The International Journal of Geomechanics

Volume 2, Number l, 2915 (2002)

Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under

Lateral and Vertical Loading
J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

Received June 2.2001

B.Sc. (Eng), Ph.D., F.I.E.Aust., MASCE

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

8.E., M.8.. Ph.D.

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

ABSTRACT, This article presents a new method of analysis of piled rafi foundations in contact with
the soil surface. The soil is divided into multiple horiTontal layers depending on the accuracy of solution
required and each layer may have dffirent material properties. The raft is modeled as a thin plate and
the piles as elastic beams. Finite layer theory is employed to analyze the layered soil while finite element
theory is used to analyze the raft and piles. The piled raft can be subjected to both loads and moments in
any direction. Comparisons show that the results from the present method agree closely with those from
the finite element method. A parametric study for piled raft foundations subjected to either vertical or
horizontal loading is also presented.

I. Introduction
The behavior ofpile groups under vertical and horizontal loading has received much attention
in the past. In early methods developed by Butterfield and Banerjee [1], Davis and Poulos [3],
and Kuwabara [5] for the analysis ofpiled raft foundations subjected to vertical loadings, the raft
was considered to be either perfectly flexible or completely rigid. More recently, a variational
approach has been developed by Shen et al. [8] for pile groups with a rigid cap. However, these
methods cannot deal with a pile group connected at the heads by a flexible raft of any stiffness.

The method developed by Hain and Lee [4] considered the interactions of the piles, raft and
soil, but the rotations and horizontal movements of a pile head induced by a vertical load applied
to an adjacent pile or the soil surface were ignored. Clancy and Randolph [2] and Poulos [6]
developed approximate methods for analysis of piled raft foundations subjected to vertical loading
or moments rather than horizontal loads. Based on finite layer theory, Ta and Small [9] developed
a method for analysis of a piled raft (with the raft on or off the ground). As for Hain and Lee's
method, the solutions were only for vertical loads. Zhang and Small I l] subsequently developed
a method for analysis ofpiled raft foundations subjected to both vertical and horizontal loadings.
In this method, the interactions between raft and piles, raft and soil, piles and piles, piles and

a2002 CRC Press LLC

rssN t 532-3641
30 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

soil, and soil and soil are fully considered. However, the method can only deal with piled raft
foundations clear of the ground.

In this article, an extension of the method presented by Zhangand Small I l] has been devel-
oped, where the raft can be in contact with the ground surface. The approach uses a combination
of the finite layer method for modeling the soil and the finite element method for simulating the
raft and piles. The piled raft foundations can be subjected to horizontal and vertical loads as
well as moments, and the movements of the piled raft in three directions (x , y , z) and rotations in
two directions (r, y) may be computed by the present program APRAF (Analysis of Piled RAft
Foundations). Comparisons of the present solutions with those of the finite element method have
been made and the effects of parameters (adopted for the soil and raft) on the behavior of piled
rafts have been examined.

II. Method of analysis

As shown in Figure 1, the problem of the piled raft foundation can be solved by assuming
that the forces between the piles and layered soil can be treated as a series ofring loads applied to
"nodes" along the pile shaft. These loads are both horizontal and vertical, and if enough are used,
they well approximate the continuous forces that act along the pile shaft. The contact stresses that
act between the raft and the soil can be considered to be made up ofuniform rectangular blocks of
pressure that approximate the actual stress distribution. These can be considered uniform vertical
blocks ofpressure or uniform shear stresses.
The displacement of the layered soil can then easily be computed, as the solution for a layered
soil subjected to ring loads at the layer interfaces may be obtained from finite layer theory [7].
The same theory may be used to determine the deflection of the soil due to vertical and horizontaL
loads applied over rectangular regions on the soil surface.

Firstly, the response of the piles and soil (with no raft) is computed by applying unit surface
loads to the rectangular regions on the ground surface or unit ring loads to the soil along the pile
shaft, or a unit uniform circular load at the base of the pile. The deflections so computed can be
used to form the influence matrix for the soil. The columns of the influence matrix are made up
of the deflections at the centers of other loaded areas or at the positions of the ring loads due to
application of one of the unit loads. Therefore, we can write

6: --i j:l
Iii Pi (l)

where m is the total number of unit loads which will be three times the number of ring load or
surface pressure blocks because there are three force directions x, y, z at each location d! are the
displacements at the unit load locations i,Iii are the influence factors for the displacement at
location i due to a load at location j, and Pi are the loads at location 7. This can be written in
matrix form for all displacements

d, - lsPs (2)

The influence matrix can then be inverted to obtain the stiffness matrix for the soil continuum
e.9.,

Krd, - Pt (3)

where K, _ [1r]-l
 Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 31

P, External forces

P^
I

l_
tr

Interface forces between Interface forces between

the raft and piles the raft and the soil

Interface forces transferred from raft to pile heads and soil surface

'rtrffffufrfl

Soil
'ttuufltllratrtf

+
=>
rn
rrttttflrrtul

-->

+
Ring
loads
f
acting on
+ --> pile shaft

Pile
+ +

--+>
Circular
loads acting
on pile base
FIGURE I A raft and a pile group subjected to external forces and interface forces in all directions (the y direction is
not shown).

For the piles, a stiffness relationship may be written

Ko6o (4)

where Ko is the stiffness matrix for all the piles in the group, p are the displacements at the >F

nodes ofpiles in the group, Po is the load vector for the piles due to shaft loads, and Q is the load
vector for the applied load at the pile heads. Three noded linear bending elements were used to
model the piles for the work presented in this article.

The stiffness matrix of the soil and the stiffness matrix of the piles may now be added, but
because the piles have 5 degrees of freedom at each node (3 displacements and 2 rotations) the
stiffness matrix of the soil needs to be added to the stiffness matrix of the piles allowing for the
32 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

difference in the numbers of degrees of freedom. By using the fact that the displacements at the
pile shaft and base are equal to the displacement ofthe soil, and the forces are equal and opposite,
i.e.,,ro: *s &rd Pp: -Pr. Thisgivesthefinalstiffnessrelationshipforthepile-soilcontinuum
IK'*Kp]6,:R (5)

where R is the load vector consisting ofloads at the pile heads Q or any loads not along the pile
shaft S such as surface loads.

Therefore, deflections of the soil or of the piles can be obtained for loads applied to the pile
heads from the above equation. This method is not as efficient computationally as computing
the interaction between two piles only (i. e., the interaction method). However it is much more
accurate, especially for piles at close spacing because all the piles are considered at once. If the
deflection of a pile caused by loading another is carried out using interaction factors (i. e., between
two piles only), then the stiffening effect of all the other piles in the group is neglected, and this
leads to error.

Because the deflection of the piles can be computed when one is loaded at the head, or when
the ground surface is loaded, this can be used to determine the behavior of the raft. The rectangular
blocks of uniform pressure that represent the contact pressures are assumed to correspond to
each rectangular finite element in the raft. The pressure is applied to the ground surface (either
horizontally or vertically) if no pile is present and is applied to a pile head if a pile is present
beneath an element of the raft. For a pile, a moment also needs to be applied to the pile head.

By applying unit pressures to the ground or unit pressures and moments to the pile heads, an
influence matrix for the soil-piles may be obtained. The influence matrix consists of columns that
contain the deflections at the centers of each element in the raft due to a unit pressure or moment
being applied to the ground surface or pile head.
By applying the same unit loads to the raft, the influence matrix for the raft may be obtained.
In order to apply loads to the raft, it must be restrained in some way, and this is done by "pinning"
one node against rotation and translation. By considering equilibrium of applied forces and
moments acting on the piles and raft, and compatibility of displacements of the soil and raft (and
of displacement and rotation of the pile head and raft) enough equations may be assembled to
obtain the solution under general loading. These equations are given below:

(U,l + [I,p]){P,pl- lalD, -lblDy -{clD,-ld}O, - {e}Oy - lfpr: {6,0} (6)

la'11P,01 : P* (7)
lb'l{P,pl: Py (8)
lc'11P,01 : P, (9)
{d'l{P,pl : M" (10)
{e'11P,01 : M, (11)
lf'l{P,ol: M, (12)

where

U'l : influence matrix of the pinned raft

l"I'p): influence matrix of the pile enhanced soil continuum
{P"p} : interface load vector between the raft and the pile-enhanced soil
6ro : displacements at the centers of the raft elements due to applied loads on the pinned
raft
 Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 33

P" , Py, P, are the total external loads applied to the raft in the x, y and z dtections,
respectively.
Mr, Mr, M, are the total external moments applied to the raft about the x, y and z axes,
respectively.
lal to lf]1 and {a'l to [f'l and are auxiliary vectors
Dr, Dy, Dr, 0r, 0, and 0, are rigid body translations and rotations about a pinned point
of the raft.

