You are on page 1of 13

Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication The 15th Asian Regional Conference on

Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical foundation design for some of the world’s tallest buildings

Frances Badelow i) and Harry G. Poulos i)

i) Senior Principal, Coffey, Level 19, Tower B, Citadel Towers, 799 Pacific Highway, Chatswood, NSW, 2067 Australia.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the foundation design process that has been adopted for some of the world’s tallest buildings,
including the Burj Khalifa in Dubai and the Incheon 151 Tower in Korea. The foundation system for these super
tall towers is a piled raft, founded on deep deposits of soils and rocks. The foundation systems are required to
support the large building vertical and lateral loads and to restrain the horizontal displacement due to wind and
seismic forces. The behavior of the foundation system due to these loads together with the foundation stiffness
influences the design of the superstructure, displacement of the tower, as well as the raft foundation. Therefore, the
design takes into account the interactions between soil, foundation and superstructure, so as to achieve a safe and
efficient building performance.
An outline will be given of the geotechnical investigations completed, the field and laboratory testing programs,
and the design process. Of particular concern for the Burj Khalifa was a potential issue of cyclic degradation of skin
friction. The measured and predicted building settlements will be presented. For the Incheon 151 Tower, complex
ground conditions were present under the site which resulted in significant challenges for pile design and
construction.

Keywords: foundations, piled rafts, predictions, settlement

1 INTRODUCTION These super tall buildings are presenting new


challenges to engineers, particularly in structural and
The rate of construction of tall buildings in excess
geotechnical design. Many traditional design methods
of 150 m in height has increased rapidly over the past
cannot be confidently applied as they require
20 years. Figure 1 shows this increase in tall buildings
extrapolation beyond the realms of prior experience.
since the 1960s (CTBUH, 2015). The number of
This is resulting in designers using more sophisticated
completed 200 m or taller buildings across the globe is
methods of analysis and design – in particular by
935, and has increased by 352% since 2000. 46 super
geotechnical engineers for foundation design.
tall buildings (greater than 300 m) have been completed
Increasingly, empirical methods are being replaced by
since 2010, representing 54% of the super tall buildings
state-of-the-art methods when designing the
that exist.
foundations of these super tall buildings.
This paper will review some of the geotechnical
challenges faced by foundation designers of super tall
towers. The process of foundation design will be
described for the Burj Khalifa in Dubai and the Incheon
151 Tower in Korea. For the Burj Khalifa, comparison
between predicted and measured performance will be
presented.

2 CHARACTERISTICS OF TALL BUILDINGS


There are a number of characteristics of tall
buildings that can have a significant influence on
Fig. 1. Number of tall building projects built (CTBUH, 2015) foundation design, including the following:
 The vertical load is substantial and the building
weight increases non-linearly with height, and so

http://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.ESD-KL-2 96
both ultimate bearing capacity and settlement need 3.2 Steps in foundation design
careful consideration. The foundation design process is well-established
 They are often surrounded by low-rise, lighter, and generally involves:
podium structures, therefore differential settlements 1. A desk study of the geology and hydrogeology of
between the high- and low-rise portions need to be the site area.
controlled. 2. Site investigation (that may be phased) to assess
 The lateral forces imposed by wind loading, and the site stratigraphy and variability.
consequent moments on the foundation, can be very 3. In situ and laboratory testing to assess the
high and can also impose increased vertical loads on behaviour and engineering properties of key strata.
the foundation, especially on the outer piles. 4. The formulation of a geotechnical model for the
 The wind-induced lateral loads and moments are site – in some cases a series of models may be
cyclic and their influence on the foundation needs to necessary if ground conditions are variable across
be considered as cyclic loading can degrade the building footprint.
foundation capacity and cause increased settlements. 5. Preliminary assessment of foundation
 Seismic action will induce additional lateral forces requirements, based on relatively simple methods
in the structure as well as lateral motions in the of analysis and design.
ground. Additional lateral forces and moments can 6. Refinement of the design, based on more accurate
be induced in the foundation by: representations of the structural layout, applied
o Inertial forces and moments developed by the loadings and the ground conditions. Close
lateral excitation of the structure; interaction between the structural and geotechnical
o Kinematic forces and moments induced in the designers is essential from this point onwards.
foundation by the action of ground movements 7. During detailed design, as the foundation system is
acting against the piles. modified so too are the loads computed by the
 The wind- and seismically-induced loads are structural designer and a compatible set of loads
dynamic and their potential to induce resonance and foundation deformations are developed
within the structure needs to be assessed. through an iterative process.
8. In situ foundation testing at or before this stage is
3 THE FOUNDATION DESIGN PROCESS essential such that the actual foundation behavior
is consistent with design assumptions. Usually
3.1 Key design issues prototype piles are constructed and tested and if
Issues that generally need to be addressed when the tested behavior deviates from that expected,
designing foundations for tall buildings include: the foundation design may need to be revised.
 Ultimate capacity and global stability of the This could result in either an increase or decrease
foundation system under vertical, lateral and in foundation requirements.
moment loading combinations. 9. Monitoring of the building performance during
 The influence of the cyclic nature of wind and and after construction is also important –
earthquakes on foundation capacity and movements. settlements around the foundation should be
 Overall foundation settlements. monitored as a minimum, and load sharing
 Differential settlements, both within the tower between the raft and the piles would also be very
footprint, and between high- and low-rise areas. useful. Adopting an observational method allows
 Possible effects of externally-imposed ground for contingencies to be implemented should the
movements on the foundation system (e.g. measured behavior depart significantly from the
movements arising from ongoing consolidation design expectations.
settlement or adjacent excavations/tunnels).
 Earthquake effects, including the response of the 4 THE BURJ KHALIFA
structure-foundation system to earthquake excitation, 4.1 Overview
and the possibility of liquefaction in the soil The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is a 163 storey, 828 m
surrounding and/or supporting the foundation. high, super tall tower, with a podium development at its
 Dynamic response of the structure-foundation base, including a 4 – 6 storey garage (refer Figure 2).
system to wind-induced forces. The foundation system is a piled raft - a 3.7 m thick raft
 Structural design of the foundation system; supported on 1.5 m diameter bored piles extending
including the load-sharing among the various some 50 m below the raft base. Piled rafts are being
components of the system (i.e. the piles and the used increasingly to support tall towers where loads are
supporting raft), and the distribution of loads within excessively large for a raft alone and where the raft and
the piles. piles are able to transfer load to the soil.
Coffey completed an independent geotechnical peer
review of the Burj Khalifa’s foundation system

97
designed by Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. This involved Table 1. Summary of geotechnical parameters and profile.
development of the geotechnical model and design Strata Description Thickness Eu1 fs 2 fb3
(m) (MPa) (kPa) (MPa)
parameters and completing the geotechnical detailed
1a Medium dense silty sand 1.5 30 - -
design of the foundation in parallel but independently Loose to very loose silty
of Hyder. (Poulos and Bunce 2008) describe the 1b 2.2 12.5 - -
sand
foundation design process in detail. Very weak to moderately
2 6.1 400 400 4.0
weak calcarenite
Very weak to weak
3 16.7 190 300 3.0
calcareous sandstone
Very weak to weak
4 sandstone/calcareous 4.5 220 360 3.6
sandstone
Very weak to moderately
5a weak calcisiltite/ 21.5 250 250 2.5
conglomeritic calcisiltite
Very weak to moderately
5b weak calcisiltite/ 20 275 275 2.75
conglomeritic calcisiltite
6 Calcareous siltstone >20 500 375 3.75
1. Eu = undrained modulus relating to the relatively large
strain levels in the strata
2. fs = ultimate compressive shaft friction
3. fb = ultimate end bearing
4.3 Independent verification analyses
Three stages of analyses were completed for the
independent verification:
 An axisymmetric analysis of the tower foundation
was completed using FLAC. The foundation plan
Fig. 2. The Burj Khalifa was represented by a circle of equal area, and the
piles were represented by a solid block containing
4.2 Geotechnical conditions
piles and soil. The axial stiffness of the block was
The ground conditions at the tower site comprise a
taken to be the same as that of the piles and the soil
horizontally stratified subsurface profile that is complex
between them. The total dead plus live loading was
and highly variable due to its depositional history and
assumed to be uniformly distributed. The soil layers
the prevalent hot arid climatic conditions. Medium
were assumed to be Mohr Coulomb materials, with
dense to very loose granular silty sands (Marine
the modulus values as shown in Table 1. The main
Deposits) are underlain by successions of very weak to
purpose of this analysis was to calibrate and check
weak sandstone interbedded with very weakly
the second, and more detailed, analysis, using the
cemented sand, gypsiferous fine grained
computer program for pile group analysis, PIGS
sandstone/siltstone and weak to moderately weak
(Poulos, 2008).
conglomerate/calcisiltite. Groundwater levels are
 An analysis using PIGS was carried out for the
generally high – approximately 2.5 m below ground
tower alone, to check the settlement with that
level.
obtained by FLAC. In this analysis, the piles were
The geotechnical investigation for the site was
modeled individually, and it was assumed that each
completed in four phases – the first phase included 23
pile was subjected to its nominal working load of 30
boreholes, 40 pressuremeter tests and specialist
MN. The stiffness of each pile was computed via the
laboratory testing and the latter phases included
program DEFPIG (Poulos, 1990), allowing for
additional boreholes, down-hole, cross-hole and
contact between the raft section above the pile and
tomography geophysical surveys, installation of
the underlying soil. The pile stiffness values were
standpipes and further laboratory testing. Specialist
assumed to vary hyperbolically with increasing load
laboratory tests were completed, including stress path
level, using a hyperbolic factor of 0.4.
triaxial, resonant column, cyclic undrained triaxial,
cyclic simple shear and constant normal stiffness (CNS)  Finally, an analysis of the complete tower-podium
direct shear tests. foundation system was carried out using the
The ground profile and geotechnical design program PIGS, and considering all 926 piles in the
parameters developed from the investigation results for system. Again, each of the piles was subjected to
the independent verification analyses are summarized its nominal working load.
in Table 1.

98
4.3.1 FLAC and PIGS results for the tower alone
Because of the difference in shape between the
actual foundation and the equivalent circular foundation,
only the maximum settlement was considered for
comparison purposes. The following results were
obtained for the central settlement:
 FLAC analysis using an equivalent block to
represent the piles = 72.9 mm
 PIGS analysis modeling all 196 piles = 74.3 mm
Thus, despite the quite different approaches adopted,
the computed settlements were in remarkably good Fig. 4. Computed settlement across section through centre of
agreement. It should be noted that the computed tower.
settlement is influenced by the assumptions made
regarding the ground properties below the pile tips. For 4.4 Cyclic loading effects
example, if in the PIGS analysis the modulus of the The possible effects of cyclic loading were
ground below RL-70m DMD was taken as 400 MPa investigated by review of the specialist testing results
(rather than 1200 MPa), the computed settlement at the and theoretical analysis carried out by the independent
centre of the tower would increase to about 96 mm. verifier. The cyclic triaxial tests indicated that there was
4.3.2 PIGS results for the tower and podium some potential for degradation of stiffness and
Figure 3 shows the contours of computed settlement accumulation of excess pore pressure, while the direct
for the entire area. It can be seen that the maximum shear tests indicated a reduction in residual shear
settlements are concentrated in the central area of the strength, although these were carried out using large
tower. The inclusion of the podium loadings and piles strain levels which were not representative of the likely
had only a small effect on the computed settlements of field conditions.
the tower. The CNS tests 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.
The analysis of cyclic loading effects was
undertaken using the approach described by Poulos
(1988), and implemented via the computer program
SCARP (Static and Cyclic Axial Response of Piles).
This analysis involved a number of simplifying
assumptions, together with parameters that were not
easily measured or estimated from available data. As a
consequence, the analysis was indicative only. Since the
analysis of the entire foundation system was not
feasible with SCARP, only a typical pile (assumed to be
a single isolated pile) with a diameter of 1.5 m and a
Fig. 3. Computed settlement contours for the tower and podium length of 48 m was considered. The results were used
to explore the relative effects of the cyclic loading, with
Figure 4 shows the settlement profile across a respect to the case of static loading.
section through the centre of the tower. Of note is that It was found that a loss of capacity would be
the settlements reduce rapidly outside the tower area, experienced when the cyclic load exceeded about  10
and become of the order of 10-12 mm for much of the MN. The maximum loss of capacity (due to degradation
podium area. of skin friction) was of the order of 15-20%. The
It should be noted that the maximum settlement capacity loss was relatively insensitive to the mean load
predicted by Hyder using ABAQUS for the tower and level, except when the mean load exceeded about 30
podium foundation compared reasonably well with the MN. It was predicted that, at a mean load equal to the
maximum settlement estimated by the PIGS analysis working load and under a cyclic load of about 25% of
carried out during the independent verification process. the working load, the relative increase in settlement for
10 cycles of load would be about 27%.
The indicative pile forces calculated from finite
element analysis of the structure suggested that cyclic
loading of the tower foundation would not exceed 
10MN. Thus, it seemed reasonable to assume that the
effects of cyclic loading would not significantly

99
degrade the axial capacity of the piles, and that the individual pile characteristics, but also on the
effects of cyclic loading on both capacity and characteristics of the ground within the zone of
settlement were unlikely to be significant. influence of the structure.
4.5 Pile load testing 4.6 Settlement performance during construction
Two programs of static load testing were The settlement of the tower raft was monitored from
undertaken: completion of concreting and a summary of the
 Static load tests on seven trial piles prior to settlements to February 2008 in Wing C is shown on
foundation construction. Figure 5 which also shows the final predicted
 Static load tests on eight works piles, carried out settlement profile from the design. At that time, the
during the foundation construction phase (i.e. on majority of the dead loading would have been applied
about 1% of the total number of piles constructed). to the foundation, and the maximum settlement
In addition, dynamic pile testing was carried out on measured was about 43 mm. The measured settlements
10 of the works piles for the tower and 31 piles for the are less than those predicted during the design process,
podium, i.e. on about 5% of the total works piles. Sonic however there remained some dead and live load to be
integrity testing was also carried out on a number of the applied to the foundation system, and the measured
works piles. values do not include the impact of the raft, cladding
The main purpose of the tests was to assess the and live loading which will total in excess of 20% of
general load-settlement behaviour of piles of the the overall mass. Extrapolating for the full dead plus
anticipated length below the tower, and to verify the live load, it might be anticipated that the final
design assumptions. Each of the test piles was different, settlement will be of the order of 55-60 mm, which is
allowing various factors to be investigated, as follows: comfortably less than the predicted final settlement of
 The effects of increasing the pile shaft length about 70-75 mm.
 The effects of shaft grouting Figure 6 shows contours of measured settlement to
 The effects of reducing the shaft diameter February 2008. The general distribution is similar to
 The effects of uplift (tension) loading that predicted by the analyses.
 The effects of lateral loading Settlement in Wing C
27-Jun-06
 The effect of cyclic loading. 16-Jul-06
Distance alongwingcross-section(m)
The piles were constructed using polymer drilling 16-Aug-06
0 20 40 60 80
fluid, rather than the more conventional bentonite 18-Sep-06
0
drilling fluid, which appears to have led to piles whose 16-Oct-06

performance exceeded expectations. -10 14-Nov-06


19-Dec-06
Both the preliminary test piling program and the -20
16-Jan-07
Settlement (mm)

tests on the works piles provided very positive and -30 19-Feb-07
encouraging information on the capacity and stiffness 18-Mar-07
of the piles. The measured pile head stiffness values -40
12-Jul-07
were well in excess of those predicted. The interaction -50 14-Aug-07
effects between the test piles and the reaction piles may -60
17-Sep-07

have contributed to the higher apparent pile head 17-Oct-07


-70 14-Nov-07
stiffnesses, but the piles nevertheless exceeded
17-Dec-07
expectations. The capacity of the piles also appeared to -80
18-Feb-08
be in excess of the predicted values, although none of -90 design
the tests fully mobilized the available geotechnical
resistance. The works piles performed even better than
the preliminary trial piles, and demonstrated almost Fig. 5. Measured and predicted settlements for Wing C
linear load-settlement behaviour up to the maximum
test load of 1.5 times working load. To put the foundation settlements into perspective,
Shaft grouting appeared to have enhanced the the computed shortening of the structure after 30 years
load-settlement response of the piles, but it was is about 300mm, (Baker et al, 2007) which is
assessed that shaft grouting would not need to be substantially greater than the foundation settlements.
carried out for this project, given the very good
performance of the ungrouted piles.
The inferences from the pile load test data were that
the design estimates of capacity and settlement may be
conservative, although it was recognised that the
overall settlement behaviour (and perhaps the overall
load capacity) would be dependent not only on the

100
5 INCHEON 151 TOWER
5.1 Overview
The proposed 151 storey multi-use Incheon Tower
is located in district 8 of the Songdo Incheon Free
Economic Zone, and its design is currently underway
(refer Figure 8). The site lies entirely within an area
of reclamation underlain by up to 20 m of soft to firm
marine silty clay, which in turn overlies residual soil
and a profile of weathered rock. The structural system
of the tower in the east-west direction consists of a
reinforced concrete core wall system linked to the
exterior mega columns with reinforced concrete or
composite shear panels to maximize the effect of the
structural depth of the tower. However, the lateral
load resisting system of the tower in the north-south
direction consists of a mega-frame structure, where the
Fig. 6. Contours of Measured Settlement as at February 2008 reinforced concrete core walls, for each side of the
tower, are linked through multi-storey structural steel
(Russo et al 2013) have carried out a careful trusses at 3 levels, at approximately every 30 floors.
re-assessment of the settlement analyses, taking into The tower superstructure is founded on a pile supported
account such factors as the structure stiffness, the raft foundation. The 5.5 m thick reinforced concrete raft
interpretation of the preliminary pile tests, and the is supported on a total of 172 bored piles, 2.5 m in
effects of the reaction piles in the load tests. Figure 7 diameter, with variable lengths, extending 5 m into Soft
shows their revised calculations of the final settlement Rock for added stiffness and axial load capacity.
profile for the tower, using the amended soil modulus
values backfigured from the pile load tests, and making
allowance for the superstructure stiffness by increasing
the stiffness of the raft elements directly below the
superstructure columns. The three calculated curves
from the program NAPRA represent three alternative
methods of representing the superstructure stiffness.
They found that ground stiffness or modulus is a key
factor in the prediction of foundation settlements. If
this is to be derived from pile load test data, then the
test interpretation should take into account interaction
effects within the foundation system, otherwise ground
stiffness is likely to be over-estimated and the Fig. 8. Incheon 151 Tower artist’s impression
foundation settlements subsequently under-estimated.
In addition to ground stiffness, consideration of the 5.2 Ground conditions
effects of the raft and superstructure stiffness may be The Incheon area has extensive sand/mud flats and
important factors in influencing both the maximum near shore intertidal areas. The site lies entirely within
total settlement and the maximum differential an area of reclamation, which comprises approximately
settlement. 8 m of loose sand and sandy silt, constructed over
approximately 20 m of soft to firm marine silty clay,
referred to as the Upper Marine Deposits (UMD).
These deposits are underlain by approximately 2 m of
medium dense to dense silty sand, referred to as the
Lower Marine Deposits (LMD), which overlie residual
soil and a profile of weathered rock.
The lithological rock units present under the site
comprise granite, granodiorite, gneiss (interpreted as
possible roof pendant metamorphic rocks) and aplite.
The rock materials within about 50 m from the surface
have been affected by weathering which has reduced
their strength to a very weak rock or a soil-like material.
Fig. 7. Revised calculated settlements for Burj Khalifa (Russo et This depth increases where the bedrock is intersected
al, 2013) by closely spaced joints, and also sheared and crushed

101
zones that are often related to the existence of the roof 5.3.1 Concept Design
pendant sedimentary/metamorphic rocks. The The aim of the Concept Design was to firstly
geological structures at the site are complex and establish the foundation system and to evaluate the
comprise geological boundaries, sheared and crushed approximate foundation behaviour, based on a
seams - possibly related to faulting movements, and simplified ground model developed from the available
jointing. geotechnical data. From this stage of the design, the
From the available borehole data for the site, following foundation design details were provided to
inferred contours were developed for the surface of the the tower structural designers for preliminary design
Soft Rock founding stratum within the tower purposes:
foundation footprint, reproduced in Figure 9. It can be  Pile capacities (geotechnical & structural) for a
seen that there is a potential variation in level of the top range of pile diameters
of the Soft Rock (the pile founding stratum) of up to 40  Horizontal and vertical pile stiffness values
m across the foundation. (single pile & group) for a range of pile
diameters.
Using this information, the structural designers
commenced the preliminary structural design process
by including the different raft and pile layouts in the
3-dimensional finite element structural analysis model,
in order to account for the effects of soil/structure
interaction (refer Figure 10).

Fig. 9. Inferred contours of top of soft rock

5.3 Foundation design process


Generally, high-rise buildings on weak ground in Fig.10. 3-D Finite Element structural analysis model
Korea are supported on foundation systems comprising
large diameter reinforced concrete bored piles socketed The foundation system development included the
into rock and tied to a raft foundation. An adjacent following:
very large development with high-rise buildings and  Development of pile layout options for various
long span cable stayed bridges has been constructed on pile diameters
reclaimed land with soil conditions similar to those  Preliminary selection of raft size (plan
encountered at the Incheon 151 site. All the high-rise dimensions and thickness)
buildings and the long span cable stayed bridges are  Preliminary evaluation of building performance,
founded on pile-supported rafts or pile caps. This type under gravity and lateral load effects.
of foundation was considered to be the likely option for  Assessment of the pile group efficiency.
the tower at concept design stage, and so the design  Assessment of the foundation stiffness and its
plan, including the scope of the ground investigation, impact on the overall behavior of the tower
was generally focused on this foundation system.  Assessment of the superstructure stiffening
The foundation design process adopted for the tower effects on the load distribution among the piles.
comprised the following three main stages: Based on the above, several foundation layout
 Stage 1 – Concept Design options were developed for further assessment and
 Stage 2 – Detailed Design refinement at the detailed design stage.
 Stage 3 – Post Design (testing and monitoring).
5.3.2 Detailed design
These three stages are briefly described in the
The three main components to be considered in the
following sections.
detailed design stage of the tower foundation system
are shown in Figure 11.

102
Load Load
including the potential for liquefaction of the reclaimed
Transfer Transfer soil. The tower foundation system is to be located
Ground Foundation Load below the reclaimed soil and the tower superstructure
Components Components Components will be separated from the podium structure to reduce
interaction between the podium structure and the tower
Displacement structure. In addition, most of the podium structure is
Reactions located above the water table to avoid the possible
effects of liquefaction.
Fig. 11. Main components of foundation analysis
Foundation Components - The raft size and
Load Components - the building loads can be thickness was originally assessed by the structural
classified according to their source or loading designers based on the loading conditions, the pile
characteristics with direction. Figure 12 depicts the layouts and the structural demands on the raft
tower raft foundation configuration, core wall, and foundation to transfer the loads to the piles in the most
mega column layout at the tower raft level. effective manner and with due consideration given to
the presence of deep elevator pits and other
architectural requirements.
The size and number of piles, and their layout, were
developed from a series of trial analyses undertaken
collaboratively by the geotechnical and structural
designers. The pile layout and raft foundation thickness
were optimized to allow for even load distribution
between the piles, to minimize the overall and
differential settlements, and to minimize the shear and
bending moments in the raft. The founding depth of
each pile within the group was assessed by the
Fig. 12. Tower basement floor plan
geotechnical designer, considering both the pile
performance and capacity. The preferred raft and pile
The typical loads of the tower are summarized as layout was selected from the various options developed
follows: during the concept design stage, and comprised a 5.5 m
 Vertical Load, Pz (Dead Load +Live Load) = thick raft, founded at a level of EL-8.7 m, supported on
6622 MN a total of 172 reinforced concrete bored piles 2.5 m in
 Lateral Load, Px (Wind Load) = 146MN, Py(Wind diameter founding a minimum of 2 pile diameters into
Load) = 112 MN the soft rock, or below EL-50 m, whichever was
 Lateral Load, Px (Seismic) = 105MN, Py(Seismic) deepest. The final selected pile layout is presented in
= 105 MN Figure 13. In locations where the piles are expected to
 Overturning Moment, Mx(Wind Load) = 12578 be in the vicinity of sheared/crushed rock zones, the
MNm, My(Wind Load) = 21173 MNm piles will be founded at a rock level below the sheared
 Torsional Moment, Mz(Wind Load) = 1957 MNm zones whenever possible, in order to bridge the weak
soft layers of soil and to stitch the different layers to
The load combinations provided by the structural allow for transfer of the loads into the rock in an
designers were adopted for the geotechnical design of efficient manner to achieve a satisfactory performance
the foundation system. Comprehensive seismic of the overall foundation system.
analyses were performed for the tower and the
foundation system, including response spectrum and Ground Components - a detailed interpretation of
time history analyses, for both frequent and extreme the geological and geotechnical conditions based on the
seismic events. However, wind load still controlled the available comprehensive ground investigation (Halla
overall tower design, and characteristically for super 2008) was undertaken in order to:
high-rise buildings, the wind load is a critical load case  Assess anticipated ground conditions for the tower
for both the building foundation and the superstructure.  Develop geotechnical properties and
The wind load combinations of Px, Py and Mz are characteristics for the various strata
dependent on the wind direction, wind speed and the  Develop geotechnical design parameters.
building shape, and can be determined from analysis or
wind tunnel tests. Some 24 wind loading combinations
were provided by the structural designer.
In addition to the wind and seismic loading, detailed
site specific seismic hazard studies were performed that
included the effects of near and far earthquakes,

103
overturning moment loadings, conventional “text book”
methods are generally not applicable or feasible.
Therefore an assessment of the overall stability of the
tower foundation was undertaken using Coffey’s
in-house computer program CLAP, which computes the
distributions of axial and lateral deflections, rotations
and axial and lateral loads and moments, at the top of a
group of piles, subjected to a combination of vertical
loads, lateral loads, moments, and torsion. The
ultimate load combinations are applied in the analysis
and the ultimate capacities of the piles are reduced by a
geotechnical reduction factor of 0.65 (adapted from
guidelines given in Australian Piling Code
AS2159-1995). The contribution of the raft to the
overall stability of the foundation was ignored and
Fig. 13. Pile layout plan
overall stability is satisfied if the foundation system
does not collapse under these conditions. For the
The footprint of the tower was divided into eight proposed foundation system comprising 172, 2.5 m
zones (refer Figure 9) which were considered to be diameter bored piles, the limit state requirements for
representative of the variation of ground conditions and overall stability of the tower foundation were satisfied
geotechnical models were developed for each zone. for the six critical wind and seismic loading cases
Appropriate geotechnical parameters were selected for analyzed.
the various strata based on the available field and
laboratory test data, together with experience of similar 5.4.2 Tower foundation settlement
soils on adjacent sites. One of the critical design An assessment of the tower foundation settlement
issues for the tower foundation was the performance of has been undertaken using the computer the
the soft UMD under lateral and vertical loading, hence Geotechnical Analysis of Rafts with Piles (GARP)
careful consideration was given to the selection of program developed by Sydney University in
parameters for this stratum. Typical parameters adopted conjunction with Coffey. GARP employs the
for foundation design are presented in Table 2. boundary element method to calculate interactions
between pairs of piles and between a pile and the raft
Table 2. Typical Geotechnical Design Parameters and finite element analysis of raft behavior. GARP can
Ev Eh fs fb take into account different pile types across the
Stratum
(MPa) (MPa) (kPa) (MPa) foundation assigning individual stiffness values and
UMD 7 – 15 5 -11 29 - 48 -
geotechnical capacities to each pile and has been
LMD 30 21 50 -
Weathered Soil 60 42 75 -
successfully used by Coffey on numerous tall tower
Weathered Rock 200 140 500 5 projects (Badelow et al, 2006); (Poulos & Davids,
Soft Rock 2005).
300 210 750 12
(above EL-50m) The settlement of a pile group is always greater than
Soft Rock
1700 1190 750 12
the settlement of a corresponding single pile, as a result
(below EL-50m) of the overlapping of the individual zones of influence
Ev = Vertical Modulus, fs = Ultimate shaft friction of the piles in the group. One of the inputs therefore
Eh = Horizontal Modulus fb = Ultimate end bearing
required by GARP is the pile group interaction factors
5.4 Aspects of the detailed design stage for a range of pile spacings. Appropriate interaction
The challenge for the tower foundation design was factors were developed, considering the various
to simulate the group interaction effects of the large pile geotechnical models and varying pile lengths (ranging
group under vertical and lateral loading (including from about 41 m to 71 m).
negative skin friction due to the consolidating soft Six load combinations were considered in the
UMD) in order to optimize the pile group design and analysis and a summary of the assessed maximum and
provide accurate input parameters to the structural minimum settlement values together with the angular
designer. In order to assess the performance of the rotation of the foundation raft is presented in Table 3.
piled raft foundation, a suite of foundation analyses The maximum predicted settlement for all cases
were undertaken using both commercially available occurs within the heavily loaded core area, with the
software and Coffey’s in-house developed programs. maximum value occurring as a result of DL + LL
loading combination. The largest differential
5.4.1 Overall stability of tower foundation
settlement of 36 mm occurs under Wind Load
When considering the overall stability of a piled raft
Combination 11, corresponding to an angular rotation
foundation system under vertical, lateral and
of 1:570, which is within the range generally acceptable

104
for tall structures. It should also be noted that the each pile type under serviceability loading for input
analyses undertaken did not consider the stiffness of the into the group assessment and GARP was used to
superstructure, which is a conservative assumption, as assess the group foundation behavior.
the superstructure will provide additional stiffness to Figure 14 presents the computed individual pile
the foundation system and thus reduce the differential vertical stiffness values, and indicates that the outer
settlement. In addition, this analysis did not take into piles are stiffer. The analysis was non-linear, and
account additional stiffness due to the dynamic nature therefore the higher stiffness values for the outer piles
of wind and seismic loads, which is significant. degraded more rapidly under loading than the central
piles. The concentration of loads on outer piles within a
Table 3. Summary of predicted settlement group is a real phenomenon that has been measured in
Settlement Maximum the field. Therefore, it is considered that foundation
Wind Load (mm) Angular
Load Case behaviour can be simulated more realistically by using
Combination Rotation of
Max. Min.
the Raft the individual pile stiffness values, rather than an
DL + LL - 67 28 1:790 average value for all piles within the group. Lower
0.75(DL + LL + WL) 1 52 18 1:730 and upper bound estimates of pile stiffness values were
0.75(DL + LL + WL) 4 52 18 1:730 provided to the structural engineers to include in their
0.75(DL + LL + WL) 7 53 18 1:740 analysis, in order to capture the upper and lower bound
0.75(DL + LL + WL) 11 55 19 1:570 behavior of the raft foundation and the potential impact
0.75(DL + LL + WL) 15 54 19 1:570 on the tower superstructure.
0.75(DL + LL + WL) 20 52 20 1:870
DL = Dead Load, LL = Live Load, WL = Wind Load

An independent assessment of the tower foundation


settlement under (DL + LL) loading condition was
carried out using 3-dimensional finite element analysis.
The analysis assumed uniform ground conditions across
the Tower foundation with the top of Soft Rock at
EL-50 m. All of the 172 piles were modeled with a
toe depth of EL-55 m and the top of the Hard Rock
assumed to be at EL-79 m. The calculated maximum
settlement of the tower foundation under the (DL + LL)
loading condition was 68 mm, occurring within the
heavily loaded core area. This value compared very
well with the value of 67 mm assessed using GARP for
the same location and under the same loading Fig. 14. Computed pile head vertical stiffness values (MN/m)
conditions. A differential settlement of about 19 mm
was calculated in the 3-dimensional finite element 5.4.4 Cyclic Loading due to Wind Action
analysis between the centre and perimeter of the tower Wind loading for the tower structure is quite severe,
foundation. This differential settlement was about therefore in order to assess the effect of low frequency
50% less than the value assessed using GARP. In the cyclic wind loading, an assessment based on a method
GARP analysis, the variation in ground conditions suggested by Poulos and Davids (2005) was undertaken.
across the tower footprint and associated variations in The method suggests that adequate foundation
individual pile lengths were modeled. Differences in performance under cyclic loading should be achieved
the analysis methods and assumptions adopted therein provided the following criterion is met:
could also contribute to the difference in the magnitude
of the predicted differential settlement. Neither Rgs*Sc* (1)
analysis model accounted fully for the stiffening effects
of the tower superstructure during construction and where:
under permanent and completed conditions. Rgs* = design geotechnical shaft capacity
5.4.3 Assessment of vertical pile behavior Sc* = half amplitude of cyclic axial wind-induced load
Critical input parameters for the 3-dimensional  = a factor assessed from geotechnical laboratory
Finite Element structural numerical analysis were the testing.
bored pile head stiffness values. The vertical pile head Provided the criterion is met, there is a reduced
stiffness values for each of the 172 foundation piles likelihood that full shaft friction will be mobilized,
under serviceability loading conditions (DL + LL) were reducing the risk of degradation of shaft capacity due to
assessed using the computer programs CLAP and cyclic loading. The factor  was selected to be 0.5,
GARP. CLAP was used to assess the geotechnical based on experience with similar projects. To assess
capacities, interaction factors and stiffness values for the half amplitude of cyclic axial wind induced load,

105
the difference in pile load between the following load
cases was computed:
 Case A: 0.75(DL + LL)
 Case B: 0.75(DL + LL + WLx + WLy)
where:
DL = Dead Load; LL = Live Load
WLx = Vertical load resulting from x-component of
wind
WLy = Vertical load resulting from y-component of
wind Fig. 16. Schematic of monitoring for vertical pile load test
The difference in axial load between the two load
cases is assessed to be the half-amplitude of the cyclic The double cell test system was planned to obtain
load (Sc*). Table 4 below summarizes the results of the more accurate and detailed data for the main bearing
cyclic loading assessment and Figure 15 shows the layer, and so the typical test was performed in two
assessed factor for each pile within the foundation stages as shown in Figure 17. Stage 1 was focused on
system. The assessment indicates that degradation of the friction capacity of weathered rock and the
shaft capacity due to cyclic loading in unlikely to occur. movement of Soft Rock socket and pile shaft in
weathered rock layer, while Stage 2 focused on the
Table 4. Summary of Cyclic Loading Assessment friction and end bearing capacities of the Soft Rock,
Quantity Value with the upper O-cell open to separate the Soft Rock
Maximum Half Amplitude Cyclic Axial
29.2 socket from the remaining upper pile section.
Wind Load Sc* (MN)
Maximum Ratio = Sc*/Rgs* 0.43 Stage 1 Stage 2
Cyclic Loading Criterion Satisfied? Yes

Fig. 17. Typical procedure of O-Cell test

The vertical test piles were loaded up to a maximum


one way load of 150 MN in about 30 incremental stages,
Fig. 15. Results of cyclic loading analysis in accordance with ASTM recommended procedures.
The dynamic loading-unloading test was carried out at
5.5 Summary of pile load tests the design loading ranges by applying 20 load cycles to
A total of five pile load tests were planned, four on obtain the dynamic characteristics of the pile rock
vertically loaded piles via the Osterberg cell (O-cell) socket.
procedure, and one on a laterally loaded pile jacked A borehole investigation was carried out at each test
against one of the vertically loaded test piles. For the pile location to confirm the ground conditions and
vertical pile test, two levels of O-cells were installed in confirm the pile length and soft rock socket depth of
each pile, one at the pile tip and another at between the 5-6 m before piling work commenced, and also to
weathered rock layer and the soft rock layer. The cell properly match the test results to the actual ground
movement and pile head movement were measured by strata. A summary of the vertical pile test results is
LVWDTs in each of four locations, and the pile strains shown in Table 5, which is based on the pile test
were recorded by the strain gauges attached to the analysis performed by the Load Test Corporation.
vertical steel bars. The monitoring system is shown Test pile 3 (TP3) results are not shown herein due to
schematically in Figure 16. construction defects identified in the pile; thus, the test
results were ignored in obtaining the average results.
While the overall performance of the test piles
exceeded expectations, TP3 highlighted that the steep
variability in rock conditions within a short distance
could affect the overall pile quality of the pile and may

106
require careful assessment, during construction, of the Table 16. The Lateral Stiffness of Test Pile
pile excavation and the quality of the rock at all levels. Design Measured Secant Stiffness of Test Pile(MN/m)
stiffness Static Dynamic
The pile testing program also demonstrated that the
(MN/m) 0~900 kN 900~1350 0~900 kN 900~1350
foundation system could still be optimized, given the
higher than anticipated shaft and base resistances that kN kN
86~120 294 97 488 326
were obtained in the other four pile tests.

Table 5. Summary of vertical pile test results (allowable values)


Pile Test
Strata Designed
TP1 TP2 TP4 Ave.
End
bearing 4.0 6.3 9.0 9.2 8.1
Soft Rock (MPa)
Friction
350 743 897 663 767
(kPa)
Weathered Friction
250 357 527 178 354
Rock (kPa)
Note:
A factor of 3 is applied for end bearing from ultimate or test load
A factor of 2 is applied for shaft friction from yield loading point

A lateral pile load test was also performed after Fig. 19. Load vs. displacement curve TP5
excavation of about 8 m of the upper soil to simulate a
similar ground condition and performance as designed 7 CONCLUSIONS
for the tower foundation. Both the test pile (TP5) and
the reaction pile (TP4) were monitored by The design of foundations for super tall buildings
inclinometers to obtain the lateral displacement along involves a number of challenges from a geotechnical
the pile depth, and strain gauges were installed to viewpoint. The foundation system is subjected to large
obtain the stress in the pile section, and eventually the vertical, lateral and moment loadings, which
bending moment distribution along the pile shaft. An incorporate cyclic components which have the potential
LVWDT was used for each pile head displacement to degrade the capacity and stiffness of the piles within
measurement. A schematic diagram of the monitoring the system. The nature of soil and rock deposits can
system is shown in Figure 18. give rise to additional potential problems, including a
propensity for cyclic degradation, the possibility of
cavities within some of the deposits, and the absence of
hard rock layers on which end bearing piles can be
founded. Because of these difficulties, piled raft
systems, with their high level of redundancy, have
proved to be an effective and relatively economical
foundation solution.
Geotechnical uncertainty is the greatest risk in any
Fig. 18. Schematic of monitoring for lateral pile load test
deep foundation design and construction process.
Establishing an accurate knowledge of the ground
The lateral test pile was subjected to a maximum conditions is essential in the development of
lateral load of 2.7 MN. The dynamic load-unloading economical foundation systems which perform to
test was carried out at 900 kN, 1350 kN and 1800 kN expectations.
by applying 20 cycles to obtain the lateral dynamic The comprehensive investigation and testing
performance of the pile, especially within the marine program enabled both the Burj Khalifa and Incheon 151
clay layer. The load-pile head displacement relationship sites to be characterized in a more complete manner
from the lateral pile test is shown in the Figure 19. The than is usually possible with many projects. Modern
result indicates that the lateral stiffness of the pile was methods of in-situ and laboratory testing were used in
greater than expected during the initial loading stage, conjunction with advanced methods of foundation
presumably due to the repeated loading condition and analysis to design the piled raft foundations.
also due to the overconsolidated ground conditions The substantial design effort was complemented by
arising from excavation. The stiffer behaviour under a comprehensive program of pile load testing, including
cyclic loading is summarized in Table 6. This stiffer static compression tests, static and cyclic tension tests,
pile behaviour will be also considered in the final and lateral load tests.
structural design of the tower foundation system, as Both these projects involved close interaction
well as the predicted pile group movement. between the structural and geotechnical designers in

107
designing piled raft foundations for these complex and 3) Halla Eng.(2008) Geotechnical Investigation Report.
significant super tall buildings. Such interaction has Geotechnical Investigation on Incheon Tower Area.
4) Poulos, H.G. (1990): DEFPIG Users Manual. Centre for
some major benefits in avoiding over-simplification of
Geotechnical Research, University of Sydney.
geotechnical matters by the structural engineer, and 5) Poulos, H.G. (2008): Simulation of the performance and
over-simplification of structural matters by the remediation of imperfect pile groups. Deep Foundations on
geotechnical engineer. Such interaction therefore Bored and Auger Piles, BAP V, van Impe and van Impe (Eds.),
promotes the development of effective and economical Taylor and Francis, London, 143-154.
foundation and structural designs. 6) Poulos, H.G. and Bunce, G. (2008): Foundation design for the
Burj Dubai – the world’s tallest building. Proc. 6th Int. Conf.
Case Histories in Geot. Eng., Arlington, VA, Paper 1.47, CD
REFERENCES volume.
1) Badelow F., Poulos H.G., Small J. and Moyes, P. (2006) 7) Poulos, H.G. and Davids, A.J. (2005) Foundation Design for
Economic Foundation Design for Tall Buildings. Proc.10th the Emirates Twin Towers, Dubai. Canadian Geotechnical
Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep Foundations”, Amsterdam, The Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 716-730.
Netherlands, May 2006. 8) Russo, G., Abagnara, V., Poulos, H.G. and Small, J.C. (2013):
2) CTBUH (2015): Council for Tall Buildings and the Urban Re-Assessment of Foundation Settlements for the Burk Khalifa,
Habitat, website www.ctbuh.org. Dubai. Acta Geotecnica, 8(1): 3-15.

108

You might also like