Example 11: Driveability Analysis (Blow Count vs.

Depth) Page 1 of 4

GRLWEAP Standard Examples

Example 11: Driveability Analysis (Blow Count vs.

Depth)
The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation
Analysis is contained in the Example 11 Output file both for English and SI Units.
Although it was attempted to limit differences between this example and the
corresponding one of earlier GRLWEAP versions, minor output differences may be noted.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included
in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

11.1 Problem Statement

A large prestressed concrete pile has to be installed. It has a 24 x 24 inch

(610 x 610 mm) square cross section and a length of 165 ft (50.3 m). The
pile must be driven through 12 ft (3.66 m) of water to a depth of 150 ft (45.7
m). The design therefore requires that 3 ft (0.92 m) of piling will extend
above the water at the end of driving.

It was assumed that the pile would be spliced once it reached a 112 ft (34.1
m) depth, extending it from 115 (35 m) to 165 ft (50.3 m) length. Splicing
would require a driving interruption of 48 hours for complete setting of the
epoxy splice.

Such a pile is difficult to handle and to drive. Extensive studies are therefore
recommended before the final equipment is chosen to install the pile. For
example, tension stresses may develop when driving through soft layers.
Tension stresses may also be high at the end of driving if high end bearing
with a large toe quake develops. The blow counts may become excessive and
the effect of set-up on driving interruptions should be studied. It is also
expected that cushion and hammer performance change with harder driving
and after a great number of hammer blows have been applied. Finally, the
contractor may be interested in an estimate of pile driving times and in the
sensitivity of these driving time estimates to incorrect assumptions in
hammer performance, cushion property changes, or soil resistance variations.

The hypothetical example includes a Vulcan 520 hammer which can be

switched remotely to run either at a 3 or 5 ft (0.92 or 1.52 m) stroke. It has
been observed that this type of hammer performs with relatively high
efficiency at the lower stroke. A plywood pile top cushion of 9 inches (229
mm) thickness is analyzed. This cushion will probably become stiffer with
higher blow numbers. Also, it may become less efficient,
i.e.
its coefficient of restitution may decrease.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016
Example 11: Driveability Analysis (Blow Count vs. Depth) Page 2 of 4

11.2 Input

The driveability option can be chosen from the Analysis Option drop-down
box. It is recommended to set the output options, using Options/General
Options/Output, to minimum or numerical output in the GWO file may be
excessive. (As you will see in the example, there are a total of 36 points, i.e.
18 depths with 2 ultimate capacity analyses each). For program
demonstration, the following situation is investigated.

This information is entered throughView/Resistance Distr., Pile 1 Input

Form:
(Note, since 2010, input of unit toe resistance and toe area are done instead
of total toe resistance in the S1 input form; also the toe quake is now
recommended to be 0.4 inches (10.16 mm) unless soil is very hard or very
dense. Also based on studies performed in 2004, the plywood pile cushion
stiffness or elastic modulus is recommended to be set to 1 times the new
cushion stiffness/elastic modulus and the cushion stiffness/elastic modulus at
the end of driving is set to 2.5 times the new stiffness or elastic modulus; the
thickness is then not changed).

l From the mudline to a depth of 30 ft (9.14 m), loose sandy soil was encountered.
Unit shaft and toe resistances increase triangularly to 0.2 and 40 ksf (9.58 and
1912 kPa), respectively. [With a bottom area of 4 square ft (0.37 m2), the toe
resistance input value is 160 kips (711 kN).] Quakes are the usual 0.1 and 0.2
inches (2.54 and 5.08 mm) at shaft and toe, respectively, for a 24 inch (610 mm)
pile. For the sand, the standard damping values of 0.05 and 0.15 s/ft (0.16 and
0.49 s/m) were chosen. The sand's expected friction loss was assumed to be 20
percent, corresponding to a set-up factor of 1.25 (end of drive capacity = long
term capacity * 0.8 or long term capacity = 1.25 * end of drive capacity). It is
assumed that a limit distance of 1 ft (0.3 m) would produce a fully reduced driving
capacity and that a 24-hour waiting period would restore the full long term
capacity through the so-called soil setup.
l From 30 to 60 ft (9.14 to 18.29 m) depth below mudline, the example soil was a
sandy silt, with calculated unit friction and end bearing values increasing from 0.2
to 0.4 kips/ft2 (9.58 to 19.15 kPa) and 50 to 100 ksf (2390 to 4780 kPa). [The toe
resistance input is 200 kips (890 kN) at 30 ft (9.14 m) depth and 400 kips (1780
kN) at 60 ft (18.29 m) depth]. It was assumed that the shaft damping value would
be 0.10 s/ft (0.328 s/m) in this layer. The expected friction loss in the silt is
estimated at 33 percent (set up factor 1/(1 - 0.33) = 1.5). In this soil layer, an
approximate driving distance of 6-ft (1.83 m) would fully reduce the static soil
resistance. It would regain full capacity within 7 days or 168 hours.
l From 60 to 140 ft (18.29 to 42.67 m) below mudline, the borings indicated soft
clay. This was considered the most sensitive soil layer with an anticipated loss of
60 percent of strength or a set-up factor of 2.5. It has been calculated that the
clay has a unit friction that increases from 0.20 to 0.45 ksf (9.58 to 21.55 kPa)
between 60 and 140 ft (18.23 and 42.67 m). The unit end bearing increases from
20 to 40 ksf (956 to 1912 kPa), [corresponding to end bearing resistance forces of
80 and 160 kips (356 and 711 kN), respectively]. Shaft damping was set to a
standard 0.2 s/ft (0.66 s/m) for clay. Relative energy and set-up time were
estimated at 6 ft (1.83 m) and 336 hours, respectively.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016
Example 11: Driveability Analysis (Blow Count vs. Depth) Page 3 of 4

l The bearing layer, below 140 ft (42.67 m), consisted of very dense sand with unit
friction increasing from 2 to 3 ksf (95.761 to 143.64 kPa) between 140 and 150 ft
(42.67 and 45.72 m). Similarly, the calculated end bearing values increase from
100 to 150 ksf (4,780 to 7,170 kPa) or from 400 to 600 kips (1780 to 2670 kN).
For the bearing layer, a loss of 20 percent friction was again anticipated and a set-
up factor of 1.25 was assigned. Relative energy and set-up time were like in the
upper sand layer. It was assumed that the shaft damping should be 0.05 s/ft
(0.16 s/m).

As described, the layer of clay would experience the greatest resistance loss.
It was estimated that this layer would lose 60 percent of its skin resistance
during driving and that it would regain this resistance after driving and,
therefore, have a setup factor of 2.5. The lowest friction gain/loss factor
was thus set to 1/2.5 = 0.4. Only one additional gain/loss factor of 1.0 was
investigated since variable setup due to waiting times and driving effects can
only be calculated for the first gain/loss factor. The gain/loss factor 1.0
corresponds, to the full, non-variable resistance, unaffected by waiting times
or driving histories.

Finally, the analysis depths and associated hammer and driving system
modifiers (click View/Depths, Modifiers Input Form) have to be entered.
If we want to get a reasonably accurate driving time result, close attention
must be paid to changes in soil layers. Also, where the pile penetrates into a
new soil layer, it likely takes a pile diameter or two of pile penetration before
the full end bearing is developed. It is therefore reasonable to expect that it
takes approximately 2 to 4 ft (.6 to 1.2 m) penetration before the full end
bearing develops on the 24 inch (610 mm) pile when it enters the bearing
layer.

Analyzed depths were chosen 2 ft (.6 m) before and after the sand to silt
layer change and 4 ft (1.2 m) before and after the bearing layer. Also an
intermediate depth of 100 ft (30.5 m) was chosen in the clay layer. Depth
intervals should be appropriately large enough to reduce inconsistencies at
soil layer interfaces and small enough to allow for accurate linear
interpolation.

In addition, it was assumed that the short stroke of 3 ft (0.914 m) would be

used down to 132 ft (40.3 m) depth, after which the hammer would be
switched to 5 ft (1.524 m) stroke. For the 3 ft (0.914 m) stroke, the hammer
efficiency was increased from the usual 0.67 to 0.75 since slight over-stroking
has often been observed at the short stroke setting. At 112 ft (34.14 m)
depth, two analyses were performed, one with the short and one with the
long length. The long length restart of driving was assumed to occur after a
driving interruption of 48 hours.

The pile cushion stiffness multiplier was assumed to vary throughout pile
installation starting with a soft value of 0.8 in the beginning and ending with
a hard stiffness of 1.0

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016
Example 11: Driveability Analysis (Blow Count vs. Depth) Page 4 of 4

(see note above). Correspondingly, the pile cushion coefficient of restitution

was decreased from 0.5 to 0.45 during the later part of the pile installation.
At the 150 ft (45.72 m) depth, a 2-hour interruption for cushion exchange
was allowed and cushion modifiers were changed accordingly.

11.3 Results

The output file shows the ultimate bearing capacity and other relevant
information vs. the selected depths. Since blow counts are not expected to be
high for more than a few feet at the end of driving and since driving stresses
are moderate, no major installation problem is expected. Tension stresses
exceed 0.8 ksi (5.5 MPa) when the pile enters the soft clay layer and similar
tension stresses occur where the hammer is switched to full energy. Peak
blow counts caused by soil set-up and cushion exchange at depths of 112 (34
m) and 154 ft (46.9 m) are clearly apparent. Most of this set-up gain is
quickly lost after driving resumes.

The driving time is given together with the total number of blows in the
numerical output. The assumed blow rates may be incorrect. The user must
check and recalculate the driving times using the total number of blows, if
necessary. Note that driving interruptions were not included in the driving
time estimate. Driving time results are meaningless when refusal occurs.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016