Assima PILE Design Report Rev.1 - ARCADIS 11 - 05 - 2017 PDF

ASSIMA TOWER - KUWAIT
Piled-Raft Foundation Design

Addendum Design Report
MAY 2017
CONTENTS
VERSION CONTROL .......................................................................................................... II
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5
2 MAIN DESIGN CONSIDERATION OF THE PILED RAFT OF ASSIMA TOWER ..... 9

2.1 Allowable (Tolerable) Settlement & Angular Distortion Values .......................................................9
2.2 Cyclic Loading Considerations ...........................................................................................................9
3 GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 10

3.1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation and Idealised Ground Profile for Area 2 ........................ 10
3.2 Groundwater table ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Seismicity ........................................................................................................................................... 13
4 DESCRIPTION & EVALUATION OF THE ADDITIONAL BI-DIRECTIONAL PILE
LOAD TEST ...................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Description of the Pile Load Test ..................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Evaluation of Additional Test ........................................................................................................... 19
5 DESIGN METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................... 21

5.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters for Area 2................................................................................... 21
5.2 Pile Limiting Axial capacities for Area 2 ......................................................................................... 24
6 3-D PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF PILED RAFT FOR ASSIMA TOWER28
6.1 Structural Load Combinations ......................................................................................................... 29
7 RESULTS OF 3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF PILED RAFT ....................... 31

7.1 Settlements......................................................................................................................................... 31
7.2 Pile Axial Loads ................................................................................................................................. 32
7.3 Global Safety Factor Analysis .......................................................................................................... 35
7.4 Structural Capacity Checks .............................................................................................................. 36
8 CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS .................................................................. 44
9 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 46
..................................................................................................................... 48
Plaxis 3D Output ............................................................................................................................................ 48
..................................................................................................................... 49
Structural Capacity Checks .......................................................................................................................... 49
..................................................................................................................... 50
Drawings ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
..................................................................................................................... 51
Additional Ground Investigation .................................................................................................................. 51
..................................................................................................................... 52
Relevant Correspondence ............................................................................................................................ 52
1 Introduction
ARCADIS has been appointed by Ahmadiah Contracting & Trading Co to design the piled
raft foundation of ASSIMA Tower and The Design Consultant / Engineer of the Project is PACE
Architecture Engineering + Planning Consultants.
Assima Tower is a 54 storey Tower, which is located in Sharq, Kuwait City.
An addendum to the previously submitted and approved Piled-Raft Foundation Design Report
Rev.1 dated 13/10/2016, was submitted on the 09/03/2017, considering the GI data and the
bi-directional pile load test, which were performed additionally in December 2016.
A meeting between all PACE, Ahmadiah and Arcadis took place on the 28/03/2017, during
which the submitted addendum was discussed. The present revision of the addendum,
incorporates the actions that were mutually agreed between PACE, Ahmadiah Contracting
and ARCADIS, during the aforementioned meeting, and is related to the need to assume that
Area 2 of reduced ground strength and deformation characteristics (as revealed by the
additional GI and the bi-directional pile load test) to cover the half of the Tower raft area.
As an introduction, the history of the Project is described below in more detail:
• The initial Piled Raft Design has been approved by the Engineer, as per TR No.
OT/ACT/TW/REPORTS-03 dated 15/11/2016;
• The aforesaid approval included the condition that for all 1.8m diameter piles, the concrete
cubic strength has to be 650kg/cm2. The initial location of Pile no. P76 has been shifted
to a new nearby location, due to the observed water ingress, while drilling, as a result of
the improper grouting of the drilled borehole BH-1. The need of having all the drilled
boreholes fully grouted (along their complete depth), had been strongly recommended by
Arcadis both in the Report and Drawings of the initial Design. Pile No. P76 was abandoned
and was replaced by a new pile, P76A, at 3.4m distance.
• The elevator pit, which was included in the previous design has been cancelled. This
resulted to the need to the design change of P39, leading to a new length of 18.0m.
• As per Drawing No. SK-ACT-ST-TW (included in Appendix C) received by Ahmadiah

Contracting & Trading Co on the 24/04/2017 and the information received from the
construction site, No. 99 piles had been casted.
• As per the information received by the site last November 2016, while drilling pile P1 (type
A pile, 1.8m diameter and 20m long, as per the initial design), certain ground instabilities
and water ingress were encountered at the depth of 17m approximately. These
observations resulted to the final abandonment of pile P1 and created also certain
concerns both for:
a. A possible local worsening in the quality of the encountered ground conditions (in
relation to the ones, as per the executed geotechnical investigations by KLC in
February 2016 and the pile O cell load test results, (executed by Stainstall Middle East
LLC) in July 2016and
b. The potential implications with the artesian aquifer, which had been found during the
geotechnical investigations by KLC in February 2016 at elevations varying between: -
38.15m KLD to -38.655m KLD.
• Pile P1 has been abandoned and replaced by pile P1A (1800mm diameter and 17m long).
Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 5

• Following the aforesaid difficulties / observations during the drilling of pile P1 and by
considering also that the remaining (to be constructed) piles are the ones carrying on the
maximum loads from the Tower structure, all pile construction activities were halted and
additional ground investigations in the area of concern were decided to be conducted.
This additional investigation comprised the drilling of 2 no. boreholes up to 22.5m depth
and the execution of 6 no. pressuremeter tests at depths of 11.3m, 16.3m and 21.3m (3
per borehole). All additional ground investigation borehole logs and pressuremeter test
results are included in Appendix D of the present Addendum Report. Furthermore, to the
previously described investigations, it was decided also to execute a pile bi-directional (O
cell) test, as per the requirements of the approved initial Piled-Raft Foundation Design.
The location of this pile test is shown in Drawing No. SK-ACT-ST-TW Rev.0 (included in
Appendix C of the present Addendum Report), and it is close to the area of concern. This
pile test was performed on a pile with the following geometrical characteristics: Length =
17.0m and Diameter = 1.80m.
• Based on the above, the submitted and approved Piled-Raft Foundation Design Report
Rev.1 dated 13/10/2016, was revised and an Addendum was submitted on 09/03/2017
where the results of additional ground investigation and of the additional pile test were
evaluated and considered, resulting in:
➢ Considering an area, Area 2, of reduced ground strength and deformation

characteristics towards the south side of the tower.
➢ Restricting the length of piles in Area 2 to 17m.
➢ Increasing the number of piles from No. 97 to No. 129,
• A meeting between all the involved parties took place on the 28/03/2017, on which the
submitted addendum was discussed. In this meeting, it was mutually agreed between
Ahmadiah Contracting, PACE and ARCADIS that Area 2 to cover approximately 50% of
the foundation footprint and the pile design to be revised accordingly.
The present revision of the Addendum Report includes:
1. The evaluation of the additional geotechnical investigation, carried out by STCI in

December 2016;
2. The evaluation of the (second) bi-directional pile load test results, which was
performed by Stainstall Middle East LLC in February 2017, in line with ARCADIS
specification issued in December 2016. The aforesaid evaluation in combination to
the numerical (with F.E.) back-analysis of the test led to the estimations of “Upper”
and “Lower” bound limiting single pile axial capacities, having diameter = 1.80m and
length = 17.0m;
3. The re-design of the remaining (not constructed) piles (as per Drawing No. SK-ACT-
ST-TW included in Appendix D), with the adoption of the conclusions of the evaluation
mentioned in previous points 1 and 2. It is pointed out that the re-design of the not
constructed piles has adopted the limitation of their length to 17.0m below the pile cut-
off level;
4. The results of the performed 3-dimensional finite element computations (with PLAXIS
3D) and the dimensioning of the piles reinforcement.
5. The main conclusions and points to be considered prior and during the construction
of the remaining piles.

The main conclusion from the evaluation of the additional borehole data and the new bi-
directional pile load test results, is the existence of two areas: Area 1 and Area 2, across the
Tower footprint with different geotechnical characteristics (see Figure 1.1). Area 2 has been
identified in the south side, covering approximately 50% of the Tower footprint. Its extent has
been approximately estimated to include the additional boreholes NBH-1 and NBH-2 and the
location of the newly executed bi-directional pile load test and is characterised by lower
geotechnical characteristics than Area 1. It is pointed out that the geotechnical characteristics
of Area 1 are the ones, which were used in the already approved initial piled raft design and
are based on the evaluation of:
• The boreholes data from the geotechnical investigations executed until February 2016
and;
• The bi-directional pile load test results, executed in July 2016.
Figure 1.1: Assima Tower Layout Presenting Executed Boreholes & Estimated Areas of
Ground Model (Extract from Drawing No. G00001-MU001738-0B included in Appendix
C)
The geotechnical characteristics of Area 2 are presented in more detail in paragraph 5.1 of the
present Report.
It is noted that the previously proposed piled-raft solution for Assima Tower consisted of the
raft (to be designed by others) and 97 No. bored in-situ piles. However, the herein presented
re-design consists of the raft and a total of 135 No. bored in-situ piles.
The adopted concrete class for the piles covered by this Addendum Report is of 65MPa cubic
strength, as per the Engineer’s conditional approval of the initial piled raft design. The steel
reinforcement will be of minimum strength of 420MPa.
Based on the geometrical characteristics of the piles, there were previously three types of
piles. With the needed / implemented design changes, two additional types of piles are being
introduced. All types of piles, which have been considered both in the initial design and the
present re-design are summarised in Table 1.1. However, it must be noted that piles type A
and C piles are not relevant anymore.

Pile Type No. of Piles Pile Diameter (mm) Pile Length (m)
A (cancelled) 1800 20
B 68 1500 18
C (cancelled) 1800 16
D 40 1800 17
E 27 1500 17
Table 1.1: Pile Types
Drawing No. G00003-MU001738-0E, included in Appendix C, presents the studied herein pile
layout. The following points summarise the main characteristics of the revised pile layout:
• All piles of the first three rows are 17m long;
• The first row of piles consists of piles of 1800mm diameter, spaced at an axial distance of
2000mm. A total of 30 No. Type D piles are included in this first row (P2 to P17 and P98 to
P111);
• The vertical distance between first and second rows is 3000mm;
• The second row of piles consists now in a total of 10 No. Type D piles (P1A, P19 to P22,
P33 to P34 and P112 to P114) and 10 No. Type E piles (P23 to P32), where Type D piles
are spaced at an axial distance of 3500mm and Type E piles are spaced at axial distance
of 3000mm;
• A third row of Type E piles is included at a vertical distance of 2500mm from the second
and fourth rows. This row includes a total of 17 No. Type E piles (P18, P115 to P130)
typically spaced at 3000mm axial distance;
• Due to the cancellation of the elevator pit, Pile P39, is a Type B pile.
• A total of 6 No. additional piles are included in the present design, compared with Rev.0 of
this Addendum Report issued on 09/03/2017: P130 (Type E pile) and P131 to P135 (Type
B piles).
The pile cut-off level would be 75mm above the underside of the raft and the piled-raft layout
is presented in drawing No. G00003-MU001738-0E in Appendix C.

2 Main Design Consideration of the Piled Raft of Assima

Tower
2.1 Allowable (Tolerable) Settlement & Angular Distortion Values
The main design considerations stated in the approved design report dated 13/10/2016 of the
piled-raft of Assima Tower have not been modified.
Thus, the following serviceability criteria are adopted:
• Tolerable Total Settlement < 100mm
• Tolerable Angular Distortion < 1/750
Based on PACE Document MD-ACT-BMB-PO-HV-27 R0, (dated 08/04/2017), greater values

of angular distortion up to 1/635 were accepted, since “…The Tower rotation is in opposite
direction of the raft rotation.”
2.2 Cyclic Loading Considerations

The following criterion (Poulos, 2011) will be adopted for the whole foundation of Assima
Tower to cope with the effects of repetitive loading from the wind as follows:
∗
𝑛𝑅𝑔𝑠 ≤ 𝑆𝑐∗
Where: R*gs is the Design geotechnical shaft capacity,
S*c is the Maximum amplitude of wind load,
n is a reduction factor.
The criterion attempts to avoid the full mobilisation of shaft friction along the piles, thus
reducing the risk that the loading will lead to a degradation of shaft capacity. The herein
suggested n value will be taken 0.75, while S*c is obtained from the structural loading
combinations which include only the cyclic component of load on each pile, for the various
wind loading cases.

3 Geotechnical Interpretation
As mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present Report, two areas (namely Area 1 and Area 2)
with different geotechnical characteristics were identified across the complete Tower footprint
area (see Figure 1.1).
The approximate spatial determination of Area 2 was based on:
• The locations of the newly executed boreholes NBH-1, NBH-2, executed in December
2017;
• The locations of boreholes BH-1 & BH-2, executed in 2014;
• The locations of BH-3 and BH-4, executed in February 2016. It is mentioned that the
co-ordinates of boreholes BH-3 & BH-4 were provided by Ahmadiah Contracting &
Trading Co. in the email, dated 2nd March 2017 (see Appendix E of the present
Addendum Report);
• Area 2 has been increased so as to include the first 4 No. rows of piles (including
additional piles P 133 and P134) covering up to approximately 50% of the layout area.
Area 2 is now including the following piles: P1A to P48, P98 to P130 and P133 to P134
3.1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation and Idealised Ground

Profile for Area 2
Table 3.1 summarises the additional boreholes data which were drilled / installed during the
additional investigation campaign by STCI (December 2016).
Elevation of Top of Borehole Depth of Borehole

Borehole Easting Northing
(m KLD) (m)
NBH-1 -11.700 498641.57 3250657.85 22.50
NBH-2 -11.700 498669.10 3250631.70 22.50
Table 3.1: Summary of Drilled Boreholes (STCI – December 2016)
The subsurface formations consist essentially of sand with silt and silty sands (SM, SP-SM,
SM-ML), with density varying from medium dense to very dense. As per the data of the drilled
boreholes, partial cementation of the sandy formations has been observed to be predominant
at depths greater than 12m. The variation of the measured SPT values along depth and the
design SPT values are presented in Figure 3.1. The SPT design lines for Area 1 and Area 2
are also included in this figure for comparison purposes. The idealised ground profile for Area
2 (based on boreholes NBH-1 and NBH-2), which was considered in the present Addendum
Report is as per Table 3.3.
Top Elevation Bottom Elevation SPT

Strata
(m KLD) (m KLD) Design
Medium Dense to Dense Sand -11.70 -14.70 to -16.70 25
Very Dense Sand (Partially Cemented) -14.70 to -16.70 > -95.00 50
Table 3.3: Idealised Ground Profile of Area 2

Standard Penetration Test

SPT values
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10.00
0.00
-10.00
Pile cut-off
-20.00
-30.00
Elevation (m KLD)
-40.00
-50.00
-60.00
-70.00
-80.00
-90.00
SPT Design Line Area 1 NBH-1 NBH-2 SPT Design Line Area 2
Figure 3.1: Variation of SPT with Depth for Area 2
From Figure 3.1, it can be concluded that for the first 2 m approximately below the pile cut-off
level, the sandy formations of Area 2 are characterised by lower degree of density than the
ones of Area 1, thus leading to lower shear strength and deformability characteristics.
The performed pressuremeter tests in boreholes NBH-1 & NBH-2 of Area 2 can provide an
estimate of the deformability characteristics of the very dense sandy formations (with low
degree of cementation) of this area.

Figure 3.2 summarises all the calculated by STCI Em values, from the initial loading and the
1st loading – unloading cycles of all performed pressuremeter tests during the additional
geotechnical investigations of December 2016 (see Appendix D of the present Addendum
Report).
Figure 3.3 presents a typical curve from the executed pressuremeter loading – unloading test
results. The curve indicates:
1. The disturbance of the formation, along the initial loading cycle, due to the borehole
drilling operations, and
2. the “restoration” of the formation’s initial degree of density, prior to its disturbance from
the borehole drilling operations.
Figure 3.2: Variation of pressuremeter modulus (Initial & 1st Cycle) with Depth for Area 2
By considering previous points 1 and 2, the Em values, which are derived from the 1st loading
– unloading cycles of the pressuremeter tests are considered more representative of the in-
situ deformability characteristics of the very dense sandy formations of Area 2. Consequently,
the value of 160 MPa for the “Unloading – Reloading” Young’s modulus of the aforesaid
formation of Area 2 can be used as a cautious estimate. For the more detailed evaluation of
the aforesaid parameter, to be used in the Piled – Raft re-design, a more detailed justification
is presented in paragraph 5.1 of the present Report.

Figure 3.3: Area 2- Typical pressuremeter test results of loading and unloading –
reloading cycles
3.2 Groundwater table

Table 3.4 presents the groundwater recordings in the additional boreholes. It must be noted
that these measures reflect also the effect of the dewatering system in place.
Elevation of Top of Borehole Depth to Water Water Table Elevation

Borehole
(m KLD) Table (m) (m KLD)
NBH-1 -11.700 1.50 -13.20
NBH-2 -11.700 1.50 -13.20
Table 3.4: Water Table During Borehole Drilling (STCI – December 2016)
No changes have been made to the design groundwater table, and such as in previous
approved design dated 13/10/2017, the design groundwater table is considered to be at
elevation +2.0m KLD.
In the current design, all pile toes are kept at a minimum clear distance in the order of 7.0m
from the elevation of -38.15m KLD, where artesianism was observed during the investigation
campaign by KLC in February 2016.
3.3 Seismicity
According to the structural design criteria provided by PACE, the area is defined as Seismic
Zone 1, with a Seismic Zone Factor Z = 0.075 according to UBC 97.
Regarding the Soil Profile Type, this is defined as Sc according to UBC, “Very Dense Soil and
Soft Rock, with NSPT > 50.

4 Description & Evaluation of the Additional Bi-

Directional Pile Load Test
4.1 Description of the Pile Load Test
One additional bi-directional pile static load test was performed on a 1800m diameter and 17m
long pile at the location shown in drawing No. G00003-MU001738-0E (included in Appendix
C). The testing platform was at an elevation of -11.7m KLD. The pile cut-off level is at -13.25m
KLD.
The importance of the test is critical, considering that the evaluation of its results allows for the
establishment of an updated framework of assumptions to be used in the detailed piled-raft re-
design of Assima Tower. The imperative need of this test has been also dictated by the fact of
having encountered a ground model in Area 2, which differs than the one of Area 1, as already
explained in detail in previous paragraph 3.1 of the present Report.
The concrete class of the test pile was specified as having a minimum cubic strength of 65MPa
and validated adequately by a sufficient number of concrete compressive strength testing
results.
The factual testing results, as well as their initial evaluation is presented in the report: “Bi-
Directional Static Load Test – Project: Proposed Assima Tower, Kuwait – Pile PTP 1 (1800
mm Ø), Rev. 0”, prepared by Strainstall Middle East LLC (SME) in February 2017.
A sketch of the test pile configuration is shown in Figure 4.1. The hydraulic jack assembly,
comprising of five 900-tonne capacity bi-directional hydraulic jacks, was installed at 13.08m
below the pile cut-off level, thus determining the upper part and the lower part of the tested
pile with lengths of 13.0m and 4.0m respectively.

Figure 4.1: Additional Test Pile Configuration (extract from SME Report)
The test Specification, issued by ARCADIS in December 2016, included the following load –
unload – reloading cycles:
• 1st cycle. The pile to be loaded up to approximately 100% of the working load,
• 2nd cycle. The pile to be reloaded up to approximately 150% of the working load,
• 3rd cycle. The pile to be reloaded up to approximately 200% of the working load,
• 4th cycle. The pile to be reloaded up to approximately 230% of the working load.
However, the test has been terminated at the 2nd cycle, at 150% of the working load, due to
large movements reaching the capacity of the jacks.
The working load of the test was estimated based on the results of the approved piled raft
design as 35,000kN.
The load displacement curves (extract from the SME Report), are presented in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.3 (extract from the SME Report) shows the variation of the mobilised skin friction
along the pile length (between successive strain gauges) for all load cycles applied during the
test.
The main conclusions that can be derived from Figure 4.3
1. Certain section of the upper part of the tested pile and more specifically between strain
gauges SG1 and SG2 reached its critical condition, in relation to the development of the
ultimate skin friction. Along the aforesaid section the pile skin friction did not exceed the
value of 150 kPa. This rather low value, if compared with the ones derived from the bi-
directional pile load test of July 2016, could be attributed to the existence of the sandy layer
of 2 m thickness approximately, below the pile cut-off level, which is characterised by “poor”
shear strength and deformability characteristics, as explained in paragraph 3.1 of the
present Report.
2. The situation described in previous point led to the development of a pile upward movement
equal to 10cm, which can be considered as an indication that the whole upper part of the
pile has reached its critical condition, thus leading to an estimation of the ultimate pile skin
friction equal to 350 kPa approximately. This value can be considered as a safe estimate
for the complete stromatography of the sandy formations of Area 2 along the complete pile
length.
3. The lower part of the tested pile reacted by moving downwards 5cm. This displacement is
equal to 2.7% of the pile diameter (< 10% of the pile diameter), indicating that no critical
situation has been reached and the pile base resistance has been mobilised up to certain
but limited extent.
4. The given skin friction distributions between strain gauge SG5 to jack and strain gauges
SG5 to SG6 are affected by the mobilisation of the pile base resistance and cannot be
considered as representative of a developed solely skin friction mechanism.
5. Considering previous points 3 and 4, it can be concluded that for the lower part of the tested
pile, the mobilised pile bearing resistance reaches the value of 7.2 MPa, which is lower
than the value corresponding to the critical condition.

