Int. Conf.

Testing and Design Methods for Deep Foundations, Kanazawa, 2012

Simplified analysis of piled rafts with irregular geometry

Vrettos, C.

Technical University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

Keywords: piled rafts, analysis methods, case studies

ABSTRACT: Piled rafts are increasingly used for the foundation of high-rise buildings on competent ground.
During preliminary design, the position and geometry of the piles are optimized in order to minimize
differential settlements and consequently the sectional forces in the slabs. In engineering practice, the analysis
of this complex soil-structure interaction problem is performed by means of a pseudo-coupled procedure that
yields as output the spring stiffness for each pile and the modulus of subgrade reaction for the raft. The paper
presents an approximate method for determining these values for piled rafts with irregular geometry. It is
based on the linear-elastic analysis method suggested by Randolph with appropriate modifications to include
in an approximate manner variable pile distances and pile lengths within the pile group. If further considers
the different behavior of edge and central piles and also the influence of the pile load level. The method can
be easily implemented into a spreadsheet program. The application is shown by means of case study of a
high-rise founded on clay.
1

INTRODUCTION

Piled rafts are a new foundation concept for

important high-rise buildings and have been
successfully used in Germany since the beginning of
the 1990s (Katzenbach et al. 2000). This foundation
type is a viable alternative to conventional pile or
raft foundations in competent ground. The combined
foundation is able to support the applied axial
loading with an appropriate factor of safety at a
tolerable level of settlement under working loads.
The implementation of this foundation type has led
to an abolition of complicated settlement-correction
techniques. In recent years, the computational
methods
available
in
combination
with
measurements on real projects allowed the realistic
modelling of the complicated bearing behaviour of
that composite foundation system.
The overall bearing behaviour is described by
means of the piled raft coefficient that defines the
proportion of load carried by the piles. Due to the
strong nonlinearity of the pile bearing behaviour the
piled raft coefficient depends on the stress level and
accordingly on the amount of settlement of the piled
raft foundation as well. The piles can be loaded up to
their ultimate bearing capacity, and are spaced
strategically to achieve a more uniform settlement so

as to reduce sectional forces in the raft, giving a

more economical solution.
The associated design work consists in estimating
the deformation of the composite system and the
distribution of the load into its two components, pile
group and raft. The available methods may be
divided into (i) approximate analytical, (ii)
approximate numerical, and (iii) refined numerical,
the choice being dictated by the importance of the
project. Methods belonging to the first category are
those by Randolph (1983; 1994), which is adopted
here, Poulos and Davis (1980), and Lutz et al.
(2006). Methods of the second category model the
structural elements with finite-elements and apply
approximate methods of elastic continua for
calculating the interaction between the structural
elements, Clancy and Randolph (1993), Horikoshi
and Randolph (1998), Kitiyodom and Matsumoto
(2003), Poulos (1994), Russo (1998), Small et al.
(2003), Ta and Small (1996), Yamashita et al.
(1998). The third category includes boundary
element methods, applied by Butterfield and
Banerjee, (1971), EI-Mossallamy and Franke (1997),
Hain and Lee (1978), Kuwabara (1989), as well as
finite element methods, applied by Arslan et al.
(1994), Katzenbach et al. (1998), Reul and Randolph
(2004), Smith and Wang (1998). The latter methods
453

progressively dominate final design analyses, since

they offer the possibility of capturing soil behaviour
by appropriate non-linear constitutive models.
Overviews are presented by Poulos (2001) and
Mandolini (2003).
For the preliminary design, where different
foundation alternatives are compared, a flexible,
simplified method is required to assess the influence
of the pile group configuration and of the soil
parameters. The aim of this process is to optimize
the position and the geometry of the piles in order to
minimize the differential settlements and sectional
forces in the raft. The solution of this complex
soil-structure interaction problem is obtained by
means of a pseudo-coupled procedure that is based
on an interaction between the designers of the
superstructure and the foundation system,
respectively. The interface in this design procedure
is defined jointly in terms of the modulus of
subgrade reaction for the raft and the spring constant
for each pile.
A simplified analytical method based on elastic
continuum solutions has been presented by
Randolph (1983; 1994). For uniform pile
configurations, it leads to simple expressions and
diagrams that allow a hand-calculation of the
composite foundation system. However in most
cases, piled raft foundations of high-rise buildings
exhibit an irregular geometry (variable pile distance
and length) calling for a modification of the method
that is presented in the sequel.
2

