Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Comparison of Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas With The Wave Equation
A Comparison of Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas With The Wave Equation
by
Lee L. Lowery, Jr.
Assistant Research Engineer
James R. Finley, Jr.
Research Assistant
and
T. J. Hirsch
Research Engineer
Piling Behavior
Research Study No. 2-5-62-33
Sponsored by
The Texas Highway Department
in cooperation with the
August 1968
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _iv
LIST OF TABLES _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _iv
INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ l
PROBLEMS INVESTIGATED ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ l
PILE DRIVING FORMULAS USED IN THE INVESTIGATION__ --··-·--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
CORRELATION PROCEDURE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ____________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
CONCLUSIONS ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6
REFERENCES ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ l5
APPENDIX ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ l6
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
~re &~
l. Pile Driving Assembly of Vulcan No. 1 and Vulcan 80C hammers-Steel Pile __________________________________________________ 1
2. Pile Driving Assembly of Vulcan No. 1 and Vulcan 80C Hammers-Concrete Pile __________________________________________ 2
3. Driving Assembly of the Delmag D-22 Hammer-Steel Pile _________________________________________________________________________________ 2
4. Driving Assembly of the Delmag D-22 Hammer-Concrete Pile __________________________________________________________________________ 3
5. The Engineering News Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ _________________________________________ 6
6. The Engineering News Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer ______________________________________________ 7
7. The Engineering News Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer__ ____________________________________________ 7
8. The Michigan Engineering News Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ ______________________ 7
9. The Michigan Engineering News Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer_ ___________________________ 7
10. The Michigan Engineering News Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer _________________________ 8
11. The Eytelwein Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ ________________________________________________________ 8
12. The Eytelwein Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer__ ___________________________________________________________ 8
13. The Eytelwein Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer__ ________________________________________________________ 8
14. The Navy-McKay Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ _________________________________________________ 9
15. The Navy-McKay Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer__ ______________________________________________________ 9
16. The Navy-McKay Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer _____________________________________________________ 9
17. The Hiley Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. l Hammer _________________________________________________________________ 9
18. The Hiley Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer__ __________________________________________________________________ lO
19. The Hiley Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer ------------------------------------------------------------10
20. The Terzaghi Formula Vs the Wave Equation:-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer __________________________________________________________ 10
21. The Terzaghi Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C HammeL--------------·--------------------------------------------10
22. The Terzaghi Formula Vs the Wave Equation---'Delmag D-22 Hammer __________________________________________________________ l l
23. The Redtenbacher Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer ____________________________________________________ l l
24. The Redtenbacher Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer _______________________________________________________ l l
25. The Redtenbacher Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer__ __________________________________________________ l l
26. The Pacific Coast Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ _________________________________________________ 12
27. The Pacific Coast Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer-----------------------"--------------------------------12
28. The Pacific Coast Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer__ _____ --------------------------------------------12
29. The Canadian Building Code Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ ______________________________ 12
30. The Canadian Building Code Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer__ __________________________________ 13
31. The Canadian Building Code Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer _________________________________ 13
32. The Rankine Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ ___________________________________________________________ 13
33. The Rankine Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C HammeL---------------------------------------·----·-··-----···--·---13
34. The Rankine Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer__ ___________________________________________________________ 14
35. The Gates Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan No. 1 Hammer__ ________________________________________________________________ 14
36. The Gates Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Vulcan 80C Hammer _____________________________________________________________________ 14
37. The Gates Formula Vs the Wave Equation-Delmag D-22 Hammer ________________________________________________________________ 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
l. Hammer Properties-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--·------------------------------------------------- 2
2. Summary of Hammers and Soil Parameters Used in the Study ________________________________________________________________________ 3
3. Summary of Piles Analyzed·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
4. Pile Driving Formulas Used in This Investigation. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4
Appendix
A.l. Permanent Set of Pile Per Blow Predicted by the Wave Equation-Concrete Piles ______________________________________ 16
A.2. Permanent Set of Pile Per Blow Predicted by the Wave Equation-Steel Piles-------------------·--------·---------------16
iv
Introduction
The use of the wave equation to investigate the fore, even though the wave equation might be far more
dynamic behavior of piling during driving has become accurate, the simplicity of the dynamic pile driving
more and more popular1 • 2 during the past several years. formulas made their use attractive, especially for field
Widespread interest in the method had its beginning in use.
1960 when E. A. L. Smith3 used a numerical solution to For this reason, Chellis and others 13 suggested that
investigate the effects of such factors as ram weight, the wave equation should be used to determine if there
ram velocity, cushion and pile properties, and the dy- might exist ranges of application through which simpli-
namic behavior of soil during driving. Since then, vast fied dynamic formulas were reasonably accurate. He
quantities of data have been amassed in experimentation suggested that, "if it can be determined that the Hiley
to determine more accurate values for the input varia- or Engineering News Formula results are safe and that
bles required, 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 and a multitude of full-scale pile ultimate driving resistances are in reasonable agreement
tests have been correlated with the wave equation. 9 • 10 • 11 with wave equation results in any general range of con-
These correlation studies have proven that the wave ditions, then such formulas might permissibly be used
equation is more accurate than other methods and can within such limits. This might enable such simple for-
he used with reasonable confidence. Because of this, mulas to be quickly applied in the office or field, thus
the method is becoming widely used and recommended avoiding the necessity of access to a computer in order
in the literature by foundation experts. 1 to be sure of obtaining sufficiently reliable and eco-
However, as noted by Chellis, 12 a wave equation nomic results."
analysis required the use of a high speed digital com- This report presents the results of such a study,
puter; before an engineer could utilize the method, he and demonstrates that it is indeed possible to find ranges
had to develop a relatively complex computer program of agreement between the wave equation and certain pile
which was both time consuming and expensive. There- driving formulas.
Problems Investigated
The dynamic behavior of a pile during driving is
extremely complex, and involves a multitude of variables VULCAN
including the type of hammer, driving accessories, type #I
of cushion, dimensions and properties of the pile, as well OR SOC
as the Jilroperties of the supporting soil medium. Since it HAMMER
was obviously impossible to compare the pile driving for-
CFfr-~-CAI
mulas with the wave equation for every possible com-
bination of variables, the study was limited to the fol-
lowing:
l. Hammers and pile driving assemblies. Three
pile driving hammers were studied: the Vulcan No. 1,
Vulcan 80C, and Delmag D-22. The hammer properties
and operating char&cteristics listed in Table 1 were deter-
mined from previous research conducted by the authors 1 STEEL
and published through the Texas Transportation Insti- PILE
tute.14 Typical hammer assemblies for the Vulcan No. 1
and Vulcan 80C, driving steel, and concrete piles, are UNIFORM 1
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The Delmag
D-22 was chosen as a typical diesel hammer, and typical
SIDE SOIL 1
RESISTANCE
driving assemblies used to drive steel and concrete piles
are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
2. Pile material. Two. pile materials, steel and
concrete, were used in this study. A modulu" of elas-
ticity of 30 x 10 6 psi was assumed for steel, and 5 x 106
psi for concrete.
3. Pile length. To determine the limits of accuracy
of the pile driving formulas for various pile lengths,
piles having lengths of 30, 60, 100, and 140 ft. were
analyzed.
4. Cross-sectional areas of pile. Three typical
cross-sectional areas were used in the study for each
type of pile; the steel piles had cross-sectional areas of
10, 20, and 30 sq. in., whereas the concrete piles had
cross-sectional areas of 150, 275, and 400 sq. in.
5. Magnitude of soil resistance. To maintain POINT SOl L RESISTANCE
a reasonable number of problems for analysis, only
two soil resistances for each pile were analyzed. The Figure 1. Pile driving assembly of Vulcan No. 1 and
first resistance represented moderate driving (a low Vulcan BOG hammers-steel pile.
PAGE ONE
TABLE 1. HAMMER PROPERTIES
Hammer Ram Anvil Helmet Hammer Rated Actual Cap block Cushion Coeffi-
Weight Weight Weight Effi- Energy Energy Stiffness Stiffness Explosive cient of
(lbs) (lbs) (lbs) ciency Output Output Force Resti-
(ft lbs) (ft lbs) (kips/in.) (kips/in.) (kips) tution
Vulcan No. 1 5,000 none 1,000 0.75 15,000 11,250 1,080 2,000 0 0.8
Vulcan SOC 8,000 none 1,000 0.85 24,800 21,500 1,080 2,000 0 0.8
Delmag D-22 4,850 1,576 1,200 1.00 39,700 29,100* 23,800 2,000 158.7 0.8
*Actual energy output of diesel hammer was determined by method presented in Ref. 8, E = Wh (efficiency) where W
= ram weight and h = actual ram stroke (6ft in this case).
number of blows per foot) for the particular hammer, from experimental information published previously by
while the second was intended to simulate relatively hard the authors, 14 and were held constant. These included
driving. For the Vulcan No. 1, soil resistances of 50 such factors as hammer efficiency, cushion stiffness,
and 200 kips were used. For the Vulcan SOC and Del- coefficient of restitution, and others. These factors are
mag D-22 hammers, soil resistances of 100 and 400 kips listed in Table l.
were used.
Scope of the Investigation
6. Soil resistance distribution. For each of the
previously mentioned cases, two distributions of soil Although this study was obviously small with re-
resistance were studied. These distributions were as spect to the number of variations possible, the results
follows: (a.) all soil resistance at the point of the pile should give some indication as to the relative accuracy
(no side friction), and (b.) all soil resistance uniform- of the commonly used pile-driving formulas and demon-
ly distributed along the side of the pile (no point re, strate at least one method by which considerable useful
sistance). data can be developed by future studies.
7. Other factors. Other factors known to affect
the behavior of piling during driving were determined
DELMAG
D-22
DIESEL
HAMMER
VULCAN
#I OR
~ ~
soc
HAMMER ANVIL
~~TI
CAP BLOCK
a~z=:;::~~~;::Lz::q::~r~-- CAPBLOCK
j CONCRETE UNIFORM 1
UNIFORM
SIDE SOIL
1 PILE SIDE SOIL
RESISTANCE 1
RESISTANCE
1
1~
......
1
1
1'------.--....1
30 1
1'---r----1 Steel 10 60
100
140
2
3
4
30 5
20 60 6
POINT SOIL RESISTANCE 100 7
140 8
Figure 4. Driving assembly of the Delmag D-22 ham- 30 9
30 60 10
mer-concrete pile. 100 11
140 12
30 13
Even though only two or three changes were made Concrete 150 60 14
100 15
in each significant variable, this study required the solu- 140 16
timi of 288 problems by the wave equation and by each 30 17
of the 11 pile-driving formulas. It is therefore obvious 275 60 18
that a complete study encompassing every type of ham- 100 19
mer, pile, and soil would be relatively expensive and 140 20
difficult. 30 21
400 60 22
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the variables used in 100 23
140 24
this study.
Engineering News
u
RUF = 5 +c Canadian Building Code
Michigan Engineering News RUF = -5 + V 52 + 4 (Can 1) (Can 2)
2(Can 2)
Rankine
Eytelwein
u
5 + 0.1
2 Ai{-s+ v 52 + AE/L
u
(~) Gates
u
where:
1 + 0.3
( ;: ) RU~, Ultimate load capacity of pile at time of driv-
ing predicted by the driving formula (lbs),
RUw Ultimate resistance to penetration at the time
Hiley of driving given by the wave equation.
~ + o~~~~C,+C,~ @:!
u Rated energy output of hammer (in. lbs),
RU, Mechanical efficiency of hammer,
5 Permanent set of pile per blow (in.),
Terzaghi
c 0.1 for steam and diesel hammers and 1.0
for drop hammers,
RUF AE[
---r- - 5 +
e Coefficient of restitution of cushion,
= Weight of nim (lbs),
Weight of pile (lbs) ,
v ;:']
0.1,
52 + 2U Wr + RUF
AE.,
AE/L Wr +
0.20 ~F'
Redtenbacher
K .0.25 for steel piles and .10 for concrete piles,
~Cs
A Cross-sectional area of pile (in. 2 ),
RUF + E Modulus of elasticity of pile (psi),
L Pile length (in.),
v 52 + 2U
AE/L Wr
Wr
+ wJ]
Can 1
Can 2
U (
l
~r : ~: P )
1
, and
2AE/L + 20,000A
PAGE FOUR
Correlation Procedure
During the course of this investigation, a total of equation, the resulting permanent set is found to be 1.21
13 different methods were used to predict the resistance in. (see Table A1). Therefore, according to the Engi-
to penetration for each of the previously mentioned neering News Formula given in Table 4, the ultimate
problems. load capacity of the pile at the time of driving will be:
In each case, the wave equation was first used to RU = (15,000) (12) = 137 k'IpS
solve the problem to determine the dynamic behavior F 1.21 + 0.1
of the pile for a single blow of the hammer. This Thus, for this particular case, the ultimate soil
solution gave information regarding the permanent resistance to penetration at the time of driving predicted
set of the pile, temporary compression of the capblock, by the Engineering News Formula is high. Calculating
cushion block, and pile, elastic rebound of the pile, and the ratio of
all other variables required as input by the dynamic
RUw 50 kips
pile driving formulas. These values were then substi-
RUF 137 kips
= 0.364,
tuted into each dynamic pile-driving formula to deter-
mine its prediction for resistance to penetration, RUF, this point is plotted in Figure 5 under steel piles with a
for that case. The resistance to penetration RUw pre- cross-sectional area of 10 sq. in. and a length of 100 ft.
dicted by the wave equation was then divided by the
value ·predicted by the formula being considered. Similarly, the values predicted by the other 10
formulas were determined, and their ratios RUw/RUF
For example, assume that a 100 ft. long steel pile plotted.
with an area of 10 in. 2 is driven by a Vulcan No. 1
hammer against a soil resistance RUw of 50 kips, and Thus, by using these graphs, the engineer can
that this resistance acts at the point of the pile (no side readily determine the relative agreement between the
friction) . When this problem is analyzed by the wave pile driving formulas considered and the wave equation.
Discussion of Results
The results of the correlations between the wave lightweight shell piles driven by heavy solid steel man-
equation and the dynamic formulas are both surprising drels. For example, as noted in Figure 8, if a concrete
and extremely informative. As noted in Figures 5 pile having an area of 400 in. 2 and a length of 100 ft.
through 7 the ratio of the resistance predicted by the was to be driven to a side frictional resistance of 50 kips
Engineering. News Formula and the wave equation is by a Vulcan No. 1 hammer, the Michigan Formula
amazingly constant. This is not to say that the results would not indicate satisfactory resistance to penetra-
are accurate, since the curves are consistently grouped . tion until an actual resistance of 115 kips was obtained.
around RUw/RUF = 0.5. This would indicate that Thus, there would be an unseen factor of safety of 2.3
at least for these cases the Engineering News Formula beyond the factor normally used.
consistently predicts an ultimate value approximately
twice the true resistance to penetration, such that when This is by no means meant to detract from the use-
the recommended safety factor of 6 is applied to the fulness of the Michigan Formula, but rather to empha-
size the potential danger of extrapolating such equations
equation, the true factor of safety would only be 3.
which were derived using only a certain type of pile
Nevertheless, the consistency of this formula is quite under certain conditions.
surprising, especially considering the amount of research
which has recently been published condemning the meth- As seen in Figures l l through 16, the Eytelwein
od.15· 16 This is not to imply that the Engineering News and Navy-McKay Formulas are relatively inconsistent.
Formula is without proponents. In 1965, the Michigan The results for the Hiley Formula noted in Figures
State Highway Commission 17 completed an exhaustive 17 through 19 are extremely interesting. Although the
research program designed to obtain a better under- angle and spread of the curves is much greater than that
standing of the complex problem of pile driving, and to for the Engineering News Formula, notice that they in
evaluate a number of pile driving formulas. Their re-
search led them to modify the Engineering News For-
general center about a ratio of RUw/RUF =1.0, es-
pecially for steel piles with hard driving resistance at
mula as noted in Table 2. This modification has been point. Predictions for long and/ or heavy concrete piles
noted herein as the Michigan Engineering News Formula. show far less agreement, as would be expected from pre-
vious experience. None-the-less, the method's popularity
It is important to note that the entire Michigan
is clearly indicated for steel point bearing piles since it
research program dealt with long, slender, and relatively
comes closer to predicting the true average pile capacity
lightweight steel piling. As noted in Figures 8 through
for a greater variety of steel piles and soil conditions
10, it is seen that their proposed pile-driving formula
than any of the other formulas analyzed.
gives results which are as consistent and accurate as
the Engineering News Formula, for lightweight steel pil-
Figures 20 through 22 illustrate the results obtained
ing at least. However, Figures 8 through 10 also point
for the Terzaghi Formula. Here again, the results vary,
out the complete inadequacy of the Michigan Formula
agreeing with the wave equation only for certain cases
for predicting capacities for heavy concrete piles. Simi- within certain ranges.
lar results were found when attempting to predict the
bearing capacity for extremely heavy steel piles, and for The Redtenbacher, Pacific Coast, and Canadian
PAGE FIVE
Building Code Formulas seem to show the least agree- accuracy and_ usefulness, at least within the range of
ment of the pile-driving formulas studied in this in- problems studied in this report.
vestigation.
The results obtained for the Gates Formula are il-
Figures 32 through 34 illustrate the results of the lustrated in Figures 35 through 37. Although the re-
Rankine Formula and indicate that they, like the Engi- sults are not as closely grouped as some of the previ-
neering News Formula are remarkably well banded and ously mentioned formulas, they are remarkably consistent
consistent, although they also are relatively inaccurate. considering the lack of variables accounted for, and it
However, it seems probable that constants could be appears that it might be possible to modify the formula
applied to either the Rankine Formula or the Engineer- somewhat in order to obtain closer agreement with the
ing News Formula in order to greatly increase their wave equation.
Conclusions
For the cases shown, the Engineering News and might influence the capacity of a pile. Time effects
Rankine Formulas are generally in better agreement with can only be determined by the application of soil
the wave equation than any of the other formulas studied mechanics.
in this report. For the cases analyzed, both formulas
predicted bearing capacities around twice that given
by the wave equation. There were several exceptions for LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE
the Engineering News Formula, these being for extremely EASY DRIVING -Q----0---0- -()---{)- --o-
HARD DRIVING -D--0-0- -o---D---D-
large, heavy concrete piles driven by a Vulcan No. l
hammer, and for long steel piles with extremely small STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
cross-sectional areas, driven by Vulcan 80C hammer. AREA=301N.' . AREA=400 IN. 2
The Rankine Formula, however, had exceptions only 2.0
when driving long concrete piles of large cross-sectional
area with the Vulcan No. l hammer.
Because the results obtained by these two formulas 1.0
are quite consistent, the formulas can be multiplied by
the factor (RUw/RUF) to bring the formulas into - _ _.._....,-= -'-~-
~====:
-- -- ::.:::.::::.
·=-
agreement with the wave equation. The factor RUw/RUF
0.0
can be found from the figures presented. This factor, AREA=2DIN.' AREA=27p !r1i2
when applied to the formula in question, will produce a 2.0
predicted safety factor of 1.0. For the Engineering News
Formula, the equation with the appropriate constant ~
a:
becomes: '
~
a: 1.0
- --""- ----::::
_ (
RUF-
U
s + c ) ( RUw)
RUF
,---o
---o 1==----.=j ----:.-;
----o
0.0
where the equation should be applied only to piles and AREA=IO IN! AREA=I50 IN}
hammers analyzed in this report. 2.0
PAGE SIX
LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE
EASY DHIVING --o----o-o- --Q---0---0- EASY DRIVING -o--cr---o- -o---o.--o-
HARD DRIVING --D-D-D- --G--G---G- HARD DRIVING -{J--0-[)- --G--o---o-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
AREA•30 IN 2 AREA•400 IN. 2 AREA•30 IN. 2 AREA• 400 IN. 2
20 20
/ /
//v
......,_-::::::..=:-.= -- -
--- t/
~
.-'
;:;...---
D
-----
,_
~----
0.0 0.0
AREA• 20 IN. 2 AREA•201N: 2 AREA•27~ IN. 2
/
2.0 2.0
/
/
_,.
=>
a:
:1
a: /
v--
..... ..... /
V--
"'
:::>
!I: 1.0 a:"' 1.0
:::> --~ -,..::::.-----<
~-
-~~
-==--=.-:.:;
»::.-- - --=- -=:=.--.'="
_,..."
,...... .......
p-
?"
....
---- --- --- --- ~~
O.OOL___
--- I}-
~3r0==~6tO::~~IJO~O====I4=0~JOL___j3LO___j6_0______101o------1~1,oJ
-
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140
LEGEND: I
POINT RESISTANCE SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE
----~: /~
1.0 1.0 '---+---t-----+-----++-----1~>'--s-~--lii--;:.:.-,::..--:::::::_-+'-------+--1
~
---- - - ---....:: -
I
-=---...--
r==-.
..,..~
2.0 2.or---r---r---J---t-+--+-+--+----f-l
=> :1
a: !;:: 11::::::::.:::.:::::
.....
a:"' 1.0
:::> ~
a: 1.0
- ~~~v--'
r---+-_-_-_+_-_-_--+_._---~---__-_H---lv""::.-:-~IJ='~;,;:~L..--+-1
,_ __
--- ==B
~- - - -
0.0 o.o 1--+---l---+---H--1---1---1---+-1
2 2
AREAeiO IN.2 AREA•I50 IN. 2 AREA:IO IN. AREA• I 50 IN.
..-.:;:-.:i
1.0 1.0 f--+----l------+-----++---1---+...,.,s:-::..::::~:::::~----l--l
:::-~b---9·-===------~=-q
--- r---- p----· --- --- ---- ----
- e- D -i -
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140 30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140
PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)
Figure 7. The Engineering News Formula vs the wave Figure 9. The Michigan Engineering News Formula vs
equation-Delmag D-22 hammer. the wave equation-Vulcan BOC hammer.
PAGE: SE:VE:N
LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: . POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE
EASY DRIVING -o-0--0- -Q---Q---0- EASY DRIVING -o-0--0- -o--.0·--Q-
HARD DRIVING -D--0-----0- _I. -G- -D---D-- HARD DRIVING -D--0-----0- -o-- -o- --a-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
AREA=30 IN} AREA= 400 IN 2 AREA=301N." AREA= 400 IN.'
_,~
1.0 r----r--+---+---t-+---t----11----t---H 1.0 _..._.;:::;-
-=--.: ==--= ==- - - - - - - - ==---' - --~
__....,.= 14<;;.;:, ~-- ~
:>--
0.0 0.0
AREA=201N 2 AREA=275 IN 2 AREA=201N.2 AREA=275 IN.'
2.0 2.0
~ ~
0:: 0::
..... .....
"
:::>
0:: 1,0
"'
:::>
0:: 1.0
s:::=-- -·
-- --- --- !;(::::.-- ~~ ---
O.Of----t---+----t----H---t---11----t---H 0.0
AREA=IO IN! AREA=I50 IN 2 AREA•IO IN! AREA=I50 IN.'
2.0 -+--+---+---++--+---t----t-----IH 2.0
·~"__....-. g~-=----
,_ -..... '
....... ~
-
o.oo.__ _,3.,0--6"'"o:----l-'o-o--14-o'-'o--3.J..o___6Lo---~o.J..o_ _ _l_,4_,o
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140
PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)
Figure 10. The Michigan Engineering News Formula Figure 12. The Eytelwein Formula vs the wave equation
vs the wave equation-Delmag D-22 hammer. -Vulcan BOC hammer.
//I
_.. ..-<
....-~1-""
~ ~
1.0 1.0 ,, /
--==- __....... I~ ~ r-._ ,.._.,- --- £ ---
·-
---~ --
-~ ~
=-==
0.0 0.0 -
AREA=201N.2 AREA=275 IN.' AREA=201N} AREA=275 IN 2
2.0 2.0
..
:::> ~
0:: 0::
.....
':::>"
0:: 1.0
_..p
a:"
:::>
1.0 -~
__
I~
-
~
,_
-- --==~- --- ""'
...,: ~~--- ~ --- - ,:::-,-,
I-==<
0.0 0.0
AREA=IO IN! AREA=I50 IN} '"AREA•IO IN! AREA=I50 IN}
2.0 2.0
i
1.0 1.0
-- - .... -- -
-- ---~ ~~ --- --- ---- -..,.. ...., --:::;. ~~
___:_j _ _
'' ----~~
L- - - --·--
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140· 30 60 100 1~;0 0 30 60 100 140
)/ .......... --- ~ /
1.0 1---+--+---t----::_""'_-.Q---t--+/~---:ll:___-+---:----;~
t:::.-:: :::::.,;:: : :::.:-- := ? ::::-:::-::=- ·~
1.0
--- --- ---
....__, -- --- ~~
:::;::=:::::::: ---
0.0 0.0
AREA=201N.2 AREA=275 IN 2 / AREA=20 IN. 2 AREA=275 IN 2
/
2.0 / 2.0
/
~ / ~
a:
'~
a:
'~ ~ :::-::.d
-·
a: to a: 1.0
__ --- ..----
~
,__ )-.-~
--=--- :::.--- -::..::::~ ~
f--+--f---+----t-+--1--+---:-J,:...L:_/~...Q--1
1.0
-::::::.::::;.-:::..:-..::~
1.0
--- --- -- ---
-:::;.::; ~
-
1--
..... -- --- a::--
----r-----~----- i - --- ---
O.O0'--=-30,.-----,6:':0:----:I.J.0.,-0--I-:4..JOLL0--3LO-_j6.,.0---IOL0---14.J.O..J
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 1~-0
Figure 14. The Navy-McKay Formula vs the wave equa- Figure 16. The Navy-McKay Formula vs the wave equa-
tion-Vulcan No. 1 hammer. tion-Delmag D-22 hammer.
/ p
2.0 2.0
~ /
/
.......... - /
//
1.0
--~- ~
-- -
- --- /
1.0
--
---
~--= --- -
r--- y.-,....
::..::::-:::: ~
:::---
;::::;::::::. - - ~::...-
~--- I
0.0 0.0
AREA=201N.2 AREA=275 IN 2 AREA=201N. 2 AHEA=275 I N . : %
~ //
2.0
2.0
. _..., o~~ "/
---- ---
~ ::> /
a: n::
,.--/.,""' :~
......
' ~ l~ ~
a:"'
::>
1.0
-· - --- -- ----
- --- --
--::c
;:=-:::=:c /
--
--c
30 60 100 140 0
~
30 60 100 140 30
-
60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140
EASY DRIVING -()----{)---0-- -o- --o- --o- r EASY DRIVING -()----{)---0-- -o- --o---o-
HARD DRIVING --D-D~D- --o-- -o- --Q- HARD DRIVING -o-o-o- I -o-- -o---o-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
-
AREA=30 IN. 2 AREA=301~ AREA= 400 IN 2 I
AREA=:7t
_,-'"/ / /
2.0
- -- - v ..- --/v
2.0
/ v
v
/ ---- / /
1>----
~ v- /
1.0
,__---- 1.0
---
./
/
-
~~ r-
~
-I>-
~-:::: ~
-=-===-:::: b
0.0 0.0
AREA=201N 2 AREA=275 l.ll<l~ / AREA=2.01N. 2 AREA=275 IN 2
/
'i ..... ..-- .//-
::')
2.0
-- l/ /
./ --[________- ::')
2.0
,
/
/
/
0::
---- ::-- v 0::
I~
1.:::--:::__::; ~~ ~
0.0 0.0
AREA=IO IN.' AREA= I 50 I N . : / / V AREA=IO IN.' AREA=I50 IN. 2
v -- ---
2.0 /
2.0
~~
---__ ,-:::::::._ -- ,.-:_:;. ~~
~---- ~ ~
0.0 1 -
2---t---H
O.O t-A-R_E_A+-=2_0_1_N-:!.Z---t----·H-A-R_E_A+=-27_5_1_N-1:: AREA=20 IN.Z AREA=275 IN 2
::') :!) ~
0:: 0::
~
'-
~
'-
"
;:) ..... -.::: .- --p ___.
o:: 1.0 r--+-+--+---=H---Jt-....-_-_-_t-~---:::-::::-="'.±:::=~~
-_-;;~ _,::: ---- b_::::.::.- ---~l-- --1
0:: 1.0
~~
----- p
v &=---
~
OD0'----3.L0--6.LO___I_i0_0_ _1~-,o.L..0'----3L0--6L0---1_10_0___14-'--0-~ 30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140
r% -~
'
---- y
f-------
<V/.
0.0 0.0 ~---------
AREA•201N. 2 ARE/\•275 IN. 2 ARE/\•20 IN. 2 .l\I-1EA=275 IN. 2
2.0 2.0
v
~ ~ /
---· / <~~
/ /
0::
':::>"'
--
0::
'"
:::> / /-9"\
/ ~'d
//
~ v
0:: 1.0
:?>- ~ ----
:-
"::..~ ~ ~--< =-==- 0:: 1.0
~ ~ ,..-----"
..-'
??
0.0 0.0 -
AREA•IO IN.2 AREA•I50 IN 2 AIXEA•IO IN 2 Af,EA•I50 IN 2
/ /
2.0 2.0
/~
y
1.0 -- ----
1.::::---__
-:;::.:::---
.....
-- 1.0
_.....- v- /-:/ ~?__...- v
11::::..---
~
f- ,..-./
~ >;:;_.:;:;;:. ~ ~ 1---
1- -· - ·---- ·------·-'--- ------
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140 30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 1~-0
LEGEND: -~NT RESISTANCE! SlOE RESISTA~;; LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RES!STAt!CE
// ~//
/ / 0
/ '/ __.;;/
2.0
/
-'
........ ,.,._/ // L
.,/'/_
/
v 'i~ ---:-'
/
/;:;:- ~
......-·
~
/
,/
1.0
~:~ v 1.0
/
):._ v
0.0 0.0
AREA•275 IN 2
AREA•201N.2 AREt,•275 IN
2
/
//
/ / 2.0
AREA•201N.2
j
2.0
~ /
/,/
/
/
ll/ ~ ///
/
/
/'
/0 :/
\~ v (/}•
0::
r~----
-
0:: ,/'
':::>"' -----
~ ........ ~-- / ':::>"'
1.0
/~:
/
0:: 1.0
v 0::
~ :~
1------
~~
b~
0.0 0.0
AREA•IO 11" 2 AREA•I50 IN 2 /
/ AREA•IO IN.2 ARE/\•150 IN 2 /
=Lf
/ 2.0
/'J /
2.0
~ //~ /
/
i / -----::-
v---_ /;'/
I
--~
_..
./_;; ~ /~ ---- V/
1.0 ---1 I
_ ___r~-
_rJ
. --
--
~
L_
1.0
~~ ---- ~
,/
0.0 -:>0
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140 0 60 100 140
Figure 23. The Redtenbacher Formula vs the wave equa- Figure 25. The Redtenbacher Formula vs the wave equa-
tion-Vulcan No. 1 hammer. tion-Delmag D-22 hammer.
PAGE ELEVEN
LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE R~SIST~N_CE LEGEND: I
POINT RESISTANCE SlOE RESISTANCE_
EASY DRIVING --o-o-----o-- -o---o-- -o- EASY DRIVING --o-o-----o-- -o---o- --o-
HARD DRIVING ~ -o--o- -o- HARD DRIVING -D-0-D- -o-- -o- --a-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES - cor~ c. PILES
AREA=30 IN. 2 AREA=4001N.>/ I AREA=301N 2 AREA= 400 IN 2
,_ ____
......... ---
2.0
~ I
i -; ..../
.... 2.0
/-
_, ___ .... 0~
n//
/
-
-
--~ ~ ~~ ~ ""'-- 7 ~y
~,...
0.0
" - ~
(/'
0.0
/
--
AREA=201N.Z AREA=275 IN. 2 / AREA=201N.Z AREA=275 IN 2
-
/ //
-,...y-
/
0
u.
0::
2.0
~ .... - /
/
/
/
r ::3'
0::
2.0
,"'/I
....
-,
.....
;,
....--::..---- ~·
/
/
./
/ ;~ .....
~ ... ~'- /~ /
-
::> /
0:: 1.0
v ---~·
___. - .-< ~
0:: 1.0
!0- --~
,---'
0.0 0.0
2.0
AREA=IO IN.2 AREA= I 50 IN.Z
----
/
2.0
AREA=IO IN.2
y
. ..-:
AREA=I50 IN.Z
/
/
.-'
/
/,. .-;:. //A---""'
,_v
----
-· l~
/
h~""
-- (::.:.:----
-~ ,...-::: ~ -:/ ---- ,...~ ~
1.0
__
~,
-- -- .~-
~
1.0
~--' -- :--- v ~/
1----
30 60 100
~
60 100 140
EASY DRIVING --o-o-----o-- -o- --o---o- EASY DRIVING --o-o-----o-- -o---o- --o-
HARD DRIVING -D-0-0- -o--o---o- HARD DRIVING -D-0-0- -o--o---o-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
{I/I
AREA=30IN2 AREA= 400 IN 2 / ' AREA=301N.Z AREA= 400 IN.Z
," 2.0
.----
2.0
......... y /
,.-- / "";P / //
--~ ·~
- ,______. -- -- ~--
-
1.0 1.0 \:;..-
~~ :?
~~ ~
~--
0.0 0.0
AREA=201N.Z AREA=275 IN.Z
AREA=201N.Z AREA=275 IN.Z
v/ 2.0
// I
"-
2.0
,-:;::. ~/ / ;'
::>
"- //
/
/...-
----
v --
::> /
0::
0::
v .....;, ;:.....-----
.....;.
::>
0:: 1.0 ----
; /,_·--- // ::l
0:: 1.0
-
~I
,. ---
---
,.,-"'"'
y
&
~·--
~ .... [.?--
~
~
~
0.0 0.0
AREA=IO IN.2 AREA=I50 IN.Z ./' AREA=IO IN.Z AREA=I50 IN.Z
,"'L_
2.0 2.0 /
/
,/_,/
,/ // ~.-'.,-' >-:''
-- --
/
l/
/~
~
........... -"'
-- ----"" ,;/?:::::::-
1.0
.--/"
,.......-- ---- - -'
,......- ~ 1.0
~~
=::-- ~ ~=--
~
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140 30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140
-- - --- _,/
v
--
1.0
~ /-~
1.0 f-----+---f----f----+-+---+---+---+---+--1
·~
p:-- ~ - :_:::.::
.---- =---
-----
0.0 0.0
AREA•201N. AREA•275 IN} ARE/\•201N. 2 AREA•275 IN 2
/~
=>
2.0
__,. ~ =>
2.0
0:: 0::
.....
~/ .....;.
-- ~
--
;.
::> .- /'
<---- / ::>
0:: 1.0
~
~-
v 0:: 1.0
0.0
AREA•IO IN. 2
AREA•I50 IN 2
-
0.0 1---+---+----\---H--+----f----+-----+-1
Af~EA=IO IN.
2
AREA= 150 IN}
2.0 1---t---+----j--
---------
/
~ ~ f------1---+----t----+-+---f----+----+---+-l
1.0
---·-·- ;_---- 1.0
~
l:"---
~ --- - =-==-=- ~ --- =---
0.00~--3L0---6LO____IJ0_0____
14-0L-0~--~3L0--~6-0-----10-'-0------I~~,C~
1
2.0 2.0
1.0
y-:..:- ~
c.--
-
-- ----
---- - ~
---:: ~
- - --:;:;::=
--- I
1.0
,_ ... -- -- - --.;
- ~ --
0.0 0.0
AREA•201N} ARE/1•275 IN} AREA•201N.Z AREA=275 IN 2
2.0 2.0
=> =>
--- -- ---
0:: 0::
.....
-- :::::::-
.....
~ -- :::-- ;.
-
---
7--::.~ ::>
0:: 1.0
-,...r.:. ~ ---- ~~ a~
0:: 1.0
--;;:;;:!
- --- ---
!::=:-:: ~ -~
0.0 0.0
AREA•IO IN.2 AREA•I50 IN} AREA•IO IN.2 AREA= I 50 IN 2
2.0 2.0
::::--
1.0
~
30
5-----
60
_;;:::-::- ~
100
-
140
1.0
i==-~
r--·
30
~i
-
60
--
100 140 0 30
-----
60 100
___ _,
~
140
...
:::>
0::
':::>;.
2.0
...
:::>
0::
':::>;.
