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
I R
(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

3 Compare WUC with measured WUM

Rshaft
4 Adjust Rshaft and Rtoe

5 If not satisfactory Repeat until match

is satisfactory
match: Go to Step 2
Rtoe
 The Pile Model
The Pile is divided in Np
Zi-1 uniform pile segments
Li
of approx. 1 m length.

Each segment has

Zi impedance Zi = EiAi/ci
and wave speed ci

The Wave travel time,

t =Li/ci Zi+1 t, is the same in all
segments (.2 to .25 ms)
The CAPWAP Soil Model
t Pile segment length ~ 1 m

t Soil segment length ~2 m

( resolution of the data itself )
t

t
Spring (static resistance)
Dashpot (dynamic resist)
t
 RNs-1

The
CAPWAP Rui, qi Ji
Soil
Resistance
Model RNs

tG Shaft Resistance,
Ns times
mPL
Rt, qt
JT
 Some
CAPWAP
Soil Model Ji
Rui, qi
Extensions
ms
mSP
JSK
tG

Rt, qt Add: Radiation Damping

JT
Mass ms related to circumference
mt
Damper Jsk related to soil strength

JBT 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
d
unloading
quake, qt ct

Toe gap: tg
 Pile CAPWAP Damping Model
Viscous (Option=0)
Rd = JC Z v = RU JS v
velocity Js = Jc Z/RU
v
Smith (Option=1)
Rd = RS(t) JS v

Combined (Option=2)
Rd = RS JS v until RS = RU

Rd = RU JS v after RU 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 III: tr+5ms IV: 25 ms

Shaft Res. Toe Res. and total
Distr. develops II: Capacity develops
tr+3ms

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
EX2; CLARK; SOFT-ROCK;
GRL Engineers, Inc. Pile: EX-2 Test: 02-Jun-1993
OP: FR
MKT DE 70B, HP 14 X 89; Blow: 627 CAPWAP 2003-1
GRL Engineers, Inc.
CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS
CAPWAP FINAL RESULTS
Table
Total CAPWAP
Total CAPWAP Capacity:
Soil
Capacity:
Dist.
804.4; along
764.6;
Depth
along Shaft
Ru
Shaft
Force
96.4;
79.5; at
Sum
at Toe
Toe
Unit
708.0
685.1 kips
Unit
kips
Smith Quake
Output
Sgmnt Below Below in Pile of Resist. Resist. Damping
No. Gages
ft
Grade
ft kips kips
Ru
kips
(Depth) (Area)
kips/ft ksf
Factor
s/ft in
ft ft kips kips kips kips/ft ksf s/ft in
764.6
1 6.7 4.2 2.0 804.4
762.6 2.0 0.30 0.06 0.255 0.060
2
1 13.5
79.4 11.0
5.8 1.0
16.9 761.6
787.5 3.0
16.9 0.15
2.55 0.03
0.27 0.255
0.243 0.060
0.100
3 20.2 17.7 1.0 760.6 4.0 0.15 0.03 0.255 0.060
2
4 86.0
26.9 12.4
24.4 9.5
1.0 778.0
759.6 26.4
5.0 1.44
0.15 0.15
0.03 0.243
0.255 0.100
0.060
3
5 92.6
33.7 19.0
31.2 1.9
2.0 776.1
757.6 28.3
7.0 0.29
0.30 0.03
0.06 0.243
0.255 0.100
0.060
4
6 99.2
40.4 25.7
37.9 0.0
3.0 776.1
754.6 28.3
10.0 0.00
0.45 0.00
0.10 0.000
0.255 0.100
0.060
7
5 47.1
105.8 44.6
32.3 4.0
0.0 750.6
776.1 14.0
28.3 0.59
0.00 0.13
0.00 0.255
0.000 0.060
0.100
8 53.8 51.3 18.6 732.0 32.6 2.76 0.59 0.255 0.060
6
9 112.5
60.6 38.9
58.1 0.0
1.0 776.1
731.0 28.3
33.6 0.00
0.15 0.00
0.03 0.000
0.255 0.100
0.060
7
10 119.1
67.3 45.5
64.8 6.5
1.0 769.6
730.0 34.8
34.6 0.98
0.15 0.10
0.03 0.243
0.255 0.100
0.060
8
11 125.7
74.0 52.1
71.5 11.3
1.0 758.3
729.0 46.1
35.6 1.71
0.15 0.18
0.03 0.243
0.255 0.100
0.060
12
9 80.8
132.3 78.3
58.7 4.9
11.3 724.1
747.0 40.5
57.4 0.73
1.71 0.16
0.18 0.255
0.243 0.060
0.100
13 87.5 85.0 39.1 685.1 79.5 5.80 1.24 0.255 0.060
10 138.9 65.3 6.5 740.5 63.9 0.98 0.10 0.243 0.100
11
Avg. Skin145.5 72.0 6.5
6.1 734.0 70.4 0.98
0.94 0.10
0.19 0.243
0.255 0.100
0.060
12 152.2 78.6 6.5 727.5 76.9 0.98 0.10 0.243 0.100
13
14
Toe 158.8
165.4
85.2
91.8
685.1
6.5
6.5
721.0
714.5
83.4
89.9
0.98
0.98
503.31
0.10
0.10
0.066
0.243
0.243
0.120
0.100
0.100
Ji, qi,
Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe
15 172.0 98.4 6.5 708.0 96.4 0.98 0.10 0.243 0.100
Case Damping Factor 0.437 0.971
Avg. Skin
Unloading Quake
Reloading Level
(% of 6.4
loading quake)
(% of Ru)
0.98
99
100
0.10
100
100
0.243 0.100 Ri
Unloading Level (% of Ru) 78
Toe 708.0 100.16 0.092 0.830

