IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF PARAMETERS INFLUENCING
THE BEHAVIOR OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION IN LAYERED SAND
Abstract
Piled-Raft Foundation is a geotechnical composite
construction that combines the bearing effect of both
the foundation elements i.e., raft and piles by taking
into account interactions between the foundation
elements and the subsoil. To study the behavior of such
a foundation system in layered sandy soil under vertical
load, an experimental program has been conducted in
the laboratory by varying critical parameters such as
thickness of top dense layer, length of piles, spacing
between piles and number of piles. The experimental
program includes the model tests on unpiled raft
(H1/B=0.3, 0.6), individual piles (L/D =10, 40) and
piled rafts of different configurations. Mild steel rods of
10mm diameter were used as model piles and square
shaped mild steel plates of size 180mm and thickness
10mm were used as model rafts. The improvement in
the ultimate load carrying capacity is represented by
load improvement ratio and reduction in average
settlement is represented by settlement reduction ratio.
The influence of thickness of top dense layer, length of
piles, spacing between piles and number of piles on the
load improvement ratio and settlement reduction ratio
are presented, discussed and quantified using factorial
experimentation. The results confirm that the load
improvement ratio and settlement reduction ratio varies
from 23-124 % and 1-60 % respectively for various
configurations of piled raft foundation system.
Keywords
Piled-raft, Layered soil, Sand, Pile Spacing, Pile
Length, Pile Number.
Introduction
In the present generation the construction of high-rise
buildings has increased. In such buildings the loads
coming on to the foundation are very high. In order to
transfer those loads into the soil without affecting the
stability of the structure an efficient and economic
foundation is required. Piled-raft foundation is one such
system which is increasingly being recognized as an
economical and effective foundation system for tall
buildings.
It has been used in many countries to support different
types of structures in different types of soil. It can be a
particularly effective form of foundation system for tall
buildings because the raft is able to provide a
reasonable measure of both stiffness and load
resistance.
Sievert (1957) [14] firstly described the concept of piled
raft foundations and encouraged the designers to adopt
this approach for high-rise building foundations.
Hanson et al (1973) [7] and Burland et al (1977) [3]
proposed a new design philosophy to consider the raft
as the main bearing element and to apply the pile group
as the settlement reducer. Akinmusuru (1980) [1]
performed laboratory tests on unpiled raft, free–
standing pile groups and piled rafts in dry sand and
showed that the capacity of the piled raft foundation
exceeds the sum of the bearing capacity of the pile
group and the cap, due to the increase in the pile
bearing capacity caused by the pile–raft interaction
(contact pressure of the raft on the soil). Katzenbach et
al (1998) [10] found that the pressure applied from the
raft on to the soil can increase the lateral stress between
the underlying piles and the soil, and thus can increase
the ultimate load carrying capacity of a pile as
compared to free-standing piles. Poulos (2001)[13] has
examined number of idealized soil profiles and found
that the soil profiles consisting of relatively stiff
clay/dense sand at top are favorable. Phung (1993) [12]
conducted field tests on loose and dense sand and found
raft-pile interaction is the governing factor for piled raft
behavior, which causes increase in skin friction of piles
due to contact pressure of raft on soil. Kim et al (2001)
[11] conducted three series of tests on standard sand
(Jumujin sand) with relative density of 68.3% to bring
out effects of stiffness of raft, spacing between the piles
and arrangement of piles and reported that the load
sharing ratio decreased gradually with settlement ratio.
The load sharing ratio of the raft increased with
thickness and size of the raft. Turek and Katzenbach
(2003) [16] conducted a total of 12 tests, two for each
foundation on loose sand and two on dense sand to
investigate the bearing behavior of a pile-raft
foundation on sand. On comparing the test results of
piled raft with plain raft, it showed a settlement
reduction of 30% in loose sand and 50% in dense sand.
Cao et al (2004) [4] conducted an experimental study
on models of raft resting on pile-reinforced sand and
found that for a given pile group, an increase in pile
length improves the stiffness of a pile-raft system.
Balakumar and Ilamparuthi(2010) [2] conducted 1g
model test on square and circular shaped piled raft
foundation and proved that nonlinearity of piled raft
behavior is very near to hyperbolic relation and also
proved that asymptotic load ratio and initial stiffness
ratio remains same, irrespective the physical properties Table 1 Details of model tests conducted
of piles and soil. Singh and Singh (2011) [15] Model H1/B L/D S/D No. of
conducted experiments on piled raft foundation in sand tests
and found that the number and location of piles plays an Raft(without 0.3 - - 1
important role in improving the capacity of piled raft Piles) 0.6 - - 1
system. El-Garhy et al (2013) [6] conducted a series of
tests on piled raft foundations in sand to study its Individual Pile 0.3 10,40 - 2
behavior and found that, keeping the pile spacing 0.6 10,40 - 2
unchanged if the number of piles are increased then the Raft+2Piles 0.3 10,40 5,1 4
pile share increases. Patil et al (2014) [9] conducted an 0.6 10,40 5 4
experimental model to study the behavior of piled raft 5,1
foundation system subjected to vertical load and found 5
that the load bearing capacity of piled raft increased as Raft+4Piles 0.3 10,40 5,1 4
the number of piles beneath the raft increased, also 0.6 10,40 5 4
found that the raft thickness had insignificant effect on 5,1
the settlement and the load sharing between piles and 5
raft.

From the literature review it is clear that considerable

research has been carried out to study the performance
of piled raft foundation on homogeneous soil deposits.
Significant contributions have been made by studying
different parameters of piled raft foundation. On the
other hand, it is also clear that only a few investigators
studied the effect of thickness of top dense layer on load
carrying capacity and settlement behavior of piled raft
foundation resting on layered sand deposits. Spacing of
piles, length of piles and number of piles supporting the
raft are the other parameters which require attention to
understand and assess the behavior of piled raft
foundation. Also, little information is available on
quantification of relative effect of each parameter and (a) S/D = 5 (b) S/D = 15
interaction effects that are known to influence piled raft Fig. 1 Configurations of present study
behavior.
The materials used for the present study were
Experimental programme (1) Sand for foundation medium and
The main purpose of the present experimental (2) Mild steel for raft or pile material.
programme is to study the performance of piled raft They are detailed below.
foundation resting on layered sand bed in which the top Sand
layer is in dense condition and the bottom layer is in A dry sand sample was used as foundation soil in the
loose condition. For this purpose a total of 22 tests were present work. The specific gravity of sand was found to
conducted in the laboratory by varying different be 2.60. The minimum and maximum dry unit weights
parameters such as thickness of top dense layer (H 1/B), of sand were found to be 14.76 and 17.11 kN/m3
number of piles (N), spacing between piles (S/D) and respectively. The grain size distribution was determined
length of piles (L/D). The details of model tests using the dry sieving method and is given in Fig. 2. The
conducted on unpiled raft, individual piles and piled raft uniformity coefficient (Cu) and coefficient of curvature
foundations are presented in Table 1. The (Cc) for the sand were found to be 2.5 and 1.06,
configurations adopted in the present study are shown respectively. According to the Indian standard soil
in Fig. 1. The dimensions of model pile and raft were classification, the soil is classified as poorly graded
chosen to ensure no stress concentration at the boundary sand (SP).
of the tank.
 100 Test Procedure
90
The load test is conducted in accordance with the
80
procedure mentioned in IS 1888-1982 [7].The tank was
70
60
filled with sand by rainfall method in two layers in
50 which bottom layer is in loose condition and top layer is
%finer

40 in dense condition. The bottom layer is filled by

30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve size(mm.)
Fi
g. 2 Grain Size Distribution curve of sand
Raft and Pile Material
The model raft and model piles were made up of steel.
Square shaped mild steel plates of size 180mm and
thickness 10mm were used as model rafts. Model rafts
are provided with threaded holes at required places to
fix model piles. Mild steel rods of diameter 10mm and
lengths 100mm and 400mm were used as model piles.
To ensure rigid connection between the pile and raft,
top head of each pile was threaded to connect the pile to
the raft.
Experimental Setup
A circular steel tank of diameter 600mm and height
550mm is used as test tank for all the experiments. The
loading frame consists of four vertical columns, two on
each side connected with four horizontal beams and two
pouring with height of fall of 200mm to achieve a layer
in loose condition with unit weight of 15.40kN/m3, and
the top layer with a height of fall of 800 mm to achieve
a layer in dense condition with unit weight of
16.38kN/m3. The model raft fitted with required
number of piles, dial gauges and proving ring were
placed as shown in fig. 3 and load test is carried out as
per standard procedure. Load deformation curves were
drawn for all the conducted tests.
Results and Discussions
A total of 16 load tests were conducted on piled raft
system varying H1/B, S/D, L/D and N over two levels
as per the details presented in Table 1. Apart from these
16 tests, load tests are also conducted on unpiled raft
and individual piles in order to assess the contribution
of interaction between piles and raft on the load
carrying capacity of piled raft system. Typical load
deformation plots obtained from load tests are presented
in Fig. 4 to Fig. 7.
0 200 400 600 800
0

horizontal beams are provide at the centre to fix hand 1

2
operated loading device as shown in Fig. 3. Calibrated
Deformation(mm.)

H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6
3

proving ring of 5 tonnes capacity is used to measure the 4

applied load. Four Dial gauges of 0.01 mm accuracy 5

6
were placed at the corners of the raft to measure vertical 7

displacement. 8
9
10
Load(kg.)

Fig. 4 Load deformation plots of unpiled raft

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0

0.5
1
Deformation(mm.)

1.5

2
2.5
3
3.5
L/D = 10 @ H1/B = 0.3 L/D = 10 @ H1/B = 0.6
4
4.5
Load(Kg.)

Fig. 5 Typical Load deformation plots of individual

Fig. 3 Experimental Set-up
piles
 (H1/B), number of piles (N), spacing of piles (S/D) and
also length of piles (L/D). The load carrying capacity of
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 piled raft system is expected to be equal to the sum of
2 individual capacities of raft and piles in the absence of
H1/ B = 0.3 H1/B = 0.6
4
interaction between piles and raft. But it is clear that the
Deformation (mm.)

6
ultimate load of any of the present configurations is
8
greater than the sum of individual capacities of raft and
10
piles. This increase is due to interaction between pile
12
and raft, which is dependent on the parameters
14
considered. This increase is presented in terms of load
16
Load (kg.) improvement ratio for different cases.
Fig. 6 Typical Load deformation plots of piled raft (4
piles, S/D = 5, L/D = 10) Load Improvement Ratio
Load improvement ratio is a non dimensional parameter
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 which is defined as the ratio of load carried by the piled
2
raft to the load of unpiled raft.
4
The load improvement ratios for piled rafts of different
configurations considered in the present study are
Deformation (mm.)

6 Raft

8
Piled raft summarized in Table 3 and it’s variation at failure load,
10 with respect to various parameters such as thickness of
12 top dense layer H1/B), number of piles (N), length of
14 piles (L) and spacing between piles is shown in fig.8 to
16 fig. 11.
Load (kg.)

Fig. 7 Typical load deformation curves of raft and piled

Table 3 Load improvement ratio of different
raft @ H1/B = 0.3 (4 piles, S/D=15, L/D=10)
configurations of piled raft system

From the plots it is clear that, load deformation Load Improvement Ratio
behaviour of all the tests exhibits strain softening case Configuration H1/B = 0.3 H1/B = 0.6
which is characterized by peak stress beyond which At At At At
load decreases with further deformation. Load 6mm Failure 6mm Failure
corresponding to peak is reported as ultimate load Raft+2,5,10 1.23 1.43 1 1.23
carrying capacity. Ultimate loads so obtained for all the
Raft+4,5,10 1.27 1.53 1.37 1.54
tests are summarized in Table 2.
Raft+2,15,10 1.35 1.79 1.05 1.30
Table 2 Ultimate Load carrying capacities Raft+4,15,10 1.92 1.94 1.12 1.60
H1/B = 0.3 H1/B = 0.6
Raft+2,5,40 1.25 1.70 1.54 1.45
Test Ultimate Ultimate Load
Load ( kg ) ( kg ) Raft+4,5,40 1.58 1.75 1.54 1.53
Raft 800 1140 Raft+2,15,40 2.31 2.13 1.66 1.54
Raft + 2, 5, 10 1140 1400
Raft+4,15,40 1.85 2.24 1.41 1.61
Raft + 4, 5, 10 1220 1750
Raft + 2, 15, 10 1430 1480
Raft + 4, 15, 10 1550 1824 Variation of load improvement ratio with thickness
Raft + 2, 5, 40 1360 1650 of top dense layer (H1/B)
Raft + 4, 5, 40 1400 1750 From Fig. 8 it is clear that the thickness of top dense
Raft + 2, 15, 40 1700 1750 layer has significant effect on the load improvement
Raft + 4, 15, 40 1790 1830 ratio. In most of the presented cases load improvement
Pile (L/D = 10) 9.1 13.1 ratio is more when thickness of top dense layer (H 1/B)
Pile (L/D = 40) 13.6 14.7 is 0.3.

From Table 2 it is clear that load carrying capacity

increases with increase in thickness of top dense layer
 2.50 Fig. 9 Variation of load improvement ratio with
number of piles
2.00
In general perception there will be improvement in the
Load improvement ratio

1.50 load carrying capacity with increase in number of piles,

but it may not be true in all cases. From fig. 9 it is clear
1.00
N=2, S/D=5 N=4, S/D=5 N=2, S/D=15 that there is a slight increase in load improvement ratio
0.50
N=4, S/D=15
with number of piles in most of the presented cases.
When H1/B is 0.6 and L/D is 10 there is a considerable
0.00
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 increase in load improvement ratio with number of
Thickness of top dense layer
piles.

(a) L/D=10
Variation of load improvement ratio with length of
piles (L/D)
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
Load improvement ratio

1.50

Load improvement ratio

1.50
1.00 N=2, S/D=5 N=4, S/D=5
1.00
0.50 N=2, S/D=15 N=4, S/D=15
S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.3 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.3
0.50
0.00 S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.6 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.6
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
0.00
Thickness of top dense layer
0 10 20 30 40 50
Length of piles
(b) L/D=40
Fig. 8 Variation of load improvement ratio with (a) 2- Piles
thickness of top dense layer
2.50
Variation of load improvement ratio with number of
piles (N) 2.00
2.50
Load improvement ratio

1.50
2.00
Load improvement ratio

1.50
1.00

S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.3 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.3

1.00 0.50
S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.3 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.3 S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.6 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.6
0.50
0.00
S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.6 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.6 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 Length of piles
Number of piles
(b) 4- Piles
(a) L/D=10 Fig. 10 Variation of load improvement ratio
with length of piles

2.50 From fig. 10 it is clear that the load improvement ratio

Load improvement ratio

2.00 increases with the length of piles in most of the

presented cases with the only exception when H 1/B is
1.50 0.6 and N is 4.
1.00 S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.3
S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.3 Variation of load improvement ratio with spacing
0.50 S/D=5 @ H1/B=0.6 between piles (S/D)
0.00 S/D=15 @ H1/B=0.6 From fig. 11 it is clear that the load improvement ratio
1 2 3 4 5 increases with spacing between piles when H1/B is 0.3
Number of piles
and there is negligible increase when H1/B is 0.6.
(b) L/D=40
 2.50 Table 4 Settlement reduction ratio of different
configurations of piled raft system
2.00
Settlement Reduction Ratio
H1/B = 0.3 H1/B = 0.6
Load improvement ratio

1.50 Configuration
(at 800kg) (at 1100kg)
1.00 δ SRR δ SRR
N=2 @ H1/B=0.3 N=4 @ H1/B=0.3 Raft 8.6   7.8  
0.50
N=2 @ H1/B=0.6 N=4 @ H1/B=0.6
Raft+2,5,10 7.80 0.09 7.6 0.03
Raft+4,5,10 7.20 0.16 6.90 0.12
0.00
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Raft+2,15,10 7.10 0.17 7.70 0.01
Spacing between piles Raft+4,15,10 4.90 0.43 7.20 0.08
Raft+2,5,40 5.80 0.32 5.40 0.31
(a) L/D = 10
Raft+4,5,40 5.70 0.34 5.20 0.33
2.50
Raft+2,15,40 3.40 0.60 4.80 0.38
Raft+4,15,40 4.70 0.45 5.70 0.27
2.00
Load improvement ratio

1.50 Variation of Settlement reduction ratio with

thickness of top dense layer (H1/B)
1.00
N=2 @ H1/B=0.3 N=4 @ H1/B=0.3

0.50 N=2 @ H1/B=0.6 N=4 @ H1/B=0.6 0.7

0.6
0.00
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Settlement Reduction Ratio 0.5 N =2@S/D =5 N =4 & S/D = 5

Spacing between piles

0.4 N = 2 & S/D = 15 N = 4 & S/D = 15

(b) L/D = 40 0.3

Fig. 11 Variation of load improvement ratio with 0.2

spacing between piles 0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Settlement Reduction Thickness of Dense layer
The main objective of piled raft system is to reduce the
settlement of raft by the addition of a minimum number (a) L/D=10
of piles. In the present study the reduction of settlement 0.7

attained at a load equal to the ultimate load of unpiled 0.6

raft is presented in terms of settlement reduction ratio.

Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.5

The magnitude of settlement for various configurations 0.4

of piled raft system at ultimate load of unpiled raft and 0.3

corresponding settlement reduction ratio values are 0.2 N = 2 & S/D = 5 N = 4 & S/D = 5

presented in table 4 and the variation of settlement 0.1 N = 2 & S/D = 15 N = 4 & S/D = 15
reduction ratio with respect to various parameters such 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
as thickness of top dense layer H1/B), number of piles
Thickness of Dense layer
(N), length of piles (L) and spacing between piles is
shown in fig. 12 to fig. 15.
(b) L/D=40
Fig. 12 Variation of Settlement reduction ratio
Settlement reduction ratio with thickness of top dense layer
Settlement reduction ratio is a non dimensional
parameter which is defined as the ratio of settlement of From Fig. 12 it is clear that the thickness of top dense
piled raft and unpiled raft at a given load. layer has significant effect on the settlement reduction
ratio when S/D is 15 and minimum effect when S/D is
δr−δpr
Settlement reduction ratio = 5. When H1/B is 0.3 much benefit of settlement
δr
reduction is attained for S/D of 5, where as for H1/B of
whereδr and δpr represents the settlement of unpiled 0.6 the effect of spacing is minimum.
raft and piled raft for a given load.
Variation of Settlement reduction ratio with number
of piles (N) 0.7

0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5

Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.5 S/D = 5@H1/B= 0.3 S/D = 15@H1/B =0.3
Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.4
0.4 S/D = 5@H1/B= 0.6 S/D = 15@H1/B= 0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2 S/D = 5@H1/B= 0.3 S/D = 15@H1/B = 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1 S/D = 5@H1/B = 0.6 S/D = 15@H1/B= 0.6

0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50
1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Piles Length of piles

(a) L/D=10 (b) 4- Piles

Fig. 14 Variation of Settlement reduction ratio
0.7
with length of piles
0.6
From fig. 14 it is clear that the settlement reduction
0.5
Settlement Reduction Ratio

ratio increases with the length of piles. This increase is

0.4
more when number of piles is 2 in comparison to that
0.3
when number of piles is 4.
0.2
S/D = 5@H1/B= 0.3 S/D = 15@H1/B= 0.3

0.1
S/D = 5@H1/B= 0.6 S/D = 15@H1/B= 0.6
Variation of Settlement reduction ratio with spacing
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
between piles (S/D)
Number of Piles 0.7

(b) L/D=40 0.6

Fig. 13 Variation of Settlement reduction ratio 0.5

Settlement Reduction Ratio

N = 2 @H1/B = 0.3 N = 4@H1/B= 0.3

with number of piles 0.4
N = 2@H1/B= 0.6 N = 4@ H1/B = 0.6
0.3
In general there will be improvement in performance 0.2
with increase in number of piles but it does not holds
0.1
good in all cases. From fig. 13 it is clear that when L/D
is 10, settlement reduction ratio increases with number 0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16

of piles and when L/D is 40 it showed the same trend Spacing between piles

when S/D is 5 but when S/D is 15 it has shown the

reverse trend. Hence we can say that, when L/D is 40, it (a) L/D = 10
is better to provide less number of piles at S/D of 15. 0.7

0.6
Variation of Settlement reduction ratio with length 0.5
of piles (L/D)
Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.4
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.5 N = 2@H1/B= 0.3 N= 4@H1/B= 0.3
Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.1
0.4 N = 2@H1/B= 0.6 N = 4@H1/B = 0.6
0
0.3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S/D= 5@H1/B= 0.3 S/D = 15@H1/B= 0.3
Spacing between the piles
0.2
S/D = 5@H1/B = 0.6 S/D= 15@H1/B= 0.6
0.1
(b) L/D = 40
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 Fig. 15 Variation of Settlement reduction ratio
Length of piles with spacing between piles

(a) 2- Piles
 Contrast of ABCD = [(abcd-abc-abd+ab) + (-acd+ac+ad-a)
From fig. 15 it is clear that the settlement reduction + (-bcd+bc+bd-b) + (cd-c-d+1)]
ratio increases with spacing between piles when H 1/B is
Average Effect = (1/8n) [Contrast]
0.3 and when H1/B is 0.6 it decreases with increase in
spacing between piles in most of the presented cases. Sum of Squares = (1/16n) [Contrast]2
Where n is number of replicates in our it is 1.
QUANTIFICATION:
The values obtained on substitution are summarized in table 6
A detailed factorial analysis is required to quantify the
effect of each parameter on the ultimate load carrying and table 7 for ultimate load and settlement of piled raft
capacity of piled raft system and its settlement at a load respectively.
equal to the ultimate load of unpiled raft. In the present
experimental study the main factors considered are
Spacing of piles(S/D), Length of piles (L/D), number of Table 6 Summary of Effect Estimate for ultimate load
piles (N) thickness of top dense layer (H1/B). For the Average Sum of %
factorial analysis the factors under consideration are Factor Contrast Effect Squares contribution
taken at two levels as presented in Table 5 and the data A 1687 210.88 177873.06 24.14
for factorial analysis is as shown in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 B 1201 150.13 90150.06 12.24
for ultimate load and settlement respectively. (The C 1433 179.13 128343.06 17.42
details of the method can be found in any standard text- D 1841 230.13 211830.06 28.75
book on statistics, one of such books is Design and AB 67 8.38 280.56 0.04
Analysis of Experiments by Montgomery (2005) [5]. AC 139 17.38 1207.56 0.16
AD -1013 -126.63 64135.56 8.71
Table 5 Factors considered for 24 Factorial
BC -587 -73.38 21535.56 2.92
Experimentation
BD 541 67.63 18292.56 2.48
Factor Low High
CD -387 -48.38 9360.56 1.27
Level Level
Spacing of Piles(S/D) 5 15 ABC -1 -0.13 0.06 0.00
Number of Piles(N) 2 4 ABD -113 -14.13 798.06 0.11
Length of Piles(L/D) 10 40 ACD -81 -10.13 410.06 0.06
Thickness of top dense layer 0.3 0.6 BCD -447 -55.88 12488.06 1.70
(H1/B) ABCD -21 -2.63 27.56 0.00
Total     736732.44 100.00

