GRLWEAP 14 - Background Report - Part 2

GRLWEAP14 Background Report
Part 2: Static Soil Resistance

Models
www.pile.com Pile Dynamics,

Inc.® REV 7.11.22
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Basic Equation for Pile Capacity Calculations ............................................................1

1.2 About the Static Analysis Methods .............................................................................1
1.3 Necessary Soil and Pile Information ...........................................................................4
2 Soil Type Based Method (ST) ............................................................................................5
2.1 Granular Soils .............................................................................................................5

2.1.1 Unit Shaft Resistance ........................................................................................5
2.1.2 Unit Toe Resistance ...........................................................................................5
2.2 Cohesive Soils ............................................................................................................6
2.3 Rock or Other Soil Types ............................................................................................7
3 SPT N-value Based Method (SA) .......................................................................................8
3.1 Sand and/or Gravel .....................................................................................................8

3.1.1 Input ...................................................................................................................8
3.1.2 Unit Toe Resistance ...........................................................................................9
3.2 Clay ...........................................................................................................................10
3.2.1 Input .................................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Unit Shaft Resistance ......................................................................................10
3.2.3 Unit Toe Resistance in Clay .............................................................................11
3.3 Silt .............................................................................................................................11
3.3.1 Input .................................................................................................................11
3.3.3 Unit Toe Resistance .........................................................................................12
3.4 Rock or Other Soil Types ..........................................................................................12
4 The CPT Method ...............................................................................................................13
4.1 Unit Shaft Resistance in Cohesive Soil .....................................................................13

4.2 Unit Toe Resistance for All Soil Types ......................................................................14
4.3 The Procedure to Calculate Soil Resistance ............................................................15
4.3.1 Data Import ......................................................................................................15
4.4 Soil Classification ......................................................................................................17
5 The FHWA/DRIVEN Method .............................................................................................18
5.1 Cohesive Soil – Tomlinson Method ..........................................................................18

5.1.1 Input .................................................................................................................18
5.2 Unit Shaft Resistance ...............................................................................................18
5.3 Unit Toe Resistance ..................................................................................................18
5.4 Cohesionless Soil - Nordlund Method .......................................................................20
5.4.1 Input .................................................................................................................20
5.5 Unit Shaft Resistance ...............................................................................................21
5.6 Unit Toe Resistance ..................................................................................................26
GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

6 The API Method .................................................................................................................29
6.1 Cohesive Soil ............................................................................................................29

6.1.1 Input .................................................................................................................29
6.2 Cohesionless Soil .....................................................................................................30
6.2.1 Input .................................................................................................................30
7 The API2 Method ...............................................................................................................32
7.1 Soil Type Based Method ...........................................................................................32

7.1.1 Soil Type Based: Cohesive Soil .......................................................................32
7.1.1.1 Input ...................................................................................................................... 32
7.1.1.2 Unit Toe Resistance ............................................................................................. 33
7.1.2 Soil Type Based: Cohesionless Soil ................................................................33
7.1.2.1 Input ...................................................................................................................... 33
7.1.2.2 Unit Shaft Resistance ........................................................................................... 34
7.1.3 Rock and Other Soil Types ..............................................................................35
7.2 CPT-Based Resistance Computation .......................................................................35
7.2.1 The Simplified ICP-05 Method .........................................................................36
7.2.1.1 Unit Shaft Resistance of Offshore UWA-05 and Fugro-05 Methods .................... 36
7.2.2 The UWA-05 Method .......................................................................................38
7.2.3 The Fugro-05 Method ......................................................................................38
7.2.4 The NGI-05 Method .........................................................................................38
7.3 GW14 Plugging Considerations and Options for the 4 CPT Methods in API2 ..........39
8 Alm and Hamre .................................................................................................................41
9 The Standard Setup Approach: Calculating the SRD from LTSR ................................44
9.1 Fixed Loss of Setup ..................................................................................................44

9.2 Variable Loss of Setup ..............................................................................................46
10 The GW Friction Fatigue Approach ..............................................................................49
11 Results and Outputs .......................................................................................................52
Appendix A: References ..................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix B: Soil Classification ........................................................................................................... 55

Appendix C: Soil Layer Thickness and Interface Considerations ....................................................... 58
Appendix D: GRLWEAP Friction Fatigue, Examples and Comparison with the Standard Approach . 61
Appendix E: Plug Formation and Internal Friction Considerations in Open Profiles ........................... 67

List of Figures
Figure 3.1:Toe Resistance Coefficient, N t , after Fellenius (2014). ................................................. 10
Figure 4.1: Penetrometer sleeve friction to pile shaft resistance ratio, a , after Schmertmann, 1978, for
cohesive soils. ................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4.2: Ratio of unit pile shaft resistance to unit cone sleeve friction for sand after Schmertmann,
1978. ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 4.3: An illustration of the Nottingham and Schmertmann procedure for estimating pile toe
resistance (after Schmertmann, 1978). ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 4.4: Example of the top portion of a CPT text file with 4 comment lines and MPa units for both
resistance values. ............................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 5.1: Adhesion values for piles in cohesive soils (after Tomlinson, 1979). ............................ 19
Figure 5.2: Adhesion factor for driven pile in cohesive soil (after Tomlinson 1980). ....................... 20
Figure 5.3 - Coefficient of later stress, K  , for  = 25 (after Norlund 1979). .............................. 21
Figure 5.5: Coefficient of later stress, K  , for  = 35 (after Norlund 1979). ............................... 23
Figure 5.7: Correction coefficient for K  when    . .................................................................... 25
Figure 5.8: Ratio of pile-soil friction angles,    for various pile types and displaced soil volume after
Nordlund 1979. ................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 5.9: N q factor for unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil. .................................................. 26
Figure 5.10: a factor for unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil. ................................................... 27
Figure 5.11: Relationship between limit unit toe resistance and internal friction angle. .................. 27
Figure 9.1: Variable Setup Concept. ............................................................................................... 47
Figure 10.1: Multiplier for f su = 5 , Limit Dist = 50 m, Pile L = 75 m; f o = 0.1 and 0.001, f L = 0.1
and 0.05. .......................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure B.1: Soil classification from CPT data (after Robertson et al. 1986). ................................... 55
Figure C.1: Illustration of the Effect of Soil Layer Thickness. .......................................................... 58
Figure C.2: A computation of the unit toe resistance near the soil layer interface. This illustration
shows a case with a strong middle layer. From Case A: The thickness of middle layer is larger than

the affecting zones. From Case B: The thickness of middle layer is smaller compared to the affecting
zones. From Case C: The affecting zone in the weaker layers is not considered. Case C is the GW14
default. ............................................................................................................................................. 60
Figure C.3: A computation of the unit toe resistance near the soil layer interface. This illustration
shows a comparison of the 3 cases. ................................................................................................ 60
Figure D.1: Input of GRLWEAP FF Parameters. ............................................................................. 61
Figure D.2: Uniform soil, 3 different depths, L li = 50 m (164 ft) and f o = 0.01. .............................. 62
Figure D.3: 100 m pile; 50 m sand with f s = 1.25 ; over 50 m clay with f s = 5 ; L i = 50m ; f o = 0.01 ;
f L = 0.0 . ......................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure D.4: 100 m (328 ft) pile; 50 m (164 ft) sand with f s = 1.25 ; over 50 m (164 ft) clay with
f s = 5 ;L i = 50m ;f o = 0.01 ;f L = 0.05 . ............................................................................................. 64
Figure D.5: Example of the friction fatigue factor (reduced/initial resistance) vs. normalized depth
assuming a Friction Fatigue setup factor f sFF = 4 . ....................................................................... 65
Figure D.6: Friction Fatigue setup factors give the same total shaft resistance as the standard setup
factors for L l is the pile toe depth. .................................................................................................. 66

List of Tables
Table 2.1: ST Analysis Parameters for Granular Soils ...................................................................... 6
Table 2.2: ST Analysis Parameters for Cohesive Soils ..................................................................... 6
Table 6.1: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Soil, API, 1993, p. 67 .......................................... 30
Table 7.1: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Siliceous Soil (based on API code, 2007, p. 64) . 35
Table 7.1: Unit shaft resistance parameters for driven open-ended steel pile piles for the simplified
ICP-05, Offshore UWA-05 and Fugro-05 methods .......................................................................... 37
Table B-1: Soil Classifications from Robertson et al. (1986) in comparison with the SA Method. ... 55
Table B-2: Empirical values for  , D r , and Y of granular soils based on corrected (after Bowles,
1977). ............................................................................................................................................... 56
Table B-3: Empirical values for q u and consistency of cohesive soils based on uncorrected N (after
Bowles, 1977) .................................................................................................................................. 56
Table D-1: GW Standard Setup Factor vs. FF Setup Factors ......................................................... 66

Pile Dynamics, Inc.
Software End User License Agreement
This End User License Agreement (this “Agreement”) is a binding agreement between Pile Dynamics, Inc.
(“Licensor”) and the person or entity that has purchased a product that includes a license to use the Software or a
separate license to use the Software (“Licensee” or “You”).
LICENSOR PROVIDES THE SOFTWARE SOLELY ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN
THIS AGREEMENT. BY INSTALLING OR USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU (A) ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT
AND AGREE THAT LICENSEE IS LEGALLY BOUND BY ITS TERMS; AND (B) REPRESENT AND
WARRANT THAT, IF LICENSEE IS A CORPORATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, YOU HAVE THE
RIGHT, POWER, AND AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF LICENSEE AND
BIND LICENSEE TO ITS TERMS. IF LICENSEE DOES NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT, LICENSOR WILL NOT AND DOES NOT LICENSE THE SOFTWARE TO LICENSEE AND
YOU MUST NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE OR DOCUMENTATION.
1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings:
"Documentation" means the manuals provided by Licensor, in printed, electronic, or

other form, that describe the installation, operation, use, or technical specifications of the Software.
"Intellectual Property Rights" means any and all registered and unregistered rights
granted, applied for, or otherwise now or hereafter in existence under or related to any patent, copyright,
trademark, trade secret, database protection, or other intellectual property rights laws, and all similar or
equivalent rights or forms of protection, in any part of the world.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability
company, governmental authority, unincorporated organization, trust, association, or other entity.
"Software" means the software programs provided or otherwise made available by
Licensor to Licensee pursuant to this Agreement (including any Updates provided by Licensor to Licensee),
which may include, without limitation, [PDW-S, Pile Driving Analyzer Software, CAPWAP,
GRLWEAP,_TIP-R, CHA-W, CHA-S, PIT-W, SHAPE-S and SQUID-S].
"Term" has the meaning set forth in Section .
"Third Party" means any Person other than Licensee or Licensor.
"Update" has the meaning set forth in Section .
2. License Grant and Scope. Subject to and conditioned upon Licensee's compliance with this
Agreement, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license
during the Term to use the Software and Documentation solely for Licensee’s internal business purposes in
accordance with the Documentation.
3. Third-Party Materials and Products; Cloud Hosting.
(a) The Software may include software or other materials that are owned by Persons other
than Licensor and that are provided to Licensee on licensee terms that are in addition to and/or different
from those contained in this Agreement (“Third-Party Licenses”). Under no circumstances shall Licensor
have any responsibility or liability to You with respect to any product or service provided by a Person other
than Licensor (a “Third Party Product”), including any provider of cloud hosting services that may be
offered in connection with the Software (“Cloud Hosting”). Licensee shall comply with all Third-Party
Licenses and terms and conditions of any Third Party Product.
4827-3749-7057.4 i
(b) Cloud Hosting may be provided as an accommodation to Licensee and may be subject to
additional charges. Licensee acknowledges that Licensor shall not be responsible for any storage or
backing-up of any data stored in connection with any Cloud Hosting. Licensee shall be responsible for
backing-up, downloading and/or archiving any data stored in a Cloud Hosting environment and Licensor
shall have no liability for any loss, damage or deletion of such data.
4. Use Restrictions. Licensee shall not, directly or indirectly: (a) provide any other Person with
access to or use of the Software or Documentation other than employees or contractors using the Software for
Licensee’s benefit (“Representatives”); (b) modify, translate, adapt, or otherwise create derivative works or
improvements of the Software or Documentation or any part thereof; (c) combine the Software or any part thereof
with, or incorporate the Software or any part thereof in, any programs or products not provided by Licensor; (d)
reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, decode, or otherwise attempt to derive or gain access to the source code of
the Software or any part thereof; (e) remove, delete, alter, or obscure any trademarks or any copyright, trademark,
patent, or other intellectual property or proprietary rights notices provided on or with the Software or Documentation;
(f) copy the Software onto more than one computer or device or, solely with respect to GRLWEAP software, stored
on a single server for use over a network as contemplated by the Documentation; (g) rent, lease, sell, sublicense,
assign, distribute, publish, transfer, or otherwise make available the Software, or any features or functionality of the
Software, to any Third Party for any reason; (h) use the Software or Documentation in violation of any law,
regulation, or rule; (i) use the Software or Documentation for purposes of competitive analysis of the Software, the
development of a competing software product or service, or any other purpose that is to Licensor's commercial
disadvantage or (j) use the Software in a manner outside of the scope of the license granted in Section 2 or otherwise
not contemplated by the Documentation.
5. Responsibility for Use of Software. Licensee is responsible and liable for all actions and failures to
take required actions with respect to the Software and Documentation by its Representatives or by any other Person to
whom Licensee or a Representative may provide access to or use of the Software and/or Documentation, whether
such access or use is permitted by or in violation of this Agreement.
6. Audit. During the Term, Licensor may audit Licensee's use of the Software to ensure Licensee's
compliance with this Agreement. Licensee shall cooperate with Licensor's personnel conducting such audits and
provide all reasonable access requested by Licensor to records, systems, equipment, information, and personnel.
Licensor may conduct audits only during Licensee's normal business hours and in a manner that does not
unreasonably interfere with Licensee's business operations.
7. Updates. Licensor may provide updates, upgrades, bug fixes or patches to the Software
(collectively, “Updates”) as Licensor makes generally available to all licensees of the Software free of charge.
Licensor may develop and provide Updates in its sole discretion, and Licensee agrees that Licensor has no obligation
to develop any Updates at all or for particular issues. Licensee further agrees that all Updates will be deemed
Software subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. Licensee acknowledges that Licensor may provide
some or all Updates via download from a website designated by Licensor and that Licensee's receipt thereof will
require an internet connection, which connection is Licensee's sole responsibility. Licensor may, in its sole
discretion, offer new versions or releases of the Software as a separate or new product, which may be made available
subject to additional fees or require a separate purchase.
8. Collection and Use of Data. Licensee acknowledges that Licensor may collect and store technical
data obtained or generated in connection with Licensee’s use of the Software (“Collected Data”). Licensor shall be
the owner of all Collected Data and Licensee agrees that Licensor may use such information for any lawful purpose,
including but not limited to (i) improving the performance of the Software or developing Updates, (ii) verifying
Licensee's compliance with the terms of this Agreement and (iii) compiling databases of the technical data for use in
connection with Licensor’s business; provided that such use will be in a manner that does not allow Third Parties to
identify Licensee. Licensor hereby grants to Licensee a perpetual license to use any Collected Data for Licensee’s
internal business purposes.
4827-3749-7057.4 ii
9. Intellectual Property Rights. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the Software and
Documentation are provided under license, and not sold, to Licensee. Licensee does not acquire any ownership
interest in the Software or Documentation under this Agreement, other than to use the same in accordance with the
license granted and subject to this Agreement.
10. Term and Termination. This Agreement and the license granted hereunder shall remain in effect so
long as Licensee is using the Software in the manner provided herein or until earlier terminated as set forth herein (the
"Term").
(a) Licensee may terminate this Agreement by ceasing to use and destroying all copies of the
Software and Documentation.
(b) Licensor may terminate this Agreement, effective upon written notice to Licensee, if
Licensee, breaches this Agreement and such breach: (i) is incapable of cure; or (ii) being capable of cure,
remains uncured ten (10) days after Licensor provides written notice thereof.
(c) Licensor may terminate this Agreement, effective immediately, if Licensee files, or has
filed against it, a petition for voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or pursuant to any other insolvency law,
makes or seeks to make a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors or applies for, or consents to, the
appointment of a trustee, receiver, or custodian for a substantial part of its property.
(d) Upon expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, the license granted hereunder
shall also terminate, and Licensee shall cease using and destroy all copies of the Software and
Documentation.
11. Limited Warranties, Exclusive Remedy, and Disclaimer.
(a) Licensor warrants that, for a period of twelve (12) months following the purchase date, the
Software will substantially contain the functionality described in the Documentation, and when properly
installed on a computer meeting the specifications set forth in and operated in accordance with the
Documentation, will substantially perform in accordance therewith. THE FOREGOING WARRANTIES
DO NOT APPLY, AND LICENSOR STRICTLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WITH RESPECT
TO ANY THIRD-PARTY MATERIALS.
(b) The warranties will not apply if Licensee or any other Person (i) installs or uses the
Software on or in connection with any hardware or software not specified in the Documentation, (ii)
modifies the Software or (iii) misuses the Software, including any use of the Software other than as specified
in the Documentation.
(c) If, during the period specified in Section , any Software fails to perform substantially in
accordance with the Documentation, and such failure is not excluded from warranty pursuant to the Section
, Licensor will, if Licensor determines in its reasonable discretion that such failure severely impacts the use
of the Software, remedy such failure in the next Upgrade and provide a copy thereof to Licensee. The
remedy set forth in this Section is Licensee’s sole remedy and Licensor’s sole liability under the limited
warranty set forth in Section .
EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY SET FORTH IN SECTION, THE SOFTWARE AND
DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED TO LICENSEE "AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS AND DEFECTS
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE
LAW, LICENSOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED,
STATUTORY, OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
4827-3749-7057.4 iii
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND WARRANTIES THAT MAY ARISE OUT OF COURSE
OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. WITHOUT LIMITATION TO
THE FOREGOING, LICENSOR PROVIDES NO WARRANTY OR UNDERTAKING, AND MAKES NO
REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL MEET THE LICENSEE'S
REQUIREMENTS, ACHIEVE ANY INTENDED RESULTS, BE COMPATIBLE, OR WORK WITH ANY
OTHER SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS, SYSTEMS, OR SERVICES, OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION,
MEET ANY PERFORMANCE OR RELIABILITY STANDARDS OR BE ERROR FREE, OR THAT ANY
ERRORS OR DEFECTS CAN OR WILL BE CORRECTED.
12. Limitation of Liability. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE

LAW:
(a) IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANY THIRD

PARTY FOR ANY USE, INTERRUPTION, DELAY, OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE; LOST
REVENUES OR PROFITS; DELAYS, INTERRUPTION, OR LOSS OF SERVICES, BUSINESS, OR
GOODWILL; LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA; SYSTEM INCOMPATIBILITY; OR BREACHES IN
SYSTEM SECURITY; OR FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY,
SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS AGREEMENT, BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR
OTHERWISE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES WERE FORESEEABLE AND
WHETHER OR NOT THE LICENSOR WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
(b) IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR'S AND ITS AFFILIATES' COLLECTIVE

AGGREGATE LIABILITY UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ITS
SUBJECT MATTER EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID TO LICENSOR PURSUANT TO THIS
AGREEMENT FOR THE SOFTWARE DURING TWELVE (12) MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO THE
APPLICABLE CLAIM.
(C) LICENSOR SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR
ACTION TAKEN BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN RELIANCE UPON ANY DATA,
MATERIALS, REPORTS OR INFORMATION THAT IS GENERATED FROM THE USE OF THE
SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ANY ANALYSIS BASED ON THE OUTPUT PROVIDED BY THE
SOFTWARE BY ENGINEERS OR OTHER PARTIES.
13. Export Regulation. The Software and Documentation may be subject to US export control laws,
including the Export Control Reform Act and its associated regulations. Licensee shall not, directly or indirectly,
export, re-export, or release the Software or Documentation to, or make the Software or Documentation accessible
from, any jurisdiction or country to which export, re-export, or release is prohibited by law, rule, or regulation. The
Licensee shall comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations, and rules, and complete all required undertakings
(including obtaining any necessary export license or other governmental approval), prior to exporting, re-exporting,
releasing, or otherwise making the Software or Documentation available outside the US.
14. US Government Rights. The Software is commercial computer software, as such term is defined in
48 C.F.R. §2.101. Accordingly, if the Licensee is the US Government or any contractor therefor, Licensee shall
receive only those rights with respect to the Software and Documentation as are granted to all other end users under
license, in accordance with (a) 48 C.F.R. §227.7201 through 48 C.F.R. §227.7204, with respect to the Department of
Defense and their contractors, or (b) 48 C.F.R. §12.212, with respect to all other US Government licensees and their
contractors.
15. Miscellaneous.
4827-3749-7057.4 iv
(a) All matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Ohio without giving effect to any choice or conflict of
law provision or rule. Any legal suit, action, or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the
transactions contemplated hereby shall be instituted in the federal courts of the United States of America or
the courts of the State of Ohio in each case located in the City of Cleveland and County of Cuyahoga, and
each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such legal suit, action, or
proceeding. Service of process, summons, notice, or other document by mail to such party's address set forth
herein shall be effective service of process for any suit, action, or other proceeding brought in any such
court.
(b) Licensor will not be responsible or liable to Licensee, or deemed in default or breach
hereunder by reason of any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations hereunder where such
failure or delay is due to strikes, labor disputes, civil disturbances, pandemic, epidemic, hostilities, war,
terrorist attack, embargo, natural disaster, acts of God, flood, fire, sabotage, fluctuations or non-availability
of electrical power, or Licensee equipment, loss and destruction of property, or any other circumstances or
causes beyond Licensor's reasonable control.
(c) This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between Licensee and Licensor
with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
understandings, agreements, representations, and warranties, both written and oral, with respect to such
subject matter.
(d) Licensee shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights without Licensor's prior
written consent. This Agreement is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective permitted successors and assigns.
(e) This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors
and permitted assigns and nothing herein, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer on any other
Person any legal or equitable right, benefit, or remedy of any nature whatsoever under or by reason of this
Agreement.
(f) This Agreement may only be amended, modified, or supplemented by an agreement in

writing signed by each party hereto. No waiver by any party of any of the provisions hereof shall be
effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signed by the party so waiving. Except as otherwise set
forth in this Agreement, no failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any right, remedy, power, or privilege
arising from this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial
exercise of any right, remedy, power, or privilege hereunder preclude any other or further exercise thereof or
the exercise of any other right, remedy, power, or privilege.
(g) If any term or provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any
jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other term or provision of this
Agreement or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction.
4827-3749-7057.4 v
Part 2: GRLWEAP Background Report
1 Introduction
GRLWEAP14 (GW14) added the FHWA/Driven, API2, and A&H static analysis methods to the ST, SA,
CPT, and API methods of earlier versions. The FHWA/Driven routine includes both Tomlinson’s and
Nordlund’s methods. API2 consists of a soil-type based method and 4 CPT analysis methods including
ICP-05, Offshore UWA-05, Fugro-05, and NGI-05. Each method has been developed to simplify the
input preparation of the wave equation analysis of pile driving. The existing 4 analysis routines have
been improved, enhanced, and adjusted to the GW14 program’s work flow.
It is the user’s responsibility to familiarize themselves with pertinent publications, as well as review
GRLWEAP procedures and results based on a good understanding of available methods and options.
1.1 Basic Equation for Pile Capacity Calculations
The ultimate capacity of a single pile under compression loading consists of 2 components. The former
is the shaft resistance from the soil surrounding the pile shaft. The latter is the end bearing from the soil
resistance against the pile toe. The latter is expressed by the following equation.
Ru = Rs + Rt = fs As + qt At (1.1)
where
R u = Total resistance, which is the ultimate capacity or nominal resistance in LRFD, R n

R s = Shaft resistance
R t = Toe resistance
f s = Unit shaft resistance
q t = Unit toe resistance
A s = Shaft surface area of the pile
A t = Toe area of the pile
The unit shaft and toe resistance must be estimated to compute the ultimate capacity (total static
resistance) of a pile. While various computation methods are available to assess unit shaft and unit toe
resistance, GW14 incorporates 7 approaches including ST, SA, CPT, FHWA, API, API2, and A&H. The
following sections describe these methods, how they are incorporated into the program, as well as act as
an aid for input preparation.
1.2 About the Static Analysis Methods
Static analysis methods are categorized as analytical methods that use soil strength and compressibility
properties to determine nominal pile resistance and deformation. Static analysis estimation is an integral
part of the pile design process. Many static analysis methods are available. Some are relatively simple
methods proven to provide reasonable agreement with full scale field results. Other more sophisticated
analysis methods might be used and, in some cases, provide better results.
GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2 1

Regardless of the method used, it is important to apply local experience gained from past field
performance when selecting and using a method. Also, it is good practice to use multiple methods during
analysis to gain an understanding of all possible answers, as well as determine the limitations of the
various methods. Additionally take note of the following:
• The static analysis methods provided by GW14 should be used as an aid to pile driving
dynamic analysis when estimating basic soil resistance input parameters. The program is
not intended to provide static design parameters.
• In addition to the static resistance values, the GW14 static geotechnical analysis methods
can help determine dynamic parameters, such as shaft damping and toe quake. Usually,
toe damping and shaft quake are considered independent of soil or pile type. For the
driveability analysis, additional guidance for rough estimates of the soil resistance’s gain/
loss behavior is also provided including the setup factor, limit distance, and setup time.
• Generally, static analysis methods for pile capacity determination are inaccurate for a
variety of reasons. For example, soil strength from N–values and soil type can only be an
estimate. This is because SPT N–values are inherently inaccurate and soil type
information is subjective. Also the pile driving process itself changes the properties of the
soils, which affects long term soil resistance and SRD (Static Resistance to Driving).
Moreover, different physical, chemical, or geological conditions produce different
relationships between in-situ test results and unit resistance values. It is strongly advised,
therefore, that users check the program’s friction and end bearing value calculations by
comparing them with other methods and any additional information available, including
drawing on local experience.
• The different analysis methods because of their inherent limitations produce different
results, even if the underlying soil strength parameters are the same. Note: Some of the
methods have certain maximum values thought to prevent overly optimistic and,
therefore, non-conservative design values. These limits, however, may not be
conservative for driveability analyses where higher resistance values yield higher blow
counts and pile stresses.
• Soil properties can change by factors other than pile driving. The pile material effects
shaft resistance and end bearing. Other significant effects include, but are not limited to,
predrilling or jetting activities, an oversized toe plate, the driving of nearby piles, which
can cause heave, pore water pressure changes, and soil densification, group effects,
time effects, such as setup and relaxation, variations of the water table elevation overtime
(e.g., tidal effects), and the excavation or refilling around and in the neighborhood of the
pile.
• The total pile capacity is unit shaft resistance times the shaft area plus the unit end
bearing times toe area; see Equation 1.1. The shaft area is based on the user inputted
perimeter values used to create a pile model. The contact areas between the pile and soil
are the same in the static and dynamic conditions for solid pile profiles, closed ended
piles, and other displacement piles. It is important to note, however, that inertia affects the
behavior of the soil inside open ended piles or between the flanges of a H-pile. As such,
the dynamic shaft resistance and end bearing are different from those occurring in the
static situation.

• Typically for H-piles, the pile perimeter is computed as the sum of the pile’s 4 sides. An
argument could be made for using 6 sides, but that is highly uncommon. For open ended
pipes, the question of internal friction is difficult to answer. It is expected that an
unplugged pile, in which the soil remains at its location, does fill the pile, does not move
with the pile (the cookie cutter effect), and, therefore, possibly has some internal soil
resistance. Unless the diameter to embedment is relatively large, however, the effective
stresses will be relatively low inside the pipe. Additionally, the driving process will reduce
the internal friction. Thus, for most unplugged analyses, only partial internal friction is
normally considered. In GW14, as with earlier versions of the program, internal friction
can be modeled by increasing the perimeter value over that length of the pile where
internal friction is expected. For example, the value would increase on an internal driving
shoe, which has an increased pipe wall thickness and constant outside diameter. If the
pipe wall thickness is uniform, a case could be made for internal friction acting over a
length of 5 to 10 pile diameters from the bottom. Note: API recommends regarding friction
calculations in the plugged and unplugged cases.
• For the toe area, the user must determine whether or not plugging can occur for open
profiles. In very dense sands or during restrike testing, after a long wait time, plugging
may be expected. This is, however, unless the pile diameter is large (greater than 900
mm (30 in) or the penetration into the bearing layer is shallow (less than 3 diameters). For
small H-piles, the most common, having a width less than 350 mm (14 in), the fully
plugged area is usually assumed for end bearing calculations. In general, the default
value for the pile toe area is that of the closed end condition. Hence, it is extremely
important that users carefully review, and if possible, correct the pile toe area values that
the program might automatically select. In addition, it is also strongly recommended to
perform optimistic (unplugged) and pessimistic (plugged) driveability analyses to
establish lower and upper bound driving resistance values. Note: The program allows for
variations of toe area for different soil layers. When assigning plugged toe areas, a
fraction may be used to consider partial plugging because due to scale effects the unit
resistance of displacement (plugged) piles is lower than that for non-displacement
(coring) piles.
• Some of the methods coded in GW14, may not provide considerations for effects like soil
displacement volume, pile non-uniformities (e.g., pile taper), the influence of upper
lubricating soil layers on lower soil layers, pile material on the friction, as well as others
that normally affect friction and/or end bearing values. Users, therefore, should select the
appropriate method for a particular situation or adjust the results based on the
recommendations in the literature or from specific local experience and gained judgment.
• An inclined pile driven through a certain soil layer is in contact with a larger surface area
than a vertical pile. As a result, the unit resistance maybe somewhat lower. Nevertheless,
the total shaft resistance acting on an inclined pile in a certain layer is probably not much
different from a vertical pile. An inclined pile, however, of the same length as a vertical
pile will not penetrate as deeply as the vertical one. Thus, for a given pile length the pile
inclination reduces the total vertical pile penetration. If the pile inclination is entered then
these length and associated resistance factors are considered in the static soil analysis.
In consequence, whenever the pile inclination is changed, the user must repeat the soil
resistance calculation by reentering the particular analysis method chosen.

The theory and corresponding detailed information for each method are introduced and explained in the
following sections.
1.3 Necessary Soil and Pile Information
In preparation of input into the GW14 program, certain information must be available. Soil information for
Bearing Graph analyses can be basic, such as soil type and assumed resistance distribution.
Regardless, even for bearing graph analyses, it may be helpful to use static analysis methods. For
example, the percentage of shaft resistance and the average shaft quake may be more realistically
estimated with these methods than by pure guess. For driveability analyses, a detailed soils analysis is
essential. The soils analysis can be prepared in an external spreadsheet and pasted into the soil input
table or prepared by the methods that are described in this background report.
For the static analyses methods, the depth of the water table relative to grade and the overburden
pressure affect the calculation of the vertical effective stresses in the various soil layers. The effective
stress calculation requires the dry soil unit weight for the different layers. Then, the analysis reduces
these accumulated weights over the depth considering the buoyancy effect of the ground water to
calculate the effective stresses that are essential for most soil resistance calculation methods The user
can input the water table and overburden pressure information as overall site information or for a specific
method where these parameters are required for the effective stress computation. Note: Water depth
above grade has the same effect on effective soil stresses as a water table at grade; for correct graphic
depictions of water above grade, enter a negative water table.
SPT data is used in both SA and FHWA methods. SPT N vs. depth data can be input as overall site
information or in the SA and FHWA methods. SPT N is the default input for the SA method. If the SPT N
vs. depth data is already entered, this data will be used to linearly interpolate the SPT N value as a
default input for resistance calculations at intermediate depth increments. Hopefully the available SPT
information provides the standardized (energy calibrated) N 60 value.
CPT data vs. depth must include at least depth and cone resistance, as well as for the A&H method and
the sleeve friction. The information is required in .txt format. The user can input CPT data as overall site
information or in the CPT, API2, or A&H specific input areas.
Pile profile information is needed before performing static soil analysis. It consists of inputs such as pile
shape, size, and material properties. Different geotechnical static analysis methods may be suitable for
different piles, depending on their types and sizes. Pile size information, such as toe area, shaft
perimeter, and penetration depth are used in the total resistance computation. The pile diameter, or pile
width, is used for a default toe quake but does not enter the resistance calculation.

2 Soil Type Based Method (ST)
The ST method selects the soil parameters from general soil description and classification information.
Users should familiarize themselves with the concept and limitation of this static analysis method
because this input represents very limited soil strength data. Additionally, for tapered or wedge-shaped
piles, such as Monotube®, Tapertube™, or timber, the wedge effect is not considered.
2.1 Granular Soils
The β-Method (Effective Stress Method) is used for granular soils. Soil density is the only required soil
strength input data.
2.1.1 Unit Shaft Resistance
The unit shaft resistance in this program routine is computed using the following equation:
f s =  v (2.1)
where
 = The Bjerrum-Burland beta coefficient (earth pressure coefficient times the tangent of the
friction angle between pile and soil); see Table 2.1 to obtain this coefficient.
 v = The average effective overburden pressure.
2.1.2 Unit Toe Resistance
The unit toe resistance for granular soils is predicted using the following equation:
q t =  t N t (2.2)
where
N t = Toe bearing capacity coefficient; see Table 2.1 to obtain this coefficient.
 t = The effective overburden pressure at the pile toe.
The procedure to compute unit shaft and toe resistance for granular soils includes the following steps:
1) From Table 2.1, find the soil unit weight,  value, N t value, and the unit weight as per the known soil
classifications.
2) Calculate the effective overburden pressure,  v and  t , which is done so under the consideration of
buoyancy (the water table depth needs to be provided in the input).
3) Calculate the corresponding unit shaft and toe resistance using equations 2.1 and 2.2, as subject to
the limit values in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: ST Analysis Parameters for Granular Soils
Friction Unit Limit (kPa) Limit (kPa)

Soil Weight
SPT N Angle
Density
(degrees) (kN/m3)
Very 2 25 - 30 13.5 0.203 12.1 24 2400
Loose
Loose 7 27 - 32 16.0 0.242 18.1 48 4800
Medium 20 30 - 35 18.5 0.313 33.2 72 7200
Dense 40 35 - 40 19.5 0.483 86.0 96 9600
Very 50+ 38 - 43 22.0 0.627 147.0 192 19000

Dense
Note: Use the SPT N-values (corrected for the effect of overburden pressure) given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2
to find the corresponding soil density. Nevertheless, if the N-value is known then the more detailed SA
method may be more appropriate than the ST approach.
2.2 Cohesive Soils
For cohesive soils, the ST method applies a modified α-method (Total Stress Method) to estimate the
unit shaft and toe resistance. Soil consistency is the only input information required as a soil strength
input. The calculation steps are as follows:
1) From Table 2.2 find the unit weight, unit shaft resistance, and unit end bearing for the known soil
consistency.
2) From the unit weight and depth of water table (input), find the overburden pressure if there are lower
granular layers for which the β method was applied.
Table 2.2: ST Analysis Parameters for Cohesive Soils
Soil Unit Weight

SPT N
Consistency (kPa) (kN / m3) (kPa) (kPa)
Very Soft 1 12 17.5 3.5 54
Soft 3 36 17.5 10.5 162
Medium 6 72 18.5 19.0 324
Stiff 12 144 20.5 38.5 648
Very Stiff 24 288 20.5 63.5 1296
Hard 32+ 384+ 19 - 22 77.0 1728
where

q u is the unconfined compressive strength (2 times the undrained shear strength).
2.3 Rock or Other Soil Types
This method does not compute unit resistance for rock or other types of soil. Direct input of unit shaft
resistance and end bearing has to be made if the user choose the soil type as “Rock” or “Other.” If the
values of the unit shaft and end bearing resistance are not entered, then a default value of zero
(obviously wrong) will be substituted.

3 SPT N-value Based Method (SA)
The SA method was once thought to be solely based on SPT N-value and soil type. The method is now
extended to allow for input of friction angle and/or unconfined compressive strength or the direct input of
unit resistance values for situations where only partial N value information is available. The method does
not provide default resistance values for “rock” or “other” soil types. Like ST, SA does not recognize the
wedge effect of tapered piles.
The SPT N-value based method presented here does not use corrected N–values as per FHWA
recommendations (Hannigan et. al., 2016). Rather, it limits N to at most 60. On the other hand, it is
strongly recommended that energy measurements are taken during SPT testing and that the user
adjusts the N-value to the N 60 value. In effect, this is a normalization which increases the N-value for
hammers with high transfer efficiency (greater than 60%) and lowers them for poorly performing
hammers (less than 60%). The SPT Analyzer measures the transfer efficiency of SPT hammers.
The analysis results from this method may not be accurate for a taped or wedge-shaped pile, such as
the Monotube pile, since the taper effect is not considered in the computation.
First, the vertical effective stress is calculated as a basis for the calculation of several of the following
quantities:
Step 1: Find the soil’s unit weight, Y based on Bowles (1977). Users can change the value of the unit
weight.
Step 2: Find the vertical effective stress,  v , in the layer based on the overburden on the layer, layer
thickness, unit weight, Y from Step 1, and the water table depth.
The SA method limits the unit resistance values drastically because the SPT N-values are considered
unreliable. For driveability, however, they may be too non-conservative yielding low stresses and blow
counts. Given the experience of underprediction of soil resistance at certain sites or in known geologies,
adjustments should be made to the Gain/Loss factors for the shaft and toe. The user should adjust by
using higher values than normally expected.
3.1 Sand and/or Gravel
3.1.1 Input
The following information is optional or required data input:
• For sand, the grade and size of grain is optional.
• Either SPT N-value or internal friction angle  is required.
• The unit weight of soil is optional when automatically calculated as a default based on SPT N or the
internal friction angle,  ; it is required otherwise.
• The unit shaft resistance is optional when SPT N or the internal friction angle,  , are provided; it is
required when “rock” or “other” soil types are chosen.

The unit shaft resistance in sand or gravel is computed using the following equation:
f s = k 0 tan   v (3.1)
where
k 0 = The earth pressure coefficient at rest.

 = The pile-soil friction angle.
 v = The vertical effective stress.
The procedure to calculate unit shaft resistance are as follows:
1) Find the relative density, D r , from Kulhawy (1989 and 1991).
2) Find the friction angle,  , based on Schmertmann (1975 and 1978).
3) Assume the pile-soil friction angle as  =  .
4) Find the earth pressure coefficient at rest, k 0 , based on, D r , according to Robertson and Campanella
(1983) with the following:
1 – sin - 1 + sin 

----------------------  k 0  ----------------------- (3.2)
1 + sin  1 – sin 
5) Calculate friction unit shaft resistance, f s , using equation 3.1 with f s  250kPa .
Note: Depending on the grading of a sand and its coarseness, the calculations may be slightly modified.
Additionally, if the friction angle is entered in lieu of the N-value, start at step 3.
The unit toe resistance in sand and gravel is computed based on the uncorrected SPT N-value use
following equation:
q t = 200N  kPa  (3.3)

Note: The program uses 0.75N for well graded gravel and 0.5N for unknown and poorly graded gravel.
with
q t  12 000  kPa 
If the friction angle has been directly entered, use the following formula:
q t = N t  v (3.4)
with

q t  20 000  kPa  for sand and q t  30 000  kPa  for gravel.
N t is the toe resistance coefficient, from Fellenius, 2014, as shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1:Toe Resistance Coefficient, N t , after Fellenius (2014).
3.2 Clay
3.2.1 Input
The following inputs are optional or required:
• Either the SPT N-value or the undrained shear strength, s u , are required.
• The unit weight of soil is optional when automatically calculated as a default based on SPT N or the
undrained shear strength, s u ; it is required otherwise.
The unit shaft resistance in clay is computed using the following:
f s = k 0 tan   v (3.5)
The procedure to calculate unit shaft resistance follows:
1) Find the friction angle from  = 17 + 0.5N with   43 .

2) Define the pile-soil friction angle as  =  .
3) Find the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) from N and  v kPa.
f s = k 0 tan  v (3.6)
4) Find the normally consolidated earth pressure coefficient according to Jaky (1944).
OCR =  18N    v (3.7)
5) Find the earth pressure coefficient at rest as
k nc = 1 – sin  (3.8)
with
1 – sin - 1 + sin 

----------------------  k 0  ----------------------- (3.9)
1 + sin  1 – sin 
6) Calculate the unit shaft resistance ( f s ) subjected to a limit of f s  75  kPa  .

Note: If the undrained shear strength, s u , is entered in lieu of the N-value, the program will calculate
adhesion values according to Tomlinson (Hannigan, 2006).
3.2.3 Unit Toe Resistance in Clay
The unit toe resistance in clay is computed based on the uncorrected SPT N-value using the following
equation:
q t = 54N kPa with q t  3240 kPa (3.10)
If the undrained shear strength, s u , is entered, the unit toe resistance is set to 9s u .
3.3 Silt
3.3.1 Input
If the silt is cohesionless, the input information is identical to the requirements for Sand and/or Gravel;
see Section 3.1. If the silt is cohesive, the input information is the same as for Clay; see Section 3.2.
The unit shaft resistance in silt is computed using the following:
f s =  v (3.11)
where

 = The Bjerrum-Borland coefficient.
The procedure to calculate  is as follows:
1) Use the directly entered friction angle or find the friction angle  from Schmertmann (1975 and 1978)
if the silt is non-cohesive.
2) If the silt is cohesive and the N value has been entered find the friction angle from  = 17 + 0.5N
with   43 .
3) Find the Bjerrum-Borland,  , coefficient according to Fellenius (1996) by linear interpolation with
0.27    0.5 :
0.23   – 28 
 = ---------------------------------- + 0.27 (3.12)
6
with
0.27    0.5 .
4) Calculate the unit shaft resistance, f s , with limit values 75 and 250 and cohesive silts and non-
cohesive silts, respectively.of f s  75  kPa  .
If the undrained shear strength, s u , is entered in lieu of the N-value, the program will calculate adhesion
values according to Tomlinson (Hannigan, 2006).
For the unit toe resistance, the friction angle is determined the same way as for the shaft resistance.
Then, Figure 3.1 is used to determine N t = t , which is the toe resistance coefficient. The unit toe
resistance is then:
q t = N t  v (3.13)
This method does not compute unit resistance for rock or other types of soil. Direct input of unit shaft
resistance and end bearing must be made if the user chooses the soil type of “Rock” or “Other.” If the
values of the unit shaft and end bearing resistance are not entered, then a default value of zero will be
substituted.

