GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT
PROPOSED FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR THE BURJ DUBAI

Submitted By:
Arya. N
ME-GE
SR NO:11229

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
2.2 Site Location and Description
3. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Main Investigation
3.2 Laboratory Testing
4. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITE
4.1 Geology
4.2 Geotechnical Profile and Parameters
4.3 Ground Water Condition
5. FOUNDATION DESIGN
5.1 General Design
5.2 Settlements Analysis
5.3 Overall Stability Analysis
5.4 Independent Verification Analysis
6. CYCLIC LOADING EFFECTS
7. PILE LOADING TESTING
7.1 Primary Pile Testing program
7.2 Ultimate Axial Load Capacity
7.3 Ultimate Shaft Friction
7.4 Ultimate End Bearing Capacity
7.5 Load-Settlement Behavior

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical report has been completed for the proposed foundation
for worlds tallest building, Burj Dubai, Dubai
The geotechnical investigation was carried out in four phases; field and
laboratory testing programs were conducted. With these results, design
processes were done, in which various design issues including cyclic
degradation of skin friction due to wind loading, were addressed. Design issues
such as ultimate bearing capacity, overall stability under wind and seismic
loading, settlement and differential settlement are also dealt in this report.
The purpose of this investigation is to provide information and
geotechnical engineering recommendation relative to:

Subsurface soil conditions

Ground water conditions
Cyclic loading effects
Pile load testing results
Foundation design and construction

2. PROJECT INFORMATION:
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ITEM

Building
Proposed Foundation Details

DESCRIPTION
160 storey high rise tower, with a podium
development around the base of the tower,
including 4-6 storey garage.
3.7 m thick raft supported on bored piles, 1.5
m in diameter, extending approximately 50 m
below the base of the raft.

2.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

ITEM
Location
Current Ground Cover
Existing topography

DESCRIPTION
Dubai
Bare ground
Relatively low lying with
exception
of
the
mountainous region in the
north-east of the country.

3. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE INVESTIGATION

3.1. MAIN INVESTIGATION
The following four phases were followed for the geotechnical
investigation.
Phase 1(Main investigation):
23 boreholes, in situ SPTs, 40 pressuremeter tests in boreholes,
installation of 4 standpipe piezometers, laboratory testing, specialist
laboratory testing and contamination testing
Phase 2(main investigation):
3 geophysical boreholes with cross-hole and tomography
geophysical surveys were carried out between 3 new boreholes and 1
existing borehole
Phase 3:
6 boreholes, in situ SPTs, 20 pressuremeter tests in 2 boreholes,
installation of 2standpipe piezometers and laboratory testing

Phase 4:
1 borehole, in situ SPTs, cross-hole geophysical testing in 3
boreholes and down-hole geophysical testing in one borehole and

laboratory testing.From the boreholes,disturbed, undisturbed and split

spoon samples were obtained. Double tube core barrels were used for
obtaining undisturbed samples.
SPTs were carried out at various depths in boreholes and were
generally carried out in the overburden soils, in weak rock or
soil bands encountered in the rock strata.
Pressuremeter testing was carried out typically below the Tower
footprint.
The major geophysical methods employed were cross-hole
seismic survey, cross-hole tomography and down-hole
geophysical survey.
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING:
In laboratory testing, the following two broad classes of tests
were conducted:
Conventional tests: Determination of moisture content,
Atterberg limits, particle size distribution, specific gravity,
unconfined compression test, point load index, direct shear test
and carbonate content test.
Sophisticated test such as stress path triaxial resonant column,
cyclic undrained triaxial, cyclic simple shear and constant
normal stiffness direct shear test.
4. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITE
4.1 GEOLOGY
Dubai is located at the eastern edge of the Arabian plate which is
stable. The Arabian Gulf separates it from the unstable Iranian fold
belt. Hence the site is considered to be in seismically active region. A
significant amount of marine sediments are found in the site which are
the result of changes in sea level during relatively recent geological
time. Predominantly in surface geology, deposits of Quarternary to

late Pleistocene age, including mobile Aeolian dune sands, evaporate

deposits and marine sands are seen.
4.2.

GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE AND PARAMETERS

The ground profile and derived geotechnical parameters are summarized

in the below table.
Strata Sub
strat
a

Subsurface
material

Medium
dense silty
sand
Loose
to
very loose
silty sand
Very weak to
moderately
weak
Calcarenite
Medium
dense
to
very dense
sand
Very weak to
weak
calcareous
sand stone
Very weak to
weak
calcareous
sand stone
Very weak to
weak
gypsiferous
sand stone
Very weak to

1a

1b

3a

3b

3c

5a

Level
at Thick
top
of ness
stratum
(m)
(m)
+2.50
1.50

USC Eu
E
Ult.
(mpa) (mpa (mpa Fricti
)
)
on
(kPa)
34.5 30
-

+1.00

2.20

11.5

10

-1.20

6.10

2.0

500

400

350

-7.30

6.20

50

40

250

-13.50

7.50

1.0

250

200

250

-21.00

3.00

1.0

140

110

250

-24.00

4.50

2.0

140

110

250

-28.5

21.5

1.3

310

250

285

5b

moderately
weak
Calcisiltite
Very weak to -50.00
moderately
weak
Calcisiltite
Very weak to -68.5
weak
Calcareous
strata
Weak
to -91.00
moderately
weak
claystone/silt
stone

18.50

1.7

405

325

325

22.5

2.5

560

450

400

>46.7
9

1.7

405

325

325

4.3. GROUND WATER CONDITIONS

High ground water levels were generally observed in the site. The
excavations made in the site encountered ground water at approximately +0.0m
DMD (approximately 2.5m below ground level).

5. FOUNDATION DESIGN
5.1GENERAL DESIGN
Initial assessment of pile capacity was found out using the design
recommendation proposed by Horvath and Kenney(1979).
Ultimate unit shaft resistance fs=0.25(qu)0.5
Where fs is in kPa and qu=uniaxial compression in MN/m2.
The ultimate unit skin friction of a pile loaded in tension is taken as half the
ultimate unit shaft resistance of the pile loaded in compression.
The design results obtained from the above calculation are as follows:
Tower piles:

 Diameter= 1.5 m
Length= 47.45 m
Tower raft founded at -7.55m DMD
Podium piles:
Diameter= 0.9m
Length= 30 m
Podium raft founded on -4.85m DMD
Raft
Thickness= 3.7 m
5.2SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
The general equation used for the settlement calculation:
1
rigid= (centre+ edge) flexible
2

Here are the results obtained for the settlement from various analyses:
Analysis
Method
FEA
REPTURE
PIGLET
VDISP

Loadcase
Tower Only
(DL+LL)
Tower Only
(DL+LL)
Tower Only
(DL+LL)
Tower Only
(DL+LL)

Settlement mm
Rigid
56

Flexible
66

45

62

46

72

The maximum and minimum pile loading were obtained from the FE analysis
for all loading combinations. The maximum loads were at the corners of the
three wings and were of the order 35MN, while the minimum loads were within
the centre of the group and were of the order 12-13 MN. The impact of the
cyclic loading on the piles was an important consideration and in order to
address this, the load variation above and below the dead load plus live load
cases was determined. The maximum load variation was found to be less than
10MN.

5.3 OVERALL STABILITY ANALYSIS

The minimum centre to centre spacing of the piles for the tower is 2.5 times
the pile diameter. A factor of safety of just less than 2 was assessed for vertical
block movement, excluding base resistance of block while a factor of safety
greater than 2 was determined for lateral block movement excluding passive
resistance. A factor of safety of 5 was obtained for overturning of the block.
5.4 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Summary of geotechnical model for independent verification analysis is
given below:
Stratum
number
1a
1b
2
3
4
5a
5b
6

Description

Ultimate
friction kPa
Med.Dense silty sand
Loose-v.loose
silty sand
Weak-mod.weak
400
calcarenite
V.weak calc.sandstone 300
V.weak-weak
360
sandstone
V.weak-weak250
mod.weak calcisiltite
V.weak-weak275
mod.weak calcisiltite
Calcareous siltstone
375

skin Ultimate
end
bearing MPa
4.0
3.0
3.6
2.5
2.75
3.75

6. CYCLIC LOADING EFFECTS

The possible effects of cyclic loading were investigated via the following
means:

Cyclic triaxial laboratory tests

Cyclic direct shear tests
Cyclic constant normal stiffness laboratory tests
Independent theoretical analysis carried out by the independent verifier

In cyclic triaxial test, it is observed that there is some potential for

degradation of stiffness and accumulation of excess pore pressure. Direct

shear also indicated the reduction of residual shear strength. CNS indicated
that there is not a significant potential for cyclic degradation of skin friction,
provided that the cyclic shear stress remains within the anticipated range.
It was observed that when the cyclic load exceeds about 10 MN, there is
some loss of capacity. The maximum loss of capacity was in the order of 1520%. Except when the mean load exceeds about 30 MN, the capacity loss
was relatively insensitive to the mean load level. It was predicted that at a
mean load equal to the working load and under a cyclic load of about 25% of
the working load, the relative increase in settlement for 10 cycles of load
would be about 27%.
The various analyses indicated that cyclic loading of the Burj tower
foundation would not exceed 10 MN. Thus it seemed reasonable to assume
that the effects of cyclic loading would not significantly degrade the axial
capacity of piles, and that the effects of cyclic loading on both capacity and
settlement were unlikely to be insignificant.
7. PILE LOAD TESTING
Static load testing was done through the following two programs:
Static load test on seven trial piles prior to foundation construction.
Static load test on eight working piles, carried out during the
foundation construction phase.
7.1 PRIMARY PILE TESTING PROGRAM
The main aim of the test was to determine the load-settlement behavior of
piles of the anticipated length below the tower. The other factors estimated
during the tests are:

The effect of increasing the pile shaft length

The effect of shaft grouting
The effect of reducing the shaft diameter
The effect of uplift loading
The effect of lateral loading
The effect of cyclic loading

The piles were constructed using polymer drilling fluid, which led to
piles whose performance exceeded expectation.

7.2 ULTIMATE AXIAL LOAD CAPACITY

The significant observation obtained from the tests was that, at the
working load, a factor of safety against geotechnical failure appeared to be in
excess of 3, thus giving a comfortable margin of safety against failure,especially
as the raft would also provide additional resistance to supplement that of the
piles.
7.3 ULTIMATE SHAFT FRICTION
The original assumption appeared to be comfortably conservative within
the upper part of the ground profile. Shaft friction appeared to enhance the skin
friction developed along the pile. Because the skin friction in the lower part of
the ground profile does not appear to have been fully mobilized, it was
recommended that the original value to be used in lower strata. It was also
recommended that the theoretical values in the top layers be used because of the
presence of casing in the test would probably have given skin friction values
that may have been too low.
7.4 ULTIMATE END BEARING CAPACITY
None of the load tests was able to mobilize any significant end bearing
resistance, because skin friction appeared to be more than adequate to resist
loads well in excess of the working load. Hence, in the final design, the length
of the pile was increased where the proposed pile toe levels were close to or
within the gypsiferous sandstone layer.
7.5 LOAD-SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOUR
Pile
Working Max.
number Load MN load MN

Settlement Settlement
at w.load at max.load
mm
mm

TP1
TP2
TP3
TP4
TP5
TP6

7.89
5.55
5.78
4.47
3.64
-0.65

30.13
30.13
30.13
10.1
10.1
-1.0

60.26
60.26
60.26
35.07
40.16
-3.5

21.26
16.85
20.24
26.62
27.45
-4.88

Stiffnes
s
at
w.load
MN/m
3819
5429
5213
2260
2775
1536

Stiffness
at Max.
load
MN/m
2834
3576
2977
1317
1463
717

The observations from the pile load testing are summarized below:

 The stiffness values measured were relatively large and was in excess of
those anticipated.
Stiffness was higher for the larger diameter piles
Stiffness of shaft grouted piles are greater than that of the corresponding
ungrouted piles.