Indian Geotech J
DOI 10.1007/s40098-017-0235-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Experimental Investigation of Eccentrically Loaded Piled Raft
Resting on Soft Cohesive Soil
Shiladitya Mandal1 • Siddhartha Sengupta1
Received: 7 September 2016 / Accepted: 18 April 2017
 Indian Geotechnical Society 2017
Abstract Piled rafts have been used successfully in a wide
variety of geotechnical applications. However, behaviour
of piled raft placed in cohesive soil is not extensively
studied. The present research paper describes the perfor-
mance of eccentrically loaded square rafts connected to
short piles and resting on soft cohesive soil. The load was
applied with varying eccentricity (e) to raft width (B) ratios
of 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2. Experiments were conducted with two
different raft sizes of 180 mm 9 180 mm and
220 mm 9 220 mm connected to 0, 2, 3, 4 and 5 numbers
of piles in different cases. The results showed that in
general as compared to unpiled rafts, the average bearing
pressure increased almost two times for piled rafts having 5
piles corresponding to e/B = 0.2. For rafts with 5 numbers
of piles the average settlement reduced to almost one-third
in most cases as compared to rafts without pile corre-
sponding to identical e/B ratio. The foundations were also
proved to be greatly effective in reducing the tilt. For
e/B = 0.05, on increasing the number of connected piles
from 0 to 5, the tilt reduced from 2.00 to 0.19 in case of
180 mm 9 180 mm raft, and from 2.15 to 0.10 corre-
sponding to 220 mm 9 220 mm raft respectively.
Keywords Raft  Soft soil  Eccentricity  Tilt reduction
& Siddhartha Sengupta
siddhartha@bitmesra.ac.in
1
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Birla Institute of
Technology, Mesra, Ranchi 835215, India
Introduction
The concept of raft foundations enhanced with piles (typ-
ically named ‘‘piled-raft’’) has received considerable
attention in recent years. Raft foundations are widely used
in supporting structures when relatively strong layers are
present at shallow depth. Sometimes, although the shallow
layers of soils have adequate bearing capacity, a raft
foundation can induce excessive settlements. In such cases,
piled rafts (raft foundations enhanced with piles) are used.
While the loads are assumed to be carried by the raft, piles
are included for the purpose of reducing raft settlement,
and therefore, the main objective of introducing piles is to
control or minimize the settlement of the system, rather
than to carry the major proportion of the loads. The concept
of using piles to reduce raft settlement was first proposed
by Burland et al. [1] who placed one pile under each col-
umn of a building. Some of the prominent investigations to
understand the behaviour of piled raft foundations are by
Poulos and Davis [2], Clancy and Randolph [3], Gandhi
et al. [4], Horikoshi and Randolph [5], Kim et al. [6],
Prakoso and Kulhawy [7], Cunha et al. [8], Small and
Zhang [9], Reul and Randolph [10], Singh and Singh [11],
Fioravante [12], Park and Lee [13], Hirai [14]. Poulos and
Davis [2] demonstrated that the number of piles required to
reduce settlement under the working load to a tolerable
limit is usually small, any further addition of piles may
result in only marginal further reductions in settlements.
Clancy and Randolph [3] proposed that for an efficient
design of rafts with settlement reducing piles, the
geotechnical capacity of the piles be assumed to be 80%
mobilized under the working load condition. Such a situ-
ation, however, may lead to a high axial stress in piles. Cao
[15] numerically showed that the effectiveness of the piles
for settlement and bending moment reduction in a raft
123

subjected to symmetrical loading did not change signifi-
cantly, for rafts resting on hard clay with disconnected
piles Wong et al. [16] experimentally studied the behaviour
of piled-raft foundations with disconnected piles. It was
suggested that these piles should be treated as reinforce-
ment to the subsoil, rather than as structural members. Cao
et al. [17] studied the behaviour of model rafts resting on
pile-reinforced sand. It was found that for a given pile
group, an increase in pile length improved the stiffness of a
pile-raft system. Fioravante et al. [18] conducted centrifuge
tests on piled and unpiled raft on sandy soil. They observed
displacement piles were more effective in reducing raft
settlement than non-displacement piles. EI Sawwaf [19]
did an experimental study of eccentrically loaded raft with
connected and unconnected short piles resting on sand. It
was found that short piles placed adjacent to the raft edge
were efficient and economical to overcome the problem of
eccentric load. Bourgeois et al. [20] did finite element
simulations of piled raft foundation using multiphase
model. The simulations provided the value of the settle-
ment for which skin friction is fully mobilized along the
pile shaft. Patil et al. [21] conducted experimental inves-
tigations with model piled-raft and found that as the
number of piles increased the influence of raft-soil stiffness
became minimal on settlement reduction ratio.
From the above literature review, it may be seen that
limited research has been carried out to understand the
behaviour of eccentrically loaded piled raft. Also, study on
piled raft resting on cohesive soil is rare. Additionally, it
may be noted that in traditional piled raft systems, piles are
usually long. EI Sawwaf [19] opined that these may lead to
high axial stress in piles and high shear forces in the raft
which affect the structural design of the foundation. In the
present study, it is proposed to study the responses of
square raft connected to short pile, resting on soft cohesive
soil. Given the high settlement and heaving tendency of
soft soil, to construct structures and providing adequate
bearing capacity/reducing settlement in soft soil is a chal-
lenging task. In the present study, the same has been
attempted. Experiments have been carried out with differ-
ent raft sizes, varying load eccentricity, and different
numbers of piles in the system. Comparisons between
performance of raft without pile and piled raft are also
made.
Test Material
Locally available cohesive soil was used as test material in
the present work. The soil was tested for specific gravity,
liquid limit, plastic limit, maximum dry density, and the
optimum moisture content. The results of the tests are shown
in Table 1. As per USCS as well as IS: 1498–1970
123
Indian Geotech J
(Reaffirmed 2007) [22] the soil was classified as ‘‘CL’’. The
grain size distribution of the soil is shown in Fig. 1. Table 2
shows compositions of the soil used and key grain sizes.
Test Set-Up
Model wooden square rafts of sizes of 180 mm 9 180 mm
and 220 mm 9 220 mm had been used in the experiments.
The thickness of all the rafts was 25 mm. Wood was chosen
instead of metal because it was comparatively lighter and
hence the effect of the weight of the raft in bearing pressure
calculation would be minimal. A few tests were done by
changing the direction (in plan) of the footings and it was
found that the rafts were behaving similarly without any
bending or structural deformation during the loading. A rough
base condition was achieved by fixing a thin layer of sand onto
the base of the model rafts with glue. The laboratory model
tests were conducted in concrete tank (Fig. 2) of inside
dimensions 1 m (length) and 0.75 m (depth). Initially the
inside width of the tank was 240 mm and tests were conducted
with 220 mm 9 220 mm rafts. After that the inside width
was made 200 mm and experiments were performed with
180 mm 9 180 mm rafts. Since the boundary of the tank was
close to the foundation, there would be boundary effects.
Ullah et al. [23] in their study of lateral boundary effects in
centrifuge foundation tests found that rough boundary placed
in proximity to the foundation edge significantly increased the
penetration resistance whereas smooth boundary decreased it
(due to easier upward flow of soil). In the present investigation
the inside surface of tank was reasonably smooth and near to
the foundation. Considering the above, it is expected that in
this study, for a particular bearing pressure the corresponding
settlement shall be higher. It is also expected that the differ-
ential settlement (hence tilt) of the foundation would be
increased. Again, as the foundation was placed very close to
the boundary (plausibly smooth), the mobilized shear stress
along the edges of the foundation near to the boundary would
be decreased [23].
The soil was first pulverized and then mixed uniformly
with a predetermined amount of water. To prepare the test
bed, the moist soil was placed in the test tank and com-
pacted in 100 mm thick layers (using depth markings on
the side walls of the tank as a guide) by a tamping rod
falling from a particular height. For each layer the required
amount of soil to produce a desired density was weighed
and then placed in the test tank. Special care was taken to
perform all the tests with soil having almost same consis-
tency. The tank was covered by plastic sheet to minimize
moisture loss when not in use. Soil samples were collected
from different locations of the test bed to determine
moisture content, degree of saturation, density and shear
strength (by vane shear test). The average moisture content
Indian Geotech J

Table 1 Properties of soil the screw jack the load cell went down vertically, but did
Parameters Value
not rotate. A ball bearing was used to transfer the load to
the raft. Each load increment was maintained at a constant
Specific gravity 2.25 value until the model foundation settlement had been sta-
Liquid limit 34% bilized. The process was continued until the soil fails that is
Plastic limit 18.83% either the load value decreased accompanied by increment
Plasticity index 15.17% in settlement, or the settlement increased at a compara-
Maximum dry density 1.76 g/c.c. tively higher rate on increment of load. Loads were applied
Optimum moisture content 14.80% eccentrically with e/B ratio of 0.05, 0.1, 0. 2 (e = eccen-
tricity, B = width of raft). In all the cases the eccentricity
was along the longitudinal axis of the tank.

Reinforcing Piles

Hollow mild steel pipes of 12.5 mm and 10.0 mm outer

and inner diameters respectively were used as reinforcing
pile having length to diameter ratio 10 as recommended by
EI Sawwaf [19]. As these piles were short, the problems of
high axial stress in piles and high shear forces in the raft
were avoided. The piles were with open end at the bottom
as used by Cao et al. [17] and EI Sawwaf [19]. The model
piles were pushed into the soil vertically by hand. The
wooden raft was placed on the piles and was simply resting
on them without any rigid connection. It may be noted here
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curve that piled rafts are basically two types viz. connected
(having rigid connections between the piles and raft) and
unconnected (with an interposed layer of soil between the
Table 2 Compositions of soil and key grain sizes raft and the piles). In the present study an intermediate
Parameters Value concept was used i.e. the piles were in direct contact with
the raft but without any rigid connection. Load had been
Clay content 23.50%
applied with an eccentricity ‘‘e’’ as shown in Fig. 3. In all
Silt content 61.10%
cases, throughout the application of load, settlement
Sand content 15.40%
recorded in LVDT 2 was higher than that in LVDT 1
D10 0.0009 mm
(Fig. 3). Also, readings in the two LVDT confirmed that
D30 0.004 mm
there was continuous downward movement of the raft
D50 0.019 mm
along with piles in both the sides. There was no separation
D60 0.03 mm
between the raft and the piles, that is no upward movement
of the raft took place during loading as indicated particu-
larly by LVDT 1. The effects of varying number of piles in
of the soil during the tests had been maintained between 25 the piled raft system had been studied by using four dif-
and 27%. The average degree of saturation was 90%, the ferent cases with 2, 3, 4 and 5 numbers of piles as shown in
average bulk density was 16.85 kN/m3, the average shear Fig. 4 (depicting arrangement of the piles with respect to
strength was 6.5 kPa. Hence, the softness of the soil in the the longitudinal direction of the tank). Tests were also
tank was confirmed. The compressibility of the clay was conducted on rafts resting on soil without any pile, and the
not determined, but since the other parameters as men- results were compared with piled rafts.
tioned above were kept almost constant throughout the
study, it could be assumed that the compressibility was also
uniform during the tests. Results and Discussion
An indigenously made load frame was fixed to the tank.
Load had been applied by a screw jack/load cell. The The raft-soil stiffness ratio (Krs) has been calculated
settlement of the raft was measured by two LVDT s. The according to the relationship provided by Hain and Lee
load cell was attached to the screw jack by a specially [24]. They proposed the following equation to obtain the
made connection. The connection was such that on rotating relative flexibility of rafts:

123

Fig. 2 Model test tank and load frame
Fig. 3 Raft with reinforcing piles and applied load
4 Er ð1  m2 Þ B t3r
Krs ¼    3
3p ES L L
where, L and B are the length and width of raft, respec-
tively; tr is the raft thickness. Er and Es are the raft’s Young
modulus and soil’s Young modulus, respectively and m is
the Poisson’s ratio of soil. The value of Krs ranging from
0.01 to 10 covers very flexible to very stiff raft [24]. Here,
Er was taken as 11 Mpa [25], Es was considered as 3 Mpa
[26, 27], m was taken as 0.4 [28]. For the above values, Krs
turned out to be 3.50 and 1.92 corresponding to
180 mm 9 180 mm and 220 mm 9 220 mm
respectively.
A total of 30 tests were conducted in the study. The raft
(with and without pile) behavior under eccentric load was
observed. The effects of eccentricity of loading, number of
reinforcing piles, and size of rafts were investigated.
The load sharing mechanisms and interactions effects
between components of piled rafts embedded in clay were
studied by Park and Lee [29] by conducting centrifuge
123
Indian Geotech J
tests. The model foundations used in the above study were
single pile, unpiled raft, group piles, and piled raft. The
load carried (Qpr) by piled rafts is composed of those of raft
and piles can be written as follows [29]:
Qpr ¼ Qr þ Qp ð2Þ
where Qr and Qp are the load carrying capacities of raft and
pile components, respectively. The mobilized stress and
displacement fields of the raft and piles overlap within the
soil, producing a complex load carrying load carrying
mechanism and different types of interaction effects. The
values of Qr and Qp in Eq. (2) differ from those of the
unpiled raft and group piles due to interactions between raft
and piles when combined into piled raft. These interactions
may be categorized into (1) pile-to-pile (P–P), (2) raft-to-
pile (R–P), and (3) pile-to-raft (P–R) interactions as
suggested by Katzenbach et al. [30]. Considering the
effects of above interaction, Eq. (2) can be rewritten in
terms of load capacities of the unpiled raft and group piles
as follows:
X
Qpr ¼ gr Qur þ gp Qgp ¼ gr Qur þ gp xg Qsp ð3Þ
where Qur and Qgp are the load carrying capacities of the
unpiled raft and group piles respectively; gr and gp are the
pile-to-raft (P–R) and raft-to-pile (R–P) interaction factors
respectively; xg is the pile-to-pile (P–P) interaction factor;
and Qsp is the load capacity of single pile. The pile-to-pile
interaction factor xg, is also referred to as the pile group
effect factor that is often adopted to estimate the load
capacity of group piles. The P–R and R–P interaction
factors (gr and gp) represent changes in load capacities of
raft and piles in comparison with those of unpiled raft and
group piles. The pile-to-pile (P–P) interaction indicates
differences in load response between single and group
ð1Þ
piles, which occur due to overlapped stress and
displacement fields when piles are installed in a group.
For clayey soil, as reported by McCabe and Lehane [31],
the pile-to-pile interaction factor (xg) value is smaller than
1 in most cases, implying a tendency toward decreasing
load capacity of piles when installed in a group. Based on
the work done by Castelli and Maugeri [32], MaCabe and
Lehane [31] proposed a modified xg correlation as follows:
 0:66
xg ¼ Bg =Bp =n ð4Þ
raft
where Bp is the pile diameter, Bg is the diameter of the
equivalent plan area of the pile group, and n is the number
of piles. Equation (4) shows that the load capacity of group
piles decreases as the pile spacing decreases and number of
piles increases. It may be noted that Eq. (4) was proposed
referring to the ratio of stiffness rather than the ultimate
bearing capacity. This was considered supposing the design
of group piles is governed by the load carrying capacity at
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 4 Arrangement of
reinforcing piles
the serviceability limit. The load capacity of piles for piled
rafts can be obtained in terms of load capacity of group
piles, using the R–P interaction factor as below:
Qp ¼ gp Qgp ð5Þ
where Qp and Qgp are the load capacities of piles for piled
raft and group piles respectively; gp is the raft-to-pile
(R–P) interaction factor. The raft-to-pile (R–P) interaction
affects the load response of piles in two different aspects:
one positive and the other negative in regard to the
mobilization of load carrying capacity [30]. The positive
effect represents increasing pile skin friction due to
increases in confining stress within the soil caused by raft
pressure. The negative effect, on the other hand, represents
less mobilization of pile skin friction due to reduced rela-
tive displacement between pile and surrounding soils, as
the soils below the raft are forced to move downward upon
loading. Han and Ye [33] reported the occurrence of the
negative R–P effect with decreasing pile skin friction near
the pile head for piled rafts in clays.
123
 Indian Geotech J

The pile-to-raft interaction (P–R) represents changes in Table 3 Load carried by Raft and Piles for B = 180 mm
the load response of raft due to load carrying mechanism of e/B Total load (Qpr) Load (Qr) Load (Qp)
piles. The mobilization of pile skin friction induces carried by the piled carried by carried by
downward displacements of surrounding soils, which tend raft (kN) raft (kN) piles (kN)
to reduce contact pressure between raft and underlying
No. of reinforcing piles = 2
soils with decreasing load capacity. Introducing P–R effect,
0.05 1.75 1.48 0.27
the load capacity of raft for piled raft can be written in
0.1 1.50 1.23 0.27
terms the load capacity of unpiled raft as follows:
0.2 1.00 0.74 0.26
Qr ¼ gr Qur ð6Þ No. of reinforcing piles = 3
where Qr and Qur are the load capacities of raft for piled 0.05 2.00 1.45 0.55
rafts and unpiled raft, respectively; and gr is the pile-to-raft 0.1 1.75 1.21 0.54
(P–R) interaction factor. De Sanctis and Mandolini [34] 0.2 1.25 0.73 0.52
proposed an expression for gr for piled rafts in clays as No. of reinforcing piles = 4
mentioned below: 0.05 2.25 1.28 0.97
0.1 1.90 1.07 0.83
Ag =A
gr ¼ 1  3   ð7Þ 0.2 1.35 0.64 0.71
sp =Bp
No. of reinforcing piles = 5
where Ag is the area defined by the perimeter line of piles; 0.05 2.50 1.21 1.29
A is the raft area; sp is centre-to-centre pile spacing dis- 0.1 2.00 1.01 0.99
tance; Bp is the pile diameter. Equation (7) indicates that 0.2 1.40 0.60 0.80
P–R effect becomes more pronounced as the pile spacing
increases with the values of gr lower than unity.
Table 4 Load carried by Raft and Piles for B = 220 mm
Using Eqs. (2), (6) and (7) the loads carried separately
by the raft and the piles in the present study have been e/B Total load (Qpr) Load (Qr) Load (Qp)
calculated and are tabulated in Table 3 (for B = 180 mm) carried by the piled carried by carried by
raft (kN) raft (kN) piles (kN)
and Table 4 (for B = 220 mm). It may be seen from the
above tables that load shared by the raft and the piles No. of reinforcing piles = 2
varied depending on the number of piles present in the 0.05 2.75 2.23 0.52
group and eccentricity as well as with size of raft. For 0.1 2.25 1.73 0.52
example, corresponding to B = 180 mm, 4 nos. of rein- 0.2 1.50 0.99 0.51
forcing piles—for e/B = 0.2, load shared by raft and piles No. of reinforcing piles = 3
were 0.64 and 0.71 kN respectively. Corresponding to 0.05 3.00 2.20 0.80
B = 220 mm, 5 Nos. of reinforcing piles—for e/B = 0.2, 0.1 2.50 1.71 0.79
0.83 kN was carried by raft and 1.17 kN was carried by 0.2 1.75 0.98 0.77
piles. No. of reinforcing piles = 4
Equations (2)–(7) were originally proposed to calculate 0.05 3.25 1.96 1.29
the loads carried by rafts and rigidly connected piles. No 0.1 2.75 1.52 1.23
theoretical relationship could be found in literature pro- 0.2 1.84 0.87 0.97
viding the loads for adopted pile-raft connectivity in this No. of reinforcing piles = 5
study, or even for unconnected piled rafts. The formulae 0.05 3.75 1.86 1.89
suggested by Park and Lee [29] would provide a prelimi- 0.1 2.90 1.45 1.45
nary estimation of the desired loads (for the adopted pile-
0.2 2.00 0.83 1.17
raft connectivity) in the present investigation. In future,
researches may be undertaken with proper instrumentation
which would lead to obtain some suitable interaction or instrumented to get the load on them and hence the load
correction factors that could be used to modify the above carried by the raft in the piled raft system. In the absence of
formulae [29], or some new relations may be framed in the instrumentation, the above may be calculated theoret-
order to have exact values of the loads. ically as suggested by Park and Lee [29]. These relation-
To the best knowledge of the authors, till now there ships would provide the probable loads on all the piles
exists no mathematical or theoretical method which cal- together and the load carried by the raft, but load on
culates the load carried by each pile and the raft under individual piles would not be obtained. This is a limitation
eccentric loading. Ideally, the piles should have been of the present study.

123
Indian Geotech J

(a) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)

(a)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0
2
2

Average Settlement (mm)

No Piles
Average Settlement (mm)

4 No Piles 4

No. of Piles 2 6 No. of Piles 2

6
No. of Piles 3 No. of Piles 3
8 8
No. of Piles 4 No. of Piles 4
10 10
No. of Piles 5 No. of Piles 5
12 12

14 14

16 16

18 18

Average Bearing Pressure (kPa) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)

(b) (b) 0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
0

Average Settlement (mm)

5 No Pile
Average Settlement (mm)

No Pile
4
No. of Piles 2 No. of Piles 2
6 10 No. of Piles 3
No. of Piles 3
8 No. of Piles 4 No. of Piles 4

No. of Piles 5 15 No. of Piles 5

10

12 20
14

16 25

Average Bearing Pressure (kPa) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)

(c) 0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 (c) 0
0

5
Average Settlement (mm)

5 No Pile
Average Settlement (mm)

No Pile
10 No. of Piles 2
10 No. of Piles 2
No. of Piles 3 No. of Piles 3
15 No. of Piles 4
15 No. of Piles 4
No. of Piles 5 No. of Piles 5
20
20

25
25

30 30

Fig. 5 a Bearing pressure versus settlement for e/B = 0.05, Fig. 6 a Bearing pressure versus settlement for e/B = 0.05,
B = 180 mm. b Bearing pressure versus settlement for e/B = 0.1, B = 220 mm. b Bearing pressure versus settlement for e/B = 0.1,
B = 180 mm. c Bearing pressure versus settlement for e/B = 0.2, B = 220 mm. c Bearing pressure versus settlement for e/B = 0.2,
B = 180 mm B = 220 mm

The average bearing pressure vs. average settlement
plots corresponding to different e/B ratios (0.05, 0.1 and
0.2) are shown in Fig. 5a–c for 180 mm 9 180 mm raft
size; and in Fig. 6a–c for 220 mm 9 220 mm raft size
respectively. The above Figures show that for all cases
increase in number of reinforcing piles lead to increase in
average bearing pressure, and decrease in settlement.
Corresponding to a particular value of eccentricity (for
both sizes of rafts) the slope of the bearing pressure-
settlement curve (i.e. the rate of increase in settlement with
increase in bearing pressure) went on diminishing as the
number of piles increased. Also, for all cases, corre-
sponding to a particular value of bearing pressure, the
settlement magnitude was highest for raft without rein-
forcing pile, minimum for raft with 5 numbers of rein-
forcing piles. For e/B = 0.05, B = 180 mm, the bearing
pressure—settlement curves were very close to each other
throughout for raft with 4 and 5 numbers of reinforcing

123
 Indian Geotech J

piles. This indicates that rafts resting on 4 as well as 5 (a) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)
numbers of piles performed almost similarly. For 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
e/B = 0.2, B = 180 mm, the bearing pressure—settlement
0.2
curves are almost linear for all the cases i.e. rafts resting on 0.4
2, 3, 4, and 5 piles as well as unpiled raft. Corresponding to No Pile
0.6
0.8 No. of Piles 2
e/B = 0.05, B = 220 mm, the bearing pressure-settlement

Tilt (degree)
1 No. of Piles 3
curves were initially closer for 3 and 4 numbers of rein-
1.2 No. of Piles 4
forcing piles, but at higher bearing pressures the difference 1.4 No. of Piles 5
between them was comparatively more. 1.6
Tilt of the foundations was also measured. Tilt was 1.8
taken equal to the inverse of tangent of the difference in 2
2.2
readings in two LVDT s divided by the difference in dis-
2.4
tance between them. The average bearing pressure versus
average settlement plots corresponding to different e/B Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)
(b) 0 20 40 60 80 100
ratios for rafts (piled or unpiled) have been shown in 0
Fig. 7a–c for 180 mm 9 180 mm; and in Fig. 8a–c for
0.5
220 mm 9 220 mm sizes respectively. The above Fig-
1 No Pile
ures depict that for a particular bearing pressure, the
1.5 No. of Piles 2

Tilt (degree)
magnitude of tilt decreased as the number of reinforcing
No. of Piles 3
pile increased. For B = 180 mm, in most of the cases the 2
No. of Piles 4
nature of the bearing pressure-tilt curves was linear. Cor- 2.5
No. of Piles 5
responding to e/B = 0.1 and 0.2 (B = 180 mm), the 3
curves were very close to each other for rafts with 3 and 4 3.5
piles. Also, for B = 180 mm, the initial parts of the plots 4
for rafts with 4 and 5 piles (e/B = 0.05); for rafts with 3, 4, 4.5
5 piles (e/B = 0.1); and for rafts with 4 and 5 piles (e/
B = 0.2) almost overlapped each other. Corresponding to Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)
(c) 0 20 40 60 80
B = 220 mm, for e/B = 0.05, the tilt (for raft with 5 piles) 0
till 40 kPa bearing pressure was having very less value; for 1
e/B = 0.1 (rafts with 3, 4, and 5 piles) the curves over- 2 No Pile
lapped each other up to 20 kPa bearing pressure; for No. of Piles 2
3
Tilt (degree)

e/B = 0.2, as the bearing pressure increased the plots tend No. of Piles 3
4
to become linear. Off course, this trend had been seen for No. of Piles 4
5
most of the bearing pressure-tilt curves. No. of Piles 5
The magnitudes of average bearing pressures, average 6

