The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-01-16 Report of Pile Installationtunn city ummiq ~~�•• 662 CROMWELL AVENUE ST PAUL MN 55114 PHONE 612/6453601 OBSERVATIONS OF PILE INSTALLATION P/IOJtcT: PROP(iSED RESIDENCE 1635 CONCORDIA DRIVE January 16, 1989 RUPOAT90 Tog - *Q, MINNESOTA 1 -Atlas Foundation Co Betz Builders 1-Feyerheisen d Associates Attn: Tom Betz Attn: Fran Feyerheisen 415 Deborah Drive MAp lA Plain MinnPsnta S539Q LABORATORY No. 4220 89-638 This report concerns our recent observations performed during installation of driven pile for support of the proposed residence at 635 Concordia Drive in Orono, Minnesota. The scope of our work consisted of the following: 1. Perform observation of piling installation at the site on a full-time basis. 2. Provide judgments of pile capacity, based on the Engineering News Record Formula. We understand the proposed residence will have overall dimensions of approximately 130+ x 671, and will be supported by a driver, pile foundation system consisting of 48 treated timber piles. We understand these piles are designed based on a total working load capacity of 27 tons per pile. Prior to construction, we were provided with the results of a geotechnical exploration program performed by others. The report suggested a generalized soil profile consisting of topsoil and swamp deposits with interbedded layers of sand underlain by glacial till soils. The report reviewed foundation alternatives and indicated a deep foundation system of driven timber piles would be the most feasible. Please refer to the original report for more detailed information. Due to a continuing consolidation of the swamp deposits, the report also recommended reserving up to 9 tons per pile to counteract potential negative load. PILES AND PILE. DRIVING_EgUIEWM Treated timber piles were driven at the site for support of the residence building. The total length of these piles ranged from 35' to 459, with the exception of four test piles ranging from 48' to 509. The piles were driven with a Link Belt Model 440 diesel hammer which generates a manufacturer's rated energy of approximately 18,200 ft -lbs. Based on the Engineering News Record Formula, and our past experience with similar pile types and hammers, we recommended the production piles for this project be driven to the followirc criteria: A111 A MUTUAL 010TUCTM M rO 06l TTG MdR.c AND OCL VN. ALL M11 010TO ASM MAIMArrfO AS VM11 (.0/Ir.ODAMAL M1O n/ OP CLADKIM AMO AUTHOft- ZAT,ew mm w,PucATmM OP 0TATemmor 0. 00 INRTAACTI M ON „00AOOMID OUO,YPORTO 10 M Vll0 M,MOWMO OUO MMMrr1M A0010V L � tumn cam+ 662 CROMWELL AVENUE ST PAUL MN 55114 PHONE 6121645 3601 MMBYATIaiS Of PILE IMSTALLATIOM LABORATORY No. 4220 89-638 1 January 16, 1989 2 1. All piles should be driven to a depth of at least 301 below existinc grade. 2. All piles should be driven to a minimum final resistance of 30 blows per foot for the last three consecutive feet of penetration. 3. The driving should be terminated if a refusal criteria of 60 blows per foot is achieved, to avoid damaging the pile or hammer. In our opinion, the driving criteria should result in a total working load capacity of 27 tons per pile. This should also provide a factor of safety of about two against pile failure. We performed full-time monitoring of the pile driving procedures on December 30, 1988 and January 3 and 4, 1989. The results of our full-time monitoring are shorn on the attached summary sheet. This summary sheet indicates our pile number, the date driven, the