The 12th International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October,

2008 Goa, India

An Experimental Study on the Behaviour of Vertically Loaded Piled Raft on Soft Clay
S.P.Bajad Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032 R. B. Sahu Professor Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032

Keywords: Piled raft, model test, settlement reduction, load sharing, soft clay

ABSTRACT: In order to understand the load sharing and settlement reduction behaviour of piled raft resting on soft clay, 1g model tests were conducted on small-scale models. The parameters studied were the effect of pile length and number of piles. The load settlement behaviour obtained from the tests has been validated using simplified method (Polous & Davis). Equivalent pier concept of Poulos and Davis (1980) was adopted to understand the load sharing response of piled raft and settlement reduction. The analytical and 1g model test results are found to be in reasonable agreement. The equivalent pier concept has proved to be a very useful method in representing the behaviour of piled raft.

1 Introduction
The piled raft minimizes both total and differential settlements of structure, and thereby reduces the stresses and bending moments within the raft in an efficient and economical way. The load-bearing behaviours of the piled raft are characterized by very complex soil-structure interaction between the elements of the foundation system, i.e., raft and piles and the subsoil. Therefore, there are many difficulties in forecasting the load-bearing behaviours of a piled raft. The soil-structure interaction of a piled raft is composed of 1) soil-pile interaction, 2) pile-pile interaction, 3) soil-raft interaction and 4) pile-raft interaction (Katzenbach et al., 2001). When piles in a piled raft are closely spaced, the induced stresses and strains in the surrounding soil overlap, and their behaviour becomes different from that of an isolated pile and raft. In recent years, theoretical investigations into the interaction problems have advanced remarkably (Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Hain and Lee 1978; Randolph and Wroth 1979; Poulos and Davis 1980; Mandolini and Viggiani 1997; Horikoshi and Randolph 1998; Katzenbach and Reul 1999; Lee et al. 2002). Key questions that arise in the design of piled rafts are concerned with the relative proportion of load carried by the raft and by the piles. Another concern of investigation is the effect of additional pile support on absolute and differential settlements. Since an increasing number of structures, especially tall buildings are founded on piled rafts (Franke, 1991; Franke et al., 1994; Katzenbach et. al., 2000; Cunha et. al., 2001), understanding of the pile-soil-raft interaction, which controls the behavior of piled rafts, is of major importance. In the early 1970s several buildings supported on piled raft foundations were monitored in UK (Hooper, 1979). In the 90s the investigations carried out during the construction of several tall buildings in Germany, mainly in the Frankfurt area (Katzenbach et al., 2000), provided new stimulating data. These and similar observations led to a deeper insight into the mechanisms which govern the behaviour of piled raft foundations. Mandolini et al. (1997) and Mandolini & Viggiani (1997) collected 22 well documented case histories of the settlement of piled foundations. The data base has been increased by Viggiani (1998) to 42 cases. Presently large number of case studies is reported, for all of them, besides the settlement records, load test on single piles and documentation on the subsoil and the construction are available. A wide range of pile types (driven, bored, CFA) assembled in a variety of geometrical configurations (4 n 6500; 2 s/d 8; 13 L/d 126) and founded on different soils (clayey to sandy soils, stratified, saturated or not, etc.) are included. Some cases show a significant increase of the settlement after the end of the construction, due to primary consolidation in fine grained soils (Hooper, 1979; Katzenbach et al., 2000). This aspect deserves critical examination, as the long

84

term settlement is the most likely potential cause of damage to services, claddings and architectural finishes. In this paper, the effects of interaction among piles and raft of the vertically loaded piled raft resting on soft clay were investigated by 1g laboratory model tests. Using identical standard testing procedure and artificially consolidated soil bed, the model tests were conducted on a raft alone, free standing pile groups, and piled rafts. Theoretical analysis was also carried out to validate the experimental results. From the test results, the effects of interaction among piles, and interaction between raft and piles were identified. The influence of pile spacing and pile length on the interaction characteristics were studied in detail. The results obtained from this work would be helpful in identifying load sharing mechanism between pile and raft with settlement of the piled raft. Behaviour of piles as settlement reducer was also studied. Based on these results, a simple design guideline can be proposed to evaluate the ultimate vertical load of piled raft as a function of the capacities of raft and piles.

2 Model Test Methodology

The small-scale model tests were conducted on piled rafts (PRF), free-standing pile groups (FSPG), as well as isolated raft (R) under identical conditions in order to investigate the behaviours of a piled raft, especially the load sharing ratio of the raft. To conduct the experiments, a soil bin made of 3mm thick mild steel sheet was used and had the following dimensions of 570 mm in diameter and 500 mm in height. The test pile groups consisted of four piles (2x2), nine piles (3x3) and sixteen piles (4x4), all arranged in square. The model piles used in the tests were solid steel piles with a diameter of 10mm. Pile lengths of 100 mm and 200 mm were used. The size of raft was chosen as 100 mm x 100 mm in plan and to ensure the rigidity of the raft, a thickness of 10mm (Kr=12.73) was provided. Generally, the contact pressure of the raft, stress and settlement of the pile depends on the relative stiffness of the components (Russo & Viggiani, 1997; Poulos & Davis, 1980). In these tests, the thickness of the raft was determined by the following equation (values of Kr ranging from 10.0 to 0.01 cover very stiff to very flexible rafts) (Hain & Lee, 1978):

Kr =

4 E r Tr Br 1 2 3 E S L4 r

(1)

where Kr is the pile-supporting soil relative stiffness, Er is the Youngs modulus of the raft material, Es is the Young's modulus of the soil mass, Lr, Br, Tr are the length, width and thickness of the raft respectively and is the Poisson's ratio of the soil. Locally available cohesive soil having LL=57% & PL=27% was thoroughly mixed with water up to the water content of nearly 50% to 55%. Consequently, it was artificially consolidated in the test tank in three layers, height of each layer being 150mm to 200mm, under the consolidation pressure of 30 kPa. Undrained shear strength of the consolidated clay as measured by unconfined compression /Vane shear tests was found to be 10 1 kPa. Model piles of specified lengths were driven in the consolidated clay bed with the help of template. The model raft was then placed over the piles. The piles were connected to the raft by bolting, so that the piled raft acts as a monolithic structure. Loading platform was then placed over the piled raft. Two LVDTs having travel of 50 mm and least count of 0.01mm were fitted to frame and placed diagonally opposite on the model raft to measure the settlement. Thereafter, load of required magnitude was applied on the loading platform and LVDT readings were recorded for every load increments .The schematic diagram of the model test set up is shown in Fig.1. Pile spacing, pile length, and group type were varied in these model tests. Descriptions of model tests are given in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of model tests Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 Foundation type Raft Piled raft Piled raft Free standing pile group Free standing pile group Test denotation R 100 mm x 100 mm PRF 4-100,PRF9-100,PRF16-100 PRF 4-200,PRF9-200,PRF16-200 FSPG 4-100,FSPG 9-100,FSPG 16-100 FSPG 4-200,FSPG 9-200,FSPG 16-200 Pile spacing / diameter 7.5,3.75,2.5 7.5,3.75,2.5 7.5,3.75,2.5 7.5,3.75,2.5 Pile length/dia meter 10 20 10 20

85

Fig.1 Model test set up

3 Results and discussions 3.1 3.1.1 Model test results

Load-settlement behaviour Fig 2 gives the load settlement behaviour of isolated raft, piled raft and the free standing pile group. Fig. 2 establishes the fact that the pile group of the piled raft, wherein the raft is in contact with the soil takes much higher load than the free standing pile group. In the case of free standing pile group, it appears that full capacity (frictional resistance) of piles is fully mobilized for a settlement around 1 mm beyond which piles penetrated rapidly. This indicates that the settlement around 1mm is the limiting settlement required in the tests to mobilize full capacity of piles (i.e.10% of pile diameter). This two-phase behaviour is identical to that of typical elastoplastic behaviour. The pile groups with raft in contact with soft clay continue to offer higher resistance even for the settlements beyond 1mm. The load-settlement response of the pile group also showed two-phase behaviour, which is identical to that of elastic-work hardening behaviour. The additional resistance offered by the piles of the piled raft is due to the increase in normal stress (confining stress) on the surface of piles because of increase in stress in clay by the process of transfer of more loads by the raft to the clay. This confirms the pile group-soil interaction generates a situation of single pier piercing through the medium at higher settlement

