Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Three-dimensional analysis of bearing behavior of piled raft on soft clay

JinHyung Lee a, Youngho Kim b, Sangseom Jeong b,*
a
b

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120 749, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 February 2009
Received in revised form 23 July 2009
Accepted 26 July 2009
Available online 20 August 2009
Keywords:
Piled raft
Soft clay
3D nite element method
Slip interface
Load sharing
Factor of safety

a b s t r a c t
The piled raft has proved to be an economical foundation type compared to conventional pile foundations. However, there is a reluctance to consider the use of piled rafts on soft clay because of concerns
about excessive settlement and insufcient bearing capacity. Despite these reasons, applications of piled
rafts on soft clay have been increased recently. Current analysis methods for piled rafts on soft clay, however, are insufcient, especially for calculating the overall bearing capacity of the piled raft. This study
describes the three-dimensional behavior of a piled raft on soft clay based on a numerical study using
a 3D nite element method. The analysis includes a pilesoil slip interface model. A series of numerical
analyses was performed for various pile lengths and pile congurations for a square raft subjected to vertical loading. Relatively stiff soil properties and different loading types were also used for estimating the
bearing behavior of the piled raft. Based on the results, the effect of pilesoil slip on the bearing behavior
of a piled raft was investigated. Furthermore, the proportion of load sharing of the raft and piles at the
ultimate state and the relationship between the settlement and overall factor of safety was evaluated.
The results show that the use of a limited number of piles, strategically located, might improve both bearing capacity and the settlement performance of the raft.
2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
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. Less attention, however, has been given to the behavior of a piled raft on soft clay
soils because it is known as an unfavorable foundation type in soft
clay, which may be associated with excessive settlement and insufcient bearing capacity [18,20]. Despite these concerns, a few successful applications of piled rafts on soft clay have been reported
[11,20,25,26]. Recently, a few numerical methods have been developed for the analysis of a piled raft on soft clay using analytical
models [20] or a three-dimensional (3D) nite element (FE)
method [5,6]. However, current analysis and design procedures
for piled rafts on soft clay under vertical loading are regarded as
inadequate.
The behavior of a piled raft is affected by the 3D interaction
between the soil, 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 soilstructure (piles and
raft) interaction is much more complicated. Therefore, a proper
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 2807; fax: +82 2 364 5300.
E-mail address: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong).
0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.07.009

analytical model is needed to evaluate these interactions. Numerical methods, which are approximate, have been developed widely
in the last two decades because numerical methods are less costly
and may be used to consider many kinds of different soil and foundation geometries compared to eld and model tests. According to
Poulos [19], there are three broad classes of numerical analysis
methods: (1) simplied calculation methods, (2) approximate
computer-based methods and (3) more rigorous computer-based
methods. He also noted that the most feasible method of analysis
was the three-dimensional linear/nonlinear FE method. Recently,
nonlinear 3D FE analyses have been conducted [5,6,12,22,23];
however, modeling problems related to the soilstructure interface
still remain in the 3D FE analysis.
Therefore, the overall objective of this study focuses on investigating the bearing behavior of a piled raft on soft clay under vertical loading by using 3D FE analysis considering the pilesoil slip
interface model. No-slip (continuum) and slip analyses were conducted to examine the effects of the pilesoil interface model on
the behavior of a piled raft. The comparison of behavior for relatively stiff soil properties and different loading types was also carried out for the bearing behavior of a piled raft. Furthermore, the
proportion of load sharing of the raft and piles at failure and the
relationship between the settlement and overall factor of safety
were evaluated.

104

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

ing interface was at most 810 m [16]. After initial equilibrium, the
vertical loading was applied on the top of the raft surface. Since
modeling of the entire pile installation process is rather complicated, the pile was assumed to be in a stress-free state at the start
of the analysis [10]. The stress change in the soil during pile installation was therefore not included. In this study, the 3D model included very rigorous treatment of the soil and piled raft which
were represented by 27 noded 2nd order hexahedral elements.

2. Finite element modeling

2.1. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions
The behavior of the piled raft was investigated by carrying out
3D numerical analyses. The nite element package ABAQUS [1]
was used. Fig. 1 shows a typical 3D FE mesh used in this parametric
analysis. The piles were taken to be 0.5 m in diameter D and 16 m
in length Lp. A square raft with width B of 10 m (thickness, 1 m)
was considered. The pile head was connected to the raft rigidly.
Due to symmetry, only a quarter of a whole mesh was modeled
with nite elements. The contact between the soil and pile was described as able to slip. The raftsoil interface was considered
smooth with contact only. A relatively ne mesh was used near
the pilesoil and raftsoil interface while a coarser mesh was used
further from the pile and raft. The mesh was assumed to be on a
rigid layer, and the vertical boundaries at the left- and right-hand
sides were assumed to be on rollers to allow downward movement
of the soil layers. For the far-eld boundaries, the distance of the
boundary from the edge of the raft was set to 15 m since the observed inuence zone based on the nite element analysis includ-

2.2. Constitutive modeling

The material behavior of the soft clay and bearing layer were
modeled with a MohrCoulomb model, and to simplify the analysis
process, constant (average) values of material parameters were
adopted for the soil layer. The raft and piles were modeled with
an isotropic elastic model.
For the pilesoil contact, the interface elements between pile
and soil gives an effect on the behavior of a vertically loaded piled
raft and the modeling of the pilesoil interfaces is an important
concern. The modeling techniques used for the pilesoil interface
are generally divided into two types. One is a slip element and

Raft
Soft clay

Pile

Rock

d=0.5m

3d

(a)

(b)

B/2=5m

15m

Ls=20m

Soft clay

rock

4m

Lp=16m

tr =1m

(c)
Fig. 1. A typical FE mesh used in 3D analysis (ex. 3  3, s = 3d, Lp = 16 m): (a) Typical 3D FE mesh and boundary condition; (b) detail A plan view; (c) side view of piled raft.

105

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

the other is a thin-layer element. The former was used by Lee et al.
[14], Jeong et al. [10] and Lee et al. [15], in which the slip behavior
could be considered. The latter was used by Reul and Randolph
[22,23] and de Sanctis and Mandolini [5,6]. In general the same
constitutive model is used as that of the nearby soil for the thinlayer element. However, the establishment of the basis for the
determination of thickness of a thin-layer is difcult. Thus, a slip
element was used in this study to represent the interface behavior
between the pile and soil elements. However, difculties still exist
in the choice of slip interface properties.
For the pilesoil slip interface, 2D quadratic 18 node elements,
which consisted of two 9 node surfaces compatible with the adjacent solid elements (the two surfaces coincide initially), were considered using Coulombs frictional criterion to clarify small
settlement of the piled raft. The schematic diagram and Coulombs
frictional model are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. This model was selected from the element library of ABAQUS [1]. As shown
in Fig. 2, the interface elements of zero thickness can only transfer
shear forces across their surfaces when a compressive normal pressure p0 acts on them. When contact occurs, the relationship between shear force and normal pressure is governed by a
modied Coulombs friction theory. Thus, these elements are completely dened by their geometry: a friction coefcient l in Eq. (1),
an elastic stiffness and a limiting displacement ccrit are used to provide convergence.

scrit l  p0

The vertical settlements from the 3D FE analyses were used directly, and the average settlement savg was represented by Eq. (2)
[23].

sav g 2scenter scorner =3

where scenter = settlement of raft center, and scorner = settlement of

raft corner.
The stresses obtained at the integration points of the pile elements were used to analyze the axial pile load. Thus, the axial pile
load Ppile was calculated from the summation of the vertical stress
in the pile element using Eq. (3).

Ppile pr2 rv

where r is the pile radius and rv is the vertical stress in the pile element. In the case of the piles in a 3D analysis, the vertical stress was
averaged at the same elevation.
The piled raft coefcient apr describes the ratio of the sum of all
pile loads RRpile to the total load of the foundation Rtot using Eq. (4).

apr

RRpile

Rtot

A piled raft coefcient of one represents a freestanding pile group

whereas the piled raft coefcient of 0 describes an unpiled raft.

As reported by Jeong et al. [10], the interface friction coefcient l

for clay generally ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 Therefore, in this study,
an average interface friction coefcient l of 0.3 for clay was
adopted. In addition, a critical shear displacement ccrit of 5 mm
was adopted for full mobilization of skin friction as suggested by
Lee et al. [14].

Clay

Pile

Pile
Clay

Nodes at the interface

No sliding
<

2.3. Post analysis

Sliding
(Identical co-ordinate)
=

Fig. 2. Behavior at the interface.

(shear stress)
crit=
Elastic behavior

crit

2.4. Validation
The validation of the present pilesoil slip interface model was
done by a comparison with a centrifuge model test for a circular
piled raft on a stiff clay, which was carried out by Horikoshi and
Randolph [8]. The total number of piles was nine (a 3  3 array
with a pile spacing of 2.5 m) with a length of 15 m and diameter
of 0.32 m, which were located under a 14 m diameter circular raft
with a thickness of 0.05 m. A soil depth of 25 m was taken into account. Note that the prototype scale is used in this analysis. The
material properties of the soil and piled raft, which were adopted
from the values as reported by Horikoshi and Randolph [9], are
shown in Table 1. As mentioned in Section 2.2, for the soil layer,
the constant (average) values of the drained Youngs modulus
and drained shear strength parameters were also adopted to simplify the analysis. However, the interface friction coefcient was
not provided. Therefore, in the analysis a mean interface friction
coefcient of the clay of 0.3 was used. In addition, a comparison
of the effect of the interface to a continuum (no-slip) analysis
was also conducted. An applied load of 12 MN was applied as a uniform load over the whole raft area.
The comparative results of the 3D FE analysis and the centrifuge
test under the design load of 12 MN are shown in Table 2. The analyzed and experimental average settlements under the design load
of 12 MN were 21 mm (present study with slip interface), 19 mm
(present study with no-slip interface) and 22 mm (measured).
The result of the present study considering a slip interface gave
more reasonable agreement. For the no-slip analysis, the average
settlement was smaller than for the slip analysis and the experimental result. Thus, the 3D FE analysis with a slip interface can

(displacement)
Table 1
Material properties used for 3D FE analysis.

Fig. 3. Coulombs frictional law.

Youngs modulus: E, MPa

Poissons ratio: m
Density: c, kN/m3
Undrained shear strength: cu, kPa

Soil

Pile

Raft

16.8
0.4
17.5
41.4

40,000
0.16
20

40,000
0.16
20

106

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

From these comparative results, the settlement and piled raft

coefcient obtained by the slip analysis were somewhat different,
but there was good agreement with the trends of the measured
results.

Table 2
Comparison of the results.
Results
(applied load of 12MN)

Average settlement
(mm)

Load carried
by piles (%)

Measured
Present study

22
21
19

19
22
28

Slip analysis
No-slip analysis

2.5. Types of analyses

A series of numerical analyses on piled rafts (PR) were performed for different pile lengths, pile spacings and congurations,
as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 4. The piles were taken to be 0.5 m in
diameter D and 8, 12, 16 m (oating) and 20 m (end-bearing) in
length Lp. A square raft with a width B of 10 m (thickness, 1 m)
was considered. A series of single piles (SP) and unpiled rafts
(UR) were also analyzed. Moreover, to clarify the effect of the
pilesoil slip of the piled raft on clay, two cases of conventional
no-slip (continuum) analysis were conducted.
The material properties of the soil were adopted from some reference values as reported by Jeong et al. [10] for soft clay and Reul
and Randolph [23] for stiff clay, respectively. In this study, attention was focused on the drained (long-term) response of a piled
raft resting on a soft clay layer, so the clay was idealized using
the drained shear strength parameters, c0 and /0 . Thus, consolidation effects were neglected. Constant values of drained Youngs
modulus and drained shear strength parameters were adopted
for the soil layer. For the structural components, the pile was based
on a typical steel pipe pile but modeled with a solid section, so a
Youngs modulus of the pile was applied to an equivalent solid pile
The Youngs modulus as reported by Jeong et al. [10] and the raft

be evaluated as a reasonable agreement of average settlement. In

addition, for the proportion of load taken by piles (i.e., a piled raft
coefcient apr), 19% was found from measurement, whereas the FE
analyses yielded 22% (present study with slip interface) and 28%
(no-slip interface). The slip and no-slip analyses were larger than
the values observed from the measurements, but the result of slip
analysis gave reasonable agreement to measurements compared to
the no-slip analysis.
Table 3
Summary of numerical analyses conducted.
Foundation type

Raft

Pile

B (m)

t (m)

d (m)

Lp (m)

Array

Spacing (s)

UR
PR

10

1.0

0.5

33
44

3d, 9d
3d, 6d

SP

0.5

8f
12f
16f
20eb
Same as PR

55

4d

Note: f: oating pile, eb: end bearing pile; : no-slip analysis.

corner
Pile

center

side

(b)

(a)

corner

center

corner

side

center

(d)

(c)

side

(e)

Fig. 4. Pile congurations: (a) n = 9, s = 3d; (b) n = 9, s = 9d; (c) n = 16, s = 3d; (d) n = 16, s = 6d; (e) n = 25, s = 4d.

Table 4
Material parameters used in the analyses.
Model

E0 (MPa)

c0 (kPa)

/0 ()

m0

K0

ct (kN/m3)

Pile
Raft

Elastic

12,500
30,000

0.25
0.2

0.01
0.01

25
25

Soft clay
Stiff clay
Rock

MohrCoulomb

3
20
0.1

20
20
45

0.3
0.3
0.3

0.65
0.65
0.5

18
19
20

5
45
500

Note: E (pile) is an equivalent value considering a solid cylinder.

107

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

3. Computed results
3.1. Effect of slip interface model
To clarify the effect of pilesoil slip at the interface, in this study
two different pile congurations (3  3, Lp = 16 m, s = 3d, 9d, as
shown in Fig. 4a and b) in soft clay were subjected to both the
no-slip (continuum) and slip analysis. The uniformly distributed
loading was applied on the top of the raft surface. Fig. 5 shows
the normalized load P/QUR_ult versus the average settlement savg/B
of the piled raft with both slip and no-slip (continuum) analyses.
Additionally, the resistance of nine (the number of piles in the
piled raft) single piles was plotted with the piled raft. 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 [24] from the ABAQUS [1] analysis of
the unpiled raft loadsettlement relationships reported by Lee
[16].
For a close pile spacing s = 3d of the piled raft, the average settlement of the slip analysis was slightly larger than for a no-slip
analysis, but the effect of slip at the interface was insignicant.
For a wide pile spacing s = 9d, the average settlement for the slip
analysis was larger than for the no-slip analysis. Additionally, for
a single pile, the loadsettlement curve of the slip analysis ap-

(a)
0.2

0.4
slip
center
side
corner

0.6

0.8

0.2

no-slip
center
side
corner

0.6
P/QUR_ult

1
0

0.5

1.5

QP_PR / QSP_ult
0

3x3 array, Lp /Ls=0.8

(b)

0.5

0.2

0.4

z / Ls

savg / B(%)

proached the asymptotic value, but the no-slip analysis was still
increasing under the same load levels.
Fig. 6 shows the normalized pile load distribution for piles beneath a piled raft. In this gure, QP_PR is the pile load in a pile beneath a piled raft, z is the depth from the ground level, and the
ultimate bearing capacity of single pile (QSP_ult) was estimated by
the British Standard (BS) regulation of 10% d (d: pile diameter, basis
of total settlement) from the loadsettlement relationships, as
shown in Fig. 5. The pile load of the center pile was generally smaller than that of a corner pile for relatively low load levels. For slip
analysis, with increasing load level, the pile load of the center pile
was slightly larger than that of corner pile, irrespective of pile spacing. For no-slip analysis of close pile spacing s = 3d, however, the
pile load of the center pile was still smaller than that of the corner
pile, irrespective of load level. However, for wide pile spacing
s = 9d, as the applied load increased, the pile load of the center pile
was larger than that of the corner pile, as in the slip analysis. The
pile load distributions of the no-slip analyses were more dependent on the pile spacing and pile positions, and the qualitative distributions of pile load were similar to those reported using 3D FE
analysis with a thin-layer pilesoil interface model [21]. For max-

z / Ls

was assigned general concrete material parameters. Table 4 summarizes the material parameters used in the analyses.
For an applied vertical loading P, Poulos [18] noted that a uniform loading may be adequate for the preliminary design stage,
but it is not adequate for considering more detailed design. Hence,
in this study, for comparison of the effect of loading types, two different types of load, uniformly distributed loading (i.e., uniform
loading) and concentrated loading (i.e., point loading), were applied. For a point load, the load was applied at the center of the raft,
but the equivalent magnitude of the load in the two different loads
was the same. The vertical loading was applied on the top of the
raft surface after initial equilibrium.
All analyses were carried out under drained conditions. Thus,
hydrostatic water pressure distribution was assumed in a drained
condition with the ground water table located on the top of the
clay layer.

slip
center
side
corner

0.6

1.5

slip

no-slip

s=3d
s=9d
9 x single

0.8

s=3d
s=9d
9 x single

0.2

0.4

no-slip
center
side
corner

0.6

P/QUR_ult
1

2.5
0

0.2

0.6

P / QUR_ult
Fig. 5. Average settlements with the effect of pilesoil slip at interface, uniform
loading.

0.5

1.5

QP_PR / QSP_ult
Fig. 6. Pile load distributions (Lp/Ls = 0.8) with the effect of pilesoil slip at interface,
uniform loading: (a) 3  3, s = 3d; (b) 3  3, s = 9d.

108

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

imum pile load, the results of the no-slip analyses were generally
larger than those of the slip analyses, but the end-bearing capacities were almost the same under the same applied load level.
Fig. 7 shows the variation of the piled raft coefcients. The definition of the piled raft coefcient is the ratio of the sum of all pile
loads to the total load of the foundation, as shown in Eq. (4). The
piled raft coefcient decreased with increasing load level due to
the nonlinear pile loadsettlement behavior. The piled raft coefcients for the slip analysis were smaller than those of the no-slip
analysis, because the pile load of the slip analysis was generally
smaller than that of the no-slip analysis, as shown in Fig. 7. For
wide pile spacing s = 9d beneath the piled raft, the decrease in
the piled raft coefcient was signicant because the bearing
behavior of the piles of the piled raft was similar to that of a single
pile.

100

3x3 array, Lp /Ls =0.8

pr (%)

80

60

40

20

slip

no-slip

s=3d
s=9d

s=3d
s=9d

3.2. Pile load distribution

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

P / QUR_ult
Fig. 7. Piled raft coefcient with the effect of pilesoil slip at interface, uniform
loading.

Fig. 8 shows an example of the pile load distribution of piles beneath a piled raft on soft clay with various pile congurations
(3  3 of s = 3d, 9d, 4  4 of s = 3d, 6d, Lp/Ls = 0.8) under uniform
and point loading. The position of the piles and pile congurations

(a)

(b)

0.4

0.4

z / Ls

0.2

z / Ls

0.2

0.6

0.6

3x3 9d

3x3 3d
0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

P/QUR_ult

uniform
center
side
corner

point

0.8

c
s
c

uniform
center
side
corner

0.2 0.4 0.6

P/QUR_ult

1
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

0.4

QP_PR / QSP_ult

0.8

1.2

point
c
s
c
1.6

QP_PR / QSP_ult

(c)

(d)

0.4

0.4

z / Ls

0.2

z / Ls

0.2

0.6

0.6

4x4 3d
0.8

uniform
center
side
corner

0.2 0.4 0.6

P/QUR_ult

4x4 6d
point

0.8

c
s
c

uniform
center
side
corner

0.2 0.4 0.6

P/QUR_ult

point
c
s
c

1
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

QP_PR / QSP_ult

1.6

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

QP_PR / QSP_ult

Fig. 8. Pile load distribution (Lp/Ls = 0.8) with different loading types in soft clay: (a) 3  3, s = 3d; (b) 3  3, s = 9d; (c) 4  4, s = 3d; (d) 4  4, s = 6d.

109

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

are shown in Fig. 4. In this gure, QP_PR is the pile load in a pile under a piled raft, QSP_ult is the ultimate bearing capacity of a single
pile, and z is the depth from the ground level. As discussed in Section 3.1, the pile load distribution was affected by the pile congurations, pile positions and loading types.
For a piled raft under a uniform loading, the pile load of the center pile was generally smaller than that of a corner pile at a low
load level. With increasing load level, however, the pile load of
the center pile was slightly larger than that of a corner pile, irrespective of pile spacing, for 3  3 (3d, 9d) and 4  4 (6d) arrays.
It was estimated that the normal stress generated between the soil
and pile shaft increased with increasing loading on the raft, as reported by Katzenbach et al. [12]. In addition, for close pile spacing
(3  3 and 4  4, s = 3d), the upper portion of the load in the piles
was smaller than the wide pile spacing case (3  3, s = 9d and
4  4, s = 6d), and, in particular, the pile load of the center pile of
the 4  4 (3d) array was generally smaller than that of the other
piles.
For point loading, the pile load distributions were similar to the
uniform loading case. However, the upper portion of the piles did
not generate the negative skin friction, and the upper portion of

the load in the piles was larger than for the uniform loading cases
for close pile spacing. Moreover, the center piles of wider pile spacing (s = 6d, 9d) arrays showed a slightly larger pile load than those
for other positions of piles. The end-bearing capacity, however, was
almost same under the same pile conguration and length, irrespective of loading types.
Fig. 9 also shows an example of the pile load distribution of
piles of a piled raft on stiff clay with various pile congurations
(3  3 of s = 3d, 4  4 of s = 3d, Lp/Ls = 0.8) under uniform and point
loading. As expected, the typical pile load distributions of stiff clay
were comparable with the soft clay case, but the ratio of the pile
load was larger than in the soft clay cases under the same load
level.
In addition, Figs. 8 and 9 show the ratio of the pile load and the
ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. Near the settlement of
50 mm (10% d, about 0.2 of the load level), which was the criterion
of the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile, the pile load ratio
was smaller than unity because of the contribution of raft to the
load sharing. In most cases, however, the ratio was larger than
unity at load levels greater than 0.2 (i.e., increasing settlement).
This was due to the fact that in a settlement-based design for piled

100

(a)
80

0.4

60

z / Ls

pr (%)

0.2

0.6

0.8

0.2
0.4
P/QUR_ult

0.6

uniform
center
side
corner

point

Lp/Ls=1.0

Lp/Ls=0.8

40

20

c
s
c

Uniform loading Point loading

s=3d
s=3d
s=9d
s=9d

0.2

QP_PR / QSP_ult

0.4

Lp/Ls=0.4

(a)
0.6

0.8

P /QUR,ult

100

(b)

Lp/Ls=1.0
80

0.4

60

z / Ls

pr (%)

0.2

0.6

Lp/Ls=0.8

40

Lp/Ls=0.4
0.8

0.2 0.4 0.6

P/QUR_ult

uniform
center
side
corner

point

20

c
s
c

Uniform loading
s=3d
s=6d

1
0

QP_PR / QSP_ult
Fig. 9. Pile load distribution (Lp/Ls = 0.8) with different loading types in stiff clay:
(a) 3  3 array, s = 3d; (b) 4  4 array, s = 3d.

0.2

Point loading
s=3d
s=6d
0.4

(b)
0.6

0.8

P /QUR,ult
Fig. 10. Piled raft coefcient with load level in soft clay: (a) 3  3 array; (b) 4  4
array.

110

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

raft, the piles were there primarily to minimize settlement. Therefore, the number of piles might be relatively small, and their mobilization might be signicant. Katzenbach et al. [13] and Poulos [18]
showed that the piles within a piled raft develop more than twice
the shaft resistance of a single pile, with the center piles showing
the largest values. Thus, the usual design procedures for a piled
raft, which assume that the ultimate pile capacity is the same as
that for an isolated pile, tend to be conservative, and the ultimate
capacity of the piled raft foundation system is greater than that assumed in design. The results also showed a comparable phenomenon. However, the application of this result may be difcult in
practice. This is because pile groups of a piled raft show different
behavior to that exhibited by a single pile. With pile groups in piled
raft, there is no clear bearing failure compared to the case of single
piles.
3.3. Piled raft coefcient
Figs. 10 and 11 show the piled raft coefcient apr for the 3  3
(s = 3d, 9d) and 4  4 (s = 3d, 6d) cases between uniform and point
loading under soft and stiff clay. The piled raft coefcient apr was
80

Lp/Ls=1.0

pr (%)

60

Lp/Ls=0.8
40

20
Uniform loading
s=3d
s=9d

0
0

0.2

Point loading Lp/Ls=0.4

s=3d
s=9d
(a)
0.4

0.6

0.8

P /QUR,ult
80

Lp/Ls=1.0

Lp/Ls=0.8

60

represented by Eq. (4) in Section 2.3. Based on the analysis results,

the piled raft coefcient for point loading was generally greater
than that for uniform loading for both soft and stiff clay, and the
differences between uniform and point loading under close spaced
pile groups s = 3d for the piled raft were slightly larger than for
wide pile spacing (s = 9d of 3  3, s = 6d of 4  4), but it was below
about 5% for soft clay and about 10% of stiff clay. Thus, it was estimated that the type of loading had less effect, although it slightly
inuenced the distribution of the load among the piles. This was
similar to the result reported by Poulos [18] in the hypothetical
case analysis.
The piled raft coefcient was not only strongly dependent on
the system geometries of the foundation but also on the load level
for most cases. Generally, the piled raft coefcient decreased with
increasing load level. For the same number of piles, a decrease of
the piled raft coefcient was relatively large for a wide pile spacing
(3  3 9d and 4  4 6d) for both soft and stiff clay, and these ranged
between 10% and 40% for soft clay and about 10% for stiff clay. In
contrast, the piled raft coefcient of a close pile spacing (3  3 3d
and 4  4 6d) decreased by 10% for soft clay and remained almost
constant for stiff clay. Similar results for the relation between load
level and pile spacing were reported by Horikoshi and Randolph [8]
and Reul [21]. They reported that this decrease of the piled raft
coefcient was caused by nonlinear pile resistance-settlement
behavior. In addition, a decrease of the piled raft coefcient with
longer piles was relatively large, except the end-bearing piles Lp/
Ls = 1.0.
The piled raft coefcient was also affected by the soil properties
signicantly. The coefcient value for soft clay was mostly higher
than for stiff clay. For example, the coefcient for a 3  3 piled raft
is about 30% in soft clay and 20% in stiff clay. This difference in the
piled raft coefcient was caused by the contribution of the raft,
which was more efcient with stiff clay. Moreover, the raft shared
the load even though end-bearing piles were used, and the ratio
ranged from 1% to 10% on soft clay and 2040% on stiff clay,
according to pile congurations.
Fig. 12 shows the piled raft coefcient apr according to the total
pile length n  Lp, with respect to the oating pile cases. The piled
raft coefcient increased with increasing total pile length, because
the load sharing of piles was related to the bearing capacity of the
pile groups in a piled raft, which increased with increasing pile
number n and pile length Lp. For example, as shown in Fig. 10,
for the foundations with n = 9 (3  3), 16 (4  4) and 25 (5  5)
piles with a pile length ratio of 0.4, the average piled raft coefcients were about 30%, 45% and 80% under a load level of 0.5,
respectively. In addition, under the same total pile length, the piled
raft coefcient was comparatively similar, although it was slightly
inuenced by the pile spacing.

pr (%)

3.4. Loadsettlement relation and factor of safety

40

Lp/Ls=0.4
20
Uniform loading
s=3d
s=6d

0
0

0.2

Point loading
s=3d
s=6d
0.4

(b)
0.6

0.8

P /QUR,ult
Fig. 11. Piled raft coefcient with load level in stiff clay: (a) 3  3 array; (b) 4  4
array.

Fig. 13 shows typical loadaverage settlement curves for a piled

raft with 3  3 pile congurations (see Fig. 4) under uniform and
point loading. The ratio of pile lengths Lp/Ls ranged from zero
(UR) to 1.0 (end-bearing). As expected, the settlement increased
with the increasing load levels, and the settlement decreased as
the pile length increased. By comparing the loadsettlement
curves of the uniform loading and point loading, the loadsettlement behaviors were similar, and the effects of the different loading types on the average settlements were insignicant. Thus, the
effect of loading type was negligible. This was similar to results reported by Poulos [18]. Additionally, the effects of pile lengths on
the reducing average settlements of soft clay were much larger
than that of stiff clay under the same load level.
To assess the factor of safety of the piled raft, the ultimate bearing capacity of the piled raft QPR_ult had to be dened. It was conve-

111

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

100

100

(b)

80

80

60

60

pr (%)

pr (%)

(a)

40
Soft
3x3 3d
3x3 9d
4x4 3d
4x4 6d
5x5 4d

20

Stiff
3x3 3d
3x3 9d
4x4 3d
4x4 6d

Soft
3x3 3d
3x3 9d
4x4 3d
4x4 6d
5x5 4d

40
Stiff
3x3 3d
3x3 9d
4x4 3d
4x4 6d

20

0
0

12

16

20

Total pile length (n*Lp /L s)

12

16

20

Total pile length (n*Lp/Ls)

100

(c)
Soft
3x3 3d
3x3 9d
4x4 3d
4x4 6d
5x5 4d

pr (%)

80

60

40
Stiff
3x3 3d
3x3 9d
4x4 3d
4x4 6d

20

0
0

12

16

20

Total pile length (n*Lp/Ls)

Fig. 12. Piled raft coefcient with equivalent total pile length: (a) P/QUR_ult = 0.27; (b) P/QUR_ult = 0.54; (c) P/QUR_ult = 0.81.

nient to calculate it using Eq. (5), as suggested by Liu et al. [17] and
Borel [2], but the values of each component should be dened in
Eq. (5).

Q PR

ult

aPG  Q PG

ult

aUR  Q UR

ult

where QPR_ult, QPG_ult and QUR_ult are the ultimate bearing capacity of
a piled raft, pile groups and unpiled raft, respectively. aPG and aUR
are the load sharing coefcients of a pile group and unpiled raft
when combined to a piled raft, respectively.
For the ultimate bearing capacity of the piled raft QPR_ult, based
on previous researches reported by Cooke [4], Borel [2], Conte et al.
[3] and de Sanctis and Mandolini [5,6], QPR_ult for clay was estimated at the settlement of 10% B. In this study, however, the analyses were not carried out until a settlement of 10% B because of the
inuence of geometrical nonlinearity [7] and the large amount of
storage and time required. It was estimated using a hyperbolic
extrapolation to a settlement of 10% B, using the loadsettlement
curves, as shown in Fig. 13, as well as in de Sanctis and Mandolini
[5,6].
For pile groups, collapse may occur by failure of the individual
piles or the overall piled block. Considering a number of individual

piles, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile groups (QPG_ult) for
individual pile failure is generally evaluated by

Q PG

ult

g  n  Q SP

ult

where QSP_ult is the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile, g is the

group efciency factor, and n is the number of piles.
A value of g = 1 was adopted, which was consistent with the
experimental ndings on small scale pile groups described by
Cooke [4] for piles located at a spacing not less than some critical
value (ranging from s/d of 2.5 for a 3  3 array to 3.0 for a 5  5 array). A coefcient of the pile group aPG of one was adopted based
on the results obtained by de Sanctis and Mandolini [5,6]. They reported that the proportion of the total load taken by the piles at
failure is nearly constant and equal about to unity. Moreover, the
increase of the ultimate capacity of pile groups in piled raft was
not clear, though the pile resistance within a piled raft was larger
than those of a single pile, as discussed in Section 3.2.
The ultimate bearing capacity of the unpiled raft QUR_ult was
estimated by the load of settlement of 10% B (Section 3.1), and
the coefcient of the unpiled raft aUR was nally evaluated by
Eq. (7).

112

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

Table 5
Results of proportion of raft (aur and nUR).

savg / B(%)

Lp/Ls=0.4
2

Point

4
0

(Lp/Ls)
UR
s=3d (0.4)
s=3d (0.8)
s=3d (1.0)
s=9d (0.4)
s=9d (0.8)
s=9d (1.0)

Uniform
UR
s=3d
s=3d
s=3d
s=9d
s=9d
s=9d

0.2

0.4

Lp/Ls=1.0

Pile conguration

Lp(m)

Soft

Stiff

Soft

Stiff

Lp/Ls=0.8

3  3 3d

8
12
16

0.95
0.97
0.99

0.97
0.98
1.02

0.96
0.97
0.99

0.97
0.98
1.02

3  3 9d

8
12
16

0.97
0.99
1.01

0.99
1.01
1.03

0.97
0.99
1.01

0.99
1.01
1.03

4  4 3d

8
12
16

0.91
0.93
0.95

0.94
0.98
1.00

0.92
0.94
0.96

0.95
0.98
1.00

4  4 6d

8
12
16

0.94
0.98
0.98

0.96
1.00
1.01

0.95
0.98
0.99

0.97
1.00
1.01

5  5 4d

8
12
16

0.92
0.97
1.04

0.94
0.98
1.03

0.97(1.0)

0.99(1.0)

(a)
0.6

P/QUR_ult

Average

aUR

nUR

0
2

(a)
Lp/Ls=1.0

Settlement ratio (savg/B, %)

savg / B(%)

Lp/Ls=0.8
2

Point

(Lp/Ls)
UR
s=3d (0.4)
s=3d (0.8)
s=3d (1.0)
s=9d (0.4)
s=9d (0.8)
s=9d (1.0)

4
0

Uniform
UR Lp/Ls=0.4
s=3d
s=3d
s=3d
s=9d
s=9d
s=9d
(b)

0.2

0.4

3x3

1.6

3d
9d
Lp / Ls = 0.4

0.8

UR
0.4

0.6

0
0

ult

 Q PG

Q UR

ult

12

Factor of Safety (QPR,ult /Q working)

Fig. 13. Effect of loading types on loadsettlement curves (3  3 cases): (a) soft
clay; (b) stiff clay. Pilesoil interface included.

Q PR

3d
6d

Lp / Ls = 0.8

P/QUR_ult

aUR

4x4

1.2

(b)

UR

ult

Settlement ratio (savg/B, %)

3x3
The results are summarized in Table 5. The coefcient of the unpiled
raft aUR varied in the range from 0.91 to 1.04, with an average of
about 1.0, for both soft and stiff clay. The unpiled raft coefcient
aUR increased slightly with increasing pile spacing and length for
the same number of piles, and the value for stiff clay was larger than
the value for soft clay. At failure, the pile groups of a piled raft
slightly affected the ultimate capacity of raft corresponded to pile
congurations, at least for pile congurations considered in this
study, but the difference became very small. A similar result for a
piled raft on clay soil was reported by Borel [2], who suggested
the value of 1.1 from a full-scale test. On the other hand, relatively
small values were reported by de Sanctis and Mandolini [6]. They
suggested a value of 0.41.0, with an average of around 0.75, from
FE analyses that used the thin-layer pilesoil interface model for
soft clay. The difference between this study and that of de Sanctis
and Mandolini [6] is that their raft load sharing was smaller than
that found in this study because the thin-layer pilesoil interface
model tends to slightly overestimate the pile load sharing in contrast to the slip interface model, as discussed in Section 3.1.

1.6

3d
9d
4x4

1.2

3d
6d
Lp / Ls= 0.4

0.8

0.4

Lp / Ls= 0.8
0
0

12

Factor of Safety (QPR,ult /Qworking)

Fig. 14. Typical average settlement ratio with overall factor of safety (Lp/Ls = 0.4 and
0.8): (a) soft clay; (b) stiff clay.

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

Table 5 also summarizes the values of coefcient nPR. The coefcient nPR was evaluated by

nPR

Q UR

Q PR ult
Q PG

ult

8
ult

The values were within the range from 0.92 to 1.03 for soft clay and
from 0.95 to 1.03 for stiff clay. These were similar to those deduced
from the experiments and numerical analysis results. Cooke [4] reported that, in a 1 g model test of clay, these range between 0.81
and 1.03. Conte et al. [3] reported that the values range between
0.83 and 1.04 from a centrifuge test of soft clay. Sales [24] and Borel
[2] suggested the values of 0.89 and 1.02 from the results of fullscale tests, respectively. In addition, de Sanctis and Mandolini [6]
reported values within the range from 0.82 to 1.0 based on the
results of FE analysis of soft clay. The coefcient nPR of this study
ranged between 0.92 and 1.03, which means that the ultimate
capacity of the piled raft was at least 91% of the sum of the ultimate
capacities of the separate components.
From the results of the bearing capacity of a piled raft, the typical relationship between the average settlement and the overall
factor of safety is shown in Fig. 14. The factor of safety was dened
as the ultimate bearing capacity of a piled raft divided by an applied load, and it depended on the pile length and pile conguration. However, for stiff clay, pile length and conguration had
less effect on the factor of safety against pile geometries than soft
clay. For the same factor of safety, the average settlement of soft
clay was generally larger than that in the case of stiff clay. For longer piles Lp/Ls = 0.8 in soft clay, however, the relationship between
the average settlement and the overall factor of safety was similar
to that of stiff clay.
Cooke [4] collected data on the settlements of piled and unpiled
rafts on London stiff clays and reported that the settlements of
piled foundations (0.11% B) are about one third of the settlement
of shallow foundations (0.35% B). However, the real safety factor
of the piled rafts is substantially higher than for shallow foundations because the raft contribution was ignored in this design. He
found that the real factor of safety for the piled rafts was within
the range of 614. He nally concluded that the settlements of
piled rafts, designed with a true safety factor of three, are very
close to those observed for shallow foundations (0.35% B).
Based on parametric study, a chart has been developed according to the pile geometries and soil properties, as shown in Fig. 15.
In this study, where a settlement criterion of 0.35% B was applied,

- Raft width (B)= 20d

Soft clay

1.6

Pile array
3x3
4x4

savg /B (%)

- increase pile length

1) Lp/Ls= 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
2) Lp = 16d, 24d, 32d

1.2

UR (stiff)
0.8

UR (soft)
Stiff clay

0.4

[0.35%B]
End-bearing
0

Factor of Safety (QPR,ult/Qworking)

Fig. 15. Average settlement ratios with overall factor of safety.

113

the factor of safety of the piled raft was about 48 on soft clay
and about four on stiff clay. The result for stiff clay was similar
to that proposed by Cooke [4]. For soft clay, the required factor
of safety was generally greater than those of reported by Cooke
[4] because of the characteristic of high compressibility for soft
clay, which is associated with excessive settlement. Therefore,
for light weight (or low-rise) superstructures, it could be possible
to use a piled raft on soft clay. It was shown that the use of a limited number of piles, strategically located, might improve both
bearing capacity and the settlement performance of the raft. In
addition, the settlement criterion of the piled raft could be changed to acceptable levels according to the safety and serviceability
limit of the superstructure.
4. Conclusions
A series of 3D elasto-plastic nite element analyses were conducted to investigate the bearing behavior of a square piled raft
subjected to vertical loading. In this study, the main characteristic
of these analyses was to permit soil slip at the pilesoil interface.
Pile positions, pile number, pile length and loading distributions
on the raft were varied, and the effects of pilesoil slip, pile geometries and loading types were examined.
As expected, the development of settlements and pile loads for
a piled raft was dependent on the slippage at the pilesoil interface
and the pile congurations. The average settlements using slip
analysis were generally larger than those using no-slip analysis,
whereas the maximum pile loads and pile load sharing using slip
analysis were smaller than those using no-slip analysis. However,
the pile load distributions varied according to the pile spacing, as
well as the slippage at pilesoil interface.
The loading type (uniform or point load) inuences the pile load
distribution according to pile position within the piled raft. In addition, the pile load distribution was affected by the pile congurations, pile positions and loading types.
The piled raft coefcient was not only highly dependent on the
pile congurations but also on the load level and the loading type.
Generally, the piled raft coefcient decreased with increasing load
level (i.e., increasing settlement), and the decrease of the piled raft
coefcient was relatively large for a wide pile spacing under the
same number of piles for both soft and stiff clay The piled raft coefcient of a point loading was substantially greater than that of a
uniform loading for both soft and stiff clay, and it was below about
5% for soft clay and about 10% for stiff clay. In addition, the piled
raft coefcient depended on the total pile length n  Lp. The piled
raft coefcient increased with increasing total pile length at the
same load level, but it has comparatively similar values under
the same total pile length.
It was also found that the proportion of the load taken by the
raft at failure was not highly dependent on the pile congurations,
and the coefcients of pile groups within a piled raft and unpiled
raft at failure were approximately equal to 1.0 for both soft and
stiff clay, respectively. Using the results, the relationship between
the average settlement and the overall factor of safety was also
evaluated. In this study, by comparing the settlement of 0.35% B
reported by Cooke [4], the factor of safety of a piled raft was about
48 on soft clay and about four on stiff clay, and this relationship
was judged to be very useful in design practice.
An analytical solution was of interest to examine the safety factor of a piled raft corresponding to a certain settlement and it could
be used as an outline for preliminary design stages.
References
[1] ABAQUS. Users manual (ver. 6.5). Pawtucket, (RI): Hibbit, Karlsson &
Sorensen; 2004.

114

J. Lee et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 103114

[2] Borel S. Comportement et dimensionnement des foundations mixtes. Ph.D.

thesis, de ENPC. Spcialit Gotechnique. Paris; 2001.
[3] Conte G, Mandolini A, Randolph, MF. Centrifuge modelling to investigate the
performance of piled rafts. In: Proceedings of 4th international geotechnical
seminar on deep foundation on bored and auger piles. Ghent: Millpress; 2003.
p. 35966.
[4] Cooke RW. Piled raft foundations on stiff clays: a contribution to design
philosophy. Geotechnique 1986;36(2):169203.
[5] de Sanctis L, Mandolini A. On the ultimate vertical load of piled rafts on the soft
clay soils. In: Proceedings of 4th international geotechnical seminar on deep
foundation on bored and auger piles. Ghent: Millpress; 2003. p. 37986.
[6] de Sanctis L, Mandolini A. Bearing capacity of piled rafts on soft clay soils. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng (ASCE) 2006;132(12):160010.
[7] Faruque MO, Desai CS. 3D material and geometric nonlinear analysis of piles.
In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on numerical methods in
offshore piling; 1982. p. 55376.
[8] Horikoshi K, Randolph MF. Centrifuge modelling of piled raft foundations on
clay. Geotechnique 1996;46(4):74152.
[9] Horikoshi K, Randolph MF. A contribution to the optimum design of piled rafts.
Geotechnique 1998;48(3):30117.
[10] Jeong SS, Lee JH, Lee CJ. Slip effect at the pilesoil interface on dragload.
Comput Geotech 2004;31:11526.
[11] Kakurai M, Yamashita K, Tomono M. Settlement behavior of piled raft
foundation on soft ground. In: Proceedings of 8th ARCSMFE; 1987. p. 3736.
[12] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Moormann C. Design and safety concept for piled raft
foundations. In: Proceedings of 3th international geotechnical seminar on
deep foundation on bored and auger piles. Ghent: Balkema; 1998. p. 43948.
[13] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Moorman C, Reul O. Piled raft foundation interaction
between piles and raft. Int Conf SoilStruct Int Urban Civ Eng, Darmstadt.
1998;2(4):27996.
[14] Lee CJ, Bolton MD, Al-Tabbaa A. Numerical modelling of group effects on the
distribution of dragloads in pile foundations. Geotechnique 2002;52(5):
32535.

[15] Lee CJ, Lee JH, Jeong SS. The inuence of soil slip on negative skin friction in
pile groups connected to a cap. Geotechnique 2006;56(1):536.
[16] Lee JH. Nonlinear three dimensional analysis of settlement of piled raft in clay
soils. Ph.D. thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea; 2007.
[17] Liu J, Huang Q, Li H, Hu WL. Experimental research on bearing behaviour of
pile groups in soft soil. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 2; 1994. p. 5358.
[18] Poulos HG. Piled-raft foundation; design and applications. Geotechnique
2001;51(2):95113.
[19] Poulos HG. Methods of analysis of piled raft foundations. A report
prepared on behalf of technical committee TC18 on piled foundations.
ISSMGE; 2001.
[20] Poulos HG. Piled raft and compensated piled raft foundations for soft soil sites.
Advances on designing and testing deep foundations. Geotech Spec Publ
(ASCE) 2005;129:21435.
[21] Reul O. Numerical study of the bearing behavior of piled rafts. Int J Geomech
(ASCE) 2004;4(2):5968.
[22] Reul O, Randolph MF. Piled rafts in overconsolidated clay-comparison of
in
situ
measurements
and
numerical
analyses.
Geotechnique
2003;53(3):30115.
[23] Reul O, Randolph MF. Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to nonuniform
vertical loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng (ASCE) 2004;130(1):113.
[24] Sales MM. Anlise do comportamento de sapatas estaqueadas. Ph.D. thesis, em
Geotecnia. Univ. de Brasilia; 2000.
[25] Yamashita K, Yamada T, Kakurai M. Simplied method for analyzing piled raft
foundations. In: 3rd international geotechnical seminar on deep foundation on
bored and auger piles; 1998. p. 45764.
[26] Tan YC, Cheah SW, Taha MR. Methodology for design of piled raft for 5-story
buildings on very soft clay. Foundation analysis and design: innovative
methods. Geotech Spec Publ (ASCE) 2006;153:22633.