The 12th International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October,

2008 Goa, India

Prediction of the Axial Bearing Capacity of Piles by Five-Cone Penetration Test Based Design Methods
N. R. El-Sakhawy, K. M. Youssef, R. A. E. Badawy
Dept. of structural Engineering, Zagazig Univ., Zagazig, Egypt. Keywords: cone Penetration Test, Toe resistance, shaft resistance, ranking procedure.

ABSTRACT: Five CPT-based design methods are applied to determine the axial capacity of piles. Sixty eight case histories have been collected to evaluate the methods. The Cases have been categorized into three groups: clay, sand, and mixed soil, where evaluation of the methods is conducted according to each soil group. The main requirements, advantages, and limitations of the studied design methods according to each soil group are clarified. A ranking procedure based on statistical and graphical criterions is proposed to quantify the efficiency of the methods. Within the scope of this study, introducing wide-range-parameters in the design equations, and applying one-to-one relation between cone resistance and unit pile capacity weakens the efficiency of performance of the methods.

Introduction

Cone penetration test, CPT, is one of the popular in-situ investigation techniques. Cone penetration test is a process of pushing a cone at the end of series of steel rods at a constant rate. The mobilized resistance to penetration in the soil is continuously monitored during the pushing of the cone. The measurement includes two main records: resistance to penetration of the cone tip (qc), and resistance of advancing the friction sleeve (fs). The sleeve is set directly behind the cone end. There are similarities between cone and pile in the load transfer concept; and in installation procedure. Also, the cone can be considered as a model pile. Moreover, the test is easy, and provides continuous record of soil conditions with depth. All these features have encouraged the study of determining the axial bearing capacity of piles introducing data of cone penetration test. The measured cone resistance, qc, and sleeve friction, fs, can be employed to estimate the unit toe and shaft capacity, q and , respectively. Furthermore, the measurement of the pore water pressure enhances the evaluation of effective parameters around the pile. 1.1 Cone Resistance

Cone resistance, qc, is employed as a major CPT data for pile design. Some methods are limited to use (qc) for design (e.g. Bustamante and Gianeselli; 1982, Almeida et al.; 1996). Some researches suggested a one-to-one relation between the cone resistance, qc, and the pile unit toe capacity, qt (e.g. Kerisl, 1964; Ghionna et al., 1991; and Salgado; 1995). However, other studies contrasted this suggestion. These studies emphasized on employing correlation coefficients to present the differences between cone and pile. The design methods are diverse in accounting these coefficients for design. These differences can be attributed to scale effect, and difference in magnitude of horizontal soil displacements (Briaud and Tucker., 1988), stress distribution encountered in the soil resulting from piling (Zhou et. al., 1982), static loading test effects: procedure of the loading test, elapsed time between pile installation and pile testing, the criteria used to evaluate the failure load, (Almeida, et al., 1996), and the rate of loading (Briaud and Tucker., 1988). The representative cone resistance (qc) is to be averaged along a zone extends above and below the pile toe; that is termed as the influence zone or failure zone. Influence zone defines the failure pattern around the pile toe. The range of the influence zone; and the procedure of the average schemes vary from one method to another.

3415

1.2

Sleeve Friction

Several studies showed that the measurements of sleeve friction are less accurate than cone resistance measurements, Almeida et al., (1996); (Campanella et al. 1983; Konrad et al., 1987). 1.3 Pore Water Pressure

Pore pressure generated during the cone penetration can affect CPT outputs. Thereby, correction of pore pressure is necessary in fine-grained soil. Modifying the cone resistance, and if possible the sleeve friction for pore pressure would simulate the effective stresses that govern the actual behavior of piles in the long term (Campanella et al., 1988; Robertson, 1990; and Eslami et al., 1996). 1.4 CPT Based Design Methods for Determination of the Axial Bearing Capacity of Piles

A number of authors (e.g., Briaud and Tucker, 1988; Campanella et al., 1988; Sharp et al., 1988; and Tand and Funegard, 1989) performed comparisons and analysis between the results of pile capacity design methods based on CPT, laboratory, and in-situ tests. From these researches, it was noticed that three CPT based design methods of: Schmertmann and Nottingham (1978), De Ruiter and Beringen (1979), and Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) depicted well efficiency in pile design. These methods are highly accepted in practice. Therefore, these three methods are considered in this reaearch. The method adapted by the Egyptian Code for Soil Mechanics and Design and Construction of Foundations (2001) is also studied. The fifth method is the method of Eslami and Fellenius (1996). This method employs the CPTu outputs (qc, fs, and u2). 1.4.1 Schmertmann and Nottingham (1978) Unit shaft capacity: For sand, unit shaft capacity () is the minimum of the next two equations. = k fs = c qc Where qc is the total measured cone resistance. k is a dimensionless correction coefficient. For Clay, () can be resulted from the following equation: = fs Where, is a dimensionless reduction coefficient. It is a function of pile shape and material, cone type, and the embedment ratio.

