Addis Ababa University

AAIT

School of Graduate Studies

Department of civil Engineering

COMPARISON OF STATE OF THE ART DESIGN OF PILED-

RAFT AND
PRACTICE OF PILED-RAFT DESIGN IN ETHIOPIA
BY

Yonathan Abebe
B.s.c.in civil Engineering

Addis Ababa University, 2015

Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................5
2. Statement of the problem......................................................................................................................6
3. Scope and Objective...............................................................................................................................6
4. Literature Review....................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Simplified method.............................................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Poulos and Davis (1980)..............................................................................................................7
4.1.2 Randolph (1983, 1994)...............................................................................................................8
4.1.3 Burland (1995)............................................................................................................................9
4.2 Approximate computer based method (Methods of employing a strip or plat on spring approach)
...............................................................................................................................................................10
4.2.1 Methods of employing a strip on spring approach...................................................................10
4.2.2 Methods of employing a plate on spring approach..................................................................11
4.3 Sophisticated computer based methods (more rigorous numerical methods)...............................13
4.3.1 Boundary element methods.....................................................................................................13
4.3.2 Simplified Finite elements method...........................................................................................13
4.3.3 Combined Boundary elements and Finite elements method...................................................14
4.3.4 Variational Approach................................................................................................................14
4.3.5 3D Finite Element Analysis........................................................................................................14
5. Methodology.........................................................................................................................................16
6. Work plan and/or time Table...............................................................................................................17
7. Reference..............................................................................................................................................19
Figure 1: Load settlement curve for piled raft according to different to various design philosophies (H.G.
Poulos, 2001)...............................................................................................................................................8
Figure 2: (a) Simplified representation of pile-raft (Randolph, 1994) (b) Interaction in pile-raft.................8
Figure 3: a) Simplified representation of pile-Raft (Burland, 1995) (b) Load-settlement curve for raft
(burland, 1995)............................................................................................................................................9
Figure 4: Representation of piled strip problem via GASP analysis(poulos,1991).....................................11
Figure 5: Definition of piled raft problem (Poulos, 1980) (using GARP).....................................................12
Figure 6: piled raft problem definition (a) finite element mesh of the system (b) finite element mesh of
the piled raft (Rual et al., 2003).................................................................................................................15
Figure 7: Cap model: Yield surfaces in principal stress and p-t plane (Reul et al., 2004)...........................15
 Abstract

The construction of high-rise buildings in Ethiopia, in recent years, has been observed and there
foundation consideration is utmost importance as it is 20 to 30 percent of total cost of construction. The
paper compares and suggests, why of design for piled raft for practicing Engineers in Ethiopia. It will
comprise of studies on safety and economy of piled rafts. Piled raft moments and settlements will be
presented with 3D Finite element software and compared with the current trends of practice in the
country. Guidelines and way of design for piled raft, with ease of design, for practicing Engineers will be
presented.
 1. Introduction
In foundation design, it is well known that one selects the type of foundation based on the
precedence of safety and economy. For large projects, such as high rise buildings, bridges and dam the
selection of suitable foundation whether it is shallow foundation or deep foundation is important. It is
usually referred to mat when we say shallow foundation and pile for deep foundation .In recent years
the uses of piled raft both in safety and economy have been favorable. Raft on pile or Piled raft is a
foundation type that is in transitional or between shallow foundations (mat) and deep foundation (pile),
in which raft and pile are both utilized to support the super structural load. It uses piles as settlement
reducers, in case where settlement or differential settlement is a problem, and uses raft as safely
distributing load on to a safe bearing capacity.

It is favorable to use piled rafts in situation where settlement or differential settlement is a

problem and using rafts is not sufficient enough to sustain the settlement to the allowable value. In
addition, the use of pile may be too expensive due to the pile number and length necessary to distribute
load. Therefore, it is ideally used where the soil is stiff enough to bear the load from superstructure and
substantial load is carried by raft. It is not suggested to use piled raft where weak layer such as soft clay
overlies stiff layer, as it may make the raft unsuitable to distribute load and the use of piles only may
perhaps be safe and economical.

Piled rafts are complex in that the roles and interaction of foundation components are not easy.
As previously stated, piles are used as settlement reducer while rafts are cushion for bearing. Interaction
of each component requires carful observation and study between each other. The interaction of pile to
raft, pile to pile, pile to soil and raft to soil are considered in design of piled raft. The number and
location of piles, the representation of existing soil profile, and loading sharing between piles and raft
are important in design.

Different method or approaches have been developed from simple to rigorous computer based
numerical methods to simulate these conditions or parameters of piled raft. These include, simplified
method developed by Poulos and Davis, Burland and Randolph in which simplification on soil and raft is
made. Another method developed by Poulos, Clancy and Randolph was raft assumed to be strips or
plates and piles as springs. Other methods that utilize sophisticated computer based methods that use
finite elements or/and boundary elements have been developed. Boundary element method was used
by Butterfield and Banerjee to study piled raft and another study was done by Reul and Randolph in
which a finite element method on ABAQUS was used. Furthermore, both use of Finite Element and
Boundary element has been developed by Franke where finite elements are used for rafts and boundary
element for piles.

This paper attempts to see the current practice in the country and tries to develop or improve
the practical design of piled rafts based on practices. It also recommends the suitability of the use of
Piled raft both in safety, economy and design. This is done by comparing State of the art design of piled
raft in simulating the real conditions using 3D finite element based software against simplified practices
available.
 2. Statement of the problem

The construction sector here in Ethiopia has been booming for some time now. This
development can be seen in high-rise buildings being built all around the country especially in cities, and
particularly in Addis Ababa. The construction of this kind of buildings requires the use of safe and
economical foundation. Since these structures are heavy the use of shallow foundation such as mat is
not suitable. The use of pile foundation can be commonly seen; in fact some tried to utilize pile cap and
the practice of piled raft systems can be observed.

Some pile foundations are completely assumed to be carried by piles and are not truly
represented in site. This is so because, the pile foundation’s pile cap is in contact with soil beneath the
foundation and transfer of load is inevitable. Given the construction practice in the country, a condition
where the pile alone is carrying the load and where the pile cap doesn’t transfer are not represented
well.

In consequence, many tried to consider this without the use of sophisticated method of piled
raft design and simplified assumption for practical design. These designs safety and economy are in
question.

Therefore, piled rafts construction and design needs to be guided, on how it can be done so with
the available simplifications, widely used software’s and with knowledge on limits of application in real
world conditions.

3. Scope and Objective

This paper deals with the design of piled rafts which is a foundation used knowingly or
unknowingly to the advantages and disadvantages in Ethiopia. It will take into account different
approaches that have been used in the past and their evolutions. Before, comparing results of the latest
piled raft designs, methods that have been used in the country with simplification for practical design
will be addressed. Finally, usages guidelines will be suggested.

The objective of this paper is to: -

-Determine the existing method used to design piled rafts in the country

-Determine the safety and economy of the current practice in the country

-Recommend safe and economical design of piled raft

-Prepare guideline on simplified design of piled raft

-Design Piled raft without sophisticated finite element and compare with widely used software
with reasonable accuracy.
 4. Literature Review

The use of piled raft has gained popularity in the past decades. This foundation system use piles
and raft to safely distributed superstructure load to the soil. Randolph (1994) has outlined three types of
design philosophies for piled raft.

1.The ‘Conventional approach’ in which the piles are designed as a group to carry the major
part of the load, while making some allowance for the contribution of the raft, primarily to ultimate load
capacity.

2.’Creep piling’ in which the piles are designed to operate at a working load at which significant
creep starts to occur at the pile soil interface, typically at 70-80% of the ultimate load capacity. Sufficient
piles are included to reduce the net contact pressure between the rafts to the soil below the pre-
consolidation pressure of the soil.

3. Different settlement control, in which the piles are located strategically in order to reduce
the differential settlements, rather than to substantially reduce the overall average settlement

Different types of methods or approaches in design of piled rafts are available from simple to
complicated and sophisticated computer based solution exists. These are: -

-Simplified method

-Approximate computer based method

-Sophisticated computer based method

4.1 Simplified method

This is the most simplified and straightforward method to design piled rafts. The simplifications
are made on soil representation, raft and pile modeling, as well as loading and load sharing. Some
researchers have simplified piled rafts, based on what has been stated earlier, and are as follows.

4.1.1 Poulos and Davis (1980)

This method employs hand calculation to draw the load settlement curve to failure. It assumes the
elastic region of piled raft more specifically the raft stiffness for initial stiffness and ultimate capacity of
piles and raft. It can be seen on the plot of the tri-linear load-settlement curve, Figure 1. This method,
can only analysis perfectly rigid or perfectly flexible raft.
Figure 1: Load settlement curve for piled raft according to different to various design philosophies (H.G. Poulos, 2001)

4.1.2 Randolph (1983, 1994)

Here, the piled raft stiffness is assumed to be equivalent to the stiffness of pile group and the
stiffness of un-piled rafts, in addition to the interaction of a single pile around its periphery, interaction
with raft is considered. Obtaining the interaction and stiffness allows the determination of the
settlement and load carried by the raft. The method is strictly limited to linear behavior of the piled rafts
foundation, as mentioned above, the piled rafts is assumed to be similar to pile group and therefore
load transmitted to the raft is also limited. In addition, it can only consider the interaction of pile with
raft and not with piles in the group.

(a) (b)

Figure 2: (a) Simplified representation of pile-raft (Randolph, 1994) (b) Interaction in pile-raft
4.1.3 Burland (1995)
Burland proposed a method of piled rafts design in which piles are used as settlement reducers
and develop their full capacity at the design load. The simplified process of design by burland is as
follows: -

-Estimate the long term load settlement relationship for the raft without piles. (Load P 0 gives S0)

-Asses an acceptable design settlement Sd, which should include safety factor.

-P1 is the load carried by the raft corresponding to S d.

-The load excess Po-P1 is assumed to be carried by settlement –reducing piles. The shaft
resistance of these piles will be fully mobilized and therefore no factor of safety is applied. However,
Burland suggests that a “mobilization factor” of about 0.9 be applied to the ‘conservative best estimate’
of ultimate shaft capacity, Psu.

-If the piles are located below columns which carry load in excess of P su, the piled raft maybe
analyzed as a raft on which reduced column loads act. At such columns, the reduced load is Q r.

The bending moments in the raft can then be obtained by analyzing the piled raft as a raft
-

subjected to the reduced load, Qr.

-The process for estimating the settlement of the piled raft is not stated by Burland, but it is
reasonably considered by most to adopt the approximate approach of Randolph (1994).

(a) (b)

Figure 3: a) Simplified representation of pile-Raft (Burland, 1995) (b) Load-settlement curve for raft (burland, 1995)
 Other methods of simplified method have been developed. Such as Franke et al (1994) and is
similar to Randolph that combines the raft and pile stiffness’s by considering pile raft and raft pile
interaction with a neutral plane. Another method, which is included here, is done by Van Impe and de
Clerq (1995) that attempted to represent by a series of pile rafts segments having a circular cap and
interaction were modeled using elastic theory. Pile behavior is given by modification of the analysis by
Randolph and Wroth (1979) in which equivalent raft and equivalent pier method use equation that can
be solved with simple computing software.

4.2 Approximate computer based method (Methods of employing a strip or plat on

spring approach)
This method essentially uses or approximates elements of the piled rafts into strip or plate on
spring, thus the name approximate method. It requires the use of a program such as GASP (Geotechnical
Analysis of Strip with Piles) and GARP (Geotechnical Analysis of Raft with Piles) for analysis of the piled
raft.

4.2.1 Methods of employing a strip on spring approach

This technique was suggested by Poulos (1991) in which the raft is represented by a strip and
piles by springs. Approximation is made on the interactions of the piled rafts, that is, pile raft, raft pile,
raft- raft & pile –pile interactions. The raft portion outside from the strip is considered by computing the
free field soil movements amongst the outside portion to the strip section. It is versatile and has shown
good results compared to complete analyses but is not capable to considered torsions caused by
moments within the raft. It is also does not express consistent settlements when strips are taken in
orthogonal direction.

Brown and Wiesner (1975) and Wiesner and Brown (1976)have established boundary element
analyses for a piled strip and outlined how it can be applied to piled rafts. Their method super imposes
pile strips to determine settlement of the raft.

The use of GASP software is applied by considering the soil non linearity and limiting the strip
soil contact pressure not to exceed the bearing capacity in compression or the uplift capacity in tension
as well as the piles in the same manner. When using GASP, it has been found desirable to only consider
nonlinearity in one direction, longer direction, and to consider the pile and raft behavior in short
direction to be linear. The procedure and overall assumption makes it conservative; however it avoids
unrealistic yielding of the soil beneath and unlikely settlements calculation.
 Figure 4: Representation of piled strip problem via GASP analysis(poulos,1991)

4.2.2 Methods of employing a plate on spring approach

Here instead of using strip, the use of plate is adopted to represent the raft. The plate is elastic
and the piles of the piled raft are springs that support the plate. The plate is assumed to be thin plates.
The method is based on elastic theory but considers non linearity for some features of the foundation
system. It is basically employed on GARP software and approximations assumed in GASP apply here too.
A later version of GARP (sales et al, 2000) has replaced finite difference with finite element analysis for
the raft and a modified approach to considering the development of the ultimate load capacity in the
pile.

