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

Research Report 33-12

Piling Behavior
Research Study No. 2-5-62-33

Sponsored by
The Texas Highway Department
in cooperation with the

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

Bureau of Public Roads

August 1968

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
 FOREWORD
The information contained in this report was developed on research study
2-5-62-33 entitled "Piling Behavior" which is a cooperative research study spon-
sored jointly by the Texas Highway Department and the U. S. Department of Trans-
portation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public Roads.
The broad objective of the research described in this report is to establish
whether the resistance to penetration predicted by any of the commonly used pile
driving formulas agrees with that found by the wave equation, and if so, to deter-
mine which piles, driving hammers, and soil resistances provide agreement.
The use of the wave equation to determine the range of accuracy for various
pile driving formulas would enable them to be used with far greater confidence
than is presently the case.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of the Bureau of Public Roads.

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
dynamic behavior of piling during driving has become
more and more popular1 • 2 during the past several years.
Widespread interest in the method had its beginning in
1960 when E. A. L. Smith3 used a numerical solution to
investigate the effects of such factors as ram weight,
ram velocity, cushion and pile properties, and the dy-
namic behavior of soil during driving. Since then, vast
quantities of data have been amassed in experimentation
to determine more accurate values for the input varia-
bles required, 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 and a multitude of full-scale pile
tests have been correlated with the wave equation. 9 • 10 • 11
These correlation studies have proven that the wave
equation is more accurate than other methods and can
he used with reasonable confidence. Because of this,
the method is becoming widely used and recommended
in the literature by foundation experts. 1
However, as noted by Chellis, 12 a wave equation
analysis required the use of a high speed digital com-
puter; before an engineer could utilize the method, he
had to develop a relatively complex computer program
which was both time consuming and expensive. There-
fore, even though the wave equation might be far more
accurate, the simplicity of the dynamic pile driving
formulas made their use attractive, especially for field
use.
For this reason, Chellis and others 13 suggested that
the wave equation should be used to determine if there
might exist ranges of application through which simpli-
fied dynamic formulas were reasonably accurate. He
suggested that, "if it can be determined that the Hiley
or Engineering News Formula results are safe and that
ultimate driving resistances are in reasonable agreement
with wave equation results in any general range of con-
ditions, then such formulas might permissibly be used
within such limits. This might enable such simple for-
mulas to be quickly applied in the office or field, thus
avoiding the necessity of access to a computer in order
to be sure of obtaining sufficiently reliable and eco-
nomic results."
This report presents the results of such a study,
and demonstrates that it is indeed possible to find ranges
of agreement between the wave equation and certain pile
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,
while the second was intended to simulate relatively hard
driving. For the Vulcan No. 1, soil resistances of 50
and 200 kips were used. For the Vulcan SOC and Del-
mag D-22 hammers, soil resistances of 100 and 400 kips
were used.
6. Soil resistance distribution. For each of the
previously mentioned cases, two distributions of soil
resistance were studied. These distributions were as
follows: (a.) all soil resistance at the point of the pile
(no side friction), and (b.) all soil resistance uniform-
ly distributed along the side of the pile (no point re,
sistance).
7. Other factors. Other factors known to affect
the behavior of piling during driving were determined
from experimental information published previously by
the authors, 14 and were held constant. These included
such factors as hammer efficiency, cushion stiffness,
coefficient of restitution, and others. These factors are
listed in Table l.
Scope of the Investigation
Although this study was obviously small with re-
spect to the number of variations possible, the results
should give some indication as to the relative accuracy
of the commonly used pile-driving formulas and demon-
strate at least one method by which considerable useful
data can be developed by future studies.

DELMAG
D-22
DIESEL
HAMMER
VULCAN
#I OR

~ ~
soc
HAMMER ANVIL

~~TI
CAP BLOCK

a~z=:;::~~~;::Lz::q::~r~-- CAPBLOCK

r.::::IZ:.::::~c::..?:;~%~/J:J"'•>-.- - CUSHION 1 STEEL

PILE

j CONCRETE UNIFORM 1
UNIFORM
SIDE SOIL
1 PILE SIDE SOIL
RESISTANCE 1
RESISTANCE
1
1~
......
1
1
1'------.--....1

POINT SOIL RESISTANCE POINT SOIL RESISTANCE

Figure 2. Pile driving assembly of Vulcan No. 1 and Figure 3. Driving assembly of the Delmag D-22 ham-
Vulcan SOC hammers-concrete pile. mer-steel pile.
PAGE TWO
 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF HAMMERS AND SOIL
DEL MAG PARAMETERS USED IN THE STUDY
D- 22
DIESEL Hammer Type Soil Resistance Soil Distribution Case
HAMMER (kips)
RUw
Vulcan #1 50 Point only A
Side only B
CAPBLOCK 200 Point only c
Side only D
Vulcan SOC- 100 Point only E
Side only F
400 Point only G
Side only H
1CONCRETE Delmag D-22 100 Point only I
PILE
UNIFORM Side only J
SIDE SOIL
RESISTANCE
1 400 Point orily
Side only
K
L

1~ *Each pile listed in Table 3 was solved.

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF PILES ANALYZED

1 Pile Material Pile Area

(in!)
Pile Length
(ft.) Number

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.

Pile Driving Formulas Used In This Investigation

Because of the vast amount of information previ-
ously published concerning the derivation, use, and prac-
tical application of both the wave equation 3 and the pile
driving formulas 17 used in this investigation, background
material will not be presented here. For those inter-
ested in the history and prior research which has been
done on the wave equation, the references presented at
the end of this report should be helpful.
The dynamic pile driving formulas are not presented
in their most commonly used form, but rather have been
modified to assure that the units are consistent, and
to omit the factor of safety normally incorporated in the
formula (if one exists). This permits a direct compari-
son between the ultimate resistance to penetration at the
time of driving predicted by the wave equation and that
given by the driving formula.
In this study, eleven different dynamic pile-driving
formulas were used to predict the capacities of 288 steel
and concrete piles of varying lengths and cross sectional
areas. These formulas are presented in Table 4.
As was expected in the work, it was sometimes
difficult to determine the constants to be used in the
formula, since the values recommended in the literature
varied widely. It should be noted that the authors did
not intend to use the constants they considered the most
accurate, but rather those equations and cop_stants most
commonly used in the field.
The authors understand that many who read this
report may feel that better results might have been
obtained had some different form of the equations been
used, or perhaps different constants applied. For this
reason, the results of the wave equation analysis are
tabulated in the Appendix.
PAGE THREE
 This information should enable the reader to com- Pacific Coast
pare the results predicted by the use of other constants
or pile driving formulas with that given by the wave
equation.

TABLE 4. PILE DRIVING FORMULAS USED IN THIS

INVESTIGATION .
(All factors of safety have been removed)

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

Navy-McKay 247 ( yU) ( log ~O )

