JKR WEAP Energy Formula Teh

Engineering Study Program 090700 – 29000 Year 2004
Dynamic Pile Testing Using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) – Phase II
Research Report No. 1
Title: Driveability Study of Long Spun Pile using Energy Formulas,

Wave Equation Analysis and Pile Driving Monitoring
Site: Route 6 Extension Works, Bulatan Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang
Dated: 23rd Septmeber 2004
Client: Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia
Cawangan Pakar & Kejuruteraan Awam
&
UNOFFICIAL
Kumpulan Ikram Sdn Bhd COPY
Ikram Research Centre Sdn Bhd
Prepared by: Project Director 1: Project Director 2:
…………………… ……………………………….. …………………….

Teh Kim Ong Dr HM Abd. Aziz B. KM Hanifah Ir Mohd Nor B. Omar
T Testing Agency JKR JKR
Research Report No. 1
Driveability Study of Long Spun Pile

using Energy Formulas, Wave Equation Analysis
and Pile Driving Monitoring
Date: 23rd September 2004
Prepared for:
Jabatan Kerja Raya
Cawangan Kejuruteraan & Pakar
&
Kumpulan IKRAM Sdn Bhd
IKRAM Research Centre Sdn Bhd
Engineering Study Program Year 2004, Phase II – Research Report No. 1
Table of Contents page
0. Abstract …1
1. Introduction …2
2. Energy Formulas …3
3. Wave Equation Analysis …4
4. Details of Project and Subsoil …6
5. Analysis by Energy Formulas …8
6. Analysis by WEAP …9
7. Pile Driving Monitoring ..11
8. Blow Count Matching Technique ..13
9. Effects of Temporary Interruption 16
10. Conclusions ..18
Figure 1 Pile and Soil Model in WEAP ..20

Figure 2 Boreholes Adjacent to Test Pile Group No. 1. ..21
Figure 3 Layout of Test Pile Group No. 1. ..22
Figure 4 WEAP Results of Predictive Case for TP1. ..23
Figure 5 Pile Driving Monitoring results for TP1. ..24
Figure 6a~e Predicted versus Measured Driving Quantities for TP1. ..25
Figure 7a~e Refined versus Measured Driving Quantities for TP1. ..25
Table 1 Installation Details of Test Pile Group No. 1. ..30

Table 2 Assessment Using Energy Formulas. ..31
Table 3 Parameters Used In Predictive WEAP Analysis. ..32
Table 4 Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Quantities at End-of-Drive. ..33
Table 5 Effects of Temporary Interruption. ..34
Appendix A Comparison of Measured and Predicted Driving Quantities. ..35

Using Blow Count Matching Method for TP1 to TP9. ~62
page 0
DRIVEABILITY STUDY OF LONG SPUN PILE USING ENERGY FORMULAS,

WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS AND PILE DRIVING MONITORING
Abstract:
For decades, many engineers are impressed by the capability of wave equation analysis in
assessing driveability of piles. However, routine application of such analysis has yet to
prevail while on the other hand improper use of the classical ‘energy’ or ‘dynamic formulas’
seems to becoming a concern. This paper presents a project involved installation of long and
large diameter spun pile through marine alluvium soils where both energy formulas and
wave equation analysis program (WEAP) were employed and compared to illustrate
shortcomings and strengths of the different methods. The predicted driving stresses and final
set of the wave equation analyses appeared to compare reasonably to the actual
measurements from pile driving monitoring (PDM). A blow count matching method using
WEAP and the piling records is introduced to refine the predictive WEAP models and
produce site-specific typical design parameters. The applicability of the method is reviewed
by comparing the computed driving quantities to those of the actual measurements.
Observation in the pile driving monitoring revealed significant impacts of temporary
interruption in piling works to the driveability of pile.
page 1
1. Introduction
Since it introduction in decades ago, many engineers have been amazed by the long sought-
after rationale solution offered by the wave equation analysis in assessing driveability of piles
in various complex contexts. However, few are applying such analysis as routine practice
while many are employing the classical ‘energy formulas’ for determining hammer system
and driving criterion for piling projects. The strength and shortcoming of the two methods are
illustrated through a piling works involving 600mm diameter prestressed concrete spun piles
driven in excess of 50m in alluvium deposits with dynamic measurements using Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA) throughout installation of piles. The predictions of the two different types of
analysis are compared against the actual measurements to verify their applicability.
Subsequently a refinement procedure for the WEAP analysis is introduced and reviewed
whereby the measured blow count record is used as the reference while the predictive model
of the WEAP analysis is iteratively adjusted until the computed blow count plot matches the
measured one. The applicability of this method is reviewed by comparing the results of other
driving quantities, i.e. capacity, transferred energy and driving stresses, produced by the
refined predictive model to those measured by the PDA.
Finally, the adverse effects of temporary interruption in piling to the driveability and the
induced driving stresses are highlighted based on observations made in the pile driving
monitoring.
page 2
2. Energy Formulas
Energy formulas are basically derived from the Newton’s law of impact by considering
energy conservation, i.e. energy delivered by hammer equals to work done for permanently
penetrating a pile into soil plus energy lost in the pile, soil and driving system (cumulative
term for hammer cushion, helmet and pile cushion). As work done to penetrate a pile
essentially equals to the product of driving resistance/pile capacity, Ru, and permanent set, s,
the above concept can be briefly written as:
Eh = Ru.s + E’p + E’s +E’d
or rearranged to related Ru to s,
Ru= (Eh – E’p – E’s – E’d)/s
where Eh is the energy of the hammer immediately preceding an impact, E’p, E’s and E’d are
energies lost in the pile, soil and driving system respectively upon impact.
The differences in the various available energy formulas mainly lie on the different
assumptions made in quantifying the energy losses in the complex dynamic mechanisms.
Often, these formulas are over-simplified and lack of proper considerations to adequately
cover important aspects like dynamic soil damping, transient mode of stresswave
propagation, effects of driving system, performance of diesel hammer, complex soil profile
etc. In fact it may be more rightful to consider the term Ru to mean the driving resistance,
which consists of static and dynamic components, than ‘static’ pile capacity.
As a result, applicability of such formulas may be an issue for cases like long pile (adequate
consideration of the transient nature of the stresswave become important), composite piles,
and complex driving system and soil profile.
In summary, as the energy formulas are of semi-empirical nature, it should be use with
caution and only when extensive experience on the local site and piling system are available.
It should always be verified and empirically “calibrated” by pile load testing with proper
attentions given to variables like different pile length, spatial variation of subsoil etc in the
calibration.
page 3
3. Wave Equation Analysis

Far back in 1943, Terzaghi made an insightful remark: " In spite of their obvious deficiencies
and their unreliability the pile formulas still enjoy a great popularity among practicing
engineers, because the use of these formulas reduced the design of pile foundations to a very
simple procedure. The price one pays for this artificial simplification is very high…..In order
to obtain reliable information concerning the effect of the impact of the hammer on the
penetration of the piles, it is necessary to take into consideration the vibrations which are
produced by the impact".
Vibrations, in this context, mean stress waves of transient of nature, and mechanisms
involving dynamic motions and properties of the pile, soil and hammer system of concerned.
EAL Smith in early 1950's introduced the wave equation concept which was later expanded
and developed into wave equation analysis programs (WEAP) available for PC in late 1980's.
In general, WEAP idealized the pile and hammer systems into discrete lump masses with
springs, and the soils into springs with sliders and dashpots as shown in Figure 1.
A hammer impact would induce external force and motion to the upper boundary of an elastic
pile. In consideration of the initial/boundary conditions of the discrete segments and the
equilibrium of forces and motions, the variations of force and displacement along the pile
could be determined for each time-interval considered.
When analyzed for an adequate duration of time, the analysis may then produce full time
traces of force and displacement for each segment of pile under each hammer impact.
Engineer may gather useful information from these results, for instance, final displacement of
pile-top upon impact (i.e. set) for the given soil resistance/parameters, the maximum driving
stresses induced in the pile due to the adopted hammer and energy transmitted to the pile by
the hammer (i.e. hammer performance).
As WEAP gives a rational analysis for an impact event, it is a good tool for Engineer to
perform parametric study on the various driving parameters e.g. stiffness of cushion, pile and
soil, hammer weight, drop height, pile length, soil resistance and its profile, which would
enable a better understanding on the piling mechanism and subsequently promote logical and
proper solutions to problems relating to piling works. This is essential as piling works have
page 4
becoming more and more challenging nowadays when structures become heavier, taller,
longer and site conditions become more complex where large and long piles have to be
driven through landfills, hard layers and deep waters. In contrast, energy formulas were
developed based on experience and empirical studies on deep foundations of much smaller
scale decades ago, they may not be adequate or applicable for use in nowadays’ projects
without extensive correlation study and adjustment on the semi-empirical formulas.
page 5
4. Details of Project and Subsoil

The project is an extension to a proposed viaduct along an existing highway at Penang Island,
Malaysia. The early phase of the viaduct adopted large diameter bored and cast in-situ
concrete pile of 1.2 and 1.8m diameter, mostly socketed into hard rock, as the foundation
system. In consideration of the significant potential cost and time saving, 600mm diameter x
100mm thick open-ended prestressed concrete spun pile is proposed for the extension section.
The subsoils of the site consisted of thick soft to dense marine alluvia of Quartenary deposits
overlying granitic rock, which was encountered at a depth of typically beyond 50m. The
borelogs of two rotary wash boring holes adjacent to the pile group of concerned namely test
pile group no. 1 is given in Figure 2.
Test pile group no. 1 consisted of nine numbers of preliminary test piles namely ref. TP1 to
TP9 whiched were planned to be installed to various depths and set conditions as outlined in
Table 1. The layout of the test pile group no. 1 is presented in Figure 3.
The specification requested a long term pile capacity of 430tons and it is considered that the
pile should be driven to achieve an end-of-drive (EOD) capacity of similar order to allow for
the potential relaxation of the founding saturated dense silt-sand materials which may to
certain extent offset the set-up effect along the pile shaft. This would require the pile to be
driven to the dense sand/silt layer at a depth of exceeding 50m. Due to site space constraint
and availability, the biggest piling rig proposed was a 10 tons single acting hydraulic hammer
made Twinwood with an operative drop height of maximum 1000mm.
In view of the above, two main concerns arose namely whether the 10-ton hydraulic hammer
could safely drive the long heavy pile to the required capacity and what would be the impacts
of the induced vibrations and ground displacements.
The concern on the derivability issue was studied using energy formulas and WEAP. The
WEAP suggested that the derivability was not an issue for the given pile-soil-hammer
configuration.
To adequately investigate the various issues concerning the piling works, an extensive testing
and monitoring program was planned and carried out for the installation of test pile group no.
page 6
1. The program consisted of pile driving monitoring throughout piling and dynamic load
testing at various elapse time upon piling, and monitoring of ambient air, noise, vibration and
ground displacement. The following sections discussed the issue of driveability in detail
while the environmental, vibration and ground displacement monitoring are beyond the scope
of this report.
page 7
5. Analysis By Energy Formulas

