Proyecto Kimgdon Tower

Analysis and Design of the
Kingdom Tower Piled Raft Foundation

George Leventis, PE, Managing Principal, Langan
Alan Poeppel, PE, Senior Principal, Langan
Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Project Team
g s
• Owner: Jeddah Economic Company and
i ld in
Kingdom Holdings, Jeddah KSA
B u
a ll
• Architect: Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill
Architecture, Chicago, USA
n T at
o i t
• Structural Engineer: Thornton Tomasetti,
l b
Chicago, NYC, USA
c i a
n H
• Civil, Geotechnical, Traffic, & Parking Engineer:
u an
o
Langan International, NYC, USA, Dubai, UAE
C rb
• Building Systems: EDS, Chicago, USA,
© dU
Dubai, UAE
an
• Piling Contractor: Saudi Bauer
Rendering© Jeddah Economic Company/
Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

Kingdom Tower – Site Location
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an Rendering © Jeddah Economic Company/
Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

Basic Statistics
Building Height
g s 1,000+ m
3,200 sqd min
Raft Area
u i l
Total Gravity Load
ll B
860,000 tonnes
Ta t
n a
Total Pressure 2.65 Mpa
l o b i t
Piles
c i a 270 No.
n H
u an 32 MN avg service load
1.5 m dia
o
C Raft rb
© dU 4.5 m to 5 m thick
an
Boring Location Plan
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Summary of Field and Lab Tests
g s
Borings
i ld 50 in
B u
Core Samples
ll 2,377
Pressuremeter Tests Ta
n t a t187
Packer Testsl
i o b i
n c H a 28
o u
P-S Suspension
an
Logging 3 Borings
C Resistivity
r b
© Tomography
Electrical
d U 12 x 200-m lines
an
(ERT)

General Subsurface Conditions
g s
in
• <0.5 to 2 m thick:
d
Silty Sand (SM)
• 45 to 50 m thick: 20 m
ui l
B
Coral Limestone
l
Vuggy Coralline Limestone
l
40 m
• 2 to 10 m thick:
Ta 60 m
t
Mudstone / Gravel
n a
Mudstone / Gravel Decomposed
t
80 m
• Interlayed in base of
il o b i Sandstone
a
limestone 100 m
c
Gravel / Conglomerate
n
u an
• 35 to 50 m thick:
H 120 m
o
Decomposed Sandstone
C rb
140 m
Sandstone
© dU
• 3 to 9 m thick: 160 m
Gravel and Conglomerate 180 m
an
• Up to 200 m: 200 m
Sandstone

Vuggy Coralline Limestone
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Mudstone and Gravel Inclusions
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Sandstone
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Rock Compressive Strength
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll Summary of UCS Values (MPa)
n T at Strata Range Average Median
l o b i t Limestone 0.32-14.8 2.9 2.4
c i a
H
Decomposed 0.09-4.87 1.5 0.94
n
u an
Sandstone
o
C rb
Sandstone 0.01-29.3 2.7 1.9
© dU
an
E (MPa)
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
5
g s
in
-15
-35
u ild
ROCK STIFFNESS
-55
ll B
Ta t
Elevation (m)
n a
-75
l o b i t
c i a
-95
n
u an H
o
-115
C rb
Sandstone
© dU
-135
an
-155
-175
ACES PMT E0 E50 from instrumented UCS ACES PMT Er

Full Scale Field Load Tests
g s
• Substantiate Rock Bearing Capacity
i ld in
B u
• Substantiate Individual Pile Capacity
a ll
n T
• Side resistance and deformation modulus of
at
o i t
coralline limestone and decomposed sandstone
l b
c i a
n H
• Evaluation of Constructability
u an
o
(especially of deep elements)
C rb
© dU
an
Footing Load Test
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Footing Load Test – Load Settlement Plot
g s
MOBILIZED BEARING PRESSURE
i ld in
= 3.3 MPA
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Full Scale Pile Load Test
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Pile Load Test – Mobilized Skin Friction in
Limestone using Natural Slurry
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll ULIMATE SIDE = 500 SHEAR (Kpa)
n T at
l o b i t
i
0 5mm 10mm
c a
Displacement
n
u an H
o
C rb
ULIMATE SIDE = 500 SHEAR (Kpa)
© dU
an 0 2mm
Displacement
5mm

Design Modulus of Deformation
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
Foundation
n T Design
at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Geotechnical Capacity of Limestone
g s
i ld in
Factor ofu
Ultimate Type of
ll B Allowable
Bearing
Capacity
Loading
Ta Safety
t
Bearing
Capacity
o n i t a
2.5 MPa
c il
Gravity
ab 3.0 0.83 MPa
2.5 MPa n
u an
Transient H 2.0 1.25 MPa
o
C rb
© dU
an
Geotechnical Capacity of Single Pile,
45 m Depth s g
i ld in
B u
Ultimate Side Type of
a ll
Factor of Geotechnical
Shear Loading
n T Safety
a t Pile Allowable
l o b i t Capacity
c i a
n H
450 kpa Gravity 2.5 42 MN
450 kpa u Transientn
o
C rba
2.0 50 MN
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
Soil-Structure
n T Interaction
at
l o b i t
c i
FEM Analysis
a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
General Foundation Configuration
g s
1. Fully Piled Foundation
i ld in
- 270 bored piles
B u
- 1.5 m diameter
a ll
T t
- 4.5 m thick structural raft (6 m deep depression at the
n a
o i t
center and 5 m thick at the edges)
l b
c i a
n n 45
Initial PileuLengths: Hm
2.
o
C rba
© d U
an
3. Estimated Average Load on the Pile: 32 MN

Foundation Response
g s
Flexible Foundation
i ld in
Rigid Foundation
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
Settlement
C rb
© dU
an
Stress
Distribution

Soil-Structure Interaction Model
g s
d
Determine critical parameters such las:
i in
B u
• Raft geometry
• Rock Modulus of deformation al l
n T at
o
• Locations, geometry of piles
l b i t
c i
• Soil/pile interface properties
a
u n n H
o
– Shear strength
– EndC
r b a
bearing capacity
–©Stiffness U
d
an
Iterative Process General Steps
Column Loads
g s
i ld in
B uFoundation Settlements
l
Winkler Springs
Structural a l Geotechnical
n T t
a Engineer
Structural Deformation
Engineer
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H New Winkler Springs,
o
New Foundation
C rb Settlements
© dU
an
Structural System
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
Credit: Thornton Tomasetti
C rb
© dU
an
190,000
s
210,000
g
Tonnes Tonnes
i ld in
B u 260,000
a ll Tonnes
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb 200,000
© dU Tonnes
an Credit: Thornton Tomasetti

Typical Loading Conditions
g s
Soil/Foundation/Structure Self Weight
ld i n
•
ui
ll B
• Column/Wall loads as
T a t
– Point Loads
o n i t a
– Line Loads cil a b
– Pressure u n nH
o
C rba
Loads
© dU
an Credit: Thornton Tomasetti

Geotechnical Finite Element Model
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
o i t
200 m
c il ab
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Foundation and Geologic Profile
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
Material
o
C rb E (Mpa) n γ (kN/m3) ϕ c (kpa)
© dU
Coraline Limestone +4 to -10 500 0.35 18 24 170
Coraline Limestone -10 to -40 500 0.35 18 24 170
an
Gravel -54 to -60 200 0.35 17 - - Pile parameters
Decomposed Sandstone -60 to -90 150 0.35 20 24 300 E=36,700 Mpa
Decomposed Sandstone -90 to -110 150 to 500 0.35 20 - - Diameters: 1.5m and 1.8m
Sandstone -110 to -125 900 to 1,200 0.30 20 - - Termination elevation: -44
Sandstone -125 to -200 1200 0.30 20 - - Ultimate side shear stress: 0.5 Mpa

First Settlement Prediction
g s
i ld in
108 mm
B u
a ll
n T at
t
173mm
il o b i
n c H a
o u an
C rb
© dU
Angular Rotation:
1:900
an
Multi-Step Winkler Spring Adjustment
ITERATION 1 ITERATION 2
s
ITERATION 3
g
86
i ld 76 in 86
173
B u 141
151
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n H
SPRINGS SPRINGS SPRINGS
143
o u an 131
120 107
138 115
C rb
146
© dU
125 138
an
Geotech Pile Loads and Vertical
Stresses on Rock Under Raft s
in g
ld
RIGID
ui FOUNDATION
ll B
Ta t
o n i t a
c il ab
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Observed Increased Wall Stresses
at the Wings gs i n
u i ld
ll B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
n
u an H
o
Credit: Thornton Tomasetti
C rb
© dU
an Wing Stress/ Center Stress = 2.25:1
Final Analyses/Design
g s
i ld D=1.5M, L=45M in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H D=1.8M, L=45M
o
C rb
© dU
D=1.5M, L=65M
an
D=1.5M, L=85M
D=1.5M, L=105M

FEM Cross-Section
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Settlement Contour Progression as
Wall Load Changed s
in g
86
112 108
83
i
92
u ld 110
88 94
109 104
88
B
105
107
a ll 102 100
n T at
109
l o b i t 107 106
c i a
n H
84 90 93
o u an
C rb
© dU
an
Converged Settlement Contours
g s
in
LANGAN TT
ui ld
B
94 88 83
l
95
109
a l104 97
n T at 107
i t
100 102
il o b
n c H a
o u an 106 100
C rb
© dU 93 93
anLANGAN AND TT CONVERGED WITHIN 5 MM

Raft Settlement Plots
g s
in
45m/65m/85m/105m
d
45m
108 mm ITER 0 102 mm 85 mm
ui l
ITER 0 80 mm
ll B
173mm
Ta t
105mm
o n i t a
c il ab
n
u an H
o
C rb
106 mm 83 mm
© dU
an
• Compare foundation response without any iterations
• The 45m scheme leads to significant redistribution of wall loads
• The deeper scheme leads to minor redistribution

Converged Pile Loads (MN)
g s
in
LANGAN TT
ui ld
ll B
a
26 29 28 30
n T at
l o 34
b i t 34
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU 33 35
an Note: Pile loads taken at bottom of raft

Bearing Pressure Contours
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Vertical Strains – Block Behavior
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Wall Stresses
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T a t
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU Credit: Thornton Tomasetti
an Wing Stress/ Center Stress = 1.6:1

Axial Pile Loads for Converged Models
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
T
45m long pile scheme 45m/65m/85m/105m
n t at
il o b i
n c H a
o u an
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
g s
i ld in
B u
a ll
n T at
l o b i t
c i a
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Final Remarks
• The geotechnical model governs the ground settlements.
g s
ld
• The iterative process gives insight on the redistribution of
i in
column/wall loads.
B u
ll
• The geotechnical engineer does not have to attempt to
a
T t
model the stiffness of the superstructure.
n a
o i t
• The redistribution is more pronounced when the
l b
c i a
superstructure is “stiff” compared to the foundation.
n
u an H
o
• The redistribution necessitated “stiffening” the foundation
C rb
by using longer piles at the center.
© dU
• The longer piles are not needed for increased soil bearing
an
capacity, they are needed to alleviate the increased outer
wall stresses in the superstructure.

In Memory
Dr. Khaldoun Fahoum, PE, PhDs
in g
ui ld
ll B
Ta t
o n i t a
c il ab
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an

Proyecto Kimgdon Tower

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Proyecto Kimgdon Tower

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Analysis and Design of the

Kingdom Tower Piled Raft Foundation

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

n T at Strata Range Average Median

l o b i t Limestone 0.32-14.8 2.9 2.4

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

an Credit: Thornton Tomasetti

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

anLANGAN AND TT CONVERGED WITHIN 5 MM

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

an Note: Pile loads taken at bottom of raft

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

an Wing Stress/ Center Stress = 1.6:1

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

S-ar putea să vă placă și