CHAPTER 7

BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES IN GRANULAR SOILS BASED ON SPT VALUE

Meyerhof (1956) suggests the following equations for single piles in granular soils based on
SPT values.
For displacement piles :

Qu Qb Q f 40 N cor ( L / d ) Ab 2 N cor As
(7.1a)
For H-piles

Qu Qb Q f 40 N cor ( L / d ) Ab
(7.1b)

qb 40 N cor ( L / d ) Ab 400 N cor

Where,
For bored piles :

Qu 133 N cor Ab 0.67 N cor As

(7.2)
Where
Qu

= ultimate total load in KN

Ncor

= average corrected SPT value below pile tip

N cor
= corrected average value along the pile shaft
Ab

= base area of pile in m2

As

= Shaft surface area in m2

BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES BASED ON STATIC PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

Methods of Determining Pile capacity
The cone penetration test may be considered as a small scale pile load test. As such the results
of this test yield the necessary parameters for the design of piles subjected to vertical load.
Various methods for using CPT results to predict vertical pile capacity have been proposed.
The following methods will be discussed :
1. Vander Veens method
2. Schmertmanns method
Vander Veens Method for Piles in Cohesionless Soils

In the Vander Veen et al, (1957) method, the ultimate end bearing resistance of a pile is taken,
equal to the point resistance of the cone. To allow for the variation of cone resistance which
normaly occurs, the method considers average cone resistance over a depth equal to three
times the diameter of the pile above the pile point level and one diameter below poin level as
shown in Figure. 7.1.

Figure 7.1. Pile capacity by use of CPT values (Vander Veens method)
Experience has shown that if a safety factor of 2.5 is applied to the ultimate end resistance as
determined from cone resistance, the pile is unlikely to settle more than 15 mm under the
working load (Tomlinson, 1986). The equations for ultimate bearing capacity and allowable
load may be written as,
q b q p (cone)

Pile base resistance,

(7.3a)
Qb Ab q p

Ultimate base capacity,

(7.3b)
Qa

Allowable base load,

Ab q p
Fs
(7.3c)

Where, qp = average cone resistance over a depth 4d as shown in Figure 7.1 and Fs = factor of
safety.

Figure 7.2. reistance below pile tip lower than that at pile tip within depth 4d
The shaft friction in the pile shaft in cohesionless soils is obtained from the relationships
established by Meyerhof (1956) as follows.
For displacement piles, the ultimate shaft friction, fs, is given by

fs

qc
(kPa)
2

(7.4a)

And for H-section piles, the ultimate limiting shaft friction is given by

fs

qc
(kPa)
4

(7.4b)

qc
Where

= average cone resistance in kg/cm2 over the length of the pile shaft under

consideration.
Meyerhof states that for straight sided displacement piles, the ultimate shaft friction, fs, has a
maximum value of 107 kPa and for H-sections, a maximum of 54 kPa (calculated on all faces
of flanges and web). The ultimate shaft load is
Q f As f s

(7.5a)
The ultimate load capacity of a pile is
Qu Qb Q f
(7.5b)

The allowable load is

Qu

Qb Q f
2.5

(7.5c)

If the working load, Qa, obtained for a particular position of pile in Figure 7.1, is less than
that required for the structural designers loading conditions, then the pile must be taken to a
greater depth to increase the shaft friction fs or the base resistance qb.
Schmertmanns Method for Cohesionless and Cohesive Soils
Schmertmannss (1978) recommends one procedure for all types of soil for computing the
point bearing capacity of piles. However, for computing side friction, Schmertmann gives
two different approaches, one for sand and one for clay soils.
Point bearing capacity Qb in all types of soil
The method suggested by Schmertmann (1978) is similar to the procedures developed by De
Ruiter and Beringen (1979) for sand. The principle of this method is based on the one
suggested by Vander Veen (1957) and explained earlier. The procedure used in this case
involves determining a representative cone point penetration value, qp, within a depth
between 0.7 to 4d below the tip level of the pile and 8d above the tip level as shown in Figure
7.2 and 7.3. The value of qp may be expressed as

qp

(q c1 q c 2 ) / 2 q c 3
2

(7.6)

Where qc1 = average cone resistance below the tip of the pile over a depth which may vary
between 0.7d and 4d, where d = diameter of pile,
qc2 = minimum cone resistance recorded below the pile tip over the same depth 0.7d
to 4d ,
qc3 = average of the envelope of minimum cone resistance recorded above the pile tip
to a height of 8d.

Figure 7.3. Schmertmanns method, resistance below pile tip greater than that at pile tip
within 0.7d depth.
Now, the unit point resistance of the pile, qb, is
qb ( pile ) q p (cone)
(7.7a)
Qb Ab q p

Ultimate base capacity,

(7.7b)
Qa

Ab q p
Fs

Allowable base load,

(7.7c)

Method of computing the average cone point resistance qp

The method of computing qc1, qc2 and qc3 with respect to a typical qc-plot shown in Figure 7.2
and 7.3 is explained below.
Case 1: When the cone point resistance qc below the tip of a pile is lower than that at the tip
(Fig. 7.2) within depth 4d.

q c1

d 3 (q a q b ) / 2 d 2 (q b q c ) / 2 d 1 (q c q d ) / 2
4d

(7.8a)

Where qa, qb, etc, refer to the points a, b, etc. on the qc-profile, qc2 = qc = minimum value
below tip within a depth of 4d at a point c on the qc-profile.
The envelope of minimum cone resistance
The above the pile tip is as shown by the arrow mark along (7.2) aefghk.

q c3

d 4 q e d 5 (q e q f ) / 2 d 6 q f d 7 (q g q h ) / 2 d 8 q h
8d
(7.8b)

Where qa = qe, qf = qg, qh = qk

Case 2 : When the cone resistance qc below the pile tip is greater than that at the tip within a
depth 4d (Fig. 7.3)
In this case qp is found within a total depth of 0.7d as shown in Fig. 7.3.

q c1

qo qb
2

qc2 = qo = minimum value at the pile tip itself, qc3 = average of the minimum values along the
envelope ocde as before.
In determining the average qc above, the minimum values qc2 selected under Case1 or 2 are to
be disregarded.