Identifying High Pile Rebound Soils Using CPT Pore Water Pressure Measurements: Case Studies in Florida

Authors Paul J. Cosentino1, Ph.D., P.E. Edward H. Kalajian2, Ph.D., P.E Fauzi Jarushi3 Ryan Krajcik 4

1. Corresponding Author, Professor of Civil Engineering, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901. Phone 321 674-7555, FAX 321 674-7565,

(cosentin@fit.edu) 2. Professor of Civil Engineering and Associate Dean, College of Engineering, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901. Phone 321 674- 8020 (kalajian@fit.edu) 3. Ph.D Candidate in Civil Engineering, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901,(fjarushi2009@my.fit.edu) 4. MS. Graduate Research Assistant, (rkrajcik@my.fit.edu)

Figures and Tables and Title Page Words = -710 Abstract (244) words Text (4297) Words not including Abstract Tables 2 or 500 Words Figures 10 or 2500 Words Grand Total (7550) Words Including Title, Figures, Tables and References

Revised on 11/15/2012

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

1
ABSTRACT At certain depths during large diameter displacement pile driving, rebound well over 0.25 inch was experienced and followed by a small or zero set during each hammer blow. High pile rebound (HPR) soils may stop the pile driving and results in a limited pile capacity. The overburden depth at which HPR occurred is typically greater than 50 ft. In some cases, rebound leads to pile damage, delaying the construction project, and the requiring foundations redesign. HPR was evaluated at six Florida sites, during driving of square precast, prestressed concrete piles driven into saturated, fine silty to clayey sands and sandy clays. Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) deflection versus time data, recorded during installation, was used to develop correlations between cone penetrometer (CPT) pore-water pressures , pile displacements and

rebound. Fifteen CPT tests with pore-water pressure measurements (CPTu) were evaluated and comparisons were made to HPR from nine piles at the six sites. At four sites where piles experienced excessive HPR with no or minimal set, the pore pressure yielded very high

positive values of more than 20 tsf. However, at the site where the pile rebounded, followed by an acceptable permanent set, the measured pore pressure pressure ranged between 5 and 20 tsf. The pore

exhibited values of less than 5 tsf at the site where no rebound was noticed. In and rebound were produced, which

summary, direct correlations between CPTu pore pressure leading to identify soils that produce HPR.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

2
INTRODUCTION At numerous sites throughout the state, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) contractors and engineers have experienced serious pile installation problems while driving large diameter displacement piles (e.g., 18-in, 24-in, and 30-in) (1,2) with diesel and air hammers. During these installations, high pile rebound (HPR) occurred; followed by a small or no permanent-set. Soils referred to herein as high rebound soil stop the pile driving and result in limiting pile capacity (1). Pile rebound is defined as the upward elastic pile displacement that occurs during a hammer blow. Figure 1 shows a typical pile-top displacement versus time record for a single hammer blow. The maximum initial downward motion is termed "DMX," and is the sum of elastic and plastic deformations of the pile and soil system. The final value of the displacement is the permanent pile penetration for the blow, termed "set." Rebound is the difference between the pile maximum displacement and final set. High rebound describes the situation where the set (i.e., plastic soil deformation) represents a small portion of the maximum displacement and the rebound (i.e., recovered elastic deformation) constitutes the majority of the displacement. In some cases, rebound lead to pile damage, delaying the construction project, and requires foundation redesign (1). Schedule delays ranged from 15 minutes to several weeks with cost overruns more than 20,000 dollars was reported (3). HPR has occurred during pile driving of high displacement concrete and steel piles with different dimensions (2). FDOT considers that excessive rebound takes place when there it is greater than 0.25 inch per hammer blow (4). HISTORY OF PORE WATER PRESSURE ON HPR Murrell et al. (5) presented a case history of HPR, which occurred during the construction of a new ferry terminal in coastal North Carolina. The 20-inch, square 70 ft long, Prestressed Concrete Pile (PCP) were designed to support an over water structure. The authors describe the high

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

3
rebound using the term Bounce. Pile bounce was observed at overburden depth of 53 ft (elevation -43ft) when the piles penetrated into saturated, firm to stiff, fine-grained soils that originate from marine formations along the southeastern coast of the United States. Excess pore water pressures at shoulder or behind the tip obtained during CPTu at the

bouncing depth were greater than 20 tsf. When the blow counts during pile driving were at 303 blows per foot (bpf), the pile displacement became zero. The driving process was then stopped for two hours and restrike was then carried out; however, an additional 2.5 ft of pile length was driven with blow counts of 73 bpf, 112 bpf, and 87 blows/6 in. Then the driving was again halted when large rebound resulted in zero set. In order to achieve the pile capacity, and overcome pile rebound, after four days the pile was driven using a hammer with a larger ram and a short stroke. Hussein et al. (2) presented a case study related to HPR during driving of PCP for the State Road 528 Bridge over the Indian River, Florida. A group of 30-inch square PCP with a length of 115 ft and 18-inch circular hollow core were used to support the bridge. The piles rebounded when they penetrated into hard soils consisting of saturated medium dense sand with silt (SP-SM) to fine silty sand (SM) to clayey sands and sandy clays (SC). The authors believe that that the incompressible water in the soil near and below the pile tip produced excessive pore pressure during the driving process which caused the tip to exert an upward force on the pile causing it to rebound. However, no analytical proof of this conclusion is available. Likins et al. (6) analyzed three sites with pile rebound between 0.4 and 1 inches. He determined that the only common geotechnical parameter observed at each site was the fully saturated soils. Therefore, research focused on analyzing the dynamics of pile driving. Preliminary analysis using the basic wave equation was conducted for each site. The author then modified the results to match field data acquired by CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program). It was proposed that the only reasonable cause of the HPR was the buildup of excess PWP beneath the pile tip. It was also clear through testing, that pile capacities decreased when

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

4
high quake/rebound occurred. Findings from the work indicate that high quake lowers the pile capacity by a factor of 3. Field observations often lead to a false interpretation that the hammer is not large enough for the pile, and in cases where the hammer size is increased, the pile can be damaged. Likins and Garland (6) conclude that alternative pile designs, such as hollow piles, should be considered as an effective way to avoid high soil quake. DYNAMIC (PDA) TESTING During the driving of test piles, electronic measurements such as ram velocity, stroke, blow count, and penetration were determined using PDA sensors. This data was used to clarify the pile movement per blow. Figure 1 shows a typical HPR PDA data. The plot, with displacement in inches on the vertical axis, and time in milliseconds on the horizontal axis, shows a maximum displacement (DMX) of 1 inches, a set of 0.11 inches, thereby yielding a rebound of 0.89 inches.
1

Maximum Displacement (in)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Time (Milliseconds) FIGURE 1 Typical PDA Pile Top Displacement Versus Time Diagram From One Hammer Blow For FDOT HPR site.

In addition to the digital set in the PDA output (DFN or dSet) which is not used for this study because it is recorded in short time of 200 milliseconds, the number of hammer blows per foot is used to produce an average inspector set (iSet) per blow. The maximum displacements and

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

5
iSet were subtracted to determine the rebound per hammer blow (i.e., DMX-iSet =Rebound). Plots for each of the case studies were developed relating elevations to DMX, iSet and rebound from the PDA data. The elevation associated with the start of the PDA data corresponded to the depth at which pile driving commenced, which was below the ground surface because piles at these sites were set into predrilled holes. CPTu AND PORE WATER PRESSURE DISSIPATION TESTING Electrical friction cone tests were performed in soundings by hydraulically advancing the cone penetrometer while signals were digitally recorded using the Hogentogler standard recording system. The CPTu soundings were conducted using 10-cm2 piezocones, with porous filter element type 2 located at shoulder or behind the tip
.

The CPTu test procedure followed ASTM D5778 "Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing". During testing, digital channels were used to record the tip, friction, inclination and designated pore water pressure every 2 inches. The rod insertion speed

was 0.75 in/sec. Tests were conducted until refusal of the CPT rig or desired depth was met. At desired depths (rebound and non-rebound soils), pore-water pressure dissipation tests with time were performed during the CPTu soundings to obtain dissipation time. SITE DESCRIPTION Six sites in Central Florida listed below were evaluated by comparing PDA output to CPTu pore pressure . Each of these sites contained a number of instrumented piles, allowing nine piles to

be analyzed at the six sites. Site 1 through 4 displayed HPR with no or minimal set, site 5 displayed HPR with an acceptable set and site 6 displayed no HPR. 1. Intersection of I-4 and SR408 (Anderson Street Overpass). 2. Intersection of SR50 and SR436 Overpass (SR50/SR436 Overpass). 3. Intersection of I-4 and US.Highway192 (I-4/US.192 Ramp CA). 4. Intersection of I-4 and Osceola Parkway (I-4 /Osceola Parkway). 5. Intersection of I-4 and SR408 (Ramp B).

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

6
6. Intersection of SR 417 and International Parkway. SOIL PROFILES AND PROPERTIES Split-barrel and Shelby tube samples were obtained in order to establish the soil profile. The soil samples were classified in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D-2488). At each site, a generalized soil profile was developed from the SPT boring closet to the rebounded pile. Soils profiles are presented in Figures 2 to 9. Sand was the predominate soil at the HPR sites consistently representing over 50 percent of the soil. The soil strata where HPR occurred can be classified as one of the following groups: SC, SM-SC, SM, CL, SP-SM, SP-SC and CH. Most HPR layers had high fines content with a natural moisture content less than the liquid limit. The soils plotted near the A-line on the Cassagrande plasticity chart. These soils displayed an olive green to light green color with visual descriptions ranging from clayey and silty fine sands, to highly plastic clays with low permeability coefficient. A summary of the soil properties from each of the case studies is presented in Table 1. In reviewing Table 1, the following can be observed: Rebound occurred at overburdens depths of greater than 50 ft; Soils in the rebound layers typically contained silts and clays; Soils in the rebound zone were dense to very dense or stiff to hard; Permeability coefficient estimated using the time for 50% dissipation from CPTu dissipation test ranged between 4.1E-05 and 6.84E-08; HPR soils had an obtained t50 and calculated permeability coefficient from Parez and Fauriel (6) in the range of silt to clay soils; Average CPT sleeve friction in the rebound soils was greater than 1.5 tsf while in the no rebound soils averaged less than 1 tsf; Most HPR soils exhibited CPT cone resistance of greater than 100 tsf.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

7
TABLE 1 Summary of Soil Properties at HPR Sites
Rebound Observed? No 1 Anderson overpass Yes No Yes No Pier 6 Pier 7 Pier 8 4 5 6 I-4 /Osceola Parkway I-4/ SR 408 Ramp B SR417 /International Parkwaya Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yesc No 15 to -10 45 to 28 28 to 17 60 to 40 30 to 20 65 to 40 40 to 20 60 to 32 32 to 0 50 to 25 15 to 8 90 to30 30 to 0 SM, SC, CL& CH CH, SM & SP CH SP&SP-SM SM SP&SP-SM SM SP&SP-SM SM SM & SC SM SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, CH SC SM >40 30 >40 <20 2550 25 25 30 50 25 37 20 20 40 30 50 53 55 31 21-47 38 31 NA 47 6 28 29 23 13 40 86 NA 155 NP NP NP NP NP NP 4 NP NP NA NP 13 42 NA 110 NP NP NP NP NP NP 18 NP NP NA NP 6.84E08 2.7E-05 2.7E-05 1.4E-05 6.84E08 1.2E-07 6.6E-08 4.1E-05 4.2E-07 1.4E-07 7.5E-06 4.94E06 NA NA 1.3E-06 3.4E-07 2150 18 5 20-90 1000 2150 25 2200 13 500 1200 50 70 NA NA 200 600 3 0.5 1.5 0.8 2 0.5 2 1 2.5 1 2.5 1 2 0.5 1.5 200 75 50 60 150 60 130 60 100 100 100 100 150 100 Elevation (ft) 74 to 15 Soil Type (USCS) SP-SM, SM, CL, SM-SC FC (%) <20 Physical Properties LL PI K (%) (%) (cm/s) 47 18 1.5E-06 4.6E-07 CPT t50
(sec) b

Site Description

NM (%) 22-50

(tsf) 0.8

(tsf) 60

180 470

SR 50/SR 436 Overpass

I-4 /US.192 Ramp CA

NOTE: USCS=Unified Soil Classification System; FC= % fines content; NM= natural moisture content; LL= Liquid Limit; PL =Plasticity index; K= Permeability coefficient; = sleeve friction; = cone resistance; NP= non-plastic; NA=not available; ano rebound site; bduring CPT c dissipation test; rebound followed by an acceptable permanent-set.

