Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
17.1. Introduction
The use of piles as settlement reducers is effective for controlling the total and differen-
tial settlements of a raft that already has an adequate bearing capacity. In this way, a
much smaller number of piles than that calculated by conventional design methods is
often adequate for reducing the raft settlement to an acceptable limit.
It is common practice for pile heads to be structurally connected with, or to penetrate
into, the raft to form a rigid connection. These piles act as structural members that not
only have to provide an adequate geotechnical bearing capacity in support of the super-
structure, but also require an acceptable factor of safety against structural failure.
Suitable connections between the piles and the raft are required to transmit the applied
load to the piles. For this purpose, the attachment of the pile heads to the raft or pile cap
may include dowel bars for reinforced concrete piles, and capping plates (Figure 17.1)
for steel piles with an adequate embedded length in the raft [17.1]. The thickness of the
raft near the piles needs to be sufficient to prevent punching failure and to ensure the
effective transmission of vertical load. Furthermore, the connection must be adequate for
resisting horizontal loads.
Plate
Mild steel
bars
(a) (b)
Figure 17.1. Capping for steel piles, after Tomlinson [17.1]: (a) hexangonal piles;
(b) H-section piles
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
470 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
In conventional piled raft design, the number of piles is normally large and the load
carried by each individual pile is relatively small. There is a high safety margin before
the piles reach their ultimate geotechnical bearing capacity or structural failure load. The
capacity of the piles is generally governed by geotechnical considerations rather than by
the compressive strength of the pile material. In addition, the resistance of piles to hori-
zontal forces through suitably designed connections is usually adequate due to the large
number of piles used.
When settlement-reducing piles are designed as structural components, the settlements
are often relatively large such that the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the piles is fully
mobilised [17.2]. For an efficient design of rafts with settlement-reducing piles,
Randolph and Clancy [17.3] indicated that the geotechnical pile capacity could be
assumed to be 80% mobilised under working load conditions. In this situation, a low
factor of safety can be applied to the geotechnical capacity of the piles, and the
performance of a piled raft would still be satisfactory because, generally, the bearing
capacity of the raft alone is adequate. However, when these piles are structurally
connected to the raft, as they are in traditional construction, a high axial stress may
develop in the relatively small number of piles. Thus the load-carrying capacity of these
settlement-reducing piles may be governed by their structural capacity rather than by
their geotechnical capacity. A high safety factor will then have to be applied in order to
avoid structural failure.
In addition, these sparsely arranged structural piles beneath a raft may not provide
adequate horizontal resistance to lateral loads. For structures resting on raft foundations
in seismically active zones or areas with high wind loads, some building authorities
therefore deter the use of settlement-reducing piles. Thus the practical use of settlement-
reducing piles is restricted. As an example, designers in Jakarta, Indonesia, are reluctant
to use these structurally connected settlement-reducing piles out of concern that the
design would not be approved by the building authorities, in view of potential damage to
the connections between the relatively few piles and the raft during an earthquake.
Since the main objective of adding piles to a raft is for settlement control, and thus to
achieve an economical design of the foundation, one alternative in the design of these
piles is to consider them as stiffeners for the base soil such that the above-mentioned
problems can be avoided. In this chapter, an alternative design concept for settle-
ment-reducing piles by disassociating the piles from the raft is examined. The behaviour
of a raft with piles that are not structurally connected to the raft is analysed. A review of
the current practice of pile design for piled rafts is outlined, and potential problems asso-
ciated with the use of structurally connected settlement-reducing piles is presented prior
to a discussion of the performance of disconnected settlement-reducing piles.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 471
geotechnical capacity of a pile to arrive at its allowable capacity. The ultimate bearing
capacity of the piles is the sum of the skin friction resistance and base resistance, so that
the allowable load on the pile can be evaluated as
Qa = Qu/Fs = (Qs + Qb)/Fs (17.1)
where Qa = allowable load on pile
Qu = ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile
Qs = skin friction resistance of pile
Qb = base resistance of pile
Fs = factor of safety (between 2 and 3)
A global factor of safety as low as 1.8 has also been suggested if the soil conditions are
well understood, and information is available from loading tests; see, for example, the
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual [17.4].
Recently, the concept of partial factors of safety has begun to find favour among
geotechnical engineers. Eurocode 7 [17.5], which is written in the limit state design
format based on partial safety factors, specifies the design ultimate bearing resistance
(Rcd) of piles as
Rcd = Rbd + Rsd (17.2)
where Rbd = design base resistance of pile = Rbk/cb
Rsd = design skin friction resistance of pile = Rsk/cs
Rbk = characteristic base resistance of pile
Rsk = characteristic skin friction resistance of pile
cb, cs = partial safety factors
The factored design load should not exceed the design ultimate bearing resistance, so that
Fcd ≤ Rcd (17.3)
where Fcd = factored design load = Fk cf
Fk = characteristic load
cf = load factor
Recommended values of the partial safety factors cb and cs are shown in Table 17.1. The
load factor gf is generally 1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for imposed loads. Comparing the
partial factor safety method and the global safety factor method, Franke [17.6]
concluded that the traditional method of using a single global safety factor proves to be
reasonable.
Table 17.1. Partial safety factors for piles, after Eurocode 7 [17.5]
Pile type cb cs
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
472 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
Load
Working
load Pw Raft
Sf Sr
Settlement
Figure 17.2. Concept of raft–pile foundation system, after Poulos and Davis [17.8]
It is noted that in the current design method for piled rafts, the bearing capacity of the
raft is always neglected. The piles are assumed to take all the imposed loads,
and the overall factor of safety of the foundation is based only on the pile capacity.
However, the raft can contribute significantly to the overall foundation capacity; Cooke
[17.7], for example, having reported that up to 30% of the building load could be carried
by the raft. The overall safety factors adopted in the current design of piled rafts may,
therefore, be excessively high.
Figure 17.2 illustrates the concept of design for settlement-reducing piles for raft foun-
dations [17.8]. When a raft alone can provide adequate bearing capacity to the
superstructure, piles should be introduced beneath the foundation as settlement reducers
rather than as the main load-carrying members. Ideally, the ultimate geotechnical
capacity of settlement-reducing piles can be allowed to mobilise fully, and the global
factor of safety for the geotechnical capacity of these piles can be taken as 1.0. An
increase in the number or safety factor of the piles may lead to over-design of the foun-
dation, but with minimal additional effect on the reduction in settlement. Although a
small number of piles is used, the performance of the raft–pile system would be satisfac-
tory if the bearing capacity of the raft is adequate.
As shown in Figure 17.2, the settlement of the raft alone, Sr, may be excessive under
the working load, Pw. At the same working load, the settlement of the foundation, Sf, will
decrease as the pile number increases. The extent of the required settlement reduction
determines the number of piles that is required. The number, length and arrangement of
piles should be carefully chosen for the purpose of controlling the settlements of the raft
to within acceptable limits [17.9].
Results of a two-dimensional elastic finite element analysis of piled rafts under working
load conditions help to illustrate the effect of pile numbers on foundation behaviour. In the
analyses, a 3.65 m thick raft resting on a hard clay stratum (Young’s modulus 178 MPa,
thickness 86 m) is connected to 5 rows, 7 rows and 9 rows of 35 m long piles, as proposed
for a high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia; see section 17.5 for further details.
Figure 17.3 shows the computed profiles of settlement, bending moment and shear
force in the raft with the different numbers of pile rows. It can be seen that increasing the
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 473
9 rows
1 2
20 5 rows
CL
30
4
40
1 2 3
(a) 7 rows
CL
0
Bending moment: MNm/m
5
2
1
234
4 9 rows
10
(b)
2
1·5
Shear force: MN/m
0·5
0
–0·5
–1
–1·5
(c)
number of piles results in only a slight reduction in maximum and differential settle-
ments. The maximum bending moments (sagging positive) are comparable for the raft
with different rows of piles, while the maximum negative shear force increases as the
number of pile rows increases. Therefore, there is no clear advantage for a raft to have a
large number of settlement-reducing piles. The small influence of excessive piles on the
reduction of settlements has been reported by Hooper [17.10] based on finite element
analyses of piled rafts, and by Cooke [17.7] based on model tests.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
474 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
10
Depth: m
20
Pile 1
30 Pile 1 Pile 2
Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3
Pile 2 Pile 3 Pile 4
Pile 3 Pile 4 Pile 5
40
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 17.4. Effect of pile configuration on computed distribution of axial pile stress for
proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) 5 rows; (b) 7 rows; (c) 9 rows
Figure 17.4 shows the load carried by the piles, as obtained from the finite element
analysis for the piled raft with different rows of piles. The axial stress in the piles
increases with a decrease in the number of piles. Based on structural considerations, a
higher structural capacity will be required for settlement-reducing piles than for piles in a
conventional piled raft foundation.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 475
global factor of safety on the materials used. Table 17.2 shows the restrictions on the
stress level in the piles specified in several building codes or design manuals. For rein-
forced concrete piles, both BS 8004 and the New York City Building Code [17.13] limit
the maximum compressive stress at working load to 25% of the characteristic cube
compression strength at 28 days, while ACI Code 318 [17.14] and NAVFAC DM-7.2
[17.15] specify that the maximum stresses can be 33% of the characteristic cylinder
compression strength of concrete, this latter value reducing to 22.5% in the Uniform
Building Code [17.16]. For steel piles, the stress in the steel due to the imposed axial force
at the working condition should not normally exceed 30% of the yield stress [17.12]. The
New York City Building Code and the Uniform Building Code restrict the allowable
maximum compressive stress to 35% and 34% of the yield strength, respectively.
Pile material
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
476 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
Table 17.3. Partial safety factors for loads and material properties
loads, a large total section area of piles is required, which can be obtained with either a
large number of piles or a smaller number of piles having larger section areas. However,
for the design of raft foundations with settlement-reducing piles, an increase in the pile
number or the use of larger piles just to enhance the horizontal load capacity may not be
economically justifiable. Although the adhesion force along the interface between soil
and raft is the main source of resistance to horizontal loads, brittle damage of the struc-
tural connection may occur during the mobilisation of the adhesive force; Figure 17.5(a).
This consideration may therefore restrict the use of settlement-reducing piles.
Horizontal Horizontal
forces forces
Passive Passive
pressure pressure
Adhesion Adhesion
Shear
resistance
of piles
(a) (b)
Figure 17.5. Transfer mechanism for horizontal loads: (a) piles structurally connected
to raft; (b) piles structurally disconnected from raft
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 477
The main function of settlement-reducing piles is to control the total and differential
settlement of the raft. Hooper [17.10], in a review of piled raft foundations, observed a
reduction of settlement if the base soil beneath the raft was considered as a reinforced
elastic medium. One alternative method of foundation design is therefore to introduce
piles purely as a means of improving or enhancing the stiffness of the base soil by struc-
turally disconnecting the piles from the raft. A gap can be provided between the piles and
the raft such that the piles would not directly carry the loads from the superstructure.
Once these settlement-reducing piles are no longer structurally connected to the raft, a
much lower factor of safety against structural failure than that suggested for structural
piles can be used without violation of most building codes.
Since the ultimate geotechnical capacity of disconnected piles can be assumed to be
fully mobilised, the structural considerations of such settlement-reducing piles are no
longer critical in the design. Small differences and uncertainties in loads and material
strengths may be ignored because these piles will not act as the main load-carrying
members. Even some small cracks in the piles may not significantly reduce their role of
reinforcing the base soil. A factor of safety as low as 1.3 against structural failure can be
applied to the pile materials.
Thus these disconnected settlement-reducing piles may be allowed to carry much
higher loads than structurally connected piles, with resulting economic benefits. Further-
more, possible damage to structural connections is no longer a design issue, and the
horizontal loads can be effectively transmitted through the mobilised adhesion force
along the soil–raft interface; Figure 17.5(b). In addition, as the construction of raft foun-
dations for high-rise buildings usually incorporates a basement, the horizontal forces
may also be resisted by passive pressures acting on the basement walls.
The effectiveness of reinforcing the base soil under the raft was first reported by
Hooper [17.10], who analysed a piled raft by treating the base soil as an improved soil
continuum; here it was found that only a few piles were required to establish a
pile-reinforced soil mass of appreciable vertical stiffness that was sufficient for signifi-
cant settlement reduction. Randolph [17.20] reported that the localised high bending
moments in the raft near the piles would be reduced if the piles were dissociated from the
raft. Thorburn et al. [17.21] designed a piled raft foundation for a storage tank by disso-
ciating the pile heads from the raft. In this case, the load was transmitted to the piles by
arching action through the soil layer between the pile heads, enabling the settlement to
be brought under control. However, the foundation soil was soft and compressible, and
the role of the piles was not quite like that of settlement-reducing piles in a stiff soil on
which rafts normally rest. Thorburn et al. reported that over 90% of the tank loading
appeared to have been transferred to the piles. This situation is different from the behav-
iour of settlement-reducing piles which usually carry a smaller part of the total loading.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
478 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 479
44 m 44 m
CL CL
Column Column
3·65 m Core 3·65 m Core
Raft Raft
Homogeneous
1m soil Homogeneous
soil
Es = 178 kPa
νs = 0·49 Es = 178 kPa
cu = 240 kPa 1m νs = 0·49
35 m 35 m cu = 240 kPa
or 65 m or 65 m
3m
3m
28 m
28 m
(a) (b)
Uniformly distributed
load 1515 kPa
3550 3550
kN/m kN/m
570 570
kN/m kN/m
1m 7m 12 m 4m 12 m 7m 1m
CL
(c)
Figure 17.6. Modelling of raft with settlement-reducing piles for proposed high-rise
building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) piles structurally connected to raft; (b) piles structur-
ally disconnected from raft; (c) applied loading
according to BS 8004. Then the allowable load on a 1 m diameter pile, if the resistance
of the reinforcement is ignored, can be estimated as
Qa = 0.25 Ac fc
= 0.25 × 0.785 m2 × 40 MPa = 7850 kN (17.5)
where Ac and fc denote the cross-sectional area and strength of concrete, respectively.
For disconnected piles, the factor of safety against the structural failure of the bored
piles can be very low, and is taken here as 1.3. Then the allowable load on the pile, again
ignoring the resistance of the steel reinforcement, can be estimated as
Qa = Ac fc /1.3
= 0.785 m2 × 40 MPa /1.3 = 24 150 kN (17.6)
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
480 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 481
20
Settlement: mm
40
80
(a)
0
Bending moment: MNm/m
12
16
(b)
2
Shear force: MN/m
–1
–2
(c)
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
482 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
1·8
1·2
Shear force: MN/m
0·6
Figure 17.8. Effect of gap distance between raft and pile heads on computed distribution
of raft shear force for proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia
could be reduced by decreasing the gap between the raft and the pile head. For the case
with 65 m long piles, Figure 17.8 shows the effect of gap height on the distribution of
shear forces.
