Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III Meyer (Ed.

)
2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7

Effect of soil set-up during interruption of offshore pile driving

A. Jahr & T. Tefera
Kvaerner Jacket Technology AS, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT: Offshore steel jackets are commonly supported by large diameter open ended steel piles. The
piles are installed by driving with hydraulic hammers to final penetration depth. The last sequence in the pile
driving is often performed with an additional insert piece (follower) between the pile and the hammer. This
is to avoid interference between hammer and jacket structural parts as pile sleeves, jacket legs and outfitting.
Installation of the follower requires a pause in the pile driving and this period usually lasts from one to twenty
hours. An increase in the driving resistance is often experienced after the stop in the driving process and this
is referred to as set-up of the soil. The rate and magnitude of set-up is a function of several factors and the
interrelationship is not well understood. Pile driving records from recent jacket installations in the North Sea
have been investigated for the purpose of establishing the rate and magnitude of set-up effect due to interruption
of pile driving. The projects included pile diameters from 1.829 m2.743 m, and sites with both sand and clay. The
focus is to back calculate the subsequent increase in blow counts in pile driving after interruption of pile driving
using a simple equation. The result of the study shows that set-up in the pile-soil interface can be significant
in pile driving. The proposed relatively simple equation with few calibrated parameters can be used to make a
preliminary assessment quickly about the increase in number of hammer blows due to interruption in pile driving
and change in hammer energy.

INTRODUCTION

It has been reported that piles driven into various

types of soil may experience an increase in capacity as a function of time. In a recent comprehensive
pile load testing program (Karlsrud et al. 2014) undertaken at six different test sites with six driven test piles
at each site confirms that the axial bearing capacity
of piles develops over time. Prediction techniques to
estimate the rate and magnitude of such an increase
in pile capacity are not well established. The increase
in bearing capacity with time in driven piles may have
some short term effect during installation of long piles.
This paper focuses on the effect of soil set-up during interruptions of continuous pile driving. Offshore
steel jackets are commonly supported by large diameter open ended steel piles. The piles are installed by
driving with hydraulic hammers to final penetration
depth. During continuous driving of piles there is a
reduction of axial resistance of piles due to friction
fatigue (Alm & Hamre 2001). During interruption
of pile driving there is a gain of axial resistance of
piles due to soil set-up. The last sequence in the pile
driving is often performed with an additional insert
piece (follower) between the pile and the hammer. This
is to avoid interference between hammer and jacket
structural parts such as pile sleeves, jacket legs and
outfitting. Installation of the follower requires a pause
in the pile driving and this period usually lasts from
one to twenty hours. For example in the installation of
Gudrun jacket piles (Jahr et al. 2014) the blow count

record shows that the target penetration was reached

as predicted; however the effect of soil set-up during re-strike with follower was clearly demonstrated.
Pile driving records from recent jacket installations
in the North Sea have been investigated for the purpose of establishing the rate and magnitude of set-up
effect due to interruption of pile driving. The North
Sea projects include piles with outer diameters from
1.829 m2.743 m and sites with both sand and clay.
The focus is to back calculate the subsequent increase
in blow counts in drivability analyses.
2

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL SET-UP

PHENOMENON

It has been recognized that the load carrying capacity of driven piles increases with time in most soils,
including clay, loose to dense silt, sandy silt, silty sand,
and fine sand. An increase in pile capacity with time
is commonly known as soil set-up. Terms such as pile
set-up and freeze have been also used in the literature. The rate and magnitude of soil set-up is a function
of several parameters.
A number of investigators (Miller et al. 1978,
Randolph et al. 1979, Randolph 2003) have proposed
analytical models of pore pressure generation and
the subsequent dissipation process for piles in normally consolidated to lightly overconsolidated clays.
The effect of soil set-up is also addressed in international standards (ISO 19902/2007) and recommended

575

Figure 1. Idealized schematic of set-up stages (Komurka

et al. 2003).

