From: GrahamKite@campbellreith.

com
Subject: Fw: Review of Up date LDSA Gudiance on Pile Design in London Clay
Date: 6 March 2018 at 16:11
To: Graham Kite gkite@milvumgroup.com

----- Forwarded by Graham Kite/CRH on 06/03/2018 16:11 -----

From: Alex Dent/CRH

To: London Geotechnical, Redhill Geotechnical@campbellreith
Cc: Marc Ricks/CRH@Campbellreith
Date: 23/02/2018 10:36
Subject: Review of Up date LDSA Gudiance on Pile Design in London Clay

Dear All
The LSDA Guidance Notes have been up dated (1027 edition). Most of the content and recommendations are as before (2009 ed). Most
notable changes as follows
1. Explicit guidance to the depth of GI is given
2. Augmented guidance on working and preliminary pile tests, the placement of concrete (tremmie pipe not preferred) drilling plant and
cutting heads is provided.
3. There is an explicit need for the Engineer and Pile Designer (where not one and the same) to ensure continuity in design assumptions
4. EC7 Limit State Design is presented (partial factors in loads and resistances) as well as a working stress design (global FoS).
5. The working stress approach is essentially the same as the 2009 edition – but is not EC7 compliant
6. With respect to EC7 clear guidance is given as to how to determine the characteristic soil properties, on a cautious estimate basis,
depending on the quantity and quality of the site investigation data.
7. With respect to item3, at best (with a ‘Category A’ SI) the characteristic value is indicated to be around 95% of the mean. Most CR SIs
would fit at the upper end of ‘Category B’ – indicating 90% of the mean.
8. The matters considered in items 6 and 7 do not seem to apply to the working stress approach and for this design approach simple line
of best fit is required based on triaxial data, as augment by SPT data and historic data.
9. Given the above longer piles result for EC7 designs, as indicated in the worked example given in the document– which is counter to
perceived wisdom, counter to matters behind developing the UK NA to EC7 (Model Factor) and counter to the previously stated aim of ensuring
that LDSA and EC7 should give comparable answers
10. As before the guidance promotes Cu testing of U100 samples obtained without using a plastic liner – however, it explicitly does not
advocate the use of UT samples.
11. Guidance is given on a method to verify the SLS case in EC7 designs.
It would appear that the LSDA GN is advocating a design approach that this not consistent with current British Standards (BS EN 1997 Part 1
and Part 2, along with associated national annexes and BS8004), both in terms of pile design and ground investigation.
We would need to be very careful in with respect to incorporating references to this document into our specification – as by referencing it the
contractor is bound to ‘miss-understand’ matters and irrespective of what our speciation states, provide a working stress design rather than a
EC7 design - then complain if then restate the need for and EC7 based design to be done and point out the associate ’additional’ cost to the
client.
It would be better to include no reference to this in our specifications, but consider its advice it when reviewing contractor’s design – especially
the derivation of the Cu profile vs SI quality, the alpha factor and pile load testing requirements. Likewise to consider (but not explicitly refer
to) it when doing prelim calks for LQSs and the like.
Alex Dent
Associate

Friars Bridge Court

41-45 Blackfriars Road,
London
SE1 8NZ

Tel +44 (0)20 7340 1700

www.campbellreith.com

If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify the sender by email and delete it and any attachments from your system.

This email has been sent from CampbellReith, which is the trading name of Campbell Reith Hill LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales.
Registered number, OC300082. Registered address: Friars Bridge Court, 41-45 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NZ. No employee or agent is authorised to
conclude any binding agreement(s) on behalf of Campbell Reith Hill LLP with any other party by email unless it is an attachment on headed paper. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this email and any attachments which do not relate to the official business of Campbell Reith Hill LLP are neither given or
endorsed by it. Please note that email traffic and content may be monitored.

As this e-mail has been transmitted over a public network the accuracy, completeness and virus status of the transmitted information is not secure and cannot be
guaranteed. If verification is required please telephone the sender of the email.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com