See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340179684

Behavior of pile rafts with raft size, number of piles and different pile length

Conference Paper  in  AIP Conference Proceedings · March 2020

DOI: 10.1063/5.0000211

CITATIONS READS
0 321

3 authors, including:

Ola Adel Qasim Qassim Ali Al-Quraishy

Al-Mansour University College Al-Mansour University College
56 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improve the high temperature stability of concrete View project

Nano Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ola Adel Qasim on 27 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Behavior of pile rafts with raft size, number
of piles and different pile length
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020196 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000211
Published Online: 25 March 2020

Azad Hameed Rasheed, Ola Adel Qasim, and Qassim Ali Al-Quraishy

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

The role of discrete orthogonal polynomials in constructing solutions of the dynamical

equations describing coherent excitation of quantum systems in the field of laser radiation
AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020189 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000104

Numerical investigation analysis of variables effect on composite concrete filled steel tube
columns
AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020195 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000207

Nonlinear finite element analysis of effect of temperature on self-compacted steel fiber

reinforced concrete slabs
AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020194 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000208

AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020196 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000211 2213, 020196

© 2020 Author(s).
 Behavior of Pile Rafts with Raft Size, Number of Piles and
Different Pile Length
Azad Hameed Rasheed1), Ola Adel Qasim and Qassim Ali Al-Quraishy2)

Civil Engineering Department, AL- Mansour University College, Baghdad, Iraq.

1)
azad.hameed@muc.edu.iq, 2ola.adel@muc.edu.iq.

Abstract. A foundation is the element of the construction, which is in direct connection with the ground that transfers the
load of the construction to the ground. In this study, three-dimensional linear finite element investigations have been used
to investigate the load-settlement behavior with the impact of the raft size and pile length of an axisymmetric raft and a
piled raft foundation. The piles, raft, and soil have been discretized into Solid C3D8R 8-node linear brick element. Four
case studies are performed in this research (the impact of raft size on the load-settlement performance of the raft
foundation, the load-settlement performance of the raft and piled raft foundation were compared, the effective number of
piles on the load- settlement behavior of the piled raft foundation, the effect of the length of piles on the load-settlement
behavior of the piled raft foundation. The load-carrying ability of raft support is observed to develop with the
improvement in the size of the raft. In this study, the finite element method is adopted through finite element package
(ABAQUS 6.10) to evaluate the effect of many parameters on the load- settlement behavior of the raft and piled raft
foundation in the clay soil.

INTRODUCTION
Footings are members used to support columns and walls by transmitting and distributing their loads to the soil.
Foundations may be classified into (Shallow Foundations: where the foundation depth (Df)<width of the
footing<3m), (Pad Foundations: spread, individual or isolated footings to support an individual point load Fig.1),
(Strip Foundations: normally provided for load-bearing walls, and for rows of columns Fig. 2), (Combined
Foundations: support a line of two or more columns Fig. 3), [1], (Raft Foundations: applied on soils of low bearing
potential, or where construction columns or other loaded domain are so related in both directions that individual pad
foundations would approximately reach each other. Raft foundations are serviceable in decreasing differential
settlement on unsteady soils or where there is an extensive modification in loading within next columns or other
affected loads, (Deep foundations: founding too intensely under the finished ground surface), (piled raft foundations
Fig. 4 total load coming from the superstructure is partially distributed by the raft within association with soil and
the remaining load is received by piles within skin friction. Long piles are presented which continues up to the broad
levels). If exclusively the raft has to support the total load extending from the superstructure, extremely compact raft
is required which improve the expense of the foundation [2]. Such raft foundation experiences excessive settlement.
In such a situation piled raft foundation can be recognized as the most proper solution in which shorter piles and raft
of lesser thickness can be presented [3].

Figure 1. Pad foundation. Figure 2. Strip. Figure 3. Combined. Figure 4. Piled raft.

2nd International Conference on Materials Engineering & Science (IConMEAS 2019)

AIP Conf. Proc. 2213, 020196-1–020196-12; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000211
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1964-3/$30.00

020196-1
 The piled foundation is regularly employed when developing a heavy building on soft soils, which enhance an
option when suitable load-bearing soil layers do not exist and extreme settlement and differential settlement are
avoided. The application of a composite foundation is growing extremely common in new times, which is described
a piled raft foundation consists of a spread foundation, regularly a raft foundation, and an approximately several
amounts of friction piles [4]. The load-bearing mechanism is moderately difficult because a load is conveyed to the
ground within a raft and piles. The piled raft is a geotechnical composite structure consisting of three elements:
piles, raft, and soil. The purpose of piled rafts varies from conventional foundation design, where the loads are
expected to be provided either by the raft or by the piles. Accordingly, the piled raft foundation provides
modification of arrangements and differential settlements in a highly economical way associated with conventional
foundation theories [5]. In new times an expanding amount of constructions, particularly tall buildings, have been
established on piled rafts [6]. [7] performed a pile of soil static interaction by the incorporation of finite and infinite
elements. The pile and the approaching field soil medium were created by finite elements, whereas the far-field soil
medium was created by mapped infinite elements. [3] described a five-story structure on the piled raft foundation.
The results of field measurements through the building and scientific examination of the equivalent structure have
been related. [8] described the load distribution within piles and raft based on 3-D linear FEM. [9] summarized the
linear as well as nonlinear 3-D finite element investigation of piled raft foundation applying ANSYS. [10] produced
an innovative approach for the investigation of piled rafts based on the finite layer approach. [11] examined the
settlement of the structure has a basement with two underground floors. [12] displayed the effects based on
nonlinear 3-D FE investigation of piled raft foundation. The raft, pile, and soil have been divided by 8-nodded brick
elements. [13] examined the influence of the associate position within piles and a raft on the dynamic properties of
construction approved by a piled raft foundation-related on the finite element approach. [14] investigated the
performance of the load-settlement curve of piled raft foundation. The foundation has been examined employing 3-
D finite element analysis.

DESIGN CONCEPTS
A researcher [4] has described three separate scheme theories regarding piled rafts:
1. Traditional technique: piles are produced as a combination to transfer the significant portion for the load.
2. Creep Piling: which produced to perform at active load at which important creep begins to occur, typically 70-
80% of the final load potential.
3. Differential Displacement command: positioned strategically to decrease the differential displacement,
preferably than to essentially decrease the total moderate displacement.

Classification of Piled Raft Foundation

There are couple kinds of piled raft support and these pair divisions broadly reflect the traditional and creep-piling
theories recognized by [11, 15]:
1. Small piled rafts: Principal purpose of combining the piles is to improve the safety factor (this normaly includes
rafts having diameters within 5 and 15 m).
2. Large piled rafts: withstanding ability is sufficient to support the utilized load with a consistent protection
boundary, except piles are expected to decrease displacement or differential settlement. In those circumstances, of
raft width is high in association with the piles length (raft width passes of pile length).

DESIGN ISSUES AND TSET METHODS OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

The study of a piled raft support demands the attention of various subjects, including [16]: 1. final load potential
for moment loadings, vertical and lateral and. 2.Maximum displacement. 3. Differential displacement. 4. Shears and
moments of raft for the fundamental study of the raft. 5. Moments and load of Pile, for the fundamental scheme of
the piles. Numerous extended forms of investigation process have been recognized like; Simplified computation
systems, convergent computer programs, additional strict computer-based systems, Two-Dimensional Numerical
design, and Three-Dimensional Numerical Analysis: A complete 3-D investigation of a piled raft foundation method
can be taken out by finite element investigation [17]. Some difficulties continue, though, concerning the modeling of
the pile-soil interfaces, and if the interface element must be applied. If they are, then approaches are regularly

020196-2
included for designation of joint stiffness characteristics. Separated off this complexity, the principal difficulty is the
duration required in achieving a settling, in that a non-linear examination of a piled raft support can take various
hours even on a standard computer. Such investigations are consequently further befitted to achieving the most
reliable solutions approaching which to examine simpler analysis systems, rather than as conventional scheme
devices.

SETTLEMENT OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

Various procedures have been recommended for examining the rafts pile settlement: a) Measures of the pile
group’s settlement are related on essentially observational data. b) Simplified procedures, which decrease a pile
group to an equivalent simpler form of support for study designs. Simplified procedures are applied here which
recommended by [18, 19]. c) Analytical methods, which recognize the cooperation within the piles and surrounding
soil.

ANALYTICAL METHODS
Designs, which estimate the reply of a single pile and which reflect pile-soil-pile cooperation via cooperation
portions produce application of a remarkable form of elastic theory. The examination is related to elastic soil
designated by shear modulus which may modify with depth and a Poisson’s ratio to analyze the settlement
performance of a common pile group, superposition of the two-pile communication portions may be applied. Finite
element design is an important scientific instrument that can be utilized in settlement investigations. Non-linear soil
performance can be displayed. Also, the entire records of the pile can be assumed, i.e. the methods of establishment,
reconsolidation of the soil following establishment, and succeeding loading of the pile. Such investigations are
important in heading to a more reliable recognition of the features of pile performance but are incredible to be
immediately suitable to practical piling difficulties because of their complexity and the significant quantity of
geotechnical parameters demanded. Full boundary element system, in which all pile is separated within discrete
elements and pile-soil-pile cooperation is estimated between each of these elements is another way of explaining
settlement of pile foundation. The boundary element organizations are more conservative than the finite element
technique in pile group analysis, but these techniques demand coupled integration of analytical point load solution
that may be heavy and moderately time-consuming [20].

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (ABAQUS PROGRAM)

The finite element system produces several concurrent algebraic comparisons, which are created and resolved on
a digital processor [21, 22]. The decisions available are detailed suitable for construction designs at a rational value.
Besides, it is an active study mechanism by which planners can achieve parametric purpose studies by examining
different design characters (different shapes, materials, loads, etc..,), examine them and determine the best scheme.
In the immediate situation, the levels of option compared to the elements displacement [23]. The fundamental of the
FE calculation for elastic studies can be recorded as [24]. The structural investigation method by computer systems
can be defined by the three levels represented in figure 6. ABAQUS is utilized in the automotive, aerospace, and
manufacturing results productions. The result is common with academic and investigation companies due to the
broad element modeling ability, and the program's capacity to be customized. Some of the common object obstacles
in soil-construction cooperation are the piled raft, which has confirmed to be a applicable option to traditional pile
support or mat support. The thought of applying the piled raft support is that the joined support can withstand the
involved axial loading with a suitable safety factor and that the displacement of the joined support at active load is
adequate. In remarkable situations, the piles are diverge regularly and in other situations are separated in planned to
produce a further regular displacement of the mat. The designs manage to the employment of the 3D (FEM) in the
examination of such characters of support: The obstacle is so difficult that obvious techniques cannot create the
question. Regulations for the FEM are accessible, important, and withstand of being working on the particular
processor. Consequently, as a soil-structure-interaction situation, the design of the piles, raft, and supporting soil
applying FEM is a reasonable approach.

020196-3
 CASE STUDIES
The effects of the raft and piled raft foundation analysis obtained from studying the impact of various parameters
on the load-settlement performance are presented. The analysis was performed using the finite element examination
program (ABAQUS 6.10). The parameters are chosen, for studying the impact on the load–settlement function, are
the raft size and the pile length. Due to the importance of graphical presentation of results which allows the designer
to predict the allowable load-carrying ability and displacement within the raft and piled raft support, this study gives
a number of these graphs representing two-parameter relations or illustrating more than one curve within the same
graph. The graphical representations of results help also in making comparisons between numerical, experimental
and analytical methods. Four case studies are performed in this study as shown in Table 1:
1. The influence of raft size on the bearing-settlement behavior of the raft support.
2. The bearing-displacement performance of the raft and piled raft foundation were compared.
3. The impact no of piles on the bearing- displacement performance of the piled raft support.
4. The consequence of the length of piles on the bearing- settlement performance of the pile raft Support.
TABLE 1. Measurement and properties used in this study.
Diameter of the raft (Dr) 10 m. Raft and pile Poisson’s ratio (νc) 0.3
Thickness of the raft (tr) 1.0m Diameter of the pile (Dp) 0.4m
Elastic modulus of the soil (Es) 22×103 kN/m2 Clay soil Poisson’s ratio (νs) 0.45
Pile Length (Lp) 10m raft and pile Elstic modulus (Ec) 20×106 kN/m2
No. of piles 17 spacing between piles 2m
Cohesion" of the clay soil (Cu) 55.0 kN/m2
Two solid models are adopted in this study:

