CHAPTER Page subject

1 1-3 introduction
2 3-9 Cone penetration test :
a-definition
b-Method of work
c- advantage and
disadvantage
3 9-21 Pile foundation : a-definition

b-Types of piles

c-Applications

4 21-end Pile design by CPT data:d-Methods of

Introduction calculation piles
4-1Estimation of pile Bearing
load capacity using
In- situ Test
4-2Estimation of pile Bearing capacity Based
on CPT:
4-2-1-The Dutch method
4-2-2-Schmertmann's method
4-2-3-Aoki and Velloso's method
4-2-4-LCPmethod
4-3 worked examples

1
The standard cone penetration test is one of the most important
tests used to identify soil properties. The standard cone penetration
test has gained great confidence in calculating soil properties and
has become one of the basic tests that are used in the design of
various types of foundations, especially deep foundations. Because
this examination depends on less correction factors compared to
the laboratory tests of the soil, which in many cases the extracted
sample does not represent the foundation soil by a large percentage
for several reasons) Stress relief , Volume displacement of the
sampler, Friction (bearing capacity failure), Soil shattering , Water
table ,Loss of hydrostatic pressure , Environment ,Handling and
transporting) . The main approaches for the application of cone
data to pile design available are indirect and direct methods.
Indirect CPT methods employ theoretical formulations of failure
mechanisms where soil parameters, such as friction angle, relative
density, and coefficient of lateral earth pressure are used. Such
methods introduce significant uncertainties owing to the
calculation of inter-mediate parameters and to the introduction of
empirical factors whose uncertainty is hard to be quantified.
On the other hand, direct CPT methods assume the measured cone
resistance(bearing and shaft) as the unit pile tip resistance.

2
 2-1 Definition :

The cone penetration or cone penetrometer test (CPT) is a method used

to determine the geotechnical engineering properties of soils and
delineating soil stratigraphy. It was initially developed in the 1950s at the
Dutch Laboratory for Soil Mechanics in Delft to investigate soft soils. Based
on this history it has also been called the "Dutch cone test". Today, the CPT
is one of the most used and accepted soil methods for soil
investigation worldwide.
The test method consists of pushing an instrumented cone, with the tip
facing down, into the ground at a controlled rate (controlled between 1.5 -
2.5 cm/s accepted). The resolution of the CPT in delineating stratigraphic
layers is related to the size of the cone tip, with typical cone tips having a
cross-sectional area of either 10 or 15 cm², corresponding to diameters of
3.6 and 4.4 cm. see picture (2-1)

Picture (2-1) CPT truck

3
4
A variety of cone penetrometer systems are available, ranging from
small mini-pushing units to very large truck and track vehicles.
The electronic penetrometers range in size from small to large
probes with from one to five separate channels of measurements.
The penetrometer readings can be as simple as measuring just the
axial load over the tip area, giving the cone tip resistance (qc). A
second load cell can provide the resistance over a side area, or
sleeve friction (fs). With both, the electronic friction cone is the
normal type penetrometer, termed cone penetration test (CPT). A
mechanical type CPT probe is available for pushing in very hard
and abrasive ground. With the addition of porous filters and
transducers, the penetration porewater pressures (u) in saturated
soils can be measured, thus termed a piezocone penetration test
(CPTU). The seismic piezocone (SCPTU) contains geophones to
permit profiling of shear wave velocity measurements and the
resistivity piezocone (RCPTU) uses electrodes to obtain readings
on the electrical properties of the soil. Details concerning the
standard equipment, calibration, field test procedures, and
interpretation and presentation of results are discussed in the
report. Specialized testing procedures and equipment used to
achieve penetration in very dense or cemented ground are
reviewed in this report.
The evaluation of soil type by the CPT is indirect and must be
inferred from the penetrometermeasurements, coupled with a
good understanding of the local and regional geology. Thus, it
may be beneficial to cross-calibrate the CPT results with logs from
adjacent soil test borings in order to best utilize the technology in
a reliable manner. In necessary cases, a simple CPT sampler can
be deployed for obtaining soil specimens for examination. In
addition, video CPT systems are available to allow visual
identification of soils and subsurface conditions in realtime. The
cone penetrometer is instrumented with load cells to measure
point stress and friction during aconstant rate of advancement.
The results can be interpreted within different theoretical

