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 insitu 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
*Correspondence Author: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Indra S. Harahap, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia. Tel:
+6053687340, Fax: +6053656716. Email: indrasati@petronas.com.my
ICCBT 2008  E  (32) – pp391402
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 pileloadtest results at project site near Kuala Lumpur. The soil condition and pileloadtest 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 pileloadtest 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) – pp391402
I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong
the unconfined compressive strength of the rock [5]. The empirical correlations proposed is
or powercurve relation to q . Evaluation by [6] indicated
that the SPT Nvalue 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 loadsettlement 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
f 
S 
f R 
L S
L R
q b
Figure 1 Ultimate capacity of socketed drilled shaft
2.2 Pile Load Test
Pileloadtest 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) – pp391402
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 Nvalue. Complete references are given in [6]
No
Empirical Correlation
Reference
1 
f _{R} (tsf) = 1.842 q _{u} ^{0}^{.}^{3}^{6}^{7} 

^{2} 
f _{R} (tsf) = 1.45 
q
u

for clean sockets, and 

f _{R} (tsf) = 1.94 
q
u

for rough sockets. 

^{3} 
f _{R} (tsf) = 0.67 
q
u

. 

^{4} 
f _{R} (tsf) = 0.63 
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 
Nvalue = {10,15,20,25,30,>30}; f _{R} (tsf) = {0.36,0.77,1.1,1.8,2.6,2.6} 

10 
Nrange = 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
_{R}_{Q}_{D} _{R}_{a}_{t}_{i}_{o} _{%}
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 pileloadtest. 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) – pp391402
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, pileloadtest 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 pileload tests are conducted within one project. Furthermore, it is common that proof pileloadtest 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 pileloadtest. For example, from pileloadtest that reaches failure, information’s can be obtained to update the reliability of pile [1922]. For pileloadtest 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 “tz” approach and finite difference method. Probabilistic loadsettlement 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 pileloadtest, 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) – pp391402
395
Soil Parameters Derived from Responses of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Rock
of a total of 19 proof pileloadtests 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 pileloadtest.
Figure 2. Load settlement curve for proof pileloadtest. Davisson’s ultimate load can be obtained only in two out of nineteen tests.
Table 3. Attributes of pile proof test result
Pile Location
^{E}^{s}^{t}^{i}^{m}^{a}^{t}^{e} ^{o}^{f}
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 
396
ICCBT 2008  E  (32) – pp391402
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 pileloadtest, 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 pileloadtest 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
))
×
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
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) – pp391402
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 pileloadtest 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) – pp391402
I.S.H. Harahap and C.W. Wong
Figure 2. Prior distribution of unit skin resistance of rock
(a)
(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)
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. The distribution of ultimate loads shown in (b) are generated using sampling points
shown in (a)
ICCBT 2008  E  (32) – pp391402
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):9871003. 
[3]. 
O’Neil, M.W. Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts. The ThirtyFourth Karl Terzaghi Lecture. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001. 127(1):116. 
[4]. Zhang, L. & Einstein, H.H. End Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1998. 124(7):574584.
[5]. 
Amir, J. M. Design of Socketed Drilled Shafts in Limestone, a Discussion, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1994. 120(2):460461. 
[6]. 
McVay, M.C., Townsend,, F.C. & Williams, R.C. Design of socketed drilled shafts in limestone. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1992. 118(10):16261637. 
[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):642657.
[8]. 
Horvath, R.G. & Kenney, T.C. Shaft Resistance of Rocksocketed 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):7793.
[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.):21362154.
[14]. Chang, M.F. & Zhu, H. Construction Effect on Load Transfer along Bored Pile. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2004. 130(4):426437.
[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. 23:239264.
[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):522530.
[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):8493.
[18]. Boufia, A. Loadsettlement Behaviour of Socketed Piles in Sandstone. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 2003. 21:389398.
[19]. Kay, J.N. Safety Factor Evaluation for Single Piles in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. 1976. 102(10):10931108.
400
ICCBT 2008  E  (32) – pp391402
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 ^{s}^{t} Offshore Technology Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas. 1989. 353358.
[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):409424.
[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): 12031213.
[24]. Duncan, J.M. Factors of Safety
and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2000. 126(4):307316.
[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 LoadTransfer Mechanisms in Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous Rock, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1997.
123(2):145152.
[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):272280.
[29]. Gunnink, B. & Kiehne, C. Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Burlington Limestone. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2002. 128(7):539545.
ICCBT 2008  E  (32) – pp391402
401
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.