Effect of Earthquake on Combined Pile–Raft Foundation

Ashutosh Kumar, S.M.ASCE1; Deepankar Choudhury, M.ASCE2; and Rolf Katzenbach3

Abstract: The combined pile–raft foundation (CPRF) has been widely recognized as economic and rational foundation for high-rise build-
ings when subjected to vertical loading because of its effectiveness in load sharing by both raft and pile components. This results in smaller
total and differential settlements with a reduced number of piles as compared with group piles. Until recently, the behavior of CPRF when sub-
jected to lateral and real earthquake loading conditions in addition to vertical loads has not been well understood as a result of the complexities
involved in the interaction of the pile, soil, and raft under such loading considerations. In the present study, an attempt has been made to inves-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tigate the behavior of CPRF with the use of centrifuge testing and a numerical model under pseudostatic and dynamic loading conditions car-
ried out with finite-element software. After successful validation of the present CPRF model with both centrifuge and numerical model results,
the same model was used for further study under El-Centro 1979, Loma Prieta 1989, Bhuj 2001 and Sikkim 2011 real earthquake pseudostatic
loading and real acceleration–time history. The maximum displacement and bending moment were observed at the pile head, which is attribut-
able to the rigid fixity of the piles with the raft. The crossover point in the bending moment profile was observed at shallow depths for all cases
of loading. The occurrence of the resonance condition that yielded maximum horizontal displacement of the CPRF as a result of one of the
input motions is also highlighted in the present study. The difference in the response of soil just below the raft of the CPRF and at the far field
indicated that near-field and far-field ground motions were not in tandem. A case study on an existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, is also presented. The existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower was modeled and analyzed under static and pseu-
dostatic loading conditions. Obtained results show good correlation with the static field-measured results. Results in terms of bending
moment in piles, total settlements, and normalized lateral displacement (u/D) are reported. The present findings are useful because they pro-
vide broader understanding of the response of the CPRF under pseudostatic and dynamic loading conditions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000637. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Pile; Earthquakes; Numerical analysis; Bending; Displacement; Raft foundation.

Introduction and construction of CPRFs for different subsoil conditions under

The combined pile–raft foundation (CPRF) has been recognized as
an economic and sustainable foundation system for two decades.
This recognition is partly a result of the use of piles below the raft
foundation as a settlement reducer, which leads to considerable eco-
nomic savings without compromising the safety and performance
of the foundation system (Poulos 2001). Burland et al. (1977) first
discussed the rational and efficient design approach to introduce
piles below the raft foundation in cases where settlement was higher
than the permissible limit. Some of the concepts for the design of
CPRFs have been reported by Randolph (1994), Horikoshi and
Randolph (1998), and Kakurai (2003). Further, design code for
CPRFs has been published (AIJ 2001), and guidelines for the design
1 pile structure interaction for buildings founded on soft soil. Zheng
Ph.D. Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. Email: ashusingh@
iitb.ac.in
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; Adjunct Professor,
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi 100
025, India (corresponding author). E-mail: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in
3
Professor and Director of Institute and Laboratory of Geotechnics,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technical Univ. Darmstadt,
Darmstadt 64287, Germany. E-mail: katzenbach@geotechnik.tu-darmstadt
.de
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 4, 2015; approved on
November 19, 2015; published online on February 8, 2016. Discussion pe-
riod open until July 8, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
static loading have been published by International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) (Katzenbach
and Choudhury 2013). Horikoshi et al. (2003a) used centrifuge
modeling to understand the behavior of CPRFs, pile groups, and
raft foundations under static vertical and horizontal load. Horikoshi
et al. (2003b) reported the response of CPRFs and pile groups with
different connection conditions of piles under centrifuge shaking ta-
ble tests. Matsumoto et al. (2010) performed 1-g testing and ana-
lyzed the behavior of raft foundations alone, pile groups, and
CPRFs under lateral load. Basack and Dey (2012) presented the
response of an eccentrically loaded single pile by varying the pile–
soil stiffness using the boundary element method. Banerjee et al.
(2014) examined the seismic response of fixed headed piles by
using centrifuge tests and numerical modeling. Hokmabadi et al.
(2015) performed shaking table tests to investigate seismic soil–
et al. (2015) analytically investigated the response of piles under
rectangular, semisinusoidal, and triangular impulse loads.
Researchers have also investigated the long-term response of piles
in layered soil deposits (Kog 2015; Zhang et al. 2015). Kumar et
al. (2015) presented the seismic response of pile for an oil tank
foundation using PLAXIS 3D. Kumar and Choudhury (2016) per-
formed dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis of pile founda-
tions using FLAC3D 4.0. Phanikanth and Choudhury (2014) used
an elastic-continuum approach to investigate the response of later-
ally loaded single piles embedded in cohesionless soil. Various
other researchers have used finite-element techniques to investi-
gate soil–structure interaction (Dezfooli et al. 2015; Ladhane and
Sawant 2015; Liu et al. 2015; Salciarini et al. 2015). In many
countries, the CPRF concept has been successfully applied to

© ASCE 04016013-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 actual buildings, and field observations have been reported
(Yamashita et al. 1993; Katzenbach et al. 2000, 2005; Katzenbach
and Moormann 2001; Yamada et al. 2001; Yamashita et al. 2011;
Yamashita et al. 2012). Dash et al. (2009) reported the plausible
causes of failure of CPRFs during the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake. The
studies analyzing the response of CPRFs subjected to lateral load
and real earthquake acceleration–time history are very few and
await further investigation.
In the present study, a generalized CPRF system derived from
numerical studies performed by Eslami et al. (2011) and experimen-
tal studies performed by Horikoshi et al. (2003a,b) was modeled
with the finite-element-based geotechnical software PLAXIS 3D
(version 5.10) and analyzed under static, pseudostatic, and
dynamic loading conditions. Further, the CPRF of the existing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
studies provide the evidence of prehistoric earthquakes with mag-
nitude (Mw = 6.7) in the Lower Rhine embayment (Camelbeeck
and Meghraoui 1998; Camelbeeck et al. 2000; Vanneste et al.
2001). These earthquake events were the main objectives behind
the analysis of the existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower in the pres-
ent study. The main purpose of conducting a finite-element simula-
tion of the centrifuge model and a case study was to gain a broader
understanding of the behavior of CPRFs under earthquake loads,
which, to date, is not very well understood. The CPRF responses
obtained through this study may be useful in the actual design of
such foundation systems encompassing the influence of earthquake
for seismically vulnerable regions.

Messeturm Tower of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, was modeled.
After successful validation of the present model with available
field-measured results, the same model was analyzed under differ-
ent pseudostatic loading conditions. Although Germany is not
among the most earthquake-hazard-prone regions of the world, it
has experienced several earthquakes in the past. The most signifi-
cant earthquake was in Albstadt in 1978 (Mw = 5.1), which devas-
tated approximately 9,000 structures and caused total losses of
about 63 million euro (Kreibich et al. 2014). Recent paleo-seismic
Numerical Modeling of the CPRF
Numerical Modeling of Soil, Pile, and Raft components
Fig. 1 provides a schematic representation of the CPRF showing the
point of application of load and discretized finite-element mesh,
along with its dimensions. The soil model, which had dimensions of
28 m
28 m
16 m, was developed with the use of 10-noded tetra-
hedral soil elements. A conventional Mohr-Coulomb constitutive

Fig. 1. Schematic representation and discretized mesh of soil–pile–raft model

© ASCE 04016013-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 model, available in the standard library of PLAXIS 3D, was used to
model the Toyoura sand. Standard fixities were assigned wherein
the sides were restricted to lateral movement and the base was
restrained in all directions. A square raft of 4 m width and 1 m thick-
ness was modeled as a plate element. Four fixed headed piles, each
9 m in length, 500 mm in diameter, and having a center-to-center
spacing of 2 m, was modeled with the use of the embedded pile ele-
ment option inbuilt in PLAXIS 3D, as shown in Fig. 1. It is to be
noted that all of the properties of the Toyoura sand, piles, and raft
were taken as provided by Horikoshi et al. (2003 a,b) and Eslami et
al. (2011); these properties are listed in Table 1. A medium-sized
mesh was generated with 25,624 soil elements and 37,906 nodes
having average element size of 70 cm. The selection of the mesh
size was based on convergence of results, simulations of the centri-
fuge tests results, and ease of numerical computation. The load
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Horikoshi et al. (2003 a,b). Successive loading was applied to the
foundation system in the form of vertical pressure applied to the top
of the CPRF.
Results and Discussions for Static Loading Conditions
Obtained in PLAXIS 3D
Total vertical resistance provided by the piles was approximately
2,760 kN. This value provided the CPRF coefficient, defined as the
ratio of resistance provided by the group of piles to the total resist-
ance attributable to external load, of 0.47, which bears close resem-
blance with the value noted by Horikoshi et al. (2003a). Fig. 2 illus-
trates the contour of vertical settlement, which had a maximum
value of 2.1 cm. The obtained result is in close agreement with
Horikoshi et al. (2003b), who reported a vertical settlement of 1.5

applied to the model was 5,862.5 kN, which is equal to the raft mass
of 4.69 kg under the centrifugal acceleration of 50 g as reported by
Table 1. PLAXIS 3D Input Parameters Used in the Present Study of the
CPRF (Data from Horikoshi et al. 2003a,b and Eslami et al. 2011)
cm under a similar loading condition. It was also observed that the
deformation attributable to vertical loading extended nearly 3 times
from the boundary of the raft laterally and 1.5 times the length of
the pile vertically. This was an important observation in selecting
the boundary for the numerical model.

Parameters Soil Pile Raft

Analysis of CPRF under Pseudostatic Loading
Material Toyoura sand Concrete Aluminum Condition
Young’s modulus (GPa) 0.04 41.7 70
One of the practical and conventional design techniques is to
Poisson’s ratio ( m ) 0.3 0.2 0.35
replace the seismically induced load with an equivalent static hori-
Unit weight (kN·m3) 16.3 24 27
zontal load on the foundation unit that is equal to the seismic
Friction angle ( f ) 31 — —
coefficient times the total vertical load. This load is called the pseu-
Dilation angle ( c ) 1 — —
dostatic load in the present study and was applied at the level of
Cohesion (kN·m 2) 10 — —
the raft component of the CPRF. A similar approach was

Fig. 2. Profile of vertical settlement obtained through FEA

© ASCE 04016013-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 followed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005) to investigate
the response of piles in liquefying soil deposits. Fig. 3 shows
the details of the real acceleration–time history, along with the
peak ground acceleration (PGA) of different earthquake input
motions, used for the pseudostatic and dynamic analyses. The
earthquake acceleration–time histories were chosen such that
the maximum seismic acceleration coefficient and total duration
observed during an earthquake event mostly fall in these
ranges. The seismic coefficient for different earthquake events
was directly multiplied by the vertical load to obtain the equiv-
alent static horizontal load, without considering any amplifica-
tion resulting from the presence of the soil layer; this was an
assumption of the present finite-element analysis (FEA).
Table 2 provides a brief description of the pseudostatic load
applied to the CPRF.

0.1 0.2

PGA= 0.106g PGA=0.201g

0.15
Mw= 7.7 Mw= 7.9
0.05
0.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.05

Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0
0 20 40 60 80 0
0 40 80 120 160
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1

-0.15
-0.1
-0.2 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
-0.15 -0.25
(a) (b)

0.3 0.4
PGA= 0.279g 0.3 PGA= 0.43g
0.2 Mw= 6.9 Mw= 6.7
0.2

0.1 0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0
0 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40 -0.1

-0.1 -0.2

-0.3
-0.2
-0.4
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
-0.3 -0.5
(c) (d)

Fig. 3. Acceleration–time history of different earthquake input motion: (a) Bhuj 2001; (b) Sikkim 2011; (c) Loma Prieta 1989; (d) El-Centro 1979

Table 2. Pseudostatic Load Considered in the Numerical Analysis

Earthquakes
Earthquake strong-motion parameters Bhuj 2001 Sikkim 2011 Loma Prieta 1989 El-Centro 1979
Peak ground acceleration (g) 0.106 0.201 0.279 0.43
Bracketed duration (sec) 12.44 25.35 15.17 17.64
Maximum horizontal load applied to generic CPRF (kN) 621.4 1178.4 1635.6 2520.8
Maximum horizontal load applied to CPRF of Messeturm tower (MN) 192.7 365.5 507.4 782.0
Note: Bracketed duration is the duration (time) between the first and last exceedances of seismic acceleration of 0.05 g in the acceleration–time history of
earthquake motion.

© ASCE 04016013-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 The percentage of pseudostatic load shared by the pile founda- was observed that the maximum proportion of load was shared by
tion varied from 62 to 76% under different pseudostatic loading the pile foundation under pseudostatic loading conditions, which is
conditions and increased with an increase in pseudostatic loading. It unlike under vertical loading conditions, in which the raft takes the

Normalized horizontal displacement (u/D)

-0.005 0.005 0.015 0.025 0.035 0.045
0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Normalized depth (z/L)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.4

0.5

0.6
El-Centro 1979
0.7 Loma Prieta 1989
Bhuj 2001
0.8
Sikkim 2011

0.9

1
(a)

Bending moment (kN.m)

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
0

4
Depth (m)

El-Centro 1979
6
Loma Prieta 1989
Bhuj 2001
7
Sikkim 2011

9
(b)

Fig. 4. Profiles: (a) normalized horizontal displacement; (b) bending moment along the pile length under different pseudostatic loading conditions

© ASCE 04016013-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 1 3
0.8
0.6 2
Acceleration (m/sec2)

Acceleration (m/sec2)
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
-0.2
-0.4 -1
-0.6
-2
-0.8
-1 -3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (Sec)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Time (sec)
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Acceleration–time history: (a) input acceleration; (b) output acceleration

0.25 0.8

0.2 0.6

0.15 0.4
Acceleration (g)

0.1 0.2
Acceleration (g)

0.05 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80
-0.05 -0.4

-0.1
-0.6
-0.15
Time (Sec) -0.8
Time (Sec)
-0.2
-1
(a) (b)

0.8 1.5

0.6
1
0.4
0.5
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-0.2
-0.5

-0.4
-1
-0.6
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
-0.8 -1.5
(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Acceleration–time history of different earthquake motions obtained at the top of the CPRF: (a) Bhuj 2001; (b) Sikkim 2011; (c) Loma Prieta
1989; (f) El-Centro 1979

© ASCE 04016013-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 maximum proportion of the vertical load. This observation is simi-
lar to that reported by Matsumoto et al. (2004, 2010). Figs. 4 (a) and
(b) show the normalized horizontal displacement and bending
moment variation along the pile length. For all piles, the maximum
bending moment and normalized lateral displacement were
observed near the pile head, which increased with an increase in the
seismic acceleration coefficient. It was observed that the piles
attained maximum horizontal displacement values (u) of 0.7, 2, 3.8,
and 4.5% of the pile diameter (D) under Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011,
Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 pseudostatic loading,
respectively. However, the allowable horizontal displacement of
the pile foundations for highway bridges in Japan is limited to 1%
of the pile diameter (u/D = 0.01) (JRA 2002). It was also observed
that the positive bending moment developed near the top of the pile,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
contains dampers in the normal and shear directions to absorb any
undue reflection of seismic waves. To avoid numerical distortion of
the propagating wave in the dynamic analysis, the mesh size (DL)
must be smaller than one-tenth to one-eighth of the wavelength
associated with the highest-frequency component of the input wave
(Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer 1973). Considering the these criteria, the
element size chosen was small enough to allow smooth propagation
of all input earthquake motions.
The fundamental frequency (v r ) of a CPRF having four piles is
calculated with the following expression, as per Kang et al. (2012):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
EI
vr ¼ 2 (1)
mraft L3
where v r is the fundamental frequency of the CPRF; EI is the flex-

which progressively reduced to negative and then to zero at the pile

tip. The crossover point of the bending moment from negative to
positive was observed at shallow depths and followed a similar pat-
tern under all pseudostatic loading conditions. This observation is
similar to that reported by Poulos and Davis (1980), Gazetas
(1984), and Phanikanth et al. (2013a).
Analysis of CPRF under Dynamic Loading
Inherent soil properties, such as viscosity, frictional, and plasticity
properties, generally cause material damping in a soil mass. The
role of damping in numerical analyses is to reproduce energy losses
under dynamic loading. In present case, dynamic damping was
modeled with the Rayleigh damping option provided in PLAXIS
3D. The value of damping was chosen as 5%, which is a typical
value of damping for geologic material (Kramer 1996). Many geo-
technical problems can be idealized by assuming that regions
remote from the zone of interest extend to infinity, where dynamic
waves propagate in all directions. To model an infinite medium, a
computer program truncates it to a finite size with the use of artifi-
cial boundaries. PLAXIS 3D provides a viscous boundary that
ural rigidity of the pile, taken as 127,935.60 kN·m2; L is the length
of pile, taken as 9 m; and mraft is the mass of the raft, taken as 432
kN. The fundamental frequency and time period of the CPRF were
taken as 1.27 Hz and 0.78 sec, respectively. The fundamental fre-
quency and time period of the soil model were calculated from T ¼
4H=VS (Kramer 1996), where H is the soil model thickness, taken
as 16 m;p and Vsffi is the shear wave velocity of the soil model, calcu-
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lated as G= r , where G is the shear modulus of soil and r is the
density of soil. The fundamental frequency and time period for the
present soil model was obtained as 1.5 Hz and 0.66 sec,
respectively.
Results for Dynamic Analysis
Fig. 5(a) shows the input sinusoidal acceleration applied at the base
of the soil model with an amplitude of 1 m/sec2 and frequency of 1
Hz, which was used as an input for the dynamic centrifuge test, the
same as that applied at the base of the numerical model. The maxi-
mum acceleration obtained at the top of the CPRF was 2.8 m/sec2,
as shown in Fig. 5(b). The acceleration response at the top of the

4 1.6

El-Centro 1979 1.4 El-Centro 1979

3.5
Loma Prieta 1989
Loma Prieta 1989
Bhuj 2001
3 Bhuj 2001 1.2
Sikkim 2011
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Sikkim 2011
Spectral Acceleration (g)

2.5 1

2 0.8

1.5 0.6

1 0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (Sec) Period (Sec)
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Response spectrum: (a) just below the raft of the CPRF; (b) soil top (far field) under different earthquake input motions

© ASCE 04016013-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 CRPF reported by Horikoshi et al. (2003b) and Eslami et al. (2011)
was 2.7 m/sec2 and 2.65 m/sec2, respectively. The CPRF experi-
enced residual horizontal displacement (after the end of shaking du-
ration) of 1.78 cm, which is in close agreement with the values
reported as 2 cm and 2.8 cm by Horikoshi et al. (2003b) and Eslami
et al. (2011), respectively. It was observed that the present seismic
analysis results are in close agreement with the centrifuge test
results as compared with the numerical analysis results reported by
Eslami et al. (2011). The obtained results for both static and
dynamic cases simulated the FEA results both quantitatively and
qualitatively, which can be considered as good validation of the
present model.
Fig. 6 illustrates the acceleration response of the CRPF under all
earthquake input motions. The maximum acceleration values
obtained at the CPRF top under the Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
illustrate the response spectrum of all earthquake input motions just
below the raft of the CPRF and at the far field. It can be observed
that maximum amplification just below the raft of the CPRF for the
Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979
earthquake input motions occurred at the predominant period of
1.09, 1.3, 0.71, and 0.44 sec, respectively. It is to be noted that the
predominant period of the Loma Prieta 1989 spectral response was
0.71 sec, which is closer to the fundamental period of the CPRF
(0.78 sec). Hence, the condition of resonance occurred for this
earthquake motion. It is also noted that the response spectrum of the
Sikkim 2011 earthquake input motion shifted to the right side as
compared with all other earthquake response spectra, which may be
attributable to the characteristics of the input motion, such as dura-
tion and frequency content, which was higher in former case.
Furthermore, the maximum acceleration observed at the far field

Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 earthquake input motions were
0.24, 0.78, 0.79, and 1.04 g, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6. The
maximum acceleration observed at the CPRF top for the El-Centro
1979 earthquake input motion closely matches the result reported
by Eslami et al. (2011), with a value of 0.96 g. Amplification was
observed for all cases of earthquake input motion. Figs. 7(a) and (b)
was significantly lower than that of near field, indicating strong
interaction between pile, raft, and soil. Similar behavior was
observed by Banerjee et al. (2007) and Kang et al. (2012). Fig. 8
illustrates the normalized horizontal displacement of the CPRF dur-
ing real earthquake events, and shows that the Bhuj 2001, Sikkim
2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 input motions attained

0.06 0.035

0.03
0.04
Normalize horizontal disp. (u/D)

Normalized horizontal disp. (u/D) 0.025

0.02 0.02

0.015
0
0 20 40 60 80 0.01
-0.02
0.005

-0.04 0
0 40 80 120 160
-0.005
-0.06
-0.01
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
-0.08 -0.015
(a) (b)

0.14 0.04

0.12
0.03
Normalized horizontal disp. (u/D)

0.1
Normalized horizontal disp. (u/D)

0.08
0.02
0.06

0.04 0.01
0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-0.02
-0.01
-0.04

-0.06
-0.02
-0.08 Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
-0.1 -0.03
(c) (d)

Fig. 8. Normalized horizontal displacement–time history under different earthquake motion obtained at the top of the CPRF: (a) Bhuj 2001; (b) =
Sikkim 2011; (c) Loma Prieta 1989; (d) El-Centro 1979

© ASCE 04016013-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 maximum horizontal displacement values (u) of 5.5, 2.8, 13.3, and
3.2% of the pile diameter (D). It is interesting to note that the nor-
malized horizontal displacement obtained under the Loma Prieta
1989 earthquake motion was the greatest as compared with all other
normalized displacements observed under other input motions. The
reason for this may be attributed to the condition of resonance,
which did not occur in all other cases. It was also observed that nor-
malized horizontal displacement was greater in the case of the Bhuj
2001 earthquake input motion as compared with the Sikkim 2011
earthquake input motion, although the Sikkim 2011 motion had a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
higher PGA. This may be because the predominant period of the
Bhuj 2001 response spectrum (1.09 sec) was closer to the resonance
condition as compared with the Sikkim 2011 response spectrum
(1.3 sec). It can be concluded that input motion characteristics and,
most importantly, the condition of resonance play a significant role
in the response of the foundation system. Liyanapathirana and
Poulos (2005), Choudhury et al. (2009), Phanikanth et al. (2013a,
b), Chatterjee et al. (2015a,b), and Choudhury et al. (2014), among
others, also reported the significant role of the nature of the earth-
quake in the response of the pile.

Fig. 9. View of Messetrum Tower and arrangement of piles (adapted from Katzenbach et al. 2005)

Young's modulus (MN/m2)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

10

20 Hyperbolic Variation

30 Linear Variation
Plaxis Input
40
Depth (m)

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 10. Finite-element mesh of soil–pile–raft model of Messetrum Tower CPRF

© ASCE 04016013-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 Table 3. Properties of Frankfurt Clay and Limestone as an Input Parameter in FEA (Data from Berth 1970 and Reul 2000)

Values
Parameters Symbol/unit Frankfurt clay Frankfurt limestone
2
Young’s modulus E(MN·m ) as per Eq. (4) 2,000
Poisson’s ratio m 0.25 0.2
Saturated unit weight g (kN·m3) 19 22
Friction angle f (°) 20 15
Drained cohesion c (kN·m2) 20 1,000
Secant stiffness E50 (kN·m2) 70,000 —
Tangent stiffness E50 (kN·m2) 70,000 —
Unloading/reloading stiffness Eref 2
ur (kN·m ) 210,000 —
Power for stress level dependency m 0.85 —
Reference stress kN·m2 100 (default) —
—
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Failure ratio Rf 0.9 (default)

Numerical Modeling of Frankfurt Subsoil

Table 4. Material Properties of Raft and Piles Used in FEA Calculation
(Data from Reul 2000) Successful prediction of the response of foundations is highly de-
pendent upon the subsoil strength and deformation parameters. The
Parameters Symbol/Unit Raft Pile
use of soil parameters whose values are close to in-situ conditions is
2
Young’s modulus E (MN·m ) 34,000 25,000 the key requirement for getting better results, which should always
Poisson’s ratio m 0.2 0.2 correspond to reality. Hyperbolic variation in the soil modulus has
Unit weight g (kN·m3) 25 25 been observed in Frankfurt clay, as per experimental test data
reported by Reul (2000), and is well predicted with Eq. (2).
It is to be noted that the normalized horizontal displacement    
z  30
results in the pseudostatic analysis varied marginally with those of E ¼ 45 þ tanh þ 1
0:7 z (2)
15
the dynamic analysis. The reason for this may be attributable to the
fact that dynamic analysis considers the natural frequency of the
where E is the elastic modulus in MN·m2; and z is soil depth in m.
soil media, the resonance frequency of the CPRF, and the character- From the back calculation of the settlements of raft foundations
istics of the earthquake input motion, which are ignored in the sim- of high-rise buildings in Frankfurt, Amann (1975) gave a linear var-
ple pseudostatic design, in which only the PGA of the input motion iation of elastic modulus along the clay depth as per Eq. (3).
is considered.
E ¼ 7ð1 þ 0:35 zÞ (3)

Case Study on Existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower
General Information of Frankfurt Subsoil and
Messeturm Tower
Frankfurt am Main is located on the eastern boundary of the
Mainzer basin in the western part of Germany. The subsoil of
Frankfurt am Main consists of homogeneous, stiff, and overconsoli-
dated tertiary Frankfurt clay with an embedded limestone band of
varying thicknesses (Katzenbach 1981). The layer extends to the
east and the southeast of Frankfurt at an inclination of 2 to 3° to the
northwest (Romberg and Katzenbach 1986). Messeturm Tower was
constructed on the eastern side of the Frankfurt exhibition area in
the Friedrich-Ebert place during the years 1988–1990. The height
of the tower is 256.5 m, with an office area of 63,000 m2. The tower
has a CPRF as its foundation system. The tower’s CPRF consists of
a square raft of width 58.8 m of varying thickness, from 6 m at the
center to 3 m at the edges, and 64 bored piles having a uniform di-
ameter of 1.3 m but varying in length. The piles are arranged into a
three-ring pattern. The inner ring consists of 16 piles of 34.9-m
length, the middle ring pile consists of 20 piles of 30.9-m length,
and the outer ring pile consists of 28 piles of 26.9-m length. Fig. 9
shows the existing Messeturm Tower and provides a schematic
view of the CPRF and the pile arrangement. Further details of meas-
urements and monitoring of the CPRF of Messeturm Tower can be
found in Sommer et al. (1990), Sommer and Hoffmann (1991), and
Sommer (1993).
where E is the elastic modulus in MN·m2; and z is soil depth in m.
Frankfurt clay was modeled using the hardening soil (HS) model
option available in the standard library of PLAXIS 3D, which is
based on the hyperbolic relation between axial strain and deviatoric
stress and also considers the stiffness dependency with confining
pressure, as per Eq. (4).
 m
ref c cos f  s 3 sin f
E50 ¼ E50 (4)
c cos f þ pref sin f
where E50ref
is the reference stiffness modulus corresponding to the
reference confining pressure. The actual stiffness depends on the
minor principal stress (s 3 ), which is confining pressure in the tri-
axial test. The amount of stress dependency is given by power
law (m). Shear strength parameters, such as cohesion (c) and fric-
tion angle ( f ), are used as per Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.
The stiffness parameter in the FEA was chosen as per the relation-
ship established by Amann (1975) and Reul (2000), as shown in
Fig. 10.
Because the same model was to be analyzed under pseudostatic
loading, a symmetric modeling procedure was adopted to reduce
computational time. The total thickness of the soil model was taken
as 130 m, including 74.8 m of Frankfurt clay layer and 55.2 m of
Frankfurt limestone layer, as per the quarter symmetric model pre-
sented by Reul (2000). Frankfurt limestone was modeled with a
Mohr-Coulomb model. The dimensions of the model boundary
were chosen to avoid any deformation near the boundary. The soil

© ASCE 04016013-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Variation of Young’s modulus with depth in Frankfurt clay

Fig. 12. Symmetric view of vertical settlement contour of CPRF in PLAXIS 3D

© ASCE 04016013-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 parameters for numerical analysis are listed in Table 3, as per Berth
(1970) and Reul (2000).
Numerical Modeling of Pile and Raft Component of
CPRF
The piles were modeled as embedded pile elements and the raft was
modeled as a plate element. To simulate a symmetric condition, 33
piles were modeled as having 8 inner-ring piles of 34.9-m length,
10 middle-ring piles of 30.9-m length, and 15 outer-ring piles of
26.9-m length. All piles were modeled as having a uniform diameter
of 1,300 mm, except for the two edge piles, which were modeled as
having a diameter of 650 mm. Half of the existing raft foundation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
having dimensions of 58.8-m length and 29.4-m width was mod-
eled. The properties of raft and piles are given in Table 4. Fig. 11
shows the three-dimensional (3D) symmetric mesh of the soil and
CPRF model, and it also depicts the inner, middle, and outer potion
of the raft and the inner, middle, and outer rings of piles. The total
load of 1,818.7 MN, which includes the weight of the building and
self-weight of the raft, was applied in the form of vertical pressure
to the top of the CPRF (Reul 2000). Previous studies also used this
concept for application of a lumped mass of superstructure onto the
foundation unit (Tabesh and Poulos 2007; Castelli and Maugeri
2009), along with design codes such as AASHTO (1993).
Results for Static Loading Conditions
Fig. 12 shows the contour of the settlement profile, which had a

Total load (MN) maximum value of settlement of 16.95 cm. Fig. 13 shows the load–
0 500 1000 1500 2000 settlement curve obtained through FEA and the field-measured
0 value, which bear close resemblance with each other. The maxi-
mum settlement obtained through FEA was 16.95 cm, and settle-
2 ment measured in the field on December 17, 1998, was 14.4 cm.
Sommer et al. (1990) reported that if only the raft foundation was
4 used, the settlement would be around 40 cm. A maximum settle-
ment of 17.4 cm was reported by Reul (2000) through analysis per-
6
formed in Abaqus 5.8, which is close to the obtained result in the
Settlement (cm)

8
present study. Fig. 14 illustrates the settlement profile in Frankfurt
clay obtained after FEA and field measurements; it can be
10 observed that the measured profile is a close match with the pres-
ent FEA results. The total vertical load taken by all the piles was
FEA approximately 760 MN, which gives the CPRF coefficient a value
12
of 0.42, which is close to the field-measured value of 0.43 as men-
14 Field measured tioned by Reul (2000). Figs. 15 and 16 illustrate the pile load–distri-
(17.12.1998) bution curve for the inner-, middle-, and outer-ring piles and the re-
16 sistance–settlement curve for the inner- and outer-ring piles for both
the FEA and the field-measured value, and show that the field-meas-
18 ured value is a close match with the FEA results. Table 5 shows a
comparison of the results obtained through the present FEA with
20
measured values. From the static analyses results, it is observed that
Fig. 13. Load–settlement curve the FEA results of the CPRF simulate the in-situ measurements rea-
sonably well, both qualitatively and quantitatively, thus validating
the present numerical model. Hence, the same numerical model was
used to analyze the behavior of the CRPF of the Messeturm Tower
Sz / smax (%) under different pseudostatic loading conditions.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2 Analysis and Results for Pseudostatic Loading
Condition
12 Pseudostatic loading derived from Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma
Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 earthquake input motions was
22
applied to the top of the CPRF in the positive x-direction. The
details of the applied pseudostatic loading are given in Table 2.
Fig. 17 shows the normalized horizontal displacement along the
Depth (m)

32 pile length for the inner-, middle-, and outer-ring piles under the
Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and 1979 El-Centro
earthquake loadings. It was observed that normalized displacement
42 increased with an increase in the magnitude of earthquake loading,
had maximum value at the pile head, and reduced to zero at the pile
FEA
52 tip for all three ring piles. The CPRF attained horizontal displace-
ment values (u) of 2, 5, 7, and 13% of the pile diameter (D) in the
Field measured
(26.07.1991) cases of Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro
62 1979 pseudostatic loading. Fig. 18 presents the bending moment
profile along the pile length under static and different earthquake
loading conditions for all three rings. The maximum bending
Fig. 14. Settlement distribution along depth of Frankfurt clay
moment was observed at the top of the pile as a result of the rigidity
of the connection between the raft and the pile. It was also observed

© ASCE 04016013-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 Load (MN)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0

10

Pile length (m) 15

20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

25 FEA- Inner ring pile

Field measured (26.07.1991)- Inner ring pile
30
FEA- Middle ring pile
Field measured (26.07.1991)- Middle ring pile
35
FEA- Outer ring pile
Field measured (26.07.1991)- Outer ring pile
40

Fig. 15. Pile load distribution along pile length for inner-, middle-, and outer-ring piles

Resistance (MN)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0

6
Settlement (cm)

10

12
FEA- Inner ring pile
14 Field measured (17.12.1998)- Inner ring pile

16 FEA- Outer ring pile

Field measured (17.12.1998)- Outer ring pile
18

Fig. 16. Resistance–settlement curve for inner- and outer-ring piles

that a positive bending moment developed near the top of the pile,
which progressively reduced to negative and then to zero at the pile Table 5. Comparison of Results Obtained through FEA and Field
Measurements
tip. The crossover point from negative to positive was observed at
shallow depths. Field-measured FE (%)
Parameters value calculation difference
CPRF coefficient 0.43 0.42 2.32
Conclusions
Settlement (cm) 14.4 16.95 –17.7
Pile load (inner ring) (MN) 9.7 10.87 –12.06
In the present study, 3D nonlinear analysis was carried out using
Pile load (outer ring) (MN) 7.8 8.77 –12.43
PLAXIS 3D to investigate the behavior of a generic CPRF under

© ASCE 04016013-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 pseudostatic and dynamic loading conditions. It is to be noted that
FEA to investigate the behavior of CPRFs under seismic loading
requires a great amount of computational time and space, but to es-
tablish confidence in the design and to model such important foun-
dations in conditions close to those of the field, such rigorous analy-
ses are required. The numerical study simulated the trend of
dynamic centrifuge tests and studies using Abaqus 5.8 reasonably
well, which was considered as good validation of the present model.
Thereafter, pseudostatic and dynamic analyses were carried out
under different earthquake loading conditions. It was observed that
the pile share of maximum percentage of pseudostatic load varied
from 62 to 76%, which is unlike the case in vertical loading. The

Normalised horizontal displacement (u/D)

0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
0

5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10

15 El-Centro1979 - Inner ring pile

Depth (m)

El-centro 1979 - Middle ring pile

El-Centro 1979 - Outer ring pile
20 Loma Prieta 1989 - Inner ring pile
Loma Preita 1989- middle ring pile
Loma Prieta 1989 - Outer ring pile
25 Bhuj 2001- Inner ring pile
Bhuj 2001 - Middle ring pile
Bhuj 2001 - Outer ring pile
30 Sikkim 2011- Inner ring pile
Sikkim 2011- Middle ring pile
Sikkim 2011 - Outer ring pile
35

Fig. 17. Normalized horizontal displacement along pile length for different cases of pseudostatic loading

Bending moment (MN.m)

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0

Static- Inner ring pile

10
Static- Middle ring pile
Static- Outer ring pile
Depth (m)

15 El-Centro 1979- Inner ring pile

El-Centro 1979- Middle ring pile
El-Centro 1979 - Outer ring pile
20 Loma Prieta 1989 - Inner ring pile
Loma Prieta 1989- Middle ring pile
Loma Prieta 1989- Outer ring pile
25 Bhuj 2001- Inner ring pile
Bhuj 2001- Middle ring pile
Bhuj 2001- Outer ring pile
30 Sikkim 2011- Inner ring pile
Sikkim 2011- Middle ring pile
Sikkim 2011- Outer ring pile
35

Fig. 18. Bending moment along pile length for different cases of static and pseudostatic loading

© ASCE 04016013-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 resonance condition was observed under the Loma Prieta 1989
earthquake motion, which yielded higher acceleration and horizon-
tal displacement in the CPRF as compared with all other input
motions. The response spectrum led to the postulation that the soil
below the raft of the CPRF and the soil at the far field were not
moving in tandem as a result of the strong interaction of soil, pile,
and raft. The results obtained through pseudostatic analysis var-
ied marginally with those of the dynamic analysis because the
considerations of natural frequency of soil media and input
motion characteristics were included in the dynamic analysis,
whereas the pseudostatic analysis considered only the PGA of the
input motions.
The case study on numerical modeling of the CPRF of the exist-
ing Messeturm Tower revealed the significance of the raft founda-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Banerjee, S., Goh, S. H., and Lee, F. H. (2007). “Response of soft clay strata
and clay-pile- raft systems to seismic shaking.” J. Earthquake Tsunami,
1(3), 233–255.
Banerjee, S., Goh, S. H., and Lee, F. H. (2014). “Earthquake induced bend-
ing moment in fixed head piles in soft clay.” Geotechnique, 64(6),
431–446.
Basack, S., and Dey, S. (2012). “Influence of relative pile-soil stiffness and
load eccentricity on single pile response in sand under lateral cyclic
loading.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 30(4), 737–751.
Berth, H. (1970). “Das Tragverhalten des Frankfurter Tons bei im Tiefbau
auftretenden Beansprunchungen.” Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt für
Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der TH Darmstadt, Heft 4 (in German).
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B., and De Mello, V. F. B. (1977). “Behaviour of
foundation and structures.” Proc., 9th ICSMFE, Vol. 2, International
Society for Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, London, 495–
546.

tion in load sharing under vertical loading considerations. The nor- Camelbeeck, T., Alexandre, P., Vanneste, K., and Meghraoui, M. (2000).
malized horizontal displacement and bending moment profile “Long-term seismic activity in regions of present day low seismic activ-
showed maximum value at the pile head, which decreased along the ity: The example of Western Europe.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 20,
length of pile. The current study highlights the importance of nu- 405–414.
merical modeling techniques in understanding the behavior of Camelbeeck, T., and Meghraoui, M. (1998). “Geological and geophysical
CPRFs involving complex soil–structure interaction under static, evidence for large paleoearthquakes with surface faulting in the Roer
Grabe (northwest Europe).” Geophys. J. Int., 132, 347–362.
pseudostatic, and dynamic loading conditions.
Castelli, F., and Maugeri, M. (2009). “Simplified approach for the seismic
response of a pile foundation.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
Notation .1943-5606.0000107, 1440–1451.
Chatterjee, K., Choudhury, D., and Poulos, H. G. (2015b). “Seismic analy-
The following symbols are used in this paper: sis of laterally loaded pile under influence of vertical loading using finite
C ¼ cohesion; element method.” Comput. Geotech., 67, 172–186.
d ¼ pile diameter; Chatterjee, K., Choudhury, D., Rao, V. D., and Mukherjee, S. P. (2015a).
E ¼ elastic modulus; “Dynamic analyses and field observations on piles in Kolkata city.”
Geomech. Eng. Int. J., 8(3), 415–440.
ref
E50 ¼ reference stiffness modulus;
Choudhury, D., Phanikanth, V. S., Mhaske, S. Y., Phule, R. R., and
FEA ¼ finite-element analysis; Chatterjee, K. (2014). “Seismic liquefaction hazard and site response for
G ¼ shear modulus; design of piles in Mumbai city.” Indian Geotech. J., 45(1), 62–78.
H ¼ height of soil model; Choudhury, D., Phanikanth, V. S., and Reddy, G. R. (2009). “Recent advan-
I ¼ moment of inertia; ces in analysis and design of pile foundations in liquefiable soils during
L ¼ pile length; earthquake: A review.” Proc., Indian Natl. Sci. Acad., 79(2), 141–152.
m ¼ stress dependency factor; Dash, S., Govindaraju, L., and Bhattacharya, S. (2009). “A case study of
mraft ¼ mass of raft; damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Office tower supported on a
Mw ¼ moment magnitude; mat–pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.”
PGA ¼ peak ground acceleration; Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 29(2), 333–346.
Pref ¼ reference confining pressure; Dezfooli, M., Abolmaali, A., and Razavi, M. (2015). “Coupled nonlinear fi-
nite-element analysis of soil–steel pipe structure interaction.” Int. J.
u ¼ lateral displacement;
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000387, 04014032.
T ¼ fundamental time period; FLAC3D 4.0 [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis,
Vs ¼ shear wave velocity; MN.
z ¼ soil depth; Eslami, M. M., Aminikhah, A., and Ahmadi M. M. (2011). “A comparative
DL ¼ mesh size; study on pile group and piled raft foundations (PRF) behavior under
m ¼ Poisson’s ratio; seismic loading.” Comp. Meth. Civil Eng., 2(2), 185–199.
r ¼ density of soil; Gazetas, G. (1984). “Seismic response of end-bearing single piles.” Soil
s 3 ¼ minor principal stress; Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 3(2), 82–93.
f ¼ soil friction angle; Hokmabadi, A. S., Fatahi, B., and Samali, B. (2015). “Physical modeling of
c ¼ soil dilation angle; and seismic soil-pile-structure interaction for buildings on soft soils.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000396, 04014046.
v r ¼ resonance frequency.
Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T., and
Fukuyama H. (2003a). “Performance of piled raft foundations subjected
to static horizontal loads.” Int. J. Phys. Model., 3(2), 37–50.
Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T., and
References Fukuyama, H. (2003b). “Performance of piled raft foundations sub-
jected to dynamic loading.” Int. J. Phys. Model., 3(2), 51–62.
AASHTO. (1993). AASHTO Guide for design for pavement structures, Horikoshi, K., and Randolph, M. F. (1998). “A contribution of optimum
Washington, DC. design of piled rafts.” Geotechnique, 48(3), 301–317.
Abaqus 5.8 [Computer software]. SIMULIA, Providence, RI. JRA (Japan Road Association). (2002). Specification for highway bridges:
AIJ (Architectural Institute of Japan). (2001). Recommendation for design Seismic design, PartV, Tokyo.
of building foundation, Tokyo (in Japanese). Kakurai, M. (2003). “Study on vertical load transfer of piles.” Doctoral the-
Amann, P. (1975). “Über den Einfluß des Verformungsverhaltens des sis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Frankfurter Tons auf die Tiefenwirkkung eines Hochhauses und die Kang, M. A., Banerjee, S., Lee, F. H., and Xie, H. P. (2012). “Dynamic soil-
Form der Setzungsmulde.” Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt für pile-raft interaction in normally consolidated soft clay during earth-
Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der TH Darmstadt, 15 (in German). quakes.” J. Earthquake Tsunami, 6(3), 1250031-1–1250031-12.

© ASCE 04016013-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013

 Katzenbach, R. (1981). “Entwicklungstendenzen beim Bau under der
Berechung Oberflächennaher Tunnel in bebautem Stadtgebiet.”
Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt für Bodenmechanik und Grundbau
der TH Darmstadt, Heft 24 (in German).
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., and Moormann, C. (2000). “Piled raft founda-
tion projects in Germany.” In Design applications of raft foundations,
J. A. Hemsley, ed., Thomas Telford, London, 323–392.
Katzenbach, R., Bachmann, G., Boled- Mekasha, G., and Ramm, H. (2005).
“Combined pile-raft foundation (CPRF): An approximate solution for
the foundation of high rise buildings.” Slovak J. Civ. Eng., 3, 19–29.
Katzenbach, K., and Choudhury, D. (2013). “ISSMGE combined pile-raft
foundation guideline.” Deep foundations, International Society for
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, London, 1–28.
Katzenbach, R., and Moormann, C. (2001). “Recommendations for the
design and construction of piled rafts.” Proc., 15th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, International Society for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KIIT University on 08/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, London, 2.
Kog, Y. (2015). “Axially loaded piles in consolidating layered soil.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000523, 04015039.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
Kreibich, H., et al. (2014). “A review of multiple natural hazards and risks
in Germany.” Nat. Hazards, 74(3), 2279–2304.
Kuhlemeyer, R. L., and Lysmer, J. (1973). “Finite element method accuracy
for wave propagation problems.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(5), 421–
427.
Kumar, A., and Choudhury, D. (2016). “DSSI analysis of pile foundations
for an oil tank in Iraq.” Proc., ICE Geotechnical Engineering, in press.
Kumar, A., Choudhury, D., Sukla, J., and Shah, D. L. (2015). “Seismic
design of pile foundation by using PLAXIS3D.” Disaster Adv., 8(6), 33–
42.
Ladhane, K., and Sawant, V. (2015). “Effect of pile group configurations on
nonlinear dynamic response.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000476, 04015013.
Liu, Y., Wang, X., and Zhang, M. (2015). “Lateral vibration of pile groups
partially embedded in layered saturated soils.” Int. J. Geomech., 10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000406, 04014063.
Liyanapathirana, S., and Poulos, H. (2005). “Pseudostatic approach for seis-
mic analysis of piles in liquefying soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:12(1480), 1480–1487.
Matsumoto, T., Fukumura, K., Horikoshi, K., and Oki, A. (2004). “Shaking
table test on model piled rafts in considering influence of superstruc-
tures.” Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech., 4(3), 21–38.
Matsumoto, T., Nemoto, H., Mikami, H., Yaegashi, K., Arai, T., and
Kitiyodom, P. (2010). “Load tests of piled raft models with different
pile head connection conditions and their analyses.” Soils Found., 50(1),
63–81.
Phanikanth, V. S., and Choudhury, D. (2014). “Single piles in cohesionless
soils under lateral loads using elastic continuum approach.” Indian
Geotech. J., 44(3), 225–233.
Phanikanth, V. S., Choudhury, D., and Reddy, G. R. (2013a). “Behavior of
single pile in liquefied deposits during earthquakes.” Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000224, 454–462.
Phanikanth, V. S., Choudhury, D., and Srinivas, K. (2013b). “Response of
flexible piles under lateral loads.” Indian Geotech. J., 43(1), 76–82.
PLAXIS 3D 5.10 [Computer software]. PLAXIS BV, Netherlands.
© ASCE 04016013-16
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(5): 04016013
Poulos, H. G. (2001). “Piled raft foundations: Design and applications.”
Geeotechnique, 51(2), 95–113.
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). “Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts.”
Proc. 13th ICSMFE, Vol. 5, International Society for Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, London, 61–82.
Reul, O. (2000). “In situ-Messungen und numerische studien Zum
Tragverhalten der Kombinierten Pfahl-plattengtündung.” Mitteilungen
des Institutes und der versuchsanstalt für Geotechnik ser Technischen
Universität Darmstadt, Heft 53 (in German).
Romberg, W., and Katzenbach, R. (1986) “Steifenkraftmessungen an teifen
Baugruben in tertiären Kalken.” Proc. 8, Dinau-Europäische Konfernz,
Nürnberg, DGEG, Essen, Germany, 31–35 (in German).
Salciarini, D., Ronchi, F., Cattoni, E., and Tamagnini, C. (2015).
“Thermomechanical effects induced by energy piles operation in a small
piled raft.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000375,
04014042.
Sommer, H. (1993). “Development of locked stresses and negative shaft re-
sistance at the piled raft foundation- Messeturm Frankfurt am Main.”
Proc., Deep Foundations on Bored und Auger Piles, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 347–349.
Sommer, H., and Hoffmann, H. (1991). “Load-settlement behavior of the
fair tower (Messeturm) in Frankfurt am Main.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Ground Movement and Structures, Pentech Press, London, 612–627.
Sommer, H., Katzenbach, R., and DeBeneditis, C. (1990). “Last-
Verformungsverhalten des messeturmes Frankfurt am Mai.” Vorträge
der Baugrundtagung in Karlsruhe, DGGT, Essen, Germany, 371–380
(in German).
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. (2007). “Design charts for seismic analysis of
single piles in clay.” Proc., ICE—Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 160,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 85–96.
Vanneste, K., et al. (2001). “Surface-rupturing history of the Bree fault
scarp, Roer Valley graben: Evidence for six events since the late
Pleistocene.” J. Seismol., 5(3), 329–359.
Yamada, T., Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M., and Tsukatani, H. (2001). “Long-
term behaviour of tall building on raft foundation constructed by top-
down method.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Deep Foundation Practice, CI-
Premier Pte Ltd., Singapore, 411–417.
Yamashita, K., Hamada, J., Onimaru, S., and Higashino, M. (2012).
“Seismic behavior of piled raft with ground improvement supporting a
base-isolated building on soft ground in Tokyo.” Soils Found., 52(5),
1000–1015.
Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M., Yamada, T., and Kuwabara, F. (1993).
“Settlement behaviour of a five-story building on piled raft foundation.”
Proc., 2nd Int. Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored
and Auger Piles, Vol. 2, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 351–356.
Yamashita, K., Yamada, T., and Hamada, J. (2011). “Investigation of settle-
ment and load sharing on piled rafts by monitoring full-scale structures.”
Soils Found., 51(3), 513–532.
Zhang, J., Cui, X., Huang, D., Jin, Q., Lou, J., and Tang, W. (2015).
“Numerical simulation of consolidation settlement of pervious concrete
pile composite foundation under road embankment.” Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000542, B4015006.
Zheng, C., Ding, X., and Sun, Y. (2015). “Vertical vibration of a pipe pile in
viscoelastic soil considering the three-dimensional wave effect of soil.”
Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000529, 04015037.
Int. J. Geomech.