Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
and M. F. RANDOLPH
pr
P
pile
P
tot
(1)
A piled raft coefcient of unity indicates a free-
standing pile group, whereas a piled raft coefcient of
zero describes an unpiled raft.
(b) The coefcient of maximum settlement,
s
, is dened
as the ratio of the maximum settlement of the piled
raft, s
pr
, to the maximum settlement of the correspond-
ing unpiled raft, s
r
:
s
s
pr
s
r
(2)
(c) The coefcient of differential settlement,
s
, is dened
correspondingly. Unless otherwise stated, this is the
differential settlement between the centre and the
middle of the shorter side of the raft.
In the scope of this paper three of the case histories
summarised in Table 1Westend 1, the Messeturm and the
Torhaushave been studied by means of three-dimensional
elasto-plastic nite-element analyses, and the calculated
results have been compared with the in situ measurements.
Additionally, for Westend 1 the results achieved with the
nite-element analysis are compared with the results
achieved with eight different analysis methods, including the
results given by Poulos et al. (1997).
Manuscript received 4 April 2002; revised manuscript accepted 18
October 2002.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 October 2003; for further details
see p. ii.
6 375410
H, height of the building; P
eff
, effective load (settlement-inducing total load minus uplift); A, area of raft; t
r
, maximum thickness of raft; z
r
, maximum depth of raft below ground level; n, number of piles;
L
p
, pile length; D
p
, pile diameter; n
ip
, number of instrumented piles; P
p
, measured pile load resistance; s, maximum measured settlement; t, time of settlement measurement after completion of
construction of building.
Raft Piles
Youngs modulus, E: MPa Equation (3) 2000 75 34 000 25 000
22 000{
23 500}
Poissons ratio, 015 025 025 02 02
Total unit weight of moist soil, : kN=m
3
19 22 18 25 25
Buoyant unit weight, 9: kN=m
3
9 12 15 15
Coefcient of earth pressure at rest, K
0
072 (0 < z , 25)
057 (z > 25)
05 046
Angle of internal friction, 9: egrees 20 15 325
Slope of the conical yield surface in the
pt plane, : degrees
3767 2953 5262
Cohesion, c9: kPa 20 1000 0
Intersection of the conical yield surface with the
t-axis, d: kPa
4242 2114 0
Shape parameter of the transition surface between
cone and cap,
0 0001 0
Shape parameter of the cone, K 0795 0841 0778
Shape parameter of the cap, R 01 001 01
z in m below surface of tertiary layers.
p
r
1 7
Fig. 2. Westend 1: comparison of different analysis methods and measurements
Table 4. Westend 1: parameters of the soil, the raft and the piles used in the HyPR
analysis
Parameter Soil Raft Piles
Youngs modulus, E: MPa 901 34 000 22 000
Poissons ratio, 015 02
Ultimate shaft resistance of piles, R
s1
: MN 110
Ultimate base resistance of piles, R
b1
: MN 44
306 REUL AND RANDOLPH
analysis with a very small stiffness of the raft and a load of
619 MN gives the response of the foundation due to the
weight of the raft. A second, non-linear analysis with the
real stiffness of the raft and a load of 895 MN gives the
response of the foundation due to the weight of the super-
structure. As in the nite-element analysis, the load is
applied in the core area of the raft. The values shown in
Fig. 2 are achieved by superposition of the results of the
two analyses.
The measured centre settlement amounts to 120 mm, 25
years after completion of the shell of the building (Lutz et
al., 1996), whereas the settlement obtained from the nite-
element analysis is 109 mm. The centre settlement calculated
with the method by Sinha (1996) is signicantly larger than
the results achieved with all the other analysis methods. The
measured minimum and maximum pile loads of 92 MN and
149 MN respectively are taken from Franke & Lutz (1994).
Under the assumption that the average load of the six
instrumented piles is equal to the average load of the whole
pile group, the piled raft coefcient can be derived from the
measured pile loads to give
pr
0
:
5, whereas the nite-
element analysis yields a piled raft coefcient of
pr
0
:
66.
