Choi, Jin O 1

Numerical Analysis of the Behavior of a Piled Raft on the Crest of a Rock Slope

Jin O Choi

Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shinlim-Dong,
Kwanak-Ku, Seoul, Korea, 151-742, Tel: (82)-2-880-8733, Fax (82)-2-875-6933, E-mail : cjo730@hanmail.net

Myoung Mo Kim

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shinlim-Dong, Kwanak-Ku,
Seoul, Korea, 151-742, Tel: (82)-2-880-7348, Fax (82)-2-875-6933, E-mail : geotech@gong.snu.ac.kr

Number of words (3295) + TABLE 1(250) + FIGURE 9 (2250) = 5795 < 7500

Submission Date: 2002. 8. 1

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 2

Numerical Analysis of the Behavior of a Piled Raft on the Crest of a Rock Slope

Jin O Choi

Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shinlim-Dong,
Kwanak-Ku, Seoul, Korea, 151-742, Tel: (82)-2-880-8733, Fax (82)-2-875-6933, E-mail : cjo730@hanmail.net

Myoung Mo Kim

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shinlim-Dong, Kwanak-Ku,
Seoul, Korea, 151-742, Tel: (82)-2-880-7348, Fax (82)-2-875-6933, E-mail : geotech@gong.snu.ac.kr

Abstract

In this study, a piled raft on a rock slope of asymmetric geometry was analyzed using a 3-D numerical analysis
to determine its behavior. These results were compared with field measurements. Based on previous studies on
the behavior of rock-socketed piles and from the results of pile load tests in the field, a single pile element of the
piled raft system was properly modeled, which was followed by a complete numerical analysis of the whole
system. The results of the numerical analysis indicated that the distributions of contact pressure of the raft and
pile loads were asymmetric, which indicated higher contact pressures and pile loads on the ascending slope than
on the descending slope. Each pile showed a different axial load distribution depending on the position of the
pile in the raft; this was caused by a different interaction effect in each pile. The results from the numerical
analysis showed good agreement with field measurements. Thus, using the engineering properties of the pile-
rock system, a numerical analysis can closely predict pile-raft behavior on the crest of a rock slope.

INTRODUCTION

Recently, there has been a noticeable increase in the research on piled raft systems. However, very little is
known about the load contribution ratios of piles and rafts, the distribution of the contact pressure under rafts, the
pile load with respect to its location, and the axial load distribution along the pile shaft, which can be observed in
field measurements. Field measurements have been limited by cost and time, and thus cover only a few cases.
Many analytical analyses have been conducted on these cases, and representative studies are as follows.
Franke (1991) performed field measurements on the piled raft foundation of the Westent 1 Tower, 208
m high, constructed in Frankfurt clay.(1) Analytical analyses were performed by Ta and Small (1996) using
FEM (2), Polous (1991) using a piled strip analysis (3), Randolph(1994) using an approximate linear method (4),
and Sinha(1997) (5) and Franke et al. (1994) (6) using a hybrid of BEM and FEM. The results showed that all
the analytical analyses, when compared with the field measurement, overestimated the settlement of the building

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 3

and the amount of load carried by the piles. Yanashita et al. (1994) conducted field measurements on a 5-story
building foundation in stiff clay (7), and Yanashita et al. (1998) performed a numerical analysis using the GARP
program to model the piled raft as a plate on springs, which also overestimated the load carried by piles when
compared to the field measurements.(8) Sommer et al. (1991) performed field measurements for the tallest
building in Europe, the Messe Turm Tower on Frankfurt clay.(9) As noted by Tamaro (1996), the distribution of
foundation settlement from the numerical analysis showed good agreement with the field measurements.(10)
Cooke et al. (1981) conducted the field measurements for the foundation of the Stonebridge park apartment
founded in London clay (11), and Viggiani (1998) performed the numerical analysis using the NAPRA program,
employing an interaction coefficient obtained from the BEM. The similar distribution of settlement equated well
with the field measurements. (12)
As illustrated above, the case studies on piled rafts so far have been mainly focused on building
foundations in clay, and thus, studies for various types of foundations and ground conditions are required.
Therefore, in this study a numerical analysis in a 3-D domain was performed for a piled raft foundation on the
crest of a rock slope, which had been measured in field by Choi et al. (2002). (13) The results were compared
with field measurements.

SITE CHARACTERIZATION

The pier, measured by Choi et al.(2002) (13), was constructed on the excavated bearing surface of a rock slope
of average grade 1:1.33. The piled raft was founded in a fine-grained sand stone, containing closely spaced joints.
The deformation modulus of the rock mass obtained from a pressuremeter test can be expressed using (Equation
1), regarding the bottom of raft as zero depth.

Emass (GPa) = 0.29 Depth (m) + 0.38 (1)

The piled raft consisted of 81 cast-in-place piles and a raft made of reinforced concrete. Piles of 0.2 m
diameter and 18.5 m embedment were constructed underneath the raft at equal spacings of 1.6 m. The piles were
arranged in a 9 x 9 grid pattern of equidistant spacing, and the raft had dimensions of 14.0 m 14.0 m in plan
and was 3.0 m in thickness. A 1.5m thick lean concrete mat was poured first to allow the micro-piles to be
drilled in a dry condition. Drill cuttings inside the borehole were blown out with compressed air. Subsequently,
three D50 steel reinforcing bars were installed in each hole, and high strength mortar (ck = 28 MPa) was
injected. Once the piles were complete, the raft was constructed. Raft and pier columns were constructed in 12
stages, and at the final stage of the pier column construction, the total applied vertical load on the foundation was
59.6 MN, including the weight of the raft. A cross section, and plan view of the piled raft foundation are given in
FIGUREs 1(a) and 1(b) respectively. For convenience, the down-side slope of the raft is referred to as the river-
side slope, and the upper-side slope as the mountain-side slope. The locations of the piles with strain-gauges
attached, and the locations of the pressure cells are shown in FIGURE 1(b). Five pressure cells were placed at
the interface between the lean concrete and the rock surface in a diagonal direction. To measure the load

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 4

distribution along the pile shafts, five piles (No. 5, 37, 41, 45, and 81) were selected for vibrating wire type strain
gauges attached to a reinforcing bar in each pile at a depth of 0.5, 2.0, 6.0, 10.0, 14.0, 18.0 m below the pile head.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Numerical Modeling of Rock Socketed Micro-Piles

The piles, which are a bearing element in the piled raft system, consisted of eighty-one cast-in-place micro piles.
For a reasonable analysis of total system, each micro pile has to be properly modeled with consideration of the
bearing mechanism. The piles analyzed in this study had very high ratio of pile length to pile diameter (L/D =91),
and thus were considered to be friction piles. Carter and Kulhawy (1988) suggested the load-settlement curve of
FIGURE 3 based on the results of many compression and pull out tests on rock socketed piles. (14)
As shown in FIGURE 2, for the shear socket pile, it is possible to divide the piles behavior into an
elastic range, a stress hardening range caused by dilation after slippage, and a perfectly plastic range which has
diminishing dilation under increasing displacement. Unfortunately it was difficult to numerically model the
disappearance of adhesion and the effects of dilation to friction resistance, and thus in this study the numerical
analysis was performed under the assumptions that the adhesion value was constant and the dilation angle was 0.
Thus, the behavior of the friction pile could be regarded as elasto-plastic.
In this study, the commercial finite difference program, FLAC 3D (V 2.00) was employed to model the
behavior of the rock socketed pile. The rock slope was modeled using an elasto-plastic model following the
Mohr-Coulombs failure criteria, and the pile was modeled using a structural element having a interface. The
pile interface element consisted of normal and shear coupling springs. The normal (Fn) and shear (Fs) force can
be calculated using equation (2) and equation (3), respectively.

Fn = k n u n (2)
Fs = k s u s (3)
Where,
k n : Stiffness of normal spring k s : Stiffness of shear spring
u n : Relative displacement in the normal direction
u s : Relative displacement in the shear direction

The value of the shear force in the interface element should not be higher than that of the maximum shear
force ( (Fs )Max ), which is given in equation (4).

(Fs )Max = A {c a + n tan } (4)

Where,
(Fs )Max : Maximum shear force A: Area of pile shaft
c a : Adhesion strength between pile and rock n : Effective normal stress

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 5

: Friction angle between pile and rock

For evaluating the input parameters (adhesion and friction angle) in [Equation 4], a back analysis of a pile
load test was performed, in which the deformation modulus of the rock mass was determined from a
pressuremeter test result (Equation 1), and the strength parameters of the rock mass from the suggested value by
Kikuchi (1979) (TABLE 1). (15) In the back analysis, the friction angle was fixed to 30 because its variation
has little effect on the load-settlement curve; the adhesion value, however, was varied to find the curve of best fit,
and finally determined as 700 kPa as shown in FIGURE 3.
To verify the load transfer mechanism through frictional resistance of the rock socketed pile, the
relation of frictional resistance-displacement (f-w) from the numerical analysis was compared with one
suggested by O'Neill and Hassan (1994). (16) The properties of the rock mass were from TABLE 1, and the
interface properties used were an adhesion value of 700 kPa and a friction angle of 30.
The f-w relation suggested by O'Neill and Hassan can be expressed as equation (5) :

w
f = (5)
2 .5 D w
+
E mass f max

where,
D : Pile diameter E mass : Deformation modulus of the rock mass
f max : Maximum frictional resistance

The f-w relations at a depth of 2.0 m from equation (5) and the numerical analysis are presented in
FIGURE 4. As shown in FIGURE 4, for small displacements the numerical analysis underestimated the
frictional resistance, whereas for large displacements it was overestimated by the frictional resistance suggested
by ONeill & Hassan. This may be accounted for by the assumption that the load transfer mechanism of the shaft
resistance was simplified to be elasto-plastic in nature. However, in terms of frictional resistance, the overall
shape of the curve from the numerical analysis was similar to the measured one in that generally the curve had a
high tangential slope under small displacements, and this slope converged to a constant value with increased
displacement. Thus it can be confirmed that the numerical analysis accurately modeled the behavior of the pile
using an adhesion of 700 kPa and a friction angle of 30 at the interface between rock and pile.

Piled Raft Behaviors

In consideration of the construction process, the numerical model, for this piled raft foundation on the crest of a
rock slope, was performed as follows. Firstly, a rock slope was modeled as a set of continuum elements
following the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria, and the rock masses were given stress anisotropy by applying a K0
of 4.35 determined from the pressuremeter test. Secondly, the shear strength parameters, such as the adhesion of
700 kPa and the friction angle of 30 at the interface between rock and pile (determined through the numerical

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 6

back analysis on the pile load test), were applied to the eighty-one micro piles. Thirdly, the raft was modeled as
an elastic material, and combined with the piles. Finally, a superstructure load for each construction stage was
applied to the raft as a distributed load, which was followed by numerical calculation. 35,759 hexahedron
elements were employed to simulate the piled raft and the rock slope.

Load Carrying Ratios of Piles and Raft

The load applied to the structure was supported by the piles, the contact pressure under the raft, and the shear
force mobilized at the interface between lean concrete block and rock mass. FIGURE 5(a) represents the
distribution of loads carried by each bearing element derived from field measurements. At the pier column
completion (12th stage), the load carrying ratios of the piles, contact pressure, and shear force were 47.0%, 8.1%,
and 44.9%, respectively (Choi et al., 2002). (13)
FIGURE 5(b), shows the distribution of load carried by each bearing element according to the
numerical analysis. At the time of the pier column completion, the load carrying ratios of the piles, contact
pressure, and shear force were 48.6%, 27.6%, and 23.8%, respectively. The load carrying ratios of each bearing
element in the numerical analysis did not vary significantly during the entire construction process, which was
different to the field measurements. The amount of load carried by contact pressure was higher in the numerical
analysis than in the field measurements, which may be because the piles were modeled as having no volume in
the numerical analysis.

Distribution of Raft Contact Pressure

FIGUREs 6 (a) and (b) show the distributions of contact pressure from the numerical analysis and the field
measurements along the diagonal direction of raft, as shown in FIGURE 1(b).
As shown in the figures, the distribution of the contact pressure from the numerical analysis were
similar to the field measurements, which was asymmetric so that the contact pressure near the mountainside
slope was larger than that closer to the river-side slope. From this, it can be concluded that a foundation with
geometrically asymmetric founding conditions, such as a slope, has a different distribution of contact pressure to
the more general rigid foundation case. The difference in the amount of contact pressure from numerical analysis
and the field measurements was caused by the numerical analysis overestimating the load carried by the raft.

Pile Load Distribution

Pile head load distributions at the 6th and 12th construction stage, taken from the numerical analysis and field
measurements, are shown in FIGUREs 7 and 8, respectively. FIGURE 7(a) and 8(a) show the pile head load
distributions for No. 37, No. 41, and No. 45 piles on the a-a axis with a relatively symmetric geometry.
FIGUREs 7(b) and 8(b) for No. 5, No. 41, and No. 81 piles on the b-b axis have an asymmetric geometry. For
the numerical analysis results, the pile load distribution for No. 77 pile, which was located on the opposite side
of No. 5 pile on the b-b axis, is presented instead of No. 81 pile.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 7

The load distributions of the piles on the a-a axis were relatively symmetric both in the numerical
analysis and the field measurements because these piles were placed at the same distance from the virgin rock
slope to have the same geometric positions in the slope, and thus located in founding conditions with a relatively
symmetric geometry (FIGURE 7(a), 8(a)). However, the piles on the b-b axis, placed at different distances from
the virgin slope and located in founding conditions of asymmetric geometry, showed asymmetric load
distributions, which coincided with the results from the numerical analysis (FIGURE 7(b), 8(b)). In the
numerical analysis, the degree of asymmetry in the pile load distribution was less pronounced than those from
the field measurements in the piles on the b-b axis connecting the river-side slope and the mountain-side slope.
This is because only the effects of the geometry were taken into account in the numerical analysis, while the
amount of weathering of the bearing surface of rock was not considered, which was greater toward the rock face.

Axial Load Distribution along Pile Shaft

FIGURE 9 shows the axial load distributions after completion of the pier columns. These include results from
the numerical analysis along with those from the field measurements for the center pile (No. 41), the edge pile
(No. 37), and the corner pile (No. 81).
As shown in FIGURE 9, the axial load distributions of the piles from the numerical analysis were
similar in shape to those of the field measurements. The numerical analysis accurately described even the
reduced mobilized frictional resistance near the pile head of the center pile, which was not observed in the other
piles. It can be concluded that the numerical method properly modeled the interaction due to raft settlement
causing a reduced relative displacement between the pile and the rock near the pile head. Compared with field
measurements, the frictional resistance from the numerical analysis tended to be transferred toward the pile tip;
this may be caused by the fact that the input parameters should vary with depth. In other words, the rock mass
modulus and the strength parameters within interface were over-simplified because of limited data.

CONCLUSIONS

Back analysis was performed on one of the socketed piles (which had been in field test-loaded) in a piled raft on
the crest of a rock slope, to evaluate the strength parameters at the interface between pile and rock. Other data
such as the strength parameters and deformation modulus of the rock mass were obtained from field
investigations. Based on this information, a 3-D numerical analysis, using the commercial program FLAC 3D (v
2.00), was performed to predict piled raft behavior on a rock slope. The numerical analysis properly described
the distribution of the contact pressures under the raft, the pile load distribution, and the axial load distribution
along pile shaft when compared to field measurements. From this, we conclude that when reliable engineering
properties for the founding material obtained from field tests are employed in a numerical analyses of piled rafts,
the results are meaningful, quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 8

