Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

83

A possible physical meaning of Case damping in


pile dynamics
Limin Zhang, Michael C. McVay, and Charles W.W. Ng

Abstract: This paper presents some possible interpretations of the physical meaning of the lumped, toe, and skin Case
damping factors, jcL, jct, and jcs, respectively, which are extensively utilized in the dynamic analysis of pile driveability
and capacity. A single degree of freedom model is employed to relate the Case damping to the hysteretic damping
ratios of soil and pile materials. This relation and the damping ratios of soils and piles show that the Case damping
factors for piles in sandy and clayey soils may overlap at all strain magnitudes. Coupling of pile toe and skin resistance
is analyzed, and the jcL factor is found to be a function of the skin and toe resistance ratio of the pile. Consequently,
the jcL factor is an important indicator with which the skin friction and toe resistance of piles can be separated. A
database of 133 cases of dynamic pile tests in Florida has been used to substantiate the analyses and interpretations.
The effects of the assumptions made in this paper are also discussed.

Key words: pile dynamics, wave equation, Case damping, hysteretic damping, bearing capacity, skin friction.

Résumé : Cet article présente des interprétations possibles de la signification physique des facteurs d’amortissement de
diagonale, de pointe, et de fût de Case, jcL, jct, et jcs, qui sont utilisés abondamment en analyse du potentiel de fonçage
et de la capacité des pieux. Un modèle à un seul degré de liberté est utilisé pour mettre en relation l’amortissement de
Case avec les rapports d’amortissement en hystérèse du sol et des matériaux du pieu. Cette relation ainsi que les
rapports d’amortissement des pieux et des sols montrent que les facteurs d’amortissement de Case pour les pieux dans
les sols sableux et argileux peuvent chevaucher à toute grandeurs de déformation. Le couplage des résistances en
pointe et sur le fût est analysée et l’on trouve que le facteur jcL est une fonction du rapport de la résistance du fût et
de la pointe du pieu. En conséquence, le facteur jcL est un indicateur important avec lequel la résistance de pointe et le
frottement sur le fût des pieux peuvent être séparés. Une base de données de 133 cas d’essais dynamiques de pieux en
Floride a été utilisée pour concrétiser les analyses et les interprétations. L’on discute aussi des conséquences des
hypothèses utilisées dans cet article.

Mots clés : dynamique des pieux, équation des ondes, amortissement de Case, amortissement en hystérèse, capacité
portante, frottement sur le fût.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Zhang et al. 94

Introduction and jssi are the viscous and Smith damping factors, respec-
tively, for the segment of pile shaft.
The total soil resistance acting on the shaft of a pile seg- To avoid referring to individual viscous skin damping fac-
ment, Rskin
i , is expressed by the Smith formula (Smith 1960) tors, the skin and toe Case damping factors, jcs and jct, are
or its variations (Rausche et al. 1985; Pile Dynamics, Inc. defined as the nondimensionalized sum of the viscous damp-
1992; Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1991, ing factors (Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
1993) as 1993):
[1] Rskin
i = Rsi + Rskin
di N
[2] Rskin
di = JvsiVsi = Rsi jssiVsi ∑ Jvsi
[3] jcs = 1
where Rsi and Rskin di are the static and dynamic resistance Z
forces, respectively, on the shaft of pile segment i as shown
in Fig. 1; Vsi is the pile velocity at the pile segment; and Jvsi Jvs, N +1
[4] jct =
Z

Received July 15, 1999. Accepted May 30, 2000. where N is the number of pile segment; Z = AE/c is the pile
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site on impedance, where A, E, and c are the pile cross-sectional
February 14, 2001. area, Young’s modulus, and wave speed, respectively; and
L.M. Zhang and C.W.W. Ng. Department of Civil Jvs, N+1 is the viscous damping factor of the pile toe element.
Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Similar equations can be written for the soil resistance at
Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong. the pile toe, Rtoe:
M.C. McVay. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6580, U.S.A. [5] Rtoe = R toe toe
s + Rd

Can. Geotech. J. 38: 83–94 (2001) DOI: 10.1139/cgj-38-1-83 © 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:39 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

84 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Fig. 1. The Smith soil resistance model (after Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1993). Jvsi and jssi, viscous and Smith damp-
ing factors, respectively, for the segment of pile shaft; R skin
i , total soil resistance on the pile segment; Rsi, static soil resistance on the
pile segment; Rsui, ultimate static soil resistance on the pile segment; R skin
di , dynamic soil resistance on the pile segment; usi, pile seg-
ment displacement; Vsi, velocity at the pile segment.

[6] R toe toe


d = J vt V t = j st R s V t = j ct ZV t al. 1985). However, recent evidence (Paikowsky et al. 1994;
Abou-matar et al. 1996; Thendean et al. 1996; Liang and
where R toe
s and R toed are the static and dynamic resistance Zhou 1997) shows unsatisfactory relations between soil type
forces, respectively, at the pile toe; Vt is the velocity at the and the damping factors. Figures 2 and 3 show the correla-
pile toe; and Jvt , jst , and jct are the viscous, Smith, and Case tions of soil type with the Case toe and side damping fac-
damping factors, respectively, for the pile toe. tors, jct and jcs , from dynamic tests of square concrete piles
Equations [1]–[6] are adopted extensively in pile in Florida at the end of driving (EOD) and at the beginning
driveability and capacity analyses using sophisticated wave of restrike (BOR), respectively. These data were obtained
equation programs (Rausche et al. 1985; Middendorp 1987; from analyses of pile test signals using CAPWAP (Goble
Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1991, 1993). An- Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1993) and are part of a
other important application is the pile capacity determination pile test database (Davidson 1997; Perez 1998; McVay et al.
using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) (Pile Dynamics, Inc. 2000), which includes static and dynamic test information of
1992). In this case, the dynamic damping force is assumed over 213 driven piles. No clear correlation between soil type
to be at the pile toe, and the static pile capacity, Rs, can be and the damping factors appears to exist in the figures.
obtained by measuring the acceleration and force signals at This paper aims to investigate and interpret any possible
the pile head and deducting the dynamic damping force physical meaning of the Case damping factors, jct, jcs, and
(Rausche et al. 1972, 1985): jcL, and their relationship to the fundamental hysteretic
 P + ZV1   P2 − ZV 2  damping properties of soils and piles. A large amount of pile
[7] Rs = (1 − jcL )  1  + (1 + jcL )   test data is used to verify the interpreted and correlated re-
 2   2  sults.
where P1 and P2 and V1 and V2 are the pile head forces and
velocities at times t1 and t1 + 2L /c, respectively, where L is Case damping and hysteretic damping
the pile length from the pile head instrumentation to the pile
toe; jcL is the Case damping factor, which takes into account Following Vertes’s (1985) derivation, the Kelvin-Voigt
the lumped damping effects on the pile, and is termed here- equation for viscoelastic materials shows that
after the lumped Case damping factor; and t1 can be selected
 dε 
in different ways and is assumed to be at the first relative ve- [8] σ = E ε + κ 
locity peak in the standard Case method.  dt 
The toe and skin Smith damping factors, jst and jss, and
the Case damping factors, jct , jcs , and jcL , are very impor- where σ and ε are stress and strain, respectively; dε /dt is the
tant parameters in pile dynamics. However, these factors are strain rate; E is the Young’s modulus of the material; and κ
not standard soil parameters, and their physical meaning is is a structural damping constant which is slightly frequency
still not fully understood (Paikowsky et al. 1994; Lai et al. dependent but is independent of the amplitude of dynamic
1996; Liang and Zhou 1996, 1997). A method to determine stresses below the yield point (Vertes 1985). In the case of a
these factors is to correlate them with soil types (Rausche et pile–soil system, Svinkin and Abe (1992) proposed that the

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:39 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Zhang et al. 85

Fig. 2. Correlation of Case damping factors in Florida soils using CAPWAP at the end of driving (EOD).

Fig. 3. Correlation of Case damping factors in Florida soils using CAPWAP at the beginning of restrike (BOR).

κ value may be determined using the decay of displacement where ω 0 is the circular frequency of free vibration, ω 0 =
measurements at the pile head during driving: (kp /m)1/2, and kp is the pile stiffness. Substitute eq. [11] into
eq. [10]:
1 u
[9] κ = ln 1
π u2 κ
[12] Jv = kp m
κ2
where u1 and u2 are the vibration amplitudes of two adjacent 1+
periods on the decay curve. According to eq. [8], the viscous 4
damping factor, Jv, is (Vertes 1985)
Svinkin and Abe (1992) introduced several terms in pile
[10] Jv = mωκ dynamics for expressing m and kp, i.e., m = ρAL, kp = EA/L,
in which m is the mass, and ω is the circular frequency of Z = EA/c, and c = (E/ρ)1/2, where ρ is the density of the pile
the pile. In the case of a damped free vibration, material. Equation [12] can then be rewritten as

ω0 κ
[11] ω= [13] Jv = Z
κ 2
κ2
1+ 1+
4 4

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:40 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

86 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Fig. 4. A single degree of freedom model for the pile–soil system (after Malkawi and Mohammad 1996).

The relationship between the Case damping factor, jc, and much larger than the stiffness of the pile toe soil, i.e., kp >>
the structural damping constant, κ, can then be obtained as kt. Finally, the pile–soil model in Fig. 4a is reduced to that
in Fig. 4b, represented by a lumped spring with stiffness k
Jv 2κ
[14] jc = = and a lumped dashpot with a damping factor c. Note that the
Z 4 + κ2 simplifications on pile damping effects and stiffness are not
valid for piles with their toes penetrating into high-strength
It should be noted that eq. [14] implies the use of the veloc- soil layers and for steel piles. In these two cases, the pile
ity at a specific point of concern. In the case of the pile toe, and the toe soil layer may have comparable stiffness.
for example, the velocity is at the toe point itself. According Damping can also be defined in terms of energy dissipa-
to this equation, the toe Case damping factor, jct, is a func- tion and the peak potential energy (Nashif et al. 1985). Ac-
tion of κ only. In the case of the pile shaft, however, the ve- cording to the energy definition and eq. [16], the hysteretic
locity varies along the shaft and a representative shaft damping ratio of the simplified pile–soil system shown in
velocity is pile geometry dependent (length, shape, etc.). Fig. 4b, λ, can be written as
Therefore, the skin Case damping factor, jcs, is a function of
κ and the pile geometry. λ pile + ψ λ soil
[17] λ =
The structural damping of the pile–soil system is influ- 1+ψ
enced by the geometry of the pile and the damping proper-
ties of both soil and pile materials. In an effort to determine where ψ is the ratio between the peak potential energy in the
the structural damping, Malkawi and Mohammad (1996) soil and the peak potential energy in the pile at a blow of
proposed a single degree of freedom model for the pile–soil driving; and λ soil and λ pile are the hysteretic damping ratios
system, as shown in Fig. 4a. In this model, the pile is char- of the soil and the pile material, respectively. λ soil is a pa-
acterized by a dashpot with a damping factor cp and a spring rameter that describes the dissipation of energy due to inter-
with a stiffness kp. Similarly, the soil resistance forces on the nal friction (Hardin 1965) and can be measured directly with
pile shaft and at the toe are represented by dashpots and a resonant column or a dynamic triaxial apparatus (Richart
springs. The damping factor and spring stiffness are, respec- et al. 1970; Woods 1994). The value of λ soil is discussed
tively, ct and kt for the toe soil and cs and ks for the pile side later in the paper. The damping ratio of the pile material can
soil. also be measured in a similar way. Sorokin (1972) suggested
Based on the single degree of freedom model, the equiva- the following λ pile values for pile materials: 0.05 for con-
lent damping of the pile–soil system, c, can be expressed as crete (average value), 0.025 for timber, and 0.0125 for rolled
cpct steel. These are relatively small constants compared with
[15] c= + cs those of soils. The ψ value in eq. [17] may vary from zero to
cp + ct
a value far larger than 1.0. Accordingly, λ will vary between
λ pile and λ soil. In a blow of driving, an average of approxi-
For concrete piles that penetrate into relatively weak layers,
mately 30% of the rated energy enters into the pile–soil sys-
the soil damping effects at the pile toe may be far greater
tem (Paikowsky et al. 1994). The majority of the entered
than the pile damping effects, i.e., ct >> cp. The above equa-
energy is directed to do work against soil resistance. Thus, λ
tion can be further simplified as follows:
may be approximately taken to be λ soil.
[16] c = cp + cs The relationship between the structural damping constant
κ and the damping ratio λ of the pile–soil system is
Therefore, the system damping is approximately the sum of
the material damping of the pile and that of the foundation [18] κ = 2λ
soil. The system spring stiffness can be simplified in a simi-
lar way in this situation, because the pile stiffness may be Substituting eq. [18] into eq. [14] gives

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:41 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Zhang et al. 87

Fig. 5. Relationship between hysteretic damping ratio of soil and shear strain.


[19] jc = Table 1. Minimum and maximum Case damping factors derived
1 + λ2 from hysteretic damping ratios of soils.

Equations [17] and [19] establish the physical link between λ soil (%) jc
the Case damping factor and the hysteretic material damping Soil type Min. Max. Min. Max.
ratios. Consequently, the Case damping factor can be esti- Rock 0.4 4.6 0.01 0.09
mated using the values of λ soil and λ pile. As the values of the Gravel
material damping ratios are significantly smaller than 1.0, Lower bound 0.4 13.0 0.01 0.26
eq. [19] suggests that the Case damping factor is approxi- Average 0.8 17.2 0.02 0.34
mately twice the mobilized hysteretic damping ratio of the Upper bound 1.4 20.0 0.03 0.39
pile–soil system. Sand
Lower bound 0.3 20.7 0.01 0.41
Analysis of the Case damping factors Average 0.9 25.7 0.02 0.50
Upper bound 0.7 27.9 0.01 0.54
The Waterways Experiment Station of the United States Clay
Army Corps of Engineers (Yule et al. 1998) presented a da- Lower bound 1.3 12.3 0.03 0.24
tabase of hysteretic soil damping ratio. The ranges of the Average 2.5 20.5 0.05 0.40
hysteretic damping ratios of sand, clay, and gravel are based Upper bound 4.0 27.0 0.08 0.52
on the test results of Seed and Idriss (1970) and Seed et al.
(1986). Rollins et al. (1998) collected recent test results of
the damping ratios of gravel soils and suggested a best-fit as 0.54. Except for rocks for which insufficient damping ra-
curve and standard deviation bounds. The average values tio information is available, the jc values of different types
and the upper and lower bounds of the damping ratios of of soils may overlap. By referring to Fig. 5, it can be further
various materials are summarized in Fig. 5. According to observed that such overlapping in the jc values of different
Fig. 5, the value of the hysteretic damping ratio, λ soil, of any types of soils occurs over a large strain range. Therefore, the
particular soil type is very small in the elastic state (shear Case damping factor jc is not a function of soil type alone.
strain smaller than 10–5). However, it increases considerably Its value is also influenced by other factors, such as strain
with an increase in shear strain beyond the elastic limit, and amplitude and hysteretic damping ratio of pile materials.
its maximum value does not appear to have been reached at Baligh (1985) and Silvestri and Tabib (1994) examined
a shear strain of 10–2 available in the database. the strain field around a simple pile at steady penetration.
Table 1 presents the minimum and maximum values of the The results reveal that the octahedral shear strain is in the
measured values of λ soil in Fig. 5 and the Case damping fac- range of 20–100% within the one-half diameter zone from
tor jc calculated using eq. [19], assuming λ ≈ λ soil. Note that the pile shaft, and is approximately 1% at three to four di-
the maximum jc values in Table 1 are based on the λ soil val- ameters away. The shear strains may be sufficient to mobi-
ues at a shear strain of 10–2 and are not necessarily the true lize the maximum damping of the soil in the vicinity of the
largest values. The minimum value of jc for piles may be as pile shaft. In the soil beneath the pile toe, the octahedral
small as 0.01, whereas the maximum value may be as large strain is larger than 5% within the one-diameter zone, and

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:41 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

88 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

1–5% in the one-diameter to two-diameters zone. Note that Equation [24] relates the lumped Case damping factor, jcL,
the local failure zone of the toe soil extends to 0.7–4.0 pile with the ratio of dynamic skin resistance to toe resistance
diameters beneath the pile toe (Meyerhof 1976; (STR). In the following, the value of the ratio is found to be,
Schmertmann 1978). At a depth 3.5 diameters beneath the on average, approximately equal to the corresponding static
pile toe, the octahedral shear strain is only approximately resistance ratio.
0.3% during steady pile penetration. The strains beneath the Using the Smith damping concept, the total skin and toe
pile toe are significantly smaller than those around the pile resistance forces (static plus dynamic), R skin
t and R toe
t , are
shaft and may not be sufficient to fully develop the soil
damping. [25] R skin
t = R skin
s (1 + j ssV s )
In an actual pile driving process, the shear strain beneath and
the pile toe may be even smaller, because the mobilization
t = R s (1 + j st V t )
of shear strain during pile driving depends on, among others, [26] R toe toe
the driving energy. In the case of a hard driving, the soil re-
sistance cannot be fully developed and the mobilized shear where R skin
s is the static skin resistance over the whole pile
strains may be small. Accordingly, the mobilized damping shaft. Based on these two equations, the ratio of the total
may be smaller than the maximum values in Fig. 5. It would skin and toe resistance forces is
be conservative to use the maximum soil damping ratio for
R skin R skin 1 + j ssV s
pile driving analysis. [27] t
= s
As the jc factor strongly depends on the strain amplitude, R toe
t R toe
s 1 + j st V t
it is expected that the damping factor for pile driving in a
particular soil is not unique unless the delivered energy is Because an actual pile is not a rigid body and the velocity
enough to mobilize sufficiently large shear strains in the soil varies along the pile shaft during pile driving, V s is pile ge-
around the pile. In addition, the mobilized shear strain in the ometry dependent. Hence, V s may also depend on the STR
soil around the pile toe will decrease if the stiffness of the and eq. [27] could be highly nonlinear. For simplicity, one
toe soil increases, which will in turn cause a decrease in the may substitute either Vt (Pile Dynamics, Inc. 1992) or the
Case damping factor. Intuitively, this may be accompanied pile head velocity (Liang and Zhou 1997) for V s to eliminate
by an increased percentage of toe resistance in the total pile the nonlinearity. In this paper, V s is taken to be approxi-
resistance (i.e., a larger ratio of toe resistance to skin resis- mately Vt; eq. [27] then becomes
tance).
R skin R skin 1 + j ssV t
[28] t
≈ s

Physical meaning of the Case damping R toe


t R toe
s 1 + j st V t
factors
Table 2 presents the Smith and Case damping factors (BOR
The dynamic damping forces acting on a segment of pile values not included) of 60 piles from the Florida pile test da-
shaft, R skin toe
di , and on the pile toe, R d , have been discussed
tabase, obtained from CAPWAP analyses. The average val-
earlier and are expressed by eqs. [2] and [6]. Note that ues are jss = 0.56 s/m and jst = 0.42 s/m at EOD, jss =
eq. [2] only calculates the dynamic force at one pile seg- 0.75 s/m and jst = 0.84 s/m at BOR, and jss = 0.68 s/m and
ment. The total dynamic force on the pile shaft, Rskin
d , may
jst = 0.64 s/m without differentiating pile driving at EOD or
be expressed as BOR. On average, the differences in the values of the skin
and toe Smith damping factors are not significant. Ne-
[20] R skin
d = jcs ZV s glecting possible significant differences between the jss and
jst values in individual cases, it is reasonable to assume that
where jcs is defined by eq. [3], and V s is a characteristic ve- the average Smith damping factors for the skin and toe are
locity of the pile shaft. The total dynamic force, Rd, then is approximately the same. As such, eq. [28] can be simplified as
[21] Rd = R skin
d + R toe
d R skin R skin R skin
[29] t
≈ d
≈ s
in which R toe
d is defined by eq. [6]. A variation of this equa- R toe
t R toe
d R toe
s
tion is
This equation implies that the static and dynamic STRs are
R skin Rd
[22] d
= −1 approximately the same. It is important to point out that, due
R toe
d R toe
d to the assumptions involved, this conclusion is valid in terms
of the average ratios of skin resistance to toe resistance, not
In the Case method (Pile Dynamics, Inc. 1992), on the other the ratios of individual cases.
hand, Rd is assumed to act at the pile toe only: Substituting eq. [29] into eq. [24], the static STR can be
expressed as
[23] Rd = jcLZVt
jcL
Substituting eqs. [6] and [23] into eq. [22] gives [30] STR ≈ −1
jct
R skin j cL
[24] d
= −1 To account for the errors associated with the assumptions, a
R toe
d j ct factor α is suggested for substituting the term –1 in eq. [30]:

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:42 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Zhang et al. 89

Table 2. Smith and Case damping factors of square concrete piles obtained using CAPWAP analysis at the end of driving (EOD).

Pile Embedded Smith damping Case damping


Pile width length Soil type* Toe/skin factor (s/m) factor
No. Location (m) (m) Side Toe ratio Side Toe Side Toe
1 Howard Frankland, LS1 0.61 16.70 3 3 4.80 1.010 0.830 0.137 0.543
2 Howard Frankland, LS3 0.76 12.07 2 4 8.64 0.167 0.190 0.019 0.186
3 Howard Frankland, LS4 short 0.76 7.50 3 4 8.99 0.200 0.187 0.023 0.191
4 Howard Frankland, LS4 long 0.76 22.40 4 4 1.80 0.649 0.233 0.140 0.088
5 Apalachicola River, pier 3 0.61 27.62 5 5 1.00 0.590 0.525 0.162 0.142
6 Apalachicola River, pier 14 0.76 17.92 5 5 0.26 0.722 0.718 0.363 0.092
7 Apalachicola River, pier 25 0.61 16.90 3 3 7.36 0.394 0.262 0.032 0.156
8 Apalachicola River bridge, FSB16 0.46 18.60 1 3 8.00 0.344 0.508 0.017 0.205
9 Apalachicola Bay, bent 41 0.61 15.94 1 3 5.54 0.249 0.499 0.024 0.262
10 Apalachicola Bay bridge, bent 101 0.61 18.93 1 6 13.89 1.000 0.138 0.051 0.094
11 Apalachicola Bay bridge, bent 133 0.61 31.96 6 6 4.98 0.672 0.840 0.050 0.290
12 Apalachicola Bay bridge, bent 145 0.61 31.39 5 5 3.26 0.790 0.492 0.094 0.190
13 Apalachicola Bay, FSB22 0.46 19.51 1 6 2.82 0.456 0.285 0.050 0.090
14 Dodge Island, 3-E-18 0.76 15.07 4 4 0.54 0.358 0.249 0.240 0.090
15 Dodge Island, 4-E-18 0.76 16.09 4 4 3.07 0.285 0.410 0.040 0.175
16 Dodge Island, 8-E-20 0.76 12.12 4 4 3.05 0.423 0.295 0.141 0.300
17 Choctawhatchee, P-41 0.76 19.87 1 6 48.25 0.686 0.462 0.012 0.392
18 Choctawhatchee, FSB-26 0.61 19.76 3 6 3.41 0.184 0.184 0.035 0.119
19 Cape Canaveral, T-I 0.36 23.25 2 2 0.37 0.239 0.239 0.157 0.065
20 White City bridge, TP2 0.61 12.19 6 3 2.41 0.567 0.462 0.091 0.179
21 White City bridge, TP3 0.61 11.34 3 3 1.51 0.216 0.551 0.050 0.192
22 White City bridge, TP4 0.61 8.99 3 3 2.95 0.731 0.190 0.094 0.072
23 White City bridge, TP5 0.61 8.93 2 3 2.07 0.630 0.387 0.110 0.140
24 White City bridge, TP6 0.61 8.69 2 3 2.00 0.469 0.387 0.081 0.133
25 White City bridge, TP7 0.61 11.43 3 3 1.71 0.754 0.315 0.169 0.120
26 White City bridge, TP8 0.61 8.93 3 3 1.59 0.518 0.600 0.111 0.204
27 Acosta bridge, pier F6 0.61 17.83 5 5 1.08 0.482 0.161 0.113 0.040
28 Acosta bridge, pier H2 0.61 10.95 7 4 3.16 0.505 0.115 0.121 0.087
29 Escambia River, bent 5 0.61 26.12 3 3 0.26 1.036 0.325 0.612 0.049
30 Escambia River, bent 77 0.61 18.69 5 5 0.86 0.886 0.502 0.436 0.213
31 Buckman bridge, TS-13 0.76 28.81 6 3 1.03 0.853 0.561 0.288 0.195
32 Buckman bridge, TS-19 0.76 27.21 3 3 2.39 0.538 0.377 0.160 0.268
33 Buckman bridge, TS-24 0.76 24.63 3 6 0.64 0.758 0.377 0.589 0.188
34 Buckman bridge, TS-29 0.76 24.38 5 5 1.94 0.892 0.351 0.296 0.227
35 Julington Creek, bent 55-P4 10F2 0.61 15.54 2 2 1.80 0.482 0.338 0.090 0.114
36 Julington Creek, bent 55-P4 20F2 0.61 21.95 2 2 0.58 0.600 0.771 0.240 0.180
37 Julington Creek, bent 47-P4 1 0.61 22.56 2 2 3.02 0.394 0.279 0.049 0.104
38 Julington Creek, bent 47-P4 2 0.61 23.16 2 2 0.72 0.338 0.626 0.127 0.170
39 Julington Creek, bent 37-P4 0.61 21.95 2 2 3.88 0.558 0.358 0.029 0.072
40 Julington Creek, bent 28-P8 0.61 27.43 2 2 1.00 0.308 0.417 0.070 0.095
41 Julington Creek, bent 22-P3 0.61 22.56 2 2 2.11 0.433 0.328 0.119 0.190
42 Julington Creek, bent 18-P4 0.61 25.60 2 2 0.92 0.827 0.443 0.265 0.130
43 I295 – SR21, pier 3R-37 0.46 16.15 5 5 0.21 0.548 0.682 0.308 0.081
44 I295 – Ortega River, pier 3R-14 0.46 10.06 3 4 2.42 0.164 0.164 0.070 0.170
45 I295 – CSX, bent 2R-16 0.46 8.23 3 4 0.86 0.669 0.515 0.265 0.175
46 I295 – SR17, pier 1L-11 0.46 10.36 5 4 0.68 0.459 0.384 0.174 0.099
47 I295 – 103rd St., pier 1R-P1 0.46 13.72 2 1 2.29 0.430 0.358 0.102 0.194
48 I295 – Wilson, pier 2W-P3 0.46 20.12 2 6 0.61 0.499 0.492 0.348 0.209
49 I295 – SR228, pier 6E-P2 0.46 15.54 5 4 3.12 0.400 0.282 0.100 0.220
50 I295 – SR228, bent 1W-P1 0.51 13.72 6 4 2.67 0.285 0.171 0.109 0.174
51 I295 – Memorial Parkway, bent 2W-P12 0.46 15.24 — — 0.92 0.577 0.318 0.243 0.123
52 I295 – Melvin Road, pier 2E-P1 0.46 19.51 3 5 0.08 1.381 1.440 0.931 0.080
53 I295 – I10 SB, pier 1-P21 0.46 11.89 5 4 2.54 0.889 0.292 0.238 0.198
54 I295 – I10 NB, pier 1-P11 0.46 12.19 5 4 5.00 0.850 0.230 0.113 0.153
55 I295 – US 90, pier 5-P42 0.46 13.41 5 4 2.42 0.420 0.344 0.089 0.176

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:44 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

90 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Table 2 (concluded).

Pile Embedded Smith damping Case damping


Pile width length Soil type* Toe/skin factor (s/m) factor
No. Location (m) (m) Side Toe ratio Side Toe Side Toe
56 I295 – US 90, pier 6-P66 0.46 13.11 5 4 2.37 0.512 0.581 0.179 0.481
57 I295 – US 90, bent 2-P17 0.51 12.80 5 4 2.82 0.669 0.433 0.121 0.220
58 I295 – I10, ramp A, pier 1-P12 0.46 16.15 5 4 0.48 0.403 0.371 0.255 0.113
59 49th Street bridge, TP37 0.76 7.13 6 4 2.00 0.384 0.610 0.104 0.331
60 49th Street bridge, TP38 0.61 7.19 6 4 1.95 0.876 0.462 0.329 0.339
Avg. 0.560 0.415 0.170 0.176
*1, plastic clay; 2, silt–sand–clay; 3, clean sand; 4, limestone; 5, clayey sand; 6, sandy clay; 7, silty clay.

Fig. 6. Relationship between toe Case damping factor, jct, and the ratio of toe resistance to skin resistance, 1/STR, at EOD.

jcL of a pile from its total capacity and identifying these resis-
[31] STR = + α
jct tance forces using simpler field methods such as PDA.
Among several options for determining the static pile ca-
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the ratio of static pacity in the Case method, the major peak method (RS ca-
toe resistance to skin resistance (1/STR) and the toe Case pacity) is the most commonly used. The lumped Case
damping factor, derived from CAPWAP analysis of over 60 damping factor corresponding to this method was studied us-
driven piles in Florida. In Fig. 6 the jct values are in the ing information from 133 driven piles in Florida. Presented
range of 0.04–0.55, approximately the same as that in Ta- in Fig. 7 is the relationship between jcL and 1/STR based on
ble 1. However, most of the data fall between 0.05 and 0.3 CAPWAP analysis of PDA signals at the end of driving
and are smaller than the upper bound values in Table 1, indi- (EOD). It is evident from Fig. 7 that jcL generally decreases
cating that the mobilized strain in the bearing soil beneath with an increase of 1/STR following eq. [31]. A value of α =
the pile toe is significantly less than 1%. The jct value varies –0.33 is appropriate to fit the curve, if the average value of
with the value of 1/STR to a much lesser degree than that the toe Case damping factor, jct = 0.15 (Fig. 6), is employed.
for the skin damping (to be discussed in Fig. 7), and the This α value defines a lower bound of jcL = 0.05, when the
trend line is approximately horizontal. Thus, it is expedient toe resistance makes up most of the total pile capacity. Note
to assume a constant toe Case damping factor, jct = 0.15, in that a number of data points fall on or below the x axis, i.e.,
eq. [31]. jcL ≤ 0 in Fig. 7. These points represent the pile driving
Equation [31] states that the lumped Case damping factor, cases in which the delivered energy was not able to mobilize
jcL, is a unique indicator of a pile’s static STR, with the jcL the pile’s capacity and the total resistance (static plus dy-
value proportional to the resistance ratio. This is an impor- namic) might be less than or equal to the static pile capacity.
tant conclusion. Determination of the skin and toe capacities Statistics studies were conducted to examine the sensitiv-
of a pile is a necessity for pile design. The new findings ity of the static pile capacity, Rs, to the jcL value using
make possible separating the skin and toe resistance forces eq. [7]. As shown in Fig. 7, most field data fall into a band

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:45 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Zhang et al. 91

Fig. 7. Relationship between the lumped Case damping factor, jcL, and 1/STR at EOD. Rs, static pile capacity.

Fig. 8. Relationship between jcL and STR at EOD.

around the trend line within which the error in the predicted a skin friction of 86–93% in the total pile capacity. At such
static capacity Rs is less than 30%. On average, a 10% a high STR value, the lumped Case damping factor is sensi-
change in Rs would require a 40% change in jcL or, alterna- tive to any error or variation in jct, and the assumed constant
tively, a 10% change in jcL would result in a 4.3% change in value of jct = 0.15 may not be appropriate.
Rs. The expression for jcs can be obtained by rewriting
Figure 8 shows the relationships between the jcL factor eq. [24]:
and the measured STR and the STR predicted using eq. [31].
The predictions are generally consistent with the measure- Vt
ments, with the exception of data points for large STR val- [32] j cs = ( j cL − jct )
ues ranging between 6.0 and 12.5. These data correspond to Vs

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:45 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

92 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Fig. 9. Relationship between skin Case damping factor, jcs, and 1/STR at EOD.

As the jct value can be approximately considered a constant, Given the assumed η value, more appropriate damping con-
eq. [32] implies that the skin Case damping, jcs, is propor- stants may be estimated using correlations similar to those in
tional to the lumped Case damping factor, jcL. Therefore, jcs Figs. 6–9.
is expected to vary with STR in a manner similar to that of Several approximations were made in this paper on the
jcL. Figure 9 shows the relationship between STR and jcs de- damping factors in eqs. [15]–[17] and the static STR in
rived from CAPWAP analysis of the same piles mentioned eqs. [28] and [29]. The effects of these assumptions should
in Fig. 6. Figure 9 shows that jcs decreases with an increase be cautioned if the results are to be used quantitatively. For
in the value of 1/STR, which is similar to the variation of jcL example, the assumptions involved in eqs. [28] and [29] are
in Fig. 7 and consistent with what is implied by eq. [32]. responsible for the somewhat poor correlation between jcL
The increase in damping factors during the pile setup (re- and STR. However, the conceptual meanings of the Case
storing of pile capacity) after initial driving can also be ex- damping factors with respect to soil type, strain amplitude,
plained with eqs. [31] and [32]. The gain in shaft resistance and STR do not appear to be affected by these assumptions.
is more significant than the gain in toe resistance (Fellenius
et al. 1992; Paikowsky et al. 1994; Liang and Zhou 1997).
Therefore, the STR value will increase during the setup pro-
cess. According to eqs. [31] and [32], the Case damping fac- Conclusions
tors will also increase and the increments in jcs and jcL will
Based on the dynamic test information of over 133 con-
be larger than the increment in jct. The data from the dy-
crete driven piles and a database of hysteretic damping ratio
namic pile test database indicate that the average jct value in-
of soils, the relationship between the Case damping and
creases from 0.19 at EOD to 0.25 at BOR (35% increase),
hysteretic soil damping was investigated and established.
and the average jcs value increases from 0.17 at EOD to 0.38
The physical meaning and implications of the Case damping
at BOR (125% increase).
factors were explored on a rational physical basis. Limita-
tions of the assumptions made in this paper were discussed.
Discussion The following conclusions are made:
Although this paper concentrates on interpreting the phys- (1) The Case damping factors in pile dynamics are func-
ical meaning of damping factors in dynamic testing, it may tions of strain amplitude, types of soil, and pile material and
also have important implications in wave equation analysis. geometry. Therefore, the factors cannot be correlated with
For instance, in a pile driveability study using GRLWEAP soil type alone.
(Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1991), the skin (2) The Case damping factors have physical links to the
and toe damping factors have to be input. In a conventional mobilized hysteretic damping ratios of the soil and pile ma-
analysis, a percentage of skin friction in the total capacity, η, terials. The damping factors increase with strain amplitude
and a skin friction distribution option must be assumed. and depend on, among other factors, the energy delivered to
Note that the relationship between STR and η is the pile.
(3) The Case damping factor for the pile toe, jct, appears
STR
[33] η= to be a function of the mobilized hysteretic damping ratios
1 + STR of the soil and pile materials only. On the other hand, the

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:46 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Zhang et al. 93

Case damping factor for the pile shaft, jcs, varies with the Liang, R.Y., Zhou, J. 1997. Probabilistic method applied to dy-
STR, in addition to the mobilized hysteretic damping ratios. namic pile-driving control. Journal of Geotechnical and
(4) The lumped Case damping factor, jcL, may be regarded Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(2): 137–144.
as an indicator of the static and dynamic STRs of piles. A Malkawi, A.I.H., and Mohammad, K.S. 1996. Estimating damping
semiempirical equation has been derived to relate the resis- constant of the pile–soil system directly from measured dis-
tance ratio to jcL which compares reasonably well with STR placement using Hilbert transformation technique. In Proceed-
ranging from 0 to 6. The skin and toe resistance forces may ings of the 5th International Conference on the Application of
be separated from the total capacity using the jcL factor. Stress-Wave Theory to Piles. Edited by F.C. Townsend, M.
Hussein, and M.C. McVay. Thomson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan.
(5) This study suggests that the Case damping factors (jcL,
pp. 37–54.
jct, and jcs) do have physical meanings: jct represents the mo-
McVay, M.C., Birgisson, B., Zhang, L.M., Perez, A., and Putcha,
bilized strain in the soil around the pile toe due to pile driv- S. 2000. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) for driven
ing and the type of soil; jcL denotes the STR of the pile; and piles using dynamic methods — a Florida perspective.
jcs has a meaning similar to that of jcL. These concepts can Geotechnical Testing Journal, 23(1): 55–66.
be adopted to interpret the observed facts, such as larger jcL Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
values for friction piles than for end-bearing piles and larger foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
damping factors at BOR than at EOD. ASCE, 102(3): 195–228.
Middendorp, P. 1987. Numerical model for TNOWAVE. Institute
Acknowledgements for Building and Construction Research, The Netherlands Orga-
nization (TNO), Delft, The Netherlands. TNO-IBBC Report BI-
The authors would like to thank the Florida Department of 86-75, pp. 6–21.
Transportation (FDOT) for funding this project. Technical Nashif, A.D., Jones, D.I.G., and Henderson, J.P. 1985. Vibration
assistance and suggestions from Dr. Sastry Putcha, Project damping. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Manager, Mr. Ariel P. Perez, P.Eng., and the reviewers of Paikowsky, S.G., Regan, J.E., and McDonnell, J.J. 1994. A simpli-
this paper are gratefully acknowledged. fied field method for capacity evaluation of driven piles. Publi-
cation FHWA-RD-94-042, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington D.C.
References Perez, A.P. 1998. Load resistance factor design (LRFD) for driven
Abou-matar, H., Rausche, F., Thendean, G., Likins, G., and Goble, piles based on dynamic methods with assessment of skin and toe
G. 1996. Wave equation soil constants from dynamic measure- resistance from PDA signals. M.S.Eng. thesis, the University of
ments on SPT. In Proceedings of the 5th International Confer- Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
ence on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles. Edited Pile Dynamics, Inc. 1992. Pile driving analyzer (PDA) manual.
by F.C. Townsend, M. Hussein, and M.C. McVay. Thomson- Pile Dynamics, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Shore, Dexter, Michigan. pp. 163–175. Rausche, F., Moses, F., and Goble, G. 1972. Soil resistance predic-
Baligh, M.M. 1985. Strain path method. Journal of Geotechnical tions from pile dynamics. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Engineering, ASCE, 111(GT9): 1108–1136. Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(SM9): 917–937.
Davidson, J.L. 1997. Evaluation of capacity prediction methods for Rausche, F., Goble, G., and Likins, G. 1985. Dynamic determina-
driven piles. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transporta- tion of pile capacity. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
tion by the University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. ASCE, 111(3): 367–383.
Fellenius, B.H., Edde, R.D., and Beriault, L.L. 1992. Dynamic and Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R., and Woods, R.D. 1970. Vibration of soils
static testing for pile capacity in a fine-grained soil. In Proceed- and foundations. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
ings of the 4th International Conference on the Application of Rollins, K.M., Evans, M.D., Diehl, N.B., and Daily, W.D. 1998.
Stress Wave Theory to Piles. Edited by F.B.J. Barends. A.A. Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. Journal of
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 401–408. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1991. Wave equation 124(5): 398–405.
analysis of pile driving — introduction to GRLWEAP. Goble Schmertmann, J.H. 1978. Guidelines for cone penetration test, per-
Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. formance, and design. Report FHWA-TS-78-209, Federal High-
Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. 1993. Case pile wave way Administration, Washington D.C.
analysis program — CAPWAP background. Goble Rausche Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors
Likins and Associates, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. for dynamic analysis. Report EERC 70-10, University of Cali-
Hardin, B.O. 1965. The nature of damping in sands. Journal of the fornia, Berkeley, Calif.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I.M., and Tokimatsu, K. 1986.
91(1): 63–97. Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of
Lai, P.W., Kuo, C.L., and Puckett, T. 1996. Dynamic soil responses cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
of impact pile driving — a case history study. In Proceedings of 112(11): 1016–1032.
the 5th International Conference on the Application of Stress- Silvestri, V., and Tabib, C. 1994. A re-examination of the strain
Wave Theory to Piles. Edited by F.C. Townsend, M. Hussein, field around a simple pile. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31:
and M.C. McVay. Thomson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan. pp. 300– 303–308.
312. Smith, E.A.L. 1960. Pile driving analysis by the wave equation.
Liang, R.Y., and Zhou, J. 1996. Pile capacity estimation using new Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
HST interpretation method. In Proceedings of the 5th Interna- 86(4): 35–61.
tional Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Sorokin, U.S. 1972. Dynamic characteristics of building materials
Piles. Edited by F.C. Townsend, M. Hussein, and M.C. McVay. and structures. In Dynamics of structures handbook. Stroiizdat,
Thomson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan. pp. 367–381. Moscow, pp. 38–61, in Russian.

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:47 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

94 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Svinkin, M.R., and Abe, S. 1992. Relationship between case and Vertes, G. 1985. Structural dynamics. Elsevier Science Publishing
hysteretic damping. In Proceedings of the 4th International Con- Company, Inc., New York.
ference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles. Woods, R.D. 1994. Laboratory measurement of dynamic soil prop-
Edited by F.B.J. Barends. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth- erties. In Dynamic Geotechnical Testing II. Edited by R.J.
erlands, pp. 175–181. Ebelhar, V.P. Ornevich, and B.L. Kutter. American Society for
Thendean, G., Rausche, F., Svinkin, M., and Likins, G. 1996. Wave Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication STP 1213,
equation correlation studies. In Proceedings of the 5th Interna- pp. 165–190.
tional Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Yule, D.E., Wahl, R.E., and Wallace, D.C. 1998. WESHAKE5
Piles. Edited by F.C. Townsend, M. Hussein, and M.C. McVay. manual. Geotechnical Laboratory, United States Waterways Ex-
Thomson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan. pp. 144–162. periment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-073.vp
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19:47 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

490

DISCUSSION

A possible physical meaning of Case damping in


pile dynamics: Discussion1
M.R. Svinkin

The authors present some explanation of Case


Discussion 492 damping The constant jc is very close to the coefficient of inelastic re-
constants obtained on the basis of a relationship between sistance, γ, for small values of the latter. Case damping con-
Case and hysteretic (structural) damping for the pile–soil stants calculated from the measured pile head displacements
systems. There are attempts to use the hysteretic damping represent the pile–soil system in general and the soil at a site
ratio of soils, as a function of shear strain, to determine the in particular.
case damping constants, and to utilize the results of dynamic The proposed determination of Case damping directly
testing and analysis of 133 piles to reveal the effect of the from measured pile head displacements does not depend on
hysteretic damping ratio on the toe and skin Case damping any other parameters. The constant jc can be found without
constants. static loading tests or CAPWAP analysis (Case pile wave
The discusser would like to make comments and remarks analysis program — CAPWAP; Goble Rausche Likins and
regarding the origin of the relationship between two kinds of Associates, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio) and therefore this
damping and some of the results obtained in the paper. constant is helpful additional information in the determina-
(1) Svinkin and Abe (1992) have developed a method for tion of pile capacity from dynamic pile test records. It has
determining the Case damping constant directly from a mea- been shown that the new method for determining the Case
sured displacement at the pile head, and they originated the damping constant, jc, provides accurate capacity determina-
relationship between Case and hysteretic damping as tion when the method is used with the RMX Case method
2γ equation (maximum Case method capacity) for piles exhibit-
[D1] jc = ing a free damped vibration behavior.
4 + γ2 (2) As a matter of fact, the authors used the same or simi-
lar equations and procedure as in Svinkin and Abe (1992) to
where jc is the Case damping constant, and γ is the obtain eq. [14] as their own finding of “the relationship be-
dimensionless coefficient of inelastic resistance or the tween the Case damping factor, jc , and the structural damp-
hysteretic (structural) damping. ing constant, κ.” Equation [14] is the same as eq. [D1]
To derive eq. [D1], the pile–soil system was considered as shown above, where the designation of hysteretic damping,
a single degree of freedom and equations for representation γ, was replaced with κ. The authors used the results from
of jc and γ were employed according to definitions and re- Svinkin and Abe (1992) throughout the paper and in their
sults after Goble et al. (1975) and Sorokin (1972), respec- conclusions. The authors had to make reference to the origin
tively. Sorokin (1972) found that the hysteretic damping, γ, of eq. [14] and major conclusions taken from Svinkin and
is a highly stable quantity for building materials. This coeffi- Abe (1992), otherwise their action is an act of plagiarism.
cient is independent of the vibration frequency and for some The authors made two irrelevant references to Svinkin and
stress level it is independent of the rate of strain. Although Abe (1992) for equations taken from Sorokin (1972), Goble
the hysteretic damping, γ, in soils could depend on strain, et al. (1975), or similar publications.
the Sorokin approach is acceptable because the coefficient γ
The authors made an incorrect assertion in the Conclu-
is determined experimentally from an actual response of the
sions section: “Based on the dynamic test information of
pile–soil system at the time of testing.
over 133 concrete driven piles and a database of hysteretic
Obviously, it can be argued that the Case damping is basi-
damping ratio of soils, the relationship between the Case
cally related to the internal friction in the pile–soil system.
damping and hysteretic soil damping was investigated and
established.” The dynamic test information of over 133 con-
Received 27 July 2001. Accepted 25 September 2001. crete piles and a database of hysteretic damping ratio of
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at soils has nothing to do with the derivation of eq. [14]. The
http://cgj.nrc.ca on 13 March 2002. authors have investigated and confirmed the relationship es-
tablished by Svinkin and Abe (1992).
M.R. Svinkin. VibraConsult, 13821 Cedar Road, #205, CAPWAP results of 133 tested piles were used mainly for
Cleveland, Ohio 44118, U.S.A. (e-mail: msvinkin@stratos.net).
analysis of the skin and toe Case damping constants with
1
Paper by L. Zhang, M.C. McVay, and C.W.W. Ng. Canadian certain contradictions. For example, eqs. [29] and [30], ob-
Geotechnical Journal, 38: 83–94. tained for determination of STR, are stated to be “valid in

Can. J. Geotech. 39: 490–492 (2002) DOI: 10.1139/T01-095 © 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-02\T01-095.vp
Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:46:51 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Discussion 491

terms of the average ratios of skin resistance to toe resis- (4) According to Table 1, the Case damping constant jc is
tance, not the ratios of individual cases,” but then it is sug- almost independent of soil type. This is not true for pre-
gested to use STR for individual cases. A database of 133 driving classical wave equation analysis. The damping coef-
piles could have been employed to find piles exhibiting a ficient in sandy soil is substantially less than the same in
free damped vibration behavior and to follow the determina- clayey soils, but the latter is close to the damping coefficient
tion of hysteretic and Case damping of the pile–soil systems, in saturated sandy soils (sands with high damping) (Svinkin
which is close to the so-called lumped Case damping factor, 1995b, 1996a, 1997). For post-driving analysis, additional
but it was not done. Svinkin and Abe (1992) demonstrated parameters like soil mass, gap, plug, radiation damping, etc.
that the RMX capacities were in agreement within 15% of are used to describe the soil behavior. In signal matching
the capacity calculated by CAPWAP analysis, while the procedures, e.g., the CAPWAP program, the damping coeffi-
RSP (the major peak method) capacities were off by as cients are used together with other soil parameters to obtain
much as 84%. The authors applied the RSP Case method the best match of measured and computed velocity or force
equation without explanation. It is obvious that the relation- curves. If several parameters are arbitrarily changed to ob-
ship between Case and hysteretic damping was not used in tain the best match of two curves, it is difficult to find a rela-
the RSP method. tionship between the damping coefficients and the soil type.
(3) The authors concluded that “the Case damping factors To clarify the correlation of the Case damping constant, jc,
in pile dynamics are functions of strain amplitude, types of with soil type, a thorough analysis of soil conditions and cal-
soil, and pile material and geometry. Therefore, the factors culated parameters should be made for the piles tested. For
cannot be correlated with soil type alone.” This conclusion, example, it is necessary to separately consider piles in sandy
except for the strain amplitude effect, was made in Svinkin soils and piles in saturated sandy soils (Svinkin 1998).
and Abe (1992). The authors’ intention is to present the co- (5) It is necessary to point out that a database of hysteretic
efficient jc as a function of the damping ratio, λ, which in its damping ratio of soils has no connection with the Smith ide-
turn is a function of the shear strain in soils, but it has not alized model of the pile–soil system.
been made for the following reasons: One of the major points of criticism of the Smith soil
model is that the soil constants cannot be determined from
(i) The hysteretic damping constant, κ, in eq. [14] is inde- standard geotechnical laboratory or in situ tests. There are nu-
pendent of stresses. The authors should have derived a merous experimental investigations of Smith soil parameters
new similar equation in which “ κ” is a function of the for driveability analysis. However, successful in situ or labo-
stresses in soils. Sorokin (1972) suggested an equation ratory determination of soil parameters does not necessarily
for γ(κ) as a function of the stresses in materials, but the guarantee the prediction of accurate and reliable pile capacity.
authors did not use that equation. The basic disadvantage of many models is the attempt to se-
(ii) There is confusion with the relationship (κ = 2λ) be- lect the model parameters directly from the actual soil proper-
tween the hysteretic damping constant, κ, and the ties. This can yield acceptable results for some cases, but in
hysteretic damping ratio, λ, in eq. [18]. This equation is general this approach is not successful in finding good corre-
correct if both of its parts have the same domain. How- lation between predicted and actual pile capacity after EOD.
ever, while the coefficient κ is constant, the damping ra- The use of the constant damping coefficients for the cal-
tio is a function of strain. Therefore eq. [18] does not culation of the dynamic resistance is one of the causes of un-
make sense. For the same reason, the damping ratio of satisfactory prediction of pile capacity with time after EOD.
pile materials was incorrectly taken from Sorokin The damping constant cannot reflect time-dependent varia-
(1972). For construction materials, Sorokin (1972) has tion of the pile–soil system after EOD (Svinkin 1996b,
presented the following constant values of hysteretic Svinkin and Woods 1998).
damping which is not a function of strain: 0.1 for con-
crete, 0.08 for brick wall, 0.05 for timber, and 0.025 for
rolled steel. References
(iii) The coefficient λ in Table 1 was taken from tests made
for uniform soils like sand, clay, and rock, but soil condi- Goble, G.G., Likins, G.E., and Rausche, F. 1975. Bearing capacity
tions in the field are a mixture of different soil strata. of piles from dynamic measurements — final report. Report No.
OHIO-DOT-05–75, submitted to the Ohio Department of Trans-
How does one overcome such uncertainty in the choice
portation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
of a hysteretic damping ratio? The authors agree with
Sorokin, U.S. 1972. Dynamic characteristics of building materials
Svinkin and Abe (1992) that Case damping constants de-
and structures. In Dynamics of structures handbook. Stroiizdat,
pend on the pile–soil properties, but it is not clear in the Moscow, pp. 38–61, in Russian.
paper how to take into account pile material and geome- Svinkin, M.R., and Abe, S. 1992. Relationship between case and
try in the determination of the hysteretic damping ratio hysteretic damping. In Proceedings of the 4th International Con-
and the Case damping constants. Moreover the coeffi- ference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles,
cient jc has different values for EOD and BOR (Svinkin Edited by F.B.J. Barends. A.A. Balkema, The Netherlands,
1995a, 1996b), but the authors’ procedure uses the same pp. 175–182.
Case damping coefficients for both EOD and BOR. Svinkin, M.R. 1995a. Pile–soil dynamic system with variable
(iv) A relationship between the Case damping and the strain damping. In Proceedings of the 13th International Modal Analy-
in soils was not found in the paper. The authors used the sis Conference, IMAC-XIII, Beyond the Modal Analysis, Nash-
maximum soil damping ratio obtained in tests for pile ville, 13–16 February, Society of Experimental Mechanics
driving analysis. (SEM), Bethel, Connecticut, Vol. 1, pp. 240–247.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-02\T01-095.vp
Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:46:52 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

492 Can. J. Geotech. Vol. 39, 2002

Svinkin, M.R. 1995b. Soil damping in saturated sandy soils for de- Svinkin, M.R. 1997. Time-dependent capacity of piles in clayey
termining capacity of piles by wave equation analysis. In Pro- soils by dynamic methods. In Proceedings of the 14th Interna-
ceedings of the DFI (Deep Foundations Institute) Annual tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
Member’s Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, 16–18 Octo- neering, Hamburg, 6–12 September, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
ber, Deep Foundations Institute, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp. 199– Vol. 2, pp. 1045–1048.
216. Svinkin, M.R. 1998. Discussion of “Probability method applied to
Svinkin, M.R. 1996a. Discussion of “Setup and relaxation in gla- dynamic pile-driving control” by Liang and Zhou, Journal of
cial sand” by York et al., Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
ASCE, 122(4): 319–321. 124(12): 1220–1221.
Svinkin, M.R. 1996b. Soil damping in wave equation analysis of Svinkin, M.R., and Woods, R.D. 1998. Accuracy of determining
pile capacity. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference pile capacity by dynamic methods. In Proceedings of the 7th
on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, 11– International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep
13 September. Edited by F. Townsend, M. Hussein, and M. Foundations, Vienna, 15–17 June, Westrade Group Ltd.,
McVay. University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 128–143. Rickmansworth, U.K. pp. 1.2.1–1.2.8.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-02\T01-095.vp
Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:46:52 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

493

DISCUSSION

A possible physical meaning of Case damping in


pile dynamics: Reply1
L.M. Zhang, M.C. McVay, and C.W.W. Ng

Discussion 494
The authors are grateful to the discusser for his interest in the pile–soil system, not the hysteretic soil damping. Based
the paper and some valuable suggestions. With the exception on another single degree of freedom model for the pile–soil
of a comment on eqs. [29] and [30], the discussion is on the system proposed by Malkawi and Mohammad (1996), the
second and third sections of the paper concerning the rela- structural damping may be expressed by the damping factors
tionship between the Case damping and hysteretic soil of the soils and pile materials (eq. [15]). Under a further as-
damping. The discusser expects the authors to continue the sumption that the majority of energy delivered to the pile is
study described in Svinkin and Abe (1992), to determine the directed to do work against soil resistance, the hysteretic soil
Case damping factor based on free damped vibration of the damping ratio may be approximately taken to be the
piles in the database of 133 cases, and to discuss the factors hysteretic structural damping ratio according to eq. [17].
influencing the relationships between the hysteretic soil With this transition between the structural damping factor
damping and strain amplitude, such as stresses, degree of and the soil damping ratio, the relationship between the Case
saturation, gap, plug, and multiple soil layers, etc. The ex- damping factor jc and the soil damping ratio at different
pected works may be worthy of being conducted; however, strain amplitudes may be expressed by eq. [19]. The mini-
they are beyond the objectives of the paper. Some arguments mum and maximum values of jc are then calculated (Ta-
in the discussion have probably originated from a misunder- ble 1) based on a database of soil damping ratios reported by
standing of the objectives of the paper, which will hopefully Yule et al. (1998).
be clarified in this reply. The authors’ response is broken The jc factor calculated with eq. [19] implies the use of
into three sections: (i) objectives of the paper; (ii) contribu- the velocity of the lumped mass. In the case of the pile toe,
tion of the Svinkin and Abe (1992) paper; and (iii) other dis- the velocity is at the toe point itself and the calculated jc
cussions. value may represent the toe Case damping factor, jct. For the
pile shaft, however, the velocity varies along the shaft and a
Objectives of the paper representative shaft velocity is pile geometry dependent
(length, shape etc.). Therefore, the skin Case damping factor,
The paper aims to investigate and interpret any possible jcs, is a function of the damping ratios of soils and pile mate-
physical meaning of the Case damping factors, jct, jcs, and rials, as well as the pile geometry. The derivation and dis-
jcL, and their relationships to the fundamental hysteretic cussions in the paper provide no evidence that the jc value
damping properties of soils and piles. To start with, the sim- from eq. [19] can be used to replace the lumped Case damp-
ple relationship between the Case damping and structural ing factor jcL for use in the Case method (eq. [7]) in which
hysteretic damping originally derived by Svinkin and Abe the dynamic damping force is lumped at the pile toe. In ad-
(1992) is reviewed considering the vibration of a system dition, the strain amplitude in the soil, as well as the varia-
with a single degree of freedom (eq. [14]). Note that the tion of particle velocity along the pile are usually not
damping factor calculated from the decay of the displace- measured during pile driving. The paper only uses the analy-
ment at the pile head represents the structural damping of ses in a qualitative manner to interpret the possible physical
meaning of jc, but does not attempt to use eq. [19] to find jcL
Received 24 September 2001. Accepted 25 September 2001. values for pile driving analysis.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at The paper then puts its major effort into interpreting the
http://cgj.nrc.ca on 13 March 2002.
possible physical meaning of Case damping factors based on
L.M. Zhang2 and C.W.W. Ng. Department of Civil results from CAPWAP analyses of 133 piles. A possible
Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and physical meaning is suggested for the Case damping factors
Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong. (jcL, jct, and jcs). The jct factor represents the mobilized strain
M.C. McVay. Department of Civil Engineering, University of in the soil around the pile toe due to pile driving and the
Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611–6580, U.S.A.
type of the soil (Fig. 6); jcL represents the skin/toe resistance
1 ratio of the pile (eq. [31], Fig. 7); and jcs has a meaning sim-
Discussion by M.R. Svinkin. This issue. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39: 490–492. ilar to jcL (eq. [32], Fig. 9). These findings make it possible
2
Corresponding author (e-mail: cezhangl@ust.hk). to separate the skin and toe resistance forces of a pile from

Can. Geotech. J. 39: 493–494 (2002) DOI: 10.1139/T01-096 © 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-02\T01-096.vp
Friday, March 08, 2002 4:18:08 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

494 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

its total capacity and to identify these resistance forces using then logically concluded that the Case damping factors are
simpler field methods such as PDA. The assumptions and functions of strain amplitude, types of soil, and pile material
limitations of eqs. [29] and [30] are described in the course and geometry. Similar conclusions, with the exception of the
of the derivation. new interpretations on strain amplitude effects and pile ge-
ometry effects (eq. [31]), are also made by others listed in
the paper (Svinkin and Abe 1992; Paikowsky et al. 1994;
Contribution of the Svinkin and Abe (1992) Abou-matar et al. 1996; Thendean et al. 1996; Liang and
paper Zhou 1997). While the reference list may not be complete, it
is a fact that many researchers have also studied the problem
Svinkin and Abe (1992) made two findings. First, they de- and some views have been common among them.
rived the relationship between the Case damping and In soil dynamics, the soil damping is often described by
hysteretic structural damping of a single degree of freedom the hysteretic damping ratio λ soil , such as the values shown
system. Second, they developed a method for determining in Fig. 5. For consistency, the paper also uses the damping
the Case damping constant directly from a measured dis- ratio λ for pile materials. The discusser must have referred
placement at the pile head. These two findings are men- to the average values of κ for pile materials, otherwise a
tioned and clearly cited twice in the paper in the single value of λ = 0.1 for concrete would not be correct. From
paragraph where these findings appear. The authors regret if definitions of κ and λ, the relationship between the two fac-
the double citation of the Svinkin and Abe (1992) paper did tors is κ = 2λ (eq. [18]).
not fully acknowledge their contributions.
The authors agree with the discusser that soil parameters
for the Smith soil model cannot be accurately determined
Other discussions from standard geotechnical laboratory or in situ tests. One of
the reasons for this could be that the parameters are pile ge-
Table 1, eq. [17], and Fig. 5 in the paper establish the ometry dependent. The authors also agree that the use of
minimum and maximum Case damping factors derived from constant damping factors for calculating the dynamic resis-
the hysteretic damping ratios of four types of soils. It is tance at different times after EOD is not appropriate. In the
found that the Case damping factor, jc, is influenced by sev- paper, the data from dynamic pile tests indicate that the av-
eral other factors (such as strain amplitude and hysteretic erage jcs value increases from 0.17 at EOD to 0.38 at BOR.
damping ratio of pile materials) in addition to soil type. In This may be explained using eqs. [31] and [32]. Because the
the developments that followed, it is further found (eq. [31]) gain in the shaft resistance is more significant than the gain
that the lumped Case damping factor is an indicator of a in the toe resistance, the skin/toe resistance ratio STR will
pile’s ratio of skin resistance to toe resistance, which is de- increase during the set-up process. Based on eqs. [31] and
pendent on the pile geometry (length, toe area etc.). It is [32], the values of jcL and jcs will increase accordingly.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-02\T01-096.vp
Friday, March 08, 2002 4:18:08 PM