Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GRLWEAP 2010 Background
GRLWEAP 2010 Background
Table of Contents
1. PREFACE ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 History of the Wave Equation Approach ............................................ 1
1.2 Program History................................................................................. 1
1.3 What’s New in GRLWEAP 2010 ........................................................ 3
1.4 The Wave Equation Approach ........................................................... 5
2. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE WAVE
EQUATION .................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Energy Transfer ................................................................................. 7
2.2 Preparation for a Bearing Graph Analysis ....................................... 12
2.3 Preparation for a Driveability Analysis ............................................. 13
2.4 Interpretation of Wave Equation Results ......................................... 14
2.5 Checking Wave Equation Results ................................................... 15
3. THE WEAP ANALYSIS MODELS ......................................................... 17
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 17
3.2 Hammer Details ............................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Working Principle of Liquid Injection Diesel Hammers .............. 17
3.2.2 Working Principle of Atomized Injection Diesel Hammers ......... 20
3.2.3 Working Principle of External Combustion Hammers ............... 20
3.2.4 Working Principle of Closed End or Double Acting Hammers ... 22
3.2.4.1 Closed End Diesel Hammers................................... 22
3.2.4.2 Double Acting External Combustion Hammers ...... 22
3.2.5 Drop Hammers .......................................................................... 23
3.2.6 Vibratory Hammers ................................................................... 25
3.2.6.1 Working Principle ................................................... 25
3.2.6.2 Limitations of Vibratory Hammer Analysis ............ 26
3.2.6.3 Preliminary Recommendations for Vibratory
Hammer Analyses ............................................................... 27
3.3 Basic Hammer Models..................................................................... 28
3.3.1 External Combustion Hammers ................................................ 29
3.3.1.1 The Ram of EC Hammers......................................... 29
Since the early 1950's, when E.A.L. Smith introduced the wave equation
concept, this method of dynamic pile analysis has become increasingly
popular and its use widespread. Computer programs were prepared by
many private corporations as well as by the U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA
supported work when both the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) and the
WEAP programs were published (Hirsch, et al. (1976) and Goble, et al.
(1976)) and when the WEAP program was first updated (Goble, et al.
(1981)).
The 1998 Windows Version and the present version of GRLWEAP basically
follow the 1993 concept in that they divide the program into four distinctly
This section lists the significant features that have been added recently to
the GRLWEAP program along with program enhancements. In addition to
these changes, PDI has been continuously updating the hammer data file
which along with update files can be downloaded from our website
(www.pile.com).
(a) a CPT method for which the data has to be provided in the
form of a three column text file and
The graphics of the main input form shows the pile batter.
The Area Calculator now offers for pipe pile input of either outside
diameter and wall thickness or outside diameter and inside diameter.
The reset button in D-table input form has been improved to allow
users to reset depths considering both depth increment and soil
layers.
The final penetration depth now can be modified in the main input
form (before it was inactive and showed the last depth entered in
the D-table). This penetration is now used to initialize the D-table.
For Inspector Chart analysis, the stroke increments were rounded off to
either 0.5 ft or 1 ft or 0.25 m or 0.5 m depending on the starting stroke
value.
In the Numerical Output, the format for SI output has been changed for
2
steel piles with a cross sectional area ≥ 1 m so that certain outputs will now
be shown in MN and MN/mm rather than kN and kN/mm. The bearing
graph output now includes additional information such as pressure (diesel),
coefficient of restitution of pile cushions (concrete piles) or hammer
cushions (steel piles), and capacity (Inspector’s Charts);
The physical property table for pile, hammer cushion and pile cushion
material has been combined and updated.
A copy/paste feature has been added to the pile profile form (P1) to allow
creation/modification of pile input from other programs.
The energy transferred by the hammer to the pile for certain pile
penetration and associated capacity values.
The pile velocity and displacements along the pile for certain pile
penetration and associated capacity values.
The present report does not replace previously published literature. Certain
basic features of wave equation programs will not be discussed. On the
other hand, this volume will elaborate on those details which experience
has shown to be the most difficult to comprehend. Among references useful
to the engineer involved in the analysis of impact pile driving are Smith
(1951 and 1960), describing the early wave equation approach, Samson et
al. (1963), Forehand and Reese (1964), Lowery et al. (1967) and Coyle et
al. (1973), as representative publications of the work performed at the TTI.
It should be pointed out that the thorough checking of the original 1976
WEAP code would not have been possible without the research work
performed at Case Institute of Technology (now known as the Case School
of Engineering at Case Western Reserve University) as reported by Goble,
et al. (1975). Additional developmental work conducted by the private
practice of the authors, as well as studies done by others, e.g. Blendy,
(1979), supplied the necessary correlation data. In addition, results from an
FHWA-sponsored study, "The Performance of Pile Driving Systems" by
Rausche, et al. (1985) were used in the development of WEAP. Other
relevant papers are referenced throughout this text and are listed in
Appendix E. Program performance has been evaluated by Thendean, et al.
(1996) and Rausche et al. (2004).
The pile driving process readily provides information regarding the soil
resistance: the smaller the permanent set, s, of a pile under a hammer blow
with kinetic energy, Ek, the greater the soil resistance, Ru, which opposes
the pile penetration. This concept has been used for well over one hundred
years in the so-called dynamic or energy formulas, (the most commonly
used one in the U.S. is the Engineering News Formula). Note that Ek is the
kinetic energy of the ram immediately preceding ram impact and that R u is
the ultimate pile capacity, i.e., the maximum load that the pile can bear
before it experiences large settlement due to soil failure. Although
GRLWEAP does not directly work with an energy approach, these basic
principles still apply and should be discussed.
Es = Ru s (2.1)
In this equation Eds, Epl and Esl are quantities of energy lost in the driving
system, pile and soil, respectively. However, even E k is not readily known.
Generally, for modern hammers a "rated energy", Er, is given by the
manufacturer. Exceptions are hammers with internal impact velocity
measurement device which display on a control panel the energy of the ram
shortly before impact. Using the hammer efficiency, eh, one computes:
Ek = eh Er (2.3)
Ek - Eds = ed eh Er (2.4)
Assuming Er to be known, an estimate of ed, eh, Epl, and Esl would yield the
permanent set, s, given Ru or vice versa Ru given s. The set, s, may be
computed from Ru before a pile is driven. The blow count, Bc, is the inverse
of s. Plotting the ultimate capacity vs. the blow count leads to the so-called
Bearing Graph. An example of two bearing graphs from different energy
formulas are shown in Figure 2.2.
Unfortunately, estimating the energy lost in pile and soil and estimating the
efficiencies of driving system and hammer are not easy tasks. The wave
equation approach differs from the energy formula primarily in the
evaluation of ed, Epl, and Esl. These losses are now computed by
mathematically modeling the driving system, pile, and soil. However, for
4500
4000
3500
Capacity in kN
3000
2500 Ru-Gates
2000 ENR - inferred
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20
Blows /25 mm
Figure 2.2: Bearing graphs from two different dynamic formulas
For calculating the ed (losses in the driving system) effect, the wave
equation requires that stiffness values and coefficients of restitution of the
cushions and the weight of the helmet are known. For calculating E pl the
elastic modulus, length, specific weight of the pile and a coefficient of
restitution of the pile top are considered. The soil losses, E sl, are computed
by considering both a soil stiffness and a soil damping factor.
The engineer may require that the pile be driven to a minimum blow count
taken from the Bearing Graph to assure that the corresponding minimum
ultimate capacity, Ru has been obtained. In this way, the wave equation
result is used to establish a driving criterion. On the other hand, during pile
driving the blow count, Bc, may be observed and Ru computed. This
process may be considered a dynamic pile test. However, it is not a very
thorough test because many analysis parameters have been estimated.
However, once a dynamic pile test has been conducted and the estimated
quantities have been verified, the resulting analysis is called a Refined
Wave Equation und its results are then more reliable.
Pile Model
Stroke in m
1.20
Stroke (m)
0.90
0.60
0.30
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Res . Shaft =
Blow Count (blows /.25m ) (Proportional
Blow Count
Finally, a word about the term "wave equation", this term refers to a partial
differential equation. Fortunately, it is unnecessary for the piling engineer to
solve this equation; this is done in an approximate manner by means of
Smith’s lumped mass model. However, the important contribution of Smith
was not solving the wave equation, but devising a complete analysis
procedure including recommendations for hammer, driving system, and pile
and soil parameters.
GRLWEAP has been expanded to include not only the basic wave equation
analysis but additional tools such static soils analyses and even a static pile
bending analysis for offshore piles. It is important to remember, however,
that these additional routines are only accessories to a dynamic analysis.
GRLWEAP has not been devised to design a pile. Its main task is to
calculate blow count and dynamic stresses given an assumed or calculated
ultimate bearing capacity value.
Rur = Qd FS
Rur = (1 / φ) Σfi Qi
Submit all of this data for a wave equation analysis. Run the
analysis using Rur as well as other Ru values so that a curve can
be plotted with Ru being a function of the calculated blow count.
The following steps are required for a very basic driveability analysis.
For the soil types of the various layers, determine the appropriate
soil setup factors, fs (i.e., the factor with which the end of driving
capacity has to multiplied to find the long term pile capacity).
Complete the input and perform the analysis for various pile
penetrations.
If the predicted blow count at Rur is very low (e.g., less than 24
blows/ft (80 blows/m or greater than 12 mm set per blow),
construction control with a blow count driving criterion may be
inaccurate, and it is recommended to re-analyze with a reduced
hammer energy or a less powerful hammer.
If blow count is low, but tension stresses are too high for concrete
piles, either increase the pile cushion thickness, decrease the
stroke or use a hammer with a heavier ram and then re-analyze.
If blow count is high and tension stresses are also too high for
concrete piles it may be necessary to choose a hammer with
greater ram weight and then re-analyze.
If both blow count and stresses are excessive, increase pile cross
sectional area if possible or use a higher strength pile material and
then re-analyze.
There are many potential error sources. It is the engineer's duty to assure
that simulation and actual field conditions are in agreement.
The first check must be on the actual pile size, length and material.
The hammer type must be checked and even though the data is
taken from the GRLWEAP hammer data file, the numerical output
must be checked to assure that the hammer data analyzed
corresponds to the system specified. Also, during driving it must
be confirmed that the hammer runs according to both the analysis
parameters and the manufacturer's specifications.
Vibratory hammers
All except the diesel and vibratory hammers are called external combustion
hammers. Their basic models are practically identical, however, their
efficiencies vary. Diesel hammers are Internal Combustion Hammers.
Normally hammers are thought to act at the pile top, however, certain
external combustion hammers can also drive a pile at an intermediate pile
point or at the bottom. The offshore version of GRLWEAP provides such a
feature as an option.
When the ram collides with the impact block (Figure 3.2.1c), the
trapped air is compressed to a final volume, V f, which is usually
equivalent to the volume of the hammer's combustion chamber.
The fuel is splattered by the impact into this combustion chamber,
and combusts after a short delay (Figure 3.2.1d).
The so-called combustion delay is due to the time required for the
fuel to mix with the hot air and to ignite. More volatile fuels might
have a shorter combustion delay than heavier ones. Combustion
occurring before impact is called preignition (it can be modeled in
GRLWEAP with a negative combustion delay) and can be caused
by the wrong fuel type or an overheated hammer. In hard driving,
severe preignition is usually undesirable, as it may reduce the
velocity of the ram (and thus the ram’s energy) prior to and
cushioning the impact.
During impact, the impact block, hammer cushion and pile top are
rapidly driven downward leaving the cylinder with no support and
letting it descend by gravity.
Diesel hammers carry their own source of energy in a fuel tank attached
directly to the hammer. All other hammers utilize an external engine or
device to create mechanical energy. This energy is then transferred to the
hammer either by means of hoses carrying steam (steam hammer),
compressed air (air hammer), pressurized hydraulic fluid (hydraulic
hammer) or a hoist and rope (drop hammer).
Closed end or double acting hammers operate at a higher blow rate than
open or single acting units. The higher frequency of impacts is
accomplished by the exertion of a downward force on the ram during its
descent. For closed end diesels, this force is passively created by air
trapped between the top of the ram and the closed cylinder top. For ECH
the ram stroke may be limited by either active (motive fluid) or passive
pressure.
Closed end diesel hammers are very similar to open end diesels, except for
the addition of a Bounce Chamber at the top of the cylinder. The bounce
chamber has ports which, when open, allow the pressure inside the
chamber to equalize with atmospheric pressure. As the ram moves toward
the cylinder top, it passes these ports and closes them. Once these ports
are closed, the pressure in the bounce chamber increases rapidly, slows
the ram’s upward motion, and prevents a metal to metal impact between
ram and cylinder top. The bounce chamber pressure can only increase
until it is in balance with the weight of the cylinder, called the Reaction
Weight. If the ram still has an upwards velocity, uplift of the entire cylinder
will result. In the field, this uplifting cannot be tolerated as it can lead both to
an unstable driving condition and to the destruction of the hammer. For this
reason the fuel amount, and hence maximum combustion chamber
pressure, has to be reduced such that there is only a very slight "lift off" or
none at all. Figure 3.2.4.1 shows one particular type of closed end diesel
hammer in various phases of operation. In order to modify the ram
deceleration and acceleration over time, some closed end diesel models
have a compression tank added to the upper cylinder; the portion of the
cylinder between the tank ports and cylinder top is then referred to as a
Safety Chamber.
The analysis of the ECH double acting hammer type does not significantly
differ from single acting units. In fact, for ECH, GRLWEAP works with an
For ECH the downward force on the ram is often created by active
pressure. In that case, under hard driving conditions, the hammer assembly
tends to uplift which leads to unstable driving conditions. The operator will
then reduce the pressure which in turn leads to a reduced impact energy.
This is the main reason why double acting air/steam/hydraulic hammers
have lower GRLWEAP efficiencies than their single acting counterparts.
For modern power assisted ECH with passive pressures above the ram
(similar to the compressed air above the piston of a closed-ended diesel
hammer), uplift is normally avoided and such hammers can therefore be
analyzed with higher efficiencies.
Traditional double acting air/steam hammers are designed with either the
truly double acting mechanism which maintains full active pressure
throughout the downstroke. The other system, the differential hammer, is
designed such that the initially full pressure expands and reduces during
the downstroke. The differential hammer uses less motive fluid; however,
either system achieves high blow rates such as 120 impacts per minute,
Rausche, et al., (1985). Obviously, for these hammers, exact valve timing
becomes even more important for full energy development than for single
acting hammers which run at half this rate.
The classic drop hammer is lifted with a hoist and rope and then released.
If the ram is freely released (which is rarely the case), one can speak of a
free fall hammer. If, however, the ram is released by releasing the brake of
the hoist and letting the winch unspool, then significant losses of energy
must be expected due to rope friction and winch inertia and possible early
engaging of the brake by an operator who does not want to risk that the ram
falls off the pile after impact.
Therefore, the variation of the vibratory force, F V, over time, t, has the form:
It is well recognized by the profession (see also Holeyman, 2002) that the
analysis of vibratory pile driving is difficult at best. The main reason is the
strong effect that vibratory pile motion has on the effective soil stresses and
thus the soil resistance. As a result, piles in cohesionless soils, in particular
those that are submerged, may lose up to 95% of their shaft resistance and
50% of their end bearing. On the other hand, for cohesive soils there may
be no resistance losses at all during vibratory driving.
Unfortunately, there are only few dynamic test results available that can
quantify these soil resistance changes and for that reason, GRLWEAP does
not include a method that calculates the resistance losses automatically. In
fact, the few pile tests that were conducted first under a vibratory hammer
and immediately thereafter under an impact hammer did not indicate soil
resistance values of a significantly different magnitude under these two
hammer types.
The hammer model allows for the specification of a start-up time. It may be
assumed that during this time the hammer frequency increases linearly with
time from zero to the specified value. As a consequence, the vibratory
force increases quadratically (see Eq. 3.1) during that time. Note, however,
that the feared start-up, low frequency resonance in the soil (which may
cause damage to nearby structures) cannot be observed in the results of
the wave equation calculation since the soil is treated as for the standard
Smith analysis, i.e. without mass.
Note: Shaft resistance does not necessarily slow down penetration, but
may actually improve driveability by keeping a downward pressure
on the pile bottom during the upward motion of the vibration cycle.
The user should therefore not be surprised if penetration times
decrease for higher capacities under certain circumstances.
e. Soil setup factors may be quite different for impact and vibratory
driving. In cohesionless soils the shaft resistance may lose a
substantial amount of resistance and, for example, a setup factor
of 5 would be reasonable in a submerged sand (typically 1 or 1.2
for impact driving). On the other hand, for highly plastic cohesive
soils, not much resistance may be lost and the setup factor may be
as low as 1.0 for vibratory driving (often set to 2 for impact driving).
On the other hand soft clays or any material which tends to
behave in a thixotropic manner, may lose as much resistance as
for impact driving and should be considered with a higher setup
factor.
The ram is the simplest and most important hammer component. For small
hammers a single mass element is often sufficient as its model. For
slender rams as encountered for example in modern hydraulic units, more
than one ram segment are necessary for a realistic simulation. Ram
segments should be less than 3 ft or 1 m long; if they are very short
numerical problems may be created because the critical time increment
would become very small.
With m being the number of ram segments, each segment, i, has a weight:
W ri = γi Ai ΔLi (3.3)
where γi, Ai and ΔLi are the specific weight, cross sectional area and length
of each ram segment I.
where Ei is the elastic modulus of the ram. Note that γi, Ai, and Ei may
need to be averaged over length ΔLi.
The bottom spring has an infinite slack, i.e. it is not possible to take any
tension. This bottom spring is combined with the hammer cushion spring
(note that a striker plate is not separately modeled; rather its mass has to
be considered in the helmet mass.
The combined model of the bottom (m-th) ram spring and the spring below
it must allow for separations and deformation caused by impact. For that
reason, a slack, dst (distance which spring extends at zero tension force), a
"round out" deformation, dsc, and a coefficient of restitution, c s, are used to
describe its behavior. A description of the characteristics of springs with
slacks is given in Section 3.6.
Liquid Fuel Injection is the most common design principle for diesel
hammers. The process is as follows (see Figures 3.3.3.1a and 3.3.3.1b):
Shortly after the ports are closed, fuel is injected into the chamber
under low pressure, i.e. in liquid form. The liquid fuel collects on
top of the impact block.
The ram strikes the impact block, thereby causing the fuel to be
atomized. Pressure remains constant while the ram is in contact
with the impact block and before ignition starts.
