Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 163
April 2010 Issue GE2
Pages 65–81
doi: 10.1680/geng.2010.163.2.65

Paper 800011
Received 12/02/2008
Accepted 08/07/2009
Nguyen Tien Dung Sung Gyo Chung Sung Ryul Kim
Keywords: foundations/design PhD student, School of Civil Professor, School of Civil Assistant Professor, School of
methods & aids/piles & piling Engineering, Dong-A Engineering, Dong-A Civil Engineering, Dong-A
University, Busan, Korea University, Busan, Korea University, Busan, Korea

Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach

N. T. Dung, S. G. Chung PhD, MICE and S. R. Kim PhD

This paper presents a comprehensive study on n number of sublayers

estimating the settlement of large-scale pile groups using p net pressure at equivalent raft
the equivalent raft approach. First, five common ˜p effective stress increment
methods of analysis are briefly reviewed. The reliability QG total load of pile group
of the methods is then verified by back-analysing six Qns drag load applied to a pile
well-documented case studies of large-scale piled Qp average dead load applied to a pile
foundations, all of which include hundreds of piles. The qc average cone tip resistance
case studies include three representative footing types, R aspect ratio of pile group
characterised according to the pile cap stiffness as RG multiplier for pile group
flexible, semi-rigid, and rigid. It was found that the r radius of circular rafts
stiffness of the pile cap and the consideration of Se , Sed elastic settlement of pile group
horizontal stress increments are the key factors affecting SG total settlement of pile group
the estimation of settlement. It is concluded that, with Sm measured settlement
appropriate consideration of the various factors, several SRaft uncorrected settlement of raft
of these methods can reasonably be applied for the SRaft,corr corrected settlement of raft
estimation of the settlement of pile groups. S1 settlement of a single pile
s spacing between piles
NOTATION savg average spacing between piles in group
Ap cross-sectional area of pile tr raft (pile cap) thickness
a foundation (raft) length z depth to any stress point from raft
b foundation (raft) width ª unit weight of soil
Cc compression index of clay åz vertical strain
Cu undrained shear strenght of clay
r Poisson’s ratio of raft
C1 embedment factor (Schmertmann et al., 1978)
s Poisson’s ratio of soil
C2 creep correction factor (Schmertmann et al., 1978) ó9v effective stress at working load
D diameter of pile base ó9v0 in situ effective stress
Er elastic modulus of raft (pile cap)
Es elastic modulus of soils 1. INTRODUCTION
e0 initial void ratio Friction piles have been extensively used to support medium-
FD embedment correction factor (Fox, 1948) tall and high-rise buildings in well-known deltas such as the
f stiffness correction factor Mississippi River deltaic plain (Blessey, 1976), the Chao Phraya
G0 initial (low-strain) shear modulus River delta (Balasubramaniam et al., 1981) and Mexico City
h thickness of a subsoil layer (Resendiz and Auvinet, 1973), where the pile tips are unable to
I settlement influence factor reach a stiff bearing stratum such as gravel or bedrock.
Id embedment correction factor (Meyerhof, 1976) However, the use of friction piles has recently been attempted
Iflexible settlement influence factor for flexible foundations in the Nakdong River estuarine delta, S. Korea (Dung et al.,
Irigid settlement influence factor for rigid foundations 2007; Kim et al., 2006), where the costly end bearing piles used
Iz vertical strain influence factor extensively throughout the country need to be installed as deep
I1 settlement influence factor for single pile as 70 m in some places. The studies indicated that settlement of
Krs raft/soil stiffness ratio large-scale friction pile groups in the delta is the governing
Leq equivalent length of free-standing column factor, rather than pile bearing capacity. Thus a practical and
Lp length of pile reliable approach for estimating the settlement of pile groups is
M0 constrained modulus of soils needed.
m modulus number of soils
N SPT blow counts (uncorrected) Various approaches have been proposed for estimating the
(N1 )60 SPT blow counts (corrected) settlement of pile groups, ranging from simple empirical

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 65

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 approaches to sophisticated non-linear finite-element (FE)
analyses. They may roughly be categorised as follows
(a) the empirical or semi-empirical approach (e.g. Meyerhof,
1976; Vesic, 1977)
(b) the equivalent raft or pier approach, which was initially
proposed by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and then later
improved (e.g. Fellenius, 1991; Poulos, 1993)
(c) the interaction factor approach (e.g. Poulos and Davis,
1980; Randolph and Wroth, 1979)
(d ) the numerical analysis approach (e.g. Chow, 1986).
Empirical or semi-empirical methods are mentioned in most
foundation textbooks as primary solutions for estimating the
settlement of pile groups. However, the applicability of these
methods is limited to small pile groups founded in fairly
homogeneous soil profiles. Because of the oversimplified
assumptions associated with these empirical or semi-empirical
methods, they are seldom ever used in contemporary practice.
In contrast, the numerical analysis approach is known as the
most rigorous solution to obtain precise settlements of complex
foundations, especially of large-scale pile groups. However, the
approach requires time-consuming analyses, and is sometimes
difficult for practising engineers.
Considerable attention has been paid to the interaction
methods of the third approach, since the original method of
interaction factors was proposed by Poulos (1968). Significant
improvements to and practical implications of the interaction
factor methods have been presented recently by researchers
such as Mandolini (2003), Mandolini and Viggiani (1997),
Mandolini et al. (2005), Poulos (2001, 2006), Poulos et al.
(2002) and Randolph (1994). These recent publications indicate
that the interaction factor approach can reasonably predict
settlements of large to very large pile groups (possibly more
than 1000 piles). In general, the approach is able to predict the
average settlement of pile groups within a range of
20% of
the observed values (Mandolini, 2003; Mandolini and Viggiani,
1997; Mandolini et al., 2005), but the differential settlements
are obtained with less accuracy. Although there are advantages
to this approach, such as optimisation of the number of piles in
the group according to foundation cost and safety factor, and
the possibility of strategic arrangement of piles under
concentrated loads in the group, the methods are often limited
to the assumptions that the pile cap is perfectly flexible or
rigid. In addition, the approach also becomes less reliable when
a significantly compressible layer exists under the pile tips of
large pile groups.
According to the studies carried out by Poulos et al. (2002) and
Poulos (2006), the equivalent raft approach provides a
reasonably accurate prediction of the settlement of groups that
contain more than approximately 16 piles (at a typical spacing
of three pile diameters centre to centre). Various methods for
the equivalent raft approach have been proposed for practical
design, but it is not well known which methods are most
reliably applicable.
In this paper, the focus is on determining reliable methods for
the equivalent raft approach that can be used for estimating
the settlement of large-scale pile groups. First, the most
common methods are briefly reviewed. An attempt is made to
66 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach
Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
consider the effects of pile cap stiffness in the application of
the above methods, since they were originally proposed based
on the basis of perfectly flexible or rigid footings. Some well-
documented case studies are then back-analysed in order to
examine the applicability of the proposed methods. Through
the various comparisons, the key factors that affect settlement
are discussed, and finally preferred methods are recommended
for practical design.
2. METHODS FOR THE EQUIVALENT RAFT
APPROACH
2.1. Proposed methods
Table 1 provides a brief review of common methods for
estimating the settlement of pile groups, which are considered
in this study. Note that the semi-empirical method proposed by
Meyerhof (1976) is not actually placed within the equivalent
raft approach, but because its calculation methodology is
similar, it is suggested that the method be placed within it.
Although the elastic deformation of piles was not included in
the methods that are marked with an asterisk (*), it will be
taken into account in this study as the elastic deformation of a
free-standing column (Poulos, 1993). The elastic modulus of
such a column is calculated as the weighted average modulus
(i.e. the equivalent modulus) of piles and soils within the
column area. In particular, in the Fellenius (1991) method, the
elastic deformation of piles is caused by dead load plus drag
load.
Randolph (1994) has suggested that the accuracy of using the
raft or pier approach should be related to the aspect ratio of the
:
pile group, R ¼ (ns/Lp )0 5 . That is, for values of R that are
greater than 4, an equivalent raft would be a logical analogue
for analysis. For smaller values of R, and certainly for values
less than 2, it would seem at the outset that an equivalent pier
approach is more logical, at least for estimating average
settlement. This aspect ratio will be considered in the study.
2.2. Effects of embedment and foundation stiffness
2.2.1. Embedment effects. The settlements obtained from the
2:1 and Poulos (1993) methods were initiated from stress and
strain distribution under a uniformly loaded area on a half-
space medium. The correction factor FD (Fox, 1948) was
therefore applied to take the embedment effect into account.
The factor is equivalent to Id and C1 in the Meyerhof (1976)
and Schmertmann et al. (1978) methods respectively. In the
Fellenius (1991) method, settlement analysis is carried out by
using the computer program UniSettle (Unisoft Ltd), in which
the embedment effect is implicitly considered by the concept of
effective stress used in the method.
2.2.2. Foundation stiffness. The 2:1, Meyerhof (1976),
Fellenius (1991), and Poulos (1993) methods were proposed
based on the concept of flexible footings. In contrast, the
Schmertmann et al. (1978) method was developed based on
experimental results of rigid steel plate load tests in the
laboratory and extensive finite-element method (FEM) studies
on rigid shallow foundations. Thus all the methods should be
corrected for a foundation of intermediate rigidity.
Dung et al.
 Reference Formula Parameters

pbld
Meyerhof SRaft ¼ p ¼ equivalent net pressure applied to equivalent raft; Id ¼ influence factor for
(1976)* 2q c embedment; b ¼ width of pile group; qc ¼ average cone tip resistance in influence zone
Lp of b; Es ¼ 2qc ¼ average elastic modulus in influence zone.
Id ¼ 1  > 0:5
8B
X
n
˜ pi
2:1 method* SRaft ¼ FD hi ˜pi , h i and Esi ¼ effective stress increment based on 2:1 assumption, thickness and
i¼1
E si elastic modulus of ith sublayer respectively; n ¼ number of sublayers; FD ¼ embedment
correction factor (Fox, 1948).
X
n
I zi h i
Schmertmann S Raft ¼ C1 C2 p C1 ¼ embedment correction factor; C2 ¼ creep correction factor; Iz i , h i and Es i ¼
et al. (1978)* i¼1
E si vertical strain influence factor, thickness and elastic modulus of ith sublayer respectively;
p ¼ net pressure at equivalent raft; n ¼ number of sublayers.
X
n
(Qd þ Qns i )h i
Fellenius (1991) Sed ¼ Qd ¼ average dead load applied to a pile; Qnsi , h i , Api and Epi ¼ drag load, P
length, cross-
i¼1
Api E pi sectional area, and elastic modulus of ith segment of the pile respectively; ni1 hi ¼
SRaft ¼ f (˜ p, E s ) depth from pile head to equivalent raft (neutral plane position); ˜p and Es ¼ effective
stress increment and elastic modulus of soil layers below neutral plane respectively.
QG Leq
Poulos (1993) Se ¼ FD ¼ embedment correction factor (Fox, 1948); p ¼ equivalent net pressure applied to
Aeq E eq equivalent raft; Izi , h i and E si ¼ vertical strain influence factor, thickness and elastic
Xn
 modulus of ith sublayer respectively; QG ¼ total dead load applied to group; Leq , Aeq
I zi
SRaft ¼ FD p hi and Eeq ¼ length, cross-sectional area and elastic modulus of equivalent free standing
i¼1
E si column respectively.

Table 1. Summary of considered methods

Conceptually, the settlement computation for pile foundations
based on the equivalent raft is not significantly different from
that for shallow foundations. It is thus probable that the raft–
soil stiffness approach applied for shallow foundations can be
extended to the equivalent raft concept to approximately take
into account the effect of pile cap stiffness with the following
assumptions.
(a) Piles are distributed fairly uniformly throughout the cap
and have equal lengths, so that the stiffness of pile–soil
equivalent material under the cap is relatively the same for
each soil layer.
(b) For simplicity, no degrees of freedom between piles and
cap are considered, and the contact between the cap and
the pile–soil equivalent material below the cap is
frictionless.
(c) Soil layers are horizontally homogeneous within the
foundation area.
(d ) As the stiffness of piles is actually much larger than that of
the soils, the deformation shape of the pile cap, which is
simply placed at the equivalent footing level, is considered
to be similar to that of the soil plane at the pile tips.
In summary, these assumptions imply that the equivalent
footing as well as the pile tip plane is subjected to the same
deformation shape of the pile cap.
From the above-mentioned assumptions, the settlement of a
piled foundation with reinforced cap can be solved
approximately by using the raft/soil stiffness ratio approach
adopted for shallow foundations. The extension is not
conceptually applicable for complex foundations that involve
significant differences in pile lengths, pile cap thicknesses, and
horizontal variation of soil layers. For these cases, rigorous
analyses are needed to predict the settlement.
Horikoshi and Randolph (1997) reviewed various existing
proposals for raft/soil stiffness ratio and then proposed a new
expression. As well as considering the effect of Poisson’s ratio,
the new expression takes into account the effect of the raft
aspect ratio (b/a) and produces the same raft/soil stiffness ratio
for both square and circular rafts that have the same area. Thus
the new expression would be most reasonable for estimating
the raft/soil stiffness ratio. However, it was suggested without
the provision of graphical charts that present the settlement
influence factor as a function of the raft/soil stiffness ratio, as
is required for practical use. In this study, therefore, the
following two separate definitions for the raft/soil stiffness
ratio for circular and rectangular rafts are adopted.
For circular rafts, Clancy (1993) examined the effect of
r on
the differential settlement of rafts and confirmed that the raft/
soil stiffness ratio should be more rationally given in the form

3
Er 1 
2s tr
1 K rs,C ¼
Es 1 
2r r
where r is the radius of the raft, and the other parameters are
the same as those given below for Equation 2. Pile caps in this
study are simply modelled as the rafts in Equations 1 and 2.
For rectangular rafts, the comprehensive solution proposed by
Fraser and Wardle (1976) is applied in this study, in which the
raft/soil stiffness ratio is given as

3
4 E r 1 
2s tr
2 K rs,FW ¼
3 E s 1 
2r b
where Er is the elastic modulus of the raft and Es is the

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 67

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 equivalent elastic modulus of the soil layers below the 1·6
equivalent raft (which can approximately be taken as the IA
1·4
weighted average in an influence zone of b below the

Settlement influence factor, I

equivalent raft level); and
r and
s are the Poisson’s ratios of 1·2 IB
a
the raft and the equivalent soil respectively. The terms b and tr 1·0 ID
are the width (smaller of the raft dimensions in plan) and IC
0·8 A a ⫽ 2b
thickness of the raft respectively. The equivalent raft level of IAC b D
0·6 C
friction pile groups would typically be located somewhere IAD
B
above the pile tips. In these cases, the value of Es in Equations 0·4 Rectangular raft
IAB founded on an
1 and 2 is conservatively taken as the weighted average 0·2 infinite halfspace
modulus of soils below the pile tips without considering the
0
equivalent stiffness of the reinforced zone of soils and piles
10⫺4 10⫺3 10⫺2 10⫺1 100 101 102
below the equivalent raft (based essentially on assumption (d )). Krs,FW
However, the equivalent stiffness of the reinforced zone is still
taken into account in settlement calculation to fulfil the
Figure 2. Settlement influence factor of a rectangular raft (a ¼
settlement estimation of the whole foundation. 2b)

For the simple case of a uniformly loaded rectangular area,

with width b and a smooth base over a semi-infinite elastic
half-space with homogeneous modulus Es , the magnitude of
the settlement at the centre point can generally be given by
(Fraser and Wardle, 1976)
pbI 
3 S¼
Es
For circular rafts, it is known that the limiting values of f from
analytical solutions for perfectly flexible and perfectly rigid
circular rafts are 1 and /4 respectively. The correction factor
for raft stiffness is therefore approximated by a hyperbolic
relationship as (Mayne and Poulos, 1999)

1 
2s
 1
5 f  þ
4 4:6 þ 10K rs

where I is the settlement influence factor, which is a function
of raft thickness and raft dimensions for the ideal case being
discussed. Fraser and Wardle (1976) suggested several typical
charts for rectangular rafts in which the factor I can be
determined based on the raft/soil stiffness ratio. Among the
charts, two typical cases (a ¼ b and a ¼ 2b) are reproduced as
shown in Figures 1 and 2. Based on the charts, a correction
factor for raft stiffness, f, can generally be defined as
The raft/soil stiffness ratio (Krs ) in Equation 5 was adopted by
Mayne and Poulos (1999) without considering the Poisson’s
ratio of either raft or soil materials (i.e. excluding the term
(1 
2s )=(1  v2r ) in Equation 1). However, because the
difference in magnitude between the Poisson’s ratios and their
second order in the equation is insignificant, their effect is also
insignificant in practice. Thus the raft/soil stiffness ratio given
in Equation 1 can approximately be used in association with
Equation 5.

I The corrected settlement at the centre of a raft (e.g. at point A

4 f ¼
I flexible in Figures 1 and 2), SRaft,corr , can be estimated as

6 SRaft,corr ¼ f A SRaft
where I and Iflexible are settlement influence factors at the given
Krs,FW and for fully flexible rafts (Krs,FW , 0.001) respectively.
The methods were basically proposed for estimating settlement
only at the centre point (except the Fellenius (1991) method,
1·2 which is implemented in association with the Unisettle
IA
program). If settlement at some particular points (e.g. middle
1·0
Settlement influence factor, I

edges, corners) is required, the stiffness correction factors at the

IB b points can therefore be calculated via the differential
0·8
C settlement influence factor between the centre and the
0·6 IC b B considered points (e.g. at point B) as
A
IAC
0·4 Square raft founded on I A  I AB
IAB 7 fB ¼
an infinite halfspace
I A flexible
0·2

0
10⫺4 10⫺3 10⫺2 10⫺1 100 101 102 where IA and IAB are the settlement influence factor at A and
Krs,FW the differential settlement influence factor between A and B
respectively.
Figure 1. Settlement influence factor of a square raft
The above expressions for the stiffness correction were

68 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al.

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 basically described for the methods developed based on the

1 ó9v0 þ ˜ó9v
flexible footing concept. For the method developed based on 9 å¼ ln
m ó9v0
rigid footings (Schmertmann et al., 1978), the correction
procedures are essentially the same as those described above.
However, the denominators in Equations 4 and 7 must be where m is the modulus number (¼ M 0 =ó9v0 ). The constrained
replaced by the settlement influence factor for rigid modulus (M0 ) in this case can be obtained from available field
foundations, Irigid . tests.

Finally, the total settlement at a given point (e.g. at point A) of In the Unisettle program, the stress increment and settlement at
the pile group is then given by any particular point below the equivalent footing level are
determined based on the Boussinesq or Westergaard stress
8 SG ¼ Se þ f A SRaft distribution theories (hereafter referred to as Fellenius (1991)-B,
and Fellenius (1991)-W, respectively), in association with the
Janbu (1963) tangent modulus concept. In this study, the
2.3. Equivalent raft level elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of concrete material are
Much of the success of the equivalent raft approach depends generally taken as 25 GPa and 0.2 respectively.
upon the selection of the representative depth of the raft and
the angle of load spread (Poulos, 2006). In practical design, 3. COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT FOR CASE
several proposals have been made for determining the level of STUDIES
the equivalent raft, of which the approach proposed by
Tomlinson (1986) appears to be a convenient and useful 3.1. Methodology of analysis
approximation. In Tomlinson’s approach, the level of the In order to verify the applicability of the methods provided in
equivalent raft varies from 2/3Lp to Lp when soil profiles are Table 1, six well-documented case studies were selected and
purely cohesive, when pile toes are located in a sand layer back-analysed in this study. These include different types of
underlain by a clay layer, or when pile toes are located on hard structure, such as high-rise buildings, chimneys and silos, with
stratum such as a gravel or rock basement. Practical soil various foundation types: flexible footings (in the first two
profiles are not usually ideal, unlike the proposal profiles, but cases), rigid footings (in the next two cases) and semi-rigid
they are layered with a significant difference in footings (in the last two cases).
compressibility.
As discussed by Randolph (1994), the accuracy of the
In this study, the equivalent raft level is considered to be located equivalent raft approach relates to the aspect ratio of the
:
at the neutral plane (NP) at which the relative settlement group, R ¼ (ns/Lp )0 5 . The aspect ratio of each pile group is
between the pile and the soil is zero (i.e. the level where examined in this study to confirm whether the equivalent raft
negative skin friction changes to positive skin friction). The NP or the equivalent pier is more suitable. The calculated aspect
implementation has been incorporated in the Unified Design ratios from the case studies are given in Table 2, in which savg
concept (Fellenius, 2004). Coincidentally, all the case studies in is the average spacing between piles in the group, with a
this paper are associated with base-expanded (Franki) piled simplification that p
theffiffiffiffiffipiles
pffiffiffi
are installed in square nets of
foundations in which pile toe resistance is predominant over savg 3 savg (savg ¼ ab=( n  1)). It is shown from Table 2
bearing capacity. Thus, by analysing load transfer curves, it was that the lowest aspect ratio (R ¼ 3.04 from case 3) is still at the
found that the neutral planes for the cases are located at the pile lower bound for the equivalent raft. Thus all pile groups in this
toe level, with the exception of the case of Borsetto et al. (1991). study will be treated as equivalent rafts.
The NP location of a particular pile group is sketched, together
with the vertical cross-section of the group. 3.2. Case 1: DeJong and Harris (1971)
DeJong and Harris (1971) reported the measured and back-
2.4. Consolidation settlement and other conditions analysed settlements of two multi-storey buildings in
The consolidation settlement of sandwiched clay layers under Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. A 27-floor apartment and office
the NP can contribute a significant amount to the total building was supported by a total of 239 Franki (base-
settlement of the pile group, especially when the clays are in expanded) piles. As shown in Figure 3, the total area of the
high compressibility. In this study, consolidation settlement of building was approximately 37.5 m 3 66 m (b 3 a), consisting
clay layers (cases 3, 4, and 5)
is taken into account for
methods that use stress or
strain distribution under the Case Reference a: m b: m n (pile) savg : m Lp : m R
equivalent raft (i.e. the last
four methods listed in 1 DeJong and Harris (1971) 60.4 17.4 179 2.62 4.9 9.8
Table 1). If the consolidation 2 Koerner and Partos (1974) 33.5 24.3 132 2.72 7.6 6.9
parameters of the clays (Cc , 3 Hooper and Wood (1977) 27.6 16.5 48 3.60 18.6 3.0
4 Borsetto et al. (1991) 26.9 26.9 281 1.71 25.0 4.4
e0 ) are not available from
5 Goossens and Van Impe (1991) 85.1 34.3 697 2.13 13.4 10.5
laboratory test, then 6 Tejchman et al. (2001) 51.0 17.5 264 1.96 13.5 6.2
consolidation settlement is
evaluated by using the Table 2. Aspect ratio of pile groups
equation

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 69

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Soil profile Soil properties Piles and foundation plan
0
Silty clay

NP 4·9 m
5
Unit: kN-m

Min Avg. Max

10 γ 19·5 21·0 21·6
Dense sandy 16 17 18
clay till
N 63 90 150
15 14 13 12 11

17·4 m
37·5 m
15 qc 143 180 240
Depth: m

N ⫽ 106 (b/ft) 6
7 8 9 10
Es ⫽1000*(N1)60
20 ⫽ 100 MPa 4
3 2 1

5
Dense sand N ⬎ 110 (b/ft)
25
and gravel Es ⫽1000*(N1)60
⫽ 100 MPa

30 60·4 m
66·0 m
Bedrock
Pile cap Franki expanded-base pile Settlement plug Approximate boundary
35

Figure 3. Soil profile and foundation plan of case 1

of car parking on the first four floors. The remaining upper

14
floors in the centre were used for office space, with an area of
12
17.4 m 3 60.4 m per floor. The heavily loaded central area was
Applied load: MN

10
founded by 179 piles, mostly consisting of small footings of
8
four piles, which were distributed quite regularly over the area.
6
Franki piles 50–60 cm in diameter were installed to a depth of
4
4.9 m in the overconsolidated clay till layer. The final dead
2
load under operating condition was approximately 258.1 MN
0
over the central area. The soil profile and properties are shown
0 500 1000 1500 2000
in Figure 3. Time: day
0
Group 3 Group 9
The construction of the building was started in August 1964 Group 5 Group 10
and was completed in January 1966 (approximately 500 days). 10 Group 8 Group 11
Settlement monitoring commenced at around 100 days after Group 12
Settlement: mm

the initiation of construction, and was completed in August 20

1970 (approximately 2190 days). Figure 3 also shows the 18
settlement plugs, and Figure 4 shows the measured results at a 30
number of typical points in the central area. It appears that Maximum measured settlement
settlement occurred mostly during the construction period, 40 Meyerhof Poulos
2:1 method Fellenius (1991) B
followed by a small amount of time-dependent deformation Schmertmann Fellenius (1991) W
(about 15% of the total settlement). 50
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Rather than consider each small group of piles as an individual Time: day
footing, the total central area is modelled as a single and
flexible footing (Krs,FW , 0.001) with uniformly distributed Figure 4. Measured and calculated settlements for case 1
piles. The elastic modulus of soils was obtained from the
standard penetration test (SPT) (AASHTO, 1996; FHWA, 2002).
Calculated settlements at the centre of the building are
provided in Table 3, in which the dense sandy clay till was DeJong and Harris (1971) back-analysed the settlement of the
considered to have an elastic behaviour (DeJong, 1970). The building by using the elastic solution basically given by
calculated settlements are plotted in Figure 4. The measured Equation 3 and considering the stress superposition effect of
settlement at column 9 is considered to be approximately the individual small footings. They recommended that the elastic
value at the centre. It appears that the calculated settlements modulus of the clay till be taken as Es  40 000 psi (276 MPa).
obtained from the Poulos (1993), 2:1, and Fellenius (1991)-W Their suggested elastic modulus is much larger than that
methods agree relatively well with the maximum monitored obtained from the SPT results (approximately 100 MPa) in this
value. study. The difference is probably because the back-analysed

70 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al.

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Method Case 1: DeJong and Harris (1971) Case 2: Koerner and Partos (1974)
Se  Sed ¼ 1 mm, Sm ¼ 33.0 mm, FD ¼ 0.95, Se  Sed ¼ 1.8 mm, Sm ¼ 85.0 mm, FD ¼ 0.94,
fA ¼ 1.25* fA ¼ 1.28*

SRaft : mm SG : mm SG /Sm SRaft : mm SG : mm SG /Sm

Meyerhof (1976) 41.2 42.2 1.28 69.2 71.0 0.83

2:1 method 31.2 32.2 0.98 92.8 94.6 1.11
Schmertmann et al. (1978) 27.2 35.0 1.06 47.8 63.0 0.74
Poulos (1993) 32.0 33.0 1.00 82.1 83.9 0.99
Fellenius (1991)-B 43.0 44.0 1.34 100.5 102.3 1.20
Fellenius (1991)-W 32.5 33.5 1.02 83.1 84.9 1.00

* For Schmertmann et al. (1978) method only.

Table 3. Maximum settlements at centre foundations from cases 1 and 2

modulus was obtained from the soil that had been consolidated
by the accumulated dead weight of the building during the
construction period of around 500 days, whereas the SPT result
was obtained from the natural soil. In addition, the embedment
effect of the equivalent footings was not taken into account in
the DeJong and Harris (1971) back-analysis that led to
increasing of the modulus.
3.3. Case 2: Koerner and Partos (1974)
Koerner and Partos (1974) reported settlement monitoring of a
19-floor concrete building supported by cast-in-situ base-
expanded piles that were placed in a medium dense sand layer.
As shown in Figure 5, the foundation plan was approximately
24.3 m 3 33.5 m, with a total of 132 cast-in-place piles. The
cased piles were 410 mm in diameter and 7.6 m long, with an
expanded base diameter of about 760 mm. There were
generally two different grouping types for the pile caps in the
central and the remaining areas. There were no basement
floors, and the structural floor slab was placed directly on the
pile caps. The total dead load of the building was estimated as
107 MN under operating conditions.
The installation of piles was completed during the winter of
1967–1968. The construction of the pile caps, floor slab and
superstructure commenced in February 1968, and the
construction of the superstructure was completed in August
1969 (after 630 days). Settlements of the building were
monitored at the six locations shown in Figure 5, at the
commencement of the construction of the superstructure. The
monitoring period continued for more than 24 months, when
there was no further sign of settlement occurring at any of the
points.
The results from the SPT were used as the main data to
determine deformation characteristics of the soils. As shown in
Figure 5, the corrected (N1 )60 values were then used to obtain
the elastic modulus of the sand layers, while referring to
AASHTO (1996) and FHWA (2002) when the SPT numbers were

Navg
Soil profile N Es (MPa) Piles and foundation plan
(N1)60
0
4 9·5
Fine sand 6·00
15 15·0 0·41 m
7·6 m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Organic clay 3
5 3·00
4 A
NP
20 0·76 m
10 B
Poorly graded 22 11·82
21·5
fine sand 700*(N1)60
23 16·9 C
15
24·3 m

21
Depth: m

Well-graded 100 87·97

20 140
sand E
180 88·0 1000*(N1)60

F
25 120
130 48·73
Poorly graded
140 69·6 700*(N1)60
fine sand G
30
Column 33·5 m

Bearing stratum Pile cap Franki expanded-base pile Settlement benchmark Approximate boundary
35

Figure 5. Soil profile and foundation plan of case 2

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 71

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 larger than 50. In this case, the total area of the foundation is
modelled as a single and flexible footing.
Point E-6 is approximately taken as the central point of the
footing because no measured data were available at the centre
of the building. Figure 6 shows the settlement measured at the
monitoring columns against time as well as the calculated
results from the proposed methods (provided in Table 3). It
appears that the Poulos (1993) and Fellenius (1991)-W methods
agree well with the monitored value.
It is interesting to observe the prediction of settlement carried
out by Koerner and Partos (1974), in which settlement at the
centre of the building was estimated using three methods:
classical elastic theory, modified elastic theory, and
empirical equation. For the first method, the equation
s ¼ pbI(1 
2 )=E s was adopted for the settlement of a
single pile. They concluded that the estimated settlement was
significantly larger than the measured value from the static
loading test on a single pile, which would result in an
0 cast-in-situ base-expanded piles (under-reamed piles). The pile
Meyerhof
10 2:1 method
20
Schmertmann et al.
40
Settlement: mm
extremely large settlement of the pile group. For the second
method, application of the equation SG ¼ Q G RG I 1 =LEs ,
originally proposed by Morgan and Poulos (1968) for pile
groups up to 5 3 5, was then extended to the foundation of
132 piles (group 11.5 3 11.5). The extension provided a
settlement of 81 mm for the group, which compared
favourably with the measured data provided in Figure 6.
Finally, Skempton’s (1952) empirical equation SG =S1 ¼
(4b þ 9)2 =(b þ 12)2 was applied, where the settlement of a
single pile, S1 , was obtained from the static loading test.
Using b ¼ 24 m and S1 ¼ 5.8 mm, a group settlement SG of
76 mm was obtained. The last two estimations were slightly
less than the measured maximum values.
3.4. Case 3: Hooper and Wood (1977)
Hooper and Wood (1977) reported a comparative study on
settlement between two almost identical 22-storey buildings
that had different foundation types. The two buildings, one
supported by a raft foundation and the other by cast-in-situ
base-expanded piles, were located approximately 50 m apart
and had the same foundation plan of 456 m2 . Figure 7 shows
the foundation plan of the building that was supported by 48
Poulos
Fellenius (1991)-B shaft diameters varied from 762 mm to 910 mm, and the
Fellenius (1991)-W diameter of the under-reamed bases varied from 1.2 to 2.0 m.
The pile lengths varied from 17.8 m to 19.4 m (an average
E-1

50
value of 18.6 m was taken in this study). Between pile caps, the
D-1
thickness of the ground-floor slab varied from 152 mm to
60
A-5 229 mm, and the pile caps themselves were 910 mm thick.
70 F-5
80 D-3
One special element of the project is that in situ concrete walls
90 E-6
Maximum measured settlement were used in the construction of the first two storeys (ground
100
plus mezzanine floors). The remaining superstructure consisted
110 of precast concrete units with in situ stitches. The estimated
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time: day
gross building weight was 106 MN, equivalent to a uniformly
distributed load of 232 kPa. In order to simplify the settlement
Figure 6. Measured and calculated settlements for case 2 calculation, the total foundation system is modelled as an
equivalent rectangle 16.5 m (456 m2 /27.6 m) wide.

Soil profile Soil properties

0
Fill Piles and foundation plan
0·9 m
0·78–0·9 m

Cu: kPa Es ⫽ 100·0 27.6 m

Sandy gravel 100 300 500
5 4
5
m ⫽ 59 3
18·6 m

10
13·5 m

M0 ⫽ 6 ⫹ z
15 London Clay 2
(z ⫽ 0⫺17)
A 6
18.6 m

NP
Depth: m

20
D ⫽ 1·2–2·0 m
m ⫽ 84

25
1
Woolwich and Es ⫽ 200·0 MPa
30 8.0 m
Reading beds (constant) 8

6.6 m 7
35
6.6 m 6.4 m
Cast-in-situ concrete wall
Thanet sands
40 Es ⫽ 4000·0 MPa
and chalk Franki expanded-base pile (pile and under-ream illustrations) Settlement benchmark

Figure 7. Soil profile and foundation plan of case 3

72 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al.

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Figure 7 also shows the soil profile of the case. As reported, the
constrained modulus of the 17 m thick London Clay layer
varied linearly with depth, with an approximate relationship
M0 ¼ 6 + 1.0z, where z is the depth from the upper boundary
of the layer. The clay layer was followed by Woolwich and
Reading beds (14 m thick) and Thanet sands with chalk (12 m),
with elastic moduli of 200 MPa and 4000 MPa respectively.
Further details of these two layers were not provided.
Construction of the building commenced in February 1968 and
was completed after almost 2 years, as illustrated in Figure 8.
Settlements were measured at the eight points shown in Figure
7, and the monitoring process continued for more than 5 years
(February 1968 to August 1974), at the stage when the
settlement of the building was almost complete. Figure 8 shows
the average settlement against time monitored at points 2 and
6, and those obtained from the FE analysis performed by
Hooper and Wood (1977). In addition, the calculated
settlements at point A (the centre of the equivalent footing)
were also plotted (values given in Table 4).
Applied load: MN
Because the in situ concrete walls of the first two storeys, in
combination with pile caps, were adopted as an equivalent
concrete raft with a thickness of 4 m (Hooper and Wood, 1977),
the foundation can no longer be considered to be flexible.
Using Equation 2 with Er ¼ 25 GPa, Es ¼ 159.2 MPa,
r ¼
0.20,
s ¼ 0.25 and tr ¼ 4 m, a raft/soil stiffness ratio of Krs,FW
¼ 2.90 was obtained for this case. As shown in Figures 1 and
2, the raft/soil stiffness ratio is quite close to the lower
boundary of the truly rigid raft, as Krs,FW > 5 (Fraser and
Wardle, 1976). By interpolating the charts, a correction factor
fA ¼ 0.795 was obtained for the methods of flexible
foundations, and fA  1.00 was obtained for the Schmertmann
et al. (1978) method. Because the settlement at point 7 was
similar to that at the centre points, as shown in Figure 6, the
consideration of rigidity is reasonable. It appears that the
predicted settlement obtained from the Poulos (1993) method
agrees well with the monitored value.
3.5. Case 4: Borsetto et al. (1991)
Borsetto et al. (1991) reported the measured and computed
settlements of several structures in a power plant complex in

200 the Po Valley, Italy. Among the structures, a chimney 200 m

high with a bottom diameter of 11.6 m was selected for back-
100 analysis in this study. The chimney was founded on a circular
mat 30.4 m in diameter (r ¼ 15.2 m) and 4.25 m thick. The
0
circular mat was supported by 281 Franki piles 0.52 m in
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time: year diameter and 25 m long. The maximum applied dead load for
0 most of the monitoring time was 184 MN. Figure 9 shows a
Avg meas. sett. from points 2 and 6
Max. expected sett. at centre brief soil profile with deformation parameters and a sketched
Settlement: mm

10 outline of the chimney foundation.

FEM by Hooper and Wood (1977)
Undrained analysis
20
As shown in Figure 9, the elastic moduli of the top three soil
Drained analysis layers were interpreted from a typical cone penetration test
30
Meyerhof Poulos (CPT) profile at the site. However, the CPT data were not
2:1 method Fellenius (1991)-B available for the hard clayey silt (the fourth layer). Borsetto
40 Schmertmann et al. Fellenius (1991)-W
et al. (1991) performed three FE analysis approaches for the
2 Monitoring points 6 7
foundation in which the soils and piles below the pile cap
Settlement: mm

0
0·4 year
10 were also modelled as the equivalent material (Es ¼
0·8 year
2100 MPa) used in this study for the free-standing column.
20
5·0 years Whereas the modulus of the sand layer (non-reinforced
30
portion) was adopted as 80 MPa (approximately 7qc ) for the
Figure 8. Measured and calculated settlements for case 3 best-fit FE approach of Fiesta/Edom, it was taken as
33.8 MPa (¼ 3qc ) in this study. Since no reliable data were

Method Case 3: Hooper and Wood (1977) Case 4: Borsetto et al. (1991)
Se ¼ 2.9 mm, Sed ¼ 3.9 mm, Sm ¼ 23 mm, Se ¼ 2.8 mm, Sed ¼ 6.3 mm, Sm ¼ 40 mm,
FD ¼ 0.75, fA ¼ 0.795 FD ¼ 0.75, f 0 ¼ 0.80

SRaft : mm fA SRaft : mm SG : mm SG /Sm SRaft : mm fO SRaft : mm SG : mm SG /Sm

Meyerhof (1976) 20.7 16.5 19.4 0.84 66.7 53.3 56.1 1.40
2:1 method 26.5 21.1 24.0 1.04 41.2 33.0 35.8 0.90
Schmertmann et al. (1978) 11.0 11.0 13.9 0.60 27.5 27.5 30.3 0.76
Poulos (1993) 26.4 21.0 23.9 1.04 47.9 38.3 41.1 1.03
Fellenius (1991)-B 36.5 29.0 32.9 1.43 71.3 57.0 63.3 1.58
Fellenius (1991)-W 31.6 25.1 29.0 1.26 55.1 44.1 50.4 1.26

Note: f A  f 0 ¼ 1 for Schmertmann et al. (1978) method in both cases.

Table 4. Maximum settlements at centre foundations from cases 3 and 4

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 73

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 4·25 m
Soil profile 0 5 10 15 20 Es: MPa Foundation plan
0
qc: MPa
5·20
5 Clayey silt (2·5qc)

10

28·0 m
15 11·60

25·0 m
Silt (2·5qc)

20
Depth: m

25
NP

30 33·80
(3·0qc) Footing plan
Sand

35

40 σ⬘: kPa e O
52 0·748
104 0·736 150·0
45
Hard clayey 260 0·703 (Back-analysed) 30·4 m
silt 520 0·675
281 Franki piles
50 1040 0·639

Bearing stratum

Figure 9. Soil profile and foundation plan of case 4

available for the hard clayey silt, the modulus of this layer
was therefore taken as 150 MPa, which was adopted for the 200
Applied load: MN

best-fit FE approach of Fiesta/Edom. Based on load transfer 150

curves, the neutral plane location was determined to be 100
located at approximately 28.0 m below the ground surface.
50 Construction started: April 1972
An equivalent square foundation b ¼ 26.9 m is modelled for Fully loaded: June 1973
the calculation of the 2:1, Meyerhof (1976) and 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Schmertmann et al. (1978) methods. Time: day
0
Meyerhof Poulos
Settlements of the chimney were monitored over 8 years, from
10 2:1 method Fellenius (1991)-B
April 1972 to December 1979. Figure 10 shows a comparison Schmertmann Fellenius (1991)-W
between the measured settlements at two monitoring points in
Settlement: mm

20 FE analyses
the centre of the chimney foundation, the predicted results Measured
from the three FE approaches carried out by Borsetto et al. 30
(1991) (Fiesta/Edom, Edom and Omega), and the calculated
40 Omega
results obtained in this study.
Fiesta/Edom
50 Edom
The 4.25 m thick pile cap in this case is simplified to be an
equivalent circular raft situated at the neutral plane location. 60
Using Equation 1 with Er ¼ 25 GPa, Es ¼ 93.59 MPa,
r ¼ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time: day
0.20,
s ¼ 0.25 and tr ¼ 4.25 m, a raft/soil stiffness ratio of
Krs,C ¼ 5.70 was then obtained. Using Equation 5, a
Figure 10. Measured and calculated settlements for case 4
correction factor at the footing centre fO ¼ 0.80 can be
achieved for the method of flexible foundations and fO ¼
1.00 for the Schmertmann et al. (1978) method. The as 80 MPa, the calculated settlements would be significantly
calculated settlements are provided in Table 4. It appears that underestimated in comparison with the monitored values,
the Poulos (1993) method gives the best agreement with the because the modulus of the sand layer (approximately 7qc )
monitored value. If the modulus of the sand layer was taken was overestimated.

74 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al.

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 3.6. Case 5: Goossens and Van Impe (1991)
In this case, a block of 40 cylindrical reinforced concrete silos,
each 52 m high and 8 m in diameter, covered a rectangular
area 34.3 m by 85.1 m. The silos were built on a 1.2 m thick
foundation slab which was supported by 697 driven cast-in-
situ reinforced concrete piles. Because of the very large area,
the slab was split into three blocks (Figure 11), using expansion
joints in order to allow some differential settlement. The pile
length and diameter were 13.4 m and 0.52 m respectively. The
diameter of the expanded base varied, with an average value of
0.8 m. The average pile load under operating conditions was
about 1.3 MN. A main tower 75 m high was built 8 m away
from the short edge of the silo block. Figure 11 shows brief soil
property profiles and a foundation plan of the silos.
Only five settlement monitoring points were able to be set up
along the long edge of the block, as shown in Figure 11. The
monitoring commenced in September 1976 and continued until
February 1987, when the consolidation settlement had not fully
ceased. The maximum settlement at point 2A was recorded in
February 1987 at about 185 mm. Goossens and Van Impe
(1991) performed a settlement analysis for the foundation and
showed that the long-term settlement at point 2A was 190 mm.
Thus the settlement was considered as the total settlement.
The foundation system worked as three independent footings in
terms of stiffness (because of the expansion joints), but it
behaved as a large combined foundation in terms of stress
distribution. In order to calculate the stress increment and
settlement at point 2A, point O2 (centre block 2) is considered
as the approximate centre of the total flexible footing (34.3 m
3 85.1 m). Thereafter, settlement at point 2A is simply
corrected by considering only the stiffness effect of block 2.
Using Equation 2, a raft/soil stiffness ratio of Krs,FW ¼ 0.14 was
obtained for block 2 (a/b  1), with Es ¼ 14 420 kPa (weighted
average), and similar parameters for the concrete were taken as
those for previous cases. Using Equation 7 and Figure 1, two
stiffness correction factors of f2A ¼ 0.76 and
f2A  1.00 at point 2A were obtained for the methods of
flexible and rigid foundations respectively. The settlements at
point 2A were then calculated, as given in Table 5. Similarly,
settlements at points 1 and 2 were also calculated by using the

Soil profile 0 5 10 15 20 Es: MPa Piles and foundation plan

0 25·53 m 30·04 m 25·53 m
Fill
qc: MPa Silo
13·4 m 1·2 m

12·3 1 2 2A 3 4
(2·5qc) Settlement benchmark
5
Main Cast-in-situ concrete pile
34·3 m

Loamy or Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

35·2 tower CPT (before pile installation)
clayey sand O1 O2 O3
10 15·8 CPT (after pile installation)
(2·5qc)
Static load pile
25·2 81·5 m 8·0 m 2·09 m
NP
15 (2·5qc) 2 3 4
1
Mo ⫽ 2·5qc 5·2 SLT 85
20 M. stiff clay ⫽ 7·0 MPa (m ⫽ 42·6)
Depth: m

34·3 m 2·09 m
Dense sand 32·0
25 (3·0qc)
Settlement
Mo ⫽ 2·5qc joint
MOS 6
8·36 m

⫽ 13·5 MPa 10·1

30
(m ⫽ 50·0) MOS 9
Tertiary clay
35

Settlement
40 SLT 585 joint
CPT profile MOS 1
Bearing stratum
at MOS 6

Figure 11. Soil profile and foundation plan of case 5

Method Case 5: Goossens and Van Impe (1991) Case 6: Tejchman et al. (2001)
Se ¼ 3.2 mm, Sed ¼ 3.9 mm, Sm ¼ 190 mm, Se ¼ 2.0 mm, Sed ¼ 3.7 mm, Sm ¼ 18.0 mm,
FD ¼ 0.92, f2A ¼ 0.76 FD ¼ 0.85, fB ¼ 0.79

SRaft : mm f2A SRaft : mm SG : mm SG /Sm SRaft : mm fB SRaft : mm SG : mm SG /Sm

Meyerhof (1976) 698.0 530.5 533.7 2.80 62.7 49.5 51.5 2.86
2:1 method 260.0 197.6 200.8 1.06 28.1 22.2 24.2 1.34
Schmertmann et al. (1978) 164.0 164.0 167.2 0.88 18.5 18.1 20.1 1.12
Poulos (1993) 246.3 187.2 190.4 1.00 25.5 20.1 22.1 1.23
Fellenius (1991)-B 327.7 249.1 253.0 1.33 33.3 26.3 30.0 1.67
Fellenius (1991)-W 274.8 208.8 212.7 1.12 27.7 21.8 25.6 1.42

Note: f 2A  1 and f B ¼ 0.98 for Schmertmann et al. (1978) method in cases 5 and 6 respectively.

Table 5. Settlements from case 5 (point 2A) and case 6 (mid-edge point)

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 75

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Unisettle program and extending the Poulos (1993) method (see the silo block, the settlement of the silo block was slightly
Appendix 1). tilted to the main tower side following a long period of
consolidation. However, this effect was not considered owing
Figure 12 shows the monitored settlement curves obtained to the simplification of the methods.
from the five points and the calculated settlements at points
1, 2 and 2A. At point 2A, the Poulos (1993) method gives 3.7. Case 6: Tejchman et al. (2001)
the best agreement with the monitored result, whereas the A settlement analysis for a block (17.5 m 3 51.0 m) consisting
2:1 method slightly overestimates it. At points 1 and 2, both of 12 cylindrical reinforced concrete silos was presented by
the extended Poulos (1993) method and the Unisettle Tejchman et al. (2001). The 8.36 m diameter silos were built on
program overestimate the monitored values. It appears in this a 0.5 m thick foundation slab, which was supported by 264
case that the discrepancy between the monitored and driven cast-in-situ reinforced concrete piles. As shown in
calculated settlements was due to the complexity of the split Figure 13, each silo was apparently supported by 22 circularly
foundation. As the construction of the main tower was distributed piles. The pile length and diameter were 13.5 m and
completed about 1 month before the start of construction of 0.508 m respectively. The diameter of the expanded base varied

1 2 2A 3 4
0

20 Meyerhof Poulos
22 Sep 1976
2:1 method Fellenius (1991)-B
40
Schmertmann et al. Fellenius (1991)-W
60

80 30 Oct 1978
Settlement: mm

100

120 4 Sep 1979

140 17 Feb 1980

160 3 Feb 1982

12 Dec 1983
180 Predicted at
25 Mar 1986
t⫽¥
25 Feb 1987
200 by Goosens and Van Impe (1991)
296·2 mm (B) 254·3 mm (W)
220

Figure 12. Measured and calculated settlements for case 5

Soil profile 0 10 20 30
0 Piles and foundation plan
qc: MPa Es: MPa
0·5 m

Fill C 11 12 13
2 1·5 m B
4·65 m

2·45 m
m

4 0·508 m
10
4·

Fine sand
13·5 m

6 48·8

8
17·50 m
8·20 m

A
Clay 7 8
10 0·60
44·40
Depth: m

12
69·50
NP
4·65 m

14 D ⫽ 0·6 m
59·20
16 51·80 2
Dense sands 59·2 1 25·50 m 3
18
11 12 13 14 15 16
20 Test pile Silo Settlement benchmark
S-6 S-5 S-4 S-3 S-2 S-1
17·5 m

69·50 No. P3
7 8 9 10
22 S-12 S-11 S-10 S-9 S-8 S-7 Pile cap Vibrex pile
24 1 2 3 4 5 6
CPT No.12
51·0 m

Figure 13. Soil profile and foundation plan of case 6

76 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al.

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 from one location to another, having an average value of
0.62 m. The average pile load under operating conditions was
about 880 kN. Figure 13 briefly shows the soil properties of the
site and the foundation plan of the silos, where the qc profile
from CPT was obtained at borehole No. 12 and the elastic
modulus profile was available only above 25 m.
A total of 16 settlement benchmarks were installed on the pile
cap, as shown in Figure 13. However, only the settlements of
the outer benchmarks were monitored during the almost 28-
month period, lasting from December 1996 to April 1999. The
settlement at point B between benchmarks 13 and 14 is
calculated in this case.
A raft/soil stiffness ratio of Krs,FW ¼ 0.0117 was obtained from
Equation 2, with a weighted average modulus of 65 066 kPa for
the lower sand layer. Fraser and Wardle (1976) have also
suggested a settlement influence factor for the rectangular raft
of a/b ¼ 3, which is very close to that for this case study (a/b
¼ 51/17.5  2.9). Using the chart (a/b ¼ 3) and Equation 7,
two correction factors of fB ¼ 0.79 and fB ¼ 0.98 were obtained
for the methods of flexible and rigid foundations respectively.
Figure 14 shows the measured settlements against time and the
calculated settlements (given in Table 5). It appears that the
Schmertmann et al. (1978) method gives the closest result to
the measured value, whereas the other methods considerably
overestimate the measured value.
Although Tejchman et al. (2001) calculated the settlements
using the influence coefficient factor and equivalent raft
foundation methods, no details were provided in their
calculation. Settlements predicted from their two approaches
ranged from 77 mm to 96 mm and from 50 mm to 65 mm
respectively, which were more than three times the maximum
measured settlement.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Finding applicable methods
The calculated and measured settlements at the centre (cases 1
to 4) and at the mid-edge (cases 5 and 6) of the foundations
were plotted as shown in Figure 15. It is interesting to note
that the simple 2:1 method gives relatively good estimations at
the centre of the footings, with an average settlement ratio
0
5 encountered in the cases.
Settlement: mm
10
Benchmarks 1/11
15 Benchmarks 6/16
Benchmarks 3/13
20 Maximum settlement at centre edge
Meyerhof Poulos
25 2:1 method Fellenius – B
Schmertmann et al. Fellenius – W
30
0 5 10 15 20
Time: month
Figure 14. Measured and calculated settlements for case 6
Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2
Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Meyerhof Poulos
2:1 method Felenius (1991)-B
3·0 Schmertmann et al. Fellenius (1991)-W
2·5
Settlement ratio, SG/Sm
Average settlement ratio
1·07 1·04
2·0 0·86 1·42
1·18
1·5
1·0
0·5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Case study
Figure 15. Comparison of calculated settlements for the cases
(SG /Sm ) of 1.07 for all the cases. As discussed by Fellenius
(2006), the method is rather approximate, and its use is limited
to simple and rectangular footings. In addition, it is appropriate
for determining the stress distribution only below the centre of
the loaded area.
The Fellenius (1991) method always gives conservative results,
showing overestimated average settlement ratios of 1.42 (B)
and 1.18 (W). This overestimation of the method derives
mainly from the assumption used in the Unisettle program,
which considers only the vertical stress component (or
implying Poisson’s ratio
s ¼ 0) in both the Boussinesq and
Westergaard stress distribution options.
The most preferable method is probably the strain influence
factor method (Poulos, 1993), which gives an average
settlement ratio of 1.04 with a simply assumed Poisson’s ratio
of
¼ 0.25 for all soil types. It is also noted that the correction
factors for depth embedment FD , as first derived by Fox (1948),
are considered to be adequate for practical use (Poulos, 1993).
The semi-empirical method proposed by Meyerhof (1976)
results in an unusual trend, and the Schmertmann et al. (1978)
method mostly underestimates settlement. In fact, the former
method was suggested for small pile groups in a homogeneous
sand deposit, whereas the latter method was developed based
on model footings on sand. However, soil profiles in practice
are not ideal, but are mostly inhomogeneous and stratified, as
4.2. Soil modulus values
Researchers (e.g. Mandolini, 2003; Mandolini and Viggiani,
1997; Mandolini et al., 2005) have collected a significant
number of case studies on settlements of large to very large
pile groups and then back-analysed the cases by using the
interaction factor approach. It was concluded that the low-
strain shear modulus (G0 ) of soils along the piles could
successfully be employed in the settlement prediction of pile
25 30
foundations designed with a relatively high safety factor
(bearing capacity based approach). However, when the safety
factor is low, the consideration of non-linearity becomes
mandatory (Mandolini and Viggiani, 1997).
Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 77
 In contrast to the interaction factor approach, the high-strain
elastic modulus of soils below the pile toes is generally
recommended for the equivalent raft approach (Poulos, 1993).
This is also supported by these case studies, indicating that the
monitored settlements are comparable with the predicted
settlements estimated using common values of elastic modulus.
In the equivalent raft approach, settlement of the foundation is
caused mainly by the soils below the pile toes, since the
equivalent material (reinforced zone) is much stiffer than the
original soils. Thus, although the pile spacing and installation
methods significantly affect the settlement predicted from the
interaction approach, these factors are relatively insignificant
in the equivalent raft approach.
4.3. Settlements of flexible foundations at various points
A comparison of settlements at various points was carried out
for flexible footings (cases 1 and 2) as shown in Table 6 by
using the Unisettle program and extending the Poulos (1993)
method (with the principle provided in Appendix 1). The
extended Poulos (1993) method again shows reasonably
consistent settlement ratios, which resulted in an average ratio
of 0.96, followed by the average ratio of 1.09 obtained by
Fellenius (1991)-W. The Fellenius (1991)-B method consistently
overestimates the settlements, with an average settlement ratio
of 1.36.
given in Appendix 1. Figure 16 shows a comparison between
the ratios of settlements obtained from the Janbu tangent
modulus concept and those obtained from the linear strain
factor concept. The settlement ratios shown in Figure 16 were
calculated with consideration of the stiffness correction factor
( f ). However, the elastic settlements of the pile group (Se or
Sed ) were not taken into account owing to the different
calculation approaches.
As can be seen in the figure, the original Fellenius (1991)-B
method (
s ¼ 0) provides an average ratio of 1.37, yet when a
Poisson’s ratio of
s ¼ 0.25 is used in the extended Fellenius
(1991)-B method, the ratio is only 1.08. If the elastic settlement
of pile groups is taken into account in each method, the ratios
given in Figure 16 would increase slightly to 1.38, 1.07 and
1.10 respectively. Theoretically, one might expect that the
extended Fellenius (1991)-B method could give an average
settlement ratio of 1.10 3 1.04 ¼ 1.14 in comparison with the
measured data from the case studies.
No consistent trend was found for the settlement ratios when
the same Poisson’s ratios were used in the concepts. However,
it seems that the Janbu tangent modulus concept is either
almost similar to, or sometimes slightly overestimates, the

Generally, the average ratios and detailed values given in Table 2·0
6 show a similar trend to those in Figure 15, indicating that
Settlement ratio, SFellenius/SPoulos

estimated settlements at various points of flexible foundations 1·6

can reasonably be obtained by using these methods. However,
at any points of an intermediate rigid footing, a rigorous 1·2
solution would be needed to obtain reliable results.
0·8
4.4. Consideration of strain concepts SFellenius (νs ⫽ 0) /SPoulos (νs ⫽ 0·25) Average ratio
It is also interesting to observe the difference between the two 0·4 1·37
SFellenius (νs ⫽ 0) /SPoulos (νs ⫽ 0)
strain concepts used for the Poulos (1993) and Fellenius (1991) 1·05
SFellenius (νs ⫽ 0) /SPoulos (νs ⫽ 0) 1·08
methods when the same Boussinesq stress distribution theory is
0·0
used for the methods. The linear strain concept (Hooke’s law) is 1 2 3 4 5 6
used for the former, whereas the Janbu tangent modulus Case study
concept is used for the latter. The original Fellenius (1991)-B
Figure 16. Comparison of calculated settlements from two
method is extended in order to include the effect of horizontal strain concepts
stress components (
s . 0) by using the vertical strain equation

Case Point Sm : mm Poulos (1993) Fellenius (1991)-B Fellenius (1991)-W

SG : mm SG /Sm SG : mm SG /Sm SG : mm SG /Sm

1 1, 5 22.0 10.7 0.49 15.4 0.70 12.6 0.57

3, 4 25.5 19.8 0.78 28.6 1.12 22.6 0.89
7, 10 32.0 32.3 1.01 42.6 1.33 32.3 1.01
8 32.5 33.7 1.04 45.2 1.39 34.4 1.06
11 26.2 30.9 1.18 40.8 1.56 30.9 1.18
12, 15 28.0 33.5 1.20 45.1 1.61 34.3 1.23
2 A-5 62.7 43.4 0.69 50.1 0.80 43.7 0.70
D-3 80.9 81.9 1.01 101.2 1.25 83.3 1.03
D-9 49.2 42.7 0.87 70.2 1.43 58.3 1.18
E-1 38.9 42.0 1.08 97.9 2.52 80.7 2.07
E-6 83.8 82.2 0.98 99.3 1.18 82.5 0.98
E-7 69.8 80.5 1.15 97.3 1.39 80.5 1.15
Average – – – 0.96 – 1.36 – 1.09

Table 6. Settlements at various points from cases 1 and 2

78 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al.

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 strain factor concept. It is also interesting to note from Figure
16 that when the same Poisson’s ratios are used for the
concepts, the settlement ratios appear to be similar. The
similarity of the ratios indicates that the Poisson’s ratio is not a
governing factor of the difference between the concepts, but
the effective stress of the soil profiles.
The original Fellenius (1991)-B method (
¼ 0) overestimated
settlements of the structures by approximately 1.4 times the
monitored values. When a common Poisson’s ratio of soils
¼
0.25 and stiffness correction are properly applied, the method
could be reasonably used, since in this study it resulted in an
average settlement ratio of about 1.14.

4.5. Consideration of pile cap flexibility Based on the comparison with the case studies, it cannot be
Based on previous discussions, the 2:1, Poulos (1993) and recommended that the empirical method of Meyerhof (1976) or
Fellenius (1991) methods are considered to be the most the strain factor method of Schmertmann et al. (1978) be used
reasonable for the settlement calculation of large-scale piled for estimating settlement of very large pile groups founded on
foundations in practice. However, these methods were basically stratified and inhomogeneous soils.
suggested for flexible foundations. A simple comparison is
shown in Table 7, where the settlement ratios from the last four Some researchers have claimed that the low-strain shear
cases in this study are provided. The 2:1 and Poulos (1993) modulus (G0 ) can successfully be employed in the prediction of
methods slightly overestimated settlements for the cases by as settlement by using the interaction approach for pile groups
much as an average ratio of about 1.08 with an approximate designed with a relative high factor of safety. Conversely, it
correction factor ( f ) of 0.78. If stiffness correction factors had was found from this study that the high-strain elastic modulus
not been considered, the two methods would have considerably values commonly suggested for foundations in practice can be
overestimated settlements for the cases, with an average successfully used in the equivalent raft approach.
settlement ratio of 1.38 (¼ 1.08/0.78). The overestimation
would be even more serious for the Fellenius (1991) method if APPENDIX 1. INTEGRATION OF BOUSSINESQ’S
stiffness correction were not considered. STRESS DISTRIBUTION
The following equations are integration stress components at
5. CONCLUSIONS depth z under a corner of a rectangular loaded area with length
Four common methods of the equivalent raft approach and a a 3 width b founded on an infinite elastic half-space (Poulos
semi-empirical method were reviewed, followed by back- and Davis, 1974).
analysis of six well-documented case studies in order to
determine the reliable methods in practical design of larger- Vertical stress component
scale pile groups. The conclusions drawn from the research are
as follows. 
 
ó0 ab 1 1 z
10 óz ¼ arctan þ ab þ
The stiffness of the pile cap and the horizontal stress 2 zC A2 B2 C
increment, as the key factors, significantly affected the
settlement estimation of large-scale pile groups. With the Horizontal stress component in a direction:
extension of stiffness correction techniques for shallow
foundations to pile caps, the Poulos (1993) method, with
¼

0.25, resulted in the best estimation of settlement, which was ó0 ab ab z
11 óa ¼ arctan  2
1.0–1.1 times that of the measured data. The simple 2:1 2 zC A C
method with stiffness correction, even without consideration of
the horizontal stress increment, also gave reasonable
Horizontal stress component in b direction:
estimations of settlement at the centre of foundations, which
were 1.07 times the monitored values.


ó0 ab ab z
Although the effect of pile cap stiffness was conservatively 12 ób ¼ arctan  2
2 zC B C
considered, as were the shallow foundations, the estimated
settlements of the foundations were found to be acceptable. It
may be expected that the simplified assumptions can be where ó0 is uniformly distributed pressure, A2 ¼ a2 + z 2 , B2 ¼
applied for practical design. b2 + z 2 and C2 ¼ a2 + b2 + z 2 .

Case Correction Settlement ratio, SG /Sm

factor, f
2:1 Poulos (1993) Fellenius (1991)-B Fellenius (1991)-W

3 f A ¼ 0.795 1.04 1.04 1.43 1.34

4 f O ¼ 0.800 0.90 1.03 1.58 1.26
5 f 2A ¼ 0.760 1.06 1.00 1.33 1.13
6 f B ¼ 0.790 1.34 1.23 1.67 1.42
Avge 0.780 1.08 1.07 1.49 1.29

Table 7. Effect of pile cap stiffness on settlements

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 79

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Vertical strain distribution along the depth at the corner of the
loaded area is then determined by Hooke’s Law as
1 rectangular raft on layered foundations. Géotechnique 26(4):
13 åZ ¼ ½ó z 
s ðóa þ ó b Þ
Es
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering
Foundation (KOSEF) NRL Programme, grant-funded by the
Korean government (MEST) (No. R0A-2008-000-20076-0), and
by Dong-A University, Busan Korea.
REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) (1996) Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, 16th edn. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Balasubramaniam AS, Phota-Yanuvat C, Ganeshnanthan R and
Lee KK (1981) Performance of friction piles in Bangkok
subsoils. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm,
605–610.
Blessey WE (1976) Pile foundation in the Mississippi River
deltaic plain. In Analysis and Design of Building Foundations
(Fang H-Y (ed.)). Envo Publishing, Lehigh Valley, PA, pp.
799–834.
Borsetto M, Barbera G, Colleselli F et al. (1991) Settlement
analysis of main buildings in power plants by means of 2-D
and 3-D models. Proceedings of the 10th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Florence 1: 323–328.
Chow YK (1986) Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics 10(1): 59–72.
Clancy P (1993) Numerical analysis of piled raft foundation.
PhD thesis, University of Western Australia.
DeJong J (1970) Foundation displacement of multi-storey
structures. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
DeJong J and Harris MC (1971) Settlement of two multistory
buildings in Edmonton. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 8(2):
217–235.
Dung NT, Chung SG, Kim SR and Chung JG (2007)
Comparative study between design methods and pile load
tests for bearing capacity of driven piles in the Nakdong
River delta. Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society
23(3): 61–75.
Fellenius BH (1991) Pile foundations. In Foundation
Engineering Handbook, 2nd edn (Fang H-Y (ed.)). Chapman &
Hall, New York, pp. 511–536.
Fellenius BH (2004) Unified design of piled foundations with
emphasis on settlement analysis. In Current Practice and
Future Trends in Deep Foundations, ASCE GSP No. 125
(DiMaggio JA and Hussein MH (eds)). ASCE, pp. 253–275.
Fellenius BH (2006) Basics of Foundation Design, electronic
2nd edn. http://ww.fellenius.net/papers.html (Accessed 07/
03/2010).
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) (2002) FHWA-IF-02-
034 Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5: Evaluation of
Soil and Rock Properties. US Department of Transportation,
FWHA, Washington, DC.
Fox EN (1948) The mean elastic settlement of a uniformly
loaded area at a depth below the ground surface. Proceedings
80 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach
Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
of the 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam 1: 129–132.
Fraser RA and Wardle LJ (1976) Numerical analysis of
613–630.
Goossens D and Van Impe WF (1991) Long term settlement of a
pile group foundation in sand, overlaying a clayey layer.
Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Florence 1: 425–428.
Hooper JA and Wood LA (1977) Comparative behaviour of raft
and piled foundations. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, 545–550.
Horikoshi K and Randolph MF (1997) On the definition of raft–
soil stiffness ratio for rectangular raft. Géotechnique 47(5):
1055–1061.
Janbu N (1963) Soil compressibility as determined by
oedometer and triaxial tests. Proceedings of the 3rd European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Wiesbaden 1: 19–26.
Kim SR, Chung SG and Dung NT (2006) Determination of true
resistance from load transfer test performed on a PHC pile.
Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society 22(11): 113–122
(in Korean).
Koerner AM and Partos A (1974) Settlement of building on pile
foundation in sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE 100(3): 265–278.
Mandolini A (2003) Design of piled raft foundations: practice
and development. Proceedings of the 4th International
Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles,
Ghent, 59–79.
Mandolini A and Viggiani C (1997) Settlement of piled
foundations. Géotechnique 47(4): 791–816.
Mandolini A, Russo G and Viggiani C (2005) Pile foundation:
experimental investigations, analysis and design. Proceedings
of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Osaka 1: 177–213.
Mayne PW and Poulos GH (1999) Approximate displacement
influence factors for elastic shallow foundations. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
125(6): 453–460.
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
102(GT3): 195–228.
Morgan JR and Poulos HG (1968) Stability and settlement of
deep foundations. In Soil Mechanics: Selected Topics (Lee IK
(ed.)). Butterworths (London), pp. 528–609.
Poulos HG (1968) Analysis of the settlement of pile groups.
Géotechnique 18(4): 449–471.
Poulos HG (1993) Settlement prediction for bored pile groups.
Proceedings of the 2nd Geotechnical Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, 103–117.
Poulos HG (2001) Piled raft foundations: design and
applications. Géotechnique 51(2): 95–113.
Poulos HG (2006) Pile group settlement estimation: research to
practice. Keynote lecture. In Foundation Analysis and
Design: Innovative Methods, GSP No. 153. ASCE, Reston, VA,
pp. 1–22.
Poulos HG and Davis EH (1974) Elastic Solutions for Soils and
Rock Mechanics. Wiley, New York.
Poulos HG and Davis EH (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. Wiley, New York.
Dung et al.
 Poulos HG, Carter JP and Small JC (2002) Foundations and
retaining structures: research and practice. State of the art
lecture. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Istanbul 4:
2527–2606.
Randolph MF (1994) Design methods for pile group and piles
rafts. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi,
61–82.
Randolph MF and Wroth CP (1979) An analysis of the vertical
deformation of pile groups. Géotechnique 29(4): 423–439.
Resendiz D and Auvinet G (1973) Analysis of pile foundations
in consolidating soil. Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Moscow 3: 211–218.
Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP and Brown PR (1978) Improved
strain influence factors diagrams. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 104(GT8): 1131–1135.
Skempton AW (1952) Discussion, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Switzerland, 3, 172.
Tejchman A, Gwizdala K and Dyka I (2001) Analysis of
settlements of piled foundations. Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Istanbul 2: 1025–1030.
Terzaghi K and Peck RB (1967) Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Practice. Wiley, New York.
Tomlinson MJ (1986) Foundation Design and Construction, 5th
edn. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.
Vesic AS (1977) Design of Pile Foundations. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of
Practice No. 42. Transport Research Board, Washington, DC.

What do you think?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the
journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
2000–5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can
submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE2 Settlement of piled foundations using equivalent raft approach Dung et al. 81

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.