CHAPTER-IV

LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

4.1. INTRODUCTION:
One of the prime objectives of the present investigation is to study the effect of three factors
namely, L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of piles(N) on load carrying capacity of piled raft
foundation. It is also intended to quantify the relative effect of each of the three factors as well as
interaction effect on response of interest that is load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation. In
order to meet the above objective a series of tests are conducted in the laboratory following
principles of factorial experimentation, the details of which are presented in chapter-3 section
3.4. The results are analyzed and discussed in the following sections.

4.2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

4.2.1. Capacity of Piled Raft Foundation:

A series of load tests are conducted on soil bed prepared in the laboratory in a model test tank by
simultaneously varying three factors namely L/D,S/D and N for homogeneous and layered soil
beds for Ic=0.5 and Ic=0.8. The two levels chosen for L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of
piles(N) are presented in Table 4.1. The same are presented pictorially in Fig 4.1.

Table 4.1 Factors of 23 Factorial Design

Factor A (S/D ) Factor B (N ) Factor C (L/D )

Low High Low High Low High
5 15 2 4 10 40

1|Page
 L/D

c ac

bc abc
FACTOR C (10 ,40)

1 S/D
a

,4 )
(2
B
b
ab OR
CT
FA

FACTOR A (5,15)
N

Fig 4.1 Model for 23Factorial Design

Load Settlement curves obtained from load tests are presented in figures 4.2 to 4.13. From this
Figures it can be observed that the load settlement plots become nearly asymptotic to settlement
axis beyond certain load. Hence the curve is not exactly asymptotic to the settlement axis , two
methods are considered to calculate ultimate capacity of the piled raft foundation. First one is the
maximum load is taken at the intersection point of two tangents drawn to the curve . Second one
is taken as 10% settlement of the raft size. This maximum load is reported as ultimate capacity
of the piled raft foundation. From these two methods we get ultimate capacities for calculating 2 3
factorial design ,but in the analysis of piled raft disturbance we consider only the ultimate
capacity acquired by tangent method. The ultimate capacities so obtained are presented in table
4.2 for all tests conducted and the ultimate load capacities obtained by 10% raft size settlement
are presented in table 4.3

2|Page
 0 0 0 0 0
00 00 00 00 00 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 0. 10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
0.00

Settlement (mm) 2.00

4.00

6.00
Ic=0.5
8.00 Ic=0.8

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00
Load (kg)

Figure 4.2 Load vs Settlment Polt for only raft

3|Page
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0

5
Settlement (mm) 10

15 Ic=0.5
Ic=0.8
20 H1/B=0.3
H1/B=0.6
25

30

35

40
Load(kg)

Figure 4.3 Load vs Settlment Polt for single pile of L/D=10

0 5 10 15 20 25
0

10
Settlement (mm)

Ic=0.5
Ic=0.8
15
H1/B=0.3
H1/B=0.6
20

25

30

35
Load(kg)

Figure 4.4 Load vs Settlment Polt for single pile of L/D=40

4|Page
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

S/D =5
10.00
S/D=10
S/D=15

15.00

20.00

25.00
Load(kg)

Figure 4.5 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0,L/D=10,N=2

Load (kg)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00

5.00

10.00
S/D=5
Settlement (mm)

15.00 S/D=10
S/D=15
20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Figure: 4.6 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0,L/D=40,N=2

5|Page
 Load (kg)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

S/D=5
10.00 S/D=10
S/D=15

15.00

20.00

25.00

Figure:4.7 Load vs Settlement plot for H1/B=0,L/D=10 & N =4

Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.00

5.00

10.00
Settlement (mm)

15.00
S/D=5
20.00 S/D=10
S/D=15
25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

Figure :4.8 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0,L/D=40, N =4

6|Page
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

5
Settlement (mm)

10 S/D=5
S/D=10
S/D=15
15

20

25

Load (mm)

Figure :4.9 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.3,L/D=10, N =2

Load (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0.00

5.00

10.00
Settlement (mm)

S/D=5
15.00 S/D=10
S/D=15

20.00

25.00

30.00

Figure:4.10: Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.3,L/D=40,N=2

7|Page
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

10.00 S/D=5
S/D=10
S/D=15
15.00

20.00

25.00

Load (mm)

Figure 4.11: Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.3,L/D=10,N=4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

S/D=5
10.00
S/D=10
S/D=15
15.00

20.00

25.00

Load (mm)

Figure:4.12 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.3,L/D=40,N=4

8|Page
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

10.00
S/D=5
S/D=10
15.00
S/D=15

20.00

25.00

30.00

Load (mm)

Figure:4.13 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.6,L/D=10,N=2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

10.00
S/D=5
15.00 S/D=10
S/D=15

20.00

25.00

30.00

Load (mm)

Figure:4.14 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.6,L/D=40,N=2

9|Page
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

10.00
S/D=5
15.00 S/D=10
S/D=15

20.00

25.00

30.00

Load (mm)

Figure:4.15 Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.6,L/D=10,N=4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0.00

5.00
Settlement (mm)

10.00
S/D=5
S/D=10
15.00 S/D=15

20.00

25.00

30.00

Load (mm)

Figure 4.16 : Load vs Settlment Polt for H1/B=0.6,L/D=40,N=4

10 | P a g e
 Table 4.2 Ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation

ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION IN kg

Type of
the No.of Piles ,N=2 No.of Piles ,N=4
Model
L/D=10 L/D=40 L/D=10 L/D=40
S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=40 S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=15 S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=15 S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=15
H1/B=0
56 60.5 62 57 61 64 58 62 65.5 76.5 77 78.5
H1/B=0.3
104 114 130 112 122 134 114 121 132 120 131 141
H1/B=0.6
112 124 134 116 129 138 116 126 137 119 134 145

ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF SINGLE PILE IN kg ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF RAFT IN kg

H1/B=0
2.8 5.7 48
(IC=0.5)

H1/B=0
6.7 12.3 130
(IC=0.8)
H1/B=0.3 4.2 6.8 ---
H1/B=0.6 5.6 12.7 ---

11 | P a g e
 Table 4.3 Ultimate load carrying capacity of piled raft foundation for 10% of settlement of raft size

ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

FOR 10% SETTLEMENT OF RAFT SIZE IN kg

Type of
the No.of Piles ,N=2 No.of Piles ,N=4
Model

L/D=10 L/D=40 L/D=10 L/D=40

S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=40 S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=15 S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=15 S/D=5 S/D=10 S/D=15
H1/B=0
69.5 76 78 73 76.5 81 70 78.5 79 87 88 89
H1/B=0.3
125 134 144 128 138 146 133 142 152 135 147 158
H1/B=0.6
136 143 150 137 149 160 140 146 153 143 151 164

ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF RAFT FOR 10% SETTLEMENT OF RAFT SIZE IN kg

H1/B=0
60
(IC=0.5)

H1/B=0
160
(IC=0.8)

12 | P a g e
4.2.2 RESULTS OF FACTORAIL EXPERIMENTATION :

A total of 36 load tests are conducted on piled raft foundation on three different soil
beds as H1/B=0, H1/B=0.3 and H1/B=0.6 by varying simultaneously three factors such as L/D,S/D
and N. for factorial design , two levels of each factor is considered and the details presented in
Table 4.1 and Fig4.1. Ultimate capacity of these load tests on piled raft foundation are presented
in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Ultimate capacity of piled raft foundation for 23factorial experimentation.

Qpre in kg for
Factor Factor Factor Qpre in kg for Layered soil bed
LABEL A B C Homogeneous
(S/D) (N) (L/D) soil bed (H1/B=0)
H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6

1 5 2 10 56 104 112
a 15 2 10 62 130 134
c 5 2 40 57 112 116
ac 15 2 40 64 134 138
b 5 4 10 58 114 116
ab 15 L/D4 10 65.5 132 137
bc 5 4 40 76.5 120 119
abc 15 4 40 78.5 141 145

c- 57 ac-64

bc- 76.5
abc- 78.5
FACTOR C (10 ,40)

1-56
a-62
S/D
,4 )
(2

ab-65.5
B

b-58
OR
CT
FA

FACTOR A (5,15)
N Fig .4.17 Model for 23 Factorial design for Homogeneous soil bed (H1/B=0)

13 | P a g e
 L/D

c-112 ac-134

bc- 120
abc- 141
FACTOR C (10 ,40)

1-104 a-130
S/D

,4 )
(2
ab-132

B
b-114

O R
CT
FACTOR A (5,15) FA
N

Fig .4.18 Model for 23 Factorial design for Layered soil bed (H1/B=0.3)

14 | P a g e
 L/D

c-116 ac-138

bc-119
abc- 145
FACTOR C (10 ,40)

1-112 a-134
S/D

,4 )
(2
ab-137

B
b-116

O R
CT
FACTOR A (5,15) FA
N

Fig .4.19 Model for 23 Factorial design for Layered soil bed (H1/B=0.6)

Factorial experimentation permits the relative quantification of the main factors studied (namely
L/D ratio, S/D ratio and Number of piles (N) and their interactions on load carrying
Capacity and test details are given below.The relative effect of the foundation from calculated
interactions are tabulated in table 4.6.

