See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336830366

STOCHASTIC MODELING OF DYNAMIC PILE CAPACITY USING HILEY, JANBU

AND GATES FORMULAE

Article · October 2019

CITATION READS

1 66

2 authors:

Joseph O. Afolayan David Akinyiwola Opeyemi

10 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   
Ondo State University of Science and Technology
18 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of corrosion problems in reinforced concrete structures View project

Reliability assessments and remaining life of pipelines subject to combined loadings using imprecise probabilities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Akinyiwola Opeyemi on 26 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Sciences and Multidisciplinary Research Volume 2, September 2010
© 2010 Cenresin Publications
www.cenresin.org
STOCHASTIC MODELING OF DYNAMIC PILE CAPACITY USING HILEY, JANBU AND
GATES FORMULAE

J.O. Afolayan and D. A. Opeyemi

Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria
E- mail: [email protected] or [email protected], and [email protected]

ABSTRACT
The reliability assessment of the load carrying capacities of piles based on dynamic approach
using Hiley, Janbu and Gates formulae is reported in this paper, this has become necessary
because pile capacities determined from dynamic formulae have shown poor correlations and
wide scatter when statistically compared with static load test results. In practice,
uncertainties are common phenomena in engineering, therefore all the interrelated variables
in the load carrying capacities of piles should be treated as random variables. Assuming
practical probability density functions, the concept of the First-Order Reliability Method
(FORM) as a powerful tool for estimating nominal probability level of failure associated with
uncertainties is therefore invoked for estimating the implied reliability levels associated with
the formulae of Hiley, Janbu and Gates. The results show that there is a good correlation
between the implied safety levels in Hiley and Janbu formulae, while those associated with
Gates are exceptionally different and grossly conservative.
Key words: Stochastic model, dynamic pile capacity, dynamic pile formulae.

List of symbols
A = Pile cross-sectional area
E = Modulus of Elasticity
eh = Hammer efficiency
Eh = Manufacturers’ hammer-energy rating
H = height of all of ram
K1 = elastic compression of capblock and pile cap and is a form of PuL/AE
K2 = elastic compression of pile and is of a form of PuL/AE
K3 = elastic compression of soil, also termed quake for wave-equation.
L = Pile length
N = Co-efficient of restitution
Pu = Ultimate pile capacity
S = amount of point penetration per blow.
Wp = Weight of pile including weight of pile, cap, driving
shoe, and capblock (also includes anvil for double-acting steam hammers)
Wr = Weight of ram (for double-acting hammers include weight of casing).

INTRODUCTION
Pile capacity determination is very difficult. A large number of different equations are used,
and seldom will any two give the same computed capacity. Organizations which have been
using a particular equation tend to stick to it especially when successful data base has been

47
Stochastic Modeling of Dynamic Pile Capacity Using J.O. Afolayan and D.A. Opeyemi
Hiley, Janbu and Gates Formulae

established. It is for this reason that a number of what are believed to be the most widely
used (or currently accepted) equations are included in most literature.

Also, the technical literature provide very little information on the structural aspects of pile
foundation design, which is a sharp contrast to the mountains of information on the
geotechnical aspects. Building codes present design criteria, but they often are inconsistent
with criteria for the super structure, and sometimes are incomplete or ambiguous. In many
ways this is an orphan topic that neither structural engineers nor geotechnical engineers
have claimed as their own (Coduto, 2001).

Dynamic measurements of force and velocity at the upper end of the pile during pile driving,
followed by a signal matching procedure, is the most common method for dynamic
determination of pile capacity. This method is a convenient tool in the pile driving industry.
However, though dynamic methods have been used in practice for years, actual reliability of
dynamic methods is vague because their comparison with static loading tests is made
incorrectly in most cases.

The well-known dynamic formulae have been criticized in many publications. Unsatisfactory
prediction in pile capacity by dynamic formulae is well characterized in the recent published
Manual for Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations (Hannigan et. al, 1996), in
which it was concluded: “Whether simple or more comprehensive dynamic formulas are
used, pile capacities determined from dynamic formulae have shown poor correlations and
wide scatter when statistically compared with static load test results. Therefore, except
where well supported empirical correlations under a given set of physical and geological
conditions are available, dynamic formulas should not be used.”

There are two attempts to breathe new life into dynamic formulae. First, Paikowsky and
Chernauskas (1992) and Paikowsky et al. (1994) have suggested one more simplified energy
approach using dynamic measurements for the capacity evaluation of driven piles. Liang and
Zhou (1997) have concluded regarding this method: “Although the delivered energy is much
more exactly evaluated, this method still suffers similar drawbacks of Engineering News
(ENR)”. In a second, criticizing the simplified energy approach, Liang and Zhou (1997) have
developed a probabilistic energy approach as an alternative to the signal matching technique
for effective pile-driving control in the field. Both attempts to improve dynamic formulas,
comparison of pile capacity determined by the simplified and probabilistic energy methods
with the results of Static Load Tests, are incorrect. Dynamic formulas, including their two
new representations, using maximum energy, pile set and maximum displacement from
Dynamic Pile Testing do not take into account the time between Static Load Tests and
Dynamic Pile Testing (Svinkin,1997).

The purpose of design is the achievement of acceptable probabilities that the structure being
designed will not become unfit in any way for the use for which it is intended. Engineering
problems of this structure, however, often involve multiple failure modes; that is, there may
be several potential modes of failure, in which the occurrence of any one of the potential
48
Journal of Sciences and Multidisciplinary Research Volume 2, September 2010

failure modes will constitute non- performance of the system or component. Recent
researches in the area of structural reliability and probabilistic analysis have centered around
the development of probabilistic-based design procedures. These include load modeling,
ultimate and service load performance and evaluation of current levels of safety/reliability in
design (e.g., Farid Uddim, 2000; Afolayan, 1999; Afolayan, 2003; Afolayan and Opeyemi,
2008).

In this paper, a first-order reliability assessment of dynamic pile capacity using Hiley, Janbu
and Gates formulae is reported.

Predicted Dynamic Pile Capacities

Estimating the ultimate capacity of a pile while it is being driven in the ground at the site has
resulted in numerous equations being presented to the engineering profession.
Unfortunately, none of the equations is consistently reliable or reliable over an extended
range of pile capacity. Because of this, the best means for predicting pile capacity by
dynamic means consists in driving a pile, recording the driving history, and load testing the
pile. It would be reasonable to assume that other piles with a similar driving history at that
site would develop approximately the same load capacity.

Dynamic formulae have been widely used to predict pile capacity. Some means is needed in
the field to determine when a pile has reached a satisfactory bearing value other than by
simply driving it to some predetermined depth. Driving the pile to a predetermined depth
may or may not obtain the required bearing value because of normal soil variations both
laterally and vertically.

The basic dynamic pile-capacity formula termed the rational pile formula depends upon
impulse – momentum principles (Bowles, 1988). The available dynamic pile capacity
predictions include:
(a) Canadian National Building Code (use a safety factor, SF = 3)
eEC
Pu = h h 1
s + C2 C3 (1)
in which
W + n 2 (0.5Wp )
C1 = r
Wr + Wp
,
3Pu
C2 =
2A ,
and
L
C3 = + 0.0001
E
(b) Danish formula (use SF = 6 )
eE
Pu = h h
s + C1 (2)
49
Stochastic Modeling of Dynamic Pile Capacity Using J.O. Afolayan and D.A. Opeyemi
Hiley, Janbu and Gates Formulae

where
eh Eh L
C1 =
2 AE
(c) Gates formula (use SF = 3)
Pu = a eh Eh (b − log s)
(3)
(d) Janbu (use SF = 3 to 6)
eE
Pu = h h
ku s (4)
in which
λ
ku = Cd (1 + 1 + )
Cd
where
Wp
Cd = 0.75 + 0.15
Wr
and
eh Eh L
λ=
AEs 2
(e) Modified ENR formula (use SF = 6)
2
1.25eh Eh Wr + n Wp
Pu =
s + 0.1 Wr + Wp
(5)
(f) AASHTO (use SF = 6); primarily for timber piles.
2h(Wr + Ar p )
Pu =
s + 0.1 (6)
(g) Navy-McKay (use SF = 6)
eh Eh
Pu =
s (1 + 0.3C1 ) (7)
where
Wp
C1 =
Wr
(h) Pacific Coast Uniform Building Code (PCUBC) (use SF = 4)

eh Eh C1 (8)
Pu =
s + C2
where
W + kWP
C1 = r
Wr + Wp
in which

50
Journal of Sciences and Multidisciplinary Research Volume 2, September 2010

k = 0.25 for steel piles

k = 0.10 for all others
and
PL
C2 = u
AE
(i) Hiley
eh Eh W + n 2W p
Pu =
1
s + (k1 + k2 + k3 ) W + W p
2 (9)
First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
The general problem to which FORM provides an approximate solution is as follows. The
state of a system is a function of many variables some of which are uncertain. These
n
uncertain variables are random with joint distribution function Fx ( x ) = P (I{ X i ≤ xi }) defining
i =1

the stochastic model. For FORM, it is required that FX (x), is at least locally continuously
differentiable, i. e., that probability densities exist. The random variables X = ( X 1 ,... X n )T are
called basic variables. The locally sufficiently smooth (at least once differentiable) state
function is denoted by g(X). It is defined such that g(X)>0 corresponds to favourable (safe,
intact, acceptable) state. g(X)=0 denotes the so-called limit state or the failure boundary.
Therefore, g(X)<0 (sometimes also g(X) ≤ 0) defines the failure (unacceptable, adverse)
domain, F. The function g(X) can be defined as an analytic function or an algorithm (e.g., a
finite element code). In the context of FORM it is convenient but necessary only locally that
g(X) is a monotonic function in each component of X. Among other useful information FORM
produces an approximation to
Pf = P( X ∈ F ) = P( g ( X ) ≤ 0) = ∫ dFX ( x ) = φ (− β R ) (10)
g ( x )≤0

in which β R = the reliability or safety index, (Melchers, 2002).

Reliability Estimates
Dynamic pile capacity using Hiley formula
The functional relationship between allowable design load and the allowable dynamic pile
capacity using Hiley formula can be expressed in terms of the safety margin given as:
G(x) = Allowable Design Load – Allowable Pile Capacity
which implies,
 
 eh Eh W + n 2
W p  *
G ( x) = 0.35 f y Ap −  f
PL
 s + 0.5(k1 + u + k3 ) W + Wp 
 AE  , (11)
1
f* =
SF

51
Stochastic Modeling of Dynamic Pile Capacity Using J.O. Afolayan and D.A. Opeyemi
Hiley, Janbu and Gates Formulae

Table 1 shows the assumed statistical values and their corresponding probability
distributions.

Dynamic pile capacity using Janbu Formula

On the basis of the dynamic pile capacity predicted by Janbu, the level of safety margin may
be given as:
  eh Eh L  
   
 eh Eh  AEs 2
 s f *
G ( x) = 0.35 f y Ap − 1+ 1+
 Wp  Wp  
 (0.75 + 0.15 )  0.75 + 0.15  
 Wr  Wr  
(12)
From Eqn. (12), the statistical and probabilistic descriptions of the variables in the functional
relations are presented in Table 2.
Table 1- Stochastic model for dynamic pile capacity using Hiley formula
Variables Probability density Mean values Coefficients of
function variations
Fy Lognormal 460 x 103kN/m2 0.15
Ap Normal 1.60 x 10-2 m2 0.06
eh Normal 0.84 0.06
Eh Lognormal 33.12 kN/m 0.15
S Lognormal 1.79 x 10-2 m 0.15
K1 Lognormal 4.06 x 10-3 m 0.15
Pu Lognormal 950kN 0.15
L Normal 12.18m 0.06
E Lognormal 209 x 106 kN/m2 0.15
K3 Lognormal 2.54 x 10-3 m 0.15
W Gumbel 80 kN 0.30
N Lognormal 0.5 0.15
Wp Lognormal 18.5 kN 0.15
SF Lognormal 4.0 0.15

Table 2- Stochastic model for dynamic using Janbu formula

Variables Probabiity Mean values Coefficient of variations
density
function
Fy Lognormal 460 x 103kN/m2 0.15
Ap Normal 1.60 x 10-2 m2 0.06
eh Normal 0.84 0.06
Eh Lognormal 33.12 kN/m 0.15
Wp Lognormal 18.5 kN 0.15
Wr Gumbel 35.58 kN 0.30
L Normal 12.18m 0.15
E Lognormal 209 x 106 kN/m2 0.06
S Lognormal 1.79 x 10-2 m 0.15
SF Lognormal 6.0 0.15

52
Journal of Sciences and Multidisciplinary Research Volume 2, September 2010

Dynamic pile capacity using Gates Formula

Similar to Hiley and Janbu, the functional relationship between the allowable design load and
the allowable dynamic pile capacity using Gates formula can be expressed as:
G ( x) = 0.35 f y Ap −  a eh Eh (b − log s )  f *
(13)
The statistical and probabilistic descriptions of the variables in the functional relations are
presented in Table 3.

Table 3- Stochastic model for dynamic using Gates formula

Variables Probability Mean values Coefficients of
density variables
functions
Fy LN 460 x 103kN/m2 0.15
Ap N 1.60 x 10-2 m2 0.06
a N 1.05 x 10-1 0.06
eh N 0.85 0.06
Eh LN 33.12 kNm 0.15
b N 2.4 x 10-3 m 0.06
S LN 1.79 x 10-2 m 0.15
SF LN 3.0 0.15

Using eqns. (11), (12) and (13) together with the assumed stochastic parameters in Tables 1
to 3, the reliability levels associated with the predictions of Hiley, Janbu and Gates for
dynamic pile capacity are estimated.

