(a) Equipment compatibility: appropriate hammer size and

cushion.

(b) Driving stresses: plots of stress vs. set can be made to

evaluate the potential for pile overstress.

(c) Pile capacity: plot of ultimate pile capacity vs. set can
be developed.

The soil is modeled by approximating the static resistance (quake),

the viscous resistance (damping), and the distribution of the soil
resistance along the pile. The assigned parameter for springs and dashpots
cannot be related to routinely measured soil parameters which constitutes
the major draw back of the wave equation analysis. The input for the
driving system is provided by the anticipated hammer performance,
coefficient of restitution of the cushion, and stiffness of the pile.
Computer programs are available to perform the lengthy calculations.

(4) Case Method. The wave equation analysis can be used in

conjunction with field measurements by using the Case Method (Reference 11,
Soil Resistance Predictions from Pile Dynamics, by Rausche, et al.). This
procedure electronically measures the acceleration and strain near the
top of the pile, and by using the wave equation analysis estimates the
static soil resistance for each blow of the hammer. Energy transferred to
the pile is computed by integrating the product of force and velocity. A
distribution of the soil resistance along the pile length is assumed and the
wave equation analysis is performed. The assumed soil strength parameters
are checked against the measured force at the pile top and these are then
adjusted to result in an improved match between the analytical and measured
pile force at the top.

3. BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUPS.

a. General. The bearing capacity of pile groups in soils is normally

less than the sum of individual piles in the group and must be considered in
design. Group efficiency is a term used for the ratio of the capacity of a
pile group to the sum of the capacities of single piles at the same depth in
the same soil deposit. In evaluating the performance of pile groups in
compression, settlement is a major consideration. Expressions for
estimating uplift resistance of pile groups are included in this section.

b. Group Capacity in Rock. The group capacity of piles installed to

rock is the number of members times the individual capacity of each member.
Block failure is a consideration only if foundations are on a sloping rock
formation, and sliding may occur along unfavorable dipping weak planes.
The possibility of such an occurrence must be evaluated from the site
geology and field exploration.

c. Group Capacity in Granular Soil. Piles driven into cohesionless

soil in a group configuration act as individual piles if the spacing is
greater than 7 times the average pile diameter. They act as a group at
close spacings. Center to center spacing of adjacent piles in a group
should be at least two times the butt diameter.

7.2-204
 Block failure of a pile group in granular soils is not a design
consideration provided each individual pile has an adequate factor of safety
against bearing failure and the cohesionless soil is not underlain by a
weaker deposit. In loose sand and/or gravel deposits, the load carrying
capacity of an individual pile may be greater in the group than single
because of densification during driving. This increased efficiency should
be included in design with caution, and only where demonstrated by field
experience or tests.

The ultimate capacity of a pile group founded in dense cohesionless

soil of limited thickness underlain by a weak deposit is the smaller of:

(1) sum of the single pile capacities

(2) block failure of a pier equivalent in size to the piles and

enclosed soil mass, punching through the dense deposit into the underlying
weak deposit (Reference 12, Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footings on Sand
Layer Overlying Clay, by Meyerhof).

d. Group Capacity in Cohesive Soil. Estimate the group capacity using

the method in Figure 3 (upper panel, Reference 13, Experiments with Model
Piles in Groups, by Whitaker).

e. Uplift Resistance of Groups.

(1) Granular Soil. Ultimate uplift resistance of pile group is

lesser of:

(a) Sum of skin friction on the piles in the group (no

reduction for tapered piles), use a factor of safety of 3.0.

(b) Effective weight of block of soil within the group and

within a 4 vertical on 1 horizontal wedge extending up from pile
tips - weight of piles assumed equal to volume of soil they displace.
Factor of safety should be unity.

(2) Cohesive Soil. Ultimate uplift resistance of pile group is the

lesser of:

(a) Sum of skin friction on the piles in the group

(b) T+u, = L (B + A) C + W+p,

where: T+u, = ultimate uplift resistance of pile group

A = length of group

B = width of group

L = depth of soil block below pile cap

C = average undrained strength of soil around the sides of the

group

W+p, = weight of piles, pile cap, and block of soil enclosed by the
piles.

7.2-205
7.2-206