REFFERENCES

1. Franke, E. Measurements beneath Piled Rafts. ENPC Conference, Paris, 1991, pp. 1-28.
2. Ta, L., and Small, J. C. Analysis of piled Raft Systems in Layered Soils. International Journal of Numerical
Analysis and Mathematics in Geomechanics, Vol. 20, 1996, pp. 57-72.
3. Poulos, H. G. In Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Rotterdam, Balkema, 1991, pp. 183-191.
4. Randolph, M. F. Design Methods for Pile Groups and Piled Rafts: State-of-the-Art Report. Proceeding of 13th
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 5, 1994, pp. 61-82.
5. Sinha, J. Piled Raft Foundations Subjected to Swelling and Shrinking. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney,
Australia, 1997.
6. Franke, E., Lutz, B., and El-Mossallamy, Y. Measurements and Numerical Modeling of High-Rise Building
Foundations on Frankfurt Clay. Geotechnical Special Publication 40, New York, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1994, pp. 1325-1336.
7. Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M., and Yamada, T. Investigation of a Piled Raft Foundation on Stiff Clay.
Proceeding of 13th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 2,
1994, pp. 543-546.
8. Yamashita, K., Yamada, T., and Kakurai, M. Simplified Method for Analyzing Piled Raft Foundations. Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Rotterdam, Balkema, 1998, pp. 457-464.
9. Sommer, H., Tamaro, G., and DeBenedittis, C. Messe Turm, Foundations for the Tallest Building in Europe
Proceeding of 4th Deep Foundation Institute Conference, Stresa, 1991, pp. 139-145.
10. Tamaro, G. J. Foundation Engineers: Why We Need Them?. 1996 Martin S. Kapp Lecture, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1996.
11. Cooke, R. W., Bryden Smith, D. W., Gooch, M. N., and Sillet, D. F. Some Observations on the Foundation
Loading and Settlement of a Multi-Story Building on a Piled Raft Foundation in London. Proceeding of
Instrumentation for Civil Engineers, Part1, 1981, pp. 433-460.
12. Viggiani, C. Pile Groups and Piled Rafts Behavior. In Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles,
Rotterdam, Balkema, 1998, pp. 77-90.
13. Choi, J. O., Kwon, O. S., and Kim, M. M. Piled Raft Behavior on the Crest of a Rock Slope. Transportation
Research Board(CD-ROM), 81th Annual Meeting, Washington, 02-3511, 2002.
14. Carter, J. P., and Kulhawy, F. H. Analysis and Design of Foundations Socketed into Rock. Report Number
El-5918, Empire State Electric Engineering Research Corporation and Electric Power Research Institute, New
York, 1988, pp.158.
15. Kikuchi, K. The Studies of Geotechnical Estimation on the Rock Mass as used Dam Foundation. PhD Thesis,
Waseda University, 1997.
16. ONeill, M. W., and Hassan, K. M. Drilled Shaft: Effects of Construction on Performance and Design
Criteria. Proceeding of International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundation, Vol. 1,
Federal Highway Administration, Orlando, Florida, 1994, pp. 137-187.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 9

List of Symbols

Emass : Deformation modulus of the rock mass

ck : Maximum compressive strength

L : Pile length

D : Pile diameter

Fn : Normal force

Fs : Shear force

kn : Stiffness of normal spring

ks : Stiffness of shear spring

un : Relative displacement in the normal direction

us : Relative displacement in the shear direction

(Fs)Max : Maximum shear force

A : Area of pile shaft

ca : Adhesion strength between pile and rock

n : Effective normal stress

: Friction angle between pile and rock

f : Frictional resistance

w : Displacement

fmax : Maximum frictional resistance

K0 : Lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 10

List of Tables

Table 1 Input Data for Manipulating the Load Test Result

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 (a) Geometrical Cross-Section of Rock Slope and of the Piled Raft (b) Plan View of

Instrumented Piles and Pressure Cells (Choi et al., 2002). (13)

FIGURE 2 Behavior of a Rock Socketed Piles (Carter and Kulhawy, 1988). (14)

FIGURE 3 Load-Settlement Curves from Numerical Analysis on the Pile Load Test.

FIGURE 4 Comparison of f-w Relation Obtained by Empirical and Numerical Methods.

FIGURE 5 Load Carried by Bearing Elements (a) Field Measurements (b) Numerical Analysis.

FIGURE 6 Distribution of Raft Contact Pressure (a) 6th Construction Stage (b) 12th Construction Stage.

FIGURE 7 Pile Load Distribution at the 6th Construction Stage (a) Load Distribution in the a-a Axis (b)

Load Distribution in the b-b Axis.

FIGURE 8 Pile Load Distribution at the 12th Construction Stage (a) Load Distribution in the a-a Axis (b)

Load Distribution in the b-b Axis.

