In weak soils with low bearing capacity, the load transfer is done using piles. Therefore, by creating an interposed layer separating the pile from the raft, reactions between raft and pile head will be reduced and the load-bearing role of shallow soil will be more than contact pile situation. Normally, the pile head and shallow soil have a settlement equal to the raft. Thus, the relative settlement of pile and soil in pile head is equal to zero and at the bottom is high and the body friction mobilizes upward. In addition, a portion of load is tolerated by shallow soil and the other portion is tolerated by the pile head, which would be transferred to deeper soil layers. In noncontact state, with the formation of a hard soil layer on which the raft is located, soil mechanical parameters will be improved; while in contact state, the settlement will be decreased by reducing the amount of transferred load to the shallow soil. The transferred load to the shallow soil increases vertical and horizontal stress around piles, so bearing capacity of piles is increased....

Introduction: In most survival studies for parametric analysis of data is used the weibull model because it is flexibility. In most cases for weibull model is assumed that the shape parameter is constant, although this assumption for some of the data is wrong.Aim: In this study, we present interval censored method for weibull distribution when the shape parameter isn' t constant.Materials and Methods: With simulation of Monte Carlo, we will present advantages of this approach respect to situation that shape parameter is constant. Then in a practical example we would show that how estimates are determined.Results: Estimation of model coefficient, DIC and Hazard ratio were calculated in model with constant and nonconstant shape parameter then were compared. The results indicated that if the shape parameter of distribution isn' t constant. The estimation of covariates coefficients has less bias, more appropriate fit and the results is different respect to shape parameter is constant.Conclusion: Based on the results is better than the saturated model is selected in such a way that does not assume constant shape parameter to be fixed parameter used as the test model, using appropriate criteria to select fit model.

This study was designed to assess the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of Noncontact Pachymetry (NPC) (Topcan TRK-2P) and the Non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar LS 900) devices for measuring Central Corneal Thickness (CCT) of healthy corneas. A total of 82 healthy volunteers were evaluated. The first observer used both the TopconTRK-2P and Lenstar 900 devices while the second observer only used the TopconTRK-2P for the measurements. The measurements with either device were repeated three times for each patient, consecutively. The central corneal thickness measurements with the Topcon TRK-2P revealed mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) values of 553. 1 ± 36. 1 micrometer (μ m) for the first observer and 552. 3 ± 35. 9μ m for the second observer and the mean ± SD of CCT was 537. 3 ± 34. 8μ m with the Lenstar 900. The difference between the CCT measurements of the observers using the Topcon TRK-2P (P = 0. 142) was insignificant. However, significantly lower measurements were found with the Lenstar 900 compared with the Topcon TRK-2P (P ˂ 0. 001). The central corneal thickness measurements obtained by the Topcon TRK-2P were found to have high repeatability for both observers with a lower SD, less than 1% Coefficient of Variation (CV) and higher than 0. 99 Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) (Observer 1: 3. 77 SD, 0. 68 CV and 0. 995 ICC; the second observer: 3. 58 SD, 0. 65 CV and 0. 995 ICC). There was an excellent inter-observer reproducibility between the two observers for Topcon TRK-2P with 2. 71 SD, 0. 49 CV, and 0. 994 ICC. The Bland-Altman plot showed high agreement between the two devices. These results suggest that the TopconTRK-2P is a reliable device for evaluating CCT in healthy corneas compared with Lenstar 900...

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement with Pulsair Non-contact tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, during a complete ophthalmologic examination, each patient underwent Pulsair tonometry three times at 5 minutes intervals and then Goldmann tonometry at the same intervals. Mean IOP values were measured and analyzed. Results: We evaluated 458 eyes of 250 patients (138 males and 112 female subjects). Mean IOP was 19.45±9.04 mmHg with GAT and 20.11±8.42 mmHg with Pulsair (P=0.075). Correlation coefficient between the two methods was 0.96 (P= 0.004) and the mean difference (Pulsair-GAT) was 0.65±1.52 (confidence interval 95%, +3.5 to -2.29). With IOPs between 10-25mmHg, mean difference between the two methods was 0.49±1.23 (P= 0.32) mmHg, however it was -1.75±1.91 (P= 0.06) at IOPs over than 25 mm Hg. Conclusion: Pulsair tonometry has acceptable accuracy in comparison with GAT, especially in IOP ranging from 10 to 25 mmHg.