(1) (2)

(3)

1.4.2 De Ruiter and Beringen (The European Method), 1979 Unit Toe capacity: For sand, unit toe capacity, q, is estimated similar to Schmertmann procedure. For clay, q is determined from the total stress analysis according to the conventional bearing capacity theory as follows: q = Nc su (4) su = qc/ Nk (5) Where Nc is the conventional bearing capacity factor taken as 9, su is undrained shear strength, and Nk is the cone factor. It ranges from 15 to 20 reflecting local experience. Unit Shaft Capacity; for sand, unit shaft capacity () is the minimum of the two equations: (6) = fs = qc/300 (7) For tension capacity, () is reduced to 75% of the calculated value by Equation 6, or 7. For clay, () is determined from the undrained shear strength, as follows: = su (8) Where is Adhesion factor equals to unity for normally consolidated clays and 0.5 for over consolidated clays. su can be obtained from Equation (5). An upper limit of 120 kPa is imposed on the unit shaft capacity. 1.4.3 Bustamante and Gianeselli, (LCPC Method), 1982 Unit Toe capacity: The method proposed a technique to find the average cone resistance, qca. The unit toe capacity (q) is determined from the following equation: q= kc qca (9) Where kc is an empirical bearing capacity factor. It depends on soil type and pile installation technique. Unit Shaft Capacity, , is determined from the following equation: = qc / LCPC (10) Where LCPC is a Dimensionless friction coefficient governed by type of soil, and pile installation. 1.4.4 Eslami and Fellenius (1996) Unit Toe Capacity, q, in sand and clay is determined from the following relation: q = qEg

(11)

3416

Where qEg is geometric average of the effective cone point resistance (qE) over the influence zone, qE is the effective cone resistance, qE = qc - u2, and u2 is the measured pore pressure behind the cone. Unit Shaft Capacity: A soil classification chart was presented in developing the method. The chart is basically used to estimate the shaft capacity. The unit shaft capacity, , is a function of point-by point of effective cone resistance. In sand and clay, is determined from the following equation: (12) = Cs qE Where Cs is a dimensionless shaft correlation coefficient 1.4.5 Egyptian Code (2001) Unit Toe Capacity, q, is calculated according to the following equation: q = qca

(13)

Where is a coefficient depends on the ratio of cone to pile diameter and other factors. It can be assumed as 0.7. qca is the average cone resistance over a length extends 6b above to 3b below the pile toe, where b is the pile diameter. Maximum limit for qca is 0.15 MPa. Unit Shaft Capacity, , can be computed using the following relation: = fsa Where fsa is the average sleeve friction along the pile shaft. (14)

Application of CPT Design Methods for Pile Design

The ultimate axial bearing capacity of a pile, Qu, consists of: toe capacity, Q, (toe resistance generated at the toe of the pile), and developed shaft capacity, F, (shear resistance generated along the shaft) in response to the axial load. In cohesive soils, shaft capacity generally dominates. While in non-cohesive soils, toe capacity is the main portion of capacity. Based on the concept of pile load transfer, the predicted ultimate axial capacity can be calculated using the following equation: Qup = Qp + Fp (15) Where Qup is the predicted ultimate axial capacity, Qp is the predicted total toe capacity, and Fp, is the predicted total shaft capacity. Microsoft office, Excel, 2000 program was utilized to assign the predicted capacities. A template file was established to assign the capacities by the five design methods. 2.1 Predicted Toe Capacity

Predicted unit and total toe capacity, q, and Qp, respectively, were calculated for each design method. Design methods are distinguished in two aspects. Firstly: the averaging scheme which is the concept of computing the representative cone resistance (qc) for design; it includes procedure of the averaging scheme and range of the influence zone that cone resistance is averaged along, and Secondly, the correlation coefficients that used to account for the differences between cone and pile. Correlation coefficients are defined for the studied methods. However, the influence zone of the averaging scheme is not defined in all methods. 2.2 Predicted shaft Capacity

Predicted unit and total shaft capacity, and Fp, respectively, were calculated. Fp is computed by summing the shaft capacity mobilized at each soil layer along the pile shaft. Calculation is based on the average value of (qc) or (fs) of the soil layer. Correlation coefficients are used for shaft capacity computation.

