Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Coffey Geotechnics
OUTLINE
Design Process for High-Rise Buildings
Emirates Twin Towers Project
Investigations
Design
Load tests
Tower foundation performance
Burj Dubai
Foundation design
Load tests
Foundation performance
FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROCESS
Site characterization
Geology
Stratigraphy
Quantification of relevant geotechnical parameters.
Based on:
In-situ testing
Laboratory testing
Load testing
FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROCESS
Foundation Type & Layout.
Usually piles or piled raft
Based on:
Foundation loadings
Design criteria
Construction issues
Material availability
FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROCESS
Design Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ultimate capacity
Settlement
Differential settlement & tilt
Dynamic behaviour
Earthquake response
Structural strength of foundation elements
Durability
LOCATION OF DUBAI
PROJECTS
INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
LABORATORY TESTING
Conventional laboratory & field tests
Specialized testing
Site uniformity testing (geophysical)
Cyclic triaxial testing
Effects of repetitive wind loading
CNS testing
Ultimate shaft friction
E' MPa
fs kPa
fb MPa
pu MPa
Silty Sand
40
30
18
0.2
0.1
Silty Sand
125
100
73
1.5
1.5
Calcareous Sandstone
700
500
200
2.3
2.3
Silty Sand
125
100
150
1.9
1.9
Calcisiltite
500
400
450
2.7
2.7
"
90
80
200
2.0
2.0
"
700
600
450
2.7
2.7
FOUNDATION TYPES
Towers
Piled raft foundations
Podium
Piles, pile groups
PREDICTION METHODS
Axial Response
Non-Linear boundary element analysis
PIES program
Lateral Response
Non-Linear boundary element analysis
ERCAP program
Ground anchors
(-2.00)
(-5.00)
(-10.0)
1285
203
0
(-16.0)
No. 1 Extensometer
(-30.0)
(-36.0)
(-40.0)
Unit 4 - Calcisiltite
LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVES
FOR PILE P3(H)
30000
Predicted
Measured
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
10
20
30
Settlement (mm)
40
Load (kN)
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
LOAD-MOVEMENT CURVES
FOR UPLIFT TEST
6000
Measured
Predicted
4000
3000
2000
1000
-5
5000
100
600
Depth (m)
10
20
30
40
50
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)
700
Predicted
Measured
Measured
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-10
-5
0
5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
25
Deflection (mm)
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Measured
Predicted (Load= 150 kN)
12.0
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
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Limit State Approach
Ultimate Limit State:
Static loads
Repetitive wind loads
TOWER FOUNDATION
ANALYSES
GARP program for piled rafts
Ultimate Limit State:
Used both factored & unfactored pile capacities
Many load combinations
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Ultimate Limit State:
1.25G + 1.5Q
1.2G + 0.4Q + Wu
0.8G = Wu
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
PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS FOR OFFICE TOWER
55
50
11
0
Predicted Max.
45
Settlement =
134 mm
40
120
130
30
130
120
130
25
0
12
0
11
100
y axis (m)
10
0
11
0
35
20
120
15
0
11
10
0
11
5
0
10
15
20
25
30
x axis (m)
35
40
45
50
PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS FOR HOTEL TOWER
55
50
105
Predicted Max.
Settlement = 138
mm
45
1
0
115
40
115
105
125
25
125
105
30
115
y axis (m)
35
10
5
125
20
10
5
11
5
15
115
10
105
5
0
10
15
20
25
30
x axis (m)
35
40
45
50
10 11 12
T112
T111
Settlement (mm)
10
20
30
40
50
Predicted
10 11 12
Settlement (mm)
T4
10
Measured
20
Predicted
30
40
50
T15
MEASURED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS HOTEL TOWER
T1
-7.0
T9
T3
T2
-6.5
-6.9
-7.4
-7
T16
-7
-6.3
T10
-8.3
T13
-7.9
-6
T5
T4
-6.2
-8.3
T15
T14
T11
-8.2
-7.2
T19
-7
-6.0
-7
-6
T7
-7.4
-7.3
-5.8
T12
T8
-6.5
-8
-8.7
T17
T6
T18
-8
-8
-5.3
-7
-7
-7.5
T20
-8.0
Modulus of
Layer below
MPa
Modulus of Soil
between Piles
to Near-Pile Values
1
2
3
4
5
90
90
200
700
700
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
0.4
Interaction Factor
0.3
2
0.2
5
3
0.1
0
1
10
s/d
20
50
100
Settlement mm
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ORIGINAL
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
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
Dubai - 2006
GEOTECHNICAL PEER
REVIEW - SCOPE
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
30 boreholes
SPT
60 PMT tests in 5 boreholes
6 standpipe piezometers
Geophysics cross-hole tomography
SIMPLIFIED PROFILE
4
Silty Sand
Calcarenite
17
Calcareous Sandstone
4.5
Gypsiferous Sandstone
40
Conglomeritic Calcisiltite
Calcareous/Conglomeritic
>47
Claystone/Siltstone
LABORATORY TESTING
Conventional tests:
Classification (various)
UCS
Point Load Index
Modulus
Chemical
LABORATORY TESTING
Advanced tests:
Podium:
750 0.9m diameter piles, 30m long
Raft:
3.7m thick (tower)
HYDER SETTLEMENT
PREDICTIONS
REPUTE linear
PIGLET - linear
VDISP
80
70
Load MN
60
50
Hyder
Coffey
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Settlem ent m m
60
70
80
90
Settlement mm
(Flexible cap)
66
Settlement mm
(Rigid cap)
56
PIGLET
45
VDISP
62
72
46
ABAQUS
PIGS
74 mm (maximum)
COMPARISONS SKIN
FRICTION
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
RL (DMD)
-20
-40
Original Design
Msd. Low er Bound
Msd. Upper Bound
Recommended (Hyder)
-60
-80
-100
-120
Skin Friction kPa
5000
4000
At Working Load
3000
At Maximum Load
Calc. At Working Load
2000
1000
0
TP1
TP2
TP3
TP4
Stiffness MN/m
TP5
TP6
PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
PROFILE
PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS PIGS ANALYSIS
Measured Time-Settlement
Wing A
Measured Time-SettlementWing B
Measured Time-Settlement
Wing C
22 mm
25 mm
Measured
16 mm
COMPLETED RAFT
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
Early 2006
Early 2007
September 2007
Feasibility
Detailed Design Serviceability
Optimization
Detailed Design Strength
Original Design
136 piles
founded
on rock
Slab
0.7m
thick
ASSUMED
BASE OF RAFT
pu
(RAFT)
MPa
Es
(PILES)
MPa
fs
kPa
fb
MPa
90
5.4
120
100
9.9
0.5
20
22
0.7
90
5.4
120
100
9.9
14
250
25
1.5
40
60
2.0
SAND WITH
SOME GRAVEL
MD
25
37.5
2.25
50
48
4.1
SANDY GRAVEL
100
150
9.0
200
100
10.0
METASILTSTONE
SW
2000
2000
Av.
SPT
SAND
D-VD
60
PEATY CLAY
(SOME SAND)
F-St
10
80
SAND
D
60
-5
Geotechnical
Model
Es
(RAFT)
MPa
Su
kPa
DESCRIPTION
-10
RL (m)
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
10.0
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)
Outcomes
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
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Artique Project
Paran Moyes
Frances Badelow
John Small
Emirates Project:
Patrick Wong
Jeff Forse
Paul Gildea
Bob Lumsdaine
Strath Clarke
Leanne Petersen
Burj Dubai:
Frances Badelow
Muliadi Merry
Patrick Wong