Cone

Penetration
Testing 2022
Editors
Guido Gottardi & Laura Tonni
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONE PENETRATION
TESTING (CPT’22), 8-10 JUNE 2022, BOLOGNA, ITALY

Cone Penetration Testing 2022

Editors
Guido Gottardi
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of
Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Laura Tonni
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of
Bologna, Bologna, Italy
 Cone Penetration Testing 2022 – Gottardi & Tonni (eds)
© 2022 Copyright the Author(s), ISBN 978-1-032-31259-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Evaluation of CPT-based design method for offshore pile

B. Huang
School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Huizhou University, China

E. Bittar
The University of Western Australia, Australia

Y. Zhang
The University of Newcastle, Australia

X. Fu
School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, China

ABSTRACT: In offshore engineering, it’s difficult to obtain undisturbed samples. CPT-based design
method of pile has become recommending method. In this paper focusing on offshore pile foundation engin-
eering, the typical CPT-based design methods are introduced. Various design methods are evaluated in respect
of friction fatigue, pile loading direction, and the plug ratio of open-ended pile in capacity contribution, and
the determination of design parameters. CPT-based design methods in the clay are compared with API
method. For the typical stratum in the China East Sea, the monopiles of an offshore wind farm are analysed.
The calculated capacities of monopiles with different methods are compared with the measured value, and the
reliability of methods are evaluated. At last according to the vertical loading condition of the offshore mono-
pile, reasonable suggestions for the current design methods and parameters determination are given.

1 INTRODUCTION Among the methods applicable to sand, all but

API-00 are based on CPT. It is noted that the cone
At present, the popular methods for the vertical bearing tip resistance has not been corrected by pore pressure.
capacity of pile foundations in offshore engineering When using these methods, the difference between
are either based on the empirical formula of CPT tip the calculated results before and after the correction
resistance or are directly related to soil parameters, should be fully considered. A unified CPT-based
such as undrained strength, yield stress, sensitivity, method has been developed by the JIP group of
internal friction angle, etc. The CPT-based design UWA, NGI, Imperial College, Fugro, BP, Delft Uni-
method of pile has gradually replaced design methods versity of Technology, University of Texas, DNV·GL
based on lab tests or previous experience, and it has and Lloyd’s Register EMEA (Lehane et al., 2020).
become the preferred method for offshore pile founda- The methods applicable to clay include API-00,
tion. It is generally believed that the cone tip resistance Fugro-96, NGI-05, ICP-05, UWA-13 and Fugro-10
obtained by CPTu is more reliable than the sleeve fric- methods, of which API-00, Fugro-96, and NGI-05 are
tion, which is the main design method parameter. based on the undrained strength of clay. The ICP-05
Table 1 summarizes the current design methods for method is based on the tip resistance of CPT and is not
offshore piles. corrected by pore pressure. UWA-13 and Fugro-10 are
Fellenius (2020) pointed out that all CPT-based based on the test results of CPTu with the tip resistance
pile design methods are established under basically of CPT corrected by pore pressure. A new Unified
the same geological conditions for specific areas. CPT-based method is also being developed by the JIP
That is to say, each method is based on limited piles group.
and soil tests. If geological conditions are not simi-
lar, these methods are not suitable. Following the
completion of a Joint Industry Project, a unified 2 DESIGN METHOD
database (Lehane et al., 2017) has been developed
which includes ICP, NGI, Fugro, UWA and other 2.1 Unified CPT-based method in sand
databases.
The unit shaft friction may be calculated from:

DOI: 10.1201/9781003308829-145

967
Table 1. Pile design methods referred. 2.2 UWA-13 method in clay
Soil type Design method Reference The unit shaft friction is calculated from:

Sand Unified CPT-based Lehane et al. (2020)

method
Sand API-00 API (2000)
Sand Fugro-05 Kolk et al. (2005)
Sand ICP-05 Jardine et al. (2005) where qt is the total cone tip resistance at depth z, h is
Sand NGI-05 Clausen et al. (2005) the relative distance above pile tip, R* is the equiva-
Sand UWA-05 Lehane et al. (2005) lent radius = (R2 – Ri2)0.5, R is the outer radius of pile,
Clay API-00 API (2000) and Ri is the inner radius of pile.
Kolk & Van Der Velde The unit end bearing follows the recommenda-
Clay Fugro-96
(1996) tions of Jardine et al. (2005) for undrained loading
Van Dijk & Kolk and assumed that the open-ended piles are always
Clay Fugro-10
(2010)
plugged:
Clay ICP-05 Jardine et al. (2005)
Clay NGI-05 Karlsrud et al. (2005)
Clay UWA-13 Lehane et al. (2013)

Where qt is the average total cone tip resistance over

±1.5D at pile tip.
The method ignores the effects of reversed end
where σ’rf is the radial effective stress at failure, σ’rc bearing or base suction for piles in tension.
is the radial effective stress after installation and
equalization, Δσ’rd is the change in radial effective
stress due to loading stress path (dilation), and f/fc is 2.3 Fugro-10 method in clay
1 in compression and 0.75 in tension. The unit shaft friction is calculated from:
The radial effective stress after installation and
equalization may be calculated as:

where qc is the cone tip resistance, Are is the effect- where qn is the net cone tip resistance at depth z, σv0
ive area ratio, Are=1-PLR·(Di/D)2, PLR is soil plug is the total vertical stress at depth z, σ’v0 is effective
length ratio, h is the relative distance above the pile vertical stress at depth z, h is the relative distance
tip, D is the outer diameter of pile, Di is the inner above pile tip, and uL is unit length to render the
diameter of pile. expression dimensionless (= 1.0 m).
The change in radial effective stress due to load- The unit end bearing (qb) and reversed end bear-
ing stress path (dilation) may be estimated as: ing (qrb) may be calculated from:

where σ’v is the vertical effective stress.

where qn,avg is the average net cone tip resistance
The unit end bearing may be calculated from:
over ±1.5D at pile tip, and ub is the hydrostatic pres-
sure at pile tip (in kPa).

3 EVALUATION OF SOIL PLUG

Where qc is the average cone tip resistance within
a zone 1.5D above and below the pile tip in rela- Lehane et al. (2017) suggested in the absence of
tively homogeneous sands. any better method, Equation (12) was therefore

968
employed for the calculation of plug lenth ratio in API-00 method as the preferred recommended
sand and clay. This is consistent with field test. method in the new version of the API specification.
According to statistical analysis of 71 piles’ data-
base, the Unified CPT-based method in sand has the
lowest coefficient of variation among all the design
methods of pile in sand (Lehane et al., 2020).
Unified CPT-based method, UWA-13 and Fugro-
where PLR is soil plug length ratio, and Di is the pile
10 methods all take into account the friction fatigue
internal diameter expressed in metres.
effects caused by pile construction.
Lehane et al. (2020) proposed a new empirical
Through a large number of database examinations
formula for soil length plug ratio:
for different design methods, the reliability statistics
analysis results are shown in Table 2. There are 49
piles, with diameters ranging from 0.2 to 0.8m. Com-
pared with the pile design method in sand, the calcu-
lation results of pile capacity in clay have a larger
where dCPT is the diameter of standard static cone variation coefficient. This is because there are more
penetration, 35.7mm. design parameters for piles in clay compared to sand,
Based on the unified database (Lehane et al., 2017), and they are also more complicated and diverse.
the relationship between the soil plug length ratio and Among the CPT-based design methods, the variation
the pile inner diameter is plotted together, as shown in coefficient of the UWA-13 method is smaller than
Figure 1. It can be seen that there is no obvious differ- that of the Fugro-10 method. The API-00 method is
ence in the law of soil plugging in clay and sand, that a bit conservative and Fugro-10 method is sometimes
is to say, the relationship between soil plugging and unsafe compared to UWA-13 method.
soil properties is not significant, only related to the
inner diameter of pile. Equations (12) and (13) reflect
that soil plugging varies with pile diameter with the Table 2. Method uncertainties for piles in clay (Lehane
same trend, especially in the range of 0.4~1.2m pile et al., 2017).
diameter. However, in terms of small diameter piles,
equation (13) is closer to the actual cases. Qc/Qm

Method No of sample μw σw CoVw

API-00 23 0.73 0.29 0.40

UWA-13 43 0.99 0.48 0.49
Fugro-10 43 1.17 0.69 0.59

In Table 2, Qc is the calculated capacity, Qm is the

measured capacity, μw is weighted mean, σw is
weighted standard deviation, and CoVw is coefficient
of variation.
The comparison of open-ended pile design
methods in clay is shown in Table 3. It is believed
Figure 1. Relationship between plug length ratio and pile that the soil inside large-diameter steel pipe pile is in
inner diameter. soil coring mode, and there is no soil plug occurring.
The API-00 method considers that the total bearing
capacity is equal to the sum of the outer shaft resist-
The typical pile diameter to wall thickness ratio of ance, the inner shaft resistance and the base resist-
steel pipe piles is 30-60. For offshore piles with a pile ance of the annulus area, and use the same unit shaft
diameter greater than 1.5m, the soil plug ratios calcu- friction to calculate the inner and outer shaft resist-
lated by equations (12) and (13) are both greater than ance. Neither the UWA-13 method nor the Fugro-10
0.96. So for steel pipe piles with a diameter of larger method directly mentions the inner shaft resistance
than 1.5m, there is no soil plug formed or the soil plug in the calculation. Instead, they use the equivalent
length ratio is equal to one which is in coring mode. base resistance to calculate total bearing capacity of
the pile, where the base area is equal to the area of
the outer diameter circle. The base resistance used
4 REVIEW OF DESIGN METHODS FOR by the soil core is a reduction of the unit end bearing
AXIAL CAPACITY OF PILES of the annulus area or closed-ended pile. The reduc-
tion factor in the Unified CPT-based method is 24%
The Unified CPT-based method of driven pile in for sand, and in the UWA-13 method, it’s about 40%
sand proposed by the JIP group has replaced the for clay.
969
Table 3. Comparison of design methods for open-ended
pile.

Method Soil type Capacity calculation

API-00 Clay If Qb,plug<Qs,inner, plugged,

sand Qtotal=Qs,outer+Qb,plug+Qb,ann;
If Qb,plug≥Qs,inner, unplugged,
Qtotal=Qs,outer+Qs,inner+Qb,ann.
Unified Sand Unplugged is the same as
CPT-based plugged,
method Qtotal=Qs,outer+Qb,plug+Qb,ann.
UWA-13 Clay Always plugged,
Qtotal=Qs,outer+Qb,plug+Qb,ann.
Fugro-10 Clay Unplugged is the same as
plugged,
Qtotal=Qs,outer+Qb,plug+Qb,ann. Figure 2. Profiles of tip resistance, shaft friction and pore
pressure in CPTu test.

In Table 3, Qtotal is total bearing capacity, Qs, inner

is inner shaft resistance, Qs, outer is outer shaft resist- resistance as the parameter which is scientific and rea-
ance, Qb, plug is base resistance of the soil plug, and sonable. The pile end is buried 69 m deep and is
Qb, ann is base resistance of the annulus area. located in the supporting layer of silty sand.
When the pile is subjected to a tension load in The undrained strength of clay is determined by
sand, the Unified CPT-based method uses the empirical expression based on CPT on basis of
a reduction factor of 0.75 to calculate the shaft resist- Nk=20 inferred by SHANSEP method (Ladd &
ance, without considering the base resistance. When Foott, 1974).
the pile is subjected to a tension load in clay, none of
the methods considers the reduction of the shaft 5.2 Field test of offshore piles
resistance. Fugro-10 propose the unit end bearing
when the pile is in tension, while UWA-13 method The pile outer diameter is 1.8 m, the total pile length
doesn’t consider the base resistance of the pile in is 93 m, and the wall thickness is 20~40 mm. The
tension. API-00 does not explicitly propose IHC S800 hydraulic hammer is used for pile driving.
a calculation of the base resistance in tension. There is no slipping phenomenon during the pile
driving process, and the pile’s embedded depth is
69 m. After pile driving, the soil plug/core is
5 CASE ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE PILE 1.45 m slightly above the mudline, and the soil plug
ratio of the steel pipe pile which has an inner diam-
eter of about 1.7 m is 1.0, which is a soil coring
5.1 Soil conditions
mode.
A field test of large diameter steel pipe piles was car- The vertical static compression test was carried
ried out in an offshore wind farm project. The site is out 44 days after the pile was driven using the slow
about 20 km offshore, with the seabed topography of maintained loading method, then rested for 25 days,
the total site area not varying much, and water depth then for the same test pile the vertical static tension
at 8~12 m. As for regional geological information, test was conducted using the slow maintained load-
the local Quaternary sediments within the explor- ing method. Figure 3 shows the comparison between
ation depth, the upper part is the silty clay and clay the axial compression and tension test results of the
deposited in the Holocene littoral facies, and the pile. The axial compression test of a single pile
lower part is the silty clay and silty sand deposited in achieves the destruction of the soil around the pile,
the Upper Pleistocene estuary-littoral facies. Accord- and the ultimate axial compression capacity is 22
ing to the soil layer classification method proposed MN; the axial tension test of the single pile also
by Robertson et al. (1986), the site stratum distribu- achieves failure, and the ultimate axial tension cap-
tion is shown in Figure 2. acity of the single pile is 18.7 MN. When the pile
CPTu cone tip resistance, shaft friction resistance, head displacement is small, the compression load-
and pore pressure test results are also shown in displacement curve is closer to the tension test
Figure 2. It can be seen that the cone tip resistance of curve, and the compression curve is slightly higher
the clay increases linearly with depth from 4~50 m, than the tension curve; as the pile head displacement
indicating a relatively uniform soil layer. However, gradually increases, the discrepancy between com-
the shaft friction resistance changes with depth more pression and tension becomes larger and larger.
discretely. Therefore, pile design methods only use tip After roughly 40 mm, both reach the limit state, and

970
the difference is also the largest. This is because the Table 5. Comparison of measured results and calculated
contribution of the base resistance of the pile in com- results of tension capacity of different design methods.
pression increases as the displacement of the pile
increases, while the end resistance can be ignored in Shaft Base Total Calculated/
tension; in addition, at the depth of 50~74.7 m is all resistance resistance resistance Measured
silty sand, and the shaft tension friction in sand is Method (MN) (MN) (MN) (%)
also reduced by 25% compared with compression
Measured NA 0 14.2 NA
(Lehane et al, 2020).
API-00 16.6 0 16.6 117.0
Fugro-10 12.3 0 12.3 87.1
UWA-13 12.9 0 12.9 91.2

Note: The tension capacity measured deducts the weight of

pile and soil plug (4.6 MN). The shaft resistance and base
resistance in sand use the Unified CPT-based method.

Figure 3. Comparison between axial compression and ten-

sion load-displacement curves.

5.3 Comparison between design methods

Comparisons of measured and calculated results of
capacity with different design methods for compres-
sion and tension are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. It
can be seen in Table 4 that all design methods are
safer in calculating compression capacity, resulting
in about 79%~95% of the measured value. From the
calculated result of tension capacity it can be seen
that in tension, the API-00 method based on Figure 4. Shaft friction distribution with depth during
undrained strength are 17% higher than the meas- ultimate bearing calculated by different methods: (a) com-
ured value, while the CPT-based design methods are pression; (b) tension.
9%~13% lower than the measured value.
The UWA-13 method and Fugro-10 method,
which are completely based on CPT, are safe in The compression capacity calculated by the UWA-
the calculation of compression and tension capacity. 13 method is 81% of the measured value, and the
Fugro-10 method is 79%. The UWA-13 method cal-
culated tension capacity is 91% of the measured
Table 4. Comparison of measured results and calculated value and Fugro-10 method is 87%. Therefore, from
results of compressive capacity of different design this project case, UWA-13 method is slightly better
methods. than Fugro-10 method.
Figure 4 is the shaft friction distribution with
Shaft Base Total Calculated/ depth during ultimate bearing calculated by different
resistance resistance resistance Measured methods, compared with measured friction. The
Method (MN) (MN) (MN) (%) shaft friction of clay calculated by API-00 method is
the greatest. The CPT-based methods calculate
Measured NA NA 26.6 NA a smaller value but are very similar to each other.
API-00 18.1 7.0 25.1 94.5
However, the trends of shaft friction changing with
Fugro-10 13.9 7.0 20.9 78.6
depth are almost the same.
UWA-13 14.5 7.0 21.4 80.8
The measured shaft friction is the sum of the
Note: The compression capacity measured takes into inner and outer friction, and the two parts cannot be
account the weight of pile and soil plug (4.6 MN). The distinguished, while the shaft friction calculated by
shaft resistance and base resistance in sand use the Unified each design method is only the outer friction. There-
CPT-based method. fore, for the UWA-13 and Fugro-10 methods with

971
more reliable calculation results, it is obvious that REFERENCES
the measured total friction is greater than the calcu-
lated outer friction, especially in sand below 50 m. It API. 2000. API RP 2A-WSD: Recommended Practice for
fully indicates that the contribution of the inner fric- Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
tion in the sand is more significant, and relatively the Platform-Working Stress Design, 21st Edition. API.
contribution of the inner friction in the clay is smal- Washington, DC.
Clausen, C. J. F., Aas, P. M., & Karlsrud, K. 2005. Bearing
ler. So the internal resistance of the soil core of the
capacity of driven piles in sand, the NGI approach. In
pipe pile is mainly exerted in the lower part of pile, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium Fron-
which increases the complexity of the calculation of tiers in Offshore Geotechnics. Perth, Western Australia.
the internal resistance. Therefore, each design pp. 677–682.
method adopts the equivalent base resistance of soil Fellenius, B. H. 2020. Basics of foundation design, elec-
plug or core to calculate the internal resistance tronic edition.
which is a method worth promoting. Jardine, R., Chow, F., Overy, R., & Standing, J. 2005. ICP
design methods for driven piles in sands and clays.
Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Karlsrud, K., Clausen, C. J. F., & Aas, P. M. 2005. Bearing
6 CONCLUSIONS
capacity of driven piles in clay, the NGI approach. In
Proceedings of the 1st Int. Symp. on frontiers in offshore
This paper introduces and evaluates the CPT-based geotechnics, Perth, WA, Australia. Taylor & Francis,
design methods for offshore pile under vertical load London, UK, vol. 1, pp. 775–782.
which are currently popular in the industry. The Kolk, H. J., & Der Velde, E. 1996. A reliable method to
main conclusions are as follows: determine friction capacity of piles driven into clays. In
Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Hous-
(a) The Unified CPT-based method is recommended ton, Texas. Pp.337–346.
for full-scale offshore pipe in sand. For clay, the Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A. E. & Senders, M. 2005. Design
UWA-13 method and Fugro-10 method based on criteria for pipe piles in silica sands. 2005. CRC Press/
CPT are recommended compared to API-00 Balkema,711–716.
method. Ladd, C. C., & Foott, R. 1974. New design procedure for
(b) Through the case analysis of large-diameter stability of soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical and
steel pipe piles, the UWA-13 method and Fugro- Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol 100, GT7,
763–786.
10 method based entirely on CPT are conserva- Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. A., & Xu, X. 2005. The
tive in the calculation of compression and ten- UWA-05 method for prediction of axial capacity of
sion capacity in which the calculated bearing driven piles in sand. In Proceedings of the 1st Int. Symp.
capacity is 79%~92% of the measured value. on frontiers in offshore geotechnics, Perth, WA, Austra-
The UWA-13 method is marginally better than lia. Taylor & Francis, London, UK, vol. 1, pp. 683–689.
Fugro-10 for the case in this paper, and Fugro- Lehane, B. M., Li, Y., & Williams, R. 2013. Shaft capacity
10 method is sometimes unsafe. of displacement piles in clay using the cone penetration
(c) It is difficult in offshore engineering to deter- test. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 139(2),253–266.
mine the undrained strength of the intact clay
Lehane, B. M., Lim, J. K., Carotenuto, P., Nadim, F.,
sample. The strength parameters in different Lacasse, S., Jardine, R. J., & Van Dijk, B. F. J. 2017. Char-
soil layers and different depths can be deter- acteristics of unified databases for driven piles. In Pro-
mined by the relatively mature SHANSEP ceedings of the 8th International Conference of Offshore
method, but this method is only suitable for Site Investigation and Geotechnics OSIG, London, UK.
low sensitivity, unnaturally cemented and low Society for Underwater Technology, vol 1, pp. 162–191.
structured cohesive soil. Lehane, B., Liu, Z., Bittar, E., Nadim, F., Lacasse, S.,
Jardine, R. J., … & Morgan, N. 2020. A new CPT-based
axial pile capacity design method for driven piles in
sand. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Austin, Texas,
USA. American Society of Civil Engineers.
The first author gratefully acknowledges the finan- Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., &
cial support by Natural Science Foundation of China Greig, J. 1986. Use of piezometer cone data. In Pro-
(Grant No. 51978540) and China Scholarship Coun- ceedings of in Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engin-
cil (201906275010). The authors also express sin- eering. ASCE, pp. 1263–1280.
Van Dijk, B. F. J., & Kolk, H. J. 2010. CPT-based design
cere thanks to Professor Barry Lehane, who assisted
method for axial capacity of offshore piles in clays. In
with the interpretation of CPT-based methods. We Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fron-
also acknowledge the assistance provided by Dylan tiers in offshore geotechnics II, Perth, Australia. Taylor
Mo and Tommy Le. & Francis Group, London, pp. 555–560.

972