Advanced Foundation Design

CIVE 683

Antoine Letendre
110237568

Cone Penetration Testing and the Design of

Shallow and Deep Pile Foundations

Profs. M. Meguid and M. Sakr

McGill Faculty of Engineering

March 18th 2015

Table of Contents
1.

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.

4.

5.

2.1.

Purpose and scope ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.

Historic and Present Use of CPT .................................................................................................. 5

CPT Description and Use................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.

General Description of CPT and CPTu......................................................................................... 6

3.2.

CPT in site investigation ............................................................................................................... 8

3.3.

Additional sensors ......................................................................................................................... 9

3.4.

Testing standards ........................................................................................................................ 10

Data Correction ................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.

Porewater pressure correction ..................................................................................................... 11

4.2.

Temperature Correction .............................................................................................................. 12

4.3.

Other data corrections ................................................................................................................. 12

Data Interpretation .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.1.

5.1.1.

Un-normalized SBT ............................................................................................................ 13

5.1.2.

Normalized SBT ................................................................................................................. 14

5.1.3.

Probabilistic Methods ......................................................................................................... 16

5.1.4.

Other methods ..................................................................................................................... 17

5.2.

6.

Soil Profiling/Soil Type Interpretation ....................................................................................... 13

Estimation of soil parameters ...................................................................................................... 17

5.2.1.

Soil Unit Weight ................................................................................................................. 17

5.2.2.

Undrained Shear Strength ................................................................................................... 18

5.2.3.

Friction Angle ..................................................................................................................... 19

5.2.4.

Shear waver velocity (Vs) ................................................................................................... 19

5.2.5.

Constrained Modulus (M) ................................................................................................... 20

5.2.6.

Small strain Shear Modulus (G).......................................................................................... 20

5.2.7.

Youngs Modulus................................................................................................................ 20

5.2.8.

Relative Density of Sands ................................................................................................... 21

5.2.9.

OCR .................................................................................................................................... 21

Shallow Foundation Design ................................................................................................................ 21

6.1.

Indirect methods for calculating bearing capacity ...................................................................... 22

6.2.

Indirect methods for calculating settlement ................................................................................ 23

6.2.1.

Elastic Displacement Methods ............................................................................................ 23

6.2.2.

One-dimensional Oedometric method ................................................................................ 24

6.2.3.

Schmertmann et al. (1978) .................................................................................................. 24

6.3.

6.3.1.

Meyerhof (1956) direct method .......................................................................................... 26

6.3.2.

Tand et al. (1995) direct method ......................................................................................... 26

6.3.3.

Tand et al. (1986) direct method ......................................................................................... 26

6.3.4.

Schmertmann (1978) direct method .................................................................................... 27

6.3.5.

Bowles (1996) ..................................................................................................................... 27

6.3.6.

Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996) ....................................................................................... 28

6.4.

7.

Direct Ultimate Bearing Capacity Methods ................................................................................ 25

Direct settlement calculation methods ........................................................................................ 28

6.4.1.

Meyerhof (1974) ................................................................................................................. 28

6.4.2.

Burland et al. (1977) ........................................................................................................... 29

6.4.3.

Mayne and Illingsworth (2010)........................................................................................... 29

Deep Foundation Design..................................................................................................................... 29

7.1.

7.1.1.

Total stress method (alpha method) .................................................................................... 31

7.1.2.

Effective stress methods (beta methods) ............................................................................. 32

7.2.

Direct Bearing Capacity Methods ............................................................................................... 33

7.2.1.

LCPC method (1982) .......................................................................................................... 33

7.2.2.

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Building Research Establishment ................................. 35

7.2.3.

Unicone method .................................................................................................................. 35

7.3.

8.

Indirect Bearing Capacity Methods ............................................................................................ 30

Settlement Estimation ................................................................................................................. 35

7.3.1.

Elastic Continuum Solutions ............................................................................................... 36

7.3.2.

Vesic (1977) ........................................................................................................................ 37

7.3.3.

Das (1995) ......................................................................................................................... 38

7.3.4.

Fleming et al. (2008) ........................................................................................................... 38

7.3.5.

Artificial Neural Network Methods .................................................................................... 38

7.3.6.

Approximate non-linear approximations using sCPTu ....................................................... 39

Design Example .................................................................................................................................. 40

8.1.

Soil Classification ....................................................................................................................... 40

8.2.

Soil Properties ............................................................................................................................. 40

8.3.

Bearing capacity for shallow foundations ................................................................................... 40

8.4.

Bearing capacity of a single pile ................................................................................................. 41

8.5.

Settlement ................................................................................................................................... 41

8.6.

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 41

9.
10.

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 41
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 42

List of Figures
Figure 1: Terminology of Cone Penetrometers (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) ...................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Typical internal workings of a piezocone penetrometer (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) ......................................... 7
Figure 3: Range of CPT sizes (from left to right: 2 cm2, 10 cm2, 15 cm2, 40 cm2,) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) .............................. 8
Figure 4: Schematic diagrams of the use of an sCPT probe (left: (Robertson & Cabal, 2010); right: (Mayne P. W., 2007)) ......... 10
Figure 5: Applicability of in-situ testing for the determination of soil parameters (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)............... 10
Figure 6: Schematic diagram of a piston sampler (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) ............................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Diagram showing corrections to tip resistance and sleeve friction due to porewater pressure (Jamiolkowski, Ladd,
Germaine, & Lancellotta, 1985) ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8: BPT classification chart based on Robertson et al., 1986, updated by Robertson, 2010 (Robertson & Cabal, 2010)...... 14
Figure 9: BPT classification chart based on Douglas and Olsen, 1981 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997). ............................... 14
Figure 10: Normalized BPT and classification charts based on Robertson et al., 1986 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997). 15
Figure 11: Normalized BPT classification chart based on Robertson et al., 1986, updated by Robertson, 2010 (Robertson &
Cabal, 2010).................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: SBT classification table based on Jefferies and Davies (Mayne P. W., 2007) ....................................................... 16
Figure 13: Approximate unit weight of soils based on SBT as defined in Figure 10 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) ........... 18
Figure 14: Dimensionless unit weight based on CPT (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) ......................................................................... 18
Figure 15: Robertson and Campanella (1983) empirical graph for determining friction angle (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990) ........... 19
Figure 16: Summary of simple bearing capacity methods from Terzaghi, Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic (Bowles, 1996) ............. 22
Figure 17: Summary of shape and depth factors for Meyerhof (Left), Hansen and Vesic (center and right) (Bowles, 1996) ........ 23
Figure 19: Influence factor for Schmertmann (1978) method (CFEM, 2006) ................................................................................ 24
Figure 20: Modulus Correction for Schmertmann (1978) (Mohamed, 2014) ................................................................................. 25
Figure 21: for Tand et al. (1986) foundations on clay from (Mayne P. W., 2007).................................................................... 27
Figure 22: from Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996) foundations on sand (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) .......................... 28
Figure 23: Burland et al., 1977 Graph for approximate settlement of footings on sand (CFEM, 2006) ......................................... 29
Figure 24: Modifications made to the beta method over the years (Niazi & Mayne (2013)) .......................................................... 30
Figure 25: Modifications made to the alpha method over the years (Niazi & Mayne (2013)) ........................................................ 31
Figure 26: Adhesions as a function of undrained shear strength (CFEM, 2006)............................................................................. 32
Figure 27: Range of coefficients (left) and coefficients (right) (CFEM, 2006) ..................................................................... 33
Figure 28: Range of coefficients for the LCPC method (CFEM, 2006) .................................................................................... 34
Figure 29: Range of coefficients for the LCPC method (CFEM, 2006) ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 30: Soil classification and value for Unicone method (Mayne P. W., 2007) ............................................................... 35
Figure 31: influence factor from Poulos and Davis (1980) (CFEM, 2006)................................................................................ 36
Figure 32: values from Poulos and Davis (1980) for pile settlement (CFEM, 2006) ................................................. 37
Figure 33: values from Vesic (1977) for pile settlement (CFEM, 2006) ................................................................................... 37
Figure 34: Basic structure of a neural network (Baziar, Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015) ............................................................... 39
Figure 35: Concept using sCPTu for evaluating approximate non-linear settlement (Mayne P. W., 2007) .................................... 39

1.

Abstract

CPT/CPTu is an extremely practical site investigation method that has been employed with good results
for designing shallow and deep foundations. Many empirical relationships have been developed over the
years to allow for direct and indirect estimation of soil parameters as well as bearing capacities from the
CPT results. Additionally, many supplementary sensors can be joined to the CPT probe so as to improve
results and allow for direct measurements of geotechnical parameters. While these sensors and empirical
relationships are frequently used, many researchers are constantly working to improve these methods and
incorporate computer systems into their development. Presently, this method is underutilized in North
America typically as a result of a lack of knowledge and expertise in its application by North American
engineers.

2.

Introduction
2.1.

Purpose and scope

Cone penetration testing (or CPT) is one of the more versatile in situ tests for use in geotechnical studies,
in part, due to the possibility of adding additional sensors to a cone penetrometer such as pressure sensors,
lateral stress measurements (strain gauges), cone pressure meters (incorporated pressuremeter),
geophones (seismic CPT), electric resistivity sensors, heat flow sensors, radioisotope sensors and acoustic
noise sensors. These additional sensors can allow for the accumulation of a wealth of information
pertaining to the mechanical and physical properties of the soil matrix in a mostly continuous manner.
This report aims to present all the required information so as to enable the reader to perform basic
foundation design (both deep and shallow), as well as identify references that can be used. In order to do
so, it will outline the various sensors that can be added to an electric CPT and their uses in shallow and
deep foundation designs. It will also outline the process of data analysis which must be undertaken in
order to obtain such information from the results, as well as summarize commonly used CPT calculation
methods employed for the determination of bearing capacities and designs of shallow and deep
foundations. This will focus primarily on the methods recommended by the CFEM, Eurocode 7 and the
Transportation Research Board. It should be noted that this report is formulated as design guide as
opposed to a journal paper due to the extremely large quantity of information required in order to design
foundations based on CPT results, and does not delve into the accuracy of these methods. Finally, while
many case studies and design examples are available, due to the volume of material to be covered by this
report, these will not be covered in depth but will instead be glossed over in section 2.2 and referenced in
the bibliography.

2.2.

Historic and Present Use of CPT

CPT testing was developed in the 1950s in order to provide a quicker and more reliable soil testing
method than conventional drilling methods (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997). The original design
involved the use of a mechanical probe with pneumatic sensors. At that time, simple empirical methods
were developed to determine bearing capacities, soil classifications and soil parameters. Over the years,
these probes have been vastly updated through the addition of additional sensors and state of the art
electronics (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Mayne P. W., 2007).
Many empirical and analytical relationships between CPT results, soil parameters and bearing capacities
have been developed over the years and research into these topics are continuously being developed
(Baziar, Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015) (Mayne & Illingworth, 2010) (Niazi & Mayne, 2013) (Schnaid,
2010) (Ardalan, Eslami, & Nariman-Zadeh, 2008) (Gholami & Eslami, 2006) (Lee & Salagado, 2005).
Additionally, the existing methods are constantly being re-evaluated, often in the form of case studies, so
5

as to assess the quality of the results obtained from these tests (Cai, Liu, & Puppala, 2012) (Cai, Liu,
Tong, & Du, 2009) (Cherubini & Vessia, 2007) (Eslami, Aflaki, & Hosseini, 2011) (Ibrahim, Malik, &
Omar, 2013) (Monzon A., 2006) (Niazi & Mayne, 2013) (Niazi, Mayne, & Woeller, 2010) (Thomassen,
Andersen, & Ibsen, 2012) (Togliani, 2010) (Togliani & Reuter, 2010) (White & Bolton, 2005) (Cunha &
Stewart, 2010) (Ryul, Gyo, Dung, & Fellenius, 2012) (Eslami & Gholami, 2006) (Togliani, 2010). To
date, the results have been reasonably accurate, with older methods generally shown to be more
conservative and the newer ones more accurate (Niazi & Mayne, 2013).
While research on CPT and case studies on the results of its use continues to be investigated, a recent
survey of North American Transportation Bureaus has shown that the North American geotechnical
engineering community does not feel competent or comfortable using this site investigation method in
their design (Robertson P. , 2006) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) (Mayne P. W., 2007). The author would
surmise that one factor that may contribute to this is the lack of the incorporation of these new methods
into standards such as CFEM (2006), Eurocode-7 (2004), and Mayne (2007), which show a reliance on
older methods. As a result only CPT experts are familiar with the more recent and accurate methods for
these calculations.
One solution to the lack of expertise with the newer more complex and accurate CPT analyses methods is
the development of software packages to perform these comprehensive analyses (Mayne P. W., 2007).
While these are in development (Mayne P. W., 2007) (Baziar, Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015) (Ardalan,
Eslami, & Nariman-Zadeh, 2008), they are still not at the point where they can supplement a lack of
experience and expertise on CPT methods (Mayne P. W., 2007).

3.

CPT Description and Use

3.1.

General Description of CPT and CPTu

In cone penetration testing (CPT), a cone penetrometer (probe) consisting of a cone is connected to a thin
sleeve around an instrumented rod section. The sleeve is connected to a load cell in order to allow the
recording of the frictional force exerted on the outside of the sleeve by the soil, and the cone is connected
to a force sensor to allow the measurements of the axial force (CFEM, 2006) (Eurocode-7, 2004) (Mayne
P. W., 2007). The penetrometer contains various sensors and is connected to the end of a series of rods
and pushed through the soil at a constant rate. During the process sensors in the probe record the
penetration resistance and sleeve friction resistance at either continuous or intermittent rates. A piezocone
penetrometer (or CPTu) is a cone penetrometer that also records the pore water pressure. Figure 1 (Lunne,
Robertson, & Powell, 1997) shows the terminology used for cone penetrometers.
An axial load sensor inside the penetrometer records the total force acting on the cone (Qs). This force is
divided by the projected area of the cone (Ac) to provide the penetration end resistance (qc).
Simultaneously a second force sensor records the force experienced by the friction sleeve (Fs) which is
divided by the total area of the friction sleeve (As) to obtain what is commonly referred to as the sleeve
friction (fs). In the case of a piezocone penetrometer, the porewater pressure is recorded in the cone (u1
on Figure 1), behind the cone (u2) or behind the sleeve (u3). Figure 2 shows a typical design of the internal
workings of a CPT probe (CFEM, 2006) (Eurocode-7, 2004) (Mayne P. W., 2007).

Figure 1: Terminology of Cone Penetrometers (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)

Figure 2: Typical internal workings of a piezocone penetrometer (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)

In many references, three categories of CPT probes exist depending on the type of sensors incorporated:
mechanical, electric and piezocone penetrometers. More recently many additional specific types are
considered depending on the type of sensors incorporated. These include seismic CPT, pressuremeter
CPT, soil resistivity CPT and various others.
It should be noted that the ASTM discontinued their standards pertaining to mechanical CPTs in 2014,
and as such this report will not cover mechanical CPTs. Should further information be required on
mechanical CPTs, Mayne (2007) and Robertson and Cabal (2010) can be consulted.
The most common cone penetrometer dimensions are a cone of 10 cm2 and 15 cm2 area with an apex
angle of 60o and are specified in most codes (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) (ISSMFE) (ISSMGE) (ASTM,
D-5778). The 10 cm2 CPT is typically considered the international standard (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell,
1997). Other sizes available vary from a miniature CPT with an area of 2 cm2 to oversized CPTs with
surface areas of 40 cm2 penetrometers (Mayne & Illingworth, 2010) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) (Baziar,
Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015). The smaller CPT probes have recently been used for soil testing at
shallow depths. Referred to as miniature cone penetrometers (Mini-CPT), these relatively new probes
provide the advantages of decreasing the applied load, and the ability to mount them into smaller trucks
(Mayne P. W., 2007) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010). Mini-CPT has been shown to have comparable results
to those obtained from standard CPT and more accurate results than standard CPTs for relative soil
7

densities (Nikudel, Mousavi, Khamehchiyan, & Jamshidi, 2012). A range of CPT sizes can be seen in
Figure 3.

Figure 3: Range of CPT sizes (from left to right: 2 cm2, 10 cm2, 15 cm2, 40 cm2,) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010)

3.2.

CPT in site investigation

The objective of initial site investigations is to obtain information about the site (CFEM, 2006)
(Eurocode-7, 2004) (Mayne P. W., 2007). This includes:
The soil nature and stratigraphy of the site
The groundwater elevation and variations
Physical and mechanical properties of the subsurface
Distribution and composition of contaminants in the case of geo-environmental studies.
While site investigations may include test-pits, conventional borehole drilling, pressuremeter, dilatometer
testing, soil sampling and lab testing, CPT provides many advantages and several disadvantages.
CPT testing is faster than conventional borehole testing and provides more information of the mechanical
soil properties without additional tests. The primary advantages of CPT/CPTu testing over conventional
borehole testing are the following (CFEM, 2006) (Eurocode-7, 2004) (Mayne P. W., 2007) (Lunne,
Robertson, & Powell, 1997):
1. Fast and continuous profiling
2. Improved repeatability of testing data (data is not operator dependent)
3. Cost savings due to high productivity
4. Strong theoretical basis for data interpretation
Despite the positives of CPT testing, it also has several disadvantages over conventional borehole testing
(CFEM, 2006) (Eurocode-7, 2004) (Mayne P. W., 2007) (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997):
1. High capital investment
2. Cone penetrometers can be damaged by dense layers, or fail to penetrate them
3. No information of bedrock depth and properties can be obtained
4. No soil samples can be obtained from CPT testing
5. Requires skilled operators to obtain quality results

Due to the high capital investment in performing CPT testing, CPT tends to be more applicable for large
projects as supplementary information to a borehole campaign or in an area where the soil stratigraphy is
well known to begin with. This is primarily due to the need in most studies to obtain confirmation of
bedrock depth, and pass through dense soils (Mayne P. W., 2007).
While no soil samples are obtained during CPT testing, CPT pushing equipment can be used to obtain
samples using a CPT based sampler as shown in Figure 6. The Robertson and Cabal CPT guide
(Robertson & Cabal, 2010) therefore recommends that many CPT tests be performed to define the
stratigraphy and material properties prior to sampling soils and specific depths and locations. Figure 5
shows the applicability of various in situ testing in site properties.

3.3.

Additional sensors

One advantage of the electric CPT is that the additional sensors can be incorporated into the hollow tube
in order to obtain additional information. Presently the following additional sensors are available for use
in CPT testing (Mayne P. W., 2007) (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010):

Piezometric sensors (CPTu)

Inclinometer
Geophones (seismic wave velocity) (sCPT)
Pressuremeter
Temperature
Lateral stress sensors
Acoustic noise sensors
Camera (visible light sensors)
Radioisotope detector (gamma ray and neutron detector)
Electrical resistivity and conductivity
Dielectric
pH
Oxygen exchange (redox)
Laser/ultraviolet induced fluorescence (LIF/UVOST)
Membrane interface probe (MIP)

Of these the first five are often used for geotechnical purposes, whereas the others are primarily used for
geo-environmental studies (Robertson & Cabal, 2010). Of these two of the most common ones are the
piezometric sensors (CPTu) and the geophones (SCPTu) which allow for the reading of seismic waves
(Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Mayne P. W., 2007). Knowing the location of the seismic source
and the geophone, the seismic wave velocities can be calculated. Figure 4 shows a schematic diagram of
the use of an SCPTu probe.

Figure 4: Schematic diagrams of the use of an sCPT probe (left: (Robertson & Cabal, 2010); right: (Mayne P. W., 2007))

3.4.

Testing standards

The primary standards applicable to CPT testing are the following:

1) ASTM D6067 - Standard Practice for Using the Electronic Piezocone Penetrometer Tests for
Environmental Site Characterization.
2) ASTM D-5778 "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone
Penetration Testing of Soils".
3) ASTM, 2004, "Standard Method of Deep Quasi-Static Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests
of Soil"
4) International Reference Test Procedure for CPT and CPTU - International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).
5) ISSMFE International Reference Test Procedure for Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 39
6) Swedish Geotechnical Society (SGF): Recommended Standard for Cone Penetration Tests (1993)
39
7) Norwegian Geotechnical Society (NGF): Guidelines for Cone Penetration Tests (1994) 43
8) Dutch Standard: Determination of the Cone Resistance and Sleeve Friction of Soil. NEN5140
(1996) 43

Figure 5: Applicability of in-situ testing for the determination of soil parameters (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)

10

Figure 6: Schematic diagram of a piston sampler (Robertson & Cabal, 2010)

4.

Data Correction

Electric CPT testing relies on electronic sensors to provide information on soil properties. As such the
data obtained is subject to the same issues as all electronic sensor readings. In order to ensure that
analysis of the data is accurate, the data must be representative. This means performing several
corrections to the data prior to its interpretation. This section discusses several reasons for which data
must be corrected, and expands on the primary employed data corrections for CPT data.

4.1.

Porewater pressure correction

Porewater pressure acts on the edges of the friction sleeve and on the end of the cone as shown in Figure
7 resulting in a systematic error on recorded tip resistance and sleeve friction. As such the tip resistance
and sleeve friction must be corrected.

Figure 7: Diagram showing corrections to tip resistance and sleeve friction due to porewater pressure (Jamiolkowski,
Ladd, Germaine, & Lancellotta, 1985)

The sleeve friction measurements can be corrected by simply summing up the difference in forces
induced by the pressure differences. Summing these forces yields the following:
=

(2 2 2 + 3 3 3 )

(1)

11

While equation 1 may provide the complete solution for the for the corrected sleeve friction, Lunne,
Robertson and Powell (1997) showed that since 2 3, and the rest of the terms in the equation are
physical properties of the probe, the equation can be approximated by equation 2:

(2)

Where is a constant determined from triaxial testing. It should be noted that triaxial testing shows that
this method is reasonably accurate (Mayne P. W., 2007).
Similarly, the tip resistance correction can be corrected using equation 3 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell,
1997):

(2 2 2

2 1
4 )

(3)

2
4

Since 2 3 , equation 3 can be simplified to give equation 4 in which the area ratio can similarly be
determined from triaxial testing (Mayne P. W., 2007):
2 2
(
)
(2 2 2 )
(2 2 )
4

+
= + (1
) 2 = + (1 )2
2
2

2
4
4
4

4.2.

(4)

Temperature Correction

As with all electronics sensors, the data obtained from the sensors contained within a cone penetrometer
are subject to variations with temperature. While various methods for correcting for temperature have
been employed over the years, the cost of temperature sensors has significantly decreased (Lunne,
Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010). As such, it is commonplace to incorporate
temperature sensors into load cells and other sorts of electronic sensor devices.
While details on the methods of these corrections are discussed in depth in Lunne, Robertson and Powell
(1997), the details are not pertinent to this paper and are not discussed in detail.

4.3.

Other data corrections

A myriad of other corrections should be considered specific to the type of sensors and testing being
conducted. These include but are not limited to (Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997):

Filter location,
Effect of axial load on pore water pressure readings,
Inclination,
Calibration and resolution of errors,
Effect of wear,
Correction for CPTU zeroed at the bottom of a borehole.

While these are all items to take into account, they are not pertinent to this report and will not explored in
detail. Should more information on these be required, Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997) can be
consulted.
12

5.

Data Interpretation

CPT testing provides nearly continuous data (Mohamed, 2014). As such the data analysis can be rather
extensive. While the majority of the data analysis is performed using computational software packages,
many analysis methods are not commonly available in premade software packages and it is important to
understand the process so as to ensure that the limitations of the methods and to ensure that manually
programmed analysis programs are properly coded (Mayne P. W., 2007).
The methods used to interpret the data can provide two major groups of information: soil parameters and
soil classification (Schnaid, 2010). This section covers the most common methods employed for data
analysis.

5.1.

Soil Profiling/Soil Type Interpretation

After data correction, the first analysis conducted is soil profiling. This is one of the major advantages of
CPT is the determination of changes in soil strata can be ascertained to high precision. However, since no
soil samples are taken, empirical relationships have been developed in order to determine soil type and
profiles. While these relationships do not provide accurate information pertaining to physical properties
such as grain size distribution, they have been shown to provide accurate mechanical properties (stiffness
and strength) as well as soil behavior type typically referred to as SBT (Robertson & Cabal, 2010)
(Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Mayne P. W., 2007). Several methods for performing this
classification including but not limited to:

Un-normalized SBT based on end resistance and friction ratio,

Normalized SBT based on normalized end resistance and friction ratio,
Probabilistic methods

This section briefly describes these methods and presents interpretation graphs from accepted literature.

5.1.1.

Un-normalized SBT

The most common method for classifying a soil SBT from CPT data is the use of the standard SBT chart.

This method uses the friction ratio ( = ) and cone resistance ( ) and empirical graphs
developed by Robertson et al., 1986, and updated by Robertson, 2010 to classify the soil (Robertson &
Cabal, 2010). This graph is presented in Figure 8. This method is accepted as valid for CPT tests of up to
20 m in depth (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010). Additionally a chart was
produced by Douglas and Olsen, 1981 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997), to determine soil behavior
type. This second graph is presented in Figure 9.

13

Figure 8: BPT classification chart based on Robertson et al., 1986, updated by Robertson, 2010 (Robertson & Cabal,
2010).

Figure 9: BPT classification chart based on Douglas and Olsen, 1981 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997).

5.1.2.

Normalized SBT

Since the sleeve-resistance and end resistance are a function of the depth of the sounding, a series of
normalized charts were developed by Robertson (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) in order to account for this.

14

In addition to normalising the parameters, an additional figure was presented by Robertson to account for
porewater pressure based on a new parameter defined as . These normalised parameters are defined as:
Normalized friction ratio: =

(5)

Normalized end resistance ratio:

Normalized pore pressure ratio:

= 2 0

(6)
(7)

And the applicable graphs are presented in Figure 11 and Figure 10.
To further simplify the application of this method, a soil behavior type index was developed by Robertson
and Cabal (2010) corresponding to the boundary curves between the zones. The definition of this index,
is presented in equation 8. It can be used to classify the soil type based on the table included in Figure
11.
Soil Behaviour Type Index:

= (3.47 log )2 + (log + 1.22)2 ( in percentage)

(8)

Figure 10: Normalized BPT and classification charts based on Robertson et al., 1986 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell,
1997).

15

Figure 11: Normalized BPT classification chart based on Robertson et al., 1986, updated by Robertson, 2010 (Robertson
& Cabal, 2010).

An alternative BPT index approach was developed by Jeffries and Davies assuming
< 1 (Mayne P. W. , 2007). This approach defined an index of as given by equation 9. The
results can be used in conjunction with the table presented in Figure 12.
2

Soil Behaviour Type Index:

= (3 log ( (1 ))) + (1.5 + 1.3 log )2

(9)

Figure 12: SBT classification table based on Jefferies and Davies (Mayne P. W., 2007)

5.1.3.

Probabilistic Methods

Recently Zhang and Tumay (1999) developed a probabilistic method for assessing percentages of clay,
silt and sand based on CPT results. The method has been coined the P-Class method and uses cone tip
resistance and sleeve resistance to compute a probability of soil type. The method is available in a fully

16

automated piece of software provided for free from the Louisiana Transportation Research Center
(LTRC) website and has been shown to provide good results (Mayne P. W., 2007).

5.1.4.

Other methods

Various other methods have been developed including other methods for computing normalized friction
ratios and cone resistances, methods for calculating equivalent SPT values and various methods
developed based on SCPT methods (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997). However, these methods are
less common and will not be discussed in this report.

5.2.

Estimation of soil parameters

Similar to soil classification, soil parameters can be estimated from CPT testing. These parameters
include but are not limited to (Robertson & Cabal, 2010) (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) (Mayne P.
W., 2007) (Gavin & Tolooiyan, 2012):

Soil unit weight,

Shear wave velocity,
Shear and elastic moduli,
Friction angle,
Sensitivity,
OCR,
Relative density,
Consolidation coefficients,
Earth pressure coefficients,
Soil permeabilities.

The following section will elaborate methods for the evaluation of several of parameters required in
foundation design using simple methods. While more complicated methods exist, and the other
parameters can also be evaluated, this is considered beyond the scope of this report. While it is not
elaborated in this report, the use of additional sensors in the CPT can allow for improved accuracy of the
measured parameters and permit for almost all desired parameters to be measured to a reasonable level of
precision.

5.2.1.

Soil Unit Weight

Several methods for obtaining the soils unit weight from CPT data have been developed over the years.
Two of the simpler methods are to use existing correlations between SBT results and typical soil densities
(Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997). Figure 10 shows the correlated values proposed in (Lunne,
Robertson, & Powell, 1997).

17

Figure 13: Approximate unit weight of soils based on SBT as defined in Figure 10 (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)

A second simple method was proposed by Robertson in 2010 (Robertson & Cabal, 2010). This method
uses equation 10 to compute the relative density of the soils where is atmospheric pressure.

= 0.27 log + 0.36 log + 1.236

(10)

Figure 14: Dimensionless unit weight based on CPT (Robertson & Cabal, 2010)

5.2.2.

Undrained Shear Strength

Extensive research has been conducted on the evaluation of the undrained shear strength of clay materials
based on CPT results and to date no consensus has been reached on which method should be used (Mayne
P. W., 2007). The majority of the research has shown that the best method for computing this parameter is
of the form given in equation 11 (Robertson & Cabal, 2010).

18

(11)

typically varies from 10 to 18 and has been shown to increase with plasticity and decrease with
sensitivity. Additionally, Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997) showed that varies with and can be
as low as 6 when = 1.

5.2.3.

Friction Angle

The soil friction angle is a parameter necessary for many design calculation. As such, several empirical
relationships have been developed in order to obtain the friction angle based on CPT results.
For sandy soils, Robertson and Campanella proposed an empirical relationship between the friction angle
and cone penetration resistance (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990). This relationship has classically been
presented as a graph which can be seen in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Robertson and Campanella (1983) empirical graph for determining friction angle (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990)

For fine grained soils, the relationship proposed by Mayne (2006) is recommended in his CPT guide
(Mayne P. W., 2007) and is given as follows:
= 29.50.121 (0.256 + 0.336 + log )

5.2.4.

(12)

Shear waver velocity (Vs)

While shear wave velocity can be measured directly using SCPTu testing, several empirical correlations
are available for times when seismic testing is not available. While many of these relationships apply
uniquely to clays or sandy materials, one of the more recent ones applying to all soil types is presented by
Hegazy and Mayne (Hegazy & Mayne, 1995) (Mayne P. W., 2007) and is as follows:

19

 = [10.1 log ]1.67 [100

5.2.5.

0.3
]

(13)

Constrained Modulus (M)

For computing one dimensional settlement in clay below shallow foundations, one popular method
involves using the constrained modulus. A popular relationship for estimating this parameter is given by:
= ( )

(14)

Recently has been suggested by Robertson (Robertson P. K., 2009) based on SBT Ic values as
(Robertson & Cabal, 2010):
For Ic>2.2 = min( , 14), For Ic<2.2 = 0.0188(100.55 +1.68 ).

5.2.6.

Small strain Shear Modulus (G)

The small strain shear modulus is commonly estimated as (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)
(Robertson & Cabal, 2010) (Mayne P. W., 2007):
=

(15)

Where is the bulk unit weight of the soil and g is the gravitational constant 9.81 m/s2.

5.2.7.

Youngs Modulus

The drained and undrained elastic moduli of soils are extremely useful in predicting soil settlement under
foundations. Several methods have been suggested in order to estimate these parameters. Mayne (2007)
suggests that = (1 + )2 where = 0.5 for undrained conditions and = 0.2 for drained
conditions.
Another method is suggested by Robertson and Cabal (2010) in which the following relationship is
employed for estimating drained modulus of uncemeted sands:
= ( )

(16)

Where = 0.015(100.55 +1.68 ).

20

5.2.8.

Relative Density of Sands

For sands a commonly estimated parameter is the relative density (Dr). One of the more recent methods
for estimating this parameter was presented by Jamiolkowski et al. (2001) (Mayne P. W., 2007) and is
given as follows:

= 100 0.268 ln
0.675

(
( )
)

5.2.9.

(17)

OCR

Several empirical relationships have been developed for the estimation of the over consolidation ratios of
sands and clays. One of the simpler ones for clays was suggested by Robertson (2009) as follows:
= 0.25( )1.25

(18)

Alternative methods involve the estimation of the pre-consolidation pressure from CPTu testing. The
MAyne (2007) recommends the following relationships for estimating these values for:
Sands:

= 0.101 0.102 0.478

0.420

(19)

Clays:
= 0.6( 2 )

6.

(20)

Shallow Foundation Design

Several methods have been developed for the design of shallow foundations based on CPT testing. They
can be grouped into two categories (Mayne & Illingworth, 2010):

Indirect methods,
Direct methods.

Indirect methods involve the use of the CPT results to determine the soil strength and settlement
parameters, which are then utilized to establish the bearing capacity and settlement. Section 3 of this
report provides methods for evaluating the majority of the required parameters for conventional bearing
capacity calculations. Section 4.1 lists some of the more commonly used traditional methods to evaluate
bearing capacity, and 4.2 list some of the more commonly used methods for predicting settlement.
Direct methods involve using the CPT results to directly estimate bearing capacity and settlements for
shallow foundations. Several direct methods for computing bearing capacity are detailed in section 4.3 of

21

this report while several direct methods for evaluating settlement are presented in section 4.4 of this
report.

6.1.

Indirect methods for calculating bearing capacity

Indirect methods for computing bearing capacity of shallow foundations involve the determination of soil
strength parameters ( , , , ). These parameters are then used in conjunction with traditional methods
for computing bearing capacity. These traditional methods include, but are not limited to, the following:

Terzaghi and Peck (Bowles, 1996),

Meyerhoff, Hansen and Vesic (Bowles, 1996) (CFEM, 2006) (Eurocode-7, 2004),

The following figures show the equations proposed by these authors as well as the shape factors required
to use them.

Figure 16: Summary of simple bearing capacity methods from Terzaghi, Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic (Bowles, 1996)

22

Figure 17: Summary of shape and depth factors for Meyerhof (Left), Hansen and Vesic (center and right) (Bowles, 1996)

6.2.

Indirect methods for calculating settlement

Indirect methods for computing bearing settlement of shallow foundations involve the determination of
soil elasticity parameters ( , , , , ). These parameters are then used in conjunction with traditional
methods for computing settlement. These traditional methods include, but are not limited to, the
following:

Elastic displacement methods (CFEM)

One-dimensional Oedometric method (CFEM, Bowles)
Schmertmann et al. (1978) indirect method (CFEM)

These methods are included in most text books and design codes.

6.2.1.

Elastic Displacement Methods

Many elastic displacement methods are available and can be used to estimate settlement. This can be
performed by estimating the required parameters from CPT results as presented in section 3. While many
methods derived from this theory are available including Skempton and Bjerrum (1957), Poulos and
Davis (1974), etc. these methods are generally of the form given in the following equation, although
additional terms may appear for changes in the media and foundation geometry.
=

(22)

Where q is the applied stress, B is the footing width and is an influence factor based on the foundation
and soil geometry, E is the modulus (drained or undrained) (CFEM, 2006) (Mayne P. W., 2007).
The Youngs modulus and shear modulus of the soils can be estimated as outlined in section 3, and the
influence factors can be obtained from the (CFEM, 2006) or (Mayne P. W., 2007).
More generally, elastic strain integration can be used with the results from CPT testing using the
following equation:
23

(23)

1
= ( ( + ))

=1

Where the changes in stress can all be obtained from stress distribution theories such as that presented in
Poulos and Davis (1974) which can be found in the CFEM as well as many textbooks and other standards.

6.2.2.

One-dimensional Oedometric method

Since the one-dimensional constrained modulus can be estimated from CPT results as shown in section 3,
the one-dimensional oedometric method can be applied to estimate consolidation settlements. This
method can be computed using the following equation (CFEM, 2006) (Bowles, 1996) and an accepted
stress incrementation method (ie trapezoidal, Bousinesque, etc.):

(24)

= [ ]
=1
1

Where = where M is the constrained modulus, is the change in effective stress at the midpoint

of the layer and is the layer thickness.

6.2.3.

Schmertmann et al. (1978)

Schmertmann et al. (1978) is the most commonly used method for computing settlement based on CPT
testing. In order to perform this calculation, the Youngs modulus of the soil is estimated using the CPT
results, and the settlement is computed using the following:

= 1 2 3
=1

(25)

Where 1 = 1 0.5 , 2 = 1 + 0.2 log10 10, 3 = 1.03 0.03 (), =

, t is the time of

load application in years, is the strain influence factor obtained from figure , is the thickness of
the ith layer, is the modulus of the ith layer of sand.
While the CFEM suggests using = 3.5 for L/B<10 and = 2.5 for L/B=1, any of the accepted
methods for estimating can be used.

Figure 18: Influence factor for Schmertmann (1978) method (CFEM, 2006)

24

This method has generally been found to overestimate the settlement of soils beneath foundations. As
such, Fathi (2014) proposed that the flowchart presented in Figure 19 be used to estimate Youngs
modulus prior to using the Schmertmann method based on the relative density of the soil.
It should be noted, however, that the relative density used by Mohamed (2014) were obtained through
laboratory testing, and as such using CPT estimated relative densities may not provide any significant
improvement to the Schmertmann method.

Figure 19: Modulus Correction for Schmertmann (1978) (Mohamed, 2014)

6.3.

Direct Ultimate Bearing Capacity Methods

Several direct methods are available for the direct computation of the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations. This section describes four of the most commonly used ones:

Meyerhof (1956) direct method (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997),

Tand et al (1995) direct method (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997),
Tand et al (1986) direct method (Mayne P. W., 2007),
25

Schmertmann (1978) direct method (Mayne P. W., 2007),

Bowles (1996)
Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996) (Robertson & Cabal, 2010).

6.3.1.

Meyerhof (1956) direct method

In 1965 Meyerhof suggested a direct method for computing bearing capacities on sand based on CPT
results. He defined as:
=

(1 + )

(26)

Where B is the width of the footing, is the average cone resistance over a depth equal to the width of
the footing, D is the depth of the footing below the ground surface and C is a constant equal to 12.2 m
(Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997). A factor of safety of 3 is recommended for determining the
allowable bearing capacity using this method.

6.3.2.

Tand et al. (1995) direct method

Tand et al. (1995) (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) proposed the use of the following method for the
determination of bearing capacity of shallow footings on medium cemented dense sand:
= +

(27)

Where is a constant that varies between 0.14 to 0.2 and and is the initial vertical stress at the base
of the footing.

6.3.3.

Tand et al. (1986) direct method

Tand et al. (1986) proposed the use of the following method for the determination of bearing capacity of
shallow footings on clay (Mayne P. W., 2007):
= ( ) +

(28)

Where is a constant that can be obtained from Figure 20 and is the initial vertical stress at the base
of the footing. It should be noted that is dependent on (the embedded depth of the footing) and B
(the footing width).

26

Figure 20: for Tand et al. (1986) foundations on clay from (Mayne P. W., 2007)

6.3.4.

Schmertmann (1978) direct method

Schmertmann (1978) presented the following direct method (Mayne P. W., 2007) for calculating
when > 0.9 embedded to a depth of 1.2 and when 0.9 embedded to a depth of

0.45 + :
2

Square footings: = 0.55 (

0.785

Strip foorings:

= 0.36 (

(29)

0.785

(30)

Where is one atmosphere of pressure.

6.3.5.

Bowles (1996)

Bowles (1996) presents a similar method based on charts provided in Schmertmann (1978) and credited
to an unpublished reference by Awakti (Bowles, 1996). This method contains the following solutions:
Strip footings:
On sand: = 28 0.0052(300 )1.5
On clay:

= 2 + 0.25

(31)
(32)

Square footings:
On sand: = 48 0.009(300 )1.5

(33)

= 5 + 0.34

(34)

On clay:

Where and are in kg/cm2 and is the average penetration resistance from B/2 above the footing
to a depth of 1.1B below the footing.
27

6.3.6.

Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996)

Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996) proposed the following relationship for direct computation of for
shallow foundations on sand (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997):
=

(35)

Where is the average cone penetration resistance over a depth equal to the width of the footing below
the footing base and K is a constant that can be obtained from

Figure 21: from Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996) foundations on sand (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997)

6.4.

Direct settlement calculation methods

Several direct methods are available for the direct computation of the settlement of shallow foundations.
This section describes some of the most commonly used ones:

Meyerhof (1974)
Burland et al (1977)
Mayne and Illingworth (2010)

While these methods exist, for settlement calculations, it is generally recommended that indirect methods
be used by estimating the modulus of elasticity of the soil with depth, and then employing the
Schmertmann (1978) method (CFEM, 2006) or other geoelasticity based methods. It should additionally
be mentioned that the direct computation methods included in this report are all applicable only to
foundations on sands.

6.4.1.

Meyerhof (1974)

Meyerhof (1974) suggested an empirical method (using equation 17) to estimate a conservative value for
the settlement of shallow foundations on sand from the CPT results (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997).
=

(36)

Where B is the footing width, is the applied pressure from the footing and is the average cone
penetration resistance over a depth of B below the footing.

28

6.4.2.

Burland et al. (1977)

Burland et al. (1977) presented a graph showing predicted settlements based on the cone penetration
resistance obtained from the CPT testing (CFEM, 2006). This graph can be seen in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Burland et al., 1977 Graph for approximate settlement of footings on sand (CFEM, 2006)

6.4.3.

Mayne and Illingsworth (2010)

Mayne and Illingsworth (2010) recently conducted an analysis of a database of existing footings on sand
varying in footing width from 0.5 m to 6 m. They then proposed an empirical method for estimating the
settlement of shallow foundations on sand directly from CPT results:
=

252
92

(37)

Where B is the footing width, is the applied pressure from the footing and is the average cone
penetration resistance over a depth of 1.5B below the footing (Mayne & Illingworth, 2010).

7.

Deep Foundation Design

Several methods have been developed for the design of deep foundations based on CPT testing. The
common trait of all methods is that the bearing capacity of a single pile is calculated in two parts:
= +

(38)

Where is the end bearing resistance and is the friction resistance of the pile.
In terms of methods for calculating these capacities, they can be separated into two types of method
(Robertson & Cabal, 2010) (Titi & Abu-Farsakh, 1999):

Indirect methods,
Direct methods.

29

Indirect methods involve the use of the CPT results to determine the soil strength and settlement
parameters and use them to determine the bearing capacity and settlement. Section 3 of this report
provides methods for evaluating the majority of the required parameters for conventional bearing capacity
calculations. Section 5.1 lists some of the more commonly used methods to evaluate bearing capacity.
Direct methods involve using the CPT results to directly estimate bearing capacity and settlements for
shallow foundations. Several direct methods for computing bearing capacity are detailed in section 5.2 of
this report (Mayne P. W., 2007).
A brief discussion of settlement calculations for piles is included in section 5.3.

7.1.

Indirect Bearing Capacity Methods

Indirect methods for computing bearing capacity of deep foundations involve the determination of soil
strength parameters. These parameters are then used in conjunction with traditional methods for
computing bearing capacity. Two basic categories of indirect methods exist:

Total stress methods ( methods) (Bowles, 1996, CFEM, Eurocode 7, Niazi and Mayne, 2013),
Effective stress methods ( methods) (Bowles, 1996, CFEM, Eurocode 7, Niazi and Mayne,
2013).

While the general formulation of these methods has remained the same, various scientists have modified
them over the years so as to account for various parameters. Figure show the modifications made to these
methods by scientists over the years as summarized by Niazi and Mayne (2013).

Figure 23: Modifications made to the beta method over the years (Niazi & Mayne (2013))

30

Figure 24: Modifications made to the alpha method over the years (Niazi & Mayne (2013))

Due to the numerous iterations of these methods, this report will outline the basic methods as covered by
the CFEM. A comprehensive explanation of each of the modifications made to these methods can be
found in Niazi and Mayne (2013), should other iterations be desired.

7.1.1.

Total stress method ( method)

The total stress method for determining single pile bearing capacity involves use of total stress to compute
the bearing capacity of piles in cohesive soils.
For cohesive soils the skin friction is calculated using the following equation (CFEM, 2006):
=

(39)

Where is the undrained shear strength and can be obtained from Figure 25.
31

Figure 25: Adhesions as a function of undrained shear strength (CFEM, 2006)

End resistance can be obtained from the following equation (CFEM, 2006):
=

(40)

Where = 9 for pile diameter D < 0.5 m, = 7 for 0.5 m < D < 1 m, = 6 for D > 1 m. is the cross
section area of the pile at the toe.
From these the total bearing capacity of a pile can be combined as:

= +

(41)

=1

Where is the length of the section of the friction pile, P is the perimeter of the pile and is the
ultimate load that can be held by the pile.

7.1.2.

Effective stress methods ( methods)

In the case of cohesionless soils, the skin friction and end resistance of a pile are given by (CFEM, 2006)
(Eurocode-7, 2004):

tan
=1
=

(42)

=1

(43)

Where is the length of the pile section, P is the pile perimeter, is the vertical effective stress at depth
of , is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure.

32

Typically values of and are obtained from Figure 26.

Figure 26: Range of coefficients (left) and coefficients (right) (CFEM, 2006)

7.2.

Direct Bearing Capacity Methods

To date a very large number of direct methods for relating CPT/CPTu results to pile bearing capacity
have been developed. Recently several researchers have compared many of these methods including Cai
et al. (2009) who evaluated 10 methods and Niazi and Mayne (2013) who presented 35 methods. Of these
the following methods are recommended by CFEM, Mayne (2007) and Lunne, Robertson and Powell
(1997) and are presented in this report:

LCPC method (Bustamante & Gianeselli, 1982),

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Building Research Establishment,
Unicone (Eslami and Fellenius, 1997).

While only these three methods will be presented in this report, it should be noted that a list of the other
methods can be found in Niazi and Mayne (2013) and Cai et al. (2009).

7.2.1.

LCPC method (1982)

The Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC) method was developed by Bustamante &
Gianeselli (1982) on the results from 197 pile load tests. This method is one of the most commonly used
method and is currently recommended by the CFEM (2006).
From the LCPC method the capacities for a single pile can be calculated as follows:
=

(44)
(45)

Where is the cone penetration resistance (varies with depth), is the cone penetration resistance at
the base of the pile, is the cross sectional area of the pile end, and are constants obtained from
Figure 27 and Figure 28.

33

Figure 27: Range of coefficients for the LCPC method (CFEM, 2006)

Figure 28: Range of coefficients for the LCPC method (CFEM, 2006)

34

7.2.2.

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Building Research Establishment

The NGI-BRC method is an updated version of Almeida et al. (1996) by Powell et al. (2001) and as such
is only applicable to clays. Based on this method the side friction and end bearing resistance of a pile are
given by the following (Mayne P. W., 2007):
=

10.5 + 13.3 log

(46)

(47)

Where is the normalized cone penetration resistance, is the porewater pressure corrected cone

penetration resistance and 2 = 9 , where is typically taken as a value of 15, but may be as high
as 25 to 35 for hard clays (Mayne P. W., 2007).

7.2.3.

Unicone method

The unicone method is based on Eslami and Fellenius (1997) and requires CPTu readings to be applied.
Based on this method the side friction and end bearing resistance of a pile are given by the following
(Mayne P. W., 2007):
=

(48)

(49)

Where = 2 , is the geometric mean of values over the influence zone (4d below the pile
tip to 8d above the pile tip), CsE is obtained from Figure 29, and CtE is generally taken as 1, but is given as
= 1 3 > 0.4 (Niazi and Mayne, 2013).

Figure 29: Soil classification and value for Unicone method (Mayne P. W., 2007)

7.3.

Settlement Estimation

Several methods are currently available for the estimation of settlements of pile foundations. The
following methods are elaborated in this report:

Elastic Continuum Solutions (Poulos and Davis, 1980)

Vesic (1977) (Empirical solution)
35

Das (1995) method

Fleming et al (2008)
ANN methods (Baziar et al. 2014)
Non-Linear sCPTu methods

7.3.1.

Elastic Continuum Solutions

Poulos and Davis (1980) provided a solution using elastic continuum methods for both floating and endbearing piles. From their results, the settlement for a pile in a deep layer of uniform elastic material is
given by the CFEM (2006):
=

(50)

Where is the soil modulus and 0 are influence factors found in Figure 29, Figure 30 and
Figure 31.
For most purposes in the case of layered soils it is adequate to use the following equation for (CFEM,
2006):

()

1
=

(51)

=1

Figure 30: influence factor from Poulos and Davis (1980) (CFEM, 2006)

36

Figure 31: values from Poulos and Davis (1980) for pile settlement (CFEM, 2006)

It should be noted that Fleming et al. (1992) developed a closed form solution for 0 for piles in a soil
with a modulus that increases linearly with depth. While this solution is not included in this report, it can
be found in the CFEM (2006).

7.3.2.

Vesic (1977)

Vesic (1977) proposed an empirical equation for determining pile settlement. The proposed equation is
the following (CFEM, 2006):
= + +

(52)

Where is the elastic deformation of the pile, is the settlement from load transmitted along the pile
shaft and is the settlement of the pile toe caused by load transmitted to the toe.
These terms were then defined as follows:
= ( + )

0.75

(53)

(54)

(55)

Where L is the pile length, d is the pile diameter, is the end bearing capacity, is the portion of the
pile load transmitted by the pile toe, is the portion of the load transmitted through skin friction, is
0.5
a factor dependent on skin friction, = 0.93 + 0.16() and is found from

Figure 32: values from Vesic (1977) for pile settlement (CFEM, 2006)

37

7.3.3.

Das (1995)

Das (1995) proposed a method similar to Vesic (1977) with changes to and . His proposed
definitions for these two terms were as follows (Mayne P. W., 2007):
=

( ) (1 2 )

(56)

(1 2 )

(57)

Where O is the pile perimeter, is the Poissons ratio of the soil, = 0.85, and = 2 + 0.35.

7.3.4.

Fleming et al. (2008)

Fleming et al. (2008) showed using finite element and boundary element analysis that the skin friction
load is transferred to the soil through shear stress. Solving the differential equations assuming that the
shear stress decreases with distance from the pile, he obtained the following solution for the settlement of
a pile (Fleming, Weltman, Randolph, & Elson, 2009):
2
2 2 tanh()
+

(1 )
=
8
tanh()
0
1+

(1 )
Where =

(58)

(ratio of underream for underreamed piles), = (ratio of end bearing for end

bearing piles), = (variation of soil modulus with depth), = (pile-soil stiffness ratio), =

2
)

ln (

(radius of influence of the pile), = 2

(measured pile compressibility).

7.3.5.

Artificial Neural Network Methods

Recently, Baziar et al. (2014) proposed the use of artificial neural networks to estimate settlements for
complicated pile soil configurations in which many parameters are unknown. By developing a neural
network based on 101 pile loading tests and CPT results, it was shown that the network could predict pile
settlement more accurately than most commonly used methods (Baziar, Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015).
While elaborating on this method is beyond the scope of this report, Figure shows the basic structure of
such a neural network (Baziar, Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015).

38

Figure 33: Basic structure of a neural network (Baziar, Azizkandi, & Kashkooli, 2015)

7.3.6.

Approximate non-linear approximations using sCPTu

As soil properties are highly non-linear, in the event that sCPTu testing is performed, Mayne (2007)
recommends the following approximation for determining pile settlement:
=

(59)

[1 ( ) ]

Where is the small strain modulus, = 0.3 0.1, is the ultimate bearing capacity for the pile,

1
= . This method is illustrated in Figure 34.

Figure 34: Concept using sCPTu for evaluating approximate non-linear settlement (Mayne P. W., 2007)

39

8.

Design Example

The previous sections of this report have presented historically and currently used methods for
interpreting CPT/CPTu results in order to design shallow and deep foundations. This section presents a
design example for foundation design using CPT results.
In order to illustrate the process for the design of a building footing, consider the following example
assuming a simplified site. Determine the bearing capacity of a 3 m wide and 2 m deep strip footing and
13 m long 0.6 m diameter end driven pile using direct methods for the following CPT results:

A cone penetration test is performed and uniform values of = 1.5 and = 100
over a depth of 20 m from the site surface.
A homogeneous soil profile will be assumed.

8.1.

Soil Classification

The soil type must first be determined in order to assess which methods are applicable for estimating the
bearing capacity. To do so the first step is to compute the friction ratio of the site as defined in section
100
3.1.1: = 1500 100% = 6.7%. Since the testing was performed up to a depth of 20 m, the unnormalized soil classification system may be used. From this value using Figure 8, the soil can be
classified as a Type 3 material or clay.

8.2.

Soil Properties

As direct methods are being used, soil strength parameters are un-necessary, however a soil unit weight is
still required. Based on Figure 14, a soil unit weight of 19kPa can be estimated.
Additionally, in order to classify the clay soil, its undrained shear strength is required. This is done using
equation 11:
=

1500 2 19
= 104
14

Implying that this is a stiff clay.

8.3.

Bearing capacity for shallow foundations

For foundations on clay several methods are available for direct calculation. It is recommended that the
methods be compared and the lowest one be used. Additionally, a safety factor of 3 is typically used for
determining allowable bearing capacity.
15003

Meyerhof: = 12.2(1+2

3)

= 220 ,
1500 0.785

Schmertmann: = 0.36 100 ( 100 )

= 300

Tand et al.: = 0.4(1500 19 2) + 19 2 = 620

From these, Meyerhof is the most conservative so an allowable capacity 220/3 = 70 kPa may be
employed. Should previous experience in the area be available, it may be justifiable to employ one of the
other methods.
40

8.4.

Bearing capacity of a single pile

For piles in clay several methods are available for direct calculation. It is noted that the NGI and unicone
methods only apply to CPTu tests and can therefore not be used with the information provided.
LCPC: From Figure 27 and Figure 28 = 80 and = 0.45. As such,
1

= 80 1500 = 18.75 , and = 0.45 1500 0.32 = 190

So total capacity with a safety factor of 3 is =

8.5.

18.750.612+190
3

614
3

= 205.

Settlement

As the pile and foundation are in clay and not sand, no direct methods are available for estimating
settlement. It is therefore recommended to estimate the material elasticity parameters and use a traditional
method for their estimation. This is considered beyond the scope of this report, and examples can be
found in Mayne (2007) as well as other sources cited in this report.

8.6.

Summary

Using direct bearing capacity calculation methods can be used to quickly estimate the capacities of piles
and shallow foundations using CPT results. These results can be improved through the use of SCPTu or
CPTu results. Based on these calculations, a significantly larger pile would be required to obtain a
reasonable bearing capacity, while the shallow footing provides a reasonable capacity for a small
structure.

9.

Conclusion

CPT/CPTu is an extremely useful tool for investigating site properties and predicting foundation bearing
capacity and settlement. It provides a means for determining in-situ soil parameters in a quick and cost
effective manner. In fact, CPT can often outperform conventional drilling programs while providing more
complete information about the site. The primary drawbacks to this method are the lack of sampling and
the limitations to penetration through dense soils, and the inability to determine rock depth. As a result of
this, CPT/CPTu is ideally suited to be combined with conventional drilling as part of a larger
investigation campaign.
CPT/CPTu provides certain key advantages over conventional drilling for estimating foundation bearing
capacities. These advantages include the direct assessment of geostratigraphy, the identification of
interbedded lenses of material, the exact location of changes in strata and the digital nature of the data.
The digital nature of the data allows the results to be processed extremely quickly and efficiently. In
addition to the assessment of the soil stratigraphy is highly repeatable and reliable and many well defined
empirical and analytical relationships exist between CPT results and soil strength, consolidation,
permeability and elastic parameters. This allows a near continuous evaluation of soil properties and
permits the use of complex traditional methods for bearing capacity and settlement analyses with regards
to foundation design.
In addition to the use of indirect methods for the design of foundations, over the years several direct
methods have been developed in order to facilitate the design of foundations. This allows for multiple
methods to be used and a range of results to be obtained.

41

A major advantage in CPT testing is the possibility to add additional sensors to the CPT probe in order to
perform addition testing simultaneously. Two major examples of this are SCPTu and pressuremeter CPT
testing. These allow for direct measurements of shear wave velocities and elastic properties of soils
further improving the results of the testing and accuracy of foundation bearing capacity and settlement
calculations.
Unfortunately certain limitations in CPT testing present major issues in testing. These limitations include
difficulties penetrating dense layers and boulders, probe deflections and limitations in the frequency of
shear wave velocity measurements (SCPTu). As such, research and development in the field of CPT is
very active including the development of new analytical methods for analysing CPT data, new types of
CPT probes and new software packages to perform the analysis.

10.

Bibliography

Ardalan, H., Eslami, A., & Nariman-Zadeh, N. (2008). Piles shaft capacity from CPT and CPTu data by
polynomial neural networks and genetic algorithms. Computers and Geotechnics, 266-352.
ASTM. (D-5778). Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone
Penetration Testing of Soils.
Baziar, M., Azizkandi, A., & Kashkooli, A. (2015). Prediction of Pile Settlement based on Cone
Penetration - Test Results: An ANN Approach. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 98-106.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill.
Cai, G., Liu, S., & Puppala, A. (2012). Reliability assessment of CPTU-based pile capacity predictions in
soft clay deposits. Engineering Geology, 84-91.
Cai, G., Liu, S., Tong, L., & Du, G. (2009). Assessment of direct CPT and CPTU methods for predicting
ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. Engineering Geology, 12.
CFEM. (2006). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual - 4th Edition. Canadian Geotechnical Society.
Cherubini, C., & Vessia, G. (2007). Reliability-based pile design in sandy soils by CPT measurements.
First International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety & Risk. Shanhai, China.
Cunha, R., & Stewart, W. (2010). Assessment of LCPC CPT method for bored piles in Brasilia clay. 2nd
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, (pp. 3-10). Huntington Beach, California.
D6067, A. (n.d.). Standard Practice for Using the Electronic Piezocone Penetrometer Tests for
Environmental Site Characterization.
Eslami, A., & Gholami, M. (2006). Analytical Model for the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations
from Cone Resistance. Scientia Iranica, Vol. 13, 223-233.
Eslami, A., Aflaki, E., & Hosseini, B. (2011). Evaluating CPT and CPTu based pile bearing capacity
estimation methods using Urmiyeh Lake Causeway piling records. Scientia Iranica.
Eurocode-7. (2004). Geotechnical Design. European Standard 1997-1.

42

Fleming, K., Weltman, A., Randolph, M., & Elson, K. (2009). Piling Engineering - Third Edition. Taylor
and Francis.
Gavin, K., & Tolooiyan, A. (2012). An investigation of correlation factors linking footing resistance on
sand with cone penetration test results. Computers and Geotechnics, 84-92.
Gholami, M., & Eslami, A. (2006). Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow and Deep Foundations from
Cone Point Resistance. 7th International Congress on Civil Engineering. Tehran, Iran.
Hegazy, Y., & Mayne, P. (1995). Statistical Correlations Between Vs and CPT Data for Different Soil
Types. Proceedings, Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Swedish Geotechnical Society,
(pp. 173-178). Linkping, Sweden.
Ibrahim, A., Malik, I., & Omar, O. (2013). Pile design using Eurocode 7: A case study. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Construction Technology.
ISSMFE. (n.d.). International Reference Test Procedure for Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 39.
ISSMGE. (n.d.). International Reference Test Procedure for CPT and CPTU . International Society of
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C., Germaine, J., & Lancellotta, R. (1985). New Developments in Field and Lab
Testing of Soils. Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, (pp. 57-154). San Francisco, California.
Kulhawy, F. H., & Mayne, P. K. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design.
Cornell University.
Lee, J., & Salagado, R. (2005). Estimation of Bearing Capacity of Circular Footings on Sands Based on
Cone Penetration Test. JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P., & Powell, J. (1997). Cone Penetration Testing. Blackie Academic &
Professional.
Mayne, P. W. (2007). NCHRP Synthesis 368 - Cone Penetration Testing. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program.
Mayne, P., & Illingworth, F. (2010). Direct CPT method for footing response in sands using a database
approach. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, 3, pp. 3-40. Huntington
Beach, California.
Mohamed, F. (2014). Bearing Capacity and Settlement Behaviour of Footings Subjected to Static and
Seizmic Loading Conditions in Unsaturated and saturated Soils. PhD Thesis - University of
Ottawa.
Monzon A., J. (2006). Review of CPT Based Design Methods for Estimating Axial Capacity of Driven
Piles in Siliceous Sand. Master's Thesis - Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
NEN5140. (1996). Dutch Standard: Determination of the Cone Resistance and Sleeve Friction of Soil.
NEN5140 (1996) 43.
43

NGF. (1994). Norwegian Geotechnical Society (NGF): Guidelines for Cone Penetration Tests 43.
Niazi, F., & Mayne, P. (2013). Cone Penetration Test Based Direct Methods for Evaluating Static Axial
Capacity of Single Piles. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 31(4), 979-1009.
Niazi, F., Mayne, P., & Woeller, D. (2010). Case history of axial pile capacity and load-settlement
response by SCPTu. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, (pp. 3-02).
Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
Nikudel, M., Mousavi, S., Khamehchiyan, M., & Jamshidi, A. (2012). Using Miniature Cone Penetration
Test (Mini-CPT) to determine engineering properties of sandy soils. JGeope, 65-76.
Robertson, P. (2006). Guide to In-Situ Testing. Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc.
Robertson, P. K. (2009). Interpretation of cone penetration tests a unified approach. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1337-1355.
Robertson, P., & Cabal, K. (2010). Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering (4th
Edition). Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc.
Ryul, K., Gyo, C., Dung, N., & Fellenius, B. (2012). Design for Settlement of Pile Groups by the Unified
Design Method - A Case History. GeoCongress 2012.
Schnaid, F. (2010). Session Report 3: CPT Applications. 2nd International Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, (p. SR 3). Huntington Beach, California.
SGF. (1993). Swedish Geotechnical Society: Recommended Standard for Cone Penetration Tests 39.
Thomassen, K., Andersen, L. V., & Ibsen, L. (2012). Comparison of Design Methods for Axially Loaded
Driven Piles in Cohesionless Soil. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second (2012) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
Titi, H., & Abu-Farsakh, M. (1999). Evaluation of Bearing Capacity of Piles From Cone Penetration Test
Data. Louisiana Transportation Research Center.
Togliani, G. (2010). Pile Capacity Prediction using CPT - Case History. 2nd International Symposium on
Cone Penetration Testing, (pp. 3-13). Huntington Beach, California.
Togliani, G., & Reuter, G. (2010). CPT/CPTu pile capacity prediction methods question time. 2nd
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, (pp. 3-27). Huntington Beach, California.
White, D., & Bolton, M. (2005). Comparing CPT and pile base resistance in sand. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering 158, (pp. 3-14).
Zhang, Z., & Tumay, M. (1999). Statistical to Fuzzy Approach Toward CPT Soil Classication. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 179-186.

44