PILES AND DRIVING EQUIPMENT A summary of pile driving information obtained from the case histories is presented in Table 2. It includes information such as site description, pile description, pile spacing, hammer characteristic and energy, driving blow counts, rebound amount and elevations. As the information suggests, there are several common characteristics among the HPR sites: Piles were displacement piles ranging between 18 and 24 inches; Tested and production piles were longer than 70 ft; Piles were spaced at 6 to 11 ft (2.5B to 4.5B); Piles were set into predrilled hole with varying depth; Pile driving hammers were single acting; Rebound occurred in Central Florida sites (Site 1 to 5) between elevations 35 to -10 ft;

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

8
Average pile driving blow counts in the rebound layers was greater than 100 blows/ft while in the no rebound sites were less than 50 blow/ft.
TABLE 2 Pile Driving Information Summary
Site Description Pile size and type 24-in SPCP HP ( 14 x 89) 24-in SPCP 24-in SPCP 24-in SPCP 24-in SPCP 24-in SPCP 18-in SPCP 24-in SPCP Pile Length (ft) 124 120 105 106 112 100 95 100 100 Pile Spacing (ft) 7 (3.5B) NA 8 (4B) 7 (3.5B) 9 (4.5B) 6 (3B) 6 (3B) NA 5 (2.5B)
a

Hammer Model Type Delmag D62-22 ICE I-30 APE D62-42 ICE 120 S ICE 120 S ICE 120 S ICE 120 S Delmag D36-32 APE D46-42

Ram Wight (kips) 13.67 6.6 13.7 12 12 12 12 7.94 13.7

Hammer Rate Energy (ft-k) 90.50 71.4 154 120 120 120 120 84 154

Average BL (blows/ft) 135 NA 143 220 140 111 105 50 42

Total BL 3674 NA 526 2599 3108 5183 4431 2687 3101 1797

Rebound Elevation (ft) 15 to -10

MAX Rebound (in) 1.4

Anderson Street Overpass SR 50/SR 436 overpass Pier 6 I-4 / Pier US.192 7 Pier 8 I-4/ Osceola Parkway I-4/ SR 408 (Ramp B) SR 417 /International Parkway

No Rebound 26 to 17 35 to 25 35 to 20 30 to 15 15 to 8 30 to 0 5 to 0 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.25 0.9 0.5 0.25

4 5 6

Note: SPCP=square prestressed concrete pile; B= pile diameter; asingle acting; baverage driving blow counts in the rebound layer; ctotal pile driving; BL= blow counts; NA= not available.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Site 1 Anderson Street Overpass The approximate ground surface elevation (GSE) at the site was 104 ft. The piles were designed as 24-inch square PCP, 124 ft long. Severe HPR problems occurred between elevation 15 and -10 ft during installation of the displacement piles at Pier 6 located on the east end of the overpass. As a result, the foundation were redesigned using low displacement steel H-piles. Rebound occurred only during installation of the concrete piles. Three CPTu tests were conducted near he rebounded piles. Figure 2 shows the variation of pore pressure and PDA pile displacement with elevation. An increase in pore pressures

ranged between 1 and 10 tsf in the no HPR soils above elevation 15 ft, to more than 20 tsf in the rebound soils from elevation 15 to near 0 ft. By comparing the PDA rebound, iSet and pore

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

9
pressure in Figure 2b and 2c, it is evident that when the pore pressure is approximately 30 tsf, the pile iSet became zero.
Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Pore Pressure U2 (tsf) 10 20 30

Elev. GSE 104ft Soil Layers (ft) 100 90

Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Fine Sand (SP)

40

Predrilled Depth

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10
Pier 6 Pile 6 DMX Pier 6 Pile 6 Rebound Pier 6 Pile 6 iSet Silty Sand (SM) Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Clay (CH) Silty Clay Fine Sand (SM-SC) Silty Clay with some Shell (CL) Silty Clay Fine Sand (SM-SC) Silty Sand (SM) Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Clayey Sand (SC) Silty Clay Fine Sand (SM-SC) Sandy Clay (CL) Green Clay (CH)

CPTu-4 CPTu-5 CPTu-602

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 2 (a) generalized soil profile, (b) PDA diagrams, and (c) CPTu pore-water pressure For Site 1 Anderson Street Overpass.

Site 2 SR50/SR436 Overpass Twenty-four inch square, PCP piles were installed to support the overpass at the intersection. These piles were 105 ft long with a GSE of 98 ft. Due to practical refusal of 20 blows per inch, several piles did not reach the specified minimum tip elevation of 15.6 ft, corresponding to a depth of 82.4 ft. Figure 3b shows the observed PDA rebound varied from 0.25 to 1 inch, and was first encountered at an elevation of 26 ft and continued to increase until driving terminated at 18 ft.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

10
Two CPTu were performed at this site to a depth of 80 ft. By matching the PDA data and the pore pressure in Figure 3 elevation 26 to 18 ft, the pile displacement decreased as the pore pressure reached a very high value of more than 20 tsf. A peak pore pressure was recorded at elevation 23 ft, corresponding to a significantly decrease in displacement at the same elevation.
Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) 0 1 2 3 4 Pore Pressure U2 (tsf) 0 10 20 30 40

