RD-R1U 305 COMPARISON OF RXIAL CAPOCIT OF YIWTOR-AIYEN ILES VV1TO IMPACT-DRIVEN PILES(U) RMY ENGINEER NATERNIRSEXPERIMENT STATION VICKSIIMRO HS INFOR.. R L MOSHER

UMLASSIFIED SEP 97 IES/TR/XTL-87-7 F/O 133 "L

Emi

IfI II

II~ sz 1*51111 u 1*62W

11111 =*

F, , *~v%

J.II

Asa w ' iWW

VVV *-

967

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE JALTForm ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OsAN' 0O04.o 188

_________________________________________Exp Date Jun30 7986

la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified ,__,_.___..___2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION/AVALABILITY OF REPORT

2b DECLASSIFICATIONIDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release; distribution .. ,', .'unlimited.

4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) * T,

Technical Report ITL-87-7 .v6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

(If applicable) '

See reverse See reverse6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code)

US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment StationPO Box 631 %Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631 ..'.-_.-_,___8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYM8OL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER -

ORGANIZATION (If applicable)

See reverse CELMV-ED-G8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PR'OGRAM PRO1EC'T TASK IWORK UNIT ,.O 0ELEMENT ,0 NO ACCESSION NO

PO Box 80 f.~-Vicksburg, MS 39180-0080 .

11 TITLE (Include Security Classification) % '%i% % -

Comparison of Axial Capacity of Vibratory-Driven Piles to Impact-Driven Piles - .,12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Mosher. Reed L. g13a TYPE OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED 14 DATE OF REPORT (Year Month. Day) 15 PtGE COUNT

Final report FROM Oct 84 TOSep 87 mr 1987.

16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, ,_, ..VA 22161 e-'. .

17 COSATI CODES 18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) %

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Lock and Dam No. 1 (Red River) (LC) Piling (Civil "

Locks (Hydraulic engineering) engineering) 9Pile Drivers (LC) ..

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

\This technical report documents the findings of an investigation into the effects onthe axial capacity of piles driven by vibratory pile-driving hammers. The investigationstems from the concern that foundation engineers in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division ofthe US Army Corps of Engineers had over the unexpected low capacities found during the pile 0test at Red River Lock and Dam No. I. While driving piles with a vibratory hammer increasesproductivity up to 10 to 20 times over the use of an impact hammer, there is a significant Z..

reduction in the axial capacity of the piles driven with a vibratory hammer. The study re-vealed that this reduction was a result of a loss in the load carried by the tip. The re- -

port documents a number of pile testing programs that were performed to make direct com-parison between vibratory-driven piles and impact-driven piles.

20 DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECUR Ty CLASSIFICATION % %

UNCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT 0 DTIC USERS Unclassified22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE NOIVIOUAL 22b TE LE PHONE (include Area Code) 22c OFFCE SYMBO *.

DO FORM 1473. 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used unt. ext'austed SECR,7Y CLAS,,rICArION Or 5 PAuF,,All other edtion$ are obsolete 0

Unclassified

%" %"%; - L" . .- -

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

6a. & 6b. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION AND OFFICE SYMBOL (Continued). KEngineering Application Office CEWES-KA-EInformation Technology Laboratory CEWES-IM-R

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING ORGANIZATION (Continued).

US Army Engineer DivisionLower Mississippi Valley

!V

%; %

L.

.Ipm

t .

:.

Unclassified

-_,

-~ ~%"

P REFACE

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 Experi-

ment 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. COL Dwayne G.

Lee, CE, is the present Commander and Director. Dr. Robert W. Whalin is

Technical Director.

.. .. . -

| ,N ;- * C . . - -

.... .. "' 1 '""~A.-~

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ................................................................ 1

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ......... 3

PART I: INTRODUCTION .................................................. 4

Background ....................................................... 4Purpose .......................................................... 4Scope ............................................................ 5

PART II: PILE DRIVERS ................................................ 6

Introduction ..................................................... 6Impact Driving ................................................... 6Type of Impact Hammers ........................................... 6

Vibratory Driving ................................................ . 8 ,

PART III: FIELD PILE TESTS ............................................ 10

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 ................................ 10Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3 ................................ 15Crane Rail Tracks (Mazurkiewicz 1975) ............................ 21Geochemical Building, Harvard University and Wall No. 7,

1-95, Providence, Rhode Island ................................. 26

PART IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................... 31

Summary of Field Tests ........................................... 31Conclusions ...................................................... 35

REFERENCES ............................................................. 36

APPENDIX A: PILE TESTS, ARKANSAS RIVER LOCK AND DAM NO. 4 ............. Al

APPENDIX B: PILE TESTS, ARKANSAS RIVER LOCK AND DAM NO. 3 ............. B1

'.,.

2

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:

Multiply By To Obtain

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

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

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 profit-

able 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 conse-

quently 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. The piles tested

were H-piles with lengths between 55 and 70 ft. 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 (met-ric) 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 pre-

vail 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. I.

5. 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: driven, bored and cast-in-place, driven and cast-in-place, and

jetted. 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 install-

ing 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 0

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

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

stone block hoisted by rope over a pulley guide and then dropped. The block

was guided to its destination by vertical poles. 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 hammera..

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

7

% .,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 V

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 Calif-

ornia. 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. The axles carry eccentric weights and A

are driven by an electric motor. 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

8

...................... t A, &A

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

ing 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 medium-

dense 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.

I

'- 2',.

9,

PART III: FIELD PILE TESTS

19. The five testing programs that directly compared impact- and w.

vibratory-driven piles are:

a. Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4

b. Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3 'S

c. Crane rail tracks

d. Geochemical Building, Harvard University

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

%

Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 V

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. This all overlies a stratum of deeply bedded Tertiary clays.

22. 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

S q'LUC MOUNTAIN -r'p14"L'I L DA(; A" LX-&

A,'U. 6 1

L&.3 07 L

Figure 1. Arkansas River Navigation Project

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

further explorations were made specifically for the pile testing program.

These explorations indicated that three major soil strata exist at the test

site: a surface blanket of silts and clays which extends about 15 ft below I

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

which extends about 100 ft, and a basal stratum of Tertiary clay of undeter-

mined 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 ""

L1 Ro !t.

Pine lu •Arbon*&&

6 WD 3 Pon, LI... ,w -. "w ". ' ,k' " • ' ' '-% . . " " "- "" % % ". '. '. '''''" ''" '' ' " ''. '"' - % ''-."%". . " " . . .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 ground-water level was held at 2 to 3 ft below the surface of

the site. Figure 2 shows a generalized profile for the test site.

200

160 *~ .

0 0 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. Table 1 presents a summary of the axial load tests performed at

the site. 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. The plots of the individual load tests are provided

in Appendix A. 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

and the tip of the pile is given for pipe sections. In Figure 3, the tip and

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 FailureTest Penetration Hammer Load, tonsNo. Type ft Type Compression Tension

1 12 in. pipe 53.1 140C 140 70

2 16 in. pipe 52.8 140C 195 91

2X 16 in. pipe 52.8 140C 210 -

3 20 in. pipe 53.0 140C 215 90

4 16 in. concrete 40.2 140C 170 71

5 16 in. concrete 51.0 140C 240 -

6 14 BP 73 40.0 80C 140

7 14 BP 73 52.1 80C 190 45

8 Timber 38.6 65C 80 25

9 14 BP 73 53.2 Bodine 210 -

10 16 in. pipe 53.1 Bodine 180 87

11 16 in concrete 38.8 Bodine 150 -

,a

Table 2Load Distribution in Pipe Piles

AverageNominal Penetra- Failure Load Distribution

Test Diameter tion Load Tip Load Skin FrictionNo. in. ft tons Tons Percent Tons Percent

1 12 53.1 140 34 24 106 76

2 16 52.8 195 58 30 137 70

2X 16 52.8 210 67 32 143 68

3 20 53.0 215 77 36 138 64

10 16 53.1 180 46 26 134 74

13

€. %' . ' ', % i -. -...'-. - 'a.' '.',.* ' .... .. . . . .. ' .a' . ° .a.. .. . ..

200.00 -

150.00 ,.

0

o 100.00o

_ji TPCopeeftII•

50.00 ..

0 .00 , 1........ , .. . .E *........ ., ... ..... . 5**, ., , ,

10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00Nominal Pipe Pile Diameter in Inches

Figure 3. Failure load versus pipe pile diameterfor 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

Average Load DistributionTest Penetration Failure Load Tip Load Skin FrictionNo. ft. tons Tons Percent Tons Percent

6 40.0 140 21 15 119 85

7 52.1 190 39 21 151 79

9 53.2 210 25 12 185 88 Y

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 4Lock and Dam No. 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 Lockand Dam No. 3, Arkansas River Navigation Project," unpublished.

15

d ~ . %'".% ~ ~ -

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

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 0- •

stratum. Approximately 40 to 50 ft of the

surface stratum was removed.• ... '%

Description of test- -20

ing program and results ..

31. Load tests were preformed to de-

termine 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,-80

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

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 vibratory- Figure 4. Generalizeddriven piles and impact-driven piles, only soil profile for Lock and

d oDam No. 3 pile test site

pile tests relevant to the objectives of

this study are examined. The piles of interest were 14 BP 73, of lengths 45,

50, 55, 65, and 75 ft. 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 .4.

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

o-2-

,JA,

r4 - ,TEST 3-

55"3- t -

5- zTEST3-9- z I I I I I

1 I I

6z- - 3 - l i

TEST 3 2 TEST 3-4 2 V.

12L.

TEST 3-8(BEFORE TIMBER)

A 8 C D E F G H J K L M N P A B CDEFG H J

MONOLITH L-7 MONOLITH R-8

TEST 3-3, 3A & 38

1 2 2 t tzt t -tx

4A- ' ' ' I 3x x 1 --

4- 1 1 K I 1 2 4- 2 t;xt; 4- Z XIX

2A- z S I t 1 •

2- 8 1 t i 8- T;;;2;1 ;t22125'

lA- x : z g: , rEs r3- 14.1Al T -. - J TEST 3-81.

(,4F TER .TIMBER)

'IA' I N 10 I 1 11 1 IIN 1 ~'I III'JILN ACEGJ A B CDEFG H J

B D F H K MP B D F H K M P

MONOLITH R-9 MONOLITH L-14 MONOLITH R-8

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

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

TEST 3-5- I -to TEST 3-7

, 70' TEST3-6 LEGENDLEGEN R-8. ,L-7

5 8- ;2t 2 lt t t COMPRESSION TEST R-9P 7- t t. t ; =. .mH.H.];6- 2r;t ±3t Q TENSION TEST

6- L- 142 12

- * € ± Q TENSION & COMPRESSION TEST4- . t3- t t 2 2 *t t t . LATERAL TEST KEy R-19 "2- 2 2 j I 2 2

1-- Of PI LE CLUSTER. " TEST PILE)

A' C'TIMBER PILE

B D F H K M P

MONOLITH R-19

Figure 5. Location of pile tests (Continued)

17

......

TEST 3-10 TEST3-10.T

N - • .I SI S 1 1 r. 2 S. 2. N 4 3 **b4n*"II I .444**Mp . .. .4 . I

j, I x 1 1 1

L 4- - - - - - - - - - - - --4 • ,.- I. q1 I

J. 2 2 w2e. 5I- 1 .II ,,

J f - * .4 .44..4 lI

I • 1 . . 4I . 4 4

Gm . . . . .. . . . . ..

MOOLT 10 J-

E . . . . .... .4 . . . .. W . . . ..E'

/ 1 1 1 1 7 18 1 1 6 23 2 5 6 A 2 21

8A 104 I 1 24 26 Q 1 13 13 - - 444

2 7A1 1 32 135!3 1 44"

2A3 4c 30A 1 4 1 6A

MONOLITH 2310'

K L

~I I ' 9 I ' I13 5 17 1 12 12 2! n~ 29 1! ll i IlII I]I IIII TI1I1/31eTT- TiS 31 32 352

62A4oo 7A o A1

.T41T36A3 o 7c r 28 333•

MONOOITHT1

GE

TESTMPES3ON13S .

F- "... .... ... 4 . u . 4 . . . 4 .. 4l4.444 4U 44

E-

- . . .4. . . . . . . .

MO TNLITH 23OPESNTS

3, -TE RAL EST,1

F--

5. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

---o a----- ----- ----- ----- ----

MONOLITH 4 311OTH 341 37

2- TESO 0T0ST7

3C 0 0 TES O 3-1 COPRSIO TS

4-LAT0R0L SB*4

Table 4 -

Summary of Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 3

H-Pile Tests

Failure LoadsCompression, tons Tension, tons

Test Penetration As AsNo. Hammer* ft Tested Adjusted** Tested Adjusted**

1 FR 2-50 42.3 85 71 25 222 VC 140C 42.8 134 104 34 272A VC 140C 61.8 185 145 - -3 FR 2-50 46.7 105 80 - -3A FR 2-50 46.7 120 92 31 23

3B FR 2-50 61.8 145 117 - -

5 VC 140C 52.8 150 128 39 326 VC 140C 63.0 175 155 51 447 VC 140C 73.0 215 190 - -9 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 im-

pact 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. Figure 7 presents the tension failure loads versus the depTh of pen-

etration. This 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 01ci 2

3

-50.00

A -60.00 3B 2A

0

° -70.00a. o7

-80.00 0 - Impact Driven0 - Vibratory Driven

-90.000.00...........50.00 100.00 150.00 200.0 250.00

Failure Load in Tons

Figure 6. Failure load versus depth for compressiontests for Lock and Dam No. 3

-40.0012

13 - Impact Driven

-45.00 0 - Vibratory Driven

I-50.00

.0 -55.00

-60.00\ 'C

6

-65.00

- 70.00 .......... ..... .... ....... ........ . . . . ......... .0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Failure Load in Tons

Figure 7. Failure load versus depth for tensiontests for Lock and Dam No. 3

20WAV'o'

-ur wJ. J '

Crane Rail Tracks (Mazurkiewicz 1975)

V.%35. During the construction of pile foundations for crane rail tracks

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

vibratory hammer and an impact hammer. Mazurkiewicz (1975) reported the re-

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. %r

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

tests. 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. It was found, if the

21

"0~. lee

4~~~~. - .%./0 m0

100 200 V30

3 - F-L 7 7 v+.0+2.85

2

08 1 .

0 .... . - 01 80 ID..GRAVEL WITH [ . *

370 ID =0.4 MEDIUM SAND

3 -=0320 1D=0.4 *.

.. . .. .... .GRAVEL WITH

5 SAND S

6 O= =370 -04'---

7 MEDIUM SAND

8 MEDIUM SAND ~ 30I . S

0 350 I1) 0.4

10.. . .. .

12

SILTY AND13 FINE SAND -37

1 320 ID 0.4 -3

FINEANDPILES ACC

15 0 320 ID0.4 FIG 6

16

17 --- V/BR-17.65

CLAY WITH S-18 SI LT D R IV -18.65 VIOA

19 ~I o10C0.5 PI LES ACC CLAY WITH PIE AC7 -18= .2 FIG 5 SI LT FIG TA19 15

20 -w 10 C = 0.35 DRIV0L = 0.2

Figure 8. Stratification for the crane rail track test sites

22

Table 5

Summary of Crane Rail Tracks Pile Testing Program

Failure Load in Compression

Pile Length Vibratory Driven Impact Driven

Test Set ft (m) tons (mtons) tons (mtons) Ratio

42.7 (13) 38.5 (35) 92.4 (84) 0.42

2 42.7 (13) 46.2 (42) 52.8 (48) 0.88

3 42.7 (13) 71.5 (65) 93.5 (85) 0.76

4 57.8 (17) 44.0 (40) 69.3 (63) 0.63

5 57.8 (17) 50.6 (46) 124.3 (113) 0.41

6 59.1 (18) 28.6 (26) 115.5 (105) 0.25

7 72.2 (22) 103.4 (94) 159.5 (145) 0.65

8 75.5 (23) 55.0 (55) 82.5 (75) 0.67

9 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 vwlwrw Jwuiv'q w4.q ~ - ~-w

TEST LOAO (TONS)0. 40. 80. 120. 160.

0. 20. 60. 100. 140. 1O0.

.4

I- p%

Z .6 DRIVEN

'i N.

I % VIDRAY1g

f.0

hi ". p.. * !!

01.w

I - . - -'r ''

1.4

Jw %'

L .

a-

Figure 9. Crane rail tracks load tests for 17-m pile

3

TEST LOAO (TONS)0. 40. 80. 120. 160.

0. 20. 60. 100. 140. 180.

.4

S.6

2

1.2

-j

V .

2.2

F 1 Cr n ,,t " ,rI,' ci ,,- for 22-m pile

1.? 4

I. 1.

TEST LOAO (TONS)0. 80. 16o. 240.

0. 0. 40. 120. 200. 0

z ..

ww

U .6-

w

1.0.

~~1

0

1.2

hi .Lf1.4

L

I ".

I K,Figure 11. Crane rail tracks load tests for 23-m pile

-40.00

P 'sz P5 3

-50.00

*1 PTS5

-60.00 Prs4

- V Tps 7-70.00 . . ,0.T 8

Prs 10 PTS 9-80.00

0 Impact DrivenoC- Vibratory Driven 1Si

-90.00 ... . ..''b. . .000~ 6bbY o'd 150.00 200.00Failure Load in Tons

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

25

; .. , .j.F'. . ,'... _.", , i' %" ."..... .'; .. '.'..'..' -"- --..-- .. "." . . ..-.-..-..-. -. 1.

. ...VV. .: V X

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 WallNo. 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 gen-

eral 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

superiorly to the impact-driven piles. V.

y'.'

.4o%

%'.

'4"..

J. K. Jeyapolan. 1983. "Axial Capacity of Vibro-Driven Piles," Drift re-

port submitted to the US Army Engineer Waterways Exper'ime't Station, 'ViLk-burg, Miss.

26 -4,.6 ".0

i crc.6 >M-Cn) u~

313HNOO 10007 HM (11113113S o u" ' Q

UU E p-

z w o = V

CI C

zop

Ku

CIO <

CDi m4-)

313NOD 91 00017 HIM a13ii1d 113HS dZ LU -

C3 ')

;o

n0 A0ILAL

oc o 0LL~

II I -(U.Lj i w LL w

~< Z Z

___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ L__ LAJ_

Li- < >---

~~~- <:v*~*. <.

BLOWSPER E 8

BR.ET~. 15 -CUTOFF EL 48' 7 CUTOFF EL 50'

50' FINE SAND. ;"- ,~ %_ _L.9

LITTLE FINE 29 EL 47'

40' BR ADw 28* ' 21

2630' FINE GRAY 2274

SAND551423140) 76 GA

20 \\ 31 76 GA. HEL -CORFIN GAYHEL -COR SHEL L

\SAND - 31 SHVELL10' TRACE SILTN

\.N. 25RED-BR.FINE-SAND., 36

0 TRACE SILT

32

31

39 30'\GRAY FIN Es 0 120\SAND, 27 30'G

-20' - SOME SILT 124) 76G29 16 GA. SHELLCOHEL-COR SELf

36 SHEL L-30' - I

27 EL -33DARK GREY

SILTFINEEL -37'SITFIE 61 PILE A-12 -WALL 7

-40' ISAND LAYERSL- PILE A-21 - WALL 7 DRIVEN BY A NO. 1P

BORING DRIVEN BY ASONIC VULCAN STEAMLOG PILE DRIVER - HAMMER

-60' MODEL 'A'

Figure 14. Soil profile for Wall No. 7, 1-95

28

L.%

TEST LOAD, TONS

0 40 80 120 160 200 2400

0.1 77

0.1 J,,. .,

0.3

N PILE 6-BC-3

0AQ* BODINE SONICwU RILE HAMMER

0

0,

0.7

PILE 6 BC 608 DRIVEN BY

A NO. 0 VUL CANAS TEAM HAMME R?

Figure 15. Pile loaid ~'>,-:-2s ')[

MOD'At

0.10t

TEST LOAD.DTON

PILEA--2.BO UNE OICDILEDRVE

zw

>

0

w0.20. - .

0.25

0.30

035 1 1 1 1 I 1

Figure 16. Pile load tests for Wall No. 7, 1-95

30

%S

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 plot-

ted versus the failure load of the vibratory-driven piles. The diagoral line

in the plot represents a one-to-one correspondence between the impact and vi-

bratory capacity. Points below this line show a greater capacity for impact-

driven piles and points above this line show a greater capacity for vibratory-

driven 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 forvibratory-driven piles -'

42. A possible explanation for the reduced capacity for vibratory-

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

at the pile tip, thus lowering the tip capacity. Hunter and Davisson (1969),

in their investigation of the Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 14 pile tests,

explained the difference in capacities by examining the driving procoss. They,

state that a vibratory hammer is very effective in overcoming the side resis t-

ance 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

compared to its state before driving. In comparison, Me, erho2 (q59) show- '

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

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 for e,:'"

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 i-p:"

for which the vibratory-driven pile had a grater tital I d at fa. '' .

31

%0

A -o• -.

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

4.. A . **~ '. % '• ..".

300.00 0

250.00 - ARK. L&D NO. 4U - ARK. L&D NO. 3A - RUSSIAN CRANE

c 200.00

150.000

o°

0

S50.00

0.000 & 100.00 A5.'6'W0

0.00*......... ......... ......... ..... ,....,.........." .a0. 0 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00

Failure Load in Tons

Impact Driven

Figure 17. Comparison of impact- and vibratory-driven piles ,

300.00 d-

0 - 16 in. Pipe Pile

- H-Pile

TOW

" 0200.00 0C a"o T

o 0

.0a 0

*= 100.00

U-"

0

0.00.. .... .0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00Failure Load in Tons

Impact Driven

Figure 18. Corp-irisor oC 1oAA J i ;tribut ior: ofimpact- and vi br>,-rv- r' " . f"or Lo-k

.4'

V -.- Lieo

I M-P '%K1j~X1MV-~VLVW('qrwV WWload 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 addi-

tional 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

P 5,

30S r

20

.-- .- "PT-A-A1C RETEST

REES

* 0.2 0.4 0.6 *.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

PILE TIP MIOVEMENT (INCHES)

Figure 79. 7Tp lo-id pi'r - t:[ vv trr Pi V

A-1C, Red Riv-- Lv. r1 m N,- IM ~%4

33

WI Lrw 8e .I lr ~xNTI - " .90.0 YW."-,. W _ W

Pp %

T

I 60 .,,,

0Po

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

a 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 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

TI

0

A 40

T .

0 30 'p

S

20

- PT-S-IC-EPTS-IC RETEST

0 0 2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

PILE TIP MOVEIENT (INCHES)

"1 6 r 0

-- %,

.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 vibratory-

placed pile causes an increased in its axial capacity to that of a pile driven

totally by an impact hammer.

..

.9."

...--- l

REFERENCES

Barkan, D. D. (1957). "Foundation Engineering and Drilling by the VibratoryMethod," Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics andFoundation Engineering, London, pp 3-7.

Ellison, R. D. (1969). "An Analytical Study of the Mechanics of Single PileFoundations," Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburg, Pa.

Engineering News Record. 1961 (Nov). "Sonics Drive a Pile 71 Feet WhileSteam Drives Another 3 Inches," Vol 16'7, No. 19.

Fruco and Associates. (1964). "Pile Driving and Loading Tests," US ArmyEngineer District, Little Rock, Ark.

Hunter, A. A., and Davisson, M. T. (1969). "Measurement of Pile LoadTransfer," Performance of Deep Foundations, American Society for TestingMaterials, STP 444, pp 106-117.

Mazurkiewicz, B. K. (1975). "Influence of Vibration of Piles on their Bear-ing Capacity," Proceedings First Baltic Conference, Soil Mechanics and Founda-tion 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.

Mosher, R. L. (1984). "Load-Transfer Criteria for Numerical Analysis ofAxially Loaded Piles in Sand," Technical Report K-84-1, US Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Robinsky, E. I., and Morrison, C. F. (1964). "Sand Displacement and Com-paction Around Model Friction Piles," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 1,No. 4, pp 189-204.

US Army Engineer District, Little Rock. (1967). "Data and Recommendationfor Steel Bearing Pile Foundation in Sand Based on Experience at Lock and DamNo. 3 and David D. Terry Lock and Dam (No. 6), Arkansas River Navigation Proj-ect," Little Rock, Ark.

6N

36

"0

. . , , , , . ._ .. , -. '.. ,... •. • , ... .'.. . ...' " - ,--' '.€'"-

"* sp

APPENDIX A: PILE TESTS,

ARKANSAS RIVER LOCK AND DAM NO. 14

NN..o'-a

-

'. °

ARKASAS IVE LOC ANDDAMNO. 'a'

'p1

Sk

Gross Pile Load (tons)

0 s0 100 150 zoo

Tip movement

- 0.z )

Ur 0.4-

- Gross settlement,pile butt

E(D

S0.8ID

(A.

6)1. 0 S

U-,

CL

Figure Al. Compression test results - Test %Pile 1 (12.75-in. pipe pile)

A..

~ \ ~ .- ~.IS

Gross Pile Load (tons)

0 50 100 Iso .00 IS0

Ntsettlement,, pile butt,.

a.

0.4

Gros seteet pieut/.0-V

a--

.,.0

rsestlement pie butt

IA3

4);

4) moveen

I II

0sFiueA.Copeso es eut Ts ie2'.

Tetz(6i.pp ie

A3 1.1

-- S.- -.. Mh -

%5.'.

I

V

Gross Pile Load (tons)

so too /50 200 2So

'N ~Netsettlement

0.2_ pile butt-

U

~~~Gross settlement," 'Pile butt

0..-..

I1.2. Tip

a. 4 .4..

Figure A3. Compression test results -Test Pile 2 _Test 2 (16-in. pipe pile)

,A4.

,U

A 1.0.

Tip:-movement

"e , e p ,/ e ," , , • ., , r . - ,. - • . - .- ,, ._ - . .. . . - , - - .. - . . . . . - .-0 . . - .

".. *

Gross Pile Load (tons)

/ f 100 I50 200 250

Tip movement

-' Gross settlement, 'Aa pile butt 4

U

0.6

1.Z4 -

6"N

Figure A4. Compression test results -Test ...Pile 3 (20-in. pipe pile)

Gross Pile Load (tons) ,..,

0 s o0 / 0 0 /5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0: P..

~Net settlementj¢ pile butt

0.2 -

Gross settlement, "",Pile butt. .

0.4-

U)

LI o.8.

Q"I I I I .I

Figure A5. Compression test results - TestPile 4 (16-in. concrete pile)

A5...

G r os.. .. . ., . .. L, o d.% ( .o

Gross Pile Load (tons)

0 so 100 /so 200 250 3000

Net settlement,

*~0.4 iebt

1.0

0.6

FiueA. Cmreso etrsut etPl

E1-n ocrt ie

INi- 0.8Z-1

Gross Pile Load (tons) d

0 so too /So 200

0.2- Tip

movement

0.4-

-4 0.6

E

0 Gross settlement,M 1.2 pile butt

1..

I% %1w W 5b

FiueA.Cmreso e0 eit etPl

Gross Pile Load (tons)

0 5"0 /00 150 zoo z500 J

Net settlement,

pile butt

o-.-

X 0.4

4'L

'SS.

b', . 0.8 -

i .- Gross settlement, "E Pile butt ""

4j)

4)

71. -FiueA. opesonts euls-Ts

P0e7( B 3

I)8

-. :,> 4 , ',< "-:.".., .".-,"."--,".,, :.".'. .,, . .",".".",".'.".".'."," . , . . ,z..,. , . , - -,

, "V' ' ', , ' Wj' " ¢ .ee ,.'. ',e ',...'.' ,..¢ .. ' ., . ' " ... ,,.... .,',,,., ,, ,).

--;V

Gross Pile Load (tons)

0 50 /oo 50 zoo

N Net settlementO.- 'pile butt

0.4

1.

Li 0.6 -.

FCos

4) , 1.0 -

i, -Z Gros settlement,

P pile butt

''::

1.8 .I

Li I I

Figure A9. Compression test results -Test,-'m

Pile 8 (timber pile) ! i

k.

0

V . ~ V '' ~ d J : ~ * ** *** ~ **~* ~ * -.-.-. *,.,"' *9- ""-*" ~% . - '' .

• .,

Gross Pile Load (tons)

00%

50 100 157o 200 25o e0

O~'--.;"

0.2 Tipmovement

So.4-U

Gross settlement,Pile butt0 .6 ,: .

"U= :.,.

E63 0.9 ," * '

4 . 0 ''''4do

.0.

a I.z

Figure AO. Compression test results Test Pile 9(14 BP 73)

A.IMO.'

Gross PiLe Load (t ons)

0 so 100 /So Zoo 2O0

Tip movement

" Gross settlement,U S0.4 pile butt

.4

E

-°*D.8

'. 1.26n

I) -

.6,

Figure All. Compression test results- Test Pile 10(16-in. pipe pile)

All1

%

Gross Pile Load (tons)

0 50 /00 /50 200 "'-""0

.- 4 0 '..

.

O.Z " "

4) 0.4-E

" 0 .8- Gross settlement, ,.,pile butt -_,

.4

Figure A12. Compression test results -Test '.-Pile 11 (16-in. concrete pile) ,,

00

8) P5t oa %,n )..

Net settlement,,'~pile but""

x

E Gross settlement,

p.6l pile buttbt

-42-

/.0

Figure A3. Copressio tst results

Test 'piletbu

-'a-

a"-.

3'

TEST LOAD (TONS)0. 40. 80. 120.

20. 0. 100. 140.

0.-- 20 -

* 2 GROSS

o NETZ .

0

1.2

w

1.6

Figure B1. Test Pile 1, compression

1.46

HE 1.2AD

0I GROSS -

E .8

E

T.6

C2

E

e.20 -~30 40 s 07

TEST LOAD (TONS)

Figure 32. Test Pile 1, tension

.1 oft .

TEST LOAD (TONS)0. 40. 80. 120. 160. .,A

0. 20. 60. 100. 140. 180.

V .2hi " -- " - - ... ,.-.. .

Uz .4 E

5'*

*GROSS

1 1.2 -

L 1.4 '

1.6

2 1.25 -

01. ' ...'

T1.4

.8

.28 0 10 20 .30 s1 o 70 ,

TEST C0 (T70'"

Figure B4. Tes Pil 2, tej son "",

"A. W.2 - .V

£ '5.,:,

N?

TEST. LOAD (TONS)

0. 80. 160. 240.

0. 20

.2

z

I .

0 .

wi 1. S .

1.2

1.4

Figure B5. Test Pile 2A, compression'-%I

TEST LOAD (TONS)

0. 40. 80. 120. 180. 200.

0. 20. 60. 100. 140. 180. 220.

U .2

z

1.2.

Figur B6.PileTest3B, omprssio

O -SB-

%. %NP U!.%

L 1.E -

E 6A .F

D %

01

E

E .N

.6

NME

H .2ES-

20 40 so BTEST LOAD (TONS)

Figure B7. Test Pile 3B, tension

TEST LOAO (TONS)0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 240. -

0. 20. 60. 100. 140. 180o. 22 0.

0

z

hi

0a

r

.44..%

Figure B8. Test Pile 6, cornpression

B5

%

TEST LOAD (TONS)

0. 80. 160. 240.0. 40. 12 0. 20 0.

W .2

Z .4 WgT

w.

0

( 1.2w

U 1.4

1 1.6

2 .

Figure B9. Test Pile 9, compression

B6

14mm

JLME