Gimbli
Civil/Environmental
- Oct 23, 2006
- 57
Pile = 12" round
Pile lenght = 50 ft
Hammer = Linkbert - LB 520
Subsoil Conditions = 0 to 38 feet stiff clay average cohesion=1.5 ksf
38 to 50 feet = medium sands Nave = 25 bpf gwt = 15 to 20 ft
Static analyses predict = 260 kips
Load Test reached maximum counterweight load of 150 kips and as per load vx deflection curve it was far from failure. Maximum settlement was 0.178 in.
Driving Data shows 13 to 17 bpf during last 10 feet segment (40 to 50 feet deep)
My concern is that I could not make this scenario to be correlated with wave equation which says that with 25% gain/loss factor for friction, what I consider to low, a bpf count of about 16.5 should be expected. Whith gain/loss of .75 - which I feel more conformtable bpf count is 38 bpf.
Where is the missing link?
Would the calibration of the load cell be wrong? which I checked and is certified by a PE with recognized Lab.
Good news, design ultimate load is 100 kips
Pile lenght = 50 ft
Hammer = Linkbert - LB 520
Subsoil Conditions = 0 to 38 feet stiff clay average cohesion=1.5 ksf
38 to 50 feet = medium sands Nave = 25 bpf gwt = 15 to 20 ft
Static analyses predict = 260 kips
Load Test reached maximum counterweight load of 150 kips and as per load vx deflection curve it was far from failure. Maximum settlement was 0.178 in.
Driving Data shows 13 to 17 bpf during last 10 feet segment (40 to 50 feet deep)
My concern is that I could not make this scenario to be correlated with wave equation which says that with 25% gain/loss factor for friction, what I consider to low, a bpf count of about 16.5 should be expected. Whith gain/loss of .75 - which I feel more conformtable bpf count is 38 bpf.
Where is the missing link?
Would the calibration of the load cell be wrong? which I checked and is certified by a PE with recognized Lab.
Good news, design ultimate load is 100 kips