Elev. GSE 99ft Soil Layers (ft)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Silty Fine Sand (SM) Fine Sand (SP) Silty Fine Sand (SM) Fine Sand (SP) Fine Sand with silt (SP-SM) Silty Fine Sand (SM)

Predrilled Depth

Fine Sand (SP)

Silty Fine Sand (SM) Fine Sand (SP) Silty Fine Sand (SM) Clay (CH) Silty Fine Sand (SM) Fine Sand (SP) Silty Fine Sand (SM) Sandy Fat Clay (CH)

EB 4 WB Pile 5 DMX EB 4 WB Pile 5 Rebound EB 4 WB Pile 5 iSet

CPTu-1 CPTu-5b

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 3 (a) Generalized Soil Profile, (b) PDA Diagram and (c) CPTu pore-water pressure For Site 2 SR50/SR436 Overpass.

Site 3 I-4/US.192 The approximate GSE at the site was 90 to 106 ft. The support piling for the bridge piers consisted of 24-inch square PCP 95 ft long. Many of the piles with tip elevations between 25 and 5 ft experienced rebound ranging between 0.5 and 1.25 inch per hammer blow (see Figures 4b, 5b and 6b). Three CPTu tests were conducted each about 40 ft from nearest HPR piles; (i.e., pile 16 pier 6, pile 10 pier 7 and pile 11 pier 8). These three piers were located approximately 200 ft apart. Large rebound, followed by low displacement was observed during driving.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

11
Pier 6 Pile 16 The pore pressure versus elevation plot near pier 6 is shown in Figure 4c. By comparing the PDA results and the pore pressure in Figure 4b and 4c, it is evident that in the overlying zones with minimal rebound above elevation 35 ft, the pore pressure varied between 1 and 4 tsf, while the rebound soil below elevation 35 ft yielded very high positive values of more than 20 tsf. In the rebound zone elevation below elevation 30 ft, the final permanent-set decreased, approaching near zero as the pore pressure reached 29 tsf and as the pore pressure decreased to less than 5 tsf at elevation 25 ft, the pile displacement increased resulting in an acceptable permanent-set.
Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) Pore Pressure U2 (tsf)

Elev. GSE 106ft Soil Layers (ft)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

10 20 30 40

100 90 80

Sand with silt to Silty Sand (SM)

Predrilled Depth

Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

70
60 50 40 30 20 10
Pier 6 Pile 16 DMX Pier 6 Pile 16 Rebound Pier 6 Pile 16 iSet

Fine Sand (SP)

Silty Sand (SM)

CPTu-4

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 4 (a) Generalized Soil Profile, (b) PDA diagram and (c) CPTu pore-water pressure for Site 3 I-4/US.192 (Ramp CA Pier 6).

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

12
Pier 7 Pile 10 At this location, the pore pressure increases between elevations 32 and 25 ft corresponding to large rebounds, and lower permanent-set. Comparing PDA pile displacements and pore pressure in Figure 5, shows the pile penetration ceased when the pore pressure exceeded 20 tsf. After the pore pressure decreased below elevation 25, the rebound decreased and permanent-set increased.
Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) Pore Pressure U2 (tsf)

Elev. GSE 106ft Soil Layers (ft)

Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

0.25 0.5 0.75 Predrilled Depth

10 20 30 40

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Silty Sand (SM) Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Silty Sand (SM) Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

Fine Sand (SP) Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

Silty Sand (SM)

20
10 0
Pier 7 Pile 10 DMX Pier 7 Pile 10 Rebound Pier 7 Pile 10 iSet

CPTu-3

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 5 (a) Generalized Soil Profile, (b) PDA Diagram and (c) CPTu pore-pressure 3 I-4/US.192 (Ramp CA Pier 7).

for Site

Pier 8 Pile 11 As shown in Figure 6b, large rebound between elevation 28 and 18 ft, resulted in very low permanent-set. For the same elevation, the pore pressure yielded an increase of more than 20 tsf and as the pore pressure decreased below elevation 20 ft a slight increase occurred. Using the

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

13
findings from the PDA analysis and pore pressure at the three piers, it is demonstrated that the increase in pore pressure is accompanied by very small pile displacement in high pile rebound soils.
Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) Pore pressure U2 (tsf)

Elev. GSE 90ft (ft) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10

Soil Layers

0.5

1.5

10 20 30 40

Fine Sand (SP) Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

Predrilled Depth

Fine Sand (SP) Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

Silty Sand (SM)

Sandy Limestone
Pier 8 Pile 11 DMX Pier 8 Pile 11 Rebound Pier 8 Pile 11 iSet

CPTu-2
for

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 6 (a) Generalized Soil Profile, (b) PDA diagram and (c) CPTu pore-water pressure Site 3 I-4/US.192 (Ramp CA Pier 8).

