CAPWAP

Introduction
PDCA Professors Institute
June 2011
Garland Likins
Pile Dynamics, Inc.
CAPWAP is a registered trademark of Pile Dynamics, Inc.

CAPWAP
is a
Signal Matching Program
(System Identification; Reverse Analysis)
We know both Input and Response
(wave down and wave up)
But we do not know the System
( static and dynamic soil model )

System includes Pile and Soil

Driven Pile properties are known.
Soil parameters must be determined.
Input into CAPWAP program includes:
Measured force and velocity versus time
Pile properties (known for driven piles)
Penetration (embedment depth)
Set per blow (or Blow count)
difficult to assess super-accurately

WDM

THE CAPWAP METHOD

WUM
WUC
1 Set up pile and soil model and
assume Rshaft and Rtoe
2 Apply measured WDM to pile model at top
and calculate complementary WUC

Rshaft

3 Compare WUC with measured WUM

4 Adjust Rshaft and Rtoe
5 If not satisfactory
match: Go to Step 2

Rtoe

Repeat until match

is satisfactory

The Pile Model

L

Zi-1

Zi

t =Li/ci

Zi+1

The Pile is divided in Np

uniform pile segments
of approx. 1 m length.
Each segment has
impedance Zi = EiAi/ci
and wave speed ci
The Wave travel time,
t, is the same in all
segments (.2 to .25 ms)

The CAPWAP Soil Model

t
t
t

Pile segment length ~ 1 m

Soil segment length ~2 m
( resolution of the data itself )

t
t
t
t

Spring (static resistance)

Dashpot (dynamic resist)

RNs-1

The
CAPWAP
Soil
Resistance
Model

Rui, qi

RNs

tG
Rt, qt

Ji

mPL
JT

Shaft Resistance,
Ns times

Some
CAPWAP
Soil Model
Extension
s

Ji

Rui, qi
ms

mSP

JSK

tG
Rt, qt

JT

mt
JBT

Add: Radiation Damping

Mass ms related to circumference
Damper Jsk related to soil strength

Add: Shaft soil plug

Static Shaft Resistance Model

Rs
Ru,s

Rs

d
Rs

quake, qs

unloading quake,
qs cs
Ru,n : UN = -Ru,n/Ru,s

CAPWAP Static Toe Resistance Model

Rt
Ru,toe

Rt
quake, qt

Toe gap: tg

d
unloading
quake, qt ct

Pile

CAPWAP Damping
Model
Viscous (Option=0)
Rdd = JCC Z v = RUU JSS v

velocity
v

Jss = Jcc Z/RUU

Smith (Option=1)
Rdd = RSS(t) JSS v
Combined (Option=2)
Rdd = RSS JSS v until RSS = RUU
Rdd = RUU JSS v after RUU is achieved
Smith (Option: OP1 or OP2)
Often with large toe quake

Normal CAPWAP Unknowns

Main Parameters
Rui:
NS values at shaft +1 value at toe
Ji:

1 value at shaft +1 value at toe

qi:

Loading - 1 value at shaft +1 value at toe

Major Trimming Parameters

1 shaft + 1 toe unloading quake multiplier
1 shaft unloading level + 1 toe plug + 1 toe gap
1 toe damping option + 2 rad. damping values
Total NS + 9 (or 11) unknowns

For 20 m (66 ft) penetration: 19 or 21 unknowns

Match Quality Time periods

Period I: 2L/c
Shaft Res.
Distr. develops

III: tr+5ms
II:
tr+3ms

IV: 25 ms
Toe Res. and total
Capacity develops

tr

Unloading develops

An Example CAPWAP

First Trial Analysis (Lousy Match)

Input v
Matching F
or
Input F
Matching v
or
Input F
Matching F
( Best: apply inputs, calculate reflections )

Working with Wave-Up

RU = 782 kips
RT = 68 kips
JS/JT = .05/.15 s/ft
(JCS/JCT = .75/.22)
QS/QT = .10/.12
RU = 782 kips
RT = 400 kips
(raise toe bearing)
RU/RT = 765/686 kips
JS/JT = .26/.07 s/ft
(JCS/JCT = .44/.97)
QS/QT = .06/.12
Unloading Parameters

Pretty good match: lets quit

Plotted Output

GTotaRMClLANPC1EWA95432120nKPgWi5DemC876r;oa04036sfp..,Bt319257lPcIiinwc:ey:7659814714..3f3920tx764i.nkc;418321ihp..aC9060slAoPCnWAgP77WSk2356hi490190124Fp..aIsf6NtFAILNARLEk431SRi052754327Up..E9Ls60S.TU5;Ta02../T71431fo356905te60k8..5s150f.639631CATPieW00ps..st/22:55ft1V2-rS00eO..pP:i66n03F1R
GMRKLEDngi70eBrsH,I1n4.X89;Blow:27 CAPW203-1
EX2;CLARK;SOFT-RCK;Pile:EX-2 Test:02-Jun193

Table
Output

Ji, qi,
Ri

Table
Output

Extrema

Case Method

Recommended CAPWAP Procedure

1. Data input: select the proper record
1. Data adjustment (normally automatic)
2. Build pile model (normally automatic)
1. Improve resistance distribution
1. Check quake (particularly toe effect)
2. Check damping effects
3. Check unloading effects
2. Repeat
3. Repeat to find absolutely best match quality
2. Produce output

CAPWAP rules

Important !

Unit friction < 4 ksf (200 kPa )

for most soils

QT (+TG)

< Dmax, toe

to assure activation

QS

< 0.2 inch (5 mm ) usually 2.5 mm

SS, ST

< 0.4 s/ft (1.3 s/m ) if higher, use SK model

CS, CT

0.3 to 1.0

Match set / blow

CS < 3.0 if SK used

(has penalty if set difference > 1 mm)

use SK (radiation damping) for low set / blow, drilled piles

do NOT use SK in high set / blow ( > 8 mm / blow; < 3 BPI )
low SK values may overpredict capacity

Record Selection
We cannot completely control the test!
1. For high resistance (set < 3 mm/blow; > 8 BPI)
find high energy/high force record
2. For low resistance (set > 8 mm/blow; < 3 BPI),
find blow with low energy/low force
or reduce energy input to pile

CAPWAP
Limitations
Incomplete Resistance
Activation
small set per blow
< 1/10 inch; 2.5 mm
What to do?
Bigger hammer;
higher energy hammer
Caution
Watch stresses!
No point exceeding
6 to 8 mm set per blow
( 1/4 to 1/3 inch per blow )

Underprediction
Loss of Soil Resistance during driving

Increased pore water pressure?

Soil fatigue or Strain loosening?
Liquefaction?

What to do?
1. Restrike after sufficiently long wait
2. Use early, high energy blow!
3. Use Radiation Damping model
( if low set/blow, if drilled shaft)
4. Use superposition of EOD and BOR
(only if set per blow very small - < 2 mm)

Underprediction
Loss of Setup Increasing Energy
Incomplete Activation
Reduced Capacity
Energy
Capacity

Blow Number

Underprediction

Underprediction
Loss of Setup Increasing Energy
Analyze several blows
Superposition resistance envelope
(if refusal blow count)

Overprediction ?
1. Relaxation
1.
2.
3.
4.

Weathered Shales
Negative Porewater Pressure (saturated silts)
Heave
Solution: restrike after wait time.

2. Excessive Energies (causes set > 8 mm / blow )

Just harder to get a match
Solution: use less energy to reduce set / blow

Correlation requires
a static load test

Continued correlations
assure reliability.

To obtain good correlation

of PDA with static testing
must activate all resistance in dynamic test
(minimum 2 to 3 mm set per blow)
allow strength changes to occur (restrike test)
(set-up increase on shaft, relaxation at toe)
consider 3 dates: install, static and dynamic tests

must have high quality static test

(good measurements, test to failure)
if either test not to failure,
gives lower bound solution only

1000 days

100 days

10 days

1 day

capacity

Test Comparisons - cohesive

soils

2nd PDA test

@ 15 days

Static test @ 14 days

PDA Test @ 12 hours

log time

24-inch PSC+H
Silty and Calcareous Sand

Ma
CA
x
lo
PW
ad
in
AP
g

Da
vis
so
n

(after Duzceer & Saglamar, DFI Nice 2002)

Evaluation of
24 static tests.

Interpretation Method

conservative DeBeer
Housel
Different
interpretation
methods give
different answers.
Davisson method
for driven piles is
conservative.
Individual method
result (AVG of 24
tests) compared
to AVERAGE of all
method results.

aggressive

Corps of Engineers
Davisson
Tangent Intersection
Shen-Niu
Butler-Hoy
Brinch-Hansen 90%
Fuller-Hoy
Mazurkiewicz
Brinch-Hansen 80%

Avg.

COV

0.768
0.822
0.913
0.945
0.998
1.008
1.025
1.075
1.091
1.153
1.240

0.210
0.120
0.095
0.092
0.086
0.086
0.081
0.044
0.067
0.072
0.176

Study
1980
1996
1996
SW

All

Avg.

1.010
0.931
1.012
0.993
0.980

COV

Co
N rrel notes

0.168

0.9
77 60 Case (CWRU) original study

0.166

0.9
83 27 best match (B.M.)

0.097

0.9
83 67 radiation damping

0.165

0.9
143 84 all piles

0.169

0.9
303 83 (1996 uses B.M. data)

Likins, G. E., Rausche, F., August, 2004. Correlation of CAPWAP with Static Load
Tests. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Application of
Stresswave Theory to Piles 2004: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia; pg.153-165.

CW versus SLT combined (N=303) (80, 96, SW)

40,000

Unconservative
(potentially unsafe)

CW [kN]

30,000

20,000

10,000

Conservative
(residual strength)

0
0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

SLT [kN]

CAPWAP (CW) versus Static Load Test (SLT)

Dynamic Load Test result (CAPWAP)

is generally conservative
CAPWAP on average less than Davisson
Davisson generally rather conservative
Continued set-up on most piles after the DLT
Group effects densification during production
Most piles driven harder than criteria
DLT often used with slightly higher S.F.
Better site coverage by more DLT
Possibly less risk with DLT than with SLT

iCAP

iCAP is a quick signal matching program

The quickness of iCAP compared to CAPWAP
makes a signal matching result available even
during the installation of the pile.
For uniform driven piles under simple pile/soil
interaction conditions, iCAP will give

Total pile capacity

Distribution of shaft resistance and end bearing
Case Method damping factor for best correlation
Tension and compression stresses along pile shaft

The results are independent of users

if no CAPWAP adjustments are performed

Use iCAP on PAX

iCAP on PDA-W

iCAP and CAPWAP

iCAP will not fully replace CAPWAP
Very unusual soils (e.g. high match quality)
Piles with cracks, gaps, slacks, shaft plugs
(open sections)
iCAP uses CAPWAP models, but only searches
standard soil parameters automatically
It is possible to perform iCAP on each pile, and
even each record

iCAP performance
7/20/2010

iCAP example

Quick iCAP
Ru 493 kips
CSC 3.15 ksi
TSC 0.22 ksi
MQ 2.12

CAPWAP
506 kips
3.17 ksi
0.17 ksi
MQ1.48

CAPWAP Summary
Signal matching primarily involves changing static
resistance distribution and damping quantities to
get best fit response and obtain static capacity
CAPWAP (on restrike) yields the most reliable
capacity results among all dynamic methods
( best to use BOR with sufficient wait time )
Select appropriate blow for analysis to assure
activation of resistance ( > 2 mm set / blow)
Superimpose results in extreme cases, either by
multiple blows, or by EOD plus BOR (if at refusal)
Engineer should carefully review result and combine
with other soil knowledge to get final answers