From Table 6 based on percentage contribution the

Fig. 16 Data for 24 factorial design of ultimate load
Effects Estimation
Contrast of A = [(abcd+abc+abd+ab) + (acd+ac+ad+a)
+ (-bcd-bc-bd-b) + (-cd-c-d-1)]
main factors taken for regression analysis are A, B, C,
D and combined effect of AD i.e., spacing of
piles(S/D), number of piles(N), length of piles(L/D),
thickness of top dense layer (H 1/B) and interaction
effect of (S/D* H1/B). The Ultimate load carrying
capacity is a function of S/D, N, L/D, H 1/B and
(S/D*H1/B) i.e., Qu = f (S/D, N, L/D, H1/B, S/D* H1/B).
After performing regression analysis the final equation
obtained for ultimate load carrying capacity is given as,
Q u=253.42+59.1 ( DS )+75.1( DL ) 5.97 ( N ) +1611.25( HB )−
1

Contrast of AB = [(abcd+abc+abd+ab) + (-acd-ac-ad-a)

R2=0.9125
+ (-bcd-bc-bd-b) + (cd+c+d+1)]
Contrast of ABC = [(abcd+abc-abd-ab) + (-acd-ac+ad+a)
+ (-bcd-bc+bd+b) + (cd+c-d-1)]
 Concluding remarks
In the present study the performance of piled raft
foundation system on layered sand bed is studied by
conducting a series of small scale model tests and
following concluding remarks were drawn,
 The ultimate load carrying capacity of the
piled raft system in comparison to that of plain
raft (without piles) is observed to be maximum
when H1/B is 0.6. However the percentage
increase is more when thickness of top dense
layer (H1/B) is 0.3 in comparison to that when
H1/B is 0.6. Hence the top dense layer has
significant contribution in load carrying
Fig. 17 Data for 24 factorial design of settlement
capacity of piled raft system.
 The load carrying capacity of all the
Table 7 Summary of Effect Estimate for settlement
configurations of piled raft system in the
Average Sum of %
Factor Contrast Effect Squares contribution present study has increased with respect to that
A -6.1 -0.76 2.33 9.00 of plain raft (without piles) and this increment
B -2.1 -0.26 0.28 1.07 is mainly due to increase in confinement which
C -15.7 -1.96 15.41 59.63 in turn increases the skin friction component of
D 3.9 0.49 0.95 3.68 piles. The raft contribution significantly
AB 1.1 0.14 0.08 0.29 increase the overburden component which in
AC -0.9 -0.11 0.05 0.20 turn contribute increase in skin friction
AD 6.7 0.84 2.81 10.86 component.
BC 5.9 0.74 2.18 8.42
 Maximum increase in the ultimate load
BD 1.1 0.14 0.08 0.29
CD -0.9 -0.11 0.05 0.20 carrying capacity is obtained when 4 piles of
ABC 3.9 0.49 0.95 3.68 length (L/D) 40 are placed at a spacing (S/D)
ABD 1.5 0.19 0.14 0.54 of 15 irrespective of H1/B.
ACD -0.1 -0.01 0.00 0.00  Based on factorial analysis it is observed that
BCD -2.1 -0.26 0.28 1.07 the ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft
ABCD -2.1 -0.26 0.28 1.07 foundation has a significant contribution from
Total 25.83 100.00 thickness of top dense layer (H 1/B), spacing of
piles(S/D), length of piles(L/D), number of
From Table 7 based on percentage contribution the piles(N), and interaction effect of (S/D* H1/B)
main factors taken for regression analysis are A, C, D, in that order.
AD, BC and ABC i.e., S/D, L/D, H1/B, interaction
 The settlement of piled raft of any
effects of (S/D*H1/B), (N*L/D) and (S/D*N*L/D).
configuration in our study is smaller than that
Hence the Settlement of piled raft at a load equal to the
of plain raft (without piles) irrespective of the
ultimate load of unpiled raft is given as a function of
load. But the magnitude of reduction is more at
those factors i.e., Settlement = f(S/D, L/D, H 1/B,
smaller loads in comparison to that at higher
(S/D*H1/B), (N*L/D), (S/D*N*L/D)).
loads.
After performing regression analysis the final equation
 Maximum reduction in settlement is obtained
obtained for the settlement is obtained as,
when 2 piles of length (L/D) 40 are placed at
spacing (S/D) of 15 for H1/B of 0.3 and 0.6.
S
Magnitude S
∗H 1 of settlement reduction is more
δ =10.3963−0.3423
S
( )
D
−0.0734
L
D ( ) H
−3.9583 1
B ( ) ( )
D is 0.3 whenN∗L
+0.5583 when H1/B +0.0006 (
H1/BBis 0.6. Hence the D ) (
+0.0002
D
compared to that when
maximum benefit of D
piled raft is obtained in terms of settlement
∗N∗L
)
reduction when H1/B is 0.3.
R2=0.8372
 Based on factorial analysis it is observed that
the settlement of piled raft has a significant
contribution from length of piles (L/D),
 interaction effect of (S/D*H1/B), spacing of Highly Compressible Volcanic Clay of Mexico City’,
piles (S/D), interaction effect of (N*L/D), Proc. 4 ICSMFE, London, Vol. 2.
15) Singh A.K. and Singh.A.N. (2011), ‘Experimental
thickness of top dense layer (H1/B), and
study of piled raft foundation’, Proceedings of Indian
interaction effect (S/D*N*L/D) in that order. Geotechnical Conference December 15-17, 2011,
Kochi (Paper No D-378).
16) Turek J. and Katzenbach R. (2003), ‘Small Scale
References Model Tests with Combined Piled Raft Foundations’,
1) Akinmusuru J.O. (1980), ‘Interaction of Piles and Cap Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on Deep
in Piled Footings’. Journal of the Geotechnical foundations on Bored and Augured piles, Ghent,
Engineering Division, Vol. 106, No. 11, November Belgium, pp. 409-413.
1980, pp. 1263-1268.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) Design and Analysis of Experiments, a textbook of
statistics by Montgomery (2005).
6) El-Garhy B., Galil A.A., Youssef A.F., Raia M.A.
(2013), ‘Behavior of raft on settlement reducing piles:
Experimental model study’, Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp 389–399.
7) Hanson S., Hofmann E., and Mosesson J. (1973),
‘OstraNordstaden, Gothenburg. Experience concerning
a difficult foundation problem and its unorthodox
solution’, Proc. 8th ICSMFE, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 105-
110.
8) IS 1888-1982: Code of practice for Plate Load test on
Soils.
9) Jaymin D Patil, Sandeep A Vasanwala, Chandresh H
Solanki (2014), ‘An experimental investigation on
behavior of piled raft foundation’, International journal
of Geomatics and Geosciences Volume 5, No 2, 2014,
pp 300-311.
10) Katzenbach R., Arslan U., Moormann C., and Reul O.
(1998), ‘Piled Raft Foundation -Interaction between
Piles and Raft’, Proc., Int. Conf. on Soil- Structure
Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Darmstadt
Geotechnics, 2, 279-296, Darmstadt University of
Technology, Darmstadt, Germany
11) 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.
12) Phung D.L. (1993), ‘Footings with Settlement-
Reducing Piles in Non-Cohesive Soil’, Ph.D Thesis,
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
13) Poulos H.G. (2001), ‘Piled Raft Foundations: Design
and Applications’, Geotechnique Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.
95-113.
14) Sievert L. (1957), ‘Compensated Friction-pile
Foundation to Reduce the Settlement of Buildings on