I

REFER F02 Ac, If.

Vit'is EZT. AssL N'ts (r,,.

T Fr.___ E. Fze

ct Ct:dc

k e

Special Report 36

A Studg of t

HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD

Comparatirc Bha vior Of Friction Piles

HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Officers and Members of the Executive Committee

1958

OFFICERS

C. H. SCHOLER, Chairman HARMER E. DAVIS, First Vice Chairman

PYKE JOHNSON, Second Vice Chairman

FRED BURGGRAF, Director

ELMER M. WARD, Assistant Director

Executive Committee

BERTRAM D. TALLAMY, Federal Highway Administrator, Bureau of Public Roads (ex officio)

A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, American Association of State Highway Officials (ex officio)

Louis JORDAN, Executive Secretary, Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, National Research Council (ex officio)

REX M. W1urroN, Chief Engineer, Missouri State Highway Department (ex officio, Past Chairman 1957)

K. B. Woons, Head, School of Civil Engineering, and Director, Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University (ex officio, Past Chairman 1956)

R. R. BARTLESMEYER, Chief Highway Engineer, Illinois Division of Highways

J. E. BUCHANAN, President, The Asphalt Institute

W. A. BUGGE, Director of Highways, Washington State Highway Commission

C. D. CURTISS, Special Assistant to the Executive Vice President, American Road Builders Association

HARMER E. DAVIS, Director, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Uni-versity of California

DUKE W. DUNSAR, Attorney General of Colorado

FRANCIS V. DV PONT, Consulting Engineer, Washington, D. C.

PYKE JOHNSON, Consultant, Automotive Safety Foundation KEITH F. JONES, County Engineer, Jefferson County, Washington

G. DONALD KENNEDY, President, Portland Cement Association BURTON W. MARSH, Director, Traffic Engineering and Safety Department, American

Automobile Association GLENN C. RICHARDS, Commissioner, Detroit Department of Public Works

C. H. SCHOLER, Head, Applied Mechanics Department, Kansas State College WILBUR S. SMITH, Wilbur Smith and Associates, New Haven, Conn.

Editorial Staff

FRED BURGGRAF ELMER M. WARD HERBERT P. ORLAND

2101 Constitution Avenue Washington 25, D. C.

The opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Highway Research Board.

HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Special Report 36

A Study of thc Comparative Behavior

Of Frie'tio'n Piles

1958

Washington, D. C.

Department of Design

T. E. Shelburne, Chairman Director of Research, Virginia Department of Highways

University of Virginia, Charlottesville

COMMITTEE ON BRIDGES

G. S. Paxson, Chairman Assistant State Highway Engineer, Oregon State Highway Commission, Salem

RaymondArchibaJd, J. E. Greiner Co., Consulting Engineers, Seattle, Washington E. L. Erickson, Chief, Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads T. B. Gunter, Jr., Assistant Chief Engineer - Bridges, North Carolina State Highway

Commission, Raleigh John J. Hogan, Consulting Structural Engineer, Portland Cement Association, New York Adrian Pauw, Prof essor of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia M. N. Quade, Consulting Engineer, New York William H. Rabe, First Assistant Engineer of Bridges, Ohio Department of Highways,

Columbus C. P. Siess, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana J. A. Williams, Bridge Engineer, Missouri State Highway Department, Jefferson City

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PILE BEARING CAPACITY

Raymond Archibald, Chairman J. E. Greiner Co., Consulting Engineers, Seattle, Washington

E. L. Erickson, Chief, Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads W. A. Back, Raymond Concrete Pile Company, New York Russell E. Barnard, Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., Middletown, Ohio E. M. Cummings, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Pa. H. de R. Gibbons, The Union Metal Manufacturing Company, Canton, Ohio W. T. Lankford, Applied Research Laboratory, United States Steel Corporation,

Monroeville, Pa. William H. Rabe, Assistant Engineer of Bridges, Ohio Department of Highways,

Columbus E. D. Smith, Director, Division of Bridges, Kentucky Department of Highways,

Frankfort J. A. Williams, Bridge Engineer, Missouri State Highway Department, Jefferson City

Foreword

The selection of the best or most economical type of pil-ing for foundations has been a perplexing problem to engineers for many years. Very few data which, would present a basis for such selection have been made available.

To close this gap in the knowledge of the field, the Bridge Design Committee of the Highway Research Board authorized a special subcommittee to make a study of the relative bear-ing values or capacities of the different types of piling nowon the market. The members of the subcommittee comprise engineers who have long records of experience dealing with bearing piling.

The study divides itself into two phases: First, assemb-ling the pertinent data now available for consideration; and, second, conducting field tests which would supply the infor-mation desired.

This report covers the first phase of the study. The services of Ralph B. Peck of the University of Illinois were secured:to collect the data available and prepare a report. The funds necessary to conduct this first phase of the study were furnished by the following firms:

Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc. Bethlehem Steel Company Raymond Concrete Pile Company Union Metal Manufacturing Company U. S. Steel Corporation

The second phase of the study is being held in abeyance penthng further investigation.

Raymond ArchibaZd Subcommittee Chairman

Contents

A STUDY OF THE COMPARATIVE BEHAVIOR OF FRICTION PILES—Ralph B. Peck....................

Purpose of Study ......................... 1 Scope................................ 1 Procedure ............................. 1 Basis of Comparison ....................... 1 Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Piles in Soft and Medium Clays ................... 2 Test Data ............................. 3 Influenèe of Shape and Pile Material ................ 5 Influence of Time .......................... 5 Conclusion ............................ 6

Piles in Stiff Clay. ................... ... .....6 Cleveland Tests ......................... 6 Burnside Tests ........................... 7 Argonne Tests ........................... 8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Piles in Sand ............................. 8 Information Available ....................... 9 Influence of Material ....................... 9 Effect of Taper ........................... 10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Piles in Stratified Soils ....................... 12 Information Available ....................... 12 Interpretation ........................... 12 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

General Conclusions ..........................13

References ..............................13

Appendix A—List of Symbols. .................... 15

Appendix B—Tables .........................17

Appendix C—Figures .........................23

A Study of the Comparative Behavior of Friction Piles

RALPH B. PECK, Professor of Foundation Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

Purpose of Study

MANYfoundations for highway bridge structures rest upon piles which derive their support primarily from the strength of the surrounding soil rather than from end bear-ing. Economical and safe design of such foundations requires a knowledge of the rela-five capacities of various types of piles. Little information has come to the attention of the engineering profession upon which judgment in this matter can be based.

In recognition of this situation the Subcommittee on Pile Bearing Capacity of the Bridge Design Committee, Highway Research Board, was established to investigate the state of knowledge and to make recommendations concerning suitable further studies.

As a first step in the investigation, it seemed appropriate to determine what infor-mation might already exist that could be utilized to clarify the problem. After a review and digest of this information, a proper decision could be made regarding the necessity for and the character of further studies.

Scope

The scope of the study was limited to the comparative behavior of various kinds of piles, exclusive of end bearing piles, with respect to their performance as individuals. No consideration was to be given to the group action of the piles or to the behavior of pile foundations as such. Only driven piles were to be included.

Further limitations on the scope were established in the course of the investigation. These will be discussed at appropriate places in the report.

Procedure

The first step of the investigation consisted of gathering available data by means of a questionnaire. The questionnaire was forwarded to the bridge department of all state highway departments, to the chief engineers of all American and Canadian railways, to a large group of consulting organizations, and to various municipal, state and govern-mental agencies both within and outside the United States. Information was requested on the results of any tests on single piles that had been loaded to failure and for which the subsoil conditions were adequately described. Response to the questionnaire was highly gratifying. The records of well over 1,000 load tests were received and reviewed. In addition, published information was examined for further data.

It soon became apparent that the soil properties at the locations of many of the load tests were not described or determined with sufficient accuracy to permit analytical studies of the bearing capacity. Therefore, in many instances, the results of load tests on isolated piles could not be correlated. Where such correlation was not possible, the investigation was restricted to a study of those tests that had been made for the specific purpose of comparing the behavior of several piles at a given location. Under these circumstances, even if the soil conditions were not described with great accuracy, the performance of the piles could be compared because the various piles were driven through the same formations.

Basis of Comparison

The performance of piles under load test can be judged in several different ways. Since the relative behavior of the piles may differ depending upon the basis of compari-son, a suitable basis must be chosen.

In this study the comparison has been made on the basis of the ultimate capacity of the pile. Load-settlement relations have been plotted and presented for many of the tests and the reader may compare the behavior of the piles at loads less than the failure loads. However, if a pile slips with respect to the surrounding soil, and if the load at which slip occurs is well defined, the failure load so determined is a definite value and is independent of such considerations as the elastic or inelastic behavior of the soil and of the pile.

In connection with piles that do not fail by plunging under a constant load but begin to experience very large settlements under small increases in load, the ultimate capacity has a less definite meaning. It then becomes necessary to adopt an arbitrary procedure for determining the failure load. In this study the suggestion by Terzaghi (1) has been adopted where possible. According to this procedure, the ultimate load is considered to be that at which the settlement reaches a value equal to 1/10 the top diameter of the pile. For tests that were discontinued at smaller settlements, esti-mates of the failure load have been made by extrapolation. Such estimates are indi-cated in the data.

Although two piles driven at the same site may exhibit the same ultimate capacities, one pile may experience appreciably smaller settlement than the other at loads com-parable to the working loads in a structure. It may be argued that comparative studies should take this difference into account and that comparisons should be based upon de-flections under working loads rather than upon ultimate capacities. However, it is well known that the settlement of a pile in the foundation of a structure under a given load may be greatly different from that of an isolated test pile under the same load even when the factor of safety against ultimate failure is large. For example, a ten-tative relationship shown by Skempton (2) indicates that the settlement of a pile-sup-ported foundation 10 or 15 ft wide may be several times that of a single pile even if the piles are all identical and even if all the foundation materials are sand. Therefore, it appears that comparisons of the behavior of single piles at loads smaller than the ulti-mate values are not of great significance. All comparisons in the present study are made on the basis of ultimate capacities.

Presentation

The ultimate capacity of individual friction piles appears to depend primarily upon the type of soil and only secondarily on such factors as the shape or type of pile. Hence, the report is divided into sections according to the principal types of soil.

A substantial amount of information is available concerning the capacities of piles driven into soft plastic clays. Hence, piles driven into such formations are given separate consideration.

Appreciably less information appears to be available concerning friction piles driven into stiff clays. Since there appears to be an essential difference between the behavior of piles in soft clays and in stiff clays, a separate presentation is made con-cerning piles in stiff clays.

A considerable number of test results have been collectedconcerning piles in sand and this subject also receives separate treatment.

With respect to the three categories listed, soil conditions at each site may be con-sidered fairly uniform. Hence, certain generalizations are possible concerning the behavior and relative performance of piles in these deposits. However, many soil deposits are stratified or have a lenticular structure, and consist of several types of soil, such as sands, silts and clays. Generalizations then become much less valid. Nevertheless, the results of many tests of piles in deposits of this type are available. The information has been organized and is discussed later.

PILES IN SOFT AND MEDIUM CLAYS

A substantial body of test data is available concerning the ultimate bearing capacity of cylindrical, prismatic and tapered piles in soft and medium clays having unconfined

compressive strengths ranging up to about 1 ton per sq ft. Some 119 records were studied for which sufficiently reliable laboratory data were furnished concerning the strength of the clays.

The data indicate that the ultimate supporting capacity of a cylindrical or tapered pile will become, after a brief period of readjustment to pile driving, equal to the product of the embedded area and the shearing strength of the soil, plus a small correction for point resistance. The shearing strength may be taken as half the unconfined compressive strength of undisturbed samples, or may be determined by such comparable procedures as the Swedish-cone test.

Test Data

One of the most complete studies of the ultimate bearing capacity of timber piles in soft clays was made by the Port of Gothenburg, beginning about 1890 and extending to the present time. The piles varied in length from 25 to 65 ft. In addition, several tests were made on spliced piles with lengths reaching 100 ft and occasionally more. All the piles were loaded to failure, usually about 1 month after they were driven. The shear-ing strength was determined by means of the Swedish-cone test. The sensitivity of the material, defined as the cone reading for undisturbed soil divided by the cone reading for remolded soil varied from as little as 2 to as much as 45.

The data were reported by A. Bergfelt, Chief of Design of the Port of Gothenburg (3), in the form of a chart showing the failure load (computed as the product of the embedded area and the undisturbed shear strength) and the actual load at which the piles failed. This information is reproduced in Figure 1 (see Appendix). The point resistance of the piles was ignored; it was undoubtedly very small inasmuch as the point diameter was usually about 6 in. The average taper of the piles was approximately 0, 14 in. per ft.

A similar study has been made of the records of the other load tests that have been collected in the present investigation. Approximately 50 pile tests, exclusive of those conducted by the Port of Gothenburg, are included. The results are shown in Figure 2 as a comparison between the shear capacity of the pile (defined as the ratio of the fail-ure load to the embedded area) and the laboratory shear streiigth. In all the data plotted in Figure 2 a correction has been made for the point resistance of the piles. The point resistance has been calculated by multiplying the tip area of the pile by 9 times the co-hesive strength (4). This correction is theoretically of the right order of magnitude, and since the point resistance of piles embedded in soft or medium clays is usually a small fraction of the total resistance, the accuracy of the correction is satisfactory.

The data have been obtained from five principal sources, each of which will be dis-cussed separately.

The records of load tests on 24 piles conducted in Scandinavian countries have been assembled by Bjerrum (5). Six of the piles were located in Norway, 12 in Sweden, and 6 in Finland. The piles varied in length from about 30 ft to somewhat over 90 ft. They were all of timber, with point diameters approximately 7 in. The sensitivity of the clays varied from 4 to 114. The shearing strength varied between the rather narrow limits of 0. 17 and 0,45 ton per sq ft. Therefore, the clays were in the very soft to soft categories.

The second set of data is from tests made in connection with the Morganza Floodway Control Structure, Louisiana (6, 7, 8). At the location of these tests about 80 ft of clay rest above a deposit of sand. The test pile program was undertaken to determine the resistance that bearing piles would develop in the sand deposit. Load tests were per-formed on piles driven into the sand and on identical piles driven to a depth some 5 ft less than that of the top of the sand in order that a correction might be made for the resistance developed in the clay. The test piles included one Monotube with 'a point di-ameter of 8 in,, five cylindrical steel piles of various diameters, and one square con-crete pile.

The unconfined compressive strength of the material at the test site was determined by means of some 40 tests on undisturbed materials. The average unconfined compres-

sive strength was found to be 0.66 ton per sq ft. The average strength of completely remolded samples was found to be0.62 ton per sq ft. Therefore, the sensitivity of the deposit was on the order of unity. The clays were generally of high plasticity. Their properties are shown in Table 1.

The results of the tests and the computations to determine the shear capacity of the piles are shown in Table 1. The data are plotted in Figure 2 and are indicated by an arrow drawn at the appropriate laboratory shear strength.

The third set of data deals with tests on 9 individual piles from the West Atchafalaya Flood Control Project (9, 10). One of these piles was a cylindrical pipe, one was a Monotube, and the others were timber. All the piles had embedded lengths of about 60 ft. The test piles were distributed over a length of railroad relocation of about 7 miles and only 3 borings are available for evaluating the soil conditions. Hence, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the relevance of the compression test results. The relationship between the shear strength as determined from the load tests and as de-termined from tests on undisturbed samples, shown in Table 2, suggests that the strength in the field was substantially greater than that determined by means of laboratory tests. However, the average unconfined compressive strength from the 22 samples tested was 0.45 ton per sq ft, whereas tests on 6 completely remolded samples indicated an average value of 0.90 ton per sq ft. Thus, the sensitivity for the deposit was approxi-mately 0. 5. These results indicate that the clays at the Atchafalaya site possessed a significant secondary structure, probably in the form of joints produced by desicca-tion. Hence, it seems reasonable to compare the results of the Atchafalaya tests on the basis of the remolded strength as well as on that of the undisturbed strength (Table 2). It is obvious that the data from the West Atchafalaya tests are very much more scattered than those of the others. The scatter is the result of nonuniform soil con-ditions and inadequate test data concerning the strength of the soils. The results are plotted in Figure 2 merely as a rectangular area.

The fourth set of data concerns 3 tapered piles in the soft varved deposits of Lake Pend Oreille at Sand Point, Idaho. Two piles were timber. The third, an FN-16 Monotube, was tested at a length of 48 ft and subsequently driven to a length of 63 ft and again tested. Hence, the results actually comprise a series of four piles. The piles were tested at different times after driving; the relationship between pile capacity and time will be subsequently discussed more fully. The results indicating the final resistance attained by the piles are shown in Figure 2.

The final set of data was obtained from four test piles loaded to failure in varved silts and clays in the bed of former Lake Missoula, near Moxon Rapids, Montana. Two 10-in, and two 16-in, cylindrical steel piles were tested. Each pile was tested immed-iately after, three days after and ten days after driving. The final ten-day resistances have been compared with the results of unconfined compression tests. The data are shown in Table 3 and the results are plotted in Figure 2.

