Engineering Jeddah Tower
The structure’s classic reinforced concrete bearing wall system demonstrates
potential for even greater heights
by Robert C. Sinn, John Peronto, and Matthew Huizinga
I
n the summer of 2009, the developer Jeddah Economic
Company invited a limited number of competing design
teams to submit proposals for a 1 km (0.6 mile) tall tower
to be located in Jeddah, along the Red Sea in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA). A previous concept for a mile-high tower
had been considered to be economically unfeasible and
unbuildable from a technical standpoint. The participants in
the design competition were provided detailed instructions to
build upon the success of the Burj Khalifa, then recently
Fig. 1: Rendering of the Jeddah Tower (courtesy of Adrian Smith +
Gordon Gill Architecture)
opened in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE); but to create a
unique architectural identity for what would be the next
world’s tallest building.
Not only were a handful of design teams in competition
for the commission, but four internationally recognized
general contractors were also vying for the project at the
same time. Of the several judging criteria, roughly half the
total weight would be given to construction viability and
structural/architectural efficiency. It wasn’t until March of
2010 that the team of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill
Architecture and Thornton Tomasetti structural engineers
were notified that they had been awarded the design contract,
and that the Saudi Binladen Group would be the builder. The
winning proposal was a powerful, linearly tapering, three-
legged tower form (Fig. 1).1,2
This article traces the key structural engineering analysis
and design considerations for the Jeddah Tower, which will be
the first man-made structure to reach 1 km in height.
Descriptions of the most critical aspects of the technical
solutions for the foundation system, the wind engineering and
testing program used to develop the concrete bearing wall
system resisting wind and seismic lateral loads, and the key
analytical design considerations are included. The tower
design is presented as a logical historical step in the continued
development and advancement of tall and ultra-tall tower
structures. Upon completion in 2019, Jeddah Tower will take
its place alongside the tallest and most recognizable towers in
the world (Fig. 2).
Bearing Wall System
The structural scheme for the Jeddah Tower is best
described as a classic reinforced concrete bearing wall system.
While the concrete bearing wall system has been used for
decades for resistance to lateral loadings on tall buildings, the
arrangement employed for Jeddah Tower is unique and
unprecedented. The structural system organization was
conceived with an overriding goal to provide maximum
material efficiency alongside demonstrable repetition and ease
of construction. The fundamental features of the system
organization are shown in an isometric diagram (Fig. 3) and
can be characterized as follows:
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | NOVEMBER 2016 23
 •• Reinforced concrete construction is used for the entire
superstructure, inclusive of the spire;
•• Floors comprise flat plate construction—minimum 250 mm
(10 in.) thick;
•• Gravity loads are transmitted to the foundation by wall
elements (no columns);
•• All walls participate in resisting wind or seismic loads;
•• All walls
All are interconnected through coupling beams;
•• extremitiesareofvertical,
walls with the exception of the walls at the
the three wings; and
•• No outrigger walls or trusses, belt walls or trusses, column
or wall transfers; or down-stand perimeter spandrel beams
are used.
Only the lower two-thirds of the tower is habitable with
floor slabs and services. Each of the three end walls and
adjacent fire stair enclosure walls are inclined at a constant
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) angle; but the inclined angles of the three wings are each
Fig. 2: Notable supertall buildings include: (a) Jeddah Tower; (b) Burj slightly different such that the wings reach the spire at three
Khalifa; (c) Shanghai Tower; (d) One World Trade Center; (e) Taipei 101; different elevations. A crucial organizational strategy for the
and (f) Willis Tower tower structure allows the inclined end walls to extend upward
without penetrations over the complete tower height. As the
three end walls approach the sky terrace and unoccupied spire,
the walls continue uninterrupted and form the three dominant
sides of the enclosed spire silo, without any discontinuity of
load flow. A transition piece, the 4 m (13 ft) thick so-called
“sky raft,” forms the intersection and vertical transition
structure between the main bearing wall arrangement in the
residential tower and the closed spire silo bearing wall
geometry (Fig. 4).
The tower will not only be the world’s tallest upon
completion but it will also be one of the most slender
structures constructed with an overall height, least-width
aspect ratio of approximately 12:1. Based on the extreme
height and slenderness, along with considerations of base
overturning and building motions under wind action, it is the
authors’ decided opinion that an all-reinforced concrete
Fig. 3: An axonometric view of the bearing wall system. The three
system formulation was the only technically feasible structural
end walls are the only walls in the system that are inclined
engineering option for this supertall tower. Figure 5 shows the
fully developed building information modeling (BIM) model
for the tower, low-rise podium, and specialty components
such as the sky terrace.

Planning Considerations
The bearing wall formulation is a very powerful system
with the potential to reach even greater heights for future
towers. It is best employed for towers of primarily residential
use, such as Jeddah Tower, as the walls tend to compartmentalize
the plan into discrete, limited areas rather than open floor
spaces typical of office towers. For Jeddah Tower, there is a
distinct hierarchy in the arrangement of the walls (Fig. 3) and
their primary importance to the overall system performance is
described:
•• Core walls form the triangular, torsional “hub” of the
Fig. 4: A 4 m (13 ft) thick “sky raft” transfers loads from the spire silo tower. Organized around the central core of vertical
to the bearing wall system below transportation shafts and exit stairs, these walls are

24 NOVEMBER 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

Fig. 5: Structural BIM model for the low-rise
podium and tower

800 mm (31.5 in.) thick at the tower

base and need very few openings;
•• Corridor walls form the “spine” of
the superstructure. Placed along both
edges of the corridors, leading from
(linking) the stair and end walls to
the triangular core, these walls are
1000 mm (39.4 in.) thick at the tower
base and have vertically stacked
openings for doorways into units;
•• Fin walls are stabilizing walls for the
corridor walls. Transverse to the
corridor walls and spaced on 9 m
(29.5 ft) centers, these walls are 800 mm
thick at the tower base and can have
door openings to allow larger
contiguous residential units;
•• Stair walls provide secure enclosures
for fire escape stairs at the
extremities of the three wings. Each
rising as a consistent unit throughout
the habitable zone of the tower, these
walls are 1000 mm thick at the tower
base and have very few openings; and
•• End walls are the most critical and
highly stressed “flange” elements at
the extremities of the floor plate.
Connected to the stair and corridor
wall segments and inclined in
(a)
Fig. 6: High-frequency pressure integration (HFPI) wind tunnel testing: (a) original tests
conducted by RWDI in June 2010; and (b) verification tests conducted by Boundary Layer
Wind Tunnel Laboratory in December 2010
elevation as well as tapered in width,
these walls are 1200 mm (47.2 in.)
thick at the tower base and have no
openings.
The pattern of openings through the
corridor walls and fin walls was
particularly important to coordinate
early in the design process, as the effect
on hotel and residential unit layouts was
significant. The solution was to locate
door openings through the corridor
walls equidistant between transverse fin
walls. By doing this, two advantageous
results were accomplished: first, the
corridor wall coupling beam
reinforcement could be adequately
developed into the adjacent walls with
straight bars, and second, the fin wall
(b)
coupling beam reinforcement could be
developed with straight continuous bars
over three spans across the corridor and
without crossing the corridor wall
coupling beam reinforcement.3
Wind Tunnel Studies
For all supertall towers, wind
engineering and scale model verification
in the wind tunnel is a critical process
and provides crucial design input for the
development of the structural and
architectural scheme. A series of wind
tunnel models of various scales and
ever-increasing sophistication were
tested as the design progressed. Wind
tunnel testing for the tower was
performed at the RWDI laboratory,

