PILED RAFT DESIGN PROCESS FOR A HIGH-RISE BUILDING ON THE GOLD COAST,

AUSTRALIA

PARAN MOYES
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd
8/12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West NSW 2066

HARRY G POULOS
Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd
Emeritus Professor. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia

JOHN C. SMALL
Professor. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia

FRANCES BADELOW
Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd

This paper describes the process of design of a piled raft foundation for a high rise residential building on the Gold Coast in
Queensland, Australia. The design process comprised an initial stage of geotechnical site characterization using the results of a
series of investigation boreholes to prepare a subsurface model and derive geotechnical parameters for raft and pile design from
empirical correlations. Following this a preliminary analysis was undertaken using a combination of elastic theory and
allowances for non linear behaviour of the piled raft system to assess the viability of such a foundation system and any potential
advantages of a piled raft over conventional fully piled foundation systems. Finally, a detailed analysis was undertaken using the
GARP8 computer program. These detailed analyses were used to design a more efficient piled raft system and to provide design
actions for structural design of the foundation system for a variety of load combinations.

1. Introduction Paradise, Queensland Australia. This assessment

The development of tall buildings on land previously
regarded as unsuitable for large structures presents
several geotechnical problems with regard to the design
and assessment of foundations. Design of the buildings
must take into account both the short and long term
deformations of the foundations (serviceability limit
state) and the strength of the foundations at ultimate
loading (ultimate limit state). Piled raft foundations
utilise piled support for control of settlements with piles
providing most of the stiffness at serviceability loads,
and the raft element providing additional capacity at
ultimate loading. A geotechnical assessment for design
of such a foundation system therefore needs to consider
not only the capacity of the pile elements and the raft
elements, but their combined capacity and interaction
under serviceability loading. This paper presents
details of the geotechnical assessment and design
carried out for a piled raft foundation system for a
residential tower development located in Surfers
required the evaluation of a piled raft system subjected
to large ultimate loadings with consideration also being
given to the satisfaction of stringent differential
settlement criteria.
2. Residential Tower Project
The project comprises a 30 storey, 176 unit residential
tower located in Surfers Paradise, Queensland. The
construction of the development commenced in late
2004 with anticipated completion in late 2005.
2.1. Geological and Geotechnical Conditions
The Surfers Paradise area is underlain by alluvial
sediments comprising sands and clays. Beneath the
alluvial deposits is a residual soil strata of Silty Clay
overlying the meta siltstone bedrock.

1
2

2.1.1 Site geotechnical conditions
The geotechnical investigations at the site comprised
nine boreholes drilled in two phases of fieldwork.
Figure 1 illustrates the locations of the geotechnical
investigation boreholes. The first phase of investigation
comprised the drilling of six boreholes (BH1 to BH6)
that were terminated within about 1m penetration into a
sandy gravel layer, some 5m above the weathered rock
layer. A second phase of investigation boreholes
followed (“X” series) which were extended through the
sandy gravel layer and encountered extremely
weathered rock, typically described as sandy
clay/clayey sand and sandy gravel.
level is generally about RL+5.5m, the ground water
table is at about RL+0.7m, and the upper 6m or so of
soil was to be excavated beneath the tower to allow for
construction of the basement.
3. Geotechnical Model
On the basis of the information in Figures 2 and 3,
a geotechnical model was developed in order to analyse
the piled raft foundation option. As the conditions at
BH5 were the least favourable for foundation design,
this borehole was used as the main basis for the
geotechnical model. Figure 3 shows the stratigraphy
adopted for the model and the relevant geotechnical
parameters selected for the various strata appropriate for
either the raft or the pile design, where:

BH 2
Es(raft) = soil modulus for assessment of raft
BH 1
BH 4
behaviour

pu = ultimate bearing capacity of the raft

BH 5
Es (pile) = soil modulus for assessment of pile
behaviour
BH 3

fs = ultimate pile shaft friction

fb = ultimate pile end bearing capacity.

BH 6

OUTLINE OF In assessing these parameters, use was made of the

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
correlations between SPT data and foundation stiffness
and capacity parameters suggested by Decourt (1995),
together with the authors’ previous experience in
Figure 1. Borehole locations parameter selection for use in piled raft design.
The ground conditions typically consist of a
relatively thick layer of dense to very dense sand,
underlain by a layer of peat with some sand present.
Below the peat there is another dense sand layer
and then a layer of stiff to very stiff, silty clay with
some sand. Underlying this layer is extremely
weathered rock, which is described as gravel in some of
the boreholes. The extremely weathered rock is
underlain by slightly weathered metasiltstone rock at
between 40.5m and 42.5m depth below existing ground
level.
Based on the subsurface information obtained from
boreholes X1, X3, BH1, BH4 and BH5, a geotechnical
summary of the borehole details was formulated (refer
Figures 2 and 3). The quantitative information is limited
and consists of SPT data. The existing ground surface
 BH5 RL +6.0
BH1 RL +5.4 BH4 RL +5.5
SPT 0 SPT 50
0
SPT 50 0 50
FILL FILL FILL
+5 +5 +5

SAND L
3
SAND L SAND L

62

0 0 0 ASSUMED LEVEL OF
SAND MD SAND D BASE OF RAFT

75
SAND D
(+ SHELLS & 62
-5 -5 62 -5
SAND VD 64 GRAVELS)
SAND VD

-10 SAND/PEAT -10 PEAT -10

PEAT SAND VD
62
PEAT +

RL (m)
RL (m)
RL (m)

SAND MD
SAND VD
-15 81 -15 -15
SAND VD PEAT S

64
SILTY CLAY

SAND VD SAND D
-20 -20 -20

SILTY/CLAY
WITH SAND
St
SILTY/SANDY SILTY/CLAY
-25 CLAY V-St -25 -25
WITH SAND
V-St
SANDY CLAY

128 GRAVEL (XW ROCK) 100

-30 XW ROCK -30 -30
GRAVEL (XW ROCK) 106

Figure 2: Summary of Geotechnical Investigation Boreholes – BH Series

BH X1 RL +5.5 (ASSUMED) BH X3 RL +5.5 (ASSUMED) BH X2 RL +5.5
SPT SPT
0 50 0 SPT 50 0 20 40 60 80
+5 +5 +5
FILL (LOOSE)

SAND MD SAND MD
SAND L
52

0 0 0
SAND D
SAND MD ASSUMED LEVEL OF
60 60 BASE OF RAFT
SANDY
60 60 GRAVEL VD
SAND VD
SAND D-VD 60
-5 -5 -5

60
SAND VD
60 SAND VD
SAND VD
60 SAND MD
-10 -10 PEAT -10
CLAYEY PEAT SANDY CLAY
60
CLAYEY SAND
60
WOOD/PEAT L PP=95
60 SAND VD PP=170-220
RL (m)

CLAY F-St
RL (m)
RL (m)

-15 60 -15 -15 PP=270

SAND VD HIGH ORGANIC
SAND D CONTENT
60

60
SAND VD
-20 -20 -20
SANDY CLAY
PP=500
SANDY V-St
CLAY V-St
PP=460-500
SANDY
CLAY H CLAY H PP=600
-25 -25 -25

CLAY H
CLAYEY CLAYEY
SAND MD SAND MD
SAND VD SAND MD
SAND D
-30 -30 -30
CLAYEY SANDY SANDY GRAVEL
SANDY
GRAVEL VD etc. D
GRAVEL VD
GRAVELLY SAND D GRAVELLY SAND D SAND MD
SANDY
GRAVELLY SAND MD GRAVEL VD
-35 -35 -35
XW ROCK SANDY
GRAVEL VD
METASILTSTONE
(SW)

-40

Figure 3: Summary of Geotechnical Investigation Boreholes – X Series

4

Av. Su
Es pu Es
fs fb For the purposes of the preliminary assessment, the
DESCRIPTION (RAFT) (RAFT) (PILES)
SPT kPa kPa MPa
0
MPa MPa MPa piles were assumed to be 0.7m diameter Continuous
ASSUMED
BASE OF RAFT Flight Auger (CFA) piles extending to the thin sand
layer directly above the stiff to very stiff clay layer, and
-5
SAND
60 - 90 5.4 120 100 9.9
having an average length of about 18m. The raft was
D-VD
taken to be a square area 50m by 24m in plan, and
-10
approximately 0.8m thick. The thickness is of little
consequence for the overall load-settlement behaviour,
PEATY CLAY
but will of course influence the differential settlements
-15
(SOME SAND)
F-St
10 80 8 0.5 20 22 0.7
and the bending moments and shear forces in the raft.
Based on the results of the initial assessment it was
SAND
D
60 - 90 5.4 120 100 9.9 concluded that while a raft foundation alone would have
RL (m)

-20
an overall factor of safety of more than 10 with respect
SANDY CLAY (H)
to combined dead and live loading, the foundation
-25
/CLAYEY SAND
MD
14 250 25 1.5 40 60 2.0
design would be governed by settlement considerations,
rather than by ultimate bearing capacity. The presence
of a dense to very dense sand deposit allows the raft to
-30 SAND WITH
SOME GRAVEL 25 - 37.5 2.25 50 48 4.1
develop significant vertical load capacity and stiffness.
MD

-35 SANDY GRAVEL 100 - 150 9.0 200 100 10.0

METASILTSTONE
SW
- - 2000
-40
Figure 4. Stratigraphic and Geotechnical Parameters Adopted
In addition to the parameters shown in Figure 4, it
was assumed that, below the raft, the soil modulus (Es)
for reloading is 3 times the value for initial loading
(shown in Figure 3). This assumption was made to
evaluate the benefits of excavation of the upper 6m of
soil, and the consequent partial compensation that this
excavation provides.
4. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment
4.1. Introduction
Prior to the detailed geotechnical assessment, a
feasibility assessment was conducted of various
foundation schemes. A geotechnical assessment was
carried out for the following foundation schemes:
• A raft alone, without piles;
• A raft with 50 piles;
• A raft with 70 piles;
• A raft with 140 piles (approximating of the
proposed design as per the concept foundation
drawing prepared by the piling contractor).
4.2. Method of analysis
- 2000 - 10.0
For preliminary assessment, an extension of an
approximate analysis of the piled raft load-settlement
behaviour described by Poulos (2002) was used. This
method uses the equations developed by Randolph
(1994) to compute the stiffness of a piled raft, in terms
of the raft and pile group stiffness values, and also the
load sharing between the raft and the piles. A tri-linear
load-settlement curve is derived from this process.
An extension to this procedure was developed by
Poulos (2005) for compensated piled rafts. In this
extended procedure, account is also taken of the
increase in soil stiffness during the re-loading phase
after excavation has been carried out. This increase in
soil stiffness increases the stiffness of the raft during the
reloading process, and consequently, the raft carries a
greater proportion of the load until the soil pressure
below the raft reaches the previous pressure at which
virgin loading conditions prevail; this will usually occur
when the raft pressure balances the pressure reduction
due to the excavation. Thereafter, the raft stiffness is
controlled by the virgin loading soil stiffness, which
will be smaller than the reloading stiffness. Thus, at that
stage, the piles will then tend to take a larger proportion
of the further applied load.
For the preliminary assessment, it was assumed
(somewhat conservatively) that the soil modulus for
 5

reloading was 3 times the value for first or virgin Table 1. Summary of Computed Settlements
loading. The analysis was carried out using a Number of Average Average Average
MATHCAD worksheet developed by the authors. Piles Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at
Below Raft Serviceability 2*Serviceability 3*Serviceability
Load (257.8 Load (515.6 Load (773.4
4.3. Analysis results MN) MN) MN)
0 98 mm 234 mm 370 mm
The results of the preliminary geotechnical assessment
50 58 mm 153 mm 294 mm
are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. The computed load-
70 49 mm 106 mm 247 mm
settlement relationships are shown in Figure 5, for loads
140 37 mm 79 mm 121 mm
up to 3 times the serviceability load. This figure shows
that the settlement tends to decrease as the number of
piles increases, but at a decreasing rate. This figure also The following observations can be made:
indicates the transition from reloading to virgin loading 1. The average settlement of the raft alone is likely to
conditions at relatively low load levels, and the be excessive;
consequent reduction in stiffness once virgin loading 2. The average settlement at the serviceability load
conditions are re-established. decreases significantly when a relatively small
number of piles are included in the foundation;
900
3. There is relatively little benefit, at the serviceability
800
load, in doubling the number of piles from 70 to
Raft only

Raft + 50 piles
140. However, the settlement at higher load levels
700
Raft + 70 piles is decreased significantly.
Raft + 140 piles
Only the overall load-settlement behaviour was
600

considered in this preliminary assessment. A number of

500
Load MN

other issues including differential settlements, the

400

thickness of the raft, and the size, length and required

300

locations of the piles were not considered in detail at

200

this stage, but were addressed at the detailed design

100

stage.
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Settlement mm

4.4. Recommendations from preliminary

Figure 5: Computed Load Settlement Curves from Preliminary geotechnical analysis
Analysis
Based on the results of the preliminary geotechnical
Table 1 summarizes the computed settlement of the
assessment, it was recommended that a piled raft
foundation system at 1, 2 and 3 times the serviceability
foundation system should provide a cost-effective
loads, while Figure 6 plots these settlements versus the
solution for the tower. The average settlement at the
number of piles.
400
serviceability load was estimated to be of the order of
350
35-60mm, depending on the number of piles.
Serviceability Load

2*Serviceability Load
300
3*Serviceability Load

No piles-Serviceability
250
No piles - 2*serviceability 5. Detailed Foundation Design
Settlement mm

No piles - 3*Serviceability
200

150
Following the preliminary geotechnical assessment, a
100
piled raft foundation was adopted for the proposed
building. The foundation design comprises a 0.8m thick
50

reinforced concrete raft founded at RL -1m AHD.

0
50 75 100
Number of Piles
125 150
Beneath the raft, 136 piles were initially located to
support loading from columns, the building core and a
number of walls. The number of piles was modified on
Figure 6: Effect of Number of Piles on Settlement from Preliminary
Analysis the basis of the analysis undertaken.
6

The pile design that was assessed to be appropriate developed by the Centre for Geotechnical Research at
for this foundation system comprised 18m long, 0.7m Sydney University for analysis of piled raft foundations.
diameter Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles. These GARP (General Analysis of Rafts with Piles) is
piles were designed to be founded on the relatively thin, based on a finite element analysis of the raft, and a
dense sand layer, but allowance was made in the boundary element analysis of the piles. The contact
analyses for the possibility of the pile tip extending into stress that acts between the raft and the soil is assumed
the underlying sandy clay/clayey sand layer. to be made up of a series of uniform blocks of pressure
Accordingly, the analysis carried out assumed the pile that act over each element in the raft. Each of the piles
tip capacity to be that for the sandy clay/clayey sand. is assumed to apply a reaction to the raft at a point
The ultimate geotechnical capacity of each pile was (corresponding to a node in the raft).
assessed to be about 4.2MN. The boundary element analysis is used to calculate
the interaction of pairs of piles, or of a pile with the raft.
5.1. Loading In doing this, it is assumed that the soil is an elastic
The load data supplied by the project structural engineer material. If the soil is layered, a weighted average of the
was used to carry out a number of geotechnical properties of the soil layers is used in determining the
assessments based on different combinations of loading. equivalent elastic properties of the overall soil mass.
The loading data provided comprised a series of vertical If the behaviour of the piles is non-linear, this is
loadings at column locations. Table 2 shows the loading modeled by allowing the stiffness of the piles to reduce
combinations that were assessed based on Section 2.1 of with load level according to a hyperbolic law. However,
the Australian Loading Code AS1170.0-2002. the interaction between piles and between the piles and
raft is assumed to be constant (i.e. to have the values for
the original pile stiffness).
Table 2. Loading Cases for Piled Raft Assessment
Loading on the raft can include point loads,
Limit State Load Factors uniformly distributed loads, and moment loadings. As
Dead Live Positive Wind Positive Wind well, the raft can have different thicknesses assigned to
Load Load Load Load
(G) (Q) (permissible) (permissible) the elements that make up the mesh.
(Wp+)* (Wp-) The deflections, shear forces and moments in the
Serviceability 1 0.4 - - raft and the vertical loads on the piles due to the loading
Ultimate 1.2 1.5 - - were assessed. The GARP8 analysis modelled the piled
1.2 0.4 1.35 - raft as a 0.8m thick raft with 18m long, 0.7m diameter
1.2 0.4 - 1.35 piles located as per the initial foundation concept
0.9 - 1.35 - drawing.
An initial assessment was carried out using a piled
0.9 - - 1.35
raft foundation with 136 piles. The results of the initial
* A load factor of 1.35 was adopted to factor the permissible wind
load to ultimate wind load
assessment are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Results of Preliminary GARP Analysis for

