PRESENTING

Latest Trends in Design and Execution

of Driven Pile Foundations

James A. Morrison, P.E.

Past President, Deep Foundations Institute
Engineering Manager,
Kiewit Infrastructure Group

Foundation Trends in the world today

(From Bottiau 2012)

Worldwide Piling Trends

(From Bottiau 2012)

AGENDA

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Design Methods
Equipment
Monitoring
Project Management
Summary

DESIGN Key Steps

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Geotechnical input
Ultimate capacity
Installation resistance
Appropriate equipment
Prove capacity

Common Design References

North American Approach
FHWA (LS)
NCHRP(TRB) (LRFD)
Corps of Engineers (ASCE) (LS)

European Approach
Eurocode 7 (LRFD)

Design Methodology

Limit State or LRFD?

Resistance Factors for Design (LRFD)

Lesson: Big Reward for good data and

field proof testing

Common Problems and Issues

Poor quality geotechnical input
Confused specifications ultimate vs.
working load
Understanding set-up phenomenon
Scale factors with large diameter and deep
piles
Capacity loss with vibratory installation

Case Study - New Natomas Pump Station

Example SPT calibration

Example Sampler Size Correction

Blows/ft

19x0.5 =
3 California
Sampler

23x0.5 =12
37x0.5 =19

2Standard
Penetration
Test

15
31x0.5 =16

3California
Sampler

41x0.5 =21

SPT Hammer Energy Correction

N60 = C NAutohammer
C = Energy

(Autohammer)

/ Energy

(SPT)

The efficiency of a CME Autohammer is about 85 to 95%

compared to the Rope-and-Cathead efficiency of 60%.
C = 0.85/0.6

to

0.95/0.6

C = 1.42

to

1.58

C ~ 1.5

Lesson

SPT data needs to be calibrated to

equivalent N60 in order to use

standard design formulas

Case Study - New Orleans 2005

Case Study New Orleans, LA

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
West Closure Complex Pump Station
New Orleans, Louisiana

Case Study - Pitt River Bridge, Vancouver, BC

Vibratory hammer Installation through silty clay

deposits reduced the pile capacity at initial drive by a
factor of about 4, and the subsequent rate of set up
was only about half of that for piles driven with an
impact hammer.

Driven Pile Design Summary

Design is not finished until piles are installed
and proven
Design input parameters require experience
and judgment
Local calibration required

10

Current Developments in Equipment

Mobility
Hammer technology
Environmental improvements
Pile driving monitoring equipment

Mobility

11

Cranes

Crawler
Truck mounted
Barge mounted
All in one rigs

Cranes

12

Leads and Spotters

Fixed Box Leads

Traveling Leads
Swinging Leads
Off Shore Leads

Triple 9
Leads

Boom head/
top sheaves

Pile Line

Boom tip

Hammer
line (main)

Boom insert

Boom

Pendants

Butt Cab
Gantry
Hammer
Back hitch
Kicker or
spotter

Counterweight
s

Crawler
Manitowoc 999 Crawler Crane with Ape Leads & D80
Hammer

13

Leads and Spotters

Forklifts

14

Areal work platforms

New Developments in Hammer Technology

Diesel Hammers
Hydraulic starting
Remote throttle (stroke)
control
Free-standing operation
Direct-drive options
Near disappearance of
double-acting diesels

Air Hammers

Hydraulic Hammers

General

Accelerated-ram hammers
Direct drive options
Free-standing options

On-board performance monitoring

Engine regulations meeting Tier II
and Tier III emissions standards

Small air hammer

Direct drive options
Less double-acting air
hammers
Free-standing operation

(from Justason 2012)

15

New Developments in Hammer Technology

Diesel Hammers

Hydraulic starting
Remote throttle (stroke) control
Free-standing operation
Direct-drive options
Clean deisel

(from Justason 2012)

New Developments in Hammer Technology

Hydraulic Hammers
Accelerated-ram hammers
Direct drive options
Free-standing options

(from Justason 2012)

16

New Developments in Hammer Technology

Air Hammers
Small air hammer
Direct-drive options
Free standing operation

(from Justason 2012)

Resonance Hammer technology

High frequency vibration: 80-150 Hz
(4800 to 9000 VPM)

Conventional vibro 900-1200 VPM

Conventional Variable Moment high

frequency = 3000 VPM

17

Resonance

Resonance = high accelerations:

(100 to 200 g) similar to impacts

Typical amplitude
(3 to 6 mm) diameter dependent

18

Advances in QA/QC for Driven Piles

Automated data collection systems

Improved dynamic monitoring methods
Evaluation of hammer impact energy
Internet technology remote monitoring

Installation QA/QC

SaximeterTM
Acoustic measurement
Automated blow-counts
blow-rate/energy

E-SaximeterTM
addition of impact
(kinetic) energy
monitoring
(from Justason 2012)

19

Pile Driving Monitor (PDM)

(from Justason 2012)

Pile Driving Monitor (PDM)

(from Justason 2012)

20

Max Potential Energy (for diesel hammers)

Actual
Potential
Energy

mgh

Kinetic Energy

mv2

Transferred
Energy

(PDA)

(from Justason 2012)

Need: a standard rating for hammer efficiency

Kinetic energy vs. transferred energy
Ambiguous or erroneous specifications leading to
improper hammer selection
Different energy transfer efficiency - hydraulic vs
diesel hammers

21

Recent advances in dynamic monitoring

Wireless PDA Testing

Remote PDA Testing
Smart transducers
Embedded transducers

Wireless PDA testing

Eliminates cables
Improves safety.

(from Justason 2012)

22

EmbeddedDataCollector
(wirelesssensor)

Smart Structures System

SmartPile Gateway
(unmanneddatacollection)
SmartPile Review
(review&processsensordata)

Internet

Wireless
Internet

SmartPile PortalOnline
InformationSystem
Data storage & retrieval.
Post-processing &
reporting.

SmartPile Workstation
(manneddatacollection)

Condition-based
monitoring.

Commercial
Users

Governmental
Users

Other

Alarms and alerting.

Asset management.

What could possibly go wrong?

23

What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong?

24

Project Management - What could go wrong ?

1. Bad Data
2. Design error
3. Changed conditions
4. Build it wrong
5. Final cost exceeds budget
6. Product does not work
7. Third party damage

North American Common Law.

The party in the best

position to manage the risk
owns it.

25

Who can best manage the risk?

Designer
Design error

Contractor

Owner

Changed conditions

Build it wrong
Final cost exceeds
budget
Product does not work

X
X

Third party damage

Best vehicle for managing risk

Insurance Contract
Design error

Changed conditions

Quality
Control

X
X

Build it wrong
Final cost exceeds budget

X
X

Product does not work

Third party damage

26

CONCLUSION - Putting the Pieces Together

1. Pile design requires calibration
2. Equipment improvements = reliability,
efficiency, production
3. Monitoring = better quality
4. Sound risk management

DFI Purpose

Advancing the deep foundations

industry through collaboration of
engineers, contractors, manufacturers
and educators.

General

27

28