Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The load distribution and deformation of piled raft foundations subjected to axial and lateral loads were
Received 1 February 2013 investigated by a numerical analysis and field case studies. Special attention is given to the improved ana-
Received in revised form 5 February 2014 lytical method (YSPR) proposed by considering raft flexibility and soil nonlinearity. A load transfer
Accepted 25 February 2014
approach using p–y, t–z and q–z curves is used for the analysis of piles. An analytical method of the
Available online 28 March 2014
soil–structure interaction is developed by taking into account the soil spring coupling effects based on
the Filonenko-Borodich model. The proposed method has been verified by comparing the results with
Keywords:
other numerical methods and field case studies on piled raft. Through comparative studies, it is found
Piled raft
Soil–structure interaction
that the proposed method in the present study is in good agreement with general trend observed by field
Numerical analysis measurements and, thus, represents a significant improvement in the prediction of piled raft load sharing
Field measurement and settlement behavior.
Load transfer approach Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.02.009
0266-352X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126 113
numerical approach of the piled raft system is computationally to examine the validity of the proposed method, the analysis re-
expensive and requires extensive training because of the three- sults are compared with the available solutions from previous re-
dimensional and nonlinear nature of the problem. Therefore, a fi- searches. In the field case study, comparative analyses between
nite element analysis is more suitable for obtaining benchmark YSPR and a field measurement data are carried out for the pile load
solutions against which to compare simpler analysis methods, or and settlement behavior.
for obtaining solutions of a detailed analysis for the final design
of a foundation, rather than as a preliminary routine design tool
[15]. 2. Method of analysis
In this study, an improved analytical method (YSPR) for the de-
sign of piled raft has been proposed to overcome some limitations 2.1. Modeling of flexible raft
of the existing methods. It is intermediate in complexity and theo-
retical accuracy between the second and third type of method. In Finite element techniques have often been used for the analysis
the present method, a numerical technique is used to combine of raft by different researchers such as Clancy and Randolph [5],
the soil and pile head stiffness with the stiffness of the raft. In order Zhang and Small [49], Kitiyodom and Matsumoto [14]. According
114 S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126
to the former methods [5,49], the raft can be treated as a plate and action, therefore it can be considered separately. For the bending
the soil can be treated as a series of interactive springs by using a action, the displacement field for an individual element can be de-
Mindlin’s solutions [22], in which the contact pressure at any point scribed in terms of the vertical nodal displacement and the rota-
on the base of the raft is proportional to the deformation of the soil tions about the x and y axes. For the membrane action, the
at that point or as an elastic half-space in which the behavior of the displacement field can be described in terms of the nodal displace-
soil can be obtained from a number of closed-form solutions. In the ments in the x and y directions.
later method, the raft is modeled as thin plates and the piles as
elastic beams and the soil is treated as interactive springs [14]. 2.2. Modeling of single and pile groups
The interactions between structural members are made by the
use of Mindlin’s solutions. The primary limitation of these methods In this study, piles are treated as beam-column elements. The
is that the membrane behavior of the flexible raft cannot be con- behavior of soil surrounding the individual piles is represented
sidered because the nodal displacements (in the x- and y-direction) by load–transfer curves (t–z, q–z, and p–y curves), and the interac-
for the membrane action are not included. This limitation can be tion between piles is represented by p-multiplier (fm) and group
overcome by using a flat-shell element. An improved four-node efficiency factor (Ge). The load–deformation relationship of individ-
flat-shell element proposed by the authors [48], which combines ual pile heads may be derived by a single pile analysis based on
a Mindlin’s plate element and a membrane element with torsional beam-column method. In this method, a pile member is described
degrees of freedom, is adopted in this study. The flat-shell element as a series of beam column elements with discrete springs to rep-
can be subjected to the membrane and bending actions that are resent the soil support condition as shown in Fig. 2. The governing
shown in Fig. 1. The displacement due to the membrane action is differential equations for the axially loaded and laterally loaded
considered independent of the displacement due to the bending pile can be expressed as:
S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126 115
2
P d w
Axially loaded pile : EA 2
Cbz w ¼ 0 ð1Þ
Iteration dz
2 2’
P2
Load increment
4 2
d y d y
(k t) 2
Laterally loaded pile : EI 4
þQ 2
þ q Ksy ¼ 0 ð2Þ
ΔP2 dz dz
(k s) 2
P1 1 where EA, EI are the axial stiffness and the flexural rigidity the pile,
1’ w is the vertical deflection of the pile at point z, bz is the stiffness/
(kt) i : tangential slope
(k t) 1 circumference for the axial reaction represented by the modulus
(ks) i : secant slope ΔP1
of the soil-response (t–z or q–z or both), which depends on the
depth z and pile movement w, and C is circumference of the pile
0 at point z. Q is the axial load on the pile, q is the distributed load
u1 u’1 u2 u’2 u
along the length of the pile, and KS is the stiffness for the lateral soil
(a) reaction represented by the modulus of the soil-response (p–y)
curve.
(k i) j : i = load increment j=1 : tangential stiffness In the next step, finite difference technique is used to solve the
j = Iteration number j>1 : secant stiffness
Fu
differential equations governing the compatibility between the pile
displacement and the load transfer along a pile. These techniques
(k i) 1
are generally based on load tests on full-scale and parametric finite
f((u i) i) element analyses of pile–soil interactions, which are represented
Fu=f(u ) by load–transfer curves (t–z, q–z, and p–y curves).
(ki) j
f((u) i- 1)
2.3. Soil–structure interaction
Δuj
The load-bearing behavior of a piled raft is characterized by
complex soil–structure interaction between the piles, raft and the
subsoil, as shown in Fig. 3 [13]. The present method makes use
(u) i- 1 (ui) j u of pile–soil–pile and raft–soil–pile interaction to simulate the real
0
(b) piled raft–soil response under lateral and vertical loadings. Addi-
tionally, for the raft–soil–raft interaction, this study uses a semi-
Fig. 5. Increment secant modulus method [48]. (a) Concept of increment secant empirical parameters proposed by many researcher [7,39,40] as
modulus method. (b) Estimating stiffness at ith load increment. the modulus of soil reaction below the raft. The use of these
parameters as assumed in the derivation procedure, may be a lim-
itation. However, these interactions are incorporated in a calcula-
tion procedure that is computationally very efficient.
Piles in such groups interact with one another through the sur- concerning the efficiency of the piles in a group is derived by many
rounding soil, resulting in the pile–soil–pile interactions. In this researchers [11,21,41]. In this study, load–transfer curves in side
study, a set of nonlinear p–y curves which can be modified by resistance (t–z curve) and in end bearing resistance (q–w curve)
reducing all of the p-values on each curve by a p-multiplier (fm) which can be modified by reducing all of the t- and q-values on
are used as input to study the behavior of the laterally loaded piles. each curve by a group efficiency factor (Ge) are used as input to
The p-multiplier can be calculated for each pile in the group study the behavior of the vertically loaded piles.
[3,6,19]. For each pile i in the group, the p-multiplier can be ex- In classical solution, the Winkler model [46] is used for analyz-
pressed as: ing raft foundation. However, the Winkler model could not predict
fmi ¼ b1i b2i b3i bji ð3Þ accurately the displacement of some solids, e.g. soil. The Winkler
model ignores the important interaction existing between adjacent
where bji is the p-reduction factor due to the effect of pile j on pile i. points in the soil continuum. In other words, the soil springs are
In a group of closely-spaced piles, the axial capacity of group is considered as isolated foundation elements. In order to overcome
also dominated by variation in settlement behavior of individual a limitation, much work has been performed to propose some
piles due to pile–soil–pile interaction. The most reliable data improved or refined models [8,10,27,43]. For the raft–soil–pile
S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126 117
where Bb is the bending strain matrix and Bs is the shear strain ma-
trix. For an isotropic material, Db and Ds are given as follows:
2 3
3
1 m 0
Et 6 7
Db ¼ 4m 1 5 0 ð6aÞ
12ð1 m2 Þ
0 0 ð1 mÞ=2
WEt 1 0 5
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of vertical and lateral loaded piled raft. (a) Pile Ds ¼ ; W¼ ð6bÞ
configuration. (b) Section-view. 2ð1 þ mÞ 0 1 6
where E is Young’s modulus, m is Poisson’s ratio, and t is constant
interaction, in this study a membrane-spring system originally
thickness of the plate. On the other hand, the stiffness matrix of a
proposed by Filonenko-Borodich [8] was incorporated to involve
membrane element Kmembrane is represented in the following form:
the soil spring-coupling effects. This system can provide a mechan-
Z
ical interaction between the individual soil spring and pile 1 T
K membrane ¼ ½Bm GRT C ½Bm GRdV þ hh ð7aÞ
elements by using the flat-shell element. As shown in Fig. 4, the v cV
IwV
CsH
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2
0
0
2
2
Depth from G.L.(m)
6 6
8 PRAB PRAB
8
FEM (K&M, 2003) FEM (K&M, 2003)
PLAXIS 3D PLAXIS 3D
YSPR YSPR
10 10
(a) (c)
IuH CbH
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2
0 0
2 2
Depth from G.L.(m)
4 4
6 6
PRAB 8 PRAB
8
FEM (K&M, 2003) FEM (K&M, 2003)
PLAXIS 3D PLAXIS 3D
YSPR YSPR
10 10
(b) (d)
Fig. 10. Comparison of analysis result for piled raft: (a) Settlement and (b) lateral displacement, (c) shear force; and (d) bending moment.
Z
g dV; T for pile groups can be formed by sum of n single pile stiffness ma-
h¼ ½bg b ð7bÞ
v trix (Eq. (10)).
2 3
E K 11 0 0 0 K 15 0
c¼ ð7cÞ 6 0 K 22 0 K 24 0 0 7
2ð1 þ mÞ 6 7
6 7
6 0 0 K 33 0 0 0 7
where C is the constitutive modulus, c is taken as the shear modu- K pile ¼6
6 0
7 ð8Þ
6 K 42 0 K 44 0 0 7
7
lus. Bm, G, R are the strain matrices representing the relationship be- 6 7
4 K 51 0 0 0 K 55 0 5
tween the displacements (the membrane displacement, the
rotation, and midside incompatible displacement respectively) 0 0 0 0 0 K 66 i
and the strains. b, g, b, and g are also the strain matrices for the
infinitesimal rotation fields. ½KpileðiÞ fdgi ¼ fF i g ð9Þ
The pile head stiffness (K11 K66) is assumed to be constant
within each load increment and each iteration and then superposi-
X
n
tion can be applied in order to develop a pile head stiffness matrix K pilegroups ¼ ½K pileðiÞ ð10Þ
(Eq. (8)) in individual piles. Using load–displacement relationships i¼1
representing pile behaviors according to pile head movements
[34], the relationship between the nodal force and nodal displace- where [K]pile(i) is an individual pile head stiffness matrix, {di} a dis-
ments can be expressed in Eq. (9). In addition, the stiffness matrix placement or rotation, and {Fi} force or moment at the ith pile head.
S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126 119
15 mm 15 mm
600 mm 600 mm
Sand Sand
Pile Pile
Rock Rock
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Test pile group configurations [4] (a) 2 2 pile groups (b) 3 3 pile groups.
A component (K11 K66) of pile head stiffness matrix is changed at The procedure for nonlinear solution in this study includes the
each load increment and iteration stage. following step. In total, 10 (ten) load–displacement curves (axial 1;
The soil support at various nodes of raft foundation is simulated lateral 8; torsional 1) are estimated per each pile head. Fig. 5(b)
by a series of equivalent and independent springs in three direc- shows the estimation method of stiffness at an ith load increment.
tions (x, y and z directions). The spring behavior can be linear or In this method, external forces are first divided by N (number of
nonlinear. In linear case, soil behavior is defined by soil stiffness load increment). The stiffness at ith load increment and jth itera-
(K11 K33) which is assumed to be constant within each load tion is represented (ki)j. In each load increment, tangential slope
increment and each iteration. The soil reactions at any point can is adopted at first iteration (j = 1) and the secant modulus at j > 1
be expressed as for the stiffness of pile head, which is expressed as Eqs. (14) and
2 38 9 8 9 (15), respectively.
k11 0 0 0 0 0 > du > > Fu >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
6 07 > dv > > Fv >
6 0 k22 0 0 0 7>> >
> >
> >
>
6 7>>
<
>
>
=
>
>
<
>
> df ðuÞ
6 0 0 k33 0 0 0 7 dw Fw = ðki Þj ¼ ðj ¼ 1Þ ð14Þ
6 7 ¼ ð11Þ du u¼ðuÞi1
6 07
6 0 0 0 0 0 7>> >
> au >
>
> Mu >
>
> >
>
6 7> > > >
4 0 0 0 0 0 05 >>
> a
> ;v
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M v
>
>
>
>
: : ;
0 0 0 0 0 0 i aw i Mw i f ððui Þj Þ f ððuÞi1 Þ
ðki Þj ¼ ðj > 1Þ ð15Þ
ðui Þj ðuÞi1
½KsoilðiÞ fdgi ¼ fF i g ð12Þ
Fig. 12. Lateral load–displacement curves at pile head. (a) 2 2 pile groups. (b)
3 3 pile groups.
B
C bH ¼ ð20Þ
qx DBr Lr
Table 1
Material parameters used for this study (case studies).
Fig. 13. Field test of piled raft [16]. (a) Plan-view and (b) section-view.
Table 2
Load (MN)
Properties used for estimating load transfer curves (Japan case).
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Contents Sandy silt Silty
clay 0
t–z, q–z curves [39] Ultimate skin friction, s 40 40
(kPa)
Initial shear modulus, Gi 5000 5769
(kPa)
10
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.3 0.3
Settlement (mm)
where w, u are the settlement and lateral displacement at the pile 40 Measured (K&I, 1967)
head, qz and qx are uniform vertical and lateral load, the breadth, Calculated (R & E, 2006)
Br and length, Lr, S and B are the shear force and the bending mo- YSPR
ment along the pile. PLAXIS 3D
50
The calculated results of the proposed analysis method closely
approach the computed data from the other numerical methods. Fig. 14. Computed and measured response of piled raft settlement.
It should be noted that the present method provides a very satisfac-
tory prediction of the shear force and the bending moment in indi-
Jeong [4], a series of small scale model tests were carried out to
vidual piles, when the flexibility of the raft is considered by using
study the behavior of pile groups subjected to lateral loadings on
the combination of the membrane and bending actions. Although
sand. The test soil used in this study was: the unit weight
a reasonably good agreement between the proposed and the exist-
15.3 kN/m3, cohesion 0 kN/m2 and drained friction angle 37°. The
ing methods was obtained, the proposed method has a larger settle-
model piles made from PVC tubes were 0.6 m in embedded length,
ment those of the existing methods at the same load. Conclusively,
22 mm in diameter and 2.5 mm wall thickness and 28,265 kN m2
it is thought that YSPR can be used with some confidence in the pre-
flexural rigidity(EI). Fig. 11 shows an idealization of the subsurface
liminary design of axially and laterally loaded piled raft.
profile and pile embedment for test piles.
Using present method the behavior of pile groups are predicted
3.2. Chung and Jeong [4] with different group configurations and different center-to-center
pile spacing: 2.5D, 5.0D, and 7.0D. Back-fitted hyperbolic p–y
In this section, the verification of lateral response of the present curves that are calculated at 5, 10, and 20 cm along the pile depth
method against laboratory load test is discussed. By Chung and in model test of single pile are implemented. Initial tangent
Table 3
Calculated stiffness of single pile and piled raft (Japan case).
K11 (kN/m) K22 (kN/m) K33 (kN/m) K44 (kN/rad) K55 (kN/rad) K66 (kN/rad)
Single pile 0.4052E+02 0.4052E+02 0.3877E+05 0.3434E+03 0.3434E+03 0
Piled raft (w/o Ge) 0.2735E+05 0.2735E+05 0.3453E+06 0.2730E+06 0.2730E+06 0
Piled raft (w/Ge) 0.2735E+05 0.2735E+05 0.2492E+06 0.2208E+06 0.2208E+06 0
122 S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126
Fig. 15. Torhaus Der Messe: (a) profile view and (b) configuration of pile. stiffnesses (Ks) of the p–y curves at the depths of 0.05, 0.1, and
0.2 m are 11, 14.3, and 50 kN/m2, respectively. Also ultimate capac-
ities (Pu) of the p–y curves at the same depths are 0.0011, 0.0033,
Table 4 and 0.0033 kN/m, respectively.
Properties used for estimating load transfer curves (Germany case). To consider the detailed group effect, p-multipliers calculated
Contents Quaternary Frankfurt
from the Chung’s experiment are implemented. For the 2 2
silt clay group, p-multipliers are 0.86 for lead row and 0.45 for trail row
at 2.5D pile spacing; 0.95 for lead row and 0.67 for trail row at
t–z, q–z curves [39] Ultimate skin friction, sf 143 91.6
(kPa) 5.0D; 1.0, 0.83 for lead, trail row at 7.5D. For the 3 3 group,
Initial shear modulus, Gi 30,000 20,434 p-multipliers are 0.8, 0.3 and 0.4 for lead, middle, and trail rows
(kPa) at 2.5D pile spacing; 0.93, 0.48, and 0.6 at 5.0D pile spacing.
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.25 0.15
Fig. 12 shows the predicted and observed lateral load–settle-
Ultimate bearing – 90
capacity, Qf (kN)
ment curves. The analysis of pile groups was performed for a fixed
p–y curves [24,33] Internal friction angle (°) 32.5 20 head condition and spacing-to-diameter ratios varying from 2.5 to
Unit weights (kN/m3) 18 19 7.5. The present method considering pile–soil–pile interaction rel-
p–y modulus, k (kN/m3) 16,300 136,000 atively well predicts the general trend of the measured lateral
Subgrade reaction Kx, Ky (kN/m3) 16,300 136,000
loads for the pile groups studied if the measured deflections are
modulus Kz (kN/m3) 294,000 –
relatively small (say less than 15 mm).
Table 5
Calculated stiffness of single pile and piled raft (Germany case).
K11 (kN/m) K22 (kN/m) K33 (kN/m) K44 (kN/rad) K55 (kN/rad) K66 (kN/rad)
Single pile 0.3979E+03 0.3979E+03 0.3020E+06 0.4482E+05 0.4482E+05 0
Piled raft (w/o Ge) 0.1118E+08 0.1138E+08 0.1300E+08 0.2583E+09 0.2115E+09 0
Piled raft (w/Ge) 0.1117E+08 0.1137E+08 0.1242E+08 0.2548E+09 0.2078E+09 0
S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126 123
Load (MN) predicted the general trend of the measured values reasonably
well. However, the calculated results by Roberto and Enrico [36]
0 50 100 150 200 250
have a relatively smaller settlement as the applied load increased
0 than the results of the proposed solution. This clearly demonstrates
PLAXIS 3D that for analysis result, YSPR gives more flexible results for nonlin-
YSPR (w/o Ge) ear behavior of soil, because the Roberto and Enrico [36] use soil
20
YSPR (w/ Ge) flexibility matrix(based on linear elastic analysis of pile groups)
Measured for soil–pile interaction and the proposed method does so using
40 settlement nonlinear load transfer curves and solution algorithm. These dis-
Settlement (mm)
Fig. 18. Preliminary design case of large piled raft: (a) plan view and (b) profile view.
