3D Numerical Analysis of Piled-raft Foundations

Concepts & Case studies

Ahmed Elkadi, PhD, M.ASCE

Int. Symposium on Recent Advances in High-Rise Buildings & Geotechnical Analysis

7-Dec-15, Knowledge City, Dubai

Contents

Piled-raft systems
Pile modeling & embedded piles
Single pile calibration
Parametric analysis
Case studies

Piled-rafts
Piled
Rafts (PR)
Economical
foundation
option
for
circumstances where the performance of
the raft alone does not satisfy the design
requirements.
The addition of a limited number of piles
may improve the ultimate load capacity,
the settlement and differential settlement
performance, and the required thickness
of the raft. (H.G. Poulos, 2001)
www.geomarc.it

Advantages of a piled raft foundation

Limitation of absolute and differential settlements
Reduction in foundation tilting either due to load eccentricity or due to
irregularities in the subsoil
Reduction in raft internal stresses
3

Piled-raft
Piled
Raftssystem
SSI of piled-rafts

Interaction influences:
Pile-Soil interaction
Pile-Pile interaction
Raft-Soil interaction
Pile-Raft interaction
4

Design
issues
Piled
Rafts
Ensure that the foundation does not undergo excessive displacements
Serviceability limit state (SLS) => rmax < r allowable & qmax < q allowable

Overall stability should be insured

Ultimate limit state (ULS) => Rg* S* (geotechnical)

Key questions:

The relative proportion of load carried by the raft and piles

Which pile configuration reduces total and differential settlements

3D Nonlinear FE Analysis

Analysis
Piled
Raftscharacteristics
Desirable characteristics for the analysis of piled rafts
Pile groups subjected to vertical load and
moments in both horizontal directions
Realistic (nonlinear) soil behavior
Non-linear soil-pile interface behavior
Different pile types within group

Raft/cap stiffness incorporated

Structure stiffness incorporated

TC18 report, 2001

6

Geotechnical report
Soil profiles
Lab (e.g. Triaxial tests)
Field (e.g. CPT, SPT,..)

Pile Tests
SLT, DLT, RLT, PDA

Numerical Model

Model Simulation
Parametric Study
Load Combinations

Foundation Design
Serviceability Limit State
Ultimate Limit State
Determine the required structural parameters

Structural Design

Calibration

Pilemodeling
modelingin
concepts
Pile
DIANA
Three pile modeling approaches are available:
Solid Element Model
Beam-Solid Connectivity Model
Line-to-Solid Interface Model (embedded pile)

Solidelement
elementmodel
model
Solid

Model =

Soil (solid)

Pile (solid)

Interface (surface)

Nodal connectivity is required on pile outer surface

9

Solidelement
elementmodel
model
Solid
Surface interface elements for solid-to-solid connection:

Points of attention for solid element models:

Model definition and mesh-generation could be elaborative for large number of piles

Many elements in model large computation times

Pile forces and moments are not directly available in post-processing

Interface behavior: elastic, nonlinear elastic, coulomb friction, and user-supplied material

10

Beam-solid
model
Beam
solid connectivity
model

Model

Soil (solid)

Pile (beam)

Interface (line)

Nodal connectivity is required along pile length

11

Beam-solid
model
Beam
solid connectivity
model
Line interface elements for beam-to-solid connection:

Points of attention for beam-solid element models:

The nodal compatibility requirement makes geometry modeling and

meshing of the soil elaborative.

For piled rafts with large number of piles, this technique produces
large models large computation times

12

Line-to-solidinterface
(Embedded
pile) model
Line-to-soild
model

Model = Soil (solid) + Pile (beam) + Interface (line-to-solid)

No nodal connectivity required => well-suited for PRs

Sadek & Shahrour (2004):
A three dimensional embedded beam element for reinforced geomaterials
Shear interaction between beam element and surrounding soil.
13

Line-to-solidinterface
(Embedded
pile) model
Line-to-soild
model
Line-to-solid interface elements for beam-to-solid connection:

z
Elementary
Coordinate

Characteristics of line-to-solid interface modeling in DIANA:

Pile and soil geometries and meshes can be specified independently

Intersections of line and solid elements are calculated automatically
Nonlinear friction-slip properties for line-solid interface elements
Mesh refinement requirements for the soil are minimum
reduced computation time

14

Point-to-solidinterface
(Embedded
pile) model
Point-to-soild
model

x
z

Axis of pile tip bearing

Pile tip sping

Model

= Soil (solid) + Pile (beam) + Interface (point-to-solid)

Characteristics of point-to-solid interface modeling in DIANA:

The pile tip can be arbitrarily placed in the solid element

Nonlinear properties for point-solid interface elements
15

Line-to-solid interface model

Pile element parameters

Shaft friction force
per unit length of pile

Input parameters:
Ultimate shear force, qu [kN/m]
per unit length of the pile, at reference depth
Ultimate shear force,
qu
Ks
1
Relative Slip
displacement

Shear Stiffness Modulus, Ks [kPa]

Linear elastic penalty stiffness of the interface
in the longitudinal direction of the pile.

Normal Stiffness Modulus, Kn,Kt [kPa]

Linear elastic penalty stiffness of the
interface in the transversal direction.

These input parameters are best extracted from

SLT results after separating shaft friction and
base bearing behavior from the total response

Pile bearing capacity is input in pile elements and not a result of the calculation!
=> Deformation behavior
16

Pile element parameters

Pile element parameters

Skin tractions
Force

ts = qs/length = ks * (Du) qult

tn = qn/length = kn * (Du)

Specified bearing capacity

tt = qt/length = kt * (Du)
Tau

Relative
displacement

Displacement

Base (tip) bearing capacity

qb = kb * (Du) qbult
Tip
capacity
Relative
displacement

17

Calibration analysis

Verification
Single pile analysis of the Alzey Bridge pile loading test
The pile load test was conducted by Sommer & Hammabach in 1974 to optimize the foundation
design of Alzey Highway Bridge in Germany (El-Mossallamy 1999)

18

Calibration analysis

Verification
Single pile analysis of the Alzey Bridge pile loading test

O. Elkadi (2011):
M.Sc. Thesis Performance of Piled Raft Systems
19

Parametric study

D = 1.3m
S/D = 2, 3 & 4
L/D = 5 & 20

20

Parametric study

15MM

29MM
30MM

D = 1.3m

21

S/D = 2

L/D = 5

Parametric study

Pile Group L/D=20

Pile Group L/D=5

D = 1.3m
S/D = 2, 3 & 4

22

Parametric study

Piled-raft L/D=20

Piled-raft L/D=5

D = 1.3m
S/D = 2, 3 & 4

23

Parametric study

% load carried by raft for different pile layouts in piled-raft

24

Pile behavior
Single
pile vs pile group vs piled raft

Group behavior and pile-raft interaction reduce on the one hand the stiffness
of the piles and increase on the other hand their bearing capacity

25

Pile behavior
Single
pile vs pile group vs piled raft

26

Case study: Pentominium Tower

Piled raft foundation

Worlds Tallest residential building

Hyder Consulting, 2008

27

> 100 stories tall (>500m)

Preliminary design 233 piles
1.5m Diameter
46-51m long

Case study: Pentominium Tower

Piled raft foundation

Site Investigation
Field
8 boreholes 80-125 deep boreholes
standard penetration testing
packer permeability testing
pressuremeter testing at 3 m intervals in
three of the boreholes
geophysics (cross-hole, cross-hole
tomography and down-hole testing)

Lab
cyclic undrained triaxial
cyclic simple shear
stress path triaxial testing
resonant column
constant normal stiffness testing

Kamiran et. al., Proceedings ICE, Civil Engineering, 162, Nov. 2009
28

Case study: Pentominium Tower

Piled raft foundation

Model statistics
102355 nodes
6260 beam elements
22200 plate elements
3520 interface elements
6250 pile interface elements
162184 solid wedge elements
10 Load cases

MIDAS GTS software

29

Case study: Pentominium Tower

Piled raft foundation

User defined Nonlinear elastic &
Nonlinear Elasto-plastic soil models

MIDAS GTS software

Kamiran et. al., Proceedings ICE, Civil Engineering, 162, Nov. 2009
30

Case study: Pentominium Tower

Piled raft foundation

Final design from 36MN => 32MN

Pile length of 42m
Hyder: complex geotechnical finite element analysis has been carried
out, which has been validated using standard geotechnical calculation
techniques. The application of such testing and analysis approach has
resulted in a cost-effective and optimised foundation design solution.
31

Case study: Kingdom Tower

Piled raft foundation

>250 Piles of 1.5m diameter
Varying length: 35m edge, 65m center
Marine sediments underlayed by Sandstone

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeddah_tower.jpg#/media/File:Jeddah_tower.jpg

Langan International
32

Case study: Kingdom Tower

Piled raft foundation

33

Case study: Kingdom Tower

Piled raft foundation

Deformed shape of vertical displacement

DIANA SOFTWARE
34

Case study: Kingdom Tower

Piled raft foundation

Axial forces in the piles

35

Introduction to Pile Analysis

Palazzo Versace & D1 Tower, 2007

Q&A
Shams Tower, 2006

FAD Towers, 2007