Open Access

3D Numerical Modeling of Large Piled-Raft Foundation on Clayey Soils for Different Loadings and Pile-Raft Configurations


Cite

Figure 1

(a) Typical finite element mesh used in the parametric study. (b) Plan view (quarter of the piled raft)
(a) Typical finite element mesh used in the parametric study. (b) Plan view (quarter of the piled raft)

Figure 2

A 10-node tetrahedral element (Brinkgreve et al. 2015)
A 10-node tetrahedral element (Brinkgreve et al. 2015)

Figure 3

Comparison of load settlement behavior of the present study with the results of Sinha and Hanna (2016)
Comparison of load settlement behavior of the present study with the results of Sinha and Hanna (2016)

Figure 4

(a) Location of column and (b) top view of pile-raft configurations
(a) Location of column and (b) top view of pile-raft configurations

Figure 5

Different configurations used in the parametric study: (a) load configurations (LCs) and (b) pile-raft configurations (PRCs)
Different configurations used in the parametric study: (a) load configurations (LCs) and (b) pile-raft configurations (PRCs)

Figure 6

Effect of pile spacing on the average settlement for different pile-raft configurations: (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay
Effect of pile spacing on the average settlement for different pile-raft configurations: (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay

Figure 7

Effect of pile spacing on differential settlement for different pile-raft configurations: (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay
Effect of pile spacing on differential settlement for different pile-raft configurations: (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay

Figure 8

Effect of pile spacing on load-sharing coefficient for different pile-raft configurations (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay
Effect of pile spacing on load-sharing coefficient for different pile-raft configurations (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay

Figure 9

Effect of pile spacing on maximum bending moment for different pile-raft configurations (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay
Effect of pile spacing on maximum bending moment for different pile-raft configurations (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay

Figure 10

Effect of pile spacing on maximum shear force for different pile-raft configurations (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay
Effect of pile spacing on maximum shear force for different pile-raft configurations (a) soft clay and (b) stiff clay

Figure 11

Combined effect of raft thickness and pile spacing on (a) average settlement and (b) differential settlement for PRC2 (c)
Combined effect of raft thickness and pile spacing on (a) average settlement and (b) differential settlement for PRC2 (c)

Figure 12

Combined effect of raft thickness and pile spacing on load-sharing coefficient for PRC2(c)
Combined effect of raft thickness and pile spacing on load-sharing coefficient for PRC2(c)

Figure 13

Combined effect of raft thickness and pile spacing on (a) maximum bending moment and (b) maximum shear force for PRC2(c)
Combined effect of raft thickness and pile spacing on (a) maximum bending moment and (b) maximum shear force for PRC2(c)

Figure 14

Effect of pile spacing on pile head settlement
Effect of pile spacing on pile head settlement

Figure 15

(a) Effect of pile spacing on pile axial load and (b) bending in different piles
(a) Effect of pile spacing on pile axial load and (b) bending in different piles

Figure 16

Effect of pile spacing on maximum bending moment in piles
Effect of pile spacing on maximum bending moment in piles

Material properties used in the validation (Sinha and Hanna 2016)

MaterialPropertiesUnitValue
SoilYoung’s modulus, EsMPa54
Poisson’s ratio, νs-0.15
Unit weight, γkPa19
Angle of internal friction, φ°20
RaftYoung’s modulus, ErGPa34
PileYoung’s modulus, EpGPa25
Poisson’s ratio, νp-0.2

Material properties used in the parametric analysis

MaterialPropertiesUnitValue
SoilUnsaturated unit weight, γunsatkN/m316
Young’s modulus, EsMPa25 (Soft clay)
82 (Stiff clay)
Poisson’s ratio, νs-0.495
Angle of internal friction, φ°0
Undrained cohesionkPa25 (Soft clay)
80 (Stiff clay)
RaftYoung’s modulus, ErGPa25
Poisson’s ratio, νr-0.25
PileYoung’s modulus, EpGPa25
Poisson’s ratio, νp-0.25

Pile lengths used for different pile-raft configurations

Name and no. of piles, NpPile length, Lp (m)
PRC with uniform pile lengthsPRC with “W”-shaped pile lengthsPRC with “V”-shaped pile lengths
P1 (1 pile)30L1W = 24.46L1V = 37.19
P2–P9 (8 piles)L2–9W = 1.1 L1W = 26.91L2–9V = L1V/1.1 = 33.81
P10–P25 (16 piles)L10–25W = 1.1 L2–9W = 29.60L10–25V = L2–9V/1.1 =30.74
P26–P49 (24 piles)L26–49W = 1.1 L10–25W = 32.56L26–49V = L10–25V/1.1 =27.94

Center and corner settlement for different pile-raft configurations at different pile spacings

Pile-raft configurationsPile spacing, Sp (m)Settlement in soft clay soil profile (mm)Settlement in stiff clay soil profile (mm)
WcenterWcornerWdiffWcenterWcornerWdiff
PRC1(a)34904741616014741
PRC1(b)9168912515711740
PRC1(c)113511251015811939
PRC1(a)7211121901447272
PRC1(b)2321161161506882
PRC1(c)243162811397762

Geometric configurations of pile-raft model for parametric analysis

ParametersUnitValue
Raft width, Brm45
Raft width, Lrm45
Raft thickness, trm0.5, 1, 1.5, 2*
Number of piles-49
Pile length, Lpm30*
Pile spacing, Spm3*, 4, 5, 6, 7
Width of pile group, Bg (Corresponding to each Sp)m19, 25, 31, 37, 43
Pile diameter, dpm1

Load carried by piles in different pile-raft configurations at different pile spacings

Pile-raft configurationsPile spacing, Sp (m)Soft clay: load-carried by piles, Rpile (kN)Stiff clay: load-carried by piles, Rpile (kN)
RcenterRedgeRcornerRcenterRedgeRcorner
PRC1(a)32262076443456530105854
PRC1(b)4313125559765036406723
PRC1(c)49412722765159314743360
PRC1(a)7672170368579622163885031
PRC1(b)489078369105472868795102
PRC1(c)737663098240722257514799
eISSN:
2083-831X
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics