GRLWEAP Fundamentals

Frank Rausche, Garland Likins

2011, Pile Dynamics, Inc.

CONTENT
Background and Terminology Wave Equation Models Hammer Pile Soil The Program Flow
Bearing graph Inspectors Chart Driveability

Some important developments in Dynamic Pile Analysis

1800s 1950: 1970: 1976: 1980s: 1986: 1996, 2006: Closed Form Solutions & Energy Formulas Smiths Wave Equation CAPWAP WEAP, TTI (mainframes) GRLWEAP (PCs) Hammer Performance Study FHWA Manual updates

WEAP = Wave Equation Analysis of Piles

WAVE EQUATION OBJECTIVES Smiths Basic Premise:

Replace Energy Formula Use improved pile model (elastic pile) Use improved soil model (elasto-plastic static with damping) Allow for stress calculations

Later GRLWEAP improvements:

realistic Diesel hammer model (thermodynamics) comparison with pile top measurements development of more reliable soil constants driveability and inspectors chart options residual stress analysis option

GRLWEAP Application
WHEN?
Before pile driving begins After initial dynamic pile testing ( refined )

WHY?
Equipment selection or qualification Stress determination Formulate driving criterion Blow count calculation for desired capacity Capacity determination from observed blow count

Some WEAP Terminology

Hammer Hammer assembly Hammer efficiency Driving system Helmet weight Hammer cushion Pile cushion Cap Ram plus hammer assembly All non-striking hammer components Ratio of Ek just before impact to Ep All components between hammer and pile top Weight of driving system Protects hammer - between helmet and ram Protects pile - between helmet and pile top Generally the striker plate + hammer cushion+helmet

Pile damping Soil damping Quake

Damping of pile material Damping of soil in pile-soil interface Pile displacement when static resistance reaches ultimate

Some WEAP Terminology

Bearing Graph Ult. Capacity and max. stress vs. blow count for a given penetration depth Calculates blow count and stresses for given ult. capacity at a given penetration depth as a function of stroke/energy Calculate blow count and stresses vs. depth based on static soils analysis Static Resistance to Driving Ratio of long term to EOD resistance Ratio of SRD to long term resistance Setup occurring during a limited driving interruption

Inspectors Chart

Driveability analysis

SRD Soil set-up factor Gain/loss factor Variable set-up

THE WAVE EQUATION MODEL

The Wave Equation Analysis calculates the movements (velocities and displacements) of any point of a slender elastic rod at any time.

GRLWEAP Fundamentals
For a pile driving analysis, the rod is Hammer + Driving System + Pile The rod is assumed to be elastic(?) and slender(?) The soil is represented by resistance forces acting at the pile soil interface

GRLWEAP - 3 Hammer Models

External Combustion Hammer Modeling

Cylinder and upper frame = assembly top mass

Ram guides for assembly stiffness Drop height

Ram: A, L for stiffness, mass

Hammer base = assembly bottom mass

External Combustion Hammers

Ram Model

Ram segments ~1m long

Combined RamH.Cushion Helmet mass

External Combustion Hammers

Combined Ram Assembly Model

Ram segments

Assembly segments

Combined RamH.Cushion Helmet mass

Diesel Hammer Combustion Pressure Model

Compressive Stroke, hC Cylinder Area, ACH Final Chamber Volume, VCH Max. Pressure, pMAX PrecompressionCombustionExpansionpressures from thermodynamics

Ports

hC

DIESEL PRESSURE MODEL

Liquid Injection Hammers

Pressure

Compression

pMAX

Port

Expansion

Time

Open

Program Flow Diesel Hammers Fixed pressure, variable stroke

Setup hammer, pile, soil model

Downward = rated stroke

Calculate pile and ram motion

Downward = upward stroke

Next Ru?

N
Strokes match?

N
Output

Find upward stroke

Potential / Kinetic Energy

EP = WR h
(potential or rated energy)

WR

EK = mR vi2
EK = EP

(kinetic energy)
( - hammer efficiency)

vi W R

vi = 2g h Max ET = F(t) v(t) dt Transferred Energy EMX ETR = EMX/ ER = transfer ratio
WP

GRLWEAP hammer efficiencies

The hammer efficiency reduces the impact velocity of the ram; reduction factor is based on experience Hammer efficiencies cover all losses which cannot be calculated Diesel hammer energy loss due to precompression or cushioning can be calculated and, therefore, is not covered by hammer efficiency

GRLWEAP diesel hammer efficiencies

Open end diesel hammers:
(uncertainty of fall height, friction, alignment)

0.80 0.80

Closed end diesel hammers:

(uncertainty of fall height, friction, power assist, alignment)

Other ECH efficiency recommendations

Single acting Air/Steam hammers:
(fall height, preadmission, friction, alignment)

0.67 0.50

Double acting Air/Steam/Hydraulic:

(preadmission, reduced pressure, friction, alignment)

Drop hammers winch released:

0.50

(uncertainty of fall height, friction, and winch losses)

Free released drop hammers (rare):

(uncertainty of fall height friction)

0.67

GRLWEAP hydraulic hammer efficiencies

Hammers with internal monitor:
(uncertainty of hammer alignment)

0.95
0.80 0.80

Hydraulic hammers (no monitor): Power assisted hydraulic hammers:

(uncertainty of fall height, alignment, friction, power assist)

If not measured, fall height must be assumed and can be quite variable be cautious !

VIBRATORY HAMMER MODEL

VIBRATORY HAMMER MODEL

FL

Bias Mass with Line Force

Connecting Pads

m1

Oscillator with eccentric masses, me, radii, re and clamp

m2

FV

2-mass system with vibratory force

FV = me 2 re sint

GRLWEAP Hammer data file

Hammer-Driving System-Pile-Soil Model

Hammer: (Masses and Springs)

Driving System: Cushions (Springs) Helmet (Mass)

Pile:

Soil:

Driving System Modeling

The Driving Systems Consists of
Helmet including inserts to align hammer and pile Hammer Cushion to protect hammer Pile Cushion to protect concrete piles

GRLWEAP Driving System Help

GRLWEAP Driving System Help

GRLWEAP Pile Model

To make realistic calculations possible
The pile is divided into N segments of approximate length L = 1 m (3.3 ft) with mass m = A L and stiffness k = E A / L there are N = L / L pile segments

Divide time into intervals

(typically 0.1 ms)

Computational Time Increment, t

t is a fraction (e.g. ) of the critical time, which is L/c Time

tcr L t L/c
Length

Driving system model (Concrete piles)

Hammer Cushion: Spring plus Dashpot

Helmet + Inserts
Pile Cushion + Pile Top: Spring + Dashpot

Non-linear springs
Springs at material interfaces

Hammer interface springs

Cushions
Helmet/Pile Splices with slacks

Non-linear (cushion) springs

Parameters
Stiffness, k = EA/t Coefficient of Restitution, COR Round-out deformation,r , or compressive slack Tension slack, s

Compressive Force

k /COR2

Compressive Deformation

Hammer cushion
Material Modulus (ksi)

Pile cushion
Material Plywood Oak
(transverse)

Modulus (ksi) 30 new 75 used 60 750

Aluminum Micarta Conbest Hamortex Nylon

350 280 125 175-200

Oak (parallel)

The Pile and Soil Model

Mass density, Modulus, E X-Area, A L= L/N 1m

Mass mi Stiffness ki

Spring (static resistance) Dashpot (dynamic resist)

Soil Resistance
Soil resistance slows pile movement and causes pile rebound A very slowly moving pile only encounters static resistance A rapidly moving pile also encounters dynamic resistance The static resistance to driving may differ from the soil resistance under static loads
Pore pressure effects Lateral movements Plugging for open profiles Etc.

The Soil Model

Segment

ki-1,Rui-1 Ji-1 ki,Rui

i-1

RIGID SOIL SURROUNDING SOIL/PILE INTERFACE

Segment i

Ji

ki+1,Rui+1
Segment i+1

Ji+1

Smiths Soil Model

Total Soil Resistance Rtotal = Rsi +Rdi

Segment i
Fixed

ui vi

Shaft Resistance and Quake

Rsi
-Rui
qi

Rui

qi Recommended Shaft Quake ( qi )

ui

2.5 mm; 0.1 inches

Recommended Toe Quakes, qt

Non-displacement piles 0.1 or 2.5 mm 0.04 or 1 mm on hard rock Displacement piles

D/120: very dense/hard soils D/60: softer/loose soils

qt

Rut R

qt

Smiths Soil Damping Model (Shaft or Toe) Rd = RsJs v Pile Segment

Fixed reference (soil around pile)
Smith damping factor, Js [s/m or s/ft]

Rd = RuJs v
Smith-viscous damping factor Jsvi [s/m or s/ft]

velocity v dashpot

Alternative Soil Models

Coyle-Gibson Results (1968)
Sand Clay

Recommended damping factors after Smith

Shaft Clay: Sand: Silts: Layered soils: Toe All soils:

0.65 s/m or 0.20 s/ft 0.16 s/m or 0.05 s/ft use an intermediate value use a weighted average

0.50 s/m or 0.15 s/ft

Numerical treatment: Force balance at a segment

Force from upper spring, Fi

Resistance force, Ri
(static plus damping)

Mass mi

Weight, Wi

Force from lower spring, Fi+1

Acceleration: ai = (Fi Fi+1 + Wi Ri) / mi

Velocity, vi, and Displacement, ui, from Integration

Wave Equation Analysis calculates displacement of all points of a pile as function of time.

Calculate displacements:
uni = uoi + voi t Calculate spring displacement: ci = uni - uni-1 Calculate spring forces:
uni uni-1

mi-1
Fi, ci mi

Fi = ki ci
mi+1

k = EA / L

uni+1

Set or Blow Count Calculation from Extrapolated toe displacement

Maximum Set

Ru

Calculated

Extrapolated

Set
Final Set Quake

Blow Count Calculation

Once pile toe rebounds, max toe displacement is known, example: 0.3 inch or 7.5 mm Final Set = Max Toe Displacement Quake = 0.3 0.1 = 0.2 inch = 7.5 - 2.5 = 5 mm Blow Count is Inverse of Final Set BCT = 12 / 0.2 = 60 Bl / ft BCT = 1000 / 5 = 200 Bl / m

Alternative Blow Count Calculation by RSA

Residual Stress Analysis is also called Multiple Blow Analysis Analyzes several blows consecutively with initial stresses, displacements from static state at end of previous blow Yields residual stresses in pile at end of blow; generally lower blow counts

RESIDUAL STRESS OPTION

BETWEEN HAMMER BLOWS, PILE AND SOIL STORE ENERGY

Set for 2 Blows

Convergence: Consecutive Blows have same pile compression/sets

COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE

Smiths Bearing Graph

Analyze for a range of capacities
In: Static resistance distribution assumed Out: Pile static capacity vs. blow count Out: Critical driving stresses vs. blow count Out: Stroke for diesel hammers vs. blow count

Bearing Graph: Required Blow Count

For required capacity

Find minimum blow count

Bearing Graph: Capacity Determination

Find indicated capacity

For observed blow count

Program Flow Bearing Graph

Input Distribute Ru Set Soil Constants Time Increment Static Analysis Ram velocity Dynamic Analysis Pile stresses Energy transfer Pile velocities Increase R u? Increase Ru

Model hammer & driving system

Model Pile

N
Output

Choose first Ru Calculate Blow Count

PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
Preliminary Equipment Selection
Hammer OK for Pile, Capacity Includes stress check

Driving Criterion
Blow Count for Capacity and Stroke

OUTPUT REVIEW

Blow Counts Satisfactory? Stresses Less Than Allowable? Economical Hammer, Pile?
If not, consider reanalyzing with different hammer system, pile size.

INSPECTORS CHART
Constant capacity analyze with variable energy or stroke

OK Bad

Question for Driveability:

WHAT IS RU DURING DRIVING?
We call it Static Resistance to Driving (SRD), because we lose shaft resistance during driving. Will we regain resistance by Soil Set-up primarily along shaft (may be 10 x in clay) Driveability requires analyze with full loss of set-up (or with partial loss of set-up for a short driving interruption)

Set-up factors
Soil Type Clay Silt Clay Silt Sand Clay Fine Sand Sand - Gravel Setup Factor 2 1 1.5 1.2 1 1

Thendean, G., Rausche, F., Svinkin, M., Likins, G. E., September, 1996. Wave Equation Correlation Studies. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Application of Stress-wave Theory to Piles 1996: Orlando, FL; 144-162.

For Driveability: Static capacity changes

Set-up Time
Ru

Remolding energy

Ru/SF

Ru/SF
Time Driving Waiting Time Re-Drive

Set-up factor, SF Capacity increases (Set-up) after driving stops Capacity decreases (Remolds) during redrive

Program Flow Driveability

Input Calculate Ru for first gain/loss Model hammer & driving system Analysis First depth of analysis - soil model Pile length and model Increase Depth Next G/L

Increase G/L?

