12

th
ICSGE
10-12 Dec. 2007
Cairo - Egypt


Ain Shams University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering
Twelfth International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering


NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR DEFORMATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
OF DIFFERENT LENGTH PILED RAFT IN COHESIVE SOILS

M. M. MORSY
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering,
Ain Shams University
E-mail: Mohamed.monier@iacg.com.eg
S. M. EL-SAYED
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering,
Ain Shams University
E-mail: sayed.mohamed@gmail.com
M. M. MOHAMED
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering,
Ain Shams University


ABSTRACT
The deformation behavior of pile groups in cohesive soils subjected to uniform
distributed load reflects the interaction between pile groups and surrounding soils
especially differential settlement. To evaluate the performance of pile groups numerical
analyses are modeled using finite element code. In this paper a methodology for the
design of floating pile raft foundation achieving the safety and economic condition for
this type of geotechnical structure is presented. This methodology is used in the analysis
of a case study of a reinforcement concrete raft supporting 2500 ton oil storage tank on a
very soft alluvium clay deposit and resting on 137 piles. The results of the finite element
analysis are compared with the full scale measurements carried out in the site. The
optimization of the pile's length distribution is evaluated for this case to meet four
conditions of average settlement, differential settlement, shear and moments in addition
to the probability of failure for this type of structures.
KEYWORDS
Pile groups; floating foundation; soft clay; deformational behavior; field measurements;
nonlinear analysis; finite element; tie constraint.
1 INTRODUCTION
Methods implemented by geotechnical engineers to estimate the settlement behaviour of
pile groups are ranging from simple closed form solutions to sophisticated nonlinear
finite element analyses. The mechanism of load transfer in pile groups involves the
interaction of piles, pile cap, and surrounding soil. The process is affected by many
factors such as: soil properties, single pile parameters and pile group geometry, single
pile-soil interaction, and interaction between different elements in the group action. Due
to the uncertainty in quantifying these factors, there is no method capable of evaluating
the pile group settlements accurately. In most of the available prediction methods, the pile
group settlement is related to the settlement of a single pile. For example i) the "hybrid"
approach proposed by Lee et al (1993), originally proposed by O'Neill et al. (1977),
i i ) single piles models using the load-transfer (t-z) method, and i i i ) the interaction
between the pile, through the soil, is then evaluated using the Mindlin's solution
(Mindlin (1936)). For a pile group, the load.-transfer curves for the individual piles are
modified to take into account the group effects by "stretching" the curves, involving
the displacements of a single pile and additional induced displacements due to the soil
reactions. Poulos and Davis (1980) demonstrated an approximate closed-form solution
for pile group interaction induced from excess stresses in soil due to group action.
Recently three dimensional models were utilized to estimate the performance of pile
group's such as Butterfield & Banerjee (1971), Butterfield & Douglas (1981), Chow
(1986), El Mosallamy (1989), Franke & El Mosallamy (1994) and Gue (2001). In the
current research a three - dimensional finite element back analysis of a case history is
presented. This case history is fully instrumented. In this paper an optimizing
methodology of economy and the analysis is performed using a nonlinear constitutive
relationship to demonstrate the proposed methodology
2. THE CASE STUDY
A palm oil mill has been erected on soft swampy ground. The site is located 50 km away
from Sg. Guntung of Province of Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. The total weight of the tank
structure is 3500 tons including maximum storage capacity of 2500 ton for oil. The steel
tank is seated on 0.5 m sand bed coated with bitumen strips in order to have uniform seating
between the coned-down tank base and the reinforced concrete raft of 500 mm thick.
Total number of one hundred thirty seven piles of 350 mm outer diameter and 200 mm inner
diameter hollow circular prestressed concrete (PC) have been designed and installed to
support the tank through the reinforced concrete raft as shown in Figure (1). The pile lengths
are varied in order to minimize the differential settlement of the raft.
2.1. Geotechnical Conditions and Subsurface Profile
The site is underlain by recent alluvium and coral reefs of Quaternary age. The water level
is almost at the original ground surface. Generally, the top one meter of the subsoil is
organic materials of peat and decayed tree roots at the surface. No obvious desiccated
weathered crust has been observed. The top 5m subsoil has over-consolidated ratio
(OCR) of 1.6 at the top and gradually reduces to 1.0. Underneath the organic materials,
the subsoil mainly consists of very soft normally consolidated clayey deposit of 34m
thick followed by 12 m thick medium stiff clay overlying the white medium dense fine
sand and dense clayey sand.











Figure (1)




















Figure (2)

2.2. In Situ Test and Instrumentations
In order to monitor and validate the actual performance of the piled raft during water-
loading test, thirteen strain gauges (SG1- SG13) have been installed in the annulus of
seven working piles to monitor the axial compression load in the pile shaft. To verify
the stresses and the deflection profile in the raft, five pairs of embedded strain gauges
(ST1-ST5) at top reinforcements and (SB1-SB5) at bottom reinforcements have been
installed at the mid depth of the raft through the raft centre. Eight settlement markers
(SM1-8) have also been installed at the perimeter of the RC raft and four settlement
markers (B1-B4) on the steel tank. Figure (2) indicates details of instrumentations for
the whole structure. In order to validate the piled foundation design and also to ensure
no leakage of the tank, water-loading test has been carried out with a maximum water
load of up to 3000 ton, while the tank storage is limited to 2500 ton during operation.
3. THREE DIMENTIONAL MODELLING
3.1. Constitutive Modelling
The soil nonlinear behaviour is modelled as Elastoplastic material CAP MODEL
"extended Drucker Prager model". The addition of the cap yield surface to the Drucker-
Prager model serves two main purposes
a) It bounds the yield surface in hydrostatic compression, thus providing an inelastic
hardening mechanism to represent plastic compaction.
b) It helps to control volume dilatancy when the material yields in shear by providing
softening as a function of the inelastic volume increase created as the material
yields on the Drucker-Prager shear failure surface.
The yield surface has two principal segments, a pressure-dependent Drucker-Prager
shear failure segment and a compression cap segment, as shown in Figure (3). The
Drucker-Prager failure segment is a perfectly plastic yield surface (no hardening).
Plastic flow on this segment produces inelastic volume increase (dilation) that causes
the cap to soften. On the cap surface plastic How causes the material to compact.









Figure (3)
3.2. Soil parameters
The sandy soil is modelled as linear elastic material. Parameters are shown in Table (1):
Table (1) Sand parameters
Bulk Density (kN /m
3
) Young's modulus (kN /m
2
) Poison's ratio
18 100000 0.35
The elasto plastic behaviour of the organic materials, soft compressible clay and medium
to stiff clay is modelled using modified Drucker-Prager model /Cap plasticity model. The
different soil types Parameters are shown in Table (2).
Table (2) Elasto plastic soil parameters
Parameter Organic material Soft clay Medium to stiff clay
Bulk Density (KN / m
3
) 10 15.25 17.5
Young's modulus (KN /m
2
) 1000 23712.5 78750
Poison's ratio 0.45 0.4 0.35
Shear failure stress at zero mean
pressure(KN /m
2
)
10 27.1 90
Inclination of C.S.L 45.78 37.668 37.668
Cap eccentricity R 0.5 0.65 0.75
Initial yield surface size
pl
vol
0 0 0
Transition zone 0.04 0.03 0.02
Flow stress ratio K 0.778 0.795 0.795
3.3 Concrete and steel modelling
The concrete and steel are presented by a linear elastic material. The data used to
model the concrete and steel are shown in Table (3).
Table (3) Concrete and steel parameters
Parameter Steel Concrete
Bulk Density (KN / m
3
) 78.5 25
Young's modulus (KN / m
2
) 2.6 E 8 2.6 E 7
Poisson's ratio .05 0.2
3.4 Case Study Modelling
The tank raft is resting on pile groups which are penetrating different soil strata, the
bottom and side boundaries of the mesh are located at distances large enough to have no
affect on the numerical results. The bottom boundary of the mesh is at depth equals to
72.00 m as this depth equals two times the longest pile length. The side boundaries of the
mesh lie at distance equals to 54.00 m as it is equal to 1.5 times the longest pile length.
The numbering sequence of the piles is done as follows:-
i. The row consists of thirteen piles started with P
1
and ended with P
13
.
ii. The tank raft is divided in three zones. Each zone is supported with different pile
length i) zone is supported with twenty one piles of length 36 m , ii) zone II
supported with forty eight piles of length 30 m and iii) zone III supported with
sixty eight piles have length 24 m as shown in Figure (4).
iii. The load carried by each zone can be expressed as P
av

zone I
, P
av

zone II
and P
av

zone III

For the three zones zone , zone and zone respectively. Total number of
piles is 137 piles. The standard pile used is 0.35 m in diameter. The used spacing is
1.5 m corresponding to a spacing/diameter ratio of three to six.



























Figure (4)

The mesh subdivisions is based on the criteria that the size of the element is to be as small as
possible in the zones of high stress gradient, the piles and the soil adjacent to the piles in the
studied cases. Three-dimensional eight- node linear brick reduced integration hourglass
control hexahedral elements are used with a total of 104848 elements to model the soil,
the piles, the pile raft, the sand bed and tank as shown in Figure (5). The restricted
boundaries of the mesh are the four side planes and the bottom plane. The nodes on such
boundaries are not allowed to displace normally to the plane determining the boundary, but
free to move in its considered plane.





















Figure (5)
The sequences used to numerically simulate the field case are as follow:
Stage (1) Initial Step
In the initial step, the initial stresses resulting from the erection of the tank, the foundation
piles is determined to define the resulting stresses of the construction process. Also the
overburden pressure stresses is calculated. The main purpose is to evaluate the stress region
of the soil continuum to proceed in the analysis using elasto plastic models as shown
in Figure (11)
Stage (2) Analysis steps
The initial step is followed by working load steps. Each analysis step is associated
with a specific analysis procedure. Three steps to simulate the actual case study are
illustrated. Each step has different applied load which represent level of water in the tank
during the filling process as listed in Table (4).
Table (4) Loads at each step
Step Number (1) (2) (3)
Height of water in the tank (m) 8.34 10.34 12.3
Total load (KN) 20070 25210 29600
4 RESULTS
The calculated results and the measured results are illustrated as shown in Table (5).
Figure (6) shows that the measured deformation results are often 20% greater than the































Measured and calculated deformation at load 2007 ton
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance "m"
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

"
m
m
"
Measured
deformation
Calculated
deformation
Edge Center
Measured and calculated deformation at load 2521 ton
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance "m"
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

"
m
m
"
Measured
deformation
Calculated
deformation
Edge Center
Measured and calculated deformation at load 2960 ton
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance "m"
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

"
m
m
"
Measured
deformation
Calculated
deformation
Edge Center

Figure (6)
calculated results at the centre of tank but at the tank edges, the measured deformation
results are 9% smaller than the calculated results. The measured deformations reflect a
more flexibility performance than the calculated deformations which show a more rigid
pile cap. Table (5) shows that measured loads are greater than the calculated loads by a
15.2% at the central zone while at the edge zone the measured loads are smaller than
calculated loads with a 23.4%. The percentage of difference in loads in central zone is
smaller than the percentage of difference in loads in edge zone. The percentage of
difference in deformation in central zone is bigger than the percentage of difference in
deformation in the edge zone. This is because the central zone has higher interaction effect
than the edge zone. The difference between calculated results and actual measured results
shows a great evidence of the model validation using finite element
code. From the results illustrated it is clear that piled raft design using economical floating
piles system "different pile lengths" has been successful in supporting heavy tank structure
over a very soft clayey deposit specially in regard to differential settlement with a good
compliance to the serviceability criteria as shown in Figure (6).
Table (5) Comparison between calculated and measured results
Load
(kN)
Zone
Measured
Load kN
Calculated
Load kN
% Difference
Load
Measured
deformation
Calculated
deformation
%Difference
deformation
5948 5042 -15.2% 17.5 mm 14 mm - 20 %
11092.4 10084 -9.09% 16 mm 14.2 mm -11.25 % 25210
8169.6 10084 +23.4% 12 mm 13.125 mm + 9.375 %
* The loads under any zone means the loads carried by all piles in this zone
4. OPTIMIZATION CRITERION
Design is aimed more or less consciously at satisfying some optimization criterion
which can be defined as achieving maximum economy while keeping satisfactory
behaviour. Satisfactory behaviour means achievement of optimization criterion of pile
group foundation as proposed by Mandolini et al. (2005).
1. Average Settlement: - In order to optimize the average settlement the ratio of
the area supported by piles (Ag) to the total area (A) of the cap should not
exceed 80%.
2. Differential settlement:-To control the differential settlement, optimum
performance achieved by locating few long piles in a central zone where 20% <
Ag / A < 45% rather than using more piles uniformly spread or increasing raft
thickness specially for uniform loads.
3. Bending moment and shear on raft: - Raft thickness has a great effect on
bending moment and shear on raft. Increasing raft thickness is the best way to
overcome high straining actions on the raft where it increases strength of the raft
with a low economy.
4. Probability of failure: - Bearing capacity failure is an important factor in
designing pile raft foundation and affecting the economical aspects of floating
pile foundation.

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY IN THE
CASE STUDY
Deformation behaviour of piled raft is a very complicated three dimensional problem. Many
points should be studied to solve this problem. In this section studying the effect of pile
lengths, variation of the length of piles and distribution of piles beneath the raft on the
optimization criterion illustrated above are investigated. Figure (7) illustrates the case study
(case no 4) in addition to other seven cases proposed to implement the optimization
methodology in the case study.







































Figure (7)


The results of the analyses for all cases can be summarized in the following points:
1. Average settlement: - The pile raft can be considered as medium pile raft with
(Ag / A) equal 88%. Based on the analysis carried out to optimize the pile
floating foundation the following is noticed:-
a) Case no (3) implement the driving of all piles to the bearing stratum
(36.00 m) resulting minimum average settlement among all cases as
shown in Figure (8). However it is the highest, with respect to cost.
b) Cases no. (2, 5, 6, 7) are the closest cases to case no (3) with a margin of
11%. Cases no. (2, 5) are the lowest among the five cases in term of cost.
2. Differential settlement: - Figure (9) shows that in order to minimize the
differential settlement, the pile length in zone (1) should be 36 m and in zone (3)
should be 24 m. This assumption is also reflected in cases (4, 5, and 8) which
represent the best distribution for the floating foundation. Case no (8) is lower in
term of cost.














Figure (8)









8
10
12
14
16
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Case no
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

"
m
m
"
Calculated average
settlement
Measured Average
settlement
20
22








0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Case no
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


(
m
m
)
calculated Differential
settlement
measured Differential
settlement
Figure (9)

Table (6) shows the values of the differential settlements for the three cases.
Table (6) Comparison between best cases in Differential settlement
Case no (4) (5) (8)
Load 20070 kN 1.4 1.3 1.5
Load 25210 kN 1.65 1.55 1.8
Load 29600 kN
Differential
settlement
(mm) 2.1 2 2.3
3. Bending moment and shear stresses on raft: - Bending moment and shear in
the seven cases show a minimum difference as there is no change in the raft
thickness for all cases.
4. Probability of failure:-Factor of safety (F.S) against probability of failure is
taken 1.5 in this case. Figure (10) shows that the best case satisfies this factor is
case no. (4) where the highest F.S is 2.98 and the Lowest F.S is 1.66.
Economy factor has a great importance in designing these types of structures. The
economic factor in this case is in terms of total pile length. Cases no (1, 8, & 4) are the
lowest three cases in cost respectively.
















Probability of failure for different cases at load 2521ton
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Pile no
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

s
a
f
e
t
y
Case no (1)
Case no (2)
Case no (3)
Case no (4)
Case no (5)
Case no (6)
Case no (7)
Case no (8)
Figure (10)
6. Simplified Method to Optimize the Floating pile Group Foundation
In case of single pile the soil displacements can be equated to the pile displacements
to obtain the unknown shear-stresses and displacements along the piles. The analysis of a
two-pile group is similar to a single pile, except that the soil-displacement-influence matrix
includes contributions from the second pile. The results of the above analysis may be
conveniently expressed in terms of an "interaction factor" where

(1) ... ...
only load its under piles of Settlement
pile adjacent by caused settlement Additional
=

Piles graduation in length under any raft depends mainly on the effect of interaction
between single pile-soil which depends relatively on piles spacing. For the case study
illustrated above the effect of all piles under zone (1) is bigger than the effect of all piles
under zone (2) which is consequently bigger than the effect of all piles under zone (3) as
shown in Figure (10).

All piles are hollow piles with outer diameter 0.35 m and inner diameter 0.20 m, so the base
resistance can be neglected and the area shaft is the main resistance for piles. In this
approach the zone which has high interaction needs longer pile to distribute the load on a
bigger area aiming to reduce differential settlement. Pile's lengths in zone (1) are 36.00 m
in order to be embedded in stiff layer for an embedment length of three times the pile
diameter.

spacing s pile'
00 . 1

(2)
The summation of the piles spacing in each zone is illustrated in Figure (11). For the
three zones: i) Summation of spacing of piles in zone (1) is 954 m, ii) Summation of
spacing of piles in zone (2) is 1120 m, and iii) Summation of spacing of piles in zone
(3) is 1386 m. Equation (4.11) shows that the highest interaction is located under zone
(1) and lowest interaction is located under zone (3).

So that for the three zones can be proportionally calculated as follow:-

in zone (1)

64 . 953
00 . 1
= 1048 * 10
-6
.

in zone (2)

263 . 1120
00 . 1
= 892.65 * 10
-6

in zone (3)

919 . 1386
00 . 1
= 721.02 * 10
-6

In zone (1) the factor is proportional to 1048 * 10
-6
with pile length 36.00 m.
In zone (2) the pile length L
zone (2)
= 892.65 / 1048 * 36.00 = 30.66 m.
In zone (3) the pile length L
zone (3)
= 721.02 / 1048 * 36 = 24.76 m

From the case illustrated above the pile length under any zone in the pile raft can be
estimated as follow:
(3) ... ...
one Under Z piles All of Length

.........
2
one Under Z piles All of Length

2

1
one Under Z piles All of Length
1
n
n

= = =



Figure (11)














































Based on these results the following simplified optimizing method can be implemented
for any floating raft foundation subjected to uniform loads as follow:-
a) Choose the available pile diameter.
b) Divide the raft into any number of zones.
c) Choose the spacing of piles to serve three purposes:-
1. Spacing equal to three to six times the pile diameter.
2. The area of raft supported by piles is greater than 80% from total area of
the raft.
3. Distribution of piles should be enclosed in zone boundaries.
d) Choose length of piles in central zone to reach to the bearing stratum and drive it
with three times the pile diameter into the end bearing stratum.
e) Calculate the average sum of spacing for piles under all zones.
f) Calculate the lengths of piles in the other zones using equation (3).
7. CONCLUSION
In this research, the finite element analysis is carried out using finite element code
'ABAQUS 6.3-1'. Drucker-Prager elasto- plastic extension cone cap model is used
in modelling different soil types. A three-dimensional numerical model is
proposed to describe the single pile-soil interaction. The elements of the model are
elaborated and the procedures of the numerical implementation were overviewed.
The validity of the proposed three-dimensional analysis was checked by
comparing the calculated results using finite element method with the
measurements done in the site for a case study. A well planned and full-time
supervised subsurface investigation is necessary to obtain reliable subsoil information
and parameters for safe and economical designs. A quick estimation for shear and
engineering soil parameters is presented, to ensure the integrity parameters used to
define soil performance in the finite element analysis. A pile group loading test was
done for a case study referring to a piled raft supported with 137 piles. A three-
dimensional numerical model is proposed for the case history and the results of the
finite element analysis were obtained. A comparison between the measurements
done in the site and the results obtained from finite element analysis was carried
out in order to validate the proposed numerical model. The comparison has
provided a very good verification for the numerical model. The case study presented
included a design concept to implement a floating piled raft foundation supporting oil
storage tank resting on a very soft alluvium soil. A parametric study for the case
history was carried out using finite element code, to investigate the effect of
changing pile lengths in the same group. The groups are analyzed for cases of
similar piles in diameter 0.35 m outer diameter and 0.20 m inner diameter, fixing
the spacing to be 1.5 m for all cases; with various pile lengths to optimize the
design. The factors controlling the role of changing pile lengths in the same group
are discussed. Effect of spacing between piles on changing pile length is obtained.
Design methodology, which controls a safe and economic design, is presented.
The final conclusion of the study, the numerical scheme proposed in this study
provides a helpful and powerful tool for the analysis and design of this class of
problems. The characteristics of this approach are-
a) The capability of fulfilment of the four conditions, average settlement,
differential settlement, moment and shear and probability of failure with cost
condition.
b) The design methodology is presented in term of simple equation as shown in
equations (3). This approach can be used to design the pile raft of different
structures under the following conditions:-
All piles are floating pile "no need to reach all piles to bearing stratum"
the central zone only must reach to bearing stratum.
The load carried by each pile must be under the linear part results of the
pile load test in order to avoid full mobilization.
For floating piles, the use of hollow circular piles is more recommended
than using solid piles. This is related to the effect of increasing pile
compressibility (reduce k) which will reduce interaction effects
determined by the neighbouring piles.
8. REFERENCES
1. Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K., 1971, "The Elastic of Compressible Piles
and Pile Groups", Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 43 -60.
2. Butterfield, R. and Douglas, R.A., 1981, "Flexibility Coefficients for the
Design of Piles and Pile Groups", Tech. Note 108, CIRIA, London.
3. Cautelli, F. and Maugeri, M., 2002, "Simplified Nonlinear Analysis for
Settlement Prediction of Pile Groups", ASCE Geotechnical Engineering
Division, Vol. 128, No. 1, pp. 76-84.
4. Clow, Y.K., 1986, "Analysis of Vertically Loaded Pile Groups", Int. J.
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomech, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 59 -72.
5. El-Mosallamy, Y.M., 1989, "Analysis of Pile Raft Soil Interaction", M.Sc.
Thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
6. El-Mosallamy, Y.M. and Franke, E., 1997, "Piled Rafts: Numerical Modeling
to Simulate the Behavior of Piled Raft Foundations", Darmstadt, Germany, p.
182.
7. Gens, A. and Potts, D.M., 1988, "Critical State Models in Computational
Geomechanics", Engineering Computations, Vol. 5, pp.178-197.
8. Iskandar, G.M., 2001, "Behavior of Dissimilar Pile Group", Ph.D. Thesis, Ain
Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
9. Mandolini, A., Russo, G., and Viggiani, C., 2005, Pile Foundation:
Experimental investigations, analysis and design, 16
th
ICSMGE, September
12-16, 2005, Osaka, Japan.
10. Liew, S.S., Gue, S.S and Tan, Y.C., 2002, " Design and Instrumentation
Results of a Reinforcement Concrete Piled Raft Supporting 2500 ton Oil
Storage Tank on very soft Alluvium Deposits", Ninth International Conference
on Pilling and Deep Foundation, Nice, Italy, pp. 263-269.
11. Lee, C.Y., 1993, "Pile Group Settlement Analysis by Hybrid Layer Approach",
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No 6, pp. 984 -997.
12. Liew, S.S., 2002, "Application of Value Engineering to Geotechnical Design
for a Factory Structures on Soft Alluvial Flood Plain in Indonesia ", Geology
and Geotechnical Engineering Consideration to Coastal Development IEM-
GSM Forum.
13. Mandolini, A. and Russo, G., 2005, "Pile Foundations: Experimental
Investigations, Analysis and Design", The 16
th
International Conference Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering - Plenary Session E, Osaka, Japan.
14. Mindlin, R.D., 1936, "Force at a Point in the Interior of Semi - Infinite Solid",
Physics, 7, pp. 192 202.
15. O'Neill, M.W., Ghazzaly, O.I. and Ha, H.B., 1977, "Analysis of Three-
Dimensional Pile Groups With Nonlinear Soil Response and Pile Soil Pile
Interaction", Proc of the 9
th
Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Paper OTC 2838, pp. 245 256.
16. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H., 1980, "Pile Foundation Analysis and Design",
Wiley, New York.