See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304623007

Static dynamite?- An introduction to Statnamic pile testing

Conference Paper · March 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 217

1 author:

Michael John Brown

University of Dundee
116 PUBLICATIONS   832 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of screw anchors for floating Marine Renewable Energy system arrays incorporating anchor sharing View project

FORENSEIS: Investigating Seismic Case Histories and Failures of Geotechnical Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael John Brown on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

STATIC DYNAMITE?- AN INTRODUCTION TO

STATNAMIC PILE TESTING

Dr. Michael Brown, University of Dundee, UK

Summary
It is often necessary to undertake some form of pile testing to verify design
calculations. Historically this has been limited to static and dynamic tests.
Newer rapid testing methods such as Statnamic are seeing more frequent use.
This form of testing can be advantageous due to short set up time and test
duration. That said the methodology suffers from limited formalised guidance
and may prove difficult to analyse in certain soil conditions. This paper
investigates the suitability of Statnamic testing and analysis for a range of soil
and pile types as well as different installation methods through case studies
compiled in the UK. Advice is given on how to deploy Statnamic and where
its use may be beneficial over dynamic testing.

1 INTRODUCTION
The most recent alternative to static and dynamic pile testing are rapid or
kinematic load tests, the most common of these being the Statnamic test. The
Statnamic test was conceived in 1985, with the first prototype tests carried out
in 1988 through collaboration between Berminghammer Foundation
Equipment of Canada and TNO Building Research of the Netherlands
(Middendorp et al., 1992 & Middendorp, 2000). The technique was developed
to overcome the problems associated with dynamic testing such as pile
damage (Middendorp & van Foeken, 2000), the need for accurate knowledge
of pile cross section and concrete quality, the susceptibility of operator
influence and the lack of correlation between damping constants and soil type
(Paikowsky & Chernauskas, 1996). There was also a desire to retain the
benefits, such as ease of mobilisation and fast testing resulting in costs being
two orders of magnitude lower than the equivalent static pile test.

Statnamic testing works by accelerating a mass upward that in turn imparts a

load onto the foundation pile below the Statnamic device. The load is applied
and removed smoothly resulting in load application of 100 to 200
milliseconds. This is 30 to 40 times the duration of dynamic pile load testing.
As the duration of the loading is relatively long, piles less than 40m in length
remain in compression throughout resulting in negligible stress wave effects
and potentially simpler analysis. For foundation design it is necessary to
 2

derive the equivalent static load-settlement curve from the Statnamic data.
The simplest form of Statnamic analysis used to obtain equivalent static pile
response is known as the unloading point method (UPM) The UPM analysis
method was conceived to be simple and based on measured results alone thus
avoiding the criticisms of dynamic analysis (Middendorp et al, 1992).

This paper presents an introduction to the Statnamic testing methodology and

its analysis. Results of equivalent static pile predictions are presented and
discussed for several soil types and pile construction methods. Advice is
given on how to deploy Statnamic and where its use may be beneficial over
dynamic testing. The shortcomings of the technique are identified and
recommendations are made on how these can be mitigated now, and improved
in the future. A useful list of references is included at the end of the paper to
allow further investigation of the merits of Statnamic.

2 TESTING EQUIPMENT AND GUIDANCE

The Statnamic test applies a force to the pile head over a typical duration of
120 milliseconds by the controlled venting of high pressure gas. The gas is
the product of the combustion of a fast burning fuel within a piston (fuel
chamber) (Figure 1). At the top of the piston are vent holes that are sealed by
the load hanger retaining the reaction mass. At some point the pressure within
the piston is of such a magnitude to force the load hanger arrangement
upward at accelerations in order of 196m/s2 (20g). This process applies a load
downwards on the test pile.

E A, Pile.
B, Load Cell/Fuel Chamber.
F C, Pressure Chamber.
D, Load Hanger/Silencer.
E, Reaction Mass.
F, Gravel Catch Mechanism.
D
G, Laser Source.
B
H, Laser Sensor.
G A
H C

Figure 1. Schematic of a Statnamic device with the gravel catching technique.

 3

During the loading sequence the load applied to the test pile is monitored by a
calibrated load cell incorporated in the base of the combustion piston. Pile
settlement is measured using a remote laser reference source that falls on a
photovoltaic cell incorporated in the piston. The laser reference source should
be placed at least 15m from the test pile to avoid the influence of test induced
ground surface wave disturbance (Brown & Hyde, 2006). Data capture is
undertaken using a data acquisition system connected to a laptop computer. It
is recommended to allow accurate data processing that sampling should be
undertaken at frequencies above 1kHz (JGS, 2000).

