Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475
DOI 10.1007/s12517-016-2494-7
COMMENT
Analysis of piled raft coefficient and load-settlement on sandy soil
A. O. Alshenawy 1 & T. O. Alrefeai 1 & N. M. Alsanabani 1
Received: 13 October 2015 / Accepted: 25 April 2016
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2016
Abstract A piled raft foundation is a combined foundation,
which is developed to utilize the load-carrying capabilities of
both raft and piles. To obtain an optimum piled raft design, it is
important to properly evaluate and consider the load-sharing
behavior between the raft and piles, which changes according
to the settlement level of the piled raft. In this study, 27 three-
dimensional finite element models were analyzed to investigate
the piled raft coefficient with linear and nonlinear load-
settlement behaviors. The length of piles was varied between
10, 15, and 20 m. The spacing between pile centers was varied
between 3D, 5D, and 7D, and the pile diameter was kept con-
stant. The number of piles and the distance between the exterior
piles and the edge of the raft were maintained at 9 and 1 m,
respectively. The sand conditions varied between dense, medi-
um, and loose. The results indicated that the piled raft coefficient
increases when the load-settlement curve is linear and decreases
when the load-settlement curve is nonlinear. The influence of
the incremental increase in pile length on the piled raft coeffi-
cient is more pronounced in short piles than in longer piles. The
raft thickness has a negligible effect on the piled raft coefficient.
Keywords ABAQUS . Piled raft coefficient . Settlement
Introduction
Many projects have used the piled raft design as a solution to
unsatisfactory bearing capacity and excessive settlement. The
* A. O. Alshenawy
shenawi@ksu.edu.sa
1
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
conventional pile foundation design assumes that the entire
applied load is carried only by the piles, with a certain factor
of safety against bearing capacity. For the piled raft founda-
tion, the total load is carried by the raft and the piles—this
allows for a more economical design. For optimum piled raft
design, it is important to properly evaluate and consider the
piled raft coefficient, which is defined as the ratio of the load
carried by the piles to the total load imposed on the piled raft.
The coefficient is affected by the settlement of the raft.
The accurate prediction of the settlement of the piled raft
depends on many factors such as the characteristics of the
surrounding soil and the load level that causes the full capacity
of the piles to be mobilized. The complexity of the soil–
structure interaction arising mainly from its 3D nature de-
mands the application of 3D finite element method (FEM)
for analysis.
The behavior of a piled raft is complex because of the
combined nature of the raft and piles that behave as a unit.
The load-settlement behavior and load capacity of piled rafts
have been studied experimentally and analytically. Poulos
(2001), Burland (1977), and El-Mossallamy et al. (2006) de-
veloped a simplified method to estimate the load carried by the
piles. Based on a nonlinear finite element method, Maharaj
(2004) developed a model to investigate the effect of the raft
size and pile length on the load-settlement behavior. He found
that the load carrying capacity of the raft foundation in-
creased with increasing raft size. Reul and Randolph
(2004) developed design strategies for an optimized piled
raft design. Rabiei (2009) developed a model to investigate
the behavior of a piled raft. He stated that the central and
differential settlement decreases with increasing raft
thickness and a uniform increase in pile length. Lee et al.
(2010) developed a three-dimensional model of a piled raft
and showed that the use of a limited number of piles,
strategically located, might improve both the bearing
475 Page 2 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475

Fig 1 a Side view of finite element mesh. b 3D view of finite element mesh of piled raft and soil system

capacity and settlement performance of the raft. Lee et al.
(2015) developed a load-sharing model to study the behav-
ior of the proportion of the load that is carried by piles in
clayey soil, and they conclude that the proportion de-
creases with increasing settlement.
In this study, the piled raft coefficient was investigated with
the load-settlement relationships (linear and nonlinear), which
depend on pile spacing, pile length, and sand conditions. FEM
is employed by means of the ABAQUS program for analysis.
Twenty-seven models of piled raft were analyzed in varying
sand conditions, pile spacings, pile lengths, and raft thick-
nesses. Finally, the influence of raft thickness, pile spacing,
and pile length on piled raft coefficient is investigated.
mesh was concentrated near the pile and raft, and a coarser mesh
covered the area away from the pile and raft, as shown in Fig. 1.
The material behavior of the sand was modeled with a Mohr–
Coulomb model. The parameters used in the model are the mod-
ulus of elasticity (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν), cohesion (c ≈ 0), fric-
tion angle (∅), and angle of dilatancy (ψ); a drained con-
dition was assumed. To account for the nonlinear soil be-
havior, the soil elements were simulated as an elastoplastic
material with Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, the invari-
ant form of which (Smith and Griffiths 1997) is as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
I1 J2 pffiffiffiffiffiffi
f 1 ¼ sinϕ − sinθsinϕ þ J 2 cosθ − ccosϕ ð1Þ
3 3

where I1 is the first invariant stress; J2 is the second invariant

Finite element modeling
Finite element mesh and boundary conditions
To eliminate the effect of boundary conditions, the dimensions
of the piled raft model (sand, piles, and raft) were considered as
shown in Fig 1. One-half of the mesh was modeled to reduce
cost computations. First-order solid finite hexahedral elements
were used in the analysis (eight-node brick). A relatively finer
stress;∅ is internal friction angle of soil; and θ = 1/
3sin[(−3√3J3) / 2J23/2)], where J3 is the third invariant stress.
The raft and piles were modeled as an isotropic elastic mate-
rial. For the pile–soil contact, the interface elements between
the pile and soil have an effect on the behavior of a vertically
loaded piled raft, and the modeling of the pile–soil interfaces
is an important concern. The modeling element used for the
pile–soil interface is a slip element (Lee et al. 2010, Achmus
et al. 2009, Sinha 2013). The interface elements of zero

Table 1 Characteristics of piles,

raft, and soil in PDR model Size γ E ν Load

Unit m kN/m3 kPa – kN

Pile D = 0.5, L = 10 25 2x107 0.2 Self weight
Raft 6 × 10 × 0.5 25 2x107 0.2 Self weight + Load at middle pile
= 2 Load at edge pile
Soil 60 × 60 × 20 20 20,000 0.3 Self weight
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475 Page 3 of 8 475

20 Load (MN)

18 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0
16

14
0.5
Applied load (MN)

12 GARPS

10 PDR 1

Settlement (cm)
8 GASP

6 FLAC-2D 1.5
4 FLAC-3D

2 Developed Model 2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pile Load test
Settlement (mm) 2.5

Fig 2 Load-settlement predictions of an example of a piled-raft Developed Model

foundation
3

thickness can transfer shear stresses (τ) across their surfaces Fig 3 Load-settlement curve of pile test and model developed
when a compressive normal stress (σ) is developed on them.
To determine the limit shear force Fs at the pile–soil interface δayg ¼ ð2δcenter þ δcorner Þ=3 ð3Þ
during contact, the linear Coulomb shear-strength criterion
was used, as shown in Eq. (2) where δ center = settlement of the top raft center and
  δcorner = settlement of the top raft corner. The stresses obtained
F s ¼ C a A þ F n −Pp A tanϕ2 ð2Þ
at the integration points of the pile elements were used to
analyze the axial pile load. Thus, the axial pile load (Rpile)
where ca is the adhesion between pile and soil, ∅2 is angle of
was calculated from the vertical stress in the pile element
friction between the pile and soil, Fn is the normal force at the
using Eq. (4) (Lee et al. 2010):
pile–soil interface, pp. is the pore pressure, and A is the contact
area associated with the interface node. The type of soil is dry  
Rpile ¼ πD2 =4 σv ð4Þ
sand; therefore, ca and pp. are set to zero. The interface ele-
ments are permitted to separate if tension develops across the where D is the pile diameter and σv is the vertical stress in the
interface and exceeds the limit tension stress of the interface. pile element. In the case of the piles, for the 3D analysis, the
Once gapping is formed between the pile–soil interface, the vertical stress was averaged at the same elevation. The piled
shear and normal forces are set to zero (Comodromos and raft coefficient αpr is the ratio of the sum of all pile loads
Bareka 2005). (∑Rpile) to the total vertical load of the foundation (Rtotal), as
seen in Eq. (5) (Mandolini et al. 2013):
X
Post analysis Rpile
αpr ¼ ð5Þ
Rtotal
The vertical settlements from the 3D FE analyses were used
directly, and the average settlement δavg was calculated by A piled raft coefficient αpr of one represents a freestanding
Eq. (3) (Reul and Randolph 2004): pile group, whereas a αpr of zero describes a raft alone. Thus,
αpr is 0 ≤ αpr ≤ 1 for a piled raft.
Table 2 Summary of geotechnical profile and parameters (Khoury
et al. 2011) Table 3 Geometric properties of piled raft model

Soil γ E c ø ν ψ Depth Pile spacing Number of pile Size of raft (m × m)

Unit kNm3 kPa kPa ° ° m 3D 9 5×5

Fill 17.5 24,000 1 30 0.32 0 3 5D 9 7×7
Glacial Sand 19.5 275,000–375,000 1 40 0.26 10 22 7D 9 9×9
475 Page 4 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475

Verification of numerical model Table 4 Material parameters used in finite element analyses

Parameter Unit Loose Medium Dense Raft Piles

The main aim of this procedure is to obtain a reliable numer- sand sand sand
ical model for the numerical simulation of a piled raft. It is
necessary to begin with the verification process of the model. Es, Er, Ep MPa 20 40 80 30,000 30,000
Typically, engineers conduct verification by comparing data νs, νr, νp – 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
from in situ measurements or prescribed data with computed γ kN/m3 15 17 20 25 25
results of the developed model. In this research, the verifica- K0 – 0.5 0.426 0.357 – –
tion and calibration of the model is based on the back-analysis ø Degree 30 35 40 – –
of the Poulos–Davis–Randolph (PDR) model for a piled raft ψ Degree 0 5 10 – –
and a pile load test for the first tall building in Brooklyn.
piles were considered to be 0.5 m in diameter (D). The raft was
Verification by using PDR model
considered to be 1 m thick and 10, 15, or 20 m in length. The
pile spacing varied between 3D, 5D, and 7D. The dimensions
The PDR model consists of piles and a raft in homogeneous
of a square piled raft are shown in Table 3. In this study, the
soil. The value of the vertical concentrated load P1 at the edge
lateral earth pressure coefficient (K0) for different types of
row of the pile is half that of the vertical concentrated load at
sand is related to the internal friction angle of the soil (∅) as
the center row of pile P2. The number of nodes and elements
K0 = 1 − sin∅ (Das and Sobhan 2013), and the dilatancy angle
in the developed model are 30,846 and 27,336, respectively.
of the soil (ψ) is defined as ψ = ∅ − 30. The concrete material
Poulos (2001) predicted the load-settlement relationship of
properties of the piles and raft and characteristics of the vari-
this piled-raft example using the simple PDR method and
ous sand conditions were adopted Budhu (2008). Table 4
numerical models developed using programs such as FLAC
summarizes the material parameters used in the analyses.
3D, FLAC 2D, GARP5, and GASP. The model geometry and
For an applied vertical concentrated loading (P), Poulos
material properties are listed in Table 1. The results indicate a
(2001) noted that a concentrated loading may be adequate
reasonably good agreement between the load-settlement curve
for the preliminary design stage but not for considering a more
of the developed model in ABAQUS and the load-settlement
detailed design. Hence, in this study, a uniformly distributed
curves of the same models that were developed with previous
vertical load is progressively applied on the raft, in increments
programs, as shown in Fig 2.
of 200 up to 800 kPa.
In the initial conditions stage, bulk unit weights (γ) were
Verification by using pile load test
used to calculate the initial stress of the soil. The first step was
the initialization of geostatic stresses in the soil mass by acti-
The pile load test that was carried out by Khoury et al. (2011)
vating the soil weight. This procedure, called geostatic bal-
was modeled for verification. The pile of 0.35 m in diameter
ance, was conducted as the first step. The second step is the
and 12 m in length is constructed in the soil with parameters
shown in Table 2. The pile was loaded up to 2.85 MN. The
pile concrete was treated as a linear elastic model with a 900
Young’s modulus of Ec = 2 × 107 kPa, Poisson’s ratio of
800
νc = 0.15, and unit weight of γ = 25 kN/m3. Loading was
incrementally increased in steps of 0.5 MN. The pile was 700
modeled with linear hexahedral elements of type continu-
600
um, 3D, 8-node, reduced integration (C3D8R) ABAQUS
qv (kN/m2)

(2011). The type of soil is glacial sand, which is modeled 500

as an elastoplastic Mohr–Coulomb model. Figure 3 shows Loose
400 Medium
good agreement between the developed model and the re-
Dense
sults of the pile load test. With in situ measurements of the 300
load-settlement, the developed model gives more settle-
200
ment than does the pile load test.
100

0
Type of analysis 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
δave (m)
A series of numerical analyses on piled rafts were conducted Fig 4 Stiffness of piled raft for three conditions of sand (L = 15 m,
at different pile lengths (L) and several pile spacings (S). The S = 5D)
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475 Page 5 of 8 475

Table 5 Classification of load-

settlement behavior of xpiled raft Loose sand Medium sand Dense sand

S = 3D S = 5D S = 7D S = 3D S = 5D S = 7D S = 3D S = 5D S = 7D
L = 10 m 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
L = 15 m 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2
L = 20 m 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

1 = linear relation, 2 = linear then nonlinear relation, and 3 = nonlinear relation

installation of the pile and raft, where the soil elements located
at the pile position were removed and replaced by a pile body
(Achmus et al. 2009). The interface elements were activated.
Then, the steps involving the application of vertical load to the
piled rafts were carried out.
Results and discussion
Relationship between load-settlement and piled raft
coefficient
Generally, the stiffness of a piled raft on dense sand is higher
than that on medium and loose sand for the same pile length
and spacing, as shown in Fig 4. The outputs of the three-
dimensional analyses of the piled rafts can be summarized into
three categories based on the load-settlement relation: linear
relation (first category), both linear and nonlinear relation
(second category), and nonlinear relation (third category).
The classification models are presented in Table 5.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the relation between the load-
settlement and the load-piled raft coefficient.
In the first category, where the piled raft is in the elastic
region, the piled raft coefficient increased with increasing ap-
plied load, or increasing average settlement of the piled raft, as
shown in Fig. 5. The relation between load-settlement and the
load-piled raft coefficient for the second category is shown in
Fig. 6. The load-settlement curve consists of two parts: linear
and nonlinear. With increasing applied load, the piled raft
coefficient increases in the linear part and starts decreasing
in the nonlinear part as shown in Fig. 6. Figure 7 shows the
load-settlement and the load-piled raft coefficient for the third
category, where the load-settlement is nonlinear, and piled raft
coefficient tended to decrease with increasing total applied
load. The relationship between the piled raft coefficient and
the total applied load was studied for several lengths and spac-
ing of piles in loose sand. The results, shown in Fig. 8, are for
piled raft coefficients with loading for different pile spacings
and lengths on loose sand, where the curves of αpr decrease or
increase with loading. Therefore, the sand condition is not the
dominant factor affecting the piled raft coefficient.
From Figs. 5 and 6, it can be seen that the dimensions of the
piled raft are the same and the surrounding soil is dense and
loose sand, respectively. However, the piled raft coefficient of
the piled raft constructed in dense sand is less than that on the
loose sand. To illustrate this, the three piled raft models on
different sand conditions were compared for constant pile
spacing and length. The piled raft coefficient in loose sand is
higher than that in medium and dense sand as shown in Fig. 9.
This is because the stiffness of the subsoil underneath the raft

qv (kN/m2)
qv (kN/m2)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 77 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 89.5
0.05 76.5
0.05 89
0.1 76
0.1
75.5 88.5
0.15
0.15
75 88
δave (m)

0.2
δave (m)

αpr (%)

α pr (%)

0.2
74.5 87.5
0.25 0.25
74
87
0.3 0.3
73.5
0.35 86.5
73 0.35
Load-Settlement Load-Settlemnet
0.4 72.5 0.4 86
Load-αpr
Load-αpr
0.45 72 0.45 85.5
Fig 5 Load-settlement and piled raft coefficient in dense sand (L = 20 m, Fig 6 Load-settlement and piled raft coefficient in loose sand (L = 20 m,
S = 5D S = 5D)
 475 Page 6 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475

qv (kN/m2) 95
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 78 90
0.05 Load-Settlement
76
85
0.1 Load-αpr
74
0.15 80

αpr (%)
δave (m)

72

α pr (%)
0.2
0.25 70
0.3
68
0.35
66
0.4
0.45 64
Fig 7 Load-settlement and piled raft coefficient in loose sand (L = 10 m,
S = 5D)
constructed in dense sand carries a greater load than that in
medium and loose sand. Lee et al. (2015) reported that as the
settlement level increases, the proportion of the load carried
by the piles decreases due to the contribution of the raft. Lee
et al. (2015) conducted their studies on soft clay and the load-
settlement of the piled raft was nonlinear. It is shown that the
piled raft coefficient depends on the load-settlement behavior.
The piled raft coefficient increases when the load-settlement
curve is linear and decreases when it is nonlinear.
Effect of spacing and length of pile on piled raft coefficient
The effect of pile spacing on the piled raft coefficient was
studied, and it was found that the piled raft coefficient
decreases with increasing pile spacing, as shown in Fig. 10.
75
70 Loose Sand
Medium Sand
65 Dense Sand
60
0 200 400 600 800 1000
qv (kN/m2)
Fig 9 Effect of sand on piled raft coefficient with different levels of
vertical loading
This can be attributed to the fact that the contact area between
the raft and subsoil is increased with increasing pile spacing,
which leads to increase contact pressure. In addition, the result
in Fig. 10 indicates that the curve of pile length of 10 m is
steeper than that for pile lengths of 15 and 20 m. Other
researchers reported similar observations for the effect of
pile spacing at small settlement levels. Poulos (2001) ob-
served that the increased pile spacing reduces the load propor-
tion carried by the pile and increases that carried by the raft on
homogenous elastic soil. This is due to the load distribution
over or through the raft itself. The pile length plays an impor-
tant role in the piled raft coefficient. It can be seen that when
the pile length is increased, the piled raft coefficient is in-
creased, as shown in Fig. 11. This is due to increase in the

Fig 8 Load-piled raft coefficient 100

in loose sand
90

80 S=3D-L=10m
S=3D-L=15m
70 S=3D-L=20m
αpr (%)

S=5D-L=10m
60 S=5D-L=15m
S=5D-L20m
50 S=7D-L=10m
S=7D-L=15m
40 S=7D-L=20m

30
0 200 400 600 800 1000
qv (kN/m2)
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475 Page 7 of 8 475

90 100

80 90

70 80
αpr (%)

α pr (%)
60 70

50 60
L=10m
L=15m 50
40
L=20m
40
30 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Raft Thickness (m)
S/D
Fig 12 Effect of the raft thickness on piled raft coefficient for medium
Fig 10 Effect of pile spacing on piled raft coefficient for various pile
sand (qv = 800 kPa)
lengths in loose sand (qv = 800 kPa)

the results indicated the raft thickness has an insignificant

shaft resistance of the piles. On the other hand, Fig. 11 shows
that when pile length was increased from 10 to 15 m, the
difference in the increase of the piled raft coefficient was
higher than when the pile length increased from 15 to 20 m.
Based on these results, it can be seen that as the pile length
increases, the rate of increase of the piled raft coefficient re-
duces. Poulos (2001), Lebeau (2008), and Rabiei (2009)
showed that the proportion of the load carried by the piles
increases with increasing pile length.
Effect of raft thickness on piled raft coefficient
The effect of the raft thickness on the piled raft coefficient
was investigated for a pile length and spacing of 15 m and
5D, respectively. The raft thickness was varied between 1,
1.5, and 2 m. The relative stiffness of the rafts used was
verified using the Horikoshi and Randolph (1997) equa-
tion. It shows that the raft is rigid for all thicknesses, and
90
85
effect on the piled raft coefficient, as shown in Fig 12. The
experimental results of El-Garhy et al. (2013) and Patil
et al. (2014) showed that the raft relative stiffness (i.e., raft
thickness) has a negligible effect on the average settlement
and the load sharing between the raft and piles.
Conclusions
The piled raft coefficient depends on the load-settlement be-
havior. The piled raft coefficient increases when the load-
settlement curve is linear and decreases when the load-
settlement curve is nonlinear. The sand conditions are not
the dominant factor affecting the increase or decrease of the
piled raft coefficient. The piled raft coefficient decreases with
increasing pile spacing. This occurs because of the increase in
the contact area between the raft and the subsoil. The influence
of the incremental increase in pile length on the piled raft
coefficient is more pronounced in short piles. The raft thick-
ness has an insignificant effect on the piled raft coefficient.

80
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the support
75 provided by the Research Centre (RC) of College of Engineering and the
Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Saud University.
70
α pr (%)

65

60 References
55
S=7D ABAQUS (2011) User’s manual, version 6.11.3. Simulia
50 S=5D Achmus M, Kuo YS, Abdel-Rahman K (2009) Behavior of monopile
45 S=3D foundations under cyclic lateral load. Comput Geotech 36:725–735
Budhu M (2008). Soil mechanics and foundation. Wiley.
40 Burland JB (1977). Behavior of foundations and structures on soft
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
ground. In Proc. 9th ICSMFE (Vol. 2, pp. 495–546)
L (m) Comodromos E, Bareka S (2005) Evaluation of negative skin friction
Fig 11 Effect of pile length on piled raft coefficient for various pile effects in pile foundations using 3D nonlinear analysis. Comput
spacings in dense sand (qv = 800 kPa) Geotech 32:210–221
475 Page 8 of 8
Das B, Sobhan K (2013) Principles of geotechnical engineering. Cengage
Learning.
El-Garhy B, Galil A, Youssef A-F, Raia MA (2013) Behavior of raft on
settlement reducing piles: experimental model study. J Rock Mech
Geotech Eng 5:389–399
Y. El-Mossallamy, Lutz B, TT Richter (2006) Innovative application of
piled raft foundation to optimize the design of high-rise building and
bridge foundation. In Proc. 10th Int. Conference on piling and deep
foundation.
Horikoshi K, Randolph MF (1997) On the definition of raft–soil stiffness
ratio. Géotechnique 47(5):1055–1061
Khoury M, Alzamora A, Ciancia A (2011) A piled-raft foundation for the
tallest building. Geo-Frontiers 2011@ sAdvances in Geotechnical
Engineering ASCE 3818–3827.
Lebeau J (2008) FE-analysis of piled and piled raft foundations. Graz
University of Technology. Project Report
Lee J, Kim Y, Jeong S (2010) Three-dimensional analysis of bearing
behavior of piled raft on soft clay. Comput Geotech 37:103–114
Lee J, Park D, Park D, Park K (2015) Estimation of load-sharing ratios for
piled rafts in sands that includes interaction effects. Comput Geotech
63:306–314
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:475
Maharaj DK (2004) Three dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis
to study the effect of raft and pile stiffness on the load-settlement
behaviour of piled raft foundations. EJGE
Mandolini A, Di Laora R, Mascarucci Y (2013) Rational design of piled
raft. Procedia Eng Comput Geotech 57:45–52
Patil JD, Vasanwala SA, Solanki CH (2014) An experimental investiga-
tion on behavior of piled raft foundation. Int J Geomat Geosci 5:
300–311
Poulos H (2001) Method of analysis of piled raft foundation. A report
prepared on behalf of Technical Committee TC18 on piled founda-
tions. International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering
Rabiei M (2009) Parametric study for piled raft foundations. EJGE 14:1–
11
Reul O, Randolph MF (2004) Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to
nonuniform vertical loading. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:1–13
Sinha A (2013) 3-D modeling of piled raft foundation. University of
Concordia.
Smith I M, and Griffiths DV (1997) Programming the finite element
method. In soil-pile-structure effects on high rises under seismic
shaking, by Nghiem HM, 102–162. ProQuest.