Artigo Wilson Cartaxo - Canadian

1005
ARTICLE
Piled raft with hollow auger piles founded in a Brazilian
granular deposit
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15
For personal use only.
Wilson Cartaxo Soares, Roberto Quental Coutinho, and Renato Pinto da Cunha
Abstract: Geotechnical projects typically achieve load transfer to the ground using shallow or deep foundations. The conventional design approach does not provide for the combination of these two types of foundation. The piled raft philosophy allows
the association of the soil elements, raft, and piles to obtain technical and economic advantages over conventional design. The
city of Joo Pessoa, in northeastern Brazil, has developed foundation practices with hollow auger piles in piled raft design. The
coastal area of the city has topsoil layers with favorable conditions for using such a technique. This paper addresses the results
of a research project with instrumented load tests on foundation systems of hollow auger piles and a piled raft. The analysis is
based on the loadsettlement curve through extrapolation criteria. The PoulosDavisRandolph (PDR) method is applied according to a trilinear and hyperbolic approach to simulate the loadsettlement curve of piled rafts. The results indicate that the raft
absorbs most of the load, and the raftsoil contact signicantly increases the load capacity of the foundation. The PDR hyperbolic
method could apply to practical use in the foundations of the region, as it allows a more detailed assessment of the behavior of
the foundation and can forecast the behavior of the (locally nontraditional) piled raft foundation system.
Key words: piled raft, load test, instrumentation, hollow auger pile.
Rsum : Dans les projets gotechniques, le transfert de charge vers le sol est habituellement ralis a` laide de fondations
supercielles ou profondes. La mthode traditionnelle de conception ne prvoit pas lassociation de ces deux types de fondations. Lapproche des radiers sur pieux permet de combiner les lments de sol, le radier et les piles de manire, ce qui comporte
des avantages techniques et conomiques par rapport a` la mthode de conception traditionnelle. La ville de Joo Pessoa, dans le
Nord-Est du Brsil, a mis en place des pratiques de construction des fondations prvoyant lutilisation de pieux a` tarire creuse
lors de la conception de radiers sur pieux. La couche supercielle du sol dans la zone ctire de la ville est favorable a` lutilisation
dune telle technique. Le prsent article prsente les rsultats dun projet de recherche comportant des essais instruments
effectus sur des systmes de fondations constitus de pieux a` tarire creuse et dun radier sur pieux. Lanalyse est base sur la
courbe chargetassement et fait appel a` des critres dextrapolation. La mthode de PoulosDavisRandolph (PDR) est applique
en suivant une approche trilinaire et hyperbolique an de simuler la courbe chargetassement de radiers sur pieux. Les
rsultats montrent que le radier absorbe lessentiel de la charge et que le contact entre le radier et le sol a pour effet daugmenter
de manire signicative la capacit de charge de la fondation. La mthode hyperbolique PDR pourrait sappliquer dans la
pratique aux fondations construites dans la rgion de Joo Pessoa tant donn quelle permet dvaluer plus en dtail le
comportement de la fondation et de prdire celui du systme de fondation (localement non traditionnel) comportant un radier
sur pieux. [Traduit par la Rdaction]
Mots-cls : radier sur pieux, essai de charge, instrumentation, pieu a` tarire creuse.
Introduction
The spread of urban centers has boosted civil construction and
the demand for better use of the available areas and resources.
New design types have been explored looking for lower costs and
better technical criteria when choosing foundations.
Civil construction in the city of Joo Pessoa, Brazil, is on an
upward trend due to the expansion of its real estate market. Urban areas along its coastline, which are always highly valued, have
strict requirements regarding their use and scenic ambience.
Foundations in coastal regions consist mostly of shallow footings that are supported by soils improved by deep piles of compacted sand. This technique, which has been adopted successfully
for several years in different sizes of buildings, has certain restrictions in densely populated areas due to the use of dynamic piledriver cranes.
Conventional foundation designs transfer loads to the ground

using either shallow or deep foundations. Traditionally, both types
are not used in the same foundation.
Piled raft foundations are an alternative approach to conventional foundation design. This new approach combines, in a single
element, shallow and deep foundations as well as their individual
advantages.
The structural load is transferred to the ground by skin friction,
pile tips, and raft (surface foundation element), by means of contact stress with the ground. Both elements are responsible for the
foundations performance in terms of loading capacity and settlement (Sales 2000).
The premise of using the piled raft is to benet from the
contact between the ground and the pile cap or raft. In the new
approach, the raft can be sized both to increase the foundations load
Received 9 March 2014. Accepted 7 October 2014.

W.C. Soares. Copesolo Piles and Foundations, Joo Pessoa, PB, Brazil.
R.Q. Coutinho. Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
R. Pinto da Cunha. University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Wilson Cartaxo Soares (e-mail: soares.wilson@gmail.com).
Can. Geotech. J. 52: 10051022 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0087
Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 24 November 2014.

1006
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
support and also reduce the number of piles required to control

settlement.
Hollow auger piles, initially launched as an alternative for improving soil capacity, currently occupy an important niche within
local foundation practices. These piles, driven with hydraulic
drills, have a good market position, especially in construction
projects where there are pile driver installation and difcult operations.
Techniques and designs evolved to include the use of hollow
auger piles in the piled-raft concept. This approach is used in
favorable situations where the topsoil has good resistance, allowing load transfer to the soil to be shared between piles and the
footing foundation.
Design calculations still depend heavily on empirical knowhow, and construction rms offer little available information on
hollow auger piles. Growing demand for hollow auger piles highlights the need for further study of piles and piled-raft foundations.
This article is part of a research project (MCTI/CNPq/INCTREAGEO/UFPE) developed by the Federal University of Pernambuco, which studies the behavior of hollow auger piles in pile
groups and piled-raft foundations. Static load tests were performed in an experimental foundation eld located in the coastal
region of the city of Joo Pessoa. Instruments such as load cells
and strain meters were used, which were positioned along the
shaft and tip of the piles (Soares 2011).
Extrapolation methods by Van der Veen (1953) and Dcourt
(1996), based on the concept of stiffness, were used to interpret the
load tests. These methods deploy the PoulosDavisRandolph
(PDR) method, which is a combination of the methods by Poulos
and Davis (1980) and Randolph (1994), to simulate trilinear and
hyperbolic loadsettlement curves of the piled raft.
The main objective of this study is to (i) analyze the mechanism
of load transfer from the piled raft with hollow auger piles to the
soil, including the percentage of load absorbed by the elements
(raft and piles); and (ii) dene a simple and practical design
method. The PDR method is applied according to a tri-linear and
hyperbolic approach to simulate the loadsettlement curve of
piled rafts.
Piled raft
A piled raft can be characterized as a result of the load distribution between the pile and raft elements, using the pr coefcient
proposed by Mandolini (2003)
n
(1)
pr
i1
Q PR
Conventional The foundations are designed to act as a group of

