Abstract
This discussion article provides observations on an earlier published article by Cai et al. (Citation2011), which presented piezocone penetration test (CPTu) based pile capacity evaluations. These observations include: (1) neglect to the most reliable reading of CPTu (i.e., tip resistance (qt)) in shaft capacity calculations; (2) no information provided concerning their definition of influence zone and qt averaging technique in their base capacity evaluations; (3) influence of installation method not investigated for the different categories of piles in their database; (4) no information/discussion included regarding their selected criteria in defining the pile capacity; and (5) inconsistencies in the methodology adopted for their comparative and reliability studies. Also included in this discussion article are suggestions and references to certain recent studies that may possibly be considered for future research on the topic.
Notes
a OE-S: open-ended steel pipe pile; CE-S: closed-ended steel pipe pile; Sq-C: square concrete pile, Tr-C: triangular concrete pile; Oct-C: octagonal concrete pile; HP-S: H section steel pile; B-C: bored concrete pile; PTC: pre-stressed concrete thin-wall caisson; CFG: cement fly-ash grave pile; PHC: pre-stressed concrete high-strength caisson pile.
b CIS: cast-in-situ; D: driving; J: jacking; C: casing.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/umgt.