Pile Driving Analysis
Pile Driving Analysis
Pile Driving Analysis
Y K Chow
1
2
One-Dimensional Wave Propagation in Pile
Equilibrium equation (compression as positive)
∂ 2u ∂P
m 2 = P − P + dx
∂t ∂x
or
∂ 2u ∂P
ρAdx 2 = − dx (1)
∂t ∂x
∂ 2u ∂ 2u
ρA 2 = EA 2
∂t ∂x
For constant E and A, this gives
∂ 2u ∂ 2u ∂ 2u ∂ 2
u
ρ 2 =E 2 or = c 2 (5)
∂t ∂x ∂t 2 ∂x 2
where
E
c=
ρ
Eqn (5) is generally known as the one-dimensional wave equation. “c”
is the “celerity” or speed of sound in the material, or is simply referred
to as the wave speed.
4
Typical wave speed:
Steel : E = 207 ×106 kN / m 2
ρ = 7.83 t / m3
c ≈ 5100 m / s
Time taken to travel from pile head to pile toe and back to the pile
head:
2L
t= where L = pile length
c
For example, take L = 170 m (say pile penetration of 50 m +
mean water depth of 100 m + nominal 20 m from sea level
to top of follower)
2 ×170
Steel pile : t = = 0.067 s
5100
5
General solution to 1-D wave equation
u = f1 (x − ct ) + f2 (x + ct ) - (6)
f1(x-ct) = wave propagating in (+)ve x-direction (forward / downward)
f2(x+ct)= wave propagating in (-)ve x-direction (backward / upward)
∂u ' ∂ 2u
Proof: = f 1 ( x − ct ) + f2' ( x + ct ) = f1'' ( x − ct ) + f2'' ( x + ct )
∂x ∂x 2
- (7)
∂u ∂ 2u
= −cf1' ( x − ct ) + cf2' ( x + ct ) = c 2 "
f ( x − ct ) + c f2 ( x + ct )
2 "
∂t ∂t 2 1
[
c 2 f1" ( x − ct ) + c 2 f2" ( x + ct ) = c 2 f1" ( x − ct ) + f2" ( x + ct ) ]
The expressions are identical on both sides of the equation, hence
satisfying the wave equation
6
Consider a forward / downward propagating wave at a given time, t
u = f1 (x − ct )
At time t+∆t , the wave has moved a distance ∆x
u = f1 [( x + ∆x ) − c(t + ∆t )]
But ∆x = c∆t
Hence u = f1(x-ct) , i.e. wave shape remains unchanged, the wave has merely
advanced a distance ∆x = c∆t
Solutions for velocity and stress :
∂u
v=
∂u
= −cf1' ( x − ct ) = g1 ( x − ct ) σ = −E = −E f1' (x − ct ) = h1 (x − ct )
∂t ∂x
Obviously, v and σ also propagate with velocity c and do not change in shape in the
absence of material damping
7
Solution of 1-D Wave Equation
∂ 2u ∂ 2u
Wave equation : c 2
= 2 (1)
∂x 2
∂t
General solution : u(x, t ) = f1 (x − ct ) ↓ + f2 ( x + ct ) ↑ (2)
Let f1 ( x − ct ) = f1 ( y ); y = x − ct
∂y ∂y ∂f1
= 1; = −c ; = f1'
∂x ∂t ∂y
Let f2 ( x + ct ) = f2 (z); z = x + ct
∂z ∂z ∂f2
= 1; = +c; = f2'
∂x ∂t ∂z
∂u
Strain : ε=− = −f1' − f2' (3)
∂x
∂u
Particle velocity : v= = −cf1' + cf2' (4)
∂t
8
No upward propagating wave, i.e. f2(x+ct) = 0
ε = − f1' = ε ↓
v = −cf1' = v ↓
v v↓
= = +c (5)
ε ε↓
No downward propagating wave, i.e. f1(x-ct) = 0
ε = −f = ε ↑
'
2
v = +cf2' = v ↑
v v↑
= = −c (6)
ε ε↑
9
Downward wave : F = EA ε = - EA f1’
F EA
↓ : = =Z (7) heavier hammer + lighter hammer +
v c lower drop height higher drop height
F EA
↑ : =− = −Z (8)
v c
1) Try to use heavier hammer with lower height as it gives lesser peak dynamic stress.