Soil Model Parameters/Extensions Skin Toe

Case Damping
CAPWAP Factor
match quality: 2.88 (Wave Up Match) 0.111 0.309 Smith Type
Observed:
Reloading final
Level set = 0.050
(% ofin;
Ru)blow count = 240 b/ft
100 100
Observed: final set = 0.009 in; blow count = 1323 b/ft
Unloading Level (% of Ru) 75
 EXTREMA TABLE

Table Pile
Sgmnt
Dist.
Below
max.
Force
min.
Force
max.
Comp.
max.
Tens.
max.
Trnsfd.
max.
Veloc.
max.
Displ.

Output No. Gages

ft kips kips
Stress

ksi
Stress

ksi
Energy

kip-ft ft/s in
1 3.4 586.4 -24.4 22.549 -0.937 23.53 11.7 0.738
2 6.7 588.7 -24.1 22.635 -0.927 23.40 11.6 0.725
4 13.5 585.7 -22.1 22.520 -0.849 22.79 11.5 0.699
6 20.2 587.3 -21.1 22.583 -0.810 22.30 11.4 0.670
8 26.9 590.1 -19.6 22.691 -0.753 21.73 11.2 0.637
10 33.7 594.8 -18.4 22.870 -0.706 21.02 11.0 0.600
11 37.0 592.6 -17.0 22.787 -0.653 20.42 10.9 0.579
Extrema 12
13
40.4
43.8
598.9
596.6
-17.2
-15.3
23.029
22.940
-0.661
-0.590
20.09
19.39
10.8
10.6
0.559
0.539
14 47.1 607.0 -16.4 23.339 -0.629 19.05 10.4 0.518
15 50.5 602.3 -15.2 23.161 -0.585 18.21 10.2 0.496
16 53.8 608.4 -15.4 23.393 -0.592 17.79 10.0 0.473
17 57.2 568.4 -7.2 21.857 -0.276 15.45 9.9 0.449
18 60.6 576.1 -17.7 22.152 -0.682 14.91 9.8 0.423
19 63.9 589.0 -27.0 22.650 -1.039 14.16 9.7 0.394
20 67.3 624.9 -35.8 24.028 -1.376 13.38 9.6 0.363
21 70.7 668.4 -42.0 25.701 -1.613 12.39 9.4 0.329
22 74.0 718.3 -48.2 27.622 -1.852 11.36 9.2 0.293
23 77.4 756.7 -54.5 29.095 -2.095 10.14 8.8 0.255
24 80.8 785.1 -61.7 30.188 -2.371 8.94 8.1 0.216
25 84.1 793.0 -61.2 30.492 -2.355 7.59 6.8 0.178
26 87.5 806.4 -63.8 31.007 -2.451 6.21 5.3 0.140

