Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Piled Raft A New Foundation Design Philo
Piled Raft A New Foundation Design Philo
Piled Raft A New Foundation Design Philo
Keywords: Pile foundation, piled raft, soil-structure interaction, FEM, field model test, case history, sim-
plified design method.
ABSTRACT: Recently it is recognized that the use of piles only to reduce the foundation settlement and
differential settlement, not to carry the whole load from the superstructure can lead to considerable sav-
ings. Only a limited number of piles, called settlement-reducers, may improve the ultimate load capacity,
the settlement performance, as well as the required thickness of the raft. This design philosophy has also
been increasingly applied for high-rise buildings. In this paper the result from the Author’s experimental
study, which strongly supports the concept of settlement-reducers are reviewed. The experimental results
are surprisingly in good agreement with case histories many years later. Applications of FEM in design of
piled-raft foundations for high-rises are also discussed.
267
structure. This idea of using piles as settlement- 2. CASE HISTORIES OF PILE AND PILED-RAFT
reducers was started in the seventies (Hansbo et al., FOUNDATIONS
1973; Burland et al., 1977). In the case of piled raft
in clay, this philosophy has been developed into a During the last two decades, the quick growth of
refined design method in Sweden. According to this cities all over the world led to a rapid increase in
design method, the building load inducing stresses in the number and height of high-rise and super high-
excess of the clay pre-consolidation pressure is carried rise buildings, even in unfavourable subsoil condi-
by the piles in a state of creep failure, while the re- tions. Piled raft foundation concept has been suc-
maining load is carried by the contact pressure at the cessfully applied for many projects, some of which
raft-soil interface (Hansbo, 1984; Hansbo & Jendeby, are summarised in Table 1.
1998). A similar approach was introduced in the UK Systematic monitoring the load transfer me-
by Burland (1986). Enormous contributions to the chanism in piled raft foundations were performed
development of the piled-raft foundation concept have to verify the design concept and to prove the servi-
been done in Germany during the 1980’s and 1990’s. ceability requirements. The piled raft foundation
Many piled raft foundations have been constructed in has been widely applied as suitable foundation
the Frankfurt clay using settlement-reducing piles for technique for high-rise buildings in Frankfurt to
heavy high-rises (Sommer et al., 1985; Katzenbach et achieve economic solutions that fulfill both the
al., 2003). There are also applications in non-cohesive stability and the serviceability requirements. The
soil, like the Berlin sand (El-Mossallamy et al., 2006). measured settlements of different case histories of
Recently, super high-rises in the Gulf have often been piled rafts in comparison with traditional raft, as
constructed upon piled rafts. The load of the buildings well as piled foundation are shown in Figure 1, in
is shared between the piles in shaft friction and the raft which factor αL is a load factor representing the
in direct bearing, with the pile system typically carry- load taken by the piles relative to the total struc-
ing about 80% of the total load directly into the deeper tural load. This figure was originally made by El-
strata (Davids et al., 2008). Mossallamy (2008) and modified by the Author by
For piled footings in non-cohesive soil, a sys- adding the cases in Table 1. Among the 20 cases
tematic experimental study of the behavior of the shown in Figure 1, four cases were on raft founda-
piled footings with the cap being in contact with tion, four on pile foundations, and the remaining
the soil surface, has been carried out by the Au- on piled raft foundation.
thor, Phung (1993). The study shows the footing, From Table 1 and Figure 1, a clear connection
or pile cap, in contact with the soil influences con- can be seen between the settlement and the percen-
siderably over the bearing capacity of piles and the tage of load carried by piles: the larger the load
load-settlement behavior of a piled footing. The taken by piles, the smaller the settlement occurs.
mechanism of load transfer in a piled footing in- In fact the settlement (maximum value, differential
volves a highly complex overall interaction be- settlement and its pattern) can be control by
tween piles, pile cap and surrounding soil, which changing the number of piles, their length as wel-
is considerably changed due to pile installation and las their layout
to the contact pressure at the cap-soil interface.
