this document downloaded from

vulcanhammer.info
the website about
Vulcan Iron Works
Inc. and the pile
driving equipment it
manufactured

Visit our companion site

http://www.vulcanhammer.org
Terms and Conditions of Use:
All of the information, data and computer software (“information”)
presented on this web site is for general information only. While every
effort will be made to insure its accuracy, this information should not
be used or relied on for any specific application without independent,
competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suit-
ability and applicability by a licensed professional. Anyone making use
of this information does so at his or her own risk and assumes any and all
liability resulting from such use. The entire risk as to quality or usability of
the information contained within is with the reader. In no event will this web
page or webmaster be held liable, nor does this web page or its webmaster
provide insurance against liability, for any damages including lost profits, lost
savings or any other incidental or consequential damages arising from the use
or inability to use the information contained within.

This site is not an official site of Prentice-Hall, Pile Buck, or Vulcan Foundation
Equipment. All references to sources of software, equipment, parts, service or
repairs do not constitute an endorsement.
 -
November, 1971

Journal of the
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNIIATIO
3

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers

-ax
-
9 IIIVISIOP

HEAVE AND LATERAL MOVEMENTS DUE TO PILE DRIVING

By D. Joseph Hagerty,' A . M. ASCE and Ralph B. Peck,' F. ASCE

INTRODUCTION

Whenever piles a r e driven, s o i l i s displaced. The movements inducec

the s o i l itself may have s e v e r a l undesirable consequences, including the lifl
o r l a t e r a l displacement of those piles that have already been driven. '
effects of pile and s o i l displacement on foundation performance depend 1
g r e a t extent upon the type of thepilesand the way in which they t r a n s f e r tf
load t o the surrounding ground.
If the piles a r e designed to be end-bearing, their r i s e during the drivinj
subsequently installed piles may seriously i m p a i r their load carrying capac
T h e ensuing pile settlement may be a t l e a s t a s g r e a t a s the pile heave. If
piles a r e grouped in c l u s t e r s beneath a structure, differential settlemf
among the heaved p i l e s may b e l a r g e and detrimental to the suppol
structure.
When piles a r e to support loads by skin friction, the detrimental effect
pile heave may be l e s s pronounced because there i s no bearing stratum 1
which the tip of the pile l o s e s contact. Nevertheless, the strength and cc
pressibility of the s o i l a r e altered by the displacements, with effects not
fully understood (3,20,23).
Pile driving displaces s o i l and previously driven piles laterally a s we1
vertically. [Existing s t r u c t u r e s a l s o may b e displaced by the pile d r i i
(6,9,10,26)]. T h e tops of d r i v e n p i l e s may bedisplaced f r o m their design 10
tions by distances which greatly exceed the location tolerances in the f a n
tion construction specifications. Moreover, where a pile contains a w
element, such as a s l i p joint in a composite pile o r a splice in a timber P
l a t e r a l s o i l displacement may. produce a s h a r p kink and may d c c r e a s e
-

capacity of the pile (16).

Note.-Discussion open until April 1, 1972. To extend the closing dntc one mont
written request must be filed wlththe Executive Director, ASCE. I'hls pnPcr 1s p:ll
thecopyrighted Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Dlvlslon, I'rocc*cdlng
the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 97, No. SMl1, Novcml)cr. 1071. hlnnusc
was submitted for review for possible publication on Jnnunry 21, 1971.
' A s s t . Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Louisville, Louisvlllc, KY-
Prof. of Foundation Engrg., Univ. of nllnols, Urbnnn, n l .
 This pap
from priva
9 resents the results of astudy of heave involving c a s e histories
.es and the engineering literature. Thirteen suitable c a s e s were
(0 displaced soil i s equal to the volume of the inserted piles. OD?
described in some detail to support this conclusion.
;may i e

found. They -are: v! Figs. 1 and 2 show, respectively, a plan view and a soil p r d l e for a pile
foundation consisting of step-taper piles driven behind a bulkhead into a soft
Cases from Private F i l e s . clay deposit. The piles nearest the bulkhead weredriven first and subsequent
Case Al-Chicago; Steel-frame structure; insensitive soft clays over hard driving was successively farther from the water. The riverward piles were
clays and compact silts.
Case A2-Cleveland; Bridge pier; insensitive medium to hard saturated
clays.
Case A3-St. Louis; Office buildings; insensitive soft silty clays and clayey /€ Anchored Bulkhead
silts over weathered limestone. ..
........................................................
Case A4-Chicago; Warehouse extension; insensitive saturated soft to
medium clays.
Case A5-Great Britan; Power station; insensitive soft to medium clays.

Cases from Engineering Literature.

Case B1-WesternCanada; Pulp mill extension (8); variable glacial deposits
over sand-gravel outwash.
Case B2-Cleveland; Blast furance foundation (13); fill over sand and gravel,
overlying medium to stiff blue clay.
Case B3-Backa, Sweden; Foundations at three sites (14,27); deep deposits
of soft normally-loaded sensitive clay. FIG. 1.-PLAN. WAREHOUSE ADDITION, CASE A4
Case B4-Detroit; Expressway pier (3); deep deposit of soft blue clay,
sensitive along upper 20 ft of 80-ft long piles.
Case B5-Mexico City; Building foundation (30,31); deep deposit of soft
sensitive clay.
Case B6-Utah; Willard Pumping Plant (5,28,29); lean insensitive soft to
medium clays with sand and silt layers.
Case B7-Boston; Insurance building (1,2); deep deposit of saturated in-
sensitive soft clay.
Case B8-Tokyo; Telephone building (4); loose sand layers over a deposit
of soft silty clay and medium clay.
Case B9-Detroit; Pumping station (24); deep deposit of soft insensitive
clay.

The first part of the paper deals with movements of soil during pile dri;ing,
and the second with movements of piles already driven. The intention herein
i s to present specific aspects of heave and lateral movements due to pile
driving. Recognition of the nature of such movements should suggest appro-
priate preventive and remedial measures; therefore, specific remedial
measures a r e not rgcommended herein.

FIG. 2.-SECTION THROUGH FOUNDATION, CASE A4

DISPLACEMENT O F SOILS
Previous studies suggest that net soil displacement i s likely to be small
when piles a r e driven into clean granular soils (7,12,19). On the other hand,
significant soil dislilacement occurs during pile driving in fine-grained soil
deposits.
Analysis of the collected data leads to theco~iclusionthat saturated, insen-
sitive clay soils behave incompressibly during pile driving; i.e., the volume of
displaced laterally and tilted toward the bulkhead. The measured lateral pile
movements suggest that all the movement of soiland piles was directed toward
the bulkhead, away from subsequent driving and toward the zone where soil
support was missing. Fig. 3 shows movements of the bulkhead toward the
river. If it i s assumed that all the soil displaced by the piles moved laterally
toward the river and that the lateral rpovement was of uniform magnitude
along the bulkhead and along the depth of the piles, the movement would have
 PILE DRIVING
w
been appro: tely 23 in. T h e average displacement along the e n t i r e bulkhead A5, the piles w e r e driven in a f a i r l y r e g u l a r sequence f r o n
>

between c o l ~ .I lines 16 and 26 w a s about 21-1/2 in. However, s o m e movement
had o c c u r r e d a t the west end of the bulkhead before the location s u r v e y s w e r e
initiated. Considering only that portion of the bulkhead between column l i n e s 22
and 26, where the location s u r v e y s w e r e begun before any piles w e r e driven
behind the bulkhead, the average measured displacement w a s about 24 in.
The movements of the various rows offoundationpiles w e r e estimated i n a
s i m i l a r manner. Table 1 shows a comparison between computed and m e a s u r e d
movements.
L a t e r a l movements of the s o i l toward the r i v e r completely account f o r the
volume of the piles. T h u s it a p p e a r s that the insensitive clay s o i l into which
the piles w e r e driven behaved incompressibly during pile driving.
TABLE 1.-PILE MOVEMENTS, CASE A4
, end of the
v-
foundation t o the other, and the ground s u r f a c e f r o m which rid piles w e r e
driven w a s practically level.
Given the conditions of a s a t u r a t e d insensitive clay soil, a regular pile
driving sequence, and a level foundation ground surface, i t is concluded that
the s o i l s u r f a c e heave within the foundation a r e a may be estimated by the
following procedure:
1. The volumetric displacement r a t i o is calculated by dividing the total
volume of the inserted piles by the volume of s o i l enclosed by the pile
foundation.
2. The normalized s o i l heave, equal t o the s o i l heave divided by the pile
length, is estimated empirically. F o r the conventional types and dimensions
of piles and foundation a r r a n g e m e n t s studied i n this investigation, the nor-

Pile row Computed movement, In inches Measured movement, in inches

(1) (2 1 (3)

Volumetric Dirplocemsnl Ratlo

FIG. .. -SOIL SURFACE HEAVE SUMMARY

malized s o i l heave was found to be approximately one-half the volumetric

I 1 I
1
L
I I
20 21 22 23 2. I5 26 displacement r a t i o obtained in s t e p 1.
Column L4n.s
Lonp#lud#n(llSCrle ? '? :' " 3. The heave of the s o i l s u r f a c e is estimated t o be the product of the
normalized s o i l heave and the average length of the piles.
FIG. 3.-DISPLACEMENT OF BULKHEAD, CASE A4
T h i s procedure is applicable only to those situations in which a l l the con-
ditions mentioned a r e satisfied. The significance of changes in these coridi-
T h e values of heave of tlie ground s u r f a c e observed a t four o t h e r s i t e s where tions i s indicated in the individual c a s e .histories.
p i l e s w e r e driven into insensitive, saturated clays indicate that approximately Effect of Soil Chnvacteristics.-Information f r o m two cases, B3 and B5,
half the volume of displaced s o i l appeared as s u r f a c e heave within the a r e a of indicates that when piles a r e driven into sensitive c l a y s the pattern of s o i l
the pile foundation, while the remaining half a p p e a r e d a s s u r f a c e heave outside displacement may differ f r o m that produced in insensitive clays.
the foundation a r e a . T h e data a r e shown in Fig. 4. T h e s o i l heave in each F i r s t , the disturbance of the s o i l may liquefy a sensitive clay s o i l around
c a s e was divided by the length of the piles t o obtain the normalized s o i l heave. the pile a s i t is being driven. T h e liquefied s o i l may be extruded onto the
T o facilitate comparison of c a s e history data, a volumetric displacement ground surface around the pile. Such extrusion was noted in c a s e B5 and h a s
r a t i o w a s calculated f o r each c a s e by dividingthe total volume of t h e inserted been reported elsewhere (11). T h e effect of such extrusion a p p e a r s to be to
piles by the v o l u n ~ eof soil enclosed o r surrounded by those piles. In Fig. 4 reduce the heave of the s o i l s u r f a c e beyond-the l i m i t s of the a r e a enclosed by
a significant correlation is apparent between the normalized s o i l heave and the the piles themselves and t o confine the s u r f a c e heave roughly within the a r e a
volumetric displacement ratio. In the four c a s e s designated A2, B4, B7, and of the pile foundation. In both c a s e s B3 and B5 the observed heaves of the s o i l
 November, 1971

surfac the c e n t e r s of the foundations w e r e approximately equal t o those pile movements directly influenced the overall succec the foundation
that wouluhave beenpredictedfor insensitive clay subsoils, a s shown in Fig. 4.
However, in c a s e B3, the total volume of heaved s o i l amounted t o l e s s than 40 %
j construction. d

i
of the volume of the inserted piles, and s u r f a c e heaye outside the foundation J

a r e a was negligible.
Second, s o m e evidence w a s found i n c a s e s B3 and B5 that a significant
amount of consolidation occurred i n the disturbed sensitive clay s o i l during
pile driving. T h e effect of such consolidation is t o reduce the total volume of
heaved soil. Thus, the low volume of displaced s o i l noted in c a s e B3 may have
been a result, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , of consolidation of the sensitive clay during pile
driving.
T h e data f r o m c a s e s B6 and B8 show that, when piles penetrated alternating
s t r a t a of fine-grained s o i l s and g r a n u l a r materials, the observed s u r f a c e
heave w a s much l e s s than the heave that would have o c c u r r e d in insensitive
clay soils. In these c a s e s t h e r e o c c u r r e d only about one-fifth the amount of
heave that would have been predicted on the b a s i s of the p r o c e d u r e outlined
above for insensitive clay soils.
Effect of Driving Seque~zccand Foundation Geometry .-The c o r r e l a t i o n be-
tween normalized s o i l heave and volumetric displacement r a t i o shown in Fig. 4
was obtainedfor foundations in which the s o i l s u r f a c e w a s level everywhere and
the piles w e r e driven in fairly regular sequence f r o m one end of the foundation
to the other. Data f r o m c a s e s A l , A4, and B9 suggest that when l a r g e differ-
ences in elevation exist within the foundation a r e a , the s o i l is laterally dis-
placed preferentially toward the lower elevations and the s o i l heave a t the
upper elevations is correspondingly reduced.
C a s e B2 i l l u s t r a t e s that if the sequence of pile driving involves f i r s t driving
piles along the p e r i m e t e r of the foundation, thereby tending t o enclose the s o i l FIG. 5.-PLAN VIEW O F HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, CASE A1
in the foundation, the heave of the s o i l s u r f a c e in t h e c e n t r a l a r e a of the foun-
dation i s i n c r e a s e d t o a value g r e a t e r thanthat obtained in the procedure out-
lined above. Space limitations inconnectionwithcaseB2 m a d e i t n e c e s s a r y to
d r i v e H-piles f o r a blast furnace foundation in a horseshoe pattern f r o m the
outside of the a r e a toward the center. P i l e heaves of a s much a s 11 in. w e r e
observed. Hence, the s o i l surface heave must have been equal t o o r g r e a t e r
than 11 in.
T h e piles penetrated fill, silt, and sand in addition t o clay. If only the clay
s o i l s a r e considered, the total s o i l displacement, distributed uniformly o v e r
the a r e a of the foundation itself, would have produced a s u r f a c e heave of about
13 in. Thus, in t e r m s of t h e p a r a m e t e r s in Fig. 4, the r a t i o of normalized s o i l
s u r f a c e heave t o volumetric displacement ratiowasapproximately unity. T h i s
r a t i o c o n t r a s t s with the data in Fig. 4, wherein the value of the r a t i o is on the
o r d e r of 0.5. '
In s u m m a r y , i t may be concluded that s o i l displacements of significant
magnitude o c c u r when piles a r e driven into fine grained, i m p e r m e a b l e soils.
CLpLI-Sell lo Mmlbm Clay
T h e principle f a c t o r s affecting the magnitude of s o i l displacement in addition cq :;;tlf
t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the subsoil, a p p e a r t o be the driving sequence of the LL,.34%
Sacllon A-A
PL,-16%
piles and the geometry of the foundation.
FIG. 6.-SECTION THROUGH FOUNLlATION, CASE A1
DISPLACEMENT O F DRIVEN PILES
Case A1 .-A l a r g e s t e e l - f r a m e s t r u c t u r e w a s constructed on the west s i d e
T h e following analysis of movements of p i l e s a l r e a d y driven caused by sub- of Chicago. T h e s u b s t r u c t u r e consisted of pile-supported f r a m e s beneath r e -
sequent driving is introduced with a presentation of a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e wherein inforced concrete walls and columns. A s the s i t e w a s underlain by a thick
deposit c \ft clay, the structure was designed to be supported on cast-in- and elevation surveys were begun onDay 85and were conductec' 'era1 times
place pile. ,hich would penetrate through the soft clay and transmit the weight after the conclusion of pile driving on Day 122. These surve) -fiowed that,
of the building to firm strataatdepth. A plan of the structure i s shown in Fig. in general, the piles stopped moving vertically after all driving on the job was
5. completed. Some piles continued to move laterally, however, for a s long a s
The subsoils of the Chicago area have beendescribed in general elsewhere two months. With the exception of the piles in the northern wing of the struc-
(17).
The ground surface at the site was located at about El. 13 with respect to
Chicago City Datum. The subsoils, a s revealed by the exploratory borings,
a r e shown in Fig. 6.
The piles were of a composite typeconsistingof a lower portion of 10-3/4-
in. diam steel pipe a t least 15 ft long, and an upper portion of 12-in. diam, 18-

,,&A
Day When M o l t
Ptisr 10 Cluriar
Ware Urlvan

boy When Plles

FIG. 7.-PILE CLUSTERS IN SOUTIIEASTERN WING O F HOSPITAL FOUNDATION,

CASE A 1
-boy When Most Phles In
C l u s t e r W e r e Driven
gage corrugated metal shell. They were driven inclusters of 3 to 16, beneath Scule 0 2 4 6 8 11
u
walls and individual columns, and were spaced a t 3 ft center-to-center, both
ways, within the individual clusters. The design load was 40 tons per pile. FIG. 8.-PILE LOCATION PLAN, CLUSTERS IN SOUTHEASTERN AREA O F FOUN-
The f i r s t phase of construction was excavation of the foundations to the .DATION. CASE A1
levels shown in Fig. 5. The driving of the composite piles was then begun by
four pile-driving figs. ture, the driven piles were considered unacceptable because of the vertical
Driving proceeded without apparent difficulties for about 80 days, when it and lateral displacements they had experienced. Remedial measures were
was discovered that some piles had been displaced vertically and laterally from undertaken on Day 178 and continued until Day 407. These measures took
their initial locations. At this time, approximately 80 % of the piles called several forms: (1) H-piles were driven to ' adjust the position of the centers
f o r in the original foundation design had been driven. Systematic location of gravity of the clusters, o r several pile clusters were tied together with

reinff h concrete beams; (2) individual piles were subjectedto static load
of 40 .s o r 50 tons in an effort to test their capacity and to reseat them aL-
their original elevations; and (3) some c l u s t e r s whichhad been capped before
the movement of driven piles was noticed were subjected to reseating loads a s
great a s 900 tons.
PILE DRIVING
.,4
of any piles established before all the piles in those cluste. _
/ e r e driven. In
cluster B-7, piles 1,2,3, and 5 were driver. on Day 111 and piles 4, 6, 7, and 8
'1 were driven on Day 112. The elevation of the top of pile 3 was f i r s t established
on Day 111, those of piles 4 and 7 on Day 114. The measured changes in eleva-
tion of piles 4 and 7 must, therefore, reflect the influence of pile driving after
I
Day 114 along line A. The recorded heave of pile 7 was 1-1/4 in., but zero
heave'was recorded for pile 4.
The heave of pile 3 in cluster B-7 reflects principally the influence of pile
driving within cluster B-7 and in cluster B-6 and cluster B-5. The measured
heave f o r pile 3,4-3/4 in., didnot represent the total heave of pile 3, however,
since pile 5 had beendriven 3 ft away on Day 111, after pile 3 was in place, and
almost certainly caused pile 3 to be heaved. The heave of pile 3 caused by
driving pile 5 was probably on the o r d e r of 1 in. o r less; driving the last 4
piles in cluster B-7 and all the piles in cluster B-6 caused only 4-3/4 in. of
heave of pile 3. The total heave of pile 3 may, therefore, be estimated a s ap-
proximately 5-1/2 in.

TABLE 2.-PILE HEAVES, CASE A1

2-b/2 1-1/11 1.1/2

.-Heave On Day 119

Pile
(1 1 7 Increase in pile top e1cv:ktion
through Day 120, in incllcs
(2)

-Heave On Day 136

I/Z 4 --
- Driving Dale
109

A second cluster in which total pile heave may be estimated i s D-5. The
driving sequence along line D was from west to east. Piles 1 and 2 in cluster
D-5 w e r e driven on Day 119and their elevations were determined immediately
after they were driven. The remainder of the piles in cluster D-5 and piles
1 and 2 in cluster D-4 were driven on Day 120. Driving on line D was com-
pleted on Day 121 with the installation of piles 3 through 9 in cluster D-4.
The elevation of pile 1 in cluster D-5 was checked on Day 121 and the pile
was found to have heaved 4-1/8 in., the result of driving piles 3 through 9
-- Line B '
0, f ,
within cluster D-5 and a l l the piles incluster D-4. Since pile 2 in cluster D-5
Scale: 11 had been driven after pile 1, pile 1 would have been displaced by that driving
also. The heave of pile 1 caused by the driving of pile 2 may be estimated a s
FIG. 9.-PILE HEAVE IN CLUSTERS C-6 AND C-5, CASE A1 less than 1 in. because driving the other 7 piles in the cluster produced only
about 4 in. of heave of pile 1. The total heave of pile 1 may, therefore, be
The response of thepiles tothe reseatingloads was rather erratic; many of estimated a s about 5 in.
the piles did not move, but some piles in the central and southern a r e a s of Thus, the heaves of pile 1 in cluster D-5 and pile 3 in cluster R-7 may be
the foundation settled a s much a s 12 in. under 50 tons. All the capped clusters considered typical f o r the southeastern wing of the 'foundation and rnay be
in the elevator pit settled at least 2 in. under 900-ton g r o s s loads. realiably estimated a t 5 in. and 5-1/2 in., respectively.
In only two clusters, B-7 and D-5 (see Figs. 7 and 8), were the elevations The overall cluster-to-cluster effects of the pile driving a r e evident in the
 November, 1971
- p r i m a r i l y by the location of subsequent driving.
reco heaves of the piles in c l u s t e r s C-6, C-5, and D-6. Fig. 9 shows th
pile hedves which w e r e produced in c l u s t e r s C-6 and C-5 by driving the p i l e y
in c l u s t e r C-4 and in the c l u s t e r s along lines B and D. Moreover, in c l u s t e r
C-5 elevation s u r v e y s showed a definite settlement over a 17-day period a f t e r
the initial heave observations. Such settlement probably o c c u r r e d in other
c l u s t e r s between the t i m e s when the piles w e r e driven and when they w e r e
subjected to reseating loads but was not noticed because of the lack of continued
extensive elevation surveys.
C l u s t e r D-6, Fig. 8 , driven on Day 118 and Day 119, was heaved by adjacent
driving. The elevations of the piles on c l u s t e r D-6 w e r e established f i r s t on
Day 118 o r Day 119, immediately a f t e r they w e r e driven, and w e r e checked on
day 120, Day 121, and Day 136. T h e check survey on Day 120 indicated that
the piles had heaved by the amounts shown in Table 2.
Measurements w e r e a l s o made of the l a t e r a l movement of various piles
on this project. T h e locations of the piles w e r e not established, however, until
PILE DRIVING
Many of the c l u s t e r s i n the c e n t r a l a r e a of the f o u n d a m n s a l s o moved
6 laterally a f t e r a l l nearby driving had ceased. T h e s e include the c l u s t e r s adja-
!! cent t o the construction slope which descended f r o m El. 8 to El. 0 (Fig. 5);
i' c l u s t e r H-15, c l u s t e r 1-15, and c l u s t e r 5-15. ClusterH-15 w a s driven on Day
1
20, c l u s t e r 1-15 on Day 27, and c l u s t e r 5-15 on Day 29. T h e f i r s t location s u r -
! veys w e r e conducted on Days 25, 59, and38 f o r c l u s t e r s 5-15, 1-15, and H-15,
respectively. T h e s e f i r s t s u r v e y s showed that n o c l u s t e r of the t h r e e was dis-
placed m o r e than 1 in. f r o m i t s design location. Then, between the days when
! the f i r s t s u r v e y s w e r e conducted and Day 83, a l l t h r e e c l u s t e r s moved toward
the e a s t even though no construction activity took place nearby during that
time. C l u s t e r H-15 moved 17 in.; cluster1-15moved 24 in.; and c l u s t e r 5-15

7
3.03
2.99- ---- 1
' 3.20/,
3.28 -
.-Survey

I
-Survey
On Ooy 122

On Ooy 132
L o s . , ~on S v n "

DO" P11.l
w.r. Dr1r.n

! -Pule Number

N 0r-.(+.-@r-o*+:%;!?del
0, 3 '"7 0 m
T 'U
I < - ,-
- -- .L .,. . - .. - C .-

All Oarloncer In Feel

FIG. 10.-LATERAL hlOVEFvIENTS OF PILES IN CLUSTER A7. CASE A1

a l l the piles within a c l u s t e r had been driven. Fig. 10 shows movements in FIG. I%.-LATERAL MOVEMENTS O F PILE CLUSTERS, CASE A1
cluster A-7 which was the l a s t c l u s t e r in i t s vicinity t o be driven. The piles
within c l u s t e r , A-7 continued to move laterally a s much a s 1 in. f o r a s long moved 15 in. L a t e r location s u r v e y s showed that these c l u s t e r s continued t o
a s t h r e e days a f t e r they w e r e driven. The piles w e r e a l s o probably displaced move until about Day 114, approximately 60 days a f t e r a l l the pile driving i n
during within-cluster driving, m o s t likely away f r o m subsequent driving that a r e a had been completed.
within the c l u s t e r , but no data a r e available concerning the magnitudes of
such movements.
Fig. 11 shows the movements of the c e n t e r s of gravity of the c l u s t e r s in ANALYSIS O F CASE
the southeastern wing of t h e s t r u c t u r e betweentheday on which t h e i r locations
w e r e f i r s t determined and Day 133. It is apparent that: (1) T h e magnitude of Effect on Soil Characteristics.-The effects of pile driving on the strength of
movement shown f o r any c l u s t e r is directly related to the number and proxim- the clay a t this s i t e and the p r o g r e s s of subsequent consolidation within the pile
j ity of piles driven a f t e r the f i r s t locationsurvey f o r that c l u s t e r ; (2) c l u s t e r s c l u s t e r s have been discussed elsewhere (15,21,22). At many of the c l u s t e r s , it
continued t o move f o r s o m e time a f t e r driving had c e a s e d i n the immediate i s evident that the soft clay had anopportunity to consolidate appreciably during
I
I vicinity; and (3) the directions of pile movement s e e m t o have been governed the interval between pile driving and reseating operations.
I
1
 November, 1971 PILE DRIVING

E'fecc Pile Type.-The magnitudes of ground and pile heave w e r e l a r g e

because the piles w e r e of a type associatedwith high displacements. T h e heave
,- ---
2
Bordng No. 4
was especially s e r i o u s because of the s l i p joint between pile sections. T h e ;i 1
s l i p joint allowed concreted piles t o elongate a t the point because the tensile
strength of the concrete w a s not sufficient to r e s i s t the upward pull of the s o i l
:: i: 5 .r1'""5'd B!!dQ.-. _- . .. .
I--. - -- - ---I
--
on the shell sections. If the 28-day strength of the concrete had been equal t o
3,000 psi, the tensile capacity of t h e c u r e d plain concrete a t the s l i p joint
'I
,
L--
7--'
Baring No. 3

would have been about 14 tons. T h e n ~ i n i m u m p u l lof the soft clay (completely Boring No. I

remolded) along the s h e l l sections may be estimated as about 13 tons. Since

a t least one day elapsed between driving and concreting the piles, the strength -
Plan

of the clay was g r e a t e r than the remolded strength and the upward pull on the ------I r----7
pile shells was undoubtedly g r e a t e r than 14 tons. The lower pipe sections
of the piles remained stationary s i n c e they probably developed a frictional r e -
sistance of a t least 15 tons in the hard clays and compact silts.
Effects of Fortndntion Geometry.-Grouping of ~ i l e sin c l u s t e r s caused a S t i f f Clay q,f 1.8 1st
buildup of s t r e s s i n the s o i l a t the location of the clusters. Thus, a f t e r being
driven, the piles within a c l u s t e r had a tendency t o move laterally outward I
f r o m the c e n t e r of the c l u s t e r f o r s e v e r a l weeks a s s t r e s s relaxation took Very S t i f f Cloy q u = 2 - 6 1st
place within the soil. If the piles had been driven a t a uniform spacing through- -- --
out the foundation a r e a , the s t r e s s e s produced by pile driving would have been El. 4 5 0
S t t f f Clay q,, :2 0 1st
r a t h e r uniform throughout the a r e a and t h e r e would have been no r e a s o n to
expect further s o i l movement. Hard Clay q,= 4 -8 Irf

T h e existence of t h r e e levels of excavationinthe foundation a l s o had a n ef- 400

fect upon the movement of the driven piles. In many instances, s o i l w a s dis-
placed during driving toward the open a r e a of a nearby excavation, and C l o y , E r r a t i c Conslrtency
previously driven piles w e r e displaced in the s a m e direction. F o r instance,
I El. 350

-
the location s u r v e y s conducted a f t e r Day 80 showed that many piles n e a r the I

construction slopes w e r e displaced toward the lower excavation levels during

driving. T h e different excavation l e v e l s a l s o led to delayed movements of the ... El. 300
-
Shall
s o i l and the piles. -
A

The general sequence of construction operations h a d a n i m p o r t a n t influence 50' 100'

Elevation O
on s o i l and pile a o v e m e n t . Initially, t h r e e p i l e d r i v e r s w e r e positioned in the
western extremities of the excavation and driving proceeded eastward toward FIG. 12.-SOIL PROFILE ALONG CENTER LINE O F B R D G E , CASE A2
the c e n t r a l a r e a of the foundation. Driven piles w e r e displaced t o the west,
away f r 31 the c e n t r a l a r e a , by the subsequent driving. T h e combined effects
on pile movements of foundation geometry and pile driving sequence may be
deduced f r o m the behavior of the pile c l u s t e r s along row 15, mentioned p r e -
viously. T h e piles along row 15, driven a f t e r a l l the piles to the west of that
row w e r e in place, moved e a s t toward the lower excavation levels a s they w e r e
driven. Then wh,en the piles a t the lower level along rows 1 3 and 12 w e r e
driven, between Day 41 and Day 57, the piles along row 1 5 w e r e displaced to
the west away f r o m the slope. T h e initial eastward and l a t e r westward move-
ments produced little net displacement of the row-15 c l u s t e r s . T h e location
s u r v e y s showed only smalldisplacement a s of about Day 59. After a l l the piles
i n the c e n t r a l a r e a w e r e driven, no f u r t h e r changes in the s o i l s t r e s s e s w e r e
created. After about Day 60 t h e r e existed l a r g e r l a t e r a l f o r c e s in the s o i l
t o the west of row 15 than in the s o i l to the e a s t of that row because the piles
to the west penetrated a g r e a t e r depth of s o i l than did the piles t o the east.
T h e unbalanced applied f o r c e s in the s o i l produced c r e e p movements toward
the lower foundation level. T h e s o i l c a r r i e d the piles toward the e a s t in a g r e e - FIG. 13.-BALANCE O F FORCES ON PILE
ment with the m e a s u r e d displacements f o r c l u s t e r s 5-15, H-15, and 1-15.
 ~ u m m a Case.-(1) q Pilc heaves of 5 in. o r m o r e w e r e produced by rould exceed that of the surrounding s o i l a t that level. m here fore,?
wer
driving c l rs of closely-spaced displacement piles into a deposit of soft half of the pile would be acted on by downward f o r c e s tending tc uce the
clay overl-6 hard clay and compact s i l t ; (2) the soft clay acted a s an in- total uplift of the pile. If the consistency of the s o i l v a r i e s with de4, a sur- f
compressible m a t e r i a l in the lnlrnediate vicinity of any one pile c l u s t e r during face a-a, Fig. 13, may be found a t which the relative movement between s o i l
,
the few days required l o r driving the piles in that c l u s t e r ; (3) the piles in a
cluster heaved during driving within that c l u s t e r andduring driving of adjacent
I! and pile i s zero. AS anapproximation, the pile heave may be considered rough-
ly equal t o the heave of the s o i l on the assumption that no heave takes place
c l u s t e r s ; (4) the piles moved 1;lterally away f r o m a r e a s of subsequent driving f!; below a-a. T h e depth, dl is estimated by balancing the potential upward and
during and f o r s o m e time a f t e r driving; and (5) different excavation levels :I downward adhesive f o r c e s on the upper and lower p a r t s of the pile, respectively.
within the foundation a l s o influenced the amount and direction of the l a t e r a l )f The procedure i s illustrated f o r c a s e A2. The soil-pile adhesion is esti-
movement. mated on the b a s i s of the relationship between s o i l cohesion and soil-pile
A c o n ~ p r e h e n s i v eanalysis 01 pile heave problems a t another s i t e is con- 1 adhesion proposed by Tomlinson (25). T h e estimated adhesionvalues a r e given
tained in Fig. 8 (corresponding i r ~this study to c a s e Bl). in Table 3.
F o r these a s s u m e d relative adhesion values, the upward pull on the upper
I part of the 140-ft piles would equal the resistance t o movement of the r e -
ESTIMATE O F PILE HEAVE
; maining lower p a r t f o r a depth of about 73 ft t o the s u r f a c e of z e r o relative
, displacement, illustrated a s follows:
P i l e heave data f r o m nine other c a s e h i s t o r i e s support the observations
made in the preceding s u m m a r y . However, i n only two other c a s e s , A2, and
Resistance to
Upward Pull
Movement
TABLE 3.-ES'I'IMA'I'ED ADIIESION VALUES
6 5 ft of soil C 1 22 ft of soil C2
Avert1 r:o Tomlinson i~ 6 5 X 1.35A = 88 A 22 X 1.50A = 33 A
cohesior~,in adhesion, in adhcsion per 8 ft of soil- C2 30 ft of soil C3
square foot foot of pile 8 X 1.50 A = 12A 30 x 1.40A = 4 2 A
square foot
(11 (21 (3) (4 (51 (6) 1 5 ft of s o i l C4
To ta 1 100 A 15 x 1.60 A = 24 A
Stiff clay C1 1,800 0.75 1,350 1.35 A
Very stiff clay C2 3,000 0.50 1,500 1.50 A Total 99 A
Stiff clay C3 2.000 0.70 1,400 1.40 A
Hard clay C4 4,000 0.40 1,600 1.60 A
The pile heave is then estimated a s about (140 - 73)/140 t i m e s the total s o i l -
heave, o r about 24 in. The estimated maximum pile heave is approximately
TABLE 4.-PII.1: HEAVES, CASES A l , A2, 0 7 equal t o the observed pile heaves n e a r the c e n t e r of the foundation. F o r c a s e s
A1 and B7 the maximum pile heave may be estimated in the s - m e way. Table
4 shows the r e s u l t s of such e s t i m a t e s and furnishes a comparison with ob-
Estimated rn:utimum Observed maimurn served pile heaves.
pile heave. In inches pile heave, in inches The close a g r e e m e n t of the values shown i n Table 4 is fortuitous, but it
(3) would appear that the procedure i s reasonable. I t s h o u i ~be applied only if the
piles a r e t o be d r i v e n i n a r a t h e r r e g u l a r manner f r o m one s i d e of a foundation
to the opposite side. A driving sequencewhich tends t o confine the s o i l o r r e -
strict i t s movement t o a c e r t a i n direction may c a u s e g r e a t e r s o i l heave in
certain a r e a s of a foundation than would be predicted on the b a s i s of the pro-
cedure, a s demonstrated by c a s e B2. The procedure should not be used if the
B7, a r e comprehensive data available. Fig. 12 shows, f o r c a s e A2, the plan soil may d e c r e a s e in volume significantly during driving. F o r example, in
and elevation of a bridge foundation. T h e pile heave in the center of the case B6 (5,32,33) the densification of granular l a y e r s during pile driving
excavation f o r each p i e r was approximately 24 in., and the s o i l s u r f a c e heave probably reduced s o i l heave, and the densifying s t r a t a a l s o acted to hold down
was approximately 50 in. C a s e B7 h a s been described extensively elsewhere driven piles. T h e a v e r a g e pile heave w a s approximately equal to 1/10 of the
(1,2). observed s o i l heave a t this site.
In a uniformly: heaving m a s s of clay the upward movement would vary In s e v e r a l o t h e r c a s e s the action of a v e r y stiff o r s t r o n g s t r a t u m n e a r the
linearly with distance above the base of the clay, Inextensible vertical piles Pile tip in holding down the piles against upward pull of heaving upper s o i l s -
embedded in the clay would be lifted by the relative r i s e of the soil with Was apparent. Obviously, the efficacy of s u c h holding s o i l s depends upon the
respect to the upper p a r t of the pile, but the r i s e of the lower p a r t of the pile characteristics of the piles themselves. In c a s e A3, inextensible pipe piles
