ENCE4610

FoundationAnalysisandDesign

Pile Dynamics

OverviewofPile
Dynamics
z
z
z
z

Background and the

Dynamic Formulae
Development of the
Wave Equation
Application of the
Wave Equation to Piles
Use of the Wave
Equation in field
monitoring
Statnamic Testing

Pile
Blow
Counts

DynamicFormulae
The original
method of
estimating the
relationship
between the blow
count of the
hammer and the
"capacity" of the
pile
Use Newtonian
impact mechanics

EngineeringNews
Formula
2Er
Pa =
s + 0.1
z

z
z

Developed by
A.M. Wellington in
1888
The most common
dynamic formula
Assumes a factor
of safety of 6

Variables
z

Er = Rated striking
energy of the hammer,
ft-kips

s = set of the hammer

per blow, in.

Pa = allowable pile
capacity, kips

OtherDynamicFormulae
(afterParola,1970)

WeaknessesofDynamic
Formulae
z
z
z
z

Does not take into consideration the elasticity of the

pile, which is distributed with the mass
No really accurate model of the cushion and cap
system between the hammer and the pile
Newtonian impact mechanics not applicable since
the pile is in constant contact with the soil
No ability to estimate or calculate tensile stresses in
the pile

TheWaveEquation
u ( x , t )tt = c u ( x , t )xx
2

When applied to piling,

must be expanded to
include dampening and
spring of shaft resistance
Closed form solution
possible but limited in
application
Solved numerically for
real piling problems

Variables
z
z
z
z

u(x,t) = displacement, m
c = acoustic velocity in
the pile = (E/)1/2
x = distance along the
length of the rod, m
t = time, seconds

Hyperbolic, second
order differential
equation

SemiInfinitePileTheory
From this,

ut
ux =c

This relates pile particle

velocity to pile
displacement
Define pile impedance:
EA
Z= =CA
c

By multiplying both sides

by elastic modulus and
area and rearranging,
x
x
u x,t =f t- H tc
c

Assumes pile:
o Has no resistance of any kind
along pile shaft
o Starts at x = 0 and goes to
infinity
o Has no reflections back to the
pile head

Solution to Wave
Equation:
F t =

EA
u =CAut =Zut = ZV
c t

ModelingthePile
Hammer
With semi-infinite pile
theory, pile is modeled
as a dashpot
Ram and pile top
motion solved using
methods from dynamics
and vibrations
For cushionless ram:
- Zt
F t =ZVo e M

ClosedFormSolution
FiniteUndamped Pile
K
m

Hammer Cushion
Pile Cap

Kp

Pile Period:

Pile Toe Spring

L
tp =
c

Simple hammer-pile-soil
system
We will use this to
analyze the effect of
the variation of the pile
toe
Pile toe spring stiffness
can vary from zero (free
end) to infinite (fixed
end) and an
intermediate condition

FixedEnd
Results

IntermediateCaseResults

FreeEndResults

NumericalSolutions

Subsequent
Solutions
z

TTI (Texas
Transportation
Institute) late 1960's

GRL/Case 1970's
and 1980's
z

Very similar to Smith's

solution

Added adequate
modelling of diesel
hammers
Added convenience
features

TNO

First developed at
Raymond
Concrete Pile by
E.A.L. Smith (1960)
Solution was first
done manually,
then computers
were involved
One of the first
applications of
computers to civil
engineering

NecessityforNumerical
Solution

Non-uniformity of the pile cross

section along the length of the
pile, and in some cases the pile
changes materials.
Slack conditions in the pile. These
are created by splices in the pile
and also pile defects.
With diesel hammers, the forcetime characteristics during
combustion are difficult to
simulate in closed form. (It
actually took around fifteen years,
until the first version of WEAP was
released, to do a proper job
numerically.)
Unusual driving conditions, such as
driving from the bottom of the pile
or use of a long follower between
the hammer and the pile head.

Existence of dampening, both at the

toe, along the shaft, and in all of the
physical components of the system. In
theory, inclusion of distributed spring
constant and dampening along the
shaft could be simulated using the
Telegraphers wave equation, but
other factors make this impractical
also.
Non-linear force-displacements along
the toe and shaft, and in the cushion
material. Exceeding the elastic limit
of the soil is in fact one of the central
objects of pile driving.
Non-uniformity of soils along the pile
shaft, both in type of soil and in the
intensity of the resistance.
Inextensibililty of many of the interfaces
of the system, including all interfaces of
the hammer-cushion-pile system and
the pile toe itself.

WaveEquationforPiles
inPracticalSolution

Bearing
Graph
Resultof
Wave
Equation

TAMWAVE
Can be used for lateral
load and bent analysis
Requires that the pile
be driven to grade
Does not take into
consideration loss of
resistance in cohesive
soils during driving
Wave Equation based
on TTI program
Hammer database
included

Online Pile Capacity

and Wave Equation
Analyser for Academic
Use
Uses Dennis and Olson
method for static axial
pile capacity
estimation
Includes t-z method for
settlement/load test
simulation
Has simplified soil input

http://www.vulcanhammer.info/soils/piles/

BasicStepsinWave
EquationAnalysis
Gather information
o Hammer type, ram weight,
cushion data, etc.
o Suggested trial energy shown
in chart below
o Pile data, including length,
material, etc.
o Soil data; layers, soil types,
properties

Construct Analysis

o Run static capacity analysis on

pile as pile driving resistance
o Apply setup factor (if necessary)
on static capacity
o Input data for hammer, pile and
soil resistance profile into wave
equation analysis

Run program

o Run wave equation analysis for

different soil resistances
(factoring original static analysis)
and (for some wave equation
programs) different depths of
driving

Analyse Results

o Blow counts, tension and

compression stresses, driving
time

SoilResistancetoDriving

PileSetupin
Clays

soil setup factor: the failure load from a static load test divided by
the end-of-drive wave equation capacity

PileResistanceExample

Dynamic
PileTesting
strain
gage

F(t) v(t)

accelerometer

Load is applied
by impacting ram

Load is measured by
strain transducers
Motion is measured
by accelerometers

ThePileDriving
Analyser

This image cannot currently be display ed.

For Dynamic
Load Test:
z
z

For Dynamic Pile

Monitoring:
z
z
z

Stresses
Hammer
Performance
Pile Integrity

Bearing Capacity
at time of testing
Separating
Dynamic from
Total (Static +
Dynamic) Soil
Resistance
z
z

Case Method
CAPWAP-C

DynamicPile
Testing
Isolation of the static pile resistance from the total pile
response is the key challenge in the interpretation of
dynamic pile testing methods.

1. CASE METHOD
Simple closed-form solution which can be
computed in real time on site, but needs a
damping factor to be estimated.
2. WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS
The mechanics of the pile and soil behavior is
modelled. The model is adjusted to match the
measured and computed responses.

CAPWAPModelingofPile
ResponseandCapacity

CaseMethodforPile
Analysis

Governing Equation:
o
o
o
o
o

Dynamic Resistance
o
o
o

F1+F2 V1-V2
+Z
2
2
F1 = pile head force at the peak force
of impact (or other time,) N
F2 = pile head force at a time 2L/c later
than F1, N
V1 = pile head velocity at the peak
force of impact (or other time,) N
V2 = pile head velocity at a time 2L/c
later than F1, N
RTL=

RD=J F1+ZV1-RTL
RD = dynamic resistance of the pile, N
J = Case Damping Constant,
dimensionless

Static Resistance
o
o

F1+F2+Z V1-V2 F1-F2+Z V1+V2

-J
2
2
RS = static resistance of the pile, N
RS=

Simple Method for

Estimating Pile Capacity
from Dynamic Results
Assumptions:
o The pile resistance is
concentrated at the pile toe, as
was the case with the closed
form solutions above.
o The static toe resistance is
completely plastic, as opposed
to the purely elastic resistance
modelled above. (Both the
wave equation numerical
analysis and CAPWAP assume
an elasto-plastic model for the
static component of the
resistance.

CaseMethodExample
Find
o Case Method ultimate
capacity for the RSP and RMX
methods.

Given
o Pile with impedance of 381 kNsec/m
o Force-time history as shown at
the left

FT1 = 1486 kN
FT2 = 819 kN
VT1 = 3.93 m/sec
(ZVT1 = (381)(3.93) =
1497.33 kN)
VT2 = 1.07 m/sec
(ZVT2 = (381)(1.07) =
407.67 kN)

NotesAboutCaseMethodExample
RSPSolution

There are two curves, both at the

pile top. The first F curve (solid
line) is the force-time history of the
impact blow. The V curve
(dashed line) is the velocity-time
history. Generally speaking, the
velocity history is multiplied by the
pile impedance, as is the case
here. This is not only to make the
two quantities scale properly on
one graph; as noted earlier, if the
pile were semi-infinite, the two
curves would be identical. This is in
fact the case in the early portion
of the impact; neither pile
movement relative to the soil nor
reflections from the shaft are a
factor until later.

1486+819+381 3.93-1.07
RSP=
2
1486-819+381 3.93+1.07
0.4
2
=1697-514=1183 kN

Case Method results can be

interpreted in several ways.
The method shown in the
graph is the RSP method, best
used for piles with low
displacements and high shaft
resistances. The t1 for the RSP
method is the first peak point in
the force-time curve; the time
t2 is time 2L/c after that. The
time t1 is not the same as the
time t = 0 in the closed form
solution, or the very beginning
of impact.
A Case damping constant J =
0.4 is assumed.

CaseMethodExample
RMXSolution

The time t1 is now the peak initial

force plus a time shift, generally 30
msec with the RMX method (Fellenius
(2009).) The time t2 is still t1 + 2L/c.
This time shift is to account for the
delay caused by the elasticity of the
soil. (It is worth repeating that one of
the implicit assumptions of the Case
Method is that the soil resistance is
perfectly plastic.)
The RMX method is best for piles with
large toe resistances and large
displacement piles with the large toe
quakes that accompany them. The
quake of the soil is the distance from
initial position of the soil-pile interface
at which the deformation changes
from elastic to plastic, see variable
Q. The toe quake is proportional to
the size of the pile at the toe.
The Case damping constant for the
RMX method is generally greater
than the one used for RSP, typically
by +0.2, and should be at least 0.4.
In this case we will assume J = 0.7.

FT1 = 819 kN
FT2 = 1486 kN
VT1 = 1.92 m/sec (ZVT1 =
(381)(1.92) = 731.52 kN)
VT2 = 0 m/sec (ZVT2 = (381)(0)
= 0 kN)

DeterminingCase
DampingConstant

The reality is that the Case damping constant is a job-specific quantity

which can and will change with changes of soil, pile and even pile
hammer. These require calibration, either with CAPWAP or theoretically
with the wave equation program. The Case Method requires a great deal of
experience and judgment in its application to actual pile driving situations.

InterpretingForceTime
Curves

DynamicPileTesting
Critique

Quick and inexpensive

Can test all types of preformed piles

(concrete, steel and timber) and drilled

shafts with well defined geometry
No special preparation required
Static capacity is interpreted rather than
measured directly
Requires experience for correct
interpretation

PileIntegrityTesting
Hammer:
Instrumented
for TRM

PILE INTEGRITY TESTER

Pulse Echo:
Velocity vs Time
Transient Response:
Mobility vs Frequency

Accelerometer

PileIntegrityTesting
This image cannot currently be display ed.

Fast, Inexpensive
Mobile equipment,
minimum site
support
Test many or even
all piles on site
No advance
planning required
Minimal pile surface
preparation
Finds major defects

This image cannot currently be display ed.

Bettersolutionis
Prevention
defect

Bad Pile

Good Pile

input

toe

Crosshole
Acoustic
Logging

Crosshole
Tomogra
phy

This image cannot currently be display ed.

Statnamic
Tests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHnbd-QGdaw

StatnamicDeviceand
Principles
z

Controlled explosion
detonated; loads the
pile over longer
period of time than
impact dynamic
testing
Upward thrust
transferred to
reaction weights
Laser sensor records
deflections; load cell
records loads

TypicalStatnamicForce
TimeCurves
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.00
0.30

-0.01
-50

-0.02

Force, kN

-0.03

Load (kN)
-0.04
-150

-0.05

-200
-0.06

Deflection (m)
-250

-0.07
Time, sec

Deflection, m

-100

TypicalStatnamicLoad
DeflectionCurves
50

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

0.010

0.000

Total
Force

-0.010

-0.030

Displacement (m)

-0.020

Static
Force

-0.040

-0.050

-0.060

-0.070

Unloading Point
Load (kN)

Total
Force
less
inertial
force

StatnamicAdvantagesand
Disadvantages
z

Advantages
z

Much faster and

simpler than static
load testing
Does not require a
pile hammer as
high-strain dynamic
testing does
Especially
applicable to
drilled shafts and
other bored piles

Disadvantages
z

Does not give a

clear picture of the
distribution of
capacity between
the shaft and the
toe
Technique not
entirely developed
for clay (high
dampening) soils

Questions

http://www.vulcanhammer.info/drivability/overview.php