2) For double acting hammer, use the velocity at the point of impact to estimate the energy, 0.5 x m x v^2.
10
Assuming the pile material remains elastic, the net force and net
velocity at any location at a given time can be obtained by
superposition of the downward and upward waves:
F = F↓ + F↑ (9)
v = v↓ + v↑ (10)
From Eqns (7) and (8)
F↓ = Z v ↓
F↑ = - Zv↑ (11)
By combining Eqns (9) – (11), we can separate the downward
wave from the upward wave if we know the total (net) force and
velocity at a particular point along the pile
F + Zv F − Zv
F ↓= F ↑= (12)
2 2
F z+ v F z −v
v ↓= v ↑= −
2 2
11
Boundary Conditions
Free end
Stress free boundary condition, i.e. net force
at ‘b’, Fb = 0
Fb = F ↓ + F ↑= 0 or F ↑= − F ↓
Implications:
Tensile stresses will develop during easy driving conditions. Follower may
separate from main pile. Solution: Control drop height of hammer.
12
Fixed end
Boundary condition, vb = 0
F↑ F↓
v b = v ↓ + v ↑= 0 or − =−
Z Z
v ↑= −v ↓ F ↑= F ↓
Force at ‘b’,
Fb = F ↓ +F ↑= 2F ↓
Implications:
Potential problems with toe damage when driving piles into very hard stratum
(rock), particularly when overburden soil is soft.
13
Impedance change
EA
Impedance Z=
c
Let subscripts i denote incident wave
r denote reflected wave
t denote transmitted wave
At interface “b”, the net force and net
velocity is given by the superposition
of the incident and reflected wave
Fb = Fi + Fr
vb = vi + vr (18)
14
Relationship between transmitted and reflected waves with the
incident wave:
v t = vi + vr
Ft F F
= i − r
Z 2 Z1 Z1
Z2
or Ft = (Fi − Fr )
Z1
Let β = Z2/Z1, then Ft = β ( Fi – Fr)
From Eq (19), Fr = Ft – Fi
or (β + 1)Ft = 2 β Fi
2β important formula! transmitted force value.
Ft = Fi (20)
β +1
15
2β
Then, Fr = Ft − Fi = Fi − 1
β +1
β −1
or Fr = Fi important formula! reflected force value.
(21)
β +1
Hence, from Eqn (20),
2β
Z2v t = Z1v i
β +1
2
or vt = vi (22)
β +1
Similarly from Eqn (21)
β −1
− Z1v r = Z1v i 1.if beta is less than 1, mean the lower section is smaller than upper.
1− β
4. t = 2L/c.
if we need to add shoes for driven, choose a section that give beta = 1 to avoid any lose of energy. beta = Z2/Z1, where Z = EA/c.
17
External Soil Resistance
Fb = Fi + Fr = R + Ft (24)
vb = vi + vr = v t (25)
R
Ft = Fi − (28)
2
The effect of an external soil resistance (R) on the propagating wave is to create a
reflected wave of the same type as R with magnitude R/2 and a transmitted wave
(due to soil resistance) of opposite type as R, also with magnitude R/2.
Fr R
vr = − =− (29)
Z 2Z
Note that this reflected velocity has a similar effect compared to when an incident
wave meets a section with an increase in impedance ( see Eqn (23) with β > 1 )
19
Wave Equation Model
One-dimensional wave equation model with soil resistance:
∂ 2u ∂u ∂ 2u
ρA 2 + c s + k su − EA 2 = P(t )
∂t ∂t ∂x
pile soil soil pile
inertia damping stiffness stiffness
Conceptually, the soil is represented as a spring and dashpot.
The inclusion of the soil increases the complexity of the problem. Hence, the
above equation is generally solved using numerical methods:
• finite difference method
• finite element method
• method of characteristics
Modelling of the pile is relatively straight forward. The main difficulty is
modelling the soil behaviour.
Note: More sophisticated 3-D wave equation model (Chow, 1982) is available
that can simulate the pile and soil (especially) in a more rational manner but
commercially 1-D wave equation computer program continues to be used
20
21
Soil Models
(a) Smith (1960) Model
Soil resistance during driving
RD = R (1 + Jv )
Parameters to define curve:
• Ru = max static resistance of soil spring
• Qu = “quake” value – limiting elastic displacement
• J = damping coefficient
• R = static soil resistance
k s = 2.75Gs where
Gs = soil shear modulus
c s = 2π r0 ρsGs ρs = soil density
Pile toe : vs = soil Poisson’s ratio
4Gsr0 r0 = pile radius
kt =
1− vs
3.4r02 ρsGs
ct =
1− vs
The expressions above have physical representations (stiffness and radiation
damping) and are characterized by parameters that can be determined in the
laboratory.
23
Pile Drivability Analysis
Pile drivability analysis is essential for the selection of appropriate hammer
for the installation of offshore piles. Example of commercial wave equation
program – GRLWEAP.
Static Soil Resistance at time of Driving (SRD)
The soil resistance at time of driving (SRD) will determine the depth to
which a pile can be driven.
Unplugged pile
Soil column (plug) inside pipe pile moves up the pile during driving -
assume that the internal shaft friction is less than end bearing capacity of
soil plug.
SRD = ∑ fsoAso + ∑ fsiAsi + qbAw (1)
where
fso = unit shaft friction during driving (outside); Aso = outside shaft area
fsi = unit shaft friction during driving (inside); Asi = inside shaft area
qb = unit end bearing pressure; Aw = annulus area of pipe pile
24
Plugged pile
Soil column (plug) inside pipe pile moves down together with pile during
driving - assume that the internal shaft friction is greater than end bearing
capacity of soil plug.
SRD = ∑ fsoAso + qbAp (2)
where
fso = unit shaft friction during driving (outside); Aso = outside shaft area
qb = unit end bearing pressure; Ap = gross cross sectional area of pile toe
25
External shaft
friction External shaft
friction
27
4. It should be noted that in drivability analysis for the selection of
hammer, it is conservative to over-estimate the SRD. An
underestimate of SRD can lead to premature refusal of piles and has
serious cost implications because of the need to remobilize a larger
hammer (pile refusal is often taken to be 150 blows per foot (0.3m))
5. On the other hand, over-conservative estimate of SRD may result in
piles being driven deeper than the theoretical estimate and may give
the mistaken impression that the piles are under-capacity.
6. In offshore pile design, piles are driven to design penetration depth
and not to “set” unlike onshore pile design.
28
(a) Unit shaft friction (fs)
Clay: fs = cr
Remoulded undrained shear strength (cr) – generally estimated from liquidity index
based on Skempton & Northey (1952) or using following formula from Wood (1990):
cr = 2 x 100(1-LI) kPa a bit conservative.
w − PL w − PL
where liquidity index LI = = , LL = liquid limit, PL is the plastic limit,
LL − PL PI
PI is the plasticity index, and w is the water content. Alternatively, cr = cu/S where S
29
30
Hammers
Hydraulic or steam hammers used. For deep water depths, underwater
hydraulic hammers are used.
31
Cap Block and Pile Cushion Behaviour
Most computer programs use an initial velocity assigned to the ram as the
starting condition. Potential energy of ram is converted to kinetic
energy:
1 where ef = efficiency of hammer
m v = e f mgh
2
2 v = 2ghe f
This efficiency, ef, is not to be confused with the measured energy in the
pile.
33
Definition of Pile Penetration per blow (Set)
Most computer programs stop computation when the pile toe velocity
becomes zero.
NUS computer program (and soil model) compute the true set, i.e. gives
the final penetration of the pile toe when it comes to rest.
34
Driving Stresses
The wave equation program also gives the driving stresses in the pile. The
maximum driving stresses should be kept within reasonable limits.