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

200

Load (N) 400 600 800

1000 1200 0

Time (minute) 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6

PRF16-100 PRF9-100 PRF4-100 Raft

Raft

PRF 16-200 FSPG 16-200

Fig. 2 Load-settlement behavior of piled raft, pile group and raft

86

Fig.3

Time settlement curves

The study indicated in Fig 2 clearly shows that in the initial stages more loads is transferred to the piles than the raft. As the settlement increases beyond 1mm to 2mm the friction on piles is fully mobilized and the raft takes more loads, leading to the conclusion that the pile group essentially acts as a settlement reducer. However the load taken by the pile group continues to increase but the increase is marginal. The load sharing of the pile group as a pier still remains at a reasonable level. At a settlement of 10mm, which is 10% of the least lateral dimension of the raft, the pile group takes 60 % of the total load. 3.1.2 Time settlement behaviour of model piled raft Typical time settlement plot for three model piled raft of 4, 9 & 16 number of piles of 100 mm length and model raft is presented in Fig. 3. The settlements of the piled raft are shown for time period of approximately 48 hours. From the figures it may be seen that settlement of piled raft decreases with the increase in number of piles and time beyond 48 hours for the same intensity of pressure. Fig 4 represents the variation of load sharing ratio (pr) with settlement for L/B = 1 & 2. It can be seen that the value of pr in the initial stages is much higher and then falls rapidly with settlement and tend to become more or less constant as the settlement increases. This indicates that the proportion of load taken by the piles remain almost constant at higher settlement. This observation is in line with Horikoshi and Randolph (1996) and Turek and Katzenbach (2003). The rapid fall in the value of pr beyond a settlement of 1mm or more indicates that the piles are not effective in offering additional resistance against increase in load on the piled raft.
1 Load sharing ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 Settlem ent (m m ) n=4 n=9 n=16 15

L/deq = 1
Load sharing ratio

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

L/deq =2

n=4 n=9 n=16 5 10 Settlem ent (m m ) 15

Fig...4 Load sharing ratio (pr) V/s settlement

3.2

Analytical validation

Simplified analysis method A simplified method of constructing the load settlement curve for piled raft has been described by Polous Davis (1980). This method utilizes the elastic solution and assumes that for loading under undrained conditions; purely elastic conditions prevail up to the load at which the piles would fail if no cap were present. Thereafter, it is assumed that any additional load is taken entirely by the raft and that the additional settlement of the system is then given by settlement of the raft only. Consideration will be given first to estimation of loadversus-immediate settlement curves for piles in clay. Consolidation settlements in clay will be considered subsequently. The overall immediate settlement at a working load Pw is given by

ie = PA RG 0.5 1 +

0.947(PW PA ) 1 s B Eu

(2)

Where, 1= undrained settlement of a single pile under unit load B = width of raft & Eu = Young s modulus of soil

Where the first term represents the settlement of pile -raft system, calculated on an elastic basis of s =0.5, and the second term represents the settlement of the raft acting alone. This second term will only be operative if PW > PA, that is if the failure load of the piles is exceeded. In calculating consolidation settlement, it is assumed that consolidation process is not affected by any local yielding occurring under undrained conditions, so that the consolidation settlement, CF, is given by

87

CF = PW (RG ' 1TF RG 0.5 1i )

Where, 1TF = total final settlement of a single pile under unit load 1i = immediate settlement of a single pile under unit load RG = group reduction factor

(3)

Both 1TF and 1i may be obtained either from a pile loading test (the settlement per unit load, at the working load) or from the theoretical relationships. The total final settlement of the system is then the sum of the immediate settlement equation (2) taking account of possible pile slip) and the consolidation settlement i.e. equation (3)

1TF = PA RG 0.5 1 +
Where,

0.947(PW PA ) 1 s B Eu

) + P (R
W

G '

1TF RG 0.5 1i )

(4)

RG0.5 = the elastic value of RG for the pile-raft system for s= u=0.5 R G = the elastic value of RG for s= s which may be estimated by using equation 6

RG 0 S RG = 1+ 1 1 RG 0.5 RG 0.5 0.5

(5)

The settlement behaviour of model piled raft foundation were computed with the aid of a computer spreadsheet and compared with model test piled raft results for three pile spacing as shown in Fig .5.

3 S ettlem en t (m m ) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 4 9 Number of piles (n)

L/deq=1 ( Theor.) L/deq=1 (Measrd.) L/deq=2 (Theor.) L/deq=2 (Measrd.)

16

Fig.5 Comparison of measured and theoretical settlement of piled raft

4 Parametric Study on settlement reduction ratio (Sr ) and Load sharing ratio (pr)
In order to provide better understanding of the load sharing between the piles and raft of piled raft system in clay, the concept of equivalent pier proposed by Poulos and Davis (1980) and further improvement over the same by Horikoshi and Randolph (1998) was adopted in this study as shown in Fig.6. The equivalent pier modulus (Eeq) and pier slenderness ratio ( L/deq) are used to study settlement reduction ratio, Sr and load sharing ratio pr.

88

The settlement reduction ratio,

Sr =

r pr r

(6 )

Where r and pr are the settlements of raft and piled raft respectively for the given load.

Load sharing ratio,

pr =

Pgr Ppr

(7)

Where, Pgr and Ppr are the total load taken by the pile group and the total load on piled raft respectively
corresponding to a particular settlement. The equivalent pier diameter, deq is computed as

d eq =
The equivalent pier modulus, Eeq is defined as

Ag

(8)

Eeq = E S + [E P E S ]

Atp Ag

(9)

Where Ep is the Youngs modulus of pile, Es is the Youngs modulus of the soil layer, Atp is the total cross sectional area of the piles in the group and Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the pile group

Fig. 6 Concept of equivalent pier method

4.1 Effect of pile length

Effect of length of pile on settlement reduction ratio Sr and load sharing ratio pr has been studied through pier slenderness ratio, L/deq .The settlement reduction ratio for the pile diameter of 10 mm and 4, 9, & 16 numbers of piles tested in artificially consolidated clay is presented in Fig 7 for various pier slenderness ratios. The results presented here are for the working load of 250 N and 400 N. The settlement reduction ratio increases with increase in L/deq ratio and is independent of values of working load. Fig 8 demonstrates the load sharing between pile and raft with pier slenderness ratio. The load sharing factor pr also increases as L/deq ratio increases.
Working Load = 250N 1
Settlement reduction
Settelment reduction

Working Load = 400N

1 0.8 0.6 ratio 0.4 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Pier slenderness ratio n =4 n =9 n =16

0.8 0.6
ratio

0.4 0.2 0 0.5 1.5

n =4 n =9 n =16

2.5

Pier slenderness ratio

Fig.7 Pier slenderness ratio V/s settlement reduction ratio for different no. of pile groups

89

Settlement = 1mm
Load sharing ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Pier slenderness ratio 2.5 n=4 n=9 n=16
Load sharing ratio

Settlement = 10mm
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 n=4 n=9 n=16

Pier slenderness ratio

Fig.8 Pier slenderness ratio V/s Load sharing ratio for different no. of pile groups

4.2

Effect of number of piles

In the present study, piled raft width of 100 mm is used and piles are arranged in three different configurations by changing number of the piles to study the effect of number of piles (n) on settlement reduction as well as load sharing factor. The equivalent pier modulus was used here to demonstrate the effect of number of piles on settlement reduction ratio as well as load sharing factor, which are as shown in Figs 9 and 10. Here as the number of piles increases the settlement reduction ratio also increases but the relative change in Sr is marginal for number of piles more than 9. Similar trend was seen in the case of load sharing factor. This indicates that if number of piles is more than certain value the increase in efficiency of piled raft in reducing settlement as well as sharing the load by the pile is marginal.

Working Load = 250 N

1

Working Load = 400 N

Settlement Reduction Ratio

Settlement Reduction Ratio

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30

2

L/d =1 L/d=2

L/d =1 L/d =2

Equivalent Pier Modulus Eeq kN/mm2

10

20

30

40

40

Equivalent Pier Modulus Eeq kN/mm

Fig.9 Equivalent pier modulus (Eeq) V/s settlement reduction ratio (Sr) for pier slenderness ratio

L/deq =1
Load sharing ratio
Load sharing ratio 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30
2

L / deq =2
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30
2

s=1m m s=10m m 40

s=1m m s=10 m m 40

Equivalent pier m odulus Eeq kN/m m

Equivalent pier m odulus Eeq kN/m m

Fig. 10 Equivalent pier modulus (Eeq) V/s load sharing ratio for settlement of 1mm & 10 mm

5 Conclusion
Through 1g model tests on piled raft in soft clay the influence of pile parameters such as length and number of piles on load sharing and settlement reduction are brought out through equivalent pier concept of Poulos and Davis (1980). Among the parameters investigated, the load sharing and control on settlement are more influenced by the length of the pile. Simplified calculation method suggested by Poulos & Davis (1980) helps to compute the relationship between the number of piles and the average settlement of the foundation. Such calculations provide a rapid means of assessing whether the design philosophies for creep piling or full pile capacity utilization are likely to be feasible with experimental load settlement response.

90

6 References
Akinmusuru, J. O. 1980. Interaction of piles and cap in piled rafts. ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT11, 1263-1268 Hain, S. J., & I. K. LEE.1978. The analysis of flexible raft-piles systems. Geotechnique 28, No.1, 65-83

Horikoshi, K. and Randolph. M.F. 1998. A contribution to optimum design of Piled rafts, Geotechnique, 48(3), 301-317 Randolph, M.F. 1994. Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. XIII Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, 5, 61-82 Poulos.H.G. and Davis.E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and design. NewYork: Wiley.

91