Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 159
July 2006 Issue GE3
Pages 153160

Paper 14324
Received 06/06/2005
Accepted 21/10/2005
Keywords: Harry G. Poulos
design methods & aids/foundations/ Senior Principal, Coffey
piles & piling Geosciences, Australia

Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts

H. G. Poulos

In all but small symmetrical pile group configurations, PG applied group load (example 2)
the load distribution will be non-uniform, with a Pi axial load on pile i
tendency for larger loads to be carried by piles near the Si settlement of pile i without insert
perimeter of the pile group, while the inner piles may St i settlement of pile i with insert
carry a significantly smaller load. If the design requires STi target settlement of pile i
that a certain minimum factor of safety be applied to STilim lower limit for target settlement of pile i
individual piles, the load that can be applied to a pile t thickness of insert
group may be limited by the most heavily loaded pile in
that group. This may lead to an over-conservative
1. INTRODUCTION
design in many cases. This paper describes the use of
Current practice in the design of piles in several countries
stiffness inserts at the head of the more heavily loaded
requires all piles within a group to have, at the working load, a
piles in a group. These inserts consist of a compressible
specified factor of safety against the ultimate pile capacity. In
material incorporated in the head of a pile, below the
all but small symmetrical pile group configurations, the load
pile cap. By selecting appropriate stiffnesses for these
distribution will be non-uniform, with a tendency for larger
inserts, it is possible to obtain an almost uniform
loads to be carried by piles near the perimeter of the pile
distribution of axial load within the group, together with
group, while the inner piles may carry a significantly smaller
a specified settlement. In this way, the allowable load
load. Consequently, the load that can be applied to a pile group
on a group can be increased, usually at the cost of a
may be limited by the most heavily loaded pile in that group.
modest increase in the settlement. The paper sets out a
This may lead to an over-conservative design in many cases.
relatively simple method for assessing the required
Clearly, it would be useful to have a means of reducing or
stiffness of the inserts, which involves firstly an analysis
eliminating the non-uniformity of load distribution within a
of the pile group without inserts in order to compute
group while also controlling the settlement.
the stiffness of each pile within the group environment.
On the basis of this analysis, the required insert stiffness
This paper describes the use of controlled stiffness inserts at the
for each pile can be computed. The paper gives two
head of the more heavily loaded piles in a group to achieve the
examples of the difference in the loadsettlement
above objectives. It sets out a relatively simple method for
characteristics of a pile group with and without stiffness
assessing the required stiffness of the inserts, which involves
inserts where non-uniform load and/or settlement
firstly an analysis of the pile group without inserts in order to
behaviour would occur without the inserts. A third case
compute the stiffness of each pile within the group
involves a piled raft, and demonstrates that improved
environment. On the basis of this analysis, the required insert
settlement performance may be achieved without
stiffness for each pile can be computed. Three examples are
compromising the requirements for ultimate vertical
described to illustrate the method of application of the
capacity.
approach.

NOTATION
A cross-sectional area of insert 2. STIFFNESS INSERTS
E Youngs modulus of insert Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of a controlled stiffness
Es Youngs modulus of soil insert (CSI) together with a photograph of one such insert
fb ultimate load-bearing capacity of pile applied to the head of an H-pile in a building project in Hong
fs ultimate skin friction along pile shaft Kong.
KG i original stiffness of pile i in a group environment
KIi stiffness of insert i The concept of the CSI is to reduce the stiffness of the pile on
Mxx raft bending moment along x-axis which it is attached and so to increase the settlement and/or
Mxy torsional bending moment in raft reduce the axial load in that pile, in a controlled fashion (it
Myy raft bending moment along y-axiz may be argued that such inserts could more correctly be
P applied load (example 1) termed compressibility inserts, but because of previous usage 1

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos 153

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 that might be suitable for inserts are shown in Table 1, for an
axial strain of about 10%. In general, the Youngs modulus of
Pile cap
such materials will tend to change with increasing strain level,
and may in some cases increase.

3. ANALYSIS OF REQUIRED INSERT STIFFNESS

Insert The analysis of the required insert stiffness requires a two-stage
procedure:

(a) First the pile group is analysed without the inserts. This is
done most effectively by imposing known or equal loads
(typical of those that will act on the group) on each pile,
and computing the settlement of each pile in the group.
(b) Second, the pile group is analysed for the appropriate pile
head condition (e.g. with a rigid cap), incorporating the
Pile
inserts at the pile head.