1- Soil solid and 2- Piled raft foundation solid

x Solid circular element which represents the concrete raft.

x Solid cylinder element which represents the concrete pile.
Being symmetrical about both axes, only one fourth of the rafts and piled rafts have been considered in the
analysis. In the original field situation, the soil mechanism is of unlimited range both in vertical directions and
horizontal. The soil solid parallel boundary for the finite element in the x, y directions, a field similar to 25×25m has
been considered from the center of the raft in the lateral direction. In the analysis the depth of the soil is 150m. This
depth has been maintained steady for the first three cases. The geometric shape of the solid models for this problem
is shown in Figs.5 and 6. In this work, the element type selected is the Solid C3D8R 8-node linear brick element
to represent the raft, pile, and soil under foundation. The materials that are used as a data to the ABAQUS program
can be divided into foundation materials and soil materials, the features of each material are shown in Table 2. The
analysis requires estimation for ratio of Poisson's and elastic modulus of the soil.
x For medium clay soil Es=(15-50) MPa. The Poisson's ratio range for medium clay soil is (0.4-0.5).
x The strategy used in this study is test many mesh sizes with finite element in sequence to obtain the best mesh size
for modeling the raft, piled raft, and soil layer to assure the convergence process of solution and obtain the best
results. The conclusion of the finite element mesh for models 1, and 2 are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
The utilization of the boundary conditions (restrictions) on the solid model is:
x No x, y, or z translations are enabled at all the lower connections. No x or y movement are provided at all the
edge nodes. No y movement is provided on x-z plane. No x movement is provided on y-z plane, as shown in Figs. 9
and 10. Then the loads are applied as distributed loads as shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
x

Figure 5. Geometric shape of Figure 6. Geometric shape of Figure 7. Finite element mesh
the solid model NO.1. the solid model NO.2. for solid model NO.1.

020196-4
 Figure 8. Finite element mesh
for solid model NO.2.
TABLE 2. Soil and foundation properties used in the analysis
properties Concrete Soil
Modulus of elasticity (E) (kPa) 20000000 22000
Poisson's ratio (ν) 0.3 0.45
Cohesion (Cu) (kPa) - 55
Internal friction Angle (I) - 0o

Figure 9. Boundary conditions for Figure 10. Boundary case for Figure 11. Application of
model NO.1. model NO.2. load for solid model NO.1.

Figure 12. Application of load for

solid model NO.2.

PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION RESULTS

The investigation for the raft and piled raft was performed as support resting on a finite isotropic homogenous
soil. The analysis requires preliminary estimation of raft and piled raft support dimensions. Several cases of raft size
and pile length were chosen as shown in Table 3. Figs. from (13 to 32) represent the load-settlement of all cases.
TABLE 3. Soil and foundation shape dimensions used in the analysis
Case No. Dr tr L/2 B/2 H Dp Lp Piles. Load Settlement - Dr =Diameter
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) no (MN) (mm) of the raft.
Case 1 10 1 50 50 150 - - - 70 141.791
Case 2 20 1 100 100 150 - - - 350 438.395 - tr =Thickness
Case 3 30 1 150 150 150 - - - 600 569.082 of the raft.
Case 4 10 1 30 30 50 0.4 10 17 70 116.005
Case 5 10 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 17 350 447.194 - L/2=distance
Case 6 10 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 17 600 680.835 between the
Case 7 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 10 17 70 60.9 center of raft and
Case 8 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 17 70 58.9646 the horizontal
soil boundary in
Case 9 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 17 70 62.2372
y direction.
Case 10 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 10 17 70 36.3812
- B/2=distance
Case 11 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 17 70 35.7527

020196-5
 TABLE 3. Continued. between the
Case No. Dr tr L/2 B/2 H Dp Lp Piles. Load Settlement center of raft and
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) no (MN) (mm) the horizontal
Case 12 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 17 70 37.9661 soil boundary in
Case 13 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 33 350 252.833 x direction.
Case 14 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 33 350 225.249 - H=depth of
Case 15 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 33 350 143.489 soil layer.
- Dp=Pile
Case 16 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 33 350 143.507
diameter.
Case 17 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 45 800 577.609
- Lp=Pile length.
Case 18 20 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 45 800 493.931
Case 19 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 20 45 800 313.578
Case 20 30 1 30 30 50 0.4 30 45 800 331.08

Figure13. Case-1 Bearing-settlement curve Figure14. Case-2 Bearing -settlement curve

for raft foundation (D=10m) for raft foundation (D=20m)

Figure15. Case-3 Bearing -settlement curve Figure16. Case-4 Bearing -settlement curve
for raft foundation (D=30m) for raft foundation (D=10m)

Figure17. Case-5 Bearing -settlement curve Figure 18. Case-6 Bearing -settlement curve
for raft foundation (D=10m) for raft foundation (D=10m)

Figure 19. Case-7 Impact length of pile on Figure 20. Case-8 Impact length of pile on
bearing -displacement relation for Piled bearing -displacement relation for Piled Raft
Raft support (D =20m) support (D =20m)

020196-6
Figure 21. Case-9 Impact length of pile on Figure 22. Case-10 Impact length of pile on
bearing -displacement relation for Piled bearing -displacement relation for Piled Raft
Raft support (D =20m) support (D =30m)

Figure 23. Case-11 Impact No. of pile on Figure 24. Case-12 Impact No. of pile on
bearing -displacement relation for Piled bearing -displacement relation for Piled Raft
Raft support (D =30m) support (D =30m)

Figure 25. Case-13 Impact No. of pile on Figure 26. Case-14 Impact length of pile on
bearing -displacement relation for Piled bearing -displacement relation for Piled Raft
Raft support (D =30m) support (D =20m)

Figure 27. Case-15 Impact No. of pile on Figure 28. Case-16 Impact No. of pile on
bearing -displacement relation for Piled bearing -displacement relation for Piled Raft
Raft support (D =30m) support (D =30m)

020196-7
 Figure 29. Case-17 Impact No. of pile on Figure 30. Case-18 Impact length of pile on
bearing -displacement relation for Piled bearing -displacement relation for Piled Raft
Raft support (D =20m) support (D =20m)

Figure 31. Case-19 Impact No. of pile on Figure 32. Case-20 Impact No. of pile on
bearing -settlement curve for Piled Raft bearing -settlement curve for Piled Raft
support (D =30m) support (D =30m)

CASE STUDY (1) THE IMPACT OF RAFT SIZE ON THE LOAD- DISPLACEMENT
PERFORMANCE OF THE RAFT SUPPORT
For the piles with diameters of the raft =10m, 20m, 30m, (case1, 2 and 3) and the thickness of the Raft =1m, (no
Piles), Fig. 33 it can be recognized that the raft with less diameter has attained its final potential at less settlement
than larger diameter raft.

CASE STUDY (2) THE LOAD-DISPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE OF THE RAFT

SUPPORT AND PILED RAFT SUPPORT
1. Without piles: The Diameter of the Raft =10, 20m and 30, the Raft depth =1m.
2. With piles: The diameter of the Raft = 10, 20m and 30, the Raft depth =1m, the Length of the Pile =10, 20 and
30m, the No. of the Pile = 17.
x From Figs. 34, 35 and 36, (study 1 and 4), (study 2 and 8) and (study 3 and 12), it can be assumed that the
consequence of piles on the bearing-displacement performance of piled raft support for which the 10m raft diameter.
There is a important improvement in the bearing-carrying capability of the raft despite when length of piles similar
to the raft diameter are presented which clearly explains that most of the bearing is supported by raft and for initial
displacement the load sustained by piled raft support with pile of higher length provides higher load than that
including piles of less length.

CASE STUDY (3) THE IMPACT OF AMOUNT OF PILES ON THE LOAD-

SETTLEMENT PERFORMANCE FOR THE PILE RAFT SUPPORT.
For the piles with diameters of the raft =20, 30m and length of pile 20, 30m, Figs. 37, 38 and 39, with pile no.
17, 33 and 45, (case 8, 13 and 17), (case 11, 15 and 19) and (case 12, 16 and 20). It can be concluded from the above
that the influence of the amount of piles on the load settlement curves is significant for the smaller load of 100MN,
and the impact of the quantity of piles is less for higher load above 100MN.

020196-8
 Figure 33. Case-1, 2, 3 Analyzing of Raft Figure 34. Case-1, 4 Analyzing for Raft
foundation load-settlement curves. support and Piled raft foundation of load-
settlement curves.

Figure 35. Case-2, 8 Analyzing for Raft Figure 36. Case-3, 12 Analyzing for Raft
support and Piled raft support of load- support and Piled raft support of load-
displacement curves. settlement curves.

Figure 37. Case- 8, 13, 17 Analyzing for Figure 38. Case-11, 15, 19 Analyzing for
different no of piles for Piled Raft foundation various no of piles for Piled Raft foundation
of load-displacement relation. of load- displacement relation.

CASE STUDY (4) THE IMPACT OF THE LENGTH OF PILES ON THE LOAD-
DISPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE OF THE PILE RAFT FOUNDATION.
The diameter of the raft=20m, 30m, the depth of the raft=1m, the length of the pile=10m, 20m, 30m, the no. of
the pile=17, 33, 45. Figs. (40, 41, 42 and 43), (case 7, 8 and 9), (case 17 and 18), (case 10, 11 and 12) and (case 19
and 20). The consequence of an addition in the pile length is to develop the load- transfer ability of piled raft
support. The primary part of the drawing relation for piled rafts with various piles lengths display overlap,
application of loading the piled rafts undergo the same settlement. Fig. 44 showing the settlement results display in
contours.

020196-9
Figure 39. Case-12, 16, 20 Analyzing of Figure 40. Case-7, 8, 9 Analyzing of
bearing -settlement curves for various no bearing - displacement curves for separate
of piles for Piled Raft foundation. length of Piled Raft support.

Figure 41. Case-17, 18, Analyzing of Figure 42. Case-10, 11, 12 Analyzing of
bearing-settlement curves. load-displacement relation for various
length of Piled Raft support.

Figure 43. Case-19, 20 Analyzing of load- displacement relation for various length of
Piled Raft support.

Case- 1 Case- 2 Case- 3 Case-4

Case-5 Case-6 Case-7 Case-8

Figure 44. Showing the settlement results in (m) represented contours display.

020196-10
 Case-9 Case-10 Case-11 Case-12

Case-13 Case-14 Case-15 Case-16

Case-17 Case-18 Case-19 Case-20

Figure 44.continued. Showing the settlement results in (m) represented contours display.

CONCLUSIONS
The load-carrying ability of raft foundation for an assigned settlement is observed to improve with an addition in
the diameter of the raft from 10m to 30m. There is an increase in the capacity of carrying load of 22.2% for the
settlement of 100mm. The capacity of carrying the load of raft foundation for a given load is found development
with an expansion in the diameter of the raft from 10m to 30m. There is about 66% decrease in the settlement of the
raft for a load of 50MN. The load-carrying capacity of (D=10m, L=10m, N=17) is found increase by 24% when
compared with the raft support (D=10m) forgiven the settlement of 100mm. The settlement of pile raft foundation
(D=10m, L=10m, N=17) is 26.1% less when compared with the raft foundation of (D=10m). The load-carrying
capacity of (D=20m, L=10m, N=17) is found increase by 40% when compared with the raft foundation (D=20m)
forgiven the settlement of 60mm. The displacement of pile raft support (D=20m, L=10m, N=17) is 35.5% less when
compared with the raft foundation of (D=20m). The load-carrying capacity of (D=30m, L=30m, N=17) is found
increase by 77.5% when compared with the raft foundation (D=30m) for the settlement of 40mm. The
displacement of pile raft foundation (D=30m, L=30m, N=17) is 55% less when compared with the raft foundation
of (D=30m). The effect of several piles on the load settlement curves is significant for a smaller load of 100MN, the
effect of several piles is less for higher load above 100MN.

REFERENCES
1. M. J. Tomlinson and R. Boorman, “Foundation Design and Construction “(Fifth Edition, John Wily and Sons,
1986).
2. E. Franke, “Measurements beneath Piled Rafts”, Keynote lecture to the ENPC-Conference on Deep
Foundations, Paris, 1991), pp.1-28.
3. K. Yamashita, M. Kakurai and T. Yamada, “Investigation of a Piled Raft Foundation on Stiff Clay”,
(International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, India, 1994). pp.
543-546

020196-11
 4. M. F. Randolph, “Theoretical and Physical Modeling in Geotechnical Research and Practice”, (Jordanian Civil
Engineering Conference, Amman, Jordan, 2006).
5. J.B. Burland, “Piles as Settlement Reducers”, (Keynote Address, 18th Italian Congress on Soil Mechanics,
Pavia, Italy, 1995).
6. L. R. Naji, “Effect of Pile Caps Flexibility on the Distribution of Loads Among Pile Group”, (MSc thesis,
University of Technology, Baghdad, 2000).
7. W. Liu and Novak, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 28, 771-783(1991).
8. S.R. Gandhi, and D. K. Maharaj, “Analysis of piled raft foundation” (Sixth International Conference on Piling
and Deep Foundations, Bombay, India, 1996). pp.1.11.1-1.11.7
9. D.K. Maharaj, “Application of elastic and elasto-plastic analysis for piled raft foundation”, (PhD Thesis, IIT,
Madras, Chennai, India, 1996).
10. J. C. Small and H. H., Zhang, Rotterdam 4, 57-72 (2000).
11. H. G. Poulos, “methods of Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations” (report prepared on Behalf of Technical
Committee TC18 on piled foundations, 2001).
12. D. K. Maharaj, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. Electronic 2, 36-40(2003).
13. S. Nakai, K. Hiroyuki, I. Riei, M. Hideyuki, and N. Makoto, “Load Bearing Mechanism of Piled Raft
Foundation during Earthquake”, *proceeding third UJNR workshop on soil-structure, California, USA, 2004).
pp.29-30
14. O. Reul and M. F. Randolph, “Piled Rafts in Over consolidated Clay: Comparison of in Situ Measurements and
numerical Analysis”, Geotechnique 53, 301-315(2003).
15. C. Viggiani, Rivista Italiana de Geot 1, 47-75 (2001).
16. W.A. Prakoso and F.H. Kulhawy, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127, 17-24 (2000).
17. H. S. W. Chow, B. E, M. E, MBA., “analysis of pile Raft foundation with piles of different lengths and
diameter”, (Phd thesis, The university of Sydney, 2007).
18. H.G. Poulos and E.H. Davis, “Pile Foundation Analysis and Design” (Wiley, New York, 1980).
19. H.G. Poulos, Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger piles, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 5,103-
117 (1993).
20. H. K. Hussein, R. M. AL-Qaissy, H. K. Mudhafar, Eng. & tech. journal 31, 1299-1300 (2013).
21. O. A. Qasim, “Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete slabs with openings”, (MS.C. Thesis, AL-Nahrain
University College of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Baghdad, 2007).
22. O. A. Qasim, “Behavior of reinforced reactive powder concrete slabs with openings”, (PhD. Thesis, AL-
Nahrain University College of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Baghdad, 2013).
23. O. A. Qasim,“Behavior of Reinforced Reactive Powder Concrete Two-Way Slabs with Openings”, (IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2019), pp.022077.
24. O.C. Zienkiewicz and R.L. Taylor. “The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics.
Butterworth-Heinemann” (Oxford, 6th edition, 2005).

020196-12
View publication stats