Most of the analysis methods give pile loads larger than the
measured values and therefore overestimate the piled raft
coefcient. The calculated maximum pile loads are generally
close to the measured value. The nite-element analysis
shows the largest deviation and overestimates the maximum
pile load by 18%. The minimum pile load calculated with
the methods of Poulos (1991) and Ta & Small (1996) is
75% larger than the measured value. The modied nite-
element analysis with the reduced shaft friction shows a
better agreement with the measurement than the original
nite-element analysis for the centre settlement, the maxi-
mum pile load and the piled raft coefcient. Compared with
the original nite-element analysis the centre settlements are
increased by 6% and the piled raft coefcient decreases by
9%.
Overall, methods that yield the closest match to the meas-
ured settlements tend to overestimate the proportion of load
carried by the piles, while (with the exception of Franke et
al., 1994) close agreement with the measured pile loads
leads to overestimation of settlement. The computed settle-
ment coefcients from the nite-element analyses with full
shaft friction were
s
0
:
59 and
s
0
:
51. Thus the ratio
of differential settlement to the maximum (or indeed the
average) settlement has decreased slightly by the addition of
256 m
A A
TP3
TP1 TP2
58
.
8 m
0 m
14 m
48
.
9 m
Frankfurt clay
Quarternary
120 m
F
ra
n
kfu
rt lim
e
sto
n
e
F
ra
n
kfu
rt cla
y
55
.
2 m
74
.
8 m
120 m
Piled raft
Piles: L
p
26
.
9 m
Piles: L
p
30
.
9 m
Piles: L
p
34
.
9 m
Instrumented piles
Contact pressure cells
Pore pressure cells
Multi-point borehole
extensometers
Section modelled with
finite elements
(a) (c) (d)
(b)
Fig. 3. Messeturm: cross-section of the building, ground plan of the raft, and nite-element mesh. (a) Cross section AA; (b)
ground plan of the raft; (c) nite-element mesh of the piled raft; (d) nite-element mesh of the system
PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 307
piles. Optimal placement of piles to minimise differential
settlements will be explored further in the nal case history
considered here.
MESSETURM
The piled raft of the 256 m high Messeturm comprises 64
bored piles and a square raft with an edge length of 588 m.
The length of the piles (D
p
1
:
3 m) varies from 269 m
(outer ring) through 309 m (middle ring) to 349 m (inner
ring). The foundation level of the 36 m thick raft lies 11
14 m below ground level (Fig. 3(a)). The construction of the
building started in 1988 and was nished in 1991. The
behaviour of the foundation was monitored from the con-
struction period until more than 7 years after the building
was nished by means of geodetic and geotechnical meas-
urements with 12 instrumented piles, 13 contact pressure
cells, one pore pressure cell and three multi-point borehole
extensometers. The positions of the measurement devices are
plotted in the ground plan of the raft (Fig. 3(b)).
In the vicinity of the Messeturm the subsoil consists of ll
and quaternary sand and gravel up to a depth of 10 m below
ground level, which is followed by the Frankfurt clay up to
a depth of at least 70 m below ground level.
Figure 3(c) and (d) shows the nite-element mesh of the
system, where one-eighth of the complete three-dimensional
problem has been modelled considering the three symmetry
planes. The thickness of the raft decreases in three steps
from the core area (t
r
6 m) to the edge of the raft
(t
r
3
:
8 m). The interface between the Frankfurt clay and
the Frankfurt limestone has been assumed to be 748 m
below the bottom of the raft. The Youngs modulus of the
piles of E
pile
25 000 MPa has been derived from the in
situ measurements (Reul, 2000). As the pile loads are
calculated from strain measurements, the pile loads pre-
sented in this paper are smaller than the values previously
published (Sommer et al., 1990, 1991; Sommer & Hoff-
mann, 1991a, b; Sommer, 1993), where a Youngs modulus
of the pile concrete alone of E
concrete
30 000 MPa is
assumed (Sommer & Hoffmann, 1991a).
