Color profile: Disabled

Composite Default screen

410

Prediction of residual driving stresses in piles

Licia Mouta da Costa, Bernadete Ragoni Danziger, and Francisco de Rezende Lopes

Abstract: Residual driving stresses in piles are determined with a new stress-wave program. The program has some
interesting features, such as the displacement stabilization accomplished by an analysis for a longer time, until zeroing
particle velocity at the pile toe. A parametric study of the development of residual stresses in a steel pile shows
interesting aspects related to the effects of toe resistance, shaft friction resistance distribution, and driving energy. A
comparison is made between the application of available solutions and the new program.

Key words: residual stresses, pile driving, foundation, analysis.

Résumé : On a déterminé les contraintes résiduelles de fonçage dans les pieux au moyen d’un nouveau programme
d’ondes de contraintes. Le programme comporte des caractéristiques intéressantes telles que la stabilisation du déplace-
ment réalisée au moyen d’une analyse pour un temps plus long, soit jusqu’à ce que la vitesse des particules à la pointe
du pieu atteigne zéro. Une étude paramétrique du développement des contraintes résiduelles dans un pieu en acier
montre des aspects intéressants concernant les effets de la résistance à la pointe, de la distribution de la résistance en
frottement du fût, et de l’énergie de fonçage. L’on fait une comparaison entre l’application des solutions connues et le
nouveau programme.

Mots clés : contraintes résiduelles, fonçage de pieux, fondation, analyse.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Notes 421

Introduction It should also be kept in mind that residual stresses do not

Following a hammer blow, the pile penetrates into the
ground, moving downward and then recovering part of the
penetration by an upward movement. During the downward
movement, as the compression wave travels to the pile toe,
the pile shaft is elastically compressed. As the compression
wave reflects at the pile toe, the pile tends to recover its
original length, the soil decompresses, and the pile rebounds,
oscillating until reaching its final position. Although no ex-
ternal load is applied, the equilibrium generally involves
some residual point load and friction stresses on the shaft
which balance each other.
The soil shaft friction resistance acts either upward, resist-
ing pile penetration, or downward, preventing soil rebound,
at least in the upper portion of the pile. Equilibrium is
reached when part of the friction stresses reverse themselves
to prevent complete soil rebound near the pile toe. Briaud
and Tucker (1984) pointed out that the residual stresses pres-
ent when equilibrium is attained are governed, on the one
hand, by the unloading characteristics of the point and fric-
tion transfer curves and, on the other hand, by the elastic
characteristics of the pile.
Received June 21, 1999. Accepted September 11, 2000.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site on
April 12, 2001.
L.M. Costa and F.R. Lopes. COPPE, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro, Caixa Postal 68506, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
B.R. Danziger.1 Fluminense Federal University, Rua Passo
da Pátria No. 156, São Domingos, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: ragoni@civil.uff.br).
occur in end-bearing piles (when point resistance is respon-
sible for the total bearing capacity). In these cases no shaft
friction resistance occurs and there is no restraint to the
complete soil unloading at the pile toe. Also, in the extreme
case of piles with no point resistance, the compression wave
is reflected as tension at the pile toe, and no rebound occurs.
On the other hand, residual stresses can be significant in
sandy soils, when the contribution of toe resistance approxi-
mates that of shaft friction resistance, and little movement is
needed to unload the friction transfer curve, whereas much
greater movement is needed to unload the transfer curve at
the pile toe (Briaud and Tucker 1984).
Many authors suggest procedures to take the residual
stresses into account, as reported in the next section. The
procedures suggested by Holloway et al. (1978) and Hery
(1983) include some approximations and simplifications
aimed at reducing the time of analysis.
The present paper presents residual stress evaluations
based on a stress-wave program called DINEXP (Costa 1998).
This program presents a more rigorous approach to residual
stress analysis, since no simplification is made as far as dis-
placement stabilization is concerned. Displacement stabiliza-
tion is accomplished as the program runs for a longer time,
which is not a problem with current computer facilities. Par-
ticle velocity is nullified as a consequence of displacement
stabilization and only static forces are then present at the
end of analysis. The importance of this procedure is that
static equilibrium is actually attained.
Historical review
Hunter and Davisson (1969) presented a comprehensive
report on residual stresses and emphasized that residual

Can. Geotech. J. 38: 410–421 (2001) DOI: 10.1139/cgj-38-2-410 © 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:09 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Notes
loads must be accounted for if a true representation of load
transfer is to be obtained. The authors proposed a procedure
to interpret load tests taking into account residual driving
stresses. They pointed out that the proposed procedure does
not affect the ultimate tension and compression loads, but
only the magnitudes of toe and friction load.
Gregersen et al. (1973) described a series of loading tests
on precast instrumented concrete piles driven in a very loose
sand near the city of Drammen, Norway. The instrumenta-
tion clearly indicated considerable axial forces in the piles
after they had been driven. The authors also verified that the
distribution of the residual load along the pile followed the
same pattern for all piles; it increased down to a point corre-
sponding to about two-thirds of the embedded length and
thereafter decreased in the lower portion of the pile, with
frictional forces acting in opposite directions along the top
and bottom of the pile.
Cooke and Price (1973) analyzed an instrumented friction
pile jacked into London clay and test loaded. The authors
observed that the friction pile remained in compression after
the installation force had been removed. Residual loads were
registered in each cell after the pile had entered the ground
and the jack had been retracted.
Vesic (1977) presented two examples of projects in which
the presence of residual load had an overwhelming effect on
pile foundation performance. In the first project, the consid-
eration of a residual load resulted in a predicted settlement
one-sixth that of the original predicted value. According to
Vesic, load tests fully confirmed this assumption. In the sec-
ond project, no consideration of residual loads resulted in
predicted settlement of 2.5 cm, whereas values slightly over
1 cm were predicted with the inclusion of residual loads.
The author warned about the doubtful value of numerous
theories of pile settlement behaviour published in the litera-
ture without consideration of residual loads.
Holloway et al. (1978) pointed out that a conventional in-
terpretation of load tests on driven piles (in which no resid-
ual driving stresses are acknowledged) leads to a point
resistance lower than the real value, and to a shaft friction
resistance higher than the real value, although the total pile
bearing capacity is the same. Holloway et al. developed a
procedure to simulate pile–soil interaction, from driving op-
eration to static loading. Such a procedure involves the solu-
tion of the wave equation by the finite difference method,
similar to that of Smith (1960), coupled with an algorithm
for the solution of static equilibrium after complete attenua-
tion of the wave energy caused by the hammer blow. Succes-
sive blows can then be simulated, taking into account the
residual stresses from previous blows. Holloway et al. con-
cluded that unidimensional pile representation for driving
and static load tests leads to a satisfactory simulation when
compared with measurements.
Cooke (1979) described loading tests on jacked tubular
steel piles and bored cast-in-situ concrete piles. The author
pointed out that in the case of jacked and driven piles, resid-
ual forces arise as a result of the different rate of mobiliza-
tion of bearing forces at the base and frictional forces on the
shaft. The magnitudes of these forces can be large, leading
to a dominant effect on the mechanism of load transfer to
the supporting soil. Cooke concluded, however, that residual
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:09 PM
411
forces are likely to be much smaller in the case of bored,
cast-in-situ concrete piles.
O’Neill et al. (1982) described the behaviour of a group
of nine instrumented steel pipe piles driven in an
overconsolidated clay. Among the many aspects investigated
by the authors, they observed residual shear stresses along
the pile–soil interfaces acting downwards on the piles in the
upper two thirds to three quarters of their penetrations and
upwards thereafter. O’Neill et al. observed that the depth of
downward-directed shear was somewhat greater in the group
piles when compared with the behaviour of two identical
reference piles driven near the group.
Paes (1983) developed a driveability program including
residual stress analysis based on Hery (1983). The analysis
includes two steps, a dynamic step and a static step. The dy-
namic analysis is interrupted when the pile ceases to pene-
trate into the soil, initiating its elastic rebound. At this point,
a static analysis is performed, similar to the dynamic analy-
sis but excluding damping effects.
Briaud and Tucker (1984) presented a theoretical formula-
tion for the analysis of residual stresses including some sim-
plifying assumptions. The authors observed that the most
important factors influencing the distribution and magnitude
of residual loads are the ultimate point and total loads, pile
length, and relative pile–soil stiffness. They gathered a data
base including 10 sites with 33 instrumented piles driven in
sand. After the analyses of the data base, Briaud and Tucker
presented a method based on the Standard Penetration Test
for the analysis of load distribution in piles driven in sand,
subjected to static vertical loads, considering the existence
of residual stresses. The method allows the prediction of the
entire load–settlement behaviour of a pile.
Goble and Hery (1984) presented a new version of the
stress-wave program WEAP, called CUWEAP, which fol-
lows the same procedure as that suggested by Holloway et
al. (1978), in which successive blows are analyzed, each one
starting from the permanent displacements and residual
stresses attained in the preceding blow. The operation is
repeated until a convergence criterion is satisfied. Goble and
Hery emphasized that the multiple-blow analysis causes a
considerable increase in the analysis duration, since conver-
gence can be very slow.
Poulos (1987) presented a simple analysis based on the
boundary element method for estimating the initial residual
stresses in a driven or jacket pile. The author then examined
the influence of these stresses on the static axial load – set-
tlement behaviour of the pile in three idealized soil profiles:
soft clay, stiff clay, and medium-dense sand. Poulos con-
cluded that the residual toe pressure is a substantial propor-
tion of the ultimate toe resistance for all three soil types,
particularly for very compressible piles. The author found
that actual values of residual toe pressure are most signifi-
cant for piles in sand and least significant for piles in soft
clay. Poulos also concluded that residual stresses increase
with a relative decrease in pile stiffness, the maximum resid-
ual force increases with increasing toe bearing capacity, and
residual toe pressure is a significant proportion of the limit-
ing pile toe resistance. The author also computed the influ-
ence of residual stresses on the static load – displacement
response of a pile. Poulos verified that the presence of resid-
ual stresses increases the pile head stiffness in compression
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
412
but reduces it in tension. The larger the residual stresses, the
more pronounced are their effects.
Rieke and Crowser (1987) presented results of instru-
mented pile load tests in both tension and compression. Re-
sidual stresses and their distribution along the pile were also
measured. The authors observed that residual stresses are re-
duced significantly, but not completely, after one or two load
cycles.
Leonards and Darrag (1987) discussed the boundary ele-
ment analysis performed by Poulos (1987). The authors em-
phasized certain aspects concerning the fact that Poulos
found negative friction along the entire pile shaft in sands
and high residual tip loads, which did not conform to the ob-
served behaviour reported, for example, by Rieke and
Crowser (1987). Leonards and Darrag also presented a com-
parison of the analysis with distinct unloading modulus in
the sand below the pile tip and concluded that increasing the
soil modulus at the pile tip with respect to that at the pile
