1614696spc14of19_APP-B6.pdf

APPENDIX - B

(PART-6)

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING REPORT

FY21 MCON PROJECT P-095

REPLACE SUBMARINE PIER 3

NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, NORFOLK, VA

eProjects Work Order No. 1614696 A-E Contract No. N40085-18-D-1100

Delivery Order N40085-19-F-4195

Geotechnical Specialties, Inc.

Pier 2 Replacement, Project: 99-3-130 Pile: 79A/B Restrike Blow: 2 Collected: 99-11-08 Operator: map

13-Nov-1999

Data: Conmaco C300 (ech) CAPWAP(R) Ver. 1997-1

CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS

Total CAPWAP Capacity: 760.8; along Shaft 344.3; at Toe 416.5 kips

Soil Dist. Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Resist. Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Ru w. Respect to Damping

No. Gages Grade at Ru Depth Area Factor ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft kips/f2 sift inch

760.8 1 71.2 9.9 66.7 694.1 66.7 9.83 1. 23 .383 .084 2 78.0 16.7 68.4 625 . 8 135.1 10.09 1. 26 .383 .084 3 84.7 23.4 70.1 555.7 205.1 10 . 34 1.29 .383 .084 4 91. 5 30.2 71. 8 483.9 276.9 10.59 1.32 .383 .084 5 98.3 37.0 67.3 416 . 5 344.3 9.93 1.24 .383 .084

Average Skin Values 68.9 9.30 1.27 .383 .084

Toe 416.5 104.13 .027 .317

Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe

Case Damping Factor .527 .046 Unloading Quake (% of loading quake) 62 69 Unloading Level (% of Ru) 7

Geotechnical Specialties, Inc. 13-Nov-1999

Pile: 79A/B Restrike Blow: 2 Collected: 99-11-08 Operator : map

Data : Conmaco C300 (ech) CAPWAP(R) Ver. 1997-1

Pile Sgmnt

No.

Dist.

Below Gages ft

3 . 4 6 . 8

13.6 23.7 33.9 44.1 54.2 64.4 74.6 84.7 94.9 98.3 max.

Force kips

1045.9 1045 . 9 1058.3 1125.7 1046.2 1059.1 1133 .9 1206.7 1188.7 1078.4 629.4 602 . 2

Absolute 71.2 71.2

RSl

RMX

RSU

RAU

J.O.O J-O.l 1038 . 934.

1122 . 1055.

O . O.

601. RA2

EXTREMA TABLE

min.

Force kips

-56.7 -65 . 3 -77.3 -88 . 1 -87 .9

-106 . 0 -116 . 0 -103 . 6 -87 . 0 -52 . 5 -15.7 -13.0 max.

Compo

Stress kips/in2

1.816

1. 81 6

1. 837 1.954 1.816

1. 839

1. 969 2.095 2.064 1.872

1. 093

1. 046

2.193 max.

Tension Stress kips/in2

-.098

- .113

- .134 -. 153 -.153 -.184 -.201 -.180 -.151 -.091 -.027 -.023

-.205

CASE METHOD

J-0.2 830.

990.

O.

846.

J·0.3 726.

933.

O.

J·0 . 4 622 .

889.

O.

J·0.5 519 .

858.

O.

max. max. max.

Trnsfd . Veloc . Displ.

Energy kips-ft

35.49 35.43 35.27 34.93 34.44

34. 11 33.55 33.13 28.17 23.47 13.86

9 . 25

(T= (T.

J·0.6 415.

837.

J·0 . 7 311.

820.

O. O.

ft/s

4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.3 4 . 2

35 . 9 ms) 54 . 6 ms ) bO . 8 207.

808.

O.

in

.547

. 543

. 534

. 518

.497

. 481

. 462

. 445

.426

.414

.401

. 396

J.0 . 9 104.

796.

O.

Current CAPWAP Ru= 760.8; Corresponding J(Rs)e .27; J (Rx).1. 00

VMX

4.14

VFN VTl*Z FTl FMX -.02 1034.5 1 040.8 1045 . 7

DMX

.537

DFN

. 1 73

EMX

35.4

EFN RLT REN

32.1 1208. 1594.

Pier 2 Replacement, Proj ect : 99-3-130 Pile : 79A/B Restrike Blow: 2 Collected: 99-11-08 Operator: map

PILE PROFILE AND

Depth Area E-Modulus ft in2 kips / in2

.00 576.00 5828.8

98.30 576.00 5828.8

Toe Area 4.000 ft2

13-Nov-1999

Data: Conmaco C300 (ech) CAPWAP(R) Ver. 1997-1

PILE MODEL

Spec. Weight Circumf.

kips /ft3 ft

.150 8.000

.150 8.000

Segmnt Dist. Impedance Imped. Tension Compression eire.

Number B.G. Change Slack Eff. Slack Eff.

ft kips/ft/s % inch inch ft

1 3.39 250.18 .00 .000 .000 .000 . 000 8.000 17 57.62 250.18 .00 .000 .000 . 000 . 000 8 . 000 29 98.30 250.18 .0 0 . 000 .000 .000 .000 8.000

Pile Damping 2.0 %, Time Incr . 253 ms, Wave Speed 13420.0 ft/s

Pier 2 Replacement . 79A/ S Restr i ke, BN: 2 02-0ee-1999

Geotechnlcal Specialt i es , Inc . CAPWAP(A) Version 1997-1

1200 _ For MSd kip s For o~, ~9 'I' ~9 ' 1' ~~9, !1~~263,:! 1,[9., 0123456789

-600 Load in klPS

. 00 o '. ,200 400 600 800

~,~~f~~ ~ It

" ~ . 20

I~'~:~l:,\: ~ . 40

~ .60 '-J

. 80

Displacement in i nch

Ru •

Rs • Rb •

Oy •

Omx -

Pi Ie Top

Bot tom

760 .8 kips

344 . 3 kips

416 . 5 k ips

.57 i nch

. 65 i nch

Cpt ms Li e

GSI Project Number 99-3-130

January 6, 2000

TEST PILE EVALUATIONS

AND

DRIVING CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS

PIER 2 REPLACEMENT

36-INCH PILES

NOB - NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

PREPARED FOR

TIDEWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

PREPARED BY

GEOTECHNICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.

I 9538 Norfolk Square Norfolk, Virginia 23502

January 6, 2000

Tidewater Construction Corporation P.O. Box 57 Norfolk, Virginia 23501

Attn: Mr. Brook Brookshire

Re: Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Criteria Recommendations Pier 2 Replacement - 36-inch Piles Naval Operations Base - Norfolk, Virginia GSI Project No. 99-3-130 TCC Project No. 2233 NAVFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97-B-7041

Gentlemen:

Geotechnical Specialties, Inc. (GSI) has completed dynamic pile analysis evaluations for the installation of the 36-inch square concrete test piles for the referenced project as authorized by Tidewater Construction Corporation (TCG).

The following report represents a summary of the results of our field evaluations and interpretations of specific data provided to us by the client. All recommendations are based on the spectfic project information available to us at the time this report was prepared. The report discusses project characteristics, dynamic pile analysis test procedures, measured results, discussion of hammer performance, and recommended production pile driving criteria.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical consultation services for this project, and will remain available to answer any questions related to our study. If we may be of further assistance or rt there are any questions concerning the contents of this report, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience.

Respectfully Submitted , GEOTECHNICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.

copies: (3) client

Bruce R. Spiro, P.E.

PRESIDENT

953-8 Norfolk Square _ Norfolk. V"1!inia 23502 - ( 757) 461.0826 - FAX (757) 461-1436

Tidew;tc:r Consttuction Corporation Pier 2 Rep!accmeOi GSJ Pmjec[ No. 99·3- 125 TCC Project No. 2233

Tes[ Pile Evaluations and Driving Cri!em Recommendations 36-inch Piles @ Relieving Platfonn

January 6, 2000

NA VFAC ConsttuctiOD Contract No. N62470-97·B·7041

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

II. SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

General

Hammer Assembly. . .

Pile Details Subsurface Soil Conditions Dynamic Pile Analysis Instrumentation

III. PILE DRIVING OBSERVATIONS AND PILE TEST RESULTS

General Pile Installation Details and Comments Hammer Performance . . .

Pile Integrity

Compressive Pile Load Test

IV. PRODUCTION PILE RECOMMENDATIONS

Pile Bearing Elevation Driving Criteria.

V. LIMITATIONS

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF FIELD RESULTS

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF CAPWAP RESULTS

ATTACHMENTS

A. SOIL TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN AND SOIL PROFILES

B. COMPRESSIVE PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS

C. PILE NO. 1 E - Driving Records and CAPWAP Results

D. PILE NO. 29ED - Driving Records and CAPWAP Results

E. PILE NO. 55E - Driving Records and CAPWAP Results

F. PILE NO. 77E - Driving Records and CAPWAP Results

G. WAVE EQUATION-DRIVABILITY EVALUATIONS

TidcwalCr ConsUUCtioD Corporation Pier 2 Replacement 051 Proje<:1 No. 99-3- 12.5 Tce Project No. 2233

Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Criteria Recommendations 36-inch Piles@ Relieving Pb.lform h.DlJaT}' 6. 2000

NA. VFAC Construction ConlnCt No. N62410-97-B-104 1

I, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

General

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the installation of the for the Pier 2 Replacement at referenced project site via dynamiC analyses In general accordance with ASTM Procedure 04945 and applicable project specifications.

Recommendations regarding the test pile to be load tested , production pile lengths, and driving criteria for production pile installation were also included in our scope of services. GSI was provided with a copy of the pile driving records and reduced copies of the soil test boring logs with a boring location plan which were utilized in our evaluations and preparation of this report.

We note that GSI previously perfomned wave equation drivability evaluations for the test piles as provided in our report dated August 31, 1999.

Dynamic pile analysis was perfomned on the test piles by engineering representatives from our office during the period of October 27" to November 10-, 1999. The objectives of the dynamiC pile monitoring were to calculate the available bearing capacity of the tested piles, evaluate pile driving hammer performance, monitor induced driving stresses within the piles and verify driven pile integrity.

The dynamic analysis was perfomned by obtaining measurements of strain and acceleration near the top of the piles and processing these measurements utilizing the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) according to the Case Method. A CAPWAP analysis was perfomned on a selected blow record obtained near the beginning of the restrike drive for each of the piles and near the end-of-drive for selected piles for driving criteria considerations.

II, pROJECT INFORMATION

General

The project is to consist of the construction of a relieving platfomn and an adjacent pier structure at the Naval Operations Base in Norfolk, Virginia. The pier will extend approximately 1500 feet westward into the Elizabeth River from the relieving platfomn to be located along the shoreline. The relieving platfomn foundations will primarily consist of vertical 18-inch square piles. The pier foundations will consist of battered 24-inch square concrete prestressed pile and vertical 36-inch 0 .0 . (24-inch 1.0.) open-end concrete cylinder post tensioned piles.

Tide .... au:r ConstruCtion Corporation

GSI Projett No. 99-3-125 Tce Projett No. 2233 NA VFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97·B·7G4 1

Test Pile Evaluations I.Dd Drivin8 Criu:ria. Recommermtions 36-inc:h Piles C Rclievin& Plalfonn

Ja.nu.ary 6, 2000

The current report addresses installation of the 36-inch square concrete test piles nos.

1 E, 29ED, SSE, and 77E and also provides production pile recommendations. We note that the test piles were installed vertically and that the production piles are also to be installed vertically. We understand that production piles along the interior and perimeter sections of the pier structure are to have respective cutoff elevations of approximately +6.5 feet and 4.0 feel.

The test piles were driven along perimeter locations. We understand that a finaI2.SH:1V slope will exist near the relieving platform area, dropping from elevation -7 feet to -45 feel.

Hammer Assembly

The Conmaco C300 single-acting external combustion hammer assembly used for installation of the test piles has a ram weight of 30.0 kips. The maximum 3-foot ram stroke height results in a maximum rated energy potential 90.0 k-fl (kip-feet) . The hammer has a manufacturer specified operating rate of 52 blows per minute with a 3-foot ram stroke. A new 6-inch thick plywood cushion was utilized for installation of the test piles. A used plywood cushion was used during restrike driving of the test piles in order to transfer maximum energy to the piles for capacity evaluations.

Specific information on the proposed driving equipment and test piles as provided by the client is presented in the previously noted Wave Equation Drivability Evaluation reports.

Pile Details

The 36-inch 0.0. (24-inch 1.0.) open-€nd cylinder precast concrete test piles driven for the proposed pier each had a total length of 96 feet composed of 16-foot long sections post tensioned together. A concrete design strength of 6000 psi and a post tension stress of 1130 psi results in maximum allowable compressive and tensile driving stresses, respectively, of

3.97 ksi and 1.36 ksi per typically referenced FHWA speCifications. The desired ultimate compressive pile capacity of 1200 kips is based on a factor of safety of2.0 applied to the design capacity of 600 kips. A material density of 1 SO Ibslfl' was used in our evaluations.

We understand that these piles can be most effiCiently cast to the nearest 4 foot increment.

Subsurface SoH Conditions

Subsurface soil profiles based on the soil test bOring logs are provided in Attachment A.

The soil test boring logs are available in the project drawings. The subsurface soil conditions encountered at the site were explored by others and GSI assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of these test borings.

TidewalCr Construction Corpor-llion Pier 2 Replaumeru GSJ Projecl No. 99-3- 1~ TCC Project No. 2233 NA VFAC ConstnJction Contract No. N6247o-91·B-7041

Dvaamjc Pile Analvsis Instrumentation

TeS( Pile Evaluations and Driving Crileria Recommendations 36-inch Piles@ RclicviJli Platform

Jaraaary 6. 2000

Dynamic measurements were made with one pair of strain transducers and one pair of accelerometers attached near the top of the tested piles, Analog signals from the gages measured during pile driving were recorded and processed by the PAl<'" Pile Driving Analyzer

(PDA),

Printed oulput from the PDA include Operating Rate (BPM), Maximum Transferred Energy (EMX), Maximum Average Compressive Stress (CSX), Maximum Average Tensile Stress (TSX), and Case Method mobilized capacity (RMX) for each recorded hammer stroke, The force and velocity records were inspected on the monitor of the PDA to check for data quality and to monitor the structural integrity of the piles, Representative data from the monitored pile was then recorded to computer disk for pennanent storage, III, PILE DRIVING OBSERVATIONS AND PILE TEST RESULTS

General

A summary of the dynamic pile analysis field results is presented in the attached Table 1 - Summary of Field Results which lists typically pertinent indices for the tested piles, Static field capacities obtained in real time (during driving) with the PDA are based on the Case Method. Case Method evaluated capacities are approximate (typically:!: 20%) relative to CAPWAP or static load evaluated capacities. Pile capacity per the Case Method was evaluated utilizing RMX equations which are a function of the Case Soil Damping Coefficient (J, ). This dimensionless coefficient is a variable that is chosen from published data based upon the antiCipated soil type at the pile toe. The J, coefficient is utilized in calculating the dynamic portion of the total soil resistance in detennining the static capacity of the pile. The damping coefficient is dependent upon often variable soil conditions and behavior encountered during the dynamic of pile driving. The field results along with a graphical representation of selected data are provided for each test pile in the attachments.

