Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BY
Dr. V. BALAKUMAR
SENIOR CONSULTANT
SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED
CHENNAI 600 008
17 AUG 2015
INTRODUCTION
17 AUG 2015
INTRODUCTION
The combined piled raft foundation system utilizes the pile group
for control of settlements with the piles providing most of the
stiffness at the service loads, while the raft elements provide the
additional capacity at ultimate load levels.
17,Aug,2015
It has now been fully recognized that in foundation design the economics
lies in controlling the settlement, rather than eliminating it.
All the codes and guidelines for foundation design throughout the world
accept that there is a permissible settlement for structures depending on their
serviceability requirements.
In the last three decades a number of structures have been successfully
supported on piled raft foundation system.
Some of them have also been monitored by instrumentation and the
results have been used for further development.
Piled raft utilises the piled support for control of settlement with the
piles providing the required stiffness under serviceability loads and the
raft providing the required additional capacity at ultimate loading..
Hence the design has to consider not only the capacity of the pile
elements and the raft elements but also the combined capacity and and
the interaction under the serviceability loading conditions.
17,Aug,2015
17,Aug2015
17,Aug,2015
10
17,Aug,2015
11
OBJECTIVE
Although the existing design methods fulfil the serviceability requirements, there is
a need for determining the ultimate limit state of the piled raft so as to establish
adequate factor of safety against failure that will ensure stability.
This factor is often ignored as in majority of the cases the serviceability limit state of
the superstructure becomes the deciding factor.
As such a simpler method of designing the piled raft and the estimation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of the piled raft system may be more useful.
This presentation makes an attempt to explain the design process based on
EQUIVALENT PIER THEORY and the encouragement of
Prof.HARRY.G. POULOS IS ACKNOWLEDGED WITH GRATITUDE
17,Aug , 2015
20
17,August 2015
17,Aug,2015
= 200mm
Thickness (t)
= 8mm
pile diameter
= 10mm
17,Aug,2015
23
17,Aug,2015
C
B
SETTLEMENT, mm
24
17,Aug,2015
Comparison of load-settlement response of free standing pile group and pile group
of piled raft
d = 10mm
t = 8mm
25
17,Aug,2015
Area ratio
17,Aug,2015
Phase AB
Phase BC
9.25
2900
420
280
6.25
2600
390
220
4.25
1600
340
170
27
17,AUG 2015
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 pr = Load sharing ratio at any given settlement
Qr
24.01.2015
29
24.01.2015
Area Ratio
Area Ratio
30
17Aug2015
31
DESIGN EXAMPLE
38
Elevation of Palace
Regency
Building, Chennai
39
BASIC DESIGN
1.
The applied load is shared by the piles and the raft equally.
2.
3.
The settlement level must be such that the piles must mobilize friction
entirely.
4.
that the settlement pile can be reached in both the deviation at main three different
limits. The lay out of piles and the settlement gauges are presented in the layout.
40
: Palace Regency
3. Details
Pile termination layer : medium dense to dense sand, N- value around 40.
41
42
39.5
5m
-3.00
-4.00
= 1.6 t/cum
N=~5
= 1.8 t/cum
-7.00
-14.00
-17.00
N=38
-24.00
BASEMENT
GROUND LEVEL
Sandy Clayey Silt
RAFT
MI
20%
SC
Clayey
12%
(Typ)
= 27
= 1.9 t/cum
= 34
40%
Silty
24%
34%
Sand
66%600mm dia pile
Clayey Sand
(Percentage of sand increases with
depth)
N=61
43
44
DETAILED ANALYSES
Settlement Contour
46
DISTANCE, m
Grid line G
DISTANCE, m
Grid line B
DISTANCE, m
48
DISTANCE, m
DISTANCE, m
DISTANCE, m
TRANSVERSE SECTION
DISTANCE, m
TRANSVERSE SECTION
TRANSVERSE SECTION
DISTANCE, m
DISTANCE, m
49
50
51
52
17 Aug 2015
59
17 Aug 2015
60
17Aug 2015
17 Aug 2015
=65 t
Spacing
=3D
=10m
=437 nos.
17Aug2015
63
17 Aug 2015
64
17,AUG 2015
17,AUG 2015
SRSR
pr
% of Loading
25
95
90
50
90
84
75
82
77
100
73
72
% of Loading
SR (%)
pr (%)
25
72
40
50
60
30
75
54
29
100
50
27
66
17,AUG 2015
50
75
100
92
82
73
17,AUG 2015
84
77
72
% of Loading
25
50
75
100
SR
72
60
54
50
pr
40
30
29
27
68
DESIGN MODEL
Considering the load settlement response and the stress strain response
obtained from pressuremeter test the first step in the design process is to
treat the pile group as an equivalent pier.
Poulos (2001) has shown that while studying the settlement behaviour of
the pile group, that if the pile group with the soil prism can be
considered as a single pier, then the procedure applied for a single pile
behaviour can be used for the prediction of the load settlement response
of the equivalent pier numerically.
Conti
The equivalent pier modulus is defined as
Eeq = ES+ (Ep - Es) At/Ag
Where in,
EEQ Equivalent pier modulus, ES Elastic modulus of the soil obtained from
the pressure meter test, At - total cross sectional area of the piles, Ag gross
area of the pier
The applicability of equivalent pier model for the study on piled raft
behavior has eelier studied by Horikoshi (1995) but to a limitted extent.
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
NUMERICAL MODELING
The results for the small scale model tests conducted on
the piled raft were validated using FEA package ANSYS. The
ANSYS is a total research package containing more than 200
elements. This facilitates the handling of different problems in
engineering. For studying this interaction problem static
analysis from structural model is adopted.
Material models: Linear elastic and MISO model.
Elements used: Plane42 and Solid45 (3 degrees of freedom)
77
3D ANALYSIS
The model is presented solid 45 elements have
been used.
Pile
Dia
Thickness
Dia
Length
Area ratio
200mm
8mm
10mm
160mm
5.2%
Er
Poorly
15.5kN/m3 37.50
graded sand
Es
35 N/mm2 0.30
State of compaction
Medium dense
78
the
linear
analysis
predicts
much
higher
79
200m
m
600mm
500mm
81
Length/2 =
500mm
Depth =
600mm
82
83
MN
MX
84
MN
MX
85
87
Typically the load shared by the pile group reduces from 65%
88
89
90
Raft
thickness
Pile dia
Spacing
Length
Area ratio
200mm
8m
10m
4d
160m
4.9%
200mm
8m
10m
6d
160m
2.25%
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
It is seen that the contact pressure was found to be uniform and the load
sharing ratio was found to be increasing with settlement as such from the elastic
analysis. Head load, tip load distribution was found to be such that it establishes
the ductile behavior of the pile group. It was also found that the load sharing was
57% for raft and 43% for piles indicating that the design and performance of the
piled raft was in commensurate the third generation piled raft. Although the piles
were placed below the column, there was an effective load distribution. Although
the initial assumption was 50% for raft and pile the final distribution of 57% for
raft and 43% for piles indicates a very close agreement.
99
CONCLUSIONS
It is seen that the design of piled raft although appears to be complicated, a
systematic design approach makes the entire process very simple. The present
developments advancements in the computational tools like finite element
analyses, optimisation principles like ANN, Genetic algorithm Ant colony theory
etc has enhanced the confidence in the designers that any geotechnical problem
can solved if not precisely but to an acceptable level.
By far the piled raft has become an alternate by choice to the deep piles. It
offers a lot of scope for research also. This is a field oriented problem and the
accuracy of design largely depends upon the accuracy with which the data is
obtained. This is the most difficult task and geotechnical engineers you have to
strive to develop in-situ testing so that your design data will be accurate or
atleast acceptable.
100
CONCLUSIONS
The load settlement response of the plain raft and the piled raft are similar irrespective of the parameters associated with the
raft, piles and the bed. The response is characterized as three phased comprised of elastic and elasto plastic strain hardening
behavior.
The three phased response of the piled raft exhibited elastic response till the settlement level of around 1% of the
dimension of the raft which is more or less equal to the critical settlement of the free standing pile group.
The stiffness of the piled raft was much higher than the plain raft in the initial stages of settlement and as the settlement
increased the stiffness approached the value of the plain raft stiffness.
Although the stiffness of the piled raft increased with the length, diameter and the number of piles (Pile raft area
ratio, AR), pile length of 0.8 times the size of the raft was not having any pronounced effect on the behavior; similarly the d/t
ratio beyond unity and pile raft area ratio beyond 5 to 6% did not have any effect on the SR or load sharing ratio.
THANK YOU