50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE

50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

BEHAVIOUR ON JOINT SPACING AND SETTLEMENT OF PILE RAFT FOUNDATION

RESTING ON JOINTED HOEK-BROWN ROCKS

Parbin Sultana1, Manikandan.R2

1
[[email protected]] 2[[email protected]]
National Institute of Technology-Silchar

Abstract:This paper introduces the numerical analysis for the evaluation of settlement of pile raft
foundations resting on jointed Hoek Brown rocks and its effect on bearing capacity for the different joint
spacings of rock.The upper bound limit analysis method is used for the rock mass contain two orthogonal
joint sets.The effect on bearing capacity is evaluated for the different joint spacing failure modes.Using
the UBS, the effect of joint spacing was studied for the general shear failure mode for the foundation
resting on the Hoek- Brown poor quality rocks mass.The UBS was applied to investigate the effect of
joint spacing in this regard. For Hoek - Brown poor quality rock mass, the Qu/Ci ratio vs Spacing Ratio
(SR) is analysed for the rock mass properties containing two orthogonal joint sets. It is observed that SR
value are affecting the bearing capacity of rock foundation for SR less than 30 ,when SR greater than 30 it
does not effect the bearing capacity. The settlement behaviour of the piled raft foundation system is
influenced by various factors such as raft thickness, pile length, pile spacing, which must be considered
for an economical and effective design. This numerical analysis has been carried out by using
geotechnical finite element software, PLAXIS 2-D, for the single and three layer jointed rock strata
considering Hoek Brown rock properties to investigate the influence of the settlement for different
parameters. The aim is to optimally compare the settlement behaviour from the normalised edge to the
center of the raft for the various factors.This paper discussed the displacement based design methods for
piled raft foundation where the raft thickness does not have a pronounced effect on the overall settlement
but it does minimize the differential settlements. However at higher thickness the overall and differential
settlement are found to be same so the thick raft are not recommended from economical point of view.
The overall settlement for a 10m long pile was found to be more as compared to a 15 m long pile which is
more efficient on jointed Hoek-Brown rocks ,so by providing extra pile at the corner we can reduce the
settlement of the raft pile foundation. The pile spacing is a factor for any structural commercial program
to solve the piled raft foundation problems.So the pile should be well spaced.The use of large group of
pile at center is always beneficial from both economical as well as settlement point of view. The overall
settlement increase with increase in number of piles for the jointed rock strata.As the pile diameter
increases, the ultimate load increases significantly.From the results obtained, it is useful to provide piles
with different diameter than with equal diameter. A pile diameter combination of 0.5 m along the central
portion of the raft with 0.3 m along the edge of the raft is best suggested based on its ultimate load and
settlement results. From the analysis it is clear that, providing larger inner pile diameter with smaller

Parbin Sultana [ National Institute of Technology-Silchar][[email protected]]

Manikandan.R [ National Institute of Technology-Silchar][[email protected]]
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

outer pile diameter leads to good results.Pile length has not much significance on the ultimate load
carrying capacity of the foundation in both the cases expect 15 m length,which is more effective on the
centre of the pile and maximum at edge of pile raft.So the 15 m length pile is considered for the jointed
rock strata foundation.

Keywords: Jointed Hoek-Brown rocks , Upper bound limit analysis method , UBS , Spacing Ratio ,
PLAXIS 2-D , Bearing capacity , Settlement.

1.INTRODUCTION spacing on the bearing capacity had not been

The determination of bearing capacity of shallow investigated.
foundations basically is principle in geotechnical The piled raft foundation system has been
engineering. Limited studies have been carried out widely used for high resistant structures. In this
for estimating the bearing capacity of rock pile raft foundation, the piles play an important
foundation on jointed rock masses. This study role in settlement and differential settlement
proposes new prediction for the ultimate bearing reduction, and thus can lead to economical design
capacity of shallow foundations resting on jointed and the safety of the structure in the jointed rock
Hoek Brown rock masses by using different rock strata. Generally the strength and deformability
and foundation parameters. Here by over viewing properties of these discontinuities are quite
the bearing capacity of shallow foundation founded different from those of intact rock, and in many
on rock masses depends on the ratio of joint cases, the discontinuities completely dominate the
spacing to foundation width, as well as intact and shear and deformation behaviour of the in situ rock
rock mass qualities like joint orientation, joint mass in a given stress conditions. These rocks try
condition , rock type, and intact and rock mass to slide one over the other along the joints due to
strengths. For rock foundation M. Imani , construction of foundations of a structure on the
A.Fahimifar , M.Sharifazdeh (2012) Case of rock slopes. Hence , for safe and economical
general shear failure, the joints spacing do not analysis of all the above cases it is important to
change the bearing capacity of the assumed jointed understand behaviour of raft foundation
rock foundations ,but from the analysis of work it settlement.This paper proposes new prediction for
clearly expressed that joint spacing effect the the ultimate bearing capacity estimation of shallow
bearing capacity. So it is very essential to study the foundations resting on jointed Hoek Brown rock
strength of rock mass. Therefore, in those cases, it masses by applying different rock and foundation
is essential to justify and determine the ultimate parameters. For the rock foundation the behaviour
bearing capacity, and also the allowable load for of joint spacing effect and the bearing capacity
shallow foundations. In other cases, when the loads values are analysed by preparing an Algorithmic
are large and the rock mass is weak or highly modelling with the help of MATLAB language.
fragmented , a more rigorous method to establish The program consists of computational commands
the ultimate bearing capacity of the rocks is in a sequence and the computational commands are
needed. Sutcliffe et al. (2004), Yang and Yin created in MATLAB script files. When the script
(2005), Merifield et al. (2006), and Saada et al. file is executed, computational commands in the
(2008) have performed various studies on rock order as they are enlisted are also executed and by
founfoundations. In these studies, effect of joint putting different input parameters e.g. footing
width, orientation angle, rock mass strength
properties, physical properties, output parameter the rock masses is governed by a modified HB
i.e. ultimate bearing capacity of rock mass can be failure criterion. Using the technique, an MC linear
evaluated. Secondly, a study on behaviour of failure criterion, which is tangent to the actual HB
ultimate bearing capacity due to the effect of joint failure criterion, is proposed to calculate the rate of
spacing is attempted. external work and internal energy dissipation.
For settlement analysis a comparative study Suggested equations in this theorem executes with
on behaviour on settlement for the pile raft a maximum difference of less than 0.5% for
foundation is evaluated for the Hoek Brown poor bearing capacity factors. It is found that the
quality rock as a single and three layer strata. surcharge load and self-weight have effects on the
Graphical representation is carried out to observe ultimate bearing capacity, and that the contribution
the mentioned comparative study for both the joint related to uniaxial compressive strength can be
spacing effect and settlement. separated from the ultimate bearing capacity while
the contributions related to surcharge load and unit
2.LITERATURE REVIEW weight cannot be separated from the ultimate
Sutcliffe et al. (2004) concluded the followings: bearing capacity. It should be noted that lower
i. Inclusion of single week joint, reduction in bound solution is less than or equal to actual
strength is significantly affected by both the solution.
strength of the joint relative to the properties of the Merifield et al. (2006) investigated bearing
intact rock material and to the orientation of the capacity of a surface strip footing resting on a rock
joint set. mass whose strength can be described by the
ii. Inclusion of two joint sets, the strength of the generalized Hoek–Brown failure criterion and
joints as well as the joint orientation significantly drawn the following conclusions:
affects the result, although in this case the angle i. The effect of ignoring rock weight can lead to a
between the two joint sets also plays an important very conservative estimate of the ultimate bearing
role. capacity. This is particularly the case for poorer
iii. The inclusion of a third joint set vertically quality rock types.
oriented results in a further loss in ultimate bearing ii. Estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of a
capacity of up to 40% as compared to the results rock mass using equivalent Mohr–Coulomb
for a rock mass with two joint sets only. parameters was found to significantly overestimate
Parameters similar to those in the two joint cases the bearing capacity.
were again found to be critical. iii. Existing numerical solutions for weightless
rock masses are generally conservative.
Yang and Yin (2005) established a theorem on the iv. Bearing failure modes of rock foundations with
ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing with the consideration of joint spacing
modified failure criterion using the generalized
tangential technique. Assumptions were made such Imani et al. (2012) concluded that in the case of
as the strip footing is long enough for consideration general shear failure, the joints spacing do not
of plain strain problem, rigid triangular blocks of change the bearing capacity of the assumed jointed
symmetrical translation failure mechanism, rock foundations significantly, while the bearing
homogenous and isotropic rock masses are capacity will be affected when the failure is due to
idealized as a perfectly plastic material, and follow excessive deformation of the rock foundation. In
the associated flow rule and lastly, the failure of the recent case, for SR < 30, increasing the SR
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

results in decreasing the bearing capacity, but for 3.THEORY OF ANALYSIS

SR >30, the joint spacing does not significantly 3.1 Failure Mechanism
affect the bearing capacity.
Since the failure, due to excessive deformation, The mechanism by which the minimum bearing
may occur prior to the general shear failure, capacity can be determined is formally known as
determining the ultimate bearing capacity of rock the most appropriate failure mechanism. Imani et
foundations only by using the equations based on al. (2012) suggested two different failure
the general shear failure of rock foundation, may mechanism depending upon joint set condition.
lead to unrealistic results. 1. Two-sided mechanism.
Haghighizade S. R(2013) concluded that the 2. One-sided mechanism
bearing capacity of the Hoek-Brown rock mass 3.1.1 Two-sided Mechanism
was estimated as a small amount and in a Two-sided mechanism is symmetrical in shape.
conservative way using limit equilibrium method. This mechanism is considered only with centric
On a contrary, considering the mid stress led to the and vertical footing in the foundations. A diagram
considerable increase of the rock bearing capacity. of two sided failure mechanism is shown below.
Results of the articles suggest that, for design 3.1.2 One-sided Mechanism
purposes and regarding the status of the rock mass One-sided mechanism is asymmetrical in shape. In
and the dimensions of the foundation as well as the presence of joint set, the failure mechanism may be
conditions of the joints, the rock mass can be affected by the joint set and shape is converted to
included in one of the cases discussed here and asymmetrical. A diagram of one sided failure
then the bearing capacity of the rock mass can be mechanism is shown below.
calculated using the equations presented.Hisham T.
Eid, Abdalfatah A. Shehada research introduces by
considering pile–subgrade stiffness ratios that have
not been covered in the literature for piled
foundations on non homogeneous media. The
settlement behaviour was investigated using an
extensive three-dimensional finite-element (FE)
analysis of different piled foundation models.
Elastic settlement of single piles was also studied
for comparison with the pile-group behaviour.
Charts were developed to estimate the elastic
settlement of piled foundations and to help in
choosing the optimum pile spacing and length that FIGURE.3.1.Diagram of one sided and two sided
limit foundation settlement to tolerable levels. failure mechanism
Settlement values yielded from the FE analysis
were compared with those calculated from
equations commonly used in estimating elastic Pile Raft Methodology
settlement of foundations. In this study a 16 m x 16 m raft with 0.5 m
diameter piles were analysed using a software
PLAXIS-2D. A plane strain finite element model
was used to model the piled raft foundation. The well as a local parameter is used while generating a
raft and piles were assumed to be linearly elastic. mesh. The piles and raft were modelled using a
The Jointed Rock Model criteria were used to plate element. The piled raft foundation is
represent rock as undrained material. A single layer considered as plane strain and the side friction in
and three layered rock strata with very deep water piles were modelled using interface elements.
table was assumed for the study. Here an undrained The various rock, raft and pile material properties
condition was assumed and the total stress analysis are tabulated in Table 4.4.
was carried out. TABLE.4.4.Rock, pile and raft properties
Boundary conditions: The bottom boundary is Properties Poor Medium
rigid, i.e., both horizontal (u) and vertical quality quality
displacement (v) are zero. Standard fixities are Rock 1400 9000
2
used at the left and right boundaries of the model. Deformation [KN/m ] [KN/m2 ]
The soil-structure interaction is modelled using an modulus Es
elastic-plastic model to describe the behaviour of Cohesion of 0.55 [MPa] 3.50 [Mpa]
interfaces. The interface element properties are Rock, C
linked to the strength properties of the rock layers. Poison’s 0.30 0.25
ratio of
rock, νs
Angle of 25[degrees] 32[degrees]
friction, Φ
Dilatancy 0 0
angle, Ψ
Modulus of 20[GN/m2 20[GN/m2
raft, Er ] ]
2
Modulus of 20[GN/m 20[GN/m2 ]
pile, Ep ]
Poisson’s 0.25 0.25
ratio of raft,
νr , and pile,
νp
Length of 16[m] 16[m]
FIGURE.4.2.Finite element mesh of piled raft raft, Lr
foundation for single and three layer strata Breadth of 16[m] 16[m]
Model and parameters of two-dimensional finite raft, Br
element analysis of group piles in jointed rock has
been modelled as an axi-symmetric problem. In In order to examine the effect of pile group
PLAXIS 2D, 15 noded triangular elements has geometry and raft thickness on the overall and
been chosen which results in a two-dimensional differential settlement behaviour of piled raft
finite element model with two translational degrees foundation the thickness of raft, pile length, pile
of freedom per node.Fig.4.2 shows the Model with spacing was the variables in this study. The various
applied Vertical uniformly distributed load with the parameters used in this study are mentioned in
generated mesh. A global coarseness parameter as Table 4.5.
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

TABLE.4.5. Raft and pile geometry parameters Using the UBS, the effect of joint spacing was
Paramete Magnitude Standard studied for the general shear failure. The cases
rs value examined here a shallow foundation resting on the
Raft 0.5m,1m,1.5m, 2m Hoek- Brown poor quality rocks mass. For the
thickness, 2m, 2.5m analyse part that the general shear failure occurs
t for all of the cases. For Hoek Brown poor quality
Pile 10m,15m,20m, 40m rock mass, the qu/ci ratios vs Spacing Ratio (SR)
length, L 20m , 30m are shown in Fig.5.12-5.18 for the rock mass
Pile 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 4m properties. It is observed that SR value are
spacing, S 3m affecting the bearing capacity of shallow rock
Pile 0.5m 1m foundation for SR<30, when SR>30 it does not
diameter, effect the bearing capacity.
d 500
Pile group 3x3,4x4,5x5, 3x3 alpha=15
8x8 400 alpha=30
alpha=45
300
Qu/Ci

The piles, raft and soil were discretised as 15

noded triangular elements. The vertical 200
displacements obtained from the analyses were
used directly as overall settlement and the 100
differential settlement considered here is the
0
centre-edge differential settlement of raft. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
4.2.1 Vertical Loading SR
In the first instance, a vertical uniform distributing FIGURE.5.12: Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
load was applied to the raft. The distribution of Cj/Ci=0 for φi=350,φj=250
loads below the rock strata and the corresponding
load deformation curve. Where the percentage of 800
load applied to the raft versus the vertical alpha=15
alpha=30
deflection from the edge to centre of the raft is 600
alpha=45
plotted. The reduction in vertical displacement
Qu/Ci

400
caused by taking the embedment of the raft into
consideration is about 71.6 mm average in this
200
case.
5.5 Bearing Failure Modes 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Joints are an important part of rock foundation, this SR
often form discontinuities that may have a large
influence on strength and deformation of rock FIGURE.5.13.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
masses. In this study how the spacing of joints will Cj/Ci=0 for φi=350,φj=300
effect the bearing capacity shallow rock foundation
for different behaviours are discussed below.
5.5.1 Effect of Joint Spacing by Shear Failure
 600 3000
alpha=15 alpha=15
500 alpha=30 2500 alpha=30
alpha=45 alpha=45
400 2000

Qu/Ci
Qu/Ci

300 1500

200 1000

100 500

0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SR
SR
FIGURE.5.17.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
FIGURE.5.14.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
Cj=0,Ci=1 for φi=350,φj=300
Cj/Ci=0.1 for φi=350,φj=250
800
2000
alpha=15
alpha=15
alpha=30 alpha=30
600 1500
alpha=45 alpha=45
Qu/Ci
Qu/Ci

400 1000

500
200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 SR
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SR FIGURE.5.18.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
Cj=0.1,Ci=1 for φi=350,φj=250
FIGURE.5.15.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for 5.5.2 Effect of Joint Spacing by Excessive
Cj/Ci=0.1 for φi=350,φj=300 Deformation
In the case of failure due to excessive deformation,
the shear surfaces in the material beneath the
2000
alpha=15 foundation do not reach the ground surface, the
alpha=30 properties of the intact rock and the joint sets are
1500
alpha=45 selected such that the failure surfaces in the rock
mass do not reach the ground surface. It should be
Qu/Ci

1000
noted that for all of the assumed properties for the
intact rock and the joint sets in the following
500
sections, excessive deformation occurs in the rock
mass in Fig.5.19.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SR
FIGURE.5.16.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
Cj=0,Ci=1 for φi=350,φj=250
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

changes in the cj/ci ratio if the deformation mode at

400 alpha=15 critical load of the foundation remains unchanged.
alpha=30
300 alpha=45 500
Cj/Ci=0.1
400 Cj/Ci=0.3
Qu/Ci

200 Cj/Ci=0.5
300

Qu/Ci
100
200

0 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SR 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
FIGURE.5.19. Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
SR
α=150 , α=300 , α=450
FIGURE.5.20.Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
Cj/Ci=0.1,0.3,0.5
In the constructed numerical models, it was
assumed that joint normal stiffness and joint shear
stiffness are equal to 100 GPa/m, ci = 5 MPa and cj 1500
= 0.5 MPa.As for the case of α =15,the effect on phi i=phi j=25
phi i=phi j=30
bearing capacity is concluded by increasing the SR
1000 phi i=phi j=45
results in decreasing the bearing capacity, but for
Qu/Ci

SR > 30, the joint spacing does not affect the

bearing capacity significantly. Hence, SR = 30 can
500
be taken into account as the approximate limit for
the influence of joints on the bearing capacity and
it is named in this study as the critical spacing 0
ratio. For considering the effect of the jointed rock 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
and the joint set properties on the spacing ratio SR
these analyses were performed. Because of the
large number of models, the results of the case of FIGURE.5.21. Variation of Qu/Ci versus SR for
α =150,300,450 are only presented here. φi=φj=250,300,350

5.5.3 Effect of Joint Spacing by Shear 5.5.4 Effect of Joint Spacing by Settlement
Strength In this study, it is assumed that the excessive
The effect of joint spacing by keeping ci settlement that occurs at critical load of the rock
unchanged as it was assumed previously, Figure mass by finding the effect on the spacing ratio,
5.20 & 5.21 shows the qu/ci versus SR for the case settlements from 1B to 0.005B and the rest of the
of cj/ci = 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5, while other properties of parameters remained unchanged as they were
the rock mass are similar to those previously assumed previously.
considered. Also, the figures shows that the SR=
30 proposed in this research, does not change with
 8000 between 2 to 4.5m. Figure 5.23 & 5.24 shows the
1.00B settlement of piled raft foundation along the width
6000 0.63B of raft for the various values raft thickness of
0.315B
single and three layer strata.
Qu/Ci

0.10B
4000 0.005B 30

2000
25

Settlement (mm)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
20
SR
(c)
15

FIGURE.5.22.Effect of settlement limit on Qu/Ci T=2.0m

versus SR 10
T=2.5m
T=3.0m
The effect of joint spacing for the general shear T=4.0m
T=4.5m
failure mode when (Cj=0) is slightly increasing 5
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
when Cj and Ci changes,incase of Cj/Ci=0.1 there Normalized distance from raft edge (m)

is no change in the bearing. For the case Cj=0 ,

Ci=1 more increase in the bearing capacity FIGURE.5.23.(c) Effect of raft thickness for
compare to other modes. The result shows that single layer strata.
compare to poor quality rock mass the other two
qualities are effected in the jointed rocks. The
35
effect of failure due to excessive deformation is T=2m
T=2.5m
more in the jointed rocks and by the shear strength T=3m
T=4m
it will be Cj/Ci=0.5 case. Effect of settlement is 30 T=4.5m
Settlement (mm)

more at 0.005B.From the result it is concluded that

the effect for all the failure modes SR<30 (c) 25

increasing the bearing capacity and for SR>30 the

joint spacing does not significantly effect the
20
bearing capacity.
5.6 Settlement Analysis
Here a piled raft foundation with 8x8 pile group 15
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Normalized distance from raft edge (m)
was loaded with a uniformly distributed load of
759 KN/m2 . A standard value of pile spacing , pile
length and raft thickness was taken by keeping one FIGURE.5.24.(c) Effect of raft thickness for three
as constant and other two as variables. The layer strata.
following figures shows the settlement of piled raft
foundation results for single and three layer strata. The settlement of piled raft decreases with the
From the analysis settlement of piled raft was increase in raft thickness for the single layer
calculated. jointed rock strata and the maximum settlement at
5.6.1 Effect of Raft Thickness on Settlement middle portion of the raft and the settlement of
A standard value of pile spacing and pile length piled raft decreases with the increase in raft
were taken and the raft thickness was varied thickness for the three layer jointed rock strata and
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

the maximum settlement at edge of the raft. At the 80

raft thickness of 2.5 m the maximum settlement at

70
near to one third of distance to piled raft is L=30m
L=25m
34.5mm,which is not significant and minimum at 60
L=20m

Settlement (mm)
L=15m
centre of the pile. Whereas when the raft thickness 50 L=10m

changed to 2 m the settlement at the one third of (b)

40
piled raft is 31 mm which shows the decrease in
settlement and at middle it is not significant. 30

However the decrease is more pronounced in the 20

case of differential settlement. The centre-edge

10
differential settlement of piled raft is varies 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Normalized distance from raft edge (m)
0.45 0.5

between 15.4mm to 28.5mm as the raft thickness

changed from 0.5m to 2.5m.The settlement values
FIGURE.5.25. (b) Effect of pile length for single
of piled raft are almost same when the thickness
layer strata.
changed from 2m to 4.5m.
5.6.2 Effect of Pile Length on Settlement
The settlements at different pile lengths are plotted 90

in Figure 5.25 & 5.26.The effect of pile length, L 80

on settlements was investigated using the pile 70 L=30m

L=25m
length of 10m, 15m, 20m,25m and 30m for single L=20m
Settlement (mm)

60
L=15m

and tree layer strata. A group of 8x8 piles with a 50

L=10m

spacing of 1m and a raft thickness of 2m was used 40

for the analysis of piled raft. As figure shows the

30
settlements decreases with the increase in pile
20
length. The maximum overall settlement at centre
10
of piled raft decreased from 69 mm to 9 mm as the 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Normalized distance from raft edge (m)
pile length changed from 10m to 30m for single
layer strata. Similar trend was found for the edge of
FIGURE.5.26. Effect of pile length for three layer
the raft settlement for both the single and three
strata.
layer rock strata for the 20,25,30 m length piles.
But for the pile length of 15 m the centre edge
settlement drops down significantly for both the 5.6.3 Effect of Pile Spacing on Settlement
The piles should not be placed too close to each
cases this should be highly effective for the 15 m
other or too far from each other. When the piles are
length pile.
placed too close to each other then due to stress
overlap the foundation failure takes place and
when the piles are far from each other then there
will be no group effect and piles act as an
individual pile which reduces the strength of
foundation. So the effect of pile spacing on the
settlement behaviour of piled raft was studied
using an 8x8 pile group under a 2m thick raft and
placing them at a spacing of 2d. 3d, 4d and 6. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
6d,where d is the diameter of Figure 5.27 & 5.28 The work done on this study gives more exposure
shows the variation in settlement with the change on the developing software’s like PLAXIS and
in pile spacing. The overall settlement at the centre MATLAB.These provides a very versatile
of the raft increased from 24 mm to 43 mm when computing environment for modelling and
the pile spacing changed from 3d to 4d however analyzing process.As compared to software in real
this increase in overall settlement is very less. situation different application of parameters which
Therefore the increase in pile spacing is very are oftened for the loading and strengthening of a
advantageous in controlling the overall and particular structures. The main advantages which
differential settlement for the piles spacing greater of the software’s we are using interms of
than 3d. reliability, more efficient, great flexibility and time
saving and also these are the currently using
45
application in Research and Development for the
S/D=2 dam structure. The features that have been
S/D=3
40 S/D=4 discussed here gives exposure and application of
software’s for the analysis of the dam structure on
S/D=6
Settlement (mm)

35 jointed rock foundation.

(a) 1. The effect on bearing capacity is evaluated for
30 the different joint spacing failure modes. The effect
is concluded that when the SR< 30 increasing the
25
bearing capacity, for SR>30 the joint spacing does
not significantly effect the bearing capacity.
20
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Normalized distance from raft edge (m)
0.45 0.5 2. The results obtained from PLAXIS for the
settlement Analysis, it is useful to provide piles
with different diameter than with equal diameter.
FIGURE.5.27. (a) Effect on spacing of pile for
i. A pile diameter combination of 0.5 m along the
single layer strata
central portion of the raft with 0.3 m along the
edge of the raft is best suggested based on its
45
ultimate load and settlement results. From this it is
S/D=2
S/D=3
clear that, providing larger inner pile diameter with
S/D=4
40
S/D=6
smaller outer pile diameter leads to good results.
ii. Pile length has not much significance on the
Settlement (mm)

35
ultimate load carrying capacity of the foundation in
(a)
both the cases expect 15 m length, which is more
30
effective on the centre of the pile and maximum at
edge of pile raft. So the 15 m length pile is
25
considered for the jointed rock strata foundation.
20
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Normalized distance from raft edge (m)
0.45 0.5
6.1. SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The present thesis pertains to the study on the
effect of bearing capacity of shallow rock
FIGURE.5.28. (a )Effect on spacing of pile for
three layer strata.
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

foundation & its effect and also the settlement of 5. Merield, R.S., Lyamin, A.V. and Sloan,
pile raft foundation on jointed rock. S.W. (2006). “Limit analysis solutions for
The future research work should address the below the bearing capacity of rock masses using
mentioned points: the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion", Int.
J. Rock
6. 15. Saada, Z., Maghous, S. and Garnier, D.
1. For the ultimate bearing capacity the present (2008). “Bearing capacity of shallow
work can be extended for footing with different foundations on rocks obeying a modified
B/L ratio and the result can be correlated with the Hoek Brown failure criterion", Comput.
result of present work. A generalized equation for Geotech., 35, pp.144-154.
ultimate bearing capacity of different rock bed can 7. Zhou, X.P., and Yang H.Q. and Zhang Y.X.
be derived for any shape (i.e. square, rectangular and Yu M.H.(2009). “The Effect of the
and strip) of footing. And also determine the Intermediate Principal Stress on the
ultimate bearing capacity in submerged condition Ultimate Bearing Capacity on Rock
rock and its effect in future research. masses", Computers and Geotechnics,
2. In PLAXIS by using the different quality of 36,pp. 861-870.
rocks we can compare the results for settlement in 8. Halakatevakis, N., and Soanos, A.I. (2010).
future, and also by Plaxis 3D to determine the “Strength of a blocky rock mass based on
dynamic analysis of pile raft foundation in jointed an extended plane of weakness theory", Int.
hoek brown rocks. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 47,pp. 568-582.
9. Imani, M., Sharifzadeh, M., Fahimifar, A.
REFERENCES and Haghparast, P. (2011). “ characteristic
1. Yu, M.H., and Zan, Y.W. and Zhao, J. and criterion to distinguish continuity of rock
Mitsutoshi, Y.A. (2002). “Unified Strength masses applicable to foundations",Proc.
Criterion for Rock Material", Int. J. Rock 45th US Rock Mech Geomech.
Mech. Min. Sci. 39(8), pp 975-989. Symposium, San Francisco, USA,ARMA-
2. Sutcliffe, D.J., Yu, H.S. and Sloan, S.W. 11-508.
(2004). “Lower bound solutions for bearing 10. Imani,M.,Fahimifar,A.and
capacity of jointed rock", Comput. Sharifazdeh,M.(2012). “Bearing failure
Geotech., 31, pp. 23-36. modes of rock foundations with
3. Yang, X.L. and Yin, J.H. (2005). “Upper consideration of joint spacing" Scientia
bound solution for ultimate bearing Iranica.,Transactions A:Civil Engineering
capacity with a modified Hoek-Brown .,19,pp.1411-1421.
failure criterion", Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 11. M. F. Randolph,(1994) “Design methods
Sci., 42, pp. 550-560. for pile groups and pilled raft: state -of-the-
4. Singh, M., and Rao S. (2005). “Bearing art report,” Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Capacity of Shallow Foundation in Found. Engg., New Delhi.
Anisotropic Non-Hoek-Brown Rock 12. K. Horikoshi, and M. F.
Masses", Journal of Geotechnical and Randolph,(1996)“Centrifuge modelling of
Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE), piled raft foundation on clay,”
131 (1), pp 1014-1023. Geotechnique, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 741-752.
13. K. Horikoshi, and M. F. Randolph,(1998) loaded piles”, Proceedings of Indian
“A contribution to optimum design of piled Geotechnical Conference, Kochi.
rafts,” Geotechnique , vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 22. Rajendra Singh Bisht , Baleshwar Singh
301-317. (2012) “Study on behaviour of piled raft
14. H.G. Poulos,(2001) “Piled raft foundations: foundation by numerical modelling”,
design and application,” Geotechnique, vol. SAITM Research Symposium on
51, no. 2, pp. 95-113. Engineering Advancements.
15. W.A. Prakoso, and F.H. Kulhawy,(2001) 23. Dang Dinh Chung Nguyen,Seong-Bae Jo
“Contribution to piled raft foundation ,Dong-Soo Kim,(2013) “Design method of
design,” Journal of Geotechnical and piled-raft foundations under vertical load
Geoenvironmental Engg., vol. 127, no. 1, considering interaction”, Computers and
pp. 1024-1090. Geotechnics Volume 47,Pages 16–27.
16. D. K. Maharaj, and S. R. Gandhi,(2004) 24. Chen W F, Drucker D C (1969) ‘Bearing
“Non-linear finite element analysis of capacity of concrete blocks or rock’.
piled-raft foundations,” Proc. of the Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Institution of Civil Engg. Geotechnical Division. Proceedings of the American
Engg., vol. 157, pp. 107-113. Society of Civil Engineers 95(EM4). p.
17. E. Y. Noh, Q. M. Bui, C. Surarak, and A. S. 955–79.
Balasurbamaniam,(2009) “Investigation of 25. Das B M (2009) ‘Shallow Foundations
the behaviour of piled raft foundation in Bearing Capacity and Settlement’, Second
sand by numerical modelling,” Proc. 19th edition. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Int. Offshore and Polar Engg. Conference, Group, USA.
Japan. 26. Das B M (2011) ‘Principles of Foundation
18. H.G. Poulos , J.C. Small and H. Chow Engineering’, Seventh Edition. CENGAGE
Coffey (2011)“Piled Raft Foundations for Learning, USA.
Tall Buildings”, Geotechnical Engineering 27. Gilat A (2011) ‘MATLAB an Introduction
Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol 42 with Applications’, Fourth edition, John
No.2. Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, USA.
19. “Calibration of a PLAXIS Finite Element 28. Imani M, Fahimifar A, Sharifzadeh M
Dynamic Model Effect of Domain Width (2012) ‘Upper Bound Solution for the
and Meshing Schemes/AES”,Third Indian Bearing Capacity of Submerged Jointed
Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference Rock Foundations’. Rock Mech Rock Eng
(3IYGEC) 25 - 26 March 2011. 45:639–646.
20. W.L. Chong, A. Haque,P.G. Ranjith, A. 29. Matlab 8 (2012) Mathworks Inc., Natick,
Shahinuzzaman (2011),“Effect of joints on Massachusetts, USA.
p–y behaviour of laterally loaded piles 30. Merifield RS, Lyamin AV and Sloan SW
socketed into mudstone”,International (2006) ‘Limit analysis solutions for the
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining bearing capacity of rock masses using the
Sciences 48 372–379. generalised Hoek–Brown criterion’. Int J
21. B P Naveen, T G Sitharam, S Vishruth, Rock Mech Min Sci 43:920–937.
(2011) “Numerical simulation of vertically 31. Saada Z, Maghous S, Garnier D (2008)
‘Bearing capacity of shallow foundations
Parbin sultana , Manikandan.R “Behaviour of Joint Spacing and Settlement of Pile Raft Foundation Resting on Jointed
Hoek-Brown Rocks”

on rocks obeying a modified Hoek–Brown

failure criterion’. Comput Geotech 35:144–
154.
32. Serrano A, Olalla C (1996) ‘Allowable
bearing capacity of rock foundations using
a non-linear failure criterium’. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33:327–345.
33. Sutcliffe D J, Yu H S, Sloan S W (2004)
‘Lower bound solutions for bearing
capacity of jointed rock’. Comput Geotech
31:23–36.
34. Venkatramaiah C (2006) ‘Geotechnical
Engineering’, Revised third edition. New
age International Publishers, New Delhi,
India.
35. Yang X-L, Yin J-H (2005) ‘Upper bound
solution for ultimate bearing capacity with
a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion’.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:550–560.