See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266137603

Soil-Foundation-Superstructure Interaction for

the Tallest Tower in the World: The Kingdom
K ingdom
Tower
Conference Paper · April 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 396

2 authors, including:

Konstantinos Syngros
City College of New York/ Langan Engineering
14 PUBLICATIONS  64 CITATIONS 

SEE PROFILE

Available
Available from: Konstantinos Syngros
Retrieved on: 12 October 2016
 

Kingdom Tower Page 1

Jeddah, K.S.A

Soil-Foundation-Superstructure
Soil-Foundation-Superstructure Interaction for the Tallest Tower in the World: The Kingdom Tower
By
Alan R. Poeppel, P.E. and Konstantinos Syngros, Ph.D., P.E.

ABSTRACT:

 As part of the booming development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Langan international was
hired to assist in all phases of soil investigation and foundation design for the Kingdom Tower, a
1,000+ meter-tall tower in the city of Jeddah, KSA. The objective of this paper is to present the
aspects of the site investigation; discuss the results from in-situ, laboratory and full scale
foundation testing; and address the three-dimensional Finite Element Modeling of the combined
pile-raft foundation. Emphasis is be placed on geotechnical parameter selection, soil-structure
modeling and the interaction between structural and geotechnical engineers to achieve
convergence between the foundation analysis results of the geotechnical and structural foundation
models. The soil-foundation-structure-interaction analysis assisted in identifying high stress
concentrations in the initial design of the shear walls, and drove the proportioning of the final
foundation configuration. Estimates for the pile loading, raft sharing, and foundation deflections are
presented.

INTRODUCTION
This paper presents the design aspects and behavior of the piled raft foundation system for the
Kingdom Tower. The primary topics covered
covered in this paper are:
1.  Summary description of the subsurface conditions.
2.  Selection of engineering parameters for design, including examination of potential vertical
and spatial variability.
3.  Classic geotechnical capacity checks for pile capacity and allowable bearing capacity.
4.  Foundation performance
performance under gravity loads.
loads. Included herein are the details of the fifinite
nite
element (FE) model, the results of the iterative process with the Structural Engineer,
Thornton Tomasetti (TT), and the sensitivity analyses performed to account for potential
variability in subsurface material parameters.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site is located in the Obhur district of Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, just north of
Obhur Creek and about 30 kilometers from the historic core of the city of Jeddah. The Red Sea is
located about 1.25 kilometers
kilometers to the southwest of the planned tower location.
location. A site location map
is presented as Figure 1.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 2

Jeddah, K.S.A

N APPROXIMATE
LIMIT OF SITE

TOWER
LOCATION

Figure 1: Site Location map Jeddah, Kindom of Saudi Arabia)

The proposed tower

tower will be more than 1,000 mete
meters
rs tall and will have three wings. The proposed
structure will be made of reinforced concrete with the loads primarily distributed along shear walls.
The wall loads range from 50 megaNewtons (MN) for the small walls at the center of the tower to
over 400 MN for the walls at the ends of each wing. The total gravity load (dead plus live) of the
superstructure is about 8,800
8,800 MN (including
(including the raft weight). The resulting average pressure
pressure on
the subgrade below the raft is about 2.37
2.37 megaPascals
megaPascals (MPa). There are no service tension loads
loads
at the foundation level.

The footprint of the tower foundation raft is approximately 3,720 square meters, and can be divided
into four zones of roughly
roughly equal size:
size: the three wings and the center core area. The gravity load
load
takedowns resulted in a uniform loading on the raft for the four zones plus or minus 15 percent.

The foundation system for the Kingdom Tower is a system of 226 1.5-m-diameter and 44 1.8-m-
diameter cast-in-place piles connected to a continuous concrete raft covering the entire pile field.
The raft has a thickness of 4.5 m at the center area and increases to 5 m at the ends of the wings.
The pile depths range
range from 45 m at the
the wings to 105 m at the center of the tower.
tower. There is no
below grade construction
construction with the exception
exception of a 6-m-deep
6-m-deep depression for
for the elevator core. A
three-dimensional view depicting the configuration of the foundation elements is presented as
Figure 2.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 3

Jeddah, K.S.A

BORED PILES TO
EL -45, D=1.5M
BORED PILES TO
EL -45, D=1.8M

BORED PILES TO
EL -65, D=1.5M

BORED PILES TO
EL -85, D=1.5M

BORED PILES TO
EL -105, D=1.5M

Figure 2: Foundation Configuration - 3D View

SITE EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 

CONDITIONS 
 A summary of the site exploration
exploration and labo
laboratory
ratory testing program is presented
presented in Table 1. A boring
location plan is presented as Figure 3.