5
frameworks orusing empirical methods, or both. As the data are
logged directly to the computer, additional sensors can be readily
incorporated including: porewater pressure, resistivity,
inclination, and shear wave velocity, as well as a number of
environmental measurements (gamma, pH, salinity, temperature,
etc.). The ability of the CPT to collect multiple and simultaneous
readings with depth is a valuable asset in the screening of
subsurface conditions and evaluation of natural foundation
bearing materials. The recorded data are stored digitally and can
be post-processed to interpret a number of geotechnical
engineering parameters that relate to soil strength, stiffness,
stress state, and permeability. These parameters are needed
input in the design and analysis of the stability of embankments
and slopes, bearing capacity of shallow and deep
foundations, and engineering evaluations concerning
displacements, deflections, and settlements of walls,abutments,
fills, and foundation systems.
In some circles, the cone penetrometer is considered to be a
miniature pile foundation. Thus, the recorded penetrometer data
can be utilized either in a direct CPT method or indirect (or
rational) approach for evaluating the point end bearing and side
friction resistance of deep foundation systems. In this report,both
approaches are discussed, with a particular effort given towards
describing and outlining some of the newer methods developed
for the piezocone and seismic cone. Driven pilings and drilled
deep foundations are considered. Methods are also reviewed for
the evaluation of bearing capacity and displacements of footings
and shallow foundations from CPT results.

6
 2-2 Method of work:
In this test a cone penetrometer is pushed into the ground at a standard
rate and data are recorded at regular intervals during penetration. A cone
penetration test rig pushes the steel cone vertically into the ground. The
cone penetrometer is instrumented to measure penetration resistance at
the tip and friction in the shaft (friction sleeve) during penetration. A CPT
probe equipped with a pore-water pressure sensor is called a CPTU. CPT
probes with other sensors are also used. This test is preferable for fine
sands, silty fine sands and clay deposits. The data obtained are used to
estimate bearing capacity and settlement for footings or static pile
capacity.

See picture (2-2)

Picture (2-2) CPT procedure

7
 2-3 Advantage and Disadvantage

2-3-1 Advantages of (C.P.T.):

A. Quick and economical.

B. Gives a continuous resistance of strata.
C. Gives skin friction of soil.
D. Reliable for sand below water table.
E. No boring is required.

2-3-2Limitations of (C.P.T.):
A. Not suitable for gravelly soils.
B. Does not reveal types of soils encountered.
C. No samples are taken.
D. Test depth (15-25) m.

8
3-1Definition:

Piles are structural members of timber, concrete, and/or steel, used to

transmit surface loads to lower levels in the soil mass.
Uses:

A. Transfer load to a stronger and/or less compressible stratum.

B. Resist uplift , or overturning, vibration and lateral forces.
C. Avoid scour damage.
D. Transmit loads above the water surface into the underlying soil.
E. Compact loose cohesionless deposits.

3-2Types:

Piles may be classified in a number of ways, for example, by the material of

which they are formed, their manner of installation and based on the effect
the pile has on the soil during installation. [see Table (3.1) and figure (3.1)].

9
Table (3-1)
Table (3-1) continued

10
Table (3-1) continued

11
Table (3-1) continued

12
Picture (3-1)

13
14
 3-3 Application of piles :

3-3-1 In case of great loads and very weak

shallow soill

3-3-2 In cace of big eccentricity of load.

In the case of high structural truss with light weights, such as electricity
towers, the attrition resulting from wind loads is much greater than the main
𝑀
loads( M>N), and therefore the eccentricity (e= ) is very large, which may
𝑁
generate tension on the foundation. So we use piles to resist the tensile force
by friction

15
3-3-3 In case of uplift (underground tank)
In the case of ground tanks and swimming pools, they have a high
groundwater pressure, which results in the pressure of the water from the
bottom to the top (uplift). It is preferable to use the pillars here to resist the
tensile force.

