RD-R1U

305

UMLASSIFIED

COMPARISON OF RXIAL CAPOCIT OF YIWTOR-AIYEN ILES

TO IMPACT-DRIVEN PILES(U) RMY ENGINEER NATERNIRS
EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSIIMRO HS INFOR..
R L MOSHER
SEP 97 IES/TR/XTL-87-7
F/O 133

Emi

VV1
"L

IfIII

II~ 1*51111
sz u 1*62W
=*
11111

,
F,

*~

v%

Asa

wiWW

J.II

'
VVV
*-

967

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

JAL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

TForm Approved

OsAN' 0O04.o 188

Date

_________________________________________Exp

Jun30 7986

lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

,__,_.___..___

Unclassified
3 DISTRIBUTION/AVALABILITY OF REPORT

2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY

.. ,',

Approved for public release; distribution

2b DECLASSIFICATIONIDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

.'

unlimited.
S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

T,

.v

Technical Report ITL-87-7

6b OFFICE SYMBOL
(Ifapplicable)

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

'

See reverse

See reverse

State,and ZIP Code)

7b ADDRESS (City.

6c.ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station

PO Box 631
Vicksburg, MS

39180-0631

..
'.-_.-_,_
8b OFFICE SYM8OL
(Ifapplicable)

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING

ORGANIZATION

9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

CELMV-ED-G

See reverse

10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

8c.ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

PR'OGRAM

PRO1EC'T

O 0ELEMENT
,0
PO Box

IWORK

TASK

UNIT

,.

ACCESSION NO

NO

f.~-

80

Vicksburg, MS

39180-0080

% '%

11 TITLE (IncludeSecurityClassification)

% -

i%

.,

Comparison of Axial Capacity of Vibratory-Driven Piles to Impact-Driven Piles

12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Mosher. Reed L.
14 DATE OF REPORT (Year Month.Day)

13b TIME COVERED

13a TYPE OF REPORT

Final report

FROM

Oct 84

TOSep

87

mr

15 PtGE COUNT

1987.

16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

,_, ..
e-'.

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161
FIELD

GROUP

.
%

18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverseif necessary and identifyby block number)

COSATI CODES

17

Lock and Dam No. 1 (Red River)

SUB-GROUP

Piling (Civil
engineering)

(LC)

Locks (Hydraulic engineering)

Pile Drivers (LC)
19 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

"

9
..

\This technical report documents the findings of an investigation into the effects on

the axial capacity of piles driven by vibratory pile-driving hammers. The investigation
stems from the concern that foundation engineers in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division of
the US Army Corps of Engineers had over the unexpected low capacities found during the pile
test at Red River Lock and Dam No. I. While driving piles with a vibratory hammer increases
productivity up to 10 to 20 times over the use of an impact hammer, there is a significant
reduction in the axial capacity of the piles driven with a vibratory hammer. The study revealed that this reduction was a result of a loss in the load carried by the tip. The report documents a number of pile testing programs that were performed to make direct comparison between vibratory-driven piles and impact-driven piles.

21

20 DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED
0 SAME AS RPT
22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE NOIVIOUAL

DO FORM 1473.84 MAR

DTIC USERS

0
Z..
-

ABSTRACT SECUR Ty CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified
22b TELEPHONE (include Area Code)

83 APR edition may be used unt. ext'austed

22c

OFFCE SYMBO

SECR,7Y CLAS,,rICArION Or

*.

5 PAuF,,

All other edtion$ are obsolete

Unclassified

%"

%"%
;

L"

.-

Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

6a. & 6b.

Engineering Application Office

Information Technology Laboratory
8a.

NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION AND OFFICE SYMBOL (Continued).

CEWES-KA-E
CEWES-IM-R

NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING ORGANIZATION (Continued).

US Army Engineer Division

Valley
Lower Mississippi
!V

L.

.Ipm

t .

:.
%;

Unclassified

-_,

-~

~%"

PREFACE
This report investigates the effect of uses of vibratory pile-driving
hammers on axial capacity of piles.

This study concentrated on field tests

that were conducted for direct comparison between vibratory-driven piles and
impact-driven piles.

The results show that vibratory-driven piles generally

have a significantly lower ultimate axial capacity than similar impact-driven

piles.
The work was conducted during the period 1984 through 1987 as part of
the assistance provided by the Engineering Application Office (EAO), formerly
Engineering Application Group, Scientific and Engineering Application Division
(SEAD), Automation Technology Center (ATC), US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), to the US Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley
(LMVD).

Work on the project was coordinated with LMVD with Messrs. Frank J.

Weaver and James A. Young, Geology, Soils, and Materials Branch, Engineering
Division, LMVD.

Mr. Young acted as technical monitor for the project.

The work was accomplished in the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) by

Mr. Reed L. Mosher, EAO, with assistance from Virginia Noddin, EAO, under the
general supervision of Mr. Paul K. Senter, Acting Chief, Information Research
Division (IRD),

ITL, formerly Chief, SEAD, and Dr. N. Radhakrishnan, Acting

Chief, ITL, former Chief, ATC, WES.

Final editing for the publication of this

report was done by Mrs. Gilda Miller, Information Products Division, WES.
COL Allen F. Grum, USA, was the previous Director of WES.
Lee, CE, is the present Commander and Director.

COL Dwayne G.

Dr. Robert W. Whalin is

Technical Director.

..

| ;- ,N

.... ..
"'

.. .

'""~A.

CONTENTS

Page
PREFACE ................................................................

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT .........

PART I:

INTRODUCTION ..................................................

Background .......................................................
Purpose ..........................................................
Scope ............................................................

4
4
5

PILE DRIVERS ................................................

Introduction .....................................................
Impact Driving ...................................................
Type of Impact Hammers ...........................................

6
6

Vibratory Driving ................................................ .

PART II:

FIELD PILE TESTS ............................................

10

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 ................................

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3 ................................
Crane Rail Tracks (Mazurkiewicz 1975) ............................
Geochemical Building, Harvard University and Wall No. 7,
1-95, Providence, Rhode Island .................................

10
15
21

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................

31

Summary of Field Tests ...........................................

Conclusions ......................................................

31
35

REFERENCES .............................................................

36

PART III:

PART IV:

26

APPENDIX A:

PILE TESTS, ARKANSAS RIVER LOCK AND DAM NO. 4 .............

Al

APPENDIX B:

PILE TESTS, ARKANSAS RIVER LOCK AND DAM NO. 3 .............

B1

'.,.

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI

(metric) units as follows:
To Obtain

By

Multiply
degrees (angle)

0.01745329

radians

feet

0.3048000

metres

foot/pound (force)

1.355818

metre-newtons

inches

2.54

centimetres

miles

1.609347

kilometres

pounds (force)

4.448222

newtons

tons (force)

8.896444

kilonewtons

3r
..
,
..
"-%1"
* " "

, '

""w",

", "

"' e '

'.'.-.'.','..''.'.''

.-','''''

'-''',.'-'-'.'.

.'.-.-

'-'

'.

COMPARISON OF AXIAL CAPACITY OF VIBRATORY-DRIVEN

PILES TO IMPACT-DRIVEN PILES

PART I:

INTRODUCTION

Background

1.

In recent years the use of vibratory pile-driving hammers has gained

popularity with contractors because of the increased productivity realized

with their use.

The time required to drive a 100-ft* pile with a vibratory

hammer is approximately 1 to 2 min as compared to 10 to 20 min with an impact

A pile foundation for one of the US Army Corps of Engineers naviga-

hammer.

tional structures may require as many as 5,000 to 8,000 piles to be driven.

An increase in productivity of 10 to 20 times is very attractive and profitable to contractors.
2.

Foundation engineers have been concerned about the effect on the

axial capacity of piles driven by vibratory hammers.

The installation of a

pile inescapably results in altering the stresses in the soil surrounding the
pile.

Studies by Meyerhof (1959),

Robinsky and Morrison (1964),

and Ellison

(1969) have revealed that impact driving in granular soils causes compaction
of the soil in the vicinity of the pile, and the stress levels are consequently increased.

Less is known about the changes that the soil undergoes in

the vicinity of a vibratory-driven pile.

Purpose

3.

During the construction of Lock and Dam No. 1 on the Red River, a

pile testing program was undertaken to verify the pile design for the dam.
The piles at the site were driven with a vibratory hammer.
were H-piles with lengths between 55 and 70 ft.

The piles tested

The capacities of the piles

tested were 70 percent less than the expected values.

As a result of these

pile tests, the Lower Mississippi Valley Division (LMVD) has become interested

A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measuremernt to SI (metric) units is presented on page 3.

in whether or not the reduced capacity was due to the driving of the piles
with a vibratory hammer.

To investigate these concerns, LMVD instituted this

study.

Scope

4.

The primary objective of this report is to investigate the effects

of vibratory driving on the axial pile capacity by examining available pile

test data.

The pile load test has long been known as the only true measure of

axial capacity for a given site.

A load test permits the direct measurement

of pile capacity under the actual construction and soil conditions that prevail at the site.

This study has concentrated on test programs at sites where

tests were performed on piles driven by both vibratory and impact hammers.
5.

I.

In Part II, a brief history and description of impact and vibratory

pile-driving hammers is given.

The site conditions, the pile descriptions,

and the results of the tests investigated in this study are presented in
Part III. The results of the investigation are summarized and the conclusions
are presented in Part IV.

5.
'...,

'....:

_a.1

PART II:

PILE DRIVERS

Introduction
6. Piles

ere often classified by the methods of installation.

Current

construction practices for installing piles may be divided into four basic
catagories:
jetted.

driven, bored and cast-in-place, driven and cast-in-place, and

Jetted and bored piles, seldom used in sand, are not discussed in

this report.
7. The driving of piles is one of the most common methods of installing a pile and can be characterized as the operation of forcing the pile into
the ground by applying a dynamic load at the pile head.

The driving of piles

is well suited for the installation of small displacement piles in loose to

medium-dense granular soils.

Pile driving can be categorized by the method

used to develop the dynamic load that forces the pile into the ground.

The

two most common methods for driving piles are impact and vibratory driving.
Impact Driving

8. The oldest and most common method of pile driving is impact driving.

Impact hammers or drop hammers originated with the Romans who used a

stone block hoisted by rope over a pulley guide and then dropped.
was guided to its destination by vertical poles.

The block

Today impact hammers operate

between a pair of vertical guides called leads suspended from the boom of a
crane.

The leads have rails similar to the Romans' vertical poles which guide

the hammer during its descent.

The leads are linked to the head of the crane

jib and to control their verticality or batter the leads are connected to the
base of the crane by a horizontal member called a spotter.
Types of Impact Hammers

9. Under the classification impact driving there are four basic types
of pile-driving hammers:

Z %

a. Drop hammer
b.

Single-action steam/air hammer

.e1,-

6,<

c. Double-action steam/air hammer

d. Diesel hammer (single and double action)
Drop hammer
10.

The drop hammer is the most simple hammer, consisting of a ram made

of cast steel that is raised by a cable over a pulley guide at the top of a
framework.

The cable is attached to a winch or a gear shaft and has a trip-

ping mechanism to release the ram once it reaches the top of the guide rails.
Once released, the ram free falls along the guide rails and strikes the head
of the pile, thus driving it into the ground.

Drop hammers are extremely slow

and are used only on small jobs where the cost of other equipment is not
warranted.
Single-action steam/air hammer
11.

The single-action steam/air hammer is a relatively long-stroke ma-

chine which uses steam or compressed air to lift the ram. The steam or air is
then released to allow the ram to drop on the pile head.

The energy for this

type of hammer is simply the weight of the ram times the height of the fall.
The mass of the rams for these types of hammers range from 3,000 to 175,000 lb
with energy ratings of 7,260 to 868,000 ft-lb per blow.

The maximum height of

the drop of the ram is usually about 4.5 ft and the hammer can be operated at
rates up to 60 strokes per minute.
Double-action steam/air hammer

12.

The double-action steam/air hammer makes use of steam or compressed

air, both to lift the ram and to accelerate it downward.

The blows are more

rapid, but the weight of the ram is considerably less as compared to the

single-action hammer of similar energy.

The mass of the ram ranges from 200

to 40,000 lb with energy ratings from 1,200 to 113,000 ft-lb per blow and the
hammers have stroke rates of 100 to 300 blows per minute.

The hammers are

light, self contained, and especially well suited for heavy piling such as
H-piles, pipe piles, and timber piles.

Diesel hammer

a..

13. The principle behind the diesel hammer is that as the falling ram
compresses air in the cylinder, diesel fuel is injected into the cylinder and

this is atomized by the impact of the ram on the concave base of the cylinder.
The impact ignites the fuel and the resulting explosion contributes an addi-

tional "kick" to the head of the pile, which is already receiving a blow from
the ram.

Thus, the blow is sustained and imparts energy over a longer period

%.. ' ',

,.

. ..

.'.,'.,' .

., a '...

',.'.'

.'.

.,a.:

4... '..'..
V.. '..'.

-"

than the simple blow of a single-action steam/air hammer.

The ram rebounds

after the explosion and scavenges the burnt gases from the chamber.

The

4b

mass of the ram ranges from 500 to 33,000 lb with energy ratings of 800 to
286,000 ft-lb per blow and has stroke rates of 40 to 60 blows per minute.

Vibratory Driving

14.

The first low-frequency vibratory pile driver was used in the con-

struction of a hydroelectric project at Gorky, in the Soviet Union in 1957

(Barkan 1957).

The vibratory hammer, BT-5 type, was used to drive 3,700 sheet

piles to depths ranging from 28 to 40 ft into a saturated sand in about 2 to

3 min per pile.

Comparisons between the vibratory hammer and the pneumatic

hammer indicated that the vibratory hammer drove about 60 percent more sheet

piles than the pneumatic hammer in an 8-hr shift and required 25 percent less
power to operate.

,U

Resonant hammers
15.

A second type of vibratory hammer known as the resonant vibrator or

the sonic pile driver was first introduced by Albert G. Bodine, Jr., of California.

This type of hammer operates at high frequencies causing the pile to

oscillate near its own half-wave frequency.

In 1961, the C. L. Guild Co. of

Providence, R. I., gave a spectacular demonstration of this hammer.

In this

demonstration, the Bodine hammer drove a closed-end pipe pile 71 ft, while an
adjacent steam hammer drove an identical pile just 3 in. in the same time
period (Engineering News Record (ENR) 1961).
Vibratory hammers
16.

Vibrators consist of a pair of axles geared together to rotate at

equal speeds in opposite directions.

are driven by an electric motor.

The axles carry eccentric weights and

A hydraulic clamp at the base of the vibra-

tor is used to attach the hammer to the pile head.

The principle on which

this type of hammer works is that when the counter-rotating eccentric masses
are phased together and driven at the same speed, the horizontal components of
the resulting rotational force cancel, while the vertical components combine.
The vertical components are cyclic and they are directed first upward and then
downward.

The pile moves downward due to the weight of the hammer and the

pile.
17.

Vibratory hammers can be classified into low-frequency and

......................

t A,

&A

high-frequency (resonant) vibrators, according to the range of their operating frequency.

Low-frequency vibratory hammers operate at frequencies in the

range of 5 to 50 Hz.

High-frequency vibratory hammers such as the Bodine

hammer operate at frequencies in the range of 40 to 140 Hz.

18.

Vibratory hammers operate most effectively when driving small dis-

placement piles such as H-sections or open-end pipe piles in loose to mediumdense granular soils.

Vibratory hammers have an advantage over impact hammers

in that the noise and shock wave associated with blows delivered by the ram
are eliminated.

They also cause less damage to the piles and have a signifi-

cantly faster rate of penetration in favorable soil conditions such as sands.

'9.

9,

2',.

PART III:

19.

FIELD PILE TESTS

w.

The five testing programs that directly compared impact- and

vibratory-driven piles are:

a.

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4

b.

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No.

c.

Crane rail tracks

d.

Geochemical Building, Harvard University

e.

Wall No. 7, 1-95, Providence, Rhode Island

'S

Jr

%
V

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4

20.

The pile testing program for Lock and Dam No. 4 was instituted as

..

the primary source of information for the design ana construction of the four
locks and dams along the lower Arkansas River Valley.

In view of the magni-

tude of the projects and the lack of factual information regarding the driving
and axial and lateral load capacities of piles in the lower Arkansas River
Valley, a comphrehensive pile testing program was conducted by the US Army
Engineer District, Little Rock.

The purpose of the tests were to develop

criteria for the design and construction of pile foundations for the future
locks and dams.

The general objectives of the pile investigation were to

establish criteria for the design and construction of axially loaded piles.
Parameters included were the size and penetration of various types of piles
for both compression and tension, the type and size of pile-driving hammers
required for economical installation, and the design and construction of
laterally loaded piles including the effects of batter and cyclic loading.
Compression test results are shown for 12 different piles in Appendix A (Fruco
and Associates, 1964).

Site description
21. Soil conditions in the lower Arkansas River Valley are typical of
an alluvial pastoral zone.

In general, they consist of alluvial deposits of

loose surface silts, sandy silts, and clays of variable thickness underlain

by a zone of medium to dense silty sand with a thickness ranging from 70 to

150 ft.
22.

This all overlies a stratum of deeply bedded Tertiary clays.

The test site was located on the east bank of the Arkansas River

about 20 miles downstream from Pine Bluff and 9 miles upstream from the future

P~Y .

%_'RA

.- le

NN

14"L'I
S

DA(;A" LX-&
L r'p
MOUNTAIN

q'LUC

U.

L&.307

A,'
Arkansas River Navigation Project

Figure 1.

site of Lock and Dam No. 3 (Figure 1).

The soil conditions at the pile test-

ing site were determined by exploratory borings and laboratory tests made in
connection with the foundation investigation for Lock and Dam No. 14,and
!t.
Ro
L1
further explorations were made specifically for the pile testing program.
Pine

lu

test
These explorations indicated that three major soil strata exist at theArbon*&&
site:

Pon,
Lft 3below
a surface blanket of silts and clays which extends about 615WD
' ".' ' '-% ,k'
I..." ,w -. "w

"

"

"-

""

% ".

'.

'.

'''''"

''"

''

'

"

''.

'"'

% ''-."%".

the ground surface, a deep stratum of relatively dense, fine to medium sand

I
.

"

"

.a-

which extends about 100 ft, and a basal stratum of Tertiary clay of undetermined thickness.

Discontinuous thin seams of silt and clay were encountered

-"

in sand stratum at depths between 30 to 50 ft.

23.

The test area was prepared by excavating approximately 20 ft

of' silty surface soils which exposed the underlying stratum of sand.

Post-

'V"-

excavation standard penetration resistances increased with depth ranging from

A""

20 to 40 blows per foot, with an average of about 27 blows per foot.

The dry

density of the sand ranged from 90 to 109 pcf, but showed no significant trend
with depth.
the site.

The ground-water level was held at 2 to 3 ft below the surface of

Figure 2 shows a generalized profile for the test site.

200

160

*~

O0

120~

80

Figure 2.

Generalized soil profile for Lock and Dam

No. 4 pile test site

Desciption of testing program and results

24.

The basic pile investigation included field driving and load tests

on a variety of pile types.

Tests were performed on square prestressed con-

crete piles, steel pipe piles, and steel H-piles that were driven with both a
double-action steam and a Bodine sonic vibratory hammer.

The field load tests

included compression, tension, and lateral loading of single piles.

Strain

instruments were attached to steel piles to determine the distribution of

stresses in the piles under compression, tension, and lateral loads.
25.
the site.

Table 1 presents a summary of the axial load tests performed at

The table shows the type of pile tested, the penetration, the type

of hammer used for installation, and the reported average failure loads for

12

A.

compression and tension.

in Appendix A.

The plots of the individual load tests are provided

Comparisons between impact and vibratory driven piles can be

made with the 16-in. pipe piles, the H-piles, and the 16-in. concrete piles.
26.

In Table 2, the distribution of the load being carried by the side

In Figure 3, the tip and

and the tip of the pile is given for pipe sections.

the side loads at failure are plotted against the pile diameters for the

Table 1
Summary of Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 Pile Tests
Average Pile Failure
Load, tons
Tension
Compression

Hammer
Type

Penetration
ft

Test
No.

Type

12 in. pipe

53.1

140C

140

70

2
2X

16 in. pipe
16 in. pipe

52.8
52.8

140C
140C

195
210

91
-

20 in. pipe

53.0

140C

215

90

16 in. concrete

40.2

140C

16 in. concrete

51.0

140C

170
240

71
-

14 BP 73

40.0

80C

140

14 BP 73

52.1

80C

190

45

Timber

38.6

14 BP 73

53.2

65C
Bodine

80
210

25
-

10

16 in. pipe

53.1

Bodine

180

87

11

16 in concrete

38.8

Bodine

150

,a

Table 2
Load Distribution in Pipe Piles

Test
No.

Nominal
Diameter
in.

Penetration
ft

Average
Failure
Load
tons

12

53.1

140

34

24

106

76

16

52.8

195

58

30

137

70

2X

16

52.8

210

67

32

143

68

20

53.0

215

77

36

138

64

10

16

53.1

180

46

26

134

74

Load Distribution
Skin Friction
Tip Load
Percent
Tons
Percent
Tons

13

. . %' ' ', % i -. -...'-. -

'a.''.',.*

'

.. . ....

..

'

.a' .

.a..

..

..

200.00 -

150.00

,.

o 100.00

_ji

TPCopeeft

II

..

50.00

0 .00

10.00
Figure 3.

.. .

.,

.E *........

...

..... .

5**,

.,

20.00
16.00
18.00
12.00
14.00
Nominal Pipe Pile Diameter in Inches

,
, 1........

22.00

Failure load versus pipe pile diameter

for Lock and Dam No. 4

various pipe piles tested. Test piles 2 and 10, being spaced just 8 ft apart,
give a direct comparison between a pile installed by a Bodine sonic hammer
(high frequency vibratory hammer) and similar pile driven with a Vulcan steam
impact hammer.

Comparing the load carried by the tip and side for test piles

2 and 10, 16-in. pipe piles, shows that the impact-driven pile has signifi-

cantly more capacity, 58 tons, than the vibratory-driven pile, 46 tons, while
the side capacities differed only by 3 tons.
27.

Table 3 presents the distribution of the load being carried by the

side and tip for the H-piles tested. Comparisons can be made between test
piles 7 and 9. Test pile 9, which was driven with the Bodine sonic hammer,
and had a capacity 30 tons greater than test pile 7 which was impact driven.
Examination of the distribution of the load in the piles reveals that the
vibratory-driven pile, test pile 9, had 14 tons less tip capacity than the
impact-driven pile, test pile 7, but had substantially greater side-capacity
by 34 tons.

14

..

%
Table 3

Load Distribution for H-Piles

Test
No.

6
7
9

Load Distribution
Tip Load
Skin Friction
Tons
Percent
Tons
Percent

Average
Failure Load
tons

Penetration
ft.

40.0
52.1
53.2

140
190
210

21
39
25

15
21
12

119
151
185

85
79
88

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3

28.

Exploration prior to the construction showed a stratigraphy of the

site typical of Arkansas River alluvial soils and comparable to that found at
Lock and Dam No. 4.

'
4

However, during the initial pile driving and load test-

ing, it became apparent that the soil characteristics at the site were not as

anticipated.

The initial compression and tension tests indicated that the de-

sign pile lengths would not carry the required loads with appropriate safety
factors.

Additional soil borings and field and laboratory tests were made.

The results of these tests indicated that the removal of the overtirden and/or
scour during the cofferdam construction caused a stress relaxation within the

soil mass resulting in a much looser foundation than initially determined.

To

determine the required pile lengths for the unexpected soil conditions and
to investigate the acceptability of the contractor's proposal to drive the
bearing piles with a Foster vibratory hammer, the US Army Engineer District,

1. -'

Little Rock, initiated a pile testing program (US Army Engineer District,
Little Rock 1967). Appendix B includes compression and tension test results

for six different piles.

Site description
29.

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3* is located at Arkansas River

navigational mile 49.3, approximately 30 miles downstream from Pine Bluff,

Arkansas (Figure 3).

The geological conditions and stratigraphy are similar

to those previously described for Lock and Dam No. 4.

30.

The tests of interest were performed in the vicinity of the left

.4'-

US Army Engineer District, Little Rock.

1965.

"Foundation Design for Lock

and Dam No. 3, Arkansas River Navigation Project," unpublished.

15

%'".%

The top stratum varied from 0 to 30 ft in thickness and con-

riverbank.

sisted of erratically stratified silt and lean clay.

These surface soils are

underlain by 90 to 130 ft of sand which is primarily gray and brown, clean,

fine to medium sand with frequent lenses of clay, silt, and silty sand mixed
with gravel lenses and occasional boulders.

Below the sand deposit lies a

Tertiary formation of stiff to hard, overly consolidated clay of low to high

plasticity.

The generalized soil profile shown in Figure 4 was derived for

the test area.

Prior to pile driving, the

test site was excavated into the thick sand

stratum.

0-

Approximately 40 to 50 ft of the

surface stratum was removed.

Description of testing program and results

...

'%

-20

..

31. Load tests were preformed to determine the axial capacity for different
driving equipment, the lateral capacity of

-40

piles, load versus length curves for the

site, and water table correction factors

for the submerged condition. For each of
the piles tested, a cluster of at least nine

-6

piles was driven with the center pile being

the designated test pile.

Tests were per-

formed on piles in Monoliths L-7, L-14, R-8,

R-9, R-19, SB-4, 10, 16, and 23 (Figure 5).

-80

The test program consisted of 15 compression,

7 tension, and 10 lateral load tests.

32.

For this study, focusing on the

comparison of capacties between vibratorydriven piles and impact-driven piles, only

d oDam

Figure 4. Generalized
soil profile for Lock and
No. 3 pile test site

pile tests relevant to the objectives of

this study are examined.
50, 55, 65, and 75 ft.

The piles of interest were 14 BP 73, of lengths 45,

Table 4 presents a summary of pile types, lengths,

penetrations, hammer types, and failure loads for the piles that were examined
for this study.

The piles for tests 1, 3, 3A, 3B, and 9 were driven by a

Foster 2-50, low-frequency, vibratory hammer and the piles for tests 2, 2A, 5,

6, and 7 were driven by a Vulcan 140C steam hammer.

16

.4.

,JA,

o-2,TEST 3-

r4

t -

3-

55"

5-

I I I I

z
I

zTEST3-9

6z- 12L.
TEST 3 2

TEST 3-4

i
V.

TEST 3-8

(BEFORE TIMBER)
A 8

C D E F G H J K L M N P

MONOLITH

L-7

B CDEFG H J

MONOLITH

R-8

TEST 3-3, 3A & 38

12
4A42A-

g:

zS

B D

1.

'I
H K

8
8-

T;;;2;1 ;t22125'

I N 10

III'JILN
MP

tt

lt

;6-2r;t

3t t.

t
2

B CDEFG H

L-14

MONOLITH

R-8

t
*t

t
I

,L-7

R-9
=.

.mH.H.]

TENSION & COMPRESSION TEST

LATERAL TEST

KEy

R-19 "

PI Of LE CLUSTER
. " TEST PILE)
A'

R-8.

COMPRESSION TEST
TENSION TEST

L- 142

1--

t
12

t
t2

*.

IIN

LEGEND
LEGEN

TEST3-6

;2t 2

64-32-

TEST 3-8
(,4FTER .TIMBER)

TEST 3-7

70'
P

11

MONOLITH

to
87-

ACEGJ
B D

rEs r3- 14.

T
-.

XIX

STA. 4+42B, R-19-55

I STA. 4+50B, R-19-85
-STA.
4+58B, R-19-75

TEST 3-5-

4-

4-

--

MONOLITH R-9

tx

t;xt;
t

2
1

1Al

'IA'

tzt t

3x

'

2lA-

'
1

'

F H

C'TIMBER
K M

PILE

MONOLITH R-19

Figure 5.

Location of pile tests (Continued)

17

......

TEST3-10.T

TEST 3-10
N -

.I

SI

. ..

Mp

Gm
E E'

f.4

.44..4

. . . ..

x
-

2A3 4c

--

..

623

q1

6 A

1-

26

4I

,,
4

14 1 6A

21

13

444

13

30A

....

eTT-

E-

62A4oo
r

...

TiS

~I 9 I ' I

'

.
.
. 2310'
.
4
MONOLITH

I13

GE17 1

12 12

..

44

4U

4l4.444

31 32 I 352
29n~1!
ll i IlII ]I IIII

2!

44"

135!3 1

32

7A1 1

o3

I
.II

"...

5I-

..

J-24

10

,.I.
w2e.

MOOLT

1 7 18 1 1

104
I

. .

..
.

.4

....

8A

F-

1
-

.444**

**b4n*"II I

2.

4-

S.

.4

j,

J.

r.

TI1I1/31

o 7A .T41T36A
- .
7c

. .4.

. .

28

A
333

MONOOITHT1
F-.

TESTMPES3ON13S

5.
a-----

23C

3,

---

0T0ST7
0
-TE

4-LAT0R0L
4
MONOLITH

..

. .
-----

. .
-----

MO TNLITH

.
-----

. .
----

23OPESNTS

TESO

O
TES 3-1
RAL

COPRSIO
EST,1

TS

SB*4
341
311OTH

37

.,

Table 4

Summary of Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3

H-Pile Tests
Failure Loads

Compression, tons
Penetration
ft

Test
No.

Hammer*

1
2

FR 2-50
VC 140C

42.3
42.8

2A

VC 140C

61.8

Tension, tons

Adjusted**

As
Tested

Adjusted**

85
134

71
104

25
34

22
27

185

145

31

23

As
Tested

3
3A

FR 2-50
FR 2-50

46.7
46.7

105
120

80
92

3B
5
6

FR 2-50
VC 140C
VC 140C

61.8
52.8
63.0

145
150
175

117
128
155

39
51

32
44

VC 140C

73.0

215

190

FR 2-50

42.9

127

88

FR2-50 = Foster vibratory hammer; VC 140C

Vulcan steam hammer.

Adjusted for water level.

33.

During the driving of the piles for these tests, the sand surround-

ing the piles loosened and voids, 5 to 10 ft deep, formed between the flanges
near the surface.

Attempts were made to fill the vo'ds and to compact the

sand surrounding the piles.

For pile test 3A and 3B, a concrete vibrator was

used to place and increase the density of the sand in the flanges around the
top of the pile.

For test 2A, the voids in the flanges were filled with sand

and water without compaction.

For test 9, the voids were filled with sand and

water and the area surrounding the pile was compacted by vibroflotation.
34.

The main objectives of this portion of the testing program were to

obtain data for determining the pile lengths needed for this lock and dam and
to make a direct comparison between piles driven with a vibratory and an impact hammer.

Figure 6 shows the failure loads versus depth of penetration for

the compression tests.

This figure shows that the impact-driven piles have a

substantially higher capacity than the vibratory-driven piles by an average of

32 tons.
etration.

Figure 7 presents the tension failure loads versus the depTh of penThis figure reveals that the impact-driven piles have only a

K.

slightly greater capacity, 5 tons, than the vibratory-driven piles.

0'1, r

-40.00

01

ci

3
-50.00

A-60.00

3B

2A

-70.00
o7

a.

- Impact Driven
Vibratory Driven
-

0
0

-80.00

-90.000.00...........
50.00
100.00
150.00

200.0

250.00

Failure Load in Tons

Failure load versus depth for compression
tests for Lock and Dam No. 3

Figure 6.

-40.00
12
- Impact Driven
- Vibratory Driven

13

-45.00

I-50.00

.0-55.00

-60.00\

'

6
-65.00

- 70.00

.......... .....

0.00
Figure 7.

20.00

....

....... ........
. .

40.00
60.00
Failure Load in Tons

. . .........

80.00

100.00

Failure load versus depth for tension

tests for Lock and Dam No. 3

20

WA
V'o'

'

ur

wJ.

Crane Rail Tracks (Mazurkiewicz 1975)

35.

During the construction of pile foundations for crane rail tracks

V.%

for jib and gantry cranes it was decided to investigate the use of a vibratory
hammer for the pile driving instead of a drop hammer.

It was believed for the

subsoil conditions at the sites that the vibratory-driven piles should give
the same bearing capacities as the impact-driven piles and would shorten the
construction time.

To substantiate this assumption, a series of pile load

tests were conducted to make direct comparisons between piles driven with a
Mazurkiewicz (1975) reported the re-

vibratory hammer and an impact hammer.

sults and his conclusions from the pile testing program.

Site and pile de-

scriptions and test results have been summarized in this section.

36.

In the vicinity of the construction sites and pile tests, the sub-

surface profile consisted of a 3- to 5-ft layer of fill over a 3- to 6-ft

layer of peat.

The peat is underlain by layers of fine to medium sand and

sandy gravels which overlie a stratum of silty clay.

Penetration tests show a

linear increase with depth through the sand and no trend in the clay. The
stratification and representative penetration records are shown in Figure 8.
37.

The load tests were performed on prestressed concrete piles with

a diameter of 13.4 in. (34 mm) and lengths from 42.7 ft (13 m) to 88.6 ft
(27 m). The comparison tests were made for 11 piles driven by a drop hammer
and 11 by a vibratory pile driver.

The distance between the two piles used

for comparison, one impact driven and one vibratory driven, was 10 to 25 ft.
The impact driving was performed with a drop hammer with a weight of 5 tons
and a free-fall distance of 15.8 in. (40 cm).

The vibratory hammer had a fre-

quency of 18.3 Hz, an amplitude of 0.39 in. (9.8 mm), and a vibratory weight
of 5.6 tons.
38.
tests.

Table 5 shows the failure loads obtained from the 11 sets of load

Also, the ratios between the failure loads of the vibratory-driven and

impact-driven piles are given.

The load settlement curves for three typical

test sets are presented in Figures 9, 10, and 11.

Figure 12 is a plot of

failure loads versus depth of penetrations for the 11 test sets.

For each

test set of piles, the impact-driven piles showed substantially higher failure
load than the vibratory-driven piles.

39.

The influence of time on the ratio of axial capacity of the

vibratory- and impact-driven piles was also studied.

21

"0~.

lee

It was found, if the

%r

100
3

200

m0 .%./0

4~~~~.

V30

F-L

v+.0+2.85

08

- 01 80

....
.

[ .

WITH
GRAVEL
370
3

ID..

MEDIUM SAND

ID =0.4

*.

1D=0.4

-=0320

.
..
.......
GRAVEL WITH
5

SAND

O=
=370

-04
'---

MEDIUM SAND
MEDIUM SAND
0
350 I1) 0.4

30I

.. .

10..

12

SILTY AND
FINE SAND
320 ID 0.4

13
1

FINEANDPILES
15

320

-37
-3

ACC
FIG 6

ID0.4

16
17

CLAY WITH
SI LT

18
19
20

V/BR-17.65

---

o10C0.5

~I

.2

D R IV -18.65

PI LES ACC
FIG 5

-w
0L

VIOA
-18
CLAY WITH PIE AC7
TA19 15
FIG
SI LT
10 C = 0.35
DRIV
= 0.2

Figure 8. Stratification for the crane rail track test sites

22

S-

Table 5
Summary of Crane Rail Tracks Pile Testing Program

Pile
Test Set

Length
ft (m)

Failure Load in Compression

Impact Driven
Vibratory Driven
tons (mtons)
tons (mtons)

Ratio

42.7 (13)

38.5 (35)

92.4 (84)

0.42

42.7 (13)

46.2 (42)

52.8 (48)

0.88

42.7 (13)

71.5 (65)

93.5 (85)

0.76

57.8 (17)

44.0 (40)

69.3 (63)

0.63

57.8 (17)

50.6 (46)

124.3 (113)

0.41

59.1 (18)

28.6 (26)

115.5 (105)

0.25

72.2 (22)

103.4 (94)

159.5 (145)

0.65

75.5 (23)

55.0 (55)

82.5 (75)

0.67

75.5 (23)

77.0 (70)

148.5 (135)

0.52

10

75.5 (23)

38.5 (35)

66.0 (60)

0.54

11

88.6 (27)

93.5 (85)

115.5 (105)

0.81

2-

S,.~

UU~NWWWNXW~WinWVWW1w~w~rw~rwrww

vlw 1Vu vwlwrwJwuiv'q

0.

~-w

TEST LOAO (TONS)

80.
120.
60.
100.

40.

0.

w4.q

20.

160.
140.

1O0.

.4

DRIVEN

Z .6
I-

p%

VIDRAY1g

N.

'i

01.
w

f.0

1.4

hi

".

a-

Figure 9.

0.

TEST LOAO
80.

40.
20.

p..

Crane rail tracks load tests for 17-m pile

0.

!!

(TONS)
160.

120.

-'r

180.

140.

100.

60.

Jw

''
%'

.4
S.6

1.2

-j

2.2

Cr n ,,t

"

,rI,'

ci ,,-

I.1.
1.?

for

22-m

pile

TEST
0.
0.

LOAO (TONS)

80.

16o.

240.
0

200.

120.

40.

0.

..

U .6w
ww

1.0.

~~1

1.2

hi1.4

.Lf

L
I

".

K,

Figure 11.

Crane rail tracks load tests for 23-m pile

-40.00
P 'sz

P5 3

-50.00
PTS5

*1

-60.00

-70.00

Prs4

Tps

0.T

Prs 10

-80.00
0

PTS 9

Impact Driven
Driven

oC- Vibratory

1Si

-90.00 ''b.
... . ..
6bbY. .o'd

000~

150.00

Failure Load in Tons

200.00

Figure 12.
Failure load versus depth of penetration
for the crane rail tr-cks pile testing program

25

; ..

, . .j.F'.
,'...

_.",

i'

"

.".....
%

.';

..

'.'..'..'

-"-

--..--

..

"."

..-.-..-..-.

-.

1.

...VV.

.:

piles were tested after 4, 12, 30, or more days, the difference in capacity
remained unchanged.

However, it could be stated that with time some increase

in capacity did occur for both methods of installation.

Geochemical Building, Harvard University and Wall
No. 7, 1-95, Providence, Rhode Island
40.

These are two sets of tests reported by Jeyapalan (1983)*.

These

tests were conducted to compare the performance of impact-driven piles with

piles driven with a Bodine sonic hammer.

The tests at Harvard University were

'

conducted in preparation of the foundation for a new Geochemical Building and

the tests at the Wall No. 7, 1-95, site were carried out as part of the general testing program for the wall.

The piles were cast-in-place concrete

piles formed by driving corrugated steel shells with an internal mandrel.

After driving, the mandrel is collasped and withdrawn and the shell is filled

with concrete.

The soil profiles and the pile descriptions are presented in

Figures 13 and 14.

The test results are presented in Figures 15 and 16.

The

results from these tests indicate that the sonically driven piles performed
, .%4

V.

superiorly to the impact-driven piles.

y'.'

.4o%

%'.

'4"..

J. K. Jeyapolan. 1983. "Axial Capacity of Vibro-Driven Piles," Drift report submitted to the US Army Engineer Waterways Exper'ime't Station, 'ViLkburg, Miss.
-4,.

26

".0

i
c.6
313HNOO
(11113113S

10007

HM

u"

u~
'

p-

UU

cr

>M-Cn)

z w o=
CI

zop

Ku

<
CIO

CDi m4-)

313NOD 91 00017 HIM

a13ii1d 113HS

d
Z

LU

C3

')

;o
n0

A0

ILAL

oc0 o
LL~
-(U.

II
Lj

w
LL

Z
___

__ __ __

____

__

Li- <

~~~-

__

~<
L__

LAJ_
>---

<:v*~*.
<.

BLOWS
PER

BR.ET~.
FINE SAND.;"-

50'

LITTLE FINE

BR

40'

-CUTOFF EL 48'

15

\\
\SAND

EL 47'

26
2274

FIN GAYHEL
31

76 GA
HEL -COR
SHEL L

76 GA.
-COR
SHVELL

31

TRACE SILTN
\.N.
RED-BR.
FINE-SAND.,
TRACE SILT

10'

,~%_

_L.9

29

23140)
20

CUTOFF EL 50'

21

'

FINE GRAY
SAND5514

30'

28

ADw
*

25
36
32
31

\GRAY FIN Es
-

-30'

SOME SILT

30'
120

0
30'G
124)
16 GA.
HEL-COR
SHEL L

27

\SAND,
-20'

39

29
36

76G
SHELLCO
SELf

I
27

-40'

DARK GREY
SILTFINEEL
SITFIE
61
ISAND LAYERSLBORING
LOG

-60'

Figure 14.

EL -33
-37'

PILE A-21

WALL 7

DRIVEN BY ASONIC
PILE DRIVER MODEL 'A'

PILE A-12 -WALL 7

DRIVEN BY A NO. 1P
VULCAN STEAM
HAMMER

Soil profile for Wall No. 7, 1-95

28

L.%

TEST LOAD, TONS

0

40

120

80

160

200

240

0.1

77

J.,
,,.
0.1

0.3

N
wU

PILE 6-BC-3
BODINE SONIC
RILE HAMMER

0AQ*

0,

0.7

PILE 6 BC 6
DRIVEN BY
A NO. 0 VUL CANA
S TEAM HAMME R?

08

Figure

15.

Pile

loaid

~'>,-:-2s

')[

MOD'A

0.10t

TEST LOAD.DTON

PILEA--2.BO

UNE
OICDILEDRVE

z
w
>
0

w0.20.

0.25

0.30

035 1

Figure

16.

I1

Pile load tests for Wall No. 7,

30

%S

1-95

PART IV:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of Field Tests

41.

With the exceptions of the Harvard University, 1-95, and 'rkarnsas

River Lock and Dam No. 4 H-pile tests, the piles driven by the impact harnmrrers
had a significantly greater axial capacity than those driven with vioratory
hammers.

In Figure 17, the failure load for the impact-driven piles is plotThe diagoral line

ted versus the failure load of the vibratory-driven piles.

in the plot represents a one-to-one correspondence between the impact and vibratory capacity.

Points below this line show a greater capacity for impact-

driven piles and points above this line show a greater capacity for vibratorydriven piles.

This plot shows that for the majority of the pile tests exam-

ined in this study the vibratory-driven piles have less axial capacity than
impact-driven piles.
Reduced capacity for
vibratory-driven piles
42.

-'

A possible explanation for the reduced capacity for vibratory-

driven piles is that the vibratory-driven process results in less compacatiori

Hunter and Davisson (1969),

at the pile tip, thus lowering the tip capacity.

in their investigation of the Arkansas River Lock and Dam No.

14

pile tests,
They,

explained the difference in capacities by examining the driving procoss.

state that a vibratory hammer is very effective in overcoming the side resis tance or skin friction along a pile in sand, but the very nature of the lcr1L:tudinal pile vibration requires a small tip force.

Therefore, the soel

-'

neath the tip of a vibratory-driven pile remains relatively undistirbed Is

In comparison, Me, erho2 (q59)

compared to its state before driving.

'

show-

that impact driving in sand results in substantial compaction beneath th,

which prestresses the surrounding soil mass.

43.

Evidence of this can be found in the Arkansas River, Lock and Dam

No. 4 pile testing program.

Figure 73 presents a plot of the tip load,

skil

friction, and total pile load at faiure for impact-driven piles versus

vibratory-driven piles for Lock and Dan No. 14. The plot reveals that

e,:'"

for

comparable set of piles the tip load at f'ailure for the vibratory-driv,,:i,
is lower than that for the impact-driven piles.

Even for the set of

for which the vibratory-driven pile had a grater tital

d at

fa..

i-p:"
''

31
-.

~.A**~A
4..%
'.

'

'.

**~

%0

'

-o

%.%A
.".

300.00

250.00

ARK. L&D NO. 4

ARK. L&D NO. 3
RUSSIAN CRANE

c 200.00
0

150.00

0
o

S50.00
0.00

& 100.00

A5.'6'W0

0.00*......... ......... ......... ..... ,....,.........."

0. 0
50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00

.a

Failure Load in Tons

Impact Driven

Figure 17.

Comparison of impact- and vibratorydriven piles

d-

300.00
0

- 16 in. Pipe Pile

- H-Pile

TOW

0200.00
C
a"

"
o

.0

*= 100.00

U-"

0.00..

0.00

100.00

.... .

300.00

200.00

Failure Load in Tons

Impact Driven

Corp-irisor oC 1oAA J i ;tribut ior: of

impact- and vi br>,-rv- r'
"
.
f"or Lo-k

Figure 18.

.4'

V -.-

Lieo

M-P
'%K1j~X1MV-~VLVW('qrwV W

load carried by the tip of the vibratory-driven pile was 14 tons less than the
impact-driven pile.
44.

Further supporting evidence of this can be found in the crane rail

testing program.

To investigate whether a pile previously vibrated into

place, and then driven a short distance by drop hammer would achieve the same
ultimate capacity as a pile completely driven with a drop hammer, some additional tests were performed in the crane rail testing program.

From these

tests it was discovered that vibratory-driven piles which had the last 9 ft of
penetration driven by a drop hammer would reach the same failure load as
purely impact-driven piles with the same penetration.
Piles retested
45.

As mentioned in the introduction of this report, the axial capac-

ity of the piles at Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 were significantly less than
anticipated.

In an attempt to investigate possible reasons for the reduced

capacity, several of the piles were retested.

Figures 19, 20, and 21 show

plots of the tip load versus displacement for three of the load tests and
their retest at Red River Lock and Dam No. 1.

In these plots, the retests

have significantly greater load carrying capacity than when previously tested.
2-"

70 -

60 . ..... . . . .
69

... ...........

-'I

5,

30
S

r
20
.-- .-

"PT-A-A1C

RETEST
REES

0.2

0.4

0.6

*.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

PILE TIP MIOVEMENT (INCHES)

7Tp lo-id
Red Riv-- Lv.

pi'r - t:[ vv

Figure 79.
A-1C,

r1

33

m N,-

IM

trr

~%4

Pi V

1.8

WI

8e

Lrw

lr

~xNTI

YW."-,. W

- .I ".90.0

Pp

60

.,,,

0P

20

PT-A-3C
(3.'EPT-A-3C RETEST

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

PILE TIP MOVEMENT (INCHES)

Figure 20.

Tip load versus pile tip movement Por Pile

."

A-3C, Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 (Mosher 1984)

70

..

60

I
0

40
.

T
0

'p

30

S
20

- PT-S-IC
-EPTS-IC

0 2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

RETEST

1.6

1.8

PILE TIP MOVEIENT (INCHES)

"1

--

%,

.9.

A large portion of the additional capacity exhibited by the retested piles

resulted from the compaction of the soil surrounding the tip during the first
load tests.

The influence of time may also have had a small effect on the

increased capacities.
Conclusions

46.

The results of the field tests presented in this report show that

for a significant majority of cases, the installation of piles in sand with a

vibratory hammer of any type (high or low frequency) resulted in less axial
capacity than impact-driven piles at the same site.

Additional information

was found showing that the influence of time affects piles driven by both
methods equally and that additional driving by an impact hammer of vibratoryplaced pile causes an increased in its axial capacity to that of a pile driven
totally by an impact hammer.

..

.9."

...---

REFERENCES
Barkan, D. D. (1957).

"Foundation Engineering and Drilling by the Vibratory

Method," Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, London, pp 3-7.
"An Analytical Study of the Mechanics of Single Pile
Ellison, R. D. (1969).
Foundations," Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburg, Pa.
Engineering News Record. 1961 (Nov). "Sonics Drive a Pile 71 Feet While
Steam Drives Another 3 Inches," Vol 16'7, No. 19.
"Pile Driving and Loading Tests," US Army
Fruco and Associates. (1964).
Engineer District, Little Rock, Ark.
"Measurement of Pile Load
Hunter, A. A., and Davisson, M. T. (1969).
Transfer," Performance of Deep Foundations, American Society for Testing
Materials, STP 444, pp 106-117.
"Influence of Vibration of Piles on their BearMazurkiewicz, B. K. (1975).
ing Capacity," Proceedings First Baltic Conference, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Gdansk, Poland, Vol 3, Sec III, pp 143-153.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1959). "Compaction of Sands and Bearing of Piles," Journal,
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol 85, No. SM6, Proceedings Paper 2292, pp 1-29.
"Load-Transfer Criteria for Numerical Analysis of
Mosher, R. L. (1984).
Axially Loaded Piles in Sand," Technical Report K-84-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
"Sand Displacement and ComRobinsky, E. I., and Morrison, C. F. (1964).
paction Around Model Friction Piles," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 1,
No. 4, pp 189-204.
"Data and Recommendation
US Army Engineer District, Little Rock. (1967).
for Steel Bearing Pile Foundation in Sand Based on Experience at Lock and Dam
No. 3 and David D. Terry Lock and Dam (No. 6), Arkansas River Navigation Project," Little Rock, Ark.

6N

36

"0
.

, ,

._

..

-.

'..

,...

...

.'..

...'

"

,--'

'.'"-

"*sp

APPENDIX A:

PILE TESTS,

ARKANSAS RIVER LOCK AND DAM NO. 14

NN.
-

.o'-a

'.

ARKASAS
ANDDAMNO.IVE LOC

'a'
'p1

Sk

Gross Pile Load

s0

100

150

(tons)
zoo

Tip movement

0.z

0.4Gross settlement,
pile butt

E
(D

S0.8

ID
(A.

6)1. 0

CL

U-,

Figure Al. Compression test results

Pile 1 (12.75-in. pipe pile)

Test

A..

~\

.-

~.IS

(tons)

Gross Pile Load

50

.00

Iso

100

IS0

Ntsettlement,
butt,.
, pile
a.

0.4

seteet
/.0-V

pieut

rsestlement

pie butt

Gros

.,.0

a--

4);

moveen

4)

II

IA3
FiueA.Copeso

0s
es

ie2'.

Ts

eut

Tetz(6i.pp

ie

1.1 A3

--

S.-

-..

Mh

%5.'.

Gross Pile Load

so

too

'N

/50

(tons)
200

~Net

0.2_

2So

settlement
pile butt-

settlement,"

~~~Gross

'

Pile butt

0.

.-..

Tip

I1.2.

a. 4

.4..

,U

1.0.

A
Tip:movement

"e
e ,p ,/

,", ,0

.,,

Figure A3.

r . - ,. - .

- .-,,._ - . .. . . - , - - .. - .

Compression test results -Test

Test 2 (16-in. pipe pile)

Pile 2

. .

. . - .-

. . -.

,A4.

".. *

(tons)

Gross Pile Load

f

/
100

I50

200

250

Tip movement

-'

Gross settlement,

pile butt

'A
4

0.6

1.

Z4

6"N

Figure A4.

Compression test results -Test

...

Pile 3 (20-in. pipe pile)

Gross Pile Load

,..,

(tons)

U)

s o0

LIo.8.0

/ 00

/5 0

200

2 5 0:

P..

settlement
pile butt

~Net
j
0.2 Q"I

I
I
settlement,
Gross
Pile butt.

.I
"",
.

0.4-

Figure A5. Compression test results

Pile 4 (16-in. concrete pile)

A5...

.o .,d.% ( .o
.. .. L,
.
Gros..

Test

Gross Pile Load

0

so

100

200

/so

(tons)
250

300

Net settlement,

iebt

*~0.4

1.0

0.6

FiueA.
E1-n

INi

Cmreso

etrsut
ocrt

0.8Z-1

etPl
ie

Gross Pile Load

so

too

0.2-

(tons)

/So

200

Tip

movement

0.4-

0.6

-4

Gross settlement,
pile butt

1.2

1..

I%

%
W

1w

FiueA.Cmreso

e0

eit

etPl

5b

Gross Pile Load

0

5"0

/00
J

150

(tons)
zoo

z50

Net settlement,
pile butt

o-.-

b',

0.4

0.8 -

Gross settlement,
Pile butt

.-i

4'L

"
""

'SS.

4j)

4)

FiueA.
-

opesonts
P0e7(

euls-Ts

71.

I)8

-.

:,>

, "V' '

',<

"-:."..,

',

'

.".-,"."--,".,,

Wj'

"

:.".'.

.ee

,.'.

.,,

. .",".".",".'.".".'.","

',e ',...'.'

,.. ..

' .,

. '

" ...

,z..,.

,,....

, .

.,',,,.,

- -,

,,

,).

-;

Gross Pile Load

0

50

/oo

(tons)
zoo

50

N Net settlement
O.-

'pile

butt

0.4

Li

0.6 -.
FCos
1.

4)
,

1.0 -

i,Z

Gros
P

settlement,

pile butt

'':

1.8

Li

Figure A9.

Compression test results

Pile 8 (timber pile)

-Test,-'m

k.

0
"'

*9- V *.

~ **V ''*** ~~**~*d ~J* ~%

: ~
-.-.-.

*,.,

''

""-*"

.,

Gross Pile Load

(tons)
00%

50

100

157o

200

25o

O~'--.;"

0.2

Tip
movement

So.4U

Gross settlement,

0.6

Pile butt

,:
.

"U=
E
63

:.,.
0.9

40

," *

4do

''''

.0.

I.z

Figure AO. Compression test results

(14 BP 73)

Test Pile 9

A.I

MO.'

'

Gross PiLe Load

so

100

/So

(tons)
Zoo

2O0

Tip movement

"

S0.4

Gross settlement,
pile butt

.4

E
-*
D.8

'.

1.2

6n
I)

.6,

Compression test results- Test Pile 10

Figure All.

(16-in. pipe pile)

%
All1

Gross Pile Load

.- 4

50

/00

(tons)

/50

200

"'-""

'..

O.Z

"

"

4)

0.4-

" 0.8-

Gross settlement,
pile butt

8)

P5t

oa

,.,
-_,

%,n )..

00

Figure A12.

Compression test results -Test

Pile 11 (16-in. concrete pile)

Net settlement,,'

~pile

-42-

but""

Gross settlement,
pile buttbt

p.6l

/.0

Figure

A3. Copressio

tst

results

Test 'piletbu

'.,,

.4

-'a-

a"-.

3'

TEST LOAD (TONS)

0.

0.

20.
0.--

140.

100.

20

GROSS

* 2

120.

80.

40.

NET

1.2

1.6

Test Pile 1, compression

Figure B1.

1.46

H
E 1.2
A
D
-

GROSS

0I
E .8
E

T.6

C2

E
e.20

-~30

40

TEST LOAD (TONS)

Figure 32.

.1

oft .

Test Pile 1, tension

07

TEST LOAD (TONS)

120.
80.

40.

0.
hi

"

V .2

--

"

100.

60.

20.

0.

- -

... ,.-..

.,A

160.
180.

140.
.

5'*

U
z

.4

*GROSS

1.2

01.
L 1.4
1.6

...'

'

'

2 1.25 -

T1.4

.8

'5.,:,

"A.-

W.2

.V
.28 0

10

N?
20

.30

s1
o

TEST C0

Figure B4.

Tes

Pil

70

(T70'"

2,

tej son

"",

TEST. LOAD (TONS)

240.

160.

80.

0.

20

0.

.2

z
I

wi

1.

1.2

1.4

Figure B5.

Test Pile 2A, compression

'-%I

40.

0.

60.

20.

0.

TEST LOAD (TONS)

120.
80.
140.
100.

200.

180.
180.

220.

U .2

1.2.

Figur

%.

B6.PileTest3B,
omprssio

-SB-

%NP

U!.%

L 1.
E

E
6

A
D

.F
%

01
E
E .
N
.6

NME
H .2
E
S-

40

20

TEST LOAD

Figure B7.

0.

0.

40.

20.

Test Pile 3B, tension

TEST

LOAO (TONS)
120.
160.

100.

140.

80.
60.

so
(TONS)

200.
180o.

240.

22 0.

z
hi

0a
r

.4
4..%

Figure B8.

Test Pile 6, cornpression

B5

TEST
0.
W

.2

.4

LOAD (TONS)
120.

40.

20 0.

WgT

w.

1.2

w
U

1.4

1 1.6

2 .

Figure B9.

240.

160.

80.

0.

Test Pile 9, compression

B6

14mm

JLME