2.1 Testing equipment and deployment

The most common form of Statnamic rigs typically have testing capacities of
3 to 4MN (Figure 2a). These devices are self contained and may be
transported using a single articulated lorry. Whilst on site they require the use
of a mobile crane with a typical capacity of 70 tonne, with mobilisation in less
than 2 hours. In addition to these typical capacities, devices have been
produced which can apply maximum loads ranging from 0.3 to 60MN. To
achieve greater loads the major components of the device including the
piston, silencer-weight hanger and reaction mass must be scaled up in size.

The Statnamic weight packs usually consist of steel or concrete rings placed
over the Statnamic silencer. As the device does not rely on gravity to apply
loads as in static or drop weight testing it can be used vertically, horizontally
and inclined to test raked piles. The ability to test horizontally has lead to the
method being used for lateral load testing of piles and simulation of ship
impacts on mooring bodies (Middendorp, 2000). In order to improve the
flexibility of the device and minimise transportation costs for offshore works
a device has also been tested that can apply up to 14MN using water as a
reaction mass. This is achieved in an over water pile tests by connected the
Statnamic device to a vessel full of water below the water bodies surface
(Middendorp, 2000), thus removing the need for heavy reaction weights.

The only significant difference between the smaller and larger testing devices
is the method of catching the reaction mass. The catching method shown in
Figures 1 & 2b uses gravel. This is achieved by placing the Statnamic device
on the test pile and lowering the reaction mass onto its hanger. A large
containing container is then placed around the assembly and filled with
gravel. As the Statnamic weights move upwards the gravel moves to fill the
void left and support the weights once movement has ceased. Due to the time
required to place and remove the gravel after testing this method is reserved
for tests above 16MN. The 3MN rig shown in Figure 2a utilises a hydraulic
 4

catching mechanism that allows the mass to be caught within the frame of the
device. This allows up to ten individual piles to be tested in a day or multiple
cycles on a single pile at 15 minute intervals. Further description of the
hydraulic catching mechanism is given by Middendorp (2000). The most
recent development is the mounting of a 1MN Statnamic device on a 360°
tracked excavator which allows rapid deployment (1 hour) and increased
production.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.(a) A 3MN Statnamic rig with hydraulic catch mechanism.(b) A
12MN overwater test with gravel container being lowered into place.

2.2 Guidance and codes of practice

The acceptance of a testing technique is often reflected by its inclusion in
standards (e.g. Eurocode) and codes of practice. Currently Statnamic is
mentioned in several national guidance documents. For instance in the UK the
forthcoming revision to the The Institution of Civil Engineers specification
for piling and embedded retaining walls will mention rapid load testing in its
non-destructive testing section. The Federation of Piling Specialists
(http://www.fps.org.uk/) is also in the process of publishing guidance as part
of a general testing guide. In the US a draft testing specification has been
produced for the ASTM standard (Janes et al., 2000) along with guidance
produced for the federal and state highways agencies (McVay et al., 2003 &
Paikowsky, 2004). The Japanese Geotechnical Society have also produced a
 5

testing specification, an English language draft of this was published by JGS

(2000). The remaining literature is academic in nature, a useful summary of
which may be found at the end of this paper.

3 ANALYSIS METHODS
The load-settlement readings made during a typical Statnamic test in stiff
glacial till compared with both constant rate of penetration (CRP) and
maintained load (ML) “static” pile tests are shown in Figure 3 (Grimsby stiff
clay research site, Brown, 2004). The pile settlement between tests has been
reset to zero to aid comparison. In order to compare the results of the static
test it is necessary to analyse the Statnamic data to remove the inertial
component of pile resistance due to acceleration of the pile mass and the
displacement rate dependant soil resistance. As well as the load-settlement
history recorded during the test it is also necessary to input the pile’s
acceleration and velocity. This is usually calculated from the settlement-time
history by differentiation but as this process is inherently “noisy” suitably
high logging rates need to be used to allow data smoothing or filtering with
out significant clipping of the data. Ideally an accelerometer should be
attached to the pile or incorporated in the Statnamic piston to measure
acceleration, calculate velocity and verify displacement readings (Brown &
Hyde, 2006).

Figure 3. Results from a 3000kN Statnamic laod test compared with static
load testing for a cast insitu auger bored pile in Glacial Till.
 6

3.1 Unloading Point Method (UPM)

The method first used to analyse Statnamic data is referred to as the the
unloading point method (UPM). Middendorp (2000) observed that during
unloading, the velocity of the pile reached zero at a load that corresponded to
the ultimate static resistance. This identifiable point was then used to
determine a damping coefficient directly from the test results thus avoiding
the need for user intervention or soil dependant parameters. The UPM
assumes that the derived damping coefficient is constant throughout the test
and that the pile behaves as a rigid body, modelled as a lumped mass. This
method is described more fully by Middendorp et al. (1992).

Figure 4. Unloading point analysis (UPM) prediction of static pile resistance

compared with measured static pile test results.

The performance of the UPM analysis is typically very good where the soil is
coarse grained or where the pile forms a rock socket (Brown, 1994).
Unfortunately in fine grained soils (clays and silts) damping is highly non-
linear (Brown, 2004) resulting in UPM over predicting ultimate static pile
capacity by 50% or more (Holeyman et al., 2000). This can be seen in the
UPM prediction of static pile resistance shown in Figure 4 where the ultimate
static resistance is over predicted by 31%. The predicted settlement at
working loads is also greater. These tests were undertaken on a 12m long cast
in situ auger bored pile installed in glacial lodgement till.

To address the soil dependant nature of UPM a series of correction or rate

factors have been developed (Table 1). It should be noted that the correction
 7

factors suggested for clay are based on a very limited number of cases which
has led to reluctance by some authors to specify safety factors in clay (McVay
et al., 2003). The use of such factors also detracts from the ethos behind the
development of the UPM technique and makes user intervention necessary.

Table 1. Correction factors for UPM analysis (Paikowsky, 2004).

*
Soil type Rate effect factor ( η ) FOS without η FOS with η
Rock 0.96 2.0 2.0
Sand 0.91 2.1 2.0
Silt 0.69 2.8 2.0
Clay 0.65 3.0 2.0
*FOS- Factor of Safety

3.1.1 UPM derivatives

For UPM analysis it is assumed that stress wave effects are negligible pile
behaves as a rigid body but,as the pile length increases,with a fixed load
duration, a point comes where stress waves need to be taken into account.
Thus UPM without modification is limited to pile lengths of 50m for steel
piles and 40m for concrete piles. Rigid body assumptions may also break
down in short piles installed in soft soil with a stiff toe due to the variation in
pile velocity and acceleration along the pile shaft. To overcome this an
accelerometer can be incorporated at the pile tip and used in conjunction with
the pile head calculations to determine the average pile velocity and
acceleration. This method is referred to as the modified unloading point
method (M-UPM) (Mullins et al., 2002).

Although the M-UPM approach addresses some of the problems associated

with rigid body assumptions, it does not address the time lag encountered
when testing very long piles. To overcome this the segmental unloading point
(S-UPM) was developed (Mullins et al., 2002). This method is dependant on
instrumenting the pile wth strain gauges, with the inclusion of an
accelerometer at the pile tip being desirable. By incorporating the strain
gauges in the pile, it is possible to seperate the pile into segments, which are
assumed to behave as single degree of freedom systems. Each segment is then
analysed using M-UPM and the results are added together to produce the
derived static equivalent pile capacity. As for M-UPM there is a need to
introduce instrumentation into the pile which limits testing to predetermined
piles only. Software capable of undertaking UPM and S-UPM (SAW and
SUPERSAW) is available from the University of South Florida, US
(http://www.eng.usf.edu/~garbin/).
 8

3.2 Non-linear methods

As an alternative to UPM, non-linear approaches to Statnamic analysis have
been proposed by Brown (2004) and verified by Wood (2003). These methods
attempt to the address the soil dependant non-linear behaviour of damping
constants but do not attempt to address the problems associated with testing
long piles. For analysis of piles deriving the majority of their capacity from
shaft friction in clay soil Brown (2004) and Brown et al. (2006) showed that a
non-linear rate parameter analysis similar to that proposed by Randolph et al.
(1992) could be incorporated in Statnamic analysis:

FSTN − Ma
Fstatic = (1)
⎛ F ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
1 + ⎜ STN ⎟α (∆v )β − ⎜ FSTN ⎟α (v0 )β
⎜F ⎟ ⎜F ⎟
⎝ STNpeak ⎠ ⎝ STNpeak ⎠

Where Fstatic is the static pile resistance, FSTN is the measured Statnamic load,
FSTNpeak is the peak Statnamic load applied, Ma is the pile inertia, ∆v is the
pile’s velocity relative to the soil and v0 is the velocity of the static pile test
used to define the soil specific rate parameters α and β. Results of this
analysis compared with UPM corrected by the relevant factor for the glacial
till (clay, Table 1) are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Corrected UPM and non-linear predictions of static pile resistance

compared with measured static pile test results.
 9

The prediction of ultimate static behaviour using corrected UPM is

significantly improved but the prediction of pile stiffness is made worse.
Analysis using the non-linear approach shows improved prediction of both
ultimate static resistance and pile stiffness although predicted pile stiffness is
still conservative (Wood, 2003). The rate parameters for Equation 1 were
taken as α = 1.22 and β = 0.2 (Brown, 2004).

Again this approach requires user intervention and the selection of soil
specific rate parameters which to date are not available in a comprehensive
data base at Statnamic specific velocities (Wood, 2003).

3.3 Recommendations for Statnamic analysis

One of the most frequent shortcomings of Statnamic pile testing is a lack of
pile mobilisation which makes it difficult to undertake predictions of ultimate
static pile behaviour. This is caused by underestimation of the magnitude of
the rate dependant component of resistance when rapid load testing in fine
grained soils. Ideally the minimum required pile deflection should be used as
the test target criteria rather than a maximum load (Brown & Hyde, 2006). As
is recommended for dynamic pile testing (Eurocode 7, BS8004) it is
suggested that the Statnamic analysis method is first calibrated against a static
ML or CRP load test on a similar pile installed in similar soil.

4 CHOOSING BETWEEN STATNAMIC AND DYNAMIC

The majority of published material regarding dynamic and Statnamic testing
focuses on the performance of predictions of static pile behaviour with little
regard to the practical benefits of choosing one method over the other.
Comparison of the two methods can be made in terms of accuracy, economy
and risk of pile damage as suggested by Middendorp et al. (2000).

Statnamic testing measures load directly via a calibrated load cell which is
independent of pile properties. To calculate the pile head loads during
dynamic tests on concrete piles the Young’s modulus of the concrete may be
determined by calculation the stress wave velocity from toe reflections. This
is dependent on the presence of a toe reflection and consistent concrete
quality between the toe and the pile head. Where concrete quality varies the
modulus determined by this method will reflect the average throughout the
pile and not necessarily the modulus at the strain measuring instrumentation.
Laboratory determinations of the Young’s modulus do not necessarily reflect
insitu quality and stiffness, especially where heavy reinforcement is present.
Additionally, low strain rate laboratory determined modulus may differ from
the modulus encountered during dynamic testing due to concrete rate effects.
 10

The accuracy of dynamic load testing for cast insitu piles can be significantly
affected by the pile cross section, with pile discontinuities introducing
spurious stress wave reflections which may be interpreted as localised
changes in soil stiffness. The reliance on prior knowledge of the pile cross
section will reduce the reliability of the test when performed on irregular
geometry piles such as continuous flight auger (CFA) and screw piles.
Statnamic measurements are similar to static pile test in that they are not
influenced by pile geometry or quality.

The Statnamic device is comparable with dynamic load testing for

productivity and on-site mobilisation times with the advent of the hydraulic
catch mechanism and the crawler mounted unit. Statnamic testing would have
higher transportation costs as the reaction mass required is typically 5% of the
maximum load requirement (2% for dynamic pile testing). The cost of
dynamic testing is greatly reduced where pile driving rigs are already on site.

Pile damage may occur during dynamic testing due to eccentric loading
resulting in excessive compressive or tensile stresses. The risk of damage may
be reduced by installing additional pile head reinforcement but this limits the
testing of working piles. Statnamic avoids this misalignment with the piston
arrangement being properly aligned and kept in contact with the pile
throughout testing. Dynamic testing may also result in pile damage due to the
generation of tensile stresses in cases where a pile has a soft toe response and
low friction capacity. If tensile of compressive stresses become too high the
test may have to be stopped to avoid pile damage prior to achieving pile
mobilisation. As the Statnamic test uses a long duration load application the
generation of tensile stresses is suppressed.

5 TYPICAL TESTING RESULTS

The results previously presented were for Statnamic pile testing undertaken
on a 12m long 600mm diameter auger bored pile installed in glacial
lodgement till (Figures 3, 4, 5). This section will present other examples of
data under different conditions and where possible will compare the results
with dynamic as well as static testing.

5.1 Case 1, Short CFA pile with rock a socket

The results in figure 6 are for a continuous flight auger (CFA) pile, 400mm in
diameter, installed to a depth of 5.6m through 1.7m of made ground,
underlain by 3.3m of firm to stiff clay with the toe of the pile extending
600mm into moderately strong sandstone. Two cycles of Statnamic loading
were carried out to verify static testing as the tension rods installed in the
 11

reaction piles began to pull out during the static tests. Due to the majority of
settlement associated with this type of installation being elastic compression,
velocities and accelerations generated by the Statnamic test are relatively low.
This results in the measured Statnamic data being directly comparable with a
static test as inertial and damping forces are low. This particular test reflects
the trend of using Statnamic where problems have occurred using another
testing method. In turn this makes it difficult for researchers to compile a
database of reliable Statnamic data and improve the method. Additionally
access to data is often restricted due to contractual disputes.

Figure 6. Results of Statnamic load testing on a short pile with a rock socket.

5.2 Case 2, Driven precast pile in Glacial Till

The results in Figure 7 are for a 275mm by 275mm square precast driven
concrete pile installed to 12.5m in glacial lodgement till at the same site as the
pile in Figure 3. The results of the different test types have been reset to zero
displacement to aid comparison.

In Figure 7 the measured results from Statnamic and static pile testing are
compared with the results of a CAPWAP analysis from a dynamic restrike
test carried out 63 days after pile installation. It can be seen that the dynamic
results make a very good prediction of ultimate pile resistance but over
predict pile settlement at working loads. It is also apparent from comparison
of the shape of the static and dynamic load-settlement results that the
CAPWAP analysis has attributed too high a proportion of the pile’s resistance
to the pile toe. It is interesting to note that the pre analysis Statnamic load-
settlement results are very similar to the measured static results over the
working load settlements.
 12

Figure 7. Comparison of dynamic, Statnamic and static pile testing load-

settlment measurement for a precast driven pile in Glacial Till.

Figure 8. Comparison of measured static pile resistance with predictions

from dynamic and Statnamic analysis for a precast driven pile in Glacial Till.
 13

Both Figure 7 and 8 again highlight the common problem of inadequate

loading and lack of mobilisation often seen in Statnamic tests due to the
ignorance of the significance of rate effects as (discussed in Section 3.3). The
results of the corrected UPM analysis are directly comparable with the
dynamic analysis results but are hampered by the lack of pile mobilisation.
Again the results of the non-linear approach (Equation 1) gives improved
prediction of pile settlement at working loads.

5.3 Case histories by others

The results of an international pile dynamic testing prediction event for
displacement screw piles installed in stiff clay were presented by Holeyman et
al. (2000). They concluded that the results from both corrected UPM and
dynamic load testing analysis (CAPWAP) gave good predictions at working
loads but had a tendency to over predict ultimate pile capacity by up to 25%.

Paikowsky (2004) summarised dynamic testing as a mature proven

technology that has a continuing requirement for transparent identification of
the potential problems. He suggested that there is a need for regular
independent pile settlement measurement and the development of
comprehensive operational guidelines. He felt that Statnamic was a proven
technology for piles installed in granular soils but that there was a need for
reliable analysis tools for all pile conditions and guidance on where current
analysis techniques perform reliably. Wood (2003) suggested that uncorrected
UPM should not be used for piles installed in soils which had a CPT cone
resistance of less than 7MPa and that the accuracy of the method reduced with
the increasing plasticity index for soil. This author feels that Statnamic has the
capability to be a more reliable method than dynamic testing with adequate
research and compilation of a comprehensive testing database. It should be
remembered that there is over 20 years more experience in dynamic testing.

Further examples of Statnamic testing comparisons are presented by Brown

(1994), Brown et al. (2006), Holeyman et al. (2000), McVay et al. (2003),
Paikowsky (2004) and Wood (2003).

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Statnamic pile testing is an alternative method of testing foundation pile load-
settlement behaviour that is flexible and more cost effective than classic static
pile testing techniques. Due to the long duration of its loading it is less likely
to cause pile damage than dynamic pile testing. It has proven to give very
reliable predictions of equivalent static pile resistance for piles installed in
coarse grained soils and rock. At its current level of development the analysis
 14

of Statnamic tests in fine grained soils (clays and silts) is less reliable with
further research and case history data required to improve analysis techniques.

As recommended for dynamic testing, the results of Statnamic testing should

be verified by a static pile test undertaken on an identical pile installed in
similar soil conditions. To obtain adequate data for prediction of equivalent
ultimate static resistance care should be taken that the pile achieves adequate
settlement.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks go to Peter Middendorp (Profound BV, Netherlands) for providing
information on selection of Statnamic and dynamic testing and Tony Suckling
(Stent Foundations Ltd, UK) for pile testing data. The Grimsby research was
undertaken at the University of Sheffield, funded by the Engineering and
Physical Research Council (EPSRC, UK, Grant GR/R46939/01) and
supported by Expanded Piling Ltd, UK, Precision Monitoring and Control,
UK and Berminghammer Foundation Equipment, Canada.

8 REFERENCES
Brown, D.A. (1994) Evaluation of the static capacity of deep foundations
from Statnamic testing. ASTM Geotechnical Testing J., Vol.17, No.4, pp.
403-414.

Brown, M.J. & Hyde, A.F.L. (2006) Some observations of Statnamic pile
testing. Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering J., In press.

Brown, M.J., Wood, T & Suckling, T. (2006) Statnamic pile testing case
studies. 10th Int. Conf. On Piling and Deep Foundations, Amsterdam, 31st
May-2nd June 2006. In press.

Brown, M.J. (2004) Rapid load testing of piles in fine grained soils. PhD
Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.

Holeyman, A.E., Maertens, J., Huybrechts, N. & Legrand, C. (2000) Results

of an international pile dynamic testing prediction event. Proc. 6th Int. Conf.
on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Sao Paulo, 11-13
September 2000, pp. 725-732.

Janes M.C., Justason, M.D. & Brown, D.A. (2000) Standard test for piles
under rapid axial compressive load with its draft paper. Proc. 2nd Int.
Statnamic Seminar, Tokyo, 28-30 October 1998, pp. 199-218.
 15

McVay, M.C., Kuo, C.L. & Guisinger, A.L. (2003) Calibrating resistance
factor in load and resistance factor design of Statnamic load testing. Florida
Dept. of Transportation, March 2003, Research Report 4910-4504-823-12.

Middendorp, P. (2000) Statnamic the engineering of art. Proc. 6th Int. Conf.
on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Sao Paulo, 11-13
September 2000, pp. 551-561.

Middendorp, P. & van Foeken, R.J. (2000) When to apply dynamic load
testing and Statnamic testing. Proc. 2nd Int. Statnamic Seminar, Tokyo, 28-30
October 1998, pp. 303-309.

Middendorp, P., Bermingham, P. & Kuiper, B. (1992) Statnamic load testing

of foundation piles. 4th Int. Conf. on the Application of Stresswave Theory to
Piles, The Hague 21-24 September 1992, pp. 265-272.

Mullins, G., Lewis, C.L. & Justason, M.D. (2002) Advancements in

Statnamic data regression techniques. Proc. ASTM Conf. of the Int. Deep
Foundations Congress, Florida. Geotech. SP. No.116, Vol.2, pp. 915-930.

Paikowsky, S.G. (2004) Innovative load testing systems. Geosciences Testing

and Research Inc, Massachusetts, USA. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, September 2004, Research Report NCHRP 21-08.

Paikowsky, S.G. & Chernauskas, L.R. (1996) Soil inertia and the use of
pseudo viscous damping parameters. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on the Application of
Stresswave Theory to Piles, Florida 11-13 September 1996, pp. 203-216.

Randolph, M.F. & Deeks, A.J. (1992) Dynamic and static soil models for
axial pile response. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on the Application of Stresswave
Theory to Piles, The Hague 21-24 September 1992, pp. 3-14.

The Japanese Geotechnical Society (2000) Draft of method for rapid load
testing of single piles (JGS 1815-2000). Proc. 2nd Int. Statnamic Seminar,
Tokyo, 28-30 October 1998, pp. 237-242.

Wood, T. (2003) An investigation into the validation of pile performance

using Statnamic tests. MSc Thesis, Imperial College, UK.

View publication stats