GRLWEAP Examples

Frank Rausche
Pile Dynamics, Inc.
GRL Engineers, Inc.

Outline
What projects?
Capacity questions
Damage prevention
Examples of
pre-
pre-construction analysis of large diameter
pre-construction
pipe
comparison of analyses with monitoring
results
vibratory analyses

Harbor Construction
 Offshore
Monopiles (pipe)
for Windenergy

Bridges

Offshore
structures
 Capacity
Capacity Questions:
Questions:
Loss
Loss or Gain of
or Gain of Soil
Soil Resistance
Resistance Due
Due to
to Pile
Pile
Driving
Driving

Soil setup factors as high as 10?

Very dense sands may have unusually high setup
factors
Very dense fine sands and shales may exhibit
relaxation
Moderately hard rock may plug and cause higher
end bearing than expected
Non-
Non -uniform resistance may cause damage even if
Non-uniform
uniform (calculated) stresses are low

Loss
Loss of
of friction
friction due
due to
to arching
arching

Pile

Arch
Soil-
Soil-pile interface
Soil-pile bearing
with reduced high
effective stresses effective
stresses

Capacity
Capacity question:
question: Plugging
Plugging

Studied by
Raines
Randolph
Paikowsky
and others ..

Problem not necessarily solved

 PLUGS

Plugging
Plugging

External
External Friction
Friction

Internal
Internal Friction
Friction
End from
from Arching?
Arching?
Bearing

Pile Damage Causes

Steel and concrete piles

Fatigue
Compression stress high at top or bottom
High bending or eccentric stresses
Non-
Non -uniform stresses on obstructions
Non-uniform
At toe hard rock or plugging in moderately
hard rock
 Pile Damage Causes

Steel Piles
Spiral welded piles more sensitive
Welded splices may crack
Non-
Non -welded splices (gravity connector)
Non-welded
may fatigue

Pile Damage Causes

For Concrete Piles

Tension stresses high along pile
Once tension cracks exist
tension/compression cycles dangerous
Water jet effect in tension cracks
Temperature gradient (hot ambient cold
water; cold ambient warm water)
Prestressing end effects

Damage Prevention

Excessive uniform top

stresses can be
analyzed/monitored
and kept at safe
levels
 Obstruction Damage may not be
preventable but can be recognized by
measurements

Bending/Tension cracks monitor and keep

below safe limits

Damage Potential Tension Compression

along pile length (e.g. water jet)
 Damage Potential:
Overstressing at Pile
Toe

Dynamic Analysis
and/or monitoring can
help prevent it by
keeping toe stresses at
safe levels

Static Bending Stresses:

Freeriding Hammer supported by pile

Static Bending + Dynamic Stresses

WH

Wp

Jacket Leg
 Engineering
Tools:
(4) Dynamic
Load Testing

Preparation
for Restrike
Test

Example: A Case of Soil Relaxation

C. Michael Morgano, GRL Engineers Benjamin A. White, GRL Engineers

Soils with relaxation potential

Dense, very dense sands and sandy silts

dilation during driving causes negative
porewater pressures and thus temporarily
increased effective stresses
Weathered bedrock formations:
water seepage after driving softens rock
high residual forces causes creep at toe
rock fracturing from driving adjacent piles
 Soil Description Piers 14/15

Depth SPT N Description

(ft)

2 6 Silty clay, tr. Sand

6 9 Clayey silty sand

10 34 Clayey silt

14 34 Clayey silt

18 30 Clayey silt

24 35 Clayey silt

26 50/1 Weathered Siltstone/Shale

Pre-
Pre-Construction Wave Equation Analysis
Pre-Construction
GRL
GRL Engineers,
Engineers, Inc.
Inc. 03-Apr-2004
03-Apr-2004
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga R.
R. Bridges,
Bridges, ICE
ICE 42-S
42-S GRLWEAP
GRLWEAP (TM)
(TM) Version
Version 2003
2003
50.0
50.0 50.0
50.0
ICE
ICE 42-S
42-S
(ksi)
Stress(ksi)

40.0
40.0 40.0
40.0
CompressiveStress

(ksi)

Efficiency 0.820
Stress(ksi)

Efficiency 0.820

Helmet 2.09
2.09 kips
Tension Stress

30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 Helmet kips
Compressive

Hammer
Hammer Cushion
Cushion 34825
34825 kips/in
kips/in
Tension

20.0 20.0 Skin

20.0 20.0 Skin Quake
Quake 0.100
0.100 in
in
Toe
Toe Quake
Quake 0.100
0.100 in
in
Skin
Skin Damping
Damping 0.100
0.100 sec/ft
sec/ft
10.0
10.0 10.0
10.0 Toe
Toe Damping
Damping 0.150
0.150 sec/ft
sec/ft

0.0 0.0
Pile
Pile Length
Length 25.00
25.00 ftft
0.0 0.0
Pile
Pile Penetration
Penetration 24.00
24.00 ftft
1000 11.00 Pile
Pile Top
Top Area
Area 26.10
26.10 in2
in2
1000 11.00
(kips)
Capacity(kips)

800
800 10.00
10.00 Skin
Skin Friction
Friction
Pile
Pile Model
Model Distribution
Distribution
UltimateCapacity

600
600 9.00
9.00
(feet)
Stroke(feet)
Ultimate

400
400 8.00
8.00
Stroke

200
200 7.00
7.00

00 6.00
6.00
00 60
60 120
120 180
180 240
240 300
300 360
360
Res.
Res. Shaft
Shaft == 20
20 %
%
Blow
Blow Count
Count (bl/ft)
(bl/ft) (Proportional)
(Proportional)
 G
GRL
RL E
Enng
gin
ineers,
eers, IIn
nc.
c. Pile
Pile D
Drivin
riving
g An
Analyz
alyzer
er

O
O hhiioo TTuurn
rnppiike
ke,, PPie
ierr 1144R
R PPN
N 1133 (E
(Enndd ooff ddri
rivi
vinngg))
FF ((11000000)) AA3344 FF3344
VV ((2211..55))

TTSS:: 3388..44
TTBB:: 1155..44

EOD Pile 13- 13-Pier 14

13-Pier
Blow Count: 20 Bl/inch;
Bl/inch; Stroke 9.2 ft (9.3 ft)
Capacity: Ruu-Case
-Case = 580 kips (600 kips);
Stress: 31.5 ksi (32.7 ksi);
ksi);

G
GRRLL En
Enggin
ineers,
eers, IInc.
nc. Pile
Pile D
Drivin
riving
g A
Annalyz
alyzer
er

O
Ohhio
io TTuurn
rnppike
ike -- PPie
ierr 1144R
R 1133 (8
(8 ddaayy R
Reessttrike
rike))
FF ((11000000)) AA3344 FF3344
VV ((2211..55))

TTSS:: 2255..66
TTBB:: 1166..66

8-Day Restrike test

Pile 13-
13- (Pier 14); Stroke 8.5 ft (8.8 ft)
Blow Count: 10 blows/inch;
Stress: 28.9 ksi (28.8 ksi)
ksi)
Capacity: RU-Case 340-
340-400 kips (450 kips)

GRL
GRL Engineers,
Engineers, Inc.
Inc. 03-Apr-2004
03-Apr-2004
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga R.
R. Bridges,
Bridges, ICE
ICE 42-S
42-S GRLWEAP
GRLWEAP (TM)
(TM) Version
Version 2003
2003
50.0
50.0 50.0
50.0
ICE
ICE 42-S
42-S
(ksi)
Stress (ksi)

40.0
40.0 40.0
40.0
Compressive Stress

Efficiency 0.820
(ksi)

Efficiency 0.820
Stress (ksi)

Helmet 2.09
2.09 kips
Tension Stress

30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 Helmet kips
Compressive

Hammer
Hammer Cushion
Cushion 34825
34825 kips/in
kips/in
Tension

20.0
20.0 20.0
20.0 Skin
Skin Quake
Quake 0.100
0.100 in
in
Toe
Toe Quake
Quake 0.100
0.100 in
in
Skin
Skin Damping
Damping 0.100
0.100 sec/ft
sec/ft
10.0
10.0 10.0
10.0 Toe
Toe Damping
Damping 0.150
0.150 sec/ft
sec/ft

0.0 0.0
Pile
Pile Length
Length 25.00
25.00 ftft
0.0 0.0
Pile
Pile Penetration
Penetration 24.00
24.00 ftft
1000 11.00
Pile
Pile Top
Top Area
Area 26.10
26.10 in2
in2
1000 11.00
(kips)
Capacity (kips)

800
800 10.00
10.00 Skin
Skin Friction
Friction
Pile
Pile Model
Model Distribution
Distribution
Ultimate Capacity

600
600 9.00
9.00
(feet)
Stroke (feet)
Ultimate

400
400 8.00
8.00
Stroke

200
200 7.00
7.00
BOR EOD
00 6.00
6.00
00 60
60 120
120 180
180 240
240 300
300 360
360
Res.
Res. Shaft
Shaft == 20
20 %
%
Blow
Blow Count
Count (bl/ft)
(bl/ft) (Proportional)
(Proportional)
 Static load test of a neighboring pile

500
500
ip ss))

400
400
liedd LL oo aadd ((kkip

396 kips
300
300 Capacity
Load vs. Displacement
200
200
Davisson's Failue
AA pp pp lie

100
100

00
00 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 11 1.2
1.2
Pile
Pile Top
Top Displacement
Displacement (inch)
(inch)

Example: Driveability
Study for an Nearshore-
Nearshore-
Monopile
 or hints for the installation preparation
of large diameter pipe piles

Design

Site investigation

Preliminary pile
design

Calculation of static
soil resistance

Assumptions for pile size

Wandstaerke in mm
Querschnittsflaeche
Querschnittsflaeche inin cm2
cm2
0 100 200 300 00 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
0 00
Adaptor
10 10
10
Tiefe unter Pfahlkopf in Meter

20 20
20
in mm
ieffee uunntteerr OO KK AAddaappttoorr in

30 30
30

40
Pile 40
40

50
50
50
TTie

60
60
60

70
70
70

80
80
80
 Example: assumptions for soil
properties

Optimistic Soil Resistance

1. Average Ru value
2. SRD = Ru/fs
3. Inside friction: only at driving shoe
4. End bearing: only on steel annulus

Friction in and around pile

Optimistic
 Pessimistic Soil Resistance

1. Average Ru
2. SRD = Ru
3. Friction inside pile: up to last cross section
increase
4. End bearing: 1.25-
-times on steel annulus
1.25-times
1.25

Ouside and Inside Friction

Optimistic
Pessimistic

Problem: End Bearing Inertia

(1) Plugging generally does not

happen during driving of large
diameter piles

(2) Friction inside pile generally

small during driving
 Additional GRLWEAP Assumptions

Optimistic: Pessimistic:

1. Normal Quakes 1. Double quake at toe

(5 mm)

2. Normal Damping 2. Damping Factors

Factors increased 50%

3. Normal Hammer 3. Reduced Hammer

Efficiency (0.95) Efficiency (0.80)

GRLWEAP: Bodenwiderstand
Soil Resistance in MN
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0

Upper Limit - Toe

5

Upper Limit - Total

10
Depth below mudline in Meter

Lower Limit - Toe

15

Lower Limit - Total

20

25

30

35

40

MHU 1700
Ram weight: 920 kN
Rated energy: 1700 kJ
Pile weight: 6140 kN
 GRLWEAP

Wave equation
model

GRLWEAP Results
Blows per 0.25 m
0 50 100 150 200 250
0

5
Upper limit
Depth below mudline in Meter

10
Lower Limit
15

20

25

30

35

40

Driving Stresses
250

200
Compressive stresses in MPa

Adaptor

150
Pile Top

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

-50
Time in ms
 Driving Stresses and Forces
Max. Comp. Force in Adaptor 174 MN; in Pile 189 MN

Maxim um Com pressive Stresses in MPa

0 50 100 150 200 250
0 250

10
200
Adaptor
Distance below pile top in m

20 C om p. Stress es in M Pa
150
Pile Top
30

100
40
PP

50 50

60
0

70 0 20 40 60 80 100

-50
80
Time in ms

Example: 914 mm (36") dia pile

Length:
92 m
Required Penetration:
70 m
Hammer:
Vulcan 530 (13.5 Mg x 1.5 m)
Concern:
Damage due to Calcarenite Layer

Example 2: Soil Description

 GRLWEAP Input

Hammer Model including efficiency and

hammer energy setting
Driving system components cushions,
helmet weight
Pile description: A, E, unit weight vs.
depth
Soil data unit skin friction and end
bearing

Example 2: Driveability by GRLWEAP

GRLWEAP Predictions for Vulcan 530

Assumed 50% loss of static GW-G/L=0.5

shaft resistance
Blow Count in Bl/0.25 m
End bearing in rock 11,150kN 0
0 50 100 150 200 250

10

GRLWEAP
20

Maximum Energy 119 kJ

Depth in m

30

Maximum Stress 179 MPa

40

50

60

70
 GRLWEAP Stresses in Pile
Pile Stress in MPa
0 50 100 150 200
0

10

20

30

40
Depth in m

On Rock (40 m)
50
At End (70 m)
60

70

80

90

100

Installation blow counts and stresses

Range of Rock

GRLWEAP Top
Stress 144 153 MPa

GRLWEAP
ENTHRU 119 kJ

Installation blow counts and stresses

Blows/0.25 m

Range of Rock

Pile top stress ~ MPa

Comparison of blow counts
Blow Count in Blows/0.25 m
0 50 100 150 200 250
0

10

20

GW-G/L=0.5
30
Depth in m

A1
A2
B1
40
B2

50

60

70

CAPWAP Results: Rock

CAPWAP Results, EOD

 CAPWAP Results at EOD

CAPWAP Results

Anticipated, Rock: Anticipated, EoD:

EoD:
Ru = 14.1 MN Ru = 16.0 MN
Rb = 11.8 MN Rb = 2.1 MN
(Plugged) (Plugged)

CAPWAP, Rock CAPWAP, EoD

Ru = 14.9 MN Ru = 4.0 to 5.0 MN
Rb = 13.1 MN Rb = 0.9 to 1.1 MN

Comparison: Static Formula - Dynamic

CAPWAP unit resistance of

four piles

4 x average of CAPWAP fs

Static formula prediction

 Conclusions

Hammer and stress predictions were reasoanbly

accurate
SRD was Ruu; assumption had been SRD = Ruu
Driving through rock was easier than anticipated
although rock strength was correctly predicted
Rock beavior is however rather unpredictable:
Plugging, non-
non-uniform stresses
non-uniform

Vibratory Pile Driving Example

Wave Equation Analysis of
4 APE 400B Hammers at Yangtze

GRLWEAP Calculated of Rate of Penetration

Yangtze Caisson:
12x.25 m concrete pipe, 25 m long
4 APE 4B hammers (683 kg m, 20 Hz, 3000
kW); 8 clamps + beams
Clay, silty sand; N at most 3
Shaft resistance (inside and out) 10 kPa
With GRLWEAP analyzed at 80% and 100%
Toe resistance 90 kPa
GRLWEAP Calculated of Rate of Penetration
Yangtze Caisson

Penetration Speed - m m /s
0 50 100 150 200
0

2
Depth in m

6
8

10

12

80% Shaft Res: 30 s 100% Shaft Res: 66 s

Vibratory Hammer analyses

coming into practice
Reasonable stress, resonance predictions
Often conservative driving time predictions
150

125

100

Pen. Rate - mm/s

75
Relative Stress %

50

25

0
10 15 20 25
Frequency of vibratory hammer, Hz

The End

Questions?