Vi = Vf + Ac hc (3.5)
ur = -hc (3.6)
Step B: The ram has descended below the ports and the volume of the
chamber is:
where vr and vib are the ram and impact block velocity,
respectively. Actually, the time ti is not exactly equal to the time
until impact, primarily because vr changes under the effect of both
gravity and gas pressure. However, for cases of preignition,
where combustion starts before impact, this prediction is more
accurate than other available information. For preignition, the
combustion delay, td, is negative and combustion will start when ti
≤ td. Normally, the combustion delay is positive and between 0.5
and 2 ms.
Step E: After combustion has started (the combustion delay has occurred),
two pressures are calculated. The first is the compression
pressure, Pc, as in Step B with volume Vi and Pa as the reference;
the second is the expansion pressure:
With tcd being the combustion duration and td < tc < td + tcd
where tc is the time of start of combustion, the final combustion
pressure is calculated from Pe and Pc by linear interpolation.
Normally, the combustion duration is between 0.5 and 2 ms.
Step G: The ports are reached, the gage pressure returns to zero. In
summary, for liquid fuel injection the following nine quantities are
used to compute the diesel hammer pressures.
The most important parameter is the maximum pressure, P max. Ideally, this
value would be determined by measurement. However, as discussed, Pmax
varies depending on a variety of conditions such as ambient temperature,
altitude, fuel type, soil resistance, driving system properties, pile flexibility,
hammer state of maintenance, etc. In addition, high frequency pressure
waves in the chamber superimposed to the average pressure value make
interpretation of pressure measurements difficult. Furthermore, testing all
diesel hammers under controlled conditions would be prohibitively
complicated and expensive. Therefore, instead of measurements, the P max
values are iteratively computed such that the rated stroke is achieved by
the hammer model under test conditions. The computational procedure
followed for many of the hammers contained in the 2002 and later hammer
data file is described in Appendix B2.
When the ram is at a certain, small distance from the impact block,
atomized fuel is injected into the chamber. This ram position can
be computed from the "initial combustion volume", V ci. The fuel
starts to burn and reaches a maximum pressure level at the time
of impact (smallest volume or “chamber volume”).
After impact, the ram rises and combustion ends, when the ram
has reached a certain distance from the impact block. Until the
corresponding final combustion volume, Vce, is reached the
pressure stays constant at Pmax.
The ram rises further allowing the gases to expand and pressures
to decrease until it clears the exhaust ports and the pressure in the
chamber returns to the atmospheric level.
Step E: The pressure stays constant at Pmax until the volume Vce has been
exceeded. At that point, both reference pressure and volume are
set to Pmax and Vce, respectively.
As the ram descends, a closed end hammer not only falls under gravity but
also experiences a downward pressure. For a double, differential or
compound acting ECH, GRLWEAP does not differentiate as to how the ram
has obtained its impact velocity and it is not necessary to deal with the
active downward pressure. Instead of working with the actual stroke, it is
therefore necessary to calculate an equivalent stroke:
he = Er/W r (3.12)
where Er is the hammer's rated energy and W r is the weight of the ram.
If a double acting ECH is run at a pressure less than rated, then the energy
provided by the pressure is proportionally lower. Given the portion of the
energy that is provided by the pressure, f ep, and the ratio of actual to rated
pressure, rap, the reduced equivalent stroke becomes:
For inclined pile driving the same stroke reduction consideration has to be
made as for single acting hammers.
For double acting diesels, the force on the ram top is computed to
determine (a) the hammer blow rate, (b) the hammer-pile-soil behavior
during the precompression phase, and (c) the necessary fuel reduction to
avoid uplift.
Pb = Pa (Vbi/Vb)cbp - Pa (3.14a)
with hb being the "compressive stroke" of the bounce chamber, i.e., the
distance from the bounce chamber ports to the top of the cylinder. A rt is the
cross sectional area of the ram top and Vct is the compression tank volume.
Pu = W c/Art (3.15)
and by substituting Pu into Eq. (3.14a) for Pb, the volume and therefore
position of the ram at uplift is easily calculated from Eq. (3.15).
Note that the closed end diesel hammer has a reduced effective stroke
when used on an inclined pile. The user therefore should not only reduce
the reaction weight (Options/Hammer parameters), the hammer
gravitational acceleration, the hammer efficiency (see Help Table), but also
the pressure such that the maximum calculated stroke does not exceed the
maximum geometric stroke times the cosine of the inclination angle.
with
me = the sum of all eccentric masses,
re = the radius of the center of gravity of the eccentric masses
from their center of rotation
The hammer model also considers a spring constant for the connecting
spring between upper and lower mass. A dashpot constant can be specified
for a dashpot in parallel with the connecting spring impact (as for the
hammer cushion discussed in Section 3.4, Eq. 3.17). A clamp (sometimes
also called jaws) weight, specified in the data input, is added to the weight
of the oscillator.
During the start-up time period the frequency of the hammer is linearly
increased with time in GRLWEAP. As a result the vibratory force increases
during that time period quadratically. In general, the start up time period
analysis has little effect on the final results. It may be used for special
studies. It cannot, however, be expected that the realistic resonance effects
can be detected with a variable frequency analysis, because of the
simplified soil resistance analysis according to Smith.
The user can modify the frequency for vibratory hammers in the same way
in which the stroke can be modified for impact hammers. Note, that
although the highest (rated) frequency provides for the highest forces, the
pile may actually penetrate easier at lower frequencies and it is, therefore,
recommended to check the penetration times for a variety of frequencies.
However, it may not be wise to reduce the frequency to values less than 10
Hz where it is known to cause undesirable resonance. Also, for very low
frequencies it may be necessary to increase the analysis time (in General
Options/Numerical) so that sufficiently many vibration cycles are analyzed.
A check of the graphical variable vs time output may be helpful in assuring
proper convergence.
Since 2002, GRLWEAP does not include a working model of the Hydroblok.
For further information, please contact PDI.
Drop hammers are not very easily standardized because of their many
possible configurations. There are two main categories, (a) the drop
hammer which is freely released and (b) the drop hammer which has to
unspool a winch. Obviously in the latter case higher energy losses must be
expected not only because of the inertia of the winch but also because the
operator then tends to catch the ram just before impact so as to maintain
stability. In both cases the hammer stroke is probably not very well known.
These uncertainties have to be covered by the hammer efficiency. The
remaining model is simply that of an external combustion hammer.
For the diesel hammer, appreciable forces are exerted onto the pile before
impact due to air compression in the cylinder. In general, the pile already
has a noticeable velocity prior to ram impact and soil resistance is
activated. Therefore it is necessary to start the analysis of diesel hammers
at the time of port closure.