piles supporting most of the loads. Only a small portion of the
load is distributed by the pile cap to the ground. The piles are
distributed under the raft with typical spacing. Their workload
is much less than the bearing capacity.
Creep piling The piles are designed to act with workloads close
to the ultimate load capacity, generally between 70% and 80% of
the failure load. Originally conceived for soft cohesive soils, the
foundation is designed as a raft, and the total settlements are
reduced by including piles. The piles are distributed under the raft
to restrict the contact stress between the raft and ground, for
values lower than the pre-consolidation stress of the ground.
Control of differential settlements In the rst two approaches mentioned above, the piles are distributed evenly under the raft to
mainly control absolute settlements. The differential settlements,
consequently, are controlled. In the third approach the piles are
placed strategically on the raft to reduce differential settlements.
The behavior of the loadsettlement curves between the different approaches is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Curve 0 shows the behavior of the raft alone. Curve 1 represents
the conventional design philosophy. Curve 2 represents the case
of creep piling. Curve 3 illustrates the strategy of using piles as
settlement reducers. The design depicted by curve 3 is more economical than the designs depicted by curves 1 and 2.
Mandolini (2012) states that it is now possible to consider different options when installing piles underneath a raft: (i) to increase
the resistance and stiffness of the raft and (ii) to reduce average
settlement or differential settlement as well as bending moments
and shear forces in the raft.
The most efcient application of the piled-raft foundation is
when the raft has sufcient bearing capacity, but the values of
absolute and (or) differential settlements on the raft exceed the
set limits. Poulos (2001, 2011) specied, for a situation favorable to
the use of the technique, soil proles with relatively stiff clays or
relatively compact sands.
Randolph (1994) suggests a logical design procedure involving
three stages
P,j
where Q P,j is the load on the jth pile and Q PR the load absorbed by
the piled raft. Coefcient pr = 0 represents a shallow foundation
with no piles; pr = 1 represents a pile group with a raft that is clear
from the ground. Piled raft foundations cover the range 0 < pr < 1
(Fig. 1).
Randolph (1994) denes three design philosophies for the piled
raft
Fig. 1. Foundation systems (Mandolini 2003).
Preliminary stage The feasibility of a piled raft is examined.

The performance of the horizontal element without piles is
assessed. A vertical, lateral load and maximum and differential
settlements are assessed using conventional techniques. The
design philosophy is chosen according to the load that the
horizontal element might receive.
Second stage The general characteristics of the piles and
where they will be required are assessed. The study is undertaken in greater detail. The piles are required based on the
loading of the pillar in the following situations: maximum
forces of momentum and shear stress that exceed the admissible structural value of the horizontal element; contact pressure
that the horizontal element has on the ground exceeds its admissible value; total settlement is greater than the acceptable
value.
Final stage At this stage the number, location, and ideal conguration of the piles are obtained. The detailed distribution of
settlements, moments, and shear stresses in the raft as well as
the loads and moments on the piles are analyzed. The rst and
second stages involve relatively simple calculations. However,
the nal stage requires its own software that takes into account
rationally the effects of the interaction between the ground,
Published by NRC Research Press
Soares et al.
1007

Fig. 2. Loadsettlement curves for piled rafts according to various

design philosophies (Poulos 2001, republished with permission of
ICE Publishing, permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance
Center, Inc.).
Fig. 4. City of Joo Pessoa location.
Fig. 5. Soil prole and standard penetration test results.
Fig. 3. PDR method (after Poulos and Davis 1980).
piles, and the pile tips. The effects of the superstructure may
also be considered.
The behavior of the loadsettlement curve of a piled raft can be
assessed using the PDR method. The authors consider a trilinear
model to describe the behavior of the loadsettlement curve of
the piled raft (Fig. 3).
Point A represents the load on which the groups capacity is
fully mobilized. Up to this point the load is divided between the
piles and raft, and the settlement can be expressed by
(2)
P
KPR
In addition to point A, the raft and settlement withstand the

extra load as follows
(3)
PA
P PA
KPR
KR
The method uses values of initial tangent stiffness of the

single pile (KP) and raft (KR) (obtained from load test graphs or
estimated theoretically) and the raft-pile (rp) interaction factor, to estimate the piled raft stiffness (KPR). Randolph (1994)
1008
Table 1. Typical geotechnical values of the site.

Parameter
Depth (m)
s
(kN/m3)
w (%)
wL (%)
wP (%)
PI (%)
Gravel
(%)
Coarse
sand (%)
Medium
sand (%)
Fine
sand (%)
Silt
(%)
Clay
(%)
0.50
0.80
1.00
26.2
26.6
26.7
1.09; 0.70
0.93; 0.62
1.01; 0.66
8.4
2.7
3.6
15
0
1
3
0
1
27
48
28
47
50
67
5
2
3
3
0
0

Fig. 6. Typical grain-size curve.
proposed estimation of the stiffness of the piled raft using the

following expression:
(4)
KPR
KPG (1 2RP)KR
2
1 RP
(KR /KPG)
where KPG, KR, and KPR are the stiffnesses of the pile group, isolated raft, and piled raft, respectively. KPG can be obtained directly
from the loadsettlement curve or calculated using the equation
proposed by Fleming et al. (1992) for the stiffness of the single
pile (KP)
(5)
KPG KP(n)1e
where n is the number of piles and the exponent varies between