shaft increases the residual tip load. Leonards and Darrag
concluded that careful modelling of the magnitude and dis-
tribution of soil modulus both along the pile shaft and at its
tip is required for an accurate prediction of residual stress.
Poulos (1987) closed the discussion by Leonards and
Darrag (1987) by presenting an analysis with the soil modu-
lus at the tip five times the value along the shaft. The author
concluded that the effect of having a higher unloading soil
modulus than reloading soil modulus leads to some modifi-
cation of the results, but not a dramatic alteration of the re-
sidual stress distribution.
Darrag and Lovell (1989), based on analyses made with
the CUWEAP program developed by Goble et al. (1988),
presented charts and equations which allow estimates of re-
sidual stresses in the pile after driving.
Decourt (1991) established a simple method to interpret
pile load tests which assessed the separation of lateral fric-
tion and end bearing resistance. The method also considers
the presence of residual loads from driven piles or from piles
previously compressed on load tests.
Randolph (1991) emphasized the importance of taking
proper account of residual stress in the back-analysis of driv-
ing data if realistic estimates are to be made of the overall
resistance and the distribution between shaft and base. The
author illustrated the interpretation of field data from
redriving a long reinforced concrete pile through alluvial
clays and sands into denser sands and gravels. Randolph
concluded that the presence of residual forces in the pile can
have a major effect on the interpretation of stress-wave mea-
surements. The author suggests an approach for implement-
ing residual force analysis in the interpretation of stress-
wave data. Such an approach requires application of the
measured blow once or twice for each iteration of the soil
parameters, avoiding the need for multiple repetition of the
blow, except as a check in the final stages of the matching
process.
Danziger et al. (1992) presented a number of back-
analyses of closed-end pipe piles for an offshore platform
and found significant residual stresses at the pile toe, mainly
for deeper penetrations, where toe resistance prevailed. The
authors focused attention on some parameters that reveal the
presence of residual stresses.
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:09 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
Massad (1992) presented a mathematical model that de-
scribes observed pile behaviour in cases where residual
stresses are locked at the pile toe from previous loading. Ac-
cording to Massad, the residual stresses control pile settle-
ment behaviour.
Maiorano et al. (1996) compared the residual stress in-
duced in the pile by driving and static jacking at the top,
middle, and base of the pile for typical profiles consisting of
stiff clay, soft clay, and sand. The authors concluded that the
pile driveability is relatively insensitive to the location of the
impact for typical clay profiles. However, for the sand pro-
file, and probably any profile with significant end bearing
capacity to total capacity, driveability is nearly twice as
good for bottom driving as for top or middle driving.
Maiorano et al. also verified, as discussed by Poulos (1987),
that static loading curves can be markedly affected by the re-
sidual stress system, mainly for cases with high end bearing
capacity, so it is important to make allowance for residual
loads when interpreting pile load tests.
Rausche et al. (1996) presented an analysis including a se-
quence of several blows and using the stress state in pile and
soil at the end of one blow as an initial condition to the next
blow. The shaft resistance degradation can also be consid-
ered. The authors show the differences between a traditional
wave equation and standard CAPWAP analyses and the im-
portant improvements of the residual stress analysis (RSA)
and multiple blow analysis (MBA). Multiple blow analysis
requires the selection of a series of records and parameter
adjustments to yield a satisfactory match of all blows in the
series. The signal match of the last blow is presented as the
final result. A series of simplifying assumptions are taken by
the authors to reduce the unknowns of the MBA. Rausche et
al. emphasized that the MBA considers the residual stresses
remaining in the piles between individual blows, and they
presented three examples of the application of this analysis
and described the benefits and limitations of such an analy-
sis.
New finite element solution
A new finite element solution was developed to analyze
the behaviour of piles during driving. The principal objective
of the DINEXP program was the back-analysis of field driv-
ing records for stress control during pile installation (to pre-
vent structural damage) and to evaluate the bearing capacity
of piles. The program was then updated and new routines
were included to allow driveability analyses. It has been
used in the installation control of closed-ended pipe piles for
offshore platforms of the Campos Basin, Brazil (Costa et al.
1988).
The DINEXP program uses, for pile discretization, one-
dimensional beam elements. The soil is represented by non-
linear springs with elastic–plastic behaviour. The dynamic
resistance is simulated by viscosity elements (dash pots)
with resistances that are velocity dependent. The soil model
is the same as that proposed by Smith (1960). Alternatively,
two other soil models can be used: the modified Smith’s
model by Goble et al. (1988) and the Simons’ (1985) model.
Time integration of the dynamic equilibrium equation is per-
formed with the explicit integration algorithm of central
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Notes
Fig. 1. Typical pile toe behaviour from a DINEXP analysis, showing pile toe displacement versus load at the pile toe and pile toe dis-
placement versus time.
Fig. 2. Displacement versus load and displacement versus time at the pile toe for the case where no residual stress is present.
difference. A detailed description of the program can be
found in Costa et al. (1988) and Danziger (1991).
Considering the residual stress analysis, an important fea-
ture of the DINEXP program should be emphasized. In most
driveability analysis programs, the final set is determined in-
directly, subtracting the quake from the maximum displace-
ment of the pile toe. This procedure has the advantage of
being less time consuming because there is no need to run
the program longer than the time taken for maximum toe
displacement to occur. In DINEXP the set is determined di-
rectly, as a final time is previously chosen and pile toe dis-
placement is calculated up to this time. This maximum time
period can be adjusted, if necessary, until a stabilized pile
toe displacement is achieved. The procedure usually leads to
a final stabilized toe displacement higher than the usual set
determined by most programs. The reason for this difference
is attributed to residual stresses locked in the pile toe during
unloading. Figure 1 shows a typical pile toe displacement
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:12 PM
413
versus toe load and pile toe displacement versus time from a
DINEXP analysis, with direct determination of pile set. In
the same figure, the pile set, commonly assumed by other
programs and equal to maximum toe displacement minus toe
quake Q, is also shown. The difference from both proce-
dures can be clearly observed. The residual load locked in
the pile corresponds, in the toe load axis, to the intersection
of the solid and the broken lines on the unloading branch of
the curve.
In fact, considering the same soil stiffness during loading
and unloading, which is a usual procedure in driveability
analysis, Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the influence of residual
stresses in pile toe displacements. Figure 2 shows a situation
where no residual stress is kept at the pile toe after unload-
ing. In this case, the maximum pile toe displacement (point
B) is equal to the quake Q, added to the total plastic dis-
placement (set) s. During unloading (line BC), elastic dis-
placement decreases and becomes zero when the pile toe is
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

414 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Fig 3. Displacement versus load and displacement versus time at the pile toe for the case where residual stress is present.

Table 1. Data for the parametric study.

totally unloaded. For this situation the set can be calculated
as the toe quake subtracted from the maximum toe displace- Pile
ment, as in most programs. Type Steel, double I section (12 in. × 4.625 in.)
Figure 3, on the other hand, illustrates a situation where Apile 2 × 77.3 cm2 = 154.6 cm2
residual stresses are present after pile rebound. The maxi- Epile 2.1×108 kN/m2
mum pile toe displacement (point B) corresponds to the toe Length 20 m
quake added to the plastic displacement. During unloading
Bearing capacity 2400 kN
(line BC), the elastic displacement decreases but does not
Soil
become zero, as stresses exist at the pile toe after complete
Type Sandy
dissipation of energy from the hammer blow. In this case,
Model Smith 1960
the permanent displacement (pile set) contains two compo-
nents. The first component corresponds to the permanent Shaft quake 0.254 cm
displacement that would occur if no residual stresses were Toe quake 0.254 cm
present and is equal to the quake subtracted from the maxi- Shaft damping 0.164 s/m
mum toe displacement. The second component is related to Toe damping 0.492 s/m
the elastic residual displacement at the pile toe a and can Driving system
also be calculated as the residual load at the pile toe divided Hammer weight 20–30 kN
by toe stiffness. Hammer drop (H) 1.5–2.0 m
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate simplified situations related to a Hammer efficiency 75%
single loading–unloading cycle. Actually, soil stresses vary Epile cushion 1.8×102 kN/m2
quickly during driving, presenting successive loading–un- epile cushion 50%
loading cycles as shown in Fig. 1 for typical pile toe behav- Note: Soil parameters are suggested by Smith (1960). Apile, cross-
iour. In this figure, soil displacement at the pile toe shows a sectional area of the open-ended pile; Epile and Epile cushion, Young’s
series of peaks corresponding to successive reflections of the Modulus of the pile and the pile cushion material, respectively; epile cushion,
stress wave. This behaviour is considered until the hammer coefficient of restitution of the pile cushion.
energy transferred to the pile has been completely dissipated
into the surrounding soil. Table 2. Selected values of driving energy.
Energy Hammer weight, W (kN) Hammer drop, H (m)
Parametric study of residual driving E1 20 1.5
stresses E2 25 1.8
E3 30 2.0
As mentioned earlier in the paper, Briaud and Tucker
(1984) observed that the most important factors influencing
the distribution and magnitude of residual stresses are the ul-
timate point and total loads, pile length, and relative pile– For the parametric study, a fictitious steel pile driven in a
soil stiffness. Briaud and Tucker, however, made a number sandy soil was chosen with the characteristics shown in Ta-
of simplifying assumptions in their theoretical formulation. ble 1.
The parametric study presented in this section is used to To verify the influence of toe resistance percentage, three
verify the following factors by a more rigorous analysis with cases were analyzed: (i) 20% toe resistance, (ii) 50% toe re-
the DINEXP program: (i) the ratio of end bearing capacity to sistance, and (iii) 80% toe resistance.
total soil bearing capacity; (ii) the distribution of shaft fric- Two cases were considered for the shaft friction resis-
tion resistance along the pile; and (iii) the driving energy. tance: linear distribution (triangular) and uniform distribution.
© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:13 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Notes 415

Table 3. Summary of the analyzed situations. Fig. 4. Transfer load from pile to soil from elements i and i – 1.

