Implementation of CPT Technology in

Design and Analysis of Driven Piles

Hani H. Titi, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Associate Professor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh , Ph.D., P.E.
Mark J. Morvant, P.E.
Louisiana Transportation Research Center
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Acknowledgement
The project is financially supported by
the Louisiana Transportation Research
Center and Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development (LA
DOTD)
Dr. Mehmet Tumay
Dr. Khalid Farrag

Contents

LA DOTD Practice
Evaluation of CPT methods
Implementation
Conclusions

LA DOTD Projects
DOTD Bridges are Pile-supported Structures
Poor Soil Conditions (Soft Soil)
High Water Table

Most Common Piles: Square Pre-cast Prestressed Concrete

Problem Statement
High cost of conventional soil exploration
methods for deep foundations
Manpower cutbacks to boring crews
Project delays
Expensive consultant contracts
Need for a reliable method to estimate the
load carrying capacity of friction piles using
CPT technology

Objective and Scope

Objective: To identify the most appropriate

CPT methods for predicting the load
carrying capacity of friction piles
Scope: Square Precast Prestressed
Concrete (PPC) driven piles

LA DOTD Practice

Load (ton)

2000
100

200

300

400

500

600

fe
ct

fit

1500

Qu (Butler-Hoy) = 460 tons

1000

500
(Qu )Davisson = 1.02 * (Qu )Butler-Hoy

Settlement (in.)

pe
r

Davisson ultimate pile capacity (kN)

Static analysis (-method)

Load test (Butler-Hoy method)

20:1

Coef. of det., R2 = 0.99

500

1000

1500

2000

Butler-Hoy ultimate pile capacity (kN)

8

Methodology
Search LA DOTD files to identify pile load
test reports with CPT soundings adjacent to
test piles
Criteria
Square PPC driven piles
Friction piles
Piles tested to failure
36 test piles were identified

Methodology
Determine the ultimate pile load carrying capacity
from load test Butler-Hoy method

Qm

(measured capacity)

Determine the ultimate pile load carrying capacity

from static analysis (-method)

Qp (predicted capacity)

CPT Methods
Determine the ultimate pile load carrying
capacity from the following CPT methods:

Schmertmann
de Ruiter and Beringen
Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC/LCP)
Tumay and Fakhroo
Aoki and De Alencar
Philipponnat
Price and Wardle
Penpile

Qp (predicted capacity)

Evaluation Criteria
Rank the CPT methods based on their
performance according to
The best-fit line R1

The arithmetic mean and standard deviation R2

The cumulative probability R3
The Log Normal distribution R4

Rank Index = R1+R2+R3+R4

Evaluation Criteria
Log Normal Distribution R4
2.4
-method

2.2

Schmertmann

Probability density function

2.0

de Ruiter
LCPC

1.8

Tumay-Fakhroo

1.6

Philipponnat
Aoki-De Alencar

1.4

Price-Wardle
Penpile

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
QP / Qm

Best Performance CPT Methods

de Ruiter and Beringen

Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC/LCP)
Schmertmann method

Implementation Into a Computer Program

Louisiana Pile Design by CPT (LPD-CPT)

Implementation LA DOTD Projects

CPT will supplement the conventional subsurface
exploration techniques
The number of soil borings and pile load tests are
significantly reduced and replaced with a large number
of CPT soundings
The most appropriate method for friction piles is site
specific. Correlation to a test pile is still required

I-310/US 61 Interchange New Orleans, LA

1980
Conventional Layout
I-310/US 61 Interchange
23 Deep Borings
9 Test Piles

1990
CPT Layout
I-310/US 61 Interchange
23 Deep Borings
9 Test Piles
80 CPT Probings

Acceptable blow count

based on CPT

Overdriving based on boring

2001
CPT Layout
I-310/US 61 Interchange
8 Deep Borings
3 Test Piles
80 CPT Probings

State Project No. 829-10- 13

Bayou Lafourche Bridge at Clotilda
Mathews, LA
Lafourche Parish

Foundation:
Required Load:
Tip Elevation:
Load Results:

CPT Application:

24 Test Pile
105.6 Tons
-41.5
66 Tons

16 Test Pile
102.2 Tons
-62.2
> 154 Tons (Did
not fail)

Correlate with load test to determine

pile order lengths

CPT-1

Test Pile 1
24 PPC
Tip Elev. -41.5

CPT-3

DB-1

DB-2

CPT-2

Test Pile 2
16 PPC
Tip Elev. -62

TP 1
TP 2

DB - 1

DB - 2

TP1
TP2

CPT 1

24 Required Load
24 Test Pile

105.6 tons
66 tons

DeRuiter
52 tons
LCPC
70 tons
Schmertmann 93 tons
LCPC Site Factor = 1.06
Required Factored Load = 112 tons

TP1
Required Depth = 51

Pile Design CPT1

CPT 2

Test Load Placed

not Failed
16 Required Load
Test Pile 2 Load
DeRuiter
LCPC
Schmertmann

102.2
>154 tons
125 tons
188 tons
163 tons

Required Factored Load = 108.3 tons

Required Depth = 55

End Bearing = 65 tons

Pile Design CPT2

CPT 3

16 Pile
Required Factored Load

Required Depth = 73

108.3 tons

Implementation LA DOTD Projects

Project

Bayou Milhomme Bridge,

Stevensville, LA
US 90 Southern Pacific
Overpass, Jennings, LA
US 90 Interchange at John
Darnell, New Iberia, LA
US 190 Bayou Clause Bridge,
West Baton Rouge Parish, LA
Bayou Lafourche Bridge at
Clotilda, Lafourche Parish, LA

I-10 @ Williams Blvd

Interchange, Kenner, LA

Lake Bistineau Spillway

Bridge, Bossier Parish, LA

Pile Size
mm (in)

610
(24)
610
(24)
610
(24)
356
(14)
356
(14)
406
(16)
610
(24)
406
(16)
356
(14)
356
(14)
356
(14)
610
(24)

Embedded
Length
m (ft)
10.7
(35)
19.8
(65)
16.2
(53)
12.2
(40)
11.9
(39)
15.2
(50)
12.2
(40)
16.8
(55)
32.6
(107)
22.9
(75)
26.2
(86)
11.9
(39)

Ultimate load carrying capacity, kN (ton)

Qm

Qd

Qp
- method

Qp
(LCPC)

738.4
(83)
1343.4
(151)
2357.6
(265)
1183.2
(133)
1129.8
(127)
729.5
(82)
587.2
(66)
1370.1
(154)
1912.7
(215)
1245.5
(140)
1343.4
(151)
1556.9
(175)

493.8
(55.5)
756.2
(85)
1178.8
(132.5)
800.7
(90)
800.7
(90)
845.2
(95)
939.5
(105.6)
939.5
(105.6)
978.6
(110)
978.6
(110)
978.6
(110)
960.8
(108)

987.5
(111)
987.5
(111)
2793.5
(314)
800.7
(90)
800.7
(90)
800.7
(90)
943.0
(106)
943.0
(106)
1645.8
(185)
934.1
(105)
1112.1
(125)
1209.9
(136)

560.5
(63)
1245.5
(140)
2001.7
(225)
756.2
(85)
738.4
(83)
774.0
(87)
605.0
(68)
1672.5
(188)
1432.3
(161)
756.2
(85)
1067.6
(120)
1850.5
(208)

Qp
(de Ruiter &
Beringen)
427.0
(48)
1023.1
(115)
2028.4
(228)
729.5
(82)
667.2
(75)
605.0
(68)
471.5
(53)
1441.2
(162)
2072.9
(233)
1049.8
(118)
1281.1
(144)
1859.4
(209)

Qp
(Schmertmann)
845.2
(95)
1556.9
(175)
2446.5
(275)
854.1
(96)
827.4
(93)
978.6
(110)
863.0
(97)
1779.3
(200)
2037.3
(229)
1112.1
(125)
1405.6
(158)
2064
(232)

3500
Pile Load Test

3000

-method
LCPC method

300

de Ruiter & Beringen

2500

Schmertmann

2000
200
1500
1000

100

500
0

0
0

Pile number

10

11

12

13

Ultimate load carrying capacity, Qu (kN)

Ultimate load carrying capacity, Qu (ton)

400

CPT vs. Conventional Drilling Method

Typical Cost
Conventional Soil
Exploration

CPT

DOTD

$45/ft - $50/ft

$14/ft

Consultant

$50/ft - $60/ft

$28/ft

Conclusions
de Ruiter and Beringen and LCPC/LCP
methods showed the best performance in
predicting the measured load carrying capacity
of square PPC friction piles driven into
Louisiana soils
LA DOTD adopted these methods for design
/analysis of square PPC friction driven piles

Conclusions
The best performance CPT methods were
implemented into Visual Basic design/analysis
software named Louisiana Pile Design by Cone
Penetration Test. The LPD-CPT program was
used for the design of driven PPC piles on LA
DOTD bridge projects.

Questions