N
Increase Depth? Output

COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE

Driveability Analysis
Analysis as the pile is penetrated
Input capacity with depth (static analysis)

Generates a driving record

Predicts blow count with depth Stresses, (diesel stroke), with depth

Static Soil Analysis

Approximate for Bearing Graph:
Percent Shaft Resistance Resistance Distribution

Detailed for Driveability

Shaft Resistance vs Depth End Bearing vs Depth Set-up Factor

Driveability

PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
Preliminary Equipment Selection
Hammer OK for Pile, Capacity

Driving Criterion
Blow Count for Capacity and stroke

Driveability
Acceptable Blow Count throughout Acceptable Stresses throughout

Co ntract No .: P ro ject: Co un ty:

S tru cture Na me an d/o r No .: P ile Drivin g Co ntracto r o r Su bco n tracto r: (Piles d riv en b y)

R a m

Hammer

Pile Driving and Equipment Data Form

Man ufa cturer: Mo d el No .: Ham mer Type : Se rial No .: Man ufa cturers Max imu m Ra te d E ne rg y: Stro ke a t Max imu m Ra te d E ne rg y: Ran ge in O p era tin g E ne rg y: to Ran ge in O p era tin g S tro ke: to Ram W eigh t: (kip s) Mod ific atio ns:

(ft-lbs) (ft) (ft-lbs) (ft)

Anvil
Striker Plate Weigh t: Thickne ss: Mate rial # 1 (kips) Diam ete r: (in ) (in)

Hammer Cushion

Ma te rial # 2 (fo r Co mp osite Cu shion ) Nam e: Na me : Area : (in2 ) A re a: Thickne ss/Plate : (in) Th ickn ess /P la te: No. o f P la tes: No . of Plate s: Tota l Thickne ss of Ha mm er Cu sh ion :

(in 2) (in)

Helmet (Drive Head) Weigh t:

(kips)

Pile Cushion

Mate rial: Area : (in2 ) No. o f S he ets: Tota l Thickne ss of P ile Cus hio n: Pile Typ e: Wall Th ickn ess: Cro ss Se ctio na l Area :

Th ickn ess /S h ee t: (in )

(in)

(in ) Tap er: (in 2) We ig ht/Ft: (ft) (kip s) (kip s)

Pile Orde re d Le n gth : Design Lo ad : Ultim ate P ile Ca pa city: Descrip tion of S plice: Driv ing Sh oe /Clo su re P la te De scriptio n: Su bm itted By: Telep ho ne No.: Date : Fax No .:

Required Input Data

Hammer

Model Energy level (stroke)

Driving system

Hammer cushion material (E, A), thickness Helmet weight (of entire assembly) Pile cushion material (E, A), thickness (for concrete piles only)

Required Input Data

Soil
(from Borings with elevations)

Type of soils

N-values vs depth or other strength parameters

Elevation of water table

Data Entry
Resistance distribution
Simple From soil input wizard

For driveability
Soil properties vs depth: Shaft unit resistance requires calculation End bearing - requires calculation Quakes and damping Set-up factor Analysis depths

Available Help - Indirect

GRLWEAP Help Direct:

F3

Area calculator from any area input field.

Final Recommendation
Perform sensitivity studies on parameters Plot upper and lower bound results
Note: low hammer efficiency not always conservative

Read the helps and disclaimers

On screen or after printing them

Compare results with dynamic testing

Summary
There are 3 distinctly different hammer models
External Combustion Hammer models Diesel hammer and pressure models Vibratory hammer model

There are 3 components in driving system model

Hammer Cushion Helmet and Inserts Pile Cushion (concrete piles only)

Model Parameters can be found in GRLWEAP Help Section or Hammer data file.

SUMMARY continued
The wave equation analysis works with Static Resistance to Driving (SRD) plus a Damping or Dynamic Resistance Important analysis options include: Bearing Graph Inspectors Chart Driveability Graph

The whole package is geared towards standard analyses; some research options exist

Summary: W.E. APPLICATIONS

Design stage
Preliminary hammer selection Selection of pile section for driveability Selection of material strength for driving

Construction stage
Hammer system approval Contractors use to select equipment One means of estimating blow count Inspectors chart for variable hammer stroke

Summary: Purpose of analysis

Develop driving criterion Final Set (Blow count) for a required capacity Final Set as a function of energy/stroke Check driveability Final Set (Blow Count) vs. depth Stresses vs. depth Optimal equipment To Minimize Driving Time