Absolute 87.5 31.007 (T = 27.2 ms)

87.5 -2.451 (T = 44.2 ms)

CASE METHOD

Case Method J = =
RS1
RMX
0.0
830.3
862.6
0.1
799.1
839.8
0.2
767.8
821.8
0.3
736.6
808.3
0.4
705.3
795.0
0.5
674.1
782.0
0.6
642.9
769.8
0.7
611.6
757.8
0.8
580.4
745.7
0.9
549.2
733.7
RSU 836.4 805.8 775.2 744.6 713.9 683.3 652.7 622.1 591.4 560.8

RAU= 595.0 (kips); RA2= 757.7 (kips)

Current CAPWAP Ru= 764.6 (kips); Corresponding J(Rs)= 0.21; J(Rx)=0.64

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 CS < 3.0 if SK used
Match set / blow (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)
610 mm PSC, Pier A

6000

5000

4000
Load (kN)

Top
3000
Toe

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)
 Overprediction ?

1. Relaxation
1. Weathered Shales
2. Negative Porewater Pressure (saturated silts)
3. Heave
4. 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 Continued correlations
a static load test 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
capacity Test Comparisons - cohesive soils

100 days

1000 days
1 day

10 days

2nd PDA test
@ 15 days

Static test @ 14 days

PDA Test @ 12 hours

log time
 24-inch PSC+H
Silty and Calcareous Sand
 (after Duzceer & Saglamar, DFI Nice 2002)
Evaluation of Avg. COV
24 static tests.
Interpretation Method
DeBeer 0.768 0.210
conservative Housel 0.822 0.120
Corps of Engineers 0.913 0.095
Different
interpretation Davisson 0.945 0.092
methods give Tangent Intersection 0.998 0.086
different answers.
Davisson method Shen-Niu 1.008 0.086
for driven piles is
conservative.
Butler-Hoy 1.025 0.081
Individual method
Brinch-Hansen 90% 1.075 0.044
result (AVG of 24 Fuller-Hoy 1.091 0.067
tests) compared
to AVERAGE of all Mazurkiewicz 1.153 0.072
method results. Brinch-Hansen 80% 1.240 0.176
aggressive Chin-Kondner 1.511 0.326
 Co
Study Avg. COV N rrel notes
0.9
1980 1.010 0.168 77 60 Case (CWRU) original study
0.9
1996 0.931 0.166 83 27 best match (B.M.)
0.9
1996 1.012 0.097 83 67 radiation damping
0.9
SW 0.993 0.165 143 84 all piles
0.9
All 0.980 0.169 303 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.
 Distribution of CW / SLT Ratios (96&SW: N=226)

25.0%

20.0%

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

Frequency
15.0%

40,000 Unconservative 10.0%

(potentially unsafe) 5.0%

0.0%

0
0

10 5

11 5

12 0

ov 0
4

00

13
r7

-7

-7

-8

-8

-9

10

11

11

12

12

13
-1
70

75

80

85

90
de

1-

6-

1-

6-

1-

6-

er
30,000

95

10

11

12
un
Ratio
CW [kN]

Distribution of CW / SLTmax Ratios (96&SW: N=179)

20,000
25.0%

20.0%

Frequency
15.0%

10,000
Conservative 10.0%

(residual strength) 5.0%

0.0%
0

0
0

11 0

11 5

12 5

ov 0
4

00

13
r7

-7

-7

-8

-8

-9

10

11

11

12

12

13
-1
70

75

80

85

90
de

1-

6-

1-

6-

1-

6-

er
95

10

10

12
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
un

Ratio

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 CAPWAP
Ru 493 kips 506 kips
CSC 3.15 ksi 3.17 ksi
TSC 0.22 ksi 0.17 ksi
MQ 2.12 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