METHOD BY RANDOLPH

The method for estimating the load-displacement

behavior of piled rafts described by Randolph
(1983; 1994) is similar to that by Poulos and Davis
(1980) and is based on the solution of a pile-raft unit.
The stiffness of a pile-raft unit is estimated through
an approximation of the respective elastic continuum
solution:

K pr

K p K r ( 1 2 rp )
2
1 rp
Kr / K p

(1)

where K pr is the overall stiffness of the pile group

and raft system,

K p is the stiffness of the

free-standing pile group, K r is the stiffness of the

free-standing raft, and rp is the pile-raft
interaction factor.
The proportion of load carried by the raft is:

454

K r ( 1 rp )
Pr

P K p K r ( 1 2 rp )

(2)

where Pr is the load carried by the raft, and P is

the total load borne by the piled raft foundation.
The interaction factor rp , which is the essential
parameter in the above expressions, is calculated
from equation (3) by assuming that the settlement of
the surrounding ground is decaying with distance
according to a logarithmic law:

rp

ln ( rm / rr ,eq )
ln ( rm / r0 )

ln ( rr , eq / r0 )

(3)

The parameter , or equivalently rm , is estimated

from the following relation:

ln [0.25 (2.5 (1 ) 0.25) ]l / r0

(4)

In the above equations, l is the pile length, r0 the

pile radius, rm the influence radius of a single
free-standing pile, rr ,eq

the equivalent radius of

the raft area associated with each single pile, the

Poissons ratio of the linear-elastic soil, the
degree of inhomogeneity of the soil defined as the
ratio of the average deformation modulus over the
pile length to the modulus value at the level of pile
base, and is the ratio of the end-bearing for
end-bearing piles. Usually for piled rafts, 1 .
The stiffness of the pile group K p is obtained
by the weighted superposition of the stiffness of
each pile according to the approximate formula
suggested by Fleming et al. (1992), assuming that all
piles are identical and uniformly arranged within the
pile group:
K p N (1 e) K1

(5)

where N is the number of piles, e an efficiency

exponent, and K1 the stiffness of a single pile.
The stiffness of the single pile is taken either
from the solutions by Poulos and Davis (1980) or
from the following approximate expression derived
by Randolph and Wroth (1978) that is an extension
of the work by Frank (1974).

4
2 tanh( l ) l

r0

l
(1 )
K1 Gl r0
4
tanh( l ) l
1
r0
(1 )
l

(6)

with

E p / Gl

(7)

l 2 / (l / r0 )

(8)

where E p is the modulus of elasticity of the pile

material, Gl the shear modulus of the soil at the
level of the pile base, and the ratio of underream
for underreamed piles. Usually, 1 for piled
rafts.
The efficiency coefficient e is obtained from a
basic value in dependency of the slenderness ratio of
the single pile and four correction factors c1 to c4 :
e e1(l / d ) c1 ( ) c2 ( s / d ) c3 ( ) c4 ( )

(9)

where d is the pile diameter and s the average

pile spacing within the pile group.
Curves for e1, c1, c2 , c3 , c4 are given by Fleming
et al. (1992). They are approximated here by
polynomials using linear regression:
3

e1 (l / d ) 4.5 10
(l / d ) 4.9 10

(l / d ) 9.0 10

0.47

c1 (log10 ( ))3 3.8 102 (log10 ( ))2 0.28

log10 ( ) 0.45 0.85
c2 ( s / d )3 2.5 104 ( s / d )2 9.6 103
( s / d ) 0.13 1.32

(10)

(11)

(12)

c3 2 0.20 0.56 0.69

(13)

c4 2 0.14 0.20 1.07

(14)

The above equations are valid for 10 l / d 100 ,

2 log10 ( ) 4 , 0.5 1 , and 0 0.5 .
We observe that piles with d = 1.20 m and l =
12 m, typically used for piled rafts in sandy soil, are
already at the lower limit of the slenderness ratio,
reflecting the fact that the above curves were
developed primarily for slender piles.

The raft stiffness K r is obtained via elastic

continuum theory, taking into account the actual
variation of the soil stiffness with depth. Available
solutions for rigid rectangular plates with
dimensions 2b x 2a (b > a) on homogeneous soil
have been presented by various authors, and the
solutions take the general form
Kr

Ga
I
(1 )

(15)

where I is a shape factor, and G is the effective

shear modulus of the soil. I can be approximated
by the following equation (Pais and Kausel, 1988):

I 1.6 3.1 (b / a )0.75

(16)

In order to consider a depth-dependent soil modulus

and/or layering, the inhomogeneous soil is replaced
by its homogeneous equivalent. The corresponding
modulus can be computed, e.g., by adjusting the
settlement of a perfectly flexible plate resting on the
actual inhomogeneous soil to be equal to that of the
same plate on the homogeneous equivalent. The
Steinbrenner-approximation may be used for this
purpose (cf. Poulos and Davis, 1980).
- Limitations
The application of the method by Randolph has
some associated limitations: To guarantee a positive
valued overall stiffness K pr in equation (1), it is
required that
K p Kr rp

(17)

For high-rise building foundations this condition is

violated in those situations where the reduction of
the differential settlements requires only a small
number of piles underneath the rigid core of the
building. In this case the foundation can be modeled
as a pier-supported raft foundation, with the
equivalent pier corresponding to a short, thick pile
with slenderness ratio l / d 1 . From equation (17)
it follows that for small values of the slenderness
ratio the Randolph method becomes inaccurate.
Furthermore, the method in its original form
determines the overall stiffness, the average
settlement, and the proportion of load carried by
each system component. Each pile in the group is
assumed to have the same stiffness, i.e., it makes no
difference if a particular pile is located in the centre,
455

at the corner or along the periphery of the group.

The approximate formulae have been derived from
numerical solutions (finite element or boundary
element methods) for large pile groups. With a
decreasing ratio between footprint area and
perimeter of the pile group, the proportion of
peripheral piles within the group increases. The
treatment of the peripheral and corner piles is an
inherent drawback of any numerical solution based
on elasticity theory. The imposed boundary
condition of a rigid plate yields unrealistically high
stiffness values for the peripheral piles and even
higher for the corner piles. The modification of the
method presented herein circumvents this problem
in an approximate manner, and offers the possibility
to compute the stiffness of each pile in dependence
of its length and its actual position within the pile
group.
3

MODIFIED METHOD

In the modified method, first the method by

Randolph (1994) as described above is applied.
For deriving the raft stiffness K r , an irregular
raft of footprint area Ar is transformed into a
rectangle of equal area by selecting an aspect ratio
that yields almost the same ratio of footprint area to
perimeter as in the original raft. The pile group
footprint area Ag* is determined by adding to the
area that includes all piles a strip of width equal to 1
to 1.5 times the pile diameter. From this gross area,
the average pile distance s is computed.
After selecting appropriate values for the soil
parameters for this so-called reference configuration,
the interaction factor rp , the raft stiffness K r , the
pile group stiffness K p (s ) , and the overall stiffness
of the piled raft K pr (s ) are computed. This can
easily be performed by means of a spreadsheet
calculation. The proportion of load carried by the
raft (s) is obtained from equation (2), and the
spring stiffness for each pile within the uniform
group is:
cPile ( s )

(1 ) K pr
N

(18)

Then, the pile group interaction factor Rs (s ) is

computed, that is defined as the ratio between the
stiffness of the pile group and the sum of the
stiffnesses of N identical single piles:

456

Rs ( s )

K p ( s)

(19)

N K1

Next, the pile group configuration in its actual

geometry is considered. For each individual pile, a
representative, average pile distance to its direct
neighbors s j ( j 1,.., N ) is defined. These
neighbors are selected in such a way that the
particular pile lies in the centre of a subgroup.
Typically, four piles should be included. In case the
pile considered is a peripheral pile, the influence of
the free boundary is simulated by means of a
fictitious neighboring pile at a distance of rm .
Recall that rm in Randolph and Wroth (1978) is the
radius of influence of a free-standing single pile.
Similarly, for a corner pile two real and two
fictitious piles are considered. From the four
individual distances, an average distance is
computed. This procedure is applied to all piles
within the pile group, and the range of values of the
pile distance ( smin, smax) is determined.

Figure 1: Concept for the representative pile spacing of centre,

corner, and peripheral piles.

In a next step, a uniform pile group consisting of

4 4 piles is analyzed using the method by
Randolph for the various values of the pile distance
s j ( j 1, N ) and for the prevailing soil conditions.
The respective pile group factors are denoted by
Rs ,16 ( s j ) . The pile group factor for the reference
configuration is Rs ,16 ( s ) .
The spring stiffnesses for each of the N piles
within the pile group are then obtained by increasing
or decreasing the value of the reference
configuration cPile (s) according to the following
rule:
cPile ( s j ) cPile ( s)

Rs ,16 ( s j )
Rs ,16 ( s)

j 1,..., N

(20)

The selection of a subgroup consisting of 4x4 piles

in scaling the individual pile stiffnesses is arbitrary,
3x3 could also be taken.
A plausibility check for the adequacy of this
approximation has been made by comparison with
the rigorous results given by Hanisch et al. (2001).
Another deviation from the system of identical
piles during the optimization of the pile
configuration is the variation of pile length aiming at
avoiding stress concentrations and large differential
displacements in the raft. Usually, peripheral piles
are made shorter than piles underneath the building
cores. In most cases, the variation of pile length is
not too large compared to the pile length, which
justifies the application of the following
approximation.
First, the procedure outlined above to assess the
influence of the actual position of the piles within
the group is applied. The pile length in the reference
configuration is set to be equal to the average pile
length of all piles. It is assumed that the additional
pile length contributes solely to a proportional
increase of skin friction along the pile shaft, i.e., pile
base resistance remains constant. The proportional
increase of skin friction under working load
conditions is determined either from the results of
pile load tests carried out in the frame of the project,
or from code recommendations. Thus,
cPile , j cPile ( s j , l j )
cPile ( s j , l )

cPile ( s, l j )
cPile ( s, l )

j 1,.., N

(21)

With the values rp and K r unchanged, the

overall stiffness of the piled raft K pr , and the
proportion of load carried by the raft are
computed from equations (1) and (2), respectively.
To take into account the finite bending stiffness
of the raft, the computed stiffness of the rigid raft is
reduced by 15%. This represents a reasonable
midpoint between a rigid and a perfectly flexible
plate.
The next steps in the design process are carried
out through an interaction with the designer of the
superstructure until an optimum configuration is
reached for the load transfer into the ground with
capacity utilization of the piles as uniform as
possible, and with small differential deformations in
the raft. Parameters varied during this optimization
procedure are the spring stiffness of the individual
piles cPile , j , and the average modulus of subgrade
reaction for the raft

k Raft

K pr

(22)
Ar
In case some of the piles are found to be subjected to
higher loads than others, during this optimisation
procedure, their stiffness has to be reduced by
adjusting it to the actual load level. For this, the
method proposed by Mayne and Schneider (2001) is
applied that adopts the approximate non-linear
load-deformation relationship suggested by Fahey
and Carter (1993),

G / Gmax 1 f ( q / qu ) g

(23)

with values f = 1 and g = 0.3, where Gmax is the

secant shear modulus at small strains, G is the shear
modulus corresponding to the load q, and qu is the
ultimate bearing resistance of the pile as determined,
e.g., from pile load tests or from code specifications.
This means, for example, that if the service load of a
pile is increased from 50% of the ultimate bearing
resistance to 60%, the effective spring stiffness is
reduced by 24%.
4

CASE STUDY

The study presented in the sequel refers to the

high-rise building Skyper recently constructed in
Frankfurt. It consists of a tower 153 m high, which
is connected to lower buildings. The entire building
complex is underlain by a parking garage with three
underground levels founded on a continuous raft.
Due to the eccentric loading of the building complex
and in order to reduce the associated differential
settlements a piled raft foundation was selected for
the high-rise building section.
The piled raft considered exhibits an irregular pile
configuration as shown in Figure 2 with pile lengths
varying between 31 m and 35 m. The diameter of the
46 bored piles is 1.5 m. The raft has a thickness of
3.5 m and is placed at a depth of 13.40 m below
ground surface.
The soil stratigraphy is typical for Frankfurt: The
top layer consists of 7.4 m thick quaternary, gravelly
sand deposits with groundwater level at 5.0 m below
the ground surface. These deposits are underlain by
the Hydrobien layer known as Frankfurt Clay,
followed at a depth of 56.4 m by the Inflaten /
Frankfurt Limestone layer that is considered
incompressible. Hence, the thickness of the
compressible layer underneath the raft amounts to
43 m, cf. Figure 3.

457

value in the top layer, and a linearly increasing one

underneath. Assuming a Poissons ratio of
0.33, the profile is expressed in terms of the
Youngs modulus E in [MPa] as follows:
E (z ) = 62.4
E ( z) 19.6 2.183 z

Figure 2: Plan view of the high-rise section of the Skyper

building complex.

Figure 3: Foundation cross section with soil profile.

The relevant soil parameter for the piled raft

design is the soil stiffness that is given in terms of a
depth-dependent constraint modulus as determined
from the back calculation of observed building
settlements in the area. For the over-consolidated
Frankfurt Clay, a two layer profile is usually adopted
in design that is described by a constant modulus
458

for z 19.6
for z 19.6

(24a)
(24b)

where z in [m] is the depth below the raft. Soil

strength is defined by an angle of friction = 20
and cohesion c = 20 kPa.
The settlement inducing load from the
superstructure, including the rafts own weight and
the average uplift force, was estimated to be P =
810 MN.
Before proceeding further with the analysis, the
adequacy of the modulus depth profile adopted and
of the analysis obtained by the method by Randolph
were verified by comparing the results with the
settlements measured at the piled-raft foundation of
the nearby high-rise building Messeturm.
Following the procedure outlined above for the
Skyper tower, we first determine the representative
(fictitious) pile distances for the individual piles
s j ( j 1, N ) considering their actual position
within the group. These values ranged from 15 to
17 m for the corner piles to 4.5 m for the center piles.
Next, we determine from the footprint area of the
pile group enlarged by a strip of 2 m around its
periphery a gross footprint area of 1414 m2, which
yielded an average pile distance of 5.54 m.
The footprint area of the raft is 1900 m2 with a
perimeter of 173 m corresponding to an
area-to-perimeter ratio of 11. This transformed to an
equal-area square with side length 43.6 m that has
approximately the same area-to-perimeter ratio as
the original raft.
In order to determine the value of the raft
stiffness K r , we first calculate an equivalent
modulus using the Steinbrenner approximation for a
perfectly flexible raft resting on multi-layered soil,
yielding a value of 125 MPa. Entering this value in
equation (16) for a rigid raft and reducing the
resulting value by 15% to capture the finite rigidity
of the raft, we obtain K r = 6100 MN/m.
Next, the reference pile group configuration
consisting of the 46 piles of 33 m length with
constant spacing of 5.54 m is analysed using the
method by Randolph summarized above. The soil
profile, equation (24) corresponds to Gl 34.4 MPa,
= 0.75. The analysis yields an interaction factor
rp = 0.644, and an average pile stiffness
cPile 101.4 MN/m.

The influence of the pile spacing on the pile

interaction is assessed by means of the pile group
factor Rs ,16 . The results obtained for the soil profile
are
approximated
by
the
relationship
Rs,16 ( s j ) 0.14 ( s j / 40) 1.15( s j / 40) 2 with sj
given in [m].
The individual pile stiffnesses are calculated from
equation (20) with values ranging between
cPile , min = 92 MN/m and cPile , max = 142 MN/m, and

deformation problem and so should be treated with

the same precision as the settlement prediction of
raft foundations. It is therefore justified during the
preliminary design to use elastic solutions with soil
modulus values that take into account the expected
average strain level. For the final design, a nonlinear
finite element analysis with an appropriate soil
model is recommended, particularly in cases of
limited experience with the actual ground
conditions.

an average of cPile ,mean = 114 MN/m. Here, we omit

a further correction for the pile length according to
equation (21) for the sake of simplicity.
With Kr 6100 MN/m, cPile ,mean = 114 MN/m,

REFERENCES

and rp = 0.644, we obtain by solving the system of

equations (1), (2), and (18): stiffness of pile group
K p 7370 MN/m, overall stiffness of piled raft
K pr 8550 MN/m, and proportion of load carried

by the raft 0.387.

The average settlement of the piled raft then is
810/8550 = 0.095 m. The settlement of a raft
without pile support would be 810/6100 = 0.133 m.
The modulus of subgrade reaction for the raft is
calculated from equation (22) to k Raft = 1.74 MN/m3.
The
average
pile
load
is QPile,mean (1 ) P / N cPile,mean = 10.8 MN
with minimum and maximum values QPile , min =
8.7 MN and QPile , max = 13.5 MN, respectively.
It should be kept in mind that these values
correspond to a uniform loading of the raft. In the
detailed final design, the actual load distribution
from the superstructure has to be considered.
The piled raft foundation described above has
been further analyzed by several other methods. The
interested reader may find the results in the
summary paper of Richter and Lutz (2010). Results
on pile load measurements are not available. The
average pile load QPile,mean as predicted by the other
methods varied between 10.3 and 13.9 MN. Two of
the methods yielded position-dependent pile loads
with values QPile , min / QPile , max = 8.5/20.5 MN and
10/20 MN, respectively.
5

CONCLUSIONS

The modification of the method by Randolph

outlined above allows the accommodation of the
variable pile distance and length as well as the
different stiffnesses of central, peripheral, and corner
piles. The analysis of a piled raft system is a

Arslan, U., Katzenbach, R., Quick, H., and Gutwald J. (1994):

Dreidimensionale Interaktionsberechnung zur Grndung
der vier neuen Hochhaustrme in Frankfurt am Main,
Vortrge der Baugrundtagung in Kln, pp. 423-437.
Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K. (1971): The problem of pile
group and pile cap interaction, Gotechnique, Vol. 21(2),
pp. 135-142.
Clancy, P. and Randolph, M.F. (1993): An approximate
analysis procedure for piled raft foundations, Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 17, pp. 849-869.
EI-Mossallamy, Y. und Franke, E. (1997): Pfahl-PlattenGrndungen: Theorie und Anwendung, Bautechnik, Vol. 74,
No. 11, pp. 755-764.
Fahey, M. and Carter, J.P. (1993): A finite element study of the
pressuremeter test in sand using a nonlinear elastic plastic
model, Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 30, pp. 348-362.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F. and Elson,
W.K. (1992): Piling Engineering, 2nd ed., Blackie & Son
Ltd.
Frank, R. (1974): Etude Thorique du Comportement des Pieux
sous Charge Verticale. Introduction de la Dilatance, Thse
de Docteur-ingnieur, Universit Pierre et Marie Curie
(Paris VI).
Hain, S.J. and Lee, I.K. (1978): The analysis of flexible
raft-pile systems, Gotechnique, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 6583.
Hanisch, J., Katzenbach, R. and Knig, G. (2001): Kombinierte
Pfahl-Plattengrndungen, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Horikoshi, K., and Randolph, M. F. (1998): A contribution to
optimal design of piled rafts, Gotechnique, Vol. 48, No. 3,
pp. 301317.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., Moormann, C. and Reul, O.
(1998): Piled raft foundation interaction between piles
and raft, Darmstadt Geotechnics, Darmstadt Univ. of
Technology, No. 4, pp. 279-296.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. and Moormann, C. (2000): Piled
raft foundations projects in Germany, Design Aapplications
of Raft Foundations, Hemsley J.A. Editor, Thomas Telford,
pp. 323-392.
Kitiyodom, P. and Matsumoto, T. (2003): A simplified analysis
method for piled raft foundations in non-homogeneous soils,
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 27, pp. 85109.
Kuwabara, F. (1989): An elastic analysis for piled raft
foundations in a homogeneous soil, Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 82-92.
Lutz, B., El-Mossallamy, Y. und Richter, T. (2006): Ein
einfaches,
fr
die
Handrechnung
geeignetes
Berechnungsverfahren zur Abschtzung des globalen
Last-Setzungsverhaltens
von
Kombinierten
PfahlPlattengrndungen, Bauingenieur, Vol. 81, pp. 61-66.

459

Mandolini, A. (2003): Design of piled raft foundations:

practice and development, Proc. 4th Int. Geotech. Sem. on
Deep Found. on Bored & Auger Piles - BAP IV, Ghent, pp.
59-80.
Mayne, P.W. Schneider, J.A (2001): Evaluating axial drilled
shaft response by seismic cone, Foundations and Ground
Improvement, Geotech. Special Publ. 113, ASCE, pp.
655-669.
Pais, A. and Kausel, E. (1988): Approximate formulas for
dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations, Soil Dynamics
and Earthq. Eng., Vol. 7, pp. 213-227.
Poulos, H.G. (1994): An approximate numerical analysis of
pile-raft interaction, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.,
Vol. 18, pp. 7392.
Poulos, H.G. (2001): Piled raft foundations Design and
applications, Gotechnique, Vol. 50(2), pp. 95-113.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980): Elastic Solutions for Soil
and Rock Mechanics, J. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978): Analysis of
deformation of vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech. Eng.
Div., Vol. 104 (GT12), pp. 1465-1488.
Randolph, M.F. (1983): Design of piled raft foundations, Proc.
Int. Symp. on Recent Developments in Laboratory and
Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems,
Bangkok, pp. 525-537.
Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and
piled rafts, 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng., New
Delhi, Vol. 5, pp. 61-82.
Reul, O. and Randolph, M.F. (2004): Design strategies for
piled rafts subjected to non-uniform vertical loading, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 130, pp. 1-13.
Richter, T. und Lutz, B. (2010): Berechnung einer
Kombinierten Pfahl-Plattengrndung am Beispiel des
Hochhauses Skyper in Frankfurt/Main, Bautechnik, Vol.
87(4), pp. 204-211.
Russo, G. (1998): Numerical analysis of piled rafts, Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 22, pp. 477-493.
Small, J.C., Zhang, H.H., and Chow H. (2003): Behaviour of
piled rafts with piles of different lengths and diameters.
Proc. 9th Australia New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics, Auckland, Vol. 1, pp 123-129.
Smith, I.M. and Wang, A. (1998): Analysis of piled rafts, Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 22, 777-790.
Ta, L.D. and Small, J.C. (1996): Analysis of piled raft systems
in layered soils, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.,
Vol. 20, pp. 5772.
Yamashita K., Yamada T. and Kakurai, M. (1998): Simplified
method for analyzing piled raft foundations, Proc. 3rd Int.
Geotech. Sem. on Deep Found. on Bored & Auger Piles BAP III, Ghent, pp. 457-464.

460