1 Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation under Combined Vertical

2 and Lateral Loading

3 Plaban Deba, Sujit Kumar Palb

a
4 Corresponding Author, Research Scholar, Civil engineering department, National Institute

5 of Technology, Agartala, Tripura, India, 799046, e-mail: plaban930@gmail.com

b
6 Associate Professor, Civil engineering department, National Institute of Technology,

7 Agartala, Tripura, India, 799046, e-mail: skpal1963@gmail.com

1
 8 Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation under Combined Vertical

9 and Lateral Loading

10 Abstract

11 Due to lack of research regarding the response of a piled raft foundation under combined

12 lateral and vertical loading, an attempt has been taken in this study to analyse the influence of

13 vertical load on the lateral response of a piled raft foundation. In this study, numerical

14 analyses are carried out on the piled raft subjected to combined vertical and lateral load

15 through 3D finite element modelling. The soil profile used in this study is clayey soil

16 underlain by a layer of sand and the effect of clay layer thickness to the embedded pile length

17 is checked. The lateral load displacement curves for the piled raft and the pile group in the

18 piled raft system are assessed and the effect of the pile positioning on the lateral response are

19 observed. For the structural design aspect, the bending moment, shear force and lateral soil

20 stress along the pile depth are estimated and the lateral load sharing between the piles and the

21 raft are assessed. Prediction models are then developed for estimating the load sharing ratio,

22 p-multiplier and the percent increase in the lateral capacity and the lateral soil stress.

23 Keywords: Piled raft, combined load, bending moment, shear force, load sharing ratio, p-

24 multiplier.

25 1. Introduction

26 In the recent construction techniques, piled raft foundation has become the most common

27 foundation type for high-rise buildings, bridges, towers and offshore structures. It is a

28 combination of conventional shallow and deep foundation and can be considered as the

29 upgraded version of the conventional pile foundation and the raft foundation. This piled raft

30 foundation can lower the differential settlement of structure and increase its serviceability to

2
31 a great extent. In the piled raft foundation, the raft is attached to a group of piles and the

32 structural load is conveyed through the combined action of the pile and the raft. Due to this

33 combined action, the piled raft shows a complex mechanism by partial sharing of load

34 through piles and the raft. Adopting this complex load transfer mechanism, several

35 researchers have considered various design parameters and proposed some design concepts

36 for the piled raft foundation. Researchers have suggested various methods including

37 simplified methods (Poulos and Davis, 1980), semi-analytical methods (Poulos, 1991; Clancy

38 and Randolph, 1993) and computer based numerical methods (Reul and Randolph, 2004).

39 However, in most of the previous studies, only vertical load or only lateral load was

40 considered for analysing the response of the piled raft system. But the studies on the

41 combined action of both vertical and lateral load are rather limited and the load settlement

42 response and the load sharing behaviour of the piled raft foundation under combined lateral

43 and vertical load are not well known. Practically, offshore and onshore structures are often

44 subjected to a lateral load and an overturning moment is developed which reduces the bearing

45 capacity of the foundation system. The structures may be subjected to lateral loads due to

46 wind, ship impact, wave loading etc. In case of onshore structures, this lateral load can be 10–

47 15% of the vertical loads and it exceeds about 30% of the vertical load in case of any coastal

48 and offshore structure (Rao et al., 1998; Palammal and Senthikumar, 2018). In the past few

49 decades, the response of a pile or pile groups under vertical or lateral loading has been the

50 topic of many research works, and some interesting conclusions have also been drawn from

51 full-scale tests, centrifuge model tests and numerical applications. However, the response of

52 the piled raft foundation under combined vertical and lateral loading is relatively complex

53 compared to the piled raft subjected to pure vertical or pure lateral loads. The current practice

54 of the design of a piled raft does not also involve the analyses of the piled raft subjected to

55 combined loading. Even the studies related to the piled raft system subjected to static lateral
3
56 load are also very limited. Hence, in this study, an attempt is taken to analyse the behaviour

57 of the piled raft foundation under combined vertical and lateral loading. The prime objectives

58 of this study are

59 a) To analyse the influence of the vertical load on the lateral response of a piled raft

60 foundation.

61 b) To analyse the lateral load sharing behaviour of various components of a piled raft

62 foundation subjected to combined vertical and lateral load.

63 ‘

64 2. Behaviour of piled raft under lateral and combined loading

65 The behaviour of the piled raft foundation under lateral loading or combined loading is

66 completely different from that of the pile or pile group. The lateral load in the piled raft is

67 partially shared by the piles and partially by the raft through the interface frictions. The

68 interface forces developed in the piled raft and the soil surface is shown in Fig. 1. Although,

69 the research related to the piled raft foundation under combined loading is rather limited, the

70 available literature on the research carried out on the piled raft system considering lateral

71 loading or combined loading are summarised in Table 1. Lateral loading tests data on the

72 piled raft system was reported by Pastakorn et al. (2002) where the authors have conducted a

73 series of lateral loading test at 1 g condition for the piled raft foundation. A numerical study

74 was carried by Small and Zhang (2002) under combined vertical and lateral loading on the

75 piled raft system. Horikoshi et al. (2003) have studied the performance of the piled raft

76 system subjected to static vertical and horizontal loads and concluded that the proportion of

77 the horizontal load carried by the raft in the piled raft was much higher than that of the pile at

78 the early stage of loading, but the proportion of load carried by the pile increased with the

79 increase in the horizontal displacement. To check the influence of the loading height on the

80 lateral response of the piled raft, Matsumoto et al. (2004a, 2004b) carried out a static
4
 81 horizontal loading test on the piled raft system. In order to check the pile connectivity,

82 Matsumoto et al. (2010) have performed horizontal load tests with different pile head

83 connections and observed that the lateral load carried by the piles in a piled raft were not

84 influenced by the pile head connectivity but the proportion of horizontal load carried by the

85 raft in a piled got reduced as the connection became less rigid. The effect of lateral and

86 moment load on the performance of the piled raft foundation was carried out by Sawada and

87 Takemura (2014). It was found from the study that the horizontal and the moment load could

88 generate a large settlement for a pile group but for the piled raft foundation, the settlement

89 was considerably low. Hamada et al. (2015) conducted a series of lateral load test on the piled

90 raft and concluded that the front piles carries more lateral load compared to the rear piles.

91 Finite element analysis of a piled raft foundation under vertical and lateral loading was

92 carried out by Unsever et al. (2015) and it is perceived from the study that the raft present in a

93 piled raft carried almost 85% of the lateral load at the beginning of loading but with the

94 increase in the lateral displacement, the value got reduced to almost 30%. Comodromos et al.

95 (2015) have also developed a design methodology for the piled raft foundation under

96 combined vertical and lateral loading. In a recent study, Zhu et al. (2018a) have performed

97 lateral load tests on the disconnected piled rafts and concluded that the deflection and

98 moment of pile can greatly be lowered by using disconnected piled raft in place of a rigidly

99 connected piled raft. From these limited literature, it is observed that there is a lack of

100 research regarding the combined vertical and lateral loading in the piled raft system. The

101 illustration in regard to the influence of vertical loading on the lateral response of piled raft

102 foundation is also insufficient which is considered as the major objective of this present

103 study. Moreover, all the existing research was based on a single layer soil system and the

104 effect of stratum was not incorporated in those previous studies. The present study also

105 incorporates the effect of soil stratum in the lateral response of piled raft system.
5
106 3. Finite Element modelling

107 3.1 Numerical model

108 In the present study, ABAQUS software package was used for the three-dimensional finite

109 element modelling of the piled raft foundation under combined vertical and lateral loading.

110 The structural interaction between the piles and the raft were considered as rigidly connected

111 without any slipping at the interface and the soil-structure interface was modelled through the

112 slip model using the master-slave concept. The surface-to-surface concept was used to ensure

113 the slippage and the frictional behaviour between the interfaces (Hung and Kim, 2014; Kim

114 et al., 2015). Modified Drucker-Prager (D-P) cap plasticity model with non-associated flow

115 rule was chosen to model the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the soil element while the

116 raft and piles were modelled as the linear elastic material. The failure surface of the modified

117 D-P model is shown in Fig. 2. The yield surface for D-P model can be expressed as

118 𝐹 = 𝛼𝐽1 + √𝐽2𝑑 − 𝑘 (1)

119 where, 𝐽1 is the 1st invariant of stress tensor, 𝐽2𝑑 is the 2nd invariant of deviator stress tensor

120 and α and k are the material constants. The other details of D-P model can be found in Deb

121 and Pal (2019).

122 3.2 Mesh pattern and boundary condition

123 For the mesh refinement, the soil and the raft element were considered as 20 nodded

124 hexahedral brick element (C3D20R) and the circular pile was modeled as a triangular prism

125 element. Previous studies on finite element method revealed that the pattern of mesh and the

126 size of elements can greatly affect the outcomes and due care should be taken while

127 developing the finite element mesh (Hong et al., 2003). In the present study, finer mesh was

128 applied at the vicinity of the loading area for better accuracy and comparatively coarser mesh

6
129 was applied at the other places following a smooth transition from fine to coarse. Regarding

130 the boundary condition, all the bottom nodes of the soil continuum were restricted for any

131 kind of translation and rotation. The boundary for y-z plane was set as XSIMM i.e. the

132 symmetry about the plane x was constant. The x-y plane was set as ZSIMM i.e. the symmetry

133 about the plane z was constant. In addition to this, a lateral displacement was also applied in

134 the x-y plane to ensure the lateral movement of the nodes due to the effect of lateral loading

135 condition. To minimize the effect of the boundary on the stress distribution, the horizontal

136 boundary was kept six times the width of the raft (6BR) and the vertical boundary was kept

137 three times the width of the raft (3BR) plus one-third times the length of the pile (L/3). As, the

138 loading was given quite quickly, the consolidation and pore pressure change was not

139 accounted for in this model (Rose et al., 2013; Haiderali et al., 2013). The effect of strain

140 softening on the strength behaviour of clay was also neglected, as the displacements

141 considered in the study were relatively small (Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon, 2015; Kong et

142 al. 2017). The pattern of mesh applied at different elements of the piled raft and dimensions

143 of each element are shown in Fig. 3.

144 3.3 Analysis outline

145 The numerical modelling was done using different steps. At the first step, prior to the

146 installation of the pile, the model was first brought to an equilibrium condition under

147 geostatic stress field or gravitational loading. At the second step, the pile was installed and

148 again the model was brought to an equilibrium position by inducing the self-weight in the

149 whole model. Due to the complicacy in modelling the pile installation process, at the

150 beginning of the analysis, the model was assumed to be in a stress free state and the influence

151 of the pile installation was neglected. After the initial two steps, the loading was simulated at

152 next two different steps. In the third step vertical load was applied at the top of the raft and to

7
153 check the influence of vertical loading on the lateral response of the piled raft, the vertical

154 load was selected as a fraction of ultimate vertical load capacity of the piled raft. The applied

155 vertical loads were zero, 0.25Vu, 0.5Vu, 0.75Vu and 0.9Vu, where Vu is the ultimate load

156 carrying capacity of the piled raft foundation under pure vertical loading condition. In the

157 final step, a lateral displacement of 0.1d (where d is the diameter of the pile) was then applied

158 at the piled raft to account the combined loading effect (Zormpa and Comodromos, 2018).

159 The ultimate vertical load carrying capacity of the piled raft was estimated as the load

160 corresponding to the settlement of 0.1BR, where BR is the width of the raft (Lee and Salgado,

161 1999; Cerato and Lutenegger, 2006).

162 3.4 Validation of the model

163 The main criterion that needs to be fulfilled while performing any numerical modelling is to

164 check the compatibility of the developed model with any experimental result or any other

165 numerical model for a better degree of accuracy. In this study, the numerical model made in

166 ABAQUS was validated in two ways. At the first stage, the results of the numerical model

167 was compared with a small scaled laboratory model test and in the second stage it was

168 compared with a published work on numerical analysis carried out by Small and Zhang

169 (2002). The details for both the processes are described elaborately in the following sub-

170 sections.

171 3.4.1 Case -1: Experimental study

172 To evaluate the lateral response of the piled raft foundation under combined vertical and

173 lateral loading, one small-scale laboratory test setup was fabricated. To simulate the

174 laboratory model with the numerical model, a scaling factor, λ=100 was used while choosing

175 the dimensions of the laboratory model test set up. A mimic of this scaled laboratory model

176 was then modelled in the numerical study to check the consistency in the results obtained
8
177 from both the experimental and numerical analyses. The test set up includes a test tank,

178 loading frame, model piles and raft, etc., where the vertical load was applied with a hydraulic

179 jack and the lateral load was applied through a winch and wire rope. The test tank was made

180 up of thick translucent Perspex-sheet and steel plates. Mild steel plates of square cross section

181 were used in this study to make the raft. The model piles were circular in shape and made up

182 of steel having diameters of 10 mm and length of 300 mm. To measure the applied vertical

183 load, a calibrated load cell of 30 kN capacity was used, whereas the lateral load was

184 measured through a calibrated 2 kN load cell attached with the wire rope. The corresponding

185 vertical and lateral displacements were calculated using the LVDTs attached in vertical and

186 horizontal direction, respectively. In sub-soil profile, clay was on the top followed by a layer

187 of sand. According to the standard techniques described in ASTM codes, the index properties

188 of the top sub-soil layer i.e., clay sample were found as: liquid limit 46%, plastic limit 23.6%

189 and plasticity index 22.4%. As per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the clay

190 sample is classified as low plasticity clay (CL). The undrained shear strength of clay sample

191 at 35% water content was found to be 10 kPa and corresponding bulk density and angle of

192 internal friction was obtained around 17.5 kN/m3 and 100, respectively. Clean dry sand was

193 used as the bottom soil layer in the model test. The sand sample is classified as poorly graded

194 sand (SP) as per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the value of placement

195 dry density of sand corresponding to the relative density of 70% was found to be 15.80

196 kN/m3. The physical and engineering properties of dry sand sample are presented in Table 2.

197 The soil bed was prepared following the method described by Deb and Pal (2019). The lateral

198 load test was performed under a vertical load of V = 0, 0.5Vu and 0.9Vu. The comparison of

199 the laboratory data obtained from horizontal load test are compared with the developed

200 numerical model and plotted in Fig. 4. The lateral load displacement curve confirms that the

9
201 numerical results are very much similar with the results obtained from the experimental test

202 data.

203 3.4.2 Case -2: Numerical study

204 The finite element model developed by Small and Zhang (2002) was used as the reference

205 model in this study to validate the numerical model. A similar numerical model was used in

206 this study having 3×3 circular pile group under the raft. A quarter of the piled raft was

207 modelled here due to the symmetric geometry of the piled raft. The soil and piles were

208 modelled through a 20-nodded solid isoperimetric element and the raft was modelled using

209 eight nodded shell element. 18-unit concentrated lateral load was applied on the pile head

210 having spacing to diameter ratio of 3. The bending moment at corner pile (pile 1) and center

211 pile (pile 5) was evaluated and compared with the cited literature. Fig. 5 is showing the

212 comparison of the reference numerical model and the model developed in the present study.

213 The figure depicts that the model developed in this study shows a good agreement with

214 reported results. Both the comparison curves (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) confirm the legitimacy of the

215 developed numerical model.

216 3.5 Model configuration and parametric study

217 The model piled raft foundation was consisted of a soil continuum and a group of pile

218 supported by a model raft. A 5×5 pile group with 25 nos. of circular pile was attached to a

219 square sized raft as shown in Fig. 3. The soil continuum was consisted of two layers viz. clay

220 at the top layer following by a layer of sand. To check the effect of the clay layer, the

221 thickness of the top layer was changed keeping t/L = 0.5, 1 & 1.5, where t is the thickness of

222 clay layer and L is the length of pile. The properties of soil and pile/raft used for FE analysis

223 are presented in Table 3. Three different type of spacing to diameter ratio (s/d ratio) such as

10
224 s/d = 3, 5 and 7 was also selected to check the effect of spacing on the lateral load response.

225 The detail program for the model configuration and parametric study is presented in Table 4.

226 4. Analysis of Results

227 4.1 Pure vertical load tests on piled raft

228 All the models are first tested under pure vertical loading independent of any lateral load and

229 the load settlement response of the piled raft is obtained. From this load settlement responses,

230 the ultimate load carrying capacity under pure vertical loading (Vu) is then acquired for each

231 model at a settlement of 10% of the raft width. Fig. 6 is showing the vertical load settlement

232 curves for the piled raft at different s/d ratio and different t/L ratio. It is perceived from the

233 figure that the applied load varies nonlinearly with the settlement of the piled raft under pure

234 vertical loading condition. The load carrying capacity of the piled raft gets slightly increased

235 with the increase in s/d ratio for all the cases. However, with the increase of the ratio of clay

236 layer thickness to pile length (t/L ratio), the load carrying capacity is gradually decreased. In

237 this study, two layers of soil were taken keeping clay in the top layer and sand at the bottom

238 layer. The increase in t/L ratio indicates the increase of thickness of the clay layer and the pile

239 completely rests on the clay layer when the t/L ratio is more than 1. If the pile rests in the clay

240 layer, the frictional resistance gets reduced as compared to the piles rested in the sand layer.

241 This is why, the increasing t/L ratio tends to decrease the ultimate load carrying capacity of

242 the piled raft.

243 4.2 Effect of vertical load in lateral response of piled raft

244 The lateral load test was carried out on different piled raft system by changing the amount of

245 the vertical load to check the effect of the vertical load on the lateral response of the piled raft

246 system. The thickness of the clay layer (t) was alternatively changed to check the effect of

247 layer thickness to the embedded length ratio (t/L) (see section 3.5). The change in the
11
248 maximum lateral load of the piled raft under pure lateral load test at various t/L ratios is

249 presented in Fig. 7 and it is observed from the figure that the maximum lateral load decreases

250 with the increase in the t/L ratio. At t/L ratio of 0.5, the half portion of the pile is rested in the

251 clay layer and the other half is rested in the sand layer and when the lateral load is applied to

252 the piled raft, the sand layer offers higher friction and higher soil resistance in the pile surface

253 compared to the clay layer. Due to this increased pile-soil friction and improved soil

254 resistance, the lateral resistance of the piled raft increases and hence the lateral load capacity

255 also gets enhanced. However, at t/L ratio of 1, only the bottom surface of the pile is resting in

256 the sand layer and the pile-soil friction also develops only at the bottom surface which is

257 much lower than the friction develops at pile’s periphery. This is why, the lateral capacity

258 decreases with the increase in the t/L ratio.

259 Fig. 8 is showing the variation of lateral load capacity for the piled raft when t/L is

260 0.5. From the figure, it can be seen that the lateral load carried by the piled raft continues to

261 increase with the increase in the vertical loading on the raft. This increase in the lateral load

262 can be attributed to the increase in confining pressure in the soil due to the presence of the

263 vertical load. When the vertical load is applied on the top of the raft, the soil below the raft

264 gets confined which increases the confining stress in the surrounding soil and consequently,

265 the lateral load capacity gets enhanced. A similar trend of variation is also observed in case of

266 t/L = 1. However, in Fig. 9, when t/L is 1.5, a different trend is obtained compared to the

267 above two cases where the lateral load capacity first increases and then decreases with the

268 increase on the vertical load. The reason may be ascribed as the effect of the thickness of clay

269 layer, because at t/L = 1.5, the piled raft completely rests on the clay layer. There is a

270 substantial increase in the lateral load subjected to vertical loads up to 0.5Vu, and after that

271 there is a continuous reduction in the lateral load capacity. This reduction in lateral load may

272 be attributed to the early failure of the pile-soil interface under the action of vertical load. If
12
273 the interface between the pile and the surrounding soil fails, the further lateral deformation in

274 the pile group will not affect the lateral soil stress and hence the lateral soil stress in the soils

275 surrounding the pile group will not increase significantly which will result in a considerable

276 decrease in the lateral load capacity of the pile group present in the piled raft. Moreover, the

277 plasticity model used in this study considers the yield surface as a perfectly plastic yield

278 surface and any change of stress on the yield surface cause plastic deformation. As, the

279 elasticity of clay is much lower compared to sand, the recovery from failure becomes very

280 less and the plastic failure of pile-soil interface in clay layer occurs much faster than that of

281 sand layer. Due to this reason, in the case of t/L = 1.5, the total lateral load capacity of the

282 piled raft will also decrease with the higher amount of vertical load.

283 4.3 Effect of pile spacing on lateral response of piled raft

284 The spacing between two piles becomes an important factor while considering the response

285 of any group pile or any piled raft. The group interaction among the piles is a function of the

286 pile spacing and this interaction significantly varies for closely spaced pile group or for the

287 pile group with higher spacing. Fig. 10 is showing the variation of lateral load for the piled

288 raft under pure lateral loading at various spacing/diameter (s/d) ratios. The figure depicts that

289 the lateral load capacity for the piled raft increases with s/d ratio. The increase in lateral load

290 capacity can be attributed to the ‘pile-pile’ interaction among the pile group under the raft.

291 For closely spaced piles, due to the action of the external load, the developed stress field for

292 each pile overlap each other and the resisting zone behind the pile becomes very small. When

293 the spacing between the piles are increased, the overlapping stress field becomes insignificant

294 due to the reduction in the group interaction effect, and the resisting zone behind the piles

295 becomes larger, which enhance the lateral load capacity of the piled raft. There is almost 6–

13
296 12% increase in the lateral load capacity, when the s/d is changed from 3 to 5 where the

297 lateral load increased by 15–22% by changing s/d from 3 to 7.

298 4.4 Effect of pile position on the lateral load capacity of pile group in a piled raft

299 When the lateral load is applied on a pile group or a piled raft, the piles present in the

300 different row will show different lateral load capacity depending upon the loading direction.

301 In this study, 25 piles are divided in 5 rows having 5 numbers of piles in each row. The

302 lateral load carried by each pile in a particular row is evaluated and the mean of their value is

303 reported as the lateral load capacity of that row. Fig. 11 is showing the lateral load

304 displacement curves for different rows under pure lateral load for s/d of 5 and t/L ratio of 0.5.

305 It is clear from the figure that the lateral load capacity subsequently decreases from row 1 to

306 row 5 i.e. the front pile or the row 1 is carrying the maximum amount of lateral load whereas

307 the rear row or row 5 is taking the least amount of lateral load. When the lateral load is

308 applied in the piled raft, the stress field generated surrounding the front pile is much higher

309 than the rear pile. Due to this increased stress field, the piles’ resistance to the lateral load

310 increases and hence the front row takes higher load compared to the successive rows. The

311 same variation has been observed for all cases under different vertical loadings. During

312 combined loading case, before applying the lateral load, the corner piles and edge piles takes

313 almost same vertical load and the load carried by each corner/edge pile is comparatively

314 higher than the centre pile. But after applying the lateral load, the vertical load tends to

315 increase in the front pile while the vertical load gets decreased at the rear pile due to the

316 increase and the decrease in the soil confinement under the front and rear pile, respectively.

317 Comparing all the configurations, it has been observed that the front row piles carry about

318 30–37% of the total lateral load of the pile group in the piled raft whereas the rearmost row

319 carries 8–15% of the total lateral load.

14
320 4.5 Lateral load sharing between raft and pile

321 Piled raft system shows a different load transfer mechanism compared to the individual raft

322 and the pile group and it is accomplished by partial sharing of load by both the raft and the

323 pile group attached to the piled raft system. Some proportion of the load is shared by the raft

324 and rest of the load is shared by the pile. This complex load sharing nature can be assessed by

325 evaluating the load sharing ratio between the piles and the raft. The lateral load sharing ratio

326 (𝛼𝑃 ) can be defined as the proportion of the lateral load carried by the piles to the total lateral

327 load carried by the piled raft and is given by

𝐿 𝐿𝑃 𝐿𝑅
328 𝛼𝑃 = 𝐿 𝑃 = = 1− (2)
𝑃𝑅 𝐿𝑅 + 𝐿𝑃 𝐿𝑃𝑅

329 where, 𝐿𝑃𝑅 is the lateral load carried by the piled raft; and 𝐿𝑅 and 𝐿𝑃 are lateral load carried

330 by the raft and piles, respectively. Fig. 12 is showing the proportion of the lateral load carried

331 by the pile group and the raft in a piled raft system. Initially, at the early stage of lateral

332 loading, the raft takes more loads compared to the pile group present in the piled raft, but the

333 proportion of load carried by the raft continues to decrease with the increase in the lateral

334 displacement, as the raft transfers the load to the pile group. After some period of loading, the

335 load shared by the piles becomes more than the load shared by the raft. At this stage, the

336 proportion of lateral load shared by the raft is lower than that of the pile group in the piled

337 raft. The same has been evaluated for all the piled raft configurations used in this study and a

338 similar variation is observed for all the cases. The raft carries almost 30–48% of lateral load

339 at a displacement of 0.1d, whereas the load carried by the pile group present in the piled raft

340 varies between 52–70%. The effect of the combined loading action on the load sharing ratio

341 is also checked and is presented in Fig. 13. It is observed from the results that the lateral load

342 sharing ratio for piles reduces with the increase in the vertical load. This trend of reduction

343 suggests that the proportion of lateral load carried by the raft increases with the increase in
15
344 the vertical loading i.e. if the external vertical load is increased, the major portion of the

345 lateral load will be shared by the raft itself and the transmission of lateral load from the raft to

346 the piles will be very less. So, it can be précised as the lateral load sharing ratio decreases

347 with the increase in the vertical loading. The effect of t/L ratio and s/d ratio on the load

348 sharing ratio is not reasonably significant as the variation in αP ranges within 3–8%.

349 However, in all the cases, it has been observed that there exist a nonlinear relationship

350 between lateral load sharing ratio and normalized lateral displacement. To idealize this

351 nonlinear response under pure lateral loading case, a logarithmic relation is chosen to

352 formulate the general expression and it, and is given as

𝑦
353 𝛼𝑃 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ln( ⁄𝑑 ) (3)

354 where, a and b are empirical constants. In Fig. 14, all the results of pure lateral loading case

355 are collaborated together and a single curve is generated to express the general trend of load

356 sharing ratio with the normalized lateral displacement. The figure shows a very good

357 agreement between the calculated results and the projected expression giving the values of

358 constant terms as a = 0.88 and b = 0.11. The results obtained using the developed equation is

359 compared with the calculated results and it is observed that there exist a very good correlation

360 (R2 = 0.95) between the calculated and the predicted results with a standard error of 0.12.

361 This equation can be directly used to predict the load sharing ratio of piled raft system

362 subjected to lateral load.

363 4.6 Effect of vertical load on lateral soil stress

364 The lateral soil stress is evaluated in front and along the depth of each pile in the front row

365 and their mean value is calculated to estimate the stress generated in the sub-soil. The lateral

366 soil stress is evaluated for each cases and the variation of lateral soil stress under various

16
367 vertical loads at various t/L ratio are represented in Fig. 15. In both the cases of t/L=0.5 and

368 t/L=1, the lateral soil stress increases with the increase in the vertical load due to the increase

369 in the confining stress along the pile (Fig. 15 (a) and (b)). When the external vertical load

370 increases, due to the vertical settlement of the piled raft, the soil below the raft gets more

371 confined and the confining stress in the surrounding soil gets increased which increases the

372 lateral stress in the soil surrounding the pile. However, in the case of t/L=1.5, the lateral soil

373 stress decreases at higher vertical load levels (Fig. 15 (c)). It is noteworthy to mention that in

374 this case the piled raft system completely rests on the clay layer and the reason in the

375 reduction in lateral soil stress may be attributed to the early failure of the pile-soil interface

376 under the action of vertical loading, because the plastic failure of pile-soil interface in clay

377 layer occurs much faster than that of sand layer. Once this pile-soil interface fails, regardless

378 the pile deflection and pile configuration, the lateral soil stress along the pile will not

379 increase. While comparing the change of lateral soil stress for different s/d ratio, it is obtained

380 from all the results that the lateral soil stress increases with the increase in the pile spacing,

381 irrespective of t/L ratio. However, the percent change in the lateral soil stress at various s/d

382 ratios is quite small and ranges within 3–10%.

383 4.7 Evaluation of bending moment in pile group present in the piled raft

384 During the design of a pile subjected to lateral loads the most critical phase is the proper

385 estimation of the bending moment acting on the pile. The bending moment developed in the

386 piles attached to a piled raft is slightly different from that of the free standing pile group.

387 When the lateral load is applied on the raft, due to the rigid connection between the pile

388 group and the raft, the piles bend from the top and a negative bending moment generates at

389 the pile head. According to Hazzar et al. (2017), the bending moment (M) in the piles can be

390 calculated as

17
 𝐸𝑃 𝐼𝑃 ∆𝜀
391 𝑀= (4)
𝑑

392 where, EP is the modulus of elasticity of pile, IP is the moment of inertia of pile, Δε is the

393 difference between tensile and compressive strain and d is the diameter of the pile. The

394 bending moment developed in the pile depends up on the position of the pile in the piled raft.

395 It has already shown that the front row pile takes comparatively more load than the

396 successive rows and in the case of bending moment, the similar trend has been observed. The

397 bending moment for each pile in a particular row is evaluated and the mean value is used to

398 show the bending moment of that row. The variation of bending moment in the piles at

399 different row and the influence of vertical loading on the bending moment are shown in Fig.

400 16. It is clear from the figure that the maximum negative bending moment generates at the

401 pile head, and the maximum positive bending moment generates at a depth of 0.33L to 0.5L

402 from the pile head. The front row i.e. the row 1 shows the highest moment among all the

403 rows whereas the rear row or the row 5 shows the least bending moment. In the intermediate

404 rows (i.e., row 2 to row 4), the bending moment continuously decrease by moving towards

405 the successive rows, but the change in the bending moments are quite less. For all the

406 configurations, it has seen that the change in the bending moment for front row and rear row

407 is in the range of 8–15%. The figure also depicts that with the increase in vertical loading,

408 bending moment also tends to increase, irrespective of the pile position. Due to the increase

409 in the vertical loading, the lateral load capacity also increases which increases the bending

410 moment in the piles. It is observed that the variation of bending moment increased is by 1.07

411 times when the applied vertical load is 0.9Vu as compared to the pure lateral case.

412 4.8 Evaluation of shear force developed along the piles

18
413 The shear force developed in the pile along its depth can be measured by dividing the

414 difference of two sectional bending moments by the distance between that two sections

415 (Hamada et al., 2015) and it can be represented as

𝑑𝑀
416 𝑆𝐹 = (5)
𝑑𝑧

417 where, M is the bending moment and z is the depth of the pile. In this study, the equation for

418 bending moment was identified using curve fitting method and the shear force is obtained by

419 differentiating the equation of the moment. Fig. 17 is showing the variation of shear force in

420 the piles presented in different rows and the variation of shear force under the combined

421 action of lateral and various vertical loads. Similar to moment distribution, the shear force

422 developed at the front pile (row 1) is much higher than the rear pile (row 5). The maximum

423 shear force develops at the pile head and gradually decreases with the increase in the pile

424 depth. The piles’ shear force becomes zero at a depth of 0.33 to 0.5 times of the pile length

425 and afterwards the shear force becomes negative. With the increase in the vertical loading,

426 the shear force in the pile tends to increase, irrespective of the position of pile in the group.

427 The variation in shear force is quite similar to the abovementioned behaviour of bending

428 moment of the piles. The variation in the shear force in front and rear row pile range within

429 30 to 42% and due to the effect of the vertical loading, the shear force increases 1.1 to 1.3

430 times the shear force under pure lateral load, when the applied vertical load is 0.9Vu.

431 5. Percent increase in lateral load capacity and lateral soil stress

432 The percentage increase in the lateral load capacity and the percentage increase in the lateral

433 soil stress are evaluated to check the effect of vertical loading on the lateral response. The

434 percent increase in the lateral load capacity under the presence of vertical load can be defined

435 as

19
 𝐿𝑤𝑣 −𝐿𝑛𝑣
436 𝐼𝐿𝑉 = × 100 (6)
𝐿𝑛𝑣

437 where, ILV is the percentage increase in the lateral load capacity under vertical load, Lwv is

438 the lateral load capacity with the vertical load and Lnv is the lateral load capacity with no

439 vertical load , i.e. without any vertical load or pure lateral load. The percent increase in the

440 lateral soil stress under the action of vertical load can be defined as

𝐿𝑆𝑤𝑣 −𝐿𝑆𝑛𝑣
441 𝐼𝐿𝑆𝑉 = × 100 (7)
𝐿𝑆𝑛𝑣

442 where, ILSV is the percentage increase in the lateral soil stress under vertical load, LSwv is the

443 lateral soil stress with the vertical load and LSnv is the lateral soil stress without any vertical

444 load. Fig. 18 and Fig. 19 are showing the percent increase in the lateral load capacity and the

445 lateral soil stress for different vertical loads at various t/L ratios. Both ILV and ILSV show a

446 similar trend where the values increase with the increase of vertical load on the top of the raft

447 i.e. the vertical load has a positive impact on ILV and ILSV. But, while considering the effect

448 of t/L ratio, for both the cases, it shows a positive impact up to V = 0.5Vu, and then shows a

449 negative impact i.e. the lateral load capacity decreases for V = 0.75Vu and V = 0.9Vu,

450 compared to the pure lateral load case. However, from the results, it has been seen that the

451 effect of spacing to diameter ratio (s/d ratio) on both ILV and ILSV is quite low and hence

452 the effect of s/d ratio can be neglected. Once this ILV and ILSV is estimated, the percent

453 change in the lateral load capacity and lateral soil stress due to the effect of vertical loading

454 can easily be identified.

455 The statistical analysis has also been carried out to check the effect and the

456 contribution of the design variables on ILV and ILSV. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

457 technique is used in the study at a confidence level of 95% in order to check the relative

458 contributions. However, it is found form ANOVA test that the selected hypotheses for s/d

20
459 ratio failed in both the cases as the p-value or the significance is greater than 0.05 and hence

460 its effect on ILV and ILSV is ignored. The regression analysis is then performed to predict

461 the ILV and ILSV based on t/L ratio and percentage of vertical load. The predicted equations

462 for both ILV and ILSV are expressed in Eq. (8) and Eq. (9), respectively. The parameter

463 estimates for both the equations are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The contour plot for

464 ILV and ILSV with t/L ratio and vertical load are shown in Fig. 20.

2
465 𝐼𝐿𝑉 = −33.2 + 104.76 × (𝑉⁄𝑉 ) + 98.8 × (𝑡⁄𝐿) − 41.85 × (𝑡⁄𝐿) − 92.24 × (𝑉⁄𝑉 ) (𝑡⁄𝐿) (8)
𝑢 𝑢

2
466 𝐼𝐿𝑆𝑉 = −23.43 + 76.86 × (𝑉⁄𝑉 ) + 47.4 × (𝑡⁄𝐿) − 15.45 × (𝑡⁄𝐿) − 68.24 × (𝑉⁄𝑉 ) (𝑡⁄𝐿) (9)
𝑢 𝑢

467 6. Prediction of p-multiplier for piled raft and pile group in piled raft

468 To understand the response of a group pile from the behaviour of a single pile, p-multiplier

469 concept was introduced. Several researchers have identified this p-multiplier for various

470 group piles under various design considerations (Zhu et al. 2018b). Studies are also carried

471 out to modify the existing expressions of p-multiplier for better understanding the response of

472 the group pile. Rollins et al. (1998) have developed one predictive model for p-multiplier

473 considering different s/d ratio. Zhu et al. (2018b) have included various design parameters

474 like s/d ratio, z/d ratio etc. and proposed another modified model for p-multiplier. However,

475 for a piled raft system, although its mechanism is quite different from that of the single pile,

476 there is a lack of research regarding the application of p-multiplier concept. In this study, an

477 attempt is taken to idealize the response of a piled raft and the pile group present in the piled

478 raft using the concept of p-multiplier. The calculation for obtaining p-multiplier includes the

479 following expressions

𝐿𝑃𝑅
480 𝑝𝑚,𝑃𝑅 = (10)
𝐿𝑆

21
 𝐿𝐺𝑃−𝑃𝑅
481 𝑝𝑚,𝐺𝑃−𝑃𝑅 = (11)
𝐿𝑆

482 where, 𝑝𝑚,𝑃𝑅 and 𝑝𝑚,𝐺𝑃−𝑃𝑅 are the p-multipliers for the piled raft and the pile group present

483 in the piled raft, respectively; 𝐿𝑃𝑅 and 𝐿𝐺𝑃−𝑃𝑅 are the lateral load carried by the piled raft and

484 the pile group present in the piled raft, respectively and 𝐿𝑆 is the lateral load carried by the

485 single pile. The p-multiplier was calculated for different configuration under pure lateral load

486 condition. The variation of p-multiplier for piled raft and pile group in the pile raft for

487 different s/d ratio and t/L ratio is presented in Table 7. Modified models are then selected for

488 evaluating p-multiplier and are expressed as

489 𝑝𝑚,𝑃𝑅 = 1.067 + 0.045 × 𝑠⁄𝑑 + 0.123 × 𝑡⁄𝐿 (12)

490 𝑝𝑚,𝐺𝑃−𝑃𝑅 = 0.63 + 0.027 × 𝑠⁄𝑑 + 0.083 × 𝑡⁄𝐿 (13)

491 As the modified model is predicted using the mean values only, it is important to

492 know the range of the coefficients involved in predicting the individual values. Fig. 21 and

493 Fig. 22 are showing the upper bound and lower bound range of the predicted values for p-

494 multiplier. Considering the limits of the upper bound and lower bound in both the figures it is

495 observed that the p-multiplier for the piled raft will be in the range of 1.23 to 1.65 whereas

496 the p-multiplier for pile group in piled raft will lie between 0.67–1.08.

497 7. Conclusion

498 Due to the lack of research in the field of the piled raft foundation subjected to combined

499 loading, an attempt has been taken in this paper to conduct a widespread research on the piled

500 raft foundation under combined loading. To understand the response of the piled raft under

501 combined loading, 3D finite element method was selected and a series of numerical test has

22
502 been performed on the piled raft foundation under the combined action of vertical and lateral

503 loading. The conclusions that can be derived from the numerical analyses are pointed below:

504 1. The vertical load applied on the piled raft system has an important significance on the

505 lateral load capacity of the piled raft. The lateral load capacity of the piled raft

506 foundation increases with the increase of vertical load up to a t/L ratio of 1, whereas at

507 t/L ratio of 1.5, the lateral load capacity first increases and then decreases.

508 2. Due to the reduction in group interaction effect, the lateral load capacity of the piled

509 raft increases with the increase in the spacing between the piles in the piled raft. The

510 lateral load capacity increases about 6–12% when the s/d is changed from 3 to 5;

511 whereas the lateral load increases about 15–22% by changing s/d from 3 to 7.

512 3. When the combined loading action is applied on the piled raft, the presence of vertical

513 load increases the confining pressure in the soil which increases the lateral soil stress

514 along the piles in the piled raft.

515 4. During the combined loading case, the shear force and bending moment tend to

516 increase with the increase in the vertical loading. A negative bending moment gets

517 generated at the pile head whereas a positive bending moment is generated at a depth

518 of 0.33 to 0.5 times the length of the pile. Considering the piles in the piled raft, the

519 highest bending moment and shear force is taken by the front row pile whereas the

520 rear pile takes the least bending moment and shear force.

521 5. The raft has an important part in sharing and transmitting the applied lateral load on

522 the piled raft foundation. At the starting of loading, the raft carries the maximum load

523 and with the increase of lateral displacement, the percentage of load shared by the raft

524 continues to decrease whereas the load carried by the piles continues to increase. Due

525 to the effect of vertical loading, the lateral load sharing ratio continues to decrease

526 with the increase in the amount of vertical load.

23
527 6. The percent change in lateral load capacity and lateral soil stress are evaluated and

528 prediction models are derived to evaluate ILV and ILSV. The vertical load has a

529 positive impact on ILV and ILSV for t/L ratio of 0.5 and 1, whereas, at t/L ratio of

530 1.5, the vertical load shows a positive impact up to V=0.5Vu and then shows a

531 negative effect.

532 7. The variation of p-multiplier is not same for every case and largely depends up on s/d

533 ratio and t/L ratio. p-multiplier for the piled raft and pile group present in the piled raft

534 are also evaluated and a prediction model is developed to idealize the response of the

535 piled raft and pile group in piled raft from the response of a single pile.

536 8. From the overall analyses of the piled raft subjected to the combined vertical and

537 lateral loads, it can be concluded that the vertical load plays an important role to

538 uphold the lateral response of the piled raft, and the behaviour of the piled raft

539 foundation under pure lateral load and combined load are not same. Adopting this

540 principle, the current design practices for the piled raft foundation should be upgraded

541 considering the combined action of vertical and lateral loading.

542 References

543 Cerato, A. B., & Lutenegger, A. J. (2006). Bearing capacity of square and circular

544 footings on a finite layer of granular soil underlain by a rigid base. Journal of

545 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(11), 1496-1501.

546 Clancy, P., & Randolph, M. F. (1993). An approximate analysis procedure for piled raft

547 foundations. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in

548 Geomechanics, 17(12), 849-869.

549 Comodromos, E. M., Papadopoulou, M. C., & Laloui, L. (2015). Contribution to the

550 design methodologies of piled raft foundations under combined loadings. Canadian
24
551 Geotechnical Journal, 53(4), 559-577.

552 Deb, P., & Pal, S. K. (2019). Analysis of Load Sharing Response and Prediction of

553 Interaction Behaviour in Piled Raft Foundation. Arabian Journal for Science and

554 Engineering, 1-17.

555 Haiderali, A., Cilingir, U., & Madabhushi, G. (2013). Lateral and axial capacity of

556 monopiles for offshore wind turbines. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 43(3), 181-194.

557 Hamada, J., Tsuchiya, T., Tanikawa, T., & Yamashita, K. (2015). Lateral loading tests on

558 piled rafts and simplified method to evaluate sectional forces of piles. Geotechnical

559 Engineering Journal of the SEAGS and AGSSEA, 46(2), 29-42.

560 Hazzar, L., Hussien, M. N., & Karray, M. (2017). On the behaviour of pile groups under

561 combined lateral and vertical loading. Ocean Engineering, 131, 174-185.

562 Hong, S. H., Lee, F. H., & Yong, K. Y. (2003). Three-dimensional pile-soil interaction in

563 soldier-piled excavations. Computers and Geotechnics, 30(1), 81-107.

564 Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T., & Fukuyama, H. (2003).

565 Performance of piled raft foundations subjected to static horizontal loads. International

566 Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 3(2), 37-50.

567 Hung, L. C., & Kim, S. R. (2014). Evaluation of undrained bearing capacities of bucket

568 foundations under combined loads. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 32(1), 76-92.

569 Keawsawasvong, S., & Ukritchon, B. (2015). Approximation of Undrained Lateral

570 Capacity of Piles under Combined Horizontal Load and Moment. Electron. J. Geotech.

571 Eng., 20(25), 12699-12715.

572 Kim, S., Choo, Y. W., Kim, J. H., Kim, D. S., & Kwon, O. (2015). Pullout resistance of

25
573 group suction anchors in parallel array installed in silty sand subjected to horizontal

574 loading– centrifuge and numerical modeling. Ocean Engineering, 107, 85-96.

575 Kong, D., Martin, C. M., & Byrne, B. W. (2017). Modelling large plastic deformations of

576 cohesive soils using sequential limit analysis. International Journal for Numerical and

577 Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 41(18), 1781-1806.

578 Lee, J. H. & Salgado, R. (1999). Determination of pile base resistance in sands. Journal of

579 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(8), 673-683.

580 Matsumoto, T., Fukumura, K., Pastsakorn, K., Horikoshi, K., & Oki, A. (2004a).

581 Experimental and analytical study on behaviour of model piled rafts in sand subjected to

582 horizontal and moment loading. International Journal of Physical Modelling in

583 Geotechnics, 4(3), 01-19.

584 Matsumoto, T., Fukumura, K., Horikoshi, K., & Oki, A. (2004b). Shaking table tests on

585 model piled rafts in sand considering influence of superstructures. International Journal

586 of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 4(3), 21-38.

587 Matsumoto, T., Nemoto, H., Mikami, H., Yaegashi, K., Arai, T., & Kitiyodom, P. (2010).

588 Load tests of piled raft models with different pile head connection conditions and their

589 analyses. Soils and Foundations, 50(1), 63-81.

590 Palammal, J. S., & Senthilkumar, P. K. (2018). Behavioural analysis of vertical and batter

591 pile groups under vertical and lateral loading in sand. Arabian Journal of Geosciences,

592 11(22), 706.

593 Pastsakorn, K., Hashizume, Y., Matsumoto, T. (2002). Lateral load tests on model pile

594 groups and piled raft foundations in sand. In: Proceedings of International Conference

595 Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, pp.709–714.

26
596 Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. Wiley, New

597 York (1980)

598 Poulos, H. G. (1991). Analysis of piled strip foundations. Comp. Methods and Advances

599 in Geomechs, 1, 183-191.

600 Rao, S. N., Ramakrishna, V. G. S. T., & Rao, M. B. (1998). Influence of rigidity on

601 laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay. Journal of Geotechnical and

602 Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(6), 542-549.

603 Reul, O., & Randolph, M. F. (2004). Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to

604 nonuniform vertical loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

605 Engineering, 130(1), 1-13.

606 Rollins, K. M., Peterson, K. T., & Weaver, T. J. (1998). Lateral load behavior of full-

607 scale pile group in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,

608 124(6), 468- 478.

609 Rose, A. V., Taylor, R. N., & El Naggar, M. H. (2013). Numerical modelling of perimeter

610 pile groups in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(3), 250-258.

611 Sawada, K., & Takemura, J. (2014). Centrifuge model tests on piled raft foundation in

612 sand subjected to lateral and moment loads. Soils and Foundations, 54(2), 126-140.

613 Small, J. C., & Zhang, H. H. (2002). Behavior of piled raft foundations under lateral and

614 vertical loading. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2(1), 29-45.

615 Unsever, Y. S., Matsumoto, T., & Özkan, M. Y. (2015). Numerical analyses of load tests

616 on model foundations in dry sand. Computers and Geotechnics, 63, 255-266.

617 Vu, A. T., & Matsumoto, T. (2016). Experimental and numerical study on small-size

27
618 piled raft foundation models subjected to cyclic horizontal loading. Geotechnics for

619 Sustainable Infrastructure Development - Geotec Hanoi, ISBN 978-604-82-0013-8.

620 Zormpa, T. E., & Comodromos, E. M. (2018). Numerical Evaluation of Pile

621 Response Under Combined Lateral and Axial Loading. Geotechnical and Geological

622 Engineering, 36(2), 793- 811.

623 Zhu, X. J., Fei, K., & Wang, S. W. (2018a). Horizontal Loading Tests on Disconnected

624 Piled Rafts and a Simplified Method to Evaluate the Horizontal Bearing Capacity.

625 Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018.

626 Zhu, B., Wen, K., Kong, D., Zhu, Z., & Wang, L. (2018b). A numerical study on the

627 lateral loading behaviour of offshore tetrapod piled jacket foundations in clay. Applied

628 Ocean Research, 75, 165-177.

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

28
639 List of Tables

640 Table 1 Various research conducted on piled raft subjected to lateral and combined loading

641 Table 2 Physical and engineering properties of dry sand

642 Table 3 Properties of soil and pile/raft used for FE analysis

643 Table 4 Details of model configuration and parametric study

644 Table 5 Parameter estimates for ILV

645 Table 6 Parameter estimates for ILSV

646 Table 7 Variation of p-multiplier for piled raft and pile group in pile raft

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

29
658

659 Table 1 Various research conducted on piled raft subjected to lateral and combined loading

Year Author Test Loading condition Pile connectivity Pile length

condition (mm)
2002 Pastakorn et al. 1g Lateral load Rigid connection 200

2002 Small and 1g Vertical and lateral Rigid connection 500

Zhang load
2003 Horikoshi et al. 50 g Vertical and lateral Rigid and Hinged 180
load connection
2004a Matsumoto et al. 1g Vertical and lateral Rigid and Hinged 170
2004b load connection
2010 Matsumoto et al. 1g Vertical and cyclic Rigid, semi rigid, semi 600
lateral load hinged and hinged
connection
2014 Sawada and 50 g Lateral and moment Rigid connection 160
Takemura load
2015 Hamada et al. 1g Cyclic lateral load Rigid connection 700

2015 Unsever et al. 1g Vertical and cyclic Rigid connection 255

lateral load
2016 Vu and 1g Cyclic lateral load Rigid connection 285
Matsumoto
2018a Zhu et al. 1g Combined vertical Disconnected 400
and lateral load
660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668
30
669 Table 2 Physical and engineering properties of dry sand

Properties Test results

Specific gravity (Gs) 2.64

Effective grain size, D10 (mm) 0.37

Mean grain size, D50 (mm) 0.85

Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.02

Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 2.57

Minimum void ratio (emin) 0.59

Maximum void ratio (emax) 0.86

Minimum dry density, γmin (kN/m3) 14.20

Maximum dry density, γmax (kN/m3) 16.60

Angle of internal friction, ϕ (in degree) 30

670

671

672 Table 3 Properties of soil and pile/raft used for FE analysis

Materials Density (kg/m3) E (kPa) µ Failure Model

Clay 1750 6,000 0.45 Modified D-P

Sand 1580 25,000 0.3 Modified D-P

Pile 2700 24×106 0.2 Linear Elastic

Raft 7800 34×106 0.2 Linear Elastic

𝑘0
673 E = Elastic modulus; µ = Poisons ratio = ; D-P = Drucker Prager model; k0 = earth
1+𝑘0

674 pressure at rest.

675

676

31
677 Table 4 Details of model configuration and parametric study

Model s/d t/L Loading Sequence

Configuration
Vertical Load Lateral Load

Single pile - 0.5, 1 & - Pure lateral load (up to

1.5 0.1d)

Pure vertical _
Raft + 25 piles 3, 4 & 5 0.5, 1 & _ Pure lateral (up to 0.1d)
1.5
0.25Vu, 0.50Vu, Until failure (up to 0.1d)
0.75Vu, & 0.9 Vu

678

679 Table 5 Parameter estimates for ILV

Term Coefficient Standard error T-Value P-Value

Constant -33.20 8.85 -3.75 0.0001
𝑉⁄ 104.76 9.55 10.97 0.001
𝑉𝑢
𝑡⁄ 98.80 16.20 6.10 0.0015
𝐿
2
(𝑡⁄𝐿) -41.85 7.58 -5.52 0.001

(𝑉⁄𝑉 ) (𝑡⁄𝐿) -92.24 8.84 -10.44 0.0001

𝑢
680

681 Table 6 Parameter estimates for ILSV

Term Coefficient Standard error T-Value P-Value

Constant -23.43 6.98 -3.36 0.001

𝑉⁄ 76.86 7.53 10.21 0.0001
𝑉𝑢
𝑡⁄ 47.40 12.80 3.71 0.015
𝐿
2
(𝑡⁄𝐿) -15.45 5.97 -2.59 0.02

(𝑉⁄𝑉 ) (𝑡⁄𝐿) -68.24 6.97 -9.79 0.0001

𝑢
682

32
683 Table 7 Variation of p-multiplier for piled raft and pile group in pile raft

s/d t/L 𝑝𝑚,𝐺𝑃−𝑃𝑅 𝑝𝑚,𝑃𝑅

3 0.5 0.76 1.27
5 0.5 0.81 1.35
7 0.5 0.87 1.45
3 1 0.78 1.32
5 1 0.83 1.41
7 1 0.88 1.50
3 1.5 0.84 1.39
5 1.5 0.90 1.48
7 1.5 0.95 1.57
684

685

686 List of Figures

687 Fig. 1 Interface forces developed in piled raft and soil surface

688 Fig. 2 Modified Drucker-Prager model

689 Fig. 3 Mesh pattern and dimension of each element

690 Fig. 4 Comparison curve for experimental test data with developed numerical model

691 Fig. 5 Comparison of numerical model data obtained in this study with the numerical model

692 developed by Small and Zhang (2002)

693 Fig. 6 Load settlement response of piled raft under pure vertical load

694 Fig. 7 Maximum lateral load taken by piled raft under pure lateral load condition

695 Fig. 8 Lateral load versus normalized horizontal displacement at t/L = 0.5

696 Fig. 9 Lateral load versus normalized horizontal displacement at t/L = 1.5

33
697 Fig. 10 Maximum lateral load taken by piled raft at different s/d ratio

698 Fig. 11 Lateral load carried by each row pile

699 Fig. 12 Load sharing between pile and raft

700 Fig. 13 Effect of vertical load on lateral load sharing ratio

701 Fig. 14 Variation of lateral load ratio with normalized lateral displacement

702 Fig. 15 Effect of vertical load on lateral soil stress (a) t/L = 0.5, (b) t/L = 1, (c) t/L = 1.5

703 Fig. 16 Effect of vertical loading and pile positioning on bending moment

704 Fig. 17 Effect of vertical loading and pile positioning on shear force

705 Fig. 18 Percent increase in lateral load capacity at different vertical load for various t/L ratios

706 at s/d = 3

707 Fig. 19 Percent increase in lateral soil stress at different t/L ratio for various vertical loads at

708 s/d = 3

709 Fig. 20 Contour plot for ILV and ILSV with t/L ratio and vertical load

710 Fig. 21 Calculated vs. predicted values of p-multiplier for pile group in piled raft

711 Fig. 22 Calculated vs. predicted values of p-multiplier for piled raft

712

713

34
714

715 Fig. 1 Interface forces developed in piled raft and soil surface

716

717

718 Fig. 2 Modified Drucker-Prager model

719

35
720

721 Fig. 3 Mesh pattern and dimension of each element

722

723

724 Fig. 4 Comparison curve for experimental test data with developed numerical model

36
725

726 Fig. 5 Comparison of numerical model data obtained in this study with the numerical model

727 developed by Small and Zhang (2002)

728

37
729 Fig. 6 Load settlement response of piled raft under pure vertical load

730

731

732 Fig. 7 Maximum lateral load taken by piled raft under pure lateral load condition

733

734 Fig. 8 Lateral load versus normalized horizontal displacement at t/L = 0.5

38
735

736

737 Fig. 9 Lateral load versus normalized horizontal displacement at t/L = 1.5

738

739 Fig. 10 Maximum lateral load taken by piled raft at different s/d ratio

740

39
741

742 Fig. 11 Lateral load carried by each row pile

743

744

745 Fig. 12 Load sharing between pile and raft

40
746

747 Fig. 13 Effect of vertical load on lateral load sharing ratio

748

749

750 Fig. 14 Variation of lateral load ratio with normalized lateral displacement

41
751

752 (a) t/L = 0.5

753

754 (b) t/L = 1

42
755

756 (c) t/L = 1.5

757 Fig. 15 Effect of vertical load on lateral soil stress (a) t/L = 0.5, (b) t/L = 1, (c) t/L =

758 1.5

759

43
760 Fig. 16 Effect of vertical loading and pile positioning on bending moment

761

762 Fig. 17 Effect of vertical loading and pile positioning on shear force

763

44
764 Fig. 18 Percent increase in lateral load capacity at different vertical load for various t/L ratios

765 at s/d = 3

766

767 Fig. 19 Percent increase in lateral soil stress at different t/L ratio for various vertical loads at

768 s/d = 3

769

45
770

771 Fig. 20 Contour plot for ILV and ILSV with t/L ratio and vertical load

772

773 Fig. 21 Calculated vs. predicted values of p-multiplier for pile group in piled raft

46
774

775 Fig. 22 Calculated vs. predicted values of p-multiplier for piled raft

776

777

778

779

47