It may be noted that the unknown rotations and translations of the "pinned" raft also form
unknowns in the solution [Equation (6)].

III. Comparisons with finite element method

In order to determine the accuracy of the finite layer method described above, a 9-pile raft with
two pile spacing ratios has been analyzedby using the present method and the (three-dimensional)
finite element method. A square pile was modeled in the finite element method and a circular pile
was assumed in the present method. The cross-sectional areas of the square and circular piles
were assumed equal, and this makes them equivalent for vertical loading, but because the second
moment of area is larger for the square pile, the bending stiffness is 4.77o higher. The "diameter"
(D) of a pile referred to in the following comparisons is the edge length of the cross-section of
the square pile, whereas the equivalent diameter was used in the analysis of APRAF. It should be
noted that the pile spacing ratio in the following comparisons is therefore defined as the ratio of
the center-to-center distance ofthe piles to the side length D ofthe square pile. The piled raft as
shown in Figure 2 was constructed in a layered soil 15 m in depth. The pile slenderness ratio L/D
was chosen to be 20 and pile spacing ratios S/D of either 3 or 5 were used. Both the pile-soil
stiffness ratio (E p I E,) and raft-soil ratio (E, / E, ) were assumed to be 3000. The breadth and
length of the raft therefore vary with the pile spacing ratios. All of the properties of the piled raft
are listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Properties of Piled Raft (3x3 group)

Quantity Value
Pile side length 0.5 m (square pile)
Equivalent pile diameter 0.564 m (circular pile)
Pile length 10m
Depth of soil 15 m
Raft width Lr SID-3;4.5mS/D-5; 6.5m
Raft breadth B. SID-3;4.5mS/D-5;6.5m
Overhang of raft 0.5 m
Raft thickness 0.25 m
Soil modulus l0 MPa
Soil Poisson's ratio 0.3
Raft modulus 30.000 MPa
Raft Poisson's ratio 0.3

A uniform vertical loading of 100 kPa or 1 8 unit concentrated horizontal loadings (applied to
pile heads as shown in Figure 2) will be examined, respectively, in the following example. In the
34 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

L.

Overhang

H
.///f//////////f////////////////ru
FIGURE 2 Layout of a 9-pile raft embedded in a soil (where D' is equivalent pile diameter used in the present method).

analysis, no slip was allowed along the pile-soil interface, and no lift-off of the raft was allowed.
These features can be modeled by the present method by limiting forces beneath the raft, but this
is not considered in this article.

In the APRAF analysis, the pile was divided into 1l sections (elements) along its length anc
the raft was divided into 81 identical square elements for SID: 3 and 169 identical elements
for S / D : 5. An equivalent diameter D o of the circular pile (based on cross-section area) was
used in the APRAF analysis.

For the finite element analysis, a quarter of the piled raft was meshed by taking advantage
of the symmetry of geometry of the piled raft. When the piled raft is under vertical loading, the
mesh in the x- and y-directions extends to 32 m from the center of the piled raft and 15 m in the
z-direction. Twenty noded solid isoparametric elements were used to model the soil and piles,
 Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 35

while 8 noded shell elements were used for the raft. There were 2535 elements in total. When
the piled raft is subjected to horizontal loading, the mesh extends to 4l m in the x-direction (the
directionof loading) and24minthey-directioninvolving24T5elements. Themeshusedforthe
horizontal loading analysis is shown in Figure 3, where the mesh may be seen to be longer in the
direction of loading to reduce boundary effects.

FIGURE 3 Finite element mesh used for 3 x 3 pile group loaded in the x-direction.

Computations showed that it takes about 3 h and 50 m to obtain a solution using a Pentium
IIIprocessor for the finite element method whereas an equivalent analysis only took about t h
and I m with a Pentium II processor.

The piled raft was firstly analyzed for a uniform vertical load by using the finite layer method
for two pile spacings (S I D : 3 and 5) and then the same problem was reanalyzed by using the
finite element method. Figure 4 shows the plot of normalized axial forces (&/Pto6 where P; is
the axial force in the pile and P1661 is the total load on the raft) in pile 1 (corner pile) and pile 5
(central pile) against pile length. It may be noted that the axial forces in the central pile calculated
by the present method are in good agreement with those provided by the finite element method for
the different pile spacings. For S I D : 3, the central pile carries less load than the corner pile, but
for S /D : 5, the center and corner piles carry almost the same load and have similar axial load
distributions along their lengths. For the central pile, the solution from the finite layer method is
higher than that of the finite element method, whereas for the corner pile the axial force from the
finite element method is higher. Comparisons indicate that the maximum difference between the
axial forces computed by the two methods is less than 157o.

