CASE METHOD
by
Garland E, Likins and Frank Rausche
Introduction
‘The Case Method of pile capacity determination has been used with
increasing frequency during the past ten years for both design and
construction control of impact driven piles. As an increasing amount
of static load test data becane available for correlation the computa~
tion methods were modified, improved and refined.
The previous derivation of the fundamental Case Method equation
has generally been preceeded by the assumption that the pile be treated
as a rigid body. The expression resulting from the application of
Newton's Second Law has then been modified without a complete derivation
being presented with only a general reference to wave equation analysis.
This type of presentation has caused the method to be criticized unjust-
Jy as being based on a rigid body assumption, It will be developed here
ina brief way that will, perhaps, be more readable. Also the various
modifications which are necessary to account for different soil and
pile types are discussed.
In order to illustrate many of the characteristics of pile mechanics
a typical force and velocity record for an impact driven pile is shown
in Figure 1, where the velocity was obtained by integrating the measured
acceleration over time. Also, for ease of plotting the velocity was
multiplied by a constant, EA/c (Young's modulus times cross sectional
area divided by the wave speed; all pile quantities). The time scale is
given in milliseconds and in L/c units, i.e. in units of that time which
a stress wave needs to travel along a pile of length L.
‘This record was obtained from a 100 ft. long concrete pile driven by
a Kobe K-22 Diesel hammer, The static resistance as determined by a
load test was 470 kips which is low compared to the force at impact.
As a result the pile top force decreases at time 2L/e after impact, i.e. when the impact wave returns after a (tension) reflection at the pile
bottom.
2 Wave Mechanics
In the subsequent discussion it is assumed that the bar or pile
js of uniform cross section. The derivation and solution of the one
dimensional wave equation, a linear, second order differential equa-
tion, is available from other sources and wili not be presented here,
Figure 1 shows one important phenomenon of wave mechanics,
namely the fact that force and velocity at a point on a bar are pro-
portional as long as stress waves at this point travel in only one
direction. A wave in a rod which is free at top and bottom always
has the same direction of velocity (while the sign of stress changes
upon each reflection). The proportionality between the two curves is
destroyed as soon as waves caused by soil resistance forces reach
the pile top. However, for a completely free pile the top velocity
gue to a pile top force, F,(t), can be written
«
Yor OTE, 1
2
foro
impact this soil resistance law implies that the resistance forces
act only after the impact wave has reached their respective location
and that they are constant thereafter.
‘The effect of the upwards traveling wave caused by R, (t) is felt
at the top with a time delay x,/c, and that of the downwards traveling
wave with a delay (2L - x,)/e (after reflection at the bottom). This
means that the first effect of R, (t) carried by the downwerds traveling
i wave is felt together with the bottom reflected impact wave at
time 2L/e after impact.
For all times one can write the top velocity due to the
upwards traveling velocity caused by R, (t) as
2x, + 2b
since - A) + ee -
u «
Cette iiPRcaanat
renembering again that because of the reflection at the free top the
wave velocity has doubled.
The downwards traveling wave causes a top velocity
@ c aL. ou,
vei => BRR Sen - Seg 6
‘The total velocity caused by the impact force, F,(t), and all n resis-
tance forces Ry, i = 1, 2, ++) can be written as
2
WOO» Be OD 62D Felt by
a 2x, 52k ow
+ Sue - 9 + Dae - 2p 7
jel j=
where m indicates the time interval after impact:
ma p< +)
¢ =
3 Evaluation of Measurements
If this simplified soil model for the resistance force were correct
then v,(t) would be equal to vy(t) (i.e, the measured velocity) when
the measured force Fy(t) was substituted for F,(t) in Equation. 7. Thus, ce +2 Jorge - 22
2x + jm
Li) + Pace - 25] 8
deh
‘he third term in Equation 8, the summation over all resistance
forces is shown graphically in Figure 2. The first portion of the
term is due to the first arrival at the pile top of the upward travel-
ing wave dug to the resistance at the location x,, The full value
is felt at 4 after impact and stays on for the renainder of the blow
as shown by the solid bar in Figure 2. The second portion of the
tera is due to the same wave after reflections from the top and bottom.
‘Thus, for the first and succeeding time intervals m the effects are
felt 2L/c after the preceeding interval m-1, and are represented by
the stripped bars in Figure 2. The third portion of the third term
is due to the effect of the downward traveling wave. The wave arrives
at 2L/c after impact and again remains on for the remainder of the
blow. Due to subsequent reflections the same effect is felt every
aL/c. This portion is depicted by the white bars in Figure 2. Since
all of these effects are of equal magnitude it can be seen from Figure
2 that the third term becones
2x,
FT nyle a + mee -
where mis the time interval. If the measured velocity is taken at any
time t*
and if the measured velocity at a time 2L/c later is subtracted, then the
result is BA Gyced ~ vyitt + 2 = Byler) 6 2D Byler -
ntl
wren sy 2) aye By
j
n 2x, + 2mb
-) R,[2 m+ He - 4+) - 2+ D
2x, + (mL
cH(ee + 2b 10
Since the arguments of the Heavyside function terms both have
the same value their effects cancel. In addition the first element
of the fourth term becomes
and combines with Fy(t*) to produce -Fy(t*). The simplified expression
then becomes
a
EA * + + Alyy - « 6, Ay
eo (lay (td - vylt® + SD) = -Fy(t4) “F(t +S
Ry{2m - 2¢me1)} AL
yi
and with:
a
TRer 2
i
i.e. the total resistance, yields
I +) + Fy(t® + 2) + Bes - yer + 2
z CCR y(t) + Fylt® + 3) + S (yy lt) - y(t + DT 3 For a uniform rod with
c= fife 14
and M= Lap (o is the mass density, M the total pile mass) direct
substitution gives
EA. Me 1s
Thus, Equation 13 ean also be written as
2
yt) # ryt» 2
ness eMeeIEEag
ees +, yyy
5 Fyitt) + egies + Zp ew
a/c
which shows that the prediction R can be considered as an average of
two force values 2L/c apart plus an inertia term using an average
acceleration over the same time period. Equation 13a reduces to
Newton's Second Law if L becomes small enough and the pile can be
approximated by a rigid body. For larger lengths, L, where the pile
must be considered an elastic rod, Equation 13a is valid.
While the pile elastic properties and the distribution of resistance
forces were properly considered in the above derivation, the resistance
force versus time variations were neglected, ‘These variations exist
because both dynamic resistance forces (soil damping) and unloading
(pile rebound) occur.
Originally it was proposed to choose the time t*, yet to be
decided upon, at the time when the pile top velocity became zero. Then,
it was argued, soil damping forces would have become small, Results
obtained in this way were usually conservative when compared with the
ultimate capacity of the pile as determined in a static load test. There
was an indication, however, that a correct correlation was to be made
with a penetration related capacity (less than ultimate). This approach
has been abandoned as it is difficult to use in construction control.