Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: This paper describes the foundation design process adopted for two high-rise buildings in Dubai, the
Emirates Twin Towers. The foundation system for each of the towers was a piled raft, founded on deep deposits of cal-
careous soils and rocks. The paper outlines the geotechnical investigations undertaken, the field and laboratory testing
programs, and the design process and describes how potential issues of low skin friction and cyclic degradation of skin
friction due to wind loading were addressed. An advanced numerical computer analysis was used for the design pro-
cess, which was carried out using a limit state approach. This necessitated analysis of a large number of load cases,
and the paper describes how the information was processed to produce design information. A comprehensive program
of pile load testing was undertaken, and class A predictions of both axial and lateral load–deflection behaviour were in
fair agreement with the load test results. Despite this agreement, the overall settlements of the towers observed during
construction were significantly less than predicted. The possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed.
Key words: case history, footings and foundations, full-scale tests, piles, rafts, settlement.
Résumé : Cet article décrit le processus de conception des fondations adopté pour deux tours à Dubai, les « Emirates
Twin Towers ». Le système de fondation pour chacune des tours consistait en un radier sur pieux reposant sur des dé-
pôts profonds de sols et roches de carbonate. Cet article donne les grandes lignes des études géotechniques réalisées,
les programmes d’essais en laboratoire et sur le terrain, et le processus de conception, et décrit comment les problèmes
potentiels de faible frottement de surface et de dégradation cyclique du frottement de surface due aux charges de vent
peuvent être traités. Une analyse numérique de pointe à l’ordinateur a été utilisée pour le processus de conception qui
a été réalisé au moyen de l’approche d’état limite. Ceci a nécessité l’analyse d’un grand nombre de cas de charge-
ments, et l’article décrit comment les données ont été traitées pour produire les informations pour la conception. Un
programme élaboré d’essais de chargement sur pieux a été entrepris et des prédictions de classe A du comportement en
déflexion sous chargement tant axial que latéral ont montré une concordance assez bonne avec les résultats des essais
de chargement. En dépit de cette concordance, les tassements globaux des tours observés durant la construction étaient
appréciablement inférieurs à ceux prédits. On discute des raisons possibles de cet inconsistance.
Mots clés : histoire de cas, semelles/fondations, essais à l’échelle naturelle, pieux, radiers, tassement.
Received 21 April 2004. Accepted 24 November 2004. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
8 June 2005.
H.G. Poulos.1 Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd., 8/12 Mars Road Lane Cove West, P.O. Box 125 North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia
and The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering, NSW 2006, Australia.
A.J. Davids.2 Building Structures, Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd., 116 Miller St., North Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: harry_poulos@coffey.com.au).
2
Present address: Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd., 8/12 Mars Road Lane Cove West, P.O. Box 125 North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia.
Can. Geotech. J. 42: 716–730 (2005) doi: 10.1139/T05-004 © 2005 NRC Canada
Poulos and Davids 717
Ground investigation and site Fig. 1. The Emirates Twin Towers soon after completion of con-
characterization struction.
(vi) The CNS shear tests indicated that cyclic loading had measured values from the CNS tests were within and beyond
the potential to significantly reduce or degrade the skin the range of design values for static skin friction of piles in
friction after initial static failure and that a cyclic stress cemented calcareous soils tentatively suggested by Poulos
of 50% of the initial static resistance could cause failure (1988); that range was between 100 and 500 kPa, depending
during cyclic loading, resulting in a very low postcyclic on the degree of cementation.
residual strength.
Figure 3 summarizes the values of Young’s modulus ob- Geotechnical model
tained from the following tests: (i) seismic data (reduced by The key design parameters for the foundation system were
a factor of 0.2, to account for a strain level appropriate to the the ultimate skin friction of the piles, the ultimate end-
overall behaviour of the pile foundation); (ii) resonant col- bearing resistance of the piles, the ultimate bearing capacity
umn tests (at a strain level of 0.1%); (iii) laboratory stress of the raft, and the Young’s modulus of the soils for both the
path tests, designed to simulate the initial and incremental raft and the pile behaviour under static loading. For the as-
stress states along and below the foundation system; and sessment of dynamic response under wind and seismic load-
(iv) unconfined compression tests (at 50% of ultimate ing conditions, Young’s modulus values for rapid loading
stress). conditions were also required, together with internal damp-
Figure 4 shows the ultimate static shear resistance, de- ing values for the various strata.
rived from the CNS test data, as a function of depth below The geotechnical model for foundation design under static
the surface. With the exception of one sample, all tests loading conditions was based on the relevant available in
showed a maximum shear resistance of at least 500 kPa. The situ and laboratory test data and is shown in Fig. 5. The ulti-
mate skin friction values were based largely on the CNS Fig. 4. Ultimate skin friction values from CNS tests.
data, whereas the ultimate end-bearing values for the piles
were assessed on the basis of correlations with the UCS data
(Reese and O’Neill 1988) and also on the basis of previous
experience with similar cemented deposits (Poulos 1988).
The values of Young’s modulus were derived from the data
summarized in Fig. 3. Although inevitable scatter exists
among the different values, there is a reasonably consistent
general pattern of variation of modulus with depth. Consid-
erable emphasis was placed on the laboratory stress path
tests, which should have reflected realistic stress and strain
levels within the various units. The values for the upper two
units were obtained from correlations with the SPT data.
The bearing capacity of the various layers for shallow
foundation loading, pu, was estimated from bearing capacity
theory for the inferred friction angles, the tangents of which
were reduced by a factor of two thirds to allow for the ef-
fects of soil compressibility, as suggested by Poulos and
Chua (1985).
Fig. 5. Geotechnical model adopted for design. Eu, undrained Serviceability limit state
Young’s modulus; E′, drained Young’s modulus, v ′, drained The design criteria for the serviceability limit state were
Poisson’s ratio; fs, ultimate shaft friction; fb, ultimate pile end as follows:
bearing; pu, ultimate lateral pile–soil pressure.
[4] ρmax ≤ ρall
[5] θmax ≤ θall
where ρmax is the maximum computed foundation settle-
ment; ρall is the allowable foundation settlement, taken to be
150 mm; θmax is the maximum computed local angular rota-
tion; and θall is the allowable angular rotation, taken to be
1/350 here.
Load combinations
For each tower, 18 load combinations were analyzed: 1
loading set for the ultimate dead and live loading only; four
groups of 4 loading sets for various combinations of dead,
live, and wind loading for the ultimate limit state; and 1
loading set for the long-term serviceability limit state (dead
plus live loading).
Analyses
Conventional pile capacity analyses were used to assess
the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the piles and raft. For
the piles, this capacity was taken as the sum of the shaft and
base capacities. For the raft, account was taken of the layer-
ing of the geotechnical profile and the large size of the foun-
dation, and a value of 2.0 MPa was adopted for the ultimate
bearing capacity. In these conventional analyses, it was as-
sumed that the portion of the raft providing additional bear-
ing capacity had a diameter of 3.6 m (three pile diameters)
where R*s is design structural strength; R*g is design around each pile.
geotechnical strength; and S* is design action effect (fac- In additional to the conventional analyses, more complete
tored load combination). The above two criteria were ap- analyses of the foundation system were undertaken with the
plied to the entire foundation system, and the structural computer program geotechnical analysis of raft with piles
strength criterion (eq. [1]) was also applied to each individ- (GARP) (Poulos 1994). This program uses a simplified
ual pile. The values for R*s and R*g were obtained from the boundary element analysis to compute the behaviour of a
estimated ultimate structural and geotechnical capacities, rectangular piled raft when subjected to applied vertical
multiplied by appropriate reduction factors. In this case, the loading, moment loading, and free-field vertical soil move-
structural reduction factor was taken as 0.6. For the ments. The raft is represented by an elastic plate, the soil is
geotechnical ultimate limit state, the worst response arising modelled as a layered elastic continuum, and the piles are
from the pile–soil–raft interaction may not occur when the represented by elastic–plastic or hyperbolic springs, which
pile and raft capacities are factored downwards. As a conse- can interact with each other and with the raft. Pile–pile inter-
quence, additional calculations were carried out for actions are incorporated via interaction factors. Beneath the
geotechnical reduction factors of both less than 1 (0.6) and raft, limiting values of contact pressure in compression and
equal to 1. tension can be specified so that some allowance can be made
In addition to the normal design criteria, as expressed by for nonlinear raft behaviour. The output of GARP includes
eqs. [1] and [2], a criterion was imposed for the whole foun- the settlement at all nodes of the raft; the transverse, longitu-
dation to cope with the effects of repetitive loading from dinal, and torsional bending moments at each node in the
wind action, as follows: raft; the contact pressures below the raft; and the vertical
loads on each pile. In addition to GARP, the simplified
boundary element program deformation analysis of pile
[3] ηR*gs ≥ S *c groups (DEFPIG) (Poulos and Davis 1980) was used to ob-
tain the required input values of the pile stiffness and pile–
where R*gs is design geotechnical shaft capacity; S *c is maxi- pile interaction factors for GARP and for computing the
mum amplitude of wind loading; and η is a factor assessed overall lateral response of the foundation system (ignoring
from geotechnical laboratory testing. The value selected for the effect of the raft in this case).
η, on the basis of laboratory data from CNS tests, was 0.5. Both GARP and DEFPIG were used for the ultimate limit
The value for S *c was obtained from computer analyses, state, with undrained soil parameters for the wind loading
which gave the cyclic component of load on each pile for cases and with drained soil parameters for the dead and live
various wind loading cases. loading only cases. The pile and raft capacities were fac-
Fig. 6. Computed final settlement contours for the hotel tower. Table 2. Computed maximum settlement and angu-
Contour interval: 5 mm. lar rotation ultimate limit state.
Max. settlement Max. angular
Tower (mm) rotation
Office 185 1/273
Hotel 181 1/256
generally similar to those computed by GARP, the resulting quency range of interest (up to about 0.2 Hz), dynamic ef-
values of moment and shear from the structural analysis fects on stiffness were minor, and in general the static stiff-
were significantly smaller than those from the oversimplistic ness values provided an adequate approximation of the
modelling of the raft as a uniform flat plate in the GARP dynamic foundation stiffness.
analysis. The range of frequencies was assessed to be lower than
the natural frequency of the soil profile, which was of the or-
Pile design der of 0.7–0.8 Hz. As a consequence, little or no radiation
To enable assessment of the piles from the standpoint of damping could be relied on from the piles, so all the damp-
structural design, the maximum axial force, lateral force, and ing would be derived from internal damping of the soil.
bending moment in each pile were computed by the follow- From the resonant column laboratory test data, the average
ing process: (i) the maximum axial force was computed value of the internal damping ratio was found to be about
from the GARP analyses for the various loading combina- 0.05. Following the recommendations of Gazetas (1991), the
tions; and (ii) the maximum lateral shear force and bending foundation damping ratio was taken to be 0.05 for vertical
moment were computed with the program DEFPIG, allow- and rocking motions and 0.04 for lateral and torsional mo-
ing for interaction effects among the piles but ignoring any tions.
contribution of the raft to the lateral resistance. The overall
group was analyzed under the action of the various wind Seismic hazard assessment
loadings. A seismic hazard assessment was carried out by a special-
It was found that the largest axial forces were developed ist consultant, and for a 500 year return period, the peak
in the piles near the corners and in two of the core piles. A ground acceleration was assessed to be 0.075g. Assessments
number of the piles reached their full geotechnical design re- were then made of the potential for ground motion amplifi-
sistance, but the foundation as a whole could still support cation and for liquefaction at the site. Because of the lack of
the imposed ultimate design loads and therefore satisfied the detailed information on likely earthquake time histories, the
design criterion in eq. [2]. potential for site amplification was estimated simply on the
Combined with the moments developed by the lateral basis of the site geology, related to the shear wave velocity
loading, the load on some of the piles fell outside the origi- within the upper 30 m of the geotechnical profile (Joyner
nal design envelope for a 1.2 m diameter pile with 4% rein- and Fumal 1984). On this basis, the site was assessed to
forcement, as supplied by the structural engineer. To address have a relatively low potential for amplification.
the problem of overstressing of the piles, a number of op- The presence of uncemented sands near the ground sur-
tions were considered, including increasing the reinforce- face and below the water table suggested that the possibility
ment in the 1.2 m diameter piles, increasing the number of of liquefaction during a strong seismic event. The grading
1.2 m diameter piles in the problem areas, and increasing the curves for these soils indicated that they might fall into the
diameter of the “problem” piles to 1.5 m. The second option range commonly considered to be easily liquefied. The pro-
was adopted, and for the office tower, the total number of cedure described by Seed and de Alba (1986) was used as a
piles was increased from the original 91 to 102, and for the basis for assessing liquefaction resistance with SPT data.
hotel tower, the number of piles was increased from 68 to 92. Because of the greater propensity of the calcareous sand to
generate excess pore pressures under cyclic loading, a con-
Dynamic response servative approach was adopted, in which only a small
The structural design required information on the vertical amount of fines was considered, and the design earthquake
and lateral stiffness of the individual piles in the two tower magnitude was assumed to be 7.5. The overall risk of lique-
blocks for a dynamic response analysis of the entire struc- faction was assessed on the basis of the liquefaction poten-
ture–foundation system. For the pile stiffness calculations, tial index defined by Iwasaki et al. (1984). This index
the program DEFPIG was used, with the following simplify- considers the factor of safety against liquefaction within the
ing assumptions: upper 20 m of the soil profile. On this basis, the risk of liq-
uefaction was judged to be low to very low, depending on
(i) Each pile carried an equal share of the vertical and lat-
the borehole considered. Consequently, there appeared to be
eral loads (although this might not have been an entirely
no need to consider special measures to mitigate possible ef-
realistic assumption, it did enable the stiffness of each
fects of liquefaction within the upper uncemented soil lay-
pile within the group, allowing for interaction effects, to
ers.
be evaluated straightforwardly).
(ii) The loadings from the most severe case of wind loading
were considered. Site settlement study
(iii) The loading was very rapid, so undrained conditions
prevailed in the soil profile. An assessment was made of the settlement over the entire
(iv) The pile heads were fixed against rotation to simulate site at various times after the commencement of construc-
the effect of the restraint provided by the raft. tion. This study was undertaken to facilitate the design of
(v) The dynamic stiffness of the piles in the group environ- structural interfaces between various parts of the project and
ment was equal to the static stiffness. in particular the interface between the towers and the po-
To check the latter assumption, approximate dynamic dium structure.
analyses were also undertaken, using the approach outlined The methodology involved the integration of the settle-
by Gazetas (1991), incorporating dynamic interaction factors ment due to each of the towers (considered as distributed
and dynamic pile stiffnesses. It was found that in the fre- loadings) and due to the low-rise structures (considered as a
© 2005 NRC Canada
Poulos and Davids 723
Fig. 7. Computed settlement contours around the site after Table 4. Summary of pile load tests.
24 months. Contour interval: 10 mm.
Test Diameter Length Max. test
Tower pile No. (m) (m) Test type load (MN)
Hotel P3(H) 0.9 40 Compression 30.00
P1(H) 0.6 25 Static tension 6.50a
P2(H) 0.6 25 Cyclic tension 3.25b
P2(H) 0.6 25 Lateral 0.20
Office P3(O) 0.9 40 Compression 30.00
P1(O) 0.7 25 Static tension 6.50a
P2(O) 0.7 25 Cyclic tension 3.25b
P2(O) 0.7 25 Lateral 0.20
a
Initial estimated value; actual value was different.
b
Maximum load in cyclic test = 0.5 × maximum load in static tension
test.
and hence estimation of the axial load distribution: (ii) rod installation of the test piles. The following programs were
extensometers, to provide additional information on axial used to make the predictions: (i) PIES, for static compres-
load distribution with depth; (iii) inclinometers (a pair, at sion and tension tests (Poulos 1989); (ii) Static and Cyclic
180°, for each pile for the lateral load tests), to enable mea- Axial Response of Piles (SCARP), for cyclic tension tests
surement of rotation with depth and hence assessment of lat- (Poulos 1990); and (iii) ERCAP, for lateral load tests (CPI
eral displacement with depth; and (iv) displacement 1992). All three programs were based on simplified bound-
transducers, to measure vertical and lateral displacements. ary element analyses that represented the soil as a layered
For the two P3 piles, 44 strain gauges were used, 4 at continuum and were capable of incorporating nonlinear
each of 11 levels, and extensometers were installed at 8 lev- pile–soil responses and considering the effects of the reac-
els; for the P1 and P2 piles, there were 32 strain gauges, 4 at tion piles. Young’s modulus for the piles was assumed to be
each of 8 levels, and extensometers at 5 levels. In general, 30 000 MPa. The input geotechnical parameters for the pre-
the strain gauges performed reasonably reliably. For the of- dictions were those used for the design, as shown in Fig. 5.