4.2.2.1 Effect of S/D ratio on Load carrying capacity:

Referring to fig 4.1 and table 4.4 for treatment combinations 1,b,c and bc , the S/D is constant at
the low value which is equal to 5. For treatment of combination a,ab,ac and abc , the S/D ratio is
constant and is at high value which is equal to 15. In 23 factorial designs, the average effect of a
factor may be determined as the change in the response produced by a change in the level of factor
averaged over the two levels of other factor. Now the effect of the S/D ratio (Factor A)
When N(Factor B) and When L/D ratio(Factor C) are at the low level is (a-1).Similarly , the effect
of the S/D ratio (Factor A) When N(Factor B) is at high level and L/D ratio(Factor C) are at the
low level is (ab-b). the effect of the S/D ratio (Factor A) When N(Factor B) is at low level and
L/D ratio(Factor C) are at the high level is (ac-c).Finally, the effect of the S/D ratio (Factor A)
When both N(Factor B) and L/D ratio(Factor C) are at the high level is (abc-bc). Thus , the
average effect (factor A) is just the average of these four. Where A1 is related to homogeneous

15 | P a g e
soil bed , A2 and A3 are related to layered soil bed. The effect of factor ‘A’ on load carrying
capacity of pied raft foundation is presented by
1
A= ( a+ab+ ac+ abc−1−b−c−bc ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .(4.1)
4
1
A1= (62+65.5+64+ 78.5−56−58−57−76.5)
4

A1=5.625 units

1
A2= (130+132+134+141−104−114−112−120)
4

A2=21.75 units

1
A3 = (134+137 +138+145−112−116−116−119)
4

A3=22.75 units

4.2.2.2 Effect of Number of piles on load carrying capacity:

Referring to Fig4.1 for treatment combinations 1,a,c,ac , the N is constant at the low value which is
equal to 2. For treatment of combination b,ab,bc and abc, the N is constant at the high value which
is equal to 4.in 23 factorial designs, the average effect of a factor may be determined as the change
in the response produced by a change in the level of factor averaged over the the fur levels of other
factor. Now the effect of the N (FactorB) is the difference in averages between four treatment
combinations in the front face of the cube and four in the back. Where B1 is related to
homogeneous soil bed , B2 and B3 are related to layered soil bed. Effect of Factor ‘B’ on the load
carrying capacity of the piled raft foundation is presented by

1
B= ( b+ ab+bc +abc−1−a−c−ac ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .( 4.2)
4
1
B1= (58+ 65.5+76.5+78.5−56−62−57−64)
4

B1=9.875 units

1
B2= (114 +132+120+141−104−130−112−134)
4
B2=6.750 units

1
B3= (116+137+119+145−112−134−116−138)
4

16 | P a g e
B3=4.250 units

4.2.2.3 Effect of L/D ratio on Load carrying capacity:

Referring to Fig4.1 for treatment combinations 1,a,b,ab , the L/D ratio is constant at the low value
which is equal to 10. For treatment of combination c,ac,bc and abc, the L/D ratio is constant at the
high value which is equal to 40.in 23 factorial designs, the average effect of a factor may be
determined as the change in the response produced by a change in the level of factor averaged over
the the four levels of other factor. Now the effect of the L/D ratio (FactorC) is the difference in
averages between four treatment combinations in the top face of the cube and four in the bottom.
Where C1 is related to homogeneous soil bed , C2 and C3 are related to layered soil bed. Effect of
Factor ‘C’ on the load carrying capacity of the piled raft foundation is presented by

1
C= ( c +ac +bc +abc−1−a−b−ab ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .( 4.3)
4
1
C 1= (57+ 64+76.5+78.5−56−62−58−65.5)
4

