET T L EM EN T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT DAVISSON DEPTH (ft.) DESCRIPTION PILE TIP 85 Soft to Firm SILTY CLAY TIP ELEV. 25 LOOSE TO VERY DENSE SAND TO SILTY SAND WITH SOME CLAY SEAMS 116 I-10 / CR 39 abt 1 nb; Pile: 071503 Test: 15-Jul-2003 d19-42 restrike; Blow: 9 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 149.7; along Shaft 115.4; at Toe 34.3 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 149.7 1 6.7 3.5 1.3 148.4 1.3 0.19 0.15 0.102 0.080 2 13.5 10.3 1.6 146.8 2.9 0.24 0.18 0.102 0.080 3 20.2 17.0 11.5 135.3 14.4 1.70 1.30 0.102 0.080 4 27.0 23.8 29.8 105.5 44.2 4.42 3.37 0.102 0.080 5 33.7 30.5 42.8 62.8 87.0 6.34 4.83 0.102 0.080 6 40.5 37.3 27.2 35.6 114.1 4.03 3.07 0.102 0.080 7 47.2 44.0 1.3 34.3 115.4 0.19 0.15 0.102 0.080 Avg. Skin 16.5 2.62 1.86 0.102 0.080 Toe 34.3 318.47 0.444 0.400 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.426 0.550 Smith Type Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 16 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.11 117 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BRF-0102(527) MAKE/MODEL: APE DIVISION: 6 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 4.189 LOCATION: MONTGOMERY CO. WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.189 BENT/LANE: 4 FTG 8 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 4 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 11/8/2004 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: FOSTERLON PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 12 x 53 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 31.2 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 105 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 15.5 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 60 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 31.2 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): 265.4 EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 28.11 GRADE ELEVATION: 157.81 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 129.7 GW ELEVATION: DATE TESTED: 11/10/2004 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 183 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: N/A ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAY CLAY/SAND 118 BRF-0102(527)-A 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 50 100 150 200 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) S E TTLE M E N T ( I N C H E S ) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) 119 NHF-0056 (500); Pile: 110804B2TP Test: 08-Nov-2004 ape d19-42 bnt 2; Blow: 247 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 530.7; along Shaft 509.8; at Toe 20.9 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 530.7 1 27.0 7.7 68.7 462.0 68.7 10.16 7.74 0.047 0.050 2 33.8 14.5 24.6 437.4 93.3 3.64 2.77 0.047 0.050 3 40.6 21.2 416.5 20.9 509.8 61.62 46.95 0.047 0.050 4 47.3 28.0 0.0 20.9 509.8 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.050 Avg. Skin 127.5 18.21 14.37 0.047 0.050 Toe 20.9 194.13 0.316 0.190 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.870 0.239 Smith Type Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 67 120 PROJECT INFORMATION HAMMER DETAILS NAME: BRF-0102(527) MAKE/MODEL: APE DIVISION: 6 RATED ENERGY (KIP-FT): 4.18 LOCATION: MONTGOMERY CO WEIGHT (KIPS): 4.18 BENT/LANE: ABUT 4 HAMMER ACTION: SINGLE PILE NO.: 20 AIR/DIESEL: DIESEL DATE DRIVEN: 2/17/2005 OPEN/CLOSED: OPEN HAMMER CUSHION: FOSTERLON PILE DETAILS PDA INFORMATION PILE TYPE/MATERIAL: STEEL HP 10 x 42 EOD PILE LENGTH (FT.): 60.3 PDA CAPACITY (tons): 111 WALL THICKNESS (IN.): SIZE/CS. AREA (IN 2 ): 12.4 RESTRIKE DESIGN CAPACITY (tons): 57 DATE: N/A SPLICE DETAILS: N/A SETUP TIME (DAYS): PILE CUSHION: N/A PDA CAPACITY: ELEVATION DETAILS CAPWAP RESULTS TOTAL LENGTH (FT.): 60.3 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE (tons): N/A EMBEDDED LENGTH (FT.): 55.9 GRADE ELEVATION: 188.2 STATIC LOAD TEST DATA TIP ELEVATION: 132.3 GW ELEVATION: DATE TESTED: 2/20/2005 DAVISSON LOAD CAPACITY (TONS): SOIL INFORMATION MAX. APPLIED LOAD (TONS): 87 DID FAILURE OCCUR: NO BORING NUMBER: ESTIMATED ULTIMATE CAPACITY (TONS): BRIEF SOIL DESCRIPTION: RED-YELLOW CLAY 121 BRF-0102(527)-B 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2040608010 APPLIED LOAD (TONS) SET T L E M E N T ( I N C H ES) SETTLEMENT AFTER LOADING INCREMENT (IN.) DAVISSON OFFSET LINE (IN) 122 brf-0102(527); Pile: 021705A4TP Test: 17-Feb-2005 APE d19-42; Blow: 370 CAPWAP? Ver. 2000-1 Alabama Department of Transportation OP: douglas Page 1 Analysis: 10-Mar-2007 CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS Total CAPWAP Capacity: 312.7; along Shaft 211.8; at Toe 101.0 kips Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Unit Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping No. Gages Grade Ru (Depth) (Area) Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in 312.7 1 16.8 6.8 0.0 312.7 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 2 23.5 13.5 0.0 312.7 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.100 3 30.2 20.2 0.6 312.1 0.6 0.09 0.08 0.091 0.100 4 36.9 26.9 15.2 296.9 15.8 2.27 1.93 0.091 0.100 5 43.6 33.6 44.4 252.5 60.2 6.62 5.64 0.091 0.100 6 50.3 40.3 71.2 181.4 131.4 10.62 9.04 0.091 0.100 7 57.0 47.0 80.4 101.0 211.8 11.99 10.21 0.091 0.100 Avg. Skin 30.3 4.51 3.84 0.091 0.100 Toe 101.0 1172.66 0.052 0.470 Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe Case Damping Factor 0.886 0.239 Smith Type Reloading Level (% of Ru) 100 100 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 48 Soil Plug Weight (kips) 0.04