ELASTIC SETTLEMENT OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

ON ROCK

By

Abdalfatah A. Shehada

Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering

College of Engineering, Qatar University

January 2015

This thesis submitted to Qatar University in partial fulfillment of the

requirement of the degree of Masters of Science

in Civil engineering.
© Abdalfatah A. Shehada 2015

ii
 Declaration

To the best of my knowledge, the thesis contains no material previously published

or written by another author person or institution, except where due reference is

made in the text of the thesis. The thesis contains no material which has been

accepted for the award of any other degree in any university or other institution.

Student signature: ___________________________________ Date: ___________

To the beat of my knowledge, the thesis conforms the requirements of Qatar

University, and I endorse this thesis for examination.

Supervisor signature: _________________________________Date: ___________

iii
 Committee page

The thesis of Abdalfatah A. Shehada was reviewed and approved by the

following:

We, the committee members listed below accept and approve the

Thesis/Dissertation of the student named above. To the best of this committee’s

knowledge, the Thesis/Dissertation conforms the requirements of Qatar University,

and we endorse this Thesis/Dissertation for examination.

Name __________________________________________

Signature _______________________________________ Date__________

Name __________________________________________

Signature _______________________________________ Date__________

Name __________________________________________

Signature _______________________________________ Date__________

iv
 Abstract

An investigation has been conducted to gain a better understanding of the elastic

settlement behavior of piled foundations resting on extended rock masses. Elasticity

appears to be a reasonable assumption for working load stiffness evaluation when

estimating settlement of piled foundations provided that the small-strain elastic

modulus is employed. Despite having a significant number of publications in this

area, the present effort is distinguished by adopting a unique representation of rock

non-homogeneity to avoid utilizing interrelated parameters. It also considers low

values of pile-subgrade stiffness ratios that are typical for piles in sedimentary

rocks, yet not covered in the literature for piled foundations on non-homogeneous

media. The settlement behavior was investigated using an extensive three-

dimensional finite element analysis of different piled foundation models. Elastic

settlement of single piles was also studied for comparison with the pile-group

behavior. For validation, results of the numerical simulations presented in this study

were compared with elastic settlement data reported in the literature for single piles

and piled foundations. Dimensionless charts were developed to estimate the elastic

settlement of piled foundations as a function of the settlement of on-grade

foundations (i.e., foundations without piles), pile slenderness ratio, pile-rock

relative stiffness, and rock non-homogeneity. The charts can be used, prior to

detailed design, to choose the optimum pile spacing and length that limit foundation

settlement to tolerable levels. The study also showed that having highly stiff rock

mass as subgrade for shallow foundations may make piles practically ineffective as

settlement reducers regardless of their length and spacing. Settlement values yielded

v
from the finite element analysis were compared with those calculated from

equations commonly used in estimating elastic settlement of foundations.

Numerical examples were given to illustrate the application and the importance of

the presented charts in settlement analysis of piled foundations on rock. Steps for

safe and economic design of piled foundations on rock were recommended.

vi
 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ....................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives of the Study .......................................................... 2

1.3 Scope ...................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 Literature review and discussion ................................................ 7

2.1 Settlement of Single Piles ....................................................... 7

2.1.1 Predicting the load-settlement relationship .................. 7

2.1.1.1 Winkler Approach ................................................ 7

2.1.1.2 ρ-y Method of Analysis ........................................ 9

2.1.1.3 Elasticity Approach ............................................ 12

2.1.2 Using settlement charts developed based on numerical

analysis ....................................................................... 17

2.2 Settlement of Piled Foundations ........................................... 21

CHAPTER 3 Settlement Behavior of Single Piles .......................................... 30

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 30

3.2 Methodology......................................................................... 31

3.3 Numerical simulation ........................................................... 32

3.4 Validation ............................................................................. 40

3.5 Analysis and Results............................................................. 41

CHAPTER 4 Settlement Behavior of Piled Foundations ............................... 48

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 48

4.2 Methodology......................................................................... 48

vii
 4.3 Numerical Analysis .............................................................. 49

4.4 Validation ............................................................................. 54

4.5 Analysis and Results............................................................. 54

CHAPTER 5 Geotechnical considerations on the design of piled foundations

on rock ........................................................................................ 66

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 66

5.2 Methodology......................................................................... 68

5.3 Effect of misestimating kp .................................................... 68

5.4 Effect of misestimating ks ..................................................... 69

5.5 Misestimating of kp and ks .................................................... 72

5.6 Recommended design steps for piled foundations on rock .. 72

CHAPTER 6 Conclusions ................................................................................. 75

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 78

APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................... 87

APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................... 94

VITA.................................................................................................................... 131

viii
 List of figures

Figure 1. Ten-meter un-retained vertical cut in Doha showing the extent of rock
layer up to the ground surface (after Eid and Bani-Hani 2012) ............. 3 

Figure 2. Typical rock properties at a construction site in Doha area .................... 4 

Figure 3. a) Winkler approach discretization for vertically loaded pile; b) boundary

condition utilized for the solution of the second order differential
equation. ............................................................................................... 10 

Figure 4. ρ-y method discretization for vertically loaded pile .............................. 13 

Figure 5. Idealization of a cylindrical pile in the Elasticity Approach. ................ 15 

Figure 6. (a) Settlement influence factor for a rigid pile in a semi-infinite

incompressible soil, I0; (b) Correction factor for the pile compressibility,
Rk; (c) Correction factor for the finite depth of the layer on a rigid base,
Rh; (d) Correction factor for the Poisson’s ratio of the soil Rν. (after
Poulos and Davis 1980) ....................................................................... 16 

Figure 7. Elastic settlement of a shear socket (after Pells and Turner 1979)......... 18 

Figure 8. Influence factors for settlement of a side resistance only pile (Donald et
al. 1980) ............................................................................................... 19 

Figure 9. (a) Assumed variation of soil shear modulus with depth; (b) Load
settlement ratios for vertically loaded piled. (after Fleming et. al. 1992)
.............................................................................................................. 22 

Figure 10. (a) Typical pile–soil system addressed; (b) Effect of αg on Pile-Head
Stiffness. (after Guo 2000) ................................................................... 23 

Figure 11. Models analyzed in the numerical simulation: (a) configuration and
parameters to describe piled foundation and subgrade; (b) pile
arrangement. (after Poulos 2001) ......................................................... 25 

ix
Figure 12. Effect of raft thickness on piled raft behavior. (after Poulos 2001) .... 25 

Figure 13. Models analyzed in the numerical simulation: (a) configuration and
parameters to describe piled foundation and subgrade; (b) pile
arrangement. (after Katzenbach et al. 1998) ........................................ 26 

Figure 14. Settlement reduction as a function of the pile load share. (after
Katzenbach et al. 1998)........................................................................ 28 

Figure 15. Settlement reduction as a function of the pile length (L) and pile diameter
(D). (after Katzenbach et al. 1998) ...................................................... 28 

Figure 16. Interaction-diagram: Settlement reduction Spf/Sg versus L/D and number
of piles. (after Katzenbach et al. 1998) ................................................ 29 

Figure 17. Interaction diagram: Pile load share verses L/D and number of piles.
(after Katzenbach et al. 1998) .............................................................. 29 

Figure 18. Configuration and parameters used to describe pile and rock in the
numerical analysis ................................................................................ 33 

Figure 19. Recommended relation between RQD and Em/Er ; (a) afterafter
Bieniawski (1978) ; (b) Zhang and Einstein (2004). ........................... 34 

Figure 20. Finite element mesh used in the analysis ............................................ 35 

Figure 21. Effect of the element size on pile settlement determined using the FE
analysis ................................................................................................. 37 

Figure 22. Axial load distribution along depth of single pile in rock. .................. 38 

Figure 23. An isometric sectional view for the FE mesh used in the single-pile
analysis ................................................................................................. 39 

Figure 24. Comparison between this study results for single piles and those reported
in the literature based on: (a) FE analysis of pile in homogenous media.
(b) numerical analysis of pile in non-homogeneous media; (c) Elasticity

x
 Approach for pile in non-homogeneous media; (d) field loading tests on
piles in non-homogeneous rock. .......................................................... 42 

Figure 25. Effect of changing in n on the value of Ip for constant Ep/E0 .............. 43 

Figure 26. Elastic settlement influence factor as a function of pile and rock
parameters. ........................................................................................... 45 

Figure 27. Critical slenderness ratio for different n values ................................... 46 

Figure 28. Piled square foundations considered in the study................................ 50 

Figure 29. Configuration and parameters used to describe pile and subgrade in the
numerical analysis of piled foundations. ............................................. 50 

Figure 30. Finite element mesh used in the pile-foundation analysis: (a) isometric
sectional view; (b) cross-section view; (c) deformed cross-section view
(q = 300 kPa; deformation magnification of 4000x). .......................... 52 

Figure 31. Foundation settlement ratios determined using different studies. Spf,
settlement of piled foundation; Sg, settlement of on-grade foundation.
.............................................................................................................. 55 

Figure 32. Settlement ratios for piled foundations yielded from the three-
dimensional FE analysis as a function of pile and subgrade parameters.
Spf, settlement of piled foundation; Sg settlement of on-grade foundation.
.............................................................................................................. 56 

Figure 33. Settlement ratios of foundations as a function of pile-load share. ...... 58 

Figure 34. Pile-load share yielded from the three-dimensional FE analysis as a

function of pile and subgrade parameters. ........................................... 59 

Figure 35. Procedure used to calculate pile-load share in this study. ................... 60 

Figure 36. Some uses of this study results: (a) determining alternative pairs of pile
length and pile spacing that lead to a certain reduction in foundation

xi
 settlement; (b) limiting the alternatives shown in plot “a” to only one in
case of having a higher subgrade modulus. ......................................... 63 

Figure 37. Schematic drawing showing the parameters and equations

conventionally utilized in estimating the elastic settlement of
foundations........................................................................................... 64 

Figure 38. Ratios between settlement values estimated using the elastic-settlement
equation and the FE method for: (a) on-grade foundations; (b) piled
foundations........................................................................................... 65 

Figure 39. Configuration and parameters used in the kp and ks sensitivity study. . 70 

Figure 40. Ratio of maximum bending moment (Me/M) associated with

misestimating the pile spring constant kp. ............................................ 71 

Figure 41. Ratio of maximum bending moment (Me/M) associated with

misestimating the subgrade constant ks................................................ 71 

Figure 42. The magnitude of underestimating the maximum bending moment,

expressed in terms of the ratio Me/M, due to utilizing kp and ks of 500,000
kN/m and 350,000 kN/m3 as misestimated values for the actual ones of
1,785,693 kN/m and 214,133 kN/m3, respectively. ............................. 73 

xii
 List of tables

Table 1. Recommended values of soil spring constraint ks (after Bowles 1996).. 11 

Table 2. Computer run-time needed for each piled foundation model. ................ 53 

Table 3. Examples of towers resting on piled foundations in Qatar and the adopted
values of pile spring constant (kp) and modulus of subgrade reaction (ks).
................................................................................................................. 67 

xiii
 Acknowledgments

This thesis is based on theoretical studies conducted at Qatar University. The Thesis

has been prepared under the direct supervision of Dr. Hisham T. Eid, Professor of

Civil Engineering, to whom the writer is indebted for his guidance, constructive

criticism, and encouragement in the preparation of the manuscript.

The writer gratefully appreciates the continued support and patience of his parents

and family throughout his education.

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Piles have been frequently used as reducers of foundation settlement. This is

common for heavily-loaded shallow foundations resting on rock where bearing

capacity or shear failure does not govern the design. The efficiency of piles as

settlement reducers is generally influenced by the compressibility of the foundation

bearing medium and the stress-settlement behavior of piles. Several studies have

been conducted on such subgrade-structure interaction especially for piled

foundations in which the superstructure loads are shared between foundation and

piles (e.g., Mandolini and Viggiani 1997; Poulos 2001; El-mossallamy et al. 2003;).

Load sharing can be more pronounced in piled foundations resting on extended

rock. Rock mass usually exhibits a considerable stiffness near the pile head and an

increasing stiffness along the pile length.

Pile settlement at working loads has been commonly estimated on the basis

of elastic theory as it has been shown by field tests that load-settlement relationships

are closely linear up to half of the peak capacity. This linearity is more pronounced

for piles entirely embedded in rock (Williams and Pells 1981; Eid 2011). In

addition, small strains are expected when loading such piles since the design loads

are usually governed by their structural capacity rather than the significantly higher

friction forces developed along pile shaft. Through a literature review and a back-

analysis of reported case histories, Leung et al. (2010) showed that adoption of the

small-strain subgrade modulus leads to a good estimation of pile-group settlement.

1
 Several studies have been conducted to predict the elastic behavior of piled

foundations on homogenous media. This has been done through using the strip-on-

springs or plate-on-springs approaches (e.g., Clancy and Randolph 1993; Poulos

1994), boundary element methods (e.g., Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Kuwabara

1989), and finite difference and finite element (FE) analysis (e.g., Zhuang et al.

1991; Lee 1993; Poulos et al. 1997). In contrary, the available investigations on

elastic settlement of piled rafts on non-homogeneous media are few and based on

utilizing one value for each of the Young’s modulus of soil near the pile head and

the rate of increase in elastic modulus with depth (e.g., Katzenbach et al. 1998).

Non-homogeneous rock masses that extend from ground surface to great

depths have been typically encountered in Doha, capital of the state of Qatar (Fig.

1). Doha limestone, locally called Simsima limestone, shows a gradual increase in

rock quality designation (RQD) with depth and consequently similar increase in

rock mass modulus (Emass). Figure 2 shows a typical unconfined compressive

strength (qu), Young’s modulus of intact rock (Elab), RQD and Emass values typically

recorded in Doha area.

Since the piled rafts have been used extensively as foundations of high-rise

buildings resting on the limestone of Doha and similar rock masses encountered in

the Arabian Gulf states, a study on the elastic settlement behavior of such a

foundation type resting on non-homogeneous rock masses was initiated.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to introduce a simple and reliable technique to

predict the elastic settlement of piled foundations on rock and choose the optimum

2
Figure 1. Ten-meter un-retained vertical cut in Doha showing the extent of rock
layer up to the ground surface (after Eid and Bani-Hani 2012)

3
Figure 2. Typical rock properties at a construction site in Doha area
(after Eid and Bani-Hani 2012)

4
pile spacing and length that limit such settlement to tolerable values. Because of

adopting a linear elastic behavior for rock, the study results can be valid for piled

foundations resting on other subgrade types with similar expected behavior.

As shown in the previous sub-section, the behavior of piled foundations has

been addressed in a significant number of publications over the past forty years.

However, this study differs from the previous work by incorporating five aspects

related to piles in rock:

1) Utilizing several values of rock modulus near the pile head and various

increasing rates of rock stiffness with depth;

2) Considering typical pile-rock stiffness ratios that have not been covered in

the literature for piled foundations on non-homogeneous media;

3) Developing settlement charts for single piles and piled foundations, the use

of which does not incorporate the commonly utilized interrelated parameters

such as the pile length (L) and the rock modulus near the pile base;

4) Checking the foundation settlement results yielded from the FE analysis

against those estimated using the conventional methods (i.e., settlement

equations based on the theory of elasticity); and

5) Introducing a technique for choosing the optimum pile spacing (A) and

length needed to limit settlement of foundations to a certain value

considering the effects of rock non-homogeneity, pile-rock relative stiffness,

and foundation dimensions.

The goals of this study were achieved through developing relationships that

correlate pile geometrical configurations and pile-rock relative stiffness to the

maximum settlement of piled foundations on rock (Spf). Such settlement is

5
expressed as a ratio to that of the on-grade (i.e., un-piled) foundations (Sg).

Settlement behavior of piled foundations represented by the developed relationships

was checked against that of single piles estimated using the same research technique

and material properties. Effects of having cavities in the bearing rock on estimating

settlement of piled foundations were not addressed herein.

1.3 Scope

Chapter 2 presents a review of existing literature on the procedures used to predict

the settlement behavior of axially loaded single piles. Procedures that depend on

experimental and/or theoretical data as well as those that use results of numerical

analysis are reviewed. The main trials made to predict the settlement behavior of

piled foundations along with the corresponding major results are also presented in

Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 and 4 present the methodology and numerical simulations used

herein to study the settlement behavior of single piles and piled foundations,

respectively. The study results as well as their verifications and analyses are also

introduced in these two chapters.

Some effects of mis-predicting the settlement behavior of axially loaded

single piles and the reaction of the bearing subgrade on the design of piled

foundation are discussed in Chapter 5. A procedure for piled foundation design is

recommended based on the results of this study.

Finally, Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the research.

6
 CHAPTER 2

Literature review and discussion

Several studies have been conducted to predict the settlement behavior of single

piles and piled foundations. Many of these studies can be applied ‒with a certain

accuracy‒ on piles in rock. The assumptions, research techniques, and the major

results of such studies are presented and discussed as shown below.

2.1 Settlement of Single Piles

Generally, settlement of axially loaded single piles can be estimated through the

following two methods:

a) Predicting the load-settlement relationship.

b) Using settlement charts developed based on numerical analysis.

2.1.1 Predicting the load-settlement relationship

It is well known that the load-settlement relationship of single piles can be ideally

obtained through pile-load testing. However, such testing is usually not available

before foundation design. As a result, different approaches have been used to

develop the load-settlement relationship based on some other experimental and

theoretical data. These approaches are:

I) Winkler approach

II) ρ-y or τ-z approach

III) Elasticity approach

2.1.1.1 Winkler Approach

Winkler approach, also known as the subgrade reaction approach, is the oldest

7
approach for predicting the response of vertically loaded piles for settlement

(Winkler 1867). In this approach, the pile is represented with linear elements of

stiffness (Ep A). While the soil is modeled as a series of unconnected linear springs

(Fig. 3a) with a spring stiffness constant (ks), widely known as the subgrade

reaction, expressed in units of force per unit volume (Terzaghi 1955). This approach

is widely employed in practical applications due to its simplicity and long history

of use. Also it is relatively straight forward to apply by using a number of available

tabulated values of ks (see Table 1 as an example), particularly for constant variation

of Young’s modulus of soil (Es) with depth (i.e., homogenous media).

This approach assumes the soil medium as an elastic, isotropic and

homogeneous continuum divided into a number of layers. Each layer is identified

by two terms, the shear modulus (Gs) and a constant (λs). It also assumed that there

is no slippage or separation between the pile and the soil, as well the soil layers.

Upon these conditions, the second order differential Equation 1 can be derived to

captures the soil-pile interaction.

d 2
E p A 2  k s'   0 (1)
dz

By utilizing the boundary conditions at the pile head and base (Fig. 3b),

Z  0  P  PTop & Z  L   0

the solution for the problem yields the pile vertical settlement (δ) at any depth (Z)

as expressed in Equation 2. Details of this deviation can be found in a number of

publications (e.g., Basu and Salgado 2007).

PTop  e Z e  Z 
     (2)
 E p A  1  e 2 Z L 1  e 2 Z L 

8
where,
Ep A
and k s  k s  Pileperimeter
'
 '
k s

Despite the Winkler approach frequent use, this method is criticized because of

some limitations. The primary limitations are:

1) The modulus of subgrade reaction is not a unique property of the soil and

depends on pile characteristics and displacements.

2) The method assumes a linear shear stress-displacement relationship for soils.

3) The soil layers do not act as continuum. The linear elastic springs behave

independently and thus displacement at a point is not influenced by the

displacements or stresses at other points along the pile (Jamiolkowski and

Garassino 1977).

4) There is a limited available information in the literature for the spring

constant ks of rock.

Modifications to the Winkler approach have been proposed to account for these

shortcomings and limitations. One of the attempts transformed the Winkler model

to a continuous model by connecting the springs using an inter-spring shear layer

component (Geogiadis 1983).

2.1.1.2 ρ-y or τ-z Approach

The ρ-y approach or method of analysis for predicting the response of vertically

loaded single piles is originally a modification of the Winkler approach, where ρ is

the shear stress per unit length of pile and y is the pile settlement. The soil is

represented by a series of nonlinear ρ-y curves that are determined from field load

tests and vary with depth. The vertical settlement is determined by dividing the pile

9
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3. a) Winkler approach discretization for vertically loaded pile; b)

boundary condition utilized for the solution of the second order differential
equation.

10
Table 1. Recommended values of soil spring constraint ks (after Bowles 1996)

Soil ks, kN/m3

Loose sand 4800 ‒ 16000
Medium dense sand 9600 ‒ 80000
Dense sand 64000 ‒ 128000
Clayey medium dense sand 32 000 ‒ 80000
Silty medium dense sand 24 000 ‒ 48000
Clayey soil:
qa ≤ 200 kPa 12000 ‒ 24000
200 < qa ≤ 800 k:Pa 24000 ‒ 48000
qa > 800 kPa > 48000

Reference ks Value Remarks

1
Irlend (1957) ks = l.75 to 3 Pulling test
1
Meyerhof (1951) ks = 0.5 for loose sand Analysis of field
ks = 1.0 for dense sand data
1
Mansur and Kaufman (1958) ks = 0.3 (compression) Analysis of field
ks = 0.6 (tensiop) data
2
Tschebotarioff (1957) ks = 0.5 to 1.0
2
Baker (1967) ks = 0.4 to 0.7
4
Tomlinson (1974) ks = 0.5 to 1.0 for steel piles Broom
ks = 1.0 to 2.0, for concrete piles
ks = l.5 to4.0, for timber piles.
3
ASCE Journal, Soil Mech. ks = 0.7 (for bored piles) Touma and Reese
Found. Div. (1974)

5
Recommended values ks = 0.5, non-displacement piles in
loose soils.
ks = 0.6 to 0. 7, non-displacement
piles in dense soils.
ks = 0.5 to 1.5, displacement piles
in loose soils.
ks = 1.5 to 3.0, displacement piles
in dense soils.

1. From Lambe and Whitman (1969).

2. From Johnson and Kavanagh (1968).
3. ks = 0.7 for bored piles upto 8 M. They state ks slightly decreases with increasing length.
4. Lower values are recommended for loose soils and higher values for dense soils
5. Higher values are recommended with tapered piles and lower values with straight sided piles viz.,
cylindrical piles, etc.

11
into a number of small increments and analyzing these increments using ρ-y curves

that represent the soil resistance (Fig. 4).

Although, this method is an improvement over the Winkler approach, the

method has some limitations. Such as:

1) The ρ-y curves are independent for each soil layer. Therefore, the continuous

nature of soil continuum along the pile length is not considered.

2) Obtaining suitable ρ-y curves are required. In order to provide such curves a

full-scale load tests should be performed to each soil layer, or in case of

untested soil, the standard limited available curves can be used.

3) Computer software is required to implement the calculations.

2.1.1.3 Elasticity Approach

The first systematic approach for analyzing the behavior of settlement reducing

piles using the theory of elasticity was presented by Poulos and Davis (1980). In

this approach, the soil is represented by an elastic continuum defined by two

parameters of modulus of elasticity (E) and Poisson’s ratio (v). By representing the

soil as an elastic continuum, the applications of elasticity approach can extend to

analyze layered soil in which the soil modulus varies with respect to depth. Also

each soil layer is assumed to be an ideal, elastic, homogeneous and isotropic.

This approach idealize a cylindrical pile as a vertical strip of length (L),

diameter (D), cross section area (Ap), and flexural stiffness (Ep Ap). The vertical

strip is divided into a number of uniformly loaded elements with shear stress (τ) that

acts along the pile shaft and normal stress (σ) that acts on the base of the pile (Poulos

and Davis 1980) as shown in Figure 5. These elements are uniform in division and

since the conditions of this analysis are purely elastic, it is considered that there is

12
Figure 4. ρ-y method discretization for vertically loaded pile

13
no relative movement between pile and the soil adjacent to it, i.e., equilibrium and

compatibility are imposed on displacements between them.

In Elasticity approach, it is common to use the shear modulus of the soil (Gs)

instead of modulus of elasticity (e.g., Poulos and Davis 1980; Randolph and Wroth

1978) because the soil deforms primarily in shear. The shear modulus of the soil is

obtained in term of E and v, using the following equation.

Es
Gs  (3)
2 (1  s )

In order to obtain the vertical settlement at the pile top (δTop) or the total settlement

at any depth of the pile due to an applied axial load (PTop), the equations relating the

vertical settlement with the unknown stresses must be determined by imposing the

compatibility conditions and solving these equations. Then, the pile vertical

settlement is evaluated from the integration of the classic Mindlin equation for

vertical subsurface loading. Details of the Mindlin equation can be found in Pile

Foundation Analysis and Design by Poulos and Davis (1980). The pile vertical

settlement is expressed in terms of a dimensionless coefficient (Ip) known as

settlement influence factor, PTop, Es and pile diameter (D) as per the following

equation (Poulos and Davis 1980).

PTop I p
 Top  ` (4)
Es D

where,
I p  I o Rk Rh R

The definition and values of Io, Rk, Rh and Rν can be obtained from Figure 6. Pile

compressibility (Rk) correction factor is a function of the ratio between the axial

stiffness of pile (Ep Ap) and axial stiffness of equivalent column of soil (Es Asoil,

14
Figure 5. Idealization of a cylindrical pile in the Elasticity Approach.

15
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. (a) Settlement influence factor for a rigid pile in a semi-infinite incompressible soil,
I0; (b) Correction factor for the pile compressibility, Rk; (c) Correction factor for the finite depth
of the layer on a rigid base, Rh; (d) Correction factor for the Poisson’s ratio of the soil Rν. (after
Poulos and Davis 1980)

16
where Asoil = πD2/4). This ratio is defined by constant (K), as

E p Ap
K (5)
E s Asoil

For a vertically non-homogeneous medium divided into different layers, an average

value of Young’s modulus (Es, avg) can be calculated using the following equation.

1 n
E s , avg    Ei hi (6)
L j 1

Where, n is the total number of layers and i in the layer number. This average value

can be used to estimate the pile vertical settlement and the solution is within ±15%

of the solutions obtained by the finite elements method (Poulos and Davis 1980).

2.1.2 Using settlement charts developed based on numerical analysis

In addition to being investigated through field testing and laboratory modeling (e.g.,

Carrubba 1997; Zhan and Yin 2000; Kim 2001; Mcvay and Niraula 2004; Ooi et al.

2004), settlement of single piles in homogenous rock or soil was analytically studied

assuming linearly elastic half-space (e.g., Mattes and Poulos 1969; Poulos and

Davis 1980) and utilizing simple but approximate closed-form solutions (e.g., Murff

1975; Randolph and Wroth 1978; Fleming et al. 1992; Kodikara and Johnston 1994;

Motta 1994). Finite element (FE) approaches have been also used to estimate

settlement of piles in homogenous medium (e.g., Osterberg and Gill 1973; Pells and

Turner 1979; Donald et al. 1980). Figures 7 and 8 are examples for the settlement

charts yielded from these finite element analyses.

The available investigations on elastic settlement of piles in non-

homogeneous medium are few and mostly based on assuming a stiffness modulus

that starts at zero near the pile head and increases linearly with depth (e.g., Banerjee

17
Erock : Young's modulus of homogeneous rock Epile : Young's modulus of pile
ρ : Elastic settlement at the top of pile P : Applied load at the top of pile
νrock : Poisson’s ratio of homogeneous rock a : Radius of pile (D = 2a)

Figure 7. Elastic settlement of a shear socket (after Pells and Turner 1979)

18
Em : Young's modulus of homogeneous rock νm : Poisson’s ratio of homogeneous rock
Ec : Young's modulus of pile νc : Poisson’s ratio of pile
Q : Applied load at the top of pile D : Diameter of pile
ρ : Elastic settlement at the top of pile

Figure 8. Influence factors for settlement of a side resistance only pile (Donald et
al. 1980)

19
and Davies 1977; Poulos 1979 and 1989) or as a power of depth (e.g., Guo and

Randolph 1997). Based on a closed-form solution presented by Randolph and

Wroth (1978), Fleming et al. (1992) developed charts to estimate the elastic

settlement of piles in soil with nonzero shear modulus at the ground surface and

stiffness that increases linearly with depth. Only high pile-subgrade stiffness ratios

–that are not applicable for piles in rock‒ were utilized in developing such charts

(Fig. 9). The expression used to define the pile settlement is

pt
wt  Ip (7)
GL ro

Where,

wt : Pile-head settlement

Pt : Pile-head load

GL : Shear modulus

ro : Pile radius

Ip : Settlement influence factor for single pile

The finite element technique was also used by Eid and Bani-Hani (2012) to

determine the values of Ip covering a wider range of pile stiffness ratios. It should

be noted that using all of the available charts in estimating settlement of single piles

in non-homogeneous medium is cumbersome because of their dependency on two

interrelated parameters which are the pile length (L) and the elastic modulus of the

medium near the pile base (Eb).

A closed-form solution was also presented by Guo (2000) to account for non-

homogeneity of soil with nonzero shear modulus at the ground surface and stiffness

that increases as a power of depth. A more rigorous continuum-based numerical

analysis, using a finite difference program was used to verify the suggested solution.

20
However, no charts were presented to predict the pile elastic settlement in terms of

pile dimensions and pile-soil stiffness ratio (Fig. 10). The lack of these charts along

with the difficulty of the involved calculations has limited the use of such solution.

Mayne and Niazi (2009) also utilized a closed-form solution to introduce an

approach for evaluating the axial elastic pile response from cone penetration tests.

Results showed that the responses yielded from using this approach are in

agreement with those previously reported in the literature for three pile loading

tests. However, using such approach is restricted to piles in soil because cone

penetration tests are not executable in rock.

2.2 Settlement of Piled Foundations

There has been an increasing trend towards the use of piles to reduce settlements

and differential settlements of foundations to achieve economical design without

compromising the safety or performance of the foundations. Such systems that

makes use of the interaction of both the foundation and the piles with the soil is

referred to as piled foundation. Comprehensive reports on the various methods of

the analysis and design of piled foundations have been produced by many

researchers (e.g., O’Neill et al 2001; Poulos 2001).

As shown in the Introduction section, several studies have been conducted to

predict the elastic behavior of piled foundations on homogenous media. A good

representative of these studies is that presented in Poulus (2001). He introduced

results of investigating the behavior of piled foundations using a hypothetical model

as shown in Figure 11. Effects of changing the number of piles (from 0 to 45) and

raft thickness (from 0.25 m to 1.0 m) on the foundation behavior were investigated.

21
 ro : Pile radius
Pt : Pile-head load
L : Pile length
wt : Pile-head settlement at any depth, z
GL : Shear modulus at the pile-base level
λ : Pile–soil stiffness ratio (Ep/GL)
ρ : Variation of soil modulus with depth (GL/2/GL)

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. (a) Assumed variation of soil shear modulus with depth; (b) Load settlement ratios
for vertically loaded piled. (after Fleming et. al. 1992)

22
 ro : Pile radius
L : Pile length
wt : Pile-head settlement at any depth, z
z : Depth below the ground surface (0 < z ≤ L)
n : Power for the profile = αg / (αg +L)
GL : Shear modulus at the pile-base level
λ : Pile–soil relative stiffness factor
αg : A constant expressing the soil homogeneity

(a)

(b)

Figure 10. (a) Typical pile–soil system addressed; (b) Effect of αg on Pile-Head Stiffness.
(after Guo 2000)

23
The analysis has been carried out using finite difference program GARP

(Geotechnical Analysis of Raft with Piles). In this type of analysis, the foundation

is modeled by an elastic plate using a total of 273 elements, the soil is modeled by

an elastic continuum and the piles are modeled as springs. The piles stiffness and

pile–pile interaction factors (i.e., group effect) have been computed from boundary

element analysis. Figure 12 shows some of this study results. It can be seen that

neither the maximum settlement nor pile-load share is sensitive to the foundation

thickness variation.

Katzenbach et al. (1998) presented a continuum based finite elements analysis

for the investigation of elastic settlement and pile load share of piled foundation on

non-homogeneous media. As shown in Figure 13, the investigation considered

various piled foundations configurations containing number of piles (from 1 to 49)

and pile length, L (from 2D to 40D). The non-homogeneity of the media was

represented as a function of pile length (Fig. 13a). The piles and continuum are

modeled by three–dimensional isoperimetric finite elements while the rigid

foundation is modeled with shell elements. Analysis of the results showed that the

piles within a piled foundation develop twice the shaft resistance of a single pile or

a pile within a pile group in simplified analysis such as GARP. Accordingly, the

simplified design procedures for a piled foundation that assume the ultimate pile

capacity is the same as that for single pile, should be conservative.

Katzenbach et al. (1998) also presented a number of diagrams in order to

capture the settlement behavior of the piled foundations. In Figures 14 and 15, the

effects of the pile load share and scaled pile length (i.e., number of piles * L/D) are

examined as a function of settlement reduction ratio (Spf/Sg). Figures 16 and 17 show

24
 (a) (b)

Figure 11. Models analyzed in the numerical simulation: (a) configuration and parameters to
describe piled foundation and subgrade; (b) pile arrangement. (after Poulos 2001)

Figure 12. Effect of raft thickness on piled raft behavior. (after Poulos 2001)

25
 (a)

(b)

Figure 13. Models analyzed in the numerical simulation: (a) configuration and parameters to
describe piled foundation and subgrade; (b) pile arrangement. (after Katzenbach et al. 1998)

26
the limited range of interaction diagrams that where presented to relate the

settlement ratio to pile load share, the scaled pile length, and number of piles. Such

diagrams can be efficiently used to obtain optimized design of piled foundations

resting on rock. Therefore, it is of a great benefit to generate a wider range of these

interactions diagrams. This is to consider several values of rock modulus, typical

pile-rock stiffness ratios, and various increasing rates of rock stiffness with depth.

All of these aspects have been incorporated in the research presented in this thesis.

27
Figure 14. Settlement reduction as a function of the pile load share. (after Katzenbach et al.
1998)

Figure 15. Settlement reduction as a function of the pile length (L) and pile diameter (D).
(after Katzenbach et al. 1998)

28
Figure 16. Interaction-diagram: Settlement reduction Spf/Sg versus L/D and number of piles.
(after Katzenbach et al. 1998)

Figure 17. Interaction diagram: Pile load share verses L/D and number of piles. (after
Katzenbach et al. 1998)

29
 CHAPTER 3

Settlement Behavior of Single Piles

3.1 Introduction

As shown in the previous chapter, the load-settlement response of single piles under

axial load has been examined through history using numerical methods. These

methods have their limitations for application on piles entirely embedded in non-

homogeneous media. In this chapter, settlement behavior of vertically loaded single

piles entirely embedded in rock are investigated by extensive finite element

analysis. Charts are developed to predict the vertical elastic settlement of the loaded

piles in non-homogeneous media. An equation is also introduced to incorporate the

effect of rock non-homogeneity in estimating the depth at which settlement

becomes insensitive to the increase of pile length.

While this research is mainly about the settlement behavior of piled

foundations resting on rock, the analysis of the single piles presented in this chapter

are used in:

1) Validating the methodology and numerical simulation used in this study ‒

that are similar in both of the single and pile group analyses‒ through

comparisons between this study results and those reported in literature for

single piles, and unfortunately not available for pile groups, based on: (a)

numerical analyses of single piles in homogenous and non-homogeneous

media; and (b) field loading tests for single piles in non-homogeneous media.

2) Comparing the settlement behavior of single piles with that of the piled

foundations predicted using the same technique.

30
 3) Introducing settlement charts, that can help in estimating the spring constant

(kp) of single piles entirely embedded in rock.

3.2 Methodology

Single piles with a diameter (D) of 1.0 meter and lengths of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20,

25 and 30 meters were considered in the analysis. Physical and mechanical

properties of the piles and surrounding rock used in the analysis are shown in Figure

18. The elastic modulus of rock mass was taken to increase linearly along the pile

length with a nonzero value at the pile head (E0). Poisson’s ratio for rock (νr) and

piles (νp) were taken as 0.25. Value of Poisson’s ratio usually ranges from 0.1 to 0.3

and from 0.15 to 0.3 for rock and concrete, respectively. Variation in νr and νp within

these ranges has little effect on elastic settlement of piles (Pells and Turner 1979).

To avoid the aforementioned problem of interrelated parameters, pile-rock

relative stiffness was expressed as the ratio of the pile Young’s modulus Ep, and the

top level rock Young’s modulus E0, i.e., Ep/E0. This is different from the ratio that

incorporates the base level soil or rock modulus, i.e., Ep/Eb, which was utilized in

previous investigations for estimating settlement of piles in non-homogeneous

media. Values of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 were assigned to the Ep/E0 ratio.

These values are typical for reinforced concrete piles bored in sedimentary rocks.

However, few data are available in the literature on the elastic settlement of piles in

non-homogeneous media with Ep/Eb less than 100 (Eid and Bani-Hani, 2012).

An average elastic modulus of 30 GPa was assigned to the simulated piles.

Such value was calculated using a formula proposed by Zhan and Yin (2000) to

estimate the elastic modulus for the composite material of concrete and steel as

31
Ep = Ec (1 ‒ r) + Es r, where Ec and Es are the elastic modulus of concrete and steel,

respectively, and r is the percentage of steel reinforcement. An axial load (Q) of

5,000 kN was used for studying the settlement behavior of single piles.

The rate of increase in the modulus of rock mass along the pile length is

expressed as a function of E0. This rate is represented by the factor n that was

assigned values of 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45, and 0.5 (Fig.

18). For example, a rock with n = 0.2 indicates an increase of 0.2E0 per meter depth,

while a homogenous rock has n = 0.0. Values of n between 0 and 0.2 reflect the

commonly measured rates of increase in sedimentary rock quality designation

(RQD) and consequently mass modulus with depth. Higher values of n were utilized

for this single-pile analysis to clarify the effect of rock non-homogeneity. The direct

relationship between the RQD of a rock and its mass modulus has been proved by

several researchers (e.g., Deere et al. 1967; Coon and Merritt 1970; Bieniawski

1978; Zhang and Einstein 2004; Trivedi 2013) as shown ‒for example‒ in Figure

19, where Em and Er represent the modulus of elasticity of rock mass and rock

substance, respectively.

3.3 Numerical simulation

To study the elastic behavior of vertically loaded piles in rock, numerical analysis

were performed using SAP2000 FE software package (SAP2000). Owing to the

symmetry of the considered configuration, 2D axisymmetric analysis was used in

this study. Four-node elements were used to represent piles and rock. The FE mesh

utilized in the analysis is shown in Figure 20. The elements were concentrated in

the zones of high stress gradient. No special elements were utilized at the pile/rock

32
Figure 18. Configuration and parameters used to describe pile and rock in the numerical
analysis

33
 (a)

(b)

Figure 19. Recommended relation between RQD and Em/Er ; (a) afterafter Bieniawski (1978)
; (b) Zhang and Einstein (2004).

34
Figure 20. Finite element mesh used in the analysis

35
interface because studying pile ultimate bearing capacity and consequently any

relative movement at such interface is outside the scope of this research.

In order to ensure that the mesh was sufficiently fine, several analysis were

conducted using progressively more elements until the answers stabilized. Elements

of 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 meter width were utilized in the refinement study

using different pile lengths and pile-rock stiffness ratios. A typical result of this

study is shown in Figure 21. It can be seen that the mesh size effect almost

diminishes when the element size in the zones of high stress gradient is less than

0.25 meter. As a result, such size was used in the entire FE analysis.

A gap with a pile-rock relative stiffness of 3000 was utilized to simulate rock

immediately below the pile base and create a practically no-base support. Such

representation is valid for piles analyzed in this study since the results of several

field tests and numerical simulations (Horvath et al. 1980; Carrubba, 1997) have

shown that the contribution of toe resistance is only significant at relatively large

displacements, i.e., at the ultimate limit state. Figure 22 clearly shows this behavior

for Ep/E0 range that is typical for concrete piles bored in sedimentary rock masses.

Consequently, under the working loads, forces transferred from the pile shaft to the

surrounding rock through skin friction are the main contributor to the settlement of

pile head. Similar conclusion can be drawn from the data presented for piles entirely

embedded in rock of constant mass modulus (Pells and Turner 1979; Mattes and

Poulos 1969; Donald et al 1980).

Settlement values yielded from the numerical analysis were expressed in

terms of the settlement influence factor (Ip) using equation 9.

Q
S IP (9)
DE0

36
 Figure 21. Effect of the element size on pile settlement determined using the FE analysis
37
Figure 22. Axial load distribution along depth of single pile in rock.

38
Figure 23. An isometric sectional view for the FE mesh used in the single-pile
analysis

39
Where S = settlement of pile head under a vertical load Q and D = pile diameter. A

similar equation has been used by several researchers to estimate the elastic

settlement of isolated shear sockets at the surface of a semi-infinite elastic rock. The

equation considers that the effects of end bearing and drilled shafts compression on

the settlement of pile head are negligible.

A check was made using a three-dimensional FE analysis with eight-node

solid elements to represent piles and subgrade material was carried out on single

pile in rock. The FE mesh used in the settlement analysis of the three-dimensional

(3D) single piles is shown in Figure 23. Settlement values yielded from the 3D and

the 2D numerical analysis were in very good agreement.

3.4 Validation

Single-pile settlement results yielded from the numerical simulations presented in

this study were compared with settlement data reported in the literature for single

piles. Figure 24 shows such comparison for single piles embedded in homogenous

and non-homogeneous media. The compared results include the elastic settlement

data reported by Pells and Turner (1979) and Donald et al. (1980) for single piles

in homogenous media, i.e., n = 0.0 (Fig. 24a). Pile settlement in non-homogeneous

media reported by Guo (2000) for Ep/Em = 357 and nonzero shear modulus at the

ground surface, i.e., n > 0.0 (Fig. 24b), and single piles settlement calculated using

the elasticity approach (Fig. 24c). Field test data reported by Eid and Bani-Hani

(2012) for full-scale piles embedded in non-homogeneous media were also used in

the comparison (Fig. 24d). It can be seen that the results yielded from the two-

dimensional numerical simulation of this study are in good agreement with

40
settlement data determined using different numerical analysis techniques and field

loading tests. Such agreement supports the reliability of the numerical analyses used

in this research to predict the settlement behavior of piles embedded in rock mass

with constant and increasing stiffness. The detailed results of the single-pile

analysis are presented in Appendix A.

3.5 Analysis and Results

The influence of changing the values of n on settlement of single piles embedded

in rock, with Ep/E0 of 50 as a typical value, is presented in Figure 25. It can be seen

that the change of n from 0.0 to 0.5 decreases the settlement by ratios of 74% and

95% for piles with slenderness ratio (L/D) of 4 and 30, respectively. This significant

reduction shows the importance of considering the change in the stiffness of rock

mass along the pile shaft specially in estimating settlement of long piles.

The settlement influence factors calculated in the current study for single piles

in rock are shown in Figure 26 as a function of n, Ep/E0, and L/D. It can be seen

that, for the same n value, the calculated settlement is more sensitive to the adopted

value of Ep/E0 for piles embedded in rocks of high stiffness, i.e., low Ep/E0 values.

As a result, great care should be taken in estimating stiffness at the top of

these rocks for pile settlement calculation. The data presented in Figures 26 also

show that Ip has a general tendency to decrease with increasing values of n, L/D,

and Ep/E0. However, the rate of such decrease diminishes for piles with high L/D

and Ep/E0 ratios. Increasing pile slenderness ratios to values greater than a critical

41
Figure 24. Comparison between this study results for single piles and those reported in the literature based on: (a) FE analysis of pile in homogenous
media. (b) numerical analysis of pile in non-homogeneous media; (c) Elasticity Approach for pile in non-homogeneous media; (d) field loading tests
on piles in non-homogeneous rock.
42
Figure 25. Effect of changing in n on the value of Ip for constant Ep/E0

43
one, (L/D)c, does not affect the pile head settlement since a small portion of load

reaches the pile lower end. Analyzing the data developed from the current study and

those presented in the literature shows that the magnitudes of (L/D)c increases with

decreasing n and νr and increasing Ep/E0 values. Equations to approximately

estimate the value of (L/D)c are available in the literature. However, they are either

for piles in homogeneous rock only (Fleming et al. 2009) or incorporating

interrelated parameters in representing rock non-homogeneity (Eid and Bani-Hani

2012).

To include the effect of increasing the modulus of rock mass with depth in

estimating the magnitude of (L/D)c without using interrelated parameters, data

yielded from this study and those available in the literature were reanalyzed. This

has resulted in developing the following equation.

0 .5
 L 1 n  E 
   2  2 1   r  P  (10)
 D c  E0 

Critical slenderness ratios estimated using Equation 10 were superimposed in

Figure 27 on the associated Ip trend curves developed from the FE analysis. Data

presented in Figure 27 confirms the accuracy of Equation 10 in estimating the

critical slenderness ratio. Estimating this ratio helps in choosing the optimum pile

length and designing piled foundations that are commonly used –as an alternative

to foundations on grade– for settlement reduction.

It should be noticed that the simplicity of using the charts of Figure 26 in

predicting the settlement and critical slenderness ratio of piles in non-homogeneous

medium is resulted from avoiding the use of interrelated parameters that are

incorporated in all of similar charts presented in the literature. It should be also

44
Figure 26. Elastic settlement influence factor as a function of pile and rock parameters.

45
Figure 27. Critical slenderness ratio for different n values

46
noted that if the pile-rock relative stiffness is expressed in terms of Ep/Eb –as usually

reported in the literature– using Equation 9 in calculating values of Ip based on the

settlements determined from the FE analysis should lead to spurious results for piles

with slenderness ratios greater than the critical one. Increasing L/D values in such

range is associated with an ineffective increase in Eb that leads to raising the

calculated Ip values, even though the actual settlement is essentially constant. These

unrealistic values of Ip were not developed in this study due to expressing the pile-

rock relative stiffness in terms of E0 instead of Eb.

Figure 26 can be also used to estimate the pile spring constant (kp) that is

usually needed –along with the modulus of subgrade reaction- as an input for most

of the commercially available software utilized to structurally design piled

foundations. Since pile loading tests –that can be used for a reliable assessment of

kp - are usually conducted after the foundation design stage, the current practice in

design of piled foundations is based on a crude estimation of the pile spring

constant. Better estimation of kp can be made through determining the value of Ip

from Figure 26 and then using Equation 11 that is derived from Equation 9.

Q DE0
kp   (11)
S IP

The effect of misestimating the value of kp on the structural design is more

pronounced for piled foundations resting on rock (Eid 2011). This supports the need

for using the charts presented herein in the design of such foundation type. Further

details on the effect of misestimating the geotechnical parameters on the structural

design of piled foundations are given in Chapter 5.

47
 CHAPTER 4

Settlement Behavior of Piled Foundations

4.1 Introduction

An extensive three-dimensional finite element (FE) analysis was conducted on

numerical models of piled foundations to achieve the goals of this research. The

effects of pile slenderness ratio, pile spacing, and subgrade stiffness on the elastic

behavior of piled foundations were studied. Charts were developed to estimate the

elastic settlement of piled foundations and help in choosing the optimum pile

spacing and length that limit foundation settlement to tolerable levels. Settlement

values yielded from the finite element analysis were compared with those calculated

from equations commonly utilized in estimating elastic settlement of foundations.

4.2 Methodology

A 7 meter-wide square foundation resting on piles entirely embedded in rock was

used in the analysis. This foundation size was chosen to allow for utilizing three

commonly used pile spacing values (i.e., 2D, 4D, and 6D), considering a pile

diameter (D) of 0.5 m, without changing the foundation size (Fig. 28). Similar

foundation sizes have been utilized by several researchers (e.g., Poulos 2001) to

study the behavior of piled foundations. Piles were arranged in the frequently used

square pattern over the foundation area. Effect of foundation size on the study

results is minimized through comparing the settlement ratios (i.e., the values of

Spf/Sg), i.e. maximum settlement of piled foundations (Spf) as a ratio to that of the

on-grade or un-piled foundation (Sg), rather than the absolute settlement values.

48
Piles with slenderness ratios (L/D) of 2, 4, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 30 were considered in

the analysis. Greater ratios, i.e., those usually utilized to study the behavior of

superlong piles (e.g., Yao et al. 2012), were not included since they are used for

piled foundations on soft ground.

Similar to the single piles analysis presented herein, using interrelated

parameters has been avoided by expressing the pile-rock relative stiffness as the

ratio of Ep/E0. Values of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, and 2000 were assigned

to the Ep/E0 ratio. The lower four values of this ratio are typical for reinforced

concrete piles bored in sedimentary rock masses. However, no data are available in

the literature for the elastic settlement of piled foundations on non-homogeneous

media with Ep/E0 less than 100. The other four values of Ep/E0 were utilized to

simulate the conditions of piles in overconsolidated soil that exhibits a nonzero

modulus at the surface (Guo 2000). This helps in comparing the study results with

those available in the literature. The elastic modulus of rock mass is taken to

increases linearly along the pile length with a nonzero value at the pile head (E0).

Poisson’s ratio for the subgrade material (νs) and piles (νp) is taken as 0.25 (Fig. 29).

The rate of increase in the modulus of rock mass along the pile length is expressed

as a function of E0. This rate is represented by the factor n that was assigned values

of 0.0, 0.1 and 0.2.

4.3 Numerical Analysis

The numerical analysis were conducted using SAP2000 FE software program. An

eight-node solid element was used to represent piles and subgrade material. No

special elements were needed at the pile/subgrade interface because reaching the

49
 Figure 28. Piled square foundations considered in the study.

Figure 29. Configuration and parameters used to describe pile and subgrade in the
numerical analysis of piled foundations.

50
ultimate bearing capacity (i.e., the ultimate state) and consequently any relative

movement at such interface is outside the scope of this research. The foundations

were modeled with shell elements and considered rigid throughout the study.

Foundation rigidity or thickness has minor effects on both of the maximum

settlement and the pile-load share (Poulos 2001). A uniform stress (q) of 300 kPa

was applied to foundations with different pile configurations and subgrade

conditions to determine the corresponding settlements and pile-load shares. Similar

loading condition and foundation rigidity were utilized by several researchers in

studying settlement behavior of piled foundations (e.g., Poulos and Davis 1980)

The three-dimensional FE mesh used in the numerical analysis of piled

foundations is shown in Figure 30. It can be seen that the distance of the mesh

boundary from the foundation edges was set to 2.5B. Having such distance

minimizes the boundary effect since the observed influence zone extends at most

1.5B from the foundation edges. The extension decreases in case of having small

pile spacing (Fig. 30c). For both of the utilized meshes, finite elements representing

the subgrade were concentrated in the zones of high stress gradient. In order to

ensure that each mesh is sufficiently fine, several analysis were conducted using

progressively more elements until the results stabilized. Such a refinement study

resulted in used mesh presented in Figures 30. For all of the considered piled

foundation models, the difference between the maximum and minimum settlements

was insignificant. Table 2 summaries the computer run-time needed to determine

settlement of piled foundation models.

51
Figure 30. Finite element mesh used in the pile-foundation analysis: (a) isometric
sectional view; (b) cross-section view; (c) deformed cross-section view (q = 300
kPa; deformation magnification of 4000x).

52
Table 2. Computer run-time needed for each piled foundation model.

Piled foundation
On-grade
Parameters and models
foundation
L/D = 2 L/D = 4 L/D = 7 L/D = 10 L/D = 15 L/D = 20 L/D = 30

No. of pile spacing (A) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N.A.

No. of n values 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

No. of Ep/E0 values 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Run time
System : 64-bit operating system 2 min 4 min 6 min 12 min. 20 min. 29 min. 40 min 2 min
type RAM : 8.00 GB
Processor : 17-3610QM CPU @2.3GHz

No. of developed models 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 24

Total No. of models 528

53
53
4.4 Validation

In addition to the verifications shown in section 3.4 using the single-pile analysis,

results of the numerical simulations presented in this study were compared with

elastic settlement data reported in the literature for piled foundations as shown in

Figure 31. It can be seen that the settlements of piled foundations as simulated in

this study are comparable with those reported in the literature for similar foundation

and subgrade conditions. Such agreements support the reliability of the numerical

analysis used in this research to predict the elastic settlement of piled foundations.

Detailed results of the piled foundations analysis are presented in Appendix B.

4.5 Analysis and Results

The settlement ratios (Spf/Sg) yielded from the FE study were plotted as a function

of pile and subgrade parameters (Fig. 32). It can be seen that that the efficiency of

using piles in reducing foundation settlements is directly proportional to the values

of L/D and n. Except for low slenderness ratios, using piles becomes more efficient

in case of having high values of Ep/E0. Especially for small pile spacing, pile

slenderness ratios needed to render foundation settlements that are insensitive to

pile depth are much higher than the critical ratios determined from the single-pile

study. Such a conclusion can be drawn through comparing the data included in

Figure 26 for single piles with those presented in Figure 32 for piled foundations

(i.e., pile groups). This can be interpreted in terms of pile interactions that are more

significant in groups of small pile spacing.

Figure 32 can be used in predicting the settlement ratio Spf/Sg and

consequently the piled foundation settlement since the value of Sg can be estimated

54
Figure 31. Foundation settlement ratios determined using different studies. Spf,
settlement of piled foundation; Sg, settlement of on-grade foundation.

55
Figure 32. Settlement ratios for piled foundations yielded from the three-dimensional FE
analysis as a function of pile and subgrade parameters. Spf, settlement of piled foundation; Sg
settlement of on-grade foundation.

56
with a reasonable accuracy utilizing the commonly used elastic-settlement

equations. It should be again noted that the simplicity of using the charts of Figures

26 and 32 to predict the elastic settlement of single piles and piled foundations is

resulted from avoiding the use of the interrelated parameters which are incorporated

in all of the similar charts presented in the literature for estimating settlement of

piles in non-homogeneous media.

Typical values of Spf/Sg ratios are presented in Figure 33 as a function of the

pile-load share. It can be seen, as expected, that increasing the pile-load share

reduces settlement of piled foundations as more load would be transferred through

piles to less compressible layers. In addition to having small pile spacing, high

values of Ep/E0, L/D, and n contributes to enhancing the pile-load share and

consequently reducing the settlement of foundations. Using deeper piles becomes

less efficient in such reduction in case of having low values of Ep/E0 and n (Fig. 32

and 33). Low values of Ep/E0 are typical for piled foundations on rock. A similar

conclusions can be drawn from Figure 34 which presents the pile-load share as a

function of pile and subgrade parameters. It should be noted that the pile-load share

was calculated in this study utilizing the average vertical stress developed on the

head of each pile. This calculation procedure is illustrated in Figure 35.

Since the subgrade material properties (i.e., values of E0 and n) are site-

specific and cannot be practically modified, the magnitude of foundation settlement

reduction due to piling mainly depends on the used A and L/D. Figure 32 can be

used in a preliminary design technique that provides the optimum A and L/D values

needed to limit settlement of foundations to a certain value. Figure 36a, which is

deducted from Figure 32 for simplicity, illustrates the employment of such

57
Figure 33. Settlement ratios of foundations as a function of pile-load share.

58
Figure 34. Pile-load share yielded from the three-dimensional FE analysis as a function of pile
and subgrade parameters.

59
Figure 35. Procedure used to calculate pile-load share in this study.

60
technique to achieve a settlement reduction, Spf/Sg, of 0.6 in case of having a

subgrade with Ep/E0 and n of 100 and 0.1, respectively. It can be seen that the

required settlement reduction can be fulfilled using three alternatives, i.e., pairs of

A and L/D values. The cost of adopting each alternative would govern the final

choice.

To shed more light on the economical factor in adopting different

arrangements of piled foundations (i.e., different pairs of A and L/D), a survey was

conducted on a number of contractors and consulting firms in Doha, capital state of

Qatar, in order to have the total cost of bored pile per meter depth in rock. The cost

varies based on several factors that include the number of piles, drilling depth, and

spacing of piles. Depending on these factors the cost of bored pile per meter depth

ranges between QAR 850 and QAR 1000 ($ 230 and $ 275). It should be also noted

that having alternative pairs of A and L/D values would not be possible to achieve

a settlement reduction of 0.6 for foundations on a rock with Ep/E0 and n of 20 and

0.1, respectively. As shown in Figure 36b, only small spacing should be used to

achieve such reduction regardless of the values of L/D. This can be interpreted in

terms of the low pile-load share for foundations resting on rocks of high modulus

and consequently the relatively limited effect of using deeper piles for settlement

reduction (Fig. 32).

Elastic settlement of foundations has been frequently estimated using a basic

equation suggested by Terzaghi (1943). The equation form and its associated

parameters utilized in estimating elastic settlement of on-grade foundations and

piled foundations are shown in Figure 37. Settlements of on-grade foundations and

piled foundations estimated using this equation, i.e., (Sg)e and (Spf)e, were compared

61
with the corresponding values determined from the FE analysis (i.e., Sg and Spf).

The comparison results are shown in Figure 38. It can be seen that, for on-grade

foundations, the equation generally yields settlement values that are in some

agreement with those determined using the FE analysis especially for subgrades

with high values of E0 and n (Fig. 38a). On the other hand the equation tends to

significantly overestimate the settlement of piled foundations especially for cases

of high Ep/E0 and L/D ratios and small A values (i.e., cases of high pile-load share)

as shown in Figure 38b. For example, this overestimation, i.e., the magnitude of

(Spf)e/Spf, can reach a value of about 2.84 for piled foundations with A and L/D of

2D and 20, respectively, resting on a uniform weak sedimentary rock (e.g., case of

n = 0, and Ep/E0 = 100). This may lead to overdesigning piled foundation resting on

most of the rock types. Such a conclusion supports the importance of utilizing the

results of this study in estimating the elastic settlement of piled foundations.

62
Figure 36. Some uses of this study results: (a) determining alternative pairs of pile length
and pile spacing that lead to a certain reduction in foundation settlement; (b) limiting the
alternatives shown in plot “a” to only one in case of having a higher subgrade modulus.

63
Figure 37. Schematic drawing showing the parameters and equations conventionally
utilized in estimating the elastic settlement of foundations.

64
Figure 38. Ratios between settlement values estimated using the elastic-settlement
equation and the FE method for: (a) on-grade foundations; (b) piled foundations.

65
 CHAPTER 5

Geotechnical considerations on the design of piled

foundations on rock

5.1 Introduction

The current common practice in the structural design of piled foundations in based

on representing the pile response and the subgrade stiffness by a spring constant

(kp) and modulus of subgrade reaction (ks), respectively. The vast majority of the

commercially available structural design software utilizes thses two parameters as

inputs for the analysis and design of piled foundations.

Because pile-load tests ‒that can be used for reliable assessment of kp‒ are

usually conducted after designing the piled foundations, a crude estimation have

been commonly made for the value of kp to be utilized in the structural design. For

example, the structural engineers in Doha usually select the value of kp depending

on their experience or as a rule of thumb, such as getting kp by simply multiplying

the ks value recommended in the geotechnical report by 150 or just assuming a

typical value of 1,500,000 kN/m for piles in Doha limestone.

Unlike soils, guide ranges of ks values for different types of rock are not

available in the literature. The effects of having cracks, fissures, and joints on the

magnitude of this mechanical parameter make it difficult to develop such guide

ranges. As a result, rough values of ks are routinely estimated for rock subgrade.

Table 3 presents values of kp and ks that have been used in the design of piled

foundations of three different towers built in Doha on similar rock (limestone)

subgrade.

66
Table 3. Examples of towers resting on piled foundations in Qatar and the adopted values of pile spring constant (kp) and modulus of subgrade
reaction (ks).

Typical Pile
Project name, and location Project description Pile length kp (kN/m) ks (kN/m3)
floor area Diameter

AL SAMRYA HOTEL TOWER,

3 B + G +2 M + 45 F 860 m2 1.2 m 16 m 30x105 1.5 x105
West bay

UNION RESIDENTIAL TOWER,

2 B + G + M + 35 F 1000 m2 1m 14 m 25 x105 6.6 x104
Al-Dafna Area

MARINA COMMERCIAL TOWER,

3 B + G + 27 875 m2 1m 8m 12 x105 9.0 x104
Lusail

67
67
 This chapter illustrates how the current research results can help in better

prediction of the values of kp and ks, and the effect of misestimating these values on

the structural design of piled foundations. This effect can be more pronounced for

piled foundation resting on extended rock. In such case, piles will be entirely

embedded in rock and the high mass stiffness of rock contacting the foundation base

may considerably decrease the pile-load share.

5.2 Methodology

A simple three-dimensional FE model is used in this sensitivity study. The model

is composed of a 7 meter-wade square foundation 0.5 m-diameter piles arranged in

a square pattern at spacing of 4D. Values of L/D, Ep/E0, and n were taken to be 10,

50, and 0.1, respectively (Fig. 39).

Values estimated using the results of this research are considered to be actual

and lead to the correct maximum bending moment generated on the foundation (M).

Moments developed on the foundation due to utilizing misestimated (overestimated

or underestimated) values of kp and/or ks are labeled as Me. The ratio Me/M is used

to express the magnitude of error resulted from misestimating kp and/or ks values.

5.3 Effect of misestimating kp

Using the configuration and parameters shown in Figure 39, kp can be well

estimated using Equation 11. The value of Ip needed to apply Equation 11 can be

determined from Figure 26. It should be noted that estimating the value of E0 ‒that

is also needed to apply Equation 11‒ can be done with reasonable accuracy as a

function of rock RQD near the pile top and the modulus of elasticity for rock

substance that can be easily determined in laboratory (see Fig. 19 for typical

68
relations between these parameters). For Ep/E0 = 50, L/D = 10. And n = 0.1, Figure

26 reads Ip of 0.168. Taking Ep = 30 GPa as a commonly used value and

consequently E0 of 0.6 GPa, Equation 11 leads to a kp of 1,785,693 kN/m.

As shown previously, kp of 1,785,693 kN/m can be misestimated by picking

values that are much higher or lower in magnitude. For this sensitivity study, these

values are taken as 3,000,000 kN/m and 500,000 kN/m. Value of ks is kept constant

and equal to 214,133 kN/m3. Figure 40 shows Me/M ratios that are associated with

overestimating and underestimating the value of kp. It can be seen that such

misestimating may lead to an error ranging between 15% and 30%, respectively.

This can significantly affect the reinforcement design of foundations.

5.4 Effect of misestimating ks

For the piled foundation model shown in Figure 39, the value of ks can be well

predicted by first using the charts of Figure 32 to get Spf/Sg = 0.655. The value of Sg

(i.e., settlement of on-grade foundation) for such model can then be estimated using

the equation of elastic settlement shown in Figure 37 to be 2.139 mm. This leads to

a value of Spf of 1.401 mm. The magnitude of ks can be then calculated by dividing

the stress that would be applied on top of the piled foundation (q) by the determined

value of Spf. The stress (q) is taken to be 300 kPa for this sensitivity study which

yields a ks value of 214,133 kN/m3.

Taking (misestimating) the value of ks to be between 25,000 kN/m3 and

350,000 kN/m3 will lead to ratios of Me/M between 1.42 and 0.81, respectively

(Fig. 41). This can also affect the reinforcement design of foundation.

69
Figure 39. Configuration and parameters used in the kp and ks sensitivity study.

70
Figure 40. Ratio of maximum bending moment (Me/M) associated with misestimating the
pile spring constant kp.

Figure 41. Ratio of maximum bending moment (Me/M) associated with misestimating the
subgrade constant ks.

71
5.5 Misestimating of kp and ks

Figures 40 and 41 show that the maximum bending moment on the foundation body

would be underestimated ‒which leads to unsafe design‒ when values of kp or ks

are underestimated or overestimated, respectively. If both of these two estimation

errors are made, underestimation of the maximum bending moment would be

magnified due to a severe overestimation of the load share carried through the direct

contact between the foundation base and the rock. Figure 42 shows the magnitude

of such underestimation expressed in terms of the ratio Me/M for piled foundations

with different thicknesses (t). Moments used to develop Figure 42 were calculated

through utilizing kp and ks of 500,000 kN/m and 350,000 kN/m3 as misestimated

values of the actual ones of 1,785,693 kN/m and 214,133 kN/m3, respectively. It

can be seen that, for the considered piled foundation model, the maximum bending

moment can be underestimated by a magnitude of 50 to 55 % if the described

prediction error is made for both kp and ks values. Such underestimation increases

with increasing pile spacing and practically independent of foundation rigidity or

thickness. Utilizing this miscalculated moment may lead to a significant under-

design of piled foundation reinforcement.

5.6 Recommended design steps for piled foundations on rock

Based on the results of this research, the following steps are recommended for safe

and economic design of piled foundations on rock:

1) Estimate the values of E0 and n (distribution of E values with depth) based

on the data reported in the Geotechnical report for the unconfined

compressive strength of rock material and RQD near the proposed top level

72
Figure 42. The magnitude of underestimating the maximum bending moment, expressed
in terms of the ratio Me/M, due to utilizing kp and ks of 500,000 kN/m and 350,000 kN/m3
as misestimated values for the actual ones of 1,785,693 kN/m and 214,133 kN/m3,
respectively.

73
 of piles, and the RQD distribution with depth, respectively.

2) Evaluate the equivalent total uniform stress (q) that would be imposed on

foundation surface due to the superstructure dead and live loads.

3) Using the equation that is conventionally utilized in estimating the elastic

settlement (Fig. 37), calculate the expected settlement of on-grade

foundation with width “B” and length “Y” similar to the proposed piled

foundation, i.e., (Sg)e, under the stress “q”.

4) Using Figure 32, choose the optimum pile spacing (A) and length (L) that

limit the piled foundation settlement (Spf) to the tolerable level. If the piles

would be operating in the early construction as anchors for water uplift

pressures (i.e., acting as tension piles), the uplift capacity of the chosen pile

system should be checked and consequently any required changes in A and/or

L should be made.

5) Estimate the pile spring constant (kp) through using Figure 26 along with

Equation 11. The rock subgrade modulus (ks) can then be predicted as ks =

q/Spf.

6) Use an appropriate structural design software to get the bending moments

and the associated reinforcement using the predicted input parameters kp and

ks as well as the geometrical parameters B, Y, D, and A.

74
 CHAPTER 6

Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn from the results of extensive finite element

investigations that adopted typical values of pile-rock relative stiffness and a unique

representation of rock non-homogeneity to study the settlement behavior of single

piles entirely embedded in rock as well as piled foundations resting on rock.

1) Pile elastic settlement is influenced by the pile slenderness ratio, pile-rock

stiffness ratio, and rate of increase in rock stiffness along the pile length.

Dimensionless charts were presented to predict the elastic settlement of piles

as a function of such parameters. The use of the charts does not incorporate

the commonly utilized interrelated parameters such as the pile length and the

rock modulus near the pile base.

2) The presented settlement charts for single piles in rock can be efficiently used

in estimating the pile spring constant (kp) that is needed in the structural

analysis and design of piled foundations.

3) For typical stiffness ratios of concrete piles bored in sedimentary rock

masses, the contribution of pile toe resistance is insignificant at the vertical

displacement ranges usually achieved under the working loads of piles in

rock.

4) The settlement influence factor (Ip) for single piles in rock ‒that has a direct

relation with the settlement of pile top under axial loads‒ has a general

tendency to decrease with increasing the magnitude of the rate of increase in

the modulus of rock mass with depth (n), pile slenderness ratio (L/D), and

75
 pile-rock relative stiffness (Ep/E0). However, the rate of such decrease

diminishes for piles with high L/D and Ep/E0 ratios. Increasing the pile

slenderness ratios to values greater than a critical one (L/D)c does not affect

the pile head settlement. An equation was developed to estimate this critical

ratio in terms of n and Ep/E0.

5) Especially for small pile spacing (A), pile slenderness ratio needed to render

foundation settlements that are insensitive to pile depth are much higher than

the critical ratios determined from the single-pile study. This can be

interpreted in terms of pile interactions that are more significant in groups of

small pile spacing.

6) The efficiency of using piles in reducing foundation settlements is directly

proportional to the values of L/D and n. Except for low slenderness ratios,

using piles becomes more efficient in case of having high values of Ep/E0.

Charts were developed to estimate the elastic settlement of piled foundations

(Spf) as a function of the settlement of on-grade foundation (i.e., foundations

without piles), pile slenderness ratio, pile-rock relative stiffness, and rock

non-homogeneity.

7) The presented settlement charts for piled foundations can be used to choose

the optimum pile spacing and length that limit foundation settlement to the

desired value. The charts can be also used to reliably predict the modulus of

subgrade reaction for rock (ks) that is needed in the structural analysis and

design of piled foundations. The simplicity of utilizing such charts is resulted

from avoiding the use of interrelated parameters which are incorporated in

all of the similar charts presented in the literature for estimating settlement

76
 of piles in non-homogeneous media.

8) Increasing the pile-load share reduces settlement of piled foundations as

more load would be transferred through piles to less compressible layers.

Having small pile spacing, high values of Ep/E0, L/D, and n contributes to

enhancing the pile-load share and consequently reducing the settlement of

foundations. Using deeper pile become less efficient in such reduction in case

of having low values of Ep/E0 and n. low values of Ep/E0 are typical for piled

foundations on rock.

9) The equation first suggested by Terzaghi (1943), that has been frequently

used to estimate the elastic settlement of foundations, generally yields values

that are in some agreement with those determined using the finite element

analysis of on-grade foundations especially in cases of high values on E0 and

n. On the other hand the equation tends to significantly overestimate the

settlement of piled foundations especially for cases of high Ep/E0 and L/D

ratios and small A values. This may lead to overdesigning piled foundations

resting on most of the rock types. Such a conclusion supports the importance

of utilizing the results of this study in estimating the elastic settlement of

piled foundations.

10) The frequently made crude estimation of the pile spring constant (kp) and the

modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) may lead to significant errors in the

structural design of piled foundations on rock. The use of the settlement

charts presented herein should lead to a better estimation of these two

parameters and consequently more safe and economic design of such

foundation type. The details of the design procedure are presented.

77
 REFERENCES

Banerjee, P. K., and Davies, T. G. (1977). “Analysis of pile groups embedded in

Gibson soil.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, 381-386.

Basu, D. and Salgado, R. (2007). “Method of initial parameters for piles embedded in
layered soils.” Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal,
Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 281-294.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1978). “Determining rock mass deformability: Experience from case
histories.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 237-247.

Bowles, J.E. (1996). “Foundation Analysis and Design.” McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K. (1971a). “The Elastic Analysis of Compressible

Piles and Pile Groups.” Géotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 43-60.

Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K. (1971b). “The Problem of Pile Group and Pile Cap
Interaction.” Géotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 135-142.

Carrubba, P. (1997). “Skin friction of large-diameter piles socketed into rock.”

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 230-240.

Clancy, P. and Randolph, M.F. (1993). “An approximate analysis procedure for piled
raft foundations.” International Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 849-869.

Coon, R.F. and Merritt, A.H. (1970). “Predicting in situ modulus of deformation using
rock quality indices.” ASTM Special Technical Publication 477, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 154-173.

78
Davis, E.H. and Poulos, H.G. (1972). “The Analysis of Piled Raft Systems.” Aust.
Geomechs. J., G2: 21-27.

De Sanctis, L. and Russo, G. (2008). “Analysis and Performance of Piled Rafts

Designed Using Innovative Criteria.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 8, pp. 1118-1128.

Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D., and Cording, E.J. (1967). “Design of surface
and near surface construction in rock.” Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, C. Fairhurst, ed., American Institute of Mining Engineers,
Minneapolis, pp. 237-302.

Donald, I. B., Chiu, H. K., and Sloan, S. W. (1980). “Theoretical analysis of rock
socketed piles.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural
Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 303-316.

Eid, H.T. (2011). “Geotechnical considerations on the design of piled rafts on rock.”
Proceedings of the 6th International Structural Engineering and Construction
Conference (ISEC6), Zürich, pp. 653-658.

Eid, H.T., and Bani-Hani, K. (2012). “Settlement of axially loaded piles entirely
embedded in rock – analytical and experimental study.” Geomechanics and
Geoengineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 139-148

El-Mossallamy, Y., Schmidt, H., Gundling, E., and Loschner, J. (2003). “Pile raft
foundation of a railway bridge in tertiary clay.” Proceedings of the 4th
International Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent,
Belgium, Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 387-393.

Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., and Elson, W. K. (1992). Piling
Engineering. 2nd Edition, Halstead Press/ John Wiley & Sons, New York.

79
Geogiadis, M. (1983). “Development of p-y curves for layered soils”, Proc.
Conference on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, University of
Texas, Austin, pp. 536-545.

Guo, W.D. (2000). “Vertically loaded single pile in Gibson soil.” ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 2, pp. 189-193.

Guo, W.D., and Randolph, M.F. (1997). “Vertically loaded piles in non-homogeneous
media.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 21(8): 507-532.

Horvath, R. G., Kenney, T. C., and Trow, W. A. (1980). “Results of tests to determine
shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled piers.” Proceedings of the International
Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Vol. 1, 349-361.

Jamiolkowski, M. and Garassino, A. (1977). “Soil Modulus for Laterally Loaded

Piles.” Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, pp.
87-92.

Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U, Moormann, C., and Reul, O. (1998). “Piled raft foundation-
interaction between piles and raft.” Darmstadt Geotechnics, Darmstadt
University of Technology, No. 4, pp. 279-296.

Kuwabara, F. (1989). “An elastic analysis for piled raft foundations in a homogeneous
soil.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 82-92.

Lee, I.K. (1993). “Analysis and performance of raft and raft-pile systems.” Keynote
lecture, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis.

