|
The work of both Isaacs and Glanville et.al. demonstrated two things:
All of these difficulties were recongised by E.A.L. Smith, who ultimately became Raymond Concrete Pile's chief mechanical engineer. As Graff noted in Raymond's own publication Foundation Facts:
Using a finite-difference technique (as opposed to a finite element one) was a more sensible solution than it looks to be now, since it avoided the construction of the stiffness matrices the latter technique requires. ("Traditional" dynamic finite element techniques have precision limitations as well, as demonstrated by Deeks and Warrington.) Finite difference techniques have been used elsewhere in pile analysis, most notably with the p-y lateral loading routines developed by Lymon Reese and his colleagues. His next challenge was to deal with the nonlinearities and inextensibilities in the system. The key nonlinearities were that of the soil and the hammer (and pile) cushion. For the soil Smith first applied an elasto-plastic model, similar in underlying theory to the plastic design techniques used in beams. For the cushion he used a model which he later modified (although it was resurrected independently by Warrington for Vulcan's ZWAVE program in the 1980's.) The inextensibility issue, although overlooked now, was a critical advance, as the "classical" and "closed form" solutions did not directly admit for the fact that the interfaces between the pile cap (or "follower," using Raymond terminology) and the pile, along with other interfaces, would not transmit tensile forces. It enabled Smith to simply construct the model, set the initial conditions, and let the model simulate the reality of the system without intervention. All of this was discussed in his monograph in the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Two years later, for the civil engineering profession, he presented a simpler summary of the whole business entitled "What Happens When Hammer Hits Pile" for Engineering News-Record (the same publication which Wellington used to promote his formula seventy years previously.) After this field tests were in order, and in 1958 the opportunity for one came in Helena, Arkansas, driving both steel pipe pile and the Raymond Step-Taper pile. The Step-Taper pile, a Raymond favourite, was another impetus for the numerical method, as non-constant cross-sections were easily modelled in Smith's technique. The various piles used, the soil profile, and the results are summarised below.
As Ernest T. Mosley, who worked in Raymond's civil engineering department, noted about the results shown above:
Smith's soil model--ultimately a visco-elastic-plastic model, taking into consideration velocity generated forces along the pile shaft and at the toe--has been subject to some detail improvement, but has endured in its basic concept since Smith set it forth. Smith's ASCE paper of the numerical wave equation technique for piling has become one of the classic monographs in the civil engineering profession. As has been the case with many aspects of pile dynamics, it was controversial in some quarters, and it would be another quarter of a century before the wave equation would truly become the "state of the practice" for driven piles. It's interesting to note that one of the key initial objectors to the technique was Marvin Gates, whose own dynamic formula has become the "standard" of the FHWA. Gates' main objection was the use of the wave equation for pile capacity prediction, but Smith's technique has won this argument, as Isaacs predicted thirty years previously. As Tonis Raamot, Raymond's chief civil engineer, noted:
|
This entire site Copyright© 1997-2010 Don C. Warrington. All rights reserved. Website maintained by Positive Infinity and hosted by 1 and 1 Internet. |