Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 February 2013
Received in revised form 5 February 2014
Accepted 25 February 2014
Keywords:
Piled raft
Soilstructure interaction
Numerical analysis
Field measurement
Load transfer approach
a b s t r a c t
The load distribution and deformation of piled raft foundations subjected to axial and lateral loads were
investigated by a numerical analysis and eld case studies. Special attention is given to the improved analytical method (YSPR) proposed by considering raft exibility and soil nonlinearity. A load transfer
approach using py, tz and qz curves is used for the analysis of piles. An analytical method of the
soilstructure interaction is developed by taking into account the soil spring coupling effects based on
the Filonenko-Borodich model. The proposed method has been veried by comparing the results with
other numerical methods and eld case studies on piled raft. Through comparative studies, it is found
that the proposed method in the present study is in good agreement with general trend observed by eld
measurements and, thus, represents a signicant improvement in the prediction of piled raft load sharing
and settlement behavior.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years, a number of huge construction projects, such as
high-rise buildings and long span bridges, are being undertaken.
The piled raft foundations are especially being recognized as an
economical foundation system for high-rise buildings. Here, piles
as settlement reducers have been discussed for over a quarter of
a century [2] and some signicant applications have been reported
[12,38,42]. Optimized design strategy is a major importance for an
economic construction to be achieved. An optimized design of a
piled raft can therefore be dened as a design with minimum costs
for the installation of the foundation and satisfactory bearing
behavior for a given geometry and raft loading [35]. The piled raft
is a composite foundation system consisting of three bearing elements: raft, piles and subsoil. Therefore, the behavior of a piled raft
is affected by the 3D interaction between the soil, piles and raft,
thus, a simple and convenient analytical method is needed to evaluate these interactions.
Much work has been done to study load sharing and settlement
behavior of piled raft by many researchers. Numerical methods
have been developed widely in the last two decades because
numerical methods are less costly and may be used to consider
many kinds of different soil and foundation geometries compared
to eld and model tests. Although these methods make slightly
different modeling techniques, they can generally be classied into
three groups: (1) simplied calculation methods [30,32], (2)
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jaeyeon82@hotmail.com (J. Cho).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.02.009
0266-352X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
113
to examine the validity of the proposed method, the analysis results are compared with the available solutions from previous researches. In the eld case study, comparative analyses between
YSPR and a eld measurement data are carried out for the pile load
and settlement behavior.
2. Method of analysis
2.1. Modeling of exible raft
Finite element techniques have often been used for the analysis
of raft by different researchers such as Clancy and Randolph [5],
Zhang and Small [49], Kitiyodom and Matsumoto [14]. According
114
to the former methods [5,49], the raft can be treated as a plate and
the soil can be treated as a series of interactive springs by using a
Mindlins solutions [22], in which the contact pressure at any point
on the base of the raft is proportional to the deformation of the soil
at that point or as an elastic half-space in which the behavior of the
soil can be obtained from a number of closed-form solutions. In the
later method, the raft is modeled as thin plates and the piles as
elastic beams and the soil is treated as interactive springs [14].
The interactions between structural members are made by the
use of Mindlins solutions. The primary limitation of these methods
is that the membrane behavior of the exible raft cannot be considered because the nodal displacements (in the x- and y-direction)
for the membrane action are not included. This limitation can be
overcome by using a at-shell element. An improved four-node
at-shell element proposed by the authors [48], which combines
a Mindlins plate element and a membrane element with torsional
degrees of freedom, is adopted in this study. The at-shell element
can be subjected to the membrane and bending actions that are
shown in Fig. 1. The displacement due to the membrane action is
considered independent of the displacement due to the bending
115
Load increment
Iteration
dz
Cbz w 0
(k t) 2
P2
(k s) 2
1
P1
(k t) 1
P1
u1 u1
P2
d w
u2
u2
(a)
(k i) j : i = load increment
j = Iteration number
Fu
(k i) 1
f((u i) i)
Fu=f(u )
(ki) j
d y
4
dz
d y
2
dz
q Ksy 0
where EA, EI are the axial stiffness and the exural rigidity the pile,
w is the vertical deection of the pile at point z, bz is the stiffness/
circumference for the axial reaction represented by the modulus
of the soil-response (tz or qz or both), which depends on the
depth z and pile movement w, and C is circumference of the pile
at point z. Q is the axial load on the pile, q is the distributed load
along the length of the pile, and KS is the stiffness for the lateral soil
reaction represented by the modulus of the soil-response (py)
curve.
In the next step, nite difference technique is used to solve the
differential equations governing the compatibility between the pile
displacement and the load transfer along a pile. These techniques
are generally based on load tests on full-scale and parametric nite
element analyses of pilesoil interactions, which are represented
by loadtransfer curves (tz, qz, and py curves).
f((u) i- 1)
(ui) j
(u) i- 1
(b)
Fig. 5. Increment secant modulus method [48]. (a) Concept of increment secant
modulus method. (b) Estimating stiffness at ith load increment.
116
Piles in such groups interact with one another through the surrounding soil, resulting in the pilesoilpile interactions. In this
study, a set of nonlinear py curves which can be modied by
reducing all of the p-values on each curve by a p-multiplier (fm)
are used as input to study the behavior of the laterally loaded piles.
The p-multiplier can be calculated for each pile in the group
[3,6,19]. For each pile i in the group, the p-multiplier can be expressed as:
where bji is the p-reduction factor due to the effect of pile j on pile i.
In a group of closely-spaced piles, the axial capacity of group is
also dominated by variation in settlement behavior of individual
piles due to pilesoilpile interaction. The most reliable data
117
K flat-shell
K plate
0
K membrane
K plate
Z
V
BTb Db Bb dV
Z
V
BTs Ds Bs dV
where Bb is the bending strain matrix and Bs is the shear strain matrix. For an isotropic material, Db and Ds are given as follows:
Db
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of vertical and lateral loaded piled raft. (a) Pile
conguration. (b) Section-view.
Ds
0
0
Et
6
7
4m 1
5
121 m2
0 0 1 m=2
WEt
1 0
21 m 0 1
;
6a
5
6
6b
K membrane
Z
v
Bm GRT C Bm GRdV
cV
hh
7a
118
IwV
0.02
0.03
0.04
CsH
0.05
-0.1
0.2
PRAB
FEM (K&M, 2003)
PLAXIS 3D
YSPR
PRAB
FEM (K&M, 2003)
PLAXIS 3D
YSPR
10
10
(a)
(c)
IuH
-0.1
CbH
0.1
0.2
-0.4
0.1
PRAB
FEM (K&M, 2003)
PLAXIS 3D
YSPR
10
-0.2
0.2
PRAB
FEM (K&M, 2003)
PLAXIS 3D
YSPR
10
(b)
(d)
Fig. 10. Comparison of analysis result for piled raft: (a) Settlement and (b) lateral displacement, (c) shear force; and (d) bending moment.
g dV;
bg b
7b
E
21 m
for pile groups can be formed by sum of n single pile stiffness matrix (Eq. (10)).
2
7c
where C is the constitutive modulus, c is taken as the shear modulus. Bm, G, R are the strain matrices representing the relationship between the displacements (the membrane displacement, the
rotation, and midside incompatible displacement respectively)
and g are also the strain matrices for the
and the strains. b, g, b,
innitesimal rotation elds.
The pile head stiffness (K11 K66) is assumed to be constant
within each load increment and each iteration and then superposition can be applied in order to develop a pile head stiffness matrix
(Eq. (8)) in individual piles. Using loaddisplacement relationships
representing pile behaviors according to pile head movements
[34], the relationship between the nodal force and nodal displacements can be expressed in Eq. (9). In addition, the stiffness matrix
K pile
K 11
6 0
6
6
6 0
6
6 0
6
6
4 K 51
0
K 15
K 22
K 24
K 33
K 42
K 44
K 55
Kpilei fdgi fF i g
K pilegroups
n
X
K pilei
0 7
7
7
0 7
7
0 7
7
7
0 5
K 66
10
i1
where [K]pile(i) is an individual pile head stiffness matrix, {di} a displacement or rotation, and {Fi} force or moment at the ith pile head.
119
22 mm
22 mm
Fh
(variable)
2.5D, 5.0D,
and 7.5D
Fh
(variable)
Pile cap
Pile cap
15 mm
15 mm
600 mm
Sand
600 mm
Sand
Pile
Pile
Rock
Rock
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11. Test pile group congurations [4] (a) 2 2 pile groups (b) 3 3 pile groups.
