A Technique for Selecting Appropriate Allowable Pile Loads for Driven-Pile Projects: Load Matching

Similar documents
Economics of Driven Pile Foundations

Evaluation of Pile Setup using Dynamic Restrike Analysis in Alabama Soils

Plastic Hinging Considerations for Single-Column Piers Supporting Highly Curved Ramp Bridges

Terminology, Shaft Comparison & General Discussion

2018 LOUISIANA TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE. Mohsen Shahawy, PHD, PE

OF SPECIFICATION SHEET, ONLY NO. (Type, size, model number, etc.) FILE NO. CODE d. e. f. g.

4.2 Series Station Option Description

Fast-Track Design and Construction of Running Repair Shop for Metro-North Railroad

Rolling Road (Route 638) Widening Project

DYNAMIC PILE TESTING 10/26/ General.

Performance Based Design for Bridge Piers Impacted by Heavy Trucks

NCDOT s Recent Experience With Static Load Testing on Large Prestressed Concrete Piles

METHODOLOGY FOR THE SELECTION OF SECOND HAND (RELAY) RAIL

Fiber Optics. Cage for Small Form Factor Pluggable (SFP) Transceiver V23818-S5-N1 V23818-S5-N1-BB

External Hard Drive: A DFMA Redesign

A Gap-Based Approach to the Left Turn Signal Warrant. Jeremy R. Chapman, PhD, PE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer American Structurepoint, Inc.

DEEP FOUNDATION. Improving Reliability of Foundations for Tall Buildings. By : Ir. Chow Chee Meng Date: th March 2014

Application for Service Residential Subdivision / Development

Alternative Delivery as a Form of Risk Mitigation

CXVT Engineering Data

Piping Systems in Dewatering Applications

SOLAR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Analysis Methods for Skewed Structures. Analysis Types: Line girder model Crossframe Effects Ignored

VALUE ENGINEERING STUDIES FINAL REPORT. Portsmouth Bypass, Phase 1 SCI PID 19415

Technical Inputs to Dredging Estimates. Robert Ramsdell Manager of Production Engineering Great Lakes Dredge & Dock

Access Management Standards

Instruction Guide: Residential Earth Loop Pressure Drop Calculation and Pump Sizing


PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION Structural Repairs to TC Dock, Naval Weapons Station, Charleston,SC

Attachment C: Benefit-Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

DRAFT REPORT TXDOT SH 183 MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF ELM FORK OF TRINITY RIVER CROSSING AT SH 183 WITHIN THE ELM FORK WATERSHED

GOPALAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT Department of Civil Engineering COURSE PLAN

ROV Standards. Presented to U.S. CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye U.S. CPSC Commissioner Joe Mohorovic September 30, 2014

Impact of doubling heavy vehicles on bridges

New Commercial Service Request-Job Process

PIPELINE REPAIR OF CORROSION AND DENTS: A COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE REPAIRS AND STEEL SLEEVES

Velocity Optimization of Pure Electric Vehicles with Traffic Dynamics Consideration

Installation of High Speed Blowers

Application of DSS to Evaluate Performance of Work Equipment of Wheel Loader with Parallel Linkage

Condensed Version of Operator s Manual For The VL600 Series Flowmeters

GENERAL PROVISIONS: Furnish and install one steel multi-platform motor truck scale and associated electronic controls.

EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION Howell Ferry Road Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia. WILLMER ENGINEERING INC. Willmer Project No

Saab Avitronics THE CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPING A COMINT DF AND MONITORING ANTENNA FOR THE HIGH PRESSURE ENVIRONMENT OF SUBMARINE OPERATIONS

Hydraulic Drive Head Performance Curves For Prediction of Helical Pile Capacity

Damping Ratio Estimation of an Existing 8-story Building Considering Soil-Structure Interaction Using Strong Motion Observation Data.

Buckling of Pump Barrel and Rod String Stability in Pumping Wells

Study for the Possibility of Application of Ultra Super Critical Steam Conditions for Coal Fired Power Plant in Vietnam

MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why

TYPICAL SPECIFICATION

DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF HTV FUEL TANK ASSEMBLY BY FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

TACOMA PUMP STATION 4103 FORCE MAIN HDD PROJECT: A SHORT BORE WITH TALL CHALLENGES

June Safety Measurement System Changes

Boat Mold Lift. A custom Pflow Industries Series F material lift,

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)

Timber-Concrete Composite Floor

Public Works Department

Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision of Highway Speed Deflection Devices

Hydraulic Report. County Road 595 Bridge over Second River. Prepared By AECOM Brian A. Hintsala, P.E

Angelo State University Energy Savings Program October 30, 2014

STRATEGIC CAPITAL PANEL REPLACEMENT OF REFUSE COLLECTION FLEET

Facilities Modification for Natural Gas Vehicles

PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION Structural Repairs to TC Dock, Naval Weapons Station, Charleston,SC

A428 Western Corridor Guided Bus Route Options

Lubrication system model of a small single cylinder engine with GT-SUITE

Baghouse Conversion to Pleated Filter Elements From Standard Bag and Cage Setup - Cost Benefit Analysis

RECOMMENDATION PAPER TO THE DULLES CORRIDOR COMMITTEE

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Overview Report of DESH 5 Hydro Winch Testing on R/V ATLANTIS. May Upgrade and Renovation

TRACC. Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion

LIFE CYCLE COSTING FOR BATTERIES IN STANDBY APPLICATIONS

Study on Economic Partnership Projects. in Developing Countries in FY2010. Study on the Kiev Metro Line 4 in Kiev City, Ukraine SUMMARY.

Development of Emission Control Technology to Reduce Levels of NO x and Fuel Consumption in Marine Diesel Engines

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Final Compendium Report. Connecting the San Fernando Valley and the Westside

BEHAVIOUR OF LATERALLY LOADED PILE GROUPS EMBEDDED IN OIL-CONTAMINATED SAND

panelclaw.com Polar Bear III for 10 Degree

PVP Field Calibration and Accuracy of Torque Wrenches. Proceedings of ASME PVP ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference PVP2011-

PROPOSED LUUQ FOOTBALL FIELD GRANT NO. KIS065

MREC Mark A. Cook General Manager, REPS PSCW. Farm Wiring Programs and Transmission Underbuild Issues

State of Wisconsin/Department of Transportation RESEARCH PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING: June 30, 2009

Data Sheet WÖHR PARKING PLATFORM 501

Driver Evaluation Instructions for Passenger Vans

InvestSmart Business Energy Upgrades Custom Equipment Catalog 01/01/2017

Internal Marks Internal Marks Passing Marks ESE Marks ESE Passing Code Subject Credit Lect Lab Tut T P CE T P CE T P T P

Lateral Resistance Characteristics of Sleepers in Railway Ballasted Tracks from Laboratory Model Tests

Dr. Awad S. Hanna. Professor, Chair of Construction Engineering and Management Program University of Wisconsin- Madison

CXVB Engineering Data

Effectiveness of ECP Brakes in Reducing the Risks Associated with HHFT Trains

Physical Scaling of Water Mist Protection of 260-m 3 Machinery Enclosure

Monitoring of Shoring Pile Movement using the ShapeAccel Array Field

Civil Engineer. Tasks

PROFILING OF PULSATION AND VIBRATION IN COMPLEX RECIPROCATING COMPRESSOR FACILITIES

Steering Actuator for Autonomous Driving and Platooning *1

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

Project Summary Fuzzy Logic Control of Electric Motors and Motor Drives: Feasibility Study

UAV Enabled Measurement for Spatial Magnetic Field of Smart Rocks in Bridge Scour Monitoring

Preliminary Study on Quantitative Analysis of Steering System Using Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) Simulator

0 Issued for Information SHS 10/06/16 JAL 10/10/16 JCP 10/10/16

DAFTAR PUSTAKA. ASTM D-2049 (1989) Cara Menentukan Sudut Geser Berdasarkan Kepadatan Relatif.

Pump Station 7 Improvements

CSA What You Need to Know

Transcription:

A Technique for Selecting Appropriate Allowable Pile Loads for Driven-Pile Projects: Load Matching Pile Driving Contractors Association 2015 Professor s Driven Pile Institute June 25, 2015 Van E. Komurka, P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE Wagner Komurka Geotechnical Group, Inc. 1

Talk Outline Support Cost Define Pile Support Cost Based on Available Support Based on Utilized Support Load-Matching Evaluations Philosophy Define Optimum Allowable Pile Load Case Histories Medium/Large Small 2

Talk Outline Support Cost Define Pile Support Cost Based on Available Support Based on Utilized Support Load-Matching Evaluations Philosophy Define Optimum Allowable Pile Load Case Histories Medium/Large Small 3

Pile Support Cost: Design Efficiency Based on Available Support Installed Cost = $ 5,000 Allowable Pile Load = 250 T Based on Utilized Support Large Resisted Loads Small Resisted Loads Structure Design Load = 700 T Structure Design Load = 300 T $ 5,000 250 T $ 20.00 per available ton = 3 x $ 5,000 700 T = $ 21.43 per structure design ton 3 x $ 5,000 300 T = $ 50.00 per structure design ton 4

Talk Outline Support Cost Define Pile Support Cost Based on Available Support Based on Utilized Support Load-Matching Evaluations Philosophy Define Optimum Allowable Pile Load Case Histories Medium/Large Small 5

Load-Matching Evaluation Match Allowable Pile Loads to Column Loads! Piles are below-grade structural extensions of abovegrade structural elements; their design should be integrated with the above-grade design. Using one allowable pile load for a project is analogous to using one beam or column design throughout a building. Two fixed design components: Structural loads to support (column load schedule). Soil/pile resistance behavior to support structural loads (depth vs. capacity relationships). Deep foundation system design flexibility (choice of pile type, section, allowable load, construction-control method, safety factor, etc.) allows optimally matching fixed design components. 6

Talk Outline Support Cost Define Pile Support Cost Based on Available Support Based on Utilized Support Load-Matching Evaluations Philosophy Define Optimum Allowable Pile Load Case Histories Medium/Large Small 7

900 K Load Matching Evaluation Optimum Allowable Pile Load = Column Design Load Minimum Req d No. of Piles 8

Minimum Required Number of Piles Minimum 1 Pile Required? Minimum 2 Piles Required Minimum 3 Piles Required 9

900 K Optimum Allowable Pile Load = Column Design Load Minimum Req d No. of Piles Column Design Load = 900 kips Minimum Req d No. of Piles = 3 Optimum Allowable Pile Load = 900 kips 3 piles = 300 kips/pile = 150 tons/pile 10

Lower-Than-Optimum Allowable Pile Loads Increased pile support costs each ton of allowable pile load costs more than it would have with higherallowable-load piles. Increased cap support costs each cap is larger than it would have been with higher-allowable-load piles; may increase excavation/material disposal costs, utility relocation costs. Increased number of pile installations. May increase total project drive time, construction control monitoring costs. 11

Higher-Than-Optimum Allowable Pile Loads Unused capacity installed although pile support costs are low, and cap costs are minimized, unnecessary capacity is installed (unnecessary cost is incurred). 12

Talk Outline Support Cost Define Pile Support Cost Based on Available Support Based on Utilized Support Load-Matching Evaluations Philosophy Define Optimum Allowable Pile Load Case Histories Medium/Large Small 13

Load-Matching Design Approach Obtain foundation layout, column load schedule, and the minimum required number of piles at each cap, from structural engineer. Calculate optimum allowable pile load for each cap. If desired, calculate required ultimate pile capacity for each cap. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of field testing, this can be done for a range of factors of safety. 14

15

16

F.S. = 2.00 Maximum Optimum Required Allowable "Ultimate" Column Min. Column Pile Pile Line No. Load, Load, Capacity, Designation of Piles kips tons tons 0.A-8.5 1 158 79 158 0.A-0.5 1 180 90 180 P-3.3 1 181 91 181 P-3.7 1 181 91 181 P-4.5 1 181 91 181 P-5 1 181 91 181 P-5.5 1 181 91 181 P-6 1 181 91 181 0.A-8 1 203 102 203 M.5-8 1 228 114 228 N-8.5 1 360 180 360 P.7-8.5 1 360 180 360 P-0.5 1 360 180 360 P-8.5 1 360 180 360 Q.8-3 1 360 180 360 Q-0.5 1 360 180 360 M.5-4 1 368 184 368 J-5 2 748 187 374 G-7 3 1479 247 493 H-7 3 1479 247 493 K-6 3 1484 247 495 B-7 3 1487 248 496 B-6 3 1507 251 502 C-8 3 1508 251 503 R1-5.9 3 1510 252 503 K-7 3 1529 255 510 C-4 3 1874 312 625 F-6 3 1879 313 626 J-6 3 1942 324 647 J-4 3 1995 333 665 Q-9 3 2003 334 668 R-9 3 2003 334 668 448 17

Load-Matching Design Approach Obtain foundation layout, column load schedule, and an indication of the minimum required number of piles at each cap, from structural engineer. Calculate optimum allowable pile load for each cap. Calculate required ultimate pile capacity for each cap. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of field testing, this can be done for a range of factors of safety. Generate histogram of optimum allowable pile loads. 18

