EXERCISE 11

Follower / Splice Modeling in GRLWEAP - Solved Problem

This exercise is contains comparison between DAppolonia model (1st method) and with a more detail
method (2nd method). The detail explanation of 1st method is available on DAppolonia Driveability
Analysis report for CALM Anchor Piles in Libya, while detail explanation for 2nd method is as follow.

1524 x 38 mm Stinger weight = 2759 kg

In order to taking account the stinger into

1422.4 x 25.4 mm GRLWEAP model, we need to find equivalent
density of the stinger to be added with pile
density.
2.97 m
Divide stinger into 2 parts, upper part, and lower
part:
1.5 m
1. Upper Part

1.5 m
2.25 m
1524 x 30 mm
V1 = (1422.42 1371.62) x 1500
50 = 0.1672 m3

W1 = 0.1672 x 7850 = 1312.52 kg

Volume of 1.5m pile, Vpile1:

Vpile1 = (15242 14482) x 1500
= 0.2661 m3

Equivalent density, Splice1:

W1 9.81 kN 1312.52 9.81
Splice1 = =
V pile1 1000 m 3 0.2661 1000
Splice1 = 48.387 kN/m3

Total density, 1:
1 = 77.5 + 48.387 = 125.887 kN/m3
2. Lower Part

W2 = 2759 W1 = 2759 1312.52

= 1446.48 kg

1446.48
V2 = = 0.184 m3
7850

0.184
= 1.65 m
LEquivalent =
( )
1 1.4224 2 1.3716 2
4

Volume of 1.65m pile, Vpile2:

Vpile2 = (15242 14642) x 1650
= 0.2323 m3

Equivalent density, Splice2:

W2 9.81 kN 1446.48 9.81
Splice2 = =
V pile 2 1000 m 3 0.2323 1000
Splice2 = 61.085 kN/m3

Total density, 1:
1 = 77.5 + 61.085 = 138.585 kN/m3

Therefore, pile input in GRLWEAP compared to DAppolonia (1st method):

1st Method (DAppolonia)

Depth Area Perimeter
(m) (m2) E (MPa) Spec.Weight (m) Strength
(kN/m2) (MPa)
0 1778 210000 77.5 1 345
2 1778 210000 77.5 1 345
2 1778 210000 243.6 1 345
3 1778 210000 243.6 1 345
3 1408 210000 77.5 1 345
20 1408 210000 77.5 1 345

2nd Method
Depth Area Perimeter
(m) (m2) E (MPa) Spec.Weight (m) Strength
(kN/m2) (MPa)
0 1778.54 210000 77.5 4.788 345
1.471 1778.54 210000 77.5 4.788 345
1.471 1778.54 210000 125.89 4.788 345
2.97 1778.54 210000 125.89 4.788 345
2.97 1408 210000 138.585 4.788 345
4.61 1408 210000 138.585 4.788 345
4.61 1408 210000 77.5 4.788 345
20 1408 210000 77.5 4.788 345
Another Input Comparison:

Content 1st Method 2nd Method (DAppolonia)

Hammer Efficiency 0.90 0.95
Hammer Stroke 1.89 1.89
Residual Stress Analysis NO YES

Result Comparison

1st Method

PT Saipem Indonesia 12-May-2006

60in_follow_MHU270T_eff0.9_100%_18mTP GRLWEAP (TM) Version 2005

Maximum Maximum
Ultimate Compression Tension Blow
Capacity Stress Stress Count Stroke Energy
kN MPa MPa bl/m m kN-m

2500.0 290.35 173.86 24.4 1.89 243.32

3500.0 290.34 153.69 34.5 1.89 243.29
5700.0 290.34 113.28 54.4 1.89 243.48
8000.0 290.34 76.40 79.3 1.89 243.17
10000.0 290.34 50.66 109.4 1.89 243.17
14000.0 290.34 37.30 166.3 1.89 242.44
18000.0 290.34 25.43 229.6 1.89 239.22
22300.0 290.35 26.35 342.4 1.89 236.67
25000.0 290.35 28.43 461.1 1.89 236.37
30000.0 290.35 29.44 965.3 1.89 236.14

2nd Method (DAppolonia)

PT Saipem Indonesia 12-May-2006

60in_follow_MHU270T_eff0.95_100%_18mTP_ GRLWEAP (TM) Version 2005

Maximum Maximum
Ultimate Compression Tension Blow
Capacity Stress Stress Count Stroke Energy
kN MPa MPa bl/m m kN-m

2500.0 297.04 177.71 23.6 1.89 252.31

5000.0 297.03 128.51 48.2 1.89 251.88
7500.0 297.02 84.53 71.2 1.89 250.86
10000.0 297.01 56.80 102.5 1.89 251.43
15000.0 297.00 26.04 163.2 1.89 248.44
20000.0 296.99 23.15 246.5 1.89 244.05
25000.0 296.98 24.32 355.4 1.89 241.73
30000.0 296.96 24.69 535.8 1.89 241.04
35000.0 296.95 26.95 891.3 1.89 240.26
37500.0 296.95 28.05 1226.0 1.89 239.80