Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations 129

The International Journal of Geomechanics

Volume 1, Number 2, 129–147 (2001)

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations

Using a Variational Approach
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

Y. K. Chow, K. Y. Yong,* and W. Y. Shen

Center for Soft Ground Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT: A variational approach for the analysis of piled raft foundations is presented. The raft and piles are both
analyzed by the use of the principle of minimum potential energy. By representing the deformation of the piles and raft
using finite series, the method is very efficient for the analysis of a piled raft with a large number of piles. Comparisons
with other numerical methods and field measurements have shown reasonable agreement.
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

INTRODUCTION
Piled raft foundations are widely used in practice to support high-rise buildings. However,
only a few numerical methods that can be used to analyze such foundations have been reported
due to the complexity of the problem. Hain and Lee1 reported an analysis of piled rafts in which
a surface settlement influence factor method was used to approximately describe the interaction
between the pile group-soil system and the plate finite elements used to model the flexible raft.
Griffiths, Clancy and Randolph2 presented a numerical solution in which the hybrid method
presented by Chow3 is introduced to describe the response of the pile group and soil, and plate
finite elements were used for the raft. Poulos4 proposed an approximate numerical method for
pile-raft interaction, where the raft was treated using the finite difference method and the piles
modeled using a boundary element method. The limiting pressure below the raft and bearing
capacity of the piles can be considered in the analysis. Ta and Small5 reported an analysis of piled
rafts in layered soils. In their method, a finite layer method and finite element method are used
for the analysis of the pile group and raft, respectively. Ta and Small6 also reported an analysis
of performance of piled raft foundations on layered soils. It is noted that the methods mentioned
above require the discretisation of the piles in a group, which will affect their efficiency when
performing analysis of large pile groups commonly used in practice.
In this article, a variational approach for the analysis of phm›d raft foundations is described.
The present method is an extension of the variational solutions for the bending analysis of rafts
by Shen, Chow, and Yong7 and the analysis of pile group-pile cap interaction by Shen, Chow,
and Yong.8 The raft is assumed to rest on an elastic half-space reinforced by a pile group. The
pile deformations and raft deflections are each represented by a finite series. The response of the
piled raft and pile group is determined by the use of the principle of minimum potential energy.
The discretisation of the pile shafts and raft itself is no longer required, and this is very efficient
to large pile groups. A surface stiffness that relates the load-settlement relationship at the pile
head-raft-soil interface is incorporated in the raft analysis, making available an efficient and
complete solution of a piled raft. Results of the present method are compared with those obtained
using other numerical methods. Case studies are also carried out to show the application of the
theoretical analysis to actual field cases.

© 2003 ASCE DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2001)1:2(129)

ISSN 15323641
 130 Chow et al.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS
For a piled raft, the forces imposed by the raft and by the piles and soil at the pile head-soil-
raft interface, are schematically shown in Figure 1. There are two main procedures involved in
the present analysis. First, a stiffness matrix of the pile group-soil system at raft-pile group-soil
interface is determined. Second, this stiffness is incorporated in the raft analysis and a complete
solution of the piled raft is then achieved.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

A. Stiffness of pile group-soil system at raft-pile group-soil interface

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

The stiffness of a pile group-soil system at the raft-pile group-soil interface that gives the
load-settlement relationship at the pile head and ground surface only can be obtained based on
a variational approach (Shen, Chow, and Yong8). The main procedures are highlighted herein for
completeness. The potential energy of the pile group-soil system can, in general, be expressed
as

T T
π p = Up + 1
2 ∫∫ {τ } z {wz }ds + 12 ∫∫ {σ b } {wb }dA
S A

∫∫ p w dB − {w } {Pt }
Τ
+ 12 s s t (1)
B

The first term on the right side of the above equation is the elastic strain energy of the piles
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

in the group, the second and third terms are the work done by shear stresses
{τ z } = {τ z1, τ z 2 ,..., τ znp } along the pile shafts and normal stresses {σ b } = σ b1 , σ b 2 ,..., σ bnp { }
T T

at the pile bases, respectively, where np is the number of piles in the group. The fourth term is
the work done by pressure PS acting on the ground, and the last term is the work done by forces
{Pt } = {Pt1, Pt 2 ,..., Ptnp }
T
acting at the pile heads. S, A, and B in Equation (1) are the surface area,
cross-section area of the piles and ground area loaded by the force PS, respectively,
{wz } = {wz1, wz 2 ,..., wznp } , {wb } = {wb1, wb2 ,..., wbnp }
T T
and are the vectors of settlements of
the piles at the pile shafts, pile bases and pile heads, respectively, and is the settlement of the
ground surface.
With the pile head-surface soil in contact with the raft discretized into a number of elements
as shown in Figure 2 and Gauss numerical integration employed to conduct the integral with respect
to the pile length in the second term of Equation (1), the potential energy can be written as

{w } {P } + {w } {P } + {w } {P } − {w } {P }
Τ T T T
π p = Up + 1
2 g g
1
2 b b
1
2 s s t t (2)

The vector {wg} in Equation (2) is composed of the settlements of the piles at the Gauss points
along the pile shafts, and {Pg} is a vector of the equivalent forces acting at the Gauss points due
to the shear stress {τz}. The vector {Pb} is composed of the forces at the pile bases due to normal
stress {σb}. The vector {PS} is composed of the forces acting on the soil elements due to at the
ground surface, and is composed of the settlements of the soil elements at the ground surface. The
second and third terms on the right side of Equation (2) can be assembled to give the following
expression of the potential energy:

{w } {P } + {w } {P } − {w } {P }
Τ T T
π p = Up + 1
2 p p
1
2 s s t t
(3)
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 1. Forces on raft, pile head and soil.

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations
131
 132 Chow et al.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

FIGURE 2. Discretization of pile head and soil in contact with raft.

in which {PP} and {wP} are the forces and settlements of the piles at the Gauss points and at the
pile bases.
The relationships between {PP} and {wP}, and {PS} and {wS} in Equation (3) can be
expressed as
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

 Pp  kspp ksps  w p 
  = k ksss   ws 
(4)
 Ps   ssp

where [kspp], [ksps], [kssp], and [ksss] are the soil stiffness matrices and can be obtained for a
soil modeled as an uniform elastic half-space or with stiffness increasing linearly with depth
kspp ksps 
(Shen, Chow and Yong8). By making use of Equation (4) and noting that the matrix  
 kssp ksss 
is symmetrical, the expression for the potential energy can be obtained as

{w } [k ]{w } + {w } [k ]{w }
Τ T
π p = Up + 1
2 p spp p p sps s

+ 12 {ws } [ksss ]{ws } − {wt } {Pt }

T T
(5)

The displacement of each pile in the group can be accurately represented by a finite series
given by (Shen, Chow, and Yong9)

k1 j −1

∑ β ij 1 − i 
z
wi ( z ) = (i = 1,2... np) (6)
 l
j =1

where z is the depth coordinate, l is the pile length, and βij are undetermined coefficients. Thus,
the strain energy Up, the displacements {wP} and {wt} in Equation (5) can all be related to the
undetermined coefficient βij, and principle of minimum potential energy then requires equation
∂π p
(5) to be = 0 . Eventually, the following matrix can be deduced
∂β ij

[k ]{β} + [k ]{w } = {P }
pp ps s T (7)
 Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations 133

in which [kpp], [kps] are the matrices reflecting pile-pile and pile-soil interaction, {β} is a vector
made up by the undetermined coefficients, and {PT} is the vector reflecting the loads acting on
the pile heads. On the other hand, based on Equations (4) and (6), the following relationship can
also be established

[k ]{β} + [k ]{w } = {P }
sp ss s s (8)
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

Note that Equations (7) and (8) can be assembled and then inverted to give

−1
 β  k pp k ps   PT 
  = k kss   Ps 
(9)
ws   sp

The above matrix Equation can be transformed into a matrix equation relating the load-settlement
relationship at the pile head and the soil in contact with the raft only through proper addition of
−1
k pp k ps 
the rows and columns in the matrix   corresponding to the vectors {PT} and {β}. This
 ksp kss 
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

resulting matrix equation can be expressed as

 wt   Ftpp Ftps   Pt 
  = F Ftss   Ps 
(10)
ws   tsp
By inverting the matrix in Equation (10), the stiffness matrix equation of the pile group-soil
system at the pile head-soil-raft interface only is obtained as

 Pt   Ftpp Ftps  −1  wt 
  = F Ftss  ws 
(11)
 Ps   tsp

This equation can be rewritten in the form

{P} = [kt ]{w} (12)

Thus, the stiffness matrix [kt] for a pile group-soil system that considers the reinforcing effect
of the pile group is achieved. This matrix can be easily incorporated in the raft analysis to give
a complete solution of a piled raft.
The loads taken by the piles and ground soil in contact with the raft may exceed the bearing
capacity of the pile and ground soil in the elastic analysis as described above. This problem is
taken into account in the analysis through the use of an “initial stress” technique. The response
of the piles at the pile heads and the soil reaction pressure are assumed to be elastic-perfectly
plastic. The excess loads on the piles above the specified pile bearing capacity and the excess soil
reaction pressures of the soil elements above the specified soil bearing capacity are redistributed
to other piles and soil elements. This process is repeated until the computed load on the piles and
reaction pressures on the soil do not exceed the specified limiting values.

Raft analysis
The potential energy of a raft can, in general, be expressed as
 134 Chow et al.

π r = Ur + 1
2 ∫∫ w σ dA − ∫∫ w p dA
A
r r
A
r r (13)

in which Ur is the strain energy stored in the raft, wr is the deflection of the raft, and A is the area
of the raft. The second term is the work done by soil reaction pressure σr on the bottom of the
raft, and the third term is the work done by external load pr on the upper surface of the raft. Based
on elastic thin plate theory, the strain energy for the raft can be related to its deflection and
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

expressed as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

 ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w  2  ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w  ∂ 2 w  2  

∫∫ ( r ) 2 2 −  ∂x∂y   dA
Dr
Ur =  2 +  − 2 1 − v (14)
2
A  ∂x ∂y 2   ∂x ∂y   

Er t 3
in which Dr = is the flexural rigidity of the raft. vr, Er and t are the Poisson’s ratio,
12(1 − vr 2 )
the Young’s modulus and the thickness of the raft, respectively. x and y are the coordinates.
For a raft resting on a pile group-soil system where the pile head-ground surface in contact
with the raft is discretized into a number of elements as shown in Figure 2, the potential energy
of the raft can be written in the following form (Shen, Chow, and Yong7):
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

π r = Ur + 1
2 {wr }T {R} − {Wr }T { pr } (15)
where {wr} and {R} are the deflections and reaction forces of the soil and pile elements. {pr} are
the external pressure acting on the raft corresponding to each soil and pile element, and {Wr} are
the integration of the raft deflections over the pile and soil element areas. At the pile group-soil
and raft interface, the compatibility and equilibrium conditions require

{wr } = {w} (16)

{R} = {P} (17)

Therefore, by making use of the stiffness matrix in Equation (12), the relationship between
the reaction forces {R} and the deflections {wr} can be obtained as

{R} = [kt ]{wr } (18)

The potential energy expression in Equation (15) then becomes

π r = Ur + 1
2 {wr }T [kt ]{wr } − {Wr }T { pr } (19)

The deflection of the raft can be represented by a finite series as (Shen, Chow, and Yong7):

k k
mπx nπy
w = w0 + xθ x + yθ y + ∑∑ A
m =1 n =1
mn sin
a
sin
b
k k
mπx nπy
+ ∑
m =1
Bm sin
a
+
n =1
∑
Cn sin
b
(20)
 Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations 135

where a and b are the length and width of the raft, w0 , θx , and θy are the rigid movement and
rotations in x and y directions of the raft, respectively, and Amn, Bm, and Cn are undetermined
coefficients. Based on this finite series, the strain energy Ur, the vectors {wr} and {Wr} in
Equation (19) all can be related to these coefficients. The principle of minimum potential energy
∂π r
then requires Equation (19) to be an extremum with respect to these coefficients, i.e., = 0,
∂δ
where the parameter δ denotes the representation of the coefficients w0 , θx , θy , Amn, Bm, and Cn
and this leads to the following relationship
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

T T
∂Ur  ∂wr   ∂Wr 
+  [kt ]{wr } =   { pr } (21)
∂δ  ∂δ   ∂δ 
The above expression can finally be written in matrix form as

[h]{ξ} = {Pr } (22)

where [h] = [kr] + [Zr]T [kt][Zr], and{Pr} = [Zr]T {pr} . The matrix [kr] in the matrix [h] reflects
the stiffness of the raft, [Zr] is a matrix related only to the coordinates, and {ξ} is a vector made
up by the coefficients in the finite series in equation (20).
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

Equation (22) can then be solved for the unknown constants, i.e., the vector under the known
external loads {pr} applied on the raft. The deflection and bending moment of the raft at any
location can be determined analytically based on Equation (20) and thin plate theory. The
reaction forces, i.e., the forces at the pile heads and at the soil elements in contact with the raft,
can be determined using Equation (18).

III. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

A. Comparison of Results
Comparison with published results of piled raft foundations is carried out. All the present
results are obtained using a computer code named VAFPR (Variational Approach For Piled
Rafts) that is developed based on the variational approach described above.
Clancy and Randolph10 reported a hybrid approach for the analysis of piled rafts, in which
the analysis of piles and soil was based on a load transfer treatment of individual piles with elastic
interaction between piles and raft treated using Mindlin’s solution, and analysis of raft based on
plate bending finite elements. A uniformly distributed unit load was applied on the raft. The
properties for a three-by-three and a nine-by-nine piled rafts analyzed are shown in Table 1,
where Es, vs, are the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the soil, respectively, Ep, and r0, is
the Young’s modulus and radius of the piles, respectively, and s is the pile spacing. The
corresponding solutions are compared to the present results in Table 2. The average settlements
computed by the two different methods are in good agreement, but the present results give a lower
percentage of loads taken by the piles, especially for the larger pile group with nine-by-nine piles.
A comparison of the differential settlement for the nine-by-nine pile group is shown in Figure 3.
The normalized coordinate is defined with a value of 0.0 at the corner, 0.5 at the center-edge and
1.0 at the center of the raft (Clancy and Randolph10). The normalized displacement is defined as

w − wav
wnor =
wmax − wmin
in which is the actual displacement at a given point, wav , wmax , and wmin are the average, maximum
and minimum displacement of a piled raft, respectively. Good agreement is observed between the
two methods.
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

136

Results for 3 × 3 and 9 × 9 piled rafts

Properties for 3 × 3 and 9 × 9 piled rafts

TABLE 2
TABLE 1
Chow et al.
 Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations 137
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

FIGURE 3. Normalized differential displacement for 9 × 9 piled raft foundation.

Poulos11 presented a comparison of some methods for the analysis of piled rafts. A hypotheti-
cal example consisting of 15 piles with concentrated loads acting on the raft was analyzed by
various methods. The plan of the foundation together with the concentrated loads termed P1 and
P2 acting at the location of some piles are shown in Figure 4. The properties and the two cases
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

analyzed for the piled rafts are presented in Table 3. The difference in these two cases is in the
magnitude of the applied loads. In the present analysis, the concentrated loads applied on the raft
are transformed into the distributed loads over the cross-sectional area of each pile. The results
obtained using different methods for the key responses: average settlement, maximum differen-
tial settlement, maximum bending moment, and the proportion of load taken by the piles are
presented in Figure 5. The results of Poulos4 in Figure 5 are based on an approximate spring
approach. The results of Ta and Small5 are based on a combined finite element and finite layered
method, and the results of Sinha12 are based on a combined finite element and boundary element
method. It can be seen that, apart from the method of Sinha,12 the rest of the methods give
reasonably similar value of the average settlement. All the methods give reasonably similar

FIGURE 4. Plan of a piled raft with concentrated loadings.

 138 Chow et al.

TABLE 3
Properties and cases analyzed for a piled raft with concentrated loadings
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

results for the differential settlement between the center and the center-edge, with the method of
Poulos4 giving a slightly higher value. The maximum bending moment computed by Poulos4 is
considerably larger than the rest of the methods. The result of Sinha12 gives the lowest percentage
of load taken by the piles; the rest of the methods for load on the piles are in reasonably good
agreement. To sum up, the present solutions are in close agreement in these key responses with
the results of Ta and Small,5 which involve less assumptions and approximations than the
methods of Poulos4 and Sinha.12 It is noted that, in case 2, where the overall applied load exceeds
the ultimate capacity of the piles alone, some nonlinear behavior of the foundation can be
expected. The trend of the results for all the methods is similar. The average settlement, the
differential settlement and the maximum bending moment increases and the proportion of load
taken by the piles decreases.

Effect of Pile Spacing and Number of Piles on the Response of Piled Rafts
Parametric studies are carried out to investigate the effect of pile spacing and number of piles
on the response of piled rafts supported by small pile groups and large pile groups. The key
response, i.e., the average settlement, maximum differential settlement, and maximum bending
moment of the rafts, and the proportion of load taken by the piles are presented. Two square piled
rafts subjected to uniformly distributed loading are selected as examples. One of them has an area
a × b = 30 r0 × 30 r0 and is supported by small pile groups and the other has an area
a × b = 90 r0 × 90 r0 and is supported by large pile groups. The pile groups used to support these two
rafts are arranged in a square grid. For the raft with the smaller area 30r0 × 30r0, the small pile groups
used are 3 × 3, 4 × 4, and 5 × 5 groups. The corresponding pile spacings adopted for these pile groups
are s/r0 = 12, 8, and 6, which are the spacings commonly used in practice. For the raft with the larger
area 90r0 × 90r0, the relatively larger pile groups used are 8 × 8, 11 × 11, and 15 × 15 groups. The
corresponding pile spacing for these pile groups are s/r0 = 12, 8.4, and 6.
The results obtained are presented in Tables 4 and 5 for the critical response of the pile-raft
system, i.e., the average settlement of the rafts, the differential settlement of the rafts, the load taken
by the piles and the bending moment of the rafts. For a given raft area, the average settlement, the
differential settlement, and the maximum bending moment of the raft increase as the pile spacing
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations

Figure 5. Comparison of various solutions (Case 1: ______ Case 2: – – – – – ).

139
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

140

The response of a piled raft with an area 30r0 × 30r0

TABLE 4
Chow et al.
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

The response of a piled raft with an area 90r0 × 90r0

TABLE 5
Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations
141
 142 Chow et al.

gets larger and the number of the piles gets less, while the load taken by the pile decreases. However,
as can be seen in the two tables, the degree of this effect is quite different between the small pile
groups and the larger pile groups. For the small pile groups, as the pile spacing gets larger and the
number of the piles gets less, the differential settlement and the maximum bending moment of the
raft increase very significantly, while the average settlement of the raft and the load taken by the
piles only increase moderately. However, these quantities increase very little for the larger pile
groups. These observations mean that for larger pile groups with the range of practical pile spacing,
i.e., s/r0 = 6–12, the response of the system is not sensitive to the change in the pile spacing and the
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

number of the piles. In other words, taking larger pile spacing and reducing a certain number of piles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

do not result in the great increase in the settlement, differential settlement and bending moment of
rafts. This is due to the fact that for larger pile groups, the smaller spacing and larger number of the
piles increase the degree of the interaction effect of the piles and soil significantly, leading to little
increase in the overall stiffness of the system. These observations indicate that too small a pile
spacing, say s/r0 = 6, has very little contribution to the stiffness of a piled-raft system containing a
large number of piles. In other words, adopting a larger pile spacing appears to be acceptable for
practical large pile groups taking into consideration the settlement, bending moment, and load
sharing between the piles and raft.

IV. CASE STUDIES

Two reported case histories of piled raft foundations are analyzed. The theoretical results for
the settlement, percentage of load taken by piles as well as load on individual piles are compared
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

with the field measurements.

A. Dashwood House
The building was a 15-storey building supported by a piled raft foundation (Green and
Hight13). The pile group consisted of 462 bored piles with diameter of 0.485 m and length of 15
m, and was capped by a rectangular raft with a thickness of 1.5 m and a plan of 33.8 m × 32.6
m. The center-to-center spacing of the piles was 1.5 m. A part of the foundation plan showing
the positions of piles with load cell is shown in Figure 6.
The shear modulus profile was given by (Shen, Chow, and Yong8)

G = 30 + 1.33z MN / m2

The Poisson’s ratio of the clay was taken to be 0.5. The overall load on the foundation was
279 MN, and this load is applied on the raft as a uniformly distributed load in the analysis. The
computed average settlement and percentage of load taken by the raft are compared with
measured results obtained at the end of construction in Table 6. There is reasonable agreement
between the computed and measured values, although the computed percentage of load taken by
the raft is moderately larger than that measured. The computed loads on the individual piles along
several sections are compared with the field measurements in Figure 7. It seems that reasonable
agreement is observed, but the computed load on the pile located inside the core area is
significantly less than the measured result. This may be due to the heavy loading condition within
the core area that is not reflected in the analysis.

B. A Tall Building on Frankfurt Clay

The field measurements of the performance of the raft of the tall building was reported by
Sommer et al.14 The 30-storey tall building was a 130-m-high structure supported by two identical
separate piled rafts, which had a thickness of 2.5 m and a plan of 17.5 × 25.0 m. The pile group
beneath each raft comprised of 42 bored piles of diameter 90 cm and a length of 20 m. The pile
spacing varied from 6r0 to 7r0. The foundation plan for one raft with pile load cells installed is
shown in Figure 8.
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Settlement and load taken by raft

TABLE 6
FIGURE 6. Layout of piles with load cell for Dashwood House.
Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations
143
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

144

FIGURE 7. Load taken by piles.

Chow et al.
 Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations 145
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

FIGURE 8. Foundation plan.

The subsoil below the raft was underlain by layers of Frankfurt clay extending to great
depth. Within the clay, thin calciterous sand, silt inclusions, and isolated floating limestone layers
were embedded. According to laboratory test results, the undrained shear strength of the clay Cu
varied from 100 to 200 kN / m2 increasing with depth.
In the present analysis, the clay undrained shear strength is assumed to increase linearly with
depth from 100 kN / m2 at the foundation level to 200 kN / m2 at the pile toe, and the shear modulus
of the clay is taken as G = 200Cu. Thus, the shear modulus profile can be determined by

G = 20 + 1.0z MN / m2

The Poisson’s ratio of the clay is taken to be 0.5. As reported, when the measurements were
carried out, only approximately 75% of the structural load 241 MN was acting on a single raft.
This load is uniformly distributed over the raft area in the present analysis.
Comparisons with measured maximum settlement, and the estimated percentage of load
taken by the raft are shown in Table 6. A comparison of the loads on individual piles is shown
in Figure 9. The agreement with the measured values in the settlement and the percentage of the
load on the raft is reasonable. Note that the computed loads on the individual piles are larger than
the measured results. This may be due to the approximate structural load used in the present
analysis, which may overestimate the real structural load at the time of the measurements and
results in the larger computed loads on the individual piles.

CONCLUSIONS
A variational approach for the analysis of piled raft foundations is described. The raft and
pile group-soil system can both be analyzed by the use of the principle of minimum potential
energy. By representing the deformation of the piles and raft using finite series, the method is
very efficient for the analysis of a piled raft with a large number of piles. The present solutions
have shown good agreement with other numerical methods and can reasonably predict the
 Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

146

FIGURE 9. Load taken by piles.

Chow et al.
 Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations 147

response of piled raft foundations in the field. Parametric studies have shown that for a given
piled raft supported by a larger pile group, increasing pile spacing from s/r0 = 6 to 12, and
reducing the number of piles does not result in a great increase in the settlement, differential
settlement, and bending moment of the raft.

REFERENCES
[1] S.J. Hain and I.K. Lee, ‘The analysis of flexible raft-pile systems’, Geotechnique, 28(1), 65–83 (1978).
[2] D.V. Griffiths, P. Clancy, and M.F. Randolph, ‘ Piled raft foundation analysis by finite elements’, Proc.
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

7th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Carins: 2, 1153–1157 (1993).
[3] Y.K. Chow, ‘Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups’, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 10(1),
59–72 (1986).
[4] H.G. Poulos, ‘An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft interaction’, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 18, 73–92 (1994).
[5] L.D. Ta and J.C. Small, ‘Analysis of piled raft systems in layered soils’, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 20, 57–72 (1996).
[6] L.D. Ta and J.C. Small, ‘Analysis and performance of piled raft foundations
on layered soils-case studies’, Soils and Foundations, 38, No. 4, 145–150 (1998).
[7] W.Y. Shen, Y.K. Chow, and K.Y. Yong, ‘A variational approach for the analysis of rectangular rafts
on an elastic half-space’, Soils and Foundations, 39, No. 6, 25–32 (1999).
[8] W.Y. Shen, Y.K. Chow, and K.Y. Yong, ‘A variational approach for the analysis of pile group-pile cap
interaction’, Geotechnique, 50(4), 349-357 (2000).
[9] W.Y. Shen, Y.K. Chow, and K.Y. Yong, ‘Variational approach for vertical loaded pile groups in an
Int. J. Geomech. 2001.1:129-147.

elastic half space’, Geotechnique, 49(2), 199–213 (1999).

[10] P. Clancy and M.F. Randolph, ‘Analysis and design of piled raft foundations’, Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech., 17, 849–869 (1993).
[11] H.G. Poulos, ‘Comparison of some methods for analysis of piled rafts’, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mech. and Found. Eng. Hamburg, 2, 1119–1124 (1997).
[12] J. Sinha, ‘Piled raft foundation on soil subjected to swelling, shrinkage and ground subsidence’, PhD
thesis, University of Sydney, Australia (1998).
[13] P. Green and D. Hight, ‘The instrumentation of Dashwood House’, London, CIRIA Technical Note No
78, CIRIA, London, 1976.
[14] H. Sommer, P. Wittmann, and P. Ripper, ‘Piled raft foundation of a tall building on Frankfurt Clay’,
Proc. 11th Int. Conf. On Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 2253–2257 (1985).