Number of Piles 194 tons 180 tons 227 tons 91 tons Allowable Pile Load Histogram 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 Optimum Allowable Pile Load, tons 19

Load-Matching Design Approach Obtain foundation layout, column load schedule, and an indication of the minimum required number of piles at each cap, from structural engineer. Calculate optimum allowable pile load for each cap. Calculate required ultimate pile capacity for each cap. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of field testing, this can be done for a range of factors of safety. Generate histogram of optimum allowable pile loads. Select appropriate allowable pile loads, with designteam input. 20

Number of Piles 194 tons 180 tons 227 tons 91 tons Allowable Pile Load Histogram 70 91 tons 180 tons 251 tons 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 Optimum Allowable Pile Load, tons 21

Number of Piles For Comparison - Different Case History 30 Number of Piles vs. Optimum Allowable Axial Compression Pile Load 25 20 48 Tons 113 Tons 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Optimum Allowable Axial Compression Pile Load, tons 22

Load-Matching Design Approach (continued) Select viable pile type(s) and section(s) for selected allowable loads (91 T, 180 T, and 251 T ). {borings} Estimate individual pile lengths required for selected pile capacities. 23

Pile Toe Elevation, feet Estimated Ultimate Pile Capacity - Borings 13.375-Inch-Diameter Pipe Piles 10 0-10 -20-30 -40-50 -60-70 -80-90 -100-110 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Estimated Ultimate Pile Capacity, tons 24

Pile Toe Elevation, feet 10 0-10 -20-30 -40-50 -60 EOID Capacity Set-Up Pile Test Program Results - -70-80 -90 Long-term Capacity Capacity Profiles -100-110 -120-130 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Estimated Ultimate Capacity, tons 25

Load-Matching Design Approach (continued) Select viable pile type(s) and section(s) for selected allowable pile loads (91 T, 180 T, 251 T ). Estimate individual pile lengths required for selected pile capacities. Estimate total pile lengths required for project. Using representative prices, estimate total pile cost for project. 26

Number of Piles 194 tons 180 tons 227 tons 91 tons Allowable Pile Load Histogram 70 91 tons 180 tons 251 tons 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 Optimum Allowable Pile Load, tons 27

F.S. = 2.00 Maximum Optimum Required Allowable "Ultimate" 3 Capacities (91, 180, and 251 tons) Column Min. Column Pile Pile Est. Pile Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile(s) Line No. Load, Load, Capacity, No. Length, Footage, Cost, Designation of Piles kips tons tons of Piles feet feet dollars 0.A-8.5 1 158 79 158 1 62 62 1,340 0.A-0.5 1 180 90 180 1 62 62 1,340 $21.61 / ft P-3.3 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 91-ton max. P-3.7 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 allow. load: P-4.5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 71 P-5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 10.75x0.365 P-5.5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 feet: P-6 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 4,402 0.A-8 1 203 102 203 1 86 86 2,405 M.5-8 1 228 114 228 1 86 86 2,405 $27.97 / ft N-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 180-ton max. P.7-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 allow. load: P-0.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 108 P-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 13-3/8" 0.480 Q.8-3 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 feet: Q-0.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 9,288 M.5-4 1 368 184 368 1 95 95 2,657 J-5 2 748 187 374 2 95 190 5,314 G-7 3 1479 247 493 3 95 285 7,971 251-ton max. H-7 3 1479 247 493 3 95 285 7,971 allow. load: K-6 3 1484 247 495 3 95 285 7,971 177 B-7 3 1487 248 496 3 95 285 7,971 13-3/8" 0.480 B-6 3 1507 251 502 3 95 285 7,971 feet: C-8 3 1508 251 503 3 95 285 7,971 16,815 R1-5.9 3 1510 252 503 4 95 380 10,629 K-7 3 1529 255 510 4 95 380 10,629 C-4 3 1874 312 625 4 95 380 10,629 251-ton max. F-6 3 1879 313 626 4 95 380 10,629 allow. load: J-6 3 1942 324 647 4 95 380 10,629 125 J-4 3 1995 333 665 4 95 380 10,629 13-3/8" 0.480 Q-9 3 2003 334 668 4 95 380 10,629 feet: R-9 3 2003 334 668 4 95 380 10,629 11,875 448 481 42,380 $1,157,416 28

