Example 6: Comparison of Damping Parameters Page 1 of 3

GRLWEAP Standard Examples

Example 6: Comparison of Damping Parameters

The echo print of the input data and the numerical output from the Wave Equation
Analysis is contained in the Example 6 Output file both for English and SI Units. Although
it was attempted to limit differences between this example and the corresponding one of
earlier GRLWEAP versions, small input and output differences were unavoidable. Please
also note that descriptions of basic input features may have been included in earlier
examples and may not be repeated here.

6.1 General Remarks

The choice of damping parameters may have a rather substantial effect on
the wave equation results. In addition, the two different definitions of
damping, Smith and Case (viscous), may add confusion. The following
example was therefore included as a demonstration of the effects of different
damping values and damping definitions. Note: It is recommended that the
Smith or Smith-viscous (Residual Stress and Vibratory Hammer
analyses) approach is used with damping factors having s/m or s/ft
units. Exceptions to this rule are cases where measurements have been made
in support of other methods or for research purposes.

6.2 Situation
The situation is assumed: A 12 x 12 inch (305 x 305 mm) prestressed
concrete pile [E = 5000 ksi (34470 MPa), L = 60 ft (18.3 m)] is driven by a
Kobe K-25 hammer into clay. Two stages of the driving operation are
investigated. First, easy driving, with the possibility of tension damage, and
second, the hard driving situation, when the pile reaches the bearing layer.

6.3 Data Input

Basic Input: An oak pile top cushion is chosen [E = 50 ksi (345 MPa) across
the grain, cross sectional area = 144 in2(929 cm2), thickness = 4 in (102
mm)]. The soil resistance is uniformly distributed over the bottom 12 ft (3.66
m) of the pile. The shaft resistance is assumed to be 50 kips (222 kN) and no
toe resistance was anticipated (this shaft resistance distribution and the zero
toe resistance were chosen to demonstrate this particular example; these
values are not realistic and should not be considered a recommendation).
Other input data included: a helmet weight of 0.95 kips (4.23 kN), a hammer
cushion stiffness of 10,500 kips/inch (1840 kN/mm), a pile cushion coefficient
of restitution of 0.6, a pile cross sectional area of 144 in2(929 cm2) and a pile
specific weight of 153 lb/ft3(24.0 kN/m3). Quakes were set to 0.10 in (2.54
mm) and several ultimate capacity values were analyzed always with zero toe
resistance (% Shaft Resistance = 100).

A. Easy Driving, CASE Damping

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016
Example 6: Comparison of Damping Parameters Page 2 of 3

Case damping was chosen (Click Options/General Options/Damping and then

Case). The viscous shaft and toe damping factors were taken as 0.5 and 0.3
times the pile impedance.

B. Easy Driving, Smith Damping

The only variation from Case A was the choice of Smith Damping (Click
Options/General Options/Damping and then Smith) with damping factors of
0.20 and 0.01 s/ft (0.656 and 0.033 s/m) at shaft and toe, respectively. (The
0.01 s/ft toe damping value was the recommendation of the 1976 WEAP
Manual). Note that the Smith toe damping value is not essential, since there is
no toe resistance. (Case damping can be present in the absence of static
resistance).

C. Hard Driving, CASE Damping

It is assumed that the skin friction is relatively well known to be 100 kips (445
kN) and a constant friction analysis is performed. Thus, various ultimate
capacities are analyzed starting with 100 kips (445 kN) (set % Shaft
Resistance = 100, and select Bearing Graph Const. Shaft from the Bearing
Graph Prop. Shaft menu for constant shaft resistance); in this way, since shaft
resistance remains constant for all ultimate capacities analyzed, the end
bearing increases with the ultimate capacity. Select Case Damping (Click
Options/General Options/Damping and then Case). Viscous damping factors
were again 0.5 and 0.3 for shaft and toe, respectively.

D. Hard Driving, Smith Damping

The situation is as in Case C except for the input damping factors Js=0.20 and
Jt=0.01 s/ft (0.656 and 0.033 s/m), and the selection of Options/General
Option/Damping and Smith.

6.4 Results

To plot a first bearing graph click and Bearing Graph; to plot a second
bearing graph in the same figure, click File/Read Second File and select the
desired output file. The following figures show for Smith, Case 2, easier driving
at low capacities and higher blow counts during harder driving than the
corresponding viscous approach of Case A since the effective damping
parameters according to the Smith definition increase with Rut. Case D,
however, always shows an easy driving condition relative to the viscous curve

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016
Example 6: Comparison of Damping Parameters Page 3 of 3

because of the rather low damping with most of the resistance acting at the
toe [toe damping was only 0.01 s/ft (0.033 s/m)]. Finally, it should be
observed that Case damping results were nearly unaffected by the different
resistance distributions.

Bearing Graph Figure: Cases A and B

Bearing Graph Figure: Cases C and D

mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\PDI\GRLWEAP%202010\GRLWE... 25.11.2016