245 Warwick RD: Basement Construction Method Statement

245 Warwick Rd
Basement Construction Method Statement
032031
7 April 2014
Revision 00
Buro Happold
Revision Description Issued by Date Checked
00 For Planning VA 07/04/2014 AP
O:\032031 245 Warwick Road Town Planning\F4 Structures\03 Reports\Basement Construction Method
Statement\CMS\140407 245 Warwick Rd Basement Construction Method Statement 00.docx
This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use and information of Embassy Development Limited for the
purposes set out in the report or instructions commissioning it. The liability of Buro Happold Limited in respect of the
information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.
author Vincent Allott
date 07/04/14
approved Angus Palmer
signature
date 07/04/14
..
245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

Basement Construction Method Statement 7 April 2014
Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 3
Buro Happold
Contents
1 Introduction 7
2 Site Description 8
2.1 Site Constraints 8
2.2 Unexploded Ordinance 8
3 Site History and Geology 9
3.1 Site History 9
3.2 Site Geology 9
3.3 Ground Profile 9
3.4 Groundwater 9
3.5 Preliminary and Detailed Design Parameters 9
4 Geo-environmental Assessment 11
4.1 Background 11
4.2 Preliminary geo-environmental assessment 11
4.3 Analytical results for soils 11
4.3.2 Analytical Results for leachate 11
4.4 Summary of Ground Risks 11
4.5 Further Testing and Considerations 11
5 Basement Design and Construction Methodology 12
5.1 Design 12
5.2 Preliminary pile design 12
1.1 Preliminary retaining wall design 13
5.3 Secant piled wall 14
5.4 Sheet piled wall 14
5.5 Waterproofing 15
5.6 Capping Beam 16
5.7 Movement Joint Strategy 17
6 Drainage strategy 18
6.1 Existing System 18
6.2 Proposed Drainage Strategy 18

Buro Happold
7 Further Considerations 20
Appendix A Indicative Site Plan
Appendix B Preliminary Structural Basement Drawings

Buro Happold
1 Introduction
Buro Happold have been appointed by Embassy Development Limited to provide Engineering Services for the proposed
development at 245 Warwick Rd, Kensington. This report describes the geotechnical, geo-environmental and structural
aspects of the basement design and construction method for the basement. It is to be read with and forms part of the
current S73 application (Ref 14/01234). The current scheme differs from that described in the original application due to a
reduction in basement area on both levels of basement. Refer to the Design and Access Statement issued 28/02/2014.
The design is currently developed to RIBA 2007 Work stage D. Where further detail is to be developed during stage E or
on appointment of a contractor, this is identified within the relevant section of this report (which will be superseded in due
course by a construction method statement provided by the contractor).
The project comprises a residential development of 3 buildings totalling approximately 30,500 square metres above
ground area. Two levels of basement will be provided, both of which link the superstructures’ footprints with the upper
level basement (Basement 1) covering the full site extent and lower level of basement (Basement 2) with a smaller
footprint. The upper basement contains the car parking space, with the remaining basement areas housing plant, storage,
building management facilities and gym space. The development is located within a two acre site including large areas of
landscaping at ground floor level.
Above ground level there is a centrally located building with superstructure 11 storeys high with buildings to the east and
west with superstructures 7 and 8 storeys high, respectively. The sites, both North West and South East of this site are
currently being developed by other parties (Berkeley Homes – St Edwards)

Buro Happold
2 Site Description
2.1 Site Constraints
The site is bounded on the North East by Warwick Road. To the South West is a train line which accommodates the
District Line and London Overground services. Previously the site was a car park and on the South Western boundary is
a substantial number of trees separating the site from the railway lines. The railway operators are to be contacted to
establish asset protection agreements between the parties and initiate appropriate approval/reviewing procedures.
To the North West is the 375 Kensington High Street development which is made up of a number of buildings of circa 13
storeys and includes basement levels. To the South East are the developments of the former Telephone Exchange
(Kensington Row Phase One) site as well as the Homebase site. These developments are also by Berkeley Homes (St
Edwards) and form part of the larger master plan.
Berkeley Homes will be contacted so that interface details and principles can be agreed to help finalise the basement
walls’ design and party wall agreements.
Construction access will be constrained as this can only occur from Warwick Road and is exacerbated by the fact that the
road only carries one-way traffic.
The site has less than a metre drop across it from East to West.
2.2 Unexploded Ordinance
Buro Happold has carried out a preliminary review of on-line bomb damage maps and this shows that it is improbable
that unexploded ordnance landed on the site. Site Plan – Refer Appendix A
A detailed risk assessment by a UXO specialist is however recommended. This would provide full presentation of the data
together with independent advice regarding the level of risk and the need for and scope of mitigation measures, upon
which separate reliance could be made.

Buro Happold
Stratum Typical thickness (m) Depth to top of stratum
3 Site History and Geology (mbgl)
Dark brown/black sandy slightly clayey fine to coarse 1.4 – 3.2 0
gravels. Becoming more clayey with depth with fragments of
3.1 Site History tarmac, stone, concrete, ash, clinker.
glass, wood, brick, and granite blocks
The historical usage of the site has been traced by the previous ground investigation contractor using old Ordnance [MADE GROUND]
Soft to firm orange brown sandy CLAY with 0.8 – 1.9 1.4 – 2.4
Survey maps dating back to 1869. A summary is presented below. occasional fragments of black carbonaceous gravel
fragments, and sub-rounded to sub-angular fine to coarse
The earliest available records, in 1869, indicate that the site was a coal depot; which was associated with the adjacent gravels and occasional pockets of medium dense brown
railway tracks to the west of the site. The surrounding area was primarily residential and occupied by small areas of sand.
[KEMPTON PARK GRAVEL/LANGLEY SILT)
residential housing interspersed with open fields and orchards. By 1896 the site remained a coal depot but the nearby
Loose to dense orange brown. occasionally clayey, 1.15 – 4.7 1.7 – 4.1
fields and orchards were developed, primarily for residential use. Also to the west of the site the railway sidings were SAND and GRAVEL., Gravel is sub-rounded to
extended and are known as the Earls Court Junction. Sub-angular, fine to coarse.
[KEMPTON PARK GRAVEL]
By 1951 the site became a Territorial Army (TA) centre and the buildings to the north west of the site were demolished Stiff to very stiff fissured locally orange mottled grey Proven to 22.4 6.3 – 7.9
silty sandy CLAY with occasional claystone and
and replaced by Charles House. The coal depot still remained to the south east of the site. In the surrounding area there selenite fragments.
were buildings labelled as ruins; bomb damage maps obtained for the area show buildings in the area to have been [LONDON CLAY]
damaged. The 1953 map showed that the ruins were cleared from the site. The site was occupied by both the TA Centre Table 3.1 – Ground profile
and a new building called Warwick House. The site and surrounding areas remained unchanged until 1972 when some of
the surrounding buildings were cleared and replaced with the Empress Telephone Exchange, which was located 3.4 Groundwater
immediately to the south east end of the site. The railway sidings to the West, residential houses to the south and the
depot to the South East were also all cleared, and the latter two areas were marked as car parks. During drilling of the boreholes groundwater was encountered at approximately 5.5m below ground level in the Kempton
Park Gravels, which then rose between 0.23m — 0.65m after 20 minutes. During window sampling no groundwater was
By 1983 the buildings on the site were cleared and the site appeared to be vacant. The most recent map (2005) shows no encountered. During the monitoring visits groundwater was encountered in all five borehole locations and in one of the
significant alteration to the site or its surroundings. window sampler locations (WS1). The groundwater was approximately 4.09 — 5.93 m bgl.
3.2 Site Geology 3.5 Preliminary and Detailed Design Parameters

A historic intrusive ground investigation was conducted by Card Geotechnics Limited on behalf of their client Nalex Conservative geotechnical design parameters have been derived from the historic ground investigation and laboratory
Limited in December 2006. This comprised of 12No. window sampler locations and 5No. cable percussive boreholes. The testing. Further ground investigation and laboratory testing is being undertaken with greater relevance to the current
boreholes were completed to depths of 10m and 30 below ground level. Gas and ground water monitoring stand pipes proposed scheme, details of which will be submitted to discharge the pre-commencement condition attached to the
were installed in the boreholes upon their completion. Boreholes were logged and representative soil samples were planning permission for the site.
retrieved for laboratory analysis. The window sampler holes were completed to depths of 0.3-5m below ground level, into
the Kempton Park Gravels. Eight of the window sampler locations did not penetrate the Made Ground and were A summary of the design parameters derived from the historic investigation is presented in figure 3.1 below:
abandoned due to what was assumed to be concrete obstruction. Dual gas and water stand pipes were installed in the
remaining four locations.
3.3 Ground Profile
The exploratory holes completed during the historic ground investigation generally encountered Made Ground overlying
Kempton Park Gravels and London Clay. A summary ground profile is presented in Table 3.1 below:

Buro Happold
Figure 3.1 – Design Parameter Summary

Buro Happold
4 Geo-environmental Assessment Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

A majority of PAHs from the Made Ground were below detection limits and screening thresholds. Samples from locations
in the Made Ground exceed the residential thresholds for benzo(a)pyrene (3 samples, 33% dataset), benzo(a)anthracene
4.1 Background (2 samples, 22% dataset), chrysene (1 sample, 11% dataset), benzo(b/k)fluoranthene (2 samples, 22% dataset),
indeno(123-c,d)pyrene (1 sample, 11% dataset) and dibenzo(ah)anthracene (1 sample, 11% dataset). One sample of
The Envirocheck report suggests there are no significant environmental constraints present on the site. The site’s past
benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the commercial threshold (14mg/kg) which is 11% of the dataset. No samples of the natural
use as a coal depot gives rise to the potential for some contamination within the Made Ground. The contamination is likely
strata exceeded the residential or commercial thresholds.
to be in the form of heavy metals, hydrocarbons and possibly some organic contamination associated with the historic
uses of the site. The previous construction/ demolition activities on the site also give rise to a potential for various Asbestos
contaminants (including asbestos) to be present in the fill / Made Ground. No asbestos testing has been undertaken at the site.
4.2 Preliminary geo-environmental assessment

4.3.2 Analytical Results for leachate
The chemical results from the Card investigation have been reviewed by Buro Happold and the soil test results have been Some environmental samples in the Made Ground have recorded concentrations above screening criteria, including
compared with available Soil Guideline Values (SGVs), Buro Happold and other industry Generic Assessment Criteria barium, PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene and TPH. No exceedences are recorded within the natural strata. Some leachate samples
(GAC). Consideration of the most sensitive receptors in the respective CLEA standard land- uses scenarios (the 0 to 6 were identified above Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) and Drinking Water Standards (DWS). No groundwater
year old child for the residential with and without plant uptake scenarios and the adult for the commercial/ industrial land- samples have been tested.
use scenario) using the software model “CLEA 1.06” and associated handbook. These scenarios are suitably
conservative for the proposed development which includes residential apartments with limited soft landscaping. 4.4 Summary of Ground Risks
Leachate samples have been assessed using UK Drinking Water Standards (DWS) and Freshwater Environmental Considering the proposed development, including a site wide basement and therefore removal of material, there is
Quality Standards (EQS). The ground gas data has been assessed with reference to CIRIA report C665 NHBC guidance negligible risk to human health at the site. Appropriate PPE and welfare facilities will provide mitigation of any residual
(Ref.35) and the relevant British Standard. risks to groundworkers. Where soft landscaping is required, imported material should meet human health screening
criteria and be suitable from horticultural purposes.
A total of 13 soil samples, including eight in the Made Ground and five in natural strata, were subject to analysis. A
majority of samples recorded concentrations of determinands below screening thresholds. The following exceedences
were identified: 4.5 Further Testing and Considerations
Considering the excavation required for the basement and the removal of material off site further chemical classification of
4.3 Analytical results for soils the Made Ground and natural strata will be required. Recent guidance (Waste Management 2, August 2013) will have to
be referred to for further waster classification, based on this most samples were non-hazardous, however WS5 identified
Lead
elevated zinc concentrations that may classify the material in this area as Hazardous Waste. This will require confirmation
The sample range of Lead was 7mg/kg - 800mg/kg. Three samples of the Made Ground (23% of dataset) exceeded the
with further chemical analysis (to include asbestos and WAC testing) as a part of the planned site Investigation.
residential threshold (450mg/kg) and a single sample (8% of dataset) exceeded the commercial threshold (750mg/kg). No
natural samples exceeded the screening thresholds. [Note: Defra is currently considering thresholds for lead which are Imported materials for soft landscaped areas will need to meet human health screening criteria and meet requirements for
understood to be more conservative (i.e. lower) than the values referred to above]. horticultural purposes.
Cyanide
It is anticipated that the basement will be tanked to prevent the ingress of water and also ventilated. This is likely to
The samples range of Cyanide was <1mg/g – 13.5mg/kg. A single sample of Made Ground (8% dataset) was identified
provide suitable gas protection measures, however this will need confirmation.
above the residential screening criteria (4.6mg/kg). No samples exceeded the commercial screening thresholds.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

The TPH has been assessed with TPH C6-C8 and C10-C40 carbon bands. Since the Card report the technique for
assessing hydrocarbons is established on the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPH CWG) which is based on an
Aromatic/Aliphatic split and smaller carbon banding. All C6 – C8 results were below detection limits and relevant
screening thresholds. A total of five Made Ground samples were tested for TPH C10 - C40, the sample range was
<10mg/kg – 600mg/kg. Two samples (40% of dataset) exceeded the Aromatic C10-C12 screening threshold (290mg/kg).

Buro Happold
5 Basement Design and Construction Methodology
5.1 Design
Preliminary basement and foundation design has been conducted and is presented here. The design makes use of the
B1
conservative parameters derived in section 3.
The project consists of 3 separate buildings, with two levels of basement. The B1(upper) level basement extends the
width of the site whist the B2 (lower) basement is proposed to be reduced to about half the width of the site as part of the B2
Retaining Wall
current S73 application, as shown in Figure 5.1.
The basement walls to the South East and North West of the site are immediately adjacent to the neighbouring
basements. Communication is ongoing with the neighbours design team and Engineers specifically to determine specific
details of construction sequence and final condition of all structures. One of these structures has already been
constructed and the other is due to be constructed before the excavation works for this project begin. Both basements are
understood to be 2 levels deep. It follows that the South East and North West walls do not serve a retaining purpose and
therefore can be built using traditional reinforced concrete methods in open cut excavations. Based on this, a standard
reinforced concrete basement wall is currently planned and this can be constructed close to the site boundary by using
sacrificial formwork along the boundary, outside of the wall or the wall can be constructed with precast units. These could
be solid precast units or a hybrid solution using a combination of pre-cast and in-situ concrete in which the pre-cast
elements act as permanent structural formwork, such as the “twin-wall” solution. Figure 5.1 – SE-NW Basement Section
To avoid structural interaction between neighbouring buildings, the 245 Warwick Road scheme currently shows piles
along the South Eastern single storey basement perimeter that are sleeved from pile cap level to approximately 2 metres 5.2 Preliminary pile design
below the neighbour’s basement formation level. In the North West, with the double storey basement, the scheme has
It is intended to carry vertical loads from the structure by rotary bored piles. These piles will typically have cut off levels at
piles that are set back from the boundary with ground beams cantilevering passed the pile line, out to the basement
B2 however, there will be piles with cut off at B1 where no B2 basement is currently planned. Preliminary pile design has
perimeter to support the basement wall which in turn supports a certain extent of the ground and Basement B1 slabs.
been conducted for pile sizes from 600mm diameter to 1500mm diameter. The piles have been designed using the LDSA
In the current proposal the B2 basement is significantly smaller than the B1 basement. This will require a traditional method. The following factors of safety has been used; FOS for shaft friction = 1.5, FOS for base capacity = 2.5, FOS for
retaining wall, in open excavation. This retaining wall has not been considered here, but will be designed for the earth overall capacity = 2.6. Figure 5.2 shows the safe working load (SWL) for various pile diameters with increasing depth.
pressure acting behind the wall. Since net heave has not be appropriately considered at this stage, the piles have not been considered for tension
capacity. However, it is not thought the tension capacity requirement for piles with tower blocks above will govern the
The South West and North East walls adjacent to the railway and road respectively will both require a retaining wall. The
geotechnical design. Areas of the site will experience a net unloading where there is no structure above ground level and
lengths and retained heights of these walls are fairly similar and therefore the forces they impart on the basement ‘bath
an excavation for either one or two levels of basement. It follows therefore that piles in these location will be subject to
tub’ are well balanced. Any out of balance in the total force will be catered for by the shear capacity at the foundation pile
heave and will be reinforced accordingly. Reinforcement for the piles subject to tension will need to be sufficiently long to
heads.
ensure the mass concrete portion of pile is not subject to tension and pile cracking does not occur. If tension
In recognition of the water table level and uplift forces, the Basement B1 (upper level) and Basement B2 (lower level) , reinforcement is required at depth lower than the cage toe a single central bar shall be specified.
slabs will be provided with different structural thicknesses to adequately resist the uplift at each level. These depths have
been based on a permanent ground water level at approximately +0.25 m AOD (from Geotechnical Investigation) and
assuming an accidental “burst main” scenario with a raised water table that dissipates relatively quickly.
The slabs will be formed on 75mm void-former on a blinding, to avoid the need for the slabs to be designed to resist
heave forces in addition to the water uplift loads.