Characteristics of the Database

To evaluate the studied CPT-based design methods, a documented database of sixty-eight case records has been collected. These cases included the results of the static pile loading test, Pile characteristics and soil profile at pile location, and CPT sounding performed at the location of pile. The database is categorized into three soil groups to evaluate the performance of each method in different soils. The soil groups are Clay soils: includes twenty-three case records, Sand soils: includes twenty-two case record, and Mixed soils: includes twenty-three case records of mixed sediments of clay, sand, and silt soils. The recorded CPT data: cone penetration resistance, qc, sleeve friction, fs, and pore water pressure, u2, were graphically presented. A manual transformation of data into a digitized one has been conducted. This manipulation is somewhat dependant on the operator influence.

3417

Analysis of CPT-Design Methods

T is a main variable presented in the study for analysis. T= Qup/Qum, where Qup is the predicted ultimate axial capacity of pile, and Qum is the ultimate measured axial capacity. Statistical analysis is applied for direct evaluation of the results. It provides the measures to validate the different methods based on their prediction accuracy. Briaud et al. (1988) considered the plot of predicted versus measured capacity, together with the statistical analysis in the evaluation. They noted that single dependence on the statistical analysis could give misleading conclusions. This is why statistical and graphical analysis criterions were applied in this study to evaluate the design methods. 4.1 Graphical approach

Graphical approach was expressed using the plot of the ultimate predicted, Qup, versus measured axial capacity, Qum. Figure 1 shows the ultimate predicted versus measured axial capacity for the study Database. The hatched line presents the perfect agreement between the predicted and measured capacity. The solid lines present a deviation of 20% than perfect agreement. The regression analysis is also presented. The equations of best-fit line of Qup and Qum, and the corresponding 2 coefficient of determination R were assigned. Results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 1. From Figure 1, it can be shown that for clay groups, scatter of data is less with Bustamante and Gianeselli method. The method also underestimates the capacity. De Ruiter and Beringen method shows high scatter than other methods. For sand group, De Ruiter and Beringen method shows well agreement with measured capacity. Whereas, high scatter of predicted capacity is noticed with Schmertmann and Nottingham method. For mixed soil group, De Ruiter and Beringen, and Eslami and Fellenius methods show well agreement of predicted with measured capacity. Whereas Bustamante and Gianeselli, and Schmertmann and Nottingham show some scatter with measured capacity. Also, Bustamante and Gianeselli method underestimates the capacity.

10

12

8 Qup MN
Qup MN

6 4

Clay
0 0 2 4 6 Qum MN 8 10
0 0 3 6 Qum MN

Sand
9 12

20

16 12

Egyptian Code Eslami and Fellenius Bustamante and Gianeselli De Ruiter and Beringen Schmertmann and Nottingham

Qup MN

8 4

Mixed
0 12 16 20 Qum MN Figure 1. Agreement between Predicted and Measured Pile Capacity 0 4 8

3418

4.2

Numerical Approach

4.2.1 Cumulative Probability Function Long et al. (1989), and Alsamman (1995) proposed the cumulative probability function, CPi, of Qup/Qum to evaluate the performance of CPT design methods. The concept can be summarized as follows: 1. For each method, the ratio T (T= Qup/Qum) is arranged in an ascending order. The smallest T is given an index, i, =1, and the largest is given i=n, where n is the number of cases. 2. The cumulative probability function, CPi, for each case is computed. CPi can be calculated using the following equation: CPi
=

i n + 1

(16)

Where CPi is Cumulative probability function, i is the index of the case considered in CPi calculation, and n is the Total number of cases. 3. Each ascending ratio, T, is plotted versus the corresponding value of the cumulative probability function, CPi %,). Cumulative probability function has been applied to determine the 50%, and 90% cumulative probability value of T, P50 and P90, respectively. Design method is considered better when P50 value is closer to 1, and P50-P90 value is the lowest. Figure 2 depicts the plot of the cumulative probability function of T for the study database.
3 Sand 2.5 2