According to Figure 2, there is generally excellent agreement between the computed shearing stress on the embedded area of the pile at failure and the shearing strength of the soil as determined by means of Swedish-óone tests or unconfined compression tests. The principal discrepancies lie in the results of the Atchafalaya tests where there is considerable doubt concerning the proper value of the shearing strength.

The plot, Figure 2, permits distinction between piles in sensitive and insensitive materials, because the use of a large quantity of Scandinavian data might lead to the objection that the extra-sensitive soils met in that area would have an undue influence on the results. However, there appears to be no distinction in the behavior of piles in extra-sensitive or relatively insensitive clays. Therefore, it would not appear that sensitivity is a factor in determining the ultimate capacity of a single pile.

The latter conclusion should be regarded with caution, however, because there appears to be some evidence that the extra-sensitive clays of Mexico City do not de-velop their full undisturbed shear strength after diriving. Zeevaert (11) has observed this phenomenon, whereas Avery and Wilson came to the opposite conclusion (12). Pos-sibly clays of high colloidal activity, such as those in Mexico City, exhibit less shear strength around piles after driving than do the sensitive clays of low colloidal activity found in Scandinavia and the St. Lawrence River valley (13).

Influence of Shape and Pile Material

According to Figure 2, there appears to be no marked tendency toward a difference in the behavior of cylindrical or tapered piles. Most of the data are concerned with timber piles, but untapered piles are well enough represented to indicate that shape is not a factor of primary importance.

Several extremely pertinent tests have been performed by B. Fellenius (14) at the Railway Station in Gothenburg, Sweden, to ascertain the influences of taper, of pile material, and of time after pile driving. The piles were about 40 ft long. Every pile was tested several times, usually a few hours after driving and at intervals until ap-proximately three years after driving. The results are summarized in Table 4.

Two piles (Nos. C and D) in one series were driven with the small end down (pos-itive taper). The piles of a second pair (Nos. E and F) were of identical length but were trimmed to a cylindrical shape. A third pair (Nos. G and H) was identical to the first but the piles were driven with the butt down. Quite consistent results were obtained for the two piles in each pair. Furthermore, the ratio of shearing resistance computed from the pile tests to that determined from soil tests was practically unity for the tapered piles driven normally and for the cylindrical piles. For the piles driven butt down the actual bearing capacity was substantially lower; the reduced ca-pacity might be expected because of the disturbance associated with this type of pile driving.

An additional two piles (Nos. 7 and 8) with nearly identical tapers and with some-what greater length were driven, one in the normal direction and the other inverted. The results of tests on these piles are also shown in Table 4. They are comparable to those for the preceding three pairs. In addition, a special pair (Nos. 9 and 10) was made by affixing a block at the bottom of each of two tapered piles, one driven normally and one driven inverted, to investigate the disturbing effect of a projection at the bot-tom of the pile. The disturbing effect was quite marked (Table 4).

Finally, two piles (Nos. 5 and 6) were covered with sheet iron. One of the piles was driven with the taper in the normal direction and the other was inverted. The re-sults appear to indicate slightly smaller strengths for the sheet metal covering than for the timber piles of the same dimensions.

The tests at the Gothenburg Railway Station are undoubtedly the most carefully ex-ecuted comparative tests of timber piles of varying tapers that are available. They in-dicate quite conclusively that, as long as an inverted taper is not used, there is no significant difference in the shearing strength as developed by the piles in the field for the different tapers, and that the embedded area of the pile in contact with the clay is the appropriate area for use in the computation.

The soils at the site of the Gothenburg Railway Station tests possess a relatively low sensitivity, between about 2 and 8 in accordance with the Swedish-cone determinations. Since this range of sensitivity is similar to that for most saturated plastic clays en-countered in the United States, the conclusions should be broadly valid.

Influence of Time

The influence of time on the supporting capacity of piles in saturated, plastic clay appears to be of considerable importance. The Gothenburg Railway Station tests are classic examples of an investigation of the increase in strength with time. The results of several of the tests are shown in Figure 3. It appears that the ultimate bearing ca-pacity of the piles in this area continued to increase for about 1 month, after which the capacity became fairly constant.

Further data concerning the variation of strength with time for other deposits are shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, which deal with the piles driven in Lake Pend Oreille, Sand Point, Idaho, and in Table 3 which concerns the results of the Noxon Rapids pile tests in somewhat stiffer material. It would appear at Noxon Rapids as if the major increase in strength took place within about a week after pile driving and that the in-crease was relatively small as compared to the softer clays tested in Gothenburg or at Sand Point.

Conclusion

All the comparisons between observed supporting capacity and capacity predicted on the basis of soil tests have been made on the assumption that the shearing strength of the clay is accurately given by Swedish-cone tests or by unconfined compression tests. A few comparisons have been made in which more accurate methods of determining the undisturbed strength of the clay have been utilized, particularly the recently devel-oped vane apparatus. In almost all instances the vane test results were substantially higher than those obtained by means of unconfined compression tests. In many deposits the vane shear strength values are likely to be the more accurate because the soil is subjected to less disturbance. However, since most soil deposits contain layers of varying stiffness, the ultimate strength that can be developed around a pile cannot be equal to the maximum strengths of all the materials with which the pile is in contact, because failure is likely to be progressive. Stiffer layers are likely to fail at strains smaller than those necessary to develop the full strength of the softer materials. There-fore, the effects of progressive failure tend to offset those of sampling disturbance and it is not recommended that the strengths of piles be predicted on the basis of vane strength values uncorrected for progressive failure: Vane test results may also give misleadingly high values for the shearing strength of a horizontally laminated material, such as the varved silts and clays encountered at Sand Point or Noxon Rapids.

Thus, in very soft, soft and medium saturated clays, the ultimate bearing capacity is very closely approximated by the product of the shear strength, as determined by simple unconfined compression tests or their equivalent, and the embedded area of the pile. The ultimate strength of a pile in a plastic clay is not developed immediately but may require from a few days to as much as a month for its development. There-fore, pile tests should preferably not be made until after the initial period of adjust-ment. The sensitivity of the clay does not appear to influence the ultimate capacity ex-cept possibly in highly active clays.

PILES IN STIFF CLAY

In this study, clays having unconfined compressive strengths over 1 ton per sq ft are regarded as stiff.

A large number of tests have been made on cylindrical steel piles and on cast-in-place concrete piles in the stiff clays underlying the Cuyahoga River Valley in Cleveland. Several load tests on timber piles, pipe piles, and cast-in-place concrete piles have been made at Burnside, Louisiana. Finally, two instructive tests were made in very stiff clays at Argonne, Illinois.

In all three localities sufficiently reliable information is available concerning the shearing strength of the soil to permit an estimate of the bearing capacity of the piles on the assumption that the capacity is equal to the product of the embedded area and one-half the unconfined compressive strength of the clay. The comparisons indicate that, in contrast to the results for soft and medium clays, the simple computation may seriously overestimate the capacity of the piles.

Cleveland Tests

The results of load tests made in the Cuyahoga River valley prior to 1954 have been reported (15). Several typical sets of data are given in the present report in greater detail.

The clays in the valley are overlain by deposits of loose to medium silts, sands, and organic silts. The thickness of the cover usually varies from 15 to 25 ft. Therefore, the results of many of the tests are influenced by the sand cover. This influence is a minimum for long piles; hence, tests on short piles are not included in this section.

A series of four Monotubes with lengths varying from 60 to 85 ft were driven and tested in a location where the thickness of the sand over the clay was only about 16 ft and where the sand was of low relative density. On account of these circumstances, the support given to the piles by the sand can be ignored with a minimum of error. A

summary of the data concerning these piles is given in Table 6 and the load settlement curves and driving records are shown in Figure 5.

The unconfined compressive strength of the clay at this location is extremely uni-form for a depth of about 100 ft and has an average value of 1.8 ton per sq ft. On the assumption that the shearing strength is equal to half the unconfined compressive strength, the capacity of each pile has been calculated by multiplying the area em-bedded in the clay by the shearing strength of 0.9 ton per sq ft. The resulting calcu-lated loads are shown in Table 6. The test loads are shown in the same figure. It is apparent that the ratio of actual capacity to computed capacity is considerably less than unity. No attempt has been made to estimate the point resistance or to allow for the strength of the sand. Both these factors would tend to reduce the ratio of observed to predicted strength. Therefore, it is apparent that the simple relationship developed for soft clays does not satisfactorily predict the strengths of this group of Monotubes.

The load tests in this series were made from 2 to 5 days after the piles were driven. The short elapsed time may have contributed to the low ratio of observed to calculated strength. However, there is no apparently significant difference between the results of the 2-day and the 5-day tests.

Of the many tests that have been carried out on 10-in, pipe piles of great length in the Cleveland area, the seven described in Table 7 have been selected. Four of the piles are located in one area, designated as Area A, and three in another, designated as Area B. The thickness of the sand in Area A is about 37 ft, whereas that in Area B is about 27 ft. For the rest of their lengths the piles penetrate various deposits of stiff to very stiff clays. The average unconfined compressive strength of the soil in

$ the portion penetrated by the piles is shown for each pile in Table 7. The capacity is calculated by multiplying half the unconfined compressive strength by the embedded area of the pile, with no allowance for point resistance and no allowance for the strength of the overlying sand. The results are indicated in the table and are compared with the actual capacity. The corresponding load-settlement curves and other data concerning the piles are shown in Figure 6. It may be noted that the ratio of observed to calculated strengths is again appreciably less than unity with the exception of pile 7 in Area B. It is also of interest that in Area B the piles with the greatest length of embedment in clay exhibited the lowest ratios of actual to calculated strengths. This suggests that the full shearing strength of the clay deposits is not simultaneously mo-bilized for the very long piles.

Burnside Tests

Four pairs of comparative tests were made at Burnside, Louisiana on piles driven through a soft to medium clay and for a considerable distance into an underlying stiff clay. In two of the pairs, a 12-in. pipepile was compared to a Raymond step-taper pile. The piles in one pair, Figure 7, were 80 ft long and the other pair, Figure 8, were 90 ft long. In each case the tapered pile carried a load at least 50 percent greater than that carried by the pipe pile.

Unconfined compression tests were performed on samples taken from two borings in the neighborhood of the tests. The compressive strength determinations were made at various depths to about 70 ft but not below this level. However, standard penetra-tion tests were made in several borings which indicated that the material below the 70 ft level was of approximately the same consistency as that below about 30 ft. Hence, the compressive strengths have been averaged on the basis of this assumption. The shearing resistance, taken as half the unconfined compressive strength, is found on the average to be equal to 0.625 ton per sq ft. This value has been used to compute the capacity of each pile. A correction has been made for the point resistance. The results are shown in Table 8. Again, the ratio of observed capacity to that calculated is very low for the pipe piles. For the tapered Raymond piles the agreement appears to be quite satisfactory.

Two pairs of timber piles were tested, one pair having a length of 40 ft and the other having a length of 50 ft. The pertinent information in load-settlement curves are shown in Figures 9 and 10. It is seen that the results are quite consistent and suggest that soil conditions are reasonably uniform.

No soil test data are available from the site of the timber piles, which was located several hundred feet from that of the tests made on the pipe and Raymond piles. As a rough approximation, the average strength of the deposit has been taken equal to that at the site of the other load tests. On the basis of this assumption, the calculated Ca-pacities are as shown in Table 8. They agree very satisfactorily with those actually determined by means of load tests.

It may be noted that the strength of the Burnside clays is barely great enough to warrant classification of the materials as stiff; they fall close to the medium category. On the other hand, the Noxon Rapids clays, discussed in Section II, actually belong in the stiff category. They were considered with the soft and medium clays to permit examination of the trends somewhat outside the appropriate range. Considered to-gether, the Burnside and Noxon Rapids clays represent a transition zone in behavior,

Argonne Tests

Two 10-in, pipe piles were tested to failure in very stiff glacial clays. The upper 22 ft of each pile was isolated from the surrounding soil by means of a cased hole. The load-settlement data are shown in Figures 11 and 12, and the calculation of ob-served and laboratory shear strengths in Table 9. It is apparent that the ratio of calculated to observed capacity of these piles is extremely small.

Conclusion

There is ample evidence that friction piles in stiff clay do not develop the full strength of the clay, in contrast to the behavior of piles in soft to medium clays. The reasons for the difference are not well understood. It seems most likely that the clay surrounding a pile is remolded as a consequence of driving, but is rapicily recon-solidated under the stresses set up in the soil mass by the displacement due to the volume of the pile. Stiff or hard clays may not reconsolidate around the pile as ef-fectively as softer clays.

The ratio of shear strengths as determined from load tests and as determined by laboratory tests is plotted in Figure 13. The diagram suggests that pile capacities should not be estimated as the product of the embedded area and the laboratory shear strength for clays having unconfined compressive strengths in excess of about 1 ton per sq ft. For increasingly higher strengths, the procedure appears to become increas-ingly unconservative.

There are insufficient data to permit conclusions regarding the relative merits of tapered and untapered piles in stiff clays.

The data are also inconclusive regarding the possible detrimental influence of a projecting plate used to close the bottom of a pipe pile. This matter may be of con-siderable importance and deserves further study.

PILES IN SAND

The comparative data among piles in sand, with very few exceptions, are concerned with steel piles or steel-covered concrete piles. Several sets of data are available for which the piles in a set had approximately equal length and had various point di-ameters and tapers. Of primary interest is the possible influence of the taper on the bearing capacity of the pile.

Considerations of the stress-deformation and strength characteristics of sands would lead to the conclusion that the bearing capacity of a single pile should depend to a great extent on the relative density of the surrounding sand. Of prime importance is the tendency of the sand to expand or to contract during shear. A sand in a sufficiently dense state to expand during shear could be expected to develop extremely high shear-ing strengths as the pile tended to force itself into the ground, whereas a sand that decreased in volume during shear would offer much less resistance to penetration. Since the presence of a taper would tend to set up radial pressures around a vertically loaded pile, it might be reasoned that a taper should be beneficial in comparison to

parallel-sided piles. The influence of taper is the first object of this part of the investigation.

A second matter of interest in connection with pile foundations in sand is the extent to which the full frictional resistance of the sand can be developed around the pile. Inasmuch as the frictional resistance between sand and steel is likely to be less than that between sand and sand, there may be a tendency for the pile to slip with respect to the sand. Whether or not such slip can occur may depend somewhat upon the shape of the pile, the presence or absence of corrugations, and the existence or lack of a taper.

Information Available

Many records of load tests on piles in sand were available for study. In most in-stances the records dealt with individual piles without any comparable counterparts. Nevertheless, six sets of tests were found in which two or more piles were driven to approximately the same penetration and were subjected to sufficiently high loads to be of interest.

The pertinent data concerning each of the piles in the comparable groups are as-sembled in Table 10. The load settlement relationships, driving characteristics, and general soil profile are shown on individual data sheets, Figures 14 to 24 inclusive.

In Table 10 the piles are grouped in accordance with the locations where the tests were made and are numbered as in the original tests. Most of the piles passed through relatively soft overlying materials before they encountered the sand. The penetration through all soil materials is indicated as well as that within the sand itself. The taper of the pile is defined as the change in diameter per unit of length of the pile, expressed in consistent units such as inches per inch, and multiplied by 100. The resulting quantity is defined as the percent taper. For Raymond piles of the step-taper variety, in which the diameter change takes place at intervals and the intervening sections are cylindrical, the taper is the average value. If the taper of a pile changes within the portion of the pile embedded in the sand, the average value within the sand portion is given.

The ultimate load recorded in Table 10 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily inasmuch as the load settlement curves for piles in sand frequently did not indicate a point of complete failure; rather the load continued to increase somewhat as the settlement in-creased greatly. If a definite point of failure was reached, corresponding to a maximum load, that load was recorded. If the settlements were large, the ultimate load was taken arbitrarily as that at which the settlement became roughly equal to '/j the top diameter of the pile. If the load test was discontinued before a settlement of this magnitude was reached, an estimate of the corresponding capacity was made by ex-tension of the load-settlement curve. Where the ultimate load was not well defined, a question mark is indicated. Other interpretations of the load-settlement data might be made which would lead to somewhat different ultimate loads, but it is unlikely that such differences in interpretation would seriously alter the conclusions.

Influence of Material

One pair of tests is of particular interest in connection with the possibility that a smooth steel pile may slip with respect to the surrounding sand at a lower frictional resistance than would be developed if the slip occurred within the sand itself. This refers to the two piles tested at Mobile, Alabama. One pile was a 14-in. H-section and the other a steel box 16-in. square. The former penetrated 28 ft into the sand de-posit and the latter 27 ft. Neither pile had taper. The sand was of medium relative density; the standard penetration resistance was in the range of 30 to 35 blows per ft. The ultimate load on the H-pile was 105 tons, whereas that of the steel box pile was only 86 tons. If it is assumed that the two piles penetrated sands of the same prop-erties, the superior performance of the smaller H-pile may be at least partly explained by the fact that the sand enclosed by the flanges of the H-pile moved with the pile and required failure to take place through the sand itself on two sides of the pile, whereas failure occurred between sand and steel on all four sides of the box pile.

That this is a satisfactory explanation is indicated by the simple computation, Figure

10

25. On the assumption that the failures did occur as outlined in the preceding para-graph and that point resistance can be neglected, the computation indicates that the frictional resistance between sand and sand was on the order of 1.8 times that between sand and steel. A commonly assumed valued for this ratio is 2.0.

Thus, the comparison of the behavior of the two piles at Mobile is suggestive that the frictional resistance between sand and steel may in some instances be small enough to permit a slip that will govern the failure of the pile and that the full internal friction of the sand cannot always be counted upon.

Effect of Taper

The influence of taper has been investigated by series of tests conducted at the 0-Street Viaduct, Lincoln, Nebraska; at the Buffalo Interchange, Houston, Texas; at the Old and Lost River site in Chambers County, Texas; at the Broadway Overpass at Council Bluffs, Iowa; and at Sepulveda Dam in California. Valuable data are available from all these test sites.

In order to isolate the influence of, taper from other factors that may influence the bearing capacity, only steel or steel-shelled piles have been compared. That is, the two timber piles for the 0-Street Viaduct in Lincoln, Nebraska, and the 18-in, pre-cast octagonal pile at Sepulveda Dam have been eliminated. The records of all the other piles in these groups have been utilized. The information is summarized in Table 11.

Since the piles in the different groups had different lengths of embedment in sand and were driven into sands of different densities, no general comparison is possible relating the taper and the actual ultimate loads on the piles. Within each group, how-ever, where piles of different tapel' were tested, the possibility of a trend could be in-vestigated. The investigation has been carried out on the following basis. Within each group the pile has been selected for which the ultimate bearing capacity was a minimum. The bearing capacity of this pile has been designated as 100 percent. The ultimate bearing capacities of all the other piles in that group have then been expressed in terms of the capacity of the pile with minimum strength. Thus, the strength of any pile in the group can be compared directly with that of the pile having the minimum capacity in the test series.

Table 11 shows the results of such comparisons for seven groups. In all these groups, except the 8 piles tested at Council Bluffs, there was at least one pile which had no taper.. Furthermore, in all the groups except Council Bluffs, the pile having the minimum capacity was an untapered pile. Therefore, it is apparent that some in-ferences can be drawn concerning the effect of taper by plotting the capacity of each pile, expressed as a percent of the minimum capacity in its own series, as a function of the taper. The plot is shown in Figure 26. In spite of the fact that the piles in the various groups were driven into sands of different relative density, and had different degrees of roughness of the pile surface, it is obvious from an inspection of Figure 26 that taper has a beneficial influence on the capacity of piles in sand. Although there is appreciable scattering of the results, it would appear reasonable to conclude that a taper of 1 percent or more is likely to increase the capacity of a pile, for a given length of embedment, between 1'/2 and 2'/2 times. Whether the tendency for increased capacity increases appreciably with increasing taper cannot be said with certainty because of the small number of piles with heavy taper for which records were available.

The untapered piles consis.ted either of H-piles or of pipe piles. Of the nine piles for which data were available in the comparisons shown in Figure 26, five were pipe piles and four were H-sections. Therefore, the lower capacity of the untapered piles cannot be attributed exclusively to the fact that they were of non-displacement types.

It would be expected that the influence of taper might become increasingly beneficial with increasing relative density of the sand, assuming the same depth of penetration for all piles. Since good records are generally not available concerning the relative density of the sands in the various groups, no specific information can be obtained on this point. However, an attempt was made to study whether the relationship between capacity and taper for the piles in each group is somewhat more consistent than the composite re-lationship for all the groups. This was found to be the case in a general way, although

11

there are numerous exceptions to the trends, It may be stated, however, that the scattering of the capacities at high taper, as indicated in Figure 23, may be partly explained by the differences in relative densities that undoubtedly existed among the various groups.

The pile tests at the Broadway Overpass, Council Bluffs, Iowa, did not include any piles without taper. Hence, the results could not be compared with those of other groups on the same basis. A separate plot has been made for these 8 piles, Figure 27. It is apparent that the piles having a taper somewhat in excess of 1 percent had greater capacity than the two piles having tapers of 0.69 percent. Thus, the Council Bluffs data appear to follow the trend of the other tests.

Conclusion

Although, as would be expected, no unique or well-defined relationship was found between capacity and taper of piles embedded in sand, it may be concluded that the taper has a substantial beneficial influence and that for piles of equal length of embed-ment in a given sand, a tapered pile will have substantially greater ultimate bearing capacity than a straight-sided or cylindrical pile. There is indication that the capacity increases with increase in the taper but insufficient data exist concerning heavily tapered piles to permit definite conclusions.

The piles studied and represented in Figures 26 and 27 had point diameters of vary-ing dimensions. A study of the dimensions and capacities of the individual piles listed in Table 10 indicates no significant trend in capacity as a function of point di-ameter and leads to the conclusion that the variations of point diameter corresponding to the tested piles are not of sufficient importance to invalidate the conclusions that have been drawn concerning the influence of taper. In general, for example, the pipe piles which had no taper had fairly large point diameters, whereas the point diameters of the more heavily tapered piles were relatively small.

The 18-in, precast octagonal pile tested at Sepulveda Dam has been excluded from the comparisons because it was of exceptionally large diameter and because, unlike all the other piles, it presented a concrete surface to the soil rather than a steel surface. It is believed that these differences justify its exclusion from the compari-sons. Nevertheless, although the pile had no taper, it had a high capacity. It is possible that a portion of this high capacity should be ascribed to point resistance. However, the point resistance of the 18-in. Armco pile, No. 67-B, at the Old and Lost River site apparently did not lead to comparably high capacities with respect to the other piles in its group.

A few supplementary points of interest were noted in the data. In general, efforts to improve the bearing capacity of H-piles by welding blocks or "stoppers" between the flanges led to a weakening rather than a strengthening (Nos. 4, 5, 6 at Sepulveda Dam, Table 10), whereas timbers bolted outside the flanges as "Lagging" were quite success-ful. Results of the latter experiment are shown in Figure 28.

Long H-piles have frequently been used as friction piles in sand, particularly when the supporting stratum is at considerable depth. Unfortunately, no data from strictly comparable tests were available. However, a conception of the capacity of such piles and of the variation of capacity with size of pile can be obtained from the following data, obtained at Sparrows Point, Md. The piles were all about 140 ft long. They passed through about 100 ft of soft silt and clay and into about 40 ft of sand of rather heteroge-neous character.

Section Ult. Load (tons) 10BP42 220+ 12BP53 260+ 12BP53 250 14BP73 354+

All piles except that carrying 250 tons failed by buckling above ground before the strength of the soil was exceeded.

12

PILES IN STRATIFIED SOILS

Information Available

Several sets of pile tests have been made for the specific purpose of comparing the behavior of different types of piles in deposits consisting of stratified or lenticular units of sand, silt and clay. All the available information has come from the New Or-leans area. Some 26 sets of tests involving 64 piles have been found suitable for com-parison. In each set the piles are located fairly close to each other and all piles are of approximately the same length. Therefore, even if the soil conditions are not known with great accuracy, all the piles in a given set have penetrated the same strata and should be quite comparable.

The essential data concerning the 26 comparative tests are assembled in Table 12. In this table the location of the tests is given together with the number originally used to designate each pile. The distance recorded in the table corresponds to the diameter of a circle that would include all the piles in a given set. Where the taper of the pile is recorded, the numerical value refers to the average taper or, in the case of Mono-tubes, to the taper of the lower portion of the pile. In some instances the taper of the lower section is not known. Under these circumstances the butt diameter is given in parenthesis in the column entitled taper.

Load-settlement curves, driving records, and indications of soil conditions are re-corded on individual graphs for each group (Figs. 29 to 54, inclusive).

Interpretation

Some of the comparative tests listed in Table 12 deal with piles as far apart as 550 ft. Since these tests were obtained for the purpose of making comparisons, the data are included in the table. However, experience indicates that subsurface conditions in the New Orleans area may vary appreciably within distances of this magnitude. There-fore, detailed attention will be given only to those piles in groups not more than 100 ft apart.

In a few instances piles were driven through the stratified upper deposits into a bed of dense sand. Although the sand is underlain by other alluvial deposits, it neverthe-less has sufficient thickness and resistance to assure that piles reaching it will act in point bearing. The point capacity may be a large fraction of the total capacity of the pile. Hence, groups reaching point bearing in the sand are also excluded from further consideration. These are indicated by an asterisk in Table 12; they include groups numbers 5, 6, 15, and 16.

The remaining groups are suitable for comparison. For each of these groups the ultimate capacity of the strongest pile has been assigned the value of 100 percent and the capacities of weaker piles have been assigned corresponding percentages. These values have been tabulated in Table 12 under the column entitled Percent Maximum Load. These are the values upon which further discussion is based.

Four of the groups contain three piles each; one a pipe pile, one a Monotube, and one a Raymond step-taper pile. In one of these groups, No. 4, all three piles had the same ultimate capacity. Probably by coincidence one of each of the three types of piles exhibited the maximum capacity in one of the other groups. A Raymond step-taper pile had the highest capacity in group 3, a 14-in, pipe in group 9 and a Monotube in group 10. Thus, on the basis of these four sets of comparative data, it does not appear that there is any consistent advantage in one type of pile over another.

Group 17 consisted of a pair of identical Monotubes driven to embedments of 69 ft. The ultimate loads, 150 and 160 tons, are approximately equal.

Two pairs of comparative tests on Raymond piles are available. In both of these, groups 18 and 20, the piles were of equal length but the point diameter of one pile in each pair was 8.6 in., whereas that of the other was 10.4 in. The two pairs of tests were located fairly close to each other and the results are comparable. It is noted that the two large-diameter piles carried approximately the same loads and that the otherwise identical piles with smaller point diameter carried appreciably smaller loads.

In the other three pairs of tests, Nos. 25, 26, and 13, dissimilar piles were tested.

13

In group 25 a Monotube and a 14-in, pipe carried essentially the same load. In group 26 the Raymond Pile carried somewhat greater load than a 14-in, pipe, whereas in group 13, a 14-in. monotube carried a somewhat greater load than a 14-in, pipe.

Conclusion

The data from New Orleans contain extensive and valuable information. Soil conch-tions are inherently variable, especially with respect to small differences in vertical distances. If these variations are taken into account, it does not appear that there is any appreciable superiority or inferiority in the ultimate supporting capacity of piles of equal length. That is, pipe piles of 14 in. diameter, Monotubes, or Raymond step-taper piles in the New Orleans area have essentially the same supporting capacity.

A study of the driving records indicates that many of the test piles encountered fair-ly high resistance just before driving was terminated. This may indicate that the piles received a substantial portion of their support from at least thin sand layers or stiff clay lenses at point level. Some of the difference in supporting capacity between piles of various types may be attributed to the chance of the piles having failed to reach such layers. In practice it would be desirable to establish the length of piles such that the high driving resistance of occasional stiff layers would be developed.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The study appears to justify the following tentative conclusions.

Piles in soft to medium clay develop a capacity that depends essentially on the embedded area and the shearing strength of the undisturbed clay as measured by uncon-fined compression tests or their equivalent.

Piles of equal length in sand develop greater capacities if tapered than if cyl-indrical. 'Tests to investigate the influence of the relative density of the sand on the effectiveness of the taper would be of interest.

The capacity of piles in stratified alluvial deposits of sand, silt and clay, such as those in the Mississippi River delta, depends more on the details of stratification than on the type of pile. Of the types tested, there is no evidence that one deserves preference over any other.

The capacity of piles in stiff clays cannot be estimated accurately or conserva-tively on the basis of simple soil tests, and the influence of taper is not understood. Comparative tests in homogeneous stiff clays, with fundamental investigations into the maimer in which the soil supports the piles, appear necessary for further progress in connection with such materials. Further study is also required to determine the influ-ence of the amount of overhang on flat plates used to close pipe piles in stiff and hard clays.

REFERENCES

Terzaghi, K., "Discussion on Pile-Driving Formulas," Proc., ASCE, (Feb. 1942).

Skempton, A.W., "Discussion on Sessipn 4." Proc., 3rd Tnt. Coni. Soil Mechan-ics, Zurich, Vol. 3, p. 172 (1953).

Bergfelt, A., "The Axial and Lateral Load Bearing Capacity, and Failure by Buckling of Piles in Soft Clay." Proc., 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics, London, Vol. 2, P. 8 (1957).

Skempton, A.W., "The Bearing Capacity of Clays." Proc., Bldg. Res. Congr., Vol. 1, p. 80(1951).

Bjerrum, L., "Les Pieux de Fondation en Norvege." Pubi. No. 3, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo (1953).

"Pile Loading Tets, Combined Morganza Floodway Control Structure." Tech. Memo. No. 3-308, Waterways Exp. Sta. (Jan. 1950).

"Review of Soils and Foundation Design and Field Observations, Morganza Flood-way Control Structure." La. Tech. Memo. No. 3-384, Waterways Exp. Sta. (Aug. 1954).

14

Mansur, C. I. and John A. Focht, Jr., "Pile Loading Tests, Morganza Flood-way Control Structure." Trans., ASCE, Pp. 555-587 (1956).

"Steel and Timber Pile Tests - West Atchafalaya Floodway - N.O. T. and M. Ry." AREA Bull. 489, PP. 149-202 (1950).

Ghanem, M. F., "Bearing Capacity of Friction Piles in Deep Soft Clays." Ph. D. Thesis, U. of Illinois (1953).

Zeevaert, L. Discussion, "Effect of Driving Piles into Soft Clay." Trans., ASCE, p. 286-292 (1950).

Avery, S.B., Jr. and S.D Wilson, Discussion, "Effects of Driving Piles into Soft Clay." Trans., ASCE, p. 322-331 (1950).

Skempton, A.W., "The Colloidal Activity of Clays." Proc., 3rd hit. Coni. Soil Mech., Zurich, Vol. 1, p. 57-61.

Fellenius, B. "Results of Tests on Piles at Gothenburg Railway Station." Bull. 5, Swedish State Railways, Stockholm.

Peck, Ralph B., "Foundation Conditions in the Cuyahoga River Valley." Proc., ASCE, Sep. 513 (Oct. 1954).

URE: OR-17l

Appendix A

LIST OF SYMBOLS;

I Plasticity index, percent dry weight

L w Liquid limit, percent dry weight

M Monotube pile

N Standard penetration resistance; blows per foot of hammer weighing 140 ib, falling 30 in. on 2-in. O.D. sampling spoon

P Pipe pile

qu Unconfined compressive strength, tons per square foot

R Raymond pile

s Shearing strength, tons per square foot

Sr Shearing strength of remolded soil; tons per square foot

5 Sensitivity; undisturbed shear strength/remolded shear strength

T Timber pile

17

TABLE 1

MORGANZA FLOODWAY CONTROL STRUCTURE (References 6, 7, 8)

Pile Data Field Results Lab. Results

Pile Embed. Top Bottom Embed. Field Time of Computed Actual Lab. Ratio

No. Lung. Diam. Diam. Surf. Fail. Testing Point Field Shear. Field Notes

Area Load After Resist. Shear Str. Driving Str. St r.

(ft) (in.) (in.) (ft2) (tons) (days) (tons) (T/ft2) (T/ft2)

Cla 567 24.0 24.0 356 130 20 9.3 0.34 033b 1.03 Pipe Pile

C2a 66.8 16.9 8.0 224 77 26 1.0 0.34 1.03 Monotube tapered

C3a 66.8 12.0 12.0 210 60 28 2.3 0.27 0.82 Monotube constant

C4a 65.6 18.0 18.0 308 88 17 5.3 0.26 0.79 Pipe Pile

C5a 65.6 24.0 24.0 412 136 19 9.3 0.31 0.94 Pipe Pile

C6a 65.1 30.0 30.0 510 170 21 14.6 0.31 0.94 Pipe Pile

C7a 62.6 22x22 22x22 459 140 26 10.0 0.28 0.85 Precast Concrete Square

Notes: Point resistance taken as 9 x 0.33 x Area of point.

Average undisturbed shear strength = Y2 unconithed compressive strength = Q. 33 T/sq. ft.

Soil Properties as follows: 0 23 ft. Somewhat jointed clays and silty clays Lw = 87% Iw = 60% w = 47%

23 - 33 ft. Sandy silt, silty sand, clayey silt w = 33% 33 - 66 ft. Gray clay L 5 = 63% Iw = 40% w = 43% One 5 ft layer Lw 107% I = 72%

w=61% 66 - 78 ft. Clayey silt, sandy silt, silty sand, silty clay

Average Sensitivity all clay = 1.0

TABLE 2

WEST ATCHAFALAYA FLOODWAY PILE TESTS (References 9, 10)

Pile Data Field Results Laboratory Results

Pile Embed. Top Bottom Embed. Field Computed Actual Lab. Undisturbed Remolded Notes

No. Leng. Diam. Diam. Surf. Fail. Point Field Shear State Ratio State Area Load Resist. Shear Str. Flel Ratio

Str. ab Str.

(ft) (in.) (in.) (ft) (tons) (tons) (T/f12) (T/fl2 ) Str.

P1 60.5 12.75 12.75 202.0, 65.0 0.7 0.32 028a 1.14 0.71 Pipe

M10 60.0 15.80 8.00 189.4 92.0 0.3 0.48 0.28 11.72 1.07 monotube

TIO 58.0 15.40 6.50 175.9 65.0 0.1 0.37 0.19 1.95 0.82 Timber

Tl1 58.0 15.61 5.75 151.8 45.0 0.11 0.30 0.19 1.58 0.67 Timber

T12 60.0 17.00 7.00 188.6 75.0 0.1 0.40 0.19 2.11 0.89 Timber

T13 60.5 15.17 6.25 166.0 35.0 0.1 0.21 0.19 1.11 0.47 Timber

T14 61.0 14.70 6.25 157.7 55.0 0.1 0.35 0.21 1.66 0.78 Timber

T24 60.0 15.68 6.00 159.7 65.0 0.1 0.40 0.21 1.90 0.89 Timber

T25 55.5 14.62 6.50 155.4 55.0 0.1 0.35 0.21 1.67 0.78 Timber

Notes: Average shear strength based on nearest boring Average remolded shear strength Sr = 0.45 T/ft (based on two borings) Sensitivity (average) = 0.49 Time of testing after driving - 39 days Soil profile and properties (average values from three 5-In, diameter piston samplers) 0 - 60 ft. Soft to medium greenish-grey silty clay Lw = 80% L= 54% w = 45% . q. = 0.45 T/ft2

>60 ft. Sandy silts and silty sands P1 tested over 18 days after driving; N 10 tested 39 days after driving; others not known

18.

TABLE 3

NOXON RAPIDS, MONTANA PIPE PILE TESTS

Pile Data Field Results Lab. Results Pile Embed. Top Bottom Embed. Field Time of Computed Actual Lab. Ratio No. Leng. Diam. Diam. Surf. Fail. Testing Point Field Shear Fiel- Notes

Area Load After Resist. Shear Str. Driving Str.

(ft) (in.) (in.) (ft') (tons) (days) (tons) (T/ft2) (T/ft)

IA 44.0 10.75 10.75 124 140 0.19 5.7 1.08 1.00 1.08 Capped pipe Pile

lB 44.0 10.75 10.75 124 145 3.00 5.7 1.16 1.00 1.24 1C 44.0 10.75 10.75 124 160 10.00 5.7 1.24 1.00 1.24 IA 50.0 10.75 10.75 141 135 0.19 5.7 0.92 1.00 0.92 Capped pipe 28 50.0 10.75 10.75 141 145 3.00 5.7 0.99 1.00 0.99 pile 2C 50.0 10.75 10.75 141 145 10.00 5.7 0.99 1.00 0.99 IA 39.0, 16.0 16.00 163 115 0.20 12.6 0.63 1.00 0.63 Capped pipe 18 39.0 16.0 16.00 163 135 3.00 12.6 0.75 1.00 0.75 pile 1C 39.0 16.0 16.00 163 145 10.00 12.6 0.81 1.00 0.81 2A 35.0 16.0 16.0 147 120 0.25 12.6 0.73 1.00 0.73 Capped pipe 28 35.0 16.0 16.0 147 140 3.00 12.6 0.87 1.00 0.87 pile 2C 35.0 16.0 16.0 147 154 10.00 12.6 0.96 1.00 0.96

TABLE 4 COMPARATIVE TESTS GOTI1ENBURG RAILWAY STATION

(Reference 14)

Pile Data Field Results Lab. Results Pile Embed. Top Bottom Embed. Field Time of Computed Actual Lab. Ratio No. Leng. Diam. Diam. Surf. Fail. Testing Point Field Shear. Fie4 Notes

Area Load After Resist. Shear Str. Driving Str. Str. (ft) (in.) (in.) (ft') (tons) (days) (tons) (T/ft2) (T/ft2)

C 36.4 10.0 6.3 77.7 13.2 21 0. 3a 0.17 0.16 1.06 Timber D 37.2 10.0 6.3 79.,0 12.1 21 0.3 0.15 0.17 0.88 Timber E 37.2 7.5 7.5 73.2 12.1 21 0.4 0.16 0.16 1.00 Timber F 36.3 7.1 7.1 67.6 11.1 21 0.4 0.16 0.16 1.00 Timber G 36.0 6.3 10.0 76.6 7.7 21 0.8 0.09 0.17 0.53 Timber H 35.6 6.3 10.0 75.6 8.8 18 0.8 0.11 0.17 0.65 Timber 7 44.0 10.9 5.6 95.0 22.0 20 0.4 0.23 0.25 0.92 Timber 8 45.7 6.1 12.1 108.6 13.2 28 1.7 0.11 0.23 0.48 Timber 5 44.8 13.6 6.9 120.5 25.3 29 0.6 0.21 0.26 0.81 Cased with

steel 6 44.3 7.0 12.8 111.5 13.2 29 1.9 0.10 0.24 0.42 Cased with

steel 9 44.8 11.7 5.5 101.0 19.8 29 0.4 0.19 0.26 0.73 Circular

enlarged base 10.0 in. diam.

10 45.3 7.3 13.4 123.0 17.7 28 2.1 0.13 0.24 0.54 Circular enlarged base 17.7 in. diam.

Point resistance taken as 9 a s x area of point Sensitivity for entire series ranges between 2 and 8

19

TABLE S

COMPARATIVE TESTS, SAND POINT, IDAHO

Pile Data Field Results Lab. Results Pile Embed. Top Bottom Embed. Field Time of Computed Actual Lab. Ratio

Leng. Diam. Diam. Surf. Fail. Testing Point Field Shear Field Notes Area Load After Resist. Shear. Str.

Driving Str. Str. (ft) (in.) (in.) (ftu) (tons) (days) (tons) (T/ft) (T/ft)

4 50.00 13.60 6.00 128 47 8.00 0.4 - 0.36 0. 23a 1.56 Timber 5 57.50 14.60 6.00 154 38 12.40 0.4 0.24 0.23 1.04 Timber 4.5 46.50 14.20 8.00 135 30 2.08 0.7 0.22 0.23 0.96 Monotube 4.5 63.00 16.40 8.00 201 22 0.88 0.7 0.11 0.23 0.48 Same pile

retested 4.5 63.00 16.40 8.00 201 43 7.75 0.7 0.21 0.23 0.92 Same pile

retested

Notes: Average shear strength s = %qu = 0.23 T/ft Soil profile and properties as follows:

0 - 8 ft. Loose sand stratum. Standard penetration N = 3 - 10 8 - 70 ft. Soft gray silty clay occasionally laminated. Lw 46% I = 19% w = 49% qu = 0.46 T/ft

70 - 120 ft. Soft gray clayey silt with prominent silt and clay laminae Lw = 35% L = 9% w = 38% qu = 0.50 T/ft2

TABLE 6

TESTS ON MONOTUBES, CLEVELAND

Pile Type Length of Embedment Embedded Calculated Actual Ratio Total in Clay Area in Clay Capacity Capacity Field/Lab. (ft) (ft) (sq ft) (tons) (tons) Capacity

453A FN12 76 60 188 169 80 0.47 447 3N14 . 60 44 141 123 70 0.55 417 JN14 72 56 182 164 75 0.45 419 lN14 85 69 232 210 85 0.40

Average unconfined compressive strength, 1.8 tons per sq ft. Resistance above clay neglected.

Elapsed time between driving and testing 453A 5 days 447 2 days 417 2 days 419 4 days

20

TABLE 7

TESTS ON LONG PIPE PILES, CLEVELAND

Location No. Embedded Length in Average Lab. Calculated Actual Ratio Length Clay Shear St . Capacity Capacity Field/Lab.

- (ft) - (ft) (tons/sq ft) (tons) (tons) Capacity

AreaA 1 124.8 88 1.62 402 285 0.71. 2 110.3 - 73 1.51 310 230 0.74 3 126.0 89 1.62 406 270 0.67 4 118.0 81 1.58 359 260 0.73

Area B 5 170.6 143 1.12 450 270 0.60 6 159.5 133 1.14 426 350 0.82 7 111.5 84 1.08 253 300 1.18

Resistance above clay neglected. 10.75-in. diam. pipe piles, closed with flat plate at bottom.

Elapsed time between driving and testing: 1 29days 2 12 days 3 13 days 4 17 days 5 12 days 6 7

TABLE 8

COMPARATIVE TESTS, BURNSIDE, LA.

No. Type Length Point Top Embedded CaIc. Caic. Total Actual Ratio Embed. Diam. Diam. Area Capacity Point. CaIc. Field Field/Lab.

Resist. Capacity Capacity Capacity (ft) (in.) (in.) (sq ft) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)

1 Timber 50 7 14 137 85 2 87 85 0.98 4 Timber 50 8 15 150 94 2 96 75 .0. 78 2 Timber . 40 7 13 105 65 . 2 67 60 0.90 3 Timber 40 7 13 105 65 2 67 60 0.90 7 Pipe 80 12.75 12.75 267 167 5 172 100 0.58 7a Pipe 90 12.75 12.75 300 187 5 192 110 0.58 Ri Step-taper 80 8.6 17.4 236 147 2 149 145 0.98 R2 Step-taper 90 8.6 17.4 280 174 . 2 176 180+ ' 1.02+

Average shearing strength, pipe and step-taper piles, 0.625 ton/sq ft. Same value assumed for timber piles.

Piles Ri and R2 about 26 ft apart. Pile 7 tested at 80 ft, redriven to 90 ft and tested again. Piles Ri and 7 about 105 ft apart.

Piles tested 5 to 12 days after driving. For details see Figs. 7-10.

TABLE 9

TESTS ON PIPE PILES, ARGONNE, ILL.

Pile Driven Length

Embedded Length

Field Results Lab. Shear

Ratio Field/Lab. Failure Computed Actual

Load Point Field Str. • Shear Str. Resist. Shear

Str. (ft) (ft) (tons) (tons) (T/sq ft) (T/sq ft)

3 62 39 80 12 0.67 2.50 0.27 4 55 31 80 15 0.80 1.85 0.43

Piles 10. '(b-In. Oil. conical point pile 2: Dat plate pile 4. taken as one-half unconfined compressive strength.

Pile 3 tested 29 days after driving. Pile 4 tested 110 days after driving.

21

TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF PILE TESTS IN SAND

Location No. Type and Dimension Tot, Pen. Pen, in Taper Ultimate Remarks Sand Percent Load (tons)

(It) (it)

Mobile, Ala. 10C2 14BP89 49 28 0 105 N about 30-35 10C3 Steel box 16" x 16" 44 27 0 86 1

Lincoln, Neb. Ia 8" x 16" timber 45' 30 15 1.48 74 0-Street Viaduct b 10BP42 30 15 0 100

c 12.751, a 0.172" Armco 30 15 0 120 d 11" x 17" Raymond hammercore 32 15 1.04 145 e 9FN 8" x 12" Monotube 32 15 1.16 145

lIa 8" x 16" timber 45' 27 20 1.48 100+ Met refusal in sand and gravel

b -10BP42 42 24 0 85 c 12. 75" x 0.172" Armco 32 24 0 115 d 11" x 17" Raymond hammercore 31 24 1.04 195 e 9FN 8" x 12" Monotube 31 24 1.16 155

Houston, Tex. 1 7YN 8" x 16" Monotube 28 23.5 3.33 95 Sand becomes Buffalo, Interch. 2 16" x 7 ga. Armco 29 24.5 0 50? denser below

3 8 5/8 x 20" Raymond Std. 30 25.5 3.33 140? 26'

Chambers, Co. , Tex. 67D 7YN 8" x 18" Monotube 57 48 1.7± 125++ Old and Lost River 67B 18" Armco 55 48 0 100

Council Bluffs, Ia. I 7FN 8" x 12" Monotube 37 26 1.16 112+ High driving Broadway Overpass I 8" x 11" Raymond S. T. (12'sect.) 38 27 0.69 80 reS. at 31'

II 3JN 8" x 16" Monotube 31 21 2.08 110 II 12" x 16" Raymond S. T. (81 sect.) 33 23 1.04 110

Council Bluffs, Ia. III 7FN 8" x 12" Monotube 31 27 1.16 100+ Broadway Overpass III 8" x 11" Raymond S. T. (12'sect.) 31 27 0.60 85?

W 7FF 8" x 16" Monotube 32 24 1.19 120++ IV 11/ x 16" Raymond S. T. (8'sect. ) 32 24 1.04 125

Sepulveda Dam 1 12BP53 40 40 0 77 2 12BP53 40 40 0 85 4 12BP53 40 40 0 65 Core Stop 1 5 12BP53 40 40 0 65 Core Stop 2 6 12BP53 40 40 0 70 Core Stop 3

20 12BP53 40 40 0 75 Pair tested to 150 tons

10 10.6x 14.9" Raymond S.T. 35 35 1.04 145 12 10.6 x 14. 9" Raymond S. T. 35 35 1.04 120+ 16 18" octagon precast 35 35 0 120+ 13 7J 8" a 17.5" Monotube 37 37 2.08 180

Core Stop descriptions:

Horizontal plates between flanges 5 It from bottom 45 deg plates between flanges 10 it from bottom Steeply Inclined plates between flanges 10 It from bottom

TABLE 11

INFLUENCE OF TAPER, PILES IN SAND

Location No. Ultimate Load tons

Percent of

Minimum

Taper Percent

Location No, Ultimate Load tons

Percent of

Minimum

Taper Percent

0-Street I b 100 100 0 Sepulveda 1 77 100 0 c 120 120 0 2 85 110 0 d 145 145 1.04 10 145 188 1.04 e 145 145 1.16 12 120+ 155+ 1.04

0-Street U b 85 100 0 13 180 232 2.08

C 115 135 0 Council I 112+ 140+ 1.16 d 195 228 1.04 Bluffs I 80 100 0.69 e 155 182 1.16 II 110 137 2.08

1[ 110 137 1.04 Buffalo 1 95 190 3.33 m 100+ 125+ 1.16 Interchange 2 50 100 0 III 85? 106? 0.69 3 140 280 3.33 IV 120 150+ 1.16 Old and Lost IV 125 156 1.04

River 670 125+ 125+ 1.7+ 67B 100 100 6

22

TABLE 12

PILES IN STRATIFIED SANDS, SILTS AND CLAYS: NEW ORLEANS AREA

Group Location No. Dist. Type Point Taper Embed. ULtimate Percent Max. Diam. Percent Load Load

(ft) (in.) (it) (tons)

S. Broad Ave. T-1 50 T 7 1.10 52 67 67 Underpass ES-i R 10.4 1.04 52 10.0 100

2 S. Broad Ave. T-2 50 T 7 0.95 53 72 96 Underpass RS-7 100 R 10.4 1.04 53 75 100

3 S. Broad Ave. AS-2 100 P 12 0 57 85 59 Underpass MS-2 M- IN 12 8 2.08 56 100 70

RS-6 B 10.4 1.04 58 140 100

4 S. -Broad Ave. AS-i 100 P 14 0 55 140 100 Underpass MS-i M-JN 14 8 2.08 58 140 100

RS-2 R 10.4 1.04 57 140 100

5 Wisner Drive 13 300 M 8 (14) 83 210 Overpass 14 M 8 (14) 84 220

16 p 14 0 87 200+

6* St. Bernard 9 300 p 14 0 92 200+ Ave. 10 B 8.6 1.04 94 160

ii B 8.6 1.04 92 180 17 M 8 (14) 92 190

7 N. Broad Ave. 1 220 M 8 (14) 85 200 Underpass 5 M 8 ? 87 165

8 N. Broad Ave. 3 550 M 8 (14) 68 200 Underpass 6 M 8 (14) 68 85

9 Inner Harbor 11M 24 M 8 (14) 60 48 64 Nay. Canal liE B 8.4 1.04 60 30 40

up p 14 0 60 75 100

10 Inner Harbor 2M 24 M 8 (14) 73 100? 100 Nay. Canal 2R R 8.4 1.04 73 58 58

2P P 14 0 74 75 75

ii Inner Harbor ii 200 T 7.0 1.10 - 61 50 Nay. Canal 10 T 7.5 1.10 62 42

12 Miss. River AT1 12 T 8 0.76 87 150+ 100 Thalia-Bringier AM1 MiN 14 8 2.08 89 150+ 100

AR1 R 9.5 1.04 88 140 93-

13 Franklin Ave. 9 20 MFN 14 8 1.19 59 175+ 100 Overpass 8 P 14 0 59 140 80-

14 Miss. River A 550 MJN 14 8 2.08 70 60 Approach B MiN 14 8 2.08 72 80

15 Paris Ave. 5 270 R 10.4 1.04 90 200 Underpass 6 M 8 (14) 91 200+

7 P 14 0 89 200+ - 8 M 8 (14) 92 200+

16 Gentilly Ave. 1 120 B 8.6 1.04 94 200+ Underpass 2 M 8 (14) 93 200+

17 Gentilly Ave. 18 80 M 8 (14) 69 150 94 Underpass 19 M 8 (14) 69 160 100

18 Belle Chasse 3 37 B 8.6 1.19 96 110 58 - A.N.G. 19 B 10.4 1.19 97 190 100

19 Belle Chasse 1 200 FN 14 8 1.19 92 200+ 2 P 14 0 92 175

20 Belle Chasse B5 86 It 8.6 1.04 97 130 72 B18 R 10.4 1.04 97 180 100

21 Elysian Fields C 280 T 8 1.57 53 65 Overpass D T 7 1.73 53 55

B T 8 1.44 58 SO

22 Elysian Fields E 450 B 8.6 1.04 90 95 Overpass MP1 JN 14 8 2.08 87 150

23 Elysian Fields iT 110 T 9 0.47 69 63 Overpass 2r T 9 0.77 65 82

24 Gentilly Blvd. 1 80 T 7.2 1.16 59 80 67 N. 0. N.E.Ry. 2 T 7.2 1.13 61 120 100

3 T 8 1.19 56 65 54

25 Miss. River jiM 25 M 8 7 67 130 100 Bridge Approach 11P1 P 14 0 68 125 98

26 Miss. River hR 25 It 8.6 1.04 81 150+ 100 Bridge Approach liP2 . P 14 0 81 110 73-

C Ui

V 0 0 -J

0.5

0 U.

0.. ---Jointed Pile

40 VS

0 Single Pile

00 -0------ 0 -

30-

: 7?o

0 1020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Actual Failure Load, tons

Figure 1. Results of pile tests, Port of Gothenburg (after A. Bergfelt).

1.5

9 Tapered pile, sensitive soil (St )10)

Tapered pile, insensitive soil (St (10)

Cylindrical pile

Prismatic-pile

- 0

2 0 V

C - 0 U

- C - C -- P4 0 C 0. 0

V C 0 0

4 1

C

9 0 C 0 z

Approx. region for W. Atchafoloya tests

Laboratory Shear Strength, tons/sq ft

Figure 2. Comparison of field and laboratory shearing strengths, pile tests in saturated soft to medium clars.

23

Years

-x

'-Days '5— -

S—s-K/ K

I K—K

Reinforced concrete square Section pile (No.1)

5 10 15 - 2000ys 2 3 Years

Set-Up Time, days or years

025 ons/sq ft cone test - — -

Timber pile cased with steel (No.5)

o Timber pile (No. 7)

24

0.3

0.2

0.1

C

CP C 0

U) ,0 0 0 C U,

- 0.3 0

U

0.2

0.1

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Set-Up Time, days

Figure 3. Influence of time on ultimate capacity, piles at Gothenburg railway station.

___0.3to/sq ft

0.32 tons/Sq ft Vane

Vane Hwy.

Rwy.

0.23 tons/sq ft unconf. lest

0 Monotijbe pile (No. 4.5)

Timber pile (No.5)

u Timber pile (No.4) /

( 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Set- Up Time, hr.

Figure 4. Influence of time on ultimate capacity, piles at Sand Point, Idaho.

0.4

a 0

0.1 0

U

0.2

25

-PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION Cipjpinrid ()hit

DATE DRIVEN 15 -20 April, 1942

DATE TESTED47-2.9' April ) 1942.

HAMMER TYPE f-eprn- Vu/cnn WJ

WEIGHT lb

STROKE 3 ENERGY i.c.00b SLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE fri

PILE DIMENSIONS M447 .1N14 frl.17J4I4 fr141-JJ14 M.s3A - FAfI2

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LENGTHM4*7C M41772

M*19- 73' M4,F3ii-75'

••••••••••• •

• •

I i

!I i • 4 I r •

•

• 4 p

'' r__ IIEI

•

.

.•

ii•uuuuu iuu•••uu iuuuuu•u uu•uiuuu•iuu•u•••u uuu•uuu

• Iu•u•uI ••uui•uu•u.••••.a i...u. uu•i•u•uu•r•uuuiu I•m umiau••••u•u••i•

tII

MMMIHNMMM .••....•.•.m••.•.• ••tau. •••• u•••• •••••uiuum••• •••u•••uuim••w•u••u u•uuuuu•u•ituui ....B,•• uuu••u••••uuuu••• •••••••

••u•u•uuuuuuiiiiu••iu MMMMIKMEM IUUUQU

••uuuu•uu•iu.nu.. ••uuii•••. •••uu•u• ••••••••

MMMMMMMMMM ..•a... •••••••••• UI......

Huff ii SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

L0,D-5E7- 7'1_EME,'JT Ce,/Es 1jI9 CLEVELAND M0107vES

Figure 5. Load-settlement curves, Cleveland Monotubes.

z 0.

I-K

a 'U -J

.5

U C

2.0

C a

2.5 E a

a 3.0 '

3.5

580 - - -

560 - - -

540 --

520 --

500 --

480 --

460- -

440 -

4.5 0

-Th -------

AREA A

2 43

Pile I 2 3 4 Ground Elev. 591.1 593.1 590.8 591.0 Point Elev. 466.3 482.8 464.8 473.0 Length, ft 124.8 II 0.3 126.0 118.0 WoIl thickness,in.0.312 0.312 0.312 0.312 Hammer OR-V OR-V OR-V OR-V Days before test 29 12 13 17

\6

Pe 567 _Ground EIev. 580.5 579.7 580.5

Point EIev. 409.9 420.2 469.0 Length, ft 170.6 159.5 111.5

_Wall thickness,in.0.3O9 0.309 0.309 Hammer 800-V 0-V 0-V Days before test 12

Ef

0.

ULS

'.5 U C

C

E

U, 3.0

3.5

4.0 420 - - - 4.0

W 1, - - - 14.5 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 501001500 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Load, tons Blows/Ft Load, tons

Figure 6. Load-settlement curves, Cleveland pipe piles.

- PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION Ri,rnsid Ia. OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN L pt./95Jcf.I95

CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED 2tP 5pf L5,r­ 20-2.3 Ot TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE5+nm_V,,Jc,,n#I - R,mônd 16 PILE TYPE Arm.-ô - aynnd .1'tep7pr

WEIGHT T-in 1b, 650016- PILE DIMENSIONS jp"Aiô - A ±)p

STROKE . 3ct. butt lông

ENERGY 1ôa0 44-1b 19..500 1Ib. WEIGHT

BLOWS PR. MIN. DRIVEN LENGTH RO

FINAL PENETRATION EMBEDDED LENGTH_

?UUUI••U•UUU• ,

m p

Ph r i

nr11U

,

,

imu•uuuuui•muuuu iu••uuu• ••••mmuu•u•••u•m• uu•mmu• mum uurn.•iuPr!uu uiuuuuu•• mm•muuuumm••ruuuu• iu•u••••um UI••••••••••••••••• !•UUU aruu••uu

muum•um ruuiiuuu• uuuuuuu ••••u•u•uuuummm.uu.m ...........•••••.••. ..........••••.••... suu•uii•u ................i.. muu•mm ••••••••m•u•••u••••• uu•uiiu• ••umuu•uiumu••u•uuu. _•••••••u•• .......... .....m.. .......... ........ .......... mu...... ••uuuuuu ........ ........

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 7. Pile test data, 80-ft piles, Burnaide, La.

-PILE TEST DATA-

28

LOCATION Stirn-idp La. DATE DRIVEN 29 .pt/9S -R ()-* /9

DATE TESTED3-I Or+19gC. /-17O*. /

HAMMER TYPE.5Mnm-V1..n1 - is WEIGHT •c000 th STROKE 3ff. 31:1 ENERGY IRoOol-Ib. ig.sooft- Th. BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY

PILE TYPE Armeri- Rnynnnd .4p7pr PILE DIMENSIONS /2 d ia

81ip /51" buff 36 , /ofl,

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH 9O

EMBEDDED LENGTH &

U,

z U z

LOAD (TONS)

'no

lmmmmmw~11~7.

TEST 0. M - - mo, m•u•••uu••uu rA

•

p 4 pj • 4 I I I p

___ ia

••uuiuiauuu••i lu...... ..uu...uuuuuuuu•u u*uuuuuuu uiuuuuuus uuuuuii•uuuuu•uu uuuuu•ua uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u•uuuu IIIL!••UUU .u....•....u.uu..u.. uiuuuu•u iuuuuuiuuuutuuuuu muruuuuu uuu•uuuuuutuuuuu•uu• 'u•iiuu•um •••uu••..•.......... iuiiuuuu ........•..••..•..•. uuuuuuu .................... u•ru uu•uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu• u.u.i.u. .uu...

••••..•............. uuu..uuuuuu•uuuuuu uiuuue ••••••••.u.••••••••• i•uuiiuu II1IUN• .u..... __________..••••uu•• muuuw uu.uuum•uu uruu .•••...... u•uuuuuu•u

0111111 SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 8. Pile test data, 90-ft piles, Burnslde, La.

I. C

29

-PILE TEST. DATA-

LOCATION R.,rnsJ, La. DATE DRIVEN ?I-22 5ep+. 1S

DATE TESTED 27 SPpt bn 5 t I95

HAMMER TYPE S*ôm-V,,!rnr, *1 WEIGHT Tnein Lb. STROKE 3 ct. ENERGY I5.o.h-ih.

BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY

PILE TYPE Timhr

PILE DIMENSIONS 7"tip P." huH 40' long

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH 40 EMBEDDED LENGTH 40'

uum•a•uu•a•

PPA p 4

• ,

• C !

I

__ riffza FH ia

.

.,

PA•F•UU•U•U uu•uuuuu•u•iuuuuu• I.......

uuuiuuuuu•uu•uu NUUUU•UU auuuuuuu•uuuui

••••••••••••••••••

uuiu•uiuuuu•uuuu•• ••••••••a••••u••••••• I •U••UU•••U••iU•U••uu• I U•U•N•U ••••uu•u•iu•uuuuuuu••

UUUUS - •U•I••••U•U•••UU• •••••••••u•iiiu•uuu iuuuu•• uuuusuu•uuiu•u•uuu• tuuu•uu u•••uu••iu•u•u••••u tu••uu• ..•....••........... U1U••U• .......... •••u•u•u

••••UUU U.N.....

UU.U•UUUU U.N.....

11111111 SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 9. Pile test data, O-ft timber piles, Burnside, La.

0.2

i.e

-PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION R,irnith I n.

DATE DRIVEN 21 Sept I95i

DATE TESTED - 27-?.g pt. 1S56

HAMMER TYPE sSüm Vu/c.nn Op l WEIGHT .coaô lb.

STROKE ENERGY 15000Ib. ft- BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____

CONTR ACTOR

TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE Y,mher

PILE DIMENSIONS 7"#ip 14'bti& - A #ip ic" bufl---

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH O

EMBEDDED LENGTH

TEST 1_0AD (TONS) ism, =~

••••••• PA

ii I

J •

t I' r ,

iim;

dEJ1

Ir

E'E

___

___

,

-

EMEMEM .m•u...muuuu•ui•u

u...u•u•••u•• ........ U.UU.UUU•U•.... ......i

IMMMMMMMM u••u••ti••a•uu•• iu••u•••

i•UU••• uu•i•uuuiu••i•uuu

•••uu•u•uuuuuuuuu '•••uuu••••••umu•ii•u• uuau•uuuummu••u• •••••U•U••••ULIU• vu...... u•ui••uu•••••uu•n•u uuu•uuuuuuiu•urn•u iauu••a

••uuu•uu•u•u••u•tu• i•uu•u UU•U••U•UUuUUU•••• iiuu•••• uii•••uuu i•••uuuuu•uuuu•uuu•• usuu•a•

U•••II•UU• ••uuuiiuuu• ii•••uu uu•iu••u• u•u••u u•uuiu•u•u ••ii•uu•u

uu•uiuuuuu UU•U•U•

HiHiI SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 10. Pile test data, 50-ft timber piles, Bprnside, La.

31

- PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION ArØanne ) In. OWNER DATE DRIVEN 21 NOv, 195- CONTRACTOR DATE TESTED 19-20 Dec. 19 TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE t1diernen-Tèrry 58 PILE TYPE F WEIGHT _____________________________ PILE DIMENSIONS In" Pipe wall

STROKE ENERGY 2.onô f-Ib WEIGHT_40.5

BLOWS PR. NIH. _____________________ DRIVEN LENGTH 2.

FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH

11--c

.

. p

.2

• p I pi

F a • [4 '

'

4.7

3.1

4.3

114

•

.,

.

.9

u••••••••••••••••• ••••••m. iuu•u•i uuuuu••u

MMMMMMMMMM•u••uuu•u•ia••uu•u uu...0 uu•..•••uuui•••••• UU•UU•U uuuuuuu•uu•u•uu•a• uu•u••uuuuuiui•a... ••u•uuu•u••u•i•uuu uuuuu• uuu••uuuu....•i••uu uuiiuu• u••u•.u••uuuu.iuuu.• mmmmummm ••22UU•••U•U•U•ii•UU2 •••••••• u•uuu•uuuu•a•ii•u•• .••..... ••••uu•u••i•••iiuuu• mmmmmmmm ••u•••iuuu•uuiuui mmmmmmmm ••••• ..........I.... ...••... mmmmmmmmmmil 2•U•UU••

....... ••••••••

mmmmmmmmmm U•UUU•• •

.iuIuu.mi SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

wo ngaturnl cpntsnt - V. dry we,9hf un,,n(i,.pA C prPiv trnp1i -_ Jç1Z

Figure II. Pile test data, pipe pile 3, Argonne, ill.

-PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION Argrnne III. OWNER DATE DRIVEN 26 Dec. 1956 CONTRACTOR DATE TESTED .2 Jan. 13S7 TESTED BY

32

HAMMER TYPE Mkernva-Terry 56

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY 26.5

BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

PILE, TYPE t PILE DIMENSIONS k'Pi'pa c€S wall

WEIGHT 40.5 pif DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LENGTH

O2.

757 ••••••••••••••••• .

.

• V 4 • !A I

4 I • •

I I !4 I

. 3.9

.

39

54

3.9

4.3

•

.. .

- .1

......•.•........ U•IUUU• ••••••rl!••••••••••• ..•.... •••••••••••••••.•.•. iu•uuu•• UUUU•U ••.••...••.••.•••.•

'i•••u••u•u•iuuiu•uu I•••UIU•••I....I...• iuui••a• •••uu•uuu••••uiiu•ui •••u•••uu•••uiuu••u i•u••u•uuu••uii•u•u ..••I•. •••.•I•..••••••II..I. UU•UIIU• ••••••uu•••••ni•••• •••••••• U••IIII•U•••IUtUIUI I••IIu• .III..iI..I...ui...u , IUIU••U mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmim II...... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm mm mmmmmmmmmm IUIUI•••

.II..•••II II...... •••••••• mm ••••••••

11 T II•••I.. '1 ..••.I•I

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

'.J= nptural .,pfer cnntent- % dry wiet4 f7f

Uflon4ned rmprPni 'ch-ei'th, #ofl5/f42

Figure 12. Pile test data, pipe. pile l, Argonne, Ill.

0 0

.9 a- CL

0. - a_ 0 C C

0 0 > C 0

C 0 C

2 Co zo 0— -

33

0.9 U 0

0 0.8 0 0 0.7 0

0.6 0 0 -.. 0.5 0

0.4

.2 0.3 0

0.2

0.1

p Soft to, medium____ Note: Ordinates indicate actual

cIO)iS A shear capacity, of piles divided

(Fig. 2)1 by capaity calculated as prod- -' .L._.. o

CL - uct of laboratory shear strength

and embedded area of pile.

p

.91 oe

0 I 2 3 4 5

Unconfined Compressive Strength, tons/sq ft

Figure 13. Actual and laboratory shear strengths as function of laboratory strength.

1/0

-PILE TEST DATA-

LOC All ON L /'YCOL4', 4'4544

OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN

CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED._ TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE VIIL C4A/ "\' PILE TYPE WEIGHT _____________________________ PILE DIMENSIONS STROKE ENERGY

WEIGHT BLOWS PR. MIN.___ DRIVEN LENGTH____________________ FINAL PrNETRATION

EMBEDDED LENGTH

1r_Iw._lt

______________

. U U U

I I

7J4

___

IA I_

- ------

u i

- __ pi.

,

-

-

-

........ iuuui•••• uUUU•u• •••UUUU•

U.UUUUUIUUN!UUUlU UUUUUUU• IU.U.iIUUUUUUUUU• U•U•UU•• mWEEMMINEWOMMENEM •••••••u :uui•muuuuuuu ••U••••u lu...... ••••iu•suu•uu••uuuuu

AMMINIMMEN iuu•uu•

.•.•u...u.......... ZMEMEMEM ••••••••u••••••••••• mommommm u•••u•uuu•uui•••u•

..•....... UuU•uuu .U•....... IU•U•UUU -•••....... UUU•UUU•

REMARKS. - - - -

e-QPN/t;'I8-45' Aoobe SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

34

Figure Jii-. Pile test data, 0-Street Viaduct, Lincoln, Neb., I.

0.5 0 U

U z Z 46

I1

- PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION Li"JcOz,V, NAcr4 OWNER DATE DRIVEN CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE '.4'V /VO. / PILE TYPE

WEIGHT _____________________________ PILE DIMENSIONS STROKE ENERGY WEIGHT.___________

BLOWS PR. MIN.___ DRIVEN LENGTH__ FINAL PENETRATION

EMBEDDED LENGTH

.••••••••••

II ii

m

'II

.___

I__

p..

,7'- __ ___ ___

___

__ ___

-

.

-

••• ........ u••uu••u

.•uui..nu•uuuui iiu•uu•u •••ii•m••uuuuuu iuu•uu•u ••u••rni.wuuuu•uu• IUU••U•U

øuiuu• .................... .....u.....I....•... ••u•uuu•ui•uuu•••uu• 'iiii•u.. mu•uuu•u••uu•uuui•u uuuuu••u

•••uu•iuuuu•iuu••ii IMUUU•• IMMENSE

MMMMMMMMmM •••••u•• .......... MENEEMEN

-z

_____ .uuu•u

UUUUU: SOURcE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 15. Pile test data, 0-Street Viaduct, Lincoln, Neb., II.

z zo

2.6

-PILE TEST DATA-

i c' TN 7g,qc4'4.v

LOCATION ,9uJ7t'AJ

DATE DRIVEN DATE. TESTED -_____________________

HAMMER TYPE WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY BLOWS PR. MIN.___ FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT___________ DRIVEN LENGTH. EMBEDDED LENGTH

pI Ø' J

Pii I !1

a' -

u......, •••U•U ,.....• amommoms ....... r•u••

UUUU.UUiUUI••UUU•i LU•UUEffiffiCEEM uu•iwu•uiuii••uuiuu uvuuu• iti• •••••••••••......... iuuu•u•uuuu••uu•• ••••uuusuu•i•uuu•u•• •••••

.U......••.•UU••U• ••U•U••• ....a..u••u•uu••u• ••••••. MENOMINEE

..UU.U.UUl.....UU... .u•u•• sommoomm •••••..... ••••u••••• •••....... MONEENNO ..••u••• ommommom

II...... SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

36

Figure 16. Pile test data, Buffalo Interchange, Houston, Tex.

03

U z

37

- PILE TEST DATA- oL.ozad- r R.IV--R 59/ a

LOCATION 6M4M8F.?S O'Nfl', 7X4..5

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED

HAMMER TYPE Vai.c4N MO. /

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT___________ DRIVEN LENGTH......

EMBEDDED LENGTH

IEU!- I • I, mmu•uui •

PAP 1

U =

PA

PA

PA

04

hli

MI

__

-

-

-

i••i •u••u u•••u•u •••u••rna•u•••••uu• MMMMMMM 1•••UUU• ................a•. mmmmmmmm i.................. MMMMMMMM •••U.U.•UUUU••••U•UU UUUUUUUU

uuuu•••u MEMEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMM uu••uuuuu•u••u.uu AMMMMMMM mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm iuuu••• .uuumuuuu•uuiuuuuuuu ...............•••. jammmmmmm

mmmmommmmmmmmmmmm niu•uuuu• U••••••UUU••U•U•U•U• IH UUUU•U

U....U.U.0 ..U.... UU•UUU•UU MMMMMMMMMM 4fl

I SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 17. Pile test data, Old and Inst River, Chambers County, Tex.

- PILE TEST DATA- ea.4Dw4y 0vR'.4.ss

LOCATION CociA#C,. 8441cs TOW.4

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_________________

HAMMER TYPE V01_C4A./ A/a., WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY

BLOWS PR. MIN.

FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT___________

DRIVEN LENGTH_

EMBEDDED LENGTH

p 4

u__

__ -

-

-

-

-

NORSEMEN US ........: ........ u.....u.... umuuuu• mu...... .....uu•••uuuuu•miu .•.•.....•......... ........ u.u..uu...m.uuu.... 1UUU•uuU uuuuuuuuuuuiiuuiuuuu lu...... uuuuuuuuuimuuuumuu iuuuuuuu

ruu•uu• u.uuu•uuuuum•uuuuu ruuuuuu• uuuuu.uuuuuuuiu•uuu iiu•u•u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuauuuuu iuuuu.0 uuuuuuuuuuuuumuu•uu uiuuuu u.uuuu.uuuuuuuuuuu .v...u. LUUU•U uu.uuuuuuuuumuuuuuu

ENRON -uuuuuiuuu EWEN uu.uwuuuu IU••GI•U .uuuu•u .u.uuuuuuu .......... mu...... - ...u.... ........ ...uu.-.. SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

38

Figure 18. Pile test data, Group I. Broadwa' Overpass, Council Bluffs, Iowa.

,'

39

- PILE TEST DATA- B,?OAD W4 Y

LOCATION ai's 10i.v4 DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE

WEIGHT Imirlankf C

OWNER_____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS

ENERGY ____________________________ WEIGHT_____________________________

SLOWS PR. MIN. DRIVEN LENGTH

FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH

u••auu••••• U

PAP

-

.

.-

FrlrA

___

t =

-

,

-

••••••• iUUUUl•U UUUUUUUU

......usui•i•• •••••••• UUUUIUUUUUUU•UUUUU U•UU•UU

UU &UUP 'U•••••UU .zi•••u UUUUUU U•UUUUU MONSOONS

•••••u•uiu iu IUUUUUUUU - mmommomm tUjU.

UUiUUUUSUU UI1UUU*! iimuuu

iuu•u•i•iu•uuuu• IIUUUu•• UUUU•UUU ]1 U•1•UUU• • UUU)IUUU UIIIUU•U• UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UU'EU UUUUUUU•UUUlUEUUU• UU•UUUU u••i•uui••uuuuu••i UUIIUUUU

••U•I.U..U..UUU.U... ...r.. ••u••• UU•.U..... .U.....0 U•iU.....

UUUIU..U.0

MENOMINEE momommom ..UU..U.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 19. Pile test data, Group II, Broadway Overpass, Council Bluffs, Iowa.

QZ5

U) w I U z zosz;

/00

- PILE TEST DATA- 8n'04l WA y c7 c'4s

LOCATION COL/A/C/L LZW4

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE V1Lc4N N. /

WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY

BLOWS PR. MIN.

FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT___________

DRIVEN LENGTH__

EMBEDDED LENGTH

• F27/

___ __ __

__

/

-

,

.. -

! •••j•rJ••• 'U......

auu•u•uuuuuii U•••••• UUUUUiUU'3J••UUU

u•u•••••uu•&sr ....••• 1UUUUUUU ii...... i;u•uu

....I...•••1•....... uis••••u ••u••u•uuiu••u••u•u U••UUUU•UUUUIU.•U.. U•UUUUU LIUIUU: SOON ...........••.•••.. •••••••••••••••••.•• .......... mmmmm

•••••••••• ••••••• .......... mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm ..•.....

- - I

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

40

Figure 20. Pile test data, Group III, Broadway Overpass, Council Blul'fs, Iowa.

Z 0.54

41

-PILE TEST DATA- 4S'1'.4 W4 Y 2Ve'I?4 5.5

LOCATION CoA/C'L 'w4 OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN ________________________ CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED TESTED BY—

HAMMER TYPE V4L4,/ iVo./ PILE TYPE

WEIGHT PILE DIMENSIONS STROKE ENERGY

WEIGHT___________ BLOWS PR. MIN..__ DRIVEN LENGTH_.....

FINAL PENETRATION

EMBEDDED LENGTH

tA ,_. __ i i

w' __ - - - -

- __ __ __

-

,

,

•

UU•UU•••

IUU•U••U ••U•UUUU•RUUU••UE? iuuuuuu• u••uuuuii•iui••••uu ••••••••••U••••••••U IUU•U••• m•••au•••uui iuu•uuu ....•.............. ••uuu•uuiuu••u•••••• iuuiiuuu ..........••..••u.. iuiu••uu•uu•••u•uiu mm ••••UUIUU••U•U•LUUI ikIUUU•• uuuuu•uuu•u••uuuuu iuu•u•uu•u•uu•u•n•. u••••ii•u• NINE ......... so u••i•uuu .......... mmmmmmmm

........0

mmmmmmmm 1 SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 21. Pile test data, Group IV, Broadvay Overpass, Council Bluffs, Iowa.

___

-

.,

,

........ •••••..• ••••••• mommumms

ENESEEME ..uuauu•u•u•v•uu•uu MEREENNE asommoso uuuu...•.uuuu•au•• u•uu•u••uuu•••••iu .••u

MENOMINEE •••uuu•uuuuu•i••••u •••••• ........

MEMMEMEMME sm MMMMMMMMMM iu• •• •• •••••••... 1••l••U •••••..... MMMEEMON .•••..... momommom

I MONSOONS

2.0

i.O

-PILE TEST DATA- .3go,vao4 04,i11

LOC AT I ON Los 9N - L Es Cot'Nr, c'Az ,

DATE DRIVEN DATE TESTED

V11LC4N N'./ ' HAMMER TYPE Me it V41V- 7E,?A' /053 WEIGHT 911ranit r

OWNER_____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE PILE DIMENSIONS

ENERGY ____________________________ WEIGHT_____________________________ 8LOWS PR. NIH.. DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH

42

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Figure 22. Pile test data, Sepulveda Dan I.

I

1.00

43

- PILE TEST DATA- ..5 ff.tiL YffZ7.4 £44-7

LOCATION 4NEc OWNER____

DATE DRIVEN CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY

HAMMER TYPE IE,c'N4w-726wRrJO83 PILE TYPE WEIGHT PILE DIMENSIONS CTDAII r

ENERGY ____________________________ WEIGHT__________ SLOWS PR. MIN. DRIVEN LENGTH_ FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH

-

__

__

-

-

-

•

UiJU wuuuu r•uuuu•

u•••wiui•u ••• ................... ...... ••U•U•US•U••UU2• .".. iuuu•u•u••iuu•uau•

MENOMINEE •••••t •••uuu••u•uu••••u••i l•I1UUUN uu•u••••uiui•••• u•vi•u amoffi- .......; u••i••i •••••••••• ••uuu•ui moommommom ••uuu••ui uuuui•.i - - - ••u•uuuuu

u•uuuu• I SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

O,J w U

Figure 23. Pile test data, Sepulveda Dais II.

0.5

(A

T U z Z /0

- PILE TEST DATA- LOCATION /v'oe/LE, 44.84A,1.q OWNER____

DATE DRIVEN 2. J,4M CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY-

44

HAMMER TYPE Vi/cci' A/'. /J'O.q WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY

BLOWS PR. MIN.

FINAL PENETRATION

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS_

WEIGHT

DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LENGTH

2.0

-

'

-- __

,

-

., -

........ •••••••u ••••uuuuu••uuu••• 1•U•U•• •••uu•uii•u•u•iuuu u.uuuuiiuui.auuuu•. ••uuu••iuiiui•uuu•uu• uui••iuiuuu•uu•• mmmmmmmm uuiuu•m•ii•uui•ui•i mmmmmmmm uuiuuii•iiu•u•u•uuu

••••UU••HUIUU••U•••U La...... ••••uua•uuuuauuuu•u•• xmmmmmmm II....UUN.IIU.U.....0 UUUU• ••auu•••iiiu••••umu•u mmommmmm sommmmmm ua••uuu•n•ii•a••u•a•u ..........,I.•.••••.. mammomma mmmmommmmmiimmmmmm uuau• uu•uu•uuiiu••u•uu•u iu•uia•• mmmmmmmmmmiimmmmmmmmm iuu•••••••a

mmmmmmmm !I•U•U••ULR mmmmmmm limmmommmmm 1•a• REMARKS.

- _ -_ - -. .......• ........ ........ 1•••UUU• SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

FiEure 2. Pile test data, Mobile, Ala.

45

--I-- friction coef. sand on steel

fs" friction coef. sand on sand

i-- - - p "av. lateral pressure on embedded portion of pile

I (a) 14"BP

b p.(2x 14f 1 + 2 x 14 fs) L 1051

14" BP (b) 16" BOX

p.(4x 16f 1 )L = 86T

Take L"28

From (a) 28f 1 + 28fs 3.75/0

(b) 64f1 " 3.07/p f, "0.0480/p

f 5 "0.0862/p

fs 0.0862- 18

0.0480 16"BOX

Figure 25. Analysis of frictional resistance, Mobile piles.

300

0

0 C,)

U a a

20(

Not loaded to failure

0.5 - 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Taper, percent

Figure 26. Piles in sand, influence of taper.

200 U 0 a 00 0.! Not loaded to failure

"A

*

C 100

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Taper, percent

Figure 27. Piles in sand, Council Bluffs tests, influence of taper.

z

0.5

- PILE TEST DATA-

LOCATION Pue#to de H,'erro Vpnez,,pIi

DATE DRIVEN priI - J,nie /948

DATE TESTED ..4pril - June /948

HAMMER TYPE i1cK,ernün 7rry 58

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY a5.oô ff-g?

BLOWS PR. MIN._.-_..- FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE - _I - U w ith

PILE DIMENSIONS /4 BP /17

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LENGTH 40 HL4

C" is - 1

.00.1-1,

' I

.

.

iiuu••uu• riu•uuu•

uuui•iuumu••••uuu ••i uuiiui•i•i•u•sommommomommoommomom u•u•uu•

..

U ii ii ii

j

U

uuiu•••iiu•u•u••u• a••uuu••ui•uuuu••u• u•u•u•uuuiu••••u•m•a •••••••••••••••••••• uui'iriu• mommommommommommom ......••••••••••••I• UINUUU•

u1UUU• .................... ii•ii••u• •••••••••••••••••••• nuu•ui mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm iuu•uuuuuu•uu••u• ii••au .......... .......... .....•.. ..u....... u••uu•u

•••••••••• 1U•UUU•• .......•• SAMENESS

I ........ - -- — Uk LLIIHJ

SOURL OF INFORMATION FILE N. Heh. Co A- LôRI-7

r.i

Figure 28. Pile test data, influence of lagging on E-pile.

7.5

I

I

i i • i , I i 4 U

U

I U

J1 iai

p__

I__

Ii

-

-

,

RUi5U•UUU••• .•R•U• uu• bi iuuu•u• ...UUUUU u••u•u• ....... ....... u•••uuuuuuiiu••u uuuiuu•••u•um••u••• NEEMEMEN u•uuuu•i•ai•iuuuu••• ••ma•••••u•u•iiuuuu•• ••••u•••••••uu••••• miu•ua••u ••uu•u••••••m•••uu• uu••••ai•••mu•••uu iu•uuuu

mmMMMMMM ..........••....... ...............•.... 11U••••• .................... iu•u•uiu• uu.u•uuuu.um•i•uuuu ...m..... -•uuuii•u•••

••U••••••• .......... ....U...0 MRSOMMEN -

____________________ - uuuuu••

47

— PILE TEST DATA — 'Ve'w 0,-/e,z5, LQ'.

LOCATION o-½ eoadAVe,7ue 0ve,-as.s

DATE DRIVEN DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE Vv/Cc/'2

WEIGHT

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE 7 '? PILE DIMENSIONS

ENERGY '° th.. WEIGHT__________________________ BLOWS PR. MIN. ______________________ DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH 52

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. 1

a&oqt 50'0p4t?

Figure 29. Pile test data, New Orleans, S. Broad Ave., I.

co

I U

! os

— PILE TEST DATA— Nei.v-/eos, L

"½ LOCATION So Oad4 ,7ae. 01-5 OWNER

DATE DRIVEN ________________________ CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED- TESTED BY—

HAMMER TYPE Vu/cern PILE TYPE 72 "' WEIGHT PILE DIMENSIONS alronvff

ENERGY I-0000 -fl -I&E WEIGHT_________________________ BLOWS PR. HIM. DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH_53'

• I • • • I

U

I

IaJ .j

___

,

u••••• iu••uuuuu•••u•• ••••••a• ......mii...uu•u•i• ••••••• 'ui•u•u• uuui••uii•u••u••ui ...... ••uu..m.u.u••u•uu iu•uu•• •••i•••uuuuuuu••• iii•••u•• uuuuuuu••iu•uu•• iiuu••uuu ...................

••••••••••••••••••• •••••uu••uu•umiii•••• •••u•••u•uu•iiiiuuu• iuuuuu•. iuuu•.•• ••••u•••uuu•u•ii•uu MEMEMEMM uu••••••uuuuuiii••uu .........u...•..... l501 IIUHI•••• UUUII•UUU UUIiI .•m•••u p••• .uu•iiu••i• I!U••UUU - -

I4TIt4. - -MK i•uu

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.

Piles abot,fr 5o'a,oarf

Figure 30. Pile test data, New Orleans, S. Broad Ave., II.

48

z zo

0.5

49

-PILE TEST DATA- ,Vw Cr/es L Q

LOCATION rocd.Av'rn

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED-

HAMMER TYPE V,/co No. /

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY 8LOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER _____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY.-.

PILE TYPE 1:A1; £,'? PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LENGTH'() 5'1 .cpfR)

• • • •

• •

A • • • •

00A

I p

..

I..

.

.

.

...

.

..

-

-

,

,

-

uuuuuu•• ;u•uu••uu••u ui•u•••u•

iuuu•u•• iuuuu••••

••uuu•u ••i•u••u•u •••u•••••wuiiuu••••• ••suu•ui••uiii•uuu•ui u••••uuu•iutu•uu•uu ii••u••u muu••••ui•uu.u....•u iiiuuuuu• fIUU•UU•

• u••c••iu••iuuuuu•mommommmmmilmomommomm ••••u••uuiu•u••ms•u miiu••u•u •••UU•U•i•IIU•iU•••• ULIUU••U •••••••••••u••••••••• su•••uu••uiuuuu•••u mommmmmo

..•...•••••••I••• ••• •••••••••• •••r•

u•m .•.•••••• •••••••••• MININSONEW

P-

Iv_1 NOMENE06i~ mMMMMMMM

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. 3

P//es w/th,h /oo'øc,-c/e

Figure 31. Pile test data, New Orleans, S. Broad Ave., III.

/0

I.-z III

w 1

-PILE TEST DATA-

50

New Or/eri, Za. LOCATION 5o't4, 8,-,cd Ave,we dye

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE Vi/cczi A/cl

WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY /4000

SLOWS PR. NIN.

FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT

DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LENGTH

0.5

p

I • • p 4 p I I I U

.

..

-

,

•

-

ii••u•uuuu• NONSENSE comommom iiiiu••••u ••••uuu•uuiu••uu• uii•••u••u u•uu••uuu•uii•u•••• MENOMINEE

••••u•u•u•u•rnuuuauu uuiu•ui••u•uuri•u•• •••u•••um•••u••u• ••••u•u•u•••••'•u•••• ffmmmmmmm ...mu•••u•uu••••u•u iuuu••uiim•••u••u alsomosm ......ui....•i.a•• DIMENSIONS •••••••••••••••••••• uu•uuuu•i••••u•••ui ••••••••••••••••••••

IUU....UUU.UUU•U•U __________•••••••••• u•••••uu

NESENEENEN iim•u•u•u •••....... IuUU ommmonssmo II!!U••i LiI4YiJ:I

,1 -. - - - - ••UUIUI MENNEEME

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. 4

P// w/Mir, 'oo' crc/e

Figure 32. Pile test data, New Orleazis, S. Broad Ave., IV.

z ,.

51

— PILE TEST DATA — A/'w p/e'c La'.

LOCATION W,s,ie,-011v 0V9P,00SS OWNER____

DATE DRIVEN ________________________ CONTRACTOR DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE / PILE TYPE Al e lf

WEIGHT ______________________________ PILE DIMENSIONS

ENERGY '" WEIGHT BLOWS PR. MIN. DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PENETRATION ________________ EMBEDDED

,.us............. IN

.I

OOA .

•

•

10,

!I

ii

w'

r'a

ig'i ___

ii ___

P

-

-

,,

i•uuuu•iuu ......0 ..••UUU' ••a•••• ................... hU••U••• .................... uu••

p... i•l•UUI•U•U••••U•••

••UU••••U••UU •••••••••••••••• ••uuuw

i••u•w i•u•uu••uuu•••u••••u .....u.........••.. ruuu•

iiiaa•m uu••uuuu•u.iu••...

..•s..... ••uu•uia •••••••u•• •••u•uau •••u•••••• rn...... .......... ••••••u• .....u.

3cc' bel,yee,, 111/3 a,,e P ) /60' bei'wee, fri/S and1fl/4 approx. IPO 'e1'we; .41/4 d P )

SOURCE Of INFORMATION FILE N. 5

Figure 33. Pile test data, New Orleans, Wisner Drive.

0.

Ch w

U z z ,,

-PILE TEST DATA- A/ew LQ.

LOCATION OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN ________________________ CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE

WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY

BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

PILE TYPE P R PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LEi4GTH ?' P9 - 94 RIO 9a'RI1 -92M17

P

I

___

__

. __ __

..

..

-

•

.

--

#e

........

-

•••••••a u•iuu.iu• ••••••••

••••••••

........ l!U•U••U•U••UUIUI uu•uuus

••••••••••••••••• ••u•iuuu•uuumurnuu• ••uui•••uuuu•uu••••u

uuu••••m:iiuu•uu• uuauuu•u•m•.iu.s ••••uuu.iuu.uuu•ui• •••••••••••••••••••• rn••• •••....... .u.••.... au .......... iUU•im

..........

-

.u....... 1••••. uuu.uuuU

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. 6

Pi/e,s w/rni#i 3h0 circle

Figure 34. Pile test data, New Orleans, St. Bernard Ave.

52

z 45

RZ

53

-PILE TEST DATA- Ne

LOCATION Nc,& 8pdAvj'e &',?de,W.ss

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED-

HAMMER TYPE WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY

BLOWS PR. NUN.—

FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE _14 ____ PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LENGTH _ 5'fr1 A? 'M

i•uuiuuu..u. uuu•••••u•uu. # II J

iii III iii iii III

IJ ru ii II.

mri ,p1u

,.i__

111FiH

rwI _. II1

iii

1Zf

rm

.

- 1 .

u••••• ........ uumu••i.mu... ••••••u• 1U••••U•

u••u•u• ...0 •••••••u u••uuu•••uuui•uur uuu•••u uuui•••uuu•suuii•uui ••••••••

••uuu••uu•u••••mu••ui uuu••m• uu•uuua.uuucu.uii i•••••••

••uua•••••••ur ••••i•u•••i•iiuuui i•••u••u ••U••U••U•••Ri1UUUI i••••uu i•um•u•uuu•uiu•t•ui •••••••• u•u••ui•••u•uuuui ...........•.••••••• ••UU•..

••••UUU•U.....U..... •••.•a...••...•...•• .•.... u•mu•uiu•uuiu•u••u UU•••UU

•••uiu•uiauauuu•uai• MENOMINEE .........• ... .•••• mosmsommmo •••••.• uu•u••u•u mommmoms .........•

••uuu••uua ••••••••

r tIPTr

— ••uu•u.a

U.S..... SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. 7

Piles 2Z0'opotf

Figure 35. Pile test data, New Orleans, N. Broad Ave., I.

0.3

-PILE TEST DATA- ,Vew O.-/o.c,

LOCATION No,-,h rc'd4ve'we-c,ss DATE DRIVEN DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY - BLOWS PR. 14114. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER C ON T R ACT OR

TESTED BY_

PILE TYPE _____ PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT__________ DRIVEN LENGTH_ EMBEDDED LENGTH

II11iH[s1iLTM4

pp

OVA

pAr

I

__ _-:

__

.. ___ __ __

ri

.•

..

NONE ••u•a•B u•uuuB ••...... •••••u•uu•••muuiiu ONEMEN uuuu•uuiu••uui•s•iiu ••uu••••u•••uumu•rn•

••uuu•uu•••u

MMMMMMMM •••••••• uu•u•u•u•uui•u•miui

••••uu•uuu•u•••u•u•ii •••u•u•u•u•••u•uu•ui

_______

•••••••• iuu••uuuu•••ii•uuu uumuu•• EMMMNMIMMMEMMMMMMM ••••••••

usuuuu••um•iuu•uum

__________••..I..... ...i..... l.a..... a..u•aua a ua•uu•

_____________________ uu•uua

1•l•l•• uauuaa• -

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE 14.8

P//es So'apar I

Figure 36. Pile test data, New Orleans, N. Broad Ave., II.

54

4.

I. £

55

— PILE TEST DATA— New Oc/eav', La.

LOCATION /r?rer iLlrbcr A1av. Ct,a/ DATE DRIVEN 8Oat,d 3/41171ch /94

DATE TESTED P2 to 2/ Mat, /9.4

HAMMER TYPE Vt,Ica-' No.1 WEIGHT e?n

OWNER

CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS

ENERGY J000 c//b WEIGHT_______________________

BLOWS PR. MIN. _____________________ DRtVEN LENGTH

FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH

, g

P • r4 ! pi Ip p dl p " ! p ii

II Fl

• .

.

..

'

..

-

••••••••••••u• IU•U••UU ••••••••a••••••• ••uuuii••iiuumuuuu UUU••N

iuu••uiiuuuiurm•• u•iu•i•uiu•u•ui•uu•

•••uuuu••iiva•••u•uu uuu•. ••u••uu•uii•uuuuuu•u• ••uimuuu•i i••u•••u••u u•uu

u••••u•ui••mu•••u•• •••••••••••••••••••• i•uuuuuuu••••uuuu•i ....... •••••••••••••••••••• ••u•u•ii ......••........... ........ .......... U•U.U•.

UUU.•U .......... urn...... ......... ••••••.• -

14'fl *1•

— .....•.• ........ UUU•• -- --- -- — -- _! -

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.9

P/ks w/hin 2410 circle

Figure 37. Pile test data, New Orleans, Inner Harbor Nay. Canal, I.

- PILE TEST DATA-

56

New Orleans, La, LOCATION /'717et- HOrbOe Afav. Caiia/ DATE DRIVEN /7ar,d/I4rlaPch /954

DATE TESTED

HAMMER TYPE Vti/car, No.1

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY /.opO aLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE Al, E, P

PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LENGTH 7'0E) 74'P

24

he

O

P

I__

I

___

I __

__

__

V

___

V

,

.

'

U;•uuuuu••u h••••UUUU ..•••• ••uu•:u•••u•

MONSOONS iuuu•uau

uuiui•iiu•iiuii..... I%••UUU• ••••••••.u•uiiuu• u•••uu••u.uur••uu• .•••••••••••it..... ..i................

R1I!U•••

u.•u••ui•u•uu••.uu •••••••• ••••u•u

..u.uu. •••••u•• •••••.•U l•II•IlI -y ---- .-. V SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.IO

P//es w,th,,, 24 ' c/re/C

Figure 38. Pile test data, New Orleans, Inner Harbor Nay. Canal, II.

WA

0 II U z

Z 05

— PILE TEST DATA —

5,7

/Vew 0r/ea'xs I', LOCATION f've'-Wdpbo/- Nowga,',o,,

DATE DRIVEN Mor/ 2.9-30,/95

DATE TESTED''W3Z /_4

HAMMER TYPE V/ca'.'i No.2

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY 7.ê6O ft. -lbs.

BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR TESTED BY-

PILE TYPE PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LENGTN' 7

25 so 76 1~11m m.

•

u

r A

2 '

ri

gL1rnll

___

i

,

1

,

-

-..

iuu•••iuumiuui• U•••UUU u••u•u••••u••• Ai•U••U• uurnu••i••uu•uu• uu•••••m uuu u.iuu••uu•••. u••uuuu•

••••••••••••••••••• uuuiu•u••u••u••uu nu•u••uu uuui•uuu•••••••a•• iiuuu••

••uuu•uauuuuiuu•u•u uuau••u ••uu•uiiiuu•uuu•••u• •••uuu•ii...•.u..... u••u•.

•••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••$•••••••• •••• •••••uuu.....u.... UUU•U••••U•R•UU OEM

•••••••••••••a•••••• ••••u••• u••u•uuui•u•i•u•uuu ••u•uu••

•••••••••••••••••••• ..••••..

....u..... uuau•• ••••••••• mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm ........ mmmmmmmmmm

-

-

NEEMENIIIIIIIIIII mmmmmmmm

:::::::: SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.h

P1k5 2ao'opart

Figure 39. Pile test data, New Orleans, Inner Harbor Nay. Canal, III.

! '.c

05

- PILE TEST DATA- New 0, /eO,7$ 4 -

LOCATI ON /il/s$/sS/ppI ?r OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN 4g. 7, Ja,,.2$, 4'g 16 1954 CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED 4og,25, Ocf e, TESTED BY—

HAMMERTYPE 'i'" ''Q/

PILE TYPE WE 10 HI

PILE DIMENSIONS—

ENERGY /O,/b.c WEIGHT________________________

BLOWS PR. MIN. DRIVEN LENGTH _________

FINAL PENETRAIION _________________ EMBEDDED LElGTHR7'ATi —89AM-eAR

r4.

U U U

r4LI

pI ørw1

riii F41

___

•

F!t'i VM

i

-

1

.

,,

........ •••••••u u••uu•u•uuuuu

••••••••••••U••• u•uu••u• uuu•••• iuuuu•uu

uus•uu•uu•••uuuu u•i•u•u••i••i••••u• ••auuu•u•u••uu•uu •••••• u•uuu••uuu••a••uua FLu...... ••u•uu•u•u••uuuuu•m• iu•••• uu••auuuu••muuu• uu••u•u•••uuii•u•u

I•UUU•UUUUUUINUU•UI u••uu•uu••uuii••uu• MENOMINEE ••u•u•uu••uuuuiiuu•u• .u.uu••uu••u•ii••••u uuiuu•u

MEMNON uuiuu•• MEMINN ..u...uu• OMMIMMIMME .......... MEMINIMMON ...•..••. MMIMMINIMMIN

REM 'I " - - I ••uuuI

UU.SUUU UUUUUUU -

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. I

Pi'/ss mtho /2' 0

58

Figure 10. Pile test data, New Orleans, Mississippi River Crossing, Thalia-Bringier.

.......u......

-

0

P

. • 4 p 0 A P

A 0 P ' A 0

A

I r4..

• - MESMERIZE lu...... uuiàuuuuu•uuuuu iuuu•u uuu••u•uu•uuuuuuuuu IINNEEMEN uuuuuuuuuuuuiuuu NONSENSE uuu•.uuuuuuu•u.u.uu iuuuu

uuuu•uuuuuiu••u moommmms •••••••••••••••••• iu••uu• .................... u•uuuu• ..........•........ ...................

MENEEMEN

uuuuuuuuuuauiuuu•i ANNEEMEN iuuuuu urn uu•u•uuu•uuiu•uuu u MM uuuuuuuuuuuuiuuuuu iuuuuuuuuuiiuu•uu• riu•uuuu• uuuuuuuuuuuiuuu•u uuuuuuu• I•MUUUUN MENEM

•••iiUU•• UUuIIUu•N

uuiiuu... MENOMINEE blummmumm I1(1U•U•U .......

_____________

(0

x U z

59

- PILE TEST DATA- New

LOCATION Pe71/i'i Ave 0vecyrc OWNER _____

DATE DRIVEN Nev 6; /QSV

CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED A/QV i

TESTED BY_

HAMMER TYPE Vt,/ccl'7 No, / PILE TYPE . WEIGHT ______________________________ PILE DIMENSIONS STROKE ENERGY

WEIGH BLOWS PR. MIN.—_— DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PEHETRATION

EMBEDDED LENGTH

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. /3

Piles o' apart

Figure 41. Pile test data, New Orleans, Franklin Ave.

w U z Z ,g

I-K 'U I 'U -I

— PILE TEST DATA — New Or/ez.,.s1 L

LOCATlONM/s. ,3 orn 've,- 8"e V,'i,c* OWNER_____ DATE DRIVEN Dec. 293O. /955 CONTRACTOR DATE TESTED_' 94 ''' TESTED BY_

60

HAMMER TYPE Vt'/cc"-, Vo./

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY /.00O FY, Ib.s,

BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION_________________

PILE TYPE Al PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LEIGTH_7f'A 7214

U••••••••••••••• r4 p

FA

___

__

__ JiI

-

-

;,

,.

u•uuuuiuum•••u i!••• iuuu••• iit••uuu UUUUUU..k.U•U•II U•U••U

uu••uuu••uii••u•i•• iiiNUU•U• iu••••u

u•uu•uuu•••uu••u• uu••••uiuuuuu••••

iu•uu••uuu•n•u•r•••u ..... uu•iia ••••U••UU•J•UUulU••

REMARKS.

:4I

••u•u•u••m•uiuiiu.•a ••••n••••

ri••u•riuu•• UI...... - - Al p. 'fl - Ii...... UI......

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE 11.14

P,1e. a&'Qf 550' ol1

Figure 11.2. Pile test data, New Orleans, Mississippi River Bridge Approach, I.

z /2

2.c

61

- PILE TEST DATA- Nw O/eo,..e ia'

LOCATION Pc,r'ver d'rasS

DATE DRIVEN DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY BLOWS PR. MIN._— FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE''9 PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LENGTH 90 5 gsM

B

-6-0 /00 /SO DESCRIPTI113mm

-

.

pj__

IjIP:rLq

r uw

1T

.

..

..

uu••uu.

uuui•uu•uu••uuuuu• ...........s..••••• EMENNIMEMMEMENEEME uuiuuu•u•.u.siu s••uu•uu......u.0 RUMMEMME i•u•••uuuuuuuuu••im ru••uu ••••••••u•••••••••• ••uu•uuuuu••u•u•a••ii u••u•uuuuu••iu•u•ii MWEEMEMN uu•u•uuu•u••uuuuuui u•uuuuu•.uu...u...i uu•••uuuu•uuuu•u.i •••••..... mommommoso

UUUU•UU• mommummm ••u•••uua u uu••uu ••u•uuiuu us...... -

.—

J

SOURcE OF INFORMATION FILE N. ig

P//es w/thb 270'frrIe

Figure +3. Pile test data, New Orleans, Paris Ave.

z as

zo

- PILE TEST DATA- N'w Op/,.g, Le

LOCATION 6'',/4i e/vd.

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_____________________

HAMMER TYPE Vc/c7n N. /

WEIGHT STROKE

OWNER _____ CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY-.

PILE TYPE PILE DIMENSIONS.

ENERGY 'C WEIGHT_________________________ 8LOWS PR. NIN. _______________________ DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PENETRATION . . EMBEDDED LEi4GTH_S4 R1 9'M

dl

!iriwi ri

r. __ -

iri

..

- --

,

--

mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm momensommummmummmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmoveno •••••••• uui•u••muui•u• ..U..U..UU.U...... mmmmmmmm ..••..uu•uuiuiiu•au mmmmmmmm

mmmmmommmmmmmmmmm ........ •••..... ••••••••............ mmmmmmmm •••••••••••••••••••• uu•iu•uu•••muu•••u• mmommamm u••u•uuiu•iiuuuu•iu uru••• .u.....••uuuui•u•• i*•u• ............u......

l••U••U•• UU•U••••• •••....... mmmmmmmmi

•••••••••• u•••••i •••••••••u ••••••••

mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. 16

P//es abpit /20 'apart

Figure 44. Pile test data, New Orleans, Gentilly Blvd., I.

62

U z Z i.e

63

- PILE TEST DATA-

,Ve'w /''.c, La'. LOCATION 6e1`1//q e4c dZISS OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN _______________________ CONTRACTOR DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY_

HAMMER TYPE V ,/ca", A/o/

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY ig,OO/6

SLOWS PR. NIH. FINAL PENETRATION

PILE TYPE Al PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH

EM8EDDED LENGTH

uuuu.u.uuuuu J!

ii1 HIl1

u fi u hF I

$p

pg

• I . U

1I

mi

.v .

fli 1nr

.........•

-

-- - -

-

UIi•uUu• ........ uuuuuuuuiumuuu.uu u••uu uumuuuuuuuummuuuu. uuu

MENNESEN mu......

uuuuuuuumuuuuiiuium uuiuuumuumu•uuuu uuuuuuu uuiuuumuuuuu.umuu. iuu•uuu u••uuuuuuuiu..u..uu •••••u••••••u..••••• riuuuuuu m.um...uu...rqu.uu ..m5...U.I....... MONOMERS uuuuuuuiuuuuuUI uuutu ......uu....mu..uu .u•..m.0 .................uu UU••••U ..........•.•uu.••u• UIU•U•• uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuUI

MMMMMM1MMMM ......... mu...... uuuu.uuu u•u•u.0 uuuu•.uiu uuuuuauu

- u..u.... UUU•

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE Ni /7

Piks obc7Ul a'o'oport

Figure 15. Pile test data, New Orleans, Gentifly Blvd., II.

-PILE TEST DATA-

64

New 0,-c 1'8e//e *oece), L' LOC AT I ON 5'f

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE 'fQy,7O1d WEIGHT

STROKE ENERGY BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY—

PILE TYPE iT

PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH EMBEDDED LENGTH 9.'R3 97'819

W.

••••••.•u......N

I

Ii i II k Ø

..

__

___ __

-

'

........ u...u..••u••u••• u••i•iuu••u•muu ••R•U•U uu•rnui•uu•u••. ••••••••

uu•u•i•uii•i•u•u••u •••••••• uu•u•u•uii•u•u••••• ..... •••

anommoom UUU•5U•U••UU MENOMINEE uu.um.u•u••uuiiu

MENNEENNOMMENEEN uuuuuB ••iuu•uiu••u•u••• ••u••...•.••........ ......... MUNMEMEM MMMMMMMMMM memommom u•u•• u•u t!JUU••UUI •••••••• ••

••••d••I MMMMMMMMMM

I EMEMEMEM

SOURCE OF INFORMATIONFILE N. 18

P//cs 37'0pac*

Figure 16. Pile test data, New Orleans, Belle Chasse, I.

Z 1.0

I- z w

-I

U)

x U z

Z '

I-z w

Ui -I

65

-PILE TEST DATA- iVew Op/e€y,,.s (Be/fe CIas.fe) 4

LOCATION 1c5&'cZ' 1''2OJB' S, OWNER____

DATE DRIVEN _______________________ CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED_ TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE PILE TYPE 7 2

WEIGHT 6500 /bs. PILE DIMENSIONS

STROKE ENERGY ____________________________ WEIGHT

BLOWS PR. MIN. _____________________ DRIVEN LENGTH FINAL PENETRATION _________________ EMBEDDED LENGTH_92

lj

IJ

II

•

pi ;

•

I

I

I

IPJv,'zT;1

Ir"

uI

r4___ I!T21!E

-

.,

- --

UU••U•• ii•uu•uui• UU••••• UU•••U.. UaU••••

iu•u•a uuu•ui mmm ••UUUUl•U.••U.UU 1....... EwmMMMMMMMMMMMMMmMM mmmmmmmm •••miuuu•uuu mmmmmmmmmmoommEmomom UU••U•U• ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoom mmmmmmm

mammmmmm MMMMMMMEEMMMMMMMMEMM mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmummmmmmmmmm UU••I•• mmmmmmmmmmmmumemmmum ommmmmmm a••u•uuiu•.u..rni. ammmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm iu•u•uu uuuuu•uuUU....0 mmmmmmmm

mMMmmMMMmmMMMmmMMMmM zmMMMMMM uua•uuu•uu..•uuuu iu•uu•m

......a...•••••••••• ua•uuu• mommoomm

•••••U•U ••••••u••• ••R•••U ••u••uu aui••uuu. momomamm

••U•U••••• UIUUNI - 'L1;U4_

- - - -

-

mmmmmmmm

- ::::::::

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N. IS

?//e zoo' 00OP)'

Figure 47- Pile test data, New Orleans, Befle Chasse, II.

.5-0 /00 Is I L /0 20 _?0

I

• PJ • g

i

II

__

ui ri

i&i gp'

rii

___

• -

,

-,

'F

•••s•••u••••••••• uu•uu••• uu••uu••iu ••irnuuu•u••• mommmomm m•••u i•uu••uu•u••u•••uu u••.u•• ....•...u••••uu• u.uu•••u sommommo smru•i••ui••u ii...... ••.su.uu•••u•v•u MENNEMEN u••u u••iiu• sommmmom ••u•u•u•u•••uru• NMMMMMMM i•i•uuu•m••••mu MEMNON ••uut•uuuui• •••••••. ••u•••••

moommosomommmoom mosomomm •••............••... smoommon __________•••....... .••....... u••••u MMMEMENEEN :u• .••.......

RIA

SL

z 46

- PILE TEST DATA-

66

,Vew '-/eais(Ø// Cr')L LOCATION 4//- A/o o,,/ 6t''d h&,i,- £i'e

DATE DRIVEN

DATE TESTED_

HAMMER TYPE WEIGHT -O½s

STROKE 3b5.

ENERGY BLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION'_________________

OWNER_____ CONTRACTOR

TESTED BY_

PILE TYPE ______ PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT___________ DRIVEN LENGTH... EMBEDDED LENGTH

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.O

P//es 86',*ar

Figure 48. Pile test data, New Orleans, Belle Chasse, III.

U) w U z

67

- PILE TEST DATA-

44w LOCATION flq-rl- ',e/dc 4y'. Overos.g

OWNER_____

DATE /,/9l

CONTRACTOR DATE TESTED_S6P

TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE Mc p/,,',77'rPg PILE TYPE WEIGHT ___________________________ PILE DIMENSIONS

STROKE ENERGY

WEIGHT

BLOWS PR. MIN.__.___ DRIVEN LENGTH

FINAL PENETRATION

EMBEDDED LENGTH 3 ( d - 5RB

I

E

• .

•

•

.___

I__

ii

4irii.

r2I

I

__

__ iiru ti

rii

/

-

-

,

,

••••••• RUU•UU ........

u•u•ai•aaiuuuuu ••••uu•• 1......

•••••••• ...........ij....... ••••••••..•......... m•uuuu• ••••i•••uiium•iiu•uu ..u........a........ rn••u•u• mommommommommosommon iruuuuu• u..... •••••••••••••••••••• uu••uu uuuu••••uu•ii•••uu• •••uiu•uu.uu••••. U•U •••u•u•uuu•uiu..i.. iuuuui uuuuu•u••ii••i••••• U•UI•UUIU7UUUU••U• im•uu• m••u•••••• ruiuua•

•••••••••• iuuua .a........ ...... ••UU•••••• UULI•

i1TI;U4c_

...•....

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.21 12o' eIvee, C o D /20'OetwccO Sand C 286' be'wee,, 8 aria' 0

Figure 19. Pile test data, New Orleans, Elysian Fields Ave., I.

! O

- PILE TEST DATA-

New -/ees, Lo LOCATION 4514v,, '.e/a& 4v'e. Ove,oa&. OWNER____

DATE D R I V E N CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED1 c,94/(,.iiL Vi9(E),.E$T ED BY -

HAMMER TYPE

PILE TYPE AfLeAl

WEIGHT

PILE DIMENSIONS_ wronatc

ENERGY ___________________________ WEIGHT___________________________

BLOWS PR. MIN. ______________________ DRIVEN LENGTH

FINAL PENETRATION_______________ EMBEDDED LENGTH_ - ' "

um•••u••••ui i u PA

raj

u ,

•

U

u___ P.__

pzii gj1JJ

uuuo ••

.UW1 'FH uj __

I

i

___ __

-

.

-

.

•••••••• u•u•u•••u••••••• ....u•. ••u••••••••••• u.uuuuuu tuuu••uu uiu••uuu •••••••••••••••• uuuuu•uu•vuuuuuuiu L••UUU• ui•uu•uu uuiuu••u ••uuuu•uuuuuuuuuuuuuu iuuuuuu•ui•u•i•uuuuu u.uuu.. UUUUUUUiI••Ui••••U UU• mmmmmmmmmiimmmmnmmmm uu.•u•• ........uu...u...... uuuuuu•uuuuuuu•uu•uu uur••uu •••uuuu•uiuuuuu•u•uu uuuiuu•u• MmMXMMMM ••••u•••uuuu•suu•uu .•••..• uuuu•••u.u••ubau•uu u••iuuu uuuu•uuu•uu•uuuuuuu iu•uuuu uuuuuuuu•u•u••uuu i•uu•riuu

uu•uuuuuu uu•uuu •••u••.••. u••zi• .u.uu.. MMMMMMMM •••••••• • L'cr:-

• a.•••u. uU•UuuU -

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.22

fides #bzn' 4daper/

Figure 50. Pile test data, New Orleans, Elysian Fields Ave., II.

68

5 as

69

-PILE TEST DATA- ,1/ew /ea~ L Oe.

Ave. Overc'o.c.s OWNER____

DATE DRIVEN '' 18,fZ/, 194' CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED 19-V I TESTED BY

HAMMER TYPE A o-7rrçi .95-Z

WEIGHT STROKE ENERGY SLOWS PR. MIN. FINAL PENETRATION

PILE TYPE ' PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LENGTH_Ti

I5U•U•••UU••U•UUU

I

4

p

. U

I __

rEI

FPAI__

i,gj

__

..

..

-

.

,.

MEMNON l.a.....

••••ILUUUUU•U•UU•U• IIMMEEMMEN UI......

i•uuu•u I.u.............i..i. NNOMMEME

EIRMEMENE I............••...uu... ••••• I............,....u... u•iva Iiuuuuuuuuuuiu•uirnua NEENAMEM

mommmomm I......UU...11UlUlUU ••••IlUU 1UUUUlUUllUUUUUU.Ul mmmmmmmm ....................

I I I I

.......... •••••••.

....lu... UI...... u.....I. .......... ........

MMENNOME

U!IUUUU UUUll

UUIUUUUU: 1UU•U II...... MEMMEMEM

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.2

P//es //o'aparl'

Figure 51. Pile test data, New Orleans, Elysian Fields Ave., III.

r-'s"-" 1 k'

• p P1

p 4

1'

• ,

-

-

,

....... UU•U••U: .u.u•••u••••• u•••uiu

iuuuuumauuu•m.. 1U•••••U

rnuuuuuU u•..u•uuuu•ugiu

u.uuuuu....ii•uu••u uua•u•iii••uuu•u• u•••uu••uuuuuuuu• iu••u•• ILL•UU u•uu••uuuuu••u•uu• ••u•u••iuuuutu•u•i•i uuiiuuu• •••••••••••••••••...

__________ u••• UUJ]• un•uu••aa ••ui u•suu uu••• ___

4L1;t4. UUUUU

••.••iU• -

104

5 o"

- PILE TEST DATA- New Or/eo,,s, 4c7

LOCATION " Vvd.

DATE DRIVEN ________________________ CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED._ TESTED BY—

70

HAMMER TYPE ' '/ -,,o7 7 -q No 9-S-3

WEIGHT /b

STROKE ENERGY 7O8 i/A

SLOWS PR. NIN.

FINAL PENETRATION_________________

PILE TYPE

PILE DIMENSIONS

WEIGHT

DRIVEN LENGTH

EMBEDDED LEIGTH 6171 —56'1

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FILE N.24 Piles in llfl

6o'Oe4ve', /oad 3o'telwee,7 2 endS

Figure 52. Pile test d.ata, New Orleans, N.O.N.E. R.R.

a

71

-PILE TEST DATA- New p/es, La'.

LOCATION .'#ve,SrSge 48tea'c4 OWNER_____

DATE DRIVEN °'" CONTRACTOR

DATE TESTED 27ca.c-2a,/9s5 TESTED BY-

HAMMER TYPE ____________________ PILE TYPE MdP WEIGHT PILE DIMENSIONS

ENERGY ic,OOOf/bs. WEIGHT

BLOWS PR. NIN. DRIVEN LENGTH

FINAL PENETRATION EMBEDDED LEhGTH _ 7'

l'Li1T,. I

I d___

4

I

..

__

__

,

,

,..

ia•u•u•••uu.i. i•u••uau uu••uuMWEENEEN ui

alummommm uu••uu•••riuumuu• ••uu••u•uurn.•..... .u•u•.ui ••uu••••uuuiiuuu u•uuuuu•u•iaiau.auu Kjmmmmmmm ••••••••••••It••U•••• uu•u•ii.•uuuu. IU•UUUS•U••IUUUUU•I ammummmm mmmmmummmmmmmmmmm mEmommmm ...uai.I ommmmmommmmmmlommmmmm i•U•U•IUU1IulU••UI su••u•••uiuuiuimi•u• mmmmmmmm

.•uuu..i uuuuu•uui•i,.u.u.. ....... uiu••uuu Emmmmmmm uuiiuu•uaa mmmmmmmm mammmmmmmm ....uI. mmmmom-mmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm

•••••

SOURcI OF NIPORNATION PILE N.Z5

Figure 53. Pile test data, New Orleans, Mississippi River Bridge Approach, II.

5 It:

-PILE TEST DATA- Newp/ca,,,s, 4.

LOCATION MS1SS1PP1 ''" 5'10' '/'P'OC* OWNER_____ DATE DRIVEN OEL2,1955 CONTRACTOR DATETESTED (Z8/9$5 TESTED BY—

HAMMER TYPE V.'/cc#, 'Va. / PILE TYPE WEIGHT PILE DIMENSIONS STROKE ENERGY Lf, 00"'" "• WEIGHT_________________________ 8LOWS PR. NIH. DRIVEN LENGTH_____________________ FINAL PENETRATION

0 EMBEDDED LE4GTH_I '

fS IP!IIW !J

•

ri

I I

ULI 4tri

t• !11

W__

1!

IiI __

-

.,

I

-

mummummm

ius••uu• U•UU•U 1•U•U

NONSENSE UUUUUUU•UUUUUUu tuwu•uu U•UUUU••UU•U iiiuuu•u• wommmmom wommoomm a.•uuii.u......

••UU•UUI1•Uu•uuua U••UUU•UUL••••U••UU mmmummom RUIIU•IUUI1U•UI•.. UUUU•N u•UuU•U•UU•UUU•u••• WEENNEEN UUUUUUU•UU•.U.uu•

WanioNide 1NmI 1

l.u.I.............. -,uiur•• •••••••••• mmmmmmmmmm sa•mu uuu.uuuau •••••••U•• ,.UU•UU•R

O 4T1F1Wlg mmummomm MENEENNE NNENNESE — umum

SOURcE OF USFORMATION FILl N.eE

72

Figure 511.. Pile test data, New Orleans, Mississippi River Bridge Approach, III.

q

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-NATIONAL RESEARCH COUN-CIL is a private, nonprofit organization of scientists, dedicated to the furtherance of science and to its use for the general welfare. The

ACADEMY itself was established in 1863 under a congressional charter signed by President Lincoln. Empowered to provide for all activities ap-propriate to academies of science, it was also required by its charter to act as an adviser to the federal government in scientific matters. This provision accounts for the close ties that have always existed between the ACADEMY and the government, although the ACADEMY is not a govern-mental agency.

The NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL was established by the ACADEMY in 1916, at the request of President Wilson, to enable scientists generally to associate their efforts with those of the limited membership of the ACADEMY in service to the nation, to society, and to science at home and abroad. Members of the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL receive their appointments from the president of the ACADEMY. They include representa-tives nominated by the major scientific and technical societies, repre-sentatives of the federal government, and a number of members at large. In addition, several thousand scientists and engineers take part in the activities of the research council througb membership on its various boards and committees.

Receiving funds from both public and private sources, by contribution, grant, or contract, the ACADEMY and its RESEARCH COUNCIL thus work to stimulate research and its applications, to survey the broad possibilities of science, to promote effective utilization of the scientific and technical resources of the country, to serve the government, and to further the general interests of science.

The HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD was organized November 11, 1920, as an agency of the Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, one of the eight functional divisions of the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. The BOARD is acooperative organization of the highway technologists of America operating under the auspices of. the ACADEMY-COUNCIL and with the support of the several highway departments, the Bureau of Public Roads, and many other organizations interested in the development of highway transportation. The purposes of the BOARD are to encourage research and to provide a national clearinghouse and correlation service for research activities and information on highway administration and technology.