 At the end of the analysis, the pile starts to rebound.

However, the
full rebound is not analyzed, and the final permanent set is
"predicted" by subtracting the average quake from the maximum
toe displacement. This approach assumes that the pile rebounds
to a stressless state and is therefore consistent with Smith's
simplifications.

There are many cases for which Smith’s simplified approach is satisfactory.
For example, if the soil exhibits little or no skin friction forces, the
conventional assumptions are justified. Another example is a pile which is
relatively rigid such that its elastic compression is small compared to the
soil quakes. Hery (1983) and Holloway et al. (1978) describe reasons for,
and calculation methods of, residual stress assessment.

In general, however, a pile does not completely rebound after the hammer
blow is finished. Often the toe quake is larger than the skin quake and
therefore, the toe tends to push the pile back up a relatively long distance.
As the shaft elements of the pile move upward during rebound, their
resistance first decreases to zero and then becomes negative until an
equilibrium exists between the upward directed (positive) resistance forces
at the lower portion of the pile and the downward directed (negative) shaft
resistance values of the upper pile. The pile is then at rest and compressive
forces are locked into pile and soil.

A large toe quake is not the only condition necessary for residual stresses
to occur in pile and soil at the end of a blow. Consider a very flexible pile
with a high percentage of shaft resistance. During the first hammer blow,
the pile's upper portion will move deeply downward due to the pile's high
flexibility. The shaft resistance will prevent a large pile toe penetration.
After the hammer ceases to load the pile head, the upper pile portion
attempts to elastically rebound a large distance, the toe only a short one.
The upper friction forces will turn negative and the pile will remain
compressed. The next blow will be able to drive the upper pile portion
deeper because the pile is pre-compressed and the downward upper
resistance forces help move the pile. At the end of the second blow, the
precompression in the pile may be greater than for the first blow and extend
deeper along the pile.

Eventually, all pile segments will achieve the same set, and pile
compression will no longer increase from blow to blow. (For very long and
flexible piles, it may take groups of blows to produce a converging
compression pattern.) Also, it is possible that pile sets per blow converge
towards zero (refusal) after initial blows produced a pile top set (but
probably no pile toe set). It is also conceivable that in very long piles both
tensile and compressive stresses remain after a blow is finished.

It is likely that the major portion of compressive soil resistance acts along
the shaft of the pile near its bottom. End bearing need not be present for
residual stresses to be locked in pile and soil.

Version 2010 GRLWEAP Procedures and Models 1

For very long and flexible piles it may be difficult to decide whether or not
convergence has occurred in an analysis. For that reason, since 2002
GRLWEAP has allowed a user to input the number of trial analyses with the
default increased from 10 to 100. Also, the RSA blow count calculation now
relies on the trends of sets that groups of blows develop rather than the
difference of the sets of two consecutive blows. In this way, non-
convergence of RSA analyses is generally avoided.

3.11.2 Details of the GRLWEAP RSA Procedure

GRLWEAP undertakes the following computational steps in an RSA:

 After the first standard dynamic analysis is finished for one R ut

value, and displacement and static resistance values together
with the quakes are subjected to static analysis, the pile and soil
displacements and forces in static equilibrium (all velocities are
zero) result.

 A second dynamic analysis (which may be thought of as a

simulation of a second blow) is done with the displacements and
forces from the static analysis as initial values.

 Again a static analysis is performed after the dynamic analysis is

finished.

 After at least 3 repeat analyses, pile sets are computed as the

static pile top displacement of the present repeat analysis (or a
group of analyses if sufficient analyses have been performed) and
compared to the set from the previous analysis (or group of
analyses). If these set values compare within 0.1% the analysis is
finished. The analysis is also finished if the sets are very small
and tend to go towards zero (refusal) or if the maximum number of
trial analyses (input value) has been exceeded. Calculated set
values are included in the numerical output and the user is urged
to assure that the rather complex convergence analysis has
performed satisfactorily by reviewing this list of sets .

Further details of possible interest to the GRLWEAP user are:

 The computed static displacement vector is always normalized

such that the pile top displacement is always zero at the beginning
of an analysis. The subtracted value can be considered the pile set
if the analysis has converged, i.e. if the displacement pattern and
therefore the residual forces are the same from blow to blow.
Subtraction of the same pile top set from all segment
displacements is acceptable, because pile segment displacements
are relative values only. Pile and soil forces and the relative pile
displacements are not affected by this normalization. This
 explains, however, why sometimes negative displacement values
appear near the bottom of the pile.

 The output includes the final displacement pattern, normalized

such that the top displacement equals the computed final pile set.
The maximum stresses listed in the extrema table and the final
summary table include residual stresses. The stresses remaining
in the pile after the impact event is finished are listed in the RSA
table following the extrema table.

The basic concept of RSA is to find the displacements and static soil
resistance values when the pile has completely come to rest, or in other
words, when a static equilibrium of the system is achieved. Theoretically, in
a dynamic analysis, the pile never comes to rest. It is therefore necessary
to interrupt the dynamic analysis once it has been ascertained that the pile
will not achieve additional penetration.

At the end of the dynamic analysis, for all N pile segments and N+1
resistance values, the final pile segment displacements and static
resistance values are saved.

ufi, i = 1,2,...,N (3.42)

and

Rsfi, i = 1, 2,...,N+1 (3.43)

The unknowns are the pile segment displacement, usi, and static soil
resistance values, Rssi, for which static equilibrium exists. For the static
equilibrium analysis, the pile-soil model is the same as in the dynamic
analysis, except that now the inertia forces and the forces in pile and soil
dashpots do not exist. The soil springs are still elasto-plastic and at the end
of the dynamic phase, a soil spring may be in any one of the following
situations.

 the spring did not go plastic and therefore loading and unloading
will occur on the same path (Figure 3.11.2a).

 the spring did go plastic and the soil resistance is the ultimate
resistance. The unloading will start from the point D and will follow
a path parallel to the loading line (Figure 3.11.2b)

 the spring did go plastic but started to unload. Further unloading

will occur on the same slope. If the ultimate soil resistance in
tension is reached, unloading will follow the plastic path (Figure
3.11.2c).
 Figure 3.11.2: Resistance vs. Displacement Diagrams Showing End of
Dynamic (D) and Static (S) Analyses

 the spring did go plastic in compression, then in tension.

Thus,unloading will occur along the plastic line (Figure 3.11.2d).

A priori, it is not known which springs will become plastic and whether there
will be loading or unloading of the soil springs. The best formulation, linking
displacements and soil resistance values is

Rsi = Rsfi - (Rui/qi)(ufi - ui) (3.44)

with Rsi being subjected to the same ultimate limits as discussed earlier.
The mathematical solution of the problem involves a set of linear equations
subject to the conditions of elasto-plastic springs.

3.11.3 Additional Comments about RSA

There is no doubt that the RSA better approximates actual piling behavior
than the traditional approach which ignores the initial conditions of pile and
soil. A drawback of using the approach is the fact that many correlation
studies have been done without RSA. The magnitude of quake and/or soil
damping values, obtained from such studies, may need adjustment when
using RSA. For high resistance values, the accuracy of the RSA approach
depends heavily on the accuracy of the soil model. For example, the
relative magnitude of shaft resistance and end bearing and the relative
magnitudes of quakes may significantly affect stress and blow count results.
Even Smith’s simplifying assumption that loading and unloading quakes are
equal or that the static resistance is elastic-ideal plastic may cause
significant errors in RSA. Thus, before accepting potentially non-
conservative RSA results, it may be wise to perform comparative analyses
or use measurements to back up the calculations. At this time, the need for
RSA has only been proven for Monotube™ piles, but not for regular pipe
piles, H-piles or concrete piles. For very long offshore pipe piles,
indications are that RSA results are more realistic than non-RSA results.

3.11.4 RSA Restrictions

RSA cannot be run in conjunction with

 Two-pile analysis
 Two pile toe analysis
 Vibratory analysis (it practically does consider residual stresses)
 Piles involving slacks

In order to assure a well dampened behavior of the calculated pile motion

(measurements do indicate a well dampened behavior) it is recommended
to use the Smith-viscous damping approach rather than the standard
method (Options/ General Options/ Damping).

3.12 GRLWEAP Analysis Options

3.12.1 Bearing Graph

The most commonly used GRLWEAP analysis is the bearing graph

calculation. A total ultimate capacity is assumed and distributed on shaft
and toe as per input. The blow count is then calculated. A higher total
ultimate capacity value is chosen next and shaft and toe resistance are
proportionally increased to match the capacity; this is followed by the
dynamic analysis. Up to ten capacity values are analyzed in this way and
then capacity is plotted vs calculated blow count.

GRLWEAP also allows for an increase in either shaft resistance or end

bearing with the other resistance component held constant for the ten
capacities analyzed. These are then called constant end bearing or
constant shaft resistance bearing graph analyses, respectively.

3.12.2 Inspector’s Chart: Blow Count vs. Stroke

For diesel hammers, it is often required to adjust the driving criterion

according to the apparent stroke. Stroke of open end diesel hammers can
easily be monitored using a SaximeterTM. Thus, it may be required to run
individual analyses with several fixed strokes in order to provide the field
inspector with a driving criterion for each apparent stroke. For simplification,
an inspection graph option was built into GRLWEAP which automatically
produces ten analyses with strokes increasing from a user specified
minimum value to the hammer’s rated stroke.

The Inpector’s Chart (IC) provides a relationship between stroke (equivalent

energy) applied and blow count required to achieve one ultimate capacity
value. This option is often done in conjunction with a Bearing Graph
analysis or a Refined Wave Equation Analysis. The IC analysis option
would not be meaningful for traditional mechanical hammers which are only
capable of operation with a single fixed stroke. However, modern hydraulic
hammers and diesel hammers can and/or should be operated at different
stroke or energy levels in order to control stresses. The option is particularly
useful for hammers which are difficult to control which means that a certain
stroke or energy level cannot be required and the inspector has to select
that blow count criterion that matches the actual stroke. For example diesel
hammers may respond to certain conditions, among them ambient
temperature, altitude, state of maintenance, fuel type and soil stiffness with
different stroke levels. Note that it is important that the actual hammer
stroke or energy level is known for a meaningful use of the IC. For example,
hydraulic hammers without internal kinetic energy monitoring or without
visible ram movement cannot be judged as to their energy output. Such
hammers should be equipped with the appropriate measurement device
(e.g., with the Energy Saximeter).

For diesel hammers caution is advised, because a high stroke is sometimes

an indication of preignition which increases the stroke while self cushioning
the ram impact and thus transferring less energy than a normally
performing hammer with lower stroke. Furthermore, high diesel hammer
strokes for a relatively low capacity may not be achievable and the IC would
show unusually high transferred energies if the combustion pressure, p max,
were unreasonably increased to produce such a high stroke. For that
reason, the IC analysis option for diesel hammers works most reasonably
with a single hammer impact without adjustment of pmax. However, the
experienced analyst may want to review the two stroke options available for
diesels: “Convergence of pressure with fixed stroke” and “Single analysis
with fixed stroke and fixed pressure” (see Options/ General Options/ Stroke
which is only accessible for diesel hammers.) In the IC analysis mode, the
former option will only reduce the pressure for low strokes and not increase
the pressure for high strokes for conservatism. Please note, since the IC
analysis options calculates blow counts for 10 different strokes, it is
performing fixed stroke analyses and the hammer setting (pmax level) has no
effect when pressures are adjusted for convergence. However, p max has
some effect in the single drop case, because higher pressures add to the
energy transfer.

3.12.3 Driveability Analysis

This option calculates blow count, stresses and transferred energy vs pile
penetration without running separate bearing graph analyses for each
depth. In other words, the driveability analysis performs numerous bearing
graph analyses automatically for user specified pile tip penetrations. Input
consists of unit shaft resistance and end bearing values (since 2010 unit
end bearing plus toe area) obtained by static soil analysis along with soil
layer specific quake and damping values. In addition, so-called gain/loss
factors modifying the unit shaft resistance or unit end bearing values, can
be specified. These factors allow the user to model complete or partial loss
of soil setup, relaxation effects or the long term soil resistance. Up to five
gain/loss factors can be entered and analyzed, in effect providing for up to
five capacity values at every analyzed depth. Note that in order to
differentiate between the specific resistance losses of different soil layers a
soil setup factor will also be considered in the driveability analysis as
explained below. At the end of the analysis, the driving time can then be
estimated from calculated blow count and hammer blow rate for each
gain/loss factor.

An accurate static geotechnical analysis must be performed prior to

calculating blow count vs depth. Since 2002 several static analysis routines
were added to GRLWEAP and it is tempting to merely use these methods
for the calculation of shaft resistance and end bearing. However, the
analyst should be carefully reviewing the static analysis results. Details of
these static calculations are discussed in Section 3.13.

3.12.3.1 Gain/Loss Factors

Prior to performing a dynamic analysis, the static resistance has to be

estimated by geotechnical analysis of the soil. The result of this analysis is
the Long Term Static Resistance (LTSR). However, during pile driving the
soil properties change and the pile encounters the Static Resistance to
Driving (SRD). The conversion of LTSR to SRD is accomplished in
GRLWEAP by means of Gain/Loss Factors, fR, and Setup Factors, fS. While
the Gain/Loss factors control the absolute change of static soil resistance,
the Setup Factor controls the relative change of soil resistance among the
various soil layers. There are two different approaches which allow for the
calculation of SRD from LTSR. The standard GRLWEAP approach will be
discussed in this section. A second approach referred to as Friction Fatigue
is an Offshore Wave feature and is described in Appendix E.

For a particular soil type

LTSR = fS SRD (3.45)

if SRD is soil resistance occurring after the pile has been driven a certain
distance, called limit distance, LL, In theory, driving the pile a distance equal
to LL assures that SRD has been achieved. The LTSR will be occurring
some time after driving which is called the setup time, tS.

The GRLWEAP gain/loss and setup factor concept will be explained by

example. The simplest example would be a single soil layer, e.g. a clay,
with setup factor fS = 2.5. The reduction factor during driving would
therefore be fRD = (1.0/2.5) = 0.4, if we would want to reduce the LTSR to
the SRD to represent full resistance loss. If we would want to analyze the
restrike situation with full setup, fRD = 1.0 would be appropriate. For
incomplete setup we could also analyze fRD = 0.7. For each depth
analyzed, with the three gain/loss factors fGL = 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0 specified as
an input, a bearing graph would be calculated by the driveability analysis
with three ultimate capacity values, one bearing graph for each depth
analyzed. For each of these analyses, an appropriate end bearing
gain/loss factor could also be considered in the input.
Let us now assume that two soil layers exist, with different setup factors like
a clay layer and a sand layer with setup factor f S = 1.25. We would expect
that full loss of setup resistance would reduce the sand LTSR to an SRD of
1/1.25 or to 80% of its long term capacity. We would therefore want to use
fRD = 0.8 for the sand and fRD = 0.4 for the clay. This is a dilemma which
GRLWEAP solves by considering the gain/loss factor, f GL, specified by the
user to be consistent with the most sensitive layer. For less sensitive layers
the reductions of resistance would be proportionate to the ratio of setup
factors. Therefore, if we again analyze a gain/loss factor f GL = 0.4 (to cover
the set-up factor 2.5 of the most sensitive layer) and a gain/loss factor 0.7
(half loss of resistance of the most sensitive layer) and a gain/loss factor 1
for full setup (no loss of driving resistance) then the sand’s corresponding
reduction factors would be fRD = 0.8, 0.9 and 1.0 while for the clay we would
have fRD = fGL = 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0.

Mathematically, the capacity multipliers for the individual layers, f RD, are
calculated by GRLWEAP as follows. First, a relative soil/pile sensitivity, f S*,
is calculated from the set-up factors, fS.

fs* = (1-1/fs)/(1-1/fsx) (3.46a)

For the sand with fS = 1.25, fs* = (1 - 1/1.25)/(1 - 1/2.5) = 0.333 (the sand is
only a third as sensitive as the clay because it loses 20% when the clay
loses 60%) where fsx is the maximum set-up factor of all soil layers
analyzed (i.e. the setup factor of the clay, f S = 2.5, in our example). Next,
the friction reduction factor during driving is calculated from the gain/loss
factor, fGL, and relative soil/pile sensitivity.

fRD = (1-fs* + fs*fGL) (3.46b)

fRD = 1 - 0.333 + 0.333(0.7) = 0.9. Thus, when the clay is analyzed with
70% of its long term strength, the sand has 90% of its full capacity. This
capacity reduction factor is subject to variation as described under Section
3.12.2.2 below if setup time, tS, and limit distance, LL, are specified.

So far we have only considered shaft resistance setup. However, it should

be possible to vary the end bearing as the shaft resistance is varied at a
particular analysis depth. For example, the pile is driven through clay into a
silty sand. Since the silty sand layer is very dense, it has the potential to
build up negative pore water pressures and therefore high end bearing
values during driving, say 50% higher than the long term value. When
driving is over, the pore water pressures dissipate and then the toe capacity
goes back to the value which is known from static calculations. For
example, if the pile is driven through clay (set-up factor 2.5 in our example)
into a very dense, fine sand and silt, it may be reasonable to perform an
analysis with shaft gain/loss factors of 0.4 and 1.0 and respective toe
gain/loss factors of 1.5 and 1.0. The resulting two analyses at each depth
would consider the temporary dynamic (expected) and the long-term static
(restrike or worst-case driveability) situation, respectively.
The above examples are reasonable for impact driven piles. For vibratory
pile driving, sands and clays often behave very differently with sands losing
a very high and clays losing a very low percentage of their LTSR.
Suggestions are given in the “Table of Soil Set-Up Factors” (GRLWEAP On-
line Help).

3.12.3.2 Variable Set-Up

The above relationships are valid for a complete gain or loss of set-up as
shown in Figure 3.12.1. If the set-up period is interrupted by renewed
driving or if the loss of capacity due to driving is interrupted by a new set-up
period, then capacity losses or gains commence from an intermediate level.
GRLWEAP calculates for these situations, respectively, equivalent relative
dissipation energies or set-up times (Figure 3.12.2).

For driveability analyses which consider the variations of soil resistance as

the pile penetrates into the ground, it is also desirable to include soil set-up
effects that might occur during driving interruptions. When pile driving
resumes, the soil strength is lost depending on the energy dissipated in the
soil. To model this behavior, two relationships were developed: (a) the
capacity reduction factor due to the wait, fRW, as a function of set-up time,
tS; and (b) the capacity reduction as a function of the distance of driving
(which is related to energy expended on the soil remolding or pore water
pressure generation). The capacity reduction factor varies between the
inverse of the set-up factor and 1.0. When it is equal to the inverse of the
set-up factor, all of the set-up capacity of the soil has disappeared due to
the action of the dynamic energy of the striking hammer. When it is 1.0, set-
up has completely reappeared during the time following pile driving and the
capacity is then at its full long term level. For example, assume again a
clay with a set-up factor of 2.5. The capacity of an element embedded in
clay can therefore be as little as 0.4 times the full long term capacity. The
reduction factor can in this case vary between 0.4 and 1.0.

The capacity reduction factor due to the wait is defined as:

fRW = RUR / RUF (3.47)

where RUR is the capacity (of a pile/soil segment) reduced by the action of
the dynamic energy. RUF is the full ultimate capacity (achieved after full set-
up time) at the same segment. Skov and Denver, (1988), suggested that
the reduction factor is a function of set-up time, t S, and follows a log10
function:

fRW = 1/fS + A log10 (t / tB) (3.48)

with

A = (1 - 1/fS) / log10 (tS / tB) (3.49)

Remember that fS is the soil's set-up factor for the shaft resistance. Also,
the time, t, elapsed since driving was halted, has to be greater than the
reference time tB. This reference time has been set to 0.01 hours in
GRLWEAP, even though Skov et al. (1988) recommend a larger period
such as a day for a stable prediction of set-up strength. However, it is
reasonable to assume this set-up behavior occurs in short interruptions in
driving as well as during long wait periods as considered by the authors. A
one-day base time period would be outside of the time considered for such
driving interruptions.

For Any Segment I

Rui Rui
During Driving - Full Loss During Waiting - Full Gain
R UF

Resume Driving
Stop Driving
RUR

Limit Penetration Distance after Wait SetupTime Time

Figure 3.12.1: Capacity vs Energy/Time for Complete Gain/Loss

Figure 3.12.2: Capacity vs Penetration or Time for Incomplete Gain/Loss

For the loss of resistance due to pile driving, a simple linear relationship has
been adopted, between distance driven and SRD. If the pile has penetrated
a particular soil layer a limiting distance, L L, it is assumed that all setup has
been lost. The limiting driving distance has been called a relative energy in
the past, because in its simplest form driving energy is resistance force
times the distance that the pile has been driven. Normalizing by division
with the average resistance leads to the limit distance. The limit distance,
LL, is a constant and may be considered a soil property (it is entered by the
user in the soil resistance profile). It has the dimension of length, i.e. m or ft.

Of course, the reduction factor can never be less than the inverse of the set-
up factor nor can it be greater than 1.

Important: variable setup works only for the first gain/loss factor, i.e., for the
first analysis of each depth. This calculation is not performed for the other
four gain/loss factors.

3.12.3.3 Notes and Hints on the Variable Set-Up Analysis

Entering the limit distance and setup time numbers in the S1 input screen,
the soil properties for the variable setup analysis are available. However, a
variable setup analysis will only then be performed when at least one
waiting time has been specified greater than 0.01 hours (base time for
setup calculations). Thus, when no driving interruption is specified in the D
screen, energy limit and setup time are ignored.

A variable setup analysis considers the remolding energy expended on the

soil. For each depth analyzed this energy is calculated as the distance
driven since the last waiting time. For example, it is assumed that at the
very bottom of the pile the soil has not been remolded while, at grade, it has
been remolded by the pile moving the full driven distance through the soil
since the most recent waiting time. The unchanged soil element at the
bottom of the pile will break down from full static resistance to the reduced
resistance as the pile is driven past the element. Only when the pile has
moved a distance equal to the limit distance will the former bottom soil
element be at its reduced static resistance.

A pile will therefore never experience complete resistance loss near the toe
for a variable setup analysis. This fact will be clearly apparent for a pile
with a high concentration of shaft resistance near the toe. To display the
effect of variable setup results, the same gain/loss factor can be used in the
second analysis that was analyzed in the first one.

A word of caution: The program always analyzes all depth values specified
in the D screen. The analysis results may indicate that, where a waiting
time was specified, the pile would refuse. Yet some distance below the
point with the waiting time, the pile may actually have a non-refusal blow
count. In reality, it would not be possible to drive the pile to this deeper
penetration because of the refusal, unless some jetting or other driving aids
were employed. Thus, casual inspection of the calculated blow counts vs.
depth, which misses the one depth result with refusal due to setup, may
suggest that the pile can be driven. In reality, it would only reach the depth
where the driving interruption and refusal blow counts occur.
Additional suggestions:

a. Variable setup analysis is only done for the first Gain/loss factor.

b. Variable setup analysis cannot be performed for Friction Fatigue

analyses (Offshore Wave Option).

c. GRLWEAP does not consider a variation of toe bearing with driving

energy or set-up time; the end bearing is either fully increased or fully
reduced as specified by the toe gain/loss factor. No variation of this
factor with soil layer properties is possible.

d.If no set-up time or relative energy is known (and the corresponding

inputs are left zero or blank), then the "variable set-up" analysis cannot
be performed. However, a constant loss or gain analysis is still
possible. Probably, the constant loss/gain analysis is as reasonable or
more reasonable than the variable one, because of the uncertainty of
limit distance, set-up time, and their variation with time.

e. If no set-up factors are specified, GRLWEAP assumes set-up factors of

1 for all layers. Gain/loss factors then produce uniform capacity gains
or losses in all soil layers along the pile.

f. There is no point in specifying set-up time if the limit distance is not

known or vice-versa. Entering one parameter and not specifying the
other leads to curious results.

g. GRLWEAP does not allow for a meaningful vibratory analysis with

variable set-up.

h. In a first effort, GRLWEAP users should attempt to perform hindsight

analyses matching the blow count behavior of known projects with well
documented hammer and soil data. Only after having gathered
enough experience should class A predictions be attempted of variable
set-up behavior of a hammer-pile-soil system.

i. As an aid in preparing input for a first trial analysis, the relative energy
may be estimated as 2 m (7 ft). This would mean for the GRLWEAP
approach that the soil would lose its set-up capacity after the pile has
been driven for approximately 2 m or 7 ft.

k. Set-up time may be as long as 6 weeks in some clays and as little as a

few minutes in sands. GRLWEAP assumes that the full set-up
capacity has been regained after a driving interruption greater than or
equal to the set-up time.

l. For reasonably accurate analysis results and driving time estimates

sufficiently many depths must be analyzed. This is particularly true
when modeling variable set-up and where soil layer changes or waiting
times are specified. However, even in uniform soil/driving conditions
 increments of depths analyzed should not exceed 3 m (10 ft). On the
other hand, the maximum number of depths that can be analyzed is 98.

m.Variable set-up analysis is only performed on the analysis of the first

gain/loss factor. For all other gain/loss factors, no wait times or
energies are considered.

3.12.4 Second Pile Toe

Assume that a composite pile has to be analyzed. It consists of a large

concrete pile which at its toe is fitted with an H-beam tip of considerable
length. During driving, this pile experiences end bearing both at its concrete
bottom and at the H-pile tip. In order to facilitate the analysis of such a
situation both end bearing values can be specified. The sum of both end
bearing forces is the total toe resistance. Individual quakes and damping
factors can be specified for both toe resistance forces. For example, a
larger quake would be reasonable for the concrete toe, while a smaller
quake would be reasonable for the H pile tip. The second toe can be
specified when a Non-Uniform Pile is chosen in the P1 form. Nothing needs
to be done if the second toe resistance is to remain equal to zero.

As in a standard analysis, the set and blow count calculation for the Two
Pile Toe analysis uses the maximum first toe displacement (bottom of pile)
minus the average quake. The average quake, however, is calculated
under consideration of the second pile toe resistance and quake.

An RSA cannot be combined with a Two Pile Toe analysis.

3.12.5 Two-Pile Analysis

Possible applications of this option include a helmet with a long sleeve, a

mandrel and shell configuration, or a non-bonded, two-material pile. In
short, two piles should be analyzed where the stress wave is split into
parallel branches. The Two-Pile analysis cannot be combined with RSA or
driveability analyses.

The GRLWEAP Two-Pile option is flexible enough to accommodate the

following configurations.

 The second pile is directly driven by the helmet and is not attached
to the first pile either at its top or at any other segment.

 The second pile can be attached to any segment of the first pile.

Attachment of the two piles onto each other is accomplished by a spring

with slack, round-out and coefficient of restitution. The Users Manual
contains two examples.

Resistance distribution can be accomplished along both piles. Their relative

distribution numbers automatically assign different magnitudes of shaft
resistance to the two piles. For end bearing, the two-toe capability is utilized
in the P1 form.

Analyzing two piles is not complicated except that the blow count
computation becomes highly questionable. It is not simple to decide from
which toe displacement the set should be calculated. Currently, GRLWEAP
uses the smaller of the maxima of the two toe displacements. The user is
advised to carefully review the output, experiment with analysis durations
(Options/ General Options/ Numeric), and check the blow count calculation
to assure that the results are reasonable.

3.13 Static Geotechnical Analysis

3.13.1 Introduction

To simplify the soil model input process, two simple static analyses are
included in the GRLWEAP code. These analyses only yield an estimate of
static soil resistance. The user is urged to also try other methods (e.g.
computerized methods such as UNIPILE, DRIVEN and SPT97, the former
described by Fellenius, 1996 and the latter two made available by the
FHWA and the Florida DOT, respectively). Local experience may indicate
which methods of static pile analysis work and which do not work in a
particular geology. GRLWEAP’s analysis may or may not work well. One of
the reasons is that there are a large number of error sources in the soil
strength information obtained from borings and/or insitu test methods such
as SPT or CPT. Thus, it is virtually impossible to predict the accuracy
and/or precision of GRLWEAP’s static analysis methods compared with
static load tests. Basically, however, it should be assumed that any static
analysis predicts the long term pile bearing capacity. It has to be modified to
yield the static resistance to driving (SRD).

In addition to the static resistance values, the GRLWEAP static

geotechnical analysis methods also provide a help for dynamic parameters,
shaft damping and toe quake (toe damping and shaft quake are always
considered independent of soil or pile type). For the driveability analysis,
also rough estimates of the soil parameters pertaining to the soil
resistance’s gain/loss behavior are provided (setup factor, relative energy
and setup time).

Please review the method descriptions and application notes (Sections 3-

13.2 through 3.13.4) before accepting the results of these static
geotechnical analyses.

3.13.2 Soil Type Based Method (ST)

This method is intended as an aid in the input process for both bearing
graph and driveability analyses. For bearing graph analysis, it calculates the
percentage of shaft resistance and the shaft resistance distribution, for
which it selects reasonable dynamic soil parameters based on a very basic
soil description and classification. As with all of such approximate
calculation or estimation methods, the user should become familiar with the
basic concept of static soil analysis and its limitations and perform
comparison analyses using other methods to avoid serious errors. With
simplifying assumptions, the method uses information from Bowles and
Fellenius contained in Hannigan et al. (2006).

For Non-Cohesive soils:

The program applies the β-Method (Effective Stress Method). With this
method, the unit shaft resistance is:

qS = β pO (3.50)

with

β= The Bjerrum-Burland beta coefficient (earth pressure coefficient

times the tangent of the friction angle between pile and soil) and

po = Average effective overburden pressure along the pile shaft.

The unit toe resistance is:

qt = Nt Pt (3.51)

where:

Nt = Toe bearing capacity coefficient.

Pt = Effective overburden pressure at the pile toe.

The method
 converts the soil classifications of Tables 3.12.2a to soil unit
weight, β-value, and Nt-value,
 calculates the overburden pressure (under consideration of
buoyancy, thus the water table depth must be provided in the
input),
 with the β and Nt values of the table finds the unit shaft resistance
and end bearing and
 subjects these values to the limits in Table 3.12.2a.
 Table 3.12.2a: ST Analysis Parameters for Non-Cohesive Soils

Soil Type SPT Friction Unit β Nt Limit (kPa)

N Angle Weight
deg. kN/m3 qs qt
Very 2 25 – 30 13.5 0.203 12.1 24 2400
Loose
Loose 7 27 – 32 16.0 0.242 18.1 48 4800
Medium 20 30 – 35 18.5 0.313 33.2 72 7200
Dense 40 35 – 40 19.5 0.483 86.0 96 9600
Very 50+ 38 – 43 22.0 0.627 147.0 192 19000
Dense

The user can also use the SPT N-values (corrected for the effect of
overburden pressure) given in the following table to find the corresponding
soil classification. (However, if the N-value is known then the more detailed
SA method may be used instead of ST.)

For Cohesive Soils:

For cohesive soils, the ST method applies a modified α-method (total stress
method). The calculation steps are

 From Table 3.12.3b and the given soil classification find the unit
weight, unit shaft resistance and unit end bearing.

 From unit weight and depth of water table (input) find the
overburden pressure (in case there are lower non-cohesive layers
for which the β method needs to be applied.

Table 3.12.2b: ST Analysis Parameters for Cohesive Soils

Soil SPT Unit
qu qs qt
Type N Weight
kPa kN/m 3
kPa kPa
Very Soft 1 12 17.5 3.5 54
Soft 3 36 17.5 10.5 162
Medium 6 72 18.5 19 324
Stiff 12 144 20.5 38.5 648
Very Stiff 24 288 20.5 63.5 1296
Hard 32+ 384+ 19 - 22 77 1728

3.13.3 SPT N-value Based Method (SA)

The method is based on SPT N–value and soil type and only available in
conjunction with the Variable Resistance Distribution option, however, for
either Bearing Graph or Driveability Analysis. Since Version 2010 friction
angle and/or unconfined compressive strength can also be entered in the
SA window. Direct input of unit shaft resistance and end bearing is also
possible if a soil type “Other” is to be specified. This mode of input can also
be helpful to enter resistance values for rock.

The SPT N-value based method presented here does not use corrected N–
values as per FHWA recommendations (Hannigan et. al., 2006); however, it
limits N to at most 60. On the other hand, it is strongly recommended that
energy measurements be taken during SPT testing and that the N-value be
adjusted to the N60 value. In effect, this is a normalization which increases
the N-value for hammers with high transfer efficiency (greater than 60%)
and lowers them for poorly performing hammers (those with transfer
efficiencies less than 60%). The SPT Analyzer measures the transfer
efficiency of SPT hammers.

The method does not make recommendations for rock. As mentioned for
“Other” soil types, the user must input unit shaft resistance and end bearing
values. The user can also input the depth of the water table relative to
grade and an overburden causing a non-zero effective stress at grade.

As a basis for the calculation of several of the following quantities, the

vertical effective stress is calculated first, as follows:

Step 1: Find the soil’s unit weight (γ) based on Bowles (1977).

Step 2: Find the vertical effective stress, σv’, in the layer based on the
overburden on the layer, layer thickness, γ from Step 1, and the water table
depth.

A: Shaft resistance for sands and gravels

Step A1: Find relative density, Dr, from Kulhawy (1989 and 1991).

Step A2: Find friction angle, φ’, based on Schmertmann (1975 and 1978).

Step A3: Assume the pile-soil friction angle as δ = φ’.

Step A4: Find the earth pressure coefficient at rest, ko, based on Dr,
according to Robertson and Campanella (1983)
with (1 - sinφ’)/(1 + sinφ’) < k o < (1 + sinφ’)/(1 - sinφ’)

Step A5: Calculate friction: qs = ko tan δ σv’ with qs ≤ 250 kPa

Notes: (a) Depending on the grading of a sand and its coarseness, the
calculations may be slightly modified. (b) If friction angle is entered in lieu of
N-value, skip steps A1 and A2.
B: Shaft resistance for clays

Step B1: Find the friction angle from φ’= 17 + 0.5N with φ’ ≤ 43 degrees.

Step B2: Define the pile-soil friction angle as δ = φ’.

Step B3: Find the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) from N and σv’ [kPa]
OCR = 18N/σv’.

Step B4: Find the normally consolidated and earth pressure coefficient
according to Jaky (1944)
knc = 1 - sin φ’

Step B5: Find the earth pressure coefficient at rest as

ko = knc (OCR)½
with (1 - sinφ’)/(1 + sinφ’) ≤ ko ≤ (1 + sinφ’)/(1 - sinφ’)

Step B6: Calculate the unit shaft resistance from

qs = ko tanδ σv’
with qs ≤75 [kPa]

Note: if the unconfined compressive stress qu is entered in lieu of the N-

value, the program will calculate adhesion values according to Tomlinson
(see Hannigan, 2006).

C: Shaft resistance for silts

Step C1: Use the friction angle φ’ from Step A2 if it is non-cohesive or from
Step B1 if it is cohesive.

Step C2: Find the Bjerrum-Borland β coefficient according to Fellenius

(1996) by linear interpolation.
β = (φ’ - 28)(0.23/6) + 0.27
with 0.27 ≤ β ≤ 0.5

Step C3: Calculate qs = β σv’,

with qs ≤ 75 kPa (cohesive), qs ≤ 250 kPa (non-cohesive).

Note: if the unconfined compressive stress qu is entered in lieu of the N-

value, the program will calculate adhesion values according to Tomlinson
(see Hannigan, 2006).

D: Unit end bearing for sands and gravels

Step D1: Calculate the unit end bearing based on the uncorrected SPT N-
value from
qtoe = 200 N [kPa],
with qtoe ≤12,000 kPa.
If friction angle has been directly entered, find corresponding N-value from
Bowles in Hannigan, 2006 and then calculate as shown.

E: Unit end bearing for clays

Step E1: Calculate the unit end bearing based on the uncorrected SPT N-
value from
qtoe = 54 N [kPa]
with qtoe ≤ 3240 [kPa].

If qu has been directly entered calculate unit end bearing as 4.5 qu

F: Unit end bearing for silts

Step F1: Find friction angle φ’ from Step A2 if it is non-cohesive or from

Step B1 if it is cohesive. (or use directly entered friction angle).

Step F2: Find the toe capacity coefficient, Nt, according to Fellenius (1996)
by interpolation.
Nt = (φ’ - 28)/0.3 + 20
with 20 ≤ Nt ≤ 40

Step F3: qtoe = Nt σv’

with 20 ≤ Nt ≤ 40 and qtoe ≤ 6,000 kPa.

3.13.4 The CPT Method in GRLWEAP

3.13.4.1 Introduction

Cone penetration tests are semistatic and resemble, though at a much

smaller scale, a pile. A variety of penetrometers such as mechanical and
electrical ones have been developed and there are penetrometers in use
which are not of standard size. The preferred Dutch Cone configuration has
a cone tip area of 10 cm2 and a cone angle of 60 degrees. GRLWEAP’s
method for calculating pile unit friction, fs, and unit end bearing, qt,
programmed in GRLWEAP assumes that the cone tip resistance, qc, and
the cone’s sleeve friction, q s, have been measured with such a standard
cone. The soil type determination is based on Robertson et al (1986) and
the resistance calculation is as proposed by Schmertmann, 1978.

3.13.4.2 Data Import

CPT data can only be imported into GRLWEAP from a text file. The
file format must meet following requirements (see also example in
Table 3.13.4.1).

a. Titles or comments should be placed at the beginining of the file and the
number of title and/or comment rows is an input to the program; The
program skips that many lines before beginning to read the numerical
data.
b. CPT data must consist of at least 3 number columns, containing in
order: depth, tip resistance, qc, and sleeve friction, qs.

c. Additonal columns of data such as pore water pressure are ignored;

d. The following combination of units will be recognized if as such defined

in the column headers.
 SI: Depth in m, both tip and sleeve resistance in MPa;
 SI: Depth in m, qc in MPa and qs in kPa;
 English: Depth in ft, both tip and sleeve resistance in tsf.

An additional input is penetrometer type (Electronic or Mechanical), which

serves to select the appropriate design curves.

Note: Since the CPT based resistance computation requires averaging the
data over certain ranges, smaller cone data depth increments are highly
recommended for better accuracy. Also at least five input depths (rows of
data) are required. The program checks and modifies if necessary the
depth increments using the following procedur

 First the average depth increment is found based on the imported CPT
data:
Average depth increment = Maximum depth / number of rows of data;

 If the average depth Increment is larger than 0.8 ft (0.25 m), the program
prompts a warning and increases the number of data points by
interpolation of the CPT data at a depth increment of (0.3 ft) 0.1 m;

Note: It is recommended that the user manually inserts as many rows of

data as are needed to make the depth increment 0.8 ft (0.25 m) before
importing the data.

Table 3.13.4,1: Example of the top portion of a CPT text file with 3 comment
lines and MPa units for both resistance values.

84 GRLWEAP Procedures and Models Version 2010

3.13.4.3 Soil Classification

The first step in the resistance calculation is based on the paper by

Robertson et al., (1986) with some modifications. This classification is a
necessary step in the procedure to calculate the resistance values and
determine recommended soil parameters such as quakes, damping factors
and soil setup related parameters. The friction ratio is calculated from qs /
qc. (sleeve friction divided by cone resistance).

Figure 3.13.4.1: Soil Classification Chart of Robertson et al, (1986)

Version 2010 GRLWEAP Procedures and Models 85

 Table 3.13.4.2: Soil Classifications
Soil Description corresponding to
Hannigan et al. (2006) to SA Method

Zone Soil Behavior Type

Poorly graded fine

1) sensitive fine grained sand
2) organic material Peat
3) Clay Clay
4) silty clay to clay Clay
5) clayey silt to silty clay Cohesive silt
Split between 5)
6) sandy silt to clayey silt and 7)
7) silty sand to sandy silt Cohesionless silt
8) sand to silty sand Sand
9) Sand Sand
10) gravelly sand to sand Well graded sand
Poorly graded fine
11) very stiff fine grained sand
12) sand to clayey sand Sand
3.13.4.4 Resistance calculation

(Distribution of friction and toe bearing) is based on Schmertmann, 1978,

An additional assumption is a uniform pile. This simplification has been
proposed by Schmertmann and since unit resistance is the result of this
calculation procedure and since the pile surface area will be as per user
input, the error is considered immaterial. Additonal inputs affecting the
results include:

 Pile material: steel, concrete and timber;

 Pile average diameter or width, B, for average depth D to B ratio;
 Pile toe size is used to determine the averaging range for toe
resistance calculation;
 Unit resistance limit based on a maximum qc of 15 MPa.

Unit shaft resistance for cohesive soils:

fs = α qs
where:
α = ratio of pile to sleeve friction in cohesive soil; a function of qs and pile
material (Schmertmann 1978).
qs = unit sleeve friction

Unit shaft resistance for cohesionless soils:

fs = kr K qs
where:
K = Ratio of unit pile shaft resistance to unit cone sleeve friction
(Schmertmann, 1978) as a function of depth, Z, penetrometer type and pile
material.
qs = unit sleeve friction.
kr = Z/8B for Z = 0 to 8B.
kr = 1 for Z ≥ 8B.
B = Pile width or diameter.
Note: In GRLWEAP’s CPT routine, Schmertmann’s curves for steel pipe
piles are used for all steel piles and those for square concrete piles are
used for all concrete piles.

fs ≤ fs, lim the unit shaft resistance limit entered by the user (default is 150
kPa)

Unit toe resistance for all soil types:

qt = ½ (qc1 + qc2)
where:
qc1 and qc2 are averages of unit cone tip resistance below and above pile
toe as per Schmertmann, 1978.

qt ≤ qt,lim the unit toe resistance limit entered by user (default is 15 MPa).
3.13.5 The API Method in GRLWEAP (Offshore Wave Version)

The method is based on API (1993). Note that this is an approximate

method and that API recommends instead using high quality soil strength
information where available. Also, this method is specifically applicable to
pipe piles.

Soil strength input for GRLWEAP’s routine is undrained shear strength for
cohesive soils and a general density classification for cohesionless soils.

Unit Shaft Resistance for cohesive soils:

fs = α c
where:
α = a dimensionless factor; it can be computed from:
α = 0.5 ψ-0.5 for ψ ≤ 1.0
α = 0.5 ψ-0.25 for ψ > 1.0
α ≤ 1.0.
ψ = c/po’
po’ = effective overburden pressure
c = undrained shear strength of the soil, which is an input

Unit shaft resistance for cohesionless soils:

fs = K po’ tan δ
where (see also Table 3.13.5.1):
K = dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure (ratio of horizontal to
vertical normal effective stress). K = 0.8 for unplugged. K = 1.0 for
plugged. User can indicate if it is plugged in the program. For fully
displacement piles, user should indicate plugged to use K = 1.0.
δ = friction angle between the soil and pile wall.

fs ≤ fs, lim the unit shaft resistance limit.

Unit toe resistance for cohesive soil types:

qt = 9 c

with the c being the undrained shear strength.

Unit toe resistance for cohesionless soil types:

qt = po’ Nq

where (see also Table 3.13.5.1):

Nq = is a bearing capacity factor.
qt ≤ qt,lim the unit toe resistance limit.
Table 3.13.5.1: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Soils (API, 1993, p67,

Reproduced courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute)

3.13.6 Comments on GRLWEAP’s static formula methods

Static formulas for pile capacity determination are generally inaccurate for a
variety of reasons. For example, soil strength from N–value and soil type is
always only an estimate because SPT N–values are inherently inaccurate
and soil type information is subjective and the pile driving process itself
changes the properties of the soils and, therefore, affects both long term
soil resistance and SRD. Moreover, different physical, chemical or
geological conditions will produce different relationships between in-situ test
results and unit resistance values. Program users are, therefore,
strongly advised to always check the friction and end bearing values
that the program calculates both by comparing with other methods
and using any additional information, most notably local experience,
that might be available.

Not only pile driving changes the soil properties. Pile material has an effect
on the shaft resistance and effects like predrilling or jetting, an oversized
toe plate, driving of nearby piles causing heave and densification, group
effects, time effects like setup and relaxation, variable water table elevation,
excavations or refilling around and in the neighborhood of the pile, and
many other phenomena have a significant effect on shaft resistance and
end bearing.

GRLWEAP’s static geotechnical analysis methods should merely be seen

as an aid for the program user in estimating very basic soil resistance input
parameters. When performing the soil layer input, the program also displays
the calculated capacity and the shaft resistance. This additional information
may be used as a check on how reasonable the basic assumptions are and
whether or not the intended pile capacity can indeed be achieved. Again,
this capacity value should not serve for design purposes.
The total capacity of the pile is unit shaft resistance times shaft area plus
unit end bearing times toe area. The shaft area is based on the perimeter
values that the user inputs. Normally for H-piles, perimeter is computed by
the 4 sides of the piles. An argument could be made for using 6 sides, but
that assumption is highly uncommon. For the open ended pipes, the
question of internal friction is difficult to answer. It would be expected that
an unplugged pile (the soil remains at its location, i.e., it does fill the pile
and does not move with the pile – the cookie cutter effect) has some
internal soil resistance. However, unless diameter to embedment is
relatively large, the effective stresses will be relatively low inside the pipe
and the driving process will reduce the internal friction. Thus for most
unplugged analyses only partial internal friction is normally considered (it
can be modeled in GRLWEAP by increasing the perimeter value over that
length of the pile where internal friction is expected (e.g. on an internal
driving shoe which is an increased pipe wall thickness at constant outside
diameter). A case could be made for internal friction acting over 10 pile
diameters if the pipe wall thickness is uniform (please also note that API
makes recommendation regarding friction calculations in the plugged and
unplugged cases).

For the toe area, the user must determine whether or not plugging can
occur for open profiles. In very dense sands or during restrike testing after
a long waiting time, plugging may be expected unless the pile diameter is
very large (say greater than 900 mm or 30 inches) or the penetration into
the bearing layer is very shallow (say less than 3 diameters). Since H-piles
are normally relatively small (typically less than 350 mm or 14 inch) square,
the fully plugged area is usually assumed for end bearing calculations. In
general, the GRLWEAP’s default value for the pile toe area is that of the
closed end condition. It is therefore extremely important that the users
carefully review and possibly correct the pile toe area input. In
addition, it is also strongly recommended to perform optimistic
(unplugged) and pessimistic (plugged) driveability analyses to
establish lower and upper bound driving resistance values.

Due to the simplicity of GRLWEAP’s static geotechnical calculation

methods, effects of pile size, pile non-uniformity (such as a tapered pile
which may have a relatively high shaft resistance), influence of upper
lubricating soils on lower soil layers, the effect of pile material on the
friction, and many other influences normally affecting friction and/or end
bearing values were not necessarily considered in detail. Users should
therefore adjust the result based on the recommendations in the literature
or their own experience and judgment when these methods are used.

The user must also consider that the soil resistance values, calculated by
the static analysis, represent a long term pile capacity. For both bearing
graph and driveability analyses, if they are to represent the pile installation
conditions, both setup and relaxation effects must be considered.
3.13.7 Consideration of Pile Inclination in Static Soil Analyses

An inclined pile driven through a certain soil layer is in contact with a larger
surface area than a vertical pile. On the other hand the unit resistance is
most likely somewhat lower. In general it can be assumed that the total
shaft resistance acting on an inclined pile in a certain layer is the same
whether the pile is inclined or not. However, an inclined pile of the same
length as a vertical pile will not penetrate as deeply as the vertical one.
Thus, for a given pile length the pile inclination reduces the total vertical pile
penetration (Figure 3.13.6.1.)

If the pile inclination has been entered then these length and associated
resistance factors have been considered in the static soil analysis tools (ST,
SA, CPT and API). As a consequence, whenever the pile inclination is
changed, the users must repeat the soil resistance calculation by reentering
the particular analysis method chosen. Of course, the same is true if pile
penetration (for bearing graph analyses), pile type or pile profile are
changed.

Layer 1: Soft Clay

Layer 2: Medium Dense Sand

Layer 3: Stiff Clayer

Layer 4: Dense Sand

Figure 3.13.6.1 Vertical and Inclined Piles of the Same Length

Note that although the static soil analysis methods consider the actual
inclined vs. vertical penetration depth, the calculation of resistance at the
same vertical depth is identical for vertical and inclined pile.

3.13.8 Static Bending Stress Calculation of Inclined Piles

This option is only available in the Offshore Wave version.

When pile is inclined, supported by a jacket or template and the hammer is
guided by an offshore lead which, in turn, is guided by the pile, then it is
necessary to consider the bending stresses caused by the hammer weight
plus the pile section extending above the pile support. Because this option
is only available for GRLWEP’s offshore version, it is assumed that the pile
is a pile of constant outside diameter. The cross sectional area, A, wall
thickness, t, diameter, D, and specific weight, γ, of the pipe pile are,
therefore, know from the pile profile. This then allows for a calculation of the
bending moment due to pile weight, the moment of inertia and section
modulus. However, the following additional input is required (see also
Figure 3.13.7.1).

Wh Total hammer weight (Sum of all weights acting on pile top

including helmet weight and potentially a portion of the lead
weight)
hCG Center of hammer/helmet gravity (The distance from pile top
to the Center of the Gravity of hammer while the hammer sits on
top of the pile)
β Pile inclination angle (the angle between the axis of pile and
vertical direction)

Figure 3.13.7.1: Definition of static bending analysis parameters

Note: The following calculation assumes that the highest bending stresses
occur at the support point; bending stresses below that point are not
considered.

The static bending moment acting at a cross section at a distance y from

the pile top (without consideration of deflection) can be computed as
follows; first the shear force distribution at any point y from top is:
 𝑦
𝑉(𝑦) = (𝑊ℎ + ∫0 𝛾𝐴𝑑𝑥 ) × sin(𝛽)

And the bending moment is:

z
M = Wh × hCG × sin(𝛽) + ∫
0 V(y) dy

Bending caused by additional normal stresses require that deflections are

known. To compute the deflection, it is assumed that pile at the support
point is fixed and the angle of the pile axis at the support point is β.

The total deflection at top can be calculated from:

0
𝑀 𝑧 𝑑𝑧
𝛿= ∫
𝐿𝑏 𝐸𝐼

where: Lb is the pile length from support point to pile top.

Using the segments of the dynamic model, a numerical procedure is then

used to calculate shear, bending due to hammer and pile weight and
deflections due to bending including the static axial forces. Dynamic forces
are neglected owing to the shortness of the stress wave (both as far as time
and length).

Since deflections increase due to the normal forces, iterations are

performed until convergence is assured. Convergence means that the
system is stable. The following convergence criterion has been included.

𝛿 − 𝛿𝑝
| | < 0.1%
𝛿
𝑝

where δ and δp are the deflections of the current and previous iteration
step, respectively. The maximum number of calculation iterations is 100. If
convergence is not achieved within that number of iterations, then a
warning is issued. It is also expected that the stresses will be excessive in
that case.

A word about the stress calculation and output should be added. If static
bending stresses are calculated for inclined piles, the Numerical Results,
Bearing Graph, Driveability and Stress Maxima Range Summary Tables
include Compressive and C+B stresses which are, respectively, the
calculated dynamic compressive stress and the bending compressive
component plus dynamic compressive stress. Dynamic tension stresses
and the dynamic tension plus bending tensile stresses are not listed in
either Numerical Results or Bearing Graph/Driveability output. Tension
stresses can, however, be back-calculated from the tension forces listed in
the Numerical Results if Normal Numerical Output option is selected
(Options->General Options->Output) and, as far as bending is concerned,
from the difference between compressive dynamic and bending plus
dynamic stresses. The Stress Maxima Range tables (see Section 5.5) for
fatigue analysis do contain the tension stresses.

Questions arose whether or not the normal forces due to the hammer-lead-
driving system weight were included in the stress calculation. The answer is
“No” and there are two reasons for not adding the static hammer-lead
driving system weight to the dynamic and bending stresses. First, as long
as the gravitational acceleration of hammer and pile are properly input, the
dynamic analysis already includes the weight effect of hammer (ram plus
assembly), helmet and pile. Considering them again would double that
effect. Secondly, while the free riding leads may add bending due to its
weight component perpendicular to the pile axial direction, it is expected
that most of the lead weight would be supported by the crane. And even if
the weight of the leads were instead fully supported by the pile, during the
impact the pile would be rapidly moving away from the leads and only later,
during rebound, would it again be supported by the pile. At that time,
however, the critical situation of maximum compression at the support point
would have passed. Note that the axial weight effect of the leads is the
same as the effect of the assembly. Note also that neglecting the lead’s
axial weight effect on the soil prior to impact is conservative as far as blow
counts are concerned.

3.14 Program Flow

3.14.1 Bearing Graph

 After accepting hammer, driving system, pile and soil input (and
potentially calculating static resistance values in the static
geotechnical analyses), GRLWEAP sets up a lumped mass model
for hammer, driving system, and pile and distributes the skin
friction of the first ultimate capacity value. A description of the
complete model is then printed.

 Next the analysis time increment is computed, followed by an

equilibrium analysis which determines whether or not there is
enough resistance to balance the dead loads (hammer assembly,
helmet, pile weight). If there is not enough resistance, the analysis
is skipped and a 0 blow count is output.

 Next the actual wave equation analysis is performed for the first
capacity or depth value. For diesel hammers, the rated hammer
stroke is assumed if the standard stroke option has been selected.

 At the end of the analysis, for RSA an equilibrium analysis is

performed and the analysis is repeated until RSA pile sets have
converged. For diesels, the calculated up stroke is compared with
the down stroke. If they are not equal within the selected stroke
convergence criterion, the analysis is repeated with the calculated
up stroke as a down stroke (except for iteration on pressure for
 which the combustion pressure Pmax is adjusted. For further
details, see the section on “Diesel Analysis Procedure”).

 At the end of an analysis, and after diesel stroke and/or RSA

convergence have occurred, GRLWEAP saves on disk extrema
tables and variables vs. time tables, depending on the user chosen
output option. On the monitor screen, a line of results is displayed.

 The next ultimate capacity value is now distributed along the pile
and at the pile toe and then a new analysis cycle is performed.

 If for one analysis a refusal blow count is calculated, the bearing

graph calculation is finished. (For this reason, the user should
enter capacity values in increasing order). An exception is the
situation in which the previously analyzed capacity was relatively
low. Then an additional capacity is interpolated and analyzed.

 When all ultimate capacity values have been analyzed, the

calculated stress extrema, transferred energies, and blow counts
are saved in the summary table file. The analysis process is then
finished, and the user should now click on the output icon and
check the numerical output. Be sure there are no messages in
the numerical output that would indicate an unusual program
performance (e.g. numerical instability, or hammer did not run). If
satisfactory input and output have been ascertained, the user
should choose to print and plot the bearing graph, print all or
portions of the numerical output, and if desired, generate plots of
hammer and/or pile variables versus time.

3.14.2 Driveability

 Driveability involves first of all a static soil analysis, which may be

done either manually, using commercial software, or using the
GRLWEAP static analysis options (ST, SA, CPT or API). If the
static geotechnical analysis is not done with the GRLWEAP
routines, then the depth, unit shaft resistance and unit end bearing
values can be imported into the S1 soil resistance form using
Window’s copy and paste features (Edit/ Paste Special).

 In a first step, for the depth to be analyzed, the program

determines the temporary pile length (it may be less than the final
pile length as per the Depth Table, i.e. the D input form). Then the
lumped mass soil model is set up. From the D-table also the
waiting time is checked and from it a determination of the status of
soil setup is determined. Also hammer and cushion properties are
checked based on the D-tables modifiers.

 The dynamic analysis initiates with a calculation of the long term

ultimate pile capacity and its resistance distribution for the first
depth.
 In addition to unit shaft resistance and unit end bearing, based on
the depth of penetration analyzed the following additional
parameters are calculated as follows:

 The shaft quake and damping values are averaged over the
individual segment length (in case a soil layer change happens
at a segment interface) to determine for each segment the
appropriate value;

 The soil setup factors, limit distance and setup time are
determined for each segment;

 The toe area which is then multiplied by toe unit resistance and
toe gain/loss factor to yield the end bearing

 Toe damping and quake values are determined by

interpolation.

 For the first gain/loss factor the SRD is calculated considering

the variable setup based on the waiting time and driving
distance since the last waiting time. For all other gain/loss
factors, the shaft resistance is calculated based on setup factor
and gain/loss factor only.

 A wave equation analysis is then performed subject to diesel

hammer and RSA convergence, if applicable. A single output line
is displayed for this first set of shaft and toe gain/loss factors. For
the remaining gain/loss factors shaft resistance and end bearing
are then calculated and analyzed.

 After all gain/loss factors have been analyzed for the same depth,
the program repeats the process of calculating temporary pile
length, ultimate capacity and other resistance values for the next
depth starting with the first gain/loss factor. Again a single output
line is displayed for this first gain/loss factor at the new depth
analyzed.

 All depths specified in the D-form have been analyzed, GRLWEAP

organizes the bearing graph results and generates a final result
table of blow counts, stress extrema, transferred energy and
stroke (equivalent to hammer energy) for each set of shaft and toe
gain/loss factors. These results are then saved on disk.

 As a next step, the user should inspect the numerical output and
print all or portions of it. The “vs depth” table can then be output in
printed or plotted form. This is the driveability result.

 If extrema table output is desired then the output option (Options/

General Options/ Output) should be set to normal (it is
 automatically set to minimum because of the potentially large
volume of data) and repeat the analysis. If Variables vs time (e.g.
a plot of pile top force and velocity) is needed, then it should be
noted that GRLWEAP will only save the Variable vs Time data for
the last depth analysis. Thus, the D-table should be shortened to
allow for calculation of the desired depth in the last analysis.

3.14.3 Inspector’s Chart

 The first analysis is begun like the bearing graph analysis, with the
ultimate capacity distributed in the same manner. For the first analysis,
the stroke is either the user specified input value or an automatically
selected value. For diesel hammers, the program then iterates with
pressure adjustment or competes the single impact stroke option (see
note below).

 After the first analysis is finished, the program repeats the wave
equation for second and later stroke values always with the same
capacity and resistance distribution until 10 strokes (or energy levels,
or frequencies) have been analyzed. The user proceeds with checking
the input data in the numerical output and producing a stroke versus
blow count output in numerical or graphical form.

Note for Inspector’s Chart analysis for diesel hammers: For diesel
hammers, the hammer stroke analyzed generally is different from the
hammer stroke normally calculated for the capacity analyzed and the
combustion pressure of the hammer data file. Let us call this stroke the
“normal” stroke. The reasons why the actual stroke in the field is different is
not always clear. A low stroke generally can be attributed to a low
combustion pressure. A high stroke, however, may either be due to very
good hammer performance or, in the case of preignition, very poor hammer
performance. High strokes, therefore, pose a dilemma for the wave
equation analyst. For the Inspector’s Chart calculations, GRLWEAP offers
the user two different stroke options that are conservative when analyzing
high strokes.

(A) The default option is identical to the Single Stroke Option (Options,
General Options, Stroke). It only applies one impact, and no
iterations will be performed on combustion pressure. As a result, for
analyzed strokes less than the normal stroke, the rebound stroke
will be higher than the analysis stroke. For analysis strokes above
the “normal” one, the rebound stroke will be lower than the
analyzed stroke (as for the default option).

(B) If the Fixed Stroke, Variable Pressure Adjustment Option (Options,

General Options, Stroke) is selected for analyzed strokes less than
the “normal” one, a pressure reduction is applied until a stroke
convergence is achieved. If however the rebound stroke is lower
than the analyzed stroke, the single stroke option is used, i.e. no
upward adjustment of pressure is applied.
 Earlier program versions did make an upward pressure adjustment
for diesel hammers if the pressure adjustment option was chosen.
However, the results for high strokes showed unrealistically high
transferred energies and therefore were potentially non-
conservative.

3.14.4 Diesel Analysis Procedure

A flow chart for diesel analysis is shown in Figure 3.14.1. Under all stroke
options, the program calculates the ram velocity at the exhaust ports based
on either the rated stroke or the user selected down stroke. Then the wave
equation analysis process begins with the diesel pressure calculation
performed for the three phases of the process: Compression, Combustion
and Expansion.

Immediately prior to the impact, the ram velocity is reduced according to the
hammer efficiency value. After impact, both due to ram rebound and diesel
pressure, the ram begins to move upwards. After the ram position has
reached the ports during the upwards ram motion, the program either
continues with the wave equation until the stop criteria are satisfied or
calculates the upward stroke from the upward ram velocity. The analysis
proceeds depending on the stroke option:

(a) Single analysis with fixed stroke and pressure: the wave equation
diesel analysis is finished after the program has calculated the
upstroke.

(b) Convergence of stroke with fixed pressure: this is the commonly

employed option under which the analysis is repeated with the
downstroke equal to the calculated upstroke until stroke convergence
has been achieved.

(c) Convergence of pressure with fixed stroke: the analysis is repeated

with the same down stroke and a Pmax value that is proportionally
adjusted to the difference between down stroke and up stroke. An
exception is the Inspector’s Chart option for which only pressure
reductions will be made.

For stroke options b and c, when the calculated upstroke exceeds the
maximum hammer stroke (or when the closed end diesel uplifts), the
analysis is repeated with a reduced ultimate pressure (fuel reduction) until
the upstroke is less than the maximum stroke. (Note that the maximum
stroke is sometimes greater than the rated stroke.)

The starting stroke automatically chosen by the program is equal to the

rated stroke of the hammer. This starting value may not be the best choice
when a low resistance is analyzed. Then the available energy may be so
large that the pile penetrates so much under the hammer blow and
practically no upwards stroke can be calculated. In this case the program
attempts a second analysis with a much lower stroke.

For hammers deemed large relative to the soil resistance, energy may still
be too high and the ram will not rebound. Then a “Hammer will not run”
message may generate and no output will be made for that capacity or
depth. The user may try other starting stroke values to overcome this
problem; however, a better remedy would be the selection of a smaller
hammer.

Figure 3.14.1: Diesel analysis flow chart

3.14.5 Vibratory Analysis Procedure

The computational procedure is very similar to that for impact hammers. All
three analysis options can be performed with frequency taking the place of
stroke as the independent variable. Also, instead of blow count, the time
required for unit pile penetration is calculated (seconds per foot or per
meter).
 The analysis is begun by calculating the vibratory force which, as
long as it is directed downward, compresses the pile top spring
and extends the spring connecting the two vibratory hammer
masses.

 The vibratory force is subject to three potential reductions: start-up

time reduced frequency, user specified "efficiency", and engine
power limit. The latter is applied when the power per cycle
exceeds the power rating of the hammer.

 From cycle to cycle the program monitors the pile top penetration
time. Once the penetration time has converged, or after the
maximum analysis time has been exceeded, the analysis is
finished and the program proceeds with analyzing the next
capacity value, depth value, or frequency depending on the
analysis option.
 4. INPUT INFORMATION

The range of the required input data varies strongly, depending on the
complexity of the problem to be solved. For example, the input for a simple
bearing graph analysis can be entered on the Main Input Screen while a
driveability with static analysis of a non-uniform, spliced pile may require
data in at least 6 different screens. However, it has been attempted to make
the input procedure as simple as possible. For this reason, the program
calculates pile model details like springs and masses and distributes the
shaft resistance to the various pile segments. For further simplification of
the input preparation, the program database includes the models of
hammer and driving systems. However, very basic soil and pile information
must be supplied by the user.

Prior to data input, pertinent information should be collected with the aid of
Form 1, reproduced below, which was taken from Hannigan et al. (2006).
This form can be downloaded from PDI’s website:
http://www.pile.com/Specifications/Sample/histrain.rtf.

For the beginner it is strongly recommended to perform the example

problems. Then after they have been understood, the input process should
be begun by clicking on the “New Document” icon. The analyst will then be
guided through the necessary input sections.

4.1 Hammer Data

The hammer manufacturer name and model No. is usually sufficient, since
the hammer data file contains all necessary information for commonly used
hammers. Further help files are available during program execution by
clicking on Help or by pressing function key F3 after placing the cursor on
the data field for which help is needed.

For hammers whose data have not been entered into the file, hammer data
should be requested from the manufacturer using Form 1. The necessary
information depends upon the hammer type. If the hammer manufacturer is
not familiar with the data required by GRLWEAP, PDI should be contacted
for further help. For estimated efficiency values, refer to Section 3.3.8. For
battered piles, additional efficiency reductions should be made as explained
earlier and in the Help section.

4.2 Driving System Data

The driving system input data, consisting of the hammer cushion properties,
helmet weight (including striker plate, inserts, adapters, etc.), and pile
cushion properties (in the case of concrete piles). All of this data can be
entered in the Main Input Screen. Only if the actual field data is not known
should the help file data of GRLWEAP be used. The GRLWEAP stored
data can be retrieved using the F3 function key while the cursor is placed
on a driving system data entry field.
Cushions can be specified either by their area, elastic modulus, and
thickness or by their stiffness. The stiffness value will override the other
three inputs. In addition, a coefficient of restitution must be entered as
specified by the material’s manufacturer. The round-out deformation is
usually left unchanged at its default value (0.01 ft or 3 mm).

Helmet weight is the weight of all components between hammer and pile
top. The GRLWEAP supplied data may not include the weight of all of these
components.

Pile cushion area is usually equal to the pile top area, and the program
would take that as a default. It would also defaults to an elastic modulus for
relatively new plywood. Only the thickness of the cushion needs to be
entered. The user should be aware, however, that softwood cushions
generally compress during pile driving. A study described by Rausche et al.
(2004) suggests that the elastic modulus of plywood for end-of-driving
analyses should be chosen roughly 2.5 times higher than for early driving
situations with new plywood (75 ksi instead of 30 ksi or 500 MPa instead of
200 MPa). The 2.5 times increase of modulus automatically accounts for
reduced thickness effects and therefore can be used in conjunction with the
nominal cushion thickness.

4.3 Pile Data

Required pile data consists of total length, cross sectional area, elastic
modulus, and specific weight, all as a function of depth. This is the so-
called pile profile. For non-uniform piles, these values must be entered as a
function of depth in the P1 input form. An alternative input form allows for
the entry of a number of uniform segments (in the non-uniform pile window,
the section input icon is active). The offshore version also offers an optional
input mode which considers add-ons with cut-off and stabbing guides.

For Two-pile analyses, the second pile profile, whether uniform or not, must
be input in P2. This may only be occasionally necessary, if two piles are
driven in parallel. This type of analysis is possible; however, it is complex
and potentially inaccurate. If both piles are under the same cap and have
the same length and resistance distribution, they could be considered as a
single pile with a cross sectional areas equal to the sum of the two pile
areas. Also, if one pile was driven with its toe against the top of a second
pile, again a single, nonuniform pile analysis would be more reasonable and
accurate than the Two-pile analysis. (The analysis of a follower on top of a
pile is a typical example for a non-uniform single-pile analysis.)
A Two Pile Toe analysis is recommended when a pile has a size reduction
along its length, which causes soil displacement and, therefore, a second
pile toe effect. The total end bearing can be distributed between the two
pile toes and damping and quake can be specified for both.

A Pile Splice analysis must be performed if the pile, somewhere along its
length, allows for extension with zero tension force. The distance of force-
less extension is called a “slack”. This occurs, for example, when a pile is
mechanically spliced. Obviously, the follower on top of a pile has an
unlimited extension at its bottom and therefore a practically unlimited
tension slack. This situation is also modeled with a splice input which has a
large slack. A crack in a pile exhibits a reduced compression force while the
crack closes under compression. This would again be modeled with a
splice, where the tension slack could be made very small (but it must exist)
and the compressive slack is modeled by the round-out input. To enter a
splice click on Options/ Pile Parameters/ Splices; then enter the number of
pile splices to be modeled, click “Update” and then enter the depth, tension
slack, compression slack and coefficient of restitution data. Note: if a very
soft material with low coefficient of restitution (like a softwood
cushion) is modeled between two stiffer elements, then it is important
that the segment with the low stiffness also has the low coefficient of
restitution or the energy losses will be incorrectly calculated in the
analysis. For that reason (and really under all circumstances), the
Numerical Output, showing the pile model, must be very carefully
reviewed and corrections to the input made if necessary.

Input pile properties also include the Critical Index which is either 0 or 1.
This input is only useful for the analysis of a pile consisting of more than
one pile material. The sections which are marked as critical will be the ones
checked for maximum stresses (see also output description).

The pile perimeter is needed for converting unit shaft resistance to total
shaft resistance. As mentioned earlier (Section 3.13.6) the perimeter is
easily assessed for a solid pile; however, for H-piles and pipes sometimes
questions exist. For H-piles, one usually chooses the box surrounding the
pile cross section. For open ended piles, over a certain distance the
perimeter may be increased or even doubled to consider friction over the
inside of the pile. However, no clear guidelines or correlations can be
referenced for this situation.

For a static analysis, the pile’s effective Toe Area must also be entered (on
the Main Input Screen and since 2010 in the S1 Screen). The Toe Area is
closely related to the soil resistance; this input allow the user for certain soil
layers to model the plugged, unplugged or partially plugged situation by,
respectively, entering steel annulus area, pipe gross area or a value in
between. As discussed in Section 3.13.6, this question is even more difficult
to answer than the perimeter question for open profiles. In general, it may
be assumed that H-piles plug during driving, and therefore the fully plugged
area may be used. For pipe piles, plugging depends on pile diameter, soil
density and depth of penetration into the dense material. Probably for
diameters of 20 inches (500 mm) or less plugging occurs in competent
soils. For pipes with diameters greater than 30 inches (900 mm) plugging
during driving is usually not expected. Under all circumstances, plugging
depends on the soil type, soil strength and penetration into the competent
soil layer. As mentioned earlier it is recommended to analyze both the
plugged and the unplugged situations to establish upper and lower bound
results.

Since 2010 a more realistic driveability analysis is possible, because the

end bearing can now be calculated with variable Toe Area values vs. depth
(in the S1 Screen). For example, if a soft clay layer is underlain by a very
dense sand, and if it is expected that the pile “cores” in the clay but plugs in
the sand, then the Toe Area should be, respectively in the clay and sand
layers, the pile toe steel cross sectional area and the total plugged toe area.

4.4 Soil

Static soil resistance calculations may be required before GRLWEAP

analyses. For bearing graph analyses, when wave equation results are to
be used in conjunction with an observed blow count, the soil resistance
calculations can be done in a more casual manner than for a driveability
analysis. The ST analysis, based on an assessment of soil density or
consistency, may be sufficient for a bearing graph analysis where only a
relative shaft resistance distribution and the percentage of shaft resistance
are needed as an input.

In a bearing graph analysis, it is common practice to allow the pile's depth

of penetration and (relative) soil resistance distribution to remain constant
throughout a series of analyses, even though the pile's ultimate capacity is
made to vary. In other words, it is usually unnecessary to recompute the
skin friction distribution, end bearing, quake, and damping for each ultimate
capacity. Instead one uses the soil resistance distribution that has been
calculated based on the soil investigation. The resulting resistance
distribution is really associated with long term pile resistance and strictly
applicable only to a redrive situation. The loss of resistance during driving
adds another inaccuracy to the approach if it is not properly accounted for
by means of setup factors.

When it is desired to calculate the blow count and stresses more accurately
for various depth values as the pile penetrates into the ground, the
driveability analysis must be chosen. In this case, the static soil resistance
should be input as accurately as possible. Static soil analysis provided by
GRLWEAP is based on a general soil type information (ST), SPT N–values
(SA), Cone Penetrometer values (CPT) and sand density and clay
undrained shear strength (API). Hopefully, the more detailed and accurate
the input is, the more realistic the results that can be expected. But as
mentioned earlier, static geotechnical analyses are inherently inaccurate
and should be complemented by local experience and dynamic testing. It is
the users responsibility to make all necessary corrections in the S1 screen
necessitated by the limitations of GRLWEAP’s static geotechnical analyses.
Although the pile can be specified as “Nonuniform” as far as its cross
sectional properties and perimeter, are concerned, special pile features like
a taper may require additional consideration for the different unit resistance
expected. Also second toes cannot be handled by GRLWEAP’s soil
analyses and must be handled by separate user calculations and input.

While, shaft quakes and toe damping are usually left constant with depth,
the toe quake generally varies with the type of pile and the density of the
soil and therefore with depth. Also the shaft damping values must usually
be varied for the different soil layers. The soil analyses routines help in that
regard, but the user is urged to carefully review what is automatically
generated.

4.5 Options

A variety of input, output, and analysis options are available in GRLWEAP.

Depending on the purpose of the analysis, these options might be
extremely helpful. In the program, most of these options can be accessed
through the toolbars, the icons, or the menu bar. Also, extensive help files
were built into the program that describe the options and explain their use.
The following are some of the major options available to the user.

