Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation-A Geo-Structural Approach

A
Dissertation Report on
Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation- A

Geo-Structural Approach
Submitted
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Technology
in
Civil-Structural Engineering
by
Mr Khan Sirajahmad Anwar
(Roll No. 1724005)
Sponsored by
Z Z Consultants, Mumbai
Under the Supervision of

Dr. P. S. Patil
Department of Civil Engineering

K.E. Society’s
Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Rajaramnagar
(An Autonomous Institute, Affiliated to Shivaji University, Kolhapur)
2018-2019
K.E. Society’s
Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Rajaramnagar
(An Autonomous Institute, Affiliated to Shivaji University, Kolhapur)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that, Mr Khan Sirajahmad Anwar (Roll No- 1724005) has suc-
cessfully completed the dissertation work and submitted dissertation report on
(“Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation- A Geo-Structural Approach”) for the partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Technology in Civil-
Structural Engineering from the Department of Civil Engineering, as per the rules
and regulations of Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Rajaramnagar, Dist:
Sangli.
Date:
Place: RIT, Rajaramnagar
Dr. P. S. Patil Mr Z. R. Khan
Name and Sign of Supervisor Name and Sign of Industrial Supervisor
Name Dr. P. S. Patil
Name and Sign of External Examiner Name and Sign of Head of Program
Dr. P. D. Kumbhar Dr. Sharad D. Patil
Name and Sign of Head of Department Name and Sign of PG Convener
ii
Here join Company Project Completion certificate on Letterhead of company
along with competent authority sign, stamp and outward number.
iii
DECLARATION
I declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words and
where others’ ideas or words have been included, I have adequately cited and ref-
erenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of
academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsi-
fied any idea/data/fact/source in my submission. Whenever I have used materials
(data, theoretical analysis, figures, and text) from other sources, I have given due
credit to them by citing them in the text of the report and giving their details in
the references.
Place: RIT, Rajaramnagar Khan Sirajahmad Anwar
Date: 1724005
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Though only my name appears on the cover of this dissertation, a number of peo-
ple have contributed to its production. I owe my gratitude to all those people who
have made this dissertation possible and have helped me through the year leading
up to this.
I would like to express my gratitude and indebtedness to my learned and enlight-

ened guide Dr. P. S. Patil, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
RIT Rajaramnagar, for his instinctive and careful guidance and continued encour-
agement in the completion of this dissertation work.
I also wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. P. D. Kumbhar, Head

of Civil Engineering Department and Prof. Dr. P. S. Patil, Head of Program for
giving me permission for internship and immense co-operation for completing this
dissertation.
I would like to express my gratitude towards Librarian Mr. Vishwas Hase of RIT
Central Library and E-Library for providing me ample literature and e-journals..
My special thanks to Director of RIT, Rajaramnagar, Sangli for giving inspi-

ration in the research field of master of technology. I am greatly thankful for his
perspective in research which has given motivation to me.
I, finally, would like to thank all faculty, teaching and non-teaching staff, friends
and family who have helped me directly and indirectly to complete this disserta-
tion.
Place: RIT, Rajaramnagar Khan Sirajahmad Anwar

Date: 1724005
v
ABSTRACT
In recent years, there has been an increasing number of structures using piled rafts
as the foundation to reduce the overall and differential settlements. The piles are
mainly designed to take up the foundation loads and the raft only carries a small
proportion the raft foundation performance alone does not satisfy the design re-
quirements. Also, piled raft foundations provide an economical foundation option
for circumstances. Under these situations, the addition of a limited number of
piles may improve the ultimate load capacity, the settlement, and differential set-
tlement performance, and the required thickness of the raft. An finite element
method of analysis has been performed to estimate the settlement and load dis-
tribution of a large piled raft foundation. In this method, the raft is modeled
as a thin plate and the pile and soils together are treated as interactive springs.
Both the resistance of the piles as well as the base of the raft are incorporated
into the model. Raft-soil-raft interaction is taken into account. The solution to
problems of uniformly and large nonuniformly arranged piled rafts ‘makes possible
by this proposed method in a timesaving way using computers. The computed
settlements compared favorably with permissible value. This paper focuses on the
general effects of various parameters like raft thickness and soil on the piled raft.
Keywords: Pile foundation, piled raft foundation, pile cap, RC tall building,
settlements, SAFE 2012.
vi
Contents
CERTIFICATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
SPONSORSHIP CERTIFICATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
DECLARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
CONTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Motivation of the present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Piled Raft Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Brief review of the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.1 Finite element method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 Boundary element method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.3 Piles as a settlement reducer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Layout of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Literature Review 11
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Scope of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5 Objectives of present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
vii
2.6 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Soil-Structure Interaction 23
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Brief review of the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Interaction mechanism of piled raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Finite Element Modeling Of Tall Building 29

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 Finite Element Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3 Modelling of tall building using ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.1 Plan and 3D view of 56 storey building . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.2 Loading Inputs Using ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4 Modeling and analysis of Piled foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.1 Piled property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.2 Plan view of Pile 56 storey buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.3 Loading inputs used in SAFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.5 Modeling and analysis of Piled raft foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.5.1 Meshing of Piled Raft Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.5.2 Raft Material and Raft Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.3 Assign of Soil Subgrade Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5 Result and Discussion 41

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2 Analysis result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.1 Maximum Settlement and Differential Settlement . . . . . . 42
5.2.2 Bending Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.3 Effect of different pile diameter and length in piled raft . . 44
5.2.4 Effect of varying soil stiffness on the load carrying capacity
of raft and pile for building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.3 Cost analysis of piled raft foundation with conventional pile foun-
dation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.4 Discussion of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
viii
6 Conclusions And Future Scope 48
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.2 Concluding Remark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.3 Future Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ON PRESENT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
APPROVED COPY OF SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
VITAE (CV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
ix
List of Figures
1.1 Piled-Raft foundation of Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 Burj Khalifa Tower, ht 828m Dubai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Finite element discretization for a piled- raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Types of interactions in a Piled raft foundations . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.2 Interaction between a loaded pile and an unloaded pile . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Interaction between a loaded pile and the soil surface . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 Interaction between a loaded surface and an unloaded pile . . . . . 28
3.5 Interaction between a loaded surface and an unloaded surface . . . 28
4.1 Snip of 56 storey building (Plan and 3D view) . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2 Snip of a static earthquake and wind load pattern considered for
the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Snip of static earthquake load in X- direction . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4 Snip of static earthquake load in Y- direction . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.5 Snip of Response spectra used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6 Snip of Response spectra load case in X- direction . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.7 Snip of Response spectra load case in Y- direction . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.8 Snip of details of wind load considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.9 Snip of Piled Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.10 Layout of Pile foundation (Plan view) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.11 Load acting on piles (3D view) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.12 Displacement of pile cap ( 13.10 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.13 Structural idealization for a raft with pile and supporting soil . . . 37
4.14 Snip of Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.15 Snip of RAFT with Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.16 Snip of Raft Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
x
4.17 Snip of Slab Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.18 snip of Soil Subgrade Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.19 Plan and view of RAFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.20 Soil pressure distribution in piled Raft foundation (447.03kN/m2) . 40
4.21 Displacement of piled raft foundation (9.90mm) . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1 Graph shows Pile cap thickness v/s Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.2 Graph shows Raft thickness v/s Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.3 Graph shows Pile cap thickness v/s Bending Moment . . . . . . . . 43
5.4 Graph shows Raft thickness v/s Bending Moment . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.5 Graph shows the load taken by Raft v/s soil stiffness . . . . . . . . 45
5.6 Graph shows the load taken by Pile v/s soil stiffness . . . . . . . . . 46
xi
List of Tables
4.1 Seismic parameters used for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1 Top story displacement and max story drifts for 56 storey building . 41
5.2 Shows the variation between various structural moments and dis-
placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3 Shows effect of varying raft thickness on a pile . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4 Shows the variation of a maximum positive and negative moment
with an increase in pile cap thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.5 Shows the variation of a maximum positive and negative moment
with an increase in raft thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.6 Effect of different pile diameter of 15m length in piled raft . . . . . 44
5.9 Effect of soil stiffness on the load carrying capacity of Raft in piled
raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.10 Effect of soil stiffness on the load carrying capacity of Pile in piled
raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
xii
NOMENCLATURE
δs Vector of soil displacement at the nodes
αps Pile-soil interaction
αss pile-soil interaction
αss Soil-soil interaction
Is Soil influence matrix
Ps Dector of forces acting at the soil interfaces
d Displacement
Ec Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
EX Earthquake in X- direction
EY Earthquake in Y- direction
fck Characteristic compressive strength
fy Yield Stress
EY Earthquake in Y- direction
h Height
I Important factor
k Stiffness of the Structure
k1 Risk Coefficient
ks Terrain Roughness and Height factor
k3 Topography Factor
R Response reduction factor
T Time period
Vb Base shear
Vd Design lateral force
Vz Design wind speed
WX Wind in X-direction
WY Wind in Y-direction
V Seismic weight
Z Zone factor
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS
CA Conventional Analysis
DAM Direct Analysis of Method
ETABS Extended Three-dimensional Analysis of Building Systems
FEM Finite Element Modelling
IS Indian Standard
HSC High Strength Concrete
3D Three Dimensional
PRF Piled Raft Foundation
RC Reinforced Concrete
RS Response Spectrum
SSI Soil-Structure Interaction
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
This introductory chapter gives quick insights into the project. It gives a general
idea about the necessity of tall structures, the motivation of the present work Also,
Advantages and limitations for piled raft foundation.
1.2 Motivation of the present work
Since the dawn of time, men have tried to touch the sky. In fact, living in high
houses has become synonymous with being at the top of the social order. Even
if they look at the Egyptian pharaohs, it is quite clear that they thought ”the
greater, the better.” These extremely tall and impressive structures, however, are
evidence of how far the methods of the human building have come. Human beings
have always aspired to construct ever higher heights from Babel’s legendary Tower
to the iconic Burj Khalifa. We have built towering buildings over the centuries
to celebrate our culture, encourage our towns–or just show off. Historically, the
preservation of excellent leaders, religions, and empires has been high structures.
For example, Giza’s Great Pyramid — constructed to house Pharaoh Khufu’s
grave— once towered over 145 meters high. For almost 4,000 years, it was the
highest man-made structure before being overtaken in the 14th century by the 160-
meter-tall Lincoln Cathedral. Yet the skyscrapers of the 20th and 21st centuries
are dwarfing these great historical attempts. London’s Shard stands at its broken
tip at a height of 310 meters–but the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, stands
at a height of over 828 meters, makes it look tiny. And the Kingdom Tower in
1
Jeddah will leave both these behemoths in the shadows. Originally scheduled to
achieve 1,600 meters by architect Adrian Smith, the tower is now likely to achieve
a height of 1000 meters once it is finished in 2020. Building height has risen
over the years to save on property, and the construction of high-rise structures
of reinforced concrete (RC) has become common. As a consequence, issues were
noted and reported owing to differential axial shortening of vertical components.
The complete shortening of the columns is usually of practical concern. However,
the impacts on horizontal components of differential axial shortening can lead to
excessive deflection and unacceptable crack widths. Furthermore, the former can
cause damage to non-structural elements such as façades, partitions, cladding, and
mechanical facilities. In addition, when vertical components are rigidly attached
via plates or beams, relative vertical deformations can produce substantial inner
forces and the ultimate limit states may require important redistribution of forces.
Thus, the axial deformations of columns, both elastic and inelastic, involve unique
consideration in designing and constructing high constructions of buildings. In
India, a law enacted in the 1990s restricts the maximum height of a building
to under 300 meters. However, the government has occasionally granted special
clearances for some projects that are over 300 meters. Imperial tower 1 and 2 in
Mumbai stand as the tallest building in India rising to a height of 254 meters (833
feet). Ahuja tower 250 meters (820 feet), Lodha Fiorenza 225 meters (738 feet),
World crest 223 meters (732 feet) are among the rest to name a few.
1.3 Piled Raft Foundation
There have been many building projects built on soft soil in latest years. Because
of soft soil features, the structures constructed on it are subject to differential
settlements. The layout is one of the ways in which differential settlement can be
reduced. Despite the appropriate bearing capacity of the raft foundation, it may
trigger excessive settlement. The Piles can be used as a stacked raft foundation
scheme with a raft foundation, piles are added to decrease the colonies to an ac-
ceptable amount[4]. In the field of geotechnical engineering, FEM assessment is
common. Piled raft analyzes using the finite element method to explore researchers
’ efficiency of a piled raft. For stacked raft analysis. This technique can produce
excellent outcomes. Construction of tall buildings over 150 m in height has been
2
seen in the last two decades as a notable rise and an almost exponential growth
rate. In the Middle East and Asia, a substantial amount of tall buildings have
been built, and many more are either scheduled or under construction. The new
challenges facing engineers, especially in relation to structural and geotechnical
design, constructing super-tall buildings in excess of 300m in height. Many of the
traditional methods of design require extrapolation well beyond the realms of pre-
vious experience and cannot be used with confidence, Structural and geotechnical
engineers are compelled to use more complicated analytical and design methods.
In specific, geotechnical engineers are increasingly leaving behind empirical meth-
ods and using state-of - the-art techniques to design the foundations of super-tall
buildings[21]. The pile foundation layout is based on vertical and horizontal stress
account and the foundation’s structural integrity. The lateral bearing on pile
foundations resists the base shear. During earthquakes, vertical seismic loads may
have to bear big tensile as well as compression forces on individual pile structures.
The most challenging element of seismic pile design is lateral strength(S). It must
be closely ensured that the strata adjacent to and below the stacks have adequate
adhesive, shear, and bearing power under the soil-pile interaction during earth-
quakes[19]
Figure 1.1: Piled-Raft foundation of Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai
3
Figure 1.2: Burj Khalifa Tower, ht 828m Dubai
The use of piled raft foundations is considered in the situation that the raft alone
cannot meet the design demands, and the piles are required to decrease the struc-
tures ’ overall and differential settlements. In these situations, adding a limited
number of piles can improve the ultimate load capacity, settlement, and differ-
ential settlement performance, and the raft’s required thickness. When piles are
used together with a raft, the loads applied are transmitted through the pile to
the supporting soil. As a piled raft base, both the pile and the cap are taken
into consideration when carrying the imposed load as a raft footing. Piled raft
foundations design philosophies are
a) The piles are intended primarily to take up loads of the foundation and the
raft carries only a tiny percentage.
b) A raft is designed to withstand the foundation loads and a small proportion of
4
the total load is carried by the piles. They are strategically positioned to decrease
differentials settlement.
c) A raft is intended to handle most of the loads from the base. The piles are
designed to reduce the net pressure of contact between the raft and the soils to
a level below thesoil pre-consolidation pressure. Extensive study work has been
performed over the previous decades to enhance the precision of predicting piled
raft behaviour. Design technicians must know the behavior of load transfer from
a raft to the piles and to the soil to predict when designing piled raft.
i) The raft’s behavior involving settlement, bending time and the raft’s ratio of
load and
ii) Piles behavior involving displacement and distribution of load along with piles.
In the assessment, the interaction between pile, raft, and soil is of great interest.
In the design of the foundation, it is prevalent practice to consider first the use of
shallow or raft foundation to support a structure, and then, if this is not sufficient,
to design a fully piled foundation in which the piles resist the full design loads. It
is also common for the raft to be part of the framework instead of this design strat-
egy because of the need to provide the cellar below the structure. Construction
of tall structures has become increasingly prevalent in the previous few years, and
fresh difficulties strike structural and geotechnical engineers with them. The huge
study has been carried out for this purpose and it has been acknowledged that the
strategic use of piles can decrease raft settlement and differential settlement and
can lead to a significant economy without including the foundation’s safety and
efficiency.
Depending on the quantity of load to be transmitted and the nature of supporting

sub-soil, the construction blocks are backed on isolated footings, mixed footings,
raft or mat foundation system, pile foundation system and piled raft foundation
scheme. Most of the multi-story structures built on fragile soil are usually backed
on the base of the mat or pile or piled raft.
A mat foundation for high constructions with an appropriate safety factor may
be against ultimate bearing capacity failure. There may be excessive settlements,
however. Under these conditions, pile foundations would be used to bypass soft
5
foundations that are unable to support the shallow foundation and bring loads to
harder strata and provide a more suitable strategy.
In some circumstances, pile foundations are sometimes subjected to considerable
lateral loads in addition to vertical loads. The lateral loads may be due to wind
loads and seismic forces when constructing frames. A pile foundation-even a single
pile-is to a very large degree statically indeterminate. Accordingly, the possibility
of accurate assessment is even more remote than most soil structure interaction
issues.
Deep foundations are traditionally used when shallow foundations do not satisfy
the criteria of bearing capacity or settlement, and the design philosophy is under-
going a gradual shift lately. It is increasingly embraced the notion of piled-raft
foundations (PRF), in which the load from the superstructure is partially taken
by piles and the rest removed by the raft. The piles are intended not to carry the
complete load, but to decrease settlement.
The piles used only as ”settlement reducers” were regarded as a piled-raft scheme
and strategically situated below the strongly charged parts of the mat to decrease
settlements.
Analysis of the foundations of pile raft presents a much more complicated issue
than the evaluation of any other foundation scheme, such as isolated bases, mixed
bases, and mat scheme. When the lateral load acting on such a foundation scheme
goes into the image, the assessment becomes more complex. Combined flexural
stresses are generally significant variables that require reliable prediction of bend-
ing moments in the piles. This needs a reasonable assessment of the structure
based elements interaction.
The different analytical and numerical methods available for solving the pile raft
foundation issue can be widely categorized into the following classifications:
i) Approximation Method
ii) Boundary Element Method
iii) Finite Element Method
iv) Combined Boundary Element and Finite Element Method
v) Combined Finite Layer and Finite Element Method
vi) Variational Approach
6
1.4 Brief review of the literature
The accessible literature on the different methods for the assessment of piled raft
incorporating soil-structure interaction is briefly discussed. Generally speaking,
the full analysis implies considering each pile in the group in detail. For this
type of assessment, it is possible to use boundary element analysis, finite element
analysis or some mixed techniques. This type of technique can be used to resolve
the issues found in the solutions to the load-transfer curve and the method of
the interaction variable. Through this full assessment, the piles vary in length,
diameter, rigidity or the strength of the foundation and shaft may be considered in
detail. It is also possible to consider nonlinear soil-pile reaction and pile-soil-raft
interaction. In addition, it is easy to obtain the distribution of load and bending
moment along with the piles and raft.
A range of methods has been created in the latest years, as stated in the previous
chapter, to analyze the pile raft foundation system. All of these approaches vary in
the degree of sophistication of the number of formulations and the type of required
input parameters, the assumptions made, and the applicability to realistic pile-soil
situations. A short overview of these methods and a few significant references are
presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
1.4.1 Finite element method
The assessment of finite elements determines the piles’ load transfer conduct
through the surrounding soil, but it is not very relevant to groups of piles. In
addition, this type of assessment is very time-consuming, the cost is very high,
and too much attention is needed to prepare information. Therefore, the as-
sessment of boundary elements is preferable. However, with the latest computer
programs, the finite element analysis can be done in a simpler way. Naturally, the
technicians should dominate the laws and acceptance of the program while using
these types of programs. He or she should therefore always be in command and
not depend entirely on the program.
Maharaj (2003) used a nonlinear finite element method to analyze square raft and
piled raft foundation. For the analysis of piled raft foundations in overconsoli-
dated clay, Reul and Randolph (2003) provided a three-dimensional elasto-plastic
finite element method. Maharaj and Gandhi (2004) suggested a non-linear finite
7
element method for analyzing a piled raft undergoing uniform load distribution.
Y.C. Tan, C.M. Chow et al. (2005), an iterative design method for piled raft foun-
dation, is provided using skin friction piles of varying size in smooth ground. G.
Hassen and P. Buhan (2006), to design the foundation of a medium-rise construc-
tio. In order to predict the settlements experienced by a piled raft foundation
when subject to the combined action of vertical and lateral loadings, present a
multi-phase model and the corresponding computational time-saving finite ele-
ment code.
Ningombam Thoiba Singh and Baleshwar Singh (2008), they present the results
of a finite element analysis for piled rafts in cohesive soils. Noh et al. (2008) pre-
sented the results of the finite element based analyses of a series of different size
mat foundations with and without pile group beneath, in sandy soils. Jun Chen et
al. (2009), the layered soil model is used to simulate the nonlinear performances
of the layered soil and the interaction equation of the superstructure-pile-raft-soil
system is formulated.
Zehai Cheng (2011), has presented a simplified pile-soil-raft interaction method,
the raft is analyzed by the Finite Element Method (FEM). Cui Chun-Yi et al.
(2011), the soil deformation on interaction behavior of piled rafts and soil founda-
tion by using a fully coupled finite element method of consolidation in which an
elasto-viscoplastic model is incorporated.
1.4.2 Boundary element method
Unlike the assessment of finite elements, the boundary element assessment pro-
vides precise alternatives for pile groups, is not very time consuming and has a
reduced price as it provides alternatives using boundary values. Some critical
places such as the pile-soil interface are given unique care.
There are several computer programs that have been created through several kinds
of studies using the boundary element analysis with several other techniques.
Fleming et al. (1992) list these. Below are some examples:
a) DEPIG which is developed by Poulos in 1990, uses a simplified boundary ele-
ment method analysis and interaction factors.
b) MPILE, originally named PIGLET (developed by Randolph, 1980), uses a
semiemperical method with analytical solutions and interaction factors.
8
c) PGROUP which is developed by Banerjee and Driscoll in 1976, uses a linear
elastic analysis.
d) GEPAN which is developed by Xu and Poulos in 2000, uses a linear analysis.
e) PGROUPN which is developed by Basile in 1999, uses a non-linear boundary
element analysis.
1.4.3 Piles as a settlement reducer
The standard design practice for pile foundations is based on the premise that
piles are free-standing and that all internal loads are performed by piles and that
any footing contribution is ignored. This strategy is therefore over-conservative,
as the raft or pile cap is in direct contact with the soil and therefore carries a
substantial portion of the load.
Recently, the design philosophy is undergoing a gradual shift. It is increasingly
embraced the notion of piled raft foundations (PRF), in which the load from the
superstructure is partially taken by piles and the rest taken by the raft.
This idea of using piles as settlement-reducers was started in the seventies (Hanson
et al., 1973; Burland et al., 1977). In the case of a piled raft on clay, this philosophy
has been developed into a refined design method in Sweden. According to overview
of design method, the building load inducing stresses in excess of the clay pre-
consolidation pressure is carried by the piles in a state of creep failure, while the
remaining portion of the load is carried by the contact pressure at the raft-soil
interface (Hansbo, 1984; Jendeby, 1986; Hansbo and Jendeby, 1998).
1.5 Layout of the thesis
Keeping in view the above objective, the dissertation is divided into six chapters;
the dissertation is organized as per detail is given below:
Chapter 1: Introduction to the problem under consideration; various elements re-
lated to it and present the current state of relevant knowledge at the backdrop of
the brief review of the corresponding literature. Aims and objectives of the pro-
posed investigations are also outlined. The scope of the work is also mentioned.
Chapter 2: This chapter involves a review of the literature, including a review of
prior research conducted by some researchers.
Chapter 3: Describes the interaction of the soil structure, the impact of the super-
9
structure on a piled raft foundation, the interaction mechanism of the stacked raft
consisting of four distinct kinds of interaction (such as pile-pile, pile-soil, soil-pile,
and soil-soi).
Chapter 4: Deals with a brief introduction to the software tool that is used for
the whole and sole process of analyzing, designing and producing results for the
various structural models used for the dissertation work.
Chapter 5: This chapter deals with a summary of the results obtained from the
analysis.
Chapter 6: Salient conclusions and recommendations of the present study are
given in this chapter. Future scope of this study is mentioned as well followed by
the references.
10
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a detailed review of the literature related to finite element
modeling of a tall building with effect Piles system and Piled Raft Foundation are
addressed in this chapter. A brief review of previous studies on the application
of the finite element method to the analysis of tall buildings is presented in this
section. By referring some of the resources like Science Direct, fundamental tech-
nical papers from journals and conferences, latest technical papers, research thesis,
national and international workshop proceedings, research institute publications,
authorized websites, and reference books, etc.
2.2 Literature Review
The researches carried on this topic are shown in the form of a literature survey
are as follows:
Hain and Lee (1978): “The Analysis of flexible Raft-Pile Systems” developed an
analysis to examine the behaviour of a flexible raft supported by a group of com-
pressible friction piles embedded in an elastic homogeneous or non-homogeneous
material with the consideration of the ultimate capacity of the piles. The analysis
combined the finite element method for the analysis of the raft and the boundary
element method for the analysis of the piles and soil. The raft was treated as
a thin elastic plate and the pile group - supporting soil system was modelled by
the use of the Mindlin equation. However, the connection between the raft and
11
the pile was assumed to be a sliding ball joint which implied that no moments or
lateral forces were transferred between the raft and pile heads. In the analysis,
they suggested that the behaviour of the piled raft would depend on the relative
flexibility of the raft and the relative stiffness of the pile to the soil. Four differ-
ent interactions between the piles, raft, and soil were introduced and thoroughly
considered in the analysis. In addition, a ‘load cut-off’ procedure was introduced
to account for the development of the ultimate load capacities of the piles.
Mandolini and Viggiani (1997): “Settlement of Piled Foundations” presented an

analysis to predict the settlement of piled raft foundations. The method is capable
of taking into account the soil-structure interaction and non-linear behaviour at
the pile-soil interface. The piles were analyzed by the boundary element method
and the behaviour of a pile group embedded in an elastic continuum was then
analyzed based on the use of interaction factors. The raft was analyzed by the use
of the finite element method and the interaction between the piles, raft and soil
were represented by a linear elastic model. To stimulate the non-linear behaviour,
a stepwise linear incremental procedure was used and a hyperbolic load settlement
relationship for a single pile was assumed.
H. G. Poulos (2001): “Methods of analysis of piled raft foundation” has defined

clearly that piled raft foundations provide an economical foundation option for
circumstances where the performance of the raft alone does not satisfy the design
requirements. Under these situations, the addition of a limited number of piles
may improve the ultimate load capacity, the settlement, and differential settlement
performance, and the required thickness of the raft. This report summarizes the
philosophy of using piles as settlement reducers and outlines the key requirements
of design methods for rafts enhanced with piles. A number of available methods
of analysis of piled raft behaviour are reviewed, and their capabilities and limita-
tions are discussed. Some of the methods are useful only for preliminary design
or for checking purposes, while others are capable of giving detailed performance
predictions and can be used for detailed design. Conclusions are reached regard-
ing the utility of some of the current methods used for design and the limitations
of two-dimensional numerical analyses. A summary is also given of some recent
12
research on the analysis of piled rafts subjected to lateral loadings.
Pastsakorn Kitiyodom and Tatsunori Matsumoto (2002): has developed a sim-

plified method of numerical analysis to estimate the deformation and load distri-
bution of piled raft foundations subjected to vertical, lateral, and moment loads,
using a hybrid model in which the flexible raft is modelled as thin plates and the
piles as elastic beams and the soil is treated as springs. Both the vertical and
lateral resistances of the piles, as well as the rafting base, are incorporated into
the model. Pile–soil–pile, pile–soil–raft and raft–soil–raft interactions are taken
into account based on Mindlin’s solutions for both vertical and lateral forces. The
validity of the proposed method is verified through comparisons with several ex-
isting methods for single piles, pile groups, and piled rafts.
Maharaj D.K. (2004): “Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Piled Raft Founda-
tions” continued his work in non-linear finite element analysis of piled raft founda-
tion under the application of uniformly distributed load. Figure 2.1 shown below
gives finite element discretization and boundary conditions applied to pile raft
foundation. Load settlement curves of the raft and piled raft foundation have
been provided for different raft and pile stiffness.
Figure 2.1: Finite element discretization for a piled- raft
13
Reul O. (2004): “Design Strategies for Piled Rafts Subjected to Nonuniform Ver-
tical Loading” has carried out a numerical study of bearing behavior of piled rafts
in overconsolidated clay. It is shown that the interaction between piles and rafts
is a major influence on bearing capacity of the piled-raft foundation. Novak L.J et
al. (2005) carried out an analysis of pile-raft foundations with a 3D finite-element
method. They found following reasons for use of the 3D Finite Element Method
(FEM): (1) the problem is so complex that simplified methods cannot model the
problem correctly; and (2) codes for the FEM are available, powerful, and capable
of being run on the personal computer. Comparisons were made between experi-
mental and analytical results for two piled –raft foundations resting on stiff clay
and the FEM has shown to yield excellent results for the cases analyzed.
Y. C. Tan et. al. (2005): “Piled raft with different pile length for medium rise
buildings on very soft clay”- presented an iterative design approach for piled raft
foundation in which the foundation of a medium-rise building (5-storeys) is de-
signed using skin-friction piles of different lengths in a soft ground show that
control the differential settlement at the onset rather than limiting the overall set-
tlement. The foundation system consists of a piled raft with varying pile length
with longer piles in the central portion of the building and progressively shorter
piles towards the edge. The detailed design of the foundation system requires the
following cases to be considered i) Overall settlement behavior (predict the settle-
ment profile for structure design), ii)Pile-soil-structure interaction (to determine
the load distribution and local settlement of piles). the design utilizes the interac-
tion between piled raft soil in order to produce an optimum design that satisfies
both serviceability and ultimate limit states.
L. D. Ta and J. C. Small (2006): “An approximation for analysis of raft and

piled raft foundations”- presents an approximation which reduces computer run
time considerably, and yet results in very little error. This approximate method
should be useful for quick or preliminary design. A numerical method has been
described for the approximate computation of influence factors for raft and piled
raft foundations. The only restriction is that the raft has to be square and of equal
size. The accuracy of the approximate method compared to a full analysis has
14
been demonstrated through the examples. The advantage of the approximation is
that it can reduce computer run time by up to 100 times that of the full analysis.
For large problems, this saving can be very significant. When the bearing stratum
becomes stiffer, the piles carry loads and the raft carries fewer loads. For the case
of a flexible raft, all the piles carry almost the same load and the twisting moments
are largest in the region where the piles are in contact with the raft.
El-Mossoallamy Y. et al. (2006): “Innovative application of piled raft founda-

tion to optimize the design of high-rise buildings and bridge foundations” have
done generally over view on recent innovative applications (case studies) of piled
rafts in Germany on Frankfurt clay, Berlin sand, and Marl and weathered rock
for highway bridges. The piled raft foundation provides a new geotechnical con-
cept not only for high rise buildings but also for residential buildings and bridges,
which allow a high grade technical and economical optimization of construction.
Any kind of eccentric construction can be safely founded on soft to stiff clay and
also on loose to medium dense sand by appropriate location of piles, staggering
the pile length and suitable pile diameter. The number and length of piles, the
pile load share, total bearing capacity of the piled raft and its settlement are main
criteria that should be investigated during a feasibility study to check the valid-
ity of piled raft. Sometimes geological conditions at the site consist of weathered
rocks on which piled raft foundation has to be laid. Recently high rise buildings
are founded on weathered rock especially in Middle East countries.
J. C. Small and H. G. Poulos (2007): “Non-linear Analysis of piled raft foundation”-

represented a method of analysis for piled raft foundations where the piles exhibit
non-linear load-deflection behavior. The raft is analyzed through the use of finite
element methods, while the piles are treated as springs having a variable stiffness,
so as to modal any non-linear behavior. The soil is treated as an elastic medium
that may consist of a layer of soil having different stiffnesses. Interaction between
the piles in the group is assumed to remain constant even though the stiffness of
the piles may change with the load level. The method has been incorporated into
the computer program GRAP (General Analysis of Raft with Piles).
15
H. G. Poulos et al. (2008): “Foundation design for the burj dubai – the world’s
tallest building” has outlined the processes followed in the design of the foun-
dations for the Burj Dubai and the independent verification of the design. The
maximum settlement predicted by ABAQUS for the tower and podium foundation
compares reasonably well with the maximum settlement estimated by the revised
PIGS analysis carried out during the independent verification process.
Noh et al. (2008): “Finite Element Modeling for Piled-Raft in Sand” presented
the results of the finite elements based analyses of a series of different size mat
foundations with and without pile group beneath, in sandy soils of Surfers Par-
adise of Australia. PLAXIS code was employed to achieve the results. They have
studied the effect of raft thickness and number and spacing of piles on the internal
shear forces and bending moments.
Luca de Sanctis and Gianpiero Russo (2008): “Analysis and Performance of Piled
Rafts Designed Using Innovative Criteria”- the design analyses and the back-
analyses have been performed with relatively simple procedures based on the avail-
ability of a pile load test and using the code NAPRA Russo 1998. The shallow
foundation would have been safe against a bearing capacity failure, while the pre-
dicted settlement was beyond the allowed limit. Accordingly, piles were designed
to reduce the settlement and improve the overall performance of the foundations.
The substantial contribution of the raft in supporting almost half of the total
applied load is an indirect result of a design approach where the piles have only
the role of settlement reducers. This approach led to a substantial saving in the
total number of piles without significantly affecting the overall performance of the
piled rafts. This remark immediately evident if the average settlement calculated
for the traditional design solution is compared with the observed and the calcu-
lated settlement of the innovative design solution adopted in practice. The general
agreement between the analyses and the experimental results is rather satisfactory
confirming the validity of both the computer code and the procedure of analysis.
Ningombam Thoiba Singh and Baleshwar Singh (2008): “ Interaction Analysis

for Piled Rafts in Cohesive Soils”- presents the results of a finite element analysis
16
for piled rafts in cohesive soils. The finite element analysis of a raft foundation
has shown that the raft thickness has little effect on maximum settlement in soft
cohesive soils. As soil stiffness increases, a greater raft thickness leads to smaller
settlements. The value of contact stress is found to be less at the center of the
raft and is greater at the corners. The addition of even a small number of piles
increases the load-carrying capacity of the raft foundation, and this enhancement
effect is greater for higher soil stiffness. An increase in raft thickness does not
always improve the behavior of the piled raft foundation with respect to the max-
imum settlement. In the piled raft, the censer pile carries the maximum load,
followed by the edge pile and then the corner pile, which carries the minimum
load. The piles reach their ultimate capacity earlier than the raft and are thus
effective in reducing overall settlement.
J. J. Zheng et al. (2008): “Three- dimensional nonlinear finite element model-

ing of composite foundation” carried out 3D non-linear finite element modeling
of a composite foundation formed by Cement-Flyash-Gravel-lime piles which is a
widely used ground improvement technique. A CFG–lime multi-pile composite
foundation is a new concept utilizing CFG and lime piles. The parameters study
include the length and diameter of piles and the thickness of the cushion. The
stress distribution beneath the composite foundation, the influence of the cushion
on load-settlement behavior, and the ratio of stresses in the piles to those in the
subsoil are also studied. The results show that settlement is much more signifi-
cantly affected by the length and diameter of the CFG pile rather than that of the
lime pile, thus CFG pile acts as a settlement-reducing pile. On the other hand, the
load distribution between piles and subsoil is significantly affected by the cushion
thickness.
R. Meisam (2009): “Parametric Study for Piled Raft Foundations”- has considered
a parametric study on pile configuration. Pile number, pile length and raft thick-
ness on piled raft foundation behavior and it have been found that the maximum
bending moment in raft thickness, decreases pile number and decreases in pile
length. Central and differential settlement decrease with increase raft thickness
and uniform increase in pile length. It has also been found that pile configuration
17
is very important in pile raft design. The program ELPLA for a piled raft with
9 pile supporting rafts of varying thicknesses. Except for thin rafts, the maxi-
mum settlement is not greatly affected by raft thickness, whereas the differential
settlement decreases significantly with increasing raft thickness. Conversely, the
maximum moment in the raft increase with increasing raft thickness. The design
philosophy based on both ultimate load capacity and settlement criteria.
R. Meisam (2010): “Effect of Pile Configuration and Load Type on Piled Raft”
used a computer program ELPLA and found that pile configuration and load
distribution are very important and effective in piled raft settlement, maximum
moment and pile bearing factor. Three basic pile configurations and three load
distribution types were considered. Pile configuration 1 has the pile uniformly
distributed under the whole raft area. Pile configuration 2 has piles under central
area of the raft as well as under the edge of the raft. In pile configuration 3 the
piles are placed only in the central area of the raft.
S. K. Duggal (2013): “Earthquake resistant design of structures”- has defined

clearly that design of pile foundation is based on consideration of vertical and
horizontal stresses and structural integrity of the foundation. The base shear is
resisted by the lateral bearing on pile foundations. The vertical seismic loads on
individual piles systems may have to bear large tensile as well as compression
forces during earthquakes. It must be carefully ensured that the strata contiguous
to and below the piles have sufficient adhesive, shear, and bearing strength under
the soil-pile interaction during earthquakes, the most difficult aspect of seismic
design of piles is lateral strength
N. J. Joy, H. Hassan et. al. (2014): “Study on settlement characteristics of

combined pile raft foundation founded on sand with various arrangements of piles
using PLAXIS-3D”- studied the behaviour of combined pile raft foundations pro-
vide an economical foundation option for circumstances where the raft foundation
can satisfy the bearing capacity requirement but fails to keep differential as well
as maximum settlement below the maximum allowable limit. It had been estab-
lished that augmenting features like the thickness of raft, length of piles, etc has
18
decreased the settlement of raft and on other hands: decreasing ‘spacing/depth’
of piles has increased settlement of raft. In this paper permuted arrangement of
piles were adopted rather than a uniform arrangement; such that an improved
performance of the CPRF system can be envisioned. In this paper, CPRF is anal-
ysed using Finite Element Software PLAXIS 3D with a permuted arrangement
of piles. Three different Pile diameters and its combinations were modelled and
analysed. For the study, a 10 storey building founded on Medium Dense Sand
was analysed in STAAD.Pro Software to determine the loads to be transferred,
after fixing dimensions of raft and settlement analysis of raft PLAXIS 3D work
programme was composed. Piled Rafts with various combinations of piles were
modelled and analysed. From the comparison of results, it has been found out
that; installing high capacity piles at the region with maximum load concentration
and reinforcing the rest of the raft with medium capacity piles have the most im-
portant effect on significantly reducing maximum settlement and the differential
settlement. A few general trends in the behaviour of piled rafts have been studied
during this investigation. Thus, from our study on settlement characteristics of
combined pile raft foundation founded on sand with various arrangements of piles
using Plaxis-3D following points can be concluded, from the results obtained, it
is advisable to provide piles with different diameter than with equal diameter ir-
respective of soil type, from all the possible diameters, it is best to provide larger
diameter piles in the interior region to reduce the maximum settlement and the
differential settlement. The piles’ configurations in raft have the most important
effect on significantly reducing maximum settlement and the differential settle-
ment, particularly by concentrating the piles in the centre of the raft.
R. Gahlot and R. J. John (2015): “Approximate analysis of piled raft”- studied

the behaviour of piled raft foundations provide an economical foundation option
for circumstances where the performance of the raft alone does not satisfy the
design requirements. Under these situations, the addition of a limited number
of piles may improve the ultimate load capacity, the settlement, and differential
settlement performance, and the required thickness of the raft. An approximate
method of analysis has been performed to estimate the settlement and load distri-
bution of large piled raft foundation. In this method, the raft is modelled as a thin
19
plate and the pile and soils are treated as interactive springs. Both the resistance
of the piles as well as raft base are incorporated into the model. Raft-soil-raft
interaction is taken into account. The proposed method makes it possible to solve
the problems of uniformly and large non-uniformly arranged piled rafts in a time
saving way using computers. The computed settlements compared favourably with
permissible value. This paper focuses on the general effects of various parameters
like raft thickness and soil on a piled raft.
N. Nandwani and P. J. Salunke et. al (2015): “Comparative Study of Piled

Raft Foundation”- The use of piled raft foundations has become more popular
in recent years, as the combined action of the raft and the piles can increase the
bearing capacity, reduce settlement, and the piles can be arranged so as to reduce
differential deflection in the raft. Piled raft foundation is a new concept in which
the total load coming from the superstructure is partly shared by the raft through
contact with soil and the remaining load is shared by piles through skin friction. A
piled raft foundation is economical compared to the pile foundation. Because piles
do not have to penetrate the full depth of the clay layer but it can be terminated
at higher elevations. Such piled raft foundation undergoes more settlement than
the pile foundation and less settlement than the raft foundation. In this paper
the study of different parameters like the size of the raft, thickness of the raft,
diameter of the piles, length of piles, a spacing of piles, etc., which affect the be-
haviour of piled raft foundation. And its interdependency is also reviewed for G +
20 storey building. This study is useful to decide the various parameters required
in the design of piled raft foundation and suggest the suitable combination of Pile
Raft Foundation.
P. S. Wulandariand and D. Tjandraa (2015): “Analysis of piled raft foundation

on soft soil using PLAXIS 2D”- The author has presented, there are many con-
struction projects constructed on soft soil. Due to the characteristics of soft soil,
the structures built on it are subject to differential settlements. Raft foundation
is one of the methods for reducing the differential settlement. Although it has an
adequate bearing capacity, it may cause excessive settlement. Piles can be used
with a raft foundation as a piled raft foundation system. The addition of piles is
20
to reduce the settlements to an acceptable amount. The aim of this study is to
analyse the settlements of the raft foundation and by adding piles, as the pile raft
foundation, under the same loading. The numerical analysis has been done by
finite element method using PLAXIS 2D with considering the various number of
piles. As the results, the addition of piles could reduce the settlement, but after
reach, a certain number of piles, increasing the number of piles showed the settle-
ment tends to be constant. For an economic design, it is necessary to consider the
optimum number of piles in a piled raft foundation system based on the allowable
settlements.
2.3 Research Gap
Now a days tall buildings are constructed on pile foundation is provide global
stability of building under the effect of lateral loads. By stabilizing the structure
using heavy substructure. But the no. of the pile can be reduced in day to day
design without compromising with the safety the reduction in no. of the pile will
add tremendous values to the project w.r.t. cost saving. The same is achieved by
using the pile cap as a raft to contribute as load resisting element transferring the
load to the soil rather then pile.
2.4 Scope of the study
1. Reduction of settlements, differential settlements and tilts.

2. An increase of overall stability of the foundation.
3. The detailed economic analysis will be conducted considering conventional piles
and piled raft concept separately. The variation in the amount of reinforcement
should also be considered.
2.5 Objectives of present work
The objectives of the proposed dissertation are as follows:
1. To analyze the effect of only piles system for a tall building.

2. To analyze the effect of piled raft combination for a tall building.
3. To compare the results of a tall building with piles system and piled raft and
21
suggest codal recommendations.
4. Parametric study by varying concrete grade, pile length, and diameter will be
carried out.
5. Cost analysis of piled raft with conventional pile system.
2.6 Methodology
The methodology of the proposed dissertation is as follows:
1. Collection of information and validation of the system by using sample work

from the literature survey. A detailed study of collected information.
2. Analyze the structure using commercially available softwares.
3. Analysis of piles by using Finite element software.
4. Analysis of piled raft by using Finite element software.
5. Analysing the feasibility of both the systems as per relevant codal criterias
of differential settlement, pressure development on the structural raft or pile cap,
consumption of steel. Consumption of concrete and economic aspect of both the
systems.
6. Result interpretation and arriving at a conclusion.
22
Chapter 3
Soil-Structure Interaction
3.1 Introduction
At the beginning of this chapter, the literature on the subject and its contents is
briefly reviewed and describes the interaction between the soil and structure, the
effect of the superstructure on the base of the piled raft, the interaction mecha-
nism of the piled raft consisting of four different types of interaction (e.g. pile-pile,
pile-soil, soil-pile, etc.).
The work presented in this chapter will be limited to analyzing under static load
raft or piled raft foundations. Traditionally, structural and geotechnical engineers
have separated the design work for structures from that of the foundations, thus
neglecting the rigidity of the superstructure. However, the structural stiffness can
affect the distribution of column loads and bending moments transmitted from
the structure to the foundation, so it is necessary to consider interaction analysis
that accounts for the structural stiffness.
In foundation design, analyzes of actual settlements are based on a flexible loading
pattern without assessing the effect of structure stiffness on foundation settlement
patterns and magnitudes. While this method of neglecting the coupling or inter-
action between soil and structure tends to simplify the problem’s mathematical
analysis, it is an oversimplification of truth, however.
For the mechanics of the interaction between the foundation, soil, and super-
structure, the term soil-structure interaction has been largely used. The standard
design processes generally require assuming fixity at the foundation base, thus
neglecting the foundation’s flexibility, the compressibility of the soil mass, and
23
consequently, the impact of foundation settlement on further redistribution on the
superstructure’s bending moments and shear forces. Including these significant
variables in the assessment and design of any soil-based structure warrants a cor-
rect coupling of soil and structure.
Piled raft foundations are composite structures consisting of three elements: the
piles, the raft, and the supporting soil, and the loads applied to the raft are trans-
ferred through the piles to the soil; therefore, the interaction between the three
elements must be taken into account. The interaction mechanism for stacked raft
foundations is discussed in this section.
The standard approaches to solving the issue of interaction between soil and struc-
ture are widely categorized as:
i. Winkler’s Method
ii. Method of elastic half-space
3.2 Brief review of the literature
A short review of the accessible theme-related literature shows that soil-structure

interaction has been addressed by many researchers to analyze the construction
frame with a piled raft foundation. The impact of soil-structure interaction is ig-
nored in a standard technique of structural analysis taken for the practical design
of most buildings, and superstructure frames are usually analyzed because their
bases are totally stiff or hinged. This could lead to an underestimation of the
magnitude of some of the parameters that are likely to be created in structural
members, leading to unsafe design.
The simplified assumptions of the standard technique can only be regarded as
satisfactory for preliminary research and should not be used to analyze signifi-
cant structures as compatibility with displacement is not taken into consideration.
However, the foundation that rests on deformable soil also undergoes deformation
depending on certain characteristics, i.e., foundation rigidity, superstructure, and
soil. In order to arrive at the realistic magnitudes of these parameters, given this
interaction, it is essential to carry out an assessment.
The impact of soil-structure interaction (SSI) has been quantified in numerous
research. Few studies[ Chameski (1956), Subbarao et al. (1985), Allam et al.
(1991), Kuraian and Manoj Kumar (2001)] regarded the impact of interaction in
24
a very streamlined way and showed that force amounts need to be revised due to
the interaction between soil and structure.
Infinite components have been increasingly used in the issue of soil-structure inter-
action with the continuous enhancement in numerical techniques over the years.
Coupled finite-infinite components together provide the best means to idealize the
issues of interaction between soil and structure and, therefore, are reported to
have been widely used in many analyses [Viladkar et al. (1991), Godbole et al.
(1991), Noorzaei et al. (1991).
It is reported that several simplified models and idealizations were used in the
analysis to simulate the soil medium’s behavior. In most analyzes, the soil is ide-
alized as linear springs based on the hypothesis of the Winkler even though the
soil acts rather than springs as an elastic continuum. Lee and Harrison (1970) and
Subbarao et al. (1985) used the Winkler model while Mayerhof (1953) saw the
soil medium as homogeneous, isotropic, elastic half-space. The two models were
used in their analysis by Lee and Brown (1972) and Hain and Lee (1974).
3.3 Interaction mechanism of piled raft
Poulos (1968) launched the notion of interaction variables. It has since been
commonly accepted for pile groups and piled rafts assessment. Davis and Poulos
(1972) proposed that a piled raft’s assessment includes the interaction between
the piles and the cap. In this chapter, , four different interactions are (a) pile-pile
(b) pile-soil (c) soil-pile and (d) soil-soil. as shown in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1: Types of interactions in a Piled raft foundations
25
Pile-pile interaction
A significant factor in the assessment of pile groups and piled rafts as shown in
Figure 3.2. This interaction is described as the extra deflection of an unloaded pile
caused by a loaded pile adjacent to it. The αpp interaction factor can be described
as:
αpp = additional deflection of an unloaded pile/ deflection of a loaded pile in

isolation..................(3.1)
This interaction can be calculated by considering a pair of piles with a distance‘s’
between them and piles are divided into a number of beam elements. The soil is
divided into several layers corresponding to the pile elements.
Deflections of the soil at the locations of the ring or uniform loads can be expressed
as
δs = Is * Ps ...............(3.2)
Where,
δs = vector of soil displacement at the nodes
Is = soil influence matrix and
Ps = vector of forces acting at the soil interfaces
Figure 3.2: Interaction between a loaded pile and an unloaded pile
Pile-soil interaction
This is the interaction between a loaded pile and the soil surface at a distance ‘s’
from the loaded pile as shown in Figure 3.3. The pile-soil interaction, αps , may be
26
expressed as
αps = additional deflection of an unloaded soil surface/ deflection of a loaded

pile in isolation..................(3.3)
Figure 3.3: Interaction between a loaded pile and the soil surface
Soil-pile interaction
This is the interaction between a uniform rectangular load applied to the soil sur-
face and an unloaded pile at a distance s from the center of the loaded soil surface
as shown in Figure 3.4. The soil-pile interaction, αsp , may be expressed as
αps = additional deflection of an unloaded pile/ deflection of a loaded soil in

isolation..................(3.4)
This interaction is computed by considering the soil first. The deflection of the
soil consists of two components – (i) due to the ring loads along the pile shaft and
(ii) the surface load applied to the soil. The deflection due to the ring load can be
computed by using equation (3.2). The load-deflection relationship can be written
as
δs = Is * Ps + δt ...............(3.5)
Where,
δs = vector of deflections of the soil along the pile shaft and at the pile base
computed at the nodes of each pile.
27
Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation- A Geo-Structural Approach
Ps = vector of loads acting on the soil along the pile shaft and at the base.
δt = vector of deflections of the soil due to a unit surface load at a distance ‘s’
from the pile computed at the nodes of the pile
Figure 3.4: Interaction between a loaded surface and an unloaded pile
Soil-soil interaction
This is the interaction between a uniformly loaded surface and the unloaded soil
surface at a distance s from the center of the loaded surface as shown in Figure
3.5. The soil-soil interaction, alphass , may be expressed as
αss = additional deflection of an unloaded soil surface/ deflection of a loaded

soil in isolation..................(3.6)
Figure 3.5: Interaction between a loaded surface and an unloaded surface
Civil Engineering Department: Structural Engineering 28

Chapter 4
Finite Element Modeling Of Tall

Building
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, finite element modeling of the tall building has been done using
Extended Three-dimensional Analysis of Building System (ETABS) 2016 software.
The building analysed in ETABS includes the software validation, geometrical
details model and analytical investigation, then modeling foundation in SAFE
2016 software.
4.2 Finite Element Modeling
The finite element method (FEM) in structural mechanics is the dominant tech-
nique of discretization. FEM modeling idea is the division of mathematical model
into non-overlapping easy geometry parts. Each element’s reaction is articulated
in terms of a finite amount of degrees of liberty defined as an unknown function’s
value. The finite element method is well suited for superimposing material models
for a composite material’s constituent components. Advanced constituent mod-
els introduced in the ETABS finite element system serve as rational instruments
to clarify the link conduct between steel and concrete. Nonlinear simulation us-
ing ETABS models can be used effectively to support and extend experimental
research and predict structural and structural details conduct. In the computer
code ETABS, which is a finite element package intended for computer simulation
of concrete constructions, several constitutive models covering these impacts are
29
introduced. The ETABS graphical user interface offers an effective and strong
environment to solve many issues with anchoring.
4.3 Modelling of tall building using ETABS
Using ETABS software, the assessment of large structures in the dissertation was
carried out. ETABS features state-of-the-art interface, visualization instruments,
strong analysis and engine design featuring sophisticated finite element skills and
vibrant analytics. ETABS is the decision of experts from model generation, analy-
sis and design to visualization and verification of results. Because of the following
benefits we chose ETABS:
1. Conformation with the Indian codes
2. Easy to use interface
3. The solution is accurate
4. Solving any type of problem is possible
4.3.1 Plan and 3D view of 56 storey building
• The superstructure is first analyzed in ETABS software.

• Parameters are to be considered according to the layout. Dead load: 1.5KN /
m2 Live load: 2.0KN / m2 (live loads of 3kN / m2 and 5kN / m2 are provided for
the passage and staircase slab)
• 8KN / m3 Siporex density blocks are used for walls
• In EQ, i.e. (h/500) wind i.e. (h/250), the size of the columns and walls are
given for deflection control
• Story number: 56
• Floor height: 3.5 m
• The concrete grade used for the analysis is M60
• Soil SBC is 450KN / m2
• The slab is modeled with a rigid diaphragm
• Wind load is to be considered according to IS 875. (Part III)
• The load of the earthquake is regarded in accordance with IS 1893-2002. (SMRF
with reaction reduction factor 4, Zone factor 0.16, and 5 percent damping is given.)
• The building is analyzed using the Response Spectrum method for the dynamic
load

Table 4.1: Seismic parameters used for analysis

1 Location Mumbai
2 Zone III
3 Zone factor 0.16
4 Importance factore, I 1
5 Response factore, R 4
Figure 4.1: Snip of 56 storey building (Plan and 3D view)
4.3.2 Loading Inputs Using ETABS
In this, load parameters considered for the study has been shown the following
Figures. Seismic analysis is carried out as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 and wind
analysis is carried out as per IS 875 (Part 3): 1987. Response spectrum analysis
is carried out as defined in IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.
Static Method
Define static load from Define > Load pattern
Figure 4.2: Snip of a static earthquake and wind load pattern considered for the study

Press modify lateral load to shown in Figure 4.3 and assign various value as per IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002. Seismic zone factor, Z is 0.16 and Time period is calculated
as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.
Figure 4.3: Snip of static earthquake load in X- direction
Press modify lateral load to shown in Figure 4.4 and assign various value as per
IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. Seismic zone factor, Z is used 0.16 in used defined and
Time period is calculated as user defined.
Figure 4.4: Snip of static earthquake load in Y- direction
Dynamic Method
The design response spectra of IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002 is given as input in the
Define menu > Function > Response spectra as shown in figure 4.5
For defining the response spectrum load case go to Define menu > Load case
> Add new case and selecting load case type as Response Spectrum and scale
factor as shown in Figure 4.6

Figure 4.5: Snip of Response spectra used
Figure 4.6: Snip of Response spectra load case in X- direction
For defining the response spectrum load case go to Define menu > Load cases
> Add new case and selecting load case type as Response Spectrum and scale
factor as shown in Figure 4.7
Wind Analysis
To define the IS 875 (Part 3): 1987 wind load, go to Define ¿ Load pattern.
Double click in the edit box for the Load column and type WX. Select Wind as
the Type. Select Indian IS 875: 1987 from the Auto Lateral Load drop-down
list. Click the Add New Load button. With the WX load highlighted, click the
modify Lateral Load button. This will bring up the Wind Load Pattern – IS 875

Figure 4.7: Snip of Response spectra load case in Y- direction
(Part 3): 1987 from shown in Figure 4.8. Select the Exposure from Extents of
Rigid Diaphragms option. This option would result in the program automatically
applying all possible permutations of the IS 875 (Part 3): 1987 wind load to the
diaphragms.
Figure 4.8: Snip of details of wind load considered
4.4 Modeling and analysis of Piled foundation
The DL, LL, WL, Earthquake Load, and Load combination of RC building mod-
els have been directly exported from finite element software ETABS 2016 and
imported into SAFE 2016 to model the Pile foundation for RC building 56 stories.
As a point spring of equivalent rigidity, the piles are attached as 1022KN /mm,
respectively the length and diameter of the pile 20 and 1m. The thickness of the
pile cap is considered as 3m. With a horizontal spacing of 3m and a vertical spac-
ing of 4m, the piles are evenly distributed. The permissible 10mm settlement and
the pile’s ability to carry working load is considered to be 10000KN.

4.4.1 Piled property
The Material is given as input in the Define menu > Point spring property
data > Add new property as shown in figure 4.9
Figure 4.9: Snip of Piled Property
4.4.2 Plan view of Pile 56 storey buildings
Figure 4.10: Layout of Pile foundation (Plan view)

4.4.3 Loading inputs used in SAFE
In this, the load has directly imported from ETABS to SAFE 2016 software from
each RC building storey. Seismic analysis is carried out as per IS 1893 (Part 1):
2002 and wind analysis is carried out as per IS 875 (Part 3): 1987. Response
spectrum analysis is carried out as defined in IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.
Figure 4.11: Load acting on piles (3D view)
Figure 4.12: Displacement of pile cap ( 13.10 mm)
4.5 Modeling and analysis of Piled raft foundation
In this topic, a mixed structural-geotechnical method was used to explain the

philosophy of modeling piled raft. Initially, piles are modeled as spring and raft
beam on an elastic foundation as shown in Figure 4.13 to observe the conduct of
piled raft.

Figure 4.13: Structural idealization for a raft with pile and supporting soil
A piled raft is analyzed in SAFE software, the piles are connected as point spring
of equal stiffness as 1022KN /mm and raft is modeled as normal, here the pile’s
size and diameter vary. The raft’s thickness is 3m and the raft’s size is 42x32 m2.
With a horizontal spacing of 4 m and a vertical spacing of 3m, the piles are evenly
distributed. Here the soil carrying capacity is considered to be 450KN /m2 with
the permissible settlement to be 10mm and the pile’s ultimate carrying capacity
is considered to be 10000KN.
4.5.1 Meshing of Piled Raft Model
Mesh from Edit > Edit Areas > Divide Areas
Figure 4.14: Snip of Mesh

Figure 4.15: Snip of RAFT with Grid
4.5.2 Raft Material and Raft Thickness
The Material is given as input in the Define menu > Materials > Add new
property
Figure 4.16: Snip of Raft Material
The thickness is given as input in the Define menu > Slab Properties > Add
new property. The M50 material has considered for Raft of RC multi storey

building and thickness of Raft is considered 3000mm.
Figure 4.17: Snip of Slab Properties
4.5.3 Assign of Soil Subgrade Properties
The soil subgrade is given as input in the Define menu > Soil Subgrade
Properties > Add new property
Figure 4.18: snip of Soil Subgrade Properties

Figure 4.19: Plan and view of RAFT
Figure 4.20: Soil pressure distribution in piled Raft foundation (447.03kN/m2)
Figure 4.21: Displacement of piled raft foundation (9.90mm)

Chapter 5
Result and Discussion
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the analysis of Pile foundation of 56 storeys is presented. The

results of lateral load analysis in ETABS are also presented in this chapter. The
RC tall construction was researched on a separate foundation system and out-
comes were assessed in terms of maximum, minimum and differential settlement
with variable depth and also the variation of bending moment of foundation with
variable depth of pile cap as well as a raft.
5.2 Analysis result
The analysis is conducted for gravity and lateral loads while the design is done
only for gravity and wind loads without earthquake loads. The total load on base
from software i;e 1001364.198 kN. Top storey displacement limit for 56 stories, as
per H/500, comes out to be 376.4 mm and max story drifts limit for 56 stories,
as per 0.004h, comes out to be 0.014. The max time period for the first mode is
6,176 seconds.
Table 5.1: Top story displacement and max story drifts for 56 storey building
Directions Top story displacement (mm) Max story drifts
EQ in X Direction 111.519 0.00074
EQ in Y Direction 195.12 0.00128
Wind in X Direction 257.49 0.00168
Wind in Y Direction 251.022 0.00164
The below table showing the advantage of piled raft over conventional pile foun-
dation.
41
Table 5.2: Shows the variation between various structural moments and displacements
Type of foundation Thickness Bending moment KN-m Settlement mm Differntial Settlement mm
Pile 3 23952.07 13.10. 13
Piled-raft 3 21436.52 9.9 9.3
5.2.1 Maximum Settlement and Differential Settlement
The increase in the settlement thickness of the pile cap for a 56-story building also
significantly decreases the differential settlement. The thickness of the pile cap
was initially 1m and the settlement was 18.98mm and the differential settlement
was 16.41mm as well. After increasing the thickness to 3.0m with an increase of
500 mm, the settlement was observed to decrease to 13.1mm, while the differential
settlement decreased to 13mm.
Figure 5.1: Graph shows Pile cap thickness v/s Settlement
Table 5.3: Shows effect of varying raft thickness on a pile

Raft thickness mm Settlement mm Differential settlement mm
1000 14.67 12.77
1500 12.68 10.96
2000 11.9 10.8
2500 10.88 9.76
3000 9.9 9.3

Figure 5.2: Graph shows Raft thickness v/s Settlement
5.2.2 Bending Moment
It is also observed that with an increase in depth foundation the dead load increase
which will result in an increase in the maximum bending moment. However, an
increase in depth foundation is advantageous for punching shear.
Table 5.4: Shows the variation of a maximum positive and negative moment with an increase in
pile cap thickness
Pile Cap thickness Max +ve Bending Max -ve Bending
(m) Moment (kN-m) Moment (kN-m)
1 13105.87 4017
2 20546.18 3183.94
3 23952.07 2979.33
Figure 5.3: Graph shows Pile cap thickness v/s Bending Moment

Table 5.5: Shows the variation of a maximum positive and negative moment with an increase in
raft thickness
Raft thickness Max +ve Bending Max -ve Bending
(m) Moment (kN-m) Moment (kN-m)
1 10429.6 3230.01
2 18907.71 2891.25
3 21436.52 3672.15
Figure 5.4: Graph shows Raft thickness v/s Bending Moment
5.2.3 Effect of different pile diameter and length in piled raft
As the diameter of the pile increases for the same length, raft load reduces. As the
length of the pile for the same diameter, the raft’s load reduces. The percentage of
raft load reduces at a quicker pace for pile diameter increases rather than length
increases. As the diameter or length of pile increases, the max moment in raft
increases. As the diameter or length of the pile increases, raft settlement reduces.
Table 5.6: Effect of different pile diameter of 15m length in piled raft
Pile dia. (m) Settlement (mm) Raft Thickness (m) Max +ve Bending Max -ve Bending
Moment (kN-m) Moment (kN-m)
1 12.33 3 24075.01 3547.94
1.2 10.46 3 22566.8 3736.92
1.5 8.36 3 20702.39 3888.03
1 11.29 3 22895.65 33627.61
1.2 9.84 3 21430.52 3789.15
1.5 7.88 3 18762.48 3910.46

1 9.90 3 21436.04 3672.15
1.2 9.47 3 20006.00 3817.52
1.5 7.59 3 18559.80 3921.44
5.2.4 Effect of varying soil stiffness on the load carrying capacity of

raft and pile for building
For a 56th story building increase in stiffness of soil stiffness below raft results in
an increase in load taken by the raft as shown in Figure
Table 5.9: Effect of soil stiffness on the load carrying capacity of Raft in piled raft
Stiffness of soil (KN/m3) Load took by raft (KN)
30000 231444.27
60000 385793.86
80000 455412.89
Figure 5.5: Graph shows the load taken by Raft v/s soil stiffness
Table 5.10: Effect of soil stiffness on the load carrying capacity of Pile in piled raft
Stiffness of soil (KN/m3) Load took by raft (KN)
30000 769919.93
60000 615570.34
80000 545951.31

Figure 5.6: Graph shows the load taken by Pile v/s soil stiffness
5.3 Cost analysis of piled raft foundation with conven-

tional pile foundation system
After comparing analyses of both the system, it has been found that the con-
sumption of pile in case of a piled raft is reduced which minimises the cost of
construction to a substantial extent. The consumption of steel in a raft in case of
piled raft maybe slightly higher than that as in case of pile cap in piled system.
The overall economy as achieved by a reduction in pile cap due to substantial
load resisted by raft in case of a piled raft. This has been seen that the piled raft
foundation consumes lesser no of piles in comparison to the pile foundation. In
pile foundation 110nos. of piles are used to withstand the load from the super-
structure. The requirement of piles in the piled raft is 91nos. In the case of a piled
raft, the requirement of the pile is less in comparison to pile foundation case. In
piled raft foundation 19nos. of piles are reduced which affects the time and cost of
the construction. The cost of a pile is around 200000rs approximate. Therefore,
the cost of the 19 pile is 3800000rs approximate which is a substantial amount of
saving in a piled raft system. Hence, the piled raft foundation system reduces the
cost and time of the construction.

5.4 Discussion of results
• A reduction in the maximum deflection is observed with an increase in the

thickness of the pile cap.
• It is observed that with an increase in depth the dead load increases resulting
in an increase in the maximum bending moment.
• As the diameter of the pile increase with the same length, the raft load reduces.
As the length of the pile increases for the same diameter, the load of raft reduces.
• The maximum moment in the raft increases as the diameter or length of the pile
increases. As the diameter or length of the pile increases, raft settlement reduces.
• For a building increase in stiffness of soil stiffness below raft results in an increase
in load taken by the raft, and also decrease in load taken by the pile.
• The piled raft foundation system reduces the cost and time of the construction.

Chapter 6
Conclusions And Future Scope
6.1 Introduction
In the present investigation, analysis of a two different foundation system is re-

ported. The investigation aims at bringing out the significance of the aspect of
the analysis of piled raft, especially in the context of the vertical load acting on
the piled raft and various aspects of the foundation such as various modulus of
subgrade reaction and thickness of raft. The response of the piled raft is consid-
ered in terms of vertical displacement, differential settlement, and moment at the
respect of time and cost.
6.2 Concluding Remark
All studies show that the piled raft foundation has important benefits over the
standard design of the base for the accessible soil strata. The following points
were noted in the research.
• Piled raft foundation efficiently decreases settlements, differential settlements
and bending moment compared to pile foundations.
• Maximum deflections are reduced as raft thickness increases as well as soil mod-
ule increases.
• The piled raft foundation’s complete and differential vertical settlement is less
than that of the conventional pile foundation.
• The settlement of raft and pile decreases as increases in pile diameter.
• The settlement of raft and pile decreases as increases in pile length.
• Increase in diameter or length of pile results in an increase in moments in the
48
raft.
• It is observed that stiffer the soil more will be the load shared by raft.
• The piled raft foundation reduces no. of piles which affects the time and cost of
constructions.
6.3 Future Scope
The present work reports the analysis of piled raft, analysis of 56 storey building
frame on a piled raft. The studies indicate that the piled raft foundation concept
has significant advantages in comparison to a conventional foundation for the
available soil strata. However, the present investigation can be extended further to
account for some of the aspects that are not considered in the present investigation.
• Various configurations of the frame, i.e., symmetrical and unsymmetrical.
• Effect of analysis in another type of tall buildings such as outrigger-belt system
can be studied.
• Various modulus of subgrade reaction.
• Various soil conditions.

REFERENCES
[1] C. L. and H. G. Poulos,(1993), “Analysis of pile-soil interaction under lat-

eral loading using infinite and finite elements”, Computers and Geotechnics,
Volume 15, pp. 189-220.
[2] EL-Mossallamy, and Y.,(2002), “Deep Foundations: An International Per-
spective on Theory”, Construction and Performance, Vol. 1,pp. 426-439.
[3] H. G. Poulos (2001) “Piled raft foundations: design and applications”,
Geotechnique, Vol. 51,pp. 95-113.
[4] H.G Poulos and G.Bunce, (2008), “Foundation design for the burj dubai –
the world’s tallest building”, Proceedings of the 6th International conference
on Case Histories in Geotechnical engineering,Arlington, VA.
[5] Hain, S. J., and Lee, I. K. (1978), “The Analysis of flexible Raft-Pile Systems”,
Geotechnique, Vol. 28,pp. 65-83.
[6] J. J. Zheng, S. W. Abusharar, and X. Z. Wang, (2008), “Three- dimen-
sional nonlinear finite element modeling of a composite foundation formed
by CFG–lime piles”, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 35,pp. 637-643.
[7] Luca D. S. and Russo G. (2008), “Analysis and Performance of Piled Rafts
Designed Using Innovative Criteria”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, Vol. 134, @ASCE, ISSN 1090-.0241.
[8] Mandolini, A. and Viggiani, C. (1997), “Settlement of Piled Foundations”,
Géotechnique, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 791-816.
[9] Maharaj, D. K., and Gandhi, S. R. (2004), “Deep Foundations: An Inter-
national Perspective on Theory”, Proc. Instn. Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 157,pp. 107-113.
[10] Meisam R. (2009), “Parametric Study for piled Raft Foundations”, Amirkabir
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
[11] Meisam R. (2010), “Effect of Pile Configuration and Load Type on Piled
Raft”, Proceedings of Sessions of Geoshanghai: Deep Foundations and
Geotechnical Insitu testing Geotechnical special publication no. 205:34- 41.
[12] Ningombam T. S. and Baleshwar S. (2008), ““ Interaction Analysis for Piled
Rafts in Cohesive Soils”, The 12th International Conference of International
50
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IAC-
MAG), Goa, India,1-6 October 2008.
[13] Noh, E. Y., Huang, M., Surarak, C., Adamec, R. and Balasurbamaniam, A.
S. (2008), “Finite Element Modeling for Piled-Raft in Sand”, Proceedings of
the Eleventh East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural, Engineering, and
Construction (EASEC-11), Taiwan.
[14] Nirmal J. J., and Hashifa H. (2014), “Study on settlement characteristics of

combined pile raft foundation founded on the sand with various arrangements
of piles using PLAXIS-3D”.
[15] Nandwani N., Gore N. G. and Salunke P. J. et. al (2015), “Comparative Study
of Piled Raft Foundation”, International Journal of Engineering Science and
Research Technology, ISSN: 2277-9655.
[16] Prakoso W. A. and Kulhawy F. H. (2001), “[19] Prakoso W. A. and Kul-

hawy F. H. (2001). “Contribution to piled raft foundation design”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 127 No 1, pp. 1024-
1090.
[17] Reul, O., and Randolph, M. H. (2004), “Design Strategies for Piled Rafts
Subjected to Nonuniform Vertical Loading”, Jl. of Geotecchnical and Geo
Enviromental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 1-10.
[18] Rameez G., and Roshni J. J. (2015), “Approximate analysis of piled raft”,
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, Volume 6 ISSN
2229-5518.
[19] S. K. Duggal (2013), “Earthquake resistant design of structures”, Oxford

University Press, pp. 140-143.
[20] Small J. C., and Poulos H. G. (2007), “Non-linear Analysis of piled raft
foundation”, Construction and Performance, Vol. 1,pp. 426-439.
[21] Tandjiria V. (1999), “Numerical Modelling of Chicken-Foot Foundation”,

Civil Engineering Dimension Journal of Civil Engineering and Application,
Vol. I No 1, pp. 14-19.
[22] Tan Y. C., Chow C. M., and Gue S. S. (2005), “Piled raft with different pile
length for medium rise buildings on very soft clay”, In: Proceedings of the
51
international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. AA
Balkema Publishers.
[23] Ta L. D. and Small J. C. (2006), “An approximation for analysis of raft

and piled raft foundations”, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia.
[24] Wulandariand P. S. and Tjandraa D. (2015), “Analysis of piled raft foundation

on soft soil using PLAXIS 2D”, The 5th International Conference of Euro Asia
Civil Engineering Forum (EACEF-5), Vol. 125, Pages 363-367.
52
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ON PRESENT
WORK
[1] Khan, S. A. and P. S. Patil, “Effect of Pile Cap Thickness Variation

on Load Carrying Capacity of Piled Foundation in Tall RC building”,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, , Volume
06, Issue 04, 1406-1409, April 2019.
[2] Khan S. A., P. S. Patil, Z. R. Khan, “Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation-

A Geo-Structural Approach” Submitted to Journal of Advanced Struc-
tural Engineering (Springer).
53
Here join approved copy of synopsis.
54

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation-A Geo-Structural Approach

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation-A Geo-Structural Approach

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A

Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation- A

Under the Supervision of

Department of Civil Engineering

(An Autonomous Institute, Affiliated to Shivaji University, Kolhapur)

cessfully completed the dissertation work and submitted dissertation report on

(“Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation- A Geo-Structural Approach”) for the partial

fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Technology in Civil-

and regulations of Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Rajaramnagar, Dist:

Place: RIT, Rajaramnagar

Dr. P. S. Patil Mr Z. R. Khan

Name and Sign of Supervisor Name and Sign of Industrial Supervisor

Name Dr. P. S. Patil

Dr. P. D. Kumbhar Dr. Sharad D. Patil

Name and Sign of Head of Department Name and Sign of PG Convener

along with competent authority sign, stamp and outward number.

fied any idea/data/fact/source in my submission. Whenever I have used materials

Place: RIT, Rajaramnagar Khan Sirajahmad Anwar

I would like to express my gratitude and indebtedness to my learned and enlight-

I also wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. P. D. Kumbhar, Head

My special thanks to Director of RIT, Rajaramnagar, Sangli for giving inspi-

Place: RIT, Rajaramnagar Khan Sirajahmad Anwar

4 Finite Element Modeling Of Tall Building 29

5 Result and Discussion 41

1.1 Piled-Raft foundation of Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Finite element discretization for a piled- raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1 Types of interactions in a Piled raft foundations . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1 Snip of 56 storey building (Plan and 3D view) . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.1 Graph shows Pile cap thickness v/s Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.1 Seismic parameters used for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

DAM Direct Analysis of Method

ETABS Extended Three-dimensional Analysis of Building Systems

FEM Finite Element Modelling

HSC High Strength Concrete

PRF Piled Raft Foundation

SSI Soil-Structure Interaction

1.2 Motivation of the present work

1.3 Piled Raft Foundation

Figure 1.1: Piled-Raft foundation of Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai

Depending on the quantity of load to be transmitted and the nature of supporting

1.4.1 Finite element method

1.4.2 Boundary element method

1.4.3 Piles as a settlement reducer

1.5 Layout of the thesis

2.2 Literature Review

Mandolini and Viggiani (1997): “Settlement of Piled Foundations” presented an

H. G. Poulos (2001): “Methods of analysis of piled raft foundation” has defined

Pastsakorn Kitiyodom and Tatsunori Matsumoto (2002): has developed a sim-

Figure 2.1: Finite element discretization for a piled- raft

L. D. Ta and J. C. Small (2006): “An approximation for analysis of raft and

El-Mossoallamy Y. et al. (2006): “Innovative application of piled raft founda-

J. C. Small and H. G. Poulos (2007): “Non-linear Analysis of piled raft foundation”-

Ningombam Thoiba Singh and Baleshwar Singh (2008): “ Interaction Analysis

J. J. Zheng et al. (2008): “Three- dimensional nonlinear finite element model-

S. K. Duggal (2013): “Earthquake resistant design of structures”- has defined

N. J. Joy, H. Hassan et. al. (2014): “Study on settlement characteristics of

R. Gahlot and R. J. John (2015): “Approximate analysis of piled raft”- studied

N. Nandwani and P. J. Salunke et. al (2015): “Comparative Study of Piled

P. S. Wulandariand and D. Tjandraa (2015): “Analysis of piled raft foundation

2.3 Research Gap

2.4 Scope of the study

1. Reduction of settlements, differential settlements and tilts.

2.5 Objectives of present work