4 The CPT Method
Cone penetration tests are semi-static and resemble a very small scale pile. A variety of penetrometers,
including those that are mechanical and electrical, have been developed. There are also penetrometers
in use, which are not standard size. The preferred Dutch Cone configuration has a cone tip area of 10
cm2 and a cone angle of 60 degrees. GW14’s method for calculating pile unit friction, f s , and unit end
bearing, q t , is that it assumes that the cone tip resistance, q c , and the cone’s sleeve friction, q t , are
measured with a standard cone. The soil type determination is based on Robertson et al (1986), and the
resistance calculation on the method by Schmertmann, 1978 (FHWA-TS-78-209: “Guidelines for Cone
Penetration Test, Performance and Design”).
4.1 Unit Shaft Resistance in Cohesive Soil
The unit shaft resistance in cohesive soil is computed with the following equation:
f s = aq s (4.1)
where
a is the ratio of the pile unit shaft resistance to sleeve friction shown; see Figure 4.1.
q s is the cone’s unit sleeve friction.
Figure 4.1: Penetrometer sleeve friction to pile shaft resistance ratio, a , after Schmertmann, 1978, for cohesive
soils.
The unit shaft resistance in cohesionless soil is computed by using the following:
f s = k r Kq s (4.2)

where
K is the ratio of unit pile shaft resistance to unit cone sleeve friction; see Figure 4.2, and
k r = Z  8b  0  k r  1  . k r is a depth correction coefficient, which is correlated to the depth,
Z , and pile width or diameter, b .
Note 1: Schmertmann’s curves for steel pipe piles can be used for all steel pile types. Those for square
concrete piles apply to all concrete pile types.
Note 2: The calculated unit shaft resistance is subject to a user specified limit. The default is 150 kPa.
Figure 4.2: Ratio of unit pile shaft resistance to unit cone sleeve friction for sand after Schmertmann, 1978.
4.2 Unit Toe Resistance for All Soil Types
The estimation of unit toe resistance, q t , in all types of soil is computed from 2 cone resistance average
values q c1 and q c2 .
1
q t = ---  q c1 + q c2  (4.3)
2

Figure 4.3: An illustration of the Nottingham and Schmertmann procedure for estimating pile toe resistance (after
Schmertmann, 1978).
Where q c1 is the average cone resistance, q c , over a distance xb below the pile toe along paths 1-2
and 2-3. For the upward path 2-3 minimum values are taken as indicated. The multiplier x for the
averaging distance xb is set to values between 0.7 and 3.5. The minimum average value is q c1 .
The second average value, q c2 , is an average of q c over a distance of 8b above the pile toe (path 3-4).
Use the minimum path rule as for path 2-3 in the q c1 computations. Again b is the pile width or diameter
and D is the embedded pile length. The calculated end bearing is subject to a user defined limit (default
is 15 MPa).
4.3 The Procedure to Calculate Soil Resistance
4.3.1 Data Import
CPT data needs to be imported into GW14 from a text file. The file format must meet specific
requirement as shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Example of the top portion of a CPT text file with 4 comment lines and MPa units for both resistance
values.
• Titles or comments should be placed at the beginning of the file. The number of title and/or comment
rows is a program input. The program skips the inputted number that many lines before beginning to
read the numerical data.
• CPT data must consist 3 number columns at least. Those columns in order include depth, tip
resistance, q c , and sleeve friction, q s .
• The current version of the program ignored additional data columns, such as pore water pressure.
• The program recognizes the following unit combinations. User must select one:
- Depth in m, both tip and sleeve resistance in MPa.
- Depth in m, q c in MPa and q s in kPa.
- Depth in ft, both tip and sleeve resistance in tsf.
An additional input is penetrometer type (Electronic or Mechanical), which serves to select the
appropriate design curves.
Note: Smaller cone data depth increments are highly recommended for better accuracy. This is because
the CPT based resistance computation requires averaging the data over certain ranges. Also, 5 inputs
(rows of data), at least, are required. If necessary, the program checks and modifies the depth
increments by the following procedure:
1) First, the average depth increment is found based on the imported CPT data, where the average
depth increment = Maximum depth / number of rows of data.
2) If the average depth increment is larger than 0.25 m (0.8 ft), the program warns the user and
increases the number of data points by interpolation of the CPT data at a depth increment of 0.1 m (0.3
ft).

Note: The user can manually insert as many data rows as needed to make the depth increment at most
0.25 m (0.8 ft) to avoid automatic interpolation.
4.4 Soil Classification
The equations to compute soil resistance are related to soil type. As a result, the first step in the
resistance calculation is to classify the soil types based on the research by Robertson et al., (1986), with
some modifications; see Appendix B. This classification is a necessary step in the procedure to calculate
the resistance values and determine default soil parameters such as quakes, damping factors and soil
setup factors. The friction ratio is calculated from q s  q c (sleeve friction divided by tip resistance of the
cone penetrometer).

5 The FHWA/DRIVEN Method
The FHWA uses both Tomlinson and Nordlund static analysis methods for cohesive and granular soil
types, respectively. These 2 methods are semi-empirical and, like all static analysis methods, have
limitations. The user is encouraged to review literature on this subject, such as the “Design and
Construction of Driven Pile Foundations” (FHWA - NHI - 16 - 010; Hannigan, et.al. 2016).
5.1 Cohesive Soil – Tomlinson Method
5.1.1 Input
The following input information is required to perform the Tomlinson method:
• The soil stiffness category helps in the initialization of default values and choice of adhesion graph.
• Unit weight - This selection may not affect the resistance computation in cohesive soil, but it will affect
the vertical effect stress computation for underlying cohesionless soil strata.
• Undrained shear strength.
• Alternative to the Tomlinson adhesion values, the user can input a different value.
5.2 Unit Shaft Resistance
The unit shaft resistance in cohesive soils is computed using the following equation:
f s = c a = as u (5.1)
where
c a = Pile/soil adhesion derived from Figure 5.1.
s u = Undrained shear strength, as input by the user.
a = An empirical adhesion coefficient derived from Figure 5.2.
5.3 Unit Toe Resistance
The unit toe resistance in cohesive soil can be computed using the following equation:
qt = su Nc (5.2)
where
N c = Dimensionless bearing factor, between 7 and 16; a value of 9 is used in this program.

Figure 5.1: Adhesion values for piles in cohesive soils (after Tomlinson, 1979).

Figure 5.2: Adhesion factor for driven pile in cohesive soil (after Tomlinson 1980).
5.4 Cohesionless Soil - Nordlund Method
5.4.1 Input
The following input information is required:
• The Nordlund method is based on the volume of soil displaced. Also it takes pile taper into
consideration. For these reasons, the pile profile (size, shape and material) and pile penetration are
required inputs.
• The soil density input, which is used to initialize default values for friction angle,  , and unit weight
• The unit weight is necessary if a non-default value is used.
• The SPT N or friction angle,  , input is necessary. If this value is entered, then it is calculated as in the
SA method; see Section 3: SPT N-value Based Method (SA). Different N-values are accepted for shaft
and toe. For shaft resistance calculations in gravel deposits, the maximum friction angle is limited to 45o,
which may result in different calculation results for shaft resistance and end bearing.

5.5 Unit Shaft Resistance
The unit shaft resistance in cohesionless soil is computed based on the theory proposed by Nordlund
(1963, 1979) using the following equation:
sin  w +  
f s = K  C f  v --------------------------- (5.3)
cos w
where
K  = The coefficient of lateral stress as provided in Figure 5.3 through 5.6.
C f = The correction coefficient for K  when    , per Figure 5.7.
 v = The effective overburden pressure.
w = The angle of pile taper based on pile profile input.
 = Pile-soil friction angle, provided in Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.3 - Coefficient of later stress, K  , for  = 25 (after Norlund 1979).


Figure 5.5: Coefficient of later stress, K  , for  = 35 (after Norlund 1979).


Figure 5.7: Correction coefficient for K  when    .
Figure 5.8: Ratio of pile-soil friction angles,    for various pile types and displaced soil volume after Nordlund
1979.

5.6 Unit Toe Resistance
The unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil is calculated with the following equation:
q t =  v aN q (5.4)
where
 v = The effective vertical stress at pile toe.
N q = The bearing capacity factor is given in Figure 5.9.
a = The dimensionless coefficient is dependent on the depth to pile width ratio and internal
friction angle as provided in Figure 5.10.
The unit resistance calculated using Equation 5.4 is subject to the upper limit, as defined in Figure 5.11.
Figure 5.9: N q factor for unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil.

Figure 5.10: a factor for unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil.
Figure 5.11: Relationship between limit unit toe resistance and internal friction angle.

The FHWA/DRIVEN method does not provide guidance for the computation of unit resistance values for
“rock” or “other” types of soil that cannot be categorized as cohesive or cohesionless. For those types of
geomaterial, the unit shaft resistance and end bearing values can be input directly. If the values of the
unit shaft and end bearing resistance are not entered, then a default value of zero will be used (clearly
incorrect) in almost every case. The user should be aware of these limitations and carefully check all
calculated resistance values.

6 The API Method
The API code (1993) specifies that the API Method is only applicable to pipe piles. The method’s main
procedure is summarized in this section. The user is encouraged to read the API code (1993) for
additional details. Note: Some of the recommended unit resistance values have rather low limits, which
makes the method conservative for pile design purposes, but potentially non-conservative for driveability
checks.
6.1 Cohesive Soil
6.1.1 Input
The following are applicable input information for cohesive soil:
• The soil consistency input is used to calculate a default value for soil unit weight and soil
dynamic parameters such as quake, damping, and others. Note: The default unit weight
value is approximate. When possible, the API code recommends instead using high
quality soil information.
• The unit weight is needed if a high quality value is available. Otherwise, the program
calculates the unit weight based on the undrained shear strength, s u .
The unit shaft resistance in cohesive soil is computed as follows:
f = as u (6.1)
Where the dimensionless factor a is computed from the following:
– 0.5
a = 0.5 for   1.0 (6.2)
– 0.25
a = 0.5 for   1.0 (6.3)
With a  1.0 and  = s u    v  . Here,  v is again the effective overburden pressure.
The unit toe resistance in cohesive soil is computed using equation 6.4:
q t = 9s u (6.4)

6.2 Cohesionless Soil
6.2.1 Input
The following are applicable input information for cohesionless soil:
• The soil density is used to calculate a default value for soil unit weight and soil dynamic
parameters such as quake and damping. Note: The default unit weight value is
approximate. When available, the API code recommends instead using high quality soil
information.
• The unit weight is needed if a high quality value is available.
• The user can choose between open ended vs. plugged or closed ended pipe, which
affects the shaft resistance computation.
The unit shaft resistance in cohesionless soil is computed using equation 6.5:
f s = K v tan  (6.5)

where
K is the dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure, which is a ratio of horizontal to vertical
normal effective stress. K is set to 0.8 for unplugged or open ended pipe piles and set to 1.0 for plugged
or closed ended pipe piles.
The friction angle,  , between the soil and pile wall is given in Table 6.1. Also, the unit resistance result
from Equation 6.5 is subject to the limits of Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Soil, API, 1993, p. 67
Soil-Pile Limiting Unit

Limiting Unit Toe
Soil Friction Shaft
Soil Type Nq Resistance MPa
Description Angle,  Resistance
kPa (kips/ft2) (kips/ft2)
Degrees
Very Loose 15 47.8 (1.0) 8 1.9 (40)
Loose 20 67.0 (1.4) 12 2.9 (60)

Sand Medium 25 81.3 (1.7) 20 4.8 (100)
Dense 30 95.7 (2.0) 40 9.6 (200)
Very Dense 35 114.8 (2.4) 50 12.0 (250)

Table 6.1: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Soil, API, 1993, p. 67
Soil-Pile Limiting Unit

Limiting Unit Toe
Soil Friction Shaft
Soil Type Nq Resistance MPa
Description Angle,  Resistance
kPa (kips/ft2) (kips/ft2)
Degrees
Loose 15 47.8 (1.0) 8 1.9 (40)
Sand-Silt Medium 20 67.0 (1.4) 12 2.9 (60)
Dense 25 81.3 (1.7) 20 4.8 (100)
Very Dense 30 95.7 (2.0) 40 9.6 (200)
Medium 15 47.8 (1.0) 8 1.9 (40)

Silt
Dense 20 67.0 (1.4) 12 2.9 (60)
Gravel Dense 35 114.8 (2.4) 50 12.0 (250)
The unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil is computed using the following equation:
q t =  v N q (6.6)
where
N q is the bearing capacity factor, which is given in Table 6.1.
Note: Table 6.1 also provides limiting values for the unit end bearing.
API does not specify the resistance computation for “rock” and “other” types of soils. However GW14
allows the user to directly input unit shaft resistance and end bearing. If the values of the unit shaft and
end bearing resistance are not entered, the program will use zero default values. It is recommended for
the user to carefully review the resulting unit resistance values.

