aot er ee 3 o* Your order details Your shipping address Our Order Ref: 01146531-001 Your Ref: ED02613 Despatched on: 6/3/2015 Your item details IN: ETOCRN‘26022006 Title: Geotechnical special publication Reston, VA; American Society of Civil Publisher: Engineers; 1988 aniceal 10895-0563 2002 Part: 4 coats 118 Pages: 441-488 ‘Author name(s): Poulos, H.. ‘Article tile Simplifed Design Procedure for Piled Ratt words: Foundations Thank you for using Document Supply Services! ua 1 $104 Copyright Statement Unstone sh ie mein pac ae lech cn They pe onan lca ces rr ep ea mw ym omen). fe err pps soy scree nai, mwa leit Re cnc nang eS pe cp toe owe Hwee er oa) oer 1.yornne win emis xpi omer oo 2 yeh te parma of Te Cop cena Any st nr ety 2 oomoraes uma feantcpen ones Wn coer ot nyt ome: 4. ond nage cnr ee, rach ters a ete gar youy De capstone repo. "is oar en wen ic Uery vos se. You te age ts et iy cry Peps, ei at ‘acme athtyouretitocsiphy pte et ‘The Brsh Library Document Supply Service, Boston Spa, Wetherby, United Kingdom, L823 78Q. bidss.bluk‘Simplified Design Procedure for Piled Raft Foundations H.G. Poulos, Fellow, ASCE Geosciences Pty. Ltd, & University of Sydney, Australia or of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of iy, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia, Tel: +61 2 9351 3640 Fax: 461 2 9351 3343; los @civil usyd.edu.au tions where a raft foundation alone does not satisfy the design requirements, it ‘hp possible to enhance the pesformance of the raft by the addition of piles. The use Hfmited number of piles, strategically located, may improve both the ultimate load Bity and the scttiement and differential settlement performance of the raft. This utlines the development of a simplified method of analysis which can provide a {ool for preliminary design of piled raft foundations. It involves two pheses: jo assessment of the overall foundation behavior; The assessment of the behavior under individual column londs. j both cases, use is made of simplified solutions to compute foundation stiffness ‘pital applications to a case history of a piled rafand to model centrifuge tests fy described, and it is found that the behavior predicted by the simplified analysis is fopally consistent with the measured behavior. ow well-recognized that the behavior of a nmat or raft foundation can be enhanced ively by the addition of a limited number of piles. Such a piled raft foundation is Silacly useful in circumstances where the raft provides significant bearing capacity stiffness, but the computed settlements and/or differential settlements execed fable limits, A number of methods of analysis are available for analyzing the of piled raft foundations (for example, Hain and Lee, (1978), Clancy und diph (1993), Franke et al. (1994), Poulos (1994a), Ta and Small (1996), van Impe yeu (1996), Poulos et al (1997), E-Mossallamy and Franke (1997), Russo and i. (1998), Viggiani (1998), Yamashita et al. (1998), Anagnastopoulos and piudis (1998), Katzenbach et sl, (1998), Prakoso, W. and Kuthawy, F.f. (2001), fost of the above methods involve the use of computer analyses, in some cases, tomplex ones, and as such ure generally only suitable for detailed design. In fon, most of the analyses have focused on the behavior of uniformly leaded jons, which represent a minority of cases in which such founclations are ployed (or example, fluid storage structures). Most applications of piled raits Hove « series of column loudings, ss well as paiches of uniform loading. Some of the 4aaaa DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 design charts which have been developed for uniform loadings, while useful to give indication of overall load-settlement behavior, cannot be used far detailed analysis oft localized pile-raft interaction beneath column loadings. ‘This paper summarizes a relatively simple design procedure for piled rafts whic considers two main aspects: 1, Overall loud capacity andl lond-settlement behavior; 2 Localized load capacity and pile and raft behavior under individual col foadings. ‘The approach outlined is meant to be For preliminary design purposes, in particulé to provide a means of assessment of the feasibility of using a piled raft, and the pile an faft requirements. The calculations do not involve the use of complex numerica analyses, but can be programmed via spreadsheet or mathematical programs euch MATHCAD, Examples of the application of the approuch to two cases are describ briefly. a Design Issues As with any foundation system, the design of piled raft foundation requires consideration of a number of fssues, including: Uktimate load capacity for vertical, Jateral and moment loadings Maximum setement Differential settlement Raft moments und shears for the structural design of the raft Pite loads and moments, for the structural design of the piles. In much of the available literature, emphasis has been placed on the beari capacity, settlement and differential settlement under vertical loads. These are gene the critical aspects, anid are considered in this paper, However, the other issues mi also be addressed, at least at the detailed design stage, In assessing the feasibility of using a piled raft foundation, it is necessary first td assess the performance of a tft foundation without piles. Estimates of vertical lateral bearing capacity, settlement and differential settlement may be made conventional techniques, If the rift alone provides only a small proportion of the required load capacity, then it is likely that the foundation will need to be designed wi the conventional philosophy in which the piles are designed to carry most of the load, that the function of the raft is merely to reduce slightly the piling requirements, however the raft alone has adequate or nearly adequate lord capacity, but docs satisfy the. settlement or differential settlement criteria, then it may be feasible consider the use of piles as settlement reducers, (Burland, 1995; Randolph, 1994). The most effective application of piled rafts occurs when the raft can provi adequate load capacity, but the settlement and/or differential seitlements of the rath alone exceed the allowable values. This generally accurs when the near-surface sdlls profile contains relatively stiff clays or relatively dense sunds, Conversely, considerable ‘caution must be exercised when vertical ground movements are auiticipated; these 1 adversely affect the settlement performance of the foundation (in the case of seitlemeht or induce unacceptable tensile forces in the piles (inthe case of swelling movements), ‘The key design decisions which must be made for a piled raft include: © ‘The required raft thickness; veerDEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 443 ‘The type of piles to be used; “The required locations of the piles, and the pile diameter and length. [I should be emphasized that, in principle, different pile sizes ean be used below the ‘depending on the design requirements. There should not be the expectation that all need to be of a similar size and length, or that they should extend to 2 strong, aring stratum, ‘The pile requirements should be teilored to meet the design juirements, and this is the approach that will be followed in this paper. It Vertical Lond Capacity K assessing vertical bearing capacity. the ultimate load capacity can generally be en as the lesser of the Following two values: “The sum of the ultimate capacities of the raft plus all the piles “Tho ultimate capacity of a block containing the piles end the raft, plus that of the ‘portion of the ruft outside the periphery of the pites. Figure 1 illustrates the general problem, involving a layered soil profile and a typical ilding column Iayout, in assessing the ultimate lond capacity of the piled raft system, the following issues need to be addressed: “The assessment of the bearing capacity of the raft on a layered soi} deposit requires ‘engineering judgment, as there are few well-established simple techniques available, “Two approaches can be considered: ‘© Use of average strength parameters within the depth of influence of the raft (lypically 1.5 times the simaller dimension of the raft); “Use of the average hearing capacity of the individual Inyers. If the first approach is adopted, then, as pointed out by Brinud et al (2000), the assumed distribution of strength with depth can have an important effect on the computed bearing capacity. The author tends to adopt the second approach because of the difficulties of assigning average parameters to a profile consisting af both Ea t Ly Ea Pereeereeceeeeeeea o 3 66 nl | B} |o 0 9 0 eget o 9 o 9 Es e Es Etevation Phan Figure 1. General problem of piled raft on layered soil profile.aaa DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 2, Inthe assessment of pile capacity, the influence of layering below thé pl to be considered carefully (Meyerhof and Sastry, 1978). The block: et capacity is more likely to be affected by soft underlying layers aa capacity of the individual piles. — veyed. ‘Overall Load-Settlement Behavior For estimating the load-settlement behavior, an approach described. by P ‘can be adopted. This involves an extension of the method proposed by Poulo (1980), using the simple method of estimating the load sharing between the tg piles outlined by Randolph (1994). The definition of the pile problem conde Randolph is shown in Figute 2. Using his approach, the sifinss of the, peg foundation can be estimated as follows: : Kye (Bp # Ke (1-069) flodep? Ke/ Ky) where Kye= stiffness of piled raft; Ky = stiffness of the pile group; Ky = stiff raft alone; tip = raft ~ pile imteruction factor. “The raft stiffness K, (for the center of the raft) can be estimated via elas for example using the solutions of Fraser and Wardle (1976) or Mayne. a (1999). The pile group stiffness can also be estimated from elustic approaches such az those described by Poulos and Davis (1980), Fleming et al { Poulos (1989), In the latter cases, the single pile stiffness is computed fro theory, and then multiplied by a group stiffness efficiency factor which is ‘approximately from elastic solutions, ie. Ky = Ky. n™ where Ky = stiffness of: n= number of piles, w = group exponent, typically in the range 0.3.0.5, b ‘with spacing. ‘Young's Modulus E, Exo Esa Bay Esb, Bearing ‘Depth satan! al Las 2% Figure 2. Simplified representation of pile-raft unlt.DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 445 ‘The proportion of the total applied load carried by the raft is: Py Py K, (1-04q) I (Ky + Ke (1-tg)) =X ) P,= load carried by the raft; Py = total applied load. ‘The raft ~ pile interaction factor ttep can be estimated as follows: Gy = VI fred 10) 1G @) phere t. = average radius of pile cap, (corresponding to an area equal to the raft arca vided by number of piles); rp= radius of pile; ¢ = In (tu! 1p); t= (0.2548 (2.5 p (Lv) — #1; 6 = By/ Eas p= Bay / By; v= Polsson's ratio of soil; L = pile length; Ea = soil 's modulus at level of pile tip; Eyy = soil Young’s modulus of bearing stratum iy pile tip; Eas = average soil Young's modulus along pile shaft, above equations an be used to develop a trilinear foad-settiement curve as pacity is fully mobilized, Making the e sinntiyng assumption thet the pile toad ization occurs simultaneously, the total applied load, Py, at which the pile capacity hed is given by: Pi = Pap! (1-X) ® © Pap = vhimate toad capacity of the piles inthe groups X = proportion of load by the raft (equation 2). Beyond that point (Point A in Figure 3), the stiffness Of the foundation system is cof the raft alone (K,), and this holds untif the ultimate toad capacity of the piled raft dation system is reached (Point B in Figure 3). At that stage, the load-seitlement jonship becomes horizontal. iB I ' t 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 Pile capacity fully ullized, j Pile + aft ulmate Pee Rage apy Rae t I ‘Settlement Figure 3, Simplified load-settlement curve for preliminary analysis,486, DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 ‘The load — settlement curves for a raft with various numbers of piles computed with the sid of a computer spreadsheet or a mathematical program MATHCAD. In this way, itis simple to compute the relationship between the i of piles and the average settlement of the foundation, ‘A key requirement of using the equations developed by Rendolph is that soil profile has to be simplified such that itis represented by a profile whose increases linearly with depth, and in which there is a uniform beating st practice, it is usually adequate to compute a mean weighted soil modulus along th shaft length, and to adapt a mean stif ness and bearing capacity for the pile tip, bases tho weighted values within an effective depth of 2 to 3 diameters of the tip: PO 1994b), € Despite the simple and approximate nature of the above approsch, it shown to provide load-settlement curves which are in good agreement with tho more sophisticated numerical analyses (Poulos, 2000). An example of a cor with the program GARP (Poulos, 1994n) is shown in Figure 4. A. similar me ‘agreement bas ulso been obtained with results from the program FLAC 3D, Estimation of Overall Differential Settlements Most analyses of pile group settlement make one of the two following «3 assumptions: . 