2.0
!----I - -- ---- --
'
~
~
-
- --
1.0 1.0
~:-sj - r-- - -
1>-.J/1>-...-
-
=-== ~
~
- --- -;:..::::::::. \
\
\
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 1~0 30 60 100 140 0 -.:>0 60 100 140
I____ ~AS'(_DRIVII~G _ _ 1_=5?~ -o----o- -o- EASY DRIVING --o--o---o- -o- --o- --{)-
IHARODf>tVING -~~ -o---o---o-· HARD DRIVING
2.0 f----krr--=---_+_-_-_-_+p----++--+~+--+_-_-_-_+119
I
~==::.~>----•
--- 0---- ----
-:;~k--
1------1---l--l--W--1'===!!:====1pi"='"_·==----=- 1.0 f--+~'--:::o:,.....-k=--+--H---t:---t---t----t--'
---- ----
1.0
o---t>--- ___ c --__::..p-- ..._ -- ---- ,_ --
0.0 f---+--+--+--+-1---+---+:----+---1---1
AREA=201N 2 AREA=275 IN 2 O.O AREA=20 IN.' AREA=275 IN 2
2.0 f----1--+--+--+-1--+---+---t---1--i
:::) :::)
2.0
---
J-
0::
·- 0::
'
~ 1>---- - - - - ------ --- --- ---- '
~
o: I.Oi---+--t----j---H---1--+---t---t-t o: 1.0 1-----'1-=1=-::_~_+-_--_-_-_-1-1---9=--=±----t---H
1>---- - - - - - - )-- - --::.:
0 ·0 L--:l3l:-0--6='"o=----:-:lol:o:-~14:-:o~o:----:3::l:o::---:6~0:---:-Io;:o;:---1:-;4';::'0
30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 14·0 0
PAGE FIFTEEN
, TABLE A.l. PERMANENT SET OF PILE PER BLOW PREDICTED BY THE WAVE EQUATION-STEEL PILES
>
Gl
J11
Cll
Area Length Vulcan No. 1 Hammer Vulcan 80-C Hammer Delmag D-22 Hammer
of of Pile
><
-i Pile (ft.) Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance
J11
(in.) 2 at point (kips) on side (kips) at point (kips) on side (kips) at point (kips) on side (kips)
J11
z 50 200 50 200 100 400 100 400 100 400 100 400
30 1.23 0.23 1.88 0.38 1.16 0.08 1.73 0.18 1.45 0.15 2.53 0.25 [JJ
10 60 1.22 0.17 1.93 0.35 1.19 0.01 1.75 0.05 1.41 0.14 2.50 0.21 c::
100 1.21 0.12 1.96 0.31 1.21 0.00 1.75 0.00 1.47 0.08 2.16 0.16 ::=
140 1.22 0.13 1.80 0.28 1.20 0.00 1.82 0.00 1.45 0.08 2.18 0.17 ::=
30 1.19 0.28 1.88 0.42 1.12 0.15 1.70 0.30 1.24 -0:26 2.19 0.18 >
0.28 ~
20 60 1.18 0.27 2.01 0.43 1.09 0.13 1.73 0.28 1.17 0.29 1.86 0.14
100 1.20 0.27 1.87 0.44 1.08 0.13 1.83 0.27 1.09 0.13 1.64
140 1.20 0.27 1.85 0.42 1.20 0.13 1.80 0.26 1.09 0.13 1.61 0.29 0
30 1.18 0.28 1.93 0.41 1.09 0.18 1.66 0.33 1.28 0.24 2.53 0.36 >Tj
30 60 1.32 0.30 1.96 0.40 1.08 0.21 1.76 0.34 1.18 0.17 1.938 0.35 ""0
100 1.25 0.30 1.81 0.40 1.08 0.21 1.78 0.35 1.05 0.18 1.56 0.35 t:rj
140 1.30 0.28 1.93 0.37 1.15 0.22 1.70 0.36 1.05 0.18 1.46 0.30 ::0
::=
>
:.z:
t:rj
:.z:
o-3
[JJ
t:rj
o-3
[JJ"CS
>
""0 "CS
::0
t:rj
0
=
~
~
(=) ~
o-3
t:rj
0
to
TABLE A.2. PERMANENT SET OF PILE PER BLOW PREDICTED BY THE WAVE EQUATION-CONCRETE PILES >-<:
o-3
Area Length Vulcan No. l Hammer Vulcan 80-C Hammer Delmag D-22 Hammer ::c:
t:rj
of of Pile Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance Soil Resistance
Pile (ft.) at ooint (kips) on side (kips) at point (kips) on side (kips) at point (kips) on side (kins) ~
(in.)' >
50 200 50 200 100 40() 100 4.00 100 400 100 400 <
t:rj
30 1.20 0.26 1.69 0.37 1.03 0.15 1.57 0.27 1.30 0.18 2.15 0.31 t:rj
150 60 1.23 0.27 1.71 0.35 1.09 0.20 1.58 0.28 0.96 0.19 1.75 0.31 ,Q
100 1.25 0.27 ,. 1.57 0.3.5 1.11 0.21 1.61 0.32 1.16 0.21 1.68 0.30 ~
140 1.34 0.27 1.93 0.33 1.12 0.17 1.65 0.31 1.18 0.21 1.51 0.34 o-3
30 1.21 0.23 1.74 0.31 1.09 0.18 1.51 0.27 1.32 0.22 2.04 0.34 0
275 60 1.26 0.22 1.68 0.26 1.12 0.23 1.58 0.26 1.23 0.25 1.74 0.28 :.z:
10.0 1.36 0.23 1.85 0.27 1.13 0.23 1.52 0.29 1.50 0.26 1.89 0.31
140 1.96 0.24 2.56 0.29 1.20 0.24 1.76 0.27 1.10 0.27 1.28 0.30
30 1.19 0.21 1.62 0.28 1.08 0.18 1.52 0.25 1.23 0.22 1.80 0.31
400 60 1.34 0.19 1.79 0.22 0.10 0.21 1.49 0.23 1.16 0.22 1.57 0.24
100 1.97 0.18 2.59 0.20 1.15 0.21 1.50 0.22 1.09 0.23 1.29 0.25
140 2.70 0.20 3.23 0.23 1.38 0.22 1.94 0.24 1.06 0.24 1.07 0.26