INVESTIGATION OF ROCK CHISEL USAGE IN PILE CONSTRUCTION

Dietmar Kohlböck
Vienna University of Technology, Karlsplatz 13/220-2, 1040 Vienna, Austria.
E-mail: kohlboeck@tuwien.ac.at

Abstract. The installation of large diameter pile foundations by hammer grab and chisel is a long-standing method of
construction. The use of chisel devices is to break rock or other subsurface obstacles by means of percussive impact.
However, frictional and inertial forces within the system and especially free-fall through water can result in an energy
loss of 60 % and more, thus, considerably prolonging the construction process. In this paper comprehensive investi-
gation of chisel usage is presented, like analytical solutions for chisel motion and computational fluid dynamics cal-
culations, which allow for comparison and optimization in chisel design. Small-scale tests in the laboratory and full-
scale tests on construction sites represent the practical investigation of this work. Recommendations for the applica-
tion of the chisel devices can be given, under conditions representative of those encountered in engineering practice.

Keywords: bored piles, percussion boring, hammer grab, chisel, CFD-calculations, drag coefficient, photogram-
metry.

Introduction The excavation process is influenced by the kinetic

energy of either hammer grab or chisel at the time of the
A basic and often used method of pile construction impact, geometry of grab jaws and chisel blades respec-
is the excavation of the ground by rope-operated (ham- tively, ground conditions, drilling rig and experience of
mer) grabs with a crawler crane as carrier unit. The bore the drilling crew. Particularly high influence is caused by
hole is usually stabilized with a temporary steel casing the groundwater conditions. Each motion of the excava-
driven by a hydraulic oscillator unit (Fig 1). On comple- tion device is considerably slowed down, caused by the
tion of the borehole, the rebar cage is placed and simulta- additional flow resistance of the devices.
neously with the concreting process the casing is with-
drawn.
Piling equipment can quickly be changed in order to
adapt the excavation tool to the encountered ground con-
ditions. Different types of grabs, i.e. with a mechanical or
hydraulic closing system of the jaws, single and double
rope grabs or different shapes of the grab jaws can be
used. “Hammer” grabs are employed in free-fall opera-
tion to penetrate the ground, loosen and extract ground
material. “Drilling” through rock layers or other subsur-
face obstacles requires the use of free-fall chisels, which
break the hard strata by means of percussive impact
(Fig 2). This is also the case when a pile penetration in
bed rock is needed. Chisels mostly have flat, cross or
round shape and are equipped with hardened steel blades
(Fig 3). After several chisel impacts the loosened material
can subsequently be extracted by the grab. Thus, in vary-
ing ground conditions grab and chisel are employed in
intermittent operation. This proved to be a successful and
economical pile excavation process, especially for large
Fig 1. Typical set-up of a drilling rig for large diame-
diameter bored piles in difficult ground conditions.
ter pile installation

1130
 casing
δW = ∑ Fi ⋅ δz + ∑ M j ⋅ δφ = 0 . (1)
i j

rope
ground
oscillator
surface
With the kinematic condition δϕ = δz/r0, equation 1
leads to the following linear differential equation
casing
loosening of rock by
several chisel impacts   h  J 
− m1 +  h +  ms + 0  &&z + ms gz + m1g − Ff = 0 . (2)
  sin α  r02 

With m1, ms…chisel and rope mass per m [kg, kg/m]

J0…moment of inertia of winch at t=0 [kgm²]
r0…winch radius at initial state [m]
chisel g…gravitational acceleration [m/s²]
z(t), h…falling height, height of boom [m]

The unwinding of the winch rope produces the addi-

tional gravitational term msgz. Due to the small rope mass
rock layer and the limited falling height z(t), this term is relatively
small in comparison to the chisel mass (msgz << m1g)
Fig 2. Drilling through a rock layer with the chisel and hence will be neglected. This simplifies the differen-
device tial equation to:
− A1&&z + A3 = 0 (3)

  h  J 
with A1 = m1 +  h +  ms + 0  , (4)
  sin α  r02 

A3 = m1g − Ff  . (5)

This equation is integrated twice and gives the solu-

Fig 3. Shapes of chisel devices (Seitz and Schmidt
2000)
Analytical solution for the chisel motion
tion for the falling height z(t) in equation 6. For the prac-
tical application it is useful to derive the chisel velocity v
as a variable of the falling height z, as the total falling
height is usually known (equation 7). Thus, the kinetic
energy Ekin = ½mv² for rock loosening can be calculated
quickly.

Preliminary approaches of the chisel motion were

based on principles of energy conservation, with gravita-
tional potential energy of the chisel at its initial position
transferred to kinetic energy as a consequence of the free-
fall. Frictional and inertial forces within the system were
neglected. Free-fall operation of the excavation tool
through water-filled boreholes yields additional forces
and was based on empirical considerations.
To derive an analytical equation for the chisel mo-
tion, the system is considered according to Fig 4 at the
time “t” with a single degree of freedom (SDOF). Ac-
cording to D’Alembert’s principle, external and internal
forces and moments are taken into account for the chisel,
the inextensible rope and the free-fall winch. Due to the
small rope force during chisel motion and the rather lim-
ited rotational speed of the winch, a constant friction
torque Mr in the bearings and frictional force Fr in the
rope drive can be assumed. Hence, in the theoretical
model only a total friction term Ff is taken into considera-
tion. The virtual work δW of these forces through an Fig 4. Simplified drive mechanism for the determina-
arbitrary virtual displacement δz or rotation δϕ must be tion of the chisel motion; External and internal forces
according to D’Alembert’s principle
zero:

1131
 1 A3 2
z (t ) = t , (6)
2 A1

A3
v( z ) = 2 z. (7)
A1

In order to achieve a better overview, the formulas

are given in terms of the auxiliary coefficients Ai. Ac-
cording to Fig 4 the chisel motion through water-filled
boreholes yields additional forces. Hence, buoyancy
V1ρfg and fluid resistance forces (drag) Fw = κż² have to
be considered in the differential equation 3. This leads to:

z + A3 − κz& 2 = 0 ,
− A1&& (8)

with A3 = m1g −V1ρ f g − Ff  , (9)

1 Fig 5. Velocity of a typical chisel with flat shape as a

κ= ρ f ASt cw . (10)
2 function of the falling height for dry and water-filled
borehole conditions. Free-fall model as reference.
whereby ρf…water density [kg/m³]
ASt…area of the orthographic projection of the chisel
on a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion [m²]
V1…chisel volume [m³]
cw…drag coefficient []
κ…total drag coefficient [kg/m].

The analytical solution of equation 8 is given in

terms of the chisel velocity v(z) as a function of the fal-
ling height z. For z → ∞, the solution converges to a con-
stant value, which is mainly influenced by the chisel vol-
ume V1, chisel mass m1 and total drag coefficient κ
(equation 12).
 −2 z 
A3  A1  , (11)
κ
v( z ) = 1 −
κ  
e

 

m1g − V1ρ f g − F f
v ( z → ∞) =
A3
= . (12)
κ κ Fig 6. Kinetic energy of the chisel to Fig 5 for differ-
ent borehole conditions.
Fig 5 shows the difference between the chisel veloc-
ity for dry and water-filled borehole conditions and the
free-fall velocity as a reference. In water-filled boreholes
the chisel velocity converges to v(∞) = 6.6 m/s and CFD calculations of the drag coefficients
reaches 80 % of the maximum velocity already after a
As described above, the drag coefficient κ is the
total falling height of approximately 3.5 m. A total falling
dominating variable for the chisel motion in water-filled
height of 10 m results in a chisel velocity of v = 6.5 m/s
boreholes. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) calcula-
in the water-filled borehole, while in dry bore hole condi-
tions allow for an efficient calculation of the drag coeffi-
tions the chisel reaches v = 12.5 m/s (14.5 m/s for the
cients, a qualitative comparison between the chisel types
free-fall). The difference between these values amounts
and further optimization in design. However, it is reason-
to a factor of about 1.9. Furthermore, this effect is con-
able to perform additional small-scale or full-scale tests
siderably increased, when looking at the kinetic energy of
to calibrate the input parameters for the simulation model.
the chisel. Fig 6 gives the corresponding data to Fig 5,
Fig 7 shows the sketch of a suitable three-
showing that the difference adds up to a factor of about
dimensional simulation model. The chisel is placed in the
3.7! Hence, the loosening performance of the chisel will
middle of a cylindrical casing and can not move in trans-
significantly reduce. In comparison, between the free-fall
lational or rotational direction. At the inlet area a constant
and the dry borehole condition an energy loss of about
fluid velocity vin and at the outlet a free outflow is given.
20 %, related to the free-fall, can be taken into account.

1132
 Fig 7. CFD simulation model for the determination of drag and rotation coefficient

The cylinder wall is modeled with a constant transla- sation in chisel design was done. Free-fall tests through a
tional velocity in order to reduce the skin friction between water-filled plexi-glass cylinder with different chisel
fluid and casing. The reaction forces caused by the fluid types (scale 1:7.4, see Fig 11) were performed and the
pressure and the shear forces at the chisel surface are following parameters were changed:
integrated and give a total resistance force Fw. “Guide – Chisel weight (1.25 kg and 3.36 kg)
plates” are often included in the back part of the chisel in – Guide plate inclination from 0° to 40°
order to produce a chisel rotation. This improves the – Special guide plate geometries with reduced
loosening performance by varying the blade position for flow resistance
each impact. The “flow induced” torque Mw can equally – Combined free-fall through air and water
be calculated with reference to the chisel axis.
The simulation is performed with the above men-
tioned boundary conditions (Fig 7). Fluid is modeled with
the physical properties of water. Several simulations per
chisel type are carried out, whereby fluid velocities vin at
the inlet are assumed within the range of the expected
chisel velocities (i.e. vin = 1.0–10.0 m/s). Drag coeffi-
cients can be derived from the total fluid pressure on the
chisel at steady state (Fig 8) and serve as input parame-
ters for the analytical solutions.
Furthermore, the simulations allow for an optimiza-
tion in chisel design. For instance, Fig 9 shows a flat
chisel with different inclination of the flow guide plates Fig 8. Fluid pressure at the chisel surface simulated
in the back part. The evaluation of the flow resistance with an inlet velocity of vin = 7 m/s
forces Fw and the torques Mw with reference to the chisel
axis makes a detailed analysis of the obtained drag coef-
ficients possible. Fig 10 gives the drag coefficients κ and
μ for flat chisel models with a guide plate inclination
from 0° to 40°. The coefficient κ quantifies the flow re-
sistance force of the chisel and is increasing with the
guide plate inclination. The coefficient μ shows the Fig 9. Front view of flat chisel models with varying
amount of flow induced torque as a consequence of the inclination of the guide plates (10°, 20° and 30°)
inclined guide plates. As described in Fig 10, the opti-
mum guide plate inclination can be determined to ~17.5°
for the specific chisel model, thus building an optimum
between high torque for chisel rotation and low flow
resistance for maximum chisel velocity. Higher inclina-
tions considerably increase the flow resistance and lead to
a significantly reduced chisel velocity and kinetic energy
respectively. This procedure proved very suitable and
time-saving compared to small-scale tests. It is especially
useful if the optimum setting of a single parameter has to
be found that influences two opposite effects.

Experimental determination of chisel motion

Although more time-consuming compared to the

CFD-calculations, small-scale tests were carried out for
the verification of the analytical equations concerning
translational and rotational motion and for checking of
the numerically derived drag coefficients. Furthermore, a
separate investigation of the chisel geometry with optimi-
Fig 10. Determination of the optimum guide plate in-
clination of a flat chisel in a polar diagram. Abscissa:
total drag coefficient κ [kg/m], ordinate: total coeffi-
cient μ [kg] for the flow induced torque with reference
to the chisel axis.

1133

Fig 11. Flat chisel models within the water-filled
plexi-glass cylinder. Left: light chisel with 1.25 kg;
Right: heavy chisel with 3.36 kg
Fig 12. Comparison of the experimentally and analyti-
cally obtained chisel velocities for the chisel model
(3.36 kg) in Figure 11 with variable inclination of the
guide plates.
During free-fall the chisel position was measured by
a timed photogrammetric image acquisition system. An
automatic evaluation algorithm was developed to derive
chisel velocity and rotation. Fig 12 shows the comparison
between the analytical solution and the experimentally
obtained values for the heavy chisel with different incli-
nations of the guide plates (0°, 10° and 30°). The analyti-
cal solution with a constant drag coefficient κ shows only
a small variation from the experimental data set in the
acceleration phase. The peak velocity of the analytical
solution fits to the experimental data, thus demonstrating
the correctness of the analytical solution and the numeri-
cally determined drag coefficients. The analytical solu-
tion can be improved further by taking a variable drag
coefficient κ into account during the acceleration phase.
As shown in Fig 12, this results in an even better accor-
dance between the data sets. However, for the chisel per-
formance, the peak-velocity is of greatest importance,
whereas the above mentioned small difference between
1134
the experiment and the simple solution with κ=const. is
negligible.
In addition to the small-scale tests, full-scale tests
(1:1) at several construction sites were carried out to es-
tablish the motion of a chisel in dry, partly and com-
pletely water-filled boreholes. This allowed for a direct
comparison of theory with practice without the influence
of scale factors. As a reference for the chisel motion, the
vertical rope motion was measured with the same timed
photogrammetric system as used for the small-scale tests.
Fig 13 shows the image acquisition system with an indus-
trial camera, which captures the position of the measure-
ment marks on the rope with a rather high frame rate. A
software algorithm was developed for the computational
identification of the measuring marks at the rope in a first
step and the complete velocity curve in a second one.
Once developed, this procedure proved to be very effi-
cient for the evaluation of several thousand images re-
corded during the chisel usage.
Measurement of chisel impact forces
For the full-scale tests a custom-built data acquisi-
tion system was installed to measure the development and
magnitude of impact forces. Fig 13 shows the monitoring
concept at the construction site. Sensors were placed at
the casing and at the top of the chisel in order to capture
the acceleration during chisel impact and reaction forces
at the casing. For the measurement of the acceleration
during “free-fall” as well as during the chisel impact,
several sensors with adapted acceleration range were
used. Particular consideration had to be given to the cable
and sensor protection due to the relatively rough envi-
ronment. The most reliable data was obtained by direct
measurement of the acceleration data at the chisel. How-
ever, this measurement method was rather complex and
therefore a reference acceleration sensor was placed near-
surface at the casing.
Fig 13. Monitoring concept for chisel motion and im-
pact forces during chisel usage on the construction
site.

Fig 14. Acceleration of chisel and casing during “free-
fall” and chisel impact.
Fig 14 shows a typical acceleration curve of the
chisel (all acceleration sensors are shown). After opening
the winch brake, the chisel starts a 1.3 seconds falling
phase with an acceleration of about -7 m/s², which is
influenced by the inertial and frictional components of
the system. The chisel hits the borehole bottom with an
impact acceleration of about 700 m/s² (peak value) and
hereafter, a decay of vibration is measured. At the refer-
ence sensor mounted at the casing a damped impact is
recorded after a short time-delay. At a first test series,
peak acceleration values of the chisel of 300–1300 m/s²
(minimum and maximum value) were registered. How-
ever, no significant correlation of the acceleration peak
values with an increasing number of chisel impacts could
be evaluated. A more significant correlation was noted
between the number of chisel impacts and the impact
duration. Fig 15 shows extended impact duration with
increasing number of impacts, which can be explained by
an accumulated amount of loosened material at the bore-
hole bottom. After extracting the ground material with the
grab, the impact duration is cut down by about 50 % (de-
pending primarily on number of grab procedures and the
loosened material). Hereafter, the duration rises as before
with an increasing number of chisel impacts.
Accordingly, the impact duration can serve as a con-
trol variable to derive the critical time for changing the
excavation tool (from chisel to grab). This method could
not only speed up the excavation process, but also reduce
costs by increasing the service life of the excavation
tools. Additionally the data could serve as a basis for
billing in difficult ground conditions.
Conclusion
The use of chisel devices in bored pile installation is
a rather simple, yet challenging method when detailed
investigation of the procedure is performed with taking
into account all the boundary conditions. Since there is an
1135
increasing cost awareness and an ongoing demand for
reduction of construction costs, a more detailed knowl-
edge about construction processes is necessary.
Fig 15. Duration of chisel impact for three consecutive
chisel sequences. Extraction of soil material with the
hammer grab between the chisel sequences.
Analytical analysis and CFD-calculations are the ba-
sis of the theoretical investigation on this topic. Small-
scale and full-scale tests were carried out to verify the
theoretical data and provide the connection with the prac-
tical application. As a result, the most influencing vari-
ables regarding the chisel performance could be spotted
and optimization processes were initiated for further im-
provements concerning i.e. chisel usage or geometry. An
innovative monitoring system was developed in order to
measure chisel impact forces. This can not only be bene-
ficial for the excavation process itself, it can also repres-
sent valuable information for secondary use like re-
cording, billing, etc.
References
Fleming, K et al. 2008. Piling engineering. 3rd ed. Abingdon:
Taylor & Francis, UK. ISBN 978-0415266468.
Kohlböck, D. 2008. Analytische, numerische und experimentelle
Untersuchungen von Meißelarbeiten bei der Pfahlherstel-
lung mit dem Schlagbohrverfahren unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Grundwasser-bedingungen, [Ana-
lytical, numerical and experimental investigation of chisel
usage in pile construction by percussive drilling in vari-
able groundwater conditions]. Vienna: University of
Technology, Austria.
Seitz, J. M.;.Schmidt, H.-G. 2000. Bohrpfähle, [Bored piles]. 1st
ed. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn. ISBN 343301308X.
Ziegler, F. 1995. Mechanics of solids and fluids. 2nd ed. Vienna:
Springer. ISBN 0-387-94399-4.