Sie sind auf Seite 1von 87

TALL BUILDINGS, DEEP

FOUNDATIONS; MIDDLE EAST


EXPERIENCES
The 2009 Terzaghi Oration
Harry Poulos
Coffey Geotechnics

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

Gold Coast Building

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

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

Emirates Site - 1996

SITE PLAN & BOREHOLES

INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

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

LABORATORY TESTING
Conventional laboratory & field tests
Specialized testing
Site uniformity testing (geophysical)
Cyclic triaxial testing
Effects of repetitive wind loading

Stress path triaxial testing


Deformation parameters

CNS testing
Ultimate shaft friction

Resonant column testing


Dynamic shear modulus & damping

GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE &


MODEL FOR EMIRATES SITE
Eu MPa

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

LOAD TEST PROGRAM


Below each tower:

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

Class A predictions made using assessed design


parameters

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

SETUP FOR COMPRESSION


PILE TESTS
Working platform
(-0.50)
(-1.50)

Ground anchors

(-2.00)

(-5.00)

Unit 1 - Silty sand


900

(-10.0)

1285

203
0

(-16.0)

Unit 2 - Calcareous sandstone


Reference beams
(-20.0)

Footprint of the ground anchors


at the ground level
(-25.0)

No. 1 Extensometer
(-30.0)

Unit 3 - Silty sand

(-36.0)

(-40.0)

No. 4 Strain gauges

22 Nos of ground anchors

Unit 4 - Calcisiltite

3000t LOAD TEST WITH


REACTION ANCHORS

Emirates Project, Dubai

LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVES
FOR PILE P3(H)
30000
Predicted
Measured

Applied Load (kN)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0

10
20
30
Settlement (mm)

40

Level DMD (m)

PREDICTED & MEASURED


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

Load (kN)
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Measured (15000 kN)


Measured (23000 kN)
Predicted

LOAD-MOVEMENT CURVES
FOR UPLIFT TEST
6000

Measured
Predicted

4000
3000
2000
1000

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


Uplift (mm)

-5

Applied Load (kN)

5000

ULTIMATE SHAFT FRICTION


FROM TESTS
0

100

Ultimate Skin Friction kPa


200
300
400
500

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

MEASURED & PREDICTED LATERAL


LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES
200

Predicted
Measured
Measured

175

Applied Load (kN)

150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-10

-5

0
5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

25

MEASURED & PREDICTED LATERAL


DEFLECTION vs DEPTH
-1.0 0
2

Deflection (mm)
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

10.0

0
-2
-4

Level DMD (m)

-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

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

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

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

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.

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

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,


DUBAI

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,


DUBAI

MEASURED & PREDICTED TIMESETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR OFFICE


TOWER
Time (months)
1998

10 11 12

T112
T111

Settlement (mm)

10

20

30

40

50

Predicted

MEASURED & PREDICTED TIMESETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR HOTEL


TOWER
Time (months)
1998

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

SENSITIVITY OF INTERACTION FACTORS


TO ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
Curve No.

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

Allowances made for:


Stiffer soil between piles
Stiffer soil below pile tips

0.4

Interaction is generally reduced


Markedly.

Interaction Factor

0.3
2
0.2

5
3

0.1

Assumptions have a MAJOR


influence on computed
interaction effects.

0
1

10
s/d

20

50

100

EFFECT OF ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ON


COMPUTED SETTLEMENT
Hotel Tower
160

Settlement mm

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

ORIGINAL

CASE 2

CASE 3

CASE 4

CASE 5

THE EMIRATES PROJECT,


DUBAI

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)

Dubai - 2006

BURJ DUBAI TOWER

Site Photograph September


2003

EARLY CONSTRUCTION July


2005

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.

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

Base of Tower Raft

Base of Tower Piles


22.5

Calcareous/Conglomeritic

>47

Claystone/Siltstone

Typical Cores 66m depth

Typical Cores 88m depth

LABORATORY TESTING
Conventional tests:

Classification (various)
UCS
Point Load Index
Modulus
Chemical

LABORATORY TESTING
Advanced tests:

Stress path triaxial


Resonant column
Cyclic undrained triaxial
Cyclic simple shear
CNS

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

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
PIGLET - linear
VDISP

- linear & non-linear

ABAQUS non-linear 3D FEA

PREDICTED LOADSETTLEMENT CURVES


50m long 1.5m diam. pile
90

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

HYDER - INITIAL TOWER


SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS
Analysis
REPUTE

Settlement mm
(Flexible cap)
66

Settlement mm
(Rigid cap)
56

PIGLET

45

VDISP

62

72

46

ABAQUS

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

LOAD TEST PROGRAMOUTCOMES


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

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

MEASURED & PREDICTED


PILE HEAD STIFFNESSES
6000

5000

Test Pile Number

4000

At Working Load
3000

At Maximum Load
Calc. At Working Load

2000

1000

0
TP1

TP2

TP3

TP4
Stiffness MN/m

TP5

TP6

MEASURED & PREDICTED


PILE HEAD STIFFNESSES
Possible reasons for stiffer than expected
behaviour:
Use of polymer drilling fluid.
Interaction between test pile & reaction piles:
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

TOWER PILE LAYOUT

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
PROFILE

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
CONTOURS PIGS ANALYSIS

LOAD TESTS ON WORKS


PILES
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

Measured Time-Settlement
Wing A

Measured Time-SettlementWing B

Measured Time-Settlement
Wing C

Measured Settlement Contours August 2006

Comparison with Predictions


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:
Hyder
Coffey

22 mm
25 mm

Measured

16 mm

Comparison with Predictions


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

COMPLETED RAFT

CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

Early 2006

Early 2007

September 2007

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

Analysis of Piled Raft

Feasibility
Detailed Design Serviceability
Optimization
Detailed Design Strength

Original Design
136 piles
founded
on rock

Slab
0.7m
thick

Contiguous bored pile wall

Shear joint between core and podium

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

SANDY CLAY (H)


/CLAYEY SAND
MD

-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

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

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

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen