# Grlweap Driven Piles

July 12, 2017 | Author: Bolarinwa | Category: Deep Foundation, Hammer, Stress (Mechanics), Concrete, Soil

#### Short Description

INTRODUCTION TO WAVE EQUATION...

#### Description

Deep Foundations Course

INTRO TO GRLWEAP WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS PROGRAM (WEAP)

What does GRLWEAP do? • Simulates the driving process of a pile • When the hammer strikes the top of the pile a wave propagates along the pile length. Note that the particles within the pile willl oscilate and forces will change along the pile and with time. • GRLWEAP computes: – Number of blows to drive the pile into the ground a certain distance. – Stresses during driving. – Pile capacity as a function of blows per unit penetration

BACKGROUND WEAP • Idea started in the 1940s (E.A.L. Smith) • Idea: – To generate a Bearing Graph using a model of the pile and the soil – Compute stresses during driving.

• Advances post - E.A.L. Smith: – Models are now more precise and realistic (particularly for pile driving hammers - diesel, hydraulic, vibratory, etc). – Development of soil models and the associated parameters that are more reliable (basded on field measurements and the PDA test). – Assess “driveability”

What it models?

What do we need? • • • • • •

Representative soil profile, Pile type Anticipated installation depth Design capacity (Qd) Ru = Qd x FS Estimate dynamic soil parameters to model soil resistance (Damping, quake) • Select candidate hammers based on loca practice and contractors

WEAP Analysis Typical uses: • Graph of Ru versus #blows/L • Graph of driving stresses (tension and compression) as a function de #blows/L

What to check with WEAP? • Check #blows/L for desired Ru : • If # of blows is very high: – >100 blows/ft for friction piles – >100 blows/ft for end bearing piles – Try a more powerful hammer (GRLWEAP)

• # de blows too low: – < 24 blows/ft for friction piles – Installation QC can be difficult and imprecise – Try using a less powerful hammer (less energy).

What to check with WEAP? • Check induced stresses to ensure a safe pile installation (integrity of pile) • If compression stresses are too high (and #blows/L are acceptable): – Use smmaller hammer – Reduce stroke of hammer or drop height (if hammer allows adjustments) – Use a thicker Pile cushion – Use a softer Pile cushion material

What to check with WEAP? • Induced stresses (continued): • If tension stresses are too high (and #blows/L are low); concrete piles: – Increase thickness of Pile cushion, – Reduce stroke of hammer, – Try a different hammer with a heavier ram.

What to check with WEAP? • Induced stresses (Continued): • If tensile stresses are too high (and #blows/L are also high); concrete pile: – Analyze a new hammer with a heavier ram

What to check with WEAP? • Induced stresses (Continued): • If both the induced stresses and the #blows/L are high or excessive: – Try a pile with a larger cross section (if feasible), – Use a pile material of higher strength,

IMPORTANT • Must compare what you analyzed with GRLWEAP with actual site/construction conditions! – Actual pile dimensions. – Driving system used (hammer, helmet, cushions) – sizes, types, materials, etc. – Energy and field operation of hammer.

• Usually WEAP is complemented with field measurements using the PDA (another class).

Flow Diagram RLWEAP Bearing Graph Input Model hammer & driving system & pile

Model Pile

Choose first Ru

Distribute Ru Set Soil Constants Time Increment Assign ram velocity and analyze pile/soil • Pile stresses • Energy transfer • Pile velocities Calculate Blow Count

Increase Ru

Increase R u? N

Output

Bearing Graph: Vulcan 506; HP 12x53; Clay/Sand

Bearing Graph Comparison

Capacity in kN

Bearing Graphs from Formulas and Wave Equation 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Ru-Gates ENR - inferred GW-Sand GW-Clay

0

5

10 Blows/25 mm

15

20

Comparison Pile Capacity Estimates from different Methods 5

8

Gates

1950

2250

kN

ENR

1930

2570

kN

GW--Sand GW

1750

1980

kN

GW--Clay GW

1390

1580

kN

At Blow Count of

blows/25 mm:

Note: GW = GRLWEAP

Blow count comparison

Ultimate Capacity

1335

1780

kN

Nominal Safe Cap:

75

100

Gates

1.9

3.8

Bl/25mm Bl /25mm

ENR

3.0

4.4

Bl/25 Bl /25 mm

GW--Sand GW

2.4

5.3

Bl/25 Bl /25 mm

GW--Clay GW

4.3

14.3

Bl/25 Bl /25 mm

tons

Inspector’s Chart

Driveability Graph

SUMMARY • GRLWEAP is based on Smith’s model with important extensions such as: – Realistic hammer models – Non-linear spring models for interfaces and slacks – Alternative soil models – Residual stress analysis

• The wave equation analysis works with “Static Resistance to Driving” (SRD) plus a Damping or Dynamic Resistance • Important analysis options include Driveability and Inspector’s Chart

Recommended Quake Values Soil Type

Pile Type or Size

Shaft Quake

All Soil Types

All Types

Toe Quake

All Soil Types, Soft Rock In dry soils, or in very dense or hard soils In submerged soils or in loose or soft soils Hard Rock

Quake Quake (in) (mm) 0.10 2.5

Open ended pipes 0.10 Displacement Piles of D/120 diameter D or width D Displacement Piles of D/60 diameter D or width D All Types .04

2.5 D/120 D/60 1.0

DAMPING • •

The Damping option screen can be entered by using the pull down menu Options, General Options, and then Damping. The damping options include are those for the Soil, Hammer and Pile. In general, skin damping is computed according to Smith as Rd=Rs(js)v, where Rs is the static resistance at a certain time, js is the Smith damping factor and v is the pile velocity, all at one particular pile segment. GRLWEAP also offers the viscous Smith damping option: Rd=Ru(js)v, with Ru being the ultimate static resistance. Since Ru (js) is constant, this approach is equivalent to a third GRLWEAP option, the Case damping, where Rd=jc(EA/c)v, with EA/c being the pile impedance, as long as the damping constants are calculated appropriately. The first option is the most commonly used one; the second one leads to somewhat more corrective capacity results. For the third, experience or measurement results are needed to find the proper damping factor. GRLWEAP also offers two more Soil Damping Options, which are based on the exponential relationship proposed by Gibson and Coyle. Certain changes of this method were important for good agreement of computed pile top force and velocity with measured values. This led to the last Soil Damping Option which was described by Rausche.

Recommended Smith Damping Values (recommended option)

Damping Factor s/ft 0.05

Damping Factor s/m .16

Cohesive soils

0.20

.65

In all soil types

0.15

0.50

Soil Type Shaft Damping Non-cohesive soils Toe damping

Other Damping options: Coyle and Gibson Damping: The damping is calculated using a non-linear approach, Rd = jRuvn, where n is a damping exponent according to Gibson and Coyle. This is a research option. Rausche Damping: Damping is calculated using a non-linear approach, Rd = jRa vxn (v/vx), where Ra is the activated capacity, vx is the maximum velocity, both occurring during the hammer blow, and n is the damping exponent according to Coyle and Gibson. This is a research option. Damping Exponent: Enter the exponent of the non-linear damping approach. Recommendations are 0.18 and 0.20 for clay and sand, respectively. Only required for either Coyle and Gibson or Rausche damping, a default of 0.20 is activated if no entry is made.