w e r e effec*'
trated, aL
9 held down by a weathered r o c k zone into which their tips pene-
t the upward pull of heaving overlying silty c l a y s and clayey
silts. - -T'
CONCLUSIONS
1. Significant s o i l displacement o c c u r s during pile driving i n fine grained
s o i l deposits. Saturated insensitive clay s o i l s behave incompressibly during
pile driving.
2. At four s i t e s where piles w e r e driven into such clay soils, approximately
half the volunle of displaced soil appeared a s s u r f a c e heave within the a r e a of
the pile foundation while the remaining half a p p e a r e d a s s u r f a c e heave outside
the foundation a r e a .
3. Given the conditions of a saturated, insensitive clay subsoil, a regular
pile driving sequence, and a level foundation ground surface, the normalized
s o i l surface heave within the foundation a r e a may be estimated a s half the
volumetric displacement ratio f o r the site.
4. When piles a r e driven into sensitive clays, the resultant s o i l displace-
ment, especially beyond the limits of the a r e a enclosed by the p i l e s themselves,
may be l e s s than that produced during driving in insensitive clays. Remolded
s o i l may be extruded around the pile a t the ground surface.
5. When piles penetrate alternating s t r a t a of fine-grained s o i l a n d granular
materials, the observed surface heave may be much l e s s than that which would
have occurred in insensitive clay soils.
6. When l a r g e differences in elevation exist within the foundation a r e a , pile
driving may displace the s o i l laterally preferentially toward the a r e a s i n which
the lower elevations occur. The movements maycontinuefor s o m e time a f t e r
driving has ceased.
7. If the sequence of pile driving involves driving p i l e s f i r s t along the pe-
r i m e t e r of the foundation, the heave of the s o i l s u r f a c e i n the c e n t r a l a r e a of
the foundation is increased and that of the surrounding a r e a correspondingly
decreased.
8. T h e magnitude of the dile heave in a foundation, which differs f r o m the
heave of the ground surface, may be estimated by a s i m p l e procedure. P i l e
heaves estimated by this procedure a g r e e quite well with the values observed.
9. Lateral move] ents of s o i l and piles may occur during pile driving and
f o r a considerable length of t i m e thereafter. In general, driven piles tend to
be displaced away f r o m subsequent driving.
I. Avery. S. B.. and Wilson, S . D., discussion of "Effect of Driving Piles into Soft Clay," by
Cummings. et al., Tr?n.racrions, ASCE, Vol. 1 15, 1950, pp. 322-331.
2.Casagrande. Arthur. "The Pile Foundation for the New John Hancock Building in Boston,"
Joirrnol. Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 34, No. 4. Oct., 1947.
3.Cumrnings. A . E.. Kerkhoff, G. 0 . . and Peck, R. B.. "Effect of Driving Piles Into Soft Clay,"
T r r i t t s u ~ i i o t iASCE.
~. VJI. l IS. 1950, pp. 275 285.
3 Hokugo. Hisash,. "Observation of Soil Movement Due to Y ~ l eDr~v~ng,"B u r l d ~ t ~
News. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation (in Japaneie). 1964.
,a9
',
itrg
5. Holtz. W. G.. and 1-owitz.. C. A.. "Effects of Driving Displacement Piles in ~ e a n d v . "Jorrr-
-
'?
no1 o/ rhe s o i l Mechanics and Foundarions ~)ivisioti. A ~ E Vol. . 91, No. SMS. Yric. Paper
4476. S ~ p t . 1965.
, pp. 1-13.
: 6. Ireland, El. O., "Settlement Due to Building Construction in Chicago." thesis presented t o the
University of Illinois, at Urbana, Ill., in 1955, in p;~rtialfulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
7. Kerisel. J.. "Fondations profondes en milieu sableux." Proceedings. 5th International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering. Vol. 2. 1961.
8. Klohn, Earle J., "Pile Heave and Redriving." Transactio~u.ASCE, Vol. 128. 1963, pp. 557-
577.
9. Koizumi, Yasunori, and Ito, Kojiro. "Field.Tests with Regard to Pile Driving and Bearing
Capacity of Piled Foundations," Soil and Formdarion, (Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. Vol. VII, No. 3, August 1967.
10. Lambe, T. W.. and Horn, H. M., "The Influence on a n Adjacent Building of Pile Driving for
the M.I.T. Materials Center," Proceedings, 6th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Engineering, 1965, Vol. 2, pp. 280-284.
I I. Legget. R. F., discussion of "Effect of Driving Piles into Soft Clay," by Cummings, et al.,
Transacriom, A S C E , Vol. l 15, 1950, pp. 319-322.
12. Meyerhof. G . G., "Compaction of Sands and Bearing Capacity of Piles." Jorirnal o/ rhe Soil
Mechanics and Forrndarions Division. ASCE. Vol. 85, No. SM6. Proc. Paper, pp. 1-29.
13. Olko. S . M.. discussion of "Pole Heave and Redriving," by Klohn, Tronsacrions. ASCE. Vol.
128, 1963, pp. 578--587.
14. Orrje, 0 . . and Broms. B.. "Effects of Pile Driving on Soil Properties." Proceedings. ASCE,
Vol. 93, 1967, No. S M 5 , Proc. Paper5415, Sept., 1967, pp. 59-73.
IS. Parsons, J . D., and Peck, R. B., discussion of "The Action of Soft Clay Along Friction Piles,"
by Seed and Reese, Tramacrions. ASCE, Voi. 122. 1957, p. 758.
16. Peck, Ralph B.. Lecture notes on "Problems of Installation," for Seminar on Proh1en1.r in the
Evoluarion oJPile Foutrdarions. Metropolitan Section. ASCE, New York, 1966.
17. Peck, R. 0.. and Reed, W. C., "Engineering Properties of Chicago Subsoil," University of
Illinois Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin N o . 423, Urbana, Illinois. 1954.
18. Peck, Ralph B.. and Berman. S.. "Recent Practice for Foundations of High Buildings in Chi-
cago," The Design o j High Building. Symposium, University of Hong Kong, Golden Jubilee
Congress. Sept., 1961.
19. Plantema. G., and Nolet, C. A., "Influence of Pile Driving on the Sounding Resistance in a Deep
Sand Layer." Proceedings. 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tions Engineering, Vol. 2, 1957.
20. Reese. L. C., and Seed, ti. B., "Pressure Distribution Along Friction Piles," Proceedings.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol. 55, 1955, pp. 1156-1 182.
21. Rutledge, P. C., Soil Mechanics Fact Finding Survey Progress Report, U.S. Waterways Exper-
iment Station, 1947.
22. Rutledge, P. C., discussion of "Effect o f Driving Piles Into Soft Clays." by Cummings, et al..
Trimsactiom, ASCE, Vol. 115, 1950, pp. 301-304.
23. Seed. H. B. and Reese, L. C., "The Action of Soft Clay Along Friction Piles," Trun.tuc.rions.
ASCE. Vul. 122, 1957, pp. 73 1-754.
24. Thornlcy. J. H.. "The Mystery of the Restless Substratum," Engineeririg Newr-Record. hlarch
19. 1953.
25.Tomlinson. M . J., "The Adhesion of Pile Driven in Clay Soils," Proceedings. 4th Internation-
al Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, 1957, Vol. 2, pp. 66-7 1.
26. Vargas, M., "Pruebas y Observaciones de Compo Relativas a 10s Cimientos Profundos," Pro-
ceedings. Congreso Solere Cimientos Profundo>. Mexico C ~ t y 1964., pp. 573--575.
?7."Examensarbete I Geoteknik" "1963- 1964" Institution 1'0i Geoteknik Kungl. Tekniska ttijg-
skolan.
?g."Keport of Pile Testing Program for Willard Pumping Plants No. I and 2 Weber Basin Proj-
ect. Utah." Earrh 1.ahorurory Ri,porr Mo. Edf-622. Div. of Engrg. ~ a b o r a t o r i e sU.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1961.
 , .". - -..- - November, 1971
.""U

29. "Pile Sul

.w .'..A L..."...'

d Structures in Lake Deposits," IYarrr Rcso~rrcesTeclrnicol Publicarions Re- Y

seurch Rrc. __ (Vo. I ! . U.S. Dept. of the Intcriot, Bureau of Reclamation. 1968.
30. Zeevacrt. L., "An Investigation of llle I'nginecring Characteristics of the Volcanic Lacustrine
!I- Journal of the
Clay Deposit Beneath Mexico City." tl~esispresented to the University of Illinois, at Urbana, I!
Ill.. in 1949,in partial fulfnllrlrent of t l requirements
~ for the dcgree of Doctor of Philosophy.
31. Zeevaert. L.. discussjon of "Effect of Driving Piles into Soft Clay." by Cummings. et al., 'I, SOIL MECIfANICS AND FOUNDATIONS DIVISION
'f'rrltrvrrcriofrs, ASCE, VuI. 1 IS. 1950. 11p. 286-292.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers

SCALE AND BOUNDARY EFFECTS IN FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

By J a m e s Graham' and John Gordon Stuart2

INTRODUCTION

Although much experimental and theoretical effort h a s recently gone into

investigation of the failure loads of footings placed initially on the s u r f a c e of
uniformly dense sand, t h e r e a r e s t i l l s o m e features which r e q u i r e further
attention. In the f i r s t place, most c u r r e n t theories u s e contact s t r e s s and
friction assumptions whichproduce sharply discontinuous v e r t i c a l s t r e s s dis-
tributions a t the center of the footing base. Secondly, the failure loads of
model footings a r e strongly influenced by the settlements which a r e required
to mobilize the full s h e a r strength in the failure zones. T h i s i s usually treated
enlpirically by superposition of solutions obtained s e p a r a t e l y for z e r o s u r -
charge and for z e r o self-weight. Finally, althou,h it i s usually possible to
obtain f a i r a g r e e m e n t between theoretical and laboratory r e s u l t s by using
triaxial t e s t s to d e s c r i b e the average s h e a r strength of the sand, it i s generally
accepted that model t e s t s overestimate '+e bearing capacity of full s c a l e
footings by an undetermined amount. Density changes observed beneath model
foundations (15) show that the s o i l s t r e n g t h v a r i e s considerably in failure zones,
and the usual assumption of constant angle of s h e a r i n g r e s i s t a n c e i s therefore
a major simplification of sand behavior.
Solutions to the smooth footing problem using the numerical techniques of
plasticity analysis have been presented by, e.g., Sokolovskii (20) and Larkin
(14). In practice, however, footings a r e not perfectly smooth and the influence
on bearing capacity of s h e a r s t r e s s e s n ~ o b i l i z e d a c r o s sthe b a s e of the footing
has been outlined by Gorbunov-Possadov(S), Hansen and Christensen ( 1 I ) , and
Karafiath (13). T h e purpose of this paper i s to examine t h e effects of various
Note.-Discussion open until April 1, 1972. T o extend t h e closing date one month, a
written request must be filed with the Executive D i r e c t o r , ASCE. T h i s paper is p a r t of
the copyrighted Journal of the Soil hZechmics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of
the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 97, No. S h l l l . November, 1971. Manu-
Script was submitted for review for possible putdication'on March 26, 1971.
' L e c t u r e r , Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Queen's Univ., Belfast, Northern lrcland.
Sr. L e c t u r e r , Dept. of Civ. En@-g., Queen's Univ., Belfast. Northern Ireland.