The groundwater level is situated 455 m below ground
level. For the construction of a subway tunnel with a station
GB1 F GE1 GB2 GE2
P
i
l
e
l
o
a
d
,
P
p
:
M
N
Groundwater
level
Inner ring
Middle ring
Outer ring
GB1/GB2 begin of 1./2. groundwater drawdown
GE1/GE2 end of 1./2. groundwater drawdown
F building finished
96
92
88
84
80
0
1.1.89 1.1.91 1.1.93 1.1.95 1.1.97 1.1.99
Date
20
16
12
8
4
0
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
,
h
G
W
:
m
Fig. 4. Messeturm: variation of groundwater level and pile load with time
Table 5. Messeturm: step-by-step analysis of construction process in nite-element
analyses
Step Applied load,
P
eff
: MN
Mean vertical effective
stress at foundation
level, 9
v
: kPa
1. In situ stress state 1774
2. Excavation to a depth of 75 m below
ground level
424
3. Installation of the piles 424
4. Excavation to a depth of 14 m below
ground level
0
5. Application of weight of raft minus uplift
due to pore pressures as uniform load on
subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)
1249 361
6. Installation of raft 1249 361
7. Loading of raft 15686 4537
8. Groundwater drawdown 18599 5379
9. Groundwater rise 15686 4537
308 REUL AND RANDOLPH
47 m east of the Messeturm, groundwater had to be drawn
down more than 12 m at the tunnel (Sommer et al., 1991).
As a result, the groundwater level in the vicinity of the
Messeturm decreased by about 10 m, which led to changes
of the uplift on the raft of 287 MN. During the construction
process of the subway tunnel and the station the groundwater
lowering was suspended for 2 years and continued in 1994
until the end of 1996. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the
groundwater level and the average measured pile loads for
the inner, middle and outer pile ring with time. The changes
of the groundwater level, and the resulting uplift on the raft,
caused alterations of the pile loads of up to 3 MN. A
groundwater drawdown is accompanied by an increase of the
pile loads, and a groundwater rise by a decrease of the pile
loads, respectively.
Table 5 summarises the step-by-step analysis of the con-
struction process in the nite-element analysis. The maxi-
mum load amounts to P
eff
1860 MN for the simulation of
the groundwater drawdown and to P
eff
1569 MN for the
simulation of the situation after the groundwater has reached
its natural level. The weight of the raft minus the uplift
amounts to 125 MN and is applied over the whole area of
the raft before the stiffness of the raft is included in the
model. The weight of the superstructure is applied by means
of single loads at the column position of the structure.
The calculated settlement at the centre of the raft amounts
to 174 mm, whereas the last documented measurement (De-
cember 1998) gives a value of 144 mm. For the piled raft
coefcient the nite-element analysis yields
pr
0
:
63
(groundwater drawdown) and
pr
0
:
60 (natural ground-
water level) respectively. Based on the assumption that the
average pile load can be derived from the twelve instrumen-
ted piles, the piled raft coefcient at the time of the last
documented measurement, where the groundwater is situated
almost at its natural level, is
pr
0
:
43.
The corresponding settlement coefcients from the nite-
element analysis are
s
0
:
63 and
s
0
:
77, implying that
the ratio of differential settlement to maximum settlement
has actually increased as a result of the addition of piles.
This raises questions as to the optimal positioning of the
pile support.
A comparison of the measured and calculated settlement
proles at the three extensometers is plotted in Fig. 5. The
settlements at various depths have been normalised with the
settlements of extensometer head TP3 at the centre of the
raft. For the extensometers TP1 and TP3 reasonable agree-
ment between measured and calculated settlement proles is
achieved, whereas the nite-element analysis overestimates
the settlements at extensometer head TP2.
Figure 6 shows the average pile load distribution and the
average shaft friction distribution along the pile shaft for the
middle pile ring (L
p
30
:
9 m) for two different load levels.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
z: m
100 0 100 200
q
s
:
k
P
a
Q pile load
q
s
shaft friction
z depth below pile head
Measurement (12.11.1988)
Measurement (17.12.1998)
FEA (after installation of the raft)
FEA (after groundwater rise)
0 5 10 15 20
Q
:
M
N
Middle pile ring: L
p
30
.
9 m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
z: m
Fig. 6. Messeturm: pile load and shaft friction distribution along the pile shaft. Measurement and nite-element analysis
s
z
settlement at the depth z under the raft
s
3
settlement at extensometer head TP3
TP1; TP2 TP3
Measurement (26.07.1991)
Finite-element analysis
20 40 60
s
z
/
s
3
:
%
TP1
0
20
40
60
80
z: m
20 40 60
TP3
80 100
0
20
40
60
80
z: m
20 40 60
TP2
80
0
20
40
60
80
z: m
Fig. 5. Messeturm: settlement prole. Measurements after Sommer & Hoffmann (1991b)
and nite-element analysis
PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 309
The measured and calculated pile loads and shaft frictions
are related to the stage after the nal excavation. The meas-
urements as well as the nite-element analysis show negative
shaft friction at the upper third of the pile shaft owing to the
installation of the raft. For both investigated load levels good
agreement is achieved between measurements and nite-
element analysis.
TORHAUS DER MESSE
Constructed between 1983 and 1986, the 130 m high
Torhaus was the rst building in Germany with a foundation
designed as a piled raft. A total number of 84 bored piles
with a length of 20 m and diameter of 09 m are located
under two 17
:
5 m324
:
5 m large rafts. The distance be-
tween the two rafts is 10 m. As the building has no under-
130 m
100 m
Instrumented piles
Contact pressure cells
Multi-point borehole
extensometers
Section of the raft
modelled with
finite elements
Symmetry axis
Pile 2
Pile 1
Pile 6
Pile 3
Pile 4
Pile 5
TP1
TP3
TP2
17
.
5 m
24
.
5 m
84
.
25 m
110 m
74 m
90 m
Piled raft
Q
u
a
rte
rn
a
ry la
ye
rs
F
ra
n
kfu
rt cla
y
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
3 m
23 m
Quarternary layers
Frankfurt clay
Fig. 7. Torhaus: (a) prole view of the building; (b) ground plan of raft; (c) nite-element mesh of system; (d) nite-
element mesh of piled raft
310 REUL AND RANDOLPH
ground storeys, the bottom of the 25 m thick raft lies just
3 m below ground level (Fig. 7(a)). The subsoil comprises
quaternary sand and gravel up to 25 m below the bottom of
the rafts, followed by the Frankfurt clay. The Frankfurt
limestone is outside the inuence of the foundation. The
groundwater level lies below the rafts. The geotechnical
measurements comprised results from six instrumented piles,
eleven contact pressure cells and three multi-point borehole
extensometers. The position of the measurement devices is
shown in Fig. 7(b).
The nite-element mesh of the system constitutes one
quarter of the complete three-dimensional problem consider-
ing the two symmetry planes (Fig. 7(c) and (d)). The nite-
element mesh has a depth of 110 m, of which the rst 25 m
represents the quaternary layers while the remaining part is
Frankfurt clay. As no detailed information was available,
the Youngs modulus of the piles has been calculated
as the mean of the values for the Messeturm and Westend 1
(Table 2).
The step-by-step analysis of the construction process in
the nite-element analysis is summarised in Table 6. The
maximum load of P
eff
200 MN for each raft (Sommer,
1991) minus the weight of the raft is successively applied by
means of a uniform load over the whole raft area. The
weight of one raft amounts to 268 MN and is applied over
the whole area of the raft before the stiffness of the raft is
included in the model.
From the last documented settlement measurement in
1988 (Sommer, 1991) an average centre settlement for the
two rafts of 124 mm can be estimated, whereas the nite-
element analysis gives a value of 96 mm. The computed
settlement coefcients for the piled raft are
s
0
:
51 and
s
0
:
50, giving a similar ratio of differential to maximum
settlement as for the raft alone.
A comparison of the measured and calculated settlement
prole at the extensometers TP1 and TP3 is plotted in Fig.
8, where the settlements at various depths have been normal-
ised with the settlements of extensometer head TP1 at the
centre of the raft. Both the measurements and the nite-
element analysis show a signicant block deformation of the
pile group and the surrounding soil, due respectively to the
large number of piles and the relatively small pile spacing.
This assumption is supported by the calculated settlement
prole of an equivalent unpiled raft, which shows a strong
decrease in the settlements with increasing depth.
Figure 9 shows a comparison of the measured and calcu-
lated pile loads. The loads increase from a centre pile (pile
1), to the edge piles (pile 2, pile 4, pile 6) and nally to the
Table 6. Torhaus: step-by-step analysis of the construction process in the nite-element
analyses
Step Applied load,
P
eff
: MN
Mean vertical effective
stress at foundation
level, 9
v
: kPa
1. In situ stress state 450
2. Excavation to depth of 3 m below ground
level
0
3. Installation of piles 0
4. Application of weight of raft as uniform
load on subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)
268 625
5. Installation of raft 268 625
6. Loading of raft 200 4665
Measurement (February 1986)
Finite-element analysis (piled raft)
Finite-element analysis (unpiled raft)
s
z
settlement at the depth z under the raft
s
1
settlement at extensometer head TP1
TP1 TP3
20 40 60 80 100
s
z
/
s
1
:
%
TP1
0
20
40
60
80
100
z: m
20 40 60 80 100
s
z
/
s
1
:
%
TP3
0
20
40
60
80
100
z: m
Fig. 8. Torhaus: settlement prole. Measurements after Sommer (1991) and nite-element analysis
PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 311
corner piles (pile 3, pile 5), which is typical for a piled raft
under working load conditions. The variation of the loads
with the pile position is due to the varying mobilisation of
shaft friction. Because of the block deformation of the pile
group discussed above, there are only small differential
displacements between the piles at the centre of the raft and
the surrounding soil. Hence the pile shaft loads of the centre
piles are substantially smaller than the pile shaft loads of the
edge or corner piles, whereas the pile base loads are similar
(Reul, 2000). From the last documented pile measurement in
February 1986 (Sommer, 1991), a piled raft coefcient of
pr
0
:
67 can be derived, whereas the nite-element analy-
sis yields
pr
0
:
76.
Figure 10 shows the coefcients for maximum and differ-
ential settlement,
s
and
s
, and the piled raft coefcient,
pr
, depending on the total pile length, nL
p
, for the real pile
conguration and two modied pile congurations. For the
modied pile congurations A and B, the number of piles
has been reduced to n 60 and n 40 respectively. The
pile length has been varied between L
p
20 m and
L
p
27
:
5 m. As the raft is loaded uniformly, the necessity
to install piles, if column loadings are present as discussed
by Poulos (2001), is not addressed by the modied pile
congurations.
For the real pile conguration with a total pile length of
1680 m a coefcient for the maximum settlement of
s
0
:
51 is achieved. The same value can be attained with
a signicantly smaller total pile length for a modied pile
conguration with longer piles (Fig. 10(a)). For pile cong-
uration A the total pile length amounts to nL
p
1389 m
(L
p
23
:
1 m), and for pile conguration B the total pile
length amounts to nL
p
1100 m (L
p
27
:
5 m).
Moreover, for pile conguration A (L
p
23
:
1 m) the
coefcient for the differential settlement yields only
s
0
:
16 compared with
s
0
:
50 for the real pile con-
guration (Fig. 10(b)). Pile conguration B causes hogging
of the raft (
s
, 0) for all investigated pile lengths. These
results are in good agreement with the centrifuge model test
and numerical studies presented by Horikoshi & Randolph
(1998), where the differential settlements of a uniformly
loaded raft have been minimised by the installation of piles
under the central area of the raft.
For the investigated pile congurations, the piled raft
coefcient increases with increasing total pile length from
pr
0
:
52 (pile conguration B, L
p
20 m) to
pr
0
:
76
for the real pile conguration (Fig. 10(c)). Comparison
with the coefcient for the maximum settlement in Fig.
10(a) shows that the same maximum settlement can be
achieved with a varying contribution of the piles in the
load transfer.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The settlements, coefcients of maximum settlements and
piled raft coefcients achieved from the nite-element ana-
lyses for the Messeturm, Westend 1 and the Torhaus are
summarised in Table 7 and compared with the measurements.
For the settlements a reasonable agreement between nite-
element analyses and measurements is obtained. The nite-
element analyses show that, owing to the installation of the
I I
II II
Pile 6 Pile 1 Pile 2
Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 3
Measurement (February 1986)
Finite-element analysis
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
P
i
l
e
l
o
a
d
,
P
p
:
M
N
Pile 6 Pile 1 Pile 2
Cross-section I
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
P
i
l
e
l
o
a
d
,
P
p
:
M
N
Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 3
Cross-section II
Fig. 9. Torhaus: pile load. Measurements after Sommer (1991) and nite-element analysis
312 REUL AND RANDOLPH
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
2
0
.
0
s
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
n
.
L
p
: m
(a)
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
2
0
.
0
2
.
0
p
r
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
n
.
L
p
: m
(b)
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
2
0
.
0
s
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
n
.
L
p
: m
(c)
Modified pile configuration A:
Number of piles:
Pile length:
Pile diameter:
n 60
L
p
20
.
027
.
5 m
D
p
0
.
9 m
Modified pile configuration B:
Number of piles:
Pile length:
Pile diameter:
n 40
L
p
20
.
027
.
5 m
D
p
0
.
9 m
Real pile configuration
Pile configuration A
Pile configuration B
pr
n.L
p
settlement reduction coefficient
for the maximum settlement
settlement reduction coefficient
for the differential settlement
piled raft coefficient
total pile length
Fig. 10. Torhaus: coefcient for maximum and differential settlement and piled raft coefcient depending on the total
pile length
Table 7. Piled rafts in Frankfurt clay: measurements (M) and nite-element analyses (FEA)
Building s
centre
: mm s: mm
s
s
pr
pr
M FEA M FEA FEA FEA M FEA
PR R PR R
Messeturm 144 174 278 46 30 39 063 077 043 060
Torhaus 124 96 189 m.n.a. 7 14 051 050 067 076
Westend 1 120 109 184 m.n.a. 87 141 059 051 050 066
m.n.a., measurements not available; PR, piled raft; R, unpiled raft.
PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 313
piles, the maximum settlements of the foundation can be
reduced to 5163% of those of the equivalent unpiled raft.
The calculated piled raft coefcients are larger than the
values derived from the measurements. However, as only
15% of the piles of the studied case histories are instrumen-
ted, it might be questionable if all aspects of the pile group
behaviour can be monitored with the in situ measurements.
Additionally, further investigations of the contact behaviour
between stiff clay and large-diameter, bored, cast-in-place
piles might yield an optimised interface model for the nite
element analysis.
For the example of the Torhaus the same maximum
settlement has been achieved with a modied pile congura-
tion and a signicantly reduced total pile length, and the
differential settlements are substantially smaller. This aspect
is of special importance when focusing on the optimised
design of piled rafts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of the work of the rst author was supported by a
fellowship within the Gemeinsame Hochschulsonder-
programm III von Bund und Landern by the German Aca-
demic Exchange Service (DAAD). The measurements at the
Messeturm (19971998) were carried out while the rst
author was employed as research assistant at the Institute
of Geotechnics at Darmstadt University of Technology,
Germany.
REFERENCES
ABAQUS (1998). ABAQUS Theory Manual: Version 58. Pawtucket,
RI: Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen.
Arslan, U., Quick, H., Moormann, C. & Reul, O. (1999). Geo-
technische in-situ Messungen an Hochausgrundungen und
baubegleitende Qualitatssicherungsmanahmen. Hochhauser
Darmstadter Statik-Seminar 1999, Bericht Nr. 16. Darmstadt
University of Technology, Institut fur Statik.
Atkinson, J. H. (2000). Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design.
Geotechnique 50, No. 5, 487508.
Barth, U. & Reul, O. (1997). CongressCenter Messe Frankfurt
Kombinierte Pfahl-Plattengrundung zur Beherrschung der groen
Lastexzentrizitaten. Mitteilungen des Institutes und der Versuch-
sanstalt fur Geotechnik der TH Darmstadt 37, 117129.
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & De Mello, V. F. B (1977). Behaviour
of foundations and structures. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engng, Tokyo 2, 495546.
Butler, F. G. (1975). Heavily over-consolidated clays: review paper.
Proceedings of a conference on settlements of structures, Cam-
bridge, pp. 531578.
Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1993). An approximate analysis
procedure for piled raft foundations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth-
ods Geomech. 17, 849869.
Franke, E. & Lutz, B. (1994). Pfahl-Platten-Grundungs-Messungen.
Report for the German Research Council (DFG) No. Fr60-1/11.
Franke, E., Lutz, B. & El-Mossallamy, Y. (1994). Measurements
and numerical modelling of high rise building foundations on
Frankfurt Clay. Proceedings of a conference on vertical and
horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments. ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vol. 2, pp. 1325
1336.
Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). A contribution to the
optimum design of piled rafts. Geotechnique 48, No. 2,
301317.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Gutwald, J. (1994). A numerical study
on pile foundation on the 300 m high Commerzbank Tower in
Frankfurt am Main. Proc. 3rd Eur. Conf. Numer. Methods
Geomech, Manchester, 271277.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., Gutwald, J., Holzhauser, J. & Quick, H.
(1997). Soilstructure interaction of the 300 m high Commerz-
bank tower in Frankfurt am Main: measurements and numerical
studies. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Ham-
burg 2, 10811084.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Moormann, C. (1998). Design and
safety concept for piled raft foundations. Proceedings of the
conference on deep foundations on bored and auger piles,
Ghent, pp. 439448. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Moormann, C. (2000). Piled raft
foundation projects in Germany. In Design Applications of Raft
Foundations, pp. 323391. London: Thomas Telford.
Lutz, B., Wittmann, P., El Mossallamy, Y. & Katzenbach, R.
(1996). Die Anwendung von Pfahl-Plattengrundungen: Entwurf-
spraxis, Dimensionierung und Erfahrungen mit Grundungen in
uberkonsolidierten Tonen auf der Grundlage von Messungen.
Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1996 in Berlin, pp. 153164.
Essen: DGGT.
Mayne, P. W. & Poulos, H. G. (1999). Approximate displacement
inuence factors for elastic shallow foundations. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 125, No. 6, 453460.
Moormann, C. (2000). Private communication from PhD thesis,
Darmstadt University of Technology.
ONeill, M. W., Caputo, V., De Cock, F., Hartikainen, J. &
Mets, M. (1996). Case histories of pile supported rafts. Report
for ISSMFE TC18, University of Houston, Texas.
Poulos, H. G. (1991). Analysis of piled strip foundations. Proceed-
ings of the conference on computer methods and advances in
geomechanics. pp. 183191, Rotterdam: Balkema.
Poulos, H. G. (1994). An approximate numerical analysis of
pileraft interaction. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 18,
7392.
Poulos, H. G. (2001). Piled-raft foundation: design and applications.
