Case Study

Lessons Learned from Field Monitoring of Instrumented

Piled-Raft Bearing in Rock Layer
Yanghoon Roh 1; Garam Kim 2; Incheol Kim 3; Jinoh Kim 4; Sangseom Jeong, M.ASCE 5; and Junhwan Lee 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Piled rafts are increasingly used for various structures due to the enhanced load-carrying capabilities of raft and piles combined as
a single structural unit. In this study, an experimental testing program using a full-scale, fully instrumented piled raft was established and field
monitoring was carried out. Test results from the field monitoring were presented and analyzed. It was found that various factors affected the
measured load-carrying behavior of the piled raft, including those that were not identified and considered in the design. The measured
load-transfer curves of the piles showed an increase in axial load with depth within the upper soil zone, which was different from those
assumed in the design and commonly observed from axially loaded piles. Factors that contributed to such unusual load-carrying behavior
were the subsoil-layer condition, design modification, and the adequacy of the construction procedure. Results from the finite-element analy-
sis confirmed that inclined soil-layer and loading conditions could cause loads that became unevenly and asymmetrically distributed on piles
of an axially loaded piled raft with variations in the load-transfer relationship. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002078. © 2019
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Piled rafts; Field load tests; Field monitoring; Load-carrying capacity; Settlement; Load-sharing ratio.

Introduction
Piled rafts are increasingly used for larger and taller structures as an
optimized foundation type with improved load-carrying behavior.
Loads imposed on a piled raft are transmitted to a shallow soil layer
through the raft and to deeper bearing strata through piles, involv-
ing larger soil masses into the load-carrying process. The distinc-
tive advantages of piled rafts include the enhanced load-carrying
capability that results from combining raft and piles as a single
structural unit and the effect of reduced settlement (Horikoshi and
Randolph 1998; Katzenbach et al. 2000; Conte et al. 2003; de
Sanctis and Mandolini 2006). Interactions occur between the piles
and raft of a piled raft due to the overlapped stress and displacement
fields of the piles and raft within soil (Katzenbach et al. 2000).
1
Project Engineer, Dohwa Engineering Co. Ltd., 438 Samseong-ro,
Gangnam-gu 06178, South Korea; Research Assistant, School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei Univ., 50, Yonsei-ro,
Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea. Email: thotho406@
naver.com
2
Research Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Yonsei Univ., 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of
Korea. Email: mil4u@yonsei.ac.kr
3
Research Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Yonsei Univ., 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of
Korea. Email: skah3000@yonsei.ac.kr
4
Research Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Yonsei Univ., 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of
Korea. Email: cube@yonsei.ac.kr
5
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei
Univ., 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.
Email: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr
6
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei
Univ., 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea
(corresponding author). Email: junlee@yonsei.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 20, 2018; approved on
January 31, 2019; published online on June 11, 2019. Discussion period
open until November 11, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
The interactions can be beneficial for the load capacity if raft pres-
sure on a piled raft increases the confining stress within soil leading
to an increase in the skin friction of the piles (Park and Lee 2015).
The experimental testing program has been frequently adopted
to investigate the load-carrying behavior of piled rafts (Cooke et al.
1981; Liu et al. 1985; Horikoshi and Randolph 1996; Conte et al.
2003; Park and Lee 2015). Because of the large-scale and com-
bined nature of piled-raft foundations, the majority of experimental
investigations have been done using small-scale model tests while
fewer cases were reported for full-scale, fully instrumented piled
rafts (O’Neill et al. 1996; Katzenbach et al. 2000; Poulos 2001;
Reul and Randolph 2003). Cooke et al. (1981) conducted a
full-scale field load test on piled rafts installed with friction piles
supporting a 16-story apartment building and analyzed the load-
settlement relationship. Yamashita et al. (2011) investigated the
load-sharing behavior of piled rafts for a structure constructed in
soft soil and reported that the load-sharing ratio increased from
0.61 to 0.93 as the construction progressed. Yamashita et al. (2012)
later presented the seismic performance of piled rafts addressing
soil–pile–structure interactions.
Analytical, numerical simulations have also been frequently
adopted to investigate the load-carrying behavior of piled rafts
(Poulos 2001; Reul and Randolph 2004; Lee et al. 2015). In this
approach, sublayer condition and structural configuration are
generally simplified, prepared as design-oriented geometry and
soil-profile conditions. Therefore, results from the analytical sim-
ulations may not be always consistent with actual load responses
observed from the field due to various unidentified, unexpected fac-
tors that are often encountered during construction. It is also noted
that field measurements provide effective and valuable information
when the boundary condition is known and properly defined.
In this study, an experimental testing program for a full-scale,
fully instrumented piled raft was established and load test was
conducted. The load response and load-carrying behavior of the
test piled raft were monitored throughout the entire construction
and postconstruction periods. The magnitudes of imposed load,
the load-settlement relationship of the foundation, the load-transfer
relationship of the piles, and the load-sharing behavior of the piled