Figure 3: Boring Location Plan

Table 1: Summary of In-Situ and Laboratory Testing

In-situ Testing Laboratory Testing

• •

  1 boring to a depth of 200 meters   129 Water content of rock measurements

•  2 borings to a depth of 150 meters •  129 Total density of rock
 

Kingdom Tower Page 4

Jeddah, K.S.A

•  1 boring to a depth of 140 meters
•  3 borings to a depth of 120 meters
•  7 groundwater observation wells
•  95 pressuremeter tests, performed in 4
boreholes
•  72 Sieve and hydrometer (grain size) tests
•  13 Atterberg Limits
•  8 Point load tests of rock
•  129 Unconfined compressive strength tests
of rock

  2 P-S suspension logging tests   23 Instrumented unconfined compressive

• •

•  16 packer tests, 4 tests performed in each strength tests of rock

of 4 boreholes •  8 Consolidated Drained (CD) Triaxial tests
of rock
•  3 Repetitive Triaxial tests of rock

Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions across the tower footprint generally consist of a thin layer of silty sand
overlying coralline limestone rock, and then underlain by successive layers of gravel and weak
conglomerate, and poorly consolidated sandstone with conglomerate and gravel inclusions to a
depth around 90 to 110 meters. Beneath the poorly consolidated/deco
consolidated/decomposed
mposed sandstone
sandstone is a
lower gravel/conglomerate
gravel/conglomerate layer to about 120 meters. Beneath a depth of about 120 meters, more
competent sandstone was encountered,
en countered, to the maximum explored depth of 200 meters.
Groundwater was measured to be about level with the Red Sea Level.

Table 2 summarizes the elevations range of the varying bedrock layers encountered during the
subsurface investigation:

Table 2 – Summary of Encountered Geological Units 

Units 

Approx. Range in Typical Range in Typical

Stratum Bottom Elevation Bottom
Thickness m) Thickness m)
m) Elevation m)
Surficial Sand 3 to 1.5 2.2 1.5 to 2 1.7
Coralline Limestone -43 to -50 -48 49 to 51 50
Interbedded Siltstone -40 to -48 -46 0.5 to 4 2.5
Upper Gravel /
-47 to -52 -52.5 3.0 to 10 5
Conglomerate
Decomposed
Decompose d Sandstone -90.0 to -105.0 -92 36 to 48 40
Lower Gravel -95 to -110 -98 2.8 to 9 5.5
Sandstone Encountered from about el -110 to
maximum explored depth of 200 m
 

Kingdom Tower Page 5

Jeddah, K.S.A

Full Scale Pile Load Test Program

 A total of six full scale pile load tests and one full-scale
full-scale footing block test w
were
ere performed as part
part of
the design development of the tower. The loads for the axial pile lo
load
ad tests were applied using
Osterberg cells (O-Cell) by Fugro-LoadTest.
Fugro-LoadTest. A two-tier O-cell assembly
assembly was used to is
isolated
olated a
finite segment of the pile or barrette.
barrette. The test measurements included measuring the ultimate
concrete-shaft skin friction
friction and the load-settlement beha
behavior
vior of the pile tip. A summary of the full
scale test results are provided
provided in Table 3. Representative unit skin friction
friction plots for a pile
pile drilled
with natural slurry pile are presented
presented in Figure 4. The load-settlement p
plot
lot for the footing load
load test
is presented in Figure 5.

Table 3 – Summary of Full Scale Test Program

Dimension Depth Drilling Mobilized Mobilized
m) m) Fluid Test Load unit side
Load Test
MN) shear
KPa)
Bored Pile Test 1 1.5m dia 45 Water 78 200 –
2,600
Bored Pile Test 2 1.5m dia 75 Mineral 100 –
68
1,600
Bored Pile Test 3 1.5m dia 45 Polymer 88 50 – 625
Bored Pile Test 4 1.5m dia 75 Polymer 66 200 – 700
Barrette Test 1 1.2m x 2.8m 45 Mineral 90 75 – 800
Barrette Test 2 1.2m x 2.8m 75 Mineral 67 50 – 1,100
Footing Block 1.7 N/A
8 3.3 MPa
Test 1

