Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1996). Geotechnique 46, No.
4, 741752
Centrifuge modelling of piled raft foundations on clay
K . H O R I KO S H I  a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H 
Centrifuge tests of model piled raft foundations
were performed to examine the role of a small
centred pile group in reducing the settlement of
the raft. Particular attention was paid to the
differential settlement across the raft and the
load transferred to the pile group during
unloadreload cycles. The results were com-
pared with those of a fully piled raft designed
by a conventional method, where any contribu-
tion of raft or pile cap was ignored. The test
results showed a high level of consistency despite
the small magnitude of settlements observed in
the models. It was found that even a small pile
group could reduce the differential settlement of
the raft signicantly, in spite of rather low loads
being transferred to the pile group. Loading
tests were also performed on single piles with
and without small pile caps. The results showed
that a small cap could increase the total bearing
capacity signicantly, because of the transfer of
load to the soil through the cap.
KEYWORDS: centrifuge modelling; piles; rafts; settle-
ment; soilstructure interaction.
INTRODUCTION
In most conventional designs for piled foundations,
the required number of piles is decided assuming
that all load must be carried by the piles, ignoring
any contribution from the raft or the pile cap, even
though competent soil conditions may exist beneath
the raft. This conservative approach appears to be
due to limited understanding of the interactions of
the pile group and raft with the soil, and the
scarcity of validated methods of analysis for this
complex three-dimensional problem. Consequently,
conventional approaches generally result in the
installation of more piles than are necessary, which
automatically leads to much lower levels of overall
settlement than could be tolerated by the structure.
Manuscript received 3 April 1995; revised manuscript
accepted 1 September 1995.
Discussion on this paper closes 3 March 1997; for further
details see p. ii.
 Taise: Corporation (formerly University of Western
Australia, Perth.
741
Des essais ont ete menes sur des modeles
centrifuges de radiers fondes sur pieux. Ils ont
pour but de rendre compte du role que peut
avoir un petit groupe de pieux sur la reduction
du tassement de ces radiers. Une attention
particuliere a ete portee aux tassements differ-
entiels affectant le radier et au transfert de
charges sur ce groupe de pieux durant les cycles
de chargement-dechargement. Ces resultats sont
compares a ceux obtenus pour des radiers
entierement fondes sur pieux selon la methode
traditionnelle qui ne tient compte, ni de la
contribution de radier, ni de celle des casques
des pieux. Les resultats de ces essais montrent
une forte uniformite malgre la faible amplitude
des tassements observes sur les modeles. Nous
avons trouve qu'un petit groupe de pieux peut
reduire de facon signicative le tassement
differentiel, bien que peu de charge soit
transfere sur le groupe de pieux. Les tests de
chargement ont aussi ete effectues sur des pieux
isoles avec ou sans casque. Les resultats mont-
rent qu'un petit casque peut augmenter la
capacite de chargement de maniere signicative,
ceci etant du au transfert de la charge au sol
par l'intermediaire de ce casque.
In reality, the contribution from the raft or pile cap
can be signicant, as pointed out by Whitaker
(1961) and Cooke (1986). From the point of view of
economy, the settlement of the foundation should be
controlled to an acceptable level rather than
suppressed entirely.
The term `settlement reducing piles' originates
from Burland, Broms & de Mello (1977). They
suggested that the spacing of the piles within a
group could be large, since only a small number
of piles would be required to reduce the raft
settlement, and the settlement of these piles would
be sufcient to mobilize close to their full
capacities. Padeld & Sharrock (1983) also dis-
cussed an economical design of a pile raft system
which made use of settlement reducing piles. They
suggested that a stiff response should be consid-
ered in the central area of the raft and a much
softer response at the periphery of the raft, through
the example of a brief case study.
More recently, the use of a pile group only in
the central area of a exible raft was proposed by
742 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH
Fleming, Weltman, Randolph & Elson (1992) and
Randolph (1994). Randolph suggested that even a
relatively exible raft could undergo minimal
differential settlement, provided that an optimum
piled raft was designed. The new design concept is
shown schematically in Fig. 1. The distribution of
the contact pressure beneath a rigid raft on an
elastic soil is well known, as illustrated in Fig.
1(a). If this contact pressure distribution can be
deliberately generated beneath a exible raft which
is subjected to uniform loading, the differential
settlement of the raft can be reduced signicantly.
This can be achieved by installing a small pile
group in the central area of the raft, reducing the
raft contact pressure in that zone (Fig. 1(b)).
Fortunately, recent development of numerical
approaches has given detailed information on the
performance of relatively large piled raft founda-
tions (e.g. Hain & Lee, 1978; Chow & Teh, 1991;
Clancy 1993). Full interactions among the compo-
nents can be considered with some of the advanced
techniques, such as that developed by Clancy
(1993).
Field observations of the performance of piled
rafts such as reported by Kakurai, Yamashita &
Tomono (1987) and Yamashita, Kakuria & Yamada
(1994) are currently increasing in number. How-
ever, due to the complexity of the site boundary
Rigid raft
Contact pressure
Applied uniform load
Load carried by piles
(a)
Fig. 1. Principle of settlement reducing piles: (a) rigid raft; (b) exible raft with small central pile group
Table 1. Similarity rules for 1/N centrifuge model
Quantity Ratio Quantity
For all events Density
Length 1/N Gravity
Stress 1 Strain
For diffusion events Time
 Ratio: model value/prototype value.
conditions, it is not easy to develop empirically a
design method for such `settlement reducing piles'
that can be applicable to other sites.
The present research is aimed at developing a
rational design method of piled raft foundations, in
terms of the differential settlement. As the rst
step to this end, a series of centrifuge models were
tested to examine the role of settlement reducing
piles. The main focus of the tests was on the
differential settlement of the raft and the load
transferred to the piles.
CENTRIFUGE MODELLING
The centrifuge used for the present research is
installed at The University of Western Australia.
This facility comprises an Acutronic Model 661
with a platform radius of 18 m and a total
capacity of 40g t, as described by Randolph,
Jewell, Stone & Brown (1991). A model scale of
1/100 was used with a nominal centrifugal accel-
eration of 100g. Note that all results are presented
at model scale; these can be converted to prototype
scale by use of the scaling factors in Table 1.
In total, six centrifuge tests were performed to
examine the behaviour of piled rafts. The general
centrifuge package designed for the tests is shown
in Fig. 2. The performances of the piled raft and
Flexible raft
Applied uniform load
Pile group
(b)
Ratio Quantity Ratio
3
1 Mass 1/N
2
N Force 1/N
1 Stiffness 1/N
2
1/N 2 Strain rate N
 MODELLING OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Displacement transducers
Water supply
150 mm
Tank
Standpipe CPT Fine sand
250 mm
Pile group
Kaolin
Bottom sand
Valve
Drained water
Fig. 2. General section of centrifuge package
the unpiled raft were compared at the same time
in the same package. Although the piled rafts
considered here have a wide variety of applications
to actual structures, it was considered convenient
to use thin-walled cylindrical steel tins (such as are
used for paint) in the models. The model circular
raft (i.e. base of the tank) is made of steel with a
thickness of 025 mm. This implies that the base of
the tank simulates an extremely exible raft, which
is equivalent to a concrete raft with a thickness of
less than 50 mm at prototype scale. The diameter
of the raft is 140 mm (14 m at prototype scale) and
the height of the tank is 150 mm (15 m). The tanks
were loaded by adding and draining water in-ight.
Water pressures applied to the rafts were measured
with miniature pore-water pressure transducers.
The raft settlements were measured with high
resolution (about 0003 mm) displacement trans-
ducers (RS Linear Position Sensor). One displace-
ment transducer was positioned over the centre of
the model raft. Generally two more transducers
were also used, diametrically opposed, on the side
wall. The average value of these two was taken as
the edge settlement of the raft. The total weight of
the transducer rods was negligible compared with
the self-weight of the model foundations. The
movement of the soil surface was measured with a
laser displacement transducer set between the two
tanks.
Commercially available kaolin clay was pre-
pared in a rectangular strong box (325 mm deep,
390 mm wide and 650 mm long) in the same
manner throughout the centrifuge tests. Care was
taken to reduce wall friction by using domestic
cling-wrap and grease. Before each centrifuge test,
the clay was consolidated one-dimensionally in
several steps, up to a uniform vertical stress of
300 kPa. The density of the clay was 175 kN/m3 ,
the coefcient of permeability was 44  1010 m/s
and the void ratio was 105 at the end of pre-
consolidation. The uniformity and consistency of
the soil strength were checked with several
investigation techniques, such as miniature in-ight
cone penetration tests, portable vane tests and in-
743
ight T-bar penetration tests, described in detail by
Stewart (1992).
A layer of 16/30 graded sand (nominal particle
size 0510 mm), with a thickness of 25 mm, was
used for bottom drainage. A surface layer of 50/
100 graded sand (nominal particle size of 0075 to
03 mm) with a thickness of 5 mm was placed on
the clay after the end of the 1g consolidation, in
order to prevent the clay surface from softening
to a slurry condition during the centrifuge tests.
The average particle size d50 of the surface sand
is 025 mm, which compares with the pile cap
diameter of 10 mm. Ovesen (1979) reported that
no scale effect was observed for footing models
with diameters of more than 30d50 . Therefore it
was considered that any scale effect of the surface
sand on the behaviour of the pile cap was
negligible.
Details of the model piles are shown in Fig. 3.
The piles were made of tubular brass with an
outside diameter of 315 mm and an inside
diameter of 245 mm. The piles closely represent
the axial stiffness of solid concrete piles of
315 mm diameter. At the top of the pile, a 1 mm
thick circular cap of diameter 10 mm was rigidly
attached. Strain gauges were placed at the top of
the shaft on several piles, in order to measure the
axial force transferred to the piles. The position of
the instrumented piles was chosen so that at least
one pile was instrumented for each relative
position in the group (assuming symmetry). All
the piles were installed to a depth of 150 mm in
the soil. Groups of 5 piles, 9 piles, 21 piles and 69
piles were modelled for the piled raft models.
As is shown below, the average shear strength of
the clay below the raft was about 40 kPa, and the
10 mm
Pile cap (solid brass)
1 mm
5 mm
Fine sand
Strain gauges
Kaolin
Epoxy coating
Pile shaft
Brass tube
Outside diameter = 3.15 mm
Inside diameter = 2.45 mm
Shaft length 150 mm
Side view Cross section
Fig. 3. Instrumented model pile
744 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

single pile capacity was approximately 32 N. Thus,
the bearing capacity of the raft alone can be
estimated as 3700 N, compared with the maximum
applied load of 2100 N. All foundations therefore
have an adequate factor of safety against failure of
the combined raft and pile group. The largest pile
group, with 69 piles, was adopted to represent a
conventional foundation design, where the bearing
capacity of the raft is ignored. However, the factor
of safety based on the pile group alone is then
only about unity, compared with a more typical
value of 2 to 25.
TEST SERIES
Details of each test are given in Table 2. The
rst test was carried out by applying a monotonic
load to the unpiled raft. From the second test,
unloadreload cycles were applied to the models.
The third and fourth tests were basically the same,
repeated to check the consistency of the results.
The settlement of the model, especially the differ-
ential settlement, was extremely small in absolute
terms, even for the unpiled raft. It was thought
very important to distinguish general variations,
arising from experimental error, from meaningful
differences. After checking the consistency of the
results, the loading tests of the other piled rafts
supported by 21 piles and 69 piles were conducted.
The pile arrangement beneath each piled raft
is shown in Fig. 4, with the instrumented pile
locations indicated. The instrumented piles were
located so that the total load transferred to the pile
group could be determined. A raft supported by 5
piles was loaded in test 2. However, small tilting
of the raft caused errors in the measured settle-
ment, and therefore results from this test are not
shown. From the third test, two displacement
transducers were set on the edge of the side wall
at opposite extremes, to minimize the effect of any
tilting on the displacement measurements.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Before centrifuge tests
Full details of the procedures have been
described by Horikoshi (1995), and only a brief
summary is presented here. The clay sample was
consolidated at 1g from a slurry with a water
content of 120%. Before applying the nal load

Table 2. Centrifuge tests of piled raft foundations

Test Main loading tests Load type Supplementary tests

(number of piles for piled raft)

1 Unpiled raft Monotonic SPLT, CPT, VST

2 Piled raft (9) and piled raft (5) Cyclic CPT, VST
3 Piled raft (9) and unpiled raft Cyclic SPLT, CPT, VST
4 Piled raft (9) and unpiled raft Cyclic SPLT, CPT, VST
5 Piled raft (21) and unpiled raft Cyclic SPLT, CPT, VST
6 Piled raft (69) Cyclic SPLT, CPT, VST, BPT
 SPLT, single pile loading tests on capped pile and uncapped pile in-ight; CPT, Cone penetration test in-ight; VST,
vane shear tests after centrifuge test; BPT, T-bar penetration tests in-ight.

25 25 20 10 4 at 15 = 60

25
140

(a) (b) (c)

Instrumented pile

Fig. 4. Pile group arrangement for each piled raft (dimensions in mm): (a) n 9; (b) n 21; (c) n 69
 MODELLING OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS
increment during the preconsolidation, six minia-
ture pore-water pressure transducers were generally
installed in the soil.
Piles were installed one-by-one at 1g at a
jacking rate of about 05 mm/s. It has long been
recognized that piles should be installed in-ight
for an accurate simulation of prototype behaviour.
Craig (1984) discussed the effects of centrifuge
acceleration level at the time of pile installation on
the capacity in sand. He argued that if piles were
installed at lower accelerations, the following stress
increase due to self-weight could overcome the
initial increase in horizontal stress around piles due
to installation, and this could lead to signicant
reduction in pile capacity. However, in the present
research piles were installed at 1g since the main
aim of the study was to compare the relative
performance of piled and unpiled rafts. Differences
in pile capacity arising from the method of instal-
lation are largely irrelevant, provided that the
actual capacity of the piles is ascertained.
Reconsolidation and single pile loading tests
After removing the clay sample from the
consolidation press and allowing about one day
for further preparation, the package was spun on
the centrifuge to allow reconsolidation under self-
weight. It should be noted that the model rafts
were placed on the soil not during this stage, but
after the reconsolidation. During the reconsolida-
tion, pore-water pressures and settlement of the
soil were monitored. About 15 h was required for
the reconsolidation, equivalent to 17 years in the
prototype. After conrming the end of reconsoli-
dation, individual capped and uncapped piles, at
some distance from the main foundations, were
loaded in-ight at a constant rate of penetration
(CRP). Horikoshi (1995) gives full details of the
position of each pile and other test locations.
Model raft placement and main loading test
After the single pile loading tests were nished,
the centrifuge was stopped and one (for test 1 and
test 6) or two (for tests 25) rafts were placed on
the soil surface. At the same time, minimal water
with a height of about 25 mm ( 25 kPa at 100g)
was poured into each tank. This was to keep the
pore-water pressure transducer in the tank im-
mersed. The displacement transducers were also
positioned on the rafts. The total (average) pressure
applied by the tank and water during this phase
was 42 kPa, although about 40% of the total load
was concentrated at the edges of the raft.
The centrifuge was then re-started to allow
further reconsolidation with the additional weight
of the raft. At least 10 h (11 years in prototype)
was required to reconsolidate the soil. The dissi-
745
pation of excess pore water pressure, settlement of
the soil and model rafts, and changes in pile forces
were monitored during this stage. The applied
water pressures inside the tanks were maintained at
25 kPa throughout the reconsolidation time, adding
additional water to compensate for evaporation.
After making sure that the soil was fully con-
solidated, two or three cone penetration tests, and
also T-bar penetration tests in test 6, were con-
ducted.
The main loading tests of the model foundations
were then performed. Water was poured into the
rafts through a uid slipring at a rate of about
08 kPa/s ( 0012 l/s), which is equivalent to
7 kPa/day at prototype scale. In all tests except
test 1, the water was drained through a valve (see
Fig. 2) at about the same rate, before relling the
tanks. The maximum additional pressure applied to
the foundations was about 95 kPa (15 kN, thus
15 MN at prototype scale), excluding the initial
25 kPa of water pressure. During the main loading
tests, settlement of the rafts, axial forces in the
piles and excess pore water pressures in the soil
were observed. The nal loading (total water
pressure of 120 kPa) was maintained for about
6 h to allow full consolidation of the soil beneath
the model rafts.
Portable vane tests were conducted after stop-
ping the centrifuge. Soil samples were also taken
to examine the water content. Note that a time
delay of approximately 1520 min occurred before
starting these tests after beginning to ramp down
the centrifuge from 100g.
SOIL STRENGTH
At 100g, the soil sample was overconsolidated
throughout its depth (Fig. 5). The proles of cone
resistance were very consistent throughout the
series of tests. The diameter of the cone was
9 mm and the cone was penetrated at a rate of
3 mm/s. Undrained shear strength su of the clay
OCR
1 10 100
0
50
Depth: mm
100
150
200
250
Fig. 5. Variation of overconsolidation ratio with depth
746 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

can be deduced from the cone tip resistance qc by
su (qc v )=N c
where v is the total overburden stress and Nc is the
cone factor. Nc was recommended as 12 by Stewart
(1992) for the same kaolin, but for an over-
consolidation ratio (OCR) in the range of 1 to 4.
Soil strength can also be estimated from a T-bar
penetration test, where a short cylinder is pushed
into the soil (Stewart & Randolph, 1991). The soil
strength is linked to the applied penetration force P
by
P=su d t Lt N t
where dt is the diameter of the cylinder ( 7 mm),
Lt is the length ( 35 mm) and Nt is a constant,
taken as 105 (Stewart & Randolph, 1991). The T-
bar was penetrated at a constant rate of 3 mm/s.
The strengths from the penetration tests and the
portable vane tests from test 6 are compared in
Fig. 6. Note that the comparison with other tests
showed the same trends as Fig. 6. From the gure,
the following trends can be seen.
(a) The strength estimated by the CPT with
Nc 12 is lower than that from the vane and
T-bar tests, particularly at shallower depths, i.e.
in soil with higher OCR. A smaller value of Nc
(about 11) may be more appropriate for this
region.
(b) The estimated strength from the CPT increases
almost linearly with depth, while the other
estimations show more curved proles with
depth.
(c) The strength estimated from the T-bar penetra-
tion test is close to the strength by the portable
vane, although the T-bar result could not cover
the full depth due to insufcient capacity of
the load cell.
Davies & Parry (1982) reported that vane results
obtained after centrifuge testing might underesti-
mate the strength of 50% to 60%. However, the
results shown in Fig. 6 do not appear to show such
a large drop in strength. It is considered that the
(1)
relatively short elapsed time between starting to
ramp down the centrifuge and conducting the vane
tests (approximately 1520 min), and the lower
permeability of the kaolin used here (44  1010
m/s compared with 25  109 m/s, see Davies &
Parry (1982)), mean that the present vane tests
give a much truer estimate of shear strength. From
the vane results, the following equation was
obtained by a regression analysis
su 0
225v 9(OCR)0
73 (3)
(2)
where v 9 is the effective vertical stress. This
compares with the expression by Stewart (1992) for
the same kaolin but for OCR , 4
su 0
185v 9(OCR)0
85 (4)
It is also convenient to derive an approximate linear
prole of the soil strength. Another regression
analysis shows that the following prole is best
tted to the vane results
su (kPa) 33 1
2zp (m) (5)
where zp is the depth (m) at prototype scale.
Equations (3) to (5) are illustrated in Fig. 6.
LOADING TESTS ON SINGLE PILES
Uncapped pile
The capabilities of individual uncapped piles
were very consistent throughout the tests, and a
typical result from test 4 is shown in Fig. 7. The
total capacity of the pile was considered to be
approximately 32 N (320 kN at prototype scale)
from all the results. However, an effect of a poor
contact between the pushing rod and the pile top
on the loadsettlement curve was observed during
the initial stage of the loading.
In examining single pile capacity, penetration
rate is an important variable that can affect the
result, as discussed by Nunez & Randolph (1984).

Load: N
Undrained shear strength: kPa
0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40
0 0.0

Equation (3) 0.5

50
Settlement: mm

Vane 1.0
Depth: mm

100
CPT (Nc = 12) 1.5
150 T-bar (Nt = 10.5)
2.0
Equation (5)
200 2.5
Equation (4)
250 3.0

Fig. 6. Variation of undrained shear strength with Fig. 7. Loadsettlement curve for uncapped pile
depth (test 6) (test 4)
 MODELLING OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS 747
In the present research penetration rate was Total applied load: N
generally set at 001 mm/s, which may be rather 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
low compared with the general loading rate used in
the eld, as discussed by Horikoshi (1995). It was
considered that the pile penetration was performed 2 Test 1

Settlement: mm
in a drained condition.
Pile head stiffness (load divided by settlement) Test 3
4
may be one of the most important parameters in
designing piled foundations. From the initial linear Test 4

portion of the loadsettlement curves (excluding 6

Test 5
the portion of poor contact), the stiffness of the
uncapped piles was estimated to be 350520 N/mm
(average value of 420 N/mm, i.e. 42 MN/m at 8
(a)
prototype scale) from all the test results.
By assuming the capacity of uncapped piles to
be 32 N, the safety factor against bearing failure Load transferred to shaft: N

for the piled raft (n 69) is calculated as Fs 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

32  69/2100 105 based on a conventional

method that ignores the contribution of the raft,
where 2100 N is the nal load applied to the 2 Test 1
model.
Settlement: mm

An attempt was also made to estimate the shaft Test 3

capacity of the uncapped pile by using a semi-
empirical approach. The end bearing capacity was
estimated to be about 3 N at model scale by
applying a limit pressure of 9su . The shaft friction
was estimated by the method proposed by
Randolph & Murphy (1985), giving a shaft capa-
city of 35 N. For simplicity, the effects of the
surface sand layer on the shaft capacity were
ignored in the estimation. The experimental shaft
capacity can be estimated as 29 N by subtracting
the estimated base capacity of 3 N from the
measured total capacity of 32 N. The estimated
shaft capacity of 35 N is higher than the observed
capacity by 20%. Much of this discrepancy may be
due to installation of the piles at 1g.
Capped pile
The loadsettlement curves of the individual
capped piles are summarized in Fig. 8(a). The total
capacity was at least 60 N, which was almost twice
as large as that of the uncapped pile. The gure
also shows that the total capacity of the capped
piles was not fully mobilized, although the settle-
ment reached nearly one cap diameter. The load
settlement curves were less consistent than those
for the uncapped piles. The capacity of the capped
piles seemed to be very sensitive to the conditions
of the surface sand layer, i.e. the thickness, density
and water level. These were difcult to reproduce
exactly during the series of the tests.
The load transferred to the pile shaft is shown
in Fig. 8(b). The capacity of the capped pile,
ignoring the cap, was at least 46 N which was,
interestingly, higher than that of the uncapped pile
(32 N). This may be due to an increase in both soil
strength and horizontal effective stress on the pile
4
Test 4
6 Test 5
8
(b)
Fig. 8. Loadsettlement curves for uncapped pile: (a)
total applied load; (b) load transferred to shaft
shaft just below the cap, due to the pressure under
the cap.
Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) presented a method
of estimating the capacity of circular footings
placed on sand overlying soft clay. This gives a
cap capacity of about 20 N, assuming that the soil
strength at the clay surface is 33 kPa (equation
(5)). By adding the cap capacity to the measured
load transfer to the shaft (46 N), the total capacity
of the capped piles can be estimated as 66 N. This
is in reasonable agreement with the experimental
results.
The stiffness of the capped piles is estimated
as 340660 N/mm (average value of 480 N/mm),
which is slightly higher than that for the uncapped
pile.
BEHAVIOUR OF MODEL FOUNDATIONS
Settlement during reconsolidation
Raft settlements during reconsolidation of the
soil were observed before starting the main loading
tests. The variations of the absolute raft settlements
with time are shown in Fig. 9. The soil surface
nally settled approximately 2 mm due to self-
weight reconsolidation. The relative settlement,
748 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

time: min time: min

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0

1
Settlement: mm

Soil Soil
2
Centre
3
Centre

4 Edge
Edge
5
(a) (b)

1
Soil
Soil
Settlement: mm

2
Edge
Centre Centre
3
Edge
4

5
(c) (d)

Fig. 9. Settlement of raft before main loading test: (a) unpiled raft (test 4); (b) piled raft (n 9, test 4); (c) piled
raft (n 21, test 5); (d) piled raft (n 69, test 6)

dened as the difference between the raft absolute time: min

settlement and the soil settlement, was signicantly 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.5
smaller in the fully piled raft (n 69) than in the
other piled rafts.
Differential settlement: mm

0.0
The variations of differential raft settlement with
time are summarized in Fig. 10. The differential n
0.5
settlement is dened as the difference between 0
the central and (average) edge settlement. Small 9
`negative' differential settlement was observed in 1.0 21
the behaviour of the centrally piled rafts (n 9 69
and n 21), although it was not seen for the 1.5
unpiled raft and the full piled raft (n 69). One
reason for the negative settlement is that nearly 2.0
40% of the total load was estimated to be
transferred to the soil through the raft edge Fig. 10. Differential settlement of raft before main
loading test
(because of the sides of the tanks); another is the
existence of the pile group only in the central area
of the exible raft. For the 21 and 69 pile groups,
higher pile loads were measured towards the edges Settlement during main loading test
of the group than in the centre, again indicative of The average settlements during the main loading
a concentration of load near the edges of the tests are summarized in Fig. 11. Note that the
foundation at this stage of loading (Horikoshi, average settlement is dened as the average of
1995). the central and edge settlement of the raft. The
 MODELLING OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS 749
Applied pressure: kPa Applied pressure: kPa
0 20 40 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0 0.0
0.1 n
Average settlement: mm

0.1
0.2 0
0.2
0.3 9
0.4 21 0.3
0.5 69
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7

0.6
Fig. 11. Average settlement of raft during loading
test (a)

behaviour of the piled raft (n 9) is very close

to that of the unpiled raft, while the average 0.3
settlement of the fully piled raft (n 69) is small. Differential settlement: mm
All the loadsettlement curves indicate highly non- 0.2
linear response from the beginning of the loading 0.1
and also, with the exception of the 69 pile
foundation, a tendency to creep at the higher load 0.0
levels.
The differential settlements are compared in 0.1
Fig. 12. The differential settlement of the unpiled 0.2
rafts reached 04 mm (40 mm at prototype scale),
while those of all the piled rafts were within 0.3
601 mm (610 mm). It is of particular interest that
the differential settlement of the piled raft (n 9) (b)

is much smaller than that of the unpiled raft, even

though the average settlements were essentially
similar in the two models. The differential settle-
ments of the piled rafts (n 21 and n 69) were 0.3
about 5 mm at most at prototype scale, and may be
considered negligible. 0.2
It should be kept in mind that the piled raft
0.1 n = 69
(n 69) was designed to satisfy a safety factor of
about unity against bearing failure, based on a 0.0
conventional design method ignoring any contribu-
tion from the raft and cap. However, the settlement 0.1 n = 21
of this piled raft was very small, for the following
0.2
reasons.
0.3
(a) The capacity of the piles installed beneath
the raft was estimated from single uncapped (c)

pile loading tests. However, the results from

the loading tests on the single capped piles
indicated a considerably higher capacity.
(b) Any increase in soil strength beneath the raft
was ignored. The installation of many piles in
the soil, and load transferred from the raft, will
lead to signicant consolidation of the soil
beneath the raft.
(c) The bearing effect of the raft was ignored.
However, the raft will play a very important
role in the bearing behaviour, especially when
the pile spacing is large.
Fig. 12. Differential settlement of raft during loading
test: (a) unpiled raft (tests 1, 3, 4, 5): (b) piled raft
(n 9, tests 2, 3, 4); (c) piled raft (n 21 and 69, tests
5, 6)
Pile force change during main loading test
Changes in total pile force (summed over all
piles) during the main loading stage are shown in
Fig. 13 for all the piled rafts. The total pile force
does not appear to reach an ultimate value.
750 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

300 30

250 25 Test 3

200 20 Test 4

150 15
Test 3

100 10
Test 4
50 5

0 0
600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400
(a) (a)

1000 100

800 Load transferred to pile shaft: % 80

Total pile shaft load: N

600 60

400 40

20
200

0 0
600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400
(b) (b)

2400 160
140
2100
120
1800 100

1500 80

60
1200
40
900 20

600 0
600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400
(c) (c) Total applied load: N
Total applied load: N