1. The pile cap is perfectly rigid so that all piles settle equally (under centric Loa hence there is no differential settlement. 2. "The pile cap is flexible, so that the distribution of load onto the piles is knw this case, the differential settlements within the group can be computed, ignoring effect of the raft, 0} 0 20 406080 100 120 20° 406080 100 1207, ‘Central Stienect (rn) ‘Central Setjement msn —~—— GARPS ‘Approximate ‘Geoup Load (AN) ol ttn 0-2 40 60 8 100 120 ‘Central Sextdemsent (mn) Figure 4. Comparison between GARPS and approximate method (Poulos, 2000).DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 aa In reality, the situation is usually between these wo extremes. Randolph (1994) has wyeloped useful design guidelines for assessing the differential settlement within a jiformly loaded pile group. For a flexible pile cap, Randolph has related the ratio of ferential settlement AS to the average group seitlerent, Sy., toa ratio R, 2s follows: ASISy=IR/4 fork s4 (Ba) ASISay =f forR>4 (3b) ese f = 0.3 for center-to-midside, and 0.5 for center-to-comer; R= (ns/L)* (Se) ‘= number of piles; 6 = pile center-to-center spacing; L = pile length, For pile caps with a finite rigidity, the differential settlements will reduce from the TAbove values (which are for perfectly flexible pile caps), and Randolph suggests that the lapproach developed by Randolph and Clancy (1993) be adopted. This approach relates ihe normalized differential settlement to the relative stiffness of the pile cap (considered 45 0 raft). Mayne and Poulos (1999) have developed a closed-form approximation for Pine ratio of comer to center settlement of @ rectangular foundation, and from this proximation, a rigidity correction factor, fy can be derived: f= 11 (14247 Kp) (6a) where Kp= (Ey/Bsny) (2d)? * (6b) foundation flexibility factor; E, = Young's modulus of pile cap; Boa = representative il Young's modulus beneath the cap (typically within a depth of about half the yqnivalent diameter of the cap); t= thickness of pile cap; d= equivalent diameter of pile ip (lo give equal ares with the actual cap). ‘The factor fy from equation is then applied to the maximum differential settlement timated from equations (5). Design For Localized Behavior Under Individual Columns introduction his section presents an approach which allows for an assessment of the maximum umn loadings which may be supported by the raft without a pile below the column, also the requirements for raft thickness and reinforcement, A typical column on o raft is shown in Figure $. There are at least four cumstances in which a pile may be needed below the column: If the maximum moment jn the raft below the column exceeds the allowable value for the raft If the maximum shear in the ruft below the column exceeds the allowable value for the raft seis ama stein ee eae ares48 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 2c Layer] Ey) , vs ni Layer2 By ,v, Sn Layer3 Eg jv, Sennen Figure 5, Individual column toad-raft on layered soil profile. e * If the maximum contact pressure below the raf exceeds the allowable design val fot the soit = * Ifthe local setilement below the column exceeds the allowable value, To estimate the maximum moment, shear, contact pressure and locel settlement caused by column loading on the raft, use can be made of the approach described Poulos (2001), who utilizes the clastic solutions summarized by Selvadural ase ‘These are for the ideal case of a single concentrated load on a semi-infinite elastic Supported by u homogeneous elastic layer of great depth, bat they do at least provid rational basis for design, provided that the equivalent soil modulus and beating valued are chosen appropriately, as described below. " ve Soit profile idealization for local design homogeneous soil layer by using the approach described by Fraser and Wardle (19% Referring to Figure 5, for the asseasinent of the equivalent modulus to be used’ column loading, the average value within the effective depth below the raft should Sonsidered. As an upproximation, the effective depth can be taken to be 3a, where characteristic length of raft, defined as follows: 3 =U. 1B. V6.8, (v2)! a where t= raft thickness; E_= aft Young's modulus; E, = soil Young's modulus; v_= Poisson's ratio; v, = soil Poisson's ratio,DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 a9 should be noted that this will generally be different from the value used for the sment of overall raft stiffness K, in equations 1 to 4. The estimation of the average fig of soil modulus and the characteristic length a will generally be an iterative ‘ a8 E, and a are inter-related via equation 7. larly, for the estimation of the local bearing capacity of raft under a column, eruge strength parameters or bearing capacity values within a depth equal to 3a Bild be used for the raft. n moment criterion aximum moments My and My below a column of radius © acting on a semi- Mz=A,.P (Ba) My=By.P (8b) «2 [A = 0.0928 (In (c / a))]; B, # [B ~ 0.0928 ( in (¢/ a): A, B = coefficients ‘on Wa; X = distance of the column center line from the raft edge; a = teristic length of raft, as defined in equation 7, he coefficients A and B are tabulated in Table 1 for the limiting cases of interior ndedge columns, Table 1 Fectors for Local Raft Behavior Below, Column = Factor Central Colunms | Bdge Colwnns | ee 059 -O.i5 B 0,59 O15 a G 1.00 1 7 re Tat “a oat 066 ce Poy = Mal (larger of As and By) ° Vea = (Pq 107), Cg/ 2 (ao)450 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 where q * contact pressure below raft; ¢ = column radius; Cy = shear factor, ns given Table 1. Thus, if the design shear capacity of the raft is Vs, the maximum column lond, B which can be applied to the raft is: Pa = Ve. nc / Cy + quart? where qa * design allowable bearing pressure below raft Maximum contact pressure criterion ‘The maximum contact pressure on the base of the raft, qnas, can be estimated as follo oor ® GPL a? aa where q = factor, given in Table | for interior and edge columns; a = characteni longth defined in equation 7, The maximum column toad, Fis, which can be applied without exceeding ‘the allowable contact pressure is then : 4 Pos gue /F. @) 3) Where qu * ultimate bearing capacity of soil below raft; F, = factor of safety for cont pressure, _ Local settlement criterion ‘The settlement below a column (considered as a concentrated load) is given by: S=a(1-v4) P/E. a) where «@ = settlement factor given in Table 1. It should be recognized that this expression does not allow for the effects 1 adjacent columns on the settlement of the column being considered, and so is a o settlement which is superimposed on a more general settlement “bow!". If the allowable local settlement is S,, then the maximum column Toad, Pear Not to exceed this value is then; Por #8, E,a/ (0 (v2) ) as), Assessment of pile requirements for a column location Af the acttal design column load at a particular location is Pe, then @ pile will be requil if P, exceeds the least value of the above four criteria, that is, if: Q Ped Poe (1)DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 4st Pou minimum of P.y, Pea, Pes, OF Pos. Peq of Pes), then the pile should be designed to provide the deficiency in load ity. Burland (1995) has suggested that only about 90% of the ultimute pile loud js, the ultimate pile load capacity, Pyg, at the column location is then given by: Pus 111 Fp. [ Pe~ Pesid) (I?) Fy = factor of safety for piles. “When designing the piles as settlement reducers, F, can be tuken as unity F It the critical criterion is local settlement, then the pile should be designed to ‘an uppropriate additional stiffness. For a maximum local settlement of 8, the stiffness, Keg, of the foundation below the column is: Kea Pet Ss (18) "As a first approximation, using equation 1, the required pile stiffness K, to achieve Bhs tnget stiffness can be obtained by solving the following quadratic equation: Kp? + Ky [Ky (1-209) Kes Oey", Kr. Keg 0 (gy Phere oxy = raft-pile interaction factor, K, = stiffness of raft around the column. bearing capacity of raft and pile below a coluinn ay be required to demonstrate that the foundation at each column has an adequate or of safety against bearing capacity failure. This may be assessed by adding the ‘capacity of the pile(s) to that of the effective area of the raft contributing to the sharing. As a first approximation, this effective are may be asmimed to have a Usa, where a is defined in equation 7, Thus, the ultimate bearing capacity Py: below non is: Poe = Pap + rst Fa? (20) Pap = sum of ultimate capacity of pile(s) below column; pan = local bearing city of raft below column (see Section 5.2); 4 = characteristic length of raft. chnical Parameter Assessment j design of a piled raft foundation requires an assessment of @ number of Behnical and performance parameters, including: Raft bearing capacity452 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 * Pile capacity * Soil modulus for raft stiffness assessment * Soil modulus for pile stiffness. While there are a number of laboratory and in-situ procedures available fot aassesement of these parameters, itis common for at least initial assessments to be bi ‘on the results of simple in-situ tests such as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Static Cone Penetration Test (CPT). Typical of the correlations are the following whi the author has employed frequently are those bused on the work of Decourt (19 1995) using the SPT: Raft ultimate bearing capacity: Pa = Ki; kPa Pile ultimate shaft resistance: f= a [2.8N,+10) kPa Pile ultimate base resistance: fy = Ky.Ny kPa Soil Young's modulus below raft: Ey = 2N MPa ‘Young's modulus slong and below pile: B= 3N MPa where Ny = average SPT%Neg) value within depth of one-half of the raft width; Nj SPT value along pile shaft; Ny = average SPT value close to pile tip; Ki, Ke shown in Table 2; ay I for displacement piles in all soils and non-displacement pil clays, and ay = 0.5 ~ 0.6 for non-displacement piles in granular soils. ‘Table 2 Correlation factors Ky and Kp Sail Type a Ky (Rafi) Displacement Non-Displacementcy _|___ Piles Sand 90 3 Sandy silt 30. 205. Clayey silt 80. 165 ‘Clay 65 100 Application To Case History Yamashita et al (1994, 1998) have described a well-instrumented and documented ct of a piled raft foundation for a S-story building on stiff clay in Japan, Figure 6 itlustrat the geotechnical conditions, the basic parameters obtained from Inboratory and field testing, and the building footprint which wns rectangular, with sides 24 m by 23 m. foundation consisted of a raft (inferred to be 0.3 m thick) with 20 piles, one under ea column, The piles were bored concrete piles, either 0.8 of 0.7 m in diameter, with central stecl H-pile inserted. The pile diameter and steel pile size depended on th column load, which ranged between 1.02 MN and 3.95 MIN.DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 453 sean Wein on re vite Sete Seaiete ea ae, Sma “sa Ses (a) Elevation of building and summary of soil investigation 2 Pile No. | Borehole da. (m) | Size of sesl-H (rom) a | 1 X405 x18 028 PE HOO x40 x13 x21 Ps 350 x350x12 x19 Pb 300 x300x10x15 (b) Foundation plan Figure 6. Five-story building in Japan (Yamashita et al; 1994).484 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 ‘The simplified analysis described above was used to analyze this case, usi values oF soit Young's modulus reported by Yamashita et al. The analysis! programmed vin MATHCAD, which allows ready calculation of the effects of vi the raft and pile characteristics, and plotting of the results in a practically-useable fala ‘The computed average settlement was 13mm while the measured settlement valle across the raft ranged between about 18 mm and 7 mm, Assuming the otal load of MN to be uniformly distributed, the maximum differential settlement (center-to-co ‘was computed to be about 5 mm, while the center-to-mid-side differential se ‘was about 3mm. The loxds were certainly not uniformly distributed, but the mi differential settlements were of a similar order. Considering the local behavior, the simplified analysis indicated that the max loads which could be sustained by the raft without pile support were 1.23 interior colunms. The actual interior column loads were between 1.58 MN and: MN, and all had a pile supporting the column, so that the actual design was cons with the indications from the analysis. For the edge columns, the analysis indicated i the maximum load which could be sustained without pile support was 0.76 MN.! actual edge column loads ranged between 0.96 MN (at the comer) to 3.09 MN, again the simple analysis confirmed that piles were required for all columns aroun edge of the raft, and hence, it would appear that it would have provided approp ‘guidance in the selection of locations for the piles required for the foundation, ‘The above case was also analyzed by Poulos (2001) using the computer pros GARP, ‘The settlements computed by GARP were in reasonable agreement although generally a litte larger than, the measured values, and of a similar ord those predicted herein. ‘Thus, the simplified epproach appears to be a useful tool preliminary design of piled raft foundations, In pasticulay, it offers a rapid mea assessing the feasibility of using relatively thin rafts with piles to economize foundation costs Application To Centrifuge Tests Horikoshi (1995) has described a series of centrifuge tests on piled raft mi foundations, to investigate the effects of the number and configuration of piles Foundation performance, Tests were carried out on a raft only, and a raft with 9, 24 a6 69 piles. In prototype scale, the raft was circular, 14 m in diameter and 45 mm thi¢ while the piles were 15m long and 0.315 m in diameter. The soil used for the tests Was reconstituted clay, whose undrained shear strength 8 increased approximately lineal ‘with depth, according to the expression: 8 = 33 41.2%», where Zp = depth below s ‘on the prototype scale. This distribution of strength was adopted for the estimati the raft und pile capacities, while the Young's modulus of the soil was taken to be £800 sy, following the suggestions of Horikoshi (1995), Calculations were carried out to estimate the stiffness of the piled raft with numbers of piles, and the calculations were compared with the experimental centdl data. The pile group stiffness was computed from the simplified expression given belo equation 1, assuming a value of w = 0.45 for pile spacings of 3 dinmeters, wit correction applied for other spacings, as per Fleming et al (1992). 4 Figure 7 compares the computed variation of piled raft central stiffness wi umber of piles with the measured values from the centrifuge tests, for an appliedDEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 455 3000 ~— Calculated 4 Measured (0 - 50 kPa range) 2500 + Horikoshi, 1995) A 1500 1000 Foundation Stiffaess MN/n. 500 DH te det HELL HET) (No. of Pites)* ‘Figure 7. Calculated versus measured central stiffness of piled rafts from centrifuge tests, . sgure range of 0 ~ SO kPa. There is reasonable agreement between the measured and puted values, although there is some variability in the measured values for the numbers of piles, Nevertheless, it would appear that, discretely used, the simple ach can provide reasonable first estimates of piled raft settlement performance. sions ‘paper has outlined a simplified method of carrying out a preliminary feasibility and design of a piled raft foundation system. It employs closed form or imate solutions for raft and pile stiffness, and for the estimation of the combined ation stiffness, taking raft-pile interaction into accoum. By using simple solutions elastic plate subjected to concentrated loadings, itis also possible to estimate the column loads which can be sustained by a raft without piles. Am attractive of the analysis is that it can be programmed either via a spreadsheet program or jemutical program such as MATHCAD. pplication of the approach to a case history and to a series of centrifuge tests436 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 It should be emphasized that the piled raft foundation solution is not suitab every circumstance, It is unlikely to be very effective if soft clays or loose san near the surface, and itis generally not a suitable option if ground movements are to occur below the raft. However, in cases where the soil conditions allow the develop adequate capacity and stiffness, the piled raft solution may be very suitab the simplified approach offers a rapid means of preliminary design in such'« provided that, as always, appropriate parameters can be assessed for the geoted and foundation models. Acknowledgments “The author is grateful to Dr. John Small of the University of Sydney, for many discussions on methods of analysis. 3 References Anagnostopoulos, C, and Georgiadis, M. (1998). “A simple analysis of piles q foundations," Geot, Eng., 29 (1), 71-83. Briaud, J-L., Hossain, K., Barfknecht, J. and Lee, J.H. (2000). “Load settlement ¢ method for spread fgotings in sand." Report FHWA-RD-2000-XXX, ‘Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. Burland, J.B. (1995). "Piles as settlement reducers”. Keynote Address, 18 Congress on Soil Mechanics, Pavin, italy, Clancy, P. and Randolph, MF, (1993). "An approximate analysis procedure for raft foundations." Int. J. NAM Geomechs., 17, 849-869, Decourt, L, (1989), SPT ~ "State of the art report.” Proc, 12 ICSMFE, Rio de Janeit Decourt, L, (1995), "Predictions of load-settlement relationships for foundations o basis of SPT-T." Ciclo de Conf. Int. “Leonardo Zeevaert", UNAM, Mexico, 83- El-Mossallamy, Y. and Franke, E, (1997). Piled rafis-numerical modelling 10 sim the behavior of pited raft foundations. The Authors, Darmstadt, Germany, Fleming, W. GE K., Weltman, AJ., Randolph, M.F, and Elson, W.K. (1992). engineering. 2° Bd,, Surrey Univ. Press. Franke, E., Lut, B, and El-Mossallamy, ¥. (1994). "Measurements and numbfh modelling of high-rise building foundations on Frankfurt clay." Geot, Spec. Pub! ASCE, 2, 1325-1336, Fraser, R.A. and Wardle, LJ. (1976). "Numerical anslysis of rectangular raf layered foundations.” Geotechnique, 26 (4), 613.DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 457 Gin, SJ. und Leo, LK, (1978), "The analysis of flexible raft-pile systems.” fechnique, 28 (1), 65-83. ikoshi, K. (1995), "Optimum design of piled raft foundations.” PhD thesis, Dept. of jl Engineering, Univ. of Western Australia, bach, R., Arslan, U., Moorman, C. and Reul, O. (1998). "Piled raft foundation — fiteraction between piles and raft." Darmstadt Geotechnics, Darmstadt Univ. of shnology, 4, 279-296. P.W, and Poulos, H.G, (1999). “Approximate displicement influence factors for ic shallow foundations.” Jnl. Geot. & Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 125 (6), 453-460. Meyesho!, G.G. and Sastry, V.V.R.N, (1978). Bearing eupacity of piles in layered soils: Parts Land Il, Can, Geot, Jnl. 15 (2), 171-189, HPoulos, H.G, (1989). “Pile bebavior ~ theory and application.” Geotechnique, 39 (3), 15. os, H.G, (1994n). "An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft interaction." fit, NAM Geomechs., 18, 73-92. FPoulos, H.G. (1994b). "Settlement prediction for driven piles and pile groups.” Vert. & Hlorizl. Deformn. of Founds. and Embankments, Geot. Spec. Pub. No. 40, ASCE, New York, 2, 1629-1649. . Jos, H.G, (2000). "Pile-raft interaction ~ alternative methods of analysis." slopments in theoretical geomechanics. Smith & Carter (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 463, ios, H.G. (2001), "Piled raft foundations ~ design and applications." Geotechnique, (2), 95-113, ilos, H.G. and Davis, EH. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. Wiley, New rk. coso, W. and Kulhawy, F.H, (2001). "Contribution to piled raft foundation design." l. Geot. and Geonv. Eng., ASCE, 127 (1), 17-24, \dolph , M.F, (1994). "Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts," S.0.A. tsso, G. and Viggiani, C, (1998), “Factors controlling soil-structure interaction for Upiled rafts.” Darmstadi Geotechnies, Darmstadt Univ. of Technology, 4, 297-322.458 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 Selvadurai, A.P.S. (1979), Elastic analysis of soil-foundation imeraction. Dei Geot. Eng., VT, Elsevier, Amsterdam, ‘Ta, L.D, and Smati, J.C. (1996). “Analysis of piled raft systems in Jayered soils,’ NAM Geomechs., 2, 57-12, van Impe, W.E. and Langu, 1, (1996). Technical report on settlement predie ‘methods for piled raft foundations, Ghent Univ., Belgium. Viggiani, C. (1998). “Pile groups and piled rafts behavior." Deep founds. on bored auger pites, BAP TIL, van Impe and Haegman (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 77-99, Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M. ond Yamada, . (1994), Investigation of piled | foundation on stiff clay. Proc. 13" int, Conf. Soil Mechs. Found. Eng., New Delhij 543-546. 4 ‘Yamashita, K., Yamada, T. and Kakursi, M. (1998), "Simplified method for anal piled raft foundations.” Deep Founds. on Bored and Auger Piles, van It Haegeman (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 457-464,