Reul, O. & Randolph, M. F. (2003). Geotechnique 53, No.
3, 301315
Piled rafts in overconsolidated clay: comparison of in situ measurements
and numerical analyses
O. R E U L
a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H

This paper presents the results of detailed back-analysis,
using three-dimensional finite-element analysis, of three
piled raft foundations on overconsolidated clay. Compari-
sons of overall settlement, differential settlements and the
load carried by the piles show reasonably good agree-
ment, although the finite-element analyses generally show
a higher proportion of the overall load being carried by
the piles than estimated from the field measurements.
Three main performance indicators of the piled raft are
proposed: the proportion of load carried by the piles,
and the maximum settlement and maximum differential
settlement, both as a proportion of the corresponding
quantity for an unpiled raft foundation. The last indica-
tor, in particular, suggests that improved layout of the
pile support can lead to a reduction both in the maxi-
mum differential settlement and in the overall quantity of
piles. This is illustrated for one of the case histories.
KEYWORDS: case history; numerical modelling and analysis;
piles; rafts; settlement; soilstructure interaction
INTRODUCTION
The piled raft is a geotechnical composite construction
consisting of three elements: piles, raft and soil. The
design of piled rafts differs from traditional foundation
design, where the loads are assumed to be carried either by
the raft or by the piles, considering the safety factors in each
case. In the design of piled rafts the load share between the
piles and the raft is taken into account, and the piles are
used up to a load level that can be of the same order of
magnitude as the bearing capacity of a comparable single
pile or even greater. Therefore the piled raft foundation
allows reduction of settlements and differential settlements
in a very economic way compared with traditional founda-
tion concepts. In this foundation concept the piles are
usually required not to ensure the overall stability of the
foundation but to act as settlement reducers (Burland et al.,
1977). In recent decades an increasing number of structures,
especially tall buildings, have been founded on piled rafts
(ONeill et al., 1996; Katzenbach et al., 2000; Poulos,
2001). As an example, Table 1 summarises instrumented
piled rafts in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, most of which
have been instrumented by the Institute and Laboratory of
Geotechnics of Darmstadt University of Technology (Arslan
et al., 1999).
Key questions that arise in the design of piled rafts
concern the relative proportion of load carried by raft and
piles, and the effect of the additional pile support on
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.

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of
Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
301
Cet expose presente les resultats dune retro-analyse
detaillee utilisant une analyse delements finis en trois
dimensions, de trois fondations en tables a piles sur une
argile surconsolidee. Les comparaisons du tassement gen-
eral, des tassements differentiels et de la charge portee
par les piles, correspondent assez bien, meme si les
analyses delements finis montrent dans lensemble que la
proportion de la charge generale supportee par les piles
est plus elevee que celle suggeree par les mesures sur le
terrain. Nous proposons trois indicateurs de performance
principaux pour les fondations en tables: la proportion
de charge portee par les piles et le tassement maximum
ainsi que le tassement differentiel maximum, tous deux
comme proportion de la quantite correspondante pour
une fondation sans piles. Le dernier indicateur, en parti-
culier, suggere quen ameliorant lagencement ameliore
des piles de support, on peut obtenir une reduction du
tassement differentiel maximum et de la quantite globale
de piles. Ceci est illustre dans une des histoires de cas.
absolute and differential settlements (Randolph, 1994).
Therefore three coefficients are introduced to quantify the
performance of piled rafts:
(a) The piled raft coefficient, pr , describes the ratio of the
sum of all pile loads,
Ppile , to the total load on the
foundation, Ptot :

Ppile
pr (1)
Ptot
A piled raft coefficient of unity indicates a free-
standing pile group, whereas a piled raft coefficient of
zero describes an unpiled raft.
(b) The coefficient of maximum settlement, s , is defined
as the ratio of the maximum settlement of the piled
raft, spr , to the maximum settlement of the correspond-
ing unpiled raft, sr :
spr
s (2)
sr
(c) The coefficient of differential settlement, s , is defined
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 finite-element analyses, and the calculated
results have been compared with the in situ measurements.
Additionally, for Westend 1 the results achieved with the
finite-element analysis are compared with the results
achieved with eight different analysis methods, including the
results given by Poulos et al. (1997).
 302
Table 1. Piled rafts in Frankfurt, Germany
Building References H: m Peff : MN A: m2 tr : m zr : m n Lp : m Dp : m nip Pp : MN s: mm t: years
American Express Rollberg & Gilbert (1993); Reul 75 723 3575 20 140 35 200 09 6 2751 55 10
(2000)
Congress Centre Barth & Reul (1997); Reul (2000) 52 1440 10 200 27 142 141 125345 13 12 2459 58 0
Eurotheum Katzenbach et al. (1998); 110 425 1893 25 130 25 250300 15 4 2647 29 10
Moormann (2000)
Forum-Kastor Lutz et al. (1996); 95 750 2830 30 135 26 200300 13 3 50126 55 0
Ripper & El Mossallamy (1999)
Forum-Pollux Lutz et al. (1996); 130 760 1920 30 135 22 300 13 3 74117 70 0

REUL AND RANDOLPH

Ripper & El Mossallamy (1999)
Japan Centre Lutz et al. (1996); 115 630 1920 35 158 25 220 13 6 79138 65 05
Ripper & El Mossallamy (1999)
Main Tower Katzenbach et al. (1998); 199 1470 3800 38 21 112 300 15 17 1480 25 0
Moormann (2000)
Messeturm Sommer et al. (1990, 1991); 256 1570 3457 60 140 64 269349 13 12 58201 144 8
Sommer & Hoffmann (1991a, b);
Sommer (1993); Reul (2000)
Torhaus Sommer (1986, 1991); Sommer et al. 130 2 3 200 2 3 429 25 30 2 3 42 200 09 6 1769 140 2
(1984, 1985)
Westend 1 Franke & Lutz (1994); Lutz et al. 208 950 2940 47 145 40 300 13 6 92149 120 25
(1996); Wittmann & Ripper (1990)
Haus der Wirtschaft, Reul (2000) 68 605 5120 20 85 47 250 12 6 1431 25 0
Offenbach
6 375410
H, height of the building; Peff , effective load (settlement-inducing total load minus uplift); A, area of raft; tr , maximum thickness of raft; zr , maximum depth of raft below ground level; n, number of piles;
Lp , pile length; Dp , pile diameter; nip , number of instrumented piles; Pp , measured pile load resistance; s, maximum measured settlement; t, time of settlement measurement after completion of
construction of building.

