5.5.6 Summary
It should not be applied to
The subject o f pile response to ground movements is still evolv­
ing, but it would appear that the following recommendations can
be made:
1. design methods which attempt to reduce the ultimate capacity
of piles due to negative friction, should be discarded. Nega­
tive friction causes additional settlement and axial stress in
the piles, but does not generally influence the geotechnical
capacity of the piles. Relatively simple methods of analysis
which assume the full mobilization of shaft friction can be
adopted to estimate the increases in axial stress and settle­
ment
2. In relation to lateral ground movements, extreme caution
should be exercised with pressure-based methods which rep­
resent the soil loading via assumed distribution of lateral
pressure. Such methods can be misleading and may not prop­
erly reflect the complex pile-soil interaction mechanisms
3. In general, the effects of non-linear soil behaviour and group
interaction are beneficial and tend to reduce the deflection
and induced forces in piles, compared to a single isolated
pile. Analyses which ignore group effects are therefore likely
to provide conservative estimates of pile response.
6 AN ALY S IS OF R AFT AN D P ILE D RAFT
FO U NDATIO N S
6.1 Introduction
Raft or piled raft foundations are often used where it is necessary
to improve the bearing capacity or to reduce the differential de­
flections in the foundation of a structure. Many different meth­
ods of analysis have been devised in order to predict the behav­
iour of such foundations, and these range from simple hand
based methods up to more complex approaches. The books by
Selvaduri (1979) and Hemsley (1998) discuss some of the ana­
lytic techniques that may be used for the analysis of raft founda­
tions and Hemsley (2000) discusses raft and piled raft founda­
tions.
Approximate methods that have been used for the analysis of
piled raft foundations include spring (W inkler) models, two-
dimensional finite element models and strip models where only a
strip of the raft is analysed. These simple models have become
popular because analysis of a piled raft foundation involves a
problem that is essentially three-dimensional, and to carry out
full three-dimensional analyses is time consuming even with the
software and speed of computers available today.
However, the use of quick hand methods or simplified ana­
lytic approaches may lead to significant errors, and it is of inter­
est to know the advantages and disadvantages of these methods
before using them
6.2 Winkler foundations vs elastic continua
Often, structural designers prefer to represent the soil underneath
a slab or raft foundation as a series o f springs (commonly known
as a W inkler foundation). Although this is a simple approach that
is quick and easy to use, it can lead to incorrect results because:
1. The springs are independent and do not interact. Therefore
the compression of one spring does not influence other parts
of the foundation. To illustrate this, consider the case of a
uniformly loaded raft. Such a raft w ill undergo a uniform dis­
placement and therefore there w ill be no bending moment
predicted in the raft. This is obviously wrong, as it is ob­
served that such a loading would make a rectangular raft (for
example) deform into a dished shape, and the raft would then
carry bending moments.
2. It is difficult to establish the stiffness values for the springs
that are used in analysis because the spring constants are de­
pendent on the scale of the foundation. For example, if a
modulus o f subgrade reaction is determined from a plate
loading test, the load-deflection behaviour is specific to the
2576
size of plate used in that test.
loaded areas that are different in size to that of the plate.
3. A W inkler or spring model cannot directly take account of
soil layering.
4. A vertical loading on a foundation may cause lateral dis­
placements. A spring model cannot be used for such predic­
tions.
Because of the limitations listed above, it is desirable to use
continuum models for the soil (i.e., treat it as being an elastic or
elasto-plastic material). An example of the differences in solu­
tions obtained by using a spring model and a continuum model
has been presented by Brown (1977) to illustrate the difference
in the choice of soil model. The problem involves unit point
loads applied to a strip raft (UB = 10). In order to compare the
two models, the modulus of elasticity of the soil (continuum
model) and of the subgrade reaction (spring model) were chosen
so that the settlements of a rigid strip foundation with a central
point load are equal. Figure 6.1 shows the computed moments in
the raft, where the raft stiffness is defined as K
and where El = bending stiffness o f the raft; vs = Poisson’s ratio
of the soil; L = length of the raft; B = width of the raft; E, =
Young’s modulus of the soil.
From the figures, it may be seen that the calculated moments
in the raft show reasonable agreement for the central point load
only. For the multiple point load cases there is a large difference
in the calculated moments.
It may therefore be concluded that the use of spring models
may lead to large errors and should not be used for raft founda­
tion design.
6.3 The analysis o f a raft as a series o f strip footings
It is common design practice to analyse a raft foundation by di­
viding it up into strips, and analysing each strip individually.
Each strip is then considered to be only subjected to the loads
that are applied to that particular strip.
To illustrate the effects of doing this, the raft foundation
shown in Figure 6.2 was analysed. The problem involves a raft
foundation on a uniform soil layer of finite depth. The column
loads are treated as a series of point loads in the analysis. All
dimensions, loads and material properties used in the analysis
are shown on the figure.
Firstly the full raft was analysed by using the program FEAR
(Finite Element Analysis of Rafts - Small, 1998) that treats the
soil as a layered elastic material and uses finite element analysis
for the raft. The solution obtained for the deflection of the full
raft along the section A -A ' is shown in Figure 6.3 where it can
be seen that the deflection under load C is about 98.7mm. The
deflected shape of the raft is such that the raft has a bowl shape
with the deflection being largest at the centre and smallest at the
edges.
However, when the central strip alone is analysed, the de­
flected shape is completely different (see Figure 6.3) and this
leads to errors in predicted moments as well as deflections.
Shown in Table 6.1 are the moments and deflections calcu­
lated from FEAR using the full raft and using the individual
strips. Values are given for the points C (at the centre of the raft)
and B (at the comer column) for the finite layer depth of 20m. It
may also be seen from Table 6.1 that if individual strips are
used, the deflections and moments that are computed in the raft
are not accurate with deflections being lower for the strip than
for the full raft.
6.4 Effect o f layer depth
It is also of interest to see what the values of defelection and
moment would be if the only available analysis was for an infi-