pile cut-off elevation, the total length of pile, and the length of pile cut-off, the length of pile below cut-off elevation, the estimated pile tip elevation and the final driving resistance. The pile number system indicated on a sketch, was used to identify each of the piles. During the driving operations, we recorded the driving resistance for the last several feet cf pile penetration. Pile 16, 17, 022, 124, 025, 129, 134 and !35 were retail. Based on our past experience with similar pile types and hammers, each of these piles should be capable of supporting 27 tons, with a factor of safety of about two acainst pile failure. We also observed that each pile was driven at the locations staked in the field. The pile locations were staked in the field by others. After completicr of the pile driving, we also performed observations regarding the plumbness and general condition of the above grade portion of the pile. Based on the results of our full -tine observations, it is our opinion each of the piles should be capable of supporting 27 tons, with a factor of safety of about two against pile failure. Several piles did not achieve tn,,- recommended resistance criterias during the initial drive. Therefore, these piles were allowed to set for, a period of time, and redriven. Based on the resistance achieved on the restrikes, and our past experience with similar pile types and hammers, it is our opinion the piles which required restrikes rill adequately support the designed 27 ton working load. Those piles which were redriven are identified on the attached summary sheet. A0 A YMN,AL 000TOOTgM TO CLAwrem TM♦ M►1C APO O./OOEL VEA, ALL M000TO AM MANWrTEO AS T../ CCP/10K1 MAL STV OP CLIOP/TO. APO AUT..001- iArMN ■00.6INLMATIOt. v OTATUMOMTO, COMC"00I 00= 6NTMACTO POOM 00 MOAAO~ OUR MAOMrC 00 MOMVCO MPOO,OONO MMTTM. AAAOOV AL a tumn city min4 662 CROMWELL AVENUE ST PAUL MN 55114 PHONE 612,6453601 OBSERVATIONS Of PILE INSTALLATION LABORATORY No. 4220 89-638 January 16, 1989 3 We were informed on January 16, 1989, that pile /36 was mislocated. Using this pile, the capacity of the pile will increase 7 to 8 kips (3 to 4 tons) due to ec^.entric loads. We have reviewed the driving log for this monitored pile, which shows final driving resistances in excess of 40 bpf. In our opinion, pile 136 is capable of supporting a total working load capacity of up to 35 tons, which is in excess of the actual load to be exerted on this pile. It should be recognized that Twin City Testing Corporation does not practice in the field of surveying. Therefore, we must rely on the positioning of pile locations by others. If the construction is redesigned or otherwise moved subsequent to our work, we should be informed so our engineers can assess if additional engineering is required, or to suggest sound engineering alternatives. If you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact me at 641-9426. TWIN CITY TESTING CORPORATION J�i0'ij6�l. Iha Khilfeh, C.E. plomeo 0! ! � Michael P McCarthy, P.E. Manager, Construction Services Geotechnical Department IKIMPM/ r j r N IO A MUTUAL •/TSCTwM To CL1@Wg . T..w N1.K� PC AND CKJ LWGO. ALL .. MOWTS AM OVEGMTV80 AS 1-9 COA MMUMTIA♦ 0`000"T" op CLNNti, AMO AUT..001- •AT.M11 ■� 0WgL .'AT.OW C• STATERA8WO, CONC\.lMO.M 430 URTIACTS I..OIM o.. MOAMW40 O\M M000076 M w@Nnvwo NNo.NO OV...M.ITTSIV A/OMOV AI. PILE INSTALLATION DATA DATE: 1/1b/89 CONCORDIA RESIDENCE 1635 CONCORDIA 11REE1 4220 89-638 Pile Date Cut-Off Total Length Length Felow TipFes Final ri ,! S / Driven Elev Length Cut-off Cut-Off E1ev f'es�s�. Remarks (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (bpf) 1 12-30-88 96.3 48.0 8.0 40.0 56.3 31 33,40 lest Pile 11 2 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 1.0 39.0 57.3 28,33 41 3 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.5 39.5 56.8 35,38,42 4 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.0 40.0 56.3 25,25. 