Hammer options (automatically invoked by choosing the associated

hammer)
• Open end diesels
• Closed ended diesels
• External combustion hammers, i.e. air, steam, hydraulic or drop
hammers
• Vibratory hammers

Hammer parameter options (Options/ Hammer Parameters – except

Hammer Weight)
• Modification of Stroke
• Efficiency
• Combustion Pressure (diesels)
• Reaction Weight (closed end diesels)
• Combustion Delay to model pre-ignition (liquid injection diesels)
• Ignition Volume (atomized fuel diesels)
• Gas Expansion Coefficient
• Vibratory Frequency (vibratory hammers)
• Vibratory Delay (vibratory hammers)
• Line Force (vibratory hammers)
• Assembly Weight (external combustion hammers)
• Hammer Weight (options/ General Options/ Numeric)

Hammer file options

• Modification of a model in the hammer data file (View/ Edit Hammer
Database or double click on an ID number in the hammer window of
the main screen)
 • User supplied new hammer model (View/ Edit Hammer Database)

Stroke options for diesel hammers (see Options/ General Options/ Stroke)
• Convergence of (or iteration on) stroke with fixed combustion
pressure; this is the normal mode of analysis.
• Convergence of (or iteration on) combustion pressure with fixed
stroke; this option is used when the stroke is known (say from
observation on site) but the associated pressure is uncertain. Note:
Allowing for a significantly increased pressure to match an unusually
high stroke can lead to non-conservative capacity results. In
Inspector’s Chart analysis option, the pressure is not increased
above the file specified pressure for conservative considerations.
• Single analysis with fixed stroke and pressure; this option is ideal
when analyzing a high stroke on a low soil resistance as it may occur
when the pile suddenly breaks through a hard layer

Driving system options

• With helmet (cap) by entering a number greater than zero
• Without helmet (cap) by entering a zero helmet weight
• With hammer cushion by entering either area, elastic modulus and
hickness, or a stiffness value
• Without hammer cushion by leaving at least stiffness and thickness
at zero
• With pile cushion by entering at least a nonzero thickness or a
stiffness (concrete piles only)
• Without pile cushion by leaving stiffness and thickness at zero

Analysis options (analysis option drop down menu in tool bar)

• Bearing graph, proportional is the standard result where shaft
resistance and end bearing are equally uncertain
• Bearing graph, constant shaft resistance; applicable when shaft
resistance is fairly well known and, for example, driving a short
distance into a bearing layer is modeled.
• Bearing graph, constant end bearing; applicable for situations when
end bearing is well known or insignificant.
• Inspector’s Chart; calculates the required blow count and associated
stress maxima for a single ultimate capacity value.
• Driveability; calculates blow count and stresses vs depth based on
user supplied shaft resistance and end bearing vs depth data

Driveability options
• Gain/loss factor for both shaft resistance and end bearing
increase/reduction to SRD (static resistance to driving); requires
appropriate soil setup factors in the soil resistance vs depth input (S1
Window)
• Variable setup for driving interruptions specified as “Waiting Time” in
the D Window; requires also input of relative energy and setup time
in the soil resistance input (S1 Window)
• Variable pile length; specify length for each depth to be analyzed in
the D Window
 • Hammer, driving system modifiers; including fuel setting, efficiency,
cushion COR, and cushion stiffness input (D Window)

Static geotechnical analysis options

• Static analyses; accessible from Main Input Form (S1) and from the
S1 soil resistance window (ST, SA, CPT, API)

Pile options
• Variable pile weight (by specifying gravitational acceleration,
Options/ General options/ Numeric)
• Non-uniform piles (specify through the pile drop down menu)
• Single pile with two pile toes; not for driveability or RSA analysis
• Two-piles in parallel; not for driveability or RSA analysis
• Splices and slacks (specify in Options/ Pile parameters)

Pile input options (Options/ Pile Parameters/ Pile Segment Option)

• Automatic number of segments and segment properties (standard)
The following are not for driveability analyses
• Input of number of segments with automatic segment properties
• Input of number of segments and relative segment length with auto
segment stiffnesses and masses
• Input of number of segments, relative segment length, and segment
stiffnesses and masses

Splice input (Pile Parameters/ Splices)

• Splice modeling with slacks and coefficient of restitution
• Slack representation
• Crack representation

Soil shaft resistance distribution options (automatically generated for each

segment)
• Simple distribution on main screen; not for driveability analysis
• Variable distribution for situations that require more than a triangular
or trapezoidal distribution

Soil segment input options

• Automatic soil damping, quakes, and ultimate resistance values
• Input of segment soil damping with automatic quakes and ultimate
resistance values (Options/ Soil Parameters/ Soil Segment
Damping/Quake); not for driveability analysis
• Input of segment soil damping, quakes and ultimate resistance
values; (first choose “Detailed Resistance Distribution” in distribution
Drop Down Menu and enter for each segment the ultimate resistance
values; then click General Options/ Soil Parameters / Soil Segment
Damping/Quake); not for driveability analysis

Damping options (Options/ General options/ Damping)

• Case soil damping; only in conjunction with measurements
• Smith soil damping; recommended for all but RSA and vibratory
hammer analyses
 • Smith viscous soil damping; recommended for RSA and vibratory
hammer analyses
• Gibson (Coyle) soil exponential damping; for research only
• Rausche exponential soil damping; for research only
• Hammer damping variation; for research only
• Pile damping variation; for research only

Numerical analysis options (Options/ General options/ Numeric)

• Residual Stress Analysis, which is applicable to flexible piles with
significant shaft resistance. It is recommended to always try this
analysis in addition to the standard analysis as it provides for more
realistic stresses and blow counts. For tapered pipe piles (e.g.
Monotube), RSA is always recommended. An entry of “1" is
recommended as it allows the program to perform up to 100 trial
analyses to reach convergence. Other choices would numbers
between 1 and 100 which would set the maximum number of trial
analyses allowed.
• Gravitational acceleration values may need adjustment if battered
piling or underwater pile driving is analyzed. In the former case,
adjustments must be made to include only the axial pile and hammer
weight components, in the latter case to consider the buoyancy of
the pile and hammer weight. For example, if a concrete pile is
subject to buoyancy then its effective weight is roughly 60% of its
weight above water. In that case, reducing the pile gravitational
acceleration to 6 m/s2 (19 ft/s2) would reduce the static weight
component of the pile. It would not reduce its mass.
• A larger “Phi” value (Time increment ratio) for the reduction of the
computational time increment; may be necessary when the analysis
becomes unstable (erratic results, non-proportionality between force
and velocity, and other “noisy” calculated pile variables vs time are
clear indications of instability; see variable vs time output). A number
300 would reduce the time increment by a factor 3 while default is
160 (1.6 reduction).
• An increased number of predictor-corrector iterations beyond the
default of 1 is not recommended.
• The maximum analysis time occasionally may need to be increased
if there is evidence that either blow counts or stresses have not
peaked within the analyzed time period. Examples where this may
be needed are analyses with very low resistance or vibratory
hammer analyses with low frequencies. Experimenting with this
number may help determine if this is a necessary adjustment.
• Hammer Cushion round-out values are usually not modified although
for steel on steel impacts a reduction to 1 mm may be reasonable. In
order to better match measured records, Pile Cushion round-out
values sometimes are increased to significantly higher values than
the 3 mm (0.01 ft) default.

Output options (Options/ General Options/ Output)

• Normal numerical output includes extrema tables; see the numerical
output files; it is important that this listing is carefully reviewed prior
 to accepting the results.
• Minimum numerical output is automatically chosen for the driveability
analysis to reduce the amount of output. It does not include extrema
tables. However, particularly for complex situations, including multi-
material piles, it is strongly recommended to also check the
Numerical Output (*.GWO file) for an indication of the location of
maximum pile stresses along the pile and the various maxima in the
different materials.
• Debug numerical output; only useful for those familiar with the
program code. This option may generate extremely large files when
driveability analyses are perfomed.
• Bearing graph plot - single result; standard output.
• Bearing graph plot - two results; convenient when bearing graphs
from two different cases are to be compared. (Read Second File in
the File Menu).
• Driveability (vs depth) plot - result from current gain/loss factor or
from more two gain/loss factors (View/ Ranges/ Selections).
• Variable vs Time plots; helpful to check stability of analysis, for
comparison with measurements and to learn about wave
propagation. Only last analysis of driveability analysis is accessible
when in Normal Output mode. Select quantities in Options/ General
Options/ Output:
- Mixed quantities (vs time) plot
- Acceleration (vs time) plot
- Velocities (vs time) plot
- Displacement (vs time) plot
- Forces (vs time) plot
- Stresses (vs time) plot
• Output segment numbers of the output variables can be chosen in
Options/ General Options/ Output
• Output time increment is the time interval at which individual
quantities are saved for output. For increased resolution in the
variable vs. time plot, choose a smaller value; for increased plot
length, choose a larger value (Options/ General Options/ Output).
• Output of frequency of stress maxima and stress ranges (Output in
the Offhore Wave Option: Driveability/ Edit/ Copy Stress Extrema or
Copy Blows vs. Stress Ranges.
 5. OUTPUT AND HELP INFORMATION

5.1 Numerical Output

GRLWEAP produces output in a variety of forms, depending on the

analysis and output options chosen. It is important that the user checks
thoroughly the Numerical Output (*.GWO files). It contains:

• a listing of the input data file which may be permanently saved and
recalled.

• the hammer and pile model with soil resistance parameters.

• extrema tables (not for output option: “minimum output”) with maxima
of force and stress each (both tension and compression), velocity,
displacement, and transferred energy, for every pile segment and for
every capacity value analyzed.

• a summary of the results in the form of blow counts, stress maxima,

stroke, and transferred energy for each capacity value analyzed. For
multi-material piles see note below.

• for the driveability analysis, the “vs depth” tables, i.e. major results
listed for each gain/loss factor as a function of depth.

• for diesel hammers, the strokes analyzed and the associated

combustion pressure

The numerical output listing also includes certain warning messages or

program performance indicators. For example, non-convergence of
residual stresses may have occurred or an excessive diesel hammer stroke
may have been calculated, and the program would warn of this condition
(although it would adjust the combustion pressure automatically to account
for that condition). Thus, review of the numerical output file is an absolute
necessity.

For the driveability analysis, the numerical output can be very long,
particularly if many depths are analyzed with several gain/loss factors. For
that reason, the default numerical output option is automatically set to
“minimum” and extrema tables are subsequently not shown. It may
therefore be advantageous to select the “normal” output option, even
though the output may then get long. Note that for each analysis depth, the
pile and/or soil model may be quite different, and therefore, careful
checking is essential. Also, the end of the numerical output listing for
driveability analysis includes a summary of the user-submitted soil
resistance parameters. Since these parameters are subject to modification
by set-up or driving induced capacity reduction, careful checking is
advisable.
5.2 Bearing Graph

The second type of output is the Bearing Graph, both numerically and
graphically displayed. This type of output is available for the Bearing Graph
and the Inspector’s Chart analyses. A variety of scale options exists in
View/ Ranges/ Selections.

The bearing graph output can also be done for two analyses in the same
plot. After displaying the bearing graph from the first analysis result, click on
File/ Read 2nd file and then browse to find the bearing graph data that you
want to add to the first output.

This output option also displays the numerical summary table. Both
graphical and numerical data can be copied and pasted into other
applications such as a word processor. Click on the graph or table and the
on Edit/ Copy to clipboard and then proceed with the pasting in the other
application.

5.3 Driveability

After a driveability analysis has been performed, instead of “Bearing Graph”

a “Driveability” option will be available, It provides for numerical and
graphical summaries for up to two Gain/Loss factors (View/ Ranges and
Selections). Scales can be changed in the same window (choose the Graph
Tabs) and copy/paste options are as for the Bearing Graph.

5.4 Variables vs. Time

Additionally, Variables vs Time can be plotted or listed. The variables

include accelerations, velocities, displacements, forces and stresses, for
every pile segment. In order to reduce disk space requirements, this output
is only available for a reduced set of piles segments (as selected in
Options/ General Options/ Output), and for driveability analyses only for the
last analysis. Pile force and velocity can also be displayed at a proportional
scale for both the top segment and one additional user selectable segment.
Numerically, variables vs time can be transferred to other programs using
the copy and paste features of the windows system. The output time
increment (Options/ General Options/ Output, Edit Segment Numbers)
sometimes must be made longer, e.g., 1 ms, to allow for plotting of the
whole range of calculated time period in the variable vs time plots. This may
be of particular interest when the analysis time has been increased or the
length of pile segments (and because of the shorter critical time also the
time increment) has been decreased. In addition to proportional force
velocity output for the pile top, another segment can also be designated for
force and proportional velocity output in Options, General Options, Output,
Edit Segment Numbers. This is only meaningful for the Mixed Variables.
Note that the pile variables can also be displayed in the 3-D plot.
Note about maximum stress results: The stress maxima are normally the
numerically highest values occurring somewhere along the length of the
pile. This is satisfactory for piles consisting of only one type of material.
However, for multi-material piles, the critical stresses are of greater interest
and should be included in the summary table. For example, in a concrete
pile with steel tip, the stresses are numerically much higher in the steel than
in the concrete, yet we are really interested in the maximum tension
stresses in the concrete. For that reason, the Critical Index input has been
provided in the P1 input form, which selects for the summary table only
stress maxima which occur in the critical sections. However, in order to
avoid missing potentially damaging stresses in sections which were not
considered critical, the analyst should not trust these automatically selected
values exclusively and additionally look at the extrema tables of the
numerical output. These tables will also tell when and where these critical
stresses occur along the pile.

5.5 Stress Maxima Range Ouput for Fatigue Studies

This is an Offshore Wave option

Fatigue studies are done in different ways, sometimes requiring the number
of stress maxima and sometimes the number of certain stress ranges
occurring during pile installation. Selecting that information from extrema
tables and finding the associated number of blows for each pile segment is
very time consuming at best. To simplify this process, GRLWEAP has
added two types of summary tables one for stress maxima and one for
stress extrema. These tables can be transferred to a spread sheet.
GRLWEAP does not provide tools to display or otherwise manipulate them.

After performing a driveability analysis, GRLWEAP has saved the two files
containing stress information. The contents of these two files can be copied
in the Output Section of the program by clicking on Driveability and then
Edit. Two options will be displayed:

Copy Stress Extrema Data

and
Copy Blows vs. Stress Ranges.

Tables 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 show small portions of the stress extrema and stress
range tables, respectively. Both tables include listings for the gain/loss
factors chosen under View/ ranges and Selections. The extrema data
include pairs of columns for maximum compressive and tensile stresses for
every depth analyzed. It also shows the number of blows needed to drive to
that depth from the previous depth. The columns then list for each segment
the maximum stress calculated for that depth calculation.
 Table 5.5.1: Summary Table of Stress Extrema
Stress Extrema for Gain/Loss 1 at Shaft and Toe 0.833 / 1.000
Depth (m) 1.83 3.66 5.49
Blows 0 4 8
Pile mxCstrss mxTstrss mxCstrss mxTstrss mxCstrss
Seg # MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
1 0.1 0 149.6 0 156.7
2 0.2 0 150.1 0 157.3
3 0.5 0 150.5 0 157.8
4 1 0 151.1 0 158.5

Table 5.5.2: Summary Table of Stress Ranges

Blows vs. Stress Range for Gain/Loss 1 at Shaft and Toe 0.833 / 1.000

Stress Range 0 42 84 126 168

(MPa) 42 84 126 168 210

Seg #
1 0 0 0 22 93
2 0 0 0 22 93
3 0 0 0 22 93

25 0 0 0 10 105
26 0 0 0 18 97
27 0 0 0 32 84
28 0 0 0 115 0

Table 5.5.2 basically lists number of blows for select stress ranges (in 42
MPa increments in the example). The user has the option to refine the
stress ranges by choosing for example 10 instead of the 5 ranges shown.
Table 5.5.2 indicates that segment 28 was exposed to 115 blows with a
stress range (maximum – minimum compressive stress) between 126 and
168 MPa.

5.6 Help

Further information on available output options is available in the program’s

Help section which can be accessed by pressing function key F1 at any
point in the data input. This type of Help is given in written form describing
input parameters, option functions, and examples. For the novice, it may be
worthwhile to print out these articles for convenient reference. The
examples are also helpful as a demonstration of program capabilities.

Another form of Help is for direct data entry. For example, if the cursor is
activated on an input field that requires an area input, pressing function key
F3 will activate the “Area Calculator”. Other direct input helps are available
for driving system parameters and/or general cushion properties and pile
material properties. Finally, an easy way to get started with the input
process is the Data Entry Wizard which is invoked after pressing the New
Document icon (or New in File).
 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GRLWEAP is a wave equation program for the analysis of the pile driving
process. It is based on Smith's original algorithm but offers a variety of
enhancements and options. The program analyzes what happens under the
dynamic load applied by either a ram impact or a vibratory hammer. The
program is not intended to predict the bearing capacity of a pile at a certain
depth from static geotechnical analysis. Instead, the four static analyses
available are thought to provide an aid in performing the dynamic analysis.

Basically, the program either predicts:

• the bearing capacity of a pile based on an observed blow count or

• the blow count based on a calculated or estimated static and dynamic

soil resistance.

A wave equation analysis can be run only if information about hammer,

driving system, pile, and soil is either known or assumed. It can then
calculate the motions and thus the penetration of the pile and its stresses
due to a hammer blow. The more accurate the input, the more realistic the
results.

Regarding hammer data input, it is most complex for diesel hammers

whose thermodynamic behavior is simulated in GRLWEAP. External
combustion hammers powered by hydraulic pressure, compressed air,
steam or cable are more simply represented. GRLWEAP also models,
vibratory hammers in a relatively simple manner.

The driving system is represented with bilinear springs and some non-
linearity (round-out). In this way, good agreement between measured and
computed pile quantities is often achieved.

The pile model considers the pile mass (segment masses), its elasticity
(springs), its structural damping (dashpots), and any slacks from splices. A
wide variety of pile systems exists, including those consisting of more than
one material or driven by a mandrel. Most commonly employed systems
can be fairly realistically represented and analyzed by GRLWEAP.
However, since the pile model is strictly linear and one-dimensional and
only axial motions, stresses and forces are calculated (see below) and any
yielding is not considered. On the other hand, residual stresses in pile and
soil can be estimated by performing repetitive (blow after blow) analyses. In
general, RSA leads to greater calculated pile sets per blow and higher
stresses than the standard Smith analysis which assumes that the pile
stresses are zero prior to hammer impact.

The dynamic soil model considers the soil's elasticity (quakes), strength
(capacity), and dynamic behavior (damping factors). There are a number of
extensions to the soil model for damping (viscous, exponential), plug
representation, soil radiation damping (soil motion), etc. However, these
extensions are experimental and only of interest to the researcher.

The user of the wave equation approach should realize that the dynamic
analysis represents the soil in its disturbed state. Estimates of soil setup or
relaxation must be additionally considered. For example, if a pile is driven
and its blow count is observed at the end of driving, the wave equation
bearing graph will provide an estimate of the bearing capacity at the end of
driving based on that blow count. Soil setup is likely to add additional soil
strength along the pile shaft, while relaxation effects might reduce the end
bearing. One day, one week, or one month later, the pile may have a
capacity that differs significantly from the end of driving value. The user
must estimate these effects, or better, perform restrike or static load tests
for a more accurate capacity assessment.

Output is provided by the program in both numerical and graphical form.

Most importantly, the program calculates for a given bearing capacity value
both blow count and stress extrema. Capacity or stress vs blow count
establishes a bearing graph. Listing or plotting the results as a function of
depth result in the driveability result. For comparison with dynamic
measurements conducted during pile driving, forces and/or motions may be
plotted as a function of time.

The GRLWEAP wave equation model is obviously a great simplification of

the real world and certain unusual circumstances may only be crudely
represented. Furthermore, the model parameters are often inaccurate. For
example, they may not represent the hammer’s actual state of
maintenance, the soil’s in-situ static and dynamic behavior, or situations like
plugging. For high blow counts, when the pile motions are small,
incomplete resistance activation may occur and non-linear soil resistance
effects or radiation damping may introduce greater errors than for easier
driving conditions. On the other hand, very easy driving conditions with
permanent sets in excess of 15 or 20 mm may also produce uncertainty
due to high dynamic soil resistance components. Thus, where experience
lacks, measurements, both static and dynamic, are the only way to assure
an accurate assessment of bearing capacity. It is for that reason that
modern safety factor concepts distinguish between different methods of
capacity determination. For wave equation analyses, the typical overall
factor of safety is between 2.5 and 2.8.

As mentioned above, the GRLWEAP provides a one-dimensional analysis.

Thus, stresses caused by bending, non-uniformities of soil resistance or
non-symmetric pile shapes are not calculated. For the stress results, it is
therefore important to realize that the calculated values are averaged over
the cross section and can be easily exceeded if the hammer-pile alignment
is poor, the pile experiences bending, or the toe resistance is subjected to a
non-uniform rock surface.
 APPENDIX A: CORRELATIONS
For traditional wave equation work, the most important correlation is that of
capacity based on observed blow count. A very early study was published
by Blendy (1979). A comprehensive correlation study has also been
reported by Thendean et al. (1996). It shows that the correlations between
predicted and measured bearing capacities are dependent on time effects;
restrike tests and corresponding static load tests should therefore be
performed at comparable waiting times after time of pile installation. The
study also shows that restrike test results produce greater scatter than end-
of drive results. This can be explained by the uncertainty of blow count and
energy in restrike situations: the set per blow changes from blow to blow
while hammer performance generally improves. Also during a restrike, the
capacity of the pile often changes as the pile loses setup soil resistance or
regains relaxed toe resistance.

A comprehensive study on the prediction of blow counts based on wave

equation and soil resistance calculated from static geotechnical analyses
has not been made. Because of the difficulty of predicting soil resistance
accurately from soil borings, there is much more volatility in these results
than in capacity predictions which are based on observed blow count.

A more recent study on stress, diesel hammer stroke, and transferred

energy was published by Rausche et al. (2004) showing that the greatest
uncertainty is introduced by the relatively soft pile cushion when driving
concrete piles. In fact, the study suggests that for end of driving situations,
used cushion properties should be used. For example, plywood cushions
should be analyzed with 66% of nominal thickness and with an elastic
modulus roughly 50% higher than the normally recommended value (300
instead of 211 MPa or 43 instead of 30 ksi). Early driving situations can be
analyzed with the nominal thickness and a modulus corresponding to a
slightly used material.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that GRLWEAP predicts lower than actual

diesel hammer strokes. Indeed, GRLWEAP occasionally underpredicts
strokes; however, there is no real evidence that stress or energy results
have a bias. Hammers vary in their performance characteristics not only
after months of use and abuse but even during a day depending on ambient
temperature or weather conditions, the amount and hardness of pile driving,
and other factors. Therefore, differences between energy and stress
results from analysis and measurements must be expected to be in the 10
to 20% range. Further information on GRLWEAP’s performance can be
found in Rausche et al., 2004. That reference also suggests that diesel
hammer stroke results are somewhat underpredicted (3% on the average)
and because of this potential underprediction it is suggested that stroke
results are used in the following manner:

Accept results if the observed stroke is within 0.9 and 1.2 times the
calculated value. If stroke is severely underpredicted, repeat analysis only
with higher combustion pressures if (a) the actual stroke exceeds the
calculated value by more than 20% and (b) it is assured that the high stroke
is the result of good hammer performance and not preignition. It is
suggested to adjust the pressure only so far that the calculated stroke is still
about 10% lower than measured. To adjust stroke by 10%, increase the
maximum combustion pressure by 10%. If stroke is more than 10%
overpredicted, it may appear that the hammer is not in working order.
Reduce the maximum combustion pressure to make the computed stroke
match the observed one.

It is always recommended to make conservative predictions; conservative

predictions has different meanings for different tasks as follows:

 For capacity from blow count, use a pessimistic hammer

performance value (lower efficiency).

 For stress predictions during driving, use an optimistic hammer

performance (higher efficiency).

 For blow counts in a driveability analysis, make an optimistic high

soil resistance assessment and a pessimistic hammer
performance assumption.

 For stresses in a driveability analysis for steel piles, make an

optimistic (high) soil resistance assessment and an optimistic
hammer performance assumption.

 For stresses in a driveability analysis for concrete piles, use two

different analyses, one with an optimistic (high) soil resistance
assessment and hammer performance assumption and the other
with a pessimistic (low) soil resistance assessment and an
optimistic hammer assumption (for high compression stresses and
high tension stresses, respectively).
 APPENDIX B: HAMMER MODEL DETAILS
B1 Diesel Hammer Studies

Throughout the development of the various WEAP program versions and

the GRLWEAP software, emphasis has been placed on realistic hammer
models. The complexity of the diesel hammer, consisting of a variety of
different makes, requires comparative analyses to produce a realistic
mathematical representation. The Background report of the previous
GRLWEAP documentation summarized these studies and included
correlations of measured and computed results. Included in these
comparisons were quantities such as maximum pile top force, maximum
transferred energy (ENTHRU) and diesel hammer stroke. The 1986 study
and related hammer model improvements were based on 57 different test
results. For the 1998 and later GRLWEAP program versions, the original
hammer studies, although still relevant, were not reprinted in this report.

The diesel hammer model has undergone a variety of changes which were
made necessary, for example, by hammers that produced higher and
higher strokes. One of the necessary change involved the determination of
the maximum combustion pressure in a consistent manner for all diesel
hammers; another one concerned a modification in which the pressure –
volume relationship was calculated, requiring a different adiabatic
expansion coefficient. These changes helped calculate more reliably and
realistically strokes while at the same time producing calculated pile top
forces and transferred energy values that agreed reasonably well with
measurements.

B2 2002 Method for Diesel Hammer Pmax Calculation

The maximum combustion pressure, Pmax, is the most important parameter

in the diesel hammer model for diesel hammer stroke calculations. A large
Pmax value not only makes for a large hammer stroke, but also adds
substantial transferred energy (ENTHRU) even if the stroke is kept constant
in either a single stroke analysis or one that allows for stroke convergence
with fixed pressures. Analyses with fixed stroke and convergence of
pressure are, naturally not dependent on the P max value in the hammer data
file. Direct measurements of Pmax are complicated, expensive, and subject
to a variety of influences and errors. Most importantly, on a test stand,
hammer combustion pressures usually do not represent the typical working
conditions and are therefore not representative. A procedure was therefore
developed that produces a reasonable Pmax value based on the hammer’s
rated energy. Essentially, the procedure determines that pressure value
that would produce the rated stroke in a refusal condition on a pile that is
matched to the hammer size. A check is also made for a reasonable
transfer energy value in the theoretical test stand.

The “test stand” is assumed to be a steel pile driven into rock; the pile
properties are matched to the hammer size as follows:
 Pile Length, Lpile (ft) = 50 ft + ¼ of rated energy of hammer in kip-ft

Lpile is limited up to 200 ft to consider larger hammer.

Pile Area, Apile (in2) is based on a pile weight to ram weight (Wram in kips)
ratio of 2.

Thus
,
Apile (in2) = 2 x Wram(144) / [(0.492 kips/ft3)(Lpile in feet)]

A driving system is also included with the following parameters:

Helmet weight (kips) = 20% of ram weight

Hammer cushion stiffness (kips/inch) = Wram/(0.0004 inches) = 2500 (Wram

in kips).

Hammer cushion coefficient of restitution = 0.8.

For the soil resistance the following parameters are set:

The automatic Rult values of the GRLWEAP Version 2002 program are
used in a standard bearing graph. However, the highest R ult value must
produce a blow count at or above 240 b/ft.

Default damping (0.2/0.15 s/ft) and quakes (0.1 inches).

Triangular resistance distribution with 10% shaft resistance.

Several bearing graph analyses are then performed. The Pmax value is
adjusted until the stroke at refusal is equal to 95% of rated stroke and until
the transferred energy is less than or equal to 50% of rated. The latter
corresponds to the 90% point in the rated energy histogram of GRL’s diesel
on steel pile data collection. In other words, only 10% of all diesel hammers
driving steel piles will transfer more than 50% of their rated energy at EOD
to a steel pile. In general the transferred energy calculated by GRLWEAP
is significantly less than 50% and more likely the mean value of 37% (see
table).

Note: The following method has been used to determine the maximum
combustion pressure for all open end diesel hammers, except for the ICE I-
series hammers. Correlation studies for this series of hammers showed
that hammer performance was better modeled by using 95% of the
hammer pressure used in GRLWEAP 1998 than by using the standard
algorithm.

B3 Measured Hammer Performance

 GRL Engineers, Inc. (formerly Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.)
has taken measurements on many different construction sites and on many
different hammer-pile systems. For end-of-driving situations, these
measurements, pile top force and velocity, were used to calculate
transferred energy and from it, by division with the rated hammer energy,
the so-called transferred efficiency or transfer ratio. GRLWEAP calculates
the equivalent value named ENTHRU. These transferred efficiency values
were organized by hammer and pile type. A statistical evaluation was then
made and, in 2009 yielding the results of Table B1.

Table B1: Measured Transfer Efficiencies (Energy in Pile Divided by

Manufacturer’s Rated Energy (%)

Hammer Type Steel Piles Concrete and Timber

(GRLWEAP
Hammer No. Mean CoV No. Mean CoV
Efficiency) Cases % % Cases % %

All Diesel
1419 39 26 668 26 30
Hammers (0.8)

Single Acting
747 56 23 194 41 29
Air/Steam (0.67)

Double Acting
68 40 34 47 32 33
Air/Steam (0.50)

All Hydraulic
203 69 24 67 47 34
(0.80/0.95)

The All Diesel category includes both open end and closed ended diesel
hammers and both atomized and liquid injection type hammers. The
GRLWEAP standard efficiency is 80% while on steel piles the transfer
efficiency averages 39%. That means that the pre-compression phase, the
driving system and the impact event itself cause the difference loss of 41%.
Indeed it can be expected that the compression costs about 25 to 33% of
the rated energy and that leaves an estimated 8 to 16% of the losses to the
energy transmission process through the driving system. The concrete piles
receive only 26% of the rated energy; the 13% difference between the steel
piles and concrete and timber piles is the energy lost in the cushioning or
the wooden pile top. (The very top of a timber pile often brooms and,
therefore, behaves like a softwood cushion).

The second group of hammers are the traditional air pressure or steam
powered hammers whose upward and downward motions are controlled by
ram position. This can lead to problems like pre-admission which can self
cushion a hammer. These hammers also lose 13% due to driving system
and impact event and an additional 15% in the pile cushion on concrete
piles.
Double Acting Air/Steam hammers are either traditional double acting,
differential acting or compound hammers. They may be powered by
compressed air or steam. In hard driving, i.e., at the end of driving, these
hammers often have to be run at reduced pressure to avoid uplift. That
pressure reduction reduces their down ram acceleration and makes that
hammer type somewhat less efficient and more erratically behaving. It
appears that this hammer category loses 10% due to driving system and
impact event and additional 8% in the pile cushion.

The fourth category shown in the table includes measurement results from
a variety of modern hydraulic hammers. They are given many names such
as hydraulic free-fall hammers, hydraulic drop hammers, hydraulic-power
assisted hammers, doubling acting etc. These results also include those
from hammers with internal monitoring of the kinetic energy. Obviously,
these hammers are very different in design, rating, and relative
performance and that may explain why their COV (coefficient of variation) is
surprisingly high even though each individual hammer make performs with
much greater reliability than the other hammer types. However, not enough
data has been collected to make statistical summaries of the various
hammer makes meaningful. For the hydraulic hammers the difference
between steel and concrete performance is a surprisingly high 22%. This
may be explained by the rather high impact velocities of at least some of
these hammers which then requires relatively thick cushion stacks.

In summary, the statistical results suggest that concrete piles receive

between 8 and 22% less energy of the rated energy than the steel piles.
Estimated losses in the driving system and the impact event itself vary
between 8 and 16%.
 APPENDIX C: GRLWEAP FIRST STEPS
Whether or not you are a seasoned wave equation analyst, GRLWEAP may
present challenges, and you may benefit by reading the following section
for basic help with the program's options and capabilities and hints for
solving a basic problem. In additon, however, you should refer to the „Help“
offered in on line while performing the program.

Starting the Program

Instructions for installation are provided separately as an insert with your

GRLWEAP Manual. With the proper installation accomplished, you may
start the program by clicking on the GRLWEAP icon or by selecting the
program GRLWEAP application using the Windows Explorer. Please be
aware that a license, i.e. a key, either a software key or hardware key, is
required for the program to run. If you have problems using the program,
please refer to GRLWEAP FAQ section on our website (www.pile.com), and
if you don’t find the solution there, contact the software department of Pile
Dynamics, Inc.

After starting the program, it is wise to check and set your desired unit
system (SI or English). The program will remember this unit system after it
has been set during subsequent program runs.

Before Executing the Program

Prior to doing actual calculations, you should be able to answer the

following questions:

• Why do I need this dynamic pile analysis and what results do I need?

• What are the basic parameters to be analyzed (Pile properties, hammer

and driving system, soil details, design load, ultimate capacity or
nominal resistance)?

• How will I assure that the results are realistic? What field testing will be
done. What factors of safety will be used?

• In what form do I want to present the results?

Answering these questions should provide the basic data needed for the
program input.

Data Input

It is strongly recommended to start each new data analysis by clicking on

the New icon or on New under File. While assuring that no hidden data
from previous program runs are present, New will guide the user through
title and file name entry and many (though not necessarily all) other
parameters needed for a basic analysis. These are the same data entries
that are described in the following section on the Main Input Form. After the
user has completed the data entry, GRLWEAP presents the data in the
Main Input Form.

The Main Input Form

The Main Input Form consists of tool bar (top), Data Entry Fields (left side)
and a graphic display area as a partial help for checking the data submitted
(right side). The various data entry fields accept inputs of:

• Job Information
• Hammer Information or data file ID, or direct hammer selection
• Pile material selection
• Cushion Information for hammer and pile, and helmet information
• Pile Information
• Ultimate Capacities or Resistance Gain/Loss Factors - Bearing
capacities to be analyzed in Bearing Graph or Inspector's Chart Options
or Gain/Loss Factors (to be applied to long term static resistance
values) for the Driveability Analysis
• Dynamic Soil Parameters - Averages for shaft damping and quake, toe
quake and damping for bearing graphs, and default damping and quake
values for driveability analyses
• Shaft Resistance percentage and resistance distribution parameter for
the simplest cases in a bearing graph

For a bearing graph analysis of a uniform pile with simple resistance

distribution, the Main Input Form generally suffices for data input. For more
involved situations, one or more additional Input Forms must be filled in.
They are accessible through the View menu or corresponding icons and
under menu entry Options. The Main Input Form displays most of the
selected options at appropriate locations. However, it does not allow for
direct modification of these options.

The user can choose major options from the following four option menus:

• The Unit Option, allowing for choice of SI or English units

• The Soil Resistance Distribution Option, to choose between simple
resistance distribution, variable resistance distribution, and detailed
resistance distribution input (segmental input)
• The Pile Option, to choose between uniform pile, non uniform pile and
two pile analyses
• The Analysis Option, to choose Bearing graph (assuming proportional
or constant shaft resistance or constant end bearing), or Inspector's
Chart or Driveability analyses

Drop Down Menus

View - Depending on the selections made for Pile, Soil, and Analysis
Options, the following Input Forms are accessible:
• Main Input Form
• Pile 1 Input Form, accepts input of cross-sectional properties if Pile 1 is
non-uniform, if 2 piles are analyzed in parallel, or if 2nd pile toe is to be
analyzed; access through View or P1 icon
 Accessible from the Pile 1 input form is the Pile Section Input
(click Options/ Pile Parameters/ Pile Profile Section Input); it
allows for somewhat simpler input than the Pile 1 input form, if
the pile consists of several uniform sections (not to be confused
with the input of individual segment parameters, stiffness and
weight).
 Also the 2nd Pile Toe can be accessed from the P1 Pile 1 input
form.
• Pile 2 Input Form, (to analyze 2 piles; serves for the input of the 2nd
pile’s profile and the connection between the piles (pile attachment));
access through View or P2 icon

• Resistance Distr., Pile 1 Input Form, for the bearing graph, if the
Simple Resistance Distr. is not sufficiently detailed and ST, SA, CPT or
API cannot be used; or for the Driveability Analysis; or for 2-Pile
Analyses; access through View/ Resistance Distr./ Pile 1 Input Form
or use S1 icon.

