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

net/publication/242465851

Assessment of Direct Cone Penetration Test Methods for Predicting the Ultimate
Capacity of Friction Driven Piles

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · September 2004

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:9(935)

CITATIONS READS

104 1,537

2 authors:

Murad Abu-Farsakh Hani Titi

Louisiana State University University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
198 PUBLICATIONS   1,872 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   396 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WHRP/WisDOT Project ID 0092-15-05: Evaluation of WisDOT Quality Management Program (QMP) Activities and Impacts on Pavement Performance View project

Calibration of Resistance Factor for Drilled Shaft according to New FHWA Design Method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murad Abu-Farsakh on 06 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessment of Direct Cone Penetration Test Methods for
Predicting the Ultimate Capacity of Friction Driven Piles
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh1 and Hani H. Titi2

Abstract: This paper evaluates the applicability of eight direct cone penetration test 共CPT兲 methods to predict the ultimate load capacity
of square precast prestressed concrete 共PPC兲 driven friction piles. Analyses and evaluation were conducted on 35 driven friction piles of
different sizes and lengths that were failed during pile load testing. The CPT methods, as well as the static ␣ and ␤ methods, were used
to estimate the load carrying capacities of the investigated piles (Q P ). The Butler–Hoy method was used to determine the measured load
carrying capacities from pile load tests (Q m ). The pile capacities determined using the different methods were compared with the
measured pile capacities obtained from the pile load tests. Four criteria were selected as bases of evaluation: the best fit line for Q p versus
Q m , the arithmetic mean and standard deviation for the ratio Q p /Q m , the cumulative probability for Q p /Q m , and the histogram and log
normal distribution for Q p /Q m . Results of the analyses showed that the best performing CPT methods are the LCPC method by
Bustamante and Gianeselli as well as the De Ruiter and Beringen method. These methods were ranked number one according to the
mentioned criteria.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2004兲130:9共935兲
CE Database subject headings: Driven piles; Pile friction; Statistical analysis; Cone penetration tests; Bearing capacity.

Introduction soil identification and classification, and the evaluation of differ-

Most soil deposits in southern Louisiana are soft in nature. There-
fore pile foundations are used to support highway bridges and
other structures to safely carry the superstructure loads deep into
the ground. The square precast prestressed concrete 共PPC兲 driven
pile is the most common pile type used in the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Transportation and Development 共LA DOTD兲 projects.
The determination of the ultimate capacity of piles is necessary
for the safe geotechnical engineering design of deep foundations.
The accurate prediction of pile capacity is always a challenge to
design engineers, which can be achieved using different methods
such as pile load test, dynamic analysis, static analysis, and using
the results of in situ tests. The past practice of LA DOTD for pile
design has been solely based on static analysis using the static ␣
method. In this method, the results of field and laboratory tests on
soil samples obtained from borings are used to determine the
ultimate load pile capacity.
The cone penetration test 共CPT兲 is considered one of the most
useful in situ tests for the characterization of soils. The CPT is a
robust, simple, fast, reliable, and economical test that can provide
continuous soundings of subsurface soil. The CPT measures the
cone tip resistance (q c ) and sleeve friction ( f s ) simultaneously
during intrusion. These measurements can be effectively used for
1
Research Assistant Professor, Louisiana Transportation Research
Center, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70808.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Univ.
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on May 30, 2002; approved on October 27, 2003. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 9, September 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2004/9-935–944/$18.00.
ent soil properties such as strength and deformation characteris-
tics. Thus the CPT can be used for a wide range of geotechnical
engineering applications. Due to the similarity between the cone
and the pile, the determination of pile capacity from the CPT data
is among the earliest applications of the CPT.
This paper presents an assessment of eight direct CPT methods
to reliably predict the ultimate axial load capacity of square PPC
friction piles driven into Louisiana soils. The CPT pile methods
were originally developed to fit specific regions and geologies,
and therefore they need to be calibrated for use in other regions.
To achieve this goal, 35 pile load tests 共that were failed during the
load test兲 and the corresponding CPT tests conducted close to the
piles were identified and collected from LA DOTD files. The
ultimate axial load capacity for each pile was determined from the
static pile load test using the Butler–Hoy method 共1977兲 and
denoted Q m . Eight direct CPT methods were selected and used to
determine the ultimate load capacity of each pile (Q P ). These
methods are Aoki and De Alencar 共1975兲; Schmertmann 共1978兲;
Penpile 共Clisby et al. 1978兲; De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲; Phil-
ipponnat 共1980兲; Bustamante and Gianeselli 共LCPC兲 共1982兲;
Tumay and Fakhroo 共1982兲; and Price and Wardle 共1982兲. The
ultimate axial load capacity was also calculated from soil strength
parameters using both the static ␣ method and the effective stress
␤ method 共Fellenius 1991兲. Comparisons were made between the
pile capacities estimated by the CPT methods, the static ␣
method, the ␤ method, and the measured pile capacities from the
load tests. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify the best
CPT method for matching the capacity determined in the static
pile load tests. Evaluation criteria were established based on the
best fit line for Q p versus Q m , the arithmetic mean and standard
deviation for the ratio Q p /Q m , the cumulative probability for the
ratio Q p /Q m , and the histogram and log normal distribution for
the ratio Q p /Q m .
The CPT methods used in this paper were developed based on
data obtained from the friction cone with total cone tip resistance

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 935

(q c ) measurement. During the past two decades many investiga-
tors 共e.g., Tumay et al. 1982; Campanella and Robertson 1988兲
have demonstrated the need for correcting the cone tip resistance
for the pore pressure generated behind the cone base, especially in
soft cohesive soils. Eslami and Fellenius 共1997兲 proposed a direct
CPT method based on piezocone penetration test results using
effective cone tip resistance (q e ) by subtracting the pore pressure
behind the base from the corrected cone tip resistance (q t ). The
writers realize the importance of correcting the cone tip resis-
tance. However, since the CPT methods used herein were origi-
nally developed based on q c and f s measurements, and the data
bank available by the LA DOTD was collected using the friction
cone, the writers believe that the use of q c in this study is justi-
fied.
Pile Capacity from Cone Penetration Test Data
The ultimate axial capacity of the pile (Q u ) is composed of the
end-bearing capacity of the pile (Q t ) and the shaft friction capac-
ity (Q s ). The general equation described in the literature is given
by
n
兺
Q u ⫽Q t ⫹Q s ⫽q b A t ⫹ f i A si (1)
i⫽1
where q b ⫽unit end bearing capacity; A t ⫽cross-section area of
the pile tip; f i ⫽average unit skin friction of the soil layer i; A si
⫽pile shaft area interfacing with layer i; and n⫽number of soil
layers along the pile shaft. The allowable load capacity (Q all) of
the pile is usually calculated by dividing the pile capacity (Q u ) by
an appropriate factor of safety 共FS兲.
Several methods are available for calculating the axial pile
capacity from CPT data. These methods can be classified into two
approaches:
1. Direct approach: The unit end bearing capacity of the pile
(q b ) is evaluated from the cone tip resistance (q c ), and the
unit skin friction of the pile 共f 兲 is evaluated from either the
sleeve friction ( f s ) profile or q c profile.
2. Indirect approach: The CPT data (q c and f s ) are first used to
evaluate the soil strength parameters such as the undrained
shear strength (S u ) and the angle of internal friction 共␾兲.
These parameters are then used to evaluate the unit end bear-
ing capacity of the pile (q t ) and the unit skin friction of the
pile 共f 兲 using formulas derived based on semiempirical/
theoretical methods.
A summary of the CPT methods used in this study is presented
in Table 1. These methods were described in detail in a research
report by Titi and Abu-Farsakh 共1999兲 and in the references given
in Table 1.
Research Methodology
Characteristics of Investigated Piles
Results from static load tests on 35 square PPC piles that failed
under load tests were collected from the LA DOTD files. The
piles embedment lengths range from 9 to 38 m and the cross
sections range from 356 to 762 mm. They are driven into different
soil types at different locations. A summary of the characteristics
of the investigated friction piles is presented in Table 2. These
piles are categorized based on their size and the type of dominant
soil they were driven into. Among the 35 piles, 26 piles were
driven in clay soils while the other nine piles were driven in
layered soils.
936 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004
Axial Pile Load Tests
The pile load tests were performed using the Quick Load Test for
individual piles according to the procedure described by ASTM
D1143. The load was applied on the pile head in increments rang-
ing from 10 to 15% of the design load and maintained for a period
of 5 min. The corresponding pile head settlement was measured
and recorded. Each pile was loaded to a maximum load of three
times the design load unless pile failure occurred first. All the
investigated piles in this study were failed under loading before
reaching the maximum load. The pile capacity was determined
from the load-settlement curve measured at the pile head. The
ultimate load capacity from the pile load test was determined
based on the Butler–Hoy tangent method 共1977兲, which takes into
consideration the amount of pile settlement. As shown in Fig. 1,
the maximum load applied at the pile head was 500 kN with a
total settlement of 53 mm. The ultimate load capacity of the pile
was determined using the Butler–Hoy tangent method 共1977兲 as
Q m ⫽460 kN with corresponding pile settlement of 7.0 mm. This
demonstrates that pile settlement is accounted for in estimating
the ultimate load capacity from pile load test. Analysis of the load
test data of the investigated piles showed that the ultimate load
capacity was determined with the corresponding pile head settle-
ment of less than 19 mm 共0.75 in.兲.
Different methods can be used to determine the ultimate pile
capacity from the load-settlement curve obtained during the static
pile load test 共e.g., Davisson 1972; Butler and Hoy 1977兲. The
Butler–Hoy method 共1977兲 was selected because it is the primary
load test interpretation method used by LA DOTD. A study con-
ducted by Titi et al. 共1999兲 on 34 friction test piles driven into
Louisiana soils showed that the pile capacity obtained using the
Davisson method 共1972兲 was almost equal to the capacity ob-
tained by the Butler–Hoy method 共1977兲 with a coefficient of
determination of 0.99. Therefore the Butler–Hoy method 共1977兲
can be considered analogous to the Davisson method 共1972兲 for
friction piles driven into Louisiana soils. Fig. 1 describes how the
Butler–Hoy method is used to determine the ultimate load capac-
ity of 356 mm square PPC pile driven at the site of Houma Intra-
coastal Waterway Bridge.
Soil Identification
In order to use the CPT methods to determine the ultimate load
capacity of piles, it is important first to classify the soils using the
CPT data. Moreover, correlation factors must be applied to the
cone tip resistance and sleeve friction to determine unit end bear-
ing (q b ) and unit skin friction 共f 兲 in the pile capacity prediction
methodology. These correlation factors depend mainly on the soil
type. Therefore the variation of soil type with depth needs to be
identified so that the appropriate correlation factors relevant to
each method can be selected.
Several methods have been used to classify soil utilizing CPT
data 共e.g., Douglas and Olsen 1981; Robertson et al. 1986; Rob-
ertson 1990; Olsen and Mitchell 1995; Zhang and Tumay 1999兲.
After a thorough review, the authors selected the probabilistic
region estimation method 共Zhang and Tumay 1999兲 to be used in
this study. This method is similar to the classic soil classification
methods since it is based on soil composition. In this method, a
conformal transformation is used to determine the soil classifica-
tion index 共U兲 from the CPT sounding parameters, the cone tip
resistance, and friction ratio. A statistical correlation was estab-
lished between the U index and the compositional soil type given
by the Unified Soil Classification System 共USCS兲. A normal dis-
tribution of U was established for each reference USCS soil type
Table 1. Summary of CPT-Pile Prediction Design Methods
CPT-pile capacity method q b 共unit end bearing capacity兲 f 共unit shaft friction兲
Schmertmann 共1978兲 q b ⫽(q c1 ⫹q c2 )/2⭐15 MPa In clay:
q c1 : minimum of the averages of q c values f ⫽k c f s ⭐120 kPa k c ⫽0.2– 1.25 for clay
of zones ranging from 0.7 to 4 D below tip. D:
pile diameter.
In sand
q c2 : average of minimum q c values 8 D above
the cone tip. Qs⫽k 冋兺8D

d⫽0
d
8D
f sA s⫹ 兺
L

d⫽8D
f sA s 册
k value depends on d/D ratio
De Ruiter and In clay: In clay:
Beringen 共1979兲
q b ⫽N c S u ⭐15 MPa f ⫽␣S u ⭐120 kPa
S u ⫽q ca /N k , N c ⫽9, N k ⫽15 to 20 ␣⫽1 for NC clay and 0.5 for OC clay

再
In sand: In sand
similar to Schmertmann 共1978兲 fs
qca/300 共 compression兲
f⫽min
q ca /400 共 tension兲
120 kPa
LCPC 共Bustamante q b ⫽k b1 q eq(tip) f ⫽q eq(side)/k S1 ⭐ max
and Gianeselli 1982兲
k b1 ⫽0.15– 0.60 depending on soil type k S1 ⫽30– 150 depending on soil type, pile type,
and installation procedure and installation procedure
q eq : equivalent average of q c values of zone ranging
from 1.5D below pile tip to 1.5D above pile tip.
Tumay and Similar to Schmertmann 共1978兲 f ⫽m f ca ⭐72 kPa
Fakhroo 共1982兲
m⫽0.5⫹9.5e ⫺0.09f ca
f ca : average friction 共kPa兲
Aoki and q b ⫽q ca (tip)/F b ⭐15 MPa f ⫽q ca (side)␣ 1 /F S2 ⭐120 kPa
De Alencar 共1975兲
F b : depends on pile type⫽1.75 for PPC ␣ 1 ⫽1.4– 6 depends on soil type F S2 :
driven piles depends on pile type⫽3.5 for PPC driven piles
Prince and q b ⫽k b2 q ca (tip) f ⫽␣ 2 f s
Wardle 共1982兲
k b2 : depends on pile type⫽0.35 for driven piles ␣ 2 : depends on pile type⫽0.53 for driven piles
Philipponnat 共1980兲 q b ⫽k b3 q ca (tip) f ⫽q ca (side)␣ 3 /F S2
k b3 : depends on soil type⫽0.4 for sand, 0.45 ␣ 3 : depends on pile type⫽1.25 for PPC
for silt, and 0.5 for clay driven piles F S2 ⫽50– 200 depending on soil type
Penpile
共Clisby et al. 1978兲 qb⫽ 再 0.25q ca 共 tip 兲 for pile tip in clay
0.125q ca 共 tip 兲 for pile tip in sand
f⫽
fs
1.5⫹14.47f s
f and f s 共MPa兲
Note: q ca ⫽average q c values over a specified zone that depends on the method.

共GP, SP, SM, SC, ML, CL, and CH兲. Each U value corresponds to
several soil types with different probabilities. Soil types were fur-
ther rearranged into three groups: sandy and gravelly soils 共GP,
SP, and SM兲, silty soils 共SC and ML兲, and clayey soils 共CL and
Table 2. Characteristics of Investigated Piles CH兲.
Pile size Clay Clay and Sand The Zhang and Tumay method 共1999兲 provides a profile of the
mm 共in.兲 共number of piles兲 共number of piles兲 probability or the chance of having each soil type with depth;
which shows the chance of misclassifying the soils, similar to
356 共14兲 16 2
other CPT soil classification methods. Fig. 2 shows a comparison
406 共16兲 4 —
of soil classifications obtained using the Robertson et al. 共1986兲
457 共18兲 1 1
method, the probabilistic region estimation method 共Zhang and
610 共24兲 2 —
Tumay 1999兲, and the actual soil profile obtained from conven-
762 共30兲 3 6
tional soil boring at the site of Houma Intracoastal Waterway
Total 26 9
Bridge.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 937


Fig. 1. Interpretation of the load-settlement curve to determine the
measured pile capacity (Q m ) for 356 mm 共14 in.兲 square precast
prestressed concrete pile driven at the site of Houma Intracoastal
Waterway Bridge
Estimated Versus Measured Ultimate Pile Capacity
For most of the investigated cases, cone penetration tests were
conducted during the same day of pile driving; while pile load
tests were conducted at least 2 weeks after pile driving as shown
in Fig. 3. This is mainly to account for pile setup that may de-
velop after pile driving. Based on previous experience on the
investigated soils, a large percentage of pile setup usually devel-
Fig. 3. Time intervals between pile driving and loading for the
investigated piles
ops within a 2 week period from pile driving. For this reason LA
DOTD specified a minimum of a 2 week waiting period from pile
driving to load testing.
For each of the investigated piles, the adjacent CPT sounding
was used to calculate the axial load capacity using the previously
described eight CPT methods. In addition, the axial capacity for
each pile was also determined from soil properties and strength
parameters using the static ␣ and ␤ methods. The soil profile for
each pile was obtained from borings conducted closer to the test
pile. In the static analysis, the required soil properties, such as
cohesion 共c兲 and angle of internal friction 共␾兲, were estimated
from standard penetration test 共SPT兲 results for cohesionless soils,

Fig. 2. Cone penetration test 共CPT兲 data and boring log at the site of Houma Intracoastal Waterway Bridge: 共a兲 Profile of cone tip resistance; 共b兲
profile of friction ratio; 共c兲 soil stratification from soil boring; 共d兲 CPT soil classification using Robertson et al. 共1986兲; and 共e兲 CPT soil
classification using Zhang and Tumay 共1999兲.

938 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004

and from laboratory tests 共unconfined compression and triaxial
tests兲 conducted on soil samples obtained from the borings for
cohesive soils. The unit weight, depth of water table, and thick-
ness of each soil layer along the pile shaft are also needed for the
static analysis. The pile capacities estimated by the CPT and static
methods (Q p ) are compared with the pile capacities interpreted
from the load tests (Q m ).
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses have been used by Briaud and Tucker 共1988兲
and Long and Wysockey 共1999兲 to evaluate the performance of
the pile capacity prediction methods. Statistical analyses can pro-
vide a good measure to rank different methods based on their
prediction accuracy. However, an attempt to evaluate the perfor-
mance of the CPT methods based only on statistical analyses can
give misleading conclusions and one must consider the compari-
son plot of estimated versus measured ultimate capacity together
with statistical analyses 共Briaud and Tucker 1988兲.
The ratio of the estimated to measured pile capacity (Q p /Q m )
ranges, theoretically, from 0 to an unlimited upper value, with an
optimum value of one. This results in a nonsymmetric distribution
of Q p /Q m around the mean, which does not give an equal weight
of underprediction and overprediction 共Briaud and Tucker 1988兲.
Therefore Briaud and Tucker 共1988兲 suggested the use of a log
normal distribution of (Q p /Q m ) to evaluate the performance of
pile capacity prediction methods. The CPT method underpredicts
the measured capacity when Q p /Q m ⬍1 and overpredicts the
measured capacity when Q p /Q m ⬎1. The log normal distribution
is defined as the distribution with the following density:
f 共 x 兲⫽
1
冑2␲␴ ln x
冋 冉
exp ⫺
1 ln共 x 兲 ⫺␮ ln
2 ␴ ln 冊册
2
(2)
where x⫽Q p /Q m ; ␮ ln⫽mean of ln(Qp /Qm); and ␴ ln⫽standard
deviation of ln(Qp /Qm).
In statistical analyses, the mean 共␮兲 and standard deviation 共␴兲
of Q p /Q m are important indicators of the accuracy and precision
of the prediction method. An accurate and precise method gives
␮(Q p /Q m )⫽1 and ␴(Q p /Q m )⫽0, respectively, which means
that for each pile, the calculated pile capacity equals the measured
one. This case is ideal, however, in reality the method is better
when ␮(Q p /Q m ) is closer to 1 and ␴(Q p /Q m ) is closer to 0.
Long and Wysockey 共1999兲 suggested that the cumulative
probability could also provide an additional evaluation criterion
of the prediction methods when the ratio Q p /Q m is plotted versus
the cumulative probability. The concept is to arrange Q p /Q m val-
ues for each method in an ascending order (1,2,3,...,i,...,n), and
then estimate the cumulative probability 共P兲 from the following
equation 共Long and Wysockey 1999兲:
i a second evaluation criterion. Based on ␮ and ␴, the CPT meth-
P⫽ (3)
共 n⫹1 兲
where i⫽order number given for the considered ratio; and n
⫽number of piles. The 50 and 90% cumulative probabilities ( P 50
and P 90) are calculated and used to quantify the ability of the
methods to estimate the measured pile capacities. For example,
the P 50 is used as a measure of the tendency of the method to
overpredict or underpredict the measured pile capacity. The closer
the ratio Q p /Q m is to one the better the method is.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 939
Evaluation of CPT Methods
In this study, an evaluation scheme using four different criteria
was considered in order to rank the performance of different CPT
methods for predicting the axial capacity of piles. The following
evaluation criteria are used in this study:
1. The equations of the best-fit line of estimated (Q p ) versus
measured capacity (Q m ) with the corresponding coefficient
of determination (R 2 );
2. The arithmetic mean 共␮兲 and standard deviation 共␴兲 for
Q p /Q m ;
3. The 50 and 90% cumulative probabilities ( P 50 and P 90) of
Q p /Q m ; and
4. The 20% accuracy level obtained from the histogram and log
normal distribution of Q p /Q m
An overall rank index 共RI兲 was introduced to quantify the
overall performance of each CPT method. The rank index is de-
fined as the sum of the ranks from the different criteria (RI
⫽R1⫹R2⫹R3⫹R4). The lower the rank index is, the better the
performance of the method.
The estimated pile capacities (Q p ) are plotted against the mea-
sured capacities (Q m ) as shown in Fig. 4. For each CPT method,
regression analysis was conducted to obtain the line of best fit for
Q p /Q m . The relationship Q fit /Q m and the corresponding coeffi-
cient of determination (R 2 ) were determined for each CPT
method and for the ␣ and ␤ methods. Inspection of Fig. 4 shows
that the De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲 method has the best fit
equation Q fit⫽1.02Q m with R 2 ⫽0.96. This method tends to over-
estimate the measured pile capacity by an average of 2%. There-
fore the De Ruiter and Beringen method ranks number one ac-
cording to this criterion and is given R1⫽1 (R1 is the rank based
on this criterion兲. The LCPC method with Q fit⫽0.97Q m (R 2
⫽0.95) tends to underestimate the measured capacity by 3% and
therefore ranks number 2 (R1⫽2). According to this criterion,
the Schmertmann 共1978兲, Philipponnat 共1980兲, ␤ method, and
Tumay and Fakhroo 共1982兲 methods tend to overestimate the
measured pile capacity, while the Aoki and De Alencar 共1975兲,
Price and Wardle 共1982兲, Penpile, and ␣ methods tend to under-
estimate the measured pile capacity. The Penpile method showed
the least performance with Q fit⫽0.57Q m (R 2 ⫽0.95) and there-
fore was given the rank R1⫽10.
It should be noted that the factors used in the CPT methods to
evaluate q b and f are empirical correlations developed by com-
paring pile load test and CPT results. Therefore they can vary
according to the procedure followed in performing and interpret-
ing the pile capacity from the pile load test. For example, Tumay
and Fakhroo 共1982兲 used the maximum load on the pile head to
estimate the ultimate pile capacity from pile load test, which is in
all cases higher than the capacity obtained by the Butler and Hoy
method 共1977兲.
The arithmetic mean 共␮兲 and standard deviation 共␴兲 of the
ratio Q p /Q m values for each method were calculated and used as
ods were given ranks as summarized in Table 3 共column 7兲. Ac-
cording to this criterion, the De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲
method with ␮⫽0.982 and ␴⫽0.25 ranks number one with R2
⫽1 followed by the LCPC method (R2⫽2). The Schmertmann
共1978兲, Philipponnat 共1980兲, ␤-method, Tumay and Fakhroo
共1982兲, and ␣ methods all have ␮⬎1, which means that these
methods on average are overpredicting the measured pile capac-
ity. On the other hand, Aoki and De Alencar 共1975兲, Price and
Wardle 共1982兲, and the Penpile methods all have ␮⬍1, which
 Fig. 4. Estimated (Q p ) versus measured (Q m ) ultimate pile capacity
means that these methods on average are underpredicting the
measured pile capacity.
The third evaluation criterion is based on the 50 and 90%
cumulative probabilities, P 50 and P 90 of Q p /Q m . The cumulative
probabilities versus the ratio Q p /Q m for the investigated methods
are presented in Fig. 5. P 50 and P 90 values were determined and
presented in Table 3 共columns 8 and 9兲. The pile capacity predic-
tion method with a P 50 value closer to one and with a lower
P 50⫺ P 90 range is considered the best method. Based on this cri-
terion, the LCPC method with P 50⫽1.03 and P 90⫽1.42 ranks
number one (R3⫽1) followed by De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲
with R3⫽2. The Penpile method has very low P 50 and P 90 values
and therefore ranks number ten (R3⫽10) according to this crite-
rion.
The fourth criterion used to evaluate the methods is based on
the histogram and the log normal distribution of Q p /Q m . First,
the ratio Q p /Q m and the natural logarithm of the ratio ln(Qp /Qm)
for each pile were calculated. Then, the mean (␮ ln), standard
deviation (␴ ln), and coefficient of variation 共COV兲 of ln(Qp /Qm)
940 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004
were determined and used to identify the log normal distribution
of the density function for each method. The histogram and log
normal distribution of Q p /Q m for the investigated methods are
presented in Fig. 6. Fig. 7 depicts the comparison of log normal
distributions for the different methods considered in this study.
The area underneath each curve in Fig. 7 is equal to one.
The histogram and log normal probability distribution were
used to calculate the probability of predicting the ultimate load
capacity within 20% accuracy. At a specified accuracy level, the
probability of predicting ultimate pile capacity is determined by
calculating the total area underneath the curve within the accuracy
limits. The prediction accuracy obtained from the log normal dis-
tribution for the different methods is plotted in Fig. 8. The higher
the probability the better is the performance of the method. The
probability corresponding to 20% accuracy is the likelihood that
the estimated pile capacity will be within 0.8Q m ⭐Q p ⭐1.2Q m .
The probability of predicting the ultimate load capacity within
20% accuracy was estimated and presented in Table 3 共columns
11 and 12 for log normal distribution and histogram, respec-
Table 3. Evaluation of Performance of Different Prediction Methods Considered in This Study
Arithmetic calculations
Best fit calculations of Q p /Q m Cumulative probability ⫾20% Accuracy 共%兲 Overall rank
Q p /Q m Q p /Q m
Pile capacity method Q fit /Q m R2 R1 Mean ␴ R2 at P 50 at P 90 R3 Log normal Histogram R4 RI Final rank
de Ruiter and Beringen 1.02 0.96 1 0.98 0.25 1 0.93 1.31 2 57.4 45.7 2 6 1
LCPC 0.97 0.95 2 1.07 0.26 2 1.03 1.42 1 59.5 60.0 1 6 1
␣ method 0.89 0.91 5 1.09 0.41 3 1.02 1.62 3 43.1 40.0 5 16 3
Philipponnat 1.23 0.95 9 1.15 0.35 4 1.17 1.78 4 47.7 48.6 3 20 4
Schmertmann 1.16 0.96 6 1.21 0.36 6 1.19 1.7 5 44.2 42.9 4 21 5
␤ method 1.05 0.92 3 1.22 0.33 7 1.23 1.52 6 37.9 31.4 6 23 6
Aoki and De Alencar 0.89 0.94 4 0.81 0.27 5 0.74 1.13 7 37.6 31.7 7 23 6
Price and Wardle 0.82 0.92 8 0.78 0.32 8 0.72 1.21 8 30.7 22.9 9 33 8
Tumay and Fakhroo 1.18 0.96 7 1.37 0.34 10 1.39 1.8 9 31.4 22.9 8 34 9
Penpile 0.57 0.95 10 0.63 0.22 9 0.59 0.87 10 16.8 5.7 10 39 10
Note: Rank index, RI⫽R1⫹R2⫹R3⫹R4; R 2 ⫽coefficient of determination, ␴: standard deviation; P 50 ⫽cumulative probability at 50%;
P 90 ⫽cumulative probability at 90%.

tively兲. Based on the 20% accuracy level, the Bustamante and
Gianeselli 共1982兲 method showed the highest probability values
共59.5 and 60%兲 and therefore ranks number one (R4⫽1). De
Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲 ranks number two (R4⫽2). The
Penpile method has the lowest probability value at this accuracy
level and therefore ranks number ten (R4⫽10).
The overall performance of the CPT methods was then evalu-
ated using the four different criteria via RI. For example, RI for
the De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲 method is determined as RI
⫽R1⫹R2⫹R3⫹R4⫽1⫹1⫹2⫹2⫽6. The RI values for all the
methods are presented in Table 3 共column 14兲. The final overall
rank for each CPT method obtained based on RI values is pre-
sented in column 15 of Table 3.
Based on the results of this analysis, the Bustamante and Gi-
aneselli 共LCPC兲 共1982兲 and De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲 meth-
ods have rank number one. These two methods showed the best
performance according to the evaluation criteria. The static ␣
method ranks number three while the ␤ method ranks number six.
The Penpile method showed the lowest performance among all
methods and therefore it ranks number ten. The results of this
investigation are consistent with the findings of a study performed
by Briaud and Tucker 共1988兲, in which they evaluated the perfor-
mance of 13 methods to predict the ultimate load capacity of 98
piles. They concluded that the LCPC method is the best method
for predicting the ultimate load capacity of piles.
Implementation of Cone Penetration Test
Technology for Pile Design
The past practice of LA DOTD in the design and analysis of piles
was based solely on the static ␣ method. The soil parameters were
obtained from laboratory tests on samples from conventional sub-
surface exploration procedures. This procedure is expensive, time
consuming, and often resulting in a conservative pile design. Pile
load tests are also required to verify the design load based on the
actual field performance of the pile. The number of the required
pile load tests depends on the project size and importance. The
estimated average cost of conventional exploration is $50/ft,
which takes 7 weeks to complete. This is compared to $20/ft and
1 week in the case of the CPT. While the cost of driving and
loading a test pile in Louisiana usually ranges from $15,000 to
$25,000, the use of CPT technology will reduce the number of
test piles and soil borings needed for a project resulting in cost
savings.
The use of CPT for pile applications in Louisiana was limited
to identifying the depth of the sand layers to tip the end bearing

Fig. 5. Cumulative probability plot of Q p /Q m for the different methods

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 941

 Fig. 6. Histogram and log normal distribution of Q p /Q m for the different methods

piles. Recently, the LA DOTD began the implementation of CPT

technology for the design and analysis of driven friction piles
共Titi et al. 2002兲. At this stage, the goal is to use the CPT as a
supplement to conventional methods in order to reduce the num-
ber of borings and test piles for a project. For example, the con-
ventional layout for the I-310/US-61 interchange requires con-
ducting 23 deep borings and nine pile load tests. The current
layout reduces the number of borings to eight and the test piles to
three, which will be replaced by 50 CPT tests. The complete
elimination of conventional exploration and its replacement with
CPT tests is still under investigation.
The use of CPT methods involves long computational pro-
cesses. Therefore, in order to facilitate the use of CPT by LA
DOTD engineers, the writers developed a visual basic computer
program for pile design and analysis using the CPT data called
Louisiana Pile Design by CPT (LPD-CPT). In this program, the
best performing methods 共De Ruiter and Beringen and LCPC兲 in
addition to the Schmertmann 共1978兲 method were implemented.
The probabilistic region estimation classification method 共Zhang
and Tumay 1999兲 was also implemented for soil identification.
The program reads CPT input files of different units 共SI, English,
Fig. 7. Log normal distribution of Q p /Q m for the different methods
or in millivolts兲 and plots the profile of the ultimate pile capacity

942 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004


Fig. 8. Comparison of different methods in terms of estimation
accuracy
of the selected pile size for the three methods, as well as an
average profile of these methods with depth. The design engineer
has the option of selecting any of these methods or the average,
and then uses them to determine the size and length of the pile.
Conclusions
This study presented an assessment of eight direct CPT methods
to estimate the ultimate load capacity of square PPC friction piles
driven into Louisiana soils. Analysis was conducted on 35 friction
piles loaded to failure with CPT’s conducted adjacent to each test
pile. The measured ultimate load capacity (Q m ) for each pile was
determined from the load-settlement curve using the Butler–Hoy
method 共1977兲. The ultimate load capacity of each pile (Q p ) was
also determined using the CPT methods, and the static ␣ and ␤
methods.
Analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of the
CPT methods by comparing the estimated and measured ultimate
pile capacities. The evaluation was based on the line of best fit for
Q p versus Q m , the arithmetic mean and standard deviation of
Q p /Q m , the cumulative probability of Q p /Q m , and the log nor-
mal distribution of Q p /Q m . These criteria were used to rank the
CPT methods based on their performance. A final rank of all
methods was obtained from the Rank Index 共RI兲.
This study showed that the ultimate pile capacity can be de-
termined using the CPT data with acceptable accuracy. Based on
the results of this investigation, the following two methods show
the best performance:
• Bustamante and Gianeselli 共LCPC兲 共1982兲 method; and
• De Ruiter and Beringen 共1979兲 method
Generally, this research showed that the De Ruiter and Berin-
gen 共1979兲, Schmertmann 共1978兲, Philipponnat 共1980兲, Tumay
and Fakhroo 共1982兲, ␣, and ␤ methods overestimate the pile ca-
pacity. On the other hand, Bustamante and Gianeselli 共LCPC兲,
Aoki and De Alencar 共1975兲, Price and Wardle 共1982兲, and the
Penpile methods underestimate the pile capacity.
The performance of the CPT methods may vary according to
the procedure used to determine the ultimate pile load capacity
from the load test. The results are also influenced by the charac-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 943
teristics of the soil at the site. The conclusions of this study are
based on the ultimate pile capacity interpreted from the load test
using the Butler–Hoy method 共1977兲.
Acknowledgments
This research project is funded by the FHWA, the Louisiana De-
partment of Transportation and Development 共State Project No.
736-99-0533兲, and the Louisiana Transportation Research center
共LTRC Project No. 98-3GT兲. The comments and suggestions of
Mark Morvant, Pavement and Geotechnical Research
Administrator/LTRC, are gratefully acknowledged. The writers
would like to acknowledge the guidance and support of Dr.
Mehmet Tumay, Georgia Gulf Professor and Associate Dean for
Research, LSU.
References
Aoki, N., and De Alencar, D. 共1975兲. ‘‘An approximate method to esti-
mate the bearing capacity of piles.’’ Proc., 5th Pan-American Conf. of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Buenos Aires, Vol. 1,
367–376.
Briaud, J.-L., and Tucker, L. M. 共1988兲. ‘‘Measured and predicted axial
response of 98 piles.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 114共9兲, 984 –1001.
Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli, L. 共1982兲. ‘‘Pile bearing capacity predic-
tions by means of static penetrometer CPT.’’ Proc., 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-II, Amsterdam, The Neth-
erlands, Vol. 2, 493–500.
Butler, H. D., and Hoy, H. E. 共1977兲. ‘‘The Texas quick-load method for
foundation load testing-User’s manual.’’ Rep. No. FHWA-IP-77-8.
Campanella, R. G., and Robertson, P. K. 共1988兲. ‘‘Current status of the
piezocone test.’’ Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Penetration Testing,
ISOPT-1, Orlando, Fla., Vol. 1, 93–116.
Clisby, M. B., Scholtes, R. M., Corey, M. W., Cole, H. A., Teng, P., and
Webb, J. D. 共1978兲. An evaluation of pile bearing capacities, Volume
I, Final Report, Mississippi State Highway Department.
Davisson, M. T. 共1972兲. ‘‘High capacity piles.’’ Proc., Lecture Series on
Innovation in Foundation Construction, American Society of Civil
Engineers, ASCE, New York, 81–112.
De Ruiter, J., and Beringen, F. L. 共1979兲. ‘‘Pile foundations for large
North Sea structures.’’ Mar. Geotech., 3共3兲, 267–314.
Douglas, B. J., and Olsen, R. S. 共1981兲. ‘‘Soil classification using electric
cone penetrometer.’’ Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing and Experi-
ence, ASCE, New York, 209–227.
Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B. H. 共1997兲. ‘‘Pile capacity by direct CPT and
CPTU methods applied to 102 case histories.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 34,
886 –904.
Fellenius, B. H. 共1991兲. Pile foundations, foundation engineering hand-
book, 2nd Ed., H. S. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Long, J. H., and Wysockey, M. H. 共1999兲. ‘‘Accuracy of methods for
predicting axial capacity of deep foundations.’’ Proc., OTRC ’99
Conf.: Analysis, Design, Construction, and Testing of Deep Founda-
tion, GSP No. 88, ASCE, Reston, Va., 190–195.
Olsen, R. S., and Mitchell, J. K. 共1995兲. ‘‘CPT stress normalization and
prediction of soil classification.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Cone Penetra-
tion Testing, CPT’95, Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linkoping, Swe-
den, Vol. 2, 257–262.
Philipponnat, G. 共1980兲. ‘‘Methode pratique de calcul d’un pieu isole a
l’aide du penetrometre statique.’’ Rev. Fr. Geotech., 10, 55– 64.
Price, G., and Wardle, I. F. 共1982兲. ‘‘A comparison between cone penetra-
tion test results and the performance of small diameter instrumented
piles in stiff clay,’’ Proc., 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 2, 775–780.
Robertson, P. K. 共1990兲. ‘‘Soil classification using the cone penetration
 test.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 1共27兲, 151–158.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J. 共1986兲.
‘‘Use of piezometer cone data.’’ Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. In
Situ’86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, New York,
1263–1280.
Schmertmann, J. H. 共1978兲. ‘‘Guidelines for cone penetration test, perfor-
mance and design.’’ Rep. No. FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C., 145.
Titi, H. H., and Abu-Farsakh, M. Y. 共1999兲. ‘‘Evaluation of bearing ca-
pacity of piles from cone penetration test data.’’ Rep. No. FHWA/
LA.99/334, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge,
La.
Titi, H. H., Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., and Morvant, M. J. 共2002兲. ‘‘Implemen-
tation of CPT technology in design and analysis of driven piles.’’ J.
Transportation Research Record 1808, National Research Council,
944 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004
View publication stats
Washington, D.C., 168 –179.
Titi, H. H., Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., and Tumay, M. T. 共1999兲. ‘‘Evaluation of
pile load tests in cohesive Louisiana Soils.’’ OTRC ’99 Conf.: Analy-
sis, Design, Construction, and Testing of Deep Foundation, GSP 88,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 296 –308.
Tumay, M. Y., Boggess, R. L., and Acar, Y. 共1982兲. ‘‘Subsurface investi-
gation with piezocone penetrometer.’’ Proc., Cone Penetration Testing
and Experience, ASCE, New York, 325–342.
Tumay, M. T., and Fakhroo, M. 共1982兲. ‘‘Friction pile capacity prediction
in cohesive soils using electric quasi-static penetration tests.’’ Interim
Research Rep. No. 1, Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development, Research and Development Section, Baton Rouge, La.
Zhang, Z., and Tumay, M. T. 共1999兲. ‘‘Statistical to fuzzy approach to-
ward CPT soil classification.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125共3兲,
179–186.