fice piles, only 3 of the strain gauges, all on P3(O), did not The program SCARP, however, required additional data on
function properly, and for the hotel piles, 13 strain gauges cyclic degradation characteristics for skin friction and end
(out of a total of 108) did not function properly: 1 on P3(H), bearing. Some indication of skin friction degradation was
4 on P2(H), and 8 on P1(H). The strain gauge readings were available from the CNS test data, but some of the parameters
generally consistent with the extensometer readings. relating to displacement accumulation had to be assessed on
the basis of judgement and previous experience with similar
deposits (Poulos 1988). It was therefore expected that the
Class A predictions predictions for the cyclic tension test would be less accurate
To provide some guidance on the expected behaviour of than those for the static tests.
the piles during the test pile program, class A predictions of
the load–deflection response of the test piles were calculated Predicted and measured test pile behaviour
and communicated to the main consultant, prior to the com-
mencement of testing. The geotechnical model was similar Compression tests
to that used for design (see Fig. 5), with some minor modifi- Comparisons between predicted and measured test pile
cations to allow for the specific conditions revealed during behaviour were made after the results of the tests were made
Fig. 9. Predicted and measured load–settlement behaviour for Fig. 10. Predicted and measured axial load distribution for pile
pile P3(H). P3(H). DMD, Dubai Municipality datum.
Fig. 12. Ultimate skin friction values: design values and values Fig. 13. Measured and predicted load–uplift behaviour for cyclic
derived from load tests. uplift test on pile P2(H).
Fig. 15. Measured and predicted deflection distributions for pile Fig. 16. Measured and predicted time–settlement behaviour for
P2(H). DMD, Dubai Municipality datum. the hotel tower.
Lateral load tests dicted performance of the test piles gave rise to expectations
Figure 14 shows the predicted and measured load– of similar levels of agreement for the entire tower structure
displacement curves for the hotel tower test pile. Both the foundations. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Measure-
test pile and the reaction pile responses are plotted. The ments were available only for a limited period during the
agreement in both cases is reasonably good, although there construction process, and these are compared with the pre-
is a tendency for the predicted deflections to be smaller than dicted time–settlement relationships in Fig. 16 for two typi-
the measured values as the load level increases. A similar cal points within the hotel tower. The time–settlement
measure of agreement was found for the office tower pile, predictions were based on the predicted distribution of final
although the initial prediction had to be modified to allow settlement (Fig. 6), an assumed rate of construction, and a
for the larger as-constructed diameter of the test pile. It rate of settlement computed from three-dimensional consoli-
should be noted that the predictions took account of the in- dation theory. At the time of the last available measure-
teraction between the test pile and the reaction pile. Had this ments, the tower had reached about 70% of its final height
interaction not been taken into account, the predicted deflec- (i.e., a height of about 215 m). Figure 16 shows that the ac-
tions would have been considerably larger than those mea- tual measured settlements were significantly smaller than
sured. those predicted, being only about 25% of the predicted val-
Figure 15 shows the predicted and measured deflection ues after 10–12 months. A similar level of disagreement was
profiles along the hotel tower test pile at an applied load of found for the office tower.
150 kN. The agreement is generally good, although the mea- Figure 17 shows the contours of measured settlement at a
surements indicate a reversal of direction of deflection at particular time during construction for the hotel tower. Al-
about 3.5 m depth, a characteristic that was not predicted. though the magnitude of the measured settlements is far
This characteristic has been observed from other analyses smaller than predicted, the distribution bears some similarity
(for example, Matlock and Reese 1960) and may also reflect to that predicted. The predicted ratio of final settlement at
the fact that the stiffness of the ground beyond about re- T4 to that at T15 is about 0.7, which is a similar order to
duced level (RL) –4 m was greater than assumed in the anal- that measured. Thus, despite the considerable thickness of
ysis. The sharp kink in the measured deflection profile may the raft and the apparent stiffness of the structure, the foun-
also be due to the change in stiffness caused by the transi- dation experienced a dishing distribution of settlement,
tion from a cased to an uncased pile. which is similar to that measured on some other high-rise
structures on piled raft foundations, particularly the
Measured and predicted building Messeturm in Frankfurt, Germany (Sommer 1993; Franke et
settlements al. 1994).
Fig. 17. Measured settlement contours for the hotel tower. Con- Fig. 18. Sensitivity of computed interaction factors to analysis
tour interval: 1 mm. assumptions. s, pile spacing; d, pile diameter.
piles, the potential for overprediction of settlements was were made about the modulus values for soil between and
considerable, as small inaccuracies in the interaction factors below the piles, a much closer match to the measured settle-
can translate into large errors in the predicted group settle- ments was possible. The importance of taking proper ac-
ment (for example, Poulos 1993). In addition, Al-Douri and count of interaction effects in pile group analyses and of
Poulos (1994) indicated that the interaction between piles in allowing for a more realistic distribution of ground stiffness
calcareous deposits may be much lower than that between at depth was therefore reemphasized.
piles in a laterally and vertically homogeneous soil. Unfortu- The Emirates project involved close interaction between
nately, this experience was not incorporated into the class A the structural and geotechnical designers in designing piled
pile group settlement predictions for the towers. raft foundations for two complex and significant high-rise
Revised settlement calculations, on the basis of these in- structures. Such interaction has some major benefits in
teraction factors, gave the results shown in Table 5. The in- avoiding oversimplification of geotechnical matters by the
teraction factors used clearly have a great influence on the structural engineer and oversimplification of structural mat-
predicted foundation settlements, although they have almost ters by the geotechnical engineer. Such interaction therefore
no effect on load sharing between the raft and the piles. The promotes the development of effective and economical foun-
maximum settlement for case 4 is reduced to 29% of the dation and structural designs.
value originally predicted, and the minimum settlement is
about 25% of the original value. If this case had been used
for the calculation of the settlements during construction, the Acknowledgements
settlement at point T15 would have been about 12 mm after The permission of His Highness General Shaikh Moham-
11 months, which is in much closer agreement with the mea- med bin Rashid al-Maktoum to publish this paper is grate-
sured value of about 10 mm than the original predictions. fully acknowledged. Dr. James Apted provided expert advice
The importance of proper assessment of the geotechnical in relation to pile testing. Patrick Wong, Robert Lumsdaine,
model in computing the effects of group interaction has Leanne Petersen, Paul Gildea, Jeff Forse, and Strath Clarke
again been emphasized by this case history. were involved in various aspects of the field and design
work and the subsequent supervision of pile construction
Conclusions and testing. Dr. Julian Seidel carried out the CNS testing at
Monash University, Australia.
The comprehensive investigation and testing program for
the Emirates project enabled the site to be characterized
more completely than is usually possible with many pro- References
jects. Modern methods of in situ and laboratory testing were Al-Douri, R., and Poulos, H.G. 1994. Interaction between jacked
used in conjunction with advanced methods of foundation piles in calcareous sediments. In Proceedings of the 13th Inter-
analysis to design the piled raft foundations. The limit state national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
approach used for the foundation design involved a great neering, New Delhi, January 1994. Oxford Press, UK. Vol. 3,
deal of analysis (particularly because of the large number of pp. 1669–1672.
load combinations to be considered). One of the major chal- AS 2159. 1995. Piling—Design and installation (AS 2159–1995).
lenges was to process and portray the results from the analy- Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
ses as useful design information. CPI. 1992. ERCAP users’ manual. Coffey Partners International,
The substantial design effort was complemented by a Sydney, Australia.
comprehensive program of pile load testing, including static Davis, E.H., and Poulos, H.G. 1972. Rate of settlement under three
compression tests, static and cyclic tension tests, and lateral dimensional conditions. Géotechnique, 22(1): 95–114.
load tests. The compression tests were among the largest Diyaljee, V.A., and Raymond, G.P. 1982. Repetitive load deforma-
carried out in the Middle East and involved loads up to 30 tion of cohesionless soil. Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-
MN. Class A predictions of the performance of the test piles neering Division, ASCE, 108(GT10): 1215–1229.
were found to be in fair agreement with the measurements, Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., and Elson, W.K.
although generally more conservative. In particular, the val- 1992. Piling engineering. 2nd ed. Halsted Press, New York.
ues of ultimate skin friction along the pile inferred from the Franke, E., Lutz, B., and El-Mossallamy, Y. 1994. Measurements
load tests were in good agreement with the values used for and numerical modeling of high-rise buildings on Frankfurt
clay. In Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations
design, which were derived from CNS laboratory tests.
and Embankments: Proceedings of Settlement ’94, College Sta-
There appears to be potential for this type of test to provide
tion, Tex., 16–18 June 1994. Edited by A.T. Yeung and G.Y.
a rational means of measuring pile skin friction characteris- Felio. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Spe-
tics in the laboratory. cial Publication 40, pp. 1325–1336.
The expectation that the tower settlements would be as Gazetas, G. 1991. Foundation vibrations. In Foundation engineer-
well predicted as the settlements in the load tests was not re- ing handbook. 2nd ed. Edited by H.V. Fang. Van Nostrand
alized. The measured values during construction were only Reinhold, New York. pp. 553–593.
about 25% of the predicted values. Possible reasons for the Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T., and Tokida, K.-I. 1984. Simplified proce-
significant discrepancy were investigated, and it was found dure for assessing liquefaction during earthquakes. Soil Dynam-
that at least some of the differences could be attributed to ics and Earthquake Engineering, 3(1): 49–58.
the conservative assumptions made in deriving the pile set- Joyner, W.R., and Fumal, T. 1984. Use of measured shear-wave ve-
tlement interaction factors that were used in the piled raft locity for predicting geological site effects on strong motion. In
analysis. When more realistic (in retrospect) assumptions Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, San Francisco, Calif. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and
N.J. Vol. 2, pp. 777–783. design. John Wiley, New York.
Lam, T.S.K., and Johnston, I.W. 1982. A constant normal stiffness Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P. 1978. Analysis of deformation of
direct shear machine. In Proceedings of the 7th South East vertically loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Hong Kong. pp. 805– ASCE, 104(GT12): 1465–1488.
820. Reese, L.C., and O’Neill, M.W. 1988. Drilled shafts: construction
Matlock, H., and Reese, L.C. 1960. Generalized solution for later- procedures and design methods. US Department of Transporta-
ally loaded piles. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations tion, Washington, D.C. Publication No. FHWA-H1-88-042.
Division, ASCE, 86(SM5): 63–91. Seed, H.B., and de Alba, P. 1986. Use of SPT and CPT tests for
Poulos, H.G. 1988. The mechanics of calcareous sediments. John evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands. In Use of in Situ
Jaeger Memorial Lecture, Australian Geomechanics, Special Tests in Geotechnical Engineering: Proceedings of In Situ ’86, a
Edition. pp. 8–41. Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Va. Edited by S.P. Clemence.
Poulos, H.G. 1989. PIES user’s manual. Centre for Geotechnical American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Geotechnical
Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Publication No. 6, pp. 281–302.
Poulos, H.G. 1990. SCARP user’s manual. Centre for Geotechnical Small, J.C. 1984. User’s manual: program FLEA—Finite Layer
Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Elastic Analysis. School of Civil and Mining Engineering, Uni-
Poulos, H.G. 1993. Settlement of bored pile groups. In Deep foun- versity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
dations on bored and auger piles. Edited by W.F. van Impe. A.A. Sommer, H. 1993. Development of locked stresses and negative
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. pp.103–117. shaft resistance at the piled raft foundation—Messeturm Frank-
Poulos, H.G. 1994. An approximate analysis of pile–raft interac- furt Main. In Deep foundations on bored and auger piles. Edited
tion. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical by W.F. van Impe. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Methods in Geomechanics, 18: 73–92. pp. 347–349.
Poulos, H.G., and Chua, E.W. 1985. Bearing capacity of founda- Taylor, D.W. 1948. Fundamentals of soil mechanics. John Wiley,
tions on calcareous sand. In Proceedings, 11th International New York.
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San
Francisco, Calif. Vol. 3, pp. 1619–1622.