Figure 4.2: Load – Displacement Curve in Additional PTP (extract from the SME Report)

Figure 4.3: Mobilised Unit Shaft Friction in Additional PTP (extract from SME Report)

4.2 Evaluation of Additional Test

4.2.1 Class A Prediction – Upper Part of Tested Pile
ARCADIS evaluated, in detail, the results for the upper part of the performed additional
bi-directional pile load test, by employing the “Class A” prediction method proposed by
Fleming, W. G. K. (1992). The evaluation aimed to conclude about the theoretical
“Lower” and “Upper” bound predictions of the limiting pile shaft capacity.
More specifically, Figures 4.4 and 4.5 present respectively the “Lower” and “Upper”
bound Class A predictions for the upper part of the tested pile, leading to the estimation
that the ultimate pile skin friction ranges between 330KPa – 400 KPa. It is reminded that
the evaluated ultimate skin friction from the newly executed bi-directional pile load test is
350 KPa. This provides certain degree of confidence that the herein predicted limiting
pile axial capacities, ranging between 22500KN to 27400KN are representative of the
upper part of the tested pile, having a diameter of 1.80m and length equal to 13.0m,
where only the skin friction mechanism is being developed without any end bearing
resistance.
Assima Tower Compression (Lower Bound, τs = 330kPa), 1.8m diameter pile,

13m length
Load (kN)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
0
-20
Settlement (mm)
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
Theoritical Prediction Pile Test
Figure 4.4: Upper part of the tested pile. Theoretical “Lower” bound Class A
Prediction versus the actual pile behaviour in compression

Assima Tower Compression (Upper Bound, τs = 400kPa), 1.8m diameter

pile, 13m length
Load (kN)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
0
-20
Settlement (mm)
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
Theoritical Prediction Pile Test
Figure 4.5: Upper part of the tested pile. Theoretical “Upper” bound Class A
prediction versus the actual pile behaviour in compression

5 Design Methodology & Assumptions

5.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters for Area 2
In an effort to assess the geomechanical behaviour and consequently estimate the
deformability and shear strength parameters of the sandy formations at the site of Assima
Tower, ARCADIS back–analysed the pile load test results with the use of PLAXIS 2D.
The back analysis presented hereafter refers to the additional pile load test performed in
February 2017 and will allow the definition of the geotechnical design parameters for
Area 2 ground model.
It is noted that for Area 1, the ground model remains as defined in the previous approved
Design Report (dated 13/10/2016) and the corresponding geotechnical parameters for
Area 1 are included in Table 5.1. It is reminded that these parameters were the ones
from the back analysis of the bi-directional pile load test, which was performed in July
2016.
Very Dense Sand

Parameter Dense Sand
(Partially Cemented)
Secant Stiffness, E50, (MPa) 60 100
Unloading – Reloading Stiffness, Eur, (MPa) 120 200
Effective Friction Angle, φ, (o) 42 45
Dilatancy Angle, ψ, (o) 12 15
Effective Cohesion, c, (kPa) 10 10
Shear Modulus at very small strains, G0, (MPa) 370 550
Shear strain at G = 0.722G0, γ0.7, (%) 0.03 0.03

Table 5.1: Lower Bound Ground Parameters of Area 1
By employing the PLAXIS axisymmetric finite element model of Figure 5.1 a number of
parametric analyses were performed. In all the analyses the adopted constitutive ground
model is the one described in paragraphs 2.4 and 3 of the approved Design Report dated
13/10/2016. For the simulation of the intrinsic ground stress history, the ground
overburden to the pile test platform level has been modelled with an equivalent surcharge
of 300kPa. The following construction sequence was also modelled:
1. Initial Phase
2. Simulation of the ground overburden to the pile test platform level (application of
surcharge)
3. Excavation to pile test platform level (removal of surcharge)
4. Pile construction
5. Pile loading at the same load increments as the performed pile test.

Figure 5.1: Axisymmetric Finite Element Model
Following the various parametric numerical analyses, “lower” bound ground strength and
stiffness parameters have been back- analysed. Table 5.2 summarises the back-
analysed values for Area 2 ground model.
Medium Dense Very Dense Sand

Parameter
to Dense Sand (Partially Cemented)
Secant Stiffness, E50, (MPa) 30 80
Unloading – Reloading Stiffness, Eur, (MPa) 60 1601
Effective Friction Angle, φ, (o) 32 45
Dilatancy Angle, ψ, (o) 0 15
Effective Cohesion, c, (kPa) 2 8
Shear Modulus at very small strains, G0, (MPa) 200 420
Shear strain at G = 0.722G0, γ0.7, (%) 0.025 0.03

Table 5.2: Lower Bound Ground Parameters for Area 2
The adoption of cohesion value of 8 kPa for the very dense sandy formation of Area 2 is
in general agreement with the main observation of light cementation that was reported in
both additional boreholes NBH-1 and NBH-2.
Specifically for the dilatancy angle value, which was back – analysed to exceed 10o, it is
mentioned that as per a number of publications (Bolton, M.D (1986), Budhu, M.(Soil
1 The back-analyzed value of 160 MPa for the unloading – reloading stiffness of the very dense
conditions is equal to the assessed value from the performed pressuremeter tests in the newly drilled
boreholes NBH-1 and NBH-2 (see paragraph 3.1 of the present Report).

Mechanics & Foundation) & Flac Program Manual), dilatancy angles for sands greater
than 10 degrees and up to the value of 15 degrees are not prohibitive values to be
adopted.
The usage of the previously mentioned parameters in the axisymmetric finite element
model of Figure 5.1, resulted to the best estimate of the measured load – displacement
data for the upper part of the tested pile. Figure 5.2 shows a clear comparison between
the calculated pile load – settlement data, in relation to the actual recorded load –
displacement curve of the pile test.
By comparing the parameters included in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, it becomes obvious that
the sandy formations of Area 2 are less competent than the ones of Area 1. Parameters
of Areas 1 and 2 (as per Tables 5.1 and 5.2) have been adopted in the present Design,
as well as their spatial extent across of Tower footprint, which is shown in Figure 1.1 of
the present Report.
As it can be concluded from Figure 5.2, the axisymmetric finite element analysis:
• Predicted, quite satisfactory the load – displacement behaviour for the first two loading
cycles of the pile test, and
• Slightly underestimated (being on the “safe” side) the unrecovered pile displacement
after the unloading path of the fourth loading cycle.

LOAD - DISPLACEMENT CURVE FROM ADDITIONAL BIDIRECTIONAL PTP

Load (kN)
10000.0
12000.0
14000.0
16000.0
18000.0
20000.0
22000.0
24000.0
26000.0
28000.0
2000.0
4000.0
6000.0
8000.0
0.0
0.0
-20.0
Displacement (mm)
-40.0
Test Curve - Cell Top

-60.0 PTP
Plaxis Analysis - Upper

Part of Pile
-80.0
-100.0
-120.0
Figure 5.2: Finite Element Prediction and Actual Pile Compression Test Load –
Displacement Behaviour of Upper Part of Pile (additional pile load test)
5.2 Pile Limiting Axial capacities for Area 2

Pile limiting axial capacities for Area 2 were assessed also on the basis of a number of
axisymmetric PLAXIS finite element analyses, by employing the back – analysed
geotechnical parameters of Table 5.1 of the present Addendum Report. The main aim of
these analyses were:
• To derive the pile – settlement responses of the foundation pile types D and E
used for redesigning the piled raft of Assima Tower
• To provide the single piles limiting axial capacities for pile types D and E of the
piled raft of Assima Tower, by applying the criterion of FHWA NHI-10-016 (May
2010), for establishing the “failure threshold” state (see Figure 4.8).
The analysis employed the Hardening Soil constitutive model with the adoption of the
“small strain stiffness” as it is described in paragraph 2.4 of the approved Design Report
dated 13/10/2016 and the ground properties of previous Table 5.1. For the simulation of
the intrinsic ground stress history, the ground overburden to the foundation level has

been modelled with an equivalent surcharge of 300kPa. The following construction

sequence was modelled:
1. Initial Phase
2. Simulation of the ground overburden to the foundation level (application of
surcharge)
3. Excavation to foundation level (removal of surcharge)
4. Raft construction
5. Application of loading at the crest of the pile in increments.
Figure 5.10: Axisymmetric Finite Element Model of Single Pile
The single pile load – settlement curves for the various pile geometries with the inclusion
of the application of the criterion by of FHWA NHI-10-016 (May 2010), for establishing
the “failure threshold” state are presented in Figure 5.11.

SINGLE PILE LOAD - DISPLACEMENT CURVE

Applied Load (kN)
100000
120000
140000
20000
40000
60000
80000
0
0.0%
46000 59000
-2.0%
Settlement / Diameter (%)
-4.0%
-6.0%
Pile 17m Long & 1500mm Ø

(Area 2)
-8.0%
-10.0% Pile 17m Long & 1800mm Ø

(Area 2)
-12.0%
Figure 5.11: Normalised Pile Load – Settlement Curves – Axisymmetric PLAXIS

analyses
From the Figure 5.11 and for a nominal settlement of 4.0% of the pile diameter, the
following “threshold” pile axial capacities are estimated:
• Pile Type D (Diameter = 1800mm & Length = 17m) Pile load = 59000kN
• Pile Type E (Diameter = 1500mm & Length = 17m) Pile load = 46000kN
These loads correspond to the mobilisation of the pile skin friction the pile base
resistance for a pile settlement equal to 4% of the pile diameter. In addition, since these
loads have been derived on the basis of the back-analysis of the additional bi-directional
pile load test, they are considered representative of the encountered ground conditions
of Area 2. However, for the needs of the present Design and for taking into account the
possibility of any plastic softening at higher pile loads and the risks related to relatively
poor construction of the pile base, the following pile limiting axial capacities were adopted
for Area 2:
• Pile Type D (Diameter = 1800mm & Length = 17m)
Pile Axial limiting capacity = 55200kN
• Pile Type E (Diameter = 1500mm & Length = 17m)
Pile Axial limiting capacity = 41450kN
It is noted that for the already constructed piles of type B (Diameter = 1500mm & Length
= 18.0m) of Area 1, the axial limiting capacity which was provided in the initial Design
Report (approved by the Engineer) is still valid.

The limiting axial capacity of the contiguous piles (Φ1800mm / 2000mm), located in the
first row of the revised pile layout, is calculated with the consideration of an embedded
concrete block having length L = 60m, width W = 1.80m (piles diameter) and depth H =
17.0m (piles’ length) by considering the contribution of the friction along the side surface
of the block and bearing capacity along the block’s complete base surface.
By adopting limiting shaft friction = 330kPa and limiting bearing resistance = 8.5 MPa,
the total limiting axial capacity of the afore described block equals to 1590MN.

6 3-D PLAXIS Finite Element Model of Piled Raft for

Assima Tower
A 3-dimensional finite element analysis model for the piled-raft foundation design has
been performed. The PLAXIS 3D software, widely used in Geotechnical design, was
adopted to perform the analysis.
The non-linearity of the soil behaviour is modelled by means of a Hardening Soil (HS)
model which is implemented in PLAXIS 3D. The HS model not allows for the account of
“small strain stiffness” concept (HS Small Strain), important feature in the present
analysis. For more details on the adopted constitutive model, please refer to Sections
2.4 and 3 of the approved Design Report dated 13/10/2016 and 5.1 of the present
Addendum Report.
For the simulation of the intrinsic ground stress history, the ground overburden to the pile
test platform level has been modelled with an equivalent surcharge.
The following construction sequence was modelled:
1. Initial Phase;
2. Simulation of the ground overburden to the pile test platform level (application of
surcharge);
3. Excavation to pile test platform level (removal of surcharge);
4. Pile construction;
5. Raft construction;
6. Loading of piled-raft foundation according to the desired load combination.
The 3D finite element model, accounting for Area 1 and Area 2 ground models, for the
piled-raft is presented in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: 3D Finite Element Model of Piled Raft
6.1 Structural Load Combinations

The load combinations provided by the ARCADIS Structural Engineering group are given
in Table 6.1 for both serviceability and ultimate limit states and have been considered for
the present design.
Load
SLS – Serviceability limit state ULS – Ultimate limit state
Combination
1 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL 1.0 DL
2 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W4 1.2 DL+1.6 LL
3 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W11 1.2 DL+1.0 LL+1.6 W4
4 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W12 1.2 DL+1.0 LL+1.6 W11
5 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W15 1.2 DL+1.0 LL+1.6 W12
6 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(1.0 Eqx+0.3 Eqy)/1.4 1.2 DL+1.0 LL+1.6 W15
7 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 Eqy)/1.4 1.26 DL+1.0 LL+(1.0 Eqx+0.3 Eqy)
8 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 Eqy)

DL = Dead Load; LL = Live Load; W = Wind Load; Eq = Earthquake Load
Table 6.1: Serviceability & Ultimate Load State Combinations

Furthermore, the following additional analyses have been included:
• Considering only wind loads: W4, W11, W12 and W15; These load cases are needed
to be examined separately for the assessment of the cyclic loading impact on to the
piles, as it was described in paragraph 2.2 of the present Addendum Report.
• ULS load combinations with water uplift pressure consideration, which is described in
Table 6.2 below. The water uplift pressure is considered with a load factor of 1.6.
Thus, for a design water table at + 2.0m KLD and by considering the raft underside at
elevation -13.325m KLD, the factored water uplift pressure is 250kPa.
Load
Wind Load Cases Water Uplift Cases
Combination
1 1.0 W4 0.9 DL + 1.6 Water
2 1.0 W11 0.9 DL+1.6 W4 + 1.6 Water
3 1.0 W12 0.9 DL+1.6 W11+ 1.6 Water
4 1.0 W15 0.9 DL+1.6 W12+ 1.6 Water
5 0.9 DL+1.6 W15+ 1.6 Water
6 0.84 DL+(1.0 Eqx +0.3 Eqy) + 1.6 Water
7 0.84 DL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 Eqy) + 1.6 Water

DL = Dead Load; LL = Live Load; W = Wind Load; Eq = Earthquake Load
Table 6.2: Wind & Water Uplift Load Combinations State Combinations

7 Results of 3D Finite Element Analysis of Piled Raft

Selected outputs from PLAXIS 3D for each load combination are presented in Appendix
A. In the following sub-sections, the results are presented with more detail, namely:
• Maximum settlement and angular distortion on the raft – this analysis was done for
the SLS load combinations;
• Maximum actions of the piles for each SLS and ULS load combination and each type
of pile (A, B and C); Axial forces, Shear forces and Bending moments;
• Piles reinforcement dimensioning and correspondent structural capacity checks;
• Global Safety Factor analysis performed for the SLS load combinations.
7.1 Settlements
The maximum settlement and angular distortion on the raft are here presented in below
Table 7.1 and result from the SLS load combinations.
SLS Load Combinations Settlement (mm) Angular Distortion*
1) 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL 72 1:2843 to 1:1415
2) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W4 88 1:5576 to 1:806
3) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W11 93 1:3730 to 1:662
4) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W12 94 1:5236 to 1:635
5) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W15 91 1:3373 to 1:710
6) 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(1.0 Eqx+0.3 Eqy)/1.4 61 1:7349 to 1:1308
7) 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 Eqy)/1.4 80 1:3787 to 1:1220
Table 7.1: Maximum Settlement on Raft
Angular Distortion
SLS Load Section*
Combinations
1-1’ 2-2’ 3-3’ 4-4’ 5-5’ 6-6’ 7-7’ 8-8’ 9-9’
1) 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL 1:1415 1:1797 1:2439 1:2843 1:2136 1:2134 1:2346 1:2277 1:1804
2) 1.0 DL+0.75
1:1122 1:1391 1:3249 1:5576 1:1043 1:942 1:869 1:806 1:815
LL+0.75 W4
3) 1.0 DL+0.75
1:1202 1:1535 1:3293 1:3730 1:729 1:698 1:680 1:662 1:689
LL+0.75 W11
4) 1.0 DL+0.75
1:1147 1:1402 1:3543 1:5236 1:745 1:696 1:662 1:635 1:658
LL+0.75 W12
5) 1.0 DL+0.75
1:1408 1:1724 1:3373 1:3200 1:710 1:723 1:751 1:771 1:788
LL+0.75 W15

Angular Distortion
SLS Load Section*
Combinations
1-1’ 2-2’ 3-3’ 4-4’ 5-5’ 6-6’ 7-7’ 8-8’ 9-9’
6) 1.04 DL+1.0
LL+(1.0 Eqx+0.3 1:1368 1:1308 1:2871 1:1529 1:7349 1:4416 1:3243 1:2395 1:2031
Eqy)/1.4
7) 1.04 DL+1.0
LL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 1:1493 1:1550 1:2355 1:3787 1:1220 1:1405 1:1725 1:1994 1:1723
Eqy)/1.4
*A sketch with the location of each section may be found in Appendix C, drawing No. G00006-
MU001738-0A
Table 7.2: Maximum Angular Distortion on Raft
From the results of Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 and for all the analysed SLS combinations:
• The maximum settlement is estimated between 61mm to 94mm.

• The angular distortion values range between 1:635 to 1:5236.
Considering the above maximum estimated settlements, it is concluded that these are
below the corresponding allowable (tolerable) settlement defined in paragraph 2.1 of the
present Report. However, the estimated angular distortions of Table 7.2 are in general
agreement with the allowable (tolerable) value defined in paragraph 2.1 of the present
report, with the exception of 6-6’ to 9-9’ for a limited number of load combinations (e.g.
3, 4 and 5), where distortion values between 1:635 to 1:698 were estimated. It is pointed
out that the aforesaid values although smaller than the proposed limiting one of 1:750,
have been approved by PACE (PACE Document MD-ACT-BMB-PO-HV-27 R0,
08/04/2017), since “…The Tower rotation is in opposite direction of the raft rotation.”
7.2 Pile Axial Loads

The envelope for pile axial loads for all analysed load combinations are in Appendix A.
The maximum estimated axial forces on piles for all SLS cases and the corresponding
safety factors are presented in Tables 7.3.
Pile Type B Pile Type D Pile Type E

(Ø1500 / L=18m) (Ø1800 / L=17m) (Ø1500 / L=17m)
SLS Load Area 1 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2

Combinations
Max Max Max Max
Safety Safety Safety Safety
Axial Axial Axial Axial
Factor Factor Factor Factor
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1) 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL 26,745 2.2 16,431 2.6 19,454 2.8 15,526 3.3
2) 1.0 DL+0.75
23,075 2.6 18,896 2.3 24,030 2.3 14,387 2.9
LL+0.75 W4

Pile Type B Pile Type D Pile Type E

(Ø1500 / L=18m) (Ø1800 / L=17m) (Ø1500 / L=17m)
SLS Load Area 1 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2

Combinations
Max Max Max Max
Safety Safety Safety Safety
Axial Axial Axial Axial
Factor Factor Factor Factor
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
3) 1.0 DL+0.75
21,604 2.7 19,428 2.2 24,844 2.2 14,569 2.8
LL+0.75 W11
4) 1.0 DL+0.75
21,342 2.8 19,685 2.2 25,339 2.2 14,616 2.8
LL+0.75 W12
5) 1.0 DL+0.75
21,145 2.8 17,298 2.5 22,578 2.4 13,575 3.1
LL+0.75 W15
6) 1.04 DL+1.0
LL+(1.0 Eqx+0.3 26,195 2.3 16,036 2.7 18,631 3.0 12,230 3.4
Eqy)/1.4
7) 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+

24,761 2.4 16,445 2.6 23,520 2.4 16,676 3.0
(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 Eqy)/1.4
Table 7.3: Maximum Pile Axial Forces & Safety Factors
Considering the envelope of the calculated pile axial forces, the obtained safety factors
are all above 2.0. Figure 7.1 presents in more detail that the achieved single pile safety
factors are: (i) > 3.0 for 82% of the piles, (ii) between 2.5 to 3.0 for 13% of the piles and
(iii) between 2.0 to 2.5 for 5% of the piles. Appendix A presents descriptively in a figure,
the achieved safety factors for the SLS envelope pile axial forces. It shall be noted that
these safety factors are related to a total of 105 No. piles, that is, excluding the first row
of 30 No. contiguous piles, for which the safety factor is calculated by considering them
as a pile wall, with reduced shaft area.
Figure 7.1: Histogram for Safety Factors – SLS Envelope of Piles Axial Forces

In what concerns the 30 No. contiguous piles placed in the first row of the pile layout, the
total maximum axial load applied on the ensemble is of 692.9MN. For a capacity of
1591MN as previously calculated in Section 5.2 of the present Addendum Report, the
safety factor is of 2.3.
The maximum axial loads for the ULS with maximum water uplift pressure, are
summarised in Table 7.4.
Maximum Axial Force (kN)
Pile Type D Pile Type E

ULS with Water Uplift Pile Type B (Ø1500 / L=18m)
(Ø1800 / L=17m) (Ø1500 / L=17m)
Area 1 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2
1) 0.9 DL +1.6 Water 19,880 12,905 15,039 9,636
2) 0.9 DL+1.6 W4+1.6 Water 16,458 20,210 25,259 13,081
3) 0.9 DL+1.6 W11+1.6 Water 17,086 21,495 26,824 13,272
4) 0.9 DL+1.6 W12+1.6 Water 16,980 22,130 27,884 13,384
5) 0.9 DL+1.6 W15+1.6 Water 13,706 17,030 22,082 11,577
6) 0.84 DL+(1.0 Eqx +0.3

21,099 13,214 16,273 10,021
Eqy) +1.6 Water
7) 0.84 DL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3

16,182 12,010 19,099 10,015
Eqy) +1.6 Water
Table 7.4: Maximum Pile Axial Forces for ULS Water Uplift Combinations
The water uplift combinations are critical for checking the development of tension axial
load on the piles. As it can be seen in the graphs of Appendix A, no tension load is
developed in the piles.
In order to check the piles under cyclic loading, the maximum pile axial loads due to wind
loading are summarised in Table 7.5.
Maximum Axial Force (kN)
Pile Type D Pile Type E

Wind Loads Pile Type B (Ø1500 / L=18m)
(Ø1800 / L=17m) (Ø1500 / L=17m)
Area 1 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2
1) 1.0 W4 2,444 3,804 8,155 3,665
2) 1.0 W11 2,603 4,180 9,029 3,932
3) 1.0 W12 2,608 4,363 9,856 4,123
4) 1.0 W15 1,639 2,454 5,717 2,417
Table 7.5: Maximum Pile Axial Forces for Wind Load Combinations

It is noted that since the above axial loads correspond only to wind loads without being
combined any dead loads, the axial load could be in compression or tension.
In accordance to Paragraphs 2.2 and 4.2 of the present Addendum Report, for a
minimum shaft friction value of 400kPa for Area 1 and 330kPa for Area 2, by considering
a safety factor of 2 and a reduction factor due to wind loading of 0.75, the following design
shaft capacities, R*gs, are estimated:
• Type B (Area 1, Ø1500 / L=18m): nR*gs, = 0.75 x 16,965kN = 12,720 > 2,608kN
• Type B (Area 2, Ø1500 / L=18m): nR*gs, = 0.75 x 13,996kN = 10,497 > 4,363kN
• Type D (Area 2, Ø1800 / L=17m): nR*gs, = 0.75 x 15,862kN = 11,896 > 9,856kN
• Type E (Area 2, Ø1500 / L=17m): nR*gs, = 0.75 x 13,218kN = 9,914 > 4,123kN
Following the above, the piles’ axial capacity under axial cyclic conditions is greater than
the maximum acting forces due to wind loads.
7.3 Global Safety Factor Analysis

The global safety factors of the piled raft foundation have been calculated by PLAXIS
3D, by successively reducing the shear strength parameters (tanϕ and c) and tensile
strength until the failure of the structure is achieved. The output of this analysis is the
global factor of safety, which is defined as below:
𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑆𝐹 =
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
This feature has been applied to all 7 SLS load combinations and the minimum global
factors of safety of 3.1 calculated are summarised in Table 7.6.
SLS Load Combination Minimum Safety Factor
1) 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL 2.4
2) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W4 2.4
3) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W11 2.4
4) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W12 2.4
5) 1.0 DL+0.75 LL+0.75 W15 2.4
6) 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(1.0 Eqx+0.3 Eqy)/1.4 2.4
7) 1.04 DL+1.0 LL+(-1.0 Eqx-0.3 Eqy)/1.4 2.4
Table 7.6: Minimum Global Safety Factor for SLS Combinations
According to the results of the above table, the minimum calculated global safety factor
is 2.4 which is acceptable.

7.4 Structural Capacity Checks

7.4.1 Materials
The required minimum compressive characteristic 28 days for the pile concrete, would
be 65MPa for cubic samples and 52MPa for cylindrical samples.
Concrete mix for piles should minimize permeability and sulphate attack. Sulphate
resistant cement content should not be less than 400kg/m³. The concrete mix should be
designed so as the maximum temperature during concrete hardening must not exceed
72°C. Fly ash, microsilica and / or any other should be used to fulfil this requirement and
ensure impervious concrete for piles.
The reinforcing steel would be epoxy coated and shall be deformed high bond with
minimum yield strength of 420MPa.
The minimum cover to all pile reinforcement (including links) shall be 75mm.
7.4.2 Adequacy of Pile Section

The maximum serviceability axial load on the piles should not generate a concrete
compressive stress that exceeds 0.33f’c, where f’c is the specified compressive strength
of concrete.
For concrete with minimum strength on cylindrical samples of 52MPa, 0.33f’c = 17.2MPa.
Thus for:
• 1800Ø Piles, the maximum serviceability service load is 43,645kN > 26,745kN→ OK
• 1500Ø Piles, the maximum serviceability service load is 30,308kN > 25,339kN→ OK
7.4.3 Dimensioning of Piles Reinforcement

For the dimensioning of the flexural and shear reinforcement of the piles, the factored
internal action effects, axial forces, shear forces and bending moments were considered.
The aforementioned factored internal actions were estimated from the PLAXIS 3D finite
element analyses for the ultimate limit combinations.
The resulting factored axial loads and combined bending moments for all the load
combinations are presented in Figures 7.2 to 7.4 𝑴𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒃 = √𝑴𝟐𝑿𝑿 + 𝑀𝑌𝑌
2
.

Figure 7.2: Results of Axial and Combined Bending Moment for Ø 1800 Piles (top
2m)

Figure 7.3: Results of Axial and Combined Bending Moment for Ø 1800 Piles (lower
than 2m)

Figure 7.4: Results of Axial and Combined Bending Moment for Ø 1500 Piles (top
2m)
Figure 7.5: Results of Axial and Combined Bending Moment for Ø 1500 Piles (lower
than 2m)
From the above graphs the following most unfavourable pairs of axial loads and
combined bending moments were selected for the dimensioning of the flexural
reinforcement.

Pile Pile Section Axial Load N (kN) Bending Moment

Diameter M (kNm)
36,259 9,740
35,783 7,136
0-2m 25,739 12,702
24,410 12,560
Ø1800 19,480 12,702
34,104 5,492
33,904 6,242
>2m
26,434 6,801
33,773 6,744
36,178 913
27,849 7,441
0-2m
20,067 7,623
20,238 7,446
Ø1500
35,149 696
34,638 1,094
>2m
15,501 2,338
21,464 2,112
Table 7.7: Most Unfavourable Pairs of Axial Loads and Combined Bending
Moments
The required longitudinal reinforcement has been estimated with in-house excel
spreadsheet, according to the requirements of ACI 318 and is summarised below in Table
7.8.
Pile Diameter Depth Longitudinal Reinforcement
0-2m 32Ø32 + 16Ø32

Ø1800
>2m 32Ø32
0-2m 24Ø32 + 16Ø32

Ø1500
>2m 24Ø32
Table 7.8: Longitudinal Reinforcement of Piles
Appendix B includes the output from the excel spreadsheets for the acting loads and the
capacity envelope.

The required shear reinforcement has been determined according to ACI-318 and is
summarised in Table 7.9.
Pile Diameter Depth Longitudinal Reinforcement
0-3.5m 2Ø16/100
Ø1800
>3.5m Ø12/100
0-3.5m 2Ø16/100
Ø1500
>3.5m Ø12/100
Table 7.9: Shear Reinforcement of Piles
Appendix B includes also the calculation spreadsheets for the piles’ shear reinforcement.
The variation of the resulting factorized shear forces (ULS load combinations), 𝑽𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒃 =
2 2
√𝑉𝑋𝑋 + 𝑉𝑌𝑌 with depth for all the load combinations and the provided shear resistance
are presented in Figures 7.6 and 7.7.

Figure 7.6: Resulting factored shear resistance vs. depth for 1800mm diameter
piles

Figure 7.7: Resulting factored shear resistance vs. depth for 1500mm diameter
piles
7.4.4 Reinforcement Development & Splicing Lengths

The minimum required development and splicing lengths have been determined
according to the requirements of ACI 318 (see Appendix B). The development length of
the epoxy coated reinforcement should be greater than 45Ø, while the splicing length
should be greater than 60Ø. The splice locations shall be staggered.

8 Critical Construction Details

Critical construction details are summarised below:
1. All discrepancies shall be referred to the Engineer for a decision before proceeding
with the work.
2. All materials and workmanship shall be in accordance with the relevant and current
specified standards and the by-laws and ordinances of the relevant building
authorities except where varied by the project specification and/or drawings.
3. Set out of the main grid lines shall be carried out by the contractor. The installation
of piles at positions as required by the engineer shall be accurate to 75mm
horizontally in any direction as measured at cut-off level. This tolerance shall ensure
that pile heads are cast to a level above the specified cut-off so that, after trimming,
a sound concrete connection with the pile can be made in accordance with the
specified strength and durability characteristics.
4. At the commencement of installation, the equipment governing the alignment of the

bored pile, shall be made vertical to a tolerance of within 1 to 100.
5. The Contractor shall submit a complete method statement for the installation of the
bored piling, including concrete material mixes, supporting fluid material, shop
drawings, mill certificates and step by step installation and monitoring procedure in
accordance with the piling specification.
6. The Contractor shall submit on a daily basis, an installation logs and location survey
for each pile cast.
7. All boreholes in the tower's footprint would need to be sealed by cement grout prior
to the drilling of the piles.
8. Upon completion of boring, the excavation shall be cleaned of all loosed, disturbed
and/or remoulded soil and sediment soil to expose a firm base of undisturbed
material, using a suitable and effective method to be approved by the engineer.
9. Temporary casing is required to maintain stability of a bore, in case of unstable soft

cohesive or non-cohesive materials. The bottom of the case shall be kept at a
minimum of 1 meter below the unstable strata.
10. Pre-production pile test program shall be conducted to check all the critical aspects
of pile construction and decide about the appropriate methodology.
11. The use of supporting drilling fluids shall be described by the Contractor in a method
statement to the approval of the engineer. The Contractor shall consider special
measures to ensure the appropriate properties of the fluid (e.g. viscosity, etc.) in
case that salts are present in the mix waters and in the ground.
12. During the pile construction, the following verification tests would need to be
performed as a minimum:
i. Calliper logging shall be performed on 15% of the piles,
ii. Integrity (cross-hole sonic logging) tests on 100% of the piles.

13. Any piling work rejected by the engineer shall be replaced or rectified by the
contractor to the approval of the engineer and this include reinstallation of piles and
the design and construction of a modified foundation and also constructing of
additional compensation piles.
14. Forcible corrections to concrete piles to overcome errors of position or alignment

shall not be made.
15. The Contractor shall be responsible for all additional load tests, material testing or
new piles as the result of any defective piles that have been installed.
16. Concrete shall be pumped in one continuous operation using a tremie pipe. Free fall
concrete shall not be used. Piling concrete shall be designed for a pump tremie
concrete mix. A detailed method statement for concreting shall be submitted to the
consultant for prior approval.
17. The contractor shall install the piles from the pile platform level. The piles are to be
concreted from pile toe level to the level shown in the typical pile detail. During the
concerting of the piles, concrete overflow up to the pile platform drilling level to be
performed.
18. Pile concreting shall be carried out without any prolonged delay after the excavation
of the pile and the placement of the reinforcement to ensure that the soil
characteristics are not significantly altered.
19. Plastic sleeves to bars above cut off level to be provided for easy removal.
20. Pile earthing connection detail, location of pile earthing connections and number of
connections to be provided by the MEP engineer.
21. The excavation profile, support measures and sequence for the elevator pit
construction would need to be defined by the contractor, as per the in-situ conditions.

