Final Book 20.02.2018 PDF

CONTENTS
Page
S. No. Description
No.
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF PLATES viii
CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION 1-3
1.1 General 1
1.2 Objectives and Outline of Present Work 2
1.3 Thesis Organization 3
CHAPTER-II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-8
2.1 General 4
2.2 Settlement Reducing Piles 4
2.3 Experimental Studies on Piled Rafts 5
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS 9-18
3.1 Introduction 8
3.2 Materials Used 8
3.2.1 Soils Used 8
3.2.2 Model Raft Used 9
3.2.3 Model Pile Used 10
3.2.4 Model Test Tank Used 10
3.2.5 Load Frame Used 10
3.3 Tests Conducted 10
3.4 Methods Adopted 12
3.4.1 Method of Test bed Preparation 12
3.4.2 Method of Installation of Piled Raft Foundation 12
3.4.3 Strategy of Experimentation Adopted 12
3.4.4 Liquid Limit 15
3.4.5 Plastic Limit 15
3.4.6 Plasticity Index 15
3.4.7 Free Swell Index 16
3.4.8 Grain Size Distribution 16
3.4.9 Load Test on Piled Raft Foundation 16
1
3.5 Ultimate Load of Piled Raft Foundation 17
LOAD CARING CAPACITY OF PILED RAFT
CHAPTER-IV 19-45
FOUNDATION
4.1 Introduction 19
4.2 Results and Discussions 19
4.2.1 Piled Raft Foundation on Homogeneous Soil Bed 19
Effect of Different Factors on Ultimate Load carrying
4.2.1.1 24
capacity Piled Raft Foundation
4.2.1.2 Factorial Analysis 24
4.2.1.3 Effect of S/D ratio on Load carrying capacity 25
4.2.1.4 Effect of N on Load carrying capacity 26
4.2.1.5 Effect of L/D ratio on Load carrying capacity 26
Interaction Effect of S/D ratio and N on Load carrying
4.2.1.6 27
capacity
Interaction Effect of S/D ratio and L/D ratio on Load
4.2.1.7 27
carrying capacity
Interaction Effect of N and L/D ratio on Load carrying
4.2.1.8 28
capacity
Interaction Effect of S/D ratio , N and L/D ratio on Load
4.2.1.9 28
carrying capacity
4.2.1.10 Regression Model for Load carrying capacity 30
4.2.1.11 Validity of Proposed Model for Load carrying capacity 30
4.2.2 Piled Raft Foundation on Layered Soil Bed for H1/B=0.3 31
Effect of Main Factors on Ultimate Load Carrying
4.2.2.1 34
Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation
4.2.2.2 Results of Factorial Experimentation on Layered Soil Bed 34
4.2.3 Piled Raft Foundation on Layered Soil Bed for H1/B=0.6 37
Effect of Main Factors on Ultimate Load Carrying
4.2.3.1 40
Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation
4.2.3.2 Results of Factorial Experimentation on Layered Soil Bed 40
2
Effect of Thickness of Top Stiff Layer on Load Carrying
4.2.4 43
Capacity
EFFECT OF SOIL-RAFT-PILE INTERACTION ON
CHAPTER-V LOAD DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF PILED 46-55
RAFTS
5.1 Introduction 46
5.2 Possible Mechanisms of Interaction in Piled Rafts 46
5.3 Results and Discussions 47
Expected and Observed Capacities of Piled Raft
5.3.1 47
Foundations
5.3.2 Interaction Effects on Settlement of Piled Rafts 50
Results of Factorial Experimentation for Settlement Ratio
5.3.3 52
of Piled Rafts
5.3.2 Regression Model for Settlement Ratio of Piled Rafts 53
Validity of Proposed Models for Settlement Ratio of Piled
5.4 54
Rafts
CHAPTER-VI SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 56-57
6.1 Summary 56
6.2 Conclusions 57
REFERENCES 58
3
ABSTRACT
Foundations are the substructures which transfer the load from super
structure safely to the soil strata. Generally, foundations are classified as shallow and deep
foundations. Deep foundations are avoided wherever possible as they are cost prohibitive
and construction requires special equipment and trained human resources. Many a case, a
mat or raft is sufficed in place of a deep foundation in case settlements are contained.
Several investigators in the past carried out numerical and experimental studies to analyse
the effectiveness of a raft supported with a limited number of piles (Piled Raft
Foundation) penetrating homogeneous deposits in order to contain the settlements and to
increase the load carrying capacity of a raft. In this investigation, performance of piled
raft foundations penetrating both homogeneous and layered cohesive soil deposits is
studied by conducting a series of load tests on model piled raft foundations in the
laboratory. Parameters considered in the study are Consistency of the soil (Ic), Thickness
of the top layer (H1), Spacing of the piles (S), Length of the pile (L) and Number of piles
(N) in the group. Model pile used is of diameter (D) of 10mm and square raft is of width
(B) of 180mm. The results of experiments clearly show that the load carrying capacity of
the piled raft foundation increases with spacing between piles and number of piles. As the
thickness of the top layer increases, the load carrying capacity of the piled raft foundation
increases significantly. Experiments are designed and the results are further analysed
following the principles of 23 factorial experimentation so as to quantify the relative effect
of main factors studied (namely L/D, S/D and N) and their interaction effects on load
carrying capacity and settlement. Load carrying capacity of a piled raft is found to be
influenced by L/D, S/D and N whereas the settlement is affected by L/D, S/D and
interaction effect of L/D and N. Multiple linear regression analysis is carried out and
regression models were evolved to determine ultimate load carrying capacity and
settlement ratio in terms of influencing parameters. Validity of proposed models is
verified with the test results which were not used for the development of the models. The
predicted values using the proposed regression models are found to be in good agreement
with the observed values. These models can be used to determine the optimum spacing,
length and number of piles for piled raft foundation supported on Homogeneous and
Layered cohesive soil deposits satisfying both the stability considerations namely shear
failure and settlement criteria.
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Fig. No. Description
No.
1.1 Model of Raft and Piled Raft Foundation
2.1 Piled Raft Foundation Concept
3.1 Model for 23 Factorial Design
3.2 Experimental setup Model for Piled Raft Foundation
3.3 Ultimate load from typical load-settlement curves
4.1 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B =0,N=2 & L/D=10
4.5 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B =0, Raft only
4.6 Model for 23 Factorial Design for Homogeneous Soil Bed (H1/B =0)
4.7 Interaction Effect of S/D and N

4.8 Interaction Effect of S/D and L/D
4.9 Interaction Effect of L/D and N
4.10 Interaction Effect of S/D, L/D and N
4.11 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B =0.3,N=2 & L/D=10
4.15 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B =0.3, Raft only
4.16 Model for 23 Factorial Design for Layered Soil Bed(H1/B =0.3)
4.21 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B=0.6, Raft only.
4.22 Model for 23 Factorial Design for Layered Soil Bed (H1/B=0.6)
4.23 Load vs Settlement Plot for S/D=5, N=2 & L/D=10
4.24 Load vs Settlement Plot for S/D=15, N=4 & L/D=40
v
5.1 Model for Soil-Raft-Pile Interaction in Piled Raft Foundation
5.2 Load vs Settlement Plot for Raft without Piles
5.3 Load vs Settlement Plot for Pile only, L/D=10
5.4 Load vs Settlement Plot for Pile only, L/D=40
5.5 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B=0.6, L/D=10
5.6 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B=0.3, L/D=40
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Description
No. No.
3.1 Index Properties of the Soil Tested
3.2 Complete list of Tests Conducted
3.3 Additional list of Tests Conducted
3.4 23 Factorial Design Test Combinations and Label of Experiments
Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation for

4.1 Homogeneous Soil Bed (H1/B=0)
3
4.2 Ultimate Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation for 2 Factorial
Experimentation
4.3 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity of Piled
Raft Foundation
4.4 Observed and Predicted Capacity of Piled Rafts for Experimental
results of Present Investigation
4.5 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation for
Layered Soil Bed (H1/B=0.3)
3
Experimentation
4.7 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity
of Piled Raft Foundation
4.8 Observed and Predicted Capacity of Piled Rafts for
Experimental results of Present Investigation
4.9 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation for
Layered Soil Bed (H1/B=0.6)
3
Experimentation
4.11 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity
4.12 Observed and Predicted Capacity of Piled Rafts for
4.13 Analysis of Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft
Foundation for Three Different Models
4.14 Expected and Observed Piled Raft Capacities
5.1 Statement Showing the Effect of Settlement and Settlement Ratio for
Piled Raft Foundation for Various Factors
5.2 Settlement Ratio of Piled Raft Foundation for Factorial
Experimentation
5.3 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Settlement Ratio of
Piled Raft Foundation
5.4 Regression Equations for Settlement Ratio of Piled Raft Foundation
5.5 Observed and Predicted Settlement Ratio of Piled Rafts for

vii
LIST OF PLATES
Plate No. Description Page No.

3.1 Soil Collection from Trail Pit
3.2 Model Rafts
3.3 Model Piles of length L=100 mm & 400 mm
3.4 Model Test tank
3.5 Model Load Frame
viii
CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL :
Structures are founded on open isolated foundations when the soil at shallow
depth has good safe bearing capacity to carry the super structure loads. Raft
foundation is a combined foundation which transmits the super structure loads to the
sub grade uniformly by utilizing the every part of the soil below the structure when
the bearing capacity of the soil is comparatively low. The founding strata should
satisfy both the shear criteria and the settlement criteria to transmit the loads coming
from the structure to the substrata safely. Many a times the raft is very good in shear
criteria and the allowable settlements shall govern while deciding the design bearing
pressure values. Sometimes the load transmitted from the structure may not be
uniform due to structural arrangement of the building or due to non-symmetric
geometry of the structure, which cause differential settlement of the raft. Also the
differential settlements are caused due to the soil substrata variation, where the
compressible layer thickness varies. When the super structure loadings are high then
the raft settlements exceeds the permissible settlements and permissible differential
settlements as specified in IS 1904 -1986. The high concentrated loading from the
super structure sometimes concentrate at few specific locations where the
settlements of the raft exceed the limits locally as well the load intensity
concentrated at the specific locations exceeds the designed bearing capacity of the
soil. In such cases engineer switch over to the deep foundations to support the raft
such as pile foundations or some places the ground improvement techniques such as
stone columns or sand compaction piles shall also be adopted for resting the raft.
Instead of implementing the conventional pile foundation, a thought process

gone in the way to solve issues developed in the raft at local points such as crossing
the limited settlements and allowable bearing capacity. Many researchers
concentrated an addition of piles which will help in limiting the settlements of raft
within the permissible limits. The piles are strategically placed below the raft where
the settlements are exceeding the permissible limits as well where the transferred
loadings from super structure to sub grade exceed the safe bearing capacity values.
These piles are short in length and the load carrying capacity of these piles is by
friction only. The combination of pile and raft system increases the bearing capacity
and reduces the settlements. This foundation system is named as Piled Raft
1
foundation or also called combined piled raft foundation as shown in Fig 1.1. The
piles added under the raft are named as the settlement reducing piles.
Many researchers are attracted towards the Piled raft foundation; early
researches focused on hand calculation techniques with the help of empirical charts
and formulas for single pile and pile groups. With the advent of the computers and
numerical procedures, finite element techniques were developed to solve piled
foundation, whereas most of the piled raft problems today can be solved with
microcomputers. On other hand, many researchers are conducting the model
experimental studies to study the real interaction between the Raft-Soil-Pile. Also
experimental studies are going on the structures which are designed and constructed
based on the numerical analysis
Figure 1.1 Model of raft and piled raft foundation
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE OF PRESENT WORK:
In Piled raft foundation, piles are provided not only to increase the capacity
but also to control the settlements rather carry the entire load. Settlement and the
load carried by the piles and raft depend on the soil stiffness and pile stiffness. Pile
stiffness in turn depends on the length of pile and the pile spacing. The objective of
this study is to understand the behaviour of the piled raft resting on homogeneous
and layered clayey soil beds with variable parameters such as soil consistency, pile
length, pile spacing, number of piles and thickness of top stiff layer by means of
laboratory experimental model study. The soil considered for the experimental study
is cohesive soil with different consistency values. Raft is made with the mild steel
2
plate and the piles are simulated with mild steel rods of different lengths. Suitable
provision is provided in steel plate to accommodate the piles in different spacing.
1.3 THESIS ORGANIZATION:
Chapter 1 gives an overall view of the problem considered. Chapter 2 deals

with some of the experimental and analytical study already conducted by various
research workers. Chapter 3 gives brief account of tests conducted, materials used,
model raft, model piles used and experimental set ups considered for the study.
Chapter 4 deals with the experimental results pertaining to load carrying capacities
of piled rafts supported on homogeneous and layered soil beds. Chapter 5 is devoted
for studying the effect of pile-soil- raft interaction effects on load settlement
behaviour and also settlement reduction due to piles in a piled raft foundation for
both homogeneous and layered soil beds. Chapter 6 finally presents the Summary
and conclusions of the present work.
3
CHAPTER – II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 GENERAL:
Utilization of raft capacity in total by introducing the settlement reducing

piles is the new initiative in the research area to optimize the cost in this techno-
economical world. It is skilful geotechnical concept to understand the behaviour of
the foundation-soil interaction while transferring the loads from super structure to
foundation. An elaborate study is required to study the behaviour of raft, behaviour
of piles and the soil behaviour which is interacting with both pile and raft. Many
research activities are on to study the behaviour of this foundation by the way of
analytical approach; as well through the experimental model study. Many
researchers concentrated mainly analytical approach due to availability and
development of computer era. Also it has been observed that the experimental
modelling was carried by many researches to study the effects of different
parameters on piled raft foundation. Brief reviews of some of these works are
presented in the following sections.
2.2 SETTLEMENT REDUCING PILES:
In conventional approach, the piles are designed to carry the total loads
coming from the superstructure and raft has no load carrying contribution. Higher
factor of safety in the range of 2 to 3 is considered while calculating the pile load
carrying capacity depending of the available load test results or the geotechnical
investigation report with soil profile and shear parameters. In some cases raft has the
ability to take the load without shear failure but fails to satisfy the settlement
requirement. To find the solution, piles are added to the raft to reduce the
settlements; these piles are called the settlement reducing piles. In this case the piles
are utilized to its ultimate capacity by ensuring the permissible settlements in raft
and to satisfy the overall safety factors. Piles added not only restrict the settlements
but also contribute partially in taking loads coming from the super structure. Piled
raft foundation concept is clearly explained in Fig. 2.1 (Randolph and Clancy, 1996)
4
Two main reasons to add the piles to raft foundation to convert it to piled raft
foundation are:
- To reduce the total settlements in rigid raft
- To reduce the total settlement and differential settlements in flexible raft
Figure 2.1 Piled raft foundation concept
2.3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON PILED RAFTS :
Akinmusuru (1980) performed laboratory tests on an unpiled raft, free–

standing pile groups and piled rafts in dry sand and showed that the capacity
of the piled foundations exceeds the sum of the bearing capacity of the pile
group and the cap, due to the increase in the pile bearing capacity caused by
the pile–raft interaction (contact pressure of the raft on the soil).
5
Cooke (1986) reported an extensive series of small scale model tests on
unpiled rafts, free–standing pile groups and piled rafts of various sizes, in
stiff clay. He noted that the piled raft stiffness was 30% greater than that of
the free–standing pile groups, while the pile raft bearing capacity was much
greater than that of the free–standing pile groups. He pointed out the
importance of pile length on the piled raft behaviour and observed that piles
should be long in relation to the raft size. He also observed that, in the case
of a rigid raft, the distribution of the load between the piles of piled raft
foundations depends on the number of piles and their spacing. For the most
common spacing, the external piles can be expected to carry at least twice
the load carried by the interior piles.
Phung (1993) performed large scale field tests on shallow footings, isolated
piles, free–standing pile groups and piled rafts in loose to dense sand and
used several load efficiency coefficients, which varied according to the
settlement level considered, to compare the capacities of the elements of the
piled footings with those of the single pile, the pile group and the unpiled
raft. He found that the piled raft behaviour is mainly governed by the raft–
pile interaction, which causes an increase in the pile raft capacity due to the
contact pressure of the raft on the soil. He noted that the centre pile of the
piled rafts always takes the largest portion of load.
Horikoshi (1995) and Horikoshi & Randolph (1996) presented the results of
centrifuge tests on models of a flexible circular raft on small centered pile
groups and a fully pile foundation in clay. They found that even a small pile
group can significantly reduce the differential settlement of a raft inspite of
the relatively low loads being transferred to the pile group. Loading tests
conducted on isolated single piles and single capped piles showed that a
small cap in contact with the soil could significantly increase the pile bearing
capacity, because of the transfer of the load to the soil through the cap.
Conte el al. (2003) extended the experimental work of Horikoshi (1995) and
Horikoshi & Randolph (1996) and carried out centrifuge tests on models of
stiff square pile groups and piled rafts in clay. They found that the
contribution of the pile capacity to the overall capacity of piled rafts
decreases where the raft protrudes beyond the pile group and that central
6
settlement reducing piles beneath the raft can be loaded close to their full
capacity without compromising the foundation stability.
Hakam (2004) performed model test on piled raft in soft clay and postulated
that pile raft system increases the ultimate load of pile raft more than 100%.
Lee and Chung (2005) executed small scale model tests on free–standing
pile groups and piled footings in dense sand and analysed the influence of
the pile cap on the behaviour of vertically loaded pile groups. From the test
results it was found that the effect of the cap in contact with the underlying
soil results in an increase in the skin friction, mainly after the pile yielding
load has been reached, with dependency on the pile spacing. They also
observed that a much lower load is carried by the raft in piled rafts than by
the raft alone, at least at the initial loading stage.
Fioravante et al (2008) carried out centrifuge test on circular raft in over

consolidated clay and found that distribution of load between the piles
underneath the raft is not uniform and load transfer mechanism differed from
isolated pile. He also observed that as number of piles increase, raft
settlement decreases and also postulated that displacement piles are more
effective than non-displacement piles in reducing raft settlement. He stated
that when the piles reach the ultimate capacity, after that contribution of raft
starts and also found that stiffness of foundation system increases as number
of piles underneath the raft increases.
Barvashov and Boldyrev (2009) carried out research both experimental and
theoretical on pile raft system and postulated that the settlement of soil at a
depth 2d under the pile tip is 1.5 to 2.0 times more than the inter pile-soil
and it remain constant up to depth of 6d. It states that soil layer under tip of
pile is divided in two layers: deformation depends on distinct effect of
individual piles and lower layer, deformation depends on action of piles and
inter piles soil as a distributed load.
Balakumar and Ilamparuthi (2009) performed 1g model tests of circular

piled raft system on sand and found that the stiffness of piled raft system is
very close to raft-soil stiffness, which implies that piles perform as
settlement reducers rather than load sharing member.
7
Balakumar and Ilamparuthi (2010) performed 1g model tests of square and
circular shape piled raft foundation and proved that the nonlinearity of piled
raft behaviour is very near to hyperbolic relation and also proved that
asymptotic load ratio and initial stiffness ratio remains same, irrespective of
the physical properties of piles and soil.
EI Sawwaf (2010) carried out an experimental work on short piles under a

raft either connected or disconnected which was loaded eccentrically and
found that it improves raft bearing pressure, reduces raft settlement and
tilting, which leads to an economical design.
Fioravante and Giretti (2010) performed a centrifuge test on piled raft

foundation in sandy soil and found that piles transforms the load from raft to
wider and deeper volume of soil, hence proves piles act as settlement reducer
and also observed that sharing of load between pile and raft is related to
stiffness of pile-soil system.
Matsumoto et al. (2010) performed an experimental study subjected to

horizontal and vertical load on piled raft foundation model to study the effect
of pile head connected on raft performance. They found that when the
vertical load is applied, pile head connection condition has little effect on its
behaviour and when the connection is less rigid, the horizontal load taken by
raft decreases.
Singh and Singh (2011) performed experiments on piled raft foundation in

sand and postulated that numbers and location of piles play an important role
in improving the capacity of piled raft system.
Based on the above literature review and detailed study of different

experimental analysis and results, it is found that there is not much study
carried on the piled rafts resting on homogeneous cohesive soils and layered
cohesive soils to understand the behaviour of piled raft foundation. Hence,
the present experimental study is focused on the behaviour of piled rafts
supported on Homogeneous and layered cohesive soil beds with different
consistencies by varying the pile length, spacing and number of piles.
8
CHAPTER – III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 INTRODUCTION:
Raft foundation and Pile foundation are conventional foundation systems

for which the foundation behaviour is well understood and defined. Piled-Raft
foundation system is combination of former two foundation systems in which the
super structure loads are taken care by both raft and pile. Extensive research
activities are going on to study the piled-raft foundation behaviour. From the
literature, the research activities are showing that the pile raft foundation increases
the ultimate load carrying capacity by reduces settlement in homogeneous
cohesionless soils. A very few investigators considered the study of behaviour of
piled rafts supported by homogeneous and layered cohesive deposits. Hence, the
present study is focused on the Piled-raft behaviour on homogeneous and layered
clayey strata, variables being length of the piles, spacing of the piles, number of
piles, thickness of the top stiff clay layer and consistency of the soil.
3.2 MATERIALS USED:
3.2.1 Soil Used:
The soil used in the present investigation is obtained from Kotala near
Chandragiri. The Liquid Limit of the soil is 56.0%. It is dominated by fine fraction
(97.74%) and coarse fraction is negligible (2.26%). It is classified as ‘CH’ as per
I.S.Classification (IS: 1498-1970) indicating that it is inorganic clay of high
compressibility. Its degree of expansiveness is medium based on Liquid Limit,
Plasticity Index and Free Swell Index (FSI). All the index properties of the soil are
summarized in Table 3.1.
The required amount of soil is collected from trial pit at a depth of 2m below
the ground level as shown in Plate 3.1, since the top soil is likely to contain organic
matter and other foreign materials. Sufficient care has been exercised to see that the
collected soil sample is fairly homogeneous. The soil which is obtained is air dried,
crushed with wooden mallet, passed through 4.75mm sieve, kept in polythene bags
and stored in steel drums for further testing.
9
Plate 3.1 Soil collection from trail pit
Table 3.1 Index Properties of the Soil Tested
Sl. No. Properties Kotala sample

1 Gravel (%) 0.24
2 Sand (%) 2.02
3 Silt + Clay (%)(-75μ) 97.74
4 Liquid Limit (%) 56
5 Plastic Limit (%) 24
6 Plasticity Index (%) 32
7 Free Swell Index (%) 90
8 I.S. classification CH
3.2.2 Model Raft Used:
A rigid M.S plate of size 180mm X 180mm and thickness 10 mm is used as

raft in this investigation. A total of 7 rafts with provision for varying pile spacing
and number of piles are used in this investigation. Typical model rafts are shown in
Plate 3.2.
Plate 3.2 Model Rafts
10
3.2.3 Model Pile Used:
Circular piles are simulated with MS steel rods of 10mm diameter having
lengths 100mm and 400mm are used for tests as shown in Plate 3.3
Plate 3.3 Model Piles
3.2.4 Model Test Tank Used:
Cylindrical steel model test tank of diameter of 600mm and 550mm height is
used for preparation of test bed as shown in Plate 3.4
Plate 3.4 Model Test Tank
3.2.5 Load Frame Used:
Load frame used is made up of four steel columns arranged in square pattern
at a spacing of 1.24 m. All the four columns are connected both at the top and
bottom by four beams firmly fixed to the columns by appropriate bolts and nuts. A
MS sheet is provided at the bottom connecting all the four beams and columns. Both
the beams and columns are made up of suitable ‘L’ angles. Provision is made at the
top to apply the load by rotating a screw jack, which is fixed to ‘L’ angles inter
11
connecting the center of the one set of parallel beams at right angles. The Load
frame used in the experiment is shown in Plate 3.5.
Plate 3.5 Model Load Frame
3.3 TESTS CONDUCTED:
In order to study the effect of Spacing of piles in terms of S/D, Length of

piles in terms of L/D and Number of piles in terms of N, and thickness of top stiff
layer in terms of H1 on load carrying capacity and load settlement behaviour of piled
raft foundation, three series of load tests are conducted on model piled raft
foundation in the laboratory resting on homogeneous clayey soil bed and layered
clayey soil beds for H1/B=0.3 and H1/B=0.6. The details of the tests conducted are
presented in Table 3.2.
12 load tests are conducted on piled raft foundation for each series, 36 being
the total load tests for all the three series put together. In order to facilitate the
understanding of pile-raft-soil interaction on piled raft behaviour, three more load
tests are conducted on raft without piles resting on homogeneous and layered soil
beds. Further, six load tests are conducted on single pile only penetrating
homogeneous and layered soil beds. The details of these tests are presented in
Table 3.3.
12
Table 3.2 Complete list of Tests Conducted
TYPE OF TYPE OF
EXP.NO. N L/D S/D
SOIL FOUNDATION
Ist Series of Tests on Homogeneous Soil Bed (H1/B=0) for Consistency Ic =0.5
1 Soft PRF 2 10 5
2 Soft PRF 2 10 10
3 Soft PRF 2 10 15
4 Soft PRF 2 40 5
5 Soft PRF 2 40 10
6 Soft PRF 2 40 15
7 Soft PRF 4 10 5
8 Soft PRF 4 10 10
9 Soft PRF 4 10 15
10 Soft PRF 4 40 5
11 Soft PRF 4 40 10
12 Soft PRF 4 40 15
nd
II Series of Tests on Layered Soil Bed (H1/B=0.3) for Consistency Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5
13 stiff over soft PRF 2 10 5
IIIrd Series of Tests on Layered Soil Bed (H1/B=0.6) for Consistency Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5
13
Table 3.3 Additional list of Tests Conducted
TYPE OF
EXP.NO. TYPE OF SOIL N L/D S/D
FOUNDATION
Additional tests on Raft without piles and Single Piles only on Homogeneous soil bed
H1/B=0 and Layered soil beds for H1/B=0.3 and H1/B=0.6
37 Soft (Ic=0.5) RAFT - - -
stiff over soft
38 RAFT - - -
( Ic=0.8 over Ic=0.5)
stiff over soft
39 RAFT - - -
(Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5)
40 Soft (Ic =0.5) PILE 1 10 -
41 Soft (Ic =0.5) PILE 1 40 -
stiff over soft
42 PILE 1 10 -
(Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5)
stiff over soft
43 PILE 1 40 -
(Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5)
stiff over soft
44 PILE 1 10 -
(Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5)
stiff over soft
45 PILE 1 40 -
(Ic =0.8 over Ic =0.5)
3.4 METHODS ADOPTED
3.4.1 Method of Test Bed Preparation:
A known amount of air dried and pulverized soil passing through 4.75mm is
mixed thoroughly with enough quantity of water so as to get homogenous paste of
desired consistency. In the first instance, the soil thus prepared was used in packing
layers to form the clay bed through hand compaction in order to get uniform soil
bed, in the model test tank.
3.4.2 Method of Installation of Pile Raft Foundation:
The piles were screwed to the raft. The piled raft foundation so made is held
in position in the model test tank after preparing the bed in the test tank up to the
required level. Holding the piled raft foundation in that position and the remaining
part of the tank is filled with soil paste by hand up to the bottom of the raft is
reached. The piled raft foundation is then allowed for one day curing in order to
ensure equilibrium of moisture.
14
3.4.3 Strategy of Experimentation Adopted:
The general approach to planning and conducting the experiments is called

the strategy of experimentation. There are several experimental strategies like the
best-guess approach, one-factor-at-a-time approach and factorial experimentation.
The strategy of experimentation which is extensively used in practice is the one-
factor-at-a-time approach. This method consists of selecting a base line level for
each factor, then successively varying each factor over its range with other factors
held constant at the base line level. Though it is very useful in understanding the
influence of any one factor on response of interest, its use is limited in analyzing the
joint effect of factors on the response of interest. Factorial experimental design
concept is very important in experiments involving several factors where it is
necessary to study the joint effect of the factors on a response of interest. This
strategy of experimentation also enables the investigator to quantify the relative
effect of main factors and their interaction on response of interest. The details of the
method can be found in any standard text-book on Design and Analysis of
Experiments such as the one by Montgomery (2005). Factorial experimentation
involving three factors which are adopted in this investigation is known as
23 factorial experimentation.
Suppose that three factors, A, B, and C each at two levels, are of interest.
The design is called a 23 factorial design and the eight treatment combinations can
now be displayed geometrically as a cube, as shown in Fig. 3.1 using the “+ and -”
notation to represent the high and low levels of the factor. Conventionally the eight
possible treatment combinations are denoted in standard order as (1), a, b, ab, c, ac,
bc and abc. These symbols also represent the total of all observations taken at that
particular treatment combination. There are degrees of freedom between the eight
treatment combinations in the 23 design. Three degrees of freedom are associated
with the main effects of A, Band C. Four degrees of freedom are associated with
interactions; one each with AB, AC and BC and one with ABC. S/D of piled raft
foundation denoted by factor A, number of piles (N) denoted by factor B and L/D
denoted by factor C are the three factors considered in this investigation. The two
levels choose for S/D (Factor A) is (5, 15). On Similar condition the low & high
levels for N (Factor B) and L/D (Factor C) are (2, 4) and (10, 40) respectively. Load
tests are conducted on piled raft foundation for three models with H1/B=0, 0.3 and
15
0.6 for two different consistencies Ic=0.5 and 0.8 for 23 factorial designs. Test
considerations for 23 factorial designs are presented in Table 3.4 for H1/B=0.
Figure 3.1 Model for 23 Factorial Design
Table 3.4 23 Factorial design test combinations and label of experiments
LABEL S/D N L/D

1 5 2 10
a 15 2 10
c 5 2 40
ac 15 2 40
b 5 4 10
ab 15 4 10
bc 5 4 40
abc 15 4 40
A total of 8 experiments out of 12 experiments conducted on Homogeneous

soil bed corresponding to 23 factorial experimentation and the details are also
presented in Table 3.2. On similar lines, 16 experiments out of 24 experiments
conducted on Layered soil beds for H1/B=0.3 and H1/B=0.6 corresponding to 23
factorial experimentation.
16
3.4.4 Liquid Limit:
The Liquid Limit of samples are obtained by conducting Liquid Limit test
according to the standard procedure laid in IS: 2720 (Part 5)–1985. The Liquid
Limit tests have been conducted using Casagrande’s apparatus. Air-dried soil
samples have been used for this test. The soil fraction passing the 425 micron sieve
is taken and thoroughly mixed with distilled water till a uniform paste is formed. A
groove is made by using a grooving tool that completely separates the soil pat into
two parts. Counting the number of blows until the two parts of the sample come in
contact at the bottom of the groove over a distance of 13mm (≈1/2”). A sample of
about 25g is collected from the closed part of the groove for determination of water
content. The test is repeated at least 5 times with increasing moisture contents. A
plot is drawn between number of blows (Log scale) and water content (natural
scale). The water content corresponding to 25 blows is read from the plot and is
reported as the Liquid Limit of the soil.
3.4.5 Plastic Limit:
The Plastic Limit of samples are obtained by conducting Plastic Limit test
according to the standard procedure laid in IS: 2720 (Part 5)–1985. Air-dried soil
samples have been used for this test. The soil fraction passing the 425μ sieve is
taken for the test. About 30g of soil is taken in an evaporating dish and thoroughly
mixed with distilled water till it becomes plastic and it becomes easily moulded with
fingers. About10g of the plastic soil mass is taken in one hand and a ball is formed.
The ball is rolled with fingers on a glass plate to form a soil thread of uniform
diameter of about 3mmapproximately without crumbling. The rate of rolling is kept
about 80 to 90 strokes/min. The test is repeated taking a fresh sample each time. The
plastic limit is taken as the average of three values.
3.4.6 Plasticity Index (IP):
Plasticity Index is the range of water content over which the soil remains in
the plastic state. It is equal to difference between the liquid and the plastic limit. The
Plasticity Index is given by
Plasticity Index (IP) = Liquid Limit (WL) – Plastic Limit (WP) ------------ (3.1)
17
3.4.7 Free Swell Index Test:
The free swell index tests have been conducted as per the I.S. code of
practice (I.S. 2720 (Part 40)-1987). The test was performed by pouring 10cc of dry
soil passing 425μ sieve slowly into a graduated cylindrical jar of 100 cc capacity,
filled with water, and observing the equilibrium swelled volumes. The free swell is
expressed as a percentage increase in the volume to the initial volume of the soil.
The free swell index (FSI) expressed as a percentage is given by
𝐹𝐼𝑁𝐴𝐿𝑉𝑂𝐿𝑈𝑀𝐸−𝐼𝑁𝐼𝑇𝐼𝐴𝐿𝑉𝑂𝐿𝑈𝑀𝐸
𝐹𝑆𝐼= 𝑋100……………………… (3.2)
𝐼𝑁𝐼𝑇𝐼𝐴𝐿𝑉𝑂𝐿𝑈𝑀𝐸
Soils with a free swell of 100% or more were graded as those that would
cause damage to light structures while soils with a free swell value of less than 50%
were classified as those that exhibit only small volume changes. However, the free
swell values as low as100% may undergo considerable volume changes when
wetted under light loads and therefore, be viewed with caution. The free swell test
alone does not fully sufficient to predict the swell potential. It should therefore be
supplemented by other tests.
3.4.8 Grain Size Distribution:
Grain size distribution is obtained by conducting mechanical sieve analysis

on +75 micron fraction. Sieve analysis was carried out as per BIS code is I.S. 2720,
Part IV –1965.
3.4.9 Load Test on piled raft foundation:
Load test is conducted on piled raft foundation for various L/D ratios on
loading frame as a stress-controlled test. The size of the steel plate of adequate
thickness and rigidity may be based on the effective tributary soil area of the raft
and supported on 2 or 4 piles with different S/D such as 5, 10 and 15. The loading
arrangement is shown in Fig 3.2
18
1
1. Screw Jack
2
2. Proving Ring
3
3. 4No’s of Dial Gauge with magnetic base
4
4. Piled Raft Foundation
5 5. Soil bed
6 6. Loading Frame
Figure 3.2 Experimental setup model for piled raft foundation
The test is carried out by applying a series of vertical downward incremental

load each increment being about 10% of ultimate load. The load is applied with the
help of a screw jack and applied load is measured with the help of a Proving Ring of
capacity 500 kg. Each increment of load is maintained till the rate of displacement
of the piled raft is less than or equal to 0.02mm per minute. Settlement is recorded
with 4 dial gauges of 0.01mm sensitivity which were positioned at equal distance on
the piled raft and connected to an immovable supports. The load is recorded from
the proving ring and average settlement is carried from 4 dial gauges. Then load
verses settlement plot is drawn and from that ultimate load carrying capacity of the
piled raft is arrived.
3.5 Ultimate Load of Piled Raft Foundation:
A simplified method of obtaining the load settlement curve to failure for a

piled raft foundation or pile foundation has been described by Davis and Poulos
(1972) which is similar in principle to the methods suggested by Whitaker and
Cooke (1966) and Burland et al (1966). The overall load – settlement curve is
obtained as combination of the relationships between shaft load and settlement, base
load and settlement, which are assumed to be linear up to failure of the shaft and the
base, respectively. The failure point on the load settlement curve at the point of
immediate settlements is taken in the foundation. As the foundation starts shearing
19
due to applied load, then the failure of the foundation starts and stops when the
curve is asymptotic to the y-axis. Typical failure of the load settlement curves are
shown in Fig 3.3
Load in kg
Pu
Load at failure /
A Ultimate Load at
Settlement in mm
point A &B
Figure 3.3 Ultimate Load from Typical Load-Settlement curves
20
CHAPTER-IV
LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION
4.1. INTRODUCTION:
One of the prime objectives of the present investigation is to study the effect
of three factors namely, L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of piles (N) on load
carrying capacity of piled raft foundation resting on homogeneous soil bed and
layered soil bed. It is also intended to quantify the relative effect of each of the three
factors as well as interaction effect on response of interest that is load carrying
capacity of piled raft foundation. In order to meet the above objectives a series of
tests are conducted in the laboratory following principles of factorial
experimentation, the details of which are already presented in chapter-3 section 3.3.
The results are presented, analyzed and discussed in the following sections.
4.2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
Load tests are conducted on Piled Raft Foundation supported on

Homogeneous and Layered soil bed. The details of the tests conducted are already
presented in chapter 3, section 3.3, Table 3.2 and Table 3.3. The ultimate load
carrying capacity obtained from the load tests are presented and discussed in the
following subsections separately for Homogeneous soil bed and Layered soil beds.
4.2.1. Piled Raft Foundation on Homogeneous Soil Bed:
A series of load tests are conducted on soil bed prepared in the laboratory in
a model test tank by simultaneously varying three factors namely L/D, S/D and N
for homogeneous soil bed for Ic = 0.5 . Load Settlement curves obtained from load
tests are presented in Figs. 4.1 to 4.4. From these figures it can be observed that the
load settlement plots either become nearly asymptotic to settlement axis beyond
certain load or characterized by two straight lines, initial and final joined by a
smooth curve. Asymptotic load is reported as ultimate capacity in case the load
settlement curve is asymptotic. The load corresponding to the point where the two
straight lines meet when the final straight portion is extended back is reported as
ultimate capacity when the load settlement curve is characterized by two straight
lines. The ultimate capacities so obtained are presented in Table 4.1 for all the 12
tests conducted. Load test was conducted on raft only (without piles) for the purpose
21
of comparison. Load settlement curve for raft only is presented in Fig.4.5 and its
load carrying capacity is presented in Table 4.1 along with capacities of piled rafts
tested.
Load(kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.00
S/D =5
3.00
S/D=10
Settlement (mm)
6.00
S/D=15
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
Figure 4.1 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0,N=2, L/D=10
Load (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.00
S/D=5
5.00
S/D=10
Settlement (mm)
10.00
S/D=15
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Figure 4.2 Load vs Settlment Plot for H1/B=0,N=2,L/D=40
22
Load (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.00
S/D=5
5.00
S/D=10
Settlement (mm)
S/D=15
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Figure 4.3 Load vs Settlment Plot for H1 /B=0,N=4,L/D=10
Load (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.00 S/D=5
5.00 S/D=10
Settlement (mm)
10.00
S/D=15
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
Figure 4.4 Load vs Settlment Plot for H1/B=0,N=4,L/D=40
23
LOAD (kg)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.00
1.00
2.00
SETTLEMENT (mm)
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
Figure 4.5 Load vs Settlement plot for H1/B =0 ,Raft only
Table 4.1 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation

Homogeneous Soil Bed H1/B=0
Experimental No. of Ultimate

S. No. L/D S/D
model piles (N) Capacity
1 5 56.0
2 10 60.5
2 10
3 15 62.0
4 5 57.0
5 40 10 61.0
6 15 64.0
Piled Raft
7 5 58.0
8 10 10 62.0
9 15 65.5
4
10 5 76.5
11 40 10 77.0
12 15 78.5
13 Raft Only - - - 48.0
24
4.2.1.1 Effect of different factors on ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft
foundation:
From Table 4.1 and Figs. 4.1 to 4.4, It can be observed that the load carrying
capacity of the Piled Raft Foundation is varying with S/D, L/D and N. As the
spacing (S/D) of the pile increases the ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled
raft increases for a given L/D and N values. Similarly the length (L/D) of the pile
increases the ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled raft for any given S/D and
N. And also the ultimate load carrying capacity increases with N (no. of piles) for
any given L/D and S/D. Hence the load carrying capacity of piled raft increases
with any of the three factors studied namely S/D, L/D, and N. However, it is not
possible to assess the relative effect of each factor as well as the interaction effect of
these three factors on Load Carrying Capacity either from the Table or from the
figures. Hence, in order to study the relative effect of all the three main factors and
their interaction effect on Load Carrying Capacity, the results are further analysed
using the statistical tool called 23 factorial analysis and the same is presented in the
following subsection.
4.2.1.2 Factorial Analysis:
A total of 12 load tests are conducted on piled raft foundation on

Homogeneous soil bed by varying simultaneously three factors viz., L/D, S/D and
N, out of that 8 load tests were considered over two levels following the principles
of 23 factorial experimentation. The two levels considered for each factor is already
presented in chapter 3, Table 3.4. Ultimate capacity of these 8 load tests on piled
raft foundation along with experiment labels are presented in Table 4.2. The same is
presented pictorially in Fig. 4.6 for clarity.
Table 4.2 Ultimate capacity of piled raft foundation for 2 3 Factorial Experimentation
Ultimate Load
EXPERIMENT Factor A Factor B Factor C
Capacity in kg
LABEL (S/D) (N) (L/D)
(H1/B=0)
1 5 2 10 56
a 15 2 10 62
c 5 2 40 57
ac 15 2 40 64
b 5 4 10 58
ab 15 4 10 65.5
bc 5 4 40 76.5
abc 15 4 40 78.5
25
Fig .4.6 Pictorial representation of 23 Factorial design for Homogeneous soil bed
Factorial experimentation permits quantification of the main factors studied

(namely L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of piles N) and their interaction effects on
load carrying Capacity relatively. Given below are the details.
4.2.1.3 Effect of S/D ratio on Load carrying capacity:
Referring to Fig 4.6 and Table 4.2, for treatment combinations 1, b, c and
bc, the S/D is constant at the low level which is equal to 5. For treatment
combination a, ab, ac and abc , the S/D ratio is constant and is at high level which
is equal to 15 in 23 factorial designs, the average effect of a factor may be
determined as the change in the response produced by a change in the level of factor
averaged over the two levels of other factor. Now the effect of the S/D ratio (Factor
A) When N (Factor B) and When L/D ratio (Factor C) are at the low level is (a-1).
On similar lines, the effect of S/D ratio (Factor A) on response of interest when N
(Factor B) is at high level and L/D ratio (Factor C) are at low level is (ab-b). The
effect of S/D ratio (Factor A) on load carrying capacity when N (Factor B) is at low
level and L/D ratio (Factor C) is at the high level is (ac-c). Finally, the effect of the
S/D ratio (Factor A) When both N (Factor B) and L/D ratio (Factor C) are at the
high level is (abc-bc). Thus, the average effect (factor A) is just the average of these
four. The effect of factor ‘A’ on load carrying capacity of pied raft foundation is
given by
26
1
A = 4 (a + ab + ac + abc − 1 − b − c − bc) … … … … … (4.1)
A = (¼)*(62+65.5+64+78.5-56-58-57-76.5)
A = 5.625 units
4.2.1.4 Effect of N on load carrying capacity:
Referring to Fig 4.6 for treatment combinations 1,a,c,ac , the N is constant at

the low value which is equal to 2. For treatment of combination b, ab, bc and abc,
the N is constant at the high value which is equal to 4. In factorial designs, the
average effect of a factor may be determined as the change in the response produced
by a change in the level of factor averaged over the two levels of other factors. Now
the effect of the N (Factor B) is the difference in averages between four treatment
combinations in the front face of the cube and four in the back. Effect of Factor ‘B’
on the load carrying capacity of the piled raft foundation is given by
1
B = 4 (b + ab + bc + abc − 1 − a − c − ac) … … … … … (4.2)
B = (¼)*|(58+65.5+76.5+78.5-56-62-57-64)|
B = 9.875 units
4.2.1.5 Effect of L/D ratio on Load carrying capacity:
Referring to Fig 4.6 for treatment combinations 1,a,b,ab , the L/D ratio is
constant at the low value which is equal to 10. For treatment of combination c, ac,
bc and abc, the L/D ratio is constant at the high value which is equal to 40. In
factorial designs, the average effect of a factor may be determined as the change in
the response produced by a change in the level of factor averaged over the two
levels of other factors. Now the effect of the L/D ratio (Factor C) is the difference in
averages between four treatment combinations in the top face of the cube and four
in the bottom. Effect of Factor ‘C’ on the load carrying capacity of the piled raft
foundation is given by
1
C = 4 (c + ac + bc + abc − 1 − a − b − ab) … … … … … (4.3)
C= (¼)*|(57+64+76.5+78.5-56-62-58-65.5)|
C=8.625units
27
4.2.1.6 Interaction Effect of S/D ratio and N on load carrying capacity:
The two factor interaction effects may be computed easily. It is a measure

of the AB interaction which is the average effects at two levels of A and B. By
convention, one half of this difference is called the AB interaction shows in Fig. 4.7.
The effect of factor AB on load carrying of piled raft foundation is given by
1
AB = |(1 + c + ab + abc − bc − ac − b − a)| … … … … … (4.4)
4
AB = (¼)*|(56+57+65.5+78.5-76.5-64-58-62)|
AB=0.875units
Figure 4.7 Interaction effect of S/D and N
4.2.1.7 Interaction Effect of S/D ratio and L/D ratio on load carrying capacity:
The AC interaction is easily seen to be the difference in averages between runs on

two diagonal plans in the cube is similar logic and referring to Fig.4.8. The effect of
factor AC on load carrying capacity piled raft foundation is given by
1
AC = |(1 + b + ac + abc − bc − ab − c − a)| … … … … … (4.5)
4
AC = (¼)*|(56+58+64+78.5-76.5-65.5-57-62)|
AC=1.125units
28
Figure 4.8 Interaction effect of S/D and L/D
4.2.1.8 Interaction Effect N and L/D ratio on load carrying capacity:
Using similar logic, the interaction effect of factor BC on load carrying

capacity piled raft foundation referring to Fig.4.9 is given by
1
BC = |(1 + a + bc + abc − ac − ab − c − b)| … … … … … (4.6)
4
BC = (¼)*|(56+62+76.5+78.5-64-65.5-57-58)|
BC = 7.125units
Figure 4.9 Interaction effect of L/D and N
29
4.2.1.9 Interaction Effect of S/D ratio, N and L/D ratio on Load carrying
capacity:
The ABC interaction is defined as the average difference between the AB

interactions for the two different levels of C. As before, we can think of the ABC
interaction as the difference in two averages. If it runs in the two averages which are
isolated, they define the vertices of two tetrahedral that comprise the cube in Fig
4.10. The effect of factor ABC on load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation
referring to Fig.4.22 is given by
1
ABC = |(a + b + c + abc − 1 − ac − ab − bc)| … … … … … (4.7)
4
ABC = (¼)*|(62+58+57+78.5-56-64-65.5-76.5)|
ABC=1.625units
Figure 4.10 Interaction effect of S/D, L/D and N
Table 4.3 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity

Relative Effect for ultimate load
S. No. Factor
carried from experiments
1 N(B) 9.875
2 L/D(C) 8.625
3 N,L/D (BC) 7.125
4 S/D (A) 5.625
5 S/D,N,L/D (ABC) 1.625
6 S/D,L/D (AC) 1.125
7 S/D,N (AB) 0.875
30
Table 4.3 summarizes the effect of main factors namely S/D, N and L/D as
well as effects of interaction of the above three factors on capacity of piled raft
foundation. From Table it is clear that the load carrying capacity of piled raft is
dominatingly effected by factors N(B), L/D(C), N*L/D(BC) & S/D(A) and the
effect of remaining factors i.e., S/D*N*L/D (ABC) S/D*L/D(AC) & S/D*N(AB)
is very small and negligible.
4.2.1.10 Regression model for load carrying capacity:
From the results and discussions presented in previous section, it is clear

that piled raft capacity is influenced by all the main factors and certain interaction
factors only expressed mathematically as given below.
Pu = f(S/D, N, L/D, S/D*L/D, N*L/D, S/D*N*L/D)
Multiple linear regression analysis can be carried out using Data Analysis
Tool bar of Microsoft Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically. In this
investigation, a regression model is evolved using the Data Analysis Tool bar of
Microsoft Excel and the equation is as shown below.
Pu = 53-N-0.513(L/D)+0.292(N*L/D)+0.75(S/D)- 0.0054(S/D*N*L/D)
+0.0088(S/D*L/D) … … … … … (4.8)
The correlation coefficient (R2 Value) for the above regression model is found to be
0.996565 indicating a good correlation.
4.2.1.11 Validity of proposed model for load carrying capacity:
The validity of the proposed model for prediction of load carrying capacity
is verified using the results in this investigation which were not used for
development of the model. Table 4.4 summarizes the observed and predicted
capacities of piled raft foundation in this investigation along with relevant properties
of soil and ratio of observed to predicted piled raft capacity. From this table it can
observed that ratio of predicted to observed load carrying capacity is ranging from
0.993 to 1.025 in several cases indicating that the model predicts load carrying
capacity of piled raft with an error of +0.3% to + 2.6 %.
31
Table: 4.4 Observed & Predicted Capacity of Piled Rafts Reported Results &
Results of Present Investigation
Percentage of error
Predicted Load
Observed Load
Test series
Observed/
Predicted
Sl. No.
(kg)
( kg)
N S/D L/D Remarks
Homogeneous soil bed ,H1/B=0
*Present
1 2 10 10 60.5 59.01 1.025 -2.52
Investigation
*Present
2 2 10 40 61.0 60.54 1.008 -0.76
Investigation
*Present
3 4 10 10 62.0 61.77 1.004 -0.37
Investigation
*Present
4 4 10 40 77.0 77.58 0.993 0.75
Investigation
.*not used in the 23 factorial model.
4.2.2. Piled Raft Foundation on Layered Soil Bed for H1/B=0.3:
A series of load tests are conducted on soil bed prepared in the

laboratory in a model test tank by simultaneously varying three factors namely L/D,
S/D and N for layered soil bed (Stiff over Soft) for Ic = 0.5 and Ic=0.8 . Load
Settlement curves obtained from load tests are presented in Figs. 4.11 to 4.14. From
these figures it can be observed that the load settlement plots either become nearly
asymptotic to settlement axis beyond certain load or characterized by two straight
lines, initial and final joined by a smooth curve. Asymptotic load is reported as
ultimate capacity in case the load settlement curve is asymptotic. The load
corresponding to the point where the two straight lines meet when the final straight
portion is extended back is reported as ultimate capacity when the load settlement
curve is characterized by two straight lines. The ultimate capacities so obtained are
presented in Table 4.5 for all the 12 tests conducted. Load test was conducted on
raft only (without piles) for the purpose of comparison. Load settlement for raft only
is presented in Fig.4.15 and its load carrying capacity is presented in Table 4.5
along with capacities of piled rafts tested.
32
Load (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
5
Settlement (mm)
10
15
S/D=5
20 S/D=10
S/D=15
25
Figure 4.11 Load vs Settlment Plot for H1/B=0.3,N=2,L/D=10
Load (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
20.00
S/D=10
25.00
S/D=15
30.00
33
Load (kg)
0 50 100 150 200
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
S/D=10
20.00
S/D=15
25.00
Load (kg)
0 50 100 150 200
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
S/D=10
20.00
S/D=15
25.00
34
LOAD (kg)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
SETTLEMENT (mm) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Figure 5.1 Load vs Settlement plot for only Raft
Table 4.5 Ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation for Layered
Soil Bed (H1/B=0.3)
S.No. Ultimate Load

Experimental No. of piles
L/D S/D Carrying
model (N)
Capacity in kg
1 5 104
2 10 114
2 10
3 15 130
4 5 112
5 40 10 122
6 15 134
Piled Raft
7 5 114
8 10 10 121
9 15 132
4
10 5 120
11 40 10 131
12 15 141
13 Raft Only - - - 60.6
35
4.2.2.1 Effect of Main factors on ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft
foundation:
From Table 4.5 and Figs. 4.11 to 4.14, It can be observed that the load
carrying capacity of the Piled Raft Foundation is varying with S/D, L/D and N. As
the spacing (S/D) of the pile increases the ultimate load carrying capacity of the
piled raft increases for a given L/D and N values. Similarly the length (L/D) of the
pile increases the ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled raft for any given S/D
and N. And also the ultimate load carrying capacity increases with N (no. of piles)
for any given L/D and S/D . Hence the load carrying capacity of piled raft increases
4.2.2.2 Results of factorial experimentation on Layered soil bed:
Here also as in the case of Homogeneous soil bed, a total of 12 load

tests are conducted on piled raft foundation with soil bed having H1/B=0.3 by
varying simultaneously three factors viz., L/D, S/D and N, out of that 8 load tests
are considered over two levels of each factor for factorial design and the details
presented in Table 4.6 and Fig 4.16. Ultimate capacity of these load tests on piled
raft foundation are also presented in Table 4.6.
Fig .4.16 Pictorial representation of 23 Factorial Design for

Layered soil bed (H1/B=0.3)
36
Table 4.6 Ultimate capacity of piled raft foundation for 23 Factorial Experimentation.
Ultimate Load
Factor A Factor B Factor C
LABEL
Capacity in kg
(S/D) (N) (L/D)
(H1/B=0.3)
1 5 2 10 104
a 15 2 10 130
c 5 2 40 112
ac 15 2 40 134
b 5 4 10 114
ab 15 4 10 132
bc 5 4 40 120
abc 15 4 40 141
(namely L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of piles N) and their effects on load
carrying Capacity relatively. The relative effect of all the three main factors and
their interaction effects are evaluated using Eq. 4. 1 to 4.7, similar to those of
Homogeneous case and the results are summarized in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Effects of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity of Piled
Raft Foundation.
Relative Effect for ultimate
S. No. Factor
load carried from experiments
1 S/D (A) 21.75
2 N(B) 6.75
3 L/D(C) 6.75
4 S/D,N (AB) 2.25
4 S/D,N,L/D (ABC) 1.75
5 N,L/D (BC) 0.75
6 S/D,L/D (AC) 0.25
From Table it is clear that the load carrying capacity of piled raft is
dominatingly effected by factors S/D(A),N(B),L/D(C), and S/D*N(AB) and the
effect of remaining factors i.e., S/D*N*L/D(ABC), N*L/D(BC) and S/D*L/D(AC)
is very small and negligible.
37
From the results and discussions presented in previous section, it is clear

that piled raft capacity is influenced by all the main factors and certain interaction
Pu = f(S/D, N, L/D,S/D*N, S/D*N, S/D*N*L/D)
Pu=80.01786+2.85(S/D)+0.1893(L/D)+5.625(N)- 0.25476(S/D*N)-
0.0011905(S/D*N*L/D)… … … … … (4.9)
is verified using the results in this investigation which were not used for
of soil and ratio of observed to predicted piled raft capacity. From this table it can
capacity of piled raft with an error of +0.5% to + 2.4 %.
38
Percentage
Test series
Observed/
Load (kg)
Predicted
Predicted
of error
Load (kg)
Observed
S.No.
N S/D L/D Remarks
*Present
1 2 10 10 114 116.80 0.976 2.40
Layered soil bed ,H1/B=0.3
Investigation
*Present
2 2 10 40 122 123.20 0.990 0.97
Investigation
*Present
3 4 10 10 121 123.20 0.982 1.78
Investigation
*Present
4 4 10 40 131 130.30 1.005 -0.53
Investigation
4.2.3. Piled Raft Foundation on Layered Soil Bed for H1/B=0.6:
A series of load tests are conducted on soil bed prepared in the laboratory in
a model test tank by simultaneously varying three factors namely L/D, S/D and N
for layered soil bed (Stiff over Soft) for Ic = 0.5 and Ic=0.8 . Load Settlement
curves obtained from load tests are presented in Figs. 4.17 to 4.20. From these
figures it can be observed that the load settlement plots either become nearly
asymptotic to settlement axis beyond certain load or characterized by two straight
lines, initial and final joined by a smooth curve. Asymptotic load is reported as
ultimate capacity in case the load settlement curve is asymptotic. The load
corresponding to the point where the two straight lines meet when the final straight
portion is extended back is reported as ultimate capacity when the load settlement
curve is characterized by two straight lines. The ultimate capacities so obtained are
presented in Table 4.9 for all the 12 tests conducted. Load test was conducted on
raft only for the purpose of comparison. Load settlement for raft only is presented in
Fig.4.21 and its load carrying capacity is presented in Table 4.9 along with
capacities of piled rafts tested for H1/B=0.6.
39
Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
20.00
S/D=10
25.00 S/D=15
30.00
Figure 4.17 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.6,N=2,L/D=10
Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
20.00
S/D=10
25.00
S/D=15
30.00
40
Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
20.00
S/D=10
25.00
S/D=15
30.00
Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
S/D=5
20.00
S/D=10
25.00
S/D=15
30.00
41
LOAD (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
SETTLEMENT (mm)
10
15
Figure 4.21 Load vs Settlement plot for Raft only
Table 4.9 Ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation for Layered
Soil Bed H1/B=0.6
Experimental No. of Ultimate

S. No. L/D S/D
model piles (N) Capacity
1 5 112
2 10 10 124
3 2 15 134
4 5 116
5 40 10 129
6 15 138
Piled Raft
7 5 116
8 10 10 126
9 15 137
4
10 5 119
11 40 10 134
12 15 145
13 Raft only 75
42
4.2.3.1 Effect of different factors on ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft
foundation:
From Table 4.9 and Figs. 4.17 to 4.20, It can be observed that the load
carrying capacity of the Piled Raft Foundation is varying with S/D, L/D and N. As
the spacing (S/D) of the pile increases the ultimate load carrying capacity of the
piled raft increases for a given L/D and N values. Similarly the length (L/D) of the
pile increases the ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled raft for any given S/D
and N. And also the ultimate load carrying capacity increases with N (no. of piles)
for any given L/D and S/D . Hence the load carrying capacity of piled raft increases
4.2.3.2 Results of factorial experimentation on Layered soil bed:
Similarly a total of 8 load tests are conducted on piled raft foundation

on layered soil bed as H1/B=0.6 by varying simultaneously three factors such as
L/D,S/D and N, for factorial design , two levels of each factor is considered and the
details presented in Table 4.10 and Fig 4.22. Ultimate capacity of these load tests
on piled raft foundation are also presented in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Ultimate capacity of piled raft foundation for 23factorial

experimentation.
Ultimate Load
Factor A Factor B Factor C
Capacity in kg
LABEL (S/D) (N) (L/D)
(H1/B=0.6)
1 5 2 10 112
a 15 2 10 134
c 5 2 40 116
ac 15 2 40 138
b 5 4 10 116
ab 15 4 10 137
bc 5 4 40 119
abc 15 4 40 145
43
Fig .4.22 Pictorial representation of 23 Factorial design for Layered soil bed

(namely L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of piles N) and their interaction effects on
load carrying Capacity relatively. On similar condition of subsections from 4.2.1.3
to 4.2.1.9 the relative effect for Ultimate Load carrying capacity of Piled Raft
Foundation is calculated and shown in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Effects of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity of

Relative Effect for ultimate

S.No. Factor
load carried from experiments
1 S/D (A) 22.75
2 L/D(C) 4.75
3 N(B) 4.25
4 S/D,L/D (AC) 1.25
5 S/D,N,L/D (ABC) 1.25
6 N,L/D (BC) 0.75
7 S/D,N (AB) 0.75
Table 4.11 summarizes the effect of main factors namely S/D, N and L/D as
well as effects of interaction of the above three factors on capacity of piled raft
foundation. From Table it is clear that the load carrying capacity of piled raft is
dominatingly effected by factors S/D(A), L/D(C) & N(B) and the effect of
44
remaining factors i.e., S/D*L/D(AC), S/D*N*L/D (ABC), N*L/D(BC) &
S/D*N(AB) is very small and negligible.
From the results and discussions presented in previous section, it is clear that
piled raft capacity is influenced by all the main factors and certain interaction
Pu = f(S/D, N, L/D, S/D*L/D, S/D*N*L/D)
Pu= 98.696+2.067(S/D)+0.075(L/D)+1.268(N)- 0.00195(S/D*L/D)-

0.003429(S/D*N*L/D)… … … … … (4.10)
is verified by using the results in this investigation which were not used for
of soil and ratio of observed to predicted piled raft capacity. From this tables it can
capacity of piled raft with an error of +0.29 % to + 1.68 %.
45
Percentage
Test series
Observed/
Load (kg)
Predicted
Predicted
Observed
of error
Load (kg)
S.No.
N S/D L/D Remarks
*Present
1 2 10 10 124 123.14 1.007 -0.7
Layered soil bed ,H1/B=0.6
Investigation
*Present
2 2 10 40 129 126.87 1.017 -1.68
Investigation
*Present
3 4 10 10 126 126.36 0.997 0.29
Investigation
*Present
4 4 10 40 134 132.14 1.014 -1.04
Investigation
4.2.4 Effect of Thickness of Top stiff layer on Load Carrying Capacity
From Table 4.13 and Figs. 4.22 to 4.23, it can be observed that the load
carrying capacity of Piled Raft Foundation varies with thickness of stiff layer (H1)
for any given L/D, S/D and N. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled raft
increases as the thickness of top layer increases (H1), for any given L/D, S/D and N.
However, the observed increase in piled raft capacity is not in proportion to the
increase in thickness of the top layer (H1). For example, the capacity of piled raft on
homogeneous bed (H1/B=0) is 56 kg for N=2, L/D =10, and S/D = 5. For the same
piled raft, the load carrying capacity is 104 kg corresponding to H1/B = 0.3 and is
112 kg corresponding to H1/B = 0.6. In other words, piled raft capacity increase
significantly if a stiff layer underlies the raft but it does not increase proportionate
with thickness of stiff layer.
46
LOAD (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0
SETTLEMENT (mm)
10
15 H1/B =0
H1/B=0.3
20
H1/B=0.6
25
Figure 4.23 Load Vs Settlement Plot for N=2,S/D=5 and L/D =10
LOAD (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0
5
SETTLEMENT (mm)
10
15
20
H1/B=0
25 H1/B=0.3
30 H1/B=0.6
35
Figure 4.24 Load Vs Settlement Plot for N=4,S/D=15 and L/D =40
47
Table 4.13 Analysis of Ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation
for three different models.
No. of piles Ultimate
S. No. L/D S/D H1/B
(N) Capacity in kg
1 0 56
2 5 0.3 104
3 0.6 112
4 0 60.5
5 10 10 0.3 114
6 0.6 124
7 0 62
8 15 0.3 130
9 0.6 134
2
10 0 57
11 5 0.3 112
12 0.6 116
13 40 0 61
14 10 0.3 122
15 0.6 129
16 0 64
17 15 0.3 134
18 0.6 138
19 0 58
20 5 0.3 114
21 0.6 116
22 10 0 62
23 10 0.3 121
24 0.6 126
25 0 65.5
26 15 0.3 132
27 0.6 137
4
28 0 76.5
29 5 0.3 120
30 0.6 119
31 0 77
32 40 10 0.3 131
33 0.6 134
34 0 78.5
35 15 0.3 141
36 0.6 145
48
CHAPTER-V
EFFECT OF SOIL-RAFT-PILE INTERACTION ON LOAD

DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF PILED RAFTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION:
The effect of various factors namely L/D, S/D, N and H1/B on Ultimate
Load carrying capacity of Piled Raft Foundation is studied in detail in chapter 4. In
this chapter Load tests on Piled Raft Foundations are further analysed to study both
qualitatively and quantitatively the interaction effect of Pile, Raft and Soil on Load-
settlement behaviour of Piled Raft Foundations. The results and discussions are
presented in the following sections.
5.2 POSSIBLE MECHANISMS OF INTERACTIONS IN PILED RAFTS:
Figure 5.1 pictorially represents the Load transfer mechanisim of a Piled

Raft Foundation. There are two possible mechanisms of interactions as explained
below.
PILED RAFT
FOUNDATION
TEST TANK
WITH SOIL BED
Figure 5.1 Model for Soil-Raft-Pile Interaction in Piled Raft Foundation
Mechanism 1: There is no direct Load transfer from Raft to soil where Piles are
connected to the Raft. This results in lesser capacity for Raft in a Piled Raft.
However, it is offset by transfer of Load at the tip of Pile as an end bearing
resistance in that portion. The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Pile tip is 9Cu which is
more than the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Raft resting on surface of a clayey soil
49
bed which is equal to 5.14Cu. In other words the effect of transfer of Load through
Pile tip instead of Raft is to increase the Load carrying capacity of Piled Raft.
Mechanism 2: There can also be an interaction between two neighbouring Piles

resulting in over stress and strain in the zone of overlap. Further there can be an
interaction between pressure bulbs of Raft and individual Piles also. The possible
effect of overlapping of pressure bulbs /influence zones is to decrease Load carrying
capacity and increase settlements.
The effect of Mechanism 1 is to increase the capacity of the Piled Raft over
and above the capacities of Piles and Raft where as the effect of Mechanism 2 is to
decrease the Piled Raft capacity.
5.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
5.3.1Expected and Observed Capacities of Piled Raft Foundations:
Load tests are conducted on Raft without Piles and also on individual Piles
in addition to Piled Raft Foundations for the purpose of studying the possible
interaction effects in Piled Raft Foundations. Load settlement curves pertaining to
36 Load tests conducted on Piled Raft Foundation are already presented in chapter 4
(Fig.4.1–Fig.4.4, Fig.4.11–Fig.4.14 and Fig.4.16–Fig.4.20). Load settlement curves
for Rafts and individual Piles are presented in Fig.5.2 to Fig.5.4. The Load carrying
capacity of Piled Raft Foundation can be expected to be equal to the sum of Load
carrying capacity of Raft and individual Piles in case there is no interaction between
Raft, Pile and soil. The same is expressed mathematically as given below.
Expected Piled Raft Capacity = Capacity of Raft +( N*Capacity of individual

Pile) -------- (5.1)
The observed and expected Piled Raft capacities evaluated using equation
5.1 are summarised in Table 5.1 along with the difference between observed and
expected capacities. The observed capacities of Raft and individual Piles are also
presented in the same table for the purpose of comparison.
50
LOAD (kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0.00
SETTLEMENT (mm)
H1/B=0, Ic=0.5
5.00
H1/B=0.3,Ic=0.8/0.5
H1/B=0.6,Ic=0.8/0.5
10.00
15.00
Figure 5.2 Load vs Settlement plots for Raft without Piles
LOAD(kg)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
1
SETTLEMENT (mm)
4 H1/B=0,Ic=0.5
H1/B=0.3
5
H1/B=0.6
6
Figure 5.3 Load vs Settlement plot for Pile only ,L/D=10
LOAD(kg)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
0
1
2
SETTLEMENT (mm)
3
4
5
6
7 H1/B=0, Ic=0.5
8 H1/B=0.3
9 H1/B=0.6
10
11
Figure 5.4 Load vs Settlement plot for Pile only ,L/D=40
51
Table 5.1 Expected and Observed Piled Raft Capacities
No. of Ultimate Capacity (kg)

Experimental
S.No. Piles L/D S/D
model Observed Expected Difference
(N)
1 5 56.0 2.4
2 10 10 60.5 53.6 6.9
Homogeneous Bed ( Ic=0.5)

3 15 62.0 8.4
2
4 5 57.0 -2.4
5 40 10 61.0 59.4 1.6
6 15 64.0 4.6
7 5 58.0 -1.2
8 10 10 62.0 59.2 2.8
9 15 65.5 6.3
4
10 5 76.5 5.7
11 40 10 77.0 70.8 6.2
12 15 78.5 7.7
13 5 104.0 35.0
14 10 114.0 45.0
Layered soil Bed , H1/B=0.3
10 69.0
15 15 130.0 61.0
2
16 5 112.0 37.8
17 40 10 122.0 74.2 47.8
18 15 134.0 59.8
19 5 114.0 36.6
20 10 10 121.0 77.4 43.6
21 15 132.0 54.6
4
22 5 120.0 32.2
23 40 10 131.0 87.8 43.2
24 15 141.0 53.2
25 5 112.0 25.8
Layered soil Bed , H1/B=0.6
26 10 10 124.0 86.2 37.8

27 15 134.0 47.8
2
28 5 116.0 15.6
29 40 10 129.0 100.4 28.6
30 15 138.0 37.6
31 5 116.0 18.6
32 10 10 126.0 97.4 28.6
33 15 137.0 39.6
4
34 5 119.0 -6.8
35 40 10 134.0 125.8 8.2
36 15 145.0 19.2
From Table 5.1, in general it can be observed that the observed Ultimate
bearing capacity of piled rafts is higher than the expected for the case of
Homogeneous soil bed and also for Layered soil beds with H1/B=0.3 and
H1/B =0.6. Differences between observed and expected Load carrying capacities
may be attributed to the possible pile, soil and raft interactions which are already
52
explained in the previous section. In all the three cases mechanism 1 prevails over
the mechanism 2 and hence the observed increase in Load carrying capacity of Piled
Raft. This is may be due to the fact that the effect of interaction between soil-raft-
pile is neutralised and depends on the numerical values of L/D and S/D. For this
kind of cases, the loss in strength due to remoulding is expected to be very less and
negligible. In the case of stiff clay any loss in strength due to remoulding can be
fully recovered with time due to sufficient spacing between Piles. The observed
capacities are higher than the expected capacities; hence the interaction effect is to
increase the capacity of Raft in general.
5.3.2 Interaction Effects on Settlement of Piled Rafts:
Prime objective of Piles in Piled Raft Foundation is to reduce the

settlements. The Load settlement curves are analysed to study the effect of addition
of Piles on settlements of Raft. Typical Load settlement curves of Raft and Piled
Rafts are shown in Fig. 5.5 and Fig. 5.6. From these figures it can be clearly seen
that at any given Load Raft experiences highest settlement. Further, the settlement is
least for the Raft with 4 Piles than with 2 Piles and also there is a considerable
increase in Ultimate capacity of Piled Rafts in comparison with that of Raft alone.
In other words, the effect of addition of Piles to Raft is to decrease the settlement
and also increase the Ultimate capacity. In order to study the effect of number of
Piles, spacing and L/D ratio of Piles on settlements of Piled Rafts, settlement ratio
given by the following equation corresponding to Ultimate capacity of Raft is
evaluated for all the Piled Raft Foundation tested in this investigation.
Settlement Ratio (SR) = Settlement of Piled Raft/ Settlement of Raft ----- (5.2)
The values so obtained for Homogeneous and Layered soil beds for 24 tests
taken for factorial experimentation are presented in Table 5.2. Ultimate capacities of
the corresponding Rafts are also presented in Table 5.2 for the purpose of
comparison.
53
Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00
5.00
Settlement (mm)
10.00
15.00
R+4P,S/D=5
20.00
R+4P,S/D=15
Raft
25.00
30.00
Figure 4.20 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.6,L/D=10
LOAD kg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0
5
SETTLEMENT mm
10
15
20 RAFT
R+2P S/D=5
25
R+2P S/D=15
30
Figure 5.6 Load vs Settlement plot for H1/B=0.3, L/D=40
54
Table 5.2 Statement showing the Effect of Settlement and Settlement Ratio of
Piled Raft Foundation.
Settlement of
Piled Raft at
Experimental No. of Settlement
S.No. L/D S/D Ultimate
model Piles (N) Ratio (SR)
Capacity of
Raft
H1/B=0 ,
1 Raft 48 kg 4.91
2 5 4.9 1.00
10
3 15 4.2 0.86
2
Homogeneous Soil Bed
4 5 3.6 0.73
( Ic =0.5)
40
5 15 2.9 0.59
6 5 4.7 0.96
10
7 15 3.8 0.77
4
8 5 4.4 0.90
40
9 15 3.1 0.63
13 Raft 60.6 kg 4.2
14 5 2.8 0.67
10
15 15 2.2 0.52
Layered Soil Bed
2
H1/B=0.3
16 5 2.6 0.62
40
17 15 1.8 0.43
18 5 2.4 0.57
10
19 15 2.25 0.54
4
20 5 3 0.71
40
21 15 2.2 0.52
22 Raft 75 kg 4.25
23 5 3.5 0.82
10
24 15 3.4 0.80
Layered Soil Bed
2
H1/B=0.6
25 5 4 0.94
40
26 15 2.8 0.66
27 5 3.2 0.75
10
28 15 2.7 0.64
4
29 5 4 0.94
40
30 15 3.2 0.75
55
From Table 5.2, it can be observed that in general there is a reduction in
settlement with S/D,L/D and N. Hence it may be concluded that Piles can be used to
reduce the settlements. The settlements can be reduced to required levels by
adopting suitable S/D, L/D and N. Hence the Piled Raft Foundation can be used not
only to increase the Loading carrying capacity but also to reduce the settlements of
the super structure. Relative effect of S/D, L/D and N on settlement ratio is
evaluated following the principles of factorial experimentation in order to identify
the main and interaction factors that influence the settlement ratio. These results are
presented in following sub sections.
5.3.3 Results of factorial experimentation for Settlement ratio in Piled Raft

Foundation:
The settlement ratios corresponding to 23 factorial experimentation for the

cases of Homogeneous bed (H1/B=0) and for Layered soil beds withH1/B=0.3 and
H1/B=0.6 are summarised in Table 5.3 along with experimental labels.
Table 5.3 Settlement Ratio of Piled Raft Foundation for 23 factorial experimentation.
LABEL Factor Factor Factor Settlement Ratio, Settlement Ratio for

A B C H1/B=0 Layered soil bed
(S/D) (N) (L/D)
H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6
1 5 2 10
1.00 0.67 0.82
a 15 2 10
0.86 0.52 0.80
c 5 2 40
0.73 0.62 0.94
ac 15 2 40
0.59 0.43 0.66
b 5 4 10
0.96 0.57 0.75
ab 15 4 10
0.77 0.54 0.64
bc 5 4 40
0.90 0.71 0.94
abc 15 4 40
0.63 0.52 0.75
56
(namely L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of Piles N) and their effects on settlement
ratio relatively. the relative effect of all the three main factors and their interaction
effects are evaluated using Eq. 4. 1 to 4.7, and the relative effects are summarized in
Table 5.4.
Table 5.4 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Settlement Ratio of
Relative Effect for Settlement Ratio of Piled Raft
Foundation
S.No. Factor For Homogeneous Soil Bed

For Layered soil bed
H1/B=0
H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6
1 S/D (A) 0.185 0.140 0.15
2 N(B) 0.020 0.025 0.04
3 L/D(C) 0.185 0.005 0.07
4 S/D,N (AB) 0.045 0.030 0.00
5 S/D,L/D(AC) 0.020 0.050 0.09
6 N,L/D(BC) 0.085 0.065 0.08
7 S/D,N,L/D(ABC) 0.020 0.030 0.05
5.3.4 Regression model for settlement ratio in Piled Raft:
Table 5.4summarizes the effect of main factors namely S/D, N and L/D as
well as effects of interaction of the above three factors on settlement ratio of Piled
Raft Foundation. From this table the settlement ratio of Homogeneous and layered
soil beds may be given by the following three functions.
SR =f(S/D, L/D, S/D*N, N*L/D) for Homogeneous bed------------- (5.2)
SR =f(S/D, S/D*L/D, N*L/D) for Layered bed with H1/B=0.3 ------- (5.3)
SR =f(S/D, S/D*L/D, N*L/D, L/D) for Layered bed with H1/B=0.6-------- (5.4)
57
Multiple linear regression analysis is carried out using Data Analysis Tool
bar of Microsoft Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically and the same
are presented in Table 5.5 along with R2 values.
Table 5.5 Regression equations for Settlement Ratio of Piled Raft Foundation
S.No. Soil Bed Regression Equation R2
H1/B=0 SR =1.144167-0.00256*(S/D)-0.01399*(L/D)
1 0.98823
(Homogeneous) +0.002607 * (N*L/D)-0.531(S/D*N)
SR = 0.639143-0.00613*(S/D)+0.000978(N*L/D)
2 H1/B=0.3 0.87306
-0.00031(S/D*L/D)
SR = 0.7375-0.00083*(S/D)-0.00057*(S/D*L/D)
3 H1/B=0.6 0.78485
+0.000191*(N*L/D)+0.007426*(L/D)
5.4 VALIDITY OF PROPOSED MODELS FOR SETTLEMENT

RATIOOF PILED RAFTFOUNDATION:
The validity of the proposed model for prediction of settlement ratio is

verified by using the results in this investigation which were not used for
settlement ratios of Piled Raft in this investigation along with relevant properties of
soil and ratio of observed to predicted settlement ratio of Piled Raft Foundation.
From this table it can observed that ratio of predicted to observed disturbance zone
is ranging from 0.811 to 1.106 in several cases indicating that the model predicts
settlement ratio of Piled Raft Foundation in general with an error of
+1.3% to +10.6 %.
58
Table: 5.6 Observed & Predicted Settlement Ratio of Piled Rafts Reported
Results & Results of Present Investigation
Percentage
Test series
Observed/
Observed
Predicted
Predicted
of error
S.No.
N S/D L/D Remarks
*Present
1 2 10 10 0.94 0.92 1.022 -2.17
Investigation
*Present
2 2 10 40 0.73 0.66 1.106 -10.61
H1/B=0
Investigation
*Present
3 4 10 10 0.92 0.87 1.057 -5.75
Investigation
*Present
4 4 10 40 0.81 0.76 1.066 -6.58
Investigation
*Present
5 2 10 10 0.60 0.57 1.053 -5.26
Investigation
*Present
6 2 10 40 0.43 0.53 0.811 18.87
H1/B=0.3
Investigation
*Present
7 4 10 10 0.61 0.59 1.034 -3.39
Investigation
*Present
8 4 10 40 0.58 0.61 0.951 4.92
Investigation
*Present
9 2 10 10 0.80 0.75 1.067 -6.67
Investigation
*Present
10 2 10 40 0.66 0.81 0.815 18.52
H1/B=0.6
Investigation
*Present
11 4 10 10 0.74 0.75 0.987 1.33
Investigation
*Present
12 4 10 40 0.80 0.83 0.964 3.61
Investigation
*not used in the 23 factorial model
59
Chapter VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 SUMMARY
Piled raft foundation is judicious Combination of shallow and deep

foundations aimed at combining the advantages of both raft and piles. Unlike that of
cap in pile groups, raft in a piled raft foundation transfer loads from super structures
directly to the soil below. Unlike that of conventional pile, pile in a piled raft
foundation plays the role of settlement reduction rather than transmitting the load to
competent soil at deeper depths. Piled raft foundations are economical, if the soil at
the site has just enough strength to support the super structure loads without shear
failure but compressibility is not enough to contain the settlements to permissible
level. Piled raft foundations can also be adopted if the top competent soil of limited
thickness is underlain by incompetent soil like soft clay or loose sand. Load
settlement behaviour of piled raft foundation is reported to be a function of type of
soil, number of piles, spacing between piles and length of the piles. Most of the
studies reported in literature considered only piled rafts resting on homogeneous
soils. The scope and objective of the present investigation is mainly to study the
load settlement behaviour of the piled raft foundation on homogenous and layered
cohesive soil beds. Chapter 1 gives a brief introduction to and concept of piled raft
foundation. Chapter 2 gives brief account of literature concerning piled raft
foundations. Chapter 3 gives the details of materials used and methods adopted in
this investigation. In this investigation an attempt has been made to study the effect
of three factors namely (S/D, L/D and No. of piles (N)) on load carrying capacity of
piled rafts and settlement reduction due to piles. It is also intended to quantify the
relative effect of each factor as well as interaction effect of factors on Load
Carrying Capacity and settlement reduction. Results of the series of tests conducted
are analysed and discussed in detail in chapter 4 and 5 with respect to Load carrying
capacity and settlement reduction in that order. Regression models were developed
to determine the load carrying capacity and settlement ratio in terms of factors
influencing.
60
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results in this investigation, the following important conclusions are
made.
• The load carrying capacity of a piled raft foundation resting on

homogeneous clayey soil bed increases with N, L/D and S/D. However, it is
dominantly dependent on N, L/D, and interaction effect of N &L/D and S/D
in that order.
• The load carrying capacity of a piled raft foundation resting on layered
cohesive soil bed was found to be dominantly influenced by S/D and
moderately by L/D and N. Further it increases significantly with thickness of
the top stiff layer (H1)
• Settlement of piled raft foundation is significantly less than that of either raft
only or pile only at any given load, especially at high load levels. In other
words piles are very effective in reducing the settlements of a raft.
• The observed reduction in settlements is explained in terms of mechanisms
which increase and decrease the load carrying capacity and settlements.
• Settlement ratio which is defined as the ratio of the settlement of piled raft to
that of the raft only was found to be dominantly influenced by S/D, L.D and
interaction effect of N &L/D for the case of homogeneous soil bed and
dominantly influenced by S/D, interaction effect of S/D&L/D and N&L/D
for layered soil bed.
• Regression models were evolved to express the load carrying capacity and
settlement ration in terms of the influencing factors. Validity of the proposed
models was verified using the load test results that were not used for the
development of the models. Predicted values are found to be in good
agreement with observed values.
61
REFERENCES
1. Akinmusuru J.O (1980) “Interaction of piles and cap in piled footings”.

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. Vol.106, No.11 , pp
1263-1268
2. Balakumar .V and Ilamparuthi .K 2010. “Piled Raft Behaviour Based on 1-g
Model Studies”, Indian Geotechnical Conference – 2010, GEO trendz
December 16–18, 2010 IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay.
3. Burland, J.B., Kaira J.C. (1986), “Queen Elezabeth II Conference Centre,
Gotechnical Aspects”, Porc. ICE, part I,No.- 80, 1479 - 1503
4. Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K. (1971). “The Elastic Analysis of
Compressible Piles and Pile Groups’’. Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp. 43-60.
5. Chow H.S.W., Small J.C (2006), “Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation with
Piles of Different Lengths Subjected to Horizontal and Vertical Loading”,
NIMGE, Porc.6thEuropean Conf. on NUMGE, Graz, Austria, 6-8
September, 2006, 583 – 588.
6. Clancy, P. and Griffiths, D.V. 1991. “A Spurious Zero- Energy Mode in the
numerical Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations”. Computers and Geotechnics.
Vol. 11. pp. 159-170.
7. Clancy, P and Randolph, M.F. (1993). “An Approximate Analysis procedure
for Piled Raft Foundations”. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methodism Geomechanics, Vol. 17, pp. 849-869.
8. Conte, G., Mandolini, A., Randolph, M.F. (2003). Centrifuge Modelling to
Investigate the Performance of Piled Rafts. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles,Van Impe, W.F. Ed., Mill press, Rotterdam, pp. 359-366.
9. Cooke, R. W. (1986). “Piled Raft Foundations on Stiff Clays‟. Contribution
to Design Philosophy”. Geotechnique,Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 169-203.
10. Dang Dinh Chung Nguyen, Seong-Bae Jo, Dong-Soo Kim, 2013. “Design
Methods of Piled-raft Foundation under Vertical Load considering
Interaction Effect”. Computers and Geotechnics 47 (2013) 16-27,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,KAIST,291 Daehakro,
Yuseonggu, Republic of Korea.
62
11. EI-Mossallamy,Y.,Lutz., Richter,T. (2006). “Innovative Application of Piled
Raft Foundation to Optimize the Design of High Rise Buildings and Bridge
Foundations”. DFI/EFFC-Amsterdam, 31 May-2 June, 2006.
12. EI-Mossallamy,Y. 2002.“Innovative Application of Piled Raft Foundation in
Stiff and soft subsoil. Deep Foundations 2002, ASCE.pp.426-440.
13. EI-Mossallamy, Y., Lutz, B. and Duerrwang, R. 2009.“Special Aspects
Related to the Behaviour of Piled Raft Foundation”.17th International
Conference on Soil mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering ICSMGE,
Alexandria, Egypt. Pp.1366-1369.
14. El Sawwaf1 (2010). “Experimental Study of Eccentrically Loaded Raft with
Connected and Unconnected Short Piles”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering @ ASCE / October 2010.
15. Fioravante, V., Giretti, D. and Jamiolkowski, M. 2010.“Contact versus
Noncontact Piled Raft Foundation”. Canadian Geotechnical Journnal. Vol.
47. No. 11. pp. 1271-1287.
16. Garcia,F., Lizcano,A. and Reul,O. (2005). “Visco hypoplastic Model
Applied to the Case History of Piled Raft Foundation”.Geo congress
2006.ASCE.pp.1-5
17. Hakam, A., Darjanto, H and Soepriono, D J., (2004) “Floating Raft-Pile in
Soft Clay”, Jurnal Teknik Sipil, Univ.Tarumanegara, No.3, Tahunke-X, pp
249-262.
18. Henok F. Gebregziabher1 and Rolf Katzenbach (2012).“Parametric Studies
on Application of CPRF on Semi Soft Stratified Soils”, Geo Congress 2012
@ ASCE 2012.
19. Hooper, J. (1973). “Observations on the Behaviour of a Piled-Raft
Foundation on London Clay”. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs., 55(2), 855-877.
20. Horikoshi,K. (1995). “Optimum design of Piled Raft Foundations”. Ph.D.
Thesis. The University of Western Australia.
21. Horikoshi,K. and Randolph, M.F. (1996). “Centrifuge Modelling of Piled
Raft Foundations on Clay”. Geotechnique Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 741-752.
22. Horikoshi, K., & Randolph, M. (1998). “A Contribution to the Optimum
Design of Piled Rafts”. Geotechnique, Vol.48, No. 2, 301-317.
23. Jin Hyung Lee a, Youngho Kim b, Sangseom Jeong(2010). “Three-
dimensional analysis of bearing behaviour of piled raft on soft clay”,
Computers and Geotechnics 37(2010) pp.103–114.
63
24. IS 1888-1982: Code of practice for Plate Load test on Soils.
25. IS 2911(Part 4)-1985 Code of practice for Design and Construction of Pile
Foundations
26. I.S Code: 1904-1986 Code of practice for design and construction of
foundations in soils.
27. I.S Code: 1498-1970 Code of Practice for Classification and Identification of
soils.
28. I.S Code: 2720(Part-5)-1985 Code of Practice for Determination of Liquid
Limit and Plastic Limit of soils
29. I.S Code: 2720(Part-40)-1987 Code of Practice for Determination of Free
Swell Index of soils
30. IS 2720 (part-IV)-1985: Code of Practice for Determination of Grain size
Distribution of soils.
31. Ilamparuthi. K and Balakumar (2009).“Characterisation of Response of
Circular Piled Raft tested in Sand”, IGC 2009 Guntur, India.
32. Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., Moormann, C. and Reul, O.(1998). “Piled Raft
Foundation Interaction Between Piles and Raft”. Darmstadt Geotechnics,
Darmstadt Univ. of Technology, No. 4, pp. 279-296.
33. Lee, J. H., Kim, YH & Jeong, S.S. 2010. “Three dimensional analysis of
bearing behaviour of piled raft onsoft clay”. Comput. Geotech. 2010; 37,
103-114.
34. Mandolini, A. (2003). “Design of Piled Raft Foundations: Practice and
Development. In Proceedings of the 4thInternational Geotechnical Seminar
on Deep Foundations onBored and Auger Piles”, Ghent, Van Impe, W.F.
Ed.Mill press, Rotterdam, pp. 59- 80.
35. Matsumoto, T., Nemoto, H., Mikami, H., Yaegahi, K., Arai, T, and
Kitiyodom, P. 2010. “Load Test of Piled Raft Models with Different Pile
Head Connection Conditions and their Analyses”. Soils and Foundations.
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 50.
No. 1.pp. 63-81.
36. Maharaja D.K., (2003), “Load Settlement Behaviour of Piled Raft
Foundation by Three Dimensional Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis”,
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol.8,Bundle C, paper 0334.
64
37. Meisam Rabiei (2010), “Effect of Pile Configuration and Load Type on
Piled Raft Foundation Performance”, ASCE 2010, Geo Shangai 2010
International Conference.
38. Phung, D.L. (1993). Footings with Settlement-Reducing Piles in Non-
Cohesive Soil. Ph.D Thesis. University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.
39. Poulos, H.G. (1993). “Settlement Prediction for Bored Pile Groups. In
Proceedings of the 2th International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles”, Ghent, Van Impe, W.F. Ed.
Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 103-117.
40. Poulos, H.G (2001). “Methods of Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations”.
International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
41. Poulos, H.G. (2005). “Piled raft and compensated piled raft foundations for
soft soil sites” Geotechnical Spec Publications No 129, ASCE, 214 – 234.
42. Padfield, C.J. and Sharrock, M.J. (1983). Settlement of Structures on Clay
Soil. Construction Industry Research and Information Institute, Special
Publication 27, CIRIA Ed.,London.
43. Reul, O and Randolph, M. F. (2003).“Piled Rafts in Over consolidated Clay:
Comparison of In situ Measurements and Numerical Analyses”,
Géotechnique, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp.301-315.
44. Rai Sandeep and Singh Balakumar (2010). “Effect of Piles on Response of
Raft Foundations‟‟, Indian Geotechnical Conference – 2010, GEOtrendz
December 16–18, 2010 IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay.
45. Singh.A.K and Singh.A.N. (2011). ‘‘Experimental study of piled raft
foundation’’, Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference December 15-
17, 2011, Kochi(Paper No D-378).
46. Sangseom Jeong and Jaeyeon Cho (2012.) “Three Dimensional Analysis of
Piled Raft Foundation in Clay Soils‟‟, International Journal of Geo-
Engineering 4(1): 11-22 (2012).
47. Small, J. C. (2001). “Practical Solutions to Soil-Structure Interaction
Problems”, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. Vol. 3, pp. 305-314.
48. Small J.C., Zhang H.H., (2006), “Behavior of Piled Raft Foundation Under
Lateral and Vertical Loading”, The International Journal of Geomechanics.
Vol. 2 no.- 1, pp 29 -85.
49. Singh N.T. and Singh, B. 2008. “Interaction Analysesfor Piled Rafts in
Cohesive Soil”. The 12th International Conference of International
65
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics
(IACMAG), GOA. India. pp. 3289-3296.
50. V. A. Barvashov and G. G. Boldyrev (2009).“Experimental and theoretical
research on analytical models of piled-raft foundations”. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2009. Osnovaniya, Fundamentyi
Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 6, p. 16, November-December,2009.
51. Wiesner, T. J. and Brown, P. T. 1980. “Laboratory Tests on Model Piled
Raft Foundations”.Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divisons,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 106. No. GT7.
pp.767-783.
66

Final Book 20.02.2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Book 20.02.2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTENTS

4.7 Interaction Effect of S/D and N

4.15 Load vs Settlement Plot for H1/B =0.3, Raft only

Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation for

5.5 Observed and Predicted Settlement Ratio of Piled Rafts for

Plate No. Description Page No.

Instead of implementing the conventional pile foundation, a thought process

Figure 1.1 Model of raft and piled raft foundation

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE OF PRESENT WORK:

1.3 THESIS ORGANIZATION:

Chapter 1 gives an overall view of the problem considered. Chapter 2 deals

Utilization of raft capacity in total by introducing the settlement reducing

2.2 SETTLEMENT REDUCING PILES:

Figure 2.1 Piled raft foundation concept

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON PILED RAFTS :

Akinmusuru (1980) performed laboratory tests on an unpiled raft, free–

Fioravante et al (2008) carried out centrifuge test on circular raft in over

Balakumar and Ilamparuthi (2009) performed 1g model tests of circular

EI Sawwaf (2010) carried out an experimental work on short piles under a

Fioravante and Giretti (2010) performed a centrifuge test on piled raft

Matsumoto et al. (2010) performed an experimental study subjected to

Singh and Singh (2011) performed experiments on piled raft foundation in

Based on the above literature review and detailed study of different

Raft foundation and Pile foundation are conventional foundation systems

3.2 MATERIALS USED:

3.2.1 Soil Used:

Table 3.1 Index Properties of the Soil Tested

Sl. No. Properties Kotala sample

3.2.2 Model Raft Used:

A rigid M.S plate of size 180mm X 180mm and thickness 10 mm is used as

Plate 3.2 Model Rafts

Plate 3.3 Model Piles

3.2.4 Model Test Tank Used:

Plate 3.4 Model Test Tank

3.2.5 Load Frame Used:

Plate 3.5 Model Load Frame

3.3 TESTS CONDUCTED:

In order to study the effect of Spacing of piles in terms of S/D, Length of

3.4 METHODS ADOPTED

3.4.1 Method of Test Bed Preparation:

3.4.2 Method of Installation of Pile Raft Foundation:

The general approach to planning and conducting the experiments is called

Figure 3.1 Model for 23 Factorial Design

Table 3.4 23 Factorial design test combinations and label of experiments

LABEL S/D N L/D

A total of 8 experiments out of 12 experiments conducted on Homogeneous

3.4.5 Plastic Limit:

3.4.6 Plasticity Index (IP):

3.4.8 Grain Size Distribution:

Grain size distribution is obtained by conducting mechanical sieve analysis

3.4.9 Load Test on piled raft foundation:

Figure 3.2 Experimental setup model for piled raft foundation

The test is carried out by applying a series of vertical downward incremental

3.5 Ultimate Load of Piled Raft Foundation:

A simplified method of obtaining the load settlement curve to failure for a

Figure 3.3 Ultimate Load from Typical Load-Settlement curves

4.2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

Load tests are conducted on Piled Raft Foundation supported on

4.2.1. Piled Raft Foundation on Homogeneous Soil Bed:

Figure 4.3 Load vs Settlment Plot for H1 /B=0,N=4,L/D=10

Table 4.1 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation

Experimental No. of Ultimate

4.2.1.2 Factorial Analysis:

Pu = f(S/D, N, L/D, S/DL/D, NL/D, S/DNL/D)

Pu = f(S/D, N, L/D,S/DN, S/DN, S/DNL/D)

Pu = f(S/D, N, L/D, S/DL/D, S/DN*L/D)