A CAPWAP analysis was perfonned on a selected blow record obtained near the beginning-of-restrike of each test pile. This iterative analytical method accurately detennines the large number of unknowns regarding soil behavior (that cannot be detennined in real time) to establish the static pile capacity as a replacement, or supplement, to a static load test. A CAPWAP analysis was subsequently performed from a selected blow record at production pile end-of-drive elevation -82.3 feet for pile nos. 1 E and 77E for production pile driving criteria considerations and at elevation -81 .5 feet during installation at pile no. 77E for production pile length considerations. A summary olthe CAPWAP analyses is presented in the attached Table 2 - Summary of CAPWAP Results. Details of the CAPWAP analyses are provided for each test pile in the attachments.

TJdeW1lll!:r ConstruCtion CofJlOnrlon Pier 2 Replaccmem GSI Project No. 99-),,125 TCC Project No. 2233

Test Pile Eva/uadons and Drivu" Crileria RecouuneDdaIions 36-inch Pile!@ Rdievina Platform laruary 6, 2000

NA VFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97-B-7041

Pile Installation Details and Comments

The following Test Pile Installation Details table provides a brief summary of selected pile installation details based on our observations andlor elevations provided to GSI at the site.

Terminating end-of-Drive elevation was as directed by the contractor. Additional information is provided in the attached Table 1 - Summary of Field Results, Table 2 - Summary of CAPWAP Results, and attachments for each pile.

Test Pile Installation Details 36-incb O.D. Piles with Conmaco C300 Hammer Assembly

Test Pile Item

1E 29ED SSE 77E

EOO Pile Toe Elevation (ft) -82.3 -82.3 ·82.3 -82.3

EOD Shaft Embedment (ft) 60 42 38 34

Driving Time

23 m in. 16 min. 7Y2 min. 10 min .

(Down TIme) (13 min.) (1) (102 min.) (2) (9 min.) (1)

Case Capacity @ Blow Rate 220 ' .. @ 24 bpi 320 ... @ 25 "" 330 '" @ 14 "" 280 '" @ 18 (Energy @Operating Rate) (40 ~@ 44 '""l (33 ~@ 43 '""l 57 -) 44

1108 "'@120'" 932 ,.. @120'" 1 024 ,.. @192'" 920 ""@96'"

• Driving Time + (Down T~im~e~) §=~to~ta~I~~O~f ~~~~~!¥. ~~;1;;;;;~ (I ) Stop to measure soil plug. \2) Stop to remove soil plug with bailer.

The mud line elevations at 29ED, 55E, and 77E were -40.5, -44.5 and -48.5 feet, respectively. Plan dredge elevation over this area is -45 feet. The mudline elevation at 1 E was -22 feet within the 2H:1V slope planned along the relieving platform area.

TIdcWltcr Construetion Corporation Pier 2 RepI.cement:

051 Project No. 99-3- 125 TCC Project No. 2233 NA VFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97-B-71l41

TeSt Pile Evaluations and Driving Criu:na Recommendations 36-incb Piles@ Relining Placfonn

January 6, 2000

Based on the pile driving record of blow count vs. penetration, rt appears that the ultimate soil capacity may not have been mobilized at the beginning of restrike for 1 E, 29ED, and SSE. Typically, a permanent pile set of 0.1 inch per blow, or less, (10 blows per inch, or more) indicates that the hammer is not exceeding the ultimate soil capacity and, therefore, not mobilizing the full strength of the soil. Based on a review of the CAPW~ results rt appears that the shaft capacity was not fully mobilized, particularly near the pile toe, and , therefore, full toe capacity was also probably not mobilized. Additional applied energy (i.e. larger or more efficient hammer) would be necessary to prove a higher pile capacity.

Based on the pile driving record of blow count vs. penetration , it appears that the ultimate soil capacity was mobilized at the beginning of restrike for 77E.

We note that dynamic tests give the capacity at tha time of testing. Restrike tests are necessary to determine soil setup or relaxation after disturbance. Soil strength is dependent upon time after disturbance and appropriate waiting times must be considered. Additional capacity gains or losses may be realized over time.

Hammer Pedormaoce

The measured PDA results during installation of the test piles indicate that the Conmaco C300 hammer assembly delivered maximum energies ranging from 31 to 43 kip-ft, or hammer efficiencies ranging from 37to 48%, which fall within normal published operating parameters for a single acting external combustion hammer driving a concrete pile.

The measured PDA results during restrike driving of the test piles indicate that the hammer assembly delivered maximum energies to the test piles ranging from 31 to 41 kip-ft, or hammer efficiencies ranging from 34 to 46%. Normal operating parameters for restrike driving are not available.

We note that wave equation evaluations as presented in our August 31 report for the Conmaco C300 considered utilizing a 1.5 foot stroke option, which we understood at the time to be an option to the higher 3 foot stroke for this hammer, in addressing high tensile stresses.

However, during the installation of the test piles GSI was informed that the 1.5 foot ram stroke was not an option. In lieu of utilizing additional plywood cushion to reduce tensile stresses, since the 1.5 foot stroke option was not available, the contractor elected to control tensile stressed by reducing the operating rate of the hammer. Reducing the operating rate with less pressure from the compressor can typically reduce common over-stroking of the ram and, therefore, reduce transferred energy to the pile.

GSI Project No. 99+125 TCC Project No. 2233 NA VFAC Consttuction Contract No. N62470.97·El·7041

Pile Integrity

Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Criteria Recommendations 36-inch Piles @ Relieving Platform

Jaooary 6, 2(0)

Maximum average compressive driving stresses ranging from 2.19 to 3.04 ksi (below the allowable 3.97 ksi) were encountered during installation of the test piles. Maximum average tensile driving stresses ranging from 1.11 to 1.55 ksi (above the allowable 1.36 ksi) were encountered during installation of the test piles.

Observation of the pile integrity factor (BTA) , and particularly the dynamic records, did not indicate severe pile damage during the field monitoring.

Compressive Pile LQad Test

Upon review of the test pile data, GSI recommended that the compressive pile load test be performed on pile no. 77E. Load test results are provided in Attachment B.

A total (gross) vertical movement of 0.525 inches was recorded at the pile head for the maximum applied load of 1200 kips (twice the 600 kip design load) during the 4 hour load maintenance period . The net vertical displacement of the pile head from this load, which is based on the final (12 hour) rebound reading , was approximately 0.06 inches (the final rebound reading was based on the wire & mirror system since the dial gages were removed prior to the final rebound reading). A maximum vertical movement of 0.196 inches was recorded at the pile head for an applied load of 600 kips (2 hour maintenance period) during the load application cycle.

We note that GSI was not included in performing the compressive load test and is not responsible for the accuracy of the data.

IV, PRODUCTION PILE RECOMMENDATIONS

Pile Bearing Elevation

Bearing depth considerations for production piles were evaluated based upon a review of the driving records (PDA and visual), restrike and end-of drive CAPWAP evaluations, the load test and consideration of the 4 foot increment casting length limitation. Based on the load test results at pile no. 77E, toe elevation -82.3 feet was suitable for a minimum 1200 kip pile capacity, requiring a length of 88.8 feet for production piles along the interior of the pier structure. Based on the 4 foot increment casting limitation, this would result in a 92 foot production pile length . In consideration of an 88 foot pile length, a CAPWAP analysis performed near end-of-drive for pile no. 77E at toe elevation - 81.5 feet (corresponding to an 88 foot production pile length) indicated an evaluated capacity of 267 kips, or 6 kips less than

Tidewarer COllSU\lction Corporation

GSI Project No. 99-3-125 TCC Project No. 2233 NA VFAC Construction ContnlCt No. N6247(}"97·B·7(}41

Test PUe Evaluations am Driving Crireria Recommerdations 36-inc:h Piles@ Re lieving Pl.alform

January 6, 2000 the 273 kips evaluated at end-of-drive toe elevation -82.3 feet. Based on a minimum evaluated pile setup factor of 4.4 at elevation -82.3 feet, a pile bearing at elevation -81.5 feet should have a minimum capacity of 1175 kips. Therefore, upon review of the driving records (PDA and visual) , the CAPWAP evaluations for each of the test piles, and the load test results, an installed toe elevation of -81 .5 feet (resulting in a pile length of 88 feet) should be allowable as the minimum production pile bearing elevation .

Driving Criteria

Based on the end-of-drive CAPWAP evaluations, a minimum end-of-drive resistance of approximately 270 kips would typically be required at 77E at toe elevation -81 .5 feet. The required end-of-drive capacity at 1 E could not be determined because the restrike did not develop the full soil resistance available. We note that the embedded shaft length of about 3311, to 34 feet at 77E was the least of the four test piles.

As previously noted, the contractor varied the hammer operating rate during installation of the test piles in order to address high tensile stresses as monitored by the PDA. Hammer operating rate is not a wave equation variable parameter because the manufacturer does not evaluate the hammer at various operating rates - the hammer is designed and evaluated at a certain operating pressure, resulting in a constant rate of operation for a specific stroke.

Therefore, a Bearing Capacity vs. Blow Count graph could not be developed for driving criteria considerations based on a variable hammer operating rate.

In order to develop driving criteria based on data obtained from the installation of the test piles, a wave equation-drivability model was formulated for selected test pile nos. E1 and 77E based on measured quantities from the PDA driving records obtained during installation 01 the piles and end-ol-drive CAPWAP evaluations utilizing GRLWEAP'" (Version 1997-2). Selected PDA measured quantities were matched with depth in the wave equation in order to attempt to accurately model installation of the test piles. These quantities mainly included transferred energy (EMX), tensile stress (TSX), compressive stress (CSX), Case Method (RMX) capacity, end-of-drive CAPWAP shaft and toe capacijies and the observed blow count rate. The hammer efficiency parameter was varied in the wave equation model in order to match the PDA measured transferred energy (EMX) at selected depths during pile installation. Quake and damping soil parameters were then varied slightly with depth, as necessary, in order to obtain a match with the PDA measured TSX and CSX and the observed visual blow counts rate. A wave equation agreement within !,10% 01 the measured PDA dynamic quantities is typically considered an acceptable model for driving cmeria evaluations (1). A test pile length of 96 feet and a 6-inch thick plywood pile cushion, as used during installation of the test piles, was utilized in the model.

(1) Per FHWA Report No. FHWA-HI-97-014

Tidewater COlISII'UCtioo Corporatioo

GSI Project No. 99-3- \25 TCC Project No. 2233 NA YFAC ConslrUCtion Contract No. N62470-97-B-704 1

Test Pile Evaluation-; and Driving Criteria Recommendation-;

36-in:h Piles @ RelieviJts Platform

January 6, 2000

Once a wave equation model was developed that accurately matched conditions encountered during installation of the test piles, parameter adjustments for pile length and hammer efficiency were made in order to attempt to model production pile installation for driving criteria evaluations. For production pile evaluations, the 96 foot pile length in the test pile wave equation model was changed to 88 feet. Based on a review of the PDA records obtained during installation of the 24-inch and the 36-inch O.D. test piles, a maximum transferred energy of 44 to 46 kip-feet was evaluated by the PDA during periods when the operating rate was unrestricted for the Conmaco C300 hammer. Therefore, hammer efficiency for the test pile wave equation model was varied to obtain a continuous transferred energy of 45 kip-feet that would be anticipated for the production piles during installation with the hammer operating at its designed operating rate with a 3-foot ram stroke once sufficient soil resistance is encountered. Based on these changes to the test pile wave equation model, a model was then developed to evaluate installation of the 88-foot long production piles utilizing 6-inch thick plywood pile cushion and a 3-foot ram stroke at the manufacturer specified hammer operating rate for the Conmaco C300 hammer.

The wave equation model was then run in order to evaluate tensile stresses during installation of the production piles_ Due to excessive tensile stresses evaluated with the initial evaluations, the pile cushion thickness was then increased incrementally with successive evaluations. These evaluations indicate that a 9-inch thick plywood pile cushion would be necessary in order to install the production piles without encountering excessive tensile stresses to toe elevation -81.5 feet with a continuous hammer operating rate as specified by the manufacturer with a 3-foot ram stroke.

Based on these considerations, recommended driving criteria are provided in the following Driving Criteria for 36-inch 0.0. Piles table. Output results of the wave equation drivability evaluations along with a graphical plot of the data are provided in Attachment G.

Driving Criteria for 36-inch O.D. Piles with 9-inch Pile Cushion Conmaco C300 Hammer Assembly @ 3-foot Ram Stroke*

Driving Event· Driving Rate

End-ol-Drlve minimum 11 blows per 100\ (@ elevation -82.3 feet)

Restrike - if necessary

(@elevation -82.3 feet) minimum 8 blows per inch

*Hammer operating at minimum 45 blows per minute for aa foot pile length.

Pier 2 Repla~mc:nt

GSI Project No. 99-3- 125 TCC Project No. 2233 NAVFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97-8-7041

Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Criteria Recommendations 36-inch Piles @ Relieving Platform

January 6, 2CKX)

Production piles failing to meet the recommended end-of-drive criteria may be allowed to realize strength gain due to pore pressure dissipation and soil remolding effects and be re evaluated on restrike after a recommended minimum 24 hour setup period .

We note that driving criteria for the the production piles was developed with wave equation-drivability evaluations rigorously performed based on data obtained from the installation and restrike of the test pites. Should difficult driving conditions be encountered during installation of the production piles, if increased levels of tensile and/or compressive stress be suspected, or if the piles are not meeting the recommended end-<lf-drive driving criteria, then dynamic pile monitoring of select production is recommended in order to re evaluate the driving criteria.

Proper hammer/pile alignment should be closely checked prior to driving and intermittently during the driving of each pile. Any driving resistance criteria is highly dependant upon the efficiency with which the hammer delivers the blow to the pile. Improper hammer/pile alignment during driving also induces impact force imbalances to the pile that result in continual bending stresses that may result in damage to the pile.

Tidewater Consmu:tion Corporation

GSI Project No. 99-3-125 TCC Project No. 2233 NA VFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97-B-7G4 1

Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Criteria Recommendations 36-inch Piles @ RelieviD8 Platlonn

January 6, 2000

V, LIMITATIONS

Our professional services have been performed , our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared for the exclusive use of Tidewater Construction Corporation in accordance with recognized and accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices for specific application to the referenced project. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. GSI is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data.

Our evaluation of the test pile installation through dynamic analyses is based on interpretation of the data recorded in the field and general subsurface information provided by the client as obtained by others. Evaluation of this data is performed using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and reasonable engineering judgement. Although this data is considered to be representative of the pile driving performance for subsurface conditions at the precise locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of the conditions at other locations.

Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the soil conditions andlor pile performance at the represented locations. The nature and extent of any variations between the test locations may not become evident until the course of construction. Should such variations become apparent. it will be necessary to reevaluate our analysis and recommendations after performing on-site observations and noting the characteristics of any variation.

A wave equation evaluation simulates th~ behavior of a driven pile based on mathematical models describing the hammer assembty system, pile, and soil conditions during the hammer blow. A wave equation evaluation also relies on input data based on the information available at the time the evaluation is performed and on assumptions of soil response at pile termination depths based on the available information. This information , however, may differ from actual field condrtions and, under certain conditions, the models only approximate often complex dynamic conditions.

to

Tidewate r COIWNCtion COrpolllOOn Pier 2 Replacemenl Projecl No. 99-3- 130 TCCil21)3 NAVFAC Construction Conlrlct No. N62410-91-B-104 1

Dynamic Pi le EVl lul tion u d CAPWAP AnalY5is 36-inch 0 .0 . Test Pi les

Jlnuuy 6, 2000

.:-- TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF FIELD RESULTS - 36-lnch O.D.TestPlles@Pler2

Case RMX Maximum Energy Maximum Stress Pile Pile Toe Visual Blow

Method (kN) Transferred • During Driving·

Designation Elevation (1) Count Rate . During Driving· (ksi)

(embedment) (energy @ bpm) J,=0.70 Energy (k·H) Efficiency Compression Tension

1E - EOO

24 blowsIfoot

220 43 48 3.04 1.55 _82 .3 'eet (40 " @44 """)

1E-BOR

(60 ... ') 10 _"""'

930 38 42 2.70 (34 " @ 50 """)

0.17

29E10 - EOO

25 -

320 34 38 2.60 1.29 -82.3 leo, (33 .. @43 .... )

29E10 - BOR

(42 .... ) 10 -

920 (27 .. @50 .... ) 31 34 2.08 0.28

55E -EOO

14 bIowaffoot

330 40 44 2.64 1.30 _82.3 'Ht (40 .. @45 .... )

55E - BOR

(36 .... )

16 """"'- 960 40 2.99 (47 ~-/[@ 34 bpn) 44 0.42

77E -EOO

18 btowslfool

260 33 37 2.19 1.11 _82.3 'eet (29 "@44 """)

77E - BOR

(34 feet) 8 -

790 41 46 2.92 {30" 44 """1

0.72

EOD: end-of-drive BOR: beginning-of-restrike (BOR is approximate, rate based on the first ~ inch of displacement during the restrike) .

( 1) as provided to GSI .

Tidewaler Constru"ion Corporation Pie r 2 Replacem.ent Project No. 99-3- 130

TCC H2233

NAVFAC Construction Contract No. N62410-91-B-104 1

Dynamic Pile E~al ualion and CAPWAP Analys is J6.inch 0 .0 . Test Piles

Jlooary 6, 2000

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF CAPWAP RESULTS - 36-lnch 0 .0 . Test Plies @ Pier 2 I

Pile Pile Toe Visual Blow Mobi lized Capacity Soi l Damping Soil Quake

Designation Elevation (1 ) Count Rate (kips) (sec/ft) (inches)

(embedment) (energy @ bpml Skin Toe TOTAL Skin Toe Skin Toe l E - EOD 24 - 86 140 226 0.353 0.11 1 0.270 1.046

-82 .3 feet (40 I<-II@ 44 bprn) , (60 "'I 1 a bIow3fll"ldl

IE -BOR (BL#71

(34 "@ 50 "'"I 593 515 11 08 0.224 0.157 0.040 0.288

29E1D -BOR (BL#71

-82.3 1M' 10 -

479 453 932 0.302 0.166 0.040 0.249 (42 .. ) (27 " @ 50 "'")

55E - BOR (BL#61

-82.3 ... , 16 """""'" 472 552 1024 0.203 0.203 0.043 0.288 (38

(47 " @ 34 "'"I , 77E - EOD -81.5 feel 18 -

76 191 267 0.204 0.169 0.624 0.329 (29 "' @ 44 "'"I

77E -EOD

18 """,,,00<

78 195 273 0.204 0.169 0.623 0.329 -82.3 feel

(29 .. @44

(34 -1

8 -.."'" 77E - BOR (BL#91 (30··@ 44 .... 1 389 531 920 0.217 0.088 0.040 0.368

EOD: end-of-drive BOR: begining-of-restrike (BOR rate is approximate, based on the first !4 inch of displacement during the restrike).

(1) as provided to GSI.

Tidewater Consmtction Corporation

GSr Project No. 99-3-\25 TCC Project No. 2233

Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Criteria Rewmmendations 36-inch Piles@ Relieving Platform

January 6, 2000

NAVFAC Construction Contnu:t No. N62470-97-B-7041

ATTACHMENT A

SOIL TEST BORING LOCATTON PLAN

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES

.. f

- - ... _"It" .... . ,. __ ........ _-_ ..... ---="i:""ir.,. ____ ~ - ". -..."'_ .. ...... .. _ ....... _0.>0 __ e-7 0, ;l1f.

t -ff" (7; 'Isi iN c: , 'i):

t- I /? C;

6-21

S-u ,~ 6i

B-p. -~-ag3 )

/3-) -1167;

e-)'I 131; '

6 -/S- &'7_ 5 g .I::

D.

OJ

NOTE: • 36-1nch 0.0. test pUe

• 24-1nch square test pUe .

8-3 8-4 8-10

3 , 5 , __ ..23 _ ·.· .. --t .o--

15 :0 B __ I ___ 1Q.. }

76 : 13 5 , __ ..2fL ·~· ___ 1.1:2 _ , 17 ' 26 , _ _ ..22- '. : . I .2Z

: . .'--- t -, 21 ," , _ __ 18 _ ." I .21

· ·~ - -r -

19 : 19 , _ __ 13_ _ _ l J 'il _ , 25 : 19

__ ..21- . ..: _ _ '" 11J. , 18 , 12 , _ __ 15_ : . .". I 1:2

.::-- r -, 14 ,18 , ' --t .2:2 -

- -- "--~ J _ - ,,- -~~r --,. -1--_ 26 __

_ _ 1.1 I. , 22 -:":'.: : 12 20 ; .. ' 9

0 , .' . ! , • I . 1 . : I __ _ 1Z. ~ ___ tL _ J __ tB__ __ 2L _ __ Z8.. _ 602Q - :: . _ _ I __ .2Q _ . " , , , , 28 .. . ." I 24 " , 18 I 16 22 I 40 .. , 7031.. .:." _: __ .3L __ _ 1/1

- - I 12 " ; I5:Y,j 'J l!mll " 11111 25 :11111 22 , _ 11J. _ __ _ la.L , 15 19 I ~ 18 18 "

13 , . , , _ 1a. ~ · ___ 20.. _ ~ -- ~-- __ 1~_ , _ __ 21.._

18 ~ 50 : 20 17 12 , , . . , ~ _ _ t6 __ _ __ R _.2Q _ " ,- , :- ___ _ r _ __ ___ i7 __

18 . I 18 20 19 . , , _ 1Z_ ' - , _ __ __ !. _ _ ____ i8.. _ _1 __ t6 __ _ __ tL_

14 , _+_tB_

: 18 ~_' 20 I , . , .

_ ,, _1..4 __ '. - __ 22 __ t.:

I . '-

1.50 - 18 , _ ~ ______ __ __ u_J

+ _____ ____ _ 1.2_

Horizontal Distance Between Borings (tt)

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE

Project Name:

Location:

Prolect Number:

Pier 2 Replacement NOB - Norfolk, Virg inia 99-3-1 30

11;f9"w,)

FIGURE 1

OSI Pruittl No. 99-3-125 TCC Projccl No. 2233

Test Pile Evaluations and Driving Crite ria Recommendations 3&-inch Piles@ Relieving Platform

January 6, 2000

NAVFAC Construction Conlract No. N62470·97·B·704 1

ATTACHMENT B

COMPRESSIVE PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS

-0.1

~ 0.1 If) Ql L:

0.2 C)

.EO

~ - 0.3 c Ql E ~ 0.4

'" c.

.!!! 0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8 r- Q'T

Pier 2 Replacement - Compressive Load Test Pile No. 77E - 36-inch 0.0.

"-- -~ '-" .... - - -... --" " r--.::

I'"-.... '" ',,-- "

" "" " " K " ,'\. .... ,,\ o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Applied Load (ki ps)

Pile Length:

Driven:

Restrike:

load Test:

EleY8Uona:

Pile Head:

Mudllne:

Pile Toe:

96 ft.

l11Q.4199 11106/99 12114-15199

+13.41l +48.5 fl .

-82.6 ft.

ConGe!e Design:

Compl8ulve: 6000 pal POll tenalon: 1 1 30 psi

- Wire & Mirror

- Dial Gage -lIl PUEA(1) (Iticlr..uplength)

~ PUEA(2) ,M pi. ""., l ocation: Naval Operations Base, Norfolk VA GSI Project No.: 99-3-130

Note (1): dial gages were removed prior to 12 hour rebound reading.

Tee Project No.: 2233 NAVFAC Contract No.: N62470-97-B-7041

123r4w\worldile\ Pier2-361.123

COMPRESSION PILE LOAD TEST: nME - DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY (Pile No. nE, 36-inch 0.0.)

PROJECT NNoIE;

[)ATE: 12-1....ag PAGE: 1 OfF 1 c.orr..:o C300 (30. Q 3.0 1.1

"'''' '"'" "'"' ""'OF "-""'" ~'''' "'" " A """"'- "',., .... ~ ..... " A""",,", roT'" .......... '''''''''' ,.., I I .... ---

I I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H' i:

I

"" ~ ~ U~

NOTES: It no MtIktment is detem1irled after 1/2 hour then mIMI to nIIX'Iinaement

STA'1lC COMPRHiI'ON PlLa LOAD T=..sr

ASTM011~1

PRQJECl" NAME: Pi. 2 ReplaOament J09 e: __ .. 22"'J3,,'--____ _ _ _

PROJECT lOCATlON Norfdk Naval Station WEATH~rainAMt sun"Y PM DATE: 12/10W9

TEST~LESIZE .• & lOC: 3a·Cytind!r~·77-E TEST METHOD: A6TM011~

JACK 10: _RJ~.2'15~ ____ _ GAUGE 10: No. 1e79018 PUMPlD:

STA11C COfIIPM!SSION!'!I.E LOAD TEST

ASTM 01143-61

Pier2R~

JOB '"

PROJECT LOCATION Norfolk Naval Station DATE: __ ,,,,2f1:u!!0199,,,,, __ _

TEST PILE SIZE. II: & LOC: 38" CxAndIll' ~. 77·E TEST METHOO: ASTM 01143

JACK 10: R.J915 GAUGE 10: No. 187i018 PUMP 10:

Page 2 al2

TiOcwatl:r ConstruCDOD CorporaDoD Pier 2 ReplaccDlCDI OS) Project No. 99-3-125 TCC Project No. 2233

TeSt Pile Evaluations and Driving Critl:ria Recommendations 36-inch Piles@ Relining Platform

January 6, 2()(Xl

NAVFAC Construction Contract No. N62470-97-B-7G4 1

ATI ACHMENT C

TEST PILE IE - DRIVING RECORDS

AND CAPWAP RESULTS

PILE DRIVING LOG - CONTRACT NO. N62470-97-B-7041

PROJECT TITLE: Pier 2 Replacement

DATE PILE DRIVEN: 10-29-99 PILE LOCATION: 1E (Test Pile 6) BUllDINGlSTRUCTURE: Pier 2 TYPE OF PILE : post tensioned precast concrete (16' sections)

CONTRACTOR: Tidewater Construction Corp. PILE SIZE (BUTTmp): 36~OD ,24"ID LENGTH: 96'

GROUND ELEVATION: -22 ft. CUT OFF ELEVATION: _....:.+3"'."'94:..'" . ______ ____ _

TIME START: 11:43:49 BATTEREDNERTICAL: ______ --'V".rt"'i"'= ' _____ _

TIME FINISH: 12:20:04 COMPANY:

HAMMER: Conmaco C300 (ech) INSPECTOR: ____ ---'TI"~"."w"",,",,C,,O,,""'st,,'""'ct"'io'""-'C"o,,"''_. ___ _ 'DEPTH' COlUMN OF PILE DRIVING RECORD REFERENCED TO: water surface CAST DATE: 9-17-99 (8ayshore) Note: elevations provided 11-10-99 by Tee.

IN

1 FEET "LOW

43 32 83 2E m c z ~ Q

~.~ ~3'" J---i;--4 +--t----t-~ 20 5 i-t- 6 j "CT OFf . ....--"" •

1C

" 1f

2[

3t

I I """I')

4 9 i

1:

1--.".

Tolal Timeo 36.2 min.

~alt Time: 13.0 min.

Time: 23.2 min.

1/2

, 13) o co m z o m

74 23 t=~::t=:~~~~~,~,,~.""t:ti 75~~4 2[~1=====t==::t==t====~ End-of-Drive Toe Elev.

6 76 22 -82.3 fl.

I-~--+_":;-4 --+ ___ __ _..;777.;.-+ -.;;. 24;.-+-____ 1 __ --+ __ +-____ -1 (End-d-Reslrike E/ev .. -82.5 fr.)

78 2[ 1- 79 23 I- 80 16

1; ~ 'g[[-E; "'Niiie(1i)'i0 6' 6··'PiY~;rjPii Pill~e~;;;,.:3'i 3·p;y:;;;;;;;;Toloe;C;;ca;p:p.~ie(2fs;.-DPi"=j)mtt 0551;;Ta, 10 12004 - soil toe plug measured at 3' in total length. Note(3): top of soil plug in the pile was measured at elev. +0.8 ft. at end of drive and beginning of restrike.

CUT OFF ELEVATION: FROM DRAWING PAYMENT:

TIP ELEVATION = GROUND ELEVATION - DRIVEN DEPTH = DRIVEN LENGTH X BID PRICE = _ _ __ _ DRIVEN LENGTH = CUT OFF ELEVAnON - TIP ELEVAT1.~O"N..:=,---___ CUT OFF LENGTH X (A) X BID = CUT OFF LENGTH = PILE LENGTH - DRIVEN LENGTH = _ _ _ _ _ (A) - SPECIFIED RATE, SEE SPE"'C""F"IC"'A"T"'IO" N"'SO-

"-{ rl, " I·, R > ,,1

'I' f t

Geotechn ical Spec. Inc

P ie r 2 Replacement (NOB), Pile lE (Te st Pile 6), 0.0

-20.0

-40 .0

- 60.0

- 80.0

-1 00.0

!2l7

CSI (ksil Max

0.00 Fl or F2 C- Stress

2.00 4.00

1 , , , 1\ I , , , , v , CSX (ks il Max

0.00

Measured C- Stress

2.00 4 .00

, \ I , , , o o 45 EMX (kips-ftl

90 0.00 2. 00 4.00 0 TSX (ks il

Max Transferred Energy Max Computed T-Stress No t es 1. JC 0.70

2. Stop (13 minutesj- soi l toe plug measured at 3 ft . length.

29 - 0ct -99

Con maco C300 (ech)

RMX (kipS) Capac it y - RMX

400 800 Notes

,17

I" F.'I I

400 800 RA2 (kips) - --

Capac it y - RA2

2 (13 mins)

Pile: Pile IE (Test Pile 6) Info: Conmaco C300 (ech)

Proj: Pier 2 Replacement (NOB) Pgl SP, 0.150 k/ft'3

AR: 565.0 in~2 LE, 90.0 ft

BPM: Blows Per- Minute EMX: Max Transferred Energy CSX: Max Measured C-Stress TSX: Max Computed T-Stress RMX: Capacity - RMX

BL# depth BPM EMX ft b l /min kips-ft

Comment : Operator: map

CSX

ksi

WS, 13500 ft/s

EM: 5901 KSI

RA2: Capacity - RA2 FMX: Max Measured Force CSI: Max F1 or F2 C- Stress BTA: BETA Integrity Factor

TSX

ksi

RMX

kips

RA2

kips

FMX

kips

CSI

ksi

Comment: Pile: 36" OD, 24 " ID, postensioned precast concrete.

Comment: Total length : 96 ' (in 16' long precast sections).

BTA BLC

%b1/ft

Comment: Pi le cushion: 6 in . thick plywood (new) ; 3 11 thick plywood toe cap.

Comment: "depthll is the approx . pile toe toe elevation.

Comment: Mudline elev. -22 ft . as provided to GSI.

Comment: Weight of pile & hammer to elev. -30 ft.

START, 11043,49

Comment: JC = 0.70

1 - 30.00 0 . 0 3 44.0 5 0.0 7 - 32 . 00 0 . 0 9 29.8

10 34.2 15 31.2 20 33.7 21 32 . 4 22 33.4 25 32.2 29 32.9 31 32.1 33 32.2 35 32.7 37 32.5 38 ,36.00 33.1 40 33.0 42 33 . 4 46 32.7 48 33.4 50 33.4 54 32.9 58 34.0 62 37.8 64 - 38.00 37.5 66 42.9 70 40.7 74 41.2 78 41.2 82 41.4 86 41.5 90 41.6 94 41.5 95 - 39.00 41 . 7

100 41 . 5 104 41.5

0.60

1. 23

1. 36 0.88

1. 04

1. 34 1.11 1.36

1. 29

1. 36 1.27 1.34 1 . 27

1. 30

1. 36 1.36

1. 39 1.38 1.41

1. 38 1.46 1.45 1.41 1.53

1. 73

1. 76

1. 96 1.96 2 . 00 2.03 2.07 2.08 2 . 08 2 . 10 2.12 2.10 2.14

0.14 0.38 0.37 0.17 0 . 28 0.51 0.35 0.53 0.47 0.51 0.44 0.51 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.42 0.46 0.46 0 . 38 0.44 0.47 0 . 49 0.54 0.56 0.61 0 . 63 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.69 0 . 67 0.69 0.70 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

0.72

1. 39 1.61

1. 07

1. 27 1.61 1.39

1. 68

1. 64

1. 71 1.62 1.64

1. 62 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.69

1. 68 1.69 1.64 1.73 1 . 71

1. 69

1. 85 2.08 2.12 2.31 2.30 2 . 33 2.33 2 . 38 2.38 2.44 2.47 2.49 2.47 2.53

Pile: Pile 1E (Test Pile 6) Proj : Pier 2 Replacement (NOB ) Pg2

BL# depth BPM EMX CSX TSX RMX RA2 FMX CSI BTA BLC ft bl/min kips-ft ksi ksi kips kips kips ksi %bl / ft 108 41. 3 31 2.14 0.70 420 300 1210 2.54 92 21 112 41.4 31 2.15 0.72 400 310 1220 2.54 100 21 116 41.3 30 2.17 0.74 380 290 1230 2.56 92 21 120 41.4 31 2.17 0.74 350 280 1230 2 . 58 91 21 125 41.5 31 2.17 0.74 320 270 1230 2.58 91 21 130 41.4 31 2 . 21 0 . 76 310 250 1250 2.58 92 21 135 42.7 32 2.26 0.81 280 240 1280 2.61 100 21 137 _ 41. 00 42.9 32 2.26 0.84 270 230 1280 2.63 91 21 144 42.9 32 2 . 24 0.86 260 210 1270 2.61 100 11 149 42.8 32 2 .24 0.90 270 200 1270 2.63 100 11 154 43.0 33 2.26 0 . 88 300 210 1280 2.61 100 11 164 42.9 33 2.30 0.93 260 220 1300 2 . 61 100 11 174 42.8 32 2 . 26 0.93 240 220 1280 2.63 1 00 11 183 43.0 32 2 . 26 0 . 97 230 200 1280 2.63 100 11 195 43.1 32 2 . 28 1. 02 210 180 1290 2.60 100 11 201 43.1 32 2 . 30 1.04 220 190 1300 2 . 60 100 11 203 43.0 32 2.28 1.06 220 170 1290 2.60 100 11 205 _47.00 42.9 32 2.28 1. 06 210 180 1290 2.56 100 11 Comment: Stop, 1L51,35 Comment: Stop (13 minutes) - soil toe plug measured at 3 ft. length.

START, 12,04,36

Comment : Note: did not obtain data on approximately 10 blows.

209 0 . 0 4 0.51 0.10 240 220 290 0 . 58 100 19 210 37.1 22 1. 57 0.17 360 280 890 1. 68 100 19 211 36.0 22 1. 69 0.38 370 280 960 1. 91 100 19 212 36.9 23 1. 80 0.53 360 270 1020 2.03 100 19 213 37.4 25 1. 89 0.61 330 270 1070 2.12 100 19 214 39.4 28 2 . 03 0 . 70 330 270 1150 2.24 100 19 215 40.3 28 2.07 0.76 330 280 1170 2 . 28 100 19 219 40.2 28 2.08 0.84 330 250 1180 2.30 100 19 223 40.2 29 2.10 0.86 320 250 1190 2.31 100 19 234 40.1 29 2.14 0 . 95 300 220 1210 2.38 100 19 239 40 . 1 29 2 . 15 0.97 300 220 1220 2 . 46 100 19 244 40.1 29 2.17 0.99 300 220 1230 2.49 100 19 249 40 . 0 29 2.19 0.99 290 220 1240 2.47 100 19 254 40.0 29 2 . 19 1. 00 300 220 1240 2.49 100 19 260 40 . 0 30 2.23 1. 02 310 230 1260 2.53 100 19 266 40.1 29 2.23 1. 00 300 230 1260 2.53 100 19 272 40.0 30 2.21 1. 00 310 240 1250 2.49 100 19 278 40.2 30 2.24 1. 02 320 240 1270 2.53 92 19 282 · 51 . 00 39 . 9 30 2.24 1. 02 310 240 1270 2 . 53 100 19 284 39.9 30 2.23 1. 02 310 240 1 260 2.53 100 16 292 40 .1 30 2.24 1. 02 320 240 1270 2.51 100 16 302 43.9 34 2 .44 1.15 340 250 1380 2 . 63 92 1 6 310 44.1 35 2.46 1.18 320 250 1390 2.65 92 16 318 43.9 34 2.46 1.18 320 240 1390 2.63 100 16 326 43.8 34 2.46 1.18 320 240 1390 2 . 63 91 16 334 43.8 34 2.44 1. 20 300 220 1380 2.65 91 16 342 43.6 34 2.46 1. 22 300 230 1390 2 . 70 100 16 350 43.7 34 2.46 1. 23 280 210 1 390 2.69 91 16 358 43 . 9 35 2 .4 7 1. 25 270 210 1400 2.69 100 16 362 - 56.00 45.3 37 2.58 1.34 270 220 1460 2.79 100 16 370 45.0 37 2.60 1. 32 270 220 1470 2.79 91 15 378 44.6 37 2.60 1. 34 240 210 1470 2.79 90 15