9 Conclusions
1. Considering site observations during the drilling operations of pile P1 and in light of
the findings from the recently performed (December 2016) additional geotechnical
investigations (e.g. boreholes NBH-1 & NBH-2) and the bi-directional pile load test
results, which was conducted from 6th to 7th February 2017, the need to proceed with
the partial re-design of piled raft was concluded. The present Addendum Report
serves the scope of this re-design.
2. Revision 01, of the Addendum Report was submitted on 09/03/2017. A meeting

between all the involved parties took place on the 28/03/2017, on which the
submitted addendum was discussed. In this meeting, it was mutually agreed
between Ahmadiah Contracting, PACE and ARCADIS that Area 2 to cover
approximately 50% of the foundation footprint and the pile design to be revised
accordingly.
3. The proposed revised piled-raft solution consists of a raft and a total of 135 No.
reinforced concrete piles.
4. As per the “as-built” pile layout provided by Ahmadiah Contracting & Trading Co on
the 24/04/2017, 99 No. piles were constructed.
5. Drawing No. G00003-MU001738-0E included in Appendix C of the present

Addendum Report presents the studied herein pile layout. The following points
summarise the main characteristics of the revised pile layout:
• All piles of the first three rows are 17m long;
• The first row of piles consists of piles of 1800mm diameter, spaced at an axial
distance of 2000mm. A total of 30 No. Type D piles are included in this first row
(P2 to P17 and P98 to P111);
• The vertical distance between first and second rows is 3000mm;
• The second row of piles consists now in a total of 10 No. Type D piles (P1A, P19
to P22, P33 to P34 and P112 to P114) and 10 No. Type E piles (P23 to P32),
where Type D piles are spaced at an axial distance of 3500mm and Type E piles
are spaced at axial distance of 3000mm;
• A third row of Type E piles is included at a vertical distance of 2500mm from the
second and fourth rows. This row includes a total of 17 No. Type E piles (P18,
P115 to P130) typically spaced at 3000mm axial distance;
• Due to the cancellation of the elevator pit, Pile P39, is a Type B pile;
• A total of 6 No. additional piles are included in the present design, compared
with Rev.0 of this Addendum Report issued on 09/03/2017: P130 (Type E pile)
and P131 to P135 (Type B piles).
6. The cubic concrete strength considered in the present re-design is of 650kg/cm2 (as
per the Engineer’s conditional approval of the initial Design) and the steel
reinforcement with minimum steel strength of 420MPa.
7. The proposed piled raft foundation system of Assima is designed as such that all
calculated piles working loads (at the SLS conditions) to satisfy the Engineer’s
requirement for “single pile” safety factors greater equal than 2.0. For the derivation

of the safety factors the piles limiting axial capacities, which are presented in
paragraph 5.2 of the present Report were used.
8. The adopted in the present Design geotechnical design assumptions and limiting pile
axial capacities, were based on the evaluation of all the provided additional borehole
data and the assessment of the additional performed bi-directional pile load test,
considering:
• The dependency of the mobilised pile shaft and end bearing resistances from
the developed pile settlements, and
• The avoidance of any plastic softening at higher pile loads, as well as the risks
related to the piles bearing poor workmanship.
9. As per the results of the 3D Plaxis finite element analysis and considering all load
combinations provided by the Structural Engineering group of ARCADIS:
i. 97% and 64% of piles are loaded axially with loads < 25000KN in SLS and ULS
conditions respectively.
ii. No tension load is developed in the piles, even for the case were maximum water
uplift combinations were considered.
iii. The piles’ loads related to the cyclic wind loading were compared successfully
against the design shaft capacities, with a global factor of safety greater 2.0,
which is equivalent to a reduction factor n = 0.75, as per the criterion of
paragraph 2.2 of the present Report.
iv. The minimum global safety factor of the piled raft foundation has been estimated
as greater than 2.4.
v. Considering the envelope of pile axial forces, the obtained safety factors per
single pile are all above 2.0 and above 3.0 in 82% of the piles.
10. The proposed piles reinforcement satisfies all structural capacity checks and
dimensioning, as per the American Concrete Institute Standard.

Plaxis 3D Output

Settlement on raft – SLS load cases
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-44.00
-46.00
-48.00
-50.00
-52.00
-54.00
-56.00
-58.00
-60.00
-62.00
-64.00
-66.00
-68.00
-70.00
-72.00
-74.00
Sum phase displacements ΣPuz
Maximum value = -0.04417 m (Element 1019 at Node 60372)

Minimum value = -0.07204 m (Element 173 at Node 106299)
Project description Date
Assima Tower Pile Raft - Settlements in Raft SLS LC1 4/4/2017

Project filename Step User name
Assima Tower Pile Raft_SL ... 45 Hyder Consulting Middle East

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
Sum phase displacements ΣPuz (scaled up 100 times)
Maximum value = -0.04724 m

Minimum value = -0.07133 m
Assima Tower Pile Raft - SLS LC1 - Section 1-1' 4/4/2017


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-40.00
-42.50
-45.00
-47.50
-50.00
-52.50
-55.00
-57.50
-60.00
-62.50
-65.00
-67.50
-70.00
-72.50
-75.00
-77.50
-80.00
-82.50
-85.00
-87.50
-90.00



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-40.00
-44.00
-48.00
-52.00
-56.00
-60.00
-64.00
-68.00
-72.00
-76.00
-80.00
-84.00
-88.00
-92.00
-96.00



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
Sum phase displacements ΣPuz (scaled up 50.0 times)



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-40.00
-44.00
-48.00
-52.00
-56.00
-60.00
-64.00
-68.00
-72.00
-76.00
-80.00
-84.00
-88.00
-92.00
-96.00



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-36.00
-40.00
-44.00
-48.00
-52.00
-56.00
-60.00
-64.00
-68.00
-72.00
-76.00
-80.00
-84.00
-88.00
-92.00



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-26.00
-28.00
-30.00
-32.00
-34.00
-36.00
-38.00
-40.00
-42.00
-44.00
-46.00
-48.00
-50.00
-52.00
-54.00
-56.00
-58.00
-60.00
-62.00


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
[*10 -3 m]
-37.50
-40.00
-42.50
-45.00
-47.50
-50.00
-52.50
-55.00
-57.50
-60.00
-62.50
-65.00
-67.50
-70.00
-72.50
-75.00
-77.50
-80.00
-82.50


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937


Forces on Piles – SLS load cases
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Axial forces N (scaled up 0.500*10 times)
Maximum value = -242.7 kN (Element 2550 at Node 141998)

Minimum value = -26.54*10 3 kN (Element 226 at Node 137261)
Assima Tower Pile Raft - SLS LC1 Axial Forces on Piles 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Shear forces Q 12 (scaled up 0.500*10 times)
Maximum value = 7725 kN (Element 2671 at Node 142246)

Minimum value = -6155 kN (Element 2701 at Node 142307)
Assima Tower Pile Raft - SLS LC1 Shear Force on Piles Q125/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Bending moments M2 (scaled up 2.00*10 times)
Maximum value = 3071 kN m (Element 796 at Node 138424)

Minimum value = -2863 kN m (Element 2702 at Node 142309)
Assima Tower Pile Raft - SLS LC1 Bending Moment on P ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - SLS LC6 Axial Force on Piles 5/1/2017
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - SLS LC7 Axial Force on Piles 5/1/2017
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Envelope of forces in piles – SLS cases
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
23520
28360
13676
20863
14314 16445
18777
18218
11471
19508
10
13015
19474
22348 12150
17186
10457
21879 9291 13736
12878 18340
22358
11379 13499
24201 20262
12209 13831
15572
20
21934
11087
24061
14934 22639
11240 14434 17308 15700
23838
11479
24949 11840
18917
26745
11253 14523 16649
23296
10505
30
23192 18054 14994
10589
23621 11014 14033 17584 24008
11515
23963 16431 19923 14571
11955
24041
11188 14536 18005 24028
22265 10296
18738 13994
40
10466
22438
10199 14438 16513 23788
23463
10948
19557 13985
24275 10975
X (m)
10870 14027 16920 23187
23721
10122
23230 17792 13711
12960
50
22685 9989 13482 15651 23383
24373 14227 17828 13676

10259
24393
14158 15064 22997
15084
23947 10274
15970 12499
22576
Plaxis 3D Output - Envelope axial force on piles (kN) - SLS
16971 10096
60
13230 12987 20968

26100
14711 11346
14616
25339
19685 12845 20894
16821
16407 12736
17925 24731
70
16291
19285
% Piles
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
80
97%
3%
0%
Axial Force (kN)

0%
0%
90
Safety Factor on piles - SLS
30.00
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.4

2.2
2.6
25.00
2.9 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.7 5.2 4.6 3.1
4.0
3.2 3.6
20.00
3.4 4.3 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.5 4.6 3.3
120%
100%
100%
Y (m)
15.00
3.0 4.3 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.7 4.0 3.6
80%
2.6
% Piles
2.6
60%
10.00
2.6 3.3 4.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.3 2.2
40%
3.0 4.5 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 2.8
20%
5.00
2.3 3.9 4.8 4.5 4.3 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.9 3.7 3.3 2.2 0% 0% 0%
0%
<1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 >2.0
Safety Factor
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
X (m)
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
6369
5812
4067
5933
6031 4679
6378
7867
7439
4546
10
4602
8662
9558 8712
3874
5013
9334 5064 4496
8531 3605
8584
4983 5206
7817 3086
4967 3686
5210
20
7586
4333
7200
2916 3061
3884 4200 4410 3996
5518
3242
4797 2790
3204
1942
2383 2690 3551
3723
1975
30
3620 2723 1747
1913
3355 1704 2162 3145 1427
1631
3510 1997 2404 1254
1183
3526
1875 1281 3089 932
3910 1744
2385 1656
40
2288
4392
1967 1989 3062 1453
4210
2320
2678 1926
4756 2278
X (m)
2766 2606 3603 2261
5251
2706
5296 3254 2552
4813
50
5337 2706 3032 3667 2678
4972 5170 3872 2935

2960
5775
3779 4240 3236
5857
6058 3792
Plaxis 3D Output - Envelope moment on piles (kNm) - SLS
4819 3305
6639
6984 4115
60
4876 4261 2970

7471
4622 3011
4467
7259
4804 3751 2422
4218
3690 2472
3387 2493
70
2624
2413
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
58%
38%
80
4%
Moment (kNm)
0%
0%
90
Forces on Piles – ULS load cases
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - ULS LC1 Axial Force in Piles 5/1/2017
Assima Tower Pile Raft_U ... 26 Hyder Consulting Middle East

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - ULS LC1 Shear Force on Piles ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - ULS LC1 Bending Moment on P ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - ULS LC2 Axial Force on Piles 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Maximum value = 11.63*10 3 kN (Element 2478 at Node 142122)

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Minimum value = -11.98*10 3 kN m (Element 3523 at Node 144245)

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Maximum value = 10.65*10 3 kN m (Element 2386 at Node 141935)


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Envelope of forces in piles – ULS cases
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
30220
35783
17397
29055
19061 22421
24348
24204
14826
26759
10
17798
25362
29286 15005
23483
13286
28188 11780 18439
16342 23344
28744
14379 17143
30754 27463
14528 18417
20777
20
27912
13423
30646
21482 31392
13296 17570 21679 22103
31994
14263
31997 14220
23929
36178
13796 18143 22868
30613
13306
30
30640 23783 21731
13616
31010 13975 17767 24916 31192
13758
31452 22005 26753 21005
15389
32134
14462 20155 24585 31698
31812 14455
25554 20036
40
13499
30523
14433 20681 23773 31466
32864
14651
27099 20183
33787 15260
X (m)
15109 20920 23567 30791
33640
13334
32773 24216 19538
16946
50
32728 13323 18569 21760 30107
32893 18637 23240 20052

12805
34511
18384 21050 30645
20027
32555 12343
20469 18089
31484
23648 12214
60
16052 18626 28207

36259
Plaxis 3D Output - Envelope axial force on piles (kN) - ULS
19294 17843
18466
34972
29075 17133 28658
20978
20715 19631
25693 32852
70
21192
25462
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
64%
80
12%
22%
Axial Force (kN)

2%
0%
90
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
30220
35783
17397
29055
19061 22421
24348
24204
14826
26759
10
17798
25362
29286 15005
23483
13286
28188 11780 18439
16342 23344
28744
14379 17143
30754 27463
14528 18417
20777
20
27912
13423
30646
21482 31392
13296 17570 21679 22103
31994
14263
31997 14220
23929
36178
13796 18143 22868
30613
13306
30
30640 23783 21731
13616
31010 13975 17767 24916 31192
13758
31452 22005 26753 21005
15389
32134
14462 20155 24585 31698
31812 14455
25554 20036
40
13499
30523
14433 20681 23773 31466
32864
14651
27099 20183
33787 15260
X (m)
15109 20920 23567 30791
33640
13334
32773 24216 19538
16946
50
32728 13323 18569 21760 30107
32893 18637 23240 20052

12805
34511
18384 21050 30645
20027
32555 12343
20469 18089
31484
23648 12214
60
16052 18626 28207

36259
Plaxis 3D Output - Envelope axial force on piles (kN) - ULS
19294 17843
18466
34972
29075 17133 28658
20978
20715 19631
25693 32852
70
21192
25462
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
64%
80
12%
22%
Axial Force (kN)

2%
0%
90
Forces on Piles – ULS with water uplift load cases
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - ULS LC1 with uplift 5/8/2017


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - ULS LC 2 with uplift 5/8/2017


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3



Envelope of forces in piles – ULS with water uplift cases
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
20465
28797
10015
21448
11511 12010
18899
18410
9398
13673
10
9785
19489
22285 10517
12664
8661
22315 7286 9732
11996 13219
22300
8558 10857
24341 15346
9876 10206
11538
20
22303
9725
24439
11468 17775
8624 11282 13714 12703
24913
10408
25351 9253
15358
9682 11211 13554
24270
8213
30
24427 14457 11551
9853
24463 9504 10836 14295 18953
9551
25207 13214 16740 11206
9636
26158
10458 12000 14266 19191
25275 8640
15216 10666
40
10018
24619
8615 12538 13321 18700
26742
10512
16247 10800
27790 9260
X (m)
11123 13148 13405 18314
27637
8450
26838 14586 10254
12593
50
27043 8353 11367 12173 17572
27264 14175 14034 10257

8543
28614
12051 11693 18139
15623
27480 8941
13223 8956
26155
18704 8973
60
11284 9766 16159

30449
12714 8385
13384
27884
22130 10529 15920
16337
15269 9243
17086 19934
70
13703
14961
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80
88%
11%
1%
Axial Force (kN)

0%
0%
90
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
3844
4555
2617
4462
4085 3080
5132
6336
5130
3034
10
3039
6986
7894 6518
2647
3467
7976 3511 3046
6869 2337
7629
3673 3712
7244 2057
4239 2693
3748
20
7490
3981
7533
2052 2202
3476 3342 3301 3262
6300
3673
6043 3249
2629
1850
3098 3082 2681
5223
3003
30
5404 2506 1222
3068
5122 3119 3323 2501 1678
2942
5177 3369 2856 1091
2837
4789
2437 3115 2601 1534
4661 2695
3050 1319
40
2358
4914
2759 3572 2578 1726
4789
2340
3545 1723
4853 2909
X (m)
2455 3684 2980 2182
4706
2968
4696 3663 2003
4412
50
4928 3254 4033 2917 2283
5225 5026 3956 2153

3786
5105
4274 3295 2888
6518
5621 4443
Plaxis 3D Output - Envelope moment on piles (kNm) - SLS
4343 2500
6687
7760 4636
60
5092 3215 2890

7141
4316 2525
4839
7733
5274 3059 2898
4435
3658 2368
3200 3569
70
2770
3103
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
63%
80
37%
0%
Moment (kNm)
0%
0%
90
Forces on Piles – Wind load cases
Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - Wind Loads Only LC1 Axial For ... 5/1/2017
Assima Tower Pile Raft_W ... 20 Hyder Consulting Middle East

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - Wind Loads Only LC1 Shear Fo ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Minimum value = -649.6 kN (Element 2745 at Node 142709)
Assima Tower Pile Raft - Wind Loads Only LC1 Shear Fo ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Minimum value = -399.5 kN m (Element 2535 at Node 142282)
Assima Tower Pile Raft - Wind Loads Only LC1 Bending ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - Wind Loads Only LC1 Bending ... 5/1/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - Winds Loads Only LC2 Shear F ... 5/9/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3

Assima Tower Pile Raft - Winds Loads Only LC2 Moment 5/9/2017

Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Output Version 2015.1.20198.13937
-3


Envelope of forces in piles – Wind load cases
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
4437
7400
1579
5218
2078 1032
4622
4499
1781
438
10
954
4812
5509 2009
198
809
6011 1020 345
2180 -8
5989
1012 742
6498 -26
1546 53
59
20
6153
1563
6655
-28 -35
889 421 6 -20
6735
1650
6981 852
1
-58
1572 349 -11
6674
803
30
6918 -1 -34
1600
6987 781 332 -14 -30
1837
7775 122 5 -17
996
7870
2128 624 -12 -43
8001 1029
95 -18
40
2060
8064
1119 931 -4 -34
8913
2391
201 -13
9784 1380
X (m)
2780 1124 44 -25
9678
1434
9591 393 -6
3167
50
9926 1596 1407 172 -20
10367 3693 640 31

1813
10831
1774 376 -14
4466
10890 2038
1019 221
10409
5507 2309
60
1949 635 -6
12693
1418 400
4123
9856
4363 962 17
3286
2608 456
1896 47
70
1267
687
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
79%
80
18%
4%
Axial Force (kN)

0%
0%
90
Y (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
149
157
140
138
164 122
99
149
222
59
10
117
126
135 178
-42
79
78 90 16
165 -609
216
63 65
212 -833
192 -78
-219
20
180
199
183
-476 -1564
62 -522 -1097 -619
161
201
177 32
-1364
-2422
127 -317 -1102
263
94
30
229 -1304 -728
176
218 70 -123 -1407 -2266
177
181 -568 -1798 -651
114
181
199 -69 -1617 -2045
277 117
-1228 -510
40
188
291
97 104 -1504 -1688
257
229
-1235 -409
308 135
X (m)
185 165 -1351 -1558
306
171
244 -648 -204
354
50
271 144 178 -861 -1126
298 279 -217 -30

255
231
192 -573 -893
289
250 234
68 27
291
276 208
60
221 99 -684
278
94 43
263
324
Plaxis 3D Output - Envelope axial force (tension) on piles (kN) - SLS
171 99 -546
84
56 46
92 -877
70
171
73
% Piles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0%
0%
80
2%
-3500 -2000
22%
-500
Axial Force (kN) (Note: tension is negative)
76%
<-5000 -5000 to -3500 to -2000 to >-500
90
Structural Capacity Checks

PACE: SALHIA REAL ESTATE Company K.S.C.
Project
061125 – ASSIMA TOWER, KUWAIT City
Part of Project Moment & Axial Check of Piles to ACI-318, 2011 - Upper Part of Ø1800 Piles
Calculation by Date Checked by Date
Christos Biliris 4 April 2017 Ilias Michalis 4 April 2017
Diameter of Section 1800 mm Inputs

Key:
Reinforcement Cover 100 mm Calculation
Section Area, Ac 2.54 m2
CONCRETE
Ultimate Strain of concrete, εcu 0.30%
Characteristic Concrete Cylinder Strength, fck 52.00 MPa
Effective Height of Compression Zone, β1 0.68
Strength Reduction Factor - compression controlled, φ 0.55
REINFORCEMENT
Characteristic Steel Strength 420 MPa
Reinforcement Stiffness, Es 200 GPa
Number of Bars (Odd Number & Up to 30 Bars) 48
Bar Diameter 32 mm Areinf / Aconc 1.52%
Steel Area, Ast 0.039 m2 38604 mm2
Strength Reduction Factor - tension controlled, φ 0.90
Maximum allowable compression force, φPn,max 55872 kN
Maximum allowable tension force, φPnt 14592 kN
Ultimate strain for steel, εt (%) 0.21%
o
Angle Between Bars 12.00
Distance Between Remote Reinforcements 1560 mm
Piles Ø1800 Top 2m, fcylinder = 52MPa & φCompression = 0.55

60000.0
50000.0
40000.0
Axial Force [kN]
30000.0
20000.0
10000.0
0.0
0.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 8000.0 10000.0 12000.0 14000.0 16000.0 18000.0 20000.0
-10000.0
-20000.0
Bending Moment [kNm]
Section's Capacity (Major Axis) Results Section's Capacity Minor Axis

Project
Part of Project Moment & Axial Check of Piles to ACI-318, 2011 - Lower Part of Ø1800 Piles

Key:
CONCRETE
REINFORCEMENT
Characteristic Steel Strength 420 MPa
Reinforcement Stiffness, Es 200 GPa
o
60000.0
Piles Ø1800 > 2m, fcylinder = 52MPa & φCompression = 0.55
50000.0
40000.0
Axial Force [kN]
30000.0
20000.0
10000.0
0.0
0.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 8000.0 10000.0 12000.0 14000.0 16000.0 18000.0
-10000.0
-20000.0

Project
Part of Project Shear Check of Upper Part of Ø1800 Piles to ACI-318, 2011
CB 4 April 2017 IM 4 April 2017
Pile Diameter, bw 1.80 m Inputs

Key:
Concrete compressive strength, f'c 52.0 MPa Calculation
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §11.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Concrete cover 0.075 m
Axial force, NU 36.30 MN Nu is negative under tension
Area of Concrete section, Ag 2.54 m2
Modification factor for lightweight concrete, λ 1.0
Distance of extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, d 1.62 m
Resistance of concrete section, Vc 5101 kN
Maximum allowed resistance of concrete section, Vcmax 9769 kN
Diameter of Shear Reinforcement 16 mm
Legs 4
Cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement, Asw 804 mm2
fy 420 MPa According to §11.4.2 ACI 318 2011, fy < 420MPa
Shape of shear reinforcement Helical
Spacing, s 0.100 m
Angle between inclined stirrups and longitudinal axis of the member, α o
88.25
Resistance of shear reinforcement, Vs 5637 kN
Maximum allowed resistance of shear reinforcement, Vsmax 9810 kN
Shear Strength Reduction Factor, φ 0.75
Allowable Shear Strength, Vn 8054 kN
Minimum Shear Reinforcement, Av,min 192 mm2
The provided shear reinforcement is GREATER than the minimum required shear reiforcement
Project
Part of Project Shear Check of Lower Part of Ø1800 Piles to ACI-318, 2011

Key:
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §11.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Legs 2
Spacing, s 0.100 m
88.25
Project
Part of Project Shear Check of Lower Part (Base) of Ø1800 Piles to ACI-318, 2011

Key:
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §11.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Legs 2
Spacing, s 0.100 m
88.25
Project
Part of Project Moment & Axial Check of Piles to ACI-318, 2011 - Upper Part of Ø1500 Piles

Key:
CONCRETE
REINFORCEMENT
Characteristic Steel Strength 420 MPa According to §11.4.2 ACI 318 2011, fy
Reinforcement Stiffness, Es 200 GPa < 420MPa
o
Piles Ø1500 Top 2m, fcylinder = 52MPa & φCompression = 0.55

50000.0
40000.0
Axial Force [kN]
30000.0
20000.0
10000.0
0.0
0.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 8000.0 10000.0 12000.0
-10000.0
-20000.0
Project
Part of Project Moment & Axial Check of Piles to ACI-318, 2011 - Lower Part of Ø1500 Piles

Key:
CONCRETE
REINFORCEMENT
Characteristic Steel Strength 420 MPa According to §11.4.2 ACI 318 2011, fy
Reinforcement Stiffness, Es 200 GPa < 420MPa
o
Piles Ø1500 > 2m, fcylinder = 52MPa & φCompression = 0.55

40000.0
35000.0
30000.0
Axial Force [kN]
25000.0
20000.0
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0
-5000.0
-10000.0
Results Section's Capacity (Major Axis) Section's Capacity (Minor Axis)
Project
Part of Project Shear Check of Upper Part of Ø1500 Piles to ACI-318, 2011

Key:
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §11.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Legs 4
Spacing, s 0.100 m
87.85
Project
Part of Project Shear Check of Lower Part of Ø1500 Piles to ACI-318, 2011

Key:
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §11.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Legs 2
Spacing, s 0.100 m
87.86
Project
Part of Project Shear Check of Lower Part (Base) of Ø1500 Piles to ACI-318, 2011

Key:
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §11.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Legs 2
Spacing, s 0.100 m
87.86
Project
Part of Project Development & Splice Lengths to ACI-318, 2011
Nominal diameter of bar, db 32 mm Inputs

Key:
Center-to-center spacing of bars 160 mm Calculation
Cover of bars, cb 87 mm
According to §11.4.2 ACI 318 2011, fy < 420MPa, but
Specified yield strength of reinforcement, fy 500 MPa conservatively the strength of purchased reinforcement is
considered
Are the bars epoxy-coated? YES
Factor used to modify development length based on reinforcement location, ψt 1.3 §12.2.4 ACI 318 2011
Factor used to modify development length based on reinforcement size, ψs 1.0 §12.2.4 ACI 318 2011
Factor used to modify development length based on reinforcement coating, ψe 1.5 §12.2.4 ACI 318 2011
ψt x ψe 1.7 < 1.7 ψ𝑡 × ψ𝑠 < 1.7 §12.2.4 ACI 318 2011
Smaller of: (a) the distance from center of a bar or wire to nearest concrete surface,
80 mm
and (b) one-half the center-to-center spacing of bars or wires being developed, cb
Concrete compressive strength, f'c 52.0 MPa
√𝑓′𝑐 7.2 < 8.3 √𝑓′𝑐 < 8.3MPa §12.1.2 ACI 318 2011
Transverse reinforcement index, Ktr 0 Design Simplification §12.2.3 ACI 318 2011
cb + Ktr / db 2.5 < 2.5 (𝑐𝑏 +𝐾𝑡𝑟 )/𝑑𝑏 <2.5 §12.2.3 ACI 318 2011
Minimum Development length, lb 1372 mm 43 x db
Class of Splice B
Minimum Splice Length 1783 mm 56 x db §12.15.1 ACI 318 2011
Drawings

BH-1
-9.325 BH-2
TOP OF RAFT
BH-4
BH-3
PILING WORKS STATUS TILL 24-04-2017
LEGEND :-
CASTED PILES ∅1.50 , L=18.00 M No.=60.00 SALHIA
CASTED PILES ∅1.50 , L=17.00 M No.=4.00
CASTED PILES ∅1.80 , L=17.00 M No.=35.00
REMAINING PILES ∅1.50 , L=18.00 M No.=8.00

ASSIMA PROJECT
REMAINING PILES ∅1.50 , L=17.00 M No.=23.00
Ahmadiah Contracting & Trading Co. K.C.S.C.

REMAINING PILES ∅1.80 , L=17.00 M No.=5.00 Ahmadiah
PILES CANCELLED No.=2.00

ASSIMA PROJECT
TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL PILES No.=135.00 TOWER
TOTAL NUMBER CASTED PILES

PILING WORKS STATUS TILL 24-04-2017
No.=99.00
TOTAL NUMBER REMANING PILES No.=36.00
SK-ACT-ST-TW
Additional Ground Investigation

Relevant Correspondence

Ana Gaspar
From: ACT Assima <actassima@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 2:47 PM
To: Ilias Michalis
Cc: Christos Biliris; EDRASIS; edrasis; edrasis; Edrasis; Edrasis; Ana Gaspar
Subject: Subsurface Investigation report – Coordinates of Boreholes
Attachments: REV.01 BOREHOLES DRILLED BY KLC AS PER REPORT DATED FEB.8,2016 to arcadis
01-03-2017.dwg
Our Ref : ACT/Assima/Arcadis/889 Date : March 02, 2017
M/s. ARCADIS Design & Consultancy,
Hyder Consulting Middle Ea\st Limited,
P.O.Box: 52750,
Dubai
Attention : Mr. Ilias Michalis
Cc. : Mr. Christos Biliris / Mr. Matthew Cross / Mr. Tayo Roberts
Project : ASSIMA PROJECT
Sub : Subsurface Investigation report – Coordinates of Boreholes
Dear Ilias,
We believe that the boreholes located in Kuwait Lebanese Company for soil testing sketch is correct to a
great extent. However the coordinates mentioned are definitely wrong.
We are enclosing herewith sketch Rev. 1 indicating the coordinates which we believe reflect the locations of
boreholes Nos. 3 and 4 as located on Kuwaiti Lebanese Company sketch.
Thanking you,
Best Regards,
Roger Dargham
Project Director
ASSIMA PROJECT
Ahmadiah Contracting. & Trading. Co.
(www.ahmadiah.com)
PO Box-446, Safat-13005, Kuwait
Tel : +965 22458662 / 22458408 / 22458425
On 1 March 2017 at 16:30, Ilias Michalis <Ilias.Michalis@arcadis.com> wrote:

Roger,
Any idea about the correct approximate co-ordinates of these boreholes as we discussed yesterday in your office,
after the meeting?
Wait for your response.
Best Regards,
Ilias K. MICHALIS
From: ACT Assima [mailto:actassima@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:42 PM
To: Ilias Michalis <Ilias.Michalis@arcadis.com>
Cc: Matthew Cross <Matthew.Cross@arcadis.com>; Christos Biliris <Christos.Biliris@arcadis.com>; Tayo Roberts
<tayo.roberts@arcadis.com>; EDRASIS <abdo.awabdy@edrasisme.com>; edrasis <Ahmad.Fawaz@edrasisme.com>;
edrasis <georges.edrasis@gmail.com>; Edrasis <georges.kanaan@edrasisme.com>; Edrasis
<khalil.eldaher@edrasisme.com>
Subject: Subsurface Investigation Report - Asima Project
Our Ref : ACT/Assima/Arcadis/886 Date : March 01, 2017
M/s. ARCADIS Design & Consultancy,
Hyder Consulting Middle East Limited,
P.O.Box: 52750,
Dubai
Attention : Mr. Ilias Michalis
Cc. : Mr. Christos Biliris / Mr. Matthew Cross / Mr. Tayo Roberts
Project : ASSIMA PROJECT
Sub : Subsurface Investigation Report
Dear Sir,
Please find attached herewith the subsurface investigation report dated February 08, 2016 carried out by M/s.
Kuwaiti Lebanese Company.
The report covers :
 2 Nos. boreholes for VIP Car Park : BH # 1 & BH # 2
 2 Nos. boreholes for Tower : BH # 3 & BH # 4
Please note that the locations of boreholes No. 3 and No. 4 mentioned in M/s. KLC sketch are to be discarded.
The approximate locations as mentioned in the attached sketch is to be follow.
Thanking you,
Best Regards,
Roger Dargham
Project Director
ASSIMA PROJECT
Ahmadiah Contracting. & Trading. Co.

(www.ahmadiah.com)
PO Box-446, Safat-13005, Kuwait
Tel : +965 22458662 / 22458408 / 22458425
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of Arcadis. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. This e-mail
contains information which may be confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the
intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies
of it. Whilst reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no software viruses are present in our emails we cannot guarantee that this e-mail
or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed. Any opinions or other information in this e-mail that do not relate to the
official business of Arcadis are neither given nor endorsed by it.
Hyder Consulting Middle East Ltd - Dubai Healthcare City Branch
801 & 901, Floors 8 & 9, Building 53

Dubai Healthcare City
P.O. Box 52750
Dubai
United Arab Emirates
T: + 971 (0)4 319 3333
arcadis.com

Assima PILE Design Report Rev.1 - ARCADIS 11 - 05 - 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assima PILE Design Report Rev.1 - ARCADIS 11 - 05 - 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assima PILE Design Report Rev.1 - ARCADIS 11 - 05 - 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSIMA TOWER - KUWAIT

Piled-Raft Foundation Design

2 MAIN DESIGN CONSIDERATION OF THE PILED RAFT OF ASSIMA TOWER ..... 9

3 GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 10

4 DESCRIPTION & EVALUATION OF THE ADDITIONAL BI-DIRECTIONAL PILE

LOAD TEST ...................................................................................................................... 14

5 DESIGN METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................... 21

7 RESULTS OF 3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF PILED RAFT ....................... 31

8 CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS .................................................................. 44

Assima Tower is a 54 storey Tower, which is located in Sharq, Kuwait City.

As an introduction, the history of the Project is described below in more detail:

• As per Drawing No. SK-ACT-ST-TW (included in Appendix C) received by Ahmadiah

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 5

➢ Considering an area, Area 2, of reduced ground strength and deformation

➢ Restricting the length of piles in Area 2 to 17m.

➢ Increasing the number of piles from No. 97 to No. 129,

The present revision of the Addendum Report includes:

1. The evaluation of the additional geotechnical investigation, carried out by STCI in

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 6

• The bi-directional pile load test results, executed in July 2016.

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 7

Table 1.1: Pile Types

• All piles of the first three rows are 17m long;

• The vertical distance between first and second rows is 3000mm;

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 8

2 Main Design Consideration of the Piled Raft of Assima

Thus, the following serviceability criteria are adopted:

• Tolerable Total Settlement < 100mm

• Tolerable Angular Distortion < 1/750

Based on PACE Document MD-ACT-BMB-PO-HV-27 R0, (dated 08/04/2017), greater values

2.2 Cyclic Loading Considerations

Where: R*gs is the Design geotechnical shaft capacity,

S*c is the Maximum amplitude of wind load,

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 9

The approximate spatial determination of Area 2 was based on:

3.1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation and Idealised Ground

Elevation of Top of Borehole Depth of Borehole

NBH-1 -11.700 498641.57 3250657.85 22.50

NBH-2 -11.700 498669.10 3250631.70 22.50

Table 3.1: Summary of Drilled Boreholes (STCI – December 2016)

Top Elevation Bottom Elevation SPT

Medium Dense to Dense Sand -11.70 -14.70 to -16.70 25

Very Dense Sand (Partially Cemented) -14.70 to -16.70 > -95.00 50

Table 3.3: Idealised Ground Profile of Area 2

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 10

Standard Penetration Test

Figure 3.1: Variation of SPT with Depth for Area 2

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 11

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 12

3.2 Groundwater table

Elevation of Top of Borehole Depth to Water Water Table Elevation

NBH-1 -11.700 1.50 -13.20

NBH-2 -11.700 1.50 -13.20

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 13

4 Description & Evaluation of the Additional Bi-

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 14

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 15

The main conclusions that can be derived from Figure 4.3

Piled-Raft Foundation Design Page 16