Accepted manuscript doi:

10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.

Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.

Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Submitted: 19 October 2019
Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 28 April 2020
Manuscript title: Value engineering using load-cell test data of barrette foundations – a case
study
Authors: Sujatha Manoj1, Deepankar Choudhury2 and Marwan Alzaylaie3
Affiliations: 1Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai, India; Mott MacDonald; 2Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research
(AcSIR), New Delhi, India and 3Geotechnical (Building Department), Dubai Development
Authority, Dubai, UAE; Heriot-Watt University, Dubai
Corresponding author: Deepankar Choudhury, Institute Chair Professor, Department of
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400 076, India.
Tel.: +91-22-2576 7335 (O), 8335 (R).
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Sujatha Manoj Deepankar Choudhury Marwan Alzaylaie

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Abstract

This paper presents a case history of the design, Osterberg load-cell testing, value engineering and revised

design by back-analysis of reinforced concrete barrette foundations, resulting in a reduction of barrette length by

about 11%, for the 100-storey La Maison tower in Dubai. Rectangular barrettes were selected as an efficient

foundation system to transfer 55 MN load per barrette after comparing the design with equivalent-sized circular

piles. Bi-directional static load testing results were back-analysed by a finite-element model to modify the

barrette length. The stiffness parameters were modified after calibrating against load-cell results, which was

matched with 20% modulus of elasticity from geophysics tests. The relation between unconfined compressive

strenght and skin friction was back-calculated and compared with commonly used methods in the United Arab

Emirates. Finite-element analysis of a group of barrettes with revised length showed settlement within limits.

Rivsing the barrette length by about 11% resulted in significant savings in cost as well as construction time.

Keywords: piles and piling; field testing and monitoring; foundations

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
1. Introduction

Super-tall towers of height more than 300 m (CTBUH, 2018) in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) are mostly supported by large diameter piles or barrettes deriving strength through
friction in weak and weathered carbonate rocks. The traditional deep foundation design
methods currently in use in the UAE, are developed for geological settings not similar to
UAE and are only verified for much smaller test loads and short pile depths and capacities.
The various design approaches, in estimating skin friction resistances using unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) values of rock result in huge variations in bearing capacity
(Poulos, 2009; Poulos, 2010; Charif and Najjar 2010; Russo et al., 2013; Badelow and Poulos,
2016; Katzenbach et al., 2016; Poulos, 2017; Latapie et al. 2018). The design methods for
rectangular barrette foundations in the region use the same theories for circular pile
foundations and under-predict barrette capacities. Foundation settlements are also over-
predicted and rarely match the actual measurements or load test data (Poulos, 2017;
Latapie et al., 2018; Alzaylaie, 2018).
Extensive geotechnical and geophysical investigation was conducted at the La Maison
project site to arrive at representative design profile and parameters. Foundation design
was a challenge due to the small footprint area and requirement to transfer load of 45−55
MN per pile to the weak carbonate rocks. In comparison with large diameter piles, barrettes
were chosen as efficient alternative. Barrettes were tested by bi-directional static load tests
(BSLT) as per standard requirements (ICE 2007, ICE 2016). Results were modelled in three-
dimensional (3D) finite-element modelling (FEM) and calibrated to revise ground stiffness
parameters and compared with modulus obtained from seismic testing. Barrette length was
then revised using the back-analysed load test data. 3D numerical group modelling was
performed to check group performance. Barrette group responses are presented in terms of
settlements.
The process of site characterisation and design of barrette foundations for the La Maison
tower, Osterberg load-cell (O-cell) load testing, back-analysis and numerical modelling
simulating the test and revision in design length of barrettes, achieving significant cost
savings for the La Maison Tower are presented in this paper.
2. The La Maison tower

The La Maison Tower is a major project of HDS Gale Estates Limited, Dubai and comprises of
an 80− 100 storey residential tower, one of the tallest in Dubai, on a two-level podium with
six basements. It is located in Business Bay, Dubai, approximately 2 km southeast of Burj
Khalifa. Selection of appropriate foundation system was a challenge due to the requirement
to transfer heavy loads of 45−55 MN per barrette to the weak carbonate rocks below,
through limited footprint area of 90 m x 60 m. Site location plan is presented in Google
earth satellite map in Figure 1. The site is relatively flat with reduced levels (RL) ranging from
2.81 m to 2.96 m with respect to the local Dubai standard reference datum. The foundation
cut off level was at -20 m RL.
3. Site geology