Buro Happold
Stage 1 and 2: Install wall and bulk excavation leaving berms
Stage 3: Install temporary props
Stage 4: Excavate berm to formation level and install piles
Figure 5.2 - Pile SWL for various diameters with increasing depth
1.1 Preliminary retaining wall design
On the North East and South West boundaries with Warwick Road and the railway respectively adjacent to them, ground Stage 5: Install basement slab and B2 retaining wall
retention is necessary during construction and permanently. This must be carefully achieved to high tolerances and strict
displacement criteria. The final design will ensure the highway and railway authorities’ displacement limitations are met.
Two retaining wall options have been considered. The first a rotary bored secant piled wall and the second a pressed in
sheet piled wall. Both of which use a similar bottom up construction sequences. The wall is designed to not required an
intermediate prop in both temporary and permanent conditions. This will avoid the need to use smaller excavators
underneath temporary props. The retaining wall allowing excavation to B2 is presented as it represents the worst case. A
shorter wall will be used in areas where excavation to B1 formation is required. Some consideration to the stiffness and
hence deflection compatibility of the two wall lengths will need to be conducted in detailed design. The sequence is as
follows:
Stage 6 and 7: Install ground floor slab, remove top temporary props and install intermediate slab
1. Install wall
2. Conduct bulk excavation in majority of site leaving berms at either end
3. Install top temporary props
4. Excavate berm to formation level and install piles
5. Install basement slab and B2 retaining wall (refer figure 5.1)
6. Install ground floor slab
7. Remove top temporary props and install intermediate upper basement slab
The sequence is illustrated in the following sketches:
Figure 5.3 – Retaining wall construction sequence

Buro Happold
5.3 Secant piled wall
The secant pile wall has been designed to used 1050mm diameter hard male piles at 1200mm centres, with firm female
piles in between. The following list details inputs and outputs from the preliminary analysis and design process:
• A 16.25 kPa surcharge has been applied to the retained surface to represent 37.5 units of HB loading.
• Temporary prop stiffness assumed to be k= 50,000 kN/m/m.
• The permanent slab stiffness is assumed to be k=100,00 kN/m/m.
•
2
Piled wall stiffness taken as EI=1390000 kNm /m.
• Pile toe at -11.00mOD
• Pile cut off level at +5.5 mOD (worst case)
• The maximum bending moment in the long term case is 522 kNm/m [SLS] or 940 kNm/pile [ULS]
•
2
The males piles require a cage of 8B32’s to full depth (Concrete design strength assumed to be 35 N/mm .
• The maximum horizontal displacement in analysis is 25mm, this can be assumed to give a vertical settlement
behind the wall of 13mm.
The secant wall will need to be stiff enough to limit lateral movements such that the resulting settlement trough behind the
wall does not adversely affect the railway or the road. Typically the aim is to limit the potential damage to Category 1, very
slight, in accordance with the CIRIA guidance (contained in “Building Response to Tunnelling”, 2001by Burland et al. first
put forward by Burland in 1977) however this is yet to be agreed with the relevant authorities and stricter requirements
may have to be met.
It is intended to provide a Grade 3 basement in accordance with BS8102. This provides a watertight environment with no
damp. This is appropriate and necessary for the gym, storage and many of the plant spaces. To achieve Grade 3, a high
grade of waterproofing is required. The secant wall will prevent flowing water and provides an effective first barrier
however additional waterproofing is essential and is discussed in more detail in a later section.
A 1050 diameter secant wall has been chosen within the scheme. This ensures minimal propping is required during
construction of the basement and with a carefully planned construction methodology and sequencing, propping can
potentially be eliminated. This diameter secant pile requires propping only at the top when the basement is fully
excavated over both storeys. If the ground floor is constructed with adequate restraint through cores/other prior to full
excavation, then propping can be avoided completely. Furthermore, this pile diameter also ensures that no prop at B1
level is necessary in the permanent condition.
A robust connection between the basement B2 slab and the secant wall is required. This ensures that the two elements
do not pull apart from each other horizontally and also that there is no differential vertical movement between the slab and
the secant wall. Large forces can potentially be generated horizontally and vertically due to shrinkage affects and
settlement of either the slab or the secant wall as live and permanent loading on the two vary and also during
construction, as the building size increases in varying stages.
The image below within the waterproofing section gives an indication of how this connection is achieved. Reinforcement
is cast into the male piles of the secant wall, amongst the main pile reinforcement. After the piles have been installed and
the wall face exposed, reinforcement that is later cast into the basement slab, will be attached to the pile connector
reinforcement by mean s of couplers. Alternatively, propriety void formers can be cast into the pile around the main pile
reinforcement. These are removed from the pile face when casting the slab and slab reinforcement can be hooked around Figure 5.4 – Diagram showing typical section through secant pile wall and achievable installation tolerances to be accounted for when
the main bars in the pile, all to be cast together. setting out the wall line (note: applies in opposite direction from centreline as well (away from basement))
5.4 Sheet piled wall
In general the alternative solution using a sheet piled wall is similar to the secant pile solution described above. Following
are specific parameters relating to sheet piled wall preliminary design:

Buro Happold
The sheet piled wall has been designed as PU32 high yield (S355) ‘U’ profiled sheets, with fully welded clutches. The Basement B2 Slab
following list details inputs and outputs from the preliminary analysis and design process:
Similar to the North West and South East walls, watertight concrete using waterproofing additive is proposed to seal the
• A 16.25 kPa surcharge has been applied to the retained surface to represent 37.5 units of HB loading. basement slab. This waterproof concrete is only typically required for the upper 200-300mm layer of concrete. The final
• Temporary prop stiffness assumed to be k= 50,000 kN/m/m.
depth will depend on the contractor responsible for the waterproofing, in agreement with the additive manufacturer. The
• The slab stiffness is assumed to be k=100,00 kN/m/m.
•
2 rest of the slab depth can be poured using ordinary concrete.
Piled wall stiffness taken as EI=148000 kNm /m.
• Pile toe at -11.00mOD
• Pile cut off level at +5.5 mOD (worst case) The layer of watertight concrete is sealed against the secant wall with hydrophilic strips within the layer depth, all to the
• The maximum bending moment in the long term case is 260kNm/m [SLS] or 390 kNm/m [ULS] waterproofing manufacturer’s guidance and details.
•
3/
The section modulus required is given by: z = (390*10^3)/(355/1.2) = 1318 cm m.
• The section of a PU32 wall is 3200 cm3/m. Giving a FOS of 2.4.
• The maximum horizontal displacement in analysis is 39mm, this can be assumed to give a vertical settlement of
20mm
5.5 Waterproofing
The basement waterproofing strategy for the elements below the ground floor, is discussed and summarised in this
section. BS 8102 2009 ‘Code of practice for protection of below ground structures against water from the ground’ was
used to assess the available waterproofing options.
The ground water table is above the level of the lowest basement slab, BS 8102 classifies this case as ‘High risk’ to the
ingress of ground water.
As discussed previously, grade 3 is a high specification that is suitable for habitable space and no water penetration is
acceptable.
Basement Walls
With a combination of a high risk basement and a high demand for the exclusion of water, a robust waterproofing strategy
that combines two types of protection, is required. Along the secant wall a drained cavity is to be provided. This is one
type of protection. The other, the passive protection, is to be provided by the secant pile wall itself with a waterproofing
and vapour resisting liner attached – a proprietary ‘egg crate’ drainage product. Water that does penetrate the basement
wall will run down all the way passed B1 level to B2 level, within the cavity and be drained away.
The drained cavity will be closed off from the internal spaces with a blockwork inner leaf. At B2 level there will be a
Fig 5.5 - Secant pile wall cavity drain plan detail and waterproofing at basement slab level
channel formed to falls leading to gullies and eventually being discharged to the Thames Water combined sewers. The
discharge of groundwater to the Thames Water combined sewers is subject to agreement and licensing with Thames
Water and will be based on an estimation of flows from the cavity drains. These are typically low and therefore typically
acceptable to Thames Water.
Along the North West and South East in-situ reinforced concrete walls, the use of waterproofing additive is proposed for
the concrete. This renders the reinforced concrete wall watertight. This is an alternate to more traditional, externally or
internally applied, water barriers which are also an option. The benefit with using the additive and waterproof concrete is
that it eliminates the need for sealing joints in membranes that are prone to leaks and there is no risk of damage to the
waterproofing as there is when pouring concrete against membranes.
The additive is included under strict manufacturer guidelines and it is often the case that the manufacturer would typically
have a representative on-site for any initial training and guidance that the contractor may require. This ensures a high
level of quality control to lead to the necessary waterproofing warranties.

Buro Happold
Fig 5.7 Capping beam acting as waling beam
2 In the permanent case the capping beam allows the spread of load from superstructure columns through
transfer beams onto a sufficient number of male piles below. This is needed on the South Western secant
Fig 5.6 - Secant pile wall cavity drain section detail and waterproofing at basement slab level
wall.
5.6 Capping Beam
The capping beam to the perimeter secant piled wall will typically be a 1200 deep x 1550 wide reinforced concrete
section. The capping beam has two main functions:
1 In the temporary case, during excavation and basement construction, if the wall is to be propped (as
opposed to the ground floor being constructed prior to full excavation, then the capping beam acts as a
waler beam to spread the earth pressure from the piled wall onto the temporary lateral propping system.
Fig 5.8 Capping beam acting to spread vertical load
Under this circumstance the capping beam will need to be significantly deeper than the typical 1200 deep section. A
depth in order of 1800mm may be required and this can be determined through detailed analysis in the next design stage.

Buro Happold
5.7 Movement Joint Strategy
No movement joints are proposed in either of the basement slabs as these are likely to be relatively thermally stable. An
appropriate pouring sequence is necessary though to ensure that most curing shrinkage has occurred before the full slab
extent has been poured and is connected up to restraining points such as the cores.
There will be two movement joints in the ground level slab running roughly parallel to Warwick Rd. The figure below
shows how ground level slab diaphragm action is used to transfer propped retaining wall loads to transverse walls and the
foundations:
Fig 5.9 Load path for retaining wall forces

Buro Happold
6 Drainage strategy The surface water run-off will drain from hard impermeable surfaces such as: the roof areas, access road and any other
hard standing areas. The proposed drainage strategy and surface water disposal is intended to mimic the existing
strategy and where possible, the existing connection point(s) will be reused and maintained.
Attenuation will need to be provided to reduce the risk of flooding to the development and downstream flooding of
neighbouring properties.
6.1 Existing System
To minimise on-site and downstream flooding of neighbouring properties, surface water flows will be controlled at source.
This will involve on-site attenuation of storm flows and restricted discharge rates into the existing sewer combined in line
with the requirements of the London Plan where a reduction in the peak flows and volume of surface water from new
developments is expected.
As the proposed development site is fully occupied by the extent of the basements, the form of the Sustainable Drainage
System (SuDS) that can be considered able to deal with the quantity of surface water discharge quite limited.
Below ground attenuation in the forms of void formers, tanks or others of proprietary storage system will be considered to
provide on-site storage for severe storm flows. An alternative could be pre-formed GRP tanks with pumping units built in.
Storage above podium slab . The podium system is designed to accommodate any surface water run-off using
interlocking plastic storage system through a combined drainage component and sub base replacement system.
Design Criteria
The proposed surface water drainage system will be designed to the following criteria:
• No surcharge of the below ground network for a 1 in 2 year storm event;
• No flooding at ground level in a 1 in 30 year storm event;
• Storm events up to a 1 in 100 year storm shall be contained within the attenuation tank(s) and consideration
needs to be given in the event of a pump failure by providing additional storage capacity; and
• Climate change factor of 20% will be applied to the peak rainfall intensity.
Figure 6.1 Existing public sewer (combined) record from Thames Water
Proposed Discharge Rate
The total site area is 0.842 hectares (ha) and existing impermeable area is approximately 75%.
Details of the existing sewer sizes and locations at the Warwick Road have been taken from information provided by The existing discharge is estimated to be:
Thames Water. Figure 1 above shows the location of the existing external sewer network around the proposed site.
Existing flow, Q = 2.78 x 50mm/hr x 0.842 ha x 75%
A combined sewer is identified to be running in a north west- south east direction along Warwick Road. The combined
= 87.78 L/s
sewer size is 2591mm x 2438mm, and an invert level is recorded as IL 0.34m next to the north corner of the project site.
The road level is +5.5m approximately. Based on the London Plan, the discharge is restricted to 50% of the existing rate. Therefore, the discharge rate for the
proposed development is restricted to 43.9 L/s for all storm events.
Within the project site, no existing sewers have been identified.
6.2 Proposed Drainage Strategy
Proposed Surface Water Drainage
A new surface water drainage system will be provided to collect surface water run-off from the proposed site.
Table 6.1 - total flow from existing and new development

Buro Happold
Attenuation Calculations
Table 6.2 below summarises the volume of the below ground storage required to achieve the restricted discharge rates
43.9 L/s. The impermeable area for the project site is the total site area, 0.842ha. The storage volume have been
calculated using the Windes Quick Storage Estimate Programme and 20% climate change (CC) has been applied,
attached in Appendix B.
Table 6.2 - attenuation design to restrict expected runoff
Proposed Foul Water Drainage
A new and separate foul water drainage system will be provided to collect foul water generated from the new buildings. It
is understood the project comprises a development of about 174 units for sale and 81 affordable housing units, along with
481 sqm of A1, A2, A3 or D1 uses.
Estimated Foul Loads
The calculations for the proposed foul loads are summarised in the next table.
Table 6.3 - foul water load estimate for the intended development

Buro Happold
7 Further Considerations
Impact on existing and proposed trees
The following points address aspects specifically mentioned in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
On the Western boundary is a substantial number of trees separating the site from the railway lines. The railway
Subterranean Development SPD document:
operators are to be contacted to establish asset protection agreements between the parties and initiate appropriate
approval/reviewing procedures. The trees are not protected and do not have conservation area status.
Suitability of local geology to support loads and construction techniques imposed The sequence for the temporary works and details and design of preferred method of temporary works
The new basement structure has been designed based on site specific geological parameters. Refer section 5. Section 5 describes the principles of the proposed temporary works method. Details will be finalised in conjunction with a
temporary works designer and the contractor in the more detailed phase of the design process.
Impact of the subterranean development, and associated construction and temporary works, on the structural
integrity and natural ability for the movement of existing and surrounding structures, utilities, infrastructure and
man-made cavities, such as tunnels
Network rail have confirmed no underground services in the vicinity of the site. Overground services exist in close
proximity to the site and this has been taken into account in the basement design (refer section 5). Communication is
ongoing with Network rail in terms of approvals. Local service providers have been contacted and site surveys undertaken
to identify any existing or planned underground services in the area as part of the ongoing design process.
Whether the development will initiate slope instability which may threaten its neighbours
Coordination is on-going with the design teams of adjacent developments to the North West and South East boundaries
and this has determined the foundation strategy in these areas. Retaining walls to the North East and South West
boundaries are being designed to criteria acceptable to the transportation authorities affected in either case. Refer section
5.
Impact on drainage, sewage, surface water and ground water, flows and levels
The development will not have a significant effect on the perched water table. The preliminary design drainage strategy
conforms to local statutory requirements (refer section 5.5 and section 6).
How any geological, hydrological and structural concerns have been satisfactorily addressed
Refer to section 5
Engineering details of the scheme, including proposals for excavation and construction
Refer section 5 and Appendix B
Impact on the structural stability of existing and adjoining buildings
Refer above and section 5

Buro Happold
Appendix A Indicative Site Plan

Copyright © Buro Happold Limited
Block A
Block D
Block F
INDICATIVE SITE PLAN ONLY
Block B Block E Block G
Block C
TERR
ACE
5.
2m
LB
ON R OAD
THES
Buro Happold
Appendix B Preliminary Structural Basement Drawings

Copyright © Buro Happold Limited
© Buro Happold Limited or its group companies.
All Rights reserved. Buro Happold and its group companies assert (unless otherwise agreed in
writing) their rights under s.77 to 89 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING.
HEALTH AND SAFETY INFORMATION

IN ADDITION TO THE HAZARDS/RISKS NORMALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TYPES OF WORK DETAILED ON
THIS DRAWING, NOTE THE FOLLOWING
CONSTRUCTION.
MAINTENANCE/CLEANING/OPERATION.
DECOMMISSIONING/DEMOLITION.
Notes
A1 A2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 W1 W2 W3 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES REFER TO

DRAWING NUMBER 032031 / S-S0001
A3
CA WA
AA
CB
UP
WB
CC UP
UP
CD WC
UP
CE
UP
CF WD
WE
CH
UP
WF
CI
CJ
WG
AB
1
1
S-S1096
S-S1095
1 BASEMENT 2
SCALE 1 : 200
00 STAGE D ISSUE 14.02.14 SA GF

Rev Description Date Drn Ch'd
STAGE D
Status of drawing
17 Newman Street
London
W1T 1PD
UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 9700
Fax: +44 (0)870 787 4145
Email: 032031@burohappold.com Buro Happold
Web: www.burohappold.com Consulting Engineers
Architect SWANKE HAYDEN CONNELL ARCHITECTS
Project
245 WARWICK ROAD, LONDON
Drg Title
BASEMENT 2
REFERENCE PLAN
Scales@A0
Drawn By
1 : 200
SA
Job No.
032031
Checked By GF Drawing No.
S-S0998
Date 14.02.2014 Rev 00

CONSTRUCTION.
Notes

A3
CA WA
AA
CB
UP
DN
WB
CC
DN
UP
UP
DN
CD WC
UP
DN
CE
UP
CF DN
WD
WE
CH
UP
DN
WF
CI
CJ
WG
AB
1
S-S1098
1
S-S1097
1 BASEMENT 1
SCALE 1 : 200

STAGE D
Status of drawing
17 Newman Street
London
W1T 1PD
UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 9700
Fax: +44 (0)870 787 4145
Project
Drg Title
BASEMENT 1
REFERENCE PLAN
Scales@A0
Drawn By
1 : 200
SA
Job No.
032031
S-S0999
Date 14.02.2014 Rev 00

