Dynamic Load Testing of

Helical Piles
ANNUAL KANSAS CITY SPECIALTY SEMINAR 2014
JANUARY 10, 2014
Jorge Beim – JWB Consulting LLC
Pile Dynamics, Inc.
Main Topics
Brief description of the Dynamic Load Test (DLT) Method
Comments on the results that can be obtained from DLT, and how they compare to those of
Static Load Tests (SLT) and torque measurements
Brief discussion of Case Studies described in the literature
J.G. Cannon (2000)
J.W. Beim & S.C. Luna (2012)
A. Klesney & F. Rausche (2012)
B. White et al (2013)
1. The Dynamic Load
Testing Method
ANNUAL KANSAS CITY SPECIALTY SEMINAR 2014
JANUARY 10, 2014
The Dynamic Load Testing Method
Research program started in 1964 @ Case Institute of Technology (now Case Western Reserve
University), with the objective of developing an economical, “practical for field use”, portable
pile bearing capacity measurement system
Method is based on electronic measurements of pile top force and velocity during impact of a
large hammer
Two kinds of sensors are installed on a location usually close to the pile top:
Strain transducers for measuring the force (by multiplying the strain by the elastic modulus and cross-
section area of the pile material)
 For piles up to about 6” diameter => use strain gages glued to rod
 For larger piles => use standard reusable gages
Accelerometers for measuring the velocity (by integrating the acceleration data)
The Dynamic Load Testing Method
Signals from sensors are sent via cable or radio to the Pile Driving Analyzer® (PDA)
After each blow the PDA processes the data, providing:
Pile capacity using the simplified CASE method (valid for uniform piles)
Maximum stresses along the pile
Transferred energy

The data collected for one blow can be further analyzed using the CAPWAP® program, to
determine:
Total mobilized resistance
Resistance distribution
Simulated load-displacement curve
The CAPWAP Analysis
CAPWAP is a Signal Matching Program (System Identification Analysis or Reverse Analysis)

Load System Movement

The CAPWAP Analysis
The pile is divided in elements roughly 3.3 ft. long => non-uniform piles can be easily modeled
The soil is divided in elements usually about 6.6 ft long, plus an additional element for the toe
A model based on the work of E.A.L. Smith (1960), with numerous extensions and improvements, is
used for the soil
One variable is used as input (for example velocity) and the soil model parameters are interactively
changed until the best possible match between measured and the calculated complementary curves
(for example force) is achieved
The static resistance from this soil model is the mobilized resistance (can correspond to the ultimate
resistance if sufficient energy was applied to cause substantial permanent displacement)
The soil and pile model are used to generate a simulated load-displacement curve
 The CAPWAP Analysis
A typical simulated load-displacement curve

Load(k
ips) P
ileT op
B
o tto
m
0 5
00 1
000 1
500 2
000
0
.00
0

Ru= 1
688.4 kip
s
Rs= 1
129.8 kip
s
0
.20
0 Rb= 558.6 kip
s
Dy= 0
.47in
Dx= 0
.55in
Displacement (in)

0
.40
0

0
.60
0

0
.80
0
2. Results from Dynamic
Load Testing
ANNUAL KANSAS CITY SPECIALTY SEMINAR 2014
JANUARY 10, 2014
Usual DLT procedure for helical piles
Apply blows with increasing drop height, using a suitable impact device
Ram with a weight of at least 2% of test load
True free fall
Good guiding and leveling systems

Interpret the CAPWAP load-displacement curves according to maximum allowable

displacement, for example:
Davisson: 0.15” + D/120 + elastic deformation (PL/AE) => a set of 0.1” or more on the analyzed blow is
OK (usual for driven piles)
FHWA: 5% of diameter
Livneh and El Naggar (2008): 8% of largest helical diameter + elastic deformation
½ inch – see B. White (2013)
Larger max allowable displacements require larger sets and heavier weights for DLT
Interpretation of CAPWAP load-
displacement curve
For small allowable displacements (e.g. Davisson), analysis of blow with highest mobilized
capacity usually sufficient
For larger displacements, superposition of load-displacement curves for all applied blows is
recommended
Other results
Stresses along pile: important to determine maximum drop height
Bending (check alignment)
Energy transfer
3. Case studies
ANNUAL KANSAS CITY SPECIALTY SEMINAR 2014
JANUARY 10, 2014
J.G. Cannon (2000)
Impact System:
Special cable drop hammer made up by one of the Contractors
Drop weights consist of 2 and 4 tonne (4.4 and 8.8 kips) solid circular billets of steel of about 350 mm
(13.8 inches) diameter and 2.6 and 5 m (8.5 and 16.4 ft) long respectively
Guide frame allows for a stroke of about 2 m (6.6 ft)
The frame was supported laterally by 4 guy wires tied to adjacent screw piles, either production piles or
temporary anchors specifically for the test
J.G. Cannon (2000)
The following tests were reported:
Sydney, Australia International Airport
89x5.5 mm (3.5x7/32 inches) tubes with single 350 mm (13.8 inches) helix near the toe – working load =
100 kN (22 kips)
168x7 mm (6.6x9/32 inches) tubes with either two 700 mm (27.5 inches) helices (working load 500 kN
[110 kips]) or with 5 helices (working load 600 kN [132 kips])
All piles about 8 m (26 ft) penetration
Moderately dense to dense medium sands
J.G. Cannon (2000)
Redcliff Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
219x8 mm (8.6x5/16 inches) tubes with 2 helices 0.85 m (33.5 inches) in diameter; 3.0 m (9.8 ft)
penetration. Working load 850 to 1000 kN (191 – 225 kips)
“Completely weathered sandstone, which was essentially very stiff-hard clayey sand or sandy clay with
reported undrained shear strength of up to 600-700 kPA (12.5 – 14.6 ksf)”

• Static load test carried to 1.5 times serviceability load.

