Discussion on

CONTRIBUTION TO PILED RAFT FOUNDATION DESIGN

WIDJOJO A. PRAKOSO, FRED H. KULHAWY

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , vol. 127, No 1,

January 2001

The Authors are to be congratulated for their timely analysis of an interesting

problem with significant implication in design. The following comments are offered.
1. The use of plane strain finite elements is not the best possible option for the
analysis of piled rafts, as it appears also from fig. 3 and table 1 of the paper.
In particular, when an elasto-plastic non linear analysis is implemented, the stress
path followed by a soil element in plane strain and constrained between rows of piles
(actually, between diaphragm walls) is different from that followed by a soil element
in a real pile group. This can affect to some unknown extent the results and the
conclusions of the paper.
As a matter of fact, boundary element methods present significant advantages and
have been extensively and successfully used (Butterfield & Banerjee, 1971; Poulos,
1989; Mandolini & Viggiani, 1997; Viggiani, 2000). Even 3D finite elements are
being more and more adopted (Ottaviani, 1975; Arslan et al., 1998; Reul, 2000; De
Sanctis, 2000).
2. The Authors claim that two different approaches have evolved to address the
question :how to design the piles optimally to control the displacement ?. The first
focuses mainly on reducing the average displacement, while the second focuses on
reducing the differential settlement. Obviously, there are cases where both average
and differential settlements are among the main concern.
Russo & Viggiani (1998) and Viggiani (2000) suggest to group piled foundations in
two broad categories: small and large piled rafts. Small piled rafts are those in
which the bearing capacity of the unpiled raft is not sufficient to carry the total load
with a suitable factor of safety. Generally the width B of the raft amounts to a few
meters (typically 5 m B 15 m) and is small in comparison to the length of the
piles (B/L < 1 ). Large piled rafts are those whose bearing capacity is sufficient to
carry the applied load with a reasonable factor of safety, so that the addition of piles
is essentially intended to reduce settlement. In general the width of the raft is large in
comparison to the length of the piles (B/L > 1).
The cases considered by the Authors belong to the category of large piled rafts. In
these cases the reduction of average settlement that can be achieved by the addition
of piles is relatively small, and the main objective is the reduction of differential
settlement (Viggiani, 2000).
3. The optimum design should consist of matching some requisites at the lowest cost.
The Authors usually define optimum design layouts without any reference to the
cost. For instance the results reported in the plot of fig. 5 and 6 are used to build the
Authors statement that fully piled raft (Bg/Br =1) are more effective in reducing
average settlement. In a similar way the results plotted in fig. 9, 10 and 11 are the
basis for the second Authors statement about optimum layouts for differential
settlement control These statements cannot be correctly deduced by this plots where
the lines at constant Bg/Br ratio imply a large difference in the total number of piles,
hence, a large difference in total cost of the foundation.
For instance Viggiani (2000) has shown that using the total length of the piles, nL,
as a parameters linked to the cost of the foundation optimum layouts for differential
settlement control can be properly deduced. In fig. 1 the results of several non linear
analyses are plotted in terms of dimensionless differential settlement ratio (= piled
raft differential settlement, r=unpiled raft differential settlement, s=spacing,
d=diameter of the piles, n=number of piles, L=depth of the piles, B=width of the raft)
vs. the total length of the piles. For each of the three values of pile length L
considered, the differential settlement is minimum when s=3d; therefore the study of
the optimisation may be referred to this value alone (fig.2). A scrutiny of the results
leads to the following conclusions:
the addition of piles to the raft is very effective in reducing the differential
settlement;
the longer the piles, the more effective they are in reducing the differential
settlement;
for each value of pile depth and optimum value of the quantity nL exists,
corresponding to the maximum reduction of the differential settlement and to
values of Bg/Br in the range 0,550,65.
Anyway this last conclusion is quite in a good agreement with the suggestion of the
Authors in the range 0,4 0,6.
4. As noted by Viggiani (2000) the optimum design of a piled raft foundation is still
an hard task and generalisation is, often, out of place. In practice many factors not
considered in the parametric study may affect deeply the optimum design in a real
situation. Among these very important factors are usually: (i) the subsoil profile
which may affect significantly the depth of the piles; (ii) the exact loading
distribution on the raft which may affect the optimum location of the piles, specially
underneath a rather flexible large raft.

References
Arslan, U., Katzenbach, R., Moormann, Chr. (1998). Design and safety concept for
piled raft foundations. Proc. III Int. Seminar on Deep foundations on bored and
auger piles, Ghent, 439 - 448
Butterfield, R., Banerjee, P.K. (1971). The problem of pile group-pile cap
interaction. Gotechnique, London, 21(2), 135-157
Poulos, H.G. (1989). Pile behaviour- Theory and Application. Rankine Lecture.
Gotechnique, London, 39(6), 365-394
Mandolini, A. Viggiani, C. (1997). Settlement of piled foundation. Gotechnique,
London, 47(4), 791-816
Russo, G. (1997). Developments in the analysis and design of piled rafts. Proc. II
Int. Workshop on Prediction and Performance in geotechnical engineering, Napoli,
279-327
Russo, G., Viggiani C. (1998). Factors controlling soil-structure interaction for piled
raft. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering,
Darmstadt, vol. 2, 297-321
 Viggiani, C. (2000). Analysis and design of piled foundations. 1st Arrigo Croce
Lecture, Napoli, Dicembre 2000

s/d = 3, L/B = 0.4

1,20
s/d = 4.5, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 6, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 7.5, L/B = 0.4
1,00 Krs = 0.01
s/d = 9, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 12, L/B = 0.4
0,80 s/d = 15, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 3, L/B = 0.7
s/d = 4.5, L/B = 0.7
0,60
/r

s/d = 6, L/B = 0.7

s/d = 7.5, L/B = 0.7
s/d = 9, L/B = 0.7
0,40
s/d = 12, L/B = 0.7
s/d = 15, L/B = 0.7
0,20 s/d = 3, L/B = 1
s/d = 4.5, L/B = 1
s/d = 6, L/B = 1
0,00 s/d = 7.5, L/B = 1
s/d = 9, L/B = 1
s/d = 12, L/B = 1
-0,20 s/d = 15, L/B = 1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
s/d = 3, L/B = 0.4
1,40
s/d = 4.5, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 6, L/B = 0.4
1,20 s/d = 7.5, L/B = 0.4
Krs = 0.10 s/d = 9, L/B = 0.4
1,00 s/d = 12, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 15, L/B = 0.4
s/d = 3, L/B = 0.7
0,80 s/d = 4.5, L/B = 0.7
/r

s/d = 6, L/B = 0.7

0,60 s/d = 7.5, L/B = 0.7
s/d = 9, L/B = 0.7
s/d = 12, L/B = 0.7
0,40
s/d = 15, L/B = 0.7
s/d = 3, L/B = 1
0,20 s/d = 4.5, L/B = 1
s/d = 6, L/B = 1
0,00 s/d = 7.5, L/B = 1
s/d = 9, L/B = 1
s/d = 12, L/B = 1
-0,20 s/d = 15, L/B = 1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

nL [m]

Figure 1. Reduction of the maximum differential settlement of the raft, following the
addition of piles
 1,20
s/d = 3, L/B = 0.4

1,00 Krs = 0.01 s/d = 3, L/B = 0.7

s/d = 3, L/B = 1
0,80

0,60
/r

0,40

0,20

0,00

-0,20
0,0% 200000,0% 400000,0% 600000,0% 800000,0% 1000000,0%

1,20
s/d = 3, L/B = 0.4

1,00 Krs = 0.10 s/d = 3, L/B = 0.7

s/d = 3, L/B = 1
0,80

0,60
/r

0,40

0,20

0,00

-0,20
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

nL [m]

Figure 2. Reduction of the maximum differential settlement of the raft, following the
addition of piles (case s/d=3)

View publication stats