2.5 Clay 2 1.5

1.5 1 0.5 0 0
2.5 Mixed 2 1.5

T 1 0.5 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 CP i % 70 80 90 100

10

20

30

40

50 CP i %

60

70

80

90 100

T 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 CP i % 70 80 90 100
Bustamante and Gianeselli Schmertmann and Nottingham Egyptian Code

Eslami and Fellenius De Ruiter and Beringen

Figure 2. Cumulative Probability Function for the Study Database 4.2.2 Mean and Standard Deviation The arithmetic mean, , of T represents the accuracy of the predicted pile capacity. The mean can show how well the pile capacity is estimated around the average. The standard deviation, , of T shows the precision of the predicted values in comparison to the measured values. Mean and standard deviation of T can be determined using the following equations:

(T ) =
(T ) =

1 n

(T )
2

(17) (18)

i=1

n 1 n 1 i =1

((T ) )

3419

Where is the arithmetic mean, is the standard deviation, Qup is the total predicted ultimate capacity, Qum is the total measured ultimate capacity, and n is the Number of piles. The method is considered better when mean (T) is closer to 1.0, and standard deviation (T) is closer to 0.0. The ranking was such that the best method in this statistical measure achieves a rank of 1, and the worst is ranking as number 5.0. 4.2.3 The Ranking Procedure Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC) introduced a ranking procedure in its Project No. 98-3GT. A similar ranking procedure was applied to evaluate the design methods. The procedure is based on the results of the regression analysis, Mean and Standard Deviation, and the cumulative probability function criterions. It can be explained in the following steps: 1. For each analysis criterion, a rank index, ri, is assigned to express the efficiency of the method in predicting the pile capacity. The method which shows the best criterion achieves ri= 1; and that shows the worst criterion achieves ri= 4. 2. The general rank rg is the algebraic sum of the three rank index as shown in the following equation: rg=r1+ r2+r3 (19) 3. Finally, the method with the lowest rg is considered the most efficient method, and achieves the evaluation index E=1. Whereas, the method with the largest rs is given the last evaluation index (E=5). Table 2 presents the results of the analysis criterions used to evaluate the methods. In order to clarify the differences between the methods, unit toe and shaft capacities are calculated mean and standard deviations are also calculated. Table 1. Evaluation Results for the Studied Database
Method R B,G DR,B E,F S,N EC B,G DR B E,F S,N EC B,G DR,B E,F S,N EC
2

Regression Analysis Equation between Qup,, and Qum (MN) Qup= 0.68Qum+0.27 Qup= 0.92Qum+0.77 Qup= 1.04Qum+0.49 Qup= 0.44Qum+0.95 Qup= 0.67Qum+0.85 Qup= 1.45Qum-0.19 Qup= 1.22Qum-0.18 Qup=1.57Qum-0.06 Qup=1.50Qum+0.53 Qup=1.20Qum+0.23 Qup=0.63Qum+0.24 Qup=1.09Qum+0.29 Qup=0.95Qum+0.15 Qup=1.01Qum+0.03 Qup=0.86Qum+0.08 r1

Statistical Analysis Mean of T r2 1 5 4 2 3 2 1 4 5 3 5 4 1 2 3

Cumulative Probability Function T at P50 0.85 1.61 1.31 1.21 1.30 1.37 1.00 1.26 1.80 1.25 0.77 1.17 1.05 0.98 0.93 r3 1 5 4 2 3 4 1 3 5 2 5 4 2 1 3

Evaluation rg 3 13 10 8 11 9 4 12 14 6 14 13 4 5 9 E 1 5 3 2 4 3 1 4 5 2 5 4 1 2 3

0.91 0.54 0.80 0.39 0.39 0.89 0.90 0.76 0.88 0.91 0.87 0.80 0.92 0.88 0.88

Clay-soil Group 1 0.90 3 1.62 2 1.40 4 1.25 5 1.30 Sand-soil Group 3 1.30 2 1.01 5 1.43 4 1.88 1 1.37 Mixed-soil Group 4 0.74 5 1.24 1 1.02 2 1.06 3 0.94

B,G= Bustamante and Gianeselli, DR,B= De Ruiter and Beringen, E,F= Eslami and Fellenius, S,N= Schmertmann and Nottingham; EC= Egyptian Code