16
 3-3-4 In case of great horizontal force .
he pile can be resist horizontal force by (passive earth pressure) as show in
figure below ,notice that HZ force can be caused sliding if used shallow
foundation

3-3-5 To increase stability of slope

In case of slope may be used pile to increase it is stability and factor of safety

17
3-4- methods of pile load calculation

18
Pile capacity may be determined based on the following methods:
Static analysis (analytical), full-scale field static, dynamic, or
statnamic loading tests, pile driving formulas and analysis based on
in-situ sounding tests. In recent years, in-situ sounding tests are
becoming a more attractive method for determing pile capacity due
to the rapid development of testing instruments, improved
understanding of their mechanics and interpretation, and reduced
cost as compared to full scale pile loading tests .Among the
available in situ tests, the standard penetration test (SPT) and the
CPT are the commonly used tests for the design and analysis of
pile. In contrast to the SPT, the CPT is superior in terms of
application to pile analysis and design as the load bearing
mechanism in CPT is similar to the load bearing mechanisms in
actual driven piles. In fact, pile capacity prediction has been the
earliest application of CPT. However, due to the difference in the
size and penetration rate between CPT and the actual pile,
intermediate factors that account for these effects are required to
relate CPT results with pile capacity. Prediction of pile capacity
based on CPT generally follows two main approaches: (1)
a direct approach, and (2) an indirect approach. In a direct
approach, pile capacity is directly associated with the CPT cone tip
resistance, (qc), and/or the local sleeve friction,(fs). Whereas in an
indirect approach, qc and fs are first used to evaluate the soil
strength parameters and these parameters are then used to evaluate
pile capacity based on static analysis .Several direct CPT-based
pile design and analysis methods have been proposed in the past
such as . With the improvement of the traditional CPT into

19
the piezocone penetration test (PCPT) with the inclusion of pore
pressure, (u), measurement capability, some PCPT-based methods
were also proposed. For example, Almeida
et al. (1996); Eslami and Fellenius (1997) and Takesue et al.
(1998), used the pore pressure measurements in addition to qc and
fs. The ever-increasing demand of driven piles as well
as a reliable and cost efficient pile design method necessitated
frequent evaluations of the
CPT/PCPT-based methods with regard to the more reliable static
loading tests (e.g. Briaud and Tucker, 1988; Abu-Farsakh and Titi,
2004; Cai et al., 2009) or dynamic loading tests
(e.g. Eslami et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2016) for local calibrations.

20
 4-1 Estimation of pile Beariing capacity using In- situ Test
.
In general the application of in-situ tests to pile design is done through:
(1) Indirect Methods
or
(2) Direct Methods
Indirect methods require the evaluation of the soil characteristic parameters,
such as the internal friction angle Ф and the undrained shear strength su , from
in-situ test results.This requires consideration of complicated boundary-value
problems . On the other hand, with direct methods, one can make use of the
results from insitu test measurements for the analysis and the design of
foundations without the evaluation of any soil characteristic parameter. The
application of direct methods to the analysis and the design of foundations is,
however, usually based on empirical or semiempirical relationships. Figure 4.1
shows some examples of the methods available for indirect and direct
approaches in different applications.
Indirect methods for pile design include Vesic (1977), Coyle and Castello (1981),
and P method (Burland 1973) for cohesionless soil, and su method (Bowles
1988), amethod (Tomlinson 1971), (3 method (Burland 1973), and A. method
(Vijayvergiya andFocht 1972) for cohesive soil. Most indirect pile design
methods define the correlation factor between the stress state and base or
shaft resistance based on the soil-strength parameters. Direct methods used for
pile design have been mainly based on the standard penetration test (SPT) and
the cone penetration test (CPT). Although the SPT has been used more
extensively, it is widely recognized that it has a number of limitations (Seed
etal. 1985, Skempton 1986). A serious limitation is that its main measurement
(the SPT blow count) is not well related to the pile loading process. The SPT
blow count can also vary depending on operation procedures. The CPT is a
superior test for pile design purposes. In this test, a cylindrical penetrometer
with a conical tip is pushed into the ground as if it were a scaled pile load test.

21
 In addition to the similarity between the pile loading and cone penetration testing
mechanisms, the possibility of simultaneous measurement of shear wave
velocities makes it possible to estimate elastic properties of subsurface soils,
which may improve the quality of the design with more accurate in-situ
soil properties. The main focus of this study is the estimation of pile bearing
resistance based on direct methods, the cone penetration test in particular. In this
chapter, the existing methods for pile design using the SPT and CPT, will be
reviewed.

22
Figure (4-1) Examples of methods for estimation of pile bearing capacity.

23
 4-2 Estimation of pile Bearing capacity Based on CPT:
In most CPT methods ,the piles load capacities are defined in terms of the CPT
(𝑞𝑐) and correation parameters .these relationships are typically of the form :

Values of cb and csi have been proposed mostly based on empirical correlations
developed between pile load test results and CPT results. Because different
authors proposed different values of cb and csi , the use of such parameters
should be applied under conditions similar to those under which they were
determined (Bandini and Salgado1998). Although most expressions were based
on cone resistance qc , some authors (Priceand Wardle 1982, Schmertmann1978)
suggested the use of cone sleeve friction fs for the estimation of shaft resistance
with the following general expression:1s=csfifsi(2.25) where csf, is a empirical
parameter to convert cone sleeve friction to shaft resistance and fSi is a
representative cone sleeve friction for layer i. In this section, some of the
methods for the determination of pile load capacity using CPT results are
described.

24
4-2-1 The Dutch method

In the Dutch method (DeRuiter and Beringen 1979), pile base resistance in
cohesionless soil is computed from the average cone resistance qc between the
depth of 8B above and 4B below a pile base, where B is the pile diameter. As can
be seen in Figure 2.2, the average cone resistance qc i for the layer below the pile
base is determined along the path 'abed', in which 'x' is selected so as to minimize
qc i. Similarly, the average cone resistance qc2 for the layer above the pile base is
calculated along the path 'efgh'. The base resistance qb is then obtained from the
average of qc] and qc2 as follows:

25
Figure 4-2 Dutch method for determination of base resistance.

26
4-2-2 Schmertmann's method

For the estimation of pile base resistance in stiff cohesive

soil,Schmertmann (1978) proposed the use of an average cone
resistance with multiplying the reducing factor shown in Figure 2.3. The
average cone resistance is calculated within a depth between 8B above
and 0.7B to 4B below a pile base in the same way as in the Dutch method
described previously. He also recommended reducing the base
resistance that is obtained from the Dutch method by 60% in case of
using mechanical cone for a cohesive soil. For shaft resistance in sand,
the following values of the shaft resistance factor cs of (2.24) were
proposed for different pile types:
cs = 0.008 for open-end steel tube piles
cs = 0.012 for precast concrete and steel displacement piles
cs = 0.018 for vibro and cast-in-place displacement piles with steel
driving tube removed, and timber piles According to Schmertmann
(1978), the cone sleeve friction fs can also be used to estimate shaft
resistance in cohesive soil. The values of csf of (2.25) that relates cone
sleeve friction to shaft resistance are given by Table 4.1 for displacement
piles.

4-1

27
4-3

28
4-2-3 Aoki and Velloso's method

Based on the load tests and CPT results, Aoki and Velloso (1975) proposed the
following relationship for both shaft and base resistance in terms of cone
resistance qc.

4-2 4-3

4-2

29
4-3

30
4.2.4 LCPC method

From a number of load tests and CPT results for several pile and soil types,
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) presented a pile design method using factors
related to both pile and soil types. The method presented by them is often
referred to as the LCPC method. The basic formula for the LCPC method can be
written as:

31
The values of kc and ks depend on the nature of soil and its degree of
compaction as well as the pile installation method. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show the
values of ks and kc with different soil and pile types, respectively. According to
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982), the values of kc for driven piles cannot be
directly applied to H-piles and tubular piles with an open base without proper
investigation of full-scale load tests .The equivalent cone resistance qca used in
represents an arithmetical mean of the cone resistance measured along the
distance equal to 1.5B above and below the pile base, where B = pile diameter.
The procedure for determining qca consists of the
following steps (see also Figure 4.4):
(1) The curve of the cone resistance qc is smoothened in order to eliminate
local irregularities of the raw curve.
(2) Beginning with the smoothened curve, the mean cone resistance qcm of
smoothened
resistance between the distance equal to 1.5B above and below pile base is
obtained.
(3) The equivalent cone resistance qca is calculated as the average after
clipping the smoothened curve at 0.7qcm to 1.3qcm . This clipping is carried
out for the values higher than 1.3 qcm below the pile base, and the values
higher than 1.3 qcm and lower than 0.7qcm above the pile base.
In the LCPC method, separate factors of safety are applied to the shaft and base
resistance. A factor of safety equal to 2 for shaft resistance and 3 for base
resistance
were considered, so that the carrying load is given by:

