EFFECT OF CONFIGURATION OF PILES ON THE

PERFORMANCE OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

RESTING ON LAYER SAND BED

Under the Guidance of By

Prof. K. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Dept. of Civil Engineering
S.V.U College of Engineering
Tirupati.
J.NARASIMHULU (1116235)
M.Tech (Geotechnical Engineering)
Dept. of Civil Engineering
S.V.U College of Engineering
Tirupati.
 CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Materials and Methods
• Results and Discussions
• Concluding Remarks
• References
2
 INTRODUCTION
 Function of a foundation - To transfer the structural loads from a building
safely into the ground.

 Factors to be considered for the selection of a foundation- Function, loads,

bearing capacity, settlements, uplift forces and cost.

 A foundation must satisfy-Location and depth criteria, Shear failure criteria and
Settlement Criteria.

 Types of foundations:

1.Shallow foundations – Spread footings, Raft or Mat foundations etc.

2.Deep foundations – Piers, Caissons, Pile foundations etc.

3
 Introduction
A Raft/Mat foundation is a type of foundation which covers the entire area of
structure, transmitting the entire structural load to deeper layer.

Applications
Superstructure loads are heavy
Soil is weak
Differential settlements
 Introduction
Pile Foundation
When the super structure loads are very heavy (or) soil is very
weak, then to distribute the loads into deeper soil layers and minimize
the settlements we choose Pile Foundation.
 Piled – Raft Foundation
Piled-Raft Foundation is a geotechnical composite construction that combines the
bearing effect of both foundation elements -- raft and piles by taking into account
interactions between the foundation elements and the subsoil.

Less
compressible
strata

Highly compressible strata

 Favourable conditions for Piled Raft
o Soil profiles consisting of relatively stiff clays at top.

o Soil profiles consisting of relatively dense sands at top.

 Unfavourable conditions for Piled Raft
o Soil profiles containing soft clays near the surface.

o Soil profile containing loose sands near the surface.

o Soil profiles which are likely to undergo swelling movements

due to external causes.

7
Structures built on Piled raft foundation

Burj Khalifa, Dubai

•Tallest free-standing structure in the

world with total height of 829.8m.
•Founded on deep deposits of
calcareous rocks.
•The tower is founded on a 3.7m thick
triangular shaped raft supported on
194 bored piles of dia 1.5m extending
50m below the ground.

8
 Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC)
1. The diameter of pile is 1.3m. 4.7 m spacing a
depth of 33 m below a mat (raft) of dia. 53.7 m.
2. A depth of 10 to 20 m at the top is water-
bearing alluvium.
3. The depth of limestone varied from 80 to 180
m, tower load of 2680 MN.
4. The differential settlement of the structure is
12.7 mm across the base of the towers
Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC)
Bahrain World Trade Centre MesseTurm Tower, Frankfurt

50 storey, 240m high 63-storey ,257m high

11
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

• Sand- Locally available river sand from Swarnamukhi River.

PROPERTIES OF SAND
Property Value
Coarse fraction(%) 7.14
Medium fraction(%) 79.8
Fine fraction(%) 12.63
Co-efficient of uniformity(Cu) 2.5
Co-efficient of curvature(Cc) 1.06
IS Classification SP
Specific Gravity(G) 2.6

Minimum dry unit weight (γdmin) (kN/m3) 14.76

Maximum dry unit weight(γdmax) (kN/m3) 17.11

12
 100

90

80

70

60
% finer

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve size(mm.)

Grain Size Distribution curve of Sand 13

• Model Piles – Mild steel rods of 10mm diameter, lengths of 100mm,200mm,300mm and 400mm.

• Model Rafts – Mild steel plates of 10mm thick, Size – 180mm × 180mm.

• Test Tank – Circular steel tank of diameter 600mm and height 550mm.

• Proving ring – A calibrated proving ring of 5tonnes capacity is used.

• Dial gauges – 4 dial gauges of accuracy 0.01mm attached to the magnetic stands.

14
 Configurations of Present Study

C&CO
C&CME

CO 15
CME
 Tests Conducted
Pile raft
configuration H1/B L/D S/D No. of tests

Raft(without Piles) 0.3 - - 1

Individual Pile 0.3 10,20,30,40 - 4

Raft+1 Piles(C) 0.3 10,20,30,40,45 - 5

Raft+5 0.3 10,20,30,40 7.5 4

Piles(C&CME)
Raft+4 Piles(CME) 0.3 10,20,30,40 7.5 4

Raft+5 0.3 10,20,30,40 7.5 4

Piles(C&CO)
Raft+4 Piles(CO) 0.3 10,40 15 2
16
 H1/B = 0.3
Raft width (B)

Raft thickness (T)

Soil Layer1 H1
Pile
Length
(L)
H
Pile
Soil Layer2 Dia
(D)

Schematic view of layered soil experiment setup with piled raft model
17
Test Bed Preparation:
• Sand is filled by Rainfall method in both Layers

• Bottom layer: Height of fall -20cm, Loose condition(ID=29%)

• Top Layer: Height of fall- 80cm, Dense condition(ID=72%)

Placing of Piled raft:

• Top surface is leveled and is checked with Spirit Level

• Model piled raft is placed over the surface and the piles are pushed into the
bed such that raft comes in contact with the sand.

18
 Load Test procedure
• Conducted in accordance with the procedure mentioned in IS 1888-1982.
• Four Dial gauges with an accuracy of 0.01mm were placed at the corners of the
raft with the help of magnetic stands and channels, to measure vertical
displacement.
• Proving ring is placed in between loading device and load transferring pipe to
know the applied load. The load is applied in equal intervals and for each load
increment vertical settlement is noted. The load is increased till the raft settlement
reaches 10% of raft width or till the failure of foundation.
• Settlements are recorded for the corresponding loads and the Load- Settlement
curves were drawn for all the tests.

19
Experimental Setup 20
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

• Load Deformation curves were plotted for all the tests conducted in the
present study and are analyzed in terms of improvement in the Load
carrying capacity and Settlement reduction.

• The influence of various parameters such as pile raft configuration,

thickness of top dense layer(H1/B), Length of piles(L/D), Spacing of
piles(S/D) and Number of piles(N) is studied.

21
 Load Carrying Capacity
Typical Load – Deformation curves of Present Study

Raft only
Load(kg.)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0

4
Settlement(mm.)

6 Raft only

10

12

14

Load - Deformation curves of Raft (without piles)

22
 Load(Kg.)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0

10
Pile 10cm
Deformation(mm.)

Pile 20cm
Pile 30cm
15
Pile 40cm

20

25

30

Typical Load deformation curves of individual Piles

23
 Load(kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

4
Settlement(mm.)

6
Raft only
R+5 Piles

10

12

14

Typical Load - Deformation curves of Piled Raft system

24
 Ultimate Load carrying capacity of Raft and Piled Rafts
Tests Dense over Loose H1/B = 0.3
Ultimate Load ( kg )

Raft 720
Raft + 1, 0, 10(C) 791.32
Raft + 1, 0, 20(C) 884.52
Raft + 1, 0, 30(C) 928.2
Raft + 1, 0, 40(C) 1157.52
Raft + 1, 0, 45(C) 1288.56
Raft + 5, 75,10(C&CME) 1135.68
Raft + 5, 75, 20(C&CME) 1375.92
Raft + 5, 75, 30(C&CME) 1605.24
Raft + 5, 75, 40(C&CME) 1703.02
Raft + 4, 15, 10(CME) 1102.9
Raft + 4, 15, 20(CME) 1244.88
Raft + 4, 15, 30(CME) 1354.08
Raft + 4, 15, 40(CME) 1528.8
Raft + 5, 75,10(C&CO) 1124.76
Raft + 5, 75, 20(C&CO) 1294.03
Raft + 5, 75, 30(C&CO) 1419.6
Raft + 5, 75, 40(C&CO) 1681.68 25
 Expected and Observed Load carrying capacities of Piled Raft system
Tests Dense over Loose
H1/B = 0.3
Observed Expected Difference
Load (kg) Ultimate Load* (kg)
(kg)
Raft 720.00
Raft + 1, 0, 10(C) 791.32 729.656 61.664
Raft + 1, 0, 20(C) 884.52 730.224 154.296
Raft + 1, 0, 30(C) 928.20 732.000 196.200
Raft + 1, 0, 40(C) 1157.52 734.200 423.320
Raft + 1, 0, 45(C) 1288.56
Raft + 5, 7.5,10(C&CME) 1135.68 768.28 367.400
Raft + 5, 7.5, 20(C&CME) 1375.92 771.12 604.800
Raft + 5, 7.5, 30(C&CME) 1605.24 780.00 825.240
Raft + 5, 7.5, 40(C&CME) 1703.02 791.00 897.000
Raft + 4, 15, 10(CME) 1102.90 758.624 344.276
Raft + 4, 15, 20(CME) 1244.88 760.896 483.984
Raft + 4, 15, 30(CME) 1354.08 768.00 586.080
Raft + 4, 15, 40(CME) 1528.80 776.80 752.000
Raft + 5, 7.5,10(C&CO) 1124.76 768.28 356.480
Raft + 5, 7.5, 20(C&CO) 1294.03 771.12 522.910
Raft + 5, 7.5, 30(C&CO) 1419.60 780.00 639.600
Raft + 5, 7.5, 40(C&CO) 1681.68 791.00 890.680
26
*Note: Expected Ultimate Load = Raft capacity + (No. of piles x individual Pile capacity)
Representation of forces contributing Load carrying capacity

27
 Effect of Pile Length (L/D)

Load (kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0

RAFT

6 R+1(10cm)_Center
Deformation ( mm.)

R+1(20cm)_Center
R+1(30cm)_Center
8
R+1(40cm)_Center
R+45_cm pile_center
10

12

14

16

Fig Effect of pile length on load carrying capacity of 1- Piled raft

 Effect of Pile Length (L/D)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

R+5(30cm)_C&CME
6
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(20cm)_C&CME
R+5(10cm)_C&CME
8
R+5(40cm)_C&CME

10

12

14

16

Fig Effect of pile length on load carrying capacity of 5- Piled raft of S/D = 7.5
 Effect of Pile Length (L/D)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

6
R+4(40cm)_4_CME
Settlement(mm.)

R+4(30cm)_4_CME
8
R+4(20cm)_4_CME
R+4(10cm)_4_CME
10

12

14

16

18

Fig. Effect of pile length on load carrying capacity of 4- Piled raft of S/D = 7.5
 Effect of Pile Length (L/D)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

6
R+5(40cm)_C&CO
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(30cm)_C&CO
8
R+5(20cm)_C&CO
R+5(10cm)_C&CO
10

12

14

16

18

Fig. Effect of pile length on load carrying capacity of 5- Piled raft of S/D = 7.5
 Effect of Pile Length (L/D)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0

6
Settlement(mm.)

R+4(40cm)_CO
8
R+4(10cm)_CO

10

12

14

16

18

Fig. Effect of pile length on load carrying capacity of 4- Piled raft of S/D = 15
 Effect of Number of Piles (N)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0

4
R+1(10cm)
6 R+5(10cm)_C&CME
Settlement(mm.)

R+4(10cm)_CME
8 R+5(10cm)_C&CO
R+4(10cm)_CO
10

12

14

16

Fig. Effect of number of piles (N) on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with L/D = 10
33
 Effect of Number of Piles (N)
Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0

6
R+1(20cm)
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(20cm)_C&CME
8
R+4(20cm)_CME
R+5(20cm)_C&CO
10

12

14

16

18

Fig Effect of number of piles (N) on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 20
 Effect of Number of Piles (N)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

6
R+1 (30cm)
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(30cm)_C&CME
8
R+4(30cm)_CME
R+5(30cm)_C&CO
10

12

14

16

18

Fig Effect of number of piles (N) on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 30
 Effect of Number of Piles (N)

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

6 Raft +1( 40cm)

R+5(40cm)_C&CME
Settlement(mm.)

8 R+4(40cm)_4_CME
R+5(40cm)_C&CO
10 R+4(40cm)_CO

12

14

16

18

Fig. Effect of number of piles (N) on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 40
 Effect of Pile raft configuration

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0

6
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(10cm)_C&CME
R+5(10cm)_C&CO
8

10

12

14

16

Fig. Effect of pile raft configuration on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 10
 Effect of Pile raft configuration

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0

6
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(20cm)_C&CME
8
R+5(20cm)_C&CO

10

12

14

16

18

Fig. Effect of pile raft configuration on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 20
 Effect of Pile raft configuration

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

6
Settlement(mm.)

R+5(30cm)_C&CME
R+5(30cm)_C&CO
8

10

12

14

16

Fig. Effect of pile raft configuration on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 30
 Effect of Pile raft configuration
Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

4
Settlement(mm.)

6 R+5(40cm)_C&CME
R+5(40cm)_C&CO

10

12

14

Fig. Effect of pile raft configuration on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 40
 Effect of Pile raft configuration

Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0

6
Settlement(mm.)

R+4(10cm)_CME
R+4(10cm)_CO
8

10

12

14

16

Fig. Effect of pile raft configuration on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 10
 Effect of Pile raft configuration
Load(Kg.)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

6
Settlement(mm.)

R+4(40cm)_CME
8
R+4(40cm)_CO

10

12

14

16

18

Fig. Effect of pile raft configuration on load carrying capacity of Piled raft with
L/D = 40
 SETTLEMENT REDUCTION

• The main objective of addition of piles to the raft is to reduce the settlement.

• In the present study the reduction in settlement obtained for all the cases of piled
raft is presented in terms of settlement reduction ratio.

• Settlement reduction ratio is defined as the ratio of reduction in settlement of

piled raft to the settlement of plain raft.

where,

43
 Variation of Settlement and SRR at different loads @ H1/B = 0.3
@ 200 kg @ 400 kg @ 600 kg @ 800 kg
Model (ultimate load of raft)

Δ* SRR** Δ SRR Δ SRR Δ SRR

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Raft 2.20 4.30 7.43 10.85
Raft + 1, 0, 10 1.77 0.1955 4.28 0.0047 6.9 0.0713 9.1 0.1613
Raft + 1, 0, 20 1.75 0.2045 4.08 0.0512 6.89 0.0727 8.9 0.1797
Raft + 1, 0, 30 1.75 0.2045 3.97 0.0767 6.6 0.1117 8.6 0.2074
Raft + 1, 0, 40 1.74 0.2091 3.90 0.0930 5.73 0.2288 6.86 0.3677
Raft + 1, 0, 45 1.66 0.2455 3.85 0.1047 6.62 0.2490 6.61 0.3908
Raft + 5, 75,10 2.10 0.0455 4.13 0.0395 5.81 0.2180 7.02 0.3530
Raft + 5, 75, 20 1.60 0.2727 2.50 0.4186 4.01 0.4603 5.02 0.5373
Raft + 5, 75, 30 1.06 0.5182 2.28 0.4698 3.41 0.5410 4.21 0.6120
Raft + 5, 75, 40 1.02 0.5364 2.2 0.4884 3.36 0.5478 4.14 0.6184
Raft + 4, 15, 10 2.0 0.0909 3.98 0.0744 6.30 0.1521 7.07 0.3484
Raft + 4, 15, 20 1.78 0.1909 3.52 0.1814 5.58 0.2490 6.30 0.4194
Raft + 4, 15, 30 1.54 0.3000 3.40 0.2093 5.04 0.3217 5.61 0.4829
Raft + 4, 15, 40 1.50 0.3182 3.30 0.2326 4.24 0.4293 4.74 0.5631
Raft + 5, 75,10 2.18 0.0091 4.0 0.0698 5.63 0.2423 7.40 0.3180
Raft + 5, 75, 20 1.89 0.1409 3.62 0.1581 5.44 0.2678 6.61 0.3908
Raft + 5, 75, 30 1.49 0.3227 2.92 0.3209 4.58 0.3836 5.15 0.5253
Raft + 5, 75, 40 0.79 1.59 2.55 3.13 44
0.6409 0.6302 0.6568 0.7115
 Effect of Length of piles (L/D)

0.7
0.8
Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.6

Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.7

0.5 0.6

0.4 0.5

single 0.4
0.3
pile_(10cm/20cm/30cm/40c R+5 piles
m/45cm) 0.3 (10cm/20cm/30cm/40cm)
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Length of piles (L/D)
Length of piles (L/D)

Fig Variation of settlement reduction ratio with Length of piles (L/D) for N = 1

Fig Variation of settlement reduction ratio with Length of piles (L/D) for N = 5

45
 Effect of Length of piles (L/D) on SRR

0.7
0.7

Settlement Reduction Ratio

Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 R+5 piles
0.3 R+4 piles
(10cm/20cm/30cm/40cm)
(10cm/20cm/30cm/40cm)
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Length of piles (L/D) Length of piles (L/D)

Fig Variation of settlement reduction ratio with Length of piles (L/D) for N = 4
Fig Variation of settlement reduction ratio with Length of piles (L/D) for N = 5

46
 Effect of Pile raft configuration

2.5

1.5
5(40cm)
5(30cm)
1
5(20cm)
5(10cm)
0.5

0
1.C&CME
1 2
PILE RAFT CONFIGURATION
2.C&CO

47
 Effect of Pile raft configuration

1.2

0.8

0.6
4(40cm)
4(10cm)
0.4

0.2

1.C&CME
0
1 2
PILE RAFT CONFIGURATION
2.C&CO
 CONCLUSIONS

• The load carrying capacity of all the configurations of piled raft system in
the present study has increased with respect to that of plain raft (without
piles) and this increment is mainly due to increase in confinement which in
turn increases the skin friction component of piles.

• The ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled raft system is observed to
be maximum when H1/B is 0.3 However the percentage increase in
comparison to the plain rafts is more when H1/B is 0.3.

49
• Maximum increase in the Ultimate Load carrying capacity is obtained
when 5(C&CME) piles of length (L/D) 40 are placed at a spacing (S/D) of
7.5 in both cases of H1/B.

• Based on pile raft configuration it is observed that the Ultimate Load

carrying capacity of Piled Raft Foundation has a significant contribution
from factors such as (H1/B), (S/D), (L/D), (N), and interaction effect of
factors (S/D & H1/B) in that order.

• The Settlement of Piled Raft of any configuration in our study is smaller

than that of plain raft (without piles) irrespective of the load. But the
magnitude of reduction is more at smaller loads in comparison to that at
higher loads.

50
• Maximum reduction in Settlement is obtained when 5 piles(C&CME) of length
(L/D) 40 are placed at spacing (S/D) of 7.5 for H1/B of 0.3. However,
magnitude of settlement reduction is more when 5(C&CME) number of pile
when compared to that when 1(C) number of pile.

• Settlement of piled raft foundation is significantly less than that of either raft
only or pile only at any given load, especially at high load levels. In other words
piles are very effective in reducing the settlements of a raft.

51
 Scope for future study

The present study can be further extended-

• By changing the geometry of the raft (Circular, Rectangular etc)
• Changing thickness of layers
• Increasing the soil layers based on soil type (three layer, four layer system)
• Changing the method of installation of piles.
• Varying the pile lengths - Providing lengthy piles in the central portion and shorter piles in the outer portion
of raft.
• By changing the configuration (number of piles, arrangement) of the model piled raft.
• The study of pile length to establish a transition zone between conventional pile foundation and piled-raft
foundation

52
 REFERENCES

• Akinmusuru J.O. (1980), ‘Interaction of Piles and Cap in Piled Footings’. Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 106, No. 11, November 1980, pp.
1263-1268.

• Balakumar V. and Ilamparuthi K. (2010), ‘Piled Raft Behavior Based on 1-G Model
Studies’. Indian Geotechnical Conference – 2010, GEOtrendz December 16–18,
2010 IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay.

• Burland J.B., Broms B.B., De Mello V.F.B. (1977), ‘Behaviour of foundations and
structures’, proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, pp.495-546.

• Cao, X.D., Wong, I.H., Chang, M.F. (2004), ‘Behavior of Model Rafts Resting on
Pile– Reinforced Sand’, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering
130, pp. 129-138. 53
• Phung D.L. (1993), ‘Footings with Settlement-Reducing Piles in Non-Cohesive Soil’,
Ph.D Thesis, University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.

• Poulos H.G. (2001), ‘Piled Raft Foundations: Design and Applications’, Geotechnique
Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 95-113.

• Sievert L. (1957), ‘Compensated Friction-pile Foundation to Reduce the Settlement of

Buildings on Highly Compressible Volcanic Clay of Mexico City’, Proc. 4 ICSMFE,
London, Vol. 2.

• Singh A.K. and Singh A.N. (2011), ‘Experimental study of piled raft foundation’,
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference December 15-17, 2011, Kochi (Paper
No D-378).

54
THANK YOU…

55