International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Seismic response of non-connected piled raft

foundations

Maryam Saadatinezhad, Ali Lakirouhani & Sahand Jabini Asli

To cite this article: Maryam Saadatinezhad, Ali Lakirouhani & Sahand Jabini Asli (2019):
Seismic response of non-connected piled raft foundations, International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1565392

Published online: 11 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1565392

Seismic response of non-connected piled raft foundations

a
Maryam Saadatinezhad , Ali Lakirouhania and Sahand Jabini Asli b

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Graduate University
of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Connected piled raft foundations (CPRFs) have proven to support heavy structures under vertical load. Received 27 April 2018
However, when subjected to seismic loading, significant load transfer from the raft beneath to the pile Accepted 2 January 2019
head may cause huge shear stress and bending moments in the piles. Thus, this paper investigates the KEYWORDS
behaviour of non-connected piled raft foundations (NCPRFs) subjected to earthquake loading. For this Non-connected piled raft;
purpose, a three-dimensional finite element model was presented and validated against centrifuge test earthquake; finite element
results. This numerical model was then employed to perform a series of numerical analysis. According method; numerical analysis;
to the results, pile slenderness ratio and raft thickness can be considered as essential factors in piled-raft foundation
evaluating the dynamic response of NCPRF. The comparison of CPRF and NCPRF has also indicated
that using NCPR system leads to significantly less shear force and bending moments along the piles,
which results in less required reinforcement and more economical design in comparison with CPR
systems.

1. Introduction of connected and NCPRF under vertical static and dynamic

loading will be presented.
Piled raft foundations are normally used for tall buildings
As an early research on the design and examination of
when the normal and shear forces on the foundation are
PRFs, Poulos (1994) presented an approximate method in
very large. During an earthquake, the columns of the struc-
which the raft and piles were modelled as plate and interact-
tures would transmit seismic loads to the foundation, and
ing springs, respectively. The results were compared with
consequently, the underlaid piles and pile caps undergo
those from existing approaches to check for the accuracy.
damage due to the large shear and normal stresses. In order
Reul and Randolph (2004) performed a series of parametric
to reduce these damages, recently, non-connected piled raft
studies to analyse the PRFs under non-uniform vertical load-
foundations (NCPRFs) are often used where there is
ing and proposed an optimum design strategy based on
a distance between the raft and the piles, which will be filled
different pile configuration depending on the loaded area.
with a layer of compacted soil.
Cao, Wong, and Chang (2004) suggested using unconnected
The behaviour of foundations was previously investigated
piles as a reinforcement to the supporting soil. El Sawwaf
by various approaches ranging from experimental to numer-
(2010) carried out small-scale 1g tests to study the perfor-
ical methods (Horikoshi and Randolph 1998; Yamashita et al.
mance of connected and NCPRFs under eccentric load, simu-
2012; Das, Saha, and Haldar 2016; Hesami, Ahmadi, and
lating vertical load and overturning moment. Ghalesari et al.
Ghalesari 2016). However, for different types of foundations
(2015) developed an optimum design procedure for piled
including raft foundation, spread footings, bucket foundation
rafts under static vertical load. Saha, Dutta, and Haldar
and pile groups, various methods of analysis were utilized
(2015) examined the seismic response of soil–pile–raft–struc-
(Jeong, Lee, and Lee 2004; Asadi 2014; Barari et al. 2016).
ture system to consider soil–structure interaction effect and
Among the aforementioned foundations, piled raft founda-
shear in piles. Han et al. (2016) conducted a series of three-
tion (PRF) has been of great importance to practical engineers
dimensional (3D) finite element analyses on the rigid-pile
due to the complex interaction between the components and
composite foundation to evaluate the effectiveness of cushion
the difficulty in prediction of the behaviour. It would be much
on the absorption of seismic waves, taking into account the
more difficult to evaluate the response of piled rafts when
effect of superstructure. Kumar, Choudhury, and Katzenbach
those are subjected to seismic or earthquake loads. On the
(2016) used centrifuge test and numerical modelling to
other hand, NCPRFs show a relatively different response from
understand the effect of earthquake loading, applied as
the connected ones due to the effect of the interposed layer
pseudo-static and dynamic loading, on the displacement and
properties (Taghavi Ghalesari and Rasouli 2014). Putting all
bending moments in piled rafts. Rasouli et al. (2017) studied
these factors together resulted in a few research on the seis-
the response of NCPRFs to the vertical loads using a verified
mic response of NCPRFs. However, a brief review of the
finite element model. Zhang, Goh, and Liu (2017) performed
existing literature on the bearing and settlement behaviour
seismic centrifuge model tests and FE (Finite Element)

CONTACT Maryam Saadatinezhad m.saadati@znu.ac.ir Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.
analyses to investigate the behaviour of pile–raft–clay system
in soft kaolin clay subjected to earthquake load.
As mentioned above and literature review indicated, the
seismic responses of NCPRFs have been rarely studied and
there is still a high demand for a thorough investigation of
this issue. Hence, in this study, 3D finite element method
employing ABAQUS software have been used to examine
the effect of different parameters and geometrical factors
on the behaviour of NCPRF and the obtained results have
been compared to connected piled rafts (CPRF) responses.
The interactions between different components of piled raft
such as pile–soil interaction and raft–soil interaction were
taken into account by using an interface. The effect of soil
damping was also taken into account, and a combination of
finite and infinite elements were used to simulate near-field
and far-field conditions. The presented model has been
validated by making a comparison with the results obtained
from centrifuge tests conducted by Fioravante and Giretti
(2010). Finally, the most important factors affecting the
overall performance of the foundation under earthquake
loading were determined. Therefore, as satisfactory perfor-
mance of the non-connected piled rafts under seismic
loading was indicated, they can be utilized as an appro-
priate foundation system for large and heavy structures
subjected to earthquake loads.
2. Dynamic analysis
In a dynamic system, the governing equation is given by
 2   
du du
½M  þ ½C  þ ½K ðuÞ ¼ F ðtÞ (1)
dt2 dt
where uðtÞ is the displacement vector as a function of
time,½M,½C and ½K are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices, respectively, and F ðtÞ indicates the force vector. In
the case of Rayleigh damping, ½C is determined as follows:
½C ¼ α½M þ β½K  (2)
where α and β are Rayleigh damping coefficients.
2.1. Damping
As discussed, piled raft system involves a complicated inter-
action of different components that will affect the overall
response of the foundation. In terms of damping effect,
even though damping occurs in both the piled raft and the
soil, damping in the piled raft is considered negligible in
comparison with that in the soil. Hence, most of previous
researches on the soil–pile–raft interaction considered only
the damping in the soil (Bentley and Naggar 2000;
Maheshwari et al. 2004; Peiris et al. 2014). Material damping
in soil was also considered to be achieved mainly through
viscous damping. Thus, for conceptual and computation rea-
sons (Guin and Banerjee 1998), the damping matrix is
reduced to a single matrix material damping, ½Cm , which is
proportional to the stiffness matrix.
Although the damping ratio varies with the strain level, it
was assumed to be constant throughout the analysis.
Therefore,
½Cm  ¼ β½K  (3)
where ½Cm  is the material damping matrix, ½K  is the linear
stiffness matrix of the structure constructed with initial tan-
gential stiffnesses and β is the damping coefficient.
In this case, β ¼ 2
=ω0 , where ω0 is the predominant
frequency of loading and
is the material damping ratio,
which was assumed to be 5% in this study. The predomi-
nant frequency is obtained from a Fourier spectrum of the
input wave (El Centro earthquake record). Consequently,
the predominant frequency was ω0 ¼ 6:812 ðHzÞ
and β ¼ 0:002.
2.2. Non-reflection boundary
In dynamic analysis of soil–structure interaction, modelling
the boundary conditions on the sides of the soil should be
done in such a way that prevents the reflection of seismic
waves in the soil medium. A way to eliminate waves propa-
gating outward from the structure is to use infinite elements,
which works based on Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer’s (1969) the-
ory as absorbing boundaries.
For instance, the normal and shear components absorbed
by a dashpot in x-direction are as follows:
σ n ¼  c1 ρ Vp u_ x (4)
τ ¼  c2 ρ Vs u_ y (5)
where ρ is the density of the materials, Vp and Vs are compres-
sion and shear wave velocities, respectively, c1 and c2 are relaxa-
tion factors that have been introduced in order to improve the
effect of the absorption And u_ x and u_ y denote normal and shear
components of velocity at boundary, respectively.
In this regard, infinite element can be used as the
natural extension of the finite element to treat unbounded
domain. In the infinite element method, the near field is
modelled by finite elements while the far field is modelled
by infinite elements, where the effect of surrounding med-
ium on the position is negligible and the responses close to
the boundary are insignificant. Thus, it can be considered
that the behaviour of the medium in that range is linear
elastic because the infinite element can only represent lin-
ear behaviour.
Infinite elements form a quiet boundary for finite elements
through damping matrix. When the infinite elements are
used, there is no contribution to the eigenmodes of the
system. The static force at the start of the dynamic response
analysis on the boundary is sustained by the elements, and
consequently, the nodes of infinite element which belong to
the far-field will not move during the analysis. For infinite
element, in contrary with other elements, the orientation of
the element should be determined. The numbering of nodes
should be defined so that from one side the infinite elements

connect to finite elements and from the other side they
should be oriented to outside.
In this model, 3D, 8-node linear one-way infinite brick
elements have been used to model the infinite environment. It
should be considered that while choosing the type of element
for continuous medium, the surrounding area is effective and
the behaviour of elements in terms of linearity and non-
linearity should match up together (Su and Wang 2013;
Manual 2016; Van Nguyen, Fatahi, and Hokmabadi 2017).
3. Finite element analysis of PRF
The analysis of PRF was performed using non-linear dynamic
analysis 3D finite element model developed in ABAQUS.
A large-size mesh with approximately 70,000 elements was
generated and the dimension of elements was chosen based
on the foregoing discussion. Figure 1 provides a detailed
representation of the NCPRF showing the discretized finite-
element mesh. As seen, by modelling a cushion layer between
the raft and the piles (green layer in the figure), a non-
connected piled raft system has been simulated, in which
the piles are used to reinforce the underlying soil. For the
soil model, eight-nodded solid elements were used and the
total dimension of 80  80  20m was considered. To avoid
the problem of boundary condition effect in dynamic analy-
sis, a series of infinite elements were used in the surrounding
soil strata to remove wave reflection, as described in the
previous section. The bottom of the soil strata has been
considered fixed in all directions with a distance of twice
the length of the piles. Thus, the dimensions of the model
have been selected to be within the ranges suggested by
previous studies (Sadek and Isam 2004; Katzenbach,
Schmitt, and Turek 2005; Alnuaim, El Naggar, and El
Naggar 2016). It should be noted that for each case, the size
of soil medium was correspondingly changed such that the
distance from the pile tip to the restrained bottom of soil was
Figure 1. Finite element discretization used in the analysis.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3
kept at least equal to the length of pile. A conventional Mohr–
Coulomb constitutive model was used to model the cushion
and underlying sand. In spite of all the limitations arising
from using simple failure criterion (e.g. Mohr–Coulomb fail-
ure criterion), in such complicated dynamic analysis of soil–
pile interactions, using more advanced failure criterion will
add to the degree of complexity of the problem, which is not
promising in engineering applications. Furthermore, in most
cases, the available data for deriving the required parameters
in these models are not available or expensive to collect.
Therefore, it is common to use Mohr–Coulomb failure cri-
terion in this type of analysis, as used by Manoharan and
Dasgupta (1995); Oh et al. (2008); Baziar, Ghorbani, and
Katzenbach (2009); Kumar, Choudhury, and Katzenbach
(2016) and Kumar and Choudhury (2018). A square raft
with the width of 12 m and thickness of 1 m was modelled
as solid elements. The geometric parameters and other char-
acteristics of the pile–raft system such as pile length, diameter
and spacing, number of piles and cushion thickness were
considered in the analyses. Soil–pile interaction and soil–raft
interaction follow the Coulomb’s friction law where an inter-
action factor of μ ¼ 0:35 was selected, depending on the soil
material properties (Taghavi Ghalesari and Janalizadeh
Choobbasti 2018). This interface considers a thin layer
between the structure and the soil that accounts for the
tangential and normal contact. The normal contact behaviour
was modelled as hard contact behaviour, i.e. the pressure
between surfaces is transmitted based on their contact condi-
tions (Figure 2(a)). On the other hand, the behaviour of
tangential term follows the Coulomb’s friction model
(Figure 2(b)), i.e. before sliding the surfaces on each other,
they carry a certain amount of shear stress (critical shear
stress). In order to calculate the value of critical shear stress,
the following equation is used (Manual 2016):
τ critical ¼ μp (6)
4 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.

Figure 2. (a) Hard contact behaviour, (b) Tangential contact behaviour (Manual 2016).

Where μ and p are friction coefficient and contact pressure After conducting the mesh convergence study within the
between the surfaces, respectively. Depending upon the material ranges suggested from previous studies, a limit for the mesh
properties of contacting surfaces, μ has the value between 0 and size was determined, beyond which no finer mesh is required
1. According to Figure 2, by increasing the limiting shear stress, to obtain accurate dynamic analysis responses (see Figure 3).
the relative vertical displacement along the soil–pile interface ν denotes the smallest wave velocity of soil medium in
tends to increase, which is in agreement with the procedure (m/s) and fmax indicates maximum relevant frequency (Hz)
explained in API (American Petroleum Institute) guideline for that is present in the numerical model.
load transfer along the pile.
Δh
Table 1 lists the material properties used in the numerical Δt ¼ (8)
model. vm
In order to provide sufficient accuracy for numerical vm is the maximum wave velocity. In this study, the value of
model used in this study during dynamic analysis, the grid fmax was assumed equal to be 10, which has been introduced
spacing (Δh) and time step of analysis (Δt) have been limited as an appropriate value for such seismic problems
by the use of following equations utilized and recommended (Jeremiç et al. 2009).
by (Jeremiç et al. 2009): The analyses were performed in four stages. At first,
ν the gravity was applied to the whole model to generate
Δh  (7) the in-situ stresses. In the second stage, piles and cushion
10fmax
were placed to be simulated as wished-in-place without
causing initial stresses and then the vertical static load
Table 1. Characteristics of tested soils (Fioravante and Giretti 2010). (100 kPa) from the superstructure was applied directly on
Characteristics Cushion Soil Raft Pile the top surface of the raft. Finally, the dynamic load
Elastic modulus, E (MPa) 35 18.5 35,000 25,000 (using seismic waves from the El-Centro 1979 earthquake,
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.20 0.25 0.2 0.2
Unit weight, γ(kN/m3) 15.3 15 24 24
see Figure 4) was applied at the bottom of the model.
Cohesion, c (kN/m2) 0 0 - The cushion and subsoil properties were selected based on the
Critical friction angle, ϕ(°) 35 35 - characteristics of Ticino sand (TS) and Venice Lagoon sand
Dilation, ψ(°) 5 5 -

85
Max Horizontal displacement (mm)

80

75

70 Corresponding to
element size: 0.4 m
65

60

55

50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Mesh density (# elements/area)
Figure 3. Mesh convergence study.

Figure 4. Acceleration time-history of El Centro (1979) earthquake input motion.
(VLS), respectively, and their grain-size distribution is illustrated
in Figure 5. VLS has 15% finer grains than 0.075 mm, character-
ized by minimum dry density, γd;min ¼ 13:08 kN/m3; maximum
dry density, γd;max ¼ 16:50 kN/m3; mean particle size,
D50 ¼ 0:18mm; uniformity coefficient,Cu ¼ 3:33; and the angle
of shearing resistance at the critical state, ϕ0cv ¼ 35 .
The interposed granular layer (cushion) was modelled using
single-sized siliceous TS, characterized by γd;min ¼ 13:65 kN/
m3, γd;max ¼ 16:67 kN/m3, D50 ¼ 0:58mm,Cu ¼ 1:79 and
ϕ0cv = 35° (Fioravante and Giretti 2010).
The main characteristics of the tests presented in this paper
have been summarized in Table 2. By changing the parameters
mentioned in the table, the effect of each parameter was separately
considered in the following section.
Figure 5. Grain-size distribution of the soils (Fioravante and Giretti 2010).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5
4. Validation of the numerical model
To validate the proposed analysis, a 3D FE analysis was
performed on the test data obtained from 65 g centrifuge
test conducted by Fioravante and Giretti (2010). In order to
compare the results, a simple example from centrifuge tests
including a NCPRF with 3  3 piles having the diameter of
Dp ¼ 8mm, length of Lp ¼ 292mm, cushion thickness of
tc ¼ 15:4mm and raft thickness of tr ¼ 25mm was modelled
using the scale factors of centrifuge test. The results obtained
from 3D FE analysis of NCPRFs under vertical static loads
were compared with those from centrifuge test in terms of
load–settlement relationship in Figure 6. As shown in
Figure 6, the results are in reasonable agreement. Although
the behaviour of piled raft was studied by non-linear finite
6 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.

Table 2. Different cases considered in this study. stratum depends on the soil layering and stiffness of layers,
Pile pile dimensions and the location of piles. However,
length Pile dia- Pile spa- Number Cushion
Case (m) meter (m) cing (m) of piles thickness (m)
NCPRFs involve more complicated mechanism due to the
NCPRF 1 10 0.5 5 4 1.0
interaction effects and the influence of the interposed (cush-
NCPRF 2 10 0.5 6 4 1.0 ion) layer (Fioravante and Giretti 2010; Rasouli et al. 2017).
NCPRF 3 10 0.5 4 9 1.0 Hence, the displacement and acceleration time histories of
NCPRF 4 10 0.5 5 9 1.0
NCPRF 5 10 0.5 4 16 1.0
NCPRF with various pile length are demonstrated in Figure 7.
NCPRF 6 10 0.5 5 16 1.0 According to this figure, the overall pattern of horizontal
NCPRF 7 10 1.0 4 9 1.0 displacement is the same for various lengths from 5 to 15 m
NCPRF 8 10 0.5 4 9 1.5
NCPRF 9 10 0.5 4 9 2.0
but the value of maximum displacement in certain time
NCPRF 10 5 0.5 4 9 1.0 changes up to 30%. It can be observed that maximum hor-
NCPRF 11 15 0.5 4 9 1.0 izontal displacement at the top of the raft occurs at the time
CPRF 1 10 0.5 4 9 1.0
of about t = 6 s. This value for piled rafts with longer piles
shifted to the right side and has lower peak values. It shows
the effectiveness of using longer piles beneath the cushion in
element analysis, the observed linear load–displacement NCPRFs. In Figure 6(b), on the other hand, there are negative
response of piled raft from centrifuge test was predictable and positive peak values of acceleration, in which the max-
when modelling the concrete raft and piles with steel ele- imum amplification of responses corresponds to the cases
ments in centrifuge tests. However, the displacement with shorter piles. For example, the maximum acceleration
responses are in an acceptable range within the applied load. induced in pile with the length of 5 m is more than 5 g,
whereas this value for the piled raft with the pile length of
5. Discussion of the results 15 m will barely reach 1 g.
The effect of pile spacing (solid versus dashed lines) on the
In this section, the results of 3D FE analyses for parameters dynamic response of piled raft is negligible, even though
including pile length, diameter, spacing and number of piles a small increase in the horizontal acceleration was observed
and cushion thickness are presented. For this purpose, the with increasing pile spacing. In addition, in spite of using
effects of these parameters on the horizontal and vertical different number of piles (dashed and dotted lines), no signifi-
displacement as well as horizontal acceleration at the top of cant change in the response of piled raft has been observed.
PRF, horizontal stress, shear forces and bending moments Maximum vertical displacement at the top of the founda-
along the piles have been studied. tion was compared for a certain case of piled raft with
different pile lengths (NCPRF 3, 10 and 11) in Figure 8. As
shown, the vertical displacement caused by both vertical static
5.1. Pile length and spacing load and vertical component of dynamic load significantly
The effect of pile length on the load transfer mechanism of decreases by 70%. This also contributes to the aforemen-
pile groups is well established. Based on the available litera- tioned discussion on the behaviour of NCPRFs under vertical
ture (Poulos and Davis 1980; Fleming et al. 2008; Modarresi static loading (Rasouli et al. 2017) since there are stages of
et al. 2016), pile load transfer through soft ground to stiff applying static and dynamic loads. The significant decrease of

Figure 6. Comparison of the results from 3D FE and centrifuge tests.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

6
Horizontal acceleration (g)

4
(b)

2 Lp=5m; S/D=4
Lp=10m; S/D=4
0
Lp=15m; S/D=4
-2 Lp=10m; S/D=5

-4
np=9
-6
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
Figure 7. (a) Displacement and (b) acceleration time histories obtained at the top of the PRF with different pile lengths (in all cases, raft dimensions
areBr ¼ 12 m; tr ¼ 1 m; the cushion thickness is tc ¼ 1 m and the pile diameter is Dp ¼ 0:5m)np=Number of piles, Lp=Length of pile.

Figure 8. The variation of maximum vertical displacement of piled raft with pile length.

vertical displacement indicates the prominence of pile length
in vertical load carrying capacity of piled rafts.
The variation of horizontal (shear) stress along the pile
length for piled rafts with different pile lengths is depicted
in Figure 9. The depth of the pile is normalized as LzS ,
where zis the depth from the pile head and LS is the depth
of soil from the underneath of the cushion. As illustrated,
there is a small stress near the pile head due to the static
and dynamic effect of interposed layer (cushion) and the
stress at the pile tip is approximately zero. For a piled raft
with shorter piles, there is no significant change in the
pattern and value of the horizontal stress along the piles,
while for longer piles, larger values of stresses along with
various patterns were observed. The maximum stress
changes from 45 to 61 kPa as the length of piles increases
from 5 to 15 m. Moreover, this figure demonstrates that
the horizontal stress imposed on the pile increases with
depth and attains a maximum value at a depth equivalent
8 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.

Corner pile Corner pile Corner pile

Edge pile Edge pile Edge pile
Center pile Center pile Center pile
Center-Edge pile Center-Edge pile Center-Edge pile

Lp=5 m Lp=10 m Lp=15 m

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2
Normalized depth of pile, z/Ls

0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8 0.8

1.0 1.0 1.0

-100 -50 0 -100 -50 0 -100 -50 0
Stress (kPa) Stress (kPa) Stress (kPa)
Figure 9. Profiles of horizontal (shear) stress (kPa) along the pile length of Lp ¼ 5m, Lp ¼ 10m, and Lp ¼ 15m under seismic loading.

Corner pile Corner pile Corner pile

Center-edge pile Center-edge pile Center-edge pile
Center pile Center pile Center pile

Lp=5 m Lp=10 m Lp=15 m

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2
Normalized depth of pile, z/Ls

0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8 0.8

1.0 1.0 1.0

0 5 10 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Bending moment (kN.m) Bending moment (kN.m) Bending moment (kN.m)

Figure 10. Profiles of bending moment (kN.m) along the pile length of Lp ¼ 5m, Lp ¼ 10m and Lp ¼ 15m under seismic loading.

Figure 11. (a) Displacement time history and (b) maximum vertical displacement obtained at the top of the PRF with different pile diameters and cushion thickness
(NCPRF 3, 7, 8 and 9).
to 40%, 70% and 80% of the pile length for Lp ¼ 5, 10 and
15 m, respectively, and then the stress decreases as the
depth increased. The increase from the pile head to the
maximum value changes from 20% to 400%, with longer
piles having higher increase. The increase and the amount
of maximum value are associated
with increasing the
slenderness ratio of piles Lp =Dp and further stress gen-
erated in piles due to horizontal displacement.
Figure 10 shows the profiles of bending moment along
the pile length due to earthquake loading. The depth of the
pile is normalized as LzS , where zis the depth from the pile
head and LS is the depth of soil from the underneath of the
cushion. As expected, the bending moments at the pile head
and pile tip are approximately equal to zero and the max-
imum value is observed in the middle. The maximum value
increases with increasing the pile length, especially when the
pile length increases from 5 to 10 m (4 times increase). For
piles longer than 10 m, the increase in bending moments
due to increasing the pile length to 15 m is not significant
(around 10% increase).
Furthermore, the location of piles in the pile group under
the interposed layer of NCPRF has an influence on the
generated bending moments.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9
5.2. Pile diameter
The effect of pile diameter on the overall response of NCPRF
was investigated by considering a case with 9 piles of 10 m
length and spacing of S/D = 4 (NCPRF 3, 7, 8 and 9).
Figure 11 demonstrates the displacement time history and
maximum vertical displacement obtained at the top of piled
rafts with different pile diameters. As it is obvious, although
the same pattern is observed in the time history, using higher
pile diameters leads to the reduction of peak values up to 10–
40%. As mentioned earlier, increasing the diameter of a pile
of constant length results in reducing the slenderness ratio of
the pile and high stresses and displacements. However, the
effect of pile diameter on the vertical displacement of the
foundation (first two bars in Figure 11(b)) is negligible,
which is in agreement with the results from Taghavi
Ghalesari and Janalizadeh Choobbasti (2018).
Figure 12 illustrates a side-by-side comparison of horizon-
tal stress change along the pile length with the diameter of 0.5
and 1 m. As indicated, the shear force varies by much along
the pile length with a minimum near the middle. This might
be due to a small rotation of piles around the middle point
due to horizontal loads since the indicated curves pertain to
the maximum values. Another interesting observation is
10 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.

Figure 12. Profiles of shear force along the pile length of Dp ¼ 0:5m and Dp ¼ 1m under seismic loading.

Figure 13. Profiles of bending moment along the pile length of Dp ¼ 0:5m and Dp ¼ 1m under seismic loading.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 11

increasing the maximum shear forces by more than two times
with increasing the pile diameter, which is a different case
from connected piled rafts (Ghorbani et al. 2014; Kumar,
Choudhury, and Katzenbach 2016). A comparatively similar
observation can be found for the effect of pile diameter on the
bending moment along the piles, as indicated in Figure 13.
Furthermore, the maximum shear force and bending
moment are slightly higher in the outer piles (corner and edge
piles) than in the inner pile due to the positive interaction with
all other piles in the group. This observation can be described by
the ‘shadowing effect’, which is used to explain the difference in
shear force or bending moment response between the outer and
inner piles in a pile group subjected to a static or dynamic
loading applied near the pile head (Ilyas et al. 2004; Rollins,
Lane, and Gerber 2005; Zhang, Goh, and Yi 2017).
5.3. Cushion thickness
As an important factor in the design of NCPRFs, material
properties of cushion and its thickness can be considered. The
variation of maximum vertical displacement at the top of
piled raft with the cushion thickness was previously shown
in Figure 11(b). As illustrated, using thicker cushions results
in lower vertical displacement due to higher stiffness of the
foundation. This is in agreement with the results obtained by
Taghavi Ghalesari and Rasouli (2014).
On the other hand, the variations of the horizontal (shear)
stress along the piles for piled rafts with cushion thickness of
tc ¼ 1, 1.5 and 2 m are shown in Figure 14. There is a straight
relationship between the cushion thickness and its stiffness,
i.e. cushion with the thickness of tc ¼ 1m is more flexible
than that with tc ¼ 2m. Hence, the shear stresses in piles with
flexible cushion/raft are relatively higher than those in piles
with rigid ones. This is due to the fact that the load transfer
mechanism and rigid/flexible body motions cause higher total
stiffness of the whole structure against lateral motions in rigid
cushion/raft and thus the internal stresses of the structure
decrease.
5.4. Comparison with connected PRF
In this section, the response of NCPRFs is compared with the
connected ones in terms of displacements as well as shear
force and bending moment along the pile length. Figure 15
illustrates the time history of horizontal displacement and
maximum vertical displacement at the top of connected and
non-connected PRFs. As shown, connected piled rafts are
comparatively less susceptible to horizontal displacement
due to seismic loading. This can be due to the additional
stiffness of piles caused by the effect of superstructure rigidity
on the pile–raft connection. This is more prominent for PRF
with higher pile diameter, where the stiffness of piles
increases the overall stiffness of the foundation. Figure 15(b)
compares the maximum vertical displacement at the top of
connected PRFs with non-connected ones, in which again the
effect of pile–raft connection on the difference between two
PRFs is more considerable for piled rafts with higher pile
diameters.

Corner pile Corner pile Corner pile

Edge pile Edge pile Edge pile
Center pile Center pile Center pile
Center-Edge pile Center-Edge pile Center-Edge pile

tc=1 m tc=1.5 m tc=2 m

0 0 0

2 2 2
Depth from pile head (m)

4 4 4

6 6 6

8 8 8

10 10 10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Stress (kPa) Stress (kPa) Stress (kPa)
Figure 14. Profiles of horizontal (shear) stress along the pile length for piled raft with cushion thickness of (a) tc ¼ 1m, (b) tc ¼ 1:5m and (c) tc ¼ 2m under seismic
loading.
12 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.
Figure 15. A comparison of (a) displacement time history and (b) maximum vertical displacement obtained at the top of the non-connected and connected PRF with
different pile diameters (NCPRF 3, NCPRF 7, CPRF 1 and CPRF 2).
On the other hand, the effect of pile–raft connectivity on
the response of PRF is more significant in terms of shear force
and bending moment along the piles, as indicated in
Figures 16 and 17, respectively. Even though there was
a small reduction in displacements by using connected
PRFs, they have a significant negative impact on the struc-
tural performance of the foundation. As indicated, for both
centre piles and edge piles, the shear force in CPRF is higher
than in NCPRF, increasing up to 3 times for CPRF with
Dp ¼ 1m. Another interesting observation in Figure 16 is
that for centre pile, the shear force has small change along
the pile, while in edge pile, due to the influence of pile
configuration on the load transfer mechanism, the shear
force near the pile head is maximum and this tends to
decrease as you move towards the pile tip. This can lead to
excessively conservative structural design of piles (e.g. shear
reinforcement), which is based on the maximum shear force.
As demonstrated in Figure 17, the bending moment
caused in the piles greatly depend on the pile diameter and
pile–raft connection. While the maximum bending moment
due to seismic loading in connected pile with Dp ¼ 0:5m is
not much higher than that in non-connected ones, increasing
the diameter of pile from Dp ¼ 0:5 to Dp ¼ 1m leads to
increasing the resulting bending moment by 5 times, particu-
larly for centre piles. Therefore, using non-connected piles in
NCPRF not only decreases the amount of shear force in piles
under earthquake load, but also leads to the humongous
reduction of bending moment as an important factor in the
design of reinforcement, foundation dimensions and thick-
ness, pile length and diameter, pile spacing and number of
piles for PRF.
6. Conclusions
This study presents the results of a series of 3D finite element
analyses on NCPRFs and connected piled rafts subjected to
earthquake loading. The use of infinite elements at the bound-
aries to eliminate the seismic wave reflection and special inter-
face elements to take the pile–soil and raft–soil interaction into
consideration are some of the advantages of the proposed
model. This model was validated using a comparison with
the results of a centrifuge test. The results were compared in
terms of horizontal and vertical displacements as well as stress,
shear force and bending moment along the pile length. From
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 13

Figure 16. Profiles of shear force along the length of edge/centre pile for non-connected(NC) and connected(Cnt) PRF.

Figure 17. Profiles of bending moment along the length of edge/centre pile for non-connected and connected PRF.
14 M. SAADATINEZHAD ET AL.
the results, it was concluded that the pile length and diameter
(specified as slenderness ratio) significantly influence the seis-
mic response of NCPRFs. When compared to the connected
piled rafts, even though NCPRF shows higher horizontal dis-
placement, the uniform and considerably small shear force and
bending moment developed in the piles results in a more
economical option in the structural design of the foundation.
Moreover, the influence of higher horizontal displacement of
NCPRF can be minimized by using an appropriate material as
the interposed layer with proper frictional and stiffness proper-
ties. Therefore, NCPRFs can be considered as a good alterna-
tive to connected ones in cases where the effect of seismic loads
is prominent in order to ensure the stability of the structure
and the sufficient bearing capacity.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the University of Zanjan.
ORCID
Maryam Saadatinezhad http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5844-6230
Sahand Jabini Asli http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1286-735X
References
Alnuaim, A. M., M. H. El Naggar, and H. El Naggar. 2016. “Numerical
Investigation of the Performance of Micropiled Rafts in Sand.”
Computers and Geotechnics 77: 91–105. doi:10.1016/j.
compgeo.2016.04.002.
Asadi, M. 2014. “Introducing an Optimized Intelligent Model for
Evaluation of Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations over
Granular Soil.” Paper presented at the Information Technology in
Geo-Engineering: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
(ICITG) Durham, UK.
Barari, A., L. B. Ibsen, A. Taghavi Ghalesari, and K. A. Larsen. 2016.
“Embedment Effects on Vertical Bearing Capacity of Offshore Bucket
Foundations on Cohesionless Soil.” International Journal of
Geomechanics 17 (4): 04016110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.
0000782.
Baziar, M. H., A. Ghorbani, and R. Katzenbach. 2009. “Small-Scale
Model Test and Three-Dimensional Analysis of Pile-Raft
Foundation on Medium-Dense Sand.” International Journal of Civil
Engineering 7 (3): 170–175.
Bentley, K. J., and M. H. E. Naggar. 2000. “Numerical Analysis of
Kinematic Response of Single Piles.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal
37 (6): 1368–1382. doi:10.1139/t00-066.
Cao, X. D., I. H. Wong, and M.-F. Chang. 2004. “Behavior of Model
Rafts Resting on Pile-Reinforced Sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (2): 129–138. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2004)130:2(129).
Das, B., R. Saha, and S. Haldar. 2016. “Effect of In-Situ Variability of Soil
on Seismic Design of Piled Raft Supported Structure Incorporating
Dynamic Soil-Structure-Interaction.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 84: 251–268. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.02.015.
El Sawwaf, M. 2010. “Experimental Study of Eccentrically Loaded Raft
with Connected and Unconnected Short Piles.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (10):
1394–1402. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000341.
Fioravante, V., and D. Giretti. 2010. “Contact versus Noncontact Piled
Raft Foundations.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47 (11):
1271–1287. doi:10.1139/T10-021.
Fleming, K., A. Weltman, M. Randolph, and K. Elson. 2008. Piling
Engineering. New Yor: Taylor and Francis.
Ghalesari, A. T., A. Barari, P. F. Amini, and L. B. Ibsen. 2015.
“Development of Optimum Design from Static Response of
Pile-Raft Interaction.” Journal of Marine Science and Technology 20
(2): 331–343. doi:10.1007/s00773-014-0286-x.
Ghorbani, A., H. Hasanzadehshooiili, E. Ghamari, and J. Medzvieckas.
2014. “Comprehensive Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis,
Parametric Study and Sensitivity Analysis on the Seismic Performance
of Soil–Micropile-Superstructure Interaction.” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 58: 21–36. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.12.001.
Guin, J., and P. Banerjee. 1998. “Coupled Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction
Analysis under Seismic Excitation.” Journal of Structural Engineering
124 (4): 434–444. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:4(434).
Han, X., Y. Li, J. Ji, J. Ying, W. Li, and B. Dai. 2016. “Numerical
Simulation on the Seismic Absorption Effect of the Cushion in
Rigid-Pile Composite Foundation.” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration 15 (2): 369–378. doi:10.1007/s11803-016-0329-x.
Hesami, S., S. Ahmadi, and A. T. Ghalesari. 2016. “Numerical Modeling
of Train-Induced Vibration of Nearby Multi-Story Building: A Case
Study.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20 (5): 1701–1713.
doi:10.1007/s12205-015-0264-9.
Horikoshi, K., and M. Randolph. 1998. “A Contribution to Optimum
Design of Piled Rafts.” Géotechnique 48 (3): 301–317. doi:10.1680/
geot.1998.48.3.301.
Ilyas, T., C. Leung, Y. Chow, and S. Budi. 2004. “Centrifuge Model Study
of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (3): 274–283. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2004)130:3(274).
Jeong, S., J. Lee, and C. J. Lee. 2004. “Slip Effect at the Pile–Soil Interface
on Dragload.” Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2): 115–126.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2004.01.009.
Jeremiç, B., G. Jie, M. Preisig, and N. Tafazzoli. 2009. “Time Domain
Simulation of Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction in Non-Uniform
Soils.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 38 (5):
699–718. doi:10.1002/eqe.896.
Katzenbach, R., A. Schmitt, and J. Turek. 2005. “Assessing Settlement of
High-Rise Structures by 3D Simulations.” Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering 20 (3): 221–229. doi:10.1111/mice.2005.20.
issue-3.
Kumar, A., and D. Choudhury. 2018. “Development of New Prediction
Model for Capacity of Combined Pile-Raft Foundations.” Computers
and Geotechnics 97: 62–68. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.12.008.
Kumar, A., D. Choudhury, and R. Katzenbach. 2016. “Effect of
Earthquake on Combined Pile–Raft Foundation.” International
Journal of Geomechanics 16 (5): 04016013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000637.
Lysmer, J., and R. L. Kuhlemeyer. 1969. “Finite Dynamic Model for
Infinite Media.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 95
(4): 859–878.
Maheshwari, B. K., K. Z. Truman, M. H. E. Naggar, and P. L. Gould.
2004. “Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Analysis for Seismic Soil-Pile-
Structure Interaction.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24
(4): 343–356. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.01.001.
Manoharan, N., and S. P. Dasgupta. 1995. “Bearing Capacity of Surface
Footings by Finite Elements.” Computers & Structures 54 (4):
563–586. doi:10.1016/0045-7949(94)00381-C.
Manual, A. U. S. 2016. “ABAQUS 2016 HTML Documentation.”
Dassault Systèmes.
Modarresi, M., H. Rasouli, A. Taghavi Ghalesari, and M. H. Baziar. 2016.
“Experimental and Numerical Study of Pile-to-Pile Interaction Factor
in Sandy Soil.” Procedia Engineering 161: 1030–1036. doi:10.1016/j.
proeng.2016.08.844.
Oh, E., M. Huang, C. Surarak, R. Adamec, and A. Balasurbamaniam.
2008. “Finite Element Modelling for Piled Raft Foundation in Sand.”

Paper presented at the Eleventh East Asia-Pacific Conference on
Structural Engineering & Construction (EASEC-11)“Building
a Sustainable Environment”, Taipei, Taiwan.
Peiris, T., D. Thambiratnam, N. Perera, and C. Gallage. 2014. “Soil–Pile
Interaction of Pile Embedded in Deep-Layered Marine Sediment
under Seismic Excitation.” Structural Engineering International 24
(4): 521–531. doi:10.2749/101686614X13854694314720.
Poulos, H. G. 1994. “An Approximate Numerical Analysis of Pile-Raft
Interaction.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 18 (2): 73–92. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1096-9853.
Poulos, H. G., and E. H. Davis. 1980. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. New York: Wiley
Rasouli, H., A. T. Ghalesari, M. Modarresi, and A. Hasanzadeh. 2017.
“Numerical Study of Non-Contact Piled Raft Interaction under Static
Loads.” In Civil Engineering and Urban Planning, 750–762. World
Scientific, Xi'an, China.
Reul, O., and M. F. Randolph. 2004. “Design Strategies for Piled Rafts
Subjected to Nonuniform Vertical Loading.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2004)130:1(1).
Rollins, K. M., J. D. Lane, and T. M. Gerber. 2005. “Measured and
Computed Lateral Response of a Pile Group in Sand.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131 (1): 103–114.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:1(103).
Sadek, M., and S. Isam. 2004. “Three-Dimensional Finite Element
Analysis of the Seismic Behavior of Inclined Micropiles.” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (6): 473–485. doi:10.1016/
j.soildyn.2004.02.002.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 15
Saha, R., S. C. Dutta, and S. Haldar. 2015. “Seismic Response of Soil-Pile
Raft-Structure System.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
21 (2): 144–164. doi:10.3846/13923730.2013.802716.
Su, J., and Y. Wang. 2013. “Equivalent Dynamic Infinite Element for
Soil-Structure Interaction.” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 63
(Supplement C): 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.finel.2012.08.006.
Taghavi Ghalesari, A., and H. Rasouli. 2014. Effect of Gravel Layer on
the Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations. Paper presented at the
Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering, Geo-
Shanghai 2014, Shanghai, China
Taghavi Ghalesari, A., and A. Janalizadeh Choobbasti. 2018. “Numerical
Analysis of Settlement and Bearing Behaviour of Piled Raft in Babol
Clay.” European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 22
(8): 978–1003. doi:10.1080/19648189.2016.1229230.
Van Nguyen, Q., B. Fatahi, and A. S. Hokmabadi. 2017. “Influence of
Size and Load-Bearing Mechanism of Piles on Seismic Performance of
Buildings considering Soil–Pile–Structure Interaction.” International
Journal of Geomechanics 17 (7): 04017007. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000869.
Yamashita, K., J. Hamada, S. Onimaru, and M. Higashino. 2012. “Seismic
Behavior of Piled Raft with Ground Improvement Supporting a
Base-Isolated Building on Soft Ground in Tokyo.” Soils and
Foundations 52 (5): 1000–1015. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.017.
Zhang, L., S. H. Goh, and H. Liu. 2017. “Seismic Response of Pile-Raft-
Clay System Subjected to a Long-Duration Earthquake: Centrifuge
Test and Finite Element Analysis.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 92: 488–502. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.10.018.
Zhang, L., S. H. Goh, and J. Yi. 2017. “A Centrifuge Study of the Seismic
Response of Pile-Raft Systems Embedded in Soft Clay.” Géotechnique
67 (6): 479–490. doi:10.1680/jgeot.15.P.099.