Comparisons of Interpreting Ultimate

Capacity of Piles Based on Axial Static

Load Testing Data between Chinese and
Western Methods
Dongyuan Wang1a, Yuming Zhou2a, Jianjun Zhao1b,
Yabin Yin2b, Ju Liu1c
1a

Professor, Ph.D., P.E., Tianjin Institute of Urban Construction, Tianjin Key

Laboratory of Soft Soil Characteristics and Engineering Environment, Tianjin
300384, China. Email: dongyuan.wang@gmail.com

2a

Vice Engineer in Chief, Tianjin Institute of Geotechnical Investigation &

Surveying, Tianjin 300191, China.

1b

Associate Professor, Tianjin Institute of Urban Construction, Tianjin Key

Laboratory of Soft Soil Characteristics and Engineering Environment, Tianjin
300384, China.

2b

Project Manager, Tianjin Institute of Geotechnical Investigation & Surveying,

Tianjin 300191, China.

1c

Lecturer, Tianjin Institute of Urban Construction, Tianjin Key Laboratory of

Soft Soil Characteristics and Engineering Environment, Tianjin 300384, China

ABSTRACT
This paper compares the loading standards, stopping loading criterion and interpretation
methodology in China and western countries for interpreting ultimate pile capacity based
on axial static load testing data. A database is built based on the piles constructed and
tested in Tianjin, China, different interpretation methods are applied to the database, and
statistics of interpretation results is analyzed. Findings indicate the differences regarding
loading standards and stop loading criterion both in China and western countries are
minor. Advantages and disadvantages of these interpretation methods are explored.
Conclusions of the paper suggest that the methods recommended in western codes can be
applied in Chinese codes, vice versa, Chinese code methods can be recommended in the
codes in western countries, to eliminate communication barriers and make engineering
practice easier under the circumstances of continued booming global economy.

KEYWORDS:

Axial static load testing, ultimate capacity of piles,

interpretation methods, loading procedure, stop loading criterion

- 1-

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. P

INTRODUCTION
Pile foundation design is usually based on empirical formulas and geologic conditions to
estimate the ultimate capacity. As a significant degree of uncertainty exist in soil and rock
masses surrounding the pile, as well design method and construction procedure, deviation is
observed between the actual capacity and the designed. Thus for, all the codes practiced in
China and western countries stipulate to perform axial static load testing for certain number of
piles to confirm or verify the capacity and the design assumptions [1-13]. Moreover, in order to
assure the validity of axial static loading testing, codes specified static testing procedure and
data recording methods to obtain the load-movement curve, i.e., P-S curve, as well
interpretation methods applied to the testing data to predict the ultimate capacity of the piles
[1-9, 12-13]
. Correspondingly in engineering practice, settlement rate, plunging of pile, total
settlement and percentage of applied load methods, etc are used as failure criterion both in
China and western countries.
Even though, it is difficult to make a rational choice of the best criterion to use because
the one preferred is heavily dependent on ones past experience. Loading and testing
procedure are more related to mechanism of load-transfer and soil-structure interaction, it is
difficult to judge their influence on final interpretation; moreover, different interpretation
methods and biased judgment on failure criterion could make obvious differences in final
estimate [14-15]. Interpreting the ultimate capacity of pile, even following the code
specification, is semi-empirical, it is usually based on ones assumptions and past
experiences, the subjective preferences actually not only affect the accuracy and the validity
of the results [16], but also actually sets the barrier for communications between people to
people, nationally and internationally.
Since uncertainty is not only existing in the pile design process, but also in the procedure
of confirmation and verification for pile capacity based on static load testing, the study on the
static load testing and interpretation methods draw special attentions of researchers and
engineers back to decades ago and the trend continues. Based on our limited references
search, Hansen (1963) proposed a method to interpret the ultimate capacity which is called
80% criterion, later on he improved it to 90% criterion [17]. Hansens method is widely used in
Scandinavia area and is recommended in IBC [3, 14]. De Beer (1968) proposed a method that
using logarithm coordinate system for P-S curve and the intersection of the two straight- lines
is regarded as the ultimate capacity [18]. Davisson (1970, 1972) proposed an offset limit
method, which combined the pile elastic modulus and the pile dimensions, and it is most
widely used in engineering practice in America, Canada and other western countries so far [1920]
. Chin, F. K., Fuller and Hoy, Butler and Hoy also made their opinions in 1970s, which
proposed to use the different sloping gradient or tangent of P-S curves in different axiscoordinate systems [21-23]. In China side, researchers also proposed their own interpretation
methods, Xiu et al proposed an exponent potential mathematical model to predict the ultimate
capacity [16], Xu modified the model by adding a pull-out rigidity parameter to describe and fit

the real P-S curve [24]; Zhao et al and Wang et al used the hyperbolic curve to predict the
capacity of driven and bored piles [25].
These work led to the maturity of the codes regarding pile load testing in China and
western world respectively. Establishment and issuance of the relevant codes made the
engineering practice easier, however, different recommendations in codes were barriers
actually for communication nationally and internationally, which appears more important
especially the economy is globalized nowadays. This paper aims to explore loading
procedure, stop loading criterion and interpretation methods between national and
international codes and standards to attempt to remove such barriers. Based on a database of
axial static load testing of piles constructed and tested in Tianjin, China, interpretation results
for ultimate capacity of friction piles are analyzed. Findings indicate that Davisson Offset
Limit and Butler & Hoy methods reach almost the same results as Chinese practice. Therefore
these methods can be applied in engineering practice in China. On the other hand, the Chinese
code methods also have advantages, and can be recommended in the codes and used in
engineering practice in western countries.

LOADING AND STOP LOADING CRITERION

Loading Procedure and Influence of Load Duration
Specifications regarding static load testing procedure are not stipulated in some Chinese
codes [10-11], since the codes are not focusing on that. However, these codes do require that
pile capacity shall be confirmed and verified with static load testing or other in-situ testing
method, especially when pile foundation are built to support important bridges and
constructed in complex geologic conditions. Codes issued by Ministry of Building [9, 12-13],
however, specified details for static load testing with respect to loading procedure, failure
criterion and interpretation methods. A close look at loading procedure in these codes finds
that is essentially improved Standard Method [14, 26], not exactly Slow Maintain Load Method
designated by ASTM D 1143[1]. In contrast, different loading procedure including Quick Load
Maintain Method, Cyclic Loading Method, etc were specified in codes of western countries [57]
. We are herein not interested in discussing the relevant advantages and the application
scope of these loading procedures, but stated that the improved Slow Maintain Load Methods
is not significantly different from the Standard method except the shorter load duration. The
improved Slow Maintain Load Method stipulated the loading procedure as follows:
1.

Applying load with eight or more increment; each load equals to 1/8 or 1/10 of estimated
ultimate capacity of the testing piles.

2.

Taking readings of pile settlement. The interval for settlement readings is 5, 10 15 and 30
minutes for each load increment, and then taking readings in every 15 minutes to 1
hours, and then taking readings in every hour.

3.

Criterion for stable settlement: settlement reaches less 0.1mm per hour, and when this
occurs twice and the total load duration is no less than 2 hours, then applying next load.
- 3-

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. P

As for the influence of loading duration on the interpreted results, no more discussion was
found except Fellenius[14]. He declared that the duration of each load is less important but the
equal duration is. He suggested that shorten time interval but increase of the loading rate. We
agree this statement and think this not only will make the loading test is more practical and
possible, especially for time-dependent cases, but the testing results may reflect the real
ultimate capacity of piles as less dissipation of pore water pressure in soft soils, where design
parameters based on undrained tests are often used to control the foundation design.

Stop Loading Criterion

Maximum load applied in static load testing is important to obtain rational interpretation
for ultimate capacity of piles. Although the expressions in Chinese Codes and western
Standards and codes are slightly different, the essence of stop loading criterion is to control
the deformation of piles to ensure the testing data valid for interpretation. Be aware of that not
all piles in load testing tested to failure. Table 1 and Table 2 summarized the stop loading
criterion specified in Chinese and international codes respectively.
We can see that both American and Chinese codes adopt a comprehensive criterion for
stop loading. Chinese codes use the philosophy of total settlement and settlement rate to
control or define the testing failure; American codes employ an absolute loading value, failure
plunge and gradients of P-S curve to control the stop loading. From the view of practice,
Chinese codes make the work easier since engineers can make a decision simply and directly
from the readings of settlement. When executing slope gradient methods in American codes,
engineers need to plot the P-S curve and interpret the gradient. However, both American and
Chinese codes did not account for the pile dimensions in load testing phase as those in Europe
[3]
. It is good to consider the diameter of the piles in stop loading criterion from the view of
the soil-structure interaction, but using the fraction of the pile diameter as the settlement
control standard to stop loading may not reflect the interaction between pile and surrounding
soil or rock mass, nor reflect the real movement of pile head in different geologic conditions,
and thus the plotted P-S curve may not be applicable when interpreting the pile capacity.

Table 1: Stop loading criterion for load testing specified in Chinese codes
Codes

Failure Criterion (Stopping Loading)

1Plunge shown in P-S curveand the settlement of pile head is no less

Codes for Design of

Building Foundations

than 40mm; 2Settlement under certain load twice that under prior
loadand unstable after 24 hours; 3P-S curve plunged gradually, and
total settlement is greater than 60-80mm for friction pile longer than 25m;
4Settlement may be greater than 100mm in some special cases.

Technical Codes for

Testing Building Pile
Foundations
Manual of Design and

1Settlement under certain load is 5 times greater than that under prior
load; 2ditto as 2and 3) 3reaching the maximum design load.
1ditto as 1and 2); 2reaching the twice of the designed ultimate

Construction for bored

capacity or exceeding the designed ultimate capacity but still unstable after

piles for civil and

36 hours

industrial buildings

Table 2: Stop loading criterion for load testing specified in international codes
Codes
ASTM D1143

Failure Criterion (Stopping Loading)

Unless failure occursloading to twice, or 1.5 times of designed
ultimate capacity for single pile and group piles respectively.

FHWA
IBC
American

NYDOT

codes

Manual
TxDOT Manual

Twice of designed ultimate capacity or to failure.

In accordance with ASTM D 1143
to the gradient of P-S curve reaches 0.15mm/kN.
P-S curve plunge suddenly, or to the gradient of P-S curve reaches
0.15mm/kN.

US Army Corps

In accordance with ASTM D 1143

Canadian

In accordance with ASTM D 1143

Foundation
Eurocode 7
Other codes

P-S curve plunge suddenly, or total settlement reaches 1/10 of pile

(UK)
Netherland*

diameter
P-S curve plunge suddenly, or total settlement reaches 25.4mm.

* quoted from US Army of Corps Manual for Pile Foundation Design.

INTERPRETATION METHODS FOR PILE ULTIMATE

CAPACITY BASED ON AXIAL STATIC LOAD
TESTING DATA
The interpretation methods for ultimate capacity of piles based on axial static load testing
data stipulated in both Chinese and international codes can be grouped to three types: 1) based
on the load grade generating P-S curve; 2) based on the settlement under certain load; and 3)
based on the total settlement of the pile head. To be specific, Chinese codes stipulate that
when the P-S curve plunges, the corresponding load at the starting point of the plunged curve
is the interpretation result; when the settlement under certain load is twice as that under prior
load, and the settlement is not stable yet after 24 hours, the prior load is considered as the
ultimate capacity; If the curvature of the P-S curve is gentle, consider the load that makes the
total settlement of pile head reaches 40 mm as the ultimate capacity[9]. The code also
recommended that other auxiliary lines may be drawn to help the interpretations. Another
Chinese code [13] made recommendations using S-lgt and S-lgP curves: the load prior to that
making the s-lgt curve plunge is deemed as the ultimate capacity; if S-lgP curve is used, the
load corresponding to the starting point of the straight line of the S-lgP is considered as the
ultimate capacity. This code also states that the interpretation results shall be combined with
local experiences to justify the final conclusion. These methods are more of our interests, as
- 5-

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. P

they seem very applicable in engineering practice, unfortunately, these codes did not
reference the contributors of the methods and more details were not available.
Codes in western countries, recommended the interpretation methods based on the
researches which were published publically in the past. Table 3 summarizes these
interpretation methods. Among them, Davisson Offset Limit is recommended in all codes
listed and is the most widely used in engineering practice. Fuller & Hoy, Butler & Hoy is
recommended in reference [6], and we predict the method will continuously gain in popularity
as they are essentially proposed for quick ML method and quick ML method is gaining in
popularity. According to Fellenius [14], the Brinch Hansen 80% criterion and 90% criterion is
widely used in Scandinavia [14] island and references [3-4] listed it as the second option after
Davissons. No other codes except [3-4] recommended Chins method. De Beers method is not
recommended in any code as code establisher may think it is not practical because it actually
predicts the yield capacity instead of ultimate capacity of pile [14].
Generally speaking, it seems to us that the methods specified in Chinese codes have more
weight on engineers judgment, such as starting point of the curve plunge, thus the
uncertainty in human beings judgment is more possibly made than those adopted in western
countries, which interpret the result with the intersection of the straight line and the P-S curve
or the tangent line of the P-S curve at the point where the gradient meets the criterion.
Another consideration is that the interpretation results by Chinese methods are equal to the
applied load, which is usually increased by 1/8 to 1/10 of the maximum designed ultimate
capacity. This may lead to a conservative estimate than western methods, say Davisson Offset
Limit, which can be interpolated between two applied loads. Chinese methods also have
advantages. Engineers can judge when to stop loading simultaneously with load testing which
is very important to ensure the quality of data collected from the testing; in the meanwhile,
Chinese methods are more comprehensive than single interpretation methods recommended
in western world, as usually several curves are applied in load testing to make final decision
on interpretation results.

Table 3: Summary of interpretation methods for ultimate capacity of piles, Qult

Interpretation

Formula

Remarks

Methods
Davisson

PL
D
+
+ 3.81
AE 120
(D in mm)

Qult= intersection of the above

equation
curve

with load-settlement

A, Pile cross section area;

E, Elastic modulus of pile;
L, Pile length;
D: pile diameter in mm.

Chin

= C1

+ C2
P

, Settlement of pile, in mm;

P, Applied load causing settlement,

Qult = C1

in kN;
C1, Gradient of the slope (second
line);
C2, Intercept of the linein kN.

De Beer

Load-settlement drawn in logarithm scale, the intersection of two

straight lines was deemed as failure load,

Brinch Hansen
(90%Criterion)

In Load-Settlement curve,

P =

1
Q
2 ult

Q, Settlement at interpreted
ultimate bearing capacity;
P, Corresponding settlement at

P = 90%Qult

load P; where P is 90% of

interpreted ultimate bearing
capacity.

Brinch Hansen

In Load-Settlement curve, define a

Q, Settlement at interpreted

(80%Criterion)

point, where

ultimate bearing capacity;

P =

1
Q
4 ult

P = 80%Qult

P, Corresponding settlement at
load P; where P is 80% of
interpreted ultimate bearing
capacity Qult.

Fuller & Hoy,

Fully & Hoy: Load at load-movement curve where slopes at

Butler & Hoy

0.15mm/kN;
Butler & Hoy: Intersection of the tangent at sloping 0.15 mm/kN and the
tangent of the initial straight portion of the curve or a line that parallel to
the rebound portion of the curve.

A DATABASE OF PILES CONSTRUCTED AND

TESTED IN TIANJIN
A database consisting of 57 driven prestressed high-compression-strength concrete (PHC)
pipe piles and 43 bored piles constructed and tested in Tianjin area is built. The length of the
driven piles varies from 15m to 33 m, diameter varies from 0.3m to 0.6m; the length of the
bored piles varies from 35m to 56m, diameters are 0.6m and 0.7m. The projects are located in
15 sites, where the encountered ground conditions vary slightly, but generally all are typical
called in China as Tianjin Soft Soil Ground Conditions, as illustrated in Fig.1. Careful review
on geologic conditions of these sites reveals that no rocky bearing formation is encountered
and thus all these piles are friction piles.

- 7-

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. P

When performing statistical analysis on the interpretation results applying the

international interpretation methods to the testing data, P-S curves of 12 bored piles were
taken out as only the Chin and Brinch Hansen 80% criterion applicable to the data. In
addition, 3 driven piles were also taken out from application with Davisson Offset Limit
method since something that is unexpectedly happened made the data inappropriate.

Figure 1: Typical ground conditions of piles constructed and tested in Tianjin, China

STATISTICS AND ANALYSES OF INTERPRETATION

RESULTS WITH DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION
METHODS
Fig. 2 shows the comparison results of the ultimate capacity of piles in the database
interpreted with international methods compared with those by Chinese code methods. To be
specific, Fig. 3 shows the comparison results focusing on driven piles and Fig.4 shows the
comparison results focusing on bored piles. Analysis of Chi-squared tests (2 test) indicated
the statistics valid.
Statistics shown in the figures indicate that interpretation results for pile ultimate capacity
with Davisson offset limit method, Fuller & Hoy, and Brinch Hansen (90% criterion) agree
well with those by Chinese code methods, the mean of the percentage of deviation is less than
10%. Interpretation results with Chin method is about 20% higher than those predicted by
Chinese code methods. Selecting the most working-well two methods, Davisson and Butler &

Hoy methods, and to be more specific for driven piles, the mean of the percentage of the
deviation is 0.25%, standard deviation is 3% of such deviation for Davisson method, and
2.81%, 2.81 respectively for Butler & Hoy method. For bored piles, the statistical data are
6.64%, 2.68% for Davisson method, -0.2%, 1.97% for Butler & Hoy method, respectively.
Considering the Davisson and Butler & Hoy methods only without considering the pile types,
the statistical data are 2.21%, 2.68% for Davisson method, and -0.25%, 2.50% for Butler &
Hoy method, respectively. Such statistical data imply the two methods valid when applying
them to the axial static load testing of piles in China. Vice Versa, engineering practice in
western countries can also use the Chinese code methods to interpret the ultimate pile
capacity.

35.00%

Mean and Standard Deviation

Mean of Deviation from Chinese Interpretations

30.00%

Stdev of Deviation from Chinese Interpretations

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Davission

Chin

De Beer

BH (90%)

BH(80%)

FH

BH

Interpretation Methods

Figure 2: Comparison of interpreted pile ultimate capacity between

western methods and Chinese codes

- 9-

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. P

10

25.00%

Mean of Deviation from Chinese Interpretations

Stdev of Deviation from Chinese Interpretations

Mean and Standard Deviation

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

-5.00%

Davission

Chin

De Beer

BH (90%)

BH(80%)

FH

BH

Interpretation Method s

Figure 3: Comparison of interpreted driven pile ultimate capacity between

western methods and Chinese codes

30.00%

Mean of Deviation from Chinese Interpretations

Stdev of Deviation from Chinese Interpretations

Mean and Standard Deviation

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

-5.00%

Davission

Chin

De Beer

BH (90%)

BH(80%)

FH

BH

Interpretation Method s

Figure 4: Comparison of interpreted bored pile ultimate capacity between

western methods and Chinese codes

CONCLUSIONS
No significant difference among the Chinese codes and western cods regarding loading
procedure and stopping loading criterion found after careful review and comparison. Based on
the 100 piles located in 15 different sites, constructed and tested in Tianjin area, a database is
built. International interpretation methods for ultimate capacity were applied to the database.
Comparison of interpreted results with western methods and Chinese methods are made. The
statistical data indicate that results interpreted with Davisson Offset limit and Butler & Hoy
method agree well with those by Chinese code methods, while the major merit of the two
methods used in western countries is reducing the uncertainty of engineers judgment on the
P-S or other curves which Chinese code method can judge when to stop loading
simultaneously with load testing. Davisson Offset Limit method can also interpolate the load
between two load increments while Chinese code methods deem the ultimate capacity as the
applied load, this imply the Chinese code methods may lead to a slightly conservative
estimate. As the differences in interpretations are minor and both have advantages, it is wise
to include and recommend these methods in both Chinese code and codes in western
countries to make engineering practice easier, particularly under the circumstances of the
continued booming global economy.

Acknowledgements
The research endeavor was financially supported by the TIUC Starting-up Research Fund,
authors are thankful to the financial aid provided by the institute.

REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing and Materials Standards. Standard Test Method for
Individual Piles Under Axial Compressive Load, Designation 1143New York,
ASTM, Reapproved 1994.
2. Canadian Geotechnical Society (2006). Canadian Foundation Manual, 4th Edition,
BiTech Publishers Ltd, Richmond, BC, Canada.
3. European Committee for Standardization (1998). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Part 1: General rules.
4. International code council (2003). International Building Codes.
5. New York State Department of Transportation (1999). Static Pile Load Test Manual,
Geotechnical Control Procedure GCP-18, New York, USA.
6. Texas Department of Transportation (2004). Geotechnical Manual, Austin, Texas,
USA.
7. US Army Corps of Engineers (1991). Design of Pile Foundations EM1110-2-2906,
Washington DC, USA.
8. US Department of Transportation and FHWA (1992). Static Testing of Deep
Foundations, FHWA, Washington DC 20590, USA.
- 11 -

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. P

12

9. China Academy of Building Research (2002). Code for Design of Building

Foundations GB5007-2002, Ministry of Building, China, Beijing (in Chinese).
10. CCC Highway Consultants Co. Ltd (2007). Code for Design of Ground Base and
Foundations of Highway Bridge and Culvert JTG D632007, Ministry of
Transportation, Beijing (in Chinese).
11. The 3rd Railway Survey and Design Institute Croup Corp (2005). Code for Design on
Subsoil and Foundations of Railway Bridge and Culvert TBJ10002.152005Ministry of Railway, Beijing (in Chinese).
12. China Academy of Building Research (2003). Technical Code for Testing Building
Pile Foundations JGJ106-2003, Ministry of Building, Beijing (in Chinese).
13. China Academy of Building Research (1980)Manual of Bored Piles Design and
Construction for Civil and Industrial Buildings JGJ4-80. National Construction
Bureau, Beijing (in Chinese).
14. Fellenius, B. H (1980). The Analysis of Results from Routine Pile Loading Tests,
Ground Engineering, London, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 19-31.
15. Fellenius, B. H (1975). Testing Loading of Piles and New Proof Testing Procedure,
Journal of the Geotechnical Division, Vol. 101, No. GT 9, pp. 856-869.
16. Xiu, C.Y., Li, D.Z (1988). Mathematical Modeling and Prediction of Ultimate
Capacity of Single Pile Based on Axial Static Load Testing, Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical EngineeringVol.10. No.6, pp.64-73 (in Chinese).
17. Brinch Hansen (1963). J. Discussion: Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response, Cohesive
Soils, ASCE J. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.89, SM4, pp.241242.
18. De Beer, E.E (1967). Proefondervindlijke bijdrage tot de studie van het grensdraag
vermogen van zandonder funderingen op staal, Tijdshift der Openbar Verken van
Belgie, No. 6, and No. 4, 5, quoted from Ref. 13.
19. Davisson, M.T(1970). Static Measurement of Pile Behavior, Design and Installation
of pile Foundation and Cellular Structures, Envo Publish Co., edited by H.-Y Fang,
pp.159-164.
20. Davisson, M.T (1972). High Capacity Piles, Proceedings of Lecture Series on
Innovations in Foundation Construction, American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE, Illinois Section, Chicago, March 22, 52 pp.
21. Chin, F.K (1970). Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles Not Carried to Failure,
Proc. 2nd Southeast Asia Conference on soil Engineering, pp. 81-90.
22. Butler, H.D. and Hoy H.E (1977). The Texas Quick-Load Method for Foundation
Load Testing-User's Manual, Report No. FHWA-IP-77-8, 59pp.

23. Fuller,F.M. and Hoy, H.E (1970). Pile Load Tests Including Quick-Load Test
Method, Conventional Methods and Interpretations, HRB 333, pp78-86.
24. Xu, H.F., Qian, Q.H. and Jin, F.N (2000). An Exponent Potential Model for P-S
Curve for Pull-Out Load Testing of Single Pile, Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
EngineeringVol.22, No.5, pp622-624 (in Chinese).
25. Zhao, M.H., Hu, Z.Q (1995). Adjusted Hyperbolic Curve Method to Predict
Ultimate Capacity of Single Pile, Chinese Journal of Building Structures, (3): 1995,
pp47-52 (in Chinese).
26. Housel, W.S (1966). Pile Load Capacity Estimates and Results, Proc. ASCE, Vol.
92, SM4, pp.1-30.

2011 ejge

- 13 -