    )
   a
   p
   K
    (
   n AVERAGE ULTIMATE
ULTIMATE
   o
   i
   t ~1,500 KPa
   c
   i
   r
   F
   n
   i
    k
   S
   t
   i
   n
   U

Downward Average Zone Movement (mm)

Figure 4: Pile Load Test T1 Natural Slurry) – Mobilized Skin Friction in Coralline Limestone
 

Kingdom Tower Page 6

Jeddah, K.S.A

MOBILIZED BEARING PRESSURE = 3.3 MPa

Figure 5: Footing Load Test – load versus settlement plot

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS 

PARAMETERS 

Table 4 lists the geotechnical design parameters used as the basis for the conventional
geotechnical capacity
capacity calculations and the finite element
element modeling. They were based on the in-
situ testing, the laboratory
laboratory testing, and the full-scale
full-scale field load
load testing. Upper and lower
lower bound

limits were selected for each of these parameters and sensitivity checks were made with all of the
parameters. The results of the sensitivity checks are beyond the scope of this paper.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 7

Jeddah, K.S.A

Table 4 –Design Values (MPa)

Modulus
Elevation, Friction Cohesion Poisson’s USC
Material of Deform
MSL m) Angle kPa) Ratio MPa)
MPa)
Coralline Limestone
and Siltstone 5 to -40 500 24 170 0.35 1.5 to 2.5
Inclusions
Coralline Limestone,
Siltstone Inclusions 500 to
-40 to -60 24 170 0.35 3.0
and 150 (1) 
Gravel/Conglomerate
Gravel/Conglomerate
and Decomposed -60 to -90 150 38 300 0.35 1.5
Sandstone
Decomposed
-90 to - 150 to
Sandstone and 24 -- 0.35 3.2
110 500 (2) 
Gravel/Conglomerate
-110 to - 900 to
Sandstone -- -- 0.35 2.0
125 1200 (2) 
-125 to
Sandstone 1200 -- -- 0.3 2.0
200
(1) Linear decrease in stiffness values
(2) Linear increase in stiffness values

Modulus of Deformation

The design values of the

t he modulus of deformation (Edef) were correlated using the results of the full-
scale load tests, as well as results of the in-situ and laboratory tests. We also used the results of
the P-S suspension logging modulus to estimate the relative stiffness trends throughout the profile.

Figure 6 shows the profile of Edef versus depth from various testing methods, as well as our “best
estimate” design profile.
profile. The rock strata were grouped by engineering properties,
properties, rather than
individual geological
geological units. To account for
for the inherent variability
variability in the rock parameters,
parameters, we
determined appropriate upper and lower bound limits to consider possible softer rock response
(“softer profile”) and stiffer
stiffer response (“stiffer profile”). These softer and stiffer zones are based on
the overall testing trends and ranges
ranges and were established to allow
allow adequate sensitivity
sensitivity checks. A
summary of the representative design values is included in Table 4.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 8

Jeddah, K.S.A

Figure 6: In-situ, Laboratoy and Load Test moduli of deformation and design values MPa)

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS - APPROACH

Initial foundation-flexibility analyses resulted in high stress concentrations in the structure’s shear
walls. The overall analysis of the Kingdom Tower foundation system required a much more
detailed evaluation of the integrated piled-raft
piled-raft system. A three-dimensional finite-element
finite-element analysis
was performed to estimate the settlement response of the foundation raft, taking into account the
foundation geometry, the engineering properties of the rock materials, and the loading conditions.
The finite-element analysis was performed using the commercially available software package
Midas GTS. The following
following sections present a brief
brief summary of o
our
ur evaluation approach,
approach, our
modeling assumptions,
assumptions, and the results of our
our analysis. A section of the FEM
FEM model through the
the
center of the raft and the strength and compressibility parameters used in the design are

presented in Figure 7.

3
Material E (MPa)   ν γ (kN/m )   φ (d
 (deg.
eg.)) c (kPa)
(kPa)
C. Limestone +4 to -10 500 0.35 18 24 170
C. Limesto ne -10 to -40 500 0.35 18 24 170
C. Limesto ne -40 to -47 440 0.35 18 24 170
C. Limesto ne -47 to -54 325 0.35 18 24 170
Gra vel -54 to -60 200 0.35 17 38 0
D. Sand stone -60 to -90 150 0.35 20 24 300
D. Sand stone -90 to -110 150 to 500 0.35 20 - -
San dston e -110 to -125 900 to 1,200 0.30 20 - -
San dston e -125 to -200 1200 0.30 20 - -
 

Kingdom Tower Page 9

Jeddah, K.S.A

Figure 7: Finite Element Model Cross-Section and material properties.

Modeling Assumptions 
Assumptions 

Our final finite element analysis was based on the following assumptions:

1.  The foundation system consisted of a combined pile-raft foundation with 270 circular
bored piles
piles connected with a 4.5-meter-thick structural raft. The raft had an
approximately 6-meter-deep depression at the center and was 5 meters thick at the
edges.

2.  The raft was modeled using solid tetrahedral volume elements, with an equivalent
elastic modulus of 36,700
36,700 MPa, and an
an elastic constitutive model. No other structural
elements were incorporated
incorporated into the Midas GTS model. The inherent stiffness of the
concrete superstructure was captured in the structural ETABS model.

3.  The Mohr-Coulomb soil model was used for the coralline limestone layer and the
decomposed sandstone layer. The elastic model was used for
for the remaining layers.
layers. A
non-linear soil-hardening model was also considered for the gravel/conglomerate layer
but a review of the triaxial test stress-strain curves indicated a Mohr-Coulomb model
was more appropriate.

4.   All soil, rock, and gravel layers were modeled in three dimensions assuming horizontal
stratification. We evaluated the variation
variation of the s
subsurface
ubsurface parameters spatially
spatially and
judged that a uniform horizontal stratification is appropriate.

5.  The piles were modeled using the “embedded pile” option, which employs beam

elements to model the structural characteristics of the piles and non-linear springs at
the pile-rock interface. The beam elements took into account the pile geometry,
deformation modulus, and Poisson’s ratio. The pile/rock interface springs employed an
ultimate shear stress at the rock interface, a pile-rock shear stiffness modulus, and very
small tip bearing capacity and tip spring stiffness. We assumed the piles extending to
elevation -45 will be drilled with natural slurry, and the remainder of the piles will be
drilled with polymer slurry; accordingly we used the corresponding pile-rock interface
properties.

6.  The box-model

box-model boundaries were restrained in all three directions.
directions. The box-model
dimensions were 300 meters by 300 meters in plan, and extended to a depth of
200 meters. The boundary conditions
conditions used did not influence the results under
under the raft.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 10

Jeddah, K.S.A

7.  Total gravity loads (dead plus live) were about 8,800 MN, including the weight of the
raft. The loads were applied in the finite element model as pressure
pressure strips at the top of
the raft. The pressures were calculated using the actual wall loads divided by the shear
wall footprint area.

8.   A simplified construction stage process consisting of three stages was followed for the
modeling. In Stage 1, the model (soil/rock
(soil/rock layers) was allowed to settle due
due to its own
gravity weight, and then settlements were reset to zero. In Stage 2, the piles and raft
raft
foundation were installed.
installed. In Stage 3, the wall gravity service load
loading
ing was applied.

Iterative Procedure between the Geotechnical and Structural Models

 An iterative procedure was employed in coordination

coordination with TT to achieve convergence between the
results of the Midas GTS model and the ETABS structural model regarding the raft settlement
magnitudes, the overall shape of the settlement contours, the pile loads, and the wall loads. The
iterative procedure consisted of the following steps:

Step 1: Based on a first set of wall loads provided by the TT, we ran Midas GTS and estimated raft
and pile settlements. We calculated 270 individual pile-head
pile-head springs and ten zones o
off area
springs, three for each leg and one for the center core, were established.
e stablished.

Step 2: TT imported the pile and area springs in their model, and provided to Langan a new set of
wall loads.

Step 3: With the revised wall loads we re-ran our model and provided TT new sets of individual pile
springs and zones of average springs.

Steps 2 and 3 were repeated until the settlement contours between the geotechnical and the
structural models differed by less than 5 mm, and the pile loads differed
differed by less than 2 MN. This is
less than 10 percent difference for each parameter.

