GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 1 of 24

GRLWEAP Standard Examples

l Example 1: Generation of Bearing Graph for an OED
l Example 2: Closed End Hammer, Non Uniform Pile, Equipment Check
l Example 3: Concrete Pile, ECH, Tension Stress Check
l Example 4: Hypothetical Hammer Input
l Example 5: Pile Segment and Damping Input
l Example 6: Comparison of Damping Parameters
l Example 7: Reduced Diesel Fuel and Quake Variation
l Example 8: Effects of Splice/Slack on Pile Stress
l Example 9: Residual Stress Analysis (RSA)
l Example 10: Pile Damping, Long Piles, Diesel Hammer Performance
l Example 11: Driveability Analysis (Blow Count vs. Depth)
l Example 12: Inspector's Chart or Constant Capacity Option
l Example 13: Composite Pile, Second Toe and Critical Stresses
l Example 14: Two Pile Analysis Considering Follower with Long Skirt
l Example 15: Mandrel Driven Pile
l Example 16: Drilled Shaft Test with No Helmet
l Example 17: Vibratory Hammer Analysis
l Example 18: Pile and Hammer Gravity Changes
l Example 19: Static Soil Analysis
l Example 20: Steel Follower on Concrete Pile
l Example 21: Using ST and Variable Pile Cushion Stiffness

Example 1: Generation of a Bearing Graph for an Open End Diesel Hammer

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 1 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, small input and output modifications may be observed.

1.1 Situation
A 45 ton design-load pile is to be driven through a loose non-cohesive layer into a dense, coarse sand with gravel. The contractor wants to use an HP 12x53
profile of 40 ft (12.2 m) length and a Delmag D-12 hammer. He uses a standard 12 x 12 inch (305 x 305 mm) helmet with 2 inches (50.8 mm) of Conbest.

1.2 Problem
Determine the relationship between blow count and both capacity and stress maxima.

1.3 Approach
Since extensive static and dynamic testing will be performed at the site, a safety factor of 2 is sufficient. A higher safety factor of 2.5 or 3 may otherwise be
appropriate. Using a safety factor of 2, the pile has to be driven to an ultimate capacity of 90 tons (180 kips) or 801 kN. A curve can be constructed for the desired
range if capacities of 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420, 480, 540, and 600 kips (267, 534, 801, 1068, 1334, 1601, 1868, 2135, 2402, and 2669 kN) are analyzed.

1.4 Data Entry

Start the program or if the program is already in use click File/New to open a blank Main Input Form and to start the input wizard. The input wizard will
automatically display the necessary input forms, which include the Job Information, Select Hammer, Analysis Type, Pile Input, Hammer Cushion, Soil Profile
Input, Soil Parameter Input, and Ultimate Capacity screens, unless the user selects Finish or Cancel. Enter the following inputs in the corresponding screens if
using the input wizard (recommended), or proceed with the following commands if opting not to use the input wizard.

Click Options/Job Information and enter under Project Description the title of the problem. This title may be up to 40 characters long. You should also provide
or correct other information requested here.

Click on the Units Option if it shows SI when English units are desired or vice versa.

For Hammer Information: click on the desired hammer model (DELMAG D-12), or move to the desired hammer using the scroll bar if the desired hammer is not
seen in the Hammer List, and then click on the proper hammer to enter the proper number in the ID number field. You may also directly type the ID number (ID
No. 3) in this field if you know it. Hammer parameters will be automatically set for a desired hammer.

Move to the Pile material box and click on Steel for the pile material. This will generate pile material defaults for elastic modulus and specific weight. In the Pile
Information box, enter the Length (40 ft or 12.2 m). Enter the Penetration depth (say also 40 ft or 12.2 m even though that is not a very practical situation since
normally the pile is left out of the ground at least 2 ft or 600 mm at the end of driving). This penetration input is, however, only used for the simple resistance
distribution input and therefore not much demand is placed on its accuracy. Enter the pile cross sectional Area (15.5 square inches or 100 square centimeters).
Set the Coefficient of Restitution for the pile top spring (the helmet-pile interface) to 0.8, a little bit less than the normal default of 0.85 to reflect the fact that the
pile top surface may be rough cut. The Coefficient of Restitution for the pile top spring is found under Options/Pile Parameters/Additional Input and should not
be confused with the coefficient of restitution of the hammer cushion found on the Main Input screen.

Move to the Cushion Information. Pile cushion information is not applicable for a steel pile.

For the Hammer Cushion, a cross-sectional Area of 283.5 square inches or 1829 square centimeter, an Elastic Modulus of 280 ksi or 1930 MPa, and a cushion
material Thickness of 2 inches or 50.8 mm was specified by the contractor. If no values were known then press F3 for help to find the appropriate hammer
cushion tables to retrieve data that is recommended by hammer manufacturers or their distributors. (Note: the cushion thickness must be consistent with the
elastic modulus input. If the cushion consists of 1 inch Conbest and 1 inch aluminum, then the modulus for an aluminum/Conbest sandwich and a 2 inch cushion
thickness may be entered. Alternatively, the Conbest modulus itself together with a 1 inch thickness may be specified. Indeed, the aluminum may be ignored
since it is much stiffer than the Conbest). The Helmet Weight (2.15 kips or 9.6 kN in our example) may also be found in these tables if it is not known for a
particular driving system.

Move to Soil Parameters. These are average shaft values and individual toe values for quake and damping. Shaft Quakes are almost always 0.1 inches or 2.5
mm. Toe Damping is almost always 0.15 s/ft or 0.5 s/m. The Toe Quake may increase with the size of piles but in our example of a 12 inch (305 mm) the toe
quake rule of D/120 leads to the standard quake of 0.1 inches or 2.5 mm. This is strictly applicable only for a plugged H-Pile; however, for an unplugged H-Pile,
the standard toe quake recommendation is also 0.1 inches or 2.5 mm. Shaft Damping depends on the soil type. For non-cohesive soils, the recommendation is

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 2 of 24

0.05 s/ft or 0.16 s/m.

Finally, move to the Shaft Resistance to define percentage and distribution of shaft resistance. An estimate of shaft resistance percentage was based on static
geotechnical methods and soil boring information. This analysis indicated that the pile will drive through very loose sands into a hard material, and it is therefore
anticipated that shaft resistance will only be 10% of total capacity, when the desired ultimate capacity is reached at 40 ft depth. Use the slider switch or type 10 in
the Percentage field. Triangular resistance distribution is reasonable. To enter the distribution, choose Variable Resistance Distr. from the Soil Resistance
Distribution Option drop-down box. The Variable Resistance Distr. page will automatically appear. If you choose to return to this page after returning to the
main screen you may go to View/Resistance Distr., Pile 1 Input Form or click on the icon. Enter 0.0 for Relative Distr. corresponding to the depth at the
top of the pile and enter a 1.0 at the bottom of the pile.

Move to the Ultimate Capacities box and enter up to 10 different capacities as discussed.

This completes the input. However, you may now wonder whether more data is required. To check whether or not all important data has been submitted, click
Options/Check Status. If the answer is Input file appears to be complete, you may move to saving the file and analyzing the data. If not, then another message
will indicate the missing information.

1.5 Save Input File

Click File/Save Input File As and then specify file name and path as for standard Windows operations.

1.6 Analyze
Click File/Analyze Input and a Window will open that gives some information on the analysis progress. Once the analysis is finished, exit this window by pressing
any key to continue.

1.7 Produce Output

Click View/Output or and then Numeric results which produces important numerical output information. Study this output thoroughly (you may print it for
ease of inspection). If all input information has been correctly interpreted and properly reflected in the input check portion of this file, you may close this window
and click on Bearing Graph. Immediately, the bearing graph graphical and numerical results will be displayed. Under View you may modify the Ranges (or
scales) to obtain the figure shown below.

Bearing Graph Figure: Example 1

1.8 Discussion of Results

It may be concluded that driving the pile to an ultimate capacity of 90 tons (180 kips or 801 kN) requires a blow count of less than 50 bl/ft. The maximum
compressive stress will be well below 25 ksi (172 MPa). These are all acceptable values: a moderate blow count and a compressive stress well below yield. Note,
confirmation of the actual bearing capacity should be done some time after pile installation by either static testing or dynamic testing using a Pile Driving
Analyzer® during restrike.

Example 2: Closed End Hammer, Non Uniform Pile, Equipment Check

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 2 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, small input and output modifications may be observed.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features may appear in Example 1 and may not be repeated here.

2.1 Situation
A step tapered pipe pile of 79 ft (24.1 m) total length and the following properties:

20.4 ft (6.22 m) of 14.0 inch (356 mm) O.D. and 0.203 inch (5.16 mm) wall,
23.0 ft (7.01 m) of 11.5 inch ( 222 mm) O.D. and 0.219 inch (5.56 mm) wall,
35.5 ft (10.82 m) of 10.0 inch (254 mm) O.D. and 0.219 inch (5.56 mm) wall.

The yield strength of all steel sections is 45 ksi (310 MPa). There is an 11 inch (279.4 mm) diameter toe plate of 1 inch (0.03 m) thickness at the pile bottom. The
pile is to be driven to a depth of 74 ft (22.57 m). The soil consists of silty clay and clayey silt with some sand. A 240 kip (1068 kN) ultimate capacity is anticipated.
However, it is also expected that driving would be much easier than expected for the full soil strength due to anticipated losses of soil resistance during driving.
Dynamic measurements were taken at a neighboring site during pile driving. These measurements were evaluated by dynamic analysis. From this experience,
approximate soil damping values were selected.

2.2 Reason for Analysis

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 3 of 24

The contractor must drive the pile to penetration, i.e. the installation criteria do not specify a minimum blow count. The contractor wants to use a LinkBelt LB-520
hammer but is not sure whether or not this hammer will do the job. Also there is concern about driving stresses in this relatively thin-walled pile which will probably
experience stress concentrations where the pipe diameter reduces.

The contractor also would like to know if a driving interruption would affect the driveability. The contractor supplied the following data: Helmet Weight of 450 lbs
(2 kN) and hammer cushion Stiffness of 10,000 kips/in (1751.0 kN/mm).

2.3 Approach
This problem lends itself to analysis by the driveability option which would provide blow counts and stresses vs. depth. However, the driveability option requires
an accurate static analysis of the soil which will not be done in this example (in practice an accurate static pile analysis should always be done). All questions
stated under Section 2 above can be answered from a bearing graph for the final penetration depth. If a hard layer would be encountered or if splicing
interruptions would occur at a depth where driving is anticipated to be difficult, then analysis by the driveability option would be more appropriate

2.4 Data Input

Start the program or if the program is already in use click File/New to open a blank main input form. The program will automatically run through the input wizard,
unless the user selects Finish or Cancel. Enter the following inputs in the corresponding screens if using the input wizard (recommended), or proceed with the
following commands if opting not to use the input wizard.

Click Options/Job Information and enter under Project Description the title of the problem.

Click on the Units Option if it shows SI while English units are desired or vice versa.

For Hammer Information: click on the desired hammer model (LinkBelt 520), or move to the desired hammer using the scroll bar if the desired hammer is not
apparent in the Hammer List, and then click on the proper hammer to enter the proper number in the ID number field. You may also directly type the ID number
(ID No. 84) in this field if you know it.

Move to the Pile material box and click on Steel for the pile material. This will generate pile material defaults for Elastic Modulus and Specific Weight. Enter
total pile Length (79 ft or 24.1 m). The Penetration depth is set to 74 ft (22.57 m). Next, enter the pile's cross sectional Area at the top which is 8.8 square inches
or 56.87 square centimeters {(O.D.)(thickness)? (thickness)}, pressing F3 while on the Area field will open the area calculator to help in determining the pile area.
For this particular pipe, the pile manufacturer made a recommendation for the elastic modulus as shown in the following table. Thus, the corresponding steel pile
default is replaced.

English SI Explanation
Total Length 79.0 24.1 (ft or m) Pile length includes the toe plate.
Area 8.80 56.87 (in2 or cm2) Computed from (14.203) (? )(.203)
Elastic Modulus 29000. 200000. (ksi or MPa) Per factory information (uncommon value, not a recommendation).
Specific Weight 492. 77.3 (lbs/ft3 or kN/m3)
Coeff. of Restitution. .85 .85 Default for steel pile top.

The Perimeter input, as tabulated below, is not required and may be left at zero since no driveability analysis is performed. The Coefficient of Restitution and
Round Out (found under Options/Pile Parameters/Additional Input) values refer to the pile top spring, i.e. the interface between helmet and pile top, for which
corresponding default values of 0.85 and 0.01 ft or 3 mm are appropriate.

At this point it is suggested to enter the complete information for the non-uniform pile. Click on the Pile Option drop-down box and click on Non Uniform Pile. A
graphics screen on the right hand side helps to avoid input errors. The following tables show the input in English and SI units. Note that it is actually not required
to repeat identical input values. However, the Insert Row option, copies lines and therefore makes the input of repetitive values a simple task.

Depth (below pile top) X-Area E. Modulus. Spec. Wt. Perimeter Strength

ft in2 ksi lbs/ft3 ft ksi

0.0 8.8 29,000 492 3.7 45

20.4 8.8 29,000 492 3.7 45

20.4 7.76 29,000 492 3.01 45

43.4 7.76 29,000 492 3.01 45

43.4 6.73 29,000 492 2.62 45

78.9 6.73 29,000 492 2.62 45

78.9 95.0 29,000 492 2.88 45

79.0 95.0 29,000 492 2.88 45

Depth (below pile top) X-Area E. Modulus. Spec. Wt. Perimeter Strength

m cm2 MPa kN/m3 m MPa

0.0 56.87 200,000 77.3 1.13 310

6.22 56.87 200,000 77.3 1.13 310

6.22 50.0 200,000 77.3 0.92 310

13.23 50.0 200,000 77.3 0.92 310

13.23 43.4 200,000 77.3 0.80 310

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 4 of 24

24.05 43.4 200,000 77.3 0.80 310

24.05 613.1 200,000 77.3 0.88 310

24.10 613.1 200,000 77.3 0.88 310

After entering the necessary non-uniform pile information, click View/Main Input Form to proceed.

Move to the Ultimate Capacity box and enter the following capacity values to be analyzed: 60, 120, 180, 210, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320 kips or 267, 534, 801,
934, 1068, 1157, 1246, 1334, 1423 kN. (Note, different from previous GRLWEAP Manual versions it is now recommended to analyze a complete curve that
includes the two particularly interesting capacities of 240 kips (1068 kN) and 320 kips (1423 kN)).

Soil Parameters: Quakes are set to the standard 0.1 inches (2.5 mm). A reduction of the toe quake to 11/120 inch (300/120 mm) would definitely not increase
the accuracy of the prediction considering the uncertainties of the dynamic soil parameters. Damping values are set to 0.2 and 0.15 s/ft (0.65 and 0.5 s/m) for the
shaft and toe, respectively. Static soil resistance calculations lead to an end bearing of approximately 45 percent. Thus 55 is input under Shaft Resistance
Percentage.

Click on the Soil Resistance Distribution Option drop-down box and click on Variable Resistance Distr. and then enter the following information for the soil
resistance distribution.

English Units:

Depth Relative Distrib.

ft
0.0 0.0
5.0 0.0
5.0 0.5
79.0 1.0

SI Units:

Depth Relative Distrib.

m
0.0 0.0
1.52 0.0
1.52 0.5
24.10 1.0

2.5 Discussion of Results

The results indicate that the pile reaches refusal before an ultimate capacity of 300 kips (1334 KN) is achieved. Capacities with values higher than the first
encountered refusal capacity will not be analyzed in a GRLWEAP bearing graph analyses. Instead sometimes the program interpolates an additional capacity
value before the first refusal value. A maximum compressive stress of 32 ksi (227 MPa) was calculated. This stress is quite high, however, it is acceptable for 36
ksi (245 MPa) still if good hammer-pile alignment is maintained. It appears that the pile reaches refusal prior to reaching 300 kips (1334 KN) although it may be
expected that it may ultimately meet this capacity due to soil set-up. This could be verified either by restriking including dynamic measurements (a larger hammer
would be needed and potentially damaging stresses could develop unless the pile were filled with concrete) or by static load testing (also after filling the pile with
concrete). It is not possible to load the empty pipe above 300 kips without causing a yield failure. A high strength steel would also aid in a safe and easier
installation of the pile.

It must be concluded that both blow count and stresses are too high for an economical and safe pile installation, even if driving is not interrupted and therefore the
pile does not have to be driven against the full capacity. The danger of yielding in the pile, which will be greatest at the top and at points of cross sectional
change, is not great as long as the pile penetrates at reasonably low blow counts. The step tapered pile of this example is very flexible and therefore lends itself
to an investigation by the residual stress method. Example 9 demonstrates that this method indeed will predict lower blow counts yet higher stresses.

A recommendation based on these results would be to increase the wall thickness rather than hammer size. A pile with greater wall thickness will, in general,
drive easier than a more flexible one, even if hammer and hammer cushion are not changed. The user is encouraged to repeat the analysis with heavier pile
sections to investigate the benefit of more steel on driveability.

Example 3: Concrete Pile, ECH, Tension Stress Check

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 3 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, small input and output modifications may be observed.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features may have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

3.1 Situation
Using a Vulcan 80C hammer, a 14 x 14 inch (356 x 356 mm) prestressed concrete pile is to be driven through very soft material. The pile Length is 60 ft (18.3
m). The geotechnical engineer has estimated that there will be only 15 tons of skin friction and hardly any end bearing in the early stages of driving, say at 20 ft
(6.1 m) depth. This capacity slightly exceeds hammer plus pile weight.

3.2 Problem
It is expected that tension stresses will develop in the pile during the early driving stages. These tension stresses should at no point exceed the 0.7 ksi (5 MPa)
prestress. (Actually, an additional 200 to 300 psi (1378 to 2068 kPa) may be allowed considering the concrete's strength of rupture). How many sheets of 3/4 inch
(19 mm) plywood should be put on the pile top to sufficiently protect the pile? The driving system should be taken from the manufacturer's recommendation for
the Vulcan 80C on a 14 inch pile (to get this information press F3 with the cursor on the Hammer Cushion Area field).

3.3 Solution

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 5 of 24

The following input was made first solving the case of a cushion consisting of 3 plywood sheets of 3/4-inch (19 mm) thickness each yielding a total cushion
thickness of 2.25 inches (57.15 mm). The cushion is considered new and therefore the 30 ksi (207 MPa) default modulus is acceptable. The project description is
first entered, then the hammer ID number 224. For the uniform concrete pile, the pile material is first selected which then generates acceptable material default
properties. The pile Length is 60 feet (18.3 m) and the Penetration to be investigated is 20 ft (6.21 m). The cross sectional Area of the pile is 196 square inches
(1267 square centimeters). For the cohesive soil, Shaft Damping (Smith) is equal to 0.2 s/ft (0.65 s/m). Shaft Quakes are left at the usual 0.1 inches (2.5 mm).
Toe Damping and Toe Quake are irrelevant (no resistance at the pile toe). For plywood, a reasonable Coefficient of Restitution is 0.5. Ultimate Capacities
are chosen to yield an acceptable bearing graph and to include the lowest Ru value which will probably cause the highest tension stresses.

3.4 Discussion of Results

After performing an analysis, the numerical output indicates that the tension stress exceeds 1.03 ksi (7.1 MPa) in the upper third of the pile (see Output, Numeric
Results for stresses at different locations along the pile). Driving the pile with only 3 cushion sheets, therefore, exceeds the specified allowable tension stress.
Note that the numeric output gives tension stresses as "minimum stress" and therefore with negative values; in the bearing graph plot and print section of
GRLWEAP, tension is printed positively and labeled as "maximum tension stress".

3.5 Additional Computer Analysis

It is concluded that more cushion sheets should be used and a second computer run is made for 6 cushion sheets. Thus, the pile cushion thickness is doubled to
4.5 inches (114.3 mm). The resulting maximum tension stress is then less than allowable.

Running the hammer at reduced air pressures in the early phases of driving (this is possible for the Vulcan 80C) would be another means of getting the pile safely
into the ground. Reduced air pressure values, resulting in a reduced energy and therefore reduced equivalent stroke would cause reduced pile stresses. The
above analysis was for a new cushion. For end of driving (EOD) it must be assumed that the cushion is compressed and the 2005 recommendation is an analysis
with a plywood modulus of 90 ksi (620 MPa) with the nominal thickness. Repeating the analyses with the 90 ksi modulus will obviously show a higher tension
stress at the lowest capacity. However, this analysis is now applicable only to high resistance values where the tension stress is acceptable.

Example 4: Hypothetical Hammer Input

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 4 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, small input and output differences were unavoidable.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features may have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

4.1 Situation
A contractor has decided to build his own hammer. He supplied the hammer data in Special Case 1: Diesel Hammer Modeling. A pile made of 12.75 inch (324
mm) O.D. pipe with 0.25 inch (6.4 mm) wall thickness has to be driven to 200 kips (890 kN) ultimate capacity (40 ton pile with a safety factor 2.5; this implies that
the wave equation is backed up by dynamic measurements). The length of the pile is 60 ft (18.3 m) including a 1 inch (25 mm) toe plate.

4.2 Problem
Determine whether this new hammer will be capable of driving the pile assuming that the ultimate resistance of 200 kips (840 kN) will be reached at a depth of 50
ft (15.3 m) where the loose sand becomes dense.

4.3 Solution
Since this example creates a "new" hammer, the data is not contained in the hammer data file, the hammer must first be coded using the Hammer File
Maintenance section of GRLWEAP. Click View/Edit Hammer Database and then enter the data in an available data base location. ID numbers greater than
2000 must be used when entering a new hammer. For the present example, we have already created the hammer in ID number 998. Please see Open End
Diesel Hammer Data Input for help on the hammer data to be entered for this problem, or look at Hammer ID 998 in the Hammer Maintenance Program for the
values used in this example analysis. After the hammer data has been entered in the hammer database, save the information in the database program and close
the database. Enter the main input screen of GRLWEAP, and then enter ID number 998 or the ID of the hammer that you created for this problem.

For the remainder of the example, the following input is made:

Project information: click Options/Job Information

Pile Material: Steel
Pile Length: 60 ft or 18.3 m
Penetration: 60 ft or 18.3 m
Pile Cross Sectional Area: 9.82 in2 or 63.86 cm2
Hammer Cushion Stiffness: 10,500 kips/inch or 1839 kN/mm (from contractor)
Helmet Weight: .95 kips or 4.23 kN (from contractor)
Ultimate Capacitites: 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 300,350,400 kips or 222, 445, 667, 890, 1112, 1334,1557, 1779 kN
Soil Properties: Standard quakes (0.1 inches or 2.54 mm); shaft damping for sand 0.05 s/ft (.16 s/m); toe damping 0.15 s/ft (0.5 s/m)
Shaft Resistance Percentage: 10
Shaft resistance distribution: variable

Choose Variable Resistance Distr. from the Soil Resistance Distribution Option drop-down box. This shaft resistance distribution was based on SPT values
of N = 2 between 0 and 20 feet (6.15 m) depth, N = 4 between 20 (6.096) and 30 feet (9.144 m) depth, and values increasing to 6 just above the sand:

Depth (distance below grade) Relative Distribution

ft m
0 0 0.33
20 6.1 0.33
20 6.1 0.67
30 9.1 0.67
50 15.24 1
60 18.3 1

The pile is considered non-uniform because of the toe plate. Therefore, Non Uniform Pile must be selected from the Pile Option drop-down box. Enter the cross
sectional areas vs. depth below pile top as follows:

Depth (distance below top) Cross Sectional Area

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 6 of 24

ft m in2 cm2
0.0 0.0 9.82 63.86
59.92 18.26 9.82 63.86
59.92 18.26 127.7 824
60 18.3 127.7 824

4.4 Discussion of Results

The summary output shows that for Rut = 200 kips (890 kN) the blow count is around 64 bl/ft (211 bl/m) or 5.3 bl/in (50 mm for 10 blows). The stroke was around
8 ft (2.5 m) at refusal, and the transferred energy was 12 kip-ft (16.2 kJ). A reasonable hammer rating (rated stroke * ram weight) would be 2.75*8= 22 kip-ft
(2.4*12.24=29.8 kN/m) leading to an expected transfer efficiency of the hammer around 50% at refusal blow counts.

The maximum stress was about 30 ksi (204 MPa) at 200 kips (890 kN). It can be concluded that this hammer would be a reasonable choice for driving pile. Of
course, the actual field performance of this hammer might be different and adjustments to parameters like the expansion coefficient or the efficiency may be
needed.

Example 5: Pile Segment and Damping Input

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 5 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, small input and output differences were unavoidable.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features may have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

5.1 Situation
A timber pile has to be driven through a soil of stratified clay and sand to a dense gravel layer. The timber pile has a length of 36 ft, 2 inches (11.03 m). Its cross
sectional area varies from 128.7 (830.13) at the top to 56.2 inch2 (362.58 cm2) at the bottom. For the timber, an elastic modulus of 2000 ksi (13,789 MPa) and
specific weight of 51 lb/ft3 (8.01 kN/m3) was assumed. The pile will be driven by a Link-Belt 440 hammer.

A soil investigation resulted in the following data: At a depth of 25 ft, 8 inches (7.83 m) the pile point will penetrate into gravel where it should achieve an ultimate
bearing capacity of 150 kips (667 kN) of which 90% will act at the toe. The Smith shaft damping factors are 0.05 s/ft (0.16 s/m) in the gravel layers and 0.20 s/ft
(0.66 m/s) in the clay layers. Different from normal recommendations, experience indicated a toe damping factor of 0.05 s/ft (0.16 s/m).

5.2 Problem
The hammer should be run at a limited energy of 14.4 kip-ft (19.6 kJ) to avoid pile damage. To what blow count must the pile be driven to insure the 75 ton [150
kip (670 kN)] ultimate bearing capacity and what would be the bounce chamber pressure (gauge) corresponding to this energy level?

5.3 Solution
A single average shaft damping or quake value is used in a layered soil with little loss of accuracy. For the purpose of demonstration only, the element lengths,
masses and stiffness are also calculated and entered for this non-uniform pile. Yet, it is still necessary to input a pile profile for the calculation of pile stresses.
This calculation is simplified using as an area the profile value preceding the segment top. Thus, a detailed profile helps in calculation of accurate stresses:

Click Options/Job Information and enter the necessary project description and file name.
Find and click on Hammer ID No. 83.
Click on Pile material Timber.
Enter and/or correct the pile information for the pile top (see also table below).
Click on Area of Hammer Cushion and then press F3. Click OK for Manufacturer's recommended driving system. Click Linkbelt, LB440, Timber, pile size PS
10 (255) -14(355), cushion material CM, 20% Al per 80% Micarta, Check All, OK.
Choose Non Uniform Pile from the Pile Option drop-down box and enter the following pile profile (perimeter and strength data are not needed for this analysis):

Depth (below pile top) X-Area E. Modulus. Spec. Wt.

ft in2 ksi lbs/ft3
0 128.67 2000 51
0.17 128.67 2000 51
7.00 112.65 2000 51
14.00 97.33 2000 51
21.00 83.13 2000 51
28.00 70.04 2000 51
36.17 56.2 2000 51

To enter the pile segment properties, click Options/Pile Parameters/Pile Segment Option, and input the Number of Segments. PDI recommends that the
number of pile segments equals the pile length in meters. In other words, pile segments should have lengths of approximately 1 m or 3.3 ft. In our example, we
are choosing 12 segments for the 37 ft long pile. Next choose from one of the three input options for pile segments:

l Equal segment length, automatic determination of stiffness and weight - this is the normal GRLWEAP input mode which requires practically no calculation effort by the
user.
l User defined segment length, automatic determination of stiffness and weight - this option allows the user to match the segment boundaries to the pile profile thereby
avoiding the averaging of segment properties over a sharp change of pile cross section or material.
l User defined segment length, stiffness and weight - this option requires the most preparation by the user. In our example, this option will be chosen for the purpose of
demonstration only; actually, the automatic (normal) option is sufficient to solve this problem with very good accuracy.

The table of Segment Length, Segment Stiffness and Segment Weight now has to be filled in. In our example, all segments are given the same length of
3.014 ft long. Note that the individual segment lengths do not need to add up to the exact pile length; the input values will be treated as relative segment length
and will be normalized by GRLWEAP. Segment weights and stiffness values are calculated from density, elastic modulus, cross sectional area, and length values
and entered in the input table.

Segment Number Segment Length Segment Stiffness Segment Weight

ft kips/inch kips

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 7 of 24

1 3.167 6596.0 0.141

2 3.000 6557.0 0.126
3 3.000 6167.0 0.118
4 3.000 5800.0 0.111
5 3.000 5445.0 0.104
6 3.000 5100.0 0.098
7 3.000 4764.0 0.091
8 3.000 4440.0 0.085
9 3.000 4128.0 0.079
10 3.000 3823.0 0.073
11 3.000 3534.0 0.068
12 3.000 3257.0 0.065

As an example, let us calculate the properties of the first segment. Its area at the top is 128.67 in2. Interpolating we find that its area at the bottom is 119.69 in2.
The average area is 124.41 in2 (over the top 3.17 ft). The weight of the first segment is (125.35)(0.051)(3.17)/144 = .141 kips. The stiffness of the first segment is
(125.35)(2000)/(12)(3.167) = 6596 kips/inch. Note that for each segment an average area, an elastic modulus of 2000 ksi (13,789 MPa), and a specific weight of
51 lb/ft3 (8.01 kN/m3) was used.

Since it is intended to run the hammer at a limited energy, a hammer override value for the stroke must be input. For closed end diesels, this stroke is an
equivalent value. The LB 440 has a ram weight of 4 kips (17.8 kN). Thus, for a potential ram energy of 14.44 kip-ft (19.6 kJ) the stroke should be set to 14.44/4 =
3.61 ft (19.6/17.8 = 1.10 m), which can be done right below the Hammer List. To maintain the stroke and therefore the fixed energy, the proper stroke option has
to be chosen in the Options/General Options/Stroke. This allows for selection of how the stroke is to be used in the analysis (it may be used as a starting value
or as a fixed value.) In the present case we want to maintain a fixed stroke value and therefore choose the option Convergence of pressure with fixed stroke.

In this example, soil parameters will be entered through the individual soil segment input as follows:

l Click on the Resistance Distribution Option drop-down box and choose Detailed Resistance Distr. A window opens that shows uniform ultimate resistance values for
all 12 segments (note that individual quake values can only be entered if Detailed Resistance Distr. is activated).
l Modify the static resistance distribution as desired. These numbers may be actual ultimate resistance values or only relative numbers. They will be recalculated
according to the Shaft Resistance Percentage and Ultimate Capacity input on the main input screen. Click OK.
l Click Options/Soil Parameters/Soil Segment Damping/Quake. A window opens that shows default values for shaft damping and quake values. For the current
example, the soil segment values are shown in the figure below.

The finished input should look as in the table below:

5.4 Discussion of Results

The relatively complicated input should be checked by comparing the input data tables shown above with the pile model table on the second page of the output.
The summary output shows that a blow count of 75.7 bl/ft (241 bl/m) would be required to drive the pile to a 150 kip (667 kN) ultimate capacity if the hammer runs
at 15.1 psi (104 kPa) bounce chamber pressure. The transferred energy in the pile is then 4.7 kip-ft (6.4 kJ) and the hammer should run at a speed of 92 bl/min.
Note that the hammer was kept at a relatively low energy setting (a specified equivalent stroke of 3.63 ft or 1.1 m). In fact, the program had to reduce the file
specified combustion pressure for the 150 kip capacity to maintain this low stroke. At such an energy level, the atomized fuel injection LB 440 does not impact
and the blow count becomes extremely sensitive to small changes in hammer performance. Stresses are highest in the bottom segment where they reach 2.59
ksi (18MPa).

As mentioned earlier, stresses in this mode of input are calculated based on the areas in the pile profile. In the present case these values were not sufficiently
closely spaced for good accuracy and more accurate results would be obtained with the standard pile input. It is always recommended to check the program's
stress calculations for non-uniform piles by dividing the force maxima of the program's extrema table outputs with the appropriate pile cross sectional areas. If one
uses the maximum toe force (162 kips or 723 kN) of the extrema table in the numerical output for the 150 kip capacity and divides it by the cross sectional area at
the very bottom (56.2 inch2 or 363 cm2), one finds a maximum toe stress of 2.88 ksi or 19.9 MPa. This is a relatively high stress. Higher blow counts and
therefore capacities could easily lead to pile toe damage.

Example 6: Comparison of Damping Parameters

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 6 Output file both for English and SI Units. Although it

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 8 of 24

was attempted to limit differences between this example and the corresponding one of earlier GRLWEAP versions, small input and output differences were unavoidable.
Please also note that descriptions of basic input features may have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

6.1 General Remarks

The choice of damping parameters may have a rather substantial effect on the wave equation results. In addition, the two different definitions of damping, Smith
and Case (viscous), may add confusion. The following example was therefore included as a demonstration of the effects of different damping values and damping
definitions. Note: It is recommended that Smith damping factors be used. Exceptions to this rule are cases where measurements have been made in support of
other methods or for research purposes.

6.2 Situation
The situation is assumed: A 12 x 12 inch (305 x 305 mm) prestressed concrete pile [E = 5000 ksi (34470 MPa), L = 60 ft (18.3 m)] is driven by a Kobe K-25
hammer into clay. Two stages of the driving operation are investigated. First, easy driving, with the possibility of tension damage, and second, the hard driving
situation, when the pile reaches the bearing layer.

6.3 Data Input

A. Easy Driving, CASE Damping

An oak pile top cushion is chosen [E = 50 ksi (345 MPa) across the grain, cross sectional area = 144 in2 (929 cm2), thickness = 4 in (102 mm)]. The soil
resistance is uniformly distributed over the bottom 12 ft (3.66 m) of the pile. The shaft resistance is assumed to be 50 kips (222 kN) and no toe resistance was
anticipated. Case damping was chosen (Click Options/General Options/Damping and then Case). The viscous shaft and toe damping factors were taken as 0.5
and 0.3 times the pile impedance.

Other input data included: a helmet weight of 0.95 kips (4.23 kN), a hammer cushion stiffness of 10,500 kips/inch (1840 kN/mm), a pile cushion coefficient of
restitution of 0.6, a pile cross sectional area of 144 in2 (929 cm2) and a pile specific weight of 153 lb/ft3 (24.0 kN/m3). Quakes were set to 0.10 in (2.54 mm) and
several ultimate capacity values were analyzed always with zero toe resistance (% Shaft Resistance = 100).

B. Easy Driving, Smith Damping

The only variation from Case A was the choice of Smith Damping (Click Options/General Options/Damping and then Smith) with damping factors of 0.20 and 0.01
s/ft (0.656 and 0.033 s/m) at shaft and toe, respectively. (The 0.01 s/ft toe damping value was the recommendation of the 1076 WEAP Manual). Note that the toe
damping value is not essential, since there is no toe resistance.

C. Hard Driving, CASE Damping

It is assumed that the skin friction is relatively well known to be 100 kips (445 kN) and a constant friction analysis is performed. Thus, various ultimate capacities
are analyzed starting with 100 kips (445 kN) (set % Shaft Resistance = 100, and select Bearing Graph Const. Shaft from the Bearing Graph Prop. Shaft menu for
constant shaft resistance); in this way, since shaft resistance remains constant for all ultimate capacities analyzed, the end bearing increases with the ultimate
capacity. Select Case Damping (Click Options/General Options/Damping and then Case). Viscous damping factors were again 0.5 and 0.3 for shaft and toe,
respectively.

D. Hard Driving, Smith Damping

The situation is as in Case C except for the input damping factors Js=0.20 and Jt=0.01 s/ft (0.656 and 0.033 s/m), and the selection of Options/General
Option/Damping and Smith.

6.4 Results

To plot a first bearing graph click and Bearing Graph; to plot a second bearing graph in the same figure, click File/Read Second File and select the desired
output file. The following figures show for Smith, Case 2, easier driving at low capacities and higher blow counts during harder driving than the corresponding
viscous approach of Case A since the effective damping parameters according to the Smith definition increase with Rut. Case D, however, always shows an easy
driving condition relative to the viscous curve because of the rather low damping with most of the resistance acting at the toe [toe damping was only 0.01 s/ft
(0.033 s/m)]. Finally, it should be observed that Case damping results were nearly unaffected by the different resistance distributions.