design prediction. Despite the approximate assumptions involved represent the stiffness of the ground. A schematic diagram of a raft
(i.e., loading condition, construction process, consolidation of clay), foundation with piles is shown in Fig. 18(b). This structure consists
the present method when used in nonlinear analysis is useful for of a raft, and 112 of ground strengthen piles. The piles have an
predicting the settlement behavior of a piled raft foundation taking embedded length of 30 m, a diameter of 1.0 m. A large raft size
account of soil nonlinearity, the flexibility of the large raft, and the 71.7 71.7 m with a thickness of 6.0 m is resting on a banded
pile arrangement. The time taken for the computer to run this case gneiss. The raft and ground strengthen piles, with a Young’s mod-
saves 115 min of computer time, and is about 24 times faster than ulus of 30 GPa and 28 GPa respectively, is subjected to a vertical
the 3D FE analysis. For large problems this computational saving load (Ptotal = 6,701 MN).
can be very significant. Fig. 19(a–d) shows the raft settlement at different sections pre-
dicted by GSRaft [26] and YSPR. Agreement between the GSRaft
4.3. Korea case and YSPR of settlement is generally good; however there is a slight
difference in prediction of settlement in the faulting zone where
As shown in Fig. 18, preliminary design case of a piled raft (OO the sudden drop of the magnitudes were occurred. This can be
super tower) conducted at high-rise building construction sites in attributed to the inappropriate assumption of material properties
Korea were representatively selected for the design application. due to no accurate ground investigation data on this section. The
The construction site is comprised mainly of normally banded calculated raft settlement has some difference between the
gneiss, brecciated gneiss and fault core zones. Based on the results proposed method and the existing solution, based on the same
of pressure meter, Goodman Jack and plate load tests carried out in analysis conditions. This is because the conceptual methodology
the field, a nonlinear elastic modulus design line is established to of the present method is completely different from that of general
S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126 125
Fig. 19. Raft settlement distribution: (a) section 1, (b) section 2, (c) section 3; (d) section 4.
structural models. The raft is modeled as a grillage and the piles are representation of the settlement and load sharing behavior of
treated as bar element with axial stiffness only in GSRaft while piled raft foundation. It provides results that are in good agree-
YSPR is adopted flat-shell element and 6 6 pile head stiffness. ment with the field measurement and numerical analyses.
Although there are no measured profiles of raft settlement, the 2. Proposed analytical method produces a considerably larger set-
proposed analysis method showed reasonably good correspon- tlement of piled raft than the results obtained by the linear elas-
dence with well-known in-house program. tic analysis. Additionally, the analytical method is intermediate
in theoretical accuracy between general three-dimensional FE
5. Conclusions analysis and the linear elastic numerical method. The settle-
ment of piled raft obtained by the present method is similar
The primary objective of this study was to propose an improved to that obtained by the PLAXIS 3D, while it shows smaller val-
analytical method for a pile raft foundations. The conceptual meth- ues than those obtained by existing method based on linear
odology of the proposed method is completely different from that elastic analysis of pile groups.
of general continuum method. A series of analytical studies were 3. From the example case histories, the proposed method is shown
conducted. Through comparisons with case histories, it is clearly to be capable of predicting the behavior of a large piled raft.
demonstrated that the proposed method was found to be in good Nonlinear load–transfer curve and flat-shell element can over-
agreement with measurement data. From the findings of this come the limitations of existing numerical methods, to some
study, the following conclusions can be drawn: extent, by considering the realistic nonlinear behavior of soil
and membrane action of flexible raft.
1. By taking into account the raft flexibility and soil nonlinearity, 4. Additionally, the comparative studies demonstrated that the
the proposed analytical method is an appropriate and realistic present method, when used in analysis of large scale piled raft,
126 S. Jeong, J. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 59 (2014) 112–126
is useful for computational saving and improving performance [20] Matlock H. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. In: Proc.
Offshore technology conference, OTC 1204; 1970.
in engineering practice.
[21] Meyerhof GG. Ultimate bearing capacity of footing on sand layer overlaying
clay. CGJ 1974;11(2):223–9.
[22] Mindlin RD. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-in-finite solid. Physics
1936;7:195–202.
Acknowledgements [23] O’Neill MW. Group action in offshore piles. In: Proc specialty conference on
geotechnical engineering in offshore practice. ASCE; 1984.
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation [24] O’Neill MW, Dunnavant TW. A study of effect of scale, velocity, and cyclic
degradability on laterally loaded single piles in overconsolidated clay. Rep. No.
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. UHCE 84-7, Dept of Civil Engineering, Univ of Houston, Houston, TX; 1984.
2011-0030040). [25] O’Neill MW, Murchison JM. An evaluation of p–y relationship in sands. A report
to the American Petroleum Institute, PRAC 82-41-1, University of Houston,
Texas; 1983.
References [26] Arup Ove et al. GSRAFT as part of GSA user manual. London: Oasys Ltd.; 1996.
[27] Pasternak PL. On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means
[1] Allen MB, Isaacson EL. Numerical analysis for applied science. John Wiley & of two constants. Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvui
Sons; 1998. Arkhitekture, Moscow; 1954 [in Russian].
[2] Burland JB, Broms BB, De Mello VFB. Behaviour of foundations and structures. [28] PLAXIS 3D Foundation. PLAXIS 3D foundation user manual, version 2.0.
In: State-of-the-Art Rep., Proc., IX Int. conf. of soil mechanics and foundation Brinkgreve, R.B., Swolfs, W.M., PLAXIS Inc.; 2008.
engineering (ICSMFE). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema; 1977. p. [29] Poulos HG. Analysis of piled strip foundations. In: Proceedings of conference
495–546. on computer methods and advances in geomechanics. Rotterdam: Balkema;
[3] Brown DA, Reese LC, O’Neill MW. Cyclic lateral loading of a large-scale pile 1991. p. 183–91.
group. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1987;113(11):1326–43. [30] Poulos HG. An approximate numerical analysis of pile–raft interaction. Int J
[4] Chung SH, Jeong SS. Analysis of pile groups considering pile-cap interaction. Numer Anal Meth Geomech, London 1994;18(2):73–92.
M.S. thesis. Yonsei Univ; 2001. [31] Poulos HG. Piled raft foundations: design and applications. Geotechnique
[5] Clancy P, Randolph MF. An approximate analysis procedure for piled raft 2001;51(2):95–113.
foundations. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1993;17(12):849–69. [32] Randolph MF. Design of piled foundations. Research Report Soils TR143,
[6] Cox WR, Dixon DA, Murphy BS. Lateral load test of 25.4 mm diameter piles in Cambridge: Cambridge University Engineering Department; 1983.
very soft clay in side-by-side and in-line groups. Laterally loaded deep [33] Reese LC, Cox WR. Field testing and analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff
foundations: analysis and performance, ASTM, SPT835; 1984. clay. In: Proc. offshore technology conference, OTC 2312; 1975.
[7] Daloglu AT, Vallabhan CVG. Values of k for slab on Winkler foundation. J [34] Reese LC, O’Neill MW, Smith RE. Generalized analysis of pile foundations. J Soil
Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2000;126(5):463–71. Mech Found Div, ASCE 1970;96(1):235–50.
[8] Filonenko-Borodich M. Some approximate theories of the elastic foundation. [35] Reul O, Randolph MF. Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to nonuniform
Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennoho Universiteta Mekhanica, vertical loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2004;130(1):1–13.
vol. 46; 1940. p. 3–18. [36] Roberto C, Enrico C. Settlement analysis of pile groups in layered soils. Can
[9] Hain SJ, Lee IK. The analysis of flexible raft–pile systems. Geotechnique Geotech J 2006;43:788–801.
1978;28(1):65–83. [37] Russo G. Numerical analysis of piled rafts. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
[10] Hetenyi M. Beams on elastic foundations. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of 1998;22(6):477–93.
Michigan Press; 1946. [38] Sommer H. Entwicklung der Hochhausgru€ndungen in Frankfurt/Main Festkoll
[11] Jeong SS, Kim SI, Briaud JL. Analysis of downdrag on pile groups by finite oquium 20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut. In: Prof. Dr. -Ing. H. Sommer und Partner,
element method. Comput Geotech 1997;21(2):143–61. Germany; 1991. p. 47–62.
[12] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Gutwald J, Holzhauser J, Quick H. Soil–structure [39] Terzaghi K. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique
interaction of the 300-m-high Commerzbank Tower in Frankfurt am Main. 1955;5:297–326.
Measurements and numerical studies. In: Proc, 14th ICSMFE, vol. 2; 1997. p. [40] Vesic AS. Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solid. J Eng Mech Div,
1081–4. ASCE 1961;87:35–53.
[13] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Moormann C. Piled raft foundations projects in [41] Vesic AS. Experiments with instrumented pile groups in sand. Performance of
Germany, design applications of raft foundations. In: Hemsley JA, editor, deep foundation. ASTM, special technical publication; 1969. 444, p. 172–222.
Thomas Telford; 2000. p. 323–92. [42] Viggiani C. Pali come riduttori di cedimento; un esempio. In: Proc., Atti
[14] Kitiyodom P, Matsumoto T. A simplified analysis method for piled raft and pile XIX Convegno Nazionale Geotecnica, 2, Pavia, Italy, Pàtron, Bologna; 1995.
group foundations with batter piles. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech p. 523–6.
2002;26:1349–69. [43] Vlasov VZ, Leontiev UN. Beams, plates, and shells on elastic foundation. Israel
[15] Kitiyodom P, Matsumoto T. A simplified analysis method for piled raft Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem (translated from Russian); 1966.
foundations in non-homogeneous soils. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech [44] Wang ST, Reese LC. COM624P – laterally loaded pile analysis for the
2003;27:85–109. microcomputer.ver. 2.0, FHWA-SA-91-048, Springfield, VA; 1993.
[16] Koizumi Y, Ito K. Field tests with regard to pile driving and bearing capacity of [45] Wang A. Three dimensional finite element analysis of pile groups and piled -
piled foundations. Soils Found 1967;7(3):30–53. raft, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, U.K., 1996.
[17] Lee IK. Analysis and performance of raft and raft–pile foundations in a [46] Winkler E. Die Lehre von der Elasizitat und Festigkeit. Dominicus; 1867.
homogeneous soil. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on case [47] Whitaker T. Experiments with model piles in groups. Geotechnique
history in geotechnical engineering, St Louis (also Research Report R133, 1957;7(4):147–67.
ADFA, University of New South Wales, Australia); 1993. [48] Won JO, Jeong SS, Lee JH, Jang SY. Nonlinear three-dimensional analysis of pile
[18] Lee JH, Kim YH, Jeong SS. Three-dimensional analysis of bearing behavior of group supported columns considering pile cap flexibility. Comput Geotech
piled raft on soft clay. Comput Geotech 2010;37:103–14. 2006;33:355–70.
[19] Lieng JT. Behavior of laterally loaded piles in sand-large scale model test. Ph.D. [49] Zhang HH, Small JC. Analysis of axially and laterally loaded pile groups
thesis, Department of civil engineering, Norwegian institute of technology; embedded in layered soils. In: Proceedings of 8th Australia NewZealand Conf.
1988. on Geomechanics, vol. 1. Hobart; 2000. p. 475–483.