You are on page 1of 28

Job Name: Shaft 1-2-3 : Drilled Shaft Design Program (Version 4.

3)
Job Location: University of South Florida
Engineer: Danny Winters (Revised: 02/14/2012)

Shaft Diameter 1:
Shaft Diameter 2:
Shaft Diameter 3:

Cut-off / Scour Elevation:

ft
ft
ft

Displacement Criteria:
Dead Load Factor:
End Bearing Influence Zone:

1
1.25
3

in

ft

Pressure Limit:

750

psi

Shaft Capacity Design Methods


Side Shear Analysis Method
Clay:
Silt:
Sand:
Limestone:

End Bearing Analysis Method

Alpha Method

AASHTO

Most Conservative

AASHTO (Clay Method)

O'Neill and Hassan (1994)

Reese and O'Neill (1988)

AASHTO

FHWA (1998)

diameters

Boring Number:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Water Table Elevation:

Elevation

Depth

(ft)

(ft)

SPT-N

ft
ft

Soil Type

qu

Rock Coring Information


qs

(psi)

(psi)

Information
Recovery
%

User Defined
fs
(TSF)

Nomenclature
%R

m
D
Db
Dp
f
fs, qs

GPI
k
K
N
Nc
Ncorr
qs
qu
Su
TCM
'v

= percent recovery of rock coring (%)


= adhesion factor applied to Su (DIM)
coefficient relating the vertical stress and the unit
=
skin friction of a drilled shaft (DIM)
SPT N corrected coefficient relating the vertical
= stress and the unit skin friction of a drilled shaft
(DIM)
= diameter of drilled shaft (FT)
depth of embedment of drilled shaft into a bearing
=
stratum (FT)
= diameter of the tip of a drilled shaft (FT)
= angle of internal friction of soil (DEG)
= nominal unit shear resistance (TSF)
= unit weight (pcf)
= Grout Pressure Index (DIM)
= empirical bearing capacity coefficient (DIM)
= load transfer factor
average (uncorrected) Standard Penetration Test
=
blow count, SPT N (Blows/FT)
= bearing capacity factor (DIM)
= corrected SPT blow count
average splitting tensile strength of the rock core
=
(TSF)
average unconfined compressive strength of the
=
rock core (TSF)
= undrained shear strength (TSF)
= Tip Capacity Multiplier (DIM)
= vertical effective stress (TSF)

Procedures
SECURITY NOTE:

Commentary
Microsoft XP users must set Security Level in
Macro Security to Medium. This is done in Tools Options - Macro Security - Security Level.

General Worksheet
Enter Job Name

Job Name must be entered before analysis is run.

Enter Job Location

Job Location is optional.

Enter Engineer

Engineer is optional.

Enter Boring Log Information

The Boring Log worksheet can be displayed by


clicking the Boring Log button or clicking on the
Boring Log sheet tab at the bottom of Excel (see
Procedures & Commentary for Boring Log
Worksheet below).

Select Working Units

English or Metric units can be selected for entering


raw data. The worksheet will convert from
English units to Metric units and vice versa. The
analysis will automatically use English units for
the calculations.

Enter Shaft Diameter(s)

Up to three shaft diameters can be analyzed.

Enter Displacement Criteria

Displacement Criteria defines the mobilized end


bearing and side shear in either cohesionless or
cohesive soils as a function of a Tip Capacity
Multiplier (TCM) and Side Shear Multipliers
(SSM), respectively, based on Reese and O'Neill
1988 (see Figures 1 through 4). TCM upper limits
(ungrouted shafts) are set at 1.0 for both cohesive
and cohesionless soils. SSM upper limit for
cohesionless soils is set at 1.0 and linearly
extrapolated for cohesive soils beyond 2%. Silt is
dependent on the analysis method selected (sand or
clay). End bearing in limestone is dependent on
the unconfined compressive strength and percent
recovery. Side shear for limestone is set at 1.0 for
all %D displacements.

Figure 1 - Normalized Load Transfer in End Bearing Versus Settlement in Cohesionless Soils for Drilled
Shafts (after Reese and O'Neill 1988)

Figure 2 - Normalized Load Transfer in End Bearing Versus Settlement in Cohesive Soils for Drilled
Shafts (after Reese and O'Neill 1988)

Figure 3 - Normalized Load Transfer in Side Resistance Versus Settlement in Cohesionless Soils for
Drilled Shafts (after Reese and O'Neill 1988)

Figure 4 - Normalized Load Transfer in Side Resistance Versus Settlement in Cohesive Soils for Drilled
Shafts (after Reese and O'Neill 1988)

Enter Dead Load Factor

Dead Load Factor is used to subtract the weight of


the shaft from the mobilized capacity. The default
value reflects the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (Interim 2003).

Enter End Bearing Influence Zone

The End Bearing Influence Zone defines the depth


below the tip of the shaft that contributes to the
end bearing capacity by finding the minimum qp
from the soils down to the depth defined by this
parameter.

Enter Cut-off / Scour Elevation

Default Cut-off / Scour Elevation is Ground


Elevation.
Cut-off / Scour Elevation below
Ground Elevation will negate that soil in the
effective stress calculations.

Enter Grout Pressure Limit

The Grout Pressure Limit is based on the grouting


mechanism capacity (default = 750 psi).

Select Analysis Methods for Side Shear and End


Bearing

(See Commentary below)

Click Calculate Shaft Capacities

Calculate Shaft Capacities will calculate shaft


capacities based on the boring log. The grouted
tip capacity will then be analyzed based on the
applied grout pressure (Mullins, et al., 2001).

Click Reset Workbook (optional)

Reset Workbook will clear all sheets including the


Boring Log worksheet.

Soil Parameters
135
130
Clay

Unit Weight (pcf)

125

Silt

120
Sand
115
110
105
100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SPT N

Figure 3 - Soil Unit Weight - Standard Penetration Test (SPT - N) Relationships

80

Clay

Su = 125 * N psf (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990),


where N is the standard penetration test number.

Silt

Su = 125 * N psf (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990),


where N is the standard penetration test number.

Sand

(See Table 1 for values)


Table 1 - Values for based on SPT - N values

Limestone

qu, qs, and percent recovery are defined by the user


in the Boring Log worksheet.

Side Shear Analysis Methods


Clay
AASHTO Table 10.8.3.3.1-1

Alpha Method

(See AASHTO section 10.8.3.3.1)


fs = * Su, where Su is the mean undrained shear
strength (TSF) and is the adhesion factor (DIM)
(see AASHTO Table 10.8.3.3.1-1).
The
calculations account for the top five feet which is
noncontributing.

User Defined

fs is defined by the user in the Boring Log


worksheet (TSF). The side shear defined by the
user is for that specific elevation and derived from
load testing results. If load testing results are not
available, then another method should be selected.

Silt
O'Neill and Hassan (1994)

Also known as the Modified Beta Method.


If
SPT N < 15 then
m = SPT N / 15 * (Reese and O'Neill, 1988).

Alpha Method

(See AASHTO section 10.8.3.3.1)


fs = * Su, where Su is the mean undrained shear
strength (TSF) and is the adhesion factor (DIM)
(see AASHTO Table 10.8.3.3.1-1).
The
calculations account for the top five feet which is
noncontributing.

Most Conservative

Most Conservative method will run through the


calculations for each analysis method and use the
most conservative value.

User Defined

fs is defined by the user in the Boring Log


worksheet (TSF). The side shear defined by the
user is for that specific elevation and derived from
load testing results. If load testing results are not
available, then another method should be selected.

Sand
AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.2-1

O'Neill and Hassan (1994)

Also known as the Modified Beta Method.


If
SPT N < 15 then
m = SPT N / 15 * (Reese and O'Neill, 1988).

Reese and O'Neill (1988)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.2-1)

Reese and Wright (1977)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.2-1)

Quiros and Reese (1977)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.2-1)

Meyerhof (1976)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.2-1)

Touma and Reese (1975)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.2-1)

Most Conservative

Most Conservative method will run through the


calculations for each analysis method and use the
most conservative value.

User Defined

fs is defined by the user in the Boring Log


worksheet (TSF). The side shear defined by the
user is for that specific elevation and derived from
load testing results. If load testing results are not
available, then another method should be selected.

Limestone
McVay and Townsend (1990)

fs = 1/2 * qu1/2 * qs1/2 * %R


where: qu is the unconfined compressive strength
of the rock (TSF), qs is the splitting tensile
strength of the rock (TSF), and %R is the percent
recovery.

AASHTO (Limestone)

(See AASHTO section 10.8.3.5 (C10.8.3.5-4 &


C10.8.3.5-5)) For qu <= 20 TSF, fs = 0.15 * qu and
for qu > 20 TSF, fs = 0.67 * qu0.5, where qu is the
unconfined compressive strength of the rock
(TSF).

User Defined

fs is defined by the user in the Boring Log


worksheet (TSF). The side shear defined by the
user is for that specific elevation and derived from
load testing results. If load testing results are not
available, then another method should be selected.

End Bearing Analysis Methods


Clay
AASHTO (Clay)

(See AASHTO section 10.8.3.3.2)


qp = Nc * Su <= 40.0 TSF,
where Nc = 6 [ 1 + 0.2 ( Z / D ) ] <= 9, D is
the diameter of drilled shaft (FT), Z is the
penetration of shaft (FT), Su is the undrained shear
strength (TSF). Also known as Reese & O'Neill
1987.
Silt

Reese and O'Neill (1988)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.3-1)**

AASHTO (Clay)

(See AASHTO section 10.8.3.3.2)


qp = Nc * Su <= 40.0 TSF,
where Nc = 6 [ 1 + 0.2 ( Z / D ) ] <= 9, D is
the diameter of drilled shaft (FT), Z is the
penetration of shaft (FT), Su is the undrained shear
strength (TSF).

Sand
AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.3-1

Reese and O'Neill (1988)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.3-1)**

Reese and Wright (1977)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.3-1)**

Meyerhof (1976)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.3-1)**

Touma and Reese (1975)

(See AASHTO Table 10.8.3.4.3-1)**

**(See AASHTO section 10.8.3.4.3) For diameters greater than 4.17 FT, qp is reduced as follows:
qpr = 4.17 / Dp * qp, where Dp is the tip diameter of the drilled shaft (FT).
Limestone
FHWA (1998)

End Bearing, qp = 2.5 * qu * %Recovery <= 40.0


TSF, where qu is the unconfined compressive
strength of the rock (TSF).

Grouted End Bearing Analysis


Grout Pressure Index (GPI)

Grout Pressure Index is a non-dimensional ratio of


the applied grout pressure to the predicted
ungrouted end bearing at 5%D.

Tip Capacity Multiplier (TCM)

Tip Capacity Multiplier at %D is equal to the


grouted capacity at %D divided by the ultimate
calculated end bearing. The grouted capacity was
determined from load test data (Mullins, et al.,
2005, Mullins and Winters, 2004, and Mullins, et
al. 2001).

Grouted End Bearing Capacity, qgrouted

The grouted end bearing capacity for cohesionless


soils is the calculated ultimate end bearing times
the TCM (determined from Figure 4). The grouted
end bearing capacity for cohesive soils is the
ultimate calculated end bearing.

Figure 4 - Tip Capacity Multiplier for determining the grouted end bearing capacity in cohesionless soils.

Boring Log Worksheet

Figure 4 - Example Boring Log Entry


Select Working Units

English or Metric units can be selected for entered


raw data. The worksheet will convert from
English units to Metric units and vice versa. The
analysis will automatically use English units for
the calculations. User Defined values must be
entered in the units of TSF. Values in the User
Defined column will not be converted to SI units.

Enter Boring Name

Boring Name
identification.

Enter Ground Surface Elevation

Ground Surface Elevation is the starting elevation


of the soil boring.

Enter Water Table Elevation

Water Table Elevation is the elevation of the water


table for that soil boring.

Click Unprotect Worksheet (Optional)

Unprotect Worksheet button will unlock the entire


worksheet. Protecting the worksheet will aid in
data entry by allowing the user to Tab to the next
entry.

is

used

in

the

graphs

for

Click Access Rock Coring Information (Optional)

The Access Rock Coring Information button will


allow the user to enter data for rock coring
information (if applicable).

Enter Soil Boring Information

Soil Boring Information includes Depth, SPT N,


Soil Type (see Soil Types Commentary), and
Rock Coring Information (Compressive Strength,
Splitting Tensile Strength, and Percent Recovery)
(if applicable).

Soil Types

Soil Type 1: Plastic Clays


Soil Type 2: Clay, Silt, Sand Mix, Silts and Marls
Soil Type 3: Clean Sands
Soil Type 4: Soft Limestone, Very Shelly Sands
Soil Type 5: Void (No Capacity)
Click Soil Type Details button will show a detailed
soil type form (Figure 3).

Figure 5 - Detailed Soil Types Form

Click Update Boring Log

Updating the boring log will calculate Elevations


and Soil Parameters.

Capacity Worksheet(s)
NOTE: It should be noted that all calculations are
performed at the bottom of layers, not the middle
of layers. This will calculate conservative values
and differ from the users hand calculations. To
mitigate this effect, make layer thicknesses small <
2ft (0.6m).
Ungrouted and grouted capacities will be placed in
a worksheet designated for each diameter (Diam 1,
Diam 2, and Diam 3). The following will be
included in each worksheet: Job Name, Shaft
Diameter, Boring Number, Elevation, Ultimate
Side Shear, Ultimate End Bearing, Ultimate Shaft
Capacity (Ungrouted), Mobilized Shaft Capacity
(Ungrouted and Grouted), and Grout Pressure.

Capacity Plot(s)

800
60
40

700

600

Project I.D.

400

300

200

TarragonaSt &CSXRR
UngroutedCapacity@1.00inDisp
GroutedCapacity@1.00inDisp
Grout Pressure
3ft Diameter, BoringTH3

Soil Cutoff
(ZeroCapacity)

20

100

Displacement Criteria

40

Shaft Size&BoringI.D.
20

Grout PressureRequired
forImprovement

LoadImprovement

-20

-20

Shaft Length
Improvement

-40

-40

Grout PressureLimit
(Equipment / Construction
Limitations)

-60
-80

60

100

200

Elevation(ft)

Elevation(ft)

Grout Pressure(psi)

500

300

400

-60

500

600

700

Capacity(tons)

800

900

1000

1100

-80
1200

Figure 6 - Detailed Shaft Capacity & Grout Pressure Plot


The Mobilized Shaft Capacity (Ungrouted and
Grouted) and Grout Pressure will be graphed
versus Elevation (Diam1 Plot, Diam2 Plot, and
Diam3 Plot). An example plot (Figure 6) shows
load improvement, length improvement, required
grout pressure for improvement, and graph details.

Patents
Mullins, A. G., Winters, D., Stokes, M., and Lewis, C.L. (2010) End Bearing Enhancement via Post
Construction Preload / Reload US 7,651,302 B2.
References
AASHTO, 1998. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. U.S. Units, 2nd Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Armour, T., Groneck, P., Keeley, J., and Sharma, S. (2000), Micropile Design and Construction
Guidelines Implementation Manual Priority Technologies Program (PTP) Project, Report No. FHWA-SA97-070, U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia.

ASTM D-1143-98, (1998), Standard Test Method For Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 20, Philadelphia, PA.
Azizi, Fethi, (2000), Applied Analyses In Geotechnics, E & FN Spoon, New York, NY.
Baker, W. H., (Ed) (1982), Proceeding of the Conference on Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering,
American Society of Engineers, Denver, Colorado.
Baker, A.C. and Broadrick, R.L., (1997), Compaction Grouting, a twenty year update and a vision for the
21st century, Proceedings Florida/South Florida Section Annual Meeting, Clearwater, FL, September.

Bauer in Brooklyn Queens Expressway, NY (1988) Bauer inner office Tech Note.
Bolognesi, A. J. L. and Moretto, O. (1973) Stage Grouting Preloading of Large Piles on Sand
Proceedings of 8th ICSMFE, Moscow.
Brown, D. and Drew, C. (2000). Axial capacity of auger displacement piles at Auburn University.
GeoDenver 2000 New Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations, Geotechnical
Special Publication, No. 100, pp.397-403, Reston, VA.
Brown, D.A. and Vinson, J. (1998). Comparison of strength and stiffness parameters for a Piedmont
residual soil. Geotechnical Site Characterizations, Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Site Characterization, Atlanta, GA, April.

Bruce, D.A. (1986), Enhancing the performance of large diameter piles by grouting, Parts 1 and 2,
Ground Engineering, May and July, respectively.
Bruce, D. A., Nufer, P. J., and Triplett, R. E. (1995). Enhancement of Caisson Capacity by Micro-Fine
Cement Grouting - a Recent Case History ASCE Special Publication 57, Verification of Geotechnical
Grouting.

Carter, J.P. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1987. "Analysis and Design of Foundations Socketed into Rock." Research
Report 1493-4, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Dapp, S. D. (2002). Pressure Grouting of Drilled Shafts in Sands. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
Dapp, S., and Mullins, G., (2002). Pressure-Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips: Full-Scale Research
Investigation for Silty and Shelly Sands, Deep Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory,
Design, Construction, and Performance, ASCE Geo Institute, GSP No.116, Vol. I, pp. 335-350.

Dapp, S.D. (1998). Interviews with engineers during load testing on the My Thuan Bridge. Mekong
Delta, Vietnam.
Davidson, J.L. and Maultsby, J.P. (1998). Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Energy Testing. Presentation
given to the Florida Department of Transportation, October.
Day, K. (1995), Concrete Mix Design, Quality Control and Specification, Second Edition, E&FN SPON,
New York.
Dhir, V. K., (1984) Grouting to save money, Gulf Construction, July.
Domone, P. L. J., and Jefferis, S. A. (1994), Structural Grouts, Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.

Dunnicliff, J. (1988), Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance, WileyInterscience, New York.
FHWA, 1998. "Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructures." U.S.
Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA HI-98-032.
Flemming, W. G. K. (1993) The Improvement of Pile Performance by Base Grouting Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Gouvenot, D. and Gabiax, F. D. (1975), A new foundation technique using piles sealed by concrete under
high pressure, Proceedings, Seventh Annual Offshore Technical Conference.
Harris, M. (1999). Sams Teach Yourself Microsoft Excel 2000 Programming in 21 Days. Sams Publishing,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D. (1981), An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
Horvath, Robert G. and Stolle, Dieter, (1996), Frustum For Testing Model Piles, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, June, pp. 499-504.
Houlsby, A.C. (1990), Construction and Design of Cement Grouting, A Guide to Grouting in Rock
Foundations, Wiley-Interscience Publication, New Jersy.

Kahn, Y. (1984), Innovative Cement Grouting, ACI Publication SP-83, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). "Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design."
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Littlejohn, G. S., Ingle, J., Dadasbilge, K. (1983) Improvement in Base Resistance of Large Diameter
Piles Founded in Silty Sand Proceedings, Eighth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, May.
Lizzi, F., Viggiani, C., Vinale, F. (1983) Some Experience with Pre-Loading Cells at the Base of Large
Diameter Bored Piles Proceedings of the 7th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Haifa, Israel
Logie, C. V. (1984) Drilled Pier Foundation Rehabilitation Using Cement Grouting ACI Publication SP83, Innovative Cement Grouting.
Mayne, P.W., Brown. D, Vinson, J., Schneider, J.A., and Finke, K.A. (2000). Site characterization of
Piedmont residual soils at the NGES, Opelika, Alabama. A2K Specialty Conference on Performance
Verification of Constructed eotechnical Facilities, eotechnical Special Publication, No. 93, pp 160-185,
Amherst, MA.

McVay, M.C. and Townsend, F.C., 1990. "Design of Socketed Drilled Shafts in Limestone."

Meyerhof, G.G., 1976. "Bearing capacity and settlement of piled foundations." Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, GT3, pp. 197-228.
Mojabi, M.S., and Duffin, M. J. (1991) Large Diameter, Rock Socket, Base Grouted Piles in Bristol
Proceedings of the 4 International C th onference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Stresa, Italy, April
Mullins, G., Ashmawy, A., and Garbin, E.J. (2003). The Influence of Water Table in Drilled Shaft
Construction - Phase I Final Report, Draft Report submitted to Florida Department of Transportation,
July.
Mullins, G., Winters, D, and Dapp, S., (2008). Closure to Predicting End Bearing Capacity of Post
Grouted Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 3, p. 413.
Mullins, G., Winters, D., and Dapp, S. (2006). Predicting End Bearing Capacity of Post Grouted Drilled
Shafts in Cohesionless Soils ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol.
132, No. 4. pp. 478-487 .
Mullins, G. and Winters, D., 2004. "Pressure Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips - Phase II." Final Report
submitted Florida Department of Transportation, June.

Mullins, G. (2003). New Design Method Gives Drilled Shafts a Boost, Featured Technical Article, Deep
Foundations Magazine, Deep Foundation Institute, Hawthorne, NJ.
Mullins, G. and ONeill, M. (2003). Pressure Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips: A Full-Scale Load Test
Program, Final Report submitted to Texas Department of Transportation for A.H. Beck, Inc. May, 156 pp.

Mullins, G., Muchard, M., and Khouri, B. (2003). Post Grouted Drilled Shafts: A Case History of The
PGA Boulevard Bridge Project, Proceedings of the Deep Foundations Institute 28th Annual Conference
on Deep Foundations, October 22-24, Miami, FL, pp. 57-71.
Mullins, G., Dapp, S., and Lai, P., (2000). Pressure Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips in Sand. New
Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations, Dennis, N. D., et al. (ed.), ASCE, Geo
Institute, GSP Vol. 100, pp 1-17.

Mullins, G., Dapp, S., Fredrerick, E. and Wagner, R., 2000. "Pressure Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips." Final
Report submitted Florida Department of Transportation, December.

Mullins, G. (1999). Interviews with engineers during load testing on the Taipei Financial Center. Taipei,
ONeill, M.W. (2002). Discussion and Closure of Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, May, Vol. 128, No. 5, pp.446-450.
O'Neill, M.W. and Hassan, K.M., 1994. "Drilled Shafts: Effects of Construction on Performance and
Design Criteria." Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep
Foundations, December 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 137-187.
Piccione, M., Carletti, G., and Diamanti, L. (1984) the Piled Foundations of the Al Gazira Hotel in Cairo
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK.

Ramachandran, V. S. (1995), Concrete Admixtures Handbook, Properties, Science, and Technology,


Second Edition, Noyes Publication, Park Ridge, New Jersy.
Reese, L.C. and O'Neill, M.W., 1988. "Drilled Shafts: Construction and Design." FHWA, Publication No.
HI-88-042.
Schneider, D.I. (1999). An Introduction to Programming Using Visual Basic 6.0 Fourth Edition. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Rixom, R., and Mailvaganam, N. (1999), Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Third Edition, Routledge,
New York, New York.
Santosuossa, M., Rizzi, G., Diamanti, L. (1991) Construction of Pile Foundation of the Postal Citadel in
the Direction Center of Naples Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Stresa, Italy, April

Sedran, G. (1999) Experimental and Analytical Study of a Frustum Confining Vessel,


Doctoral Dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, September.
Sliwinski, Z. J., and Flemming, W. G. K. (1984) the Integrity and Performance of Bored Piles
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK.

Sliwinski, Z. J., and Philpot, T. A. (1980) Conditions for Effective End Bearing of bored Cast in Situ
Piles Proceedings of Recent Developments in the Design and Construction of Piles, Institute of Civil
Engineers, London, UK
Stocker, M.F. (1983), The influence of post grouting on t he load bearing capacity of bored piles,
Proceedings, Eighth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, May.

Touma, F.T. and Reese, L.C., 1974. "Behavior of Bored Piles in Sand." Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No. GT7, pp. 749-761.
Troughton, V. M. and Platis, A.(1989) The Effects of Changes in Effective Stress on a Base Grouted Pile
in Sand Proceedings of the International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, London, UK, May.