Four-pile caps made from concrete are essential elements for the force transfer from the superstructure to piles or pipes. Due to the difficulties in carrying out full-scale tests and all the instrumentation involved, the use of numerical models as a way to study the mechanical behavior of these elements presents itself as a good alternative. Such numerical studies usually provide useful information for the update and improvement of normative standards and codes. The concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) constitutive model, which combines damage and plasticity with smeared-crack propagation, stands out in the simulation of reinforced concrete. This model is composed of five parameters: dilatation angle (ψ), eccentricity (ϵ), ratio between biaxial and uniaxial compressive strength (σbo/σco), failure surface in the deviator plane normal to the hydrostatic axis (Kc), and viscosity (μ). For unidimensional elements, the values of the CDP parameters are well defined, but for volumetric elements, such as concrete pile caps, there is a gap in the literature regarding the definition of these values. This fact ends up limiting the use of the CDP on these structural elements due to the uncertainties involved. Therefore, the aim of this research was to calibrate two numerical models of concrete four-pile caps with different failure modes for the evaluation of the sensitivity of the CDP parameters, except for ϵ, which remained constant. As a result, the parameters σbo/σco and Kc did not significantly influence the calibration of the force × displacement curves of the simulated structures. Values of ψ and μ equal to 36° and 1 × 10−4, respectively, are recommended for “static” analysis, while for “quasi-static” analysis, ψ values ranging between 45° and 50° are suggested according to the failure mode. The results also showed to be sensitive to the constitutive relation of concrete tensile behavior in both modes of analysis. For geometric parameterization, the “static” analysis is recommended due to the lower coefficient of variation (3.29%) compared to the “quasi-static” analysis (19.18%). This conclusion is supported by the evaluation of the ultimate load of the numerical models from the geometrically parametric study compared to the results estimated by an analytical model.