0.3 and 0.5 for friction piles; e 0.6 for end-bearing piles.
The interaction factor of the raft pile, rp, is
(6)
Table 2. Results of direct shear test.
rp 1
ln(rc /r0)
where rc is average radius of the pile cap (corresponding to an area

equal to the raft area divided by number of piles); r0 is radius of
the pile; = ln(rm/r0); rm = {0.25 + [2.5(1 ) 0.25]L; = Esl/Esb; =
Esav/Esl; is Poissons ratio of the soil; L is pile length; Esl is Youngs
modulus of the soil at pile tip level; Esb is Youngs modulus of the
bearing stratum below pile tip; and Esav is Youngs soil modulus
along the pile shaft. Poulos (2001) described the terms of the equation.
The Youngs soil modulus can be obtained by several approaches, such as laboratory tests, seismic tests, correlations with
in situ tests, etc. For this paper E values were obtained by the
standard penetration test (SPT) correlation (Hachich et al. 1998)
(7)
Sample
Unit weight
(kN/m3)
Cohesion
(kPa)
Friction
angle ()
01
02
03
16.0
17.0
18.0
0
0
0
32
33
34
E KN
where N is the standard penetration resistance of SPT. The and

K coefcients depend on the soil type and are specied in
Tromenkof (1974) and Teixeira (1993), respectively.
According to Clancy and Randolph (1992), when increasing the
number of piles in the group, the rp coefcient value stays close
to 0.8 regardless of the spacing between piles and the length and
relative stiffness of the piles.
Mandolini (2003) states that the PDR method allows the use of
hyperbolic relationships to predict the loadsettlement curves
of piles and raft, which can help obtain a more realistic behavior
of the foundations. The piled raft stiffness (KPR) is
(8)
KPR XKPG
where
(9)
1 0.6(KR /KPG)
1 0.64(KR /KPG)
The secant stiffness of the piles and raft is expressed by

(10)
KPG KPG,i 1 RPG
PPG
PPG,ult
Soares et al.
1009

Fig. 7. Direct shear test ( = 16 kN/m3): (a) horizontal strain; (b) normal stress.
1010

Fig. 10. Foundations and SPT location.
(11)
KR KR,i 1 RR
PR
PR,ult
Fig. 11. Top surface precast block.
where KPG,i and KR,i are the initial tangent stiffness of the pile
group and raft, respectively. KPG,i can be obtained directly from
the load versus settlement graph or from eq. (5) (Fleming et al.
1992). RPG and RR are the hyperbolic factors. Poulos (2000) adopts
RPG = 0.5 and RR = 0.75. PPG and PR are loads carried by the elements
(pile group and raft), and PPG,ult and PR,ult are their ultimate loads.
Study area
The city of Joo Pessoa ts into the geological context of the
PernambucoParaiba Sedimentary Basin, extending along the
coastal strip of northeast Brazil between the states of Rio Grande do
Norte, Paraiba, and Pernambuco (Fig. 4). The subsoil of the coastal
region of the city consists of unconsolidated sediments of the recent
Quaternary period. Its main units are alluvial deposits with a marine
uvial contribution.
The marine deposits consist of a narrow coastal strip, with
higher concentration at the northeast end of the city. This region
was the test eld for the study. The subsoil consists of ne- to
medium-grained well-sorted sands and contains the remains of
marine animals (shells). Beaches and sandbanks are also present.
This region is part of the geomorphological domain of coastal
lowlands. Figure 5 shows soil proles, SPT values, and statistical
covariants from eld tests based on four SPTs.
Table 1 presents the geotechnical characterization results of the
site, based on soil classication tests including grain-size proportions. In this table the unit weight of solid particles and void ratio
of this deposit are also provided. The tests were performed with
samples collected at depths of 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0 m. Figure 6 shows a
grain-size curve of a sample collected at 0.5 m.
Table 2 presents the results of three direct shear tests on the top
layer of sand. The tests were performed on samples collected at a
depth of 0.8 m with unit weights of 16; 17, and 18 kN/m3. Figures 7
to 9 show shear stress versus deformation and failure envelopes
for the three test sample conditions.
Materials and methods

The experimental stage of the study included building foundations in accordance with local designs and techniques. Fourteen hollow auger piles with 0.30 diameter m and 5.0 m length and one
shallow foundation were constructed. These piles were used in two
types of foundations: a traditional pile group (raft not in contact
with the topsoil) and a piled raft (raft in contact with the soil). Models
with one, two, and four piles were created for each type of founda-
tion system. Each model had a pile instrumented with strain

gauges. The piles were spaced 1.05 m (3.5) apart (Fig. 10).
The experiment included seven trials of static load tests: three
trials for pile group foundations, three trials for piled raft foundations, and a direct loading test (raft). The pile loads were applied
slowly (SML type tests) and in 10 successive stages according to
the Brazilian standard NBR 12 131/1992 (Brazilian Association of
Technical Standards 1992).
A top precast block (or raft) was also constructed from reinforced concrete to act as a stiff element for load transfer to the
foundation (Fig. 11). The block was supported using only piles or
piles plus soil, which characterized the aforementioned type of
foundation system.
The block (1.55 m 1.55 m 0.85 m) had a reinforced frame so
that it could be used in all types of foundations, including a direct
foundation. The cap of the systems was simply positioned (and
removed afterwards) during each pile load test carried out in sequence at the site.
In the pile group foundation, the soil was excavated to 5.0 cm
below the at surface and a precast block placed on top of the
piles. In the piled raft foundation, soil was excavated up to the
level of the at surface, allowing full contact with the capping
block. Figure 12 shows a diagram of the two foundation systems,
trying to simulate how foundations are typically designed in the
region (group type), and how it should be designed (piled raft
type).
Soares et al.
1011

Fig. 12. Foundation systems graphic diagrams.
The bottom of the precast block was at a depth of 0.50 m from

the surface in a layer of sand. The tips of the piles were located at
a depth of 5.0 m in a layer of ne silty sand, varying from compact
to very compact.
Loads were applied using a cylindrical hydraulic jack with maximum stroke 0.15 m and capacity 5000 kN, and were controlled by
a manual pump.
The total applied load was measured using a 4000 kN cell installed on top of the block. The load on the pile was measured
using 1000 kN cells installed below the block and on top of the
piles. The test loads were applied directly on the precast block,
which acted as a rigid element for load transfer to the piles (for
pile group foundation) and the piles and soil (for piled raft foundation). Figure 13 depicts the load measuring system.
In the piled raft tests, the load on the soil was determined by
subtracting the load applied on the piles from the total load. The
load on the pile was measured using a 1000 kN cell and two strain
meters installed at the tip and on top of the pile.
Fig. 13. Load measuring system.
Results and discussion