80
Leung, Y.F., Soga, K., Lehane, B.M., and Klar, A. (2010). “Role of linear elasticity in
pile group analysis and load test interpretation.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 12, pp. 1686-1694.

Mandolini, A. and Viggiani, C. (1997). “Settlement of piled foundations.”

Géotechnique, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 791-816.

Mattes, N.S. and Poulos, H.G. (1969). “Settlement of single compressible pile.” ASCE
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Vol. 95, No. SM1, pp. 198-
207.

Mayne, P. W. and Niazi, F. S. (2009). “Evaluating axial elastic pile response from cone
penetration tests.” Proceedings of CIGMAT conference, University of Houston,
Houston, Texas, pp. 1-18.

O’Neill, M.W., Caputo, V., De Cock, F., Hartikainen, J. and Mets, M. (2001). “Case
Histories of Pile-Supported Rafts.” Rep. for ISSMFE Tech. Comm. TC18, Univ.
of Houston, Texas.

Osterberg, J.O. and S.A. Gill. (1973) “Load Transfer Mechanism for Piers Socketed in
Hard Soils or Rock.” Proceedings, 9th Canadian Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 235–262.

Pells, P.J.N. and Turner, R. M. (1979). “Elastic solutions for the design and analysis
of rock-socketed piles.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 481-487.

Poulos, H. G. (1979). “Settlement of single piles in non-homogeneous soil.” ASCE

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, 105: 627-642.

Poulos, H. G. (1989). “Pile behavior – theory and application.” Rankine lecture,

Geotechnique, 39(3): 365-415.

81
Poulos, H.G. (1994). “An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft interaction.”
International Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 73-92.

Poulos, H.G. (2001). “Piled raft foundation: design and applications.” Géotechnique,
Vol.51, No.2, pp. 95-113.

Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980). “Pile foundation analysis and design.” Wiley,
New York.

Poulos, H.G., Small, J.C., Ta, L.D., Sinha, J. and Chen, L. (1997). “Comparison of
some methods for analysis of piled rafts.” Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Vol. 2,
pp. 1119-1124.

Randolph, M.F. (1983). “Design of Piled Raft Foundations.” Proc. Int. Symp. on Recent
Developments in Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical
Problems, Bangkok, pp. 525-537.

Randolph, M.F. (1994). “Design Methods for Pile Groups and Piled Rafts.” S.O.A
Report, 13 ICSMFE, New Delhi 1994, Vol. 5, pp. 61-82.

Rowe, R.K. and H.H. Armitage. (1987a). “Theoretical Solutions for Axial
Deformation of Drilled Shafts in Rock.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
24, pp. 114–125.

Sanctis, L. and Russo, G. (2008). “Analysis and performance of piled rafts designed
using innovative criteria.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 12, pp. 1600-1610.

SAP2000. Structural Analysis Program, version 14. Product of computers and

structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.

82
Terzaghi, K. (1943). “Theoretical Soil Mechanics.” New York, John Wiley and Sons,
510 pp.

Terzaghi, K. (1955). “Evaluation of Coefficients of Sub-grade reaction.”

Geomechanics, Vol. 5, pp. 297

Trivedi, A. (2013). “Estimating in situ deformation of rock masses using a hardening

parameter and RQD.” ASCE International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 348-364.

Van Impe, W.F. and Lungu, I. (1996). “Technical Report on Settlement Prediction
Methods for Piled Raft Foundations.” Ghent Univ., Belgium.

Williams, A.F. and Pells, P.J.N. (1981). “Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone,
mudstone, and shale.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 502-
513.

Winkler, E. (1867). “Die lehrevon elastizitat und festigkeit (On elasticity and fixity).”
Prague.

Yao, W., Liu, Y., and Chen, J. (2012). “Characteristics of negative skin friction for
superlong piles under surcharge loading.” ASCE International Journal of
Geomechanics, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 90-97.

Zeevaert, L. (1957). “Compensated Friction-pile Foundation to Reduce the Settlement

of Buildings on Highly Compressible Volcanic Clay of Mexico City.” Proc. 4
ICSMFE, London, V.2.

Zhan, C. and Yin, J.H. (2000). “Field Static Load Tests on Drilled Shaft Founded on
or Socketed into Rock.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1283-
1294.

83
Zhang, L., and Einstein, H.H. (2004). “Using RQD to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 337-341.

Zhuang, G.M., Lee, I.K., and Zhao, X.H. (1991). “Interactive analysis of behavior of
raft-pile foundations.” Proceedings of Geo-Coast’91, Yokohama, Vol. 2, pp.
759-764.

84
 Notation

A = pile spacing;

B = foundation width (used in elastic-settlement equation);

B̀ = equivalent pier width (used in elastic-settlement equation);

D = pile diameter;

E = subgrade Young’s modulus (used in elastic-settlement equation);

E0 = top level subgrade Young’s modulus;

Ep = Young’s modulus of pile material;

I = factor depends on foundation rigidity and dimensions (used in elastic-

settlement equation);

Ip = settlement influence factor for single pile;

kp = pile spring constant;

ks = modulus of subgrade reaction;

L = pile length;

M = maximum bending moment developed on the foundation due to adopting

correct values of kp and ks;

Me = maximum bending moment developed on the foundation due to adopting

misestimated values of kp and/or ks;

n = rate of increase in subgrade modulus with depth;

q = uniform stress imposed on foundation surface;

q̀ = stress applied at L/3 on the equivalent pier (used in elastic-settlement

equation);

RQD = rock quality designation;

S = settlement of single pile under a load Q;

85
Spf = settlement of piled foundation;

Sg = settlement of on-grade foundation;

(Spf)e = settlement of piled foundation determined using the elastic-settlement

equation;

(Sg)e = settlement of on-grade foundation determined using the elastic-settlement

equation;

t = piled foundation thickness;

νs = Poisson’s ratio for the subgrade material;

νp = Poisson’s ratio for the pile material;

Y = foundation length (used in elastic-settlement equation);

Ỳ = equivalent pier length (used in elastic-settlement equation).

86
 APPENDIX A
Data for Single Piles

87
 Single piles
n = 0 & L/D = 2 n = 0 & L/D = 4 n = 0 & L/D = 6
Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.839 0.503 10 0.698 0.419 10 0.652 0.391
20 1.552 0.466 20 1.213 0.364 20 1.076 0.323
50 3.666 0.440 50 2.704 0.324 50 2.270 0.272
100 7.126 0.428 100 5.147 0.309 100 4.206 0.252
200 13.916 0.417 200 9.966 0.299 200 8.020 0.241
500 33.778 0.405 500 24.188 0.290 500 19.310 0.232
2000 130.878 0.393 2000 94.240 0.283 2000 75.103 0.225

n = 0 & L/D = 8 n = 0 & L/D = 10 n = 0 & L/D = 15

Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.633 0.380 10 0.625 0.375 10 0.618 0.371
20 1.012 0.304 20 0.976 0.293 20 0.942 0.283
50 2.027 0.243 50 1.876 0.225 50 1.690 0.203
100 3.647 0.219 100 3.286 0.197 100 2.780 0.167
200 6.832 0.205 200 6.030 0.181 200 4.852 0.146
500 16.265 0.195 500 14.160 0.170 500 10.932 0.131
2000 62.946 0.189 2000 54.412 0.163 2000 41.014 0.123

88
88
 Single piles
n = 0 & L/D = 20 n = 0 & L/D = 25 n = 0 & L/D = 30
Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.617 0.370 10 0.617 0.370 10 0.617 0.370
20 0.936 0.281 20 0.929 0.279 20 0.928 0.278
50 1.616 0.194 50 1.582 0.190 50 1.566 0.188
100 2.540 0.152 100 2.416 0.145 100 2.344 0.141
200 4.232 0.127 200 3.875 0.116 200 3.645 0.109
500 9.120 0.109 500 7.984 0.096 500 7.205 0.086
2000 33.186 0.100 2000 28.062 0.084 2000 24.452 0.073

89
89
 Single piles
n = 0.1 & L/D = 2 n = 0.1 & L/D = 4 n = 0.1 & L/D = 6
Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.750 0.450 10 0.599 0.359 10 0.553 0.332
20 1.376 0.413 20 1.010 0.303 20 0.876 0.263
50 3.216 0.386 50 2.184 0.262 50 1.746 0.210
100 6.236 0.374 100 4.101 0.246 100 3.136 0.188
200 12.318 0.370 200 7.878 0.236 200 5.870 0.176
500 29.448 0.353 500 19.001 0.228 500 13.936 0.167
2000 111.088 0.333 2000 72.358 0.217 2000 52.926 0.159

n = 0.1 & L/D = 8 n = 0.1 & L/D = 10 n = 0.1 & L/D = 15

Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.536 0.322 10 0.530 0.318 10 0.526 0.315
20 0.819 0.246 20 0.796 0.239 20 0.773 0.232
50 1.524 0.183 50 1.400 0.168 50 1.277 0.153
100 2.610 0.157 100 2.292 0.138 100 1.922 0.115
200 4.723 0.142 200 4.000 0.120 200 3.064 0.092
500 10.947 0.131 500 9.000 0.108 500 6.302 0.076
2000 41.163 0.123 2000 33.314 0.100 2000 21.959 0.066

90
90
 Single piles
n = 0.1 & L/D = 20 n = 0.1 & L/D = 25 n = 0.1 & L/D = 30
Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.525 0.315 10 0.525 0.315 10 0.525 0.315
20 0.766 0.230 20 0.769 0.231 20 0.768 0.230
50 1.246 0.150 50 1.236 0.148 50 1.233 0.148
100 1.792 0.108 100 1.748 0.105 100 1.731 0.104
200 2.676 0.080 200 2.504 0.075 200 2.423 0.073
500 5.020 0.060 500 4.344 0.052 500 3.960 0.048
2000 16.086 0.048 2000 4.757 0.014 2000 10.500 0.031

91
91
 Single piles
n = 0.2 & L/D = 2 n = 0.2 & L/D = 4 n = 0.2 & L/D = 6
Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.682 0.409 10 0.535 0.321 10 0.495 0.297
20 1.238 0.371 20 0.880 0.264 20 0.766 0.230
50 2.872 0.345 50 1.853 0.222 50 1.456 0.175
100 5.548 0.333 100 3.433 0.206 100 2.550 0.153
200 10.806 0.324 200 6.546 0.196 200 4.686 0.141
500 26.146 0.314 500 15.704 0.188 500 10.980 0.132
2000 96.694 0.290 2000 58.926 0.177 2000 41.058 0.123

n = 0.2 & L/D = 8 n = 0.2 & L/D = 10 n = 0.2 & L/D = 15

Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.482 0.289 10 0.477 0.286 10 0.475 0.285
20 0.718 0.216 20 0.698 0.209 20 0.688 0.206
50 1.274 0.153 50 1.182 0.142 50 1.104 0.133
100 2.101 0.126 100 1.852 0.111 100 1.597 0.096
200 3.690 0.111 200 3.102 0.093 200 2.417 0.073
500 8.355 0.100 500 6.730 0.081 500 4.655 0.056
2000 30.784 0.092 2000 24.226 0.073 2000 15.295 0.046

92
92
 Single piles
n = 0.2 & L/D = 20 n = 0.2 & L/D = 25 n = 0.2 & L/D = 30
Determined parameters Determined parameters Determined parameters
Ep/E0 Ep/E0 Ep/E0
S S S
Ip Ip Ip
(mm) (mm) (mm)
10 0.474 0.284 10 0.474 0.285 10 0.474 0.285
20 0.686 0.206 20 0.686 0.206 20 0.686 0.206
50 1.090 0.131 50 1.085 0.130 50 1.084 0.130
100 1.510 0.091 100 1.507 0.090 100 1.501 0.090
200 2.180 0.065 200 2.088 0.063 200 2.054 0.062
500 3.770 0.045 500 3.365 0.040 500 3.160 0.038
2000 11.029 0.033 2000 8.711 0.026 2000 7.323 0.022

93
93
 APPENDIX B
Data for Piled Foundation

94
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.404 0.808 14.700
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.802 0.850 19.200
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.989 0.899 23.600
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.965 0.926 25.500
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 7.914 0.943 26.600
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 19.760 0.954 27.300
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 39.500 0.961 27.500
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 78.982 0.960 27.600

n = 0 & L/D = 4
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.417 0.834 18.000
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.815 0.863 26.200
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.982 0.896 36.100
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.904 0.912 41.300
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 7.733 0.921 44.600
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 19.205 0.927 46.800
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 38.313 0.932 47.500
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 76.521 0.930 47.900
95
95
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.409 0.818 19.100
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.784 0.831 29.400
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.839 0.831 44.300
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.529 0.824 53.500
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 6.854 0.816 59.700
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 16.762 0.809 64.300
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 33.242 0.808 66.000
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 66.182 0.804 66.900

n = 0 & L/D = 10
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.404 0.808 19.300
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.764 0.809 30.200
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.741 0.787 47.000
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.250 0.759 58.400
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 6.163 0.734 66.600
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 14.760 0.712 72.800
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 29.022 0.706 75.200
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 57.509 0.699 76.500
96
96
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.410 0.820 19.300
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.767 0.813 30.400
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.694 0.766 48.300
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.055 0.713 61.100
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 5.590 0.666 70.800
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 12.921 0.624 78.600
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 25.002 0.608 81.700
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 49.094 0.597 83.400

n = 0 & L/D = 20
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.412 0.824 19.300
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.709 0.751 30.400
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.661 0.751 48.600
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.917 0.681 62.000
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 5.169 0.616 72.600
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 11.518 0.556 81.200
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 21.885 0.532 84.700
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 42.507 0.517 86.600
97
97
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.419 0.838 19.200
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.709 0.751 30.400
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.649 0.745 48.800
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.805 0.655 62.700
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 4.742 0.565 73.900
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 9.897 0.478 83.500
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 18.113 0.440 87.500
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 34.337 0.417 89.700