© ASCE 05019005-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 raft were all measured and analyzed. The finite-element (FE) analy-
sis was performed to further investigate the load response measured
from the test piled raft.
Load-Carrying Behavior of Piled Rafts
Load-Carrying Mechanism
The load-carrying mechanism of piled rafts is the result of the com-
bined load responses of raft and piles and the interactions between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
them (Horikoshi and Randolph 1998; Katzenbach et al. 2000; de
Sanctis and Mandolini 2006; Jeong et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2015).
The load-carrying capacity of piled rafts can be expressed as a func-
tion of those of raft and piles and is given as follows:
Qpr ¼ Qr þ Qp ð1Þ
where Qpr , Qr , and Qp = load capacities of piled raft, raft, and
piles, respectively. Qr and Qp in Eq. (1) differ from those of un-
piled rafts and group piles due to the combined characteristics and
interactions of piled rafts. Introducing the interaction effects
between raft and piles, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
Qpr ¼ ηr · Qur þ ηp · Qgp ¼ ηr · Qur þ ηp · ðχg · ΣQsp Þ ð2Þ
where Qur , Qgp , and Qsp = load-carrying capacities of unpiled
rafts, group piles, and single pile, respectively; ηr and ηp =
pile-to-raft and raft-to-pile interaction factors, respectively; and
χg = pile group effect factor.
The piled-raft interaction factors ηr and ηp represent the differ-
ences between raft and pile load capacities, respectively, when they
are isolated and when they are combined. ηr is smaller than unity in
sandy soils as the skin friction along piles causes downward move-
ment of surrounding soils, leading to a decrease in the contact pres-
sure between raft and underlying soil (Fioravante and Giretti 2010;
Park and Lee 2015). ηp can be greater than unity if raft pressure
increases the confining stress within the soil that would in turn
result in an increase in the pile skin friction (Franke et al. 2000).
ηp becomes smaller than unity if the pile skin friction is lower due
to decreasing relative displacement between piles and surrounding
soil with downward soil movement (Han and Ye 2006).
Load-Sharing Ratio
Load-sharing phenomenon is a unique characteristic of piled rafts,
which arises due to the combined structural system of raft and piles.
The load-sharing behavior of piled rafts can be quantified using the
load-sharing ratio, which is the portion of the total load on the piled
raft to that carried by piles. It is expressed as
Qp
αp ¼ ð3Þ
Qpr
where αp = load-sharing ratio; Qp = load carried by the piles; and
Qpr = total load imposed on the piled raft. The values of αp equal to
0 and 1 correspond to the conditions of shallow foundation and
group piles, respectively. Clancy and Randolph (1996) proposed
the following equation of αp as a function of raft and pile stiffness:
ð1 − irp Þkr
αp ¼ 1 − ð4Þ
kp þ ð1 − 2irp Þkr
where kr and kp = stiffness of raft and piles derived from load-
settlement curves; and irp = raft–pile interaction factor. Eq. (4)
indicates that αp increases with decreasing kr and increasing kp .
© ASCE 05019005-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005
The load-sharing behavior of piled rafts varies with settlement
as raft and piles have different load responses. Lee et al. (2015)
proposed the following normalized load-sharing model to charac-
terize the settlement-dependent variation of αp :
1
αp ¼ h i ð5Þ
ap ·λB þbp ·ðs=Br Þ
ðβ · ξÞ · ar þbr ·ðs=Br Þ þ1
where β = load capacity interaction factor; ξ = load capacity ratio
of unpiled rafts to grouped piles ¼ Qur =Qgp ; ar , br , ap ,
and bp ¼ 0.02, 0.8, 0.01, and 0.9, respectively; s = settlement;
Br and Bp = raft width and pile diameter, respectively; and
λB ¼ Bp =Br . The model parameters ar , br , ap , and bp represent
the functional properties of the normalized load-settlement curves
of the raft and piles, where the subscripts r and p indicate raft and
piles, respectively. According to Eq. (5), αp decreases nonlinearly
as settlement increases with increasing raft load.
Field Monitoring Program of Piled Raft
Test Site and Soil Condition
Piled rafts were used for the construction of 10-story steel-framed,
reinforced concrete building that was 41.4 m tall. The test struc-
ture and foundations were instrumented and monitored through-
out the construction and postconstruction periods. Fig. 1 shows
the overview of the test building structure, detailed configuration
of foundation components, and layout of piled rafts. A canopy
type of structural configuration was adopted for the test building
with open space above the test piled raft that was located on
the edge side of the building. Soil profiles and properties at the
test site were obtained from the four boreholes (NBH-1, NBH-2,
NBH-4, and NBH-5) shown in Fig. 1(c). Three piled rafts (SC1B,
SC2A, and SC3A) were installed along the edge side of the
building. The test piled raft, instrumented and monitored in this
study, was the center-located SC2A that was composed of five
piles.
The detailed soil profiles of the standard penetration test (SPT)
blow counts (NSPT ) from the SPTs, the shear and compression wave
velocities (V s and V p ), and the initial shear modulus (G0 ) at the test
site are shown in Fig. 2. The downhole tests using the shear and
compressive waves to obtain V s and V p were conducted at NBH-4
down to the depth of 30 m, which was deeper than for other bore-
holes. The SPT results in Fig. 2 were obtained from NBH-2.
Mixed-soil-layer conditions were observed from the top landfill
layer down to the hard-rock layers. The values of representative
soil properties at the test site are given in Table 1. According to
the initial ground survey and borehole data, the bottom of the
weathered-rock layer was observed at depths of 10.2, 12.0, and
8.9 m from NBH-1, NBH-2, and NBH-5, respectively. The bottom
of the soft-rock layer was observed at depths of 13.7, 20.0, and
18.0 m from NBH-1, NBH-2, and NBH-5, respectively. During
the pile installation, however, the top of the soft-rock layer was
found to be at the depth of approximately 23 m, which was quite
different from the initially estimated depth shown in Fig. 2. This
difference may imply that the bottom rock layer at the test area
was likely inclined.
Soils at the test site consisted of landfill layer with NSPT of
13–18 down to the depth of 3 m and a weathered residual soil layer
with NSPT of 18–50 down to the depth of 11 m. The weathered- and
soft-rock layers were then observed at depths of 6.1–7.4 m and
8.9–12.3 m, respectively. The 3-m landfill layer was classified
as silty sand (SM) with the internal friction angle (ϕ 0 ) of 31.2°,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

41.4 m
Test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
piled
raft
(a)
1.2 m SC1B
NBH-1
3.06 m
20.2 m
13.5 m
NBH-4
Fig. 1. Schematic view of test structure: (a) overview of test building structure; (b) configuration of foundation components; and (c) layout of
piled rafts.
unit weight (γ) of 18.1 kN=m3 , mean grain size (D50 ) of 0.38 mm,
and specific gravity (Gs ) of 2.66. The grain-size distribution of the
landfill is shown in Fig. 3. The uniaxial compression strengths of
the soft and hard rocks were 60.8 and 111.2 MPa, respectively,
obtained from the uniaxial compression tests. The total core re-
covery and rock quality designation were 81% and 30% for
the soft rock, and 100% and 72% for the hard-rock layer, respec-
tively. The permeability values of weathered-soil and weathered-
rock layers were 0.72×10−3 cm=s to 3.26×10−3 cm=s and 1.89 ×
10−5 cm=s to 4.64×10−5 cm=s, respectively. The groundwater
level (GWL) at the test site fluctuated between depths of 3.8
and 5.8 m depending on the season.
Installation of Test Foundation
The detailed configuration and instrumentation of the test piled
raft are shown in Fig. 4. The piles, designated as P1 through P5
in Fig. 4(b), were socketed into the soft-rock layer with a socket
length equal to 1 m, and symmetrically placed 0.9 m apart. The
column from the superstructure above the piled raft was a
double-walled steel structure constructed using larger outer and
smaller inner circular steel columns with the diameters and thick-
nesses of 0.609 and 0.006 m and 0.48 and 0.02 m, respectively.
The empty space between the inner and outer steel columns was
filled with concrete.
The test piled raft consisted of a square-shaped raft that was
3.06 m wide and 1.1 m thick and five steel pipe piles that
were 23-m long and had diameter and thickness of 0.508 and
0.014 m, respectively [Fig. 4(a)]. The piles were installed as
drilled-in-place steel piles which were placed in boreholes formed
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005
SC1B SC2A SC3A 1.1 m
Test
piled
raft
23.1 m
0.508 m
13.5 m 7.8 m
(b)
SC2A SC3A 2.1 m
NBH-2
19.2 m
7.8 m
NBH-5
(c)
by drilling down to the soft-rock layer. The diameter of the bore-
holes was 0.65 m. To fill the marginal spaces between the steel piles
and drilled boreholes, the grouting process with the gravity type
was carried out. Cement pastes were prepared with the water-
to-cement (w/c) ratio equal to 83%, which were then poured into
the spaces between the piles and boreholes. The integrity and
completeness of the grouting were not specifically checked after
the installation. However, as the w/c ratio was fairly high and
no particular problem was reported during the installation, it was
supposed that the grouting was carried out normally and the
space was fully filled with cement paste. This installation process
represented a nondisplacement, bored pile installation. The non-
displacement installation method using steel piles required less
curing time of concrete and could reduce the overall construction
time. The elastic modulus of the piles was 45.6 GPa, which was
obtained as an equivalent elastic modulus using the individual
elastic moduli and cross-sectional areas of steel pile and cement
paste filled between the steel pile and soil. Raft was formed on
top of the piles with the raft base placed 1.1 m below the ground
surface.
The initial design of the test structure assumed that all piled
rafts were installed individually as an isolated condition. However,
a design modification was later applied for the purpose of seismic
enhancement, where strip pedestals, shown in Fig. 4(b), that
were 1 m wide and 0.3 m thick were installed between neighbor-
ing piled rafts. Although the strip pedestals were not designed as
load-carrying components, they likely carried some of the load.
After 2 months from the installation of the piled rafts, columns
and upper steel frames for the superstructure were placed and
constructed.
05019005-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 NSPT Vs, Vp (km/sec) G0 (GPa)
NBH-1 NBH-2 NBH-5 0 20 40 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
Landfill
2.3 2.5 2.7 m Vs
Vp
Weathered
soil 6.0
7.5 7.5 m
Weathered 5
rock 10.2 8.9 m

Soft
rock
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Depth (m)
13.7 12.0

10

Hard
rock 15

18.0 m

20.0
20
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 2. Soil profiles at test site: (a) soil type; (b) SPT results; (c) elastic wave velocities (V p and V s ); and (d) initial shear elastic modulus (G0 ).

Table 1. Soil properties at test site construction sequence. 70 and 6 strain gauges were installed in
Type γ a
(kN=m3 ) V s (m=s) V p (m=s) G0 (MPa) qu (MPa) b pairs on the test piles and column, respectively, at vertical
distances shown in Fig. 4(a). The strain gauges for the piles were
Fill 18 157.9 520.1 45.6 — installed on the inner surfaces of the piles to prevent any damage
Weathered soil 19 299.2 756.5 176.9 —
Weathered rock 21 524.4 1,124.9 584.4 —
during grouting and other construction procedure. Loads imposed
Soft rock 23 733.4 1,364.9 1,253.5 60.8 on the piles were measured from the top strain gauges of the piles.
Hard rock 25 778.7 1,408.0 1,526.9 111.2 Total loads imposed on the test piled raft were measured and
a confirmed from the three pairs of strain gauges installed along
Unit weight.
b the column.
Uniaxial compression strength.
Settlements of the test piled raft during and after construction
were continuously measured using an optical level system. All
measurements were monitored periodically for 350 days from
100
the beginning of construction through the postconstruction period.
As the soils at the test site were granular, pore pressures developed
80 during the test were not specifically measured. A piezometer was,
however, installed at the test site to monitor changes in the GWL.
Percent finer (%)

60

Field Measurements and Monitoring Results

40

Load-Settlement Relationship
20
Column loads and settlements are plotted in Fig. 5 over the 350-day
monitoring period along with the building construction sequence.
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 While the construction ended after 236 days, field monitoring
Grain size (mm)
continued until the total period reached 350 days to characterize
the long-term performance of the test foundation under working
Fig. 3. Grain-size distribution of landfill layer at test site. load condition. The column loads in Fig. 5 represent the total loads
imposed on the test piled raft. The total loads increased gradually
according to the construction sequence and with increasing
building height. Settlement also increased gradually according to
Instrumentation of Test Piled Raft
the construction sequence and tended to converge with time. At
The test piled raft and column were instrumented to measure loads, Day 236 when the construction ended, settlement was 10.1 mm
stress distribution on piles, load-transfer relationship, load-sharing and slightly increased to 11.1 mm by the end of the monitoring
behavior between raft and piles, and settlements through the period of 350 days.

© ASCE 05019005-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 3.06 m

0.609 m

0.5 m Strain gauge

0.5 m
0.5 m
1.1 m RAFT
1m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Strain gauge
3m

3m Fig. 5. Measured total load on piled raft with time.

3m
23 m
10
Total load (Qt)
Pile Load (Qp)
5m 8
Qt-Qp

Load (MN)
6
5m

1m 4
(Rock socket)
0.508 m 0.9 m
2
(a)
0
3.06 m 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Settlement (mm)

Fig. 6. Load-settlement curves of piled raft and piles.

1m P1 P2 3.06 m
0.9 m
P5
piles for a piled raft is mobilized earlier at smaller settlement than
Strip 0.9 m
Strip that of raft that is mobilized later with further increase in settlement
Pedestal P3 P4 Pedestal due to the size difference of raft and piles. It is also noted that the
proportion of load carried by piles is quite low, equal to around 0.75
at the end of construction, considering that all piles were all socked
into the rock layer.
Strip
Pedestal
The unusual load responses of raft and piles and the low load-
carrying proportion of piles in Fig. 6 might be attributed to the strip
pedestals shown in Fig. 1, installed to enhance the seismic resis-
(b) tance by connecting and framing neighboring foundations, and
the rock-supported condition of the piles. It is likely that some
Fig. 4. Configuration of test piled raft: (a) detailed instrumentation; of loads imposed on the piled raft were transferred to the strip
and (b) geometry of test piled raft. pedestals after a certain settlement range where the strip pedestals
came into full contact with underlying soil. As the piles were em-
bedded into the bearing rock layer, yielding or failure was largely
unobserved and instead the piles were observed to carry increasing
Fig. 6 shows the load-settlement curves of the test piled raft and loads. These results were, however, not foreseen in the design stage
piles. Total and pile loads shown in Fig. 6 were those measured and would have remained undetected unless they were directly
directly from the strain gauges. The differences between the total monitored.
and pile loads, shown as the dashed line in Fig. 6, should be then
raft load. The load-settlement curve of the piled raft showed a typ-
ical load response shape commonly observed from axially loaded Compared Load Response of Piles
foundations with gradually increasing load and settlement. Pile The load-settlement curves of individual piles for the test piled raft
loads continuously increased throughout the entire settlement range are shown in Fig. 7. All of the loads shown in Fig. 7 are the pile-
while raft loads increased and then decreased slightly after a certain head loads measured from the top strain gauges of each pile. The
settlement range. This is somewhat unusual as the load capacity of loads of Piles 1 and 2 were unevenly and asymmetrically larger

© ASCE 05019005-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 3.0
Pile 1
Pile 2 1 2
2.5 5 solidation in progress or negative skin friction. The residual stress
Pile 3
Pile 4 3 4
2.0 Pile 5
Load (MN)
1.5
1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Settlement (mm)
Fig. 7. Load-settlement curves of piles for test piled raft.
than those of Piles 3, 4, and 5. This was unexpected and somewhat
different from what was considered in the original design, in which
a symmetrical, equal load distribution was assumed as for most of
vertically loaded piled rafts.
The uneven, asymmetrical load distribution on the piles was
likely due to the asymmetrically placed strip pedestals and the
structural configuration of the test building. Three strip pedestals
were installed on the sides of Piles 3 and 4 (Figs. 1 and 4), which
would lighten their load-carrying portions. The canopy-type build-
ing configuration and the location of the piled raft along the
building edge would have also contributed to the asymmetrically
higher loads on Piles 1 and 2. Pile 1 was observed to have carried
approximately 25% more load than Pile 2, likely due to the prox-
imity of the test piled raft SC2A to the neighboring piled raft
SC3A, closer than to SC1B (Fig. 1). As closely placed, loads
transferred from SC3A to SC2A through the strip pedestal were
larger than from SC1B, resulting in higher load portions on Pile 1
on the SC3A side.
Load-Transfer Relationship
The load-transfer curves of Piles 1–5 are plotted in Fig. 8.
Several unusual components of load response were observed from
these results, including the asymmetrical load distribution on the
piles as discussed previously, the end-bearing behavior of Pile 3,
and the abnormal load-transfer curve shape of Pile 4. Except for
Pile 3 in Fig. 8(c), loads transferred to the pile bases were neg-
ligible, indicating that most loads were carried through the pile
shaft. Pile 3 in Fig. 8(c) was seen to be end bearing, indicating
that no shaft resistance was mobilized above the rock-socket
zone. Readings from all strain gauges of Pile 3 were in the normal
range and did not indicate any signals of damage. The lack of
shaft resistance shown in Fig. 8(c) would be only possible for
piles embedded in extremely soft soil or those that had no contact
between the pile shaft and surrounding soil. As the soil at the
test site was far from the extremely soft condition, it is supposed
that this result was more likely due to the loss of contact along
the interface between the piles and soils, which may have been
caused possibly by certain installation problem or incomplete
grouting.
Increasing and decreasing load-transfer curve of Pile 4 in
Fig. 8(d) is somewhat erratic and not usually observed from axially
loaded piles. Such load-transfer behavior is often observed in
piles embedded in clays where negative skin friction is mobilized.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005
The upper soil layer at the test site was silty sand fill material under-
lain by a weathered-soil layer, none of which was the case of con-
caused by pile driving can also cause such an erratic load-transfer
curve (Cooke 1979). However, the piles for the test piled raft were
all prebored, nondisplacement piles where no driving process was
involved. Other possible reasons include a nonvertical loading con-
dition due to the canopy-type structural configuration described
previously and the inclined soil-layer condition at the test site,
which will be further analyzed.
Fig. 9 shows the depth profiles of the unit skin friction for
Piles 1–5. For the case of Pile 4, tensile strains were measured
within the upper soil zone near surface, given as the negative val-
12 ues in Fig. 9(d). As the chance of consolidating ground condition
at the test site is not likely, it was most likely attributed to an
inclined loading or subsoil-layer condition that would produce
uneven stress distribution within the piled raft. With the exception
of Pile 3, the shaft resistance was mobilized primarily within
the weathered-soil and weathered-rock layers at depths of 5–17 m.
The mobilized shaft resistance below the depth of 17 m was not
significant, indicating that loads transferred to the bearing rock
strata were small. For Pile 3, most loads were transferred directly
to the pile base.
Load-Sharing Ratio
Fig. 10 shows the load-sharing ratios (αp ) as a function of settle-
ment for the test piled raft. The values of αp were higher initially,
indicating that the piles carried more load, followed by a marked
decrease in αp . Continuous, marginal increases in αp were then
observed, which were somewhat different from the typical αp
variation. As the load capacity of smaller-diameter piles is mobi-
lized earlier, αp should decrease gradually with settlement as the
load-carrying capacity of raft becomes further mobilized. As dis-
cussed in Fig. 6, the unusual variation of αp in Fig. 10 can be attrib-
uted to the strip pedestals and the rock-supported condition of the
piles, all of which would cause continuously increasing pile load
capacity.
The field monitoring and measured results in this study revealed
that actual load response and load-carrying behavior of piled rafts
can differ significantly from those assumed in the design. Such
unexpected and unidentified load response would not be caught
and detected unless specifically addressed through a detailed field
monitoring program with full instrumentation. These results also
imply that changes in the safety margin can occur at any time, even
if no indication of such changes has been observed, which would
then result in violating the range of minimum safety margin
required and specified in the design.
Interpretative Analysis of Observed Load
Responses
Finite-Element Analysis
The FE analysis was performed to analyze the load responses
observed from the test piled raft. The commercial FE program
ABAQUS 6.13 was used for this purpose. The FE analysis focused
on the unsymmetrical, erratic load-transfer curves shown in Fig. 8.
For such load-transfer behavior of the piles, the inclined soil-layer
and inclined loading conditions due to the cantilever type of canopy
structure were adopted as key variables that were expected to affect
the load-transfer behavior of the piles. The inclined soil layer
was considered based on the inclined soil profile observed from
the boring data shown in Fig. 2.
05019005-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Fig. 11(a) shows the FE model prepared for simulating the piled
raft embedded in the inclined soil layer with inclined loading
condition. The column structure was included in the FE model
through which loads from the superstructure were applied. The
piled raft consisted of five piles, as in the test piled raft, with the
diameter (D) and length (L) equal to 0.508 and 23 m, respectively.
The width and depth of the FE model were 20 and 50 m, 39.4 and
2.17 times D and L, respectively. Piles in the FE analysis were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
assumed as nondisplacement piles as in the actual pile installation
for the experimental testing program. No densification of sur-
rounding soils due to pile driving was therefore considered in
the FE modeling. The piles were all socketed into the bottom rock
layer. Interface contact condition was defined and introduced be-
tween the piles and soils using the Coulomb friction model where
the interface friction angles (δ) were set equal to two-thirds the
soil and rock friction angles.

Axial force (MN) Axial force (MN)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0 0

5 5
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10 10

15 Q = 4.0 MN 15 Q = 4.0 MN
Q = 7.2 MN Q = 7.2 MN
20 Q = 8.2 MN 20 Q = 8.2 MN
Q = 8.4 MN Q = 8.4 MN
Q = 8.6 MN Q = 8.6 MN
25 25
(a) (b)

Axial force (MN) Axial force (MN)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0 0

5 5
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

10 10

15 Q = 4.0 MN 15
Q = 4.0 MN
Q = 7.2 MN Q = 7.2 MN
20 Q = 8.2 MN 20 Q = 8.2 MN
Q = 8.4 MN Q = 8.4 MN
Q = 8.6 MN Q = 8.6 MN
25 25
(c) (d)

Axial force (MN)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15 Q = 4.0 MN
Q = 7.2 MN
20 Q = 8.2 MN
Q = 8.4 MN
Q = 8.6 MN
25
(e)

Fig. 8. Load-transfer curves of pile components: (a) P1; (b) P2; (c) P3; (d) P4; and (e) P5.

© ASCE 05019005-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 Fig. 11(b) shows the modeling cases of the FE analysis consid-
ered in this study. To fully characterize the effects of assumed soil-
profile and loading conditions, noninclined horizontal and inclined
soil-layer conditions with axial and inclined loading conditions
were all considered in the FE analyses. The inclined loading con-
dition was achieved by applying horizontal and vertical loads on
the column where moment load was also generated. The piled raft
in the FE analysis was assumed as a linear-elastic material with the
elastic modulus (E) of 45.6 GPa and Poisson’s ratio (ν) of 0.3. As
shown in Fig. 11(b), a multilayer condition with two soil and rock
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
layers was assumed to represent more realistic soil-profile condi-
tion. The depths of soil 1, soil 2, rock 1, and rock 2 were 0–9, 9–14,
14–23, and 23–50 m, respectively. The inclined soil-layer condition
was considered as shown in Cases 3 and 4 in Fig. 11(b). The prop-
erties for each layer were adopted as typical values generally
acceptable because the main goal of the FE analyses was to analyze
the unusual load response of piled raft due to variables that are not
usually taken into account in actual design.
Detailed properties of soils and rocks assumed in the FE analy-
ses are given in Table 2. The values of E equal to 10 and 80 MPa for

Unit skin friction (kN/m2) Unit skin friction (kN/m2)

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
0 0

5 5

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

10 10

15 15

Q = 4.0 MN Q = 4.0 MN
20 20
Q = 8.2 MN Q = 8.2 MN
Q = 8.6 MN Q = 8.6 MN
25 25
(a) (b)

Unit skin friction (kN/m2 ) Unit skin friction (kN/m2)

0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0 0

5 5
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

10 10

15 15

Q = 4.0 MN
Q = 4.0 MN
20 20
Q = 8.2 MN Q = 8.2 MN

Q = 8.6 MN Q = 8.6 MN
25 25
(c) (d)

Unit skin friction (kN/m2 )

-50 0 50 100 150
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15

Q = 4.0 MN
20
Q = 8.2 MN
Q = 8.6 MN
25
(e)

Fig. 9. Depth profiles of unit skin friction: (a) P1; (b) P2; (c) P3; (d) P4; and (e) P5.

© ASCE 05019005-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 1.0 Soils 1 and 2 in Table 2 were those at the top of each soil layer,
respectively, and 50 and 110 MPa indicated those at the bottom of
0.8 each layer. The values of E within the soil layers were set to
increase linearly with depth. The values of E for the two bottom
rock layers were 1 and 40 GPa with ϕp0 values equal to 38° and 40°,
0.6 respectively.
p

0.4
Load Responses from FE Analysis
Figs. 12 and 13 show the load-transfer curves of the piles from the
0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FE analyses for Cases 1 and 2 with the horizontal soil layers and
Cases 3 and 4 with the inclined soil layers, both compared for
0.0 vertical and inclined loading conditions. In Fig. 12, the results for
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Piles 2 and 4 were not included as those were the same as for Piles 1
Settlement (mm) and 3, respectively. The results from Case 2 in Fig. 12 showed the
increasing and decreasing shape of load-transfer curves for all piles,
Fig. 10. Load-sharing ratio with settlement for test piled raft.
which was different from the actual field case in Fig. 8, where only

Soil 1: 9 m

Soil 2: 5 m

Rock 1: 9 m

Rock 2: 27 m

40 m
40 m

(a)

Q Q Q Q
(Case 2) (Case 1) (Case 4) (Case 3)

0.6 m 10 m 0.6 m 10 m

1m 1m 1.5 m
Soil 1 9m Soil 1
12.5 m 12.5 m
9m
Soil 2 23 m 5m Soil 2 23 m 6m

Rock 1 9m Rock 1 9m

Rock 2 1m 1m
27 m Rock 2 27 m
0.508 m 0.508 m

(b)

Fig. 11. Description of FE analyses: (a) FE model; and (b) considered cases in FE analyses.

© ASCE 05019005-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 Table 2. Soil and rock properties adopted in FE analyses Axial force (MN)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Type Depth (m) γ (kN=m3 ) E (MPa) ν ϕ 0 (degrees) δ (degrees) 0

Soil 1 0–9 18 10–50 0.3 28 18.7

Soil 2 9–14 19 80–110 0.3 30 20.0 5
Rock 1 14–23 21 1,000 0.3 38 25.3
Rock 2 23–50 23 40,000 0.25 40 26.7

Depth (m)
10
Pile 1

15
Case 1 - Q = 2MN
Piles 3 and 4 showed the abnormal load-transfer curves. The results Case 1 - Q = 6MN
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from Cases 3 and 4 in Fig. 13 showed that the load-transfer curves Case 1 - Q = 10MN
20
unsymmetrically distributed on the piles, which was more consis- Case 2 - Q = 2MN
Case 2 - Q = 6MN
tent with those results actually observed from the field monitoring.
Case 2 - Q = 10MN
The inclined loading condition in Case 4 produced clearer indica- 25
tion of the abnormal load-transfer curves. As the inclination of soil (a)
layer and applied load increased, the load-transfer curves showed
more noticeably increasing and decreasing shape. The load-sharing Axial force (MN)
ratio αp was evaluated for Case 4. It was seen that the values of 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
αp decreased gradually with settlement, as observed from typical
αp curves for piled rafts, and converged at 0.7. The values of αp
5
from the FE results were overall larger than the measured αp values
in Fig. 10.

Depth (m)
The compared FE results for the cases of Fig. 11(b) revealed that 10
Pile 3
the inclined soil-layer condition is key for the unsymmetrical
pile load distribution and the increasing and decreasing shape of 15
Case 1 - Q = 2MN
load-transfer curves. The condition of inclined load affected the Case 1 - Q = 6MN
magnitude of transferred loads while it was not the main compo- Case 1 - Q = 10MN
20
nent for the unsymmetrical pile load distribution. These results in- Case 2 - Q = 2MN
Case 2 - Q = 6MN
dicate that the load response and load-carrying behavior of piled
Case 2 - Q = 10MN
rafts are affected by various factors and can be largely different 25
(b)
from those anticipated and assumed in the design. Simplified,
idealized configurations of target structure and soil profile as well Axial force (MN)
as design modification would all contribute to unexpected load- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
carrying behavior of piled rafts observed in the field. 0

5
Summary and Conclusions
Depth (m)

10
Piled rafts are increasingly used as an optimized foundation type for Pile 5
large-scaled structures due to their enhanced load-carrying capabil-
ity. In this study, an experimental testing program for a full-scaled, 15
Case 1 - Q = 2MN
fully instrumented piled raft was established and field monitoring Case 1 - Q = 6MN
was carried out. The test piled raft was adopted for the construction Case 1 - Q = 10MN
20
Case 2 - Q = 2MN
of 10-story steel-framed, concrete building, which was tested and Case 2 - Q = 6MN
monitored through the construction and postconstruction period. Case 2 - Q = 10MN
25
Test results from the monitoring were presented and analyzed.
(c)
Increase in the total load imposed on the test piled raft was
consistent with the construction sequence as the story of building Fig. 12. Load-transfer curves of piles for Cases 1 and 2 from the FE
increased. Settlements increased gradually with construction se- analysis: (a) Pile 1; (b) Pile 3; and (c) Pile 5.
quence and converged after construction. At the end of construc-
tion, settlement was 10.1 mm and slightly increased to 11.1 mm
during the postconstruction period. Unusual load response was ob-
served from the load-settlement curves of the piled raft, showing be different from that considered and assumed in the design, due
continuously increasing pile loads, whereas raft loads increased to unforeseen variation in the subsoil condition, design modifi-
and then maintained. This was attributed to the strip pedestals, in- cation, and adequacy in construction procedure. The results from
troduced to enhance the seismic resistance, and the rock-supported the FE analyses revealed that the inclined soil-layer condition
condition of piles. Loads on the piles were distributed unevenly and was a key component that produced the unsymmetrical load dis-
unsymmetrically, in contrast to what is usually considered in the tribution on the piles and the increasing and decreasing shape
design. This was due to the installation of the strip pedestals, of load-transfer curves. The FE results confirmed that the load
the configuration of superstructure, and the position of test piled response and load-carrying behavior of piled rafts are affected
raft, all of which were not specifically taken into account in the by various factors, and simplified structural configuration, soil-
original design. profile condition, and design modification would all contribute
The measured load-transfer curves of the piles indicated that to unexpected, unusual load-carrying behavior of piled rafts ob-
the actual load-carrying behavior observed from the field could served in the field.

© ASCE 05019005-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 Axial force (MN)
Axial force (MN)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0 0

5 5

Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10 10
Pile 1 Pile 2

15 15
Case 3 - Q = 2MN Case 3 - Q = 2MN
Case 3 - Q = 6MN Case 3 - Q = 6MN
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Case 3 - Q = 10MN Case 3 - Q = 10MN

20 20 Case 4 - Q = 2MN
Case 4 - Q = 2MN
Case 4 - Q = 6MN Case 4 - Q = 6MN
Case 4 - Q = 10MN Case 4 - Q = 10MN
25 25
(a) (b)

Axial force (MN) Axial force (MN)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0 0

5 5

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

10 10
Pile 3 Pile 4

15 15 Case 3 - Q = 2MN
Case 3 - Q = 2MN
Case 3 - Q = 6MN Case 3 - Q = 6MN
Case 3 - Q = 10MN Case 3 - Q = 10MN
20 20 Case 4 - Q = 2MN
Case 4 - Q = 2MN
Case 4 - Q = 6MN Case 4 - Q = 6MN
Case 4 - Q = 10MN Case 4 - Q = 10MN
25 25
(c) (d)

Axial force (MN)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0

5
Depth (m)

10
Pile 5

15 Case 3 - Q = 2MN
Case 3 - Q = 6MN
Case 3 - Q = 10MN
20 Case 4 - Q = 2MN
Case 4 - Q = 6MN
Case 4 - Q = 10MN
25
(e)

Fig. 13. Load-transfer curves of piles for Cases 3 and 4 from the FE analysis: (a) Pile 1; (b) Pile 2; (c) Pile 3; (d) Pile 4; and (e) Pile 5.

Acknowledgments Conte, G., A. Mandolini, and M. F. Randolph. 2003. “Centrifuge mod-

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Tech-
nology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), the Ministry of Trade,
Industry & Energy (MOTIE), and the National Research Founda-
tion of Korea (NRF) of the Republic of Korea (Nos. 2011-0030040,
NRF-2016R1D1A1A09919098, and 20174030201480).
References
Clancy, P., and M. F. Randolph. 1996. “Simple design tools for piled raft
foundations.” Geotechnique 46 (2): 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1680
/geot.1996.46.2.313.
elling to investigate the performance of piled rafts.” In Proc., 4th
Int. Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger
Piles, edited by W. F. Van Impe, 359–366. Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Millpress.
Cooke, R. W. 1979. “Influence of residual installation forces on the stress
transfer and settlement under working loads of jacked and bored piles
in cohesive soils.” In Behavior of deep foundations, edited by
R. Lundgren, 231–249. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Cooke, R. W., D. W. Bryden-Smith, M. N. Gooch, and D. F. Sillett. 1981.
“Some observations of the foundation loading and settlement of a
multi-storey building on a piled raft foundation in London clay.” Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng. 70 (3): 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1981
.1783.

© ASCE 05019005-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005

 de Sanctis, L., and A. Mandolini. 2006. “Bearing capacity of piled rafts on
soft clay soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (12): 1600–1610.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1600).
Fioravante, V., and D. Giretti. 2010. “Contact versus noncontact piled raft
foundations.” Can. Geotech. J. 47 (11): 1271–1287. https://doi.org/10
.1139/T10-021.
Franke, E., Y. El-Mossallamy, and P. Wittmann. 2000. “Calculation methods
for raft foundations in Germany.” In Design applications of raft founda-
tions, edited by J. A. Hemsley, 282–322. London: Thomas Telford.
Han, J., and S. L. Ye. 2006. “A field study on the behavior of a foundation
underpinned by micropiles.” Can. Geotech. J. 43 (1): 30–42. https://doi
.org/10.1139/t05-087.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 09/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Horikoshi, K., and M. F. Randolph. 1996. “Centrifuge modelling of piled
raft foundations on clay.” Geotechnique 46 (4): 741–752. https://doi.org
/10.1680/geot.1996.46.4.741.
Horikoshi, K., and M. F. Randolph. 1998. “A contribution to the optimum
design of piled rafts.” Geotechnique 48 (3): 301–317. https://doi.org/10
.1680/geot.1998.48.3.301.
Jeong, S., H. Cho, J. Cho, H. Seol, and D. Lee. 2010. “Point bearing
stiffness and strength of socketted drilled shafts in Korean rocks.”
Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 47 (6): 983–995. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.05.002.
Katzenbach, R., U. Arslan, and C. Moormann. 2000. “Piled raft foundation
projects in Germany.” In Design applications of raft foundations, edited
by J. A. Hemsley, 323–391. London: Thomas Telford.
Lee, J., D. Park, D. Park, and K. Park. 2015. “Estimation of load-sharing
ratios for piled rafts in sands that includes interaction effects.” Comput.
Geotech. 63 (Jan): 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014
.10.014.
© ASCE 05019005-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(8): 05019005
Liu, J. L., Z. L. Yuan, and K. P. Shang. 1985. “Cap-pile-soil interaction of
bored pile groups.” In Vol. 3 of Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE), 1433–1436. Rotterdam,
Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
O’Neill, W., C. Townsend, M. Hassan, A. Buller, and S. Chan. 1996.
Drilled shafts in intermediate geomaterials. Rep. No. FHWA
RD-95/172.S. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Park, D., and J. Lee. 2015. “Interaction effects on load-bearing behavior of
piled rafts embedded in clay from centrifuge tests.” Can. Geotech. J.
52 (10): 1550–1561. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0336.
Poulos, H. G. 2001. “Piled raft foundations: Design and applications.”
Geotechnique 51 (2): 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.51.2.95
.40292.
Reul, O., and M. F. Randolph. 2003. “Piled rafts in overconsolidated clay:
Comparison of in-situ measurements and numerical analyses.” Geotech-
nique 53 (3): 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.3.301.
Reul, O., and M. F. Randolph. 2004. “Design strategies for piled rafts
subjected to nonuniform vertical loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 130 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)
130:1(1).
Yamashita, K., J. Hamada, S. Onimaru, and M. Higashino. 2012. “Seismic
behavior of piled raft with ground improvement supporting a base-
isolated building on soft ground in Tokyo.” Soils Found. 52 (5):
1000–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.017.
Yamashita, K., T. Yamada, and J. Hamada. 2011. “Investigation of
settlement and load sharing on piled rafts by monitoring full-scale
structures.” Soils Found. 51 (3): 513–532. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf
.51.513.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.