The near surface geology of coastal Dubai consists of quaternary marine, aeolian, sabkha
and fluvial deposits including mobile Aeolian dune sands, evaporite deposits and marine
sands, which overly variably cemented pleistocene deposits (aeolianite and marine

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
calcarenite) followed by a thick succession of fluvial sediments characterised by poorly
sorted conglomerates belonging to the Barzaman formation (Purser, 1973). The sandstones
are typically fine to medium size with a cementing material that imparts a very inconsistent
strength to the rock. Ghayathi formation which is brown to light brown calcarenite, which
are locally thinly laminated, fine to medium grained, overlies these reddish brown
sandstones (Kirkham, 1998). Localised medium beds of imperfectly laminated or massive
calcarenites with fine to medium clasts are also encountered.
4. Site characterisation and design parameters

Site characterisation and selection of design parameters were based on detailed

geotechnical and geophysical investigations consisting of seven boreholes of 75−100 m
deep, 30 pressuremeter tests (PMT), down hole seismic test and other standard tests
following typical design practice in Dubai.
The site was characterised by a horizontally stratified complex profile with the overburden
consisting of surficial medium dense to dense light brown to light grey sand to gravelly sand
extending to approximately 13 m below ground level. Extremely weak to weak light brown
calcarenite, followed by extremely weak to weak reddish brown sandstone was
encountered below the overburden soils. Weak pinkish brown to multi-coloured
conglomerate was then encountered followed by very weak to weak off-white calcisiltite,
calcarenite and siltstone. The representative subsurface profile is presented in Table 1.
Statistical mean values and range of values for the ground parameters are presented in
Table 2 which formed basis for selection of design parameters. Young’s modulus (E) for rock,
was based on field and laboratory testing and taking into account rock fracturing,
weathering and discontinuities after Hobbs (1974). Angle of internal friction and cohesion
intercept were derived based on the generalised Hoek and Brown (1980) criterion. Figures 2
and 3 present UCS versus elevation and intact rock E versus elevation respectively. Table 3
and Figures 2 and 3 present the adopted design parameters based on which initial design
and settlement predictions were made.
5. Design of foundation system for the tower

As part of initial design, design lengths of piles of various diameters and depths were
compared with the equivalent barrettes. Due to relatively smaller loading requirements
bored cast in situ pile foundations were adopted for entire podium structure. For the tower
area large diameter bored piles were initially considered, however due to the heavy loads
within small tower foot print the piles would be too long and have to be too closely spaced
in the layout, which would then reduce the efficiency of piles significantly. The structural
and other design requirements defined the cut-off level for tower area to be -20 m RL. The
groundwater level was considered at -1.5 m RL based on piezometer readings. Resistance at
the base was not considered in the design as is the accepted local practice in Dubai mainly
due to cavity risk and pile bottom cleaning issues. Pile C80 concrete with E value of 37.6 GPa
was considered based on actual concrete cube test results at site.
A safety factor of 2.5 for the allowable skin friction was considered. Load capacity of single
pile for various shaft diameters and their equivalent barrettes were estimated. After careful
design considerations, barrettes were selected as the efficient foundation system under the

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
building core and pile foundations were selected as the foundation system for the podium
structure as described below.
5.1 Method of estimation of bearing capacity of barrettes in UAE

There has not been much of acceptable design basis for rock socketed piles until early
1960s. Subsequent research in later years resulted in good design methods which take in to
account applied mechanics and properties of the rock socket (William and Pells, 1980;
William et al. 1981, Bowles J E 1997). Publications released in the 1980’s presented
substantial field and laboratory testing and theoretical study results amongst which
Williams et al. (1980), Horvath (1978), Carter and Kulhawy (1987) and Zhang & Einstein
(1998) are notable. Several commonly used correlations in UAE and Dubai, predict bearing
capacity of rock socketed friction piles from unconfined compression strength (UCS) of
intact rock which deviate significantly from results of field load tests as reported by Alrifai
(2007), Haberfield et al. (2008); Ibrahim et al. (2009). Poulos & Davids (2005) and Poulos &
Bunce G (2008). There are several methods that use correlations derived from local geology
and from UCS results validated by load tests which are considered to be many times over
conservative (Zhang Y et al, 2013, Latapie et al., 2018). Most of these methods are
developed based on load tests conducted in geological settings different from UAE. The
predictions of bearing capacity from several of these existing and widely used correlation
give a wide range of results which is demonstrated in Figure 4 using design profile at the
tower location. This substantiate the need to develop a more acceptable and economical
but safe design method applicable for barrettes in the Middle East region and O-cell testing
and back-analysis can help to achieve this (Guoliang & Weiming 2012).
The preliminary barrette test capacity was established using Horvath and Kenney (1979).
Barrette capacities were then revised using load test results to get a more appropriate and
safe design value. The initial design of barrettes, load testing by O-cell and value
engineering, back-analysis and redesign are discussed below.
5.2 Design using Horvath and Kenney (1979) method - piles v. barrettes

