The 06 hammer is basically a #1 hammer with a 6,500 lb. ram. It uses the same leaders and driving accessories. An 06 at the Chattanooga facility is above, general arrangements of the hammer are below. Specifications for the Vulcan 06 are below. In the late 1970's Vulcan made an important … Continue reading Vulcan 06 Hammer: Specifications and Information
In 1967 Vulcan opened a fabricating facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. Across the street from our new plant was “U and Me Transfer and Storage,” (see photo above) which we hired to move a lot of our machinery. We sent one of our supervisors to Florida to help set the shop up. The shop … Continue reading What We Need is a Light Trailer
This paper–which is part of the STADYN project–was presented at the IFCEE 2018 conference in Orlando, FL, 7 March 2018. The slide presentation for the paper is below.
The completely revised TAMWAVE program is now available. The goal of this project is to produce a free, online set of routines which analyse driven piles for axial and lateral load-deflection characteristics and drivability by the wave equation. The program is not intended for commercial use but for educational purposes, to introduce students to both the wave equation and methods for estimating load-deflection characteristics of piles in both axial and lateral loading.
We have a series of posts which detail the theory behind and workings of the program:
- TAMWAVE: Pile Toe Resistance, and Some More on Pile Shaft Resistance
- TAMWAVE 1: Entering Basic Soil and Pile Properties
- TAMWAVE 2: Modifying the Soil Properties
- TAMWAVE 3: Basic Results of Pile Capacity Analysis
- TAMWAVE 4: Shaft Resistance Profile, ALP and CLM2
- TAMWAVE 5: Wave Equation Analysis, Overview and Initial Entry
- TAMWAVE 6: Results of Wave Equation Analysis
- TAMWAVE 7: Analysis for a…
View original post 25 more words
With the analysis of the concrete pile in cohesionless soils complete, we turn to an example in cohesive soils.
The analysis procedure is exactly the same. We will first discuss the differences between the two, then consider an example.
Differences with Piles in Cohesive Soils
- The unit weight is in put as a saturated unit weight, and the specific gravity of the soil particles is different (but not by much.)
- Once the simulated CPT data was abandoned, the “traditional” Tomlinson formula for the unit toe resistance, namely $latex q_t = N_c c $, where $latex N_c = 9 $, was chosen.
- The ultimate resistance along the shaft is done using the formula of Kolk and van der Velde (1996). This was used as a beta method, for compatibility with the method used for cohesionless soils. Unless the ratio of the cohesion to the effective stress is constant, the…
View original post 3,746 more words
With the data entered for the wave equation analysis, we can now see the results. There’s a lot of tabular data here but you need to read the notes between it to understand what the program is putting out. If you are not familiar at all with the wave equation for piles, you need to review this as well.
|Time Step, msec||0.04024|
|Pile Weight, lbs.||15,000|
|Pile Stiffness, lb/ft||600,000|
|Pile Impedance, lb-sec/ft||57,937.5|
|Pile Toe Element Number||102|
|Length of Pile Segments, ft.||1|
|Hammer Manufacturer and Size||VULCAN O16|
|Hammer Rated Striking Energy, ft-lbs||48750|
|Hammer Efficiency, percent||67|
|Length of Hammer Cushion Stack, in.||16.5|
|Soil Resistance to Driving (SRD) for detailed results only, kips||572.7|
|Percent at Toe||35.39|
|Toe Quake, in.||0.220|
|Toe Damping, sec/ft||0.07|
For those familiar with the…
View original post 2,482 more words
With the static analysis complete, we turn to the wave equation analysis. TAMWAVE (as with the previous version) was based indirectly on the TTI wave equation program. Although the numerical method was not changed, many other aspects of the program were, and so we need to consider these.
Shaft and Toe Resistance
Most wave equation programs in commercial use still use the Smith model for shaft and toe resistance during impact. Referencing specifically their use in inverse methods, Randolph (2003) makes the following comment:
Dynamic pile tests are arguably the most cost-effective of all pile-testing methods, although they rely on relatively sophisticated numerical modelling for back-analysis. Theoretical advances in modelling the dynamic pile-soil interaction have been available since the mid-1980s, but have been slow to be implemented by commercial codes, most of which still use the empirical parameters of the Smith (1960) model. In order to allow an appropriate…
View original post 1,087 more words
With the basic parameters established, we can turn to the static analysis of the pile, both axial and lateral.
Shaft Resistance Profile
|Depth at Centre of Layer, feet||Soil Shear Modulus, ksf||Beta||Quake,inches||Maximum Load Transfer, ksf||Spring Constant for Wall Shear, ksf/in||Smith-Type Damping Constant, sec/ft||Maximum Load Transfer During Driving (SRD), ksf|
View original post 1,756 more words
With the soil properties and lateral loads finalised, we can proceed to look at the program’s static results. These are shown below. We will concentrate on cohesionless soils in this post; a sample case with cohesive results will come later.
|Pile Designation||12 In. Square|
|Penetration of Pile into the Soil, ft.||100|
|Basic “diameter” or size of the pile, ft.||1|
|Cross-sectional Area of the Pile, ft2||1.000|
|Pile Toe Area, ft2||1.000|
|Perimeter of the Pile, ft.||4.000|
|Type of Soil||SW|
|Specific Gravity of Solids||2.65|
|Dry Unit Weight, pcf||109.5|
|Saturated Unit Weight, pcf||130.5|
|Soil Internal Friction Angle phi, degrees||32|
|Cohesion c, psf|
|SPT N60, blows/foot||20|
|CPT qc, psf||211,600|
|Distance of Water Table from Soil Surface, ft.||50|
|Penetration of Pile into Water Table, ft.||50|
View original post 1,894 more words
With the first step out of the way, we can proceed to the second: allowing the user to modify the properties of the soil. This option must be used with care since it is easily possible to put together a set of soil properties that is physically unrealistic if not impossible.
Also, if you have chosen a sand or clay, you have chosen the methodology you will use. Adding cohesion to a sand or gravel, for example, will have no effect on the subsequent performance of the model.
Finally, depending upon the choice of a free or fixed head, you are given the option of entering lateral loads and/or moments for the pile head. In this case we have opted to add a lateral load of 10 kips to the pile and no moment. The default is zero for both load and moment; this will produce some coefficients but…
View original post 5 more words