Case study 7

Case study 7

Analysis of Piled raft

of Burj Khalifa in Dubai
by the program ELPLA

O. El Gendy
A. El Gendy

Copyright ©
GEOTEC Software Inc.
PO Box 14001 Richmond Road PO, Calgary AB, Canada T3E 7Y7
Tele.:+1(587) 332-3323
geotec@geotecsoftware.com
www.geotecsoftware.com

16-11-2018

C7-1
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

Content
Page

7 Case study 7: Burj Khalifa piled raft ...............................................................................3

7.1 General ........................................................................................................................3
7.2 Analysis of the piled raft .............................................................................................5
7.3 FE-Net .........................................................................................................................5
7.4 Loads ...........................................................................................................................5
7.5 Pile and raft material ...................................................................................................6
7.6 Soil properties .............................................................................................................7
7.7 Results .......................................................................................................................11
7.8 Measurements and other results ................................................................................15
7.8.1 Measured settlement ................................................................................................. 15
7.8.2 Calculated final settlement ........................................................................................ 17
7.8.3 Calculated final pile loads ......................................................................................... 19
7.9 Evaluation .................................................................................................................22
7.10 References .................................................................................................................23

C7-2
 Case study 7

7 Case study 7: Burj Khalifa piled raft

7.1 General
Burj Khalifa is a 163 story skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The total height of the
building is 829.8 [m], with a podium development at its base, including a 4 – 6 story garage.
With a total height of 829.8 [m] and a roof height (excluding antenna) of 828 [m], the Burj
Khalifa has been the tallest structure and building in the world since its topping out in late 2008,
‎Figure 7-1.

The Burj Khalifa project in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), comprises a 163 story high rise
tower, with a podium development around the base of the tower, including a 4–6 story garage.
The Burj Khalifa is located on a 42 000 [m2] site. The tower is founded on a 3.7 [m] thick raft
supported on 192 bored piles, 1.5 [m] in diameter, extending 47.45 [m] below the base of the
raft; podium structures are founded on a 0.65 [m] thick raft (increased to 1 [m] at column
locations) supported on 750 bored piles, 0.9 [m] in diameter, extending 30–35 [m] below the
base of the raft. The tower raft consists of three wings each is 50 [m] long and 25 [m] wide
forming an area of 3305 [m2]. ‎Figure 7-2 shows an isometric view of Burj Khalifa Tower
foundation system and a plan for pile locations.

Extensive studies be deferent calculation methods were carried out by Poulos and Bunce (2008),
Badelow & Poulos (2016) and Russo etc. al. (2013).

C7-3
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

Figure 7-1 Burj Khalifa 1

1
https:// tadalafilforsale.net/group/burj-khalifa-images/#photo_27

C7-4
 Case study 7

Figure 7-2 Burj Khalifa Tower Foundation system

7.2 Analysis of the piled raft

Using the available data and results of the Burj Khalifa piled raft, which have been discussed in
details in the previous references, the nonlinear analyses of piled raft in ELPLA are evaluated
and verified using the following load-settlement relations of piles, El Gendy et al. (2006) and El
Gendy (2007):

1- Hyperbolic Function for Load-Settlement Curve.

2- Given Load-Settlement Curve.

The foundation system is analyzed as elastic piled raft. In which, the raft is considered to be
elastic plate supported on equal rigid piles.

A series of comparisons are carried out to evaluate the nonlinear analyses of piled raft for load-
settlement relations of piles. In which, results of other analytical solutions and measurements are
compared with those obtained by ELPLA.
7.3 FE-Net
The raft is divided into triangular elements with a maximum length of 2.0 [m] as shown in
‎Figure 7-3. Piles are divided into five elements with 9.49 [m] length.
7.4 Loads
Only long-term conditions have been considered, and for the majority of the early analyses, an
average load per pile of 23.21 [MN] has been used (this is representative of the design dead plus
live loading) and has been applied as a uniformly distributed load on the tower raft of about
1250 [kPa].

C7-5
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

A = 92.16 [m]

B = 81.15 [m]
Figure 7-3 Mesh of Burj Khalifa piled raft with piles of element length = 2.0 [m]
7.5 Pile and raft material
The raft is 3.7 [m] thick and was poured utilizing C50 (cube strength) self-consolidating
concrete. The Tower raft is supported by 192 bored cast-in-place piles. The C60 self-
consolidating concrete piles are 1.5 [m] in diameter and 47.45 [m] long.
The following values were used as pile and raft material:

For the raft:

Modulus of elasticity Ep = 33234 [MN/m2]
Poisson's ratio vp = 0.167 [-]
Unit weight γb = 23.60 [kN/m3]

For piles:
Modulus of elasticity Ep = 36406 [MN/m2]
Unit weight γb = 23.60 [kN/m3]

C7-6
 Case study 7

7.6 Soil properties

The ground conditions comprise a horizontally stratified subsurface profile which is complex
and highly variable, due to the nature of deposition and the prevalent hot arid climatic
conditions. Medium dense to very loose granular silty sands (Marine Deposits) are underlain by
successions of very weak to weak sandstone interbedded with very weakly cemented sand,
gypsiferous fine grained sandstone/siltstone and weak to moderately weak
conglomerate/calcisiltite.

Groundwater levels are generally high across the site and excavations were likely to encounter
groundwater at approximately 2.5 [m] below ground level.

The drilling was carried out using cable percussion techniques with follow-on rotary drilling
methods to depths between 30 [m] and 140 [m] below ground level.

The ground profile and derived geotechnical design parameters assessed from the investigation
data are summarized in ‎Table 7-1.

C7-7
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

Table 7-1 Summary of Geotechnical Profile and Parameters

Level at Thickness UCS Undrained Ult.
top Modulus Comp.
Sub- of stratum Shaft
Strata Subsurface Material
Strata Frict.
H qs Eu fs
[m DMD] [m] [MPa] [MPa] [kPa]
Medium dense silty
1a +2.50 1.50 - 34.5 -
Sand
1
Loose to very loose
1b +1.00 2.20 - 11.5 -
silty Sand
Very weak to
2 2 moderately weak -1.20 6.10 2.0 500 350
Calcarenite
Medium dense to
very dense Sand/
3a Silt -7.30 6.20 - 50 250
with frequent
sandstone bands
3 Very weak to weak
3b Calcareous -13.50 7.50 1.0 250 250
Sandstone
Very weak to weak
3c Calcareous -21.00 3.00 1.0 140 250
Sandstone
Very weak to weak
gypsiferous
4 4 Sandstone/ -24.00 4.50 2.0 140 250
calcareous
Sandstone
Very weak to
moderately weak
5a Calcisiltite/ -28.50 21.50 1.30 310 285
Conglomeritic
Calcisiltite
5
Very weak to
moderately weak
5b Calcisiltite/ -50.00 18.50 1.70 405 325
Conglomeritic
Calcisiltite
Very weak to weak
6 6 Calcareous/ -68.50 22.50 2.50 560 400
Conglomerate strata
Weak to moderately
7 7 weak Claystone/ -91.00 >46.79 1.70 405 325
Siltstone

C7-8
 Case study 7

To carry out the analysis, the subsoil under the raft is considered as indicated in the boring log of
‎Figure 7-4 that consists of 12 soil layers. The total depth under the ground surface is taken to be
140 [m].

BPN1
GW 2.50
E = 34.5[MN/m2]
S W = 103.5[MN/m2] Tk = 6.35 [m]
1.50 GAM = 0.018[MN/m3] Tf = 10.05 [m] 10.00

E = 11.5[MN/m2]
S W = 34.5[MN/m2] 20.00
2.50 GAM = 0.018[MN/m3]
E = 11.5[MN/m2]
S W = 34.5[MN/m2] 30.00
3.70 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]
E = 500[MN/m2]
Ktst 40.00
W = 1500[MN/m2]
9.80 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]
E = 50[MN/m2] 50.00
Sst W = 150[MN/m2]
16.00 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]
E = 250[MN/m2] 60.00
Sst W = 750[MN/m2]
23.50 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]
70.00
E = 140[MN/m2]
Sst W = 420[MN/m2]
26.50 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3] 80.00
E = 140[MN/m2]
Sst W = 420[MN/m2]
31.00 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3] 90.00
E = 310[MN/m2]
Gst W = 930[MN/m2]
100.00
52.50 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]
E = 405[MN/m2]
Gst W = 1215[MN/m2] 110.00
S, Sand GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]
71.00
Ktst, Calc tufa
E = 560[MN/m2]
Sst, Sandstone Gst W = 1680[MN/m2] 120.00
Gst, Conglomerate 93.50 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3]

Ust, Siltstone 130.00

E = 405[MN/m2]
Tst, Mudstone Ust+Tst W = 1215[MN/m2]
140.00 GAM = 0.008[MN/m3] 140.00

Figure 7-4 Boring log

Boring Logs

C7-9
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

‎Figure 7-5 to ‎Figure 7-6 show load-settlement relations for the different analyses.

Load [MN]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0

4
Settlement s [mm]

10

12

14 Pile Resistance
Allowable Pile Load
16
Figure 7-5 Load-settlement relation from pile load test
Load [MN]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

20

40
Settlement s [mm]

60

80

100

120

Nonlinear Load
140
Linear Load
Limit Pile Load
160
Figure 7-6 Load-settlement relation according to a hyperbolic function

C7-10
 Case study 7

7.7 Results
As examples for results of different analyses by ELPLA, ‎Figure 7-8 and ‎Figure 7-7 show the
settlement for elastic piled raft of Burj Khalifa using methods: "Hyperbolic Function for Load-
Settlement Curve" and "Given Load-Settlement Curve from pile-load test", respectively.
Besides, ‎Figure 7-9, ‎Figure 7-10 and ‎Figure 7-11 show self settlement Sv, interaction settlement
Srv and total settlement Sr of piles using the method "Given Load-Settlement Curve from pile-
load test".

77.8 [mm]

75.3 [mm]

72.8 [mm]

70.3 [mm]

67.8 [mm]

65.3 [mm]

62.8 [mm]

60.3 [mm]

57.8 [mm]

55.3 [mm]

52.8 [mm]

50.3 [mm]

52.8 [mm]

Figure 7-7 Settlement using the method "Hyperbolic Function for Load-Settlement Curve"

C7-11
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

57.2 [mm]

54.9 [mm]

52.6 [mm]

50.3 [mm]

48.0 [mm]

45.7 [mm]

43.4 [mm]

41.1 [mm]

38.8 [mm]

36.5 [mm]

34.2 [mm]

31.9 [mm]

29.6 [mm]

Figure 7-8 Settlement using the method "Given Load-Settlement Curve"

C7-12
 Case study 7

3.9 3.9
3.3 3.3
3.0 3.0

4.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.1 4.0

3.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 3.5
1.8 1.4 1.8
2.4 1.4 1.4 2.4

7.0 3.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 3.7 7.0

3.2 1.6 1.6 3.2
2.4 1.6 2.4
1.7 1.7
7.1 3.6 3.6 7.1
2.5 1.6 2.5

3.6 1.9 1.9 3.5

4.7 3.1 3.0 3.2 4.7

8.1 8.1
5.0 5.0
6.3
6.0 6.0
8.1 8.1
4.7 5.1 5.1 4.7

7.0 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.6 7.0

6.3 6.3
7.0 3.5 2.5 1.9 3.0 3.1 1.9 2.5 3.5 7.0
3.7 3.2 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.9 3.2 3.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.3 3.1 3.6
5.1 6.2 5.1
4.0 3.6 2.4 1.7 1.7 2.4 3.5 4.0
1.6 1.6 1.7 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.6
2.1 2.0 1.8
3.5 4.7 4.7 3.6 2.5
3.0 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 3.1
2.3 3.5 3.5 2.3 1.6
2.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 8.1 8.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.3
3.4 1.6 3.1 3.1 1.6 3.5
2.5 1.6 1.8 6.9 6.9
2.3 1.7 1.6 2.5
3.9 3.5 3.5 2.3 4.0
2.3 1.9 1.9 2.3
2.0 3.3 6.6 6.6
3.3 1.9
3.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.8
3.6 3.6
Figure 7-9 Self settlement of piles Sv [mm] using the method "Given Load-Settlement Curve"

C7-13
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

26.2 26.2

28.8 28.8

30.9 30.9

31.8 34.8 35.4 35.5 35.4 34.8 31.7

34.9 37.3 38.2 38.2 37.3 35.0
39.7 40.2 39.7
40.7 42.0 42.0 40.7
37.5 41.0 43.2 43.5 43.2 41.0 37.5

43.5 45.1 45.1 43.5

46.1 46.9 46.1

43.4 46.6 48.4 48.3 46.6 43.4

49.0 49.9 49.0

49.4 51.0 51.0 49.4

46.0 49.4 51.1 51.3 51.1 49.4 46.0

50.6 50.6
50.9
45.8 50.2 50.2 45.8

49.3 50.5 50.5 49.3

43.2 49.2 51.0 51.0 49.2 43.2
50.8 50.8
37.3 46.4 48.8 50.8 51.2 37.3
51.2 50.8 48.8 46.4
40.8 43.3 45.9 48.1 49.6 43.3 40.8
31.6 34.8 50.8 50.9 50.4 50.1 50.4 50.9 50.8 49.6 48.1 45.9
40.5 43.0 44.9 40.5 34.8 31.6
46.6 48.1 48.8 49.1 49.2 48.1 46.6 44.9 43.0
49.2 49.1 48.8
30.7 34.6 37.1 39.5 41.7 41.7 39.5
37.1 34.6 30.8
43.2 44.9 45.8 46.3 45.7 45.7 46.3 45.8 44.9 43.2
28.6 35.2 38.0 40.0 40.0 38.0 35.2 28.6
41.6 42.9 43.2 43.1 43.1 43.2 42.9 41.7
35.3 37.9 37.9 35.3
25.9 39.4 40.4 40.6 40.7 40.4 39.4 26.0
35.0 36.9 36.9 35.0
37.2 37.2
34.4 34.6 34.6 34.4
25.9 28.5 28.5 25.9
30.6 31.4 31.4 30.6
Figure 7-10 Interaction settlement of piles Srv [mm] using the method "Given Load-Settlement
Curve"

C7-14
 Case study 7

30.1 30.1

32.1 32.1
33.9 33.9

35.8 36.8 37.7 38.0 37.7 36.8 35.8

38.5 39.3 39.8 39.8 39.2 38.5
41.5 41.7 41.5
43.1 43.4 43.3 43.1
44.5 44.7 44.9 44.9 44.9 44.7 44.5
46.7 46.8 46.8 46.7
48.5 48.4 48.5
50.5 50.2 50.0 50.0 50.1 50.5
51.5 51.5 51.5

52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9

54.1 54.1 54.3 54.4 54.3 54.1 54.1

55.6 55.6
57.2
53.9 56.2 56.2 53.9

54.0 55.5 55.5 53.9

50.2 52.7 54.1 57.1 57.1 54.1 52.7 50.2

44.3 49.9 51.3 52.7 54.2 44.3
54.2 52.7 51.3 49.9
44.4 46.5 48.2 49.8 51.2 46.5 44.4
35.6 38.3 52.7 54.1 55.6 56.3 55.6 54.1 52.7 51.2 49.8 48.2
42.9 44.6 46.5 48.2 38.3 35.7
46.5 44.6 42.9
49.8 51.2 52.7 53.9 53.9 52.7 51.2 49.8 48.2
33.8 36.7 39.1 41.3 43.1 41.3 39.1 36.7 33.8
44.7 46.4 48.1 49.8 49.8 48.1 46.5 44.7 43.1
37.5 39.5 41.4 53.8 53.8
32.0 43.0 44.5 46.3 41.4 39.6 37.5 32.1
50.0 50.0 46.3 44.5 43.1
37.8 39.5 41.1 41.1 39.5 37.8
29.9 42.7 44.1 44.2 42.7 30.0
37.3 38.8 38.8 37.3
43.8 43.8
36.3 37.9 37.9 36.3
29.6 31.6 31.7 29.7
33.3 35.0 35.0 33.3
Figure 7-11 Total settlement of piles Sr [mm] using the method "Given Load-Settlement Curve"

7.8 Measurements and other results

7.8.1 Measured settlement

The construction of Burj Khalifa began on 6 January 2004, with the exterior of the structure
completed on 1 October 2009. According to Badelow & Poulos (2016) the settlement of the
tower raft was monitored from completion of concreting till 18 February 2008. The recorded
maximum settlement at 18 February 2008 was 43 [mm] under nearly 80 % of the building load.

A comparison is presented between the measured settlement on 18 February 2008 under 80% of
the total load and that computed by ELPLA using Method: "Given Load-Settlement Curve".
‎Figure 7-12 shows a comparison between measured settlement (Feb. 2008) and computed
settlement under 80 % of the total load at a cross section of the Wing c, while ‎0 shows a
comparison between extreme values of measured settlement and that calculated for the same
case.

C7-15
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

Distance Along Wing c [m]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
Measured (February 2008)
ELPLA - Given Load-Settlement Curve

10
Settlement s [mm]

20

30

40

50
Figure 7-12 Measured settlement (Feb. 2008) and computed settlement under 80 % of total load

Table 7-2 Comparison between measured settlement at February 2008 and that calculated
by ELPLA under 80 % of the total load
Smax. Smin. SDiff.
Method
[mm] [mm] [mm]
Measured (18 February 2008) 43 29 14

ELPLA – Method: "Given Load-Settlement Curve" 48 24 24

‎ igure 7-13 shows contours of measured settlement [mm] at February 2008 and that calculated
F
by ELPLA under 80 % of the total load using method "Given Load-Settlement Curve"

C7-16
 Case study 7

25

27
33

25
27
39
41

33
37
41
37

35

27
31

43
45

29
35

41
45

35

27
31 31
29
47

29
39

33
45

43
45

4343
41

39 39
37 37
35

29 31
27

Figure 7-13 Contours of measured settlement [mm] at February 2008 and that calculated by
ELPLA under 80 % of the total load using method "Given Load-Settlement Curve"

The above comparison of the piled raft under 80 % of the total load illustrates that the maximum
and minimum results of ELPLA are in good agreement with the measured settlement with
difference not exceed 1 [cm]. The measured differential settlement is considerably smaller than
that computed because the building stiffness is not considered in ELPLA analysis in this case,
which would reduce the differential settlement.

7.8.2 Calculated final settlement

A number of analyses were used to assess the response of the foundation for the Burj Khalifa
Tower and Podium. The main design model was developed using a Finite Element (FE) program
ABAQUS run by a specialist company KW Ltd, based in the UK. Other models were developed
to validate and correlate the results from the ABAQUS model using other software programs.
The design values of settlement were presented by Poulos and Bunce (2008).

Russo etc. al. (2013) deals with the re-assessment of foundation settlements for the Burj Khalifa
Tower in Dubai. Re-assessment was carried out using the computer program Non-linear
Analysis of Piled Rafts NAPRA with neglecting the structure stiffness effect on raft settlement.

A comparison is presented between the computed settlement in other references and the
computed settlement by ELPLA using different Nonlinear analysis methods. The comparison is
presented as a cross section at Wing c and tables as in ‎Figure 7-14 and ‎Table 7-3, respectively.

The comparison shows that the results of two methods in ELPLA are in good agreement with the
calculated results of Russo etc. al. (2013). The second method (Load-Settlement relation as a
Hyperbolic Function for Load-Settlement Curve) results are closer to the design results
presented by Poulos and Bunce (2008).

C7-17
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

Distance Along Wing c [m]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
Design Values (Poulos & Bunce 2008)
10 Russo etc. al. (2013)
ELPLA - Given Load-Settlement Curve
20
ELPLA - Hyperbolic Function
Settlement s [mm]

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
Figure 7-14 Final settlement for elastic piled raft using different analysis models

Table 7-3 Comparison between various calculated settlement profiles

Smax. Smin. SDiff.
Method
[mm] [mm] [mm]
Design Values (Poulos and Bunce 2008) 78 60 18

Russo etc. al. (2013) 58 24 34

ELPLA – Given Load-Settlement Curve 58 29 29

ELPLA – Hyperbolic Function for Load-Settlement Curve 79 47 32

C7-18
 Case study 7

7.8.3 Calculated final pile loads

The maximum and minimum pile loads were obtained from the three-dimensional finite element
analysis for all loading combinations by Poulos and Bunce (2008). The maximum loads were at
the corners of the three “wings” and were of the order of 35 [MN], while the minimum loads
were within the center of the group and were of the order of 12-13 [MN].

‎ igure 7-15 and ‎Figure 7-16 show pile loads obtained by ELPLA using method: "Hyperbolic
F
Function for Load-Settlement Curve" and method "Given Load-Settlement Curve from pile-load
test", while ‎Table 7-4 compares results of max and min pile loads obtained by ELPLA with those
of Poulos and Bunce (2008).

C7-19
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

18 18
17 17

17 17

18 16 15 15 15 16 18
17 15 14 14 15 17
14 13 14
15 13 13 15
20 16 14 13 14 16 19
15 14 14 15

15 14 15

19 16 14 14 16 19
15 14 15

17 15 15 17

21 18 17 16 17 18 21

18 18
19
19 19
21 21

18 18 18 18
19 17 17 19 19 17 17 19
19 16 15 15 16 16 15 15 16 19
16 15 14 14 14 15 15 14 14 14 15 16
17 18 19 18 17
18 17 15 15 17 18
14 13 13 14 15 15 14 13 13 14
17 18 18 17
17 16 15 14 13 13 14 15 16 17
13 13 14 16 16 14 13 13
15 21 21 15
14 13 13 13 13 14
17 14 15 19 19 15 14 17
15 14 14 14 14 15
15 16 16 14
18 18
15 15 15 15
19 19
15 16 16 15
17 17 17 18
16 16
17 17
Figure 7-15 Pile load [MN] using the method "Hyperbolic Function for Load-Settlement Curve"

C7-20
 Case study 7

26 26
24 24
23 23

27 16 18 19 17 16 27
25 15 12 12 15 25
14 11 14
18 11 11 18
25 13 11 13 25
35 35
24 12 12 24
18 12 18

25 13 13 25
35 35
19 12 19

25 15 15 25

38 29 23 23 24 29 38

30 30
33
32 32
38 38
29 30 30 29

35 25 24 33 33 24 25 35
35 25 19 15 23 23 15 19 25 35
25 24 18 13 12 15 15 12 13 18 24 25
24 30 33 30 24
27 25 18 13 12 12 12 12 13 18 25 27
13 19 19 13
25 29 29 25
16 15 14 11 11 14 15 16
23 11 12 18 18 12 11 23
25 25
18 12 11 11 38 38 11 12 18
24 12 23 23 12 11 25
35 35
19 12 13 18 18 13 12 19
26 25 25 27
17 15 15 17
34 34
15 24 24 15
26 24 21 21 24 26
25 25
Figure 7-16 Pile load [MN] using the method "Given Load-Settlement Curve"

Table 7-4 Comparison between various calculated pile loads

Pmax. Pmin.
Method
[MN] [MN]
FEA (Poulos and Bunce 2008) 35 12-13

ELPLA – Given Load-Settlement Curve 38 11

ELPLA – Hyperbolic Function for Load-Settlement Curve 21 13

C7-21
Piled raft of Burj Khalifa

7.9 Evaluation
It can be concluded that results obtained from different analyses available in ELPLA can present
rapid and acceptable estimation for settlement and pile loads. This case study shows also that
analyses available in ELPLA are practical for analyzing large piled raft problems. Because they
are taking less computational time compared with other complicated models using three
dimensional finite element analyses.

C7-22
 Case study 7

7.10 References

[1] El Gendy, M. / Hanisch, J./ Kany, M. (2006): Empirische nichtlineare Berechnung

von Kombinierten Pfahl-Plattengründungen.
Bautechnik 9/06
[2] El Gendy, M. (2007): Formulation of a composed coefficient technique for analyzing
large piled raft. Scientific Bulletin, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo,
Egypt. Vol. 42, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 29-56
[3] El Gendy, M./ El Gendy, A. (2018): Analysis of raft and piled raft by Program ELPLA
GEOTEC Software Inc., Calgary AB, Canada.
[4] Poulos, H. / Bunce, G. (2008): Foundation Design for the Burj Khalifa, Dubai – the
World's Tallest Building.
6th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington,
VA, August 11-16, 2008.

[5] Russo, G./ Abagnara, V./ Poulos, H. & Small, J. (2013): Re-assessment of foundation
settlements for the Burj Khalifa, Dubai. Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:3–15.
[6] Badelow, F./ Poulos, H. (2016): Geotechnical foundation design for some of the world’s
tallest buildings.
The 15th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

C7-23

View publication stats