Site 4 I-4/Osceola Parkway The bridge pier supports consisted of 24-inch square PCP 95 ft long. Pier 2, pile 8 had high blow counts due to HPR. Rebound over 0.5 inch occurred between elevations 15 and 0 ft, as shown in Figure 7b. One sounding was performed at this location approximately 25 ft from the HPR piles. The data indicated similar trend to the data from ramp CA at the I-4/US.192 interchange. Very high pore pressure, reaching 30 tsf, existed from elevations 18 ft to 8 ft. By comparing the PDA

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

14
data and pore pressure in Figure 7, it can be shown that at these elevations, pore pressure in excess of 20 tsf correlated to large rebound and small permanent-set.
Pile Displacements and Rebound (in)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

Elev. GSE 92ft (ft)

Soil Layers

Pore pressure U2 (tsf) 0 10 20 30 40

90
80 70 60

Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Silty Sand (SM)

Predrilled Depth

Fine Sand (SP)

Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

50 40 30 20 10 0
Tan Sandy Limestone Silty Sand (SM) Silt with sand (ML) Silty Sand (SM) Clayey Sand (SC)

-10

Pier 2 Pile 8 DMX Pier 2 Pile 8 Rebound Pier 2 Pile 8 iSet

CPTu-1

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 7 (a) Generalized soil profile, (b) PDA Diagram, and (c) CPTu Pore-Water Pressure Site 4 I-4/ Osceola Parkway (Ramp D2).

for

Site 5 I-4 and SR408 Interchange (Ramp B) Two piles were driven as instrumented test piles; pile 5 pier 2 and pile 2 end bent 1. These piles were 100 ft long PCP 18-inch square piles. Three sounding were conducted near the two test piles. The increase of pore pressure (Figure 8c) encountered during CPTu testing, ranged between 10 and 17 tsf. It correlates to small amount of rebound followed by an acceptable permanent-set.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

15

Elev. GSE 105ft Soil Layers (ft)

Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Pore Pressure U2 (tsf) 0 5 10 15 20

100 90 80 70 60 50

Silty Fin Sand (SM) Fine Sand(SP) Fine Sand With Clay (SP-SC) Fine Sand With Silt(SP-SM) Sand With Clay (SP-SC) Clayey Fine Sand (SC) Clay (CH) Clayey Fine Sand (SC)

Predrilled Depth

40
30 20 10 0

Pier 2 Pile 5 DMX Pier 2 Pile 5 Rebound Pier 2 Pile 5 iSet

CPTu-B109 CPTu-B118 CPTu -A1-105A

(a) (b) (c) FIGURE 8 (a) Generalized Soil Profile, (b) PDA diagrams (b and c) and (d) CPTu pore-water pressure for Site 5 I-4/SR408 Interchange (Ramp B).

Site 6 SR417 /International Parkway Two piles instrumented with PDA sensors were tested at this site. These piles were 24-inch square, PCPs and 100 ft in length. A small amount of rebound was observed (Figure 9b and 9c ) followed by a large undergoing set, however, the piles met driving specifications set forth by the FDOT (i.e., less than 0.25 inch rebound per blow). Three CPTu soundings were conducted near the two test piles. Pore pressure increased from an average in the overlying soils of-0.3 tsf to less than 5 tsf where pile experienced a small amount of rebound. Figure 9d shows this increase in the pore pressure and rebound (Figure 9c) between elevation 10 and 0 ft. This data is also consistent with the finding previously described,

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

16
that rebound increases with pore pressure, soil layers with pore pressures less than 5 tsf determined during the CPT are not likely to cause any HPR.

Elev. GSE 75ft Soil Layers (ft)

Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0

Pile Displacements and Rebound (in) 0.5 1 1.5 2

Pore Pressure U2 (tsf) 0 1 2 3 4 5

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10

Silty Sand (SM) Fine Sand (SP) Sand with silt (SP- SM) Sandy Fat Clay (CH) Sand with silt (SP- SM) Elastic silt (MH) Sand with silt (SP- SM)

Predrilled Depth

Predrilled Depth

Silty Sand (SM)

ClayeyFine Sand (SC)

Silty Fine Sand (SM)

EB 1 Pile 14 DMX EB 1 Pile 14 Rebound EB 1 Pile 14 iSet

EB 2 Pile 5 DMX EB 2 Pile 5 Rebound EB 2 Pile 5 iSet

CPT1 CPT2 CPT4

(a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 9 (a) Generalized Soil Profile, (b and c) PDA Diagrams, and (d) CPTu pore-water pressure for Site 6 SR417/International Parkway.

EFFECT OF PILE SIZE, PILE SPACING AND HAMMER TYPE The driven HPR piles were 18 to 24 inches in diameters and longer than 70 ft in length. Driven piles at sites 1 through 4 were 24 inches in diameter and 100 ft long. Piles at these sites experienced rebound of over 0.65 to 1.50 inches with near zero set while the soils at same elevation exhibited CPTu pore pressures of more than 20 tsf. In contrast, soils at site 6 where of less than 5 tsf, and rebound of less

similar size piles were driven, produced pore pressures

than 0.25 inches followed by a large set. No conclusions can be reached on the effect of pile size on HPR.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

17
The driven piles at the six sites were placed in groups of 12 to 20 piles and were spaced at 5 to 9 ft (2.5B to 4.5B) as summarized in Table 2. At site 6, where no rebound was observed, the driven piles were placed at 5 to 6 ft (2.5B to 3B) intervals. At sites where excessive rebound was observed (sites 1 to 4), the group of piles were placed at 6 to 9 ft (3B to 4.5B) intervals. Because both HPR and no HPR occurred with similar pile spacings, it can be concluded HPR is not a function of pile spacing. Single-acting hammers were used at HPR sites. The hammers were selected based on standard recommendations for sufficient driving capabilities according to the project requirements. However, due to excessive rebound at site 1, the engineers recommended hammers with heavier rams to overcome rebound at the site. Even with heavier rams, the piles at this site could not be driven. The piles at this site were redesigned and replaced with steel H piles. Consequently, the data analyses of the hammer type did not provide any clear findings. POSSIBLE REASON FOR HPR During pile driving process, piles undergo elastic compression from the hammer blow, and spring back to their original configuration when the hammer retracts. The soil below the pile tip is also compressed because of the hammer blow, and will attempt to push the pile back up. The sum of elastic and plastic deformations of the pile and soil system are referred as rebound. When contact shear resistance along the pile shaft exists, the pile is prevented from recovering its original configuration (8). The authors believe that as the piles penetrated into very dense silty fine sand HPR soils, excessive positive pore water pressures were produced under the pile tip. This pressure extends laterally and vertically (9, 10) causing a resistance stress to the point that large diameter piles could not penetrated the stratum. At the same time, the pore pressures along the shaft decreased producing very low effective stress and minimal shaft resistance. The combination of the extremely high tip resistance and minimal or no shaft resistance in relatively dense silty sands

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

18
produced HPR for the 24 inch square piles in this investigation. No analytical proof of this conclusion is presented. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REBOUND AND CPT PORE PRESSURE Linear correlations between the pile rebound, permanent-set and the maximum pore pressure, are presented in Figure 10. These correlations were developed within the HPR zone using CPTu pore pressure and both rebound or inspector permanent-set at the same elevation (e.g., Maximum

pore pressure at site 1 is 33 tsf and corresponding rebound at the same depth is 1 in and the iSet is 0.13 in). Figure 10a has plots of rebound and set versus pore pressure while 10b presents the same variables versus the ratio of pore pressure pressure divided by the calculated (hydrostatic)

. The data from this study plus the data presented by Murrell et al. (5) was

combined. It consistently produced strong linear correlations with regression coefficients R2 of 0.6 or higher. The permanent-set decreased and rebound increased as pore pressure increased. Rebound versus either pore pressure or nearly plots through the origin, indicating rebound or 5.5 % of the ratio. Slightly higher

would equal approximately 2.5 % of the CPTu

correlation coefficients in Figure 10b indicate increased agreement between HPR and the ratio. The data from Murrell et al. (5) agrees with the results of this study.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

19

Present Study 1.6 Rebound (in) 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0 5 10 15

Murrell et al.(2008) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 25 30 35 0

Present Study

Murrell et al.(2008)
Excludes Murrell, R = 0.72 Includes Murrell, R2=0.69 y = -0.0141x + 0.5102

Excludes Murrell, R = 0.77 Includes Murrell, R2=0.60 y = 0.0254x + 0.0281

iSet (in)

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pore Pressure, U2 (tsf) (a)