7 netap 20/.5" 5 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.5 34.5 5( .8 30,30,3? 6 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.5 34.5 56.8 28,27,28 Frtap 20/.5" 7 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.0 4C.0 5E.3 28,30,32 Re ap 20/1" 8 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 1.0 34.0 57.3 7,4(,45 9 1-3-89 9E..3 40.0 0.0 4C.0 56.3 3 1 , 3 2 . ? 5 10 12-3C-88 98.8 49.0 1(.0 39.0 54.8 38,42.24/6"Test Pile f4 11 1-3-89 98.8 40.0 * 40.0 51.5 30,31 35 *214"Below cut off elev. 12 1-3-89 9f.3 40.0 0.5 39.5 5E.8 27,35,37 13 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 2.0 43.0 53.3 34,35,37 14 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 3.0 42.0 54.3 %5,45,43 15 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 3.0 42.0 54.3 ?P,38,40 16 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 2.0 4? .0 53.3 29,30,30 17 12-30-88 96.3 50.0 2.5 4 .5 48.8 31,33,34 Test Pile /2 18 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 5.5 39.5 16.6 35,42,50/6" 19 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 4.0 41.0 55.3 31,36,43 20 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 0.5 44.5 51.8 35,35,41 21 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 0.0 45.0 51.3 26,30,31 22 1-3-89 96.3 45.0 0.0 45.0 51.3 18,30,30 Retap 20/.5" 23 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 1.0 44.0 52.3 30,30.30 24 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 0.0 45.0 51.3 20,20,20 Retap 30/1.E" 25 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 0.0 45.0 51.3 25,25,25 Retap 30/1.25" 26 1-3-89 96.3 45.0 0.5 44.5 51.8 3C,30,31 27 1-3-89 96.3 45.0 2.0 43.0 53.3 30,30,40 28 1-3-89 96.3 45.0 1.0 44.0 52.3 33,33,36 29 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.5 39.5 56.8 2C,22,25 Petap 20/.5" 30 1-3-89 98.8 45.0 0.0 45.0 53.8 3E,?9,50 31 1-3-89 9e.6 45.0 0.5 44.5 54.3 3?,42,41 32 1-3-89 98.8 45.0 * 45.0 52.0 30,32,35 *1'10"Eelow cut off (lev 33 1-3-89 98.8 45.0 * 45.0 51.5 28,30,35 *214"eelow cut off e1ev. 34 1-4-89 98.e 45,E * 45.0 51.0 28.30,30 02.5'eel ow cut ccff e'ev. Retap 20/.5" 35 1-4-89 98.e 45.0 * 45.0 51.0 28,28,28 *2.5'Eelow cut off a ev. Retail 20/.75" 36 1-3-69 9E..3 40.0 4.0 36.0 60.3 4:,45,56 37 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 8.0 32.0 64.3 55 56,61 38 1-3-89 96.3 35.0 0.5 34.5 61.8 30,32,35 39 12-30-88 96.3 50.0 18.0 32.0 64.3 36,38,41 Test Pile 53 40 1-3-89 96.3 35.0 2.5 32.5 63.8 31,35,37 41 1-3-89 96.3 35.0 1.0 34.0 62.3 35,40.43 42 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 1.0 39.0 57.3 37 40,45 43 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 3.5 36.5 59.8 34.37,42 44 1-3-89 96.3 40.0 0.5 39.5 56.8 34,35.39 45 1-3-89 98.8 40.0 3.0 37.0 61.8 35 40,45 46 1-3-89 98.8 40.0 2.0 38.0 60.8 35,37,50 47 1-3-89 98.6 35.0 • 35.0 62.8 31,37,41 *116elow cut off ele,.. 48 1-4-89 96.3 45.0 2.0 43.0 53.3 35.37,40 Total Length ------------------- 1S51.0 t�� teltlrp 1 1 w JLL m •I UL I� 1t 1 � If • 4 .I INS iE r JNo 1fit• It • Y � As w • N w JbI Ab. 48M M -I!/ CC11lCC'ri l C' JOB NO 'I C PI- 6 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY l �