Wong 2000

17.
Raft foundations with disconnected

settlement-reducing piles
I. H. Wong, M. F. Chang and X. D. Cao
17.1. Introduction
The use of piles as settlement reducers is effective for controlling the total and differen-
tial settlements of a raft that already has an adequate bearing capacity. In this way, a
much smaller number of piles than that calculated by conventional design methods is
often adequate for reducing the raft settlement to an acceptable limit.
It is common practice for pile heads to be structurally connected with, or to penetrate
into, the raft to form a rigid connection. These piles act as structural members that not
only have to provide an adequate geotechnical bearing capacity in support of the super-
structure, but also require an acceptable factor of safety against structural failure.
Suitable connections between the piles and the raft are required to transmit the applied
load to the piles. For this purpose, the attachment of the pile heads to the raft or pile cap
may include dowel bars for reinforced concrete piles, and capping plates (Figure 17.1)
for steel piles with an adequate embedded length in the raft [17.1]. The thickness of the
raft near the piles needs to be sufficient to prevent punching failure and to ensure the
effective transmission of vertical load. Furthermore, the connection must be adequate for
resisting horizontal loads.
Plate
Mild steel
bars
(a) (b)
Figure 17.1. Capping for steel piles, after Tomlinson [17.1]: (a) hexangonal piles;
(b) H-section piles
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
470 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
In conventional piled raft design, the number of piles is normally large and the load
carried by each individual pile is relatively small. There is a high safety margin before
the piles reach their ultimate geotechnical bearing capacity or structural failure load. The
capacity of the piles is generally governed by geotechnical considerations rather than by
the compressive strength of the pile material. In addition, the resistance of piles to hori-
zontal forces through suitably designed connections is usually adequate due to the large
number of piles used.
When settlement-reducing piles are designed as structural components, the settlements
are often relatively large such that the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the piles is fully
mobilised [17.2]. For an efficient design of rafts with settlement-reducing piles,
Randolph and Clancy [17.3] indicated that the geotechnical pile capacity could be
assumed to be 80% mobilised under working load conditions. In this situation, a low
factor of safety can be applied to the geotechnical capacity of the piles, and the
performance of a piled raft would still be satisfactory because, generally, the bearing
capacity of the raft alone is adequate. However, when these piles are structurally
connected to the raft, as they are in traditional construction, a high axial stress may
develop in the relatively small number of piles. Thus the load-carrying capacity of these
settlement-reducing piles may be governed by their structural capacity rather than by
their geotechnical capacity. A high safety factor will then have to be applied in order to
avoid structural failure.
In addition, these sparsely arranged structural piles beneath a raft may not provide
adequate horizontal resistance to lateral loads. For structures resting on raft foundations
in seismically active zones or areas with high wind loads, some building authorities
therefore deter the use of settlement-reducing piles. Thus the practical use of settlement-
reducing piles is restricted. As an example, designers in Jakarta, Indonesia, are reluctant
to use these structurally connected settlement-reducing piles out of concern that the
design would not be approved by the building authorities, in view of potential damage to
the connections between the relatively few piles and the raft during an earthquake.
Since the main objective of adding piles to a raft is for settlement control, and thus to
achieve an economical design of the foundation, one alternative in the design of these
piles is to consider them as stiffeners for the base soil such that the above-mentioned
problems can be avoided. In this chapter, an alternative design concept for settle-
ment-reducing piles by disassociating the piles from the raft is examined. The behaviour
of a raft with piles that are not structurally connected to the raft is analysed. A review of
the current practice of pile design for piled rafts is outlined, and potential problems asso-
ciated with the use of structurally connected settlement-reducing piles is presented prior
to a discussion of the performance of disconnected settlement-reducing piles.
17.2. Current practice and developments in piled raft design

Current practice in piled raft design treats the piles beneath the raft as normal foundation
piles and the raft as just a large pile cap. As a first step in foundation design, in order to
ensure that the foundation will perform satisfactorily, it is necessary to provide the foun-
dation with an adequate safety factor against bearing resistance failure. In traditional
geotechnical practice, a global safety factor is applied directly to the calculated ultimate
DI SCO N NEC TED SE TTLE MEN T-R ED UC IN G P ILES 471
geotechnical capacity of a pile to arrive at its allowable capacity. The ultimate bearing
capacity of the piles is the sum of the skin friction resistance and base resistance, so that
the allowable load on the pile can be evaluated as
Qa = Qu/Fs = (Qs + Qb)/Fs (17.1)
where Qa = allowable load on pile
Qu = ultimate geotechnical capacity of pile
Qs = skin friction resistance of pile
Qb = base resistance of pile
Fs = factor of safety (between 2 and 3)
A global factor of safety as low as 1.8 has also been suggested if the soil conditions are
well understood, and information is available from loading tests; see, for example, the
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual [17.4].
Recently, the concept of partial factors of safety has begun to find favour among
geotechnical engineers. Eurocode 7 [17.5], which is written in the limit state design
format based on partial safety factors, specifies the design ultimate bearing resistance
(Rcd) of piles as
Rcd = Rbd + Rsd (17.2)
where Rbd = design base resistance of pile = Rbk/cb
Rsd = design skin friction resistance of pile = Rsk/cs
Rbk = characteristic base resistance of pile
Rsk = characteristic skin friction resistance of pile
cb, cs = partial safety factors
The factored design load should not exceed the design ultimate bearing resistance, so that
Fcd ≤ Rcd (17.3)
where Fcd = factored design load = Fk cf
Fk = characteristic load
cf = load factor
Recommended values of the partial safety factors cb and cs are shown in Table 17.1. The
load factor gf is generally 1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for imposed loads. Comparing the
partial factor safety method and the global safety factor method, Franke [17.6]
concluded that the traditional method of using a single global safety factor proves to be
reasonable.
Table 17.1. Partial safety factors for piles, after Eurocode 7 [17.5]
Pile type cb cs
Driven piles 1.3 1.3

Bored piles 1.6 1.3
Continuous flight auger piles 1.45 1.3
Large pile group
Increasing number of piles
Load
Working
load Pw Raft
Sf Sr
Settlement
Figure 17.2. Concept of raft–pile foundation system, after Poulos and Davis [17.8]
It is noted that in the current design method for piled rafts, the bearing capacity of the
raft is always neglected. The piles are assumed to take all the imposed loads,
and the overall factor of safety of the foundation is based only on the pile capacity.
However, the raft can contribute significantly to the overall foundation capacity; Cooke
[17.7], for example, having reported that up to 30% of the building load could be carried
by the raft. The overall safety factors adopted in the current design of piled rafts may,
therefore, be excessively high.
Figure 17.2 illustrates the concept of design for settlement-reducing piles for raft foun-
dations [17.8]. When a raft alone can provide adequate bearing capacity to the
superstructure, piles should be introduced beneath the foundation as settlement reducers
rather than as the main load-carrying members. Ideally, the ultimate geotechnical
capacity of settlement-reducing piles can be allowed to mobilise fully, and the global
factor of safety for the geotechnical capacity of these piles can be taken as 1.0. An
increase in the number or safety factor of the piles may lead to over-design of the foun-
dation, but with minimal additional effect on the reduction in settlement. Although a
small number of piles is used, the performance of the raft–pile system would be satisfac-
tory if the bearing capacity of the raft is adequate.
As shown in Figure 17.2, the settlement of the raft alone, Sr, may be excessive under
the working load, Pw. At the same working load, the settlement of the foundation, Sf, will
decrease as the pile number increases. The extent of the required settlement reduction
determines the number of piles that is required. The number, length and arrangement of
piles should be carefully chosen for the purpose of controlling the settlements of the raft
to within acceptable limits [17.9].
Results of a two-dimensional elastic finite element analysis of piled rafts under working
load conditions help to illustrate the effect of pile numbers on foundation behaviour. In the
analyses, a 3.65 m thick raft resting on a hard clay stratum (Young’s modulus 178 MPa,
thickness 86 m) is connected to 5 rows, 7 rows and 9 rows of 35 m long piles, as proposed
for a high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia; see section 17.5 for further details.
Figure 17.3 shows the computed profiles of settlement, bending moment and shear
force in the raft with the different numbers of pile rows. It can be seen that increasing the
Distance from centre line: m

CL
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0
5 rows
3
7 rows
10
Settlement: mm
9 rows
1 2
20 5 rows
CL
30
4
40
1 2 3
(a) 7 rows
CL
0
Bending moment: MNm/m
5
2
1
234
4 9 rows
10
(b)
2
1·5
Shear force: MN/m
0·5
0
–0·5
–1
–1·5
(c)
Figure 17.3. Effect of configuration of 35 m long settlement-reducing piles on computed

behaviour of piled raft foundation for proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia:
(a) settlement; (b) bending moment; (c) shear force
number of piles results in only a slight reduction in maximum and differential settle-
ments. The maximum bending moments (sagging positive) are comparable for the raft
with different rows of piles, while the maximum negative shear force increases as the
number of pile rows increases. Therefore, there is no clear advantage for a raft to have a
large number of settlement-reducing piles. The small influence of excessive piles on the
reduction of settlements has been reported by Hooper [17.10] based on finite element
analyses of piled rafts, and by Cooke [17.7] based on model tests.
Axial stress: MPa Axial stress: MPa Axial stress: MPa

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
0
10
Depth: m
20
Pile 1
30 Pile 1 Pile 2
Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3
40
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 17.4. Effect of pile configuration on computed distribution of axial pile stress for
proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) 5 rows; (b) 7 rows; (c) 9 rows
Figure 17.4 shows the load carried by the piles, as obtained from the finite element
analysis for the piled raft with different rows of piles. The axial stress in the piles
increases with a decrease in the number of piles. Based on structural considerations, a
higher structural capacity will be required for settlement-reducing piles than for piles in a
conventional piled raft foundation.
17.3. Problems associated with structurally connected

Fleming et al. [17.11] proposed the introduction of a small group of piles beneath the
central area of a flexible raft to reduce maximum and differential settlements. These
piles are usually structurally connected to the raft. As discussed earlier, consideration of
the structural capacity for settlement-reducing piles can be critical due to the relatively
high axial stress that may develop in the piles. Possible horizontal forces may also
damage the structural connections between the piles and the raft, although structural
failure of such piles can be avoided by using high strength and quality materials, and by
applying adequate safety margins.
According to the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual [17.4], Grade 50 concrete
with a 28-day strength of at least 50 MPa should be used for ordinary reinforced or
prestressed concrete piles. Also BS 8004 [17.12] requires that the cement content and
characteristic cube strength of concrete for precast reinforced concrete piles be greater
than 400 kg/m3 and 40 MPa, respectively. For bored cast-in-place piles, BS 8004
requires that the minimum characteristic cube strength be 20 MPa. In Singapore, the
minimum grade of concrete used for bored piles is 30, but concrete of Grade 35 is
commonly used.
In foundation practice, most building codes and specifications stipulate that the allow-
able structural capacity of the piles as structural members be evaluated by applying a
global factor of safety on the materials used. Table 17.2 shows the restrictions on the
stress level in the piles specified in several building codes or design manuals. For rein-
forced concrete piles, both BS 8004 and the New York City Building Code [17.13] limit
the maximum compressive stress at working load to 25% of the characteristic cube
compression strength at 28 days, while ACI Code 318 [17.14] and NAVFAC DM-7.2
[17.15] specify that the maximum stresses can be 33% of the characteristic cylinder
compression strength of concrete, this latter value reducing to 22.5% in the Uniform
Building Code [17.16]. For steel piles, the stress in the steel due to the imposed axial force
at the working condition should not normally exceed 30% of the yield stress [17.12]. The
New York City Building Code and the Uniform Building Code restrict the allowable
maximum compressive stress to 35% and 34% of the yield strength, respectively.
Table 17.2. Allowable stress levels in piles
Pile material
Code Reinforced concrete Steel
BS 8004 ≤ 25% fcu ≤ 30% fy

NY City Buildings Code ≤ 25% fcu ≤ 35% fy
ACI Code 318 ≤ 33% fc
NAVFAC DM-7.2 ≤ 33% fc
Uniform Building Code ≤ 22.5% fc ≤ 34% fy
fc = characteristic cylinder compression strength at 28 days

fcu = characteristic cube compression strength at 28 days
fy = characteristic yield stress
According to the proposed Eurocode 7, the calculation of the structural capacity of

piles can follow the general rules for the design of structural members. Thus the concept
of the ultimate limit state can be employed, and the partial safety factors for loads and
material properties are used instead of a global factor on the material properties.
Table 17.3 shows the required partial safety factors for both loads and material proper-
ties in accordance with several European codes of practice. For concrete piles, if the
average partial factor for load cf is 1.4 and that for concrete cc is 1.5, the corresponding
global factor can be calculated as
Fs = cf cc = 1.4 × 1.5 = 2.1 (17.4)
Although the ultimate limit state design method adopted by Eurocode 7 is less stringent
than the traditional method using a single global factor of safety, it also requires that the
stress level in the piles should not exceed 50% of the pile compressive strength. Because
of the high axial stress levels in settlement-reducing piles, the use of these piles may be
limited if they are designed as structural members.
Generally, wind and earthquake loads imposed on the superstructure are the main
horizontal forces that are transmitted to the pile heads in the foundation system. The
required cross-sectional area of piles can be determined by checking for bending and
shear resistance of the pile heads. In order to resist possible high earthquake and wind
Table 17.3. Partial safety factors for loads and material properties
British Standard Danish Standard Eurocode 2

BS 8110 [17.17] DS 409 [17.18] [17.19]
Dead loads gf 1.4 1.0 1.35

(adverse)
Imposed loads gf 1.6 1.3 1.50
(adverse)
Reinforcement gs 1.15 1.4 1.10
Concrete gc 1.50 1.8 1.50
loads, a large total section area of piles is required, which can be obtained with either a
large number of piles or a smaller number of piles having larger section areas. However,
for the design of raft foundations with settlement-reducing piles, an increase in the pile
number or the use of larger piles just to enhance the horizontal load capacity may not be
economically justifiable. Although the adhesion force along the interface between soil
and raft is the main source of resistance to horizontal loads, brittle damage of the struc-
tural connection may occur during the mobilisation of the adhesive force; Figure 17.5(a).
This consideration may therefore restrict the use of settlement-reducing piles.
17.4. Alternative approach to design of rafts with

There is no doubt that settlement-reducing piles are efficient and economical for control-
ling the total and differential settlements of raft foundations. If these piles are designed
as structural piles, higher axial stresses may be induced in the piles, and a high safety
factor will have to be applied to avoid structural failure. Questions also arise as to how
these piles resist the large horizontal forces that may be attracted by the structural
connections.
Horizontal Horizontal
forces forces
Passive Passive
pressure pressure
Adhesion Adhesion
Shear
resistance
of piles
(a) (b)
Figure 17.5. Transfer mechanism for horizontal loads: (a) piles structurally connected
to raft; (b) piles structurally disconnected from raft
The main function of settlement-reducing piles is to control the total and differential
settlement of the raft. Hooper [17.10], in a review of piled raft foundations, observed a
reduction of settlement if the base soil beneath the raft was considered as a reinforced
elastic medium. One alternative method of foundation design is therefore to introduce
piles purely as a means of improving or enhancing the stiffness of the base soil by struc-
turally disconnecting the piles from the raft. A gap can be provided between the piles and
the raft such that the piles would not directly carry the loads from the superstructure.
Once these settlement-reducing piles are no longer structurally connected to the raft, a
much lower factor of safety against structural failure than that suggested for structural
piles can be used without violation of most building codes.
Since the ultimate geotechnical capacity of disconnected piles can be assumed to be
fully mobilised, the structural considerations of such settlement-reducing piles are no
longer critical in the design. Small differences and uncertainties in loads and material
strengths may be ignored because these piles will not act as the main load-carrying
members. Even some small cracks in the piles may not significantly reduce their role of
reinforcing the base soil. A factor of safety as low as 1.3 against structural failure can be
applied to the pile materials.
Thus these disconnected settlement-reducing piles may be allowed to carry much
higher loads than structurally connected piles, with resulting economic benefits. Further-
more, possible damage to structural connections is no longer a design issue, and the
horizontal loads can be effectively transmitted through the mobilised adhesion force
along the soil–raft interface; Figure 17.5(b). In addition, as the construction of raft foun-
dations for high-rise buildings usually incorporates a basement, the horizontal forces
may also be resisted by passive pressures acting on the basement walls.
The effectiveness of reinforcing the base soil under the raft was first reported by
Hooper [17.10], who analysed a piled raft by treating the base soil as an improved soil
continuum; here it was found that only a few piles were required to establish a
pile-reinforced soil mass of appreciable vertical stiffness that was sufficient for signifi-
cant settlement reduction. Randolph [17.20] reported that the localised high bending
moments in the raft near the piles would be reduced if the piles were dissociated from the
raft. Thorburn et al. [17.21] designed a piled raft foundation for a storage tank by disso-
ciating the pile heads from the raft. In this case, the load was transmitted to the piles by
arching action through the soil layer between the pile heads, enabling the settlement to
be brought under control. However, the foundation soil was soft and compressible, and
the role of the piles was not quite like that of settlement-reducing piles in a stiff soil on
which rafts normally rest. Thorburn et al. reported that over 90% of the tank loading
appeared to have been transferred to the piles. This situation is different from the behav-
iour of settlement-reducing piles which usually carry a smaller part of the total loading.
17.5. Comparative behaviour of rafts with structurally

connected and disconnected piles
A parametric study based on the plane strain finite element method has been applied to a
raft foundation proposed for a high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia, to explore the
feasibility of the proposed design philosophy involving the use of disconnected
settlement-reducing piles. A comparison of the behaviour of the raft with structurally

connected and disconnected piles is then used to evaluate the effectiveness of the new
design concept.
17.5.1. Foundation modelling details

The proposed building is a 39-storey twin-tower structure supported on a rectangular raft
(44 × 99 m) with a 2-storey basement. In the corresponding foundation analyses, the raft
is assumed to rest directly on the surface of an 86 m thick stiff clay stratum which is
underlain by a rough rigid base. The clay is assumed to have an average undrained
Young’s modulus of 178 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.49. The clay stratum is assumed
to behave as an undrained material during loading. The undrained shear strength (cu) of
the clay is taken to be 240 kPa. The Young’s modulus of the concrete is taken as 27 GPa
for both the raft and the piles, and the characteristic strength of the concrete is 40 MPa.
The concrete is assumed to behave as a linearly elastic material with a Poisson’s ratio of
0.15. The raft is 3.65 m thick and 44 m wide. The bored piles are 1 m in diameter and
either 35 m or 65 m in length.
Figure 17.6 shows the cross-section of the pile arrangement used in the analysis. For
the disconnected piles, a soil gap 1 m thick is assumed to exist between the pile heads
and the raft. Four rows of identical piles are placed symmetrically about the centre line
of the raft. The two interior rows of piles are directly beneath the central core area of the
building, and the two outer rows are placed where the heavier concentrated line loads are
located. In each row of piles, the pile spacing is 3 m.
A uniform load of 1515 kPa acts on the 4 m wide core area. Line loads of 3550 kN/m
and 570 kN/m, located at 8 m and 1 m, respectively, from the edge of the raft, act on
both sides of the core area; see Figure 17.6(c). The equivalent average applied pressure
across the width of the raft is 325 kPa. The maximum bearing capacity of the raft is esti-
mated at 6cu, or about 1400 kPa. Thus the factor of safety against bearing capacity
failure for a plain raft is 4.4, so that the raft alone can provide an adequate bearing
capacity under working loads. However, the settlements of the raft may be excessive
from the serviceability standpoint. Thus settlement-reducing piles are required to control
the settlements of the raft, and to reduce the bending moments in the raft.
The results from both a static equilibrium analysis and the finite element analysis are
summarised below, and present a comparison of the relative behaviour between rafts
without piles and with the two different types of settlement-reducing piles.
17.5.2. Pile capacity

