10NCEE

Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska

DYNAMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF 300M TALL
INDUSTRIAL REINFORCED CONCRETE
CHIMNEYS ON PILED RAFT
FOUNDATIONS
S. V. Jisha1, B. R. Jayalekshmi2 and R. Shivashankar3
ABSTRACT
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of 300m tall slender industrial reinforced concrete
chimneys with piled raft foundation subjected to Elcentro (1940) ground motion is carried out in
the present study. The transient analysis of three dimensional chimney-piled raft-soil system was
conducted based on direct method of SSI using finite element method. Linear elastic material
behaviour was assumed for the chimney, piled raft and soil. Parametric studies were conducted
by considering different thickness of raft of piled raft foundation and different soil types to
understand the significance of SSI. The time history analysis of the integrated chimneyfoundation-soil was carried out with ground motion corresponding to the Imperial Valley
earthquake at Elcentro (1940) with a magnitude of 7.0 and peak ground acceleration of 0.319g.
The time history of acceleration was applied in the global X direction of the entire soil-structure
model. The responses in terms of tangential and radial bending moments in raft, settlement of
raft and tip deflection of chimney were investigated. The bending moments in raft of piled raft
foundation obtained from SSI analysis were compared with that obtained from conventional
analysis. It is found that the response in chimney and raft is considerably high for chimney-piled
raft system resting on loose sand and it depends on the characteristics of ground motion also.

Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Karnataka, India
575025, jpn.nitk@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Karnataka, India
575025, br.jaya@gmail.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Karnataka, India 575025,
shivashankar.surathkal@gmail.com
Jisha SV, Jayalekshmi BR, Shivashankar R. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses of 300m tall industrial
reinforced concrete chimneys on piled raft foundations. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of 300m Tall Industrial

Reinforced Concrete Chimneys on Piled Raft Foundations
S. V. Jisha1 B. R. Jayalekshmi2 and R. Shivashankar3

ABSTRACT
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of 300m tall slender industrial reinforced concrete
chimneys with piled raft foundation subjected to Elcentro (1940) ground motion is carried out in
the present study. The transient analysis of three dimensional chimney-piled raft-soil system was
conducted based on direct method of SSI using finite element method. Linear elastic material
behaviour was assumed for the chimney, piled raft and soil. Parametric studies were conducted by
considering different thickness of raft of piled raft foundation and different soil types to
understand the significance of SSI. The time history analysis of the integrated chimneyfoundation-soil was carried out with ground motion corresponding to the Imperial Valley
earthquake at Elcentro (1940) with a magnitude of 7.0 and peak ground acceleration of 0.319g.
The time history of acceleration was applied in the global X direction of the entire soil-structure
model. The responses in terms of tangential and radial bending moments in raft, settlement of raft
and tip deflection of chimney were investigated. The bending moments in raft of piled raft
foundation obtained from SSI analysis were compared with that obtained from conventional
analysis. It is found that the response in chimney and raft is considerably high for chimney-piled
raft system resting on loose sand and it depends on the characteristics of ground motion also.

Introduction
Piled raft foundations are preferred in many civil engineering projects such as nuclear power
plants, bridges, tall chimney, large building, water power plant etc., because of the high bearing
capacity and ability to control the settlements and differential settlements to a great extent. The
study of SSI analysis of piled raft foundations is relatively complicated because of too many
coupling effects are involved in this problem namely pile-to-pile, pile-to-raft, raft-to-raft and
pile-to-soil interactions. The interaction effect of super structure to this foundation-soil system
under dynamic loads has not been much recognized so far. The present study deals with dynamic
SSI analysis of 300m tall reinforced concrete chimney with piled raft foundation.

Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Karnataka, India
575025, jpn.nitk@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Karnataka, India
575025, br.jaya@gmail.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Karnataka, India 575025,
shivashankar.surathkal@gmail.com
Jisha SV, Jayalekshmi BR, Shivashankar R. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses of 300m tall industrial
reinforced concrete chimneys on piled raft foundations. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

Background of the Problem

Conventional practice of the analysis of pile foundation ignores the contribution of raft and
consequently it requires long piles which may extend up to the deep hard stratum. On the other
hand, if raft is only considered for supporting heavy structures especially under weak soil strata,
it requires more thickness which leads to excessive settlement. Such situations demands for a
piled raft foundation in which less thickness of raft and shorter piles can be designed. The piled
raft foundations are very strong and economical. For the proper design of such foundation, it is
required to estimate the load sharing between the raft and the pile [1]. The settlement of piled raft
foundations was predicted by Poulos and Davis [2] through simplified analytical methods. The
above method is not suitable for estimating the stress resultants in the raft. Numerical methods
such as boundary element method [3], finite element method [4] and finite difference method [5]
were widely used by many researchers for the analysis and design of piled raft foundations.
Poulos [6] critically reviewed a number of methods for the analysis of piled raft foundation and
pointed out that the three dimensional numerical analysis is the most accurate method. Many
recent researchers [3,4] focused on the three dimensional analysis of piled raft systems. It is also
seen that many recent research on piled raft foundation [7] accounted only the settlement of piled
raft foundation and interaction between various elements in this complex system. The effect of
superstructure is not considered in the above studies. Hence, the interaction including the
superstructure, chimney, is considered in the present study.
A semi analytic mathematical model of SSI of tall chimneys based on both seismic and
aerodynamic response is proposed in the study of Pour and Chowdhury [8]. Very few researchers
studied the 3D SSI analysis of chimney with annular raft foundation subjected to long duration
earthquakes [9] and along wind load [10]. It is found that none of the studies investigated the
dynamic SSI effect in chimneys with piled raft foundations.
Description of the Problem
Time history analysis was carried for a 300m high chimney with piled raft foundation
considering the flexibility of soil. The thickness of raft of piled raft foundation was also varied to
understand the effect of foundation stiffness on SSI. Linear elastic material behaviour for
chimney, foundation and soil were assumed. The analysis of integrated chimney-foundation-soil
system subjected to Elcentro (1940) ground motion was carried out by using finite element
software ANSYS. The conventional analysis of chimney and that of annular raft foundation were
also carried out assuming the fixity at the base of the structure. The responses in raft and
chimney were evaluated for flexible-base and fixed-base conditions.
Characteristics of Chimney and Piled Raft Foundation
A 300m high reinforced concrete chimney was selected for the study. Practical range of ratio of
height to base diameter (slenderness ratio) of chimneys varies from 7 to 17 [11] and a ratio of 12
is considered in the present study. The ratio of top diameter to base diameter and base diameter
to thickness at bottom were taken as 0.6 and 35 respectively for the chimney based on the study
conducted by Menon and Rao [11]. The thickness at top of chimney was taken as 0.4 times the
thickness at bottom. According to these ratios, the base diameter and the top diameter of

chimney were selected as 25m and 15m respectively. The thickness of chimney at base and top
were taken as 0.7m and 0.3m respectively. Chimney is supported by piled raft foundation. The
raft part of this foundation was considered as annular. The diameter of the raft should be 50%
greater than the diameter of the chimney windshield at ground level [12]. The outer diameter and
the inner diameter of the raft were selected as 60m and 12m respectively. To study the effect of
stiffness of foundation, the thickness of raft of piled raft foundation were varied as 4.8m, 3.4m,
and 2.7m respectively corresponding to outer diameter to thickness ratios (Do/t ratio) of 12.5,
17.5 and 22.5 [10]. RC friction piles of 20m length (l) and 1m diameter (d) were considered. For
friction piles, the optimum spacing (s) recommended is 3d. Spacing of 3d ensures that
interference of stress zones of adjacent friction piles is minimum and results in a high group
efficiency. Therefore, s/d of 3 was selected for the present study. Piled raft foundation consists of
306 such piles. M30 grade concrete and Fe 415 grade steel were selected as the materials for
chimney and piled raft foundation.
Characteristics of Soil Stratum
A single layer homogenous soil stratum was assumed in the present study. The properties of the
soil stratum were varied to understand the effect of SSI. For this, four types of dry cohesionless
soil were selected in the analyses and they are S1, S2, S3 and S4 which represent loose sand,
medium sand, dense sand and rock respectively. The properties of the soil stratum were defined
by its shear wave velocity, mass density, elastic modulus, poissons ratio and angle of friction
[13]. The properties of the soil stratum are given in Table 1. Three dimensional elastic
continuum soil model was used in the present study. Soil medium is infinite. Therefore, the soil
boundary was kept away at sufficient finite distance so that the waves propagated from the soil
cannot reflect back. The soil up to four times the breadth of foundation on sideways with nonreflecting boundaries was considered. Bedrock was assumed at a depth of 30m below the soil
stratum [14].
Table 1. Properties of the soil types
Soil
Shear wave
Poissons Density, Elastic modulus, E Angle of
types velocity, Vs (m/sec) ratio,
(kN/m3)
(kN/m2)
friction (o)
S1
S2
S3
S4

100
300
600
1200

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.3

16
18
20
20

108752
445872
1908257
7633028

30
35
40
45

Finite Element Modeling

The finite element modeling and analyses were carried out using the finite element software,
ANSYS. The analysis was conducted on the basis of the direct method of SSI [14] assuming the
linear elastic material behaviour for chimney-foundation-soil system. In the finite element
modeling, the chimney and raft were modeled with SHELL63 elements defined by four nodes
having six degrees of freedom in each node. The three dimensional soil stratum was modeled
with SOILD45 elements with eight nodes having three translational degrees of freedom at each

node. The pile was also modeled using SOILD45 elements. The surface-surface contact elements
were used to evaluate the interaction between pile and soil. The pile surface was established as
target surface (TARGE170), and the soil surface contacting the pile as contact surface
(CONTAC174), these two surfaces constitute the contact pair. The coefficient of friction was
defined between contact and target surfaces and is shown in Table 1.
The chimney shell was discretised with element of 2m size along height and with
divisions of 7.5o in the circumferential direction. Diameter and thickness of chimney were varied
linearly along the height. The pile was descritised as 2m size along the length of pile. Three
dimensional finite element model of the integrated chimney-foundation-soil system is shown in
Fig. 1. The finite element model of piled raft foundation and that of a single pile are also shown
in Fig. 1.
In the finite element analysis, the boundary of infinite soil medium needs to be restricted
to a finite distance. The non-reflecting boundaries [15] were kept at the soil boundaries to
prevent the reflection of waves propagated from the soil at the soil finite boundary. The wellknown equation of motion can be written as follows when the viscous boundaries are taken into
account.

M u(t ) Cu(t ) C* u(t ) K u(t ) P(t )

(1)

where C* is the special damping matrix that may be considered as follows

An v p
0

C
*

0
At1vs
0

0
0

At1vs

(2)

where vp and vs are the dilatational and shear wave velocity of the considered medium.
An, At1 and At2 are the fields controlling the viscous dampers, is the mass density of the
medium and the subscripts n and t represent normal and tangent directions in the boundary.
B

chimney

Piled raft

30m
Soil
stratum

Figure 1.

Finite element model of (A) integrated chimney-piled raft- soil system (B) piled raft
foundation and (C) single pile

Time History Analysis

Acceleration (g)

0.3

0.1
-0.1 0

10

15

20

25

30

Acceleration (g)

The time history analysis of the integrated SSI system was carried out for ground motion
corresponding to the longitudinal component of Imperial Valley earthquake at El Centro (1940)
with a magnitude of 7.0 and peak ground acceleration of 0.319g. The total duration of the ground
motion taken is 30 seconds. Acceleration time history and associated fourier spectrum of this
ground motion are shown in Fig. 2. The time history of acceleration was applied in the global X
direction of the integrated structure-foundation-soil model. Rayleigh damping was taken into
consideration in the seismic analyses [15]. The mass and stiffness proportional damping
equivalent to 5% of critical damping was assumed as structural damping. The horizontal loading
due to wind and other causes were neglected.

Time (sec)

-0.3

Figure 2.

0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0

2
3
Frequency (Hz)

(A) Time history plot and (B) FFT plot of ElCentro ground motion
Conventional Analysis of Annular Raft Foundation

The basic assumptions of conventional analysis of annular raft given in IS:11089-1984 [16] are
i) The foundation is rigid relative to the supporting soil and the compressible soil layer is
relatively shallow; and ii) The contact pressure distribution is assumed to vary linearly
throughout the foundation. The cross sectional elevation and plan of chimney with annular raft
foundation and the pressure distribution under annular raft are given in Fig. 3. The formulae for
circumferential and radial moments M t and M r respectively are given below.
For r c,
Mt

pa 2 b 2
a 1 c 2 r 2 4b 2
r 3 1 a 2 a 2 a 2 r 2 b2
a
41 2 log e 2 2 2 log e 2 2 2 2 2 log e
16 r
c 2 2a a a
a 43 b r a b r
b

Mr

pa 2 b2
a 1 c 2 3r 2 4b2
r 3 a 2 a 2 a 2 r 2 b2
a
41 2 log e 2 2 2 log e 1 2 2 2 2 2 log e
16 r
c 2 2a a
a
a 4 b r a b r
b

(3)

(4)

For r c,
M t M t r c
M r M r r c

pa 2 b 2
c 1 c 2
41 2 log e 2
16 a
r 2 2 r
pa 2 b2
c 1 c 2
4 1 2 log e 2
16 a
r 2 2r

(5)

(6)

where a and b are the outer and inner radius of annular raft respectively, r is the radial distance to
any point in raft and c is the radius of chimney windshield at base. As per IS:11089-1984 [16],
the non-uniform pressure distribution under annular raft is modified to uniform pressure
distribution p, and is given by p1 + 0.5 p2, where p1 is uniform pressure due to dead loads (V) and
p2 is pressure due to bending effects (M) as shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3.

(A) Cross sectional elevation of chimney and annular raft foundation (B) plan view
of chimney and annular raft foundation (C) pressure distribution under the annular
raft due to dead weight and bending moment

The response in the raft and chimney were computed from the conventional analysis
considering fixity at the base of structure and compared with that obtained from finite element
analysis considering the flexibility at the base of the structure.
Results and Discussions
The 300m chimney with piled raft foundation were analysed using four different soil types and
three different ratios of outer diameter to thickness of raft. The seismic structural responses in
terms of absolute maximum values of tangential and radial bending moment in raft, settlement of
raft and tip deflection of chimney were studied for SSI effects. The variations of bending
moment in raft with flexible-base from that with fixed-base were studied. The bending moments
of raft evaluated from conventional method is designated as IS11089 in graphs and tables. The
tip deflection of chimney obtained from SSI analysis is compared with that obtained from the
conventional analysis of chimney in which the base of chimney is fixed.
Effect of stiffness of soil
Four types of soils were selected namely S1, S2, S3 and S4 which represents loose sand, medium
sand, dense sand and rock respectively in order to study the effect of SSI on the bending moment
and settlement of raft as well as the tip deflection of chimney.
Variation in Bending Moments in Raft
Effect of stiffness of soil on the tangential and radial bending moments in annular raft of piled
raft foundation is studied. The moment in raft obtained from SSI analysis is compared with that

obtained from conventional analysis as per IS:11089-1984. The representative graphs for
tangential and radial moments at various radial locations from inner to outer edge of the raft of
300m tall chimneys are shown in Fig. 4. It is found that in conventional analysis, the maximum
tangential moment in raft is obtained at inner edge of the raft and it decreases towards the outer
edge of the raft but, the pattern of tangential moment in raft is different in that obtained from SSI
analysis. From the SSI analysis, the maximum tangential moment is found at chimney wind
shield location in raft. For the case of radial moment in raft, both conventional analysis and the
SSI analysis show the maximum moment at chimney windshield location in raft. It is also
observed that the tangential and radial moment increases with decrease in stiffness of soil. This
may be due to the fact that the raft of piled raft foundation behaves as a rigid plate when the
structure interacts with loose sand. The effect of pile group on the raft is clearly visible from the
moment response in raft as there is a sudden variation of moment at the pile locations in the raft.
The time history plot of radial moment in raft at chimney wind shield location of chimney
(Do/t=12.5) is shown in Fig. 5. It is found that the absolute maximum moment response is
obtained at different times for raft that interacts with different types of soil. The absolute
maximum radial and tangential moments in raft occurred at 3.94s, 3.8s, 3.76s, 3.74s respectively
for chimney with foundation (Do/t=12.5) resting on soil type S1, S2, S3 and S4.
The maximum tangential and radial moment obtained from conventional analysis and SSI
analysis are given in Table 2. It is seen that the maximum tangential moment obtained from SSI
analysis is less than that obtained from the conventional analysis except for the chimney with
foundation (Do/t=12.5) resting on soil type S1. For this case, ie., the piled raft foundation with
raft of large thickness (Do/t=12.5) founded on soil type S1, the tangential moment increases by
30% from that of conventional analysis. It is also found that the maximum radial moment in raft
obtained from SSI analysis is more than that obtained from conventional analysis for the
chimney founded on soil types S1, S2 and S3. The variations of radial moment in raft of flexiblebase from that of fixed-base are remarkable for chimney-foundation resting on soil type S1. The
maximum variation of moments of 232% is found for the chimney with piled raft foundation
(Do/t=12.5) resting on soil type S1 from that of conventional method. For the same chimneyfoundation system, the variations of radial moments are 119% and 50% for soil type S2 and S3
respectively.
IS11089
S1
S2
S3
S4

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Radial distance from centre (r/a)

Figure 4.

12000

Radial moment (kNm)

Tangential moment (kNm)

12000

IS11089
S1
S2
S3
S4

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-2000

Radial distance from centre (r/a)

(A) Tangential moment (B) Radial moment in raft (Do/t=12.5) of piled raft
foundation

Radial Moment
(kNm)

15,000

3.94s
3.80s
3.76s
3.74s

10,000

S1

5,000

S2
0
0

10

15

20

25

S3

30

-5,000

S4

-10,000

Time (s)

-15,000

Figure 5. Time history plot of radial moment in raft (Do/t=12.5) at chimney shell location
Settlement of Raft
The representative diagrams of the settlement of raft of 300m chimney at various radial locations
from inner to outer edge along the center of the raft is shown in Fig. 6. It is seen that as the soil
type varies from S4 to S1, ie., from rock to loose sand, the settlement of the raft increases. The
settlement pattern shows that the maximum settlement is obtained at chimney wind shield
location in the raft and it decreases towards both the inner and outer edge of the raft for all soil
types. The maximum settlement of raft of piled raft foundation from SSI analysis is tabulated in
Table 2. It is seen that, the soil deformation is negligible for the soil types S3 and S4.
Variation in Tip Deflection of Chimney
The tip deflection of chimney obtained from flexible-base and fixed-base conditions are
tabulated in Table 2. It is found that the tip deflection of chimney increases with increase in
flexibility of soil. It is seen that, the tip deflection of chimney obtained from the analysis of
chimney with fixed-base is lower than that obtained from analysis of chimney-foundation system
resting on soil type S1. An increase in variation of tip deflection of 10% is found for chimney
with piled raft (Do/t=12.5) under flexible soil type S1 from the chimney with fixed-base. The
maximum responses of raft and maximum tip deflection occur at different times.
Radial distance from centre (r/a)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Settlement of raft
(mm)

Settlement of raft
(mm)

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

Radial distance from centre (r/a)

S1

S2

S3

S4

-2
-4
-6
-8

S1

S2

S3

S4

Figure 6. Settlement of raft for (A) Do/t=12.5 (B) Do/t=22.5 of piled raft foundation

Table 2. Maximum responses in chimney and raft

Response
Tangential
moment in raft
(kNm)

Radial moment
in raft
(kNm)

Settlement of
raft
(mm)

Tip deflection
of chimney
(m)

Soil Type

Do/t=12.5

Do/t=17.5

Do/t=22.5

S1
S2
S3
S4
IS11089
S1
S2
S3
S4
IS11089
S1
S2
S3
S4
S1
S2
S3
S4
Fixed

9967.3 (3.94s)*
6556.1 (3.80s)
4437.8 (3.76s)
2893.7 (3.74s)

6982.6 (3.96s)
4393.7 (3.80s)
2940.8 (3.76s)
1906.9 (3.74s)
7665.9
8094.8 (3.96s)
5117.9 (3.80s)
3494.0 (3.76s)
2321.7 (3.74s)
3398.1
6.08 (3.96s)
2.70 (3.80s)
1.22 (3.76s)
0.49 (3.74s)
0.458 (3.52s)
0.402 (3.44s)
0.388 (3.40s)
0.383 (3.36s)
0.433 (3.42s)

5026.4 (3.96s)
3260.6 (3.82)
2220.9 (3.76)
1420.2 (3.74)

11291.1 (3.94s)
7435.4 (3.80s)
5087.2 (3.76s)
3409.4 (3.74s)
4.51 (3.94s)
1.93 (3.80s)
0.95 (3.76s)
0.41 (3.74s)
0.472 (3.48s)
0.402 (3.42s)
0.387 (3.38s)
0.383 (3.36s)

6016.2 (3.96s)
3926.0 (3.80s)
2718.7 (3.76s)
1762.1 (3.74s)
7.22 (3.98s)
3.18 (3.82)
1.39 (3.76s)
0.55 (3.74s)
0.447 (3.56s)
0.402 (3.46s)
0.388 (3.40s)
0.383 (3.36s)

* The time at which maximum response is obtained is shown in brackets

Effect of Stiffness of Raft
The effect of stiffness of the raft was investigated by considering Do/t ratios of 12.5, 17.5 and
22.5. It is found that the bending moments in raft of piled raft obtained from SSI analysis
increases with decrease in Do/t ratio. This is because of high structural rigidity of the raft of piled
raft foundation of chimney for lower Do/t ratios. From the SSI analysis, it is observed that the
variation of tangential and radial moment in raft of Do/t=17.5 from that in the raft of Do/t=12.5
resting on soil type S1 decreases by 39% and 94% respectively, with respect to fixed base
response. For the same soil type, the tangential and radial moment of raft of Do/t=22.5 reduces
from that of Do/t=12.5 by 64% and 155% respectively. It is observed that the settlement of raft
increases with increase in the Do/t ratio. The variation of tip deflection of chimney with different
Do/t ratios is negligible for soil type S2, S3, and S4. For the soil type S1, it is found that the
maximum tip deflection is obtained for Do/t=12.5. This means that the tip deflection is more for
rigid structure-foundation system which is due to the characteristics of earthquake motion. The
natural frequencies of chimney-foundation-soil system with Do/t ratios of 12.5, 17.5 and 22.5 are
0.24Hz, 0.228Hz and 0.22Hz respectively. From Table 2, it is seen that the time at which the tip
deflection is obtained is different for different SSI systems. The response of the SSI system
depends on the frequency content in the ground motion, corresponding to the natural frequencies.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the present study. (i) The response of chimney and
raft is considerably high for chimney-piled raft system resting on loose sand. (ii) The location of
maximum tangential moment in raft obtained from conventional analysis and SSI analysis is
different. (iii) The tangential moment in raft obtained from SSI analysis is less than that obtained
from conventional analysis except for raft of larger thickness resting on loose sand. (iv) The
radial moment in raft obtained from SSI analysis is significantly more than that obtained from
the conventional analysis for loose sand and medium sand. (v) The response in chimney depends
on characteristic of ground motion.
References
1.

Randolph MF. Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi 1994; 5: 61-82.

2.

Poulos HG, Davis EH. Pile foundation analysis and design. John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1980.

3.

Padron LA, Aznarez JJ, Maeso O. 3-D boundary elementfinite element method for the dynamic analysis of
piled buildings. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 2011; 35: 46577.

4.

Lee J, Kim Y, Jeong S. Three-dimensional analysis of bearing behavior of piled raft on soft clay. Computers
and Geotechnics 2010; 37: 103114.

5.

Lin DG, Feng ZY. A numerical study of piled raft foundations. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers
2006; 29:1091-97.

6.

Poulos HG. Methods of analysis of piled raft foundations. A report prepared on behalf of technical committee
TC18 on piled raft foundations, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2001.

7.

Nguyen DDC, Jo S, Kim D. Design method of piled-raft foundations under vertical load considering interaction
effects. Computers and Geotechnics 2013; 47: 1627.

8.

Pour NS, Chowdhury I. Dynamic soil structure interaction analysis of tall multi- flue chimneys under
aerodynamic and seismic force, The 12th International conference on IACMAG, India 2008; 2696-2703.

9.

Mehta D, Gandhi NJ. Time study response of tall chimneys, under the effect of soil structure interaction and
long period earthquake impulse. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, China 2008.

10. Jayalekshmi BR, Menon D, Prasad AM. Effect of soil-structure interaction on along-wind response of tall
chimneys. The 13th International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Australia
2011.
11. Menon D, Rao PS. Estimation of along wind moments in RC chimneys. Engineering Structures 1997; 19 (1):
71-78.
12. Turner T. Industrial chimney foundations. In: Zurich editor, The CICIND chimney book: Industrial chimneys of
concrete or steel. CICIND; 2005, p. 79-98.
13. Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill International Editions: Singapore, 1997.
14. Tabatabaiefar HR, Massumi A. A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete
moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2010; 30: 1259-1267.
15. Cakir T. Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behaviour of cantilever retaining
wall including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2013; 45: 96-111.
16. IS:11089-1984. Code of practice for design and construction of ring foundation. Bureau of Indian standards:
New Delhi.