Toe resistance Driving energy

Case (%) Linear Uniform
1 20 E1 E1, E2, E3
2 50 E1 E1, E2, E3
3 80 E1 E1, E2, E3

For the driving energy, three distinct values were adopted as

given in Table 2.
For each toe resistance, both shaft friction resistance dis-
tributions were analyzed. For the uniform distribution, the
influence of driving energy was also examined. The situa-
tions analyzed are given in Table 3.
Some assumptions made during the analyses are as fol- Fig. 5. Transfer load from pile to soil from element i = 1.
lows:
(1) Although a steel pile was chosen, a pile cushion was
considered in the analyses. Without a pile cushion the values
calculated by the DINEXP program presented severe oscilla-
tions, introducing difficulties to obtaining a stabilized result
and increasing analysis time. With the pile cushion, a signifi-
cant reduction in time was obtained for displacement and
stress stabilization.
(2) The pile was divided into 20 elements, with each ele-
ment being 1.0 m long. The choice of an adequate number
of elements is important to attain a satisfactory approxima-
tion of pile equilibrium. The higher the number of elements,
the better the approximation. On the other hand, the higher
the number of elements, the longer the analysis.
(3) For the cases analyzed and shown in Table 3, a time
integration interval of 0.0001 s was used. The analyses pro-
ceeded until 0.5 s, for both 20% and 50% toe resistance. For
Figures 6–9 show residual stresses and residual shaft fric-
80% toe resistance, the final analysis time was doubled, oth-
tion distributions along the pile shaft determined by the
erwise the displacements would not be completely stabi-
DINEXP program and the available shaft friction resistance
lized. A significant reduction in pile vibration was verified
assumed in the analyses, that is, both triangular and uniform
with the increase of the final analysis time. The residual
distributions for Figs. 6 and 7, triangular distribution for
stress at each pile element was assumed to be the average of
Fig. 8, and uniform distribution with varying driving ener-
the last 12 values, calculated by the program, after a visual
gies for Fig. 9.
examination of the stress versus time graph indicated com-
The neutral point, where the residual shaft friction is zero,
plete stabilization.
occurs at the position of maximum residual stress in the pile
From the values of stabilized stresses obtained in each
element, and a residual stress increase is associated with
pile element, the residual shaft friction τi developed along
negative shaft friction, whereas a residual stress decrease is
the pile–soil interface was calculated as follows (Fig. 4):
associated with positive shaft friction. A summary of the re-
(σ i − σ i −1) A sults is given in Table 4.
[1] τi = The ratios of toe residual load to total bearing capacity
U ∆l
and toe residual load to end bearing capacity are summa-
where rized in Table 5.
σi is the residual axial stress in element i;
σi–1 is the residual axial stress in element i – 1; Discussion
∆l is the element length;
U is the pile perimeter; and The following observations are made from the results in
A is the cross-sectional area of the pile. the previous section.
For the first element (near pile toe) the residual shaft fric-
tion (Fig. 5) was calculated from Toe resistance effect
For any shaft friction resistance distribution and driving en-
(σ i − σ p) A ergy, the residual stresses are much influenced by the magni-
[2] τi =
∆l tude of the end resistance in relation to the total bearing
U capacity. From Table 5, the ratio of toe residual load to total
2
bearing capacity first increases and then decreases with in-
where σp is the residual axial stress at the pile toe. creasing end bearing capacity. In fact, residual shaft friction
© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:14 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

416 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Table 4. Summary of residual stress analyses by the DINEXP program.

Qp,res Qmax,res Pile head displacement (mm) Pile toe displacement (mm)
Case* (kN) Zcr (m) (kN) Max. Stabilized Max. Stabilized
P2-DL-E1 166.80 14.2 349.31 12.00 3.38 3.96 2.30
P5-DL-E1 352.66 17.0 397.78 13.22 2.97 3.67 1.88
P8-DL-E1 232.56 18.8 236.77 14.94 1.05 3.68 1.45
P2-DU-E1 206.72 11.2 410.20 9.97 4.03 3.71 2.26
P5-DU-E1 394.76 16.5 432.96 11.76 3.41 3.48 1.78
P8-DU-E1 218.93 18.8 221.57 14.31 1.37 3.60 1.35
P2-DU-E2 201.30 11.0 407.54 13.37 6.59 6.25 4.77
P5-DU-E2 449.44 16.0 500.34 15.58 5.87 5.50 3.90
P8-DU-E2 242.26 19.0 244.96 18.22 2.83 5.34 3.12
P2-DU-E3 198.62 11.0 396.93 16.40 9.40 9.13 7.64
P5-DU-E3 454.45 15.8 506.68 18.60 8.18 7.71 6.13
P8-DU-E3 213.58 19.0 215.84 21.24 3.72 7.18 4.92
Note: Qp,res, residual load at the pile toe; Qmax,res, maximum residual load at the pile shaft; Zcr , depth where residual shaft friction is zero.
*P2, P5, and P8 denote toe resistance of 20, 50, and 80%, respectively; DL and DU denote linear and uniform shaft friction resistance distribution,
respectively; E1, E2, and E3 denote the distinct driving energy analyzed.

Fig. 6. Linear and uniform shaft friction resistance distribution for 20% toe resistance: (a) available shaft friction resistance along a
double I-shaped steel pile, 20 m long, and 12 in. by 4.625 in. in cross section; (b) residual stress distribution along the pile; and
(c) residual shaft friction.

along the pile arises as a means to equilibrate residual toe re-
sistance. When the percentage of toe resistance is low, the re-
sidual toe resistance is obviously low and the ratio of residual
load at the pile toe (Qp,res) to total bearing capacity (Qult) is
small. On the other hand, when the percentage of toe resis-
tance is high, the residual toe resistance is low because there
is not enough residual shaft friction to equilibrate it. When
toe resistance approximates shaft friction resistance, residual
stresses can be high, as residual shaft friction can be sufficient
to restrain complete unloading of the pile toe.
With the increase in toe resistance percentage, the neutral
point deepens, approaching the pile toe. This is due to the
fact that the greater the toe resistance, the longer the extent
of the shaft friction resistance mobilization needed to
equilibrate residual stresses at the pile toe.
The greater the toe resistance percentage, the lower the
permanent displacement at the pile head and pile toe for the
same driving energy. In fact, when toe resistance percentage
is high, driving is difficult, resulting in small sets.
Shaft friction distribution effect
The greater the toe resistance percentage, the lower the in-
fluence of shaft friction resistance distribution on residual
stresses. This is due to the fact that for a high toe resistance,
© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:17 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Notes 417

Fig. 7. Linear and uniform shaft friction resistance distribution for 80% toe resistance: (a) available shaft friction along a double I-
shaped steel pile, 20 m long, and 12 in. by 4.625 in. in cross section; (b) residual stress distribution along the pile; and (c) residual
shaft friction.