Load-Matching Design Approach (continued) Select viable pile type(s) and section(s) for selected allowable pile loads (91 T, 180 T, 251 T ). Estimate individual pile lengths required for selected pile capacities. Calculate total pile lengths required for project. Calculate total pile cost for project. Perform additional iterations as desired. 29

$19.16 / ft F.S. = 2.00 Maximum Optimum Required Allowable "Ultimate" 3 Capacities (91, 180, and 251 tons) 1 Capacity (10.75 x 0.188, 63 tons) Column Min. Column Pile Pile Est. Pile Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile(s) Line No. Load, Load, Capacity, No. Length, Footage, Cost, Number Length, Footage, Cost, Designation of Piles kips tons tons of Piles feet feet dollars of Piles feet feet dollars 0.A-8.5 1 158 79 158 1 62 62 1,340 2 58 116 2,223 0.A-0.5 1 180 90 180 1 62 62 1,340 $21.61 / ft 2 58 116 2,223 P-3.3 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 91-ton max. 2 58 116 2,223 P-3.7 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 allow. load: 2 58 116 2,223 P-4.5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 71 2 58 116 2,223 P-5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 10.75x0.365 2 58 116 2,223 P-5.5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 feet: 2 58 116 2,223 P-6 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 4,402 2 58 116 2,223 0.A-8 1 203 102 203 1 86 86 2,405 2 58 116 2,223 M.5-8 1 228 114 228 1 86 86 2,405 $27.97 / ft 2 58 116 2,223 N-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 180-ton max. 3 58 174 3,334 P.7-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 allow. load: 3 58 174 3,334 P-0.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 108 3 58 174 3,334 P-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 13-3/8" 0.480 3 58 174 3,334 Q.8-3 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 feet: 3 58 174 3,334 Q-0.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 9,288 3 58 174 3,334 M.5-4 1 368 184 368 1 95 95 2,657 3 58 174 3,334 J-5 2 748 187 374 2 95 190 5,314 6 58 348 6,668 G-7 3 1479 247 493 3 95 285 7,971 251-ton max. 12 58 696 13,335 H-7 3 1479 247 493 3 95 285 7,971 allow. load: 12 58 696 13,335 K-6 3 1484 247 495 3 95 285 7,971 177 12 58 696 13,335 B-7 3 1487 248 496 3 95 285 7,971 13-3/8" 0.480 12 58 696 13,335 B-6 3 1507 251 502 3 95 285 7,971 feet: 12 58 696 13,335 C-8 3 1508 251 503 3 95 285 7,971 16,815 12 58 696 13,335 R1-5.9 3 1510 252 503 4 95 380 10,629 12 58 696 13,335 K-7 3 1529 255 510 4 95 380 10,629 13 58 754 14,447 C-4 3 1874 312 625 4 95 380 10,629 251-ton max. 15 58 870 16,669 F-6 3 1879 313 626 4 95 380 10,629 allow. load: 15 58 870 16,669 J-6 3 1942 324 647 4 95 380 10,629 125 16 58 928 17,780 J-4 3 1995 333 665 4 95 380 10,629 13-3/8" 0.480 16 58 928 17,780 Q-9 3 2003 334 668 4 95 380 10,629 feet: 16 58 928 17,780 R-9 3 2003 334 668 4 95 380 10,629 11,875 16 58 928 17,780 448 481 42,380 $1,157,416 1,560 90,480 $1,733,597 $576,181 30

$19.16 / ft F.S. = 2.00 Maximum Optimum Required Allowable "Ultimate" 3 Capacities (91, 180, and 251 tons) 1 Capacity (10.75 x 0.188, 63 tons) Column Min. Column Pile Pile Est. Pile Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile Est. Pile(s) Est. Pile(s) Line No. Load, Load, Capacity, No. Length, Footage, Cost, Number Length, Footage, Cost, Designation of Piles kips tons tons of Piles feet feet dollars of Piles feet feet dollars 0.A-8.5 1 158 79 158 1 62 62 1,340 2 58 116 2,223 0.A-0.5 1 180 90 180 1 62 62 1,340 $21.61 / ft 2 58 116 2,223 P-3.3 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 91-ton max. 2 58 116 2,223 P-3.7 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 allow. load: 2 58 116 2,223 P-4.5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 71 2 58 116 2,223 P-5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 10.75x0.365 2 58 116 2,223 P-5.5 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 feet: 2 58 116 2,223 P-6 1 181 91 181 1 62 62 1,340 4,402 2 58 116 2,223 0.A-8 1 203 102 203 1 86 86 2,405 2 58 116 2,223 M.5-8 1 228 114 228 1 86 86 2,405 $27.97 / ft 2 58 116 2,223 N-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 180-ton max. 3 58 174 3,334 P.7-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 allow. load: 3 58 174 3,334 P-0.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 108 3 58 174 3,334 P-8.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 13-3/8" 0.480 3 58 174 3,334 Q.8-3 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 feet: 3 58 174 3,334 Q-0.5 1 360 180 360 1 86 86 2,405 9,288 3 58 174 3,334 M.5-4 1 368 184 368 1 95 95 2,657 3 58 174 3,334 J-5 2 748 187 374 2 95 190 5,314 6 58 348 6,668 G-7 3 1479 247 493 3 95 285 7,971 251-ton max. 12 58 696 13,335 H-7 3 1479 247 493 3 95 285 7,971 allow. load: 12 58 696 13,335 K-6 3 1484 247 495 3 95 285 7,971 177 12 58 696 13,335 B-7 3 1487 248 496 3 95 285 7,971 13-3/8" 0.480 12 58 696 13,335 B-6 3 1507 251 502 3 95 285 7,971 feet: 12 58 696 13,335 C-8 3 1508 251 503 3 95 285 7,971 16,815 12 58 696 13,335 R1-5.9 3 1510 252 503 4 95 380 10,629 12 58 696 13,335 K-7 3 1529 255 510 4 95 380 10,629 13 58 754 14,447 C-4 3 1874 312 625 4 95 380 10,629 251-ton max. 15 58 870 16,669 F-6 3 1879 313 626 4 95 380 10,629 allow. load: 15 58 870 16,669 J-6 3 1942 324 647 4 95 380 10,629 125 16 58 928 17,780 J-4 3 1995 333 665 4 95 380 10,629 13-3/8" 0.480 16 58 928 17,780 Q-9 3 2003 334 668 4 95 380 10,629 feet: 16 58 928 17,780 R-9 3 2003 334 668 4 95 380 10,629 11,875 16 58 928 17,780 448 481 42,380 $1,157,416 1,560 90,480 $1,733,597 $576,181 31

Talk Outline Support Cost Define Pile Support Cost Based on Available Support Based on Utilized Support Load-Matching Evaluations Philosophy Define Optimum Allowable Pile Load Case Histories Medium/Large Small 32

Condominiums Relatively small project, approximately 200 piles required. Renovation of a former storage warehouse into condominiums. Piles required only beneath small building addition. Existing geotechnical engineering report prepared for different site development plans. A review of existing recommendations relative to currently proposed development was desired. 33

Number of Piles Optimum Allowable Pile Load Histogram Condominiums 36 42 50 54 72 108 125 129 215 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Optimum Allowable Pile Load, tons 34

Condominiums - Proposed Designs Allowable Number Estimated Design Load, tons of Piles Footage Original 70 205 15,580 35

Number of Piles Optimum Allowable Pile Load Histogram Condominiums 36 42 50 54 72 108 125 129 215 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Optimum Allowable Pile Load, tons 36

Condominiums - Proposed Designs Allowable Number Estimated Design Load, tons of Piles Footage Original 70 205 15,580 Revised 72 180 14,040 SAVE: 25 1,540 $34,250 + cap costs on $346,500 worth of piles 37

Condominiums - Proposed Designs Allowable Number Estimated Design Load, tons of Piles Footage Original 70 205 15,580 Revised 72 180 14,040 Alternate 100 130 $60,000 savings 72 tons per pile x 180 piles = 12,960 tons to support 12,960 tons / 100 tons per pile = 130 piles Save 50 piles & $60,000? 38

Number of Piles Optimum Allowable Pile Load Histogram Condominiums 36 42 50 54 72 108 125 129 215 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Optimum Allowable Pile Load, tons 39

216-ton column load 216-ton column load 72 tons 72 tons 72 tons 100 tons 100 tons 100 tons 40

Condominiums - Proposed Designs Allowable Number Estimated Design Load, tons of Piles Footage Original 70 205 15,580 Revised 72 180 14,040 Alternate 100 164 15,744 SAVE: 16 (not 50) -1,704 ($37,897) (if same pile section is used) 41

Conclusions Consider using higher-capacity piles (when building loads warrant) Consider matching (optimizing) allowable pile loads to column loads Evaluate design options/alternatives using actual column loads and allowable pile load histogram All should result in more-cost-effective driven-pile foundations 42

Questions / Comments? 43