Bearing Graph Figure: Cases A and B

Bearing Graph Figure: Cases C and D

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 9 of 24

Example 7: Reduced Diesel Fuel and Quake Variation

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 7 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, differences may be noted. Please note that descriptions of
basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

7.1 Situation
This example demonstrates the use of the Fuel Setting input for stress control when analyzing pile installation with a diesel hammer. Also the effect of a change
of quake on blow count will be demonstrated. In this hypothetical situation, a 75 ft (22.9 m) long steel pile with 16.8 inch2 (108 cm2) cross sectional area is driven
by a D-30 hammer through coarse grained soil [only 40 kips (178 kN) skin friction] to rock. The shaft resistance is uniformly distributed except for a triangular
portion over the bottom 7 ft. Damping factors of 0.05 s/ft (.16 s/m) and 0.15 s/ft (.5 s/m) as typically recommended were used for shaft and toe. Use a shaft
resistance percentage of 40.

7.2 Data Input

The four cases were run as follows:

A Full fuel, using GRLWEAP Fuel Setting Max, and shaft and toe quakes of 0.1 and 0.15 inches (2.54 and 3.81 mm), respectively.

B Reduced fuel, using GRLWEAP Fuel Setting Max-2. Quakes were the same as with Case A.

C Full fuel and quakes of 0.05 inch (1.27 mm) for both shaft and toe. Edit quake values on the main input screen.

D Reduced fuel as with Case B. Quakes were the same as with Case C.

Note on Hammer Fuel Setting:

The D-30 has a 10-step pump. Actual hammer setting 10 is the full fuel setting and corresponds to GRLWEAP Fuel Setting Max (default). GRLWEAP offers
four additional combustion pressure values. The lowest GRLWEAP Fuel Setting is Min which corresponds to actual hammer setting 1, or the minimum
energy setting. The second highest program Fuel Setting is Max-2 and the third lowest Max-3, which is about halfway between maximum and minimum
settings. To change fuel settings, click Options/General Options/Stroke and then select the desired Fuel Setting.

7.3 Results
The results indicate pile stresses beyond yield for high capacities and full fuel. The fuel reduction decreases the stroke and stresses but increases the blow count.
For small quakes, because of the high soil stiffness, the highest stresses occur at the pile bottom (this is shown in the numerical summary output, i.e. in the
*.GWO files). Lowering the quakes also reduces the high blow counts. The reader is encouraged to reanalyze these cases with higher capacities albeit stresses
then become intolerable for mild steel. Furthermore, since blow counts are acceptable at Fuel Setting Max-2, the minimum setting should also be tried to produce
more acceptable stresses. Note, however, that a pile with a cross sectional area of 16.8 square inches (0.0108 m2) and a yield strength of 36 ksi (248 MPa)
cannot be driven to a capacity of (16.8)(36) = 600 kips, or (0.0108)(248)/1000 = 2,680 kN, if the capacity is relatively concentrated. This is because damping
resistance causes increased pile stresses to values above capacity divided by cross sectional area. If higher capacities are required, then either the pile's steel
strength or its cross sectional area have to be increased.

Example 8: Effects of Splice/Slack on Pile Stress

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 8 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.

8.1 Background
Concrete piles are, in general, sensitive to tension stress waves, in particular if the piles are long. In addition, long piles need to be spliced because of difficulties
in handling. Many splices consist of two matching steel fittings that are held together by pins, bolts, bars, keys or other easily installable devices. A plate splice
consists of two steel plates covering the butts of the sections which are joined by welding. Such connections are often referred to as mechanical splices. Another
type is called a can splice which consists of a lower concrete section over which a matching steel sleeve is attached to the bottom of the upper section. This steel
connecting sleeve is called the "can". There is no tension transfer in a can splice. Thus, tension stresses must be relatively low in the neighborhood of the splice.
Furthermore, a tension stress wave traveling upwards would be reflected thereby protecting the upper pile section from excessive tension. A comparison between
the effects of the two splice types will be demonstrated.

Please note that welded splices do not allow for any relative motion between the spliced sections. They therefore behave like a uniform pile and are not analyzed
with the splice model.

8.2 Input Data

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 10 of 24

Two cases are analyzed considering a pile of 160 ft (48.8 m) length. The hammer was a Vulcan 100C (Hammer ID = 226) run at full stroke and then at a reduced
stroke of 61% or 2 ft (.61 m). The V100 C is a double acting hammer. The pile is designed with a splice located 75 ft (22.9 m) below the top.

For the analysis, a 40 percent skin friction was assumed for a pile penetration of 120 ft (36.6 m). A situation with high upper and lower friction was modeled with a
compressible layer between 12 and 90 ft (3.66 and 27.45 m) below the soil surface. This was done by assigning the compressible layer with a relative distribution
of 0.1 of the high friction upper and lower layers (found under Variable Resistance Distr. from the Soil Resistance Distr. Option drop-down box).

For the mechanical splice input, the slack value was set to 0.003 ft (1 mm). The coefficient of restitution and round-out values were set at their respective
recommended values of 0.8 and 0.01 ft (3 mm). For the can splice, the slack was set to 99 ft (99 mm), in other words to an unlimited value. The following values
were entered under Options/Pile Parameters/Splices.

Mechanical Splice Input:

Splice Distance Ten. C.o.R. Com. Slack

No. Slack Round Out

75 ft .003 ft .8 .01 ft
22.9 m 1.0 mm .8 3.048 mm

Can Splice Input:

Splice Distance Ten. C.o.R. Com. Slack

No. Slack Round Out

75 ft 99 ft .8 .01 ft
22.9 m 99 mm .8 3.048 mm

8.3 Results
The results indicate that for low blow counts (corresponding to easy driving) the maximum tension stress in the upper section of the pile is greater for the
mechanical splice than for the can splice. At high blow counts (corresponding to hard driving), the results indicate that the maximum tension stresses are equal
for both types of splices.

Example 9: Residual Stress Analysis (RSA)

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 9 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.

9.1 Background
RSA considers the stresses locked in pile and soil during pile driving. Stresses usually keep the pile in a compressed state between hammer blows because the
soil prevents the pile from completely rebounding. In order to determine the residual stresses, GRLWEAP performs several analyses, each one including the
residual stresses of the previous analysis as a starting value (Initial value) of the next analysis. Thus, RSA really calculates the response of a pile due to several
hammer blows in sequence with always the same static and dynamic resistance parameters.

The concept of RSA is much more reasonable than the standard Smith analysis, particularly for long or flexible piles. Unfortunately, thorough correlation has not
been performed to date and since it is a non-conservative analysis for capacity or blow count prediction (it is conservative for stress calculations) it should be
used with caution.

9.2 Input
In order to demonstrate how RSA works and what results it generates, Problem 2 was reanalyzed using the residual stress option which is set by clicking
Options/General Options/Numeric and then entering a "1" in the Residual Stress Analysis. As recommended by GRLWEAP, damping was also set to Smith
viscous by clicking Options/General Options/Damping.

9.3 Analysis
More iterations are required for an RSA than for a standard analysis since for each ultimate capacity several analyses have to be performed with a static analysis
occurring between hammer blows. In fact, the analyses will be repeated until the displacement pattern of two consecutive "blows" has converged. Should the
analysis not converge, an appropriate statement will be included in the Numeric results (the *.GWO output file). If the results do not converge, they must be
considered with suspicion.

9.4 Output

In order to check whether or not RSA has converged, first check the Numeric results (click View/Output, or , and then Numeric results), for any message
indicating non-convergence. If that is the case, investigate differences between the residual stress analysis and the standard analysis results and choose your
recommendations prudently.

Investigate not only the Summary Table but also the Tables of Extrema and Residual Forces for each ultimate capacity analyzed in the Numeric results listing.

9.5 Discussion of Results

Review of the results show that the blow count at a given capacity is substantially lower for the Residual Stress Analysis than for the standard analysis of
Example 2. Further, the pile reaches a higher ultimate capacity using the residual stress analysis. The reason for this better driveability is the flexibility of the pipe
which allows for large deformations and thus large energy storage in the pile between blows. However, note the noticeably higher compressive stresses, which
would be too high if mild steel were used to drive the pile.

An interesting observation may be made when inspecting the pile top forces vs. time curves. In the normal analysis, a very rounded behavior is apparent and, in
fact, no actual impact happened since the pile, due to its elasticity, moved away from the hammer during the compression phase. The residual stresses, on the
other hand, made the pile stiff enough for impact, which is apparent from the slight steep force/velocity rise in the early record portion. The improvement in the

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 11 of 24

blow count therefore seems to be not only the result of a stiffer pile but also an improved hammer behavior. However, the ram reached the uplift condition of this
closed end hammer and a fuel reduction had to be made. This explains why the transferred energies were lower in Example 9 than in Example 2.

9.6 Correlation
Measurements were taken when similar piles were re-driven with the LB 520 hammer. Force records showed some evidence of ram impact, while other records
were smooth. Note that a pile was load tested to 270 kips (1200 kN) ultimate and that a blow count of 160 bl/ft (525 bl/m) resulted during restriking. The blow
count during driving was 47 bl/ft (154 bl/m). The transferred energy during restriking varied between 7 and 12 kip-ft (9.5 and 16.3 kN/m).

In this case, it is clear that a residual stress analysis produces more realistic results than the standard wave equation approach. The pile type, being similar to the
Monotube, stored substantial energies between blows because of its flexibility.

Example 10: Pile Damping, Long Piles, Diesel Hammer Performance

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 10 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.

10.1 Background
Dashpots connecting the pile segments usually have an assigned damping parameter that corresponds to 1% of critical damping or 2% of the impedance of the
pile at its midpoint. The impedance equals pile modulus, E, times pile cross sectional area, A, divided by pile wave speed, c. Using the Pile Damping Option (click
Options/General Options/Damping), the dashpot value can be changed in increments of 2%; zero pile damping is input with a negative value, e.g., as a -1; a 2%
value is input by either Pile Damping = 1 or 0.

Recommended input values for pile damping are 1 for steel, 3 for concrete and 5 for timber. These values are automatically assigned through the pile material
switch in the Main Input form. The effect of pile damping is studied in the present example of a long steel pile; first for zero and second for 2% pile damping.

10.2 Input
A 30x1 inch (762x25.4 mm) pipe pile of 300 ft (91.4 m) length will be analyzed. It is assumed that it will be driven by a Delmag D 62-22 hammer. A bearing graph
curve was produced with 90% acting on the shaft with Smith viscous damping of 0.05 and 0.15 s/ft (0.16 and 0.50 s/m) for skin and toe, respectively, were
investigated. For one analysis the Pile Damping Option was set to a negative value (no pile damping); for the other analysis the pile damping option was left zero
(2% pile damping).

10.3 Results

After analyzing both example cases, compare the extrema tables in the Numerical Output (click , or View/Output). Numerically, the two cases differ; however,
the results are rather similar at low to moderate blow counts. At higher blow counts [near 100 bl/ft (328 bl/m)], differences are noticeable.

Another observation is quite interesting. The static resistance was distributed over 60% of the pile length, starting at the bottom. Thus, the upper 36 segments
were without resistance. It is, therefore, expected that the wave, or say the maxima of forces and velocities, stays nearly constant as it travels down the pile. For
the 0% [2%] pile damping case, the maximum velocity is 12.7 (4.0) [12.5 ft/s (3.8 m/s)]. The velocity value at segment 20, sufficiently high above the friction
elements such that no major upwards stress wave effects interfere with the downward wave, is 12.1 (3.8) [11.6 ft/s (3.5 m/s)]. This indicates wave peak
reductions of 4.7 and 7.2% for the undampened and dampened pile, respectively. A long steel pile, therefore, may be better analyzed with zero or minimal pile
damping. Better numerical program performance can also be achieved by using more pile and/or ram segments and a reduced time increment, accomplished by:

l using a larger number of pile segments (click Options/Pile Parameters/Pile Segment Option and then enter the Number of Segments),
l using a larger number of ram segments (see Hammer Data File Maintenance), or
l using a greater ratio of critical time to analysis time increment, which makes for a smaller calculated time increment (click Options/General Options/Numeric and then
enter a number greater than 160 in the Time Increment Ratio field).

It is important to realize that the hammer file data may contain combustion pressure values which do not accurately reproduce the field observed stroke. The
stroke is somewhat lower than expected for a D 60-22 hammer under hard driving conditions. On the other hand, transferred energy values, between 50 and 60
kip-ft (70 and 80 kJ), are often measured for a hammer of this type, and the results therefore appear to be reasonable.

In summary, it is recommended to check the actual hammer performance by reviewing both transferred energy and stroke and to run the program with zero pile
damping (input of -1) for steel piles longer than 150 ft (45 m). The extrema tables in the *.GWO files are particularly helpful.

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

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 12 of 24

cushion will probably become stiffer with higher blow numbers. Also, it may become less efficient, i.e. its coefficient of restitution may decrease.

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 through View/Resistance Distr., Pile 1 Input Form:

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 relative energy of 1 ft (0.3 m) would reduce full set-up capacity to 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.
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 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).

Damping and quake values were chosen according to general recommendations as follows:

0.1 inch (2.54 mm) shaft quake;

0.2 inch (5.08 mm), i.e. D/120, toe quake;
0.05 (0.164 s/m) shaft damping in the sands and 0.2 s/ft (0.65 s/m) in the cohesive soils;
0.15 s/ft (0.492 s/m) Smith toe damping.

Among the soil layers considered, 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. The lowest friction gain/loss factor was thus set to 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 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. 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.

Example 12: Inspector's Chart or Constant Capacity Option

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis are contained in the Example 12 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.

12.1 Background
Diesel hammers have variable strokes. Although GRLWEAP does a relatively good job in calculating the stroke of a diesel hammer, reality and prediction may
differ. Obviously, higher strokes produce higher transferred energies in the pile and therefore lower blow counts at a given bearing capacity. Lower strokes
produce lower transferred energies and therefore higher blow counts. To avoid either overdriving a pile or accepting it with a low capacity, the correct stroke must
be used in the GRLWEAP analysis on which pile acceptance is to be based.

A similar situation exists when an external combustion hammer, which has a continuously adjustable energy or ram fall height setting, is analyzed. The user

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 13 of 24

usually does not know in advance which energy setting or stroke will be used in the field. As an example, a constant capacity analysis for an ECH hammer is
demonstrated in the second run of Example 16.

If we were working with bearing graphs, an inspector should have different bearing graphs available for all possible strokes. The inspector would measure the
stroke and then choose that bearing graph that matches the field observed stroke to find the blow count for the required capacity. This process is too complicated,
particularly since the inspector is only interested in one single capacity value. Thus, a complete bearing graph is not required. Instead, for the required ultimate
capacity value to which the pile must be driven, various strokes should be analyzed leading to a graph (the Inspector's Chart) of calculated blow count and
stresses for each stroke value.

Note:

For open-end diesel hammers stroke can be measured in the field with a Saximeter™ .

For closed-end diesel hammers bounce chamber pressure is used as an indication of stroke.

For a correct diesel hammer analysis, it is important to decide on the thermodynamic modeling of the diesel hammer so that different strokes can be calculated in a
reasonable manner.

One obvious means of producing different calculated strokes of a diesel hammer is by variation of the maximum combustion pressure. The higher the maximum
combustion pressure in the analysis, the higher the calculated stroke and vice versa. With the GRLWEAP option "convergence of pressure with fixed stroke" set,
GRLWEAP will automatically vary the maximum combustion pressure until up-stroke equals down-stroke. The down-stroke could be one of a series of strokes to be
analyzed. Obviously, for a high stroke, relative to the capacity analyzed, the maximum pressure would have to be significantly increased and transferred energy would
be even higher than for just the higher stroke. This is non-conservative and only permissible if it is known that the hammer has the potential for energies that are
higher than normally predicted by GRLWEAP.

A second, much simpler procedure would be to merely analyze a single down-stroke and ignore the magnitude of the up-stroke for the given maximum
combustion pressure in the hammer data file (this is very similar to the external combustion hammer analysis). For high strokes, this option produces more
conservative blow count results than the option that adjusts the pressure. If, for example, the stroke were high in the field because of diesel pre-ignition with
relatively low transferred energies, the single stroke option would produce a much more reasonable result than the pressure adjusted solution.

12.2 Input and Results

For a situation similar to Example 1, Inspector's Chart was chosen from the Analysis Option drop-down box. The stroke calculation was set to Convergence of
pressure with fixed stroke under Options/General Options/Stroke. GRLWEAP then performed ten analyses with increasing strokes. Pressures were automatically
adjusted for convergence of "down" and "up" strokes. A stroke vs. blow count graph was then plotted in the output using View/Output or and selecting
Bearing Graph.

The user is encouraged to repeat the analysis using the alternate stroke option Single analysis with fixed stroke and fixed pressure. In that case, no pressure
adjustment would be made, i.e. convergence of downward and upward strokes would not be attempted.

Example 13: Composite Pile, Second Toe and Critical Stresses

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis are contained in the Example 13 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.

13.1 Background

A 100 ft (30.5 m) long pile consists of 60 ft (18.3 m) of 24 inch (610 mm) octagonal prestressed concrete [cross sectional area = 477.0 in2 (3077.0 cm2)] and 40 ft
(12.2 m) of HP14x89 [cross sectional area = 26.0 in2 (168.3 cm2)]. The steel bottom of the pile, a so-called "stinger", has to penetrate into a very hard layer for
uplift. The concrete section is designed to penetrate 10 ft (3 m) into the dense material. The upper 50 ft (15.3 m) of the soil consists of soft clays.

13.2 Input
Soil input has to be done with a variable distribution. Select Variable Resistance Distr. from the Soil Resistance Distribution Option drop-down box to enter the
relative soil resistance distribution for the pile shaft, both the concrete and steel parts. In this example, the distribution has been made uniform with a relative
value of 1.0 in the softer soils and a relative value of 1.44 in the bearing layer. In actuality, the differences in perimeter should have been considered in more
detail in the relative distribution input since the bearing graph and inspector's chart analyses ignore perimeter as an input and instead consider the relative
distribution a distribution of total resistance forces. It is estimated that the shaft resistance acting along both the concrete and steel portions of the pile makes up
20% of the total resistance. Total end bearing acting against both steel tip and concrete bottom is thus 80% of the total resistance.

The shaft quake was set to 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) and shaft damping to 0.2 s/ft (.66 s/m) for the cohesive shaft soil. For the "main" toe, the steel stinger tip, the quake
was set to 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) which is normal for H-pile. As usual, the toe damping factor was set to 0.15 s/ft (0.5 s/m).

To accept the variable cross section data of the non-uniform pile, select Non Uniform Pile from the Pile Option drop-down box. In this same form, click 2nd Toe
that opens a window to accept quake, damping, fraction, and depth input. In our case, we set the second toe quake to 0.2 inches (5 mm) corresponding to the
size of the concrete bottom. The damping factor for the second pile toe is 0.15 s/ft or 0.5 s/m. The fraction of the end bearing acting against the bottom of the
concrete pile (once the concrete bottom is in contact with the bearing layer) is estimated as 80% of the sum of the end bearing against steel tip and concrete toe
which is the total end bearing. The fraction of the second toe is therefore 0.8. The second toe is located at a depth of 60 ft (18.3 m), i.e. where the concrete ends.

13.3 Critical and Allowable Stresses in a Composite Pile

In the first part of this example, the maximum stresses for each ultimate capacity specified are displayed in the final summary table of the *.GWO Output by
GRLWEAP. They occurred in the steel portion of the pile. However, tensile stresses are much more critical in the concrete than in the steel despite the higher
absolute values of stresses in the steel. In Case B, yield was set to 1 ksi (6.9 MPa) for the concrete and 32.4 ksi (220 MPa) for the steel. These are the allowable
dynamic stresses given an effective prestress of 0.8 ksi (5.5 MPa) and 50% of the concrete perceived tensile strength of 0.2 ksi (1.4 MPa). For the steel, the
allowable driving stress is often 90% of the steel yield strength. By entering allowable stresses, those stresses will conveniently be included in the summary table.
In Case B, the maximum stress is the tensile stress in the concrete due to the higher strength/yield ratio.

Note: In the United States, allowable pile driving stresses are often specified as follows:

Pile Material Allowable Tension Stress Allowable Compression Stress

Steel 0.9 fY 0.9 fY
Prestressed concrete, psi

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 14 of 24

fPE + 3(fC')1/2 0.85 fC' - fPE

Prestressed concrete, MPa fPE + .25(fC')1/2 0.85 fC' - fPE

Regularly reinforced concrete 0.7 FY / AC 0.85 fC'

Timber 3fA 3fA

FY = the reinforcements steel's yield strength as a force (kips or kN)

fY = the steel yield strength as a stress (ksi or MPa)
AC = the concrete area of the pile
fPE = the effective prestress
fC' = the concrete strength as a stress in psi or MPa
fA = the allowable timber stress for static design

With material strength specified, GRLWEAP checks for the maximum of the ratio of stress to strength, which corresponds to the most critical stress in the pile for
one analysis. In the summary table, that critical stress is then printed as a final result. In the present example, the critical stresses clearly occurred in the concrete.

Example 14: Two Pile Analysis Considering Follower with Long Skirt
The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 14 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.

14.1 Background
A number of problems in pile driving involve wave propagation in parallel piles or devices. The follower with a long skirt is one such example. (The skirt is actually
part of the "gravity splice" which connects follower and pile; it aligns follower and pile while the weight of the follower keeps the splice in compression). As the
wave generated by the hammer arrives at the bottom of the follower it branches into skirt and pile. Therefore, two waves then travel in parallel downward, in two
separate devices.

It is not always necessary or prudent to solve such a problem with the two pile model (which is relatively complicated). In fact, it is recommended that an attempt
also be made to model the problem as a single pile model and compare the results. In the case of a skirt, the user should model the mass of the skirt in the
element between follower and pile by increasing appropriately the cross sectional area of the follower bottom plate. A follower with no skirt or with a very short
skirt should be modeled as part of a single pile, i.e. using a Non Uniform Pile, for better results. In other words, there is no need to model two piles in series, like a
follower with short skirt, with the two-pile model.

Another demonstration of the use of the two-pile model, a mandrel driven pile, is given in Input Example 15. In the case of the mandrel driven pile, the wave is
split into two parts at the time that it is reflected at the pile bottom, i.e. one wave travels upward in the mandrel and the other in the shell.

14.2 Example data

A follower has to be designed for best possible alignment with the pile. For this purpose, a skirt with a 10 ft (3.05 m) length has been designed as an integral part
of the follower. The skirt has an outside diameter of 40 inches (1016 mm) and a wall thickness of 1 inch (25.4 mm). The follower is a 24 ft, 9 inch (7.55 m) long
steel pipe of 32 inch (813 mm) outside diameter and 2 inch (50.80 mm) wall thickness. A 3 inch (76.2 mm) steel plate of 40 inch (1016 mm) outside diameter with
a 24 inch (610 mm) inside opening and 4 inch (102 mm) plywood cushion separate the follower bottom from the pile top.

A concrete pipe pile (see Figure 14.1) with a 36 inch (914 mm) diameter and a wall thickness of 6 inches (152 mm) has to be driven through 30 ft (9.15 m) of
water to a final embedment in the soil of 60 ft (18.30 m). The pile is 70 ft (21.35 m) long and its final 10 ft are driven into a bearing layer. As installed, the pile top
is 20 ft (6.60 m) below the water surface. Therefore, the pile must be driven with a follower unless an underwater hammer can be used.

Note:

Since the helmet drives directly on the steel follower, no pile cushion is specified in the data input. The pile cushion is inserted between follower bottom and pile
top. The model considers that the follower, steel plate, and skirt comprise the first pile of 35 ft (10.67 m) length. The second pile starts under the pile cushion and
consists only of the concrete pile. All soil resistance acts on this second pile. The cushion is modeled as a spring connecting pile 2 at its top to pile 1 at a depth of
25 ft (7.64 m).

A Conmaco C5200 hammer has been selected [20 kip (32.35 kN) ram weight, 5 ft (1.50 m) stroke, with an 11.7 kip (52.10 kN) helmet and 8 inches (203.20 mm)
of nylon hammer cushion]. Of primary concern are the stresses in the follower.

14.3 Input
After entering hammer ID 186, select Steel as the pile material because that is the material in direct contact with the hammer. The pile data on the main input
screen is "Pile 1" data and includes the length of follower plus skirt (35 ft or 10.67 m) and other follower top properties. On the main input screen, also enter
helmet weight (11.7 kips 52.0 kN) and hammer cushion data. No pile cushion data can or should be entered since the "Pile 1" top is made of steel. The
percentage shaft resistance, entered as the sum for Pile 1 and Pile 2, is estimated as 50. The other 50% would be the end bearing that acts on both pile toes. In
the present example, Pile 1 has zero end bearing.

To enter data for the section of concrete pile, click Two Pile from the Pile Option drop-down box and then View/Pile 2 Input Form or . Enter the relevant length
of 70 ft (21.3 m) and select Attachment to open the attachment box. In the present example, the Pile 1 attachment point is at 25 ft (7.62 m) below its top; the Pile
2 attachment point is at its top (0 distance). Since there is no tension connection in the attachment, the slack is unlimited and should be set to 99. The stiffness of
the spring connecting Pile 2 to Pile 1 is calculated from the plywood cushion properties with an area equal to that of the pile (566 inch2 or 3648 cm2), an elastic
modulus of 30 ksi (206.80 Mpa), and a thickness of 4 inches (101.60 mm). Thus, the stiffness is 566 x 30/4 = 4241 kips/inch (742.50 kN/m).

The properties of Pile 1 have to be entered via View/Pile 1 Input Form. Since this is not a driveability analysis, the perimeter input is not required. It is
recommended that the S/Y input is made to obtain critical stresses rather than maximum stresses in the output.

Pile 1 Input Data:

Depth ft X-Area in^2 E. Modulus. ksi Spec. Wt. lb/ft^3 Perimeter ft Strength ksi
0.00 188.50 30000.00 492.00 32.4
24.75 188.50 30000.00 492.00 32.4

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 15 of 24

24.75 804.00 30000.00 492.00 32.4

25.00 804.00 30000.00 492.00 32.4
25.00 122.50 30000.00 492.00 32.4
35.00 122.50 30000.00 492.00 32.4

Pile 2 Input Data:

Depth ft. X-Area in^2 E. Modulus. ksi Spec. Wt. lb/ft^3 Perimeter ft Strength ksi
0.00 565.5 6000.00 150.00 1
70.00 565.5 6000.00 150.00 1

While still in the Pile 1 Input Form, select 2nd Toe and enter a quake of 0.1 in (2.5 mm), a damping of 0.15 s/ft (0.5 s/m), and fraction (1.0 in our example because
all end bearing acts on the second pile) and depth (70 ft or 21.3 m for the bottom of Pile 2) values.

Other necessary input concerns the soil resistance distributions for both Pile 1 and Pile 2. In the present example, the relative distribution of Pile 1 is zero. If shaft
resistance were present on both piles, the resistance distribution input of both piles should be made such that the relative magnitudes correctly reflect the relative
magnitudes of the resistance forces.

Resistance Distribution Pile 2 Input Data:

Depth ft Relative Distib.

0.00 0.000
10.00 0.000
10.00 1.000
60.00 1.000
60.00 10.000
70.00 10.000

Figure 14.1 Pile Schematic:

Example 15: Mandrel Driven Pile

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 15 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.

15.1 Problem Statement

This 2 Pile analysis pertains only to those mandrel driven piles or shells which participate "actively" in the driving process, i.e. shells with sufficient structural
strength to transmit impact forces. Since their stiffness is negligibly small, corrugated shells supported continuously or at steps of step-tapered mandrels may be
modeled by simply including their weight in the mandrel properties, i.e. increase mandrel specific weight such that the area of mandrel times the specific weight
equals weight of mandrel plus shell.

In this example, a mandrel drives against the bottom plate of a closed end pipe pile (see Figure 15.1). Of course, this is the simplest and also possibly the most
commonly encountered mandrel driven pile. The pipe pile in this example is 60 ft (18.3 m) long with a diameter of 16 inches (406 mm) and a wall thickness of ¼
inch (6.4 mm). It is closed with a 3 inch (80 mm) thick plate. The mandrel has a 12-¾ inch (324 mm) outside diameter, 1.5 inch (38 mm) wall thickness and 65 ft
(19.8 m) length. Clayey, sandy, gravelly soils formed from glacial till comprise the bearing layer. An IHC S70 hammer drives the mandrel without a hammer or pile
cushion.

Notes:

• This Mandrel Driven Pile is a 2 Pile problem since the upward traveling wave splits into two branches, one traveling up in the mandrel and one traveling in
parallel in the shell pile.

• In this example, blow count calculation becomes highly uncertain. The user is urged to consider the manually calculated blow count from the inverse of the top of
the shell maximum displacement (found in the extrema table) minus the average, weighted quake. Use this result if it is more conservative than the printed
result.

• Because of the blow count uncertainty in the 2 Pile analysis, also run a single pile comparison case in which the shell is assumed to extend from the bottom of
the mandrel downward. Shaft resistance would then be upside down, i.e. the bottommost point of the shell would have the resistance expected at grade). There

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 16 of 24

would be no shaft resistance at the mandrel portion of the pile model. End bearing would be modeled at the point where the mandrel connects to the shell using
the 2nd Toe option with the second toe resistance fraction equal to 1.0. Compressive stress results in the shell would represent the actual tensile stresses.

• In the two pile option, it is recommended that the gravities of the pile and hammer be set to zero.

Figure 15.1

Example 16: Drilled Shaft Test with No Helmet

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 16 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.

16.1 Problem Statement

It is intended to construct a drop hammer for a dynamic test of a drilled shaft. The analysis is done to assure that the ram will be large enough for full activation of
the expected ultimate shaft capacity without excessive stresses. The drilled shaft is 30 inches (762 mm) in diameter and 50 ft (15.24 m) in length. It has been
installed through stiff clay into dense sand.

The pile has been designed for a capacity of 500 tons and a 2000 kip (8896 kN) ultimate capacity should therefore be activated by the drop hammer during the
dynamic test. Activation of this capacity could be expected if the GRLWEAP calculated blow count were less than 120 bl/ft (393 bl/m).

Allowable tension stresses should be kept below the concrete modulus of rupture, which may be estimated in psi as 6(fc')1/2 where fc' is the concrete strength in
psi. Furthermore, the calculated tension forces should be less than 70% of the reinforcement strength. (See Table of Allowable Pile Driving Stresses for further
information. Also, modulus of rupture in SI units may be taken as twice the value allowed for the concrete tensile driving stress of prestressed concrete piles). In
the present case, it is assumed that the maximum allowable tensile stress would be 410 psi (2.8 MPa).

16.2 Input
The input includes 75% skin friction, a shaft damping factor of 0.2 s/ft (0.66 s/m) and a toe quake of 0.25 inches (6.4 mm). For the "self-made" hammer, a
maximum stroke of 15 ft (4.57 m) was chosen. Its efficiency is estimated at 60% considering that there is no free release device. For rams on two-part lines, the
efficiency may be lower. The hammer strikes a 9 inch (228.6 mm) plywood cushion placed directly on the pile top without separation by a helmet. The zero helmet
weight can be analyzed for all except diesel hammers.

16.3 Discussion of Results

In a first run, the stroke is set to 12 ft (3.66 m) and a Bearing Graph is generated considering ultimate capacities between 500 and 3500 kips (2224 and 15569
kN). The results indicate satisfactory tension stresses at 2000 kips (8896 kN) capacity and a blow count not much higher than the 120 bl/ft (393 bl/m) mentioned
earlier. With a slightly higher stroke, the 2000 kip (8896 kN) capacity could probably be reached. Tension stresses at lower capacity values are of greater
concern. Supposing that the drilled shaft indeed has only 500 kips (2224 kN) capacity, it would crack during driving with a 12 ft (3.66 m) stroke. A second run was
therefore made using the Inspector's Chart, selected in the Analysis Option drop-down box, and a constant capacity of 500 kips (2224 kN). Results indicate that a
4 ft (1.22 m) drop height would yield safe stresses for the 500 kip (2224 kN) capacity. It is therefore recommended to test the pile with ever increasing fall heights,
starting with 4 ft (1.22 m) until either the indicated test capacity is satisfactory or until the indicated equivalent blow count is less than 120 bl/ft (393 bl/m), i.e. the
set per blow is then greater than 0.1 inches (2.54 mm).

Example 17: Vibratory Hammer Analysis

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 17 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, differences may be noted. Please note that descriptions of
basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

17.1 General Remarks

Vibratory pile driving analysis has not yet matured to the point where it is as reliable as impact analysis. Not many correlation tests between static capacity and
soil resistance during vibratory pile driving exist. For that reason, GRLWEAP still uses the basic Smith approach with some modifications, consisting of higher
damping factors for shaft damping in cohesive soils, Smith viscous damping, and higher shaft quakes in cohesive soils. One of the difficulties of vibratory pile
driving analysis is the assessment of the soil resistance during driving. Even though the general agreement is that sandy soils lose their shaft strength during
vibratory pile driving, experience with GRLWEAP to date has shown that the analysis is not very sensitive to the magnitude of lost shaft resistance. On the other
hand, the end bearing seems to control the speed of the pile installation.

The vibratory hammer model has been explained in the Background Report. Actually, the model is very simple. Two masses are connected by a very soft spring
that practically isolates the upper mass from the vibrations of the lower one. The lower mass is acted upon by a sinusoidal force which is a function of frequency
and eccentric mass. This force can be reduced by an efficiency value.

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 17 of 24

The following example demonstrates the analysis of a 99 ft (30.2 m) long double sheet pile (2 PS 31 with a combined cross sectional area of 29.9 square inches
or 193 cm2) using an ICE 815 vibratory pile driver. The sheet piles form a circular cofferdam. In order to maintain the alignment of the sheets, it is necessary to
drive the piles at most 3 ft (.9 m) at a time and then to move on to the next double sheet. Unfortunately, relatively early refusal is encountered which is in part
attributed to a high lock friction. The refusal situation may also be explained by the fact that the soil, a soft and then firm clay, exhibits strong set-up during driving
interruptions whose rather long duration is governed by the time required to drive sheets around the whole cofferdam.

The ICE 815 has a maximum frequency of 26.6 Hz and an eccentric moment of 0.37 kip-ft (50.7 kg-m). In the Hammer Data File for the Vibratory Hammer, the
eccentric moment is represented by an eccentric weight of 1.84 kip (8.188 kN) with an eccentric radius of 0.2 ft (0.06096 m). The maximum power that can be
supplied by the power unit is 375 kW. In the field, the hammer was only run at a frequency of 22.5 Hz, thus the default value is replaced with 22.5 Hz for this
example. An "efficiency" of 0.7 is used in the analysis to match measurements with analysis results. It is assumed that the clamp (jaws and grabs) has a weight of
2 kips (8.9 kN). The clamp weight is entered in lieu of a helmet weight.

For the soil resistance, it is estimated that toe resistance includes some lock friction concentrated near the bottom of the sheets. This explains the relatively high
end bearing of 30%, where 70% shaft resistance is used as an input value. The shaft resistance is distributed triangularly, considering the increasing strength of
the clay with depth. CAPWAP results from impact records, obtained immediately after vibratory driving had stopped, indicated damping factors of 0.35 s/ft (1.15
s/m) and 0.2 s/ft (.66 s/m) for shaft and toe, respectively. These factors (for impact driving relatively high) are used in the vibratory analysis together with quakes
of 0.2 inches (5 mm). It is believed that lock friction contributed to the apparent soil damping.

Impact records were taken and evaluated after vibratory driving reached an unacceptably high penetration time of 280 s/ft (1600 s/m). The impact records
indicated a "bearing capacity" of 160 kips (712 kN) and since only a short time elapsed between vibratory and impact driving, it may be assumed that no
substantial soil set-up occurred before impact driving started. For the 160 kips (712 kN) resistance level, the vibratory analysis yields an acceptable penetration
time. However, an increase of capacity of 20% or a decrease of the shaft resistance percentage from 70 to 60% would produce refusal conditions. Measured
compressive and tensile stresses are 6.45 and 5 ksi (45 and 35 MPa), respectively, which compare well with the calculated values at the 160 kip (712 kN)
resistance level.

Please note that the general recommendation for damping and quake factors is a doubling of those used for impact driven piles combined with the assumption of
Smith viscous damping. In the present case, this would have produced refusal at the indicated capacity. The reason is primarily a very high CAPWAP-calculated
shaft damping factor. Had twice the standard values been used (0.4 and 0.3 s/ft for shaft and toe or 1.3 and 1.0 s/m, respectively), the penetration speed
predication would have been close to refusal.

Example 18: Pile and Hammer Gravity Changes

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 18 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, differences may be noted. Please note that descriptions of
basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

This example shows how the user may input changes to the gravitational accelerations acting on the pile or hammer for static weight calculations. This example will detail how
changing these parameters will affect the analyses, and what situations these parameters can help model better.

18.1 Situation
Suppose, in the distant future, humans have made the planet Mars hospitable. Scientists and engineers have made the atmosphere breathable, created surface
water supplies for drinking and transportation, and are quickly making a thriving colony of the planet. With thriving settlements comes construction.

An entertainment facility will be built on the edge of a manmade lake. Four situations will be analyzed:

A vertical pile on land

A vertical pile on Mars
A batter pile on Mars
A batter pile offshore on Mars

The designer has selected a 24 inch square (610 mm) concrete pile to carry an ultimate load of 400 kips (1780 kN). All piles will be 40 feet long (12.2 m) and
driven to a penetration of 38 feet (11.6 m). Some piles will be driven on a 1:3 batter; in some cases, the final pile top elevations will be submerged in water up to
30 feet deep (9.14 m). A geotechnical study has estimated that the fine, wind-deposited sands will generate approximately 20% of the total capacity in shaft
resistance. At the final penetration, a hard, basalt rock is present. An IHC SC-60 hydraulic hammer will be used to drive these piles with 6 inches of Duracush as
a pile cushion.

18.2 Problem
Determine the required blow count and stress maxima for various capacities, including the planned ultimate load, for the three situations analyzed.

18.3 Approach
For Case A, set up a bearing graph analysis for a normally driven concrete pile with the parameters outlined above. For simplicity, we have assumed that future
properties of concrete are similar to those made today. See example file [Link] or [Link]

For Case B, transport that scenario to Mars, where the gravity is 37.7% that of Earth's. To change the gravity, select Options/General Options/Numeric and enter
12.1 ft/s2 (3.70 m/s2) for both the Hammer and Pile gravity. See example file [Link] or [Link]

For Case C, analyze the case of a 1:3 batter. In this case, the pile and hammer will be inclined 18.43 degrees from the vertical. GRLWEAP calculates the axial
forces. Gravity acts vertically, and thus has components that act along the axis of the pile and perpendicular to the axis of the pile. The gravity component that
acts perpendicular to the pile's axis is ignored by GRLWEAP, but could be used to check static bending stresses if required. To be complete, however, the axial
component of gravity could be considered in the batter pile analysis. In this case, the full value of gravity is reduced, such that:

With the given angle, , of 18.43 degrees and a g of 12.1 ft/s2 (3.70 m/s2), the axial gravity component is 11.48 ft/ s2 (3.51 m/s2). This value would then be
entered for both the batter hammer and the pile gravity. See example file [Link] or [Link]

For Case D, we analyze a situation in which the entire pile will be underwater at its final elevation. This pile too will be installed on a 1:3 batter, so the gravity
values outlined above will be used as a starting point. To calculate the effects of underwater pile driving, remember what these variable gravities are designed for:
a more detailed static calculation prior to modeling pile driving. If the pile is submerged, then the pile's buoyancy should be considered in the static calculation.
For a concrete pile of mass density ?c and total volume Vc submerged in water of density ?w the "effective weight", i.e. total pile weight minus buoyant forces, can
be described by:

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 18 of 24

where Vsubm is the submerged volume. For a fully submerged pile, Vc and Vsub are equal. To calculate the pile's "effective" gravity, g', for entry into GRLWEAP,
the following would apply:

or

Thus, for the fully submerged pile on a 1:3 batter driven on Mars, the pile gravity entered into GRLWEAP would be 6.70 ft/s2 (2.04 m/s2). See example file 18d-
[Link] or [Link].

18.4 Additional Considerations

Because the IHC SC-60 monitors internal ram velocity, a friction loss and stroke reduction as outlined in the "Table of Efficiency Reductions for Battered Pile
Driving" is not needed.

Example 19: Static Soil Analysis

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis is contained in the Example 19 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, differences may be noted. Please note that descriptions of
basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

This program uses soil type and N-values to roughly estimate the unit shaft resistance, end bearing, and soil parameters for a soil profile. As noted in the program, this tool
should only be used by engineers who are familiar with static pile analyses and their limitations. Because of the limited tests performed on this program, we recommend
comparing its results to at least one other static analysis method. Engineering judgment and experience should then be used to achieve the best solution. This example will
detail how to enter one soil profile into the program for driveability purposes. Users unfamiliar with driveability analyses should first review Example 11.

19.1 Situation
A 98 ft (29.9 m) long prestressed, precast concrete pile will be driven. The pile has a 24 x 24 inch (610 x 610 mm) square cross section. Assume a specific weight
of 150 pcf (23.6 kN/m^3) and an elastic modulus of 5000 ksi (34,500 MPa) for the concrete. Assume 5 ksi (34.5 MPa) concrete with a nominal prestress of 0.7 ksi
(4.8 MPa).

A Vulcan 020 will drive these piles. Assume a hammer cushion of MC-904(P) blue nylon, 6 inches (150 mm) thick, with default dimensions and the default helmet
for a 30 inch (760 mm) concrete pile or less. The default dimension can be obtained by pressing F3 and selecting the Cushion Material Properties. The pile will
be cushioned on its first run with 9 inches (230 mm) of plywood.

A soil boring shows the following:

Layer Layer Soil Type Modeled Soil Model N Value

Bottom Thickness

Depth (ft) (ft)

10 10 Gray Sand Medium Well Graded Sand 14

20 10 Gray Clayey Sand Clay 8

29 9 Gray Clayey Sand Clay 5

39 10 Gray Clayey Sand (shells) Clay 4

49 10 Gray Clayey Sand (shells) Clay 2

59 10 Gray Sandy Clay Clay 7

65 6 Gray Clay Clay 10

75 10 Gray Sand (Compact) Fine Well Graded Sand 16

85 10 Gray Clayey Sand (shells) Clay 12

90 5 Gray Clayey Sand (Shells) Clay 16

92 2 Gray Clayey Sand (Dense) Clay 33

99 7 Clayey Sand/Soft Lime Rock Clay 33

In the example file, the above profile can be found via going to View/Resistance Distr., Pile 1 Input Form, or clicking , and then going to View/Static
Analysis Input Form or clicking . The screen that appears will show the above soil layers and N-values. The water table was not noted on the boring; as such
it was assumed to be at some depth below the boring termination (set to a value greater than the pile length of 98 ft).

Initially, the default values for soil parameters were used in the SA analysis. Shaft quake is set at 0.10 inches (2.5 mm); toe quake is set at D/120 [0.226 inches
(5.74 mm) for a toe area of 576 square inches (3721 square cm)]. Toe damping is set at the default value of 0.15 s/ft (0.5 s/m). Shaft damping is set at 0.05 s/ft
(0.16 s/m) for sands and 0.20 s/ft (0.65 s/m) for clays. The set-up factor is set at 1.2 for sands and 2.0 for clays. Relative energy and set-up time can also be set;
however, because this pile will not be spliced or stopped during driving, these parameters will not be used.

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 19 of 24

The Resistance Gain/Loss Factors (G/L) on the shaft should be set to the inverse of the highest set-up factor, i.e. 1/2.0 or 0.5 in this case. An additional
analysis with a G/L on the shaft of 1.0 should also be run for long-term capacity estimates. The G/L on the toe should be 1.0 for both cases.

The Depths, Modifiers Input Form should be set such that the depths analyzed form a representative sample of pile penetrations from 1 to 91 ft (0.3 to 27.7 m).
Driving ceased at 91 feet (27.7 m).

19.2 Analysis and Discussion

The problem is laid out as above. After running the example, check the results during shallow penetrations for high tensile stresses, i.e. stresses greater than the
prestress level. For other times, compressive stresses should be reviewed to limit the stresses to less than 0.85*f'c - prestress. If stresses are too high, halve the
hammer stroke or increase the plywood cushion thickness. Check the blow count at end of drive (G/L of 0.5/1.0) and the capacity estimate over the long term
(G/L of 1.0/1.0).

In the real case at full stroke, the observed blow count at a penetration of 91 ft (27.7 m) was 50 bl/ft (164 bl/m). The static load test, performed some time after
installation, showed a Davisson failure load of 950 kips (4225 kN). In this case, the GRLWEAP static soil analysis under-predicts long term capacity by
approximately 13%.

Example 20: Steel Follower on Concrete Pile

The echo prints of the input data and numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis are contained in the Example 20 output files both for English and SI Units. Please note
that descriptions of basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

20.1 Situation
Suppose a pile must be driven some distance below water. In that case, it would be impossible or unwise to drive the driving system below water or make the pile
so long that it would extend above water only to cut it off later below the water surface. In this case, a follower is often built and set on the pile for pile installation.

In the example below, it is assumed that the 20 m long pile has to be driven to a depth of 19.5m below grade. It is assumed that a 5m long follower, equal in
length to the water depth, is needed.

20.2 Follower Design

It is normally recommended that follower impedance is close to the pile impedance. Let us assume that the pile is a 610 mm square and that it has a length of 20
m. The follower is 5 m long. A plywood pile cushion of 150 mm thickness should protect the pile top. The pile impedance is roughly as follows:

Ec - concrete modulus
Ac - concrete cross sectional area
Cc - wave speed in concrete

The follower will be made of steel and its cross sectional area should therefore be approximately:

Cs - wave speed in steel

Es - steel modulus

If a pipe were chosen of 500 mm outside diameter then its wall thickness should be approximately:

It would therefore be acceptable to have a wall thickness between 33 and 130 mm. A 65 mm pipe wall thickness would be ideal; however, that is probably difficult
to get. Instead, we may try 38 mm wall thickness for an area of 0.055 square meters.

It is recommended to use 610x610 mm plates at top and bottom of the follower that are at least 50 mm thick. All welding must be done in consideration of the
large number of tension and compression stress cycles that may result and subsequently produce a fatigue problem.

The non-uniform pile input, select Non Uniform Pile from the Pile Type drop-down menu and click , would then be as follows:

Depth (from pile top) X-Area E. Modulus. Spec. Wt. Perimeter Strength

m cm2 MPa kN/m3 m MPa

0.00 3,721 210,000 77 2.44 350

0.05 3,721 210,000

0.05 550 210,000 1.92

4.80 550 210,000

4.80 3,721 210,000 2.44

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 20 of 24

4.85 3,721 210,000

4.85 3,721 210 6

5.00 3,721 210

5.00 3,721 40,000 24 10

25.00 3,721 40,000

Note that strength values were entered in the above table to assure that meaningful critical stresses, in the concrete, rather than numerically highest values, in the
steel, are summarized in the output.

Finally, an unlimited slack must be input for the pile top segment. Select Options/Pile Parameters/Splices and enter 1 under Number of Splices. Click Update.
Enter 5.0 m for the distance, 99 mm for the "unlimited" tension slack, 0.5 for the coefficient of restitution of the plywood, and retain the default round-out value of
3.0 mm.

20.3 Additional Input

For completing the example, it may be assumed that the pile will be driven through sands with a shaft resistance percentage of 50. A triangular shaft resistance
distribution is satisfactory. The hammer selected is the BSP HH9 (ID No. 385) hydraulic hammer, with a ram weight of 88 KN and a rated energy of 106 kJ based
on a rated equivalent stroke of 1.2 m. This hammer should be equipped with a device that measures its impact velocity and therefore kinetic energy. In that case,
it may be analyzed with an efficiency of 0.95. If the hammer is not self-monitored, an efficiency of 0.8 would be more appropriate. The helmet and hammer
cushion properties were taken from the manufacturers recommendations for the 600 mm helmet and Klinger cushioning material.

20.4 Discussion of Results

The example was run as a driveability analysis; the user is encouraged to check the input and output and, in particular, the calculated stresses. The numerical
output (.GWO) of the example gives the details of the performed analysis. Even though the strength values entered in the pile profile usually assure that the
summary shows the critical stresses, it is recommended to check the extrema pages for maxima in the individual components of the system, i.e. follower, cushion,
pile.

Note: the analysis has been performed with new cushion material properties for the plywood separating follower from pile. It is recommended to repeat the
analysis for final installation criteria that uses a plywood modulus of 517 MPa (75 ksi). This analysis, however, would not be applicable for early driving conditions.

Example 21: Using Soil Type-Based Soil Analysis (ST) and Variable Pile Cushion Stiffness
The echo prints of the input data and numerical output from the Wave Equation Analysis are contained in the Example 21A-D output files both for English and SI Units. Please
note that descriptions of basic input features of GRLWEAP have been included in earlier examples and may not be repeated here.

21.1 Background
A J&M 160 hydraulic impact hammer must drive a 24 inch (610 mm) square prestressed-precast concrete pile through a soil profile consisting of three different
layers to a required ultimate capacity of 630 kips (2802 kN). The design load is 280 kips (1246 kN) and the applicable factor of safety is 2.25, which is admissible
since dynamic measurements will be used to check the bearing capacity. The soil profile was described as follows:

Medium dense sand to a depth of 10 ft (3.05 m)

Stiff clay to a depth of 42 ft (12.8 m)
Medium dense sand to a depth of 60 ft (18.3 m)
The water table was encountered at a depth of 5 ft (11.5 m)

Find an appropriate combination of pile cushion thickness and hammer stroke assuming that new cushion properties apply for early driving and used cushion
properties for late driving. The pile cushion thickness must be such that the maximum allowable dynamic stresses in the concrete are not exceeded during the
pile installation. The concrete has a strength of 6.0 ksi (41.4 MPa) and an effective prestress of 0.70 ksi (4.8 MPa); thus, the maximum allowable compressive
stress is approximately 4.4 ksi (30.3 MPa) and the maximum allowable tensile stress is 0.93 ksi (6.4 MPa), see (Help/Tables/Allowable Pile Driving Stress).

Prepare bearing graphs for early driving and for late driving for pile penetrations of 12 ft (3.6 m) and 48 ft (14.6 m), respectively. This final depth assumes that it
would be necessary to drive the pile into the bearing layer to a depth three times the pile width. Also, perform a driveability analysis and compare the output with
that of the bearing graph.

21.2 Input
In order to demonstrate how ST works and what results it generates, Problem 21 was derived from a case study and reanalyzed using the simple static analysis
option, by entering site and layer properties in the Soil Profile Input screen while executing the input wizard or by selecting from the main input screen toolbar.

The data input consists of the Job Information, Select Hammer, Analysis Type, Pile Input, Hammer Cushion, Soil Profile Input, Soil Parameter Input, and Ultimate
Capacity screens. Within the Select Hammer screen, enter 1023 in the ID text box or scroll through the list of hammers and select the J&M 160 HIH. Within the
Analysis Type screen, select the Proportional Shaft Resistance option under the Bearing Graph heading. Within the Pile Input screen, select concrete for the pile
material and enter a length of 50.0 ft (15.2 m), a penetration of 12.0 ft (3.6 m), and the section propertiesA for a 24 inch (610 mm) square pile. Under the pile
cushion heading on the same screen, enter an area of 576 square inches (37.2 square cm) and the recommended material propertiesA for new plywood (E=30
ksi or 207 MPa). For the first trial analysis, enter 3.0 inches (76 mm) for pile cushion thickness. Within the Hammer Cushion screen, enter an area of 490 square
inches (3161 square cm), an elastic modulus of 530 ksi (3654 MPa), a thickness of 5.0 inches (127 mm), a coefficient of restitution of 0.8, and a helmet weight of
2.0 kips (8.9 kN).

Within the Soil Profile Input screen, select 3 for the number of layers and enter a final depth of 60.0 ft (18.3 m), a water table depth of 5.0 ft, and an effective
overburden at grade of 0.0 ksf. Under the layer properties heading on the same screen, select layer 1 and enter a layer bottom depth of 10.0 ft (3.05 m) and
select a medium granular soil. Select layer 2 and enter a layer bottom depth of 42.0 ft (12.8 m) and select a medium dense cohesive soil. Finally, select layer 3
and enter a layer bottom depth of 60.0 ft and select a medium granular soil.

Note:

If the user adjusts values pertaining to the soil type or the pile type, cross sectional area, or toe area after exiting the initial program input, the user must
re-enter the Soil Profile Input screen via selecting on the toolbar, or selecting View/Simple Static Analysis Input, in order for the program to update

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 21 of 24

the ST-calculated parameters.

Within the Soil Parameter Input screen, retain all of the default inputs. The ST will compute and assign reasonable soil parameters in the absence of
more exact values. Within the Ultimate Capacity screen, enter values ranging from 50 to 800 kips (222 to 3560 kN) including the given ultimate capacity
of 630 kips (2800 kN).

21.3 Analysis
As previously discussed, the ST computes and assigns the input soil parameters which include the quakes, damping, and shaft resistance percentage and
distribution. After completing the initial program input, the program will updateB these parameters in the main input screen. The program inputs a recommended
shaft quake of 0.1 inches (2.54 mm) for all analyses but recalculates the toe quake based on the input soil type and pile toe area and the shaft and toe damping
based on the input soil type. Computation of the shaft resistance varies depending on soil type.

Based on the aforementioned soil property input, ST-calculated quake, damping, and shaft resistance values for early driving to a depth of 12 ft (3.7 m) as
follows:

0.10 inches (2.5 mm) shaft quakes

0.40 inches (10 mm) toe quakes
0.13 s/ft (0.43 s/m) shaft damping
0.15 s/ft (0.50 s/m) toe damping
31 % shaft resistance

These values were recomputed by ST for late driving to a depth of 48 ft (14.6 m) as follows:

0.10 inches (2.5 mm) shaft quakes

0.40 inches (10 mm) toe quakes
0.17 s/ft (0.55 s/m) shaft damping
0.15 s/ft (0.50 s/m) toe damping
37 % shaft resistance

The user should review the ST-calculated values and perform comparison analyses using other methods to avoid serious errors. Selection of the soil type, pile
type, pile cross sectional area, pile perimeter, and pile toe area may all have a large impact on the analysis and warrant particular consideration.

21.4 Output
After analyzing the easy driving case and reviewing the numerical output, it is clear that the tension stresses are too high. A secondary analysis corrects this
problem by increasing the pile cushion thickness to 4.5 inches (115 mm) and reducing the hammer stroke to 3 ft (0.9 m). Results of the aforementioned analyses
have been plotted together and shown below, where Cases A and B present easy driving and Case C presents hard driving.

Bearing Graph Figures: Cases A through C

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 22 of 24

21.5 Discussion of Results

Case A presents the early driving scenario with an assumed new, 3 inch (76 mm) thick pile cushion and a 4 ft (1.2 m) stroke at a pile penetration of 12 ft (3.66 m)
or 2 ft (0.61 m) into the soft clay layer. For shallow penetrations, tensile stresses in concrete piles tend to be high and require either a stroke reduction or pile
cushion thickness increase. In the present case, a 50% increase in pile cushion thickness and a 25% reduction to the stroke proves sufficient and was the input
for Case B, after Case A suggested a tension stress in excess of the allowable value at the lower capacities analyzed.

Case C presents the late driving scenario and thus assumes used cushion properties (E=75 ksi or 510 MPa) and full pile penetration, of 48 ft (14.6 m) or 6 ft (1.8
m) into the medium dense sand layer. Retain the thicker 4.5 inch (114 mm) pile cushion from Case B, but change the modulus of elasticity to reflect compression
of the plywood due to driving. It can be seen that by retaining the reduced stroke of 3 ft (0.9 m) and the 4.5 inch cushion with elastic modulus of 75 ksi (510 MPa),
compressive stresses are maintained below the limiting value of 4.4 ksi (30.3 MPa). Clearly though, if the capacities were low during late driving of the
compressed cushion, tension stresses could be excessive.

Though the output blow counts for both of the discussed scenarios were within the acceptable range, the user should expect and be wary of the higher blow
counts produced during hard or late driving. Excessive blow counts at end of drive and at the corresponding higher capacities could lead to pile damage due to
cushion deterioration and fatigue.

21.6 Driveability Analysis (DA)

While examples 21A through C explored the driving stresses and blow counts at early and late depth, example 21D employs the Driveability AnalysisB to answer
'How safe is driving at intermediate depths?' In place of performing multiple Bearing Graph analyses for each set of pile depth and driving system assumptions,
the Depth and Driving System Modifiers Input Form of the DA allows for a single study of the complete driving sequence.

Within the main input screen, enter a stroke of 4.0 ft (1.2 m), under the hammer parameters heading, and enter a pile cushion elastic modulus of 30 ksi (207 MPa)
and thickness of 4.5 inches (114 mm), under the pile cushion information heading.

Next, select Driveability from the Analysis Option drop-down box and select D from the toolbar, or View/Depths, Modifiers Input Form. Within the selected screen,
enter a depth increment of 2 ft (0.6 m) under the general information heading and select Reset and the auto generate option. The program will retain the pile
length of 50 ft (15.2 m) and update the form with depth inputs. Select the final depth of 48 ft (14.6 m). Note that the depth increment of 2 ft (0.6 m) is appropriately
large enough to reduce inconsistencies at soil layer interfaces and small enough to allow for accurate linear interpolation.

In addition to the analysis depth, modifiers exist for the temporary length of the pile, the wait time between driving, the stroke and efficiency of the driving system,
and the stiffness factor and coefficient of restitution of the pile cushion. It may be necessary to perform several trial analyses in order to arrive at a satisfactory
cushion and stroke combination. In the present example, strokes were maintained below 2.5 ft (0.8 m) at depths above the bearing layer to limit the tension
stresses. Pile cushion modulus should vary from 30 ksi (207 MPa) at the initial depth to 75 ksi (517 MPa) at the final depth, corresponding to stiffness modifiers
between 1 and 2.5, respectively. The completed Depths, Modifiers table is shown below.

Depths, Modifiers Input Form: D1

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 23 of 24

A reduced stroke may be safer for easy driving near the beginning of installation, while a larger stroke may better model late driving. For this reason, stroke
values between 2 and 4 ft (0.6 and 1.2 m) were entered in the Depths, Modifiers table with higher values selected for deeper penetrations.

The driveability analysis should also be done with consideration for loss of resistance during drivingC. ST has the suggested setup factors of 1.2 and 2.0 for sand
and clay layers, respectively (see the S1 table below). Thus, the gain/loss factor (G/L) for full loss of capacity would be 0.5, and the G/L for the full recommended
setup as encountered during a restrike with sufficiently long wait would be 1.0.

Resistance Distribution Input Form: S1

The resulting driveability plot is shown below. It indicates tension stresses below the limit of 0.93 ksi (6.4 MPa) as well as safe compression. Also, the maximum
blow count is within the often recommended limits of 24 to 120 bl/ft (20 to 100 bl/0.25 m).

Driveability Figure: Case D

[Link] 1/15/2026
GRLWEAP Standard Examples Page 24 of 24

A. Section and material properties as determined by GRLWEAP may be obtained by placing the cursor in the related text box and using the F3 key.

B. If the user adjusts values pertaining to the soil type or the pile type, cross sectional area, or toe area after exiting the initial program input, the user must re-enter the Soil
Profile Input screen via selecting the icon, or selecting View/Simple Static Analysis Input, in order for the program to update the ST parameters.

C. Refer to Example 11 for a more thorough discussion of the GRLWEAP Driveability Analysis.

[Link] 1/15/2026