Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0141-8

TECHNICAL PAPER

An experimental study to analyse the behaviour of piled‑raft

foundation model under the application of vertical load
Vikas Kumar1 · Arvind Kumar1

Received: 15 January 2018 / Accepted: 22 March 2018

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Piled-raft foundation nowadays has become the most popular foundation to be used in high-rise buildings. It has been found
that traditional foundations are insufficient to take such heavy loads coming from the super structures in the form of self-
weight, wind load and seismic load as well as combination of these. Apart from this even pile and raft foundations alone
are not economical for these high-rise buildings. The parameters which affect behaviour of pile–raft foundation depend
upon the properties of raft, pile and subsoil. In order to study the behaviour of piled-raft foundation, an experimental setup
was designed and experiments were conducted on built model for raft foundation and piled-raft foundation in sandy soil at
different relative densities. The experimental setup was aimed to investigate the behaviour of raft on settlement-reducing
piles. Experimental tests are conducted on two different length and diameter of pile. The length-to-width (L/B) ratio for
experimental study was chosen to be 0.67 and 2.0, where B is width of raft footing in prototype used and L is the length of
pile. The diameters of pile used were of 10 and 20 mm size. The dimensions of the model raft used in the experimental study
were 30 cm × 30 cm × 2.5 cm. The results of the experiments conducted on the designed model showed the effectiveness of
using piles as settlement reduction measure with the rafts. Thus, it was concluded that as the number of settlement-reducing
piles increases, the load improvement ratio increases and the differential settlement ratio decreases.

Keywords  Piled-raft foundation · Bearing capacity ratio · Settlement

Introduction is required in those skyscrapers. Pile–raft foundation is a

composite structure which constitutes three elements—pile,
With growing population the demand for ample infra- raft and subsoil [1]. Though the raft foundation alone can
structure is increasing day by day. To fulfil this there is a satisfy the bearing capacity criteria, it may not fulfil the
continuous need of high-rise buildings, express highways settlement criteria for given load in poor soil [2]. Various
and bridges, etc. Some of the high-rise buildings like Burj research works has been done to increase the bearing capac-
Khalifa, Mile towers, etc. are changing the face of the build- ity of the soil in shallow foundation by the use of different
ings and the utility. Making these skyscrapers require stable reinforcement techniques. Sridhar and Prathapkumar [3]
and economical foundations to be built because very high determined the bearing capacity of coir geotextile-reinforced
self-weight, wind loads and seismic load come through the sand. Nimeri et al. [4] present a new model which was devel-
superstructure and subsequently increasing load on the foun- oped to assess load–settlement response up to ultimate soil
dation. Use of traditional foundations like shallow founda- failure. The model utilizes Mohr–Coulomb criteria coupled
tion, raft foundation and pile alone is not stable and eco- with a stress–strain relationship that captures the behaviour
nomical for such high-rise structures which have tremendous of granular soil up to large strains, but for high loaded build-
load to be borne by the substructure. In order to facilitate ing this may not be the appropriate design foundation. Pile
this, new type of foundation such as pile–raft foundation foundation is generally used where the load is transferred
to hard rock strata mass which have high bearing capacity.
* Vikas Kumar Wang et al. [5] explored the innovative hybrid monopile
[email protected] foundation for oiled water tank which is an optimization
of the original monopile foundation with broader applica-
1
Dr BR Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, tions, but cost of such a type of foundation is very high
Jalandhar, Punjab, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 35   Page 2 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

compared to traditional foundation system. In order to make system through a series of static loading tests (vertically
stable and economical foundation, piles can be coupled with and horizontally) on piled-raft models in sand. Lee and
a raft foundation to provide adequate bearing capacity to Chung [24] pointed out that for a proper pile group design,
it or to reduce settlements to an acceptable level. Abdel- factors such as the interaction among piles, the interaction
Fattah and Hemada [6] present the proposed methodology between cap and piles, and the influence of pile installa-
for the combined piled–raft design based on the conventional tion method all need to be considered. Lee and Chung
philosophy is applied to evaluate existing conventionally [24] studied the effect of these factors on the performance
designed piled foundations of two identical residential tow- of pile groups in sand soil through model tests on single
ers located in Cairo, Egypt. Sahraeian et al. [7] explored a pile, single-loaded centre piles in groups, unpiled foot-
series of centrifuge model tests was performed to investigate ing, freestanding pile groups, and piled footings. Chen
the mechanical behaviour of oil tank supported by piled-raft et al. [27] investigate the reduction of vibration due to
foundation on liquefiable saturated sand and non-liquefia- the pile–raft foundation through field measurement and
ble dry sand. The common design of piled raft was based finite element (FE) prediction for a high-tech electronics
on the assumption that the total load of the superstructure workshop in Suzhou, China. Huang et al. [28] presented
was supported by piles, ignoring the bearing contribution the simplified nonlinear approach to study the behaviour of
of the raft. This results in a conservative estimate of the flexible piled-raft foundations. Bajad and Sahu [25] inves-
foundation performance, and therefore an overdesign of the tigated the effect of pile length and number of piles on
foundation is required. A different approach, involving the load sharing and settlement reduction behaviour of piled
use of piles as settlement reducers, had been reported by rafts resting on soft clay through 1 g model tests on piled
Randolph [8], Burland [9], Sanctis et al. [10], and Fiora- rafts (i.e. 10 cm × 10 cm raft with different thickness on
vante et al. [11]. The basic concept of this approach was that four (2 × 2), nine (3 × 3), and sixteen (4 × 4) piles). Fio-
the foundation would comprise only a number of piles that ravante et al. [11] investigated the behaviour of rafts on
are necessary to reduce settlements to a tolerable amount settlement-reducing piles through a centrifuge model test
and the loads from the structure are transmitted, via a raft, on rigid circular piled rafts resting on a bed of loose and
in part to the piles and in part to the foundation soil (load very fine silica sand. The testing programme included an
shared between the raft and piles). Mali and Singh [12] has unpiled raft, rafts on 1, 3, 7 or 13 piles. Phung [26] pre-
done the numerical analysis on the piled-raft foundation sented the data of three extensive series of large-scale field
using the finite element method. This approach allows the model tests performed on piled footings in non-cohesive
piled-raft design to be optimized and the number of piles soil in order to clarify the overall cap–soil–pile interaction
to be significantly reduced. After various studies, piled-raft and the load–settlement behaviour of piled footing. All the
foundation system was verified to be an economical foun- pile groups were square in geometry and consisted of five
dation type comparing the conventional piled foundations, piles (i.e. one centre and four corner piles).
where, only the piles were used for reducing both total and In this paper, the behaviour of piled raft (i.e. raft with a
differential settlements and the contribution of the raft was limited number of piles beneath the central raft area called
generally disregarded. Kumar and Choudhury [13] explored settlement-reducing piles) was investigated through model
the complex soil structure interaction factors to estimate tests on piled raft at different relative densities of sand.
load-bearing capacity of a combined pile–raft foundation The settlement and bearing capacity characteristics of the
(CPRF). Bouassida [14] present a review of the book titled pile-supported-raft foundation under different conditions
“Design of column-reinforced foundations” The design of such as different pile length, pile diameter, number of pile,
foundations on reinforced soil by columns is tackled within pattern of pile, pile spacing, and soil properties need to be
a general framework, where several aspects are taken into investigated in sufficient detail to understand the effect of
consideration: modelling of reinforced soil, bearing capacity, various influencing factors on the behaviour of this type
settlement, acceleration of consolidation, and improvement of foundation. Study of tests conducted on model has to
of soil characteristics with selected case histories. be done to understand the behaviour of piled-raft founda-
Many researchers had conducted numerical analysis of tion. This will help to understand the effect of different
piled rafts [15–23] but only limited information is availa- parameters on the overall performance of the piled-raft
ble in the open literature on the experimental data of piled foundation.
rafts as given by Horikoshi et al. [16], Lee and Chung [24],
Bajad and Sahu [25], Fioravante et al. [11] and Phung [26]. Mechanism of piled‑raft foundation
The experimental data was helpful in verifying the results
of numerical analysis of piled rafts. Horikoshi et al. [16] In the design of piled rafts, design engineers have to under-
investigated the load–settlement behaviour and the load stand the mechanism of load transfer from the raft to the
sharing between the piles and the raft in the piled-raft piles and to the soil media to predict (1) the behaviour of