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | NOVEMBER 2016 25

Windsor, ON, Canada. The following is a brief summary of
the types of models tested starting from the earliest during
concept design through to the design development phase:
•• High-frequency force balance (HFFB) model—1:800 scale;
•• High-frequency pressure integration (HFPI) model—1:600
scale;
•• HFPI model of the top 500 m (1640 ft) only (half tower
HFPI model)—1:400 scale;
•• Aeroelastic model test—1:600 scale; and
•• Second HFPI model of full tower (peer review test)—
1:600 scale.
The tower’s unprecedented height created unique
challenges in estimating wind response as the upper reaches
of the tower extend above the planetary boundary layer, where
turbulent air flow allows the traditional approach of
extrapolating design wind speeds up the height of the tower.
RWDI conducted an upper-level wind climate assessment to
evaluate mean wind speeds at these higher elevations. The
assessment included analysis of historical wind speed data
from the local airport, evaluation of wind balloon information,
and execution of a Weather Research Forecast Model to
simulate atmospheric circulation.4 Ultimately, it was
determined that code-based power law wind profiles were
conservative for strength design along the tower height.
Results were further used to improve estimations of tower
serviceability performance and better inform the contractor of
wind speeds anticipated during construction.
Companion (peer review) wind tunnel testing was
performed at the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory at
the University of Western Ontario, London, ON, to confirm
the results of the RWDI testing (Fig. 6). For this test, the scale
of the model (1:600), the test method (HFPI), the architectural
massing, and the input structural properties were identical to
those used for the RWDI testing. The wind tunnel laboratories
were given strict instructions to undertake their testing in their
usual fashion and without communication between the two.
Wind climate assessments, recommended design forces, and
predicted responses were in good agreement between the two
wind tunnel laboratories.
Results of the wind tunnel testing program confirmed that
the tower shape and structural design are extremely beneficial
in minimizing wind effects; particularly the predicted motions
evaluated for the comfort of the occupants. Three basic
features are recognized as the main contributors to the
excellent performance of the tower in the wind:
•• Continuous and asymmetrical linearly tapering architectural
form;
•• High massivity and inherent damping of the reinforced
concrete structure; and
•• Unique aerodynamics of the three-legged tower form.
On a conceptual level, it has been proven that the majority
of three-legged tower forms have a unique and inherent
resistance to vortex shedding induced across-wind excitation.
Unlike vortexes affecting a standard closed prismatic or tapered
form, vortexes on three-legged tower forms are either shed in
26 NOVEMBER 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
a “cutwater” fashion (for winds directly impinging the end of
a leg) or have no nearby sidewall surface to react against (for
winds imposed on a broad exposed face of the tower).
Based on the RWDI aeroelastic wind tunnel test, the
predicted peak acceleration at the highest occupied floor (654 m
[2145 ft] above the ground) are only 7 milli-g for a 1-year
return period wind event. This is well within the ISO 101375
criteria of 12 milli-g and, as such, the tower does not require
auxiliary damping of any kind for the comfort of the occupants
of the tower. Further, the predicted peak torsional velocities at
the highest occupied floor are well below the traditional
criteria, testifying to the high torsional stiffness of the tower
structural system. Results from this test also proved that the
tower form, in conjunction with the structural system, provides
positive aeroelastic damping, further validating the design.
For the strength design of the tower, a basic wind speed
of 42.2 m/s (94 mph) (3-second gust, 50-year return period)
at 10 m (32.8 ft) height is mandated by Section 301 of the
Saudi Building Code (SBC 2007)6 and could not be relaxed
in any way. This wind speed is considered to be extremely
conservative, as the wind climate developed by RWDI,
based on data from the nearby Jeddah International Airport,
indicated a basic wind speed of 34.8 m/s (78 mph).
Accordingly, the wind loads based on the wind tunnel testing
were scaled up so the corresponding design wind speed
matched the code-prescribed 42.2 m/s requirement. The
higher wind loads resulted in a decided premium in the
structural design of the tower, particularly in the amount of
reinforcing bars required in the lower section of the tower in
the walls and coupling beams.
Seismic Design Considerations
The seismic hazard in Jeddah is generally considered low
to moderate, and this was confirmed through a rigorous
site-specific seismic hazard analysis (SHA). The Arabian
Peninsula as a land mass is stable, with the Arabian Plate
moving away from the African Plate generally along a rift line
in the Red Sea. The main interest is therefore seismic activity
in the stable region and along the Red Sea, which characterize
the near-source events considered. Other far-source events
were identified typically to the north of the site, with
predominance near the Dead Sea south fault (850 km [528
miles] distant). These far-source events were influential in the
characterization of the longer period (8-plus second) ground
motions for the site.
Analytical approaches included both probabilistic and
deterministic SHA to fully characterize the structural design
parameters. The seismic site class was determined to be Class B,
rock, based on the site exploration and testing in accordance
with Section 301 of SBC 2007. As a result of the SHA, it was
determined that the design-level spectra specified in Section
301 of SBC 2007 are approximately 20% higher than the
design-level spectra determined analytically for the site,
specifically at resonant frequencies of the tower structure, and
therefore conservative.
Fig. 7: Schematic views of the tower foundation system

Fig. 8: Construction of the raft foundation

Foundation System Design
The general geotechnical conditions for the tower site are
characterized by the following strata (thicknesses are converging the requirements of the foundation elements and
approximate): the tower structure. Longer piling elements in the central core
•• 50 m (164 ft) Coraline limestone; resist the tendency of the foundation to settle more in this
•• 10 m (33 ft) mudstone/gravel layer; area; although paradoxically the piles in the center of the
•• 40 m (131 ft) decomposed sandstone; and tower do not receive the largest loads. The tower is expected
•• Sandstone up to 200 m (656 ft) in depth. to settle approximately 110 mm (4.3 in.) with less than 20 mm
There is no hard bedrock bearing strata in the upper 200 m, (0.4 in.) differential settlement between the center of the tower
so it was recognized early that a matrix of long piling and the ends of the wings.7
elements in friction would be required to support the
enormous load of the tower. The need to control differential
settlements was established early in the design process as a
governing criterion due to the implications on the tower
superstructure.
The final piled-raft solution is comprised of 270 reinforced
concrete bored piles, 1500 and 1800 mm (59 and 71 in.) in
diameter, extending to depths ranging from 105 m (345 ft) in
the center of the plan to 45 m (148 ft) at the ends of the three
wings. The pile matrix is surmounted by a raft slab varying in
thickness from 4.5 to 5 m (14.8 to 16.4 ft), as shown in Fig. 7.
It is expected that about 30% of the overall tower load will be
transferred directly into the raft subgrade, although the Career
capacity of the piles is sufficient to support the entire tower
weight, as mandated by Section 301 of SBC 2007. All tower
piling and the bottom-most reinforcing layers in the raft
Center
include a cathodic protection system in addition to increased
(100 mm [4 in.]) cover to reinforcing steel relative to 50 or
75 mm (2 or 3 in.) normally specified for bored piles and a
very dense (60 MPa [8700 psi]) concrete mixture design. Hiring the right people for
Bearing wall systems have unique characteristics that must the right jobs has never
be accounted for in the foundation design. If the foundation is
too soft, the bearing walls will restrain “dishing” of the been easier.
foundation and will therefore create large stresses in the walls Find the right candidate. Save money.
at the base of the tower. Thornton Tomasetti worked closely
Save time. The ACI Career Center is the
with geotechnical consultant Langan International to
customize the foundation design to ensure that the foundation
right solution for your hiring needs.
has sufficient strength and stiffness to avoid undue stresses in Follow @ACICareerCenter to learn more.
the raft foundation and the lower level superstructure walls
and coupling beams. The final solution was arrived at
following exhaustive studies of various options and www.concrete.org/careercenter
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | NOVEMBER 2016 27

Fig. 9: Structural analysis model platforms
Tower piling installation commenced in June 2013 after
extensive in-place pile load testing was conducted exclusively
with Osterberg load cells. The raft foundation was constructed
in the spring of 2014, with four separate massive concrete
placements (three wings and final central area placement)
without significant incident. Prior to construction of the mat, a
4.5 m (15 ft) test cube was constructed on-site and
instrumented to verify the concrete temperatures through the
thickness of the mat. Self-consolidating concrete was chosen
for the raft foundation placements, which were achieved
through pumping and using several simultaneous deposit
points through placing booms (shown in Fig. 8). As is
routinely done in the KSA, ice was used in the mixture, and
approximately 50% of the portland cement was replaced by
fly ash to control the in-place concrete temperatures during
the hydration process. The resulting temperatures during the
hydration process were less than 155°F (68°C) and maximum
temperature differentials were less than 40°F (22°C).
Structural Analysis
Several comprehensive analysis models were developed
for evaluating various design aspects and at various times
during the design process (Fig. 9). Tower dynamic behavior
and member load demands were corroborated across different
FEA software platforms such as ETABS, Midas Gen, and
Strand7. Furthermore, SAP2000 was used to study elastic
buckling behavior and confirm global stability. Abaqus was
employed to study with high fidelity the tower’s inherent
nonlinear behavior. In addition to corroborating the ETABS
results, Midas Gen was used to conduct comprehensive
evaluations of construction sequencing, including nonlinear
time-dependent concrete modulus, creep, and shrinkage inputs.
As the structural system is very much standardized and
repetitive, the technically intensive design process was
nevertheless fundamentally quite manageable. The
fundamental translation periods of the tower are approximately
12 seconds with a torsional period of 6 seconds. These periods
testify to the underlying high stiffness for such an ultra-tall,
28 NOVEMBER 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
slender, and massive tower. All coupling beams were grouped
and designed using strut-and-tie methods. All reinforced
concrete designs were carried out according to ACI 318-08.8
The tower bearing wall system is fully interconnected
through the coupling beams between wall segments, so
inelastic redistribution of gravity loads can occur as long-term
creep and shrinkage effects cause shortening in the walls and
differential settlements occur in the foundation system. The
structural engineering community has made a good deal of
progress in the past 10 to 15 years in rigorously accounting for
these effects analytically. Full three-dimensional (3-D) sequential
construction analyses, with time-dependent material and
loading, can be used to approximate the overall behavior and
allow for informed recommendations for elevational and
positional compensations during the construction.
Tower Concrete
Experience with the construction of other supertall towers
has shown that the most economical designs specify
maximum concrete strengths based on what can reasonably be
supplied and delivered to specific height limits. For this
project, Thornton Tomasetti recommended to the owner and
the contractor that 100 MPa (14,500 psi) concrete be supplied
up to the 300 m (984 ft) level, as this would reduce the
amount of reinforcement in the bearing wall system and
minimize overall costs. However, without adequate local
experience with the necessary concrete mixtures, the final
decision was to specify a maximum concrete cylinder strength
of 85 MPa (12,330 psi) and an average static modulus of
elasticity (MOE) of 43 GPa (6.2 × 106 psi) at 90 days for the
lower tower walls and coupling beams. High-strength (520
MPa [75,000 psi]) reinforcement is used in the walls over the
bottom 300 m of the tower to control congestion. The tower
bearing walls are being constructed with flowable mixtures
using high-quality coarse aggregate from nearby quarries, and
the mixtures have consistently produced strengths well above
100 MPa. Specified concrete strengths are reduced to 75 MPa
(10,880 psi) in the middle third and 65 MPa (9430 psi) in the
upper third of the tower.
Construction Well Underway
The tower superstructure is moving along nicely and has
reached an elevation of 178 m (584 ft) above the raft
foundation, with the central triangular core extending 10 to 12
stories above the following wing walls. Floor slabs are
following the wall construction (Fig. 10). As the tower tapers,
it is expected that the construction progress will begin to
significantly accelerate as less concrete and reinforcement is
required to be placed for each cycle.
The tower structure is expected to be completed in 2019. A
complete long-term structural health monitoring (SHM)
program is being implemented to verify the behavior and
performance of the tower both during construction and over
the life of the building. Elements of the piling, raft foundation,
tower walls, and upper levels of the spire are included in the
 Project Credits
Developer: Jeddah Economic Company, Jeddah, KSA
Structural Engineer: Thornton Tomasetti, Chicago, IL
Architect: Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture,
Chicago, IL
Geotechnical Consultant: Langan International, New
York, NY
Wind Effects Consultant: RWDI, Guelph, ON, Canada
Wind Effects Peer Reviewer: Boundary Layer Wind
Tunnel Laboratory, London, ON, Canada
Construction Manager: EC Harris/Mace, London, UK
General Contractor: Saudi Binladen Group, Jeddah, KSA
Piling Contractor: Saudi Bauer, Jeddah, KSA

Robert C. Sinn, FACI, is a Principal

Fig. 10: Construction progress as of July 6, 2016 with Thornton Tomasetti, Inc., Chicago,
IL. He is a member of ACI Committee
363, High-Strength Concrete. His
program. Foundation settlements and load sharing, vertical honors include the 1999 Innovation in
Civil Engineering Award and the 2008
and horizontal tower displacements, wall stresses, and
State-of-the-Art in Civil Engineering
performance under wind or seismic load will be monitored.
Award from the American Society of Civil
The authors intend to present a future companion article
Engineers (ASCE). He received his BS
outlining the challenges encountered during the construction
in civil engineering from Northwestern University, Evanston, IL,
of the tower, more complete details regarding the testing
and his MS in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute
and analysis for long-term concrete creep and shrinkage of Technology, Cambridge, MA. He is a licensed professional
effects, and the results of the SHM program during the engineer in multiple U.S. states and a licensed structural
construction phase. engineer in Illinois.

References ACI member John Peronto is an

1. Al Maiman, T., “Kingdom Tower: A New Icon for Saudi Arabia,” Associate Principal with Thornton
CTBUH 2012 9th World Congress Conference Proceedings, Shanghai, Tomasetti, Inc. His professional
China, 2012, pp. 82-88. affiliations include the Council on Tall
2. Weismantle, P., and Stochetti, A., “Meeting the Challenges of a Buildings and Urban Habitat and ASCE.
One-Kilometer Tower,” CTBUH Journal, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 12-19. He received his BS degrees in civil and
3. “Kingdom Tower,” Tall and Supertall Buildings: Planning and mechanical engineering and his MS in
Design, first edition, A.R. Tamboli, ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2014, civil engineering from Marquette
pp. 189-216. University, Milwaukee, WI. He received
4. Galsworthy, J., “Rising to the Clouds with Confidence,” Structure, his MEng in civil engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
June 2016, pp. 37-40. He is a licensed structural engineer in Illinois and a licensed
5. ISO 10137:2007: “Bases for design of structures - Serviceability of professional engineer in California and Wisconsin.
buildings and walkways against vibrations,” International Organization
for Standardization, 2007 (Reviewed 2012), 44 pp. ACI member Matthew Huizinga is an
Associate with Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.
6. “Saudi Building Code (SBC 2007),” Section 301, Saudi Building
He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE
Code National Committee, Saudi Arabia, 2007, 271 pp.
Committee 445, Shear and Torsion; and
7. Leventis, G.; Poeppel, A.; and Syngros, K., “From Supertall to
ACI Subcommittee 445-A, Shear and
Megatall: Analysis and Design of the Kingdom Tower Piled Raft,”
Torsion—Strut and Tie. He received
Proceedings of the CTBUH International Conference, New York, 2015,
his BS in civil engineering from the
pp. 44-53.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,
8. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural and his MS in engineering from the
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp. He is a licensed professional engineer and a licensed structural
engineer in Illinois.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | NOVEMBER 2016 29