Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). Geotechnique 48, No.
3, 301317
A contribution to optimum design of piled rafts
K . H O R I KO S H I  a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H {
The majority of piled raft foundations have been
designed ignoring any contribution from the raft
or pile cap, although it is well known that the
raft plays an important role in the overall per-
formance. In such conventional designs, the
overall settlement of the foundation is likely to
be very small, owing to the installation of more
piles than are necessary. However, from an eco-
nomical point of view, it is preferable that the
foundation is designed in such a way that the
average and differential settlements are limited
to an acceptable level, but where the load-carry-
ing capacity of the raft is taken into account. In
this paper, a framework for a new design con-
cept, in which piles are installed only beneath
the central area of a relatively exible raft to
minimize the differential settlement, is presented
through the results of an extensive parametric
study. The so-called `hybrid' approach, devel-
oped by Clancy, was used in the analyses. The
study showed that piled rafts may be designed
for negligible differential settlements by includ-
ing a pile group over the central 1625% (by
area) of the raft, with the pile group stiffness
approximately equal to that of the raft alone.
The total pile capacity should be about 4070%
of the total applied load, depending on the pile
group area ratio and the Poisson's ratio of the
soil. The validity of the method is examined
through the results of centrifuge model tests
conducted by the authors.
KEYWORDS: design; piles; rafts; settlement; soil/
structure interaction.
INTRODUCTION
In the majority of piled raft designs, the number of
piles beneath the raft is decided assuming that all
load must be carried by the piles, even though
competent soil strata may exist immediately be-
neath the raft. This conservative approach appears
Manuscript received 2 July 1996; revised manuscript
accepted 2 April 1997.
Discussion on this paper closes 4 September 1998; for
further details see p. ii.
 Taisei Corporation, Tokyo.
{ University of Western Australia.
301
La conception de la plupart des fondations a
dalle ottante sur pieux ne tient aucun compte
de l'inuence de la dalle ottante ou de la
structure de liaison, bien qu'on sache fort bien
que la dalle ottante joue un role important
dans la performance d'ensemble des fondations.
Dans de telles conceptions classiques, le tasse-
ment general des fondations tend a etre tres
faible, car on utilise plus de pieux qu'il ne faut.
Toutefois, d'un point de vue economique, il est
preferable de concevoir les fondations de facon
a limiter a un niveau acceptable le tassement
moyen et le tassement differentiel, en tenant
compte de la capacite portante de la dalle
ottante. L'article presente, au moyen des resul-
tats d'une parametrisation extensive, le schema
d'un nouveau type de conception, ou les pieux
ne sont places que sous la partie centrale d'une
dalle ottante relativement souple an de mini-
miser le tassement differentiel. Les analyses ont
repose sur la methodologie hybride mise au
point par Clancy. L'etude montre qu'on peut
concevoir des dalles ottantes sur pieux qui
reduiront a un niveau negligeable le tassement
differentiel, en placant un groupe de pieux sous
la partie centrale de la dalle ottante (1625%
de sa supercie), la rigidite du groupe de pieux
etant approximativement egale a celle de la dalle
ottante seule. La capacite portante totale des
pieux devrait etre egale a 4070% de la charge
totale appliquee, en fonction du rapport de sec-
tion du groupe de pieux et du coefcient de
Poisson du sol. Les auteurs evaluent la validite
de cette methode en examinant les resultats de
leurs essais sur modele centrifuge.
to be due to limited understanding of the pile
raftsoil interactions, and the scarcity of validated
methods of analysis for this complex three-dimen-
sional problem. Consequently, the approach gener-
ally results in the installation of more piles than
are necessary, which automatically leads to much
lower levels of overall settlement than could be
tolerated by the structure. From an economical
point of view, the settlement of the foundation
should be controlled to an acceptable level, rather
than suppressed entirely.
It has long been recognized that the contribution
of the raft or pile cap to the performance of a
302 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH
piled raft can be signicant, as pointed out by
Whitaker (1961) and Cooke (1986). Burland et al.
(1977) proposed the use of so-called `settlement
reducing piles' with the suggestion that ductile
behaviour should be ensured for such piles.
Padeld & Sharrock (1983) discussed the use of a
central pile group to reduce differential settlement.
More recently, the use of a pile group only in
the central area of a exible raft was proposed by
Fleming et al. (1992). Randolph (1994) suggested
that even a relatively exible raft could undergo
minimal differential settlement, provided that an
optimum design was achieved. This design concept
is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The distribution
of the contact pressure beneath a rigid raft on an
elastic soil is well known, as illustrated in Fig.
1(a). If this contact pressure distribution can be
deliberately generated beneath a exible raft which
is subjected to uniform loading, the differential
settlement of the raft can be reduced signicantly.
This can be achieved by installing a small pile
group in the central area of the raft, reducing the
raft contact pressure in that zone (Fig. 1(b)). A
series of centrifuge tests to examine the validity of
the concept has been described by Horikoshi &
Randolph (1996). They demonstrated the potential
advantage of a small pile group installed over the
central area of the raft in minimizing differential
settlements.
Fortunately, recent development of numerical ap-
proaches has allowed detailed and rigorous treat-
ment of relatively large piled raft foundations (e.g.
Hain & Lee, 1978; Chow & Teh, 1991; Clancy,
1993). Full interaction among the components can
be considered with some of the advanced tech-
niques. However, a detailed framework for the
optimum design of piled rafts in terms of minimiz-
ing differential settlement has not been developed.
The development of such a framework is the
objective of this paper, achieved by synthesis of
the results of an extensive parametric study con-
ducted using the hybrid analytical approach of
Clancy (1993) and Clancy & Randolph (1993).
Rigid raft
Contact pressure
Applied uniform load
Load carried by piles
(a)
Fig. 1. Principle of settlement-reducing piles: (a) rigid raft; (b) exible raft with
small central pile group
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Clancy (1993) developed a method of piled-raft
analysis which was named `HyPR', based on the
`hybrid' approach proposed by Chow (1986). A
exible piled raft on a homogeneous soil of nite
depth can be modelled in HyPR. The treatment of
the pile group and of interactions between piles
and the raft were based on Mindlin's solution, but
the load transfer model of Randolph & Wroth
(1978) was used for each single-pile response. The
exible raft was modelled using plate-bending n-
ite elements. The method can efciently solve the
complex piled-raft behaviour with full considera-
tion of interactions between the components. The
schematic concept of this approach is shown in
Fig. 2, and a full description is given by Clancy &
Randolph (1993). The main restriction of HyPR is
the limitation to homogeneous soil conditions. It is
6
3
4
7
1
2
5
Fig. 2. Analytical model for piled raft (after Clancy,
1993): 1, one-dimensional pile element; 2, lumped soil
response at each pile node (load-transfer spring); 3,
two-dimensional plate-bending nite element raft
mesh; 4, lumped soil response at each raft node
(Giroud solution); 5, pilesoilpile interaction effects
calculated between pairs of nodes (Mindlin's equa-
tion); 6, raftsoilraft interaction; 7, pilesoilraft
interaction
Flexible raft
Applied uniform load
Pile group
(b)
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS
therefore necessary to assume a representative soil
modulus for piled rafts in non-homogeneous soils.
For piled rafts designed on the philosophy out-
lined here, the average settlements may still be
moderately large. Therefore, non-linear response of
the piles may be an important aspect of the analy-
sis. To cope with this, HyPR has the capability of
taking non-linear pile behaviour into account. A
simple load cut-off is performed for the load-
transfer spring for the elements where pilesoil
slip is computed to occur, using an incremental
elastic analysis. This mechanism is also implemen-
ted for the spring at the pile base.
NON-DIMENSIONAL PARAMETERS FOR
PARAMETRIC STUDY
It is of particular importance to establish a set
of non-dimensional parameters to provide a frame-
work for optimum design. In this paper, the follow-
ing raftsoil stiffness ratio is introduced in order
to express the relative exibility of rectangular
rafts:
   3
: Er 1 2s B tr
K rs 5 57 (1)
Es 1 2r L L
where Er and Es are Young's modulus of the raft
and the soil, r and s are the Poisson's ratio of the
raft and the soil, tr is the raft thickness, and L and
B are the length and the breadth of the raft
respectively. Although Horikoshi (1995) used
1:0 in his analyses of rectangular rafts, a
recent study by the authors has shown that 0:5
gives the same magnitude of differential settlement
normalized by the average settlement, regardless of
B=L. As such, it provides a more consistent deni-
tion of raftsoil stiffness ratio, as is documented in
a forthcoming publication (Horikoshi & Randolph,
1997). In the present paper, a value of 0:5 has
therefore been adopted. Equation (1) is essentially
compatible with the raftsoil stiffness ratio for
circular rafts that was suggested by Clancy (1993):
 3
Er 1 2s tr
K rc (2)
Es 1 2r a
where a is the circular raft radius. If the raft area
and the thickness are the same for the circular and
square rafts, the corresponding stiffness ratios K rc
and Krs are also the same.
It was also found that the concept of the so-
called `equivalent pier' was very useful in design-
ing piled rafts. The equivalent-pier method, where-
by a group of piles is replaced by an equivalent
single, stubby pier, was introduced by Poulos &
Davis (1980). Randolph (1994) suggested that once
the piles had been replaced by a pier of the same
length, the approximate solution for a single pile
could be used to estimate the stiffness of the
equivalent pier. Horikoshi (1995) has explored the
303
validity of this approach for a wide variety of
conditions. In this paper, the equivalent-pier mod-
ulus, Eeq , and the equivalent-pier diameter, d eq , are
calculated using:
Atp
Eeq Es (Ep Es ) (3)
Ag
q
d eq 2 Ag = (4)
where Ep is the Young's modulus of the piles, Es
is the Young's modulus of the soil layer, Atp is the
total cross-sectional area of the piles in the group
and Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the pile
group. The suitability of assuming an equivalent
pier can be categorized by the factor R, which was
proposed by Randolph & Clancy (1993):
r
ns
R (5)
Lp
where n is the number of piles in a group, s is the
pile spacing and Lp is the pile length. It was
suggested that the equivalent-pier approach was
appropriate for pile groups with R less than 4.
Furthermore, the following dimensionless values
were found to be important:
relative pile length
Lp =a (or Lp =aeq for rectangular rafts) (6)
pile groupraft area ratio
agr Ag =Ar (7)
equivalent piersoil stiffness ratio
Eeq =Es (8)
pile groupraft stiffness ratio
K pr k p =k r (9)
where aeq is thep equivalent circular raft radius,
dened as aeq (BL=) for rectangular rafts; Ar
is the raft area; and k p and k r are the overall
stiffnesses of the pile group (or the equivalent pier)
and the unpiled raft respectively. The pile group
raft area ratio denes the proportion of the central
area over which piles are installed.
A measure of compressibility for the equivalent
pier in a homogeneous soil can be expressed using
the expression introduced by Randolph & Wroth
(1978) and Randolph (1994):
s
2Gs 2Lp
Lp
Eeq d eq
where
ln [5 5(1 s )Lp =d eq ] (10)
Here is a measure of the radius of inuence of
the pier. The compressibility Lp is a combination
of the aspect ratio Lp =d eq and the square root of
304 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

the stiffness ratio Eeq =Gs . The larger the value of
Lp , the more compressible is the pier.
Among the non-dimensional parameters, it was
found that the pile groupraft stiffness ratio K pr
was critical in designing optimum piled rafts. The
magnitude of the differential settlement is largely
governed by this parameter, and optimum results
correspond to a ratio close to unity. In this paper,
an equivalent pier was assumed in calculating the
stiffness of the pile group, k p , while independent
HyPR analyses were conducted to calculate the raft
stiffness. (Note that it is also possible to estimate
k r assuming a fully rigid or a fully exible raft,
e.g. Giroud (1968).)
The overall stiffness of a piled raft, k pr , can be
estimated through the interaction factor between
the pier and the raft, rp , which was proposed by
Randolph (1983) as
ln (rr =rp )
rp 1 (11)
ln (rm =rp )
with the piled-raft stiffness then expressed as
k p k r (1 2rp )
k pr (12)
1 (k r =k p )rp 2
where rr denotes the radius of the raft, rp is the
pile radius and rm is the maximum radius of inu-
ence of an individual pile. The accuracy of the
estimated overall stiffness was checked with the
HyPR results.
In the design process, the critical decisions in
regard to the pile support are (a) pile geometry
(plan area of the pile group, length of the piles in
relation to the raft geometry) and (b) pile capacity
in relation to the local and total loading applied to
The differential settlement for square rafts is
dened as the difference between the central and
the mid-side settlements as discussed by Horikoshi
& Randolph (1997). This differential settlement is
normalized by the average settlement of the raft
(alone) with the same raftsoil stiffness ratio. The
normalized differential settlement is dened as
w in the gures presented below.
PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SQUARE PILED RAFTS
An extensive parametric study of piled rafts was
performed by Horikoshi (1995). In the present
paper, some of the results for square piled rafts are
presented. In the study, a group of only nine piles
was modelled, beneath a exible raft with K rs
0:01 to 10. For practical applications of the new
design philosphy, it will generally be necessary to
model a larger number of piles. In that case, the
equivalent-pier concept may be useful, replacing
the full pile group by a set of equivalent piers
(Randolph & Clancy, 1994).
The raft meshes used for the analyses are shown
in Fig. 3 for a quarter raft. The raft consisted of
49 plate-bending elements, and each pile was
divided into 15 rod elements. Uniform vertical
(a) (b)

the raft. There are four separate, but interlinked,

load ratios that need to be considered:

ratio of piled-area load to pile capacity

Pg pAg =(nqp ) agr Pt magr = pgt (13)
ratio of total raft load to pile capacity
Pt Pt =(nqp ) Pg =agr m= pgt (14) (c) (d)
proportion of load carried by piles
p P =P m=P ma =P
gt g t t gr g (15)
degree of mobilization of pile capacity
m Pg =(nqp ) pgt Pg =agr pgt Pt (16)
b

Pile
s

where p is the uniform pressure applied over the

raft; qp is the single-pile capacity; Pt is the total
applied load, which is equal to pAr ; and Pg is the
total load transferred to the pile group. The rst
two ratios may be considered as design decisions,
since they are quantiable before analysis, while
the second two ratios may only be calculated after
analysis.
(e) (f)
Fig. 3. Raft meshes used for analysis of square piled
rafts: (a) raft (alone); (b) s=b 03, agr 09; (c)
s=b 04, agr 016; (d) s=b 05, agr 025; (e)
s=b 06, agr 036; (f) s=b 08, agr 064
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS
pressure was applied to the raft. Since non-linear
pile behaviour was considered in most of the
analyses, a number of step calculations were
needed.
Effect of pile spacing
As the rst step of the parametric study, a range
of analyses was conducted to nd the optimum
conditions. The parameters used for the analyses
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The raftsoil
stiffness K rs , the pile length Lp and the pile
spacing s were chosen as variables. The Poisson's
ratio of the raft was taken as 016, which is the
value generally used for concrete. Since non-linear
pile behaviour was assumed in the analyses, the
ultimated shaft friction s and the tip resistance of
each pile qb were related to the shear modulus of
the soil using Gs 500s and qb 9s . The shaft cing for given values of K rs and Lp =aeq . As the
friction was assumed to be uniform along the pile
length.
It was found that for the cases with K rs 0:01,
the maximum settlement of the raft occurred at an
intermediate point between the centre and the mid-
site. This tendency could be supressed either by
increasing the area of the pile group or by increas-
ing the raft thickness. For moderate sizes of raft,
the most cost-effective solution is to increase the
raft thickness, and so a raftsoil stiffness of
K rs 0:1 has been adopted in arriving at an opti-
mum design. It was also found that, for very large
rafts, the alternative strategy of increasing the area
of the pile group may prove more attractive.
The variation of differential settlement with load
level is summarized in Fig. 4 for the case of
K rs 0:1, with Lp =aeq 2, 3 and 4. For conveni-
ence, the applied load has been plotted as 1=Pt ,
or the ratio of the total pile capacity nqp to the
total applied load Pt (equation (14)). Initially,
1=Pt will be very large (starting at innity), with
elastic conditions prevailing for 1=Pt greater than
about 08 to 1, where the curves are parallel to the
1=Pt axis. The region of particular interest is
where the pile response becomes non-linear, as
1=Pt approaches zero.
It should be noted that these gures are actually
independent of Gs =s , owing to the normalization
of both axes, as discussed by Horikoshi (1995).
The differential settlement of the unpiled raft has
also been included in each gure. Since the raft
soil behaviour was assumed to be fully elastic, this
Table 1. Parameters used for basic parametric study of square piled rafts: basic parameters
Pile Square raft
Pile number, n 9 Length, L
Diameter, d p 03 m Young's modulus, Er
Young's modulus, Ep 35 GPa Poisson's ratio, r
305
Table 2. Parameters used for basic parametric study
of square piled rafts: non-dimensional properties
Ep =Es 1000
K rs 001, 01, 10
Gs =s 500
Lp =aeq 1, 2, 3, 4
s=b 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 08
(b L=2)
prole is independent of the applied load 1=Pt .
The gures show clear differences in the differen-
tial settlements for cases with different pile spac-
ings (i.e. different pile group area ratio agr ).
Although the results are not presented here, it was
found that the average settlement (or overall stiff-
ness) was essentially independent of the pile spa-
total applied load increases (i.e. 1=Pt decreases),
the differential settlement approaches that of the
unpiled raft.
The normalized differential settlement remains
constant during the early (elastic) stages of loading
where 1=Pt is less than 08 to 1, but then in-
creases as the piles start to develop their full
capacity (for example, see the case s=b 0:5,
Lp =aeq 4). This implies that, in order to design
piled rafts to have zero differential settlement
under working conditions, where some non-linear
pile response is anticipated, the differential settle-
ment for fully elastic conditions should be chosen
as slightly less than zero.
The proportion of load transferred to the piles
( pgt ) is shown in Fig. 5 for the case of Lp =aeq 3
and Krs 0:1. As the total applied load increases,
the proportion of load carried by the nine piles
decreases gradually, since the non-linear pile beha-
viour causes the stiffness of the pile group relative
to the soil to become smaller. As the total pile load
becomes closer to the total pile capacity, the cal-
culated curves converge to the `m 1' line.
The increase in differential settlement is sum-
marized in Fig. 6(a) for the case of Lp =aeq 3
and K rs 0:1. The differential settlements are
normalized with respect to the differential settle-
ment at m 1. The gure shows that differential
settlements increase signicantly for values of m
greater than 08. The degree of mobilization of pile
capacity, m, should therefore be designed to be less
than 08. The variation of Pg with m is shown
Soil
133 m Depth, h Deep
35 GPa Young's modulus, Es 35 MPa
016 Poisson's ratio, s 05
306 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

0.3

Raft
0.2 0.8

0.6
0.1
w * 0.5
0.4
0
s /b 5 0.3

20.1

20.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1/P *t
(a)

0.3

Raft
0.2
0.8

0.1 0.6
w *

0.5
0 0.4

20.1 s /b 5 0.3

20.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1/P *t
(b)

0.3

Raft 0.8
0.2

0.1
0.6
w *

0 0.5
0.4

20.1
s /b 5 0.3

20.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1/P *t
(c)

Fig. 4. Effects of pile spacing on differential settlement (Krs 01)

(Pt ratio of total applied load to combined pile capacity). (a)
Lp =aeq 2, (b) Lp =aeq 3 and (c) Lp =aeq 4
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 307
0.6
m 5 0.8
s /b m51 m 5 0.6
0.5 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4 0.6
0.8
0.3
pgt

0.2

0.1
Lp/aeq 5 3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1/P *t

Fig. 5. Effects of pile spacing on pile load (Krs 01) ( pgt proportion
of load carried by piles)

0.8 s /b
0.3 Lp/aeq 5 3
0.4
0.6
w/(w at m 5 1)

0.5
0.6
0.4

0.2

20.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
m
(a)

s /b
0.8 0.3 Lp/aeq 5 3
0.4
0.5
0.6 0.6
P g*

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1
m
(b)

Fig. 6. Variations of differential settlement and Pg with m (Pg pile

area load and capacity ratio; m degree of pile capacity mobilization):
(a) m and differential settlement: (b) relationship between m and Pg
308 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH
in Fig. 6(b). Considering that the combination
of Lp =aeq 3, s=b 0:4 (i.e. agr 0:16) and
K rs 0:1 resulted in very small differential settle-
ment after some mobilization of pile capacity (Fig.
4(b)), then Pg  0:4 and thus Pt  2:5 (equation
(14)) appears to form a set of optimum conditions
for m 0:8. When Pg 0:4 and Pt 2:5, the
corresponding pgt (proportion of total load to be
carried by piles) is calculated as 032 using equa-
tion (15).
On the basis of the above results, the case of
K rs 0:1, s=b 0:4 and Lp =aeq 3 was chosen
as a base, from which the effect of other para-
meters on piled-raft performance could be exam-
ined. The raftpier stiffness ratio was calculated as
K pr 1:02 for these conditions, meaning that the
pile group and the unpiled raft have similar stiff-
ness.
Effect of soil depth
The effect of soil depth on differential settlement
was examined by varying the soil depth from in-
nitely deep to a nite depth of h=Lp 2, 4, 7 and
10, where h is the thickness of the soil layer. The
results are compared in Fig. 7. Horikoshi (1995)
also carried out simple elastic analyses for the
centrifuge model described below, by using the code
HyPR. In the centrifuge model, the soil depth was
25 m at prototype scale which compared with the
raft radius of 7 m. The results of the simple elastic
analyses showed that the differential settlement of
the piled raft on a soil layer with a thickness of
25 m was essentially the same as that for an in-
nitely deep soil layer, even though the average
settlement of the raft was smaller by about 40%.
Effect of pile compressibility
The pile stiffness ratio Ep =Es was varied from
100 to 10 000. In the analyses, pile support was
0.2
0.15
0.1
w *
0.05
20.05
20.1
0 0.2
Fig. 7. Effects of soil depth on differential settlement (Krs 01)
optimized by adjusting the pile radius from 005 m
to 048 m but keeping the same equivalent pier
raft stiffness ratio Kpr as for the basic case
(Ep =Es 1000). Note that in this situation, the
equivalent pier modulus Eeq and diameter d eq are
kept constant, as are the number and length of the
piles (n 9, Lp =aeq 3). The total pile capacities
were no longer the same, since the pile radius was
varied. The value of Gs =s was kept constant
( 500) in all the cases.
The effect on the differential settlement of vary-
ing Ep =Es is shown in Fig. 8. The gure shows
that the calculated behaviour is very similar regard-
less of the different Ep =Es values, and that all the
cases give very small differential settlement when
1=Pt is in the range 03 to 04.
Effect of Poisson's ratio of the soil
The effect of the Poisson's ratio of the soil was
examined, maintaining a constant equivalent pier
raft stiffness ratio K pr 1:02, by adjusting the pile
radius between limits of 007 m and 015 m. The
raft thickness was also changed in the range
031 m to 038 m to keep the raftsoil stiffness
ratio K rs constant at 01. The pile length was
unchanged from the basic case, and the rigidity
index Gs =s was kept constant at 500.
The calculated results are shown in Fig. 9. The
gure shows that the variations of differential
settlement are essentially the same, irrespective of
the Poisson's ratio of the soil, although the differ-
ential settlements show a tendency to increase as
Poisson's ratio reduces. The non-dimensional para-
meters Pg and 1=Pt are compared in Fig. 10.
When the Poisson's ratio of the soil is small, the
corresponding Pg value for m 0:8 is slightly
lower (between 03 and 04) than the value found
for s 0:5. Therefore the appropriate Pt value
for smaller Poisson's ratio should be marginally
higher (between 20 and 25).
h/Lp
Lp/aeq 5 3 2
4
s /b 5 0.4 7
10
`
0.4 0 .6 0.8 1
1/P *t
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 309
0.2

Ep/Es
0.15
Lp/aeq 5 3
100
500
0.1 1000
s /b 5 0.4
3000
w *

0.05 10 000

20.05

20.1
0 0 .2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1/P *t

Fig. 8. Effects of pilesoil stiffness ratio on differential settlement

(Krs 01)

0.2

0.15
s
Lp/aeq 5 3
0.1
0.1 s /b 5 0.4 0.3
0.5
w *

0.05

20.05

20.1
0 0.2 0.4 0 .6 0.8 1
1/P *t

Fig. 9. Effects of Poisson's ratio on differential settlement (Krs 01)

(Pt ratio of total raft load to pile capacity)

Effect of pile length Effect of pile spacing (optimum K pr )

Fully elastic analyses were rst performed by
changing the pile length, but keeping K pr constant
(at 102) by adjusting the pile radius from 015 m
to 050 m. The pile spacing and the number of
piles were set at s=b 0:4 and n 9 in all cases.
The results are shown in Fig. 11. The gure
indicates that if K pr is the same, the corresponding
differential settlement is essentially the same, even
if the pile length is changed signicantly.
Non-linear analyses were performed only for the
extreme case (Lp =aeq 1:6) in addition to the base
case (Lp =aeq 3). The calculated differential set-
tlements are compared in Fig. 12, which shows no
signicant difference, apart from a slightly higher
value of Pt for optimum conditions (zero differen-
tial settlement). The variation of Pg with m is
shown in Fig. 13. The trends are essentially un-
changed in spite of signicant change in pile
length.
In this section, the dependence of the optimum
Kpr on the area ratio agr is examined through
another fully elastic parametric study. The ratio K pr
was set at the same value of 102 as for the basic
case. The pile spacing was changed from s=b 0:3
to 10 (i.e. agr 0:09 to 10). The pile radii were
also changed from 010 m to 019 m to maintain
Kpr 1:02 with the pile length kept constant. The
calculated results are compared in Fig. 14(a). The
gure shows that the differential settlement depends
signicantly on the pile spacing, i.e. on the area
ratio agr . With K pr 1:02, a pile spacing of
s=b 0:4 to 05 gives small differential settlement.
The K pr values required to give zero differential
settlement were back-calculated elastically and are
shown in Fig. 14(b) in terms of the area ratio agr .
This gure clearly indicates that as the area ratio
agr increases, the required stiffness ratio K pr to
minimize the differential settlement also increases.
310 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

0.6

0.5 s
0.1
0.4 0.3
0.5
0.3
P g*

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 .8 1
m
(a)

0.6

0.5 s
0.1
0.4 0.3
0.5
1/P t*

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
m
(b)

Fig. 10. Variations of non-dimensional parameters with m: (a) relation-

ship between m and Pg (Pg ratio of piled area load to pile
capacity); (b) relationship between m and 1=Pt (Pt ratio of total
raft load to pile capacity)

0.20 The results of non-linear analysis are shown in

Krs 5 0.1
Fig. 15(a). In these analyses, values of K pr from
0.10 s /b 5 0.4 the fully elastic analyses (Fig. 14(b)) were used.
Fig. 15(a) shows that the initial differential settle-
ments are essentially zero rather than below zero.
w *

0.00
This is because the corresponding K pr values were
derived from fully elastic analyses. Slightly higher
20.10 Kpr values (by approximately 5%) than those
shown in Fig. 14(b) will give minimum differential
20.20
settlement after some mobilization of pile capacity.
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Fig. 15(b) shows the maximum positive and nega-
Lp/aeq tive bending moments during the incremental cal-
culations, showing that a pile spacing of s=b 0:4
Fig. 11. Effects of pile length on differential settlement to 05 gives the minimum bending moments in the
(fully elastic solutions) raft in absolute terms. Here M denotes the bend-
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 311
0.2

0.15 Lp/aeq
1.6
0.1 3.0

w *
0.05

20.05

20.1
0 0.2 0.4 0 .6 0.8 1
1/P *t

Fig. 12. Effects of pile length on differential settlement

Lp/aeq
0.8
1.6
3.0
0.6
P g*

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
m

Fig. 13. Effects of pile length on Pg value

0.3 2.0

Krs 5 0.1 Krs 5 0.1

0.2 Kpr 5 1.02 1.5

0.1
w *

1.0
Kpr

Lp/aeq 5 3
0.0

0.5
20.1
Fully elastic analyses

20.2 0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0.4
s /b Area ratio agr
(a) (b)

Fig. 14. Effects of pile spacing on differential settlement (K rs 01): (a) normalized differential settlement; (b)
optimum Kpr from fully elastic analyses

ing moment per unit length normalized by the total
applied load Pt .
The relationships between the non-dimensional
load ratios, Pg and Pt , and m are shown in Fig. 16.
The variation of Pg with m appears to be essen-
tially independent of the pile spacing, compared
with the variation of 1=Pt . When m 0:8 is
assumed, the corresponding Pg value is about 05
for s=b 0:4 to 06, which is slightly higher than
the value found in the previous parametric study
312 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH

0.3

Raft s /b
0.2
0.3
Lp/aeq 5 3 0.4
0.5

w *
0.1
0.6

0.0

20.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1/P *t
(a)

0.006

Raft
0.004

Max.
0.002

0.000
M*

20.002

20.004 Min.

20.006
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
s /b
(b)

Fig. 15. Effects of pile spacing on piled rafts (K rs 01) (Kpr taken
from Fig. 14(b)): (a) normalized differential settlement; (b)
maximum bending moment of raft

described earlier (cf. Pg 0:4). It is considered
that a slightly higher K pr value will give Pg closer
to 04. When Pg is assumed to be 04, the corre-
sponding Pt value ranges from 15 to 25 for agr
varying from 016 to 025, from equation (14).
These values appear to be the optimum design
conditions for piled raft foundations, implying a
total pile capacity which is 4060% of the total raft
load. The pile group extends over the central 16
25% of the raft area, and, over that area, the total
pile capacity is some 25 times the applied loading.
During the parametric study, it was also found
that as the area of the raft increases, and hence the
raftsoil stiffness ratio (K rs , see equation (2)) de-
creases, it is necessary to increase the area ratio in
order to avoid excessive settlement just beyond the
pile-supported area.
CASE STUDY
The validity of the method presented here was
examined through the centrifuge tests reported by
Horikoshi & Randolph (1996). A concrete circular
raft with a diameter of 14 m at prototype scale was
modelled. Note that the prototype scale is used in
the following gures and calculations. The soil
prole in the centrifuge model was approximated
by su 33 1:2z kPa after Horikoshi (1995),
where z is the depth below the foundation in
metres. By taking the soil strength at a depth of
one radius in the soil (i.e. 414 kPa), the ultimate
bearing capacity of the raft alone can be estimated
as about 250 kPa, which corresponds to an ultimate
load on the raft of 38 MN. A design load of
12 MN was then assumed by taking a safety factor
of 32 against bearing failure of the raft alone. This
load corresponds to a uniform pressure of 78 kPa
on the raft.
In estimating the response of the raft alone, a
uniform soil modulus of Gs 6 MPa has been
adopted, corresponding to Gs 145su and taking
the modulus at depth of one radius. The Poisson's
ratio of the soil was assumed to be s 0:4 after
Horikoshi (1995). The overall stiffness of the raft
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 313
1.0

0.8
s /b
0.3
0.6 0.4
0.5
P g* 0.4 0.6

0.2

0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
m
(a)

1.0

0.8

0.6
1/P *t

s /b
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.2 0.6

0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
m
(b)

Fig. 16. Variations of non-dimensional parameters with m: (a)

relationship between m and Pg ; (b) relationship between m and
1=Pt

alone was calculated as k r 343 MN=m, using the

program HyPR, where the total soil depth was 2.5 m
limited to 25 m, corresponding to the depth of soil
in the centrifuge model. The average settlement
and the centre-edge differential settlement of the
raft alone were calculated as 35 mm and 17 mm 14 m
respectively under the uniformly distributed design
load of 12 MN.
An attempt was then made to minimize the
differential settlement by installing nine piles in Instrumented pile
the central area of the exible raft. The raftsoil
stiffness ratio K rc (see equation (2)) was calculated
as Krc 5:4 3 104 , which means the raft mod- Fig. 17. Piled raft used in centrifuge model: pile
diameter 032 m, pile length 15 m, cap diameter 1 m
elled was extremely exible, equivalent to a con-
crete raft of less than 50 mm thick. The pile
arrangement used in the centrifuge model is shown The equivalent pierraft stiffness ratio K pr was
in Fig. 17. The diameter and length of the piles estimated using the simple approach described by
were 032 m and 15 m respectively. A small, rigid Horikoshi (1995). In the equivalent-pier analysis, a
pile cap was attached to the top of each pile shaft. uniform modulus of Gs 6:53 MPa was adopted,
The resulting pile groupraft area ratio agr was taking the modulus at a depth of 23 Lp , where Lp
then 0162 (pile spacing of 25 m). denotes the pile length ( 15 m). The approximate
314 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH
method of Randolph & Wroth (1978) was then
used with equation (10), allowing for the nite
depth of soil by adjusting the base shear modulus
Gb (Randolph, 1989):
Gl
Gb (17)
(h=Lp 1)
where h is the depth of the soil layer (valid only
for 1 , h=Lp < 2). The equivalent-pier analysis
gives the overall stiffness of the pile group as
K p 395 MN=m. The equivalent pierraft stiff-
ness ratio K pr K p =K r is therefore calculated as
115. The overall stiffness of the piled raft is
estimated as K pr 470 MN=m from equations (11)
and (12), with the interaction factor rp 0:62.
The average settlement of the piled raft under the
design load is therefore 26 mm.
The ultimate shaft friction along the pile length
was assumed uniform to maintain consistency with
the assumed homogeneous soil condition. The total
shaft friction and the base capacity were assumed
to be 350 kN and 36 kN respectively for each pile,
after Horikoshi & Randolph (1996). Thus the total
single-pile capacity is estimated as qp 386 kN.
The non-dimensional parameters under the design
conditions are then calculated as Pg pAg =
nqp 0:56 and 1=Pt 0:29. The higher value of
Pg and the lower value of 1=Pt , compared with
the optimum values found in the previous section,
suggest that the design load may be slightly higher
than optimum, and that a lower design load in the
region of 9 MN might result in zero differential
settlement for the assumed conditions.
Non-linear analysis of the piled raft was con-
ducted by using HyPR with the soil depth of 25 m
taken into account. Homogeneous soil was assumed
in the HyPR analysis by taking the modulus at a
depth of two-thirds of the pile length in the soil.
The analytical parameters are summarized in
Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3. Parameters used for analysis of centrifuge model: soil and pile properties
Soil properties
Soil modulus, Gs : MPa 65
Poisson's ratio of soil, s 04
Soil depth, h: m 25
Pile diameter, d p : m 0315
Table 4. Parameters used for analysis of centrifuge model: properties of raft and
pile cap
Raft properties
Radius, a: m 70
Thickness, tr : m 0045
Young's modulus, Er : GPa 40
Poisson's ratio, r 016
 A square-shaped pile cap with the same area as the circular cap model was assumed.
The computed non-dimensional parameters are
compared with the experimental results in Fig.
18(a) and (b) for pgt (proportion of total load
carried by piles) and m (fractional mobilization of
pile capacity) respectively. Note that the centrifuge
results are taken from `Test 3' described by
Horikoshi & Randolph (1996), and are plotted after
the end of the reconsolidation in ight with an
initial load of 63 MN. In the test, loading and
unloading cycles were applied as shown in the
gures. The calculated results give non-dimen-
sional parameters of pgt 0:23 (piles carrying
23% of total applied load) and m 0:77 (piles
loaded to 77% of their ultimate capacity) under the
design load of 12 MN, indicating that pile capacity
was effectively mobilized.
Figure 19 shows the measured average and
differential settlements, compared with the predic-
tions made using HyPR. Note that the average
settlement in this gure denotes the average of the
central and edge settlements, to maintain consis-
tency with the measured centrifuge results. The
initial points of the experimental loadsettlement
curves have been constrained to fall on the curves
predicted using HyPR. (This is necessary since the
initial displacements cannot be separated out from
background reconsolidation of the soil, as dis-
cussed by Horikoshi & Randolph (1996).) The
gure shows that there is good agreement between
the trends of the measured and computed results,
although the non-linearity of the experimental total
settlement curve is more pronounced than that of
the HyPR prediction. This may be attributed to the
assumed elastic response of the raft in HyPR,
which only models non-linearity due to pilesoil
slip. The calculated and experimental differential
settlements under the design load of 12 MN were
4 mm and 3 mm, which may be considered negli-
gible from a practical point of view. The non-linear
HyPR analysis gives a true average settlement of
Pile properties
Pile length, Lp : m 150
Young's modulus, Ep : GPa 40
Total shaft capacity per pile: kN 350
Base capacity per pile, qd : kN 36
Properties of small pile cap

Length of square cap, Lc : m 089
Thickness, tc : m 014
Young's modulus, Ec : GPa 40
Poisson's ratio, c 016
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 315
0.5

0.4 Centrifuge test

HyPR

pgt
0.3 Design load

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Total applied load: MN
(a)

0.8 Centrifuge test

HyPR

0.6
m

0.4

0.2
Design load

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Total applied load: MN
(b)

Fig. 18. Measured and computed variations of non-dimensional

parameters: (a) proportion of total load carried by piles, pgt ; (b)
fractional mobilization of pile capacity, m

290 mm when taken over the full area of the raft
(rather than taking the mean of edge and central
displacements); this is slightly greater than the
estimate of 26 mm obtained from the simple ap-
proach discussed earlier. The difference may be
attributed primarily to the effects of the non-linear
pile behaviour.
This example shows that central pile support is
more effective in minimizing different settlements,
even though the total pile capacity is only about
10% of that of the raft. Differential settlements for
the unpiled rafts modelled by Horikoshi & Ran-
dolph (1996) were about 40 mm after the end of
the all loading steps (95 kPa applied loading),
while that of the centrally piled raft was less than
10 mm. The differential settlement of the piled raft
is thus much smaller than that of the unpiled raft,
in spite of the fact that the average settlement was
essentially similar.
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive parametric study of piled-raft be-
haviour has been performed to establish a frame-
work for the optimum design in terms of
differential settlement. Although the cases consid-
ered in this paper are still limited, the following
guidelines for optimum design are proposed.
316 HORIKOSHI AND RANDOLPH
Total applied load: MN
0 5 10 15 20 25
210
Design load
0

10

20
Settlement: mm

30

40

50

60 Ave., HyPR

70 Dif., HyPR
Ave., Centrifuge
80
Dif., Centrifuge
90

Fig. 19. Average and differential settlements of centrifuge model pile raft

(a) Piles should be distributed over the central 16 ACKOWLEDGEMENTS

25% of the raft area. The work described here was undertaken while
(b) The pile group (or equivalent-pier) stiffness the rst author was a research student at the Uni-
should be approximately equal to the stiffness versity of Western Australia. The authors would
of the raft alone (K pr  1). like to express sincere appreciation to Taisei Cor-
(c) The total pile capacity should be designed for poration of Japan for the nancial assistance to the
between 40 and 70% of the design load, rst author while he was in Australia.
depending on the pile group area ratio and
the Poisson's ratio of the soil.
The ratio of pile group stiffness to that of the NOTATION
Ag gross cross-sectional area of pile group
raft alone (K pr ) plays a very important role in the
Ar raft area
optimum design of piled rafts. The optimum K pr Atp total cross-sectional area of piles in group
value depends slightly on the pile group area ratio a radius of circular raft
agr , and is about unity when the area ratio is in the aeq equivalent raft radius used for rectangular raft
range 1625%. For a larger value of agr , Kpr agr pile groupraft area ratio ( Ag =Ar )
should be increased slightly in order to minimize B breadth of rectangular raft
the differential settlement. d eq diameter of equivalent pier
Considering non-linear pile behaviour, margin- d p pile diameter
ally (approximately 5%) larger K pr values than Eeq Young's modulus of equivalent pier
Ep Young's modulus of pile
those found by fully elastic analyses may be appro-
Er Young's modulus of raft
priate, in order to minimize differential settlement Es Young's modulus of soil
after signicant mobilization (greater than 50%) of Gs shear modulus of soil
pile capacity. As long as the condition of K pr  1 h thickness of soil layer
is satisied, any (practical) pile length may be K pr pile group (equivalent-pier)raft stiffness ratio
used. However, the pile capacity should be K rc raftsoil stiffness ratio for circular raft
achieved primarily through shaft friction, rather K rs raftsoil stiffness ratio for rectangular raft
than end bearing, in order to achieve a reasonably k p stiffness of pile group (or equivalent pier)
`ductile' pile response. k r stiffness of unpiled raft
L length of rectangular raft
The degree of mobilization of total pile capacity
Lp pile length
m should not exceed 08, to avoid signicant in- M  bending moment per unit length normalized by
creases in differential settlement. For m in the total applied load
region of 08, optimum pile support corresponds to m degree of mobilization of pile capacity
a total pile capacity of between 25 and 3 times ( Pg =(nqp ))
the load applied over the region of the pile group, n number of piles in pile group
but only 4070% of the total applied load over the Pg load carried by piles
full raft. Pt total applied load ( pAr )
 OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS
Pg ratio of pile area load to combined pile capacity
( pAg =(nqp ))
Pt ratio of total applied load to combined pile
capacity ( Pt =(nqp ))
p uniform pressure applied to raft
pgt proportion of load carried by piles ( Pg =Pt )
qp single-pile capacity
R index for equivalent pier dened by Randolph &
Clancy (1993)
s pile spacing
su undrained strength of soil
tr thickness of raft
z depth below foundation level
factor used for raftsoil stiffness ratio, K rs
rp interaction factor for pile group inuence on raft
w centre mid-side differential settlement normalized
by average settlement of raft alone with the same
K rs
measure of radius of inuence of pile
parameter related to pile compressibility
r Poisson's ratio of raft
s Poisson's ratio of soil
mathematical constant
s ultimate unit shaft friction of pile
REFERENCES
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & de Mello, V. F. B. (1977).
Behaviour of foundations and structures. Proc. 9th
Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Tokyo 2, 495546.
Chow, Y. K. (1986). Analysis of vertically loaded pile
groups. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 10, No.
1, 5972.
Chow, Y. K. & Teh, C. I. (1991). Pile-cappile-group
interaction in non-homogeneous soil. J. Geotech.
Engng, ASCE 117, No. 11, 16551668.
Clancy, P. (1993). Numerical analysis of piled raft founda-
tions. University of Western Australia, PhD thesis.
Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1993). An approximate
analysis procedure for piled raft foundations. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 17, No. 12, 849869.
Cooke, R. W. (1986). Piled raft foundations on stiff
claysa contribution to design philosophy. Geotech-
nique 36, No. 2, 169203.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. &
317
Elson, W. K. (1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edn. New
York: Wiley.
Giroud, J. P. (1968). Settlement of a linearly loaded
rectangular area. J. Soil Mech. Fdns. Div., ASCE 94,
No. SM4, 813831.
Hain, S. J. & Lee, I. K. (1978). The analysis of exible
pile-raft systems. Geotechnique 28, No. 1, 6583.
Horikoshi, K. (1995). Optimum design of piled raft foun-
dations. University of Western Australia, PhD thesis.
Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1996). Centrifuge
modelling of piled raft foundation on clay. Geotechni-
que 46, No. 4, 741752.
Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1997). On the deni-
tion of raftsoil stiffness ratio. Geotechnique 47, No.
5, 10551061.
Padeld, C. J. & Sharrock, M. J. (1983). Settlement of
structures on clay soils. Construction Industry Re-
search and Information Association, Special Publica-
tion 27.
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation
analysis and design. New York: Wiley.
Randolph, M. F. (1983). Design of piled raft foundations.
Proc. Int. Symp. on Recent Developments in Labora-
tory and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical
Problems, Bangkok 525537.
Randolph, M. F. (1989). PISSAP (pile spreadsheet analy-
sis program) manual.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile group
and piled rafts. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech-
anics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi 5,
6182.
Randolph, M. F. & Clancy, P. (1993). Efcient design of
piled rafts. Proc. Deep Foundation on Bored and
Auger Piles, Ghent 119130.
Randolph, M. F. & Clancy, P. (1994). Design and per-
formance of a piled raft foundation. ASCE, Geotech-
nical Engineering Division Specialty Conference,
Texas 40, No. 1, 314324.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analysis of
deformation of vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE 104, No. GT12, 14651488.
Whitaker, T. (1961). Some experiments on model piled
foundations in clay. Proc. Symp. Pile Foundations, 6th
Int. Cong. Int. Assoc. for Bridge and Structural Engi-
neering, Stockholm 124139.