Assessments by energy formulas are presented herein for comparison purposes only to the
WEAP analysis. Three formulas namely Hiley's, Danish's and Janbu's are adopted to
calculate the maximum set corresponding to the EOD capacity of 403.5 ton (based on the
maximum design pile length of 57m and the static capacity calculation with reference to
borehole no. RB-P04, being the borehole with more complex profile) using the 10-ton
hydraulic hammer, or to calculate the minimum hammer weight required if the 10-ton weight
is inadequate. The calculation and results are summarized in Table 2.
Note that the dynamic elastic modulus Ed, is used in the calculation. For a concrete
characteristic cube strength, fcu, of 78.5 kPa, British Standard BS 8110: Part 2: 1985: Section
Seven suggested an averaged Ed of 43.76 x 106 kPa. The elastic compression of pile used in
the Hiley's Formulas is computed by assuming a linear load distribution with total shaft and
toe resistance of 158.8 and 244.7tons respectively. The assumed drop height is 1000mm.
Based on the three energy formulas, a 10-ton hydraulic drop hammer is far from adequate to
install the pile for the required capacity. For a practical value of set of 3.0mm/blow (i.e.
30mm/10 blows), the minimum weights of hammer required are 17, 35 and 16 tons
respectively for Hileys, Danish's and Janbu's Formulas. The range of the results seems s to
be fairly large.
page 8
6. Analysis by WEAP
The objectives of the WEAP analysis are to determine the driveability of the pile through the
given soils using the proposed hammer without inducing excessive compressive and driving
tensile stresses detrimentally to the pile. For the purposes of assessment of driveability,
compressive stress and downward travelling tensile stress as a result of reflection of the
upward compressive stress at pile-top in a hard driving condition, an optimistic set of soil
resistance parameters were chosen in order to produce a conservative prediction.
As such, the unit shaft and toe resistance of sand were estimated based on Meyerhof’s (1956)
recommendations namely 2N and 400N (kN/m2) respectively where N is the count of
Standard Penetration Test. For fines, the adhesions were estimated using alpha method with
adhesion factor based on Tomlinson’s (1986) works and cohesion values, Cu, of 4N and 6N
for silt and clay respectively. Unit toe resistance for silt and clay were estimated as 270N and
9Cu respectively. For parameters of driving system/hammer, the details compiled in the
hammer data file of GRLWEAP for JUNTTAN HHK10 were used as the proposed hammer
made was not in the list. The other input parameters like soil quakes, soil damping factor, etc
were essentially based on the appropriate typical values recommended by the program. The
parameters chosen for the predictive WEAP analysis are summarized in Table 3.
The results as plotted by the program are presented in Figure 4. Based on the plot of blow
count over depth, the driveability of the pile is not an issue and the blow count at the end of
driving is 456blow/m equivalent to a set of 2.2mm/blow for the EOD capacity of 403.5tons.
The maximum axial compressive driving stress was 25.6Mpa which was well within the limit
of 0.85fcu –fpe (= 59.4Mpa) as recommended by Federal Highway Administration, USA
where fpe is the effective prestress. The maximum axial tensile driving stress was 4.9Mpa
which was also well within the limit of fpe + 0.25(fcu)0.5 (=9 .5Mpa) as recommended by the
same organization.
A full analysis may require a second run with pessimistic soil resistance parameters for
conservative prediction of the tensile driving stress as soft driving conditions induce tensile
reflection at the pile toe. However, while driveability is not an issue for the above case, the
second run is considered not necessary because if high tensile stress is observed during the
pile driving monitoring, the hammer drop height could be appropriately reduced to control
the stress during soft driving.
page 9
Obviously the two different methods of analysis have resulted in two extremely different
conclusions. Energy formulas suggested that the 10-ton hammer was far from adequate for
the required capacity and a larger hammer of 16 to 35tons may instead required while the
WEAP analysis indicated that the 10-ton hammer would be adequate even for a set of rather
optimistic soil resistance parameters.
In light of the WEAP analysis results, the site was ready for actual piling with dynamic
measurements to be taken near pile-top by PDA throughout the installation.
page 10
7. Pile Driving Monitoring

Pile driving monitoring were carried out throughout the installation of all the nine test piles
ref. TP1 to TP9. Being the first and longest pile driven in the group, pile ref. TP1 is discussed
in detail in the following texts.
TP1 was monitored using PDA during piling except for the first 5m penetration where the
pile was advanced under hammer weight. The pile was set and terminated at a penetration
depth of 53.3m and the monitoring results are graphically presented in Figure 5.
These plots of result of TP1 could not be directly compared to those of the WEAP analysis
because the actual drop heights adopted were different from those analyzed except probably
for below 30m where the drop heights ranged from 0.5 to 0.7m (0.8m at final set) in the
actual case and 0.6 to 0.8m in the analyzed predictive case. Keeping in view of the difference
in the drop height, the predicted and measured results for penetration below 30m are
compared in Figures 6a through e.
Comparing the two sets of plot, the static pile capacity through depth was obviously over-
predicted (as partly intended) resulting in the harder driving effort indicated by the higher
blow count plot in the predicted case. In anticipation of the set-up effects occurred during
splicing, the drop height was reduced from 0.7 to 0.5m when resumed piling from 41.5 to
44.0m to reduce the driving stresses and ground vibrations. Although the compressive stress
decreased correspondingly, the tensile stress and static pile capacity still registered an
obvious increase. This has indicated the potential significant impact from temporary
interruption during piling to the integrity of the pile and would be further reviewed in the
subsequent discussions. Nevertheless, such effects of temporary interruption are again for
conservative reason over-predicted in the predictive case, resulting in significantly higher
stresses and blow count.
Bearing in mind the difference in the actual and assumed drop heights, the predicted
maximum energy transferred (EMX) and compressive driving stress (CSX) at various depths
were considered to compare reasonably well to those of the measured. The predicted
maximum tensile driving stress (TSX) is normally sensitive to the adopted value of the toe
resistance because tensile stress is induced from reflection at free/soft ends. In this case, the
predicted TSX appeared to be somewhat lower at a depth below 42m compared to the
page 11
measured values, likely attributable to the high toe resistance assumed in the analysis for the
sand-silt layers.
It is more meaningful to compare the end-of-driving conditions as in this case same drop
height was adopted and the predicted and measured pile capacities were similar. For a more
accurate comparison, the results of CAPWAP analysis of a representative dynamic data
captured during EOD were used. As presented in Table 4, at drop height of 0.8m, the
predicted EOD pile capacity and set were 403.5tons and 2.2mm/blow respectively compared
to the measured 373tons and 2.1mm/blow respectively. The error was 8 and 5% respectively
for the capacity and set. As for TSX and CSX, the predicted and measured values at EOD
were 1.9 and 2.2Mpa, and 22.7 and 24.6MPa respectively. The comparisons are considered
good with insignificant magnitude of error.
However, with a predicted and measured value of 5.12 and 6.65tm respectively, the error in
the EMX prediction was higher.
page 12
8. Blow Count Matching Technique

It was attempted to match the predicted blow count to the measured one by iteratively
adjusting the analysis parameters of the WEAP model. Once a reasonable match between the
two plots are obtained, the final model is thought to be reasonably represent the site/works
conditions as it produces similar driving resistance in term of blow count in a wave equation
analysis.
The applicability of this technique could be reviewed by comparing the computed driving
quantities namely Ru, EMX, CSX and TSX using the final refined model to those measured
in the PDM. If proven to be applicable, this matching technique together with WEAP analysis
(in this case GRLWEAP is used) would be a useful mean to turn the simple piling records
which is usually abundantly available into valuable typical design parameters and
information pertaining to the specific site. On the other hand, this technique also represents a
more rational way to analyze the piling records than a visual inspection, and would produce a
site-specific model for further needs of analysis like change of hammer, pile type and size
etc.
Reviewing the comparison between the predicted and measured plots as presented in Figures
6, several observations and possible adjustments are as follow:
(a) The static soil resistance are obviously over-predicted (partly intended) for the
purpose of driveability study. The over-prediction is thought to attributable to toe
resistance for two reasons: the predicted and measured EOD shaft resistance was
similar, and the predicted internal soil plug of 39m was significantly longer than the
measured length of 22m at EOD. Also, for conservative reason, it is optimistically
assumed that there was no lost of toe resistance during the process of driving, and that
the unit toe resistance were 400N and 270N (kN/m2; N is the SPT value) for the sand
and silt respectively. Judging from the measured plots, the loss factor was adjusted to
0.6 (50% different compared to 0.4 used for the shaft as loss in shaft resistance due to
piling is often thought to be more severe than for toe due to various reasons).
Subsequently the toe resistance was further arbitrarily adjusted in an iterative manner
until the computed blow counts over depth matches with the actual measurement.
(b) Hammer drop height adjusted to the observed/actual height.
(c) Pile termination length adjusted to the actual length of 53.3m with some adjustment
on soil resistance from below 50.0m to match the observed EOD pile capacity.
page 13
(d) The set-up effect due to the temporary interrupt of piling was grossly over-predicted.
Set-up time and “relative energy” are adjusted to 10days and about 2m respectively.
The WEAP analysis was re-run with the above adjustments and other parameters being
essentially unchanged, i.e. following the recommendations given the GRLWEAP manual.
The results of the final analysis using the refined model of TP1 are plotted and compared to
the measured results in Figure 7a through e.
The plots of blow count of the revised analysis and actual measurement after the matching
procedures are practically identical with certain localized deviation at about 27m (i.e. joint
location) likely due to the difficulty in modeling the set-up effects accurately.Comparing
Figures 6b and 7b, the correlation between the predicted and measured Ru appeared to have
been greatly improved by the matching procedures and the correlation as indicated in Figure
7b is considered reasonably good. It is of interest to note that relatively larger deviation is
observed between a depth of about 30 to 43m where the borelog indicated sand layer
sandwiched by silt layers.
In a similar trend, the CSX and EMX plots both indicated substantial improvement after the
blow count matching procedures and illustrated a good correlation between the refined
analysis and actual measurement.
However, the results are not so straightforward for the case of TSX. After the blow count
matching procedures, the computed TSX appeared to have been greatly improved between a
depth of 43m to pile toe, but deteriorated between a depth of about 30 to 43m (were the
sandwiched sand layer was!). The reason for such an observation is thought to be attributable
to inaccurately assumed toe resistance as the matching technique at this stage may not be able
to uniquely and accurately separate the toe and shaft resistance components while such
separation is essential for accurate determination of the induced tensile stress.
The remaining eight piles namely ref. TP2 to 8 were also analyzed using the same matching
technique and the results are plotted and compared to those of the PDM in Appendix A.
Similar observations as for the case of pile ref. TP1 could be made for these eight cases
where correlation are reasonable for Ru, EMX and CSX and less certain for TSX.
page 14
In conclusion, the technique of blow count matching using WEAP analysis described above
may produce enhanced and reasonable prediction for various driving quantities especially Ru,
EMX and CSX. It can be a mean to refine the design parameters used in the preliminary
analysis for further analysis when variations arises in the same site (e.g. a change of hammer,
different pile size/type etc) or for application in other sites with similar site/work conditions.
page 15
9. Effects of Temporary Interruption

It is often observed on site that the driving resistance changed when resumed piling after a
temporary pause of the piling works due to splicing or lunch break. The change could be an
increase in the apparent driving resistance or reverse depending on various factors like set-up
of clayey soils, relaxation of saturated silts or fine sands, re-establishment of soil grip that
lost due to flexing of pile etc. The effects of the temporary interruption obviously have no
place in the energy formulas but could be rationally modeled in the WEAP. However,
relatively little concern and recommendation regarding this factor is expressed in the
literatures. While the impact of temporary pause may be significant to the driveability and
integrity of the piles, it may not seem obvious in many occasions because it is a temporary
issue and the damage induced on the pile may manifest into disaster only in the subsequently
prolonged/hard driving. It is also not easy to justify the impacts of this factor as pile driving
monitoring are not commonly done for all piling project.
In this preliminary test pile program, the result plots of pile driving monitoring as presented
in Figure 5 have clearly revealed that the driveability and driving stresses could changed
significantly on the adverse side after a temporary pause for splicing. All the monitoring
results of the nine piles in test pile group no. 1 are reviewed for such effects by comparing
averaged of last five readings of Ru and TSX prior to the pause to the subsequent first ten
readings (ten excessive hammer blows are enough to damage a pile). The results of such
review involving fifteen events and interruption duration that ranged from 1hr 4min to 3hr
3min (except one event of 16hr 24min) are summarized in Table 5.
In general, all the reviewed events of temporary pause have resulted obvious increases in the
quantities of Ru and TSX when resumed piling after the pause, except for one event for each
quantity.
The ratios of Ru after pause to those before pause ranged from 1.10 to 2.77 for fourteen
events and 0.85 for the remaining one exceptional event. As for TSX, the values ranged from
0.00 to 1.91MPa prior to the pause to a range of 0.81 to 3.99MPa after the pause for fourteen
events and from 0.92 to 0.81MPa for the remaining one exceptional event.
Although such increases in Ru and TSX are not considered an issue for this project, the
impacts may be felt very differently in projects with adverse soil conditions or under-weight
page 16
hammer as the increase ratio of 1.10 to 2.77 in Ru may then pose a severe problem in the
induced driving stresses and pile integrity. To avoid such potential problem, the effects of
temporary interruption should be adequately considered during design stage using proper
analysis tool like WEAP.
page 17
10. Conclusions
Driveability analyses using energy formulas and WEAP, and pile driving monitoring using
PDA were performed for a preliminary test pile program involving installation of nine
numbers of 600mm diameter open-ended prestressed concrete spun piles through marine
alluvium deposits using a 10-ton single acting hydraulic hammer.
The energy formulas and the WEAP produced two extremes in the driveability assessment.
The former required a hammer of 16 to 35tons to drive the pile to the targeted EOD capacity
of 403.5tons at 3mm/blow and 1m drop while the latter indicated the applicability of the 10-
ton hammer for the same job at only 0.8m drop without having issue of excessive driving
stresses. A reviewing on its fundamental revealed that energy formulas are essentially
oversimplified solutions for the complex mechanism of pile driving hence have limited
application. Wave equation analysis, on the other hand, provides a rational approach to study
the interactions of the complex pile-soil-hammer system, promote insightful understanding
and solutions to the challenging piling works.
The successful installation of test pile ref. TP1 confirmed the reasonable solution of the wave
equation analysis. For the given targeted driving resistance at the final pile penetration,
WAEP analysis produced accurate predictions to the pile set, CSX, TSX and EMX compared
to those measured in the PDM.
It is also demonstrated that, using the measured blow count plot as reference, the analysis
parameters could be refined to produce a match between the predicted and measured blow
count plots. When a reasonable match between the two plots is achieved, the predicted plots
of other driving quantities especially Ru, CSX and EMX also compared reasonably well with
the measured plots.
This blow count matching technique may be employed to produce site-specific typical design
parameters for further needs of analysis, e.g. change of hammer/pile size/pile type or for
study of other sites with similar formation. Further, the refined pile-soil model obtained
through the analysis may be adopted in a static analysis to produce a prediction of the pile
load-settlement curve for comparison to the static load test results. In other words, the
technique turns the simple and abundantly available piling records into valuable typical
design parameters and information pertaining to the specific site. On the other hand, it also
page 18
represents a more rational way to analyze the piling records than a visual inspection. The
technique could be further enhanced by calibration to the results of static pile load test.
Finally, the results of the pile driving monitoring have indicated significant effects of
temporary interruption of the piling works to the driving resistance and stresses. The static
driving resistance was observed to change predominantly at a factor ranged from 1.10 to 2.77
for a interruption duration ranged from 1hr 4min to 3hr 3min (except for one case 16hr
24min). The maximum tensile driving stress was observed to change predominantly from a
range of 0.00 to 1.91MPa to 0.81 to 3.99MPa. It is recommended to adequately consider the
effects of temporary interruption in the driveability assessment of piles using WEAP to avoid
potential problems associated with excessive driving resistance and stresses.
page 19
Figure 1: Pile and Soil Models in WEAP.
Pile Schematic WEAP Pile Model
Smith Soil Model – Static & Dynamic
page 20
Figure 2: Boreholes Adjacent to Test Piles Group No. 1.

P40 P39
Test Pile
Group 1
RB-PO4 RB-PO3
SPT- CH 11167 SPT- CH 11210
N N
6 4 3m
7 6 4.5m
8 6
10 8
10 6.0m 7 9m
12 16
9 12
11 15
12 14
14 19
14 23
13 13
8 12
10 14
11 14
12 25.5m 11
15 12
14 16
13 17
17 17
8 15
10 13
18 19
12 8
11 15
14 12
16 15
18 16
21 15
20 16
22 48m 21
24 22
25 23
23 20
23 54.0m 0% R/r = 59%
20 0% R/r = 27%
17 0% R/r = 100%
30 58.0m 0% R/r = 50%
72% R/r = 63% 31% R/r = 91%
81% R/r = 100% 95% R/r = 95%
63% R/r = 100% 100% R/r = 100%
98% R/r = 100%
EOB = 62.0m
95% R/r = 100% GWL 2.527m
67% R/r = 100%
100% R/r = 100%
EOB = 68.0m
GWL 81.13m 43m
Legend:
SAND FRACTURED GRANITE
CLAY FRESH GRANITE
SILT
page 21
Figure 3: Layout of Test Pile Group No. 1
P39
House
to
Georgetown (0m)
A2 Left Side
N3
TP1 TP3
V1
5.0m 9.0m
7.5m 2.5m 2.5m 3.0m 6.5m TP4 TP6 7.0m 6.0m 11.0m
Right
Side drain
TP7 TP9
to
Bayan House
Lepas
monsoon
drain
House 9m
Internal
Road
P40
Grass / Buffer Zone

Site boundary
page 22
Figure 4: WEAP Results of Predictive Case for TP1.
page 23
Figure 5: Results of Pile Driving Monitoring for TP1.
page 24
Figure 6a: Predicted vs Measured Blow Count for TP1
30
35
40
Depth (m)
45
Predicted
Blow Count
50 Measured
Blow Count
55
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Blow Count (blow/m)
Figure 7a: Measured Blow Count vs Adjusted Blow Count for TP1
30
35
Reasonable match
is achieved
40
Measured
Depth (m)
Blow Count
Adjusted
45 Blow Count
50
55
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 25
Figure 6b: Predicted vs Measured Static Capacity
30
Higher resistance is
35
conservatively adopted.
40
Depth (m)
45
Predicted
Measured
50
55
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
RU (ton)
Figure 7b: Measured vs Refined Static Capacity for TP1
30
35
40
Depth (m)
Measured
45 Refined
Correlation
improved
50
55
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
RU (ton)
page 26
Figure 6c: Predicted TSX vs Measured TSX for TP1
30
35
40
Depth (m)
Predicted TSX
45
Measured TSX
50
55
60
0 5 10 15 20
TSX (MPa)
Figure 7c: Measured TSX vs Refined TSX for TP1
30
35
40
Correlation improved for
Depth (m)
lower depth but deteriorated Measured TSX
for upper depth Refined TSX

45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20
TSX (MPa)
page 27
Figure 6d: Predicted CSX vs Measured CSX for TP1
30
35
40
Depth (m)
Predicted
45 CSX
Measured
CSX
50
55
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CSX (MPa)
Figure 7d: Measured CSX vs Refined CSX for TP1
30
Correlation greatly
improved
35
40
Depth (m)
Measured
CSX
Refined
45 CSX
50
55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CSX (MPa)
page 28
Figure 6e: Predicted EMX vs Measured EMXfor TP1
30
35
40
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
45
Measured EMX
50
55
60
0 5 10 15 20
EMX (ton.m)
Figure 7e: Measured EMX vs Refined EMX for TP1
30
35
Correlation greatly
improved
40
Depth (m)
Measured EMX
Refined EMX
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20
EMX (ton.m)
page 29
Table 1: Details of Pile Installation.

Pile Installation Details Prebore Depth Soil Plug Total Blow
Ref. (m) (m) (no.)
TP1 • 57m=12+15+15+15m. • 2m • 22.0 2755
• set at 2.1mm/blow @ 53.2m.
• with pipe shoe.
• new 100mm plywood pile cushion
used.
TP2 • 57m=12+15+15+15m. • 4m • 25.0 2572
• with pipe shoe.
• one round welding using 5mm rod
at 3rd joint.
TP3 • 54m=12+12+15+15m. • 6m • 21.7 2861
• with pipe shoe.
TP4 • 48m=12+12+12+12m • 2m • 17.0 1362
• unset at 12.0mm/blow @ 46.5m.
• with pipe shoe.
TP5 • 48m=12+12+12+12m • 2m • 17.7 1654

• unset @ 46.5m.
• with pipe shoe.
• resumed piling after first two
segments left overnight.
TP6 • 48m=12+12+12+12m. • 2m • 19.6 2321
• unset @ 46.5m.
• with pipe shoe.
• resumed piling after 1st three
segments left overnight.
TP7 • 45m=15+15+15m. • 2m • 18.2 2263
• unset @ 43.8m.
• without shoe.
• changed 100mm plywood pile
cushion after 39.5m.
TP8 • 45m=15+15+15m. • 1m • 23.6 2091
• unset @ 44.3m. (excavated)
• without shoe.
TP9 • 45m=15+15+15m. • 1m • 15.8 2018
• unset @ 43.5m. (excavated)
• without shoe.
• resumed piling after first segment
left overnight.
page 30
Table 2 : Driveability Assessment using Energy Formulas

Set (mm/blow) Hammer (ton)
Calculation/Description For Ru=403.5 t, For Ru=403.5 t,
10 t hammer x 1m drop S = 3mm/b & 1m drop
The Formulas and typical values of parameters are
Referred to Poulos and Davis (1980)
1) Hiley's Formulae - 6.2 mm/blow, 17 tons
Indicative of inadequate
Ru = ef. W.H x W t n2.Wp hammer
S + 1/2 (C1+C2+C3) W + Wp
Where,
ef = hammer efficiency = 0.85
C1 = temporary compression for hammer & pile cushion

= 0.2" + 0.3" = 12.70mm (for very hard driving at
stress of 14,000 kPa).
C2 = temporary compression of pile (considered a

linear shaft resistance of 158.8 t and a toe
resistance of 244.7 t) = 26.87 mm
C3 = temporary compression of ground/quake = 2.54mm
N = coefficient of restitution
= 0.25 for single acting hammer with timber cushion
for hammer and pile
Wp = pile weight = 23.3 tons
W = hammer weight
2) Danish's Formulae
Ru = ef. W. H. .
S + (2.ef. WHL/A.Ep) 1/2
L = pile length
= 57 m,
Ep = elastic modulus of pile -16.5 mm/blow, 35 tons

= Ed Indicative of inadequate
= 43.76 x 106 kPa hammer
A = pile sectional area

= 0.1571 m2
3) Janbu's Formulae
Ru = 1 W.H , inadequate 16 tons

Ku S hammer
Ku = Cd (1+ (1+ ηe/Cd) 1/2)
Cd = 0.75 + 0.15 Wp = 1.1

W
ηe = W.H.L = 92.1253 for

A.Ep.S2 S = 3mm/blow &
H = 1.0m drop
∴ Ku = 11.2289
Ru = 296.7 ton < 403.5 ton, NG.
page 31
Table 3 : Parameters used in Predictive WEAP Analysis
No Desriptions Remarks
1. Damping (s/m) Shaft : 0.16 for sand Typical value of

0.65 for fines GRLWEAP
Toe : 0.50 for all soils
2. Quake (mm) Shaft : 2.5mm for all normal sizes Typical value of
Toe : full diameter / 120 for hard driving GRLWEAP
3. Set-up time (hr) : 1.0 (the time required for full heal/gain) Estimate
Relative energy (m) : 0.5 (approximately the distance of penetration Estimate

that would cause full lost of the set-up effect)
4. Resistance loss factor : Shaft =0.4 Estimate

Toe = 1.0
5. a) Elastic modulus of plywood = 210,000kPa
b) Thickness of plywood pile cushion = 75mm
c) Thickness of plywood hammer cushion = 75mm
d) C.O.R. = 0.5
6. a) Unit Shaft Resistance (kPa), fs : Sand = 2N Meyerhof (1956)

Silt = α (4N) α by Tomlinson (1986)
Clay = α (6N) α by Tomlinson (1986)
b) Unit Toe Resistance (kPa), ft : Sand = 400N Meyerhof (1956)

Silt = 270N Estimated
Clay = 9Cu Typical value
c) Unit shaft resistance of plug in internal shaft: Assumed similar to Assumed

external shaft
Note : For toe resistance, use the lesser of (internal shaft resistance +
ft x nett toe area) and (ft x gross toe area).
7. Pile made = 12m starter + 15m + 15m + 15m = 57m Spliced by welding
8. Drop height = 0.2 to 0.4m for 1st & 2nd segments -

= 0.6m for 3rd segment
= 0.8m for 4th segment
page 32
Table 4: Comparison between Predicted and Measured Quantities

at End-of-Drive
Parameter Predicted Value Measured Value

(GRLWEAP results) (CAPWAP results)
Static Pile Capacity Total = 403.5 Total = 373.0
(ton) Shaft = 158.8 Shaft = 170.0
Toe = 244.7 Toe = 203.0
Final set (mm/blow) 2.2 2.1
Compressive Driving 22.7 24.6

Stress (MPa)
Tensile Driving 1.9 2.2

Stress (MPa)
Maximum Transferred 5.12 6.65

Energy (t.m)
page 33
Table 5: Effects of Temporary Interruption.

Joint Waiting Average Ru Average TSX
TP Ref.
Location
Time Before (5) After (10) Ratio After/before Before (5) After (10) Ratio
TP1 12m 2hr 22min 85 72 0.85 0 1.550 -
27m 1hr 35min 64 108 1.69 0.040 3.302 82.55
42m 1hr 13min 111 161 1.45 1.928 3.919 2.03
TP2 12m 1hr 24min 67 82 1.22 0.100 2.541 25.41
27m 3hr 3min 82 127 1.55 0.165 2.967 17.98
42m 1hr 4min 176 222 1.26 1.917 2.159 1.13
TP3 12m 1hr 11min 67 74 1.10 0.101 2.727 27.00
24m 1hr 8min 74 205 2.77 0.888 3.369 3.79
39m 1hr 25min 171 210 1.23 0.921 0.812 0.88
TP4 36m 1hr 9 min 167 223 1.34 1.506 3.993 2.65
TP5 36m 2hr 21min 159 260 1.64 2.96 3.647 1.23
TP6 36m 16hr 24min 176 315 1.79 0.917 2.832 3.09
TP7 30m 1hr 30min 129 176 1.36 0.191 2.045 1.07
TP8 30m 1hr 11min 110 153 1.39 0.372 2.547 6.85
TP9 30m 1hr 40min 139 224 1.61 1.909 3.006 1.57
notes: (1) Before (5) means 5 readings prior to the interrupt

(2) After (10) means the first 10 readings after resumed piling.
(3) Ru = static driving resistance, TSX = maximum axial tensile driving stress, TP=test pile.
RSU = CASE Method of capcity prediction - unloading case
RMX = CASE Method of capacity prediction - maximum solution
page 34
Appendix A
Comparison of Measured and Predicted Driving Quantities

Using Blow Count Matching Method for TP1 to TP9.
page 35
COMPARISON OF BLOW COUNT FOR TP1
Computed Blow Count vs Measured Blow Count

10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
35 Computed
Blow Count
40
Measured
Blow Count
45
50
55
0 100 200 300 400 500
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 36
COMPARISON OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY FOR TP1
Predicted Capacity vs Measured Capacity
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
Capacity
35
Measured
Capacity
40
45
50
55
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
RU (ton)
Predicted EMX vs Measured EMX
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
35 Measured EMX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 37
COMPARISON OF CSX AND TSX FOR TP1
Predicted CSX vs Measured CSX

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Predicted
CSX
35
Measured
CSX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CSX (MPa)
Predicted TSX vs Measured TSX
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
TSX
35 Measured
TSX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 38

10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
35 Computed
Blow Count
40 Measured
Blow Count
45
50
55
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 39
COMPARISON OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY FOR TP2
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
35 Predicted Ru
Measured Ru
40
45
50
55
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
35 Measured EMX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 40

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Predicted
CSX
35
Measured
CSX
40
45
50
55
0 10 20 30 40 50
CSX (MPa)
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted TSX
35 Measured TSX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15
TSX (MPa)
page 41

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
35 Computed
Blow Count
40 Measured
Blow Count
45
50
55
0 100 200 300 400 500
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 42
COMPARISON OF CAPACITY AND EMX FOR TP3
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
35 Predicted Ru
Measured Ru
40
45
50
55
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
10
15
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
35 Measured EMX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 43

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Predicted
CSX
35
Measured
CSX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Predicted TSX
35 Measured TSX
40
45
50
55
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 44

20
25
30
Depth (m)
35
Computed
Blow Count
40 Measured
Blow Count
45
50
0 50 100 150 200
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 45
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
Capacity
35
Measured
Capacity
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
20
25
30
Predicted
Depth (m)
EMX
35
Measured
EMX
40
45
50
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 46

20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 CSX
Measured
CSX
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted TSX
35
Measured TSX
40
45
50
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 47

20
25
30
Depth (m)
35
Computed
Blow Count
40 Measured
Blow Count
45
50
0 100 200 300
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 48
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 Capacity
Measured
Capacity
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
35
Measured EMX
40
45
50
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 49

20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 CSX
Measured
CSX
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
Predicted TSX vs Actual TSX
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 TSX
Measured
TSX
40
45
50
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 50

20
25
30
Depth (m)
35
Computed
Blow Count
40 Measured
Blow Count
45
50
0 100 200 300
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 51
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 Capacity
Measured
Capacity
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
35
Measured EMX
40
45
50
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 52

20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 CSX
Measured
CSX
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
20
25
30
Depth (m)
Predicted
35 TSX
Measured
TSX
40
45
50
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 53

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Computed
Blow Count
35
Measured
Blow Count
40
45
50
0 100 200 300
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 54
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 Capacity
Measured
35 Capacity
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
Predicted EMX vs Actual EMX
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
30
Measured EMX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 55

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 CSX
Measured
CSX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 TSX
Measured
TSX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 56

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Computed
Blow Count
35
Measured
Blow Count
40
45
50
0 100 200 300
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 57
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 Capacity
Measured
35 Capacity
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
30
Measured EMX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 58

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 CSX
Measured
CSX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 TSX
Measured
TSX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 59

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
30
Computed
Blow Count
35
Measured
Blow Count
40
45
50
0 100 200 300
Blow Count (blow/m)
page 60
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 Capacity
Measured
35 Capacity
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Ru (ton)
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted EMX
30
Measured EMX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15
EMX (ton.m)
page 61

10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 CSX
Measured
CSX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSX (MPa)
10
15
20
25
Depth (m)
Predicted
30 TSX
Measured
TSX
35
40
45
50
0 5 10
TSX (MPa)
page 62

JKR WEAP Energy Formula Teh

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

JKR WEAP Energy Formula Teh

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Engineering Study Program 090700 – 29000 Year 2004

Dynamic Pile Testing Using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) – Phase II

Research Report No. 1

Title: Driveability Study of Long Spun Pile using Energy Formulas,

Prepared by: Project Director 1: Project Director 2:

…………………… ……………………………….. …………………….

Driveability Study of Long Spun Pile

Date: 23rd September 2004

Table of Contents page

Figure 1 Pile and Soil Model in WEAP ..20

Table 1 Installation Details of Test Pile Group No. 1. ..30

Appendix A Comparison of Measured and Predicted Driving Quantities. ..35

DRIVEABILITY STUDY OF LONG SPUN PILE USING ENERGY FORMULAS,

Eh = Ru.s + E’p + E’s +E’d

Ru= (Eh – E’p – E’s – E’d)/s

3. Wave Equation Analysis

4. Details of Project and Subsoil

5. Analysis By Energy Formulas

7. Pile Driving Monitoring

8. Blow Count Matching Technique

9. Effects of Temporary Interruption

Figure 1: Pile and Soil Models in WEAP.

Pile Schematic WEAP Pile Model

Smith Soil Model – Static & Dynamic

Figure 2: Boreholes Adjacent to Test Piles Group No. 1.

CLAY FRESH GRANITE

Figure 3: Layout of Test Pile Group No. 1

Grass / Buffer Zone

Figure 4: WEAP Results of Predictive Case for TP1.

Figure 5: Results of Pile Driving Monitoring for TP1.

Figure 6a: Predicted vs Measured Blow Count for TP1

Blow Count (blow/m)

Figure 6b: Predicted vs Measured Static Capacity

Figure 7b: Measured vs Refined Static Capacity for TP1

Figure 6c: Predicted TSX vs Measured TSX for TP1

Figure 7c: Measured TSX vs Refined TSX for TP1

lower depth but deteriorated Measured TSX

for upper depth Refined TSX

Figure 6d: Predicted CSX vs Measured CSX for TP1

Figure 7d: Measured CSX vs Refined CSX for TP1

Figure 6e: Predicted EMX vs Measured EMXfor TP1

Figure 7e: Measured EMX vs Refined EMX for TP1

Table 1: Details of Pile Installation.

TP5 • 48m=12+12+12+12m • 2m • 17.7 1654

Table 2 : Driveability Assessment using Energy Formulas

C1 = temporary compression for hammer & pile cushion

C2 = temporary compression of pile (considered a

C3 = temporary compression of ground/quake = 2.54mm

Wp = pile weight = 23.3 tons

Ep = elastic modulus of pile -16.5 mm/blow, 35 tons

A = pile sectional area

Ru = 1 W.H , inadequate 16 tons

Ku = Cd (1+ (1+ ηe/Cd) 1/2)

Cd = 0.75 + 0.15 Wp = 1.1

ηe = W.H.L = 92.1253 for

Ru = 296.7 ton < 403.5 ton, NG.

Table 3 : Parameters used in Predictive WEAP Analysis

1. Damping (s/m) Shaft : 0.16 for sand Typical value of

Relative energy (m) : 0.5 (approximately the distance of penetration Estimate

4. Resistance loss factor : Shaft =0.4 Estimate

5. a) Elastic modulus of plywood = 210,000kPa

b) Thickness of plywood pile cushion = 75mm

c) Thickness of plywood hammer cushion = 75mm

6. a) Unit Shaft Resistance (kPa), fs : Sand = 2N Meyerhof (1956)