International Journal of Geo-Engineering 4(1) : 11-22 (2012)

Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils

Sangseom Jeong1* Jaeyeon Cho2
2

Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120 749, Korea Graduate student, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120 749, Korea

Abstract
The settlement behavior of a square piled raft in clay soil was investigated using numerical analysis. The emphasis was on quantifying the reduction of the average and differential settlements in soft and stiff clay soils. To obtain the detailed information on the piled raft, nonlinear three dimensional finite element analyses with pile-soil slip interface model were performed for various pile positions, pile numbers, pile lengths under the raft and different loading types. Based on the results obtained, design considerations concerning the settlement of piled rafts subjected to vertical loading are discussed. It is found that the variation of reduction ratio of soft clay was relatively greater than that of stiff clay, whereas the reduction ratio of soft clay was relatively smaller than that of stiff clays. It is also found that the required pile group-raft area ratio for minimizing differential settlement in soft clay was slightly larger than that of stiff clay in the same pile array. Keywords : Piled raft, Average and differential settlement, Three dimensional finite element analysis, Pile-soil slip interface

1. INTRODUCTION
In South Korea, a number of large projects involving land reclamation are being undertaken. An increasing number of structures are constructed on soft ground, and the application of piled rafts on soft ground is becoming an important issue in foundation design. However, it is known for an unfavorable foundation type in soft clay, which may be associated with excessive settlement and insufficient bearing capacity (Cooke, 1986; Lee et al. 2010; Poulos, 2001, 2005). Despite these concerns, a few successful applications of piled rafts on soft clay have been reported (Kakurai et al. 1987; Poulos, 2005; Tan et al. 2006; Yamashita et al. 1998). A piled raft comprises three elements of pile, raft and
*Corresponding author to Sangseom Jeong, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120 749, Korea Tel : +82-2-2123-2807, Fax : +82-2-364-5300 E-mail : soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr Received 25 January 2012; Accepted 12 March 2012 11

subsoil. And the behavior of a piled raft is affected by the 3D interaction between the subsoil, piles and raft. In addition, for soft clay conditions, the magnitude of settlement is larger than for stiff clay conditions under the same vertical applied load, so soil-structure (piles and raft) interaction is much more complicated. In this case, a contribution of the raft, which is contact with soil, is considered and the loads are carried by the raft and the piles. However, the piles are usually required to reduce the average and/or differential settlements of the foundation to an acceptable level rather than to carry the major portion of the load. Therefore, a major design concept is that the settlement of foundation is permitted within serviceability criterion. This has affected how piles are designed optimally to reduce the settlements of the foundation. There are several design approaches available for predicting the settlement behavior of piled raft in clay soils subject to vertical loading, using numerical methods (de Sanctis et al. 2002; Horikoshi and Randolph, 1997; Katzenbach et al. 2005; Poulos, 1994; Prakoso and Kulhawy, 2001; Randoph, 2003; Reul and Randolph, 2004). It is recognized, however, that the three

12 Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho

dimensional (3D) Finite Element (FE) analysis is the most appropriate method (Poulos, 2001); additionally 3D FE analysis which consider pile-soil slip interface offer a better estimation of the behavior of piled raft in clay soils (Lee et al. 2010). Therefore, the overall objective of this study focuses on investigating the settlement behavior of a piled raft on clay soils under vertical loading by using 3D FE analysis considering the pile-soil slip interface model. Furthermore, the comparison of behavior for relatively stiff soil properties was also carried out for different pile configurations and loading types then, the settlement behavior of piled rafts was investigated.

at the left- and right- hand sides were assumed to be on rollers to allow downward movement of soil layers. The pile head was connected to the raft rigidly. Due to symmetry, a quarter of a whole mesh was used in the 3D analyses. Since modeling of the entire pile installation process is rather complicated, the pile was assumed to be in a stressfree state at the start of the analysis (Jeong et al. 2004). The stress change in the soil during pile installation was therefore not included. A summary of the analyses is shown in Table 1. Fig. 1 shows a typical 3D FE mesh used in this analysis. In addition, as a reference for the behavior of a piled raft, an unpiled raft (UR) was also analyzed.

