Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Steady-state response of flexible combined pile-raft foundation under

dynamic loading
Aniruddha Bhaduri, Deepankar Choudhury *
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400076, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study proposes a closed-form solution of flexible combined pile-raft foundation (CPRF) resting on an
Flexible piled-raft elastic medium under dynamic loading. Two components of the foundation system, i.e. pile and raft are idealized
Dynamic analysis as beam and plate, respectively, resting on an elastic two-parameter Pasternak soil medium. The governing
Steady-state response
differential equations of these components under horizontal harmonic loading is formulated and the subsequent
Closed-form solution
closed-form solutions of the same are obtained by using Fourier transformation technique. Two simultaneous
analyses are performed for piles and raft and displacement compatibility is satisfied at the junction of the
components. The proposed method is validated with dynamic centrifuge test results, available in the literature. In
further parametric studies, the effect of loading frequency on the dynamic displacement response of CPRF is
investigated. Also it is perceived that with an increase in raft flexibility by 60%, the horizontal load sharing
proportion of raft reduces by 75%–65% for loose to dense sands, correspondingly. This study contributes
significantly in understanding the steady-state response of CPRF under dynamic loading from an analytical
perspective.

1. Introduction
Over the last few decades, combined pile raft foundation (CPRF) has
firmly established its effectiveness as an economically feasible design
solution and a reliable alternative of the conventional pile group foun­
dation in the deep foundation segment. With rapid increase in urbani­
zation around the globe, CPRF has become the preferred choice for the
designers as the foundation for high rises [1,2] as well as important and
complex structures like nuclear power plant [3–5]. Although the ad­
vantages of CPRF over conventional pile group foundation are manifold,
the prime benefit of this foundation derives from the load sharing by raft
along with the piles. This leads to significant economical profit as the
number of piles can be reduced without compromising the safety and
serviceability aspects of the system. As the load-bearing mechanism of
CPRF is complex in nature, substantial amount of work has been carried
out by several researchers to have a grasp on this subject. In general,
these studies can be classified in three broad areas such as experimental,
numerical and analytical works. To interpret the response of CPRF under
static loading, various small scale [6,7] and large scale [8] experimental
studies are performed. Apart from the static vertical loading scenario,
for perceiving the consequence of lateral and dynamic loading on the
behavior of CPRF, a number of shaking table tests and centrifuge studies
are also conducted [9,10]. With the advent of modern high speed
computers, several numerical studies employing different numerical
techniques, such as finite element method, distinct element method etc.,
are carried out for comprehending the behavior of CPRF under static
[11,12], lateral [13] and seismic loading [14]. In liquefiable condition,
behavior of piles and piled-raft foundations are also investigated
[15–17]. Design guidelines for CPRF under static loading condition [18]
has also been published by the International Society for Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).
In addition to the experimental and numerical researches, plenty of
analytical studies are also accomplished to achieve profound insight
about the behavior of CPRF from the perspective of mechanics [19–24].
As the load-bearing mechanism of CPRF essentially deals with a number
of soil-structure interaction factors, closed-form solutions of these fac­
tors are proposed [25]. Under dynamic loading, the influence of su­
perstructure on the performance and behavior of CPRF is also explored
[26]. One common resemblance which can be observed in these
analytical works is that in all the cases, soil medium is represented as
linear discrete Winker springs. This idealization of soil is fairly rudi­
mentary as even in an analytical framework, it is insufficient to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abhaduri@iitb.ac.in (A. Bhaduri), dc@civil.iitb.ac.in, dchoudhury@iitb.ac.in (D. Choudhury).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106664
Received 31 August 2020; Received in revised form 16 October 2020; Accepted 11 February 2021
Available online 31 March 2021
0267-7261/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury
represent the soil continuum by one single parameter, which is modulus
of subgrade reaction. However in recent times, advanced two parameter
soil models are utilized by researchers [27,28] for more accurate rep­
resentation of soil medium while analyzing CPRF. Studies pertaining to
dynamic analyses of Euler-Bernoulli beam [29] and plate [30] resting on
an elastic foundation is documented in the literature. Applicability of
different beam theories on representing laterally loaded piles in an
analytical framework is also documented [31] which confirms the ac­
curacy in using Euler-Bernoulli beam for idealizing laterally loaded solid
piles. These postulates may also be implemented in modelling the
components of flexible CPRF system under dynamic loading.
Although from an analytical perspective, significant amount of work
has been conducted in the field of piles under dynamic loading [32,33],
studies focusing on the dynamic performance of CPRF is inadequate. In
the present study, a new analytical methodology is developed to capture
the steady-state response of CPRF under dynamic loading where
closed-form solution for the dynamic response of the foundation is