It has been stated earlier that energy losses in the hammer are easily
considered using the hammer efficiency, e h, and certain rules of assigning
efficiency values have been set up. For hammers with impact velocity
monitoring, reasonable results are achieved with an efficiency eh = 0.95 if
the monitored energy is the basis for the analysis. Obviously, most losses,
such as friction, have been considered for these hammers by the impact
velocity measurement. Only losses occurring during the impact event itself
(e.g. due to hammer-pile misalignment) have to be considered. For
vibratory hammers, the efficiency concept is not strictly applicable.
However, in order to allow for some reduction of the output force, relative to
the theoretical value, an efficiency multiplier (less than or equal to 1.0) may
be applied to the calculated centrifugal force.
The following efficiency values have been included in the hammer models
in the GRLWEAP hammer data file. It is recommended that the analyzing
engineer carefully review and modify these efficiency values, if
measurements so indicate. Furthermore, because of the uncertainty of
actual hammer behavior it is recommended to analyze (a) conservatively for
stresses at a somewhat higher efficiency than normal or (b) conservatively
for bearing capacities and/or blow counts with a slighlty lower efficiency). A
± 0.1 variation would be reasonable (even for a 0.95 efficiency, since values
above 1.0 have occasionally been observed, maybe due to overstroking.
The following recommendations for drop hammer efficiencies are just that
eh = 0.67 for single acting air/steam hammers and for drop hammers
with free release
The efficiencies in the GRLWEAP hammer data file have been chosen with
no consideration of hammer manufacturer. Hammer performance
differences should be individually accounted for by the user. For hydraulic
hammers, a more uniform rating has been adopted by combining the free-
fall hydraulic hammer category of pre-2002 versions with the category of
other modern hydraulic hammers without impact velocity measurements.
Hammers which optionally can be equipped with impact velocity monitoring
sensors, have been given a 0.8 efficiency as though they are not equipped
with that feature. In that case, the user is responsible for modifying the
efficiency. In fact, under all circumstances, it is the user’s responsibility to
check all hammer data of the GRLWEAP hammer data file prior to using it.
Since 2010 GRLWEAP does provide for an input of the pile inclination
(Options/ Pile Parameters/ Batter-Inclination), and gives the analyst
immediate recommendations which are also given in the On-line Help.
However, in any case, depending on the hammer type, the user has to be
aware of and consider one or more of the following energy losses and
model adjustments:
The input of the static soil column weight requires the following input
(Figure 3.3.11.1).
In the calculation, the total plug soil weight is evenly distributed among the
pile segments which are located between segments No. i and N when
performing the static equilibrium analysis prior to the dynamic analysis.
In this notation, i is the segment where the soil column begins and N is the
bottom segment number. The soil column, LC, is assumed to begin at either
LS or Lp (pile penetration), whichever is smaller. The total plug weight is
WP = AS γS LC .
For systems without helmet mass, the ram’s bottom spring acts directly on
the pile top spring for ECH. For diesel hammers, the pile top spring is
combined in series with the hammer cushion spring (if any) and/or the
impact block spring. Note that earlier versions of GRLWEAP required a
helmet mass for diesel hammers. Since 2002 this requirement has been
removed, because diesel hammers have now been introduced (e.g., “Direct
Drive” hammers) whose impact block strikes the pile directly.
The driving system model also contains a dashpot in parallel with the
hammer cushion spring. Its damping constant is computed from:
½
cdh = 1/50 cdhi (krma) (3.17)
The pile model consists of springs, masses, and dashpots (see Figure 3.5).
The pile is divided into N segments whose lengths are given by:
Li = αiL (3.18)
The program chooses the number N such that approximately 1 m long pile
segments result. (It is sometimes reasonable to a user larger N number for
increased accuracy of calculation. For example, for uncushioned hammers,
an N producing 0.1 m segment lengths has already been successfully tried
where measured records had to be matched.)
In Eq. 3.18 L is the total pile length and αi is a multiplier which is normalized
such that:
Ordinarily, the αi values are all assumed to be equal to 1/N by the program,
however, the user may modify these values (Options/ Pile Segment Input).
Weights of pile masses and their stiffness values are calculated as for rams
(Eq. 3.3 and 3.4).
The gravity values are used in an equilibrium analysis, which precedes the
dynamic analysis to calculate initial soil and pile deformations and forces.
For the hammer, the ram is not included in this analysis since it is expected
that the ram is not supported by the pile prior to impact. Note that a
reduction of pile and/or hammer gravity should be considered for battered
and underwater pile driving.
with cdpi being a non-dimensionalized input number and EA/c being the
impedance of the pile top; cdp is the same for all pile segments regardless of
segment length or impedance. For piles with greatly varying cross sectional
or material properties, it is suggested that comparison runs be made with
different cdpi values to test the sensitivity of the solution to pile damping.
(The input can be made in General Options / Damping).
Figure 3.5: Wave Equation Models for Various Hammer TypesThe pile
data input also contains additional parameters which are not used for the
generation of the pile model. These values include:
Pile size and Pile type, both of which are used for the assignment
of pile toe quakes and for finding in the data base the appropriate
manufacturer’s recommended driving system (which is a function
of hammer model, pile type and pile size).
For the extension of the spring, GRLWEAP applies the same rounding
procedure. However, the spring stiffness begins to increase from zero only
after the spring has extended beyond the slack distance, d sl. Within this
separation distance, the spring force is always zero.
For springs, which should not take any tension at all, the user should set d sl
to an arbitrarily large value such as 9 ft or 99 mm. For all other interface
springs, experience shows that a 0.01 ft or 3 mm (default) value is
adequate. Attempts to match measurement results have shown that only
very soft materials, such as a plywood cushion, require a larger than the
default round-out value. In this way, cushion, pile top, and splice forces can
be calculated with the same algorithm. Because of the rounding feature,
numerical stability of the analysis of splice piling is assured. Note that this
rounded-out splice model is always used in GRLWEAP, when d sl > 0.
The splice model is only needed for those splices which allow for some
forceless deformation (slack). For example, mechanical splices of concrete
piles fall in this category while welded splices of steel piles do not. Also a
can splice (has no tension connection at all) could be modeled with the
splice model. As an example, the can splice, which usually includes a thin
plywood sheet, could be modeled with
dsc = 3 mm (0.01 ft), default
dsl = 99 mm (9 ft), an arbitrarily large number for an
unlimited extension, and
ca = 0.5 (for wood)
and
The static shaft resistance and end bearing values, Rui, added together
make up the ultimate capacity of the pile, R ult. For the bearing graph
analysis it is customary to choose 10 different Rult values, one of them
usually equal to the expected or required R ult. Thus, in a bearing graph
analysis, the static geotechnical analysis only serves to determine how
many percent of Rult are expected to act along the shaft and how the shaft
resistance is distributed along the pile. Also, the end bearing percentage is
found in that manner since it is the difference between shaft resistance and
total resistance. Of course, it is wise to make a reasonably accurate static
geotechnical analysis prior to the dynamic analysis, not only to find a
meaningful resistance distribution, but also to determine the most likely
penetration where the required capacity will be obtained. Please note that
these static formula methods (such as ST, SA, CPT and API) generally
calculate a long term resistance while at the end of driving both a different
resistance distribution and total capacity must be expected due to the
dynamic effects on the resistance (the reverse effects of setup and
relaxation). This long term capacity would correspond to a restrike situation.
To be strictly correct, therefore, a so-called SRD (Static Resistance to
Driving) analysis would have to be performed as it is usually done for a
Driveability analysis.
While the Rui values are practically assumed to construct a bearing graph
(which then serves to find a capacity given an observed blow count), the
driveability requires that an accurate static analysis is performed for each
depth where an analysis is to be performed. This process is discussed in
detail in Section 3.12.2.
Shaft quakes have been found to vary little and clear relationships between
soil type and shaft quake or pile size and shaft quake have not been
established. A 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) shaft quake is reasonable and generally
accepted. Toe quakes, on the other hand, can vary widely. In general,
hard soils or rock are stiffer and the toe quake (the inverse of the toe
resistance stiffness) is therefore smaller than in softer soils. Furthermore,
displacement piles such as a concrete or closed ended pipe piles require
much larger displacements to activate the ultimate toe resistance than non-
displacements piles. The reason is that activating the ultimate capacity then
requires a much larger pile toe penetration, often leading to pile size
dependent failure criteria (e.g., D/30 or D/10). The GRLWEAP toe quake
recommendation similarly expresses its magnitude in terms of a function of
pile diameter (size), D. For very dense or hard soils the recommendation is
For bearing graphs, a more detailed though rarely used input mode is also
available allowing for specification of different shaft quakes for each pile
segment. See Options/ Soil Parameters/ Soil Segment Damping/ Quake/
Individual Damping Input for Each Segment. Activating the shaft quake
input in this window, however, requires that first the static resistance
distribution is entered individually for each segment, after choosing
“Detailed Resistance Distribution” in the resistance distribution drop down
menu.
where Rdi is the damping resistance force and j si, vi and Rsi are the Smith
damping factor, the pile segment velocity, and the static resistance force, all
at segment i, respectively. Smith's damping factor has units of time over
length. Even though more than half a century has passed since Smith
developed this model, today we are still recommending the same basic
factors for damping along the shaft, i.e., 0.15 s/m (0.05 s/ft) for sands and
0.65 s/m (0.2 s/ft) for clays. Different values are used where measurements
have been made or in mixed soils. Only for toe damping recommendation
changed to 0.5 s/m (0.15 s/ft) for all soil types (see also 3.7.2.3).
The second choice is called Smith viscous damping and it replaces the term
|Rsi| in Eq. 3.22 by Rui, i.e the ultimate capacity value which, like j si, is a
constant. Thus Eq. 3.23 expresses a linear viscous damping model.
Note: The following three extensions of the damping model are usually
reserved for research and require matching with measurements for
successful implementation; they can be chosen in Options/ General
Options/ Damping.
Here jci is the Case (Institute of Technology) damping factor. Note that the
bracketed expression on the right hand side of Eq. 3.24, i.e. the square root
of the product of segment stiffness and mass, is equivalent to the
impedance of the pile segment (Young's Modulus, E, times the cross
sectional area, A, divided by wave speed, c). This approach produces the
½
same linear damping as the Smith-viscous one if jci = jsi Rui / (kpimpi) .
where jgi is the Gibson damping factor with units of time over length to the
1/n power where n is an exponent, typically 0.2. Because of numerical
problems with this approach, another damping equation was proposed by
Rausche, et al., (1994):
n
Rdi = Rai jRi vi (vi/ vxi) (3.26)
where jRi is the Rausche damping (also with units of time over length to the
1/n power), vxi is the maximum pile velocity and Rai is the maximum
activated static resistance value of segment i. Both vxi and Rai are values
that have occurred prior to or at the time of calculation of damping. After v xi
and Rai have reached their maxima, Rdi is essentially linearly viscous.
Smith’s approach varies damping forces along the shaft in two ways: it
allows for different damping factors for different soil layers with cohesive
materials getting a higher and granular soils a lower damping factor.
Secondly, by making the damping force also a function of static resistance,
a higher static resistance will also produce higher damping given the same
damping factor and velocity.
In standard bearing graph analyses which are normally done with either
Smith or Smith-Viscous damping factors, we are usually a bit careless
merely choosing a constant damping factor for the shaft. This shaft
damping factor should be a weighted average over the shaft of the pile,
weighted with respect to static soil resistance magnitudes. The static
geotechnical analysis options (SA, ST, CPT and API) automatically perform
this averaging.
For bearing graphs, a more detailed though rarely used input mode is also
available allowing for specification of different damping factors for each pile
segment. See Options/ Soil Parameters/ Soil Segment Damping/ Quake/
Individual Damping Input for Each Segment.
In a driveability analysis, the damping factors are chosen for each layer
according to their soil type. The static geotechnical analysis options (SA,
ST, CPT and API) help select these values and automatically enter them in
the resistance distribution table (S1).
For Case Damping the standard input also consists of one shaft and one
toe damping factor. After multiplication with the impedance (conversion of a
non-dimensional to a viscous damping factor), the total skin damping factor
is distributed among the pile segments in proportion to the static resistance.
Damping factors would be quite different for any other type of damping
approach; in other words, changing the damping definition must be
accompanied by appropriate changes in damping factors. Generally,
applicable damping factor recommendations are only available for Smith
damping.
For mixed soils or silts an average value also has to be chosen. For
example, the shaft damping factor for a soil consisting of clayey silt, a value
of 0.5 s/m (0.15 s/ft) may be chosen which is somewhere between sand
(normally js = 0.15 s/m) and clay (normally js 0.65 s/m). For a non-cohesive
silt, the damping factor chosen may be closer to sand, e.g. 0.33 s/m (0.1
s/ft).
Toe damping input is generally rather simple, requiring only one factor for
all soil and pile types. Note, however, that the 0.5 s/m (0.15 s/ft)
recommendation is an average over potentially widely varying values. One
exception should be made for this simple approach and that is when driving
a pile to hard rock is considered. In that case the standard toe damping
option may be too high and a lower factor such as 0.15 s/m (0.05 s/ft) may
be more appropriate. Shales, soft or moderately hard limestones,
weathered rock among other intermediate geotechnical materials probably
behave dynamically more like their underlying soil components and their
damping factors should reflect that (also as far as shaft damping is
concerned).
The Plug would be entered either with a plug toe area, which the program
uses to calculate a plug mass, or directly as a plug mass. This plug only
exerts compressive inertia resistance forces onto the pile bottom for a brief
time period.
A Toe Gap is a short distance between pile bottom and a hard soil layer, as
it may occur when a pile with little skin friction separates from rock during
rebound. This feature makes blow count calculations uncertain, but is
sometimes essential to explain large quakes and is generally only important
in signal matching (CAPWAP) and not in wave equation analyses.
The Hyperbolic Toe Quake Factor allows for a rounded-out toe resistance
vs. toe displacement behavior. This factor multiplied with the toe quake
(which defines the slope of the hyperbole at the origin) indicates at which
pile toe displacement the ultimate resistance value is reached. Again, blow
count calculations are more erratic when using this model.
tcri = (mi/ki)
½
(3.28)
where mi, ki, Li and ci are the segment mass, stiffness, length, and wave
speed in segment I, respectively. The wave speed of the segment is:
1/2
ci = (Ei /ρi) (3.29)
with ρi being unit mass of the segment. Where pile properties change
within a segment length, all segment properties are averaged.
t = min(tcri)/ (3.30)
where min(tcri) stands for the minimum critical time increment of all
hammer and pile segments, and is a number greater than 1. The program
defaults to = 1.6 (since input is in percent it would be input as 160).
However, if numerical instability is indicated in the Numerical Output the
user has the responsibility to choose a larger value (e.g. 300) in Options/
General Options/ Numeric/ Time Increment Ratio.
a11 = gH (3.31)
and
This process is repeated for all hammer, driving system and pile segments.
The force of the top spring on a segment is calculated from spring stiffness
and spring compression, i.e. the difference between the displacements of
neighboring segments (see Figure 3.8.2.1b).
t
Fsij = ki (ui-1 - ui) (3.33)
The force of the top dashpot is calculated from the pile damping factor and
the difference in the velocities of the neighboring segments.
t
Fdij = cp (vi-1 - vi) (3.34)
Using the external resistance forces, Rsij and Rdij, calculated at the end of a
previous time step, and the gravitational acceleration of the segment, g, it is
now possible to compute the acceleration of a pile segment, i, during the
current time step, j (see free body diagram in Figure 3.8.2.1b).
t t b b
aij = g + (Fsij - Fdij + Fsij - Fdij - Rsij - Rdij) / mi (3.37)
After the acceleration value has been calculated for a segment, its velocity
and displacement values are corrected by integration under the assumption
of a linearly varying acceleration:
and
Since the displacements are now more accurately known than after the
t b
initial prediction, the spring forces F sij and F sij are recalculated. The
t b
changes of dashpot forces F dij and F dij are also recalculated. Thus, for the
calculation of the spring forces on the next lower segment, i+1, updated
force values are available.
It is not possible to predict the required analysis duration (or for how many
time steps an analysis has to be carried out) to assure accurate
computation for the permanent set. If the analysis runs longer than
necessary, undue computational effort is expended and round-off errors
may increase. If it is stopped too early, the computed permanent set may
be inaccurate (in easy driving too small).
The stop criteria had to be different between ECH and diesels because of
the diesel's particular requirements, primarily the need to analyze over a
sufficient time period for an accurate stroke calculation. For vibratory
hammers, a convergence of pile variables from cycle to cycle has to be
considered. For ECH, the following stop criteria are used (this is not
applicable for RSA):
A1: The analysis is run until the user-specified (Options/ General Options/
Numeric) elapsed time, tmax, has been covered. Of course, a short
user specified tmax may cause erroneous results. Therefore, tmax should
be specified cautiously, and comparative analyses should be run.
A2: If the user did not specify an analysis time tmax, the analysis will cover
an analysis time after impact of at least 3L/c (three times pile length
divided by wave speed) plus 5 ms or at least 50 ms. The analysis is
then stopped only when one or more of the following additional criteria
are met:
A2.2: The pile toe displacement has exceeded 100 mm (4 in). Since
this presents rather easy driving, not much can be learned from a
A2.3: The pile toe has rebounded to 80 percent of the maximum pile
toe displacement. (Such a rebound is sufficient to assure that the pile
will not penetrate deeper).
B1: The user-specified elapsed time, tmax, has been covered. (See also
A1).Note that a very long analysis duration specified by the user may
last into a new downward cycle and produce erroneous results, which
may cause the message “Ram has downward velocity at end of blow”.
B2: If the user did not specify a time, tmax, the analysis will cover an
elapsed time of 3L/c + 5 ms or 50 ms, whichever is longer. The
analysis then stops only if at least one of the following two conditions
occurs:
B2.1.1: The pile toe has rebounded to 80 percent of the maximum pile
toe displacement and the ram has reached a distance of at least 10
percent of the compressive stroke from the impact block.
B2.1.2: The pile toe has rebounded to 98 percent of the maximum pile
toe displacement and the ram has reached a distance of at least 20%
of the compressive stroke from the impact block.
For blow count calculations, the difference between the maximum toe
displacement, umt, and the average quake is calculated. The average quake
is:
where Rui and qi are the individual ultimate resistance values and quakes,
respectively, and Rut is the total ultimate capacity. A summation is made
over all elements from i = 1 to N+1 (N is the number of pile segments).
Resistance number N+1 represents the end bearing. The predicted
permanent pile set is then:
For 2-pile analyses, umt is the lesser of the two pile toe maximum
displacements. However, this does not guarantee that the blow count is
calculated accurately for a 2-pile analysis. For this analysis option, the user
must carefully review the relative motions of both piles.
For two pile toe resistance values, only the primary pile toe is considered,
however, qav considers the resistance effect of the second pile toe.
For vibratory analysis the average pile penetration per unit time
corresponds to set per blow for impact hammers. The inverse of this value
is the penetration time per unit time (e.g. per second) and this is a value
that is often recorded for construction control.
3.11.1 Introduction
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.
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.
and
The unknowns are the pile segment displacement, u si, 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)
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
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.
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
Two-pile analysis
Two pile toe analysis
Vibratory analysis (it practically does consider residual stresses)
Piles involving slacks
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
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.
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.
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, fS = 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 - 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.
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).
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, tS, and follows a log10
function:
with
Rui Rui
During Driving - Full Loss RUF During Waiting - Full Gain
Resume
Stop Driving
Driving
RUR
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, LL, 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
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.
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 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.
a. Variable setup analysis is only done for the first Gain/loss factor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3.13.1 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).
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
The program applies the β-Method (Effective Stress Method). With this
method, the unit shaft resistance is:
qS = β pO (3.50)
with
qt = Nt Pt (3.51)
where:
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.
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, 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.
The method is based on SPT N–value and soil type and only available in
conjunction with the Variable Resistance Distribution option, however, for
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.
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.
Step A1: Find relative density, Dr, from Kulhawy (1989 and 1991).
Step A2: Find friction angle, φ’, based on Schmertmann (1975 and 1978).
Step A4: Find the earth pressure coefficient at rest, k o, based on Dr,
according to Robertson and Campanella (1983)
with (1 - sinφ’)/(1 + sinφ’) < ko < (1 + sinφ’)/(1 - sinφ’)
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.
Step B1: Find the friction angle from φ’= 17 + 0.5N with φ’ ≤ 43 degrees.
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 C1: Use the friction angle φ’ from Step A2 if it is non-cohesive or from
Step B1 if it is cohesive.
Step D1: Calculate the unit end bearing based on the uncorrected SPT N-
value from
qtoe = 200 N [kPa],
with qtoe ≤12,000 kPa.
Step E1: Calculate the unit end bearing based on the uncorrected SPT N-
value from
qtoe = 54 N [kPa]
with qtoe ≤ 3240 [kPa].
Step F2: Find the toe capacity coefficient, Nt, according to Fellenius (1996)
by interpolation.
Nt = (φ’ - 28)/0.3 + 20
with 20 ≤ Nt ≤ 40
3.13.4.1 Introduction
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.
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;
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.
fs = α q s
where:
α = ratio of pile to sleeve friction in cohesive soil; a function of qs and pile
material (Schmertmann 1978).
qs = unit sleeve friction
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)
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).
Soil strength input for GRLWEAP’s routine is undrained shear strength for
cohesive soils and a general density classification for cohesionless soils.
fs = α c
where:
α = a dimensionless factor; it can be computed from:
-0.5
α = 0.5 ψ for ψ ≤ 1.0
-0.25
α = 0.5 ψ 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
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.
qt = 9 c
qt = po’ Nq
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note: The following calculation assumes that the highest bending stresses
occur at the support point; bending stresses below that point are not
considered.
𝛿 − 𝛿𝑝
| | < 0.1%
𝛿𝑝
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,
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.
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 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.
The next ultimate capacity value is now distributed along the pile
and at the pile toe and then a new analysis cycle is performed.
3.14.2 Driveability
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
4.4 Soil
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.
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
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
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
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)
• a listing of the input data file which may be permanently saved and
recalled.
• 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.
• for the driveability analysis, the “vs depth” tables, i.e. major results
listed for each gain/loss factor as a function of depth.
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.
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
nd
File/ Read 2 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
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:
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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.
The “test stand” is assumed to be a steel pile driven into rock; the pile
properties are matched to the hammer size as follows:
Thus,
2 3
Apile (in ) = 2 x W ram(144) / [(0.492 kips/ft )(Lpile in feet)]
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.
Several bearing graph analyses are then performed. The P max 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.
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.
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.
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.
• Why do I need this dynamic pile analysis and what results do I need?
• How will I assure that the results are realistic? What field testing will be
done. What factors of safety will be used?
Answering these questions should provide the basic data needed for the
program input.
Data Input
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
The user can choose major options from the following four option menus:
View - Depending on the selections made for Pile, Soil, and Analysis
Options, the following Input Forms are accessible:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
EXAMPLE
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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
nd
chosen after clicking on File, Read 2 file.) This ends the demonstration
of a simple bearing graph example.
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.
Pile Options: Splices in piles, if they allow for some forceless deformation,
are input through Options, Pile Parameters, Splices.
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
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.
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).
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.
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).
where
i.e., fully reduced resistance for pile segments above Limit Length plus
bottom section
i.e., full resistance over a distance fL Lli above the pile toe and
(αi z*)
ffi = 1/fs - fo + x1 e for fL Lli ≤ z ≤ (1 + fL) Lli (D5)
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, Lli and fsi can be chosen differently for the
various soil layers.
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)
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 fsi 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
nd
2 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.
80
70 fL 0.1 fo 0.1
Distance from Bottom
60 fL 0.05 fo 0.001
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Friction Fatigue Multiplier
Figure 1: Exp. Multiplier for fs=5, Limit Dist=50m,
Pile L=75m; fo=0.1 and 0.001 and fL=0.1 and 0.05
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 fo ≤ 0.18 for the clay and fo ≤ 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 fo set to 0.01 and with a bottom
section factor fL = 0.0 (which means over a distance of 0*Lli 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
10
20
Depth below mudline in m
30
40
50
60
70
80
25 m depth 50 m depth
90
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.
20
Depth Below Mudline in m
40 Depth = 50m
Depth = 75 m
Depth = 100 m
60
80
100
120
20
Depth (m)
Depth Below Mudline in m
100
40 Depth (m)
75
60
80
100
120
Define the Friction Fatigue setup factor fsFf 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:
Ll
FS-Ff = x2 Ll +(x1/ α)(e - 1) (D12)
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 f sFF=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 Ll are the same – which is
usually not true and that is a severe limitation of these results) then a
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
8.00
Ff Setup Factor
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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., 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
th
of Offshore Pile Installations.”, Proc. of the ASME 28 Int. Conf. on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Eng., May 31-June 5, Honolulu, HI, USA. Paper No.
OMAE 2009-80163.
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.
Smith, E.A.L., (1960), "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation," Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Volume 86.
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.