practice (API RP 2GEO/2011). Since excess pore pressures are generated by pile driving operations, any
dissipation of the excess pore pressures after installation should correspond to an equivalent increase
in the shear strength of the surrounding soil mass
and hence an increase in the capacity of the pile.
After dissipation of excess pore pressures, the capacity of a pile approaches long-term capacity, although
some strength gain may continue due to secondary
processes.
Komurka et al. (2003) divided the soil set-up mechanisms into three phases as shown in Figure 1. Stage
1: logarithmically nonlinear rate of excess pore water
pressure dissipation; Stage 2: logarithmically linear
rate of excess pore water pressure dissipation; and
Stage 3: independent of effective stress, additional setup may occur even at constant effective stress due to
ageing. Qinitial is the axial capacity of pile at end of
pile driving and Qfinal is the axial capacity of pile at
time t after driving.
During Stage 1 the rate of dissipation of excess
porewater pressures is not linear with respect to the
logarithm of time for some period after driving. This
is because of the highly disturbed state of soil. This
first stage of soil set-up has been demonstrated to
account for capacity increase in a matter of minutes
after pile installation or interruption of pile driving.
The duration of the logarithmically nonlinear rate of
excess porewater pressure dissipation is a function of
soil (type, permeability and sensitivity), and pile properties (type and size). The less permeable the soil, and
the greater volume of soil displaced by the pile, the
longer is the duration of the logarithmically nonlinear
rate of dissipation. In clean sands, the logarithmic rate
of dissipation may become linear almost immediately
after driving. In cohesive soils, the logarithmic rate
of dissipation may remain nonlinear for several days
(Komurka et al. 2003).

Figure 2. Typical blow count versus pile penetration depth

graph, the dotted line shows the increased blow count after an
interruption in pile driving. In the graph n is the extra number
of blows and l is the depth with extra number of blows.

increased soil resistance that may occur due to soil setup. Effort should be made to minimize the interruption
of pile installation for different reasons such as insertion of follower or breakdown of hammer. Although
there are many advantages to be gained by considering long term soil set-up in pile design, short term soil
set-up is however a challenge during interrupted pile
driving process. Figure 2 shows a typical pile drivability chart with increased blow count due to interruption
of pile installation. The definition of pile refusal is
primarily to define the point where driving with a particular hammer should be stopped. Depending on the
duration of interruption and the type of soil condition
additional blows may be required not only to break
the pile loose but also for some subsequent penetration depths as shown in Figure 2. During continuous
driving of piles there is a reduction of axial resistance
of pile due to friction fatigue. During interruption of
pile driving there is a gain of axial resistance of pile
due to soil set-up. Figure 3(a) shows the reduction of
soil resistance during continuous driving. The gradual
decrease of skin friction along the pile shaft as the pile
is driven further is attributed to friction fatigue. Figure 3(b) shows the restoration (soil set-up) with time
due to interruption of pile driving. Rapid soil set-up
effects due to interruption of pile driving may lead to
premature refusal of pile.

4
3

SOIL SET-UP DURING INTERRUPTION OF

PILE DRIVING

As a common practice pile driving is carried out as

continuously as possible in order to minimize the

PREDICTION OF SOIL SET-UP

Various numerical, analytical and field methods have

been developed to predict the magnitude and/or rate of
soil set-up in recent years (Budge 2009). Most of the
proposed empirical formulas are based on a database

576

Table 1.

Pile driving records used in the database.

Number of
Hammer
Location hammer blows energy before Interruption
Platform
before and after and after (kJ) time (min)
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
41
51
61
62
71

Figure 3. Skin friction development due to pile driving. (a)

Reduction of skin friction during continuous driving without
interruption up to a certain depth and no further reduction
thereafter. (b) Pile driving after interruption, an increase in
skin friction during interruption and reduction of skin friction
during resumption of driving.

of measured soil set-up. Soil set-up effects can vary

from increases in capacity of as little as 20% to as
much as 8 times the end of driving capacity (Budge
2009).
By far the most-popular empirical relationship
was presented by Skov and Denver (1988), which
models set-up as linear with respect to the log of
time (Komurka et al. 2003). They proposed a semilogarithmic empirical relationship to describe setup as:

where Qt = axial capacity at time t after driving,

Qo = axial capacity at time to , A = a constant, depending on soil type, and to = an empirical value measured
in days.
In the above semi-logarithmic empirical relationship, to (initial time) is the time at which the rate of

1922
1415
1515
3949
5252
3330
1246
1830
2228
1929
2525
2732

14671451
14521452
16581680
13991363
23382271
24862219
14961420
25082508
16731673
17831983
23502515
18751906

54
69
56
883
1316
1269
1479
387
60
2308
166
68

excess porewater pressure dissipation becomes uniform (linear with respect to the log of time), as shown
in Figure 1, end of stage 1. It should be noted that to is
a function of soil type, and pile size accordingly different researchers recommend slightly different to values.
Camp & Parmar (1999) empirically determined to
equal to 2 days, but stated that to equal to 1 day seems
to be reasonable. Using pre-stressed concrete piles
installed in non-cohesive soils, Axelsson (1998) set to
equal to 1 day. Long et al. (1999) recommends using
to equal to 0.01 day. Svinkin et al. (1994) used to equal
to 1 to 2 days. Bullock (1999), and McVay (1999),
recommend standardizing to equal to 1 day (Komurka
et al. 2003).
The A parameter is a function of soil type, pile
material, type, size, and capacity but is independent
of depth, and porewater pressure dissipation. A values ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 are suggested in the
literature. For sand values of to = 0.5, A = 0.2, and
for clay to = 1.0, A = 0.6, are generally recommended
(Komurka et al. 2003, Budge 2009).
5

CASE STUDIES

Pile driving records from 12 jacket pile installations

at 7 locations in the North Sea have been investigated.
The database consists of driving records for piles with
outer diameter ranging from 1.829 m2.743 m, and
target penetration depth below seabed from 25 m to
90 m. The piles were driven with underwater hydraulic
hammers, mainly MHU 1700 and MHU 3000.
Most of the piles were installed using follower and
some piles had re-strike close to target penetration
following a break in the pile driving. All piles were
open-ended steel pipe piles with wall thickness in the
range of 40 to 100 mm. Table 1 above shows key pile
installation data included in this study from different
jacket projects in the North Sea. The average number
of blows before and after the piling break is shown.
Additionally the time the interruption of piling lasted
is included.

577

Locations 1, 3, 5 and 6 are sites where the soil profile is dominated by clay, and the pile tip at break
in driving is founded in clay. For location 2 the soil
mainly consists of extremely hard clay, and the pile tip
is founded in either that soil or in dense sand. The soil
profile at location 4 is approximately 50 % sand and
50 % clay. Location 7 is mainly dense to very dense
sand.
Slightly different procedures are followed by different offshore installation contractors during insertion of
follower and resuming of pile driving. There are two
main procedures for including a follower in the pile
driving. The first approach is to drive each pile to target penetration before a new pile is driven. This implies
that each pile is driven to an intermediate depth and
the follower is stabbed immediately after, and the pile
driving is commenced. With this approach the break
in driving will be short. The other approach is to drive
some or all of the piles to an intermediate depth before
the follower is introduced. This approach leads to a
longer break in the driving.
The pile driving records from installation of piles
at Location 3 is presented as an example. The target
penetration of the piles was 47 m below the seabed for
all 12 piles. The outer diameter of the piles is 2.438 m.
Intermediate pile driving depth was 31 m below the
seabed, and a follower was installed after this depth
was reached. Pause in pile driving due to installation
of follower varied from 680 to 2638 minutes with an
average of 1479 minutes. The number of blows per
0.25 m is shown in Figure 4 below for a representative
pile installation, along with the hammer output energy
used.A slight decrease of the energy can be seen for the
blows immediately following the break which is a startup energy following the break. An increase in energy
can then be seen at 31.5 m. The influenced depth of
the break in extra number of hammer blows can be
seen from 31 m and is assumed to be down to 35 m.
The number of blows before and after the break was in
average 12 and 46 respectively. For the piles at this site
the appropriate value of the parameter a in Equation
2 below is 1.6. The soil at this site generally consists
of firm to very hard clay with few intermediate layers
of medium dense to dense sand. The plasticity of the
clay is between 12 and 20.
Another installation from which the records are presented herein is the jackets at Location 1. The soil
conditions at the Location 1 site generally consist of
layers of stiff to hard sandy clay and medium dense
to very dense sand. The pile tip is founded in sandy
clay. Three jacket structures are installed at this location, each with 12 piles with a diameter of 2.438 m
driven partly with follower. Each pile was driven to
intermediate depth and then the follower was installed
and the piles were driven to target penetration. Thus the
interruptions in the pile driving lasted a short period of
time. The minimum interruption was 30 minutes while
the maximum interruption was 200 minutes. The intermediate driving depth varied from 37 to 59 m for the
different jacket piles. Target penetration depth varied
from 47 to 69 m. No significant soil set-up can be seen

