this approach for Che analysis o f piled raft foundations.
They in the analysis, then the stress from the concentrated load is
used the commercially available finite difference code FLAC
to analyse a raft supported by 25 piles where slip of the piles was
allowed through the use of interface elements. The authors do
not compare their two-dimensional results with results from 3-
dimensional analyses, so the degree of accuracy cannot be de­
termined.
In order to demonstrate the differences between a full three
dimensional analysis and a 2-dimensional analysis, the problem
that was used for the simple models in the previous section was
re-analysed (see Figure 6.10). The raft is supported by 9 piles
and carries point loads applied at the pile locations.
- 3-D analysis. The commercially available program FLAC 3D
was used to compute the piled raft behaviour, and the finite
difference grid used is shown in Figure 6.11. The grid con­
sists of 40,026 grid points, and because of symmetry, only
one quarter of the mesh is shown. The soil was modelled as a
Mohr-Coulomb material using the undrained shear strength
parameters for the soil (su = 50 kPa, <|>u = 0). Slip between the
piles and the raft is not specifically modelled, although the
soil is treated as an elasto-plastic material.
- 2-D analysis. In this case, the computer program FLAC 20 was
used to carry out the analysis. The soil-raft-pile system was
discretised in the longer direction of the raft using 39 grid
lines in the horizontal direction and 34 grid lines in the verti­
cal direction. The soil was modelled as a Mohr-Coulomb
material, and again slip was not modelled at the pile soil in­
terface. To obtain the equivalent pile properties, the axial
stiffness of the piles was made the same for the 2-D model
and the actual row o f piles. The concentrated loads were
“smeared” in a similar manner.
Figure 6.12 shows the computed load-deflection curves for
the central point o f the raft as the total load is increased up to a
value of 18 M N . As can be seen from the plot, the load deflec­
tion behaviour o f the raft is quite different, even in the elastic
range, with the deflection from the 2-D analysis being much
larger than the deflection from the 3-D analysis.
Care therefore needs to be taken in using the two-dimensional
approach, especially if the loads on the raft are not uniform or if
the loads are applied laterally. Localised behaviour cannot be
predicted by such methods, and so it is advisable to use methods
that take the three-dimensional nature of the problem into ac­
count.
6.11 Analysis o f the raft
Many analyses o f piled rafts are based on the raft being treated
as a thin plate, and it is of interest to see what the effect of using
thick plate theory is on the numerical predictions.
The problem involves a raft supported by a 3x3 pile group
subjected to 2 loaded regions in between the piles on the centre
line of the raft. Details of the analysis are: Dimensions of raft
4.5 m by 3.9 m; modulus o f raft and piles 40 or 4000 MPa,
modulus of soil 4 MPa, Poisson’s ratio of the soil 0.4, thickness
of raft 0.3 m, length of piles 15 m, depth of soil 45 m, spacing of
piles 5 diameters. Loadings of 950 lcPa were applied over two
regions 0.3 m by 0.3 m in plan, in the same manner as shown in
Figure 6.5b.
The problem was analysed using a three dimensional finite
element program where the raft was firstly modelled using thin
shell theory, and then modelled again making the raft 0.3 m
thick, and assigning the raft modulus to that part of the finite
element mesh representing the raft. It was assumed in the analy­
sis that there was no slip between the raft and the soil or between
the piles and the soil.
The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 6.13 where the
deflections along the centre line are plotted. For both the thick
raft analysis and the thin plate analysis, there is not a great deal
of difference in the computed deflections for the raft because it is
relatively thin. This is true for both the stiff raft and the flexible
raft. The analysis also showed that when the thick raft was used
2583
spread onto the foundation through the thickness of the raft. For
the thick raft analysis (and the flexible raft Eraf/EXii= 10), a
contact stress reduction (at the contact between the raft and the
soil) of from 123 to 83kPa (i.e., about 48%) was computed be­
neath the concentrated load.
The authors have also analysed rafts with thicknesses of up to
2m, and have obtained very similar deflections and moments in
the raft from both the solid elements and the shell elements.
It may be concluded therefore, that the use of thin shell ele­
ments to represent the raft w ill lead to reasonable estimates of
deflections and therefore moments as long as the raft is not ex
tremely thick. Stresses in the soil w ill be higher for the thin shell
analysis, and this effect may become important if yield of the
soil due to concentrated loads is of concern.
6.12 Non-linear behaviour
I f piles are designed to reach their maximum load, or are de­
signed to carry a high proportion of their maximum load, then
slip of the piles becomes important and non-linear behaviour of
the piles should be taken into account. This type of behaviour
becomes important if piles are used to control differential de­
flections and are designed to yield or fail.
Full 3-dimensional finite element analyses have been used to
allow non-linear behaviour of piled raft foundations (Katzenback
et al. 1997), but simpler techniques have been developed. Clancy
and Randolph (1993) have presented a non-linear analysis for
piles and this is incorporated into the computer program HyPR
(Hybrid Piled Raft Analysis), and Bilotta et al. (1991) have pre­
sented two methods for computing the behaviour of piled rafts
where the pile may have a non-linear load-displacement relation­
ship. The latter authors stress the point that if piles are designed
to yield, then a non-linear analysis of the piles is essential.
Poulos (1994a) has demonstrated the need to take pile non-
linearity into account in analysis of centrifuge tests on piled rafts
(Thaher and Jessburger 1991). Shown in Figure 6.14 are the set­
tlement and pile load predictions made for a piled raft with 8
piles. I f the pile is not allowed to fail, then the results of the
analysis do not match the observed behaviour. However, if the
skin friction on the piles is limited to 80 kPa so that the piles can
yield, then the predicted values are much closer to the measured
values for both settlement and percentage load carried by the
piles.
6.13 Case study
In order to gauge whether some o f the numerical methods that
have been mentioned can be applied with confidence in practice,
the case of the Westend Street 1 Tower in Frankfurt Germany
was examined. The building is 51 stories high (208m) and has
been described by Franke et al. (1994) and Franke (1991). The
foundation for the building was a piled raft with 40 piles that
were 30m long as shown in Figure 6.15.
The foundation was constructed in a deep deposit of the
Frankfurt clay 120m thick, and using pressuremeter tests re­
ported by Franke et al. (1994), the modulus of the clay was as­
sessed to be 62.4 MPa.
The ultimate load capacity of each pile was computed to be
16 M N and a total load of 968 M N was assumed to be applied to
the foundation (this is greater than the ultimate capacity o f the
individual piles).
Six methods were used to predict the performance of the
piled raft foundation:
1. The boundary element approach of Poulos and Davis (1980).
2. Randolph’s (1983) method.
3. The strip on springs approach using the program GASP
(Poulos, 1991).
4. The raft on springs approach using the program GARP (Pou­
los, 1994a).