AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT

FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING
Advances In Construction Techniques

3D- ANALYSIS OF PILED RAFT UNDER THE ACTION OF

VERTICAL AND EARTHQUAKE LOADS

AHMED EL-ATTAR
Department of Civil Engineering, Higher technology institute,
Tenth of Ramadan city, Cairo
Ahmed_civil_hti@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

High rise buildings constructed on combined piled raft system (CPRS) have been
increased rapidly in recent years. So the understanding of load distribution process
between the pile and raft especially when these buildings are subjected to earthquake is
the main target of this research. A key part of this development is the establishment of the
validity of new methods by comparing their numerical output with case study data. To
bridge the gap of knowledge outside the common researches related to combined piled
raft system under vertical load, a series of parametric studies have been done on the
Messe-Torhaus building under actual earthquake (El-Centro earthquake) and vertical load
to evaluate the effect of pile length, raft thickness, pile spacing to piles diameter ratio,
and building stiffness in terms of settlement, lateral displacement, induced acceleration,
bending moment, and the load sharing between piles and raft. Results indicate that the
participation of load to the total vertical load carried by the raft ranges from 10% to 50%
according to pervious parameters. In addition, considering the building stiffness as a part
of piled- raft-soil 3interaction leads to relatively increase in the vertical load carried by
raft by about 12%.

KEYWORDS
Piled raft foundation; load-carrying ratio by the raft and pile; building stiffness; Messe-
Torhaus building; Abaqus 3D; settlement.

1 INTRODUCTION
Piled raft system was extensively used in civil projects to prevent excessive settlements.
Davis and Poulos (1972) [1] were the first researchers who introduced the pile raft system
mechanism. Early studies described the performance of piled raft systems under vertical
load. All researchers observed that there was redistribution of total load between the raft
and pile dependent on many factors. The sharing percentage of total load between the pile
and the raft was almost not constant as was reported in many previous researches. The
most numerical approaches conducted in the analysis of piled raft system were conducted
by Simplified Winkler, 3D finite element (FEM), and finite difference (FDM).

However, most of the high rise buildings in the studies were subjected to service load
(Dead load+Live load) only by applying the elasticity theory neglecting the effect of
earthquake. While, limited studies investigated the load sharing mechanism between pile
and raft under earthquake and vertical load. Since the piled raft-soil interaction under
earthquakes is complex, it needs advanced finite element program.

Early effort was executed by Dongmei et al. (2004) [2], ESlami et al., (2011) [3],
Azizkandi et al. (2013) [4], and Mohd et al. (2014) [5] to quantify seismic response of a
soil-pile foundation system. Also, by monitoring the behaviour of combined piled raft
system, Yamashita et al. (2012) [6] recorded the axial load and bending moment of piles
after the earthquake of Tohoku earthquake.

The aim of the present study is to develop a better understanding of the behavior of raft
supported on large pile diameter by studying the effect of different aspects related to pile
configuration, raft thickness and pile spacing and hence contribute to the design and
analysis of such piles. This can be investigated through carrying parametric studies using
a calibrated finite element modeling (Abaqus program)[7]. Further analysis in this
approach, is developing a hypothetical model to consider the effect of existing the super
structure on the behavior of piled raft foundation in terms of settlement, lateral
displacement and the percentage of axial load carried by each element in the combined
piled raft system (CPRS).

2 CASE HISTORY
The Messe-Torhaus building in Germany was constructed during 1982–1984 on piled
raft. The behavior of the piled raft was carefully monitored by a geotechnical
measurement program. The measured settlement and developed load in raft and pile were
reported by Sommer et al. (1985) [8]. The piled raft dimension as well as piles length and
spacing are shown in Figure (1) (Reul, O & Randolph, M.F., 2003) [9].

3 NUMERICAL MODELLING PROCESS

The performance of piled raft under vertical load was investigated using Abaqus finite
element. Figure (2) shows 3D finite different grids used in the numerical analyses. All the
soils, and pile foundation were modelled using 20-noded continuum solid element. Due
to loading and the shape/geometry of the structure and also the soil beneath the foundation
only quarter of the foundation was taken into account and the center of the model
foundation was placed in alignment with the X&Y-axis as shown in Figure (2). The rear
boundaries along, X, Y, and Z directions are 2.9 B, 2 L, and 3.85 Lp respectively. The
base of the domain is fully fixed, and the lateral sides are constrained by vertical rollers.
The model boundary conditions were determined concerning its effect on the pile cap. In
general, the process of building loading was modelled by specifying the initial conditions
which were set up for the model before activation of pile raft. The initial condition was
sustained by considering the distribution of effective vertical and horizontal stress (using
coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko=0.8). After the initial conditions were completed,
the raft and its connected piles were simulated. In this stage, building loads were
calculated as 466 kN/m2 in the direction of gravity and applied as a uniform load.

FIG. (1): Plan and cross section views of Combined piled raft of Messe-Torhaus
building (after Reul, O & Randolph, M.F., 2003).

FIG. 2: 3-D Finite Element model of the piled raft foundation of Case 1 in Abaqus.

4 MATERIAL CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING

The soil constitutive behaviour was assigned employing the elastic-perfectly plastic
Mohr-Coulomb model while, piles elements, and pile caps elements were characterized
as elastic elements with different elastic properties to account for the different stiffness
of the these elements. Table (1) summarizes the estimated ground geotechnical
parameters required for updating the numerical modelling (Nurullah ,2013) [10]
 Table (1): Soil properties of foundation layer under Messe-Torhaus Building after
Nurullah (2013)

Quaternary sand
Parameter Frankfurt clay Raft Pile
and gravel
Material model Linear Linear
Mohr- Coulomb Mohr- Coulomb
isotropic isotropic
Unsaturated unit
- 11 25 -
weight (kN/m3)
Saturated unit
20 19 - 25
weight (kN/m3)
Young’s modulus 45000
45241 3.7X107 2.35 x107
(kN/m2)
Young’s modulus
increment 1545 0 - -
(kN/m2/m)
Cohesion (kN/m2) 100 0.0001 -
Friction angle 20 35 - -
Poisson's ratio 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2
Lateral pressure
0.8 0.426 - -
coefficient
Thickness 94.5 m under 5.5 m underground 2.5m 0.9m
Quaternary layer surface

5 RESULTS
The maximum settlement of the piled raft and the proportion of axial force carried by the
raft and pile are represented in Figures (3&4). It can be seen that there is no significant
difference between the numerical and measured results. This indicates the capability of
the proposed numerical model in simulation pile-raft-soil interaction.

FIG. 3. Predicted and measured settlement FIG. 4. The percentage of induced VL.
(mm). Load/Applied VL. load sharing by raft and
pile.
6 PILED RAFT SYSTEM UNDER THE EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKE
The main objective of this research is to evaluate the effect of earthquake on the behaviour
of combined piled raft system (CPRS). Many interrelated factors are arising in such
complicated problems and discussed in the following section through a series of
parametric studies. The Messe-Torhaus building is utilized in the analysis under the effect
of combined loading of a real earthquake loading (El-Centro acceleration) and the
existing service load. Figure (5) shows the time history of El-Cento earthquake which is
applied in lateral direction. The boundary condition in this model in X- direction is
utilized using dashpot springs and equivalent horizontal effective stresses (EL-Slami et
al. 2011) [3].

The bottom boundary of the model is a constraint inhibiting in y and Z directions. The
earthquake is considered as acceleration acting on the base of the model. This semi-
infinite medium is equivalent to dampers and stiffeners as shown in Figure (6).

FIG. 5. Input acceleration of earthquake loading of El-Centro earthquake.

Dashpot springs

El-Centro Earthquake

FIG. 6: Schematic illustration of finite element modelling of piled raft.

7 PARAMETRIC STUDY
The case studies are only limited to specific range of raft-pile configurations, loading type
and specific pile spacing. Further studies of the problem outside the range of results of
case studies is still recommended. To overcome the limitation of results obtained from
back analysis of the case study, a set of parametric studies were performed to investigate
many factors affecting the raft-soil-pile interactions. The parametric study of the present
work is concerned with the interrelated factors affecting the ground-raft-piling interaction
such as; piles configuration, piled raft thickness, pile spacing to diameter ratio, and the
building stiffness. However, the building stiffness was investigated using a hypothetical
pile foundation.

7.1 Pile length

The effect of pile length on behavior of (CPRS) in terms of axial load sharing between
the pile and raft and bending moment induced along pile shaft were examined. Three pile
lengths are considered in this analysis (Lp= 15m, Lp=20m, and Lp=25m) to study their
effect on the behavior of combined piled raft system (CPRS) as shown in Figure (7). The
pile spacing was the same as that used in the verified model. The eccentric loading is clear
in Figure (8) which outlines a comparison between the axial forces induced on all piles
with respect to different pile length. It can be seen that the edge piles (TP3, TP4, and TP5)
carry large part of the axial load more than that of the developed in the middle piles (TP1,
TP2, and TP6). Meanwhile, Lin et al. (2016) [10] revealed that piles near raft center carry
higher percentage loading than those adjacent to raft edge due to raft area which the piles
share loading with.

FIG. 7: The assigned pile length used in parametric study.

 FIG. 8: Developing of Axial force in edge, and middle pile according to pile length.

Figure (9), illustrates the associated axial load in pile as ratio of applied service load.
Also, it can be observed that the percentage of load carried by the pile decreases in case
of long pile (Lp=25m) and short pile (Lp=15m) more than that developed in the optimum
case (Lp=20m). This behavior can be attributed to the increase in stress condition in soil
and consequence ground movement around the pile causing an increase in pile friction
resistance depending on pile length. This skin friction is clear especially along the upper
part of pile. Thus, the skin friction exceeded its peak value in case of Lp=20m while for
longer pile, the skin friction not developed by its whole value. Therefore the induced axial
force along pile shaft of length 20m exceeded that of long pile by about 30%. It is clearly
observed that the allowable pile capacity is 1.2 times applied vertical load. However, in
case of short pile (Lp=15m), the skin friction is small enough to transfer the applied load
to surrounding soil. So, the induced vertical load is less than that developed in other two
cases. Consequently, the major part of applied load is transfeered to soil beneath the pile
tip or piled raft by bearing ( as shown in Figure (11)) while for the case of long pile
(Lp=25m) the whole load is transferred to the soil safely by friction.. In this case a better
deign could be achieved using long pile. Indeed it must be mentioned, that for pile length
(Lp=15&Lp=20m) there is extreme load carried by the pile shaft and the soil beneath pile
tips, that may be considered unsafe.

Moreover, by increasing the length of the pile, it was observed that the average induced
stresses along raft width decreased by about 60 % of that developed in the other two cases
as shown in Figure (10). From economic view, this decreasing in raft stress decreases the
reinforcement needed to raft. Also, it can be seen that long pile leads to almost constant
stress along raft width.

FIG. 9: The percentage of axial force shared by the pile for different pile lengths.
 FIG. 10: The induced stresses along raft width.
The final developed bending moment distribution along pile shaft for different pile
lengths are demonstrated in Figure (11). The maximum bending moment occurs at the
top of the pile and decreases as the pile length decreases. Azizkandi et al. (2013) [4]
documented the same results. The analyses indicate that the developed bending moment
was critical under mentioned load when the pile length is 25m. The induced bending
moment are likely to pose a major problem when the pile length is 25m. Nevertheless,
axial force is not a problem when the pile length (Lp) equals 25m.

Lp =15m
Lp=20m
Lp=25m

FIG. 11: The final bending moment carried by the pile for different pile length.
7.2 Piled raft thickness
The piled raft behaviours were investigated using three thicknesses of 2m, 2.5m, and 3m.
The pile length and diameter are 20m and 0.9m respectively. Figure (12) shows the
variation of the percentage of axial load induced in the raft and pile as a ratio of the
effective vertical load. It can be seen that the rigid raft (tp=3.0m) reduces the developed
load on it by about 10% less than that induced in the other two cases leading to a small
amount of load transferred to the foundation soil. Also there is no significant difference
between the values of vertical load developed in pile and raft in both flexible (tp=2m) and
optimum cases (tp=2.5m). This can be attributed to large deformation associated in
flexible raft which yields strong contact with subsoil resulting in increased load carried
by the raft.

FIG. 12: The percentage of axial force shared by the raft and pile for different raft

Thickness.
Figures (13 &14) show the lateral displacement and acceleration of piled raft system. It
can be seen that a minimum values of horizontal displacements (about 16% reduction)
and acceleration (about 45% reduction) were developed in case of rigid raft(tp=3m)
when it is compared to the same values developed in the optimum case (tp=2.5m). Also,
the maximum acceleration induced in the top of rigid raft (3.0 m/sec2) is less than that of
earthquake (3.2 m/sec2), while there is amplification in acceleration optimum and flexible
case (4.2 m/sec2). Hence, the rigid raft interaction with soil in the piled raft system is
better dissipation system of high frequencies of the earthquake.

16 % reduction in case of
thick raft

FIG. 13: The top lateral displacement of piled raft for different raft thickness.
 FIG. 14: Acceleration of piled raft for different raft thickness.

Figure (15) illustrates the associated computed lateral deflection of edge pile according
to the prescribed conditions of raft thickness. The lateral deflection of the edge piles is
maximum at the top and decreases with the depth. Moreover, the rigid raft decreases the
lateral displacement of edge pile by about 27% of that induced in flexible or optimum raft
as shown in Figure (16). The assignment of rigid raft in the global stiffness of the system
results in a more realistic lateral piles. To conclude, increasing the raft thickness is the
better method in resisting the high earthquake acceleration.

FIG. 15: The final induced lateral displacement according to raft thickness.
7.3 Pile spacing to pile diameter (S/D)
The Effects of pile spacing ratios are studied using various spacing of 3D, 4D, and 6D.
The higher stiffness of piled raft system is the main factor in decreasing the lateral
displacement of piled raft which is clear in case of closely spacing of pile group, as shown
in Figure (16). This lateral displacement is the maximum value computed during the time
of earthquake.
Figure (18) outlines the axial force shared between piles and raft associated with the
settlement of (CPRS). It is realistic that the settlement of piles are the same as that of its
connected raft. The settlement of (CPRS) increases slightly first as the S/D ratio increases
and then smoothly increases leading to increase axial force carried by the pile. These
results agrees with that founded by Dongmei et al., (2004) [2] and Azizkandi et al. (2013)
[4].

By looking closely to the distribution of the total axial force between the raft and the piles
in Figure (17), it can be noticed that the peak percentage of the loads carried by the raft
are about 50 % which are clear in case (S/D=4) and (S/D=6) irrespective the pile spacing.
Accordingly, foundation soil beneath the raft carries about 50% of the total load as result
of bearing process between raft and soil. This increasing in the part of load carried by the
raft leads to decreasing the number of piles needed. By comparing the axial force carried
by pile for different cases of pile spacing, it can be noticed that increasing pile spacing
leads to increase the axil load carried by the pile. This can be attributed to decrease the
grouping actions between piles for large values of pile spacing.

FIG. 16: The top lateral displacement of piled raft for different (S/D ratio).

FIG. 17: The settlement and the percentage of axial force shared by (CPRS) for
different (S/D ratio).
Figure (18), demonstrates a comparison between the developed moments along pile shaft
with respect to the three cases of pile spacing. It can be observed that increasing the
interaction between piles decreases the bending moment developed along the pile shaft.
The bending moment values in all cases of pile spacing are maximum at the top and
decreases with depth. The trend of the bending moment is in good agreement with the
results obtained by (Eslami et al., 2011) [3]. The bending moment induced along pile
shaft in case of (S/D=3) is less than that induced in case of (S/D=6) by about 46%.

FIG. 18: The Bending moment carried by the pile for different pile spacing.

7.4 Building stiffness

The effect of building stiffness in raft-soil-pile interaction is very complex because there
is an important interplay between the component of building structure, pile, raft and the
soil. To evaluate the effect of the stiffness of the superstructure on the percentage of load
carried by raft and piles, a hypothetical model is utilized in the numerical modelling. In
addition, the ground boundary conditions and soil profile are as the same as that use in
the calibrated model use early in parametric study. The building structural elements
(slabs, columns, and raft) were simulated using 8-nodes brick linear element. The two
identical buildings stiffness is computed considering 8 and 10 stories. The two buildings
are subjected to same earthquake time history as that used in previous analysis.
Figures ( 19 & 20 ) outline the vertical displacement and lateral displacement measured
at the top of raft. It can be observed that the existing of building stiffness increases
relatively the vertical and lateral displacement of piled raft system more than that induced
in the case of neglecting the effect of 8-floor and 10-floor building stiffness. Also, it can
be observed in Figure (19) that the building stiffness redistributes the settlement causing
relatively non-uniform settlement. The non-uniformity in settlement can be seen clearly
in case of 10-floors building where the settlement increases in middle pile more than edge
one while, piles exhibits almost the same settlement in case of excluding building
stiffness.

FIG. 19: pile vertical displacements according to the considering and non considering
building stiffness.

FIG. 20: Lateral displacement of piled raft system according to building stiffness.

On other hand, Figure (21) represents the soil settlement at different distance. It is realistic
that the soil settlement increases as much as going far away from the earthquake action
plan, and the ground displacement at the depth of 3.5 m is approximately equal to the
foundation settlement. By looking closely into the values of settlement before and after
earthquake, the raft settlement after earthquake is increased by about 3mm from pre-
earthquake value as result of increasing load on CPRS from seismic cyclic loading and
rotation moment of building. Yamashita et al. (2014) [12] reached to the same results by
reporting the field measurement of Hadron Experimental Hall building in Japan.

Figure (22) illustrate the time-dependent ratio of the load carried by the pile and raft to
the effective service load in both cases of considering and non-considering building
stiffness. It can be observed that the pile and raft sharing load increased by about 10%
after earthquake. On other hand, it can be seen that in case including the building stiffness
the load induced in piles decreases by about 15% relative to that induced in the case
excluding building stiffness. Contrary to the load carrying by the pile, the raft percentage
load was increased by about 12% more than that developed in the case neglecting the
effect of building stiffness. Consequently, the weak foundation soil beneath raft may be
subjected to excessive settlement and shear failure. Mohd et al., (2014) [5] documented
the same result.
Also, by comparing the axial force ratio carried by pile induced, it can be noticed that the
load sharing by the pile decreases as the building load increases and vice versa in case of
part of load sharing by raft. This can be attributed to increase skin friction along the upper
part of pile as the building load increases from vertical cyclic loading.

FIG. 21: The ground vertical displacement below the raft.

10% increase in pile

&raft load after EQ.

Fig. 22: Time dependent load sharing of total load among piles, and raft.
8 CONCLUSION
The conventional design of the piled- raft foundation usually ignores the contribution of
load carried by the raft. It makes engineers over design in the piled-raft foundation. This
article attempts to understand the complex interaction between the large piles, raft and
soil under vertical load and earthquake via series of parametric study using finite element
program Abaqus. The capability of the proposed numerical model to update the soil-pile-
raft interaction is validated by comparing the measured data collected from Messe-
Torhaus Building constructed on two separated piled raft under vertical load only. Based
on the results of the parametric study, the following may be concluded to determine the
optimum parameters enhancing the piled raft system behaviour of seismic and service
load:
 The settlement and axial load carried by the piled raft system increases slightly
after earthquake than the pre-earthquake value.
 The percentage of load carried by the raft is ranging from 10% to 50%
depending on various parameters studied in this paper such as pile
configuration, pile spacing, raft thickness, and building stiffness.
 There is direct correlation between the building stiffness and the sharing load
carried by the raft leading to increase both the settlement and the part of load
carried by the raft. Accordingly, further studies are needed to check the
capability of foundation soil beneath raft to bear the transferred load from it
safely.
 Increasing pile length as well as raft thickness are most suitable method in
dissipation seismic load through the friction mechanism between soil and pile.
Despite that large bending moment is observed as the pile length increases.
 Lateral displacement, axial load, and bending moment of piled raft system
subjected to earthquake increases as the (S/D) ratio increases that may causes
shear failure of soil around pile tips or cracks in pile shaft as a result of
singularity action of pile under the applied load. So, it is recommended to avoid
increasing the (S/D) more than four.
 It is recommended to include the building stiffness as part of piled raft system
due to its role in redistributing the earthquake load between raft and piles.
 Increasing the part of axial load carried by the raft leads to decreasing the
number of piles required. While the soil beneath raft may be subjected to shear
failure.

9 REFERNCES
[1] Davis, E. and H. Poulos [1972]. "The analysis of piled raft systems." J. of
Australia Geotechnique, vol. 2(1): p.p.21-27.

[2] Dongmei CHU, and Kevin Z. T. (2004) “Effects of pile foundation configurations
in seismic soil-pile-structure interaction” 13th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 1551
[3] Eslamia, M.M., A. Aminikhahb, M.M. Ahmadib, (2011). “A comparative study
on pile group and piled raft foundations (PRF) behavior under seismic loading” J.
of Computational Methods in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2, P.P. 185-199

[4] Azizkandi, A. S., Maali, T., and Baziar, H.M. (2013) “Response of Piled Raft
Foundation on Soft Clay Under Seismic Load” 7 thInternational Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 26.

[5] Mohd, A., Mahmoud, H. M., Javed, M., and Mohd, A. (2014) “3D-Analysis of
Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction in Layered Soil” Open Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol. 4, p.p. 373-385

[6] Yamashita, K., Hamada, J., Onimaru, S. and Higashino, M.". (2012) “Seismic
behavior of piled raft with ground improvement supporting a base-isolated
building on soft ground in Tokyo” J. of Soils and Foundations, Japan, vol. 52(5),
p.p. 1001-1015

[7] Hibbitt, Karlsson& Sorensen, Inc (20162). ABAQUS User’s manual, Version
2016

[8] Sommer H, Wittmann P, Ripper P. Piled raft foundation of a tall building in

Frankfurt clay. In: Proc 11th int conf soil mechanics foundation engineering, San
Francisco, 1985. p. 2253–57.

[9] Reul, O., & Randolph, M.F. (2003). “Piled rafts in over consolidated clay
comparison of in situ measurements and numerical analyses”. Gêotechnique 53,
No. 3, p.p.301–315.

[10] Nurullah, S. (2013). “A Study on design of piled raft foundation systems” M.S.
thesis, Middle East Technical University

[11] Lin, D. G., Wen, T. L., and Jui,C. C. (2016) “Load transfer and deformation
analyses of piled-raft foundation in taipei metropolitan” J. of Marine Science and
Technology, Vol. 24, No. 4.

[12] Yamashita, K, Hamada, J., Wakai, S., and Tanikawa, T. (2014) “Settlement and
load Sharing behavior of Piled Raft Foundations based on Long-Term
Monitoring” technical research report No.70.