International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0356-2

RESEARCH PAPER

Load Sharing and Carrying Mechanism of Piles in Non-connected Pile

Rafts Using a Numerical Approach
Alireza Saeedi Azizkandi1 · Habib Rasouli2 · Mohammad Hasan Baziar1

Received: 21 April 2018 / Revised: 23 July 2018 / Accepted: 29 August 2018

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Abstract
The load response and carrying mechanism of piles in a non-connected piled raft foundation is a complex phenomenon due
to complex soil–structure interactions such as interactions among piles, subsoil, cushion, and raft. The scope of this research
includes four main components: (1) using 3D finite element modeling and verifying different models with centrifuge tests;
(2) investigating the parameters affecting the axial stiffness of a non-connected piled raft; (3) investigating the influence of
different parameters on the foundation settlement; and (4) devoting special attention to the mechanism of carrying and shar-
ing loads as well as the load–settlement behavior of non-connected piled raft foundations, in comparison with connected
piled raft foundations. Results of this research showed that in order to achieve optimal design, geotechnical designers should
consider three major factors, including axial stiffness of non-connected piled raft, settlement, and stress along the pile length.

Keywords  Non-connected piled raft · Connected piled raft · Finite element method · Load sharing of pile

1 Introduction satisfy the settlement designing criteria is lesser than those

In the design of a piled raft foundation for structures, the raft
alone may have an adequate factor of safety against ultimate
bearing capacity, but its settlement or differential settlement
may exceed allowable values. Thus piles are used to enhance
the settlement criteria. In the past, it was assumed that the
piles in a piled raft foundation carry the entire load imposed
on the foundation. Davis and Poulos [1] introduced a new
method to determine the number of piles needed to lower the
foundation settlements to the acceptable level. Normally, few
long piles are needed to reduce the settlement to the accept-
able amount [2, 3]. Poulos [4] also proposed an alternative
method for the designing of piled raft foundations called
settlement reducers, in which the number of piles required to
* Alireza Saeedi Azizkandi
asaeedia@iust.ac.ir
Habib Rasouli
habib.rasouli@uts.edu.au
Mohammad Hasan Baziar
baziar@iust.ac.ir
1
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science
and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
required by conventional design approaches which count on
the pile bearing capacity. Nonetheless, due to the fewer num-
ber of piles, the high axial forces and bending moments may
transfer from the pile head to the raft [5]. In other words, in
the active tectonic regions, high shear forces may develop
at the pile-raft connection point [6]. For instance, during
the Hyogoken–Nanbu earthquake (1995), due to high shear
and bending forces, the pile cap and pile head of the Higashi
Bridge and some other piled raft foundations were detached
[7]. In most design codes (ASTM 1969, British Standard
1986) strong limitations have been imposed for the allowable
stresses in the pile cap, which may lead to the uneconomi-
cal design of the foundation system [6]. In order to prevent
structural damage to the piled raft, piles could be used as soil
reinforcement rather than structural elements by placing an
interposed layer of granular material between the raft and
the subsoil to adjust stress transferring from the raft to the
piles and subsoil [8].
The efficiency of non-connected piled raft foundations
has been proven by both numerical and experimental inves-
tigation. Adding non-connected piles as settlement reducer
below a raft will reduce the differential settlement and
bending moment within the raft structure [6]. Additionally,
increasing the length of piles and placing them in the center
of the raft are other effective ways to increase piled raft

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

stiffness and decrease differential settlement [6, 9]. Cush-
ion thickness, stiffness, and particle gradation can improve
non-connected piled raft axial stiffness. Rasouli et al. [10]
used centrifuge-modeling tests to show that choosing an
appropriate particle soil grading of the cushion can improve
the axial stiffness of non-connected piled raft. The previous
studies revealed that a cushion layer with higher stiffness and
smaller thickness would decrease the raft settlement [9, 11,
12]. Azizkandi et al. [13] used 1 g shaking table tests and
numerical modeling to show the efficiency of non-connected
and connected piled raft foundations under seismic loading.
It was noted that the lateral stiffness of the connected piled
raft was higher than those of the non-connected forms; fur-
thermore, piles in the connected piled rafts behaved more
efficiently against lateral loads.
Load sharing between connected piles and a raft is a com-
plex phenomenon due to interactions between the piles, the
subsoil, and the raft. However, load sharing in a non-con-
nected piled raft is even more complex due to placement of
a deformable layer between the piles and the raft. In the con-
nected piled raft, the maximum axial load mobilized within
pile length is at the connection of piles and the raft. The
concentrated loads at the connection of piles to the raft is
decreased by introducing a cushion layer between the piles
and raft [6, 14]. The applied load to the raft in a connected
piled raft is diffused to greater and deeper volumes of soil. In
contrast, due to presence of the interposed layer, the applied
load on the raft in a non-connected piled raft is distributed
indirectly by the pile head and the negative skin friction
at the upper part of the piles [6, 15, 16]. Nakaia et al. [17]
used dynamic centrifuge tests and numerical modeling to
show that even when piles are non-connected structurally
to the raft, they have a significant effect on the structural
response under dynamic loading. Tradigo et al. [18] showed
that the results of numerical modeling of a non-connected
piled raft (i.e. raft settlement and pile force distribution with
1D embedded piles) were in good agreement when the piles
were modeled using the fully solid element method.
Russo and Viggiani [19] grouped piled raft foundations
into two broad categories of small (raft breadth to the pile
length ratio, Br ∕Lp < 1 ) and large piled rafts (i.e. Br ∕Lp > 1 ).
When the bearing capacity of a raft is insufficient, the small
piled rafts are usually introduced to increase bearing capac-
ity against failure. However, large piled rafts are defined
when the bearing capacity of a raft is adequate with an
acceptable safety factor, and the only reason for adding piles
is to reduce the maximum or differential settlements below
the allowable values.
In the present study, 125 different types of foundations
including raft, non-connected, and connected piled rafts
have been modeled by employing the 3D finite element
method (ABAQUS) to investigate the behavior of small and
large non-connected piled raft foundations in comparison
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
with the connected piled rafts under vertical loading. Accu-
racy of the numerical analysis was verified by a series of
centrifugal tests reported by Fioravante and Giretti [15]. The
effect of several parameters including length, spacing, and
the number of the piles, cushions, and subsoil stiffness (i.e.
Young’s modulus) were considered chiefly to investigate the
load response and carrying ratio of piles in the non-con-
nected piled rafts in comparison with the connected forms.
2 Methodology of Analysis
2.1 Finite Element Modeling
Structural elements including raft and piles were modeled as
elastic materials, while geotechnical elements consisting of
subsoil and cushion layer were modeled by an elastic ideal
plastic constitutive model, following the Mohr–Coulomb
yield criterion. Although the assumption of linear elastic-
ity for the subsoil is not very accurate in comparison with
other superior soil models, this model was implemented in
the numerical modeling to simplify the complex behavior
between piles and soil as well as raft and soil; however, some
over-prediction of the interaction might have been observed
[20, 21]. Due to the symmetry of the numerical model, only
one-quarter of piled raft foundations were modeled. Piled
raft structure and soil mass including subsoil and cushion
layers were modeled using a six-node linear triangular prism
element (C3D6). To improve the accuracy of the results and
decrease the calculation time, a relatively fine mesh was
used in the vicinity of the pile-raft structure; the mesh size
did, however, increase as the distance from the pile structure
was increased. Figure 4 shows a typical non-connected piled
raft foundation with nine piles.
The ultimate shaft friction capacity of piles depends
on installation conditions and relative pile roughness (i.e.
Rn = Rt ∕D50 , where Rt = maximum pile surface roughness).
According to Fioravante and Giretti [15], the minimum rela-
tive roughness of piles in the corresponding study was Rn
= 0.67. This value was higher than the proposed amount in
the literature (i.e. Rn > 0.1) and ensures that no slip occurs
between the piles and surrounding soil [22, 23]. Therefore,
the perfectly rough interface between piles and the soil pre-
vented the occurrence of failure in the soil–pile interface.
2.2 Verification of Finite Element Model
In order to verify the numerical modeling procedure using
ABAQUS, three different models were analyzed and cali-
brated from a series of experimental tests in sandy soil. A
simple raft, a non-connected, and a connected piled raft
foundation with nine piles were chosen from centrifuge tests
reported by Fioravante and Giretti [15]. The properties of
International Journal of Civil Engineering

materials and dimensions of different models used in the 7.5m 7.5m

validation (in the prototype scale) are summarized in Table 1
and Fig. 1, respectively [24–26].
Figure 2 compares the load–settlement behavior and total
load carried by piles from the experimental tests and FE

7.5m

7.5m
analysis results. It is clear that the obtained results from FE
analyses are in good agreement with the experiments regard-
ing load–settlement curve and total load carried by piles. S p =2.5m

3 Effect of Different Parameters on Piled UR NC09

Raft Axial Stiffness

1.65m

1.65m
In the present study, FE analysis was performed by executing
the ABAQUS (standard) software to investigate the differ-
ences between small and large connected and non-connected

19m
piled rafts. Various types of foundations including raft, con-
nected piled raft (PR), and non-connected piled raft (NC) Dp =0.5m
were considered to study the effects of several parameters
including subsoil and cushion stiffness (i.e. Young’s modu-
lus), length, spacing, and number of piles on the behavior
of raft settlement, load sharing coefficient, and stress along PR09
the pile length. According to the existing literature, these
parameters are of great importance in the vertical bearing
behavior of connected piled foundations [4, 27–29].
The piled raft model consists of a square raft with 12 m

breadth (Br), piles with a diameter of 0.5 m (dp), various pile
lengths (Lp) ranging from 7 to 20 m and a 1-m-thick cush-
ion layer in the non-connected piled rafts under a constant
applied load of 500 kPa, which is shown in Fig. 3. The char-
acteristics of subsoil and cushion layer used in the present
study are summarized in Table 1. Figure 4 and Table 2 show
one-quarter of a typical non-connected piled raft foundation
and a summary of the studied models, respectively.
3.1 Piled Raft Axial Stiffness and Load–Settlement
Behavior of Different Foundations
Small and large piled rafts were considered in the selection
of the various types of foundations in order to investigate
the load–settlement behavior of the connected piled rafts in
comparison with the non-connected piled rafts. In the pre-
sent study, the connected piled raft and non-connected piled
19m
Dp =0.5m
Fig. 1  Geometry of different foundations used in validation [15]
raft, namely PR and NC, and the number after that denote
the number of piles and normalized pile spacing; e.g. NC09-
S/d = 5 means non-connected piled raft with nine piles and
normalized pile spacing of 5. However, the effect of structural
and geotechnical properties of piled raft foundations on the
settlement performance of PR/NC can be investigated using
the settlement efficiency ratio [6, 15] as follows:
wr ur − wr
𝜂= , (1)
wr ur

Table 1  Material properties Material E (MPa) 𝜈 𝛾 (kN/m3) c (kPa) 𝜙o 𝜓o

used in validation [15]
Venice Lagoon Sand (Subsoil) 18.5 0.25 15.3 0 35 5
Ticino Sand (Cushion) 35 0.25 15.3 0 35 5
Pile 25,000 0.15 24 – – –
Raft 30,000 0.15 24 – – –

E Young’s modulus, 𝜈 Poisson’s ratio, 𝛾 unit weight, c cohesion, 𝜙o internal friction angle, 𝜓 o dilation angle

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

0 0.0

Raft Relative Settlement, W r /Br (%)

Relative Raft Settlement, W r/Br (%)
0.5
1
1.0

2 1.5

UR-FEM in this study 2.0

UR-Centrifugal tests PR09-Centrifugal test
3 NC09-FEM in this study PR09-FEM in this study
NC09-Centrifugal tests 2.5
NC09-FEM in this study
PR09-Centrifugal tests
NC09-Centrifugal test
PR09-FEM in this study
3.0
4
0 10 20 30 40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Total Applied Load on Raft, Qpr (kPa) Total Load Carried by Piles, Qp (MN)
(a) ( b)

Fig. 2  Relation between the raft relative settlement and a total load imposed on the raft and b total load carried by piles

12m 12m 12m 12m 12m

12m

12m

12m

12m

12m
S p =Var. S p =Var. Sp =5d p

UR NC04 NC09 NC16 NC25

1m

1m

1m

1m
L p =Var.

L p =Var.

L p =Var.

L p =Var.
Dp =0.5m Dp =0.5m Dp =0.5m Dp =0.5m

PR04 PR09 PR16 PR25

L p =Var.

L p =Var.

L p =Var.

L p =Var.

Dp =0.5m Dp =0.5m Dp =0.5m Dp =0.5m

Fig. 3  Schematic illustrations of different types of foundations used respectively), NC04, NC09, NC16, and NC25 (non-connected piled
in the present study, UR (foundation without piles), PR04, PR09, raft foundation with 4, 9, 16, and 25 piles, respectively)
PR16, and PR25 (piled raft foundation with 4, 9, 16, and 25 piles,

where wr ur and wr are the settlements of the unpiled raft and of wr are always smaller than wr ur (i.e. 0 ≤ 𝜂 ≤ 1 ). Therefore,
connected/non-connected piled raft, respectively. Adding larger values for the settlement efficiency ratio means more
piles improves load–settlement behavior so that the values efficient in reducing raft settlement.

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

raft foundations for np = 0, 4, and 9, Lp = 20 m and Br =

Fig. 4  One-quarter of finite element mesh of non-connected piled raft
with 1 m cushion
3.1.1 Effect of Pile Spacing
Figure 5 shows the effect of pile spacing on the load–set-
tlement behavior of connected and non-connected piled
12 m. It can be observed that for a particular settlement,
the piled raft axial stiffness increases with increasing pile
spacing in both connected and non-connected systems.
That happens because increasing pile spacing increases the
area of the raft supported by piles; furthermore, increas-
ing pile spacing decreases the pile–soil–pile interaction
[10, 30, 31]. The effect of pile spacing on connected piled
rafts is significant because the applied loads are directly
transferred through the piles without any intermediate ele-
ment. As shown in Fig. 5, the load–settlement behavior of
connected piled rafts was more affected by increasing pile
spacing rather than using the non-connected piled rafts
[6, 14]. In addition, increasing the number of piles from 4
to 9 increased the effect of pile spacing in increasing the
raft axial stiffness. For instance, in the case of NC and PR
with 4 piles, by increasing the pile spacing from 3dp to
9dp for a certain settlement (Wr/Br = 1%), the load carried
by the foundation increased by about 4 and 10%, respec-
tively, while the corresponding values for a piled raft with
nine piles were 11 and 28%. The settlement behavior of
foundations indicated that the settlement efficiency ratio
η improved up to 20 and 40% for connected piled rafts
with 4 and 9 piles, respectively, while the corresponding

Table 2  Summary of studied Parametric study Raft Subsoil Cushion Pile group Number of
models models
Br × Lr × tr (m) 𝜑 E (MPa) tc (m) 𝜑 E (MPa) np Lp Sp
Dp

Cushion stiffness 12 × 12 × 1.5 35 26 1 35 26 4 20 5 20

30
52 9
78 16
104 25
Subsoil stiffness 12 × 12 × 1.5 35 18.5 1 35 30 4 20 5 9
9
22
16
26
30
Pile spacing 12 × 12 × 1.5 35 18.5 1 35 30 4 20 3 6
5
7
9
9
Number of piles 12 × 12 × 1.5 35 18.5 1 35 30 0 20 5 2
4
9
16
25
Pile length 12 × 12 × 1.5 35 18.5 1 35 30 4 7 5 88
22 52 9 14
26
78 16
30 20

T thickness, E Young’s modulus, np number of piles, L length, B breadth, SP pile spacing, dp pile diameter

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

0.0 0.0
Lp=20 m Lp=20 m

Raft Relative Settlement, W r/Br (%)

Raft Relative Settlement, W r/Br (%)

Esubsoil=18.5 MPa Esubsoil=18.5 MPa

0.5 0.5
Ecushion=26 MPa

1.0 1.0

1.5 1.5

2.0 UR 2.0 UR
PR04-s/d=3 NC04-s/d=3
PR04-s/d=5 NC04-s/d=5
2.5 2.5
PR04-s/d=7 NC04-s/d=7
PR04-s/d=9 NC04-s/d=9
3.0 3.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Total Applied Load, Qpr (kPa) Total Applied Load, Qpr (kPa)
(a) (b)
0.0 0.0
Lp=20 m Lp=20 m
Relative Raft Settlement, W r/Br (%)

Relative Raft Settlement, W r/Br (%)

Esubsoil=18.5 MPa Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
0.5 0.5 Ecushion=26 MPa

1.0 1.0

1.5 1.5

2.0 UR 2.0 UR
PR09-s/d=3 NC09-s/d=3
PR09-s/d=5 NC09-s/d=5
2.5 2.5
PR09-s/d=7 NC09-s/d=7
PR09-s/d=9 NC09-s/d=9
3.0 3.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Total Applied Load, Qpr (kPa) Total Applied Load, Qpr (kPa)
(c) (d)

Fig. 5  Effect of pile spacing on the load–settlement behavior of con- nected piled raft with four piles, c connected piled with nine piles, d
nected and non-connected piled rafts with the raft breadth of 12  m, non-connected piled with nine piles
20  m pile length: a connected piled raft with four piles, b non-con-

values for non-connected piled rafts were about 10 and
25%, respectively.
3.1.2 Effect of Subsoil and Cushion Stiffness
The underlying soil properties such as cushion and subsoil
stiffness somewhat affects the load bearing behavior of piled
rafts [32, 33]. Figure 6 illustrates the effect of subsoil and
cushion stiffness (i.e. Young’s modulus) on the load–settle-
ment behavior of PR/NC with nine piles. Several Young’s
moduli including 18.5, 22, 26, and 30 MPa for subsoil and
30, 52, 78, and 104 MPa for cushion were considered. The
pile lengths were changed from 7 to 20 m, representing both
small and large piled raft foundations.
As illustrated in Fig. 6, the efficiency of adding piles to
decrease raft settlement in both connected and non-con-
nected piled rafts is decreased significantly by decreasing
the pile length. Moreover, Fig.  6 shows that increasing
subsoil stiffness reduces the foundation settlement. For
instance, increasing the subsoil Young’s modulus from
18.5 to 30 MPa when Lp = 20 m decreased the settlement
at the center of the raft for the connected and non-connected
piled raft by 38 and 34%, respectively. However, because
the applied loads on the connected piled raft can directly
transfer to the deep layers with a higher stiffness, the effect
of subsoil stiffness is more evident in the connected piled
raft settlement than the non-connected piled rafts.
In cases where the pile length is larger than the raft
breadth, the raft settlement of the connected piled raft is
even less than those of the non-connected piled rafts with
high cushion stiffness (i.e. Young’s modulus of 104 Mpa).
As shown in Fig. 6a, when the pile’s length is 20 m, the set-
tlement of a connected piled raft is always smaller than the
corresponding case for non-connected piled rafts.
In the case of shorter piles (i.e. Br ∕Lp > 1 in Fig. 6c),
however, increasing the cushion stiffness without changing

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

A UR A UR
B PR09,Lp=20m B PR09,Lp=14m
Raft Relative Settlement, Wr/Br (%)

3 C NC09,Lp=20m,Ec=30 MPa 3 C NC09,Lp=14m,Ec=30 MPa

Raft Relative Settlement, W r/Br (%)

A A
D NC09,Lp=20m,Ec=52 MPa D NC09,Lp=14m,Ec=52 MPa
A E NC09,Lp=20m,Ec=78 MPa C A E NC09,Lp=14m,Ec=78 MPa
B DE F
F NC09,Lp=20m,Ec=104 MPa F NC09,Lp=14m,Ec=104 MPa
C C
2 2 B DE F A
B D C A
EF A C A
B D B DE F
EF C C
B D C B DE F
E F B D
EF
1 1

0 0
18.5 22.0 26.0 30.0 18.5 22.0 26.0 30.0
Stiffness of Subsoil, E Subsoil (MPa) Stiffness of Subsoil, E Subsoil (MPa)
(a) (b)
A UR
B PR09,Lp=7m
Raft Relative Settlement, Wr/Br (%)

3 A C NC09,Lp=7m,Ec=30
BC D D NC09,Lp=7m,Ec=52 MPa
EF E NC09,Lp=7m,Ec=78 MPa
A
BC D F F NC09,Lp=7m,Ec=104 MPa
E
2 A
BC DE F
A BC
DE F

0
18.5 22.0 26.0 30.0
Stiffness of Subsoil, E Subsoil (MPa)
(c)

Fig. 6  a Relation between raft relative settlement and subsoil/cushion stiffness for pile length of a 20 m, b 14 m, and c 7 m, under Qpr = 500 kPa

other parameters decreases the settlement of non-connected reduction in the non-connected and connected piled rafts,
piled rafts even more than that of connected piled rafts. Fig- respectively). Therefore, in terms of displacement-based
ure 6c clearly shows that the settlement of non-connected designs and similar to the connected piled rafts reported by
piled rafts with 7 m piles are always smaller than the cor- other researchers [34], the number of piles to increase the
responding cases for a connected piled raft. axial stiffness of a non-connected piled raft is limited to a
specific number.
3.1.3 Effect of Number of Piles
3.2 Pile–Subsoil Displacement
The influence of number of piles on the raft settlement with
20 m length piles and pile spacing of Sp/dp = 5 is illus- Due to several interactions among piles, subsoil, cushion,
trated in Fig. 7. As predicted, the raft relative settlement and the raft, the load response and load carrying of piles in
was improved by increasing the number of piles for both a non-connected piled raft foundation are more complicated
connected and non-connected piled rafts [9]. A compari- than those of the connected piled raft [18]. In the non-con-
son of consecutive cases in Fig. 7a shows a decrease in the nected piled raft foundation, due to the separation of piles
rate of the raft settlement, which causes a slight difference from the raft, the raft settlement causes a relative raft–pile
in the settlement corresponding to the piled rafts with 16 (i.e. Wr > Wp) and pile–subsoil displacement (Ws > Wp). The
and 25 piles (referring to the Fig. 7b 4% and 8% settlement mechanism of load transferring in the non-connected piled

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

3.5 0.7
sp/dp=5 PR PR-S/d=5
Lp=20 m
Raft Relative Settlement, Wr/Br (%)

UR NC-s/d=5
3.0

(
Esubsoil=18.5 MPa

Settlement Efficiency Ratio, (η

NC 0.6 sp/dp=5
Ecushion=26 MPa
2.5 Lp=20 m
Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
0.5 Ecushion=26 MPa
2.0

1.5
0.4

1.0
0.3
0.5

0.0 0.2
0 4 9 16 25 4 9 16 25
Pile Number, n p Pile Number, n p

(a) (b)

Fig. 7  Effect of number of piles on a raft relative settlement and b settlement efficiency ratio for piled rafts with pile length of 20 m, and pile
spacing of 5

raft is shown in Fig. 8a, in which the imposed load on the
raft transfers through a relative displacement between piles
and subsoil (negative skin friction) and pile head [16]. In
contrast, as indicated in Fig. 8b, the applied load on the raft
in the connected piled raft is transferred directly to the piles,
and due to the structural connection between piles and the
raft, relative displacement between piles and the raft does
not occur (i.e. Wr = Ws = Wp). Moreover, within all the
length of piles, only positive skin frictions are mobilized
[15, 16, 18].
As the applied load on the non-connected piled raft is
partially transferred to the pile through the pile’s head and
partially through the negative skin friction at the upper part,
understanding the mechanical parameters of a non-con-
nected piled raft foundation on the behavior of pile–subsoil
displacement can, therefore, lead to a better understand-
ing of the load transferring mechanism of non-connected
piles. In order to investigate the pile–subsoil displacement
more quantitatively, a normalized ratio can be introduced
as follows:
Ws − Wp
𝜁= × 100, (2)
Br
where Ws, Wp, and Br are the settlement of the subsoil sur-
face, piles, and the raft breadth, respectively. Since the

Neutral plane

Neutral plane

(a) (b)

Fig. 8  Schematic illustrations of load transferring mechanism in a non-connected piled raft in comparison with b connected piled raft

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

values of Ws in the non-connected piled raft are always larger
than Ws, bigger values of 𝜁 means bigger relative pile–soil
displacement and larger negative skin friction at the upper
parts of the piles.
Figure 9 shows the effects different parameters, such as
number, spacing, and pile length, and subsoil have on the
maximum settlement of piles and subsoil in non-connected
piled raft foundations.
Numerical modeling results showed that by increas-
ing the number of piles in the non-connected piled raft
from 4 to 25 at a constant pile length of 20 m and nor-
malized pile spacing of 5 decreased the value of 𝜁 from
0.75 to 0.25, which indicates that increasing the number
of piles decreases negative skin friction. The values 𝜁 were
reduced from 0.6 to 0.35 as the subsoil Young’s modulus
was increased from 18.5 to 30 MPa in a non-contact piled
raft with nine piles of 20 m in length. The effect of pile
spacing on the pile–soil displacement was investigated
using a non-connected piled raft with nine piles of 20 m
in length. The results showed that with increasing pile
spacing from Sp/dp = 3 to Sp/dp = 9, the pile–subsoil dis-
placement increased gradually and was accompanied by
the higher amount of negative skin friction on the upper
part of the piles (from 𝜁 = 0.5 to 𝜁 = 0.7 ). The obtained
results also showed that by decreasing the piles length
from 20 to 7 m, the values of pile–subsoil displacement
decreased, and the displacement of subsoil surface became
smoother by decreasing the pile length. In addition, the
pile length has much more influence on decreasing 𝜁 than
the subsoil Young’s modulus and the number of piles. It
was seen that, by decreasing pile length from 20 to 7 m,
𝜁 decreased by about 50% (from 0.5 to 0.25). In addition,
by increasing the cushion Young’s modulus, the values of
𝜁 remained approximately constant.

0.00
0.00 sp/dp=5 Maximum settlement of subsoil
Maximum settlement of subsoil np=9 piles Maximum settlement of piles
sp/dp=5 0.05
Maximum settlement (m)

Maximum settlement of piles Esubsoil=18.5 MPa

0.05
Maximum settlement (m)

Lp=20 m
Ecushion=26 MPa
Esubsoil=18.5 MPa 0.10
0.10 Ecushion=26 MPa

0.15
0.15

0.20
0.20

0.25
0.25

0.30
0.30
7 14 20
4 9 16 25
Pile length, Lp (m)
Pile Number, n p
(a) (b)

0.00 0.00
np=9 piles Maximum settlement of subsoil np=9 piles Maximum settlement of subsoil
Lp=20 m Maximum settlement of piles sp/dp=5 Maximum settlement of piles
0.05 0.05
Maximum settlement (m)

Maximum settlement (m)

Esubsoil=18.5 MPa Lp=20 m

Ecushion=26 MPa Ecushion=26 MPa
0.10 0.10

0.15 0.15

0.20 0.20

0.25 0.25

0.30 0.30
3 5 7 9 18.5 22.0 26.0 30.0
Pile spacing, s p/dp Subsoil Young's modulus, Esubsoil (MPa)

(c) (d)

Fig. 9  Variation of the maximum settlement of subsoil and piles by increasing a number of piles, b pile length, c pile spacing, and d subsoil
Young’s modulus

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

4 Load Sharing and Carrying Mechanism 4.1.1 Effect of Pile Spacing

of Piles
As shown in Fig. 10a, increasing pile spacing in an NC/
4.1 Load Sharing Ratio PR with 4 and 9 piles of 20 m lengths also increases the
pile load sharing ratio [35]. However, as seen, pile spacing
The bearing capacity of piled raft foundations can be inves- has a little effect on the pile load ratio of non-connected
tigated by introducing the load-sharing ratio as follows: piled rafts compared with connected piled raft founda-
tions. After a specific value of pile spacing (Sp/dp = 5), the
QP QP
𝛼pr = = , (3) increasing rate of load sharing ratio becomes quite small
QPR QR + QP in most cases. Increasing the number of piles, especially
where QPR, QR, and QP represent the total load carrying by for connected piled rafts, can increase the pile loads and,
a piled raft, the load carrying by the raft and piles, respec- thus, make pile performance more efficient. For example,
tively. In this study, the effects of several parameters includ- at the pile spacing of Sp/dp = 9, an increase of piles from
ing spacing, number, length of piles, subsoil, and cushion 4 to 9 results in 1.2 times the pile loads, and the piles bear
stiffness were considered to analyze the variation of pile load about 90% of the applied load (Fig. 10a).
response and carrying behavior in non-connected piled rafts
in comparison with connected systems.

1.0 1.0
NC04
Load Sharing Ratio (Qp/Qpr), α pr
PR04
Load Sharing Ratio (Qp/Qpr), αpr

NC09
0.8
Lp=20 m 0.8
PR09
Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
Ecushion=26 MPa
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

sp/dp=5
0.2 0.2 Lp=20 m
NC Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
PR E
cushion=26 MPa
0.0 0.0
3 5 7 9 4 9 16 25
Pile Spacing, sp/dp Pile Number, np
(a) (b)
1.0
NC04 PR09 sp/dp=5 NC04 sp/dp=5
Load Sharing Ratio (Qp/Qpr), α pr

PR04 NC16 Esubsoil=18.5 MPa NC09 Lp=20 m

1.0
Load Sharing Ratio (Qp/Qpr), αpr

NC09 PR16 Ecushion=26 MPa NC16 Esubsoil=18.5 MPa

0.8
NC25
0.8
0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0
0.0
7 14 20
26 52 78 104
Pile length, Lp Ecushion (MPa)
(c) (d)

Fig. 10  Relation between load sharing ratio and a pile spacing, b number of piles, c pile length, d cushion Young’s modulus

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
4.1.2 Effect of Number of Piles
The connected piled raft with 4 piles of 20 m length takes
about 3.3 times more loads than the non-connected piled
raft, as demonstrated in Fig. 10b. Nevertheless, increasing
the number of piles from 4 to 25 reduces the ratio of load
carrying by connected piles to non-connected piles to 2. By
increasing the number of piles from 16 to 25, the load shar-
ing ratio of connected piled rafts increases by about 5% [34],
while this value is more significant, nearly 25%, for non-
connected piled rafts. However, because the load sharing
ratio for non-connected piled rafts is much lower than that
for connected piled rafts, it is not favorable to use a larger
number of piles, and the limit of np = 16 is suitable for both
forms.
4.1.3 Effect of Pile Length
The relation between the load sharing ratio and pile length
for NC/PR with np = 4, 9, 16, and Sp/dp = 5 is shown in
Fig. 10c. According to this figure, the load sharing ratio
increases with increasing the pile length, especially for the
connected piled raft. A similar trend was reported by Cao
et al. [6] and Liang et al. [12], which is because more capac-
ity is mobilized along the piles at the deep layers of the
soils. Further, the efficiency of pile length in increasing the
load-sharing ratio of the connected piled raft is more sig-
nificant than that of the non-connected forms. For instance,
by increasing the pile length from 7 to 20 m when the num-
ber of piles was 9, the load sharing ratio of non-connected
and connected piled rafts increased by about 75 and 86%,
respectively. Furthermore, the effect of the number of piles
on the load-sharing ratio for both foundation options showed
a similar trend. Increasing the number of piles from 9 to 16
when the pile length was 20 m also increased the load shar-
ing ratio of the non-connected and connected piled rafts by
about 28 and 25%, respectively. Connected piled rafts with
high load sharing ratios are more favorable in design when
piles are considered as load carrying members as well as
settlement-reducers.
4.1.4 Effect of Cushion Stiffness
Figure 10d shows the impact of cushion stiffness on the load
sharing ratio for a non-connected piled raft with np = 4, 9,
16, 25, and Sp/dp = 5. As shown, a higher cushion stiffness
indicates a higher portion of the load carried by piles [12].
Using a cushion layer with four times higher stiffness in a
non-connected piled raft with four piles increases the pile
load by about 80%. Figure 10b also shows that the efficiency
of the cushion Young’s modulus for increasing pile load car-
rying decreases as the number of piles in the foundation
increases. It can be concluded that the mere act of increasing
the cushion stiffness is not a solution to mobilize the pile
capacity; rather, the subsoil stiffness and its reinforcement
are also essential factors.
4.2 Vertical Stress Along the Pile’s Depth
From the design approach, pile location, spacing, and
length significantly affect the designing criteria; therefore,
understanding pile structural behavior could lead to better
economic designing [36]. Due to the structural connection
between the piles and the raft, the interposed load on the raft
in a connected piled raft foundation is directly transferred
to the piles, and the amount of pile stress from pile head to
pile tip gradually decreases [15, 16]. In the non-connected
piled raft, however, the load is transferred to the piles due
to the interposed layer between the piles and the raft. As a
result, the relative displacement between piles and subsoil
causes negative skin friction at the upper part of the piles.
Few researches have been conducted on the load transfer-
ring behavior of non-connected piles in comparison with
connected piles [14, 16]. This section illustrates the effect of
several parameters such as pile spacing, subsoil and cushion
stiffness on the load–response behavior of connected and
non-connected piles.
4.2.1 Effect of Pile Spacing
The vertical stress behavior of piles along their lengths in
PR/NC with 4 and 9 piles was investigated in pile spacing
of 3dp, 5dp, 7dp, and 9dp (Fig. 11). Figure 11a illustrates
that increasing pile spacing in a connected piled raft with
four piles by up to 5dp increases the stress at the pile head
by about 30%; however, the results remain constant with
further increase in the pile spacing. The effect of pile spac-
ing is more considerable in the connected piled raft with
nine piles, and by increasing the pile spacing, the maxi-
mum values of the pile head stress increase by up to 100%
(Fig. 11b–d).
However, in the non-connected piled raft, by increasing
the pile spacing, the vertical stress of the pile head slightly
increases while the maximum vertical stress along the pile
length rises considerably. Further, Clancy and Randolph
[35] report that pile location significantly affects the verti-
cal stress along pile length in a non-connected piled raft.
Generally, a pile located in the center of the raft experi-
ences a larger increase of negative skin friction (Fig. 11b–d).
Figure 11 shows that increasing pile spacing from 3dp to
9dp presents the highest increase in the amount of negative
skin friction in the non-connected piled raft with 9 piles, P1,
located in the center of the raft(i.e. 65% increase in maxi-
mum vertical stress along pile length). The P2 and P3 piles
show a 50 and 45% increase in the maximum vertical stress,
respectively (Fig. 11c, d).
13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

0.0 0.0
np=4 piles P3
Lp=20 m P1 P2
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

0.2 Esubsoil=18.5 MPa 0.2
Ecushion=26 MPa

0.4 0.4
Pile's number: P1
NC04-s/d=3 NC09-s/d=3
0.6 NC04-s/d=5 0.6 NC09-s/d=5
NC04-s/d=7 NC09-s/d=7
NC04-s/d=9 NC09-s/d=9
PR04-s/d=3 np=9 piles PR09-s/d=3
0.8 PR04-s/d=5
0.8 PR09-s/d=5
Lp=20 m
PR04-s/d=7 Esubsoil=18.5 MPa PR09-s/d=7
PR04-s/d=9 Ecushion=26 MPa PR09-s/d=9
1.0 1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Vertical Stress (MPa) Vertical Stress (MPa)

(a) (b)
0.0 0.0
P3 P3
np=9 piles np=9 piles
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

0.2 Lp=20 m P1 P2 0.2 Lp=20 m P1 P2
Esubsoil=18.5 MPa Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
Ecushion=26 MPa Ecushion=26 MPa
0.4 0.4
Pile's number: P2 Pile's number: P3
NC09-s/d=3 NC09-s/d=3
0.6 NC09-s/d=5 0.6 NC09-s/d=5
NC09-s/d=7 NC09-s/d=7
NC09-s/d=9 NC09-s/d=9
PR09-s/d=3 PR09-s/d=3
0.8 PR09-s/d=5
0.8 PR09-s/d=5
PR09-s/d=7 PR09-s/d=7
PR09-s/d=9 PR09-s/d=9
1.0 1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Vertical Stress (MPa) Vertical Stress (MPa)

(c) (d)

Fig. 11  Effect of pile spacing on vertical stress along the pile length for connected and non-connected piled raft with constant 12 m raft breadth,
pile length of 20 m, and a 4 piles, b 9 piles-P1, c 9 piles-P2, d 9 piles-P3

4.2.2 Effect of Pile Length
Piled raft foundations with 9 piles and Sp/dp = 5, having
three different pile lengths (7, 14, and 20 m), were chosen
to investigate the effect of pile length on the behavior of pile
stress along the depth. According to Fig. 12, increasing the
pile length from 7 to 20 m increases the pile stress values
in both NC/PR foundations [6]. Increasing pile length in
NC increases the pile head stress by about 50%, while the
maximum pile stress along the depth experiences a larger
increase of 95%. The reason for the smaller pile head is the
load shared by the cushion. Further, it seems that pile length
has a slight effect on the reduction of pile head stress by
disconnecting piles from the raft, and the reduction values
in the pile head stress are increased between 60 and 70%.
However, increasing pile length from 7 to 14 m causes more
pile stress in piles than increasing the pile length from 14
to 20 m, which indicates more pile contribution in carrying
loads.
4.2.3 Effect of Subsoil Stiffness
The effect of increasing the subsoil Young’s modulus on the
vertical stress along the pile length is negligible for the con-
nected piles, although, as shown in Fig. 13a, it does cause a
slight increase in the vertical pile stress of a non-connected
piled raft. As a result, the effect of other parameters on the
pile stress should be thoroughly considered for both con-
nected and non-connected systems.

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

0.0 0.0
np=9 piles P3
sp/dp=5

Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

P1 P2
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Esubsoil=18.5 MPa 0.2

0.2 P3
Ecushion=26 MPa
P1 P2
0.4 0.4

Pile's number: P1 Pile's number: P2

0.6 0.6
NC09-Lp=20 m NC, Lp=20 m
NC09-Lp=14m NC09-Lp=14 m
NC09-Lp=7 m np=9 piles NC09-Lp=7 m
0.8 PR09-Lp=20 m 0.8 sp/dp=5 PR09-Lp=20 m
PR09-Lp=14 m Esubsoil=18.5 MPa PR09-Lp=14 m
PR09-Lp=7 m PR09-Lp=7 m
Ecushion=26 MPa
1.0 1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Vertical Stress (MPa) Vertical Stress (MPa)

(a) (b)
0.0
P3
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

P1 P2
0.2

0.4

Pile's number: P3
0.6
NC09-Lp=20 m
NC09-Lp=14 m
np=9 piles NC09-Lp=7 m
0.8 sp/dp=5 PR09-Lp=20 m
Esubsoil=18.5 MPa PR09-Lp=14 m
Ecushion=26 MPa PR09-Lp=7 m
1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Vertical Stress (MPa)
(c)

Fig. 12  Effect of pile length on vertical stress along piles depth for connected and non-connected piled raft with 9 piles with Sp/dp = 5 a P1, b
P2, c P3

4.2.4 Effect of Cushion Stiffness 5 Conclusion

Referring to Fig. 13b, increasing cushion stiffness from This research thoroughly compares the load sharing and car-
26 to 104 MPa has a uniform effect on the pile response rying mechanism of piles and load–settlement behaviors of
and causes a considerable increase in the pile load through non-connected and connected piled rafts. The effect of geo-
both pile head and along the depth. The use of a cushion technical and structural parameters of a piled raft, including
layer with 4 times higher stiffness increases the pile head number, length, the spacing of piles, subsoil, and cushion
stress and maximum stress along the pile length by about 70 stiffness has been investigated. The following conclusions
and 15%, respectively. In other words, a cushion layer with can be drawn from this study:
higher stiffness can transfer a larger portion of the total load
to the piles without increasing too much stress along the pile (a) The effect of pile spacing in decreasing raft settlement
length (i.e. about 15%). Furthermore, the difference between was seen to be more significant for connected piled
the pile head stress and the maximum vertical stress along rafts than non-connected rafts.
the pile length decreases. Thus, using a cushion layer with (b) The effect of cushion stiffness was seen to be more
higher stiffness is a simple way to improve the load carrying significant for a non-connected piled raft with shorter
mechanism in piles. piles than one with longer piles. Further, similar to the

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

0.0 0.0
np=9 piles np=9 piles
Lp=20 m Lp=20 m
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Ecushion=26 MPa Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
0.2 0.2
P3
P3
Pile's number: P1 P1 P2
0.4 P1 P2 0.4
NC09-Es=18.5 MPa
NC09-Es=22.0 MPa
NC09-Es=26.0 MPa
0.6 0.6 Pile's number: P1
NC09-Es=30.0 MPa
PR09-Es=18.5 MPa NC09-Ec=26 MPa
0.8 PR09-Es=22.0 MPa 0.8 NC09-Ec=52 MPa
PR09-Es=26.0 MPa NC09-Ec=78 MPa
PR09-Es=30.0 MPa NC09-Ec=104 MPa
1.0 1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Vertical Stress (MPa) Vertical Stress (MPa)

0.0 0.0
np=9 piles np=9 piles
Lp=20 m Lp=20 m
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Ecushion=26 MPa Esubsoil=18.5 MPa
0.2 0.2
P3 P3

P1 P2 Pile's number: P2 P1 P2
0.4 0.4
NC09-Es=18.5 MPa
NC09-Es=22.0 MPa
NC09-Es=26.0 MPa
0.6 0.6
NC09-Es=30.0 MPa Pile's number: P2
PR09-Es=18.5 MPa NC09-Ec=26 MPa
0.8 PR09-Es=22.0 MPa 0.8 NC09-Ec=52 MPa
PR09-Es=26.0 MPa NC09-Ec=78 MPa
PR09-Es=30.0 MPa NC09-Ec=104 MPa
1.0 1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Vertical Stress (MPa) Vertical Stress (MPa)
0.0 0.0
np=9 piles np=9 piles
Lp=20 m Lp=20 m
Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Depth Relative to Pile Length, Z/L

Ecushion=26 MPa Esubsoil=18.5 MPa

0.2 0.2
P3 P3
P1 P2
Pile's number: P3
P1 P2
0.4 0.4
NC09-Es=18.5 MPa
NC09-Es=22.0 MPa
NC09-Es=26.0 MPa
0.6 0.6
NC09-Es=30.0 MPa Pile's number: P3
PR09-Es=18.5 MPa NC09-Ec=26 MPa
0.8 PR09-Es=22.0 MPa 0.8 NC09-Ec=52 MPa
PR09-Es=26.0 MPa NC09-Es=78 MPa
PR09-Es=30.0 MPa NC09-Es=104 MPa
1.0 1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Stress (MPa) Vertical Stress (MPa)

(a) (b)

Fig. 13  Influences of a subsoil and b cushion Young’s modulus on vertical stress along the pile length for NC/PR with 9 piles, 12 m raft breadth,
and pile length of 20 m

connected piled raft, an upper limit for increasing the (c) In general, piles in a connected piled raft carry more
number of piles for the axial stiffness of non-connected load than a non-connected piled raft. However, by
piled raft was observed. increasing cushion stiffness, non-connected pile loads

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Table 3  Summary of results Parameters Variation
Pile spacing From 3dp to 9dp
Subsoil stiffness From 18.5 to 30 MPa
Cushion stiffness From 30 to 104 MPa
Pile length From 7 to 20 m
Number of piles From 4 to 25
increased up to a certain value. Similar to the results
reported by Mandolini et al. [34], by increasing the
ratio of (Sp/dp)/(Ag/A), the raft proportion of load carry-
ing increased up to the specific value and then remained
constant by increasing (Sp/dp)/(Ag/A) further.
(d) Increasing the pile length showed a similar increasing
trend for both NC and PR. However, while increasing
non-connected pile lengths showed a slight increase of
the pile head stress, the stress increase along the pile
depth was seen to be more significant. As a result, more
precaution is needed when choosing long piles for a
non-connected piled raft.
A quantitative summary from the present study is shown
in Table 3. In terms of the design approach, the number of
piles and length have the most significant effect on designing
both types of foundations. Furthermore, cushion stiffness
in a non-connected piled raft is an important factor of the
pile length.
References
1. Davis E, Poulos H (1972) The analysis of pile raft systems. J Aust
Geomech 62(1):21–27
2. Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design.
Wiley, New Jersey
3. Burland JB, Broms BB, de Mello VF (1978) Behaviour of foun-
dations and structures. In: 9th international conference of soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, pp 495–546
4. Poulos H (2001) Piled raft foundations: design and applications.
Geotechnique 51(2):95–113
5. Ghalesari AT, Barari A, Amini PF, Ibsen LB (2015) Development
of optimum design from static response of pile–raft interaction.
J Mar Sci Technol 20(2):331–343. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0077​
3-014-0286-x
6. Cao XD, Wong IH, Chang M-F (2004) Behavior of model rafts
resting on pile-reinforced sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130(2):129–138
7. Wei X, Wang Q, Wang J (2008) Damage patterns and failure
mechanisms of bridge pile foundation under earthquake. In: The
14th world conference on earthquake engineering
Raft settlement reduc- Load sharing ratio (%)
tion (%)
CPR NCPR CPR foundation NCPR foundation
founda- founda-
tion tion
35 13 38 20.9
38 34 −4 − 27
– 12 – 75.4
35 24 89.9 74.9
51 37 239.6 106.5
8. Wong I, Chang M, Cao X (2000) Raft foundations with discon-
nected settlement reducing piles. Paper presented at the design
applications of raft foundations, London
9. Eslami A, Veiskarami M, Eslami M (2012) Study on optimized
piled–raft foundations (PRF) performance with connected
and non-connected piles-three case histories. Int J Civ Eng
10(2):100–111
10. Rasouli H, Azizkandi AS, Baziar M, Modarresi M, Shahnazari
H (2015) Centrifuge modeling of non-connected piled raft sys-
tem. Int J Civ Eng 13(2):114–123
11. Zheng J-J, Abusharar SW, Wang X-Z (2008) Three-dimensional
nonlinear finite element modeling of composite foundation
formed by CFG–lime piles. Comput Geotech 35(4):637–643
12. Liang F-Y, Chen L-Z, Shi X-G (2003) Numerical analysis of
composite piled raft with cushion subjected to vertical load.
Comput Geotech 30(6):443–453
13. Azizkandi AS, Baziar MH, Yeznabad AF (2017) 3D dynamic
finite element analyses and 1 g shaking table tests on seismic per-
formance of connected and nonconnected piled raft foundations.
KSCE J Civ Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1220​5-017-0379-2
14. Tradigo F, Pisanò F, Di Prisco C, Mussi A (2015) Non-linear
soil–structure interaction in disconnected piled raft foundations.
Comput Geotech 63:121–134
15. Fioravante V, Giretti D (2010) Contact versus noncontact piled
raft foundations. Can Geotech J 47(11):1271–1287
16. Fioravante V (2011) Load transfer from a raft to a pile with an
interposed layer. Geotechnique 61(2):121
17. Nakaia S, Katoa H, Ishidaa R, Manob H, Nagatac M (2004)
Load bearing mechanism of piled raft foundation during earth-
quake. In: Proceedings of 3rd UJNR workshop on soil-structure
interaction. Citeseer, pp 29–30
18. Tradigo F, Pisanò F, di Prisco C (2016) On the use of embedded
pile elements for the numerical analysis of disconnected piled
rafts. Comput Geotech 72:89–99
19. Russo G, Viggiani C (1998) Factors controlling soil–struc-
ture interaction for piled rafts. In: International conference on
soil–structure interaction in urban civil. Darmstadt University,
pp 297–322
20. Poulos HG (1989) Pile behaviour—theory and application. Geo-
technique 39(3):365–415
21. Burland JB (2012) ICE manual of geotechnical engineering,
volume 2—geotechnical design, construction and verification.
ICE Publishing, London
22. Garnier J, Konig D (1998) Scale effects in piles and nails load-
ing tests in sand. In: Centrifuge, pp 205–210
23. Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Influential factors of friction
between steel and dry sands. Soils Found 26(2):33–46
24. Lo Presti DCF, Pallara O, Fioravante V, Jamiolkowski M (1998)
Assessment of quasi-linear models for sands. In: Jardine R,
13

Davies M, Hight D, Smith A, Stallebrass S (eds) Prefailure
deformation behaviour of geomaterials. Thomas Telford, Lon-
don, UK, pp 363–372
25. Saccenti A (2006) Sul comportamento meccanico dei terreni della
Laguna di Venezia. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Ferrara, Fer-
rara, Italy (In Italian)
26. Giretti D (2010) Modelling of piled raft foundations in sand. PhD
thesis, The University of Ferrara, Italy
27. Taghavi Ghalesari A, Janalizadeh Choobbasti A (2016) Numerical
analysis of settlement and bearing behaviour of piled raft in Babol
clay. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 22:1–26
28. Barari A, Ibsen LB, Taghavi Ghalesari A, Larsen KA (2016)
Embedment effects on vertical bearing capacity of offshore
bucket foundations on cohesionless soil. Int J Geomech
17(4):04016110
29. de Sanctis L, Mandolini A (2006) Bearing capacity of piled rafts
on soft clay soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(12):1600–1610
30. Azizkandi AS, Baziar M, Modarresi M, Salehzadeh H, Rasouli H
(2014) Centrifuge modeling of pile–soil–pile interaction consider-
ing relative density and toe condition. Sci Iran 4:1330–1339
31. Modarresi M, Rasouli H, Ghalesari AT, Baziar MH (2016) Exper-
imental and numerical study of pile-to-pile interaction factor in
sandy soil. Proced Eng 161:1030–1036
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
32. Rasouli H, Ghalesari AT, Modarresi M, Hasanzadeh A (2017)
Numerical study of non-contact piled raft interaction under static
loads. In: Mebarki A (ed) Civil engineering and urban planning,
pp 750–762. https​://doi.org/10.1142/97898​13225​237_0058
33. Ghalesari AT, Rasouli H (2014) The effect of gravel layer on the
behavior of piled raft foundations. In: Advances in soil dynam-
ics and foundation engineering, ASCE GSP 240, Proceed-
ings of GeoShanghai 2014, Shanghai, pp 373–382. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/97807​84413​425.038
34. Mandolini A, Russo G, Viggiani C (2005) Pile foundations: exper-
imental investigations, analysis and design. In: XVI international
conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, vol
1, pp 177–213
35. Clancy P, Randolph M (1993) An approximate analysis procedure
for piled raft foundations. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
17(12):849–869
36. O’Brien AS, Burland JB, Chapman T (2012) Chapter 56 Rafts and
piled rafts. In: ICE manual of geotechnical engineering, vol II, pp
853-886. https​://doi.org/10.1680/moge.57098​.0853