Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTRACT DESIGN
Location : Shoreditch
Contractor : 8Build
Ref No : C4535
Design by : G Phillips
Address:
Foundation Piling Limited
57B The High Street
Thornbury
Bristol
BS35 2AP
enquiries@foundation-piling.co.uk
www.foundation-piling.co.uk
www.retainingwall-solutions.com
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 1
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 20/04/2018
Calc. Title : Bored Piling C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
Sheet revision : B
Revision date : 09/05/2018
Introduction.
The piling works comprise the design and installation of approximately 32Lm of permanent secant embedded retaining wall
and 32No bearing piles for a commercial development.
This calculation derives the design soil profile and considers the design of the wall for soil retention.
There are areas of archaeological interest within the site that will require a watching brief during piling works.
Reference Documents.
Piling Engineering; 3rd Edition (Fleming et al).
BS 8004:2015.
BS EN 1997-1:2004 Corr. Jan 10 Eurocode EC7
BS EN 1997-1:2004 Corr. Jul 14 National Annex
Ground Investigation Report: 37517/3502 dated: Jun-16 by: Peter Brett Associates
Geotechnical Summary.
The following boreholes are considered relevant to this work and are summarised as follows:
Borehole reference BH101 BH1 WS01 WS02 WS03 WS04
Ground level 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Made Ground 2.4 -2.4 4.1 -4.1 1.8 -1.8 3.1 -3.1 2.9 -2.9 2.0 -2.0
Dense > M.Dense Gravel (Hackney Gravel) 6.3 -6.3 7.1 -7.1 3.5 -3.5 3.5 -3.5 3.5 -3.5 3.5 -3.5
V.Stiff Clay (London Clay) 20.4 -20.4 22.2 -22.2
V.Dense Sand (Lambeth Group) 29.7 -29.7 27.5 -27.5
V.Stiff Clay (Lambeth Group) 30.0 -30.0
Assumptions. The elevations from which the boreholes were constructed is constant and approximately
coincident with the elevation of the Working Platform.
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 2
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 20/04/2018
Calc. Title : Bored Piling C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
Sheet revision : B
Revision date : 09/05/2018
c' = 0 kN/m2
'crit = 30 o
c' = 0 kN/m2
'crit = 36 o
EhSLS = 50 MPA
EhULS = 25 MPA
Su ' = 75 kN/m2
'crit = 0 o
EhSLS = 40 MPA
EhULS = 20 MPA
c' = 3 kN/m2
'crit = 24 o
EhSLS = 35 MPA
EhULS = 17.5 MPA
Maximum Design Actions. The Secant wall is required to carry various axial loads, as indicated on drawing
J2904-S-DR-0075.04. The calculation of these loads are shown below;
For structural design the maximum Combination 1 action is: 1841 kN/m
For geotechnical design the maximum Combination 2 action is: 1451 kN/m
For Hard pile spacing of 750 mm; 1088 kN/pile
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 3
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 20/04/2018
Calc. Title : Bored Piling C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
Sheet revision : B
Revision date : 09/05/2018
For structural design the maximum Combination 1 action is: 2156 kN/m
For geotechnical design the maximum Combination 2 action is: 1699 kN/m
For Hard pile spacing of 750 mm; 1274 kN/pile
For structural design the maximum Combination 1 action is: 878 kN/m
For geotechnical design the maximum Combination 2 action is: 697 kN/m
For Hard pile spacing of 750 mm; 523 kN/pile
The piling construction schedule will be issued upon receipt of a numbered pile layout drawing.
Limit States Considered. Serviceability limit state (SLS) for determination of embedment, determination of prop forces
and estimation of displacements.
Ultimate limit state GEO (ULS) for determination of wall element bending moment and shear
force profiles.
Concrete.
Strength: Use: C28/35D20
Chemical: per SI Report, DS class: 3 ACEC class: 3 Use: DC-3
Exposure: no special considerations, wholly within the ground; Use: XC2
Cover to Reinforcement.
Permanent works; no special consideration. Use: 75mm
Summary of Results.
Design section 1
Commencing surface (mOD) 14.18
First stage excavation level (mOD) 12.68 B
Temp. prop level (mOD) 13.18 B
Dredge level (mOD) 9.98
Overdig (m) 0.42
Dredge level ULS (mOD) 9.56
Wall toe level (mOD) 3.180
Nominal depth (m) 11.0
Constraints on Construction. The capping beam must be constructed before bulk excavation.
The mechanical prop must be installed before bulk excavation. B
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 5
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : Retaining Wall Information C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
EC7-1 sets out application rules that classify risk in terms of geotechnical categorisation of structures. The designer should
assign to the retaining wall structure a Geotechnical Category. This category indicates the degree of effort required for
site investigation and design, and should be reviewed and changed (if necessary) at each stage of the design and construction
process.
Yes No
If excavation below the
water table is involved,
Does it involve abnormal
does comparable No Yes
risk?
experience indicate that it
will be straightforward?
Yes No
Yes No
Yes Yes
Wall Types
Conventional
King post rotary bored or 4m 5 - 10m 1 : 75 1 : 75 No No
driven
CFA 8m 5 - 16m 1 : 75 1 : 100
Contiguous pile No No
Conventional
8m 5 - 25m 1 : 75 1 : 125
rotary bored
CFA 8m 5 - 16m 1 : 75 1 : 100
Hard/soft secant Yes No
Conventional
8m 5 - 25m 1 : 75 1 : 125
rotary bored
Cased rotary or
Hard/firm and
cased CFA using 8m 5 - 25m 1 : 150 1 : 200 Yes Yes
hard/hard secant
thick wall casing
Rope grab 8m 5 - 30m 1 : 100 1 : 150
Diaphragm wall Hydraulic grab 8m 5 - 40m 1 : 150 1 : 200 Yes Yes
Mill 8m 20 - 50m+ 1 : 200 1 : 400
Geotechnical Analysis.
The analysis is carried our using the computer software WALLAP, operated under licence from Geo-Solve. The input
and output data from the analysis is presented as an appendix to this document.
The calculations have been carried out using the "Factor of Strength" method, with factor "M" set to 1.40 for undrained
parameters and 1.25 for drained parameters, in accordance with EC7. Details of the soil parameters are presented within
this design document.
Indicative anticipated displacements that may be expected to occur under working conditions are also presented in detail
within the WALLAP outputs. It should be noted that WALLAP uses a Winkler spring analysis to determine the wall
displacements. In a Winkler medium, springs are used to represent a continuum and there is no transfer of shear stresses
between springs. In general, the application of this concept leads to an overestimation of structural deformations, hence
the resulting displacements may be over-predicted by the programme. Where a top prop or multiple props are utilised, a
degree of soil arching will occur. The arching rule allows active pressures to fall to values below the Coulomb active
limiting pressure, provided the total active force on each potential active wedge mechanism is not less than the Coulomb
active limiting force.
With arching, the programme predicts the sort of trapezoidal pressure distribution observed in strutted excavations,
instead of the usual triangular pressure diagram based on Coulombs' active limit pressures. Hence, soil pressures near
ground level are well in excess of the active limit, while active pressures near excavation levels are significantly below
Coloumbs' active limiting pressures.
Method of Analysis.
In checking the adequacy of a retaining wall at Ultimate Limit State (ULS), it must be noted that in many real situations,
the loads imposed by the soil at the Ultimate (collapse) Limit State, are smaller than those under working conditions; as at
working conditions, the soil is unlikely to be fully mobilised. The Factors of Safety introduced into the ULS calculations
lead generally to more severe action effects than those calculated within SLS.
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 7
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : Retaining Wall Information C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
To better model conditions at SLS, computer analysis using soil-structure interacvtions is used with the Wallap programme.
This programme uses both subgrade reactions and pseudo-finite element methods. In the subgrade reaction method, the
wall is modelled as a beam and the soil as a series of horizontal springs, and the finite element as an elastic continuum.
Actual construction sequences are modelled with the accuracy of the results being dependant on the quality /
appropriateness of the design input parameters.
The ULS condition is consequently used to determine the worst case pile / wall depth and bending moment for the
wall design and the SLS condition is used to assess more realistic potential deflections.
Tension Cracks.
For cantilever walls, in particular in the temporary case where undrained soil strengths are used, rather than rely on tensile
stress acting across the soil / wall interface to help support the wall, it is usual to assume a tension crack will develop
to depths below the retained surface, where the calculated active lateral total stress is negative.
Where water is not expected, the depth of tension cracks are assumed to be :
2Cu - q
Where water is expected :
2Cu - q / (σ' - σ'w)
The total pressure acting on the retained side of the wall at any depth, z, below ground level, is assumed as a minimum
equivalent fluid pressure of :
5kN/m2 * z
OR for total stress analysis :
σ'a = (∫ σ'V + q) - 2Cu √(1 + (Cw / Cu))
whichever is greater.
Where water is expected, a minimum total horizontal stress = σ'H = γw * z, is used instead of 5 * z.
Where walls are propped, so long as the lateral stresses are greater than the hydrostatic pressure at the same level in the
top 1m of the wall, then tension cracks are discounted.
It is unlikely that tension cracks greater than 3.0m - 4.0m will occur. It may be prudent to take the full excavated height
equal to tension crack depth for a cantilever wall in stiff clay.
The undrained cohesion parameter, Cu, is the frictional strength of soil at the moisture content and effective stress
level pertaining in situ. Undrained analysis is often used in calculating the capacity of bored shafts installed into
clay. Application of load usually causes initial excess pore water pressure, together with a change in the relationship
between major and minor principle stresses. As these excess pore pressures dissipate, the effective stress changes,
accompanied by a corresponding change in cohesive strength.
For embedded retaining walls, the unloading caused by excavation gives rise to negative excess pore water pressures.
As these dissipate, the Cu value of the soil reduces. The speed of dissipation generated by wall installation and
excavations in front of the wall is dependant on the permeability and degree of fissuring for stiff over-consolidated clay.
Therefore the original Cu value does not apply for very long.
In general, it is prudent only to use undrained (total stress) analysis for the short term condition (for stiff
over-consolidated clays), using drained soil parameters for the long term condition. Where undrained analysis is used,
to provide an economic design, it is prudent to control measures to monitor wall deflections during these temporary
works to ensure that the serviceable conditions are satisfied.
For normally-consolidated clay, or clays where C u < 75kN/m2, the use of undrained parameters may be more appropriate
than using drained values, especially where little or no soil suction exists.
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 8
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : Retaining Wall Information C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
There are two extreme limits of pressure to which a retaining wall is subjected :
1 - active pressure resulting in slight movement of the wall away from filling, is a minimum value and occurs when
the wall is at the point of failure.
2 - passive pressure resulting in slight displacement of the wall towards filling, is the maximum pressure to which
the wall is subjected immediately before failure occurs by heaving up of the soil.
Coefficient of Earth Pressure, K, is used to relate the effective stress acting normal to a retaining wall with the vertical
effective stress, hence:
K = s'v / s'h and s'h = K * s'v
Coefficient of active earth pressure, Ka is defined as the ratio of the active earth pressure normal to a plane surface to the
corresponding pressure in a fluid of the same density.
Coefficient of passive pressure, Kp, is defined as the relationship of the passive earth pressure on a plane the corresponding
fluid pressure. So, for cohesionless soils with no wall friction;
s'ha = Ka * s'v and s'hp = Kp * s'v
For cohesive soil, the horizontal stress is influenced by a supplementary cohesive element where for active face with no wall
adhesion;
s'ha = Ka * s'v - 2c * Ka and s'hp = Kp * s'v + 2c * Kp
where : s'ha is the effective active horizontal pressure acting at a depth in the soil
s'hp is the effective passive horizontal pressure acting at a depth in the soil
s'v is the effecive overburden pressure
c' is the soil cohesion (if any)
c'w is the wall adhesion (if any)
This is usually taken as 0.5Cu to take into account the softening of the soil / pile interface during construction. Where the
short-term undrained total stress analysis is used ' = 0, hence Ka = 1.0. Simplifying;
s'ha(undrained) = s'v - 2Cu * (1 + (c'w / c')) and s'hp(undrained) = s'v + 2Cu * (1 + (c'w / c'))
There are limits to the values of c'w and c'. The term in undrained analysis is taken as maximum;
2 * (1 + (c'w / c')) 2.57 = (1 + p)
However, due to the variability of c'w;
2 * (1 + (c'w / c')) is taken as a maximum = 2.38
Pre-Excavation Stress.
The weight of wet concrete will exert a stress on the soil prior to excavation equalling the hydrostatic pressure of wet
concrete to a critical depth, taken as;
Hcrit = H / 3
Hence;
sh = gconcrete * K * z
K0 defines the initial soil pressure at the state of the bending and displacement analysis, where;
K0 = sh / sv
Earth pressure at rest > the active earth pressure because as the wall moves even slightly away from the filling, the pressure
drops in value to that of the limiting active value.
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 9
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : Retaining Wall Information C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
If the weight of soil above any depth, z (vertical pressure at horizontal plane) is gz, the the horizontal earth pressure at rest is;
sh = K0 * g * z
K0 is used in Wallap to calculate the initial earth pressures on the wall immediately following wall installation. The initial
horizontal earth pressure is calculated as;
sh = K0 * s'v + u
As K0 is a true soil state as the starting point for a series of stress changes, it is calculated in effective stress terms, whether
the analysis is drained or undrained. It is also used by Wallap to model the horizontal stress induced by filling during
construction. For normally consolidated soils;
K0 = 1 - Sin'
Wallap provides two methods of calculation: 1 - subgrade reaction - in this method using Wrinkler springs use;
K0 = 1 where calculated value 1.0
K0 = calculated value where value < 1.0
Wallap, by default, uses the polynomial referenced in Eurocode 7. There are various equations to convert vertical stress in
horizontal stress and all based on assuming a failure curve and assigning a polynomial to fit. When a wall fails, it moves.
When the movement expands the soil, the pressure is considered active and the insitu K 0 pressure drops to a limiting value
at failure, Ka. When the movement compresses, the soil compacts and then fails at an increased pressure limit, K p.
The amount of movement to mobilise the limiting failure pressure on the active (destabilising) side is small but conversely,
the movement to mobilise the failure on the passive (stabilising) side is large. Prudence is required if our design is reliant
on full passive resistance as deflections may be excessive to mobilise it.
This is the stiffness of the wall. It is an essential parameter, together with the second moment of area (I) in assessing the
soil-wall interaction. For reinforced concrete walls, the value of EI changes over time causing a 50% reduction from the short
term to long term values.
Usual to adopt for construction ; EconstructionI = 0.7 * E0I
Usual to adopt for long term ; ElongtermI = 0.5 * E0I
The adjustment to the value of the concrete modulus needs to reflect the way the wall is stressed. For example, a cantilever
wall will relax to its long term stiffness quicker than a propped wall which will creep to it.
For a hard / soft secant wall, the reduced value of the 'soft' concrete mix needs to be taken into account ;
EcIcombined = Eprimary * ((pD4 / 64) * (1 / s)) + Esecond * ((wDsec3 / 12) * (1 / s))
For a hard / hard secant wall, the I value can be enhanced slightly by adding a rectangular strip of concrete between the
primary piles ;
Icombined = ((p * D4) / 64) * (1 / s)) + ((BD3 / 12) * (1 / s)) m4 per pile
Struts.
Take the midpoint of the strut as the elevation. In some special cases, deep basement slabs are better modelled as two props,
each acting one sixth from the top and bottom of the slab, as the analysis, if concentrated on one point, can distort the
ULS bending moments about this lowest point. The impact of these effects can be softened by filling over the slab depth
with a stiff layer of concrete.
Strut spacing must be input as the actual spacing to be constructed. If a slab is modelled, take spacing as 1.0m.
Where solid, the cross-section of a strut or anchor is defined by simple geometry. The cross-section and Youngs' Modulus
of the strut / anchor, together with its free length, define its stiffness. Wallap assumes that struts provide an elastic
support with a spring constant per unit length, giving the expression;
Strut stiffness ; St = (A * E(cosq)2) / (L * S)
Horizontal Prop; St = (A * E) / (L * S)
The strut / anchor model in Wallap only allows for the stiffness of the props without any allowance for waler flexibility. The
assumption of infinite waler stiffness will produce reasonable results in most cases because of the tendancy of the soil to
redistribute load.
The free length of a strut is the distance from the wall to the point at which the strut is rigidly supporte. Where the other end
of a strut supports a symmetrically placed wall, the free length is half the length of the strut. For a continuous floor slab, the
strut spacing should be entered as unit length.
Design to Eurocode 7.
Eurocode 7 asks us to consider various limit states; mainly EQU, GEO, STR, SLS, HYD and UPL. For an embedded wall,
our main concerns are to satisfy GEO, SLS and STR.
EQU (equilibrium) is more useful for checking the balance of conventional cantilever walls, with HYD (hydrostatic) and UPL
(uplift) requiring specific attention in the design process when conditions dictate. To satisfy GEO (geotechnical), two
combinations of loading are considered to satisfy the ULS design condition. Within the UK, we are advised to adopt our
designs in accordance with "Design Approach 1, clause 2.4.7.3.1.2".
The limit state calculation is considered to obtain a safe wall embedment depth and an Ultimate Limit State moment, M ULS.
In consideration of this ULS of rupture or excessive deformation the worst case of two combinations need to be considered.
Combination 1 (GEO) Limit State A1 + M1 + R1 and;
Combination 2 (GEO) Limit State A2 + M2 + R1 where; A = Actions (Forces) applied to the wall
M = Soil Parameters
R = Partial Resistance Factors
The Design Combination 1, where unfavourable actions are increased and soils are un-factored, is usually critical as
discussed below. For walls with significant active surcharges in both temporary and permanent considerations, DC1-1
needs to be considered with particular note to the method of surcharge pressure distribution used (see surcharges) and the
active soil pressure distribution (arching).
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 11
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : Retaining Wall Information C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
Nevertheless, in order to comply strictly with the requirement to factor "actions" it has become widely accepted that we
should somehow factor the effect of the self-weight of soil. This is achieved by factoring total wall pressures and hence the
resulting bending moments and strut forces. The main source for this approach is the Designers' Guide Section 9.7 p.158.
All soil parameters, water pressures, and permanent actions enter the calculation with their Characteristic values. Variable
loads and surcharges enter the calculation with their Characteristic Values multiplied by γ Q/γG (see Table 4). The resulting
bending moments and strut forces are regarded as unfavourable permanent actions which are then multiplied by γG (1.35)
to obtain their design values.
It is noted that, apart from Overdig and Variable loads (which are pre-factored by 1.1) the input parameters are identical
to the input for SLS analysis. Similarly, the resulting bending moments and strut forces are factored by 1.35 to obtain their
design values. Looking at Section 7.1.1 we see that the Designers' Guide interpretation of Combination 1 leads to design
bending moments and strut forces that are only marginally greater than those obtained from an SLS design. We also note
that any FoS obtained from this (Combination 1) analysis would be a lump factor for which it is difficult to define a
suitable design value. However we still have Combination 2 to ensure that stability is achieved and that design bending
moments are safe.
Design Case 1 Combination 2 where active pressures are increased by factoring soil strength, and passive resistances are
reduced, is usually the worst case design condition.
The Moderately Conservative values of Soil Strength, Modulus, Surcharges and Applied Loads are used in the analysis
after having been factored by the Partial Factors appropriate to the selected Ultimate Limit State. The factored parameters
are used in both the Factor of Safety and the Bending Moment calculation. Water pressures are normally set to their
"worst credible" values. The resulting bending moments and displacements are Ultimate Limit State values.
Factors for the above combination are summarised below. The shear strength design value (Ø'D) for each combination
is obtained by factoring on tanØ', where;
-1
Combination 1 Ø'D = tan (tanØ' / M1)
-1
Combination 1 Ø'D = tan (tanØ' / M2)
Table A.NA.3: Partial factors on actions (γF) of the effects of actions (γE)
Action Symbol Set
A1 A2
Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.00
γG
Favourable 1.00 1.00
Variable Unfavourable 1.50 1.30
γQ
Favourable 0 0
Table A.NA.4: Partial factors for soil parameters (γM) for STR and GEO limit state (γE)
Soil Parameter Symbol Set
M1 M2
*Angle of Shearing Resistance γQ 1.00 1.25
Effective Cohesion γQ 1.00 1.25
Undrained Shear Strength γQ 1.00 1.40
Unconfined Strength γQ 1.00 1.40
Weight Density γQ 1.00 1.25
*this factor applies to tanØ' (see above)
Table A.NA.13: Partial resistance factors for retaining structures at the STR and GEO limit states
Resistance Symbol Set
R1
Bearing Capacity γRV 1.00
Sliding Resistance γRH 1.00
Earth Resistance γRe 1.00
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 12
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : Retaining Wall Information C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
Surcharges
(A) Minimum construction load surcharge should be applied for both temporary and permanent works stages where
S1 = 10 KN/m2.
(B) The above value is identical to a standard HA highway load (BS5400 Part 2 or EC1) 15 units = 10 KN/m 2
(C) For designated loads, HB loading will need to be considered and for simplicity can be taken up to a maximum of
45 units = 20 KN/m2.
(D) For adjacent structures, trial pit evidence is needed to establish distance to, and depth of, nearby foundations and
surcharge taken on:
weight of building / m
width of foundations
(E) Where a block of soil is present on the active face, and adjusting the K a value using an active slope incline angle β
is inappropriate, two approaches to modelling this block of soil as a surcharge are possible:
a) Treat block of active soil as a surcharge of density of soil * f, when f can vary as the height of the soil
block increases away from the face of the wall, then add a horizontal force at the top of wall equivalent
to the active thrust of the soil block being modelled as a surcharge.
b) Latest revision of WALLAP allows an active block of soil to be modelled as a surcharge by checking
multiple slope stability wedges as the wall is excavated.
Surcharge Calculations.
Generally, Boussinesq elastic lateral stress distributions are used to model applied surcharges. Unless the wall is rigid, it is
appropriate to check the sensitivity of strip or line load surcharges using methods by Kray or Williams & Waite,
particularly for clays.
Boundary Conditions
This is the elevation of the rigid lower boundary of the finite element mesh in the 2D F.E analysis. A reasonable depth in
many situations would be half the wall depth below the toe of the wall.
Wall
Fill width
Original G.L Original G.L
Excavation width
Validation Requirements
The Contiguous / Secant bored pile wall is to be designed to have an over-design factor in excess of Γ > 1, for the two GEO
combinations (where Combination 1 is relevant) and also to satisfy the deflection criteria at the SLS limit state. The method
of analysis of short and long term soil parameters uses either the Factor on Strength method or Factor on Moments method
where applicable, all in accordance with CIRIA Report 580 (or CIRIA 104 where applicable). Resulting bending moments and
shear forces are factored by a load factor, γf = 1.35 from the SLS calculations and γf = 1.0 for each of the ULS combinations.
Where the output for the DC1-1 analysis is un-factored, the moments and shears are factored by the A1 sets detailed above.
The worst case moment from these ULS values is taken as the ULS design moment (M D). The pile cage is then designed
to this moment, to either BS8110 or EC2.
Foundation Piling Limited Sheet : 13
Job Name : 4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch Date : 04/05/2018
Calc. Title : CDM Design Risk Assessment C4535 Ref No. : 870.17
Prep. By : GCP
RISK LEVEL
Likelihood of Exposure to Hazard
Severity
Almost Certain Likely Possible Unlikely Improbable
Fatalities H H H H M
Major H H H M L
Minor H M M L L
None Anticipated L L L L L
Risk Level
Risk Level
Before Significant Residual Risks - comment for / actions
Ref. No Hazard Description Design Mitigation Action After Design
Design required by others?
Mitigation
Mitigation
Wall surcharge loadings. Values assumed based on Principal Contractor to ask the Engineer to review and Principal Contractor to contact the Engineer. The
1 M L
information available to the designer. advise of necessary amendments prior to construction. Engineer to confirm agreement.
Principal Contractor and Engineer to review proposed Principal Contractor to confirm construction sequence
3 Construction sequence assumed. M L
sequence. or advise of required changes.
Steel Areas & Position (from Top Mid Point) Steel Strain, Stress, Force and Moment (about mid depth)
Area mm2 X-dist mm Y-dist mm Strain Es*Strain fs used N/mm2 Fs kN BM kNm
201 57.40 86.42 0.000890263 178.05 178.05 35.79 4.96
201 138.58 167.60 -0.001561271 -312.25 -312.25 -62.76 -3.60
201 138.58 282.40 -0.005028265 -1005.65 -476.19 -95.71 5.49
201 57.40 363.58 -0.007479799 -1495.96 -476.19 -95.71 13.26
201 -57.40 363.58 -0.007479799 -1495.96 -476.19 -95.71 13.26
201 -138.58 282.40 -0.005028265 -1005.65 -476.19 -95.71 5.49
201 -138.58 167.60 -0.001561271 -312.25 -312.25 -62.76 -3.60
201 -57.40 86.42 0.000890263 178.05 178.05 35.79 4.96
SOIL PROFILE
Stratum Elevation of ------------------ Soil types -------------------
no. top of stratum Left side Right side
1 14.18 1 Made Ground 1 Made Ground
2 11.68 2 Hackney Gravel 2 Hackney Gravel
3 7.18 3 London Clay 3 London Clay
SOIL PROPERTIES
Bulk Young's At rest Consol Active Passive
-- Soil type -- density Modulus coeff. state. limit limit Cohesion
No. Description kN/m3 Eh,kN/m2 Ko NC/OC Ka Kp kN/m2
(Datum elev.) (dEh/dy ) (dKo/dy) ( Nu ) ( Kac ) ( Kpc ) ( dc/dy )
1 Made Ground 19.00 12500 1.000 OC 0.273 4.696
(0.200) (0.000) ( 0.000)
2 Hackney 21.00 50000 0.412 OC 0.208 7.197
Gravel (0.230) (0.000) ( 0.000)
3 London Clay 20.00 40000 1.000 OC 1.000 1.000 75.00u
( 7.18 ) ( 3750) (0.490) (2.380) ( 2.380) ( 5.000)
4 London Clay 20.00 35000 0.593 OC 0.355 3.241 3.000d
( 7.18 ) ( 3500) (0.190) (1.448) ( 5.034)
WALL PROPERTIES
Type of structure = Fully Embedded Wall
Elevation of toe of wall = 3.18
Maximum finite element length = 0.60 m
Youngs modulus of wall E = 2.5000E+07 kN/m2
Moment of inertia of wall I = 5.7200E-03 m4/m run
E.I = 143000 kN.m2/m run
Yield Moment of wall = Not defined
STRUTS and ANCHORS
Strut/ X-section Inclin Pre-
anchor Strut area Youngs Free -ation stress Tension
no. Elev. spacing of strut modulus length (degs) /strut allowed
m sq.m kN/m2 m kN
1 14.05 1.00 0.250000 2.500E+07 2.50 0.00 0 Yes
2 10.13 1.00 0.300000 2.500E+07 2.50 0.00 0 No
3 13.18 2.50 0.400000 2.000E+08 5.00 0.00 0 No
SURCHARGE LOADS
Surch Distance Length Width Surcharge Equiv. Partial
-arge from parallel perpend. ----- kN/m2 ----- soil factor/
no. Elev. wall to wall to wall Near edge Far edge type Category
1 14.18 1.50(L) 12.00 4.00 10.00 = N/A 1.00 Var
CONSTRUCTION STAGES
Construction Stage description
stage no. --------------------------------------------------------
1 Apply surcharge no.1 at elevation 14.18
2 Excavate to elevation 12.68 on RIGHT side
3 Install strut or anchor no.3 at elevation 13.18
4 Excavate to elevation 9.98 on RIGHT side
5 Install strut or anchor no.2 at elevation 10.13
6 Remove strut or anchor no.3 at elevation 13.18
7 Install strut or anchor no.1 at elevation 14.05
8 Apply water pressure profile no.1 ( Mod. Conserv. )
9 Apply load no.1 at elevation 14.18
10 Change properties of soil type 3 to soil type 4
Ko pressures will not be reset
Stability analysis:
Method of analysis - Strength Factor method
Factor on soil strength for calculating wall depth = 1.25
Boundary conditions:
Length of wall (normal to plane of analysis) = 15.00 m
Maximum and minimum bending moment and shear force at each stage
Stage ------------ Bending moment ----------- ------------- Shear force -------------
no. ------- Calculated ------ Factored ------- Calculated ------ Factored
max. elev. min. elev. max. min. max. elev. min. elev. max. min.
kN.m/m kN.m/m kN.m/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
1 0 14.05 -1 6.59 0 -1 0 4.20 -1 7.18 1 -1
2 24 11.24 -6 6.00 33 -9 17 12.18 -10 7.18 23 -13
3 No calculation at this stage
4 4 13.18 -34 11.24 6 -46 22 9.98 -43 13.18 30 -58
5 No calculation at this stage
6 77 10.13 -20 6.00 105 -27 53 10.13 -37 10.13 72 -50
7 No calculation at this stage
8 77 10.13 -20 6.00 105 -27 53 10.13 -37 10.13 72 -50
9 76 10.13 -20 6.00 103 -26 52 10.13 -37 10.13 70 -49
10 76 10.13 -20 6.00 103 -26 52 10.13 -37 10.13 70 -49
SOIL PROFILE
Stratum Elevation of ------------------ Soil types -------------------
no. top of stratum Left side Right side
1 14.18 1 Made Ground 1 Made Ground
2 11.68 2 Hackney Gravel 2 Hackney Gravel
3 7.18 3 London Clay 3 London Clay
WALL PROPERTIES
Type of structure = Fully Embedded Wall
Elevation of toe of wall = 3.18
Maximum finite element length = 0.60 m
Youngs modulus of wall E = 2.5000E+07 kN/m2
Moment of inertia of wall I = 5.7200E-03 m4/m run
E.I = 143000 kN.m2/m run
Yield Moment of wall = Not defined
STRUTS and ANCHORS
Strut/ X-section Inclin Pre-
anchor Strut area Youngs Free -ation stress Tension
no. Elev. spacing of strut modulus length (degs) /strut allowed
m sq.m kN/m2 m kN
1 14.05 1.00 0.250000 2.500E+07 2.50 0.00 0 Yes
2 10.13 1.00 0.300000 2.500E+07 2.50 0.00 0 No
3 13.18 2.50 0.400000 2.000E+08 5.00 0.00 0 No
SURCHARGE LOADS
Surch Distance Length Width Surcharge Equiv. Partial
-arge from parallel perpend. ----- kN/m2 ----- soil factor/
no. Elev. wall to wall to wall Near edge Far edge type Category
1 14.18 1.50(L) 12.00 4.00 10.00 = N/A 1.30 Var
CONSTRUCTION STAGES
Construction Stage description
stage no. --------------------------------------------------------
1 Apply surcharge no.1 at elevation 14.18
2 Excavate to elevation 12.68 on RIGHT side
3 Install strut or anchor no.3 at elevation 13.18
4 Excavate to elevation 9.56 on RIGHT side
5 Install strut or anchor no.2 at elevation 10.13
6 Remove strut or anchor no.3 at elevation 13.18
7 Install strut or anchor no.1 at elevation 14.05
8 Apply water pressure profile no.2 ( Worst Cred. )
9 Apply load no.1 at elevation 14.18
10 Change properties of soil type 3 to soil type 4
Ko pressures will not be reset
Stability analysis:
Method of analysis - Strength Factor method
Overall factor on soil strength for calculating wall depth = 1.00
Boundary conditions:
Length of wall (normal to plane of analysis) = 15.00 m
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
1 14.18 14.18 Cant. Conditions not suitable for FoS calc.
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
2 14.18 12.68 Cant. 4.891 4.24 11.32 1.36 L to R
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
4 14.18 9.56 13.18 2.553 n/a 8.02 1.54 L to R
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
6 14.18 9.56 10.13 Conditions not suitable for FoS calc.
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
8 14.18 9.56 More than one strut. No FoS calc.
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
9 14.18 9.56 More than one strut. No FoS calc.
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
10 14.18 9.56 More than one strut. No FoS calc.
Overall
FoS for toe Toe elev. for
elev. = 3.18 FoS = 1.000
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
1 14.18 14.18 Cant. Conditions not suitable for FoS calc.
2 14.18 12.68 Cant. 4.891 4.24 11.32 1.36 L to R
3 14.18 12.68 No analysis at this stage
4 14.18 9.56 13.18 2.553 n/a 8.02 1.54 L to R
5 14.18 9.56 No analysis at this stage
6 14.18 9.56 10.13 Conditions not suitable for FoS calc.
7 14.18 9.56 No analysis at this stage
All remaining stages have more than one strut - FoS calculation n/a
FOUNDATION PILING GROUP LTD (inc. WEST MIDLANDS P and F LTD)| Sheet No.
Program: WALLAP Version 6.06 Revision A51.B69.R54 | Job No. C4535
Licensed from GEOSOLVE | Made by : GCP
Data filename/Run ID: C4535_NewInnBroadway_Secant_ULS2 |
4 - 6 New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch | Date: 9-05-2018
Secant Wall | Checked :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units: kN,m
Summary of results
Maximum and minimum bending moment and shear force at each stage
Stage --------- Bending moment -------- ---------- Shear force ----------
no. maximum elev. minimum elev. maximum elev. minimum elev.
kN.m/m kN.m/m kN/m kN/m
1 0.0 14.05 -1.4 6.59 0.5 4.20 -1.1 7.18
2 26.4 10.80 -5.8 6.00 17.7 12.18 -10.4 7.18
3 No calculation at this stage
4 5.1 13.18 -65.1 10.80 30.6 8.95 -58.0 13.18
5 No calculation at this stage
6 77.8 10.13 -10.7 6.00 59.2 10.13 -67.0 10.13
7 No calculation at this stage
8 104.9 10.13 -14.7 7.18 92.2 10.13 -112.9 10.13
9 103.4 10.13 -14.7 7.18 90.1 10.13 -112.1 10.13
10 103.4 10.13 -14.7 7.18 90.1 10.13 -112.1 10.13