ArticleScientific reports2026
Identification of suitable methods for static pile load capacity and recommendation for BNBC 2020.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research compares theoretical methods with static pile load test results to identify the most effective approaches for determining pile capacity across various soil and pile types, while also proposing modifications to the Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 2020 guidelines. The study involved broad data collection from pile load test reports and subsoil investigations across six projects, focusing precast and cast-in-situ piles. Theoretical analyses were performed using i) bearing capacity equations as per BNBC 2020 (α-method and β-method), ii) Standard Penetration Test (SPT)-based BNBC 2020 method, and iii) SPT-based other methods from literature including Meyerhof, and Shioi Fukui equations. Following ASTM D1143 guidelines, eight evaluation methods were used to interpret load-settlement data from static load test. Statistical analyses involving Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Bias Factor (λ), and Coefficient of Variation (COV) were conducted to evaluate predictive accuracy. Findings indicate that for clay soil, the SPT-based equations of Shioi & Fukui for skin friction and Meyerhof for end bearing can be considered as suitable alternatives for future BNBC revisions, showing lower variation with actual capacity. For sandy, silty, and layered soil devoid of clay, the SPT-based equations from BNBC 2020 are deemed appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.