Observations on Using the Energy Obtained from Stress-wave Measurements in the Hiley Formula

W K FUNG MSc PhD CEng FlStructE FHKIE

Architectural Services Department, The Government of HKSAR Email:fungwk@archsd.gov.hk

M K WONG MSc CEng M|StructE MHKIE

Architectural Sen/ices Department, The Government of HKSAR Email: wongmk@archsd.gov.hk

C T WONG MSc CEng MICE MlStructE MHKIE

Architectural Services Department, The Government of HKSAR Email: wongct@archsd.gov.hk

The use of energy obtained from stress-wave measurements in the Hiley Formula to assess load carrying capacity of steel H-piles is discussed. It has been tried out on 566 piles and the predicted results are compared with those obtained by CAPWAP analysis and actual static load tests. The results show that the Modified Hiley Formula tends to overestimate the ultimate pile capacity by varying degrees. Keywords: Davissons Failure Criterion, Stress-wave Analysis, Pile Driving Analyser (PDA), CAPWAP Analysis, Modified Hiley Formula, Hydraulic Hammer, EMX

Introduction
Generally speaking, there are two approaches to the assessment of pile capacity, viz the pile driving or dynamic formulae and the stress-wave (wave equation) analysis. Different pile driving formulae have been developed in the past of which the Hiley Formula is most widely used in Hong Kong. Fung et al (2004) discussed the application of CAPWAP analysis (stress-wave method) for driven piles in Hong Kong, and the use of the Hiley Formula (with a proposed method for the assessment of parameters) as a handy means to predict the bearing capacity of piles. There are some other researchers who have proposed a Modified Hiley Formula by adopting the energy measured by PDA method (stress-wave method). Against this background, this paper wil discuss the predictions of this Modified Hiley Formula in comparison with static load test results for 15 Grade 55C steel H-piles. It will also discuss the results of the correlation studies of pile capacities predicted by CAPWAP and the Modified Hiley Formula for 566 Grade 55C steel H-piles driven by hydraulic hammers at 20 different sites. I-'m'i:e

4 i-1., A

Work
_ F _ I

I___ __ Set

I Tr:n1poi'ary (oii1|1re:as|i'iii

l)1's.plac+:n1i:nt

The Energy Approach and the Modified Hiley Formula

The traditional Hiley Formula assumes that the force/displacement relationship is elasto-plastic (see Fig l). It uses an energy approach and assumes that the energy left after impact by a hammer equals to the work done by the pile resistance and losses of the pile-soil system. In order to estimate the energy left after impact, the Newton's law of impact and some other assumptions are used. While acknowledging the drawbacks in the over-simplification of the driving process, it is generally recognised that the formula is practical and easy to use. Instead of using the energy calculated by the traditional Hiley Formula, Broms 8 Lim (1988) suggested a Modified Hiley Formula (Eq 1) by using the energy measured at the pile head by PDA method.
R _

Figure 1 Assumed Force vs Displacement at the Top of the Pile

where

R EMX

driving resistance the maximum energy transmitted past the transducers attached at the pile head, calculated by PDA using the measured strain and acceleration. set per blow temporary compression of pile and soil

s Cp + Cq

in general, the energy E imparted to the pile during the driving process can be obtained by using the measured strain and acceleration at the pile head position. The energy is:

EMX

1 s+C+C

Eql

E = ftF(t)V(t)dt

Eq 2

2<,,

Q)
where F(t) and V(t) are the measured force and velocity at the pile head pod on.

TRANSACTIONS ~ Volume 12 Number 4

EMX is, however, the maximum energy obtained with t at the instant when V changes from positive to negative, ie at zero velocity (the pile head displacement is also at a maximum value at this instant) (see Fig 2). This is the maximum energy imparted onto the pile during the whole driving process. Thereafter, the stress waves with the imparted energy continue to pass along the body of the pile, hammer and soil system. Broms Et Lim (1988) considered that after V = 0, energy is returned to the hammer until the hammer separates from the pile. Paikowsky 8 Chernauskas (1992) discussed an approach similar to Equation 1, and appropriately pointed out that the equation considers only the elasto-plastic energy losses of the pile-soil system, ie it only accounts for energy losses due to elastic deformation in the pile and the soil as well as plastic deformation in the soil. As no account is made for the energy losses due to the dynamic action (eg radiation, soil inertia, true damping etc), the Energy Approach analysis prediction values may be regarded as the maximum possible resistance. In order to account for all dynamic related energy losses, Pa'kowsky 8 Chernauskas (1992) proposed that a correction factor of 0.8 be used to reduce the capacity obtained by Eq 1. 'F79000l
\/(Lp)""'

10005

QDUU CAF'WF.PJ'SL|L=D.9 ; -O 4' -

BUCG

TEILG
a-\-

i
G.- [IUD

%
l

'-v-' I

_"+:I'-E
1 l

nu-

SUGG V

i Tus it'll Luao How s

..-. L.

C-L-PWAP r SLT if-51.1

BUG

Sn:
-

30013 '|

2000
1DUG1

'

'

'

0-

'lEC~'J

EIIILI

.:-EIEIIII

~1L'lCi\I}

55%

E-EIULI

'r'lIll.'IEl

BUGS

QC-1'30

lEl'}CID

lH.'IElEI

Cl-l PWAF Prediction il -ll

f
1
I

A12 F12|

,
1

Fm
V

Figure 3 Comparison of CAPWAP Predictions with Static Load Test Results 1 The Davisson Failure Load Was Not Reached

' wt)

0000

* -

.
'E'Z3oo.o) o (120)-

\
; _;:;__:7t

\/

~ T

&$DU Q
5511]] ll. ._ _. ._. .

O
_.

(time)
"

--l

DOD

{flu-dilrerl HllI'j'|'5l1lT = 0.9

sltlit H

-zsuu

.
i

1,

= it

anon.

Energy (t)
_--Q--Q--op-Q->--_-s --_-

Test adFleau

ti

--------

cLo mu I = S-1
;;-gnu E Z --_ .-

5
_.

l
_.

'
I

,/
TB: 0.0 Q

: /-i

Displacement (t)

EMX

it-on

=
!' '

.
1'I
' .

\\

L'IEIU

ELIEIG

JUGS

6000

$01110

-E000

THUG

l:1ElEI'I-

".l'f.".'J[l

100'?-D

1 If.-CIIII

Modified Hiley Predlclio t {rm}

Figure 4 - Comparison of Modified Hiley Predictions with Static Load Test Results T The Davisson Failure Load Was Not Reached two methods were compared with the failure loads of static load tests and the results are shown in Fig 3 and Fig 4 respectively (see Appendix A for test pile data). From the static load test results of the 15 piles, it is found that the CAPWAP analysis can predict the Davisson failure load fairly accurately and with reasonable confidence (most of the CAPWAP/SLT ratios lie between 0.9 and 1.1). By comparison, the Modified Hiley Formula (ie using measured energy by PDA method) tends to overestimate the ultimate pile capacity.

Figure 2 The Variations of Force, Velocity, Energy and Displacement with Time at Pile Head Level

Comparison of Pile Capacities Predicted by the Modified Hiley Formula with Static Load Test
The objective of this study is to compare the predictions of the Modified Hiley Formula with those obtained from static load tests. The stress-wave analysis (CAPWAP analysis on restrike data) was also used to predict the pile capacities for comparison. Some of the results have been discussed in Fung et al (2004). Fifteen steel H-piles from seven sites were static load tested to failure. The failure criterion proposed by Davisson (1972) was used to define the failure load of a static load test. However, in order not to overstress or permanently damage the steel material of the piles, they were loaded to Davissons failure load or about 85% of the yield strength of the steel, whichever was less. Among the 15 piles tested, 11 were loaded to Davissons failure load whereas the other 4 reached about 85% of the yield strength of the steel before the Davissons failure load could be identified on the load settlement curve. The capacities predicted by the

Comparison of Pile Capacities Predicted by the Modified Hiley Formula with those by CAPWAP Analysis
In addition to the studies of Modified Hiley versus static load test, further studies were carried out by comparing the pile capacities predicted by the Modified Hiley Formula with those obtained by CAPWAP Analysis. Here, the sample consists of a batch of 566 steel Hpiles of three different sizes ie 305 x 305 x 223 kg/m, 305 x 305 x 180 kg/m and 305 x 305 x 149 kg/m. They were driven by hydraulic hammers at 20 The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

.,

Totalno.oIPlles=5EE
Mmzm?
5|-1ncl:lrdClv:v|:lli'on=ll.1-I-1
Cuaf iient ol"U'ar].a1!io|'| = 07121

PROJECT

NP
mes

Embedded . Length
(I11)

Averede

Average

Pile

Drlvmo
Stress
(MP8)

Max . .

Modified Hiley Capacity

CAPWAP Capacity Mean Standard
DBVi3li0l1

Coefficient of
Variation

2'1

20

Project in Shatin2 Schools in Tung Chung2 Science Park Building 52 Science

Park

30

29.8

359

0.99

0.059

0.060

1 .-_ :

- ~-U-

31

33.8

338

1.05

0.075

0.072

No.es olP

|
I III 3 I

l
:i 1 I

25.9

340

1.07

0.052

0.049

I' ilii l 1""l!

. I

l= it I

27

29.1

322

1.08

0.090

0.083

JJ___jr

I'I.-': |

I.

I.|

.||

'

I.

|. I:

II

ll

-'I

._.

--nevi

lJEi

055

[I5

0'55

-.05

'-l

11511

TIi-!.'-1'_'|l351-l1451515515155

Building 62 Science Park Building 92 Schools in Area 111, TSW2 Science Park Building 7 & 82 Wetland Park2 Schools at Fat Cheung St.2 Schoohin
FanHng2

Modified Hiley Capacity l CAPWAP Capacity

21

49.1

272

1.09

0.087

0.080

Figure 5 Comparison of Capacity Calculated by Modified Hiley Formula and CAPWAP Analysis

28

43.6

310

1.09

0.105

0.096

different sites. The ultimate capacities were calculated using the above Modified Hiley Formula with the EMX determined for every pile from PDA restrike test. The capacities so obtained were compared with CAPWAP predictions on restrike data (Linklns et al, 1996) and the results are summarised in Fig 5. For these 566 piles, the ratio of Modified Hiley Capacity/CAPWAP Capacity varies from 0.81 to 1.65, with a mean of 1.167. The standard deviation of 0.141 with the coefficient of variation of 0.121, is considered quite large. In addition to the global view presented in Fig 5, the study results, grouped by the 20 sites in which they were tested, are presented in Table 1 below. The results show that, the coefficient of variation of the ratio, varying from 0.049 to 0.119, is generally large. Furthermore, the variation of the mean among different sites, from 0.99 to 1.44, is also large. The results suggest that the Modified Hiley Formula tends to overestimate the ultimate pile capacity, and that the degree of overestimation would vary from one site to another.

30

27.9

327

1.12

0.107

0.095

44

49.7

295

1.13

0.067

0.059

28 39

45.1 29.1

267 356

1.14 1.14

0.084 0.105

0.074 0.092

Science
Park 15 32.8 338 1.15 0.072 0.063

Building 42 Schools in Kowloon Bay2 Schools in Tokwawan2 School in TKO (1)2 Schoolat Sze Mei St.2 Schools in TKO (2)2 Schools at Kai Yan St.2 18 29 33 29
44.6 50.8 52.8 39.5 283 293 314 299 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.20 0.095 0.112 0.101 0.130 0.082 0.097 0.086 0.108

Observations
(i) The Modified Hiley Formula (using measured energy by PDA method) tends to overestimate the ultimate pile capacity and the degree of overestimation would vary from one site to another. (ii) The results show that the coefficient of variation of the Modified Hiley Capacity/CAPWAP Capacity ratios is generally large.

30 24 30

51.2 39.9 44.3

275 276 287

1.22 1.23 1.25

0.083 0.087 0.097

0.068 0.071 0.078

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Broms, B.B. and Lim, P.C. A simple pile driving formula based on stress wave measurements, Proc. 3rd International Conference on Application of Stress-wave Theory to Piles, pp 591-600, (1988). Davisson, M. T., High Capacity Piles, Proceedings, Lecture Series, Innovations in Foundation Construction, SM 8 FD, ASCE, Illinois Section, Chicago (1972). Fung, W.K., Wong, C.T., and Wong, M.K. A study on capacity predictions for driven piles. Transactions, HKIE, Volume 11, Number 3, September 2004. Likins, G., Rausche, F., Thendean, G., and Svinkin M., CAPWAP Correlation Studies, Fifth International Conference on the Application of StressWave Theory to Piles, Orlando, FL, (1996). Paikowsky, S.G. 8 C1ernauskas, L.R. Energy approach for capacity evaluation of driven piles, Proc. Conf. On Application of Stress-wave Theory to Piles, Balkema, pp 595-601 (1992).

Schools at Lai Hong St.2 Schools in Area 104, TSWl School in C S W2 Total no. of Piles

31 40
566

40.2 51.6

300 264

1.30 1.44

0.154 0.092

0.119 0.064

Average

1.167

1 305 x 305 x 149 kg/m stee H-pHes 2 305 x 305 x 180 kg/m stee H-p es 3 305 x 305 x 223 kg/m stee H-pHes(dnven by drop hannnen

Table 1 Ratio of Modified Hiley Capacity / CAPWAP Capacity TRANSACTIONS . Volume 12 Number 4
21

Appendix A Test Pile Data

Project/Pile No Embedded Length (m)
28.7

6,, + Cq (mm)
39

Final Set/Blow (mm)

1.4

EMX (KN-m)
167

Static Load Test (Davisson failure load)

CAPWAP Capachy (KN)

5925 5727 5083 6010 7500 8663 7428 8126 7202 7700 8463 7424 7150 6216 7100

Modified Hiley Capachy (KN)

7986 7196 7209 6923 8727 9667 8295 7906 7338 8654 9300 10085 8064 8171 7621

School in TSW 104/SH1262 School in TSW 104/SH402 School in TSW 104/PH602 School in TSW 104/PH1452 Science Park B5/H432 Science Park B4/P1862 Science Park B7 & B8/P8002 Science Park B7 & B8/P5192 Science Park B6/WP2-P12 Science Park B5/H752 Science Park B6/B2-P12 Science Park 4/ P4102 Science Park B9/
P2563

36.5 48.5
51.1

49 59
63

2.0 0.6
1.0

191 217
225

21.3 24.0 26.5 29.2 27.6 31.1 31.0 32.5 45.5 47.5 49.0

37 42 46 44 48 43 49 48 52 53 55

5.7 2.1 0.7 1.3 3.5 2.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.1 1.0

211 223 197 184 202 208 233 248 215 234 217

School in Cheung Sha Wan/ P59 3 Science Park B9/

P2973

1 The Davisson Failure Load Was Not Reached 2 305 x 305 x149 kg/m steel H-pile 3 305 x 305 X180 kg/m steel H-pile

W K FUNG Ir W K Fung graduated from the Hong Kong Technical College in 1966. After working for Palmer and Turner for 4 years, he joined the Public Works Department and worked as Assistant Structural Engineer in the Buildings Ordinance Office. Since his transfer to the $2 Architectural Office in 1972, he has worked his way up to his present rank of Assistant Director (Structural Engineering) of the Architectural Services Department. Between 1997 and 2002 he served as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Concrete Technology. His main interests are foundations and material science. He completed his PhD programme on the use of recycled concrete in construction in 2005.
n I 4-11". '

C T WONG lr Wong Chi-tong is a Senior Structural Engineer of the Architectural Sen/ices Department. He graduated from the Hong Kong Polytechnic in 1976. Since i-.;- _ _-1-me then, he undertook civil and structural engineering training in Palmer and Turner and became a Chartered Engineer in 1980. lr Wong joined the Government in 1981 working in ASD responsible for the design and construction of various types of building structures. lr Wong has completed many school buildings, markets, offices, in-door game halls, swimming pool complexes and sport grounds. His main interests are foundations, structural steel and use of different construction materials.
I---J1

M K WONG lr M K Wong is a Structural Engineer of the Architectural Services Department. After graduating from the Hong Kong Polytechnic in 1985, he joined the Architectural Services Department and worked as Structural Engineering Graduate. He became a Chartered Engineer in 1989 and obtained a MSc degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Hong Kong in 1994. His main interests are dynamic pile testing and related research work.

I-Q--""'\

in L-air ,
._;_'

I,

I _

-_+:I . I l-

1-ll-A

The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers