Acta Geotechnica

DOI 10.1007/s11440-015-0398-4

RESEARCH PAPER

Applicability of CPT-based methods in predicting toe bearing

capacities of driven piles in sand
Le Chi Hung1 Tien Dung Nguyen1 Ju-Hyung Lee2 Sung-Ryul Kim1

Received: 22 January 2014 / Accepted: 27 May 2015

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract This paper presents a study on applicability of

predicting toe bearing capacities from cone penetration test
(CPT) for PHC (pretensioned spun high-strength concrete)
driven piles into deep sandy deposits in the Nakdong River
deltaic area west of Busan City in South Korea. Using toe
bearing capacities obtained from pile driving analyzer
(PDA) tests as reference values, which were reliably calibrated by on-site O-cell tests, the applicability of the CPTbased methods was evaluated using a statistical rank index
(RI). A total of 82 piezocone penetration test soundings and
190 PDA test piles were used for reliability analysis in this
study. Three correction steps were applied to obtain reliable PDA and CPT data sets before ranking is carried out.
The RI index is combined from four criteria: (1) the best-fit
line, (2) the arithmetic mean and standard deviation, (3) the
cumulative probabilities, and (4) the log-normal and histogram distributions. Based on these criteria the performance of some SPT-based methods in the literature is
evaluated.
Keywords Cone penetration test  Driven piles  Pile
driving analyzer Statistical analysis  Toe bearing capacity

& Sung-Ryul Kim

sungryul@dau.ac.kr
1

Civil Engineering Department, Dong-A University, 840

Hadan2-dong, Saha-gu, Pusan 604-714, Korea

Geotechnical Engineering Research Institute, Korea Institute

of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 283
Goyangdae-Ro, Ilsanseo-Gu, Goyang-Si, Gyeonggi-Do
411-712, Korea

1 Introduction
The cone penetration test (CPT) has been widely used to
characterize soils and has been directly applied in
geotechnical engineering, including the determination of
pile bearing capacity. Cones and piles possess a similar
working mechanism; thus, several CPT-based methods
related to unit shaft and toe resistances have been proposed
to evaluate pile bearing capacity using CPT data (e.g., qc
and fs). Most of the methods have been proposed to
determine the ultimate bearing capacity of driven piles
(e.g., [2, 15]), whereas some have been suggested for both
driven and cast in situ piles (e.g., [8, 26]) and base-grouted
cast in situ piles in sand (e.g., [31]).
Each CPT-based method has been developed based on
static load test (SLT) results obtained from specific regions
and geologies. In addition, the failure criteria used to define
the bearing capacity of a test pile (e.g., [11]) can differ
depending on author preference and the recommendation
for the region. Some methods exhibit large scatter of the
predicted bearing capacities of piles [23]. Thus, the applicability of CPT-based methods in new geological areas
(e.g., for Louisiana state area [1], Florida state area [6],
Jiangsu province of eastern China [9], or a combined
database from different countries [29]) must be evaluated.
Pretensioned spun high-strength concrete (PHC) piles
were developed in Japan in the early 1970s and introduced
to Korea in the early 1990s. The PHC pile has been used as
the foundation of a residential complex project only
recently in the Nakdong River delta west of Busan City in
South Korea. Several studies have been conducted on the
bearing capacities of the PHC piles used in the project;
these works include the determination of true resistance in
an instrumented PHC driven pile [16], a comparative study
among different design methods for the bearing capacity of

123

Acta Geotechnica

driven piles [12], and an investigation into the residual load

distribution in instrumented PHC piles [16].
The SLT most reliably verifies pile bearing capacity;
however, conducting the required representative SLTs for
this project, which mobilizes thousands of PHC piles driven into deep sands, is very costly and time-consuming.
The dynamic method, which combines the pile driving
analyzer (PDA) test with the case pile wave analysis program (CAPWAP) to predict pile bearing capacity, was
therefore selected to enhance the design and to calibrate
pile capacity using CPT-based methods.
The applicability of the ten CPT-based methods in
evaluating the toe bearing capacities of PHC piles driven
into deep sand in the Nakdong River delta is examined in
the present study. A total of 190 PDA test piles measuring
500 and 600 mm diameters and 82 piezocone penetration
test (CPTu) soundings were conducted at the construction
site. The reliability of the PDA-based toe bearing capacity
from the end of initial driving (EOID) is first verified by
two on-site O-cell tests. Thereafter, the applicability of the
ten CPT-based methods in determining the toe bearing
capacities (Qp) is investigated using the PDA-based toe
bearing capacities (determined from CAPWAP analysis)
that have been calibrated as reference values (Qm). The
correlation between Qp and Qm is investigated based on the
rank index (RI), which consists of four criteria, namely: (1)
the best-fit line, (2) arithmetic mean and standard deviation, (3) cumulative probabilities, and (4) log-normal and
histogram distributions. This paper focuses on the toe
bearing capacity rather than the total capacity because the
shaft and toe resistances obtained from restrike test were
unsatisfactory due to significant shaft resistance gains from
soil setup effects. These effects were in turn caused by the

thick clay layer at the site. Using a high-energy hammer

was not feasible given pile integrity. The PDA-based toe
bearing capacity obtained from the EOID data using
CAPWAP analysis is therefore analyzed.

2 Field tests
2.1 Location of study site
The study site is the Myeongji residential complex situated
at the coastline of the Nakdong River deltaic area west of
Busan City in South Korea (Fig. 1). An approximately
5-m-thick landfill was constructed and finally completed in
the late 1990s. Tall apartment buildings were built at the
site only a few years ago. The total area of the study site
was approximately 1.0 km 9 1.4 km, and the site was
divided into four main blocks, namely MA (upper left),
MB (lower left), MC (lower right), and MD (upper right),
as shown in Fig. 2. Each main block was divided further
into sub-blocks (e.g., MA1MA4) to facilitate site investigation and construction management. The CPTus and
PDA test piles were conducted on blocks MA and MC, and
the results are used in the analysis.
2.2 Piezocone penetration test
The CPTus were conducted extensively at specific locations under the planned apartment buildings where driven
PHC piles were to be installed. The tests were conducted
using 15 cm2 Geomil cone (area ratio = 0.6) driven by a
track-mounted CPT machine with 20-t capacity. The
electrical-type cone had a 60 apex, and a porous element

Fig. 1 Location of the study site in the Nakdong River delta (Google maps)

123

Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 2 Schematic plan view of blocks with field tests at the study site

(filter) was mounted behind the cone shoulder to measure

induced pore water pressure (u2). The average CPTu penetration rate was 20 mm/s [4].
Figure 3 shows typical soil profiles observed during the
CPTus at blocks MA and MC in which soil parameters
[i.e., effective friction angle /0 ; relative density (Dr), and
overconsolidated ratio (OCR)] were obtained from commonly recommended equations given by Mayne [22]. Site
ground conditions based on CPT data are briefly described
as follows. A loose silty sand (shallow sand) layer 515 m
depth is found under the fill layer. A soft-to-medium silty
clay layer is subsequently located at depths of 1533 m,
followed by a loose-to-dense (deep sand) layer 3358 m
deep and sandy gravel on bed rock. A thin clayey silt layer
is prominently sandwiched between the sand in the deep
sand layer. Groundwater level at the site was approximately located at 2.5 m below the ground surface. As
shown in Fig. 2, the deep sand layer varies from loose to
very dense (Dr = 2080) and is characterized as lightly
overconsolidated deposit, the over consolidation ratio of
which typically varies from 1.5 to 1.8. Samples of this
layer as retrieved from the standard penetration test sampler indicated that over 90 % of sand particles have
diameter of \1.0 mm and that almost 100 % of the particles passed sieve number 4 (aperture size = 4.75 mm).
Singh and Chung [30] provided additional details on the
physical and strength properties of the deep sand layer.

2.3 Pile driving and PDA tests

The PDA test piles used were closed-end, prestressed
concrete cylinder embedded with 24 steel rebars of
9.2 mm diameter (yield strength of 1300 MPa), which
were anchored to a donut-shaped steel plate at each segment ends. The test piles were cast in 515-m-long segments. The piles had outer diameters of 500 and 600 mm,
with the wall thicknesses measuring 80 and 90 mm,
respectively. Net prestress was approximately 8 MPa. The
concrete composed of Portland cement, and the concrete
aggregates were crushed granite. Nominal cube strength
was 80 MPa.
The PHC piles in the field were driven by hydraulic
impact hammers with the maximum potential energy of
24 tf 9 m. The segments were spliced by welding the end
plates together, making one splice at a time. The final
penetration depths varied from 31.5 to almost 54 m
depending on ground conditions. The PDA tests were
conducted in the test piles throughout the pile driving
process according to procedures described in Ref. [3]. Pile
driving and PDA monitoring were performed by the
company Piletech Ltd., under the supervision of a
geotechnical group from Dong-A University. Table 1 lists
the numbers of test piles with corresponding penetrationdepth ranges. The distance between the locations of the
CPTu and adjacent PDA test piles was \40 m.

123

Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 3 Typical CPT profiles and soil properties at the study site. Notes on parameters: /0 = tan-1[0.1 ? 0.38log(qt/r0v0 )]; OCR =
0:580

G0.478
r0v0
0.101p0.102
a
0

0:27

; where G0 = q[277q0.13
rv0 ]2; Dr = 100 [0.268ln[(qt/pa)/(r0v0 =pa )0.5] - 0.675]. All equations are given by Mayne [22]
t

Table 1 Characteristics of the investigated piles

Pile outer diameter,
D (mm)

Penetration depth,
L (m)

500

35

600

Number of PDA
test
6

3235

63

3540

42

4054

37

3235

25

3554

17

2.4 O-cell tests

Two PHC test piles that included O-cells at the pile toe
elevations were installed and were then bidirectionally
loaded at the MA1 and MA3 blocks to verify the reliability
of the PDA-based toe bearing capacity at the site. The piles
were labeled as MA1-101 and MA3-203, as shown in
Fig. 4a.
Figure 4b illustrates some steps in the O-cell pile
installation procedure, which is briefly described as follows.
A T-shaped shoe with a total height of 300 mm, a diameter
of 600 mm, and a 30-mm-thick base plate was first fitted
into the pile toe (Fig. 4b, upper left). The pile segment was
then driven and spliced consecutively until the target depth
was reached (Fig. 4b, lower left). A PDA test was conducted similarly as in other test piles during driving. An
O-cell (diameter = 330 mm, height = 400 mm) was welded to a reinforced cage at one end and settled on top of the
shoe when the system was lowered into the hollow of the

123

pile (Fig. 4b, upper right). Seven pairs of strain gauges

(Geokon model 4911 series) were attached oppositely along
the cage, as schematically shown in Fig. 4a to measure the
shear stress along the pile after pile installation and during
load testing. Finally, the hollow space framed by the O-cell
and reinforced cage was filled with cement paste up to
ground surface level (Fig. 4b, lower right). All technical
work related to the O-cell setup and installation was carried
out by technicians from LOADTEST Korea Ltd., and
LOADTEST Asia Ltd. (based in Singapore), under the
supervision of the geotechnical group from Dong-A
University. The use of O-cells in the PHC piles in this study
was highlighted as a typical case study by Bullock [7] as
well as in project profiles of LOADTEST Company [20].
The MA1-101 and MA3-203 piles were bidirectionally
loaded after monitoring the strains that accumulated in the
piles for 49 and 45 days, respectively. Then, 30 and 43
equal loading increments at 51.71 MPa (7500 psi) and
74.12 MPa (10,750 psi) were applied to MA1-101 and
MA3-203, respectively, using the quick load test method
for individual piles provided in Ref. [5] until the ultimate
resistances were reached.

3 Toe bearing capacity

3.1 Reliability of PDA-based toe bearing capacity
The reliability of the PDA-based pile bearing capacity has
been confirmed in extensive studies (e.g., [19]). However,
reliability of individual toe bearing capacity is seldom

Acta Geotechnica

(a)

(b)
MA1-101

Original GL() 0.0

2.5 Excavated layer
Fill
5.0

0.0

MA3-203

Silty sand
10.0
14.0

Strain
gauges

20.0

Depth (m)

30.0

33.0

40.0

Silty clay

34.5
Silty sand &
sand

36.5
O-cells
Cement
Pre-tensed
steel bar

50.0

Sister bar &

Strain gauge

58.0
60.0

Sand & Gravel

Cross-sections A-A, B-B

Fig. 4 Test piles with O-cells at the toes. a Soil profile and schematic configurations of two piles, b images illustrating the installation process

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5 Force and velocity records for CAPWAP analysis. a Pile MA1-101, b pile MA3-203

discussed. Thus, the reliability of the PDA-based pile

bearing capacity is verified by comparing its toe bearing
capacities with those obtained from O-cell tests before the
applicability of the CPT-based methods is investigated.
Two PHC piles MA1-101 and MA3-203, which
included O-cells at the pile toe elevations, were installed
and tested to verify the reliability of the PDA-based toe
bearing capacity at the site. Typical force and velocity
records obtained from the PDA tests at final blows for

these two piles are shown in Fig. 5. The wave speed

c values were calculated as 4000 m/s for both piles based
on the time 2L/c (L is the distance from PDA strain gages
to the pile toe), which are indicated in Fig. 5. In addition,
there was a large separation between the force and
velocity curves after the time 2L/c, and the force was
raised up significantly. It means that there was large soil
resistance at the pile toe. The pile toe reached the
designed bearing stratum. Similar trends of force and

123

Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 6 Downward movement curves obtained from the O-cell tests. a Pile MA1-101, b pile MA3-203

Table 2 PDA-based toe bearing capacity

Pile number

Stage

Length (m)

Seta (mm/blow)

EMX (t 9 m)

MA1-101

EOID

32.0

9.0

10.41

28.40

2.80

2.48

0.91

MA3-203

EOID

34.0

3.0

9.46

28.70

6.10

3.54

0.35

CSX (MPa)

TSX (MPa)

Toe BC (MN)

Shaft BC (MN)

The permanent penetration obtained at the final blow

velocity records were observed in the work of Lee et al.

[17]. From these force and velocity records, the toe
bearing capacities (Qm,PDA) for these piles were obtained
by using CAPWAP analysis, as presented in Fig. 6.
The downward movements of the O-cells are depicted
in Fig. 6. Table 2 presents some basic parameters from
the PDA tests. As shown in Fig. 6, the Qm,PDA values
obtained from the PDA tests are slightly smaller than
those determined from the O-cell tests (Qm,O-cell). Both
piles produced a similar Qm,O-cell/Qm,PDA ratio of 1.15.
The smaller values of the PDA tests resulted at the EOID
were actually unaffected by soil setup, which often
enhances pile bearing capacity over time. Rausche et al.
[27] extensively reviewed long-term pile capacity prediction based on EOID. They stated that no single formula or factor can suggest the possibility that long-term
capacity varies from 50 to 1000 % of the EOID value.
However, the average setup factors recommended for silty
sand and sand are 1.2 and 1.0, respectively. The same
factors are also given in Hannigan et al. [14]. The Qm,Ocell/Qm,PDA ratio of 1.15 in the two piles is between 1.0
and 1.2 because the deep sand layer mostly consists of
silty sand and sand. This setup factor is relatively small
but conservative. The toe bearing capacity obtained from
the PDA test used in this study is therefore reliable and
could be used as a reference value to evaluate the
applicability of the CPT-based methods.

123

3.2 CPT-based methods

In this study, ten common CPT-based methods were
selected for evaluating their applicability in predicting
the toe bearing capacities of PHC driven piles. The
equations for estimating toe bearing capacity from each
method are summarized in Table 3. Pile toe bearing
capacity is controlled by the following three key aspects:
influence zone above and below the pile toe,
average cone resistance mechanism, and correction
factors.

4 Applicability analysis
4.1 Data selection
A total of 82 CPTus and 190 PDA test piles were conducted for pile foundation design at the project. The PDA
test piles closest to each CPTu were used to evaluate the
applicability of the ten CPT-based methods in this study.
However, the soil profiles of the CPTu and PDA test pile
locations differed significantly as a result of the change in
ground surface level during construction and the variation
of the soil layers. To optimize the soil profiles of these
locations before analysis, three data selection steps were
performed as follows.

Acta Geotechnica
Table 3 Toe bearing capacity equations from ten CPT-based methods
Method

qp (unit toe bearing

capacity

Note

Aoki and De Alencar [2]

qp = qca/Fb
(qp B 15 MPa)

qca = arithmetic mean of qc values in 8D above and 4D below the pile toe; Fb = correction
factor according to pile type, Fb = 1.75 for driven piles

Bustamante and
Gianeselli [8] (LCPC)

qp = kbqeq

qeq = equivalent mean of qc values in 1.5D above and 1.5D below the pile toe;
kb = 0.150.6 depending on soil type and pile installation method and kb = 0.4 for driven
pile in sandgravel

Jardine et al. [15] (ICP05)

qp = [1 - 0.5log(D/
Dcpt)]qca

qca = qeq in LCPC method; qp = 0.3qc for D [ 0.90 m; D = pile diameter; Dcpt = cone
diameter

Meyerhof [24]

qp = C1C2qca

qca = arithmetic mean of qc values in 1D below and 4D above the pile toe; C1,
C2 = correction factors for scale effect and penetration into dense stratum, respectively

Clisby et al. [10]

(Penpile)

qp = 0.125qca

qca = arithmetic mean of three qc values near the pile toe

Philipponnat [25]

qp = kbqca

qca = arithmetic mean of qc values in 3D above and 3D below the pile toe; kb = bearing
factor depending on soil type, kb = 0.4 and 0.3 for sand and gravel, respectively

Schmertmann [28]

qp = (qc1 ? qc2)/2
(qp B 15 MPa)

qc1 = average qc by minimum path method in 0.74D below the pile toe; qc2 = mean qc by
minimum path method within 8D above the pile toe

Lehane et al. [18]

(UWA-05)

qp = 0.6qca

qca = arithmetic mean of qc value 1.5D above and 1.5D below the pile toe

Zhou et al. [32]

qp = aqca

qca = arithmetic mean of qc values 4D above and 4D below the pile toe; a = factor
according to soil type

Eslami and Fellenius

[13]

qp = CtqEg

qEg = geometric mean qE (= qt - u2) values in 8D above and 4D below the pile toe;
Ct = toe adjustment factor, Ct = 1.0 for D B 0.4 m, Ct = 1/(3D) for D [ 0.4 m

The summary intentionally covers only for closed-end driven piles in sandy soils

n
X

cos ai  Li

i1

where L is the total corrected penetration depth, Li is the ith

recorded depth increment during penetration, and ai is the
inclination angle between vertical axis and the cone at the
ith increment.
Step 2 Matching of soil profiles between CPTu and PDA
test locations

Fig. 7 CPTu depth correction. a Examples of cone inclination angle,

b a schematic configuration of depth correction

Step 1 Correction of CPTu penetration depth

The cone rod was inclined at a maximum angle of
1015 compared with the vertical axis, as shown in
Fig. 7. Thus, the recorded CPTu depth did not
accurately reflect the real depth of the soil profile at
the construction site. The cone used in this study was
equipped with a single-axis inclinometer; thus, the
following equation was applied to obtain corrected
penetration depth:

The recorded CPTu depths differed with those of

the PDA test piles due to the change of the ground
surface level during construction, as shown in
Fig. 8a, because the CPTus were conducted on
natural ground surface, whereas the piles were
driven after ground surface excavation. In addition,
the RMX resistance profiles (mobilized static resistance based on CASE method) obtained from the
PDA tests and the cone resistance determined in the
CPTus should be similar if the soil profiles of the
test locations do not vary significantly. Therefore,
similar CPTu and RMX profiles were reviewed and
used to match the recorded depths. CPTu profile
depths were then justified gradually until the
resistances of the RMX and CPTu profiles fitted
each other, as shown in Fig. 8b. A total of 137
PDA test piles remained after matching.

123

Acta Geotechnica

The Qp/Qm values ranged from 144 to 154 data sets

depending on the CPT-based methods after empirical rule
was carried out.
4.2 Definition of rank criteria
The RI proposed by Abu-Farsakh and Titi [1] was adapted
to evaluate the applicability of the CPT-based methods
used in this study. Equation (5) expresses RI as the sum of
four different rank criteria (i.e., R1, R2, R3, and R4). A low
RI value indicates the effective applicability of the CPTbased method, and a detailed discussion of each criterion is
provided in the work of Abu-Farsakh and Titi [1].
RI R1 R2 R3 R4
Fig. 8 Correction of pile penetration depth by comparing the
resistance of RMX and CPTu profiles. a Before depth matching,
b after depth matching

Step 3 Statistical screening

The Qm values obtained from the PDA tests and the
Qp values predicted from the CPT-based methods may
differ greatly because of unknown factors, such as the
high variation in sandy soil layers that results in soft
soil portions, or the thickness variation in soil layers
within the influence zone. To evaluate the applicability of the CPT-based methods, the data sets that
deviate greatly from the measured values must be
eliminated using the following procedures.
First, the Qm values at each depth were obtained from the
remaining test piles at Step 2. Second, the Qp values corresponding to the measured Qm depth were calculated based on
the ten CPT-based methods using data from the 82 CPTus.
One PDA test pile may have several Qm values at different
depths; therefore, a total number of 154 Qm values were
determined from 137 PDA test piles. Third, Qp/Qm ratios
were calculated for all CPT-based methods. The statistical
empirical rule (Eqs. 24) was then adapted to eliminate the
data sets that deviate greatly. The rule with approximately
95.45 % of the Qp/Qm values lied within two standard
deviations of the mean was applied, as shown in Eq. 4. The
empirical rule equations used in this study are as follows:
n
1X
l
xi
2
n i1
s
n
1X
r
3
xi  l2
n i1
l  2r  xi  l 2r

where l is arithmetic mean of variable, xi = Qp/Qm

denotes the variable, r is the standard deviation, and n is
the number of variable xi.

123

Each criterion (R1R4) is briefly defined as follows.

The R1 criterion is determined by plotting Qp versus Qm.
A regression analysis calculates the slope of the best-fit line
Qfit/Qm and the corresponding correlation coefficient (r2).
Sub-ranks A and B for the Qfit/Qm slope and the corresponding r2 are then assigned, respectively, for each CPTbased method. Low sub-ranks are obtained as the Qfit/Qm
slope, and r2 values approach unity. The R1 criterion is
calculated as the average value of A and B.
The R2 criterion is obtained using the arithmetic mean l
and the standard deviation r for the Qp/Qm ratios, as shown
in Eqs. 2 and 3. Sub-ranks C and D are set for l and r,
respectively, in each CPT-based method. Low C and
D sub-ranks are defined when the l value approaches unity
with the r value that nears zero. The R2 criterion is defined
as the average value of C and D.
The Qp/Qm ratios for each CPT-based method are first
sorted in an ascending order (i.e., 1; 2; 3; . . .; i. . .; n).
Thereafter, the 50 % (P50) and 90 % (P90) cumulative
probabilities of this Qp/Qm order are calculated as suggested by Long and Wysockey [21] using Eq. 6. Two Qp/
Qm ratios are obtained at P50 and P90, and these ratios
indicate the overestimation (Qp [ Qm) or underestimation
(Qp \ Qm) tendencies of the CPT-based method. Sub-ranks
E and F are then evaluated in terms of P50 and P90,
respectively. Low sub-ranks are obtained as the P50 and
P90 values approach unity. The R3 criterion is calculated
as the average values of E and F.
P

i
n 1

where i is the order number of each Qp/Qm ratio, and n is

the total number of Qp/Qm ratios.
The R4 criterion is determined by plotting the histogram
and log-normal distributions of the Qp/Qm values. The lognormal distribution is defined by using Eq. 7. A 20 %
accuracy range of Qp/Qm (0.8 B Qp/Qm B 1.2) is first
limited on the histogram and log-normal distribution plots.

Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 9 Best-fit line of Qp versus Qm for different CPT-based methods

123

Acta Geotechnica
Table 4 Rank index of CPT-based methods in predicting toe bearing capacities of the driven PHC piles
Method

Best-fit line of Qp versus Qm

2

Qfit/Qm

Arithmetic calculations of Qp/Qm

R1

R2
3.0

Aoki and De Alencar [2]

0.98

0.62

1.0

0.99

0.22

LCPC [8]

0.92

0.58

2.5

0.91

0.27

5.0

ICP-05 [15]

0.91

0.52

4.0

0.96

0.27

4.0

Philipponnat [25]

0.82

0.58

4.5

0.84

0.19

4.5

Schemrtmann [28]

0.90

0.37

5.5

0.94

0.30

5.5

Zhou et al. [32]

0.66

0.62

4.0

0.69

0.13

4.5

Eslami and Fellenius [13]

0.84

0.27

7.0

0.88

0.36

7.0

UWA-05 [18]

0.56

0.31

8.0

0.57

0.20

6.5

Penpile [10]

0.31

0.52

10

7.5

0.31

0.10

10

5.5

Meyerhof [24]

1.65

0.21

10

9.5

1.40

0.72

10

9.0

Method

Cumulative probability of Qp/Qm

At P50

At P90

20 % accuracy of Qp/Qm
R3

Log-normal

Histogram

RI
G

Rank

R4

Aoki and De Alencar [2]

0.98

1.28

3.0

65.92

66.83

1.0

8.0

LCPC [8]

0.87

1.22

4.0

51.30

51.10

2.0

13.5

ICP-05 [15]

0.93

1.30

4.0

50.86

47.52

3.5

15.5

Philipponnat [25]
Schemrtmann [28]

0.82
0.90

1.12
1.40

6
3

1
7

3.5
5.0

48.75
44.28

54.21
44.30

4
5

3
5

3.5
5.0

16.0
21.0

4
5

Zhou et al. [32]

0.68

0.86

4.5

18.98

17.50

8.0

21.0

Eslami and Fellenius [13]

0.85

1.40

6.0

33.22

35.00

6.0

26.0

7
8

UWA-05 [18]

0.55

0.83

6.0

12.40

12.50

9.0

29.5

Penpile [10]

0.30

0.45

10

9.5

0.16

0.00

10

10

10.0

32.5

Meyerhof [24]

1.43

2.41

10

9.5

29.92

18.80

7.0

35.0

10

RI = R1 ? R2 ? R3 ? R4, R1 = (A ? B)/2, R2 = (C ? D)/2, R3 = (E ? F)/2, R4 = (G ? H)/2, r2 = correlation coefficient between Qp

and Qm, l = arithmetic mean of Qp/Qm, r = standard deviation of Qp/Qm, P50 = cumulative probability of Qp/Qm at 50 %, P90 = cumulative
probability of Qp/Qm at 90 %

The areas within this range are then examined. Sub-ranks G

and H are obtained for areas of histogram and log-normal
distributions, respectively. Low sub-ranks are defined for
the high 20 % accuracy areas. The R4 criterion is calculated as the average of G and H.
1
f x; l; r p
e
2pxi rln

lnxi lln 2
2r2ln

where lln is mean of ln(Qp/Qm) and rln is standard deviation of ln(Qp/Qm).

5 Analysis results
Figure 9 shows the Qp versus Qm plots and the regression
analysis results for the R1 criterion. The Aoki and De
Alencar [2] method is ranked first with a slope of Qfit/
Qm = 0.98 and r2 = 0.62. These values correspond to the
sub-ranks A = 1 and B = 1, respectively, and approach
R1 = 1. The LCPC [8] method has a slope of Qfit/

123

Qm = 0.92 and r2 = 0.58, thus denoting sub-ranks A = 2

and B = 3. The R1 criterion for this method is 2.5. The
ICP-05 [15] methods rank third with the R1 = 4. The
Meyerhof [24] method is least effective with R1 = 9.5
because it significantly overestimates the PDA-based toe
bearing capacity, with a large difference of 65 %. The R1
of the other methods is similarly calculated and presented
in Fig. 9 and Table 4.
The R2 results for each method are displayed in Table 4.
The Aoki and De Alencar [2] method ranks first with
l = 0.99 and r = 0.22. It is followed by the ICP-05 [15],
Philipponnat [25], Zhow et al. [32], and LCPC [8] methods
with l = 0.96 and r = 0.27, l = 0.84 and r = 0.19,
l = 0.69 and r = 0.13, and l = 0.91 and r = 0.27,
respectively. The Meyerhof [24] method is ranked last.
The R3 results are presented in Fig. 10 and Table 4. The
Aoki and De Alencar [2] method is still ranked first with
R3 = 3, followed by the ICP-05 [15], Zhou et al. [32],
LCPC [8], Philliponnat [25], Schmertman [28], Penpile
[10], UWA-05 [18], Eslami and Fellenius [13], and

Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 10 Cumulative probabilities of Qp/Qm for different CPT-based methods

123

Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 11 Log-normal and histogram distributions of Qp/Qm for different CPT-based methods

123

Acta Geotechnica

Meyerhof [24] methods. The Aoki and De Alencar [2]

method slightly underpredicts Qm compared with the other
methods, which extremely underpredict Qm. However, the
Meyerhof [24] method overpredicts Qm.
The results for R4 are depicted in Fig. 11 and Table 2. It
can be seen that the Aoki and De Alencar [2] method ranks
first with the log-normal and histogram distributions of
65.92 and 66.83 %, respectively, given 20 % accuracy,
as shown in Table 4. The LCPC [8] method ranks second
with log-normal and histogram distributions of 20 %
accuracy at 51.30 and 51.10 %, respectively. The Penpile
[10] method ranks lowest with log-normal and histogram
distributions at the areas of 20 % accuracy at 0.16 and
0.00 %, respectively.
The overall RI of the CPT-based methods used to
determine toe bearing capacities in this study is provided in
Table 4. The Aoki and De Alencar [2] method most
accurately calculates the toe bearing capacities of driven
PHC piles, followed by the LCPC [8], ICP-05 [15], and
Phillipponat [25] methods. The Meyerhof [24] method is
the least effective technique.

The applicability of the ten CPT-based methods used in

this study was investigated by using RI. The correlation
between Qp and Qm was evaluated, and four different criteria were adapted, namely the best-fit line of Qp versus
Qm, the arithmetic mean and standard deviation of Qp/Qm,
the 50 and 90 % cumulative probabilities of Qp/Qm, and
the 20 % accuracy of the histogram and log-normal
distributions of Qp/Qm. Based on the evaluation results, the
Aoki and De Alencar [2] method most accurately predicted
the toe bearing capacities, followed by the LCPC [8],
Philipponnat [25], ICP-05 [15], Schmertmann [28], Zhow
et al. [32], Eslami and Fellenius [13], UWA-05 [18],
Penpile [10], and Meyerhof [24] methods.
A specific CPT-based method might be the best
method or the worst method depending on local soil
conditions, pile characteristics, load test types used to
determine the bearing capacity, as well as type of bearing
capacity (i.e., ultimate bearing capacity, skin friction, or
toe bearing capacity). Therefore, the results obtained
from this study might be applied to other areas, which
have similar soil conditions, load test methods (i.e., PDA
with CAPWAP analysis) and type of driven piles (i.e.,
PHC pile).

6 Conclusions
Statistical analyses were conducted to investigate the
applicability of the ten CPT-based methods in calculating
the toe bearing capacities of the PHC piles driven into deep
sand in the Nakdong river deltaic area west of Busan City
in South Korea. A total of 82 CPTus and 190 PDA test
piles were used. The following conclusions were drawn.
The reliability of the PDA-based toe bearing capacity
was verified by comparing its toe bearing capacities with
those obtained from O-cell tests before the applicability of
the CPT-based methods was to be investigated. It was
found that the Qm,PDA values obtained from the PDA test at
EOID were slightly smaller than the Qm,O-cell values
determined from the O-cell tests, with the Qm,O-cell/Qm,PDA
ratios of 1.15. Thus, this finding indicated the reliability of
the PDA-based toe bearing capacity, and it could be used
as a reference value to evaluate the applicability of the
CPT-based methods.
To determine optimum toe bearing capacities and soil
profiles, three primary selection steps were performed: (1)
correction of CPTu penetration depth, (2) matching of soil
profiles of the CPTus and PDA test locations, and (3)
statistical screening to consider unknown factors, such as
the high variation in sandy soil layers that results in soft
soil portions between sandy soil layers, and the thickness
variation in soil layers within the influence zone. In all, 137
PDA test piles with 144154 toe bearing capacity data sets
were determined.

Acknowledgments The research presented in this paper was conducted with funding from the project entitled Development of
Control System for Disaster of Urban Underground Collapse at
Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology. The
authors acknowledge the financial support from the institution.

References
1. Abu-Farsash MY, Titi HH (2004) Assessment of direct cone
penetration test methods for predicting the ultimate capacity of
friction driven piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
130(GT9):935944
2. Aoki N, De Alencar D (1975) An approximate method to estimate the bearing capacity of piles. In: Proceedings of the 5th PanAmerican conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1, Buenos Aires, pp 367376
3. ASTM D4945-00 (2000) Standard test method for high-strain
dynamic testing of piles. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
4. ASTM D3441-98 (1998) Standard test method mechanical cone
penetration tests of soil. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
5. ASTM D1143M-07 (2007) Standard test methods for deep
foundations under static axial compressive load. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
6. Bloomquist D, McVay M, Hu ZH (2007) Updating Florida of
transportations (FDOT) pile/shaft design procedures based on
CPT and DPT data, UF project 00005780
7. Bullock PJ (2013) O-Cell capacity determination for driven piles.
In: Proceedings of the 2013 Louisiana transportation conference,
February 1720, paper no. S-17
8. Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1982) Pile bearing capacity prediction by means of static penetrometer CPT. In: Proceedings of

123

Acta Geotechnica

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

the 2nd European symposium on penetration testing, vol 2.

ESOPT-II, Amsterdam, pp 493500
Cai G, Liu S, Tong L, Du G (2009) Assessment of direct CPT and
CPTu method for predicting the ultimate bearing capacity of
single piles. Eng Geol 104(34):211222
Clisby MB, Scholtes RM, Corey MW, Cole HA, Teng P, Webb
JD (1978) An evaluation of pile bearing capacities, vol I. Final
report, Mississippi State Highway Department
Davisson MT (1972) High capacity piles. In: Proceedings of the
lecture series on innovations in foundation structures, ASCE
Illinois Section, Chicago, pp 81112
Dung NT, Chung SG, Kim SR, Chung JG (2007) Comparative
study between design methods and pile load tests for bearing
capacity of driven PHC piles in the Nakdong River delta.
J Korean Geotech Soc 23(3):6175
Eslami A, Fellenius BH (1997) Pile capacity by direct CPT and
CPTU methods applied to 102 case histories. Can Geotech J
36(6):886904
Hannigan PJ, Goble GG, Likins GE, Rausche F (2006) Design
and construction of driven pile foundation, vol I. US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, publication
no. FHWA NHI-05-042
Jardine RJ, Chow FC, Overy RF, Standing JR (2005) ICP design
methods for driven piles in sands and clays. Thomas Telford,
London
Kim SR, Chung SG, Fellenius HB (2011) Distribution of residual
load and tru shaft resistance for a driven instrumented test pile.
Can Geotech J 48:583598
Lee CH, An SW, Lee WJ (2014) Real-time monitoring of SPT
donut hammer motion and SPT energy transfer ratio using digital
line-scan camera and pile driving analyzer. Acta Geotech
9:959968
Lehane BM, Schneider JA, Xu X (2005) CPT based design of
driven piles in sand for offshore structures. UWA report, GEO:
05345, University of Western Australia
Likins GE, Rausche F (2004) Correlation of CAPWAP with static
load test. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on
the application of stressware theory to piles, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor, pp 153165
Loadtest project profiles: http://www.loadtest.co.uk/projects/
projects.htm (Accessed 21 Jan 2014)

123

21. Long JH, Wysocker MH (1999) Accuracy of methods for predicting axial capacity of deep foundations. In: Proceedings of the
conference on analysis, design, construction, and testing of deep
foundation (OTRC 99), GSP no. 88, ASCE, Reston, VA,
pp 190195
22. Mayne PW (2007) Cone penetration testing. National Cooperative highway research program, NCHRP synthesis no. 386
23. Mascarucci Y, Miliziano S, Mandolini A (2014) A numerical
approach to estimate shaft friction of bored piles in sands. Acta
Geotech 9:547560
24. Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of
cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Eng Div ASCE
82(SM1):112
25. Philipponnat G (1980) Methode prtique de calcul dun pieuisole a
laide du penetrometre statique. Rev Fr Geotech 10:5564
26. Prince G, Wardle IF (1982) A comparison between cone penetration test results and the performance of small diameter
instrumented piles in stiff clay. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
European symposium on penetration testing, vol 2, Amsterdam,
pp 775780
27. Rausche F, Robinson B, Likins G (2004) On the prediction of
long term pile capacity from end-of-driving information.
Geotechnical special publication, no. 125. ASCE, pp 7795
28. Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test,
performance and design. Report no. FHWA-TS-78-209, US
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
29. Schneider JA, Xu X, Lehane MB (2008) Database Assessment of
CPT-based design methods for axial capacity of driven piles in
siliceous sands. J Geotech Eng ASCE 134(GT9):12271244
30. Singh VK, Chung SG (2013) Shear strength evaluation of lower
sand in Nakdong River delta. Mar Georesour Geotechnol
31(2):107124
31. Thiyyakkandi S, McVay M, Bloomquist D, Lai P (2014)
Experimental study, numerical modeling of and axial prediction
approach to base grouted drilled shafts in cohesionless soils. Acta
Geotech 9:439454
32. Zhou J, Xie Y, Zuo ZS, Luo MY, Tang XJ (1982) Prediction of
limit load of driven pile by CPT. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
European symposium on penetration testing, vol 2, Amsterdam,
pp 957961