Henry David Thoreau

Walden (1854)
If you have built castles in the air,
Your work need not be lost;
That is where they should be.
Now put the foundations under them.

FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROCESS
Site characterization
Geology
Stratigraphy
Quantification of relevant geotechnical parameters.
Based on:
In-situ testing
Laboratory testing
Load testing

TALL BUILDINGS, DEEP

FOUNDATIONS; MIDDLE EAST
EXPERIENCES

Coffey Geotechnics

The 2009 Terzaghi Oration

Harry Poulos
Coffey Geotechnics

OUTLINE

Investigations
Design
Load tests
Tower foundation performance

Design Process for High-Rise Buildings

Emirates Twin Towers Project

Burj Dubai
Foundation design
Load tests
Foundation performance

Gold Coast Building

LOCATION OF DUBAI
PROJECTS

Emirates Site - 1996

FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROCESS

Based on:
Foundation loadings
Design criteria
Construction issues
Material availability

Usually piles or piled raft

Foundation Type & Layout.

FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROCESS

Ultimate capacity
Settlement
Differential settlement & tilt
Dynamic behaviour
Earthquake response
Structural strength of foundation elements
Durability

Design Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

LABORATORY TESTING
Conventional laboratory & field tests
Specialized testing
Effects of repetitive wind loading

Site uniformity testing (geophysical)

Cyclic triaxial testing

Deformation parameters

Stress path triaxial testing

Ultimate shaft friction

CNS testing

Dynamic shear modulus & damping

Resonant column testing

GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE &

MODEL FOR EMIRATES SITE

"

Calcisiltite

Silty Sand

Calcareous Sandstone

Silty Sand

Silty Sand

700

90

500

125

700

125

40

Eu MPa

600

80

400

100

500

100

30

E' MPa

450

200

450

150

200

73

18

2.7

2.0

2.7

1.9

2.3

1.5

0.2

fb MPa

2.7

2.0

2.7

1.9

2.3

1.5

0.1

pu MPa

fs kPa

"

SITE PLAN & BOREHOLES

23 boreholes, up to about 80m depth (maximum)

Trial pits
SPT in upper layers
Undisturbed sampling
Water samples
Permeability tests
Pressuremeter tests
Vertical seismic shear wave profiling
Uniformity borehole testing

INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

PREDICTION METHODS
Axial Response
Non-Linear boundary element analysis
PIES program

Lateral Response
Non-Linear boundary element analysis
ERCAP program

Cyclic Tension Test

Non-Linear boundary element analysis
SCARP program

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,

DUBAI

FOUNDATION TYPES
Towers
Piled raft foundations

Podium
Piles, pile groups

LOAD TEST PROGRAM

Compression test to 3000t, L=40m, d=0.9m

Static tension test: L=25m, d=0.6m or 0.7m
Cyclic tension test
Lateral load test

Below each tower:

Class A predictions made using assessed design

parameters

Predicted
Measured

10
20
30
Settlement (mm)

40

LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVES
FOR PILE P3(H)
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000

Load (kN)
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Measured (15000 kN)

Measured (23000 kN)
Predicted

(-0.50)
(-2.00)

(-5.00)

Unit 1 - Silty sand

203
0

22 Nos of ground anchors

No. 4 Strain gauges

No. 1 Extensometer

Footprint of the ground anchors

at the ground level

Unit 2 - Calcareous sandstone

Unit 3 - Silty sand

900

Reference beams

Ground anchors

SETUP FOR COMPRESSION

PILE TESTS
(-1.50)

Working platform

(-10.0)

(-16.0)

(-20.0)

(-25.0)

(-30.0)

(-36.0)

Unit 4 - Calcisiltite

Emirates Project, Dubai

3000t LOAD TEST WITH

REACTION ANCHORS

(-40.0)

1285

5000

2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40

PREDICTED & MEASURED

AXIAL LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS

Applied Load (kN)

Level DMD (m)

Predicted
Measured
Measured

0
5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

25

MEASURED & PREDICTED LATERAL

LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES

175

-5

2.0

Deflection (mm)
4.0
6.0
8.0

10.0

12.0

Measured
Predicted (Load= 150 kN)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

LOAD-MOVEMENT CURVES
FOR UPLIFT TEST

-5

Measured
Predicted

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10

Uplift (mm)

50

40

30

20

10

Ultimate Skin Friction kPa

200
300
400
500

600

Design values
Deduced from P3 (hotel) pile test (compression)
Deduced from P1 (hotel) pile test (tension)
Deduced from P3 (office) pile test (compression)
Deduced from P1 (office) pile test (tension)

100

700

ULTIMATE SHAFT FRICTION

FROM TESTS

Applied Load (kN)

200

125

150

100
75
50
25
0
-10

-1.0 0
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24

Depth (m)

Applied Load (kN)

MEASURED & PREDICTED LATERAL

DEFLECTION vs DEPTH

Level DMD (m)

DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Limit State Approach
Ultimate Limit State:
Static loads
Repetitive wind loads

Serviceability Limit State:

Settlements : max. 150mm
Angular rotation: max. 1/350 long-term

TOWER FOUNDATION
ANALYSES
GARP program for piled rafts
Ultimate Limit State:
Used both factored & unfactored pile capacities
Many load combinations

Serviceability Limit State

Long-term settlements - GARP
Short-term movements (wind) DEFPIG for axial & lateral
stiffness of individual piles in group
Passed on to structural engineer for overall analysis

ASSESSMENT OF
PREDICTIONS

Class A predictions were in fair agreement

Cyclic loading effects not well-predicted
Assisted by:

Comprehensive investigation data

Modern methods of lab & field testing
Straight-forward mechanisms of behavior

EMIRATES TOWERSFOUNDATION SYSTEMS

1.5m thick raft
102 piles for office
91 piles for hotel

1.2 & 1.5 m piles to 40-45 m

DYNAMIC FOUNDATION
RESPONSE
Required for seismic & wind response
Dynamic stiffness & damping from dynamic
pile group analysis via Gazetas approach
MATLAB program developed for evaluation

SEISMIC EFFECTS
Liquefaction:
Low very low risk

Ground Amplification of seismic motions:

Category B assessed modest amplification

Potential for Site Settlements:

Assessed to be low, 5-10mm under design
earthquake, unlikely to cause excessive downdrag
loads on piles.

LOAD COMBINATIONS
Ultimate Limit State:
1.25G + 1.5Q
1.2G + 0.4Q + Wu
0.8G = Wu

Serviceability Limit State:

G + 0.4Q
Total of 18 load cases per tower

PILE INTERACTION DIAGRAM :

OFFICE TOWER

100

10

0
11

15

120
130

130
0
12
0
11

20
25
30
x axis (m)

120

11
0

0
11

35

40

45

120

50

Settlement =
134 mm

Predicted Max.

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS FOR OFFICE TOWER

130

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15

10

10
0

55
50
45
40

105

10
5

10

15

115

11
5

125

125

115

20
25
30
x axis (m)

115

35
30
25
20
15

10

35

40

105

105

10
5

105

45

50

Predicted Max.
Settlement = 138
mm

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS FOR HOTEL TOWER

11
0
125

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,

DUBAI

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,

DUBAI

y axis (m)
y axis (m)

115

T2

T4
-5.3

T6

-6

T3

-7

-6.2

-6.9

-7

T7

-6.5

-7.3

T5

-7.0

-7.4

T1

-7.4

T8

T9

-7

-6.5

-5.8

-7.2

T10
-8.3

-8

T11

-7

T12

-8.2

T15

T13
-7.9

T14

-6

-7

T16

-8.7

T17

-6.3

-7
-8

-6.0

T18

T19

-8.3
-8

-7.5

T20
-8.0

MEASURED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS HOTEL TOWER

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
100

Curve No.

50

Modulus of Soil
between Piles
to Near-Pile Values

20

Modulus of
Layer below
MPa

10
s/d

1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0

90
90
200
700
700

2
5
3
4

1
2
3
4
5

Allowances made for:

Stiffer soil between piles
Stiffer soil below pile tips
Interaction is generally reduced
Markedly.
Assumptions have a MAJOR
influence on computed
interaction effects.

50

40

30

20

10

1998
7

Time (months)

10 11 12

Predicted

T112
T111

MEASURED & PREDICTED TIMESETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR OFFICE

TOWER

Settlement (mm)

50

40

30

20

10

1998
6

Time (months)

Predicted

Measured

T15

T4

10 11 12

MEASURED & PREDICTED TIMESETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR HOTEL

TOWER

Settlement (mm)

SENSITIVITY OF INTERACTION FACTORS

TO ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

Interaction Factor D

SOME COMMENTS

Major efforts to obtain good site

characterization
Design values of skin friction higher than
previously used in UAE
CNS direct shear testing proved very useful
Test pile behaviour reasonably well-predicted
Foundation behaviour not well-predicted, but at
least conservative

TALLEST BUILDINGS (2000)

ORIGINAL

CASE 2

CASE 3

Hotel Tower

CASE 4

CASE 5

EFFECT OF ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ON

COMPUTED SETTLEMENT

160
140
120

80

100

60
40
20
0

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,

DUBAI

Settlement mm

EARLY CONSTRUCTION July

2005

Site Photograph September

2003

BURJ DUBAI TOWER

Dubai - 2006

17

Gypsiferous Sandstone

Calcareous Sandstone

Calcarenite

Silty Sand

SIMPLIFIED PROFILE

4.5

Calcareous/Conglomeritic

Conglomeritic Calcisiltite

22.5

Claystone/Siltstone

40

>47

Base of Tower Raft

Base of Tower Piles

Typical Cores 66m depth

GEOTECHNICAL PEER
REVIEW - SCOPE

Review geotechnical information

Develop geotechnical model independently
Independent review of Hyder foundation design
Independent calculations for foundation stability,
settlement, differential settlement
Assessment of pile load test data and final design
parameters.
Close cooperation between Coffey & Hyder maintained.
Site visits, examination of site and borehole cores.

30 boreholes
SPT
60 PMT tests in 5 boreholes
6 standpipe piezometers
Geophysics cross-hole tomography

SITE CHARACTERIZATION

LABORATORY TESTING

Stress path triaxial

Resonant column
Cyclic undrained triaxial
Cyclic simple shear
CNS

Advanced tests:

HYDER PILE DESIGN

PARAMETER ASSESSMENT
Skin friction via UCS correlations & CNS test
data
Modulus value for settlement prediction via
correlations with SPT & UCS, pressuremeter,
shear wave velocity (with allowance for strain
levels)
Non-linear behaviour via stress path tests
Judgement employed

Typical Cores 88m depth

LABORATORY TESTING

Classification (various)
UCS
Point Load Index
Modulus
Chemical

Conventional tests:

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

50

60

50m long 1.5m diam. pile

40
Settlem ent m m

70

80

PREDICTED LOADSETTLEMENT CURVES

Analysis

90

Hyder
Coffey

62

45

Settlement mm
(Rigid cap)
p)
56

46

REPUTE

VDISP

72

PIGLET

ABAQUS

Settlement mm
(Flexible cap)
p
66

HYDER - INITIAL TOWER

SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS

Load MN

INITIAL PILE DESIGN

Tower:

196 piles, 1.5m diameter, 47.5m long

Podium:

750 0.9m diameter piles, 30m long

Raft:
3.7m thick (tower)

HYDER SETTLEMENT
PREDICTIONS
REPUTE linear

- linear & non-linear

PIGLET - linear
VDISP

ABAQUS non-linear 3D FEA

LOAD TEST PROGRAMOUTCOMES

100

200

300

400

500

Skin Friction kPa

600

700

800

900

Recommended (Hyder)

Msd. Upper Bound

Msd. Low er Bound

Original Design

1.5m piles loaded to 2 times WL

0.9m piles to 3.5 times WL
No piles appeared to be approaching failure
Skin friction values in excess of design assumptions
Shaft grouting effective, but not necessary
End bearing resistance not fully mobilized
Axial stiffness greater than predicted
Cyclic axial loading had little effect
Lateral stiffness greater than predicted

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

COMPARISONS SKIN
FRICTION

RL (DMD)

COFFEY INITIAL TOWER

SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES
FLAC (Axisymmetric)
73 mm
(maximum)

PIGS
74 mm (maximum)

LOAD TEST PROGRAM

3 static compression tests (1.5m dia.)

Various toe levels (35-55m long)

1 static compression test (0.9m dia.)

Shaft grouted

1 cyclic compression test (0.9m dia.)

1 static tension test (0.9m dia.)
1 lateral load test

TOWER PILE LAYOUT

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
PROFILE

TP1

TP2

TP3
Stiffness MN/m

TP4

TP5

TP6

Calc. At Working Load

At Maximum Load

At Working Load

MEASURED & PREDICTED

PILE HEAD STIFFNESSES
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Analysis estimated that this interaction could

cause a reduction in test pile settlement of about
30%
With this allowance, axial stiffness more consistent
with Emirates experience

Possible reasons for stiffer than expected

behaviour:
Use of polymer drilling fluid.
Interaction between test pile & reaction piles:

MEASURED & PREDICTED

PILE HEAD STIFFNESSES

Test Pile Number

Measured Time-SettlementWing B

Measured Time-Settlement
Wing A

LOAD TESTS ON WORKS

PILES

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS PIGS ANALYSIS

Load tests carried out on some works piles

Behaviour (axial) even better than test piles

Predicted settlements could be conservative,

although group settlement depends on
stiffness of underlying layers

Comparison with Predictions

Hyder
Coffey

16 mm

22 mm
25 mm

Assuming 40% DL and LL = 20% of DL, in

August 2006, applied load is about 33% of
design load
For linear behaviour, maximum predicted
settlement is:

Measured

Comparison with Predictions

Latest measurements:
Maximum measured settlement towards the end
of construction is about 40mm

Measured Time-Settlement
Wing C

Measured Settlement Contours August 2006

Gold Coast Project - Artique

A 28 storey building on the

Gold Coast
Structural Engineer
designed a fully piled to rock
foundation system
Piling contractor engaged
Coffey to assess feasibility
of piled raft
Based on results of
feasibility, piling contractor
engaged Coffey to optimize
piled raft design

Feasibility
Detailed Design Serviceability
Optimization
Detailed Design Strength

Analysis of Piled Raft

COMPLETED RAFT

Early 2007

September 2007

CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

Early 2006

Feasibility Results
Indicated that a raft foundation alone would
have a factor of safety of approximately 10 for
ultimate loading
Settlements would govern. Estimated to be of
the order of 35mm to 60mm
The number of piles would be of the order of
140 as per the foundation design supplied by
contractor. However, piles only 18m long not
35m

Serviceability Case
123 piles (13
less)
Maximum raft
settlement of
44mm
Maximum
differential
settlement of
10mm (1/400)

SAND
D

PEATY CLAY
(SOME SAND)
F-St

SAND
D-VD

DESCRIPTION

14

60

10

60

Av.
SPT

250

80

Su
kPa

37.5

25

90

90

Es
(RAFT)
MPa

2.25

1.5

5.4

0.5

5.4

pu
(RAFT)
MPa

200

50

40

120

20

120

Es
(PILES)
MPa

100

48

60

100

22

100

fs
kPa

10.0

4.1

2.0

9.9

0.7

9.9

fb
MPa

136 piles
founded
on rock

Slab
0.7m
thick

Shear joint between core and podium

Original Design

SANDY CLAY (H)

/CLAYEY SAND
MD

25

9.0

SAND WITH
SOME GRAVEL
MD

150

-30

10.0

100

SANDY GRAVEL

2000

-35

2000

-40

M
METASILTSTONE
SW

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

ASSUMED
BASE OF RAFT

Contiguous bored pile wall

Geotechnical
Model

RL (m)

Patrick Wong
Jeff Forse
Paul Gildea
Bob Lumsdaine
Strath Clarke
Leanne Petersen

Burj Dubai:

Emirates Project:

Paran Moyes
Frances Badelow
John Small

Artique Project

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Frances Badelow
Muliadi Merry
Patrick Wong

Outcomes

Number of piles reduced by 10% (13 piles)

Pile length reduced from 35m to 18m
Total pile length reduced by 2767m
Settlement criteria (both total and
differential) satisfied
Potential variations in pile stiffness
compensated for by raft

CONCLUSIONS

Ground conditions in Dubai are challenging for very tall

buildings
Modern methods are being employed for:
In-situ testing
Laboratory testing
Analysis & design methods

Simpler methods essential for checks on advanced numerical

analyses
Use of piled rafts can lead to foundation economy
With benefit of experience, predictive capabilities are
improving
BUT, reluctance remains to measure foundation performance