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
13 different methods were used to predict the resistance
to penetration for each of the previously mentioned
problems.
In each case, the wave equation was first used to
solve the problem to determine the dynamic behavior
of the pile for a single blow of the hammer. This
solution gave information regarding the permanent
set of the pile, temporary compression of the capblock,
cushion block, and pile, elastic rebound of the pile, and
all other variables required as input by the dynamic
pile driving formulas. These values were then substi-
tuted into each dynamic pile-driving formula to deter-
mine its prediction for resistance to penetration, RUF,
for that case. The resistance to penetration RUw pre-
dicted by the wave equation was then divided by the
value ·predicted by the formula being considered.
For example, assume that a 100 ft. long steel pile
with an area of 10 in. 2 is driven by a Vulcan No. 1
hammer against a soil resistance RUw of 50 kips, and
that this resistance acts at the point of the pile (no side
friction) . When this problem is analyzed by the wave
Discussion of Results
The results of the correlations between the wave
equation and the dynamic formulas are both surprising
and extremely informative. As noted in Figures 5
through 7 the ratio of the resistance predicted by the
Engineering. News Formula and the wave equation is
amazingly constant. This is not to say that the results
are accurate, since the curves are consistently grouped
around RUw/RUF = 0.5. This would indicate that
at least for these cases the Engineering News Formula
consistently predicts an ultimate value approximately
twice the true resistance to penetration, such that when
the recommended safety factor of 6 is applied to the
equation, the true factor of safety would only be 3.
Nevertheless, the consistency of this formula is quite
surprising, especially considering the amount of research
which has recently been published condemning the meth-
od.15· 16 This is not to imply that the Engineering News
Formula is without proponents. In 1965, the Michigan
State Highway Commission 17 completed an exhaustive
research program designed to obtain a better under-
standing of the complex problem of pile driving, and to
evaluate a number of pile driving formulas. Their re-
search led them to modify the Engineering News For-
mula as noted in Table 2. This modification has been
noted herein as the Michigan Engineering News Formula.
It is important to note that the entire Michigan
research program dealt with long, slender, and relatively
lightweight steel piling. As noted in Figures 8 through
10, it is seen that their proposed pile-driving formula
gives results which are as consistent and accurate as
the Engineering News Formula, for lightweight steel pil-
ing at least. However, Figures 8 through 10 also point
out the complete inadequacy of the Michigan Formula
for predicting capacities for heavy concrete piles. Simi-
lar results were found when attempting to predict the
bearing capacity for extremely heavy steel piles, and for
equation, the resulting permanent set is found to be 1.21
in. (see Table A1). Therefore, according to the Engi-
neering News Formula given in Table 4, the ultimate
load capacity of the pile at the time of driving will be:
RU = (15,000) (12) = 137 k'IpS
F 1.21 + 0.1
Thus, for this particular case, the ultimate soil
resistance to penetration at the time of driving predicted
by the Engineering News Formula is high. Calculating
the ratio of
RUw 50 kips
RUF 137 kips
= 0.364,
this point is plotted in Figure 5 under steel piles with a
cross-sectional area of 10 sq. in. and a length of 100 ft.
Similarly, the values predicted by the other 10
formulas were determined, and their ratios RUw/RUF
plotted.
Thus, by using these graphs, the engineer can
readily determine the relative agreement between the
pile driving formulas considered and the wave equation.
lightweight shell piles driven by heavy solid steel man-
drels. For example, as noted in Figure 8, if a concrete
pile having an area of 400 in. 2 and a length of 100 ft.
was to be driven to a side frictional resistance of 50 kips
by a Vulcan No. 1 hammer, the Michigan Formula
would not indicate satisfactory resistance to penetra-
. tion until an actual resistance of 115 kips was obtained.
Thus, there would be an unseen factor of safety of 2.3
beyond the factor normally used.
This is by no means meant to detract from the use-
fulness of the Michigan Formula, but rather to empha-
size the potential danger of extrapolating such equations
which were derived using only a certain type of pile
under certain conditions.
As seen in Figures l l through 16, the Eytelwein
and Navy-McKay Formulas are relatively inconsistent.
The results for the Hiley Formula noted in Figures
17 through 19 are extremely interesting. Although the
angle and spread of the curves is much greater than that
for the Engineering News Formula, notice that they in
general center about a ratio of RUw/RUF =1.0, es-
pecially for steel piles with hard driving resistance at
point. Predictions for long and/ or heavy concrete piles
show far less agreement, as would be expected from pre-
vious experience. None-the-less, the method's popularity
is clearly indicated for steel point bearing piles since it
comes closer to predicting the true average pile capacity
for a greater variety of steel piles and soil conditions
than any of the other formulas analyzed.
Figures 20 through 22 illustrate the results obtained
for the Terzaghi Formula. Here again, the results vary,
agreeing with the wave equation only for certain cases
within certain ranges.
The Redtenbacher, Pacific Coast, and Canadian
PAGE FIVE
Building Code Formulas seem to show the least agree-
ment of the pile-driving formulas studied in this in-
vestigation.
Figures 32 through 34 illustrate the results of the
Rankine Formula and indicate that they, like the Engi-
neering News Formula are remarkably well banded and
consistent, although they also are relatively inaccurate.
However, it seems probable that constants could be
applied to either the Rankine Formula or the Engineer-
ing News Formula in order to greatly increase their
accuracy and_ usefulness, at least within the range of
problems studied in this report.
The results obtained for the Gates Formula are il-
lustrated in Figures 35 through 37. Although the re-
sults are not as closely grouped as some of the previ-
ously mentioned formulas, they are remarkably consistent
considering the lack of variables accounted for, and it
appears that it might be possible to modify the formula
somewhat in order to obtain closer agreement with the
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

Other simplified dynamic formulas can be treated

in a similar manner. Note that an appropriate factor
of safety should then be applied to the modified for- 1.0
mulas.
--- - --.d
It must be emphasized that throughout this report
the authors have limited their considerations to pile 30 60 100 140 0 30
-
60 100 140
capacity immediately after driving, (hence the term
"resistance to penetration") since it is widely recog- PILE LENGTH (FT)
nized that neither the wave equation nor any dynamic Figure 5. The Engineering News Formula vs the wave
formula can account for time-dependent variables which equation-Vulcan No. 1 hammer.

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
:::> --~ -,..::::.-----<
~-
-~~
-==--=.-:.:;
»::.-- - --=- -=:=.--.'="

0.0 1---+--+---+---1-+--+--lcc---+---+-1 0.0

AREAeiO IN.2 AREA•I50 IN. 2 AREAeiO IN.2 AREA•150 IN. 2
2.0 1 - - - t - - - t - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - + - - - + - - - + - - - - + - - - + - 1 20

_,..."
,...... .......

1.0 1---t---1----1----1-+---+---+----+---+-1 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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LEI~GTH (FT)

Figure 6. The Engineering News Formula vs the wave Figure 8. The Michigan Engineering News Formula vs
equation-Vulcan BOC hammer. the wave equation-Vulcan No. 1 hammer.

LEGEND: I
POINT RESISTANCE SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE

EASY DRIVING --o----o-o- -Q--.0.--Q- ~·~·~~~D~R~IV~IN~G____~--o----o-o-~~~ ~ -0---0-

I HARD DRIVING I -o-o--o-·r -o---o---a- HARO DRIVING --D-0--0- -G--Q- -Q-

STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES

AREA•30 IN. 2 AREA" 400 IN. 2 AREAe30 IN. 2 AREAe400 IN 2

2.0 2.0 1---t--t----t--++---+---+---!-------:7\---1

,-"'
/

----~: /~
1.0 1.0 '---+---t-----+-----++-----1~>'--s-~--lii--;:.:.-,::..--:::::::_-+'-------+--1
~
---- - - ---....:: -
I
-=---...--

r==-.
..,..~

0.0 0.0 f---1---:!----+---++---l---":----+---I-

2
AREA•201N. 2 AREA•275 IN. 2 AREA•20 IN! AREA•275 IN.

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.

2.0 2.0 1---T---+---1---t-+--+--+--+----f-l

..-.:;:-.: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.'

2.0 r---r---+---+---t-+---t----11----t---H 2.0

_,~
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

1.0 1-----t---+---+---++---+--+---+----+-l 1.0

·~"__....-. 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.

LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANC~~ISTANCE

~DI:IVING -o-0--0- -()- --()- --o- EASY DFIIVING -o-o-o- -o---o---o-
DRIVING --o-o-o- -D---o-- -o-- HARD DniVING -D--0-----0- -o-- -o- --a-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES COI'-JC. PILES
AREA=301N.2 AREA=400 IN} ~3o1N. 2 AREA= 400 IN 2
2.0 2.0

//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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 11. The Eytelwein Formula vs the wave equation Figure 13. The Eytelwein Formula vs the wave equation
-Vulcan No. 1 hammer. -Delmag D-22 hammer.
PAGE EIGHT
 LEGEND: POINT RESISTANcd SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE~ SIDE RESISTANCE
EASY DRIVING --o--o-o- -o---o- --o- EASY DRIVING --o--o-o- -o---o- --o-
HARD DRIVING --D---0---0- -D-- -o---o- HARD DRIVING --D---0---0- -o----o---o--
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
AREA=30 IN} AREA=400 IN} AREA=301N." A REI'.= 400 IN 2
I
2.0 1--t---t---t---11-t---+--,-J--f-~---1-l 2.0
\ 1/ .

)/ .......... --- ~ /

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
__ --- ..----
~
,__ )-.-~
--=--- :::.--- -::..::::~ ~

0.0 1--+--:+---t---lr+--+---1---+---H 0.0

-
,:::=--
-
AREA=IO IN.2 AREA= I 50 IN} AREA=IO IN.2 AREA=I50 IN."
2.0 1--t--+---t---1'--1---+---1---+---l-1 2.0

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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

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.

LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE~ SIDE RESISTANCE

LEGEND:· POINT RESISTA~CE~.: RESISTAN~
EASY DRIVING --o--o-o- -o---o- -o- --~y DHIVItJG -0--0--0-~-0---D--·0-
HARD DRIVING --D---0---0- --D-- -o- --o- DD:11Vit~- -o~---0=
--
::0.--o--D--
-.:=.......=..-.
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL. PILES COf·JC. PILES
----~-r------ -------, ----r---
AREI\o30 11~ AREA=400;fJ~I
2
AREA=301N 2 AREA=400 IN 2 .

/ 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

--- --- --- -::;:;;: ~

i~
n:: 1.0
·--
-- - r.::-- ----- o.o
0.0
AREA=IO IN." AREA=I50 IN 2 AREA=IO IN.' AREA=I50 IN.~/~' ,_.....-:/ /
/
2.0 2.0
_... "
///'..... /
...... ,....-'
---- / ..--
- --- _______.-'
/
L--'~ / /
1.0 -
1.0

-· - --- -- ----
- --- --
--::c
;:=-:::=:c /

--
--c

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 15. The Navy-McKay Formula vs the wave equa- Figure 17. The Hiley Formula vs the wave equation-
tion-Vulcan BOC hammer. Vulcan No. ] hammer.
PAGE NINE
 LEGEND: POINT .RESISTANCE! SIDE
.
RESISTANC~ - LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE

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::

------ ----------:-: ---'- ~ -- v--- ~

'- '- y./
"
;:)
0:: 1.0
"
;:)
0:: 1.0
..?"~

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

1.0 -:::-- ~---------

---
s----=- :::-::=.---
1/./
__ ....
V.,
v --------
-- -- ~__.....-<
1.0
-- ~- --- ~- ~--- ~:::=~
-::: ?"
;....--
---
)- --
:::..= ~ ---· ~

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 1B. The Hiley Formula vs the wave equation- Figure 20. The Terzaghi Formula vs the wave equation
Vulcan BOG hammer. -Vulcan No. 1 hammer.

LEGEN.O: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE

LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESIST.t'.NCE

EASY DRIVING -0--0--0- -0---o---o- ~lYING -()----{)---0-- J -o-- -o- --o-

I~HA::::R.D
r---------..L DRIVIf'G I --D-D-0- _L_-o---o---o- RIVING --D-D-0- --o-- -o- -D-

STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES

AREA=30 IN. 2 ---A~400IN 2
AREA=30 IN. 2 AREA= 400 IN 2
w ~
/
/
./

~~
---__ ,-:::::::._ -- ,.-:_:;. ~~

~---- ~ ~

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

2.0 t----+----+---f---H--+---1----+----1--l 2.0

::') :!) ~
0:: 0::
~
'-
~
'-
"
;:) ..... -.::: .- --p ___.
o:: 1.0 r--+-+--+---=H---Jt-....-_-_-_t-~---:::-::::-="'.±:::=~~
-_-;;~ _,::: ---- b_::::.::.- ---~l-- --1
0:: 1.0

~~
----- p
v &=---

o.o 1---+--+--+----H----1--1-----1----+1 0.0

AREA=IO IN.2 AREA=I50 IN 2 Ar~EA=IO IN.2 AREA=I50 IN.'

2.0 1---+---+---+---+-l---+--+---+-----+-1 2.0

.,...,... .........
--::::-
-- -
,~ --
//

1.0 f---+---+---+---1--l---+--+--~~~9-1 1.0

1---
::-....., ---"' ----
1::::-:"'
ld
~

~
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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 19. The Hiley Formula vs the wave equation- Figure 21. The Terzaghi Formula vs the wave equation
Delmag D-22 hammer. -Vulcan BOG hammer.
PAGE TEN
 LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: IPDIIH RESISTM:c~:SIDE RESISTAtJCE
EASY DRIVING --o--o-o- I -o- --o- --o- ~SY D!<IW!G --~-0---0--0- -0--.0.~
HARD DRIVING --o---o--o- -G--o---o- r-··------·- .Ri1~~~vii~o-----·-.:::-o=:-o::..n-:.=r-g-- -Q---~=
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
----,-· ~:~:r::~~~~---J-~Oi-!C. 2
PILES
AREt:'.•30 IN.zr-- ARE/\•400 IN 2 AP.E/\•30ii-J. 2 ?\REI\•4001N /
/ I
2.0 2.0
/,/
II
/
/ /
-~
??'
--- /~
"" ..-/
1.0
::-~ ~ :-- ~-= ~· ===
1.0

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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LEf~GTH (FT)

Figure 22. The Terzaghi Formula vs the wave equation Figure 24. The Redtenbacher Formula vs the wave equa-
-Delmag D-22 hammer. tion-Vulcan BOG hammer.

LEGEND: -~NT RESISTANCE! SlOE RESISTA~;; LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RES!STAt!CE

[EAsYDRiV~ --o--o-o- -1---?---o---o- EASY DRIVING -o---o---o- I -o---o- --o-

HARD DRIVING -Q----0---D- J --[J---D---D-_ HARD 0111\!ING -o---o-o-- I -a-- -o---o-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
--- --~-~----·
2 AREA•301N 2
2 I
AREA•301N 2
AFlEA"~·OO IN AREA• 40J.rf>.i
/ /
2.0

// ~//
/ / 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

PILE LE!~GTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

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
~,...

spli"" _,--- -----------

-- --
1.0 1.0

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
~

140 0 30 60 100 140 30

---~--
60 100 140 0 30
~

60 100 140

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 26. The Pacific Coast Formula vs the wave Figure 28. The Pacific Coast Formula vs the wave equa-
equation-Vulcan No. 1 hammer. tion~Delmag D-22 hammer.

LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE

LEGEND: POINT RESISTANC~~ SIDE RESISTANCE

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 / //

::./~ v cl/ 1.--::::--- ~

/

--~ ·~
- ,______. -- -- ~--

-
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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 27. The Pacific Coast Formula vs the wave equa- Figure 29. The Canadian Building Code Formula vs the
tion-Vulcan 80C hammer. wave equation-Vulcan No. 1 hammer.
PAGE TWELVE
 LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEr:m: POIHT RES!STANCEI SIDE RESISTANCE
EASY DRIVING --o--o--o-- -o---o- --o- fEASYDm=v::,Nc:.G:---+'--o--o-~~.:; o- I -o---o---<c_
HARD DRIVING --o-o----a- J -o-- -a---a- ,----------'-[HA_.:.:.UA.:;.:RROOO
DRIVING --D-D-----D- _:-0---D---D- _
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
AREA•301N.2 AREA• 400 IN 2 ~30\N:r ~4001N 2
/
2.0 " 2.0 1---+---+-----f---j'--f--J---+----+---+-1
,...,.. ---- ~/

-- - --- _,/
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--

. \........... "' ""_,...

2.0

---------
/

~ ~ 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

30 60 100 140 0 30 60 100 140

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LEf~GTH (FT)

Figure 30. The Canadian Building Code Formula vs the Figure 32. The Rankine Formula vs the wave equation
wave equation-Vulcan 80C hammer. -Vulcan No. 1 hammer.

lEGEND: LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCEI_SIDE RESISTANCE

POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE

l EASY DRIVING --o--o--o-- -o---o- --o- IEAS'YDRivu~G --o--o--o-- -o---o- -o-

_j
-~RIVIN_G __L-p----o-----o-
HARD DRIVING --o-o----a- -o-- -a- --a- 1 -o---o----o-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
AREA•301N 2 ~4001N 2 AREA=30 IN. 2 AREA•400 IN. 2

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 0 30

-:;:;; ___.,
60
_,. _.. _.......
g..?'

100
-
140
1.0

i==-~
r--·
30
~i
-
60
--
100 140 0 30
-----
60 100
___ _,
~

140

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 31. The Canadian Building Code Formula vs Figure 33. The Rankine Formula vs the wave equation
the wave equation-Delmag D-22 hammer. -Vulcan 80C hammer.
PAGE THIRTEEN
 LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE!_ SIDE RESISTANCE

IEAsYDRtVING --o--o---o- -o---{)- --{)- EASY DRIVING --o--o---o- -o---{)- --{)-

HARD DRIVING I --o-o-o- -o- -o- -o- HARD DRIVING --o---o--o- -D---o- -o-
STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES
AREA=301N 2 AREA= 400 IN 2 AREA=301N.' AREA-400 IN.'
2.0
I
2.0
--- ---- -
1.0
,.__ -- ---- --- -- - -
1.0
?- >-
----
?::><::::-
0.0 0.0
AREA=201N.' AREA=275 IN 2 AREA=201N.' AREA=275 IN 2

...
:::>
0::

':::>;.
2.0
...
:::>
0::
':::>;.
2.0

!----I - -- ---- --

0: 1.0 0:: 1.0 .,__

-
1>--~ ---- --- - - --
0.0 0.0
AREA=IO IN.2 AREA=I50 IN 2 AREA=IO IN.2 AREA=I50 IN 2
2.0 2.0

'
~
~
-
- --

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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 34. The Rankine Formula vs the wave equation Figure 36. The Gates Formula vs the wave equation-
-Delmag D-22 hammer. Vulcan 80C hammer.
LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE' SIDE RESISTANCE LEGEND: POINT RESISTANCE! SIDE RESISTANCE

I____ ~AS'(_DRIVII~G _ _ 1_=5?~ -o----o- -o- EASY DRIVING --o--o---o- -o- --o- --{)-
IHARODf>tVING -~~ -o---o---o-· HARD DRIVING

STEEL PILES CONC. PILES STEEL PILES CONC. PILES

AREA=400 IN 2 AREA= 400 IN 2
2.0 1 - - - - - + - - - - - + - - - - 1 - - - H - - + - - - + - - - + - - - i - 1
AREA=301N.'

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 f----I---1----1---H---1--1-----t---t-1 0.0 f---l----:l---t--+-1---1--+;:---t---H

AREA =10 IN .2I AREA=I50 IN.' 2
AREA=IO IN. AREA=I50 IN.'
2.of---+--+---t--++--+--_+-_-_-_+~--;H
2.0 I
,_ __ --
---:. ___
--
~-- ---- 1>--- 1---P'-----¢
1.0 ~--'i===i==~~~~H---~--+--+----1--1 1.0 1---t-=r-:..:·-:..:-~=~+~~H--1""""-::'.:._±--'-----±---+-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

PILE LENGTH (FT) PILE LENGTH (FT)

Figure 35. The Gates Formula vs the wave equation- Figure 37. The Gates Formula vs the wave equation-
Vulcan No. 1 hammer. Delmag D-22 hammer.
PAGE FOURTEEN
 References
1. McClelland, B., John A. Focht, Jr., and William J.
Emrich, "Problems and Design and Installation of
Heavily Loaded Pipe Piles," Prese'1ted to ASCE
Specialty Conference on Civil Engineering in the
Oceans, San Francisco, September 1967.
2. Chellis, R. D., "Pi'e Foundations," McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 1961, p. 24.
3. Smith, E. A. L., "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave
Equation," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dations Divisions, Proceedings, ASCE, Paper No.
2574, SM4, August 1960.
4. Hirsch, T. J., "Computer Study of Variables Which
Affect the Behavior of Concrete Piles During Driv-
ing," Report of the Texas Transportation Institute,
Texas A&M University, August 1963.
5. Hirsch, T. J., and Thomas C. Edwards, "Impact
Load-Deformation Properties of Pile Cushioning
Materials," Report of the Texas Transportation In-
stitute, Texas A&M University, July 1965.
6. Chan, P. A., "A Laboratory Study of Dynamic Load-
Deformation and Damping Properties of Sand Con-
cerned with a Pile-Soil System," A Dissertation,
Texas A&M University, January 1967.
7. Airhart, Tom P., T. J. Hirsch, and H. M. Coyle,
"Pile-Soil System Response in Clay as a Function
of Excess Pore Water Pressure and Other Soil Prop-
erties," Report of the Texas Transportation Insti-
tute, Texas A&M University, September 1967.
8. Lowery, Lee L., Jr., T. J. Hirsch, and C. H. Samson,
Jr., "Pile Driving Analysis-Simulation of Ham-
mers, Piles, and Soils," A Report of the Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University,
August 1967.
9. Hirsch, T. J., "Stresses in Long Prestres~ed Con-
crete Piles During Driving," A Report of the Texas
Transportation. Institute, Texas A&M University,
September 1962.
10. Samson, C. H., T. J. Hirsch, and L. L. Lowery, Jr.,
"Computer Study of Dynamic Behavior of Piling,"
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Volume
89, No. ST4, Proceedings Paper 3608, August 1963.
11. Hirsch, T. J., "Field Tests of PreJtressed Concrete
Piles During Driving," Report of the Texas Trans-
portation Institute, Texas A&M University, August
1963.
12. Chellis, R. D., "Pile Foundations," McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 1961, p. 24.
13. Chellis, R. D., and A. F. Zaskey, Discussion of "Pile-
Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation," by E. A.
L. Smith, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 127, 1962, Part
I. p. 1145.
14. Lowery, Lee L., Jr., T. J. Hirsch, and C. H. Samson,
Jr., "Pile-Driving Analysis-Simulation of Ham-
mers, Piles, and Soils," A Report of the Texas Tram:-
portation Institute, Texas A&M University, August
1967.
15. Olson, R. E., and K. S. Flaate, "Pile-Driving For-
mulas for Friction Piles in Sand," Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceed-
ings, ASCE, November 1967, Paper No. 5604.
16. Agerschou, Hans A., "Analysis of the Engineering
News Pile Formula," Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Proceedings, ASCE, Pro-
ceedings Paper 3298, October 1962.
17. Michigan State Highway Commission, "A Perform-
ance Investigation of Pile Driving Hammers and
Piles," Lansing, Michigan, March, 1965.
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