Example 10: Pile Damping, Long Piles, Diesel Hammer Performance Page 1 of 2

GRLWEAP Standard Examples

Example 10: Pile Damping, Long Piles, Diesel

Hammer Performance
The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation
Analysis is contained in the Example 10 Output file both for English and SI Units.
Although it was attempted to limit differences between this example and the
corresponding one of earlier GRLWEAP versions, minor output differences may be noted.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included
in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

10.1 Background
Dashpots connecting the pile segments usually have an assigned damping
parameter that corresponds to 1% of critical damping or 2% of the
impedance of the pile at its midpoint. The impedance equals pile modulus, E,
times pile cross sectional area, A, divided by pile wave speed, c. Using the
Pile Damping Option (click Options/General Options/Damping), the dashpot
value can be changed in increments of 2%; zero pile damping is input with a
negative value, e.g., as a -1; a 2% value is input by either Pile Damping = 1
or 0.

Recommended input values for pile damping are 1 for steel, 3 for concrete
and 5 for timber. These values are automatically assigned through the pile
material switch in the Main Input form. The effect of pile damping is studied
in the present example of a long steel pile; first for zero and second for 2%
pile damping.

10.2 Input

A 30x1 inch (762x25.4 mm) pipe pile of 300 ft (91.4 m) length will be
analyzed. It is assumed that it will be driven by a Delmag D 62-22 hammer. A
bearing graph curve was produced with 90% of the resistance acting on the
shaft and with Smith viscous damping of 0.05 and 0.15 s/ft (0.16 and 0.50
s/m) for skin and toe, respectively. For one analysis the Pile Damping Option
was set to a negative value (no pile damping); for the other analysis the pile
damping option was left zero (2% pile damping).

10.3 Results

After analyzing both example cases, compare the extrema tables in the
Numerical Output (click , or View/Output). Numerically, the two cases
differ; however, the results are rather similar at low to moderate blow counts.
At higher blow counts [near 100 bl/ft (328 bl/m)], differences are noticeable.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016
Example 10: Pile Damping, Long Piles, Diesel Hammer Performance Page 2 of 2

Another observation is quite interesting. The static resistance was distributed

over 60% of the pile length, starting at the bottom. Thus, the upper 36
segments were without resistance which would be reasonable if the pile were
driven through water except that then the pile should be modeled with a 180
ft (55 m) penetration and the resistance distribution beginning at the mudline
or seabed). It is, therefore, expected that the wave, or say the maxima of
forces and velocities, stays nearly constant as it travels down the pile. For the
0% [2%] pile damping case, the maximum velocity is 12.7 (4.0) [12.5 ft/s
(3.8 m/s)]. The velocity value at segment 20, sufficiently high above the
friction elements such that no major upwards stress wave effects interfere
with the downward wave, is 12.1 (3.8) [11.6 ft/s (3.5 m/s)]. This indicates
wave peak reductions of 4.7 and 7.2% for the undampened and dampened
pile, respectively. The reason for the decay of the peak stress is primarily the
size of the pile segment which filters out the high frequency components of
the pile forces. Better numerical program performance can also be achieved
by using more pile and/or ram segments and/or a reduced time increment.
This could be accomplished by:

l using a larger number of pile segments (click Options/Pile Parameters/Pile

Segment Option and then enter the Number of Segments),
l using a larger number of ram segments (see Hammer Data File Maintenance), or
l using a greater ratio of critical time to analysis time increment, which makes for a
smaller calculated time increment (click Options/General Options/Numeric and
then enter a number greater than 160 in the Time Increment Ratio field).

It is important to realize that the hammer file data may contain combustion
pressure values which do not accurately reproduce the field observed stroke.
The stroke is somewhat lower than expected for a D 60-22 hammer under
hard driving conditions. On the other hand, transferred energy values,
between 50 and 60 kip-ft (70 and 80 kJ), are often measured for a hammer
of this type, and the results therefore appear to be reasonable.

In summary, it is recommended to check the actual hammer performance by

reviewing both transferred energy and stroke and to run the program with
zero pile damping (input of -1) for steel piles longer than 150 ft (45 m).
Plotting all forces vs. time (variables vs time) or studying the peak stresses in
the extrema tables of the *.GWO files would be helpful.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016