formulated. Here, soil is idealized as a two-parameter Pasternak [34]
medium. For considering the flexibility of the foundation system, the
two components of CPRF, i.e. piles and raft are modelled as beam and
plate, respectively, founded on the Pasternak soil medium. Piles and raft
are analyzed independently and thereafter the compatibility condition is
satisfied at the junction of the components incorporating suitable
interaction factors in the analysis scheme. Integral transform technique
is employed to solve the differential equations of the components under
dynamic loading. The method is validated with available experimental
study. Parametric studies are also carried out to investigate the effect of
loading frequency and raft flexibility on the overall response of CPRF
system. The proposed method is lesser in complexity in comparison with
the numerical studies as the later requires rigorous knowledge and
expertise of the user on the particular numerical technique to be used.
Thus, it can be considered as a significant contribution in the field of
research in CPRF under dynamic loading condition.
2. Overview on integral transformation technique
Integral transformation technique is a very powerful tool in mathe­
matics which can be used to solve complicated mathematical problems
in a simpler manner. This technique is particularly useful for solving
complex differential equation with an unknown function, say ‘f(x) ’,
which can be transformed to an easily solvable algebraic equation, ‘̃f(ξ)
’, in the transformed domain ‘ξ’. After solving the equation containing
‘̃f(ξ)‘, the final solution for ‘f(x)’ in the original domain can be obtained
after applying inverse transformation technique. In the proposed
method, complex Fourier transformation technique is implemented to
solve the governing differential equations for the components of CPRF.
In general, if a function ‘f(x)’ is defined in such a way that x ∈ [ − ∞,∞],
then the one dimensional complex Fourier transform pair of the above
function can be defined as,
∫∞
̃f (ξ) = f (x)exp(±iξx)dx (1)
− ∞
∫∞
1
f (x) = ̃f (ξ)exp(∓iξx)dξ (2)
2π
− ∞
In equations (1) and (2), ‘exp(±iξx)’ and ‘exp(∓iξx)’ are known as the
Kernels of the one dimensional integral transformation. In the present
methodology, double and triple Fourier transformation techniques are
applied for solving the differential equations for piles and raft, respec­
tively, in time and space domains.
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664
3. Method of analysis of CPRF under dynamic loading
3.1. Idealization of soil medium
Since in the Winkler model [35], there is an inherent inadequacy in
establishing continuity between the discrete soil springs while repre­
senting soil continuum, two-parameter Pasternak soil model is
employed here for representing the elastic soil medium. The main
characteristic of this Pasternak medium is that it establishes continuity
between the discrete soil springs with the assistance of a shear layer
which sustains transverse shear deformation. The term ‘two-parameter’
indicates that the soil medium is represented by two independent elastic
constants. The response of this foundation medium can be represented
as,
p = kS u − GS ∇2 u (3)
Here, ‘p’ represents the reaction of the Pasternak medium undergo­
ing a horizontal displacement of ‘u’. The terms ‘kS ’ and ‘GS ’ represent the
two independent soil parameters of the soil medium which is, modulus
of subgrade reaction and shear modulus of the shear layer, respectively.
In the present analysis, constant shear modulus is considered throughout
the analysis. However, under cyclic loading condition, for capturing the
nonlinear behavior of the soil mass, soil degradation and subsequent soil
secant modulus can also be incorporated in the methodology in an
iterative manner, as depicted by Refs. [27,36]. In the present study,
undamped system is assumed for avoiding mathematical complexity in
the solving scheme of the methodology for the foundation system under
dynamic loading.
3.2. Analysis of piles in CPRF under dynamic loading
Here, piles are idealized as Euler-Bernoulli beam, resting on the two
parameter Pasternak foundation. The dynamic loading is conceptualized
as a harmonic line load acting on the beam. This representation of dy­
namic loading is justifiable as earthquake excitation can be manifested
as vertically propagating shear waves. This type of dynamic loading can
be defined as kinematic loading as depicted by Ref. [37], which repre­
sents the vertically varying horizontal free-field motion. However, for
this type of seismic loading in the form of vertically propagating har­
monic shear wave, effect of pile to pile interaction becomes insignificant
[37]. Therefore, in the present study, all the piles are assumed to be
acted upon by similar in-phase dynamic loading. Fig. 1 schematically
represents the pile resting on a Pasternak medium, undergoing harmonic
line load. The governing differential equation of the pile under harmonic
line load can be expressed as,
∂4 UP (z, t) ∂2 UP (z, t) ∂2 UP (z, t)
EP IP + mP + Kx UP (z, t) − GP = F(z, t) (4)
∂z 4 ∂t 2 ∂z2
Here, ‘EP IP ’ and ‘mP ’ denote the flexural rigidity and the mass per unit
length of the pile, respectively. ‘Kx ’ and ‘GP ’ depicts the horizontal
spring stiffness and shear modulus of the shear layer, respectively. ‘UP (z,
t)’ is the horizontal displacement of the pile. ‘F(z, t)’ represents the
horizontal harmonic line load acting on the pile, which can be expressed
as,
H(r2 − z2 )
F(z, t) = P exp(iΩt) (5)
2r
Here, ‘P’, ‘r’ and ‘Ω’ are the amplitude, half-width and frequency of
the applied harmonic line load. ‘H(⋅)’ denotes the Heaviside step func­
tion, which can be defined as,
⎧
⎪
⎪0
⎪
⎨
r < z0
H(r − z0 ) = 1 2 r = z0
/
(6)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩1 r > z0
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of pile on Pasternak medium under harmonic line load.

Here, In the Heaviside step function, as delineated by equation (6), equation (9), the displacement in the transformed domain can be ob­
‘z0’ is defined as the point of discontinuity on the half-width (r) line. The tained as,
Heaviside step function takes the value of ‘0’ when ‘r < z0’, ‘1/2’ when
̃ η, ω)
F(
‘r = z0’ and ‘1’ when ‘r > z0’. For this initial boundary value problem ̃ P (η, ω) =
U (10)
(IBVP), the initial conditions for the pile displacement and velocity can [EP IP η4 − mP ω2 + Kx + GP η2 ]
be depicted as, For computing the dynamic displacement response of the pile in the
⃒
∂UP (z, t)⃒⃒ time domain, inverse double Fourier transformation is applied on
UP (z, t)|t=0 = 0, =0 (7) equation (10), and the dynamic displacement response of the beam can
∂t ⃒t=0
be obtained as,
As equation (4) represents a fourth-order linear partial differential

∫+∞ ∫+∞ ̃ η, ω )
F(
UP (z, t) = Udyn,P = (2π)− 2
exp( + i(ηz + ωt))dηdω (11)
[EP IP η − mP ω2 + Kx + GP η2 ]
4
− ∞ − ∞

equation, to solve the same, integral transformation technique is

employed here. First, double Fourier transformation is applied for In practicality, equation (11) can be solved by using Fast Fourier
solving the governing differential equation in the transformed domain. Transformation (FFT) technique for obtaining the dynamic displace­
The integral representation of equation (2) can be expressed as, ment response of piles.
⎧ ⎫
⎪ ∂4 UP (z, t) ∂2 UP (z, t) ⎪
∫+∞ ∫+∞ ⎪
⎪
⎨ E P I P + mp
⎪
⎪
⎬ 3.3. Analysis of raft in CPRF under dynamic loading
∂z4 ∂t2
exp(
⎪ ∂ UP (z, t) ⎪ In this present study, the flexible raft is represented as a plate resting
2
⎪ ⎪
− ∞ − ∞ ⎪⎩ +Kx UP (z, t) − GP ⎪
⎭
∂z2 on the two parameter Pasternak medium. Here, the free-field dynamic
∫+∞ ∫+∞ motion is characterized as harmonic point load with constant amplitude,
− i(ηz + ωt))dzdt = F(z, t)exp( − i(ηz + ωt))dzdt (8) acting at the base of the raft and moving along its plane. One key feature
− ∞ − ∞ of the present analysis is while representing the soil medium, both
horizontal and vertical springs are considered. The resistance caused by
After solving the above Fourier transformation, equation (8) can be
these horizontal springs are engaged in transferring the shear resistance
rewritten in the transformed domain as,
at the bottom of the plate. For the case where raft is perfectly bonded
[ ]
EP IP η4 − mP ω2 + Kx + GP η2 Ũ P (η, ω) = F(
̃ η, ω ) (9) with the soil medium, this shear resistance can be considered as the
horizontal resistance at the raft-soil interface. For a flexible raft, the
In equation (9), ‘U
̃ P (η, ω)’ and ‘̃
F(η, ω)’ are the displacement and interface of raft bottom and soil medium can be idealized as perfectly
loading in the transformed domain. After further simplification of bonded which compels the consideration of horizontal resistance at the

3
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of raft on Pasternak medium under pointed harmonic load (modified from Ref. [38]).

raft bottom. This resistance can be directly correlated with the thickness
ER T 3
of the plate, which can be further considered as the second parameter of DP = (13)
the two-parameter Pasternak medium, ‘GS’ [38]. Fig. 2 portrays the 12(1 − ν2R )
schematic representation of the plate under pointed harmonic load. The Here, ‘ER ’ and ‘νR ’ represents the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s
principal objective of the analysis is to compute the dynamic displace­ ratio of the raft, respectively. In equation (12), the term ‘T2 Kh /4’ is
ment of the raft. The governing differential equation for the plate under nothing but the second term of the response of the Pasternak medium
dynamic loading can be articulated as, (GS) as mentioned in equation (3), which characterizes the shear resis­
{ 4 } tance at the bottom of the plate [38]. ‘q(x,y,t)’ is the harmonic point load
∂ UR (x,y,t) ∂4 UR (x,y,t)
DP + acting at the raft which can be further defined as,
∂x4 ∂y 4
{ }
T 2 Kh ∂2 UR (x,y,t) ∂2 UR (x,y,t) ∂2 UR (x,y,t) q(x, y, t) = Pδ(x)δ(y) exp(iΩt) (14)
− + +mR +Kv UR (x,y,t)=q(x,y,t)
4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂t 2
Here, ‘P’ and ‘Ω’ are the amplitude and frequency of the loading,
(12) respectively. ‘δ(⋅)’ represents the Dirac-delta function which is an unit
Here, ‘T’ and ‘mR ’ are the thickness and mass per unit area of the impulse function. The governing differential equation can be solved by
plate, respectively. ‘Kh’ and ‘Kv’ are the stiffness of the horizontal and using integral transformation technique. First, the governing partial
vertical springs, respectively, attached at the bottom of the plate. ‘UR(x, differential equation (PDE) is solved in the transformed domain by using
y,t)’ is the dynamic vertical displacement of the raft. Here, the effect of triple Fourier transformation technique. The expression for the integral
this displacement on the horizontal resistance below the raft is consid­ representation of equation (12) can be demonstrated as,

⎡ { 4 } ⎤ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞
∂ UR (x, y, t) ∂4 UR (x, y, t)
⎢ DP + ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎢ ∂x4 ∂y4 ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
∫ ∫ ∫ ⎢
+∞ +∞ +∞ ⎢ { }⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ∫ ∫ ∫
+∞ +∞ +∞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎢ T 2 Kh ∂2 UR (x, y, t) ∂2 UR (x, y, t) ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎢− + ⎥exp ⎜− i⎜ξx + ζy + ωt⎟dxdydt = q(x, y, t)exp⎜ − i⎜ξx + ζy + ωt⎟dxdydt (15)
⎢ 4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
− ∞ − ∞ − ∞ ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ − ∞ − ∞ − ∞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎣ ∂2 UR (x, y, t) ⎦ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠
+mR + K v UR (x, y, t)
∂t2

ered in the proposed method with the aid of the second parameter of the
Pasternak medium. Thus the effect of ‘UR(x, y, t)’ is considered in both
the vertical and horizontal direction beneath the plate. Similar formu­ Thereafter, the dynamic displacement response of the plate in the
lation for a plate element is proposed by Ref. [38]. ‘DP ’ is the flexural transformed domain can be obtained as,
rigidity of the plate which can be defined as,

4
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury
Fig. 3. Flow chart of proposed methodology for dynamic analysis of CPRF.
q(ξ, ζ, ω)
̃ delineated in equations (11) and (17), respectively. However in CPRF, as
̃ R (ξ, ζ, ω) =
U ( / )
DP (ξ2 + ζ2 )2 + T 2 Kh 4 (ξ2 + ζ2 ) + Kv − mR ω2
Here, ‘Ũ R (ξ, ζ, ω)’ and ‘̃
q(ξ, ζ, ω)’ are the dynamic displacement
response and dynamic loading in the transformed domain, respectively.
For obtaining the response of the plate in the time domain, inverse triple
Fourier transformation is employed, which can be further formulated as,
∫+∞ ∫+∞ ∫+∞
q(ξ, ζ, ω)
̃
UR (x, y, t) = (2π )− 3
( / )
DP (ξ2 + ζ2 )2 + T 2 Kh 4 (ξ2 + ζ2 ) + Kv − mR ω2
− ∞ − ∞ − ∞
For practical scenarios, similar to the case of piles, equation (17) can
be solved with the aid of Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) technique by
which the dynamic response of the raft is obtained.
3.4. Proposed methodology for analyzing CPRF under dynamic loading
Fig. 3 depicts the schematic representation of the newly formulated
methodology for solving CPRF under dynamic loading. Here, the two
integral parts of the foundation system, i.e. piles and raft are analyzed
separately. For both the cases, first the appropriate differential equa­
tions are formulated which represent the behavior of piles and raft, in a
mathematical framework as expressed by equations (4) and (12),
respectively. These complex differential equations are eventually solved
by using Fourier transformation technique to compute closed-form
analytical solutions for the dynamic displacements of piles and raft as
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664
(16)
the piles and raft act in an integrated manner, thus after computing the
displacement amplitudes of the components, it becomes necessary to
satisfy the displacement compatibility between these two. Also, since
the load bearing mechanism of CPRF is essentially a problem of complex
soil-structure interaction, thus these interaction factors need to be
incorporated in the methodology before satisfying the displacement
exp( + i(ξx + ζy + ωt))dξdζdω (17)
compatibility. Here, it is of prime necessity to consider the two major
interaction factors that govern the behavior of CPRF. These two inter­
action factors can be observed as the interactions between the two
components of CPRF, i.e. the effect of piles on raft (αrp) and the effect of
raft on the piles (αpr). Closed-form representation of these factors have
been delineated by Ref. [23], which can be expressed as,
αrp = 1 − ln(n)/ln(2r /d) (18)
m
/
αpr = αrp Kr K (19)
p
In equation (18) ‘n’ and ‘rm’ are defined as the ratio of the circular
raft diameter to pile diameter and measurement of the radius of influ­
ence, respectively. ‘d’ is the pile diameter. In equation (19), ‘Kr ’ repre­
sents the stiffness of raft in isolation. To account for the raft flexibility in
the solution scheme, a non-dimensional parameter, ‘Krs’, termed as raft-
soil stiffness ratio is multiplied with ‘Kr ‘. The formulation of ‘Krs’ for
rectangular raft in a CPRF system, is provided by Ref. [6] as,
5
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664