As it is an accepted method for tall tower designs in the Middle East, the axial pile and
barrette capacity is calculated using below equation by using Horvath and Kenney (1979).

f s   UCS 0.5 (1)
Where α is a coefficient which ranges from 0.20 for smooth and 0.30 for rough sides of pile.
UCS is the average unconfined compression strength for the layers considered and fs is the
ultimate skin friction for the layer. A value of α=0.3 is considered for the calculation of
ultimate unit side resistance.
5.2.1 Initial design – large diameter piles

The axial load in compression or ultimate pile capacities in compression calculated is

presented in Figure 5 which consider only frictional resistance from rock socket. The
resulting settlements for a single pile were checked using the acceptance limits presented in
Poulos (2001) and Poulos (2009). As demonstrated in Figure 5a, for the required load of 55
MN, 2000 mm diameter piles needed to be 60 m long, founded below –80 m resulting in
high settlements (Figure 5b) as against the equivalent barrettes about 48 m long founded at
-68 m RL. Other than being an uneconomical design, construction issue of such deep pile

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
foundations is a major challenge at the site. The piles have to be placed in closely spaced
grouping where piles heavily interact with each other affecting group efficiency and
resulting in higher pile group settlements. As a more efficient alternative to pile foundations
in this case, barrettes were considered, details of which are presented in the following
section.
5.2.2 The efficient alternative for tower - barrettes

Barrettes are cast-in-place reinforced concrete columns of square or rectangular shape

which basically differ from circular piles in their shape and method of construction. They can
be oriented to accommodate high horizontal loads and moments in addition to vertical
loads and are regarded as cost effective alternative to the large diameter bored piles in case
of tall structures with high foundation loads, especially where there is a small construction
footprint area as typical for tall towers with limited land availability. Barrettes are thus often
chosen as foundations for high-rise buildings in urban areas, which are subjected to heavy
loads and high bending moments.
Barrette capacities for the tower area was estimated considering three barrette sizes which
are 0.8 x 2.8 m, 1.2 x 2.8 m and 1.5 x 2.8 m and their equivalent circular diameter piles as
presented in Table 4. The cut-off levels (-20 m RL) and groundwater level at -1.5 m RL was
considered. The resistance at the base was not considered. C80 concrete with E value of
37.6 GPa was considered (BS EN 1992-1-1, Table 3.1) for the design. A safety factor of 2.5
for the allowable skin friction (compression) was considered. (BS EN 1997-1 2004). The axial
barrette and equivalent piles capacity are presented in Figure 5a which demonstrates that
due to an increase in perimeter by 23%, the barrettes 1.2 m x 2.8 m in size generate 55 MN
capacity at -68 m whereas the equivalent pile of 2 m dia. would have to penetrate another
12 m to -80 m RL with excessive settlements (Figure 5b). Barrettes were thus chosen as the
efficient foundation for the tower, resulting in about 14.4% saving in concrete volume (27
m3 per barrette). Three preliminary tests were proposed on barrettes of length 45−47 m
below finished grade levels of -20 m. Barrette test load was 162 MN, three times design load
of 54MN.
6. O-cell load test of barrettes

The O-cell load test method was developed by Osterberg (1989) and its use has enhanced
the testing capabilities of barrettes worldwide. Osterberg (1999) presented examples of
tests and concluded that larger the strength of material the more the load capacity is
underestimated. He presented ratio of measured to estimated ultimate loads for various
tests conducted in soft soils to intermediate geo-materials and hard rock. The rock
formations in UAE fall under the intermediate geo-materials and accordingly there is a
significant difference between the estimated and measured values of load capacities, which
is also demonstrated by the back-analysis of data from barrette tests at La Maison tower.
6.1 O-cell testing of barrettes GB1, GB2 and GB3 at La Maison tower site

Three static bi-directional load tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM D1143/D
1143M-07 (2007) on barrettes of size 2.8 m x 1.2 m at locations with relatively weaker
ground conditions. A summary of the test data and inferences are presented in Table 5. The
load settlement curves from three barrette tests attached as Figures 6a, 6b and 6c, show

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
similar results with settlement ranging from 6.1 mm to 6.4 mm at the working load of 54
MN. Settlements increased up to 19.2−20.8 mm at 162 MN.
6.2 Back-analysis to get characteristic ground stiffness by 3D FEM model

A single barrette was modelled in Plaxis3D to simulate the load test. The barrettes were
defined as volumetric elements. Interface was defined between soil/rock and barrettes to
take into account soil-structure interaction. A rigid interface, Rinter =1.0, was defined
between the soil/rock and the barrettes using the standard stiffness approach available in
Plaxis. After several iterations ground stiffness was modified to calibrate the model to
match the test results. The single barrette was also analysed using design parameters
obtained from initial soil testing as well as using the revised modulus as 20% of the stiffness
modulus from down hole seismic testing (Ed). The results are presented in Figures 7a, 7b and
7c. Table 6 provides a comparison of settlements obtained from initial soil parameters,
actual load test and using stiffness values estimated from geophysics data. It can be seen
that the settlements from model with ground stiffness as 20% of Ed is more in agreement
with the actual load test behaviour.
Modified stiffness parameters were about three to 15 times the design modulus derived
from soil test data as presented in Table 7. Similar results were reported by other
researchers for rocks in UAE region. These ratios varied by four to 15 in similar study by
Latapie (2018). These results are also in good agreement with the results presented by
Haberfield (2013) and Alzaylaie (2018).
6.3 Back analysis and revised barrette capacity

The load test results were also back-analysed to examine the correlation of ultimate friction
with unconfined compression strength of rock. Mobilised skin friction for the three tests at
100%, 200% and 300% of the working load is presented in Figure 6d which is used to revisit
and revise the barrette design to match the results of 100% loading conditions from the load
test. Results of the modified capacity for a 2.80 x 1.20 m barrette are presented in Figure 8.
This modification is done conservatively to get quick authority approvals. Based on this for
54 MN load, barrette length of 42 m is found to be enough as against 48 m as per initial
design, resulting in a total length reduction of 11% based on value engineering. The saving
of 6 m length of barrettes is implemented as a conservative solution.
The best fit of UCS to skin friction correlation using only the three barrette test data showed
the following equation below the lower boundary limit for ultimate skin friction value.
fs=0.52(UCS)0.5 (2)
The best fit was represented by the equation
fs=0.81(UCS)0.5 (3)
This is demonstrated in Figure 9.
The revised design value adopted for the barrettes in the current design are however only
close to a factor on 0.4, applied in order to get additional factor of safety and to be on the
conservative side for quick approvals. It is however an improvement over the typical 0.2 to
0.3 values that is used for design of most of the existing towers in UAE.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
7. Group analysis using numerical model

The Barrette lengths and layout was modified with 42 m barrettes and 3D group model was
analysed by FEM GTS NX. For the group model, the barrettes and piles were defined as
beam elements. It is acknowledged that modelling barrettes as beam elements is relatively
simplistic approach, however the huge computational effort needed in modelling the large
group as volumetric elements and the additional time and effort does not outweigh the
benefits from such an exercise. Other published tall tower cases also have adopted similar
approach in successfully modelling the foundations (Badelow and Poulos, 2016, Ibrahim et
al.,2009). In modelling Kingdom Tower, embedded beam option (1D) was selected to model
the piles/barrettes (Leventis et. al. 2015). Such a relatively simplistic approach is therefore
adopted for modelling the large group of barrettes whereas in all the single barrette analysis
used to draw main conclusions in this paper barrettes are modelled as volumetric elements.
The soil/rock and the raft was modelled as volumetric element. The rigid interface
behaviour between the barrettes/piles and soil/rock was simulated using embedded beam
element. Embedded beam elements in MIDAS GTS NX are used in an embedded form inside
a mother element (plane strain element or solid element) with rigid link/interpolation link to
simulate soil-structure interaction. Group model results are presented in Figures 10a, 10b,
10c and 10d. A summary table of the 3D modelling analysis results is presented in Table 9
which are checked against limiting values of settlements summarized in Table 8 based on
published literature (Poulos, 2009) and found to be within acceptable limits. A lateral load
analysis was also performed and the loads were compared to be within limits, against the
lateral load causing 12 mm deflection.
For the final model and material properties selected, maximum vertical settlement for the
core was found to be 43 mm. Results of all load cases analysed are presented in Table 9.
Factor of safety was found to be well above 3 during loading stage. It is thus possible to
conclude that the barrette length optimization of 11% for all elements seems appropriate
for the given ground conditions and group settlements are also within acceptable limits.
8. Conclusions