Results of the load tests under slow loading steps for the raft
alone are shown in Fig. 14a while those that compare the pile
group and piled raft foundation systems are shown in Figs. 14b
and 15.
Table 3 details the characteristics of the seven tests. The criterion for terminating the tests was based on the resistance of the
reaction systems. Certain shortcomings in the systems resulted in
a failure to achieve larger settlements in tests on the isolated raft
and the 1-piled raft due to operational problems. In other tests it
was possible to correlate the overall behavior to higher settlements.
The load tests were performed under slow maintained loading,
and each foundation model contained piles having four strain meters along their shafts and tips. The positions of the piles are shown
in Fig. 10.
Analysis of results
Loadsettlement curves
The loadsettlement curves obtained from the tests showed no
physical failure. To evaluate the bearing capacity of the foundations, the extrapolation methods of Van der Veen (1953) modied
by Aoki (1976) and the Dcourt (1996) method based on stiffness of
the system were used to characterize the physical failure. Two
limit settlement criteria were adopted to dene the allowable
load based on settlement:
max = 40 mm, as suggested by Skempton and MacDonald (1956)

for shallow foundations on sand;
max = 10% of the pile diameter.
Figures 16 to 19 show the extrapolated curves for the foundations (R is the extrapolated failure load).
The allowable load on the foundations (Pal) was calculated using
a safety factor of 2.0, which is applied to the extrapolated loads,
and a safety factor of 1.5, which is applied to the load that caused
the maximum settlement (max = 40 mm; max = 10%d).
The failure load (R) of the tests obtained by the extrapolation
criteria (Van der Veen and Dcourt), plus the loads that cause the
maximum settlement (max = 40 mm; max = 10%d) and their respective allowable loads are shown in Table 4.
The extrapolated Van der Veen curves show good proximity to
the results of the load tests of pile groups and those of 2- and
4-piled rafts. For the isolated raft and 1-piled raft, the end points of
the load were extrapolated because the thresholds could not be
1012

Fig. 14. Loadsettlement curves: (a) isolated raft; (b) isolated pile and 1-piled raft system.
Fig. 15. Loadsettlement curves: (a) 2-piled group and 2-piled raft systems; (b) 4-piled group and 4-piled piled raft systems.
Table 3. Load tests details.

Load test
Date
Foundation type
Number
of stages
Maximum
load (kN)
Load
increment (kN)
Maximum
settlement (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12/07/2010
03/08/2010
29/07/2010
28/07/2010
15/07/2010
21/07/2010
08/07/2010
Isolated pile
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
2-piled group
4-piled group
4-piled raft
Isolated raft
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
560
1200
2392
1214
2400
3220
1200
60
120
240
140
240
320
120
86.32
15.72
42.70
47.35
60.44
49.08
16.17
adjusted satisfactorily to the exponential model of the proposed

method. The loads achieved in both tests were insufcient for
better extrapolation precision.
The Dcourt criterion predicted higher failure loads than the
Van der Veen criterion in all tests. In pile groups, the prediction
difference was up to 16% (4-piled group). Piled rafts had the greatest variation, forecasting a difference in failure load of 43.2% between the methods (2-piled raft).
The maximum settlement loads (Pmax; P10%) were not calculated in
the raft and piled raft foundation systems because the settlements in
the load tests, which were 16.2 and 15.7 mm, respectively, did not
reach the maximum value (Figs. 14 and 18). In these cases, the allowable load was directly dened associating it to a settlement considered admissible (ad = 20.8 mm), which was set as the average of the
allowable loads of 2- and 4-piled raft foundations.
The admissible load of the isolated raft and 1-piled raft was determined by extrapolating the nal data points of the load tests to the
settlement of 20.8 mm. The extrapolation method adopted was a
second-degree equation, as it adapted better than the Van der Veen
and Dcourt criteria to the last experimental points (Fig. 20).
Soares et al.
1013

Fig. 16. Extrapolated curves for isolated pile and 2-piled group.
Fig. 17. Extrapolated curves for the 4-piled group.
(12)
Q PG
Figure 21 shows the loadsettlement curves of the pile groups, and

the load corresponding to the maximum settlement of 40 mm.
Table 6 shows the efciency factors () of the pile groups, based
on the bearing capacity of the foundations (Q), calculated using
the load equivalent to the maximum settlement (Pmax).
The results show that the bearing capacity of the group is
greater than the sum of the individual bearing capacities of the
piles. The efciency value of the 4-piled group ( = 1.24) is close to
that reported by Vesic (1969). According to the author, the efciency of the 4-piled group on sand for 3.5 spacing is around 1.30.
The allowable loads (Pal) according to the forecasting methods

and their corresponding settlements () are shown in Table 5.
The allowable loads of raft foundations obtained by the Dcourt
criterion do not obey the criteria of maximum displacement. The
settlements varied between 27.3 and 48.8 mm for the isolated raft
and 2-piled raft, respectively. The results exceed the limit of
25 mm recommended by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) for the allowable settlement (al) for direct foundations on sand.
The values of the loads corresponding to the limit settlements
(max = 40 mm; max = 10%d) are close, with differences varying
between 6% and 10% for the pile group foundations. The major
difference in the piled-raft foundations occurs in the 4-piled raft:
18%.
For the purposes of this study the criterion of maximum settlement (max) of 40 mm was chosen as the bearing capacity of the
foundation, considering the inaccuracy of Van der Veens method
in the tests of isolated raft and 1-piled raft, and the excessive
settlements for the allowable load of the isolated raft foundation,
according to Dcourt (1996).
Group effect
The effect of the group of hollow auger piles was calculated
using the efciency factor, given by the relation between the
groups bearing capacity and an isolated pile
Load distribution between piles and raft

The graphs of load distribution between the elements (piles and
raft) are shown in Figs. 22 to 24.
The graphs show that load sharing between the elements tends to
stabilize during the latter stages (ninth and tenth) of the loading
process. The raft absorbs most of the load, except in the case of the
4-piled group, for which, at the end of the tests, the load is divided
equally between the elements (50% in the group and 50% in the raft).
The superior performance of the raft in terms of load absorption can be explained by the geotechnical characteristics of the
layer (moderately compacted sand) and the ratios between the
group and raft areas (AG/A), with the smallest ratio in the case of
the 1-piled raft.
Efciency of the elements
The load capacity of the piled raft (Q PR) can be obtained by the
sum of the resistance elements (raft and piles) on the basis of their
efciency factors (eq. (13)).
The efciency (R and PG) is the ratio between the portions of
the load elements (raft or pile) at failure when combined in a piled
raft, and the failure load of the isolated element.
(13)
Q PR RQ R PGQ PG
where R and PG represent the efciency of the isolated raft and

pile group when combined in a piled raft, respectively.
The load plots of the combined elements are determined by the
graphic load distribution between rafts and piles (Figs. 22 to 24).
1014

Fig. 18. Extrapolated curves for isolated raft and 1-piled raft.
Fig. 19. Extrapolated curves for 2-and 4-piled rafts.
Table 4. Extrapolated failure load (R), maximum settlement load (Pmax), load corresponding to a settlement
of 10%d (P10%) and allowable loads of foundations (Pal) via distinct failure criteria.
Van der Veen
Dcourt
Foundation
R (kN)
Pal (kN)
R (kN)
Isolated pile
2-piled group
4-piled group
Isolated raft
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
640
1300
2500
1850
2000
3000
4200
320
650
1250
925
1000
1500
2100
665
1575
2990
3236.6
5280.5
6475.1
Limit settlement
10%d
Pal (kN)
Pmax (kN)
Pal (kN)
P10% (kN)
Pal (kN)
332.5
787.5
1495
1618.3
2640.2
3237.5
445
1170
2200
2325
2950
296.7
780
1466.7
1550
1966.7
410
1100
2000
1650*
1700*
2000
2500
273.3
733.3
1333.3
1100
1133.3
1333.3
1666.7
*Values obtained from the extrapolated curve of Van der Veen.
Loads with their values in percentage corresponding to the maximum settlement are shown in Table 7.
R and PG values corresponding to maximum load settlement
(Pmax) are shown in Table 8. Figure 25 shows a comparison between the values of R obtained with the results of De Sanctis and
Mandolini (2006).
Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the efciency analysis of pile groups.
The graphs show that the raft interacts with the piles, leading
to a lower degree of mobilization in their skin friction. The
result is consistent with the work presented by Burland (1995),

as cited by Bezerra (2003), in Fig. 28. The authors reported that
the pile combined with a raft reduced its stiffness compared
with the isolated pile.
Pontes and Pinto (2014) have observed with numerical analysis
that piles in a piled raft system show lower stiffness than a group
of piles within a system with no soilraft contact.
According to Phung (2010), when the raft comes in contact with
the ground, it increases the acting horizontal stress on the pile
Soares et al.
1015

Fig. 20. Extrapolation of load curve versus foundation settlement: (a) isolated raft and (b) 1-piled raft.
Table 5. Allowable loads of tests and equivalent settlements via distinct failure criteria.
Van der Veen
Dcourt
Limit settlement
10%d
Foundation
Pal (kN)
(mm)
Pal (kN)
(mm)
Pal (kN)
(mm)
Pal (kN)
(mm)
Isolated pile
2-piled group
4-piled group
Isolated raft
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
320
650
1250
925
1000
1500
2100
15.5
10.6
12.7
8.6
10.6
17.0
21.8
332.5
787.5
1495
1618.3
2640.2
3237.5
17.9
14.4
14.5
27.3
48.8
48.7
296.7
780
1466.7
1380*
1420*
1550
1966.7
12.1
14.1
16.2
20.8
20.8
20.3
21.7
273.3
733.3
1333.3
1100
1133.3
1333.3
1666.7
8.9
13.1
13.9
14.1
14.0
16.5
16.9
*Equivalent load to allowable settlement of 20.8 mm.
Fig. 21. Maximum settlement load (Pmax) to pile groups.
Table 6. Efciency factor for pile

group.
Limit settlement
Foundation
Pmax
(kN)
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
445
1170
2200
1.31
1.24
shaft; at the same time, the contact forces the ground to settle.
Consequently, the relative displacement between the shaft and
ground is reduced in the region near the raft, which causes a
reduction in skin friction.
The subject has however been controversial ever since Janda
et al. 2009 obtained the opposite effect (lateral friction increase
given the presence of the raft) by their numerical analyses. This
fact indeed corroborates with the conclusion that more research
in this regard is needed, and the present work has shed some light
on the subject, although to a limited extent.
1016

Fig. 22. Load sharing between elements (1-piled raft).
Soares et al.
1017
(ns/L)0.5, n is the number of piles, s the pile spacing, and L the

length of the pile).
The analysis of the graphs shows that the point calculated for
the 4-piled raft approaches the trend reported by Conte et al.
(2003) obtained for ratios between PR and RM from centrifuge
tests in sandy soils. The conguration of distributed piles under
the raft is in accordance with the graph of Conte et al. (2003).
Table 7. Load distribution between elements to the

maximum settlement.
PR
PPG
Foundation
(%)
(kN)
(%)
(kN)
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
80
70
50
1704
1627
1475
20
30
50
426
698
1475

Note: PR, load carried by raft; PPG, load carried by pile group.
Table 8. Raft efciency (R) and pile group efciency (PG).

Raft load (kN)
Pile group load (kN)
Foundation Combined Isolated R

1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
1704
1627
1475
2070
2070
2070
Combined
0.82 426
0.78 698
0.71 1475
Isolated
PG
445
1170
2200
0.95
0.60
0.67
Fig. 25. Comparison between R values with the results of De

Sanctis and Mandolini (adapted from De Sanctis and Mandolini
2006).
PDR method
The PDR method was used to simulate the behavior of the load
settlement curve for the piled raft foundation. Accordingly, trilinear and hyperbolic models were considered.
The PDR method was adopted in two different ways, depending
on how the parameters were obtained: either by experiment or
equations.
Experimentally obtained parameters
The stiffness (KR, KP, and KPG) of the foundations was determined by graphs of the load tests and the piled raft interaction
factors rp using eq. (6). The values are KP = 71.4 kN/mm and KR =
62.5 kN/mm. The stiffness KPG of the pile group is shown in
Table 10.
The values of rp are shown in Table 11. The result follows the
trend observed by Clancy and Randolph (1992): that the coefcient
value rp remains close to 0.8, when increasing the number of
piles.
Parameters obtained by equations
The KPG stiffness was calculated using Fleming et al.s (1992)
eq. (5) (in this study the exponent e is assumed to be 0.5), and value
rp = 0.8, as proposed by Clancy and Randolph (1992). The stiffness
KPG of the pile group is shown in Table 10.
The PDR application is shown in Figs. 32 to 34 (trilinear approach) and Figs. 35 to 37 (hyperbolic approach). The graphs indicate the values of load equivalent to the two levels of settlement:
Increased capacity of the piled raft (PR)

The gain in load capacity due to the foundation rafts contact
with the ground is given by
(14)
PR
Q PR
Q PG
where Q PR is bearing capacity of the piled raft and Q PG is that of

the pile group.
The loadsettlement curves (Figs. 29 and 30) illustrate the bearing capacity of foundations due to the maximum settlement
(max = 40 mm). The test with the 1-piled raft did not reach a
settlement of 40 mm; therefore, its evaluation is based on the
allowable load obtained from a settlement considered allowable
(al = 20.8 mm), as explained in the section titled Loadsettlement
curves. The increased bearing capacity of foundations (PR) is
shown in Table 9.
The 1-piled raft has the highest PR value and the 4-piled raft has
the lowest PR. The result is consistent because, as the raft area is
the same for all foundations, the benet of their contact with the
ground is expected to be higher in cases with fewer piles. The
1-piled raft has the lowest ratio of areas, AG/A = 0.03 (where AG is
the pile group area and A is the raft area), among all foundations.
A comparison between the PR values obtained for the 4-piled raft
with the results of Conte et al. (2003) is shown in Fig. 31 (where R =
Maximum settlement of 40 mm (Pmax)

Settlement of the allowable experimental load, with safety factor of 1.5(Pal)
Table 12 gives the equivalent load values according to the trilinear approach. The results indicate that the projected differences
for Pmax vary between 5% (4-piled raft) and 17% (1-piled raft). For
Pal the load differences varied from 0% (1-piled raft) to 4.2% (4-piled
raft).
The loads equivalent to the maximum settlement and admissible load, as in the hyperbolic approach, are shown in Table 13. It is
found that the differences projected for Pmax vary between 3.1%
(1-piled raft) and 7.7% (4-piled raft). For Pal the load differences vary
from 0% (2-piled raft) to 20% (1-piled raft).
The hyperbolic simulation on the 1-piled raft with the experimental parameters resulted in an anomalous graph, because the
curve does not correspond to a hyperbole. The negative rp interaction factor (0.03) may have caused deviations in the shape of
the graph. This fact hindered the application of the method, in
this specic case, and contributed to the 20% difference between
the projected loads (Pal) with the factors obtained by equations.
The 2- and 4-piled raft foundations obtained close load projections between the two analyses: with parameters obtained from
experiment and equations. Accordingly, this study adopted the
analyses with parameters obtained by equations, as they were
easy to use and were more common in a practical application.
The loads obtained by a trilinear PDR approach are higher than
those obtained using the experimental points, except for the
1-piled raft. The maximum settlement difference between the
experimental and calculated (in percentage) values is 17% or so
(1-piled raft), 16% (2-piled raft), and 19% (4-piled raft). For the allowable load the percentage difference is around 2% (1-piled raft),
16% (2-piled raft), and 33% (4-piled raft).
1018

Fig. 26. Efciency analysis of pile groups with (a) one and (b) two piles.
Fig. 27. Efciency analysis for group of four piles.
The loadsettlement curve predicted through the hyperbolic

relationship was more conservative than the experimental response of the 1- and 2-piled raft foundations. The difference between the load predictions Pmax (calculated and experimental) is
around 23% (1-piled raft) and 10% (2-piled raft).
The PDR analysis with hyperbolic relationship for the 4-piled
raft predicted a more realistic loadsettlement curve in relation to
the behavior of the overall foundation system. The load Pmax
provided by the method is only 3.9% higher than the load obtained
experimentally, whereas the percentage difference in the level of
allowable settlement is 4.1%.
Final comments and concluding remarks

Given the aforementioned results and discussion, some basic
comments can be made as follows:
Fig. 28. Mobilizations of load in isolated pile and pile combined

with raft (Burland 1995, as cited by Bezerra 2003 adapted from
Bezerra 2003).
1. The loadsettlement curves showed no physical failure. Settlements in the tests involving the (conventional) pile groups
were high and reached 86.3 mm for the isolated pile test.
2. The curves were analyzed using the extrapolation methods of
Van der Veen (1953) and Dcourt (1996) and a criterion of maximum settlement. The extrapolation methods tted well with
the experimental foundation systems of the pile group and
2- and 4-piled rafts. In the isolated raft foundation and the
1-piled raft, the applications of these methods did not yield an
accurate assessment because the settlements achieved were insufcient for satisfactory adjustment with the extrapolated curves.
3. The Dcourt (stiffness) method provides strengths higher than
provided by the Van der Veen criterion for all tests. The difference in prediction methods reached 16% in the 4-piled group and
43% in the 2-piled raft.
4. The analysis of load distribution between raft and piles showed
that the raft absorbs most of the applied loads. The raft interacts
with the pile, leading to a lower degree of mobilization in their
skin friction.
5. The rafts contact with the soil increased the load capacity of the
foundations. The optimal result occurred for the piled raft with
one pile (PR = 4.78). In this case, the ratio of areas AG/A = 0.03 was
the lowest of the tested systems. For the 2-piled raft, PR = 1.98,
and 4- piled raft, PR = 1.33.
6. The PDR trilinear analysis in general indicated heavier loads than
those obtained experimentally. For maximum settlement, the
largest difference between forecasts was 19% (4-piled raft). For
allowable settlement, the largest difference was 33% (4-piled raft).
Soares et al.
1019

Fig. 29. Allowable loads: (a) isolated pile and 1-piled raft; (b) 2-piled group and 2-piled raft.
Fig. 30. Allowable load of 4-piled group and 4-piled raft.
Fig. 31. Comparison between the values of PR for 4-piled raft with
the results of Conte et al. (2003).
Table 10. Stiffness of pile groups (KPG).
Table 9. Increase of bearing capacity.

Foundation
Isolated pile
1-piled raft
2-piled group
2-piled raft
4-piled group
4-piled raft
Pmax (kN)
445
2130*
1172
2325
2210
2950
Pal (kN)
296.7
1420
781.3
1550
1466.7
1966.7
PR
4.78
4.78
1.98
1.98
1.33
1.33
*Admitted as equivalent load to 40 mm settlement, the

load corresponding to allowable settlement of 20.8 mm
(1420 kN), multiplied by 1.5.
The trilinear method also produced a good t for the piled raft
with one pile. The difference between forecasted loads for the
allowable settlement was around 2%.
7. The PDR hyperbolic relations in general gave a more conservative
prediction of a loadsettlement response curve than the experi-
Foundation
KPG
(kN/mm)a
KPG
(kN/mm)b
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
117.6
123.5
101.0
142.8
aK
bK
PG
PG
obtained from the graphs of load tests.

obtained from Fleming et al.s (1992) equation.
Table 11. Raft pile interaction

factor rp.
Foundation
rp
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
0.03
0.31
0.66
mental curve for the 1- and 2-piled raft foundations. The

difference between the load predictions Pmax (calculated and
experimental) was 22% (1-piled raft) and around 10% (2-piled rafts).
8. The PDR hyperbolic method for the 4-piled raft predicted a more
realistic loadsettlement curve in relation to the behavior of the
1020

Fig. 32. Trilinear PDR for 1-piled raft: (a) parameters obtained experimentally; (b) parameters obtained by equations.
foundation system. Pmax provided by this method is only 4%

higher than the load obtained experimentally. The percentage
difference in the level of allowable settlement was in the same
order.
9. By increasing the number of piles, the difference between the
projected loads (hyperbolic and experimental) dropped sharply.
Note that the piles stiffness exerts a strong inuence on the
beginning of the simulated curve.
Based on the comments and observations put forward in this
study, it can be concluded that
The PDR hyperbolic method is applicable to practical use in the

foundations of this region of Brazil, as it allows a more detailed
assessment of the foundations behavior and can forecast the behavior of the (locally nontraditional) piled raft foundation system.
Its approach can be applied to the real design of small buildings in
the study area, using the results of load tests on plates and piles,
when both are isolated. It will help to substantially decrease the
cost of the foundations for the types of construction mentioned
herein in areas with similar geotechnical conditions changing
how traditional foundations are designed in the region.
Soares et al.
1021

Fig. 35. Hyperbolic PDR for 1-piled raft: (a) parameters obtained experimentally; (b) parameters obtained by equations.
Table 12. Load equivalent of trilinear PDR to the two

levels of settlements (Pmax and Pal).
Table 13. Load equivalent of hyperbolic PDR to the

two levels of settlements (Pmax and Pal).
Foundation
Pmax
(kN)a
Pmax
(kN)b
Pal
(kN)a
Pal
(kN)b
Foundation
Pmax
(kN)a
Pmax
(kN)b
Pal
(kN)a
Pal
(kN)b
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
2490
2770
3650
2490
2700
3500
1700
2140
2800
1450
1850
2950
1-piled raft
2-piled raft
4-piled raft
1600
2170
2850
1650
2100
3070
1250
1400
1900
1050
1400
2050
aPDR
bPDR
simulated with parameters obtained experimentally.

simulated with parameters obtained from equations.
aPDR
bPDR
simulated with parameters obtained experimentally.

simulated with parameters obtained from equations.
1022
The methodology still needs to be implemented and adapted locally, if necessary. More research is therefore required, and should
be coupled with experiments to be carried out on an actual construction case in the city of Joo Pessoa.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Paulo Albuquerque from the State University of
Campinas for his indispensable support with all the instrumentation
adopted herein, and private companies SEFE Special Services Foundations, Concresolo & Copesolo, Incotep, and Protendidos Dywidag
for their technical and nancial support during the study. The authors also thank the technicians and colleagues from both Federal
Universities of Pernambuco and Brasilia for their assistance
throughout the development of the D.Sc. thesis, and MCTI/CNPq/
INCT-REAGEO for its nancial support for the research project.
References
Aoki, N. 1976. Considerations for load capacity of isolated piles. University Extension Course in Foundation Engineering. Gama Filho University, Rio de
Janeiro. [In Portuguese.]
Bezerra, J.E. 2003. Study of behavior of piled raft foundations: concepts and
applications. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia. [In Portuguese.]
Brazilian Association of Technical Standards. 1992. NBR 12.131.1992: Piles static
load test. Rio de Janeiro, ABNT [In Portuguese.]
Burland, J.B. 1995. Piles as settlement reducers. In Proceedings of the XIV Italian
National Conference on Soil Mechanics, Pavia.
Clancy, P., and Randolph, M.F. 1992. Analysis and design of piled raft foundations. University of Western Australia, Perth. Research Report G1062.
Conte, G., Mandolini, A., and Randolph, M.F. 2003. Centrifuge modelling to
investigate the performance of piled rafts. In Proceedings of the IV International Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Millpress,
Rotterdam. pp. 359366.
De Sanctis, L., and Mandolini, A. 2006. Bearing capacity of piled rafts on soft clay
soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(12):
16001610. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1600).
Dcourt, L. 1996. An assessment of foundation failure based on a concept of
stiffness. In Proceedings of III SEFE Seminar on Special Engineering Foundations and Geotechnics, So Paulo, SP. Vol. 1, p. 215224. [In Portuguese.]
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., and Elson, W.K. 1992. Piling
engineering. 2nd ed. Surrey University Press. ISBN 0470201444.
Hachich, W., Falconi, F.F., Saes, J.L., Frota, R.G., Carvalho, C.S., and Niyama, S.
1998. Foundations: theory and practice. 2nd ed. PINI, So Paulo, SP. ISBN
8572660984.
Janda, T., Cunha, R.P., Kuklk, P., and Anjos, G.M. 2009. Three dimensional nite
element analysis and back-analysis of CFA standard pile groups and piled
rafts founded on tropical soil. Soil and Rocks, 32(1): 318. ISSN 1980-9743.
Mandolini, A. 2003. Design of piled raft foundations: practice and development.
In Proceedings of the VI International Seminar on Bored and Auger Piles,
Belgium. p. 5982.
Mandolini, A. 2012. Piled raft concept and its rational use in foundation design.
In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Congress in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Recife, PE, Brazil. pp. 100124.
Phung, D.L. 2010. Piled raft a cost-effective foundation method for high-rises.
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 41(3): 112. ISSN
0046-5828.
Pontes, V.E.M., and Pinto, P.L. 2014. Behavior analysis of piled rafts. In Proceedings of the XVII Brazilian Congress in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Goinia, GO, Brazil. [CD-ROM].
Poulos, H.G. 2000. Practical design procedures for piled raft foundations. In
Design applications of raft foundations. Edited by J.A. Hemsley. Thomas Telford. pp. 425467. ISBN 0727725947.
Poulos, H.G. 2001. Piled raft foundations: design and applications. Gotechnique, 51(2): 95113. doi:10.1680/geot.2001.51.2.95.
Poulos, H.G. 2011. The de Mello Foundation Engineering Legacy. Soil and Rocks,
34(1): 331. ISSN 1980-9743
Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and design. John
Wiley and Sons, New York. ISBN 0471099562.
Randolph, M.F. 1994. Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. In Proceedings of the XIII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, New Delhi. Vol. 5, pp. 6182.
Sales, M.M. 2000. Behavior analysis of piled rafts. D.Sc. thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil.
Skempton, A.W., and MacDonald, D.H. 1956. The allowable settlement of buildings. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Divisions, 5(6): 727768.
Soares, W.C. 2011. Piled raft with hollow auger piles in sandy soil. D.Sc. thesis, Civil
Engineering Department, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Teixeira, A.H. 1993. An improvement of the standard penetration tests. In Proceedings, Soils of So Paulo. pp. 7593.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B. 1967. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 2nd ed.
John Wiley & Sons, New York. ISBN 0471086584.
Tromenkof, J.G. 1974. Penetration testing in eastern Europe. In Proceedings of the
European Symposium on Penetration Resistance, Stockolm. Vol. 2.1, pp. 2428.
Van Der Veen, C. 1953. The bearing capacity of a pile. In Proceedings, III International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich.
Vol. 2, pp. 6671.
Vesic, A.S. 1969. Experiments with instrumented pile groups in sand. In Performance of deep foundations. ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 444.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. pp. 177222.
List of symbols
A
AG
d
Esay
Esb
Esl
e
K
KP
KPG
KPG,i
KPR
KR
KR,i
L
N
n
P
P10%
PA
Pal
PPG
PPG,ult
PR
PR,ult
Pmax
PG
PI
Q
QP
Q PG
Q P,j
Q PR
R
RM
RPG
RR
r0
rc
s
w
wL
wP
PG
pr
R
rp
s
PR
ad
max
raft area
pile group area
pile diameter
Youngs soil modulus along the pile shaft
Youngs modulus of bearing stratum below pile tip
Youngs modulus of the soil at pile tip level
void ratio
coefcient dependent on soil type, specied in Teixeira (1993)
stiffness of the single pile
pile group stiffness
initial pile group stiffness
piled raft stiffness
raft stiffness
initial raft stiffness
pile length
standard penetration resistance of SPT (shown as NSPT in
Fig. 5)
number of piles
load
load corresponding to a settlement of 10%d
load at point A
allowable load
load carried by pile group
ultimate load carried by pile group
load borne by raft
ultimate load borne by raft
maximum settlement load
pile group
plasticity index
bearing capacity
bearing capacity of pile
bearing capacity of pile group
load on the jth pile
bearing capacity of piled raft
extrapolated failure load
parameter that relates the aspect ratio (R) and AG/A
hyperbolic factor for pile group
hyperbolic factor for raft
radius of pile
average radius of pile cap
pile spacing
water content
liquid limit
plastic limit
coefcient dependent on the soil type, specied in Tromenkof
(1974)
efciency of pile group
coefcient proposed by Mandolini (2003)
efciency of raft
interaction factor raftpile
unit weight
unit weight of solid particles
increase of bearing capacity of piled raft
efciency factor of the pile group
settlement
allowable settlement
maximum settlement
Poissons ratio of the soil

Artigo Wilson Cartaxo - Canadian

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Artigo Wilson Cartaxo - Canadian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1005

Conventional foundation designs transfer loads to the ground

Received 9 March 2014. Accepted 7 October 2014.

Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 24 November 2014.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

support and also reduce the number of piles required to control

Conventional The foundations are designed to act as a group of

Fig. 1. Foundation systems (Mandolini 2003).

Preliminary stage The feasibility of a piled raft is examined.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Fig. 2. Loadsettlement curves for piled rafts according to various

Fig. 4. City of Joo Pessoa location.

Fig. 5. Soil prole and standard penetration test results.

Fig. 3. PDR method (after Poulos and Davis 1980).

In addition to point A, the raft and settlement withstand the

The method uses values of initial tangent stiffness of the

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Table 1. Typical geotechnical values of the site.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Fig. 6. Typical grain-size curve.

proposed estimation of the stiffness of the piled raft using the

where n is the number of piles and the exponent varies between

Table 2. Results of direct shear test.

where rc is average radius of the pile cap (corresponding to an area

where N is the standard penetration resistance of SPT. The and

The secant stiffness of the piles and raft is expressed by

KPG KPG,i 1 RPG

Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Fig. 10. Foundations and SPT location.

Fig. 11. Top surface precast block.

Materials and methods

tion system. Each model had a pile instrumented with strain

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Fig. 12. Foundation systems graphic diagrams.

The bottom of the precast block was at a depth of 0.50 m from

Fig. 13. Load measuring system.

Results and discussion

max = 40 mm, as suggested by Skempton and MacDonald (1956)

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Table 3. Load tests details.

adjusted satisfactorily to the exponential model of the proposed

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Fig. 17. Extrapolated curves for the 4-piled group.

Figure 21 shows the loadsettlement curves of the pile groups, and

The allowable loads (Pal) according to the forecasting methods

Load distribution between piles and raft

where R and PG represent the efciency of the isolated raft and

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

Fig. 19. Extrapolated curves for 2-and 4-piled rafts.

*Values obtained from the extrapolated curve of Van der Veen.

result is consistent with the work presented by Burland (1995),

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15

*Equivalent load to allowable settlement of 20.8 mm.

Fig. 21. Maximum settlement load (Pmax) to pile groups.

Table 6. Efciency factor for pile

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Dr Wilson Cartaxo Soares on 07/28/15