Table 1: Pile and Piled Raft Foundation - Case Histories
No Tower Structure Load share (%) Measurement Settlement
Height, m Stories Piles Raft smax (mm)
1 Messe-Torhaus, Frankfurt 130 30 75 25 Yes N.A.
2 Messeturn, Frankfurt 256 60 57 43 Yes 144
3 Westend 1, Frankfurt 208 53 49 51 Yes 120
4 Petronas, Kuala Lampur PF) 450 88 85 15 Yes 40
5 QV1, Perth, West Australia 163 42 70 30 N.A. 40
6 Treptower, Berlin 121 55 45 Yes 73
7 Sony Center, Berlin 103 N.A. N.A. Yes 30
8 ICC, Hong Kong PF) 490 118 70 cal) 30 cal) N.A. N.A.
9 Commerzbank, Frankfurt PF) 300 56 96 4 Yes 19
10 Skyper, Frankfurt 153 38 63 27 Yes 55
11 Dubai Tower in Qatar 400 84 67 23 N.A. 200 cal)
12 Incheon Tower PF) 601 151 98 2 N.A. 43 cal)
13 Emirates Twin Towers PF) 355 56 93 cal) 7 cal) N.A. 12
PF) cal)
Note: conventional pile foundations; predicted load share by calculation; N.A.= not available info
268
Author has tried to create a better understanding of
the load-transfer mechanism and of the load-
settlement behaviour of a piled footing in non-
cohesive soil, as well as the overall interaction be-
tween the piles, the cap and soil, especially the set-
tlement-reducing effect of the piles.
Three different series of large-scale model tests
(denoted as T1 T2 and T3) were performed. Each test
series consisted of four separate tests on a shallow
footing/cap (denoted as C), a single pile (S), a free-
standing pile group (G), and a piled footing (F) under
equal soil conditions and with equal geometry, see
Table 2. As an example, T2G can be understood as
the test on a free-standing pile group in Test series T2,
and TG as the tests on a free-standing pile group in all
the three series. All the three test pile groups were
square, and consisted of five piles: one central and
four corner piles. In these tests, the following mea-
surements were made: individual pile loads, total ap-
plied load, lateral earth pressure against the pile shaft
and displacement of the footing. Axial pile loads were
Figure 1. Raft and piled-raft foundation-Case histories measured by means of load cells at the base and the
(El-Mossallamy, 2008, modified by the Author by adding top of each pile. A load cell was also placed in the
cases • 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 shown in Table 1). middle of a corner pile, to study the load distribution
It can be also noted that some foundations were along the pile length. The lateral earth pressure against
designed as a pile foundation, but they acted as a pile shaft was measured for the central pile, by twelve
combined piled-raft-foundation, i.e. the raft can take Glötzl total stress cells, installed symmetrically on all
some part of building load. Petronas Tower in Kuala the four sides of the pile. Displacements were meas-
Lampur is a good example. The foundation was de- ured by electric resistance transducers. All the instru-
signed according to the conventional pile method. ments were monitored by a data logger.
However, a certain part of the total load was still tak- Comparison of the results from the tests on free-
standing pile groups with those on single pile shows
en by the raft. According to the measurement, 15%
the pile-soil-pile interaction, while comparison of
of the dead load when the structure reached the
the results on piled footings with those on free-
height of 34 stories, or 40% of the total tower height.
standing pile groups and on un-piled footings (cap
This percentage would have been smaller once the
alone) shows the pile-soil-cap interaction.
tower reached its full height. Low percentage of load
carried by the raft seems to be due mainly to the
presence of the soft soil near the ground surface.
ICC Tower in Hong Kong is another example. The
foundation was designed as a conventional pile
foundation; however the Author’s analysis indicated
that a major part, up to 30% of the total load, could
be carried by the raft, Phung (2002).
3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
269
Table 2. Summary of the large-scale field model tests In the figure, we can see that the load taken by
Test Pile Group and Cap Separate tests in one test cap in the piled footing test, the curve T2F-Cap, is
Series Geometry and Soil series
very close to the load taken by cap in the test on
square group of 5 piles T1C, footing
T1 pile spacing s= 4b T1S, single pile footing alone, T2C-Cap. While the load taken by
cap: 46cmx46cmx30cm T1G, pile group piles in the piled footing, T2F-Piles, is much larg-
sand ID = 38% T1F, piled footing er than the load taken by piles in the free-standing
square group of 5 piles T2C, footing pile groups, T2G-Piles.
T2 pile spacing s= 6b T2S, single pile
cap: 63cmx63cmx35cm T2G, pile group
Loads taken by the cap and the average load per
sand ID = 67% T2F, piled footing pile are shown against the total applied load in
square group of 5 piles T3C, footing Figure 4.
T3 pile spacing s= 8b T3S, single pile From the test results, very important remarks
cap: 80cmx80cmx60cm T3G, pile group are drawn:
sand ID = 62% T3F, piled footing
• When the load is applied on the piled footing,
the piles at first take a major portion of the
The results from all the three test series, which were
load; not until pile failure a considerable por-
performed for different pile group and cap geometries
tion of load is transferred to the cap, Fig. 4;
in soil with different relative densities, showed the
• The load-settlement curve of the cap in a piled
same tendency. For illustration, only the comparison
footing is very similar to that of a cap alone,
of the results obtained from the separate tests in Test Fig. 3;
Series T2 is shown in this paper, see Figures 3. De- • The load carried by the piles in a piled footings
tailed test results for all three test series can be found is much larger than that the load carried by a
elsewhere, Phung (1993). free-standing pile group, Fig. 3.
270
in which Bc is the cap width, η4b can be taken as jee, 1971; Poulos & Davis, 1980; and Randolph,
unity. The efficiency η6 shows influence of the 1983).
pile-cap-soil contact on the cap capacity, and can The ratioξ7, which is defined by comparing the
be taken as 1.0 for loose sand and 0.9 for medium settlement of a piled footing and that of a corres-
dense to dense sand. ponding shallow footing at the same applied load,
seems to be the most useful settlement ratio. This
3.2 Settlement Ratio ratio means the reduction in settlement of a piled
footing as compared with that of a shallow footing
The traditional concept of settlement ratio ξ is
under equal conditions. In other words, this ratio
used to compare the settlement of a free-
shows the settlement-reducing effect due to the pres-
standing pile group with that of a reference sin-
ence of the piles. As expected, the ξ7-value, obtained
gle pile. However, as discussed by the Author
from the tests is always lower than unity. The ratio is
(Phung, 1992 and 1993), this ratio ξ has little
smaller in looser sand than in dense sand. This ratio
practical meaning and depends very much on the
will be further discussed in Section 3.4.
choice of failure criterion. The Author suggested
different new settlement ratios, which were ob-
3.3 Simplified design method
tained by comparison of the settlement of a sin-
gle pile, a free-standing pile group, a piled foot- From the test results we see that when the load is
ing, and a shallow footing under equal condi- applied on a piled footing, the piles first take a ma-
tions, see Table 4. In order to avoid the confu- jor portion of the load, and only after pile failure,
sion caused by different failure criterions, the the load is considerably transferred to the cap. This
comparison is done at the same load level, i.e. at means that the piles are close to failure (with a
the same load per pile, or at the same applied safety factor close to unity). We can also see that
load on footings. the load taken by cap in the piled footing is very
Table 4. Definitions of settlement ratio factors close to the load taken by cap alone. This means
Factor Definition Comparison that the load-settlement relationship of the footing
ξ1 sgr /ss TG and TS in a piled footing can then be estimated as that of
ξ3 sf /ss TF and TS the footing without piles under the same load.
From these conclusions, a simplified design pro-
ξ5 sf /sgr TF and TG
cedure for piled footing in sand can be carried out
ξ7 sf /sc TF and TC
with the steps below:
1) To estimate the load taken by the cap/raft
In Table 4, ss is the settlement of a single without causing excessive settlement. This
pile, and sgr, sc, and sf are the average settlement load is equal to that can be taken in the cap in
of a free-standing pile group, a shallow footing the piled footing Pcap;
and a piled footing under equal conditions. The 2) To estimate the load taken by the piles:
ratios ξ1 and ξ3, estimated by comparing the set-
tlement of a pile group or a piled footing with Ppiles = Ptotal − Pcap (2)
that of a single pile, are similar to the conven-
tional settlement ratio ξ. These ratios have little where, Ptotal is the total applied load;
practical meaning in estimating settlement of 3) To determine the number of piles: As the piles
piled footings, and are not discussed here. are very close to failure state, the number of
Comparison of settlement of a piled footing piles can be calculated as:
with that of a free-standing pile group leads to n = Ppiles / Ps (3)
the ratio ξ5. The test results show that this ratio
at the same applied load is always much less where, Ps is ultimate capacity of a single pile.
than unity. This means the fact that due to the In Step 1, any method for estimating settlement
contribution of the cap, the increase in stiffness for shallow footings can be used. As an example,
of the piles footing, as compared with the cor- the following equation for square footings can
responding free-standing pile groups, is consi- be used :
derable. This conclusion is contrary to that
drawn in most of the theoretical studies basing 0.815 ⋅ q ⋅ B ⋅ (1 −ν 2 ) 0.815 ⋅ P ⋅ (1 −ν 2 )
s= = (4)
on the theory of elasticity (Butterfield & Baner- Ei Ei ⋅ B
271
where, B is the width of the footing; Ei is the soil The above simple example illustrated that using
initial Young's modulus; ν is the soil Poisson's ra- the piled raft concept with settlement-reducing
tio; q is the applied uniformly distributed load; and piles; the number of piles needed to control set-
P is the total concentrated load P= q∙B2. tlement is much smaller than that needed in the
As a result, with a chosen (allowable) settlement s, conventional pile footing design. Moreover with a
the load taken by the footing can be estimated as: bigger settlement allowed, the number of piles can
be reduced considerably. Poulos & Davids (2005)
s ⋅ Ei ⋅ B
P= (5) suggested an allowable settlement of 150 mm for
0.815 ⋅ (1 −ν 2 ) high-rise foundations.
The simplified design method also implies that
In Step 2, the remaining load will be taken by
if we know the load-settlement curve of a shallow
the piles. In Step 3, if we do not know about the
footing and the failure load of a single pile we can
pile-soil-pile interaction factor η1 and the pile-cap
predict the load-settlement curve of a piled footing
interaction factor η4, both the factors can be taken
quite well. This simplified design method is good
as unity. And the number of piles can be estimated
enough for the concept design phase.
by dividing the load taken by pile to the failure or
creep load, of a single pile. This is on the safe side 3.4 Settlement-reducing effect
because under the cap-soil contact pressures the
pile shaft resistance increase considerably. Let us define the so-called relative cap capacity αc
The proposed method was exemplified for all as the ratio between the load taken by the foot-
the three test series, and the estimated settlements ing/cap to the total applied load on the piled foot-
were quite comparative with the measured results, ing at a certain settlement, αc= Pc/Ptotal. Basing on
(Phung, 1993). Poulos & Makarchian (1996) also the results from the three test series, the Author
used this method to estimate the settlement of the also tried to make a relation between αc and the
model footing in their study and found a fair settlement ratio ξ7.
agreement with the test results.