The existing design practice in UAE for tall tower foundations lead to conservative results,
however, it is possible to learn from experience and arrive at more sustainable and
environment friendly solutions that allow optimum utilisation of resources. The main
conclusions drawn from the design and value engineering process of the La Maison tower,
are summarised in this section.
 Barrettes are efficient foundation system for tall towers in UAE. Barrettes are better alternatives
to large diameter piles for tall towers when heavy foundation loads are to be transferred to
ground through small footprint areas especially in geological conditions like UAE where piles
derive strength predominantly from friction. As barrettes offer larger contact area higher
frictional capacities are mobilised. In case of La Maison tower, during initial design, by changing
the foundation option from piles to barrettes a total length reduction of 20% and saving of 27 m3
of concrete volume per barrette was achieved.
 Correlation coefficient between skin friction and UCS for UAE rocks. Most of the traditional
design methods currently in use in the Middle East are based on pile load test data from non-
similar geological conditions and for much smaller test loads and smaller pile depths and which
under-predict capacities to a great extent. Based on O-cell measurements at La Maison tower

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
site the lower boundary equation showing relationship between ultimate skin friction and UCS is
found to be fs = 0.5(UCS)0.5. Group modelling by 3D analysis showed the settlements to be within
allowable limits under various critical load combinations. The Barrette design for the tower was
modified and a further total length reduction of 11% was achieved by value engineering using
the load test data.
 Ed from geophysics tests better represent ground response. Prediction of settlement behaviour
of ground using E modulus values obtained from laboratory tests or in-situ pressure meter tests
tend to over predict settlements. Calibration and back-analysis from O-cell data based on actual
ground response showed the stiffness about 4 to 15 times that is adopted from the laboratory
test methods and pressure meter tests. This also explains why the measured settlements
reported in UAE are lower than the predicted values (for example Burj Khalifa). Numerical
modelling with revised modulus based on geophysics test (Ed) showed settlement closer to O-cell
data. It is recommended to adopt 0.2Ed from geophysics test for future group settlement
analysis and predictions for tall towers in Dubai, as a value close to 20% of Ed is considered
representative of actual behaviour (Poulos 2017).
Design of La Maison tower presented above was approved by local authorities and
construction permits issued for revised length. To the author’s knowledge La Maison tower
is the first such approved and constructed barrettes in Dubai where back-analysis from O-
cell test data is used to revise the barrette design to achieve such saving. The total saving in
terms of about 756 m length of 1.2 x 2.8 m barrettes resulted in significant saving of
foundation cost as well as significant saving in construction time. Similar approach for the
new tall towers being proposed in Dubai can save resources and have a significant impact on
environment.
Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the support provided by the owner of La Maison tower, HDS Gales
States Limited, for allowing to use the project related data for research purpose and to
publish the results.
List of notations

UCS unconfined compressive strength

BDSLT bidirectional static load testing kilometre
, km
RL reduced level
E modulus of elasticity
Ed modulus of elasticity from dynamic tests calculated from Vs
Vs shear wave velocity of a layer obtained from dynamic tests
RQD rock quality designation
CR core recovery
Esxy earthquake load
W wind load
fs ultimate skin friction for considered layer
 coefficient relating ultimate skin friction to UCS of rock
L length of pile

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
References

Alrifai L (2007) Rock socket piles at Mall of the Emirates, Dubai. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, 160(2), 105-120.
Alzaylaie M (2018) Stiffness and Strength of Dubai Sedimentary Rock PhD Thesis, Technische
Universitat Darmstadt, Darmstadt Germany; https://tuprints.ulb.tu-
darmstadt.de/id/eprint/8153

