Sei sulla pagina 1di 11
ICCBT2008 Soil Parameters and B earing Capacity Derive d from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed

ICCBT2008

Soil Parameters and Bearing Capacity Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock

I.S.H. Harahap*, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, MALAYSIA C.W. Wong, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

Pile load test is commonly conducted during design and construction stages. The objective of pile load test conducted during design stage is to obtain the actual soil parameter and ultimate load in-situ for the purpose of design. For the test conducted during construction stage, the objective is to provide a quality control measure to prove that the actual pile capacity conforms to the design objectives. This paper presents probabilistic interpretation of proof pile test to obtain the ultimate pile capacity. As the first step, the “actual” field parameters are back calculated using ultimate pile capacity from proof pile load tests. The probabilistic inverse method is used for back calculation of parameters. Soil parameters obtained from back calculation are then sampled using Monte Carlo simulation technique, to generate histogram of ultimate pile capacity. From the synthetic histogram, other statistical metrics such as mean, standard deviation and cumulative probability density of ultimate pile capacity can be obtained.

Keywords: Socketed drilled shaft, Monte Carlo simulation, probabilistic inverse analysis, proof pile load test

Soil Parameters Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock

1. INTRODUCTION

During construction proof test to verify pile design are conducted. Specification usually calls for the amount of absolute and permanent pile displacement during proof test to be less than a specified amount. The number of pile subjected to proof test is proportional to total number of pile being constructed and the number of pile that ‘failed’ relative to the number of proof test should not exceed a certain prescribed number. Load applied for proof test is usually twice the design load at constant loading rate using one or two load cycles.

In this paper, attempt has been made to interpret pile proof test for obtaining soil parameters (soil and rock unit skin resistance as well as base resistance). The method used is probabilistic inverse analysis as given in [1].to obtain actual soil parameters in the form of its joint probability density. Parameters obtained are then utilized to generate histogram of ultimate pile load capacity using Monte Carlo simulation technique. This paper is arranged as follow:

Section 2 will outline geotechnical aspects of the drilled shaft particularly its design methodology and interpretation of pile-load-test results at project site near Kuala Lumpur. The soil condition and pile-load-test results at project site near Kuala Lumpur are explained in Section 3. In Section 4 the salient features of the probabilistic inverse method are given, followed by its application to interpret pile-load-test results in Section 5. Section 6 will conclude results from this work.

2.

GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS

2.1

Design of Socketed Drilled Shaft

The ultimate capacity of socketed drilled shaft can be determined using the following equation:

Q

Q

u

u

=

=

Q

fu

(

f

S

+

C

S

Q

bu

+

f

R

C

R

)

+

q

b

A

b

(1)

where

capacity. The ultimate skin resistance consist of contribution from soil part (

part (

pile embedded in each layer (soil and rock).

(rock) and

socketed into rock.

Q

u

f

R

)

is ultimate pile capacity,

where

f

S

and

f

R

Q

fu

is ultimate shaft capacity,

C

S

and

C

Q is ultimate base

and rock

R are circumferential area of

bu

f

S

)

are unit shaft resistance,

q

b is unit base resistance for the bearing layer

A

b

pile base area. Figure 1 shows components of ultimate capacity of drilled shaft

The unit skin resistance of cohesionless material usually has the form of

where

friction angle [2]. For cohesive material the unit skin resistance is commonly taken as

= αS where α is proportional coefficient

o is vertical overburden pressure and φ is

f

R

= K

s

σ

o

tan φ

K is coefficient of lateral pressure,

s

σ

f

R

proportional to the undrained shear strength as

and

determined from rock unconfined compressive strength,

RQD. Table 1 shows available empirical correlation to determine

determine

u

S

u is undrained shear strength [3]. For rock, the unit skin resistance is empirically

f

R

q

u [4], or Rock Quality Designation,

and Table 2 to

from RQD. However, the unit skin resistance has a limiting value depends on

f

R

from

q

u

392

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong

the unconfined compressive strength of the rock [5]. The empirical correlations proposed is

or power-curve relation to q . Evaluation by [6] indicated

that the SPT N-value may not a good indicator of

infrequent and suffers too much variability. From evaluation of pile load test results [7], there is a significant difference of load-settlement behaviour among sedimentary, granitic and

u for these rocks. Generally granitic rock has a

softer response compared to sedimentary rock. The ultimate unit resistance range between 6 to 50 MPa for granitic rock compared to between 1 to 16 MPa for sedimentary rock. Empirical correlation by [8] in Table 2 is the lower bound for sedimentary rock [7]. The rock

unit skin resistance,

design drilled shaft socketed into rock [9]. Other note, the unit resistance for uplift load

and RQD relationship as in Table 2 is commonly used in Malaysia to

decomposed rock, and hence the range of

due to its sampling rate because it is too

either has linear relation with

q

u

u

f

R

q

f

R

should be adjusted due to contraction of pile under uplift load, and hence reducing confinement stress [10].

The design approach for socketed drilled shaft varies from place to place [11], for example the ultimate capacity could be determined by considering all resistances (from soil and rock skin resistance, and from base), or omitting the based resistance due to the fact that less displacement is required to fully mobilize skin resistance compared to the displacement that required to fully mobilize base resistance. On the practical side, the length of socket and hence total pile length is determined based on observed rock condition, i.e. RQD at that particular location during construction.

Discussions on various construction method and constructability issues of drilled shaft can be found in Ref [12], and the effect of construction method on skin and base resistance in Ref [13,14]. However, from pull out test results [6], drilled shaft construction method has no significant effect on ultimate resistance.

D

method has no significant effect on ultimate resistance. D f S f R L S L

f

S

f

R

L S

L R

q b

Figure 1 Ultimate capacity of socketed drilled shaft

2.2 Pile Load Test

Pile-load-test generally serves two purposes. When conducted during design stage, it helps to

establish parameters to be used in design, and when conducted during construction stage, it proves working assumptions during design. To obtain the “actual soil parameters” for design purpose, the pile test is instrumented [4] and parameters are back calculated from data

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

393

Soil Parameters Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock

obtained during testing. The number of this type of test is limited due to its cost; therefore site variability of pile ultimate capacity cannot be established. The load settlement curves do not always show a sign of failure as specified by various methods, for example Davisson’s, Terzaghi’s, Chin’s methods and others. As such, it is difficult to ascertain the validity of design assumption, i.e. the ultimate skin resistance, based on information’s obtained from this test. Other elaborate method to interpret pile load test in sand and clay can be found in [15,16]. A new and novel approach that utilizes a data base of pile load tests is recently proposed by [17]. In their method design parameters are extracted from the data base using Bayesian neural network that intelligently update its knowledge when a new information is added to the data base.

Table 1. Empirical value of unit skin resistance for socketed drilled shaft determine from rock unconfined compressive strength and SPT N-value. Complete references are given in [6]

No

Empirical Correlation

Reference

1

f R (tsf) = 1.842 q u 0.367

 

2

f R (tsf) = 1.45

q u
q
u

for clean sockets, and

f R (tsf) = 1.94

q u
q
u

for rough sockets.

3

f R (tsf) = 0.67

q u
q
u

.

4

f R (tsf) = 0.63

q u
q
u

.

5

f R (tsf) = 0.3(q u ).

6

f R (tsf) = 0.2(q u ).

7

f R (tsf) = 0.15(q u ).

8

f R = 0.017V (tsf), or f R = -5.54 + 0.4 N (tsf).

 

9

N-value = {10,15,20,25,30,>30}; f R (tsf) = {0.36,0.77,1.1,1.8,2.6,2.6}

10

N-range = 10 - 20, 20 - 50, 50 - 50/3 in., >50/3 in.; f R (tsf) = 1.5,2.5,3.8,5.

Williams et al. (1980)

Rowe and Armitage (1987)

Horvath and Kenney (1979):

Carter and Kulhawy (1988)

Reynolds and Kaderabek (1980):

Gupton and Logan (1984)

Reese and O'Neill (1987)

Crapps (1986)

Hobbs and Healy (1979)

McMahan (1988)

Table 2. Empirical value of unit skin resistance for socketed drilled shaft determine from

RQD Ratio

RQD Ratio %

Working Rock Socket Resistance

f

R

(kPa)

Below 25

300

25 - 70

600

Above 70

1000

Other than instrumented pile as previously cited, [18] proposed method to derive soil parameters from load settlement curve from pile-load-test. Using the approach, the ultimate capacity is obtained from “projected load settlement curve”. The projected load settlement curve is an analytical function for load settlement relations with parameters of the function are

394

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong

obtained from regression of the actual load settlement curve. For this purpose, failure is defined as correspond to a settlement of 10% of pile diameter.

As a proof test, in practice, pile-load-test results are interpreted based on criteria establishes to achieve the design objectives and elucidated in the technical specification. As an example, the settlement of the pile tested should not exceeding specified settlement at working load and permanent settlement should not exceed settlement at twice of the working load. The pile is considered “pass” if both criteria are satisfied. The number of pile tested for proof test are prescribed based on total length of pile constructed, as such more that one proof pile-load- tests are conducted within one project. Furthermore, it is common that proof pile-load-test is “fail to reach failure”, in other words the applied load is less than ultimate capacity of the pile. While the interpretation of proof test based on settlement criteria lay out in the technical specification is sufficient for practical purposes, there are also attempts to further exploit information’s from proof pile-load-test. For example, from pile-load-test that reaches failure, information’s can be obtained to update the reliability of pile [19-22]. For pile-load-test that fails to reach failure, information’s can be obtained to update the probability distribution of

pile capacity [23]. These approaches follow trend of migration of geotechnical analysis from

factor of safety based to reliability based [24]. It is worth to note that, besides ultimate load

limit state approach previously cited, serviceability limit state for drilled shaft to establish probability of failure and reliability index from load settlement curve of pile load test also have been attempted by [25,26]. In their approach, the pile load settlement curves are calculated using “t-z” approach and finite difference method. Probabilistic load-settlement curves are developed using Monte Carlo simulation. From the histogram generated, the probability of failure and reliability index can be determined.

For this work, the probability density of soil parameters are calculated from ultimate pile

capacity, deduced from pile-load-test, using probabilistic inverse method. The histogram of

pile capacity is then generated using Monte Carlo simulation technique. The probability of

ultimate pile capacity, or the reliability index, can be obtained from cumulative density of pile

capacity.

3.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

3.1

Site Condition

A total of 12 bore holes were carried out for soil investigation during design stage. The soil investigations were mainly carried out by using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as well as standard soil index and physical properties test. The site condition was mainly formed by 3 types of soil, which were silt, clay and sand. Silt was found on the top of the soil layer while very stiff or hard sandy silt were encountered on the next layer which range from Reference Level (RL) 70 m to RL 50 m. Generally, high organic content was observed for the upper layer materials. The RQD for the site ranged from 10% to 30%, with average of 25%

3.2 Pile Loading

There were three types of pile being used at the site consisting of a 450 mm, 600 mm and 900

mm diameter bored pile with design load of 1500 kN, 4000 kN and 9000 kN respectively. Out

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

395

Soil Parameters Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock

of a total of 19 proof pile-load-tests conducted, only two gave ultimate pile capacity based on Davisson’s criteria. The calculated ultimate pile capacity is 8900 kN and 3900 kN for 900 mm and 600 mm diameter piles, respectively. Figure 2 shows load deflection curves and ultimate load determination using Davisson’s method for 600 m and 900 mm piles, and Table 3 shows the schedule of all pile-load-test.

and Table 3 shows the schedule of all pile-load-test. Figure 2. Load settlement curve for proof
and Table 3 shows the schedule of all pile-load-test. Figure 2. Load settlement curve for proof

Figure 2. Load settlement curve for proof pile-load-test. Davisson’s ultimate load can be obtained only in two out of nineteen tests.

Table 3. Attributes of pile proof test result

Pile Location

Estimate of

Q (kN)

u

Pile Length

(m)

Pile Diameter

Socket Length

(mm) (m)

FF1- P28

Not fail

6.000

900

4.5

FF1- P67

8900

10.245

900

4.5

FF2 - P184

Not fail

6.000

900

4.5

FF2 - P472

Not fail

11.000

900

4.5

FF3 - P234

Not fail

11.075

900

4.5

FF4 - P236

Not fail

12.325

450

1.5

FF4 - P275

Not fail

14.625

450

1.5

FF5 - P33

Not fail

12.425

600

3.0

FF5 - P85

Not fail

22.125

600

3.0

FSK 1,5 - P47

Not fail

14.000

900

4.5

FSK 1,5 - P44

Not fail

8.200

450

1.5

FSK 2,3,4 - P200

Not fail

8.800

900

4.5

FSK 2,3,4 -P387

Not fail

18.000

900

4.5

FSK 6 - P 74

Not fail

2.600

900

2.6

FSK 6 - P 307

Not fail

5.700

600

3.0

FSK 7 - P40

Not fail

21.025

600

3.0

FSK 7 - P370

Not fail

7.330

600

3.0

PSB - P138

Not fail

19.500

600

3.0

PSB- P183

3900

10.775

600

3.0

I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong

4. PROBABILISTIC INVERSE METHOD

Suppose that we have function f that map parameters into theoretical quantity such that

, the objective of inverse analysis is

to determine m given d . In the context of pile-load-test, to determine f ,

knowing

4.1 Data Space

Suppose that we have observed data values d , the probability density model to describe

d = f (m) where

d =

{

d

i

,

,

d

ND

}

and

{

m

i

,

,

m

NM

}

m =

f

R

and

S

q

bu

Q

u obtained from pile-load-test and f is the relationship in Eq. (1).

obs

experimental uncertainty, such as Gaussian model, can be written as follow

ρ

D

(

d

)

=

k

exp ⎜ ⎛

1

2

(

d

d

obs

)

T

C

1

D

(

d

d

obs

)

(2)

where

distribution, it can be written as

C

D is the covariance matrix. If the uncertainties are uncorrelated and follow Gaussian

ρ

D

(

d

)

=

k

exp

1

d

i

d

i

obs

2

σ

i

2

(3)

4.2 Model Space

In a typical problem we have model parameters that have a complex probability distribution

(m) . Suppose that we know

over the model space. The probability density is denoted as ρ

ρ(m, d) and d = f (m) , then the conditional probability

density function,

M

joint probability density function

σ

M

(

m

)

= ρ

M

|

d m

(

)

(

m

|

d

=

f

(

m

))

can be obtained as follow [1].

σ

M

(

m

)

=

k

(

m

,

f

(

m

))

T det( g − F g ) M D F det g det g M
T
det(
g
F
g
)
M
D F
det
g
det
g
M
D

×

1/ 2 T − F F g M g D . 1/ 2 g .
1/ 2
T
− F
F
g M
g D
.
1/ 2
g
. g
D 1/ 2
M

d

=

f

(

m

)

(4)

For constant

g

M

(m)

and

g

D

σ

(d)

, and linear or weak linearity problem [1], Eq.(4) reduces to

M

(

m

)

= k

ρ

M

(

m

ρ ( d ) D ) μ ( d ) D
ρ
(
d
)
D
)
μ
(
d
)
D

d

= f (

m

)

(5)

where

μ

D

(d)

is homogenous probability density function.

5. INTERPRETATION OF PILE LOAD TEST

The simplistic model of bearing capacity of socketed drilled shaft is given by Eq. (1).

Assuming known pile geometry, the model space is then

density model to describe experimental uncertainty (Eq. 3) is formed using the theoretical

. The joint

. Prior knowledge can be incorporated in

particularly knowledge on those parameters specific for the rock

type and its locality. The effect of prior knowledge on unit skin resistance in rock is investigated using log normal distribution with various mean values. It should be noted that, by using Eq. (1), it is implicitly neglected the effect of the shape of the interface between the

shaft and surrounding rock (undulating or smooth) as numerically observed by in Ref [27,

m =

(

f

S

,

f

R

,

q

b

)

. The probability

d obs

model d = f (m) as in Eq. (1), and observed pile ultimate capacity as

probability density is then

ρ

M

(

m ) = ρ

M

(

f

S

,

f

R

,

q

b

)

σ

M

(

m ) = σ

M

(

f

S

,

f

R

,

q

b

)

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

397

Soil Parameters Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock

28]. In this work, only the effect of unit skin and base resistances are considered, and the joint probability density is obtained from Eq (5) as

σ

M

( f

R

, q

b

)

=

−∞

σ

M

( f

S

, f

R

, q

b

)df

S

(6)

Analytical form of Eq. (6) is difficult to obtain, and even if successfully integrated very

difficult to interpret. Figure 3 shows joint probability density plotted in material space, which

is numerically integrated from Eq. (6). Prior distribution of unit skin resistance in rock,

assumed to have log normal distribution (Figure 2). The mean value of the prior distribution is

300 kPa, which conform to an empirical value for unit skin resistance for rock with low RQD (Table 2). This number somewhat lower than back calculated from pile load test in limestone which range from 900 kPa to 2300 kPa [29]. The shape of the joint probability is far from Gaussian, and skewed to the right. The three dimensional plot of the joint probability has a peak value, as shown in Figure 2(c), that theoretically can be obtained using function optimization. The cumulative distribution of the

ultimate pile capacity is also difficult to obtain analytically; therefore numerical method must be used utilizing Monte Carlo simulation technique. Figure 4(a) shows randomly generated

and q , and fulfilling Eq. (6). As it appears, the

sampling points along the range of

f is

R

f

Ru

b

sampling points are banded following the trend of the joint probability. The histogram of the ultimate pile load is obtained using Eq. (1). No efforts have been made to obtain continuous function to describe the histogram. However, discrete method can be used to obtain statistical

parameters such as mean value standard deviation as well as to generate the cumulative distribution from the histogram.

6. CONCLUDING REMARK

Method to interpret pile-load-test to obtain probabilistic characteristics of ultimate load has been presented. The first step is to obtain joint distribution of soil parameters in the material (or parameter) space. The second step is to generate histogram of ultimate load using Monte Carlo technique. Probabilistic characteristics of the ultimate load are then obtained from the synthetic histogram using standard discrete method.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for the support and encouragement to attend the conference.

398

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong

I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong Figure 2. Prior distribution of unit skin resistance of rock (a)

Figure 2. Prior distribution of unit skin resistance of rock

2. Prior distribution of unit skin resistance of rock (a) (b) Figure 3. Joint probability in

(a)

2. Prior distribution of unit skin resistance of rock (a) (b) Figure 3. Joint probability in

(b)

Figure 3. Joint probability in the material space is shown in (a) using prior distribution of rock

skin resistance,

f Ru

, following log normal distribution(Fig. 2) with mean equal to 300 kPa.

The 3D picture of the joint probability distribution is shown in (b)

of the joint probability distri bution is shown in (b) (a) (b) Figure 4. The distribution

(a)

of the joint probability distri bution is shown in (b) (a) (b) Figure 4. The distribution

(b)

Figure 4. The distribution of ultimate loads shown in (b) are generated using sampling points

shown in (a)

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

399

Soil Parameters Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock

REFERENCES

[1]. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A. Probabilistic Approach to Inverse Problem. In International Handbook of Earthquake & Engineering Seismology (Part A), Academic Press. 2002. pp. 237-

265.

[2].

Rollins, K.M., Clayton, R.J., Mikesell, R.C. & Blaise, B.C. Drilled Shaft Side Friction in Gravely Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2005. 131(8):987-1003.

[3].

O’Neil, M.W. Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts. The Thirty-Fourth Karl Terzaghi Lecture. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001. 127(1):1-16.

[4]. Zhang, L. & Einstein, H.H. End Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1998. 124(7):574-584.

[5].

Amir, J. M. Design of Socketed Drilled Shafts in Limestone, a Discussion, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1994. 120(2):460-461.

[6].

McVay, M.C., Townsend,, F.C. & Williams, R.C. Design of socketed drilled shafts in limestone. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1992. 118(10):1626-1637.

[7]. Ng, C.W.W, Yaw, T.L.Y, Li, J.H.M. & Tang, W.H. Side Resistance of Large Diameter Bored Piles Socketed into Decomposed Rocks. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2001.127(8):642-657.

[8].

Horvath, R.G. & Kenney, T.C. Shaft Resistance of Rock-socketed Drilled Piers. Proceeding Symposium on Deep Foundation. 1979.

[9].

Tan, Y.C. & Chow, C.M. Design and Construction of Bore Pile Foundation. Geotechnical Course for Foundation Design & Construction. 2003.

[10]. Fellenius, B.H. Discussion of ‘‘Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts’. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2001. 127(1): 3–16.

[11]. Hejleh, N.A., O'Neill, M.W, Hanneman, D. & Atwooll, W.J. Improvement of the Geotechnical Axial Design Methodology for Colorado’s Drilled Shafts Socketed in Weak Rocks. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2004.

Turner, J.P. Constructability for Drilled Shafts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 1992. 118(1):77-93.

[12].

[13]. Majano, R.E., O'Neill, M.W. & Hassan, K.M. Perimeter Load Transfer in Model Drilled Shafts Formed Under Slurry. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1994. 120(12.):2136-2154.

[14]. Chang, M.F. & Zhu, H. Construction Effect on Load Transfer along Bored Pile. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2004. 130(4):426-437.

[15]. Cherubini, C., Giasi, C.I. & Lupo, M. Interpretation of Load Tests on Bored Piles in the City of Matera. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 2004. 23:239-264.

[16]. Pizzi, J.F. Case history: Capacity of a Drilled Shaft in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2007. 133(5):522-530.

[17]. Goh, A.T.C., Kulhawy, F.H. & Chua, C.G. Bayesian Neural Network Analysis of Undrained Side Resistance of Drilled Shafts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2005.

131(1):84-93.

[18]. Boufia, A. Load-settlement Behaviour of Socketed Piles in Sandstone. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 2003. 21:389-398.

[19]. Kay, J.N. Safety Factor Evaluation for Single Piles in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. 1976. 102(10):1093-1108.

400

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong

[20]. Lacasse, S. & Goulois. A. Uncertainty in API Parameters for Predictions of Axial Capacity of Driven Piles in Sand. Proceeding of the 21 st Offshore Technology Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas. 1989. 353-358.

[21]. Baecher, G.R. & Rackwitz, R. Factor of Safety and Pile Load Tests. International Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. 1982. 6(4):409-424.

[22].

Zhang, L. M. & Tang, W.H. Use of Load Tests for Reducing Pile Length. Proceeding of the International Deep Foundations Congress. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, M. W. O’Neill and F. C. Townsend, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 2002. 993–1005.

[23]. Zhang,

L.M.

Reliability

Using

Proof

Pile

Load

Tests.

Journal

of

Geotechnical

and

Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2004. 130(2): 1203-1213.

[24]. Duncan, J.M. Factors of Safety

and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2000. 126(4):307-316.

[25]. Misra,

A.

&

Roberts,

L.A.

Axial

Service

Limit

State

Analysis

of

Drilled

Shafts

using

Probabilistic Approach. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2006. 24:1561–1580.

[26]. Misra, A., Roberts, L.A. & Levorson, S.M Reliability Analysis of Drilled Shaft Behaviour Using Finite Difference Method and Monte Carlo Simulation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 2007. 25:65–77.

[27]. Hassan, K.M. & O’Neill, M.W. Side Load-Transfer Mechanisms in Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous Rock, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1997.

123(2):145-152.

[28]. Hassan, K.M., O’Neill, M.W., Sheikh, S.A. & Ealy, C.D. Design Method for Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous Rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1997.

123(3):272-280.

[29]. Gunnink, B. & Kiehne, C. Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Burlington Limestone. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2002. 128(7):539-545.

ICCBT 2008 - E - (32) – pp391-402

401