272
In this figure, the settlement ratio sCPRF /sRF is
the ratio between the settlement of a combined
piled raft foundation (CPRF) and that of a raft
foundation (RF), which is exactly the same defini-
tion of ξ7; and αCPRF is the ratio between the pile
load share and that the total load on a piled foot-
ing, αCPRF = Ppiles/Ptotal. Because Ptotal = Ppiles + Pc,
it can be easily seen the relation between αCPRF
and αc, the above-defined relative cap capacity:
αCPRF = 1-αc. It is easy to get the two graphs hav-
ing the same co-ordinates by turning 1800 Fig. 6.
The two graphs are surprisingly almost identical.
273
Numerical analysis is very effective tool for
analysing any foundation and structure system.
However, it is too complicated and time consum-
ing to simulate a complicated soil-structure inte-
raction problem as piled-raft foundation. There are
a number of approaches that numerical analyses
can be carried out:
• Full three-dimensional (3D) analysis;
• Equivalent two-dimensional (2D) plain strain
model;
• Equivalent axi-symmetrical model.
Full 3D numerical analyses were almost im-
possible for complicated foundation configurations Figure 7. ICC Tower-Foundation plan
until this decade when the softwares could be de-
Below the raft, the soil profile consists of allu-
veloped due to faster computers. It is only recently
vium and CDG overlying rock. Within the base-
that this technology has become a viable option to
ment area, rockhead level varies between -61mPD
the engineers in the design office. This evolution
and -106mPD under ground surface. In order to
may be explained by several factors. Pile groups
minimise differential settlement, the barrettes and
and piled rafts are challenging design problems in
DW panels are generally placed at a depth of about
the sense that they are 3D by nature and that soil-
2m above rockhead. The barrettes have thus a
structure interaction is central to the behaviour of
length varying between 35m and 70m. An 8m-
deep foundations. Although the background theory
thick base raft connects the barrettes and the DW.
and the numerical tools necessary to model such
The excavation, 26m deep, is required for the con-
deep foundation systems have been available for
struction of the 4-level basement and the pile cap.
years, it is only in the last few years that available
The foundation was designed by the project
commercial softwares have reached a degree of
engineers, as a conventional pile foundation, using
maturity and user friendliness necessary to meet
the finite element program SAFE. Their design is
the needs of the design office.
not discussed here. The Author, as the independent
verifier, re-simulated the foundation using the
4.1. Equivalent axi-symmetrical modelling-Analy-
FEM code PLAXIS Version 7.2, Phung (2002).
sis of Piled Raft Foundation of ICC Tower
The analysis is based on an axi-symmetric model
This is an example of simulating a piled-raft foun- with the barrettes and DW simulated as equivalent
dation using the simplified numerical approach: concentric rings. The objective of the analysis is to
equivalent axi-symmetrical model, performed by study the settlement behaviour of the foundation
the Author, (Phung, 2002). ICC Tower in Hong system, the load sharing between the foundation
Kong is nowadays the fourth tallest building in the components, the barrettes, the DW panels and the
world with a height of 484m and 118 stories. The raft. The 240 barrettes were modelled as 8 circular
foundation for the tower has a circular plan, and concentric rings representing the same surface
consists of 240 shaft-grouted barrettes (2.8m x areas of the barrettes. The barrette rings were
1.5m or 2.8m x 1.0m) within a circular perimeter modelled as a linear elastic material with an
shaft-grouted diaphragm wall (DW), see Figure 7. equivalent Young’s modulus for bending E1, and
an equivalent Young’s modulus for axial loading
E2. The DW was also included in the model as a
ring. This allows the DW to carry a part of the
load as a component of the pile group. The DW
and the raft were modelled as a linear elastic ma-
terial with a long-term elastic modulus E for con-
crete. Soils were modelled as elasto-plastic mate-
rials with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, see
Figure 8.
274
bined the so called embedded pile model with the
3D finite element model was developed by Plaxis.
Figure 9 shows an example of FE model for a
piled raft with more than 600 piles using Plaxis 3D
Foundation Version 2 (Schweiger, 2008; Brik-
greve, 2008).
3D modelling is also needed to simulate foun-
dations subjected to a combination of vertical, lat-
eral and overturning forces, which are real 3D
problems.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 8. ICC Tower-Axisymetrical modelling founda- Piled-raft foundations, in which piles are designed
tion using Plaxis 7, Phung (2002) to reduce the settlement, not to taken the total load
from superstructure, have been increasingly used
for high-rises. However, predicting the settlement
for piled-rafts is a difficult task for geotechnical
engineers due to the complex pile-cap-soil interac-
tion. The available prediction methods, which are
based on the theory of elasticity, are not suitable
for piled-raft foundations with settlement-reducing
piles, especially in non-cohesive soil. Results of
the experimental study, performed by the Author,
have created a better understanding about the load-
transfer mechanism of piled footings in sand, as
well as the load-settlement behaviour. The study
Figure 9. 3D-Modelling a piled-raft using Plaxis 3D strongly supports the idea of settlement-reducing
Foundation (Schweiger, 2008; Brikgreve, 2008). piles. The simplified methods suggested in this
paper can be used as a practical design procedure,
The settlement at the raft bottom level is about
especially in the foundation option study phase.
40mm at the centre and 9mm at the DW edge. This
Detailed design for foundation of high-rises must
compares quite well with the project engineer’s
include 3D modelling, which can be realised by
settlement estimation. The loads at the head of the
different commercially available computer codes.
pile rings were calculated and the results show that
the central piles carry higher loads than the boun-
dary piles. The foundation was designed as a con- 6. REFERENCES
ventional pile foundation, but the Author’s analy-
sis indicates a major part, up to 30% of the total Arslan, U. & Ripper, P.F. (2003). Geotechnical
load, can be carried by the raft. It is quite common aspects of the planning and building of high-
that the foundation is designed as a pile founda- rises. High-Rise Manual (Eisele, J. and Kloft,
tion, but acting as a combined piled-raft-foundation. E. edt.), Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston-Berlin, pp.
58-75.
4.2 3D Modelling Badelow, F., Kim, S.H., Poulos, H.G. and Abde-
3D numerical analysis is nowadays commonly ap- lrazaq, A. (2009). “Foundation Design for a
plied for modelling high-rise and super high-rise Tall Tower in a Reclamation Area”. 7th Int.
foundations. 3D analysis with appropriate soil Conf. Tall Buildings, Hong Kong, pp. 753-761.
constitutive laws is a powerful tool to model com- Baziar, M.H., Ghorbani, A., Katzenbach R.
plex piled-raft foundation problems. However, the (2009). Small-Scale Model Test and 3-
main disadvantage with applying the 3D analyses Dimensional Analysis of Pile-Raft Foundation
is the need of a huge number of volume elements on Medium-Dense Sand. Int. J. of Civil Engi-
which can exceed the available computer capaci- neering. Vol. 7, No. 3, September.
ties. To cover this problem, a new technique com-
275
Brikgreve, R. (2008). Plaxis new developments. Phung, Duc Long (1992). Tests on piled footings
Plaxis Bulletin, Issue 23, March, Delf. and pile groups in non-cohesive soil - A litera-
Burland, J.B. (1986). The value of field measure- ture survey. Swedish Geotechnical Institute,
ments in the design and construction of deep Varia No. 369, Linköping, Sweden.
foundations. Proc. Int. Conf. on Deep Founda- Phung, Duc Long (1993). Footings with settle-
tions, Beijing, Vol. 2, 177-187 ment-reducing piles in non-cohesive soil.
Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B., De Mello, V.F.B. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technol-
(1977). Behaviour of foundations and structures. ogy, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Proc. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, 495-546. Phung, Duc Long (1994). Piled footings with set-
Butterfield, R., & Banerjee, P.K. (1971). The tlement reducing piles in non-cohesive soil.
problem of pile group - pile cap interaction. Proc. Int. Conf. on Design and Construction of
Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, 135-142. Deep Foundations, Orlando, Florida.
Davids, A., et al (2008). A Postcard from Dubai Phung, Duc Long (2002). Foundation peer-review for
design and construction of some of the tallest Mega Tower, MTRC Kowloon Station Develop-
buildings in the world. Proc. of the CTBUH 8th ment Package 7. WSP Report, July, Hong Kong.
World Congress, 3-5 March, Dubai. Phung, Duc Long (2010). Piled Raft – A Cost-
El-Mossallamy, Y., Lutz, B., Richter, T. (2006) Effective Foundation Method for High-rises.
Innovative application of piled raft foundation Geotech. Eng. J. SEAGS & AGSSEA, Vol. 41,
to optimize the design of high-rise buildings No.3, September 2010.
and bridge foundations. Proc. 10th Int. Confe- Poulos, H.G. (2001). Method of analysis of piled
rence on Piling and Deep Foundations, 31 raft foundations. ISSMGE TC-18 Report, June.
May-2 June, Amsterdam Poulos, H.G. (2011). Personal communication.
El-Mossallamy, Y. (2008). Modeling the beha- Poulos, H.G. and Davids, A.J. (2005). Foundation
viour of piled raft applying Plaxis 3D Founda- Design for the Emirates Twin Towers, Dubai.
tion Version 2. Plaxis Bulletin, Issue 23, Can. Geotech. J., 42: 716-730.
March, Delf. Poulos, H.G., & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile founda-
Hansbo, S., Hofmannn, E., Mosesson, J. (1973). tion analysis and design. Wiley, N.Y.
Östra Nordstaden, Gothenburg. Experience Poulos, H.G. & Makarchian, M., (1996). Simpli-
concerning a difficult foundation problem and fied method for design of underpinning piles.
its unorthodox solution. Proc. 8th ICSMFE, Proc. ASCE, JGED, Vol. 122, No.9, 745-751.
Moscow, Vol. 2, 105-110. Randolph, M.F. (1983). Design of piled raft foun-
Hansbo, S. (1984). Foundations on friction creep dations. Cambridge University, Engineering
piles in soft clay. Proc. Int. Conf. on Case His- Dept., Research Report, Soils TR143.
tories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Randolph, M.F. & Clancy, P. (1993). Efficient de-
Vol. 2, pp. 913 -922. sign of piled rafts. Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar, Deep
Hansbo, S. (1993). Interaction problems related to Foundation, Ghent, pp119-130.
the installation of pile groups. Proc. 2nd Int. Schweiger, H. F. (2008). Personal communication.
Geotech. Seminar on Deep Foundations on Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1985).
Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, 59-66 Piled raft foundation of a tall building in
Hansbo, S. & Jendeby, L. (1998). A follow-up of Frankfurt clay. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on SMFE,
San Francisco, Vol. 4, 2253-2257, Rotterdam:
two different foundation principles. Proc. 4th
Balkema.
Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotech. Vesic, A.S. (1969). Experiments with instru-
Engng, March, St. Louis, Missouri, 259-264. mented pile groups in sand. Performance of
Katzenbach, R., Moormann, Ch. (2003). Instru- Deep Foundation, ASTM STP 444, 177-222.
men-tation and monitoring of combined pile
rafts (CPRF): state-of-the-art report. Proc. 6th
Int. Symp. on Field Measurements in Geome-
chanics, Etd. By Frank Myrvoll, 15-18 Sep-
tember, Oslo.
Katzenbach, R., Schmitt, A., Turek, J.(2003). Re-
ducing the costs for deep foundations of high-
rise buildings by advanced numerical model-
ling. ARI The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical
University, Vol. 53, No.2.
276