Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Piled Raft Foundations
Piled Raft Foundations
Piled Raft Foundations
Harry G. Poulos
Tetra Tech Coffey, Australia
Lecture to GEG
20 September 2023
OUTLINE
• The mechanics of rafts with piles
• Parameter assessment
• If the pile capacity has not been fully mobilized, then the pile acts as a
spring that carries some of the column load and so reduces the load that
the raft has to carry.
• Even if a pile has reached its full capacity, it provides a negative (upward)
load that counteracts the downward column load.
6
CIRCUMSTANCES UNFAVOURABLE FOR
PILED RAFTS
• Soft clays near the surface
Optimum number
Optimum number
THE MECHANICS OF RAFTS + PILES
• n x single pile capacity + net raft capacity for widely spaced piles
• Block capacity + external raft area capacity for closely-spaced piles
Depends on:
• Applied load
• Pile dimensions
• Ground stiffness and profile
• Group dimensions and number of piles
• Raft dimensions and raft stiffness
Detailed design - –
• refine pile locations
• Lesser of:
–raft plus individual piles
–block of piles + soil, plus raft outside block perimeter
rc
Young' s Modulus E s
E so E sav E sl E sb
Soil L
Bearing
d= 2ro Depth
stratum
Fig.2 Simplified representation of pile-raft unit
Pu
B
Load
P1 A
Pile + raft
elastic
Pile capacity fully utilised, Pile + raft ultimate
raft elastic capacity reached
Settlement
Fig.3 Simplified load- settlement curve for preliminary analysis
POULOS-DAVIS-RANDOLPH (PDR) METHOD
• Piled raft stiffness:
P1 = Pup/(1-X)
TYPICAL RESULTS FROM PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS
40 80
Ultimate Load Capacity (MN)
Total Load = 12 MN
20 40
10 20
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Piles Number of Piles
(a) Ultimate Load Capacity (b) Settlement
Fig. 10 Effect of number of piles on ultimate load capacity and settlement
=f for R>4
When:
• Maximum moment exceeds allowable
x
t Raft E r , νr
Layer 1 E s1 , ν s
Layer 2 E s2 , ν s
Layer 3 E s3 , ν s
a = t.{Er.(1-νs2)/6.Es.(1-νr2)]1/3
where t = raft thickness, ν = Poisson’s ratio of soil, ν = Poisson’s ratio of raft, E = raft modulus,
E = soil modulus. s r r
s
MAXIMUM MOMENT CRITERION
Moment factors A, B
0
x
P
-0.1 O
A
Load
location
-0.2
0 0.05 0.10 0.15
x/a
Date A
27
presentation
to <insert in
PILE REQUIREMENTS FOR A COLUMN LOCATION
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Central Settlement (mm) Central Settlement (mm)
40
(c) 0.5 m Raft + 15 Piles
Group Load (MN)
30
GARP5
20 Approximate PDR method
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Central Settlement (mm)
Fig. 9 Comparison between GARP and approximate analysis
MORE RIGOROUS COMPUTER METHODS
A A 1m
P1 P2 P1
2
A A
P1 P2 P1 x Bearing capacity of raft = 0.3 MPa
2
A A Load capacity of each pile = 0.873 MN (Compression)
P1 P2 P1 1 = 0.786 MN (Tension)
1m 2 2 2 2 1
E p = E r = 30000 MPa
ν p = νr = 0.2 P P2
1 P1
t r = 0.5 m
E = 20 MPa
l = 10 m
ν = 0.3
H = 20 m
d = 0.5 m
s=2 2 2 2m
Fig. 11 Hypothetical example used to compare results of various methods of piled raft analysis
COMPARISON BETWEEN PILED RAFT ANALYSES
20
2 3 4
1
5
15
Total load (MN)
10
1 P D R m e th o d
2 GARP5
5 3 GASP
4 F L A C 3-D
5 F L A C 2-D
0
0 20 40 60 80 10 0 12 0 14 0
C en tra l S e ttle m e n t (m m )
35
EFFECT OF IGNORING INTERACTIONS -
FOUNDATION STIFFNESS (MN/m)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
WITH INTERN.
1000
GROUP ONLY
800
NO INTERN.
600
400
200
0
9 PILES 15 PILES
2D analysis is unreliable
SOME OTHER ISSUES
Lateral Loading:
Raft tends to take a larger proportion of the lateral load than for
vertical load. Full 3D analysis needs to be used at final design
stage.
Hamada et al (2015):
They take some of the lateral load and reduce the bending
moments in the pile. Can be taken into account during the final
design stage.
Disconnected Piles:
Require:
For final design, large scale pile load tests are highly
desirable
CORRELATIONS WITH SPT
136 piles
founded
on rock
Slab
0.7m
thick
Contiguous bored pile wall Shear joint between core and podium
GEOTECHNICAL MODEL Es pu Es
Av. Su fs fb
DESCRIPTION (RAFT) (RAFT) (PILES)
SPT kPa kPa MPa
MPa MPa MPa
0
ASSUMED
BASE OF RAFT
-5
SAND
60 - 90 5.4 120 100 9.9
D-VD
-10
PEATY CLAY
(SOME SAND) 10 80 8 0.5 20 22 0.7
-15
F-St
SAND
60 - 90 5.4 120 100 9.9
D
RL (m)
-20
METASILTSTONE
- - 2000 - 2000 - 10.0
SW
-40
FEASIBILITY RESULTS
• Indicated that a raft foundation alone would have a
factor of safety of approximately 10 for ultimate
loading
• Final foundation system was a 0.8m thick raft with 136 piles.
CFA piles were 18m long, 0.7m diameter with a maximum
capacity of 4.2MN
Results of Initial Assessment
136 piles
Maximum raft
settlement of
36mm
Maximum
differential
settlement of
10mm (1/400)
OUTCOMES
(52% savings)
Main challenges:
• 30 boreholes
• SPT
• 6 standpipe piezometers
4 Silty Sand
6 Calcarenite
40 Conglomeritic Calcisiltite
22.5 Calcareous/Conglomeritic
>47 Claystone/Siltstone
INITIAL PILE DESIGN
• Tower:
196 piles, 1.5m diameter, 47.5m long
• Podium:
750 0.9m diameter piles, 30m long
HYDER - REPUTE 66
HYDER - ABAQUS 72
COFFEY – FLAC 73
(axisymmetric)
COFFEY - PIGS 74
load
16-Jan-07
Settlement (mm)
-30 19-Feb-07
18-Mar-07
-40
12-Jul-07
Estimated 50 to 55mm -50 14-Aug-07
17-Sep-07
final settlement -60
17-Oct-07
-70 14-Nov-07
17-Dec-07
-80
Within design tolerances -90
18-Feb-08
design
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
525 piles
4 different lengths
80 0.002
Maximum Rotation in x-
70
60 0.0015
direction rad
50
40 0.001
30
20 0.0005
10
0 0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3
Case Case
50
70
60 40
50
40 30
MNm
30 20
20
10 10
0
0
Q1 Q2 Q3
Q1 Q2 Q3
Case
Case
Maximum Raft Moment Maximum Pile Load
IGNORING THE PRESENCE OF THE RAFT
d=2.5m
• Reclaimed land
• Complex geology
8 separate soil
profiles modeled
within building
footprint
UMD 5 -11 29 - 48 -
7 - 15
LMD 30 21 50 -
Weathered Soil 60 42 75 -
Weathered Rock 200 140 500 -
Soft Rock (above EL-50m) 300 210 750 12
Ev = Vertical Modulus
Eh = Horizontal Modulus
fs = Ultimate shaft friction
fb = Ultimate end bearing
FOUNDATION SYSTEM
• Piles: 172
Corner Pile 85 43
Minimum 26 28
FINAL DESIGN CHECK – 3D FE
ANALYSIS
FINAL DESIGN CHECK – 3D FE ANALYSIS
Visualization
Designed with no
allowance for the
raft
EXAMPLE OF EXCESSIVE PILES
(Mandolini et al, 2005)
Computed versus measured settlements-excellent agreement
EXAMPLE OF EXCESSIVE PILES
(Mandolini et al, 2005)
•Savings: US$5.9M
EXAMPLE OF COST SAVINGS ON PILES
(Katzenbach et al (2016)
•Savings: US$3.3M
SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON PILED RAFTS
• Settlement decreases as number of piles increases
Mandolini, A., Russo, G. and Viggiani, C.(2005). “Pile foundations: experimental investigations,
analysis and design”. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. Geot. Eng., Osaka, IOS Press, 177-213.
Poulos, H.G. (2001). “Piled Raft Foundations – Design and Applications”. Geotechnique, 51(2): 95-
113.
Poulos, H.G. (2017). “Tall Building Foundation Design”. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Poulos, H.G. (2021). “Practical approach for piled raft stiffness estimation”. Australian
Geomechanics, 56 (3): 57-69.
Randolph, M.F. (1994). “Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts”. State of the Art Rep.,
Proc., 13th ICSMFE, New Delhi, Vol. 5, 61–82.