See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263773477

Review of CPT-based methods for response

evaluation of driven piles in dense sands.
Conference Paper December 2010

CITATIONS

READS

35

3 authors, including:
Fawad Niazi

Paul W. Mayne

Georgia Institute of Technology

Georgia Institute of Technology

29 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

187 PUBLICATIONS 2,012 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Paul W. Mayne

Retrieved on: 18 June 2016

Proceedings of the

International Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering
November 5-6, 2010
Lahore, Pakistan

Editors:
Sohail Kibria
Hamid Masood Qureshi
Arooj Mahmood Rana

Pakistan Geotechnical Engineering Society (PGES)

In Association With

National Engineering Services

Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.

University of Engineering & Technology

Lahore, Pakistan

Associated Consulting Engineers (Pvt.)

Ltd. Lahore, Pakistan

Review of CPT-based Methods for Response Evaluation of Driven Piles

in Dense Sands
F.S. Niazi
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (fniazi6@gatech.edu)
P.W. Mayne
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (paul.mayne@ce.gatech.edu)
D.J. Woeller
ConeTec Investigations Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, Canada: (dwoeller@conetec.com)

ABSTRACT: The response of deep foundations to axial loading can be evaluated from the profiles of 4 independent readings provided by the Seismic Piezocone Tests (SCPTu): qt, fs, u1 or u2, and Vs. Established correlations are used to assess geotechnical parameters at the site for pile capacity evaluations. Alternatively, CPT
readings are used for direct capacity evaluations. Vs readings enable estimation of the soil stiffness (Gmax), allowing derivation of the load-settlement response by integrating elastic solutions with the Gmax softening
schemes. A review of selected methods is presented relevant to the EURIPIDES case study illustrating the
application of SCPTu results for the response evaluation of driven pipe piles in dense sands.

Seismic piezocone tests (SCPTu) provide an alternate, yet quick and reliable means of obtaining
geotechnical parameters via well established correlations from 4 separate readings: [total tip resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs), tip (u1) or shoulder
(u2) porewater pressure, and shear wave velocity
(Vs)]. Pile foundations analysis can be performed
using multiple-readings-based methodologies. The
penetrometer readings (qt, fs, u1 or u2) allow for the
evaluation of Qult. At the opposite end of the stressstrain-strength response, the initial soil deformations (for shear strains s < 10-6%), and the small
strain stiffness (Gmax or Emax) can be obtained from
the Vs. Applied within the elastic continuum
framework, these results enable evaluation of the
complete load-displacement-capacity response for
the axial loading performance of deep foundations
(Randolph & Wroth 1978, 1979).

INTRODUCTION
Pile response to axial loading consists of evaluating the ultimate capacity for design (Qult = Qt),
transfer of Qt to the pile shaft (Qs) and the base
(Qb), and pile settlements for different loads, traditionally termed as the load-settlement response.
Load-settlement response for pile compressibility
can be accounted for by evaluating the total settlements corresponding to total, shaft and base loads
(wt vs. Qt, wt vs. Qs, and wt vs. Qb), and base settlements corresponding to base loads (wb vs. Qb).
Pile load tests are conducted on instrumented piles,
involving colossal effort, time, and money, besides
ensuring redundancy of costly instrumentation to
compensate for expected damage during driving or
casting. Nevertheless, the readings are not perfectly reliable, more so, in case of damage to the instruments, which is commonplace during these
tests. Subsurface soil strata affecting the performance of these foundations are characterized using
the conventional boring and sampling methods,
which are time consuming and tedious, besides the
limitations of sample disturbance. Site investigations for the driven piles in the offshore environment are much more affected by the aforementioned specifics.

SITE CHARACTERIZATION
SCPTu data can be used to evaluate the soil strata
at a site in terms of soil classification and engineering parameters to estimate the pile capacity. A
summary of the selected established correlations is
given in Table 1.

259

TABLE 1

Summary of CPT-based Correlations for Site Characterization.