RESULTS

Raft Settlements

Using the “best estimate” design parameters for the geomaterials, analysis shows settlements of
about 110 mm at the center of Wing A, 100 mm at the center of the raft foundation, and decreasing
to about 90 mm at the edges of the tower wings. The differential settlement from center to edge of
raft is less than 20 mm, as shown in Figure 8.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 11

Jeddah, K.S.A

Figure 8: Best Estimate R

Raft
aft Settlement Contours mm)

Bearing Pressures on Rock Subgrade

For the design parameters, the vertical stresses on the Coralline Limestone under the raft are
shown in Figure 9. The maximum bearing pressu
pressure
re was about 625 kiloPascals
kiloPascals (kPa) below
below the raft
wings and at the center of the raft. This provides a mar
margin
gin of safety of at least 5 on the mobili
mobilized
zed
bearing capacity.

400 400

400 400
625

450

400

400

Figure 9: Best Estimate B

Bearing
earing Pressure Contours kPa)

Pile Loads

Our best estimate analysis shows pile head loads for the 1.5-meter-diameter piles varying from
about 18 MN to about 29 MN; accordingly, for the 1.8-meter diameter piles loads varied from
about 24 MN to 38 MN. Figure 10 shows the distribution of the pile
pile loads within the raft. Note that
 

Kingdom Tower Page 12

Jeddah, K.S.A

although the gravity-load takedown predicted uniform pile loading, the final converged model
yielded greater pile loads at the tips of the wings.
27 28 26 26
27 28 20 22 20 18 26 29
26 30 30 20 21 26 20 18 19 20 32 31
29 32 36 33 23 23 25 27 23 20 20 21 24 35 32 28
27 29 33 35 26 25 25 25 26 26 24 23 22 23 24 25 24 22 27 24
29 20 22 24 26 27 27 26 26 24 23 22 22 23 23 25 26 25 23 20 19 24
22 22 24 25 25 27 27 26 24 22 21 20 20 21 22 22 24 25 25 24 23 21 20
24 23 22 24 26 26 25 22 20 20 19 20 22 24 24 25 24 22 23 24
25 22 23 24 25 23 29 29 28 28 28 23 24 23 22 21 23
22 20 22 2229 2827
27242522242325
2627
30 23 23 21 21
20 20 23 21
19 29 25 22 22 25 30 21
19 20 29 25 23 25 29 20 21
19 20 29 27 27 29 20 20
20 19 29 28 29 20 20
20 21 22 21 20
21 21 23 23 21 19
21 23 25 22 19
24 23 25 25 22 21
24 25 26 24 22
25 23 26 25 22 23
24 24 26 24 23
24 22 25 24 22 23
20 22 24 22 19
21 20 32 32 19 20
18 29 35 32 19
26 28 35 38 31 28
28 31 36 34 29

Figure 10: Best Estimate Pile Head Axial Loads MN)

Load Sharing

We reviewed the results of our finite element analysis to determine the load sharing ratio between
the piles and the rock subgrade.
subgrade. Our analysis showed that about 70 to 75 percent of
of the
superstructure load is transferred to the piles and about 25 to 30 percent is taken by the rock in
bearing below the raft subgrade.

Pile Springs and Rock Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Pile springs and moduli of subgrade reaction were provided to TT to model the interaction between
raft, piles and the rock directly
directly under the raft.
raft. Zones of uniform subgrade moduli were then
provided to TT. The final model show
shows
s that the pile springs vary from about 19
190
0 MN/m to 430
3 3

MN/m, and the subgrade moduli zones vary from about 1,850 MN/m  to 35,330 MN/m .

CONCLUSIONS
The Kingdom Tower Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction exercise reinforced some of the
following conclusions:
1.  The basis for raft settlements should be the geotechnical model, and the foundation
flexibility assumed in the structural model should be calibrated to approximate the raft
settlements of the geotechnical model.
2.  The iterative process can provide insight to the redistribution of the column/wall loads, and
drive the final foundation design decisions.
3.  The geotechnical engineer does not have to attempt to model the stiffness of the
superstructure by modeling the columns/shear walls above the raft level. The
superstructure stiffness is captured through the column/wall loads redistributio
redistribution.
n.
 

Kingdom Tower Page 13

Jeddah, K.S.A

4.   Assuming two structures have the same foundation, the load redistribution phenomenon is
more pronounced in the case of the structure with the “stiffer” structural system (for
example a shear-wall system versus a column system).
5.  The load redistribution necessitated “stiffening” the foundation by increasing the basic
length of the piles near the center of the raft. The longer piles are not needed for increasing

the foundation bearing capacity, they are needed to alleviate the increased outer wall
stresses in the superstructure.