Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
KHALIFA, DUBAI
Gianpiero Russo1
Harry G. Poulos2
John C. Small3
ABSTRACT: This paper deals with the re-assessment of foundation settlements for the Burj
Khalifa Tower in Dubai. The foundation system for the tower is a piled raft, founded on deep
deposits of calcareous rocks. Two computer programs, GARP and NAPRA have been used for the
settlement analyses, and the paper outlines the procedure adopted to re-assess the foundation
settlements, based on a careful interpretation of load tests on trial piles in which the interaction
effects of the pile test setup are allowed for. It then examines the influence of a series of factors on
the computed settlements. In order to obtain reasonable estimates of differential settlements within
the system, it is found desirable to incorporate the effects of the superstructure stiffness which act to
increase the stiffness of the overall foundation system. Values of average and differential
settlements for the piled raft calculated with GARP and NAPRA were found to be in reasonable
agreement with measured data on settlements taken near the end of construction of the tower.
Key words: case history, footings and foundations, full-scale tests, piles, rafts, settlement.
s 730
INTRODUCTION
The Burj Khalifa in Dubai was officially opened in January 2010, and at a height
of 828m, is currently the worlds tallest building. The foundation system is a
piled raft, a form of foundation that is being used increasingly to support tall
structures where the loads are expected to be excessively large for a raft alone
and where the raft and the piles are able to transfer load to the soil. The
foundation design process for this building has been described by Poulos and
Bunce (2008).
An important component of the design of a piled raft foundation is the detailed
assessment of the settlement and differential settlement of the foundation
system, and their control by optimizing the size, location and arrangement of
the piles, and the raft thickness. Many different methods of analysis have been
devised in order to predict the behaviour of raft and piled raft foundations
(Selvaduri, 1979; Clancy and Randolph, 1993; Poulos, 1994; Ta and Small,
1996; Russo and Viggiani, 1998; Viggiani, 1998; Hemsley, 1998; Hemsley,
2000), and these range from simple hand based methods to complex threedimensional numerical analyses.
In this paper, attention is focussed on two methods that model the raft as an
elastic plate and the piles as interacting non-linear springs. The computer
codes implementing these methods are described very briefly and are then
applied to the Burj Khalifa, currently the worlds tallest building, which is
founded on a piled raft. The development of the ground modulus values is
described using a combination of field test and laboratory data and the results
of pile load tests. The method of interpreting the pile load test data is
1 University of Naples, Italy
2 Coffey Geotechnics, Sydney, Australia
3 Coffey Geotechnics and University of Sydney
1
11 July 2011
discussed, and the importance of allowing for interaction between the test pile
and the surrounding reaction piles in emphasised. The two programs are then
used to compare the computed settlements with available measurements of
foundation settlements, and with the Class A predictions made by the
foundation designers and the peer reviewers.
An important objective of the paper is to explore how pile load test data should
be used when predicting the settlement performance of piled and piled raft
foundation systems, and to examine some factors that may have an important
influence on predicted foundation settlements.
COMPUTER ANALYSES
The settlement analyses used in this paper for the Burj Khalifa have employed
two computer programs, GARP and NAPRA, which idealize the piled raft
foundation as a plate supported by non-linear interacting springs. A very brief
description of these programs is given below.
Program GARP
The computer program GARP (Geotechnical Analysis of Raft with Piles, Small
and Poulos, 2007) uses a simplified boundary element analysis to compute the
behaviour of a piled raft when subjected to applied vertical loading, moment
loading, and free-field vertical soil movements.
The raft is represented by a thin elastic plate and is discretized via the finite
element method, using 8- noded elements. The soil is modelled as a layered
elastic continuum, and the piles are represented by elasticplastic or hyperbolic
springs, which can interact with each other and with the raft. Pilepile
interactions are incorporated via interaction factors (Poulos and Davis, 1980).
Simplifying approximations are utilized for the raft-pile and pile-raft
interactions. Beneath the raft, limiting values of contact pressure in
compression and tension can be specified so that some allowance can be made
for nonlinear raft behaviour. The output of GARP includes the settlement at all
nodes of the raft; the transverse, longitudinal, and torsional bending moments
within each element of the raft; the contact pressures below the raft; and the
vertical loads on each pile. In its present form, GARP can consider vertical and
moment loadings, but not lateral loadings or torsion.
Program NAPRA
The computer program NAPRA (Non linear Analysis of Piled Rafts, Russo 1998; Russo &
Viggiani, 1998) computes the behaviour of a raft subjected to any combination of vertical
distributed or concentrated loading and moment loading. The raft is modelled as a two-dimensional
elastic body using the thin plate theory, and utilizing the finite element method, adopting a four or
nine noded rectangular element.
The piles and the soil are modelled by means of interacting linear or non-linear springs. It is
assumed that the interaction between the raft and the soil (the piles) is purely vertical; accordingly,
only the axial stiffness of the springs is required.
11 July 2011
The soil is assumed to be a layered elastic continuum. The Boussinesq solution for a point load and
the closed form solution for a rectangular uniformly loaded area at the surface of an elastic halfspace are used to calculate the soil displacements produced by the contact pressure developed at the
interface between the raft and the soil. The layered continuum is solved by means of the
Steinbrenner approximation (Russo, 1998; De Sanctis and Russo, 2002), and as such, invokes the
simple assumption that the stress distribution within an elastic layer is identical with the Boussinesq
distribution for a homogeneous half-space (Russo, 1998).
The interaction factor method is used to model pile to pile interaction and a preliminary boundary
element (BEM) analysis allows calculation of the interaction factors between two piles at various
spacings. Interaction between axially loaded piles beneath the raft and the raft elements is
accounted for via pile-soil interaction factors computed with a preliminary BEM procedure. The
reciprocal theorem is used to maintain that the soil-pile interaction factor is equal to the pile-soil
interaction factor.
A stepwise incremental procedure is used to simulate the non-linear load-settlement relationship of
a single pile, the total load to be applied is subdivided into a number of increments, and the diagonal
terms of the pile-soil flexibility matrix are updated at each step. A computation of the nodal
reactions vector is made at each step, to check for tensile forces between raft and soil and an
iterative procedure is used to make them equal to zero. Basically, this procedure releases the
compatibility of displacements between the raft and the pile-soil system in the node where tensile
forces were detected, although the overall equilibrium is maintained by a re-distribution of forces.
An iterative procedure is needed since after the first run some additional tensile forces may arise in
different nodes. The output of the code is represented by the distribution of the nodal displacements
of the raft and the pile-soil system, the load sharing among the piles and the raft, the bending
moments and the shear in the raft, for each load increment.
Abagnara et al (2011) have compared GARP and NAPRA analyses for a simple
case, and have concluded that both programs give comparable results, but that
some of the simplifying assumptions employed in each program give rise to
differences in detail. For example, the difference in raft settlements may be
due to the differences in the details of calculation of the soil layer stiffness
using the Boussinesq/Steinbrenner approach. The difference in plate element
types may also contribute to the differences. For the piled raft, the differences
may arise because of differences in the methods used to compute the single
pile stiffness values, the interaction factors and the pile-raft and raft-pile
interactions.
In this paper, attention will be focussed on analyses carried out with NAPRA,
although a comparison will also be presented between the GARP and NAPRA
analyses.
11 July 2011
Burj Khalifa is located on a 42000 m 2 site. The tower is founded on a 3.7m thick raft supported on
194 bored piles, 1.5 m in diameter, extending 47.45m below the base of the raft; podium structures
are founded on a 0.65 m thick raft (increased to 1m at column locations) supported on 750
bored piles, 0.9 m in diameter, extending 30-35 m below the base of the raft. A plan view of
foundation is shown in Fig. 1.
The ground conditions at the site comprise a horizontally stratified subsurface profile which is
complex and highly variable in terms of the strata thickness due to the nature of deposition and the
prevalent hot arid climatic conditions. The main strata identified were as follows
1. Very loose to medium dense silty sand (Marine Deposits).
2. Weak to moderately weak calcarenite, generally unweathered with fractures close to medium
spaced interbedded with cemented sand. This material is generally underlain by very weak to
4
11 July 2011
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
weak sandstone which is generally unweathered with fractures close to medium spaced
interbedded with cemented sand.
Very weak to weak calcarenite, calcareous sandstone and sandstone; this formation is slightly to
highly weathered with fractures extremely close to closely spaced and interbedded with
cemented sand. Bands of 1 to 5 m thickness are also present of medium dense to very dense,
cemented, sand with sandstone bands and locally with bands of silt.
Very weak to weak gypsiferous sandstone, gypsiferous calcareous sandstone occasionally
gypsiferous siltstone. This material is generally unweathered to slightly weathered with
fractures extremely close to closely spaced and interbedded with cemented sand. The formation
is interbedded with dense to very dense, cemented, silty sand and occasionally silt with
sandstone bands.
Very weak to weak calcisiltite, conglomeritic calcisiltite and calcareous calcisiltite. This
material is generally moderately to highly weathered, occasionally slightly and completely
weathered with fractures extremely close to medium spaced. Calcareous siltstone was
encountered in the majority of the deeper boreholes comprising very weak to weak occasionally
moderately weak calcareous siltstone in bands with a thickness of 0.5 to 14.4 m generally
slightly to moderately weathered occasionally highly to extremely weathered.
Very weak to weak and occasionally moderately weak calcareous siltstone, calcareous
conglomerate, conglomeritic sandstone and limestone. This material is generally slightly
weathered and occasionally unweathered and moderately weathered to highly weathered.
Occasionally encountered as calcisiltite interbedded with bands of siltstone and conglomerate.
Very weak to moderately weak claystone interbedded with siltstone. This material is generally
slightly weathered with close to medium spaced fractures. Between -112.2 m and -128.2 m
occasional bands of up to 500 mm thick gypsum were encountered. Below -128.2 m the stratum
was encountered as weak to moderately weak siltstone with medium to widely spaced fractures.
Table 3 summarizes the stratigraphy adopted for the foundation settlement analyses.
In situ and laboratory test results
A comprehensive series of in situ tests was carried out, including
pressuremeter tests, down-hole seismic, cross-hole seismic, and cross-hole tomography to
determine compression (P) and shear (S) wave velocities through the ground profile. The vertical
profile of P-wave velocity with depth gave a useful indication of variations in the nature of the
strata between the borelogs.
Conventional laboratory classification tests (moisture content of soil and rock,
Atterberg limits, particle size distribution and hydrometer) and laboratory tests
for determining physical properties (porosity tests, intact dry density, specific
gravity, particle density) and chemical properties were carried out. In addition,
unconfined compression tests, point load index tests, and drained direct shear
tests were carried out. A considerable amount of more advanced laboratory
testing was undertaken, including stress path triaxial tests, resonant column
testing for small-strain shear modulus, undrained cyclic triaxial tests, cyclic
simple shear, and constant normal stiffness (CNS) direct shear tests.
Table 3. Stratigraphic model adopted for settlement assessment.
Stratu
m
Description
Level at the
top
of the stratum
Thickness
Adopted
Level at
top of
UCS
qu
11 July 2011
[m DMD]
1.15 to 2.96
1.85 to 4.3
layer
[m
DMD]
2.5
-0.27 to -1.95
2.87 to 10.75
-1.2
-4.13 to -12.06
10.5 to 21.43
-7.3
-13.5
-21.54 to
-26.69
1.7 to 7.75
-24
-28.5
1.3
-27.64 to
-31.15
39.2 to 46.75
-50
1.7
-68.5
2.5
-90
[m]
1
2
3a
3b
4
5a
5b
6
Marine
deposits
Calcarenite/
Calcareous
sandstone
Calcareous
sandstone/
Sandstone
Gypsiferous
sandstone
Calcisiltite/
Conglomeriti
c calcisiltite
Calcareous
siltstone
Calcareous/
Conglomeriti
c Strata
Claystone/
Siltstone
interbedded
with gypsum
layers
-67.19 to
-76.04
-98.19
31 (from 140m
deep BH only)
Proved to 39.6
m thickness
[MPa
]
Some of the relevant findings from the in situ and laboratory testing are as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
The cemented materials were generally very weak to weak; unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) values ranged mostly between about 0.16 MPa the average values for each
layer being the ones reported in the table 3.
Values of the Youngs Modulus from pressuremeter tests (first and second reload cycle) were
found to be in good agreement with values from correlation with shear waves velocities.
From calcarenite (0 m to -7.5 m) to sandstone (-7.5 m to -24 m) Youngs Modulus is
approximately constant with depth; at greater depths the average values decrease in the
gypsiferous sandstone (-24 to -28.5 m) then they slightly increase in the calcisiltite (from
-28.5 to -68.5 m) and finally decrease in the siltstone (from -68.5 to -91 m).
Triaxial Stress Path Testing (at strain levels of 0.01% and 0.1%) was found to give results
for Youngs modulus that were in good agreement with pressuremeter and geophysics
testing results.
Resonant Column Testing was found to give more conservative values for the Youngs
Modulus when compared with values from pressuremeter tests, geophysics tests and triaxial
stress tests.
Constant normal stiffness (CNS) tests were carried out on three samples taken from stratum
5a to assess the ultimate skin friction values and the potential for cyclic degradation at the
pile-soil interface. These tests indicated values of peak monotonic shear stress ranging from
360 to 558 kPa, with only a little difference between the peak monotonic and the residual
cyclic shear stress values.
Geotechnical Model
11 July 2011
The key parameters for the assessment of the settlement behaviour of the Khalifa Tower piled raft
foundation system are the values of the Youngs modulus of the strata for both raft and pile
behaviour under static loading. In a non-linear analysis, the values of ultimate skin friction of piles,
the ultimate end-bearing resistance of the piles, and the ultimate bearing capacity of the raft would
also be required, but in this paper, only linear elastic analyses have been undertaken using NAPRA
and GARP analyses, having explored the little influence of non linearity up to the maximum
observed load level. Attention has thus been focussed on evaluating relevant values of Youngs
modulus for each stratum.
As a first step in obtaining these values, the relative stiffness of the various soil layers was assessed
considering values of the Youngs Modulus from the following data:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Values of the various Youngs Modulus values are plotted in Fig. 2, and although inevitable
scatter exists among the different values, there is a reasonably consistent general pattern of
variation with depth.
Layer 3b (see Table 3) has arbitrarily been chosen as the reference layer, and for each type of
test, values of the Youngs Modulus for a layer i, E i, have been related to the value for layer 3b,
E3b. The values of Ei/E3b have then been averaged, using the following data: reload cycles from
pressuremeter testing; seismic data; resonant column data at a strain level of 0.01%, and the
triaxial stress path tests. Fig. 3 shows the different assessed relative stiffness profiles so
obtained, and Table 4 summarises the average values of relative Youngs modulus that were
adopted for the analyses and the interpretation of the pile load test data. The absolute values of
Youngs modulus for each of the different layers have been then obtained by fitting the load
settlement curves of the single piles obtained from the load tests, and the process of fitting the
load-settlement curves to obtain the Youngs modulus values is described below.
Table 4. Relative Values of Youngs Modulus Used in Pile Load Test Interpretation
Stratum
2
3a
3b
3c
4
5a
5b
6
2.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
11 July 2011
11 July 2011
Figure 4b shows the set-up for pile P4, which consisted of the test pile and four reaction piles. Steel
load distribution plates were grouted to the top of the test piles and hydraulic jacks were placed
between the steel plates and the reaction beams. Steel reaction beams were used to transfer the load
from the hydraulic jacks to the installed reaction piles. Macalloy bars were used as reaction anchors
to transfer the load from the beams to the reaction piles. Six cycles of loading were applied to trial
piles P1 and P2 while nine cycles of loading were applied to trial pile P4, which was the pile
designated to be tested cyclically.
Table 5. Summary of pile load tests.
Trial
Pile
Diam
.
Cut-off
level
[m DMD]
Toe
level
[m DMD]
Length
Load Test
layout
DWL
*
DML*
*
No. of cycles
[t]
[t]
3000
6000
6
(50%-150% DWL)
3000
6000
6
(50%-150% DWL)
1000
3500
9
(100%-150%
DWL)
[m]
[m]
1
1.5
-4.85
-50
45.15
1.5
-4.85
-60
55.15
0.9
-2.90
-50
47.1
6 RP
circle with a
4.5 m radius
6 RP
circle with a
4.5m radius
4 RP
square with a
9 m side
11 July 2011
analyses, the theoretical behaviour was fitted to the observed load-settlement behaviour at pile head
displacements of about 0.08% of diameter and 0.2 % of diameter.
In the non-linear analyses, in order to assess the sensitivity of the back-calculated
values of soil stiffness to the value of ultimate capacity, Q lim, three different
values were adopted in the analyses:
1) Qlim was estimated as the asymptote to a hyperbola fitted to the whole measured
load-settlement curve (HYP);
2) Qlim was based on the load transfer deduced by strain gauges readings (SG);
3) Qlim was based on the load transfer deduced by extensometer readings (EX).
Ultimate skin friction values inferred from the axial load distribution and from the extensometer
readings were employed to assess pile shaft capacity up to depths above -30m, -38m and -30m for
piles P1, P2 and P4 respectively. From pilesoil interface load-strain curves at various depths along
the shafts, these values were found to be representative of the ultimate values in the upper (cased)
part of the shaft. Below these depths, ultimate values of shaft friction were estimated from
correlations with the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the rock.
Table 6 summarises the values of Qlim obtained from these three procedures. As might be expected,
the hyperbolic extrapolation procedure gives the largest values, and probably over-estimates the
capacity. There is some difference between the values assessed on the basis of the strain gauge and
extensometer readings, but from the point of view of settlement prediction, such differences are not
very significant.
Figures 5 and 6 show typical fits (for Pile P2) of the computed non-linear load-settlement behaviour
and the observed load-settlement behaviour. Figure 5 is for the interpretation taking account of
interaction, while Figure 6 shows the corresponding fit with interaction between the test pile and
reaction piles being ignored. In both cases, very reasonable fits are obtained with the measured data.
Table 6. Assessed pile capacity with different methods.
Qlim
[kN]
Strain Gauge
Readings
(SG)
Pile
Hyperbolic Extrapolation
(HYP)
TP1
108,800
93,800
73,200
TP2
115,900
97,300
100,200
TP4
82,600
50,500
59,900
10
Extensometer Readings
(EX)
11 July 2011
(b) Pile P4
Back-calculated values of the Youngs Modulus for stratum 3b, E 3b, are reported
in Table 7. In the linear elastic analyses the first point on the measured loadsettlement curve has been considered. In this way back-calculated values of
soil stiffness in linear analyses are affected by the loading procedure adopted
in the load tests. In the cases of piles P2 and P4, values of back-calculated soil
stiffness are in close agreement with values back-calculated in the non linear
analysis (values of w/D are 0.0008 - 0.0009) while in the case of pile P1, the
first point is at a higher displacement (0.21%), and so the back-calculated
value is lower. It should be noted that had the interaction between the test pile
and the reaction piles not been taken into account, the back-calculated values
of pile-soil relative stiffness would have been considerably larger.
Table 7. Youngs Modulus values derived from load tests.
TEST
PILE
P1
P2
11
Linear Analysis
(w/D=0.0008)
Linear Analysis
(w/D=0.002)
Non-linear Analysis
Linear Analysis
(w/D=0.0008)
Non-linear Analysis
350
700
650
1200
11 July 2011
P4
850
550
650(EX)-850(SG)
1100
850(EX)-1100(SG)
1000
650
1200
1500
900
11 July 2011
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Non-Linear Analysis
S max
S centre
DS max
53
53
27
11 July 2011
values is less than the ratio of the modulus values. This may be explained by the non linearity
source provided by the iterative check on the tensile forces at the raft-soil interface.
Table 10. Influence of Using Upper and Lower Bounds of Backfigured Modulus Values
Modulus Value for Layer 3b
S max
S centre
DS max
81
68
50
56
46
35
The influence of using correct and incorrect back-figured values of Youngs modulus
Table 11 shows the influence on the computed settlements of using the best-estimate modulus
values for Layer 3b obtained from the correct interpretation (considering test pile-reaction pile
interaction) and the incorrect interpretation (ignoring this interaction). The settlements computed
using the incorrect modulus interpretation are about 21% less than those using the correct
interpretation, and it is therefore important to properly interpret the test pile load-settlement data to
avoid the tendency to under-estimate the foundation settlements and differential settlements.
Table 11. Influence of Modulus Value on Computed Settlements
Computed Settlements mm
Modulus Value Used
Correct Interpretation
E3b= 900 MPa
Incorrect Interpretation
E3b=1200 MPa
S max
S centre
DS max
52
51
27
41
40
22
11 July 2011
MPa has been used. Table 12 shows the computed settlements for both these cases. The difference
between the computed central settlements is negligible, but there is a considerable difference
between the computed maximum settlements and differential settlements. In this case, the
conservatism introduced by ignoring the raft would lead to a 17% increase in the computed
maximum settlement but a 40% increase in the maximum differential settlement. Therefore it is
desirable to incorporate the effect of the raft when computing the settlement distribution within the
foundation system.
Computed Settlements mm
S centre
DS max
61
51
38
52
51
27
15
11 July 2011
The preceding results have all been obtained assuming that the average design load (23.21 MN) has
been applied to each pile location. In reality, the loads will be applied via wall and column
locations, and consequently, NAPRA has been used to examine the influence of the loading pattern
on the computed settlement profile for two cases:
a. Equal loads on all the piles;
b. The actual design loadings are applied at the wall and column locations.
The computed settlement profiles along Wing C in Figure 9 show a difference in the computed
settlement patterns, with the equal load assumption giving smaller maximum settlement than the
other case. Thus, it would appear desirable to employ the actual load pattern in design calculations.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
w [mm]
40
Average pile loads applied
50
60
70
80
d [m]
11 July 2011
increase of 25200 kNm2 per wing). Six alternative methods of incorporating this increased bending
stiffness were adopted:
a. Increasing the thickness of the whole raft to reflect the bending stiffness of the entire tower
(Model 1).
b. Increasing the raft thickness over the central part of the wings and on the core, as shown in
Figure 10, to reflect the bending stiffness of the entire tower. This is denoted as Model 2.
c. Increasing the raft thickness only below the shear walls (see Figure 11), to reflect the
bending stiffness of the entire tower; this case is denoted as Model 3.
d. Model 1, with only 10% of the stiffness of the tower considered (Model 1M).
e. Model 2, with only 10% of the stiffness of the tower considered (Model 2M).
f. Model 3, with only 10% of the stiffness of the tower considered (Model 3M).
In each case, the actual pattern of loading via the columns and walls was applied, with only the dead
load component considered.
Figure 12 compares the various computed profiles of settlement across the tower, together with
those in which no account is taken of superstructure stiffness. Also shown is the design profile
developed by Poulos and Bunce (2008), which was for combined dead plus live load, and therefore
not directly comparable. Clearly, there is a considerable difference between the extreme profiles,
those taking all the superstructure stiffness into account, and that in which no account is taken of the
superstructure stiffness. It would appear reasonable to assume that the profiles from Models 1M,
2M and 3M may be more reasonable approximations to reality, and this appears to be borne out by
the comparisons with the measured settlements, as described below.
17
11 July 2011
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10 Model 1
NAPRA
NAPRA Model 2
20
30
NAPRA Model 3
Settlement [mm]
40
NAPRA Model 1M
50
60 Model 2M
NAPRA
NAPRA Model 3M
70
80
NAPRA-No Structure Stif f ness Allowance
90
11 July 2011
profile for this case is rather similar to that obtained for the case when the average load is
imposed on each pile.
4. There remain some differences between the measured and computed settlement profiles in
the vicinity of the edge of the wing. There may well be scope to refine the method by which
the superstructure is incorporated into the geotechnical foundation analysis.
5. The calculated settlements from the design phase are considerably greater than those
obtained from the analyses in this paper. The main reason for these larger settlements is that
the settlements were for both dead and live load acting, and in addition, conservative values
of Youngs modulus were used in these analyses, with a somewhat different distribution of
ground stiffness with depth being adopted in those calculations. Once again, this comparison
emphasises the importance of appropriate selection of the ground stiffness values if accurate
foundation settlement predictions are to be made.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10
NAPRA Model 1M
20
Settlement [mm]
NAPRA Model 2M
NAPRA Model 3M
30
40
Measured (February 2008)
50
60
Distance along wing [m]
11 July 2011
11 July 2011
21
11 July 2011
Russo, G. And Viggiani, C. 1998. 15.Factors controlling soil-structure interaction for piled rafts.
Proc. International Conference on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Ed. R.
Katzenbach & U. Arslan, Darmstadt,___ - ___.
Sales. M.M., Small, J.C., Poulos, H.G. 2010. Compensated piled rafts in clayey soils: behaviour,
measurements, and predictions. Can. Geotech. J.47, 327-345.
Selvaduri, A.P.S. 1979. Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction. Elsevier
Publishing Co.,
New York.
Small, J.C. and Poulos, H.G. (2007). Nonlinear analysis of piled raft foundations.
Geotech. Special Publication GSP158, ASCE, CD Volume, GeoDenver 2007.
Ta, L.D. & Small, J.C. 1996. Analysis of piled raft systems in layered soils. Int.
Journ. For Num. and Anal. Meth. inGeomech. 20: 57-72.
Viggiani, C. 1998. Pile groups and piled rafts behaviour. Proc. 3rd Int. Geot.
Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, 77-94