Fig. 8. Linear shaft friction resistance distribution for 50% toe resistance: (a) available shaft friction along a double I-shaped steel pile,
20 m long, and 12 in. by 4.625 in. in cross section; (b) residual stress distribution along the pile; and (c) residual shaft friction.

shaft friction resistance is low, and therefore its distribution
is not relevant.
For the shaft friction resistance distribution, the position
of the neutral point is only affected significantly when toe
resistance is low. In all other cases, the position of the neu-
tral point is practically the same, both for linear and uniform
shaft friction resistance distributions.
The permanent displacement at the pile head is lower for
a linear shaft friction resistance distribution compared with
that for a uniform distribution.
© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:20 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

418 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Fig. 9. Uniform shaft friction resistance distribution for 50% toe resistance: (a) available shaft friction along a double I-shaped steel
pile, 20 m long, and 12 in. by 4.625 in. in cross section; (b) residual stress distribution along the pile for driving energies 1, 2, and 3;
and (c) residual shaft friction for driving energies 1, 2, and 3.

Table 5. Ratios of toe residual load (Qp,res) to Table 6. Results from the WEAP and DINEXP programs for a
total bearing capacity (Qult) and end bearing double I-shaped steel pile, 20 m long, 12 in. by 4.625 in. in
capacity (Qp). cross section, and with a bearing capacity of 2400 kN.
Case* Qp,res/Qult Qp,res/Qp WEAP DINEXP
P2-DL-E1 0.07 0.35 Qp,res Qmax,res Zcr Qp,res Qmax,res Zcr
P5-DL-E1 0.15 0.29 Case (kN) (kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (m)
P8-DL-E1 0.10 0.12 P2 153 328 15.3 167 349 14.2
P2-DU-E1 0.09 0.43 P5 326 351 18.6 353 398 17.0
P5-DU-E1 0.16 0.33 P8 341 341 20.0 233 237 18.8
P8-DU-E1 0.09 0.11
P2-DU-E2 0.08 0.42
P5-DU-E2 0.19 0.37
particle velocity at the pile head and the pile toe. Conse-
P8-DU-E2 0.10 0.13
quently, pile head and toe displacements also increase with
P2-DU-E3 0.08 0.41
an increase in the driving energy.
P5-DU-E3 0.19 0.38
The position of the neutral point remains practically the
P8-DU-E3 0.09 0.11 same with variations in the driving energy.
* For case description see Table 4.
Comparison with existing solutions
The position where maximum residual shaft friction oc-
curs varies with shaft friction resistance distribution. It can For the same pile as that chosen in the previous analysis,
be observed, however, that for the same distribution this po- applications of the charts of Darrag and Lovell (1989) and
sition deepens with increasing toe resistance. the WEAP program (Goble et al. 1998) were made to com-
pare the residual load at the pile toe, maximum residual load
Driving energy effect at the pile shaft, and position of the neutral point with the
The driving energy influences the number of loading–un- values from application of the DINEXP program.
loading cycles. However, residual stress values do not pres- Darrag and Lovell (1989) do not mention the shaft friction
ent any practical change for different energies. The resistance distribution considered in their analyses but they
conclusion is that residual stresses are not sensitive to driv- comment that the charts were prepared assuming a normally
ing energy. consolidated initial condition. A linear shaft friction resis-
The greater the driving energy, the higher the driving tance distribution was, therefore, considered in the compari-
stresses, and the higher the driving stresses, the greater the son.