Foundation in Rupel clay.
Indicates completion of shell only.
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
STRUCTURAL MODEL
The analyses in the scope of this paper have been carried
out with a structural model based on the finite-element
method. The soil and the foundation are modelled with finite
elements, which allows the most rigorous treatment of the
soilstructure interaction. The soil and the piles are repre-
sented by first-order solid finite elements of hexahedron
(brick) and triangular prism (wedge) shape. For the model-
ling of the raft, first-order shell elements of square and
triangular shape with reduced integration have been used.
Only the soil below the foundation level is modelled with
finite elements. The soil above the foundation level is con-
sidered through its weight. The circular piles have been
replaced by square piles with the same shaft circumference.
A discussion of the influence of the mesh refinement on the
results of the finite-element analyses can be found in Reul &
Randolph (2002).
In the finite-element analyses the soil, which is in reality
a multiphase medium consisting of the three components
solid phase (grains), liquid phase (pore water) and gaseous
phase (pore air), was simplified to a one-phase medium. The
long-term behaviour of this one-phase medium was consid-
ered with the drained shear parameters c9 and 9. The non-
linear material behaviour of the soil (grains) has been
modelled with a cap model that consists of three yield
surface segments: the pressure-dependent, perfectly plastic
shear failure surface, Fs ; the compression cap yield surface,
Fc ; and the transition yield surface, Ft . Changes of stress
inside the yield surfaces cause elastic deformations, whereas
changes of stress on the yield surfaces cause plastic defor-
mations. The shear failure surface is perfectly plastic,
whereas volumetric plastic strains cause hardening or soft-
ening of the cap. Plastic flow is defined by the non-asso-
ciated flow potential, Gs , of the shear surface and the
associated flow potential, Gc , of the cap. The parameters 
and d can be derived from the angle of friction, 9, and the
cohesion, c9, of the soil. A complete description of the cap
model can be found in the ABAQUS Theory Manual
(ABAQUS, 1998).
For the modelling of the contact zone between soil and
raft, and between soil and the large-diameter bored piles,
thin solid continuum elements have been applied instead of
303
special interface elements. The contact between structure
and soil was described as perfectly rough. This means that
no relative motion takes place between the nodes of the
finite elements that represent the structure and those of the
finite elements that represent the uppermost layer of soil.
The material behaviour in the contact area was simulated by
the material behaviour of the soil.
The verification and calibration of the structural model is
based on the back-analysis of static load tests and the
measured bearing behaviour of foundations. Reul (2000)
gives a detailed description of the structural model. All
finite-element analyses presented in this paper have been
carried out with the program ABAQUS.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
The subsoil condition in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, is
characterised mainly by tertiary soils and rock. They consist
of Frankfurt clay at the top underlain by the rocky Frankfurt
limestone. The Frankfurt clay is a stiff, overconsolidated
clay with liquid limit, plastic index and natural moisture
content very similar to the London clay (Butler, 1975). Sand
and limestone bands of varying thickness are embedded in
the Frankfurt clay, which results in a non-homogeneous
appearance of the layer as a whole. The compressibility of
the Frankfurt limestone, which is composed of massive lime-
stone and dolomite layers, algal reefs, marly calcareous
sands and silts and marly clay, is small compared with that
of the Frankfurt clay. As the boundary between Frankfurt
clay and Frankfurt limestone dips slightly to the north-west,
the thickness of the clay layer varies in the vicinity of the
Messeturm, the Westend 1 and the Torhaus studied in this
paper.
As mentioned previously, the material behaviour of the
soilthat is, the Frankfurt clay, the Frankfurt limestone and
(in the case of the Torhaus) the quaternary sand and
gravelis modelled with an elasto-plastic cap model. How-
ever, as the Frankfurt clay is overconsolidated, assuming a
maximum previous vertical stress of 450 kPa at its top
surface, the analyses are dominated by the soil stiffness
rather than the soil strength. Therefore an elastic model with
non-linear elements at the interface of the soil and piles

Table 2. Material parameters used in the finite-element analyses

Parameter Frankfurt clay Frankfurt Sand
Raft Piles
limestone
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=m3 19 22 18 25 25
Buoyant unit weight, 9: kN=m3 9 12 15 15
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K 0 072 (0 < z , 25) 05 046
057 (z > 25)
Angle of internal friction, 9: egrees 20 15 325
Slope of the conical yield surface in the 3767 2953 5262
pt plane, : degrees
Cohesion, c9: kPa 20 1000 0
Intersection of the conical yield surface with the 4242 2114 0
t-axis, d: kPa
Shape parameter of the transition surface between 0 0001 0
cone and cap,
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.

Parameters sand only for analyses Torhaus.
Messeturm.
{ Westend 1.
} Torhaus.
304 REUL AND RANDOLPH
would yield very similar results for the back-analyses of the linear elasto-plastic algorithm such as the cap model. The
case histories presented in this paper. The application of the distribution of the Youngs modulus of the Frankfurt clay
cap model for the Frankfurt clay was motivated by the need with depth is described by the following empirical formula-
for consistency with previous analyses that have been tion based on the back-analysis of boundary value problems
reported (e.g. Katzenbach et al., 1994, 1997) and because it in Frankfurt clay (Reul, 2000):
allows, in principle, the complete failure or loss of service-    
ability of the foundation system to be modelled (Reul, z  30
E 45 tanh 1 3 0:7z (3)
2000). 15
For overconsolidated clays, small-strain non-linearity can
have an important influence on the simulated ground move- where E is Youngs modulus (MPa), and z is the depth below
ments (e.g. Atkinson, 2000). However, it is the opinion of the surface of the tertiary layers (m). Within ABAQUS, an
the authors that the general principles demonstrated in the external text file allows interpolation of E values according
present paper are not altered by the adoption of a robust to the vertical coordinate. The raft and piles are considered

208 m
Tower

64.4 m EXT II EXT III EXT I

60 m Low rise section

0.0 m 47.3 m
Quaternary
14.5 m Instrumented piles

Contact pressure cells

Frankfurt clay Pore pressure cells

44.5 m
Multi-point borehole extensometers

Inclinometer/multi-point borehole
(a) extensometers
(b)
325 m Piled raft

clay 68 m
kfurt
Fran
307.2 m 32 m

e
eston
kfu rt lim
Fran

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Westend 1: cross-section of the building, ground plan of the raft, and finite-element mesh. (a) Cross-section; (b)
ground plan of the raft of the tower; (c) finite-element mesh of the system; (d) finite-element mesh of the piled raft
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
to behave linear-elastically. Note that no site-specific mod-
ifications of the soil parameters have been applied, which
might be justified because of the non-homogeneous nature
of the Frankfurt clay and Frankfurt limestone. All finite-
element analyses presented in this paper have been carried
out with the same set of soil parameters. The material
parameters used in the finite-element analyses are sum-
marised in Table 2.
WESTEND 1
The 90 m 3 100 m office building Westend 1 was con-
structed between 1990 and 1993. The 208 m high tower and
the 60 m high low-rise section of the building complex are
founded on two separated rafts. The piled raft of the tower
consists of a 47 m 3 62 m large raft with a thickness of 3
465 m and 40 bored piles with a length of 30 m and a
diameter of 13 m. The bottom of the raft lies 145 m below
ground level (Fig. 1(a)).
The groundwater level is situated 7 m below ground level
in the quaternary layers. The top surface of the tertiary
Frankfurt clay, which has a thickness of at least 63 m in the
vicinity of Westend 1, lies 85 m below ground level.
The layout of the measurement devices, which consist of
six instrumented piles, 13 contact pressure cells, five pore
pressure cells, one multi-point borehole extensometer and
two combined inclinometers/multi-point borehole extens-
ometers, is shown in Fig. 1(b).
The finite-element mesh for Westend 1 models the tower
foundation. The low-rise section of the building complex is
not considered in the analysis (Fig. 1(c) and (d)). In the core
area of the tower (approximately 1580 m2 ) the raft consists
of 47 m thick elements, whereas the raft elements at the
edge have a thickness of 385 m. The bottom of the Frank-
furt clay is assumed to be 68 m below the foundation level,
which lies 145 m below ground level. The Frankfurt clay is
followed by a 32 m thick layer of Frankfurt limestone in the
finite-element mesh. According to the investigations of
Franke & Lutz (1994), the Youngs modulus of the piles is
assumed to be Epile 22 000 MPa in the finite-element
analysis.
Table 3 outlines the step-by-step analysis of the construc-
tion process in the finite-element analysis. The maximum
load of Peff 895 MN (above the raft) is successively
applied in the core area of the raft. The weight of the raft
minus the uplift amounts to 619 MN, and is applied over
the whole area of the raft before the stiffness of the raft is
included in the model.
To study the influence of the modelling of the pilesoil
interface an additional finite-element analysis has been car-
ried out with reduced shaft friction. The reduction of the
shaft friction was achieved by setting the cohesion of the
Table 3. Westend 1: step-by-step analysis of the construction process in the finite-
element analyses
Step
1. In situ stress state
2. Excavation to a depth of 7 m below
ground level
3. Installation of the piles
4. Excavation to a depth of 145 m below
ground level
5. Application of weight of raft minus
uplift due to pore pressures as uniform
load on subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)
6. Installation of raft
7. Loading of raft
305
thin soil element at the pile shaft to zero. While this is an
extreme assumption, it allows bracketing of the possible
effect of shaft friction on the piled raft response.
Figure 2 shows the comparison of the measured centre
settlement, the maximum pile load, the minimum pile load
and piled raft coefficient with the results of the finite-
element analyses and the following analysis methods:
(a) simplified hand calculation method (Poulos & Davis,
1980)
(b) strip on springs (Poulos, 1991)
(c) plate on springs (Poulos, 1994)
(d ) combined finite-element and boundary-element method
(Ta & Small, 1996)
(e) combined finite-element and boundary-element method
(Sinha, 1996)
( f ) combined finite-element and boundary-element method
(Franke et al., 1994)
(g) flexibility matrix method (Randolph, 1983)
(h) load transfer approach for individual piles combined
with elastic interaction between piles and raft (Clancy
& Randolph, 1993)
The results calculated with the first six analysis methods are
given by Poulos et al. (1997). Therefore the subsoil condi-
tions and soil parameters described above may not necessa-
rily comply with the assumptions made for those analyses.
For the analysis with the flexibility matrix method, an
overall stiffness of the pile group in isolation of k p
6912 MN=m and overall stiffness of the raft in isolation of
k r 6274 MN=m has been applied based on the distribution
of the Youngs modulus with depth (equation (3)). The
overall stiffness of the pile group has been derived after
Randolph & Wroth (1978) by replacing the pile group with
an equivalent pier. The overall stiffness of the raft has been
estimated with the approach described by Mayne & Poulos
(1999).
For the analysis method described by Clancy & Randolph
(1993) the program HyPR has been applied. In the HyPR
analysis the soil depth is assumed to be 68 m, and the whole
area of the raft is modelled with 47 m thick finite elements.
The Youngs modulus of the soil has been calculated with
equation (3) for Frankfurt clay as the mean value over a
depth of 68 m below foundation level. The ultimate shaft
and base resistance of a single pile with the same length and
diameter as the piles of the piled raft has been estimated
from the drained shear parameters for Frankfurt clay given
in Table 2. However, it should be noted that the ultimate
resistance of a pile under a piled raft is not necessarily the
same as the ultimate resistance of a single pile (Reul, 2000).
The parameters of the soil, the raft and the piles used in the
HyPR analysis are summarised in Table 4. The HyPR analy-
sis has been carried out in two separate runs. A linear
Applied load, Mean vertical effective stress
Peff : MN at foundation level,  v9 : kPa
1920
660
660
0
619 219
619 219
9569 3380
306 REUL AND RANDOLPH
200
Analysis method
1 Poulos & Davis (1980)
2 Poulos (1991)

Centre settlement, s: mm
150 3 Poulos (1994)
4 Ta & Small (1996)
5 Sinha (1996)
100 6 Franke et al. (1994)
7 Randolph (1983)
8 Clancy & Randolph (1993)
50 FEA Finite-element analysis
FEA* Finite-element analysis:
reduced shaft friction
M Measurement
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FEA FEA* Ma)
Analyses results with methods
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 given by
20
Poulos et al. (1997)
Maximum pile load, Pp,max: MN

15
Measurements:
a)
Lutz et al. (1996)
b)
Franke & Lutz (1994)
10

0
2 3 4 5 6 8 FEA FEA* Mb)

20
Minimum pile load, Pp,min: MN

15

10

0
2 3 4 5 6 8 FEA FEA* Mb)