1.6
Excludes Murrell, R = 0.70 Includes Murrell, R2=0.73 y = 0.055x - 0.0004

Pore Pressure, U2 (tsf)

0.8 0.6
Excludes Murrell, R = 0.73 Includes Murrell, R2=0.78 y = -0.0295x + 0.5172

Rebound (in)

1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0

iSet (in)
4 8 12 16 20

0.4 0.2 0 0 4 8 12 16 20

U2 /U0

U2 /U0

(b) FIGURE 10 Correlation between Rebound, Permanent-iSet and (a) CPTu pore water pressure, and (b) Ratio of CPTu pore pressure and hydrostatic pressure ( ).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The overburden depth at which HPR occurred was typically greater than 50 ft. Large displacement piles predrilled to 25 ft and driven at numerous Central Florida locations have recorded rebound values over 1 to 1.5 inches per hammer blow. These problems generally occurred in soils that did not display any unusual properties during routine soil site investigations. In general, HPR soils displayed an olive green to light green color with visual descriptions ranging from dense clayey and silty fine sands, to hard highly plastic clays with very low permeability. Most HPR layers had high fines content, with a natural moisture content less than the liquid limit.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

20
There was a large increase in the CPTu pore pressure values from near zero or negative

pressure to high positive pore pressures in all the HPR zones identified by the PDA data. This increase in pore pressure, in conjunction with variations in the strength, stiffness and soil composition may be the combination of geotechnical properties that could identify the potential for high pile rebound. Good correlations between rebound, permanent-set and pore pressure indicated that permanent-set decreases and rebound increases linearly with either pore pressure or .

Geotechnical engineers can expect to encounter HPR problems when driving displacement piles if the CPTu pore pressure is greater 20 tsf. It is possible to drive piles is less than 5 tsf;

through saturated fine silty sand to sandy silt or clayey sand if pore pressure while pile driving difficulty may increase if ranged between 5 and 20 tsf.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

21
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors gratefully acknowledge the Florida Department of Transportation for their support for this project. The generous help of Peter Lai, Dr. David Horhota, Kathy Gray, Mr. Brian Bixler, and Mr. Hipworth Robert is greatly appreciated. Special thanks go to consultants at Ardaman & Associates, Mr. Zan Bates and from GRL, Mr. Mohamad Hussein, who all provided valuable expertise and reliable services. Finally, sincere thanks go to the graduate students, Thaddeus J. Misilo III, Yeniree Chin Fong and Katie Davis, for their efforts.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

22
REFERENCES 1. Cosentino, P. Kalajian, E. Misilo, T, Chin Fong, Y. Davis, K., Jarushi F., Bleakley A., Hussein M. H., and Bates, Z.. Design Phase Identification of High Pile Rebound Soils. Technical report, Contract BDK81 Work Order 977-01, Florida Department of Transportation, 2010. 2. Hussein, M.H., Woerner, W. A., Sharp, M. and Hwang, C. Pile Driveability and Bearing Capacity in High-Rebound Soils. ASCE GEO Congress CD-ROM, Atlanta, GA, 2006. 3. Chin Fong, Y. Identifying Soils the Produce High Pile Rebound. Technical report, Florida Institute of Technology, 2010 4. FDOT. Standard Specification for Road and Bridges Section 455. 2010. 5. Murrell, Kyle L., Canivan, Gregory J., Camp, William M. III. High and Low Strain Testing of Bouncing Piles. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual and 11th International Conference on Deep Foundations, 2008. article #1603; publication #85 (AM-2008). 6. Likins, Garland E. Pile Installation Difficulties in Soils with Large Quakes. In G.G. Globe, editors, Proceedings of Symposium 6 at the 1983 ASCE Convention, May 18, 1983, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division. 7. Parez, L. and Faureil, R., 1988. Le pizocne. Amliorations apportes la reconnaissance de sols. Revue Franaise de Gotech, Vol. 44, 13-27 8. Seo, H., Yildirim,I., and Prezzi, M. Assessment of the Axial Load Response of an H Pile Driven in Multilayered Soil. J. of Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,135(12),1789-1804. 9. Bingjian, Zhu. Study of the Pore Water Pressure Variation Rule in Saturated Soft Soil Caused by Prestressed Concrete Pile Penetration. IEEE, 2011,756-59. 10. Robertson, P. K.,Woeller, D., and Gillespie, D. Evaluation of Excess Pore Pressures and Drainage Conditions around Driven Piles using the Cone Penetration Test with Pore Pressure Measurements.Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1990, 27(2): 249-254.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.