P I L E D R A F T S IN S W E L L I N G OR

CONSOLIDATING SOILS
By Harry G. Poulos, 1 Fellow, ASCE
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

INTRODUCTION

In situations where the bearing capacity of a raft is adequate but the

settlement or differential settlement is excessive, the addition of relatively
few piles, strategically located, may be a satisfactory solution to the foun-
dation problem (Hooper 1979; Hain and Lee 1978; Cooke 1986; Poulos
1991). However, while piled rafts have been used very successfully to support
structural loads, there has been little or no consideration given to the pos-
sible effects of externally imposed soil movements on the performance of
this type of foundation.
This technical note presents the results of analyses of pile-raft-soil interaction
when the soil is subjected to either downward or upward vertical movements
as a result of changes in effective stress or suction in the soil. Although the
problem analyzed is idealized, it is believed that the results provide some useful
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

insights into the less well-understood aspects of piled raft behavior.

ANALYSIS METHOD
The analysis employed makes use of the simplified boundary element ap-
proach, in which the raft is represented as a series of rectangular elements
resting on the soil surface, and each of the piles is discretized into a series of
shaft and base elements. The general approach to the piled-raft analysis is
described by Kuwabara (1989), while the inclusion of external (or free field)
vertical soil movements is as described by Kuwabara and Poulos (1989). The
analysis can incorporate the following aspects: a nonhomogeneous soil profile;
pile-soil slip along the pile elements; failure of the pile tip in compression or
tension; failure of the raft elements in compression or tension; any specified
distribution of the free-field soil movement with depth; and the consideration
of sequences of soil movements. The analysis is implemented via a computer
program PRAWN (Piled Raft With Negative Friction).

PROBLEM ANALYZED
To avoid some of the complexities of real problems and enable a clear
appreciation of some of the significant aspects of behavior, the simple ideal-
ized problem shown in Fig. 1 has been analyzed. A rigid raft with four
identical piles is considered. The soil is assumed to be homogenous, and
the limiting values of skin friction, end bearing resistance, and raft bearing
capacity are shown in Table 1. The parameters selected are considered to
be reasonably representative for bored piles in a medium-stiff clay. It should
1Chmn., Coffey Partners International Pty. Ltd., 12 Waterloo Rd., North Ryde,
NSW Australia 2113.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 1993. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on December 16,
1991. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No.
2, February, 1993. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/93/0002-0374/$1.00 + $.15 per page.
Paper No. 3097.
374
 L J
.I
F" -I
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

I
(a)
1 I

4"OMN (b) (c)

So

I
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

IZ

I
I
I
I0 !
t SOIL MOVEMENT
!
! DISTRIBUTION
25
SOIL
Es = I0 MPo
Vs = o . 3
-,t
PILE :
Ep : 25000 MPa

//////////////////,
FIG. 1. Problem Analyzed (Dimensions in Meters)

TABLE 1. Assumed Parameters for Example Problem

Value
Compressive loading Uplift loading
Parameter (kPa) (kPa)
(1) (2) (3)
Limiting skin friction 50 50
Pile end bearing resistance 450 10
Cap bearing capacity 300 20

375
 80'

60. PILED R A ~
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

E
E

,,z, 4o
/ FRR~I~,E,STANDING
.J
I-
I- ~ ~ GROUP

0 ~o ,;o 6~) ~o ,ao

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

SOIL SURFACE MOVEMENT mm

FIG, 2. Settlement of Piled Raft and Pile Group in Consolidating Soil

LOAD IN PILE MN
0 05 I'0 15 2,0
I I I
OI

SOIL
SURFACE
MOVEMENT
0-2 So ( mm)
>/40

o-4.

_J

0.6'

0"8

I '0 J'-

FIG. 3. Development of Load in Piles--Piled Raft in Consolidating Soil

376
 , i i

(b)
9
(a)
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

A A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

"40 L J

~20
b
-20
X
g. IO
SECTION A-A
W
I'O
~ 0 i I I H

-- ' 0 X/b
n

b
zo.
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

SOiL S U R F ~ E ~ ~ ~
MOVEMENT So (mm) \
\
40

FIG. 4. Influence of Soil Movement on Raft Contact Pressures--Piled Raft in

Consolidating Soil

40-
FREE STANDINGGROUP; RAFT NOT
IN CONTACT WITH SOIL

20-

PILED RAFT ~

I-
I'-
b.I
-20"

"40
0 -2'0 -~ -~ -4 -I00
SOIL SURFACE MOVEMENT So (ram)
FIG. 5. Settlement of Piled Raft and Pile Group in Expansive Soil
377
 LOAD IN PILE MN

-~.5 -i.,o -0;5 0 0;5 ~.0

0 / / ., I 9 i
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

0-2"
-60 I -40 I I - 20

0'4"

.--I

SOIL SURFACE "

0-6- MOVEMENT So (rnm)
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

0.8"

I'O'

FIG. 6. Development of Load in Piles--Piled Raft in Expansive Soil

be noted that the uplift bearing capacity of 20 kPa assigned to the cap
represents its self weight.
The soil movement profile is taken to be linear with depth, decreasing
from a maximum value So at the surface to zero at a depth equal to half
the pile length. Downward (consolidation) movements are taken as positive;
and expansion (upward) movements, as negative.