• Resistance Distr., Pile 2 Input Form, (always necessary for 2-pile

analysis); access through View/ Resistance Distr./ Pile 2 Input Form
or use S2 icon. Two-pile analysis has to be selected first in the Uniform
Pile Drop Down Menu.

• Depths, Modifiers Input Form, to select those depths at which a

driveability analysis is to be performed; click View/ Depths/ Modifiers
Input Form or use D icon. Driveability analysis must be selected first in
the analysis drop down menu initially at Bearing Graph.

• Soil Type Static Analysis Input Form, generally useful for calculating a
reasonable resistance distribution for bearing graph analyses or for
driveability analyses after choosing the Variable Resistance Distribution;
access through View or ST icon.

• SPT N-value based Static Analysis Input Form, may be used as a help
in preparation for bearing graph or driveability analyses; after choosing
driveability, access through View/ Static Analysis Input Form or SA
from the S1 input form.

• CPT (Cone Penetration) based Static Analysis Input Form, may be used
as a help in preparation for bearing graph or driveability analyses; after
choosing driveability, access through View/ CPT Input or CPTfrom the
S1 input form.

• API conforming Static Analysis Input Form, may be used as a help in

preparation for bearing graph or driveability analyses; after choosing
driveability, access through View/ API Static Analysis or API from the
 S1 input form. For Offshore Wave Version only.

• Edit Hammer Database, to enter a new hammer or modify existing

hammer data; click View, Edit Hammer Database or double click on
any one of the hammer names shown. Once the hammer data base is
opened, double clicking on an individual data entry opens a hammer
data input form which then can be modified.

• Output after an analysis has been performed; starts output program;

accessible through View/ Output or click on OU.

• View Input File shows the numerical data contained in an input file
which can be saved and reanalyzed at any time; accessible through
View/ S1 input form.

Options - The following options can be accessed through the Options

menu.
• Check Status causes program to check whether or not input is
complete.
• Job information can be used to enter Problem Title and/or File name
and location.
• General Options, Damping tab
 Soil damping option (Options/ General Options/ Damping)
- Case damping (for research or when measured)
- Smith (default)
- Smith viscous (for Residual Stress Analysis)
- Coyle and Gibson (for research)
- Rausche (for research)
 Hammer damping option, normally used at default (Options,
General Options, Damping)
 Pile damping option, normally preset based on pile top material
selection (Options, General Options, Damping)
• General Options/ Output controls plotted output type and numerical
output quantity
 for Variable vs Time output, choose between
- Mixed (default)
- Aceleration
- Velocity
- Displacement
- Forces
- Stresses
 For all except the mixed quantities:
- Choose Output segments, pile segments for which forces, etc.
can later be plotted and numerically displayed.
- Output Time Interval, to cover longer output time intervals at the
expense of a better resolution.
 For the mixed quantities choose an additional FV Segment for which
force and velocity will be saved for later plotting at a proportional
scale.
 For the Numerical Output, choose between
 - Minimum, preferred and default for long driveability analyses
- Normal,preferred for input and result check, for all except long
driveability analyses
- Debug (not recommended), see output description for further
details
• General Options/ Numeric; except for the Residual Stress Analysis,
these options are infrequently used:
 Residual Stress Analysis is invoked if a positive value is entered
which limits the number of trials. An entry of „1“ allows for the
maximum of 100 trial analyses (often more realistic for slender,
elastic piles than normal analyses); a value between 1 and 100
specifies the maximum number of trial analyses.
 Hammer gravity modifies static weight of assembly and helmet; it is
normally set to the full gravitational value unless consideration is
given to bouyancy or pile inclination.
 Pile gravity normally set to the full gravitational value; may be set to
zero which is the traditional option for bearing graphs or to a reduced
value if the pile is subject to buoyancy or inclination.
 Time Increment Ratio in percent; may be reduced if there is a
possibility of numerical instability; use a value greater than 160, e.g.
300.
 Number of Iterations; see description of numerical procedure.
Normally not modified.
 Round Out deformations for hammer and pile cushions; rarely
modified.
 Analysis Duration, though generally set automatically, may
sometimes be of interest for durations chosen longer than standard
analysis.
• General Options/ Stroke pertains only to diesel hammers;
 Convergence of stroke with fixed pressure
 Convergence of pressure with fixed stroke
 Single analysis with fixed stroke and pressure
 Stroke Convergence Criterion
 Fuel Setting
• Pile Parameters, to override certain hammer file data (Options,
Hammer Parameters)
 Pile Segment Option, for direct input of the segment length,
stiffness, and weight of the pile model; generally, this is a somewhat
laborious procedure and it is easier to let the computer calculate
these numbers.
 Splices, accepts input of the number of splices, their depth, slack
distance, round-out deformation, and coefficient of restitution.
 Additional Input
- Coefficient of restitution for the pile top spring;
- Round Out for the pile top spring;
 Pile Profile Section Input (see P1 input form)
• Soil Parameters
 Soil Segment Damping/Quake for entering relative static resistance
values and quakes for each segment; click first on Simple
Resistance Distr. and then Detailed Resistance Distribution.
 - No Individual soil segment input (default)
- Individual damping input for each segment
 Extended Soil Model
- Toe Model (for research only)
- Radiation Damping Model (for research only)
• Hammer Parameters to override certain hammer file data (Options,
Hammer Parameters)
 Stroke can also be changed on Main Screen
 Efficiency can also be changed on Main Screen
 Reaction Weight for closed ended diesel hammers,
 Diesel hammer combustion parameters:
- Combustion Pressure can also be changed on Main Screen
- Combustion Delay for liquid fuel injection hammers negative to
model preignition
- Ignition Volume for atomized injection hammers
 Vibratory hammer parameters:
- Vibratory Frequency can also be changed on Main Screen
- Vibratory Delay, time over which hammer is allowed to reach full
frequency
- Line force, positive if it reduces the weight effect of the hammer;
negative if it pushes down (creates a crowd force).
 Assembly Weight for external combustion hammers (these
hammers are sometimes equipped with special guides or sleeves
which increases the total assembly weight supported by pile and soil
prior to impact.
 Offshore opens up the offshore input window; for Offshore Wave
Version only.
 - Pipe Pile Add-on Input for offshore pipe piles considering add-on
properties (Elastic modulus, Specific weight, Critical section
index, Length, Cut-off). Also includes an option for generation an
Stabbing Guide model.
 - Inclination, allows for the input of the batter (inclination) angle
input and calculates and then allows for input of gravity reduction,
stroke reduction and efficiency reduction. The angle of inclination
input is also necessary for the static bending analysis.
 - Hammer, allows for modifying the point on the pile where hammer
drives the pile: top, intermediate or bottom location.
 - Jacket Template accepts the input necessary (Water Depth and
Height of Pile support point of Template/Jacket) for above the
mudline for the static pile bending analysis.

EXAMPLE

This example demonstrates a step-by-step solution for a basic case using

only the Main Input Form for input including:

Simple shaft resistance distribution,

Uniform pile,
Bearing graph or Inspector's Chart analysis,
and Hammer information contained in the hammer data file.
I. Data input

Collect all relevant information using the Pile and Driving Equipment Form
(Form 1 in Chapter 4). You may have to find driving system and pile
material properties in the appropriate help files (performed during program
execution).

1. Click on New Icon and enter the project title and file name with directory
path. Click Next.

2. To select a hammer either enter the Hammer ID No. – if known – or

search the hammer list until the desired hammer is found. You may
organize the listing by clicking on the heading to be sorted (e.g. view
alphabetic order of hammer manufacturers by clicking on Name). Click
on the desired hammer line or select the hammer manufacturer’s name
for an abbreviated listing of the associated hammers. Click Next.

3. Select the analysis type, in our case, the bearing graph analysis option.
Let us assume that the uncertainty for end bearing and shaft resistance
is equal. Then we can choose the default bearing graph option with
proportionally increasing shaft resistance and end bearing. For most
bearing graph analyses, the proportionally increasing skin friction/end
bearing option is satisfactory. (If the shaft resistance were well known,
like when a pile is driven to a hard layer, the constant shaft resistance
method may be more appropriate and if the end bearing were better
known than the shaft resistance, then the constant end bearing analysis
should be chosen). Click Next.

4. Select the pile top material (note that a concrete pile driven with a steel
follower would require the Steel selection). If Concrete is chosen, the
pile cushion properties must also be specified in this box. Pressing the
F3 function key with the cursor on the pile cushion elastic modulus will
bring up a table with cushion material properties. If the cursor is on the
cushion area field, selecting F3 will bring up the area calculator.

The program will also require entry of pile toe area and pile perimeter;
these values are needed for use with the static geotechnical analyses
(ST, SA, CPT or API). For displacement piles (concrete; closed ended
pipes), the toe area is easily determined; for H-piles and for open end
pipe piles with diameters 20 inches (500 mm) or less, it may be
assumed that the piles behave like plugged displacement piles, and the
toe area is therefore the full gross area. For larger open ended pipe
piles (say greater than 30 inches in diameter), the assumption may be
made that the piles are coring (not plugging). In that case, the toe area
is that of the steel cross section. Please note that even though
dynamically the large diameter pipes may not plug, it is often assumed
that they plug under static loads. Plugging is a complex problem as it
depends on the pile penetration, the soil type, the soil density, pile
penetration into dense layers and other factors and cannot be dealt with
 in a simple example demonstration such as this (see also Section
3.13.6).

The input of a pile penetration is also required. This value may already
be known from a previously performed static soil analysis or it will be
established during the subsequent analysis. In the latter case an initial
guess (maybe 2 ft or.0.5 m less than the total pile length) is satisfactory.

Click Next.

5. Enter hammer cushion and helmet weight information. This may be

done directly or after clicking on function key F3 and making selections
from the PDI data collection. If no driving system data is available for the
chosen hammer make, the data of a similar hammer can be chosen in a
first analysis attempt. Obviously though, it would be best to obtain the
correct information from either the hammer supplier or the contractor.
Click Next.

6. The next step allow for a very simple soil input for a granular or cohesive
input. If a more detailed analysis is desired, that can be done after the
input wizard is finished. Click Next.

7. The program displays the resistance distribution and dynamic soil

resistance parameters. The user should review and if necessary make
corrections. Click Next.

8. The program displays 10 ultimate capacity values. They were selceted

based on the pile impedance (size and material properties). These may
be changed, but they are probably OK for a first analysis attempt. Clieck
Next.

9. After reading the input wizard’s comments, Click Finish.

10.The completed main input form displays the data submitted. Review the
important hammer performance parameters shown below the hammer
selection screen. In particular, check whether the efficiency and/or
hammer stroke or energy setting are appropriate (for battered/inclined
piles go to Options, Pile Parameters, Pile Batter/Inclination. Stroke
may be important if the hammer is used with a reduced energy setting
and Pressure is an important parameter for diesel hammer analyses,
particularly if the hammer is to be operated with a reduced fuel setting.

11. Review pile data such as length and cross sectional area and change
(as explained earlier), if necessary. Also check the standard pile
material parameters (e.g. the elastic modulus and/or the specific weight)
assigned when the pile material was chosen. For example, a high
strength concrete may have a higher modulus than the default value
(the Help offers a pile mateial table).
12. Find out the required design load (usually information is provided in the
Pile and Driving Equipment Form) and the required factor of safety. The
factor of safety depends among other things on the manner in which the
pile bearing capacity is verified (static, dynamic testing, etc.), the quality
of the pile installation method, the variability of the soil, the type of
structure for which the foundation is built, and other important
considerations. In general, if capacity determination is based on wave
equation analysis alone, i.e. without other test results or measurements,
factors of safety may vary between 2.5 and 3.0. A standard
recommendation cannot be given here. More on this important subject
may be found in Hannigan et al. (2006).

Multiply the design load by the factor of safety to obtain the required
Ultimate Capacity. Be sure that the 10 Ultimate Capacity values
chosen by the program include the values that are important for the
present project.

For a useful Bearing Graph, it is recommended to include enough

points in the calculation both below and above the required ultimate
capacity such that a smooth bearing graph can be plotted. You may
click on Reset, enter a capacity increment and then click on the first
capacity input field to fill all ten values or click on Action and then
Automatic to fill the array with reasonable values. For concrete piles, be
sure to include small ultimate capacity values to find critical tension
stresses. High capacity values allow for a check of compression
stresses and the driveability limit of the hammer-pile-soil system.

II. Check status

Before submitting the data set for analysis, it should be checked for
completeness. After clicking Options, Check Status, a message will be
display which either indicates satisfactory or incomplete input data
preparation.

III. Save input data

Click on the Save Input data icon. (Be sure that the file name and path are
satisfactory – Save Input File As under File may also be used.)

IV. Perform analysis

Click on the A (for analysis) icon. Preliminary output will be displayed. This
screen should be closed as soon as it is no longer needed, i.e. after an
initial result check.

V. Inspect numerical output

Click on the O (for output) icon to enter the output selection screen. View
the calculated results in the *.GWO file by clicking on Numerical Output.
Particular attention should be given to the hammer model, driving system
parameters, and pile model. The complete output should also be checked
for any program performance messages. They may indicate a problem with
the calculated output. Should there be a problem indicated, make changes
to the input data by exiting the Numerical Display and by clicking on the
Main Screen Icon. The Numerical output is often printed and included in
reports. Read and be aware of the disclaimer. When finished with this
inspection, exit the numerical display and return to the output selection
screen.

VI. Generate output

In addition to the numerical output, you may want to generate a graphical or

numerical summary output. For our simple example, this means, in general,
plotting of the Bearing Graph and a tabulation of the numerical bearing
graph results. Click on Bearing Graph in the Output Selection Screen.

Both a graph and a numerical result table will be displayed. Enlarge one or
the other (upper right hand corner). Return to both displays by selecting
dual display (upper right hand corner). Changes to scales can be done in
View, Ranges. The bearing graph can be interpreted as to the required
blow count for a desired bearing capacity, or it can be interpreted for the
capacity corresponding to an observed blow count. Associated with the
capacity is, for the same blow count, a maximum compression stress and,
important for concrete piles, a maximum tensile stress. The stress maxima
may occur anywhere along the pile.

After inspecting and possibly printing (or after View, Copy to Clipboard
pasting in a report document) the bearing graph output, exit the bearing
graph program.

If you are curious about certain calculated output variables, click on

Variables in the Output Selection Screen. Certain curves and display
modes may be selected in View, Ranges and Selections. This program is
self-explanatory. Note that you may have to change your variables in
Options, General Options, Output to get the desired results.

You may return to the main screen and run a second example and then plot
two results in the same bearing graph. (The second bearing graph can be
chosen after clicking on File, Read 2nd file.) This ends the demonstration
of a simple bearing graph example.

VII. More frequently used options

For Non-uniform piles: Click on th the Pile Option drop down menu and
click on Non Uniform Pile and then enter the pile properties (Cross
sectional area, Elastic modulus, Specific weight, Pile Perimeter, Critical
Stress Index) at all depth values where changes occur in the so-called P1
input form.
Soil Resistance Distribution: The Simple Resistance Distribution is
probably an exception and, unless the ST, SA, CPY, or API static soil
analyses have been performed, it is often necessary to enter a Variable
Resistance Distribution. For bearing graph analyses, only relative
magnitudes must be entered because the total capacity and the percentage
shaft resistance are addtional inputs. Thus, the relative resistance
distribution values will be multiplied by the shaft resistance percentage and
the analyzed ultimate capacity to yield the shaft resistance. The remainder
is the end bearing. In contrast, the Detailed Resistance Distribution
requires input of relative capacity values for every segment of the pile
model. This is a rarely used option.

Bearing Graph options: Instead of doing a bearing graph analysis with

proportionally changing friction and end bearing components, the analysis
options Constant Friction or Constant End Bearing options may be
selected. In the former case, the friction percentage will be applied to the
first capacity analyzed and then only the end bearing will be increased. In
the latter case, the end bearing will be the same for all analyses (see also
Section 4.5, Options, Analysis Options.

Additional Analysis Options: The Inspector's Chart option analyzes only

one capacity for up to 10 different stroke (energy) values. Be sure to specify
a reasonable stroke in the appropriate field below the hammer selection
screen, as a low starting value. Depending on the numerical value of the
starting stroke either full stroke or ½ m stroke increments will be used, or
the program interpolates nine strokes between this minimum and maximum
values of the hammer data file. If a diesel hammer is analyzed, it may also
be of interest to review the hammer stroke option (see Options, General
Options, Stroke).

Pile Options: Splices in piles, if they allow for some forceless deformation,
are input through Options, Pile Parameters, Splices.

Numerical analysis: The Residual Stress Analysis is (or has to be )

frequently performed when the pile is realtively flexible. The option is
activated after selecting Options, General Options, Numerical and then
entering a number between 1 and 100. Enter "1" to perform a residual
stress analysis with up to 100 trials for convergence. Enter a number
greater than 1 to limit the maximum number of trial analyses.

VIII. Less frequently used input options

Pile Segment Input Option is for the input of individual values for mass,
stiffness, and relative segment length for each segment of the pile model
(Options, Pile Parameters, Pile Segment Option). Note that the
corresponding pile profile input is necessary for non-uniform piles.

Soil Segment Input is for the input of individual quakes, damping factors
(Options, Soil Parameters, Soil Segment Damping/Quake), and ultimate
resistance values at each segment (Detailed Resistance Distribution
from the Soil Resistance Distribution drop-down menu). Quakes can only
be individually entered together with the static resistance distribution after
choosing Detailed Resistance Distribution in the resistance distribuion
drop down menu. Damping input is not dependent on that option.

The Soil, Pile, and Hammer Damping Options are accessible through
Options, General Options, Damping. Usually these options are of little
help, except the soil damping option which should be set to Smith viscous
for Residual Stress Analyses and for Vibratory Hammer analyses.

Any one of the Numerical options (Options, General Options, Numerical),

except the Residual Stress Analysis, is rarely used.

Not used in practice is the Extended Soil Model for the activation and use of
non-standard soil models; this is only recommended for research (Options,
Soil Parameters, Extended Soil Model).

IX. About Help for GRLWEAP

Click on Help and Help Topics and an index will open that links the user to
all available help files. These files make up the complete Users Manual of
GRLWEAP. For example, tables of hammers, efficiency reductions, setup
factors, driving system parameters, etc. are included. Also, there are many
links between these files to aid in navigation. In addition, the Help Section
provides many example problems including descriptions of input
preparation and output interpretation. Numerical results of these examples
can be viewed by opening the *.GWO file. Please take some time to study
the various documents within the help (and maybe print them out for your
printed manual) prior to using the program.

