Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A presentation of four current pile test methods is given. It is claimed that when the test is a part of a field investigation or a proof testing, any method can be used. Eight methods of interpreting failure are reviewed and compared, showing a 40% scatter of interpreted failure values for two actual tests. It is proposed that the Slow ML method, commonly used for proof testing, be replaced by a Quick ML method carried to 250% maximum load with a new acceptance criterion consisting of the requirement that the gross movement at 200% load shall be less than the elastic pile compression and an additional value of 0.15 in. plus l/120 of the pile diameter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bengt H. Fellenius (1975) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: