3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - 2014

Assessment of soil parameters via CPT in numerical modeling of a

continuous flight auger pile
Jean Rodrigo Garcia and Paulo Jos Rocha de Albuquerque
Unicamp, Campinas, Brazil

ABSTRACT: Geotechnical parameters are the basis to understand the behavior of a foundation element.
However, there are several ways to obtain the mechanical characteristics of soils for geotechnical design.
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) provides soil parameters with high reliability. In this sense, the behavior
of a continuous flight auger pile is analyzed. The pile was instrumented in depth, and was executed at the
experimental field of foundations of Unicamp, located in the city of Campinas/SP/Brazil. The subsoil
profile is comprised of residual diabase soil. The geotechnical parameters of the subsoil were estimated by
means of empirical and semi-empirical correlations of different soil layers by means of values for tip
resistance (qc) and side resistance (fs) of the mechanical CPT (Begeman cone). The pile was submitted to a
slow maintained load (SML) test, and the results were compared with those produced by means of 3-D
numerical modeling by the method of finite elements based on the parameters estimated by CPT.

1. INTRODUCTION

The results from CPT tests provide stratigraphic identification of soil profiles, and help determine their
mechanical properties estimated based on empirical and semi-empirical correlations to be applied in
several areas of geothecnics, particularly to forecast the capacity of load and settlements of foundations
(Budhu, 2006; Barnes, 2000; Chen, 2002).
The key advantage of conducting laboratory tests to get project parameters is the possibility of
controlling test conditions, thus enabling the execution of a series of simulations. However, the quality of
results of tests carried out on samples is very dependent on the quality of such samples. Depending on the
type of test, the effect of disturbance caused by the sampling procedure may be significant, particularly in
the case of sands. Moreover, the results of such tests do not reflect some of the characteristics of the
loading, and this is critical to forecast foundation response. (Giacheti & Queiroz, 2004).
In situ cone penetration tests (CPT) enable identification of the geotechnical profile of the terrain and
make a preliminary analysis of soil geotechnical parameters (Lunne et al., 1997). In general, two
measurements obtained from CPT tests are used to calculate the load capacity and settlement of
foundations by means of semi-empirical and analytical methods. In this work, an analysis was made of the
behavior of an instrumented continuous flight auger pile by means of a load test and from the results of
finite element analyses using the CESAR LCPC software program.

2. ESTIMATE OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS

The soil parameters were derived from CPT-based empirical and semi-empirical correlations found in the
geotechnical literature. According to the classification of soil layers as a function of their mechanical
characteristics indicated by the results of the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), the equations shown below
were used:
The estimate of geotechnical parameters from the formulations based on field tests made it possible to
obtain the behavior of the load-settlement curve produced by the numerical method (Garcia et al., 2013).
781
 In order to determine the elastic modules of soil layers characterized by mechanical behavior of sand,
the equation determined by Trofimenkov (1974) is used for soviet sands:

= 130 + 3,4 (in kgf/cm) (1)

The ratio between the deformability modulus (E) and the net cone resistance (qc - vo) for different soil
follows the following ratio developed by Kulhawy & Mayne (1990):

E = 8,25 (q ) (2)

For soil layers indicated as having clayey behavior, the elasticity modulus is determined by Barata
(1986) for clays of the regions of Campinas-SP:

= where 5.2 < < 9.2 (3)

The values of friction angle () were determined from the correlations developed by Kulhawy &
Mayne (1990) for sands, as shown below:

(4)
= 0,1 + 0,381 log

where:
qc cone resistance;
v0 effective vertical stress

In order to estimate the undrained strength of clayey soils from the CPT, the following equation
proposed by Lunne et al. (1997), can be used, with NK assuming values that vary from 15 to 20.

s = (5)

where: NK cone factor

(NK = 20 was used in this study)

c = 0,5 (6)
where: c - cohesion

To estimate geotechnical parameters of the local subsoil, mechanical CPT were made. The CPT results
are shown in Figure 1. The CPT measurements (qc and fs) are used to get the mechanical parameters of the
soil required for numerical analyses such as; cohesion, friction angle, and elasticity modulus.
Based on the results from the mechanical CPT, it was possible to verify that the subsoil consists of
diabase soil, with a surface layer of high porosity silty-clay approximately 6.5m thick, followed by a layer
of clayey-sandy silt down to 9m. The water level was at 18m. Using the CPT charts of Robertson et al
(1986) the soil is classified as a sandy silt to silty clay, unlike the behavior obtained based on visual
classification (Fontaine, 2004).