7 The API2 Method
GRLWEAP’s API2 method offers 5 different means of calculating static resistance of open ended pipe
piles. API2 in GW14 is based on API (2007) (Recommended Practice: RP 2A-WSD, 2000, Errata and
Supplement 3, 2007).
This API (2007) recommendation allows for 1 soil type based analysis, but strongly suggests using
instead 1 of 4 CPT-based methods. The soil type based method relies for cohesive soil on the undrained
shear strength. The resistance can be determined for cohesionless soil from the simple soil type/density
classification table (API code, 2007, p. 64). For sand, however, the APEI code Commentary
recommends using more reliable CPT-based methods for predicting pile capacity. In fact, according to
API a CPT-based method must be used if the cohesionless soil consists of 1 of the following soil types:
• very loose and loose sand
• loose sand and
• silt
• medium dense and dense silt
GW14’s API2 routine offers 4 different CPT based methods:
• Simplified ICP-05 (Imperial College)
• Offshore
• UWA-05 (University of Western Australia)
• Fugro-05
• NGI-05 (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute)
GW14 uses the equations and procedures recommended by API (2007). Additionally, the program
includes a number of extensions for user friendliness. For example, API requires that the user classifies
the soil types prior to using 1 of the 4 CPT methods. Nevertheless, API does not specify how to classify
the soils. GW14 provides user generated or automatic soil classification options to assist the user in
classifying the soil types. The automatic soil type assessment, as for GW14’s standard CPT
(Schmertmann) method, is based on the Robertson et al. (1986) method; see Appendix B.
7.1 Soil Type Based Method
Note: Some of the recommended unit resistance values have rather low limits, which makes this method
conservative for pile design purposes but potentially non-conservative for driveability checks.
7.1.1 Soil Type Based: Cohesive Soil
7.1.1.1 Input
The following are applicable inputs for cohesive soil:

• The soil stiffness value determines soil resistance and default values for soil unit weight
and soil dynamic parameters such as quake, damping, and others. Note: The default unit
weight value is approximate. When available, the API code recommends instead using
high quality soil information.
• The unit weight input.
• The undrained shear strength, s u .
• The unit shaft resistance input; see Equation 7.1.
The unit shaft resistance in cohesive soil is computed with the following:
f = s u (7.1)
where
 is the dimensionless factor; given the undrained shear strength it is computed from:
– 0.5
 = 0.5 for   1.0 (7.2)
– 0.25
 = 0.5 for   1.0 (7.3)
where
  1.0 and  = s u   v .
 v is the effective overburden pressure.
7.1.1.2 Unit Toe Resistance
The unit toe resistance in cohesive soil is computed from the following:
q t = 9s u (7.4)
7.1.2 Soil Type Based: Cohesionless Soil
For cohesionless soil, the API code (2007) recommends using a simple soil type/density classification
table (API code, 2007, p64) to select soil unit resistance values and classifications; see Table 7.1.
7.1.2.1 Input
The following are applicable inputs for cohesive soil:
• The soil stiffness value determines soil resistance and default values for soil unit weight
and soil dynamic parameters such as quake, damping, and others. Note: The default unit

weight value is approximate. When available, the API code recommends instead using
high quality soil information.
• The unit weight input, if a high quality value is available.
• The choice between open ended vs. plugged or closed ended pipes will affect the shaft
resistance computation.
7.1.2.2 Unit Shaft Resistance
The unit shaft resistance for cohesionless soil is computed with the following:
f s =  v (7.5)
where
 is a dimensionless shaft friction factor; see Table 7.1. Note: The  values in Table 7.1 are
for open-ended pipe piles, driven, unplugged. Values of  for full displacement piles, those
fully plugged or closed ended, should be 25% higher than the values in the table. As
mentioned,  v is the effective overburden pressure and f s is subject to the shaft resistance
limits as found in Table 7.1.
The unit toe resistance in cohesionless soil is computed from:
q t = N q  v (7.6)
where
N q is the bearing capacity factor from Table 7.1, which also provides limits for q t .

Table 7.1: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Siliceous Soil (based on API code, 2007, p. 64)
Unit Toe Unit Toe

Shaft
Soil Resistance Resistance Resistance
Soil Type Resistance
Description Limit kPa Limit MPa
Factor  Factor N q
(kips/ft2) (kips/ft2)
Very Loose
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Loose
Medium
Sand 0.37 81 (1.7) 20 5 (100)
Dense
Dense 0.46 96 (2.0) 40 10 (200)
Very Dense 0.56 115 (2.4) 50 12 (250)
Loose N/A N/A N/A N/A
Medium
0.37 67 (1.4) 12 3 (60)
Sand-Silt Dense
Dense 0.46 81 (1.7) 20 5 (100)
Very Dense N/A 96 (2.0) 40 10 (200)
Medium
Silt Dense N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dense
Note: N/A indicates that this table is not applicable for that soil type and that the CPT-
based methods are strongly recommended. Refer to the API code for details (2007).
7.1.3 Rock and Other Soil Types
Resistance computation for rock and other types of soils is not specified by API. GW14, however,
extends the method to “Rock” or “Other” materials by allowing for direct inputs of unit shaft resistance
and unit end bearing. For these materials, if the unit shaft and end bearing resistance values are not
entered, the program will use a zero default value. The user’s care and caution is advised.
7.2 CPT-Based Resistance Computation
CPT-based methods are highly recommended by API (2007) for sand. This is because the CPT-based
method provides more reliable soil resistance predictions in comparison to other approaches. API
recommends 4 different CPT evaluation methods. All 4 are included in GW14 as an aid in preparing
driveability analysis input. The user can choose 1 of the 4 approaches or try several approaches and
compare the results. The 4 methods are referred to as ICP-05, UWA-05, Fugro-05, and NGI-05.
References to the original publications describing these methods may be found in API (2007). The user
is urged to review this publication.

Input information required to perform anyone of the 4 sub-methods include the following:
• CPT data including depth, cone tip resistance, and sleeve friction
• Optional soil type, such as sand density, to initialize default values for soil unit weight and
soil dynamic parameters for quake and damping
• Unit weight if there are values better than the default.
• User selected plugging conditions; see Section 7.3.
7.2.1 The Simplified ICP-05 Method
7.2.1.1 Unit Shaft Resistance of Offshore UWA-05 and Fugro-05 Methods
The unit shaft resistance, f s , at depth, Z , is estimated from the following simplified formula.
  vo a b L–Z –C L–Z e

f s = u  q c ,z  ---------- Ar max  ------------- v  tan  cv  min  -------------  1
d
(7.7)
 Pa   D   D  v
where
q c z the CPT cone tip resistance at depth Z .
 v the soil effective vertical in-situ stress at depth Z .
P a The atmospheric pressure (100 kPa in SI units).
2
Ar the pile/soil displacement ratio 1 –  D i  D o  .
D i the pile internal diameter.
D o the D = Pile external diameter.
L the pile penetration depth.
 cv the pile-soil constant volume interface friction angle.
a b c d e u v are the parameters listed in Table 7.2.
Note: Equation 7.7 is applicable to UW-05 and Fugro-05, albeit with different parameters.

Table 7.2: Unit shaft resistance parameters for driven open-ended steel pile piles for the simplified ICP-
05, Offshore UWA-05 and Fugro-05 methods
Method a b c d e u v
Simplified ICP-05 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 0 0.023

4 Ar
Offshore UWA-05 0 0.3 0.5 1 0 0.030 2

Fugro-05 0.05 0.45 0.90 0 1 0.043
2 Ar
The unit or total toe resistance can be estimated with Equation 7.8 and 7.9 for plugged and unplugged
piles, respectively (Jardine et al 2005).
For plugged piles:

q t = q c av 1.5D  0.5 – 0.25 log 10 D  D CPT   0.15q c av 1.5D (7.8)
where
is the unit toe resistance.
q c av 1.5D is the unit toe resistance as an average of q c z between 1.5 D o above the pile tip
to 1.5 D o below pile the tip level.
D CPT is the CPT tool diameter; for example, for a standard 10 cm2 base area cone the
diameter is 36 mm (1.4 in).
Pile plugging should only be taken into account if the following 2 inequalities are both satisfied:
D i  2  D r – 30  and D i  D CPT  0.083q c z  Pa (7.9)

where
D r and Pa are as earlier defined; the D r unit is percent.
For unplugged, large open ended pipe piles, driveability analyses commonly use the following:
q t = q c z (7.10)

7.2.2 The UWA-05 Method
See Equation 7.7 and Table 7.2 for equation and parameters.
The unit toe resistance for the Offshore UWA-05 Method is computed with the following:
q t = q c av 1.5D  0.15 + 0.45Ar  (7.11)
Note: Equation 7.11 is only for plugged piles.
This method does not provide an equation for the unit toe resistance of unplugged piles. For driveability
analyses of unplugged piles, use ICP-05’s Equation 7.10.
7.2.3 The Fugro-05 Method
See Equation 7.7 Table 7.2 for equation and parameters.
The unit toe resistance for Fugro-05 Method is computed using the equation below:
q c av 1.5D 0.15 0.25

q t = 8.5p a  ------------------------ Ar (7.12)
 pa 
Note: Equation 7.12 too only applies to plugged piles.
This method does not provide an equation for the unit toe resistance of unplugged piles.
For driveability analyses of unplugged piles, GW14 therefore uses Equation 7.10.
7.2.4 The NGI-05 Method
NGI-05 uses the following equation:
Z
f s = --- p a F sig F Dr  0.1 vo (7.13)
L
where

 vo 0.25
F sig =  ----------
 pa 
1.7
F Dr = 2.1  D r – 0.1 
 q c z 
D r = 0.4l n  ---------------------------------
0.5
-  0.1
 22   vo p a  
D r should be greater than 0.1; for the definition of other parameters see Section 7.2.1.
The unit toe resistance of plugged piles is according to NGI-05:
q c av 1.5D
q t = 0.7 --------------------------2- (7.14)
1 + 3  Dr 
with
D r as defined for Equation 7.13.
For unplugged piles, which is the preferred condition for the driveability analysis of large open ended
pipe piles, the unit toe resistance is again calculated according to Equation 7.10:
In the unplugged case, the unit internal friction, f p z , between the soil plug and inner pile wall the NGI-05
Method recommends:
f p z = 3f c z (7.15)
where
f c z is the cone’s sleeve friction and internal friction is a static design option.
Note: The inner pile wall friction is generally only applicable for static analyses. For driveability analyses,
however, it is often inappropriate to include internal friction. As a result, the GW14 program does not
include any internal friction.
7.3 GW14 Plugging Considerations and Options for the 4 CPT Methods in API2
API2’s 4 CPT methods either assume that the pile is plugged, or describe conditions for pile plugging.
Note: Please note: These assumptions are only valid for static conditions and do not necessarily apply to
pile driving situations, at least not for large pipe pile diameters where during driving no plugging occurs,
even if it does happen during static load applications; see Appendix E.
For driveability analyses using the 4 API2 recommended CPT methods, GW14 offers users the following
3 options when considering plugging:

• The auto mode option, in which the plugged/unplugged condition is determined by the
program as per the chosen method’s recommendations.
• The plugged option uses the equations for plugged unit end bearing despite the chosen
method’s recommendations. In this case the program chooses as toe bearing area the
pile’s gross toe area.
• The unplugged option uses the equations of unplugged unit end bearing despite the
chosen method’s recommendations. In this case, the program will chooses the steel
annulus of the pile toe as the toe bearing area.

8 Alm and Hamre
Friction Fatigue1 is a method used to calculate shaft SRD from shaft LTSR. It assumes that the SRD is
close or exactly equal to the LTSR near the pile toe and reduces exponentially to a potentially much
lower value near grade. The basic approach was called Friction Fatigue by Heerema, (1980) and was
later modified and standardized by Alm and Hamre (2001) (A&H).
Since 2016, GRLWEAP has complemented its standard Setup Factor approach by adding 2 Friction
Fatigue (FF) methods. The first is the GRLWEAP Friction Fatigue approach. The second is the A&H
approach. Both use an exponential shaft resistance distribution. The GRLWEAP approach was devised
so that resistance distributions calculated by standard static analyses could be used. For the A&H
approach the resistance and shape factors had to be externally calculated and then copied into the soil
resistance input table. With GW14, initial resistance (similar to LTSR), residual resistance2 (similar to
SRD), toe resistance, and Shape Factors (describing the exponential decay) are now internally
calculated from CPT data.
The A&H method has been specifically developed for offshore piles and CPT data. In contrast, the
GRLWEAP FF Method can be applied to any set of unit resistance values. GRLWEAP FF Method,
however, does not calculate Shape Factors or Limit Lengths. Selections should be made by matching
existing, comparable driving records.
The A&H method is based on the theory proposed by Alm & Hamre (2001) using CPT data. The unit
shaft resistance along a pile during driving is computed with the following equation:
kd – p
f s = f sres +  f si – f sres e (8.1)
where
f s is the unit shaft resistance during driving, which is also called static resistance to driving
(SRD).
f si is the initial unit shaft resistance, which is a long term value.
f sres is the residual unit shaft resistance, which is reached after an infinite number of hammer
blows.
k is the shape factor.
d is the depth of soil layer from the ground surface.
p is the pile toe depth from the ground.
1. The term “Friction Fatigue” has nothing to do with the fatigue damage that may occur in the pile material
due to pile driving. It describes a fatiguing of the shaft resistance during pile driving. Soil layers close to
grade are more fatigued than those close to the pile bottom where the soil only experienced a few hammer
blows.
2. The term “Residual Resistance” has nothing to do with Residual Stress Analysis, instead it is the name
given to that amount of resistance that would remain at grade for a pile with an infinitely deep penetration.