The geotechnical capacity of a settlement-reducing pile is considered to be the same,
whether or not a structural connection is provided. As previously discussed, the ultimate
geotechnical capacity of the piles is assumed to be fully mobilised, and the geotechnical
capacity for both the connected and disconnected piles can be estimated by combining
the skin friction and the end-bearing capacity of the piles.
For structurally connected piles, a factor of safety against structural failure of the
bored piles is generally taken as 4.0 (25% of the compressive strength of the piles)
44 m 44 m
CL CL
Column Column
3·65 m Core 3·65 m Core
Raft Raft
Homogeneous
1m soil Homogeneous
soil
Es = 178 kPa
νs = 0·49 Es = 178 kPa
cu = 240 kPa 1m νs = 0·49
35 m 35 m cu = 240 kPa
or 65 m or 65 m
3m
3m
28 m
28 m
(a) (b)
Uniformly distributed
load 1515 kPa
3550 3550
kN/m kN/m
570 570
kN/m kN/m
1m 7m 12 m 4m 12 m 7m 1m
CL
(c)
Figure 17.6. Modelling of raft with settlement-reducing piles for proposed high-rise
building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) piles structurally connected to raft; (b) piles structur-
ally disconnected from raft; (c) applied loading
according to BS 8004. Then the allowable load on a 1 m diameter pile, if the resistance
of the reinforcement is ignored, can be estimated as
Qa = 0.25 Ac fc
= 0.25 × 0.785 m2 × 40 MPa = 7850 kN (17.5)
where Ac and fc denote the cross-sectional area and strength of concrete, respectively.
For disconnected piles, the factor of safety against the structural failure of the bored
piles can be very low, and is taken here as 1.3. Then the allowable load on the pile, again
ignoring the resistance of the steel reinforcement, can be estimated as
Qa = Ac fc /1.3
= 0.785 m2 × 40 MPa /1.3 = 24 150 kN (17.6)
Thus the disconnected settlement-reducing piles allow much higher loads to be

applied than similar structurally connected ones. Minor damage to the piles may not
affect their efficiency in reinforcing the base soil; this is because structurally connected
piles have to be designed as structural members with a suitable factor of safety against
structural failure. However, the disconnected piles can be designed as soil reinforcement
elements that require a much lower factor of safety.
If a structural connection is provided between the piles and the raft, any horizontal
force will be transmitted immediately to the pile head, and this may cause damage to the
connection. However, if disconnected settlement-reducing piles are used, the horizontal
force can be resisted directly by the adhesion mobilised along the soil–raft interface,
and by the passive pressures against the basement walls that are generally incorporated
into a building. This combined adhesion and passive resistance may be adequate to
resist horizontal loads such as those from an earthquake. Disconnecting the settle-
ment-reducing piles from the raft thus avoids the problem of damage to the structural
connections, without jeopardising the vertical and horizontal resistance of the
foundation.
17.5.3. Computed raft response

Figure 17.7(a) shows a comparison of the settlement profiles across the raft with three
different foundation systems, namely unpiled, connected and disconnected piled rafts,
obtained from the finite element analysis. As expected, both maximum and differential
settlements decrease with the adoption of settlement-reducing piles. Interestingly,
whether or not the piles are structurally connected to, or disconnected from, the raft, the
reduction in settlement is of a similar amount. The settlement profile of the raft with
disconnected piles is almost identical to that of the raft with connected piles. It is clear
that disconnecting piles from the raft has practically no effect on the efficiency of the
piles in terms of settlement reduction.
Figure 17.7(b) shows the distribution of raft bending moment for the three different
systems. Although the maximum bending moment in the raft with disconnected piles is
slightly higher than that with structurally connected piles, the effectiveness of intro-
ducing disconnected piles under the raft in terms of reduction in bending moments is
clearly seen. It is obvious that the concept of disconnected settlement-reducing piles is
workable. However, the benefit of alleviating localised higher bending moments with the
use of rafts with disconnected settlement-reducing piles, as postulated by Randolph
[17.20], cannot be verified. In contrast, the present results show a slight increase in the
localised bending moments.
From Figure 17.7(c) it can be seen that the distribution of shear forces in the raft
with disconnected piles is between those of the unpiled raft and the raft with connected
piles. The localised shear force near the section with the heavier concentrated load is
higher for the raft with disconnected piles than for the raft with connected piles.
Because this localised shear force can be resisted by the raft itself or by introducing
shear reinforcement, the advantage of disconnecting the piles from the raft is not
significantly affected by the increased shear force in the raft. Actually, this shear force

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0
20
Settlement: mm
40
Disconnected piles (65 m)

Connected piles (65 m)
60 Disconnected piles (35 m)
Unpiled
80
(a)
0
Bending moment: MNm/m
12
16
(b)
2
Shear force: MN/m
–1
–2
(c)
Figure 17.7. Effect of configuration of settlement-reducing piles on computed behaviour

of raft foundation for proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) settlement;
(b) bending moment; (c) shear force

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
1·8
1·2
Shear force: MN/m
0·6
–0·6 1000 mm gap

500 mm gap
300 mm gap
–1·2
Figure 17.8. Effect of gap distance between raft and pile heads on computed distribution
of raft shear force for proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia
could be reduced by decreasing the gap between the raft and the pile head. For the case
with 65 m long piles, Figure 17.8 shows the effect of gap height on the distribution of
shear forces.
Figure 17.9 shows the distribution of normalised contact pressure p/q (p is the contact
pressure, and q is the equivalent average applied load intensity) across the raft for the
three foundation systems. The contact pressure is generally lower for the piled raft than
that for the unpiled raft. The high pressures at the edge of the unpiled raft, which always
occur for a raft resting on stiff clay, become smaller for piled rafts. With an increase in
pile length, the contact pressure also becomes smaller, indicating that the settle-
ment-reducing piles function more as soil reinforcement than as purely load-carrying
structural members. The high soil stresses around the piles are responsible for the large
down-drag forces transferred to the disconnected piles.
17.5.4. Computed pile response

Figure 17.10 shows the distribution of axial stress along the inner and outer piles respec-
tively, together with the corresponding average mobilised skin friction profiles along the
pile shafts. From the present study, the mobilised skin friction is negative in the upper
part of the piles, irrespective of whether the piles are structurally connected or uncon-
nected to the raft. Disconnection of piles from the raft leads to a higher mobilised
negative skin friction. A comparison between the disconnected and connected piles
shows that more loads are directly transmitted to the pile heads when piles are structur-
ally connected to the raft.
For the disconnected piles, the primary means of load transfer from the raft to the piles
is through the development of down-drag forces. For the connected piles, the neutral
plane (where skin friction changes from negative to positive) is higher than for discon-
nected piles. However, the axial stresses in the neutral plane are comparable between

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
–0·5
0
0·5
Contact pressure p /q
1·5
2·5
3·5 Disconnected piles (35 m)

4·5 Unpiled
5·5
(a)
–0·5
0
0·5
Contact pressure p /q
1·5
2·5
Disconnected piles (65 m)
3·5 Connected piles (65 m)
Unpiled
4·5
5·5
(b)
Figure 17.9. Computed distribution of normalised raft contact pressure for proposed
high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) 35 m long piles; (b) 65 m long piles
disconnected and connected settlement-reducing piles. The effect of pile length on the
distribution of axial pile stress is the same for connected and unconnected piles. As
the pile length increases, the down-drag force increases and more load is transferred to
the piles. In addition, there is little difference in axial stress between the piles at the
centre and those away from the centre. For these reinforcement piles, the load carried by
each pile is equally distributed, especially for disconnected piles.
17.6. Conclusions
An alternative approach to the design of raft foundations with settlement-reducing piles
has been presented. By disconnecting the piles from the raft, a much lower factor of
safety against structural failure of the piles can be used since the piles can be considered
Axial stress: MPa Average unit skin friction: kPa

0 2 4 6 8 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60
0
10
20
30
Depth: m
40
50
60
70
(a)
Axial stress: MPa Average unit skin friction: kPa

0 2 4 6 8 10 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60
0
10
20
30
Depth: m
40
50
60
70
(b)
Disconnected piles (65 m) Connected piles (65 m)

Disconnected piles (35 m) Connected piles (35 m)
Figure 17.10. Computed distribution of axial pile stress and average skin friction for
proposed high-rise building in Jakarta, Indonesia: (a) inner piles; (b) outer piles
to function essentially as soil-reinforcing members. Possible horizontal loads from

earthquakes or high winds may be effectively resisted by adhesion along the soil–raft
interface, and by passive resistance generated across the walls of basements normally
constructed in high-rise buildings that are supported on rafts.
The structurally disconnected settlement-reducing piles may act more as soil-rein-
forcing members to stiffen the base soil rather than as direct load-carrying members. A
part of the applied load would still be transmitted to the piles through the soil between
the pile heads and the raft. Negative skin friction along the upper part of the piles may
increase with the use of disconnected settlement-reducing piles. However, the most crit-
ical axial stresses in the neutral planes are comparable whether or not the piles are
connected to the raft.
Comparisons have been made between the structurally connected and disconnected
piles using an example foundation with three different raft systems. The disconnection of
piles from the raft does not significantly affect their effectiveness in reducing raft settle-
ments and bending moments. These piles are thus feasible in practice, particularly for tall
buildings resting on raft foundations in areas susceptible to earthquake or high wind
loads.
17.7. References
17.1. TOMLINSON, M. J. Foundation design and construction. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, Harlow,
1995, 6th edn.
17.2. BURLAND, J. B., BROMS, B. and DE MELLO, V. F. B. Behaviour of foundations and structures.
Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Foundn Engng, Tokyo, 1977, 2, 495–546.
17.3. RANDOLPH, M. F. and CLANCY, P. Efficient design of piled rafts. Proc. 2nd Int. Geotech. Sem.
Deep Foundns on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, 1993, 119–130.
17.4. CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY. Canadian foundation engineering manual. Richmond,
British Columbia, 1992, 3rd edn.
17.5. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design–Part 1:
General rules. Brussels, 1997.
17.6. FRANKE, E. Eurocode safety approach as applied to single piles. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Piling and
Deep Foundns, Stresa, Italy, 1991, 1, 13–18.
17.7. COOKE, R. W. Piled raft foundations on stiff clays: a contribution to design philosophy,
Géotechnique, 1986, 36, 2, 169–203.
17.8. POULOS, H. G. and DAVIS, E. H. Pile foundation analysis and design. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1980.
17.9. HORIKOSHI, K. and RANDOLPH, M. F. A contribution to optimum design of piled rafts. Géotech-
nique, 1998, 48, 3, 301–317.
17.10. HOOPER, J. A. Review of behaviour of piled raft foundations. Construction Industry Research
and Information Association, London, 1979, Rep. 83.
17.11. FLEMING, W. G. K., WELTMAN, A. J., RANDOLPH, M. F. and ELSON, W. K. Piling engineering.
Surrey University Press, 1992, 2nd edn.
17.12. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Foundations. BSI, London, 1986, BS 8004.
17.13. NEW YORK CITY. New York City Building Code. New York, 1968.
17.14. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. ACI Standard: Building Code requirements for reinforced
concrete (ACI 318–89), Detroit, 1969.
17.15. NAVFAC DM-7.2. Foundations and earth structures. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia, 1982.
17.16. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. Int. Conf. Building Officials, Whittier, CA, USA, 1988.
17.17. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Structural use of concrete. BSI, London, 1985, BS 8110.
17.18. DANSK INGENIORFORENING. Danish Standard Code of Practice for safety of structures (DS 409).
Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1983, 3rd edn.
17.19. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Brus-
sels, 1992.
17.20. RANDOLPH, M. F. Design of piled raft foundations. Proc. Int. Symp. Recent Developments in
Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, 1983, 525–537.
17.21. THORBURN, S., LAIRD, C. and RANDOLPH, M. F. Storage tanks founded on soft soils reinforced
with driven piles. Proc. Conf. Recent Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Founda-
tions, London, 1983, 155–164.

Wong 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wong 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17.

Raft foundations with disconnected

17.2. Current practice and developments in piled raft design

Driven piles 1.3 1.3

Large pile group

Increasing number of piles

Distance from centre line: m

Figure 17.3. Effect of configuration of 35 m long settlement-reducing piles on computed

Axial stress: MPa Axial stress: MPa Axial stress: MPa

17.3. Problems associated with structurally connected

Table 17.2. Allowable stress levels in piles

Code Reinforced concrete Steel

BS 8004 ≤ 25% fcu ≤ 30% fy

fc = characteristic cylinder compression strength at 28 days

According to the proposed Eurocode 7, the calculation of the structural capacity of

British Standard Danish Standard Eurocode 2

Dead loads gf 1.4 1.0 1.35

17.4. Alternative approach to design of rafts with

17.5. Comparative behaviour of rafts with structurally

settlement-reducing piles. A comparison of the behaviour of the raft with structurally

17.5.1. Foundation modelling details

17.5.2. Pile capacity

Thus the disconnected settlement-reducing piles allow much higher loads to be

17.5.3. Computed raft response

Distance from centre line: m

Disconnected piles (65 m)

Figure 17.7. Effect of configuration of settlement-reducing piles on computed behaviour

Distance from centre line: m

–0·6 1000 mm gap

17.5.4. Computed pile response

Distance from centre line: m

3·5 Disconnected piles (35 m)

Axial stress: MPa Average unit skin friction: kPa

Axial stress: MPa Average unit skin friction: kPa

Disconnected piles (65 m) Connected piles (65 m)

to function essentially as soil-reinforcing members. Possible horizontal loads from

You might also like