MTP PROJECT PRESENTATION

ON

EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF BEARING

CAPACITY OF EMBEDED PILES IN SANDY SOIL

Under Supervision of
Dr. Pradipta Chakrabortty
Assistant Professor Presented by:
Department of Civil and Environment Rohit Kumar
Engineering (2411CE15)
Indian Institute of Technology, Patna
 CONTENT
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Research objective
 Research gap
 Methodology
 Results and Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
 INTRODUCTION
 Foundations are critical for structural stability. They provide strength, control settlement,
and safely transfer loads to the soil.
 Shallow foundations need large areas; while deep foundations (piles) provide better load
control and settlement restriction.
 Current design guidelines assumes constant pile friction and group efficiency.
 It is interesting to examine how frictional resistance actually affects pile group performance
under varying conditions.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Author Year Work done Main findings Relevance to present study

Proposed design Highly relevant because our

Shaft friction + tip
Randolph, methods for pile study focuses only on pile
1994 resistance govern
M. F. groups and piled frictional resistance before
pile load capacity.
rafts. raft touches soil.
Performed Load initially Useful baseline because our
El-
experimental carried by raft, study does opposite—raft
Mossallamy 1997
tests on piled later shifting to does NOT take initial load,
& Franke
rafts in sand. piles. only piles carry load.
Field
Piles significantly
measurements + Supports comparison of
Katzenbach reduce settlement
2000 numerical stiffness and load capacity
et al. and increase
analysis of piled between 2×2 and 4×4 piles.
system stiffness.
raft behaviour.

Numerical Directly relevant since we

Soil density
Zhang & modelling of tested loose vs medium-
2000 strongly influences
Small piled rafts in dense sand affecting pile
load distribution.
layered soils. friction.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Author Year Work done Main findings Relevance to present study

Prakoso 2001 Analytical Proper pile Matches our comparison between

& evaluation of load layout improves 2×2 and 4×4 pile arrangements.
Kulhawy sharing between foundation
piles and raft. performance.
Poulos 2001 Reviewed design Performance Supports reasoning why piles
philosophy of depends on dominate load when raft is not in
piled rafts. relative stiffness contact with soil.
of raft, piles, and
soil.
Reul & 2004 Numerical Pile spacing and Relevant for our experimental
Randolph analysis of piled group comparison of pile groups.
rafts under non- arrangement
uniform loading. affect settlement.
Patil et al. Experimental Dense sand gives Strongly relevant as our
2015 study of piled higher load experiment also compares loose
rafts under capacity and and medium-dense sand
different soil lower settlement. conditions.
densities.
 Research Gap
Based on the previous literature review, following points were missing, which are identified as
research gaps.
 Most of the earlier studies focused on piled rafts where both raft and piles share the load.
 Studies available on the piles are completed considering the piles along with the pile group,
then their load carrying capacity is evaluate.
 For estimation of the pile along with the group, efficiency is computed. This group efficiency
is assumed more or less fixed value, based on the traditional practice.
 But none of the study is available to exactly compute the group efficiency in sandy soil when
piles are treated as frictional piles.
 Research Objective
Based on the previous research gap, following points have been drafted as the objective of this

study. The objectives are-:

 To study the frictional bearing capacity of piles under varying conditions.

 This variation will be in terms of relative density and also to examine the effect of pile

configuration, different models of piles (2x2 and 4x4) are tested.

 To understand the load transfer between pile shaft and soil.

 To see how soil density (loose and medium-dense) affects load capacity.

 To compare performance of 2×2 and 4×4 pile arrangements.

 Setup
METHODOLOGY
 A rectangular steel tank (90×90×2.5 cm) was filled with sand using rainfall method.
 Two sand densities were prepared: loose sand configuration and medium dense
configuration
 For Loose configuration: height of fall is 20 cm → 35-40% relative density achieve and
for medium dense : height of fall is 40 cm → 55-60% relative density achieve.
 Piles were mild steel rods (12 mm diameter, 39 cm length).

Figure [Link] between relative density and height of fall

 METHODOLOGY
 Calculation of Relative Density (ID)
(a)When height of fall is 40 cm
Weight of soil retained in container(W) = 97 g
Volume of container(V) =58 mL
= 0.584 (G=2.65, = 1 g/cc)
ID = = = 0.58 = 58% Figure 3(a) Container placed to measure
density of sand when height of fall is 20 cm
(b)When height of fall is 20 cm
Weight of soil retained in container(W) = 92 g
Volume of container(V) =58 mL
= 0.67
ID = = = 0.42 = 42%

Figure 3(b)density container placed during

sand pouring when height of fall is 40 cm
 METHODOLOGY
 Test setup
 Prepare sand bed using rainfall method
 Two pile configurations : 2×2 and 4×4 were tested
 Vertical load was applied using hydraulic jack.
 LVDT were placed to record the settlement.
 The load was applied gradually until settlement reached 5 cm.
 Two pressure gauges were installed to measure vertical stress: one at the bottom center
of the tank directly below the raft, and the other beyond the influence zone of pile.
 Soil properties
 Coarse grained soil
 Angle of internal friction is 29° for loose and 35° for medium
dense
 Unit weight is 15 kN/m³ for loose and 18 kN/m³ for medium
dense
 METHODOLOGY

Fig.4 (a) Schematic Model setup Fig. 4 (b) Sand pouring in the tank

Fig. 4 (c) Initiation of the test for Fig. 4 (d) Completion of the pile
pile shaft resistance penetration of 5 cm
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 In loose sand, the foundation showed higher settlement due to low stiffness and weak
particle bonding.
 In medium-dense sand, settlement was smaller and load capacity higher because of
better particle interlocking.
 The 4×4 pile group performed better than the 2×2 group, carrying more load with less
settlement.
 Overall, denser sand and more piles improved the performance of the pile foundation .
 The pressure gauge placed below the center of the raft recorded the maximum vertical
stress, showing that most of the applied load was transferred directly through the pile
group into the soil. The second gauge, positioned outside the influence zone, showed
much lower stress, confirming that the load effect was concentrated beneath the piled
area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 5. Load vs settlement curve

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Pressure distribution analysis

Figure 6. pressure diagram

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Analytical results

.+k
used this formula to calculate the ultimate load
capacity of the pile by combining base resistance and
skin-friction resistance
Value of is taken from the graph
For loose configuration: φ° = 29° → =25
for medium dense configuration: φ° = 35° → =50
K = 1 and = 0.45 (taken from IS 2911)
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Table 1: Comparison between Analytical and Experimental results

• When we compared the analytical results with the experimental results, both
values were very close to each other. This shows that the analytical method is
reliable and correctly represents the actual behaviour observed in the laboratory.
 CONCLUSION
 When the raft does not penetrate soil, piles carry entire load through friction
and tip resistance.
 Medium-dense sand performs much better than loose sand due to higher

stiffness.
 4×4 pile configuration performed better than 2×2, showing lower settlement
and higher bearing capacity
 Pressure measurements helped identify how load transfers through piles into
soil.
 The combined action of raft and piles effectively reduced settlement and
improved load-carrying capacity compared to a raft alone.
 Overall, the CPRF system is a reliable and economical foundation solution for
reducing settlement and enhancing bearing capacity in variable soil conditions
 REFERENCES
 Chow, Y. K. (2007). Analysis and design of piled raft foundations. Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS
& AGSSEA, 38(1), 13–24.
 El-Mossallamy, Y. M., & Franke, E. (1997). Bearing behavior of piled rafts in sand. Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 1–6.
 Franke, E., El-Mossallamy, Y., & Katzenbach, R. (1994). Experimental and theoretical investigations of combined
piled raft foundations. Proceedings of the 13th ICSMFE, New Delhi, 5, 153–158.
 Patil, J. D., Vasanvala, S. A., & Solanki, C. H. (2015). An Experimental Study on Behaviour of Piled Raft
Foundation. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 45(1), 64–74.
 Poulos, H. G. (2001). Piled raft foundations: Design and applications. Géotechnique, 51(2), 95–113.
 Prakoso, W. A., & Kulhawy, F. H. (2001). Contribution to piled raft foundation design. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(1), 17–24.
 Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, 5, 61–82.
 Reul, O., & Randolph, M. F. (2004). Design strategies for piled rafts subjected to non-uniform vertical loading.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(1), 1–13.
 Zhang, Y., & Small, J. C. (2000). Analysis of piled raft foundations on layered soils. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 24(9), 719–734.