The formulas for f sres , f si , and k are different for clay and sand. It is the users responsibility to identify
the clay and sand layers. The identification is completed in a soil type input mode, which resembles
other static analysis input methods.
For clay layers, the initial unit shaft resistance is taken as the recorded CPT sleeve friction; see Equation
8.2. The residual friction is a function of the normalized cone tip resistance; see Equation 8.3.
f si = f s (8.2)
qc
fsres = 0.004qc 1 – 0.0025 ------- (8.3)
 p 0
where
f s is the sleeve friction from CPT.
q c is the cone tip resistance from CPT.
p 0 is the effective overburden pressure.
For sand layers, the initial friction is taken as the basic static friction formulation; see Equation 8.4. The
residual friction is taken as 20% of the initial friction; see Equation 8.5.
p 0 0.13
f si = 0.0132q c  ------- tan  (8.4)
 pa 
f sres = 0.2f si (8.5)
where
p a is the atmospheric pressure (100 kPa in SI units).
 is the friction angle between pile and soil (degree).
It has been found that the shape factor for degradation for clay and sandy is expressed with the
following:
1 q c 0.5
k = ------  ------- (8.6)
80  p 0
In this equation, a rapid degradation will occur for dense sands. The opposite will occur for soft clays.
The unit toe resistance for clay is taken as 60% of the cone tip resistance; see Equation 8.7. The unit toe
resistance for sand is computed using Equation 8.8.

q TIP = 0.6q c (8.7)
q c 0.2
q TIP = 0.15q c  ------- (8.8)
 p 0
For convenience and uniformity with the GRLWEAP standard setup approach, GW14 defines the ratio of
residual (SRD) to initial (LTSR) resistance for each soil layer as the setup factor. The inverse of the
highest setup factor is then again the shaft Gain/Loss factor. Note, however, that A&H does not claim
that the initial resistance would be the Long Term Resistance of the pile.
The A&H Method requires that the soil is classified as either clay or sand. GW14 performs the soil
classification automatically, according to Robertson et al. (1986); see Appendix B. Alternatively, the user
can assign clay and sand layers without the need for strength information.

9 The Standard Setup Approach: Calculating the SRD from LTSR
9.1 Fixed Loss of Setup
The Static Analysis Methods ST, SA, FHWA/DRIVEN, CPT, API, API2 calculate the LTSR, or the long
term static resistance. Generally, the resistance distribution obtained is sufficiently accurate for bearing
graph analyses. For driveability analysis, however, it is only the first step in calculating the Static
Resistance to Driving (SRD). Alternatively, the A&H Method is generally only used to calculate the SRD
residual resistance and is typically not used for LTSR calculations. As a result, it is not normally used for
design purposes, albeit the so-called initial resistance could take place of the LTSR. Alm and Hamre do
not claim that after a period of time the SRD will return to the full initial resistance. Meanwhile, the
standard setup approach assumes that the full LTSR is regained some time after pile driving (i.e. after
setup time). The standard setup approach is discussed in this section.
In the standard setup approach, 2 different factors are defined including the Gain/Loss factors and the
Setup factors. The Gain/Loss factors control the absolute change of static soil resistance. The Setup
Factor controls the relative change of soil resistance among the various soil layers.
For a particular soil type:
LTSR = f s SRD (9.1)
SRD is the soil resistance occurring after the pile is driven a certain distance, known as the Limit Length,
L L . The LTSR will occur sometime after driving, referred to as the Setup Time, t s .
The GRLWEAP Gain/Loss and Setup Factor concept is explained by example as follows. Take for
example, a simple single soil layer, such as clay, with a setup factor of f s = 2.5 . During driving, to
reduce the LSTSR to the SRD as a means to represent the full resistance loss, the reduction factor for
the single clay layer would be f RD =  1.0  2.5  = 0.4 . It would be appropriate to use f RD = 1.0 to
analyze the restrike situation with full setup. To analyze an incomplete setup f RD = 0.7 could be used.
For each depth analyzed, with the 3 gain/loss factors, f GL = 0.4 0.7 1.0 , specified as an input, a
bearing graph could be calculated by the driveability analysis with 3 ultimate capacity values. As a result,
the program would produce 1 bearing graph for each depth analyzed. Furthermore, for each analysis, an
appropriate end bearing gain/loss factor could be considered in the input.
In another example, assume that 2 soil layers exist, with different setup factors, as a clay layer and a
sand layer, with a setup factor of f s = 1.25 . It would be expected that the full loss of setup resistance
would reduce the sand layer’s LTSR to an SRD of 1  1.25 or to 80% of its long term capacity. As a
result, the user would use f RD = 0.8 for the sand and f RD = 0.4 for the clay. GRLWEAP solves this
dilemma by considering the gain/loss factor, f GL , as user specified to be consistent with the most
sensitive layer. For less sensitive layers, the reductions of resistance would be proportionate to the setup
factors ratio. With this reasoning, if analyzed again, the Gain/Loss factor of f GL = 0.4 (to cover the set-
up factor 2.5 of the most sensitive layer), a Gain/Loss factor of 0.7 (half the loss of the most sensitive
layer’s resistance), and a Gain/Loss factor of 1 for full setup (no loss of driving resistance), the sand’s

corresponding reduction factors would be f RD = 0.8 0.9 1.0 . Correspondingly, the clay’s
corresponding reduction factors would be f RD = f GL = 0.4 0.7 1.0 .
Mathematically, the capacity multipliers for the individual layers, f RD , are calculated by GRLWEAP. First,
a relative soil/pile sensitivity, f S , is calculated from the set-up factors, f S .
f s =  1 – 1  f S    1 – 1  f SX  (9.2)
For sand, the relative soil sensitivity is calculated as:
f S = 1.25 f S =  1 – 1  1.25    1 – 1  2.5  = 0.333 (9.3)

where
f SX is the maximum set-up factor of all soil layers analyzed (the setup factor of the clay,
f S = 2.5 , in the above example).
Note: Sand is a third as sensitive as clay because it loses 20% when the clay loses 60%.
Next, the friction reduction factor during driving is calculated from the Gain/Loss factor, f GL , and relative
soil/pile sensitivity, as follows:
f RD =  1 – f S + f S f GL  (9.4)
f RD = 1 + 0.333 + 1.333  0.7  = 0.9 (9.5)
Thus, when clay is analyzed with 70% of its long term strength, the sand will have 90% of its full capacity.
This capacity reduction factor is subject to variation as described if the setup time, t S , and limit distance,
L L , are specified; see Section 9.2.
Insofar, only the shaft resistance setup has been considered. Nevertheless, it is possible to vary the end
bearing because the shaft resistance varies at a particular analysis depth. For example, a pile is driven
through clay into a silty sand. The silty sand layer is very dense. As a result, it has the potential to build
up negative pore water pressures and, therefore, high end bearing values during driving, approximately
50% higher than the long term value.
After driving, the pore water pressures dissipate and the toe capacity returns to the known value from
static calculations. For example, a pile is driven through clay, (with a set-up factor 2.5 in this example)
into a very dense, fine sand and silt. Here, it may be reasonable to perform an analysis with shaft Gain/
Loss factors of 0.4 and 1.0 and respective toe Gain/Loss factors of 1.5 and 1.0. The resulting 2 analyses,
at each depth, consider the temporary dynamic (expected) and the long-term static (restrike or worst-
case driveability) situations, respectively. Note: There is no provision to specifically vary the toe’s G/L
factor for certain soil layers. If the toe G/L is 1.5, then the toe resistance will increase in all layers by
50%.

The above examples are reasonable for impact driven piles. For vibratory pile driving, sands and clays
often behave very differently. Sands lose a very high percentage and clays lose a very low percentage of
their LTSR; see the “Table of Soil Set-Up Factors” (GRLWEAP On-line Help) for suggestions.
9.2 Variable Loss of Setup
GRLWEAP also offers a time/distance variable resistance setup and resistance loss approach. This
approach considers soil setup during a driving interruption to increase logarithmically with time and a
related loss of resistance that develops linearly with driving depth after the driving interruption, or during
a Wait Time. During that time, the shaft resistance increases logarithmically until the Setup Time is
reached, or when it regains full LTSR. When driving resumes, the shaft resistances decrease linearly
with driven distance and reaches SRD after a so-call Limit Distance, L li . Note the Limit Distance can be
different for each segment; see Figure 9.1. This approach works fairly well for short distances. But it
does not work well when losses of resistances occur over a greater distance of driving. In such case, L li
needs to be much greater than the length of a few meters.
The capacity reduction factor due to the Wait Time is defined as:
f RW = R UR  R UF (9.6)
where
R UR is the capacity (of a pile/soil segment) reduced by the action of the dynamic energy.
R UR is the full ultimate capacity (achieved after full set-up time) at the same segment. Skov and Denver,
(1988), suggested that the reduction factor is a function of set-up time, t S , and follows a log 10 function:
f RW = 1  f S + A log 10  t  t b  (9.7)
with
A =  1 – 1  f S   l og 10   t S   t B  (9.8)
The soil's set-up factor for the shaft resistance is f S . The time, t , elapsed since driving was halted, must
be greater than the reference time t B . This reference time is set to 0.01 hours in GRLWEAP, although
Skov et al. (1988) recommend a larger period, such as a day, for a stable prediction of set-up strength to
occur. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that this set-up behavior occurs in short interruptions
during driving and long wait periods as considered by the authors. A 1-day base time period would be
outside of the time considered.

Figure 9.1: Variable Setup Concept.
For the loss of resistance due to pile driving, a simple linear relationship has been adopted between the
distance driven and the SRD. If the pile has penetrated a particular soil layer at a limiting distance, L L , it
is assumed that the setup is lost. The limiting driving distance has been called a relative energy in the
past because it is resistance force times the distance that the pile has been driven. The normalization by
division with the average resistance leads to the limit distance. The limit distance, L L , is a constant and
may be considered a soil property. The user can enter this soil property in the soil resistance profile and
has the dimension of length, of m or ft.
Note: The reduction factor can never be less than the inverse of the set-up factor nor can it be greater
than 1.
The program analyzes all depth values specified in the “D Screen.” The analysis results may indicate,
where a waiting time was specified, that the pile would refuse. Yet some distance below the point of the
waiting time, the pile may actually have a non-refusal blow count. In reality, it would be impossible to
drive the pile to this deeper penetration because of the refusal. Unless, however, some jetting or other
driving aids were employed. Thus, with a casual inspection of the calculated blow counts vs. depth,
which ultimately misses the 1 depth result with refusal due to setup, it may be suggested that the pile
could be driven. In reality, it would only reach the intermediate depth where the driving interruption and
refusal blow counts occur.
Limitations and Additional Suggestions:
• Variable setup analysis is only done for the first Gain/Loss factor.
• Variable setup analysis cannot be performed for Friction Fatigue analyses; see the
Offshore Wave Option.
• GRLWEAP does not consider a variation of toe bearing with driving energy or set-up
time. The end bearing is either fully increased or fully reduced as specified by the toe
Gain/Loss factor. No variation of this factor with soil layer properties is possible.
• If no set-up time or relative energy is known, and the corresponding inputs are left zero or
blank, the "variable set-up" analysis cannot be performed. Nevertheless, a constant loss

or gain analysis is still possible. Probably, the constant loss/gain analysis is as
reasonable or more reasonable than the variable analysis because of the uncertainty of
limit distance, set-up time, and their variation with time.
• If no set-up factors are specified, GRLWEAP assumes set-up factors of 1 for all layers.
Gain/loss factors then produce uniform capacity gains or losses in all soil layers along the
pile.
• There is no point in specifying set-up time if the limit distance is unknown or vice-versa.
Entering 1parameter while not specifying the other leads to curious results.
• GRLWEAP does not allow for a meaningful vibratory analysis with variable set-up.
• It is suggested that users first attempt to perform hindsight analyses by matching the blow
count behavior of known projects with well documented hammer and soil data. Only after
enough experiences are gathered should class A predictions be attempted of the variable
set-up behavior of a hammer-pile-soil system.
• As guide for preparing inputs for a first trial analysis, the relative energy may be estimated
as 2 m (7 ft). Thus, for the GRLWEAP approach, the soil would lose its set-up capacity
after the pile was driven for approximately 2 m (7 ft.).
• Set-up time may be as long as 6 weeks for some clays or as little as a few minutes for
sands. GRLWEAP assumes that the full set-up capacity was regained after a driving
interruption greater than or equal to the set-up time.
• Many depths must be analyzed for reasonably accurate analysis results and driving time
estimates. This is particularly true when modeling variable set-up and where soil layer
changes or waiting times are specified.

10 The GW Friction Fatigue Approach
Developed in 2013, the second method combined features of the basic GRLWEAP setup factor
approach with those proposed by, for example, Alm and Hamre (2001). This friction fatigue approach
assumes that pile driving causes little loss of shaft soil resistance near the toe but a much higher
resistance loss closer to the seabed. The thought is that closer to the seabed the shaft resistance
decreases exponentially because the pile shaft has worked more on the soil between the pile toe and a
certain distance, Limit Length, above the toe.
The GW Friction Fatigue Approach differs from the A&H method in 2 major ways. First, the LTSR can be
calculated by any static analysis method. Second, the GW-FF uses the same shape factor for all layers.
This is primarily because the method has not been extensively calibrated and only global
recommendations can be made for the GW Friction Fatigue approach. In addition, this method allows for
a certain distance near the pile toe to have the same SRD.
The friction reduction factor, f fi , is the same as the setup factor in the Standard Setup Factor Method.
The difference is that it is applied to 1 particular pile segment. The resistance on the shaft of a pile
segment is calculated as:
SRD i = LTSR i f fi (10.1)
where
f fi is the reduction factor for layer i . The reduction factor is the inverse of the setup factor, f sui , for full
resistance reduction. The reduction factor occurs at pile segments above the Limit Length, L li , plus the
bottom section f L L li .
f fi = 1  f sui for z   1 + f L L li (10.2)
SRD = LTSR is the full, unreduced resistance that occurs at the pile bottom and a short distance, f l L li ,
above the toe.
f fi = 1 for z  f L L li (10.3)
As a result, the full resistance over a distance, f L L li , above the pile toe is:
 aiz 
f fi = 1  f sui – f o + x 1 e for f L L li  z   1 + f L L li (10.4)
Thus, there is exponential varying in between. The coordinate z is zero at a distance, f L L li , above the
pile toe. Therefore:
z = z – f L L li (10.5)
Also,

x 1 = 1 –   1  f sui  – f oi  (10.6)
and
a i = In  f oi  x 1   L li (10.7)
The factor f o defines the shape of the exponential function; see Figure 10.1. The factor f L allows for an
unreduced resistance over a distance above the bottom, or “bottom section,” which is equal to f L L li . The
limit length, L li , the shape factor, f oi , and the setup factor, f si , can be chosen differently for the various
soil layers.
GRLWEAP applies the following limits:
f oi  0.9  1  f sui  (10.8)
and
f oi  0.001 (10.9)
Additionally, the setup factor of any soil layer has to be greater than or equal to 1. Note: GRLWEAP will
replace values less than 1 with 1 without warning:
f sui  1 (10.10)
The user should be aware of the following:
• Only 1 G/L factor < 1 can be analyzed with this approach. It must be the first shaft’s G/L
factor. Also, the first shaft G/L should be the inverse of the largest setup factor maximum,
f su , to produce a meaningful calculation. If the first shaft’s G/L were 1.0 then the LTSR
would be analyzed (no friction fatigue), which is conveniently done with the second
analysis and associated second shaft’s G/L factor.
• Using the same setup factors, the total SRD calculated with this method is lower than the
SRD of the standard method. The equivalent setup factors are discussed below.
• Both the wait time and soil setup time inputs are ignored in this analysis.

Figure 10.1: Multiplier for f su = 5 , Limit Dist = 50 m, Pile L = 75 m; f o = 0.1 and 0.001, and f L = 0.1 and
0.05.
Potentially, the restriction of Equation 10.9 makes the factor different for different soil layers. To explain,
consider a clay with and a sand layer with. Then, the restriction is for the clay and for the sand. In
general, however, the much lower values are used. The user can choose both f o and f L .

11 Results and Outputs
For the final analysis penetration, GW14 shows the results of the static analyses in the Review Soil
Param. of the “S Window.” Note: Different unit resistance values may be applied for methods, such as
FHWA/DRIVEN, which calculate resistance values based on the depth to pile diameter ratio (D/B). The
final output driveability summaries also show the total resistance values for each calculated analysis
depth. Additional graphical representations are depicted in the “Review Soil Param. Window,” as well as
in the driveability output. For A&H, the user can view the individual residual unit shaft resistance
distributions in the FF display. For other methods, the user can view the individual residual unit shaft
resistance distributions in the SRD display.

Appendix A: References
Alm, T. and Hamre, L., (2001). Soil model for pile drivability predictions based on CPT interpretation.
Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2, Istanbul, 1297-
1302.
API, American Petroleum Institute, (1993). “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Load and Resistance Factor Design”, API
Recommended Practice 2A-LRFD (RP 2A-LRFD), First Edition, July 1, 1993. Reaffirmed
2003.API
API, American Petroleum Institute, (2007). “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design”, API RECOMMENDED
PRACTICE 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD), 2000, Errata and Supplement 3, 2007
Bowles, J.E. (1977). Foundation Analysis and Design. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 85-86.
De Ruiter, J., and Beringen, F. L. (1979). “Pile foundations for large North Sea structures.” Mar.
Geotech., 3(3), 267–314.
Kulhawy, F.H., Jackson, C.S., & Mayne, P.W. (1989) “First-Order Estimation of Ko in Sands and Clays”,
Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, Vol. 1, Ed. F. H. Kulhawy, ASCE, New
York, 121-134.
Kulhawy, F.H. & Mayne, P.W. (1991). “Relative Density, SPT & CPT Interrelationships”, Calibration
Chamber Testing, Ed. A. –B. Huang, Elsevier, New York, 197-211.
Hannigan, P.J, Rausche, F., Likins, G.E., Robinson, B.R. and Becker, M.L., (2016). "Design and
Construction of Driven Pile Foundations,” Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 12 – Volume I
and II, National Highway Institute, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-NHI-16-009 and FHWA-NHI-16-010, Washington, D.C.
Heerema, E.P., (1980. Predicting pile drivability; Heather as an illustration of the friction fatigue theory.
Ground Engineering, 13(3), 15-37.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1976). “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations”, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 102 (GT3): 195-228 (Terzaghi Lecture).
Robertson, P.K. & Campanella, R.G. (1983). “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests: Sand,” Can.
Geot. J., 20 (4), 718-733.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Grieg, J. (1986). “Use of Piezometer Cone Data.”
Proceedings of In-Situ’86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, Special Publication No. 6, Blacksburg, 1263-1280.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1975). “Measurement of In-Situ Shear Strength”, Proceedings of Conference on In

Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, New York.

Schmertmann, J. H. (1978). Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test: Performance and Design, FHWA-TS-
78-209 (report), US Department of Transportation, 145.

Appendix B: Soil Classification
For CPT-based computations, GW14 relies on the soil classification chart of Robertson et al. (1986) with
minor modifications; see Figure B.1 for a reproduction. The classification areas 1 through 12 are a
function of the friction ratio, R f = q s  q c , which is the sleeve friction divided by cone resistance. Table B-
1 classifies the 12 areas per Robertson et al. (1986) together with the SA Method classifications after
Hannigan et al. (2016).
Figure B.1: Soil classification from CPT data (after Robertson et al. 1986).
Table B-1: Soil Classifications from Robertson et al. (1986) in comparison with the SA Method.
Soil Description Corresponding to:
Zone Soil Behavior Type (Hannigan et al. 2006) SA Method

(1) sensitive fine grained Poorly graded fine sand
(2) sensitive fine grained Peat
(3) Clay Clay
(4) silty clay to clay Clay
(5) clayey silt to silty clay Cohesive silt
(6) sandy silt to clayey silt Split between (5) and (7)
(7) silty sand to sandy silt Cohesionless silt

Table B-1: Soil Classifications from Robertson et al. (1986) in comparison with the SA Method.
Soil Description Corresponding to:
(8) sand to silty sand Sand

(9) Sand Sand
(10) gravelly sand to sand Well graded sand
(11) very stiff fine grained Poorly graded fine sand
(12) sand to clayey sand Sand
B.1 Soil Parameter Estimation
Soil properties, such as unit weight, Y , friction angle,  , or undrained shear strength, q u , are
determined approximately in terms of the soil description. Tables B-2 and B-3 show the estimated values
of the soil strength parameters for cohesionless and cohesive soils according to Bowles, 1977.
Table B-2: Empirical values for  , D r , and Y of granular soils based on corrected N (after Bowles,
1977).
Description Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense
Relative density 0-0.15 0.15-0.35 0.35-0.65 0.65-0.85 0.85-1.00

Corrected standard
0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 50+
penetration N value
Approximate angle of
internal friction (  ) 25-30 27-32 30-35 35-40 38-43
Range of approximate
moist unit weight
11.0-15.7 14.1-18.1 17.3-20.4 17.3-22.0 20.4-23.6
(Y ) (70-100) (90-115) (110-130) (110-140) (130-150)
3 3
 kN  m   lb   ft  
Bowles, 1977)
Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard
0-24 24-48 48-96 96-192 192-384 384+

q u kPa  ksf  
(0-0.5) (0.5-1.0) (1.0-2.0) (2.0-4.0) (4.0-8.0) (8.0+)
Standard
Penetration N 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 32+
Value

Bowles, 1977)
Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard
Y (saturated) 15.8-18.8 15.8-18.8 17.3-20.4 18.8-22.0 18.8-22.0 18.8-22.0

3 3 (100-120) (100-120) (110-130) (120-140) (120-140) (120-140)
kN  m  lb   ft  

Appendix C: Soil Layer Thickness and Interface Considerations
C.1 Layer Thickness
For increased accuracy, it is recommended to divide the required analysis depth into relatively thin soil
layers, such as 5 m (16 ft). GW14 will subdivide the layers of greater thickness when computing soil
resistance because thin soil layers may increase the input effort for deep soil profiles. For computations
in GW14, the calculation depth increment is set to <= 0.5 m (1.6 ft).
For example, consider the layer shown in Figure C.1. The solid black line indicates the interpolated unit
resistance, at the toe or shaft, between the calculated for points a, top, and b, bottom, before applying a
limit resistance value. If the selected static analysis method requires a limit, such as the red dot-dash
line, then the bottom value would be set to d. As a result, the black dot’s resistance distribution. For a
large soil layer thickness, this approach has the potential to cause large errors. Alternatively, split the
layer into 2 layers at point c. Then, the resulting unit resistance distribution would follow the path a-c-d,
which yields the correct answer. Nevertheless, the latter approach could lead to potentially complex and
confusing situations. Instead, as with many discretization methods, a larger number of thin layers yields
sufficiently accurate results. GW14 applies this approach. The user can vary the interval thickness
chosen for the calculations.
Figure C.1: Illustration of the Effect of Soil Layer Thickness.
C.2 Consideration of the Interface between Soil Layers
At the interface between 2 soil layers, the toe resistance is affected by the relative strength of the 2
neighboring layers (Meyerhof, G.G., 1976). For simplicity, GW14 assumes that the zone in a soil layer
affected by soil layers above and below as:
Z – Z t  aD t (C.1)
where

Z and Z t are the respective depths of the soil layer interface, as well as the pile toe below
ground surface.
D t is the diameter or width of pile toe.
a is a coefficient that defines the affected zone thickness.
The default value for a is 2 for a strong layer and 0 for a weak layer.
The unit toe resistance is assumed to vary linearly in the affected zone; see Figure C.2 and Figure C.3.
The examples shown in the figures below demonstrate how the unit toe resistance is calculated for a 3
soil layer profile, as well as for a strong middle layer. The solid black lines represent the unit toe
resistance computed without considering the effect of soil layer interface. The 3 cases A, B, and C are
considered in the demonstration of Figure C.2.
Case A: The thickness of the middle layer is greater than 2a s D t . For this reason, there is a depth range
where the layer interface has no effect on the computation of unit toe resistance. The resulting unit toe
resistance follows the path abcdef.
Case B: The thickness of the middle layer is less than 2a s D t . For this reason, the whole layer is affected
by soil layers above and below and the points c and d are joined together. The resulting unit toe
resistance follows the path abcdef and all are less than the unit toe resistance computed without
considering the interface effect.
Case C: By introducing different coefficients, such as  s for a strong soil layer and  w for a weaker soil
layer, it becomes possible to consider different effects between weaker and stronger soil layers. The
user could consider that the toe resistance in the weaker soil layer is unaffected by an adjacent stronger
soil layer, a w , which is set to zero; see Figure C.2. This is the default in GW14.
Note: Figure C.3 plots the resulting unit toe resistance for the 3 cases together for easy comparison.

Figure C.2: A computation of the unit toe resistance near the soil layer interface. This illustration shows a case with
a strong middle layer. From Case A: The thickness of middle layer is larger than the affecting zones. From Case B:
The thickness of middle layer is smaller compared to the affecting zones. From Case C: The affecting zone in the
weaker layers is not considered. Case C is the GW14 default.
Figure C.3: A computation of the unit toe resistance near the soil layer interface. This illustration shows a compari-
son of the 3 cases.

Appendix D: GRLWEAP Friction Fatigue, Examples and Comparison with the Standard Approach
D.1 Examples
The input of Friction Fatigue specific factors, such as Shape Factor, f 0 , and Bottom Constant Length,
f L , must be made in S after any type of static analysis and after selecting SRD from GRLWEAP Friction
Fatigue, see Figure D-1. Additionally, the user must specify Limit Length, L i , and Setup Factor, f su , in
the Soil Parameter Table in S.
Figure D.1: Input of GRLWEAP FF Parameters.
In the first example, consider a single uniform soil layer where the LTSR of each 1 m (3 ft) long pile
segment is 500 kN, with a 10 m (32 ft) circumference and 50 kPa unit shaft resistance. The shape Factor
f o was set to 0.01 and the bottom section factor f L to 0.0. This means that over a distance of 0 L li
above the pile toe the friction is constant and equal to LTSR. Figure D.2 shows the calculated resistance
1
distribution for pile toe depths of 25 (82 ft), 50 (164 ft), and 75 m (264 ft), which is equivalent to ot --- L li ,
2
L li , and 1.5L li because the limit length of L li = 50m was inputted in the S1 soil resistance table.
The shaft G/L was set to 0.2 to correspond to the setup factor 5. The fully reduced segment resistance
is, therefore, 100 kN. The pile length was 100 m (328 ft). The results plotted in Figure D-3 show a 1 m

(3.2 ft) depth below the mudline, a small resistance above the SRD. This is because the L li is greater
than the penetration. For the deeper penetration of 50 m (164 ft) and 75 m (246 ft), the resistance at 1 m
(3.2 ft) is the fully reduced value. Note: The bottom segment resistance is never exactly equal to the full
LTSR, which in this case is f L = 0 , because of the finite pile segment length of 1 m (3.2 ft). At 1 m (3.2
ft) above the bottom the resistance is already reduced.
Figure D.2: Uniform soil, 3 different depths, L li = 50 m (164 ft) and f o = 0.01.
The next example is for a 2 layer situation. In this case, it was assumed that a 50 m (164 ft) sand layer,
with a setup factor of f su = 1.25 , overlays a clay layer, with a setup factor of f su = 5 . The G/L was,
therefore, set to 0.2 and the L li was set to 50 m (164 ft) for both layers. The LTSR for each sand
segment was 250 kN. The clay was 500 kN. Figure D.3 shows that at a depth of 50 m (164 ft) the pile
was still fully embedded in sand and experienced resistance values between roughly more than 200 kN
and 250 kN, which if calculated with f s = 1.25 as the fully reduced resistance the result is 250/1.25=200
kN. Note: Once the pile reaches full depth, the sand resistance is almost completely reduced while the
clay layer shows characteristics similar to that shown in the first exmaple. Figure D-3 shows the result
with an f L = 0 , as resistance loss begins at the very bottom. Figure D.4 shows the results with a 5%
unreduced bottom section.

Figure D.3: 100 m pile; 50 m sand with f s = 1.25 ; over 50 m clay with f s = 5 ; L i = 50m ; f o = 0.01 ;
f L = 0.0 .