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 3 of 17  35

Table 1  Properties of sand used in the study

Property Value

Specific gravity, G 2.65

D10 (mm) 0.15
D30 (mm) 0.22
D60 (mm) 0.332
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 2.21
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.97
Classification (USCS) SP
Fig. 1  Schematic view of various interactions for piled raft [29]
Maximum dry unit weight, γdmax (kN/m3) 16.79
Minimum dry unit weight, γdmin (kN/m3) 13.59
the raft which includes the settlements, bending moments Friction angle (φ) from direct shear test
and the proportion of load-bearing capacity carried by  ID 40% 28°
the raft, and (2) the behaviour of the piles which includes  ID 70% 31.4°
the displacements and load distributions among the piles. Friction angle (φ) from triaxial compression test
Interactions between piles, raft and soil are of major con-  ID 40%
cern in the analysis.  ID 70% 32°
El-Mossallamy and Franke [29] present that in a piled-
raft foundation, the total load of the super structure is
partly carried out by piles through skin friction and the
remaining load is taken by a raft through contact with the
soil as shown in Fig. 1. In piled-raft systems, the design
procedure differs from traditional foundation design, in
which the loads are assumed to be carried either by the raft
or by the piles, considering the safety factor. In the design
of piled rafts the load sharing between the piles and the
raft is taken into account. Loads imposed on piled raft are
supported and shared by piles and raft at a certain load
sharing ratio. The load sharing ratio indicates the ratio of
load carried by piles to total load imposed on piled raft Photo 1  Model raft used in experimental analysis
defined as follows:
QP Q
𝛼p = =1− r , (1)
QPr QPr

where 𝛼p is loading sharing ratio, QPr is load imposed on

piled raft, QP and Qr are load carried by piled and raft,
respectively.

Experimental programmes

A series of laboratory tests were performed on model

Photo 2  Experimental test setup
unpiled raft and the piled raft with different number of
piles below the raft (i.e. raft on settlement-reducing piles).
The experimental programme consisted of number of and relative density of soil on the behaviour of piled-raft
tests as shown in Table 1. Two tests were carried out on foundation has been proposed to be investigated and the
model raft at relative density of 40 and 70% of sand and comparative study of the behaviour of raft and piled-raft
remaining tests were conducted on model piled-raft foun- foundation to be considered (Photos 1, 2).
dation. In this study effect of parameters, such as number
of piles, length of pile, diameter of piles, pattern of piles

13
 35   Page 4 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

Test material The relative flexibility of a raft is expressed by the

raft–soil stiffness ratio, Krs , proposed by Hain and Lee [37]:
Sand ( )
2
4 Er 1 − vs B tr 3
( )
Krs = , (4)
In this study, the sand used was locally available river sand 3𝜋 Es L L
obtained from Nasrala, situated in Punjab, India. The sand
was cleaned to make it free from vegetation like grass roots where B and L are the width and length of the raft, respec-
and other organic materials and then placed in oven before tively, and tr is the raft thickness. The values of Krs ranging
tests. Particle size distribution [30] of sand is shown in from 0.01 to 10 cover very flexible to very stiff rafts [37].
Fig. 2. The uniformity coefficient (Cu) and coefficient of The best match between measured and predicted val-
curvature (Cc) were found to be 2.21 and 0.97, respectively. ues was obtained at the value of G equal to 500 kPa. The
According to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) raft–soil stiffness ratios for the tested raft models were cal-
[31], the soil can be classified as poorly graded sand (SP). culated by Eq. (4). For 25-mm-thick raft value of Krs was
Specific gravity [32], maximum dry density [33], mini- found out to be 3.57 which was stiff in nature.
mum dry density [34] and other properties are presented
in Table 1. Direct shear tests as per ASTM D 6528-07 were Model of rafts and piles
performed on samples prepared at relative densities (ID) of
40 and 70%. Two square steel plates of 300 × 300 × 25 mm size bolted
The value of shear modulus of sand G, in kPa at any depth with nine columns of 16 mm diameter served as a model of
Z below the ground surface can be determined by the model raft developed. The base of the model raft was made with
given by the El-Garhy et al. [35]: holes threaded internally so that the piles could be screwed
in vertical position at the required spacing. The model piles
G = 300 + 400z. (2) used in the experiment were of mild steel rod of length 200
The Poisson’s ratio of tested sand was assumed as 0.30 and 600 mm and diameter of pile varied between 10 and
as recommended by Bowles [36]. The modulus of elasticity 20 mm. These lengths represent the L/D ratio of 10, 20, 30
of the tested soil Es can be calculated from the soil shear and 60, respectively. The modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio: ratio of the steel pile were kept as 2.1 × 108 kPa and 0.20,
(3) respectively, as determined from the data sheet of the techni-
( )
Es = 2G 1 + vs .
cal department of the manufactured company.