32
4-4

4-5
33
4-5

34
Figure 4.4 Equivalent cone resistance qca for LCPC method.

35
36
37
Summary

Pile design methods using in-situ test results can be classified in

two categories,indirect and direct methods. Indirect methods
require the evaluation of the soil characteristic parameters in the
estimation of pile bearing capacity. On the other hand,the direct
methods utilize the in-situ test results directly in the estimation of
pile bearingcapacity.Direct methods have been based mainly on
the standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration test
(CPT). In SPT methods, most proposed expressions relate the
pile bearing capacity to the SPT blow count N and correlation
parameters. These methods include Meyerhof (1976, 1983), Aoki-
Velloso (1975), Reese and O'Neil (1989), and Neely (1990, 1991),
while Briaud and Tucker (1984) presented a hyperbolic formula
for the base and shaft resistance as a function of pile settlement
with SPT N value in the evaluation of equation parameters. It
should be noticed that, since every method has
been developed under different conditions, including soil and pile
type, the consideration of such factors must be taken into account
for the selection of pile design methods.The cone penetration test
is regarded as a better alternative to the SPT because it
reflects well the vertical pile loading mechanism. The widely used
CPT methods include the Dutch method (DeRuiter and Beringen
1979), Schmertmann (1978), Aoki-Velloso (1975), and the LCPC
method (Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982). Most CPT methods

38
relate the base and shaft resistance to the cone penetration
resistance qc using empirical parameters. The empirical
parameters relating pile resistance to qc are given as a function of
soil and pile type. The LCPC method (Bustamante and
Gianeselli1982) provides relatively detailed information regarding
soil and pile types. Some authors propose the use of cone sleeve
friction fs for the estimation of shaft resistance, while others
propose that it be done on the cone penetration resistance qc .
At the end of this report, we will take practical examples that show how to
calculate pile load based on the standard cone penetration test report

39
Example :

40
Reference :

1. Cone Penetration Testing State-of-Practice Prepared by Paul W. Mayne,

PhD, P.E.Professor, Civil &Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of
Technology.

2. EMPIRICAL PILE DESIGN BASED ON CONE PENETROMETER DATA: AN

EXPLANATION FOR THE REDUCTION OF UNIT BASE RESISTANCE BETWEEN
CPTs AND PILES[X. Borghi1, D.J. White2, M.D. Bolton2, S. Springman
Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zurich, Switzerland Geotechnical Engineering Research Group,
University Engineering Department, UK]

3. CPT-Based Pile Design[Chung R. Song, Ph.D., A.E. Associate Professor

Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska-Lincoln Seunghee
Kim, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Binyamin Bekele Graduate Research
Assistant Jintao ZhangGraduate Research Assistant Alex Silvey Graduate
Research Assistant].

4. PILED FOUNDATION DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION[By.Ir.Dr.Gue See sew & Ir.

Chow Chee Meng]

5. Dr. Ayman Abed -El-Hamid - Deep Foundation (Piles)[Helwan university ].

6. PILE DESIGN BASED ON CONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTS by Rodrigo

Salgado & Junhwan Lee [Joint Transportation Research Program ].

7. USE OF CONE PENETRATION TEST IN PILE DESIGN by [András MAHLER

Department of Geotechnics Budapest University of Technology and
EconomicsH–1521 Budapest, Hungary Received: December 1, 2004].

8. https://ar.wikipedia.org

9. https://images.google.com/

10. nlise seliP- sso tpdPuoFlpPe [by bombpdu siemmoim “youtube

channel”]

41
11. Bearing Capacity from SPT & CPT by [Engineer Hassan Khan “ pdFdms
lmoPPsi”]

By
Ir.

42
43