, R2 coefficient of determination, r1= rank of regression analysis, r2= rank of statistical analysis, r3= rank of cumulative probability function, S, N= Schmertmann and Nottingham, T= Qup/Qum, P50 Cumulative probability value at 50%, ro = general rank= r1+r2+r3, E= Evaluation index

3420

Table 2. Relative Comparison between CPT- Methods

Method Statistics of Predicted Unit Toe Statistics of predicted Unit Shaft Capacity Capacity Min. q Max q M of q SD of q Min Max M of SD of Clay-soil Group 0.86 14.34 3.92 3.66 0.04 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.95 16.67 3.67 3.89 0.10 0.24 0.17 0.06 2.05 28.99 7.71 7.31 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.04 1.45 15.00 6.10 3.65 0.03 0.24 0.10 0.06 1.28 10.50 4.20 2.57 0.07 0.20 0.11 0.03 Sand-soil Group 1.48 15.2 4.79 3.38 0.04 0.45 0.14 0.09 2.75 15.00 8.14 4.69 0.01 0.31 0.09 0.06 2.33 27.57 10.18 7.63 0.03 0.48 0.13 0.09 2.75 15.00 8.14 4.69 0.05 0.46 0.22 0.09 2.72 19.52 7.77 5.27 0.06 0.50 0.13 0.08 M= Mean, SD = standard deviation

B, G DR, B E, F S, N EC B, G DR, B E, F S, N EC

5.
5.1

Discussion and Analysis of the Results

Clay-soil Group

From Table 2, the following can be concluded: Bustamante and Gianeselli method has the highest efficiency of prediction in clay soil. The ultimate design load in clay can be computed by Bustamante and Gianeselli method as follows: P=1.05 Qup - 0.16 MN Where P is the ultimate design load, Qup is the pile capacity calculated from the method. (20)

The Mean of T (T=Qup/Qum) is greater than 1for the: De Ruiter and Beringen, Eslami and Fellenius, Schmertmann, and Egyptian Code methods. That is these methods overpredict the pile capacity. Whereas, Bustamante and Gianeselli method underestimates the capacity, since it shows a mean of T lower than 1. De Ruiter and Beringen method shows the worst performance (E=5). As can be seen from Equation: 4 to 8, the method introduces the parameters: cone factor, Nk, and adhesion factor, , for calculation of the unit shaft capacity, . The method assigned a wide range for Nk (15 to 20 depending on the local experience). The method also assigned a wide range for (1.0 for normally consolidated clay, and 0.5 for over consolidated clay). These wide ranges may contribute to the poor performance of the method in clay soil. This remark can also be noted from Table 2, where the method gives the highest prediction of (Mean of =0.17 MPa.) Schmertmann and Nottingham, and Eslami and Fellenius methods overpredicted the total capacity. That is their mean of T is 1.25, and 1.40 respectively. Also, both methods show the highest prediction of q, as shown from Table 2. In both methods, cone resistance is directly employed without correlation coefficient. (i.e. one-to-one relation between the cone resistance; qc, and the predicted unit toe capacity, q). The correlations coefficients compensates for the differences between cone and pile (Briaud and Tucker, 1988; Almeida, et al., 1996; Zhou et al., 1982). It is likely that one-to-one relation can result in overprediction of capacity 5.2 Sand soil Group

From Table 1, The following discussion can be derived: De Ruiter and Beringen method depicted well efficiency of prediction comparable to the other four methods. (E=1). Also the Egyptian Code depicts well performance (E=2). Then for designing the axially loaded piles in sand, the following relations ca be applied: De Ruiter and Beringen: MN (21) P=0.69Qup-0.13 Egyptian Code: P=0.84 Qup+0.19 MN (22) Where P is the Ultimate design load, and Qup is the Calculated load by the method. Eslami and Fellenius method shows poor performance in sand ( of T=1.43, E=4). And from Table 2, the method shows the highest prediction of q (Mean of q=10.18 MPa). As discussed about performance of the method in clay-soil group, the same explanation can be concluded here. That is the one-to-one relation between q and qE, can explain the less reliability of the results.

3421

 Schmertmann and Nottingham method demonstrated the worst efficiency of prediction in sand (E=5). The method chooses the minimum value of Equations 1 and 2 for computation of the unit shaft capacity, . For Equation 1, the method introduces the correlation coefficient k. k ranges from 0.8 to 2, depending on pile shape, cone type, and embedment ration. And for Equation 2, the method presents the correlation coefficient: c. c ranges from 0.8 to 1.8%, depending on the pile type. The wide range of these coefficients can explain the poor performance of the method in sand. This remark can be emphasized from Table 2, where the method gives the highest prediction of (Mean = 0.22 MPa). Bustamante and Gianeselli method shows moderate efficiency in sand soil (E=3). The method showed the lowest prediction of q (Mean of q=4.79 MPa; Table 2. From Equation 9, the method introduces an empirical bearing capacity factor, kc. kc ranges from 0.4 to 0.5. It seemed that the low range of kc could affect the reliability of results in sand. Also the influence zone applied by the method extends from 1.5 b above to 1.5 b below the pile toe, where b is the pile diameter. Eslami et, al., 1996 noted that it is important to chose an influence zone deeper than 1.5 b for two reasons: firstly: the horizontal extension of rupture surface, which ranges from 2b to 5b; and secondly to include the punching effect. It is possible that this constricted range of the influence zone leads to underprediction of the capacity. 5.3 Mixed-soil Group

Mixed-soil group encounters different soil layers along pile shaft. Evaluation of mixed soil is limited to introduce the results of the predicted total capacities. From Table 2, it can be noted that Bustamante and Gianeselli method shows poor performance (E=5). Egyptian Code method shows well performance in mixed soil (E=3). Eslami and Fellenius, and Schmertmann and Nottingham method show the highest evaluation in mixed soil. Then for designing the axially loaded piles in mixed soil, the following relations can be applied: Eslami and Fellenius P=1.05 Qup- 0.16 MN (23) Schmertmann and Nottingham P=0.99 Qup- 0.03 MN (24) Where P is the Ultimate design load, and Qup is the Calculated load by the method. 5.4 Factors Affecting the Predicted Capacity

For a particular soil type, CPT design methods differentiate in their performance. Moreover, performance of a method itself differs from a soil type to another. Correlation coefficients are employed to compensate the differences between cone and pile. Introducing correlation coefficients produce different capacities from one method to another. In addition to the correlation coefficients, other factors can affect the predicted capacity. These factors can be attributed to the next four main groups: Soil: This group includes soil conditions associated with the pile implementation such as the effects of strain softening, resistance degradation due to pile installation, sensitivity, and dilatancy of soil during pile installation. Factors like soil density, and the availability of compiling boring or sampling to verify local correlations are also affective. Design method: includes the ability of the correlation coefficients to decrease the differences between pile and cone, proposed averaging procedure, and range of the influence zone would affect the predicted capacity. Operator: Influence of the operator could affect the results in two aspects: choosing appropriate correlation factors; such as Nk, and Accuracy in applying the average procedure Cone: This group includes the effect of missing data, graphical presentation that would be transferred to digitized data, and length of CPT profile to fulfill the design requirements could also affect the accuracy of the results.

Conclusions

Bustamante and Gianeselli method is the most efficient design method in clay soil, whereas, De Ruiter and Beringen, and Egyptian Code are well efficient in sand soil. Eslami and Fellenius method exhibits well performance in predicting the unit shaft capacity in sand. The wide or limited ranges of the correlation coefficients contribute to the poor performance of the methods. Also, the one-to-one relation between cone resistance; qc, and predicted unit toe capacity, q, causes overprediction of capacity. The averaging scheme applied by Schmertmann and Nottingham, method to assign the representative cone resistance for design is accountable on the operator influence. Reduction factor adopted by De Ruiter and Beringen method for tension loading underestimates the shaft capacity in sand. Whereas that presented by Schmertmann and Nottingham is ineffective in improving the predicted capacity of

3422

method in sand. Correlation coefficients affect the predicted capacity from one method to another. Other factors affect the predicted capacity can be attributed to four groups related to Soil Factors, Design method, Designer, and Cone data.

References

Danziger, F. A. B., and Lume, T. 1996. Use of the Piezocone Test to predict the Axial Capacity of driven and jacked Piles in Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, No.1, pp. 23-41. Alsamman, O. M. 1995. The Use of CPT for Calculating Axial Capacity of Drilled Shafts. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 300 p. (a, c) Altaee, A., Evgin, E., and Fellenius, B. H. 1992. Axial load Transfer for Piles in Sand-I, Tests on an instrumented Precast Pile. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 11-20. (a, c). Altaee, A., Evgin, E., and Fellenius, B. H. 1992 Axial load Transfer for Piles in Sand-II, Numerical Analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 21-30. (a, c). Begemann, H. K. 1965. The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aid in Determining The Soil Profile. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. ICSMFE-6, Montreal, September 8-15, pp. 17-20. (a, c). Briaud, J. L., and Tucker, L. M. 1988. Measured and Predicted Axial Response of 98 Piles. Geotechnical Engineering Journal. ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 9, pp. 984-1001. Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli, L. 1982. Pile Bearing Capacity By Means of Static Penetrometer CPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-II, Amsterdam, May 24-27, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 493-500. Campanella, R. G., and Robertson, P. K. 1988. Current Status of the Piezocone Test. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing. ISOPT-1, Orlando, Fla., March 22-24, Vol. 1, pp. 93-116. Campanella, R. G., Robertson, P. K., and Gillespie, D. R.G. 1983. Cone Penetration Testing in Deltaic Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 25-35. De Ruiter, J. 1982. the Static Cone Penetration Test, State of- the Art-Report. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing. ESOPT-2, Amsterdam, May 24-27, pp. 389-403. De Ruiter, J., and Beringen, F. L. 1979. Pile Foundation for Large North Sea Structures. Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 237314. (a, b, c, d). Egyptian Code for Soil Mechanics, and Design and Construction of Foundations. 2001. Part 1. Egyptian Code for Soil Mechanics, and Design and Construction of Foundations. 2001. Part 4. Eslami, A. 1996. Bearing Capacity of Piles from Cone Penetrometer Test Data. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Canada. 236 p. Fellenius, B. H., and Eslami, A. 2002. Soil Profile Interpreted from CPT Data. Geotechnical Engineering Conference. Asian Institute of Technology. Bangkok. Thailand. November 27-30, 18 p. Ghionna, V. N., and Jamiolkowski, M. 1991. A Critical Appraisal of Calibration Chamber Testing of Sands. Proceedings of the 1 International Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing. ISOCCT-1. Potsdam. New York, pp. 13-39. (a, c).
st

Hani, H. T., and Abu Farakash, Y. M. 1999. Evaluation of Bearing Capacity of Piles from Cone Penetration Test Data. Louisiana Transportation Research Center. LTRC. Project no. 98-3GT. State Project no. 736-0533. 100 p. Kerisel, J. 1964. Deep Foundation-Basic Experimental Facts. Proceedings of North American Conference on Deep Foundations. Mexico. pp. 1-13. (a, c) Konrad, J. M., and Roy, M. 1987. Bearing Capacity of Friction Pile in Marine Clay. Geotechnique Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 163-175. Meyerhof, G. G. (1956), Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils, Geotechnique Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 301-332 (a, c) Robertson, P. K. (1990), Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 151-158. Salgado, R. (1995), Design of Piles in Sands based on CPT Results, Proceedings of the 10th Panamerican CSMFE, Vol. 3, pp. 1261-1274.(a) Sharp, M. R., Mcvey, M. C., Townsend, F. C., and Basnett, C. R. 1988. Evaluation of Pile Capacity From In Situ Tests. Soil Properties Evaluation From Centrifugal Models and Field Performance at ASCE National Convention. Nashville. Tennesse. May. pp. 134-156 (a, c). Tand, K. E., and Funegard, E. G. 1989. Pile Capacity in Stiff Clays-CPT Method. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. ICSMFE-12. Rio De Janeiro. Vol. 1, pp. 349-352. (a, c). Tummay, M. Y., and Fakhroo M. 1981. Pile Capacity of Soft Clays Using Electric CPT Data. American Society of Civil Engineering, ASCE, Proceedings of Conference on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience. St. Louis, October 26-30, pp. 434-455. (a). Zhou, J., Xie, Y., Zou, Z. S., Luo, M. Y., and Tang, X. J. 1982. Prediction of Limit Load of driven Pile by CPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing. ESOPT-II. Amsterdam. Vol. 2, PP. 957-961.
a

cited by Eslami et al., (1996), cited by Hani et al., (1999), cited by Lunne et al., (1996), cited by Robertson et al., (1985).

3423