Based on:

 Cone Penetration Test &

 Standard Penetration Test

_rev 2015
 In-situ Testing
• When it is difficult to obtain “undisturbed”
samples
• Cohesionless soils, Sensitive clays
• In-situ Test Methods
– Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
– Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
– Pressure-meter Test (PMT)
– Flat Plate Dilatometer Test (DLT)
– Vane Shear Test (VST)

_rev 2015
 Advantages of in-situ testing include:

• Larger volume of soil can be tested (in

comparison with soil sampling and laboratory
testing)
• Continuous soil profile can be produced
• It may be the only practical choice in
cohesionless soil
• Soils are tested in their natural state
• Most in-situ test methods are efficient and
thus can be less costly
Source: Huang, 2018

_rev 2018
 Limitations of of in-situ testing are:

• Lack of well-defined boundary and

drainage conditions
• The tests often involve complicated
strain fields and stress paths
• Soil physical features are not positively
identified (no soil sample is taken,
except for standard penetration test)

Source: Huang, 2018

_rev 2018
Penetrometers,
developed
over time
(Source: A P van den Berg)

Was developed in Indonesia by

Begemann

_rev 2015
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
A & B - Brazilian donut hammer C & D - USA donut hammer E - USA safety hammer
F - Booros Co Ltd. Darp hammer G – USA Pilcon trip hammer H – British automatic hammer
J – Japanese aotomatic hammer
SPT split-spoon sampler: (a) IRTP (1988) and (b) ASTM D 1586 (1999).

Grd @ 2007 rev 2018

Driving sequence in an SPT
PRESSUREMETER TEST

_rev 2015
FLAT DILATOMETER TEST

_rev 2015
 VANE SHEAR TEST

Source: Soil Mechanics and Foundations-3rd Ed (Bhudu M)

Gerard@2007-rev2018
_rev 2018
 Vander Veen's
 Schmertmann
 de Ruiter and Beringen
 Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC/LCP)
 Tumay and Fakhroo
 Aoki and De Alencar
 Price and Wardle
 Penpile method

_rev 2015
_rev 2015
Soil Type as a Function of Friction Ratio
(Begemann, 1965)

SOIL TYPES FRICTION RATIO

Coarse sand with gravel through fine sand 1.2 % - 1.6 %
Silty sand 1.6 % - 2.2 %
Silty sandy clayey soils 2.2 % - 3.2 %
Clay and loam, and loam soils 3.2 % - 4.1 %
Clay 4.1 % - 7.0 %
Peat >7 %

After Fellenius, B. H., and Eslami, A.

CPT interpretation Soil Classification

_rev 2015
Two well-known approaches:
(1) Direct approach in which
● The unit tip bearing capacity of the pile (qp) is evaluated
from the cone tip resistance (qc) profile.
● The unit skin friction of the pile (f) is evaluated from either
the sleeve friction (fs) profile or the cone tip resistance (qc)
profile.
(2) Indirect approach: in which the CPT data (qc and fs) are first
used to evaluate the soil strength parameters such as the un-
drained shear strength (Su) and the angle of internal friction
(f). using formulas derived based on semi-empirical/
theoretical methods. (Not recomended)

_rev 2015
 CPT Design Apporach

CPT Data
qc, fs, and FR

Direct Approach Indirect Approach

Used CPT data to evaluate soil

- Tip bearing is based on qc
- Skin Frictin are based on qc
or fs
stregth parameters (f and Su)
Using formulas derived based
on semi-empirical/theoretical
methods (Static Methods)
 Vander Veen's Method

Qu = Qp + Qs = qpAp + f As

_
_
qc
qp  qc f 
2

For qp qc = average cone resistance over a depth of

D below and 3D above pile toe.
For fs qc = average cone resistance over the length of
the pile shaft under consideration

_rev 2015
 Schmertmann Method

Qu = Qp + Qs = qpAp + f As

ω(qc1  qc2)
qp  f = c fs
2

qc1 = the minimum of the average cone tip resistances of

zones ranging from 0.7D to 4D below the pile tip
qc2 = the average of minimum cone tip resistances over
a distance 8D above the pile tip

_rev 2015
The method of computing 𝑞ത c1 and 𝑞ത c2

Case 1 Case 2
_rev 2015
 Cone Resistance (kg/cm2) qc1 = Average qc over a distance
of yD below the pile tip (path a-b-
c). Sum qc values in both the
downward (path a-b) and upward
(path b-c) directions. Use actual qc
values along path a-b and the
minimum path rule along path b-c.
Compute qc1 for y values from 0.7
Depth (m)

and 4.0 and use the minimum qc1

values obtained.

qc2 = Average qc over a distance

of 8D above the pile tip (path c-e).
Use the minimum path rule as for
path b-c in the qc1 computations.
Ignore any minor 'x' peak
depressions if in sand, but include
in minimum path if in clay.
Penetration design curves for pile side
friction in clay in Schmertmann method
Penetrometer to Pile Friction Ratio fs (c)

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80
Concrete & Timber Piles
0.60

0.40
Steel Piles
0.20

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Penetrometer Sleeve Friction – fs (kg/cm2)

For piles in sand, the friction capacity (Qs)
is obtained by:

where :
s = the correction factor for sand, which can
be obtained from figure 5
y = the depth at which side resistance is
calculated
L = the pile length
Schmertmann suggested a limit of 1.2 TSF
(120 kPa) on f.
The correction  factor for sand
Bustamante and Gianeselli Method
(LCPC/LCP Method)

In this method, both the unit tip bearing capacity (qp)

and the unit skin friction (f) of the pile are obtained
from the cone tip resistance (qc) . The sleeve friction
(fs) is not used.
The unit tip bearing capacity of the pile (qp) is predicted
from the following equation:
Where:
kb = empirical bearing capacity factor that varies from 0.15 to
0.60 depending on the soil type and pile installation
procedure (table 1)

Tabel 1. LCPC bearing capacity factor (kb )

Soil Type Bored Piles Driven Piles

Clay - Silt 0.375 0.600
Sand-Gravel 0.150 0.375
Chalk 0.200 0.400
qeq(tip) = the equivalent average cone tip resistance around the
pile tip, which is obtained as follows:

1. Calculate the average tip resistance (qca) at the tip of the

pile by averaging qc values over a zone ranging from 1.5D
below the pile tip to 1.5D above the pile
2. Eliminate qc values in the zone that are higher than 1.3qca
and those are lower than 0.7qca as shown in figure 1, and
3. Calculate the equivalent average cone tip resistance
qeq(tip) by averaging the remaining cone tip resistance (qc)
values over the same zone (bordered by thick lines in
figure 1)
 D qca

Pile
1.5D

1.5D
Depth

Figure 1. Determination of qca

The pile unit skin friction (f) in each soil layer is estimated from the
equivalent cone tip resistance qeq(side) of the soil layer, soil type,
pile type, and installation procedure. The following procedure
explains how to determine the unit skin friction (f):

1. Based on the pile type, select the pile category from table 2 (for
example, pile category is 9 for square PPC piles),
2. For each soil layer, select the appropriate curve number (tables
3 and 4) based on soil type, equivalent cone tip resistance
along the soil layer qeq(side), and pile category, use table 3 for
clay and silt and table 4 for sand and gravel,
3. From figure 7, use the selected curve number and the
equivalent cone tip resistance qeq(side) to obtain the maximum
unit skin friction (f), use figure 7a for clay and silt and figure 7b
for sand and gravel.
Pile categories for LCPC method
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . continued
Input parameters for clays & silts for LCPC method
Input parameters for sand & gravel for LCPC method
Maximum friction curves for LCPC method

CLAY - SILT
SAND - GRAVEL
 Selected pile type for Clays and Silts

Type Description Design Curve for Clays and Silts

1 2 3 4 5
1 (1) Drilled shaft built using a, b b, j
the open hole method

2 (2) Drilled shaft built using a, b b, j

drilling mud

3 (3) Drilled shaft built using j j

casing
4 (5) Hand excavated pier a c
5 (9) Concrete pile, installed a c f
using pile hammer

6 (10) Steel pile, installed a, d

using pile hammer

7 (14) Jacked concrete pile a c

 Selected pile type for Sands and Gravels

Type Description Design Curve for Sands and Gravels

1 2 3 4 5
1 (1) Drilled shaft built using
the open hole method

2 (2) Drilled shaft built using m, q q u v

drilling mud

3 (3) Drilled shaft built using m, q q u v

casing
4 (5) Hand excavated pier

5 (9) Concrete pile, installed m p t

using pile hammer

6 (10) Steel pile, installed m, o o s

using pile hammer

7 (14) Jacked concrete pile m p t

 Example
• The CPT data shown on the next slide
represent the soil condition at a proposed
construction sites.
• Compute the allowable load capacity of an 18
inch (457mm) square, 34 ft (10.36m) long
prestressed concrete pile that is to be driven
into this soil.
 Sand

D = 0.457

Clay

10.36 3D Sand
 Calculation
• Distance range to calculate qca
1.5 x D = 1.5 x 0.457 = 0.6855 = 0.69
Top limit = 10.36 – 0.69 = 9.67
Botom limit = 10.36 + 0.69 = 11.05

• Compute qca for the soil between the depths

= (107+102+109+115+105+108+99)/7
= 106,4 kg/cm2
 .........................continued
For driven piles on sands per Table
kc = 0.375

qp = qca kc = (106.4)(0.375) = 39.9 kg/cm2

Area (Ap) = (45.7)2 = 2088.5 cm2

Qp = qp Ap =39.9 x 2088.5 = 83,33 kg

 Skin Friction

Depth (m) Soil qc Curve fs As Qs

Type (kg/cm2) No. (lb/ft2)/TSF (ft2)/(cm2) (k)/(kg)
0 - 4.5 Sand 27.4 1
4.5 – 7.9 Clay 6.5 1
7.9 – 10.36 Sand 89.5 2
Total 167.9
 End Bearing Calculations
x xB D+xB qc1 calculation Qc1
(m) (m) (kg/cm2)
0.7 0.32 10.68 1/4115+3(105) 107.5
1.0 0.46 10.82 1/6115+105+2(108)+2(105) 107.7
1.5 0.69 11.05 1/8115+105+108+5(99) 102.9
2.0 0.91 11.27 1/10115+105+108+99+2(108)+4(990) 103.9
2.5 1.14 11.50 1/12115+105+3(108)+5(99)+2(114) 105.6
3.0 1.37 11.73 1/14115+105+3(108)+5(99)+114+2(117) 107.2
3.5 1.60 11.96 1/16115+105+3(108)+5(99)+114+117+4(1 107.1
11)
3.75 1.71 12.07 1/18115+105+2(108)+5(99)+114+117+111 105.7
+6(105)

(qc1)min = 102.9 kg/cm2 (or tsf)

 qc2 calculation

D-8B = 10.36 -8(0.457) = 6.70 m

(upper limit of qc2 averaging

qc2 = 1/18(5(99)+2(93)+85+3(70)+50+0.6[8+2(7)+3(6)]
= 58.3 kg/cm2

qp = ½(102.9+58.3) = 80.6 kg/cm2

Qp = qp x Ap = 80.6 x 45.72 = 168.33 ton
 Single Pile Capacity
(Standard Penetration Test)
General review of SPT:
N value = the blow count for the last 300 mm penetration
N value should be corrected to N60 and N’60 by using the
following formulas:

N value N60 N’60

Testing prosedures Overburden correction
Skempton (1986)
N60 = (EmCBCS CRN)/0.60 testing procedure correction
For practical use in Indonesia:
Em = 0.50, CB = 1.0, CS = 1.0, and CR = 0.75 to 1.00
Efficiencies f Borehole Sampling Methods Rod length factor

CR correction
3 – 4 meter : 0.75
4 – 6 meter : 0.85
6 – 10 meter : 0.95
 10 meter : 1.00
Types of SPT hammers
 Overburden correction

For normally consolidated fine sands:

CN = 2 / (1 + ’v/r)
For normally consolidated coarse sands:
CN = 3 / (2 + ’v/r)
For overconsolidated sands:
CN = 1.7 / (0.7 + ’v/r)
 Single Pile Capacity
(Standard Penetration Test)
Meyerhof (1976)
Formulas for unit end bearing resistance
For sands and gravels:
qp = 0.40 N’60 D/B r ≤ 4.0 N’60 r Where: r = 100 kPa
(reference stress)

For nonplastic silts:

qp = 0.30 N’60 D/B r ≤ 3.0 N’60 r
N value within the range of 1B above to 2B below the pile
tip (B = pile diameter)
 Continued . . . . .

Formulas for unit skin friction resistance

For large displacement piles:
fs = r /50 N60 = 2.N60
For small displacement piles :
fs = r /100 N60 = N60

N value within the whole length of piles (average

area method is recommended)
Briaud et al (1985)
unit end bearing resistance
qp = 19.70 r (N60)0.36

unit skin friction

fs = 0.224 r (N60)0.29
 Example:
N60 Value

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
6
2 8
Pile
4 9

6 14
Depth (m)

10 12

12
17
14

16 1B
23
18

20 2B 32

22 31

24
Parameters available from available in situ tests
according to ground conditions