ASTM D1143/D 1143M-07 (2007) American Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations
Under Static Axial Compressive Load, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA
Bowles J E (1997) Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill Publication, USA.
BS EN 1992-1-1 (2004) (English) Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1 General
rules and rules for buildings.
BS EN 1997-1 (2004) (English) Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design- Part 1 General rules.
Carter JP and Kulhawy FH (1987) Analysis and design of foundations socketed into rock. Res.
Rep. 1493-4, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Charif KH and Najjar SS (2010). Side friction along drilled shafts in weak carbonate rocks. The
Art of Foundation Engineering Practice - guide, pp. 190 – 204
CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) (2018) http://www.ctbuh.org
Badelow F and Poulos HG (2016), Geotechnical foundation design for some of the world’s
tallest buildings, The 15th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 96-108
Guoliang Dai and Weiming Gong (2012) Application of bi-directional static loading test to
deep foundations Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 4 (3):
269–275
Haberfield CM (2013) Tall Tower Foundations—from concept to construction. In: Phoon KK
(ed) Advances in foundation engineering. Research Publishing Services, Nandanam,
pp 33–65
Haberfield CM, Paul D and Ervin M (2008) Case History–Geotechnical; Design for the
Nakheel Tall Tower. ISSMGE Bulletin, 2(4), 5-9.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Hobbs NB (1974) The Prediction of settlement of structures on rock Conference on
Settlement of Structures, 579-610.
Hoek E and Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 106(GT9), 1013-1035
Horvath RG (1978) Field load test data on concrete-to-rock bond strength for drilled pier
foundations, Toronto, University of Toronto Publication 78-07.
Horvath RG and Kenney TC (1979) Shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled piers.
Proceedings of Symposium on Deep Foundations, ASCE, 182-214.
Ibrahim K, Bunce G & Murrells C (2009) Foundation design for the Pentominium tower in
Dubai, UAE. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering,
162(6), 25-33.
ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) (2007) ICE Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining
Walls, 2nd Edition, ICE, London, UK
ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) (2016) ICE Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining
Walls, 3rd Edition, ICE, London, UK
Katzenbach R Leppla, S and Choudhury D. (2016). Foundation Systems for High-Rise
Structures. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, USA, ISBN: 978-1-4987-4477-5, 1-298.
Kirkham A (1998). A quaternary proximal foreland ramp and its continental fringe, Arabian
Gulf, UAE. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 149(1), 15-41.
Latapie B, Rhea A, Michelle A, Marwan A and Joyshwin S (2018), A review of piling industry
practices in Dubai, UAE: proposed UCS-based correlations, ICE Geotechnical
Research 6(2): 103-129
Leventis G, Poeppel A and Syngros K (2015), From Supertall to Megatall: Analysis and Design
of the Kingdom Tower Piled Raft, published in The Middle East: A Selection of
Written Works on Iconic Towers and Global Place-Making, 44-53, ctbuh.org/papers
Osterberg JO (1989) New device for load testing driven piles and drilled shafts separates
friction and end bearing. Proceedings: International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, London, A.A. Balkema.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Osterberg JO (1999) The Osterberg load test method for bored and driven piles - The First
Ten Years. Presented at 7th International Conference & Exhibition on Piling and
Deep Foundations, Deep Foundations Institute, Vienna, Austria
Peck RB, Hanson WE and Thornburn TH (1974), “Foundation Engineering”, John Wiley &
Sons, 514p.
Poulos HG (2001) Piled raft foundations design and applications, Geotechnique, 51(2), 95-
113.
Poulos HG (2009). Tall buildings and deep foundations–Middle East challenges. In Proc. 17
the Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Hamza M, Shahien M,
and El-Mossalamy Y (eds), IOS Press, Amsterdam, 4: 3173-3205.
Poulos HG (2010) High-Rise Building Foundations—A limit state design approach. In Art of
Foundation Engineering Practice, ASCE, 501-516.
Poulos HG (2017) Tall Building Foundation Design. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, USA,
ISBN: 978-1-4987-9607-1, 1-519.
Poulos HG & Badelow F (2015) Geotechnical parameter assessment for tall building
foundation design. International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, 4(4), 227–239.
Poulos HG, & Bunce G (2008) Foundation design for the Burj Dubai–the world’s tallest
building International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 14,
see https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/6icchge/session_01/14
Poulos HG & Davids AJ (2005). Foundation design for the Emirates twin towers, Dubai.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(3), 716-730.
Purser BH (1973) Sedimentation around bathymetric highs in the southern Persian Gulfin
the Persian Gulf (pp. 157-177). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Russo G, Abagnara V, Poulos HG and Small JC (2013), Re-Assessment of Foundation
Settlements for the Burj Khalifa, Dubai. Acta Geotechnica, 8(1): 3-15
Williams A F and Pells PJN (1981), Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone mudstone and
shale, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 18, pp. 502 – 513.
Williams AF, Donald IB. and Chiu HK (1980). Stress distributions in rock socketed piles.
Proceedings, International Conference on Structural. Foundations on Rock, 317–326

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Zhang Y, Salgado S, Dai G and Gong W (2013) Load tests on full scale bored pile groups.
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Paper No. 2119.
Zhang L and Einstein HH (1998) End Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Rock. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124, pp. 574 – 584.

Table 1 Representative Subsurface Profile at La Maison Tower location

Average top Average Average

Subsurface Strata Description of unit(m bottom of Thickness(m
RL) unit(m RL) )
Loose to medium dense (mostly medium
2.88 -10.00 12.88
dense) gravelly SAND
Extremely weak to very weak, fine to
-10.00 -14.20 4.20
medium grained CALCARENITE
Extremely weak, fine to medium grained,
-14.20 -23.00 8.80
calcareous SANDSTONE
Weak, fine me medium (occasionally
-23.00 -26.0 3.00
coarse) CONGLOMERATE
Very weak, fine me medium (occasionally
-26.00 -31.70 5.70
coarse) CONGLOMERATE
Very weak, fine to coarse, CALCISILTITE -31.70 -47.00 15.30

Weak, fine me medium (occasionally

-47.00 -50.0 3.00
coarse) CONGLOMERATE
Very weak, fine to coarse, CALCISILTITE -50.00 -60.50 10.50
Weak, fine me medium (occasionally
-60.50 -63.80 3.30
coarse) CONGLOMERATE
Very weak, fine to coarse, CALCISILTITE -63.80 -97.12 33.32

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Table 2 Range of parameters and mean values based on investigation data

Calcisilti Conglomer
Paramet Symbol/U SAN Calcareni Conglomer Sandsto Siltsto
te (1, 2 ate (1, 3
er nit D te ate (2) ne ne
and 3) and 4)

Moistur 9.40 – 12.0 – 22.0 - 12.0 –

0.50 – 6.40 – 38.0 6.40 – 38.0
e w [%]
32.0
24.0 25.0
(22.0) (22.0)
27.0 32.0
Content (17.0) (16.50) (24.0) (15.5)

1.92 – 1.75 – 1.93 – 1.75 –

Bulk 1.63 – 2.38 1.63 – 2.38
[Mg/m3] - 2.22 2.30 2.01 2.08
Density (1.99) (1.99)
(2.08) (2.07) (1.93) (2.04)

1.55 – 1.46 – 1.53 – 1.41 –

Dry 1.26 – 2.24 1.26 – 2.24
[Mg/m3] - 2.03 2.05 1.65 1.85
Density (1.64) (1.64)
(1.78) (1.73) (1.56) (1.77)

Liquid -
LL [%] 22 - 29 - - - - -
Limit
-
Plastic
PL [%] 18 - 23 - - - - -
Limit

-
Plasticit
PI [%] 4 - - - - -
y Index
-
Fines
[%] 74 - 98 - - - - -
Content

0.10 – 0.20 – 0.20 – 0.20 –

0.19 – 3.60
UCS [MPa] - 4.90 5.70 4.00
(1.30)
0.80 4.10
(1.65) (1.05) (0.69) (0.90)

Ei
7.6 –
(intact 44.20 – 4 – 455 4.1 – 1511 27 – 125
[MPa] - 600 271.7
modulus 811 (183) (48.73) (94.80) (112.8)
(48.35)
)

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Table 3: Geotechnical design parameters adopted for initial design

Elevation (m Unit
Thickness RQD UCS Φ' c' E
DMD) wt
Strata
Description
Top Bottom m kN/m3 % MPa Degrees MPa MPa

Gravelly
2.88 -10.00 12.88 18 - - 32 - 16
sand2
-
Calcarenite -14.20 4.20 20 95 2.20 39 0.20 185
10.00
-
Sandstone -23.00 8.80 20 95 0.75 41 0.07 110
14.20
Conglomerate -
-28.00 5.00 22 100 4.00 44 0.39 1100
1 23.00
Conglomerate -
-31.00 3.00 22 100 2.50 44 0.24 1100
2 28.00
-
Calcisiltite 1 -47.00 16.00 20 70 1.17 37 0.08 150
31.00
Conglomerate -
-50.00 3.00 20 100 1.05 44 0.10 250
3 47.00
-
Calcisiltite 2 -60.50 10.50 22 70 1.10 37 0.08 330
50.00
Conglomerate -
-63.80 3.30 20 100 1.15 43 0.11 700
4 60.50
-
Calcisiltite 3 -90.00 26.20 22 70 1.30 37 0.08 350
63.80