• Dynamic test limited only by stresses in the pile shaft,
so was able to mobilize considerably more resistance.
• Initial change in slope of static load test curve was
modeled with acceptable accuracy by CAPWAP,
according to author
J.G. Cannon (2000)
Redlands Mater Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
89x5.5 mm (3.5x7/32 inches) with a single 350 mm (13.8 inches) helix
114x6 mm (4.5x15/64 inches) with a single 450 mm (17.7 inches) helix
Penetrations from 2.2 to 5 m (7.2 to 16.4 ft)
Stiff clays over stiff to hard gravely clays
8 piles were tested, comprising 15% of total piles
One of the test piles showed high torque resistance during installation, but during testing the set was
very high (37 mm/bl – 8 bl/ft) and the mobilized resistance was also low. According to the author, “this
is an example of why installation torque does not give a good indication of pile capacity”.
J.W. Beim & S.C. Luna (2012)
Test program performed on helical piles specially installed at the National Geotechnical
Experimentation Site of the University of Massachusetts - Amherst campus (UMass-Amherst)
Soil consists of approximately 5 ft of stiff silty-clay fill overlaying a thick 100-ft deposit of late
Pleistocene lacustrine varved clay
Seven piles were submitted to Dynamic Load Tests and also to Static Load Tests
Piles were 2 7/8x0.217 inch, with 3 helices (8, 10 and 12 inches)
Three piles were installed to a depth of 12 ft, and consisted of one bottom section and one
extension. Five piles were installed to a depth of 18 ft and consisted of one bottom section and
two extensions. The shorter piles showed more resistance than the longer ones, as expected
due to a drop in soil resistance at 13 ft
J.W. Beim & S.C. Luna (2012)
Dynamic Load Tests
300 lbs ram

PR Accelerometers 3 ft max drop height

Strain gages

Radio transmitters Data sent via

radio to a PDA

3.5 ft-long piece of

instrumented rod
J.W. Beim & S.C. Luna (2012)
Example comparison of DLT and SLT results

HP5 (12 ft) HP7 (18 ft)

Load (kips) Load (kips)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 0.0

D D
0.1 0.1
i i
s s
0.2 0.2
p i p i Static
l n l n Dynamic
0.3 0.3
a c a c
Davidson
c h c h
0.4 0.4
e e e e
m s m s
0.5 0.5
e e
n 0.6 n 0.6
t t
0.7 0.7
J.W. Beim & S.C. Luna (2012)
Summary of results
Pile HP5 HP10 HP15 HP7 HP9 HP12 HP14
Depth (ft) 12 12 12 18 18 18 18
Torque (ft-lbs) 1428 1544 1699 869 868 890 1101
SLT - Davisson (kips) 23.1 22.0 22.9 8.6 10.9 11.7 12.7
DLT - Davisson (kips) 22.6 19.3 18.2 8.6 11.2 11.1 12.7
SLT/DLT 1.02 1.14 1.26 1.00 0.97 1.05 1.00
Kt static (ft-1) 16.2 14.3 13.5 9.9 12.6 13.1 11.5
Kt dynamic (ft-1) 15.8 12.5 10.7 9.9 12.9 12.5 11.5
Average Kt static (ft-1) 14.6 11.8

 Compressive Bearing Capacity can be determined from torque measured during installation
using Qult = Kt x T
 The value for Kt recommended for this kind of pile is 9 ft-1 (AC-358). However, in this case:
 12 ft piles (HP5, HP10, HP15) => Kt ≈ 15
 18 ft piles (HP7, HP9, HP12, HP14) => Kt ≈ 12
 The usual Kt value proved to be conservative in this case
A. Klesney & F. Rausche (2012)
Ten 2-7/8 inch piles were tested at the Amtrak Passenger Station of Alpine, Texas
Piles installed into primarily granular soil to a minimum depth of 10 ft
The impact system consisted of a “simple, 1,500 lb drop hammer with a reusable, portable pile
extension fitted for transducer attachment and drop hammer impact”. Three or four impacts
with fall heights up to 3 ft were applied
B. White et al (2013)
Four 9 5/8x0.395 inch helical piles tested in Midland, Michigan. The piles had two helices of the
same diameter: 20 (2), 22 and 24 inches. The design pile capacities were 87, 96 and 111 kips,
respectively.
Piles penetrated 45-46 ft in the soil described as “compact loamy sand to 9 ft depth, stiff clay
extending to 45 ft depth, over an extremely hard layer of clay below 45 ft depth”.
Blows were applied by the APPLE VI dynamic load testing system, consisting of a 4.5 ton drop
weight supported by a metallic frame. The drop heights ranged from 2 to 18 inches
Load-displacement curves were constructed by superimposing the CAPWAP load-displacement
curves of the individual blows. Capacities were evaluated for a ¼ inch and for a ½ inch top
displacement (the latter was the specified performance criterion)