SEMINAR V

COMBINED
FOUNDATIONS
FOUNDATION SLAB WITH
Section CC
PILES
CONVENTIONAL
Topic submitted by:

Section BB Eng. Wendell Ariel Lanzas Mejía Eng. Juan José Morales Aburto
Eng. Uriel Alexander Ramirez

Reviewed by:
Dr. Eng. Jose Daniel
Ortiz
Section AA

Friday, January 26, 2018

 1. Introduction
It is common that if a building is preliminarily designed with a foundation slab to support the
structure and this is inadequate to control the total and differential settlements, the use of a
certain number of strategically placed piles must be used to combine the support capacity of
the slab, piles and subsoil in a single composite structure called slab pile foundation (LCP)
 2. Background
Although the construction of tall buildings with this foundation system has increased in recent years, the
concept is not new and had already been described by several
authors as:

□ Zeevaer t, in 1957 who suggested the use of piles to reduce

the occurrence of settlement in shallow clay foundations in
Mexico.

□ ( Davis and Poulos, 1972 ) and ( Hooper, 1973 ) among

many others.

□ However, the first to consider in theoretical terms the load

capacity of the slab combined with piles were ( Kishida and
Meyerhoff, 1965 ).

<\í
í/ 1/ í/ 4
 3 . Concept of slabs combined with piles (LCP)
The pile-combined slab can be defined as a composite structure that consists of the load-bearing
capacity of three elements: piles, slab and subsoil. The applied loads are transferred to the subgrade
through the slab and piles. The slab discharges into the subsoil through contact pressure, while the
piles carry out the transfer through friction and tip.

LOAD
S OF THE
t SUPE
RSTRU
r CTURE
u
c
t
uE SLAB PILES
rl
ee
m
e
n
Transfer
t CONTACT FRICTION TIP
mechanism PRESSURE
 4. Advantages of slabs combined with piles (LCP)
❖ Significant reduction in the number and length of piles.
❖Reduction of maximum and differential settlement.
❖Reduction of internal forces and moments with an optimal arrangement of the piles under the slab.
❖Improves the bearing capacity of the foundation by using load sharing between the slab and piles.
❖Limitation of soil discharge during excavation, because the piles, which at this stage work in traction, prevent the
release of stresses in it. Avoiding excessive lifting of the base of the excavation.

❖Reduction of the risk of failures or cracks in superstructure elements, particularly building facades.
❖Implementation of an eccentric block that prevents overturning in the case of eccentric acting loads, through an
asymmetric arrangement of the piles.
YO -- --__________________________ )M
 5. Classification of slabs combined with piles
According to Poulos (2001), De Sanctis et al. (2001) and Viggiani (2001) have distinguished between two classes
of pile foundation slabs:

W: Slab width.
L: Length of piles.
 6. Favorable and unfavorable circumstances
Favorable:

Soil profile with:

Hard clay.
Dense sand.

In both circumstances the slab can provide a significant proportion of

the required load capacity, with the piles acting as a “enhancer” of
the foundation's performance, rather than providing greater support.

There are soil conditions that may be unfavorable:

Soft clay and loose sand.
Soft compressible layers at shallow depth.

In both cases the slab cannot provide significant load capacity or

considerable rigidity.
 7. Factors affecting LCP performance

1. Number of piles and type of load:

a) With the increase in the number of piles, the maximum
settlement decreases, but remains constant for a group
of 20 or more piles.

b) For small numbers of piles the maximum settlement for

concentrated loading is greater than for distributed
loading, but the difference becomes almost zero for 10
or more piles.

c) The percentage of load taken by the piles increases

with the number of piles
 7. Factors affecting LCP performance
2. Effect of slab thickness
Effect of slab thickness, for different quantities
of piles, on the behavior of a foundation for a
hypothetical example. (Poulos). (to).
Maximum settlement. (b). differential
settlement. (c). maximum moment. (d).
proportion of loads taken by the piles.

Slab thickness affects differential

settlement and maximum moment, but
has little effect on load sharing and

maximum settlement
N urrbe r of
piles
 7. Factors affecting LCP performance
3. Relative length of piles

• For a given number of piles, as the length/diameter ratio of piles

increases:

□ Differential settlement
□ Decreases the maximum moment.

□ The most effective strategy:

□ Increase the length of the piles instead of increasing the number
of piles.

4. Relationship between the width of the pile group and the

width of the slab:

□ -Ratio = 1, to minimize the average displacement.

□ -Ratio = 0.5, to minimize differential settlement.
 8. Design methods for LCP.
ANALYSIS OF COMBINED SLAB WITH
PILES (LCP)

SIMPLIFIED METHODS OR METHODS

PRELIMINARIES NUMERICS
 8. Design methods for LCP.
1. Empirical correlations
Empirical correlations allow predicting the load-
settlement behavior of the LCP. Based on
laboratory results and field tests, the bearing
capacity of piles can be determined through
correlations and the use of tabular values.
a) Load Capacity Method.
They are a function of the total load of the
foundation, the load of the pile group and the load
of the slab.

Curve0 =Slab only (Greater settlement)

Curve 1 = Slab design with piles with
conventional safety factor Settlement
Curve 2 = Slab design with piles with low safety
factor
Curve 3 = Slab with piles for load capacity. (Use
of smaller number of piles )
 8. Design methods for LCP.

b) Middle settlement:
In this the correlations are expressed around
the settlement factor (Rs) which is the ratio
between the settlement of the group of piles
and the individual pile.

□ (Skempton, 1953)
□ (Meyerhof, 1959)
 8. Design methods for LCP.

2.Recourse to equivalent foundation models

Just mole
a) Equivalent slab (Terzaghi 1943,
Randolph 1994, Thaher and Jessberger
1990)

b) Equivalent pile (Poulos and Davis

1980.)

c) Equivalent pile grid (Schiel 1970 and

Desai, Kuppusamy et al. 1981)
 8. Design methods for LCP.

3. Methods based on the theory of elasticity

Here the bearing capacity of the foundation slab

is determined, omitting the piles. If the loads are
greater than the bearing capacity of the slab, the
excess loads are distributed to the piles.
The Illustration shows the Load Settlement
Curve for a preliminary LCP analysis.

4. Support independent of travel.

This first determines the load for which the slab
experiences admissible settlements, neglecting the
Settlement
 8. Design methods for LCP.

collaboration of the piles. Then it assigns the rest of the external load to the piles, for which it is admitted
that the displacements are of such magnitude that the entire bearing load is reached.
 8. Design methods for LCP.

5. Detailed or numerical methods

Analysis with Boundary Element Methods (BEM)

Analysis with Finite Element Methods (FEM)

Analysis with Hybrid or Mixed Methods

 8. Design methods for LCP.

6. Detailed or numerical methods

5.1. Analysis with Boundary Element Methods (BME):

■ It can be used in engineering applications when only the contour must be

discretized that includes the solution to a set of integral equations.

■ The numerical solution is initially obtained in the contours and subsequently the
values in the lower points of the domain in question are inferred.

■ These solutions are based on Mindlin's equation in 1936, for a point load in an
elastic half-space.

■ Soil heterogeneity, non-linearity and pile-soil interaction can only be considered

approximately.
 8. Design methods for LCP.

■ . Detailed or numerical methods

5.2. Analysis with Finite Element Methods (FEM):

■ Use of more complex developed programs whose analysis involves various

factors that take into account the properties of the materials, the shape of the
slab, slab thickness, quantity, diameter and length of the piles as well as the
properties of the soil.

■ The processing of these data is run and the results are from a non-linear
analysis resulting in ultimate load capacity, settlements, stress distribution, etc.

Programs used: PRAXIS 3D, ANSYS, FLAC 3D, GASP (Geotechnical

Analysis of Strip with Piles), GARP (Geotechnical Analysis of Raft with Piles).
 8. Design methods for LCP.

5. Detailed or numerical methods

5.3. Analysis with Mixed or Hybrid Methods:

■ The representation of the slab by the MEF makes it possible to incorporate the
effects of flexibility. The MEC is generally used to represent the soil-pile
assembly.

■ Hain and Lee 1978 were the first in this line of work.

■ Poulos in 1994, presented the GARP (Geotechnical Analysis of Raft with

Piles) program, where the slab is analyzed by the finite difference method and
the piles are represented by equivalent piers where all forms of interaction were
considered through the method. of superposition of deformation fields.
 9. Case Studies
1. Azteca Insurance Building

Built in 1954 on one of the busiest avenues in Mexico, on Insurgentes Sur and Niza.

It consists of 10 floors, being offices of Seguros Azteca and currently abandoned.

It is located in a dense, highly compressible clay deposit that was also subject to ground
subsidence due to groundwater extraction.
 9. Case Studies
1. Azteca Insurance Building
The building was founded
on a LCP, it consists of a
6m deep excavation with a
foundation slab supported
by 83 concrete piles 40 cm
in diameter and 18 m long,
driven 24 meters deep.

The challenges in this case

were in designing the
foundation for a relatively
tall building on a soft clay
deposit during a pre-
 9. Case Studies
computer era.
 9. Case Studies
1. Azteca Insurance Building

The pileless settlement that Zeevaert calculated

(from a
one-
dimensional
analysis)
was
substantial.

The
addition of
the piles
was
3.5m Basement intended to
#eA9

2.5 m Foundation structure /AW/

AVW/Z__F reduce the
settlement
to less than half the value without the use of the piles.

The measured settlements were almost 20% less than the calculated
settlements, although they confirmed the predictions very reasonably.
9. Case Studies
 9. Case Studies
1. Azteca Insurance Building

Learned lessons:

■ Tall buildings can be built in deep deposits of

soft clay making the use of LCP.

■ Reasonable estimates of the settlement of such foundations can be

made without resorting to complex numerical analyses.

■ Accurate characterization of ground conditions is more critical than

the analysis method used to carry out settlement calculations, since it
reasonably and appropriately reflects the behavioral mechanisms.
9. Case Studies
Compared to shallow foundations, LCPs effectively reduce settlement, therefore minimizing
the potential risk of collapse of new buildings and also ensuring the stability and
serviceability of adjacent structures.

The application of LCP leads to a greater than 60% reduction in the total number of piles
and the length required for the foundation.

Positive engineering experience with the use of LCP, especially in tall buildings, both on
soft clays and loose granular soils, indicates that this type of foundation offers a safe and
economical solution in a wide range of practical applications.
For optimal design and construction of LCP, it is important to consider the following
aspects:
9. Case Studies
1. Detailed geological investigation program of the site.

2. The most economical and safe design of LCP is only possible if the soil-structure
interaction is considered, using the appropriate methods and must be controlled by a
geotechnical expert, during the stage of model creation, interpretation of results and
construction to ensure compliance. of the specifications defined in the design.

3. During the construction of the LCP, an autonomous team is required for quality
control, independent of the contractor.