Foundation design for the Emirates Twin Towers, Dubai
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the foundation design process adopted for two high-rise buildings in Dubai, the Emirates Twin Towers. The foundation system for each of the towers was a piled raft, founded on deep deposits of calcareous soils and rocks. The paper outlines the geotechnical investigations undertaken, the field and laboratory testing programs, and the design process and describes how potential issues of low skin friction and cyclic degradation of skin friction due to wind loading were addressed. An advanced numerical computer analysis was used for the design process, which was carried out using a limit state approach. This necessitated analysis of a large number of load cases, and the paper describes how the information was processed to produce design information. A comprehensive program of pile load testing was undertaken, and class A predictions of both axial and lateral loaddeflection behaviour were in fair agreement with the load test results. Despite this agreement, the overall settlements of the towers observed during construction were significantly less than predicted. The possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed.Key words: case history, footings and foundations, full-scale tests, piles, rafts, settlement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it