See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329701209

Foundations for Tall Buildings on Alluvial Deposits-Geotechnical Aspects

Conference Paper · December 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 172

3 authors, including:

Ravi Sundaram Sanjay Gupta

Cengrs Geotechnica Pvt. Ltd Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj New Delhi
28 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ravi Sundaram on 16 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Foundations for Tall Buildings on Alluvial Deposits – Geotechnical Aspects

Ravi Sundaram1, Sanjay Gupta1, and Sorabh Gupa1

1Cengrs Geotechnica Pvt. Ltd, Noida, India
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract. Design of heavily loaded foundations for tall buildings requires a realistic
assessment of the design parameters. A comprehensive geotechnical investigation and in-situ
tests such as static cone penetrometer tests, pressuremeter tests and cross-hole seismic tests in
addition to deep boreholes can provide the inputs for selection of the design profile. The piled-
raft concept can yield substantial saving in the design of tall buildings by reducing the number
of piles due to the contribution of the intervening soils below the raft. To assess the settlement
and load distribution beneath the raft, soil-structure interaction study should be done. A case
study of a 38-storeyed building in the Indo-Gangetic Alluvium is presented to demonstrate the
quality of data that can be obtained from a thorough geotechnical investigation and to illustrate
the concept of piled-raft. While the reliability of the design is enhanced, the savings that can
be achieved by such an approach can be substantial.

Keywords: Tall buildings; Alluvial deposits; Piled-raft foundation; Soil-structure interaction;

Pile load tests.

1 Introduction

With rapid economic development, the urban land-cost is skyrocketing. Consequently,

construction of tall multi-storeyed buildings has become common in metropolitan cities of
India.
As of today, the structural engineer is the primary decision maker in the design process of such
buildings in India. Typically, the geotechnical design is done by the structural engineer and
there is no involvement of the geotechnical engineer beyond the site investigation stage.
Therefore, the approach on geotechnical aspects still remains conventional whereas structural
design has seen several innovations.
Geotechnical engineers need to rise to the challenge and come out with innovative solutions
that not only ensure safety of the building but also places emphasis on reliability and economy.
The paper discusses the importance of conducting a thorough geotechnical investigation and
use of advanced in-situ tests to assess geotechnical parameters, particularly for design of
foundations for tall buildings in the Indo-Gangetic Alluvium. Load testing and quality
assurance tests shall enhance the reliability of the predictions. Using the soil parameters and
pile-load settlement behavior as inputs into a soil-structure interaction analysis, the design may
be optimized to minimize the number of piles and account for contribution of the intervening
soil between the piles.

2 Design Approach

1
2.1 Definition of Tall Building

IS: 16700-2017 [1] defines “tall building” as a building with height exceeding 50 m. The code
is applicable for building height not exceeding 250 m.
The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat [2] definitions are as follows:
- Building height > 100 m: Skyscraper
- Building Height > 300 m: Super-tall
- Building Height > 600 m: Mega-tall

2.2 Factors Influencing Foundation Behavior

Foundation behavior is governed by the following aspects:

- strata characteristics,
- foundation type,
- magnitude of the load, and
- distribution of loads.
To limit the extent of geotechnical uncertainty in t he foundation design and construction, a
realistic and reliable geotechnical model of the stratigraphy, soil strength and stiffness
characteristics should be established.

2.3 Design Criteria

The design of the foundations should satisfy the following criteria (Hubert Quick et al, 2015)[3]:
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) : The factor of safety against failure of foundation and the
supporting soils should be adequate.
Serviceability Limit State (SLS): Total and differential settlement of the foundation under the
working loads should not affect the serviceability of the building.
In addition, safety and stability of nearby buildings and services should not be put at risk during
the construction stage or in the long-term (post-construction) - ultimate limit state and
serviceability limit state.
The foundation design of high-rise buildings should be done considering performance based
soil-structure interaction (SSI). It should not limited to traditional empirically based design
methods, such as a bearing capacity approach with an applied factor of safety (Poulos and
Badelow, 2015) [4]

2.4 From Concept to Construction

The various steps that govern the design and construction of tall buildings include the
following:
- Preliminary studies, planning and data collection.
- Conceptual design.
- Geological and geological investigation – maybe in two stages, preliminary & detailed.
- Preliminary foundation analysis based on the geotechnical investigation and selection
of suitable foundation type.
- Detailed foundation design.
- Foundation construction
- In-situ testing, and
- pile load tests and pile integrity tests (if piles are planned) and / or footing load tests.
- Review of design based on the test results and assessment of foundation performance.
The flow chart in Fig. 1 describes the steps involved in initial and detailed stages of the design.
The geotechnical engineer should be a part of the design team during each of these stages.
Presently, for the detailed design, the role of the geotechnical engineer is usually performed by
the structural engineer.

Initial Design
Structural Engineer Geotechnical Engineer
Bearing
Column loads Subsoil Capacity/ Pile
and their Investigation Capacity
configuration Analysis

Verify
Selection of Bearing/Pile
foundation type capacity

Detailed Design
Estimation of Soil spring
constant / modulus of subgrade
Structural design reaction
of foundation
Settlement
Analysis

Fig 1. Flow chart explaining the role of structural engineer and geotechnical engineer

3 Geotechnical Data
3.1 Initial Studies

The geological features at the site that may influence the design and performance of the
foundations should be assessed so as to identify any specific measures to be taken. A desk
study, study of published literature and internet search is the first step. This should be followed
up with site visits to observe the following:
- topography,
- soil type, any rock exposures, geological mapping (if required),
- groundwater level in wells in the locality, presence of nearby water bodies
- performance of foundation of nearby buildings, details of any building failures in the
vicinity, and
- local experience, etc.
These and any other information that can be obtained can provide valuable pointers that could
guide the process of characterizing the ground conditions and quantifying the relevant
geotechnical parameters required for foundation design.

3.2 Levels of Geotechnical Input

The geotechnical input that the owner / designer gets may be categorized into four levels (Ravi
Sundaram, 2017) [5] as explained in Fig. 2.

3
 Fig. 2. Geotechnical Input Pyramid

As one moves up along the pyramid from bronze towards platinum, the factor of ignorance
reduces and the reliability of design is enhanced. It also results in reduction in foundation cost
and construction time.
For design of tall buildings, particularly in thick alluvial deposits that are not underlain by rock
within depth range of 50-100 m, it is vital to move towards Gold / Platinum level of
investigations, while avoiding bronze level investigations. The soils at shallow depth of recent
origin may be loose or prone to liquefaction during earthquakes. The properties of the deeper
soils are vital for a good assessment of foundation settlement.
This requires detailed geotechnical and geophysical investigation and in-situ testing,
developing site-specific design parameters, using advanced design methods, load tests as well
as construction monitoring.

3.3 Site Investigation

The site investigation should include a comprehensive borehole-drilling and in-situ testing
program. For tall buildings in thick alluvial deposits, the investigation should extend to
significant depths, to at least 50 to 100 m depth. The geotechnical data obtained should be
reviewed carefully to select realistic design parameters.
In alluvial deposits, liquefaction analysis is important. It is usually done using SPT data, cone
tip resistance and shear wave velocities (IS: 1893-2016, Youd and Idriss, 2001 NCEER Report)
[6-7]. The highest level of groundwater should be carefully assessed so as to perform the
liquefaction analysis for the worst condition.

SPT and SCPT. Two in-situ tests are commonly used in geotechnical investigations are the
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and the Static Cone Penetration Tests (SCPT). SPT
conducted using an automatic trip hammer can give useful results in alluvial soils. SCPT gives
a continuous profile of soil resistance with depth and may be used for bearing capacity and
settlement analysis.
In the Indo-Gangetic alluvium, refusal (SPT N-value >100) is usually met below 30-40 m
depth. These high SPT values in the refusal stratum do not yield a fair assessment of the soil
stiffness. Therefore, the designer may have to conservatively select modulus of elasticity (E-
values) for settlement analysis.
SCPT conducted using a 20-tonne capacity penetrometer also encounters refusal, usually
around 20-30 m depth. The test cannot be used to assess E-values in the refusal stratum.
Pressuremeter Tests. Good quality pressuremeter data in soils can provide very useful results
which can effectively assess the E-values. The test provides deformation properties at strain
levels which are commensurate with those of the ground when subjected to service loads from
the building (Haberfield, 2013) [8].
However, in sands below water table that may collapse during drilling, the ground may get
disturbed and result in oversized diameter of the hole. This could result in reporting lower
values of deformation modulus.

Seismic Tests. Cross-hole or down-hole seismic test usually gives a good assessment of shear
wave velocities with depth. This may be supplemented with seismic refraction or SASW /
MASW tests to assess the lateral variation of the ground characteristics.
But E-value for small strain cannot be applied directly to foundation analysis since ground
strains under dead, live and wind / earthquake loads are significantly higher than those
experienced during seismic testing. The influence of the strain level should be taken into
account in the test interpretation. Haberfield (2013) [8] suggests dividing the E values from
cross-hole seismic test by a factor of 5 to obtain the static E value for settlement analysis.

In-Situ Permeability. In-situ permeability tests may be required in areas of shallow water
table. Since tall buildings may usually have at least 2-3 basements, substantial dewatering could
be required in areas of shallow water table. In sands, dewatering could be a challenge due to
the high inflow.
Field permeability tests are usually done in boreholes by falling head method or constant head
method. Pump-out test can give a more realistic assessment of the hydraulic parameters for the
design of the dewatering system.
Experience has shown (Sanjay Gupta and Ravi Sundaram, 2003) [9] that the coefficient of
permeability and transmissivity measured from pump-out tests in the Indo-Gangetic Alluvium
could be 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than that determined from a borehole in-situ
permeability test.

Laboratory Tests. A suite of laboratory tests to assess the soil classification and index
properties is essential to develop a representative soil profile. This should supported by tests
to characterize strength and stiffness properties as well as consolidation properties.
Conventional unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests and consolidated undrained triaxial tests
(with pore pressure measurement) are usually performed in cohesive soils whereas in granular
soils, consolidated drained triaxial or direct shear tests are conducted. Sufficient tests should
be done so as to develop a design profile for foundation analysis.
Laboratory tests should also be done to assess concentration of harmful salts like sulphates and
chlorides in soil and groundwater.

4 Geotechnical Interpretative Studies

4.1 Selection of Foundation Type

The interpretative aspect of the geotechnical data generated is an important overlap zone between
the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer. Selection of appropriate foundation type
and depth based on the loading conditions and soil characteristics sets the tone for the foundation
design and construction.
The commonly used foundation systems in alluvial deposits in the Indian scenario are:
- Raft foundations: Loads are transferred to the ground through a raft slab covering the

5
whole footprint of the building.
- Pile foundations: Piles below the columns can transfer the loads to the deeper more
competent stratum. The pile caps cast over each pile-group are usually connected through a
beam to give rigidity to the structure.
- Hybrid piled-raft system: This is an economical solution for tall buildings with high
foundation loads.
The hybrid piled-raft is increasingly being advocated and adopted in design of tall buildings all
over the world (Kachzenbach et al. 2000; Poulos 2001; de Sanctis and Mandolini 2006) [10-
12].
It may be used to transfer the loads to the piles with the intervening soils below the raft also
contributing to the load transfer (see Fig. 3). As a result, it has potential cost- saving and better
control of differential settlement (Amornfa, et al, 2012) [13].

Fig. 3. Load transfer mechanism in piled raft

The contribution of the intervening soils could be substantial in stiff to hard clays and medium
dense to dense sands. However, it may not be significant where the soils immediately below the
raft are loose sands prone to liquefaction during earthquakes and soft to firm clays with undrained
shear strength less than 50-60 kPa that may undergo consolidation / long-term settlement.

4.2 Foundation Design Considerations

The piled-raft soil-structure interaction study should be done using actual column locations and
loads. The single pile capacity and load settlement behavior should be assessed from initial
load tests on test piles. Zoned spring constants should be used and the settlement analysis of
the piled-raft should be done using Plaxis 3D or other appropriate software to assess the load-
share between the piles and raft. This can be effectively used to optimize the number of piles.
In alluvial deposits, total and differential settlement and horizontal displacement as well as
stiffness of soil and pile (serviceability limit state) are the issues of primary concern that govern
the design.
Shear strength and bearing capacity (ultimate limit state) should be checked although it may
not govern the design.
The advantages of the piled raft system are:
- The piles act as settlement reducers and limit the total and differential settlement.
- The piles may be loaded beyond the computed safe pile capacity (up to 70-80% of the
ultimate pile capacity) since it the behavior as a piled-raft governs.
- The tilt due to eccentric loading and inhomogeneous soil conditions reduces.
- The number of piles required reduces in comparison with the pile system without raft
contribution.
Amornfa et al (2012) [13] demonstrated that in Bangkok clays, that with increasing depth of
the raft, the load share of the piles reduces. For a three basement case with foundation at about
15 m depth, the load shared by the piles reduces down to 72% of the total building loads. For
rafts at shallow depth however, the contribution of the soils immediately below the raft may be
less with the piles transferring substantial part of the load.

4.3 Foundation Design Considerations

Based on a detailed geotechnical investigation, a geotechnical model should be prepared. A

proper understanding of the constitutive behavior of the soil is required to select a design profile
for foundation analysis. The design considerations (Haberfield, 2013) [8] in a layered alluvial
deposit are illustrated on Fig. 4.

Along Pile Shaft Immediately beneath footing / raft

At Pile Toe

Below Pile Toe –

to 2 x Raft Width

Fig. 4. Design considerations for raft and piled-raft

Design considerations and parameters of interest in design of piled raft are summarized on
Table 1.
Table 1. Geotechnical design considerations for piled-raft

Zone Parameters of interest

Immediately below raft - Strength: bearing capacity,
- Settlement
Along the pile shaft - Soil characteristics, c- values,
- Piles shaft resistance,
- Possibility of negative skin friction,
- Stiffness / modulus of subgrade reaction,
- Pile installation / drivability issues.
At the pile tip - Presence of hard strata for good end bearing,
- Soil characteristics, c- values,
- Stiffness / modulus of subgrade reaction,
- Pile installation / drivability issues.
Below pile tip to 2 times - Soil characteristics, c- values,
raft width - Stiffness / modulus of subgrade reaction.
The piles are usually used up to 70-80% of the ultimate bearing capacity which is higher than the
permissible safe design value for a comparable single pile. Therefore, a thorough

7
understanding of soil-structure interaction is necessary.

4.4 Load Tests and Integrity Tests

To validate the design, load tests are important. Initial load tests should be performed on
sufficient piles to model the pile behavior and to determine its stiffness. Static load tests
traditionally performed by the maintained load method (step loading or cyclic) are a preferred
method. But for piles very high ultimate capacity, often exceeding 1000 tonnes, it could be
very cumbersome, expensive and time consuming.
High strain dynamic load test has gained popularity in India as a cost-effective option and is
now an acceptable test method in the construction industry. The test can assess the structural
integrity as well as load-settlement behavior using CAPWAP analysis (Vaidya and Likins,
2013) [14].
Bi-directional static load tests using Osterberg cell has been used on some projects in India and
its application is rising. It involves casting a sacrificial jack near the pile tip and can be used to
test piles to high loads (Osterberg, 1989 [15], George et al, 2018 [16]).
Footing load tests on 1.5-2 m wide footings can be used to realistically assess the modulus of
subgrade reaction of the soil immediately below the raft and also to validate the theoretical
settlement estimates (Sanjay Gupta et al, 2016) [17].

5 Provisions of IS: 16700-2017

The Bureau of Indian Standards has recently brought out a new code of practice, IS: 16700-
2017 [1] outlining the criteria for structural safety of tall concrete buildings. Section 9.0 of this
code covers foundations and has several requirements regarding geotechnical aspects.

5.1 Geotechnical Investigation

As per Clause 9.3.1 of IS: 16070-2017 [1], geotechnical investigation for tall buildings should
comply with the following requirements:
- Geotechnical investigation should establish safety of the building and should include
liquefaction analysis and estimation of spring constants / modulus of subgrade reaction.
- Boreholes for tall buildings should be spaced about 30 m apart. Minimum 3 boreholes
should be drilled per tower.
- The depth of the investigation should be at least 1.5 times the raft width in soil and 30
min rock.
The authors advocate use of static cone penetration tests and pressuremeter tests for better
assessment of E-values and modulus of subgrade reaction. Cross-hole seismic tests can also
give a valuable input for static analysis as well as to assess liquefaction potential.

5.2 Foundation Depth

The embedded depth of the building shall be at least 1/15 of the height of the building for raft
foundations and 1/20 of the height in case of piled raft excluding pile length (Clause 9.4 of IS:
16700) [1]. Some relaxations are available for foundations on rock and for case of no uplift
loads.

5.3 Soil Modeling

While modeling raft foundation through modulus of subgrade reaction, the code recommends
that zoned spring constants should be used. For buildings taller than 150 m, soil-structure
interaction study should be done to obtain the zoned spring constants (Clause 9.7 of IS: 16700)
[1].
Haberfield (2017) [18] highlights the importance of selection of proper values of spring
constant which is a function not only of the soil but also the loading conditions and geometry.

5.4 Settlement

Clause 9.8 of IS: 16700-2017 refers to IS: 1904-1986 RA 2006 [19] for permissible settlement
of foundations on soil and to IS: 12070-1987 RA 2010 [20] for foundations on rock.
Table 1 of IS: 1904-1986 RA 2006 [19] specifies permissible total settlement of 75 mm for raft
foundations bearing on sands and hard clays. It also specifies a permissible differential
settlement of 0.0021L (L= centre-to-centre distance between columns) and permissible angular
distortion of 1/500 for concrete buildings.
The code permits relaxation of the permissible total settlement to 125 mm for rafts and piled-
rafts provided that angular distortion of the raft does not exceed 1/500.
The authors advise caution in implementing the relaxed settlement criterion and suggest that it
should be backed up by the following:
- Detailed and thorough geotechnical investigation is an essential pre-requisite.
- It should be ensured that the foundation is safe in shear (bearing capacity).
- Soil-structure interaction using FEM software such as PLAXIS 3D to assess settlement,
differential settlement, stresses, etc. should be done.
- Monitoring settlement during the construction period will not only enhance the
reliability of prediction but also give advance warning that can help prevent potential failure
before it occurs.
On the basis of review of over 52 case studies, Zhang and Ng (2006) [21] suggest limiting
tolerable total settlement to 106 mm and angular distortion to 1/500.

6 Quality Assurance

The best of designs can fail if the requisite quality is not maintained during construction.
Routine static load tests are usually done as per IS: 2011 (Part 4)-2013 [22] to 1.5 times the
design safe load. Bi-directional static load test provide time saving and economical option,
particularly for high load-carrying-capacity piles.
The current industry practice in India on all major projects is to supplement this with low strain
pile integrity tests (PIT) on 100% of the piles (Likins et al, 2012) [23]. Cross-hole sonic logging
(CSL) is also being used to locate construction defects in piles.
The results of PIT and CSL should be used to select appropriate piles for static load test and /
or high strain dynamic load tests (HSDLT). This will form the basis of acceptance of the piles
and ensure quality assurance.
If any piles fail during load test or HSDLT, coring through the pile is a good option (Sanjay

9
Gupta et al, 2017) [24] to reconfirm the pile quality. In such case, re-design of the piling system
shall be required based on the actual pile stiffness and lower capacities.

7 Case Study

7.1 Project Details

This case study gives details of foundation design for a 38-storeyed building with two
basements under construction in Noida (UP) located east of Delhi, not very far from the River
Yamuna. The project, described as mixed land use, offers high-end commercial, retail and
residential units.

7.2 Regional Geology

The deposits in the area belong to the Indo-Gangetic Alluvium and are river deposits of the
River Yamuna and its tributaries. The Pleistocene and Recent deposits in the project area are
composed primarily of sands and silts.
The Indo-Gangetic alluvial tract in the nature of a synclinal basin formed concomitantly with
the elevation of the Himalayas to its north (Krishnan, 1986) [25]. It was formed during the
later stages of the Himalayan Orogeny by the buckling down of the northern border of the
peninsular shield beneath the sediments thrust over it from the north.
The newer Alluvium, locally called Khadar, consists primarily of fine sand that is often loose
in condition at shallow depths. The older alluvium, locally called Bhanger, consists of compact
sands and silts and is generally, rich in concretions or nodules of impure calcium carbonate
(kankars).

7.3 Initial Investigation

The builder got an investigation done consisting of 7 boreholes to 30 m depth and 3 boreholes
to 40 m depth. These boreholes were drilled after excavating to 6 m depth.
The boreholes revealed the presence of alluvial sands to 40 m depth with occasional sandy silt
zones in some boreholes. Groundwater was met about 1.5 m depth below the excavated level.
Typical borehole profiles are presented on Fig. 5.
 Fig. 5. Typical Profiles of boreholes drilled for initial investigation

Based on the borehole data, the soil investigation agency had recommended safe axial
compressive capacities of 300 and 350 tonnes respectively for 30 and 35 m long 1000 mm
diameter RCC bored piles. The corresponding values given for a 1200 mm diameter pile were
420 and 480 tonnes respectively. These values are typical of the capacities used on most other
sites in the surrounding areas within a 4-5 km radius of the project.

7.4 Initial Load Tests

Initial load tests were performed on 1000 and 1200 mm diameter piles of lengths 30-35 m. A
photograph of the load test in progress is presented on Fig. 6. Test results are summarized on
Table 2.

Fig. 6. Pile load test in progress

11
 Table 2. Results of static load tests on initial piles

Interpreted
Pile
Pile Pile Safe Type of
Dia,
No. Length, m Capacity, slurry used
mm
MT1
TP-1 40.0 317† Bentonite
TP-2 35.0 280 † Bentonite
1200
TP-3 34.0 613 Composite*
TP-4 34.0 1000 Composite*
TP-1A 35.0 353 Polymer
TP-2A 30.0 686 Polymer
1000
TP-3A 30.0‡ 860 Polymer
TP-4A 30.0‡ >890 Polymer
* polymud+Alfabond (a thickening agent) and bentonite
‡ Gravel pad provided at pile tip

1 Safe pile capacity interpreted in accordance with IS: 2911 (Part 4)-2013 [22]

† Possible construction defects resulted in lower capacity

As illustrated on Fig. 7, the pile load test results are fairly inconsistent / scattered with no clear
trend. Many piles (especially TP-1, 2 & 3 of 1200 mm diameter piles; and TP-1 of 1000 mm
diameter) significantly underperformed, indicating possible structural defects in the pile and /
or poor bottom cleaning.

(a) 1000 mm diameter pile (b) 1200 mm diameter pile

Fig. 7 Results of pile load tests

On the contrary, some of the piles (such as TP-2, 3 & 4 of 1000 mm diameter) performed rather
well. The safe pile capacities substantially exceeded the computed theoretical capacities.

7.5 Detailed Geotechnical Investigation

Having gained confidence that well-constructed piles shall be able to carry loads substantially
higher than that computed based on the initial geotechnical investigation, it was decided to
perform an additional geotechnical investigation which included three boreholes to 60 m depth,
pressuremeter tests in two boreholes and a cross-hole seismic test.

Fig. 8. Boreholes and pressuremeter tests in progress

Fig. 9 presents typical borehole data.

Fig 9. Data from deep boreholes drilled for piled-raft analysis

Figure 10 presents typical pressuremeter test data showing profile of limit pressure and
deformation modulus with depth.

13
 Fig. 10. Pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure versus depth – Typical results from one
borehole

Primary and shear wave velocities and dynamic shear modulus and dynamic Young’s modulus
from cross-hole seismic test are presented on Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. Wave velocities and dynamic modulii from cross-hole seismic test
7.6 Design Profile

Reviewing the soil characteristics, SPT values, pressuremeter modulus, laboratory tests, etc.,
soil parameters selected for analysis of statically loaded foundations are presented on Table 3:

Table 3. Design profile

Depth, m Soil c,
, E EPMT lm
Classificatio kN/m °
From To kN/m3 2 kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
n
0.0 2.0 18.0 0 30 3000 10000 500
2.0 10.5 19.0 0 31 6200 70000 2000
Silty sand /
10.5 13.0 19.5 0 32 29600 100000 2500
fine sand
13.0 23.0 20.0 0 33 43700 160000 3600
23.0 33.0 20.0 0 33 62400 220000 4000
33.0 36.0 Clayey silt 21.0 0 33 90000
36.0 44.0 Silty sand 21.0 0 33 124800
44.0 47.0 Clayey silt 21.0 90 6 124800
47.0 53.0 Fine sand 21.0 0 34 124800
53.0 60.0 Sandy silt 21.0 110 5 124800

where
 = Bulk density of soil c = cohesion intercept
 = angle of internal friction E = Modulus of elasticity of soil
EPMT = Pressuremeter (deformation) modulus lm = Limit Pressure

The design groundwater level was considered at the existing ground level for the worst
condition. Poisson’s ratio, , for the soil was taken as 0.33.

7.7 Computed Pile Capacities

Pile capacities under compression loading has been computed based on the c- values as per
IS: 2911 (Part 1 Section 2)-2010 [26]. Pile capacities were also computed using the
pressuremeter design rules (Clarke, 1995) [27]. Analysis was done for 1000 & 1200 mm
diameter bored piles with cut-off level at 8.0 m depth below average ground level. The
computed pile capacities are presented on Table 4:

Table 4. Pile capacities under compression loading

15
 Pile Safe Compression Pile Capacity, kN
Pile Length
Diameter, Selected
below COL c- values Pressuremeter
mm Design Value
30 4640 4800 4700
32 4900 5100 5000
1000
35 5290 5560 5400
40 5940 6310 6000
30 6960 7390 7000
1200 32 7340 7750 7500
35 7910 8540 8100

The above values include a factor of safety of 2.5 in accordance with IS: 2911 (Part 1 Section
2)-2010 [26].

7.8 Piled-Raft

Piled-raft foundation was used to optimize and economize the design. The analysis was done
considering 1000 mm diameter pile of length 35 m installed below cut-off level of 8 m. The
raft thickness was taken as 3.5 m in consultation with the structural engineer.
Piles were introduced at strategic locations based on the column loads. The pile locations were
finalized after several hit and trials to achieve maximum economy ensuring that the load on
any individual pile does not exceed 900 tonnes (2/3 of the ultimate pile compressive capacity
of 1350 tonnes).

Fig. 12 illustrates the pile layout finalized for the project.

Fig. 12. Pile layout

7.9 Plaxis Modeling

Initial analysis using the Plaxis 3D software was done for raft without piles. However,
settlement of a raft foundation was found to be about 330 mm which is higher than the
permissible 75 mm total settlement specified in IS: 1904-1986 RA 2006 [19] for raft
foundation. Differential settlements were also beyond permissible limits and the angular
distortion was about L/400.
Thus, the analysis confirmed that piles are required to be installed as settlement reducers. Piles
were therefore introduced in the finite element model below the raft at strategic locations
within the high settlement zones.
Pile load tests conducted at the site were simulated in the FEM model for calibration of the
model, using soil profile and soil E values given in Table 3. It was observed that soil E
values had to be reduced by 40% based on single pile simulation, for the pile settlements
obtained by the software to match the field pile settlements. Loads distribution and settlements
were assessed to optimize the foundation design.

7.10 Results of Analysis

Based on detailed analysis, proposed building can be supported on a piled-raft foundation as

per the configuration in Fig.12. Maximum settlements of the piled-raft foundation and pile
loads are summarized in Table 5:
Table 5. Summary of piled raft settlements and pile loads

Load Combination DL + LL
Pile Diameter 1000 mm
Pile length 35 m
Maximum Raft Total Settlement 74.3 mm
Maximum Pile Load 8900 KN
Maximum Angular distortion L/1200

The maximum total settlement is less than the permissible. Differential settlement / angular
distortion is also less than permissible value of L/500. Fig. 13 presents the settlement contours.
Fig. 14 presents the pressure distribution at the soil-raft interface.

17
 Fig. 13. Settlement Contours

Fig. 14. Pressure Contours at soil-raft interface

The spring constants for soil and for piles, computed as ratio of contact pressure and settlement
are presented on Figs 15 and 16 which were used by the structural engineer for the design of
foundation.

Fig. 15. Soil spring constant

 Fig. 16. Pile spring constant

7.11 Cost Saving Realized

To illustrate the financial saving achieved by thorough geotechnical investigation and soil-
structure interaction analysis, the foundation costs is summarized on Table 6.

Table 6. Cost savings analysis

Estimated Savings†
Load on
No. of Piling Cost (in Consultancy Cost
Design Stage Pile*
Piles (in million million (in million rupees)
(MT)
rupees) rupees)
Based on limited
geotechnical 300 550 440.0 ₹ 0.5
investigation
Based on detailed
geotechnical 536 500 400.0 ₹ 40 ₹ 2.0
investigation
Piled Raft (based
on assumed spring 536 358 286.4 ₹ 153.6 -
constant)
Piled Raft system -
900# 221 176.8 ₹ 263.2 ₹ 0.25
SSI using PLAXIS
Direct Project
₹ 263.2 ₹ 2.75
Cost Saving
* as per the design based on the safe pile capacity
# approximately 67% of ultimate load carrying capacity of pile

† Savings in cost of piling in comparison to that based on limited geotechnical investigation

without SSI

19
It may be seen that the cost of the detailed geotechnical investigation and the SSI is significantly
less than the savings in the foundation cost. While the number of piles decreases, the reliability
of the design increases substantially.
The authors of the opinion that further saving is possible if the following in-situ tests are
performed prior to starting work on the routine piles:
- Footing load tests on 1.5-2 m size footing may be used to assess the E values and spring
constant of soil effectively.
- Sufficient number of high-strain pile integrity tests and / or bi-directional static load test
on initial test piles used in conjunction with the static pile load tests can give a better assessment
of load-settlement behavior of piles that can be input into the Plaxis model for the piled raft
analysis.

8 Concluding Remarks

In the Indo-Gangetic alluvium in northern India, sands and silts are encountered to substantial
depths. These soils are usually loose to medium dense at shallow depths and very dense (SPT
N>100) below 30-40 m depth. Construction of tall buildings in such soils needs a thorough
geotechnical investigation. This should be followed up by soil-structure interaction using
PLAXIS or other software.
Piled-raft foundation is increasingly being used for design of tall buildings. It takes advantage
of the load sharing of the intervening soils and thus can optimize the foundation design.

With IS 16025-2017 permitting upto 125 mm total settlement for raft foundations and piled-
rafts, the following issues are critical:
- Detailed geotechnical investigation should be performed.
- Liquefaction potential assessment should be done for highest water table expected.
- Assessment of modulus of subgrade reaction is an important aspect.
- Differential settlement / tilt should be restricted to 1/500.
For piled-rafts, the piles are usually loaded to 70-80% of the ultimate pile capacity. Therefore,
quality assurance of pile construction is essential to ensure that the piles behave as designed.
Conventional static load tests should be supplemented with high strain dynamic pile load tests
and bi-directional static load test (O-cell) for a realistic assessment of pile load-settlement
behavior.
Quality assurance tests such as low strain pile integrity tests and cross-hole sonic logging
should be an integral part of field testing of the piles. This will assist in optimizing the design
and ensuring that the piles are capable of supporting the applied loads.
A case study of a 38-storeyed building in Noida presented in this paper demonstrates the
effectiveness of the design and the advantage achieved by conducting a thorough geotechnical
investigations and soil-structure interaction analysis. Savings of nearly Rs. 260 million were
realized on the piling costs in comparison to what the owner would have spent based on a
simplistic limited geotechnical investigation.
References

1. IS: 16700 (2017) Criteria for structural safety of tall concrete buildings. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
2. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-
US/Default.aspx
3. Hubert Quick, Simon Meissner, Joachim Michael (2015) Innovative foundation
systems f o r high-rise buildings. Proceedings, 1st Intelligent Building Middle East
Conference, Bahrain.
4. Poulos, H G and Badelow, F (2015) Geotechnical Parameter Assessment for Tall
Building Design. International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, Dec 2015, Vol 4, No 4, 227-
239.
5. Ravi Sundaram (2017) Geotechnical investigations in difficult ground conditions –
Indian Experiences. Sixth Madhav Lecture, Proceedings, GeoPractices-2017, IGS Hyderabad.
6. IS: 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi
7. Youd, T L, and Idriss, IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction resistance
of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, 297-313
8. Haberfield, CM (2013) Practical experience in piled-raft design for tall buildings.
Proceedings, 18th ICSMGE, Paris.
9. Sanjay Gupta and Ravi Sundaram (2003) In-situ Testing- Current trends in geotechnical
investigations. Proc., Indian Geotechnical Conference, IGC-2003, Roorkee, pp 635-645.
10. Katzenbach, R Arslan, U and Moormann, C (2000) Piled raft foundation in Germany.
In HJA (Ed), Design applications of raft foundations. London, Thomas Telford Ltd, 323-391.
11. Poulos, HG (2001) Piled raft foundations: design and application. Geotechnique,
51(No.2): 95-113.
12. de Sanctis, L and Mandolini, A (2006) Bearing capacity of piled rafts on soft clay soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(12): 1600-1610.
13. Amornfa, K, Phienwej, N, Kitpayuck, P (2012) Current practice on foundation design
of high rise buildings in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Lowland Technology International, Vol
14, No 2, 70-83.
14. Ravikiran Vaidya and Garland Likins (2013) Guidelines for successful high-strain
dynamic load tests and low strain integrity tests for bored piles. Proc., DFI-India-2013,
Mumbai.
15. Osterberg, J. (1989). New Device for Load Testing Driven and Drilled Shafts Separates
Friction and End Bearing. Proc. International Conference Piling and Deep Foundations,
London, 421- 427.
16. Justin St. George, Ravi Sundaram, Sorabh Gupta (2018) Bi-directional Static Load Tests
– Case Studies. Proceedings DFI-India 2018, Gandhinagar, paper communicated.
17. Sanjay Gupta, Ravi Sundaram, Sorabh Gupta (2016) Footing load tests on sand:
Validating Theoretical predictions. Proceedings, Indian Geotechnical Conference-IGC-2016,

21
View publication stats

Chennai.
18. Haberfield, CM (2017) Practical Application of soil structure interaction analysis.
Gregory Tschebotarioff Lecture, Proceedings, 19th ICSMGE, Seoul, Korea, Vol 1, 83-101.
19. IS: 1904-1986 Reaffirmed (2006) Design and construction of foundations in soils:
General Requirements. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
20. IS: 12070-1987 Reaffirmed (2010) Design and construction of shallow foundations on
rock. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
21. Zhang, L and Ng, AMY (2006) Limiting tolerable settlement and angular distortion for
building foundations. Geotech. Special Publication No. 170, Probabilistic Applications in
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE.
22. IS: 2911 Part 4 (2013), Design and construction of pile foundations - code of practice
Part 4 Load test on piles. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
23. Likins, G, Robinson, B and Piscsalko, G (2012) A brief overview of testing of deep
foundations. Proceedings, Testing and Design Methods for Deep Foundations, Kanazawa,
Japan, 2012, 97-104.
24. Sanjay Gupta, Ravi Sundaram, Sorabh Gupta (2017) Identifying defects in bored piles
– Case Studies from India. Proceedings, 19th ICSMGE, Seoul, Korea pp 2397-2400.
25. Krishnan, MS (1986), Geology of India & Burma, CBS Publishers, New Delhi.
26. IS: 2911 Part 1 Section-2 (2010), Design and construction of pile foundations - code of
practice Part 1 Concrete Piles Section-2 Bored Cast In-Situ Concrete Piles. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
27. Clarke, BG (1995) Pressuremeters in Geotechnical design. Blackie Academic and
Professional, London.