Fig. 2  Experimental setup

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 5 of 17  35

Steel tank and main frame Experimental test setup

The size of tank was designed keeping in view the size of In the present study, a series of laboratory model plate load
footing to be tested and zones of influence. The dimensions tests were performed on piled-raft foundation and raft foun-
of the tank were fixed as 1.50 m (length), 1.50 m (width) and dation supported on sand. Test series A were performed on
1.0 m (depth). The sides and bottom of the tank were made raft foundation. Four different series of tests B, C, D and E
up of 9-mm-thick steel sheet, welded to the base framework were perform on the piled-raft foundation. In test series B
of steel angles and plates. Vertical load was applied to model only one pile was provided at the centre of footing. In test
footing with the help of hydraulic jack of 250 kN capacity. series D and E the arrangement of pile below the footing is
shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. Details of the test series
Measuring devices are presented in Table 2.

Three dial gauges of 0.01 mm accuracy were used to meas- Test procedures
ure the vertical settlements. One dial gauge was located near
the centre and two were located at the middle sides of the 1. Each experiment started with placing the sand soil in
raft. The dial gauges were fixed to the raft by means of steel the steel tank in layers. The maximum layer thickness
rods. The steel rod consisted of a vertical rod connected was 10 cm. The total height of the tank was divided
to the horizontal beam of the main frame and a horizontal into equal intervals from the inner side by making signs
rod which carried the dial gauge. A hydraulic jack uses a every 10 cm height to help to put a specified weight in
fluid, which is incompressible, that is forced into a cylinder a specified volume to get the required sand density by
by a pump plunger. Oil is used since it is self-lubricating compaction. A calculated weighted quantity of sand was
and stable. When the plunger pulls back, it draws oil out of compacted by means of a specified compaction tool in
the reservoir through a suction check valve into the pump the steel tank. The compaction continued until the soil
chamber. When the plunger moves forward, it pushes the oil was compacted to fill the first 10 cm layer. A steel arm
through a discharge check valve into the cylinder. The suc- with circular plate of 15 cm in diameter and 0.8 cm in
tion valve ball is within the chamber and opens with each thickness was used for compaction. The process was
draw of the plunger. The discharge valve ball is outside the repeated until reaching the height of the steel tank (i.e.
chamber and opens when the oil is pushed into the cylinder. 95 cm). The final soil layer was 5 cm thick to avoid soil
At this point, the suction ball within the chamber is forced overflowing during the compaction process.
shut and oil pressure builds in the cylinder.

Fig. 3  Arrangement of pile in
test series D

13
 35   Page 6 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

Fig. 4  Arrangement of pile in
test series E

Table 2  Details of tests on raft Test series Foundation Pattern Relative Length of pile (mm) Diameter of No. of piles
and piled-raft foundation system of piles density (%) pile (ϕ) (mm)

A Raft – 40, 70 – – –
B Piled-raft P1 40, 70 200 and 600 10, 20 1
C Piled-raft P2 40, 70 200 and 600 10, 20 5
D Piled-raft P3 40, 70 200 and 600 10, 20 9
E Piled-raft P4 40, 70 200 and 600 10, 20 9

2. In case of piled-raft foundation, piles were connected 3. A vertical loading bar and a calibrated proving ring,
to the model raft through the threaded holes provided at of 100 kN maximum capacity, were connected to the
the bottom face of footing. On connected piles, the piled hydraulic jack. The jack arm was lowered slowly toward
raft (the plate with attached piles) was pushed vertically the loading cap, until the dial gauge of the proving ring
initially by hand and then by the hydraulic jack in small started to respond. The raft model was then loaded incre-
increments. Great care was taken to keep the plate hori- mentally by using the hydraulic jack. The vertical settle-
zontal during pushing by applying the jack load on the ments were recorded at the end of each load increment
centre of the plate until the plate was fully supported on by the use of three dial gauge. The rate of loading was
the sand surface. The difference in the relative density 0.1 kN/min. The loading was continued till the failure
of the sand, which occurs during pile installation due was not observed or till the length of jack.
to the difference in pile lengths, was considered to be
small and neglected. Finally, the ball bearings, bearing
rods, and the load platform were placed and the load Results and discussion
was applied by the hydraulic jack. The load was applied
incrementally until reaching failure. Each load incre- The experimental results obtained from the laboratory tests
ment was maintained at a constant value until the model are analysed and discussed in this section. The shapes of
raft settlement had stabilized. Sand was exactly horizon- the measured load–settlement curves indicate that the load
tal. Then, the raft model was placed on the sand surface at failure was not achieved. Therefore, the allowable and
and the horizontality of the raft model was adjusted by the ultimate raft capacities were determined from the load-
a level. average settlements curve at 30, 60, 90 and 120 mm, respec-
tively. To express the data, non-dimensional parameters like

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 7 of 17  35

Unpiled raft

Model tests were conducted on raft foundation at 40 and

70% relative density. As the density of soil increases the
subgrade modulus of soil increases as result the stiffness
of the soil increases. The load–settlement behaviour of
unpiled-raft foundation at relative density of 40 and 70%
is shown in Fig. 5. It is clear that the bearing capacity of
the soil increases as the density of the soil increases. The
percentage improvement in the bearing capacity of the soil
is 63% when the density of soil changes from 40 to 70%.
Fig. 5  Load–settlement behaviour of model raft foundation at differ-
ent relative densities

Piled‑raft foundation
improvement factor (IF) in percentage and settlement ratio
(S/B) are used, where IF can be defined as factor which is The experimental tests were conducted on model piled-raft
the ratio of load-carrying capacity of piled raft at given set- foundation by installing different number of piles of vary-
tlement to the load-carrying capacity of raft at the same set- ing length and diameter at different configuration and the
tlement. Settlement ratio is defined as the ratio of settlement load–settlement curves of the model piled rafts were plot-
of footing to width of footing. ted as shown in Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Fig. 6  Load–settlement
behaviour of model piled-raft
foundation at L/B = 0.66 and
ϕ = 10 mm

Fig. 7  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model piled-raft founda-
tion at L/B = 2 and ϕ = 20 mm

13
 35   Page 8 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

Fig. 8  Percentage improvement in bearing capacity of soil at

RD = 40%, L/B = 0.66 and ϕ = 10 mm Fig. 10  Percentage improvement in bearing capacity of soil at
RD = 70%, L/B = 2 and ϕ = 20 mm

small number of piles increases the load-carrying capac-

ity of the raft foundation, and this enhancement effect is
greater for higher soil stiffness. Balasurbamaniam and
Oh [41] observed that the maximum settlement of the
piled rafts depends on the number of piles. The maxi-
mum improvement in the bearing capacity of soil at dif-
ferent number of piles is obtained at S/B = 0.1, as shown
in Figs. 8, 9 and 10.
It is observed from Figs.  8, 9 and 10 that maximum
improvement in the bearing capacity of soil takes place at
S/B = 0.1; after that percentage improvement in the bearing
capacity is reduced. From Figs. 11, 12 and 13, it is observed
that as the number of piles, diameter of pile and length of
piles increase, bearing capacity of soil increases. The maxi-
mum improvement in the load-carrying capacity of soil takes
place at NP = 9, ϕ = 20 mm and L/B = 2 at relative density of
Fig. 9  Percentage improvement in bearing capacity of soil at 70%. At L/B = 2 and RD = 70%, the percentage improvement
RD = 70%, L/B = 2 and ϕ = 10 mm in the load-carrying capacity is 88% when the number of pile
changes from 1 to 9. The increase occurred because the piles
started interacting with the soil across a larger surface area
Effect of number of piles and thus more load is carried by the piles.

Poulos [38] has observed that increasing the number Effect of length of pile
of piles while generally is beneficial, does not always
produce the best foundation performance and there is an Maharaj and Gandhi [39] has said that the effect of pile
upper limit to the number for piles beyond which very of length even equal to the diameter of the raft is found to
little additional benefit is obtained. Maharaj and Gandhi reduce settlement of raft foundation significantly and also
[39] has found that the addition of even a small number of to increase load-carrying capacity. Such piles of smaller
piles increases the load-carrying capacity of a raft foun- length can be used successfully as settlement-reducing
dation. The axial load distribution shows that the piles piles in piled raft. For the same length of piles below raft,
reach their ultimate capacity earlier than the raft. Singh the improvement is more for smaller raft than that for the
and Singh [40] have observed that the addition of even a larger raft. Balasurbamaniam and Oh [41] had observed

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 9 of 17  35

Fig. 11  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at RD = 40% and L/B = 0.66

Fig. 12  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at RD = 70% and L/B = 2

Fig. 13  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at L/B = 0.66

13
 35   Page 10 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

Fig. 14  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at L/B = 2

Fig. 15  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
NP = 1 and ϕ = 10 mm

Fig. 16  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
NP = 1 and ϕ = 20 mm

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 11 of 17  35

Fig. 17  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
NP = 9 and ϕ = 10 mm

Fig. 18  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
NP = 9 and ϕ = 20 mm

Fig. 19  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at NP = 1 and ϕ = 10 mm

13
 35   Page 12 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

Fig. 20  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at NP = 5 and ϕ = 10 mm

Fig. 21  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at NP = 9 and ϕ = 20 mm

Fig. 22  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
10 mm diameter

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 13 of 17  35

Fig. 23  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
20 mm diameter

Fig. 24  Percentage improvement in load-carrying capacity at 10 mm Fig. 25  Percentage improvement in load-carrying capacity at 20 mm
diameter of pile diameter of pile

Similarly for same diameter of pile, NP = 9 and RD = 70%

that, to reduce the maximum settlement of piled-raft foun- the percentage improvement in bearing capacity of soil is
dation, optimum performance is likely to be achieved by 175% when L/B changes from 0.66 to 2.
increasing the length of the piles involved. Rabiei [42] had
observed that maximum bending moment in raft increases Pile configuration
with decrease in pile length.
It is observed from Figs. 15, 16, 17 and 18 that maxi- Poulos [17] has observed that for the control of differential
mum improvement in the load-carrying capacity of soil settlement, optimum performance is likely to be achieved
takes place at L/B = 2. It is observed from Figs. 19, 20 and by strategic location of a relatively small number of piles,
21 the maximum reduction in the settlement take place rather than using a larger number of piles evenly distributed
at S/B = 0.1 after that percentage reduction in settlement over the raft area or increasing the raft thickness. Research-
of footing is reduced. At higher density and higher L/B ers have observed that performance of a piled-raft founda-
ratio the maximum improvement in the bearing capacity tion can be optimized by selecting suitable locations for the
of soil take place. The percentage improvement in load- piles below the raft. It is observed that the piles should be
carrying capacity of soil at 10 mm diameter of pile, NP = 9 provided below the loaded area so that effective reduction
and RD = 40% is 70% when L/B changes from 0.66 to 2. in the settlement takes place. Also the spacing between the

13
 35   Page 14 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

Fig. 26  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at RD = 40% and L/B = 0.66

Fig. 27  Percentage improve-
ment in load-carrying capacity
at RD = 70% and L/B = 2

Fig. 28  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
different diameters of pile

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 15 of 17  35

Fig. 29  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
different diameters of pile

Fig. 30  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
different diameters of pile

Fig. 31  Load–settlement behav-
iour of model raft foundation at
different diameters of pile

13
 35   Page 16 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35

piles should be optimum so that the number of piles can be the settlement effectively. The maximum reduction in
reduced. the settlement take place at S/B = 0.1. It has been ana-
It is observed from Figs. 22 and 23 that as the spacing lysed from the test results that the maximum percent-
of pile is reduced, improvement in the load-carrying capac- age improvement in the load carrying at NP = 9, L/B = 2,
ity of soil take place. In test series D the spacing provided RD = 70% and diameter of pile (ϕ) = 20 mm is 105%
between the piles is less as compared to test series E. In test when compared to unpiled raft at S/B = 0.1. This is due
series D the percentage improvement in load-carrying capac- to the fact that in the load sharing behaviour of piled-raft
ity is 70% while in test series E this value reduces to 57% as foundation most of the load is to be taken by piles only.
the spacing between the piles increases. 2. As the numbers of piles are changed from 1 to 9 beneath
the central area of the raft, the load-carrying capacity
Effect of diameter of pile of the piled-raft foundation is increased. This increase
occurred because the piles started to interact with the
The pile diameter has a significant effect on its load-carrying soil across a larger surface area and thus more load is
capacity and stiffness, which can affect the performance of carried by the piles. From the test results it was observed
the piled raft. As the pile diameter increases, the percentage that the maximum improvement in the load-carrying
of load taken by pile also increases. The increase occurred capacity of soil is obtained when the number of pile is
because the piles started to interact with the soil across a 9, density of soil is 70% and diameter of pile is 20 mm.
larger surface area and thus more load is carried by the piles. 3. The load–settlement curves from Figs. 28, 29, 30 and
However, the effect of the pile diameter on the piles load 31 show that as the diameter of pile increases the
share diminishes as the diameter reaches the higher end of soil stiffness increases as a result bearing capacity of
the range considered. soil increases. The percentage improvement in the
The load–settlement curves from Figs. 28, 29, 30 and 31 load-carrying capacity is 50% at NP = 1, RD = 40%
show that as the diameter of pile increases the soil stiffness and L/B = 0.66 when the diameter changes from 10
increases as a result bearing capacity of soil increases. The to 20 mm. Similarly when the RD = 70%, NP = 9 and
percentage improvement in the load-carrying capacity is L/B = 2 the percentage improvement in the load-carrying
50% at NP = 1, RD = 40% and L/B = 0.66 when the diameter capacity is 76%.
changes from 10 to 20 mm. Similarly when the RD = 70%, 4. An investigation has been made to study the effect of
NP = 9 and L/B = 2, the percentage improvement in the load- pile arrangement on the behaviour of the piled-raft foun-
carrying capacity is 76%. It is observed from Fig. 24 to 25 dation. It has been found out that for optimum design,
that the maximum improvement in the load-carrying capac- the pile group should cover the central 16–25% area
ity of soil takes place at S/B = 0.1. of the raft. In test series D nine piles are arranged in
the central area where in test series E the nine piles
are arranged below the column. From the tests result
Conclusions shown in Figs. 22 and 23 it is observed that as the spac-
ing between the piles reduces and the piles are more
The paper has presented experimental results of load tests on confined to central loaded area there will be an increase
model rafts on settlement-reducing piles embedded in sand in the bearing capacity of the soil. The percentage
soil. Care has been taken during the modelling of the raft improvement in the bearing capacity of soil is 57% in
and piles so that the boundary effect has been reduced. The test series D as compared to test series E.
results of these model tests provide insight into settlement 5. It was observed that, to reduce the maximum settle-
behaviour of rafts on settlement-reducing piles, and load ment of piled-raft foundation; optimum performance is
sharing between piles and raft and may provide some general likely to be achieved by increasing the length of the piles
guidelines for the economical design of raft on settlement- involved. From the test results shown in Figs. 13 and
reducing piles. It is observed that significant improvement 14 the maximum increment in the improvement factor
is obtained at S/B = 0.1, beyond which the improvement is take places at S/B = 0.1, after that there will be reduction
not so effective. Based on the results of model tests, the fol- in the improvement factor take place. The percentage
lowing conclusions have been drawn: improvement in the load-carrying capacity at L/B = 2,
RD = 70%, NP = 9 and diameter of pile is 20 mm is
1. It has been studied from the tests result that in com- about to 75%.
parison to shallow (raft) foundations, piled rafts reduce

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2018) 3:35 Page 17 of 17  35

References 22. Sanctis L, Mandolini A (2006) Bearing capacity of piled raft on

soft clay soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1600–1610
23. Sanctis L, Russo G (2008) Analysis and performance of piled
1. Singh B, Singh NT (2011) Influence of piles on load-settle-
raft using innovative criteria. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ment behaviour of raftfoundation. Intern J Eng Sci Technol
134:1110–1128
3(12):8385–8394
24. Lee S-H, Chung C-K (2005) An experimental study of the inter-
2. Singh AK, Singh AN (2013) Study of piled raft foundation. Pro-
action of vertically loaded pile groups in sand. Can Geotech J
ceeding of Indian Geotechnical Conference. Roorkee, pp 1–4
42(5):1485–1493
3. Sridhar R, Prathapkumar MT (2017) Behaviour of model footing
25. Bajad SP, Sahu RB (2008) An experimental study on the behav-
resting on sand reinforced with number of layers of coir geotex-
ior of vertically loaded piledraft on soft clay. In: The 12th Inter-
tiles. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2:50–57
national Conference of International Association for Computer
4. Nimeri M et al. (2017) Load–settlement response of shallow foun-
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), pp 84–90
dations resting on granular soil. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2(3):2–11
26. Phung DL (2010) Piled raft – a cost-effective foundation method
5. Wang X et al (2018) Feasibility study of offshore wind turbines
for high-rises. Geotech Eng J SEAGS AGSSEA 41(3):1–12
with hybrid monopile foundation based on centrifuge modelling.
27. Chen et al (2017) Experimental study on load transfer law of rigid
Appl Energy 209:127–139
pile-raft composite foundations. AMSE J 78(2):225–241
6. Abdel-Fattah TT, Hemada AA (2016) Evaluation of the existing
28. Huang M et al (2017) Nonlinear analysis of flexible piled raft
piled foundation based on piled raft design philosophy. Innovative
foundations subjected to vertical loads in layered soils. Soils
Infrastruct Solut 1(16):2–11
Found
7. Sahraeian SMS, Takemura J, Seki S (2018) An investigation
29. El-Mossallamy Y, Franke E (1997) Piled rafts-numerical mod-
about seismic behavior of piled raft foundation for oil storage
elling to simulate the behaviour of piled raft foundations. The
tanks using centrifuge modelling. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
Authors, Darmstadt
104:210–227
30. ASTM standard D6913, 2004(e2) (2004) Standard test methods
8. Randolph MF (1994) Design methods for pile groups and piled
for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analy-
rafts. In: Proceedings 13th International Conference on Soil
sis, vol 04.09. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp 61–82
31. ASTM standard D2487, 2006(e1) (2006) Standard practice for
9. Burland JB (1995) Piles as settlement reducers. In: The 8th Italian
classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil
Conference on Soil Mechanics
Classification System), vol 04.08. ASTM International, West
10. Sanctis L, Mandolini A, Russo G, Viggiani C (2002) Some
Conshohocken
remarks on the optimum design of piled rafts. In: Deep Founda-
32. ASTM standard D 0854, 2006 (2006) Standard test methods for
tions : An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construc-
specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer, vol 04.09.
tion and Performance. ASCE, Orlando, pp 405–425
ASTM International, West Conshohocken
11. Fioravante V, Giretti D, Jamiolkowski M (2008) Physical mode-
33. ASTM standard D4253, 2000 (2006) Standard test methods for
ling of raft on settlement reducing piles. In: Symposium Honoring
maximum index density and unit weight of soils and calcula-
Dr. John H. Schmertmann for His Contributions to Civil Engineer-
tion of relative density, vol 04.08. ASTM International, West
ing at Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering Congress
Conshohocken
2008, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, 9–12 March 2008
34. ASTM standard D4254, 2000 (2006) Standard test methods for
12. Mali S, Singh B (2018) Behavior of large piled-raft foundation on
minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calcula-
clay soil. Ocean Eng 149:205–216
tion of relative density, vol 04.08. ASTM International, West
13. Kumar A, Choudhury D (2018) Development of new prediction
Conshohocken
model for capacity of combined pile-raft foundations. Comput
35. El-Garhy BM (2013) Numerical analysis of vertically loaded pile
Geotech 97:62–68
groups embedded inmultilayered soils. Soil mechanics and foun-
14. Bouassida M (2016) Rational design of foundations on soil rein-
dations. J Egyptian Geotech Soc 13(1):109–128
forced by columns. Innov Infrastruct Solut 1(38):1–7
36. Bowles JE (2001) Foundation analysis and design. New York:
15. Russo G (1998) Numerical analysis of piled raft. Intern J Numer
McGraw Hill
Anal Method Geomech 2(6):477–493
37. Hain SJ, Lee IK (1978) The analysis of flexible raft-pile systems.
16. Horikoshi K, Matsumoto T, Hashizume Y, Watanabe T, Fukuyama
Geotechnique 28(1):65–83
H (2003) Performance of piled raft foundations subjected to static
38. Poulos HG (2008) The piled raft foundation for the Burj-Dubai
horizontal loads. Intern J Phy Model Geotech 3(2):37–50
designed and performance. Proceedings of IGS. pp 1–23
17. Poulos HG (2001) Piled raft foundation: design and application.
39. Maharaj DK, Gandhi SR (2004) Non-linear finite element analy-
Geotechnique 5(20):95–113
sis of piled-raft foundations. Proc Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng
18. Viggiani C (2001) Analysis and design of piled foundations. 1st
157(3):107–113
Arrigo Croce Lecture, RivistaItaliana de Geot. pp 47–75
40. Singh NT, Singh B (2008) Interaction analysis for piled rafts in
19. Mandolini A (2003) Design of piled raft foundations: practice and
cohesive soils. In: The 12th international conference of interna-
development. In: Proceedings of 4th International Geotechnical
tional association for computer methods and advances in geome-
Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles. Mill-
chanics (IACMAG). Goa, pp 1–6
press, Rotterdam, pp 59–82
41. Balasurbamaniam S, Oh EYN (2008) Parametric study on piled
20. Randolph MF (2003) Science empiricism in pile foundation
raft foundation in sand using numerical modelling. In: Eleventh
design. Geotechnique 53(10):847–875
east Asia pacific conference on structural engineering and con-
21. Badelow F, Poulos HG, Small JC, Moyes P (2006) Economic
struction. Taipei, Taiwan, 19–21 November 2008
foundation design for tall buildings. Proceedings of 10th interna-
42. Rabiei M (2009) Parametric study for piled raft foundations. EJGE
tional conference on piling and deep foundations. Amsterdam, pp
14:1–11
200–209

13