Relationship
Soil Classification
a

1.5

1.3

Total Unit Weight

t = 1.95w(vo'/atm)0.06(fs/atm)0.06
t(kN/m3)=11.46+0.33log[z(m)]+3.1log[fs(kPa)]+0.7log[qt(kPa)]
t (kN/m3) = 8.32log[Vs (m/s)] + 1.61log[z (m)]
Effective Stress Friction Angle
b, c
'(deg.) = 17.6o+11.0log(qt1); where qt1 = (qt/atm)/(vo'/atm)0.5
a, d
' (deg.) = 29.5 Bq0.121 [0.256 + 0.336 Bq + logQ]
Shear Wave Velocity
Vs (m/s) = {10.1log[qt (kPa)] 11.4}1.67[fs (kPa)/qt (kPa) 100]0.3
Vs (m/s) = 118.8log[fs (kPa)] + 18.5
Soil Stiffness (Modulus)
Gmax = T Vs2; where, t is the total mass density = t/ga; and ga is the
gravitational acceleration constant = 9.8 m/s2
Emax = 2 Gmax (1 + )
e
Drained: d 0.2, Undrained: u 0.5
f
G/Gmax = 1f(/max)g 1 f(Qop/Qult)g 1f (1/FS)g
Geostatic Lateral Stress Coefficient
Ko = ho'/vo' = (1 sin') OCRsin', where ho' is the horizontal
effective stress; OCR is the overconsolidation ratio = p'/vo'
Stress History
b
p'=0.33(qtvo)m(atm/100)1-m, where m=0.65+1/(80010-Ic+2.5)
b
p' = 0.101 atm0.102 Gmax0.478 vo'0.420
OCR = {[0.192(qt/atm)0.22]/[(1 sin')(vo'/atm)]}{1/(sin' 0.27)}
Relative Density
DR = 100{qt1/(300OCR0.2)}0.5
DR = 100{0.268ln(qt1) 0.675}
Normalized Undrained Shear Strength
g
(su/vo')OC = (su/vo')NC OCR = sin' OCR
b

Soil type

Reference

All

Jefferies & Been 2006

All
All
All

Mayne et al. 2010

Mayne et al. 2010
Mayne 2007

Sands
Clays

Kulhawy & Mayne 1990

Senneset et al. 1989

All
All

Hegazy & Mayne 1995

Mayne 2006

All

Timoshenko & Goodier

1951

All
All

Lehane & Cosgrove 2000

Fahey & Carter 1993

All

Kulhawy & Mayne 1990

All
All
Sands

Mayne et al. 2010

Mayne 2007
Mayne 2005

Sands
Sands

Kulhawy & Mayne 1990

Jamiolkowski et al. 2001

Clays

Ladd & Degroot 2003

a
Q=(qtvo)/vo', Bq=(u2uo)/(qtvo), F=fs100/(qtvo), and vo' (effective vertical stress) = vouo; vo (total overburden
stress) = tizi, uo (hydrostatic porewater pressure) = whw; hw is the height of water, ti and zi are the total unit weight and
depth of ith soil layer, respectively, and w (unit weight of water) = 9.8 kN/m3. IC: clays: 2.82 < IC < 3.22; silt mix: 2.54 < IC
< 2.82; sand mix: 1.90 < IC < 2.54; sands: 1.25 < IC < 1.90; and gravelly sands: IC < 1.25.
b
atm is a reference stress = 100 kPa.
c
For Bq < 0.1 corresponding to granular soils.
d
For fine-grained silts and clays, where: 0.1 < Bq < 1.0 and 20 < ' < 45.
e
d values at working loads increase to larger values at failure state.
f
Gmax represents the elastic region of soil behavior, to be reduced corresponding to strains for the applicable loads for the
elastic solution. and max represent operational shear stress and shear strength, respectively; Qop is the operational load
between minimum & Qult; FS is the factor of safety, and f & g (empirical curve fitting exponents): 0.98 to 1.0 and 0.3 + 0.1,
respectively, for uncemented, insensitive, & nonstructured soils of common mineralogies/origin.
g
Subscripts OC & NC represent over-consolidated and normally-consolidated, respectively. Equation represents undrained
shear strength for the direct simple shear (DSS) mode, which has been shown suitable for direct use in the analysis of
foundation bearing capacity (e.g., Larsson 1980). is the plastic volumetric strain potential 0.8 for DSS mode.

260

each pile segment embedded in ith layer can be

evaluated. The load-displacement response for
each segment of the pile embedded in ith layer corresponding to the load transferred through that
layer can be conveniently obtained and integrated
to evaluate the overall pile response.

PILE CAPACITY EVALUATION FROM CPT

The total axial compression capacity (Qt) of a circular pile foundation is calculated from:
Qt = Qs + Qb = (fpiDLi) + qbD2/4

(1)

where
fpi is the unit side resistance
DLi is the shaft area of the ith soil layer
D is the pile diameter.
fp and qb values can be calculated using the engineering parameters obtained from the aforementioned, using the so called indirect methods: method and limit plasticity solutions.

CASE STUDY
Overview
An extensive axial pile load tests program, the European initiative on piles in dense sands (EURIPIDES), was conducted on a highly-instrumented
0.76m diameter pipe pile driven open-ended in
dense sands at Eemshaven, the Netherlands. It
comprised a series of static compression (C) and
tension (T) tests conducted at two locations, 18 m
apart [driven and tested at location 1 at three
depths (30.5m, 38.7m and 47m), extracted and redriven and tested at location 2 at 46.7m depth]. Details on the load test program, equipment, instrumentation and results have already been published
(e.g., Fugro 2004, Kolk et al. 2005a, Zuidberg &
Vergobbi 1996). Later researchers have also attempted to evaluate the capacities of these piles using several design methods.

Certain methods, derived to scale the data from

cone penetration tests up to fp and qb, also allow
use of the CPTu measured readings for the direct
capacity evaluations. Selected methods applicable
to driven piles, used for the case study presented in
this paper are summarized in Table 2.
The axial capacity of piles in tension is primarily
derived from side shear. DeNicola & Randolph
(1993) showed that the tensile side capacity, QsT is
less than that in axial compression (QsC) via:

Soil profile at the site was characterized based on

the site investigations from three boreholes (BH),
seven CPTu, two SCPTu, and laboratory investigations (Zuidberg & Vergobbi 1996). Most of the
CPTu soundings portrayed comparable qc, fs, u1
and Vs profiles. Selected results of CPTu and
SCPTu are shown in Fig. 2, being closest to the
pile load test conducted at location 2, which is
the focus of this study [separate study for location
1 has already been done by the authors (Niazi &
Mayne 2010)]. Soil at this site consists of a sequence of Holocene and Pleistocene fine to medium, dense to very dense sands extending from
the water table [~1.0m below ground level (bgl)] to
in excess of 60m. Very dense over consolidated
sands occur from about 25m bgl to at least 68m
depth. Holocene sands extend to about 22 m depth
with an average qc of 5.8 MPa. Below that, the qc
values vary between 20 and 90 MPa (Zuidberg &
Vergobbi 1996). Soil conditions evaluated from
the bore holes are also presented in Fig. 2.

QsT/QsC={10.2log[100/(L/D)]}(18+252) (2)
where
=ptan(L/D)(Gavg/Ep),
tan=CMtan',
is the soil-pile interface friction,
p is the Poissons ratio of the pile,
Gavg=average shear modulus along the pile length,
L
Ep=pile modulus
LOAD-SETTLEMENT RESPONSE
The pile response in terms of settlement and axial
load transfer (Qs and Qb) can be evaluated from the
closed-form elastic pile solution given by Randolph & Wroth (1978, 1979) (see Fig. 1). The
modulus reduction corresponding to operational
load can be conveniently applied in this solution. It
accounts for homogeneous as well as Gibson types
of soils. It also encompasses the floating- and endbearing type piles. Fig. 1 also shows a model proposed for layered soils in which the capacity of

261

TABLE 2

Some CPT-Based Design Methods for Unit Side and Base Resistances applicable to Driven Pipe Piles

Methods
Pile unit side resistance (fp)
Indirect Methods
a
-Method
b

Limit plasticity

NGI

Direct Methods
d
LCPC

Design Equations
Pile unit end bearing (qb)

fp = CM CK Ko vo' tan'
Drained: qb = 0.1*Nqvo'
Undrained: qb = *Ncsu
For NC clays with < 0.25:
fp = NCNCvo' = 0.32(Ip10)0.3NCvo'
For OC clays with > 1:
fp = suUUFtip = 0.570.3suDSSFtip
For clays with 0.25<<1: Linearly interpolate between 0.5 and 0.32(Ip10)0.3

Reference

Kulhawy et al.
1983
Lee et al. 2003;
Vesic 1977
Karlsrud et al.
2005

fp = qc /

qb = kcqc

UniCone

fp = CseqE

qb = Cte(qt u2)

Fugro

qb0.1/qc,avg =8.5(atm /qc,avg)0.5Ar0.25

NGI

For compression loading for h/R* > 4:

fp=0.08qc(vo'/atm)0.05(h/R*)0.90
For compression loading for h/R* < 4:
fp=0.08qc(vo'/atm)0.05(4) 0.90(h/4R*)
For tension loading:
fp=0.045qc(vo'/atm)0.15[max(h/R*,4)]-0.85
fp=(z/L)atmFDr(vo'/atm)0.25FtipFloadFmat
(limiting minimum fp = 0.1vo')

Bustamante &
Gianeselli 1982
Eslami & Fellenius
1997;
Fellenius 2002
Kolk et al.
2005b

qb0.1=min[qb0.1(plugged), qb0.1(unplugged)]
Clausen et al.
Plugged:
2005
2
qb0.1 = qc,tip[0.7/(1+3Dr )]
Unplugged:
qb0.1=qc,tipAr+12fp,avgL(1Ar)/(Di)
a
CM=tan/tan' & CK=K/Ko are modifiers for soil-pile interaction & installation effects, respectively. =soil-pile interface
friction, while K=h'/v' (acting lateral stress coefficient). For driven pipe piles: rusted steel CM = 0.7 and CK = 1.1.
b
*Nq=[1+(/)tan'][1+2 tan'(1-sin')2tan-1(L/B)]etan'tan2(45+'/2); *Nc 9.33 for circular piles; A & B are side dimensions of rectangular piles; B/A=1 for circular piles; L=pile length. Operational drained qb at working load is reduced for
tolerable displacements. vo' and su are the average values from depth z=L to depth z=L+D, where D=pile diameter.
c
Strength ratio =suUU/vo'; suUU=1.14suDSS; Ip=Plasticity Index. FDr=2.1(Dr0.1)1.7; Ftip=1.0 (driven open ended pipe piles); Dr
(relative density in decimal) = 0.4ln[qc/(22vo'0.5atm0.5)]; Fload=1.0 (tension) and 1.3 (compression); Fmat=1.0 (steel); L=pile
length; D=pile outer diameter; Di=pile inner diameter; fp,avg=average external friction over L; Ar (area ratio) = 1(Di/D)2.
d
is the coefficient for limiting fp with values for different material corresponding to steel pipe pile: silt & loose sand with qc
< 5 MPa: = 120 (fp max = 0.035 MPa), moderately compact sand with qc = 5 to 12 MPa: = 200 (fp max = 0.08 MPa), very
compact sand with qc > 12 MPa: = 200 (fp max = 0.12 MPa), soft clay with qc < 1 MPa: = 30 (fp max = 0.015 MPa); kc is the
penetrometer bearing capacity factor with values for different material corresponding to steel pipe pile: silt & loose sand with
qc<5 MPa, moderately compact sand with qc = 5 to 12 MPa, and soft clay with qc < 1 MPa: kc = 0.5, very compact sand with
qc>12 MPa: kc= 0.4. For open ended pipe piles, full values of kc should only be adopted once it is established that plug occurs
under the pile tip capable of taking up the load equivalent to close ended pile. qc for qb is the average value between L + 1.5D.
e
qE is the effective cone resistance = qt u2 (in MPa); qt is the cone resistance corrected for shoulder pore water pressure (u2)
= qc + u2(1an); an = ratio between shoulder area (cone base) unaffected by the pore water pressure to total shoulder area; Cse
is the side correlation coefficient found from the zones in the UniCone soil classification chart using qE (in MPa) and fs (in
kPa): zone 2 (soft clay and silt, Cse = 0.05), zone 4 (silty sandy mixtures Cse = 0.01), and zone 5 (sands Cse = 0.004); Cte = toe
correlation coefficient, generally taken as 1. For pile diameter D > 0.4 m, Cte = 1/(3D), where D is in m.
f
h is the height above pile tip; R* is the equivalent pile radius = (R2Ri2)0.5 where Ri is the internal pile radius = Di/2; atm =
100 kPa; qc,avg is the average value of measured tip resistance between L + 1.5D; Ar is the area ratio = 1(Di/D)2.

262

The measured u1 readings were converted to u2 via

the relationships: u2 0.742u1 for clay and silt layers (Chen & Mayne 1994), and u2 u1 for sand layers (Bruzzi & Battaglio 1987). The site consisted,
essentially, of sand, the overall effect was considered minimal. qc values were also taken as comparable to qt, since correction is not considered
paramount for granular soils (Mayne 2007).

Layered soil load and

settlement distribution:
Gso1
Layer 1
Gso
Qt1 = Qs1 = fp1D1L1
L1
w
=
w
+
w
t1
t2
1
Pile
GsL1
z = Depth
Gso2 = Gsb1 Layer 2
Qt2 = Qs2 = fp2D2L2
Qs
GsM
L2
wt2 = wt3 + w2
GsL2
Gso3 = Gsb2 Layer 3
Qb
Qt3 = Qs3 + Qb
L3
GsL
Qt3 = fp3D3L3 + Qb
Gsb
wt3 = w3 + wb
Pile diameter D
GsL3
Pile Length L
Gsb
Qt

Compressible pile solution:

Load transfer to base:

Shaft load distribution:

Qs = Qt Qb
Pile base displacement:

Operational soil modulus:

G =Gmax[1 f(Q/Qt)g]

Site Characterization from CPT Results

Soil engineering parameters were evaluated using
the correlations from Table 1. Fig. 3 presents the results obtained by the post processing of mean values
from CPTu.

Ro = Do/2 = pile radius

= Ep/GsL = pile-soil stiffness ratio
= GsL/Gsb = xi factor
Rb = Db/2 = pile base radius
= rb/ro = eta factor (bell-shaped pier) = ln(rm/ro) = zeta factor
rm = L{0.25 + [2.5 E(1 ) 0.25]}
Ep = pile modulus
GsL=soil shear modulus at z=L
L = 2(2/)0.5(L/D) = mu factor
Gso = soil shear modulus at the pile top wti = settlement at top of pile segment
Gsb = soil stiffness below the pile base wi = settlement of individual pile segment
GsM = soil shear modulus at mid-shaft wb = pile base settlement
E = GsM/GsL = Gibson parameter
Eb = soil Youngs modulus below pile base

Capacity Evaluation from CPT-based Methods

Qb and Qs were calculated using different CPT based
methods given in Table 2. Soil strata at the site were
divided into seven layers keeping in view the soil
profile and pile embedment depth, L = 46.7m. Qs
was calculated from summation of the individual
side capacities through each layer (i.e. Qsi), which
in turn were found as shown in Fig. 1. The mean
values of Gmax, calculated for each layer (see Fig. 4),
were then used to find settlements corresponding to
different load levels for those layers.

Fig.1 Elastic pile solution for load-displacement response.

The pile load test program was designed to provide

pile-soil interaction data below 22m bgl. The pile
comprised 27m long instrumented section. Load
tests were performed for head displacement of 0.1D
(tension) and 0.25D (compression). Load tests
measured load-displacement at the pile head and at a
depth of 22 m bgl, friction along pile shaft and end
bearing. Axial force at the pile base was computed
from strain gauges 0.38m above the pile tip.
Tip Resistance, qc (MPa)
0

20

40

60

80 0

Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa)

0.4

0.8

1.2

Porewater, u1 (MPa)
1.6 0

0.3

0.6

0.9

Shearwave, Vs (m/s)
1.2 0

100

200

300

400

10

CPTu 40
CPTu 41
SCPTu 42

CPTu 40
CPTu 41
SCPTu 42
uo

CPTu 40
CPTu 41
SCPTu 42

SCPTu 42
SCPTu 36

FINE SAND, medium to very

dense (0 to 5.3 m)
FINE SAND, silty, medium
dense (5.3 to 16.0 m)
Alternating layers of soft
CLAY, loose sandy SILT &
FINE SAND (16 to 21.8 m)

20

Depth (m)

Soil Profile

500

FINE to MEDIUM SAND,

locally silty, medium dense
(21.8 to 25.0 m)
FINE to MEDIUM SAND, silty,
medium to dense (25 to 27.5
m)

30

FINE to MEDIUM SAND,

slightly to very silty, very
dense (27.5 to 41.5 m)

40

SILT (41.5 TO 42.8 m)

50

FINE to MEDIUM SAND, silty

to very silty, very dense (42.8
m
to
max.
depth
of
investigation)

60

Fig.2 CPTu and SCPTu Soundings at Location 2 of EURIPIDES Project (after Fugro 2004).

263

bassed on the rellationship betw

ween and su/vo' was
con
nveniently useed for the fp caalculations.
It can
c be observeed from Fig. 5 that maximu
um part of
thee pile capacityy was obtainedd from fp of layers 5, 6
and
d 7, and qb. This
T
is consisstent with the measuremeents from the load test. Forr most part, th
he average
of the fp values from CPT-baased methods proved to
mpare well with
w the measuured fp; so, th
hese were
com
ado
opted for loadd-settlement evvaluations. Fo
or qb, NGI
meethod provided most compparable valuess with the
meeasured ones; hence, it waas adopted for
fo further
anaalysis. Some discrepancy
d
bbetween the ad
dopted estim
mates and the measured vallues could be attributed
to the fact reporrted by Fugroo (2004) that the measwn are the aveerage outer friiction and
ureed values show
thaat there is likkelihood of ssignificant friiction betweeen the soil plug
p
and the iinner pile walll near the
pile tip during compression loading. Add
ditionally,
w comthee measured axxial force at the pile tip was
putted from the strain gaugess 0.38m above the pile
tip. LCPC and Unicone methhods overestiimated qb,
nsiderably.
con
a EURIPIDES test site.
Fig.3 Sooil parameters at

Differennt CPT methods were useed to observe how

well they compare with
w each othher. The fp annd qb
profiless thus obtained are shown in
i Fig. 5. Figuure 5
also shoows the fp vallues calculatedd for tension loading as well
w as the meeasured valuess. QsT/QsC = 0.773,
0
obtained from Equatiion 2, comparres well with those
t
d
CPT meethods. Qs annd Qb
obtained from the direct
obtained from CPT-bbased methods are shown inn Table 3. It
I is known frrom Fugro (2004) that the plug
thickness remained constant
c
(~ 3m
m) below 25 m of
pile pennetration. So,, it was conssidered capabble of
taking up
u the load eqquivalent of a closed endedd pile
and the applicable vaalue of kc was adopted for calcuc
PC method. The
T LCPC meethod
lating Qb from LCP
yielded least estimatees of fp for dennse sand layerrs bea observed to be
low ~300m bgl. Thesee values are also
less thaan measured values. This is because of
o the
conditioon of its impposed limitingg values on shaft
friction fp max, that coontrols the sidee capacity. Thhe diNGI method
m
could not be applieed to
rect Dr-based
clay layyer. The indirrect Ip-based NGI
N method could
c
also nott be applied beecause of lackk of informatioon on
Ip for cllay layers. Ass an alternate, the earlier veersion
of NGII method for clays
c
by Now
wacki et al. (11992)

Fig.4

Gmaax profile at EU
URIPIDES tesst site.

