Pile Capacity Based on Dynamic

Methods & Wave Equation

Bigman Hutapea-Prodi Teknik Sipil,FTSL-ITB

Sebagian besar materi diambil dari materi
kursus singkat oleh Peter J. Bosscher-
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Presentation Overview

 Dynamic Formulas
 Dynamic Analysis Using Wave
Equation
 Dynamic Pile Testing and Analysis
Dynamic Formulas
 To predict static load capacity based on the
foundation’s response to dynamic loads
 This technique probably harkens back to when
people first began driving piles
 Based upon pile set (per blow) information obtained
during driving
 Engineers tried to base on energy concepts equating
hammer kinetic energy to resistance of pile
penetration (difficult and easy to drive)
 ENR proposed by Wellington in 1893
Dynamic Formulas
Wh  Rsb
 Basic Equation:
where:
W = ram weight
h = ram stroke
R = soil resistance
sb = pile set per blow (diperoleh di
lapangan)
 Due to simplicity, widely used
 Variations exist which consider pile weight,
Do They Work?
 From pioneer foundation engineer,
Lazarus White (1936):
“I read some of the papers last night
where some of these pile driving
formulas were derived, and the result
was that my sleep was very much
disturbed”.
 ASCE Committee on Pile Foundations,
1941
 Karl Terzaghi’s Response
“In spite of their obvious deficiencies and their unreliability, the pile formulas
still enjoy a great popularity among practicing engineers, because the use
of these formulas reduces the design of pile foundations to a very simple
procedure. The price one pays for this artificial simplification is very high.
In some cases the factor of safety of foundations designed on the basis of
the results obtained by means of pile formulas is excessive and in other
cases significant settlements have been experienced. On account of
their inherent defects all the existing pile formulas are utterly misleading
as to the influence of vital conditions, such as the ratio between the
weight of the pile and the hammer, on the result of the pile driving
operations. In order to obtain reliable information concerning the effect of
the impact of the hammer on the penetration of the piles it is necessary to
take into consideration the vibrations which are produced by the impact.”
(Terzaghi, 1943)
Why are dynamic formulae
inaccurate?
 Improper modeling of:
– driving system
• kinetic energy is not full picture
• ram, anvil, helmet, cushion(s) all have effect
– soil
• does not resist with constant force
• rapid soil resistance different than static
– pile
• not rigid but rather flexible
• pile length has effect
Dynamic Formulae Summary

 Except where well supported empirical

correlations under a given set of
physical and geological conditions are
available, dynamic formulas should
not be used. This is especially true of
the ENR formula.
Alternative Methods

 Wave Equation Analysis Programs

(WEAP)
 Dynamic Testing and Analysis Tools
(Pile Driving Analyzers [PDA])
 Further improvements with CAPWAP
Dynamic Analysis Using Wave
Equation
 Involves the mathematical modeling of
all elements in pile driving: hammer,
cushions, helmet, pile, and soil.
 Developed by E.A.L. Smith (1960)
 Software:
– TTI (1976) in public domain
– WEAP (1976, 1986) in public domain
– GRLWEAP (continued updates) commercial
Wave Propagation in Piles
Idealized Model of Pile/Soil
 The Wave Equation
 Provides two important items:
– a guide in the selection of properly sized driving equipment
and piling to ensure the pile can be driven to the final grade
without exceeding allowable driving stresses; and
– a penetration rate (minimum number of blows per inch of
penetration) for impact hammers to determine when the pile
has been driven sufficiently to develop the required capacity.
From WEAP
6

5
Capacity/Pile Area (ksi)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of blows/inch (N)
 Hasil Analisis Sebelum Pemancangan
FADWAVE
Hubungan Result
Ru Terhadap forSet
Final Pre-Installation
Untuk Energi Analysis
Yang Bervariasi
With Various Rated Energy
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
Energy = 50
4500
Ru (kN)

Energy = 60
4000 Energy = 70
3500 Energy = 80
Energy = 90
3000
2500
2000
1500 Various Final Set of Ru = 4895 kN, From 70 - 165 blows/ft
1000
500
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500
Final Set (blows/ft)
Benefits of WEAP during Design

 Can design pile section for driveability

to the required depth and/or capacity
 Can select pile material properties
based on probable driving stresses
 Can justify new depths, design loads,
and/or different number of piles
Benefits of WEAP during
Construction
 Construction engineers can use for:
– hammer approval and cushion design
– to select an economical combination of
driving equipment to minimize installation
cost
Proper Use of WEAP

 Note: the wave equation does not determine

the capacity of the pile based on soil boring
data.
 It calculates driving resistance for an
assumed ult. capacity or calculates capacity
based on field observed driving resistances.
 Therefore, precede WEAP w/ static analysis
 Be prepared for pile setup (EOD vs BOR)
Dynamic Pile Testing and
Analysis (PDAs)
 Based on measurements of strain and
acceleration taken near the pile head as a
pile is driven or restruck with a pile driving
hammer
 Can be used to evaluate the performance of
the pile driving system, calculate pile
installation stresses, determine pile integrity,
and estimate static pile capacity
Pile Driving Analyzer
 Strain transducer: strain data, combined with the
modulus of elasticity and cross-sectional area of the
pile gives the axial force in the pile
 Accelerometers: the acceleration data, double
integrated with time produces the pile displacement
during the hammer blow.
 Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)
Uji PDA
Uji PDA
Pile Driving Analyzers
 Other measurements are sometimes made
such as the ram velocity (with radar or the
time between two impacts of the ram).
 This information is plugged into a closed form
solution (based on an assumption of ideal
plastic soil behavior and ideal elastic and
uniform piling) called the Case Method.
The Case Method
 Given the measured pile top force F(t) and the pile top
velocity v(t), the total soil resistance is:
1
2
  
R(t )   F (t1 )  F (t2   v (t1 )  v (t2 )
Z
2

 where
Z = EA/c = pile impedance
t2 = time = t1 + 2L/c
L = pile length below the gauges
c = (E/)0.5 = speed of the stress wave
E = elastic modulus of the pile
 = pile mass density
A = pile cross sectional area
 The Case Method
 The total soil resistance consists of a dynamic
and a static component.

Rt   Rs t   Rd t 
 The static component is the desired pile bearing
capacity.
 The dynamic component may be computed from
a soil damping factor, J, and a pile toe velocity,
vt(t), which is calculated for the pile toe. The
equation used is:

Rd (t )  J F (t )  Z  v(t )  R(t )
Suggested Damping (J) Factors

Soil Type at Pile Toe Damping Range

Clean Sand 0.10 to 0.15
Silty Sand, Sand Silt 0.15 to 0.25
Silt 0.25 to 0.40
Silty Clay, Clayey Silt 0.40 to 0.70
Clay 0.70 or higher
Pile Driving Analyzer Limits

 Calculates pile stress at gage location

but maximum stress may occur
elsewhere (eg: end bearing pile)
 Judgement required to distinguish
between low displacement piles or piles
with large shaft resistance versus piles
with large toe resistances.
 CAPWAP provides more information
CAPWAP: Case Pile Wave
Analysis Program

 combines the wave equation model with

Case Method measurements
 uses single-blow record from EOD or
BOR
 method iteratively determines several
unknowns by signal matching
 determines stresses along the pile
Benefits/Losses of PDAs
 Provides record of pile installation (QC)
 Fairly quick and painless (except $$$)
 Can reduce amount of static pile testing
 Hard driving (>10 blows/inch) can yield lower
bound capacities
 Estimate of static pile capacity at time of
testing (i.e.:may not include soil setup).
 Piles which do not form soil plug may indicate
lower capacity dynamically versus actual
static capacity