INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Jobs

Low strain Pile Integrity Test

Low strain Pile Integrity Test

(OP)
Hello everyone,

I have a few questions regarding interpretation of low strain pile integrity test graphs. Attached with my post are the results of four piles tested using PDI's Pile integrity tester. All that I have read on the internet and in books regarding the analysis process is that we have to apply a low pass filter not more than one tenth of the length, high pass filter not less than three times the pile length, the magnification delay is set at 20% by default and changing the wavelength removes the noise in the results. What I don't know is how much should I magnify the waves in order to identify if a toe reflection is achieved.

I have tried to analyse the raw results, in pile 1 and 4, I certainly have noise most probably due to the protruding dowels, which I am not able to remove even by applying wavelet analysis. But I am confused in case of pile 2 and 3, whether it is actually the toe reflection or noise. It cannot be noise since I don't see a source for it. But how can I be certain??

RE: Low strain Pile Integrity Test

mbilal,

From what I understand, this type of analysis needs to be performed by a really experienced geotech - and no, it's not me. If you need someone to look at your data, I can suggest a respected practitioner for you to contact.

JD

RE: Low strain Pile Integrity Test

(OP)
Thank you JD,

Actually I did contact an expert, Garland Likins of Pile dynamics Inc. To be very honest, I wasn't expecting a reply from him, but fortunately to my disappointment he did reply, which was very helpful. His interpretation is as follows:

'The protruding dowels are likely the cause for pile 4, and perhaps to lesser extent on pile 1. On pile 1, you might convince yourself of a toe reflection around 25 m, although that length could be longer if the wavespeed were higher (WS 4200 would give about 27 m).

For pile 2, there is a large negative around 8 m, and this is likely a large bulge and it is large enough that any interpretation below that point is doubtful.

For pile 3, it is similar to pile 1 except the noise is a absent from dowel bars. Pile length is perhaps only 25 m (or maybe even 24), although as previously mentioned the indicated length also depends on the wavespeed assumption.

Magnification is used in whatever amount is appropriate (depends on hammer size and pile size and length, and also so strength), so no specific value can be given. However, I would have preferred to also see the data without any HI pass filter . LO pass filter was used and no wavelet is used (although I doubt these had much effect).

Garland Likins'

MBY

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close