A new approach to the analysis of high-strain dynamic $ile test data

-%

YVESROBERT
Quiforrnat Ltd., 591 Le Breton, Longueuil, QC J4G IR9, Canada
Received November 10, 1992
Accepted November 22, 1993

High-strain dynamic pile tests using the pile driving analyzer (PDA) and the Case method have been available in
Canada for over 15 years. During that period of time, the hardware has evolved considerably but the way the data
is interpreted has basically remained the same. The evaluation of the bearing capacity of the tested pile still uses the
Case method, with the Case J factor being calculated either from the results of a static load test or, more often,
from the results of one or more CAPWAP (Case pile wave analysis program) analyses. A computer program has been
developed to estimate the bearing capacity of piles using the dynamic test results produced by the PDA. This pro-
gram uses direct correlations between PDA data and CAPWAP results. It also includes an artificial intelligence module
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

trained to predict CAPWAP pile capacity. It is not designed to replace the CAPWAP program, but rather to indicate
when an additional CAPWAP analysis might be required.
Key words: dynamic load test, computer program, artificial intelligence, CAPWAP, Case method.

Les essais de chargement dynamiques de pieux h grande deformation utilisant I'analyseur de battage de pieux
(PDA) et la mCthode Case sont disponibles au Canada depuis environ 15 ans. Pendant cette pCriode, I'Cquipement
a CvoluC considCrablement, mais la mCthode d'interprktation est demeurCe sensiblement la m2me. L'evaluation de la
capacitC portante d'un pieu d'essai se fait toujours h l'aide de la mCthode Case, le facteur Case J Ctant calculk h partir
des rCsultats d'un essai de chargement statique ou, plus souvent, h partir des rCsultats d'une ou plusieurs analyses
CAPWAP. Un programme d'ordinateur a CtC dCveloppC pour estimer la capacitC portante des pieux en utilisant les
rCsultats des essais dynamiques produits par l'analyseur de battage de pieux. Ce program@e utilise des corrCla-
tions entre les donnCes fournies par l'analyseur de battage de pieux et les rCsultats du programme CAPWAP. I1
contient aussi un module d'intelligence artificielle entrain6 h prCdire la capacitC portante estimCe par le programme
CAPWAP. I1 n'a pas CtC c o n p pour remplacer le programme CAPWAP, mais plut8t pourindiquer qu'une analyse
For personal use only.

CAPWAP additionnelle pourrait Stre requise.

Mots clks : essai de chargement dynamique, programme d'ordinateur, intelligence artificielle, CAPWAP, mCthode Case.

Can. Geotech. J. 31, 246-253 (1994)

Introduction estimate the mobilized static bearing capacity of the test

High-strain dynamic testing of piles (ASTM 1990) has
been available for about 20 years. The first pile driving ana-
lyzers (PDA) were simple analog computers without any
storage capability. In 20 years, the PDA has evolved con-
siderably and is now a flexible digital microcomputer with.
graphic display and internal storage. However, even though
some new parameters have been added, the basic equations
used to calculate the bearing capacity of the test piles are still
the same.
Basically, the testing system consists of two pairs of
gauges attached to the opposite sides of the test pile, at the
same distance from its toe. Each pair is composed of a strain
transducer and an accelerometer. During a hammer blow,
the measured strain is converted to force using the pile
cross-sectional area and the dynamic modulus of elasticity at
the measuring location. The velocity of the pile, at the loca-
tion of the gauges, is calculated by integrating the acceler-
ation signal with respect to time.
The force and the velocity signal are then used by the
PDA to compute the soil resistance mobilized during the
blow. If the ultimate resistance of the soil has not been
mobilized (very little or no permanent pile penetration), a
larger blow, if possible, can be given to the pile.
To be used by the PDA, the force and velocity signals
are digitized into fixed values (usually 1024 samples for
each signal) that are separated by fixed time intervals of
typically 100 k s .
The Case method (Rausche et al. 1985) is then used to
Prinlcd in Canada I lmprimc au Canada
pile, as shown in Fig. 1. The Case method uses the force
and velocity values corresponding to times TI and T, that
are separated by a time interval equal to twice the pile
length L (below the gauges) divided by the stress wave
speed C, i.e., 2LIC. For a pile with a uniform cross sec-
tion, [I]-[4] below can be used to summarize the Case
method. It should be pointed out that these equations assume
linear elastic pile behavior, only axial stresses in the pile, no
internal pile damping, and a rigid plastic soil resistance
model. T h e latter of these a s s u m p t i o n s i s of c o u r s e a
simplification of the actual soil behavior.
(FT, + F T ~ ) E A ( V T , + V T ~ )
[I] RTL = +-
2 C 2
where RTL is the total resistance (static plus dynamic resis-
tance), E is the elastic modulus, A is the cross section of
the pile, C is the stress wave speed, VB is the computed pile
toe velocity at time ( T I + TJ2, D is the damping force
(increase in resistance caused by the high loading rate), J is
a dimensionless damping coefficient, and RS is the com-
 ROBERT
--
LIC
- - -.
4
-
,-,
*j--VELOCITY
x (EAIC)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
FIG. 1. Bearing capacity calculation (Case method).
puted mobilized static capacity. Time T , is usually the time
of maximum velocity T p or the time of impact. The mobilized
soil resistance is then RS1. However, large soil quakes
(deformation needed to go from an elastic to a plastic soil
behavior) will sometimes delay the time when the full resis-
tance is activated. In these cases, the PDA can vary T , one
time increment at a time, from T p to T p + 3 0 ms, and cal-
culate a new RS. It then searches for the maximum calculated
RS value or RMX.
Of all the parameters needed to evaluate RS1 or RMX,
the only unknown is the constant J. It should be pointed
For personal use only.
out, however, that the damping force is assumed to be
directly proportional to the pile toe velocity. Therefore,
J will have little influence on the determination of the sta-
tic bearing capacity of the test pile when VB is small, as is
the case when the pile is resting on a very hard soil layer. For
the same reason, RMX is typically less sensitive than RS1 to
the variations of J, since RMX is activated later than R S l ,
and therefore VB tends to be smaller in this case.
The constant J usually ranges from 0 to 1 and is nor-
mally higher for fine-grained soil (Rausche et al. 1985). It can
be evaluated quite easily if the static bearing capacity of
the test pile is known. This can be achieved by performing
a static load test on the same pile or a CAPWAP (Case pile
wave analysis program) analysis on the data recorded by
the PDA during the test (see below).
A static load test is very expensive to perform. It takes
time and if a load cell is not used to measure the applied
load, as is usually the case, the error on the measured bear-
ing capacity can be quite large (Fellenius 1984).
CAPWAP is a computer program designed to create a model
of the interaction between t h e pile a n d t h e soil ( P i l e
Dynamics Inc. 1990). This is achieved by using the theory
of wave propagation, the known information about the pile
and one signal (velocity, for instance) recorded during a
hammer blow on the pile to evaluate what the other recorded
signal (force for instance) should look like. Using an itera-
tive process, the resistance distribution along the pile, the soil
quakes, damping, and other dynamic characteristics of the
soils are varied and the calculated curve is compared with the
measured curve until a good match is achieved. It is then
possible to obtain a good model and therefore determine
the mobilized static bearing capacity. It should be pointed out,
however, that since CAPWAP uses a simplified soil model, a
good match is sometimes difficult to achieve and the analysis
can then take a long time to carry out.
Figure 2 shows a comparison between CAPWAP capacity
247
STATIC LOAD TEST CAPACITY (kN)
FIG.2. CAPWAP capacity vs. static load test results. Data sources:
1, Hannigan and Webster 1987; 2, Cheng and Ahmad 1988;
3, Thompson and Goble 1988; 4, Seidel et al. 1988; 5, Abe et al.
1990; 6, Hussein and Likins 1991; 7, Federal Highway
Administration 1991; 8, Morgano 19885-
:.
and static load test capacity. ~ h e s edata were obtained
through a survey of a limited database. The results shown in
Fig. 2 are from load tests carried out since 1985. They cor-
respond to concrete and steeI piles driven into either sand,
silt, or clay. To be included in this figure, the ultimate sta-
tic capacity of the piles had to be mobilized in both the
dynamic and static tests. In all the other cases, the test
(either static or dynamic) that mobilized the ultimate capacity
of the pile overpredicted the other.
Figure 2 is only presented to show that the application
of the Case method with CAPWAP analyses can provide sat-
isfactory results when compared with carefully carried out
static load tests.
Most of the static test results shown in Fig. 2 are based on
the Davisson's method (Fellenius 1980) of interpretation of
failure load. This method is widely used for the interpreta-
tion of static load test results and it generally provides a
lower bound bearing capacity for the test pile. The CAPWAP
results can therefore be regarded as conservative with respect
to other failure criteria, since they generally correlate well
with the Davisson's method.
It should be pointed out, however, that both types of pile
load tests have limitations.
Static load tests are usually carried out without the use
of a load cell, and the error on the maximum load applied to
the piles can be quite large, as mentioned earlier. Their
interpretation is often difficult, since the bearing capacity
of the test piles will be a function of the failure criteria
used in the interpretation (Fellenius 1980). Furthermore,
the duration of the static load test will sometimes influence
the results.
Dynamic load tests are based on a simplified soil model.
They generally give good results, but should only be car-
ried out by experienced personnel. They are also sometimes
influenced by the available driving equipment (uneven driv-
ing cushion for drop hammers, limited driving energy for
diesel hammer, etc.).
However, dynamic load tests are generally considered a
good alternative to static load tests because they can solve
 248 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 31,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)
For personal use only.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)
FIG.3. Upper bound (a) and lower bound (b) for CAPWAP
capacity prediction.
problems more quickly and make it possible to test more
piles for a lower cost and thus provide more information
on the overall quality of the foundation piles; they also give
information on the structural integrity of the tests piles.
However, it is important to point out that, like a static
pile test, a dynamic pile test gives the bearing capacity of a
pile at the time it is carried out. Changes in bearing capac-
ity with time (relaxation, soil setup) cannot be taken into
account. Resting periods of up to 48 h in the case of relax-
ation and longer in the case of soil setup are therefore rec-
ommended before carrying out any pile load test whenever
the bearing capacity of a pile might change with time. It is
also important to carry out both static and dynamic load
tests after the same resting period.
New approach
CAPWAP analysis takes anywhere from half an hour to sev-
eral hours to perform, depending on the complexity of the
soil-pile model. Therefore, it is not usually possible to per-
form a CAPWAP analysis for every pile tested. On small
projects, one or two CAPWAP analyses are normally enough
to define the value of the J factor to b e used with the
Case method. For large projects where soil conditions and
pile type vary, a large number of CAPWAP analyses may be
required to achieve good results (Riker and Fellenius 1988).
To facilitate this new approach, a computer program,
based on empirical relationships and an artificial intelli-
gence technique called neural network (Lawrence 1988),
has been written to improve the quality of the test results.
1994 \
0.0 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
SKIN FRICTION ICAPWAP CAPACITY
FIG.4. Influence of skin friction on RAU.
This program is used to provide an estimated value of bear-
ing capacity which can be comparqd against a value com-
puted using the Case method and an appropriate J constant
(either a conservative value used:during the test or a value
provided by CAPWAP analyses carried out for one or more
piles tested on the same site). Whenever the two estimated
bearing capacities are significantly different, a detailed
CAPWAP analysis is probably required.
Linear correlations
The PDA can provide many parameters to help the expe-
rienced operator to estimate the J constant and make a pre-
liminary estimate of the bearing capacity during the test.
An upper bound capacity can be calculated using the
Hiley formula (Hiley 1930) as follows:
2 EMX
[5] Rup=
D,,, + DMX
. where EMX and DMX are, respectively, the maximum trans-
ferred energy to the pile and the maximum displacement of
the pile at the location of the gauges, as calculated by the
PDA; and D,,, is the final set of the pile, as measured
directly on the pile by the contractor. As shown in Fig. 3a,
Rup generally provides a good upper bound capacity.
The data shown in this figure and in the following fig-
ures presented in this paper have been gathered in eastern
Canada since 1987. The test piles are uniform steel H and
pipe (open and closed bottom) piles driven into sand, silt,
clay, till, shale, or a combination of these types of soil.
Another parameter provided by the PDA is RAU, which
is the total mobilized capacity calculated when V , is equal
to zero or the total mobilized capacity calculated when RTL
becomes equal to RS for the first time after the impact. As
shown in Fig. 3b, RAU is a very good lower bound capacity.
T h e RAU computation assumes that the resistance is
located at the pile toe, and it generally works well if there is
relatively little skin resistance as shown in Fig. 4.
RAU and Rup are the basis of the preliminary analysis
of the test results provided by the PDA, since they are unaf-
fected by J. However, they show a large scattering and there
is often a large difference between them. Nevertheless, RAU
is very useful because it generally underestimates CAPWAP
 ROBERT
> \
249
5000

4000

,3000
z2
LT
2000

1000 AVERAGE : 1,019

STANDARD DEVIATION :
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

n
" A
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)

FIG.5. RA2 vs. CAPWAP capacity. FIG.7.Influence of total skin friction on RA2.
5000

4000

,3000
B
For personal use only.

2LT
2000

CORR. RA2 ICAPWAP CAPACITY

1000
AVERAGE : 0.999
0.2
STANDARD DEVIATION : 0.115 %

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
CAPWAP SKIN FRICTION 1 CAPWAP TOTAL CAPACITY CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)

FIG.6.Influence of CAPWAP skin friction on RA2.
capacity (Fig. 4) and leads therefore to a conservative pre-
diction of static pile capacity.
Another very useful parameter provided by the PDA is
RA2. RA2 can be defined as the total mobilized capacity
of the pile when it becomes equal to twice the pile velocity
(at the location of the gauges) multiplied by EAIC, or
[6] R A 2 = R T L ( T )
if
where T is the time at which RTL is being calculated, and
V(T) is the velocity at the location of the gauges at time T
after the beginning of the blow. RA2 is also unaffected by
J. It shows less scatter than RAU and Rup and, even though
it is not always a very good estimate of the mobilized static
bearing capacity, it is a good starting point as shown in Fig. 5.
RA2 has a tendency to overestimate the bearing capac-
ity of piles with high skin resistance and to underestimate it
for piles with high toe resistance, as shown in Fig. 6. Thus,
if RA2 is reduced for high skin resistance piles and increased
for high toe resistance piles using the results presented in
Fig. 6, its predictions should be improved. This can only
FIG.8. RA2 corrected using total skin friction from the pile
driving analyzer.
be done, however, if the amount of skin resistance with
respect to the pile bearing capacity is known and, of course,
if a CAPWAP analysis is available, since it is not possible to
get the mobilized static skin resistance from the PDA.
However, the PDA provides SFT, which is an estimate
of the total skin resistance (static and dynamic). Figure 7
shows the relation between R A ~ / C A P W Acapacity
P and
SFTlRA2. A linear regression analysis performed on the
data of Fig. 7 gives
RA2
[a] -= 0 . 1 0 6 ~ + 0 . 9 7 4
CAPWAP RA2
A s shown in Fig. 7 , R A 2 overestimates the CAPWAP
capacity when SFTlRA2 is greater than 0.25 and under-
estimates it when SFTlRA2 is smaller than 0.25. If the data
points are rotated clockwise with respect to a point located
at SFTIRA2 = 0.25 and RA~ICAPWAP capacity = 1, a slight
improvement in bearing capacity prediction should be
possible. This operation is carried out using the mirror
image of [8] with respect to an axis of symmetry corre-
sponding to a R A ~ I C A P W Acapacity
P ratio of 1 (eq. [a]).
Rup and RAU are also used as upper and lower bounds to
reduce the scatter.
 250 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VQL. 3 1 . 1994
\ \

AVERAGE : 0.994

STANDARD DEVIATION : 0.081

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)

FIG.9. Predicted CAPWAP capacity vs. CAPWAP capacity (after

10 linear corrections).

Figure 8 shows the predicted capacity (RAP) obtained as

follows:

[9]
[
R A P = R A 2 -0.106-+ SFT
RA2
1.027
For personal use only.

A slight improvement over Fig. 5 is noticeable.

The same process can also be used with other parameters
provided by the PDA, such as forces, velocities and dis-
placements. The exact equations to be used will vary with the
data available, the order in which each linear correlation is
used and possibly the type of pile used, (steel, concrete, or
timber; uniform or nonuniform; driven or cast in place). Of
course, since many of these parameters are interrelated, the
improvements provided by each new correlation should be
less significant. Furthermore, as the database increases in
size, the influence of a particular soil o r pile type will
become less significant and some of the correlations used
to produce Fig. 9 may no longer be required.
Figure 9 shows what can be achieved with 10 linear cor-
relations. The predicted capacity (RAP) has less scattering
than RA2. In fact, 95% of the RAP values are within +15%
of the CAPWAP capacity, as shown in Fig. 10.
It should be pointed out that each particular value of RAP
will be a function of the correlations used but, on average,
an improved bearing capacity prediction should be possible
when the above-mentioned procedure is applied to PDA data.
Neural network
A back-propagation neural network is a form of artificial
intelligence. It is not programmed to follow rules but learns
by example and repetition. When a pattern is presented to the
network, it tries to predict the right answer. The feedback,
which is then sent to the network, will be used to modify it
to improve the quality of the predictions. In other words,
a neural network learns from its mistakes. Neural networks
are good at finding patterns in a set of data and then creating
a model that can be used to obtain answers from new data.
A neural network is composed of neurons that are divided
into layers. A minimum of three layers are needed: one
input layer, one hidden layer, and one output layer, as shown
in Fig. l l n . The input layer gets the input data, and the out-
PREDICTED CAPACITY I CAPWAP CAPACITY
FIG. 10. Distribution of predicted capacity with respect to
CAPWAP capacity (after 10 linear corrections).
put layer provides the answer. The hidden layer or layers
are needed to store the model created during training.
Each neuron in a hidden layer is connected to every neu-
ron in the adjacent layers but not to the other neurons of
its own layer. Each connection has a strength or weight that
is used to modify the output of the neurons. The weights
can be positive, which will tend to make the neuron g o
high, or negative, which will tend to make the neuron go
low. The training process changes these weights to get the
correct answers.
All the inputs of a neuron (either the data used for the
prediction or the output from the neurons of a previous
layer) are combined into a single value (X), which is then
applied to a transfer function. The transfer function con-
trols what the output of a neuron looks like.
A transfer function often used is the sigmoid function
described by
(HIGH - L O W ) +LOW
[lo' T F ( X ) = 1+ e , - GAIN ( x-CENTRE)]
or by [ l l ] when LOW, CENTRE, HIGH, and GAIN are,
respectively, equal to 0, 0, 1, and 1, as shown in Fig. l l b :
This transfer function provides a nonlinear output to the
neurons and ensures that this output is always between
0 and 1.
The natural range of input for a neuron is the range of
its transfer function, in this case 0 and 1. All the data pre-
 ROBERT

/ DEFINETHE PROBLEM 1- , '

THE 1
I CHOSE THE
i INFORMATION TRAIN WELL ,
1

1 GATHER DATA

1 CREATE THE NETWORK

1
c
FILES
INPUT HIDDEN OUTPUT
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20

LAYER LAYER LAYER

TRAIN THE NETWORK -

I
TEST THE NETWORK
THE
I

RUN THE NETWORK ), -

1 NETWORK
DOES NOT
TEST WELL

FIG.12. Neural network design.

For personal use only.

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
NEURON INPUT
FIG.11. ( a ) Neural network. ( b ) Sigmoid transfer function.

sented to the neural network are renormalized using minimum

and maximum values, which are different for each input
line. These minimum and maximum values are representa-
tive of the actual lower and upper bounds of the training u
0 500
AVERAGE
STD DEV.
CORR.
0.98
0.067 %

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

NETWORK
101
0.060 %
~
data. The output of the neural network must then be con-
verted from values ranging between 0 and 1 to values cor- CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)
responding to the training pattern using a similar procedure.
Neural networks perform well in finding complex pat-
terns. They have some limitations, though.
They will not use values that are outside the range of
their training data. They will automatically bring any out
of range (either smaller or larger than the actual lower and
upper bounds of the training data) input value into range.
Therefore, they cannot give answers that are outside their
training pattern lower and upper bounds. AVERAGE 1.00
All the input data cannot be used to train the network,
because some of the data must be set aside to test the trained L

network. Neural networks tend to remember the training 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
facts. Thus, network testing must use data that were not CAPWAP CAPACITY (kN)
involved in the training process to verify its ability to
generalize and predict. FIG.13. ( a ) Neural network (0) and linear correlation (+)
The procedure used to design a neural network is shown in test results. ( b ) Average of the linear correlation and neural net-
work test results.
Fig. 12. The first step is to define the problem or what you
want to know. Then the input parameters must be chosen,
the input data must be gathered, and a first attempt is made Computer program
to create a network. If the neural network does not train well A computer program has been written to include linear
(does not produce answers that are within the required margin correlations and a neural network run-time module that uses
of error with respect to the training data), new parameters all the parameters required to calculate RAP, the minimum
are needed. If it trains well but does not test well (does not and maximum values of the training data and the weight
produce answers that are within the required margin of error matrices produced during training.
with respect to the testing data), then more data are required. The user only needs to input the required parameters com-
 252 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 3 1, 1994
puted by the PDA and pile data in a full-screen editor to
obtain an answer. The process is quick and the result is
completely independent of the operator's judgement.
A comparison of the linear correlation results and of the
neural network results is shown in Fig. 13a. These results are
for the data used to test the neural network (25% of the
total database). They have been chosen at random and another
set of data will give different results. For instance, Fig. 9
shows that the RAP values predicted by linear correlations
have a standard deviation of 0.081, when the whole data-
base is considered, instead of the 0.067 value shown in
Fig. 13a. The neural network portion of the program gives
results that can vary within the same range.
A neural network that trains and tests well will, on aver-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
age, slightly overestimate the CAPWAP capacity, and the stan-
dard deviation of its results will be close to the standard
deviation of linear correlation results.
The average of the results obtained from both types of
correlations will often improve the capacity prediction, espe-
cially if the neural network result is higher than RAP.
Figure 13b shows the average values computed from the
data presented in Fig. 13a.
It should be pointed out that this computer program is
not used to predict the bearing capacity of piles but is rather
used as an effective indicator to help pinpoint piles for
which a CAPWAP analysis might be required. Such CAPWAP
analysis may be required due to variations in soil condi-
For personal use only.
tions. This computer program does not replace the CAPWAP
analyses, which are an essential part of dynamic pile testing,
but it represent another tool that can be used to improve
the quality of the test results.
Conclusions
Using e m p i r i c a l correlations d e v e l o p e d with o v e r
200 CAPWAP results and pattern-recognition techniques
based on neural networks, a computer program has been
written to analyze the results of dynamic pile tests carried out
using the pile driving analyzer.
Even though this program has been developed using a
limited database, the results are very good and should con-
tinue to improve as more data become available. It has not,
however, been created to replace the CAPWAP program, which
can provide a large number of useful parameters, such as
distribution of skin resistance, toe resistance, and soil quake,
and its damping constants, but to supplement it.
The computer program provides three outputs. The first one
is RAP, which can be used even if the data are outside the
range of the database but seem to have little potential for
improvement. The second one is the output of the neural
network module, which is limited to the range covered by the
training data. However, since the training patterns cover
capacities ranging from 290 to 3100 kN, this limitation gen-
erally has little influence on the results. It is not, at this
time, better than RAP, but it shows potential for improvement.
The third one is the average of the other two outputs and
often shows the best results, especially if the value from
the neural network is larger than RAP.
Abe, S., Likins, G.E., and Morgano, C.M. 1990. Three case stud-
ies on static and dynamic testing of piles. Geotechnical News,
8(4): 26-28.
ASTM. 1990. Standard test method for high-strain dynamic test-
ing of piles (D4549-89). In Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
sect. 4, vol. 04.08. ASTM, Philadelphia. pp. 1000-1006.
\ \
Cheng. S.S M., and ~ h m a d , S.A.
' i988. Comparison of pile
capacity evaluated by dynamic m&asure&ents and static load-
ing tests-Five case studies in Ontario, Canada. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on the Application of
Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, Canada. pp. 477-489.
Federal Highway Administration. 1991. Dynamic pile monitor-
ing and pile load test report. Demonstration project no. 66.
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Fellenius, B.H. 1980. The analysis of results from routine pile
loading tests. Ground Engineering, 13(6): 19-3 1.
Fellenius, B.H. 1984. Ignorance is bliss-And that is why we
sleep so well. Geotechnical News, 2(4). pp. 14-15.
Hannigan, P.J., and Webster S.D. 1987. Comparison of static
load test and dynamic pile testing results. In Proceedings of the
2nd International Symposium of the Deep Foundation Institute,
Luxembourg.
Hiley, A. 1930. Pile driving calculations with notes on driving
forces and ground resistances. Structural Engineer, 8: 246-259,
278-288.
Hussein, M., and Likins, G.E. 1991. Static pile capacity by
dynamic methods. In Proceedings of the 1st Geotechnical
Engineering Conference, Cairo University.
Lawrence, J. 1988. Introduction to neural networks. 2nd ed.
California Scientific Software, Nevada City, Calif.
Morgano, C.M. 1988. CAPWAPC correlrition-A case study. 1988
PDA users day. Pile Dynamics Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Pile Dynamics Inc. 1990. CAPWAP refgrence manual. Pile Dynamics
Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Rausche, F., Goble, G., and Likins, G.E. 1985. Dynamic deter-
mination of pile capacity. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division 111(3): 367-383.
Riker, R.E., and Fellenius, B.H. 1988. Case method capacity
estimates for piles in glacial soils. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on the Application of Stress
Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, Canada. pp. 565-578.
Seidel, J.P., Haustorfer, I.J., and Plesiotis, S. 1988. Comparison
of dynamic and static testing for piles founded into limestone.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the
Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, Canada.
pp. 717-723.
Thompson, C.D., and Goble, G.G. 1988. High case shaft damp-
ing constants in sands. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles,
Ottawa, Canada. pp. 555-563.
List of symbols
A cross section of the pile
C stress wave speed
CENTRE centre value of the combined neuron inputs
D damping force
DHN final set of the pile
DMX maximum displacement at the location of the
gauges
E modulus of elasticity
EMX maximum energy transferred to the pile during
a hammer blow
force at the location of the gauges at time T ,
after the beginning of the blow
FT? force at the location of the gauges at time T,
after the beginning of the blow
HIGH maximum value of the transfer function
GAIN sensitivity of the transfer function
J damping constant
L length of the pile below the location where the
gauges are installed
LOW minimum value of the transfer function
RA2 an estimate of the static mobilized capacity
 ROBERT \ 253
, I 1

based on the pile velocity and force at the loca- SFT total skin resistance (static + damping) esti-
b*
tion of the gauges mated by the PDA
RAP predicted static pile bearing capacity using lin- T~ time of impact (usually the time when the veloc-
ear correlations ity at the location of the gauges is maximum)
RAU total mobilized capacity when VB becomes equal TF transfer function value (neuron output)
to 0 VB computed pile toe velocity
R ~ P upper bound for the mobilized static capacity V(T) velocity at the location of the gauges at time
RMX maximum value of RS when T, is varied from T after the beginning of the blow
+
Tp to Tp 30 ms VT! velocity at the location of the gauges at time T,
RS mobilized static resistance of the pile at a time T after the beginning of the blow
RS 1 mobilized static capacity when T, is equal to Tp vT2 velocity at the location of the gauges at time TZ
- RTL total mobilized resistance of the pile (static after the beginning of the blow
resistance + damping force) X value of the combined inputs of a neuron
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 68.148.154.147 on 06/27/20
For personal use only.