ABSTRACT: In order to establish the general applicability of piled raft foundation, the data obtained from hydro testing of
a typical ammonia tank was compared with the results of independent small scale model studies. The pile supported raft of
the tank and the model piled raft had a pile - raft area ratio of 9% and 9.25%. It was found that, the load settlement and the
load sharing response of the tank foundation and the model were identical. The study established that even when the system
was not designed as a piled raft, under favourable conditions, the ground supported raft together with the pile group would
have a tendency to behave as piled raft.
947
V.Balakumar & I.V.Anirudhan
at a slow rate in stages. The rate of loading for the hydro Table 1 Comparison of Settlement of pile supported raft
test was designed considering the mobilization & and unpiled raft for Ammonia Tank
dissipation of pore pressure based on the principles of Load in kN Settlement, in mm
critical state soil mechanics. The settlement was recorded in Unpiled Raft Pile Supported raft
the centre and eight symmetrically placed points along the 5129 104 6.0
periphery. 8549 163 19.0
Number of Blows for 100mm penetration, empty driving 11968 209 47.0
0
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15302 252 65.0
Cone resistance qc from SCPT, Mpa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
4 -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
948
Piled Raft Behaviour – Model Studies And Field Performance
Table 2 SR and Dpr at different of load from hydro test for The characteristic load settlement response obtained from
typical Ammonia Tank. the 1g model tests for 3 different area ratio is presented in
% of Loading SR Dpr Fig.6. Comparing Fig.6 with Fig.4 it is seen that the
25 95 90 behaviour is identical in both the cases. In the three phased
50 90 84 response stage OA represents the elastic stage, AB
75 82 77 represents the elasto plastic stage and BC represents plastic
100 73 72 stage wherein even for small increase in the load the piled
raft loses its stiffness rapidly. Fig.7 presents the load
1g MODEL STUDIES sharing behaviour wherein the load sharing ratio Dpr is
In order to validate the behaviour of the pile supported raft, plotted against the settlement. It can be seen that up to a
the results of the hydro test were compared with the results settlement level of 2mm the load sharing ratio is very high
of the 1g model tests conducted on circular piled raft. These and then gradually decreases and beyond 10mm settlement
tests were part of the elaborate and well planned research which corresponds to nearly 50% of the final load applied.
programme that was carried out to study the behaviour of The SR and Dpr value at different % of loading is given in
piled raft on sand keeping in mind that the piles would be Dpr table 3.
relatively smaller diameter for representing driven piles
with moderate capacity and the raft placed close to the Table 3 Settlement reduction and load sharing at different
ground level. Rafts typical of storage tanks (circular) and settlement levels.
structures like buildings (non circular) were taken up for the % of Loading SR (%) Dpr (%)
study. Among the various methods available it was decided 25 72 40
to study the behaviour of piled raft on sand adopting 1g 50 60 30
model studies. Primarily 1g model study was preferred 75 54 29
mainly because it easier to conduct parametric studies and 100 50 27
represents more or less field conditions. Although the
results cannot be used directly for field problems, the
This confirms that the pile group at higher load adds the
results do give good idea of the performance of the system.
required capacity for the raft to take a higher load compared
The details of the test setup and the model piled raft are to the unpiled raft. Comparing the progression of SR and Dpr
presented in earlier publications. The bed was prepared by values estimated in table 2 and 3 it is seen that the
sand raining process and recalibrated compaction procedure behaviour of model piled rafts and the pile supported raft
in layers. The variation of angle of internal friction with bed are more or less identical.
density is presented in Figure 6.
ANGLE OF INTERNAL
10
FRICTION, deg
B
L O A D , kN
A
1
D = 200mm
Area ratio UNIT WEIGHT, kN/m3
t = 8mm
9.25%
L = 160mm
6.25% d = 10mm Fig.6 Variation of angle of internal friction with
O 4.25% Medium dense unit weight D
0 .1
PR
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
SETTLMENT, mm
2
Fig. 5 Characterization curves – 1g model circular raft -
4
various area ratios t = 8mm
6
d= 8mm
SETTLEMENT,mm
949
V.Balakumar & I.V.Anirudhan
COMPARISON 2. Hooper J.A. (1974), ‘Observations on the Behavior of
Comparing the behaviour, it is seen that the pile group a Piled Raft Foundation on London Clay’, Proc.
acted as settlement reducer and also exhibited ductile Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 55, pp. 855-
behaviour. In the initial stage of both the cases, the pile 877.
group takes a higher proportion of the load and at the final 3. Poulos H.G. (2008), ‘The Piled Foundation for the Burj
stages the load shared by the pile group reduces, to about Dubai – Design and Performance’, IGS – Ferroco
70% in the case of storage tank under study. Very similar to Terzaghi Oration.
the model behaviour, the load shared by the pile group 4. Clancy P. (1993), Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft
reduces with the settlement and tends to remain constant Foundations, University of Western Australia, PhD
suggesting that, eventhough the tank foundation was not Thesis.
designed as a piled raft system, it behaved like piled raft. 5. Gandhi S.R and Maharaj D.K. (1996), ‘Analysis of
Piled Raft Foundations’, 6th International Conference
But in the case of storage tank foundation under study, the on Piling and Deep Foundations, Bombay, pp. 1.11.1-
pile group shared much higher proportion of the applied 1.11.7.
load under large settlements also, perhaps due to the fact 6. Katzenbach R. and Reul O. (1997), ‘Design and
that the soft clay layers immediately below the raft and the Performance of Piled Rafts’, Proc. XIV Inst.
thin fill has very limited stiffness. It is also possible that the Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
installation procedure of very closely spaced driven piles Engineering, pp. 2253-2256.
enhanced the density of the supporting sand layers below 7. Poulos H.G. (2001), ‘Piled Raft Foundation: Design
the soft clay, thereby increasing the individual pile and Application’, Geotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp
capacities. However, the soft clay does not achieve higher 111-113
stiffness by the pile driving process. 8. Prokoso W.A. and Kulhawy F.H. (2001), ‘Contribution
of Piled Raft Foundation’, Journal of Geotechnical and
CONCLUSION Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp 17-24.
The study has clearly established that the principles of piled 9. Small J and Poulos, H.G. (2007) “A Method of
raft can be applied in general under favourable conditions, Analysis of Piled Raft”, 10th Australia Newzeland
when the raft is seated on a layer with reasonable bearing Conference on Geo Mechanics, PP. 555.
capacity. It is evident from the fact that even when the 10. Horikoshi K. (1995), ‘Optimum Design of Piled Raft
system was not designed on principles of load sharing by Foundations’, Dissertation submitted for the degree of
interaction the load sharing has taken place leading to the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Western Australia.
foundation system behaving as a piled raft. 11. Balakumar V. and Ilamparuthi K. (2006),”Performance
of model piled raft on sand”, Proceedings Indian
In case of tank foundation the pile group appear to have Geotechnical Conference, Chennai, India, pp 463-298.
shared much higher load mainly because driving of closely 12. Turek.J. and Katzenbach. R. 2003. Small scale model
spaced piles has densified the sand layer enhancing the tests with combined pile raft foundations. Proceedings
confining stress of the soil around the pile and this has of the 4th International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep
resulted in the pile group taking much higher proportion of Foundation on Bored and Augured piles. Ghent,
the applied load compared to that of the model piled raft. Belgium, 409-413
13. Yamashita (2011), ‘Field Measurements on Piled Rafts
The study has established the general applicability of the with Grid –Form Deep Mixing Walls on Soft Ground.
principles of piled raft when the settlement alone governs Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS &
the design. AGSSEA Vol – 42; No.2; June 2011, pp 2 -10.
14. Anirudhan & Balakumar (2010), ‘Pile Foundation as
REFERENCES Settlement Reducer for Large MS Storage Tanks’,
1. Burland J.B., Broms B.B. and de Mello V.F.B. (1977), Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, pp
‘Behaviour of Foundations and Structures’, Proc. 9
ICSMFE Tokyo 2, pp 495 – 546.
950