Pile-Driving Formulas

ERNEST T. MOSLEY, Raymond International, Inc.; and

TONIS RAAMOT, Raamot Associates

The basis for the fundamental dynamic pile-driving formulas is presented

first. Then modifications to account for energy losses are described. Some
of the more popular pile-driving formulas are discussed with emphasis on
their inherent assumptions. Finally, a solution is described that is based
on the motions experienced by all parts of the hammer-cap block-pile system
after hammer impact occurs. This solution is commonly known as the wave
equation. The assumptions on which this solution is based are discussed,
and some of its advantages are described.

•A GREAT DEAL HAS BEEN WRITTEN about dynamic pile-driving formulas. One
can find numerous formulas listed in soil mechanics and foundation engineering texts.
Furthermore, one frequently sees reports in technical journals of new investigations
by researchers who have found none of the existing formulas to their liking and have
developed a new one that better suits the results of their personal experience. Yet
most of the texts on this subject caution the engineer to be wary of the use of dynamic
pile-d1;ving formulas inasmuch as they cannot be relied on to predict a pile's ultimate
capacity with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Why, then, is there this continued interest in these formulas. The reason is, of
course, that there is a practical need for a dynamic formula. The majority of pile
foundations are installed in soil profiles of such a variable nature that the only conve-
nient inethod for determining whether or not a pile has reached sufficiently dense ma-
terial is by observing the ease or difficulty with which the pile penetrates the ground.
Another reason for this continued interest is that no single dynamic formula has been
found that will consistently predict ultimate pile capacities that agree with load tests.
This second consideration is based on the often invalid assumption that no change occurs
in the soil's ability to resist further pile penetration from the time of driving to time
of load testing.
In August 1960, Smith (1) presented a practical means for calculating the response
of a pile to the impact of a- hammer by means of finite-difference equations making use
of electronic digital computers. The method of solution is such that one can conve-
niently account for all of the significant factors that influence pile penetration resulting
from a hammer blow. During the past few years a considerable amount of research
related to wave-equation solutions has been done at the Texas Transportation Institute
(2, 3, 4) and has included comparisons of wave-equation solutions with data obtained
from fiistrumented piles during driving. These investigations have confirmed a good
correlation between experimental and wave-equation solution results. It is the writers'
opinion that, of solutions currently available, this one is the only reliable method for
calculating the response of any particular cap block-cushion, pile, and soil system re-
sulting from the impact of a pile hammer. However, at the present time a variety of
dynamic pile-driving formulas are being used for this purpose in building codes and
specifications. The intent of this paper is first to review basic forms of the dynamic
pile-driving formulas and the assumptions on which they are based. Then, a parameter
study will be presented comparing 3 typical pile-driving formula solutions with corres-
ponding wave-equation solutions.

Paper sponsored by Committee on Substructures, Retaining Walls and Foundations and presented at the 49th
Annual Meeting.

23
24

The main requirement of any dynamic pile-driving formula is to correlate driving

resistance, usually recorded in blows per inch, with soil resistance encountered at the
time of driving. The main limitation is that a dynamic formula can only calculate the
soil resistance at the time of driving. Any changes in the soil's ability to resist further
pile penetration some period of time after driving must be evaluated by static methods
and added to, or subtracted from, the resistance encountered at the time of driving.
Most of the dynamic pile-driving formulas are based on the fundamental energy equa-
tion wherein the kinetic energy of the hammer's ram at impact is equated to the work
done on the pile, that is, the product of the distance the pile moves and the soil force
resisting this movement. However, several complicating factors must be accounted
for; these include the following:
1. The resisting soil force is not constant during the period of time the pile is pene-
trating because the soil has some elasticity and damping characteristics.
2. The temporary elastic compressions of the cap block, cushion, pile, and soil
absorb energy that does not contribute to making the pile penetrate.
3. An impact energy loss occurs because the cap block and cushion have coefficients
of restitution less than unity.
4. A pile is a long slender object, and each incremental part at any instant of time
will experience a different motion from that of the other parts.
The dynamic pile-driving formula most commonly used in the United States is the
Engineering-News formula.
2E
R =S+o.1
where
R safe pile working load, lb;
E hammer energy, ft- lb; and
S pile set, in./blow.
This is one of the simplest formulas becaUSEl it does not attempt to account for the first,
third, and fourth complicating factors listed earlier, and furthermore it presumes that
the elastic compression losses are the same for any cap block, cushion, pile, and soil.
This formula is written in such a way that it has a theoretical factor of safety of six.
The second dynamic formula used for comparison is the Eytelwein formula.
2E
R = S + 0.l(P/VI)
where
R safe pile working load, lb;
E hammer energy, ft-lb;
S pile set, in./blow;
P pile weight, lb; and
W ram weight, lb.
It is slightly more complicated than the Engineering-News formula inasmuch as it con-
siders the ratio of the pile's total weight to the hammer ram's weight in such a way
that the first, second, and fourth complicating factors are not accounted for, but the
combined coefficient of restitution of the cap block and cushion is assumed to be zero.
It also has a theoretical factor of safety of six.
The third dynamic formula used for comparison is the Hiley formula.
2
12eE ( W + µ P)
Ru = S + (1~) (C 1 + Ci + Cs) W+ P
where
Ru ultimate pile capacity, lb;
E = hammer energy, ft-lb;
e hammer efficiency;
S pile set, in. /blow;
 25

C1 compression of cap block and cushion, in.;

C2 compression of pile, in.;
Cs soil quake, in.;
W ram weight, lb;
P pile weight, lb; and
µ coefficient of restitution of cap block and cushion .
C1, C2, and Cs are based on Chellis ~)as follows:

Steel Concrete
C1: 0.16 (Ru/A) C1 : 0.5 (Ru/A)
C2: 0.0008 L (Ru/A) C2: 0.008 L (Ru/A)
Cs: 0.1 Cs : 0.1

where
A : pile area, in. 2; and
L : distance from head of pile to center of soil resistance, ft.
This formula is more complicated than the other two because it attempts to account for
the second and third complicating factors in a rational manner based on the physical
properties of the materials used. However, it does not attempt to account for the first
and fourth complicating factors. A more complete description of pile-driving formulas
has been given by Cummings (5) and Chellis (6 ).
The mathematical model for wave-equation solutions can be readily designed to ac-
count for all 4 complicating factors. The basis is described by Smith (1).
Solutions for the 3 dynamic pile-driving formulas and for the wave equation are shown
in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. Symbols used in Figure 4 are defined as follows.

µ coefficient of restitution of cap block or cushion;

M/AL = Micarta-aluminum;
Q-point soil quake at tip of pile, in.;
Q-side soil quake at side of pile, in .;
J-point soil damping cons tant at point of pile, sec/ft ; and
J-side soil damping cons tant at s ide of pile, s e c/ft.
When comparing the 3 dynamic formulas with the wave-equation solutions, one should
note that both the Engineering-News and Eytelwein formulas have built-in theoretical
factors of safety of six. This means their intention is to correlate a safe pile working
load with driving resistance. On the other hand, the Hiley formula and wave-equation
solutions both correlate the ultimate soil resistance with the driving resistance.
A parameter study intended to bracket the range of commonly used steel and con-
crete piles driven for support of land structures has been selected as a means of com-
paring the 3 dynamic formulas with the wave-equation solution. The parameters used
are as follows:

Pile material Steel, concrete

Pile size, lb-ft
Steel 20, 160
Concrete
12 in. 2 150
18 in. 2 338
Pile length, ft 30, 120
Mode of soil resistance,
percent
Point 100
Friction 100
Hammer size, ft-lb
No. 1 Vulcan 15,000
No. 2/0 Raymond 32,500
 SOLUTION: ENG)N££RING. NDU.J.OiJJJILA rs. ~ 6 SOLUTIOtl: £$ /NEERING NGl.f [Oi/llULA fS = 6
PILE:_Aur CAPBLOCK-CUSH : ~AN
~r_ _ __ PILE1 ANY CAPBlOCK-CUSll :-A~
NY~--­
"AMMER: vvw1u "' 1,_1$_ 00 '#'. 100 ~£FF. Mr.IMER: -1lll'f1fii!l11Ll/-O.,.J~O.D.:/._..f.,_,F''-'--- - -
500 500

400 1-----t-~+---t-~+----1·~-1---+~-t----+~ 400

<fl
z
~ 300 1 ~--1~-1-~-1-~-t---1~-1-~-1-~-t---1~-1 300

~ i-
200

v v
<!>
z
> -------
~
0 //
v
100
v
I 2 4 6 8 70 12 14 16 18 20
BLOWS PER INCH BLOWS PER I NCH

Figure 1. Solutions for the Engineering-News formula.

TABLE 1
RATIO OF WAVE EQUATION ULTIMATE RESISTANCE TO OTHER FORMULAS

Vulcan 1 Raymond 2-0

Pile Pile Point Friction Point Friction

Pile
Size Length
Type (ft)
(lb-ft) 20 20 20 20
Blows Dlow• Dlows Bluw~ Bluw~ BluW8 Blows Blows
per In. per In. per In. per In. per In. per In. per In. per In.

Engineering-News Formula Safe Resls tance

Steel 20 30 1.9 1.4 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.0 2.1 1.2

Bteel 20 iiu l.4 1.0 1.8 l.l 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.7
Steel 160 30 2.6 3.0 3.8 3.7 2.7 2.3 3.9 2.7
Steel 160 120 2.6 3.0 4.1 4.1 2.5 2.3 3.9 2.7
Concrete 150 30 1.8 1.5 2 .2 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.1
Concrete 150 120 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.2
Concrete 338 30 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.5 1.9 1.7 2.2 1.7
Concrete 338 120 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.0 1.6 2.6 2.0

Eytelweln Formula Safe Resistance

Steel 20 30 1.4 0.6 1.6 0.7 1.0 0.4 1.4 0.4

Steel 20 120 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.3
Steel 160 30 2.7 2.9 3.9 3.6 2. 1 1.4 3.0 1.8
Steel 160 120 5.4 9.0 8.5 11.8 3.1 3.5 4.9 4.4
Concrete 150 30 1.8 1.4 2.2 1.6 1.3 0.7 1.0 0 .6
Concrete 150 120 3.6 4;7 4.3 4.9 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.8
Concrete 338 30 2.6 3.5 3.2 1.1 1.0 1.7 2.2 1.7
Concrete 338 120 7 .1 12.7 8.6 16.0 4.2 5.3 5.4 5.9

Hiley Formula Ultimate Resistance

Steel 20 30 0.8 1.0 0.9 l.l 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Steel 20 120 1.1 1.3 1.0 l.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9
Steel 160 30 0.9 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.5
Steel 160 120 1.2 2.2 1.8 2.6 1.3 1.9 1.7 2.0
Concrete 150 30 1.1 1.5 1.3 l.6 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.1
Concrete 150 120 1.9 2 .7 2 .1 2.5 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.6
Concrete 338 30 1.3 2.5 1.6 2.6 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.8
Concrete 338 120 2 .0 3.6 2.2 4 .3 2.1 3.1 2.5 3.1
 27

SOLUTION: £YTEL WEIN FS = 6 SOLUTION: £ YTf LWDN £ S. • 6

MLE: STEFL CAPB10C K-CUSH :_AN~Y_ _ __ PILE: CONCRETE CAPBLOCK-CUSH:__,,,_AN,_,_Y_ _ __
HAMMER: JtllUAN if t 1s.aod 111
100 % EEF RAMMER· V/JUAN li- 1,.-if.m.!!:_ 100· % u F.
500 ' , 500 '

J
400 -

<fl
z
!2 300 300
'
'"uz
~
<fl
/
v
~ 200 200
a: /
(')
z
> . ,, ~v i---
~ =-=-- i---- ----- -----
t ll ' ~12
'

-
ii::
0
w
LL
<t
tf)
700

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

fr
I---
~' - '
100 -
__J;; ~
.......-::: ~ -
I
11
~
30 ' 50
-
----- 60"~f /, O' ,,
I "<;()
.5/)
/}()
~"

0I /
~

o 2 I, 6 8 70
BLOWS PER INCH
72 74 76 1/J 20 °o 2 I, 6 8 10
BLOWS PER I NCH
12 11, 16 18 20

SOLUTIOil: UT EL WEIN F. l. - 6 SOLUT!Otl: £YT{UJEIN F. 5. = 6

PILE:_ SIW.. CAPDlOCl(- C9~11 :__/]jjY _ __ PILE: _{Q_fi/USETE_ C/IVBLOC!(-CUSll :='"""
t1N._._Y_ _ __
llA~1MER: RA(MONf} 2/JJ.,...12~, 100 % ar. llf1W!iER: ....£A.1'.MM!L2/Q.._32.~ 100 % YE
500 500

I,()() - - i - - + - -•

<fl
z
!2 3001--1---<>---+---t-...,,_.,'l--\ ,A- - - t - - - - I - - - <

w
u
z
~
<fl
~ 2001- - 1 ---<>---1-............._._.t - - - l - - l - - > - - - + - - - t
a:
(')
z
>
a:
0
w 1001--f-..,.,.-A---t:;,,-F'--+--!----l--l--l----i
LL
<t
tf)

4 6 8 70
BLOWS PER INCH
12 11, 16 78 20 2 4 6 a ro u u m
BLOWS PER INCH
ffl ~

Figure 2. Solutions for the Eytelwein formula.

28

SOLUTION: HILEY FORMULA F.S =I SOLUTIOU: HllFY FQRtlflllA Ff~ I

PILE: srrn CAPBlOCK-CUSU :~- PILE: STEEL CAPBlOCK-CUSU:-11}& .i! ~ DB
HAMMER: VllUAN ii"1 !Sf200 '°" 80 % [FF.
500
1
UAl,IMER: VllLCAN # I IS (J()() '"', 80 %
I 500
m
11
C3 :) 0.10 C3 .. 0.1 ? /I
100 %f'Oli 1T ;; SIS wva 100~ !"/(/{. 70# UN/1 Q,fM fl/L1 LEM ~Tl/

400 400

oJ)
z
f2 300 300
'
w
(l
:Z:
~
Ri0: 200 200 I
- ,-
'I/,_) ~· /60' ·"' I
ifiP- ~1; -~ v-- ~~Go -
- ,_
p-
·-
(9
z
v i'
~ t:== 7 60 •'!, -/, o·
/_ k::;::"' ~ ,,_, ·JO'
> 20'
iE
v
Cl
tj 100
vv- ·- 700 -
r6· .~
20~ - le '(J '

I
::>

'I 2 4 6
?O

8
r, - '/O '

70
BLOWS PER I NCH
12 74 76 78 20 2 4 6 8 10
BLOWS PER INCH
72 74 76 78 20

SOlUTIOtl: HILFY fOR!.'IJIA F.J ~ f SOlUHO!l:_ _{f(l£r fqfjgj/lA _ _ _ fS = / _ _ __

PILE: C0t{(f?U£ C~.PDlOCl(-CUSll :-1/JJ.l...df!lf!R,,/t- as PILE: CONCRETE CAPDlOCl(-CUSll :....M/!lL:..1£.@I?,7 a -Q.f
HAMMER: Vt!LCAN""r. IS.f/RIL!.,._/ifl'»fFE, . umMER: .1.f!L{~,iW{i •#, aezcrt
500
c3 j 0.10 I 500
C3 0. /0 "
100 3 f0/1 TRI. IJ IJT, N([ !00, ~ r1?11 IT/ON UNf, Ol?M rUI LEN , TH

400

oJ)
z
f2 300 JOO
'
w
u
z
~
oJ)

Ri0: 200 200

(9
z
>
iE Iit "sQ.. ~o' I
Cl
12''J 0.-1 , o'I 1?" n _?n' ~ 12 • -Q. _.)o·
tj 100 100 1-+~

;o ~
::>
:::::::::: 18". Q. -3 ~ '
~ i--- /2 11 .'lJ._/2 I

IB "J p.121

~
I

~ ~
18''..si L f 2 ?'I
0
2 4 6 8 70
BLOWS PER I NCH
72 74 76 78 20 °o 2 4 6 8 10 72 14 16 78 20
BLOWS PER INCH

Figure 3. Solutions for the Hiley formula.

 29

SOLUTIOtl: HILEY FORMULA rs.= I SOLUTIOrl: HILEY f2f.Ml!./A F.S = I

PILE: 5Tffl CAPDLOCt(-CUS!li-'d/A~i:~ OB PILE: .STE(L fiAPOLOCK-CUSM · M/Al ,.a • 0.8
HAI.I MER: .JM!Mflf/ll/Q,..3.J. '>OO ,,,_ 80 ' tfl llfl!.\HER· RAYMOll!J 21.D..,.3
'
.1~, 80 % EFF.
500 500 0.10 1
c.l, 0./0' C3
/00 ~ fO~ VT !?. J/JTA VrE 100 ~ fR/C 10/f VN!f 1/?M- Fl)U EN6 H

-
1.00 t.00
' c--

v-
60"' :!.--
1' fl.v
Ill
z
~
ib- /
/
I
f2., 300 300 v
/ t60' J
w
u
z
j'.!
Ill

~ 200
!/ ~ - /60 . _/ '0'

----- ,.,,.
:;,
1'
200
~ v /'" -zo~ ': _JJ'

/
~- I

v
~
Ct:
(')
20 ~ _/,'{)
z ~

-t
>
ii'. 20~ / - I '0' /
a 1.....--
!:i 700 100
:::J

0
o
'/ 2 I. 6 8 10 12 11. 16 18 20 °o 2 4 6 8 10 12 74 16 18 20
BLOWS PER INCH BLOWS PER INCH

SOLUTION: HILEY FORMl/LA =I r.s.

SOLUHGtl: HILEY FO/lMl!L4 ES. = I
PllE;__(Q(j!CHTE CAPBLOCK-CUSM :.M.1111. -fLIJoo 7 .« w OS PILE:.J.QJ/.C/J.fJJ._ CAPOLOCl(-CUS!I JJ..JJ.l..:.J!!.t?~
HAMMER· RAYMO//{) 2)0 -31.500 i; _fJJ)_XEFF. 11/it.IMEfi: _R..@P.l/I> 2/LJJ,5.flP.. '•f, 8/2.X,..
Efj..,_
f _ __
500 ' 500
c3 .l o.10' 11
C3 .I 010
/00 !'OJ, TR S/JT. #([ tllf!iFRKt/ON UNI! Iii//- 7/ll [#6Trt

t.00 1.00

Ill
z
f2 300 300
'
w
u
z
j'.!
Ill
I?. ( n. - o' 12 "s . _ 3! '
~ 200 200
~ ....- ~5b _ J1l;
Ct:

v- 11 Q-31'
/8
f
(')

~
w
z
> i2 "s _ 12
ii'. 18" 0_1,0'
a /; /; v-- l8"S1_/2t'

r
AO ~
!:i 100 f{JJ.; 700 v
'7'

f
'· - f<V
:::J

0
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 11. 16 18 20 °o 2 I. 6 8 10 72 1~ 16 18 20
BLOWS PER INC+-l BLOW S PER INCH

Figure 3. Continued.
30

SOLUTIOH: l(LJQJ/A[lo.N_ _--.-_ _ __

PILE: STEEL CAPBlOCK-CUSU :_A:fMl~-· a8
HAl.1MER· Vl/L{/11Y it; /SIJ(J(J IF 80 %t:rF
500
Q-?i //VT: Ml", J-f ?INT. OIS ff/f
100 % pt WT ffSI TAI/{

t/l
z
~ .100
17

D'-
~~
/60'"'
w
~
u
z
~
t/l

~ 200
~
v I

°' /
v
(!)
z
> 20 Y, - ~o '
i..-- .--
0:
a j ~ 20 Y, _ './O'
!:i 700 ...-
~ i---- ~
:::>

0
o
I 2 4 6 8 70
BLOWS PER I NCH
12 14 16 18 20 2 I. 6 8 10 12 74 16 78 20
BLOWS PER INCH

SOLUTIO:LffA Y'f_ LQ(JA]IO}j_ _ SOLUTIGL W'A J/{_[fl_f/AJJ_Q/!_ __

PILE: CONCRETE CAPDlOCK- CU~ll :__M/Al - 4" v!IJOP PILE:_ J:JJIJ'(..l(flf,,_ CAVDlOCK-CUSU :___M/d.L.:..;. • W@L_
HAMMER: V/JLCAN 'IT/ 1500!J ' • 80 %£ff Hnt.ll!.rn: l/lll{/l!i.!!.L_IJ;_IJOO' '" flll%~f.~F,~;<; _ __
500 soo.--.--,.-.--,-.---.--,.-.--.---,
M/A, :,µ• 08, W()01 :/U. 03 M/AI :_,µ =fB, fWJO ·/I= 0 3
Q-f VINT. 010' J- ~0/1<11. 0.15 EC./! . f 11
Q-S !JE: 10 J-S(l>E: OS '!'"(/,
100 ~ f'O. !VT '(<ES/ TA/r!/ Ir 100' FR~ TIO/\-iJ,.}lf0/?1 -F LL '/bTH
~00

t/l
z
f2 300
'
w
u
z
~
t/l 18 ~ Q:..:.-
1
~
-.
~ 200 - /t
~ ~ <r

~
~~

°' ~ Jl'' ~Q- 20'

-
(!)
z
~ ----
~
>
~~
0: 12 . i)Q- 10
a ~
!:i 100 r
:::>

/
0
o
v 2 4· 6 8 JO
BLOWS PER INCH
12 74 76 78 20 4 6 a 10 ~
BLOWS PER INCH
u mw 20

Figure 4. Solutions for the wave equation .

 31

SOLUTION: WAVE [()VAT/ON SOLUTION: ft/A/If f()IJATlfJ,,_,W _ _ _ _ _ _~

Pllt STEEL CAPBlOCK- CUSH:~Bo Pill: STEEL CAPBlOCK-CUSH: M/Al ',4 • ao
llAh\MER: Rlrr'MOH/) ck.Ji. fOO '~. BO '!(£ff HAMMER: l?/IY/tlO!VP 2/o .J2'5tlt2 1:/I. eo %' ffe
,,

v
500 500 ~
Q7Fi tf'(r· .10 6 J- INT: .IS ({-Sit
(:0/(
/()0 • />O. T [SIS NC. J-.S/ ~[: 0. ?5Jfl

~~
/()O'j Ff?/({.
-~~ IFA/£T.
F/JLl

~' f
nJl
of)
z ~~ I

f2

'f~
,\\
J(){) f---1-----if--,f-l'---+- i- - ;- - t - -t - - - t - - I 300 -
'
20 :(_Jv'
w
u
z
-
---
i--
;!
of)
/
~ 2oor--i--t-r-i-~-1=::1=::::::J~"f'='~r---j 200 -
v
t- v
.;
20' , - I POI

r
100 I--

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 °o 2 4 6 8 70
BLOWS PER INCH
12 74 76 78 20
BLOWS PER INCH

SOlUTIOll: WA YLJJlfJAT.~10.~W_ _ _ _ __ SOlUH011: _1YAV(_fO!!lt.~

Tl=fJ.f.~
V --·----
PILE: CONtRETE CAPBlOCK- CUSH :_MIAL - 4 "11100[) PILE: CMC&f'Tf CAPBWCK-CUSH :. M!At - 4 "WflPIJ
HAMMER: RA/1!1?Wb 2fo ..Jl~@.!!:,-fi_o}b_~ffj~F_ __ MAW~ER: l?AY/t/Olll) 2/ll.,_}2.r@____!!!_,__go ZErt: -
500 500
M/Al jL: .8, WO: a = 3 M/11: ,,-u=O.B f1I 'O: =0.
Q- WT: JO", -!' WT: 15 Ji /IT Q-s. if: _0'1, -.s1 f_. a .JEi rr
100' l'0/1 'T R J/JT, NCE /tJO' tRI

of)
z
f2 J00·- - - 1 ----t------.,,..______,,,.___t-_lc------1- --+------i
'
w
u
z
;!
of)

~2001---+--IH----to--~....-:~-~-l~-!="'-+-I
It:
(!)
z
>
o:;
0
lj 100
::>

2 4 6 8 10
BLOWS PER I NCH
12 14 76 78 20 °o 2 4 6 8 70
BLOWS PER INCH
12 74 76 78 20

Figure 4. Continued.
32

The apparent factors of safety at the time of driving for the 3 dynamic formulas,
based on the assumption that the wave-equation solutions are correct, are given in
Table 1. In addition to the 5 parameters, Table 1 includes a sixth, that is, moderate
driving resistance, considered to be 5 blows/in., and hard driving resistance, co:nsid-
ered to be 20 blows/in. One can readily see that there are certain combinations
of parameters that cause the dynamic formulas to yield a desirable factor of safety,
such as two. For other combinations of parameters, these formulas can be either un-
safe or else extremely conservative resulting in uneconomical solutions.
It is believed that practicing engineers will find the graphic results of these solutions
a convenient reference, especially those for the wave-equation solution. Because the
parameters cover the range of piling systems commonly used, an engineer may readily
obtain an approximate wave-equation solution for any particular system by interpolation
from these graphs. This will enable him to estimate the optimum combination of ham-
mer, cap block, cushion, and pile for his application. If he desires a more exact solu-
tion including maximum tension and compression stresses in the pile, there are several
places where he can obtain wave-equation solutions if inconvenient to set up his own
program.

REFERENCES
1. Smith, E. A. L. Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation. Proc. ASCE, Aug.
1960,
2. Lowery, L. L., Jr., Edwards, T. C., and Hirsch, T. J. Use of the Wave Equation
to Predict Soil Resistance on a Pile During Driving. Texas Transportation In-
stitute, Texas A&M Univ., Aug. 1968.
3. Lowery, L. L., Jr., Hirsch, T. J., and Samson, C. H., Jr. Pile Driving Analysis-
Simulation of Hammers, Piles, and Soils. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M Univ., Sept. 1967.
4, Gibson, G. C., and Coyle, H. M. Soil Damping Constants Related to Common Soil
Properties in Sands and Clays. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
Univ., Sept. 1968.
5. Cummings, A. E. Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas. Jour. Boston Society of Civil
Engineers, Jan. 1940.
6. Chellis, R. D. Pile Foundations. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951.