Pile: Pile 1E (Test Pile 6) Proj : Pier 2 Replacement (NOB) Pg3

BL# depth BPM EMX CSX TSX RMX RA2 FMX CSI BTA BLC ft bl/min kips-ft ksi ksi kips kips kips ksi %b1/ft 386 44.6 37 2.60 1.36 230 200 1470 2.74 91 15 394 44.5 37 2 . 61 1.38 230 220 1480 2 . 77 91 15 402 45.4 40 2.72 1.45 230 210 1540 2.86 91 15 410 44.8 40 2.72 1. 43 240 230 1540 2.92 91 15 418 44 . 6 40 2.72 1. 43 240 230 1540 2.97 92 15 426 44 . 4 40 2.72 1. 43 230 220 1540 3.00 92 15 434 44.1 39 2.74 1.46 230 210 1550 2.9 7 91 15 438 - 61.00 44.1 39 2.70 1.45 230 220 1530 2 . 99 92 15 446 44 . 0 40 2.74 1.46 230 210 1550 3.00 92 16 458 44.1 40 2.76 1.48 220 210 1560 3.04 92 16 470 43.9 40 2.76 1.48 220 220 1560 3.06 100 16 482 43.9 40 2.79 1. 50 240 220 1580 3.07 89 16 494 43.8 40 2.79 1.52 240 220 1580 3.11 100 16 506 43.6 40 2 . 81 1. 50 240 220 1590 3.13 90 16 51 8 - 66.00 44.0 41 2.84 1. 52 250 230 1610 3.16 100 16 530 44.1 4 2 2.90 1. 52 240 230 1640 3.27 100 19 542 44.0 42 2 . 92 1 . 52 240 230 1 650 3 . 27 91 19 554 44.0 42 2.93 1. 52 230 220 1660 3.27 91 19 566 44.1 42 2 . 95 1. 52 240 220 1670 3.32 91 19 578 44.2 42 2.95 1 . 52 250 220 1 670 3.29 91 19 590 44.2 42 2 . 97 1.50 250 230 1680 3 . 25 91 19 602 44.2 43 2.97 1. 50 240 220 1680 3 . 30 91 19 614 _71.00 44.1 43 2.99 1. 46 240 240 1690 3.29 92 19 626 44.3 42 2.99 1. 50 230 210 1690 3 . 36 92 22 638 44.0 42 2 . 99 1 . 55 240 220 1 690 3.25 92 22 650 44.0 43 2.99 1. 55 240 200 1690 3.27 100 22 662 43 . 8 42 2.99 1. 52 240 210 1690 3.30 100 22 674 44.2 42 3 . 00 1.53 240 210 1 700 3.38 100 22 686 44.0 42 2 . 99 1. 52 240 210 1690 3.32 100 22 698 44.1 42 3.00 1. 52 240 210 1700 3.32 100 22 702 _75 . 00 44.0 42 3.02 1. 52 250 200 1710 3.32 100 22 713 44.2 42 3 . 02 1. 50 250 210 1710 3.34 1 00 17 717 44.3 42 3.00 1. 50 250 200 1 7 00 3.30 100 17

719 - 76 . 00 44.2 42 3.00 1. SO 250 210 1 700 3.32 100 1 7

725 44.1 42 3.00 1. 50 250 200 1 7 00 3.32 100 22 733 44 . 2 42 3.00 1. 48 250 210 1 700 3.27 100 22 741 - 77.00 44.0 42 3.00 1. 48 240 210 1700 3 . 30 100 22 749 44.1 43 3.00 1.50 220 200 1700 3 . 29 100 34 757 44.3 42 3 . 00 1.46 240 200 1700 3.25 100 34 765 44.2 43 3.00 1.45 240 210 1700 3.25 100 34 773 44.2 43 3 . 04 1.46 240 210 1 720 3.23 90 34 775 _78 . 00 44.1 43 3.04 1.45 220 200 1720 3 . 23 100 34 783 44.2 42 3.02 1. 45 230 200 1710 3.18 91 24 791 44.4 42 3.02 1. 43 240 200 1710 3.15 90 24 801 44.3 42 3.02 1.41 220 200 1710 3.11 100 24 813 44.4 43 3 . 00 1.39 220 190 1 7 00 3.00 100 24 823 44.4 43 3.00 1 . 39 210 190 1700 3.04 100 24 833 44 . 3 43 2 . 99 1. 38 210 190 1690 3 . 06 100 24 839 44.2 42 2.95 1. 34 220 200 1670 3.09 100 24 845 44 . 3 42 2 . 93 1. 34 210 190 1660 3.06 100 24 849 _ 81 . 00 44.3 41 2 . 88 1. 32 200 190 1630 3 . 02 100 24 855 44 . 1 41 2.84 1. 30 210 190 1610 3.00 1 00 24 861 44.2 41 2.84 1.30 200 190 1610 3.04 100 24 865 44 . 0 40 2.83 1. 29 200 190 1600 2.99 100 24

Pale: ,pile IE (Test Pile 6)

Proj: Pier 2 Replacement (NOB) Pg4

BL# depth BPM ft bl/min

867 44.0 869 43.9 871 44.0 873 - 82.00 43 .9 875 43.8 877 - 82.30 44.0

STOP, 12,20, 04

Comment: xx

AVG

STD

MAX

#BLS

BPM

40.3

7 . 8 45.4

EMX

kips -ft

4 0

EMX

1 0 esx ksi

2 . 8 1 2.79 2 . 79 2.76 2.79 2.77 esx 2 . 32 0.61 3 .04

TSX

ksi

1. 27

1. 29 1.29

1.2 7

1. 27

1. 27

TSX

1. 03 0.42 1.55

DRIVE TIME SUMMARY (2 9-0ct-9 9 , lE . MDF)

RMX

kips

21 0

RMX

RA2

kips

FMX

kips 15 70

RA2 FMX

204 1312

86 345 360 1720 147 147

DR I VE

eSI ksi

3.00 2.99 3.00 2 . 97 3.00 2.97 eSI 2.59 0 .6 1 3 . 38 minutes

BN 1 - > 205, START 11:43:49 -> 11:51:35 STOP, 7.77

BN 209 -> 877, START 12:04:36 - > 12 :20: 04 STOP, 15 . 47

BTA BLe %bl/ft

100 24 100 24 100 24 100 24 100 13 100 13

BTA

WAIT

13.02

Total El apsed time 36.25 minutes Total Time 23.23 minutes 13.02

Geotechnical Specialties, Inc . 04 - Jan-2000

End-of-Drive, Project: 99-3 - 130 Pier 2 Rep l acement Pile : 1E Blow: 875 Data : Conmaco C300 (ech) Col lected: 99-10 - 29 Operator: map CAPWAP(R) Ver. 1997 - 1

CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS

Total CAPWAP Capacity : 226.0; along Shaft 86 . 2; at Toe 139.7 kips

Soil Dist . Depth Ru Force Sum Unit Resist. Smith Quake Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Ru w. Respect to Damping

No. Gages Grade at Ru Depth Area Factor it ft kips kips kips kips/ft kips/f2 sift inch

226.0 1 36 .7 6 . 7 8 . 8 217.2 8.8 1. 32 .14 .353 .270 2 43 . 3 13.3 8 . 9 208.2 17.7 1.34 .14 . 353 . 270 3 50.0 20.0 9.0 1 99.2 26.7 1.35 .14 .353 . 270 4 56.7 26 . 7 9.1 190.1 35 . 9 1.37 . 15 .353 .270 5 63.3 33 . 3 9 . 2 180.9 45.1 1. 38 .15 .353 .270 6 70.0 40.0 9 . 3 171. 6 54.4 1. 40 . 15 .353 . 270 7 76 .7 46 .7 10 . 5 161.1 64. 9 1 . 58 . 17 . 353 . 270 8 83.3 53.3 10 . 6 150.5 75 . 5 1 . 59 . 17 .3 53 .270 9 90 . 0 60 . 0 10 . 7 139.7 86 . 2 1.61 . 17 .353 . 270

Average Skin Va l ues 9 . 6 1.44 . 15 .353 .270

Toe 139 . 7 35 . 64 .111 1. 046

Soil Model Parameters/ Extensions Ski n Toe

Case Damping Factor .119…