= 1.25 ; over 50 m (164 ft) clay with
Figure D-4: 100 m (328 ft) pile; 50 m (164 ft) sand with f s
f s = 5 ;L i = 50m ;f o = 0.01 ;f L = 0.05 .
For the examples insofar discussed the shape factor, f o , was always the same. GW14, however, also
allows for entering different shape factors for different soil layers in the S Soil Parameter Table.
D.2 Relationship between Standard and Friction Fatigue Setup Factors
Define the Friction Fatigue setup factor f sFf as the ratio of initial resistance (near the bottom) to the fully
reduced resistance, L l above the bottom. Consider the following Figure D-5, which is an example of a
resistance distribution for a Friction Fatigue setup factor of 4. It shows that the resistance distribution
over depth is equal to the Limit Length. Also, it can be shown that the total skin friction, which is equal to
the area between the resistance distribution curve and the horizontal and vertical axes, is given by:
Ll
F S – Ff = x 2 L l +  x 1  a   e – 1  (D.1)
where
x 2 = 1  fs – fo ;x 1 = 1 – x2 ;and ;a = In  fo  x 1   L l (D.2)
The GRLWEAP shaft resistance over the same distance L l is given by:

F S – GW = LTSR  SRD =  f initial  f s L l (D.3)
Figure D-5: Example of the friction fatigue factor (reduced/initial resistance) vs. normalized depth assuming a Fric-
tion Fatigue setup factor f sFF = 4 .
The user can calculate for different shape factors, f o , with Equations D.1 through D.3, which are the
Friction Fatigue setup factors that would yield the same total Friction Fatigue shaft resistance as in the
standard GRLWEAP approach. The Standard GRLWEAP Approach and FF Setup Approach are shown
numerically and graphically; see Table D-1 and Figure D-6. For example, if f o = 0.001 , the curve
farthest to the right, then to get the same total friction in a layer (assuming the layer thickness and L l are
the same – which is usually not true and that is a severe limitation of these results) then a standard
GRLWEAP setup factor of 3.14 corresponds to a Friction Fatigue setup factor of 5.

Table D-1: GW Standard Setup Factor vs. FF Setup Factors
Shape Factor (exponent), f o
Ff- 0.0001 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.075 0.1
Setup F.
10.00 4.32 4.08 3.82 3.66 3.54 3.45 3.17 2.81 2.66 2.56
7.50 3.84 3.65 3.44 3.32 3.23 3.15 2.92 2.62 2.49 2.41
5.00 3.14 3.02 2.88 2.80 2.74 2.69 2.53 2.31 2.22 2.15
4.00 2.76 2.67 2.57 2.51 2.46 2.42 2.30 2.13 2.05 2.00
2.75 2.17 2.12 2.06 2.03 2.00 1.98 1.90 1.80 1.75 1.72
2.00 1.73 1.70 1.67 1.65 1.63 1.62 1.58 1.52 1.49 1.47
1.50 1.38 1.37 1.36 1.35 1.34 1.33 1.31 1.28 1.27 1.26
1.25 1.20 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.13
Figure D-6: Friction Fatigue setup factors give the same total shaft resistance as the standard setup factors for Ll
is the pile toe depth.

Appendix E: Plug Formation and Internal Friction Considerations in Open Profiles
The reader is advised to review the research literature on this subject. The NCHRP Synthesis No. 478,
by Brown and Thompson (2015), provides a comprehensive summary of applicable research papers,
references, and codes or specifications.
Plug formation during static load applications and pile driving must be dealt with in a static design. Also,
plug formation must be addressed when performing a wave equation analysis, bearing graph or
driveability, of an open-ended pipe pile, H-pile, or even some sheet piles. While the plugging problem is
most common in large diameter open ended steel pipes, large diameter concrete cylinder piles may also
pose similar problems. Generally, however, the problem is not as severe in voided concrete piles or in
cylinder piles because the concrete bottom area is relatively large. Furthermore, concrete piles are
typically driven with heavily cushioned hammers, which results in lower accelerations. Nevertheless, it is
still possible that the soil plug will slip in the dynamic case and move with the pile in the static one. The
designer should keep this in mind.
The total soil resistance acting on a pile includes shaft resistance and end bearing. Shaft resistance is
calculated from the outside unit shaft resistance multiplied by the outside shaft surface area. This shaft
surface area is based on the length of pile penetration and the outside pile perimeter. In non-plugged,
open-ended, pipe pile cases, the inside of the pile too experiences shaft resistance equal to that of the
inside unit resistance times the inside surface area. This equates to the inside perimeter times the pile
section length exposed to the inside friction. The end bearing is calculated from unit toe resistance times
toe area. The toe area is the area of the pile material (unplugged), the total area enclosed by the pile
material (fully plugged), or an intermediate value (partially plugged).
For a fully plugged pile, the soil moves with the pile and end bearing develops over the total area, or the
pile material and soil. In this case, no internal friction develops in a pipe pile. For an unplugged pile the
soil moves into the pile and internal friction develops. Contrarily, the end bearing only acts against the
bottom of the pile material. Deciding whether full plugging will occur for open pile profiles is a complex
problem. Plugging depends on many factors. The most important factors are pile size (diameter and wall
thickness), soil density or soil hardness, depth of pile penetration, and pile toe acceleration (pile type and
hammer properties). One interesting aspect is the so-called arching effect, which can cause internal
lateral pressures near the bottom of the pile. These are significantly higher than the ambient effective
stress in the soil. Arching is also referred to as a reverse silo effect and may be the cause for full
plugging. Regardless, whether it is necessary to use the full toe area rather than the pile material
annulus for end bearing calculations often cannot be answered with certainty.
It is known that sometimes full end bearing develops under static loads, even if the pile does not plug
during driving. A pile plugs in a static situation when the end bearing against the soil plug is smaller than
the internal friction. In a dynamic (pile driving) situation, however, the soil plug inertia forces may be so
large that internal friction cannot balance them, even though it is greater than the end bearing.
Nevertheless, this is more likely to occur for large diameter open ended piles, those greater than 900
mm (36 in) in diameter, than for smaller piles where the plug inertia is much smaller. During restrike
testing, after a long waiting time, very dense sands or hard soils, or intermediate geomaterials), may be
expected in smaller pipe piles unless the penetration into the dense bearing layer is very shallow (less
than 3 pile diameters). For large piles, with diameters of 1500 mm (60 inch) or more, plugging rarely will
occur during driving.
Partial plugging may also develop. This could be explained as a soil plug not moving with the pile (no
plugging) when the impact stress wave arrives at the pile toe. Thus, subjecting it to the peak

acceleration, but moving with the pile as soon as the acceleration levels subside to low values. Partial
plugging could also be explained by part of the soil inside the pile (like near the wall) moving with the
pile, while another part of the pile (like in the center) moves little. These are merely hypotheses that
cannot be documented or verified by experiment. Other explanations may be reasonable.
For unplugged open-ended pipe piles, the Toe Area is the annulus area (pile material area). In the case
of fully plugged driving, the full cross-sectional area experiences end bearing. With partial plugging, the
toe area is somewhere between the annulus area and the total area. These toe area values may differ
for different soil layers. For example, in loose sand the pile may core (cookie cut) while fully plugging in a
very dense sand layer. In GRLWEAP 2010, different toe areas were entered for different soil layers in the
S1 input screen. A zero input used as by default either the information of the layer above or the value
from the main screen. In GW14, for every soil layer specification, the toe area needs to be individually
specified. The program selects a default after the toe area is selected after the Area Calculator input or
after changing this value on the main form. It is the user’s responsibility to check the toe area in the
Review Soil Param. after S.
For unplugged open ended pipes, the internal friction is also difficult to predict. In fact, some researchers
suggest that for large diameter piles to consider 50% outside and 50% inside friction. Most others
recommend, however, 100% outside friction and 0% inside friction Regardless, the result is the same. It
would be expected that an unplugged pile has some internal soil resistance because it is “coring.” This
means that the soil remains at its location, so it fills the pile and does not move with the pile, known as
the so-called “cookie cutter” effect. The driving process, however, causes rapid downward and upward
(rebound) pile motions, which will most likely reduce the effective stresses and the friction factor inside
the pile, as well as the internal friction. In this logic, the weakened soil column may have some damping
effect, however, that is hard to determine or predict. Thus, for most unplugged analyses only partial
internal friction is normally considered, and would be reasonable in an upper bound analysis (see
below). A case could be made for internal friction acting over the bottom 5 or 10 pile diameters if the pipe
wall thickness is uniform. Also, a pile with an internal driving shoe, such as a reduced inside diameter
(and thus heavier wall thickness) over some distance at and above the bottom, probably only causes
internal friction along that pile section. This should be modeled with internal friction only over the length
of the shoe. Both inside and outside friction should, of course, be reduced by any losses due to driving
whether that be from setup factor or friction fatigue considerations.
As far as data input is concerned, inside friction can be modeled by increasing the perimeter of the pile
by a factor corresponding to the total friction divided by the outside friction. For example, if it is desired to
analyze with 100% outside and 50% inside friction, then the perimeter should be multiplied by 1.5 of that
length of pile over which internal friction is expected. This has to be done by modeling a non-uniform
pile.
Normally for H-piles, shaft resistance is computed with a perimeter equal to the 4 sides of the pile. Then,
the end bearing is correspondingly calculated based on the area enclosed by the 4 sides. An argument
could be made for using 6 sides to calculate shaft resistance and only the steel area to calculate the end
bearing. Nonetheless, that assumption is highly uncommon. Typically, H-piles are relatively small
(usually less than 350 mm 14 in) squares. For this reason, the fully plugged area is usually assumed for
end bearing calculations in both the static and dynamic case. There are situations, such as driving
through soft soils or only a short distance into hard soils, where plugging may not develop.
GRLWEAP users should be aware that modeling plugged (or partially plugged) end bearing requires
additional considerations. Most importantly, they should be reminded that for non-displacement piles the
soil quake recommendations are 2.5 mm (0.1 in). For displacement piles, the toe quake is

recommended to be D/60, where D is the pile diameter or width, for all not very dense or hard soils and
D/120 for very dense or hard soils.
An unplugged pile is a non-displacement pile. When the pile plugs it becomes a displacement pile.
Generally, piles only plug in very dense or hard soil, or a merely dense soil becomes a very dense
material when the pile plugs. For this reason, D/120 is an appropriate toe quake for fully plugged piles.
For partially plugged piles, D/120 too may be appropriate. Note: The pile is not a full displacement pile if
the soil is maybe not very dense or hard. An additional consideration is that the unit toe resistance for a
fully plugged pile toe area may be smaller than the mere material annulus. General recommendations
cannot be given here for this problem. Further note that the GRLWEAP default values may not
correspond to these recommendations.
There is the potential for significant differences between plugged and unplugged pile behavior. Thus, it is
strongly recommended that the designer performs upper and lower bound analyses with the
understanding that the critical case is a high soil resistance for driveability checks and low soil resistance
when assessing bearing capacity and settlements. For example, the dynamic case partial plugging, 50%
of soil area, may be considered as an upper bound end bearing for large open ended pipe piles in a
granular material.

GRLWEAP 14 - Background Report - Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRLWEAP 14 - Background Report - Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRLWEAP14 Background Report

Part 2: Static Soil Resistance

www.pile.com Pile Dynamics,

1.1 Basic Equation for Pile Capacity Calculations ............................................................1

2 Soil Type Based Method (ST) ............................................................................................5

2.1 Granular Soils .............................................................................................................5

3 SPT N-value Based Method (SA) .......................................................................................8

3.1 Sand and/or Gravel .....................................................................................................8

4 The CPT Method ...............................................................................................................13

4.1 Unit Shaft Resistance in Cohesive Soil .....................................................................13

5 The FHWA/DRIVEN Method .............................................................................................18

5.1 Cohesive Soil – Tomlinson Method ..........................................................................18

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

6.1 Cohesive Soil ............................................................................................................29

7 The API2 Method ...............................................................................................................32

7.1 Soil Type Based Method ...........................................................................................32

8 Alm and Hamre .................................................................................................................41

9.1 Fixed Loss of Setup ..................................................................................................44

10 The GW Friction Fatigue Approach ..............................................................................49

11 Results and Outputs .......................................................................................................52

Appendix A: References ..................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix B: Soil Classification ........................................................................................................... 55

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

Figure 3.1:Toe Resistance Coefficient, N t , after Fellenius (2014). ................................................. 10

Figure 5.7: Correction coefficient for K  when    . .................................................................... 25

Figure 9.1: Variable Setup Concept. ............................................................................................... 47

Figure C.1: Illustration of the Effect of Soil Layer Thickness. .......................................................... 58

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

Figure D.1: Input of GRLWEAP FF Parameters. ............................................................................. 61

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

Table 2.1: ST Analysis Parameters for Granular Soils ...................................................................... 6

Table 2.2: ST Analysis Parameters for Cohesive Soils ..................................................................... 6

Table D-1: GW Standard Setup Factor vs. FF Setup Factors ......................................................... 66

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2

Software End User License Agreement

"Documentation" means the manuals provided by Licensor, in printed, electronic, or

3. Third-Party Materials and Products; Cloud Hosting.

11. Limited Warranties, Exclusive Remedy, and Disclaimer.

12. Limitation of Liability. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE

(a) IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANY THIRD

(b) IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR'S AND ITS AFFILIATES' COLLECTIVE

(f) This Agreement may only be amended, modified, or supplemented by an agreement in

1.1 Basic Equation for Pile Capacity Calculations

R u = Total resistance, which is the ultimate capacity or nominal resistance in LRFD, R n

1.2 About the Static Analysis Methods

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2 1

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2 2

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2 3

1.3 Necessary Soil and Pile Information

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2 4

2.1 Granular Soils

2.1.1 Unit Shaft Resistance

 v = The average effective overburden pressure.

2.1.2 Unit Toe Resistance

 t = The effective overburden pressure at the pile toe.

GRLWEAP 14 Background Report Part 2 5

Friction Unit Limit (kPa) Limit (kPa)

Loose 7 27 - 32 16.0 0.242 18.1 48 4800

Medium 20 30 - 35 18.5 0.313 33.2 72 7200

Dense 40 35 - 40 19.5 0.483 86.0 96 9600

Very 50+ 38 - 43 22.0 0.627 147.0 192 19000