SPT AND CPT TESTING FOR EVALUATING LATERAL LOADING OF

DEEP FOUNDATIONS
By J. Brian Anderson1 and F. C. Townsend2

ABSTRACT: Current design software (FloridaPier, Com624P) requires p-y curves to estimate the foundation
lateral load resistance. Input parameters used to develop these curves can be obtained from in situ [standard
penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration test (CPT)] correlations. This paper presents an evaluation of pre-
dictions using input soil parameters from SPT and CPT correlations versus field measured values. A lateral load
test database consisting of 24 SPT and 6 CPT data sets was developed. The comparisons showed that four
different SPT correlations for ␾ coupled with three different k-values all produce similar R-values. (R-value =
measured/predicted ⫻ 100%). Therefore, little difference exists between the SPT correlation combinations, albeit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the estimated k value has a greater effect on predicted deformation. Similar combinations of CPT correlations
also show little effect among the commonly used correlations. SPT predictions are quite conservative at low
load levels (R-values ⬇ 53%) and remain conservative (R-values ⬇ 87%) at high load levels. Also, the scatter
(standard deviation) is high (⬇40%). CPT evaluations gave unconservative predictions (R-values ⬇ 105 to
154%). In addition, the scatter (standard deviation) is high (⬇34 to 74%).

INTRODUCTION predictions derived from standard penetration test (SPT) and

Piles and drilled shafts are structural members used to trans-
fer loads to deep strata through skin friction and end bearing.
These deep foundations are necessary when the upper soil lay-
ers are too weak to prevent excessive settlement of the struc-
ture, the structure is subject to large lateral forces, or the foun-
dation is subject to scour. Ship impact, wind, and earth and
water pressure are all sources of lateral load on deep founda-
tions. Because the lateral loading of a single pile is a soil-
structure interaction problem, the deflection of the pile de-
pends on the reaction in the soil, and the reaction in the soil
depends on the deflection of the pile (Reese and Wang 1993).
(‘‘Pile’’ refers throughout to both piles and drilled shafts.)
In present practice, laterally loaded piles are analyzed using
beam theory to represent the pile, and uncoupled, nonlinear
load transfer functions called ‘‘p-y curves’’ to represent the
soil. Historically, these curves were derived from full-scale
lateral load tests made primarily in Texas during the 1970s.
Computer programs have been developed to aid the engi-
neer in lateral load analysis. Com624P uses the finite-differ-
ence approach to model a single pile structurally as linear elas-
tic with constant stiffness. A newer program, FloridaPier
(FLPIER), models an entire bridge pier system, including the
bridge structure, the pile cap, and a single pile or pile group
using the finite-element method. In addition, FLPIER allows
for the nonlinear analysis of concrete piles under mixed load-
ing conditions. Both programs require the input of pile and
soil parameters that must be determined by laboratory testing,
in situ testing, or empirical correlation. The scenario facing
many design engineers is the appropriate selection of these soil
parameters. Consequently, the experience of the engineer in
determining these properties often dictates the accuracy of
analysis, or more simply stated, ‘‘garbage in = garbage out.’’
Thus, the objective of this paper is to provide guidance for
parameter selection via a comparison of full-scale lateral load
tests to computer predictions. This paper reports the results of
1
Postdoctoral Res. Assoc., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Florida, Gaines-
ville, FL 32611-6580.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-
6580.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2002. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 4, 2000; revised May 30, 2001. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 11, November, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/01/0011-0920–0925/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22272.
920 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2001
cone penetration test (CPT) correlations for the common soil
input parameters (␾⬘, su , ␥, and ε50) and a database of 28 SPT
and 6 CPT data sets.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The most common theoretical approach to analyzing piles
under lateral loading is the p-y method of McClelland and
Focht (1958). This method is merely an extension of Winkler’s
solution, which models the soil as a set of nonlinear springs
defined by a load transfer or p-y curve. The p-y curve repre-
sents the soil resistance at a particular depth and is defined in
terms of soil resistance per unit length (FL⫺1) versus deflection
(L). The soil resistance will typically rise quickly under small
deformations to a maximum where it remains constant or de-
creases with further deformation.
FloridaPier (FDOT 1996) is a nonlinear finite-element pro-
gram developed at the University of Florida by Michael
McVay, Marc Hoit, and Cliff Hays. The program has the abil-
ity to model an entire bridge pier cap to the foundation ele-
ments under axial, lateral, and/or torsional loads. FloridaPier
models a single pile as 16 two-node finite elements. Piles can
be modeled as either linear elastic—for example, h-piles and
pipe piles—or nonlinear—in the case of prestressed concrete
piles or drilled shafts. FloridaPier uses axial (t-z, q-z), lateral
( p-y), and torsional (T-␪) pile-soil interaction. Since this re-
search concerns only single free-headed laterally loaded piles,
the discussion of the program features will be limited to those
pertinent to analysis of such piles.
Due to cost considerations, it is not always economical
to perform large-scale lateral load tests to evaluate specific
curves. Therefore, several normalized p-y curves have been
suggested based on common soil parameters such as friction
angle, cohesion, and unit weight, as shown in Table 1. More
detailed information on these curves can be found in the man-
ual for FloridaPier (FDOT 1996).
Soil information typically is given in the form of SPT and
sometimes CPT boring logs. Unfortunately, the p-y models
require soil parameters such as friction angle and undrained
shear strength that are not readily apparent from boring logs.
Thus, an educated engineering judgment must be made as to
what SPT blowcount corresponds to a friction angle of, say,
30⬚. Fortunately, previous research has been done to correlate
these parameters with in situ tests such as SPT and CPT. The
sand p-y curves require ␾⬘, k, and ␥ ⬘. Similarly, the clay
curves require su , ε50 , ε100 , ␥ ⬘, and k. While ␥ ⬘ is typically
assumed to be between 6.02 ⫻ 10⫺9 and 9.22 ⫻ 10⫺9

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:920-925.

 TABLE 1. Summary of Input Parameters
Soil type Soil stiffness Soil location Parameters Model (reference)
Sand Loose-dense Above and below GWT ␾⬘, k, ␥ O’Neill and Murchison (1983)
␾⬘, k, ␥ Reese et al. (1974)
Clay Soft/medium stiff Above GWT su , ε50 , ε100 O’Neill and Gazioglu (1984)
Below GWT su , ε50 , ␥ Matlock (1970)
Stiff Above GWT su , ε50 , ␥ Welch and Reese (1972)
Below GWT su , ε50 , ␥, k Reese et al. (1975)
Note: ␾⬘ = friction angle; k = horizontal subgrade modulus; ␥ = unit weight; su = undrained shear strength; ε50 = strain at 50% maximum deviator
stress ⫺ UU test; ε100 = strain at 100% maximum deviator stress ⫺ UU test.

TABLE 4. Subgrade Modulus of Sand from SPT N (Johnson and

Kavanaugh 1968)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Blows/300 mm
(N) 8 10 15 20 30
k a (kN/mm3) 2.67E-06 4.08E-06 7.38E-06 9.74E-06 1.45E-05
a
At 300 mm below ground surface.

FIG. 1. Friction Angle from Overburden Pressure, Relative Density,

and SPT N (Gibbs and Holtz 1957)

TABLE 2. Sand Parameters from SPT (Terzaghi 1955)

Relative Density of Sand
Parameters Loose Medium Dense
Blows/300 mm (N) 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50
␾ (degrees) 30 34 39
Dry or moist sand k (kN/mm3) 2.20E-06 6.60E-06 1.76E-05
Submerged sand k (kN/mm3) 1.26E-06 4.40E-06 1.07E-05

TABLE 3. Soil Parameters (Teng 1962)

Very Very
Compactness loose Loose Medium Dense dense
Relative density (%) 0 to 15 15 to 35 35 to 65 65 to 85 85 to 100
Blows/30 cm (N) 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 50⫹
␾ (degrees) 28 28 to 30 30 to 36 36 to 41 41⫹

FIG. 2. Friction Angle from Overburden Pressure and CPT Tip Resis-
kN/mm3, the remaining parameters are not so obvious. Several tance (Robertson and Campanella 1983)
correlations from the literature are shown below.

Sand Friction Angle from CPT

Sand Friction Angle and Subgrade Modulus from
SPT The deBeer equation from bearing capacity theory (San-
glerat 1972) for ␾⬘ from qc is as follows:
The following equation is from Peck et al. (1974), using
uncorrected N-values: qc = 1.3␴⬘V0 Kp exp(␲ tan ␾)
Fig. 2 comes from Robertson and Campanella (1983).
␾⬘ = 53.881 ⫺ 27.6034 ⭈ e⫺0.0147 ⭈N
GENERAL DATABASE INFORMATION
Fig. 1 is from Gibbs and Holtz (1957); Table 2 from Ter-
zaghi (1955); Table 3 from Teng (1962); and Table 4 from The database currently contains 24 SPT records and 6 CPT
Johnson and Kavanaugh (1968). records, each of which consists of the structural and soil data
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2001 / 921

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:920-925.

 TABLE 5. Summary of Database Case Histories ‘‘prediction’’ for deformations at 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the
In situ maximum applied lateral test load are plotted on an x-y graph.
Record Location Description data A perfect agreement between the two methods plots on the 45⬚
line. A mathematical term called R-value (not to be confused
1 Oregon Inlet, N.C. 66⬙ cylinder pile SPT
2 Oregon Inlet, N.C. 66⬙ cylinder pile CPT
with R 2) is defined here as the ratio of the two methods eval-
3 Thorofare Bay, N.C. 24⬙ square prestressed SPT uated: R = method on y-axis/method on x-axis ⫻ 100. Table
4 Onslow Co., N.C. 48⬙ drilled shaft SPT 6 summarizes the R-values.
5 New Bern, N.C. 48⬙ drilled shaft SPT
6 Nevada 96⬙ drilled shaft SPT CPT-Correlated Input Parameters
7 Skyway Bridge Site 1 48⬙ drilled shaft SPT
8 Skyway Bridge Site 2 48⬙ drilled shaft SPT Although only three cases containing CPT data were ob-
9 Roosevelt Bridge, Fla. 30⬙ PS square SPT tained, a limited analysis similar to the SPT cases was con-
10 Roosevelt Bridge, Fla. 30⬙ PS square CPT ducted. Specifically, ␾⬘ from Robertson and Campanella
11 California 96⬙ drilled shaft SPT (1983) and ␾⬘ from deBeer (Sanglerat 1972) along with Ter-
12 None given 36⬙ drilled shaft SPT zaghi’s k were used. The R-values for the three CPT cases are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

13 None given 20⬙ PS pile SPT summarized in Table 7. As with the SPT cases, the CPT results
14 Oregon Inlet, N.C. 54⬙ drilled shaft SPT
15 Oregon Inlet, N.C. 54⬙ drilled shaft CPT from the correlations used seem similar.
16 Fuller Warren LLt1 72⬙ drilled shaft SPT
17 Fuller Warren LLt-2 72⬙ drilled shaft (114.5 ft) SPT
EVALUATION OF ENTIRE DATABASE
18 Century Freeway CDOT 96⬙ drilled shaft (shaft A) SPT All SPT Database Cases
19 Century Freeway CDOT 48⬙ drilled shaft (shaft C) SPT
20 Century Freeway CDOT 50⬙ drilled shaft (shaft D) SPT The R-values and standard deviations for the full database
21 Hartford 64⬙ drilled shaft SPT of 24 SPT cases using PHT’s ␾ and Terzaghi’s k are sum-
22 Houston 20⬙ prestressed square SPT
23 Houston 24⬙ PS pipe pile SPT
marized in Table 8. Typically, the measured values are about
24 Century Freeway CDOT 96⬙ drilled shaft (shaft B) SPT 70% of the predicted values. The standard deviation for the
25 Broadway Bridge—US92 60⬙ drilled shaft SPT SPT cases was very high at around 40. This is attributed to
Halifax R. the conservative nature of the correlations. Thus, the SPT-
26 Daytona 60⬙ drilled shaft CPT based predictions are conservative, but appear to be poor due
27 Salt Lake City 12⬙ pipe pile SPT to the high scatter in the results.
28 Salt Lake City 12⬙ pipe pile CPT
29 Auburn 36⬙ drilled shaft SPT All CPT Database Cases
30 Auburn 36⬙ drilled shaft CPT
Note: 1 in. = 2.54 mm. The R-values and standard deviations for the full database
of six CPT cases using Robertson and Campanella’s ␾⬘ and
Terzaghi’s k are summarized in Table 9. Typically, the mea-
for a single free-headed pile. Six load tests have multiple sured values are over 100% of the predicted values. The stan-
records due to the availability of SPT and CPT data for the dard deviation for the CPT cases was extremely high, at
site. Using the macros in the database, input files were gen-
erated for FloridaPier for each load test. The structural and TABLE 6. Summary of R-Values for SPT Correlations
material pile properties were recorded for each record straight
Method R25 R50 R75 R100
from the plans and given information. The lateral load test data
were also entered verbatim from the test data. One difficulty ␾⬘—PHT 56.2 70.9 86.6 87.5
is that the generic p-y curves are for either ‘‘sand’’ or ‘‘clay,’’ k—Terzaghi
␾⬘—PHT 68.2 83.6 97.8 96.8
and therefore judgment is required. An effort was made to k—Johnson and Kavanaugh
make a best guess at the soil properties based on the in situ ␾⬘—Terzaghi 56.3 71.6 88.7 89.5
tests (SPT and CPT) and the correlations presented in the pre- k—Terzaghi
vious section. Since no axial loads were applied to any of the ␾⬘—Gibbs and Holtz 54.6 73.1 98 94.5
piles, the axial parameters are of little significance in the anal- k—Terzaghi
ysis, and a single correlation was used throughout each of the ␾⬘—Teng 56.2 71.1 86.7 87.8
k—Terzaghi
runs. Table 5 summarizes the 30 database cases.

SENSITIVITY TO INPUT PARAMETERS TABLE 7. Summary of CPT Predicted versus Measured

SPT-Correlated Input Parameters Method R25 R50 R75 R100

␾—Robertson and Campanella 95.3 136 186.8 194.5
Given the premise that Florida sites will always have SPT k—Terzaghi
data, we focused our initial efforts on using SPT correlations ␾—DeBeer 103.9 148.3 260 224.5
as input for the p-y curves. Initially 12 of the database sandy k—Terzaghi
soil cases were used to evaluate various ␾⬘ and k input com-
binations; specifically these were, Peck et al. (1974), Terzaghi
(1955), Gibbs and Holtz (1957), and Teng (1962)’s values for TABLE 8. Summary of SPT Predicted versus Measured
␾⬘, with k values estimated via Terzaghi or Johnson and Method R25 R50 R75 R100
Kavanaugh (1968). From these results it is apparent that the PHT’s ␾; Terzaghi’s k 53.3 66.5 84.5 86.8
various combinations tried are all fairly equal. This similarity Standard deviation 24.9 39.9 46.2 35.9
is attributed to our observation that all of the ␾⬘ to k corre-
lations, particularly k, fall within a narrow range. Therefore;
Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (PHT)’s ␾⬘ (Peck et al. 1975) TABLE 9. Summary of CPT Predicted versus Measured
and Terzaghi’s k were selected for future predictions. Method R25 R50 R75 R100
No capacity analogous to ‘‘Davisson’’ exists for pile under
R-value 105.2 119.4 145.3 154.2
lateral load. In order to assign a numerical measurement of Standard deviation 34.3 47.1 86.4 73.9
the quality of the predictions, the ‘‘measured-load test’’ versus
922 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:920-925.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3. Statistics Sheet for All SPT Cases

around 50% or more. The CPT-based predictions are typically
unconservative, with a very high degree of scatter. Fig. 3
shows the statistics for the SPT cases, while Fig. 4 contain the
statistics for the CPT cases.
CONCLUSIONS
1. An evaluation of the database shows that SPT correla-
tions for ␾⬘ (Peck et al. 1974; Terzaghi 1955; Gibbs and
Holtz 1957; and Teng (1962), coupled with k-values
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2001 / 923
(Terzaghi 1955; Johnson and Kavanaugh 1968), all pro-
duce similar R-values (R-value = measured/predicted ⫻
100%). Therefore, little differenc exists between the SPT
correlation combinations, albeit the estimated k value has
a greater effect on deformation.
2. Similarly, an evaluation of CPT correlations for ␾⬘ [Rob-
ertson and Campanella 1983; deBeer (Sanglerat 1972)]
coupled with Terzaghi (1955)’s k all produced similar R-
values. Therefore, little difference exists between the
CPT correlation combinations.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:920-925.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4. Statistics Sheet for All CPT Cases

3. An evaluation of the 28 SPT database cases using ␾⬘
(Peck et al. 1974, and Terzaghi 1955)’s k reveals that
SPT predictions are quite conservative at low load levels
(R-values ⬇ 53%) and remain conservative (R-values ⬇
87%) at high load levels. Also, the scatter (standard de-
viation) is high (⬇40%).
4. An evaluation of the six CPT database cases using Rob-
ertson and Campanella (1983)’s ␾⬘ and Terzaghi’s k re-
veals unconservative predictions (R-values ⬇ 105 to
154%). In addition, the scatter (standard deviation) is
high (⬇34 to 74%).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Florida Department of Transpor-
tation (99700-7691-0101), with Peter Lai as technical coordinator and a
major contributor to the research effort; Braulio Grajales and Marc Novak
assisted with data analysis and reduction, and their help is appreciated.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Soils and Foundation

924 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:920-925.

 Design Section provided case histories; the assistance of Brian Keaney,
Jamey Batts, and Don O’Toole was also greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). (1996). FloridaPier Users
Manual. Tallahassee 具http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/proglib.htm典.
Gazioglu, S. M., and O’Neill, M. W. (1984). ‘‘Evaluation of p-y relation-
ships in cohesive soils.’’ Analysis and design of pile foundations, J. R.
Meyer, ed., ASCE, New York, 192–213.
Gibbs, H. J., and Holtz, W. G. (1957). ‘‘Research on determining the
density of sands by spoon penetration testing.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Vol. 1, London, 35–39.
Johnson, S. M., Kavanaugh, T. C. (1968). The design of foundations for
buildings. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Matlock, H. (1970). ‘‘Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in
soft clay.’’ Paper No. OTC 1204, Proc., 2nd Annu. Offshore Technol.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conf., Houston, Vol. 1, 577–594.
McClelland, B., and Focht, J. A. (1958). ‘‘Soil modulus for laterally
loaded piles.’’ Trans., ASCE, Vol. 123, Paper No. 2954, 1049–1086.
O’Neill, M. W., and Murchison, J. M. (1983). ‘‘An evaluation of p-y
relationships in sands.’’ Res. Rep. No. GT-DF02-83, Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., University of Houston.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2001 / 925
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:920-925.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation
engineering, Wiley, New York.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). ‘‘Analysis of laterally
loaded piles in sand.’’ Paper No. OTC 2080, Proc., 5th Annu. Offshore
Technol. Conf., Houston, (GESA Rep. No. D-75-9).
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1975). ‘‘Field testing and
analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay.’’ Paper No. OTC 2312,
Proc., 7th Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston.
Reese, L. C., and Wang, S. (1993). Com624P—Laterally loaded pile
analysis program for the Microcomputer Version 2.0, Publ. No. FHWA-
SA-91-048, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (1983). ‘‘Interpretation of cone
penetration tests: Parts 1 and 2.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 20(4), 718–745.
Sanglerat, G. (1972). The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Teng, W. (1962). Foundation Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
Terzaghi, K. (1955). ‘‘Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.’’
Geotechnique, London, 5(4), 297–326.
Welch, R. C., and Reese, L. C. (1972). ‘‘Lateral load behavior of drilled
shafts.’’ Res. Rep. No. 3-5-65-99, Ctr. for Hwy. Res., University of
Texas at Austin.