Comparison of measured pile capacity to pile capacity predictions made using electronic cone penetration data
Ronald L. Richman, Daniel Speer
Abstract
Ronald L. Richman, Daniel Speer
Abstract
This report contains comparisons of static pile load tests and pile capacity predictions generated from cone penetration test (CPT) data. Six CPT analytical methods were evaluated. They are referred to as: LPC Cone Method, Direct CPT Method, European Method, Schmertmann's Method, Cone-M Method and Bustamante's Method. Ultimate pile static capacity was defined using the Davisson criterion. Tested and predicted capacities for 19 bored and 13 driven piles are compared. Recommendations are made for the implementation of the more precise methods.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This report contains comparisons of static pile load tests and pile capacity predictions generated from cone penetration test (CPT) data. Six CPT analytical methods were evaluated. They are referred to as: LPC Cone Method, Direct CPT Method, European Method, Schmertmann's Method, Cone-M Method and Bustamante's Method. Ultimate pile static capacity was defined using the Davisson criterion. Tested and predicted capacities for 19 bored and 13 driven piles are compared. Recommendations are made for the implementation of the more precise methods.
Key concepts: Pile, Cone penetration test, Penetration test, Penetration (warfare), Cone (formal languages), Geotechnical engineering, Test data, Mathematics