You are on page 1of 102

DESIGN STUDIO IIT MADRAS - CHENNAI

BY
Dr. V. BALAKUMAR
SENIOR CONSULTANT
SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED
CHENNAI 600 008

17 AUG 2015

INTRODUCTION

In the design of foundation system for relatively heavy


structures that cannot tolerate large settlements, balancing
the performance and cost, had always been a challenge for
the foundation designers.
This objective of generating an economical and safe
foundation system has recognized the fact that most
structures can tolerate a certain amount of settlement.
Consequent to this by sustained research, successful
attempts were made to use the piles as settlement reducers
for the raft .

17 AUG 2015

INTRODUCTION

By tradition whenever the bearing capacity or the settlement or


both are problems deep piles were thought of a foundation
system.
Even when bearing capacity is not a problem the procedure
remained the same.
While the traditional design is safe, satisfying all the
serviceability requirements, it does not satisfy the economics.
The presence of raft and its capability of transferring the load is
completely ignored.
3

The piled raft foundation system, as it is named, provides a


skilful geotechnical concept for the design of foundation for
structures which are sensitive to large settlements.

The piled raft foundation system has been extensively used to


support tall and heavily loaded structures in a successful manner
permitting larger settlements close to the permissible value.

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

General concept of piled raft


(Poulos, 2001)

General Principles of Piled Raft


(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.
7

17, Aug ,2015

Conditions Favorable for Piled Raft & Advantages


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.

17,Aug2015

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.
However this situation is changing with the advent of new ground
improvement techniques and materials like geo-synthetics and so on.

17,Aug,2015

10

17,Aug,2015

Piled raft on sand - a note

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.
The applicability of the piled raft on sand has been established
this foundation system becomes very useful.

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

THE DESIGN ISSUES


The design of piled raft foundation system has to consider
a number of issues which includes:
The ultimate vertical, lateral and the reaction due to moment loads
Maximum settlement
Differential settlement
Permissible settlement
Loads and moments for the design of raft and the pile.
On many occasions it is considered that only vertical load is given
high importance but the other loading such as wind ,earthquake etc
are also to be given equal importance.

THE BASIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES


Conventional approach
Here the piles are designed to take the entire structural load
Creep piling
The The piles are designed to operate at a particular level of working
load wherein significant creep will occur; typically 70% to 80% of the
working load capacity. Sufficient piles are included to reduce the contact
pressure between the raft and the soil below the pre-consolidation
pressure of the soil.
Differential settlement control
Here the piles are located strategically at the centre to reduce the
differential settlement rather than the total settlement.
But the extreme method will be to make the piles take 100% of the
ultimate load wherein the piles are designed only as a settlement reducer.

THE DESIGN PROCEDURE


The preliminary stage of design - mainly a feasibility
study
The second stage is to assess the location of the piles and
the general characteristics of the pile
Final detailed design to obtain the optimum number of
the pile location layout and the distribution of settlement
and the pile loads.

VARIOUS DESIGN METHODS


Strip on spring
Plate on spring
Boundary element method
Finite element method
Combination of boundary element and finite
element method

Some of the characteristics of the design


1) Number of piles
2) Nature of loading namely uniformly loaded or
concentrated
3) Raft thickness
4) Load levels

MAIN FEATURES OF RESEARCH SO FAR FOR DESIGN


Increasing the number of piles may not always produce any
additional advantages
The raft thickness does not influence the overall total
settlement but influences the differential settlement
Locating the piles in a strategic manner to suit the
settlement reduction required.

DATA FOR DESIGN


Soil investigation report,
Column layout and the loading.
Permissible settlement
DESIGN OUTPUT
Pile layout with diameter spacing and length,
Raft size and thickness
Pile capacity
Settlement reduction achieved.

17,Aug , 2015

DISCUSSION ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF PILED RAFT


The behaviour of piled raft need to be understood clearly before getting
into the design aspect.
Since the economics of the design is governed by the pile group
behaviour and the interaction of the various elements generating the
load sharing behaviour
This is done here by means of the results from 1g model tests carried
out the the author as apart of his Ph.D programme.
Although the study has been carried out with sand as bed material
the concept remains the same for

clay also provided it has some

bearing capacity for the raft to share the load

20

17,August 2015

The variation of angle of internal friction with unit weight is


presented in the figure.

However the results here presents are related to medium


dense sand.
21

17,Aug,2015

SMALL SCALE MODEL STUDIES


1G tests were conducted on circular model piled raft
raft diameter

= 200mm

Thickness (t)

= 8mm

pile diameter

= 10mm

pile raft area ratio

= 9.25, 6.25, 4.25

Length of the model pile = 160mm


22

17,Aug,2015

Circular Piled Raft

Square Piled Raft

Rectangular Piled Raft

23

17,Aug,2015

Characteristic response of Plain raft and piled raft


(medium sand)

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

The characterized load settlement response for the piled raft


with three different pile raft area ratios are presented.
C

Area ratio

Characterization curves 1g model circular raft - various area ratios

The three phase behaviour is seen to be identical both in the


case of field and laboratory model.
26

17,Aug,2015

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

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

= Load taken by the plain raft for any given


settlement at which pr 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.
28

Variation of pr with settlement


for various densities

24.01.2015

Settlement Vs LS ratio PR for various


length

29

24.01.2015

Settlement v/s LS ratio pr for different area ratios

Area Ratio

Area Ratio

30

17Aug2015

This confirms that the pile group initially shares more


load and gradually with the increase in settlement
commences providing the stiffness to the raft to take
higher load at any particular settlement; at higher
settlement level, the pile group adds the required
capacity for the raft to take a higher load compared to
the unpiled raft.

31

Non-dimensional plots for various lengths

Non-dimensional plot for piled raft with different


pile spacing

It is observed that the behaviour exhibited a


hyperbolic trend. . It has been established that the
hyperbolic load settlement response can be
expressed in terms of Kondtner type hyperbolic
functions when the inverse of stiffness (settlement /
load, i.e. w/p) is plotted against settlement (w).

Hyperbolic plots for various pile lengths (circular)

m=0.685 and c=0.35

Although Chins method [8] tends to over predict the


ultimate load, the linear functions represent the pile
performance reasonably well.

If the pile group and continuum can be considered as an


equivalent pier then the pier can be treated as a single
pile

Chins graph circular piled raft variation in length

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.

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 feature was computed by


F = Pw + N P i
P
The raft was instrumented with settlement gauges loaded in such a way

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

BEHAVIOUR OF PROTOTYPE PILED RAFT


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.
41

Layout of piles and settlement


markers

42

SECTIONAL ELEVATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL DATA

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

Very Soft Disintegrated Rock

40%
Silty
24%

34%
Sand
66%600mm dia pile

Clayey Sand
(Percentage of sand increases with
depth)

N=61

43

Construction of pile and raft in progress at


Palace Regency site, Chennai

44

DETAILED ANALYSES

Finite Element Simulation


and Meshing of Piled Raft

Settlement Contour

46

Observed Settlement Vs Computed Value at


Various Section

The computed settlement is higher in the edges and


smaller in the center. This is mainly due to the fact that in
reality, the edges had a retaining wall which was adding to
the rigidity. Also the elastic analysis does not take into
47

Raft contact stress along


grid G

Contact stress at specific


points of the raft
Grid line P

DISTANCE, m

Grid line G

DISTANCE, m

Grid line B

DISTANCE, m

48

Contact stress between the rows of piles in


transverse sections
IN BETWEEN GRIDS P AND L

DISTANCE, m

IN BETWEEN GRIDS G AND H

DISTANCE, m

IN BETWEEN GRIDS B AND C

DISTANCE, m

TRANSVERSE SECTION

DISTANCE, m

TRANSVERSE SECTION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

DISTANCE, m

DISTANCE, m

49

Typical head stress


values

The Head Load Tip Load


Distribution with the column
load

Typical tip stress values

50

51

Time dependent load settlement curves


Percentage Load Taken by the Raft
at Various Stages of Construction
period

52

EQUIVALENT PIER THEORY

EVALUATION OF STRESS STRAIN CHARACTERESTICS


FROM FIELD TESTS
Frank etal., (1991) have studied the load settlement response
of two piles forming a part of a bridge foundation, and had
established that their behaviour can be predicted by
conducting the pressure meter test. Their prediction of pile
behaviour is based on a tri-linear relationship for the skin
friction mobilisation based on the pressure meter tests The
model they had used is given in Figure.

LOAD SETTLEMENT RESPONSE AND STRESS STRAIN RESPONSE FROM


PRESSUREMETER STUDY

The load settlement response predicted by the pressure meter


with the shaft friction mobilisation can be compared with the
equivalent pier analyses to validate the in-situ E s value over
the length of the pile (pile group) and the shaft friction over
the length of the pile group. This will also establish the shaft
stress distribution at any given settlement level and the in-situ
Es value which can be used in the detailed analyses.

Tri-linear Model, Frank et al (1991)

RESULTS OF FIELD STUDY

The following figures present the shaft stress distribution over


the length of the pile by pressuremeter test results and from the
numerical analyses of the 1g model tests. it is seen that the
trend of the shaft stress distribution obtained from both the
cases agree closely,indicating that the tri-linear model assumed
in the analyses of the pressuremeter results and the actual
behaviour of piled raft obtained from the 1g model are
identical.
This establishes the fact that if the pile group of piled raft can
be idealised as a single large pier, then the procedure adopted
by Frank et al(1991) can be used to predict the behaviour of
pile group of piled raft foundations.

Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Load Distributions for Test


Piles (Roger Frank et al.,) )1991)

17 Aug 2015

PILE SUPPORTED RAFT BEHAVIOUR

A pile supported raft, not designed as piled raft, can also


behave as a piled raft piled raft and becomes effective 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.
The observational study of a case history is explained

59

17 Aug 2015

Study of the General Soil Profile


The general soil profile comprises of alternate seams of soft clay medium
dense to dense sand and stiff clay.
From the economy point of view fixed length piles required to generate the
capacity was proposed.
The importance was given more to field test in evaluating the shear
parameter for design. So static cone penetrometer was performed .

60

17Aug 2015

Figure presents typical Cone Penetration test data.

Cone resistance profile Ammonia Tank 3


61

17 Aug 2015

DETAILS OF PILES AND RAFT


450mm diameter driven cast in-situ piles
Axial capacity

=65 t

Spacing

=3D

Length from G.L

=10m

6m of the pile passes through sand layer.


No. of piles

=437 nos.

Raft thickness 400mm.


Pile - raft area ratio 0.09
Hydro test load 17.9m of standing water.
62

17Aug2015

Load Settlement Response - Ammonia Tank

Load Settlement Response - Phosphoric


Acid Tank

63

17 Aug 2015

RESULTS OF FIELD STUDY


Load settlement response curve for two similar tanks are
presented in the Figure. In order to study the behaviour, the pile
group is considered as a single unit and load taken by the pile
group was evaluated as a pier.
By Davissons method the pile group as a pier capacity was
found to be 11000 kN and 8000kN.

64

17,AUG 2015

Figure presents the characterized load settlement response of one


of the ammonia tanks. This indicates a three phase behaviour.
Phase 1 is marked as OA, Phase 2 is marked as AB ; and Phase 3
is marked as BC. It is seen that the rate of change in the stiffness
is gradual compared to stage OA and in the phase BC it is rapid.
It is this behaviour that is compared with the response in the 1g
model studies on the circular piled raft.

Typical characterized Load


Settlement Response
Ammonia Tank
65

17,AUG 2015

SR and pr at different of load


from hydro test for typical
Ammonia Tank.

Settlement reduction and load


sharing at different load levels for
1g model tests. Area ratio 0.05

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

The following table presents a comparison of the SR


and pr at different settlement levels.
It is seen that SR and pr reduces rapidly in the initial
stages but the reduction rate reduces at higher load
level. Comparing the progression of SR and pr values
estimated in table that follows, it can be seen that the
behaviour of model piled rafts and the pile supported
raft are more or less identical.
67

SR and pr at different of load from hydro test


for typical Ammonia Tank
% of Loading
SR
pr
25
95
90

50
75
100

92
82
73

17,AUG 2015

84
77
72

Settlement reduction and load sharing at


different settlement levels for model piled raft

% 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.

PIER & GEOTECHNICAL DATA (NUMERICAL STUDY)

TYPICAL MESH PLAXIS 2D

LOAD SETTLEMENT RESPONSE OF THE PIER

SHAFT STRESS MOBILISATION

Chins graph (12m pier)

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.

Properties of circular piled raft


Raft

Pile

Dia

Thickness

Dia

Length

Area ratio

200mm

8mm

10mm

160mm

5.2%

Er

3000 N/mm2 0.33

Properties of bed material


Material

Poorly
15.5kN/m3 37.50
graded sand

Es

35 N/mm2 0.30

State of compaction
Medium dense
78

Comparison of load settlement response


between ANSYS (linear) and model test results
for circular piled raft

As the settlement increases beyond the critical


settlement,

the

linear

analysis

predicts

much

higher
79

Axisymmetric model and mesh used in


ANSYS analyses
100mm

200m
m

600mm

500mm

The axi symmetric analysis of circular piled raft has been


carried out for the 21 pile radial configuration. In the analysis each
concentric ring of pile is taken as continuous annulus with an overall
stiffness equal to the sum of the stiffness of the individual piles The
problem was taken as large deformation problem and plane 42
80

Settlement contour for the load of 8.70kN


for circular piled raft in medium dense sand

81

Finite element mesh of a


circular piled raft (Quarter
model) used in ANSYS
analysis

Settlement contour for


a circular piled raft for
the load of 8.1 kN

Material Model = MISO


Elements
=
Solid 45
Width/2 =
500mm

Length/2 =
500mm

Depth =
600mm

82

Comparison of load-settlement behaviour


between ANSYS and model test data
(Circular Raft)

83

Raft contact stress at typical locations of


the raft for the load of 2.1kN (settlement
=1.80mm)
Average Raft Stress = 33% of the Applied Load

MN
MX

Inverted surface of the raft of


piled raft

84

Vertical stress at typical locations of the


raft for the load of 8.10 kN (settlement =
17.80mm)
Average Raft Stress = 65% of the Applied Load

MN
MX

Inverted surface of the raft of


piled raft

85

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.
86

Variation of stress along the shaft of typical


piles along the centre line of raft for 8.10kN

87

Load distribution between raft and pile of


the piled raft at different settlement levels
in terms of load

Typically the load shared by the pile group reduces from 65%
88

Comparison of settlement vs pr for


experimental and numerical studies

89

SQUARE PILED RAFT

90

Properties of square piled raft


Raft size

Raft
thickness

Pile dia

Spacing

Length

Area ratio

200mm

8m

10m

4d

160m

4.9%

200mm

8m

10m

6d

160m

2.25%

Er and r are the same as circular


piled raft

91

Quarter model and finite


element mesh adopted for
square piled raft
in ANSYS nonlinear analysis

Settlement contour for


the load of 8.70kN
(settlement 18.90mm)

92

Comparison of load- settlement response


between ANSYS and test data for square
piled raft with 4d pile spacing

93

Vertical stress in the square piled raft with


piles at 4d spacing for the load of 8.7kN

94

Pile head stress for the load of


8.70kN
(4d pile spacing)

Pile tip stress for the load of


8.7kN (4d pile spacing)

95

Variation of stress over the length of pile of


square piled raft for the load of 8.7kN
(No. of piles
25 at 4d spacing)

96

Load share between raft and piles of square


piled raft (25 piles at 4d spacing) in terms
of load

97

Comparison of settlement vs pr for


experimental and numerical studies

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

You might also like