# A Novel Approach Proposal for Estimation of Ultimate Being Capacity Based on Pile Loading Test Data
## 1 Introduction
In another study, the results of five different pile loading tests carried out in various parts of the Jakarta region were examined with different methods [27]. The method closest to the results of the pile loading test was found to be the [PERSON] and Sidi methods [28]. The data from 45 pile load tests performed by [PERSON] et al. using 8 different methods were statistically interpreted [29]. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the most suitable and reliable pile capacity assessment methods for bored piles are the [PERSON] and [PERSON] methods [22; 26]. In another study, it was concluded that the six-pile loading test results gave 20-40% less value compared to the NAVFAC D.M. 7.02 theoretical method [30; 31]. In addition, the limit equilibrium method and the 90% Hansen method gave equal results [32]. It was stated that the best approach is to use the average values of all ultimate pile-bearing capacities. The bearing capacities of 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, 40 m, and 50 m long piles were investigated by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33] using numerical and theoretical methods. According to the results obtained, it was concluded that the results of the [PERSON] et al. method and the [PERSON] method were similar to the Plaxis 2D results [3; 34]. In another study, the results of 22 pile loading tests in three different areas of Nasiriyah were evaluated with analytical methods [35]. Accordingly, [PERSON] and [PERSON] were the methods that gave the highest failure load [21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32]. The [PERSON], [PERSON], and Mazurkiewicz methods gave the closest mean values to the failure load [5; 22; 26]. The Butler and Hoy method gave the smallest failure value [36]. In the study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [37], the ultimate bearing capacity of bored piles manufactured in different soil conditions was determined using load-settlement data using graphical methods [5; 21; 22; 26; 32; 38; 39]. The closest average failure load value was obtained by the Corps of Engineers and the Butler and Hoy methods. In the study conducted by [PERSON] et al., the numerical analysis results of CFA piles modeled using Abaqus commercial software were compared with the results of the pile loading test, and it was concluded that the two methods gave consistent results [40]. Studies were carried out using the data from 24 pile loading tests conducted in various regions of Turkey and abroad [41]. As a result of the analysis, the Chin-Kondner method gave the highest ultimate bearing capacity value out of the 12 methods, and the De Beer method gave the lowest ultimate bearing capacity value [21; 26]. In another study conducted by [PERSON] and [PERSON], pile loading test data were evaluated with different methods [42]. In the evaluation, the closest value to the failure value was obtained using the De Beer method [26]. In the study conducted by [PERSON], 25 different pile loading test results, most of which did not reach the failure load value, were evaluated using 14 different methods [18]. According to the data obtained, the application reliability of the Fuller and Hoy, [PERSON] and Kulhawy, [PERSON], and [PERSON] methods was found to be very low in the evaluation of pile loading tests that have not reached failure; the lowest bearing capacity value was obtained by the De Beer method, and the highest bearing capacity value was obtained by the Decourt method [5; 25; 26; 32; 39; 43]. In the study conducted by [PERSON] et al., according to the data obtained from eight cases where pile loading tests were performed in the Jakarta region, it was concluded that the method closest to the ultimate pile bearing capacity value is the Decourt method [5; 44]. In addition, the method developed by [PERSON] et al. gave the highest estimate [45]. Pile foundation data obtained from the Rusunawa Project were compared with the finite element method, methods based on SPT data, and pile loading tests by [PERSON] et al. [46]. The closest result to the loading test value (280 tons) was obtained by the [PERSON] method (270 tons) [22].