International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.

119-127
ISSN: 2186-2982 (P), 2186-2990 (O), Japan, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21660/2024.121.g13441
Geotechnique, Construction Materials and Environment

COMPARISON OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC LOAD TESTING:

A REVIEW

*Vincent Carl S. Cuajao1,2, Orlean G. Dela Cruz1 and Abdollah Tabaroei,1,3

1
Graduate School, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Philippines;
2
Fugro Philippines, Inc. Philippines;
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Eshragh Institute of Higher Education, Bojnourd, Iran

*Corresponding Author, Received: 15 June 2023, Revised: 01 July 2024, Accepted: 07 July 2024

ABSTRACT: Engineers have used deep pile foundations to support heavy loads from multi-story structures. For
engineers to compare the actual pile capacities from their designs, deep foundation testing has made it possible to
determine the actual pile foundation capacity and its behavior with soil. Static and dynamic load testing are the
primary load tests to determine pile capacities. Numerous authors have proven connections between static and
dynamic load tests on piles since the 1980s. However, comparing both testing results, we see that both have
different capacities and correlation criteria. Fifty-one (51) piles tested with static and dynamic load testing from
previous research are used. The comparison of DLT and SLT results provided the outcome of an average DLT/SLT
ratio of 0.9833. The literature review reveals good agreement between the two test results when compared. The
literature review recommends comparing SLT capacities to the DLT's field capacities and those obtained using
CAPWAP analysis. Moreover, instrumented SLT can also be compared to those from DLT, allowing for the
utilization of skin resistance from both tests as an additional criterion for comparison.

Keywords: Static load testing, Dynamic load Testing, CAPWAP analysis, Deep foundation testing

1. INTRODUCTION control and performance [6]. Meanwhile, the required

pile capacity depends on the test method for verifying
Piling foundations are currently among the most the pile capacity and the testing frequency [3].
common solutions in densely populated urban areas Three tests can be performed: the vertical load test
[1]. Since the necessity for controlling settlements (compression), the lateral load test, and the pull-out
and supporting heavy loads increases, deep test (tension). A vertical load test is typically
foundations are widely used in construction [2]. conducted to evaluate the allowed load on a pile and
Engineers have various options when building a establish the load-settlement relationship under
foundation system, including the maximum load per compression. Initial testing and routine testing are the
pile and pile size (type, length, and diameter). The two sorts of tests that are typically performed on piles
foundation will move unacceptably or perhaps fail if [7].
the ultimate pile capacity is not sufficient to exceed Dynamic and static load tests are the main load
the applied loads [3]. As a result of the rise in tests that estimate pile capacities [8-9]. Because
foundation service loads, geotechnical engineers and typically only one procedure is employed per site,
designers are following a global trend to measure the comparing the findings of various tests is frequently
actual behavior of pile-soil interaction [4]. It is almost impossible. The Static Load Test (SLT), whether in
impossible to predict the soil's actual behavior using compression or tension, is the primary test that may
theoretical and iterative methods since it behaves correctly forecast pile capacity and pile reaction for
significantly differently under loads applied over both driven and bored piles. However, a single SLT
time. A more complicated phenomenon appears when requires a costly, time-consuming, and sophisticated
the loads are transferred to the ground using a setup, and SLTs are rarely carried out. SLTs may
foundation. Interest in foundation behavior has grown typically only be economically justified on large-
since foundations were used to support ever-larger scale projects, and even then, the geotechnical
superstructures [5]. conditions may be so variable that more than a few
Accurately estimating pile-bearing capacity has tests may be needed to fully understand the behavior
always been a top priority for geotechnical engineers. of the pile over the project site [9-10].
Static design equations, in situ test methods, static On the other hand, due to its simplicity and solid
load tests, and dynamic load tests may be used to theoretical foundation, DLT presents as a reasonable
estimate the axial bearing capacity of single piles alternative to handle most of the challenges raised
when designing pile foundations. Currently, above (including pile capacity determination) [10].
estimates by set and rebound (dynamic formulae), The dynamic load (PDA) test has become the
static load testing (SLT), and dynamic load tests standard testing procedure for assessing pile capacity
(DLT) are used to verify this capacity for quality and integrity for driven and cast-in-situ piles.

119
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

Generally, there is a good agreement between the because it contains the most comprehensive citations
derived pile capacity and the static load-carrying researchers use [14]. The keywords "TOPIC" with the
capacity. The cost of the test is far lower than the cost Boolean operators "AND" and "OR" were used by the
of a typical static load test, and the test's brief duration authors to initiate the literature search. If the title of
is one of its most alluring benefits. Dynamic load the articles appeared to be related to the literature
testing delivers significant time, cost, and space review topic, the authors started gathering valuable
savings over static pile loading tests [11]. data, such as the author, year, title, and abstract,
Numerous authors have proven connections which are for further analysis.
between static and dynamic load tests on piles since The objective was to identify existing research
the 1980s; nevertheless, adequate load test execution that discusses the following topics:
is required for a satisfactory correlation. Signal Topic 1: Discussion of static load testing and its
matching can further analyze dynamic data to testing methodology
determine the distribution of soil resistance, toe Topic 2: Discussion of dynamic load testing and its
resistance, quakes, and damping. The best feasible testing methodology
match between a computed pile top variable, such as Topic 3: CAPWAP analysis as a means of evaluating
the pile top force, and its measured equivalent serves dynamic load testing capacities
as the basis for results [6,11-12]. However, these Topic 4: Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load
comparisons are based on the actual practice of Testing result
completing just one CAPWAP analysis for each The database search terms "STATIC PILE LOAD
dynamic test run. When conducting CAPWAP TEST," "DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST," and
analysis for all blows of the same test, confirming a "COMPARISON" or "CORRELATION" are shown
better fit between the tests when comparing the DLT in Fig. 1 and produce 169 articles. The screening
and the SLT (and not just one) is possible. This stage excluded 10 articles not written in English and
method accurately calculates the rupture load of the 25 papers published before 2000. As a result, 134
foundation element using the SLT or DLT [6]. potential articles were found. Papers unrelated to the
Although numerous researchers proved a research question (n = 84) and those uploaded without
satisfactory correlation, it is still noted that different author information (n = 14) were also eliminated after
capacities and correlation criteria were used in the screening stage. Thirty-six (36) documents were
comparing both testing results. Therefore, the authors chosen to be included in the literature review.
gathered different studies to review the existing Additionally, both standard test procedures for static
comparison of both tests as a reference and guide for and dynamic load testing issues by the American
future studies involving SLT and DLT. Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) are
included in the literature review.
2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Deep foundations are crucial to the long-term Database searching with keywords:
Identification

performance of a structure because they sustain the “Static Pile Load Test” AND “Dynamic
entire structural system. Geotechnical engineers use Pile Load Test” AND “Comparison”
OR “Correlation”
deep foundation testing to determine actual pile
foundation capacity and soil behavior. Static and
dynamic testing methods were employed to define Papers excluded:
and validate each deep foundation's geotechnical Total Number of Publication year
Screening

capabilities. Furthermore, the larger the load the relevant papers earlier than year
foundation supports, the more critical deep through database 2000 (n = 25)
foundation tests such as SLT and DLT are. As a result, searching Languages other
(n = 169) than English
geotechnical engineers need to examine the existing
(n = 10)
comparison of static and dynamic load testing to
determine actual foundation capability.
Eligibility

Records screen Papers

by title, abstract, excluded:
3. METHODOLOGY introduction and Not related to
conclusion
RQ
This section provides a systematic overview of the (n = 134)
(n = 98)
related research in explaining, evaluating, and
Included

gathering data on the subject [13]. A keyword-based Full text obtained

resource, such as Scopus (https://www.scopus.com), Number of
and reviewed for
Included Paper
was used for the advanced search to gather relevant eligibility
(n = 36)
studies regarding the sources of the authors’ interest (n = 36)
and give a comprehensive list of literature. The
Fig.1 Flow Diagram of Systematic Review
authors select Scopus as the research database

120
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

4. DISCUSSION decreased when the ultimate failure load rather than

just a proof load can be identified [3,17].
4.1 Static Load Testing and Its Methodology The kentledge or weighted box system was first
used for static load tests – later, it became a reaction
Many authors believe that static pile load testing frame system. A hydraulic jack resting on the
is the sole method for testing piles and the best Kentledge girder or provision of reference beams is
indicator of long-term pile performance, ultimate used to apply the load to evaluate pile load carrying
bearing capacity, settlement characteristics at capacity in compression. Under the appropriate
working load (and beyond), and structural integrity weights, compression, uplift, and lateral static load
[1,15]. The ability of the deep foundation to support tests can be performed to determine pile displacement
structural loads at acceptable settlements would be (axial compression, tension, or lateral loads). The
best understood if all the foundation's piles were put static system uses a load cell to measure the applied
through this test and if the test was carried out loads. According to the test standard, the load is
appropriately, that is, at the appropriate time, with applied to the pile in a succession of safe vertical
accurate instruments and sufficient loading downward incremental loadings. Dial gauges that are
equipment [16]. each evenly spaced around the piles and often held by
Before 1970, piles were tested for large projects datum bars on immovable supports are used to
using an ASTM D1143 Standard for Static Load Test, measure settlement on top of the pile. Meanwhile,
which specified that the slowly applied load dial gauges were replaced by wire vibration strain-
maintained over days was twice the design load. Per reinforced bars in the interim due to several
the site, only one static test was typically run, and inaccuracies during testing [11,17-19]. Fig. 2 and 3
these so-called "proof tests" seldom ever failed. Thus, show the typical schematic diagram of the SLT using
even though the pile did not fail, the usual safety the Kentledge and reaction frame systems.
factor 2.0 was established due to the loading being If only one or a few carefully chosen test piles are
only twice the design load. Standard failure load used, static load testing is cost- and time-effective.
estimates were based on either a net movement limit However, additional quality assurance and control
after the load was removed (usually 0.25 to 0.75 methods are necessary due to the diversity of the site's
inches) or some pile top movement limit (commonly geotechnical characteristics, potential structural
0.75 to 1.5 inches). The quick procedure static test damage problems with specific piles, unpredictable
method described in ASTM D1143 is increasingly equipment behavior during installation, and other
popular due to the recent emphasis of the FHWA challenges. Such measures include comprehensive
(1997). Its evaluation for failure or ultimate load uses construction monitoring and supplementary dynamic
the offset yield line method, which is typically among loading tests [16]. Due to time and money restrictions,
the most conservative failure definitions, and the it is not feasible to statically test every pile; hence,
loads are frequently carried to failure or to at least such testing is generally restricted to a tiny sample of
three times the design load in a test that lasts only a piles on any site (about 1% or less for significant
few hours. Foundation expenses can often be

Weighted
Beam

Load Cells
Beam Bearing Plate Vibrating Wire Beam
Support Displacement Support
Hydraulic Jack Transducers