2. THREE DIMENSIONAL FEM MODELING 2.1 Finite Element Mesh and Boundary Conditions
The behavior of a square piled raft (PR) was investigated using 3D FE analyses. The FE package ABAQUS was used. The 3D model included a rigorous treatment of the soil and piled raft which were represented by 27 noded 2nd order hexahedral elements. The mesh was assumed to be resting on a rigid layer, and the vertical boundaries

2.2 Constitutive Modeling

Table 2 summarizes the material parameters used in the analyses. The soft clay, stiff clay and bearing layer were modeled with a Mohr-Coulomb model. Attention was focused on the drained response of a piled raft resting on a soft and stiff clay layer, so that the soil layer was idealized using drained properties with the groundwater table located on the top of the clay layer, assuming a hydrostatic water pressure distribution. Thus, consolidation

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Representative finite element mesh used in the analysis (ex. 3x3 array, Lp=16 m): (a) Typical 3D FE mesh and boundary condition; (b) Side view Table 1. Summary of pile configurations of numerical analyses conducted Pile array 33 44 Pile spacing (s)* 3d, 6d, 9d 3d, 4d, 6d Pile length (Lp, m)** 8 , 12 16f, 20e
f f

Remarks 1) *d (pile diameter): 0.5 m 2) **f: floating; e: end bearing

Square raft: width (B) = 10 m, thickness (t) = 1 m

Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils 13

Table 2. Material parameters used in the analyses Model Pile Raft Clay (soft) Clay (stiff) Bearing Elastic MohrCoulomb E' (MPa) 12,500 30,000 5 45 500 c' (kPa) 3 20 0.1
' ()

' 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

K0 0.01 0 0.65 0.65 0.5

t (kN/m )

20 20 45

25 25 18 19 20

Fig. 2. Behavior at the interface

effects were neglected. Also, to simplify the analysis process, constant material parameters were adopted for the soil layer. The raft and piles were modeled with an isotropic elastic element. The pile was selected as a typical steel pipe pile which was modeled with a solid section. The Youngs modulus of the solid pile section was chosen so that the axial stiffness would be equivalent to that of a steel pipe pile. The material properties were adopted from reference values as reported by Lee et al. (2010). A slip model was used to describe the pile-soil interface behavior. This model was selected from the contact model of ABAQUS and the interface modeling was carried out by specifying a limiting shear displacement of 5 mm (Lee et al. 2002) and an interface friction coefficient =0.3 (Jeong et al. 2004). The raft-soil interface was considered smooth with contact only. The schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 2. The interface elements were composed of 2D quadratic 18-node elements, each element of two nine-node surfaces compatible with the adjacent solid elements (the two surfaces coincide initially). In case of no sliding occurred, nodes at the interface have identical coordinates and the distance between the two surfaces is zero, through the surfaces, shear stress was transferred as well as normal forces when two surfaces are attached each other. In the case that pile element moves along the surface, shear stress () occurs in the interface. The frictional constitutive model for interface used is a Coulombs frictional model which is shown in Fig. 3. The shear behavior in the

Fig. 3. Coulombs friction law

interface is that elastic behavior occurs until critical shear stress (crit) in Eq. (1) reached and after that only shear displacement increases without increase of shear stress.

crit = p

(1)

After initial equilibrium, the vertical uniformly distributed loading (P) was applied on the top of the raft. In this analysis, the pile installation effect and the settlement due to the weight of the raft were not considered.

2.3 Post Analysis

The vertical settlements from the 3D FE analyses were used directly, and the average settlement (savg) was calculated by Eq. (2) (Reul and Randolph, 2004).

savg = (2scenter + scorner ) / 3

(2)

where scenter = settlement of raft center, scorner = settlement of raft corner. The center to corner differential settlement was calculated based on Eq. (3).
sc c = scenter scorner

(3)

14 Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho

The rectangular raft-soil stiffness ratio (Krs) was calculated at 31.7, using Eq. (4), which can be assumed to represent a relatively rigid raft because Horikoshi and Randolph (1997) reported Krs of 0.001 is fully flexible, while Krs of 1000 is essentially rigid.

of all pile load (Rpile) to the total load of the foundation (Rtot) using Eq. (5).

pr =

R pile Rtot

(5)

K rs = 5.57

Er 1 s2 B tr Es 1 r2 L L

0.5

2.4 Validation
(4) The validation of the 3D FE model was examined by a comparison of the analyzed results with the field measurement for vertically loaded piled rafts on the Frankfurt clay, which was carried out by Sommer (1991). A total number of 84 bored piles with a length of 20 m and diameter of 0.9 m were located under two 17.5 m 24.5 m large rafts with 2.5 m thickness. Fig. 4 (a) shows a

where Er and Es = Youngs modulus of the raft and the soil, r and s = Poissons ratio of the raft and the soil respectively, tr = thickness of the raft, B and L = breadth and the length of the rectangular raft, respectively. The piled raft coefficient described the ratio of the sum

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 4. Typical Finite element mesh: (a) 3D FE mesh; (b) Plan view; (c) Profile view of Torhaus Der Messe; (d) Side view

Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils 15

Table 3. Material properties used for 3D FE analysis Clay Youngs modulus, E: MPa Poissons ratio, Total unit weight, : kN/m Cohesion, c: kPa Table 4. Comparison of the results Results Measured (Sommer, 1991) Reul & Randolph (2003) Present study (Frankfurt clay) Present study (Soft clay) Scenter* =Max. Settlement Slip analysis No-slip analysis Slip analysis No-slip analysis scenter (mm) 124 96 114 92 743* 640* Piled raft coefficient ( pr) 0.67 0.76 0.65 0.81 0.96 1.0
3

Sand 75 0.25 18 32.5 0

Raft 34000 0.2 15 -

Piles 23500 0.2 15 -

47 0.15 19 20 20

Angle of internal friction,

3D FE mesh used in this analysis. The subsoil comprises quaternary sand up to 2.5 m below the bottom of the raft, followed by the Frankfurt clay. The material properties of the soil and piled raft, which were adopted from the values as reported by Reul & Randolph (2004), are shown in Table 3. And the constant (average) values of the drained Youngs modulus and drained shear strength parameters were adopted to simplify the analysis for the soil layer. The interface friction coefficient was estimated from the soil friction angle using Eq. (6) and (7). Therefore, the interface friction coefficient of 0.3 was used. An applied load of 200 MN for each raft (Sommer, 1991) was applied as a uniform load over the whole raft area.

= tan( ) =

K0

(6)

Fig. 5. Calculated load-settlement curve

where is interface angle and K0 is an earth pressure coefficient at rest.

= tan 1 (sin cos / (1 + sin 2 ))

(7)

where is soil friction angle. For this case, the comparative results of 3D FE analysis and field measurements are shown in Fig. 5. In addition, the 3D FE analysis result reported by Reul and Randolph (2004) and relatively soft soil properties were compared. The calculated and measured center settlements were summarized

in Table 4. All values of 3D FE analyses are smaller than the measured one. However, there was reasonably good agreement between the result of 3D FE model with an interface and that from the measured. In addition, the trends of results of no-slip analysis were similar to those obtained by the thin-layer interface analysis of Reul and Randolph (2004). For a soft clay on the piled raft, the settlement of the raft was larger than that of a Frankfurt clay (=stiff clay), and the piled raft coefficient (pr) was significantly affected by soil properties. The coefficient

16 Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho

value was mostly higher for soft clay than for stiff clay. And the non-slip analysis was also higher than the value from the slip analysis. This difference in the piled raft coefficient was caused by the contribution of the raft, which was more efficient with stiff clay (Lee et al. 2010).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Effect of Loading Types

Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show general load-average settlement curves of piled raft with various pile configurations and different raft-soil stiffness ratio under uniform and point loading. The raft on stiff clay (Krs = 3.5) was relatively more flexible than that for soft clay (Krs = 31.7). The pile lengths (Lp) ranged from zero (UR) to 20 m (end bearing). By comparing the load-settlement curves of the uniform loading and point loading, the behaviors of loadsettlement were similar and the effects of the different loading types on the average settlements were insignificant in soft clay. For stiff clay, the average settlement for point loading was larger than for uniform loading, but

the difference became very small and an effect of loading type could be negligible. This was similar to results reported by Poulos (2001). Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show a load-center to corner differential settlement curves. In contrast with average settlements, the load-differential settlement behavior was affected by not only pile configuration but also loading type. For point loading, the settlement profiles appeared concave and the settlement increased with increasing load level. For uniform loading, according to pile configurations, the deformed shape of the raft was changed according to pile configurations.