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
8
9
38 9
du >
Fu >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dv >
>
>
>
>
Fv >
07
7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
7>
<
<
=
7
dw
Fw =
0
7
> Mu >
>
07
>
>
>
7>
> au >
>
>
>
>
>
>
7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
a
M
05 >
>
>
>
>
v
v
> ;
>
>
>
:
:
;
Mw i
0 i aw i
k11
0 0 0
k22
0 0
k33
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Ksoili fdgi fF i g
11
12
K piled
raft
13
ki j
df u
du uui1
ki j
f ui j f ui1
ui j ui1
ui j ui1 Duj
j 1
j > 1
14
15
16
120
0.04
0.03
0.02
measured (2.5D)
measured (5.0D)
measured (7.5D)
predicted (2.5D)
predicted (5.0D)
predicted (7.5D)
0.01
0
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
Displacement (m)
(a)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
measured (2.5D)
measured (5.0D)
predicted (2.5D)
predicted (5.0D)
0
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
IwV
Es Dw
qz Br Lr
17
IuH
Es Du
qx B r L r
18
C sH
S
qx Br Lr
19
C bH
B
qx DBr Lr
20
Displacement (m)
(b)
Fig. 12. Lateral loaddisplacement curves at pile head. (a) 2 2 pile groups. (b)
3 3 pile groups.
Table 1
Material parameters used for this study (case studies).
Case
Material properties
Type
Pile
Raft
Soil
Pile
Raft
Soil
Korea case
Pile
Raft
Soil
Depth (m)
Steel pipe
Concrete
Sandy silt
Silty clay
Concrete
Concrete
Sand
Frankfurt clay
Concrete
Concrete
Gneiss
E (MPa)
0 to 5.5
2.1E08
0 to 2.2
30,000
0 to 1.7
13
1.7 to 13.5
15
5.5 to 25.5
23,500
3 to 5.5
34,000
3 to 8
75
8 to 113
47a
0 to 30
28,000
0 to 6.0
33,234
Soil spring stiffness (kPa/m)
0 to 204,250
c (kN/m3)
/ ()
c (kPa)
Modela
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.25
0.15
0.2
0.15
75
25
18
18
25
25
18
19
0
0
32.5
20
25
29.64
0
20
L.E.
L.E.
M.C.
M.C.
L.E.
L.E.
M.C.
M.C.
YSPR
Note: M.C. is Mohr Coulomb elasto-plastic model, L.E. is linear elastic model used in PLAXIS 3D Foundation Frankfurt clay: E = 45 + [tanh((z 30)/15) + 1] 0.7z.
121
Fig. 13. Field test of piled raft [16]. (a) Plan-view and (b) section-view.
Table 2
Properties used for estimating load transfer curves (Japan case).
Load (MN)
0
py curves [19,20]
Subgrade reaction
modulus
Sandy silt
Silty
clay
40
40
5000
5769
0.3
0.3
250
25
29.64
18.0
27,150
18.0
27,150
Kx, Ky (kN/m3)
Kz (kN/m3)
27,150
5291
1.5
2.5
10
Settlement (mm)
Contents
0.5
20
30
40
50
Fig. 14. Computed and measured response of piled raft settlement.
Jeong [4], a series of small scale model tests were carried out to
study the behavior of pile groups subjected to lateral loadings on
sand. The test soil used in this study was: the unit weight
15.3 kN/m3, cohesion 0 kN/m2 and drained friction angle 37. The
model piles made from PVC tubes were 0.6 m in embedded length,
22 mm in diameter and 2.5 mm wall thickness and 28,265 kN m2
exural rigidity(EI). Fig. 11 shows an idealization of the subsurface
prole and pile embedment for test piles.
Using present method the behavior of pile groups are predicted
with different group congurations and different center-to-center
pile spacing: 2.5D, 5.0D, and 7.0D. Back-tted hyperbolic py
curves that are calculated at 5, 10, and 20 cm along the pile depth
in model test of single pile are implemented. Initial tangent
Table 3
Calculated stiffness of single pile and piled raft (Japan case).
Single pile
Piled raft (w/o Ge)
Piled raft (w/Ge)
K11 (kN/m)
K22 (kN/m)
K33 (kN/m)
K44 (kN/rad)
K55 (kN/rad)
K66 (kN/rad)
0.4052E+02
0.2735E+05
0.2735E+05
0.4052E+02
0.2735E+05
0.2735E+05
0.3877E+05
0.3453E+06
0.2492E+06
0.3434E+03
0.2730E+06
0.2208E+06
0.3434E+03
0.2730E+06
0.2208E+06
0
0
0
122
Fig. 15. Torhaus Der Messe: (a) prole view and (b) conguration of pile.
Table 4
Properties used for estimating load transfer curves (Germany case).
py curves [24,33]
Subgrade reaction
modulus
Contents
Quaternary
silt
Frankfurt
clay
143
91.6
30,000
20,434
0.25
0.15
90
32.5
18
16,300
16,300
294,000
20
19
136,000
136,000
Table 5
Calculated stiffness of single pile and piled raft (Germany case).
Single pile
Piled raft (w/o Ge)
Piled raft (w/Ge)
K11 (kN/m)
K22 (kN/m)
K33 (kN/m)
K44 (kN/rad)
K55 (kN/rad)
K66 (kN/rad)
0.3979E+03
0.1118E+08
0.1117E+08
0.3979E+03
0.1138E+08
0.1137E+08
0.3020E+06
0.1300E+08
0.1242E+08
0.4482E+05
0.2583E+09
0.2548E+09
0.4482E+05
0.2115E+09
0.2078E+09
0
0
0
Load (MN)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Settlement (mm)
0
20
PLAXIS 3D
YSPR (w/o Ge)
YSPR (w/ Ge)
40
Measured
settlement
60
80
100
123
120
Smax = 124mm
140
Fig. 17. Settlement behavior of large piled raft foundation.
124
Fig. 18. Preliminary design case of large piled raft: (a) plan view and (b) prole view.
125
Fig. 19. Raft settlement distribution: (a) section 1, (b) section 2, (c) section 3; (d) section 4.
structural models. The raft is modeled as a grillage and the piles are
treated as bar element with axial stiffness only in GSRaft while
YSPR is adopted at-shell element and 6 6 pile head stiffness.
Although there are no measured proles of raft settlement, the
proposed analysis method showed reasonably good correspondence with well-known in-house program.
5. Conclusions
The primary objective of this study was to propose an improved
analytical method for a pile raft foundations. The conceptual methodology of the proposed method is completely different from that
of general continuum method. A series of analytical studies were
conducted. Through comparisons with case histories, it is clearly
demonstrated that the proposed method was found to be in good
agreement with measurement data. From the ndings of this
study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. By taking into account the raft exibility and soil nonlinearity,
the proposed analytical method is an appropriate and realistic
126
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No.
2011-0030040).
References
[1] Allen MB, Isaacson EL. Numerical analysis for applied science. John Wiley &
Sons; 1998.
[2] Burland JB, Broms BB, De Mello VFB. Behaviour of foundations and structures.
In: State-of-the-Art Rep., Proc., IX Int. conf. of soil mechanics and foundation
engineering (ICSMFE). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema; 1977. p.
495546.
[3] Brown DA, Reese LC, ONeill MW. Cyclic lateral loading of a large-scale pile
group. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1987;113(11):132643.
[4] Chung SH, Jeong SS. Analysis of pile groups considering pile-cap interaction.
M.S. thesis. Yonsei Univ; 2001.
[5] Clancy P, Randolph MF. An approximate analysis procedure for piled raft
foundations. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1993;17(12):84969.
[6] Cox WR, Dixon DA, Murphy BS. Lateral load test of 25.4 mm diameter piles in
very soft clay in side-by-side and in-line groups. Laterally loaded deep
foundations: analysis and performance, ASTM, SPT835; 1984.
[7] Daloglu AT, Vallabhan CVG. Values of k for slab on Winkler foundation. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2000;126(5):46371.
[8] Filonenko-Borodich M. Some approximate theories of the elastic foundation.
Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennoho Universiteta Mekhanica,
vol. 46; 1940. p. 318.
[9] Hain SJ, Lee IK. The analysis of exible raftpile systems. Geotechnique
1978;28(1):6583.
[10] Hetenyi M. Beams on elastic foundations. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of
Michigan Press; 1946.
[11] Jeong SS, Kim SI, Briaud JL. Analysis of downdrag on pile groups by nite
element method. Comput Geotech 1997;21(2):14361.
[12] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Gutwald J, Holzhauser J, Quick H. Soilstructure
interaction of the 300-m-high Commerzbank Tower in Frankfurt am Main.
Measurements and numerical studies. In: Proc, 14th ICSMFE, vol. 2; 1997. p.
10814.
[13] Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Moormann C. Piled raft foundations projects in
Germany, design applications of raft foundations. In: Hemsley JA, editor,
Thomas Telford; 2000. p. 32392.
[14] Kitiyodom P, Matsumoto T. A simplied analysis method for piled raft and pile
group foundations with batter piles. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2002;26:134969.
[15] Kitiyodom P, Matsumoto T. A simplied analysis method for piled raft
foundations in non-homogeneous soils. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2003;27:85109.
[16] Koizumi Y, Ito K. Field tests with regard to pile driving and bearing capacity of
piled foundations. Soils Found 1967;7(3):3053.
[17] Lee IK. Analysis and performance of raft and raftpile foundations in a
homogeneous soil. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on case
history in geotechnical engineering, St Louis (also Research Report R133,
ADFA, University of New South Wales, Australia); 1993.
[18] Lee JH, Kim YH, Jeong SS. Three-dimensional analysis of bearing behavior of
piled raft on soft clay. Comput Geotech 2010;37:10314.
[19] Lieng JT. Behavior of laterally loaded piles in sand-large scale model test. Ph.D.
thesis, Department of civil engineering, Norwegian institute of technology;
1988.
[20] Matlock H. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. In: Proc.
Offshore technology conference, OTC 1204; 1970.
[21] Meyerhof GG. Ultimate bearing capacity of footing on sand layer overlaying
clay. CGJ 1974;11(2):2239.
[22] Mindlin RD. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-in-nite solid. Physics
1936;7:195202.
[23] ONeill MW. Group action in offshore piles. In: Proc specialty conference on
geotechnical engineering in offshore practice. ASCE; 1984.
[24] ONeill MW, Dunnavant TW. A study of effect of scale, velocity, and cyclic
degradability on laterally loaded single piles in overconsolidated clay. Rep. No.
UHCE 84-7, Dept of Civil Engineering, Univ of Houston, Houston, TX; 1984.
[25] ONeill MW, Murchison JM. An evaluation of py relationship in sands. A report
to the American Petroleum Institute, PRAC 82-41-1, University of Houston,
Texas; 1983.
[26] Arup Ove et al. GSRAFT as part of GSA user manual. London: Oasys Ltd.; 1996.
[27] Pasternak PL. On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means
of two constants. Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvui
Arkhitekture, Moscow; 1954 [in Russian].
[28] PLAXIS 3D Foundation. PLAXIS 3D foundation user manual, version 2.0.
Brinkgreve, R.B., Swolfs, W.M., PLAXIS Inc.; 2008.
[29] Poulos HG. Analysis of piled strip foundations. In: Proceedings of conference
on computer methods and advances in geomechanics. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1991. p. 18391.
[30] Poulos HG. An approximate numerical analysis of pileraft interaction. Int J
Numer Anal Meth Geomech, London 1994;18(2):7392.
[31] Poulos HG. Piled raft foundations: design and applications. Geotechnique
2001;51(2):95113.
[32] Randolph MF. Design of piled foundations. Research Report Soils TR143,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Engineering Department; 1983.
[33] Reese LC, Cox WR. Field testing and analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff
clay. In: Proc. offshore technology conference, OTC 2312; 1975.
[34] Reese LC, ONeill MW, Smith RE. Generalized analysis of pile foundations. J Soil
Mech Found Div, ASCE 1970;96(1):23550.
[35] Reul O, Randolph MF. Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to nonuniform
vertical loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2004;130(1):113.
[36] Roberto C, Enrico C. Settlement analysis of pile groups in layered soils. Can
Geotech J 2006;43:788801.
[37] Russo G. Numerical analysis of piled rafts. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
1998;22(6):47793.
[38] Sommer H. Entwicklung der Hochhausgrundungen in Frankfurt/Main Festkoll
oquium 20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut. In: Prof. Dr. -Ing. H. Sommer und Partner,
Germany; 1991. p. 4762.
[39] Terzaghi K. Evaluation of coefcients of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique
1955;5:297326.
[40] Vesic AS. Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solid. J Eng Mech Div,
ASCE 1961;87:3553.
[41] Vesic AS. Experiments with instrumented pile groups in sand. Performance of
deep foundation. ASTM, special technical publication; 1969. 444, p. 172222.
[42] Viggiani C. Pali come riduttori di cedimento; un esempio. In: Proc., Atti
XIX Convegno Nazionale Geotecnica, 2, Pavia, Italy, Ptron, Bologna; 1995.
p. 5236.
[43] Vlasov VZ, Leontiev UN. Beams, plates, and shells on elastic foundation. Israel
Program for Scientic Translations, Jerusalem (translated from Russian); 1966.
[44] Wang ST, Reese LC. COM624P laterally loaded pile analysis for the
microcomputer.ver. 2.0, FHWA-SA-91-048, Springeld, VA; 1993.
[45] Wang A. Three dimensional nite element analysis of pile groups and piled raft, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, U.K., 1996.
[46] Winkler E. Die Lehre von der Elasizitat und Festigkeit. Dominicus; 1867.
[47] Whitaker T. Experiments with model piles in groups. Geotechnique
1957;7(4):14767.
[48] Won JO, Jeong SS, Lee JH, Jang SY. Nonlinear three-dimensional analysis of pile
group supported columns considering pile cap exibility. Comput Geotech
2006;33:35570.
[49] Zhang HH, Small JC. Analysis of axially and laterally loaded pile groups
embedded in layered soils. In: Proceedings of 8th Australia NewZealand Conf.
on Geomechanics, vol. 1. Hobart; 2000. p. 475483.