Set-up or Relaxation
• The driving of piles in clay (particularly soft clay) results in the generation
of excess pore water pressure. Subsequent consolidation will result in
gain in soil strength. Thus if the driving process is interrupted, the soil will
exhibit set-up effects, hence driving will be more difficult.
• Driving in dense sand may give rise to an opposite phenomenon –
“relaxation”. A decrease in driving resistance is possible.
35
Pile Refusal
36
37
38
39
40
41
Dynamic Pile Testing (High Strain Test)
Objectives – To obtain:
(a) Efficiency of piling hammer in driven piles
(b) Driving stresses in driven piles
(c) Assessment of pile integrity
(d) Bearing capacity and load-settlement response of pile
Test method: During the impact of the hammer, the stress waves are
measured using strain transducers and accelerometers mounted on
the pile (at least 1 diameter away from the pile head – not an issue
with offshore piles as driving is above water during the testing). The
force trace is obtained from the strain measurements. From the
acceleration trace, the velocity trace is obtained by numerical
integration.
Methods used to estimate the pile bearing capacity :
(a) Case Method a simple empirical formula.
(b) Stress-Wave Matching Technique
42
Case Method
From the force and velocity versus time curves, the total soil resistance
(includes both static and dynamic components) is given by
1 2L Z 2L
R= (
1
F t ) + F 1
t + + 1
v (t ) − v 1
t +
2 c 2 c
where t1 is generally taken as the time when F(t1) is maximum and Z is the pile
impedance (= EA/c)
Assuming that all the soil damping is concentrated at the pile toe, the
static component or bearing capacity of pile under static load is given by
R s = R − Jc (2F(t1 ) − R )
Suggested damping factor, Jc
Sand : 0.1 – 0.15 ; Silty Sand : 0.15 – 0.25
Silt : 0.25 – 0.4 ; Silty Clay : 0.4 – 0.7
Clay : 0.7 – 1.0
“Correct” Jc value obtain from correlation with static load test or stress wave
matching analysis.
43
Stress-Wave Matching Technique
The force-time history or velocity-time history is used as a boundary
condition in a wave equation computer program. For instance, if the
velocity-time history is used as the input, the wave equation program
computes the force-time history and this is compared with the measured
values. The soil resistance, soil stiffness and damping values are
adjusted iteratively until the computed and measured values agree
closely or until no further improvements can be made. When this stage
is reached, the soil parameters used in the wave equation model are
assumed to be representative of those in the field. The bearing capacity
of the pile and the load-settlement response are then determined.
44
Notes:
3. PDA test only give unplugged capacity as the dynamic condition mobilized the unplugged resistance. unplugged resistance can be higher and
those over-predict the capacity.
45
46
PDA Model PAX
Strain transducer and Underwater strain
accelerometer mounted transducer and
on a pile. accelerometer mounted
on pile.
47
48
49
out of the toe length.
50
from the time, we
know the location
where we
overestimate the
force. cxt.
51
if velocity go up than force, it mean damage happen at
that location.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
References
Chow, YK (1982) “Dynamic behaviour of piles”, PhD Thesis, University of
Manchester, UK
Lee, SL, Chow, YK, Karunaratne, GP and Wong, KY (1988) “Rational wave
equation model for pile driving analysis”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 114, No 3, pp 306-325.
Sam, MT and Cheung LY (1993) “Installation of a 479 feet water depth platform in
South China Sea”, Proc 3rd International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Singapore, pp 288-293
Skempton, AW and Northey, RD (1952) “The sensitivity of clay”, Geotechnique, Vol
3, No 1.
Smith, EAL (1960) “Pile driving analysis by the wave equation”, Journal for Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 86, SM4, pp 35-61.
Smith, IM and Chow, YK (1982) “Three-dimensional analysis of pile drivability”, Proc
2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Texas,
Austin, pp 1-19.
Wong, KY (1988) “A rational wave equation model for pile driving analysis”, PhD
Thesis, National University of Singapore.
Wood, DM (1990) “Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics”, Cambridge
University Press.
63