© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 1

© All Rights Reserved

- Boring Log Intrepretation
- design of pilecap
- Design of Mat Foundations
- SWISE Exam Event Notes of PPE by Reve
- Section 1006-Drilled Shafts
- BTBU-QUIZ
- One of Important Item Need to Be Done Before Constructing the Building Structural is the Structural Foundation
- foundation n types of foundation
- Contenidos
- MCEGS 204 Special Foundation & Structural Design of Foundations -Set2(2)
- Pile Design Calculation
- Analysis and Design Reinforced Concrete Foundations
- 6)Pile Foundations
- Pile Foundation
- M1 Site vite report
- Line of Balance
- DSheetPiling Verification Report
- Environment.uwe.Ac.uk Geocal Foundations Piles.htm
- Keller F_ Brochure Dec2010
- Pile Load Calculation by HEI

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

ISSN 2229-5518 1

APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF PILED RAFT

Rameez Gahlot1, Roshni J John2

1 PG Student, Dept of Civil Engg, Saraswati College of Engineering, Kharghar-410210, India

rameezgahlot@gmail.com

.2 Head of Civil Engineering Department, Saraswati College of Engineering, Kharghar-410210, India

roshnijjohn@gmail.com

Abstract— Piled raft foundations provide an economical number of piles.

foundation option for circumstances where the performance of the 4. A centralization of actions and resistances for

raft alone does not satisfy the design requirements. Under these the cases of large eccentricities.

situations, the addition of a limited number of piles may improve 5. A reduction of the bending stress for the

the ultimate load capacity, the settlement and differential

foundation raft and

settlement performance, and the required thickness of the raft.

An approximate method of analysis has been performed to 6. A cost optimization of the whole foundation.

estimate the settlement and load distribution of large piled raft 7. Provides economical foundation where

foundation. In this method the raft is modelled as a thin plate and structural loads are carried partly by piles and

the pile and soils are treated as interactive springs. Both the partly by raft contact stresses.

resistance of the piles as well as raft base are incorporated into the 8. Effective in stiff as well as soft clay.

model. Raft-soil-raft interaction are taken into account. The 9. Poulos (1991) has examined a number of

proposed method makes it possible to solve the problems of idealized soil profiles, and has found that the

uniformly and large non-uniformly arranged piled rafts in a time following situations may be favorable for

saving way using computers. The computed settlements compared

piled raft:

favourably with permissible value. This paper focuses the general

effects of various parameters like raft thickness and soil on piled (a) Soil profiles consisting of relatively stiff clays.

raft. (b) Soil profiles consisting of relatively dense sands In both

IJSER

circumstances, the raft can provide a significant proportion

KEY WORDS: Piles, Raft, Foundation, Analysis. of the required load capacity and stiffness, with the piles

acting to reduce the settlement of the foundation, rather

INTRODUCTION than providing the major means of support. The situations

In the past few years, there has been an increasing those are unfavorable for piled raft includes:

recognition that the use of piles to reduce raft settlements 1. Soil profiles containing soft clays near the surface.

and differential settlements can lead to considerable 2. Soil profiles containing loose sand near the surface.

economy without compromising the safety and 3. Soil profiles that containing soft compressible layers at

performance of the foundation. Such a foundation makes relatively shallow depths.

use of both the raft and the piles, and is referred to here as a 4. Soil profiles that are likely to undergo consolidation

pile-enhanced raft or a piled raft. settlements.

As a piled raft foundation takes into account both the pile 5. Soil profiles that are likely to undergo swelling

and the cap acting as a raft footing in carrying the imposed movements due to external causes.

load. The different design philosophies of piled raft

foundations as stated by POULUS H.G. are EARLIER RESEARCH

(a) Piles are mainly designed to take up the foundation

loads and the raft only carries a small proportion. According to Poulos (2001) has defined clearly three

(b) The raft is designed to resist the foundation loads and different design philosophies with respect to piled rafts:

piles carry a small proportion of the total load. They are The “conventional approach”, in which the piles are

placed strategically to reduce differential settlement. designed as a group to carry the major part of the

(c) The raft is designed to take up majority of the load, while making some allowance for the

foundation loads. The piles are designed to reduce the net contribution of the raft, primarily to ultimate load

contact pressure between the raft and the soils to a level capacity.

below the pre-consolidation pressure of the soil. Over the “Creep piling” in which the piles are designed to

past decades, extensive research work has been done in operate at a working load at which significant

order to improve the accuracy in predicting the behavior of creep starts to occur, typically 70-80% of the

piled rafts. ultimate load capacity. Sufficient piles are

The main advantages of piled raft foundation are: included to reduce the net contact pressure

1. Reduction of settlements, differential between the raft and the soil to below the pre-

settlements and tilts. consolidation pressure of the soil.

2. An increase of overall stability of foundation.

3. Reduces number of piles as compared to

conventional piled foundation where bearing

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015

ISSN 2229-5518 2

In this topic, the philosophy of modeling piled raft has

Differential settlement control, in which the piles been explained using combined structural-geotechnical

are located strategically in order to reduce the approach. Initially to observe the behaviour of piled raft,

differential settlements, rather than to piles are modeled as spring and raft as beam on elastic

substantially reduce the overall average foundation as shown in Figure

settlement.

In addition, there is a more extreme version of creep piling,

in which the full load capacity of the piles is utilized, i.e.

some or all of the piles operate at 100% of their ultimate

load capacity. This gives rise to the concept of using piles

primarily as settlement reducers, while recognizing that

they also contribute to increase the ultimate load capacity

of the entire foundation system.[ 1]

Pastsakorn Kitiyodom and Tatsunori Matsumoto (2003),

has developed simplified analytical method for the analysis

of the deformation and the load distribution of axially and Fig Modeling of Piled Raft as a beam on elastic foundation

laterally loaded piled raft foundations embedded in non-

homogeneous soils incorporated into a computer program Here SAFE software is used for analysis of piled raft. The

PRAB. In this method, a hybrid model is employed in superstructure ia first analyzed in ETABS software and

which the flexible raft is modelled as thin plates and the following design parameters are to be consider i.e. Dead

piles as elastic beams and the soil is treated as springs. The load: 1.5KN/m2

interactions between structural members, pile–soil–pile, Live load: 2.0KN/m2 (live load of 3kN/m2 and 5kN/m2 are

pile–soil–raft and raft–soil–raft interactions, are provided for passage and stair case slab.)

IJSER

approximated based on Mindlin’s solutions for both Siporex blocks of density 8KN/m3are used for walls.

vertical and lateral forces with consideration of non- Number of stories: 25.

homogeneous soils. The proposed method was verified Floor to floor height: 3 m.

through comparisons with the results from previous Slab is modeled using rigid diaphragm.

research and the results from the more rigorous finite Wind load is considered as per IS: 875. (Part III)

element approach. [2] Earth quake load is considered as per IS: 1893-2002.

Meisam Rabiei (2009) has considered a parametric study (Moment resisting frame with response reduction factor of

on pile configuration, pile number, pile length and raft 4, zone III & 5% damping is provided.)

thickness on piled raft foundation behaviour and it has been The building is analyzed for dynamic load using Response

found that the maximum bending moment in raft increases Spectrum Method.

with increase raft thickness, decrease pile number and The load combinations are considered as per IS: 875 (part

decrease in pile length. Central and differential settlement 5) for DL, LL, WL & EQ loads. Twenty five percent of

decreases with increase raft thickness and uniform increase imposed load has been accounted along with dead load for

in pile length. It has also been found that pile configuration seismic weight calculation of building as per IS:

is very important in pile raft design. The program ELPLA 1893(2002).

for a piled raft with 9 piles supporting rafts of varying The maximum top storey displacements for wind in X & Y

thicknesses. Except for thin rafts, the maximum settlement directions are 10 & 12 mm respectively. The maximum top

is not greatly affected by raft thickness, whereas the storey displacements for earth quake in X & Y directions

differential settlement decreases significantly with are 10mm and 10 mm respectively. Here is the 3d model of

increasing raft thickness. Conversely, the maximum superstructure which is analyzed in ETABS software.

moment in the raft increases with increasing raft thickness.

The design philosophy based on both ultimate load

capacity and settlement criteria.[3]

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015

ISSN 2229-5518 3

attached as point spring of equivalent stiffness as

418.2KN/mm and raft are modeled as usual, here length

and diameter of pile is varied. The thickness of raftis

consider as 2.5m. The piles are uniformly distributed with

horizontal spacing of 2.2m and vertical spacing of 1.8m.

IJSER

Here soil bearing capacity is consider as 170KN/m2 with

the permissible settlement as 10mm and ultimate load Fig 4 Soil pressure distribution in piled Raft foundation.

carrying capacity of pile is consider as 1500KN the soil is

consider as a dense sand with its approximate elastic

modulus as 4.08 x104 KN/m2.

For no. of pile in piled raft ,

N = [(load taken by conventional pile – load taken by

raft) / pile capacity]

N = no. of pile

Therefore, the total no. of pile required in piled raft

foundation is 240 nos. The length of pile is to be taken as

20m, 23m and 25m, along with this the diameter of pile is

also varying i.e. 600mm, 650mm and 700mm. The piled

raft foundation for the structure has been analyzed and

corresponding settlement, differential settlement, maximum

soil pressure and point reaction on pile are observed.

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015

ISSN 2229-5518 4

Raft thickness v/s Settlement

Effect of varying thickness of raft on piled raft.

20

For a Twenty five storey building, increasing the raft

thickness settlement reduces up to certain extent and 15

Settlement

beyond which further increase in raft thickness doesn’t settlement

affect the settlement at all but with the increase in raft 10

thickness the differential settlement reduces considerably.

5 differential

Initially the thickness of raft was 1.5m and the settlement

was found to be 16mm and differential settlement was also settlement

0

12.68mm. After increasing the thickness to 3.0m with an 0 2 4

increment of 5000mm, it has been observed that the

settlement reduces to 10.00mm, whereas differential Raft thickness

settlement reduces to 3.14mm. It is also observed that with

increase in raft thickness the dead load increase which Fig 5.19 Graph shows Raft thickness v/s Settlement

results in increase in maximum bending moment. However

increase in raft thickness is advantageous for punching

shear. Figure shows the variation of maximum positive and

negative moment with increase in raft thickness.

IJSER

Thickness Settlement Differential Maximum Maximum

of raft settlement +ve –ve

(mm) bending bending

(m) (mm) moment moment

KN-m KN-m

Fig 5.20 Graph shows raft thickness v/s bending moment

2.5 9.8 4.55 7990.17 3514.20 Effect of varying soil stiffness on load carrying capacity

of raft for Twenty Five storey building

3.0 10 3.14 7999.7 3608.49

For a twenty five story building increase in stiffness of

soil stiffness below raft results in increase in load taken by

the raft as shown in Figure

Table2: Effect of soil stiffness on load carrying capacity of

raft in piled raft.

Stiffness of soil (KN/m3) Load taken by raft (KN)

17000 93369

20000 98608

25000 129159

30000 154527

35000 175953

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015

ISSN 2229-5518 5

shared by pile shared by raft

load taken by raft v/s soil stiffness

40000 Software approach 58% 42%

35000

% difference 5% 5%

30000

Soil stiffness

25000

20000 It is observed that prediction of software approach

15000 overestimate by 5% as compared to simplified (Analytical)

10000 approach results. This deviation is observed due to dividing

5000 entire piled raft into number of strip and due to meshing

0 entire piled raft in case of SAFE software whereas,

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 analytical procedure the entire piled raft is consider for

load taken by raft evaluation. Considering this, the software approach thus

developed may be accepted.

Fig 5.21 Graph shows load taken by raft v/s soil stiffness

CONCLUSION

Validation of results (in terms of Load transfer by pile The studies indicate that piled raft foundation

and raft). concept has significant advantages in comparison to

For validating the results obtained from analytical conventional foundation for the available soil strata. From

modelling as above, the problem of Chp. 4 i.e. Piled Raft the studies, the following points have been observed.

was first analysed using SAFE software using Finite • With the increase in raft thickness the positive and

IJSER

element method. This result is then compared with the negative bending moment of raft increases.

result obtained from Analytical solution. For this purpose, • It is observed that stiffer the soil more will be the load

the size of raft, soil property, end bearing resistance of pile, shared by the raft.

skin friction of pile, ultimate load carrying capacity of pile,

length of pile and diameter of pile are to be considered.

Data

1. Size of raft = 43.5mx35m REFERENCES

2. Length of pile = 20m

3. Diameter of pile = 600mm [1] H.G.Poulos, “Methods of analysis of piled raft foundation”.

4. Soil bearing capacity = 17T/m2 (International society of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, July

2001.)

5. End bearing resistance of pile = 350KN/m2 [2] Pastsakorn Kitiyodom and Tatsunori Matsumoto, “A simplified

6. Skin friction of pile = 25KN/m2 analysis method for piled raft foundations in non-homogeneous soils”

7. Assume permissible ultimate load carrying international journal for numerical and analytical methods in

capacity of pile = 1500KN Geomechanics int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2003; 27:85–109

(DOI: 10.1002/nag.264).

Form IS 2911, the ultimate load carrying capacity is given [3] Meisam Rabiei, (2009). “Parametric Study for Piled Raft Foundations”

by Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Qu = π/4 × d2 × end bearing resistance + π × d × L × skin [4]Combined piled raft foundation (CPRF). An approximate solution for

friction the foundation design of high rise building by R. KATZENBACH, G.

BACHMANN 2005/3 PAGES 19 – 29 RECEIVED 14. 2. 2005

= π/4 × 0.62 × 350+ π × 0.6 × 20 × 25 ACCEPTED 18. 4. 2005

= 1041.43 KN [5] Foundation engineering by P.C. Vergese

No. of piles =242 nos. [6] IS 1904:1986 code for practice , Design and construction of

Total load carrying capacity of Pile = 242 × 1041 foundations in soil

= 252027.98 KN

Total permissible load carrying capacity of Pile = 363000

KN

Total load on foundation = 477898.5 KN (is taken from

ETABS file)

Therefore, Load taken by the raft = 225870.52N

The load shared by pile and raft using SAFE software is

278985.3KN and 198913.2KN.

Summary

The results obtained simplified approach and results of

SAFE software are compared and presented in Table 5

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

- Boring Log IntrepretationЗагружено:iplogu
- design of pilecapЗагружено:Chandra Sekhar Talasila
- Design of Mat FoundationsЗагружено:salahaddinsharif
- SWISE Exam Event Notes of PPE by ReveЗагружено:Vance Kang
- Section 1006-Drilled ShaftsЗагружено:gjanero
- BTBU-QUIZЗагружено:nehllajacinto
- One of Important Item Need to Be Done Before Constructing the Building Structural is the Structural FoundationЗагружено:Muhammad Azuan Tukiar
- foundation n types of foundationЗагружено:anand1347
- ContenidosЗагружено:WALKER DANILO
- MCEGS 204 Special Foundation & Structural Design of Foundations -Set2(2)Загружено:Muzamil Rather
- Pile Design CalculationЗагружено:hessian123
- Analysis and Design Reinforced Concrete FoundationsЗагружено:andcos
- 6)Pile FoundationsЗагружено:Vishnu Shaji
- Pile FoundationЗагружено:Indra Singh Rouriya
- M1 Site vite reportЗагружено:Tofu Abby Ling
- Line of BalanceЗагружено:Omar Siddiqui
- DSheetPiling Verification ReportЗагружено:Christ Huynh
- Environment.uwe.Ac.uk Geocal Foundations Piles.htmЗагружено:Mohan Manickam
- Keller F_ Brochure Dec2010Загружено:Sergejjj
- Pile Load Calculation by HEIЗагружено:Landon Mitchell
- April2005BLDGCONST3.pptЗагружено:jj
- INTRDUCTIONЗагружено:Manish Gandhi
- Headframe Conversion Project HandH Paper No.21Загружено:Kandousi Yassine
- Pile foundationЗагружено:SANTHOSH KUMAR V
- 18Загружено:sastry
- Non Destructive Testing (NDT) for Deep FoundationsЗагружено:Bn Yns
- Foundation NbcЗагружено:rangarajan
- 20181218_Mannum Report_word.docxЗагружено:aj
- BoQ Structure _RЗагружено:Kenika Fortune
- (E)Chapter 2 - Deep FoundationЗагружено:jianhai

- Ccip Concise Ec2Загружено:Sanka Seneviratne
- Chinese detailing standardЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- PCA Concrete Floor Slab OpeningsЗагружено:Ravindra MR
- DA_PYLD2004Загружено:nimkan1000
- Pre StressЗагружено:Akshay Naik
- 2012_11_WS_fireЗагружено:Santanu Ghosh
- Reinforced Concrete Structures II-2016_Chapter 2Загружено:Misgun Samuel
- [General Version] BIOS Update Instruction (BSU) v2.6_AllЗагружено:Rush Williams
- Concrete EC2Загружено:Ivan Grad
- UBC 97_vol3 the Uniform Building CodeЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- Modulus of Subgrade reaction.pdfЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- Lecture 8 BearingsЗагружено:Abhimanyu Singh
- SAP2000 Academic TrainingЗагружено:kg
- Truss Analysis with SAP2000Загружено:Misgun Samuel
- Analysis and Design of Four Storied RC using Sap2000Загружено:Misgun Samuel
- Horova_Tomsu_Wald_baseplate_Timisoara_v5.pdfЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- Kolon Ayağı ve Ankraj Bulonu Hesabı 1Загружено:magxstone
- Post Tensioned SlabsЗагружено:Medo Nasr
- APPROXIMATE-ANALYSIS-OF-PILED-RAFT.pdfЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- Closed Section Column Base Loaded by Axial Force and Bending MomentЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- Analysis and Design of Four Storied RC B Export (1)Загружено:Misgun Samuel
- RC-1 2015-16-160112_Chapter Four Example for DeflectionЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- 10 Benefits of Drinking Hot Water_ How Can It Help Your Health_.pdfЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- Punching Shear in Concrete Slabs MECHANICAL SCIENCES 1999Загружено:Misgun Samuel
- S5_EC8-Lisbon_M FARDIS-1.pdfЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- 98-s39Загружено:Misgun Samuel
- lecture 4 slabs - oct 12 - end.pdfЗагружено:Misgun Samuel
- ETABS Examples ManualЗагружено:Saikat Kabiraj

- FDA Guidance_Submission of CMC Info for RDDPs and MAbsЗагружено:Nelson Alejandro Fierro
- What is WeiresЗагружено:Exequiel Bautista
- Thesis 2000 Flood and Debris Loads on Bridges PhD Mark JempsonЗагружено:babak60
- N5 Physics All 2016Загружено:Gkid Gkid
- Numerical Values in Equation Used to Calculate Filter Paper Activity.pdfЗагружено:Mario Ricardo Urdaneta Parra
- Ba75509e15 pHotoFlex TestsЗагружено:suman t
- Lesson-19(1)Загружено:armin509
- ASHRAE 2014 Evaporation paper.pdfЗагружено:Benjamin Chavez
- Profile Buwon EnglishЗагружено:huynhthingocthu
- 010318-Laboratory Manual (March-july 2018)Загружено:Anonymous GERrwS6
- hif13006Загружено:Sathish Kumar
- Expansion Vessels EnЗагружено:ahmed
- New Basic Chemistry 2 Solution ( Ideal Solution and Colligative PropertiesЗагружено:Retno Ayu Puspita
- HPLC ColumnЗагружено:falconeers
- xymtexЗагружено:blakdratash
- 941emЗагружено:Muhammad Hamza Tariq
- ExtraProblemPhys1Ch3.docЗагружено:Tú Nguyễn
- Chapter 2-Thermodynamics 1Загружено:Balasubramani Srinivasan
- Vibrational Analysis in Condition Monitoring and Faults DiagnosisЗагружено:IJAERS JOURNAL
- Alignment InstructionsЗагружено:krishnaprasad_rajase
- ICRAMID_191Загружено:Arun Kumar
- B32C09 Coursework FAQsЗагружено:Nadirah Akmar Nasrun
- Anchors Reinforcement DesignЗагружено:Manoj Jaiswal
- Chemical Ecology of VertebratesЗагружено:Julio Moraes
- Introduction to Structural Analysis & DesignЗагружено:roshanahmd
- Examples of Seal Failures and CausesЗагружено:Anonymous jW9BkgbQmE
- soap manufacturing.pptЗагружено:Patrick Chin
- Examinations - Form OneЗагружено:Kizzy-AnneBoatswain-Carbon
- Formal Report-Proteins and Amino Acids.docxЗагружено:QuenieMarielIlar
- annotated bibliographyЗагружено:api-357590918

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.