Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02558-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Numerical Study of Pile Raft Foundation Behavior Under
Vertical Loads and Large Moments
Rafi’ M. Sulaiman Al‑Ne’aimi · Khalid Q. Hussein
Received: 6 December 2022 / Accepted: 9 July 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
Abstract Based on PLAXIS 3D finite element soft-
ware, a 34-floor multi-story building piling group
foundation under vertical loads and large moments
is examined. It comprises seven different strata with
different properties, with groundwater located 19.6 m
below ground level. In drained situations, the soil is
modeled as hardening soil, while piles are modeled
as embedded beams. The study involved extensive
parametric analysis. It includes pile spacing-diameter
ratios, number of piles, pile slenderness ratios, square
or triangular pile layout patterns with equal or vari-
able pile length, raft, pile, and subsoil load sharing,
pile modeling as an embedded or volume pile, gap
effects between rafts and subsoils, and type of pile
connections to evaluate their effects on rectangular
unpiled and pile raft foundations in planning under
large moments and vertical loads. Analysis results
show volume piles yield less raft settlement and pile
moment than embedded piles. Further, moment load
effects increased raft bending moments by 2.2, 5.4,
and 6.1 and absorbed loads by 1.4, 1.7, and 2.2 ratios
for 24, 40, and 60 pile groups, respectively. In square
and triangle pile configurations, at specified pile spac-
ing, raft bending moments decrease with pile length.
R. M. S. Al‑Ne’aimi (*) · K. Q. Hussein
Civil Eng. Dept., College of Eng., University of Duhok,
Duhok, KR 1006 AJ, Iraq
e-mail: rafi.mahmoud@uod.ac
K. Q. Hussein
e-mail: khalidqasim.eng1990@gmail.com
In contrast, it increases as pile spacing decreases.
Thus, s/dpile = 4 gives the highest bending moment,
with its variation along pile lengths depending on the
pile head’s hinge or fixation. A 0.2-m gap between
raft and subsoil allows piles to absorb 71% of the load
and rafts 29%, compared to 65% for piles, 29% for
rafts, and 6% for subsoil without a gap.
Keywords Pile raft · Plaxis 3D · Hardening soil
model · Volume pile · Gap effect · Moment load
1 Introduction
In a traditional foundation design, the load applied by
the superstructure to the soil should be safely trans-
ferred without shear failure, excessive settlement, or
tilting via a shallow (e.g., isolated or coupled footings
or rafts) or deep foundation (e.g., piles or caissons).
However, due to the complicated nature of the load-
sharing mechanism of the pile-raft-soil system to
transmit the loads to the ground, rafts or piles alone
do not meet the design criteria of settlement and bear-
ing capacity. As a result, geotechnical engineers have
begun to incorporate the contact pressure between the
raft, piles, and subsoil into the design of pile founda-
tions to increase their load-carrying capacity and set-
tlement performance. Such a foundation is known as
the “Piled Raft Foundation” Randolph (1994).
Various methods and approaches investigated the
behavior of raft pile systems. Analytical methods,
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

numerical approaches, laboratory modeling, and cen-
trifuge testing are examples of these methods. Fiora-
vante and Giretti (2010) tested piles holding a circular
raft on clay soil in a centrifuge. They determined that
the load pattern between the raft and the piles is non-
linear and that as the number of piles increases, the
raft’s settling reduces. Nguyen et al. (2013) compared
the displacement results of centrifugal tests of piled-
raft foundations with different pile arrangements with
the results of the PLAXIS 3D program. The results
show that piles with a concentrated load exhibit lower
estimated central and differential settlements than
piles with uniform pile organization. Finite element
methods have been used as numerical tools to assess
the impact of many parameters on pile raft design and
analysis, such as spacing (s), number (n), length (L),
and diameter (d) of piles, pile (s/d) and (L/d) ratios,
pile layout, pile stiffness, raft thickness, and dimen-
sions, type of subsoil layers, and type of load and its
distribution on the piled raft foundation. Based on
the 2D analysis, Rabiei (2010) observed that using a
limited number of piles beneath the raft can improve
the bearing capacity and settle. Furthermore, with an
increase in raft thickness or a decrease in piling num-
ber or length, the maximum bending moment in the
raft increases, but central and differential settlements
decrease. In contrast, Ryltenius (2011) reported
that the 2D model overestimates the settlement and
moment in the raft by 30% and the pile load by 10%.
Gebregziabher and Katzenbach (2012) found that
pile spacing, length, and arrangement all play a role
in decreasing settlement and load-sharing behavior
in pile raft foundations using 3D nonlinear finite ele-
ment simulations. The results revealed that when the
piles are spaced further apart and the applied load is
substantial, the load distribution between the raft and
piles increases. Furthermore, according to Jiang et al.
(2020) analysis of pile-soil interaction in expansive
soil, an increase in pile length can effectively reduce
the uplift of the pile top and improve the bearing
capacity of the pile when part of it is under expan-
sive action. Tang et al. (2014) observed that when the
spacing-diameter ratio exceeds 5, each raft and pile
operate separately, and the pile may approach its ulti-
mate load limit. Sivrikaya and Gurkan (2019) investi-
gated piled-raft foundations with various pile-spacing
configurations resting on clay soil using 2D and 3D
finite-element PLAXIS packages. Their results show
that as the pile spacing increases, the displacement,
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
shear force, and volumetric strain all decrease. How-
ever, if s∕dpile ≥ 6, their amounts remained constant
or decreased slightly.
Several researchers have studied the effect of
pile head restraints on pile raft performance. Using
numerical methods such as finite elements Won
and Kulhawy (2009) evaluated this effect on the
displacement of laterally loaded pile groups via
a reduction factor, R ­ D, defined as the ratio of dis-
placements between the fixed-head and free-head
piles. The results show that the soil properties have
a major influence on the reduction factor, while the
pile properties’ influence is relatively minor. On the
other hand, Matsumoto et al. (2010) studied this topic
through an experimental model test under vertical
and horizontal loads. The results show that under ver-
tical load, the effect of the pile head connection on
raft behavior is negligible, and with a less rigid con-
nection, the raft’s horizontal load decreases. Kumar
et al. (2015) obtained similar results using Plaxis 3D
software for raft settlement under vertical loads only.
However, the load sharing by rafts varied from 30%
for hinged connections to 54% for rigidly connected
CPRFs.
Many studies have considered the behavior of piled
raft foundations under different loading conditions.
Using full-scale structures and experimental models,
Sales et al. (2017) evaluated pile groups’ settlement,
load distribution, and bearing capacity under vertical
loads. Their findings show that the traditional meth-
ods used in practice for piled raft foundation design
are insufficient for proper design and need revision.
According to Ukritchon et al. (2016) Plaxis results,
a square-pattern pile group foundation of a wind tur-
bine can handle vertical loads and large moments
with a 0.1-m gap between the raft and the underly-
ing soil. The soil was modeled as an undrained
Mohr–Coulomb material, the piles as embedded pile
elements, and the pile caps as plates hinged to each
pile. A mathematical equation was proposed to rep-
resent the pile force distribution for coupled vertical
load and significant moment as well as vertical load-
only cases. In PLAXIS, Smulders et al. (2019) imple-
mented the embedded beam element formulation
developed by Turello et al. (2016) with an interac-
tion surface to address mesh dependence and improve
behavior under lateral loading. Compared to the pre-
vious implementation, the proposed implementation
is more accurate and less mesh-dependent, and the
Geotech Geol Eng
load–displacement performance is more similar to the
actual pile response. Ahmed and Al-Zaidee (2020)
proposed a model for simulating a pile raft founda-
tion under a point load with varying eccentricities
utilizing a 3D explicit finite element integration tech-
nique through a parametric study. The results show
that the carrying capacity of pile rafts is reduced by
39%, 33%, and 30%, respectively, when compared to
the unpiled raft for eccentricities of B/12, B/6, and
B/5 (where B is the least raft dimension). Al-Ne’aimi
and Hussain (2021) used the PLAXIS 3D founda-
tion to study the nonlinear behavior of unpiled and
piled square rafts loaded vertically with a uniform
load, changing raft thickness, spacing, number, and
diameter of piles. Their findings show that the load
absorbed by the pile increases with the diameter of
the pile compared to the pile cap. Furthermore, in
9-pile rafts with pile diameters of 0.5 or 0.6 m, the
central piles absorb the greatest proportion of the
applied load, with edge piles and corner piles rank-
ing second and third, respectively, whereas in 25-pile
rafts, the opposite pattern is observed.”
In piled-raft systems, the load-sharing between
the raft, piles, and subsoil is the more important
issue. Davids et al. (2008) stated that loads on the
superstructures are split between the raft and the
piles, with the piles supporting around 50–80% of
the overall weight. Whereas Leung et al. (2010)
reported that the fraction of the applied load car-
ried by the raft in a piled raft system ranges from
25 to 51%. Viggiani et al. (2012), in their study of
pile load distribution, discovered that the corner
and side piles of the block absorb higher loads at
small spacings, whereas in piled rafts, the pattern
is reversed: as pile spacing increases, the raft soil
contact absorbs more load, reaching values of 70%
for a pile spacing-diameter-ratio of 12. According
to Abdel-Fattah and Hemada (2014), the portion of
the superstructure load transferred to the soil by raft
contact pressure ranges from 30 to 60% of the entire
load, depending on the state of the soil beneath the
ground. With decreasing pile length and increasing
pile spacing, this percentage rises. Comodromos
et al. (2015) studied the pile layout patterns in a
raft through optimization techniques supported by
a combination of experimental and numerical data.
They reported that the load absorbed by the piles
within the system depends on their configuration
and load magnitude. Moreover, based on centrifuge
model testing, Alnuaim et al. (2017) found that the
load carried by piles is higher for rigid rafts due to
the minimal interaction between the raft and subsoil
compared to relatively flexible rafts. Sharafkhah
and Shooshpasha (2018) proposed that pile rafts in
free-standing pile groups are constructed such that
the piles support the entire load of the structure,
with no load shared with the underlying soil. How-
ever, various studies have shown that this strategy is
too conservative and should only be used if the pile
cap is lifted above ground level. According to Hal-
der and Manna (2022), piles carry about 40–60%
of the total applied load, regardless of their spac-
ing and length. A significant reduction in pile load
proportion is observed within the initial settlement
range of the raft, i.e., up to 0.4% of the raft width.
Based on full-scale load test results on piled footing
foundations supported in weakly cemented residual
soil, Sasso et al. (2023) showed that the contribu-
tion of the footing contact reduced settlements and
increased load capacity (reaching 148% of failure
load improvement).
The state-of-the-art literature review on pile-
raft foundation systems shows that many research
works were performed under vertical loading, and
few studies investigated the shared load and behav-
ior of such a system under combined vertical load
and moment. However, knowledge about this sys-
tem’s behavior is still unclear and depends on many
variables and circumstances. Therefore, this study
investigated the behavior of unpiled and pile rafts of
a 34-floor multistory building of rectangular shape
in a plan under a vertical load plus large moments
through an extensive parametric study using the
PLAXIS 3D v20 code. The studied parameters are
pile spacing-diameter ratio s/dpile, number of piles,
pile slenderness ratio l/dpile, square and triangu-
lar pile configurations with equal or variable pile
lengths, load sharing between raft, piles, and sub-
soil, pile modeling as an embedded pile or volume
pile, the gap effect between the raft and subsoil, and
the pile head type connections.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

2 Method of Analysis
2.1 Soil Profile and Geometry Model
In this study, the soil profile of Yongdingmen Station
on the Beijing Metro, as published by Li et al. (2020),
is employed. The scaled dimension of the soil model
is shown in Fig. 1. It is made up of seven different
types of soil layers with an overall depth of 44 m, as
described by a single borehole in the model’s center,
and the groundwater level is 19.6 m below the ground
surface.
2.2 Model Boundaries and Mesh Generation
The constructed numerical model consists of three
material components: (1) soil elements; (2) embed-
ded pile elements; and (3) pile cap plates. The bot-
tom boundaries of the model are fully fixed in all
directions, while the edge boundaries are only fixed
in two horizontal directions. After the soil and
structural models, loads, and boundaries are com-
pletely defined, a fully automatic mesh generation is
performed. Based on the model geometry, PLAXIS
initially generates a 2D mesh made of elements of
the 6-node triangular faces. The 2D mesh was auto-
matically expanded to a 3D mesh that depicted soil
strata and structure levels. The global coarseness is
adjusted to fine mesh refinement with a global scale
factor of 0.5 for accurate results. As an example,
Fig. 2 depicts a typical FE model and meshing of
Fig. 1  Soil profile and geometry model
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
one of the investigated pile raft foundation situa-
tions with 7354 components and 60,015 nodes.
2.3 Constitutive Modeling
The hardening soil model is employed in this study
to simulate all soil layers within the PLAXIS 3D
v20 program. Because soil stiffness is estimated
using three different values, this advanced model
has a cap yield surface and can more precisely
replicate soil deformations than the simple elastic-
perfect plastic, the "Mohr–Coulomb" model, (Obr-
zud (2010). The 10-noded tetrahedral element with
three translational degrees of freedom per node is
used to discretize the soils. The pile cap plates cre-
ate a 6-noded triangle element, with each node hav-
ing three translational and three rotational degrees
of freedom. Plate element formulations are based
on Mindlin’s plate theory Bathe (1996).”Piles are
represented as embedded pile line elements of three
nodes with three translational and three rotational
degrees of freedom per node Engin et al. (2007) and
Engin et al. (2008a, b). The pile caps and piles are
both modeled as linear-elastic non-porous materi-
als. Figure 3 depicts the soil and structural elements
schematically. Table 1 shows the soil parameters for
each soil layer, while Table 2 shows the material
properties of the raft and piles.”
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2  View of 6 × 10 pile raft (L20 m and s∕dpile = 3) and meshing

Fig. 3  Types of element

and their degrees of free-
dom in PLAXIS 3D (from
PLAXIS 3D Connect v20—
Scientific manual)

2.4 Finite Element Model Validation
The results of the Plaxis 3D Foundation obtained
by Al-Ne’aimi and Hussain (2021) for 10-m square
unpiled and piled raft foundations loaded with a verti-
cal uniform load of 430 kN/m2 have been taken for
validation of numerical modeling. The soil profile
used for the study consists of five strata with vary-
ing properties, including groundwater encountered
at 3.5 m from the ground surface. The soil is ideal-
ized as an elastoplastic material in drained conditions
with the Mohr–Coulomb model, whereas the piles are
modeled as embedded volume elements. For more
details on soil profile, raft, and piles, see Al-Ne’aimi
and Hussain (2021). During prototype testing, the
piled rafts with a 1.0 m thickness were made up of
nine piles of 0.5 m diameter and 18 m length. The
piles were placed in a 3 × 3-square pattern with uni-
form spacing s∕dpile = 4. Figure 4 depicts the load-
settlement curves for the unpiled raft and 3 × 3 pile
raft foundations. From both a trend and magnitude
standpoint, it is seen that the present model strongly
matches those obtained by the Plaxis 3D Foundation.
3 Parametric Study
This study would investigate the effects of pile spac-
ing-diameter ratio (s/d), pile number, and pile length-
diameter ratio (l/d) in a square or triangular pattern

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Table 1  Parameters of the soil layers for hardening soil model (HSM) analysis (after Li et al. (2020))

13
Vol:. (1234567890)
Parameter Soil type layers

SM CL SM SM Cb CL Cb

Thickness (m) 4 4 6 4 11 3 12
Material model HS HS HS HS HS HS HS
Analysis type Drained Drained Drained Drained Drained Drained Drained
Unit weight, 𝛾unsat. 18.35 20.7 19.7 20 20.2 19.6 20.2
(kN/m3)
Saturated unit weight, 20 21 20.2 21 21 20.2 21
𝛾sat.(kN/m3)
Initial void ratio,eo 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Secant stiffness from a 18.35 22.44 23.01 31.22 132 32.08 198
drained triaxial test,
ref
E50 (MPa)
Tangent stiffness for 18.35 22.44 23.01 31.22 132 32.08 198
oedometer primary
ref
loading,Eoed(MPa)
Unloading/reloading 55.04 67.32 69.30 63.65 396 96.23 594
ref
stiffness, Eur (MPa)
Rate of stress depend- 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1
ency, m
Cohesion, c′(kPa) 0 23 11 8 5 30 5
Internal friction 21.4 9.4 23 24.2 40 15 45
angle,𝜑o
Dilatancy angle,𝜙o 0 0 0 0 10 0 15
Unloading/reloading 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.27 0.3 0.26
Poisson’s ratio, vur
At rest earth pressure 0.64 0.84 0.61 0.59 0.35 0.74 0.29
coefficient* (NC
state),Konc
Failure ratio,Rf 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Interface reduction fac- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0
tor,Rinter
Over-consolidation 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ratio, OCR

*The coefficient,Konc is calculated automatically by the software using Jacky’s Equation,Konc = (1 − sin 𝜑o)
Geotech Geol Eng
Geotech Geol Eng
pile group with all piles of equal or variable lengths
on the behavior of a rectangular raft-supported pile of
a 34-floor multistory building under vertical load and
moments, and the results would be compared with the
unpiled raft capping. The rafting area is 18 m × 30 m
in size and 2.0 m thick. The maximum total load
(dead and live) has been set at 15 kN/m2/floor. As a
result, for the chosen scenario of a 34-story multi-
story building, the total vertical load exerted on the
raft as a distributed load would be 510 kN/m2. The
moments applied on the center of the foundation are
­Mx = − 50,000 kN-m and ­My = 30,000 kN-m. Table 3
shows the testing program schedule with all varying
studied parameters. Figure 5 depicts the examined
pile rafts for one set of study cases with 24, 40, and
60 piles of identical lengths in a square pattern, while
Fig. 6 depicts pile raft cases of various pile lengths.
3.1 Calculation Phases
In the staged construction mode, the model’s calcu-
lation process is divided into many stages described
by the order of structure building and loading as
follows:
(1) The initial phase: in which the initial stresses are
calculated by using the Ko procedure and the pore
water pressure is calculated following a hydro-
static condition. At this stage, only soil elements
are activated in the model.
(2) The excavation phase: vertical excavation sur-
faces have been aligned (3H/4 V) to solve the
“soil body collapse” errors that occurred at the
edges of the surface.
(3) The construction of pile raft foundation phase: in
this phase, all structural elements, including plate
elements, embedded piles, and boundary condi-
tions, are activated in the staged construction
mode with plastic calculation type and conven-
tional iterative procedure settings. The drained
type analysis is used to consider long-term settle-
ments.
(4) The loading phase: in which the applied vertical
load and moments in all directions along the pile
cap axes are activated.
All analyses employ the default numerical pro-
cedure, Picos, which is an efficient multicore
iterative solver that solves the system of sparse
linear equations in parallel on multi-core comput-
ers. For known strain increases, the implicit stress
integration algorithm is utilized to generate a stress
increment at each integration point. More details
of Picos and the stress integration scheme can be
found in the PLAXIS 3D Connect v20-Reference
manual.
3.2 Calculation of Pile Capacity
The PROKON software v3.0 is used to estimate the
ultimate pile capacities and the limiting shaft traction
along pile lengths and tip forces to be used as input
parameters for embedded pile elements. The ultimate
bearing capacity of a single pile is calculated by (Al-
Ne’aimi and Hussain (2021))
∑
Qult = Pi Li (𝛼sui + Ks 𝜎v� tan 𝛿) + Ab (9sub + 𝜎vb
�
) − WP
(1)
∑
Qult = Qs + Qb − Wp (2)
Qall = Qult ∕S.F (3)
where, Qult = ultimate pile capacity, Qs = ultimate
∑
skin friction, Qb = ultimate end-bearing force, Wp =
the weight of the pile, Qall = allowable pile capac-
ity, S.F. = safety factor = 2.5 for driven pile, P = the
perimeter of the pile layer i, L = length of pile layer i,
𝛼 = Rinter = dimensionless interface factor, su = und-
rained shear strength of soil layer i, Ab = area of the
pile, sub = undrained shear strength of clay at the tip
of the pile, 𝜎vb
�
= total effective overburden pressure
at the tip of the pile. The pile capacity calculations
are summarized in Table 4.
4 Results and Discussions
4.1 Unpiled Rafts Results
Table 5 presents the analysis results of the unpiled
raft of traft = 2.0 m under vertical uniform distributed
load and moments. As seen, the raft’s total settle-
ment value is 173.3 mm. This exceeds the allow-
able settlement limits prescribed by ASCE 1997,
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2  Material properties of the pile cap (raft) and the embedded pile (after Al-Ne’aimi and Hussain (2021))
Parameter Pile cap Embedded Pile

Material model Linear-elastic Linear-elastic

Material type Non-porous Non-porous
Element type Plate Beam
Young’s modulus, E (MN/m2) 3.0 × ­104 2.92 × ­104
Poisson’s ratio, v 0.2 0.3
Unit weight, 𝛾 (kN/m3) 25 25
Thickness, traft (m) 2 –
Diameter, dpile (m) – 1.0
Length, Lpile (m) – 12, 16, 20
Interface reduction factor,Rinter 1.0 1.0
Axial skin resistance – Multi-linear*
L Tmax (kN/m)

Multi-linear axial resistance 0 0

4.0 96.5
10.0 225
14 285
20 436
End-bearing resistance, ­Fmax (kN) 4107, 15,930, 15,930
*
All skin friction and end-bearing values are obtained from PROKON v3.0

Load (kPa) Load (kPa)

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

100 40
Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

200 80

300 120

400 (Al-Ne'aimi & Mohammed, 2021) 160 (Al-Ne'aimi & Mohammed, 2021)
Present Study (Plaxis 3D v20) Present study (Plaxis 3D v20)
500 200
(a) 1.0 m thick unpiled raft (b) 3x3 piled-raft foundation with traft = 1.0 m

Fig. 4  Validation of 3D v20 with the 3D Foundation v1.6 results for unpiled rafts and 3 × 3 pile-raft foundations

75–125 mm for rafts on clay soils, or 50–75 mm
for rafts on the sand for total settlement, see Holtz
(1991) and Baban (2016). Thus, to reduce the
exceedance of settlement limits produced in the soil,
pile installations are used as the best option in all
remaining tests of this study.
4.2 Pile Raft Foundation Results
4.2.1 Effect of Pile Number, Spacing, and Length
Table 6 and Fig. 7 summarize the results of all the
studied cases of the pile rafts. In cases of square or
triangular patterns of equal-length piles, the table

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3  Details of the testing program schedule

Series no Loadcondition Case study traft (m) s∕dpile l/dpile Layout pattern Number Number
of piles of tests

1 Static load Un-piled raft 2.0 – – – – 1

V = 510 kPa 18 m × 30 m
2 Mx =− 50,000 kN-m Piled raft 2.0 5, 4, 3 12,16,20 Square 24, 40, 60 18
My =  + 30,000 kN-m 18 m × 30 m Equal lengths Triangular 22, 36, 56
Mz = 0 kN-m
3 Piled raft 2.0 5, 4, 3 Variable Square 24, 40, 60 6
18 m × 30 m lengths Triangular 22, 36, 56

shows that at a given pile spacing, the raft’s total
settlement and raft bending moment decrease by
approximately 30% and 5–10%, respectively, as the
pile length increases. The improved behavior of
each pile in the group is natural due to the increase
in skin friction along pile lengths and end-bearing
at their tips produced from increasing pile lengths
Al-Ne’aimi and Hussain (2021).
In other words, in specified pile lengths, the raft’s
total settlement decreases as pile spacing decreases,
while raft bending moments increase. The same
behavior applies to equal or variable-length piles
in square and triangle configurations, however, in
all cases, the s∕dpile = 4 gives the highest bending
moment. This behavior refers to the different con-
figurations of piles in each pile spacing (see Figs. 5
and 6), as well as with this spacing, some of the pil-
lars lie on the vertical axis of the pile cap compared
to other pile spacings (i.e.,s∕dpile = 5 or 3), and their
reactions are different depending upon each pile
distance from the raft centroid axes according to the
following equation:
∑ causes significant changes in both skin friction and
Muy xn
∑ ∑
Pu Mu y
Pn = ± ∑ 2 ± ∑ 2x n (4)
n xi yi
where Pn = pile load, Pu = total ultimate vertical
∑
load, Muy, Mux = ultimate moments about the x
∑ ∑
and y axes, xn , yn = the distance between any pile and
the y- and x-axes.
4.2.2 Load Sharing Between Raft, Pile, and Subsoil
In piled-raft systems, load-sharing is the more impor-
tant issue. Thus, the loads absorbed by each com-
ponent of the system must therefore be determined.
Based on the total load applied to the raft, Plaxis
software calculates the normal force values at the top
and bottom of each pile in the pile group. Consider-
ing the sum of the loads on all pile heads Ntop and the
end bearing reaction Rbase = Nbottom and the skin fric-
tion Rskin = Ntop − Nbottom, the load carried by the raft
is determined by subtracting the pile load Ntop from
the total applied load on the raft. Under the applied
load, Fig. 8 displays the load ratios borne by the raft
and pile for pile-raft groups of 2.0 m raft thickness
and piles of equal lengths in a square or triangular
arrangement. It is noted that the load-sharing between
the raft, piles, and subsoil is a function of pile num-
ber, spacing, and length. This behavior is expected
and known to occur as a result of a decrease in the
total load carried by the raft with increasing pile
numbers and lengths. This confirms the results of
Al-Ne’aimi and Hussain (2021) who noted that the
number of piles is the more important issue in load-
sharing between raft-piles-subsoil. In other words,
increasing the number of piles from (24–60) piles
or decreasing the spacing from (5–3) pile diameter
end-bearing ratios. The skin friction loads created
along the pile lengths, however, were found to be
larger than the end-bearing loads.
Table 7 shows the load ratios delivered by the raft
and piles in square or triangular patterns with varied
pile lengths and their skin friction and end-bearing as
well.
Figure 9 depicts the skin friction and end-bearing
load distribution profiles of the 40-pile raft group
of 20 m equal pile lengths in a square and triangu-
lar configuration. This figure shows that edge piles
absorb more load than other piles. Many geometric
parameters, such as pile spacing, pile length, pile

Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Fig. 5  Studied piled rafts for 24, 40, 60 piles in a square pattern
numbers, and raft thickness, influence load sharing
between rafts and piles in general.
Table 8 shows the pile skin friction and end-
bearing loads for 40 and 36 pile raft groups with
equal pile lengths of 12, 16, and 20 m and varied
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
pile positions in a square and triangular arrange-
ment. The table shows that piles of 20 m length
enhance their load-carrying capacity more than
piles of 16 m or 12 m lengths do by mobilizing their
skin resistance.
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6  Studied piled rafts for 22, 36, and 56 piles in a triangular pattern

Table 4  Pile capacity LPile(m) Qult(kN) Qall(kN)

calculation
Total Total
∑ ∑
Qs Qb Qs Qb

12 1669.77 4106.74 5776.51 1113.18 789.76 1902.94

16 2901.90 15,927.87 18,829.78 1834.60 3063.05 4997.65
20 4344.52 15,927.87 20,272.39 2896.35 3063.05 5959.40

4.2.3 Effect of Pile‑Soil Interaction s∕dpile = 5 and 12 m equal-pile lengths is now modeled

as a volume pile. Figure 10 depicts the layout per-
In this scenario, the previously modeled 4 × 6 pile spectives of the two approaches. The load-settlement
group as embedded piles in a square pattern with correlations for both pile-modeling methodologies

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 5  Unpiled raft results

Value Axial forces Shear forces (kN/m) Bending moment (kN-m/m) Vertical Differential
(kN/m) displacement settlement
(mm) (mm)
N1 N2 Q12 Q23 Q13 M11 M22 M12

Unpiled raft Max 647.7 731.3 141.6 2705 5307 8598 11,310 4147 173.3 7
Min 142.8 118 −165.3 −8206 −2699 −3122 −7824 −5254

Table 6  3D analysis results of the pile raft foundations

Case study Piles pattern s∕dpile l∕dpile Total settle- Differential set- Raft bend-
and number ment (mm) tlement (mm) ing moment
(MN m/m)

Equal length Square 5 12 99.5 2 7.5

24
16 36.0 6 7.0
20 32.3 6 7.1
Square 4 12 62.4 7 15.1
40
16 31.3 10 14.6
20 28.0 10 14.6
Square 3 12 45.1 4 10.8
60
16 28.3 6 11.3
20 25.7 7 10.0
Equal length Triangle 5 12 102.7 3 11.4
22
16 38.8 6 10.2
20 633.5 7 10.4
Triangle 4 12 9.6 3 15.1
36
16 32.3 6 14.5
20 28.7 7 14.5
Triangle 3 12 50.2 4 12.1
56
16 28.9 5 12.7
20 26.2 6 12.9
Variable length Square L12 L16 L20
24 5 16 4 4 64.2 14 8.2
40 4 22 14 4 44.0 4 13.0
60 3 28 20 12 38.8 4 9.7
Triangle L12 L16 L20
22 5 12 6 4 62.7 16 11.3
36 4 26 8 2 54.2 11 15.4
56 3 34 18 4 38.5 5 2.3

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 7  Effect of pile spacing on the settlement
are consistent with real results, as illustrated in
Fig. 11. A comparison of pile volume versus embed-
ded beam results is presented in Table 9 along with
the amount of difference in the outcomes between
the two methods. As can be seen, the values of raft
settlement and pile shear forces obtained by volume
piles are lower by 17% and 19% to 56% respectively
than those obtained by embedded piles. Meanwhile,
the pile axial moments and forces are higher by 41%
and 10% to 40%, respectively. Overall, the differences
in the results are due to the unique characteristics of
each pile modeling method. Because of the 3D nature
of the pile geometry and for the following reasons,
the piles themselves will be represented using volume
elements for more accurate results Brinkgreve et al.
(2020): The embedded beam element is indirectly
coupled via springs to the mesh, and as a result, the
soil can “flow-through” the embedded pile row; In
embedded beam elements, the pile-soil interaction
is modeled at the center rather than at the circumfer-
ence, and the installation effects of piles are not taken
into account; The accuracy of the result is primarily
dependent on the maximum skin friction resistance
and end bearing resistance assigned to the embedded
beam element, but the volume element requires only
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and unit weight to
describe the model. Unfortunately, the pile volume
approach is unsuitable when modeling a high number
of piles because of the increasing elements and calcu-
lation time required as the number of piles increases.
4.2.4 Effect of Moment Load
In all situations of this investigation, the raft is subject
to a vertical load in the direction of gravity as a dis-
tributed load of 510 kN/m2 and enormous moments
Mx = − 50,000 kN-m, and My = 30,000 kN-m
applied to the raft. To explore the effect of the
moment load on the pile group response, the 24, 40,
and 60-pile group foundations of 16 m equal pile
lengths in a square pattern were tested under a pure
vertical load for comparison. Table 10 displays the
results of the analyses for each pile group under both
loading conditions.
The comparison of the results of both cases of
loading, as shown in Table 10, for all pile groups
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8  Raft and pile load 100%

percentages with piles skin 41
friction and end-bearing of 75 77 66 78
83 85 87 87
50%
equal lengths in square and
59
triangular patterns 34
25 23 17 15 22 13 13
0%

Ra load % Pile load %

100
80 74 74 73
63 62 66
60 53 67
45 55 47
40 37 38 33
27 34
20 26 26
0

End-bearing % Skin fricon %

a- Square pattern
100%
37
72 75 61 75
80 82 85 85
50%
63
28 25 39 25
20 18 15 15
0%

Ra load % Pile load %

100
80 74 74 73 64
65 48 66 55
60 65
52 45 35
40 35 36 34
20 26 26 27
0

End-bearing % Skin fricon %

b- Triangular pattern

Table 7  Load ratios of raft Case study Pile pattern s∕dpile l∕dpile Pile load % Raft load Rbase Rskin
and piles of variable pile % % %
lengths
Variable length Square 5 see Fig. 5b 64 36 76 24
4 75 25 66 34
3 81 19 52 48
Variable length Triangle 5 see Fig. 6b 64 36 76 24
4 69 31 70 30
3 80 20 61 39

considered, shows that the moment load has little maximum bending moment in the raft and the ratios
effect on the settlement of the raft as well as the end of the load absorbed by the raft and piles are sig-
bearing and skin friction of the piles, whereas the nificantly affected. When the piled raft foundation is

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

Axial load (kN) Axial load (kN)

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
-4 -4
Corner Corner
-8 Edge -8 Edge
Center Center
Depth (m)

-12

Depth (m)
-12 Pile length = 20m
Pile length = 20m
-16 -16

-20 -20

-24 -24

(a) 40 pile group, equal length, s/d pile = 4, (b) 36 pile group, equal length, s /d pile = 4,
(Square pattern) (Triangular pattern)

Fig. 9  Axial load distribution along pile lengths for different pile groups

subjected to a combined vertical load and moments,
the raft’s bending moment increases by about 2.2, 5.4,
and 6.1 ratios, and the raft load absorption by 1.4, 1.7,
and 2.2 ratios, respectively, compared to that without
moments for 24, 40, and 60 raft pile groups, whereas
the pile load, decreases by about 8.0% for all studied
cases. On the other hand, with an increasing number
of piles from 24 to 60 piles or decreasing pile spacing
(s) from 5 to 3 pile diameter, the absorbed load by
the raft decreased from 25 to 13% while the load pile
ratios increased from 75 to 87%.
Figure 12 depicts the 3D pile load distribution of
equal-length 6 × 10 piles in a square pattern under
various loading circumstances. The high discrepancy
in pile load distribution in this pile group founda-
tion can be attributed to a sudden increase in forces

Table 8  Skin friction and end-bearing loads for 40 and 36 pile raft groups (traft = 2 m and dpile = 1 m)
Case study Pile nos. and s∕dpile Lpile Rskin* and Rbase** (kN) NTop = Rskin + Rbase (kN) Rskin

Pattern (m) Rbase

Corner pile Edge pile Center pile Corner pile Edge pile Center pile

Equal length 40 4 12 1422* 1421 1445 5230 5538 5563 0.373

Square 3808** 4117 4118 0.345
0.350
16 2621 2567 2570 6912 8124 6728 0.610
4291 5557 4158 0.462
0.618
20 3710 3834 3842 6865 8128 7029 1.176
3155 4294 3187 0.892
1.205
36 4 12 1436 1419 1432 5557 5534 5547 0.348
Triangle 4121 4115 4115 0.345
0.348
16 2593 2570 2590 7673 8206 6897 0.510
5080 5636 4307 0.456
0.601
20 3905 3887 3793 7997 8730 6966 0.954
4092 4843 3173 0.803
1.195

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

(a) Embedded pile (b) Volume pile

Fig. 10  Typical views of embedded pile and pile volume for 4 × 6 pile group (Equal length, s∕dpile = 5, Square pattern)

Load (kN/m2) both the x- and y-axes in the situation of a vertical

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 load. Furthermore, the same trend is observed with
0
a combined vertical load and moments regarding the
-15
abrupt increase in outer piles caused by mobilized
Settlement (mm)

-30
shaft resistance; this result validates the earlier stud-
-45
ies’ conclusions Comodromos et al. (2009) and Engin
-60 Embeded pile
Volume pile
et al. (2008a, b).
-75
-90
-105
4.2.5 Effects of Gab Between the Pile Cap
and Subsoil on Free‑Standing Piles
Fig. 11  Load-settlement response of 24 pile groups with dif-
ferent pile modeling A 0.2-m gap between the pile cap and the underly-
ing soil is assumed to eliminate load transfer from the
pile cap to the subsoil, as shown in Fig. 13.
at the corner piles, where the maximum force is With this small gap, the vertical load and moments
observed due to overturning moments. Furthermore, imparted to the pile cap are transferred only to the
the pile load distributions are symmetrical about pile group, with no load sharing with the underlying

Table 9  Pile volume versus Parameter Pile volume Embedded beam Differ-
embedded beam results for ence % in
24-pile group foundation results

Raft settlement (mm) 85.3 99.8 − 17

Pile max. axial force (kN), N 7898 5631 + 41
Pile max. shear force (kN/m), Q13 492 587 − 19
Pile max. shear force (kN/m), Q23 558 869 − 56
Pile max. bending moment (kN.m/m), M2 749 535 + 40
Pile max. bending moment (kN.m/m), M3 855 780 + 10
Pile load % 49 41 + 19
Raft load % 51 59 − 16
Rbase % 78 74 +5
Rskin % 22 26 − 18

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

soil, provided that the head connection between the
pile cap and the embedded piles is selected as fixed
to allow both vertical loading and bending moment
transfer to the piles. While in the case of no gap, the
load is partially transferred from the raft to shallow
soil and partially to the pile group through pile heads,
and from the piles, it is transmitted through their
shafts and tips to deeper soil layers.
Table 11 depicts the influence of the gap between
the raft and subsoil on the raft foundation of a 5 × 8
pile group of equal length of L = 12 m with s∕dpile = 4
in a square pattern and fixed connections of pile
heads. It is seen that with the presence of a gap
between the pile cap and the subsoil, the pile bears
a load of 71% and the raft carries 29% compared to
65% for piles and 35%, for raft and subsoil (i.e., 29%
of load carried by raft and 6% by subsoil) in the case
of no gap. As a result, the piles absorb more load than
the raft in both circumstances (i.e., the majority of
the applied load is carried by the piles, and not the
underlying soil). This is because the piles initially
remain in direct contact with the soil, restricting
pressure and bearing more load than the raft Ukrit-
chon et al. (2016). Because of the influence of contact
pressure between the raft and the soil, as well as the
soil’s role in distributing and spreading the applied
load on the raft over a greater area, the improvement
in piled raft foundations in case of no gap is natural,
and as a result, the raft settlement of 62.4 mm is less
than 67 mm for a raft with a gap. In both cases, the
maximum settlement values occurred near the middle
or the center of the raft as shown in Fig. 14. This is
due to the applied moments being located in the first
quarter of the raft. Furthermore, it shows that in the
presence of a gap, the raft axial forces decrease by
approximately 80%, but the shear forces and bending
moment increase by approximately 24% and 164%,
respectively. Figure 15 depicts the variation of the
bending moment along pile lengths for the 5 × 8 pile
group. The bending moment distribution with a gap
is greater than that without a gap. This is true for all
pile positions. However, corner piles have the greatest
bending moment, followed by center and edge piles.
4.2.6 Effect of Pile Head Connection
For free-standing pile conditions, the effects of
pile head connections on a 5 × 8 pile group foun-
dation of 12 m, 16 m, and 20 m equal pile lengths
with s∕dpile = 4 in a square pattern with a tiny gap of
0.2 m between the raft and subsoil are investigated in
this series. Table 12 shows the results of an exami-
nation of a 40-pile group raft system for hinged and
fixed pile head connections. It can be noted that each
of the raft settling, axial force, and shear force val-
ues at the raft are greater in the case of a fixed pile
head connection than in the case of a hinged connec-
tion. The bending moments developed at the rafting
center are greater in the case of a hinged connection,
which allows only vertical load transfer to the piles
without transferring bending moments, and therefore,
the raft takes a large moment. On the other hand, as
a result, this trend is respected concerning bending
moments developed in piles and the pile load ratios of
65% compared to 71% in the case of fixed pile head
connections.
Figure 16 depicts the moments’ variation along
a 40-pile group’s 12 m-long pile for both pile
head connection types under a free-standing con-
dition (i.e., with a gap of 0.2 m between the piles

Table 10  The influence of moment load on the pile groups response

Parameter 24 piles 40 piles 60 piles
Surface load Surface load Surface load Surface load Surface load Surface load
plus moment plus moment plus moment

Raft settlement (mm) 36.0 35.1 31.3 30.6 28.3 27.7

Raft differential settlement (mm) 6 7 10 11 7 7
Raft max. bending moment (kN.m/m) 7000 3238 14,685 2726 11,329 1863
Pile load % 75 82 83 90 87 94
Raft load % 25 18 17 10 13 6
Rbase % 74 74 62 62 53 53
Rskin % 26 26 38 38 47 47

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Pile length = 16m

5803 5811
5997 6105

7000 7000
6043
6000 6000

Load (kN)
4928
Load (kN)

5000 13.5 5000 13.5

10.5 10.5
7.5 7.5
4000 4.5 4000 4.5
1.5 1.5
-1.5 -1.5
3000 -4.5 3000 -4.5
-7.5
Column -7.5 Column
-7.5

-7.5
-10.5 -10.5
-4.5

-4.5
(y-axis)
-1.5

-1.5
-13.5 -13.5
(y-axis)
1.5

1.5
4.5

4.5
7.5

7.5
Row (x-axis) Row (x-axis)

Surface load Moment and surface loads

Fig. 12  3D pile load distribution for 6 × 10 piles under different loading conditions (Equal length, Square pattern)

Fig. 13  Simulation of a
gap between piles and a
pile cap

Table 11  Effect of the Parameter Value (max, Without gap With gap
gap between pile cap and min)
subsoil on a 5 × 8 pile group
foundation, s∕dpile = 4 and Settlement (mm) 62.4 67.0
L = 12 m (fixed connection)
|u|
Raft axial forces (kN/m) N1 225, −328 196, −354
N2 248, −403 202, −425
Raft shear forces (kN/m) Q12 184, −211 228, −233
Q23 3161, −9562 3836, −18,450
Max. raft bending moment (kN- M11 8544, −4352 22,590, −23,540
m/m)
M22 15,170, −10,100 38,510, −29,460
Pile load % 65 71
Raft load % 29 29
Subsoil load % 6 0

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 14  Place of raft’s maximum settlement of 5 × 8 pile-raft foundation s∕dpile = 4 and L = 12 m (fixed connection)

Moment (kN.m) Moment (kN.m)

-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-4 -4
Gap 0.2m Gap 0.2m
Without Gqp -6 Without Gap -6
Corner pile -8 Edge pile -8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-10 -10
-12 -12
-14 -14
-16 -16
Moment (kN.m)
-250 -150 -50 50 150 250
-4
Gap 0.2m
-6 Without Gap

-8 Center pile
Depth (m)

-10
-12
-14
-16

Fig. 15  Variation of B.M. along 12 m pile lengths of 5 × 8 pile group (Fixed connection)

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 12  Effect of pile Parameter Value (max, With gap (Fixed connection) With gap
head connection type with min) (Hinged connec-
a 5 × 8 pile cap group tion)
s∕dpile = 4 and L = 12 m
Settlement (mm) |u| 67 63
Raft axial forces (kN/m) N1 196, −354 117, −235
N2 202, −425 107, −229
Raft shear forces (kN/m) Q12 228, −233 110, −126
Q23 3836, −18,450 3830, −18,450
Max. raft bending moment M11 22,590, −23,540 22,720, −23,400
(kN-m/m)
M22 38,510, −29,460 38,720, −29,230
M2 857.3, −875.8 234.5, −321.7
M3 422.8, −621.9 378.8, 319.4
Pile load % 71 65
Raft load % 29 35

Moment (kN.m) Moment (kN.m)

-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-4 -4
Hinge Hinge
-6 -6
Pile length (m)

Fixed Fixed
Pile length (m)

Corner pile -8 Edge pile -8

-10 -10
-12 -12
-14 -14
-16 -16

Moment (kN.m)
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
-4
Hinge
Fixed -6
Pile lenth (m)

-8
Center pile
-10
-12
-14
-16

Fig. 16  Variation of B.M. along piles length for 5 × 8 pile group,s∕dpile = 4 and L = 12 m. (Hinged and fixed connections)

and subsoil). The bending moment is greatest at
the top of fixed connection piles, while it is zero at
the top of hinged connection piles. This behavior
is expected both under hinged and fixed conditions
Ukritchon et al. (2016). Hence, the piles are resist-
ant to bending in pile groups with fixed pile heads
(the top shaft does not rotate around the cap, but the
entire cap may rotate as the pile group sways). To
ensure this, concrete piles need sufficient reinforce-
ment. While pinned pile heads may exhibit free-
headed behavior. In reality, there will be finite rota-
tional stiffness at the head as full fixity is difficult

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
(and expensive) to achieve. As shown, the bending
moment variation throughout the pile length is non-
linear, and as the pile length increases, both connec-
tion types achieve similar bending moments. The
same behavior and trend are noticed in the 16 m
and 20 m pile lengths considered, but the difference
between each other is related to the influence of
soil type within the soil profile and the pile location
within the pile group. The largest bending moment
was recorded at corner piles, followed by edge piles
and center piles.
5 Conclusions
From the results of this study, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• As pile numbers increased, total settlements at
the rafting center decreased and differential settle-
ments increased.
• As the pile length increases, the raft bend-
ing moment decreases at a specified pile spac-
ing. Meanwhile, at a specified pile length, the
raft bending moment increases as pile spacing
decreases. The same behavior applies to equal or
variable-length piles in square and triangle config-
urations. However, in both cases, s/dpile = 4 gives
the highest bending moment.
• Skin friction and end-bearing ratios increase with
an increase in pile number or length, but the rate
of increase in skin friction is greater than that of
end-bearing ratios due to the redistribution of load
patterns.
• The volume pile yields lower raft settling values,
pile shear forces, and moments than the embedded
pile. This is because the embedded pile element is
indirectly coupled to the mesh via springs, allowing
the soil to "flow-through" the embedded pile row. In
addition, the accuracy of the result is solely depend-
ent on the maximum skin friction resistance and
end bearing resistance assigned to the embedded
beam element, while in the volume element, only
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and unit weight
are required to define the model.
• The moment’s variation along pile lengths depends
on the type of pile head connection, either hinged or
fixed in free-standing conditions. Corner piles have
the greatest moment in all cases, followed by center
and edge piles. A hinged connection pile’s top bend-
ing moment is negligible, whereas a fixed connec-
tion pile’s top bending moment is the greatest.
• The moment load effects increased the bending
moment in the raft by 2.2, 5.4, and 6.1 ratios, and
the absorbed raft load by 1.4, 1.7, and 2.2 ratios
compared to those without moments for 24, 40, and
60 pile groups, respectively, while, the pile load
decreased by about 8.0% for all studied groups.
• The pile load distribution is symmetric about the x
and y axes for purely vertical load, but it is asym-
metrical for combined vertical load and moments
resulting from the sudden increases in resistance,
particularly in corner piles, from mobilized shaft
resistance.
• A 0.2 m gap between the pile cap and subsoil allows
the piles to carry 71% of the load, while the raft car-
ries 29% compared to 65% for piles and 35% for raft
and subsoil in case of no gap.
• Fixed pile head connections have a larger settle-
ment, axial force, and shear force values than hinged
connections. In addition, rafting centers develop
larger bending moments than hinged connections.
However, this trend is reversed concerning bending
moments developed in piles.
Data availability Table 12 presents the data for this
statement.
Conflict of interest The authors state that they have no fund-
ing for the publication of this paper.
References
Abdel-Fattah T, Hemada A (2014) Use of creep piles to con-
trol settlement of raft foundation on soft clay—case
study. In: Proceedings of 8th Alexandria international
conference on structural and geotechnical engineer-
ing, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544, EGYPT,
14–16 April 2014
Ahmed HH, Al-Zaidee SR (2020) Three-dimensional explicit
finite element simulation of piled-raft foundation. Journal
of Engineering 26:127–144. https://​doi.​org/​10.​31026/j.​
eng.​2020.​03.​11
Al-Ne’aimi S, Hussain MS (2021) Numerical modeling and
parametric study of piled rafts foundations. Arab J Geosci
14:1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12517-​021-​06756-6
Alnuaim AM, El Naggar H, El Naggar MH (2017) Evaluation
of piled raft performance using a verified 3D nonlinear
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

numerical model. Geotech Geol Eng 35:1831–1845.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​017-​0212-1
Baban TM (2016) Shallow foundations: discussions and prob-
lem solving. Wiley
Bathe K (1996) An introduction to the use of the finite element
procedures in finite element procedures. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
Brinkgreve R, Lisi D, Lahoz M, Panagoulias S (2020) Valida-
tion and application of a new software tool implement-
ing the PISA design methodology. J Mar Sci Eng 8:457.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jmse8​060457
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC, Laloui L (2015) Con-
tribution to the design methodologies of piled raft foun-
dations under combined loadings. Can Geotech J 53:559–
577. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​cgj-​2015-​0251
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC, Rentzeperis IK (2009)
Pile foundation analysis and design using experimen-
tal data and 3-D numerical analysis. Comput Geotech
36:819–836. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2009.​01.​
011
Davids A, Wongso J, Popovic D, McFarlane A (2008) A post-
card from Dubai design and construction of some of
the tallest buildings in the world. In: Proceedings of the
CTBUH 8th World Congress 3–5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3850/​
97896​28014​194_​0075
Engin H, Septanika E, Brinkgreve R (2007). Improved Embed-
ded Beam Elements for the Modelling of Piles. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1201/​NOE04​15440​271.​ch69
Engin H, Septanika E, Brinkgreve R (2008a) Estimation of pile
group behavior using embedded piles. In: Proceeding of
the 12th international conference of international associa-
tion for computer methods and advances in geomechanics,
Goa, India, pp 3231–3238
Engin H, Septanika E, Brinkgreve R, Bonnier P (2008b) Mod-
elling piled foundation by means of embedded piles. Geo-
tech Soft Soils: Focus Ground Improv 1:143–148
Fioravante V, Giretti D (2010) Contact versus noncontact piled
raft foundations. Can Geotech J 47:1271–1287. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1139/​T10-​021
Gebregziabher HF, Katzenbach R (2012) Parametric studies on
application of CPRF on semi soft stratified soils. In: Geo-
Congress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotech-
nical Engineering, pp 125–134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​
97807​84412​121.​014
Halder P, Manna B (2022) Performance evaluation of piled
rafts in sand based on load-sharing mechanism using finite
element model. Int J Geotech Eng 16:574–591. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​19386​362.​2020.​17292​97
Holtz RD (1991) Stress distribution and settlement of shallow
foundations. Foundation engineering handbook, pp 166–
222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-1-​4615-​3928-5_5
Jiang J, Hou K, Ou X (2020) Analysis of the bearing capacity
of a single pile based on an analytical solution of pile–soil
interaction in expansive soil. Geotech Geol Eng 38:1721–
1732. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​019-​01126-2
Kumar A, Choudhury D, Katzenbach R (2015) Behaviour of
combined pile-raft foundation (CPRF) under static and
pseudo-static conditions using PLAXIS3D. In: Proceed-
ings of 6th international conference on earthquake geo-
technical engineering (6ICEGE), Christchurch, New Zea-
land, paper ID-140
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
Leung YF, Soga K, Lehane B, Klar A (2010) Role of linear
elasticity in pile group analysis and load test interpreta-
tion. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:1686–1694. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GT.​1943-​5606.​00003​92
Li B, Jia C, Wang G, Ren J, Lu G, Liu N (2020) Numerical
Analysis on the Performance of the Underwater Excava-
tion. Adv Civ Eng 2020:1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2020/​
88941​38
Matsumoto T, Nemoto H, Mikami H, Yaegashi K, Arai T, Kiti-
yodom P (2010) Load tests of piled raft models with dif-
ferent pile head connection conditions and their analyses.
Soils Found 50:63–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3208/​sandf.​50.​
63
Nguyen DDC, Jo S-B, Kim D-S (2013) Design method of
piled-raft foundations under vertical load considering
interaction effects. Comput Geotech 47:16–27. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2012.​06.​007
Obrzud RF (2010) On the use of the Hardening Soil Small
Strain model in geotechnical practice. Numer Geotech
Struct 16:1–17
Rabiei M (2010) Effect of pile configuration and load type on
piled raft foundations performance. In: Deep foundations
and geotechnical in situ testing, pp 34–41. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1061/​41106​(379)3
Randolph M (1994) Design methods for pile groups and piled
rafts. In: International conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, pp 61–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3130/​aijs.​68.​79_3
Ryltenius A (2011) FEM Modelling of piled raft foundations in
two and three dimensions. TVGT-5046, ISSN: 028–6679,
ID: 5204468
Sales MM, Prezzi M, Salgado R, Choi YS, Lee J (2017) Load-
settlement behaviour of model pile groups in sand under
vertical load. J Civ Eng Manag 23:1148–1163. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3846/​13923​730.​2017.​13965​59
Sasso LF, Wagner AC, Ruver CA, da Silva Lopes L,
Jr, Consoli NC (2023) Pile groups and piled foot-
ings bearing in weakly cemented residual soil. Geo-
tech Geol Eng 41:1485–1501. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10706-​022-​02349-6
Sharafkhah M, Shooshpasha I (2018) Physical modeling of
behaviors of cast-in-place concrete piled raft compared
to free-standing pile group in sand. J Rock Mech Geotech
Eng 10:703–716. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrmge.​2017.​12.​
007
Sivrikaya O, Gurkan Y (2019) Two-and three-dimensional
analyses of the effect of pile spacing in piled-raft foun-
dations. Acta Geogr Slov 16:43–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
18690/​actag​eotec​hslov.​16.1.​43-​52.​2019
Smulders C, Hosseini S, Brinkgreve R (2019) Improved
embedded beam with interaction surface. Proceedings of
the 17th European conference on soil mechanics and geo-
technical engineering, Reykjavík, Iceland, pp 1–6. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​32075/​17ECS​MGE-​2019-​0139
Tang Y, Pei J, Zhao X (2014) Design and measurement of
piled-raft foundations. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Geotech Eng
167:461–475. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​geng.​13.​00004
Turello DF, Pinto F, Sánchez PJ (2016) a, b) Embedded beam
element with interaction surface for lateral loading of
piles. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 40:568–582.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​nag.​2416
Geotech Geol Eng
Ukritchon B, Faustino JC, Keawsawasvong S (2016) Numeri-
cal investigations of pile load distribution in pile group
foundation subjected to vertical load and large moment.
Geomech Eng 10:577–598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​
2016.​10.5.​577
Viggiani C, Mandolini A, Russo G (2012) Piles and pile
groups. Appl Soil Mech 1:286–331
Won J, Kulhawy FH (2009) Reduction of pile head displace-
ment for restrained-head single pile. KSCE J Civ Eng
13:143–152. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12205-​009-​0143-3
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
and applicable law.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13