5.2. Serviceability limit state (SLS) assessment of Settlement Under Serviceability Loads
piled raft
Criteria Value
The load data supplied by the structural engineer was Maximum settlement 36 mm
used to carry out a geotechnical assessment based on Minimum settlement 0.4 mm
serviceability loading for assessment of deflections of Rotation (θ)x max 0.0014 radians (1 in 714)
the proposed piled raft foundation. The serviceability
θx min -0.0020 radians (1 in 500)
loading combination was assessed, based on the
information provided in Section 2.1 of AS1170.0-2002. θy max 0.0025 radians (1 in 400)
The geotechnical assessment of the piled raft was θY min -0.0024 radians (1 in 416)
undertaken using the GARP8 program initially
 7

Following the preliminary assessment, analyses were This revised pile layout was then used to in the
undertaken to refine the piled raft design. This assessment of the ultimate limit state design.
comprised the removal of some of the piles and
subsequent assessment of the performance of the 5.3. Ultimate limit state (ULS) assessment of piled
revised design under the serviceability loading. The raft
revised foundation design reduced the number of piles Using the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) loading
from 136 piles to 123 piles. combinations summarized in Table 2, assessment of the
piled raft performance was made. The resultant
Table 4. Results of GARP Analysis for Settlement Under
computed maximum and minimum values for the
Serviceability Loads
various structural actions are summarized in Table 5.
Criteria Value
Maximum settlement 44 mm Table 5. Results of GARP Analysis for ULS Load Cases
Minimum settlement 1 mm
Item Value Loading
Maximum differential settlement
10mm (1/444) 2.66 MNm/m 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
between adjacent columns Mx max
-0.89 MNm/m 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
It should be noted from Table 4 that the maximum Mx min
3.27 MNm/m 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
computed settlement of 44mm was less than the My max
maximum specified allowable value of 50mm, while the -1.11 MNm/m 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
My min
maximum differential settlement between adjacent 0.82 MNm/m 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
columns was in the order of 1/400, which occurred Mxy max
-0.78 MNm/m 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
between the a relatively lightly loaded exterior column Mxy min
and a highly loaded interior column. Following 7.59 MN/m* 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
Vx max
discussion with the piling contractor, further assessment -7.11MN/m* 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
was carried out with an additional pile located at the Vx min
centre of the pile group beneath one of the most heavily 7.02 MN/m* 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
Vy max
loaded columns to reduce the differential settlement. -6.75 MN/m* 1.2G + 1.35Wp + ΨQ
Vy min
The results of the further assessment indicated a Pile Load 6.37 MN 1.2G + 1.5Q
differential settlement of 1/444 or 0.00225. The (compression)
calculated settlement contours for this case are shown in -0.24 MN 0.9G + 1.35Wp
Pile Load (tension)
Figure 7.

The values of moment and shear force are for the

Figure 7. Calculated Settlement Contours (in m) –
Serviceability Loading
raft slab. The GARP8 program also provided contour
plots of the moments and shears calculated for the
various ultimate load cases, and distributions of bending
moment along selected sections of the piled raft for use
in the structural design of the raft slab.
Some of the pile loads calculated by GARP8
exceeded the maximum design capacity of 4.2MN.
These results were based on the GARP8 analysis being
elastic only, whereas the actual behaviour of the piles in
the piled raft system would restrict the pile from
carrying more load than its ultimate capacity.
Subsequent upgrades have been made to the GARP
program, so that when a pile reaches its design capacity,
the program redistributes any excess reactions in the
piled raft system.
 8

5.4. Sensitivity Assessment

In addition to the serviceability and ultimate limit state
Table 7. Results of GARP Analysis for Sensitivity Assessment
assessments detailed previously, additional assessment – Ultimate Cases
was undertaken to evaluate the sensitivity of the
proposed piled raft design to variability in the Standard Pile Increased Pile Decreased Pile
Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness (-40%)
foundation system. The sensitivity assessment was
(+40%)
carried out by considering the effect of a pile of reduced Item Value Value Value
or increased stiffness located below the most heavily
loaded column. The pile was modelled with a ±40% 2.66 MNm/m 2.67 MNm/m 2.67 MNm/m
Mx max
change in pile stiffness and was applied for both the -0.86 MNm/m -0.86 MNm/m -0.86 MNm/m
Mx min
serviceability limit case and also the ultimate case 3.27 MNm/m 3.26 MNm/m 3.26 MNm/m
where the pile had previously been assessed as having My max
the greatest load (Load Case ART 3b -1.2G + 1.35Wp + -1.11 MNm/m -1.11 MNm/m -1.11 MNm/m
My min
ΨQ). Table 6 provides a summary of the effect of the 0.82 MNm/m 0.84 MNm/m 0.84 MNm/m
Mxy max
±40% change in pile stiffness. The deflections were -0.79 MNm/m -0.75 MNm/m -0.75 MNm/m
evaluated using the serviceability load while the Mxy min
moments were assessed using the ultimate load case. 7.59 MN/m 7.59 MN/m 7.59 MN/m
Vx max*
-7.10 MN/m -7.10 MN/m -7.10 MN/m
Table 6. Results of GARP Analysis for Sensitivity Assessment Vx min*
– Serviceability Case 7.02 MN/m 7.02 MN/m 7.02 MN/m
Vy max*
-6.73 MN/m -6.73 MN/m -6.73 MN/m
Item Standard Pile Increase Pile Decreased Pile Vy min*
Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness (-40%) Pile Load* 6.23 MN 6.22 MN 6.22 MN
(+40%) (compression)
Deflection Pile Load -0.10 MN -0.10 MN -0.10 MN
beneath load 39mm 38mm 38mm
(tension)
Differential * Pile load calculated based on elastic theory only. Maximum pile
between column 9mm 8mm 8mm loads equal to maximum design capacity of 4.2MN.
and edge of raft
The redistribution of the structural actions is
reflected in the minor differences in the assessed values
The results of the assessment illustrate that the of moment and shear forces in the ultimate loading
redundancy inherent in a piled raft foundation system cases. The minor differences between the standard pile
redistributes the loading and settlement across the piled stiffness case and the reduced and increased pile
raft with relatively little influence on the overall stiffness cases can again be attributed to the effect of the
behaviour. 0.8m thick raft redistributing stresses and forces.
Table 7 provides a summary of the resultant
maximum and minimum values for the various 6. Conclusions
structural actions with the changed pile stiffnesses.
This paper has illustrated the process of design of a
piled raft foundation for a large residential development
using a three stage procedure, consisting of an initial
assessment of the feasibility of the design, a middle
stage of refining pile locations and depths, and a
detailed design stage of assessing the behaviour of the
foundation under various loading cases.
The GARP program provided an efficient
computational method for the analysis of a complex
geotechnical and structural problem and delivered
design actions from the analysis which could be readily
 9

used by structural engineers for structural design of the

piled raft foundation.
The utilization of a piled raft foundation versus a
conventional piled only foundation delivered the
required serviceability performance with regard to total
and differential settlements while providing cost savings
estimated to be of the order of 30% versus the original
pile-only solution.

References
1. Decourt, L. (1995). “Prediction of load settlement
relationships for foundations on the basis of the
SPT-T”. Ciclo de Conferencias Inter. “Leonardo
Zeevaert”, UNAM, Mexico, 85-104.
2. Poulos, H.G. (2005). “Piled raft and compensated
piled raft foundations for soft soil sites”
Geotechnical Spec Publications No 129, ASCE,
214 – 234.
3. Poulos, H.G. (2002). “Simplified design procedure
for piled raft foundations”. Deep Foundations 2002,
Ed. M.W. O’Neill & F.C. Townsend, ASCE Spec.
Geot. Pub. 116, 1:441-458.
4. Randolph, M.F. (1994). “Design methods for pile
groups and piled rafts”. State of the Art Report, 13
ICSMFE, New Delhi, 5: 61-82.