Hongladaromp et al. (1973) is one of the first that implemented the method, by neglecting some
interaction effects which lead to stiffness to be too large, as Studies made by brown et al. (1975) reveal
by comparing it against complete analysis. Then came people like Poulos (1995) who utilized finite
difference method for the plate and considered all interactions in approximate elastic solutions. It also
includes allowances: -

-for layering of soil profile

- For piles reaching ultimate capacity (both for compression and tension)

- For development of failure of bearing capacity below the raft

-for presence of free field vertical soil movements acting on the foundation system
 Clancy and Randolph (1993) have further advanced the approach by considering each pile
modeled as a series of rod finite elements and raft as 2D thin plate finite elements. The method is
restricted to elastic theory, as the four interactions are analyzed via elastic analysis.

Yamashita et al. (1993) have attempted to analyze by which finite elements are used to analyses
the raft, soil and piles, where the piles and soil are represented by springs.

Franke et al (1994) have also contributed by outlining nonlinear response of pile via hyperbolic
shaft and base response characteristics.

Russo (1998) and Russo and Viggiani (1997) have described a similar approach to the above
methods by obtaining various interactions from elastic theory. In addition, nonlinear behavior of the
piles is considered through single piles hyperbolic load settlement curve. Pile to pile interaction is
applied only to the elastic component of pile settlement, and nonlinear component of settlement of a
pile is assumed to arise only from loading on that particular single pile.

Kitiyodom and Matsumoto’s (2003) approach is similar to Hain and lee (1978) except that piles
were modeled as elastic beams and the interactions between members were approximated by Mindlin’s
solutions (1936).It incorporates both analysis of axial and lateral load embedded to non-homogenous
soil strata. Thus, vertical and lateral resistances of piles are considered.

All of the above methods have assumed the raft as thin plate. Poulos et al (2001) studied the
effect of thickness of plates by modeling the raft as thin plate in 3D finite element and then thick plate
with raft modulus to that part of the finite element mesh of raft. They have assumed that there was no
slip between the raft and soil or between piles and soil. It was found to be not much of a concern, as
long as it is not very thick, in deflection and moment transfer. However, the use of thin plate will yield a
higher stress onto the soil and is important if yielding of soil for a concentrated load is to be assumed.

Figure 5: Definition of piled raft problem (Poulos, 1980) (using GARP)

4.3 Sophisticated computer based methods (more rigorous numerical methods)

This methods model the piled raft system using specialized software. These specialized software
use two widely used numerical techniques namely Boundary element method and Finite element
method. There is software that uses both methods.

4.3.1 Boundary element methods

Boundary elements method is based on the discretization of the pile raft system boundary and it
reduces the equations in doing so. Partial differential equation is transformed to integral equations. This
method is limited to rigid raft.

Butterfield and Banerjee (1971) is one of the early ones who researched group of piles in an
elastic soil mass with a rigid cap on the surface.

Kuwabara (1989) has also studied piled raft in a homogeneous elastic soil mass. He considered a
rigid raft and compressible pile. This method determined that, under elastic conditions raft carried only
a small portion of the load with normal spacing. Then Poulos (1993) extended the work to allow for the
effects of free field movements, controlling contact pressure between raft and soil and development of
ultimate compression or tension loads in the piles.

4.3.2 Simplified Finite elements method

Finite element method like boundary elements discretises the piled raft. It usually discrestise
both Foundation components and soil. This method simplifies finite element by assuming plane strain
and axisymmetric. In both cases, the non linearity of soil and raft behavior can be applied. It can also
consider the two phase assumption of soil and therefore time dependency of settlement and pile load
distribution due to consolidation of the soil can be computed.

Desai (1974) has used simplified finite elements to discrestise piled raft by assuming plane
strain.

Hooper (1973) and Naylor and Hooper (1974) have used simplified finite element in which they
assumed axisymmetry in modeling piled raft and soil. Hooper (1979) presented the assumption of
axisymmetric for practical use is reasonable, the building was located in London and result showed
similar to actual conditions. Its limitation includes the use of regular loading and torsional moment can’t
be obtained in the raft.

Other trials other than finite element have been carried out such as Finite difference method.
One study was done by Hewitt and Gue (1994) using 2D FLAC (Itasca, 1991) for analysis of piled raft on
Karstic limestone. It was assumed to be plane strain and reasonable effects of cavities in lime stone is
noticed in the piled raft settlement. Other that used this finite difference is Pradoso and kulhawy (2001).
4.3.3 Combined Boundary elements and Finite elements method
In this method, both the use of boundary and finite elements is used for the foundation system.
The analysis of raft is done by finite element method and boundary element method for piles and soil is
used for the piled raft foundation system. The use of Hain and lee (1978), which is elastic, in considering
the piled raft foundation system is the early research, which many base on. The method reduced the
computational effort, however not every pile was represented with the use of interaction factor. The
use of load “cut-off “limit in the program analysis was used for development of ultimate load in piles, its
limitation is that it assumes homogenous semi-infinite elastic mass.

Franke et al. (1994) described a “mixed technique” in which both boundary element and finite
element analysis is used. It used nonlinear elastic springs for soil and piles to consider nonlinearity. This
nonlinear response is attributed to a hyperbolic shear stress and shear strain relationship for soil
adjacent to the pile raft. It is also due to the use of boundary elements to describe skin friction
distribution and hyperbolic load deformation relationship for soil near the pile base.

Sinha (1996) recognized the use of boundary elements for all piles. Soil was assumed to be a
homogenous elastic soil mass and nonlinearity was considered by limiting soil raft contact pressure in
compression and tension as well as limiting stresses between the piles shaft and soil, and below the pile
tip. Effect of free field soil movement was also accounted by allowing soil swelling or consolidation.

4.3.4 Variational Approach

This method is where the principle of minimum potential energy is used to analyze the
foundation. Chow et al. (1999, 2001) developed a variational approach for pile groups and piled raft.
Interaction, which was measured later using Mindlin’s solution, considered the pile, pile cap and soil
mass. They analyzed for a vertically loaded piled raft foundation, raft was assumed to be thin plate and
the pile group was represented by finite series. The method uses elastic-perfectly plastic behavior of pile
and soil.

4.3.5 3D Finite Element Analysis

This method is considered to be the most reliable method of all, due to the fact that 3D
modeling is used in representing the actual conditions. Ottaviani (1975) is one of the first to do so on
pile foundation.

Zhuang et al. (1991) and Lees (1993) have also used 3D linear analysis to determine parametric
solutions for settlement and load distribution of piled rafts.

Ta and Small(1996) developed linear analysis of piled raft that considered thin plate for raft and
finite layer for the soil, layered soil can also be handle using this method. In addition, the analysis can
handle any positioned pile under the raft.

Wang (1995) considered nonlinear analysis of vertically loaded piled rafts.

Reul and Randolph (2003, 2004) studied piled rafts using ABAQUS 3D elastic-plastic finite
elements .They modeled soil as first order solid brick element, the piles as wedge element and raft as
first order shell element of square and triangular shape, with reduced integrations. Soil above the
foundation is considered as weight and is therefore applied as load and circular piles as equivalent
square piles .The interface between the raft and the soil and pile and soil were modeled by thin solid
continuum elements with perfectly rough assumption.

Figure 6: piled raft problem definition (a) finite element mesh of the system (b) finite element mesh of the piled raft (Rual et al.,
2003)

The Soil is assumed as one phase medium, as drained shear parameters and cap model is used
for non-linearity. The shear failure surface is perfectly plastic and the volumetric plastic strains cause
hardening or softening of the cap. The cap model consists of three yield surface segments, which are:-

-pressure dependant and perfectly plastic shear failure surface

-compression cap yield surface

-transition yield surface with plastic deformation

Figure 7: Cap model: Yield surfaces in principal stress and p-t plane (Reul et al., 2004)
 Maharaja and Gandhi (2004) load to failure a 3D nonlinear finite element analysis of piled raft
foundation.The procedure involved iterative increment with that of Newton Raphson method to solve
nonlinear equations in a plastic analysis.The raft and piles are asssumed to be linear elastic and soil is
nonlinear and is modeled by Drucker-prager yeild criteion.

5. Methodology
The study will be conducted by first collecting data available on piled raft design in Ethiopia.And
compariosn of results will be made to that of sophistcated piled raft design.Then,based on the results,
evaluation of piled raft will be made based on saftey and economy. Finally, reccomendation and guide
line will be made for future practices.

The construction and design method used for piled raft in practice will be gathered in two
ways,Questtionaries and interview.The selection of data collecton will depend on the willingness of
offices available in Ethiopia. Questions will be based on assumption used to design piled raft and the use
of,if any, softwares to design.

Then ,use of there approach of design of piled raft will be conducted .This will also include data,
which is secondary, from soil reports used. Missing data may be incountered and appropirate
assumption used by them will be assed as well.

The use of state of the art design of piled raft will be conducted using 3D Finite element based
software. This software is Midas GTS NX,it is based on finite elements, and it is here presented, than
usual software used (ABAQUS), in that it is totally for use of Geothicnical Engineers and geotechnical
problems unlike ABAQUS which is used by almost every engineering fields.It also allows the use of
borehole logs to simulate the entire soil, it also is capable to simulate group pile beahviour,and many
technical support and tutorials are avaialble.

However, it has some limtiations such as,it is hard to be for use of by practicing engineers than
other softerware such as PLAXIS 3D(which itself is hard) and it also hard to simulate out of ordinary
conditions unlike ABAQUS or rigid.

Finally, the results will be compared by analyzing the settlement and moments among stress and
capacity. There will also be comparison based on economy in which safety is not compromised.
Recommendation and guidelines for future use of the method will also be discussed.
6. Work plan and/or time Table
 Gantt Chart

ar

pr
eb

-M
n

-A
-F
Ja

10

21

30
1-
Article Review
Discussion (if needed)
Familarizing &Tutorial in using MIDAS
Interviews and Questionnaires
Discussion (if needed)
Gathering and analyzing
Anlysing continues
Discussion (if needed)
Start Date
Analyzing Date of Completion
Start Analyzing using MIDAS For Thesis project
Discussion (if needed)
Comparing and Contrasting of Both Analysis
Discussion (if needed)
Preparing Guide line for Practicing Engineer
Discussion (if needed)
organizing & Editing of research paper
Review of thesis paper with advisor and final notes
Approval from Advisor on Finalization
Further Ramification dealt with and submital to Advisor (if needed)
Final submission to AAIT CIVIL department
 7. Reference
1. Davis, E.H and Poulos, H .G. The analysis of piled raft systems. Australian Geomech. J., 1972, G2, 1,
21–27.

2. Randolph, M.F., “Design of Piled Foundations”, Cambridge Univ. Eng. Dept., Res. Rep. Soils TR143,
1983.

3. Randolph, M.F., “Design Methods for Pile Groups and Piled Rafts”, S.O.A. Report, 13 ICSMFE, New
Delhi, Vol. 5, pp. 61-82, 1994

4. FRANKE, E., LUTZ, B. and EL-MOSSALLAMY, Y. Measurements and numerical modeling of high-rise
building foundations on Frankfurt Clay. Geot. Spec. Publ. No. 40 (eds A. Yeung and G. Felio), ASCE, New
York, 1994, 2, 1325–1336.

5. Burland, J.B., “Piles as Settlement Reducers”, Keynote Address, 18th Italian Congress on Soil
Mechanics, Pavia, Italy, 1995.

6. Poulos, H.G., “Analysis of Piled Strip Foundation”, Comp. Methods & Advances in Geomechs., ed. Beer
et al, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp.183-191, 1991.

7. Poulos, H.G., “An Approximate Numerical Analysis of Pile-Raft Interaction”, Int. J. NAM Geomechs.,
Vol. 18, pp. 73-92, 1994.

8. VAN IMPE, W. F. and DE CLERQ, Y. A piled raft interaction model. Geotechnica, 1995, 73, 1–23.

9. POULOS, H. G. DEFPIG user manual. Centre for Geotech. Res., Univ. Sydney, Australia, 1990.

10. POULOS, H. G. Alternative design strategies for piled raft foundation. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Deep
Foundations, Singapore, 1994, 239–244.

11. BROWN, P. T. and WIESNER, T. J. The behavior of uniformly loaded piled strip footings. Soils and
Foundations, 1975, 15, 13–21.

12. BROWN, P. T., POULOS, H. G. and WIESNER, T. J. Piled raft foundation design. Proc. Symp. On Raft
Foundations, Perth, 1975, CSIRO (Australia), 13–21.

13. HONGLADAROMP, T., CHEN, N. J. and LEE, S. L. Load distributions in rectangular footings on piles.
Geotech. Engng, 1973, 4, 2, 77–90.

14. HOOPER, J. A. Observations on the behavior of a piled-raft foundation on London Clay. Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 1973, 55, Oct., 855–877.

15. Clancy, P. and Randolph, M. F., “An Approximate Analysis Procedure for Piled Raft Foundations”, Int.
Jl. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics , Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 849-869, 1993.
16. YAMASHITA, K., KAKURAI, M., YAMADA, T. and KUWABARA, F. Settlement behavior of a five-storey
building on a piled raft foundation. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. On Deep Foundns on Bored and Auger Piles,
Ghent, 1993, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 351–356.

17. Franke, E., EI-Mossallamy, Y. and Wittmann, “Calculation Methods for Raft Foundation in Germany”,
Design Application of Raft Foundation, edited by Hemsle, Thomas Telford, pp. 283-322, 2000.

18. Russo, G., “Numerical Analysis of Piled Rafts”, Int. Jnl. Anal. & Num. Methods in Geomechs. Vol. 22,
No. 6, pp. 477-493, 1998.

19.Kitiyodom, P., Matsumoto, T., “A Simplified Analysis Method for Piled Raft Foundation in Non-
Homogeneous Soils”, Int. Jl. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.
85-109, 2003.

20. HAIN, S. J. and LEE, I. K. The analysis of flexible raft–pile systems. Géotechnique, 1978, 28, 1, 65–83.

21. BUTTERFIELD, R. and BANERJEE, P. K. The elastic analysis of compressible piles and pile groups.
Géotechnique, 1971, 21, 1, 43–60.

22. KUWABARA, F. An elastic analysis for piled raft foundations in a homogeneous soil. Soils and
Foundations, 1989, 28, 1, 82–92.

23. DESAI, C. S. Numerical design analysis for piles in sands. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE, 1974,100, GT6,
613–635.
24. HEWITT, P. B. and GUE, S. S. Piled raft foundation in a weathered sedimentary formation, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. Proc. Geotropika, Malacca, Malaysia, 1994, 1–11.

25. ITASCA. FLAC user manual. Itasca Corp., Minneapolis, Minn., USA, 1991.

26. SINHA, J. Piled raft foundations subjected to swelling and shrinking soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.
Sydney, Australia, 1997.

27. RANDOLPH, M. F. and WROTH, C. P. Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. J.Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE, 1978, 104, 12, 1465–1488.

30. OTTAVIANI, M. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of vertically loaded pile groups.
Géotechnique, 1975, 25, 2, 159–174.

31. ZHUANG, G. M., LEE, I. K. and ZHAO, X. H. Interactive analysis of behavior of raft–pile foundations.
Proc. Geo-Coast ’91, Yokohama, 1991, 2, 759–764.

32. TA, L. D. and SMALL, J. C. Analysis of piled raft systems in layered soils. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. 1996, 2, 57–72.

33. WANG, A. Private Communication, 1995.

34. Reul, O. and Randolph, M.F., “Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to non uniform vertical
loading”, J. Geotech. And Geoenvir. Engrg.Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 1-13, 2004.
35. Maharaj, D. K., Gandhi, S. R., “Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation”, Proc.
Instn. Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 157, No. 3, pp. 107-113, 2004.

36. Deka, R., “Different Analysis Methods of Piled Rafts”, Int. Jnl. of Engineering Technology,
Management and Applied Science, Vol. 2, No. 4,pp. 158-167, 2014.

37. Chow, Y. K., Yong, K. Y. & Shen, W. Y. (2001) Analysis of piled raft foundations using a variational
approach. International Journal of Geomechanics, 1(2), 129-147, doi 10.1080/15323640108500156

38. Midas GTS NX, introducing book, www.MidasGTSNx.com

39. POULOS, H. G., SMALL, J. C., TA, L. D., SINHA, J. and CHEN, L. Comparison of some methods for
analysis of piled rafts. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Foundn Engng, Hamburg, 1997, 2, 1119–1124.

40. Prof.Dr. Ir W.F.Van Impe, A report prepared on behalf of technical committee, International society
of soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2001.
41. H.G.Poulos, “Methods of analysis of piled raft foundation”. (International society of soil mechanics
and geotechnical engineering, July 2001.)