settlements, and tilts at failure (for e/B = 0.05, 0.1, and 7

0.2) corresponding to 0, 2, 3, 4, and 5 numbers of rein- 8

forcing piles are shown in Table 5 (B = 180 mm) and
Table 6 (B = 220 mm). As it may be seen from the above
tables, at failure, with increase in the value of eccentricity,
average bearing pressure decreased; and average settlement
as well as tilt increased in all cases. At a particular value of
eccentricity and number of piles present, the average
bearing pressure (at failure) was almost same for both raft
sizes. For B = 180 mm (e/B = 0.05), the bearing pressure
increased from 51.44 kPa (no pile) to 85.73 kPa (5 piles).
For B = 220 mm, (e/B = 0.05) the bearing pressure shoot
up from 51.65 kPa (no pile) to 86.09 kPa (5 piles). Similar
trends may be seen for other values of eccentricities. For
B = 180 mm (unpiled raft), the maximum value of set-
tlement was 17.23 mm (e/B = 0.2). The corresponding
value of settlement for raft with 5 piles (e/B = 0.2)
reduced to 7.45 mm. For B = 220 mm, the highest value
9
Fig. 7 a Bearing pressure versus tilt for e/B = 0.05, B = 180 mm.
b Bearing pressure versus tilt for e/B = 0.1, B = 180 mm. c Bearing
pressure versus tilt for e/B = 0.2, B = 180 mm
of settlement was 22.54 mm, occurred at e/B = 0.2 for
unpiled raft. It reduced to 8.56 mm for raft with 5 piles (e/
B = 0.2). In case of B = 180 mm, the minimum and
maximum values of tilts were 0.19 (e/B = 0.05, 5 piles)
and 6.11 (e/B = 0.2, no pile) respectively. The corre-
sponding magnitudes of tilt with B = 220 mm were 0.10
(e/B = 0.05, 5 piles) and 5.01 (e/B = 0.2, no pile)
respectively.
It could be seen from Tables 5, 6 that settlement as well
as tilt corresponding to 5 piles, reduced considerably as

123
Indian Geotech J

(a) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa) Table 5 Bearing pressure, Settlement and Tilt at failure for
0 20 40 60 80 100 B = 180 mm
0
0.2 e/B Av. Bearing Av. Tilt ()
0.4 Pr. (kPa) Settlement
No Pile (mm)
0.6
No. of Piles 2
Tilt (degree)

0.8
No. of Piles 3 No. of reinforcing piles = 0
1
1.2 No. of Piles 4 0.05 51.44 11.25 2.00
1.4 No. of Piles 5 0.1 48.23 13.91 4.02
1.6 0.2 38.58 17.23 6.11
1.8
No. of reinforcing piles = 2
2
2.2
0.05 60.01 8.34 1.79
2.4 0.1 57.87 11.98 2.76
0.2 51.44 15.01 4.54
(b) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)
No. of reinforcing piles = 3
0 20 40 60 80
0 0.05 68.59 6.00 1.12
0.5 0.1 67.51 8.56 1.70
No Pile 0.2 64.30 10.89 2.89
1
No. of Piles 2 No. of reinforcing piles = 4
Tilt (degree)

1.5
No. of Piles 3 0.05 77.16 4.25 0.48
2
No. of Piles 4 0.1 73.30 8.25 1.52
2.5
No. of Piles 5 0.2 69.44 14.00 2.36
3
No. of reinforcing piles = 5
3.5 0.05 85.73 3.89 0.19
4 0.1 77.16 5.54 0.58
4.5 0.2 72.02 7.45 1.44

(c) Average Bearing Pressure (kPa)

0 20 40 60 80
0 Table 6 Bearing pressure, Settlement and Tilt at failure for
B = 220 mm
1
No Pile e/B Av. Bearing Av. Settlement Tilt ()
2 Pr. (kPa) (mm)
No. of Piles 2
Tilt (degree)

3
No. of Piles 3 No. of reinforcing piles = 0
4 No. of Piles 4
0.05 51.65 15.1 2.15
No. of Piles 5
5 0.1 45.19 18.38 3.79
6 0.2 34.44 22.54 5.01
No. of reinforcing piles = 2
7
0.05 63.13 12.82 1.66
8
0.1 58.11 15.02 2.98
Fig. 8 a Bearing pressure versus tilt for e/B = 0.05, B = 220 mm. 0.2 51.65 18.91 4.12
b Bearing pressure versus tilt for e/B = 0.1, B = 220 mm. c Bearing No. of reinforcing piles = 3
pressure versus tilt for e/B = 0.2, B = 220 mm 0.05 68.87 8.79 1.16
0.1 64.57 12.38 1.75
compared to 4 piles. This might have happened due to the
0.2 60.26 14.02 2.56
fact that under eccentric loading an extra pile at the centre
No. of reinforcing piles = 4
not only strengthened the soil at the middle, but its effects
0.05 74.61 6.05 0.51
in reducing the settlement and tilt were pronounced to a
0.1 71.02 9.56 1.01
considerable distance away around the centre. The above
0.2 63.26 11.00 1.42
could not be verified due to lack of available literature with
No. of reinforcing piles = 5
similar loading condition and foundation geometry.
0.05 86.09 4.56 0.10
It is worthy of mentioning here that instead of resting
0.1 75.02 7.23 0.58
the raft simply on the piles, if pile heads were fixed to the
0.2 68.87 8.56 0.97
raft, the foundation behavior would had behaved as a rigid

123
 Indian Geotech J

(a) 2 (a)
1

Settlement Reduction Factor (SRF)

1.75
0.9
Bearing Pressure Ratio (BPR)

1.5 0.8

1.25 0.7
0.6
1 e/ B = 0.05
0.5 e/ B = 0.05
e/ B = 0.10
0.75 0.4 e/ B = 0.10
e/ B = 0.20
0.5 0.3 e/ B = 0.20

0.2
0.25
0.1
0
2 3 4 5 0
2 3 4 5
No. of Piles No. of Piles

(b) 2.5 (b)

1

Settlement Reduction Factor (SRF)

0.9
Bearing Pressure Ratio (BPR)

2
0.8
0.7
1.5
e/ B = 0.05 0.6
0.5 e/ B = 0.05
1 e/ B = 0.10
0.4 e/ B = 0.10
e/ B = 0.20
0.3 e/ B = 0.20
0.5
0.2
0.1
0
2 3 4 5 0
2 3 4 5
No. of Piles
No. of Piles
Fig. 9 a Bearing Pressure Ratio (BPR) for B = 180 mm. b Bearing
Fig. 10 a Settlement Reduction Factor (SRF) for B = 180 mm.
Pressure Ratio (BPR) for B = 220 mm
b Settlement Reduction Factor (SRF) for B = 220 mm

body; hence greater bearing pressure and comparatively
smaller settlement and tilt could be resulted.
In order to control the raft contributing area for load
transfer, and to obtain contact pressure distribution of raft
(as well as piles) under eccentric loading, individual piles
needed to be instrumented. The same was not done in this
investigation, but it is being hereby insisted to take up in
further study.
Three different factors, viz. (1) Bearing Pressure Ratio
(BPR), (2) Settlement Reduction Factor (SRF), and (3) Tilt
Reduction Factor (TRF) have been studied. These factors
are defined as follows:
1. BPR = Average bearing pressure (at failure) of piled
raft under load with a particular eccentricity/Average
bearing pressure (at failure) of raft without pile under
load with same eccentricity (shown in Fig. 9a, b
corresponding to B = 180, 220 mm respectively).
2. SRF = Average settlement (at failure) of piled raft
under load with a particular eccentricity/Average
settlement (at failure) of raft without pile under load
with same eccentricity (shown in Fig. 10a, b corre-
sponding to B = 180, 220 mm respectively).
3. TRF = Tilt (at failure) of piled raft under load with a
particular eccentricity/Tilt (at failure) of raft without
pile under load with same eccentricity (shown in
Fig. 11a, b corresponding to B = 180, 220 mm
respectively).
It may be noted that it is desirable to have higher BPR,
lower SRF and TRF values; that is higher bearing pressure,
lower settlement and lower tilt respectively. For
B = 180 mm, the minimum and maximum values of BPR
were 1.17 (e/B = 0.05, raft with 2 piles) and 1.87 (e/
B = 0.2, raft with 5 piles) respectively. For B = 220 mm,
the minimum and maximum values of BPR were 1.22 (to
e/B = 0.05, raft with 2 piles) and 2.00 (e/B = 0.2, raft
with 5 piles) respectively. The value of SRF for
B = 180 mm was 0.35 (minimum) for e/B = 0.05, 5 piles.
It shoot up to 0.87 (maximum) for e/B = 0.2, 2 piles.
Corresponding to B = 220 mm, SRF was lowest i.e. 0.3
for e/B = 0.05, 5 piles; highest i.e. 0.85 for e/B = 0.05, 2
piles. Corresponding to B = 180 mm, TRF had a mini-
mum value of 0.1 for e/B = 0.05, raft with 5 piles; maxi-
mum value of 0.9 for e/B = 0.05, raft with 2 piles.
Corresponding to B = 220 mm the minimum and

123
Indian Geotech J

(a) 1 piles, B = 220 mm were 6.05 mm (e/B = 0.05) and

0.9 11 mm (e/B = 0.2). But, for both the sizes of rafts,
Tilt Reduction Factor (TRF)

0.8 corresponding to 0, 2, 3 and 5 numbers of piles the rate

0.7 of increase in settlement on increase in eccentricity was
0.6 much lower. The above phenomenon may happen due
0.5 e/ B = 0.05 to the variations in test conditions.
0.4 e/ B = 0.10 • For e/B = 0.05, the tilt of raft (B = 180 mm) reduced
0.3 e/ B = 0.20 from 2 (no pile) to 0.19 (5 piles). Similar observations
0.2 were made for all other cases corresponding to both
0.1
sizes of rafts. These depict the efficacy of the method.
0
• Upon increasing the number of piles, the value of SRF
2 3 4 5 went on decreasing for all eccentricities and raft sizes;
No. of Piles except for e/B = 0.2, 4 piles, B = 180 mm. As men-
(b) 1 tioned in conclusion 3 above, this could be an error, and
0.9 further experiments are necessary to clarify it.
Tilt Reduction Factor (TRF)

0.8 • It would have been better if the observations made

0.7 experimentally were supported by mathematical expla-
0.6 nations. But till now mathematical/analytical/theoreti-
0.5 e/ B = 0.05 cal study with eccentrically loaded piled raft is very
0.4 e/ B = 0.10 rare. The same can be done in future using tools like
0.3 e/ B = 0.20 finite element as well as commercially available
0.2
softwares Nevertheless, the present study would
0.1
provide constructive guidelines for the above.
0
2 3 4 5
Acknowledgements The research grant provided by Department of
No. of Piles
Science and Technology (DST), Government of India under Fast
Track Young Scientist Scheme (SR/FTP/ETA—31/2011 dated 31/08/
Fig. 11 a Tilt Reduction Factor (TRF) for B = 180 mm. b Tilt
2012) is gratefully acknowledged.
Reduction Factor (TRF) for B = 220 mm

maximum values of TRF were 0.05 (e/B = 0.05, 5 piles)

and 0.82 (e/B = 0.2, 2 piles) respectively.
Conclusions
On the basis of extensive laboratory studies done with the
models the behaviour of piled rafts resting on soft cohesive
soil under eccentric loads may be predicted. The important
conclusions drawn from the present study are mentioned
below:
• For both sizes of rafts on increasing the number of
reinforcing piles from 0 to 5, there was an increase of
almost 67% in average bearing pressure for e/B = 0.05,
whereas this increase was almost twofold for
e/B = 0.2.
• On increasing the e/B ratio from 0.05 to 0.2, for 5
number of reinforcing piles, the average bearing
pressure reduced by almost 16 and 20% corresponding
to B = 180 mm and 220 mm respectively.
• The average settlement shoot up from 4.25 mm (e/
B = 0.05) to 14 mm (e/B = 0.2) for raft with 4 piles,
B = 180 mm. The corresponding values for raft with 4
References
1. Burland JB, Broms BB, De Mello VFB (1977) Behaviour of
foundations and structures. In: Proceedings of the ninth interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering
(ICSMFE), Tokyo, vol 2, pp 495–546
2. Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design.
Wiley, New York
3. Clancy P, Randolph MF (1993) Efficient design of piled rafts. In:
Proceedings of 2nd international geotechnical seminar on deep
foundations on bored auger piles, Ghent, Belgium, pp 119–130
4. Gandhi SR, Maharaj DK (1995) Behaviour of piled raft under
uniform loading. Indian Geotech Conf Bangalore 2:169–172
5. Horikoshi K, Randolph MF (1996) Centrifuge modeling of piled
raft foundation on clay. Geotechnique 46(4):741–752
6. Kim KN, Lee SH, Kim KS, Chung CK, Kim MM, Lee HS (2001)
Optimal pile arrangement for minimizing differential settlements
in piled raft foundations. Comput Geotech 28(4):235–253
7. Prakaso WA, Kulhawy FH (2001) Contribution to piled raft
foundation design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(1):17–24
8. Cunha RP, Poulos HG, Small JC (2001) Investigation of design
alternatives for a piled raft case history. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 127(8):635–641
9. Small JC, Zhang HH (2002) Behavior of piled raft foundations
under lateral and vertical loading. Int J Geomech 2(1):29–45
10. Reul O, Randolph MF (2004) Design strategies for piled rafts
subjected to nonuniform vertical loading. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 130(1):1–13

123

11. Singh NT, Singh B (2008) Interaction analysis for piled rafts in
cohesive soils. In: Proceedings of 12th conference of interna-
tional association for computer methods and recent advances in
geomechanics, Goa, India, pp 3289–3296
12. Fioravante V (2011) Load transfer from a raft to a pile with an
interposed layer. Geotechnique 61(2):121–132
13. Park D, Lee J (2015) Comparative analysis of various interaction
effects for piled rafts in sands using centrifuge tests. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 141(1):04014082
14. Hirai H (2016) Analysis of piled raft with nodular pile subjected
to vertical load using a Winkler model approach. Int J Numer
Anal Meth Geomech. doi:10.1002/nag.2520
15. Cao XD (1998) Performance of raft foundation with settlement
reducing piles. MEng. Dissertation, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore
16. Wong LH, Chang MF, Cao XD (2000) Raft foundations with
disconnected settlement reducing piles. Design application of raft
foundations and ground slabs, Chap. 17, Thomas Telford, Lon-
don, pp 469–486
17. Cao XD, Wong IH, Chang MF (2004) Behaviour of model rafts
resting on pile-reinforced sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130(2):129–138
18. Fioravante V, Giretti D, Jamiolkowski M (2008) Physical mod-
elling of raft on settlement reducing piles. In: Proceedings of
from research to practice in geotechnical engineering, Reston,
pp 206–239
19. El Sawwaf M (2010) Experimental study of eccentrically loaded
raft with connected and unconnected short piles. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 136(10):1394–1402
20. Bourgeois E, Hassen G, de Buhan P (2013) Finite element
simulations of the behaviour of piled-raft foundations using a
multiphase model. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
37:1122–1139
123
Indian Geotech J
21. Patil JD, Vasanvala SA, Solanki CH (2016) An experimental
study on behaviour of piled raft foundation. Indian Geotech J
46(1):16–24
22. IS: 1498–1970 (Reaffirmed 2007) Classification and identifica-
tion of soils for general engineering purposes. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India
23. Ullah SN, Stanier S, Hu Y, White D (2016) Lateral boundary
effects in centrifuge foundation tests. Int J Phys Modell Geotech.
doi:10.1680/jphmg.15.00034
24. Hain SJ, Lee IK (1978) The analysis of flexible raft-pile systems.
Geotechnique 28(1):65–83
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young’s_modulus
26. Kezdi A (1974) Handbook of soil mechanics. Elsevier, Amsterdam
27. Prat M, Bisch E, Millard A, Mestat P, Cabot G (1995) La mod-
elisation des ouvrages. Hermes, Paris
28. Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill,
New York
29. Park D, Lee J (2015) Interaction effects on load-carrying beha-
viour of piled rafts embedded in clay from centrifuge tests. Can
Geotech J 52:1550–1561
30. Katzenbach R, Arslan U, Moormann C (2000) Piled raft foun-
dation projects in Germany. Design applications of raft founda-
tions. Thomas Telford, London, pp 323–391
31. McCabe BA, Lehane BM (2006) Behavior of axially loaded pile
groups driven in clayey silt. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
132(2):401–410
32. Castelli F, Maugeri M (2002) Simplified nonlinear analysis for
settlement prediction of pile groups. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
128(1):76–84
33. Han J, Ye SL (2006) A field study on the behaviour of a foun-
dation underpinned by micropiles. Can Geotech J 43(1):30–42
34. de Sanctis L, Mandolini A (2006) Bearing capacity of piled rafts
on soft clay soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(12):1600–1610