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

net/publication/304623177

STATNAMIC PILE TESTING CASE STUDIES

Conference Paper · July 2006

CITATION READS

1 286

3 authors, including:

Michael John Brown Tara Wood

University of Dundee Ramboll
116 PUBLICATIONS   830 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Modelling of Seabed Ploughing 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.

 STATNAMIC PILE TESTING CASE STUDIES
Michael J. Brown, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
Tara Wood, NCC Construction Sverige AB, Sweden
Tony P. Suckling, Stent Foundations Limited, Basingstoke, UK

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. Although the
methodology suffers from a lack of 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 a number of case studies undertaken in the UK.
Recommendations are made on test specification and analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Statnamic pile testing
The need of the pile designer to have a simple
method of routine pile design has led to the
use of empirical and semi-empirical methods.
All of the methods produce significant scatter
when compared with actual load tests and for
this reason it is necessary to routinely test
piles to verify that they will perform as
intended. The most common form of load
tests are referred to as static tests which are
simple to undertake and analyse.
Unfortunately they are time consuming and
infrastructure intensive. Statnamic (STN)
testing was developed to be an accurate, cost
effective and quick alternative. The method is
often referred to as a rapid or kinematic load
test. Load is applied to the pile top for a
longer duration than a dynamic test, but much
faster than in a static test, giving a response
which lies between static load behaviour and
dynamic behaviour; hence the name
Statnamic.
point method (UPM) (Kusakabe et al., 1995;
Middendorp et al., 1992). In this method the
pile and soil system are modelled as a single
pile mass supported by a spring and dashpot
in parallel. This model is similar to that often
used for modelling vibrations in simple
systems. A bi-linear spring is used to
represent the force deflection behaviour under
static loading and a dashpot/damper
represents velocity dependent soil resistance.
The UPM method works by determining a
constant damping coefficient that when
multiplied by the velocity gives the viscous soil
resistance.
The UPM analysis method was conceived to
be simple and based on measured results
alone thus avoiding the criticisms of dynamic
analysis. This said, the analysis method has
several simplifications that may significantly
influence the accuracy of predictions. These
are:

To investigate the suitability of Statnamic • The damping model is linear.

testing, static and Statnamic tests from four
different sites, with a range of ground
conditions and pile installation methods, were
considered (Wood, 2003).
Statnamic analysis
For foundation design it is necessary to 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
• The pile system is composed of rigid
bodies.
Although the present analysis has
shortcomings it generally provides good
correlation with static tests for coarse-grained
soils (Brown, 1994), but may over-predict pile
capacities by up to 50% for clays and fine
grained soils (Brown, 2004; Wood, 2003).
This is reflected in the UPM correction factors
( η ) proposed by Paikowsky (2004) shown in
Table 1.

Table 1 – Correction factors for UPM analysis
(Paikowsky, 2004)
Soil Rate FOS FOS
type effect without η with η
factor
(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
It should be noted that the correction factors
suggested for clay are based on a very limited
number of cases (4) which has led to a
reluctance to specify safety factors in clay
(McVay et al., 2003).
The over prediction in fine grained soils is
thought to be predominantly due to rate effects
or to the strain rate dependency of the soil’s
shear strength and stiffness. Unfortunately,
the variation of the damping coefficient with
rate of loading for clays is highly non-linear
resulting in over-predictions as discussed
above (Hyde et al., 2000). For analysis of
piles deriving the majority of their capacity
from shaft friction in these soil types, Brown
(2004) and Brown et al. (2004) showed that a
non-linear rate parameter analysis similar to
that proposed by Randolph et al. (1992) for
dynamic test analysis could be incorporated in
Statnamic analysis:
FSTN − Ma
Fstatic = (1)
1 + α (∆v )β − α (v 0 )β
where Fstatic is the required static pile
resistance, FSTN is the measured Statnamic
load, Ma is the pile inertia, ∆v is the pile’s
velocity relative to the soil, v 0 is the velocity of
the static pile test used to define the soil
specific rate parameters α and β . This
method of analysis has been proposed as an
alternative to UPM. In order to expand this
form of analysis to both working and ultimate
pile behaviour, Balderas-Meca (2004) showed
that the rate parameter α is dependant on the
level of pile-soil strain and varies up to
approximately 1.0 to 1.2% of the pile
settlement (s) relative to the pile diameter (b).
Above this level, consistent with ultimate pile
behaviour, the value of α becomes constant.
To incorporate simplified strain dependant
damping Eq.1 can be modified to:
FSTN − Ma (2)
Fstatic =
⎛ F ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
1 + ⎜ STN ⎟α (∆v ) β − ⎜ FSTN ⎟α (v 0 )β
⎜ FSTNpeak ⎟ ⎜ FSTNpeak ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
where FSTNpeak is the peak measured
Statnamic load when ultimate behaviour has
been mobilised.
Although rate effects are the most likely cause
of errors with Statnamic analysis, problems
may occur when the test is applied to long
piles or piles with rock sockets due to the
breakdown of rigid body assumptions. Mullins
et al. (2002) recommend that for concrete piles
in excess of 40m in length (steel piles > 50m
long) that more specialized analysis
(segmental unloading point method-SUPM)
with pile instrumentation is required. Similar
breakdown of the rigid body assumptions may
occur for piles with rock sockets where the toe
is restrained and the pile head is free to move.
However, this can again be addressed with
specialised analysis (modified unloading point
method MUPM) and instrumentation.
CASE STUDIES
The following case studies are based upon
testing results where both the piling contractor
and pile testing contractor were the same in
each study. Only one Statnamic device has
been used in all cases and this was operated
by the same crew each time.
Case Study 1- London, UK
This first case study compares Statnamic
(STN) and static maintained loading tests
(MLT) for piles installed in London Clay. A
preliminary pile testing programme was
undertaken consisting of seven auger bored
cast in situ piles ranging in diameter from
450 mm to 750 mm. The results presented
are for TP2 (450 mm diameter) and TP4
(600 mm diameter) as these two piles had
very similar lengths (26.68 m and 26.63 m,
respectively) and were installed in similar soil
types. The piles were installed through
approximately 1m of made ground, followed by
10.5 m of weathered London Clay (average
unit weight, γ=19.9 kN/m3), followed by
unweathered London Clay (γ=20.5 kN/m3).
For design purposes the undrained shear
strength in the upper weathered zone was
taken as 40 kPa + 7.5 kPa per metre with a are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The results of
typical static cone resistance (qc) of 2.0 to analysis by the different methods for the three
2.5 MPa. The unweathered material had a
undrained shear strength of 115 kPa + 4.5 kPa
per metre and a typical cone resistance of 2.5
to 3.25 MPa. The material had an average
clay content of 55% and Liquidity Index in the
range -0.12 to 0.10. In both cases the top
1.6 m of the pile was debonded from the
surrounding soil.

Test pile TP2 was first subjected to MLT,

followed 22 days later by a series of three
Statnamic load cycles of increasing
magnitude. Test pile TP4 was first subjected
to three Statnamic load cycles followed
11 days later by MLT. Results are shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. The complete results of the
MLT tests have not been presented to aid
comparison with the relatively low settlement
induced in the Statnamic tests. The maximum
static settlements for TP2 and TP4 were
44.3 mm at 1040 kN and 57.6 mm at 3614 kN,
respectively.
Fig. 2 – Comparison of static and Statnamic
pile test results for TP4
cycles have been combined to form an
envelope to aid clarity of presentation. It can
be seen that the UPM analysis applied to TP2
(Fig. 3) over predicts ultimate pile capacity by
23% at a settlement of 8.82 mm but makes a
good prediction of pile-soil stiffness up to
3.7 mm of settlement or 54% of the ultimate
measured static resistance. Applying the
suggested correction to UPM for clays as
outlined in Table 1 results in the under
prediction of both pile resistance and pile-soil
stiffness.

Fig. 1 – Comparison of static and Statnamic

pile test results for TP2

It is clear in Fig. 1 that greater loads need to

be applied during Statnamic loading to
generate the same settlements observed in
static testing where the soil behaviour is
affected by rate of loading. Also of note is the
similarity between the uncorrected Statnamic
results and the static tests up to approximately
2 mm (Fig. 1) to 3.5 mm (Fig. 2) of pile
settlement. The maximum pile velocity and
acceleration attained for TP2 and TP4 were
0.290 m/s and 33 m/s/s, and 0.162 m/s and
18 m/s/s respectively and occurred during
cycle three of Statnamic loading in both cases.
The results of analysis to derive the equivalent
static pile resistance from Statnamic testing
Fig. 3 – Comparison of UPM and non-linear
prediction of equivalent static behaviour for
TP2.
To predict the static pile resistance using
Eq. 2, rate parameters were selected based
upon both high speed model pile testing
(Brown, 2004) and triaxial testing (Balderas-
Meca, 2004) of a glacial till from Grimsby, UK,
as high speed testing parameters were
unavailable for London Clay. The values
selected were based upon α = 1.22 and
β = 0.2. From Figs. 1 and 2 it is clear that the
pile had not reached ultimate behaviour during
the Statnamic testing so the rate parameters
used were modified to reflect the level of pile
settlement as suggested by Balderas-Meca
(2004). He suggested that if the normalized
settlement ((s/d) x 100) equaled 1.2% then α
would equal its maximum value, in this case
1.22. Prior to reaching this level of settlement
the value of α is allowed to vary linearly from
zero to its maximum of 1.22. Thus for cycle 1
of Statnamic loading the maximum value of α
entered in Eq. 2 was 0.73 based upon a
maximum settlement of 3.24 mm. The
remaining cycles had α values of 1.14 and
1.22 respectively. In all cases β was fixed at
0.2.
Fig. 4 – Comparison of UPM and non-linear
prediction of equivalent static behaviour for
TP4.
Results of using the non-linear approach
(Eq. 2) show improved prediction of pile-soil
stiffness at low pile settlements when
compared with the reduced UPM results
(Fig. 4). As settlement increases this method
of analysis does not perform as well as the
reduced UPM approach (Fig. 3).
Case Study 2- Grimsby, UK
An instrumented auger bored cast in situ pile
12 m long and 600 mm diameter was installed
in Glacial Till (lodgement till) as part of a
research study carried out by Brown (2004).
The pile was installed through 2.4 m of firm to
very stiff weathered clay followed by firm to
very stiff clay to approximately 15 m below the
pile toe (γ = 21.7 kN/m3). The shear strength
in the upper weathered layer varied between
100 to 280 kPa, with a maximum cone
resistance (qc) of 3.75 MPa. The average
undrained shear strength between this layer
and the pile toe was approximately 100 kPa
with an average static cone resistance of
0.6 MPa. The material had an average clay
content of 32%, a Liquidity Index in the range -
0.17 to 0.43 and a specific gravity of 2.69.
The pile was subject to a series of six
Statnamic load cycles of increasing magnitude
over a 2 day period. Results are shown in
Fig. 5 for the final cycle compared with the
results of static constant rate of penetration
tests (CRP) and MLT undertaken one month
later on the same pile. Again, it is evident that
greater loads are required during Statnamic to
generate the same deflections observed in
static testing where clay is present. As was
observed for Case 1 the uncorrected
Statnamic and the static tests results are
similar at low pile settlement (up to 2 mm).
The maximum pile velocity and acceleration
attained were 0.467 m/s and 60 m/s/s
respectively.
Fig. 5 – Pile testing results and predictionof
equivalent static pile resistance.
The results of analysis using both UPM and
the non-linear approach (Eq. 2) are shown in
Fig. 5. The UPM analysis without correction
over predicts ultimate static pile capacity by
31% and also under predicts pile stiffness
behaviour. When corrected by 0.65 (Table 1)
the prediction of ultimate behaviour 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 2 were taken
as α = 1.22 and β = 0.2 (Brown, 2004;
Balderas-Meca, 2004).
Case Study 3- Kent, UK
Over 200 continuous flight auger (CFA) piles
(750 mm diameter) were installed to
approximately 20 m through superficial
quaternary alluvial deposits overlying sand.
The upper strata consisted of made ground to
1m depth underlain by 5 m of very soft clay
(γ = 15 kN/m3) over 1.5 m of medium dense
clayey gravel (γ = 19 kN/m3) followed by 10 m
of medium dense sandy gravel (γ = 20 kN/m3).
The dense fine silty sand (Thanet Sand) was
proven from 17.5m to 23.8m below ground
level (γ = 21 kN/m3).
Two cycles of Statnamic pile testing were
carried out on a single pile (TPC1, 19.6 m
long) after a MLT proof loading test on another
pile (TPC6, 23.8 m long) failed to meet the
serviceability requirements for settlement
(Fig. 6). This was thought be due to having to
over cut sections of the initial bore due to
concrete supply problems during piling.
Statnamic was selected as the re-test
methodology to minimise delays associated
with further static testing and the construction
of a suitable reaction system.
Fig. 6 – Results of static and Statnamic pile