Test Pile

Fig. 2 Typical Schematic Diagram of SLT using Kentledge or Weighted Box System

121
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

Tension Rod

Reaction Beam

Load Cells
Bearing Plate Vibrating Wire
Displacement
Hydraulic Jack Transducers

Reaction Reaction
Pile Test Pile Pile

Fig. 3 Typical Schematic Diagram of SLT using Reaction Frame System

projects or only one per site, if any, for small projects). pile force and velocity during hammer contact [3].
Numerous factors can impact the accuracy of Dynamic load testing (DLT) is increasingly popular
static testing. The measuring accuracy should be worldwide for testing cast-in-situ piles to determine
within 20% of the actual value when static testing is their integrity and capacity in compression.
done correctly. If a recently calibrated load cell is [19]. According to ASTM D4945, a Dynamic Load
specified, the accuracy of the results is increased. Test (DLT) or High Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT)
However, depending on the evaluation method is carried out to assess the mobilized load at the pile-
(such as Davisson, Chin, Butler-Hoy, double tangent, soil system [8,20,22-24].
slope, D/10, etc.), interpretation of the resulting load- Currently, most projects use the dynamic load
settlement graph might result in numerous distinct test (DLT) on piles to assess the piles' structural
ultimate loads [3]. Designers are looking for an integrity and static capacity using force and velocity
alternate approach for pile testing due to increasing measurements. The dynamic test determines the force
time and cost, notably, the challenges of transporting and velocity induced in a pile during an axial impact
static load testing accessories into crowded city event based on readings from strain or force,
centers and the need for more space on many sites. acceleration, velocity, or displacement transducers.
The trend is for contractors to mainly use dynamic The pile is pushed relative to the surrounding soil by
approaches in addition to standard static tests [19]. the stress wave produced by the impact and travels
down the pile. The dynamic load test involves striking
4.2 Dynamic Load Testing and Its Methodology the pile repeatedly while using force transducers and
high-sensitivity accelerometers to measure
Due to the possibility of considerable changes in deformation and acceleration values over time. To
the surrounding soil conditions during construction or estimate soil resistance and distribution, the DLT
installation, it is crucial to determine the pile capacity measures force and velocity close to the top of a
via a load test [20]. Weap analysis, PDA foundation struck by a hammer or drop weight. The
measurements, and CAPWAP analysis of measured total pile resistance (dynamic + static) can be
data are generally referred to as "dynamic testing and calculated using force and velocity readings from
analysis" in the abbreviated version. Dynamic testing strain gauges and accelerometers mounted to the pile.
and analysis have grown into an essential tool for the These sensors are linked to a device that stores,
foundation engineer responsible for dealing with analyses, and presents data and outcomes, such as a
designing piles, pile installation, and pile foundations, pile driving analyzer. The most often used tool for
as well as verifying a design and resolving issues that gathering pile data is the Pile Driving Analyzer
arise during construction since it has become (PDA), which is manufactured by Pile Dynamics, Inc.
available to the industry in the early 1970s [21]. Dr. Between 1.5 and 2.0 Diameters from the pile top, at
G.G. Goble and his associates at Case Western least two transducers and one accelerometer are
Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, invented mounted [8,18,20,22,25-32]. Fig. 4 shows the typical
dynamic testing, a common technique for assessing schematic diagram of dynamic load testing.
pile capacity. To determine the behavior of the soil
during dynamic testing, it is necessary to measure the

122
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

Dynamic pile testing must be done after the impacts of soil resistance. The CAPWAP results also
concrete has sufficiently strengthened so a long contain soil quake and damping values in friction and
enough wait is naturally achieved to allow the soil end bearing and a simulated pile static test load-
strength to recover from the installation process. The movement graph. Static resistance forces along the
instrumentation and alignment are typically checked pile shaft (also known as skin friction) and at the pile
with a small initial impact. Then, blows with toe (also known as end bearing) is an efficient method
increasing drop height are applied until, whichever for determining the impacts of high rebound on the
comes first: the stresses meet the pile's strength limits; performance of the hammer, pile, and soil during pile
the set per blow exceeds around 3 mm, activating the installation is dynamic pile testing and accompanying
entire capacity; or the result reveals a capacity data analysis. Dynamic pile testing during restrike
sufficiently more significant than the project provides long-term static pile load-bearing capacity
requirements. For shafts built in clay soils or into and load-movement characteristics incorporating
rock, the advised drop weight is at least 1% of the time-dependent geotechnical impacts [25-26,28,33].
needed ultimate capacity to be proven. The suggested
proportion rises to at least 2% of the load to be tested 4.3 CAPWAP Analysis as a Means of Evaluating
for piles with more excellent estimated end-bearing Dynamic Load Test Capacities
contributions [3].
The wave equation analysis offers a more
reasonable method for estimating pile load-carrying
capacity. A plot of measured force vs. measured
Crane Lead displacement does not resemble the static load-
Pile Driving settlement curve due to stress wave effects brought on
Hammer by the quick loading of the pile. By eliminating the
dynamic impacts of the pile and soil, the dynamic
force must be converted to a static force to calculate
Sensors the static load-settlement curve [23].
The CASE method was used to analyze the pile
load-carrying capacity. Later, the static pile capacity
Crane was calculated using the recorded data and the
computer software called CAPWAP. The correct
CASE damping factor for the piles at the location was
Data Analyzer eventually determined by matching the PDA signals
with CAPWAP analysis. The CAPWAP software, as
defined by Goble, is typically used to analyze the
Test Pile force and velocity information received in dynamic
loading testing. [9,11,18,34-36].
Fig. 4 Typical Schematic Diagram for DLT A modeled load-displacement curve produced by
CAPWAP signal-matching analyses is equivalent to
In DLT, the dynamic impact is applied, signals the static load test results as shown in Fig. 5. Dynamic
are recorded, and after post-processing, the pile's load testing uses the standard approach, which
static capacity, skin frictional resistance, and tip involves applying hammer drops from lower to
resistance are determined. DLT also provides higher heights until a total displacement of D/60 is
information about pile driveability, pile integrity, and reached. More significant displacements allow for a
changes in cross-section, in addition to assessing the higher end-bearing activation when the pile is tipped
pile's static capacity (if any). DLT can test at least two in a sand layer; hence, larger cumulative sets may be
bored and more driven piles in a single day, making desirable depending on the geotechnical conditions at
it substantially faster and more cost-effective than the pile toe. The software analyzes wave equations
static testing [20]. using the velocity records as pile-top boundary
The engineer may interpret the gathered data conditions. The side friction and end-bearing
using engineering principles and judgment to assess distribution (Fig. 6) may be estimated and predicted
the pile's integrity, the impact mechanism's by resolving equations using the side and toe quakes,
effectiveness, and the maximum compressive and side and toe damping, and shaft and toe resistance as
tensile stresses present. Evaluations of the hammer the unknowns [33,37]. CAPWAP enables the
system performance, pile driving compression and calculation of tensions and movements (elastic
tension stresses, pile structural integrity, soil modulus and mass density) by dividing the pile into
resistance distribution, and pile static load carrying segments with known attributes. The wave equation,
capacity are made possible by real-time data in which the ascending and descending forces are
processing of test findings. The measured data are added, and the velocities are equal to their differences
evaluated with the CAPWAP software, which uses divided by the impedance of the pile in each segment,
modern signal-matching techniques to assess the