As previously explained, direct help, i.e., direct entry of data in certain input
fields is also available. Once the cursor is on such an input field, press F3
to activate the Help feature.
 Appendix D: The GRLWEAP Friction Fatigue Approach
An Offshore Wave Option

GRLWEAP 2010-6 Offshore Wave offers two means of calculating SRD: (a)
the standard which is a uniform reduction of resistance in each soil layer
based on setup factor(s) and Gain/Loss factors and (b) an exponentially
varying approach which is related to Heerema, (1980) and, for example,
Alm and Hamre (2001).

In the following we refer to “Friction Fatigue” and it should be absolutely

clear that it has nothing to do with the fatigue damage that may occur in the
pile material due to pile driving.

The uniform (standard) GRLWEAP approach calculates the static

resistance to driving (SRD) as:

SRDi = LTSRi/fsi (D1)

where LTSR is the long term static resistance as calculated by a static

approach and i refers to a particular pile segment. Within this uniform setup
method, GRLWEAP also offers a time/distance variable resistance setup
and resistance loss approach which considers soil setup during a driving
interruption to increase logarithmically with time and a related loss of
resistance developing linearly with driving depth following the driving
interruption. All segments along the pile are affected proportionally to their
setup potential in this approach using a so-called limit distance, L li, which
can be different for each segment i. Thus the setup resistance is assumed
to have vanished and the soil resistance being again at the SRD level when
the pile has been driven a distance Lli. This approach works fairly well for
short distances, but it does not work well when losses of resistances occur
over a greater distance of driving which would require that Lli is much
greater than the length of one or two pile segments.

The second method, developed at the end of 2013, combines features of

the basic GRLWEAP setup factor approach with those proposed by, for
example, Alm and Hamre (2001).This friction fatigue approach assumes
that pile driving causes little loss of shaft soil resistance near the toe but a
much higher resistance loss closer to the seabed where the pile shaft has
already done much more work on the soil and between the pile toe and a
certain distance (we use again the term Limit Length) above the toe the
shaft resistance decreases exponentially.

For the Modified Friction Fatigue approach, let us introduce a friction

reduction factor, ffi, and designate as z the distance of the center point of a
segment measured from the pile toe. We calculate the resistance on the
shaft of a pile segment as

SRDi = LTSRi * ffi (D2)

where
 ffi = 1/fsi for z ≥ (1 + fL) Lli (D3)

i.e., fully reduced resistance for pile segments above Limit Length plus
bottom section

ffi = 1 for z ≤ fL Lli (D4)

i.e., full resistance over a distance fL Lli above the pile toe and

ffi = 1/fs - fo + x1 e(αi z*) for fL Lli ≤ z ≤ (1 + fL) Lli (D5)

i.e., exponentially varying in between. The coordinate z* is zero at a

distance fL Lli above the pile toe and therefore

z* = z - fL Lli (D6)

Also,
x1 = 1 – [(1/fs) - fo] (D7)

and
αi = ln[fo/x1] / Lli (D8)

The factor fo defines the shape of the exponential function (see Figure 1).
The factor fL allows for an unreduced resistance over a distance above the
bottom (the “bottom section”) which is equal to f L Lli. Both fo and fL are the
same for all soil layers. However, L li and fsi can be chosen differently for the
various soil layers.

GRLWEAP applies the following limits

fo ≤ 0.9(1/fsi ) (D9)
and
fo ≥ 0.001 (D10)

also the setup factor of any soil layer i has to be greater than 1 (GRLWEAP
would replace a value less than 1 with 1 without warning):

fsi ≥ 1 (D11)

The user should be aware of the following :

 Only one G/L factor < 1 can be analyzed with this approach and it must
be the first shaft G/L factor. Also the first shaft G/L should be the
inverse of the largest setup factor f si for a meaningful calculation. If it
were 1.0 then the LTSR would be analyzed (no friction fatigue) and that
may be conveniently be done with the second analysis and associated
2nd shaft G/L factor.
 Using the same setup factors, the total SRD calculated with this
method is lower than the SRD of the standard method; equivalent
setup factors are discussed below.
  Both wait time and the soil setup time inputs are ignored in this
analysis.

Distance from Bottom 80

fL 0.1 fo 0.1
70
60 fL 0.05 fo 0.001

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 0.5 1 1.5
iction Fatigue Multiplier
gure 1: Exp. Multiplier for fs=5, Limit Dist=50m, Pile L=75m; fo=0.1 and 0.001 and fL=0.1 and 0.

Potentially, the restriction of Equation (9) makes the f o factor different for
different soil layers. To explain, consider a clay with f s = 5 and a sand layer
with fs = 1.2. The restriction is then f o ≤ 0.18 for the clay and f o ≤ 0.84 for the
sand. However in general much lower fo values are used anyhow. The user
can choose both fo and fL.

Examples

In the first example let us consider a single uniform soil layer where the
LTSR of each 1 m long pile segment is 500 kN (10 m circumference and 50
kPa unit shaft resistance). Figure 2 shows how in Options/Offshore the
“Friction Fatigue” option was activated with f o set to 0.01 and with a bottom
section factor fL = 0.0 (which means over a distance of 0*L li above the pile
toe the friction is constant and equal to LTSR). Figure 3 shows the
calculated resistance distribution for pile toe depths of 25, 50 and 75 m
(equivalent ot ½ Lli, Lli and 1.5 Lli since a limit length of Lli = 50 m had been
input in the S1 soil resistance table).

The shaft G/L was set to 0.2 corresponding to a setup factor of 5; the fully
reduced segment resistance is, therefore, 100 kN. The pile length was 100
m. The results plotted in Figure 3 show for the 1 m depth below mudline a
small resistance above the SRD, because the Lli is greater than the
penetration. For the deeper penetration of 50 and 75 m the resistance at 1
m is at the fully reduced value. Note that the bottom segment resistance is
never exactly equal to the full LTSR (in this case of f L = 0), because of the
finite pile segment length of 1 m (at 1 m above the bottom the resistance is
already reduced).

Figure 2: Friction Fatigue Option in the Offshore Wave Version of

GRLWEAP
 Resistance per1 m segment in kN
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
Depth below mudline in m

10

20

30

40

50

60

70
25 m depth 50 m depth
90
80 75 m Depth
100
Figure 3: Uniform soil, 3 different depths,
Lli=50m, fo=0.01

The next example is for a two layer situation. It was assumed that a 50 m
sand layer with fs = 1.25 overlies a clay layer with f s = 5. The G/L was,
therefore, set to 0.2. Lli was set to 50 m for both layers. The LTSR for each
sand segment was 250 kN; that of the clay again 500 kN. Figure 4 shows
that at a depth of 50 m, the pile is still fully embedded in sand and
experiences resistance values between slightly more than 200 kN and 250
kN (with fs=1.25 the fully reduced resistance is 250/1.25=200 kN). Note
that once the pile reaches full depth, the sand resistance is practically
completely reduced while the clay layer shows characteristics as per the
first example. While Figure 4 shows the result with an f L = 0 (resistance loss
begins at the very bottom), Figure 5 shows the results with a 5% unreduced
bottom section.
 Segment Resistance in kN
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
Depth Below Mudline in m

20

40 Depth = 50m
Depth = 75 m
Depth = 100 m
60

80

100

120

Figure 4: 100 m pile; 50 m sand with f s=1.25; over 50 m

clay with fs=5; Li=50m; fo =0.01; fL = 0.0
 Segment Resistance in kN
0 200 400 600
0
Depth Below Mudline in m

20
Depth (m)
100
40 Depth (m)
75

60

80

100

20

igure 5: 100 m pile; 50 m sand with f s=1.25; over 50 m clay with fs=5; Li=50m; fo =0.01; fL =
Relationship between standard and Friction Fatigue setup factors

Define the Friction Fatigue setup factor f sFf as the ratio of initial resistance
(near the bottom) to fully reduced resistance (Ll above the bottom).
Consider the following figure which is an example of a resistance
distribution for a Friction Fatigue setup factor of 4. It shows the resistance
distribution of over depth equal to the Limit Length. It can be shown that
the total skin friction, which is equal to the area between the resistance
distribution curve and the horizontal and vertical axes, is given by:

FS-Ff = x2 Ll +(x1/ α)(eLl - 1) (D12)

where x2 = 1/fs – fo; x1 = 1 – x2; and α = ln(fo / x1) / Ll.

The GRLWEAP shaft resistance over the same distance Ll is given by

FS-GW = LTSR / SRD = (finitial / fs) Ll (D13)

Percentage of Ll layer depth

Ratio of residual/initial resistance

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

Figure 6: Example of the friction fatigue factor (reduced/initial resistance)

vs. normalized depth assuming a Friction Fatigue setup factor fsFF=4.

Using the above formulas, we can now calculate for different shape factors
fo the Friction Fatigue setup factors which would yield the same total
Friction Fatigue shaft resistance as the standard GRLWEAP approach.
They are shown below both numerically and graphically. The resulting
setup factor conversions are shown in Figure 7 and Table 1. For example, if
fo = 0.001 (the curve farthest to the right) then to get the same total friction
in a layer (assuming the layer thickness and L l are the same – which is
usually not true and that is a severe limitation of these results) then a
 standard GRLWEAP setup factor of 3.14 corresponds to a Friction Fatigue
setup factor of 5.

Table 1: GW Standard Setup Factor vs Ff Setup Factors

Shape Factor (exponent), fo

Ff-Setup
0.001 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.075 0.1
F.

10.00 4.32 4.08 3.82 3.66 3.54 3.45 3.17 2.81 2.66 2.56

7.50 3.84 3.65 3.44 3.32 3.23 3.15 2.92 2.62 2.49 2.41

5.00 3.14 3.02 2.88 2.80 2.74 2.69 2.53 2.31 2.22 2.15

4.00 2.76 2.67 2.57 2.51 2.46 2.42 2.30 2.13 2.05 2.00

2.75 2.17 2.12 2.06 2.03 2.00 1.98 1.90 1.80 1.75 1.72

2.00 1.73 1.70 1.67 1.65 1.63 1.62 1.58 1.52 1.49 1.47

1.50 1.38 1.37 1.36 1.35 1.34 1.33 1.31 1.28 1.27 1.26

1.25 1.20 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.13

10.00
9.00
Ff Setup Factor

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Standard GRLWEAP Setup Factor
fo=0.001 0.002 0.004 0.006
0.008 0.01 0.02 0.05
0.075 0.1
Figure 7: Friction Fatigue setup factors which would give the same total
shaft resistance as the standard setup factors for Ll = pile toe depth.
 APPENDIX E: REFERENCES
Alm, T. and Hamre, L., (2001). Soil model for pile drivability predictions
based on CPT interpretation. Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, 2, Istanbul, 1297-1302.

API, American Petroleum Institute, (1993). “Recommended Practice for

Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Load and
Resistance Factor Design”, API Recommended Practice 2A-LRFD (RP 2A-
LRFD), First Edition, July 1, 1993. Reaffirmed 2003.

Blendy, M.M., (1979), "Rational Approach to Pile Foundation," Symposium

on Deep Foundations, ASCE National Convention.

Bowles, J.E. (1977). Foundation Analysis and Design. Second Edition,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 85-86.

Coyle, H.M., Bartoskewitz, R.E., and Berger, W.J., (1973), "Bearing

Capacity Prediction by Wave Equation Analysis - State of the Art," Texas
Transportation Institute, Research Report 125-8.

Fellenius, B.H. (1996). Basics of Foundation Design, a geotechnical

textbook and background to the UniSoft programs, BiTech Publishers Ltd.,
Richmond, B.C., Canada.

Forehand, P.W. and Reese, J.L., (1964), "Prediction of Pile Capacity by the
Wave Equation," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, Paper No. 3820, SM 2.

Goble, G.G., Likins, G.E., and Rausche, F., (1975), "Bearing Capacity of
Piles From Dynamic Measurements," Final Report, Department of Civil
Engineering, Case Western Reserve University.

Goble, G.G. and Rausche, F., (1976), "Wave Equation Analysis of Pile
Driving-WEAP Program," Volumes 1 through 4, FHWA #IP-76-14.1 through
#IP-76-14.4.

Goble, G.G. and Rausche, F., (1981), "Wave Equation Analyses of Pile
Driving-WEAP Program," Volumes 1 through 4, FHWA #IP-76-14.1 through
#IP-76-14.4.

Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. (1997), "Diesel Hammer

Modeling for Wave Equation Analyses," from Background Report of the
WEAP87 Program, Cleveland, Ohio.

Hannigan, P.J., Goble, G.G., Likins, G.E.,and Rausche, F., (2006). "Design
and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations". Vol. I and II; Nat. Highway
Institute, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation, Report No. FHWA-NHI-05-042; NHI Courses No. 132021
and 132022, Washington, D.C.
Heerema, E.P., (1980. Predicting pile drivability; Heather as an illustration
of the friction fatigue theory. Ground Engineering, 13(3), 15-37.

Hery, P., (1983), "Residual Stress Analysis in WEAP," Master's Thesis,

Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,
University of Colorado.

Hirsch, T.J.Jr., Carr, L., and Lowery, L.L.Jr., (1976), "Pile Driving Analysis
Wave Equation User's Manuals - TTI Program," Volumes 1 through 4,
FHWA #IP-76-13.1 through #IP-76-13.4.

Holeyman, A., Vanden Berghe, J.-F., and Charue, N. (eds.), 2002. Vibratory
pile driving and deep soil compaction – TRANSVIB2002. Proc. of the Intern.
Conference; A.A. Balkema, Lisse, Abingdon, Exton, Tokyo, ISBN 90 5809
5421 5.

Holloway, D.M., Clough, G.W., and Vesic, A.S., (1978), "The Effect of
Residual Driving Stresses on Pile Performance Under Axial Loads," OTC
3306.

Jaky, J. (1944). “Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest”. J. Soc. Hungarian

Architects & Engineers: 355-358.

Kulhawy, F.H., Jackson, C.S., & Mayne, P.W. (1989) “First-Order

Estimation of Ko in Sands and Clays”, Foundation Engineering: Current
Principles and Practices, Vol. 1, Ed. F. H. Kulhawy, ASCE, New York, 121-
134.

Kulhawy, F.H. & Mayne, P.W. (1991). “Relative Density, SPT & CPT
Interrelationships”, Calibration Chamber Testing, Ed. A. –B. Huang,
Elsevier, New York, 197-211.

Lowery, L.L., Hirsch, T.J.Jr., and Samson, C.H., (1967), "Pile Driving
Analysis - Simulation of Hammers, Cushions, Piles and Soils," Texas
Transportation Institute, Research Report 33-9.

PDCA (2001), “Recommended design specifications for driven bearing

piles”, Third edition, Pile Driving Contractors Association, PO Box 1429,
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602.

Rausche, F., and Klesney, A., (2007). Hammer Types, Efficiencies and
Models in GRLWEAP. Annual Int. Conf., PDCA, Nashville, TN, USA.

Rausche, F., Likins, G.E., Goble, G.G., and Miner, R., (1985), "The
Performance of Pile Driving Systems," Main Report, Volume 1 through 4,
FHWA Contract # DTFH61-82-C-00059.
Rausche, F., Liang, L., Allin, R., and Rancman, D., 2004. Applications and
Correlations of the Wave Equation Analysis Program GRLWEAP. 7 th Int.
Conf. on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Kuala Lumpur.

Rausche, F., Likins, G.E., and Goble, G.G., (1994), "A Rational and Usable
Wave Equation Soil Model Based on Field Test Correlation," Proceedings,
Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Rausche, F., Nagy, M., and Likins, G., (2008). “Mastering the Art of Pile
Testing”. Keynote lecture, The Eighth Int. Conf. on the Appl. of Stress Wave
Theory to Piles in Lisbon, Portugal.

Rausche, F, Nagy, M., Webster, S., and Liang, L., (2009), “CAPWAP and
Refined Wave Equation Analyses for Driveability and Capacity Assessment
of Offshore Pile Installations.”, Proc. of the ASME 28th Int. Conf. on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Eng., May 31-June 5, Honolulu, HI, USA. Paper No.
OMAE 2009-80163.

Robertson, P.K. & Campanella, R.G. (1983). “Interpretation of Cone

Penetration Tests: Sand”, Can. Geot. J., 20 (4), 718-733.

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Grieg, J. (1986). “Use

of Piezometer Cone Data.” Proceedings of In-Situ’86, ASCE Specialty
Conference, Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Special
Publication No. 6, Blacksburg, 1263-1280.

Samson, C.H., Hirsch, T.J.Jr., and Lowery, L.L., (1963), "Computer Study
for Dynamic Behavior of Piling," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Volume 89, No. ST4, Proc. Paper 3608.

Schmertmann, J. H. (1975). “Measurement of In-Situ Shear Strength”,

Proceedings of Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties,
ASCE, New York.

Schmertmann, J. H. (1978). Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test:

Performance and Design, FHWA-TS-78-209 (report), US Department of
Transportation, 145.

Skov, R. and Denver, H., (1988), "Time-Dependence of Bearing Capacity of

Piles," Proc. of the Third International Conference on the Application of
Stress-Wave Theory to Piles.

Smith, E.A.L., (1951), "Pile Driving Impact," Proceedings, Industrial

Computation Seminar, September 1950, International Business Machines
Corp., New York, N.Y., p. 44.

Smith, E.A.L., (1960), "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation," Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Volume 86.
Thendean, G., Rausche, F., Svinkin, M., and Likins, G.E., (1996), "Wave
Equation Correlation Studies," Presented at the Fifth International
Conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles in Orlando,
Florida.

Additional Recommended Reading

Coyle, H.M., and Gibson, G.C., (1970), "Empirical Damping Constants for
Sands and Clays," ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division.

Hussein, M., Likins G.E., and Rausche, F., (1988), "Testing Methods of
Driving Piles", Pile Buck Annual Handbook/Directory of Pile Driving,
Foundation and Marine Construction Techniques, Engineers, Contractors,
Manufacturers, Distributors and Supplies.

Hussein, M., Rausche, F., and Likins, G.E., (1988), "Wave Equation
Analysis of Pile Driving: Methodology and Performance," Presented at 6th
National Conference on Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, Orlando,
Florida.