See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322567702

A review - pile raft foundation

Research Proposal · January 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19538.45768

CITATIONS READS

0 1,436

2 authors, including:

Rahul Solanki
Queen's University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul Solanki on 18 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Civil Engineering Research.
ISSN 2278-3652 Volume 7, Number 1 (2016), pp. 51-58
© Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com

A Review on Pile-Raft Foundation

Rahul Solanki*
Civil engineer, L&T Construction, India.
E-mail id: rahul.solanki310@gmail.com

Sagar Sorte
Civil engineer, Tata Housing, India.
E-mail id: sagar.sorte19@gmail.com

Abstract

The design concepts given by various researchers on pile-raft foundation is

reviewed and described in this paper. It was found out that connected pile raft
foundation (CPRF) helps in reducing differential settlement and to some
extent overall settlement by locating piles strategically beneath the raft.
Unconnected pile raft foundation (UCPRF) as described by Al Ataa et al [2] is
also reviewed. He observed that cushion helped in distribution of load beneath
the raft. Favorable conditions for UCPRF are similar to that of CPRF. But
UCPRF was found relatively less effective (depending on different conditions)
foundation system. Author proposes a future scope of combination of CPRF
and UCPRF as effective and economical foundation system.

Keywords: Piles, raft, connected, unconnected

INTRODUCTION
With the advent of skyscrapers or high rise buildings there was need to study and
improve deep foundation system to reduce cost of foundation and make it more
reliable Development of Deep foundation system started from bearing piles, skin
friction piles, combination of both and eventually pile-raft foundation.. Currently pile
raft foundation system is widely used. There are mainly three design philosophies in
pile raft foundation proposed by Randolph [8] are as follows.
1) Conventional approach in which piles are designed as group to carry the major
load, while making some allowance for the contribution of the raft primarily to
ultimate load capacity
2) Creep pilling in which piles are designed to operate at working load at which
significant creep start to occur (around three-fourth of the ultimate load
capacity). Sufficient piles are included to reduce the net contact pressure
between raft and soil.
52 Rahul Solanki and Sagar Sorte

3) Differential settlement control, in which piles are located strategically to

reduce the differential settlement rather than to reduce overall settlement
substantially.

CONNECTED PILE RAFT FOUNDATION

Zhuang and Lee [4] used finite element method to study the load sharing between pile
and raft. They observed that load sharing between piles in pile raft system was
affected by pile stiffness, raft rigidity and pile length to diameter ratio. They also
observed that as the pile length increases the pile rigidity decreases and the load
distribution becomes more uniform. Ta and Small [6], developed a method which was
based on finite layer method, for the analysis of pile raft foundation in layered soil.
They found that load sharing between piles in the pile raft system was influenced by
thickness and stiffness of soil layer. Load shared by piles increases as the bearing
strata becomes stiffer. Russo [5] developed a numerical method for piled raft system,
which takes into consideration non-linearity of the uni-lateral contact at the raft–soil
interface and the nonlinear load–settlement relationship. They stated that non-linear
analysis should be considered for the piled raft system because piles act as settlement
reducers and their ultimate load capacity may be reached. Reul and Randolph [7]
observed that pile raft interaction leads to an increase in the pile friction with an
increase of the load or increase of the settlement.

DESIGN CONCEPTS BY H.G. POULOS.[1]

Figure 1 clarifies the different approaches for pile design. Curve 0 represents the case
where only raft is used as foundation leading to excessive settlement at design load.
Curve 1 shows conventional approach of design in which all the loads imposed on
foundation from superstructure is considered to be taken only by piles. Apart from
this if the hard stratum is at a considerable depth use of longer length of a pile
contributes to twisting moment on foundation and results in uneconomical practice.

Curve 0: Raft only (settlement excessive)

Curve 1: Raft with pile designed for conventional
safety factor
Curve 2: Raft with piles designed for lower safety
factor
Curve 3: Raft with piles designed for full
utilization of capacity

Figure 1: Load-settlement curves for piled rafts according to various design

philosophies [1]
A Review on Pile-Raft Foundation 53

In curve 2 lower safety factor is considered for design and as there are fewer number
of piles are used, raft carries a considerable load. Curve 3 represents the case in which
piles are positioned in such a way to act as a settlement reducers. Even though there is
more settlement at design load compared to first two cases, it is acceptable and
method is economical.
Soil strata consisting of relatively stiff clay or dense sand is the favorable condition
for pile raft foundation. On the other hand soft clay, loose sand, soil strata which
consist of soft compressible layers at comparatively shallow depth, soil strata which
will undergo consolidation settlement (resulting in soil shrinkage) and soil profile
which is likely to undergo swelling due to external causes are unfavorable for pile
raft.
The three design processes considered by him are as follows:-
(a) Preliminary stage to assess the feasibility of using a piled raft, and the required
number of piles to satisfy design requirements
(b) Second stage to assess where piles are required and the general characteristics
of the piles
(c) Final detailed design stage to obtain the optimum number, location and
configuration of the piles, and to compute the detailed distributions of
settlement, bending moment and shear in the raft, and the pile loads and
moments.

In figure 2 the case considered by Poulos[1] represented in his paper.

Figure 2: Hypothetical example used to compare results of various methods of piled

raft analysis [1]

Following are the six methods Poulos et al.[9] have compared

a) Poulos & Davis [10]
b) Randolph [8]
c) Strip on springs analysis, using the program GASP (Poulos) [11]
d) plate on springs approach, using the program GARP (Poulos) [12]
e) finite element and boundary element method of Ta & Small [6]
f) finite element and boundary element method of Sinha [13]
54 Rahul Solanki and Sagar Sorte

Above methods when applied to the idealized hypothetical problem shown in Fig.2
shows almost same results. The results are shown in Fig. 3

Figure 3: Comparative results for hypothetical example (raft with 9 piles, total
load=12 MN) [1]

From the study following observations were seen:-

For all the design criteria, as the raft thickness increases maximum column load
sustained by the raft also increases. The maximum column load for bending moment
and shear requirement are not very sensitive to soil Young’s modulus on the other
hand where the maximum load for the contact pressure and local settlement criteria
are highly dependent on soil Young’s modulus. For the case considered by Poulos [1]
the criteria most likely to be critical are maximum moment and local settlement
(settlement at that particular point). The maximum settlement decreases with
increasing number of piles but has least effect after twenty or more piles for the case
considered. For small number of piles the maximum settlement for concentrated
loading is larger than uniform loading but the difference becomes very small for ten
or more piles. The differential settlement between the center and corner piles does not
change in regular fashion with increase or decrease in number of piles. For the case
considered least of all differential settlement occurred when only three piles were
present located below central portion of the raft. The largest value occurred for nine
piles, because the piles below the outer part of the raft hold up the edges which were
not settling as much as the center portion in the case considered. The maximum
bending moment for concentrated loading is substantially greater when compared to
uniform loading. The smallest value of bending moment occurred when only three
A Review on Pile-Raft Foundation 55

piles are located under the central portion of raft. Neither the maximum settlement nor
the percentage of load carried by the piles is very sensitive to raft thickness.
Increasing raft thickness reduces differential settlement but generally increasing
maximum bending moment.

UNCONNECTED PILE RAFT FOUNDATION

Unconnected pile raft foundation (UCRPF) is also a thorough researched method and
it was found generally to be more economical than connected pile raft foundation.
Cao et al and Wong et al [14] suggested that piles be disconnected from the raft and to
treat these piles as reinforcement to subsoil rather than as structural member. Liang et
al [15] stated that the cushion, which is composed of sand-gravel mixture compacted
in the layers between raft and top of piles, place an important role in mobilizing the
bearing capacity of the subsoil and modifying the load transfer mechanism of piles.
Alaa Ata et al [2] developed a model on 3D software (ABAQUS) for the analysis of
UCRPF. Site investigation data was collected from Lake Mariout area, west of
Alexandria city in Egypt.

Figure 4: Schematic of unconnected piled raft and cushion [2]

In general subsoil at site consists of medium dense sand and having an average
thickness of 4m. The top sand is followed by soft to very soft silty clay, extending
down to the depth of 10 m. The soft clay is followed by a layer of stiff clay extending
down to depth of 15 m. The fourth layer is dense sand and extend down to a depth of
35 m the ground water table existed at ground surface. In the analysis, raft and piles
are modified as elastic material. The soil parameters are summarized in Table 1.
56 Rahul Solanki and Sagar Sorte

Table 1: Soil parameters used in modeling [2]

Material Raft Cushio Pile Med Soft clay Stiff Dense
Model Elastic n Elastic sand Modifies Clay sand
Elastic Mohr cam-clay Mohr- Mohr
-col plasticit col -col.
y
λ-factor - - - 0.174 - -
ĸ-fator - - - 0.028 - -
Voids ratio - - 0.6 1 0.7 0.5
Poisson ratio 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.35 0.25
γsat (kN/m3) 25 20 25 18 16 18 18
E, (kN/m2) 3.4 x 40000 2.1 x 40000 1250 20000 70000
107 107
K, (m/s) - - - 0.000 1 x 108 1 x 10- 0.000
7
1 1
Ko - - - - 1 1 -
M - - - - 1 1 -
Cu kPA - - - - 12.5 120 -
Ø, o - - - 35 - 5 38
Elevation - - - 0-4 4-10 10-15 15-35
(m)

It was observed that settlement of unconnected system is somewhat greater than that
of the connected system, however, the percentage of load taken by piles for
unconnected system decreased by 50% than that of the CPRF. The maximum lateral
load in the connected system occurs at pile head and then decreases along the length
of the pile, however, when unconnected system is provided the location of maximum
axial load is shifted downwards to a certain length below the pile head. Maximum
settlement of the raft decreases with the increasing size of cushion thickness, on the
other hand axial load decreases along the pile length. The overall settlement decreases
slightly with the increase in the soil modulus from 20 MPa to 200 MPa (relatively
dense soil). As the cushion modulus increases from 200 MPa to 34000Mpa
(reinforced concrete) the overall settlement decreases significantly. Axial load on the
pile increases as cushion modulus increases. Pile loading ratio increases with the
stiffness of the cushion. The settlement of the system decreases with the increasing
number of piles. The rate of reduction of maximum and differential settlement
increases as the number of piles increases up to a certain number (25 piles in the case
considered) after which reduction is negligible. The pile loading ratio increases as the
number of pile increases. The most efficient configuration for the case considered is
total 25 piles arranged in 5x5 configuration. The overall settlement value decreases
with the increase of pile diameter. The reduction rate of the differential settlement
increases with the increase of the pile diameter, due to increase in pile stiffness with
increase in pile diameter. Overall settlement decreases slightly with the increase of the
thickness of the raft (up to certain value of raft thickness-for the case considered the
thickness of raft is 1.25m). Beyond this thickness, the overall settlement of the
A Review on Pile-Raft Foundation 57

foundation decreases with the increase of the raft thickness. Maximum settlement and
differential settlement decreases with increase in raft soil relative thickness.

FUTURE SCOPE
Further analysis may be carried out to investigate whether a combination of UCPRF
and CPRF proves to be economical. By providing connected pile system at a critical
location (critical location is to be identified through modeling or other appropriate
method), the differential settlement can be reduced. To reduce overall settlement,
cushion of higher thickness with relatively higher modulus of elasticity shall be
provided. But if we opt for higher elastic modular cushion the section tends to be
uneconomical. So combination of two or more different materials (thus different
elastic modulus) shall be used. Geofoam instead of soil can be used and should be
investigated for economy. Figure 5 depicts hypothetical general case of how
combination of CPRF and UCPRF. In the figure 5 only central portion is considered
as a critical portion.

Figure 5: Suggested system of combine CPRF and UCPRF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank Assistant Professor Mrs. Kshitija Nadgouda, Civil
Department, Sardar Patel College of Engineering for guiding us in our pursuit.
 58 Rahul Solanki and Sagar Sorte

REFERENCES

[1] Poulos HG. Pile raft foundations: design and applications. Geotechnique
2001; 51 (2): 95-113.
[2] Alaa Ata Numerical analysis of unconnected piled raft with cushion. Ain
Shams Engineering Journal 2005; 6: 421-428.
[3] Solanki CH, Vasanvala SA, Patil JD. A study of piled raft foundation: state of
art. Int J Eng Res Technol (IJERT) 2013;2(8);1464-70.
[4] Zhuang GM, Lee IK. An elastic analysis of load distribution of pile raft
systems. Finite element Anal Des 1994;18:259-72
[5] Russo, Numerical analysis of pile rafts. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
1998;22(6):477-93.
[6] Ta, L.D. & Small, J.C. (1996). Analysis raft systems in layered soils. Int J
NAM Geomech. 2, 57-72.
[7] Reu O, Randoph M. Design strategies for pile rafts subjected to non-uniform
vertical loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004; 130(1):1-13
[8] Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts:state-
of-the-art report. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, New Delhi 5,
61-82.
[9] Poulos, H. G., Small, J. C., Ta, L. D., Sinha, J. & Chen, L. (1997).Comparison
of some methods for analysis of piled rafts. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engng, Hamburg 2, 1119-1124.
[10] Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. New
York: Wiley.
[11] Poulos, H. G. (1991). In Computer methods and advances in geo mechanics
(eds Beer et al.), pp. 183-191. Rotterdam: Balkema.
[12] Poulos, H. G. (1994a). An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft
interaction. Int. J. NAM Geomech. 18, 73-92.
[13] Sinha, J. (1996). Analysis of piles and piled rafts in swelling and shrinking
soils. PhD Thesis, Univ. of Sydney, Australia.
[14] Cao XD, Wong IH, Chang MF. Behavior of model rafts resting on pile-
reinforced sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng2004;130(2):129–38.
[15] Liang FY, Chen LZ, Shi XG. Numerical analysis of compositepiled raft with
cushion subjected to vertical load. ComputGeotech 2003;30:443–53.

View publication stats