It is suggested that the concept presented in the paper of the embedded pile as an equivalent, freely standing cantilever has a few essential drawbacks. It is, first of all, a static concept and hence ignores wave propagation in soil and inertia of the pile. It, therefore, cannot yield any information on the damping generated due to dynamic soil-pile interaction and frequency variability of stiffness (spring) constants. The assumption that the length of the equivalent cantilever and the stiffness of the pile are independent of the embedded length of the pile and the degree of fixity of the tip is felt to be acceptable for long piles, but not for short ones, particularly vertical piles. It is also felt that the notion that the vertical stiffness of a friction pile is up to twice as great as that of an equivalent end-bearing pile is not correct since the relaxation of the tip will reduce the stiffness of pile, not increase it.

  • Availability:
  • Supplemental Notes:
    • Discussion of Proc. Paper 13158, by Jogeshwar P. Singh, Neville C. Donovan and Adrianus C. Jobsis.
  • Corporate Authors:

    American Society of Civil Engineers

    345 East 47th Street
    New York, NY  United States  10017-2398
  • Discussers:
    • Novak, M
  • Publication Date: 1978-5

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00178401
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: ASCE 13755
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Sep 14 1978 12:00AM