123
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

is used to superimpose the propagations of the Moreover, factors such as varying drop heights and
descending and ascending waves ("Wave down" and heavier weight (exceeding the minimum of 1-2% of
"Wave Up") on one another. The basis for calculating test load) of the impact hammer also contribute to the
the soil resistance is each pile segment's displacement overestimation of DLT capacity. Besides, lower DLT
and velocity [23,25]. capacity than SLT capacity may be due to insufficient
soil strength recovery after static load tests, as the
Load (kN) time between tests is shortened. These may happen
most of the time due to the shortening of the project
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0 or construction timeline. Furthermore, DLT and SLT
0
are important in foundation engineering as it evaluate
actual soil properties and behavior [38]. Nevertheless,
the comparative study shows that DLT and SLT agree
in determining actual pile capacity.
Displacement (mm)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

10

SLT Capacity (kN)

15
Fig. 5 Modeled Load-Displacement Curve from
CAPWAP

Side Friction
80
0

Distribution
0 5000 10000
60
kN/m

DLT Capacity (kN)

40
Fig. 7 DLT Capacity VS SLT Capacity
20
0 5. RESEARCH GAPS
End-bearing
500 The CAPWAP analysis results were used to
calculate the static compressive capacities of piles
kN

1000
Side Friction tested by DLT. The static capacities determined by
1500 CAPWAP were compared to the axial compressive
2000 capacities determined by SLTs [9,11,23].
Pile Force Meanwhile, [6,12,16,18-19,22,35,39-41] uses the
2500 dynamic results from the dynamic field testing. Since
some researchers did not use CAPWAP analysis in
Fig. 6 Side Friction Distribution Graph from
comparing DLT and SLT results, [23,32]
CAPWAP software
recommended that it is best to use both dynamic
results in the field (CASE METHOD) and CAPWAP
4.4 Static and Dynamic Load Testing Results
since by eliminating the dynamic impacts of the pile
Comparison
and soil, the dynamic force is converted to a static
force to calculate the static capacity and produce
The authors compared DLT and SLT results on
load-settlement curve.
51 piles from thirteen (13) different papers. DLT
It is noted that some energy may be absorbed by
versus SLT results are presented in Table 1 and Fig.
the pile cushion during DLT; it should be emphasized
7. The comparison result provided an average
that impact force is affected; thus, underestimation or
DLT/SLT ratio of 0.9833. Additionally, Fig. 7 shows
overestimation of dynamic capacity happens [12,35].
the comparison of DLT capacities and SLT
Additionally, loads for dynamic testing are affected
capacities. In most cases, the difference between the
by different testing times. Therefore, capacities only
DLT and SLT capacities may be attributed to the
represent estimation at the time of respective testing.
testing time between tests. Higher DLT capacity may
In common practice, DLT is usually done after SLT.
be due to a longer wait time after static load testing.
By increasing the wait time for DLT, the soil gaining

124
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

strength can result in higher capacity determination Authors Pile No.

SLT DLT CW DLT/SLT
[12,22,39,41]. (kN) (kN) (kN) Ratio
DLT1 3185
Moreover, various failure criteria were used for SLT2 5524
0.707
static and dynamic tests [18], with the dynamic DLT2 3906
[16] 1 2340 3400 1.452
outcome usually agreeing with the Davisson criterion, P121 9000 9071 1.007
which was applied to the static load-displacement [18]
P126 9400 9852 1.048
curve and is typically considered conservative. The TP1 585 718 1.227
TP3 525 467 0.889
load-displacement curve from the dynamic test must TP5 680 621 0.913
be evaluated using the same standard or one that fits TP10 422 371 0.879
TP11 549 508 0.925
the static standard more closely [16]. TP12 383 344 0.898
TP4 395 371 0.939
6. CONCLUSIONS TP8 720 675 0.937
[19]
TP9 720 687 0.954
TP1-6 550 450 0.818
DLT and SLT were used to estimate and verify the S2-1 350 340 0.971
design pile capacity of the deep pile foundation. S2-2 530 524 0.988
While SLT requires a costly and time-consuming S2-3 450 433 0.962
S3-1 320 314 0.981
setup, DLT has become the standard method of
S3-2 270 295 1.092
assessing pile capacities. This paper summarizes S3-3 290 306 1.055
static and dynamic load testing and its methodology. 1 950 920 0.968
This paper also discusses CAPWAP analysis as a [22] 2 940 920 0.978
means of evaluating DLT capacities. Fifty-one (51) 3 890 950 1.067
D1 840 800 0.952
piles tested with static and dynamic load testing from D2 670 700 1.044
previous research are used. The authors’ comparative [23]
S3 1920 1500 0.781
study compares different pile capacities from both S4 1800 1000 0.555
test methods. The literature review reveals good Т414-1 1570 1490 0.949
Т414-4 1765 1675 0.949
agreement between the two test results when [35]
Т414-7 1715 1450 0.845
compared. Т414-10 1905 1625 0.853
Although some papers in the review, e.g., [12,40], [39] Pile 1 3275 3367 1.028
show results with very low and very high DLT/SLT PP3A 800 1.426
ratios, the comparative study still indicates a good PP1B 1451
[40]
PP3B 600 2.418
correlation. The literature review recommends PP1A 1141
comparing SLT capacities to the DLT's field 1 1800 2200 1.222
capacities and those obtained via CAPWAP analysis. [41]
2 2100 1900 0.904
In the SLT capacity versus CAPWAP analysis, [9] 3 1900 1100 0.578
4 1700 250 0.147
demonstrated a better DLT/SLT ratio than the field Note: SLT = Static Load Test, DLT = Dynamic Load Test, CW =
DLT capacity. This paper also suggests that future CAPWAP Analysis
research works should better compare DLT and SLT
results on the same pile. Future comparative studies 7. REFERENCES
should also consider comparing load-settlement
curves from SLT and DLT. Moreover, instrumented [1] David D., and Mail A., Driven Cast In-situ Piles
SLT can also be compared to those from DLT, in Sand - Case History, 16th International
allowing for the utilization of skin resistance from Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
both tests as an additional criterion for comparison. Engineering: Geotechnology in Harmony with
This literature review provided relevant information the Global Environment, Proceedings, 2005, pp.
that can be used in future SLT and DLT research 2099–2102.
works. [2] Clemente J. L. M., and Lewis M. R.,
Instrumented Pile Load Testing Program for a
Coal-fired Power Plant, Geotechnical Special
Table 1 Result of static and dynamic test comparison Publication, Issue 229, 2013, pp. 680–694.
SLT DLT CW DLT/SLT [3] Likins G., Pile testing - Selection and Economy
Authors Pile No.
(kN) (kN) (kN) Ratio
E2(P24G) 2100 2124 1.011429
of Safety Factors, Geotechnical Special
[6] Franki 3500 3520 1.005714 Publication, 2004, pp. 239–252.
CFA 1820 1660 0.912088 [4] Goldemberg H., and Goldemberg J. J.
Test Pile 1 1670 1660 0.994 Correlation between DLT and SLT - Case
[9]
Test Pile 2 1740 1690 0.971 Histories, ISRM International Symposium 2000,
Test Pile 1 10200 7800 0.764
[11] Test Pile 2 6400 8600 1.343 IS 2000, 2000, ISRM-IS-2000-393.
Test Pile 3 8600 10200 1.186 [5] Botezatu A., Manoli D., and Radulescu N., A
[12] SLT1 4492 0.709 Comparison Between Static Load Test and

125
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

Dynamic Formula Results of Driven Concrete [17] ASTM Standard D-1143-07, Standard Test
Piles in Cohesive Complex for a Windfarm Method for Deep Foundations Under Static Axial
Project in Romania, International Compressive Load, ASTM International, West
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org, 2012, pp.1-
Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology 15.
Management, SGEM, 2016, pp. 683–690. [18] Zhou J., Zhang X., Jiang H., Lyu C., and Oh E.,
[6] Souza T. J., Querelli A., Cruz F. V. A. S., and Static and Dynamic Load Tests of Shaft and Base
Trejo-Noreña P. C., Use of the Dynamic Load Grouted Concrete Piles, Advances in Civil
Test to Obtain the Pile Capacity – The Brazilian Engineering, Vol. 2017, Article 2548020, 2017,
Experience, DYNA (Colombia), Vol. 88, No. pp. 1-11.
217, 2021, pp. 169–177. [19] Kibria S., Ahmad J., Masud A., and Ali M.,
[7] Mishra A., Sawant V. A., and Deshmukh V. B., Dynamic Pile Test and its Correlation with Static
Prediction of Pile Capacity of Socketed Piles Load Test, 19th International Conference on Soil
Using Different Approaches, Geotechnical and Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Geological Engineering, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2019, ICSMGE 2017, 2017, pp. 2793–2796.
pp. 5219–5230. [20] Noor S. T., Islam M. S., Mumtarin M., and
[8] Osman M. A., Ahmed E. M. A., and Ahmed O. Chakraborty N., Dynamic Load Test of Full-
B. E. M., Comparison between Dynamic and scale Pile for the Construction and Rehabilitation
Static Pile Load Testing, Electronic Journal of of Bridges, IOP Conference Series: Materials
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 18 Q, 2013, pp. Science and Engineering, Vol. 513, 2019, p.
3615–3624. 012017.
[9] Riihimaki T., Comparison of Dynamic and Static [21] Fellenius B. H., and Altaee, A., Pile Dynamics in
Pile Testing, A Case Study, 17th International Geotechnical Practice - Six Case Histories,
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Geotechnical Special Publication, 2002, pp.
Engineering: The Academia and Practice of 619–631.
Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings, 2009, [22] Robinson B., and Iskander M., Static and
pp. 2100–2102. Dynamic Load Tests on Driven Polymeric Piles,
[10] Coto M., Vargas L. Á., and Solórzano L. M., Geotechnical Special Publication, 2008, pp.
Dynamic Pile Load Testing Experiences in Costa 939–946.
Rica. Three Case Studies: Moin Oil Terminal, [23] Sakr M., Comparison between High Strain
Caldera Grain Pier, and Chucas Bridge, Dynamic and Static Load Tests of Helical Piles
Geotechnical Special Publication, 2018, pp. in Cohesive Soils, Soil Dynamics and
456–469. Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 54, 2013, pp. 20–
[11] Rajagopal C., Solanki C. H., and Tandel Y. K., 30.
Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of [24] ASTM Standard D-4945-12, Standard Test
Pile, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Method for High-Strain Dynamic Testing of
Engineering, Vol. 17 M, 2012, pp. 1905–1914. Deep Foundations, ASTM International, West
[12] Chen Q., Haque N., Abu-Farsakh M., and Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org, 2012, pp.1-
Fernandez B. A., Field Investigation of Pile 9.
Setup in Mixed Soil, Geotechnical Testing [25] Valverde R. M., and Massad F., Maximum
Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2014, pp 268-281. Envelope of Lateral Resistance through Dynamic
[13] Snyder H., Literature Review as a Research Increasing Energy Test in Piles, Soils and Rocks,
Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2018, pp. 75–88.
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104, 2019, [26] Denes D., and Kroenert B., A Case Study of Pile
pp. 333–339. Testing and Verification, Berth 4 Upgrade - Port
[14] Baas J., Schotten M., Plume A., Côté G., and of Townsville, Australasian Coasts and Ports
Karimi R., Scopus as a Curated, High-quality 2019 Conference, 2019, pp. 300–306.
Bibliometric Data Source for Academic [27] Wehr J., Andreas M., Bohle B., Schallert M., and
Research in Quantitative Science Studies, Klingmiiller O., Real-time Quality Monitoring
Quantitative Science Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, and Result Verification by Static and Dynamic
2020, pp. 377–386. Pile Load Testing in Marine Clay, Geotechnical
[15] Bradshaw S., Static Load Testing of Piles in Engineering for Infrastructure and Development
Restricted Access - An Opportunity for Change, - Proceedings of the XVI European Conference
Structural Engineer, Vol. 87, No. 6, 2009, pp. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
16–25. Engineering, ECSMGE 2015, 2015, pp. 1339–
[16] Rausche F., Combining Static and Dynamic 1343.
Loading Test Results of Piles, ASTM Special [28] Hussein M. H., Woerner II W. A., Sharp M., and
Technical Publication, 2018, pp. 520–541. Hwang C., Pile Driveability and Bearing
Capacity in High-rebound soils, GeoCongress

126
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sep., 2024 Vol.27, Issue 121, pp.119-127

2006: Geotechnical Engineering in the [36] Hussein M., Mondello B., and Alvarez C.,
Information Technology Age, 2006, p. 63. Simulated Pile Load-movement Incorporating
[29] Hussein H., Sharp M. R., and Knight W. F., The Anticipated Soil Setup, Geotechnical Special
Use of Superposition for Evaluating Pile Publication, 2004, pp. 1153–1160.
Capacity, Geotechnical Special Publication, [37] Salgado R., Zhang Y., Abou-Jaoude G., Loukidis
2002, pp. 6–21. D., and Bisht V., Pile Driving Formulas Based on
[30] Long M., Comparing Dynamic and Static Test Pile Wave Equation Analyses, Computers and
Results of Bored Piles, Institution of Civil Geotechnics, Vol. 81, 2017, pp. 307–321.
Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, [38] Garcia, K.E., Dela Cruz O.G, Muhi, M.M., &
Proceedings, Vol. 160, No. 1, 2007, pp. 43–49. Tabaroei, A., The Role of Dynamic Cone
[31] Briaud J.-L., Ballouz M., and Nasr G., Static Penetrometer Testing in Assessing Pavement
Capacity Prediction by Dynamic Methods for Subgrade Strength: A Literature Review.
Three Bored Piles, Journal of Geotechnical and International Journal of GEOMATE, Volume 26
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 7, Issue 117, 2024, pp. 132-142.
2000, pp. 640–649. [39] Han F., Prezzi M., and Salgado R., Static and
[32] Rausche F., Goble G. G., and Likins G., Dynamic Pile Load Tests on Closed-Ended
Dynamic Determination of Pile Capacity, Driven Pipe Pile, Geotechnical Special
Geotechnical Special Publication, 2002, pp. Publication, 2018, pp. 496–506.
2064–2080. [40] Berndt J., Reul O., Schrötter B., and Hayden M.,
[33] Alvarez C., Sellountou E. A., and Rausche F., Investigation of the Bearing Behaviour of
State of the Art Dynamic Load Testing of ACIP Slender Driven Piles in Clay – Comparison of
Piles in the Americas, ASTM Special Technical Different Static and Dynamic Methods of Pile
Publication, 2018, pp. 81–96. Testing, 17th European Conference on Soil
[34] Silva M. D., Coutinho R. Q., and Danziger B. R., Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
A Case Study of Bearing Capacity of Piles 17ECSMGE-2019-0218, Proceedings, 2019, pp.
Partially Embedded in Rock, Soils and Rocks, 1-10.
Vol. 45, No. 3, 2022, pp.59-73. [41] Vieira S. H. A., and Lopes F. R., Limitations of
[35] Lukpanov R. E., Comparison of Results of Series the Danish Driving Formula for Short Piles, Soils
Pile Load Test in Accordance with ASTM and and Rocks, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2021, pp. 137-142.
Kazakhstan Standards, 15th Asian Regional
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Copyright © Int. J. of GEOMATE All rights reserved,
Engineering, ARC 2015, New Innovations and including making copies, unless permission is obtained
Sustainability, 2015, pp. 1323–1326. from the copyright proprietors.

127