FIGURE 9 Axial Load Distributions at the Time of Pier Completion (a) Center Pile (No. 41) (b) Edge Pile

(No. 37) (c) Corner Pile (No. 81).

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 11

TABLE 1 Input Data for Manipulating the Load Test Result

Deformation Friction angle

Poissons ratio Cohesion (kPa)
Modulus (GPa) ()

Rock mass 0.37 5.96 0.30 2500 45

Pile 21.0 0.17

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 12

mountain-side 14.0 m
a
3.0m Pier slope 37
column
raft
1.33 lean river mountain

14.0 m
1.00 77 5
1.5m concrete -side 41 -side
b b slope
1.6m slope
pressure
river-side cell
slope 81 45
a
Pressure Cell
Strain gage Installed Pile No. 5,37,41,45,81
(a) (b)

FIGURE 1 (a) Geometrical Cross-Section of Rock Slope and of the Piled Raft (b) Plan View of

Instrumented Piles and Pressure Cells (Choi et al., 2002). (13)

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 13

FIGURE 2 Behavior of a Rock Socketed Piles (Carter and Kulhawy, 1988). (14)

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 14

6000
c=1400kPa phi=30
c=900kPa phi=30
5000 c=700 kPa phi=30
c=500 kPa phi=30
Field
4000
Load (kN)

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)

FIGURE 3 Load-Settlement Curves from Numerical Analysis on the Pile Load Test.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 15

1000

Frictional Resistance (kPa)

800

600

400
O'Neill & Hassan
200
FLAC
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)

FIGURE 4 Comparison of f-w Relation Obtained by Empirical and Numerical Methods.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 16

80
pile raft contatct lean shear

60
Load (MN)

40

20

0
4 6 8 10 12
Construction Stage

(a)

80
pile raft contatct lean shear

60
Load (MN)

40

20

0
4 6 8 10 12
Construction Stage

(b)

FIGURE 5 Load Carried by Bearing Elements (a) Field Measurements (b) Numerical Analysis.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 17

100
filed numerical

Contact Pressure (kPa)

80

60

40

20

0
0 7 14
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(m) Center of Raft (m)
River-side Slope Mt.-side Slope

(a)

120
field numerical
Contact Pressure (kPa)

100
80

60

40
20

0
0 7 14
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(m) Center of Raft (m)
River-side Slope Mt.-side Slope
(b)

FIGURE 6 Distribution of Raft Contact Pressure (a) 6th Construction Stage (b) 12th Construction Stage.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 18

300
267 242 273
263 263
227
Load (kN) 200

100
field 6
numerical 6
0
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(m) Center of Raft (m)
Direction of (a) Direction of (a')

(a)

400

300 310
259 268
242
Load (kN)

246
227
200

100
filed 6
numerical 6
0
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1 2 3 4
(m) 5 Center
6 7of Raft
8 9 10 11 12 13 (m) 14
River-side (b) Mountain-side (b')
(b)

FIGURE 7 Pile Load Distribution at the 6th Construction Stage (a) Load Distribution in the a-a Axis (b)
Load Distribution in the b-b Axis.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 19

400
376 378
343 327
Load (kN) 300 313

249
200

100
field 12
numerical 12
0
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(m) Center of Raft (m)
Direction of (a) Direction of (a')
(a)

500

400 413
372 385
327
Load (kN)

300
270
249
200

100
field 12
numerical 12
0
07 1 6 25 34 43 2
5 16 07 18 29 310 411 512 613 714
(m) River-side Cente r of raft Mountain-side (m)

(b)

FIGURE 8 Pile Load Distribution at the 12th Construction Stage (a) Load Distribution in the a-a Axis (b)

Load Distribution in the b-b Axis.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
 Choi, Jin O 20

Load (kN) Load (kN)

-50 50 150 250 350 0 100 200 300 400
0 0

5 5
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10 10

15 15
field 12 field 12
numerical 12 numerical 12
20 20

(a) (b)

Load (kN)
0 150 300 450
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15
field 12
numerical 12
20

(c)

FIGURE 9 Axial Load Distributions at the Time of Pier Completion

(a) Center Pile (No. 41) (b) Edge Pile (No. 37) (c) Corner Pile (No. 81).

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.