CONSTRUCTION.
Notes

A3
CA WA
AA
CB
DN
WB
CC
UP
DN
DN
CD WC
UP
DN
CE
CF DN
WD
WE
CH
DN
WF
CI
CJ
WG
AB
1
S-S1100
1
S-S1099
1 GROUND FLOOR
SCALE 1 : 200

STAGE D
Status of drawing
17 Newman Street
London
W1T 1PD
UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 9700
Fax: +44 (0)870 787 4145
Project
Drg Title
GROUND FLOOR
REFERENCE PLAN
Scales@A0
Drawn By
1 : 200
SA
Job No.
032031
S-S1000
Date 14.02.2014 Rev 00

W1 W2 W3
3600 5400
CONSTRUCTION.
A1 A2
8000
W-1ST FLOOR SSL
+9.475 m
200 THK. R.C. WALL
Notes
225 THK. R.C. WALL A-1ST FLOOR SSL
W3
225 THK. R.C. WALL 225 THK. R.C. WALL +7.225 m 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES REFER TO
SITE
BOUNDARY 300x475 DP
R.C. BEAM
200 THK. R.C. WALL SITE
BOUNDARY
SITE
BOUNDARY
W-GROUND FLOOR SSL W-GROUND FLOOR SSL

700x900 DP
350
350
+4.650 m SSL +4.300 m R.C. BEAM +4.650 m SSL +4.300 m
A-GROUND FLOOR SSL
350
+4.050 m SSL +3.700 m
1450x1200 DEEP
1450x1200 DEEP R.C. CAPPING BEAM
R.C. CAPPING BEAM
1450x1200 DEEP
R.C. CAPPING BEAM
700x900 DP 800x1000 DP
HALFEN CHANNELS AT 900 R.C. BEAM HALFEN CHANNELS AT 900
CENTRES WITH SLEEVED R.C. BEAM CENTRES WITH SLEEVED
WALL TIES ALLOWING 900x1200 DP WALL TIES ALLOWING
VERTICAL MOVEMENT 100 WIDE BLOCK WORK R.C. BEAM VERTICAL MOVEMENT 100 WIDE BLOCK WORK
HALFEN CHANNELS AT 900
WALL TO ARCHITECTS CENTRES WITH SLEEVED WALL TO ARCHITECTS
DETAILS 650x650 R.C. COLUMN DETAILS
100 WIDE R.C. WALL TIES ALLOWING
UPSTAND VERTICAL MOVEMENT
100 WIDE R.C. UPSTAND
150
SOFT JOINT AT LEVEL
BASEMENT 1 SSL SOFT JOINT AT LEVEL BASEMENT 1 SSL BASEMENT 1 SSL B1 TO ALLOW VERTICAL
+0.750 m B1 TO ALLOW VERTICAL +0.750 m +0.750 m MOVEMENT
MOVEMENT
100 WIDE BLOCK
100 WIDE BLOCK WORK WORK WALL TO 100 WIDE BLOCK WORK
WALL TO ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTS WALL TO ARCHITECTS
HALFEN CHANNELS AT 900 DETAILS 1050 DIAMETER SECANT DETAILS HALFEN CHANNELS AT 900 DETAILS
500 THK. R.C. BASEMENT CENTRES WITH SLEEVED PILE WALL CENTRES WITH SLEEVED
SLAB (250 WATERPROOF WALL TIES ALLOWING WALL TIES ALLOWING
CONCRETE) TOP 250mm OF 500mm VERTICAL MOVEMENT TOP 250mm OF CONCRETE VERTICAL MOVEMENT
CONCRETE SLAB TO BE CAVITY DRAIN BETWEEN SLAB TO BE WATERPROOF 100 WIDE R.C. UPSTAND CAVITY DRAIN BETWEEN
WATERPROOF CONCRETE UPSTAND AND SECANT 100 WIDE R.C. UPSTAND CONCRETE TOP 250mm OF CONCRETE UPSTAND AND SECANT
WALL AT B2 LEVEL ONLY SLAB TO BE WATERPROOF WALL AT B2 LEVEL ONLY
300
CONCRETE
250
250
500
500
250
300
BASEMENT 2 SSL BASEMENT 2 SSL BASEMENT 2 SSL
-2.300 m -2.300 m -2.300 m
1050 DIAMETER SECANT
CAVITY DRAIN BETWEEN
PILE WALL
100 WIDE R.C. UPSTAND UPSTAND AND SECANT
500
WALL AT B2 LEVEL ONLY
75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON 75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON 75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON
50mm CONCRETE BLINDING 900Ø R.C. 3-PILE CAP - 50mm CONCRETE BLINDING
1050 DIAMETER SECANT 50mm CONCRETE BLINDING
1800 DEEP
(TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350 PILE WALL (TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350 (TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350
THK BASEMENT SLABS) THK BASEMENT SLABS) THK BASEMENT SLABS)
900Ø R.C. PILE 900Ø R.C. PILE
2000 THK. R.C.

FOUNDATION SLAB
3000 THK. R.C.
FOUNDATION SLAB
1 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 1-1 3 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 2-2 2 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 3-3

SCALE 1 : 50
SCALE 1 : 50 SCALE 1 : 50
FOR WATERPROOFING MEASURES AT B2 LEVEL

AND RETAINING WALLS REFER TO STAGE D
ENGINEERING REPORT
CJ CI CF CE
4450 1800
CB CA
1800
300x1100 275x1100
R.C. R.C.
COLUMN COLUMN
450 THK. R.C. SLAB
450 THK. R.C. SLAB
450 THK R.C. SLAB
C-GROUND FLOOR SSL C-GROUND FLOOR SSL C-GROUND FLOOR SSL C-GROUND FLOOR SSL
450 350
450 350
350
+4.650 m +4.650 m SSL +4.300 m +4.650 m +4.650 m
450
SSL +4.300 m SSL +4.300 m
600x1000 DP
R.C. BEAM
450 THK. R.C. SLAB

300 THK. R.C. SLAB 600x1200 DP 600x1000 DP
250 THK. R.C. R.C. BEAM R.C. BEAM
375x1100 250 THK. R.C. 250 THK. R.C.
R.C. WALL 1200x1600 DP WALL
WALL
COLUMN (WATERPROOF R.C. BEAM (WATERPROOF
(WATERPROOF
CONCRETE) 375x600 375x1300 1500x1600 DP CONCRETE)
CONCRETE) 400x400
R.C. TOP 250mm OF 350mm R.C. TOP 250mm OF 350mm R.C.BEAM
COLUMN COLUMN CONCRETE SLAB TO BE R.C.
CONCRETE SLAB TO BE
WATERPROOF CONCRETE COLUMN
WATERPROOF CONCRETE
300 THK. R.C. SLAB
300 THK. R.C. SLAB
250
350
350
250
BASEMENT 1 SSL BASEMENT 1 SSL BASEMENT 1 SSL BASEMENT 1 SSL

+0.750 m +0.750 m +0.750 m +0.750 m
300
75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON

75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON 50mm CONCRETE BLINDING
900Ø R.C. 2-PILE CAP - 900Ø R.C. 4-PILE CAP - 300 THK. R.C.
50mm CONCRETE BLINDING (TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350
375x1100 300 THK. R.C. 1800 DEEP 1800 DEEP 300 THK. R.C. WALL 00 STAGE D ISSUE 14.02.14 SA GF
(TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350 THK BASEMENT SLABS) 400x400
R.C. WALL WALL (WATERPROOF
75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON THK BASEMENT SLABS) R.C. Rev Description Date Drn Ch'd
COLUMN TOP 250mm OF 500mm (WATERPROOF (WATERPROOF TOP 250mm OF 350mm CONCRETE)
50mm CONCRETE BLINDING COLUMN
CONCRETE SLAB TO BE CONCRETE) CONCRETE) CONCRETE SLAB TO BE
(TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350
WATERPROOF CONCRETE WATERPROOF CONCRETE
THK BASEMENT SLABS)
STAGE D
900Ø R.C. PILE 900Ø R.C. PILE 900Ø R.C. PILE
500
250
500
500
250
250
BASEMENT 2 SSL BASEMENT 2 SSL BASEMENT 2 SSL BASEMENT 2 SSL
-2.300 m -2.300 m -2.300 m -2.300 m
Status of drawing
1800 THK. R.C.

FOUNDATION SLAB
900Ø R.C. 4-PILE CAP -
1800 DEEP
1000x1200 DP 1000x1200 DP 900Ø R.C. 1-PILE CAP -
900Ø R.C. 1-PILE CAP - 1200 DEEP
R.C.GROUND 1200 DEEP R.C.GROUND
BEAM BEAM 900Ø R.C. PILE
17 Newman Street
900Ø R.C. PILE 900Ø R.C. PILE London
900Ø R.C. PILE 75mm THICK VOID FORMER ON W1T 1PD
900Ø R.C. PILE
900Ø R.C. PILE 50mm CONCRETE BLINDING UK
(TYPICAL UNDER 500 THK AND 350
THK BASEMENT SLABS) Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 9700
5 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 5-5

Fax: +44 (0)870 787 4145
SCALE 1 : 50 Web: www.burohappold.com Consulting Engineers
4 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 4-4 7 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 7-7 Architect SWANKE HAYDEN CONNELL ARCHITECTS
SCALE 1 : 50
SCALE 1 : 50 Project
Drg Title
SUBSTRUCTURE SECTIONS
SHEET 1
6 SUBSTRUCTURE SECTION 6-6
SCALE 1 : 50
Scales@A0
Drawn By
1 : 50
SA
Job No.
032031
S-S5000
Date 14.02.2014 Rev 00
Vincent Allott
Buro Happold Limited
17 Newman Street
London
W1T 1PD
UK
Telephone: +44(0) 207927 9700
Facsimile: +44(0) 870787 4145
Email: VA

245 Warwick RD: Basement Construction Method Statement

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

245 Warwick RD: Basement Construction Method Statement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

245 Warwick Rd

Basement Construction Method Statement

Revision Description Issued by Date Checked

00 For Planning VA 07/04/2014 AP

author Vincent Allott

approved Angus Palmer

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

2.1 Site Constraints 8

2.2 Unexploded Ordinance 8

3 Site History and Geology 9

3.1 Site History 9

3.2 Site Geology 9

3.3 Ground Profile 9

3.5 Preliminary and Detailed Design Parameters 9

4.2 Preliminary geo-environmental assessment 11

4.3 Analytical results for soils 11

4.3.2 Analytical Results for leachate 11

4.4 Summary of Ground Risks 11

4.5 Further Testing and Considerations 11

5 Basement Design and Construction Methodology 12

5.2 Preliminary pile design 12

1.1 Preliminary retaining wall design 13

5.3 Secant piled wall 14

5.4 Sheet piled wall 14

5.6 Capping Beam 16

5.7 Movement Joint Strategy 17

6.1 Existing System 18

6.2 Proposed Drainage Strategy 18

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

Appendix A Indicative Site Plan

Appendix B Preliminary Structural Basement Drawings

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

2.1 Site Constraints

2.2 Unexploded Ordinance

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

3.2 Site Geology 3.5 Preliminary and Detailed Design Parameters

3.3 Ground Profile

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

Figure 3.1 – Design Parameter Summary

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

4 Geo-environmental Assessment Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

4.2 Preliminary geo-environmental assessment

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

5 Basement Design and Construction Methodology

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

Stage 3: Install temporary props

Stage 4: Excavate berm to formation level and install piles

1.1 Preliminary retaining wall design

The sequence is illustrated in the following sketches:

Figure 5.3 – Retaining wall construction sequence

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

5.3 Secant piled wall

5.4 Sheet piled wall

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

Fig 5.7 Capping beam acting as waling beam

5.6 Capping Beam

Fig 5.8 Capping beam acting to spread vertical load

245 Warwick Rd Revision 00

5.7 Movement Joint Strategy

Fig 5.9 Load path for retaining wall forces