Figure 5 shows the moment in the raft along section A-B (as shown in Figure 2) for the
piled raft under uniform vertical loading. The moment presented is the moment per unit length
in the x direction (M"*). It can be seen that the moments in the raft provided by both methods
36 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

Normalised axial force in pile

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.r2 0. 16 0.20
0.0

0.2

0.4
i-(
()
L,
13
O
U)

d
(-'..
F
l-r

0.6
-

0.8

1.0

FIGURE 4 Comparisons of axial forces in piles.

for different pile spacings are very close. The maximum difference occurs around the heads of
the edge piles and is less than 97o.

Figure 6 shows the displacement along section A-B where the piled raft is again subjected
to uniform vertical loading. The figure shows that the present solutions agree excellently with
those of the finite element method. The maximum difference is less than 17o.

The comparisons between the present method and the finite element method for the piled
raft subjected to concentrated horizontal loads (see Figure 2) are shown in Figures 7 to 9. The
caseforapilespacingotS/D:3wasanalyzed.FiguresTto9showthemomentinpileland
pile 5 against pile length, moment in the raft along section A-B (moment is moment/unit length
in the direction of the loading Mr") and the displacement along section A-B, respectively. It may
be observed that the present solutions agree closely with those of the finite element method and
 Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 37

2
-)<

Normalised distance x/B,

FIGURE 5 comparisons of moments in raft along section A-8.

-0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

---FAPRAF
"o"Finiteelement
---.#- APRAF
-'*'- Finite element

Piled raft subjected to

O
C) uniform vertical loadings
o
n

Normalised distance x,/Br

FIGURE 6 comparisons of deflection of raft along section A-B.
38 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

the maximum difference is less than I27o. in the case of moments in the raft.

Bending moment in pile (MN.m)

-1 0

FIGURE 7 Comparisons of bending moment in pile.

IV. Parametric studv

Example 1.
Shown as the inset to Figure l0 is a 9 pile (3 x 3) group driven into a deep uniform soil layer
(the ratio of the soil depth to pile length is assumed to be 10). The cap or raft connecting the pile
heads is assumed to be constructed in contact with the ground orjust clear ofthe ground, and can
 Behctvior ofPiled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 39

Piled raft under point horizontal

loadings S/D = 3

#APRAF
"o"Finiteelement
tr

2
,y
-0 0.30 -0.20 0.20 0.30 0.
_-_l__ ..1
Lr

q)

Normalised distance x/8,

FIGURE 8 Comparisons of moments in raft along section A-B.

have a finite flexibility. Hs (the distance ofthe raft from the ground) is 0.0 for an on-ground raft
and > 0.0 ifthe raft isjust clear ofthe ground.
Two cases of loading have been examined; firstly a horizontal uniform load is applied to
the raft (as shown in the inset to Figure l0) then a vertical uniform load is applied to the raft (as
shown in the inset to Figure l1).

For the horizontal loading case, the lateral deflection of the raft u* at the central pile is
plotted in nondimensional form 1r* against the pile-soil stiffness ratio K"r(K.' p : E p/E'). For
the vertical loading case the vertical displacement of the raft u, at the central pile is plotted in
nondimensional form Iu* also against the pile-soil stiffness ratio. Normalized displacements
Iu* and Ir* may be expressed as

I
E,D
Iuxx (13)

E-D
1..__
'u.'z (14)
- Q, B, L r" '
where E" is the soil modulus; D is the pile diameter; q* and q, are the lateral and vertical loads;
B, and L, arethe breadth and length of the raft in plan (in this case the raft is square, so B, : Lr).
Poisson's ratio of the soil was chosen to be 0.499, the ratio of the thickness of the raft to the
pile diameter tyf D : 1.1'7 and the pile spacing to diameter ratio S/D was 5 (with an overhang
of one pile diameter at the edges of the raft). The ratio of the raft modulus to the pile modulus,
E, / E p, was taken as 1.I2. For the horizontal loading case, results are shown (for two different
pile lengths L) in Figure l0 where it may be seen that as the piles become stiffer (K'o increases)
the horizontal deflections reduce as may be expected. The figure also shows that the raft will
40 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

#APRAF
- ' o' - Finite element
'o. -40 -l

'o.
'o. -20 -,
'..8
'o
i

-0 -0.40 -0,30 -0.20 -0.1

\ 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
_L .__ ,

(1
t. Normalised distance x./Br

.g 20 -'o.
()
(.)
,:.(
nc.)

40
Piled raft under point horizontal
loadings S/D = 3

FIGURE 9 Comparisons of z-displacement of raft along section A-8.

deflect more if the piles are shorter but only when the piles become stiffer. For flexible piles the
pile length does not affect the deflection because the piles (at Ll D > 25) are longer than the
critical length and only the top portion ofthe pile is bending. Ifthe raft is offthe ground surface,
then the deflections are larger because of the loss of restraint of the soil on the pile cap.

For the vertical loading case as shown in Figure I 1, the vertical displacement u, atthe central
pile has been plotted versus pile-soil stiffness ratio K"o for both a raft on the ground (110 : 0.0)
and a raft just off the ground (t1o > 0.0). For both pile lengths examined (L I D : 25 and 50), it
may be seen that the vertical deflection of the group is not very sensitive to whether the raft is on
or off the ground for all pile stiffnesses. However, the pile length does make a difference, with
the longer piles reducing the group deflection.

It is also of interest to see if the piles carry most of the load, or whether the raft carries the
load for the examples considered here. The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 12,
which shows that the percentage of the load carried by the piles reduces in both the vertical load
case and the horizontal load case as the soil modulus increases.

Example 2.
In this example, a laterally loaded piled raft with 16 piles (4 x 4) embedded in three different
kinds of soil as shown in Figure 13 (Gibson's soil 8'1/E, : 0, Banerjee's soil E'1f E' :9.5
and a homogeneous soil Es l E, : 7; Est is the soil modulus at the soil surface and 8., is the soil
modulusatthepiletip)wereexamined. Theratiooftheraftmodulustothepilemodulus, E,lEp,
was assumed to be 1.0 and the pile spacing ratio (S/D) was chosen to be 6. Poisson's ratio of
the soil was taken as 0.35 and the soil modulus beneath the pile toes was assumed to be constant.
For Banerjee's soil, the modulus at the ground surface was chosen to be half of that at the pile tip.
The other main parameters used in this example are as shown in Figure 14. Equation 14 is used
 Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 4l
0. 10

" o " UD = 25, off ground

-..o-UD =25, oo ground
A
Y. --A '- LID = 50, off ground
\
--,FLlD - 50, on ground
0.08 \l

'b.
lt

x
t\
\\
* x

*'
q)
tr
a)
()
s 0.06
i*i
cn
rc
d

N
t-(
(-
0.04
C)
o
9-pile raft under uniform
d horizontal load, q*
tr
l-r
o -++-+-->+
z
Ho
0.02

L
S/D - 5, E./Eo = I.I2
V, = A'499
Iu**-ErDu^/q*BJ-.

0.00
1E+01 lE+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07

Kro

FIGURE 10 Variation of normalized horizontal displacement (central pile) with pile flexibility factor

to normalize the horizontal displacements for the piled raft embedded in the three types of soils
as before. It should be noted that the modulus of the soil, Er, used in equation 14 is that at the
pile tip. The results for normalized horizontal displacement of the central pile Iu** are plotted in
Figure 14 against the pile-soil stiffness ratio K,, : E p/ E, (where again the soil modulus at pile
tip level is used). It may be seen that the displacement of the piled raft is greatest in the Gibson's
soil and smallest in the homogeneous soil. With increase of pile stiffness, the displacement of the
piled raft in the Gibson's soil will be reduced significantly. This example shows that the present
method based on finite layer theory may deal with soils where the soil stiffness can vary with
depth or from layer to layer.
42 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

0.06
-'o - - LlD -25, off ground
+LlD -25, oo ground
" A " UD =50, off ground
0.0s o +L/D = 50, on ground
A
Q.

N
S/D - 5, E"/Eo = l.I2
* N

6
v, = 0'499
E
O
o.o4 Irrr- E, D urlqrBrl.
tr
O
O
g"
a
E
E
Q
0.03
t-,i
O

O
a
tr 0.02
t-'(
,-
Ho
9-pile raft under uniform
vertical load q,

0.01

0.00
1.E+01 l.E+O2 l.E+03 l.E+(X l.E+05 I'E+06 I'E+O?

Kp
FIGURE t I Variation of normalized vertical displacement (central pile) with pile-soil stiffness ratio'

V. Conclusions

A method for analyzing the behavior of piled rafts constructed in elastic soils has been
presented. Comparisons of forces in piles, moments in the raft and piles and displacement in a
9-pile raft subjected to either vertical loading or horizontal loading show that the present solutions
agree closely with those provided by the finite element method. It has been demonstrated that the
method is capable ofproducing results for pile groups with general type loadings and can be used
to analyze a raft either clear of the ground surface or in contact with the ground. It can also be
used for problems where the soil modulus varies with depth or from layer to layer. Furthermore,
the method has the advantage that the data are easy to prepare and does not involve creating large
meshes as would be required for finite element solutions.
 Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 43

100
---&- Under uniform horizontal loading
'' o' 'under uniform vertical loading

80
-(\

a
0)
F(
.r{
O.'.

-o 60
\.,
FFA

c.)
. t-{
$-,'
L.
cd
()
Ft
G
o
(F{
o40
a)
b0 9-pile raft
:)
Cd

-
(n
C)
()
Lr
o
r\
F-i

20

0
l.E+01 l.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07

Kp
FIGURE 12 Percentage of load carried by piles.

Est= 0 Err

Gibson's soil Banedee's soil Homogeneous soil

Er1/E, = Q ErtlE, = 0.5 Ert/E, = 1.0

FIGURE 13 Models for three kinds of soil examined in Example 2.
44 J.C. Small and H.H. Zhang

0.35

16-pile raft on ground subjected to horizontal

loading
v, = 0. 15 , BJL, = 1; B/t, = 31.5
0.30
S/D - 6,UD = 18.75, E"/Eo = 1.0
V, = 0.35,WL= 100 (h = thickness of the
soil)
x
bF
X 0.25

c.)
e.
F
C)
O

a 0.20

cd
-+ Gibson's soil
{-J
C-(
-&- Banerjee's soil
N
Lr +F Homogeneous soil
O 0. 15
c.)
ct)

(1.

t-r
,- 0. 10

0.05

1.0

0.00
lE+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 lE+06 1E+07

Pile-soil stiffness ratio, Kro

FIGURE 14 Variation of displacement with pile-soil stiffness ratio for three types of soil-

Acknowledgments
The assistance of Alex Edwards, Alan Millar and Andrew de Ambrosis in obtaining the finite
element solutions presented in this article is gratefully acknowledged.

References
tll R.Butterfield,andP.K.Banerjee,Theproblemofpilegroup-pilecapinteraction, Cioiechnique.2l(2).pp.135-
142, (r971).
 Behavior ofPiled Rtft Foundcttions Under Lateral and Vertical Loading 45

l2l P.Clancy,andM.E Randolph,Anapproximateanalysisprocedureforpiledraftfoundations,lnt.JLforNumerical

and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, l7, pp. 849-869, ( I 993).

t3l E.H. Davis, and H,G. Poulos, The analysis of pile raft systems, Azstralian Geomechanics Journal, G2(l),pp.2l-
2'1, (t972).

I4l S.J. Hain, and I.K. Lee, The analysis offlexible raftpile systems, G4otechnique,2S(l), pp.65-83, (1978).
t5l R Kuwabara, An elastic analysis for piled raft foundations in a homogeneous soil, Soils and Foundations,29(l),
pp.82-92, (1989).
t6l H.G. Poulos, An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft interaction, Int. JL for Num. and Anal. Methods in
Geomechanics, 18, pp. 7 3-92, (1994).
l7l J.C. Small, and J.R. Booker, Finite layer analysis of layered elastic materials using a flexibility approach,Part2
-
Circular and rectangular loadings, International Journal Jbr Numerical Methods in Engineering, 23, pp.959-978,
( | 986).

t8l W.Y. Shen, Y.K. Choq and K.Y. Yong, A variational approach for the analysis of pile Group-Pile cap interaction,
G 6 ote c hniq ue, 50(a), pp. 349-357, (2000).

l9l L.D. Ta, and J.C. Small, Analysis of piled raft systems in layered soils, Int. J. for Num. and Anal. Methods in
Geomechanics, 20, pp. 51 -72, (1996).
t l0l L.D. Ta, and J.C. Small, An approximation for analysis of raft and piled raft foundations, Computers and Geotech-
nics, 20(2), pp. 105-123, (1997).
tI I I H.H.Zhang, and J.C. Small, Analysis of capped pile groups subjected to horizontal and vertical loads, Computers
and Geotechnics, 26( l ), pp. l-2 l, (2000).