# A Novel Approach Proposal for Estimation of Ultimate Being Capacity Based on Pile Loading Test Data
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation Methods of Pile Loading Test Based on Mathematical Models  
The load-settlement curves obtained from the test pile loading test are given in Figure 10. Some of the piles were loaded up to the failure load, and some of them could not pass from the linear load-settlement curve to the parabola load-settlement curve. Figure 10: _Cont._  
Figure 9: Finding test pile 1 by the finite element method. Calculation examples based on pile loading test data for test pile 1 are given in Figure 11.  
The Ultimate bearing capacity values obtained as a result of the calculations made according to the methods on 8 test piles are given in Figure 12. According to the evaluations made for test piles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, when all methods were evaluated together, the closest value to the mean value was found as the [PERSON] method for test pile 1, [PERSON] method for test piles 2, 3 and 8., [PERSON] method for test pile 5, [PERSON] and [PERSON] and [PERSON] methods for test pile 5, [PERSON] (1995) and [PERSON] (1999) methods for test pile 6, and the Plaxis 2D method for test pile 7 [4, 5, 9, 23, 24, 55]. Figure 11: Pile loading test calculations based on a mathematical method on test pile 1. (**a**) [PERSON] [21]; (**b**) [PERSON] [23]; (**c**) [PERSON] [24]; (**d**) Recommended Method. Figure 10: Load-settlement graphs of test piles. The ratios of each method to the average ultimate bearing capacity of each pile are given in Figure 13. When all methods were evaluated together, the closest failure load value to the proposed method was determined by the [PERSON] and Jackson method for test pile 1, the [PERSON] method for test piles 2, 3, 5, and 8, the [PERSON] method for test pile 6, and the Decourt method for test pile 7 [5, 7, 10, 24]. Figure 12: Ultimate bearing capacity calculation results for 8 test piles according to the methods [3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23, 24, 55]. Figure 13: Comparison of the ultimate bearing capacity values with the average values according to each test pile method [3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 24, 23, 24, 55]. Among the theoretical methods, the closest results to the proposed method were found in the Kulhawy and Jackson method for test piles 1, 3, 4, 5, the [PERSON] method for test piles 2 and 8, the [PERSON] method for test pile 6, the [PERSON] method, and the Bazaraa and Kurkur method for test pile 7 [4; 5; 7; 10]. According to pile loading test evaluation methods, the Ozkan-Alku method gave the closest failure load value to the proposed method for all test piles [24]. Compared to the finite element method, the proposed method gave 1.94 times higher failure load values for test pile 1, 1.17 times higher values for test pile 2, 0.68 times higher values for test pile 3, 0.85 times higher values for test pile 4, 0.64 times higher values for test pile 5, 0.93 times higher values for test pile 6, 0.92 times higher values for test pile 7, and 0.57 times higher values for test pile 8. When all methods were evaluated together for bored piles in fine-grained soils (test piles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), the highest failure load was obtained in the evaluation method based on the mathematical model of Decourt [23]. The [PERSON] and Jackson methods gave 45.6% lower results [10]. The proposed method, on the other hand, yielded 40.2% lower results. The [PERSON] method gave the highest failure load when all methods were evaluated for the individual test pile 7, which collapsed in fine-grained soils [21]. The proposed method was 31.3% lower, and the Kulhawy and Jackson method gave the lowest result with 46.3% [10]. The [PERSON] method gave the highest failure load in the results obtained for the individual test pile 8, which was manufactured as driven in fine-grained soils [7]. The proposed method yielded the lowest failure load, with a rate of 51.5%. The [PERSON] method gave the highest failure load in the results obtained for individual test pile 6, which was manufactured as bored piles in coarse-grained soils [3]. The lowest value was obtained by the proposed method with a rate of 36.1%.