Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

SIMPLIFIED DESIGN METHOD FOR PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

J.M. Raut1, Dr. S.R.Khadeshwar 2, Dr. S.P.Bajad 3,Dr. M.S.Kadu4
1

Assistant Professor & Ph.D Scholar, Yeshwantrao Chavan College of

Engineering,Wanadongari Nagpur-441110 ,Maharashtra,INDIA.
2
Professor, Yeshwantrao Chavan College of Engineering,Wanadongari
Nagpur,Maharashtra,INDIA.
3
Lecturer Government Polytechnic,Amravati,Maharashtra-444603,INDIA.
4
Head of civil engineering department ,Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering
& management Nagpur-440013
ABSTRACT: Raft foundations is the favorite choice for most of the designers but
now days due to constrains of cost increment, decreasing availability of land
because of rapid industrialization & urbanization there is growth in vertical
direction resulting in many high rise building coming up. This has resulted in
heavy load, complicated stress conditions and limitation of bearing capacity of
soil. This results in settlement of high rise buildings. As a solution to the
settlement problem of high rise buildings number of piles are used and new type
of foundation called as piled raft foundation is coming up in a big way. In some
design approach piles are used for reducing the settlement and load is carried by
raft only, another design methods still concentrate on providing adequate axial
capacity from the piles to carry the structural load and bearing capacity of raft
neglected. In both the design approach piled raft foundation becomes
uneconomical as bearing capacity of raft and pile is not utilized in single design
approach. This shows that , design rules and standards for piled-raft foundations
are not well established. The interesting observation in the Poulos-DavisRandolph (PDR) design methodology for piled Raft but using simple stiffness
formula piled raft foundation can be designed and analyzed. It is observed that
increase in pile length leads to increase in the settlement which is contrary to the
practical observation. It is because, the stiffness of any structural member in our
case pile decreases with increase in length for given diameter. This can be avoided
by using length of pile up to depth of fixity. The length of pile below fixity due to
surrounding soil can be neglected .This length of pile above depth of fixity is also
called free standing length of pile. This free standing length can be calculated
using Indian standard on pile. By using simple stiffness formulae in PDR
methodology piled raft design can be simplified.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

462

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Now a day due to rapid urbanization all over the world has led to increase in the
number and height of high-rise and super high-rise buildings because of limitation
of space. This situation leads to growing use of combined piled-raft foundation all
over the world. Worlds tallest building Burj-Dubai is also resting on the piled-raft
foundation. However, design rules and standards for piled-raft foundations are not
well established and hence it remained an area of interest for many researchers.
Initially, piles were used as settlement reducers in piled-raft foundation. This
traditional capacity based design Approach for piled-raft is popular and significant
applications are observed. This may be due to impositions made by prevailing
codes and regulations in many countries. It is also observed that most of the
countries, including India, do not have standard codes of design for piled-raft. In
situations where in an un-piled-raft does not satisfy the design requirements with
respect to settlement, the piled-rafts are provided. Under these circumstances, the
addition of a limited number of piles will also improve the ultimate load bearing
capacity along with improving the settlement performance. There have been an
increasing number of structures using piled raft as the foundation to reduce the
overall and differential settlement. In much of the available literature, emphasis
has been placed on the use of piles as settlements reducers; while less attention
has been paid to the bearing capacity of the overall foundation.
The present work is inspired with the general opinion that piles can share some
load due to either friction or bearing in addition to reducing the settlement. The
paper deals with effect of geometric parameters of the pile on the load settlement
of the piled-raft. In addition, it describes the generalized design of piled raft
considering the capacity of pile in sharing the load and the ability to reduce the
settlement which in turn would lead to a cost effective design of piled raft,
especially for high rise buildings. Following the Poulos-Davis-Randolph (PDR)
design methodology for piled raft but using simple stiffness formula piled raft
foundation can be designed and analyzed. Interestingly, it is observed that
increase in pile length leads to increase in the settlement which is contrary to the
practical observation. It is because, the stiffness of any structural member in our
case pile decreases with increase in length for given diameter. This can be avoided
by using length of pile up to depth of fixity. The length of pile below fixity due to
surrounding soil can be neglected .This length of pile above depth of fixity is also
called free standing length of pile. This free standing length can be calculated
using Indian standard on pile. By using simple stiffness formulae in PDR design
methodology design method for piled Raft can be simplified. There are
following design approaches found in the recent literature.
TRADITIONAL DESIGN APPROACH:
The traditional design approach for piled-raft foundation is to adjusting diameter,
length and number of piles to carry the vertical component of the total load
transferred by the superstructure with adequate safety. The load carrying capacity
or the contact between raft & soil is neglected.
Innovative Design Approach
The Piled-raft foundation load carrying capacity of pile as well as raft is
considered in this design approach. The basic aim in this design approach is to
balance the stiffness of piles and raft. The stiffness of pile and raft determines the
load sharing between raft and pile.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

463

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PILED RAFTS:

The most effective application of piled-raft occurs when the raft can provide
adequate load capacity, but the total of the raft alone exceed the allowable values.
Poulos (1991) has examined a number of idealized soil profiles; and found that the
following situations may be favourable.
a) Soil profiles consisting of relatively stiff clays.
b) Soil profiles consisting of relatively dense sands.
In both these circumstances, the raft can provide a significant proportion of the
required load capacity and stiffness, while the piles boost the performance of the
foundation rather than providing the major means of support.
UNFAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PILED RAFTS:
There are some situations which may be unfavourable for piled-raft, such as,
a) Soil profiles containing soft clays near the surface.
b) Soil profiles containing loose sands near the surface.
c)Soil profiles which contain soft compressible layers at relatively shallow
depths.
d) Soil profile which is likely to undergo consolidation settlements due to
external causes.
e) Soil profiles which are likely to undergo swelling movement due to external
causes.
In the first two cases, the piled-raft may not be able to provide significant load
capacity and stiffness, while in the third case, long term settlement of the
compressible layers may reduce the contribution of the raft to the long-term
stiffness of the foundation. The last two cases should be treated with considerable
caution. Consolidation settlements, such as those due to dewatering or shrinking
of an active clay-soil, may result in a loss of contact between the raft and the soil,
thus increasing the load on the piles leading to increased settlement of the
foundation. In case of swelling soils, substantial additional tensile forces may be
induced in the pile because of the action of the swelling soil on the raft.
Theoretical studies of these situations have been described by Poulos and Sinha
(1997).
ADVANTAGES OF PILED-RAFT FOUNDATION:
The advantages of piled-raft can be summarized as:
a) Reduction of maximum and differential settlements leads to
improvement of serviceability o a foundation.
b) A significant reduction in the required number and length of piles in
comparison to fully piled foundation.
c) Reduction in the internal stress and bending moment in a raft.
d) Improvement in the bearing capacity of a shallow foundation using the
load sharing between raft and piles.
e) For eccentrically loaded rafts, centralization of the resistance of the
foundation by concentrating piles under the eccentrically loaded area of
the raft.

5
Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

464

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

METHODS OF ANALYSIS:
Many methods of analyzing piled-rafts have been developed and some of these
have been summarized by Poulos et al. (1997). Three broad classes of methods of
analysis have been identified as:

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION METHODS:

Simplified Method includes those presented by Poulos and Davis (1980),
Randolph (1983, 1994), Van Impe and Clerq (1995), and Burland (1995). All
these methods involve a number of simplifications in relation to the modeling of
the soil profile and the loading conditions on the raft.
APPROXIMATE COMPUTERBASED METHODS:
The approximate computer-based methods include the following broad
approaches.
Methods employing a strip on springs approach in which the raft is represented
by a series of strip footing, and the piles are represented by springs of appropriate
stiffness ( Poulos, 1991)
Methods employing a plate on springs approach in which the raft is
represented by a plate and the piles as spring (Clancy and Randolph, 1993; Poulos,
1994; Viggiani, 1998; Anagnastopoulos and Georgiadis, 1998).
More rigorous computer based methods: The more rigorous methods include:
Boundary element method in which both the raft and the piles within the system
are discredited, and use elastic theory is used. (Butterfield and Banerjee, 1971;
Brown and Wisner, 1975; Kuwabara, 1989; Sinha, 1997).
Methods combining boundary element for the piles and finite element analysis
for the raft (Hain and Lee,1978; Ta and Small, 1996; Franke et al. 1994; Russo
and Viggiani, 1998)
Simplified finite element analysis usually involving the representation of the
foundation system as a plane strain problem (Desai, 1974) or an ax-symmetric
problem (Hooper, 1974) and corresponding finite difference analysis via the
commercial program FLAC (Hewitt and Gue, 1994). Three-dimensional finite
element analysis(e.g. Zhuang et al. 1991;Lee, 1993; Wang, 1995; Katzenbach et
al., 1998) and finite difference analysis via the commercial program FLAC3D.
In piled-raft foundation the use of piles was intended to reduce the total and
differential settlement of raft to a considerable degree. This helps in achieving
large scale economy of the structure without compromising the safety and
performance of the foundation. Over the quarter of a century, piles are used as
settlement reducers in piled raft. The main focus is on reducing the average
settlement while reducing the differential settlement using the piles. However, an
approach to these concerns is not well developed. Conceptually, it is thought that
there is possibility of taking advantage of load sharing between piles and rafts.
Thus, the piled-raft designed with the conceptual approach may achieve a
substantial economy and improve performance of the foundation especially when
an un-piled raft does not satisfy the settlement criterion.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

465

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

466

DESIGN METHODOLOGY:
Load from superstructure
Raft

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GL
load shared by raft

load shared by raft

Piles

The piled raft is foundation formed due to combination of raft & piles.
Primarily when the settlement in the raft foundation is more then pile are used as
settlement reducers. The load bearing capacity of pile is neglected and total load is
taken by raft only. This leads to uneconomical design; Another design methods
still concentrate on providing adequate axial capacity from the piles to carry the
structural load and bearing capacity of raft neglected. in both the design approach
piled raft foundation becomes uneconomical as bearing capacity of raft and pile is
not utilized in single design approach. This shows that, design rules and standards
for piled-raft foundations are not well established. The interesting observation in
the poulos-davis-randolph (pdr) design methodology for piled raft but using
simple stiffness formula piled raft foundation can be designed and analyzed. This
methodology is based on distribution of load between pile and raft on the basis of
stiffness.
The piled-raft design problem was solved as per calculations were given by
H.G.Poulos for simplified design analysis PDR (Poulos-Davis-Randolph) method.
Following the Poulos-Davis-Randolph methodology and using simple stiffness
formula,
Stiffness K = AE/L, A= area of structural member , E = Modulus of elasticity,
L= length of structural member
The effect of variation in length, diameter and number of piles on the load
settlement curve is studied and presented. Interestingly, it is observed that increase
in length leads to increase in the settlement which is contrary to the practical
observation. It is because, the stiffness of any structural member decreases with
increase in length for given diameter. The most of research work is based on
simple stiffness formula and do not consider effect of depth of fixity of the pile
while calculating the stiffness.

5
Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

467

GL
Depth of fixity or free
standing length Contributing
in stiffness having loose soil

Pile

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Dense soil strata

Fig :2 Free standing Length

The depth of fixity and equivalent length of cantilever is calculated as per
Standard IS: 2911 (Part 1/sec2).This depth of fixity is used for calculating the
stiffness of pile. Using this methodology design problem is stated as follows.
DESIGN PROBLEM:
To design & study the effect of pile configuration on load settlement of piledraft having raft size of 18m x 8m x0.5m is considered for soil having Cohesion of
Soil of 50 KN/m2 and angle of internal friction of 20 degree is considered.
Raft dimensions = 18m x 8m x 0.5m
Soil Cohesion, C = 50 KN/m2
Angle for internal friction for soil = 200
The following combinations were studied.
Number of piles, N = 12 m to 16 m
Length of piles, L= 12m to 30m with length increment each of 3m.
Diameter of pile, D=0.5m to 0.8m with diameter increment of 0.05m.
Sensitivity analysis of each one parameter is carried out for all the possible
combinations. Design analysis was done as per PDR (Poulos-Davis-Randolph)
methodology. Pile stiffness is calculated by taking length of pile equals to depth
to fixity. Loadsettlement curves were studied for load varying from 0 KN to
failure load with increment of 1000 KN. There are seven numbers of graph for
different diameters of pile while keeping its length & number constant. So, total
7x7x5=245 combinations are studied.
However, for the purpose of simplicity, the observations and the corresponding
graphs and tables for 16 piles with 0.6m diameter (D) with length varying from
12m to 30m with an increment of 3 m are presented and elaborated below.
Table 1 show that increase in length of pile increases the ultimate loading
capacity of pile. Increase in length reduces the settlement for particular load. For
22000 KN settlement is 61.79mm for 12m pile. Whereas for 15m pile length it
reduces to 49.20 mm and so on up to 21m.But after 21m length of pile, there is
decrease in settlement but amount is small.
Table 2 shows that there is very little effect of increase in length of pile after
21m and particularly for 27m to 30m effect is very negligible Load- settlement
curve is drawn for different lengths for all combinations. Form the above
graphical observations and table1, it can be interpreted that load carrying capacity
of piled raft increases while increase in length of pile. The increase in length of
pile also reduces the settlement of pile raft up to specific length beyond which
further increase in length does not help in decreasing settlement.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

There is a specific combination of stiffness of raft and pile in a pile-raft

foundation for achieving economical design. The optimum combination of
diameter (D) of pile and the no of piles (N) for the considered raft is to be
calculated. It is the ultimate aim in the pileraft design methodology. This can be
achieved, through calculation of load sharing factor for different combinations of
piles with keeping raft dimensions constant in this case. The results of the above
iterations are presented below in tabular form.
Table 3 shows that there are some negative figures for load sharing factor for
diameter 0.5m and number of piles 12 and 13.This is due to the fact that stiffness
of piles is so less as compared raft that there is negative settlement and piles are
uplifted by raft . For diameter 0.55m and 12 numbers of piles, load sharing factor
is about 50%. This is perfect pile & raft stiffness combinations for piled Raft. As
further increase in number and diameter say for 0.8m diameter and 16 numbers of
piles this factor is 0.963. So maximum load is taken by piles and negligible load is
taken by raft.
CONCLUSION:
The Conclusion drawn from the present study is summarizes as:
1. It is observed in the Poulos-Davis-Randolph (PDR) design methodology for
piled Raft but using simple stiffness formula increase in pile length leads to
increase in the settlement which is contrary to the practical observation. It is
because, the stiffness of any structural member in our case pile decreases with
increase in length for given diameter. This can be avoided by using length of pile
up to depth of fixity. The length of pile below fixity due to surrounding soil can be
neglected .This length of pile above depth of fixity is also called free standing
length of pile. This free standing length can be calculated using Indian standard on
pile. By using simple stiffness formulae in PDR methodology piled raft design can
be simplified.
2. There is an optimum combination of stiffness of raft and pile in a pile raft
foundation for achieving economical design. Beyond which further increase in
stiffness of raft and pile makes the foundation uneconomical. It is suggested that
while going for design and construction of piled-raft foundation, the limiting
combination of stiffness of raft and pile must be considered.
3. Load carrying capacity of piled-raft increases with increase in length of pile.
The increase in length of pile reduces the settlement of pile raft up to specific
length beyond which further increase in length does not help in decreasing
settlement.
4. Load carrying capacity of piled-raft increases with increase in diameter of pile
in general however, the increase in diameter of pile reduces the settlement up to
specific diameter beyond which further increase in diameter does not help in
decreasing settlement.
Table1: Settlement in mm for different length up to failure.

5
Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

468

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Load KN
0.00
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
120000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
23000
24000
25000
26000
27000
28000
29000
30000
31000
32000
33000
34000
35000
36000
37000
38000
39000
40000

12
0.00
1.13
2.32
3.58
4.93
6.37
7.90
9.54
11.30
13.19
15.22
17.42
19.81
22.41
25.24
28.34
31.75
35.51
39.68
44.32
49.50
55.29
61.79

15
0.00
1.12
2.29
3.53
4.82
6.19
7.63
9.15
10.76
12.46
14.26
16.18
18.22
20.40
22.72
25.22
27.89
30.77
33.88
37.24
40.89
44.86
49.20
53.96
59.20
65.00

Length of pile in
18
21
0.00
0.00
1.12
1.11
2.28
2.27
3.49
3.46
4.75
4.70
6.07
5.99
7.45
7.33
8.90
8.72
10.41
10.17
11.99
11.67
13.66
13.24
15.41
14.88
17.25
16.59
19.19
18.38
21.23
20.25
23.39
22.20
25.68
24.25
28.10
26.41
30.68
28.67
33.42
31.04
36.33
33.55
39.45
36.19
42.78
38.98
46.36
41.93
50.20
45.05
54.35
48.37
58.83
51.90
63.69
55.65
59.66
68.98
63.95
68.54
73.48

meter
24
0.00
1.11
2.26
3.44
4.66
5.93
7.23
8.59
9.99
11.44
12.94
14.50
16.12
17.80
19.55
21.36
23.26
25.23
27.28
29.43
31.67
34.02
36.47
39.04
41.74
44.57
47.55
50.68
53.99
57.48
61.17
65.08
69.23
73.63
78.32
83.33

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

27
0.00
1.11
2.25
3.42
4.63
5.88
7.16
8.48
9.85
11.26
12.71
14.21
15.76
17.37
19.03
20.74
22.52
24.37
26.28
28.26
30.33
32.47
34.70
37.01
39.43
41.95
44.58
47.32
50.19
53.19
56.34
59.64
63.10
66.74
70.58
74.62
78.88
83.39
88.16

469

30
0.00
1.11
2.24
3.41
4.61
5.84
7.10
8.40
9.74
11.11
12.53
13.98
15.48
17.03
18.62
20.26
21.96
23.71
25.51
27.38
29.31
31.31
33.37
35.51
37.73
40.03
42.42
44.90
47.47
50.15
52.93
55.84
58.86
62.02
65.31
68.75
72.36
76.13
80.09
84.24
88.61

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

470

Graph 1 load settlement Curve

Table2: Settlement per unit load & length

Ratio

12

Ultimate
Loading(KN)
Settlement mm

15

Length of pile in meter

18
21
24
27

22000 25000 28000 31000 35000 38000

30
40000

61.79

65.00

68.98

73.48

83.33

88.1

88.6

Settlemnt/ load

356

384.6

406

421

420

431

454

Settlement
/length

5.14

4.33

3.83

3.49

3.47

3.26

2.95

14

15

16

Table3: Load Sharing Factor For Piled-Raft

Sr.No.

Number of Piles (N)

Diameter of pile
12
13

1
2
3
4

D=0.50
D=0.55
D=0.60
D=0.65

-1.158
0.517
0.761
0.855

-0.33
0.599
0.791
0.87

0.039
0.657
0.814
0.883

0.248
0.700
0.833
0.893

0.382
0.734
0.848
0.902

5
6
7

D=0.70
D=0.75
D=0.80

0.903
0.931
0.949

0.912
0.937
0.954

0.92
0.943
0.957

0.927
0.947
0.961

0.932
0.951
0.963

5
Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering GSP 240 ASCE 2014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 01/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

REFERENCES
H.G.Poulos Design applications of Raft foundations book
Published by
Thomas Telford Publishing
Dilip Kumar Maharaj (2004)The Effect of raft size and pile length on load
settlement behaviour of axisymmetric piled raft foundation Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering.
Dilip Kumar Maharaj (2004) Three dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis
to study the effect of raft and pile stiffness on the loadsettlement behaviour of
piled raft foundation Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
Methods of Analysis of piled Raft foundations A report prepared on Behalf of
Technical Committee TC18 on Piled foundations.
Harry G. Poulos() Piled Rafts In Swelling or Consolidating soils Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering ,Vol.119,No.2, February ASCE.
Y.C.Tan, C.M.Chow & S.S. Gue , Gue & Partners Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. A Design Approach for Piled Raft with Short Friction Piles for Low
Rise Buildings on Very Soft Clay
Oliver Reul and Mark F. Randolph. Design Strategies for Piled Rafts Subjected
to Nonuniform Vertical Loading Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering Vol, 130 No. 1 January 1,2004 ASCE .
Tan,Y.C, Cheah S.W. and Taha M.R. Methodology for Design of Piled Raft for
Five Storeys Buildings on Very Soft Clays
R.P.Cunha, H.G.Poulos, and J.C. Small Investigation of Design Alternatives for
A Piled Raft Case History. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.127,No 8,January,2001, ASCE.
Luca de Sanctis and Gianpiero Russo Analysis and Performance of Piled Rafts
Designed Using Innovative Criteria Journal of Geotechnical Engineering and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.134, No8, August 1, 2008, ASCE
Widjojo A. Prakoso student member ASCE and Fred H. Kulhaway Fellow ASCE.
Contribution to Piled Raft Foundation Design Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering and Geoenvironmental Engineering Vol.127,No 1,January,2001.
ASCE
Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile
Foundation Part I- Concrete piles, Section 2 Bored Cast In Situ Piles - IS:
2911(Part I/sec-2)-1979.
Luca de Sanctis and Alessandro Mandolini Bearing Capacity of Piled Rafts on
Soft Clay Soils Vol,132 No. 12 December 1,2006 ASCE.

Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering

471