PILED RAFT IN CONSOLIDATING SOIL

The settlement of the piled raft is shown as a function of the soil surface
movement So in Fig. 2. The rate of increase of settlement increases for So
greater than about 30 mm because of the additional load imposed on the
piles by the consolidating soil. Fig. 2 also shows the settlement of a free-
standing four-pile group, and it can be seen that for So greater than about
15 mm, the free-standing group actually settles less than the piled group.
The distribution of load in each pile of the piled raft is shown in Fig. 3.
The pile load increases as the soil surface movement increases and generates
negative friction in the piles. A limiting condition is reached for soil move-
ments in excess of about 40 mm because of the development of pile-soil slip
along most of the length of each pile. Both the maximum load in the piles
and the settlement will depend on the values of limiting skin friction and
pile-tip resistance.
Fig. 4 shows the distribution of contact pressure beneath the cap and
reveals the rapid transition from compressive to tensile stresses with only
small soil movements, with the limiting tensile stress of 20 kPa reached for
378
 (a) X/b
0 I i
0
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

-20

50

-40

IO0

Jr

Lg
(b)
n,"
, i

9
U3
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

O3
bJ
150-
0.
SOIL SURFACE
t'..- MOVEMENT So (mm)
A
I--
Z
0
L
200-
b

X
SECTION A-A
250-

ULTIMATE BEARING
CAPACITY OF RAFT

FIG. 7. Influence of Soil Movement on Raft Contact Pressures--Piled Raft in

Expansive Soil

soil movements of about 20 mm. Thus, the soil movement results in addi-
tional load transfer into the piles, and the transfer of the weight of the raft
to the piles. Clearly, under these circumstances, there is no advantage using
a piled raft rather than a free-standing pile group.

PILED RAFT IN EXPANSIVE SOIL

For a pile in a soil subjected to upward (expansive) movement, Fig. 5

shows the variation of settlement, Fig. 6 shows the pile-load distribution,
and Fig. 7 shows the contact-pressure distribution below the raft.
37_9
 Fig. 5 reveals that a piled raft undergoes significantly larger upward move-
ments than does a free-standing group. The reason for this behavior is shown
in Fig. 6, in which the change in pile loads from. compressive to tensile is
clearly seen. In this case, a limiting condition, involving pile-soil slip along
the entire pile shaft, occurs for upward soil movements in excess of about
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

80 mm. At that stage, the maximum tensile load in each pile is about 1.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 07/13/12. For personal use only.

times the compressive load that the pile carried before soil movements
commenced.
Fig. 7 shows that the upward soil movement generates additional com-
pressive stresses on the underside of the raft, resulting in large additional
forces being transmitted into the piles. Local bearing failure near the edges
of the raft becomes significant for soil movements in excess of about 70
mm.

CONCLUSIONS
Although the problems analyzed are somewhat idealized and simplified,
they provide a useful insight into the mechanics of interaction between a
piled raft and a soil subjected to externally imposed vertical movement.
First, for soils subjected to consolidation (downward) movement, additional
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:374-380.

compressive loads are transferred into the piles by negative friction, and
the weight of the raft is also transferred to the piles for relatively small soil
movements. And second, for soil subjected to expansive (upward) move-
ment, additional tensile loads are transferred to the piles, both because of
the direct action of the expansive soil and also because of additional pres-
sures generated on the underside of the raft. In both cases, the movement
of the pile raft is greater than that of the corresponding flee-standing pile
group. It is therefore clear that, in circumstances where external vertical
soil movements are likely to develop, the use of a piled raft foundation is
best avoided.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The program PRAWN is based on computer programs developed by F.
Kuwabara of Nippon Institute of Technology, Japan, while on study leave
at the University of Sydney.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Cooke, R. W. (1986). "Piled raft foundations on stiff clays--a contribution to design
philosophy." Geotechnique, 36(2), London, England, 169-203.
Hain, S. J., and Lee, I. K. (1978). "The analysis of flexible pile-raft systems."
Geotechnique, 28(1), London, England, 65-83.
Hooper, J. A. (1979). "Review of behavior of piled raft foundations." CIRIA Report
83, Const. Industry Res. and Inform. Assn., London, England.
Kuwabara, F. (1989). "An elastic analysis for piled raft foundations in a homogeneous
soil." Soils and Found., 29(1), 82-92.
Kuwabara, F., and Poulos, H. G. (1989). "Downdrag forces in group of piles." J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 115(6), 806-818.
Ponlos, H. G. (1989). "Pile behavior--theory and application." Geotechnique, 39(3),
London, England, 365-415.
Poulos, H. G. (1991). "Foundation economy via piled-raft systems." Proc., Piletalk
International '91, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 97-106.

380