1

CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION 2.FOUNDATION 3.PILED RAFT FOUNDATION 4.CLASSIFICATION OF PILED RAFT 5.ADVANTAGES OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION 6.CASE STUDY-BURJ DUBAI 7.CASE STUDY- MESSE TURM TOWER,FRANKFORT 8.CONCLUSION 9.REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

(source:commons.wikimedia.org)

Number of skyscrapers are high in recent years Proper foundation is adequate Piled raft foundation is economical Bearing capacity of both pile and raft utilized

FOUNDATION
Shallow foundation -strip footing strip -spread footing -cantilever footing cantilever -raft footing Deep footing -piers i -caissons -piles il
4

RAFT FOUNDATION

(source: commons.wikimedia.org )

Large concrete slab g Supports column of entire structure Differential settlement compensated by rigidity of raft p y g y Depth of footing < 1m
5

PILE FOUNDATION
Vertical or slightly inclined members Transmit load of superstructure to lower depth Load transfer1)skin friction 2)end bearing

(source:commons.wikimedia.org)
6

PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

RAFT

LOAD ON SUPERSTRUCTURE
PILE

RAFT

PILE

CONTACT WITH SOIL

SKIN FRICTION

FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES

LOAD SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOUR

Curve 0: Raft only (settlement excessive) Curve 1: Raft with pile f i h il designed for conventional safety factor Curve 2: Raft with piles designed for lower safety factor using reduced number g of piles Curve 3: Raft with piles designed for full utilization of capacity using reduced number of piles

FAVOURABLE AND UNFAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCE FOR PILED RAFT

FAVOURABLE soil profile with 1) stiff clay 2) dense sand d d

UNFAVOURABLE
soil profile with 1) soft clay and loose sand 2) soft compressible layers at shallow depth

10

CLASSIFICATION OF PILED RAFT

SMALL PILED RAFT
W<L Insufficient bearing capacity of raft Piles added to increase factor of safety W>L sufficient bearing capacity Piles added to decrease settlement

LARGE PILED RAFT

W WIDTHOFRAFT L LENGTHOFPILE

11

FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE PERFOMANCE OF PILED RAFT

No: of piles Type of loading Effect of raft thickness Relative length of piles Pile configuration Pile group width to raft width ratio

(Source:www.wikipedia.org)
12

NO. OF PILES
As no. of piles increases: -maximum settlement decreases -load carried increases Upper limit exist

13

TYPE OF LOADING
Maximum settlement and maximum bending moment in i concentrated loading > M i t t d l di Maximum settlement and ttl t d maximum bending moment in uniform loading

14

EFFECT OF RAFT THICKNESS

As raft thickness increases: - differential settlement reduces - maximum bending moment reduces -resist punching shear

15

RELATIVE LENGTH OF PILES

For a given no of piles: as L/D ratio increases ti i -differential settlement decreases -maximum moment decreases Most effective strategy: To increase the length of pile than increasing no of pile L- Length of pile p D- Diameter of pile
16

PILE CONFIGURATION
Depends on: load distribution No: of piles Length of pile Concentric arrangement of pile with respect to centre give good performance

17

PILE GROUP WIDTH TO RAFT WIDTH RATIO

Most influenced element of system geometry -ratio=1,to minimize the average displacement -ratio=0.5,to minimize differential settlement

18

ADVANTAGES OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

(source:www.maniacworld.com) (source:www maniacworld com)

reduction in the number or length of piles reduction of maximum and differential settlements reduces the internal stress and bending moment in raft d h i l d b di i f improvement of bearing capacity of raft reduction in the heave inside and outside the pit during excavation educ o e e ve s de d ou s de e p du g e c v o work
19

CASE STUDY BURJ DUBAI

Key features:
Height -828m No of storey-160 No storey 160 Storey garage-4 to 6 Water level 2.5m Water level-2.5m below ground level Podium development Podium
(source: www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com) ( b jd b i k )

Worlds tallest building

20

SUBSOIL CONDITION -complex -seismically active area i i ll i

Medium dense to loose granular silty sand Weak sandstone inter bedded With cement sand Weak t W k to moderately weak d t l k conglomerates
21

FOUNDATION DESIGN
Tower piles:1.5 m diameter :47.45 m long 47 45 l pPodium piles:0.9m diameter :30 m length Thickness of raft:3.7 m

source:www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com
22

PiledraftfoundationforBurjDubai (source:www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com)

23

CONTOURS OF THE MAXIMUM AXIAL LOAD

Maximum load at corners Maximum -35MN Minimum load at centre Minimum :12-13MN Centre to centre spacing of Centre pile:2.5 x pile diameter

24

CONTD
Factor of safety against vertical block movement: <2 against lateral block movement: >2 against overturning :=5

25

CASE STUDY MESSE TURM TOWER ,FRANKFORT

KEA FEATURES: FEATURES Height-256m No of floors-63 36.3 m high pyramid

Second tallest building in Germany source:commons.wikimedia.org

26

SUBSOIL CONDITION
FILL+QUARTERNARY SAND +GRAVEL DEPTH:10M

FRANKFURT CLAY( t bl ) CLAY(unstable) DEPTH:70M

27

FOUNDATION DESIGN

(source:commons.wikimedia.org)
28

CONCLUSION
The piled raft foundation is extensively applied in last two d d t decades. The piled raft is applied not only to control the foundation settlement but also to minimise the required raft thickness to reach the most economic foundation design.

29

REFERENCES
Bakholdin, B. V. (2003), Piled-raft Foundations: Design d h D i and characteristics of construction t i ti f t ti procedures, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, V l 40 (5) 185-189 E i i Vol. (5),pp 185 189 Bezerra, J. E, Cunha, R. P. and Sales, M. M (2005), Optimisation concepts for the design of piled raft foundation system, Proceedings of 16th ICSMGE, Osaka,pp 1947-1950

30

CONTD..

Cao X. D., Wong, H. and Chang, M. F. (2004), Behaviour of Model Rafts Resting on h i f d l f i Pile-Reinforced Sand, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo G environmental Engineering(ASCE), Vol.130 ( ) l (ASC ) l (2), pp 129138

Desai, C. S. (1974), Numerical design analysis for piles in sands, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (ASCE), , f g g( ), Vol 100 (6), pp 613-635.

31

32