98
98
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.439 1.026 0.381 0.298 0.782 14.500
20 0.856 0.878 1.026 0.717 0.590 0.823 19.100
50 2.139 2.195 1.026 1.671 1.458 0.873 23.700
100 4.278 4.390 1.026 3.222 2.903 0.901 25.700
200 8.556 8.780 1.026 6.300 5.789 0.919 26.900
500 21.389 21.950 1.026 15.511 14.446 0.931 27.600
1000 42.778 43.900 1.026 30.854 28.872 0.936 27.900
2000 85.556 87.801 1.026 61.536 57.723 0.938 28.000

n = 0.1 & L/D = 4

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.419 0.980 0.381 0.299 0.785 17.500
20 0.856 0.839 0.980 0.717 0.581 0.810 25.900
50 2.139 2.096 0.980 1.671 1.396 0.835 36.500
100 4.278 4.193 0.980 3.222 2.731 0.848 42.400
200 8.556 8.385 0.980 6.300 5.383 0.854 46.100
500 21.389 20.964 0.980 15.511 13.321 0.859 48.600
1000 42.778 41.927 0.980 30.854 26.541 0.860 49.500
2000 85.556 83.855 0.980 61.536 52.970 0.861 49.900
99
99
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.393 0.918 0.381 0.294 0.772 18.400
20 0.856 0.786 0.918 0.717 0.558 0.778 28.700
50 2.139 1.964 0.918 1.671 1.279 0.765 44.200
100 4.278 3.928 0.918 3.222 2.405 0.746 54.300
200 8.556 7.856 0.918 6.300 4.595 0.729 61.500
500 21.389 19.640 0.918 15.511 11.083 0.715 66.900
1000 42.778 39.279 0.918 30.854 21.860 0.708 68.900
2000 85.556 78.559 0.918 61.536 43.393 0.705 69.900

n = 0.1 & L/D = 10

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.369 0.864 0.381 0.290 0.761 18.500
20 0.856 0.739 0.864 0.717 0.544 0.759 29.200
50 2.139 1.847 0.864 1.671 1.205 0.721 46.400
100 4.278 3.695 0.864 3.222 2.182 0.677 58.700
200 8.556 7.389 0.864 6.300 4.015 0.637 68.000
500 21.389 18.473 0.864 15.511 9.341 0.602 75.300
1000 42.778 36.946 0.864 30.854 18.136 0.588 78.200
2000 85.556 73.892 0.864 61.536 35.683 0.580 79.800
100
100
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.336 0.786 0.381 0.292 0.766 18.500
20 0.856 0.672 0.786 0.717 0.500 0.697 29.300
50 2.139 1.681 0.786 1.671 1.165 0.697 47.300
100 4.278 3.362 0.786 3.222 2.021 0.627 60.800
200 8.556 6.723 0.786 6.300 3.524 0.559 71.700
500 21.389 16.809 0.786 15.511 7.698 0.496 80.800
1000 42.778 33.617 0.786 30.854 14.478 0.469 84.500
2000 85.556 67.235 0.786 61.536 27.945 0.454 86.600

n = 0.1 & L/D = 20

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.308 0.721 0.381 0.294 0.772 18.500
20 0.856 0.617 0.721 0.717 0.543 0.757 29.300
50 2.139 1.542 0.721 1.671 1.145 0.685 47.400
100 4.278 3.084 0.721 3.222 1.938 0.601 61.400
200 8.556 6.168 0.721 6.300 3.239 0.514 73.000
500 21.389 15.420 0.721 15.511 6.648 0.429 83.000
1000 42.778 30.839 0.721 30.854 12.047 0.390 87.200
2000 85.556 61.678 0.721 61.536 22.690 0.369 89.500
101
101
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.265 0.619 0.381 0.296 0.777 18.500
20 0.856 0.529 0.619 0.717 0.546 0.762 29.300
50 2.139 1.323 0.619 1.671 1.145 0.685 47.500
100 4.278 2.646 0.619 3.222 1.890 0.587 61.700
200 8.556 5.293 0.619 6.300 3.013 0.478 73.800
500 21.389 13.232 0.619 15.511 5.615 0.362 84.700
1000 42.778 26.465 0.619 30.854 9.445 0.306 89.500
2000 85.556 52.930 0.619 61.536 16.796 0.273 92.200

102
102
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.339 0.999 0.319 0.000 0.001 14.300
20 0.679 0.678 0.999 0.601 0.000 0.001 19.200
50 1.699 1.696 0.999 1.397 0.001 0.001 24.200
100 3.397 3.392 0.999 2.688 0.002 0.001 26.500
200 6.794 6.785 0.999 5.246 0.005 0.001 27.800
500 16.985 16.962 0.999 12.896 0.012 0.001 28.700
1000 33.971 33.923 0.999 25.638 0.024 0.001 28.900
2000 67.941 67.846 0.999 51.117 0.047 0.001 29.100

n = 0.2 & L/D = 4

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.316 0.931 0.319 0.245 0.768 17.000
20 0.679 0.632 0.931 0.601 0.473 0.787 25.500
50 1.699 1.581 0.931 1.397 1.128 0.807 36.600
100 3.397 3.162 0.931 2.688 2.194 0.816 43.000
200 6.794 6.325 0.931 5.246 4.306 0.821 47.100
500 16.985 15.812 0.931 12.896 10.621 0.824 49.900
1000 33.971 31.623 0.931 25.638 21.137 0.824 50.900
2000 67.941 63.246 0.931 51.117 42.158 0.825 51.400
103
103
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.287 0.845 0.319 0.241 0.755 17.700
20 0.679 0.574 0.845 0.601 0.456 0.759 27.800
50 1.699 1.435 0.845 1.397 1.031 0.738 43.700
100 3.397 2.870 0.845 2.688 1.912 0.711 54.400
200 6.794 5.741 0.845 5.246 3.605 0.687 62.300
500 16.985 14.352 0.845 12.896 8.589 0.666 68.300
1000 33.971 28.704 0.845 25.638 16.854 0.657 70.600
2000 67.941 57.408 0.845 51.117 33.363 0.653 71.900

n = 0.2 & L/D = 10

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.263 0.774 0.319 0.239 0.749 17.700
20 0.679 0.526 0.774 0.601 0.446 0.742 28.100
50 1.699 1.314 0.774 1.397 0.975 0.698 45.400
100 3.397 2.628 0.774 2.688 1.734 0.645 58.200
200 6.794 5.256 0.774 5.246 3.122 0.595 68.300
500 16.985 13.139 0.774 12.896 7.091 0.550 76.500
1000 33.971 26.278 0.774 25.638 13.610 0.531 79.800
2000 67.941 52.557 0.774 51.117 26.599 0.520 81.500
104
104
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D ")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.230 0.678 0.319 0.240 0.752 17.700
20 0.679 0.461 0.678 0.601 0.445 0.740 28.200
50 1.699 1.152 0.678 1.397 0.949 0.679 46.000
100 3.397 2.303 0.678 2.688 1.620 0.603 59.800
200 6.794 4.607 0.678 5.246 2.748 0.524 71.400
500 16.985 11.517 0.678 12.896 5.765 0.447 81.400
1000 33.971 23.034 0.678 25.638 10.588 0.413 85.600
2000 67.941 46.068 0.678 51.117 20.123 0.394 87.900

n = 0.2 & L/D = 20

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.205 0.604 0.319 0.241 0.755 17.700
20 0.679 0.410 0.604 0.601 0.446 0.742 28.200
50 1.699 1.025 0.604 1.397 0.941 0.674 46.100
100 3.397 2.050 0.604 2.688 1.571 0.584 60.200
200 6.794 4.101 0.604 5.246 2.561 0.488 72.300
500 16.985 10.251 0.604 12.896 5.004 0.388 83.200
1000 33.971 20.503 0.604 25.638 8.749 0.341 87.900
2000 67.941 41.006 0.604 51.117 16.054 0.314 90.600
105
105
 Piled foundation (9 piles "A =6D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.168 0.495 0.319 0.243 0.762 17.700
20 0.679 0.336 0.495 0.601 0.449 0.747 28.200
50 1.699 0.840 0.495 1.397 0.942 0.674 46.100
100 3.397 1.681 0.495 2.688 1.551 0.577 60.400
200 6.794 3.362 0.495 5.246 2.440 0.465 72.800
500 16.985 8.404 0.495 12.896 4.347 0.337 84.500
1000 33.971 16.809 0.495 25.638 6.966 0.272 89.700
2000 67.941 33.617 0.495 51.117 11.835 0.232 92.800

106
106
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.400 0.800 22.720
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.792 0.839 29.290
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.958 0.885 35.530
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.898 0.910 38.270
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 7.775 0.926 39.810
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 19.401 0.937 40.770
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 38.777 0.943 41.090
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 77.529 0.942 41.250

n = 0 & L/D = 4
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.409 0.818 26.950
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.795 0.842 37.930
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.920 0.868 50.380
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.773 0.881 56.630
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 7.463 0.889 60.400
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 18.517 0.894 62.890
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 36.930 0.898 63.740
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 73.748 0.896 64.140
107
107
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.397 0.794 28.070
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.752 0.797 41.090
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.746 0.789 57.620
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.344 0.781 66.760
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 6.495 0.774 72.620
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 15.895 0.767 76.780
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 31.533 0.767 78.330
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 62.790 0.763 79.140

n = 0 & L/D = 10
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.389 0.778 28.250
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.723 0.766 41.770
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.623 0.734 59.680
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.028 0.707 70.030
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 5.765 0.687 76.850
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 13.878 0.670 81.800
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 27.350 0.665 83.710
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 54.256 0.659 84.770
108
108
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.391 0.782 28.290
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.715 0.757 42.050
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.545 0.698 60.740
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.785 0.650 71.940
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 5.144 0.613 79.510
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 12.057 0.582 85.090
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 23.490 0.571 87.250
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 46.298 0.563 88.460

n = 0 & L/D = 20
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.392 0.784 28.320
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.709 0.751 42.170
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.488 0.673 61.260
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.604 0.608 72.890
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 4.672 0.556 80.900
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 10.643 0.514 86.870
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 20.466 0.498 89.180
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 40.035 0.487 90.460
109
109
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.397 0.794 28.310
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.709 0.751 42.240
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.446 0.654 61.680
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.426 0.567 73.800
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 4.146 0.494 82.300
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 8.949 0.432 88.750
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 16.747 0.407 91.270
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 32.211 0.391 92.660

110
110
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.439 1.026 0.381 0.294 0.772 22.730
20 0.856 0.878 1.026 0.717 0.579 0.808 29.670
50 2.139 2.195 1.026 1.671 1.426 0.853 36.430
100 4.278 4.390 1.026 3.222 2.833 0.879 39.450
200 8.556 8.780 1.026 6.300 5.644 0.896 41.150
500 21.389 21.950 1.026 15.511 14.073 0.907 42.220
1000 42.778 43.900 1.026 30.854 28.119 0.911 42.580
2000 85.556 87.801 1.026 61.536 56.209 0.913 42.760

n = 0.1 & L/D = 4

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.419 0.980 0.381 0.292 0.766 26.620
20 0.856 0.839 0.980 0.717 0.561 0.782 38.000
50 2.139 2.096 0.980 1.671 1.335 0.799 51.380
100 4.278 4.193 0.980 3.222 2.599 0.807 58.280
200 8.556 8.385 0.980 6.300 5.113 0.812 62.490
500 21.389 20.964 0.980 15.511 12.634 0.815 65.330
1000 42.778 41.927 0.980 30.854 25.159 0.815 66.300
2000 85.556 83.855 0.980 61.536 50.202 0.816 66.770
111
111
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.393 0.918 0.381 0.283 0.743 27.490
20 0.856 0.786 0.918 0.717 0.527 0.735 40.700
50 2.139 1.964 0.918 1.671 1.187 0.710 58.120
100 4.278 3.928 0.918 3.222 2.223 0.690 68.130
200 8.556 7.856 0.918 6.300 4.246 0.674 74.670
500 21.389 19.640 0.918 15.511 10.255 0.661 79.370
1000 42.778 39.279 0.918 30.854 20.240 0.656 81.130
2000 85.556 78.559 0.918 61.536 40.193 0.653 82.060

n = 0.1 & L/D = 10

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.369 0.864 0.381 0.278 0.730 27.600
20 0.856 0.739 0.864 0.717 0.507 0.707 41.180
50 2.139 1.847 0.864 1.671 1.095 0.655 59.820
100 4.278 3.695 0.864 3.222 1.973 0.612 71.050
200 8.556 7.389 0.864 6.300 3.645 0.579 78.660
500 21.389 18.473 0.864 15.511 8.552 0.551 84.250
1000 42.778 36.946 0.864 30.854 16.676 0.540 86.400
2000 85.556 73.892 0.864 61.536 32.886 0.534 87.600
112
112
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.336 0.786 0.381 0.278 0.730 27.620
20 0.856 0.672 0.786 0.717 0.500 0.697 41.350
50 2.139 1.681 0.786 1.671 1.032 0.618 60.610
100 4.278 3.362 0.786 3.222 1.771 0.550 72.620
200 8.556 6.723 0.786 6.300 3.112 0.494 81.020
500 21.389 16.809 0.786 15.511 6.942 0.448 87.340
1000 42.778 33.617 0.786 30.854 13.221 0.429 89.790
2000 85.556 67.235 0.786 61.536 25.718 0.418 91.150

n = 0.1 & L/D = 20

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.308 0.721 0.381 0.278 0.730 27.630
20 0.856 0.617 0.721 0.717 0.497 0.693 41.410
50 2.139 1.542 0.721 1.671 1.000 0.598 60.920
100 4.278 3.084 0.721 3.222 1.654 0.513 73.310
200 8.556 6.168 0.721 6.300 2.779 0.441 82.130
500 21.389 15.420 0.721 15.511 5.873 0.379 88.880
1000 42.778 30.839 0.721 30.854 10.875 0.352 91.520
2000 85.556 61.678 0.721 61.536 20.788 0.338 92.970
113
113
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.265 0.619 0.381 0.282 0.740 27.660
20 0.856 0.529 0.619 0.717 0.500 0.697 41.480
50 2.139 1.323 0.619 1.671 0.985 0.589 61.190
100 4.278 2.646 0.619 3.222 1.567 0.486 73.890
200 8.556 5.293 0.619 6.300 2.470 0.392 83.130
500 21.389 13.232 0.619 15.511 4.737 0.305 90.380
1000 42.778 26.465 0.619 30.854 8.255 0.268 93.270
2000 85.556 52.930 0.619 61.536 15.128 0.246 94.860

114
114
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.339 0.999 0.319 0.242 0.934 22.550
20 0.679 0.678 0.999 0.601 0.475 0.982 29.770
50 1.699 1.696 0.999 1.397 1.166 1.044 36.960
100 3.397 3.392 0.999 2.688 2.312 1.080 40.230
200 6.794 6.785 0.999 5.246 4.601 1.104 42.090
500 16.985 16.962 0.999 12.896 11.463 1.120 43.280
1000 33.971 33.923 0.999 25.638 22.897 1.126 43.670
2000 67.941 67.846 0.999 51.117 45.765 1.129 43.870

n = 0.2 & L/D = 4

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.316 0.931 0.319 0.238 0.746 26.070
20 0.679 0.632 0.931 0.601 0.455 0.757 37.650
50 1.699 1.581 0.931 1.397 1.069 0.765 51.680
100 3.397 3.162 0.931 2.688 2.067 0.769 59.120
200 6.794 6.325 0.931 5.246 4.044 0.771 63.730
500 16.985 15.812 0.931 12.896 9.957 0.772 66.860
1000 33.971 31.623 0.931 25.638 19.802 0.772 67.960
2000 67.941 63.246 0.931 51.117 39.485 0.772 68.490
115
115
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.287 0.845 0.319 0.231 0.724 26.740
20 0.679 0.574 0.845 0.601 0.427 0.710 39.920
50 1.699 1.435 0.845 1.397 0.945 0.676 57.850
100 3.397 2.870 0.845 2.688 1.740 0.647 68.470
200 6.794 5.741 0.845 5.246 3.277 0.625 75.580
500 16.985 14.352 0.845 12.896 7.822 0.607 80.730
1000 33.971 28.704 0.845 25.638 15.366 0.599 82.680
2000 67.941 57.408 0.845 51.117 30.435 0.595 83.720

n = 0.2 & L/D = 10

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.263 0.774 0.319 0.228 0.715 26.810
20 0.679 0.526 0.774 0.601 0.414 0.689 40.260
50 1.699 1.314 0.774 1.397 0.875 0.626 59.230
100 3.397 2.628 0.774 2.688 1.541 0.573 71.030
200 6.794 5.256 0.774 5.246 2.783 0.530 79.220
500 16.985 13.139 0.774 12.896 6.387 0.495 85.340
1000 33.971 26.278 0.774 25.638 12.333 0.481 87.710
2000 67.941 52.557 0.774 51.117 24.188 0.473 89.010
116
116
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.230 0.678 0.319 0.229 0.718 26.820
20 0.679 0.461 0.678 0.601 0.409 0.681 40.360
50 1.699 1.152 0.678 1.397 0.832 0.596 59.790
100 3.397 2.303 0.678 2.688 1.393 0.518 72.280
200 6.794 4.607 0.678 5.246 2.370 0.452 81.230
500 16.985 11.517 0.678 12.896 5.089 0.395 88.110
1000 33.971 23.034 0.678 25.638 9.506 0.371 90.800
2000 67.941 46.068 0.678 51.117 18.270 0.357 92.290

n = 0.2 & L/D = 20

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.205 0.604 0.319 0.229 0.718 26.820
20 0.679 0.410 0.604 0.601 0.408 0.679 40.400
50 1.699 1.025 0.604 1.397 0.814 0.583 59.990
100 3.397 2.050 0.604 2.688 1.319 0.491 72.760
200 6.794 4.101 0.604 5.246 2.140 0.408 82.090
500 16.985 10.251 0.604 12.896 4.299 0.333 89.400
1000 33.971 20.503 0.604 25.638 7.724 0.301 92.300
2000 67.941 41.006 0.604 51.117 14.469 0.283 93.900
117
117
 Piled foundation (16 piles "A =4D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.168 0.495 0.319 0.232 0.727 26.860
20 0.679 0.336 0.495 0.601 0.412 0.686 40.480
50 1.699 0.840 0.495 1.397 0.811 0.581 60.200
100 3.397 1.681 0.495 2.688 1.276 0.475 73.180
200 6.794 3.362 0.495 5.246 1.959 0.373 82.830
500 16.985 8.404 0.495 12.896 3.539 0.274 90.590
1000 33.971 16.809 0.495 25.638 5.881 0.229 93.730
2000 67.941 33.617 0.495 51.117 10.379 0.203 95.480

118
118
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.389 0.778 47.500
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.765 0.810 57.100
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.884 0.852 65.200
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.745 0.875 68.400
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 7.465 0.889 70.200
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 18.621 0.899 71.300
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 37.212 0.905 71.700
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 74.395 0.904 71.400

n = 0 & L/D = 4
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.388 0.776 50.600
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.749 0.793 62.300
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.807 0.817 72.900
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.556 0.830 77.400
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 7.046 0.839 80.000
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 17.502 0.845 81.600
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 34.919 0.849 82.100
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 69.748 0.848 82.300
119
119
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.364 0.728 51.900
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.682 0.722 64.600
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.595 0.721 76.400
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 3.087 0.721 81.600
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 6.052 0.721 84.600
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 14.912 0.720 86.700
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 29.654 0.721 87.400
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 59.117 0.718 87.700

n = 0 & L/D = 10
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.346 0.692 52.600
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.633 0.671 65.800
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.436 0.649 78.200
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.736 0.639 83.700
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 5.303 0.632 86.900
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 12.954 0.625 89.200
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 25.668 0.624 92.100
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 51.082 0.621 95.100
120
120
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.338 0.676 53.200
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.599 0.635 66.900
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.307 0.591 79.800
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.432 0.568 85.600
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 4.637 0.552 89.000
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 11.175 0.539 91.400
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 22.019 0.535 94.800
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 43.701 0.531 102.700

n = 0 & L/D = 20
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.332 0.664 53.500
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.574 0.608 67.500
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.206 0.545 80.700
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 2.191 0.512 86.700
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 4.106 0.489 90.200
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 9.754 0.471 92.700
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 19.097 0.464 94.200
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 37.782 0.458 100.600
121
121
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.578 0.622 1.077 0.500 0.331 0.662 53.700
20 1.155 1.244 1.077 0.944 0.554 0.587 67.900
50 2.888 3.110 1.077 2.212 1.096 0.495 81.700
100 5.775 6.219 1.077 4.282 1.905 0.445 87.900
200 11.550 12.438 1.077 8.396 3.455 0.412 91.600
500 28.875 31.096 1.077 20.716 7.981 0.385 94.100
1000 57.750 62.192 1.077 41.124 15.427 0.375 95.100
2000 115.500 124.385 1.077 82.284 30.229 0.367 96.400

122
122
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.439 1.026 0.381 0.282 0.740 48.300
20 0.856 0.878 1.026 0.717 0.552 0.770 58.400
50 2.139 2.195 1.026 1.671 1.351 0.808 67.100
100 4.278 4.390 1.026 3.222 2.677 0.831 70.700
200 8.556 8.780 1.026 6.300 5.329 0.846 72.600
500 21.389 21.950 1.026 15.511 13.279 0.856 73.800
1000 42.778 43.900 1.026 30.854 26.527 0.860 74.200
2000 85.556 87.801 1.026 61.536 53.023 0.862 74.500

n = 0.1 & L/D = 4

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.419 0.980 0.381 0.272 0.714 51.200
20 0.856 0.839 0.980 0.717 0.515 0.718 63.500
50 2.139 2.096 0.980 1.671 1.223 0.732 74.800
100 4.278 4.193 0.980 3.222 2.387 0.741 79.700
200 8.556 8.385 0.980 6.300 4.707 0.747 82.500
500 21.389 20.964 0.980 15.511 11.655 0.751 84.200
1000 42.778 41.927 0.980 30.854 23.228 0.753 84.800
2000 85.556 83.855 0.980 61.536 46.366 0.753 85.000
123
123
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.393 0.918 0.381 0.252 0.661 52.300
20 0.856 0.786 0.918 0.717 0.460 0.642 65.600
50 2.139 1.964 0.918 1.671 1.040 0.622 78.100
100 4.278 3.928 0.918 3.222 1.979 0.614 83.600
200 8.556 7.856 0.918 6.300 3.834 0.609 86.900
500 21.389 19.640 0.918 15.511 9.370 0.604 89.100
1000 42.778 39.279 0.918 30.854 18.574 0.602 89.900
2000 85.556 78.559 0.918 61.536 36.964 0.601 90.300

n = 0.1 & L/D = 10

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.369 0.864 0.381 0.240 0.630 52.900
20 0.856 0.739 0.864 0.717 0.424 0.591 66.700
50 2.139 1.847 0.864 1.671 0.915 0.548 79.700
100 4.278 3.695 0.864 3.222 1.694 0.526 85.600
200 8.556 7.389 0.864 6.300 3.219 0.511 89.100
500 21.389 18.473 0.864 15.511 7.748 0.500 91.400
1000 42.778 36.946 0.864 30.854 15.260 0.495 92.500
2000 85.556 73.892 0.864 61.536 30.258 0.492 96.500
124
124
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.336 0.786 0.381 0.234 0.614 53.300
20 0.856 0.672 0.786 0.717 0.397 0.554 67.400
50 2.139 1.681 0.786 1.671 0.807 0.483 81.100
100 4.278 3.362 0.786 3.222 1.432 0.444 87.300
200 8.556 6.723 0.786 6.300 2.636 0.418 90.900
500 21.389 16.809 0.786 15.511 6.176 0.398 93.400
1000 42.778 33.617 0.786 30.854 12.024 0.390 94.500
2000 85.556 67.235 0.786 61.536 23.686 0.385 98.800

n = 0.1 & L/D = 20

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.308 0.721 0.381 0.231 0.606 53.400
20 0.856 0.617 0.721 0.717 0.383 0.534 67.800
50 2.139 1.542 0.721 1.671 0.738 0.442 81.800
100 4.278 3.084 0.721 3.222 1.256 0.390 88.200
200 8.556 6.168 0.721 6.300 2.234 0.355 92.000
500 21.389 15.420 0.721 15.511 5.078 0.327 94.600
1000 42.778 30.839 0.721 30.854 9.751 0.316 95.600
2000 85.556 61.678 0.721 61.536 19.051 0.309 96.500
125
125
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.1 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.428 0.265 0.619 0.381 0.232 0.609 53.400
20 0.856 0.529 0.619 0.717 0.375 0.523 68.000
50 2.139 1.323 0.619 1.671 0.679 0.406 82.400
100 4.278 2.646 0.619 3.222 1.076 0.334 89.100
200 8.556 5.293 0.619 6.300 1.789 0.284 93.100
500 21.389 13.232 0.619 15.511 3.809 0.246 95.800
1000 42.778 26.465 0.619 30.854 7.089 0.230 96.800
2000 85.556 52.930 0.619 61.536 13.565 0.220 97.400

126
126
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 2
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.339 0.999 0.319 0.231 0.724 48.400
20 0.679 0.678 0.999 0.601 0.448 0.745 59.000
50 1.699 1.696 0.999 1.397 1.091 0.781 68.200
100 3.397 3.392 0.999 2.688 2.157 0.802 72.000
200 6.794 6.785 0.999 5.246 4.288 0.817 74.100
500 16.985 16.962 0.999 12.896 10.676 0.828 75.400
1000 33.971 33.923 0.999 25.638 21.322 0.832 75.800
2000 67.941 67.846 0.999 51.117 42.612 0.834 76.000

n = 0.2 & L/D = 4

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.316 0.931 0.319 0.219 0.687 51.100
20 0.679 0.632 0.931 0.601 0.410 0.682 63.900
50 1.699 1.581 0.931 1.397 0.961 0.688 75.700
100 3.397 3.162 0.931 2.688 1.863 0.693 80.900
200 6.794 6.325 0.931 5.246 3.659 0.697 83.800
500 16.985 15.812 0.931 12.896 9.035 0.701 85.700
1000 33.971 31.623 0.931 25.638 17.987 0.702 86.300
2000 67.941 63.246 0.931 51.117 35.888 0.702 86.600
127
127
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 7
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.287 0.845 0.319 0.204 0.639 52.000
20 0.679 0.574 0.845 0.601 0.365 0.607 65.700
50 1.699 1.435 0.845 1.397 0.805 0.576 78.700
100 3.397 2.870 0.845 2.688 1.510 0.562 84.600
200 6.794 5.741 0.845 5.246 2.897 0.552 88.000
500 16.985 14.352 0.845 12.896 7.027 0.545 90.300
1000 33.971 28.704 0.845 25.638 13.890 0.542 91.200
2000 67.941 57.408 0.845 51.117 27.598 0.540 91.600

n = 0.2 & L/D = 10

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.263 0.774 0.319 0.196 0.614 52.500
20 0.679 0.526 0.774 0.601 0.338 0.562 66.600
50 1.699 1.314 0.774 1.397 0.706 0.505 80.100
100 3.397 2.628 0.774 2.688 1.278 0.475 86.300
200 6.794 5.256 0.774 5.246 2.389 0.455 90.000
500 16.985 13.139 0.774 12.896 5.673 0.440 92.500
1000 33.971 26.278 0.774 25.638 11.114 0.433 93.500
2000 67.941 52.557 0.774 51.117 21.967 0.430 96.600
128
128
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 15
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.230 0.678 0.319 0.192 0.602 52.700
20 0.679 0.461 0.678 0.601 0.320 0.532 67.200
50 1.699 1.152 0.678 1.397 0.625 0.447 81.300
100 3.397 2.303 0.678 2.688 1.073 0.399 87.800
200 6.794 4.607 0.678 5.246 1.922 0.366 91.600
500 16.985 11.517 0.678 12.896 4.398 0.341 94.300
1000 33.971 23.034 0.678 25.638 8.474 0.331 95.300
2000 67.941 46.068 0.678 51.117 16.587 0.324 96.900

n = 0.2 & L/D = 20

Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.205 0.604 0.319 0.191 0.599 52.800
20 0.679 0.410 0.604 0.601 0.312 0.519 67.400
50 1.699 1.025 0.604 1.397 0.579 0.414 81.800
100 3.397 2.050 0.604 2.688 0.947 0.352 88.500
200 6.794 4.101 0.604 5.246 1.624 0.310 92.500
500 16.985 10.251 0.604 12.896 3.564 0.276 95.200
1000 33.971 20.503 0.604 25.638 6.731 0.263 96.300
2000 67.941 41.006 0.604 51.117 13.014 0.254 96.600
129
129
 Piled foundation (49 piles "A =2D")
n = 0.2 & L/D = 30
Settlement values calculated using conventional method Parameters determined using computer analysis
Ep/E0 (Sg)e (Spf)e (Spf)e / (Sg)e Sg Spf Spf / Sg Pile-load
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) share (%)
10 0.340 0.168 0.495 0.319 0.192 0.602 52.800
20 0.679 0.336 0.495 0.601 0.309 0.514 67.500
50 1.699 0.840 0.495 1.397 0.547 0.392 82.200
100 3.397 1.681 0.495 2.688 0.835 0.311 89.200
200 6.794 3.362 0.495 5.246 1.312 0.251 93.000
500 16.985 8.404 0.495 12.896 2.655 0.206 96.200
1000 33.971 16.809 0.495 25.638 4.795 0.187 97.300
2000 67.941 33.617 0.495 51.117 8.999 0.176 97.900

130
130
 VITA

Abdalafatah A. Shehada was born in Doha, Qatar on December 27th, 1987. In

January 2011, he received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering with

honor and GPA of 3.73/4 from Qatar University. He was ranked first on his

graduation class and awarded by his highness sheikh HAMAD BIN KHALIFA AL

THANI, Emir of Qatar, for his academic excellence. He also received the first-place

award from Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) in the 4th annual national

research competition for participating in a project on using the wireless sensors

technology in corrosion detection of post-tension tendons in bridges.

Between March 2011 and October 2013 Mr. Shehada worked in MZP

Architectural and Engineering Consultancy as a structural engineer. His scope of

work included full structural design and detailing based on code-driven calculations

for concrete & steel structures; and occasional site inspections. In November 2013

he joined the world’s leading design firm AECOM as a bridges structural engineer.

His scope of work has changed to include the structural design and verification of

various multi billions projects such as highway/railway bridges, underpasses,

tunnels and other infrastructures.

131