Figure 4. Representative pile driving records from installation of piles at location 3 platform 1.

from the pile driving records for any of the 36 piles at

this location. Figure 5 below shows a typical profile
of the recorded blow counts with depth for location
13. The duration of interruption at this location was
relatively short; 50 minutes at 51 m of penetration. For
relatively short interruption time and the same hammer energy before and after the interruption, it is likely
to have no extra number of blows as it is shown in
Figure 5.

578

Table 2.

Proposed parameters a and b for Equation 2.

Soil type

Clay
Sand

0.31.6
0.30.6

0.20.5
0.10.3

and the penetration depth below seabed is 50 m. The

piles were installed with the MHU 3000 hammer and a
follower for parts of the driving toward target penetration. The intermediate driving depth before installing
follower was at 39 m for all but two piles, which had
an interruption in the driving at 38 and 39.5 m respectively. Following the interruption in pile driving at 39 m
there is a clear increase in blow counts without any
reduction in the pile driving energy. The interruptions
in pile driving were between 110 and 230 minutes for
the eight piles. At 39 m the pile tip was founded in clay
with an undrained shear strength estimated to 600 kPa
and plasticity in the range of 16 to 21. The layers above
this depth consist of an upper 12 m of dense to very
dense sand and very stiff to very hard clay.
6

EVALUATION OF CASE STUDIES

Based on the case studies from 12 jacket installations at 7 locations in the North Sea, the authors
recommend the following empirical relation shown in
Equation 2 to estimate the number of hammer blows
after interruption of pile driving.
In the relation the hammer energy used before
and after the interruption of driving is included. The
parameters a and b are dependent on soil types and
thicknesses of the soil layer to which the pile is in contact with before interruption of pile driving. Parameter
b is directly related to the change in hammer energy
before and after interruption of pile driving, and is less
dependent to soil type. The ranges of parameters value
shown in Table 2 are proposed values for different soil
types.

Figure 5. Representative pile driving records from installation of piles at location 1 platform 2.

The pile driving records from the installation of two

jackets at Platform location 6 were evaluated in detail.
The permanent foundation system of the jacket consists of two piles in each of the four corners, a total of
eight piles. The outer diameter of the piles is 2.438 m

In the above Equation 2, nt = number of hammer

blows per 0.25 m penetration at time t after interruption of pile driving, no = number of hammer blows per
0.25 m penetration just before interruption of pile driving, a and b = constants, depending on soil type, and
to = an empirical value measured in days (0.02 days),
t = interruption time in days, E = hammer energy used
after interruption of driving, and Et = hammer energy
used before interruption of driving.
The number of extra hammer blows, n in Figure 2,
is then the difference between number of hammer
blows before and after interruption of pile driving, i.e,
(n = nt no ). The penetration depth with extra hammer blows is dependent on type of soil, type and size

579

of pile and the hammer energy used before and after

interruption of driving.
Less set-up is observed in heavily overconsolidated
clay than in normally consolidated or lightly overconsolidated clay. This can be a guidance when choosing
parameters a and b in clay.
7

CONCLUSION

The authors proposed a relatively simple equation with

few calibrated input parameters to be able to assess
quickly the effect of interruption during pile driving operations and change of hammer energy. The
case studies presented only cover North Sea soils. The
proposed equation, Equation 2, can also be used to
predict expected number of blows due to increasing
or decreasing hammer energy. Based on the proposed
equation it is possible to predict if there is a need
to increase hammer energy or change to a hammer
with a higher capacity in a marginal case. Although
the database is from offshore pile driving, the proposed method can also be applicable to predict effect
of interruptions in onshore pile driving with appropriate calibration of parameters based on database related
to onshore piling.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Kvaerner Jacket Technology AS for providing the resources for writing this
paper.
REFERENCES
API RP 2GEO. 2011. Geotechnical and foundation design
considerations.
Alm, T & Hamre, L. 2001. Soil model for pile driveability
predictions based on CPT interpretations, The 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Istanbul, Vol. 3, pp. 12971302.
Axelsson, G. 1998. Long-Term Set-Up of Driven Piles in
Non-Cohesive Soils Evaluated from Dynamic Tests on
Penetration Rods. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 895900.

Bullock, P.J. 1999. Pile Friction Freeze: A Field and Laboratory Study, Volume 1, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Florida.
Budge, A.S. 2009. Study of Pile Setup Evaluation Methods,
Minnesota Department of Transportation. C-90707
Camp, W.M. & Parmar, H.S. 1999. Characterization of Pile
Capacity with Time in Cooper Marl: Study of Applicability of a Past Approach to Predict Long-Term Pile
Capacity, Transportation Research Record 1663, Paper
No. 991381, pp. 1624.
Jahr, A., Tefera, T., Hland, G. & Hennum, G. 2014.
Design and installation of Gudrun platform jacket piles,
International conference on piling & deep foundations,
Stockholm Sweden.
Karlsrud, K., Jensen, T.G., Lied, E.K.W., Nowacki, F. &
Simonsen, A.S. 2014. Significant ageing effects for axially loaded piles in sand and clay verified by new field
load tests, OffshoreTechnology Conference Houston, OTC
25197, Texas, USA, 58 May 2014.
Komurka, V.E. 2004. Incorporating Set-Up and Support Cost
Distributions into Driven Pile Design, Current Practices
and Future Trends in Deep Foundations, ASCE/GeoInstitute, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 125, pp.
1649.
Komurka, V.E., Wagner, A.B. & Edil, T.B. 2003. Estimating
Soil/Pile Set-Up, Wisconsin highway research program
#0092-00-14.
Long, J.H., Kerrigan, J.A. & Wysockey, M.H. 1999. Measured
Time Effects for Axial Capacity of Driven Piling, Transportation Research Record 1663, Paper No. 991183,
pp. 815.
Miller, T.W., Murff, J.D. & Kraft, L.M. 1978. Critical State
Soil Mechanics Model of Soil Consolidation Stresses
Around a Driven Pile. Proc. 10th Annual Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 3307, Houston, Texas.
McVay, M.C., Schmertmann, J., Townsend, F. & Bullock,
P. 1999. Pile Friction Freeze: A Field and Laboratory
Study, Florida Department of Transportation, Volume 1,
pp. 192195.
Randolph, M. F., Carter, J.P. et al. 1979. Driven pile in clay
the effects of installation and subsequent consolidation.
Geotechnique 29(4): 361393.
Randolph, M.F. 2003. 43rd Rankine Lecture: Science and
empiricism in pile foundation design. Geotechnique
53(10): 847875.
Svinkin, M.R., Morgano, C.M. & Morvant, M. 1994. Pile
Capacity as a Function of Time in Clayey and Sandy
Soils, Deep Foundations Institute Fifth International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundation.

580