Figure 17.9 shows the distribution of normalised contact pressure p/q (p is the contact
pressure, and q is the equivalent average applied load intensity) across the raft for the
three foundation systems. The contact pressure is generally lower for the piled raft than
that for the unpiled raft. The high pressures at the edge of the unpiled raft, which always
occur for a raft resting on stiff clay, become smaller for piled rafts. With an increase in
pile length, the contact pressure also becomes smaller, indicating that the settle-
ment-reducing piles function more as soil reinforcement than as purely load-carrying
structural members. The high soil stresses around the piles are responsible for the large
down-drag forces transferred to the disconnected piles.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 483
1·5
2·5
4·5 Unpiled
5·5
(a)
–0·5
0
0·5
Contact pressure p /q
1·5
2·5
Disconnected piles (65 m)
3·5 Connected piles (65 m)
Unpiled
4·5
5·5
(b)
Figure 17.9. Computed distribution of normalised raft contact pressure for proposed
high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) 35 m long piles; (b) 65 m long piles
disconnected and connected settlement-reducing piles. The effect of pile length on the
distribution of axial pile stress is the same for connected and unconnected piles. As
the pile length increases, the down-drag force increases and more load is transferred to
the piles. In addition, there is little difference in axial stress between the piles at the
centre and those away from the centre. For these reinforcement piles, the load carried by
each pile is equally distributed, especially for disconnected piles.
17.6. Conclusions
An alternative approach to the design of raft foundations with settlement-reducing piles
has been presented. By disconnecting the piles from the raft, a much lower factor of
safety against structural failure of the piles can be used since the piles can be considered
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
484 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
10
20
30
Depth: m
40
50
60
70
(a)
10
20
30
Depth: m
40
50
60
70
(b)
Figure 17.10. Computed distribution of axial pile stress and average skin friction for
proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) inner piles; (b) outer piles
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 485
17.7. References
17.1. TOMLINSON, M. J. Foundation design and construction. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, Harlow,
1995, 6th edn.
17.2. BURLAND, J. B., BROMS, B. and DE MELLO, V. F. B. Behaviour of foundations and structures.
Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Foundn Engng, Tokyo, 1977, 2, 495–546.
17.3. RANDOLPH, M. F. and CLANCY, P. Efficient design of piled rafts. Proc. 2nd Int. Geotech. Sem.
Deep Foundns on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, 1993, 119–130.
17.4. CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY. Canadian foundation engineering manual. Richmond,
British Columbia, 1992, 3rd edn.
17.5. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design–Part 1:
General rules. Brussels, 1997.
17.6. FRANKE, E. Eurocode safety approach as applied to single piles. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Piling and
Deep Foundns, Stresa, Italy, 1991, 1, 13–18.
17.7. COOKE, R. W. Piled raft foundations on stiff clays: a contribution to design philosophy,
Géotechnique, 1986, 36, 2, 169–203.
17.8. POULOS, H. G. and DAVIS, E. H. Pile foundation analysis and design. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1980.
17.9. HORIKOSHI, K. and RANDOLPH, M. F. A contribution to optimum design of piled rafts. Géotech-
nique, 1998, 48, 3, 301–317.
17.10. HOOPER, J. A. Review of behaviour of piled raft foundations. Construction Industry Research
and Information Association, London, 1979, Rep. 83.
17.11. FLEMING, W. G. K., WELTMAN, A. J., RANDOLPH, M. F. and ELSON, W. K. Piling engineering.
Surrey University Press, 1992, 2nd edn.
17.12. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Foundations. BSI, London, 1986, BS 8004.
17.13. NEW YORK CITY. New York City Building Code. New York, 1968.
17.14. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. ACI Standard: Building Code requirements for reinforced
concrete (ACI 318–89), Detroit, 1969.
17.15. NAVFAC DM-7.2. Foundations and earth structures. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia, 1982.
17.16. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. Int. Conf. Building Officials, Whittier, CA, USA, 1988.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
486 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
17.17. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Structural use of concrete. BSI, London, 1985, BS 8110.
17.18. DANSK INGENIORFORENING. Danish Standard Code of Practice for safety of structures (DS 409).
Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1983, 3rd edn.
17.19. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Brus-
sels, 1992.
17.20. RANDOLPH, M. F. Design of piled raft foundations. Proc. Int. Symp. Recent Developments in
Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, 1983, 525–537.
17.21. THORBURN, S., LAIRD, C. and RANDOLPH, M. F. Storage tanks founded on soft soils reinforced
with driven piles. Proc. Conf. Recent Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Founda-
tions, London, 1983, 155–164.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.