Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
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
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
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
RU = 782 kips
RT = 400 kips
(raise toe bearing)
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.
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
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
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.
100 days
1000 days
1 day
10 days
2nd PDA test
@ 15 days
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%
Frequency
15.0%
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]
20.0%
Frequency
15.0%
10,000
Conservative 10.0%
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]