Lo
oad-Displacem
ment Evaluattion
To
o compare thee load-displaccement respo
onse from
thee elastic conttinuum solutiion (shown in
n Fig. 1)
witth the measuured response, separate ressponse of
eacch segments of
o the pile embbedded throug
gh its corressponding layeer was evaluuated using applicable
a
sid
de and base caapacities alreaady adopted for
f the relev
vant layers. The values of Gmax from Fig. 4 were
useed for respectiive layer to caalculate G app
plicable to
thee operational loads using tthe modulus reduction

264

affect the applicability of these methods. In this

case, averaging of fp values yielded results comparable to the measured values. NGI method afforded
best results for qb. The load-displacement response
through the layered soil profile was assessed from
the elastic solution along with the modulus reduction scheme to account for the soil nonlinearity. Individual responses of pile segments embedded in
different soil layers were found and the overall results were obtained by integrating them all together.

algorithm. 'f' and 'g' parameters were adjusted starting with reference values of 1 and 0.3, respectively,
and varying within the ranges given in Table 1 to fit
the measured results. Cumulative load-displacement
curves for the compressiontensioncompression
(C1TC2) tests, shown in Figure 6, were obtained
by integrating individual responses of seven layers
and the base, yielding comparable results to the
measured values.

30
25

C2
C1

Force (MN)

20
15
10
5
Qt Measured
Qt Elastic Solution (C1)
Qs Elastic Solution (C1)
Qb Elastic Solution (C1)
Qt=Qs Elastic Solution (T)
Qt Elastic Solution (C2)

0
-5
-10

-15
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Pile Head Displacement (mm)

Fig.6 Load-displacement response for EURIPIDES pile

load tests (measured and evaluated).

Fig.5
fp and qb profiles from different CPT-based methods for EURIPIDES pile load tests.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance
of Philippe Jeanjean of BP America Inc. and Harry
J. Kolk of Fugro Engineers B.V. who provided the
field test data.

TABLE 3 Pile Base and Shaft Capacities from different

CPT-based Methods
Method
LCPC
UniCone
Limit Plasticity
Beta
NGI
Fugro
* Qs = fpiDiLi

Base Capacity,
Qb (MN)
10.02
12.83
6.85
5.10
6.57

* Shaft Capacity,
Qs (MN)
7.82
14.45
13.07
14.76
11.10

REFERENCE
Bruzzi, D. & Battaglio, M. (1987). Pore pressure measurements during cone penetration tests. Report No.
229, I quaderni dellISMES, Experimental Institute for
Models and Structures, Milan, 125p.
Bustamante, M. & Gianeselli, L. (1982). Pile bearing capacity predictions by means of static penetrometer CPT.
Proc. 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing,
ESOPT-II, Vol. 2, Amsterdam: 493500.
Clausen, C.J.F., Aas, P.M. & Karlsrud, K. (2005). Bearing
capacity of driven piles in sand, NGI approach. Proc.
Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG, Taylor & Francis, London:677681.
Chen, B.S.Y. & Mayne, P.W. (1994). Profiling the overconsolidation ratio of clays by piezocone tests. Report
GIT-CEEGEO-94-1, Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 280 p.

CONCLUSIONS
Pile load tests conducted at the EURIPIDES project
site in dense sands have been reviewed. A methodology of applying SCPTu readings to evaluate the
axial pile performance including the loaddisplacement-capacity behavior and axial load transfer with depth is presented. A considerable scatter in
the estimates of fp and qb was observed from different capacity design methods. Dr of sand in addition
to soil layering and pile type/geometry appears to

265

DeNicola, A. & Randolph, M.F. (1993). Tensile and compressive shaft capacity of piles in sand. ASCE J. of
Geotechnical Engineering, 119(12): 19521973.
Eslami, A. & Fellenius, B.H. (1997). Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories. Can. Geotech. J., 34(6): 880898.
Fahey, M. & Carter, J.P. (1993). A finite element study of
the pressuremeter in sand using a nonlinear elastic plastic model. Can. Geotech. J. 30(2): 348362.
Fellenius, B.H. (2002). Excerpt from Chapter 6 of the Red
Book: Direct methods for estimating pile capacity, in
Background to UniCone <http://www.fellenius.net>.
Fugro (2004). Axial pile capacity design method for offshore driven piles in sand. Report to American Petroleum Institute, No. P1003, Issue 3, 122p.
Hegazy, Y.A. & Mayne, P.W. (1995). Statistical correlations between Vs and CPT data for different soil types.
Proc. Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, Swedish Geotech. Society, Linkping, Sweden: 173178.
Jamiolkowski, M., LoPresti, D.C.F. & Manassero, M.
(2001). Evaluation of relative density and shear strength
of sands from cone penetration test and flat dilatometer
test. Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction (GSP
119), ASCE, Reston, VA: 201238.
Jefferies, M. & Been, K. 2006. Soil Liquefaction a critical state approach. Taylor and Francis, NY.
Karlsrud, K., Clausen, C.J.F. & Aas, P.M. (2005). Bearing
capacity of driven piles in clay, the NGI approach.
Proc. ISFOG 2005 Gourvenec & Cassidy (eds.), Taylor & Francis Group, London: 775782.
Kolk, H.J., Baaijens, A.E. & Vergobi, P. (2005a). Results
of axial load tests on pipe piles in very dense sands:
The EURIPIDES JIP. Proc. ISFOG, Perth, Taylor &
Francis, London: 661667.
Kolk, H.J., Baaijens, A.E. & Senders, M. (2005b). Design
criteria for pipe piles in silica sands. Proc. ISFOG,
Perth, Taylor & Francis, London: 711716.
Kulhawy, F.H. & Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. Report
EPRI EL-6800, Palo Alto, CA, 306p.
Kulhawy, F.H., Trautmann, C.H., Beech, J.F., ORourke,
T.D. & McGuire, W. (1983). Transmission line structure foundations for uplift-compr. loading. Report EPRI
EL-2870, Palo Alto, Calif., 412p.
Ladd, C.C. & DeGroot, D.J. (2003). Recommended practice for soft ground site characterization. Soil & Rock
America 2003, Proc. 12th Pan American Conf., MIT,
Boston, Verlag Glckauf, Essen: 357.
Larsson, R. (1980). Undrained shear strength in stability
calculations of embankments and foundations on soft
clays. Can. Geotech. J. 17 (4): 591602.

Lee, J., Salgado, R. & Paik, K. (2003). Estimation of load

capacity of pipe piles in sand based on CPT Results. J.
of Geotech. and Geoenviron. Engrg., ASCE, 129(5):
391403.
Lehane, B. & Cosgrove, E. (2000). Applying triaxial
compression stiffness data to settlement prediction of
shallow foundations. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
142: 19200.
Mayne, P.W. (2005). Integrated ground behavior: In-situ
and laboratory tests. Deformation Characteristics of
Geomaterials, Vol. 2 (Proc. Lyon, France), Taylor &
Francis, London: 155177.
Mayne, P.W. (2006). Undisturbed sand strength from
seismic cone tests. The 2nd James K. Mitchell Lecture,
Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 1(4): 239247.
Mayne, P.W. (2007). Cone penetration testing a synthesis of highway practice. NCHRP Synthesis 368, Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 117p.
Mayne, P.W., Peuchen, J. & Bouwmeester, D. (2010). Estimation of soil unit weight from CPTs. Proc. 2nd intern. Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT10,
Huntington Beach, CA.
Niazi, F.S. & Mayne, P.W. (2010). Evaluation of EURIPIDES pile load tests response from CPT data. Intern. J.
of Geoengineering Case Histories. 1(4): 367-386.
Nowacki, F., Karlsrud, K. & Sparrevik, P. (1992). Comparison of recent tests on OC clay and implications for
design. Proc. Large-Scale Pile Tests in Clay, ICE, London: 511537.
Randolph, M.F. & Wroth, C.P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of vertically-loaded piles. ASCE J. of the
Geotech. Engrg. Div., 104 (GT12): 14651488.
Randolph, M.F. & Wroth, C.P. (1979). A simple approach
to pile design and the evaluation of pile tests. Behavior
of Deep Foundations, STP 670, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA: 484499.
Senneset, K., Sandven, R. & Janbu, N. (1989). Evaluation
of soil parameters from piezocone tests. Transportation
Research Record 1235, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.: 2437.
Timoshenko, S.P., and Goodier, J.N. (1951). Theory of
Elasticity. McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY, 506p.
Vesic, A.S. (1977). Design of pile foundations. NCHRP
Synthesis 42, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 68p.
Zuidberg H.M., & Vergobbi P. (1996). EURIPIDES, load
tests on large driven piles in dense silica sands. 28th
Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Texas, Vol. 1:
193206.

266