Effect of Pile Layout on the Behaviour of Circular Piled Raft on Sand

IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA

EFFECT OF PILE LAYOUT ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF

CIRCULAR PILED RAFT ON SAND

V. Balakumar
Senior Consultant, Simplex Infrastructures Limited, Chennai–600 008, India.
E-mail: vb_kumar2002@yahoo.com
K. Ilamparuthi
Professor and Head, Divn. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng., Anna University, Chennai–600 025, India.
E-mail: kanniilam@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Piled raft foundation system is increasingly becoming an alternate to deep piles in the case of structures with
raft, when raft alone cannot satisfy the settlement requirement. Among the various structures, storage tanks are more sensitive
for settlements. Hence the piled raft can become a viable alternate system, when the raft (which forms the base of the tank) is
seated on a favorable ground from bearing capacity point of view. For such cases the design economy depends upon the
optimized pile design. The layout and the configuration become very important to produce the desired settlement reduction
and load sharing with minimum required piles. This paper presents the effect of pile configuration and the pile raft area ratio
on the behavior of piled raft on sand based on the results of 1g model studies.

1. INTRODUCTION mostly related to control of differential settlement only. Also

By tradition structures that are sensitive for settlements (total
or differential) have always been supported on pile
foundations ignoring the presence and contributions of raft in
load sharing. Among the various types of structures storage
tanks have more rigorous settlement requirements. Hence
effective control of settlement of the foundation system
supporting storage tanks becomes paramount importance
particularly in soft deposits. In the recent past piled raft
foundation which takes into account the contribution of raft
has gained the status of an alternative foundation system
when raft cannot satisfy the settlement (both total and
differential settlements) requirements for the set loading
conditions. The economics of design in the case of piled raft
is a function of the pile group optimization. One very
important aspect to be noted while designing the piled raft
for tanks is that the raft will be placed close to the ground
surface unlike most of the buildings, where the raft is located
at deeper depths due to the presence of basements. In such
cases the raft of the piled raft loses the advantages of the
relief in the overburden as far the settlement is concerned.
Studies on the work done so far indicate that these important
aspects have not been covered adequately.
The extensive research work done through numerical
modeling (Clancy 1993; Gandhi & Maharaj, 1996; Prokoso
& Kulhawy 2001; Small & Poulos, 2007) centrifuge model
studies (Horikoshi & Randolph 1996) and 1g model tests
(Weisner & Brown, 1978) have brought out a very valuable
information on the behavior of piled raft and the effect of
various parameters on the behavior. But these studies are
most of these works are on over consolidated clay bed.
Further the results of numerical studies are subject to numerous
simplifications and assumption and such simplification
resulted in lot of variations in the outcome as shown by
Polous (2001). Moreover adequate importance has not been
given for overall settlement reduction behavior. The studies
on the behaviour of piled raft on sand have been carried out
by Turek & Katzenbach (2003) with 1g models. Although the
results are very limited it had brought out the important aspect
that the load sharing behavior is dependent on settlement.
The results obtained by monitoring the prototype piled raft
represent realistic behavior as shown by Katzenbach et al.
(1998); Polous (2008). But these structures are very heavily
loaded with the raft located at deeper depths and are very
thick (thickness varying 1.5 m to 4 m); the supporting strata
in almost all the cases is over consolidated clay.
The most important step in the design of piled raft,
particularly for tanks is the design of pile layout, and studies
on this aspect appear to be limited. Optimization studies have
been carried out by Kim et al. (2002) relating to the layout of
the piles for square piled raft using genetic algorithm and had
conducted 1g model studies using steel plates of 3 mm and 6
mm thickness and polycarbonate pipes as piles. Studies
through different layouts had established that piles have to be
concentrated in the centre to reduce the average settlement.
However the results are compared at a settlement level of
3 mm (1% of the pile length) and at such small level of
settlement the piled raft behavior is elastic and the pile group
shares major part of the load (Balakumar & Ilamparuthi

673
Effect of Pile Layout on the Behaviour of Circular Piled Raft on Sand
2006). As seen from the review a study on the effect of pile
configuration from settlement reduction and load sharing
behaviour is essential particularly for piled raft on sand for
tank foundations where the raft is located close to ground
level.
2. MODEL STUDIES
Although 1g model studies may not reflect the true field
conditions, such studies have been found to be very useful in
understanding general behavior pattern as well as a guide for
further studies. With the above in mind a series of small scale
1g model studies were conducted on a circular piled raft. The
raft diameter was taken as 200 mm. The model raft had a
thickness of 8 mm. For a scale of 1:100, this represents a
tank pad of 20 m dia and 800 mm thick. Perspex was used as
model material for the pile and raft. Poorly graded fine to
medium Palar sand (classified as SP) was rained from a pre-
calibrated height in layers of 100 mm and tamped with a
designed tamper to achieve the density. Tests were
conducted in sand beds of three different densities. The test
set up and the procedure adopted are explained in detail
elsewhere (Balakumar & Ilamparuthi 2006).
3. SELECTION OF PILE LAYOUT
Figure 1 presents the pile layout commonly used for circular
tanks. The first arrangement (Figure 1a) has piles placed
radially with a radial angle (RA) of 36°, with one pile at the
centre of the raft. The total number of piles (N) is 21 with a
spacing of 4d (d = diameter of pile) along the radial
direction. The second arrangement (Figure 1b) is termed as
square grid layout, in which piles are placed at a spacing of
4d and here also the number of piles is 21. In both the cases,
the parameters relating to the piles and raft were kept the
same, except the arrangement of piles. The diameter and
length of the pile were 8 mm and 160 mm respectively and
the area ratio (Ar) of piled raft (Ar = Ap/A, where Ap is total
cross sectional area of piles and A is the area of raft) was
kept as 5.2%.
(a) No. OF PILES = 21
RADIAL ANGLE 36 ° & 4d
(b) No. OF PILES = 21
SPACING SQUARE GRID SPACING 4d
Fig. 1: Layout of Piles in Circular Piled Raft
Figure 2 presents the load-settlement response of plain and
piled raft. A study of the curves indicates that the settlement
of piled raft is lesser than the plain raft for a given load
irrespective of the pile arrangement. It was found that for the
674
given area ratio both the radial and square grid arrangements
exhibited almost identical load-settlement behaviour. However,
the square grid layout carried a marginally higher load, when
the settlement was approaching 20 mm particularly from the
settlement level of 14 mm. The maximum variation in the
resistance between the two pile layouts is 3% for the
maximum piled raft settlement of 20 mm.
LOAD, kN
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
d = 10mm
2 t = 8 mm
4 L = 160 mm
N = 21
6
R.A. = 36º
8 D = 200 mm
SETTLEMENT, mm
Bed = Dense
10
12
14
16
18
PLAIN RAFT
20
RADIAL GRID
Piled raft
22
SQUARE GRID
24
Fig. 2: Comparison of Load Settlement Response of Plain
and Piled Raft – Radial and Square Grid
Tests were also conducted on piled raft with square and
radial arrangement for piles in other densities and compared.
The results of tests on other two densities showed virtually
no difference in load–settlement response between the two
pile arrangements of piled raft. Since the radial arrangement
is more commonly used in practice for tank pads, it was
decided to carry out rest of the studies on piled raft with the
piles arranged in the radial directions.
4. GENERALIZED LOAD SETTLEMENT RESPONSE
OF PILED RAFT
In order to study the load-settlement response of piled raft
with minimum number of piles, 11 piles were provided in a
radial form. Figure 3 represents the load-settlement response
in a characteristics form for piled raft with radial grid for
piled raft area ratio of 2.75% and compared with the
characteristic response of plain raft tested in medium dense
bed. It is seen from the curves that the load taken by the piled
raft is higher than the plain raft irrespective of the magnitude
of settlement. The settlement of piled raft in the initial stages
of loading is much lesser than plain raft. For the settlement of
2 mm the load on piled raft is 2.0kN which is 110% higher
than the plain raft load, whereas for the settlement of 20 mm,
the piled raft load is 35% higher. In other words the ratio
between the load taken by the piled raft and the plain raft
progressively reduces with the settlement. At the settlement
of 20 mm the excess load taken by the piled raft varies
between 30% and 35% for the three densities of sand. The
trend seen above indicates that, in the initial stages of
 Effect of Pile Layout on the Behaviour of Circular Piled Raft on Sand

loading, the addition of piles makes the system stiffer. The
piles function as settlement reducer, and the combined
interaction between pile-raft-soil makes the raft to take
higher load under reduced settlement. However as the load
increases, the settlement of piled raft increases; this is due to
the reduction in soil-pile stiffness. This indicates that the
provision of piles to the raft is effective when the settlements
are less, and in particular settlement less than 2% of the raft
size tested. The load-settlement response explained above is
seen in sand of all the three densities tested.
The load settlement response has three well defined phases.
It is also seen in this case that as the loading increases the
difference between the capacity of the plain raft and the piled
raft reduces indicating that the influence of piles provided
reduces at higher load and remains constant beyond a
particular level.
5. EFFECT OF PILE CONFIGURATION ON SR
AND αpr
Having studied the load settlement response of piled raft with
radial grid, the test were carried out in three different
configurations as shown in Figure 4 with equal number of
piles to bring out the effect of pile layout on load-settlement
response. In the configuration A, B and C, ten piles are arranged
in outer ring, inner ring and both inner and outer ring
(alternate ring) respectively and one pile in the centre. The
results of the piled raft with area ratio 2.75% is compared
with the piled raft of area ratio 5.25% having 21 piles
uniformly arranged as shown in Figure 1a (Configuration D).

1000 (a) Configuration A (b) Configuration B (c) Configuration C

Fig. 4: Configurations Studied with 11 piles

C
B dd == 8mm
8mm
Figure 5 represents the load-settlement response as measured
LOAD, kN x 10-2

L = 200mm
A
LN==200mm
11 in 1g model tests on piled raft with the piles arranged in
100 R.A. = 45º different configurations (Fig. 4). It is seen that upto a
D ==11
200mm
N
Bed=Medium dense settlement level of 3 mm the variation in the load taken is
quite small as the settlement increases the load taken by the
11 Piles
Piled raft piled raft with piles concentrated in the centre reduces
O
Plain
Plainraft
Raft compared to the other two configurations. The load taken by
10 the piled raft with piles evenly distributed increases
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 progressively indicating that at higher level of settlement
SETTLEMENT, mm (around 3% of the least lateral dimension of the raft) the
performance of piled raft will be for better for uniformly
Fig. 3: Characteristic Response of Plain Raft and Piled Raft
distributed load when the piles are evenly distributed. It is
(Area ratio 2.75%)
also seen that the load taken by the piled raft is higher in the
initial stages of settlement (upto 3 mm) when the piles are
It can be seen that beyond a settlement level of around 3% of concentrated in the centre. This is perhaps due to the increase
the raft dimension, the soil piled raft stiffness reduced to a in the confining pressure around the piles when the piles are
low value and the piled raft settles as that of plain raft. This concentrated. This confirms the views of Kim et al. (2002),
indicates that, even when the area ratio is quite small the pile as stated earlier.
group enhances the load carrying capacity of the raft as a Load, kN
combined system. However, at higher settlement even 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7
0
though the enhancement in the capacity is less, the pile group
2
contributes to settlement reduction. 4

The first phase of the curve up to a settlement level of around 6

Settlement, mm

2 mm represents the elastic behaviour of the entire system. 8

10
The second phase shows (upto 6 mm settlement) gradual loss
12
of system stiffness (the pile group loses its elastic behaviour) d = 10mm
t = 8mm
14
and beyond this stage the loss of stiffness is rapid and at 16
L = 160
N = 21 Plain raft
20 mm (the maximum settlement at which all the tests were 18
R.A. = 36º Inner
D = 200mm Outer
terminated) the stiffness is close to that of plain raft. In other 20 Bed = MD Evenly distributed

words, beyond a settlement level of 3% of the least lateral 22

dimension of the raft, the piled raft system behaves more like Fig. 5: Load-Settlement Response of Piled Raft with Various
plain raft. Pile Configurations

675
 Effect of Pile Layout on the Behaviour of Circular Piled Raft on Sand

The performance of piled raft is quantified by two other reductions are compared for the given settlement of the raft.
parameters namely settlement reduction ratio Sr and load This figure also shows the trend as seen in the case of
sharing ratio αpr. They are defined as, relation between load sharing ratio (αpr) and settlement.
From the comparison made it can be said that among the
S r − S pr three configurations (A, B and C), the configuration C (piles
SR = (1)
Sr arranged in alternate ring) has performed better in load
q pr − q r sharing and settlement reduction. Thus the piles distributed
α PR = (2) evenly over the entire area are best choice than concentrating
q pr them over a specific area in the case of piled raft subjected to
where, uniformly distributed load. Having established that the
Sr is settlement of plain raft at a particular load and performance of piled raft is better when the piles are evenly
Spr is settlement of piled raft at the same load distributed the tests were repeated for 3 different area ratios
qpr is load carried by piled raft for any given settlement namely 9.2%, 5.25% and 4.25%. The characterized load-
qr is load carried by plain raft for the same settlement settlement response is presented in Figure 7. Table 1 presents
the variation of stiffness in three stages. It is seen that the
The influence of pile configuration on load sharing, αpr and
stiffness reduces progressively and reaches to the value equal
settlement reduction, SR was arrived. The variation of αpr
to that of plain raft. This implies that irrespective of pile-raft
with the settlement is compared for all the four
area ratio, when piles are evenly distributed addition of even
configurations of piles in Figure 6. In the case of piled raft
a small number of piles can produce considerable settlement
with the piles distributed symmetrically and equally to the
reduction.
entire area of the raft (i.e. in configuration D); the αpr value is
high irrespective of the settlement when compared with the
other configurations namely A, B and C. Table 1: Variation of Piled Raft Stiffness
Area ratio Stiffness at various phases
This response is obvious and is attributed to reduction in the
% Phase OA Phase AB Phase BC
number of piles. Further it can be observed from the figure
9.25 2900 420 280
that the configurations adopted in this study show some
difference in the αpr value despite all the configurations (A, 6.25 2600 390 220
B, and C) have same number of piles. Among the 4.25 1600 340 170
configurations A, B and C the configuration C shows higher
10

αpr value than the other two configurations irrespective of the

C
magnitude of settlement excepting for settlements less than
or close to critical settlement. The least value is for the B
configuration B (piles in the inner ring), which is two to four
LOAD,kN
kN

times lesser than the αpr value of the configuration D (area A

Load,
1

ratio 5.25%). The higher reduction in the αpr value is for the
settlement more than 10mm. For the configuration B the αpr Area ratio D = 200mm
values lie between the pile configurations of B and C. 9.25%
t = 8mm
L = 160mm
However for the settlements less than the critical settlement O
6.25% d = 10mm
4.25% Medium dense
the difference in αpr value between the three configurations
0.1

(A, B, and C) is small. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Settlement,
SETTLMENT, mmm
m

1.00
1.00
OUTER OUTER Fig. 7: Characterisation Curves for Various Area Ratios
0.80
INNER 0.80 INNER
ALT. ALT.
FULLY FULLY
0.60
6. CONCLUSION
SR
αpr

0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20
The above study has brought out an important aspect that
even when the raft is located close to the ground level,
0.00
0.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 addition of a small number of piles (pile-raft area ratio
Settlement, mm Settlement, mm 2.75%) can reduce the settlement considerably in the case of
piled raft on sand. The studies have further proved that from
Fig. 6: Effect of Configuration on the Variation of SR and αpr the overall settlement reduction, the performance of piled raft
with Settlement is better when the piles are evenly distributed. It was also
seen that when the piles are concentrated in the center, the
In the same figure, the settlement reduction, SR is compared piled raft had higher stiffness in the initial stages (settlement
for the configurations of A, B, C, and D. Settlement level 1.5 to 2% of the diameter of the raft used in the test)

676
 Effect of Pile Layout on the Behaviour of Circular Piled Raft on Sand
and thereafter the loss of stiffness was very rapid. Further the
observation has shown that when the piles are evenly
distributed the performance of piled raft is identical; but
when the area ratio increases beyond 6% the tendency of the
system is to behave as fully piled foundation.
REFERENCES
Balakumar V. and Ilamparuthi K. (2006). “Performance of
Model Piled Raft on Sand,” Proc. Indian Geotechnical
Conference 2006, Chennai, India, pp. 463–466.
Clancy P. (1993). “Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft
Foundations”, University of Western Australia, PhD
Thesis.
Gandhi S.R and Maharaj D.K. (1996). “Analysis of Piled
Raft Foundations”, 6th International Conference on Piling
and Deep Foundations, Bombay, pp. 1.11.1–1.11.7.
Horikoshi K. and Randolph M.F. (1996). “Centrifuge
Modeling of Piled Raft Foundations on Clay”,
Geotechnique, Vol. 46, No.4, pp. 741–752.
Katzenbach R., Arslan V. and Moorman Ch (1998). “Design
and Safety Concept of Piled Raft Foundations”, Proc. of
3rd Int. Conference on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles, pp. 439–448.
677
Kim H.T., Yoo H.K. and Kang I.K. (2002). “Genetic
Algorithm Optimum Design of Piled Raft Foundations
with Model Tests”, Journal of South East Asian
Geotechnical Society, pp. 1–9.
Poulos H.G. (2001). “Piled Raft Foundation: Design and
Application”, Geotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 111–113.
Poulos H.G. (2008). “The Piled Foundation for the Burj
Dubai–Design and Performance”, IGS–Ferroco Terzaghi
Oration.
Prokoso W.A. and Kulhawy F.H. (2001). “Contribution of
Piled Raft Foundation”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 17–24.
Small. J. and Poulos, H.G. (2007). “A Method of Analysis of
Piled Raft”, 10th Australia Newzeland Conference on Geo
Mechanics, pp. 555.
Turek J. and Katzenbach R. (2003). “Small Scale Model
Tests with Combined Piled Raft Foundations”,
Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on Deep
foundations on Bored and Augured Piles, Ghent,
Belgium, pp. 409–413.
Weisner T.J. and Brown P.T. (1978). “Laboratory Tests on
Model Piled Raft Foundations”, Research Report 318,
Sydney University.