Table 1 4. Validation of the proposed method

Properties of type of sands used for parametric study and components of CPRF.
Parameters Types of Sandy Soila Pileb Raftb The proposed analytical methodology is validated with available
shaking table test results of [41]. The CPRF specimen for the analysis
Loose Medium Dense
Dense was modelled at a scale of ‘1/50’ in the centrifuge with a centrifugal
acceleration of 50g. The foundation system consists of 4 piles of 9m
Unit Weight (kN/ 17.5 18.8 19.6 24 27
m3 )
length and 0.5m diameter, symmetrically placed below the raft. The
Young’s Modulus 0.01 0.015 0.0225 41.7 70 square raft possesses a dimension of 4m with a thickness of 1m. All the
(GPa) dimensions reported here, are in prototype scale. The CPRF is founded
Shear Modulus 0.003704 0.005682 0.008654 17.375 25.926 on the medium dense Toyoura sand deposit. The unit weight, Poisson’s
(GPa)
ratio, Young’s modulus and angle of internal friction of the Toyoura
Modulus of 89347 44674 14891
sand is 16.3 kN/m3, 0.3, 0.04 GPa and 31◦ , respectively, as reported by
– –
Subgrade
Reaction (kN/m2) Ref. [28]. The properties of the piles and raft are provided in Table 1
Poisson’s Ratio (μ) 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.2 0.35 [28,42]. Here for the shaking table analysis, an input acceleration is
a
[42]. introduced at the base of the soil box. This acceleration generates a si­
b
[28]. nusoidal wave which has an amplitude of 100 cm/s2 with a frequency of
1 Hz in the prototype scale. As in the present methodology, the input
( )α ( )3 motion is applied as a dynamic loading on the foundation system, thus
Er 1 − ν2s B T
Krs = 5.57 (20) the input acceleration of the centrifuge test is converted into an input
Es 1 − ν2r L L
dynamic loading by multiplying the amplitude of the acceleration with
Here, ‘Er’, ‘νr’, ‘Es’ and ‘νs’ represent the Young’s modulus and the mass of the foundation system at every time steps of the input mo­
Poisson’s ratio of raft and soil, respectively. ‘B’, ‘L’ and ‘T’ represent the tion. Fig. 4 represents the comparison between the horizontal
width, length and thickness of the raft. ‘α’ is a constant which is usually displacement responses of the CPRF as obtained in the experimental
considered as unity. For circular raft [39], suggested the expression for work with the same computed from the proposed analytical methodol­
‘Krs’ as, ogy. Here, it can be perceived that, although the phase of the
( )3
Er 1 − ν2s T
Krs = (21)
Es 1 − νr a
2

Where, ‘a’ denotes the radius of the circular raft. In equation (19), ‘Kp ‘, is
the dynamic stiffness of the pile group in isolation [40]. The effect of pile
group on raft, also known as the pile-raft interaction factor (αrp), as
calculated from equation (18) is incorporated in the solution obtained
from the analysis of piles. Similarly, the effect of raft on pile group which
is known as the raft-pile interaction factor (αpr), as computed from
equation (19), is subsumed in the solution obtained from the analysis of
raft. Subsequently, the modified dynamic displacements for piles and
raft are determined and the displacement compatibility between the two
components are now satisfied in an iterative manner. Finally, the dy­
namic loading for the CPRF system is computed corresponding to the
particular dynamic displacement level.
Fig. 5. Comparison of proportion of horizontal load carried by piles in CPRF
with centrifuge test and result of present analytical study.

Fig. 4. Comparison of horizontal displacement response of CPRF with centrifuge test and result of present analytical study.

6
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury
Fig. 6. Variation of normalized horizontal displacement of CPRF with time for different loading frequency.
displacement amplitude is fairly in line with each other, there are slight
variation at the maximum values of the same. This anomaly can be
attributed to the cause of damping in the system which has not been
considered in the present analysis. Fig. 5 portrays the comparison be­
tween the proportions of the horizontal loading borne by the 4 piles, as
acquired from the two analyses. Here it can be concluded that the trend
of the horizontal load carrying proportions by the piles are fairly in line
which each other, which further illustrates the reliability of the pro­
posed analytical method.
5. Parametric studies
After successfully validating the proposed analytical methodology,
the same is utilized to investigate the effects of loading frequency and
raft flexibility, on the dynamic displacement and horizontal load sharing
proportions of the components of CPRF. While investigating the effect of
loading frequency, the exact same CPRF model, which has been used for
the validation purpose, is employed. For exploring the effect of raft
flexibility, only the thickness of the CPRF system has been altered,
keeping all other configurations intact. Here it is worth mentioning that
the effect of raft flexibility is investigated for three different types of
sandy soils, such as loose sand, medium dense sand and dense sand. The
properties of these different sandy soils are listed in Table 1.
5.1. Effect of loading frequency
In this study, three different exciting frequencies (Ω) are considered
depending upon the natural frequency of the CPRF system (ωn). These
are 0.2ωn, 0.7ωn and 1.6ωn [43]. defined the formulation of the natural
frequency of a CPRF system which can be expressed as,
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
EI
ωn = 2 (22)
mraft L3
Here, ‘EI’ is the flexural rigidity of the piles in the CPRF. ‘mraft’ is the
mass of the raft and ‘L’ is the length of the pile. Fig. 6 depicts the
normalized displacement response of the CPRF system founded in a
medium dense sand, under three different exciting frequencies of the
harmonic load. This dynamic displacement response of CPRF under
harmonic loading can be explained in conjunction with the steady state
displacement response of the system, which can be further elaborated
[44] as
UCPRF(t) = UCPRF(t = 0)[1/{1-(Ω/ωn)2]sin(Ωt)
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664
In equation (23), ‘UCPRF (t)’ is the steady-state dynamic displacement
response of the system at time ‘t’. ‘UCPRF (t = 0)’ is the static displace­
ment which can be obtained as the ratio of maximum amplitude of the
applied dynamic loading to the stiffness of the CPRF system at the time
instant the dynamic load is applied. Here it is essential to define the
‘displacement response factor (Rd)’ which can be formulated as,
Rd = [1/{1-(Ω/ωn)2] (24)
From equation (24), it can be substantiated that when ‘(Ω/ωn)’ is
small, ‘Rd’ becomes slightly more than ‘1’, resulting in almost equal
steady-state dynamic displacement with that of the static displacement.
This can be explained with the case when the exciting frequency is only
0.2 times of the natural frequency of the system. It can be visibly seen
from Fig. 6 that the dynamic displacement is almost equal to the static
displacement. When the exciting frequency (Ω) becomes close to the
natural frequency of the foundation system, ‘Rd’ becomes unboundedly
high, following a situation proximate to resonance. This phenomenon
can be corroborated with the case when ‘Ω’ becomes 0.7 times of ‘ωn’.
√̅̅̅
When ‘(Ω/ωn)’ becomes greater than ‘ 2‘, ‘Rd’ turns less than ‘1’,
resulting in a lesser steady-state dynamic displacement amplitude
compared to the static displacement. Therefore, when ‘(Ω/ωn)’ becomes
‘1.6’, the displacement response factor becomes less than unity,
following a lesser dynamic displacement than the static one. This study
may assist in determining the dynamic displacement of a CPRF system,
depending upon the natural frequency of the same along with the fre­
quency of the harmonic excitation that may prevail.
5.2. Effect of raft flexibility
Here, the effect of raft flexibility on the horizontal load sharing
proportions by the components of CPRF, founded in three different types
of sand is investigated. The raft flexibility is varied by changing the
thickness of the raft from 10% to 25% of the raft dimension. The pile-to-
pile spacing, the length of the piles and the applied dynamic harmonic
loading are kept exactly the same as used for the validation purpose.
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 portray the horizontal load sharing proportions by the
piles and raft in the CPRF system, respectively, for three different types
of sands. Here, it can be primarily observed that for a particular
configuration of CPRF, the load-sharing proportion by the piles, in­
creases by around 35% corresponding to the increase in soil density from
loose to dense sands. For similar condition, equivalent decrease in the
load sharing proportion by the raft is also noticed. An increase in the
(23) horizontal load sharing proportions by the piles of 75%, 69% and 65% is
7
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury
Fig. 7. Variation of horizontal load carrying proportion of piles for (a) loose,
(b) medium dense and (c) dense sand for different thickness of raft.
observed corresponding to loose, medium dense and dense sands over a
60% decrease in the thickness of raft. This observation indicates that
with increase in raft flexibility corresponding to the decrease in raft
thickness, the proportion of horizontal load carried by the raft, de­
creases, resulting in an increase in the pile load sharing proportion.
However, this change in load sharing proportion by the components is
more prominent for loose sand than denser sand deposits. These in­
terpretations may help in choosing appropriate configurations for a
flexible CPRF system, founded in different sandy soils, subjected to dy­
namic loading.
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664
Fig. 8. Variation of horizontal load carrying proportion of raft for (a) loose, (b)
medium dense and (c) dense sand for different thickness of raft.
6. Conclusions
The present study furnishes closed-form representation of the steady-
state dynamic response of flexible combined pile-raft foundation, sub­
jected to harmonic loading. The two components of CPRF, i.e. piles and
raft are idealized as Euler-Bernoulli beam and plate, respectively. Soil
continuum is modelled as two-parameter Pasternak medium supporting
the foundation system. One notable aspect of the modelling technique is
for analyzing pile and raft, the effect of shear resistance is considered
which is directly correlated to the second parameter of the Pasternak
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury
medium. The governing differential equations for pile and raft under
dynamic loading is formulated and those are solved by using Fourier
transformation technique. Subsequently, displacement compatibility is
satisfied at the pile-raft junction in an iterative manner and dynamic
loading is calculated corresponding to the particular dynamic
displacement. The proposed method is validated with available centri­
fuge test result and thereafter, parametric studies investigating the effect
of dynamic loading frequency and raft flexibility on the dynamic
response of CPRF are performed. The major findings from the para­
metric studies are discussed as follows:
(a) It is observed that the dynamic displacement depends signifi­
cantly on the displacement response factor and natural frequency
of the foundation.
(b) At instance, when the loading frequency becomes much lesser
than the natural frequency of CPRF, the dynamic displacement
becomes almost equal to the static displacement.
(c) For the case when the loading frequency becomes close to the
natural frequency of the system, the dynamic displacement rises
abruptly, owning to the condition of resonance.
(d) When the ratio of exciting and natural frequency becomes more
√̅̅̅
than ‘ 2‘, the dynamic displacement factor becomes less than
unity, resulting in a lesser dynamic displacement than the static
one.
(e) Apart from the loading frequency, raft flexibility has predomi­
nant effects on the dynamic load sharing proportions by the
components of CPRF. An increase in horizontal load sharing
proportions by the piles of around 35% is observed over loose to
dense sands.
(f) Moreover, for loose, medium dense and dense sands, an increase
in the horizontal load sharing proportions by the piles of 75%,
69% and 65% is observed corresponding to a 60% decrease in the
thickness of raft. This concludes the fact that with increasing raft
flexibility, the horizontal load carried by the raft decreases.
(g) Also for CPRF founded in denser soil strata, the percentage of
horizontal load shared by raft is more than the foundation situ­
ated in loose sandy soil deposits.
This study presents a closed-form representation of the steady-state
response of CPRF and also showcases the influential effects of loading
frequency and raft flexibility on the behavior of the foundation under
dynamic loading. Thus, it can be considered as a notable contribution in
the field of analytical studies pertaining to the dynamic behavior of
CPRF.
Credit author statement
Aniruddha Bhaduri: Methodology, Visualization, Investigation,
Software, Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Deep­
ankar Choudhury: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing
and Editing.
Funding
Authors want to acknowledge the financial support received through
sponsored research project Grant Number 36(2)/15/04/2016-BRNS/
36004-36029 (16BRNS012) from Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences,
Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, for carrying out the
research work presented in this paper.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664
References
[1] Dash SR, Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S. A case study of damages of the Kandla
Port and Customs Office tower supported on a mat–pile foundation in liquefied
soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2009;29(2):333–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.03.004.
[2] Katzenbach R, Leppla S, Choudhury D. Foundation systems for high-rise structures.
U.K: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1201/
9781315368870.
[3] Choudhury D, Kumar A, Patil M, Rao VD, Bhaduri A, Singbal P, Shukla J.
Sustainable foundation solutions for industrial structures under earthquake
conditions - theory to practice. In: Proc 16th asian regional conf. On soil mechanics
and geotechnical engineering (16ARC); 2019. p. 1–11 [Taipei, Taiwan].
[4] Patil G, Choudhury D, Mondal A. Estimation of the response of piled raft using
nonlinear soil and interface model. Int J Geotech Eng 2020:1–18. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19386362.2020.1859250.
[5] Patil G, Choudhury D, Mondal A. Three-dimensional
soil–foundation–superstructure interaction analysis of nuclear building supported
by combined piled–raft system. Int J GeoMech 2021;21(4):04021029. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001956.
[6] Horikoshi K, Randolph MF. A contribution to optimum design of piled rafts.
Géotechnique 1998;48(3):301–17. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.3.301.
[7] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Moormann C. Piled raft foundation projects in Germany,
design applications of raft foundations. In: Hemsley JA, editor. U.K; 2000. https://
doi.org/10.1680/daorf.27657.0013.
[8] Zhang QQ, Zhang ZM, Yu F, Liu JW. Field performance of long bored piles within
piled rafts. Proc. Instit. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 2010;163(6):293–305. https://doi.
org/10.1680/geng.2010.163.6.293.
[9] Matsumoto T, Fukumura K, Horikoshi K, Oki A. Shaking table tests on model piled
rafts in sand considering influence of superstructures. Int J Phys Model Geotech
2004;4(3):21–38. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.2004.040302.
[10] Unsever YS, Matsumoto T, Özkan MY. Numerical analyses of load tests on model
foundations in dry sand. Comput Geotech 2015;63:255–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.10.005.
[11] De Sanctis L, Mandolini A. Bearing capacity of piled rafts on soft clay soils.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2006;132(12):1600–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1600).
[12] Kumar A, Choudhury D. Development of new prediction model for capacity of
combined pile-raft foundations. Comput Geotech 2018;97:62–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.12.008.
[13] Bhaduri A, Choudhury D. Influence of connection rigidity on combined pile-raft
foundation under seismic loading. In: Proc 7th international conference on
earthquake geotechnical engineering; 2019. p. 1437–44. Rome, Italy.
[14] Kumar A, Choudhury D, Katzenbach R. Effect of earthquake on combined pile–raft
foundation. Int J GeoMech 2016;16(5):04016013. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000637.
[15] Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG, Bolton MD. An alternative mechanism of pile
failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes. Geotechnique 2004;54(3):
203–13. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2004.54.3.203.
[16] Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S, Alexander NA. A simplified method for unified
buckling and free vibration analysis of pile-supported structures in seismically
liquefiable soils. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2009;29(8):1220–35. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.006.
[17] Bhaduri A, Rao VD, Choudhury D. The behaviour of pile group and combined
piled-raft foundation in liquefiable soil under seismic conditions. Geotech. Eng. J.
Southeast Asian Geotech. Soc. (SEAGS) Assoc. Geotech. Soc. Southeast Asia
(AGSSEA) 2020;51(2):130–8.
[18] Katzenbach R, Choudhury D. ISSMGE combined pile-raft foundation guideline.
Darmstadt, Germany: ISSMGE (International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering) TC212 Design Guideline; 2013.
[19] Hain SJ, Lee IK. The analysis of flexible raft-pile systems. Géotechnique 1978;28
(1):65–83. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1978.28.1.65.
[20] Yamashita K, Tomono M, Kakurai M. A method for estimating immediate
settlement of piles or pile groups. Soils Found 1987;27(1):61–76. https://doi.org/
10.3208/sandf1972.27.61.
[21] Poulos HG. An approximate numerical analysis of pile–raft interaction. Int J Numer
Anal Methods GeoMech 1994;18(2):73–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nag.1610180202.
[22] Mandolini A, Viggiani C. Settlement of piled foundations. Géotechnique 1997;47
(4):791–816. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1997.47.4.791.
[23] Kitiyodom P, Matsumoto T. Simplified analysis method for piled raft foundations in
non-homogeneous soils. Int J Numer Anal Methods GeoMech 2003;27(2):85–109.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.264.
[24] Roy J, Kumar A, Choudhury D. Pseudostatic approach to analyze combined
pile–raft foundation. Int J GeoMech 2020;20(10):06020028. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001806.
[25] Clancy P, Randolph MF. An approximate analysis procedure for piled raft
foundations. Int J Numer Anal Methods GeoMech 1993;17(12):849–69. https://
doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610171203.
[26] Roy J, Kumar A, Choudhury D. Natural frequencies of piled raft foundation
including superstructure effect. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;112:69–75. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.048.
[27] Jeong S, Cho J. Proposed nonlinear 3-D analytical method for piled raft
foundations. Comput Geotech 2014;59:112–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2014.02.009.
A. Bhaduri and D. Choudhury
[28] Bhaduri A, Choudhury D. Serviceability-based finite-element approach on
analyzing combined pile–raft Foundation. Int J GeoMech 2020;20(2):04019178.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001580.
[29] Yu H, Yuan Y. Analytical solution for an infinite Euler-Bernoulli beam on a
viscoelastic foundation subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads. J Eng Mech 2014;140
(3):542–51. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000674.
[30] Foyouzat MA, Mofid M, Akin JE. Free vibration of thin circular plates resting on an
elastic foundation with a variable modulus. J Eng Mech 2016;142(4):04016007.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001050.
[31] Gupta BK, Basu D. Applicability of Timoshenko, Euler–Bernoulli and rigid beam
theories in analysis of laterally loaded monopiles and piles. Géotechnique 2018;68
(9):772–85. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.244.
[32] Gupta BK, Basu D. Dynamic analysis of axially loaded end-bearing pile in a
homogeneous viscoelastic soil. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;111:31–40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.019.
[33] Mamoon SM, Kaynia AM, Banerjee PK. Frequency domain dynamic analysis of
piles and pile groups. J Eng Mech 1990;116(10):2237–57. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1990)116:10(2237).
[34] Pasternak PL. On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of
two foundation constants. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po
Stroitelstvui Arkhitekture; 1954 ([in Russian]).
[35] Winkler E. Die Lehre von der Elastizitat und Festigkeit [The theory of elasticity and
strength]. Prague: Dominicus; 1867.
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 145 (2021) 106664
[36] Won J, Ahn SY, Jeong S, Lee J, Jang SY. Nonlinear three-dimensional analysis of
pile group supported columns considering pile cap flexibility. Comput Geotech
2006;33(6–7):355–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.07.007.
[37] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. Part II: lateral and seismic
response. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1992;21(2):145–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/
eqe.4290210204.
[38] Kim SM. Influence of horizontal resistance at plate bottom on vibration of plates on
elastic foundation under moving loads. Eng Struct 2004;26(4):519–29. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.12.002.
[39] Clancy P. Numerical analysis of piled raft foundations. PhD thesis. University of
Western Australia; 1993.
[40] Kaynia AM. Dynamic stiffness and seismic response of pile groups. PhD thesis.
Massachusetts Institute of technology; 1982.
[41] Horikoshi K, Matsumoto T, Hashizume Y, Watanabe T. Performance of piled raft
foundations subjected to dynamic loading. Int J Phys Model Geotech 2003;3(2):
51–62. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.2003.030204.
[42] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.
[43] Kang MA, Banerjee S, Lee FH, Xie HP. Dynamic soil-pile-raft interaction in
normally consolidated soft clay during earthquakes. J. Earthquake Tsunami 2012;6
(3):1250031. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431112500315.
[44] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1995.