Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF PILED-RAFT FOUNDATION UNDER VERTICAL

LOAD IN STONE COLUMN IMPROVED SOIL
R. Bhowmik, , M.Tech. Student, CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, riyabhowmik89@gmail.com
M. Samanta, , Scientist, CSIR- CBRI, Roorkee,manojit_samanta@rediffmail.com
ABSTRACT: Three dimensional finite element analysis of piled-raft foundation under vertical load in stone
column improved soft clay has been carried out considering pile-soil slip interface model. Elastic-perfectly plastic
Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria for soft clay and stone column are taken in analysis. Axial force on pile, bending
moment, total settlement of raft and proportion of load carried by raft and pile for different intensity of vertical load
on piled-raft, area replacement ratio and slenderness ratio of stone column have been investigated. Analysis shows
that improving soft clay by stone column reduces the total settlement and maximum bending moment of the raft in
piled-raft. The axial forces in pile are also reduced due to better raft-soil interaction. Proportion of total load carried
by raft increases with increasing area replacement ratio and slenderness ratio of stone column under piled-raft.

INTRODUCTION
Piled-raft concept has been most notably applied to
high-rise buildings all over the world and
increasingly being recognized as an effective and
economical foundation system for high-rise
buildings, bridges and heavy industrial plants [13,
20]. Piled-raft system works through the combined
action of three bearing elements i.e. raft, piles and
subsoil [9, 11, and 19]. The basic concept of this
system is that the foundation contains only those
numbers of piles which are required to reduce the
settlements to tolerable values and improve the
bearing capacity adequately [6, 17, and 18]. This
foundation system acts most efficiently when raft
carries a significant amount of load but total
/differential settlement exceeds the permissible
values. Addition of few numbers of piles in
strategic location beneath raft reduces the
settlement besides providing additional bearing
capacity and stiffness to foundation [6]. Various
researchers studied pile-soil, pile-pile, raft-soil and
raft-pile interaction of piled-raft foundation
through analytical, numerical and laboratory model
study and proposed various design methodologies
[7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 21. Soil profile
consisting stiff clay and dense sand are favorable
situations for piled- raft due to better raft-soil
bearing interaction [18]. Soil profile consisting of
soft clay, loose sand, soft compressible and
swelling layer at relatively shallow depth will not

be effective for piled-raft due to poor raft-soil

bearing interaction [18].
In-situ strengthening of soft/loose soil by different
ground improvement method will improve the raftsoil bearing interaction in piled-raft system.
Various researchers have tried to improve the
efficacy of piled-raft system in unfavorable soil
profile by incorporating different groundimprovement methods such as stone columns and
grid-form deep mixing walls [15, 24, and 25].
Liang et al. (2003) investigated the response of
piled-raft foundation on soft soil strengthened by
short granular piles made of flexible materials
through three dimensional finite element analysis.
The authors termed this long-short hybrid piled raft
foundation, where long piles are rigid and short
piles are flexible as Composite piled raft
foundation. Sand cushion was used beneath the
raft and its effect on the bearing behaviour of piles
and soil was investigated by varying its thickness.
It was inferred that cushion increases the efficacy
of the employed ground improvement method by
redistributing the stress between piles and soil.
Axial stress in long pile reduces for increasing sand
cushion thickness up to an optimum limit. The
inferences were corroborated with a case history of
seven-storey building founded on composite piledraft foundation in the coastal part of China. Zhao et
al. (2006) carried out settlement calculation of
long-short composite piled-raft foundation based
on the shear-deformation method. The soil was
Page 1 of 10

R. Bhowmik, M. Samanta

assumed to behave as an elasto-plastic material and

Mylonakis-Gazetas model was incorporated to
model pile-pile and pile-soil interaction. The
proposed methodology was validated through an
example of published case history. Wang et al.
(2010) carried out laboratory model study on
performance of composite piled-raft foundation
under vertical loading with sand column, lime
column and steel pipe pile as vertical reinforcing
elements. It was concluded that a composite
foundation with a combination of long rigid piles
and short granular/flexible columns has a higher
bearing capacity than the composite foundation
with only granular/flexible columns with the same
conditions of soil ground and loading. Yamashita
and Yamada (2009) and Yamashita et al. (2011)
reported in-situ observations of piled-rafts
combined with grid-form deep cement mixing
walls for seven-storey and twelve-storey buildings
on soft cohesive and liquefiable sand. From the
long-term observations of settlements and load
shared by piles and raft, it was concluded that
composite piled-raft foundation system is effective
in controlling settlements and tilt of the foundation
laid on unfavorable soil profile.
Among a variety of methods used for ground
improvement, stone columns are widely used for
improving very soft/soft/loose soil. Study on
response of composite piled-raft foundation in
stone column improved soft soil is very limited. A
detailed numerical work was carried out to
investigate the raft-soil and pilesoil interaction in
stone column improved soft soil. Three
dimensional analysis of composite piled-raft
system had been done using finite element based
package Plaxis 3D Foundation. A drained
condition of soft clay around stone column had
been taken in the present study. Stone column were
considered as replacement type and construction
effect was not modeled in present study. This paper
describes details of the numerical works carried out
using finite element package, comparison of raftsoil and pile-soil interaction in improved and
unimproved ground and efficacy of stone column
method to improve the performance of composite
piled- raft on soft soil.

NUMERICAL MODELLING
Finite Element Mesh & Boundary Conditions
Raft-soil and pile-soil interaction were investigated
by carrying out three dimensional finite element
analysis using software package Plaxis 3D
Foundation. Homogenous soft clay was taken for
present study and piles in the piled-raft system
were taken as floating pile. The diameter of the
piles was taken as 0.5 m and the length as 20 m. A
square raft of width 15 m and thickness 1 m was
considered. Replacement type stone columns
between the piles in piled-raft system were
employed to improve the strength and stiffness of
the soft clay. The connection between the pile and
raft in the piled-raft system was considered as
rigid, whereas the stone columns were unconnected
to the raft. The schematic diagram of the
considered hypothetical problem is shown in
Figure 1. The pile-soil interface was considered as
slip while the raftsoil interface was considered as
smooth. The numerical domain of the model was
fixed from trial calculations, during which the
boundaries were increasingly extended till the
stresses and displacements of the piled-raft were
unaffected by further increase in the size of the
domain. From the analysis, side boundaries were
fixed at a distance of 10 B from all around the raft,
where B is the width of the raft. The bottom
boundary was set at a depth of 2L from the tip of
the piles, where L is depth of pile. Vertical
boundaries with their normal at x and z direction
were fixed. Bottom boundaries were fixed in all
directions and the ground surface was free in all
directions. Figure 2 shows the typical 3D mesh
with boundary fixities used in the analyses.
The uniformly distributed vertical load was applied
on the top of the raft surface after the initial
equilibrium was reached. The construction effects
of the piles were not considered in present analysis.
The piles were kept at stress-free state at the
beginning of the analysis [13].

Page 2 of 10

Numerical analysis of piled-raft foundation under vertical load in stone column improved soil

RAFT
CUSHION
MAT
PILES

STONE
COLUMN

is related to the condition fij = 0. This condition can

be represented as hexagonal cone in principal
stress space, as shown in Figure 4. As long as the
stress states are within the yield surface, the
material behaves as linear elastic (f < 0). The most
attractive feature of this model is that it employs
only five soil parameters, namely Youngs
modulus (E), Poissons ratio (), cohesion (c),
friction angle () and dilatancy angle () to model
the behaviour of soil. These properties are assumed
to remain constant even at the occurrence of
material hardening or softening after the onset of
yielding.

Fig. 1 Sketch of Composite Piled Raft System

Fig. 3 Linear Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Model

Fig. 2 3D Mesh with Boundary Conditions

Constitutive Modelling
For the present analysis, soft soil, stone column
and sand cushion were modeled using MohrCoulomb model. This model was chosen to
represent behaviour of soil as it can predict the
failure behaviour of soil accurately, even though it
utilizes those soil parameters which can be
obtained from basic tests in laboratory. The elastoplastic Mohr-Coulomb model is based on linear
elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain curve (Figure
3). The plastic behaviour is governed by six yield
functions (fij) and six plastic potential functions
(gij) [5]. The yield functions are functions of stress
and strain and are dependent on soil parameters
cohesion (c) and friction angle (). Plastic yielding

Fig. 4 Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface [5]

The soil continuum was discretised by 15 noded
wedge elements in the 3D mesh [4]. The element
has three translational degrees of freedom in three
perpendicular directions. Raft was modeled by 6noded triangular elements with 6 degrees of
freedom at each node. The pile was created as solid
circular pile composed of same volume elements as
soil with 6 degrees of freedom at each node [4].
The raft and pile were considered to be linearelastic. The soil-pile interface is modeled by 16
Page 3 of 10

R. Bhowmik, M. Samanta

noded quadrilateral interface elements, as shown in

Figure 5. The eight pair of nodes is compatible
with the quadrilateral side of soil and pile element
in vertical direction [4]. Each node has three
translational degrees of freedom (ux, uy and uz),
allowing simulation of slipping and gapping
between soil and pile. The thickness of this
interface element is zero, but a virtual thickness is
employed to calculate the stiffness properties of the
interface. The stiffness and strength of this
interface is determined by the parameter Rinter. This
parameter relates the stiffness of the interface and
the soil through the following relations:
tan (i) = Rinter tan (s)
(1)
Ei = Rinter 2Es
(2)
2
Gi = Rinter Gs
(3)
Where, subscript s and i denote the soil and the
interface parameters respectively. A default value
of 0.45 of Poissons ratio for interfaces was used in
the analysis.

interface friction co-efficient 0.3 was used. The

interface between the soil and raft was considered
to be smooth. The pile soil interface was simulated
by 2D quadratic 18 node elements in ABAQUS.
The raft and piles were modeled with an isotropic
elastic material simulated by 27 noded 2nd order
hexahedral elements. The relevant properties of
pile, raft, soft clay and rock used in the analysis
listed in Table 1.
Figure 6 compare the results between the Lee et al.
(2010) and present PLAXIS analysis. The loadsettlement curve obtained from PLAXIS matches
well with the previous results for both the conditions.
The small discrepancies arise due to difference in
modeling the soil, pile and raft.

Pile

Table 1 Material Properties Used

Model
E
c K0 t
(MPa) (kPa) ()
(kN/
m3 )
Elastic 12,500 - 0.25 0.01 25

Raft

Elastic

Material

30,000

500

0.1

Soft MohrClay Coulomb

Rock

Fig. 5 Nodes () and Stress Points (x) in 16-noded

Interface Element [4]

0.2

P/V

0.2 0.01 25

20 0.3 0.65 18
45 0.3

0.4

0.6

0.5

19

0.8

-0.5

Savg/B %

Validation
The validation of finite element model in PLAXIS
was done by comparing with the load-displacement
results of piled-raft foundation published by Lee et
al. (2010). ABAQUS, a finite element based
package was used to study the three-dimensional
bearing behavior of a piled-raft on soft clay by Lee
et al. (2010). The load displacement curves of
piled-raft of floating pile group (3 x 3) of 0.5 m
pile diameter and 16 m in length and square raft of
size 10 m (thickness 1 m) was used for validation
for both slip and no-slip condition between pile and
soil. The pile head was rigidly connected to raft.
For slip condition between the pile and soil an

MohrCoulomb

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

MODEL-ABAQUS-NO
SLIP CONDITION
MODEL-PLAXIS-NO-SLIP
CONDITION
MODEL-ABAQUS-SLIP
CONDITION
MODEL-PLAXIS-SLIP
CONDITION

Fig. 6 Comparison of Abaqus & Plaxis Result

Page 4 of 10

Numerical analysis of piled-raft foundation under vertical load in stone column improved soil

m3 )
Parametric Study
A series of numerical analyses on piled-rafts (PR)
in unimproved and improved ground were
performed. The diameter of the piles was taken as
0.5 m and length as 20 m (floating). The raft was
considered as square with width 15 m and
thickness 1 m. The stone columns were arranged in
square pattern. A layer of sand cushion of 0.3m
thickness was provided between stone column and
raft for stress redistribution between soil and pile.
The soil properties used for clay, stones and sand
cushion were decided from the range of values
provided in Bowles (1998) which were further
verified from literature (Shahu et al. 2011, Ambily
et al., 2007). The values used are listed in Table 2.
The parameters and its range chosen for parametric
study are presented in Table 3. In all the studies
performed here, only long-term (drained) response
was investigated. The consolidation effects were
hence neglected and the soil parameters employed
were drained shear strength parameters. The values
of drained Youngs modulus and drained shear
strength parameters were kept constant for the total
depth of the soil layer. The properties of pile and
raft were based on a typical pile and raft made of
M25 grade of concrete. Efficacy of stone column
to improve the performance of composite piled-raft
foundation was evaluated by comparing raft-soil
and pile-soil interaction in improved and
unimproved ground. These were evaluated in
terms of bending moment and settlement of raft,
axial force distribution in pile and proportion of
load shared by piles for the range of parameters
considered in the analysis.
Table 2. Properties of Soil used
Materials
Property
Sand
Soft clay
Stone
Cushion
E
5000
55000
20000
(kPa)

0.35

0.3

0.3

43

30

10

40

bulk
(kN/

16

16.62

15.5

c
(kPa)
Rinter

20

0.9

0.932

0.58

Table 3 List of Parameters chosen for parametric

study
Loading Condn
Ar
Ls/Ds
Vertical
0.4 V 0.6 V 1V
5
Imp
Grnd

10

15 %
15
5

Soft
clay

35 %

10
15

Unimp
Grnd

---

---

A set of analysis was done to see the influence of

decreasing spacing between piles and subsequently
increasing the number of piles in piled-raft
foundation in unimproved ground. From Figure 7, it
was observed that there is an optimum number of
piles for a given load level beyond which increasing
the number of pile has negligible effect on improving
the behaviour of the piled-raft foundation. From the
results, it was inferred that for chosen piled-raft
geometry and material properties, the optimum
number of piles is around 16 (4 4 pile
configuration), beyond which there is not much
improvement achieved in settlement or ultimate
bearing capacity of the foundation. This
configuration had been chosen for all further
parametric studies. Figure 8 shows the plan view of
this chosen configuration. This figure also explains
the location of the piles considered for depicting
results in parametric study.

Page 5 of 10

R. Bhowmik, M. Samanta

100

% Load Shared

80
60
40

--0.6 V
20
0
0

20
40
Nos. of Piles

60

Fig. 7 Percent load Shared vs. Number of Piles

piled-raft foundation system positively, as can be

seen from bending moment profile of raft in Figure
10. The profile shows the moment along A-Line
(Fig. 8). A decrease of approximately 18% in
maximum moment of raft was observed for an area
replacement ratio of 35%. Figure 11 & Figure 12
show the axial force distribution of interior and
corner pile along the depth for an area replacement
ratio of 15 and 35%. A 28-40 % decrease in axial
force on corner and interior pile was observed for an
area replacement ratio of 35%. It can be inferred that
a higher area replacement yields better results than
the initial area replacement ratio of 15%.

Corner
Pile

Raft

A-Line
Interior
Pile

Fig. 8 Plan View of Piled Raft with 4 4 pile

configuration
Results and Discussions

% LOAD SHARED BY
PILES

80
60
40
20
0
0

10
20
Ar (%)

30

40

Fig. 9 % Load Shared v/s Area Replacement Ratio

100
X/ B

M11

Effect of Area Replacement Ratio (Ar)

0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
All the results reported in this section are obtained -1.0
-100
from numerical studies done on piled raft foundation
-200
of 4 4 pile configuration with stone column of
length 10 m. The stone columns were arranged in
-300
square pattern for its ease in fitting in between the
-400
pile arrangement. The effect of introducing this
ground improvement method was examined under
PR-4-4-A
-500
R-0
vertical load level of 0.6V, V being the ultimate
-600
PR-4-4-A
bearing capacity of unpiled raft. UBC of unpiled raft
R-15
had been taken as load corresponding to settlement
-700
PR-4-4-A
of 10% of width of raft. Figure 9 shows the variation
R-35
in % load shared by piles with change in area
replacement ratio. Load shared by the piles in soft
Fig. 10 Bending Moment Profile of Raft
soil reduced significantly due to increase in the
stiffness of the soft soil after installation of stone
column. This overall improvement in the soil media
by stone column influenced the overall response of
Page 6 of 10

Numerical analysis of piled-raft foundation under vertical load in stone column improved soil

in improving the overall settlement of composite

piled raft foundation. Figure 15 shows the
distribution of axial force of corner pile along
depth. The axial force in the pile decreases with
increasing Ls/Ds ratio of stone column. A sharp
decrease in axial force in pile was observed for an
Ls/Ds ratio of 5. Beyond Ls/Ds ratio of 10, the rate
of improvement becomes insignificant.

N (kN)
-400

-200

0
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0

PR-4-4-CU
S
PR-4-4-Ar15
PR-4-4-Ar35

80

Fig. 11 Distribution of Axial Force at Corner Pile

N (kN)
-600

-400

-200

PR-4-4-CUS
PR-4-4-Ar-15
PR-4-4-Ar-35

0
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Y/L

-800

% LOAD SHARED BY
PILES

-600

Y/L

-800

15

X/B
-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

-0.60
S/B(%)

Effect of Length of Stone Column (Ls/Ds)

The Ls/Ds ratio of stone column was varied from 5,
10 and 15 for an area replacement ratio of 35%.
The results were compared with piled-raft in
unimproved ground. Figure 13 shows the variation
in percent load carried by the piles. This proportion
gets reduced due to greater stiffness of the soilstone column media with increasing pile length. A
decrease in % load shared by pile was observed up
to Ls/Ds ratio of 10 beyond which it has marginal
effect. Figure 14 shows the displacement profile of
the raft. Decrease in maximum settlement of
composite piled-raft was observed with increasing
area replacement ratio. A reduction of
approximately 6 % was achieved in settlement
profile for Ls/Ds of 15. Thus, it can be inferred that
increasing the length of stone columns are effective

10

Fig. 13: Percent Load Shared by Pile vs. Ls/Ds of

Stone Column

-0.62

Fig. 12 Distribution of Axial Force at Interior Pile

Ls/Ds

-0.64
-0.66
-0.68

PR-4-4-CUS
PR-4-4-L-10
PR-4-4-L-15

-0.70
-0.72
-0.74
-0.76
-0.78

Fig. 14 Settlement Profile of Raft

Page 7 of 10

R. Bhowmik, M. Samanta

-200

0
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0

PR-4-4-CUS
PR-4-4-L-5
PR-4-4-L-10
PR-4-4-L-15

Fig. 15 Distribution of Axial Force at Corner Pile

N (kN)

-800

Fig. 16 Percent Load Shared by Pile vs. Applied

Load Level

Y/ L

N (kN)
-600
-400

-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0

Ar-0
Ar-15.45
Ar-35
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

%V

Effect of Increasing Load Level

The change in response of piled-raft foundation
with increase in the vertical load level was also
investigated. Applied vertical load levels where 0.4
V, 0.6 V and 1.0 V. Ls/Ds ratio of stone column
was kept 10 with an area replacement ratio of 35
%. The focus was to investigate the change in the
load carrying behaviour of bearing elements of
composite piled-raft foundation system with
increasing vertical load level. As seen from Fig.
16, % load shared by piles decreases with increase
in applied load. It implies that the capacity of piles
got mobilized from the initial load level of 0.4 V
itself. But, the capacity of raft was getting
mobilized slowly with increment in the applied
load. So, at higher load levels, raft became more
active in sharing the load. Figure 17 shows the
variation in axial force at the head of corner pile
with increasing load level for different areareplacement ratio of stone columns. As observed
before, a stiffer soil media due to presence of stone
columns reduces the axial force at piles.

% LOAD SHARED

60
50
40
30
20

Fig. 17 Axial Force at Head of Pile vs. Applied

Load Level
Conclusions
Results of a detailed 3D numerical study carried
out on composite piled-raft foundation in soft clay
improved by replacement type stone column had
been presented in this paper. Effect of area
replacement ratio and slenderness ratio of stone
columns on raft-soil and pile-soil interaction had
been investigated and presented. A study on the
influence of increasing applied load level on the
overall response had also been done and presented
here. Replacement type of stone column method
was found to be beneficial in improving soft soil
which in turn improved the response of composite
piled-raft foundation. The following conclusions
may be drawn from the numerical study:
Application of stone column to improve poor
soil media reduces the load shared by the piles.
This proportion decreases with increasing area
replacement ratio of the stone column.
Stone columns are effective in improving the
overall settlement of composite piled raft
foundation
Bending moments in raft of piled raft are
reduced when soil is improved with stone
columns.
Higher area replacement ratio of stone columns
yields better results.

10
0
0.4

0.6

%V

0.8

1.0

Page 8 of 10

Numerical analysis of piled-raft foundation under vertical load in stone column improved soil

The axial force distribution in piles reduces

significantly when stone columns were
introduced in the soil media, and the response
gets improved with increase in the area
replacement by stone columns.
While increasing the length of stone column, it
was found that there is an optimum length of
stone column for given soil parameters to get
the maximum improvement in overall response.
Load shared by the piles and settlement of the
raft decreased with increasing the length of the
stone column.
When the length of the stone columns was
increased, there was a significant improvement
reached in axial load distribution in piles, but
as inferred before, the effect of optimum length
was also visible here.

he participation of piles and raft for carrying the

applied load changes with increasing load levels.
% load shared by piles decreases with increase in
applied load while the involvement of raft
increases simultaneously. It implies that piles
come into action at its full capacity from initial
load level itself. But, the capacity of raft mobilizes
gradually with increment in the applied load. So,
at higher load levels, raft becomes more active in
sharing the load.
Notations
B = Width of the raft, m
L = Length of pile, m
D = Diameter of pile, m
Ls = Length of stone column, m
Ds = Diameter of stone column, m
Savg = Average settlement of piled-raft, m
= (2 scenter + scorner )/ 3
scenter = Settlement at center of raft
scorner = Settlement at corner of raft
S = Settlement at the considered point on raft of
piled raft, m
P = Total load on piled-raft, kN/m2
V = Ultimate bearing capacity (UBC) of unpiledraft for soil profile considered, kN/m2
Ar = Area Replacement Ratio
X = Distance from the center of raft, m
Y = Distance from the head of pile, m
M11 = Bending Moment about z-axis, kN-m/m

N = Axial load at head of pile, kN

E = Youngs modulus, (kPa)
= Poissons ratio
= Angle of internal friction
= Dilatancy angle
bulk = Bulk unit weight, kN/m3
c = Cohesion, kPa
Rinter = Interface coefficient
REFERENCES
1. Ambily, A. P., and Gandhi, S. R. (2007).

Behavior of stone columns based on

experimental and FEM analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical
and
Geoenvironmental
engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 133(4), 405415.
2. Bowles, J.E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and

T
Design, McGraw-Hill Inc.
3. Brinkgreve R. B. J., and Swolfs W. M. (2007).
Plaxis 3D Foundation Version 2, Reference
Manual, PLAXIS bv, Netherland.
4. Brinkgreve R. B. J., and Swolfs W. M. (2007).
Plaxis 3D Foundation Version 2, Scientific
Manual, PLAXIS bv, Netherland.
5. Brinkgreve R. B. J., and Swolfs W. M. (2007).
Plaxis 3D Foundation Version 2, Material
Models Manual, PLAXIS bv, Netherland.
6. Burland, J.B. (1995). Piles as settlement
reducers. Keynote address, 18th Italian
Congress on Soil Mechanics, Pavia, Italy.
7. Clancy, P., and Randolph M.F. (1996). Simple
design tools for piled raft foundations,
Gotechnique, 46(2) 313-328.
8. Clancy, P., and Randolph, M.F. (1993), An
approximate analysis procedure for piled raft
foundations, International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 17, 849-869.
9. Clancy, P., and Randolph, M.F. (1993).
Analysis and Design of Piled raft
Foundations, Aust. Geomechs J. , 1, 1-21.
10. Cooke, R. W. (1986). Piled Raft Foundation
on Stiff Clays-A Contribution to Design
Philosophy, Gotechnique, 36(2), 169-203.
11. Davis, E.H., and Poulos, H.G. (1972). The
Analysis of Piled Raft Systems. Aust.
Geomechs. J., 2, 21-27.

Page 9 of 10

R. Bhowmik, M. Samanta

12. De Sanctis, L., and Mandolini, A. (2006).

23. Wang, X. Z., Zheng, J.J. and Yin, J.H. (2010).

Bearing Capacity of Piled Rafts on Soft Clay

Soils, Journal Of Geotechnical
And
Geoenvironmental
Engineering,
ASCE,
132(12).

On composite foundation with different

vertical reinforcing elements under vertical
loading: a physical model testing study,
Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A
(Applied Physics & Engineering), 11(2), 8087.
24. Yamashita, K., and Yamada, T.
(2009).
Settlement and load sharing of a piled raft
with ground improvement on soft ground,
Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, 1236-1239,
doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-031-5-1236
25. Yamashita, K., Hamada, J. and Takeshi
Yamada (2011). Field Measurements on
Piled Rafts with Grid-Form Deep Mixing
Walls on Soft Ground Geotechnical
Engineering Journal of the SEAGS &
AGSSEA, Vol. 42, No.2
26. Zhao M. H., Zhang L., and Yang M. (2006).
Settlement calculation for long-short
composite piled raft foundation, J. Cent.
South Univ. Technology.

13. Katzenbach,

R., Bachmann, G., BoledMekasha, G., Ramm, H. (2005). Combined

Pile raft foundation(CPRF): An appropriate
solution for the foundations of high-rise
buildings,
Slovak
Journal
of
Civil
Engineering, 19-29

14. Lee, J. H., Kim, Y., Jeong, S. (2010). Three-

dimensional analysis of bearing behavior of

piled raft on soft clay, Computers and
Geotechnics, 103114.
15. Liang, F.Y., Chen, L.Z. and Shi, X.G. (2003).
Numerical analysis of Composite piled raft
with cushion subjected to vertical load,
Computers and Geotechnics, 30, 443-453.
16. Poulos, H.G. (1993). Piled Rafts in Swelling
or
Consolidating
Soils,
Journal
of
Geotechnical
and
Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 119(2), 374-380.
17. Poulos, H.G. (2001a). Methods of analysis of

piled raft foundations, A report prepared on

behalf of Technical Committee TC18 on Piled
Foundations.
18. Poulos, H.G. (2001b). Piled raft foundations:

design and applications, Gotechnique,

51(2), 95-113.
19. Poulos, H.G., & Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile
Foundation Analysis and design, Wiley, New
York.
20. Poulos, H.G., Small, J.C. and Chow, H.
(2011). Piled Raft Foundations for Tall
Buildings, Geotechnical Engineering Journal
of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 42(2)
21. Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design Methods for
Pile group and piled rafts, Proceedings 13th
ICSMFE, New Delhi, 5, 61-82.
22. Shahu, J. T., and Reddy, Y. R. (2011).

Clayey soil reinforced with stone column

group: model tests and analyses. Journal of
Geotechnical
and
Geoenvironmental
Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 137(12), 12651274.
Page 10 of 10