Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ada188305 PDF
Ada188305 PDF
Ada188305 PDF
305
UMLASSIFIED
Emi
VV1
"L
IfIII
II~ 1*51111
sz u 1*62W
=*
11111
,
F,
*~
v%
Asa
wiWW
J.II
'
VVV
*-
967
JAL
TForm Approved
_________________________________________Exp
Jun30 7986
lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
,__,_.___..___
Unclassified
3 DISTRIBUTION/AVALABILITY OF REPORT
.. ,',
2b DECLASSIFICATIONIDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
.'
unlimited.
S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
T,
.v
See reverse
See reverse
PO Box 631
Vicksburg, MS
39180-0631
..
'.-_.-_,_
8b OFFICE SYM8OL
(Ifapplicable)
CELMV-ED-G
See reverse
PR'OGRAM
PRO1EC'T
O 0ELEMENT
,0
PO Box
IWORK
TASK
UNIT
,.
ACCESSION NO
NO
f.~-
80
Vicksburg, MS
39180-0080
% '%
11 TITLE (IncludeSecurityClassification)
% -
i%
.,
Mosher. Reed L.
14 DATE OF REPORT (Year Month.Day)
Final report
FROM
Oct 84
TOSep
87
mr
15 PtGE COUNT
1987.
16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
,_, ..
e-'.
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161
FIELD
GROUP
.
%
COSATI CODES
17
SUB-GROUP
Piling (Civil
engineering)
(LC)
"
9
..
\This technical report documents the findings of an investigation into the effects on
the axial capacity of piles driven by vibratory pile-driving hammers. The investigation
stems from the concern that foundation engineers in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division of
the US Army Corps of Engineers had over the unexpected low capacities found during the pile
test at Red River Lock and Dam No. I. While driving piles with a vibratory hammer increases
productivity up to 10 to 20 times over the use of an impact hammer, there is a significant
reduction in the axial capacity of the piles driven with a vibratory hammer. The study revealed that this reduction was a result of a loss in the load carried by the tip. The report documents a number of pile testing programs that were performed to make direct comparison between vibratory-driven piles and impact-driven piles.
21
UNCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED
0 SAME AS RPT
22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE NOIVIOUAL
DTIC USERS
0
Z..
-
Unclassified
22b TELEPHONE (include Area Code)
22c
OFFCE SYMBO
SECR,7Y CLAS,,rICArION Or
*.
5 PAuF,,
Unclassified
%"
%"%
;
L"
.-
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
L.
.Ipm
t .
:.
%;
Unclassified
-_,
-~
~%"
PREFACE
This report investigates the effect of uses of vibratory pile-driving
hammers on axial capacity of piles.
that were conducted for direct comparison between vibratory-driven piles and
impact-driven piles.
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.
report was done by Mrs. Gilda Miller, Information Products Division, WES.
COL Allen F. Grum, USA, was the previous Director of WES.
Lee, CE, is the present Commander and Director.
COL Dwayne G.
Technical Director.
..
| ;- ,N
.... ..
"'
.. .
'""~A.
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ................................................................
PART I:
INTRODUCTION ..................................................
Background .......................................................
Purpose ..........................................................
Scope ............................................................
4
4
5
Introduction .....................................................
Impact Driving ...................................................
Type of Impact Hammers ...........................................
6
6
PART II:
10
10
15
21
31
31
35
REFERENCES .............................................................
36
PART III:
PART IV:
26
APPENDIX A:
Al
APPENDIX B:
B1
'.,.
By
Multiply
degrees (angle)
0.01745329
radians
feet
0.3048000
metres
foot/pound (force)
1.355818
metre-newtons
inches
2.54
centimetres
miles
1.609347
kilometres
pounds (force)
4.448222
newtons
tons (force)
8.896444
kilonewtons
3r
..
,
..
"-%1"
* " "
, '
""w",
", "
"' e '
'.'.-.'.','..''.'.''
.-','''''
'-''',.'-'-'.'.
.'.-.-
'-'
'.
PART I:
INTRODUCTION
Background
1.
hammer.
The installation of a
pile inescapably results in altering the stresses in the soil surrounding the
pile.
and Ellison
(1969) have revealed that impact driving in granular soils causes compaction
of the soil in the vicinity of the pile, and the stress levels are consequently increased.
Purpose
3.
During the construction of Lock and Dam No. 1 on the Red River, a
pile testing program was undertaken to verify the pile design for the dam.
The piles at the site were driven with a vibratory hammer.
were H-piles with lengths between 55 and 70 ft.
As a result of these
pile tests, the Lower Mississippi Valley Division (LMVD) has become interested
A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measuremernt to SI (metric) units is presented on page 3.
in whether or not the reduced capacity was due to the driving of the piles
with a vibratory hammer.
study.
Scope
4.
The pile load test has long been known as the only true measure of
of pile capacity under the actual construction and soil conditions that prevail at the site.
tests were performed on piles driven by both vibratory and impact hammers.
5.
I.
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
Current
construction practices for installing piles may be divided into four basic
catagories:
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 installing a pile and can be characterized as the operation of forcing the pile into
the ground by applying a dynamic load at the pile head.
used to develop the dynamic load that forces the pile into the ground.
The
two most common methods for driving piles are impact and vibratory driving.
Impact Driving
8. The oldest and most common method of pile driving is impact driving.
Impact hammers or drop hammers originated with the Romans who used a
stone block hoisted by rope over a pulley guide and then dropped.
was guided to its destination by vertical poles.
The block
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
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.
6,<
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
rapid, but the weight of the ram is considerably less as compared to the
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.
light, self contained, and especially well suited for heavy piling such as
H-piles, pipe piles, and timber piles.
Diesel hammer
a..
13. The principle behind the diesel hammer is that as the falling ram
compresses air in the cylinder, diesel fuel is injected into the cylinder and
this is atomized by the impact of the ram on the concave base of the cylinder.
The impact ignites the fuel and the resulting explosion contributes an addi-
tional "kick" to the head of the pile, which is already receiving a blow from
the ram.
Thus, the blow is sustained and imparts energy over a longer period
,.
. ..
.'.,'.,' .
., a '...
',.'.'
.'.
.,a.:
4... '..'..
V.. '..'.
-"
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-
The vibratory hammer, BT-5 type, was used to drive 3,700 sheet
hammer indicated that the vibratory hammer drove about 60 percent more sheet
piles than the pneumatic hammer in an 8-hr shift and required 25 percent less
power to operate.
,U
Resonant hammers
15.
the sonic pile driver was first introduced by Albert G. Bodine, Jr., of California.
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.
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.
......................
t A,
&A
range of 5 to 50 Hz.
placement piles such as H-sections or open-end pipe piles in loose to mediumdense granular soils.
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-
'9.
9,
2',.
PART III:
19.
b.
c.
d.
e.
'S
Jr
%
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.
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.
criteria for the design and construction of pile foundations for the future
locks and dams.
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.
loose surface silts, sandy silts, and clays of variable thickness underlain
about 20 miles downstream from Pine Bluff and 9 miles upstream from the future
P~Y .
%_'RA
.- le
NN
14"L'I
S
DA(;A" LX-&
L r'p
MOUNTAIN
q'LUC
U.
L&.307
A,'
Arkansas River Navigation Project
Figure 1.
ing site were determined by exploratory borings and laboratory tests made in
connection with the foundation investigation for Lock and Dam No. 14,and
!t.
Ro
L1
further explorations were made specifically for the pile testing program.
Pine
lu
test
These explorations indicated that three major soil strata exist at theArbon*&&
site:
Pon,
Lft 3below
a surface blanket of silts and clays which extends about 615WD
' ".' ' '-% ,k'
I..." ,w -. "w
"
"
"-
""
% ".
'.
'.
'''''"
''"
''
'
"
''.
'"'
% ''-."%".
the ground surface, a deep stratum of relatively dense, fine to medium sand
I
.
"
"
.a-
which extends about 100 ft, and a basal stratum of Tertiary clay of undetermined thickness.
-"
of' silty surface soils which exposed the underlying stratum of sand.
Post-
'V"-
The dry
density of the sand ranged from 90 to 109 pcf, but showed no significant trend
with depth.
the site.
200
160
*~
O0
120~
80
Figure 2.
The basic pile investigation included field driving and load tests
crete piles, steel pipe piles, and steel H-piles that were driven with both a
double-action steam and a Bodine sonic vibratory hammer.
Strain
of hammer used for installation, and the reported average failure loads for
12
A.
made with the 16-in. pipe piles, the H-piles, and the 16-in. concrete piles.
26.
the side loads at failure are plotted against the pile diameters for the
Table 1
Summary of Arkansas River Lock and Dam No. 4 Pile Tests
Average Pile Failure
Load, tons
Tension
Compression
Hammer
Type
Penetration
ft
Test
No.
Type
12 in. pipe
53.1
140C
140
70
2
2X
16 in. pipe
16 in. pipe
52.8
52.8
140C
140C
195
210
91
-
20 in. pipe
53.0
140C
215
90
16 in. concrete
40.2
140C
16 in. concrete
51.0
140C
170
240
71
-
14 BP 73
40.0
80C
140
14 BP 73
52.1
80C
190
45
Timber
38.6
14 BP 73
53.2
65C
Bodine
80
210
25
-
10
16 in. pipe
53.1
Bodine
180
87
11
16 in concrete
38.8
Bodine
150
,a
Table 2
Load Distribution in Pipe Piles
Test
No.
Nominal
Diameter
in.
Penetration
ft
Average
Failure
Load
tons
12
53.1
140
34
24
106
76
16
52.8
195
58
30
137
70
2X
16
52.8
210
67
32
143
68
20
53.0
215
77
36
138
64
10
16
53.1
180
46
26
134
74
Load Distribution
Skin Friction
Tip Load
Percent
Tons
Percent
Tons
13
'a.''.',.*
'
.. . ....
..
'
.a' .
.a..
..
..
200.00 -
150.00
,.
o 100.00
_ji
TPCopeeft
II
..
50.00
0 .00
10.00
Figure 3.
.. .
.,
.E *........
...
..... .
5**,
.,
20.00
16.00
18.00
12.00
14.00
Nominal Pipe Pile Diameter in Inches
,
, 1........
22.00
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.
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
Test
No.
6
7
9
Load Distribution
Tip Load
Skin Friction
Tons
Percent
Tons
Percent
Average
Failure Load
tons
Penetration
ft.
40.0
52.1
53.2
140
190
210
21
39
25
15
21
12
119
151
185
85
79
88
28.
site typical of Arkansas River alluvial soils and comparable to that found at
Lock and Dam No. 4.
'
4
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
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
1965.
15
%'".%
riverbank.
0-
Approximately 40 to 50 ft of the
...
'%
-20
..
31. Load tests were preformed to determine the axial capacity for different
driving equipment, the lateral capacity of
-40
-6
-80
Figure 4. Generalized
soil profile for Lock and
No. 3 pile test site
penetrations, hammer types, and failure loads for the piles that were examined
for this study.
Foster 2-50, low-frequency, vibratory hammer and the piles for tests 2, 2A, 5,
16
.4.
,JA,
o-2,TEST 3-
r4
t -
3-
55"
5-
I I I I
z
I
zTEST3-9
6z- 12L.
TEST 3 2
TEST 3-4
i
V.
TEST 3-8
(BEFORE TIMBER)
A 8
C D E F G H J K L M N P
MONOLITH
L-7
B CDEFG H J
MONOLITH
R-8
g:
zS
B D
1.
'I
H K
8
8-
T;;;2;1 ;t22125'
I N 10
III'JILN
MP
tt
lt
;6-2r;t
3t t.
t
2
B CDEFG H
L-14
MONOLITH
R-8
t
*t
t
I
,L-7
R-9
=.
.mH.H.]
KEy
R-19 "
PI Of LE CLUSTER
. " TEST PILE)
A'
R-8.
COMPRESSION TEST
TENSION TEST
L- 142
1--
t
12
t
t2
*.
IIN
LEGEND
LEGEN
TEST3-6
;2t 2
64-32-
TEST 3-8
(,4FTER .TIMBER)
TEST 3-7
70'
P
11
MONOLITH
to
87-
ACEGJ
B D
XIX
TEST 3-5-
4-
4-
--
MONOLITH R-9
tx
t;xt;
t
2
1
1Al
'IA'
tzt t
3x
'
2lA-
'
1
'
F H
C'TIMBER
K M
PILE
MONOLITH R-19
Figure 5.
17
......
TEST3-10.T
TEST 3-10
N -
.I
SI
. ..
Mp
Gm
E E'
f.4
.44..4
. . . ..
x
-
2A3 4c
--
..
623
q1
6 A
1-
26
4I
,,
4
14 1 6A
21
13
444
13
30A
....
eTT-
E-
62A4oo
r
...
TiS
~I 9 I ' I
'
.
.
. 2310'
.
4
MONOLITH
I13
GE17 1
12 12
..
44
4U
4l4.444
31 32 I 352
29n~1!
ll i IlII ]I IIII
2!
44"
135!3 1
32
7A1 1
o3
I
.II
"...
5I-
..
J-24
10
,.I.
w2e.
MOOLT
1 7 18 1 1
104
I
. .
..
.
.4
....
8A
F-
1
-
.444**
**b4n*"II I
2.
4-
S.
.4
j,
J.
r.
TI1I1/31
o 7A .T41T36A
- .
7c
. .4.
. .
28
A
333
MONOOITHT1
F-.
TESTMPES3ON13S
5.
a-----
23C
3,
---
0T0ST7
0
-TE
4-LAT0R0L
4
MONOLITH
..
. .
-----
. .
-----
MO TNLITH
.
-----
. .
----
23OPESNTS
TESO
O
TES 3-1
RAL
COPRSIO
EST,1
TS
SB*4
341
311OTH
37
.,
Table 4
H-Pile Tests
Failure Loads
Compression, tons
Penetration
ft
Test
No.
Hammer*
1
2
FR 2-50
VC 140C
42.3
42.8
2A
VC 140C
61.8
Tension, tons
Adjusted**
As
Tested
Adjusted**
85
134
71
104
25
34
22
27
185
145
31
23
As
Tested
3
3A
FR 2-50
FR 2-50
46.7
46.7
105
120
80
92
3B
5
6
FR 2-50
VC 140C
VC 140C
61.8
52.8
63.0
145
150
175
117
128
155
39
51
32
44
VC 140C
73.0
215
190
FR 2-50
42.9
127
88
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.
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
water and the area surrounding the pile was compacted by vibroflotation.
34.
obtain data for determining the pile lengths needed for this lock and dam and
to make a direct comparison between piles driven with a vibratory and an impact hammer.
Figure 7 presents the tension failure loads versus the depTh of penThis figure reveals that the impact-driven piles have only a
K.
0'1, r
-40.00
01
ci
3
-50.00
A-60.00
3B
2A
-70.00
o7
a.
- Impact Driven
Vibratory Driven
-
0
0
-80.00
-90.000.00...........
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.0
250.00
Figure 6.
-40.00
12
- Impact Driven
- Vibratory Driven
13
-45.00
I-50.00
.0-55.00
-60.00\
'
6
-65.00
- 70.00
.......... .....
0.00
Figure 7.
20.00
....
....... ........
. .
40.00
60.00
Failure Load in Tons
. . .........
80.00
100.00
20
WA
V'o'
'
ur
wJ.
V.%
for jib and gantry cranes it was decided to investigate the use of a vibratory
hammer for the pile driving instead of a drop hammer.
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.
tests were conducted to make direct comparisons between piles driven with a
Mazurkiewicz (1975) reported the re-
In the vicinity of the construction sites and pile tests, the sub-
linear increase with depth through the sand and no trend in the clay. The
stratification and representative penetration records are shown in Figure 8.
37.
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.
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).
quency of 18.3 Hz, an amplitude of 0.39 in. (9.8 mm), and a vibratory weight
of 5.6 tons.
38.
tests.
Table 5 shows the failure loads obtained from the 11 sets of load
Also, the ratios between the failure loads of the vibratory-driven and
Figure 12 is a plot of
For each
test set of piles, the impact-driven piles showed substantially higher failure
load than the vibratory-driven piles.
39.
21
"0~.
lee
%r
100
3
200
m0 .%./0
4~~~~.
V30
F-L
v+.0+2.85
08
- 01 80
....
.
[ .
WITH
GRAVEL
370
3
ID..
MEDIUM SAND
ID =0.4
*.
1D=0.4
-=0320
.
..
.......
GRAVEL WITH
5
SAND
O=
=370
-04
'---
MEDIUM SAND
MEDIUM SAND
0
350 I1) 0.4
30I
.. .
10..
12
SILTY AND
FINE SAND
320 ID 0.4
13
1
FINEANDPILES
15
320
-37
-3
ACC
FIG 6
ID0.4
16
17
CLAY WITH
SI LT
18
19
20
V/BR-17.65
---
o10C0.5
~I
.2
D R IV -18.65
PI LES ACC
FIG 5
-w
0L
VIOA
-18
CLAY WITH PIE AC7
TA19 15
FIG
SI LT
10 C = 0.35
DRIV
= 0.2
22
S-
Table 5
Summary of Crane Rail Tracks Pile Testing Program
Pile
Test Set
Length
ft (m)
Ratio
42.7 (13)
38.5 (35)
92.4 (84)
0.42
42.7 (13)
46.2 (42)
52.8 (48)
0.88
42.7 (13)
71.5 (65)
93.5 (85)
0.76
57.8 (17)
44.0 (40)
69.3 (63)
0.63
57.8 (17)
50.6 (46)
124.3 (113)
0.41
59.1 (18)
28.6 (26)
115.5 (105)
0.25
72.2 (22)
103.4 (94)
159.5 (145)
0.65
75.5 (23)
55.0 (55)
82.5 (75)
0.67
75.5 (23)
77.0 (70)
148.5 (135)
0.52
10
75.5 (23)
38.5 (35)
66.0 (60)
0.54
11
88.6 (27)
93.5 (85)
115.5 (105)
0.81
2-
S,.~
UU~NWWWNXW~WinWVWW1w~w~rw~rwrww
0.
~-w
40.
0.
w4.q
20.
160.
140.
1O0.
.4
DRIVEN
Z .6
I-
p%
VIDRAY1g
N.
'i
01.
w
f.0
1.4
hi
".
a-
Figure 9.
0.
TEST LOAO
80.
40.
20.
p..
0.
!!
(TONS)
160.
120.
-'r
180.
140.
100.
60.
Jw
''
%'
.4
S.6
1.2
-j
2.2
Cr n ,,t
"
,rI,'
ci ,,-
I.1.
1.?
for
22-m
pile
TEST
0.
0.
LOAO (TONS)
80.
16o.
240.
0
200.
120.
40.
0.
..
U .6w
ww
1.0.
~~1
1.2
hi1.4
.Lf
L
I
".
K,
Figure 11.
-40.00
P 'sz
P5 3
-50.00
PTS5
*1
-60.00
-70.00
Prs4
Tps
0.T
Prs 10
-80.00
0
PTS 9
Impact Driven
Driven
oC- Vibratory
1Si
-90.00 ''b.
... . ..
6bbY. .o'd
000~
150.00
200.00
Figure 12.
Failure load versus depth of penetration
for the crane rail tr-cks pile testing program
25
; ..
, . .j.F'.
,'...
_.",
i'
"
.".....
%
.';
..
'.'..'..'
-"-
--..--
..
"."
..-.-..-..-.
-.
1.
...VV.
.:
piles were tested after 4, 12, 30, or more days, the difference in capacity
remained unchanged.
These
'
with concrete.
The
results from these tests indicate that the sonically driven piles performed
, .%4
V.
y'.'
.4o%
%'.
'4"..
J. K. Jeyapolan. 1983. "Axial Capacity of Vibro-Driven Piles," Drift report submitted to the US Army Engineer Waterways Exper'ime't Station, 'ViLkburg, Miss.
-4,.
26
".0
i
c.6
313HNOO
(11113113S
10007
HM
u"
u~
'
p-
UU
cr
>M-Cn)
z w o=
CI
zop
Ku
<
CIO
CDi m4-)
a13ii1d 113HS
d
Z
LU
C3
')
;o
n0
A0
ILAL
oc0 o
LL~
-(U.
II
Lj
w
LL
Z
___
__ __ __
____
__
Li- <
~~~-
__
~<
L__
LAJ_
>---
<:v*~*.
<.
BLOWS
PER
BR.ET~.
FINE SAND.;"-
50'
LITTLE FINE
BR
40'
-CUTOFF EL 48'
15
\\
\SAND
EL 47'
26
2274
FIN GAYHEL
31
76 GA
HEL -COR
SHEL L
76 GA.
-COR
SHVELL
31
TRACE SILTN
\.N.
RED-BR.
FINE-SAND.,
TRACE SILT
10'
,~%_
_L.9
29
23140)
20
CUTOFF EL 50'
21
'
FINE GRAY
SAND5514
30'
28
ADw
*
25
36
32
31
\GRAY FIN Es
-
-30'
SOME SILT
30'
120
0
30'G
124)
16 GA.
HEL-COR
SHEL L
27
\SAND,
-20'
39
29
36
76G
SHELLCO
SELf
I
27
-40'
DARK GREY
SILTFINEEL
SITFIE
61
ISAND LAYERSLBORING
LOG
-60'
Figure 14.
EL -33
-37'
PILE A-21
WALL 7
DRIVEN BY ASONIC
PILE DRIVER MODEL 'A'
DRIVEN BY A NO. 1P
VULCAN STEAM
HAMMER
28
L.%
40
120
80
160
200
240
0.1
77
J.,
,,.
0.1
0.3
N
wU
PILE 6-BC-3
BODINE SONIC
RILE HAMMER
0AQ*
0,
0.7
PILE 6 BC 6
DRIVEN BY
A NO. 0 VUL CANA
S TEAM HAMME R?
08
Figure
15.
Pile
loaid
~'>,-:-2s
')[
MOD'A
0.10t
TEST LOAD.DTON
PILEA--2.BO
UNE
OICDILEDRVE
z
w
>
0
w0.20.
0.25
0.30
035 1
Figure
16.
I1
30
%S
1-95
PART IV:
41.
River Lock and Dam No. 4 H-pile tests, the piles driven by the impact harnmrrers
had a significantly greater axial capacity than those driven with vioratory
hammers.
In Figure 17, the failure load for the impact-driven piles is plotThe diagoral line
in the plot represents a one-to-one correspondence between the impact and vibratory capacity.
driven piles and points above this line show a greater capacity for vibratorydriven piles.
This plot shows that for the majority of the pile tests exam-
ined in this study the vibratory-driven piles have less axial capacity than
impact-driven piles.
Reduced capacity for
vibratory-driven piles
42.
-'
14
pile tests,
They,
state that a vibratory hammer is very effective in overcoming the side resis tance or skin friction along a pile in sand, but the very nature of the lcr1L:tudinal pile vibration requires a small tip force.
-'
'
show-
Evidence of this can be found in the Arkansas River, Lock and Dam
skil
friction, and total pile load at faiure for impact-driven piles versus
vibratory-driven piles for Lock and Dan No. 14. The plot reveals that
e,:'"
for
comparable set of piles the tip load at f'ailure for the vibratory-driv,,:i,
is lower than that for the impact-driven piles.
d at
fa..
i-p:"
''
31
-.
~.A**~A
4..%
'.
'
'.
**~
%0
'
-o
%.%A
.".
300.00
250.00
c 200.00
0
150.00
0
o
S50.00
0.00
& 100.00
A5.'6'W0
.a
Figure 17.
d-
300.00
0
TOW
0200.00
C
a"
"
o
.0
*= 100.00
U-"
0.00..
0.00
100.00
.... .
300.00
200.00
Figure 18.
.4'
V -.-
Lieo
M-P
'%K1j~X1MV-~VLVW('qrwV W
load carried by the tip of the vibratory-driven pile was 14 tons less than the
impact-driven pile.
44.
testing program.
place, and then driven a short distance by drop hammer would achieve the same
ultimate capacity as a pile completely driven with a drop hammer, some additional tests were performed in the crane rail testing program.
From these
tests it was discovered that vibratory-driven piles which had the last 9 ft of
penetration driven by a drop hammer would reach the same failure load as
purely impact-driven piles with the same penetration.
Piles retested
45.
ity of the piles at Red River Lock and Dam No. 1 were significantly less than
anticipated.
plots of the tip load versus displacement for three of the load tests and
their retest at Red River Lock and Dam No. 1.
have significantly greater load carrying capacity than when previously tested.
2-"
70 -
60 . ..... . . . .
69
... ...........
-'I
5,
30
S
r
20
.-- .-
"PT-A-A1C
RETEST
REES
0.2
0.4
0.6
*.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
pi'r - t:[ vv
Figure 79.
A-1C,
r1
33
m N,-
IM
trr
~%4
Pi V
1.8
WI
8e
Lrw
lr
~xNTI
YW."-,. W
- .I ".90.0
Pp
60
.,,,
0P
20
PT-A-3C
(3.'EPT-A-3C RETEST
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure 20.
."
70
..
60
I
0
40
.
T
0
'p
30
S
20
- PT-S-IC
-EPTS-IC
0 2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
RETEST
1.6
1.8
--
%,
.9.
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
Additional information
was found showing that the influence of time affects piles driven by both
methods equally and that additional driving by an impact hammer of vibratoryplaced pile causes an increased in its axial capacity to that of a pile driven
totally by an impact hammer.
..
.9."
...---
REFERENCES
Barkan, D. D. (1957).
6N
36
"0
.
, ,
._
..
-.
'..
,...
...
.'..
...'
"
,--'
'.'"-
"*sp
APPENDIX A:
PILE TESTS,
NN.
-
.o'-a
'.
ARKASAS
ANDDAMNO.IVE LOC
'a'
'p1
Sk
100
150
(tons)
zoo
Tip movement
0.z
0.4Gross settlement,
pile butt
E
(D
S0.8
ID
(A.
6)1. 0
CL
U-,
Test
A..
~\
.-
~.IS
(tons)
.00
Iso
100
IS0
Ntsettlement,
butt,.
, pile
a.
0.4
seteet
/.0-V
pieut
rsestlement
pie butt
Gros
.,.0
a--
4);
moveen
4)
II
IA3
FiueA.Copeso
0s
es
ie2'.
Ts
eut
Tetz(6i.pp
ie
1.1 A3
--
S.-
-..
Mh
%5.'.
too
'N
/50
(tons)
200
~Net
0.2_
2So
settlement
pile butt-
settlement,"
~~~Gross
'
Pile butt
0.
.-..
Tip
I1.2.
a. 4
.4..
,U
1.0.
A
Tip:movement
"e
e ,p ,/
,", ,0
.,,
Figure A3.
r . - ,. - .
- .-,,._ - . .. . . - , - - .. - .
Pile 2
. .
. . - .-
. . -.
,A4.
".. *
(tons)
/
100
I50
200
250
Tip movement
-'
Gross settlement,
pile butt
'A
4
0.6
1.
Z4
6"N
Figure A4.
...
,..,
(tons)
U)
s o0
LIo.8.0
/ 00
/5 0
200
2 5 0:
P..
settlement
pile butt
~Net
j
0.2 Q"I
I
I
settlement,
Gross
Pile butt.
.I
"",
.
0.4-
A5...
.o .,d.% ( .o
.. .. L,
.
Gros..
Test
so
100
200
/so
(tons)
250
300
Net settlement,
iebt
*~0.4
1.0
0.6
FiueA.
E1-n
INi
Cmreso
etrsut
ocrt
0.8Z-1
etPl
ie
too
0.2-
(tons)
/So
200
Tip
movement
0.4-
0.6
-4
Gross settlement,
pile butt
1.2
1..
I%
%
W
1w
FiueA.Cmreso
e0
eit
etPl
5b
5"0
/00
J
150
(tons)
zoo
z50
Net settlement,
pile butt
o-.-
b',
0.4
0.8 -
Gross settlement,
Pile butt
.-i
4'L
"
""
'SS.
4j)
4)
FiueA.
-
opesonts
P0e7(
euls-Ts
71.
I)8
-.
:,>
, "V' '
',<
"-:."..,
',
'
.".-,"."--,".,,
Wj'
"
:.".'.
.ee
,.'.
.,,
. .",".".",".'.".".'.","
',e ',...'.'
,.. ..
' .,
. '
" ...
,z..,.
,,....
, .
.,',,,.,
- -,
,,
,).
-;
50
/oo
(tons)
zoo
50
N Net settlement
O.-
'pile
butt
0.4
Li
0.6 -.
FCos
1.
4)
,
1.0 -
i,Z
Gros
P
settlement,
pile butt
'':
1.8
Li
Figure A9.
-Test,-'m
k.
0
"'
*9- V *.
*,.,
''
""-*"
.,
(tons)
00%
50
100
157o
200
25o
O~'--.;"
0.2
Tip
movement
So.4U
Gross settlement,
0.6
Pile butt
,:
.
"U=
E
63
:.,.
0.9
40
," *
4do
''''
.0.
I.z
Test Pile 9
A.I
MO.'
'
100
/So
(tons)
Zoo
2O0
Tip movement
"
S0.4
Gross settlement,
pile butt
.4
E
-*
D.8
'.
1.2
6n
I)
.6,
Figure All.
%
All1
.- 4
50
/00
(tons)
/50
200
"'-""
'..
O.Z
"
"
4)
0.4-
" 0.8-
Gross settlement,
pile butt
8)
P5t
oa
,.,
-_,
%,n )..
00
Figure A12.
Net settlement,,'
~pile
-42-
but""
Gross settlement,
pile buttbt
p.6l
/.0
Figure
A3. Copressio
tst
results
Test 'piletbu
'.,,
.4
-'a-
a"-.
3'
0.
20.
0.--
140.
100.
20
GROSS
* 2
120.
80.
40.
NET
1.2
1.6
Figure B1.
1.46
H
E 1.2
A
D
-
GROSS
0I
E .8
E
T.6
C2
E
e.20
-~30
40
Figure 32.
.1
oft .
07
40.
0.
hi
"
V .2
--
"
100.
60.
20.
0.
- -
... ,.-..
.,A
160.
180.
140.
.
5'*
U
z
.4
*GROSS
1.2
01.
L 1.4
1.6
...'
'
'
2 1.25 -
T1.4
.8
'5.,:,
"A.-
W.2
.V
.28 0
10
N?
20
.30
s1
o
TEST C0
Figure B4.
Tes
Pil
70
(T70'"
2,
tej son
"",
160.
80.
0.
20
0.
.2
z
I
wi
1.
1.2
1.4
Figure B5.
40.
0.
60.
20.
0.
200.
180.
180.
220.
U .2
1.2.
Figur
%.
B6.PileTest3B,
omprssio
-SB-
%NP
U!.%
L 1.
E
E
6
A
D
.F
%
01
E
E .
N
.6
NME
H .2
E
S-
40
20
TEST LOAD
Figure B7.
0.
0.
40.
20.
TEST
LOAO (TONS)
120.
160.
100.
140.
80.
60.
so
(TONS)
200.
180o.
240.
22 0.
z
hi
0a
r
.4
4..%
Figure B8.
B5
TEST
0.
W
.2
.4
LOAD (TONS)
120.
40.
20 0.
WgT
w.
1.2
w
U
1.4
1 1.6
2 .
Figure B9.
240.
160.
80.
0.
B6
14mm
JLME