# 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 proposed method was also compared with the results of [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(I)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(J)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Average**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Significance**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} \\ \cline{3-8} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Methods**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Difference**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Error**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(\(p\))**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lower Limit**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Upper Limit**} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Recommended} & [PERSON]\(-\)[PERSON] [21] & \(-\)352.63 & 269.25 & 0.924 & \(-\)1220.65 & 515.40 \\  & [PERSON] (1999) [23] & \(-\)367.25 & 269.25 & 0.906 & \(-\)1235.27 & 500.77 \\  & [PERSON]\(-\)[PERSON] [24] & \(-\)105.63 & 269.25 & 1.000 & \(-\)973.65 & 762.40 \\  & [PERSON] (1995) [5] & \(-\)159.63 & 269.25 & 1.000 & \(-\)1027.65 & 708.40 \\ \cline{1-1} Method & [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] & \(-\)147.29 & 290.82 & 1.000 & \(-\)1084.86 & 790.28 \\  & [PERSON] and [PERSON] [9] & \(-\)140.79 & 290.82 & 1.000 & \(-\)1078.36 & 796.78 \\  & [PERSON] and [PERSON] [10] & \(-\)5.46 & 290.82 & 1.000 & \(-\)943.03 & 932.11 \\  & Plaxis 2D [55] & \(-\)115.63 & 269.25 & 1.000 & \(-\)983.65 & 752.40 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Variance analysis detail for bearing capacity values calculated with the proposed method and other methods. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON]- \\ **[PERSON]** \\ \end{tabular} }} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]-**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Recommended**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(1995)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**[PERSON]**} \\  & **[PERSON]** & **(1999)** & **[PERSON]** & **Method** & **(1995)** & **and** & **and** & **and** & **2D** \\ \hline [PERSON] [21] & 1 & 0.966 & 0.977 & 0.984 & 0.983 & 0.989 & 0.983 & 0.979 & 0.929 \\ [PERSON] (1999) [23] & 0.966 & 1 & 0.983 & 0.944 & 0.946 & 0.968 & 0.967 & 0.994 & 0.851 \\ [PERSON] [24] & 0.977 & 0.983 & 1 & 0.97 & 0.936 & 0.949 & 0.943 & 0.974 & 0.837 \\ Recommended Method & 0.984 & 0.944 & 0.97 & 1 & 0.964 & 0.951 & 0.95 & 0.941 & 0.911 \\ [PERSON] (1995) [5] & 0.983 & 0.946 & 0.936 & 0.964 & 1 & 0.993 & 0.994 & 0.966 & 0.972 \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] & 0.989 & 0.968 & 0.949 & 0.951 & 0.993 & 1 & 0.998 & 0.987 & 0.938 \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [9] & 0.983 & 0.967 & 0.943 & 0.95 & 0.994 & 0.998 & 1 & 0.986 & 0.939 \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [10] & 0.979 & 0.994 & 0.974 & 0.941 & 0.966 & 0.987 & 0.986 & 1 & 0.874 \\ Plaxis 2D [55] & 0.929 & 0.851 & 0.837 & 0.911 & 0.972 & 0.938 & 0.939 & 0.874 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Correlation coefficients between the examined bearing capacity methods and the proposed bearing capacity method. methods. The recommended method in the TP1 loading test was 1.13 times the average with 879 tons; in the TP2 test with 1172 tons, 0.95 times the average; in the TP7 test with 551 tons, 1.19 times the average; in the TP8 test with 585 tons, it was 1.10 times the average; and in the TP9 loading test, 1.05 times the average result was obtained with 526 tons. Each pile loading test evaluation method has its own philosophy. But all of them serve a single purpose, and that purpose is to interpret the load-settlement curve as close to reality as possible. Therefore, it is usual to make comparisons between these methods. The results of a new pile loading test conducted in Turkey according to both the proposed method and Chin-Kondner were evaluated and compared (Table 7). According to the proposed method, the ultimate pile bearing capacity was determined to be 897.35 tons (Figure 14).