The implied safety level associated with piling capacity using Gates’ formula is grossly
conservative, even much more than Hiley and Janbu formulae. The safety level does not
change with the area of pile, hammer efficiency, hammer-energy rating and point
penetration per blow (Figs. 1 to 4). As is common in practice, the areas of piles, hammer
efficiency, hammer energy rating and point penetration per blow are subjected to variations
and the results of the assessment are as displayed in Figures 1to 5.

Hiley formula generally and grossly provides a very conservative pile capacity as seen in Figs.
1 to 5. Nevertheless, the safety level does not change with area of pile (Fig. 1) and the point
penetration per blow (Fig. 4). As hammer efficiency and hammer energy rating increase, the
safety level reduces significantly as in Fig. 2 and Fig.3 respectively. On the other hand, safety
level grows with increasing factor of safety as normally expected (Fig. 4).

Just like the Hiley formula, Janbu formula leads to a grossly conservative pile capacity.
However, Janbu’s prediction is not as conservative as Hiley’s with respect to hammer
efficiency and hammer-energy rating. Generally Gates’ formula yields the most grossly
conservative prediction compared to Hiley and Janbu. It is noted that safety level is not
dependent on the area of pile, hammer efficiency, hammer-energy rating and point
penetration per blow (Figs.1 to 5).
53
Stochastic Modeling of Dynamic Pile Capacity Using J.O. Afolayan and D.A. Opeyemi
Hiley, Janbu and Gates Formulae

Fig. 1. - Safety index ( β R ) against Area of pile using Hiley, Janbu and Gates formulae

Fig. 2. - Safety index ( β R ) against Hammer efficiency using Hiley, Janbu and Gates formulae

54
Journal of Sciences and Multidisciplinary Research Volume 2, September 2010

Fig.3. - Safety index ( β R ) against Hammer- energy rating using Hiley, Janbu and Gates formulae

Fig. 4. - Safety index ( β R ) against Point penetration per blow using Hiley, Janbu and Gates
formulae

55
Stochastic Modeling of Dynamic Pile Capacity Using J.O. Afolayan and D.A. Opeyemi
Hiley, Janbu and Gates Formulae

Fig. 5. - Safety index ( β R ) against Factor of safety using Hiley, Janbu and Gates formulae

CONCLUSION
The First-Order Reliability Method has been employed to rate dynamic pile capacity using
Hiley, Janbu and Gates formulae. All relevant variables are considered random with assumed
probability density distributions. From the results, it can be concluded that there is a
correlation between the implied safety levels in Hiley and Janbu formulae. The dynamic
predictions of Hiley and Janbu lead to similar safety level while Gates’ results in totally
different implied safety levels.

REFERENCES
Afolayan, J.O. (1999) “Economic Efficiency of Glued Joints in Timber Truss Systems”,
Building and Environment: The International of Building Science and its Application,
Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 101 – 107.

Afolayan, J. O. (2003) “Improved Design Format for Doubly Symmetric Thin-Walled

Structural Steel Beam-Columns”, Botswana Journal of Technology, Vol. 12, No.1, pp.
36 – 43

Afolayan, J. O. and Opeyemi, D.A. (2008) “Reliability Analysis of Static Pile Capacity of
Concrete in Cohesive and Cohesionless Soils”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Vol.3, No. 5, pp. 407-411.

Bowles, J.E. (1988) Foundation Analysis and Design. 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Singapore.
56
 Journal of Sciences and Multidisciplinary Research Volume 2, September 2010

Coduto, D.P. (2001) Foundation Design : Principles and Practices. 2nd ed., Prentice Hall Inc.,
New Jersey.

Farid Uddin, A.K.M. (2000) “Risk and Reliability Based Structural and Foundation Design of a
Water Reservoir (capacity: 10 million gallon) on the top of Bukit Permatha Hill in
Malaysia”, 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural
Reliability.

Hannigan P.L.J, Goble G.G., Thendean G., Likins G.E. and Rausche F. (1996) Design and
construction of driven pile foundations. Workshop manual, Publication No. FHWA-HI-97-
014.

Liang R.Y. and Zhou J. (1997) Probability Method Applied to Dynamic Pile- Driving Control.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No. 2,137-144.

Melchers, R.E. (2002) Structural Reliability, and Prediction. 2nd ed. John Wiley, England.

Paikowsky S.G. and Chernauskas L.R.(1992). Energy approach for capacity evaluation of
driven piles. F. Barends (ed.), Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on
the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, A.A. Balkema, The Hague, 595-
601.

Paikowsky S.G., Regan J.E. and McDonnell J.J. (1994). A simplified field method for capacity
evaluation of driven piles. Publication No. FHWA-RD- 94-042.

Svinkin M.R.(1997). Time-Dependent Capacity of Piles in Clayey Soils by Dynamic Methods.

Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, September, Vol. 2, 1045-1048.

57

View publication stats