782
 Figure 1. Summary of the results from the mechanical CPT

Figure 2. Youngs modulus from Figure 3. Peak friction angle Figure 4. Cohesion from CPT
CPT from CPT

783
 Table 1 shows the values of geotechnical parameters used in numerical analyses obtained via
laboratory tests obtained for samples undeformed and deformed.

Table 1. Parameters for numerical modeling obtained in laboratory.

Soil layer c Ei
0 - 6m 13.5 27.7 30 0.40 3.5
7 - 14m 15.5 58.7 22 0.33 23.6
15 - 22m 16.5 66.0 21 0.33 27.2
- Specific weight (kN/m); c cohesion (kN/m); - friction angle (); - Poisson coefficient; Ei Youngs
modulus (MPa).

Table 2 shows the values of geotechnical parameters used in numerical analyses based on the CPT and
laboratory results.

Table 2. Parameters for numerical modeling obtained by correlations.

Soil layer c Ei
0 a 6m 13.5 40 33 0.4 18
7 a 14m 15.5 58 29 0.3 15
15 a 22m 16.5 91 27 0.3 32
- Specific weight (kN/m); c cohesion (kN/m); - friction angle (); - Poisson coefficient; Ei Elasticity
modulus (MPa).

3. INSTRUMENTED CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER PILE

The continuous flight auger pile is formed in situ where excavation of the soil is made using a continuous
auger, with blades around a hollow center tube. After the auger is introduced in the soil down to the
specified depth, the auger is extracted while cement is injected through the hollow tube. As the auger is
removed, the soil confined between the blades is removed.
A 12-m deep continuous flight auger pile measuring 0.40m in diameter was made, following the
prescriptions of the Manual of Procedures of ABEF (Brazilian Association of Foundation Companies).
The longitudinal frame of the pile included four 6-m long steel bars with 16-mm diameter (8 cm2), and
stirrups with 6.3 mm diameter at every 20 cm (CA-50 steel), made with a MAIT HR-200 drill. The torque
of the equipment is between 220 kN.m and 380 kN.m. This variation is due to the rotation speed and the
diameter used (Albuquerque, 2001).
The pile was instrumented along the shaft in the following depths: 0.30m (reference section); 5.0m;
11.1m and 11.7m. To obtain the Youngs modulus of the completed pile, a section near the top of the pile
was used, where a measuring instrument was placed (instrumented bar). The soil was excavated around
this section to prevent any influence on the reading of the instruments. This is referred to as the reference
section.

784
4. RESULTS FROM THE LOAD TESTS

A slow load test was made following the prescriptions of NBR 12.121/92, adopting slow loading. The
maximum load for the pile was 960 kN, with maximum displacement of 85.62 mm. Figure 7 shows the
load vs. displacement curve, the graphs of variation in load at each level vs. strain and distribution of the
load along the depth.

1200 Load (kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000
1000
0
800 1
Load (kN) 2
600 3

Lenght (m)
4
400
5
200 6
7
0 8
0,000% 0,010% 0,020% 0,030% 0,040% 9
Strain 10
Reference Section Level 5m Level 11.1m Level 11.7m
11
12

a) Load vs. displacement b) Load vs strain c) Load transfer

Figure 5. Graphs obtained from the pile load test (Albuquerque et al, 2011)

5. NUMERICAL MODELING

Numerical modeling is suitable to refine the mesh close to the pile, particularly at the tip, since this area is
critical for results of load capacity of the pile. If possible, a sensitivity analysis of the mesh must be
carried out for each problem to enable direct assessment of the influence of the numerical type (Diaz-
Segura, 2013).
The modeling was performed from of the problem under analysis due to the symmetry along the pile
shaft, which resulted in a rectangular block of 10 m x 10 m section with variable depth as a function of the
length of the pile under analysis, but at least 10 m below the pile tip. These dimensions were determined
based on tests performed to ensure that the surrounding conditions attributed at the far margins of the
model could be considered as no displacement or had very low displacements and, as a consequence,
could not affect the results of the analyses. An elasto-plastic model was used, which varies depending on
the stresses applied, following a model of non-linear behavior. The mesh of finite elements was composed
of triangular-shaped elements of quadratic interpolation, which were extruded at every meter in depth.
The properties attributed to the different layers of soil followed the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, i.e.
values of specific weight (), cohesion (c), friction angle (), strain modulus (E) and Poisson coefficient
() from Table 2 were used. For materials with a fragile behavior (Parabolic Model), such as concrete and
injection mortar, values of resistance to compression, traction (Rt), specific weight, strain modulus and
Poisson coefficient were attributed.

6. NUMERICAL RESULTS

Figure 6 shows the results obtained from the pile load test compared to those from the numerical analyses.
In the numerical modeling with the parameters obtained at the laboratory, a maximum load of 960 kN was
obtained for a total settlement of 85.9 mm, whereas in the analyses with parameters obtained via semi-

785
empirical correlations, the simulation reached the maximum value of 1,100 kN and total settlement of 58.7
mm.

Figure 6. Load vs. settlement curves: numerical and experimental

Figure 7 compares the results for the load distribution along the pile length. The same figure also shows
that, in the experimental test, the portion of the tip was 6%, and 16% for half of the maximum load (
Qmax) and for the maximum test load (Qmax), respectively. However, the numerical results with
laboratory-set parameters, led to participation of the tip of 6% in comparison to Qmax and 10% for
Qmax. For the numerical analysis with parameters estimated by empirical correlations through CPT data,
the portion of the tip of 7% and 13% was obtained for Qmax and Qmax, respectively.

Figure 7. Load distribution: numerical and experimental.

786
7. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results from one pile load test and a companion mechanical CPT for a single continuous
flight auger pile in residual diabase soil, the following observations can be made:

Basic soil parameters can easily be obtained from a CPT through semi-empirical correlations.
However there is the need to assess the applicability of these correlations to certain types of soil. It is
also necessary to calibrate some factors used in these correlations, such as the value of Nk to get
undrained strength of fine-grained clayey soil.
The numerical analysis, using soil parameters based on the CPT and laboratory results, provided a
good estimate of the pile load - settlement behavior. However, the soil resistance parameters
attributed to the different layers of soil must be representative of the in situ conditions of the soil;
The estimate of geotechnical parameters of the soil by means of semi-empirical correlations using
CPT results was suitable to be used in geological / geotechnical projects.

8. REFERENCES

Albuquerque, P. J. R. 2001. Estacas escavadas, hlice contnua e mega: Estudo do comportamento compresso
em solo residual de diabsio, atravs de provas de carga instrumentadas em profundidade. Tese de Doutorado,
Escola Politcnica/USP, So Paulo. 297p.
Albuquerque, P.J.R.; Massad, F.; Fonseca, A.V.; Carvalho, D.; Santos, J.; Esteves, E. 2011. Effects of the
construction method on pile performance: evaluation by instrumentation. Part 1: experimental site at the State
University of Campinas. Soils & Rocks, v. 34:1, p. 35-50.
Barata, F. E. 1986. Recalques de Edifcios sobre Fundaes Diretas em Terrenos de Compressibilidade Rpida e
com a Considerao da Rigidez da Estrutura. Tese de Concurso para Professor Titular do Departamento de
Construo Civil, Escola de Engenharia da UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.
Barnes, G. 2000. Soil Mechanics: Principles and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan.
Budhu, M. 2006. Soil Mechanics and Foundations, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Chen, W.F. 2002. The Civil Engineering Handbook, CRC Press Inc.,U.S..
Diaz-Segura, E. G. 2013. Mtodo simplificado para la estimacin de la carga ltima de pilotes sometidos a carga
vertical axial en arenas. Revista Dyna, 179, 109-115.
Fontaine, E. B. 2004. Utilizao de ensaios geotcnicos especiais de campo, cone eltrico e pressiomtrico, em
solos do interior do estado de So Paulo. Tese de Doutorado, Feagri, Unicamp, Campinas, 256p.
Garcia, J. R., Albuquerque, P. J. R., Perez, N. B. M. 2013. Anlise experimental e numrica de estaca pr-moldada
embutida em solo de diabsio. In: VII Seminrio de Engenharia Geotcnica do Rio Grande do Sul, In: VII
SEMINRIO DE ENGENHARIA GEOTCNICA DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL. Santa Maria: ABMS/RS, 1,
237-244.
Giacheti, H. L. & Queiroz, R. C. 2004. O ensaio de piezocone e de minicone na investigao do subsolo: alguns
exemplos de aplicao. So Paulo, UNESP, Geocincias, v. 23, n. 1/2, p. 89-103.
Kulhawy, F. H. & Mayne, P. H. 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, 1990.
Lunne, T.; Robertson, P.K.; Powell, J. J. M. 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London
(England), Blackie Academic & Professional, Chapman &Hall, 1st ed., 312 p.
Robertson, P.K. & Campanella, R.G. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetrometer test. Part I, Sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 20 (4). p.718-733
Trofimenkov, J. G. 1974. Penetration Test in URSS State-of-the-Art-Report. In: EUROPEAN SYMPOSIUM ON
PENETRATION TESTING, 1., 1974, STOCKHOLM. Proceedings Stockholm National Swedish Building
Research, p. 147-154.

787
788