1.0

0.8
Piled raft coefficient, pr

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FEA FEA* Mb)

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, Rs1 : MN 110
Ultimate base resistance of piles, Rb1 : MN 44
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
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 finite-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 finite-
element analysis is 109 mm. The centre settlement calculated
with the method by Sinha (1996) is significantly 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 coefficient can be derived from the
measured pile loads to give pr 0:5, whereas the finite-
element analysis yields a piled raft coefficient of pr 0:66.
Most of the analysis methods give pile loads larger than the
307
measured values and therefore overestimate the piled raft
coefficient. The calculated maximum pile loads are generally
close to the measured value. The finite-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 modified finite-
element analysis with the reduced shaft friction shows a
better agreement with the measurement than the original
finite-element analysis for the centre settlement, the maxi-
mum pile load and the piled raft coefficient. Compared with
the original finite-element analysis the centre settlements are
increased by 6% and the piled raft coefficient 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 coefficients from the finite-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

Piles: Lp 26.9 m

256 m Piles: Lp 30.9 m

Piles: Lp 34.9 m

A A
Instrumented piles

Contact pressure cells

Pore pressure cells

TP3
Multi-point borehole
extensometers

Section modelled with

finite elements

TP1 TP2
120 m
58.8 m
(b)

Piled raft

74.8 m

clay
kfurt
Fran

one 55.2 m
mest
0m kfurt li
Fran
Quarternary
14 m

Frankfurt clay 120 m

48.9 m

(a) (c) (d)

Fig. 3. Messeturm: cross-section of the building, ground plan of the raft, and finite-element mesh. (a) Cross section AA; (b)
ground plan of the raft; (c) finite-element mesh of the piled raft; (d) finite-element mesh of the system
308
piles. Optimal placement of piles to minimise differential
settlements will be explored further in the final 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 (Dp 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 finished in 1991. The
behaviour of the foundation was monitored from the con-
struction period until more than 7 years after the building
was finished 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 fill
REUL AND RANDOLPH
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 finite-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 (tr 6 m) to the edge of the raft
(tr 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 Epile 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 Econcrete 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

96 20

92 16
Groundwater level, hGW : m

Groundwater
level

Pile load, Pp : MN
88 12

Inner ring

84 8 Middle ring

Outer ring

80 GB1/GB2 begin of 1./2. groundwater drawdown 4

GE1/GE2 end of 1./2. groundwater drawdown
F building finished

0 0
1.1.89 1.1.91 1.1.93 1.1.95 1.1.97 1.1.99
Date

Fig. 4. Messeturm: variation of groundwater level and pile load with time

Table 5. Messeturm: step-by-step analysis of construction process in finite-element

analyses
Step Applied load, Mean vertical effective
Peff : MN stress at foundation
level,  v9 : kPa
1. In situ stress state 1774
2. Excavation to a depth of 75 m below 424
ground level
3. Installation of the piles 424
4. Excavation to a depth of 14 m below 0
ground level
5. Application of weight of raft minus uplift 1249 361
due to pore pressures as uniform load on
subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)
6. Installation of raft 1249 361
7. Loading of raft 15686 4537
8. Groundwater drawdown 18599 5379
9. Groundwater rise 15686 4537
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
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 finite-element analysis. The maxi-
mum load amounts to Peff 1860 MN for the simulation of
the groundwater drawdown and to Peff 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
309
to 174 mm, whereas the last documented measurement (De-
cember 1998) gives a value of 144 mm. For the piled raft
coefficient the finite-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 coefficient 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 coefficients from the finite-
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
profiles 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 profiles is
achieved, whereas the finite-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 (Lp 30:9 m) for two different load levels.

sz settlement at the depth z under the raft TP1 TP2 TP3

s3 settlement at extensometer head TP3

20 40 60 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0

20 20 20
sz/s3: %

40 40 40

TP1; TP2 TP3

60 60 60
Measurement (26.07.1991)
Finite-element analysis
80 80 80
z: m z: m z: m

Fig. 5. Messeturm: settlement profile. Measurements after Sommer & Hoffmann (1991b)
and finite-element analysis

Middle pile ring: Lp 30.9 m

0 5 10 15 20 0 100 0 100 200
0
Q pile load

5 qs shaft friction
5
z depth below pile head

10 10
Measurement (12.11.1988)
qs: kPa
Q: MN

15 Measurement (17.12.1998)
15
FEA (after installation of the raft)

20 20 FEA (after groundwater rise)

25 25

30 30
z: m z: m

Fig. 6. Messeturm: pile load and shaft friction distribution along the pile shaft. Measurement and finite-element analysis
310
The measured and calculated pile loads and shaft frictions
are related to the stage after the final excavation. The meas-
urements as well as the finite-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 finite-
element analysis.
REUL AND RANDOLPH
TORHAUS DER MESSE
Constructed between 1983 and 1986, the 130 m high
Torhaus was the first 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 m 3 24:5 m large rafts. The distance be-
tween the two rafts is 10 m. As the building has no under-

130 m

Pile 2 Pile 3

Instrumented piles
100 m
Contact pressure cells
Pile 1 Pile 4
Multi-point borehole TP3
extensometers TP1
Pile 6 Pile 5
Section of the raft
modelled with
finite elements TP2

Symmetry axis

17.5 m
3 m
Quarternary layers

Frankfurt clay
23 m

24.5 m
(a) (b)

84.25 m

Piled raft

ers
ry lay
terna
Quar

110 m

clay
kfurt
Fran

90 m

74 m

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Torhaus: (a) profile view of the building; (b) ground plan of raft; (c) finite-element mesh of system; (d) finite-
element mesh of piled raft
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
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 influence 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 finite-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 finite-
element mesh has a depth of 110 m, of which the first 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 finite-element analysis is summarised in Table 6. The
maximum load of Peff 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
311
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 finite-
element analysis gives a value of 96 mm. The computed
settlement coefficients 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
profile 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 finite-
element analysis show a significant 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
profile 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 finally to the

Table 6. Torhaus: step-by-step analysis of the construction process in the finite-element

analyses
Step Applied load, Mean vertical effective
Peff : MN stress at foundation
level,  v9 : kPa
1. In situ stress state 450
2. Excavation to depth of 3 m below ground 0
level
3. Installation of piles 0
4. Application of weight of raft as uniform 268 625
load on subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)
5. Installation of raft 268 625
6. Loading of raft 200 4665

TP1 TP3

20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
0 0

20 20

TP1 TP3 40 40
sz/s1: %

sz/s1: %

Measurement (February 1986)

Finite-element analysis (piled raft) 60 60

Finite-element analysis (unpiled raft)

sz settlement at the depth z under the raft

80 80
s1 settlement at extensometer head TP1

100 100

z: m z: m

Fig. 8. Torhaus: settlement profile. Measurements after Sommer (1991) and finite-element analysis
312 REUL AND RANDOLPH
Pile load, Pp: MN
I Pile 6 Pile 1 Pile 2 I 4
II Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 3 II
Measurement (February 1986)
Finite-element analysis
Pile load, Pp: MN
Fig. 9. Torhaus: pile load. Measurements after Sommer (1991) and finite-element analysis
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 coefficient of
pr 0:67 can be derived, whereas the finite-element analy-
sis yields pr 0:76.
Figure 10 shows the coefficients for maximum and differ-
ential settlement, s and s, and the piled raft coefficient,
pr , depending on the total pile length, nLp , for the real pile
configuration and two modified pile configurations. For the
modified pile configurations A and B, the number of piles
has been reduced to n 60 and n 40 respectively. The
pile length has been varied between Lp 20 m and
Lp 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 modified pile
configurations.
For the real pile configuration with a total pile length of
1680 m a coefficient for the maximum settlement of
s 0:51 is achieved. The same value can be attained with
a significantly smaller total pile length for a modified pile
configuration with longer piles (Fig. 10(a)). For pile config-
uration A the total pile length amounts to nLp 1389 m
Cross-section I
7
1
0
Pile 6 Pile 1 Pile 2
Cross-section II
7
6
5
0
Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 3
(Lp 23:1 m), and for pile configuration B the total pile
length amounts to nLp 1100 m (Lp 27:5 m).
Moreover, for pile configuration A (Lp 23:1 m) the
coefficient for the differential settlement yields only
s 0:16 compared with s 0:50 for the real pile con-
figuration (Fig. 10(b)). Pile configuration 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 configurations, the piled raft
coefficient increases with increasing total pile length from
pr 0:52 (pile configuration B, Lp 20 m) to pr 0:76
for the real pile configuration (Fig. 10(c)). Comparison
with the coefficient 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, coefficients of maximum settlements and
piled raft coefficients achieved from the finite-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 finite-
element analyses and measurements is obtained. The finite-
element analyses show that, owing to the installation of the
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 313

1.0 Modified pile configuration A:

Number of piles: n 60
0.8 Pile length: Lp 20.027.5 m
Pile diameter: Dp 0.9 m

0.6
s

0.4

0.2

0.0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
n.Lp: m
(a)

0.6
Modified pile configuration B:

Number of piles: n 40
Pile length: Lp 20.027.5 m
0.4
Pile diameter: Dp 0.9 m

0.2
s

0.0

2.0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
n.Lp: m
(b)

1.0
Real pile configuration

Pile configuration A
0.8

Pile configuration B
0.6
pr

s settlement reduction coefficient

for the maximum settlement
0.4
s settlement reduction coefficient
for the differential settlement
pr piled raft coefficient
0.2 n.Lp total pile length

0.0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
n.Lp: m
(c)

Fig. 10. Torhaus: coefficient for maximum and differential settlement and piled raft coefficient depending on the total
pile length

Table 7. Piled rafts in Frankfurt clay: measurements (M) and finite-element analyses (FEA)
Building scentre : 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.
314 REUL AND RANDOLPH
piles, the maximum settlements of the foundation can be
reduced to 5163% of those of the equivalent unpiled raft.
The calculated piled raft coefficients 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 finite
element analysis.
For the example of the Torhaus the same maximum
settlement has been achieved with a modified pile configura-
tion and a significantly 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 first 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 first
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
influence 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 field 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 influence of finite
element mesh refinement 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.
 PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 315
Sommer, H. & Hoffmann, H. (1991b). Last-Verformungsverhalten der Baugrundtagung 1990 in Karlsruhe, pp. 371380. Essen:
der Grundung des Messeturmes Frankfurt/Main. Festkolloquium DGGT.
20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. Sommer und Part- Sommer, H., Tamaro, G. & DeBeneditis, C. (1991). Messe Turm,
ner, pp. 6371. foundations for the tallest building in Europe. Proc. 4th Int.
Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1984). Zum Tragverhalten Conf. Piling and Deep Foundations, 139145.
von Pfahlen im steifplastischen Tertiarton. Vortrage der Bau- Ta, L. D. & Small, J. C. (1996). Analysis of piled raft systems
grundtagung 1982 in Dusseldorf, pp. 501531. Essen: DGEG. in layered soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 20,
Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1985). Piled raft foundation 5772.
of a tall building in Frankfurt clay. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1990). Unterschiedliche Konzepte fur
Mech. Found. Engng, San Francisco 4, 22532257. die Grundung und Baugrube von zwei Hochhausern in der
Sommer, H., Katzenbach, R. & DeBeneditis, C. (1990). Last- Frankfurter Innenstadt. Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1990 in
Verformungsverhalten des Messeturmes Frankfurt/Main. Vortrage Karlsruhe, pp. 381397. Essen: DGEG.