Geotechnique 51, No. 2, 95113.
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and
design. New York: Wileys.
Poulos, H. G., Small, J. C., Ta, L. D., Sinha, J. & Chen, L. (1997).
Comparison of some methods for analysis of piled rafts. Proc.
14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg 2, 1119
1124.
Randolph, M. F. (1983). Design of piled raft foundations. Proceed-
ings of the international symposium on recent developments in
laboratory and eld tests and analysis of geotechnical problems,
Bangkok, pp. 525537.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled
rafts. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, New Delhi
5, 6182.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of
vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech. Engng 104, No. GT12 6,
14651488.
Reul, O. (2000). In-situ measurements and numerical studies on the
bearing behaviour of piled rafts. PhD thesis, Darmstadt Univer-
sity of Technology, Germany (in German).
Reul, O. & Randolph, M. F. (2002). Study of the inuence of nite
element mesh renement on the calculated bearing behaviour of
a piled raft. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. Numer. Models Geomech.,
Rome, pp. 259264.
Ripper, P. & El Mossallamy, Y. (1999). Entwicklungen der Hoch-
hausgrundungen in Frankfurt. HochhauserDarmstadter Statik-
Seminar 1999, Bericht Nr. 16. Damstadt University of Technol-
ogy, Institut fur Statik.
Rollberg, D. & Gilbert, K. F. (1993). Burohochhaus Theodor-Heuss-
Allee 112, Frankfurt am Main, 19. Bericht. Grundbauinstitut
Prof. Sommer und Partner GmbH (unpublished).
Sinha, J. (1996). Piled raft foundations subjected to swelling and
shrinking soils. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.
Sommer, H. (1986). Kombinierte Pfahl- Plattengrundungen von
Hochhausern im Ton. Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1986 in
Nurnberg, pp. 391405. Essen: DGEG.
Sommer, H. (1991). Entwicklung der Hochhausgrundungen in
Frankfurt/Main. Festkolloquium 20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut Prof.
Dr.-Ing. H. Sommer und Partner, pp. 4762, Germany.
Sommer, H. (1993). Development of locked stresses and negative
shaft resistance at the piled raft foundation: Messeturm
Frankfurt/Main. Proceedings of the conference on deep foun-
dations on bored and auger piles, pp. 347349. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Sommer, H. & Hoffmann, H. (1991a). Loadsettlement beha-
viour of the fairtower (Messeturm) in Frankfurt/Main. Proc.
4th Int. Conf. Ground Movements and Structures, Wales,
612627.
314 REUL AND RANDOLPH
Sommer, H. & Hoffmann, H. (1991b). Last-Verformungsverhalten
der Grundung des Messeturmes Frankfurt/Main. Festkolloquium
20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. Sommer und Part-
ner, pp. 6371.
Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1984). Zum Tragverhalten
von Pfahlen im steifplastischen Tertiarton. Vortrage der Bau-
grundtagung 1982 in Dusseldorf, pp. 501531. Essen: DGEG.
Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1985). Piled raft foundation
of a tall building in Frankfurt clay. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engng, San Francisco 4, 22532257.
Sommer, H., Katzenbach, R. & DeBeneditis, C. (1990). Last-
Verformungsverhalten des Messeturmes Frankfurt/Main. Vortrage
der Baugrundtagung 1990 in Karlsruhe, pp. 371380. Essen:
DGGT.
Sommer, H., Tamaro, G. & DeBeneditis, C. (1991). Messe Turm,
foundations for the tallest building in Europe. Proc. 4th Int.
Conf. Piling and Deep Foundations, 139145.
Ta, L. D. & Small, J. C. (1996). Analysis of piled raft systems
in layered soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 20,
5772.
Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1990). Unterschiedliche Konzepte fur
die Grundung und Baugrube von zwei Hochhausern in der
Frankfurter Innenstadt. Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1990 in
Karlsruhe, pp. 381397. Essen: DGEG.
PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 315