Table 4: Equivalent pile diameter and increase in perimeter for various barrette sizes

Equivalent Perimeter
Width Length Area Perimeter Area Perimeter
Dia. Pile Increase
W(m) L(m) (m2) (m) (m2) (m)
(m) (%)

0.8 2.2 1.76 6.00 1.50 1.76 4.70 28%

1.2 2.8 3.36 8.00 2.07 3.36 6.50 23%
1.5 2.8 4.2 8.60 2.31 4.2 7.26 18%

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Table 5: Summary Data from Load Tests

Test Test Hydrauli

Dept Workin Achieve
Barrett Size Loa Elastic settlement (mm) c Jacks
h g Load d Load
e d depth
at
at at
LxW test
m MN MN MN workin achieve (m)
(m) Loa
g Load d Load
d
2.80x1.
GB1 43.52 54 162 180.32 6.4 19.2 24.4 21.82
2
2.80x1.
GB2 46.22 54 162 183.11 6.2 20.8 25.6 23.13
2
2.80x1.
GB3 47 54 162 183.12 6.1 20.3 25.7 23.43
2

Table 6 Comparison of settlements from single barrette FEM models

Model case O-cell Top (mm) O-cell Bottom (mm)

Pile Load test results 10.6 9.6

Calculated using Soil profile 1 91.3 23.5
Calculated using Geophysical 2 38.0 11.2

Table 7 Stiffness factor – ratio of calibrated stiffness to the stiffness from lab tests and PMT initially adopted for

design

Strata Stiffness factor

Conglomerate-1 5
Conglomerate-2 5
Calcisiltite-1 15
Conglomerate-2 12.5
Calcisiltite-2 3
Conglomerate-3 3
Calcisiltite-3 2.5

Siltstone/conglomerate 3

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Table 8 Settlement and deformation limits for the group behaviour (Poulos, 2009)

Criterion Limit (service stage)

Total Settlements 80 mm
Differential Settlement
1/500
along the raft

Table 9 All load cases and settlement response under static and transient loads.

Max. Vertical
Max. Diff. Settlement
Settlement
No. Load Combination
mm 1/L

DL+LL 42.80 1/1254

1
DL+W4 37.51 1/1468
2
DL+W12 37.29 1/1426
3
DL+0.75LL+0.75W4 41.10 1/1268
4
DL+0.75LL+0.75W12 41.38 1/1242
5
0.6DL+W4+U 15.16 1/2502
6
0.6DL+W12+U 14.51 1/3002
7
DL+Esxy/1.4 40.83 1/1280
8
DL-Esxy/1.4 30.81 1/1681
9
0.9DL+Esxy/1.4+U 27.39 1/1557
10
0.9DL-Esxy/1.4+U 18.64 1/2349
11
DL+0.75LL+0.536Esxy 44.71 1/1288
12
13 DL+0.75LL-0.536Esxy 36.93 1/1801

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246
Figure captions

Figure 1. Site location map of La Maison tower at Business Bay, Dubai

Figure 2. Graph of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) versus elevation
Figure 3. Graph of E modulus from various tests versus elevation
Figure 4. Axial barrette capacity at La Maison tower location estimated using various design
methods as an example to demonstrate wide range of equations in practice
Figure 5. (a) Axial capacity in compression (in MN) – piles and barrettes comparison, (b)
Load settlement curves – 1.2 x 2.8 size barrette and equivalent 2m piles
Figure 6 (a) Load displacement curves from barrette 1 O-cell tests, (b) Load displacement
curves from barrette 2 O-cell tests, (c) Load displacement curves from barrette 3 O-
cell tests, (d) Skin friction mobilised from three O-cell tests
Figure 7 (a) Single barrette FEM model outputs from Plaxis with load test data calibrated, (b)
Single barrette FEM model outputs from Plaxis with geophysics data, (c) Single
barrette FEM model outputs from Plaxis with original soil profile
Figure 8. Barrette capacity modified using revised skin friction from load tests compared
against initial capacity curves
Figure 9. UCS and ultimate skin friction correlation based on Barrette tests
Figure 10. (a) 3D group model in Midas GTS NX Foundation System with revised barrette
length, (b) 3D group model in Midas GTS NX - barrette deformation under DL + LL
conditions for group with 42 m barrettes barrette deformation under DL + LL
conditions, (c) 3D group model showing soil and structural elements, (d) 3D group
model output displaacement contours

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering