Geomechanics and Geoengineering

An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgeo20

Load-settlement response of piled raft

foundations in sand

Priyanka Bhartiya, Tanusree Chakraborty & Dipanjan Basu

To cite this article: Priyanka Bhartiya, Tanusree Chakraborty & Dipanjan Basu (2021): Load-
settlement response of piled raft foundations in sand, Geomechanics and Geoengineering, DOI:
10.1080/17486025.2021.1928767

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2021.1928767

Published online: 02 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgeo20
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2021.1928767

Load-settlement response of piled raft foundations in sand

Priyanka Bhartiyaa, Tanusree Chakrabortya and Dipanjan Basub
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India; bDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The load-settlement behaviour of piled raft foundations (PRFs) resting on sand subjected to vertical Received 6 December 2020
uniformly distributed load is studied using three-dimensional elasto-plastic finite element (FE) analyses. Accepted 7 May 2021
The unified Clay and Sand Model (CASM), based on the critical state soil mechanics, is used as the soil KEYWORDS
constitutive model. In the present study, 38 rectangular, strip, and circular raft connected to different Finite element method;
pile configurations resting on four different types of sands in their loose, medium, and dense states are parametric study; piled raft;
considered. The accuracy of the finite element analysis is confirmed through verification and validation settlement; soil plasticity
with other numerical and experimental studies. A detailed parametric study is conducted, which
includes soil elastic and critical state parameters as well as different dimensions of PRFs. A guideline
chart is provided, which will be helpful for a design practitioner to choose the suitable PRF
configurations considering serviceability limit states of safety and economical design aspect. This
flow chart is based on (i) combined effects of various parameters on PRF load settlement behaviour,
(ii) load sharing between the raft and the pile groups, and (iii) a preliminary cost analysis.

Introduction
Piled raft foundations (PRFs) are nowadays considered
as the most preferable foundation system for high-rise
buildings or heavy superstructures. The PRF enhances
the serviceability of the structure without an excessive
cost by optimising the pile configuration and the
arrangement of piles below the raft, considering the
interaction of raft-pile-soil (De Sanctis et al. 2002,
Mandolini et al. 2005, De Sanctis and Russo 2008). In
a PRF system, piles are used to improve the load-
carrying capacity of small rafts (Br/Lp < 1, Br = raft
width, Lp = pile length) and to reduce excessive max­
imum as well as differential settlement in the case of
large rafts (Br/Lp > 1) (Russo and Viggiani 1998).
For design optimisation of the PRFs, the load-
displacement behaviour of piled raft foundations and
the soil structure interaction effect on them are to be
understood in depth. Many researchers (El-Garhy et al.
2013, Alnuaim et al. 2015, Park and Lee 2015) per­
formed small-scale experimental studies to understand
PRF load-settlement behaviour. However, large model
tests are always better, although they could be very
challenging, expensive, and difficult to perform.
Therefore, theoretical investigations and numerical ana­
lysis became very popular to investigate different aspects
of PRF load-settlement behaviour. Based on the avail­
able literature, three numerical approaches of piled raft
analysis are identified. Some researchers (Poulos and
Davis 1980, Horikoshi and Randolph 1998, Mandolini
et al. 2005, Russo 2018, Bhartiya et al. 2020a) proposed
simplified methods of analysis considering the elastic
behaviour of the PRF system. Several researchers
(Clancy and Randolph 1993, Russo 1998, Nguyen et al.
2013, Comodromos et al. 2016, Bhaduri and Choudhury
2020, Bhartiya et al. 2020b) adopted approximate com­
puter-based modelling and analysis of the PRF system.
Rigorous boundary element method (BEM), finite ele­
ment method (FEM), or mixed boundary element-finite
element methods are used by various researchers
(Butterfield and Banerjee 1971, Zhang et al. 1991,
Katzenbach et al. 1998, Maharaj 2004, Lee et al. 2010,
Kumar et al. 2017, Kumar and Choudhury 2017, 2018,
Banerjee et al. 2020) and are considered as the most
accurate approach.
Several researchers have investigated the influence of
different parameters on PRF load-settlement behaviour
based on the different analysis approaches described
above (Seo et al. 2003, Oh et al. 2008, Fioravante et al.
2008, Omeman 2012, Nguyen et al. 2014). Some salient
observations are that piles with large diameters, long
lengths, small spacing, and in large numbers result in
less total and differential settlements and increased
load-carrying capacity (Maharaj 2004, Rabiei 2009).
Increases in soil elastic modulus and, also, friction

CONTACT Tanusree Chakraborty tanusree@civil.iitd.ac.in

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
angle result in a decrease in the PRF settlement and an
increase in the load-carrying capacity (Omeman 2012).
Further, the material properties of PRFs do not have
much effect on the PRF load settlement response
(Omeman 2012). There are good numbers of research
studies available on the parametric study and the design
of PRFs using rigorous numerical analysis in the litera­
ture. It is observed that many aspects, such as variation
of settlements based on any change in the critical state
soil parameters, are not studied thoroughly in the lit­
erature. The combined effect of various dimensions of
the PRF system on the elasto-plastic load-displacement
behaviour that will help choose a suitable PRF config­
uration for a particular project is also not investigated
thoroughly.
In this paper, detailed parametric studies are con­
ducted to understand the elasto-plastic load settle­
ment behaviour of various members of PRF, that is,
raft, piles, and soils, subjected to vertical uniformly
distributed loading, at different PRF configurations as
well as soil conditions. For the systematic parametric
study, three-dimensional (3D) elasto-plastic finite
element (FE) analysis of PRFs with 38 PRF configura­
tions embedded in four different types of sandy soils,
each with three states (loose, medium, and dense) is
considered herein. The critical state soil mechanics-
based soil constitutive model CASM (Yu 1998) with
modifications is used to simulate the elasto-plastic
behaviour of sand. The ability of the model to accu­
rately predict the PRF response is validated by com­
paring the results of FE analysis with the results of
other numerical and experimental studies. For the
parametric study, pile length, pile diameter, pile spa­
cing, and raft thicknesses are varied for different raft
shapes and sizes. The combined effect of varying PRF
geometries and soil parameters on the PRF load set­
tlement response as well as the load sharing between
the raft and the piles are thoroughly studied. In the
structural analysis and design of any foundation, the
first and foremost step is to choose the suitable con­
figuration and dimensions of various parts of the
foundation for economic and safe design. In the pre­
sent study, a serviceability limit state (SLS) design
strategy is adopted by controlling (i) the maximum
and the differential settlement or angular distortion of
the PRF, (ii) efficient utilisation of single pile capacity
in the PRF system, and (iii) an economical aspect by
minimising the concrete volume used for the PRF
system to decide the preliminary configuration.
Based on the detailed parametric study, a flow chart
is provided to guide any design practitioner to choose
the right PRF configuration, considering both safety
and economic point of view.
Analysis
Description of PRF configurations
In the present study, four types of raft – rectangular,
square, strip, and circular, supported by different circu­
lar piles, are studied (details in Table 1). Wide ranges of
pile slenderness ratio, Lp/Dp (6.67–30), raft aspect ratio,
Lr/Br (1–5), pile spacing to diameter ratio, sr/Dp or sc/Dp
(2–6) along the raft width and length, respectively, raft
thickness to width ratio, Tr/Br (0.05–0.25), and, the
number of piles, np (5–26), are considered, as presented
in Table 1. The effect of various parameters of pile
configuration on PRF settlement and load sharing char­
acteristics are studied. Thus, the present study includes
different small to large PRFs with 0.3 ≤ Br/Lp ≤ 1.2 and
0.5 ≤ Lr/Lp ≤ 2. All the PRFs are subjected to uniformly
distributed vertical loads at the top surface of the raft.
Soil constitutive model and material properties
In the present study, the nonlinear elasto-plastic load-
settlement behaviour of PRFs resting on different types
of sandy soils is investigated by considering a critical
state soil mechanics-based constitutive model which is
capable of capturing the current state of the soil with its
critical state, and of predicting well the evolution of
elasto-plastic stress-strain response of the soil. Among
the several elasto-plastic constitutive models of sand
available in the literature [Bounding surface plasticity
model (Dafalias 1986), Nor-Sand (Jefferies 1993),
Modified Drucker Prager (Drucker et al. 1957), etc.],
the choice of a particular model must consider both the
aspects of the accuracy and the computational efficiency
with an easily determinable and limited number of
input parameters. Based on the above considerations,
the Clay and Sand Model known as CASM (proposed by
Yu 1998 considering critical state soil mechanics) is
used in the present study. In CASM, a state parameter
ξ is defined as a function of current void ratio e, critical
state void ratio ɼ at the effective mean stress p′ = 1 kPa,
and the slope of the critical state line λ in e-ln(p′) space
(Been and Jefferies 1985). The CASM yield function
depends on effective mean stress p′, deviatoric stress q,
and the state parameter ξ, and is given by
� �n
0 q �
f ðp ; q; �Þ ¼ 0
þ 1¼0 (1)
Mcc p �R
where the reference state parameter ξR = (λ – κ)lnr in
which λ, κ, n, and Mcc are elasto-plastic constitutive
model parameters as described in Table 2; r is the spa­
cing ratio which is a ratio of the pre-consolidation
pressure and the mean effective stress at the intersection
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 3

Table 1. Details of the geometry of piled raft foundation*

Rectangular PRF Cases
Case Br (m) Lr (m) Tr (m) Dp (m) Lp (m) sr (m) sc (m) np Pile arrangement
1a 6 10 0.5 0.5 10 2 2 12
1b 6 10 1 0.5 10 2 2 12
1c 6 10 1.5 0.5 10 2 2 12

2a 6 10 0.5 0.5 15 3.5 2 9

2b 6 10 0.5 1 15 3.5 2 9
2c 6 10 0.5 1.5 15 3.5 2 9
2d 6 10 1 1 15 4 2 9
2e 6 10 1 1 10 4 2 9
2f 6 10 1 1 20 4 2 9
2g 6 10 1 1 15 3 2 9
3a 6 10 1 1 15 3 3 6
3b 6 10 1.5 1.5 10 3 3 6
3c 6 10 1 1.5 15 3 3 6
3d 6 10 1.5 1.5 20 3 3 6
4 6 10 1 1.5 15 6 2 5
5 10 10 0.5 0.5 10 2 2 16

6a 10 10 0.5 0.5 15 3 3 9
6b 10 10 0.5 1 15 3 3 9
6c 10 10 0.5 1.5 15 3 3 9
6d 10 10 1 1 15 4 4 9
6e 10 10 1 1.5 15 4 4 9
6f 10 10 1 1 15 3.5 4 9
6g 10 10 1 1 15 3 4 9

7a 10 10 1 1 10 6 6 5
7b 10 10 1 1.5 15 6 6 5

8 10 14 1 1 15 3 3 12

9a 10 14 1 1 15 3.5 3 9
9b 10 14 1.5 1 20 5 3 9

Strip PRF Cases

10 4 20 1 1 15 4 2 10
11 4 20 0.5 1 10 3 2 14

12 4 20 0.5 0.5 10 1.5 2 26

13 4 15 0.5 0.5 15 2 2 14

14 4 15 1 0.5 10 1.5 2 20

Circular PRF Cases

15 12 (Dr) 1 0.5 10 2 13

16 12 (Dr) 1 1 15 4 9

17 12 (Dr) 1.5 1.5 10 4.5 5

18 15 (Dr) 1 1 15 3 17

19 15 (Dr) 1.5 1.5 20 6 9

*Br = width of raft, Lr = length of raft, Tr = thickness of raft, Dr = diameter of raft, Dp = diameter of pile, Lp = length of pile, sr = pile spacing along raft length, sc
= pile spacing along raft width (sc = sr for circular rafts), and np = number of piles.
 4

Table 2. Model parameters and properties for various types of sands and concrete.
P. BHARTIYA ET AL.

Soil
Parameters/ Portaway Sand, PW
properties Ottawa Sand, OW [Sasitharan et al. 1994, Yu 2006] Sacramento, SC Sand [Lee and Seed 1967, Yu 2006] Erksak Sand, ES [Been and Jefferies 1985, Yu 2006] [Yu 2006]
λ 0.0168 0.09 0.0135 0.025
κ 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
ɼ 0.8 1.37 0.8167 1.796
ξR 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.059
n 4.5 4.5 4 3.5
Mcc, [ϕc (°)] 1.2, [30°] 1.34, [33.2°] 1.2, [30°] 1.19, [29.8°]
μs 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.16
e0 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.9 0.82 0.74 0.69 0.64 0.59 0.69 0.63 0.56
ID (%) 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70
γd (kN/m3) 15.3 15.9 16.5 14.1 14.7 15.4 15.4 16 16.6 16.1 16.5 16.8
K0 0.42, 0.5, 0.58, 0.65 0.42, 0.5, 0.58, 0.65 0.42, 0.5, 0.58, 0.65 0.42, 0.5, 0.58, 0.65
Es (MPa) 20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70
(Bowles 1996)
Concrete (Neville 2011)
Ec (MPa) 30,000, 35,000, 40,000
μc 0.2
ɼ = Critical-state void ratio (at p′ = 1 kPa)
λ = Slope of the critical state line in e-ln(p′) space
κ = Slope of the swelling line in the e-ln(p’) space
ξR = Reference state parameter
Mcc = Slope of the critical state line in p’-q space
ϕc = Critical state friction angle
n = Material constant
μc = Poisson’s ratio of concrete
μs = Poisson’s ratio of soil
ID = Relative density
γd = Dry unit weight of soil
K0 = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
e0 = Initial void ratio
Es = Elastic modulus of soil
Ec = Elastic modulus of concrete
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 5

of the swelling and the critical state line. Yu (1998) Es

Gu ¼ (4)
provided a general range of λ (0.01–0.09), κ (0.005), Γ 2ð1 þ μs Þ
(0.8–4.0), n (1–5), and Mcc (1.1–1.4) for various sandy
soils. CASM follows a non-associated flow rule when it Es
reaches the yield surface, defined by a plastic potential Ku ¼ (5)
3ð1 2μs Þ
function as given below
where Es is soil Young’s modulus, and μs is Poisson’s
ratio of sand. Thus, CASM has nine input parameters, λ,
� � κ, ɼ, Mcc, n, ξR, e0, Es, and μs (refer to Table 2). The
p0 2q
gðp0 ; q; βÞ ¼ 3Mcc ln þ ð3 þ 2Mcc Þln 0 þ 3 constitutive model was not inbuilt in the FE software
β � � p
q Abaqus (6.12–3); hence, a user-defined material subrou­
ð3 Mcc Þln 3 tine (UMAT) is developed. A semi-implicit cutting
p0
¼0 (2) plane integration scheme (Ortiz and Simo 1986) is
used to implement the model in Abaqus.
where the parameter β controls the size of the plastic The elastic and critical state parameters of four dif­
potential surface. Rowe’s state dilatancy relation (Rowe ferent types of sands [Ottawa (OW), Erksak (ES),
1971) is used to derive the plastic potential function, Sacramento (SC), and Portaway (PW)] considered in
where dilatancy rate Dl is defined as this study are presented in Table 2 based on the available
values from several works of literature. The raft and
bored cast-in-situ piles of PRFs used for the present
9ðMcc ηl Þ study are made of concrete. The elastic properties
D1 ¼ (3)
9 þ 3Mcc 2Mcc ηl (Young’s modulus Ec and Poisson’s ratio μc) of the
foundation elements are also presented in Table 2.
where ηl = current stress ratio = q/p’.
Bolton et al. (1994) reported that the elastic
constants, i.e., shear modulus (Gu) and bulk mod­ Finite element analysis
ulus (Ku) given by CASM (Yu 1998) are smaller All the PRF analyses are conducted using 3D FE software
than the actual values of these constants obtained Abaqus (6.12–3) by modelling raft, pile, and soil with 20-
in the field. Hence, Gu and Ku are estimated by the node quadratic brick elements (C3D20). One-fourth part
following equations in the present study of the PRF soil system as shown in Figure 1 is modelled in

Figure 1. Typical details of finite element model of 1/4th part of the piled raft-soil system.
6 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
FE software which consists of two mutually perpendicular
vertical planes of symmetry, to minimise the number of
elements thus the reduction of analysis run time. The
mesh size varies from 100 to 500 times the mean grain
size of the sand where the PRF and the soil surrounding
the PRF are discretised with finer size elements with
a gradual increase of element size at the far-field bound­
ary. A coefficient of friction tan(2/3)ϕc where ϕc is the
critical state friction angle of sand (Loukidis 2006) is
defined to interpret the soil-structure interaction in tan­
gential direction while the contact in the normal direction
is considered as hard contact.
In the FE model, the length of the vertical boundary is
twice the pile length, and the length of the horizontal bound­
ary is three times the raft width (Figure 1), which are
considered by convergence study to minimise the boundary
effect. A fixed end boundary condition is applied at the
bottom horizontal boundary, while the boundaries at the
far-field and the plane of symmetry are assigned to have zero
displacements in all directions except in the vertical direc­
tion. At the first stage of FE analyses, that is, at the geostatic
step, the existing ground stresses due to gravity are equili­
brated. Then, in the next stage, that is, the loading step,
uniformly distributed vertical load is applied at the raft top.
Instantaneous uniformly distributed vertical loads ranging
from 100 to 1000 kPa are applied on the top surface of the
raft at the loading step of FE analysis. The PRFs are assumed
to sit on the ground surface with full contact between the raft
and the ground surface.
Results
Verification and validation of present FE analysis
using Abaqus
The first verification study is based on the work of
Poulos et al. (1997) to predict the load-settlement beha­
viour of the PRF using different software like FLAC 3D
and GASP (Geotechnical analysis of strip with piles,
Poulos 1991). Arectangular raft (6m × 10m × 0.5m)
supported by nine piles (Lp = 10 m and Dp = 0.5 m)
spaced at 4 m along raft length and 2 m along raft width,
considered by Poulos et al. (1997) is modelled and
analysed in Abaqus software. The elastic properties of
the sand were given by Poulos et al. (1997) (Es = 20 MPa
and μs = 0.3); however, the elasto-plastic soil parameters
were not reported. The soil below the PRF was described
as homogeneous loose sand. Hence, for the present FE
analysis of the PRF, the CASM parameters of the sand
are assumed to be similar to loose Ottawa sand given in
Table 2 based on its description. The PRF was made of
concrete with Ec = 30 GPa and μc = 0.2. The load-
settlement curve obtained from the present FE analysis
is compared with the load-settlement curve reported by
Poulos et al. (1997) as shown in Figure 2(a). It is
observed that the nature of the curve obtained from
the present FE analysis is similar to those generated by
other software, and the slight difference among the
values of settlement may be due to the assumption of
the soil properties.
Nguyen et al. (2013) studied the load-settlement
behaviour of a square piled raft using a centrifuge
model test (60 g scale where g is gravity) and the FE
software SAP2000. The same PRF is modelled and ana­
lysed using Abaqus to verify and validate its result by
comparing it with the load-settlement plot of the PRF
obtained from centrifuge test and numerical analysis
using SAP2000 software. The PRF includes a 9 m × 9 m­
× 1.22 m raft supported by a square group of nine piles
(Lp = 10 m and Dp = 0.6 m) spaced at 1.8 m centre to
centre. The soil below the PRF is described as homo­
geneous silica sand with Es = 74.75 MPa, μs = 0.25, ϕc
= 33.5º, dry unit weight γd = 15.13 kN/m3 and ID = 70%.
The other soil parameters required for CASM to use in
Abaqus analysis are assumed considering the sand is
equivalent to dense Sacramento sand (Table 2) based
on its description. The PRF was made of concrete with
Ec = 28.2 GPa, μc = 0.16, and γc = 15 kN/m3. Figure 2(b)
shows the comparison of the PRF load-settlement curve
obtained from Abaqus analysis, with the study of
Nguyen et al. (2013) (i.e., obtained from SAP2000 ana­
lysis and centrifuge test). A good match among the three
load-settlement curves of Figure 2(b) confirms the ver­
ification and the validation of the present FE analysis
results using Abaqus software.
In the last validation of the FE analysis, a square micro­
piled raft foundation is considered, which was tested in
a centrifuge machine at 50 g scale by Alnuaim et al. (2015).
The model raft (Br × Lr × Tr = 105 mm × 105 mm ×
12.3 mm) was connected with four circular micro-piles
(Lp = 200 mm, Dp = 9.53 mm) spaced at 8Dp centre to
centre. A material with Young’s modulus 2900 MPa and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.4, is used to prepare the model micro­
piled raft. Dense silica sand with a relative density of 70% and
friction angle 39° with Es = 2 MPa, and μs = 0.3 was used as
foundation base soil in the centrifuge test as reported by
Alnuaim et al. (2015). Considering soil description, the
elasto-plastic properties of soil are assumed as given in
Table 3. A good agreement between the load settlement
curve obtained from the present FE analysis and centrifuge
test is obtained as shown in Figure 2(c).
Parametric study on settlement behaviour of PRFs
There are two categories of parameters that affect the
load-settlement behaviour of PRFs, (i) parameters
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 7

Figure 2. Verification and validation of present FE analysis: (a) load settlement responses of a rectangular PRF obtained from numerical
analyses performed by Poulos et al. (1997) and from present FE analysis; (b) load settlement response of a square PRF obtained from
centrifuge test and SAP2000 analysis by Nguyen et al. (2013), and present study using Abaqus and (c) load settlement response of
a micropiled raft obtained from centrifuge model study of Alnuaim et al. (2015) and present FE analysis in Abaqus.

Table 3. Properties of piled raft and soil for validation of finite earth pressure at rest K0, the relative density of sand ID,
element analysis. Young’s modulus of soil Es, and soil Poisson’s ratio μs]
Validation 2 and (ii) parameters associated with the piled raft
Material parameters (Alnuaim et al. 2015)*
λ 0.09
[Young’s moduli Er and Ep, and Poisson’s ratios μr and
ɼ 2.04 μp of the raft and pile, respectively, pile diameter Dp, pile
κ 0.0054 length Lp, pile spacing sc and sr, plan dimensions of raft
n 3
γd (kN/m3) 14.9 Lr and Br, and raft thickness Tr].
Mcc 1.59
ξR 0.075
μs 0.2 Effects of elastic soil parameters (Es or ID, μs, and K0)
Es (kPa) 100
γr and γp (kN/m3) 24 on PRF response
Er and Ep (GPa) 27 The Young’s modulus of sand is one of the important
μr and μp 0.2
parameters that affect the settlement of PRF, and the
* Typical range of values recommended by Yu (1998) for CASM model is used
(Note: γr and γp = unit weight of raft and pile, Er and Ep = modulus of elasticity of value of Young’s modulus depends on the relative den­
raft and pile, μr and μp = Poisson’s ratio of raft and pile, respectively) sity of sand (Bowles 1996). Figure 3(a–d) shows the
variation of normalised PRF maximum settlement
associated with soil [different critical state parameters (Spr,max) and differential settlement (Spr,diff, i.e., the aver­
(Mcc, λ, κ, n, etc. as described in Table 2), coefficient of age settlement between raft corner and raft centre) with
8 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
Figure 3. Effect of relative density or modulus of elasticity of soil on settlement behaviour of different types of PRF cases, (a)
rectangular PRF, (b) square PRF, (c) strip PRF, and (d) circular PRF, for an applied load of 500 kPa. (Es in MPa). [Note: ES – Erksak sand,
OW – Ottawa sand, SC – Sacramento sand and PW – Portaway sand]
relative density ID or soil Young’s modulus for different
types (rectangular, square, circular and strip) of PRFs.
As expected, PRF settlement reduces with an increase in
relative density (or Young’s modulus). For sands with
high relative density (dense state), the PRF maximum
settlements in different types of sands are very close to
each other while, for sands with low relative density
(loose state), the maximum settlements are quite differ­
ent in different types of sands (Figure 3(a–d)). It is
observed that the variation range of Spr,max at dense
state (e.g. Spr,max/Br in Figure 3(a) ranges from 0.003 to
0.005 in dense state of sands) is around 10% of the
variation range of Spr,max at the loose state (e.g. Spr,max
/Br in Figure 3(a) ranges from 0.005 to 0.019 in loose
state of sands) for various sands in case of a particular
PRF configuration. This implies that the other soil prop­
erties have a greater effect on the PRF response when the
sand is at a relatively loose state. The effect of relative
density or Young’s modulus does not have a significant
effect on differential settlement as compared to the
maximum settlement of PRF. From Figure 3, it is seen
that the variation of the differential settlement is not
very prominent with the variation of ID or Es. On
a similar note, Figure 4(a–d) shows that the PRF max­
imum settlement decreases with an increase in soil
Poisson’s ratio for sands with the same relative density
and that the effect of Poisson’s ratio is more pronounced
for sands with low relative density.
On the other hand, Spr,diff increases with an increase
in the Poisson’s ratio, which indicates that the effects of
μs on maximum and differential settlements of PRF are
opposite. Especially in the case of loose sand, it is
observed that for around 90% increase in Poisson’s
ratio, almost 40% decrease in Spr,max, and around 25%
increase in Spr,diff is seen. However, Poulos and Davis
(1980), considering elastic behaviour of soil below PRF,
showed that the settlement of single piles and pile
groups increases with an increase in the Poisson’s ratio
of soils. In the present study, when the variation of
Poisson’s ratio is considered along with the variation

Figure 4. Effect of Poisson’s ratio of soil on settlement behaviour of different types of PRF cases, (a) rectangular PRF, (b) square PRF, (c)
strip PRF, and (d) circular PRF, for an applied load of 500 kPa.
of sand types, there must be an influence of the other
properties of sand, i.e., the critical state properties of soil
because of which the influence of Poisson’s ratio on
settlement response is not analogous to that predicted
by Poulos and Davis (1980). Figure 5 shows the effect of
K0 on the PRF response. For all practical purposes, K0
does not influence the PRF settlement much.
Effect of critical state parameters on PRF response
It is observed from the comparison of elastic and elasto-
plastic load settlement response of the PRFs considered
in this study that there is a significant difference between
the elastic and elasto-plastic responses of the PRFs for
the load range normally encountered in the practical
problems. Some examples of normalised elastic and
elasto-plastic average load settlement behaviour are
shown in Figure 6, wherein most of the PRF cases, it is
observed that the linear elastic load settlement response
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 9
exists up to 15% of the maximum load (in the present
study, the maximum applied load = Pmax/Ar = 1000 kPa
where Pmax is the load on the top surface of the raft with
an area as Ar). Thus, in addition to the elastic para­
meters, it is important to understand and quantify the
effect of the elasto-plastic (i.e., the critical state) para­
meters on the settlement response of PRFs. It is, how­
ever, a nontrivial task to identify the effect of an
individual elasto-plastic parameter on the PRF response
because each critical state parameter has an impact on
the values of the other critical state parameters, and all
these parameters are independent inputs to the consti­
tutive model. Therefore, instead of varying any indivi­
dual critical state parameter, the response of the PRFs in
four different sands, Ottawa (OW), Erksak (ES),
Sacramento (SC), and Portaway (PW), with four differ­
ent sets of critical state parameters (Table 2) are
investigated.
10 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
Figure 5. Effects of the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0 on settlement behaviour of PRF for different states of Ottawa sand, (a)
PRF case 1a, (b) PRF case 2 c, and (c) PRF case 3a, for an applied load of 200 kPa.
The sands, OW and ES, both have similar values for
the parameters Es, μs, ϕc, ξR, ɼ and κ, while the values are
different for the parameters λ and n. The difference in the
PRF responses obtained for identical PRFs in OW and ES
sands is rather negligible (e.g. the maximum difference as
shown in Figure 4 is 10%). Based on this observation, it
seems that the combined effects of the parameters λ and
n have minimal impact on the PRF settlement response
or another way it can be said that the ratio of λ/n (≈ 0.003)
being almost the same for OW and ES sands, their indi­
vidual effects are not visible on the settlement behaviour
of PRF. The sands OW, ES, and PW, have almost the
same ϕc (≈ 30°), ɼ¸ and κ¸ but PW sand has different
values of the parameters λ/n (0.007), ξR, and μs as com­
pared with those of OW and ES. Based on the comparison
of the parameters of OW, ES, and PW, intuition can be
obtained that the combined effect of λ/n, ξR, and μs results
in settlement behaviour of PRF in PW sand, which is
completely different from that in OW and ES sands.
Between SC sand and PW sand, SC has a high value of
Mcc or ϕc, ɼ, n and ξR as compared to PW, but they have
almost the same Poisson’s ratio. The settlement in SC
sand is lower (around 30% less) than PW sand, which is
indicating the combined effect of Mcc or ϕc, ɼ, n and ξR.
After studying the effects of two influencing elastic para­
meters (Es and μs) one thing is clear that there is an
impact of critical state parameters on load settlement
response of PRFs, but it is difficult to identify the indivi­
dual effects of various critical state parameters.
From the above discussion, the critical state para­
meters that have a significant combined effect on PRF
load settlement response are λ/n, Mcc, ɼ, and ξR. All the
other critical state soil parameters are combined as
h i
ðλ=nÞþMcc Γn
μ �R λ and their effect on PRF settlement
s
response is shown in Figure 7(a–c). Figure 7 shows
that for different types of soil in different sands if
h i
ðλ=nÞþMcc Γn
μ �R
s λ is more, the average PRF settlement is

Figure 6. Normalised load settlement behaviour of (a) rectangular PRF, (b) strip PRF, and (c) circular PRF, showing average linear elastic
behaviour up to 15% of maximum applied load (maximum applied load Pmax/Ar = pmax = 1000 kPa and applied load = P/Ar = p)
beyond which it shows nonlinear elasto-plastic load settlement behaviour.
more. The critical state parameters are combined (by
regression analysis) using MS EXCEL software in such
a way that it shows a nearly linear correlation with Spr,av
which is visible in Figure 7. In general practice, when
soil testing is done, mostly all these critical state para­
meters are not determined unless and until any special
requirement is there. Hence, keeping this practical point
h i
in view, ðλ=nÞþM
μ �R
cc Γn
λ is defined as Ccr and correlated
s
with μstanϕc to get a simple form of the combined
critical state parameter, which is representative to
account for the combined effects of different critical
state parameters, as shown in Figure 8. From Figure 8
it is observed that the combined critical state parameter
Ccr can be expressed as below
Ccr ¼ 0:5ðμs tan ϕc Þ 2:26
(6)
The advantage of defining Ccr in simplified form is that
the combined influence of critical state parameters can
be easily judged by computing this influence parameter
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 11
to understand whether the soil will produce more
elasto-plastic settlement or not without determining all
the critical state properties of sand. In the next step to
incorporate the influence of different state of the soils by
introducing ID in Equation (6) an influence factor I is
defined as below
I ¼ Ccr =ID (7)
where relative density ID is in percentage. The influence
factor I can be correlated to soil subgrade modulus
k (kN/m3) [where k = (P/Ar)/Spr,all, Spr,all = 100 mm,
P = applied load and Ar raft area] obtained from the FE
analyses reported herein. In the present study Spr,all
= 100 mm is considered as the maximum allowable
settlement for the PRF. Reul and Randolph (2004) con­
sidered a maximum allowable settlement for PRF as
100 mm in their design strategy. Also, as per Eurocode
7 and IS 1904 for unpiled raft, the allowable maximum
settlement is considered as 75 mm (European Standard
2004). Figure 9(a–d) shows that soil subgrade modulus,
12 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.

h i
Γn
Figure 7. Combined effect of soil critical state parameters ðλ=nÞþM
μs �R
cc
λ on settlement behaviour of different types of PRF cases in
different sands in (a) loose state, (b) medium dense state, and (c) dense state, for an applied load of 500 kPa.

k (kN/m3) increases with a decrease in parameter I. It
may be noted that for different sands, irrespective of
PRF configurations, there are some ranges of k values
based on the state of sands. Table 4 gives the typical
range of soil subgrade modulus values for the loose,
medium, and dense states of various sands correspond­
ing to the influence parameter value, I. Table 4 will be
useful in the preliminary design stage to get the general
value of soil subgrade modulus and the corresponding
ultimate bearing pressure, if the influence parameter I, is
estimated based on the available soil properties.
Effects of PRF configurations on PRF response
In the previous section, it is observed that how the
maximum and differential settlement of PRF depends
on various soil parameters. In this section, a similar
comparative parametric study is done based on the
variation of PRF configurations. For a structure, if the
overall settlement is low but having a significant differ­
ential settlement, the design should be revised to reduce
the differential settlement, which may otherwise cause
angular distortion of the whole structure. Most of the
time it is assumed that if the maximum settlement is
more, it leads to a higher differential settlement too, but
it is not always the case as shown in Figure 10. For
example, in Figure 10, PRF case 9a and PRF case 5,
both have the same maximum settlement (Spr,max is
around 300 mm corresponding to 1000 kPa load),
whereas the differential settlement of case 9a (Spr,diff is
6 mm corresponding to 1000 kPa load) is 80% lesser
than that of case 5 (Spr,diff is 30 mm corresponding to
1000 kPa load). The reason for this variation of max­
imum and differential settlement is the difference in pile
configuration and orientation below the raft. Similarly,
case 2d has the lowest maximum settlement (Spr,max is
100 mm corresponding to 1000 kPa load) among all the
examples, but the lowest differential settlement is for
case 6e (almost zero differential settlement). Thus, from
here, it can be considered that the parametric depen­
dencies of the differential settlement are not the same as

Figure 8. Simplified form of critical state influence factor Ccr based
on regression analysis [Note: R2 is coefficient of determination].
that of the maximum settlement of PRF, and some
examples are shown in Figure 11. Figure 11(a–d) pre­
sents a comparative parametric study for maximum
PRF settlement and differential PRF settlement corre­
sponding to the applied load of 500 kPa for medium-
dense Ottawa sand. It is observed from Figure 11(a) that
with the increase of pile diameter (Dp), both the max­
imum and differential settlement decrease similarly.
There is no effect of pile length (Lp) on the differential
settlement of piled raft [refer Figure 11(b)], whereas it
has a significant influence on the maximum settlement
of PRF.
Similarly, the effect of raft thickness (Tr) on the
maximum settlement of PRF is negligible, but it has
a significant influence on the differential settlement
[refer to Figure 11(c)]. With the increase of pile spa­
cing, both the maximum and the differential settlement
increase as shown in Figure 11(d). Four examples of
settlement contour variation for different configura­
tions of PRF are shown in Figure 12(a–d) for loose
Erksak sand at an applied load of 500 kPa. From Figure
12 it is clear that for circular and square PRF [12(b)
and 12(c), respectively] there is a circular contour of
settlement variation, whereas for rectangular and strip
PRF [12(a) and 12(d), respectively] settlement con­
tours vary longitudinally; not much variation is found
in the transverse direction of the raft. Also, it is
observed that when the raft thickness is low or pile
diameter is low, their differential settlements are
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 13
significant as found in the PRF case 5 [Figure 12(c)].
The effect of concrete properties (Ec and μc) do not
have much influence on the maximum and differential
settlement variation of PRF, which is similar to the
results found by other authors (Oh et al. 2008, Rabiei
2009, Omeman 2012).
Parametric study on load sharing among raft and
piles in PRF
The bearing capacity of piled raft foundation is
a combination of bearing capacities of raft and piles as
suggested by several researchers (Poulos and Davis
1980, Liu et al. 1994, De Sanctis and Mandolini 2006)
and considered as
Qpr ¼ ηr Qur þ ηp Qgp (8)
where Qpr = ultimate load capacity of a piled raft, Qur,
and Qgp = ultimate load capacities of the individual
raft and pile group, ηr and ηp = load capacity effi­
ciency factor for raft and piles. The load capacity
efficiency factor represents the ratio of load capacities
for raft and piles when combined into the piled raft,
to those of unpiled raft and group piles, due to the
interactions that may occur between the foundation
components of the piled raft. De Sanctis and
Mandolini (2006) found that the values of ηr and ηp
range from 0.82 to 1. For estimating Qur and Qgp
considering both bearing capacity and settlement
point of view, the load shared by the raft and piles
in a PRF system should be studied well to check their
settlement for the shared load. Various researchers
(Clancy and Randolph 1993, Fioravante and Giretti
2010, Comodromos et al. 2016, Bhartiya et al. 2020b)
have proposed different methods to estimate the pro­
portion of loads carried by the piles Np, and the
proportion of load carried by the raft Nr. Most of
the researchers have expressed the fraction of load
carrying capacity (Np or Nr) as functions of the stiff­
ness of the unpiled raft and the pile group, combined
with the settlement of the PRF system, and the soil
structure interaction coefficients. For choosing
a suitable PRF configuration, it is important to choose
the pile dimensions and spacing such that the pile
capacity is utilised efficiently, and also, the settlement
of PRF is within a reasonable limit. The purpose of
studying load sharing in this section is to know the
load shared by the pile group, and the contribution of
the individual pile in carrying that shared load. In
design, the pile dimension is chosen according to
the contribution in load sharing by the individual
pile and also to reduce the settlement to an allowable
14 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.

Figure 9. Effect of elasto-plastic soil influence parameter I, on the average value of soil subgrade modulus corresponding to 100 mm
settlement for various PRF configurations in different soil, (a) Erksak sand, (b) Ottawa sand, (c) Sacramento sand, and (d) Portaway
sand, obtained from FE analysis. [Note: I ¼ Ccr =ID ].

Table 4. Typical values of load corresponding to 100 mm maximum settlement of PRF for different influence parameter I in loose,
medium, and dense state of sands.
Applied load, P/Ar (kPa) for 100 mm maximum settlement of PRF
Influence parameter, I Soil subgrade modulus, k (kN/m3)
Soil Type Loose Medium Dense Loose Medium Dense
ES 3.07 1.52 0.86 2500–5500 5500–9500 9500–17,000
OW 3.25 1.49 0.86 2500–5500 5500–9500 9500–17,000
SC 3.57 1.69 0.94 2500–4000 4000–8000 8000–15,000
PW 4.85 1.88 0.98 2000–4000 4000–7500 7500–14,500

limit, which will give a safe as well as an economic design
consideration. In this section, the influence of various
parameters on the fraction of load sharing between the
raft and the piles is discussed first. Subsequently, for
different PRF cases, the contribution of a single pile in
carrying the load shared by the pile group in a PRF system
is estimated. The single pile contributions for different
PRF cases (Table 1) are then compared with the single
pile capacity calculated manually, by summing up the pile
shaft resistance and the pile base resistance (Salgado 2008,
Basu and Salgado 2012). The detailed parametric influ­
ence on load sharing between the pile group and raft is
discussed in the following section.
Effects of pile dimensions on load sharing, Lp, Dp, sr
Figure 13(a–c) is plotted for Ottawa sand at an applied
load of 1000 kPa. From the figure, it is seen that for
a particular PRF, the load sharing between the raft and
the piles depends on pile length, pile diameter, and pile
spacing. In Figure 13(a), the reason for the increase in
the fraction of load carried by the piles (Np value) with
the increase in pile length, is the increased pile group
stiffness at higher pile length. Similarly, when the dia­
meter of piles increases, it increases the end-bearing
resistance of piles because of its larger cross-section.
Hence, in Figure 13(b), it is visible that piles with larger
diameters carry more fraction of applied load compared

Figure 10. Dependencies of (a) maximum PRF settlement and (b) differential settlement on the variation of load for some different
configurations of PRF.
to the smaller diameter piles. An increase in pile spacing
reduces interactions between piles, causing an increase
in pile group stiffness; this is the reason Figure 13(c)
shows that Np value is higher for piles with larger spa­
cing. However, based on the state of sand (loose, med­
ium, or dense), it is observed in Figure 13(a–c) that, if
the relative density ID of sand increases, then the Np will
decrease. It may be because of increased contact pres­
sure between raft and soil due to the increase of Young’s
modulus of soil.
Effects of raft dimensions on load sharing, Tr, Lr, Br
Figure 14(a) shows the effect of raft thickness on
load sharing between raft and piles, and it is
expected that for a thin raft, a higher load will be
carried by the piles. Similarly, in Figure 14(b) it is
visible that a raft with a high aspect ratio results in
a lower fraction of load carried by the piles.
Effects of soil parameters (Es, I) on load sharing
From various researchers’ work in predicting the frac­
tion of load carried by piles, it is seen that the stiffness
of raft, piles, and soils, as well as their interactions,
have a significant effect on load sharing. As the stiffness
of raft or piles or soils mainly depends on Young’s
modulus of material used, and Poisson’s ratio of that
material (Bhartiya et al. 2020a), then it is evident that
load sharing between raft and piles is also dependent
on Young’s modulus as well as the relative density of
soil (reflected in Figure 13 for loose, medium and
dense sand). In Figure 15(a) it is observed (for PRF
case 1b rested on medium-dense sand) that fraction of
load carried by piles Np increases for a certain range of
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 15
normalised applied load p/pref up to around 0.15
(where p = P/Ar and pref = 1000 kPa); however, at
higher p/pref (p/pref > 0.15), Np value reaches
a constant value for all types of sand. Additionally, it
is noticeable in Figure 15(a) that for a particular
applied load, Np value varies for different types of
sand having the same Young’s modulus and relative
density indicating combined effects of other soil para­
meters. To understand the combined influence of var­
ious soil parameter, variations on Np are plotted with
the influence parameter I, in Figure 15(b). Figure 15(b)
is studied for different PRF cases in different medium-
dense sands at an applied load of 500 kPa. From Figure
15(b) it is observed that with the increase in influence
parameter I, slight linear increase of Np for various PRF
cases. A similar trend is obtained for all other PRF
cases for loose and dense states of sands. Table 5
shows the average values of load fraction, Np carried
by piles of various PRF systems for an applied load of
500 kPa in the case of loose, medium, and dense sands.
It shows that the fraction of load carried by piles is
more in loose sand as compared to the dense sand. The
range of Np varies from 0.6 to 0.9, based on the raft and
pile configurations. For initial design purposes, the
average value of Np can be considered as 0.75.
Contribution of individual pile in load sharing
In Table 5 the shared load is equally distributed to individual
piles for different PRF cases, and that is compared with the
individual pile capacity to check how much % of single pile
capacity is utilised. The single pile capacity (Qult) is estimated
as the summation of pile base resistance (Qb,ult) and pile shaft
resistance (Qs,ult) (Salgado 2008) as given below,
16 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.

Figure 11. Variations of maximum and differential settlements of PRFs based on various parameters, such as (a) influence of pile
diameter, (b) influence of pile length, (c) influence of raft thickness, (d) influence of pile spacing, for an applied load of 500 kPa in
medium dense Ottawa sand. [Note: Spr,max and Spr,diff = maximum and differential settlement of PRF respectively].

� �
Qb;ult ¼ 0:23e 0:0066ID Qult ¼ Qb;ult þ Qs;ult (11)
h i� σ 0 �0:841 0:0047ID
� 1:64e0:1041ϕc þð0:0264 0:0002ÞID h 0
where σ v = in situ vertical effective stress at the depth at
! pA 0 0

πD2p which unit shaft resistance is calculated, σ h ¼ K0 σ v =

� in situ effective horizontal stress, δ = friction angle
4
mobilised along pile–soil interface = ϕc (assumed), pA
(9) = reference stress = 100 kPa, ID = relative density of sand
as a percentage, C1 = 0.7 (Salgado 2008).
h � 0 �i From the studies of different PRF cases as shown in
ID σv
K0 100 1:3 0:2 ln pA Table 5, it is clear that in some cases of PRF configura­
Qs;ult ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi � C1 e
e0:2 K0 0:4 tions, the individual pile capacity is used almost 100%
0
� tan δ � σ v � πDp Lp (10) (case 1b and 15 for loose sand), whereas, for some cases,
significantly less utilisation of single pile capacity happens

Figure 12. Variation of PRF settlement contour in various types of PRF cases, (a) rectangular PRF, (b) circular PRF, (c) square PRF, and
(d) strip PRF, for loose Erksak sand at an applied load of 500 kPa.
(case 5, 11, 12, 13 and 19). On the other hand, some PRF
cases show exceeding the single pile capacity (cases 3 c, 4,
7a, and 17). Overall, it is understood that PRF with small
numbers of piles in loose sand is not a good configuration
to consider as the load shared by individual piles crosses
its ultimate pile capacity. The purpose of this study is to
get a generalised idea about which PRF configuration
shows the maximum utilisation of the single pile capacity
controlling the settlement within a tolerable limit.
Different aspects of selecting suitable PRF
configuration
According to Katzenbach and Choudhury (2013),
there are two safety concepts given as the guidelines
of PRF design – (i) ultimate limit state (ULS) which
is based on the ultimate bearing capacity of PRF, and
(ii) serviceability limit state (SLS) which is based on
the maximum and differential settlements of PRF. In
the ULS of safety, the external bearing capacity is the
bearing capacity of soil on which the foundation is
resting, and, the internal bearing capacity describes
the bearing capacity of each member of the
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 17
foundation system (here, raft and piles in the PRF
system) should be greater than the applied load with
a certain factor of safety (Euro code 7, IS 1904 –
1986). Similarly, for the SLS of safety concept, the
maximum and differential settlements of the founda­
tion system should not exceed the allowable value of
the settlement as suggested in different codes of
standards. In Euro code 7 and IS 1904–1986, the
allowable limit of maximum settlement for the raft
foundation is 75 mm, and the allowable limit of
angular distortion is 1/300, which is the criteria for
differential settlement of raft. Reul and Randolph
(2004) considered the allowable maximum PRF set­
tlement as 100 mm and allowable angular distortion
(Spr,max/Br) as 1/1000. To date, there is no standard
guideline available for allowable maximum and dif­
ferential settlement of the piled raft foundation. In
the present study, for choosing a suitable PRF con­
figuration, the SLS design aspect is chosen by con­
sidering the maximum allowable settlement as
100 mm and the maximum allowable angular distor­
tion as 0.001 (Reul and Randolph 2004). In addition
to this one, the economical design aspect is added by
minimising the volume of concrete for a PRF system
18 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
Figure 13. Effect of various dimensions of piles (a) pile length (Lp), (b) pile diameter (Dp), and (c) pile spacing (sr) on load sharing
among raft and piles for an applied load of 500 kPa.
because it is considered that cost is a function of the
weight or volume of the structure (Kim et al. 2002).
Some examples of choosing PRF configurations at
the preliminary design stage are discussed here
based on Table 6.
t is not easy to strike the right combination of the
PRF parameters maintaining both the economic and
safety aspects. An attempt has been made in this study
to select a suitable PRF configuration, out of the differ­
ent options considered herein, based on the maximum
allowable settlement (Spr,max ≤ 100 mm), the differential
settlement, or angular distortion (Spr,diff/Br ≤ 0.001),
usage of individual pile capacity (≤ 80%) and through
the minimisation of concrete volume used. To do so,
a comparative study among few cases of the square (PRF
cases 5, 6d and 6e), rectangular (PRF cases 1b, 2d, 3 c, 4),
strip (PRF cases 10, 11, 12), and circular (PRF cases 15,
16, 17) PRFs subjected to an applied vertical uniformly
distributed load of 500 kPa for medium dense Ottawa
sand has been shown and discussed in Table 6. In the
first part of this study in Table 6, three square PRFs
(cases 5, 6d, and 6e) with 10 m × 10 m raft are compared,
and it is observed that the PRF case 5 exhibits higher
Spr,max (90.4 mm) and angular distortion (0.0062)
though the concrete volume used in this case is mini­
mum as compared to the other two cases 6d and 6e.
Although one important point to be noted is that case 5
has almost double the number of piles (np = 16) and
a smaller pile spacing than cases 6d and 6e. For case 5,
the piles have a lower diameter and a shorter length, and
the raft is thinner than those in cases 6d and 6e. These
may be the reason that case 5 shows a high value of the
settlement and angular distortion. Between the cases 6d
and 6e, both are identical except for the pile diameter
(Dp = 1.0 m and 1.5 m for cases 6d and 6e, respectively).
The volume of concrete for case 6e is higher (338.6 m3)
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 19

Figure 14. Effects of various dimension of rafts (a) raft thickness (Tr) and (b) aspect ratio of raft (Lr/Br) on fraction of load carried by the
piles in a PRF system.

Figure 15. Variation of the fraction of load carried by piles Np with (a) normalised applied load p/pref (pref = 1000 kPa) and (b) influence
parameter I (applied load 500 kPa), for medium dense sand.

than the cases 6d and 5 (206 m3 and 81.4 m3, respec­
tively). Utilisation of the single pile capacity [estimated
as Qshared/Qult where Qshared = load carried by a single
pile of PRF system obtained distributing applied load
equally in each pile, Qult = ultimate load capacity of
single pile estimated using Equation (11)] in cases 6d
and 6e (53% and 54% respectively) is higher than that of
case 5 (39%). Additionally, among the three square PRF
cases 5, 6d, and 6e, all cases show Spr,max < 100 mm
(though PRF case 5 shows maximum settlement is very
close to the allowable limit) and angular distortion <
0.001 fulfiling safety aspect, however, case 5 does not use
single pile capacity efficiently compared to cases 6d and
6e. Hence PRF case 6d may be chosen as the most
suitable option among these three square PRFs satisfy­
ing both the safety (both Spr,max, and angular distortion
are far from allowable limit, also efficient utilisation of
single pile capacity) and the economic aspects due to
lesser construction cost as calculated in Table 6. Similar
comparisons may be done among the four rectangular
20 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.

Table 5. Average values of load fraction carried by piles for a few PRF cases corresponding to load 500 kPa.
Loose sand Medium dense sand Dense sand
**Qshared/Qult
Case Pile arrangement *Np (%) Np Qshared/Qult (%) Np Qshared/Qult (%)
1b 0.86 96.59 0.86 69.50 0.81 47.28

2d 0.73 70.89 0.72 51.33 0.61 32.07

3c 0.83 105.33 0.79 73.16 0.77 52.29

4 0.73 111.16 0.71 78.90 0.60 48.90

5 0.66 55.60 0.64 38.79 0.61 26.70

6d 0.75 72.84 0.74 52.75 0.72 37.85

6e 0.89 75.29 0.88 54.33 0.82 37.13
7a 0.88 129.24 0.83 71.58 0.80 50.88

8 0.85 61.91 0.82 43.84 0.77 30.36

12 0.74 38.36 0.67 24.99 0.61 16.43

11 0.71 54.27 0.65 35.27 0.59 22.82
13 0.72 52.91 0.68 36.98 0.63 25.47
15 0.85 88.13 0.845 63.03 0.843 45.42

16 0.78 75.75 0.77 54.89 0.75 39.43

19 0.77 56.29 0.76 41.45 0.74 30.26
17 0.74 131.86 0.72 128.30 0.69 122.95

*Np = Fraction of load carried by pile group in a PRF system.

**Qshared = Load carried by a single pile of PRF system (applied load is equally distributed in each pile), Qult = Ultimate load capacity of single pile estimated
using Equation (11), Qshared/Qult = Percentage of single pile capacity utilised.

PRFs, i.e., PRF cases 1b, 2d, 3 c, and 4. Among these four
PRF cases (1b, 2d, 3 c, and 4), all have maximum settle­
ment within an allowable limit, i.e., Spr,max < 100 mm.
However, angular distortion in case 1b exceeds the
allowable limit, i.e., angular distortion > 0.001. From
the point of the utilisation of single pile capacity, PRF
case 4 shows maximum utilisation (79%), and PRF case
2d shows minimum utilisation (51%). On the other
hand, based on concrete volume estimation, PRF case
1b shows a minimum concrete volume (53.6 m3), and
PRF case 2d shows a maximum concrete volume
(302.1 m3). Overall, case 4 can be considered as the
safe and economical configuration among the four rec­
tangular PRF cases because it shows Spr,max, and angular
distortion within allowable limits. Moreover, case 4
exhibits efficient utilisation of single pile capacity and
also reasonable concrete volume, which is not very high
compared to the other cases. The comparisons of var­
ious cases of strip PRFs and circular PRFs are also
studied similarly, as shown in Table 6. It is noticeable
that in the case of strip PRFs, angular distortion is a very
important component for choosing a suitable PRF con­
figuration. In the example of Table 6, there are three
strip PRF cases (10, 11, and 12) where all three cases
show angular distortion > 0.001, i.e., more than the
allowable limit. Hence based on fulfiling other criteria
satisfactorily (as visible in Table 6), PRF case 10 is
chosen as a better configuration compared to the other
two cases, however, this configuration should be revised
to reduce the angular distortion of the PRF, keeping it
within the allowable limit. For circular PRF cases, the
differential settlement is negligible for all PRF cases,
however, the maximum settlement is high. Based on
the comparison among three circular PRF cases (15,
16, and 17), PRF case 15 can be chosen as a suitable
PRF configuration fulfiling all the safety and economic
criteria. It is noticed from Table 6 that it is always better
to have a lesser number of piles with a large pile dia­
meter and length to control maximum settlement and
angular distortion instead of having a large number of
piles with smaller diameter and length. It is also suitable
from a construction point of view (for example, PRF
case 5 and 6d or PRF case 1b and 4).
A logical approach for choosing a safe and
economic PRF configuration
The above detailed parametric study shows how dif­
ferent parameters affect the load-settlement behaviour
of a PRF system and how difficult it is to select
a suitable configuration of PRF as per design require­
ment considering the combined effects of all the
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 21

Table 6. Comparison among various PRF cases from safety and economic point of view for 500 kPa applied loading in medium-dense
Ottawa sand.
*Angular
PRF distortion, *Maximum settle­ *Utilisation of single pile PRF concrete volume
Case Variations in PRF configuration Spr,diff/Br ment, Spr,max (mm) capacity Qshared/Qult (%) (for cost analysis) (m3) Comments
Square PRF
5 np = 16, Dp = 0.5 m, Lp = 10 m, sr 0.00062 90.4 39 81.4 Case 6d safe and
= sc = 2 m economical
6d np = 9, Dp = 1.0 m, Lp = 15 m, sr 0.00022 75.4 53 206.0
= sc = 4 m
6e np = 9, Dp = 1.5 m, Lp = 15 m, sr 0.0002 60.8 54 338.6
= sc = 4 m
Rectangular PRF
2d np = 9, Dp = 1.0 m, Lp = 15 m, sr 0.0004 59.5 51 302.1 Case 4
= 4 m, sc = 2 m safe and economical
4 np = 5, Dp = 1.5 m, Lp = 15 m, sr 0.0001 66.5 79 192.5
= 6 m, sc = 2 m
3c np = 6, Dp = 1.5 m, Lp = 15 m, sr 0.00002 57 73 219.0
= sc = 3 m
1b np = 12, Dp = 0.5 m, Lp = 10 m, sr 0.0011 75.5 70 53.6
= sc = 2 m
Strip PRF
10 Tr = 1 m, np = 10, Dp = 1.0 m, Lp 0.0011 57.5 65 197.8 Case 10 safe and
= 15 m, sr = 4 m, sc = 2 m economical However
11 Tr = 0.5 m, np = 14, Dp = 1.0 m, Lp 0.0028 60 35 150.0 to get angular
= 10 m, sr = 3 m, sc = 2 m distortion < 0.001, case
12 Tr = 0.5 m, np = 26, Dp = 0.5 m, Lp 0.0031 64 25 91.1 10 should be revised
= 10 m, sr = 1.5 m, sc = 2 m
Circular PRF
15 Tr = 1.0 m, Dp = 0.5 m, np = 13, Lp 0.00011 89 63 138.6 Case 15 safe and
= 10 m, sr = sc = 2 m economical
16 Tr = 1.0 m, Dp = 1.0 m, np = 9, Lp 0.0001 79.6 55 219.1
= 15 m, sr = sc = 4 m
17 Tr = 1.5 m, Dp = 1.5 m, np = 5, Lp 0.00008 92.5 128 258.0
= 10 m, sr = sc = 4.5 m
*Note: allowable limits (Reul and Randolph 2004) – Spr,max ≤ 100 mm, angular distortion Spr,diff/Br ≤ 0.001, Qshared/Qult (≤ 80%)

influencing parameters. A guideline flow chart is
shown in Figure 16 based on the above study, which
will be helpful for a practitioner to choose
a preliminary PRF configuration balancing safety and
economy as per the condition of the available sand
type. In this flow chart, step 7 is a critical step where
we need to judge the PRF configurations based on the
combined effect of different dimensions of PRFs. The
idea of this guideline flow chart is to reduce the
detailed design trial on different PRF configurations
by choosing a preliminary configuration following the
steps suggested in the flow chart.

Figure 16. Guideline chart for choosing preliminary suitable PRF configuration considering safety and economical design aspect.
22 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
Conclusions
Three-dimensional elasto-plastic FE analysis is per­
formed on piled raft foundations in sands to investigate
the influence of various PRF dimensions and material
parameters (elastic and critical state parameters of soil)
on the settlement behaviour of PRF and the load sharing
characteristics of raft and piles. Also, the combined effects
of different PRF geometries and pile arrangements for
a particular type of sand are studied, considering the
serviceability limit state concept. Three-dimensional FE
software Abaqus 6.12–3, and the critical state-based soil
constitutive model CASM incorporated in Abaqus
through UMAT are chosen for the present study.
Altogether, more than 300 elasto-plastic simulations con­
sidering 38 cases of rectangular, strip, and circular raft
connected to different configurations of circular piles,
resting on four different types of sands, are analysed in
the present study. The accuracy of the FE analysis is
verified and validated by comparing it with other numer­
ical and experimental studies.
In the course of the parametric study, it is concluded
that there is a remarkable influence of soil elastic as well as
critical state parameters on the settlement behaviour of
PRF. The PRF settlement decreases for soils having
a high modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio for differ­
ent types of sand with different sets of critical state para­
meters. Soil with low relative density shows a high average
settlement. There is no remarkable effect of the earth
pressure coefficient at rest on the settlement behaviour of
PRF. A combined influence parameter is proposed to
understand the influence of all critical state soil parameters
and the state of the soil, on the value of soil subgrade
modulus corresponding to allowable maximum PRF set­
tlement. A design chart is provided based on the combined
effect of different soil parameters defined in terms of
combined influence parameter for getting an idea of the
general range of soil subgrade modulus corresponding to
100 mm maximum PRF settlement in different types of
sand irrespective of piled raft configurations. Based on the
comparative parametric study on maximum PRF settle­
ment and differential PRF settlement, it is concluded that
the parametric influences are not similar on these two
settlement responses. At low values of loading, the fraction
of load carried by piles increases with an increase in load­
ing up to a certain range beyond which it reaches
a constant value. It is also concluded that there is
a significant effect of critical state soil parameters in com­
bination with soil elastic properties on the load sharing
characteristics of PRF systems.
The safe and economical design of PRF to control
both maximum settlement and angular distortion, the
PRF configuration should be chosen wisely. Based on
the effect of piled raft dimensions on PRF settlements
(both maximum and differential), it is concluded that
PRF with a smaller number of piles having larger pile
diameter and length is a better choice in comparison
with a PRF supported by a large number of piles having
smaller diameter and length, for sand with medium to
dense state. However, in the case of loose sand, PRF with
higher numbers of piles is better to avoid failure in
individual pile capacity. Overall, the flow chart guideline
will be very useful for practitioners to choose the right
configuration of PRFs of sizes similar to those consid­
ered in this research work as well as for commonly
found sands similar to the types of sand considered
here, by satisfying both safety and economic aspects of
serviceability limit states.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Alnuaim, A.M., El Naggar, H., and El Naggar, M.H., 2015.
Performance of micropiled raft in sand subjected to vertical
concentrated load: centrifuge modeling. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 52 (1), 33–45. doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0001
Banerjee, R., et al., 2020. Settlement behavior of pile raft subjected
to vertical loadings in multilayered soil. Geomechanics and
Geoengineering, 1–15. doi:10.1080/17486025.2020.1739754
Basu, D. and Salgado, R., 2012. Load and resistance factor
design of drilled shafts in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138 (12), 1455–1469.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000714
Been, K. and Jefferies, M.G., 1985. A state parameter for sands.
Géotechnique, 35 (2), 99–122. doi:10.1680/geot.1985.35.2.99
Bhaduri, A. and Choudhury, D., 2020. Serviceability-based finite-
element approach on analyzing combined pile–raft foundation.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 20 (2), 04019178-(1-11).
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001580
Bhartiya, P., Chakraborty, T., and Basu, D., 2020a. Settlement
estimation of piled rafts for initial design. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE),
146 (2), 04019127, 1–17.
Bhartiya, P., Chakraborty, T., and Basu, D., 2020b. Nonlinear
subgrade modulus of sandy soils for analysis of piled raft
foundations. Computers and Geotechnics, 118, 103350.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103350
Bolton, M.D., Dasari, G.R., and Britto, A.M., 1994. Putting small-
strain non-linearity into modified Cam-clay model.
Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Morgantown,WV,
537–542.
Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed.
New York: The McGraw-hill Companies, Inc.
Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P.K., 1971. The elastic analysis of
compressible piles and pile groups. Géotechnique, 21 (1),
43–60. doi:10.1680/geot.1971.21.1.43

Clancy, P. and Randolph, M.F., 1993. An approximate analy­
sis procedure for piled raft foundations. International
Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods of
Geomechanics, 17, 849–869. doi:10.1002/nag.1610171203
Comodromos, E.M., Papadopoulou, M.C., and Laloui, L.,
2016. Contribution to the design methodologies of piled
raft foundations under combined loadings. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 53 (4), 559–577. doi:10.1139/cgj-
2015-0251
Dafalias, Y.F., 1986. Bounding surface Plasticity I: mathematical
foundation and hypoplasticity. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 112 (9), 966–987. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399­
(1986)112:9(966)
De Sanctis, L., et al., 2002. Some remarks on the optimum
design of piled rafts. Deep Foundations, 116, 405–425.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication.
De Sanctis, L. and Mandolini, A., 2006. Bearing capacity of piled
rafts on soft clay soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 132 (12), 1600–1610.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1600)
De Sanctis, L. and Russo, G., 2008. Analysis and performance of
piled rafts designed using innovative criteria. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 134
(8), 1118–1128. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:8(
1118)
Drucker, D.C., Gibsonand, R.E., and Henkel, D.J., 1957. Soil
mechanics and work hardening theories of plasticity.
Proceedings ASCE, 122, 338–346.
El-Garhy, B., et al., 2013. Behaviour of raft on settlement
reducing piles: experimental model study. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 5, 389–399.
doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2013.07.005
European Standard, 2004. Eurocode 7: geotechnical design -
Part 1: general rules, EN 1997-1:2004, November.
Fioravante, V. and Giretti, D., 2010. Contact versus noncon­
tact piled raft foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
47 (11), 1271–1287. doi:10.1139/T10-021
Fioravante, V., Giretti, D., and Jamiolkowski, M., 2008.
Physical modeling of raft on settlement reducing piles.
Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering Congress,
2008, 206–229. ASCE.
Horikoshi, K. and Randolph, M.F., 1998. A contribution to
optimum design of piled rafts. Géotechnique, 48 (3),
301–317. doi:10.1680/geot.1998.48.3.301
Indian standard 1904 (1986): code of practice for design and
construction of foundation in soils: general, UDC 624.15.04:
006.76, third revision, first reprint, July.
Jefferies, M.G., 1993. Nor-Sand: a simple critical state model
for sand. Geotechnique, 43 (1), 91–103. doi:10.1680/
geot.1993.43.1.91
Katzenbach, R., et al., 1998. Piled raft foundation- Interaction
between piles and raft. In: Proceedings of International
Conference in Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil
Engineering, TU Darmstadt, 279–296.
Katzenbach, R. and Choudhury, D., 2013. ISSMGE combined
pile–raft foundation guideline. In TC212 design guideline.
Darmstadt, Germany: International Society for Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 1–23.
Kim, H., Yoo, H., and Kang, I., 2002. Genetic algorithm-
based optimum design of piled raft foundations with
model tests. Geotechnical Engineering, 33 (1), 1–11.
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 23
Kumar, A. and Choudhury, D., 2017. Load sharing mechanism of
combined pile-raft foundation (CPRF) under seismic loads.
Geotechnical Engineering, Journal of the Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Society (SEAGS) and Association of Geotechnical
Societies in Southeast Asia (AGSSEA), 48 (3), 95–101.
Kumar, A. and Choudhury, D., 2018. Development of new
prediction model for capacity of combined pile-raft
foundations. Computers and Geotechnics, 97, 62–68.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.12.008
Kumar, A., Patil, M., and Choudhury, D., 2017. Soil-structure
interaction in a combined pile-raft foundation - a case
study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Geotechnical Engineering, 170 (2), 117–128. doi:10.1680/
jgeen.16.00075
Lee, J., Kim, Y., and Jeong, S., 2010. Three-dimensional ana­
lysis of bearing behavior of piled raft on soft clay.
Computers and Geotechnics, 37, 103–114. Elsevier.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.07.009
Lee, K.L. and Seed, H. B. 1967. Drained strength character­
istics of sands ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, 90 (SM6), 117–141.
Liu, J., et al., 1994. Experimental research on bearing behavior
of pile groups in soil. In: Proceedings of 13th International
Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
vol. 2, New Delhi, India, 535–538.
Loukidis, D., 2006. Advanced constitutive modeling of sands
and applications to foundation engineering. PhD Thesis.
West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.
Maharaj, D.K. and Anshuman, A., 2004. The effect of raft size
and pile length on load-settlement behaviour of axisym­
metric piled raft foundation. Electronics Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), 9, 1–12.
Mandolini, A., Russo, G., and Viggiani, C., 2005. Pile foundations:
experimental investigations, analysis and design. Proceedings of
16th International Conference in Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan, 177–213.
Neville, A.M., 2011. Properties of concrete. England: Pearson
education limited.
Nguyen, D.D.C., Jo, S.B., and Kim, D.S., 2013. Design method
of piled-raft foundations under vertical load considering
piled-raft interaction effects. Computers and Geotechnics,
47, 16–27. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.06.007
Nguyen, D.D.C., Kim, D.S., and Jo, S.B., 2014. Parametric
study for optimum design of large piled raft foundations
of sand. Computer and Geotechnics, 55, 14–26. doi:10.1016/
j.compgeo.2013.07.014
Oh, E.Y.N., et al., 2008. Finite element modeling for piled raft
foundation in sand. Eleventh East Asia-Pacific conference on
structural engineering and construction (EASEC-11) “Building
a Sustainable Environment. Taipei, Taiwan, 1–8.
Omeman, Z.M., 2012. Load sharing of piled raft foundation in
sand subjected to vertical load. PhD Thesis. Canada:
Concordia University.
Ortiz, M. and Simo, J.C., 1986. An analysis of a new class of
integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive
relations. International Journal of Numerical Methods of
Engineering, 23 (3), 353–366. doi:10.1002/nme.1620230303
Park, D. and Lee, J., 2015. Interaction effects on load carrying
behavior of piled rafts embedded in clay from centrifuge
tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52 (10), 1550–1561.
doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0336
24 P. BHARTIYA ET AL.
Poulos, H.G., 1991. Foundation economy via piled-raft sys­
tems. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pile Talk, 97–106. 93.
Poulos, H.G., et al., 1997. Comparison of some methods for
analysis of piled rafts. Proceedings of 14th ICSMFE, 2.
Hamburg, 1119–1124.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H., 1980. Pile foundation analysis
and design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rabiei, M., 2009. Parametric Study for Piled Raft Foundations.
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), 14 (A),
1–11.
Reul, O. and Randolph, M.F., 2004. Design strategies for piled rafts
subjected to nonuniform vertical loading. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130 (1),
1–13. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:1(1)
Rowe, P.W., 1971. Theoretical meaning and observed values
of deformation parameters for soil. Proceedings, Roscoe
memorial symposium on stress strain behaviour of soils.
Cambridge, U.K.: University of Cambridge, 143–194.
Russo, G., 1998. Numerical analysis of piled rafts. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
22 (6), 477–493. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199806)
22:6<477::AID-NAG931>3.0.CO;2-H
Russo, G., 2018. Analysis and design of pile foundations under
vertical load: an overview. R.I.G. Italian Geotechnical
Journal, 52 (2), 52–71.
Russo, G. and Viggiani, C., 1998. Factors controlling
soil-structure interaction for piled rafts. Darmstadt
Geotechnics, 4, 297–321.
Salgado, R., 2008. The engineering of foundations. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Sasitharan, S., et al., 1994. State-boundary surface for very
loose sand and its practical implications. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31 (3), 321–334. doi:10.1139/t94-040
Seo, Y.K., Choi, K.S., and Jeong, S.G., 2003. Design charts of
piled raft foundations on soft clay. Proceedings of the thir­
teenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii, 753–755.
Yu, H.S., 1998. CASM: a unified state parameter model for
clay and sand. International Journal of Numerical and
Analytical Methods of Geomechanics, 22, 621–653.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199808)22:8<621::AID-
NAG937>3.0.CO;2-8
Yu, H.S., 2006. Plasticity and geotechnics. New York:
Springer.
Zhang, G.M., Lee, I.K., and Zhao, X.H., 1991. Interactive
analysis of behaviour of raft-pile foundations. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
for Coastal Development - Theory and Practice on Soft
Ground - GEO-COAST’91, 1. Yokohama, 759–764.