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:22 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Notes
Table 7. Results from Darrag and Lovell (1989) and the WEAP and DINEXP programs for a double I-shaped steel pile, 20 m long,
12 in. by 4.625 in. in cross section, and with a bearing capacity of 1250 kN.
Darrag and Lovell DINEXP
Qp,res Qmax,res Zcr Qp,res
Case (kN) (kN) (m) (kN)
P2 194 204 14.7 121
P5 373 391 16.8 187
P8 238 250 18.9 144
As the charts presented by Darrag and Lovell (1989)
cover a small range of bearing capacity values, two applica-
tions were made. In the first, a bearing capacity of 2400 kN
was assumed and a comparison was made between the
WEAP and DINEXP results. For the second application, a
bearing capacity of 1250 kN was chosen, which is the upper
bound value of the chart from Darrag and Lovell.
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the results of the first and the
second applications, respectively, for a double I-shaped steel
pile, 20 m long, in sandy soil. The pile characteristics are the
same as those shown in Table 1, except that the bearing ca-
pacity is 1250 kN for the second application.
The following observations are made from Table 6:
(1) The differences in residual load at the pile toe deter-
mined from the WEAP and DINEXP programs vary with
variations in toe resistance percentage. Although this differ-
ence is less than 10% for 20% and 50% toe resistance, it
reaches almost 50% for 80% toe resistance. Whereas the re-
sidual toe resistance, Qp,res, first increases and then decreases
with an increase in toe resistance percentage in the DINEXP
analyses, the WEAP results indicate residual toe resistance
increases with an increase in toe resistance percentage. This
latter result is not consistent with the fact (pointed out previ-
ously in this paper) that when the percentage of toe resis-
tance is high, the residual toe resistance is expected to be
proportionally low because there is not enough residual shaft
friction to equilibrate it.
(2) Different behaviour is depicted for the maximum re-
sidual load at the pile shaft, Qmax,res. Both the WEAP and the
DINEXP analyses indicate a maximum residual load in-
creasing and then decreasing with an increase in toe resis-
tance percentage, with the DINEXP results showing this in a
much more marked form. The difference in results from both
programs is less than 15% for 20% and 50% toe resistance,
but it reaches almost 50% for 80% toe resistance.
(3) Both the WEAP and the DINEXP analyses indicate
that the lower the toe resistance percentage, the shallower
the depth of the neutral point. The position of the neutral
point for a given toe resistance percentage is lower in the
DINEXP results when compared with the WEAP results but
the difference is less than 10%.
The following observations are made from Table 7:
(1) The chart of Darrag and Lovell (1989) indicated con-
servative values of residual load at the pile toe and at the
pile shaft when compared with those from the other proce-
dures.
(2) The residual load at the pile toe, Qp,res, evaluated by
the chart of Darrag and Lovell (1989) and the DINEXP pro-
gram indicates the same behaviour: Qp,res increases and then
decreases with an increase in toe resistance percentage. The
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:23 PM
419
WEAP
Qmax,res Zcr Qp,res Qmax,res Zcr
(kN) (m) (kN) (kN) (m)
189 18.2 131 151 16.6
211 18.6 177 182 18.8
148 18.9 185 185 20.0
same behaviour is also observed for the calculated values of
the maximum residual load at the pile shaft, Qmax,res. On the
other hand, the WEAP program presented residual loads at
the pile toe and maximum residual loads at the pile shaft in-
creasing with an increase in toe resistance percentage.
(3) Although the chart of Darrag and Lovell (1989) was
based on the CUWEAP program, which is a previous ver-
sion of WEAP (Goble et al. 1998), the results were not simi-
lar. For 50% toe resistance, the differences reach 110% for
the residual load at the pile toe and for the maximum resid-
ual load at the pile shaft.
(4) The DINEXP and WEAP programs presented values
of residual loads at the pile toe differing by less than 10%,
except at 80% toe resistance, where differences were almost
30%.
(5) Both the DINEXP and the WEAP analyses indicated
the neutral point at a position deeper than that indicated by
Darrag and Lovell (1989). The position of the neutral point
given by the DINEXP and WEAP analyses differed by no
more than 10%.
Comparing the results from Tables 6 and 7, the following
observations can be made:
(1) The DINEXP and WEAP results indicated a similar
residual load at the pile toe for both values of bearing capac-
ity analyzed, differing by only 10%, for low values of toe re-
sistance percentage. On the other hand, for greater toe
resistance percentages the differences are relevant, reaching
50%. The higher the bearing capacity, the greater the differ-
ences between the programs.
(2) Whereas the DINEXP and Darrag and Lovell (1989)
results indicate residual toe resistance that first increases and
then decreases with an increase in toe resistance percentage,
the WEAP values only increases with an increase in toe re-
sistance percentage.
(3) The position of the neutral point as defined by Darrag
and Lovell (1989) is a function of the toe resistance percent-
age and pile length, whereas the DINEXP and WEAP results
show that it also varies with variations in bearing capacity.
(4) The chart of Darrag and Lovell (1989) and the WEAP
program were not expected to provide relevant differences,
as both procedures were based on the CUWEAP program. It
is possible that the last version of WEAP (Goble et al. 1998)
has introduced some relevant improvements in the program.
(5) The differences between the DINEXP and WEAP pro-
grams seem to be important when toe resistance percentage
is high. In fact, for high toe resistance percentage the pile set
is expected to be low. As a consequence, the proper determi-
nation of permanent displacement of the pile toe is of utmost
relevance. The determination of the set as a stabilized dis-
placement, according to the DINEXP program, or assuming
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
420
some simplified procedure, according to the WEAP pro-
gram, may have an important effect on residual load.
(6) It should be emphasized that the DINEXP analyses in-
volve many loading–unloading cycles, which can contribute
to a reduction in the calculated residual load. In fact, accord-
ing to Rieke and Crowser (1987), residual stresses are re-
duced significantly, although not completely, after one or
two load cycles.
(7) Although the position of the neutral point is practi-
cally the same, the ratio of Qmax,res to Qp,res presents consid-
erable differences. While for Darrag and Lovell’s (1989)
application this ratio is always the same, being equal to 1.05
for any toe resistance percentage, application of the WEAP
and DINEXP programs shows a different behaviour. In the
latter, the ratio tends to be higher when toe resistance is
lower and the neutral point is at a shallow depth. This be-
haviour can also be followed in Figs. 6–8 and seems to be
much more consistent than keeping a constant ratio of 1.05.
Conclusions
Residual driving stresses calculated with a new program
have been presented. The results can be considered more re-
liable, since no simplifications are introduced in the analysis
as far as displacement stabilization is concerned. Displace-
ment stabilization is accomplished by running the program
for longer, up to zero particle velocity at the pile toe. At this
time, no further variation in particle velocity and displace-
ment at the pile toe are detected in the analysis.
A parametric study of the occurrence of residual stresses
for a steel pile showed interesting features concerning the
effect of toe resistance, shaft friction resistance distribution,
and driving energy. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) For any shaft friction resistance distribution and driv-
ing energy, the residual stresses are strongly influenced by
the ratio of end resistance to total bearing capacity. The ratio
of toe residual load to total bearing capacity first increases
and then decreases with an increase in end bearing capacity.
(2) With an increase in toe resistance percentage, the neu-
tral point deepens, approaching the pile toe.
(3) The greater the toe resistance percentage, the lower
the influence of shaft friction resistance distribution on re-
sidual stresses.
(4) In terms of the shaft friction resistance distribution,
the position of the neutral point is only affected significantly
when toe resistance is low. For all other cases, its position is
practically the same, for both linear (triangular) and uniform
shaft friction distributions.
(5) The position where the maximum residual shaft fric-
tion occurs varies with variations in the shaft friction resis-
tance distribution. For the same distribution, however, this
position deepens with increasing toe resistance.
(6) The driving energy influences the number of loading–
unloading cycles. However, residual stresses do not vary sig-
nificantly for different energies.
(7) The position of the neutral point does not change with
changes in driving energy.
A comparison was made between a published solution by
Darrag and Lovell (1989), the well-known WEAP program
(Goble et al. 1998), and the DINEXP program. Comparing
the results from Darrag and Lovell with those from the
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:23 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
WEAP program, one can conclude that, as both procedures
were based on the CUWEAP program, it is possible that the
new version of WEAP has introduced some relevant im-
provements.
If a comparison is now made between the WEAP and
DINEXP programs, both provide comparable results for low
toe resistance percentage. However, important differences
arise when toe resistance percentage is high. In fact, for high
toe resistance percentage, the pile set is expected to be low.
As a consequence, determination of the pile set as a stabi-
lized displacement, according to the DINEXP program, or
assuming some simplified procedure, according to the
WEAP program, may have an important effect on the calcu-
lated residual load for hard driving conditions, in which toe
resistance prevails.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Alvaro Maia da Costa, from
PETROBRÁS, the Brazilian Oil Company, for the DINEXP
program used in the analyses, to Jorge William Beim, from
PDI, for performing the analyses with the WEAP program,
and to CAPES, the Ministry of Education Fund for Graduate
Courses, for the scholarship given to the first author.
References
Briaud, J.L., and Tucker, L. 1984. Piles in sand: a method includ-
ing residual stresses. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 110: 1666–1680.
Cooke, R.W. 1979. Influence of residual installation forces on the
stress transfer and settlement under working loads of jacked and
bored piles in cohesive soils. In Behaviour of deep foundations.
Edited by R. Lundgren. American Society for Testing and Mate-
rials, Special Technical Publication STP 670, pp. 231–249.
Cooke, R.W., and Price, G. 1973. Strains and displacements around
friction piles. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow,
Vol. 2.1, pp. 53–60.
Costa, A.M. 1998. DINEXP, revised version. PETROBRÁS Inter-
nal Report. Petrobrás, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Costa, A.M., Moreira, L.F.R., Ebecken, N.F.F., Coutinho,
A.L.G.A., Landau, L., and Alves, J.L.D. 1988. Recent applica-
tion of computer methods for driveability analysis of offshore
piles in Brazil. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Computer Modelling in Ocean Engineering, Veneza,
pp. 665–672.
Danziger, B.R. 1991. Dynamic analysis of pile driving. D.Sc. the-
sis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. [In
Portuguese.]
Danziger, B.R., Costa, A.M., Lopes, F.R., and Pacheco, M.P. 1992.
Back-analyses of closed-end pipe piles for an offshore platform.
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Appli-
cation of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, The Hague, Vol. 1,
pp. 557–562.
Darrag, A.A., and Lovell, C.W. 1989. A simplified procedure for
predicting residual stresses for piles. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2, pp. 1127–1130.
Decourt, L. 1991. Thoughts concerning the interpretation of suc-
cessive load tests on the same pile. In Proceedings of the 9th
Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Vol. 2, pp. 585–597.
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Notes
Goble, G.G., and Hery, P. 1984. Influence of residual forces on pile
driveability. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Stockholm,
pp. 154–161.
Goble, G.G., Rausche, F., and Likins, G.E. 1988. GRLWEAP —
wave equation analysis of pile driving. WEAP 87 program man-
ual. GRL, Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. Cleveland,
Ohio.
Goble, G.G., Rausche, F., and Likins, G.E. 1998. GRLWEAP —
wave equation analysis of pile driving. GRLWEAP program,
procedures and models. Program manual. Pile Dynamics Inc.,
GRL, Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. Cleveland,
Ohio.
Gregersen, O.S., Aas, G., and DiBiagio, E. 1973. Load tests on
friction piles in loose sand. In Proceedings of the 8th Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Moscow, Vol. 2.1, pp. 109–117.
Hery, P. 1983. Residual stress analysis in Weap. M.Sc. thesis, Uni-
versity of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Holloway, D.M., Clough, G.W., and Vesic, A.S. 1978. The effects
of residual driving stress on piles performance under axial loads.
In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Hous-
ton, OTC 3306, pp. 2225–2236.
Hunter, A.H., and Davisson, M.T. 1969. Measurement of pile load
transfer. In Performance of deep foundation. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication STP
444, pp. 106–117.
Leonards, G.A., and Darrag, A.A. 1987. Analysis of residual stress
effects in piles. Discussion. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, ASCE, 113: 589–593.
Maiorano, R.M.S., Viggiani, C., and Randolph, M.F. 1996. Resid-
ual stress system arising from different methods of pile installa-
tion. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj02\T00-095.vp
Monday, April 09, 2001 12:21:24 PM
421
Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, Vol. 1.
pp. 518–528.
Massad, F. 1992. The interpretation of load tests in piles, consider-
ing the residual point loads and the skin friction reversion. Part
I. Relatively homogeneous soils São Paulo. Revista Solos e
Rochas, 15(2): 103–115. [In Portuguese.]
O’Neill, M., Hawkins, R.A., and Audibert, J.M.E. 1982. Installa-
tion of pile group in overconsolidated clay. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 108: 1369–1386.
Paes, E.P.F. 1983. Mechanisms associated to pile driving. M.Sc.
thesis, Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. [In
Portuguese.]
Poulos, H.G. 1987. Analysis of residual stress effects in piles.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113: 216–229.
Randolph, M.F. 1991. The effect of residual stress in interpreting
stress wave data. Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 1, pp. 777–782.
Rausche, F., Richardson, B., and Likins, G. 1996. Multiple blow
Capwap analysis of pile dynamic records. In Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave
Theory to Piles, Orlando, Vol. 1, pp. 435–446.
Rieke, R.D., and Crowser, J.C. 1987. Interpretation of pile load test
considering residual stresses. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, ASCE, 113: 320–334.
Simons, H.A. 1985. A theoretical study of pile driving. Ph.D. the-
sis, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Smith, E.A.L. 1960. Pile driving analysis by the wave equation.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
127: 1145–1193.
Vesic, A.S. 1977. On the significance of residual loads for load re-
sponse of piles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo,
Vol. 3, pp. 374–379.
© 2001 NRC Canada