testing.
As the piles were installed predominantly in
sands and gravels, determination of equivalent
static pile resistance has only been
undertaken using the UPM method with the
UPM results corrected by 0.91 as per Table 1.
Fig. 7 – UPM prediction of equivalent static
behaviour for TPC1
Detailed comparison between measured and
predicted static resistance is made difficult due
to the lack of reliable static loading test results.
Comparison of the results show that the
predicted static behaviour was similar to that
measured by MLT up to approximately 2 mm
pile settlement (Fig. 7) after this point the
predicted pile stiffness is greater, suggesting
that TPC6 displayed reduced shaft friction
capacity due to the reworking of the pile-soil
interface during pile construction.
Case Study 4- Warwickshire, UK
A series of relatively short (6 to 7.5 m long)
450 mm diameter continuous flight auger
(CFA) piles were installed through 5.0 to 6.1 m
of firm to very stiff sandy clay with the pile toes
terminating at least 1m into weak to
moderately strong mudstone (Upper
Carboniferous Meriden Formation). In the clay
stratum, the undrained shear strength was
recorded as 180 kPa at 2 m below ground
level from undrained triaxial testing and insitu
SPT testing N values were measured from 10
to 48. The clay was found to have a Liquidity
Index in the range -0.32 to 0.41.
During static MLT, on one of the test piles,
(TP15), it was noticed that one of the CFA
anchor piles was being pulled upwards. Thus
the test was suspended and it was decided to
continue with Statnamic to minimise further
contract delays and to use a system that did
not rely on reaction from anchor piles.
Statnamic testing was undertaken on seven
piles with peak applied loads varying between
788 kN and 1875 kN (1.3 to 1.5 times the safe
working load). The results of Statnamic
testing shown in Fig. 8 highlight the variability
of load-settlement behaviour for the different
piles. This is attributed to the variation in
ground conditions and rock quality at the pile
toe level over the area of the site.
The Statnamic results for TP15 suggest a
competent rock socket with comparable
stiffness to that found during static testing.
The similarity of the results obtained for both
TP15 and TP24 along with borehole data
would suggest that they were both founded in
the moderately strong mudstone. The
apparent difference in ultimate behaviour is a
result of the different target Statnamic loads
(TP15 = 1875 kN, TP24 = 788 kN). The target
Statnamic load being the maximum load that
will be applied to the pile during the test. This
load level is pre-defined before commencing
testing, thus making Statnamic a stress
controlled rather than strain controlled test. It
is highly likely that if 1875 kN would have been
applied to TP24 a load-settlement envelope
similar to TP 15 would have been obtained.
Fig. 8 – Results of static and Statnamic pile
testing.
As the piles were installed with a rock socket,
determination of equivalent static pile
resistance has only been undertaken using the
UPM method and the UPM results corrected
by 0.96 as per Table 1. Detailed comparison
between measured static resistance and that
derived is made difficult due to the lack of
reliable static loading test results. That said,
comparison of the results for TP15 (Fig. 9)
highlight that Statnamic tests undertaken
where a pile has a rock socket, result in
relatively low velocities and accelerations (v =
0.132 m/s, a = 16 m/s/s). This leads to
relatively little correction of the measured
Statnamic data. However, care should be
taken when analysing Statnamic results from
rock socket piles as velocity and acceleration
may be greater at the head of the pile than at
the toe. To overcome this, appropriate
instrumentation is required coupled with
modified UPM approaches (Mullins et al,
2002).
Fig. 9 – UPM prediction of equivalent static
behaviour for TP15
DISCUSSION
When specifying Statnamic pile testing, it is
important to specify the application of sufficient
loads to mobilise the pile and produce
significant settlement. Results from the
Grimsby case study suggest the minimum
settlement to allow prediction of static ultimate
capacity should be 12 mm or 0.02b. As can be
seen from the cases presented here, it is not
adequate to specify application of the design
static loads especially where the soil is likely to
display rate effects (Brown, 2005; Wood,
2003). Although predictions of ultimate
capacity were hindered for the cases
presented here, a good indication of a pile’s
performance under working loads has been
obtained, especially in clay or fine grained
soils.
The use of the UPM method of predicting
static pile resistance in fine grained soils
without modification for soil type should be
avoided. Without correction, this method
appears to work well at low settlements but
significantly over predicts ultimate pile
behaviour. In coarse grained deposits or
where the pile includes a rock socket, again
the UPM method appears to perform well at
working loads. Due to the limitations of the
data presented here, it is not appropriate to
comment on the prediction of ultimate
behaviour in coarse grained soils although
Brown (1994) presents examples of good
performance in these soil types. This is also
reflected in the low rate effect factors
proposed for rock and sand in Table 1.
Both the UPM method and the non-linear
approach are dependant on the selection of
soil dependant rate parameters. Modification
of UPM by these parameters in clay soils
leads to improvement in ultimate predictions
but reduces the accuracy of prediction at
working loads. Using the non-linear approach
together with soil specific material rate
parameters measured in laboratory tests,
appears to offer improvements over the UPM
method, especially where these parameters
are allowed to vary with the pile’s settlement.
For TP2 of the London case study, the non-
linear approach appears to perform less well
than TP4 and the Grimsby case study. This
under prediction of pile capacity approaching
yield is associated with cycle 3 of Statnamic
loading applied to TP2. This test displayed the
highest pile velocity of 0.290 m/s which was
approximately 1.8 times the velocities
experienced by TP4. This suggests that the
maximum α of 1.22 adopted for London Clay
was too high and that a lower value would
have been more suitable. This may be
confirmed by high speed laboratory testing or
back analysis of Statnamic tests where the pile
has been fully mobilised.
This London case study highlights the need for
soil specific rate parameters. Unfortunately,
however, there are no consistent published
rate parameters for different soils based upon
elemental soil testing. Where databases do
exist, they are derived from empirical results
from pile testing and there appears to be less
data for fine grained soils than for other soils.
In addition, when using either of the analysis
methods discussed here, it is not clear which
soil parameters should be selected in mixed
soil conditions.
The Statnamic test results presented in the
case studies has allowed evaluation of the
different techniques available for test analysis.
The case studies have also identified trends in
the use of the Statnamic device. For two of the
case studies the test technique was used
where problems had been encountered with
both pile performance and static pile testing
set ups. Due to the nature of Statnamic, this
allowed the quick and easy assessment of a
significant number of working piles which
resulted in client reassurance and minimal
delays to project programming. Where
unexpected behaviour does occur during static
pile testing, repeat loading with Statnamic on
the same pile may be undertaken to verify the
nature of the problem before moving onto
other working piles that may not display the
same undesirable performance characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
• In order to assess the ultimate static
capacity of a pile using a Statnamic
test, the pile must be fully mobilised.
This should be based upon the pile’s
settlement during Statnamic testing.
The required Statnamic load is often
set at the design static load with no
allowance for dynamic effects and
consequently the pile is not fully
mobilised.
• Although the majority of the piles in
the case studies were not fully
mobilised, a good indication of a pile’s
performance under working loads may
be obtained.
• The unloading point method can be
used with minimal correction in coarse
grained soils and rock. For fine
grained soils such as silts and clays,
significant correction is required which
may result in less accurate prediction
of working load settlement.
• A non-linear rate parameter based
analysis appears to offer potential for
analysis of Statnamic tests in fine
grained soils. However, it is currently
hindered by the lack of suitable non-
linear damping parameters.
• Statnamic load testing may prove a
useful assessment tool where static
pile testing techniques have failed to
perform as anticipated or where
assessment of a large number of
working piles is required.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The majority of the data for this paper was
kindly provided by Stent Foundations Limited.
Statnamic and static pile load testing was
undertaken by Precision Monitoring and
Control (UK).
The Grimsby case study formed part of a
research project funded by the Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council
(Grant No. GR/R46939/01). Technical
assistance was provided by Berminghammer
Foundation Equipment (Canada) and TNO
Building Research (Netherlands). The
Expanded Piling Company (UK) kindly
installed the piles and provided the research
site facility.
REFERENCES
BALDERAS MECA, J. 2004. Rate effects in
rapid loading of clays soils. PhD Thesis,
University of Sheffield, UK.
BROWN, D.A. 1994. Evaluation of the static
capacity of deep foundations from Statnamic
testing. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal,
Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 403-414.
BROWN, M.J. 2005. Some observations of
Statnamic pile testing. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Geotechnical
Engineering Journal, In press.
BROWN, M.J. 2004. Rapid load testing of
piles in fine grained soils. PhD Thesis,
University of Sheffield, UK.
 BROWN, M.J., ANDERSON, W.F. and HYDE.
A.F.L. 2004. Statnamic testing of model piles
in a clay calibration chamber. International
Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
(IJPMG), Volume 4, Number 1. 1, pp. 11-24.

HYDE, A.F.L., ROBINSON, S.A. and

ANDERSON, W.F. 2000. Rate effects in clay
soils and their relevance to Statnamic testing.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Statnamic
Seminar, Tokyo, 28-30 October 1998, A.A.
Balkema, pp. 303-309.

KUSAKABE, O. and MATSUMOTO, T. 1995.

Statnamic tests of Shonan test program with
review of signal interpretation. Proceedings of
the 1st International Statnamic Seminar,
Vancouver, 27-30 September 1995, pp. 113-
122.

MCVAY, M.C., KUO, C.L. and GUISINGER,

A.L. 2003. Calibrating resistance factor in load
and resistance factor design of Statnamic load
testing. University of Florida, Florida, USA.
Florida Department of Transportation, March
2003, Research Report 4910-4504-823-12,
Contract BC354, RPWO#42.

MIDDENDORP, P., BERMINGHAM, P. and

KUIPER, B. 1992. Statnamic load testing of
foundation piles. 4th International Conference
on the Application of Stresswave Theory to
Piles, The Hague 21-24 September 1992, A.A.
Balkema, pp. 265-272.

MULLINS, G., LEWIS, C.L. and JUSTASON,

M.D. 2002. Advancements in Statnamic data
regression techniques. Proceedings of the
ASTM Conference of the International Deep
Foundations Congress, Florida. ASTM
Geotechnical Special Publication Number 116,
Volume 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.

RANDOLPH, M.F. and DEEKS, A.J. 1992

Dynamic and static soil models for axial pile
response. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on the Application of Stresswave
Theory to Piles, The Hague 21-24 September
1992, A.A. Balkema, pp. 3-14.

WOOD, T. 2003. An investigation into the

validation of pile performance using Statnamic
tests. MSc Thesis, Imperial College, UK.

View publication stats