C1=8.625units

1
C 2= (112+134+ 120+ 141−104−130−114−132)
4
C2=6.750 units

1
C 3= (116+ 138+ 119+145−112−134−116−137)
4

C3=4.750units

4.2.2.4 Interaction Effect S/D ratio and Number of piles on load carrying capacity:

The two factor interaction effects ay b computed easily. A measure of the AB interaction is the
average effects at two levels of A and B. by convention , one half of this difference is called the
AB interaction shows in fig 4.20 . Where AB1 is related to homogeneous soil bed , AB2 and AB3
are related to layered soil bed. The effect of factor AB on load carrying capacity piled raft
foundation is presented by
1
AB= |( 1+c +ab+ abc−bc−ac−b−a )|… … … … … … … … … … … .( 4.4)
4
1
AB 1= ∨ (56 +57+65.5+78.5−76.5−64−58−62 )∨¿
4

AB1=0.875units
17 | P a g e
 1
AB 2= ∨(104+112+132+141−120−134−114−130)∨¿
4
AB2=2.25units

1
AB 3= ∨(112+116+137+145−119−138−116−134)∨¿
4

AB3=0.75units

L/D

c ac

bc abc

1 a S/D

b ab

Fig 4.20 Interaction effect of S/D and N

4.2.2.5 Interaction Effect S/D ratio and L/D ratio on load carrying capacity:
The AC interaction is easily seen to be the difference in averages between runs on two diagonal
plans in the cube in fig using similar logic and referring to fig4.21. Where AC1 is related to
homogeneous soil bed , AC2 and AC3 are related to layered soil bed. The effect of factor AC on
load carrying capacity piled raft foundation is presented by

1
AC= |(1+ b+ac +abc−bc −ab−c−a )| … … … … … … … … … … … … .(4.5)
4
18 | P a g e
 1
AC 1= ∨( 56+58+64 +78.5−76.5−65.5−57−62 )∨¿
4

AC1=1.125units

1
AC 2= ∨(104 +114+134 +141−120−132−112−130)∨¿
4
AC2=0.25units

1
AC 3= ∨(112+116+ 138+145−119−137−116−134)∨¿
4

AC3=1.25units

L/D

c ac

bc abc

1 a S/D

b ab

Fig 4.21 Interaction effect of S/D and L/D

4.2.3.6 Interaction Effect Number of piles N and L/D ratio on load carrying capacity:
Using similar logic, where BC1 is related to homogeneous soil bed , BC2 and BC3 are related to
layered soil bed. The effect of factor BC on load carrying capacity piled raft foundation referring
to fig4.22 interactions are presented by
19 | P a g e
 1
BC= |(1+ a+bc +abc−ac −ab−c−b )| … … … … … … … … … … … … … .(4.6)
4
1
BC 1= ∨( 56+62+76.5+78.5−64−65.5−57−58 )∨¿
4

BC1=7.125units

1
BC 2= ∨(104 +130+120+141−134−132−112−114)∨¿
4
BC2=0.75units

1
BC 3= ∨(112+134 +119+145−138−137−116−116)∨¿
4

BC3=0.75units

L/D

c ac

bc abc

1 a S/D

b ab

Fig4.22 Interaction effect of L/D and N

20 | P a g e
4.2.2.7 Interaction Effect of S/D ratio, Number of piles N and L/D ratio on Load
carrying capacity:
The ABC interaction is defined as the average difference between the AB interactions for
the two different levels of C.As before, we can think of the ABC interaction as the difference in
two averages. If it runs in the two averages which are isolated, they define the vertices of two
tetrahedral that comprise the cube in Fig 4.23. Where ABC1 is related to homogeneous soil bed ,
ABC2 and ABC3 are related to layered soil bed. The effect of factor ABC on load carrying capacity
piled raft foundation referring to fig4.22 interactions are presented by

1
ABC= |( a+ b+c +abc −1−ac−ab−b c )| … … … … … … … … … … … … .(4.7)
4
1
ABC 1= ∨( 62+ 58+ 57+78.5−56−64−65.5−76.5 )∨¿
4

ABC1=1.625units

1
ABC 2= ∨(130+114 +112+ 141−104−134−132−120)∨¿
4
ABC2=1.75units

1
ABC 3= ∨(134+ 116+116+145−112−138−137−119)∨¿
4

ABC3=1.25unit

21 | P a g e
 L/D

c ac

bc abc

1 a S/D

b ab

Fig4.23 Interaction effect of S/D, L/D and N

4.2.3 RESULTS OF FACTORAIL EXPERIMENTATION FOR ULTIMATE LOAD

CARRIED FROM 10% SETTLEMENT OF RAFT SIZE:

A total no of 36 load tests are conducted on piled raft foundation on three different models as
H1/B=0, H1/B=0.3 and H1/B=0.6 by varying simultaneosly three factors such as L/D,S/D and N.
for factorial design , two levels of each factor is considered and the details presented in Table 4.1
and Fig4.1. Ultimate capacity of these load tests on piled raft foundation are considered at
settlement of 10% of raft size and presented in table 4.5. Similarly the relative effects of the piled
raft foundation are calculated similarly as in section 4.2.3 and presented in table 4.6.

Table 4.5 Ultimate capacity of piled raft foundation for factorial experimentation.

22 | P a g e
 LABEL Factor Factor Factor Qpre in kg for Qpre in kg for Layered
A B C Homogeneous soil soil bed
(S/D) (N) (L/D) bed ,H1/B=0 H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6
1 5 2 10 69.5 125 136
a 15 2 10 78 144 150
c 5 2 40 73 128 137
ac 15 2 40 81 146 160
b 5 4 10 70 133 140
ab 15 4 10 79 152 153
bc 5 4 40 87 135 143
abc 15 4 40 89 158 164

Table 4.6 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity of Piled raft foundation

Relative Effect for ultimate load

Relative Effect for ultimate load
carried from 10% settlement of Raft
carried from experiments
size
S.No For
Factor For For For
. Layered soil bed
Homogeneous Layered soil bed Homogeneous
soil bed soil bed
H1/B=0 H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6 H1/B=0 H1/B=0.3 H1/B=0.6

1 S/D (A) 5.625 21.75 22.75 6.875 19.75 17.75

23 | P a g e
 2 N(B) 9.875 6.750 4.250 5.875 8.750 4.250
3 L/D(C) 8.625 6.750 4.750 8.375 3.250 6.250
4 S/D,N (AB) 0.875 2.25 0.75 1.375 1.25 0.75
5 S/D,L/D(AC) 1.125 0.25 1.25 1.875 0.75 4.25
6 N,L/D(BC) 7.125 0.75 0.75 5.125 0.75 0.75
7 S/D,N,L/D(ABC) 1.625 1.75 1.25 1.625 1.25 0.25

4.3 REGRESSION MODEL FOR LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY:

Table 4.6 summarizes the effect of main factors namely S/D, N and L/D as well as effects
of interaction of the above three factors on capacity of piled raft foundation. The general load
carrying capacity of piled raft foundation may be expressed as a function given below:

Pu = f(S/D,N,L/D,(S/D,N),(S/D,L/D),(N,L/D),(S/D,N,L/D))
Multiple linear regression analysis can be carried out using Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft
Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically. In this investigation, a regression model is
evolved using the Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft Excel and the equation for three models
such as H1/B=0,H1/B=0.3 and H1/B=0.6 and for two ultimate load capacities as shown in table
4.7 .

24 | P a g e
 Table 4.7 Regression equation for 23 factorial design of piled raft foundation

S.No. Regression Equation R2 Remarks

For
f(L/D, S/D, N, S/D*L/D,
Ultimate Load Carried From

Homogeneous Pu=53-N-0.513(L/D)+0.292(N*L/D)+0.75(S/D)-0.0054(S/D*N*L/D)
0.996565
soil bed +0.0088(S/D*L/D) N*L/D, S/D*N*L/D)
H1/B=0
Experiments

For
Pu= 80.01786+2.85(S/D)+0.1893(L/D)+5.625(N)-0.25476(S/D*N)- f(L/D, S/D ,N, S/D*N,
Layered soil
0.994343
bed 0.0011905(S/D*N*L/D) S/D*N*L/D)
H1/B=0.3
For
Pu= 98.696+2.067(S/D)+0.075(L/D)+1.268(N)-0.00195(S/D*L/D)- f(L/D, S/D, N, S/D*L/D,
Layered soil
0.998879
bed 0.003429(S/D*N*L/D) S/D*N*L/D)
H1/B=0.6
For f(L/D, S/D, N, S/D*L/D,
Ultimate Load Carried From 10%

Homogeneous Pu=69.333-0.4333(L/D)+0.6(S/D)-.667(N)+0.2792(N*L/D)+0.02(S/D*L/D)- N*L/D, S/D*N,

1.000000
soil bed 0.01083(S/D*N*L/D)+0.133(S/D*N)
Settlement Of Raft Size

H1/B=0 S/D*N*L/D)

For
Pu=110.0774+1.6(S/D)+3.125(N)+0.036905(L/D)+0.065476(S/D*N)+ f(L/D,S/D,N,S/D*N,
Layered soil
0.998127
bed 0.002381(S/D*N*L/D) S/D*N*L/D)
H1/B=0.3
For
Layered soil Pu=125.625+1.0667(S/D)-0.075(L/D)+2.125(N)+0.028333(S/D*L/D) f(L/D, S/D, N, S/D*L/D,)
0.996966
bed
H1/B=0.6

25 | P a g e
4.4 VALIDITY OF PROPOSED MODEL FOR LOAD CARRYING
CAPACITY:

The validity of the proposed model for prediction of load carrying capacity is verified by
using the results reported in the literature and the results in this investigation which were not
used for development of the model. Table 4.8 and Table 4.9 summarizes the observed and
predicted capacities of piled raft in this investigation along with relevant properties of soil and
ratio of observed to predicted piled raft capacity. From this tables it can observed that ratio of
predicted to observed load carrying capacity is ranging from 0.990 to 1.031 in several cases
indicating that the model predicts load carrying capacity of piled raft with an error of +0.3% to
+ 6 %.

26 | P a g e
Table: 4.8 Observed & Predicted Capacity of Piled Raft for experimental results of Present
Investigation
.
Observed
Test Predicted Observed/ Percentage
S.No. Load N S/D L/D Remarks
series Load (kg) Predicted of error
(kg)
*Present
1 60.5 2 10 10 59.01 1.025 -2.52
Investigation
*Present
2 61 2 10 40 60.54 1.008 -0.76
H1/B=0

Investigation
*Present
3 62 4 10 10 61.77 1.004 -0.37
Investigation
*Present
4 77 4 10 40 77.58 0.993 0.75
Investigation
*Present
5 114 2 10 10 116.80 0.976 2.40
Investigation
*Present
H1/B=0.3

6 122 2 10 40 123.20 0.990 0.97

Investigation
*Present
7 121 4 10 10 123.20 0.982 1.78
Investigation
*Present
8 131 4 10 40 130.30 1.005 -0.53
Investigation
*Present
9 124 2 10 10 123.14 1.007 -0.70
Investigation
*Present
10 129 2 10 40 126.87 1.017 -1.68
H1/B=0.6

Investigation
*Present
11 126 4 10 10 126.36 0.997 0.29
Investigation
*Present
12 134 4 10 40 132.14 1.014 -1.40
Investigation
*not used in the 23 factorial model

27 | P a g e
Table: 4.9 Observed & Predicted Capacity of Piled Raft for 10% of raft size from the
experimental results of Present Investigation

Observed
Test Predicted Observed/ Percentage
S.No. Load N S/D L/D Remarks
series Load (kg) Predicted of error
(kg)
*Present
1 76 2 10 10 73.74 1.031 -3.06
Investigation
*Present
2 76.5 2 10 40 77.00 0.994 0.65
H1/B=0

Investigation
*Present
3 78.5 4 10 10 74.49 1.054 -5.39
Investigation
*Present
4 88 4 10 40 88.00 1.000 0.00
Investigation
*Present
5 134 2 10 10 134.48 0.996 0.36
Investigation
*Present
H1/B=0.3

6 138 2 10 40 137.02 1.007 -0.72

Investigation
*Present
7 142 4 10 10 142.52 0.996 0.36
Investigation
*Present
8 147 4 10 40 146.48 1.004 -0.35
Investigation
*Present
9 143 2 10 10 142.63 1.003 -0.26
Investigation
*Present
H1/B=0.6

10 149 2 10 40 148.88 1.001 -0.08

Investigation
*Present
11 146 4 10 10 146.88 0.994 0.60
Investigation
*Present
12 151 4 10 40 153.13 0.986 1.39
Investigation
*not used in the 23 factorial model

28 | P a g e