CONCEPT OF PILED RAFT

1
INTRODUCTION

The piled raft is a effective system to minimize both

total and differential settlement.

It improves the bearing capacity and brings

the internal stress level and bending moment
with in the raft.

A general concept and a case history is

explained along with the requirements of
geotechnical report.
2
 As a prelude a small example of a case history
is given below to establish that as long as the
ground where the raft rests has a reasonable
bearing capacity, the raft & the pile system will
share the load.

The example given below is derived from the

behavior of one of the storage tanks of a large
tank form.
3
Typical characterized Load Settlement Response
Ammonia Tank

4
SR and apr at different of load Settlement reduction and load
from hydro test for typical sharing at different load levels
Ammonia Tank. for 1g model tests.

% of Loading SR apr % of Loading SR (%) apr (%)

25 95 90 25 72 40

50 90 84 50 60 30

75 82 77 75 54 29

100 73 72 100 50 27

5
 In the above case the foundation system was not
intended to be a piled raft. But the raft and the pile have
shared the load indicating that while we designed the
foundation as fully piled system, the system defines an
intention and the load is shared between the raft and pile.

The intention in generating the concept of piled raft

was to support the structure sensitive for settlement on
over consolidated clay and primarily this was being used
for a long time to support heavily loaded structure with
deep basements, placed on over consolidated clay bed.
6
Conditions Favorable for Piled Raft :
Soil profiles consisting of relatively stiff clays.
Soil profiles consisting of relatively dense
sands.
Advantages of piled raft
(i) The serviceability of the foundation system is
enhanced by the reduction in the settlement.
(ii) Improvement on the load carrying capacity
by the process of load sharing between the
raft and the pile, and
(iii) Reduction in internal stress and bending
moment of the raft by proper design of the
pile layout.
7
Unfavorable for Piled Raft :
Soil profiles containing soft clays near the
surface.
Soil profile containing loose sands near the
surface. This has been over come by compacting
the sand.
Soil profiles which contain soft compressible
layers at relatively shallow depths.
Soil profiles which are likely to undergo
consolidation settlements.
Soil profiles which are likely to undergo swelling
movements due to external causes.
8
 It is a fact that the installation of piles compact
sand. Hence the piled raft on sand gains an additional
advantage in that the piles compact the sand during
installation to enhance its state of compaction to help
the raft share a higher load. It is to be noted that
permissible settlement for sand is less than clay. If the
applicability of the piled raft on sand can be
established this foundation system becomes very
useful.

9
General concept of piled raft General Principles of Piled Raft
(Poulos, 2001) (Katzenbach, 2001)

The figure shows the combined

interaction which makes the raft contact
pressure uniform and also reduces the
settlement of the raft. In other words the
capacity of the foundation system is
enhanced for a given settlement. 10
11
Few other recent buildings are

Q1 tower in GoldCoast, Australia

Burj Dubai

Nakheel tower.

12
(ii) Measured time dependent settlements 13
 AN OVERVIEW

In the design of piled raft many of the traditional methods of analyses could not
be applied since they require a high level of extrapolation and approximations
which were beyond the comprehension of past experience.

The role of analyses in the design process becomes clear only when the
design objectives are established

As Russo (1998) has pointed out to move from the traditional capacity based
design to settlement based design method the analyses must be capable of taking
into account properly the soil structure interaction within the foundation system
is needed. Finite Element Analysis is one method which is by far well developed
and found to be more suitable to analyze the piled raft problem
 NEED & AIM OF THE PRESENT STUDY

.FEA.is not widespread particularly in the case of design offices. The

exposure to the effective procedure of modeling and appropriate use of
the right type of analyses can be got through some form of initiative
which is essential to decide where simpler methods can be used and at
what stage detailed analyses will be required so that the required
accuracy, results can be obtained with minimum computational efforts.

Considering the various uncertainties coupled with the difficulties

involved it is felt that there is a need for studying the extent to which
simpler methods can be followed and when the detailed three dimensional
analyses is necessary
 CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION
1. Load settlement and load sharing response of piled raft

2. Linear Analyses & Its Effectiveness

3. Effectiveness of two dimensional analyses through

a. Axisymmetric analyses and plane strain model

b. Plate on piles approach
c. Equivalent pier analyses
4. Detailed three dimensional analyses
5Field monitoring and 3-d analyses
6. validation of 2-d analyses with a grid from the monitored structure.
7. Conclusion
Pile Installation Assembly Model Piled Raft in Position

Model pile

Guide pipe

Template
of pile layout

Loading Assembly
Jack
Proving Ring
Dial gauge
Platform
Piled Raft

Loading platen
Load transfer plate with
buttons 17
Circular Piled Raft Square Piled Raft

Rectangular Piled Raft

18
 Characteristic response of Plain raft and piled
raft (medium sand)

1000
Piled raft
C
Plain raft

B
LOAD kN x 102
LOAD, kN x 10-2

100

CIRCULAR
MEDIUM DENSE
O

10
0 5 10 15 20 25
SETTLEMENT, mm
SETTLEMENT MM

19
 Comparison of load-settlement response of free
standing
8MMpile
RAFTgroup and
- 10MM pile
PILE groupLONG
- 200MM of piled raft
MEDIUM DENSE
LOAD, kN
0 1 2 3 4
0
2 FREE STANDING GROUP

4 PILED RAFT GROUP

mm

6
SETTLEMENT,MM

8
SETTLEMENT,

10 d = 10mm
12 t = 8mm
d = 8mm
14 L = 200mm
16 N = 21
R.A. = 36
18
D = 200mm
20 Bed = Mediumdense
22
20
 The variation of stiffness (N/mm)

Stiffness at various phases

Area ratio %
Phase OA Phase AB Phase BC

9.25 2900 420 280

6.25 2600 390 220

4.25 1600 340 170

21
 The design of piles depends up on the load shared by
the pile group. The load sharing ratio has been defined as

pr = Qpr - Qr
Q pr
Where apr = Load sharing ratio at any given settlement
Qr = Load taken by the plain raft for any given
settlement at which apr is computed
Qpr = Load taken by the piled raft for the same
settlement

The prvalue has been plotted against settlement for the

various cases studied. Also the effect of various parameters
on the pr value has been plotted for two different settlement
levels.
22
 Variation of apr with Settlement Vs- 8MM
CIRCULAR RAFT LS RAFT
ratio10MM
PR PILE
for -
settlement
160MM for various
LONG PILE - CIRCULAR RAFT various
ALPHA lengthLENGTH
PR FOR VARIOUS
pr
densities a pr
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
0
2 2

4 d=10mm
4
L=160mm
6 D=200mm t = 8mm
6
d= 10mm

SETTLEMENT, mm
SETTLEMENT, mm

t=8mm
8 8 N = 21
R.A. = 36
10 10
D = 200mm
12 Bed = Medium dense
12
14 Pile length
14
16 200 mm
16
160 mm
18 120 mm
18 Loose
medium 100 mm
20
75 mm
20 Dense
22 23
Settlement v/s LS ratio
CIRCULAR RAFT -pr for 10MM
8MM RAFT different
PILE - area ratios
ALPHA PR FOR VARIOUS LENGTH
a PR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0

4
t = 8mm
6
d= 8mm
SETTLEMENT,mm

8 N = 21
R.A. = 36
10 D = 200mm
12 Bed = Medium dense

14 Pile length
16 Area Ratio
9.25%
18 5.25%
20 4.25%
22

24
 Variation of SR with pile Variation of SR with pile
length (L/B ratio) length (L/B ratio)
VARIATION IN LENGTH Vs SR VARIATION IN LENGTH Vs SR
0.80 0.80
t = 8mm 2mm 20mm
d = 10mm
0.60 0.60 S = 6d
SR VALUE

SR VALUE
Bed = Medium dense
0.40 0.40

t = 8mm
0.20 d = 10mm 0.20
S = 6d
2mm 20mm
Bed = Loose 0.00
0.00
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
L/B
L/B

25
 VARIATION IN PILE SPACING Vs SR
1.00
2mm 20mm
0.80

0.60

SR
0.40
(a) 10mm thick raft t = 10mm
d = 10mm
0.20 L = 160mm
Bed = Medium dense
0.00
2 4 6 8 10
S/d
VARIATION IN PILE SPACING Vs SR
0.80
2mm 20mm

0.60
SR

0.40
(b) 8mm thick raft
t = 8mm
0.20 d = 10mm
L = 160mm
Bed = Medium dense
0.00
2 4 6 8 10
S/d
26
EFFECT OF PILE DIAMETER
VARIATION IN PILE DIAMETER Vs SR
1.00
t = 8mm
0.80 S = 6d
L = 160mm
SR VALUE

0.60 Bed = Loose

0.40

0.20
2mm 20mm
0.00
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
d/t RATIO

Variation of SR with d / t ratio for loose sand

(variation in diameters)
27
 VARIATION IN PILE DIAMETER Vs SR
0.60
t = 8mm
S = 6d
L = 160mm
0.40 Variation of SR
SR VALUE

Bed = Dense
with d/t ratio
for dense sand
0.20
(variation in
diameters)
2mm 20mm
0.00
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
d/t RATIO

Figure provides the variation of SR with the d/t

ratio of piled raft with raft thickness of 8mm.
From the figures, it can be said that the SR value
increases with d/t ratio both in loose and dense
sand beds. The trend is bilinear as on the other
case.
28
 100mm

200m
m

Axisymmetric model and mesh

used in ANSYS analyses
600m
m

500mm

70mm

Rectangular piled raft model with

finite element mesh used in 600mm

plane strain analysis of ANSYS

600mm
29
 Settlement of piled raft at
the load of 1.55 kN

Length/2 =
Width/2 = 500mm 500mm

Depth =
600mm

Finite element mesh of a

circular piled raft (Quarter
model) used in ANSYS
analysis

30
 MN
MX Raft contact stress at typical
locations of the raft for the load
Inverted surface of the
of 2.1kN (settlement =1.80mm)
raft of piled raft

MN
MX

Vertical stress at typical

locations of the raft for
Inverted surface of the raft
the load of 8.10 kN of piled raft

(settlement = 17.80mm)
31
 Numerical Modelling 1g Models

Finite element mesh of a Settlement contour for a

circular piled raft (Quarter circular piled raft for the load of
model) used in ANSYS analysis 8.1 kN

Material Model = MISO

Elements = Solid 45
Length/2 =
Width/2 = 500mm
500mm

Depth =
600mm

32
 Pile head stress for the load of 2.1 Kn
(settlement = 1.8mm)

Sy = -0.13606

33
 Pile Head stress for the
load of 8.1 kN
(settlement =17.8mm)
Figure presents the head stress
distribution. The stresses are vertical
and varies from inner pile to outer pile.
The outer pile carries more stress.
However the increase is not
proportional to the applied load due to
the non linear behavior of the system.
Stresses in pile tips for the
load of 8.1 kN
(settlement =17.8mm)
Figure presents the tip stressses at the
final stage.
The tip stress is only 9% to 19% of the
applied load indicating that the major
portion of the load is taken by friction.
34
 C IR C U L A R R A F T -L E N G T H R A T IO V s
S H A F T S T R E S S (2 mm)

SHAFT STRESS, N/m m 2

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
0.00

0.20
Variation of stress along the
LENGTH RATIO 1

0.40
shaft of typical piles along the
0.60 centre line of raft for 2.10kN
0.80 Central pile
Inner pile
1.00 Outer pile

1.20 CIRCULAR RAFT - LENGTH RATIO Vs SHAFT

STRESS (20mm)
SHAFT STRESS, N/m m 2
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
0.00
0.11
0.22
LENGTH RATIO 1

0.33
Variation of stress along the 0.44

shaft of typical piles along the 0.55

0.66
centre line of raft for 8.10kN 0.77 Central pile
0.88 Inner pile
0.99 Outer pile
1.10
35
 Load distribution between raft and pile of the piled
raft at different settlement levels in terms of load
8400
7700 d=8mm
D=200mm
7000 Ar=5.2%
6300
5600
4900
LOAD, N

4200
3500
2800

2100
1400
700
0
1.8mm 7.8mm 17.8mm
SETTLEMENT LEVEL
Total Load Raft Pile Head Pile Tip

Typically the load shared by the pile group reduces from 65% to 35%.36
 (c) PALACE REGENCY

1. Purasavalkam

2. Name : Palace Regency

3. Details : Twelve storied building with basement
residential and commercial for the
basement and first two floors.
4. Maximum column load : 2875kN
5. Minimum column load : 1055kN
The soil profile has been presented below.
Foundation system : 93 piles 600mm dia capped with 600mm
thick raft.
Pile termination layer : medium dense to dense sand, N- value
around 40.
37
 Sectional Elevation with
Elevation of Palace Regency
Geotechnical Data
Building, Chennai

39.
55
m

BASEMENT GROUND LEVEL

-3.00
Sandy Clayey Silt
RAFT
-4.00 20% 40% 34%
= 1.6 MI
t/cum
N=~5 Clayey Silty Sand
= 1.8
t/cum SC
-7.00
12% 24% 66%600mm
= 27
dia pile (Typ)
-14.00
= 1.9
-17.00 t/cum
Clayey Sand
N=38 = 34 Very Soft Disintegrated
(Percentage of sand
Rock
increases with depth)
-24.00

N=61 38
 BASIC DESIGN ASSUMPTION
1. The applied load is shared by the piles and the raft equally.
2. Piles have to be dominantly floating.
3. The settlement level must be such that the piles must
mobilize friction entirely.
4. The factor of safety against block failure was computed by

F = Pw + N Pi
P

The raft was instrumented with settlement gauges located in

such a way that the settlement of the pile can be read in both the
direction at main three different grids. The lay out of piles and the
settlement gauges are presented in the layout. A typical settlement
gauge is presented.
39
Layout of piles and settlement markers

Typical settlement marker in

position
40
 Time dependent load settlement
curves
DAYS V s PERCENTAGE SUPERSTRUCTURE LOAD
120

100
Percentage Load Taken by the
LOAD ,IN %
%

80

Raft at Various Stages of

LOAD

60

40

20 Construction period
0
DAYS
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 100 200 300 DAYS
400 500 600 700 800 900 50

Percent load taken by the

SETTLEMENT, mm

4 40
SETTLEMENT (mm)

GA UGE-A
30

raft
12
GA UGE-F
16 GA UGE-G
GA UGE-M
20
20 GA UGE-N DAYS TOP ROW

24
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
10
0
SETTLEMENT, mm SETTLEMENT, mm

4
0
SETTLEMENT (mm)

8
0 200 400 600 800 1000
12 GA UGE-B Time in days
GA UGE-E
16 GA UGE-J
GA UGE-H
20 GA UGE-L
GA UGE-O DAYS CENTRAL ROW

24 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0

4
SETTLEMENT (mm)

12 GA UGE-C
GA UGE-D
16
GA UGE-K
GA UGE-P
20 BOTTOM ROW
ROW
24

This is compared with the observation of two buildings one in clay and
the other on layered soil predominantly sand. 41
OBSERVED TIME DEPENDENT LOAD
SETTLEMENT RESPONSE.

MESSE TORHAUS
BUILDING, HERMSLEY
2000.
42
Finite Element Simulation and Settlement Contour
Meshing of Piled Raft

43
 Contact stress at specific points
of the raft

Raft contact stress along grid G Grid line P

CONTACT STRESS,
N/mm2
DISTANCE, m

Grid line G

CONTACT STRESS,
N/mm2
DISTANCE, m

Grid line B
CONTACT STRESS,
N/mm2

DISTANCE, m

44
 Contact stress between the rows of piles in
transverse sections
IN BETWEEN GRIDS P AND L IN BETWEEN GRIDS G AND H
RAFT STRESS, N/mm2

RAFT STRESS, N/mm2

DISTANCE, m DISTANCE, m

IN BETWEEN GRIDS B AND C TRANSVERSE SECTION

RAFT STRESS, N/mm2

RAFT STRESS, N/mm2

DISTANCE, m DISTANCE, m

TRANSVERSE SECTION TRANSVERSE SECTION

RAFT STRESS, N/mm2
RAFT STRESS, N/mm2

DISTANCE, m DISTANCE, m

45
 Typical head stress values
The Head Load Tip Load
Distribution with the column load
PILE HEAD LOAD AND TIP LOAD - GRID P
200

160

LOAD t(t)
120

LOAD,
80

40

0
0 3.81 9.32 14.04
DISTANCE, m
DISTANCE (m)

PILE HEAD LOAD AND TIP LOAD - GRID G

320
280
240

LOAD,(t)t
200
Typical tip stress values

LOAD
160
120
80
40
0
0 4.3 8.6 12.9
DISTANCE, m
DISTANCE (m)

PILE HEAD LOAD AND TIP LOAD - GRID B

240
200
LOAD, (t)

160
LOAD t

120
80
40
0
0 4.3 8.6 12.9
DISTANCE, m
DISTANCE (m)
46
colum n load head load tip load
Pile Installation Assembly Model Piled Raft in Position

Model pile

Guide pipe

Template
of pile layout

Loading Assembly
Jack
Proving Ring
Dial gauge
Platform
Piled Raft

Loading platen
Load transfer plate with
buttons 47
Circular Piled Raft Square Piled Raft

Rectangular Piled Raft

48
 Characteristic response of Plain raft and piled
raft (medium sand)

1000
Piled raft
C
Plain raft

B
LOAD kN x 102
LOAD, kN x 10-2

100

CIRCULAR
MEDIUM DENSE
O

10
0 5 10 15 20 25
SETTLEMENT, mm
SETTLEMENT MM

49
 Comparison of load-settlement response of free
standing
8MMpile
RAFTgroup and
- 10MM pile
PILE groupLONG
- 200MM of piled raft
MEDIUM DENSE
LOAD, kN
0 1 2 3 4
0
2 FREE STANDING GROUP

4 PILED RAFT GROUP

mm

6
SETTLEMENT,MM

8
SETTLEMENT,

10 d = 10mm
12 t = 8mm
d = 8mm
14 L = 200mm
16 N = 21
R.A. = 36
18
D = 200mm
20 Bed = Mediumdense
22
50
 The variation of stiffness (N/mm)

Stiffness at various phases

Area ratio %
Phase OA Phase AB Phase BC

9.25 2900 420 280

6.25 2600 390 220

4.25 1600 340 170

51
 The design of piles depends up on the load shared by
the pile group. The load sharing ratio has been defined as

pr = Qpr - Qr
Q pr
Where apr = Load sharing ratio at any given settlement
Qr = Load taken by the plain raft for any given
settlement at which apr is computed
Qpr = Load taken by the piled raft for the same
settlement

The prvalue has been plotted against settlement for the

various cases studied. Also the effect of various parameters
on the pr value has been plotted for two different settlement
levels.
52
 Variation of apr with Settlement Vs- 8MM
CIRCULAR RAFT LS RAFT
ratio10MM
PR PILE
for -
settlement
160MM for various
LONG PILE - CIRCULAR RAFT various
ALPHA lengthLENGTH
PR FOR VARIOUS
pr
densities a pr
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
0
2 2

4 d=10mm
4
L=160mm
6 D=200mm t = 8mm
6
d= 10mm

SETTLEMENT, mm
SETTLEMENT, mm

t=8mm
8 8 N = 21
R.A. = 36
10 10
D = 200mm
12 Bed = Medium dense
12
14 Pile length
14
16 200 mm
16
160 mm
18 120 mm
18 Loose
medium 100 mm
20
75 mm
20 Dense
22 53
Settlement v/s LS ratio
CIRCULAR RAFT -pr for 10MM
8MM RAFT different
PILE - area ratios
ALPHA PR FOR VARIOUS LENGTH
a PR
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0

4
t = 8mm
6
d= 8mm
SETTLEMENT,mm

8 N = 21
R.A. = 36
10 D = 200mm
12 Bed = Medium dense

14 Pile length
16 Area Ratio
9.25%
18 5.25%
20 4.25%
22

54
 Variation of SR with pile Variation of SR with pile
length (L/B ratio) length (L/B ratio)
VARIATION IN LENGTH Vs SR VARIATION IN LENGTH Vs SR
0.80 0.80
t = 8mm 2mm 20mm
d = 10mm
0.60 0.60 S = 6d
SR VALUE

SR VALUE
Bed = Medium dense
0.40 0.40

t = 8mm
0.20 d = 10mm 0.20
S = 6d
2mm 20mm
Bed = Loose 0.00
0.00
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
L/B
L/B

55
 VARIATION IN PILE SPACING Vs SR
1.00
2mm 20mm
0.80

0.60

SR
0.40
(a) 10mm thick raft t = 10mm
d = 10mm
0.20 L = 160mm
Bed = Medium dense
0.00
2 4 6 8 10
S/d
VARIATION IN PILE SPACING Vs SR
0.80
2mm 20mm

0.60
SR

0.40
(b) 8mm thick raft
t = 8mm
0.20 d = 10mm
L = 160mm
Bed = Medium dense
0.00
2 4 6 8 10
S/d
56
EFFECT OF PILE DIAMETER
VARIATION IN PILE DIAMETER Vs SR
1.00
t = 8mm
0.80 S = 6d
L = 160mm
SR VALUE

0.60 Bed = Loose

0.40

0.20
2mm 20mm
0.00
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
d/t RATIO

Variation of SR with d / t ratio for loose sand

(variation in diameters)
57
 VARIATION IN PILE DIAMETER Vs SR
0.60
t = 8mm
S = 6d
L = 160mm
0.40 Variation of SR
SR VALUE

Bed = Dense
with d/t ratio
for dense sand
0.20
(variation in
diameters)
2mm 20mm
0.00
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
d/t RATIO

Figure provides the variation of SR with the d/t

ratio of piled raft with raft thickness of 8mm.
From the figures, it can be said that the SR value
increases with d/t ratio both in loose and dense
sand beds. The trend is bilinear as on the other
case.
58
 100mm

200m
m

Axisymmetric model and mesh

used in ANSYS analyses
600m
m

500mm

70mm

Rectangular piled raft model with

finite element mesh used in 600mm

plane strain analysis of ANSYS

600mm
59
 Settlement of piled raft at
the load of 1.55 kN

Length/2 =
Width/2 = 500mm 500mm

Depth =
600mm

Finite element mesh of a

circular piled raft (Quarter
model) used in ANSYS
analysis

60
 MN
MX Raft contact stress at typical
locations of the raft for the load
Inverted surface of the
of 2.1kN (settlement =1.80mm)
raft of piled raft

MN
MX

Vertical stress at typical

locations of the raft for
Inverted surface of the raft
the load of 8.10 kN of piled raft

(settlement = 17.80mm)
61
 Numerical Modelling 1g Models

Finite element mesh of a Settlement contour for a

circular piled raft (Quarter circular piled raft for the load of
model) used in ANSYS analysis 8.1 kN

Material Model = MISO

Elements = Solid 45
Length/2 =
Width/2 = 500mm
500mm

Depth =
600mm

62
 Pile head stress for the load of 2.1 Kn
(settlement = 1.8mm)

Sy = -0.13606

63
 Pile Head stress for the
load of 8.1 kN
(settlement =17.8mm)
Figure presents the head stress
distribution. The stresses are vertical
and varies from inner pile to outer pile.
The outer pile carries more stress.
However the increase is not
proportional to the applied load due to
the non linear behavior of the system.
Stresses in pile tips for the
load of 8.1 kN
(settlement =17.8mm)
Figure presents the tip stressses at the
final stage.
The tip stress is only 9% to 19% of the
applied load indicating that the major
portion of the load is taken by friction.
64
 C IR C U L A R R A F T -L E N G T H R A T IO V s
S H A F T S T R E S S (2 mm)

SHAFT STRESS, N/m m 2

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
0.00

0.20
Variation of stress along the
LENGTH RATIO 1

0.40
shaft of typical piles along the
0.60 centre line of raft for 2.10kN
0.80 Central pile
Inner pile
1.00 Outer pile

1.20 CIRCULAR RAFT - LENGTH RATIO Vs SHAFT

STRESS (20mm)
SHAFT STRESS, N/m m 2
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
0.00
0.11
0.22
LENGTH RATIO 1

0.33
Variation of stress along the 0.44

shaft of typical piles along the 0.55

0.66
centre line of raft for 8.10kN 0.77 Central pile
0.88 Inner pile
0.99 Outer pile
1.10
65
 Load distribution between raft and pile of the piled
raft at different settlement levels in terms of load
8400
7700 d=8mm
D=200mm
7000 Ar=5.2%
6300
5600
4900
LOAD, N

4200
3500
2800

2100
1400
700
0
1.8mm 7.8mm 17.8mm
SETTLEMENT LEVEL
Total Load Raft Pile Head Pile Tip

Typically the load shared by the pile group reduces from 65% to 35%.66
 Shaft Stress Distribution
S Q U A R E R A F T - L E N G T H R A T I O V s S H A F T S T R E S S ( 2 0 mm)

SHAFT STRESS, N/m m 2

0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
0.00

0.20
LENGTH RATIO 3

0.40

0.60

0.80 Central pile

Inner pile
1.00
Outer pile
1.20

Rectangular Piled Raft

67
Diagrammatic view of boundary condition used in the Model

Settlement Profile of 8mx8m Piled Raft Foundation

vaired Thickness
Distance: m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -Z

60 BR

60.5

61 x
Settlement (mm)

LR

61.5

62
y
62.5 2
q = 645kN/m t R, E R , R

63 x
t=0.25m
63.5 E 1, 1 L = 16m
t=0.4m
64 t=0.8m E 2, 2
S d = 700mm
t=1.5m
64.5 E 3, 3
t=3.0m
65
PLAXIS model
 SHAFT STRESS DISTRIBUTION-(For varying raft thickness)

Axial Force (MN/m) Axial Force (MN/m)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0

2 2

4 4
t= 0.25m
6 t=0.4m t= 0.25m
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
t=0.8m t=0.4m
8 t=1.5m t=0.8m
8
t=3.0m t=1.5m
10 t=3.0m
10
Pile 1 Pile 2
12
12

14
14

16
16
Observational study G 13 Pile Pier & Geotechnical Data Hypothetical
group model Problem

3000 mm

600 mm
0.00 m

Sandy silty clay

c = 0.2kg/cm2 ; = 25
= 1.6 t/m3 ; E = 50 N / mm2

4.00 m

Clayey silty sand

c = 0.1kg/cm2 ; = 27
= 1.7 t/m3 ; E = 50 N / mm2

11.00 m

= 34 ; = 1.8 t/m3
E = 60 N / mm2

14.00 m

Very dense strata

E = 70 N / mm2
650 mm
PIER
 SHAFT STRESS MOBILISATION
TYPICAL MESH PLAXIS 2D (18m DEEP PILE)
PLAXIS 3D Model-GRID G Settlement Contour

Pile Shaft Stress Distribution

Design steps in the case of piled raft

Preliminary design

Characteristics of piles

Final detailed design

a. Optimum number
b. Location
c. Configuration
d. Analysis for pile reaction
e. Settlement distribution
f. Shaft stress
74
In the design of piled raft, the known parameters are:
1.Intensity of loading
2.Permissible settlement

Procedure : Prepare the general soil profile, fix the Es

value for various layers.

The most difficult part in the design of piled raft is

the evolution of in-situ parameters and hence
considerable importance has to be given in the
evolution of Es and the parameters relating to
settlement analysis.
75
 Determination of Parameters

Since this is a three dimensional interaction problem

evaluation of in-situ parameters gain considerable
importance particularly in the case of piled raft on clay.
Vane Shear
Static cone penetrometer
Pressure meter
In sand :
N value from SPT test
Static cone penetrometer.

76
THANK YOU

77