3.2 Average Settlements

Fig. 10 shows the typical load-normalized average settlement curves of a piled raft and an unpiled raft. Additionally, The ultimate bearing capacity of a square unpiled raft (QUR_ult), which was used to normalize the applied load level (P/QUR_ult), was estimated by the load of settlement of 10% B (Cooke, 1986; de Sanctis and Mandolini, 2003, 2006) from the ABAQUS analysis of the unpiled raft load-settlement relationships reported by Lee (2007). The

(a) 3x3, s=3d

(b) 3x3, s=9d

(c) 4x4, s=3d

(d) 4x4, s=6d

Fig. 6. Effect of loading types on load-average settlement curves for soft clay

Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils 17

(a) 3x3, s=3d

(b) 3x3, s=9d

(c) 4x4, s=3d

(d) 4x4, s=6d

Fig. 7. Effect of loading types on load-average settlement curves for stiff clay

(a) 3x3 3d

(b) 3x3 9d

(c) 4x4 3d

(d) 4x4 6d

Fig. 8. Effect of loading types on load-differential settlement curves for soft clay

18 Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho

(a) 3x3 3d

(b) 3x3 9d

(c) 4x4 3d

(d) 4x4 6d

Fig. 9. Effect of loading types on load-differential settlement curves for stiff clay

(a) Soft clay

(b) Stiff clay

Fig. 10. Normalized load-average settlement of UR, PR

ratio of pile lengths Lp/Ls ranged from zero (UR) to 1.0 (PR-end bearing). The settlement increased with the increasing load level, and the settlement decreased as the pile length increased in soft and stiff clay. Additionally, the effects of pile lengths on the reducing the average settlements of soft clay were much greater than that of stiff clay under the same load level. Fig. 11 shows the load (P/QUR,ult)-reduction ratio (sPR,avg/ sUR,avg) of a piled raft with various pile configurations.

The reduction ratio means the average settlement of a piled raft divided by the average settlement of an unpiled raft. The settlement of the unpiled raft (sUR,avg) was taken as reference for the settlement of the piled raft (sPR,avg). Therefore, the reduction ratios of 1.0, in this figure, mean that the settlement of the piled raft is same as the settlement of the unpiled raft. As expected, the average settlement decreased with increasing pile length and pile spacing of the same number

Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils 19

(a) 33 array

(b) 44 array

Fig. 11. Normalized average settlements with load levels of soft clay

(a) 33 array

(b) 44 array

Fig. 12. Normalized average settlements with load levels of stiff clay

of piles. This was due to the fact that, for closely spaced piles, the bearing capacity of pile groups in a piled raft is decreased by the group effect. The reduction ratio decreased until certain inflection points and then increased with increasing load level, though the actual average settlements of a piled raft generally increased with the increasing load levels. These inflection points were estimated bearing capacity of a Single Pile (SP) multiplied by the number of piles from the ABAQUS analysis of single pile load-settlement relationships (Lee, 2007). For wide pile spacing (ex. 33, s=9d; 44, s=6d), the location of inflection points were similar to the sum of the ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. However, for narrow pile spacing, these points were slightly larger than the sum of the ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. It was estimated that the behavior of piles in a piled raft with wide pile spacing was similar to the behavior of single pile. Likewise, for narrow pile spacing, the yielding point of pile groups in a piled raft was slightly smaller than that of wide pile spacing cases; this is due to

the effect of block mode of failure of pile groups, though the bearing capacity of pile groups in piled raft was decreased by the group effect of pile group. For the cases considered, the efficiency for reducing average settlement was maximized when the point was similar to the ultimate capacity of pile groups in a piled raft. For stiff clay, as shown in Fig. 12, as soft clay, the reduction ratio decreased with increasing pile length and pile spacing of the same number of piles. Also, it was shown that the variation of reduction ratio of soft clay was relatively greater than that of stiff clay, and the reduction ratio was relatively smaller than that of stiff clay, although the real average settlement of soft clay was larger than that of stiff clay. The efficiency for reducing average settlement increased when the point was similar to the ultimate capacity of pile groups in piled raft and after then, efficiency decreased. The bearing capacity developed by piles within a piled raft can be significantly greater than that for a pile in

20 Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho

a conventional pile group. This is because the increased normal stresses generated between the soil and the pile shaft by the loading on the raft (Poulos, 2001). This effect of stiff clay is much larger than that of soft clay.

3.3 Differential Settlement

Fig. 13 shows the normalized differential settlement ( sPR,c-c/sUR,c-c) with the pile group-raft area ratio (Ag/Ar), defined as Eq. (8) (Randolph, 1994), and pile length. In this Figure, (+) value in y-axis means the sagging of the raft and (-) value means the hogging of the raft.

Ag / Ar = [( n 1) s ]2 / Ar

(8)

where n is the number of piles in piled raft, s is the center to center pile spacing, Ar is the area of the raft. As expected, an effective way of minimizing differential

settlement was achieved by placing a pile group over the central area of the raft. But this area, which is defined as the pile group-raft area ratio (Ag/Ar), was affected by not only the pile number and the pile length, but also load level. For a 33 array (pile number=9), as shown in Fig. 13 (a), the differential settlement was minimized by the Ag/Ar of about 0.25 with relative pile length (Lp/Ls) of 0.4 under load level (P/QUR,ult) of 0.2. Likewise, the required Ag/Ar for minimizing differential settlement under the relative pile length (Lp/Ls) of 0.4 was increased from 0.25 to 0.4 after increasing load level of from 0.2 to 0.4. Also, the required Ag/Ar under load level of 0.2, slightly increased with increasing pile length from 0.25 (Lp/Ls=0.4) to 0.4 (Lp/Ls=0.8). However, the effect of pile length was reduced according to increasing load level and the differential settlement approximately minimized at Ag/Ar of about 0.4. Moreover, the required Ag/Ar was increased with increasing pile number, as shown in Fig. 13 (b). The

(a) 33 array

(b) 44 array

Fig. 13. Normalized differential settlements with pile group-raft raft area ratio (soft clay)

(a) 33 array

(b) 44 array

Fig. 14. Normalized differential settlements with pile group-raft raft area ratio (stiff clay)

Three Dimensional Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils 21

required Ag/Ar of 44 arrays was about 0.45, with pile length of 0.4 under load level of 0.2. In these cases, the required Ag/Ar increased with increasing load levels from 0.45 to 0.5 (44), respectively, after increasing load level of from 0.2 to 0.4, as well. By contrast with the 33 array, however, the pile length had less affected the required Ag/Ar for minimizing differential settlement under low load level of 0.2, according to increasing pile number. The results showed that the required Ag/Ar for minimizing differential settlement tends to be about 0.250.4 particularly in 33 pile groups in piled raft according to pile length and load level. As pile numbers are increased, the minimum required Ag/Ar increased to 0.450.5 of 44 pile group. For the stiff clay, as shown in Figure 14, similar results developed as with soft clay. However, the effect of pile length was larger than that of soft clay for the required Ag/Ar of minimizing differential settlement. The differential settlement could be minimized effectively when the smallest number of piles (33 array) is located below the Ag/Ar of approximately 0.2 (load level=0.2), 0.35 (load level=0.4). As same as soft clay, the required Ag/Ar was increased with increasing pile number, as shown in Fig. 14 (b). The required Ag/Ar of 44 arrays was about 0.3, with pile length of 0.4 under load level of 0.2. The optimum Ag/Ar was similar in both soil conditions but the optimum Ag/Ar of soft clay was slightly larger than stiff clay for low load level and the optimum Ag/Ar was changed according to load levels. Furthermore, the optimum Ag/Ar was affected by pile length and piles numbers. Consequently, an optimum Ag/Ar should accompany a pile length, numbers and load levels. The required Ag/Ar for minimizing differential settlement in soft clay is larger than that of stiff clay and in both cases of soil condition, the required Ag/Ar for inducing differential settlement of unpiled raft (sPR,c-c/sUR,c-c=1.0) was similar in the same pile array. Similar studies on required pile geometry in stiff clay under uniform loading have been reported by Horikoshi and Randolph (1998), Prakoso and Kulhawy (2001), de Sanctis et al. (2002). They suggested that the piles of length greater than about 70% of the width of the raft are required and they conclude that the piles should be situated over the central 16-25%, 16-36% and 25-45% of raft area, respectively. For soft clay, Randolph (2003) reported that the most significant factors were the short pile installed extending through that layer over the full

raft area, or longer piles used in the central 25-40% of the raft area. This is similar to the results of this study. However, previous studies did not consider the effect of pile numbers or load level in detail, which they generally take to be about 0.3. However, as investigated, the required Ag/Ar should be accompanied a pile length, pile numbers and load level, in this study.

4. CONCLUSIONS
A series of numerical analysis were conducted to investigate the behavior of a square piled raft subjected to vertical loading. In this study, the 3D elasto-plastic FE analyses with slip interface model of pile-soil contact were carried out with drained shear parameters and no consolidation effect for a clay layer. Pile positions, pile number, pile length and load distribution on the raft were varied and the effects of pile geometries, load levels and loading types were examined. Based on the results, the validity of the 3D elasto-plastic FE analyses with slip interface model at the pile-soil contact was evaluated and the settlement behavior of piled raft was examined. From this study, the following conclusions can be drawn; (1) The average settlement could be reduced effectively with wider spaced pile groups with the same number of piles. Furthermore, the efficiency of piles in a piled raft was maximized when the magnitude of the applied load of the piled raft was similar to the ultimate capacity of pile groups in the piled raft. It was shown that the reduction ratio was relatively smaller than that of stiff clay, although the real average settlement of soft clay was larger than that of stiff clay. (2) The differential settlement of the piled rafts can be minimized when the central area of the raft is supported by piles. The required (install) area The required install area of pile group for minimizing differential settlement was affected by not only the pile number and length, but also the load level. The required Ag/Ar was generally increased with increasing load level and pile number, but the pile length had less influence compared with the effect of pile number. And the required Ag/Ar for minimizing differential settlement in soft clay is slightly larger than that of stiff clay in the same pile array. (3) The average and differential settlements of the raft are dependent on the combination of pile geometries; thus the design of pile geometries should be carefully

22 Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho

considered to satisfy the both settlement criterion. The loading type (uniform or point load) greatly influences the differential settlement rather than the average settlement.

REFERENCES
ABAQUS. (2010). Users manual. version 6.10. Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Pawtucket R.I. Cooke, R.W. (1986). Piled raft foundations on stiff clays: a contribution to design philosophy. Geotechnique. 36(2), 169-203. de Sanctis, L., Mandolini, A., Russo, G. & Viggiani, C. (2002). Some remarks on the optimum design of piled rafts. Proc. Deep Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construction and Performance ASCE. 405-425. de Sanctis L, Mandolini A. (2003). On the ultimate vertical load of piled rafts on the soft clay soils. Proc. 4th international geotechnical seminar on deep foundation on bored and auger piles, Ghent: Millpress. 379-86. de Sanctis L, Mandolini A. (2006). Bearing capacity of piled rafts on soft clay soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng ASCE. 132(12), 1600-10. Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1997). On the definition of raft-soil stiffness ratio. Gotechnique. 47(5), 1055-1061. Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). A contribution to the optimum design of piled rafts. Gotechnique. 48(2), 301-317. Jeong, SS., Lee, J. H. & Lee, C. J. (2004). Slip effect at the pile-soil interface on dragload. Comput. Geotech. 31, 115-126. Katzenbach, R., Schmitt, A. & Turek, J. (2005). Assessing settlement of high-rise structures by 3D simulations. ComputerAided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. 20, 221-229. Kakurai M, Yamashita K, Tomono M. (1987). Settlement behavior of piled raft foundation on soft ground. In: Proceedings of 8th ARCSMFE. p. 373-6. Lee, C. J., Bolton, M. D. & Al-Tabbaa, A. (2002). Numerical

modelling of group effects on the distribution of dragloads in pile foundations. Gotechnique. 52(5), 325-335. Lee, J. H. (2007). Nonlinear Three Dimensional Analysis of Settlement of Piled raft in Clay Soils. Ph.D Thesis, Yonsei University, South Korea. Lee, J. H., Kim, YH & Jeong, S.S. (2010). Three-dimensional analysis of bearing behavior of piled raft on soft clay. Comput. Geotech. 37, 103-114. Poulos, H. G. (1994). Alternative design strategies for piled raft foundations. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Deep Foundations, Singapore. 239-244. Poulos, H. G. (2001). Piled raft foundations: design and applications. Gotechnique. 51(2), 95-113. Poulos HG. (2005). Piled raft and compensated piled raft foundations for soft soil sites. Advances on designing and testing deep foundations. Geotech Spec Publ (ASCE). 129:214-35. Prakoso, W. A. & Kulhawy, F. H. (2001). Contribution to piled raft optimum design. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE. 127(1), 17-24. Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design Methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng., New Delhi. 5, 61-82. Randolph, M. F. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundations rd design. The 43 Rankine lecture, Gotechnique. 53(10), 847-875. Reul, O. & Randolph, M. F. (2004). Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to nonuniform vertical loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE. 130(1), 1-13. Sommer, H. (1991). Entwicklung der Hochhausgrundungen in Frankfurt/Main Festkolloquium 20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut, Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. Sommer und Partner, Germany, pp. 47-62 Tan YC, Cheah SW, Taha MR. (2006). Methodology for design of piled raft for 5-story buildings on very soft clay. Foundation analysis and design: innovative methods. Geotech Spec Publ (ASCE). 153:226-33. Yamashita K, Yamada T, Kakurai M. (1998). Simplified method for analyzing piled raft foundations. In: 3rd international geotechnical seminar on deep foundation on bored and auger piles. p. 457-64.