The effects of pilesoilpile interaction need to be taken into

account in both stages of the analysis.

Various methods of analysis can be employed, but in this paper

the computer program PIGS (Pile Group Settlement) has been
employed. 2 PIGS calculates the settlement and load distribution
within a pile group subjected to axial and moment loading. It
(a) is based on Randolph and Wroths simplified elastic method of
analysis for the settlement of a single pile,3 but allows for
non-linear pile response via an assumed hyperbolic load
settlement behaviour for each pile, and for the effects of pile
soilpile interaction via interaction factors that are either input
or computed via simplified means within the program. The
following factors can be considered in the PIGS program:

(a) piles of different length, diameter and stiffness

(b) different soil profiles for different piles within the group
(c) an insert of specified dimensions and stiffness at the head
of each pile (if required)
(d) applied axial load, and applied moments in two directions
(e) ground movement effects on the piles, arising from a
variety of sources
( f ) limited structural strength of the piles
(g) sequences of loading and unloading
(h) the activation or de-activation of nominated piles within
the foundation system (this feature is useful when
(b)
considering the effects of foundation enhancement or
underpinning after the commencement of loading of the
Fig. 1. Controlled stiffness inserts: (a) schematic diagram; (b) foundation).
example of use of CSI on steel H-piles

The PIGS analysis implicitly assumes either that the piles are
connected by a single rigid pile cap, or else that the axial load
the term stiffness inserts will be adhered to). The stiffness KI on each of the piles is known.
of the CSI is given simply as
From the first analysis (without inserts), the stiffness KG i of any
EA pile i within the group environment can be computed as
1 KI
t follows:

Pi
where E is the Youngs modulus of the insert, A is the cross- 2 K Gi
Si
sectional area of the insert, and t is the thickness of the insert.

Figure 2 plots, for convenience, the relationship between where Pi is the load on pile i, and Si is the computed settlement
stiffness per unit area, insert thickness and insert material of pile i. If an insert is added to the head of pile i, with a
modulus. Typical values of Youngs modulus of some materials stiffness KIi , then the settlement of pile i, St i , will be given by

154 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 E Pi
100000 K Gilim
Values 6 STilim
1000
500
Insert stiffness: MN/m/m2
10000
200
100
40
By adjusting the target value
1000 of settlement for each pile,
20
10 and the load on that pile, it is
100 possible (at least in principle)
to design the stiffness inserts
so that the pile group settles
10
0 005 010 015 020 025 030
in a predetermined manner.

Insert thickness: m It should be emphasised that

Fig. 2. Insert stiffness values
Material
GC995 urethane elastomer Duro D
GC980 urethane elastomer Duro A
Natural rubber 75 Duro A
Neoprene 65 Duro A
GC855 urethane elastomer 55 Duro A
Table 1. Typical values of Youngs modulus for various
materials (10% axial strain)
 
3 Sti Pi
Thus, for a specified target settlement STi of pile i, the required
insert stiffness for pile i can be obtained from the following
expression:
1 STi
4

KI i Pi
where STi is the target settlement of pile i, Pi is the required
load on pile i, and KG i is the original stiffness of pile i within
the group environment. If all piles are required to carry equal
load and settle equally, then Pi will be the average load on the
group, and STi will be the same for all piles within the group.
From equation (4), to avoid a negative insert stiffness, there
must be a lower limit for the target settlement (STilim ), which is
as follows:
the approach described above
addresses settlement issues
for normal working or
serviceability vertical loads.
Under horizontal working or serviceability loads, it may be
Youngs modulus:
MPa expected that the horizontal deflection may increase because
the pile head will be pinned to the cap, rather than fixed into
it. For the ultimate limit state, the use of inserts should not
63
21 have any influence on the vertical compression capacity of the
11 piles. However, there may be consequences for vertical uplift
8 loadings, because the pile will in general not be rigidly
6 attached to the pile cap. In addition, there may be
consequences for the resistance of the group to horizontal and
moment loading. The overall group design will need to take
these matters into account, but they should not, in general,
preclude the use of inserts unless the applied lateral and
moment loadings are very large.
1 1
KI i K Gi Two examples of the application of controlled stiffness inserts
to pile groups are described below. The case of a piled raft is
then considered. Attention will be focused on the settlements
under working or serviceability vertical loadings.
4. EXAMPLE 1: 25-PILE GROUP IN HORIZONTALLY
LAYERED SOIL PROFILE
The example considered in this section involves a group of 25
1 steel H-piles (305 mm 3 305 mm 3 186 kg/m), with a centre-
K Gi to-centre spacing of 1.2 m, driven in a typical geotechnical
profile in Hong Kong, and founded on slightly weathered
granite. Fig. 3 shows the geotechnical profile, a plan of the
group, and the identification of the various piles in the group.
Table 2 shows the assumed design geotechnical parameters for
both driven steel H-piles and bored piles (the latter are used for
example 2). These parameters have been derived from
commonly used correlations in Hong Kong. The working load
on the group is 43.75 MN, thus giving an average load per pile
of 1.75 MN, and an overall factor of safety of about 2.0 on the
computed ultimate (geotechnical) pile capacity of about 3.5 MN
per pile (for a group efficiency factor of unity).

Assuming that no inserts are present, and that the pile cap is
Pi rigid, a PIGS analysis of the pile group settlement and load
5 STilim
K Gi distribution gives the results shown in Table 3. It can be seen
that the load distribution is non-uniform, and that the corner
piles carry about 21% greater load than the average load, while
Alternatively, there will be a lower limit (KG ilim ) to the pile the centre pile carries a load about 25% smaller than the
stiffness for which stiffness inserts are required, and this limit average. If the design of the pile group was controlled by the
is given by requirement that the factor of safety for the most heavily

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos 155

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Pile number Computed load: MN Settlement: mm
P 5 4375 MN

1 2.12 21.5
2 1.87 21.5
6 Fill
3 1.78 21.5
7 1.54 21.5
8 1.43 21.5
Marine 13 1.31 21.5
12 clay
Table 3. Example 1: computed load distribution for rigid pile
cap (group load 43.75 MN)
4 Alluvium

Compl.
weathered
10 Pile number Computed settlement: Computed pile
granite
(CDG)
mm stiffness: MN/m

Sl. weathered 1 19.7 88.8

granite (SWG) 2 21.2 82.6
3 21.8 80.3
1 2 3
7 23.1 75.8
8 23.8 73.5
7 8 12
13 24.4 71.7
13 12
12
Table 4. Example 1: computed pile stiffness values for equal
12
load on all piles
12 12 12 12

From equation (5), the smallest settlement that can be achieved

Fig. 3. Ground profile and pile layout for Example 1 is given by

loaded pile was to be no less than 2.0, then the applied load on
the group would need to be reduced by 21%, or else the
number of piles in the group would need to be increased
accordingly.
Considering now the requirements for inserts to reduce the
inequality of axial loads, a further PIGS analysis has been
carried out, assuming equal loads on all piles. This is necessary
because non-linear loadsettlement behaviour is assumed for
the piles in PIGS, and because the objective is to have equal
loads in the piles. Thus a more accurate indication of the
relative stiffnesses of the piles within the group will be
obtained by analysing the group with equal loads on all piles.
Table 4 gives the computed settlement and stiffness of each of
the piles within the group under a load of 1.75 MN per pile. It
can be seen that, as would be expected, the stiffness of the
piles within the group environment is greatest at the corner
locations, and least at the centre location.
STilim Pi =K G i
1:75=71:7 24:4 mm
In this case, a target settlement of STi 24.4 mm will be
assumed. Using the relationship in equation (3), for equal load
in all piles (Pi 1.75 MN), and with the values of pile stiffness
KG i in Table 2, the computed values of required insert stiffness
KIi are shown in Table 5.
Carrying out now a further group analysis with PIGS, and with
the insert stiffness values as per Table 4, the corresponding
loads and settlements are shown in Table 5. It will be seen that
the computed settlement is equal in all piles and very close to
the target value of 24.4 mm, and that the axial load on all piles
is virtually equal. Thus in this particular case, by introducing
the stiffness inserts, the maximum pile load has been reduced
from 2.12 MN to 1.76 MN, at the cost of an increased
settlement from 21.5 mm to 24.2 mm. In this case, the
maximum pile load would then satisfy the requirement for a

Material Thickness: m Av. SPT Driven steel H-Piles Bored piles

E s : MPa f s : kPa f b : MPa E s : MPa f s : kPa f b : MPa

Fill 6 20 20 20 20 16
Marine clay 12 8 20 6 20
Alluvium 4 30 36 30 30 24
CD granite 10 70 84 70 70 56
HW granite Variable 120 120 12
SW granite Large 5000 22.5

Table 2. Assumed geotechnical parameters for examples

156 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Pile number Required insert stiffness: Computed load: MN Computed settlement:
MN/m mm

1 372.4 1.76 24.2

2 546.7 1.75 24.2
3 673.4 1.75 24.2
7 1345.4 1.75 24.2
8 2915.7 1.76 24.2
13 No insert 1.74 24.2

Table 5. Example 1: computed insert stiffness values required for uniform settlement and load
under rigid cap (target settlement 24.4 mm)

factor of safety of 2.0, and it would not be necessary to reduce

Pile number Computed load: MN Settlement: mm
the group load or increase the number of piles.

1 8.67 63.8
2 7.74 60.2
5. EXAMPLE 2: BORED PILE GROUP FOUNDED ON
3 8.76 56.5
SLOPING BEDROCK 4 7.72 63.8
This case is illustrated in Fig. 4, and involves a group of nine 5 6.37 60.2
bored piles 1.2 m in diameter, founded on a layer of highly 6 7.55 56.5
weathered bedrock with a surface sloping at 458 (this may be a 7 8.67 63.8
8 7.74 60.2
rather extreme geological situation). The assumed geotechnical
9 8.76 56.5
parameters are shown in Table 2. A working load of 72 MN is
applied to the group, giving an overall factor of safety of the
Table 6. Example 2: computed load distribution for rigid pile
group of about 2, assuming a group efficiency factor of unity. cap (group load 72 MN)

An analysis of this group with PIGS gives the results

summarised in Table 6. It can be seen that the load distribution
is non-uniform as a result of both pilesoilpile interaction
effects, and the effects of the varying pile length. In addition,
the settlement is non-uniform, with a tilt of about 1/1030
occurring across the group.
PG 5 72 MN
6 Fill
Marine
12 clay
From an analysis of the group with equal loads on all the piles,
the pile stiffness values have been obtained, as shown in Table
7. From equation (4), the minimum target settlement is found
to be 66.4 mm. Finally, a PIGS analysis has been carried out of
the group with inserts at the pile heads, using the insert
stiffness values computed from equation (3) and shown in
Table 8. Table 8 also shows the results of the calculations, and
reveals again that the loads and settlements are sensibly
uniform. Thus the tilt existing in the original group has now
been removed. The computed average settlement of 66.0 mm is
slightly less than the target value of 66.8 mm, probably as a
result of minor numerical inaccuracies and the effects of non-
linearity in the analyses.

6. EXAMPLE 3: PILED RAFT

4 Alluvium Piled raft foundations are an attractive option when
settlements and differential settlements need to be controlled
within the foundation system. Randolph3 identified three
Compl.
Highly
weathered Pile number Computed settlement: Computed pile
weathered
granite mm stiffness: MN/m
granite
(CDG)

1 62.0 129.0
2 62.1 128.8
1 2 3 3 54.9 145.7
4 66.1 121.0
4 5 6 40 5 66.8 119.8
6 58.8 136.0
7 8 9 40
7 62.0 129.0
8 62.1 128.8
9 54.9 145.7
40 40

Table 7. Example 2: computed pile stiffness values for equal

Fig. 4. Ground profile and pile layout for Example 2 load on all piles

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos 157

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Pile number Required insert stiffness: Computed load: MN Computed settlement:
MN/m mm

1 1667 8.01 65.8

2 1703 8.00 66.0
3 672 8.00 66.2
4 11417 7.99 65.8
5 No insert 8.00 66.0
6 1000 8.00 66.2
7 1667 8.00 65.8
8 1703 8.00 66.0
9 672 8.00 66.2

Table 8. Example 2: computed insert stiffness values required for uniform settlement and load
under rigid cap (target settlement 66.8 mm)

underlying design philosophies for piles rafts: the

consideration of the effects of the raft to relieve some of the 5 5 5 5 5
load carried by the piles; the use of piles loaded to or beyond
their creep load level to act as settlement reducers; and the use 1 2 3 3 2 1

of a limited number of piles to control settlements and

5
4 5 6 6 5 4

15
differential settlements. All three philosophies have their
1 2 3 3 2 1

5
applications, but in this paper attention will be focused on the
third philosophy. In this regard, Horikoshi and Randolph4 have
suggested a principle for optimum design of piled rafts, in 30
which piles are concentrated near the centre of the foundation
system in order to reduce the settlement there while not
holding up the lesser-settling outer portions of the
foundation. This principle is eminently suitable for uniformly
loaded foundations, but may create problems for tall building
foundations where piles near the edges of the foundation may
be required to resist overturning moments due to wind loading.

30
In such cases, controlled stiffness inserts may provide a
suitable solution to the problem of differential settlement
reduction without compromising the axial and moment
50

capacity of the foundation system.

Figure 5 shows the example analysed, which involves a heavily 15

loaded piled raft founded on a relatively deep deposit of stiff
clay (similar in nature to the conditions in Frankfurt, Es 5 60 MPa
Germany). The foundation system is subjected to loading from
18 columns, with the piles designed to act as settlement
reducers. Table 9 summarises the assumed parameters for the
raft and the piles, and from these values the ultimate axial
capacity of the piled raft system is about 834.5 MN, composed
of a raft capacity of 564.5 MN and a total pile capacity of Applied loads: Pile types 1, 2, 3, 4 14 MN

270 MN. For the long-term loadings shown in Fig. 5 the total Pile types 5, 6 18 MN
applied load is 268 MN, giving an overall factor of safety
against bearing capacity failure of about 3.1. For the raft alone, Fig. 5. Piled raft example
without piles, the factor of safety is about 2.1.

The computer program GARP5 has been used to examine the Quantity Value
behaviour of the piled raft foundation with and without
stiffness inserts. This program assumed the raft to be an elastic Undrained shear strength: kPa 150
plate; the piles are modelled as interacting non-linear springs Long-term Youngs modulus of clay: MPa 60
whose stiffness decreases hyperbolically with increasing load Ultimate bearing capacity of raft: kPa 900
Ultimate shaft friction on piles: kPa 90
level. The initial pile head stiffness is computed from a
Ultimate end bearing on piles: MPa 1.35
boundary element analysis of pilesoil interaction, together
with the interaction factors between two piles. Allowance is
Table 9. Example 3: summary of assumed parameters for piled
made for the possibility of local bearing failure below the raft raft foundation
by limiting the raftsoil contact pressures to the ultimate

158 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 bearing capacity of the raft (assumed here to be six times the (a) The raft without piles (Case 1) experiences substantial
undrained shear strength of the clay). settlements and angular rotations, and has very large
bending moments induced by the column loadings. Such a
Five cases have been analysed, as described in Table 10. For performance would not be acceptable in practice.
the cases where controlled stiffness inserts are used (Cases 3 (b) The raft with piles and no inserts (Case 2) has considerably
and 4), alternative design approaches have been used, as reduced settlements and angular rotations, and the
follows: maximum bending moments are also reduced. This
performance would be more likely to be acceptable, despite
the still relatively large maximum settlement (for example,
(a) In Case 3 the design approach set out in equation (4) has
such settlements are not uncommon in Frankfurt).
been used, with inserts being designed for all pile types
(c) The raft with piles and inserts on all but the least stiff piles
other than the least stiff pile type (Type 6).
(Case 3) experiences a larger maximum settlement, but the
(b) In Case 4 the design approach in equation (4) has been
angular rotation is reduced and the raft bending moments
used, but with inserts being used only on the two stiffest
are reduced significantly. In addition, the proportion of the
pile types (Types 1 and 4), these being matched to the
load carried by the piles decreases compared with Case 2.
softest pile type (Type 6). The design concept here is that
(d) The raft with piles and inserts only on the outer piles (Case
the raft will allow some smoothing of the deflections
4) experiences a significant reduction in the maximum
between the outer piles with the inserts and the soft inner
angular rotation compared with the other cases, and a
piles.
reduction in torsional moment, but the other components
(c) In Case 5 an iterative approach has been taken to adjust
of bending are almost unchanged. In this case the piles
the stiffness of the inserts calculated in Case 4 and try to
carry more load than in Case 3, but less than in Case 2.
obtain a uniform distribution of settlement.
(e) The use of inserts leads to a greater proportion of load
being taken by the raft.
Table 10 also shows the computed insert stiffness values for
each case. Figure 6 compares the computed pile loads for Cases 2 to 5,
and indicates the redistribution of load due to the inserts. Some
The results of the analyses are summarised in Table 11, from of the piles without inserts (Type 6 for Case 3, Type 2 for Case
which the following observations are made: 4, and Type 5 for Case 5) in fact fully utilise their ultimate
capacity when inserts are
used on the other piles.
Case Description Computed stiffness of Interestingly, the case of the
inserts: MN/m
piles without inserts results in
the most distribution of loads
1 Raft alone, no piles among the piles. Indeed, it
2 Raft with piles, no stiffness inserts
does not appear to be feasible
3 Raft with piles, inserts on pile types 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 472 (Type 1 piles)
designed in accordance with equation (4) to match pile in this case to achieve both
type 6 uniform loads and uniform
730 (Type 2 piles) settlements.
840 (Type 3 piles)
769 (Type 4 piles)
In summary, the use of
2381 (Type 5 piles)
4 Raft with piles, inserts on pile types 1 and 4, designed to 472 (Type 1 piles) controlled stiffness inserts
match pile type 6 applied to the stiffest piles in
769 (Type 4 piles) the piled raft system leads to
5 As for Case 4, but with iterative adjustments to the insert 273 (Type 1 piles) an overall improvement in
stiffness values (six iterations)
the piled raft behaviour. The
1515 (Type 2 piles)
840 (Type 4 piles) design approach used for
Case 3 leads to a noticeable
Table 10. Example 3: summary of cases analysed reduction in raft bending
moments and also in

Case Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Mxx : Maximum M yy : Maximum Mxy : % Pile load
settlement: mm settlement: mm angular rotation: MNm/m MN/m MN/m
rad

1 262 163 1/138 5.32 6.25 5.37 0

2 106 62 1/317 1.98 2.64 2.25 91
3 115 79 1/374 1.63 1.72 1.95 79
4 106 81 1/600 1.84 2.66 1.21 85
5 108 89 1/643 2.27 2.33 0.66 81

Table 11. Example 3: computed performance of piled raft foundation system

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos 159

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 addition, if there is a
Ultimate pile load
16 tendency for the founding
14
conditions to be variable
among the piles in a group,
12 the use of CSIs can
10 eliminate tilting of the
Load: MN

No insertscase 2
Case 3
foundation, while retaining
8 Case 4 equal loads. For piled rafts,
Case 5
6 differential settlements and
angular rotations may be
4
reduced significantly while
2 enhancing the proportion of
load carried by the raft. The
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 use of inserts on the piles
Pile type enables the outer piles to
provide both axial and
Fig. 6. Computed pile loads for piled raft example rotational resistance while at
the same time settling a
similar amount to the softer
inner piles.
maximum angular rotation. The design approaches in Cases 4
and 5 lead to a considerable reduction in angular rotation, but
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
little improvement in bending moments, other than torsional
The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive comments
moment. However, the maximum settlement is virtually
of P. K. Wong of Coffey Geosciences, Sydney, and the
unchanged while the minimum settlement is increased, so that
encouragement of C. M. Wong, of C. M. Wong and Associates,
overall the foundation system performance is enhanced, with
Hong Kong, who has adopted the principles outlined in this
no significant penalty in increased settlement.
paper on a major project in Hong Kong.
7. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has introduced the concept of controlled stiffness REFERENCES
inserts (CSI) and has developed a method for estimating the 1. POULOS H. G. (2005). Pile behavior: consequences of
required stiffness of these inserts in order to achieve a desired geological and construction imperfections. Journal of
settlement and load distribution under working or Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
serviceability loads. The method involves three stages: 2005, 131, No. 5, 538563.
2. POULOS H. G. Prediction of behaviour of piled building
(a) an analysis of the group without the inserts foundations due to tunneling operations. In Proceedings of
(b) an analysis of the group subjected to uniform loadings, in the 3rd International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
order to compute the pile stiffness values within a group Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Toulouse, 2002,
environment Preprint Volume, Sec. 3, 5561.
(c) an analysis of the group including the effects of the inserts 3. RANDOLPH M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and
placed on the pile heads, in order to compute the final piled rafts. In Proceedings of the 13th International
distributions of load and settlement. Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New
Delhi. Taylor & Francis, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1994, vol.
Via three examples, it has been demonstrated that the 5, 6182.
introduction of CSIs can lead to a uniform distribution of 4. HORIKOSHI K. and RANDOLPH M. F. A contribution to the
load and settlement, at the cost of a slight increase in overall optimum design of piled rafts. Geotechnique, 1998, 48, No.
settlement. The consequences of inserting CSIs are that the 2, 301317.
group loads do not then have to be limited so that the most 5. POULOS H. G. An approximate numerical analysis of pileraft
heavily loaded pile in the group has a specified factor of interaction. International Journal for Numerical and
safety, as all piles may be able to carry equal load. In Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1994, 18, No. 2, 7392.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 20005000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

160 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Use of stiffness inserts in pile groups and piled rafts Poulos

Downloaded by [ OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD] on [22/05/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.