Fig. 13. Total load transferred to piles: (a) piled raft
(n 9); (b) piled raft (n 21); (c) piled raft (n 69)
However, taking the pile capacity as 46 N (from
the test on the isolated capped pile), approximately
70% (n 9) and 95% (n 21) of the total pile
capacity was mobilized at maximum load. The
total load transferred to the pile group is summa-
rized as a percentage in Fig. 14. Although the piles
for the piled raft (n 9) carried about 25% of the
total load initially, this decreased to about 15%. As
Fig. 14. Percentage load transferred to piles: (a) piled
raft (n 9); (b) piled raft (n 21); (c) piled raft
(n 69)
for the piled raft (n 21), the piles carried 80%
of the total load initially and this decreased to
about 45%. The total load for the piled raft
(n 69) appears to be greater than 100%. This
was considered to be due to errors in summing
individual loads, since only one key pile was used
for each position in the group for this test. It may
 MODELLING OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS
be concluded, though, that virtually 100% of the
applied load was transferred to the pile group for
the fully piled raft (n 69).
As the loading test progressed, the proportion of
the load transferred to the piles decreased in all
the piled rafts. This means that the relative
stiffness of the pile group to the soil decreased,
partly because non-linearity of the pile group
response caused a reduction in overall stiffness of
the pile group, and partly because consolidation of
the soil immediately beneath the raft led to an
increase in the soil modulus.
CONCLUSIONS
The role of a small centred pile group in
reducing the differential settlement of a raft
foundation was examined. In total, six main
centrifuge tests were performed to observe the
settlement of unpiled and piled rafts on clay, and
highly consistent results were obtained.
The results of the single pile loading tests
showed that the total capacity of the capped pile
was signicantly higher than that for the uncapped
pile. This was partly due to the presence of a thin
sand layer on top of the clay. It was also found
that the pile itself had a higher bearing capacity
for the capped case, presumably due to increased
horizontal effective stress acting on the pile shaft.
The loading tests of the piled raft supported by
as few as nine piles showed a great advantage in
terms of differential settlement. The differential
settlement of this central piled raft was less than
30% of that for the unpiled raft, although the
average settlement was similar for the two. This
indicates that a signicant reduction in the differ-
ential settlement was achieved by using only about
13% of the required number of piles determined
using a conventional design approach. Under the
nal foundation load, the piles were loaded to
about 70% of the capacity estimated from inde-
pendent tests on single (capped) piles, and there
was no evidence of any marked increases in
differential settlement at high load level. The
conventionally designed fully piled raft gave very
small average and differential settlements.
The tests reported here demonstrate the princi-
ple of settlement reducing piles, and their effec-
tiveness at reducing differential settlements. The
results can also be used to validate analytical
methods in design of piled rafts. A further paper
covering this aspect of the study is in preparation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful acknowledgement is made of the
excellent technical support by the UWA centrifuge
team, in particular Dr Kevin Stone and Mr Josh
751
White (manager), Mr Don Herley (operator) and
Mr Clem Ryan (instrumentation). The authors
would also like to express sincere appreciation to
Taisei Corporation in Japan for nancial assistance
to the rst author, who is employed by that
company.
REFERENCES
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & de Mello, V. F. B. (1977).
Behaviour of foundations and structures. Proc. 9th
Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. Tokyo 2, 495546.
Chow, Y. K. & Teh, C. I. (1991). Pile-cappile-group
interaction in nonhomogeneous soil. J. Geotech.
Engng Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs 117, No. 11, 16551668.
Clancy, P. (1993). Numerical analysis of piled raft
foundations. PhD thesis, The University of Western
Australia, Perth.
Cooke, R. W. (1986). Piled raft foundations on stiff
claysa contribution to design philosophy. Geotech-
nique 36, No. 2, 169203.
Craig, W. H. (1984). Installation Studies for Model Piles.
Proceedings of symposium on the application of
centrifuge modelling to geotechnical design, Man-
chester, pp. 440455.
Davies, M. C. R. & Parry, R. H. G. (1982). Determining
the shear strength of clay cakes in the centrifuge
using a vane. Geotechnique 32, No. 1, 5962.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. &
Elson, W. K. (1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edn.
New York: Wiley.
Hain, S. J. & Lee, I. K. (1978). The analysis of exible
pile-raft systems. Geotechnique 28, No. 1, 6583.
Hanna, A. M. & Meyerhof, G. G. (1980). Design charts
for ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on sand
overlying soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 17, 300303.
Horikoshi, K. (1995). Optimum design of piled raft
foundations. PhD thesis, The University of Western
Australia, Perth.
Kakurai, M., Yamashita, K. & Tomono, M. (1987).
Settlement behavior of piled raft foundation on soft
ground. Proc. 8th Asian Regional Conf. Soil Mech., 1,
Kyoto: Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 373376.
Nunez, I. L. & Randolph, M. F. (1984). Tension pile
behaviour in claycentrifuge modelling technique.
Proceedings of symposium on the application of
centrifuge modelling to geotechnical design, Man-
chester, pp. 87102.
Ovesen, N. K. (1979). Discussion 9.3 on `The use of
physical models in design'. Proc. 7th Eur. Conf. Soil
Mech., Brighton 4, 319323.
Padeld, C. J. & Sharrock, M. J. (1983). Settlement of
structures on clay soils. Special publication 27,
Construction Industry Research and Information Insti-
tute, London.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile group
and pile rafts. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., New
Delhi 5, 6182.
Randolph, M. F., Jewell, R. J., Stone, K. J. L. & Brown,
T. A. (1991). Establishing a new centrifuge facility.
Proc. Centrifuge 91, Boulder Colorado. Rotterdam:
Balkema 39.
Randolph, M. F. & Murphy, B. S. (1985). Shaft capacity
752 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

of driven piles in clay. Proceedings of offshore
technology conference. Houston, pp. 371378.
Stewart, D. P. (1992). Lateral loading of piled bridge
abutments due to embankment construction. PhD
thesis, The University of Western Australia, Perth.
Stewart, D. P. & Randolph, M. F. (1991). A new site
investigation tool for centrifuge. Proc. Centrifuge 91,
531538. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Whitaker T. (1961). Some experiments on model piled
foundations in clay. Proc. Symp. Pile Foundations, 6th
Int. Congr. Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Engng, Stock-
holm, 124139.
Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M. & Yamada, T. (1994).
Investigation of a piled raft foundation on stiff clay.
Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., New Delhi,
543546.