×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

(OP)
An old dwg prepared by USACE references the following:
'Min. length of round timber piles 30-ft; or driven to a firm bearing so as to support a load of 25 Tons, calculated by the Engineering News Formula.'

My question is whether or not the pile load referenced is allowable or ultimate. My understanding is that the ENR calculates allowable capacity (with a usual factor of safety of about 6), so I have assumed that the load referenced is an allowable load. Is my assumption correct? Any thoughts?

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

You are right. When a drop weight is used the numerator value of C is 1.0 For single acting steam hammers the number is 0.1 For other hammers and diesel that C value might be modified. The Wisconsin DOT assigns c as 0.5 for gravity hammers and 0.2 for air, steam or diesel hammers. All as allowable.

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

(OP)
Looks like there are several versions of the ENR formula.
Some which calculate Qu and some which calculate a 'safe load'
which I assume is Qu.

What does the original formula calculate?

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

Safe load. That was back in the days when working stress, etc. was used in design, not ultimate. For this old guy, real old, I don't see the reasoning for factoring ultimate every design. Why not establish design working stress once and use it for many jobs? Maybe too complicated for me.

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

One more comment. When you go to buy cable or rope, the manufacturer has a number for each size as "load limit" or some other term other than breaking or ultimate. Must be a reason. Dummies otherwise might use the number for what it can do safely.

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

OG...score one more for us "allowable stress" guys. It's simple, it makes sense and it is less prone to error.

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

When you step into quicksand and go under, are you exceeding the allowable soil working stess? Or the soil ultimate strength considering your factored weight - but is your weight a live load or a dead load? Well, it's a dead load now I guess.

RE: Engineering News Formula - Timber Pile

As an aside - check out some papers by Flaate and Olsen back in the ASCE Geotechnical Journal (oops, that was one generation back) when it was the Soil Mechanics (oops, two generations past) Journal. They did some nice studies of various pile driving formulas between calculated and achieved - then offered some adjustments. Gates Formula fared well and it seems to be a popular one in LRFD from what I understand.

Nice Pun, Buggar, but you only exceeded the safe working stress because the stress was buggered up due to upward groundwater seepage pressure - something that doesn't seem to come into play in LFRD . . .

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources