FULLTEXT01

DEGREE PROJECT IN CIVIL ENGINEERING AND URBAN
MANAGEMENT,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020
Geotechnical reinforcement work

for foundation of extending an
existing residential building
MALIN KARLBOM
LOVISA HALLMAN
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-20194
www.kth.se
Geotechnical reinforcement work
for foundation of extending an
existing residential building
Malin Karlbom & Lovisa Hallman
Master of Science Thesis, 2020
KTH Royal Institute of Technology

School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering
Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics
SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
© Malin Karlbom & Lovisa Hallman, 2020
Master of Science Thesis
Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics
Royal Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
The last hundreds of years there has been a land elevation that causes an increased distance between
the groundwater level and the buildings founded on wooden piles. When wooden piles are exposed
to air, rot fungus occurs which causes the pile to lose its bearing capacity. With the critical problem
of housing shortage, the demand can be met if an innovative solution is created by extending a
superstructure on top of an existing building within the city center of Stockholm. The purpose of
this thesis is to investigate whether it is profitable to extend an existing building with a
superstructure when reinforcing an existing foundation. By an extensive literature survey, a model
is created and exposed to several analyzes containing both analytical and numerical calculations.
Based on the acquired knowledge, the model reflects the most common building built within the
city center of Stockholm, that was founded on wooden piles, where the geological conditions
consist of clay. A new foundation has been designed consisting of drilled end-bearing steel piles.
For the two pile dimensions of RD220/12.5 and RD170/10, the possible load transfer methods
of full niches, ground beam with half a niche, yoke beams and slab with half a niche are analyzed,
respectively. These methods were combined differently to obtain the possible combinations
performed in this building, that in turn, gives the difference in the amount of work and costs. An
intended superstructure consisting of four storeys in wood is then applied on the existing building
to once again, obtain the differences in amount of work and costs. Comparing these two cases, the
profitability is determined. The study shows for the larger pile that the superstructure entails no
difference in the required amount of piles and therefore, no difference in the total cost compared
to the existing building. However, for the smaller pile, the superstructure entails a small increase in
the required amount of piles and the cost. The study resulted that the larger pile provides the
cheapest geotechnical reinforcement work, regardless if the superstructure is applied or not,
compared to the smaller pile. The thesis show that it is profitable to extend an existing building
when the existing foundation is strengthened, due to the great revenue of the superstructure, which
entails that the profitability is a fact.
Keywords: geotechnical reinforcement work of foundation, drilled piles, steel piles,

superstructure, extension of wood
SAMMANFATTNING
Under de senaste hundra åren har det skett en landhöjning i Stockholm. Detta medför att
byggnader som är grundlagda med träpålar får ett avstånd till grundvattennivån. Träpålarna utsätts
då för luft som i sin tur leder till försämrad bärförmåga, vilket innebär att grundläggningen behöver
förstärkas. En annan stor utmaning i Stockholm är bostadsbristen. En lösning för att kunna möta
efterfrågan på bostäder är att bygga på höjden ovanpå en befintlig byggnad inom Stockholms
innerstad. Detta kräver att grundläggningen klarar av att bära en påbyggnation, vilket leder till syftet
för denna studie. Syftet med studien är att undersöka om det är lönsamt att bygga på en befintlig
byggnad när man samtidigt grundförstärker byggnaden bestående av träpålar. För att besvara
studiens syfte har två modeller skapats och analyserats ur fler perspektiv som därefter jämförts.
Modellerna baseras på en omfattande litteraturundersökning och återspeglar en befintlig byggnad
i form utav den vanligaste byggda byggnaden i Stockholms innerstad med en grundläggning av
träpålar. Den första modellen innefattar endast den befintliga byggnaden och den andra modellen
innefattar den befintliga byggnaden med en påbyggnation av fyra våningar bestående av trä. En ny
grundläggning behövs, då det är svårt att kontrollera bärkapaciteten hos dessa befintliga träpålar.
Den nya grundläggningen består utav borrande ändbärande stålpålar där två olika dimensioner
undersöks, RD220/12.5 och RD170/10. För dessa två dimensioner har olika lastöverförings-
metoder analyserats separat, varav de möjliga metoderna för denna typbyggnad är hela nischer,
markbalk med anfang, ok-balk och platta på mark med anfang. Dessa metoder för respektive
dimension har kombinerats för att erhålla det totala grundförstärkningsarbetet som i sin tur
genererar en skillnad i både mängd arbete och kostnad för de två olika modellerna. Därefter
bestäms lönsamheten genom en jämförelse mellan de två olika modellerna. Studien visar att en
påbyggnation inte medför någon skillnad i varken erforderlig mängd arbete eller kostnad för den
större dimensionen. För den mindre dimensionen erhölls en ökning i både arbete och kostnad.
Studien resulterande i att den större dimensionen ger totalt det billigaste grundförstärkningsarbetet,
oavsett om en påbyggnation sker eller inte, i jämförelse mot den mindre dimensionen. Vid en
grundförstärkning visar studien att det är lönsamt att samtidigt utföra en påbyggnation ovanpå en
befintlig byggnad.
Nyckelord: grundförstärkning, borrade pålar, stålpålar, våningspåbyggnad, påbyggnation av trä

PREFACE
This Master of Science Thesis was conducted during the spring 2020 at the division of Soil and
Rock Mechanics at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH. The thesis ended our civil
engineering studies at the Royal Institute of Technology and was conducted in collaboration with
Skanska Grundläggning and Skanska Hus.
We would like to give our supervisor Stefan Larsson, professor at the Royal Institute of
Technology, KTH, a big and genuine thank you for all your help and encouragement. Your
mentorship and knowledge have been valuable to us.
We would also like to thank our supervisors Joakim Berg and Daniel Beyer at Skanska’s
department of foundation and housing, respectively. Thank you for your valuable insights and for
sharing your experiences within the subject. Finally, we would like to thank Ricardo Öjring
Garcia at Skanska, for the interesting discussions and for all the time you spent helping us.
Thank you, Skanska, for the opportunity and for making this collaboration possible.
Stockholm 2020–05–18
Malin Karlbom & Lovisa Hallman
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
BBR Boverkets Byggregler [Boverket’s Building Regulations]
EKS Boverkets Konstruktionsregler [Boverkets’ Construction Regulations]
GEO Geotechnical Bearing Capacity
PBL Plan- och Bygglagen [Planning and Building Act]
SLS Serviceability Limit State
STR Structural Bearing Capacity
ULS Ultimate Limit State
Symbols
Greek symbol Explanation Unit

! Slope of the extended roof °
" Heaviness of a material kN/m3
"!"#$%& Heaviness of blinds kN/m3
"!"#$%&!'()& Heaviness of blinds and beams kN/m3
"*+, Heaviness of wood type CLT kN/m3
"-. Partial factor for undrained shear strength -
"/ Safety class parameter -
"0#""#$1 Heaviness of filling kN/m3
"0#""#$1!'()& Heaviness of filling and beams kN/m3
"12(3'" Heaviness of gravel kN/m3
"4 ( Permanent partial coefficient adverse -
"4 0 Permanent partial coefficient favorable -
")(&5$26 Heaviness of masonry bricks kN/m3
"7"(&8'2 Heaviness of plaster kN/m3
"9 ( Variable partial coefficient adverse -
"9 0 Variable partial coefficient favorable -
":+: Partial coefficient in service limit state -
";55%!"##$ Heaviness of wooden floor kN/m3
∆h Distance between a floor and where the wind acts m
%1 Initial deflection acting on the pile mm
& Form factor of roof -
' Coefficient permanent load -
p Pi -
( Density kg/m3
ϕ′ Friction angle °
+ Creep coefficient -
,< #)75&'% Factor for combination value for residential load -
,< &$5; Factor for combination value for residential load -
Latin symbol Explanation Unit
- Coefficient of modulus of subgrade reaction -
-(2'( The housing area for one storey m2
-=5"' Cross-section area of one hole in the heart walls m2
-#$$'2,&"(! Inner area of the slab m2
-"5$1,$#-=' Area of longitudinal half a niche m2
-$#-=' Cross-section area of one full niche m2
-2550 Area of the roof m2
-858(",0"552 Total area of the floor m2
. Coefficient of extreme value of lateral resistance -
/ Width of the building m
0 Strength class of concrete filling MPa
0< Exposure factor -
07' Factor of form for wind -
0725% Costs for production of superstructure SEK
0?/@@<%&'() Costs for cheapest geotechnical work for case 1 and RD220 SEK
0?/AB<%&'() Costs for cheapest geotechnical work for case 1 and RD170 SEK
0?/@@<%&'(* Costs for cheapest geotechnical work for case 2 and RD220 SEK
0?/AB<%&'(* Costs for cheapest geotechnical work for case 2 and RD170 SEK
02'&."8**+ The result between revenue and investment cost for RD220 SEK
02'&."8),+ The result between revenue and investment cost for RD170 SEK
0&("'& The sales price of the extended superstructure SEK
08 Thermal coefficient -
!"#$!"##$!"#$% Total investment costs summed up for case 2 and RD220 SEK
!"#$!"%&$!"#$% Total investment costs summed up for case 2 and RD170 SEK
11 Maximum center distance m
1725% The production costs for the superstructure per area SEK/ m2
1&("'& The sales price for the superstructure per area SEK/ m2
1.C Undrained shear strength kPa
2 Depth of the building m
2-5225&#5$ Corrosion thickness mm
2= Load-bearing distance for heart wall in section B m
25 Load-bearing distance for outer wall in section B m
25.8'2 Pile dimension mm
28=#-C$'&& Pile thickness mm
%&'$ℎ The depth of a certain building element m
%)*+&$&, Diameter of one hole in the heart walls m
3 Eccentricity where the stabilizing moment acts m
4% Design loads and values on the capacity kN/m
5% Percentage of additional load due to extension kN/m
5'% The design value of wind force acting on the wall kN/m
5'E#&8#$1 Summary of permanent and variable load existing kN/m
5'E8'$&#5$ Summary of permanent and variable load extension kN/m
66% Design value for steel & the grade of pile MPa
7% Percentage of long-term load kN/m
7'E#&8#$1 Summary of permanent load existing kN/m
75.8'2;("" The design load that the outer wall carries due to wind kN/m
7#,F Permanent load for each wall and each cross-section kN/m
7='(28;("" The design load that the heart wall carries due to wind kN/m
7858(" Summary of permanent load total kN/m
8 Acceleration of gravity m/s2
8(88#- The self-weight of the attic kN/m
8!'(2#$1 The self-weight of the bearing elements kN/m
8'E#&8#$1 Summarized self-weight without roof kN/m
8'E#&8#$1#-". Summarized self-weight with roof kN/m
8'E8'$%'% Summarized self-weight of the extension kN/m
80"552 The self-weight of the floor kN/m
80"552/#00#1 The self-weight of the bottom floor kN/m
80"552(23'03-4 The self-weight of the existing floor kN/m
8='(28;("" The permanent load that the wall carries due to wind kN/m
8$5$G!'(2#$1 The self-weight of the non-bearing elements kN/m
85.8'2;("" The permanent load that the wall carries due to wind kN/m
82550 The self-weight of the roof kN/m
825500$5'' The self-weight of the roof truss kN/m
8&8''" The self-weight of the reinforced floor of steel kN/m
8;("" The self-weight of the walls kN/m
9′ The distance the earth pressure acts on m
9 Largest height of the beam in the extended roof m
9#$&."(8#5$ Thickness of insulation system in the roof m
ℎ Smallest height of the beam in the extended roof m
ℎ′ Difference in height of the beam m
ℎ(""5;'% Allowed height of the total building due to fire safety m
ℎ(""5;'%(20(-'3#- Allowed height of the extension building m
ℎ(88#-3-%"3-(6 Height of inclined part of attic m
ℎ(88#-'0$&3470 Height of straight part of attic m
ℎ!.#"%#$1 Total height of the building, both extension and existing m
ℎ!.#"%#$1H(88#- Height of existing building with the attic m
ℎ!.#"%#$1G(88#- Height of existing building without the attic m
ℎ'E8'$&#5$ Height of the extended part m
ℎ0#2'82.-C63'0&-%( Allowed distance between fire truck and fire point m
ℎ0#2'7(8=63'0&-%( Allowed distance between fire truck and building m
ℎ0"552 Indoor height of a floor in the extension m
-&).ℎ$ The height of a certain building element m
;7 Soil earth passive pressure coefficient -
< Inclined length of one side of the roof m
<-2 Buckling length m
/&0.$ℎ The length of a certain building element m
=I% Moment acting on the building due to the wind force kNm
=53'28.2$ Overturn moment due to wind force kNm
=&8(!#"#J#$1 Stabilizing moment of self-weight due to eccentricity kNm
> Axial normal force acting on a pile kN
?'E#&8#$1 Number of floors in the existing part Pcs
?'E8'$%'% The chosen number of floors in the extended part Pcs
?'E8'$&#5$ Total number of floors of extension Pcs
?"'3'" Geotechnical carrying capacity verification level -
?)(E Maximum number of floors with only one elevator Pcs
?K/L Amount of piles that are PDA measured Pcs
?7#"'& Amount of piles that each wall needs Pcs
?&7"#-'& Number of splices of steel pipes per each pile Pcs
?858(",MIN@@< Number of longitudinal beams HEB220 Pcs
?858(",=5"'& The total number of holes in the heart walls Pcs
?858(",7#"'& The total number of piles each wall type needs Pcs
@=52#J5$8(" The total horizontal force checked in its equilibrium kN
@7 The resultant of passive force per unit length kN/m
@858(",7 Total resultant of passive force acting on the total wall kN
@;#$% The total wind force kN
A'E#&8#$1 Summary of variable load for each cross-section existing kN/m
A#,F Variable load for each wall and each cross-section kN/m
A858(" Summary of variable load for each cross-section total kN/m
B(88#- Load of the attic kN/m2
B!'(2#$1 Load of bearing walls kN/m2
B!2#-C Load depending on the number of bricks kN/m2
B0"552 Load of the extended floor kN/m2
B0"552/#00#1 Load of the existing bottom floor kN/m2
B0"552(23'03-4 Load of the existing floor kN/m2
B$5$G!'(2#$1 Load of non-bearing walls kN/m2
B7 (E) Characteristic speed pressure kN/m2
B2'&#%'$8#(" Load of residential load kN/m2
B2550 Load of outer part of the extended roof kN/m2
B25500$5'' Load of roof truss on the extended part kN/m2
B&$5; Snow load acting on the roof kN/m2
B&8''" Load of reinforced iron beam floor kN/m2
GC Characteristic snow load kN/m2
H!"#$%&!'()& Thickness of layer with blinds and beams m
H0#""#$1!'()& Thickness of layer with fillings and blinds m
H0"552 Thickness of the extended floor m
H0"552'0$(-407 Thickness of strengthening floor m
H)(&5$26 Thickness of layer with masonry m
H7"(&8'2 Thickness of layer with plaster m
H;55%!"##$ Thickness of layer with wooden floor m
I=("0$#-=' Volume of one half a niche m3
I!'() Volume that one beam in the roof has m3
I125.$% !'() Volume of one ground beam m3
I=5"' Volume of one hole in the heart walls m3
I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'() Volume of one longitudinal beam HEB220 m3
I$#-=' Volume of one full niche m3
I858(" Total volume of a certain building element m3
I858(",=("0$#-=' Total volume of the half niches m3
I858(",=5"'& The total number of holes in the heart walls m3
I858(",&5#" Total volume of the soil m3
I858(",$#-='& Total volume of the full niches m3
J2'0 Reference speed of wind m/s
K Width of the beam in the extended roof m
L' Characteristic value of wind load kN/m2
L'% Design value of wind load kN/m2
1)2$ℎ The width of a certain building element m
E Height from ground surface up to each floor that wind acts m
LIST OF TABLES
Table no. Explanation

1.1.1 The population growth within Stockholm County (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2019).
2.1.1 The used search terms for each subject.
3.2.1 The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Kungsholmen (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
3.2.2 The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Södermalm (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
3.2.3 The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Gamla Stan (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
3.2.4 The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Norrmalm (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
3.2.5 The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Östermalm (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
3.2.6 The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Vasastaden (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
3.3.1 Distribution of residential buildings built in Stockholm over time (Riksantikvarieämbetet (n.d).
5.2.1 Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section A and outer wall.
5.2.2 Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section A and heart wall.
5.2.3 Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section B and outer wall.
5.2.4 Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section B and heart wall.
7.2.1 Obtained design loads for case 1 in each cross-section and wall.
7.2.2 Obtained design loads for case 2 in each cross-section and wall.
8.1.1 The applicable transfer methods for each wall.
8.3.1 The results of RD220/12.5 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 1.
8.3.2 The results of RD170/10 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 1.
8.3.3 The results of RD220/12.5 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 2.
8.3.4 The results of RD170/10 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 2.
9.1.1 The potential combinations of transfer methods for each cross-section.
9.1.2 The potential total combinations of transfer methods for all walls.
9.2.1 The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 1.
9.2.2 The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 1.
9.2.3 The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 2.
9.2.4 The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 2.
9.2.5 Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 1.
9.2.6 Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 1.
9.2.7 Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 2.
9.2.8 Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 2.
10.1 Results for the first case for any profitability.
10.2 Results for the second case for any profitability.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure no. Explanation
3.2.1 The districts of Stockholm (SGU, 2017).
3.4.1 The framework of a building built between 1890s-1910s with a height of 26.84m (Bjerking, 1974).
3.4.2 Stone wall on wooden piles, a) with shorter lengths and b) longer lengths (Björk, et al. 2013).
3.6.1 The drilling machine Källarmus drilling a) RD-piles and b) through an obstacle. (Skanska, 2014).
3.6.2 The prospective full niche in a dry-stone wall (Skanska, 2014).
3.6.3 The full niche a) with pile installation and b) filled with reinforcement, soon to be cast (Skanska, 2014).
3.6.4 The full niche designed in a wall where the pile is centrally installed (Skanska, 2020).
3.6.5 The console cantilever a) with a plate (Skanska, 2014) and b) solution with a beam (Skanska, 2020).
3.6.6 The ground beam solution consisting of reinforcement and concrete (Skanska, 2020).
3.6.7 The yoke beam through a wall. (Skanska, 2014).
3.6.8 The yoke beam with one beam through the wall and the other beam longitudinal along the wall,
presented in a) one cross-section and b) the other cross-section. (Skanska, 2020).
3.6.9 The reinforcement method with a) conical hole and b) cross piles (Skanska, 2014).
4.1.1 The assumed soil strata sequence in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.3.1 The floor plan for one storey in cross-section C.
4.3.2 The existing building in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.4.1 The connection construction in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.5.1 The superstructure in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.6.1 The walls location in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.6.2 The design of floor plan with the walls in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.6.3 The final constructed model in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
6.2.1 The horizontal a) wind force on each wall and b) passive earth pressure.
6.2.2 The global analysis of the horizontal equilibrium.
7.2.1 Obtained design loads for case 1 for a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
7.2.2 Obtained design loads for case 2 for a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Aim and objective ...........................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Assumptions and delimitations .....................................................................................................................................2
2. METHODS AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Literature survey ..............................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Construction of the model .............................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Analytical and numerical analyzes.................................................................................................................................5
3. LITERATURE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Theoretical background and review .............................................................................................................................7
3.2 Geological conditions .....................................................................................................................................................9
3.3 Stockholm’s building and architectural history........................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Structure of existing building...................................................................................................................................... 12
Framework construction ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Foundation construction ......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Building material for a superstructure ....................................................................................................................... 15
Wood as building material for the superstructure ..................................................................................................... 15
Connection between the existing and extended building ............................................................................................ 15
The various elements of the superstructure ............................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Methods for reinforcement work of foundation ..................................................................................................... 16
The need of geotechnical reinforcement work ............................................................................................................. 16
The work before the geotechnical reinforcement work ................................................................................................ 17
Methods of geotechnical reinforcement work ............................................................................................................. 18
Methods to transfer loads to the foundation ............................................................................................................. 20
Activities for the geotechnical reinforcement works.................................................................................................... 25
Considerations regarding strengthening the foundation ............................................................................................. 25
3.7 Legislated regulations and requirements ................................................................................................................... 26
Eurocodes and EKS .............................................................................................................................................. 27
BBR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29
3.7.4 Climate requirements.............................................................................................................................................. 30
3.8 Discussion & Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Theoretical background and review.......................................................................................................................... 30
Geology, the building history and the existing foundation ......................................................................................... 31
Geotechnical reinforcement works of foundations ...................................................................................................... 31
The existing framework .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Building material for a superstructure ..................................................................................................................... 32
Legislated regulations and requirements .................................................................................................................. 33
Profitability and costs of a superstructure................................................................................................................. 33
4. THE CONSTRUCTED MODELS .......................................................................................................35

4.1 Geological conditions .................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.2 Existing construction of foundation ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.3 Existing construction of framework ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.4 Construction of connection ........................................................................................................................................ 37
4.5 Construction of superstructure .................................................................................................................................. 38
4.6 The final constructed models ..................................................................................................................................... 39
5. ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL FORCES ACTING ON THE BUILDING ............................................ 41
5.1 Introduction and method for analysis of vertical forces ........................................................................................ 41
5.2 Results of the analysis on vertical forces .................................................................................................................. 41
6. ANALYSIS OF HORIZONTAL FORCES ACTING ON THE BUILDING .....................................43

6.1 Introduction and method of the analysis on horizontal forces............................................................................. 43
Wind load ............................................................................................................................................................. 43
Earth pressure ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Results of the analysis on horizontal forces ............................................................................................................. 44
7. DESIGN LOADS ...................................................................................................................................45

7.1 Introduction and method of dimensioning .............................................................................................................. 45
7.2 Design load results ....................................................................................................................................................... 45
8. ANALYSIS OF GEOTECHNICAL REINFORCEMENT ..................................................................47

8.1 Introduction to the analysis of geotechnical reinforcement .................................................................................. 47
8.2 Method to the analysis of geotechnical reinforcement........................................................................................... 47
The software as a design tool ................................................................................................................................... 47
Construction method for analytical and numerical calculations ................................................................................. 49
8.3 Results of the analysis of geotechnical reinforcement ............................................................................................ 50
9. COST ESTIMATIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL WORK ................................................................... 51

9.1 Introduction and method to the cost analysis ......................................................................................................... 51
9.2 Results for the cost analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 52
10. COST ASSESSMENT FOR TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................55

10.1 Introduction and method for cost assessment for the total construction........................................................... 55
10.2 Results for the total construction .............................................................................................................................. 55
11. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................................................57

11.1 Potential use of existing foundation .......................................................................................................................... 57
11.2 The building material of the superstructure ............................................................................................................. 57
11.3 Considerations in a real project .................................................................................................................................. 57
11.4 Influence parameters of the model and the calculations........................................................................................ 58
11.5 Suitability of the transfer methods............................................................................................................................. 58
11.6 Reasonableness of pile foundation ............................................................................................................................ 59
11.7 Economical key performance ratios .......................................................................................................................... 59
11.8 Cost estimations ........................................................................................................................................................... 60
11.9 The effect of superstructure ....................................................................................................................................... 61
11.10 Profitability .................................................................................................................................................................... 61
12. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................63
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................65
TABLE OF CONTENT FOR APPENDICES .............................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................................................73
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................................................85
APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................................................87
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................................................111
APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................................................ 117
APPENDIX G ................................................................................................................................................ 131
APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................................................... 167

INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the last hundred years, a land elevation has taken place in Stockholm and according to SMHI
(2011), the elevation is measured up to an increase of 0.38 cm per year (Appendix A, part 9). This
land elevation causes an increased distance between the ground surface level and the groundwater
level, which in turn can pose a danger to the stability of wooden piles. When wooden piles are
exposed to oxygen, rot fungus can occur which in turn leads to a decreased carrying capacity. In
the worst case, it loses its strength and affects the building by the occurrence of subsidence which
in turn can lead to a collapse. The land elevation causes therefore, a need of replacing the existing
wooden piles in Stockholm.
Another critical problem that exists in big cities today is that the demand for housing is
increasing with population growth. According to Statistiska Centralbyrån (2019), the average
population growth is estimated to approximately 36 300 persons per year between 2009s-2018s in
Stockholm County (Table 1.1.1). The supply needs to be increased to meet the demand, since the
statistical result indicates that the population continues to increase in the future within the region.
The potential development area for new housings in Stockholm County is limited and an
innovative solution may be to exploit existing buildings with a superstructure. Such an action may
require strengthening works in the foundation due to the increased load. Since the existing
wooden piles has a need of replacement, the opportunity to exploit an existing building with a
superstructure is analyzed to optimize the required geotechnical reinforcement work.
Table 1.1.1. The population growth within Stockholm County (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2019).
Population growth in Stockholm County during 2009s-2018s
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total amount
2009 8 159 9 474 12 151 8 135 37 919
2010 6 569 8 729 11 623 8 240 35 161
2011 9 602 10 007 10 574 6 947 37 130
2012 8 146 9 583 10 558 7 246 35 533
2013 8 859 8 997 10 613 7 567 36 036
2014 8 417 9 859 11 115 5 611 35 002
2015 7 061 8 423 10 628 7 283 33 395
2016 7 778 9 261 12 317 8 265 37 621
2017 8 796 10 094 11 643 8 550 39 083
2018 7 469 10 051 10 741 7 720 35 981
Average population growth per year in number of people 36 286
1
INTRODUCTION
1.2 Aim and objective

The objective with this thesis is to increase the knowledge within sustainable construction and
the geotechnical reinforcement work. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether it is
profitable to take the opportunity to exploit an existing building when the foundation is
strengthened. The purpose is met by answering the following questions:
• Which potential methods for geotechnical reinforcement work are possible to

perform in an existing building?
• How does the amount of work differ in the geotechnical reinforcement between
an existing building compared to one with an expanded superstructure?
• How does the cost differ in the geotechnical reinforcement work between an
existing building compared to one with an expanded superstructure?
• Is it profitable to expand an existing building with a superstructure when an

existing foundation is strengthened?
1.3 Assumptions and delimitations

This thesis considers the application of design codes. The European National Construction
Standards has been used in accordance to Boverket’s Construction Regulations which regulates
the application of the standards in Sweden. Legislative design codes and the use of the standards
may differ in other countries, for example due to climate conditions and seismic activity. Areas
with geological conditions where wooden piles are used in Stockholm are large, which gives that
more than one detailed development plan may apply. Hence, a delimitation has been made that
no detailed development plans are considered in this thesis.
To broaden the area of application for the thesis, the most common existing building built with
wooden piles in Stockholm is chosen to be analyzed, due to the housing shortage. In this thesis,
the city center of Stockholm is considered and consists of the following districts: Kungsholmen,
Vasastaden, Östermalm, Norrmalm, Södermalm and Gamla Stan. Existing buildings are assumed
to have confined basements, adjoining residential buildings on the transverse sides, municipal
owned street on one of the longitudinal sides and a courtyard on the other side. The confined
basements delimit the use of piling machine and in turn, the potential pile dimension. Potential
geotechnical reinforcement works consists of a transfer method and a foundation method, which
are chosen in accordance to the geological conditions where wooden piles were used and how the
building is constructed.
The superstructure is assumed to be built on top of the existing building, as it is only extended in
height. It contains the same design of the floor plan as the existing building, due to
simplifications and structural advantages. Other parameters that this thesis considers for both the
existing building and the superstructure are the following: the building material, the construction,
the geological conditions and the existing foundation. The analyzes that are considered in this
thesis are the vertical forces, the horizontal forces and a global analysis of the moments. To
delimit the thesis, the analyzes excludes the control of buckling in the building, shear forces, bow
imperfections and bending moments in beams. To simplify, the walls are assumed to be
homogenous, which gives that openings as windows and doors are not considered.
2
METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
2. METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

The thesis is divided into three parts, where a literature study is the introductory part and regards
a required basis of knowledge within the subject. Since no real reference object has been
investigated, a hypothetical type example is the basis to the second part, which consists of
constructing a model. The model is based on the delimitation and assumptions from the
literature survey. The third part consists of testing the model by analytical and numerical
calculations.
2.1 Literature survey

A literature study is conducted for a deeper understanding within the subject. Knowledge is
gathered by having a dialogue with a selection of people with relevant experience and knowledge
within the subject. The knowledge collected forms the basis of the reference literature in the
subject and theoretical knowledge is used as a background for the discussion.
Seven topics have been in focus during the literature study, to ensure relevant information for the
thesis. The literature study is presented in Chapter 3 and concludes with a discussion regarding
how valuable the collected information is. The topics are following:
• Theoretical background and review over what have been done within the subject
• The geological conditions
• The building and architectural history
• The structure of existing buildings
• Potential building material for a superstructure
• Potential methods for reinforcement work of foundation
• Legislated regulations and requirements
Several data bases have been used during the study, where DiVA and Google Scholar are the two
main ones. Authorities regulations and other laws has also been used to ensure that the design
regulations are fulfilled. Internal information within Skanska has been used together with
personal communication within the field, to increase the study’s possibilities of becoming as
reality based as possible. Different search terms in both Swedish and English, have been applied
during the search in the data bases and the choice of the term and combinations of them has
been dependent on the intended outcome. Table 2.1.1 summarizes the search terms used.
3
Table 2.1.1. The used search terms for each subject.

Search term in Swedish Search term in English
Byggnad Building
Bygga ovanpå Build on top
Prefabricerat hus/moduler Prefabricated house/modules
Utbyggnad Extension
Påbyggnation Superstructure
Hållbar Sustainable
Våningspåbyggnad Adding storeys on existing building
Bärande stomme Load carrying framework
Bärande konstruktion Load carrying construction
Grundförstärkning Geotechnical reinforcement work
Geotekniskt arbete Geotechnical work
Grundläggning Foundation
Träpålar Wooden piles
Förstärka pålar Strengthening piles
Jordlagerföljd Soil strata sequence
Trä Wood
Betong Concrete
Stål Steel
Stockholm Stockholm
Historia History
Ny renässans Neo-Renaissance
Byggteknik Building technology
Geologi Geology
Eurocode The European National Construction Standards
BBR Boverket’s building regulations
EKS Boverket’s construction regulations
PBL Planning and Building Act
PBF Planning and Building Ordinance
2.2 Construction of the model

A model that reflects the most common building is constructed and consists of several
assumptions based on the literature survey. Following parts has been constructed:
• Geological conditions
• Existing construction of foundation
• Existing construction of framework
• Connection construction
• Superstructure construction
The geological conditions are determined in accordance to which conditions wooden piles were
used for the most difficult soil strata sequence present in Stockholm. The most common building
technology within the era when most of the buildings was built within the city center of
Stockholm was chosen. When a superstructure is built, a connection construction between the
existing and extended part is needed and determined based on the literature survey. The weight
of the superstructure comprises of the choice of material and the number of storeys, which is
4
optimized in accordance to Swedish legislated regulations. Two cases in form of two models are
constructed as follows:
• Case 1: The existing building

• Case 2: The existing building with the superstructure and its connection
2.3 Analytical and numerical analyzes

Analyzes have been done to investigate which reinforcement work in the foundation that is
necessary for each case when the wooden piles lose it bearing capacity.
The first analysis is analytically calculations of vertical loads to obtain the load distribution
through the load-bearing structure to the foundation. The second analytical analysis regards the
horizontal forces which the building is exposed to in the second case, due to the increased height
of the building. This includes the earth pressure and the wind forces, which needs to be verified
regarding the stabilizing moment. This is followed by the third analytical analysis, where the
results from the two earlier analyzes are combined to obtain design loads.
When the design loads are obtained for each wall, the new foundation can be determined
numerically through a program produced by SSAB (2019), called RRPileCalc. This gives what
kind of foundation that is necessary to carry the design load. Afterwards different potential load
transferring methods are applied on the determined foundation to distribute the load from the
building to the foundation. For each method and each wall, the number of piles is determined
through analytical calculations. To ensure that the pile can carry the design load, it is tested
numerically in the provided program. If the load is too large, more piles are being added through
analytical calculations to minimize the axial load each pile carries. This gives that this is an
iterative process. When the sufficient number of piles is determined, it is tested analytically to
also consider the geometric requirements.
Each method is applied on each wall, since a combination of the methods can be done for the
different walls in each cross-section. The potential combinations of the cross-sections are
combined to several total combinations to obtain the total potential geotechnical work for all the
walls. This total process is repeated for different potential pile dimensions.
The obtained results for each pile dimension with the combinations are afterwards cost estimated
by the identified required activities for each method. The activities are priced according to costs
developed by Skanska and the costs for each total combination is determined. This is to obtain
the differences between the two cases in both the amount of geotechnical work and for its costs.
5
6
LITERATURE SURVEY
3. LITERATURE SURVEY
3.1 Theoretical background and review

Several studies have been done regarding the possibility to extend a superstructure on top of an
existing building. The existing buildings that have been analyzed for these cases are mostly
buildings from the Swedish Million Programme. The programme was ongoing between 1965s-
1974s and located in the suburbs of Stockholm, among others (Stockholmskällan, n.d.).
Nedrén and Rinaldo (2018) analyzed a three-multi-storey house made of concrete with a
foundation consisted of a slab on a stone bed, a typical reference building from the Million
Programme. Their purpose was to add a superstructure consisting of two storeys of CLT. They
show that the utilization of the framework was low for the existing building and only 80 % of the
capacity of the foundation is used when the superstructure is built.
A SBUF report provided by Lidgren and Widerberg (2010), has been developed where
superstructures are extended on top of existing buildings between the time internal of the years
1960 to 1970. The analyzed existing buildings in the study had flat roofs, which gives that an
easier construction on top of the building can be applied to enable an extension of storeys.
Interviews with both many people and companies within the subject was done, with the purpose
to do an inventory for the conditions for the construction of the houses from the Million
Programme. The conclusion was that one to two storeys could be built without the need of
reinforcing the foundation. They obtained a total production cost for each project they
investigated, which consisted by the extension of the buildings with one or two storeys. This cost
is an average value 27 900 SEK/m2 with inflation included. Most of these superstructures used
prefabricated volumes, of which half of the project's construction consisted of wood in form of
both walls and frames, and some of them consisted of steel structures.
A similar result has been found through another study provided by Friberg and Karlin (2015).
They also analyzed buildings from the same era with a framework structure made of concrete.
Using a reference object, it could be possible to see how great the utilization was of the
framework. The capacity of the existing construction made of load bearing walls was only utilized
to 20 %. This enabled a superstructure to be applied thanks to the large capacity of the structure
without the need for reinforcement work.
There have been several existing buildings that has been extended with a superstructure
consisting of cross-laminated timber. There are many advantages with using wood in a
superstructure according to Martinsons (2019). They describe the low weight of wood as the key
to success, since wood is five times lighter than concrete, which minimizes the load of the
superstructure. Other advantages are that CLT retains its shape when exposed to moisture due to
its contexture and that its structural capacity is as great as concrete.
The Tricot Factory originally built in 1928. has been extended by a superstructure consisting of
wood (Martinsons, 2019). The project is in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm. The project manager
describe wood as the ultimate material for this kind of work and the project has been
environment certified, which demonstrates the environmental advantages of this building
technology. This project consisted of an extended superstructure with a total new area of 8 800
m2. The superstructure can be built without expensive and time-consuming geotechnical
reinforcement works of foundation due to its light weight.
7
LITERATURE SURVEY
A study comparing a superstructure consisting of wood with another of concrete has been
provided by Bchar and Youssef (2018). The study shows that wood is the most efficient and
profitable building material to use, because concrete entails greater loads due to its heaviness,
which also affects the stability of the ground. When using a heavier material, as concrete, the
foundation needs to be strengthened. Which also is costly, which gives that wood is the
advantageous building material for extension works.
A study comparing one storey superstructure consisting of wood with another of steel has been
made (Oscarsson and Eklund, 2010). This superstructure was intended to be built on a two
storey building from 1968 with a flat roof and a framework of concrete. The study shows that the
existing framework can carry the superstructure in both wood and steel with good margins. The
margins are so large that a framework with few load-bearing walls, as the reference building in the
thesis has, can still carry the extension without any need of reinforcement work. However, the
thesis does not concern how the ground act and therefore, ensures that both the geological
conditions and the carrying capacity of the foundation should be analyzed and considered for a
real project. The study also contains a comparison between the advantages and disadvantages for
wood and steel. Steel is stronger and lighter than wood, nonetheless, steel is 15 % more
expensive to build with.
Karlsson and Rosin (2018) has performed a study with the purpose to analyze three residential
buildings made of masonry from the years between 1880s-1920s and their capability of storeys
extensions for superstructures. The buildings are located on Södermalm, Östermalm and
Blasieholmen. The focus was on the older masonry structures strength properties for the
construction to be able to carry a superstructure. They determined a procedure to calculate the
load that passes through a building through a vault, where the stresses that arise must not exceed
the compressive strength of the masonry wall. Masonry walls consists of both mortar and bricks
and are characterized by a good ability to absorb compressive stresses. Unfortunately, bricks and
mortar have a relatively poor ability to absorb shear and tensile stresses. Therefore, the turn of
the century enables further densification of large cities centers in Sweden, since the solid frame
allows high loads. Due to its poor ability to absorb shear and tensile stresses, it is hard to
determine the static system with the reason that the construction system is statistically
indeterminate. With the two different materials of the framework, mortar and bricks, they have
two different properties, but interact during load distribution. The angles and shape of the
masonry walls can be variated, which gives that the relationship between stress and strain is
direction dependent and therefore, nonlinear. However, it is important that the system must be in
equilibrium to prevent the structure from cracking or breaking. It can be controlled by analytical,
numerical or graphical methods how the load distribution and forces act in their direction
regarding the equilibrium conditions. This is important to ensure that the additional load would
not affect the equilibrium of the simplified static system. Their conclusion was based on their
recommendations of testing the compressive strength and their theoretical assumptions of the
construction. They conclude that there are good opportunities to build on top of an older
masonry building due to its good ability of compression. The study show that all the three
buildings are dimensioned and designed to be able to carry more load than what they are exposed
to. However, there are many parameters that needs to be considered in the design of a project
that is extended with a superstructure, as all building are different. This can for instance be the
static system, the variation of pressure over vaults, the attachment of any additional beams, the
equilibrium system and the interaction between the materials of the old and new buildings. The
superstructure must be performed in a certain way based on the conditions of the existing
building, since there is a large variation between the buildings. However, this requires further
studies, since the analysis only regards the compressive strength properties of a framework,
which is not sufficient to be able to draw a conclusion regarding the possibilities of building a
8
LITERATURE SURVEY
superstructure. An example is the need to study the strength in both bending and tension,
together with how both the foundation- and geological conditions are for the existing buildings.
This study enables an assurance that it is not the construction itself that gives way regarding the
compressive strength, when additional loads is added.
3.2 Geological conditions

Stockholm belongs to the part called Bergslagens lithotectonic part, which consists of the
Svekokarelska Orogenen (Wahlgren et al., 2018). The central part of the region is dominated of
metasedimentary rocks which are created of muddy and sandy materials. The soil geology in
Stockholm is characterized by having a mixture of a bedrock, fine-grained sediments filled in
both rift valleys and areas located on a lower height.
The geological conditions vary widely within the area of Stockholm. The geological conditions in
the central districts of the city are determined by using Sweden’s Geological Survey’s 3D-viewer
(SGU, 2017). SGU (2017. Figure 3.2.1) visualizes the city map of Stockholm, where an overall
division of the city has been made to clarify the location of the districts.
The most common soil strata sequences in the district are obtained from the 3D-viewer and are
presented for each district. The dominant geological conditions present in the district according
to SGU (2017), are presented in Table 3.2.1 to Table 3.2.6 for Kungsholmen, Södermalm, Gamla
stan, Norrmalm, Östermalm and Vasastaden.
The characteristic value of the undrained shear strength of the postglacial clay should, according
to the Swedish Geotechnical Institute (2008), be routinely determined with a fall cone test when
the clay is investigated. According to Sadek Baker (Personal communication, February 17th,
2020), the postglacial clay in Stockholm has a varying characteristic value for the undrained shear
strength between 4 – 12 kPa, where normally the value is 8 kPa.
Figure 3.2.1. The districts of Stockholm (SGU, 2017).
9
LITERATURE SURVEY
Table 3.2.1. The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Kungsholmen (Summarized from SGU,2017).
Kungsholmen
Overlying soil Fill Fill Moraine -
Underlying soil Postglacial clay - - -
Gabbroid-dioritoid,
Rock Wacke Wacke Wacke or granite
wacke or granite
Soil depth 1-5 m 0-3 m 0-1 m 0-1 m
Table 3.2.2. The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Södermalm (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
Södermalm
Overlying soil Fill Fill Moraine Fill -
Underlying soil Postglacial clay - - Glacier sediment -
Rock Granite Granite Wacke or granite Granite Granite
Soil depth 1-20 m 3-10 m 0-1 m 0-20 m 0-1 m
Table 3.2.3. The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Gamla stan (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
Gamla stan
Overlying soil Fill Fill Fill Fill
Underlying soil Glacier sediment Postglacial clay Postglacial sand -
Rock Wacke Wacke Wacke Wacke
Soil depth 20-50 m 10-30 m 10-30 m 0-1 m
Table 3.2.4. The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Norrmalm (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
Norrmalm
Overlying soil Fill Fill Fill Fill Moraine
Glacier
Underlying soil Postglacial sand Postglacial clay - -
sediment
Wacke or
Rock Wacke Wacke Wacke Wacke
granite
10-20
Soil depth 10-20 m 3-5 m 5-20 m 0-1 m
m
Table 3.2.5. The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Östermalm (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
Östermalm
Overlying soil Moraine Moraine Filling - Filling
Underlying soil - - Postglacial clay - Sandy moraine
Rock Wacke Granite Wacke Wacke Granite
Soil depth 0-1 m 0-1 m 0-20 m 0-1 m 5-10 m
Table 3.2.6. The dominant soil strata sequences in the district Vasastaden (Summarized from SGU, 2017).
Vasastaden
Glacier
Overlying soil Moraine Fill - Fill Fill
sediment
Postglacial Glacier Postglaci
Underlying soil - - -
clay sediment al sand
Gabbroid-
Wacke or
Rock Wacke Wacke dioritoid or Wacke Wacke
granite
wacke
Soil depth 0-1 m 3-10 m 0-1 m 5-20 m 10-20 m 5-30 m
10
LITERATURE SURVEY
3.3 Stockholm’s building and architectural history

The housing production in Stockholm was considerably lower after the overheated mass
production in the 1880s in the big cities due to cheap material and prefabricated parts
according to Björn, et al. (2013). In the beginning of the 1900s centuries arose new city plans in
Stockholm and the construction increased. Areas as Lärkstaden (1902s-1907s), Röda Bergen
(1909s) and Diplomatstaden (1913s-1915s) arose in Stockholm (Stockholmskällan, 1973. 1984).
The housing construction almost stopped during the First World War (1914s-1918s) and the
intended demolitions of housings where postponed due to the current housing shortage
(Claesson, 1987; Bjerking, 1974). The housing shortage during these periods was further
exacerbated when all private construction activities were crippled. The construction costs rose
sharply due to material shortages and the rationing that went on during the war.
According to Christopher Vainesworth (Personal communication, January 20th, 2020), the area of
Östermalm was built during the 1880s-1890s and the majority of the areas Vasastaden,
Kungsholmen and Södermalm built between the 1900s-1940s. The city center was later built
between 1950s-1960s and consists of more office buildings than residential ones. According to
Riksantikvarieämbetet (n.d), the majority of residential buildings were built between 1880s-1920s
within the city center of Stockholm. The districts Vasastaden, Östermalm, Kungsholmen,
Norrmalm and Södermalm are to, a large extent, built during this era. The newly built buildings
in Stockholm Municipality are presented with a distribution between the decades when it was
built (Table 3.3.1). (Riksantikvarieämbetet, n.d.)
Table 3.3.1. Distribution of residential buildings built in Stockholm over time (Riksantikvarieämbetet (n.d).
Buildings Areas with the majority of Areas with the minority of
Decade
built buildings built buildings built
Single buildings on Östermalm
1700s-1860s 86 Gamla Stan, Norrmalm
and Södermalm
Smaller parts on Östermalm and Single buildings on Södermalm
1860s-1870s 23
Vasastaden and Gamla Stan
Smaller parts on Östermalm and
1870s-1880s 21 Single buildings on Södermalm
Norrmalm
Östermalm, Vasastaden, smaller parts
1880s-1890s 204 Single buildings on Norrmalm
on Kungsholmen & Södermalm
Southern Östermalm. A part in Single buildings on Södermalm
1890s-1900s 174
Vasastaden and Kungsholmen
Vasastaden, Östermalm, smaller parts Single buildings on Norrmalm
1900s-1910s 261
on Kungsholmen and Södermalm.
Few ones on Östermalm and
1910s-1920s 175 Vasastaden, Norrmalm, Södermalm
Kungsholmen
Great spread in Municipality, Smaller parts on Kungsholmen,
1920s-1930s 161
Södermalm, Vasastaden Östermalm and Norrmalm
Outside the city center,
Smaller parts of Norrmalm,
1930s-1940s 168 Kungsholmen, Northern part of
Södermalm and Vasastaden
Östermalm
Outside the city center and in the
1940s-1950s 116 Few ones within the city center
suburbs to Stockholm
11
LITERATURE SURVEY
3.4 Structure of existing building
Framework construction
Most of the buildings within Stockholm city center was built between 1880s-1920s, according to
Chapter 3.3. The construction material during this era was masonry and the framework in
housing buildings often consisted of load-bearing outer walls and centrally placed walls, called
heart walls (Bjerking, 1974). The buildings have one basement and 5 – 6 storeys in the bigger
cities. The indoor height was between 2.8 – 3.3 m, whereas the height in the basement was
between 2.4 – 2.7 m. These buildings have one elevator installed. The depth of the building could
be 11 – 12 m, a width could be 20 m and a total height around 24 – 27 m. A common type
example of construction is visualized in Figure 3.4.1.
Figure 3.4.1. The framework of a building built between 1890s-1910s with a height of 26.84m (Bjerking, 1974).
12
LITERATURE SURVEY
For a, thorough review of each construction component in a building with the building technique
used during 1880s-1920s, the typically building that was built between these years are presented
as follows:
Roof construction: The construction consisted of Swedish roof chairs that are attached to
longitudinal straps. It is covered with tongue and groove wood together with folded metal roof.
This type of roof construction is called saddle roof. (Bjerking, 1974)
Attic floor construction: It consists of wooden beams with dimensions 6” x 10” and a center
distance of 60 cm and is mounted on the load-bearing walls and partition walls (Bjerking, 1974).
The beams are often made of pinewood according to Klintberg and Åkehag (2017). The beams
are attached to a frame of 4” x 4” laid on the masonry wall where the floor consisted of 1 ½”
tongue and groove wood without fire bottom. There is a space between the beams for filling with
heavy materials such as lime gravel, which is laid on top of another thinner layer of filling and
blinds which could consist of newspaper, shavings or sawdust. The ceiling consists of a panel that
is plastered (Bjerking, 1974). According to Klintberg and Åkehag (2017), it could also be
common that the filling consists of clay and after the filling, a layer of uncut and edge-cut boards
is spiked diagonally on a plank frame. According to Bjerking, (1974), the total height of the
system of attic floor joist is 43 cm (Figure 3.4.1).
Floor construction: The system of floor joists in the building consists of the same parts as the
attic construction, except that these floors have a fire bottom of masonry tiles (Bjerking, 1974).
This is a layer of bricks to create a fire cell separating function (Björk, et al., 2013). The total
height of this type of construction is 36.8 cm (Figure 3.4.1) (Bjerking, 1974).
Ground floor construction: The construction could be made of unreinforced concrete cast
between steel beams that was put along the facade on the transverse partition walls. The floor
consists of 1 1/4” tongue and groove wood that lies on wedged rails on the concrete. The steel
beam in the outer wall carries the window openings, where the windows are divided by transverse
inwardly coupled arches. The total height of the ground floor is 50.8 cm (Figure 3.4.1). (Bjerking,
1974)
Outer wall construction: The outer wall is constructed of brick stones and has an exterior
plastered wall with lime plaster. The walls are constructed with 1 ½ brick stones for the first 4
floors, 2 brick stones for the floors beneath. The walls at the ground floor consists of 2 ½ brick
stones, regarding the space that must be given to large windows and façade cladding. (Bjerking,
1974)
Heart wall construction: The heart walls consists of 2 brick stones in the basement, 1 ½ brick
stones in the ground floor and 1 brick stone for the remaining floors, and each side is smooth
plastered. (Bjerking, 1974)
Basement construction: With the building technique during this era, a traditional type of
basement wall is placed on the foundation (Björk, et al., 2013). The basement wall is made of 3
brick stones for the upper part of the wall, where the lower part often consists of a dry-stone
wall, which is stones put together (Bjerking, 1974). The basement floor construction often
consists of concrete, with a varied thickness between 0.2 – 0.4 m, according to Joakim Berg
(Personal communication, March 11th, 2020).
13
LITERATURE SURVEY
Foundation construction
The design of the foundation has been varying over time, depending on the different building
technology that prevailed. The techniques were depending on the geological conditions, which
according to Björk, et al. (2013) are divided into four different groups, which are solid ground,
solid-semi-solid ground, soft soil and very soft soil. If the geological conditions consist of very
soft soil, as clay, the load must be transferred to a firmer soil layer with either plinths or wooden
piles. The decades when most of the buildings was built within Stockholm are around the turn of
the century, 1880s-1920s. During this era, wooden piles was installed with a piling crane,
anchored to a rust bed. The rust bed was a wooden construction placed underneath the dry-stone
walls to distribute the load evenly and is placed underneath the groundwater level. The piles were
driven down until it reached resistance, or they could be hanging in the soil through friction.
After 1920s, reinforced concrete piles began to be used. According to Björk, et al. (2013), the
most common building techniques for foundation in very soft soil conditions are two types of
wooden piles (Figure 3.4.2), described as follows:
Stone wall on wooden piles type 1: Between the 1880s-1910s, 4 – 7 m long wooden piles are placed in
3 – 5 rows under the foundation walls where the piles are cut off below the groundwater surface.
On top of the pile top, a beam rust bed out of logs was placed crosswire in two layers, that was
embedded with clay.
Stone wall on wooden piles type 2: Between the 1885s-1925s, 12 m long wooden piles are placed in 2 –
4 rows under the load-bearing walls. Where these piles also had a beam rust bed, but with planks
on top of it. Prior to the layer of planks, there was a layer of gravel, packed with a spit between
the piles and beams.
a) b)
Figure 3.4.2. Stone wall on wooden piles, a) with shorter lengths and b) longer lengths (Björk, et al. 2013).
14
LITERATURE SURVEY
3.5 Building material for a superstructure

Wood as building material for the superstructure
From an environmental perspective, the production is the phase where the environmental impact
is the greatest and most contributing phase today comparing to the operation and maintenance
phase (Karlsson, 2017). This gives that the choice of building material constitutes a large part of
the impact, where a more environmentally friendly material is preferable. Nevertheless, one of
the most common building materials from a carrying construction perspective used today is
concrete. Lately, concrete has been challenged because of its low proportion of bio-based
material comparing to other materials, as wood. CLT, cross-laminated timber, has good structural
properties and fulfills the structural requirements as carrying capacity and stiffness.
Environmental assessments have been made on the life cycle of buildings. It resulted in that
buildings with low proportion of bio-based material have a higher environmental impact
compared to the buildings with a high proportion material.
The European Union transition to functional standards in the members’ construction legislation
have increased the development regarding wood construction and makes it possible to build
bigger buildings and constructions in wood (Svenskt trä, n.d.a). Wood is the only current material
that is renewable and versatile raw. By increasing the amount of wood as building material, it
lowers the environmental impact, since the non-renewable materials, as concrete or steel, gives a
higher amount of carbon dioxide emissions. If wood replaces other building materials, the
average replacement factor 1.6 tons’ carbon dioxide per cubic meter wood material, which makes
a great difference in emissions. The transports are reduced during construction time, due to its
light weight (Svenskt trä, n.d.b). The large access of wood in Sweden enables the production of
the material at near distance, which also minimizes the transports and therefore, the emissions.
CLT is a material that consists of glued massive wood boards, that in turn consists of planed
wood where the boards are glued with every other layer crossed to increase the shape stability
and high resistance despite its low weight (Martinsons, 2019). CLT is the most common wood
product used as construction material due to its properties, stiffness and strength, as well as its
flexibility in varied geometry (Trä Guiden, 2017a). The material can be used in both walls and
beam systems, as well as system of joists (Trä Guiden, 2017b, 2017c). This type of wood
constitutes good protection properties in the event of fire, thanks to its large homogenous cross-
section, according to Martinsons (n.d).
Connection between the existing and extended building

To make it possible to extend a superstructure on top of an existing building, it is required to
obtain a flat surface. According to Ewa Karawajczyk (Personal communication, January 29th,
2020), the most common solution to distribute loads directly from a superstructure to the
existing building is to tear down the existing roof and strengthen the attic by casting a slab.
Strengthening is required since it is not considered that the system of joist should carry more
than the load from the existing roof construction when the building was built. This could be
done with different building techniques and materials, where the most common materials are
steel or concrete.
A foundation construction for the extended superstructure suggested by Aron Lindgren

(Personal communication, February 6th, 2020), is to tear down the existing roof and the attic
floor. This is to create a new floor made of steel beams located on the existing load bearing walls.
15
LITERATURE SURVEY
The steel beams are placed on a casted heel, to adjust the wanted height. After the steel beams
are placed, they are fixed with bolts and then a layer of concrete is cast. Härlanda Byggteknik
Konstruktion AB (2017) also presents this method as a connection solution. However, an
additional 300 mm thick concrete layer is added and cast on the old floor to obtain a flat surface
for the new steel beams.
Steel as a connection construction material between an extended superstructure and the existing
building, has several advantages (Jernkontoret, 2018). The higher the strength of the steel, the less
amount of material is required, and the design and products can be made lighter and thinner but
still as durable as desired. Steel offers designs of varying length and quantity to make it possible
to create gaps for installations or elevators for instance. Steel is one of the most common
structural materials due to its mechanical properties as tensile-, dynamic- and fatigue strength.
Even though Jernkontoret (2019) tries to persuade the people of how good steel is with its wide
use and recycling ability, it unfortunately has great disadvantages. The largest carbon dioxide
emissions are produced in Sweden during the process of producing steel. According to Sveriges
Natur (2019), the steel producing company SSAB accounts for the majority of the largest carbon
dioxide emissions. This corresponds to almost 12 % of the total carbon dioxide emissions in
Sweden with 4.9 million tons’ carbon dioxides during 2018.
The various elements of the superstructure

To optimize the living space, a suggestion is to use an inclined load bearing CLT beam as the
roof construction (Trä Guiden, 2019). This enables residential area on the highest storey instead
of an uninsulated attic. The roof construction needs a thermal climate, which consist of elements
of wooden wool, insulation and roofing felt. The dimension of the beam is chosen in accordance
to the span width, snow zone and type of insulation system.
There are great opportunities to use CLT as the load bearing structure in both outer and heart
walls and system of floor joists (Trä Guiden, 2017c).
3.6 Methods for reinforcement work of foundation
To clarify the definition of geotechnical reinforcement work, it is a strengthening of the

foundation by working underneath an existing building or to strengthening the ground
underneath the building (Geobear, 2020a).
The need of geotechnical reinforcement work

When a soil entails poor bearing capacity, it means that the soil layer has weakened or that it has
been loosened up due to different reasons (Geobear, 2020b). When the ground is weakened,
there is not enough capacity to support a structure, which in turn contributes to subsidence. The
ground can obtain poor bearing capacity both horizontally and vertically. The magnitude of poor
bearing capacity depends on what material the soil layers consist of or for instance, activities that
can loosen up the soil like drilling or excavation works nearby a structure. Another example is a
clay-based soil that can shrink if the precipitation has been low for a long period, whereas
moraine is affected by excavation and construction work. It can also be a problem if there are
large hardened surfaces, as the precipitation can be led away and therefore, not enter the soil
according to Stefan Larsson (Personal communication, May 12th, 2020). The soil can also be
16
LITERATURE SURVEY
softened by too much water. The soils can be put into a scale from the weakest soil to the
strongest one in the following order: mud, clay, silt, sand and gravel, moraine, rock.
The need of strengthen a foundation could also be dependent on the existing conditions. If
existing wooden piles has been exposed to air, the bearing capacity can be weakened and the
function of the foundation ceases. All existing foundations are designed a certain lifespan, where
the maximum lifespan for a steel pile foundation usually is 100 years, according to SSAB (2019).
The work before the geotechnical reinforcement work

Several investigations should be done before a geotechnical work is carried out, since each
project is unique and highly specific. According to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal
communication, January 23rd, 2020), an investigation regarding possibilities of transporting
machines to the basement is necessary. Depending on the available possibilities, the choice of
piling machine provides several different methods to be able to reinforce the foundation. The
choice of geotechnical reinforcement work also depends on the geological conditions, which
requires a geotechnical field investigation to determine the exact soil strata sequence according to
EN 1997-1. The investigation should be performed underneath the building, where the intended
geotechnical reinforcement work is planned, according to Joakim Berg (Personal communication,
May 13th, 2020). Other investigations that should be considered is to examine how the
surroundings would be affected from this type of work, as allowable vibrations. As well as
examine the existing building before work commences through an inspection of subsidence,
obliqueness and pretensions, which are problems that otherwise may arise later and therefore,
precautionary actions can be made. When determining the reinforcement method of the
foundation, it is needed to check that all the basement walls are intact, the conditions of the
facade walls, where the windows are placed, where and how the loads are distributed and where
the reinforcement works could be placed according to Ewa Karawajczyk (Personal
communication, January 29th, 2020).
An old foundation is usually not designed for a cooperating interaction with a new foundation,
since it is not common to be able to verify the existing foundation. Skanska (2018) has
investigated the possibility of reusing existing pile foundations by proposing recommended
investigations, which are the followings:
• Assessment of the function of the existing foundation, for example measuring the height
of the floor to obtain any differences in the level. If large differences in level are
measured, the foundation probably does not work as originally intended, which means
that existing foundation should not be used, and new piles should be installed for the
building.
• Investigation of possible contamination in groundwater that may cause degradation of the

existing piles, as well as a check of the groundwater level is necessary. Sampling can be
performed in existing or newly installed groundwater pipes.
• If possible, an ocular inspection of the obliquity of an exposed pile.
• Checking the condition of the existing piles, to check if the piles are damaged. The piles
are controlled through a Pile Integrity Test (PIT). The method is only applicable once the
pile top has been exposed or decoupled from the bottom plate.
17
LITERATURE SURVEY
• Checking the geotechnical load bearing capacity of existing piles by a stress-wave

measurement. The stress-wave measurement is performed, for example, with a pile crane
or hanging hoist which means that the exposed piles should be placed in the outer parts
of the building. The geotechnical load bearing capacity should be evaluated with for
instance CASE or CAPWAP analysis, due to dynamic damping in the soil and sinking
during sampling.
Methods of geotechnical reinforcement work

The foundation method with piles is often used in low bearing geological conditions, as clay.
According to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication, January 23rd, 2020), a
reinforcement method that was used some time ago, was to install concrete piles. Since the piles
were driven down by manpower, the method is not acceptable today due to the working
environment. Concrete piles are installed with large machines, which is not possible in a confined
basement. There are different machines that can be used in small areas depending on the height
and the opportunity to transport it to the basement. According to Ricardo Öjring Garcia
(Personal communication, January 23rd, 2020), a machine called Källarmus is common to use
where the working space is limited (Figure 3.6.1a). This machine can be used up to a maximum
height of 2.4 m, where the dimension of the machine is 2 m long, 0.75 m wide and 1.4 m high.
The machine can install piles with a dimension range between 115 mm to a maximum of 220 mm
in diameter. One of the most common dimensions of piles in a basement is the 170/10 mm pile
according to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication, March 11th, 2020). Where 170 mm
is the outer diameter in the cross-section of the pile and the 10 mm corresponds to the thickness
of the pipe. According to SSAB (2019), piles have a recommended dimension in an interval
depending on the type of construction the piles are used in. For a residential building with many
storeys, they recommended the minimum size of a pile as the dimension of 220/12.5.
According to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication, May 13th, 2020), the ability to
install drilled piles with a Källarmus and threaded pipes, the capacity is 2.5 m/hours. In very
favorable conditions, the capacity can reach up to 5.0 m/hours, however, it requires an
experienced driller, a good machine as well as free pile positions.
The piles serve as a load bearing structure that transmit horizontal and vertical loads, as both
tensile and compressive forces, to the bearing soil or rock (Hamando, 2016). The piles can be
made of steel, wood or concrete and are divided into three groups: support, friction and
cohesion. Concrete piles are commonly used in new constructions of housing buildings and to
stabilize soil banks. Steel piles are used for larger bridges and buildings, or where there is poorly
bearing soil. Hundred years ago, it was common to use wooden piles as a foundation for
buildings in very soft soils. Wooden piles are still used to a small extent as starting piles, where
cohesion piling is used at great soil depths. However, the wooden piles are being extinct due to
competent people with great experience who have gradually retired, according to Joakim Berg
(Personal communication, May 6th, 2020).
Support piles, also called end-bearing piles, transfer the load via their tip down to the underlying
rock or other solid bearing soil, but can also transfer a little part of the load via friction
(Hamando, 2016). The most common pile is the tip-borne pile where the loads are transferred
directly to the rock and can therefore, obtain the greatest bearing capacity. These piles are often
examined for both technical and economical point of view before being used. The piles can be
installed together differently out of several one-meter pipes. A cheaper method is to weld pipes
together, whereas another faster method for these short pipes is to use threaded joints, but this
needs to be tightened and is more expensive (Skanska, 2014). Piles cannot be inspected or
18
LITERATURE SURVEY
repaired afterwards, which gives the importance of being careful with both planning and
execution of the installations. The piles can be executed in different ways like driven, drilled or
shafted (Hamando, 2016).
One common method is to install a RD-pile (Figure 3.6.1b), which is a drilled steel pile which can
be performed in two steps (Skanska, 2014). Where the first step is to drill the pile into rock and
the second step, inject the pile by filling it with cement. When filling the pile with cement, it can
work as a protection against corrosion, which is preferable when piles are in contact with water,
or as an injection pile with interaction between the steel pipe and the cement. The drilled method
is common to use for reinforcement work of foundation, since this method gives less vibrations
and less subsidence than other methods. The method of drilled steel piles is a good alternative
for confined workspaces, as there are small machines that enables this. Dependent on the
conditions, it is required to drill the pile a certain distance into the rock. Another drilled support
pile is the steel core. The steel core is performed in four steps, where the first step is to drill a
RD-pile as a casing, secondly, 3 – 6 m into rock. The third step is to manufacture the steel core,
which is to cast the pipe and then, fourthly, immediately lower the steel core into the hole, meter
by meter. The advantage of steel cores is that it carries higher compressive and tensile loads,
which gives that this method is popular used by geotechnical designers. If there is no risk of
major subsidence in the building, driven steel piles can be used. These piles are driven down to
rock or to a predetermined stop criterion. This method can install RR-piles, which is a driven
steel pile. The advantage of this method is the fast execution, whereas a disadvantage is that it can
lead to large subsidence. Another disadvantage is the large difficulty of hitting obstacles in the
ground, which gives the risk to obtain an early stop, i.e. above the rock, if you hit larger blocks or
existing foundation.
Another drilled method is to perform jet grouting. Keller Grundläggning (2020) describes the
installation process as first drill the jet columns to a wanted depth where the drill rod has a nozzle
that cuts the ground at high pressure. Afterwards, the eroded soil is mixed with water and cement
in the created cavity. This method has an accessibility to be performed in confined spaces, as the
machine that perform this has a height of 2 m. According to Svelander and Åkerlind (2015), the
best results of this method is obtained in friction soils but works in other soil types. LTH (2019)
describes that the method is not suitable in silt or clay soils but can work if an upper soil layer
consists of soft soil, where the method works as a composite construction.
a) b)
Figure 3.6.1. The drilling machine Källarmus drilling a) RD-piles and b) through an obstacle. (Skanska, 2014).
19
LITERATURE SURVEY
Methods to transfer loads to the foundation

Centric load transfer with a full niche
A full niche can be one method to distribute the load from a building made of dry-stone wall to a
new foundation (Skanska, 2014). A full niche is a created hole in the wall with recess of stone and
if necessary, a hole through the floor or existing ground surface, for instance through concrete or
a rust bed. With the small machines that can fit in the full niche, it enables the new foundation to
be placed centrally in the wall to make it possible to distribute the load from the building directly
to the new foundation (Figure 3.6.2). For buildings with extremely high loads, it is important to
have the load as straight distributed as possible, since eccentricity creates torque.
The size of a full niche depends on the wanted pile dimension and the method of splicing, since
the accessibility is important, according to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication,
January 23rd, 2020). The method with full niches executed in dry-stone walls requires large
volumes of sawing to create the full niche, which is very expensive according to Ricardo Öjring
Garcia (Personal communication, January 23rd, 2020). The dimensions of a full niche can vary
around 2 m in height and 1 m for both width and depth, but some of the smaller machines can
fit in a niche with a width of 0.8 m. The height of the full niche is usually with one of the two
meters below the existing floor, due to the usual excavation of the floor. After drilling a pile, the
full niche is covered again through casting. The next full niche is created with large intermediate
steps so that no openings affect the load distribution too much during full niche opening and
installation of the piles, according to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication, January
23rd, 2020).
Depending on both the material and the quality of the wall, the minimum and maximum center
distance vary between the niche openings and therefore, also the piles (Skanska, 2014). This is to
ensure that the bearing capacity is sufficient and that the opening does not collapse, when the
next full niche is opened, even though the first full niche has got its bearing capacity back after
being reinforced with bars, filled and cast. Figure 3.6.3a and Figure 3.6.3b visualizes a full niche
while both drilling and before casting, respectively. For masonry buildings, it is grateful to work
with full niches, as mortar has a relatively low elastic modulus and distributes the load gratefully,
which makes full niches practical. However, buildings from the turn of the century that have a
dry-stone wall can be in poor condition. It can, therefore, be necessary to inject the wall initially
by grouting it with concrete to tie the stones together to obtain a homogenous wall. This can also
be done after a hole opening to stabilize the wall. Centrally placed piles with full niches are
visualized in Figure 3.6.4.
Figure 3.6.2. The prospective full niche in a dry-stone wall (Skanska, 2014).
20
LITERATURE SURVEY
a) b)
Figure 3.6.3. The full niche a) with pile installation and b) filled with reinforcement, soon to be cast (Skanska, 2014).
Figure 3.6.4. The full niche designed in a wall where the pile is centrally installed (Skanska, 2020).
Console cantilever beam

When there is none accessibility on both sides of a wall, the method called console cantilever can
be used (Skanska, 2014). The loads of the building are distributed eccentrically further down to the
drilled pile (Figure 3.6.5a). The eccentricity gives the disadvantage that it cannot take as much load
in the pile as it creates a torque that affects it. According to Ewa Karawajczyk (Personal
communication, January 29th, 2020), the method of a cantilever solution, is a plate with half a niche.
She describes half a niche as an opening by sawing out 2/3 of the wall and leave 1/3 (Figure 3.6.5b).
Piles are then drilled along the inside of the basement wall, the closer the wall, the better due to
the eccentricity. The console cantilever can be made in two different ways, either it can be a beam
made of iron or it can be created as a concrete beam with reinforcement bars, both placed on top
of a pile. The eccentricity causes too large torque in the cantilever, which in turn, gives difficulties
for the beams to withstand and meet the resistance capacity requirements. To counteract this
problem, an extreme large beam is needed or by mounting a drawbar that takes tensile forces.
However, this method is not preferable if the loads from the building is great due to the large
created torque.
21
LITERATURE SURVEY
a) b)
Figure 3.6.5. The console cantilever a) with a plate (Skanska, 2014) and b) solution with a beam (Skanska, 2020).
Ground beam with half a niche

Another method with half a niche according to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication,
January 23rd, 2020), can be to create a ground beam which is placed between two opposite load
bearing walls. This requires an excavation of the floor to connect the beam through these halves a
niche, so the loads are distributed to the beam. The beam, in turn, are laid on top of piles installed
next to the walls so the load can be distributed from the structural element to the ground through
the beam and piles. The excavation can be performed with a small demolition robot.
According to Ricardo Öjring Garcia (Personal communication, January 23rd, 2020), the ground
beam consists of an incredible amount of reinforcement laid on top of the installed piles in the
excavated area. These are later cast into a new beam, which makes it possible to distribute the loads
further down to the foundation (Figure 3.6.6). However, this method is also an eccentric method
which creates a torque and gives that the load cannot be that large.
Figure 3.6.6. The ground beam solution consisting of reinforcement and concrete (Skanska, 2020).
22
LITERATURE SURVEY
Yoke beam
If there is access to both sides of a wall, a good solution is to install a yoke beam (Figure 3.6.7),
which is a method consisting of several steps (Skanska, 2014). Firstly, you drill through the wall
where the intended yoke beam is placed. Then you excavate next to the wall on both sides, where
the two opposite placed piles are installed. Afterwards, the beam is placed through the wall and
placed on top of the head of the piles. This construction is later, cast into the wall and floor. This
method is preferable for transverse walls, due to the accessibility of both sides of a wall and makes
the distribution of the load easier to the foundation through this method due to the opposite placed
piles on each side of the wall. If there are several piles in a group or in a row, a beam can be placed
longitudinal along the wall on the piles (Figure 3.6.8). Otherwise the yoke must be tightened with
a jack after installation to ensure that the load from the wall is distributed further down to the
piles.
Figure 3.6.7. The yoke beam through a wall. (Skanska, 2014).
a) b)
Figure 3.6.8. The yoke beam with one beam through the wall and the other beam longitudinal along the wall, presented in a) one cross-section
and b) the other cross-section. (Skanska, 2020)
23
LITERATURE SURVEY
Slab with half a niche

A slab can be made in two different ways, either as mentioned above, with reinforcement bars and
close placed piles next to the wall. The other variant of this method is to place piles scattered across
the slab, but this in turn, gives an even greater eccentricity. Which is not preferable if the loads are
distributed through a wall with line loads, since it gives a low transferability and the line load cannot
be carried by all the piles according to Sten Nilsson (Personal communication, March 12th, 2020).
He also describes that this solution also places high demands on the stiffness of the slab, which in
turn requires a very thick slab to obtain this necessary stiffness. The method of placing piles
scattered is not sufficiently well working with large loads from a building and therefore, not
preferable according to Per Lardner (Personal communication, March 5th, 2020). However, the
variant of placed piles close to the walls is preferable to ensure the structural capacity, which is a
similar method to the ground beam with half a niche.
Conical hole
A method that can be used for concrete structures is a conical hole where the load is distributed
through a slab to the prospective foundation (Skanska, 2014). Inclined holes are drilled through
the concrete with a conical geometry, where the pile is installed through the hole which later is
cast to create a plug that transfers the load into the pile (Figure 3.6.9a). This method is not
preferable if there are line loads that are distributed to a slab.
Cross pile
If there is an existing foundation that can be sensitive and there is an accessibility of both sides of
a wall, the cross-pile method is preferable, but is quite exceptional (Skanska, 2014). The
advantage is that you do not have to tear down a wall or create a niche in the wall. The cross piles
of steel are installed directly into the existing wall or foundation by drilling two inclined towards
each other on each side of the wall and is later cast by injection (Figure 3.6.9b). The method
requires a qualitative material on the wall, which means that it is not suitable for masonry walls
but works well with concrete or dry-stone wall.
a) b)
Figure 3.6.9. The reinforcement method with a) conical hole and b) cross piles (Skanska, 2014).
24
LITERATURE SURVEY
Activities for the geotechnical reinforcement works

Each geotechnical reinforcement work has several activities required. To obtain cost estimations
for each work, the considered activities are, according to Skanska (2020), the following ones:
• Establishment: The activities required to establish the different necessary machines. It

includes establishment costs for drilling aggregate, high pressure water pump and staff. It
also includes transport, establishment and decommissioning with both trailer and loader.
• Sawing, demolition, excavation and penetration: The activities required to

penetration through existing rust bed and planks, demolition of existing concrete floor. It
includes sawing and demolition in the dry-stone wall, the masonry wall and excavation of
soil beneath the existing floor, transport of material, grouting, demolition machine, staff.
• Pile: The activities required for the pile. It includes the material of the pile itself with a
factor of material waste of 10 %, together with a thread, cutting, top plate, welding the
top plate, welding the ring bit, rent of pilot, hammer and the staff that executes the work.
• Drilling: The activities required for drilling the pile with a capacity on 2.5 m/hours
including drilling aggregate, high pressure water pump, operation, fuel and staff.
• Beams and welding: The activities required to constructing and place beams. It includes
the material for the beam itself together with staff for welding.
• Casting piles: The activities required for filling the pile with concrete. It includes pump
and costs for establishment, transport, flushing of piles, unloading of returned concrete,
concrete, aggregate, waiting time and staff.
• Casting: The activities required for restoring the floor and casting full niches, ground
beams, half niches, holes in the heart walls, yoke beams and longitudinal beams and
more. It includes formwork, reinforcement, concrete, pump, costs for establishment of
pump and staff.
• Controls: The activities required for checking the pile. It includes stop-driving of piles,
straightness measurement, ultrasonic testing of welding and staff.
• Cost for project organization: Includes a tractor, workers, production manager, project
engineer, operating costs for establishment, planning and preparation.
A mark-up of 12 %, corresponding to other general costs, should be considered on the total cost.
Considerations regarding strengthening the foundation

Piles that are installed in existing buildings are often handled differently than in a new
production, as for instance newly manufactured housing, where the constructor can design where
and how the loads shall be distributed. The existing building has a determined construction with
both its material and its geometry that is needed to be considered due to the interaction of the
load-bearing element and the foundation. The new foundation cannot be able to carry 100 % of
the load that the wall is distributing to the foundation. A safety margin of the utilization that
considers the rate of distribution for the load transfer is needed when dimensioning the piles.
25
LITERATURE SURVEY
This transferability factor is between 50 - 80 %, according to Sadek Baker (Personal

communication, March 11th, 2020) and according to Sten Nilsson (Personal communication,
March 12th, 2020) can the percentage be chosen to 75 % for walls consisting of masonry and dry-
stone wall. This means that the load distributed down in the wall only have a certain degree of a
percentage that is further distributed down to the pile. Which in turn gives that this requires more
piles to take the safety into account.
According to Sten Nilsson (Personal communication, March 12th, 2020), the material of a load
bearing wall is another parameter that needs to be taken into account, since the wall can crack or
in worst case, collapse, entirely dependent on the material. If a load bearing wall consists of
masonry, the maximum spacing between the piles should be between 1.5 – 2 m. If the load
bearing wall consists of concrete, the maximum spacing should be between 3 – 5 m. If the load
bearing wall consists of a dry-stone wall, the maximum spacing should be between 2 – 3 m.
According to Aron Lindgren (Personal communication, February 20th, 2020), full niches in a dry-
stone wall shall have a minimum distance between the openings of 0.5 – 1.0 m. According to
SSAB (2019), the minimum spacing between 220 mm piles is set to a distance of 0.8 m and 170
mm piles to a minimum distance to 0.6 m. After they are installed, they are tested with a
measurement called pile driving analyzer, PDA. This is to check the magnitude of the load that
the pile carries, to ensure that the load is carried by the prospective pile, regardless of the degree
of utilization. The more piles tested, the more accurate result can be obtained and a higher
carrying capacity of the pile can be assumed.
Another parameter to consider when a building is reinforced, is the large investment in this. This
includes taking the opportunity to make premises in basements more attractive and better. As an
example, with lowering the floor and creating a better working environment. For instance,
companies can rent basements, which in turn pays off the investment costs over time, or it could
be possible to sell the area to pay off the investment. Mäklarstatistik (2020) provides a sales price
in Stockholm City with an average price of 90 900 SEK/m2 for the last 12 months.
3.7 Legislated regulations and requirements

There are several legislated regulations in Sweden that needs to be considered when an existing
building is extended with a superstructure. The following legislative regulations are used:
• Eurocode: The European National Construction Standards

European standards for the design of buildings, structures, civil engineering works and
construction products (European Commission, n.d.).
• EKS: Boverket’s Construction Regulations

Regulations and general advice on the application of the Eurocodes (Boverket, 2019b).
• BBR: Boverket’s Building Regulations

Regulations and general advice on requirements in PBL and PBF (Boverket, 2018c).
Boverket is the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. In their construction
and building regulations, there are both regulations and general recommendations stated.
Regulations are rules that should be followed while the general recommendation is a proposal to
fulfill a decided rule, as a regulation. (Boverket, 2018b, 2019c)
26
LITERATURE SURVEY
Eurocodes and EKS
The construction regulations, EKS, from Boverket are together with the Eurocodes enforcement
regulations to the requirements regarding durability and resistance (Boverket, 2019a). EKS
comprises Sweden’s national choices regarding the Eurocodes. These choices make the
Eurocodes incorporated to the Swedish regulations and through this, national requirements are
stated on the Swedish structures. The Eurocodes regarding design and actions on a building
along with geotechnical work is the Eurocode 0, EN 1990, the Eurocode 1, EN 1991, and the
Eurocode 7, EN 1997. The Eurocode 0 regulates the basis of structural design, the first
Eurocode regulates actions on structures and the seventh Eurocode regulates geotechnical
design.
Alteration of an existing building is described by Boverket (2019f) as an act which is a change of

buildings construction, function, application area, appearance or cultural-historical value. They
also describe it as an act which can change the buildings volume. When an existing building is
changed by an increased volume with a superstructure, the superstructure should be designed in
accordance to EKS. Existing elements should be verified in accordance to EKS or by other older
verification models to ensure sufficient carrying capacity. The requirements that has changed
over time should also be considered. When the extended superstructure entails an increased load,
it should be considered and all elements that are affected needs to be ensured to have sufficient
load-carrying capacity.
A building should be designed and executed in a way so the highest probability of impacting the
construction, does not lead to following consequences presented below (Boverket, 2019a). This
applies both when the construction is built and when it is used.
• Completely or partially collapse of the construction.

• Unacceptable major deformations.
• Damage to other parts of the structure, its installations or fixed equipment because of
major deformations in the load carrying construction.
• Damage that is not commensurate with the event that caused the injury.
The partial coefficient method is the basis for the verification of the building in accordance to
EKS (SFS 2011:10). Regulations regarding the verification of an existing building and a
superstructure are presented from both the EKS (SFS 2011:10) and the Eurocodes, given in a
shorter version to only include the relevant parts.
Reliability class should be determined for both a building and a geotechnical structure, which is a
classification regarding safety. For a building, A Ch. 13 § EKS (SFS 2011:10) says:
Chapter A: General provisions
A Ch. 13 §
“Given the extent of the personal injuries that are likely to result from a failure of a
structural member, the member is assigned to one of the following reliability classes
a) Reliability class 1 (low), minor risk of serious personal injury
b) Reliability class 2 (normal), some risk of serious personal injury, or
c) Reliability class 3 (high), major risk of serious personal injury. (BFS 2015:6)”
Regarding the reliability class for geotechnical structure, A Ch. 13 § (SFS 2011:10) says that a
geotechnical construction should also be classified regarding safety as mentioned above.
27
LITERATURE SURVEY
It depends on the construction above the geotechnical one. IEG (2010) describes that a
foundation consisting of piles should belong to reliability class 1. This is when large deformations
cannot cause collapse and the structure above cannot be used as intended or only when people
staying near the structure for exceptional cases. Foundation consisting of piles should belong to
reliability class 3 when large deformations can cause collapse of the structure above. In addition
to class 3. a large group of people is staying in or near the structure. Foundation consisting of
piles which not belongs to neither the reliability class 1 nor 3. belongs to reliability class 2.
Snow load on the roof construction should be considered when the building is verified,
according to Boverket (2019f) and EN 1991-1-3. Wind load should also be included, according to
Boverket (2019e) and EN 1991-1-4.
Global analysis of the analyzed building is a requirement according to A Ch. 6 § EKS (SFS
2011:10):
Chapter A: General provisions
A Ch. 6 §
“Structures and structural members shall with sufficient reliability have a mechanical
resistance equal to or greater than the effect of action during construction and design
working life. The construction works shall also have static equilibrium such that the effect
of stabilizing actions is equal to or greater than the effect of destabilizing actions. (BFS
2015:6)”
Combination of loads should be applied, according to EKS (SFS 2011:10), with equation 6.10 a)
and 6.10 b) in EN 1990 when designing structural bearing capacity (STR) and geotechnical
bearing capacity (GEO) in ultimate limit state.
Geotechnical improvement or reinforcement is regulated in EN 1997-1. The Eurocode regulates

actions regarding geotechnical design, which ground improvement and reinforcement is a part of.
The Eurocode says that a geotechnical investigation should be carried out before a choice of
method regarding improvement or reinforcement can be done or used. This is to ensure that the
initial ground conditions are known, which is required before any action is done.
Designing of piles is regulated in EN 1997-1 Ch. 6. Following limit states shall be considered
when end-bearing piles are designed:
Chapter 6: Spread foundations
6.2 Limit states

• Loss of overall stability.
• Bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation.
• Uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile foundation.
• Failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation.
• Structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling or shear.
• Combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation.
• Combined failure in the ground and in the structure.
• Excessive subsidence.
• Excessive heave.
• Excessive lateral movement.
• Unacceptable vibrations.
28
LITERATURE SURVEY
BBR
The building regulations, BBR, from Boverket contains rules regarding the requirements in PBL,
the Planning and Building Act. It contains all technical requirements except durability and
resistance (Boverket, 2018c). According to Boverket (2018a), requirements regarding following
aspects for both material and building technology needs to be taken into account: fire protection,
light in buildings, thermal climate, moisture security, protection against vermin, acoustics
requirements and energy conservation.
One of the two main categories that regulates the allowed total height of a building is the
requirement regarding the fire safety given in BBR. To enable a safe evacuation in occurrence of
a fire, the total height of a building needs to be determined according to the regulations presented
below. The other main category that affects the total height of a building is the allowed minimum
room height. When a superstructure is built, the height of each storey must therefore, be adjusted
to the requirements, which in turn, affects the total height of the building.
There are several requirements that could be considered, however, the regulations regarding fire
safety and the allowed minimum room height in BBR (Boverket [BBR], SFS 2011:6) are
presented in a shorter version to only include relevant parts. They are presented in numerical
order from BBR (SFS 2011:6).
Chapter 3: Accessibility, dwelling design, room height, and utility rooms
3 Ch. 3:31 § Room height

“The height of rooms in buildings shall be sufficient to avoid problems to human health.”
3 Ch. 3:3111 § Dwellings

“The room height of dwellings shall be not less than 2.40 meters. In one- or two-family
houses, however, the room height in attics, semi-basements and basements must be no
lower than 2.30 meters. In restricted sections of rooms, these room heights may be lower.
In sections of the room where standing height is needed, the room height must not be less
than 2.10 meters under horizontal sections of roofs or 1.90 meters under sloping roofs.”
Chapter 5: Safety in case of fire
5 Ch. 5:721 § Rescue road

“If the street system or equivalent does not provide access, a special rescue road shall be
arranged that provides good accessibility. The rescue road shall be signposted and
provided with hard standings for the intended vehicles. (BFS 2011:26)”
General recommendation
“The distance between the rescue vehicles’ hard standing and the building’s
attack point should be less than 50 meters. If evacuation is assumed to take
place using turntable ladders or hydraulic lift platforms, the distance from
the street, rescue road or hard standing to the building wall should be a
maximum of 9 meters.”
5 Ch. 5:734 § Rescue lift

“For buildings with more than ten storeys, there shall be at least one rescue lift. The lift
may only be connected to other spaces through fire lobbies. The lift shaft to the rescue lift
shall form its own fire compartment. (BFS 2011:26)”
5 Ch. 5:81 § General
29
LITERATURE SURVEY
“Buildings shall be designed with the type of fire protection that ensures that fire safety is
satisfactory. The design of the fire protection shall assume that a fire could occur. Fire
protection shall be designed with adequate robustness to ensure all or large parts of the fire
protection is not knocked out by individual events or stresses. Buildings shall, following
the alteration, comply with the fire protection requirements in Sections 5:1-5:7. However,
the requirements may be satisfied in a way other than that specified where the
corresponding safety level is still achieved. Deviations from the safety level may be made it
there are exceptional reasons relating to the scope of the alteration and the buildings’
conditions. Rules on allowable deviations are contained in Section 1:22 and in Sections
5:81-5:87. However, deviations must never result in unacceptable risk to human safety.”
3.7.4 Climate requirements
Sweden’s membership in EU, the European Union, entails that the country is within the global
agreement regarding the climate and is obligated to consider the environmental objectives
regarding a decrease of the global warming. This regards actions like decreasing the emissions,
decreasing the use of energy, increasing the part of renewable energy and increasing the biofuel
for transports. (Svenskt trä, n.d.a)
The construction industry contributes to a large part of carbon dioxide emissions in Sweden, the
production phase is the most critical one in the construction process today. Which gives that the
choice of building material has a large influence on the environmental impact and therefore,
needs to be considered. (Boverket, 2020b)
3.8 Discussion & Summary

Theoretical background and review
There are several studies that has been done regarding building a superstructure constructed with
different types of materials on concrete buildings from the Million Programme. All these studies
show that it is only possible to extend with one or two storeys, even though the construction
could be able to carry more storeys due to the capacity without the need of reinforcing the
foundation. In a study provided by Oscarsson and Eklund (2010), a superstructure with one
storey of wood compared to one storey of steel made no difference in the results for how the
load affected the construction of the building. From a light weighted perspective, steel could be a
possible building material.
Another study by Friberg and Karlin (2015), shows that the existing load bearing walls in a
residential building only was utilized to 20 %, which gives that the load bearing structure is
oversized and have capacity for higher loads. However, these studies from the Million
Programme were not relevant due to the year of construction and its methods used for the
foundation, material and construction of the buildings. Nonetheless, several studies have been
done regarding the capacity of the existing framework to be able to carry an additional load,
which would be relevant if an analyzed reference building consisted of concrete. The studies do
not provide any information regarding the foundation when an extended part is added on top of
the existing building and has not been analyzed in the same origin as the capacity of the
construction.
30
LITERATURE SURVEY
Geology, the building history and the existing foundation
During the time 1880s-1920s, most residential buildings in the central part of Stockholm was
built (Riksantikvarieämbetet, n.d). This regards all parts within the city center, except the part of
Gamla Stan, since there was a minor part of the buildings built during these years. A geological
survey has been carried out within the city center of Stockholm, where this part should be carried
out by several soil investigations on site to obtain reliability of the soil strata sequence. EN 1997
gives that initially sampling of soil in a project is required before any reinforcement work of a
foundation is started. The sampling of soil gives the soil strata sequence, that is the basis for the
design of the intended foundation. However, the geological survey by using the 3D program
provided by SGU (2017), several soil strata sequences were obtained. The chosen soil strata
sequence is the one when wooden piles was used as the foundation. There were several
sequences for when this type of foundation could be used. The deepest soil layer of clay was
chosen with the argument of, the deeper layer, the more difficult it is, from a geotechnical point
of view.
The existing wooden piles for a building built during the era, are probably a hundred years old
and could be hard to verify. The piles are in a confined space with low accessibility and therefore,
requires great efforts to be able to check the conditions of them. According to Skanska (2018),
the existing piles needs to be investigated with several extensive surveys to determine the carrying
capacity. Many investigations require the existing pile to be exposed and free laid. Therefore, this
requires that the tested pile does not carry any load during the investigation, which is a difficulty
to perform when the existing building is not demolished. The differences in heights can be
measured easily, and the groundwater can be investigated. However, with certainty, this is not
enough to ensure the carrying capacity of a pile. Therefore, the carrying capacity of the existing
piles cannot be verified. This gives, for this thesis, that the existing wooden piles are assumed to
not carry any loads.
Geotechnical reinforcement works of foundations

In a soil strata sequence consisting of clay, one foundation method is piles. Steel piles are often
used in poor geological conditions, when the bearing capacity is low, which requires end bearing
piles to be able to transfer the load directly to the rock (Geobear, 2020b). Depending on time,
economy and space for different choices of machines, the piles can be executed differently.
However, in confined basements, drilled steel piles are preferable since it minimizes vibrations
and subsidence damages, which is preferable when working in existing buildings and in
residential areas (Skanska, 2014). The disadvantage with drilled piles is the major cost. The steel
piles that are driven instead of drilled give major subsidence damages but are executed and
installed faster. The disadvantage with driven piles is the great risk to obtain an early stop, which
means that if you hit an obstacle, it is not possible to go through it. This gives that if the risk is
low of obstacles in the ground, the driven method is preferable due to fast installation and is
cheaper than the drilled method. Since the risk is great to encounter wooden piles in the ground,
it is easy to hit them when installing new piles. This gives that the drilled method is preferable,
for both steel piles and jet grouting method, due to its great ability to drill through an obstacle.
However, the jet grouting method is not suitable in cohesion soils, as clay, and works better as a
complement to foundations in the form of an interaction construction.
The wooden piles are intended to be installed to the bedrock, whereas, the new piles should be
anchored into the rock. With the geological conditions of a deep layer of clay, the new piles are
end-bearing piles. In confined basements, the maximum dimension of installing a pile with a
small machine that can fit into the basement was 220 mm, as well as the recommended minimum
31
LITERATURE SURVEY
dimension of pile was 220 mm according to SSAB (2019). However, one of the most common
pile dimensions was the 170/10 pile. Therefore, these two dimensions are tested for this type of
work.
The different transfer methods are applicable on different walls in a building, dependent on
accessibility and the material of the wall. For the full niche, it can be done for both outer and
transverse placed walls. It requires a center distance with at least one-half meter between the
openings of the full niches, which needs to be considered. The ground beam with half a niche is a
method that can be done for both outer and transverse placed walls. However, this method is
limited to only being possible in one cross-section, due to the assumption that it is preferable to
create a slab instead of using ground beams in two cross-sections, since the excavation is too
detailed and requires more finishing touches than a slab. The yoke beam on the other hand, is
only possible for the transverse heart walls, since it requires accessibility both sides of a wall. The
slab with half a niche is a method which has similar properties as the method with the ground
beam with half a niche. This method is only applicable if it is used on all the walls in the two
cross-sections at once, and can, therefore, not be combined to any other method. The method of
cross piles is a method that also requires an access on both sides of a wall, which gives that it is
only possible for transverse walls. However, it is only possible to perform on dry-stone wall and
therefore, it gives that this method is not be tested in this thesis, since the transverse walls
consists of masonry. The method with the console cantilever beam and its half a niche gives large
moments. Therefore, it requires an extremely large dimension of cantilever beam or that the
beam is connected with an installed strut that takes tension forces, that in turn, requires a great
need of accessibility. Hence, this method is not tested in this thesis. The method with piles in a
conical hole has an advantage of installing piles with no space limitation. Nevertheless, the
method requires that the existing floor consists of concrete and it is not suitable when loads are
distributed to the foundation through walls as line loads, since it creates extreme eccentricities.
Hence, this method is not tested in this thesis. Another important part before executing the
reinforcement work, the loads in the walls can be relieved with building props as a temporary
support that can unload the walls when executing the installment of reinforcement work.
The existing framework

The study regarding the masonry building from 1880s-1920s show great potential for extending a
superstructure on an existing building from this era, since the masonry building has high
compressive strength and can carry heavy loads (Karlsson and Rosin, 2018). However, one
should investigate the bending and tensile strength for this type of building, along with the
geological conditions and the foundation, which all the studies excludes. This means that a
thorough investigation of both foundation and geological conditions is necessary to determine
the possibilities of extending an existing building with the consideration if strengthening of a
foundation is needed. Nonetheless, this is an advantageous study, since the building is from the
same era. The conclusion of the study show that the construction does not give way even when
an additional load is applied on top of the building. This gives that assumptions regarding testing
the construction is disregarded in this thesis, as the construction is assumed to carry additional
applied load without being affected from a structural perspective for masonry buildings from this
era.
Building material for a superstructure

There have been several superstructures that has been built in wood and the material exhibits
good structural properties regarding both resistance and strength (Martinsons, 2019).
However, wood entails a larger risk of fire, as it is flammable. Structures consisting of cross-
32
LITERATURE SURVEY
laminated timber have, thanks to their large homogenous cross-sections, good protection
properties in the event of a fire (Martinsons, n.d). Cross-laminated timber is one of the most
common wood materials in load-carrying structures and has been used in previous projects
regarding exploiting superstructures (Martinsons, 2019). Therefore, no other material is
investigated. Previous studies show that wood is five times lighter than concrete. Foundation
reinforcement is expensive and the need of it can be minimized when using a lighter material, as
wood in a superstructure compared to a heavier material, as concrete. The scope of the
reinforcement work increases with heavier loads, which in turn can cause instability problems in
the ground, which is why wood is preferable for these kinds of structures.
The comparison between wood and steel show that steel is lighter and stronger than wood as a
building material (Oscarsson and Eklund, 2010). On the other hand, they also show that wood is
considerably cheaper. Svenskt trä (n.d.b) show that a large amount of carbon dioxide emissions
can be reduced when using wood instead of steel. The same applies for both costs and carbon
dioxide emissions to the comparison between concrete and wood as well (Bchar and Youssef,
2018). The advantages of using wood as a building material are superior. Along with Sweden’s
involvement in environmental objectives, wood becomes the chosen building material for the
superstructure (Svenskt trä, n.d.a).
Legislated regulations and requirements

In this thesis, legislations, guidelines and requirements are followed, however, assumptions are
made to simplify calculations. The regulations that can affect the superstructure are considered
and the present regulations regarding a change of an existing building. Detailed development
plans should also be controlled, depending on the location of the project, which can delimit the
possibility of exploiting buildings. According to BBR (SFS 2011:6), the height of a building is
limited with regards to the fire safety. One of the main parameters is the need of an additional
rescue elevator if a building exceeds ten storeys. Since a typical building from the era between
1880s-1920s consists of six storeys, the extended superstructure can maximum consist of four
storeys.
Profitability and costs of a superstructure

With the high demand for housing in Stockholm, the sales prices have been increased the latest
years. If a superstructure in wood is built, it could be considered as a low investment in terms of
the production if it, which in turn, could generate profit due to the high sales price. The SBUF
report by Lidgren and Widerberg (2010) provided a production cost of 27 900 SEK/m2 with
inflation included for a superstructure consisting of one to two storeys. However, this production
cost does not include any reinforcement works of foundations. The total production costs do not
refer to what extent it considers how manufacturing or whether profits, risks or other general
costs are allocated in the production cost. The sales price in Stockholm city has an average price
of 90 900 SEK/m2 for the last 12 months. It is a large margin between the sales price and the
production cost with the limitation of one to two storeys, as the SBUF report presents. This
means that additional storeys should minimize the total production cost per square meter
compared to what the SBUF report gave, since the general costs are not directly related to the
number of storeys, such as, for example, crane, electricity, water, security, staff and establishment.
It would be preferable if this large difference in margin would be able to cover the cost of a
foundation strengthening, but these costs are difficult to predict. These strengthening costs
depends on the magnitude of the added load, as well as the load transferring methods and
foundation methods, which in turn depends on the geological conditions.
33
34
THE CONSTRUCTED MODELS
4. THE CONSTRUCTED MODELS

The purpose of a model is to reflect the most common existing building in Stockholm city center
and is created based on the literature survey together with its discussion. Two models are
constructed, one reflects the existing building and the second one includes a superstructure. The
models regard the geological conditions, the existing framework, the existing foundation, the
connection construction and the superstructure. Through the literature survey, it emerged that
most buildings within the city center of Stockholm were built between 1880s-1920s. An assumed
soil strata sequence was determined by the districts consisting of the geological conditions where
wooden piles were used. The existing framework construction are determined in accordance to
the building technology used in the specific time era, which includes both the building material
and the dimension of each part. Drawings are presented in three different cross-sections. Cross-
section A is viewed from the adjoining residence, whereas cross-section B is viewed
perpendicular to A and cross-section C is viewed from above.
4.1 Geological conditions

To broaden the thesis, the deepest layer of clay is the chosen soil strata sequence where wooden
piles was installed during 1880s-1920s. The geological conditions within the city center of
Stockholm has been analyzed according to the Swedish Geotechnical Institute 3D-viewer (SGU,
2017). Several districts within the city center of Stockholm consist of clay, but with a varying soil
depth. Gamla Stan is the district that entails the largest soil depth, but it is not the district where
the most buildings within the city center were built. Östermalm, Vasastaden and Kungsholmen
are the districts where most buildings were built and are the districts that regulates the soil depth.
The largest soil depth obtained in the districts is 20 m. The soil strata sequence consists of fill,
assumed to be 2 m, followed by a layer of clay for the remaining 18 m, followed by bedrock
(Figure 4.1.1). Since clay is water saturated, the groundwater level is assumed to be at the same
level as where the layer of clay begins. The assumption of 2 m fill is determined based on the
distance from the ground surface to the wooden pile heads, since they should be below the
groundwater level. The undrained shear strength of the clay in Stockholm has a characteristic
value of 8 kPa, according to Sadek Baker (Personal communication, February 17th, 2020).
a) b)
Figure 4.1.1. The assumed soil strata sequence in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
35
4.2 Existing construction of foundation

Wooden piles in very soft soil, built between 1880s-1920s, was constructed in two ways. The
literature survey shows that the layer of clay is deeper than 12 m, which gives that the
construction with the longer piles are assumed. For this type of construction, a layer of gravel
was packed between the beams and the piles. Therefore, the argument is validated as to why the
layer of fill is assumed to be 2 m. To ensure the structural bearing capacity of the wooden piles,
they were constructed below the groundwater level, which also indicates why the layer of clay
starts after the layer of 2 m fill.
Several investigations are required to determine and ensure the carrying capacity of an existing
foundation. In addition, if piles have a greater risk of being exposed by rot fungus, it is even
more important to be able to check the carrying capacity of the pile. Since the investigations
require the pile to be exposed and free laid, it is difficult to perform these in a confined
basement. Hence, the pile is assumed to not be controllable and therefore, cannot expect it to
carry any loads.
4.3 Existing construction of framework
The literature survey shows that the major of the residential buildings within the city center of
Stockholm were built between 1880s-1920s. These buildings were constructed of masonry and
the model consists of 6 storeys with a basement, one stairwell and one elevator. The assumed
design of floor plan only considers the load-bearing elements and is simplified with continuous
transverse walls. Adjoining residences are assumed to enclose the building on its short ends, a
municipal owned street along its long side and a courtyard on the other side. It has a width of 20
m and a depth of 11.6 m (Figure 4.3.1). The building height is 26.8 m and is defined as the height
from the ground level to the existing roof ridge (Figure 4.3.2).
The room height in the housing is assumed to a height of 3.2 m, whereas the basement height is
determined to 2.4 m and is located 1.9 m below the ground surface. All the walls consist of
masonry and their thicknesses are assumed according to the literature survey. In the basement,
the outer walls are constructed with masonry laid on top of a dry-stone wall which has a width of
1.1 m (Figure 4.3.2). The floor in the basement is assumed to consist of a concrete slab with a
thickness of 0.2 m.
Figure 4.3.1. The floor plan for one storey in cross-section C.
36
a) b)
4.3.2. The existing building in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
4.4 Construction of connection
To connect a superstructure with the existing building, it is assumed that the roof and the attic
floor is teared down. Since the façade of the existing buildings from this era often consist of
beautiful architecture details, the façade is wanted to be preserved. This gives that the heel
between the roof and the outer wall is extant. A new strengthen attic floor is constructed with
steel beams placed on top of the load-bearing walls to ensure that the loads are directly
distributed to the existing building. The attic floor construction has a final thickness of 73 cm and
is assumed to be adjusted with concrete heels, fixed with bolts and then a concrete slab (Figure
4.4.1).
a) b)
Figure 4.4.1. The connection construction in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
37
4.5 Construction of superstructure
From a sustainable and financial perspective, the superstructure is determined to consist of cross-
laminated timber. With the regulations, the maximum number of storeys is four, due to safety
aspects. To optimize the living space, the maximum allowable number of storeys is, therefore,
chosen. The height of the superstructure is calculated to 12.5 m with the chosen room height as
2.4 m. The existing building has a height of 22.5 m after the roof is teared down. The design of
floor plan is assumed to be the same as for the existing building to simplify calculations. Each
element in the superstructure and its dimension is determined according to the literature survey
(Figure 4.5.1). All calculations are given in Appendix B.
a) b)
Figure 4.5.1. The superstructure in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
38
4.6 The final constructed models

Two models have been constructed, the first one reflects the existing building and the second
one the total building. The walls in each cross-section are named, since each cross-section consist
of different types of walls. The outer walls are named as A1 and the heart walls as A2 in cross-
section A (Figure 4.6.1a and Figure 4.6.2a). The outer walls as B1 and the heart walls as B2 in
cross-section B (Figure 4.6.1b and Figure 4.6.2b). All outer walls and all heart walls in each cross-
section, respectively, are identical named due to symmetry.
The floor plan is the same for both models and is visualized in Figure 4.3.1. The first model is
visualized in Figure 4.3.2 and has a height of 26.8 m. Whereas, the second model has a height of
35 m (Figure 4.6.3). The calculations are presented in Appendix B.
a) b)
Figure 4.6.1. The walls location in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
a) b)
Figure 4.6.2. The design of floor plan with the walls in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
39
a) b)
Figure 4.6.3. The final constructed model in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
40
ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL FORCES
ACTING ON THE BUILDING
5. ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL FORCES ACTING ON

THE BUILDING
5.1 Introduction and method for analysis of vertical forces

When a building is exposed to different types of loads, as permanent and variable loads, they are
distributed from where the load acts towards the foundation. To obtain how large vertical loads
the foundation carries, it is necessary to calculate the total load distribution. This is to ensure
which load each load bearing part carries, to assure that the foundation is correctly designed.
Therefore, calculations for load distributions are done on each wall in both cross-sections. When
a superstructure is built, there is an additional load that is considered during calculations, which
gives two different cases that represents the models, respectively.
• Case 1: Loads for the existing building

• Case 2: Loads for the total building
The permanent loads correspond to the self-weight of the building for the two cases. This
includes exterior roof, roof trusses, attic floor, floor joists, reinforcing joists between the
superstructure and the existing building, non-load bearing walls and load-bearing walls. Whereas
the variable loads consist of snow- and residential loads.
The calculations are done for each part in the building, with its specific heaviness, thickness or
area that it acts on. The loads are distributed in its load path towards the load bearing walls that
in turn, distributes the load through a line load (Figure 4.3.1). All the loads are calculated with a
depth of 1 m into each cross-section and is therefore, presented in kN/m. All the calculations are
based on EN 1991 with EKS as guidelines and presented in Appendix C. These characteristic
values are used further on to obtain design loads for the ultimate limit state in each load-bearing
component by being differently combined according to the Eurocode. This gives that the
characteristic loads are presented separately for the permanent and the variable loads, for each
case, respectively.
5.2 Results of the analysis on vertical forces

The total characteristics loads obtained for each wall in cross-section A and cross-section B are
presented in Table 5.2.1 to Table 5.2.4. respectively. The results are presented as a line load with
1 m depth into the wall and due to symmetry, one type of wall in each cross-section is presented.
The increased percentage of additional loads due to the superstructure is calculated to 20 %.
Table 5.2.1. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section A and outer wall.
Wall A1 Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 357 391 kN/m
Variable residential load 35 58 kN/m
Variable snow load 5 5 kN/m
Long-term load 90 86 %
41
ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL FORCES
Table 5.2.2. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section A and heart wall.
Wall A2 Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Table 5.2.3. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section B and outer wall.
Wall B1 Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Table 5.2.4. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section B and heart wall.
Wall B2 Case 1 Case 2 Unit
42
ANALYSIS OF HORIZONTAL FORCES
6. ANALYSIS OF HORIZONTAL FORCES ACTING

ON THE BUILDING
6.1 Introduction and method of the analysis on horizontal forces

For the second case, when a superstructure is built, the horizontal equilibrium and the static
equilibrium must be verified. The horizontal forces acting on the building consists of earth
pressure and wind force. The earth pressure acts below the ground surface on the basement walls
and the wind forces acts on the entire building above the ground surface. In the horizontal
equilibrium, the wind force should not exceed the earth pressure, otherwise, actions in the
foundation are required to withstand the wind force. The wind force creates an overturning
moment due to non-centric applied load, which needs to be lower than the stabilizing moment
due to the self-weight. The existing building is in place today, which means that the existing wind
force is carried by the earth pressure. When a superstructure is built, it is necessary to check the
overturning moment due to the increased height. If the stabilizing moment is not sufficiently
larger than the overturning moment, the building is too high. The calculations are given in
Appendix D.
Wind load
The wind load is calculated as a variable load that acts perpendicular towards the wall and the
roof. The load creates a moment in the foundation that is assumed to be a static moment, which
needs to be verified so it is stabilized through its self-weight. The wind load is calculated
according to EN 1991 and EKS (SFS 2011:10), and the calculations are done in an Excel spread.
Each component is calculated from the top of the superstructure down to the top of the
foundation. The heart walls in cross-section B are tested for torque created from the wind load,
since they are exposed to the force. According to EN 1991. a load set to obtain the design load
of the wind is checked and tested in the ultimate limit state. When the building is in static
equilibrium in the ultimate limit state, the wind load is the dimensioning one, namely adverse.
This gives that both the self-weight and other variable loads, as snow and residential loads, are
favorable for this case. The wind load acts on each of the four walls in cross-section B. The self-
weight and the variable load are calculated to only carry a few meters of each wall due to the
piecemeal wooden floor joists according to Aron Lindgren (Personal communication, February
20th, 2020). When the building is in static equilibrium, the wind load is acting on each floor joist.
The torque is calculated with each height of each acting wind force along with the weight of the
building that acts with an eccentricity.
Earth pressure
When the wind force is acting on one side of the building, the earth pressure is acting passively
on the opposite side, which requires it to be designed as a passive pressure. To be able to
determine if further actions is required in the geotechnical reinforcement work, a horizontal
equilibrium is analyzed for the earth pressure resultant and the total wind force. When
movements in a wall can occur due to actions, the magnitude of earth pressure and direction of
resultant forces shall be calculated, according to EN 1997. Where the resultant force is calculated
with the Rankine method, according to Das (2007). The passive earth pressure acts triangular
with a resultant force acting on a third of the total height of where the pressure acts.
43
ANALYSIS OF HORIZONTAL FORCES
6.2 Results of the analysis on horizontal forces
The stabilizing moment is greater than the overturning moment for both the outer walls and for
the heart walls, which gives that no further actions is necessary. Each wall in cross-section B has
a wind load acting perpendicular to the wall on each floor joist, where these loads are summed to
a total wind load for each wall. The total wind load, including the wind load acting on the roof, is
summed up to 198 kN for the outer walls and 242 kN for the heart walls (Figure 6.2.1a). To
obtain the entire wind force for the building, each force on each wall is summed up to 879 kN.
The resulting distributed load from the passive earth pressure is calculated to 138 kN/m and is
acting per unit length of the wall (Figure 6.2.1b). The total passive resultant acts on a height of
0.6 m and is calculated to 2759 kN, which is larger than the total wind force acting on the
building (Figure 6.2.2). This gives that no further actions are required.
a) b)
Figure 6.2.1. The horizontal a) wind force on each wall and b) passive earth pressure.
Figure 6.2.2. The global analysis of the horizontal equilibrium.
44
DESIGN LOADS
7. DESIGN LOADS
7.1 Introduction and method of dimensioning

To obtain design loads of the characteristic loads obtained in Chapter 5. the permanent and
variable loads are differently combined and dimensioned for different load-cases. These
combinations are done with the partial coefficient method with the dimensioning equations
according to the Eurocodes. The first and the second case are calculated separately and are done
in two limit states for the different load-cases presented below. The geotechnical bearing capacity
is the capacity of a soil carrying the loads acting on the ground, whereas the structural bearing
capacity is the capacity of the material which distributes the loads to the ground. Each one of the
three separately calculations have a specific partial coefficient dependent on which load-case that
are calculated according to the partial coefficient method. However, to ensure safety, all
calculations are verified with the reliability class 3. due to the risk of major accidents in a
residential building.
• Load-case A: ULS for STR

• Load-case B: ULS for GEO
• Load-case C: SLS for both STR and GEO
For the dimensioning part, the equations 6.10a and 6.10b given in EN 1990 section 6.4.3.2, are
used for combining the loads for the structural bearing capacity. Where the equation 6.10a
includes both the permanent and the variable load as adverse. Whereas, equation 6.10b divides
the variable loads into two parts due to reduction, one non-cooperating load and one cooperating
load, where all loads are adverse. For the geotechnical bearing capacity, the alternation equation
6.10 is used. These equations and its components are explained and calculated in Appendix E.
The value of the two ultimate limit states of structural or geotechnical capacity in both case 1 and
case 2. respectively, that receives the highest value is the chosen design load, which subsequently
is checked in the numerical calculations for the foundation. All calculations are given in
Appendix E.
7.2 Design load results

The obtained design loads acts as a line load in each load bearing wall in the building, where the
calculations are distributed down to the basement floor. The design load that each wall carries is
presented for each limit state and for each load-case in Table 7.2.1 for case one and Table 7.2.2
for case two.
Table 7.2.1. Obtained design loads for case 1 in each cross-section and wall.
Load-case A: ULS for STR B: ULS for GEO C: SLS for STR & GEO Unit
Wall A1 523 445 384 kN/m
Wall A2 683 596 500 kN/m
Wall B1 660 568 484 kN/m
Wall B2 658 573 481 kN/m
45
DESIGN LOADS
Table 7.2.2. Obtained design loads for case 2 in each cross-section and wall.
Load-case A: ULS for STR B: ULS for GEO C: SLS for STR & GEO Unit
Wall A1 593 515 435 kN/m
Wall A2 804 719 586 kN/m
Wall B1 758 667 554 kN/m
Wall B2 773 691 563 kN/m
The largest value of these three load-cases in each cross-section and for each wall for the two
different cases, respectively, is the chosen value as the design load. The resulting loads are given
in the unit kN/m, which is a line load into the depth of the cross-section and are visualized in
Figure 7.2.1 and Figure 7.2.2.
a) b)
Figure 7.2.1. Obtained design loads for case 1 for a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
a) b)
Figure 7.2.2. Obtained design loads for case 2 for a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
46
ANALYSIS OF GEOTECHNICAL
REINFORCEMENT
8. ANALYSIS OF GEOTECHNICAL
REINFORCEMENT
8.1 Introduction to the analysis of geotechnical

reinforcement
The new foundation is designed in accordance to the design loads obtained in Chapter 7 for the
two cases and for each wall in each cross-section. The geotechnical reinforcement work consists
of a transfer method and a foundation method. The foundation method is drilled steel piles,
where two different pile dimensions are analyzed for each and one of the potential transfer
methods, which are following:
• Pile 1: RD220/12.5
• Pile 2: RD170/10.0
• Transfer method 1: Full niche

• Transfer method 2: Ground beam with half a niche
• Transfer method 3: Yoke beam
• Transfer method 4: Slab with half a niche
In Table 8.1.1. the transfer methods are presented for which wall they can be applied to. The
capacity and resistance of the foundation are analyzed with numerical calculations, whereas the
transfer methods are analyzed with analytical calculations. These two calculations are together
done iterative. All calculations are given in Appendix F.
Table 8.1.1. The applicable transfer methods for each wall.

Type of wall Possible methods for each wall type
Wall A1 Method 1 Method 2 - Method 4
Wall A2 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4
Wall B1 Method 1 Method 2 - Method 4
Wall B2 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4
8.2 Method to the analysis of geotechnical reinforcement
The software as a design tool
In the program, it is possible to obtain through numerical calculations the capacity of a certain
steel pile depending on several different input variables. It is of great importance that the
background variables are correctly entered in the program, as it influences the carrying capacity.
The program generates values of the carrying capacity for each tested pile dimension and are two
different ones for the ultimate limit state and for the serviceability limit state. The pile is tested in
structural and geotechnical bearing capacity for both states, respectively. The lowest value in
ultimate limit state is the obtained designed carrying capacity. To ensure that the new foundation
carries the load which the pile is subjected to, the certain pile is tested numerically. The used
numerical software, based on the finite element method, called RRPileCalc, is provided by SSAB.
47
REINFORCEMENT
The program makes it possible to choose between drilled or driven piles, how the piles are
supported to the building and the ground together with the surrounding geological conditions.
The program provides national regulation designing rules, as buckling resistance in the pile shaft,
which is not covered by the Eurocodes. The program has a function called “Advanced FEM”
which performs an analysis of the behavior of the designed pile with the first and second order
moments calculated, including how the ground behavior is acting around the pile. The use of the
program and interpretation of the results requires that the user has sufficient expertise within the
subject. (SSAB, 2020)
The parts that need to be considered in the design of piles are, according to IEG (2010), the
following ones divided into two parts. Where the first part is considered in the numerical
program, whereas the second part is not considered in the numerical program according to Antti
Perälä (Personal communication, March 3rd, 2020).
The program takes the following parts to into consideration during numerical calculations:
• Bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation with end bearing piles, the program
assumes that the resistance is verified by following end-of-driving criteria or by making
load tests.
• Failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation with the
function called Advanced FEM, which calculates the resistance for horizontally loaded
piles. This also considers the resistance of the soil. The calculation is done for single piles,
which is little different than for pile groups.
• Structural failure of the pile in compression and buckling, as well as shear strength and
bending in Advanced FEM.
• Combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation with Advanced FEM.
The failure can be either in pile or soil or both, if the resistances are close to each other.
• Excessive lateral movement is considered in Advanced FEM.
The following parts that the program doesn’t cover are considered as follows:
• Loss of overall stability due to the stabilizing moment, calculated in Appendix D.
• Uplift of insufficient tensile resistance of pile foundation is not necessary to consider

due to the equilibrium of the earth pressure and the wind force.
• Combined failure in the ground and in the structure, it is not considered in the
program since it only considers piles and not the structure above it. Failure of the
construction is not be considered, as it is assumed to have a sufficiently bearing capacity.
• Excessive subsidence and excessive heave are not considered to be a problem due to
the end bearing pile that is drilled into the rock.
• Unacceptable vibrations are not considered to be a problem since the piles are drilled
which minimizes the vibrations and the effect on the surrounding.
According to Pålkommissionen (2014), the carrying capacity of a pile must be checked for
normal compressive force and bending torque in two different break modes to ensure it can
48
REINFORCEMENT
withstand the force and torque. One mode called material breakage, where the cross-sectional
capacity is checked, and the other mode is instability or buckling. The lowest value of either the
pile’s cross-sectional capacity or the buckling capacity is the result of the pile’s carrying capacity
for the compressive load.
Construction method for analytical and numerical calculations
There are several background variables that are entered in the program to obtain the carrying
capacity (SSAB, 2019). One variable is the steel grade, that is dependent on the pile dimension
provided by SSAB. Other variables are the lifespan of the pile, the corrosion thickness and
protection, the number of splices per buckling length and the design undrained shear strength.
The percentage of long-term load is considered in the program which affects the bed module and
the lateral resistance. The initial deflection of piles is considered by the buckling length divided by
a value depending on the soil. In the program, the geotechnical verification level is set to 3 since
it is dependent on the reliability class. This gives that it is necessary to measure 3 piles and at least
10 % of all piles with PDA according to Pålkommisionen (2014).
The design carrying capacity numerically obtained for each pile dimension needs to be larger than
the vertical load that the pile is exposed to. Each load transfer method has a given maximum
center distance for the piles, dependent on the material of the wall. This is the basis for the total
number of piles, which is analytically calculated as the width of each wall divided by the center
distance. These numbers of piles are rounded upwards to an integer. The design loads for each
wall, from Chapter 7. are analytically calculated to obtain an axial force that each pile carries that
afterwards, are compared to what it can carries at its maximum. It is necessary to add a pile until
that the axial force does not exceed the carrying capacity. To obtain the normal axial force, it is
calculated through multiplying the design load acting on each wall with the depth of the wall,
then divided by the number of piles. Since 100 % of the load from the wall is not transferred to
the pile, a safety parameter considers a certain degree of utilization. The chosen percentage of 75
% corresponds to the proportion of load that is transferred from the wall to the pile. This gives
that only 75 % of the carrying capacity are compared to the axial force. Piles are added iteratively
until the normal axial force is less than 75 % of the carrying capacity.
Each transfer method for each wall and each cross-section has geometric requirements which
affect how the piles should be placed, and therefore, the amount of piles. This requires for
instance, the number of piles to be an uneven or an even number to be placed correctly and
realistically. For cross-section A, the walls that the load is acting on is the longer walls and
therefore, the two transverse heart walls are needed to be considered in the geometry (Figure
4.6.2a). This gives that cross-section A requires an uneven number of piles, with one placed in
between the two transverse walls to make sure that the center distance does not exceed its limits.
For cross-section B, the shorter walls are the one that the load is acting on, which gives that one
transverse placed heart wall is needed to be considered in the geometry (Figure 4.6.2b). This gives
that cross-section B requires an even number of piles, to make sure that the piles are distributed
evenly on both sides of the heart wall. This gives that additional piles are added to the total
amount and therefore, requires an iteratively analytically calculation for the new axial normal
force. Each iterative calculation lowers the axial force, which lower the utilization each pile
carries.
These axial forces are inserted in the program, along with the geological conditions as the soil
strata sequence and the ground water level and numerically calculated with the function
Advanced FEM. The function exposes the pile to second order moment to obtain if the axial
force that is acting on the pile are carried by the carrying capacity and to ensure that the pile is
49
REINFORCEMENT
not exposed to buckling and cross-sectional material breakage. The length of the pile is also
entered in the function, where the average soil depth is assumed to 20 m and then one meter
drilled into rock to anchor the pile. The anchor gives that the support between the pile and the
rock is clamped, while the upper part of the pile is determined to prevent rotation and free
displacement.
This part is an iterative calculation, since if the calculated axial normal force is too large, the
cross-sectional material capacity is not enough, and the program stop proceeding with the
calculations. Then it is necessary to add a pile to the total number of piles and the axial normal
force is calculated once more, and this is repeated until the capacities are not exceeded. Each
normal axial force that each pile carries is tested for cross-sectional material capacity, instability
due to buckling capacity and the buckling length.
8.3 Results of the analysis of geotechnical reinforcement

The result of the amount of piles for each transfer method and each wall is summarized (Table
8.3.1 to Table 8.3.4) for both pile dimensions for the two cases. The results show the minimum
required amount of piles to carry the load which they are exposed to.
Table 8.3.1. The results of RD220/12.5 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 1.
Type of wall Outer wall Heart wall
Type of method 1 2 4 1 2 3 4
Cross-section A 11 piles 10 piles 10 piles 11 piles 14 piles 14 piles 14 piles
Cross-section B 8 piles 8 piles 8 piles 8 piles 8 piles 8 piles 8 piles
Table 8.3.2. The results of RD170/10 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 1.
Table 8.3.3. The results of RD220/12.5 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 2.
Table 8.3.4. The results of RD170/10 piles for each method for each wall and cross-section for case 2.
50
COST ESTIMATIONS FOR
GEOTECHNICAL WORK
9. COST ESTIMATIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL

WORK
9.1 Introduction and method to the cost analysis
The four transfer methods are applied on the walls for each cross-section, to enable different
combinations of methods on different walls. The two pile dimensions are also applied to each
wall but are tested separately. The transfer methods are combined, one for each wall, to obtain
the costs for each geotechnical reinforcement work. The cost estimation is done for both case
one and case two. Each transfer method for each wall in each cross-section has a calculated
required number of piles in both pile dimensions from Chapter 8. which is the basis for the cost
estimations along with the activities for each geotechnical work. The activities presented in
Chapter 3 for each method are considered in the cost estimation and its costs are presented in
Appendix A part 8. Thereafter, a mark-up is added on the total cost to consider other general
costs. The total cost for each method and each wall is corresponding to all walls named the same,
due to symmetry. All calculations are presented in Appendix G.
The transfer methods are combined differently based on the ability to be combined for each wall
in each cross-section. Each cross-section has therefore, several combinations due to the
possibilities for the outer and the heart walls (Table 9.1.1). These combinations are valid for both
pile dimensions and both cases.
Table 9.1.1. The potential combinations of transfer methods for each cross-section.
Potential combinations
Wall A1: Method 1 Wall B1: Method 1
Combination 1 Combination 5
Wall A1: Method 2 Wall A1: Method 4
Wall A2: Method 2 Wall A2: Method 4
Wall B1: Method 1 Wall B1: Method 4
Wall B2: Method 1 Wall B2: Method 4
The combinations of transfer methods need to be combined of the two cross-sections to obtain a
final total combination. Nine total combinations are presented in Table 9.1.2.
Table 9.1.2. The potential total combinations of transfer methods for all walls.
Total combination TC 1 TC 2 TC 3 TC 4 TC 5 TC 6 TC 7 TC 8 TC 9
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 7
Combination
4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 8
For each total combination, three different key performance indicators are obtained.
• Key performance indicator 1: Cost per pile [SEK/Pcs]

• Key performance indicator 2: Cost per meter pile [SEK/m]
• Key performance indicator 3: Cost per 10-meter pile [SEK/10 m]
51
GEOTECHNICAL WORK
9.2 Results for the cost analysis
The total cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meters for each total combination
and each case are presented in Table 9.2.1 to Table 9.2.4. The key performance indicators for
both cases and dimensions are presented in Table 9.2.5 to Table 9.2.8.
Table 9.2.1. The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 1.
Cross-section A & B Total cost Number of piles Installed meters
Total combination 1 15 272 963 SEK 65 Pcs 1365 m
Table 9.2.2. The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 1.
Table 9.2.3. The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 2.
52
GEOTECHNICAL WORK
Table 9.2.4. The cost, the number of piles and installed meter for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 2.
Table 9.2.5. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 1.
Indicators Cost [SEK]/pile Cost [SEK]/m Cost [SEK]/10 m
Total combination 1 234 969 11 189 111 890
Table 9.2.6. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 1.
Table 9.2.7. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD220/12.5 for case 2.
53
GEOTECHNICAL WORK
Table 9.2.8. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD170/10 for case 2.
54
COST ASSESSMENT FOR
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
10. COST ASSESSMENT FOR TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION
10.1 Introduction and method for cost assessment for the
total construction
The production cost from the SBUF report provided by Lidgren & Widerberg (2010), has an
average value of 27 900 SEK/m2 with inflation included. The production cost has been used
along with the cost for geotechnical reinforcement work to obtain a cost assessment for the total
building, as the new expanded housing are is the one that can be sold, and therefore, generate a
profitability. With the obtained costs in Chapter 9, for geotechnical reinforcement work for the
two cases, the cheapest alternatives are used to determine the profitability when adding a
superstructure. According to Mäklarstatistik (2020), the sales price in Stockholm city has an
average price of 90 900 SEK/ m2 for the last 12 months.
The production cost for the superstructure is multiplied with the expanded housing area of the
four added storeys. The sales price is multiplied with the expanded housing area of the four
added storeys. For the second case, the cost for the geotechnical reinforcement work is summed
up with the production cost for the four storeys for each pile dimension. The differences in
revenues and costs are calculated for the two cases and pile dimensions to obtain the profitability.
All calculations are given in Appendix H.
10.2 Results for the total construction

For the two cases, the investment cost, the revenue and the profitability are calculated for both
the pile dimensions and are presented in Table 10.1 and Table 10.2.
Table 10.1. Results for the first case for any profitability.
Case 1 results for any profitability Magnitude Unit
Investment cost for RD220 12 530 117 SEK
Revenue for RD220 0 SEK
Revenue for RD170 0 SEK
Results for RD220 -12 530 117 SEK
Results for RD170 -17 718 532 SEK
Table 10.2. Results for the second case for any profitability.
Revenue for RD220 63 612 500 SEK
Revenue for RD170 63 612 500 SEK
Results for RD220 31 525 783 SEK
Results for RD170 25 324 230 SEK
55
56
DISCUSSION
11. DISCUSSION
11.1 Potential use of existing foundation
The existing wooden piles are assumed to not carry any load as an action of safety, due to the
difficulties to perform necessary investigations to ensure the carrying capacity of the existing
foundation. However, the existing wooden piles does carry the existing building as it is standing
today. This means that some of the existing piles does carry loads and therefore, enables reuse or
interaction with a new foundation. To perform such an action in the geotechnical reinforcement
work, the piles requires to be controllable for these investigations. If this kind of actions would
be possible in a real project, it could reduce the extent of the geotechnical reinforcement work.
Therefore, reduce both the costs and the environmental impact. If a geotechnical reinforcement
work is not performed when a building is extended, the existing foundation is overloaded since it
is not designed to carry additional load.
11.2 The building material of the superstructure

An extended superstructure gives an added load which the foundation is exposed to. The size of
the added load is dependent on what kind of material the superstructure consists of. The new
foundation is sized to carry two different cases to obtain the differences between them. All loads
acting on the foundation are necessary to consider. The loads from the superstructure has a
directly effect on the foundation, which gives that the material has a significant impact. A
superstructure consisting of wood exhibits several advantages from both an environmental and
economically perspective. When the superstructure is applied on the existing building, the loads
increased with 20 %. If the superstructure would consist of concrete, the additional loads would
increase five times, which gives an increase of 100 % of the loads. Therefore, makes an extremely
large difference comparing wood to concrete. This difference leads to an extreme intervention in
the geotechnical work, since five storeys of wood gives the same weight as one added storey of
concrete. If the superstructure would consist of a light material, theoretical, the numbers of
storeys increases compared to the use of a heavier material. By using wood in the greatest extent
as possible in the superstructure, the construction trade can contribute to a more environmentally
friendly construction and the total cost for the geotechnical reinforcement work can be reduced
due to the low weight of wood.
11.3 Considerations in a real project

A factor that affects the result is the construction of the building including its design of floor
plan. In a real project, this factor varies along with the material it consists of, which provides
various properties that could be either an advantage or a disadvantage for the geotechnical
reinforcement work. Which in turn, affects the total cost of the strengthening work.
Several studies show that the capacity of the existing frameworks consisting of concrete has a
potential to carry more loads than what they do. Similar studies regarding masonry buildings has
been lacking, and is therefore, needed to be done for a real project. In this thesis, no control over
the stability of the structure and its ability to carry a superstructure without collapsing has been
made. This could have an effect and requires to be considered in a real project.
57
DISCUSSION
In a real project, where geotechnical reinforcement work is needed, the walls should be examined
to be able to withstand additional loads. If there is a lot of cracks and subsidence in an old
building, the material of the walls can be poor and therefore, hard to ensure that they can
withhold the distributed loads. Therefore, a recommendation is to use a smaller center distance
between the piles according to Sten Nilsson (Personal communication, March 12th, 2020).
The degree of the utilization regards the portion of load that is transferred from the walls to the
piles. This value depends, among other things, on the carrying capacity and the firmness of the
existing walls. As well as how well the interaction between the existing walls and the foundation
is designed, with the center distance considered. The degree of utilization provides a reality image
of what is reasonably conveyed to the foundation when the walls consists of the determined
material and is an important action of safety. This percentage can change based on changed
conditions or presumptions.
Since a hypothetical object is analyzed, any detailed development plans are not considered. This
can delimit the possibility of expanding a building or regulate the allowed number of storeys for a
building. The geotechnical reinforcement work can be affected by this and a different result can
be obtained. Therefore, this needs to be considered in a real project.
11.4 Influence parameters of the model and the calculations

In analytically calculations, human errors can occur. To avoid this, pre-produced Excel sheets or
other calculation programs can be used. The reliability for the numerical calculations in the
program RRPileCalc is considered high for these calculations. The calculations are iteratively
done with analytical calculations, since the program does not consider the degree of utilization.
To minimize human inaccuracies in the iterative calculations, the results obtained in the program
can be checked against comparative table values provided by a manufacturer. With the
recommended pile dimension from SSAB, the program enables easy design of a certain pile,
rather than to ascertain which pile that would be necessary to carry the design load, as the
constructor does. However, the geotechnical constructors obtain a value of load the pile carries
and where the load shall be placed from the housing constructors, which is not possible for this
case, as this is not a new production.
One parameter that has influenced this study is the assistance provided by the industry. Since
most of the knowledge is not provided through previous research in this subject, the knowledge
is acquired through reliable discussions with the knowledgeable industry's individuals. What is
mostly affected are the question marks that are wanted to be clarified through conversations
with, for example, knowledgeable individuals within construction for both building and
geotechnics. The problem that arose was that both parties referred to each other and that there
was no clear boundary between the parties. They gave different answers on the same questions
and it was clear that there exist weaknesses in the interaction between the parties.
11.5 Suitability of the transfer methods

Four possible transfer methods have been analyzed where the risks are palpable for all these
methods, since instability problems can occur that in turn, can cause significant effects on the
building. This requires a safety precaution by temporary supports to ensure that the stability of
the building is maintained during construction. This is particularly important for the full niche, as
large parts are torn out from the dry-stone wall, which affects the load path. One must keep in
58
DISCUSSION
mind that a minimum center distance between the openings of the full niches are of great
importance due to the risk of instability problems. At the same time, the distance must not be too
far in between, considering the material of the wall, as it must both withstand and distribute the
loads. Therefore, during construction, full niches should be performed in an order that cannot
cause these problems. This gives that they are often executed every third or fourth one, so the
full niches can regain its stability before opening of the next one. However, this minimum and
maximum distance is highly dependent on the material of the wall, which in turn comprises the
structure stability. Unfortunate, it is difficult to do samplings on whether the wall has a great
firmness or not, which gives the difficulty of obtaining plain guidelines for the range of center
distances. A dry-stone wall has higher solidity, firmness and greater strength than masonry walls
for instance, but lower ones comparing to concrete. Nonetheless, the stability is also affected by
the ground beam, the yoke beam and the slab, since the methods requires an excavation in the
walls, as well as in the floor and in the soil. The stability for these methods is mostly dependent
on the center distance, since it is a hole that is created through the wall. This gives that the
stability of the wall must be maintained, since the hole punching affects the overall stability of the
wall due to the center distance.
For the other transfer methods that are not analyzed in this thesis, this does not mean that they
are more expensive or less efficient than the analyzed methods. These methods are not possible
to test due to the selected hypothetical object, which makes it difficult to determine which of all
the methods is the most advantageous one. Since each object is unique, it is needed to review
each method to ensure the relevance for each specific project. This also includes the various
combinations that can be made when all methods are reviewed to obtain the cheapest alternative,
since the economical part is critical in a project to be able to be competitive in a tender process
for instance. Each unique object based on material selection, access and permits generates
different applicable methods and can therefore, give different cost results. All methods are,
therefore, not applicable to all projects which gives that these key figures and estimated costs
cannot be fully applied to another project.
11.6 Reasonableness of pile foundation

SSAB recommends multi-storey buildings to use a pile dimension of at least RD220. This can be
misleading, since the workability is not the same for every object with the size of the machine
that can be used, as well as what is common and what is recommended are two different things.
The recommendation that SSAB provides could be for a new production and it may also differ,
since SSAB only provides steel and not a solution in practice. The choice of transfer method has
a large impact on the total cost, which gives that a larger pile dimension would have been
preferable due to the amount of interventions in the existing building. The extent of required
interventions wants to be minimized, due to the costs and to ensure the stability. One theoretical
solution for optimizing the costs, would have been to combine the different pile dimensions in a
project. For those who work in the production, it can become difficult to mix the dimensions
due to changes for the machines, tools, different checklists and the purchases. This gives that one
dimension is preferable, however, mixing the dimensions would have been more cost effective.
11.7 Economical key performance ratios

Some of the most common methods to transfer loads to the foundation within smaller spaces
have been presented. However, there are probably several other methods that have not been
59
DISCUSSION
addressed in this thesis, and the workable methods for this type of building have been analyzed.
The obtained key indicators can be used and applied on identical buildings to estimate the costs
for a geotechnical reinforcement work. These key ratios can be multiplied with a new amount of
piles in another project to be able to estimate the costs, since they depend on the numbers and
lengths of the piles. The key performance indicators can be a powerful tool when analyzing the
profitability of a certain superstructure project. However, if the building is not identical, as
deviations in the number of storeys or consists of another material, these key ratios cannot be
applicable.
The three key ratios presented in Chapter 9.2 are dependent on the number of piles, that in turn,
are dependent on the different combinations of load transfer methods. The indicators differ
between the two pile dimensions, but to a small extent. For the larger pile, the key ratios are
slightly larger than for the smaller dimension, since the larger pile dimension requires fewer
number of piles. The estimation shows that the smaller pile dimension requires a larger amount
of piles to carry the design load, which leads to an increased total cost. Between the two cases,
both the dimensions show that the key ratios are slightly larger for the first case than for the
second case. The second case has marginally lower key ratios, since it requires an increased
number of piles.
11.8 Cost estimations

It is seen clearly that some activities, more than others, affect the total costs for each transfer
method. The parameters that differs between the methods has been compared due to their
influence on the cost for each method. The most expensive method is the full niche, where the
activity of sawing and tearing down the full niche has the largest influence on the cost for this
method. The second most expensive method is the slab, where the casting of the slab is the most
influential cost parameter. The third most expensive method is the yoke beam, where the
purchase of the beams constitutes the major cost influence. The cheapest method is the ground
beam with its largest cost parameter of casting the beams. This concludes that the activity of
sawing and tearing down the niche have a significantly larger portion of the method's cost,
compared to the other methods largest cost influences. For each method, the amount of piles
differs due to the geometrical requirements. This entails that the amount of piles for each
method affects the costs and therefore, constitutes a difference in costs for the methods. As the
number of piles increases, the extent of the intervention to transfer the load to the piles also
increases.
By combining these methods, the most cost-efficient geotechnical work is obtained. Where using
the larger pile, the cheapest combination consists of using ground beams, full niches and yoke
beams. Whereas, using the smaller pile, the cheapest combination is the slab. The results show
that the slab solution is the cheapest combination when the amount of piles is so great. The most
expensive combination for both pile dimension is the full niche used on all walls. All these results
apply for both cases. There is a significantly difference between the cheapest and the most
expensive total combination for both pile dimensions and both cases. This entails that it is
necessary to check, compare and combine the different load transfer methods, to determine the
cheapest geotechnical reinforcement work.
The cost estimation shows that the larger pile dimension gives a significantly cheaper final cost
compared to the smaller dimension. For the first case, the cost increased with an average value of
45 % when using the smaller pile compared to the larger pile. For the second case, the cost
increased with an average value of 57 % when using the smaller pile compared to the larger pile.
60
DISCUSSION
Hence, the most cost-effective solution is the large pile due to the large cost difference compared
to the smaller dimension. Therefore, one should try to minimize the number of piles, as it would
minimize the total cost of the project. However, the method that is the cheapest or the one that
gives the less amount of piles, does not necessarily need to be the production-friendliest one. If a
larger machine could be used, it could give an advantage in the capacity to execute the installation
of the piles. From the provided costs, the capacity of executing each activity in each method is
determined. A larger machine would reduce the necessary time for installation and therefore,
minimize the costs. However, the costs for the project organization depends on the project
duration. In a real project, the need of producing a detailed time schedule is necessary, as the
capacity of each activity affects the total duration. As an example, the waiting time should be
considered in the scheduling and by planning the work well it could be minimized. However, the
capacity for each activity could be difficult to determine in advance, which means that the costs
of the project organization, among others, can be significantly affected. When the project
organization costs are added, it is clearly that the amount of piles influences the final cost. Since
the final cost depends on the project duration, which in turn, depends on the number of piles.
The costs of the project organization constitute a large part of the total cost and entail greater
costs the longer the project proceeds. However, the total combination with the smallest amount
of piles does not necessarily give the cheapest total cost. This proves that the choice of transfer
method also affects the final total cost.
11.9 The effect of superstructure

The amount of piles needed for the two cases differs, where the first case requires a less amount
of piles. For the larger pile, the superstructure increases the amount to a maximum of 3 piles,
whereas for the smaller pile to a maximum of 17 piles. This gives an increased amount of piles
with a percentage of 5 % for the larger dimension and an increased percentage of 18 % for the
smaller dimension. Therefore, the larger pile gives a smaller difference in the amount of piles
when the superstructure is applied.
For the larger pile, the cost does not increase when a superstructure is built. However, for the
smaller pile, the cost increases with 6 % when the existing building is expanded with a
superstructure. Both the costs for the larger and the smaller pile dimensions corresponds to the
two cheapest combinations. Hence, the superstructure does not affect the total cost when using
the larger pile dimension. This gives that the intervention in the foundation is just as great for the
geotechnical reinforcement work for the existing building compared to extending it with a
superstructure.
11.10 Profitability
The cost for geotechnical work and the production cost for the superstructure is summed up and
is significantly lower than the sales price within the city center of Stockholm. However, the
geotechnical reinforcement work has not considered profits, risks or opportunities, such as
unforeseen costs. Neither does the production costs for the superstructure refer to what extent
that considers manufacturing or how they are allocated in the costs. The production costs do not
refer if costs for demolishing the existing roof or costs for reinforcing an existing framework are
considered, which are costs that must be considered in a real project. Which, of course, can affect
that the cost can change when these parameters are considered. However, the margin between
the revenue and the investment cost when applying a superstructure is sufficiently large, it
61
DISCUSSION
indicates reasonableness to expand a superstructure when the foundation is strengthened.

Therefore, the revenue for selling the new surface that the superstructure comprises covers the
investment cost of both strengthening the foundation and the production cost for the
superstructure. When the superstructure is not built, there is no revenue and the investment is
made by the property owner. As an example, the investment of the strengthening can be paid off
by raising the fee for the residents or by renting the basement to companies.
62
CONCLUSIONS
12. CONCLUSIONS
Within city center of Stockholm, most of the buildings was built during 1880s-1920s. These
buildings were founded on wooden piles where the geological conditions consisted of clay. These
piles are exposed to a risk of losing their carrying capacity due to the increasing land elevation.
The carrying capacity of the existing wooden piles must be ensured by several investigations,
which is difficult to perform in confined spaces. Therefore, a new foundation is required. With
the deep layer of clay in a densely populated area and the great risk of encounter obstacles in the
ground, the new foundation consists of drilled end-bearing steel piles, either of dimension
RD220/12.5 or RD170/10. A superstructure consisting of four storeys of wood are applied and
entails additional loads. The possible geotechnical reinforcement work that will transfer the loads
in this type of existing building are full niches, ground beam with half a niche, yoke beams and
slab with half a niche.
For the larger pile dimension in the existing building, the required amount is 65 – 68 piles
depending on how the transfer methods are combined. When the existing building is expanded
with a superstructure, the required amount is 66 – 68 piles. The superstructure entails no
substantially difference in the required amount of piles. Depending on how the transfer methods
are combined, the total cost for the geotechnical work in the existing building varies between
12.5 – 15.3 million SEK. When it is expanded with a superstructure, the total cost varies between
12.5 – 15.7 million SEK. For the cheapest possible geotechnical work, the superstructure entails
no difference in the cost. The investment cost for both the strengthening work and the
production of the superstructure is lower than the revenue, which gives a profit of 31.5 million
SEK. This gives that it is profitable to extend a building with a superstructure when the existing
foundation is strengthened with RD220/12.5 piles.
For the smaller pile dimension in the existing building, the required amount is 97 – 106 piles and
with an added superstructure, 108 – 114 piles. The superstructure entails a difference of
maximum 17 piles in the required amount. The total cost for the geotechnical work in the
existing building varies between 17.7 – 22.2 million SEK. When a superstructure is added, the
total cost varies between 18.7 – 24.8 million SEK. For the cheapest geotechnical work obtained,
the superstructure entails a difference in the cost of 1 million SEK. The investment cost for both
the strengthening work and the production of the superstructure is lower than the revenue,
which gives a profit of 25.3 million SEK. This gives that it is profitable to extend a building with
a superstructure when the existing foundation is strengthened with RD170/10 piles.
This study show that the larger pile provides the cheapest geotechnical reinforcement and no
differences in amount of piles and costs are obtained when a superstructure is applied on an
existing building in Stockholm. The revenue from a superstructure is so great, that the
profitability is a fact.
63
64
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Bchar, P., Youssef, R. (2018). Bygga till ett våningsplan på befintligt flerbostadshus. Bachelor thesis, The
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Retrieved 2020-01-27 from: http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1229378/FULLTEXT01.pdf
BE Group. (2020). HEB-balk. Retrieved 2020-01-29 from:

https://www.begroup.se/produkter/stal-stalror/balk/heb-balk/
Bjerking, S-E. (1974). Ombyggnad, Hur bostadshusen 1880–1940. (Statens institut för
byggnadsforskning). Stockholm: Svensk byggtjänst. Retrieved 2020-01-20 from:
http://www.byggnadsmaterial.lth.se/fileadmin/byggnadsmaterial/BFR-publ/BFR_1974-
R32.pdf
Björk, C., Kallstenius, P., Reppen, L. (2013). Så byggdes husen 1880–2000: arkitektur, konstruktion och
material i våra flerbostadshus under 120 år. Stockholm: AB Svensk Byggtjänst
Boverkets byggregler (SFS 2011:6). Retrieved from Boverkets website:

https://www.boverket.se/sv/lag--ratt/forfattningssamling/gallande/bbr---bfs-20116/
Boverkets föreskrifter om ändring i Boverkets föreskrifter och allmänna råd (2011:10) om tillämpning av
europeiska konstruktionsstandarder (Eurokoder) (SFS 2011:10). Retrieved from Boverkets website:
https://rinfo.boverket.se/EKS/PDF/BFS2019-1-EKS-11.pdf
Boverket. (2004). Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner, BBK04. Retrieved 2020-02-24 from:

https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2004/boverkets_handbok_om
_betongkonstruktioner_bbk_04.pdf
Boverket. (2018a). Boverkets byggregler. Retrieved 2020-01-20 from:

https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/regler-om-byggande/boverkets-byggregler/
Boverket. (2018b). Föreskrifter och allmänna råd i Boverkets byggregler. Retrieved 2020-01-23 from:
https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/regler-om-byggande/boverkets-
byggregler/om-bbr/foreskrifter-och-allmanna-rad/
Boverket. (2018c). Om Boverkets byggregler, BBR. Retrieved 2020-01-27 from:

byggregler/om-bbr/
Boverket. (2019a). Om Boverkets konstruktionsregler, EKS. Retrieved 2020-01-20 from

https://www.boverket.se/sv/byggande/regler-for-byggande/om-boverkets-konstruktionsregler-
eks/
Boverket. (2019b). Eurokoder och nationella val i EKS. Retrieved 2020-01-22 from
konstruktionsregler/overgripande-bestammelser/nationella-val-i-eks/
Boverket. (2019c). Föreskrifter och allmänna råd i EKS. Retrieved 2020-01-22 from
konstruktionsregler/om-eks/foreskrifter-och-allmanna-rad/
65
REFERENCES
Boverket. (2019d). Karta med snölastzoner. Retrieved 2020-01-22 from:

eks/sa-har-anvander-du-eks/karta-med-snolastzoner/
Boverket. (2019e). Karta med vindlastzoner. Retrieved 2020-01-22 from:

eks/sa-har-anvander-du-eks/karta-med-vindlastzoner/
Boverket. (2019f). Krav vid ändring av byggnader. Retrieved 2020-01-27 from:

konstruktionsregler/overgripande-bestammelser/krav-vid-andring/
Boverket. (2020a). Räddningshissar. Retrieved 2020-02-21 from:

byggregler/brandskydd/raddningshiss/
Boverket. (2020b). Miljöpåverkan ökar från byggsektorn. Retrieved 2020-03-30 from:

https://www.boverket.se/sv/om-boverket/publicerat-av-boverket/nyheter/miljopaverkan-okar-
fran-byggsektorn/
Das, M. B. (2007). Principles of Foundation Engineering (Sixth Edition). Toronto: Nelson.
Claesson, B. (1987). Stockholmshem 1937–1987. Stockholm: Byggförlaget.
Erlandsson, M. (2010). Miljödata för krossprodukter och naturgrus. Retrieved 2020-02-24 from:
https://www.ivl.se/download/18.343dc99d14e8bb0f58b76e6/1449742446674/C12.pdf
European Commission. 2020. About the EN Eurocodes. Retrieved from 2020-02-03.

https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpage.php?id=1
Eurocode 0: The basis of structural design. (EN 1990). Brussels: The European Union
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings
(EN 1991-1-1). Brussels: The European Union
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions - Snow loads (EN 1991-1-3). Brussels: The
European Union
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind actions (EN 1991-1-4). Brussels: The
European Union
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules (EN 1997-1). Brussels: The European Union
European Commission (n.d.). The EN Eurocodes. Retrieved 2020-03-30 from:

https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Friberg, R., Karlin, V. (2015). Påbyggnad av miljonprogrammets flervåningshus ur ett bärförmågeperspektiv.

Bachelor thesis, Lunds University, Lund. Retrieved 2020-01-27 from:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=7456147&fileOId=896183
5
66
REFERENCES
Geobear. (2020a). Grundförstärkning. Retrieved 2020-01-24 from: https://www.geobear.se/om-

var-teknik/grundforstarkning/
Geobear. (2020b). Dålig bärighet. Retrieved 2020-01-24 from:

https://www.geobear.se/villaagare/dalig-barighet/
Hamando, V. (2016). Grundförstärkning, En jämförelse mellan betong-, stålrörs- och stålkärnepålar.

Bachelor thesis, Mälardalens Högskola, Eskilstuna Västerås. Retrieved 2020-01-24 from:
http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:973839/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Husgrunder (2015). Vad kostar det att förstärka sin grund. Retrieved 2020-01-22 from:
https://www.husgrunder.com/renovera-husgrund/kostnad-grundforstarkning/
Härlanda Byggteknik Konstruktion AB. (2017). Stomutredning för påbyggnad. Retrieved 2020-01-03
from: https://docplayer.se/110702180-Stomutredning-for-pabyggnad.html
IEG Rapport Implementeringskommissionen för Europastandarder inom Geoteknik. (2010).

Tillämpningsdokument EN 1997–1 Kapitel 7. Pålgrundläggning. Retrieved 2020-03-04 from:
http://www.sgf.net/getfile.ashx?cid=495205&cc=3&refid=5
Jernkontoret. (2018). Hållfasthet. Retrieved 2020-01-24 from:

https://www.jernkontoret.se/sv/stalindustrin/tillverkning-anvandning-
atervinning/slutprodukter-av-stal/hallfasthet/
Jernkontoret. (2019). Processernas miljöpåverkan. Retrieved 2020-01-24 from:

https://www.jernkontoret.se/sv/stalindustrin/tillverkning-anvandning-
atervinning/processernas-miljopaverkan/
Karlsson, J. (2017). Life cycle assessment of two multi-family houses - A comparative study between frame of
concrete and frame of CLT. Master thesis, Karlstads University, Karlstad. Retrieved from
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1116790/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Karlsson, V., Rosin, E. (2018). Analys av äldre murverkshus - Gällande befintliga byggnadens
förutsättningar för påbyggnad. Bachelor thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Retrieved 2020-01-20 from: http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1229600/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Keller Grundläggning. (2020). Jet grouting – Soilcrete ®. Retrieved 2020-05-15 from:

http://www.kellergrundlaggning.se/en/tjanster/5-jetinjektering
Klintberg, A., Åkehag, Johnny. (2017). Träbjälklag med tung fyllning - Bjälklag framtaget med inspiration
av byggteknik från sekelskiftet 1800–1900. Bachelor thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm. Retrieved 2020-02-05 from:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1139336/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Lidgren, C. & Widerberg, C., (2010). SBUF Rapport, Våningspåbyggnad av hus från miljonprogrammet.
Retrieved 2020-01-21 from:
https://vpp.sbuf.se/Public/Documents/ProjectDocuments/650e245c-315d-4186-a9b3-
6246e0c03cf1/FinalReport/SBUF%2012194%20Slutrapport%20Våningspåbyggnad%20av%20h
us%20från%20miljonprogrammet.pdf
67
REFERENCES
LTH. (2019). Samverkansgrundläggning med JET Grouting. Retrieved 2020-05-15 from:

http://www.byggmek.lth.se/utbildning/examensarbete-civiling/lediga-
examensarbeten/samverkansgrundlaeggning-med-jet-grouting/
Martinsons. (2019). Påbyggnader för bostäder och kontor. Retrieved 2020-01-23 from:
https://martinsons.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/martinsons_pabyggnader_low.pdf
Martinsons. (n.d.). Brandegenskaper. Retrieved 2020-05-13 from:

https://www.martinsons.se/sagade-travaror-och-byggprodukter/limtra-och-kl-tra-for-
byggnadsobjekt/objektsanpassat-limtra/brandegenskaper/
Mäklarstatistik. (2020). Prisutveckling under 48 månader för bostadsrätter i centrala Stockholm. Retrieved
2020-01-21 from:
https://www.maklarstatistik.se/omrade/riket/stockholms-lan/stockholm/centrala-
stockholm/#/bostadsratter/48m
Nedrén, D., Rinaldo, G. (2018). Miljonprogrammet - Uppbyggnad och påbyggnad. Bachelor thesis,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. Retrieved 2020-01-27 from:
https://odr.chalmers.se/bitstream/20.500.12380/255615/1/255615.pdf
Oscarsson, A., Eklund, J. (2010). Påbyggnad av våningsplan med lättkonstruktion - En jämförelse av stom
materialen trä och tunnplåt. Bachelor thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala. Retrieved 2020-01-27
from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:661011/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Plan- och bygglagen (SFS 2010:900). Retrieved from Sweden’s parliaments website:
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/plan--
och-bygglag-2010900_sfs-2010-900
Pålkommissionen. (1998). Rapport 96:1 Dimensioneringsprinciper för pålar, lastkapacitet. Retrieved

2020-03-04 from: http://www.palkommissionen.org/getfile.ashx?cid=236449&cc=3&refid=1
Pålkommissionen. (2014). Verifiering av geoteknisk bärförmåga för pålar enligt Eurokod. Stockholm:
Svensk Byggtjänst. Retrieved 2020-02-25 from:
http://www.palkommissionen.org/getfile.ashx?cid=481683&cc=3&refid=1
Riksantikvarieämbetet. (n.d.) Bebyggelseregistret. Retrieved 2020-01-21 from:

http://www.bebyggelseregistret.raa.se/bbr2/sok/searchResult.raa?ts=1579265326946
Skanska. (2014). Grundläggning [Internal program regarding foundations, Adobe Flash]. Retrieved
2020-02-03.
Skanska. (2018). Återanvändning av befintlig grundläggning – rekommenderade undersökningar. [Internal

report]. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
Skanska. (2020). Foundation drawings and costs [Internal drawings and costs for activities within
reinforcement work and foundation]. Retrieved 2020-03-10.
SMHI. (2011). Havsvattenstånd. Retrieved 2020-02-19. see Appendix A, part 9.
68
REFERENCES
SSAB. (2019). RR- och RD-pålar. Retrieved 2020-01-20 from:

https://ssabwebsitecdn.azureedge.net/-
/media/files/se/infra/ssab_rr_and_rd_palar_anvisningar_for_projekting_och_installation.pdf?
m=20190110114703
SSAB. (2020). Dimensioneringsverktyg. Retrieved 2020-02-17 from:

https://www.ssab.se/produkter/stalkategorier/infrastructure/infrastructure-design-tools
Statistiska centralbyrån. (2019). Befolkningen i Stockholms län 31 mars 2019. Retrieved 2019-11-26
from:
https://www.sll.se/globalassets/4.-regional-utveckling/publicerade-dokument/statistik-
befolkning-stockhoms-lan-q1-2019.pdf
Stockholmskällan. (1984). Villastaden, Eriksberg och Lärkstaden, Byggnadsinventering 1984. Stockholms

Stadsmuseum. Retrieved 2020-01-20 from:
https://stockholmskallan.stockholm.se/PostFiles/KUL/SSM_Ostermalm__byggnadsinventerin
g_4_1984_00_01.pdf
Stockholmskällan. (1973). Birkastaden, Röda Bergen, Rörstrand, Byggnadsinventering 1973. Stockholms

Stadsmuseum. Retrieved 2020-01-20 from:
https://stockholmskallan.stockholm.se/PostFiles/KUL/SSM_Birkastaden,_Roda_Bergen,_Rors
trand__by_1974_00.pdf
Stockholmskällan. (n.d.). Miljonprogrammet. Retrieved 2020-01-27 from:

https://stockholmskallan.stockholm.se/teman/staden-vaxer/miljonprogrammet/
Svelander, H., Åkerlind, A. (2015). Återanvändning av grundkonstruktioner. Bachelor thesis, Malmö

Högskola, Malmö. Retrieved 2020-05-15 from:
https://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/19110/MUEP_Svelander_Helena_%C3%85kerli
nd_Amanda_%C3%85teranv%C3%A4ndningAvGrundkonstruktioner_2015-06-
22.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Svenskt trä. (n.d.a). Trä är ett hållbart byggmaterial. Retrieved 2020-01-21 from
https://www.svenskttra.se/om-tra/att-valja-tra/tra-och-miljo/tra-ar-ett-hallbart-byggmaterial/
Svenskt trä. (n.d.b). Spara pengar. Retrieved 2020-01-21 from

https://www.svenskttra.se/anvand-tra/byggande/varfor-tra/spara-pengar/
Svenskt Trä. (2017). KL-trähandbok. Retrieved 2020-01-29 from:

https://www.svenskttra.se/siteassets/6-om-oss/publikationer/pdfer/svt-kl-trahandbok-
2017.pdf
Sveriges Natur. (2019). De släppte ut mest koldioxid 2018. Retrieved 2020-01-24 from:
http://www.sverigesnatur.org/aktuellt/de-slappte-ut-mest-koldioxid-2018/
Swedish Geotechnical Institute. 2008. Information 1. Jords egenskaper. Retrieved 2020-02-19 from:
https://www.swedgeo.se/globalassets/publikationer/info/pdf/sgi-i1.pdf
Sweden’s Geological Survey. (2017). 3D-visaren. Retrieved 2020-01-12 from

https://apps.sgu.se/sgu3d/
69
REFERENCES
Trä Guiden. (2014). Principlösning. Retrieved 2020-02-21 from

https://www.traguiden.se/konstruktion/konstruktionsexempel/vaggar/icke-barande-
innervagg/principlosning/
Trä Guiden. (2017a). KL-trä som konstruktionsmaterial. Retrieved 2020-01-21 from

https://www.traguiden.se/konstruktion/kl-trakonstruktioner/kl-tra-som-
konstruktionsmaterial/1.3-kl-tra-som-konstruktionsmaterial/kl-tra-som-
konstruktionsmaterial/?previousState=0010000
Trä Guiden. (2017b). Bjälklag. Retrieved 2020-01-21 from

https://www.traguiden.se/konstruktion/kl-trakonstruktioner/bjalklag/
Trä Guiden. (2017c). Väggar. Retrieved 2020-01-21 from

https://www.traguiden.se/konstruktion/kl-trakonstruktioner/vaggar/
Trä Guiden. (2017d). Dimensionerande last för takbalkar och takstolar. Retrieved 2020-02-12 from:
https://www.traguiden.se/konstruktion/limtrakonstruktioner/fakta-om-
limtra/projektering/overslagsdimensionering/dimensionerande-last-for-takbalkar-och-takstolar/
Träguiden (2017e). Definitioner för densitet. Retrieved 2020-02-24 from:

https://www.traguiden.se/om-tra/materialet-tra/traets-egenskaper-och-
kvalitet/densitet1/definitioner
Trä Guiden. (2019). Sadelbalkar av limträ i ett fack. Retrieved 2020-01-30 from:
https://www.traguiden.se/konstruktion/dimensionering/hjalpmedel---tabeller/tak/sadelbalkar-
av-limtra-i-ett-fack/?previousState=000100
Wahlgren, Carl-Henric., Schoning, Kristian., Tenne, Mats and Hansen M, Lars. (2018).
Stockholmsområdets berggrund, jordarter, geologiska utveckling och erfarenheter från infrastrukturprojekt.
Retreived 2020-01-12 from: https://resource.sgu.se/produkter/sgurapp/s1808-rapport.pdf
Åhs, M. (2012). SBUF Rapport, Fuktegenskaper för byggnadsmaterial. Retrieved 2020-02-24 from:
https://vpp.sbuf.se/Public/Documents/ProjectDocuments/db6a21fd-7e42-4db9-89d9-
346eac7cf117/FinalReport/SBUF%2012210%20Slutrapport%20Fuktegenskaper%20f%C3%B6r
%20byggnadsmaterial%20-%20en%20litteraturstudie.pdf
70
TABLE OF CONTENT FOR APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENT FOR APPENDICES

APPENDIX A This appendix consists of following parts with the use of EKS,
Eurocode & other references
APPENDIX B Analytical calculations of storeys extended
APPENDIX C Analytical calculations of load distribution
APPENDIX D Analytical calculations of wind and earth pressure
APPENDIX E Analytical calculations of design load
APPENDIX F Calculations of geotechnical reinforcement methods
APPENDIX G Cost calculations for geotechnical reinforcement methods
APPENDIX H Cost calculations for the total construction
71
72
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
This appendix consists of following parts with the use of EKS,
Eurocode & other references
Part 1. Existing building properties
Part 1a. Allowed distances according to BBR
The maximum allowed distance between the fire-fighting vehicle and the point of fire attack is 50
m. The maximum distance between the street, rescue path or installation site to the wall of the
house is not allowed to exceed 9 m. The allowed number of storeys are 10 when only having one
elevator. If the storeys exceed 10, a second elevator is required according to BBR (SFS 2011:6).
Part 1b. Dimensions in the existing building

The total height of the existing building is 26.84 m with 6 storeys and one basement. The
building has a width of 11.6 m and a depth of 20 m. The roof is divided into two parts, one
straight part and one inclined part. The straight part has a height of 0.7 m and the vertical height
for the inclined part is 3.6 m. (Bjerking, 1974)
The material that the existing wall consists of is masonry bricks, which has the density of 1600
kg/m3 according to Åhs (2012). For each density, a heaviness can be obtained with multiplying it
with the gravity constant as following equation: " = ( ∙ 8. This gives that the heaviness for
masonry brick is 16 kN/m3. The thickness of the wall differs depending on which floor it is. One
masonry brick is 12”, where 1” is 25.4 mm thick and according to Bjerking (1974), is the number
of bricks and the heights of the walls distributed in Table A1.
Table A1. Dimensions in existing building (Bjerking, 1974).

Existing building Bricks in outer walls Bricks in heart walls Heights of each wall
floor
Floor 6 1.5 bricks = 457.2 mm 1 brick = 304.8 mm 3.2 + 0.368 = 3.568 m
Floor 1 2 bricks = 609.6 mm 1.5 bricks = 457.2 mm 3.2 + 0.368 = 3.568 m
Floor 0 (Basement) 3 bricks = 914.4 mm 2 bricks = 609.6 mm 2.6 m
Part 1c. Thickness and heaviness’ in an existing floor joist

Masonry bricks have a density of 1600 kg/m3 according to Åhs (2012). The panel made of plaster
and mortar has the same density of 1600 kg/m3 according to Erlandsson (2010). The density of
wood of pine is 430 kg/m3 according to Träguiden (2017e). The filling of a floor joist with beams
consists of a heavy filling which has a density of 1800 kg/m3 according to Klintberg & Åkehag
(2017). Another layer consists of a lighter filling and blind bottom according to Bjerking (1974).
The lighter filling in the floor joist consists of clay with the density of 1700 kg/m3 according to
Statens Geotekniska Insititut (2008) and blind bottom consists of newspaper, which is assumed
to have the same density as the pine wood.
The floor consists of several materials explained above, where the attic is the same, except adding
a layer of masonry bricks that has a thickness of 62 mm. The thickness of the other materials in
73
APPENDIX A
the floor is the following: plaster with 63.5 mm and wooden floor with 50.8 mm. The beams are
inside the layer of both filling and blind bottom. The layer of filling and beams is 177.8 mm thick
and the layer of beams and blind bottom is 76.2 mm. These layers have a distribution of 2.5 %
wooden beams of pine and 97.5 % fill, respectively blind bottom. (Bjerking, 1974)
The bottom floor is different from the other floors and consists of the following materials:
masonry bricks, wooden floor, filling and beams, steel beams. The thickness of the layers differs
from the other floors as well. The thickness that differs is the fill and beams with a thickness of
311 mm and the masonry bricks with 152 mm. This gives a percentage increase of 175 % for
filling and beams and 245 % for the masonry bricks. (Bjerking, 1974)
74
APPENDIX A
Part 2. Extended building properties

Part 2a. Indoor room height
According to BBR (SFS 2011:6) § 3:3111, the indoor height of a room in a residential building
shall be at least ℎ0"552 = 2.4R.
Part 2b. Roof construction

The roof consists of wooden beams, where the heaviness of the CLT beam is 5 kN/m3
(Träguiden, 2017d).
The beam is shaped like a saddle beam and has a slope of 3.7°. The dimensions are dependent on
the snow zone, which is 2 kN/m2 for Stockholm. Therefore, a beam is chosen where the lowest
height of the beam is 405 mm, whereas the largest height of the beam is 780 mm. The width of
the beam is 115 mm, the span for the beam can be used up to 12 m and be placed with a center
distance of 1.2 m. The load of the material on top of the beam, called the outer roof, is 0.85
kN/m2 with a thickness of 300 mm, consisting of insulation and a layer of protection against
moisture and wind. (Träguiden, 2019)
Part 2c. Floor joist construction

The new floor in the superstructure consists of parquet, plasterboard, floor chipboard, insulation,
CLT boards and plasterboard again. It has a thickness of 493 mm and the weight of 145 kg/m2
according to Svenskt Trä (2017), which gives the heaviness 1.45 kN/m2.
A strengthening construction is necessary to connect the superstructure to the existing building.

The load of the connection floor made of steel beams is determined to 1 kN/m2 and has a
thickness of the floor determined to 300 mm according to Aron Lindgren (Personal
communication, February 6th, 2020).
Part 2d. Variable loads on the floor joist

According to department C, chapter 1.1.1 - “application of SS-EN 1991-1-1 – general loads – heavy
weight, self-weight, variable weight for buildings”, § 8 in SFS (2011:10), the imposed load on floor
joists in buildings is set to category A and 2 kN/m2. The values are given in Table A2. (Boverket
2019c)
Part 2e. Loads in a building

The load from a non-bearing wall is set to a general value of 0.2 kN/m2 according to Träguiden
(2014) for both extended and existing part. The load from the bearing walls in the extension is 1.3
kN/m2. which includes insulation, façade material, windows and doors according to Träguiden
(2017c).
75
APPENDIX A
Part 3. Snow loads on the building

According to Boverket (2019c), department B, chapter 1.1.3 - “application of SS-EN 1991-1-3 -
snow load” in Boverkets construction regulations SFS (2011:10):
Part 3a. Exposure coefficient

According to § 11a, the exposure coefficient is not allowed to be set to a value lower than 1.0.
Part 3b. Thermal coefficient

According to § 12, the thermal coefficient should be set to 1.0 if the roof does not exceed 45°.
Part 3c. Snow load shape coefficient

According to § 12a, the snow load shape coefficient for pitched roofs should be set to 0.8 based
on the slope of the roof, see Figure A1.
Part 3d. Characteristic value of snow load

The characteristic value of snow load is GC = 2 kN/m2 in Stockholm. This load refers to the weight
of snow on the ground that in average occurs once each 50 year. (Boverket 2019d)
Figure A1. Form factor on a saddle roof.
76
APPENDIX A
Part 4. Wind loads on the building

According to Boverket (2019c), department B, chapter 1.1.4 -
“application of SS-EN 1991-1-4 – wind load” in Boverkets
construction regulations SFS (2011:10):
Part 4a. Reference of wind velocity

According to § 2, the reference of wind velocity is 24 m/s for
Stockholm, which is an average velocity of wind during 10 minutes
with 10 meters above the ground surface, that in average occurs once
each 50 year.
Part 4b. Characteristic velocity pressure

§ 7 gives the characteristic velocity pressure on the specific height for Figure A2. Factors on each zone.
each specific terrain type. Which gives for a height on 35 m, with
terrain type 4, the speed pressure of 0.67 kN/m2. The speed pressure
for a height of 20 m is 0.53 kN/m2. The terrain type 4 is the area with
at least 15 % of the surface covered with buildings where their average
height exceeds 15 m.
Part 4c. Pressure coefficients for buildings

According to Eurocode 1. 1991-1-4 (2005), actions on structures –
Part 1-4: general actions – wind actions, Section 7.2 “Pressure
coefficients for buildings” has factors for each zone that the wind acts
on. From Figure A2 factors for zone D and E are carried out with
Table A2 for values on the factors D and E. From Figure A3 factors
for zone F, G, H and I are carried out with Table A3 for values of flat
roofs, which is defined as an inclination less than 5°.
Table A2. Values for external pressure coefficients for Figure A3. Factors on each zone.
vertical walls of rectangular plan buildings.
Table A3. Values for external pressure coefficients for flat roofs.
77
APPENDIX A
Part 5. Design parameters

According to Boverket (2019c), department B, chapter 0 - “application of SS-EN 1990 – basic
design rules for building structure”, in Boverkets construction regulations SFS (2011:10):
Part 5a. Reduction factors

§ 5 gives reduction factors, where the factor of ,< for the snow load is carried out from the Table
A5 to ,<'-#8 = 0.6. based on the magnitude of the snow load. The factor for the imposed load,
based on category A, is ,<319#'(6 = 0.7.
Part 5b. Partial coefficients for statically equilibrium load case

§ 6 gives values for designing loads in the ultimate limit state for statically equilibrium. Table A4
show the partial coefficient for the load case when the wind is the adverse load, which gives that
the variable load has partial coefficient "9 ( = 1.5 for adverse and "9 0 = 0 for favorable,
:;< :;<
whereas permanent loads are favorable as well with "4 0 = 0.9.
:;<
Table A4. Partial coefficients for statically equilibrium load case.
Part 5c. Partial coefficients for the structural load case

§ 7 gives values for designing loads in the ultimate limit state for building structures with equation
6.10a and 6.10b. Table A5 show the partial coefficient for the load case when the self-weight is the
adverse load, which gives that the permanent load has the coefficient "4 ( = 1.35 along with
=>?
' = 0.89 for equation 6.10b. Whereas the variable loads are adverse with
"9 ( = 1.5 for all variable loads for 6.10a and 6.10b.
=>?
Table A5. Partial coefficients for the structural load case.
78
APPENDIX A
Part 5d. Partial coefficients for the geotechnical load case

§ 8 gives values for designing loads in the ultimate limit state for geotechnical load with equation
6.10. Table A6 show the partial coefficient for the load case when the self-weight is the adverse
load, which gives that the permanent load has a coefficient "4 ( = 1.1. Whereas the variable
@:A
loads are adverse with "9 ( = 1.4 for all variable loads.
@:A
Table A6. Partial coefficients for the geotechnical load case.
Part 5e. Partial coefficient for serviceability limit state

For the serviceability limit state, both structural and geotechnical capacity are calculated with a
partial coefficient as ":+: = 1 with the equation (4.6) given in the IEG (2010) for adverse loads.
Part 5f. Partial coefficient for ultimate limit state

§ 13 and § 14 describes the partial coefficient method in the ultimate limit state uses a safety class
depending on the type of building, where this parameter is "/ = 1.0 for safety class 3.
Part 6. Soil properties and parameters

Part 6a. Soil properties for earth pressure
The fill consists of friction material, which is gravel with an unsaturated heaviness of 19 kN/m3
(SGU, 2008). Its friction angle is 37° for packed gravel. The cohesion material, clay, has a
saturated heaviness of 17 kN/m3. The heaviness of water is 10 kN/m3.
79
APPENDIX A
Part 7. Pile properties and parameters

Part 7a. Type of pile
The dimensions of piles are measured in diameter and expressed in mm. For heavy multi-storey
buildings where the number of storeys exceeds 5 should pile dimensions of RR/RD220 to
RR/RD500 be used as suggested in Table A7, according to SSAB (2019). The steel grade of the
pile dimension 170 and 220 is S460MH. When a pile is expressed as 220, its actual measurement
is 219.1 mm. The same is for 170, where its dimension is 168.3 mm.
Table A7. The dimensions of piles depending on the use.
Part 7b. Corrosion of the pile

The parameter that takes the phenomena of corrosion into account is dependent on the designed
lifespan. This parameter is determined according to Table A8 (SSAB, 2019). The corrosion is
chosen depending on two parts, one as to protect the inside of the pile as it can be filled with a
protection material and the other is dependent on its lifespan in years. The corrosion is chosen to
2.2 mm on the outer side due to the lifespan of 100 years and that the pile is filled with concrete.
This is preferable when the pile is underneath the ground water level, since the concrete acts as a
protection for corrosion. The concrete that is filled in the piles have the quality of C30/37, since
it is the most common one according to Aron Lindgren (Personal communication, February 20th,
2020). The creep coefficient is set to 2, due to indoor environment with non-heated premises
(Boverket, 2004).
Table A8. The values of corrosion due to lifecycle and target service life.
80
APPENDIX A
Part 7c. Soil parameters and initial deflection

For undrained shear strength, Sadek Baker (Personal communication, February 17th, 2020) suggests
a characteristic value of 8 kPa for a clay in Stockholm. To obtain a design value, the undrained
shear strength partial coefficient parameter is set to "-. = 1.4, according to EN 1997, for partial
factors for equilibrium limit state (EQU) verification.
The bed module coefficient, A, due to short- or long-term loads is 50 for long-term and 150 for
short-term (SSAB, 2019). The coefficient of extreme value of lateral resistance, B, due to short- or
long-term loads is 6 for long-term and 9 for short-term. The values of A and B are interpolated in
the program dependent on the percentage of long-term load.
Initial deflection of piles is, according to SSAB (2019), a value of %1 = <-2 /400 for cohesive
soils and %1 = <-2 /300 for friction soils. The initial deflection may be affected by the number of
splices per buckling length. If more splices would be used, the structural bearing capacity in
service limit state changes, but not the capacity in the ultimate limit state. Since the layer of soil
consists of both friction soil and clay, the worst case is chosen, which gives %1 = <-2 /300. Since
the magnitude on the radius of curvature of the pile is significantly smaller in coarse-grained soil
layers, due to the lateral support than in cohesive soil layers.
Part 7d. Geotechnical service limit state

The verification level on the piles is determined to level 3, as an action of safety
(Pålkommisionen, 2014). This gives the extent of verification in the amount of piles that are
necessary to PDA measure to a minimum of 3 ones and at least 10 % of the total amount. See
Table A9 for the verification values.
Table A9. The verification class on the piles.
81
APPENDIX A
Part 8. Costs
All costs in this chapter between Part 8a to Part 8f includes geotechnical reinforcement work and
are provided by Skanska (2020). The costs are given by a cost estimation in an internal program
regarding calculations and tenders. These costs include a factor of waste and a factor of capacity.
Whereas Part 8g includes costs involving the superstructure.
Part 8a. Sawing, demolition, excavation, penetration in wall and in floor

Sawing and demolition of a full niche:
• Sawing of contour, excavating and transport of material, grouting of the full niche,
demolition machine and staff: 39 400 SEK/m3
Demolition and penetration through the floor:

• Penetration through rust bed and planks including staff: 2 850 SEK/Pcs
• Demolition of existing floor of 0.2 m thick concrete and staff: 620 SEK/m2
Demolition of the wall depends on the material:

• Demolition of masonry walls and staff: 2 400 SEK/m3
• Demolition of dry-stone walls and staff: 39 400 SEK/m3
Excavation of soil beneath ground surface:

• Excavation of soil and staff: 2 300 SEK/m3
Part 8b. Piling

Two different piles including thread costs with a factor of material waste determined to 10 %:
• RD pile 219.1/12.5: 1 300 SEK/m
• RD pile 168.3/10: 1 200 SEK/m
For both pile dimensions, the welding costs are following:

• Cutting pile and staff: 500 SEK/Pcs
• Welding top plate and staff: 900 SEK/Pcs
• Welding ring bit and staff: 2600 SEK/Pcs
Other parameters that includes in the piling are:

• The top plate: 500 SEK/Pcs
• Rent of a pilot: 70 SEK/m
• Rent of a hammer: 120 SEK/day
The process of drilling is a cost with a capacity of 2.5 m/hour:

• Drilling including drilling aggregate, high pressure water pump, operation, fuel and staff:
1 300 SEK/m
The pile is filled with concrete:

• Pump and establishment, transport, unloading of returned concrete, concrete, aggregate
size 8 mm, waiting time, purging of piles and staff: 630 SEK/m
82
APPENDIX A
Part 8c. Beams

Yoke beams through the wall consists of HEB beams including steel forgings.
• HEB220 beam: 12 550 SEK/m
• HEB260 beam: 15 850 SEK/m
• Staff cost for one welder: 650 SEK/hour
Part 8d. Controls

Controls are necessary to ensure the quality. The following parts are considered:
• Stop-driving on a pile: 850 SEK/Pcs
• Staff for stop-driving is a machine operator: 500 SEK/Hour
• Straightness measurement: 250 SEK/Pcs
• Staff for straightness measuring is a machine operator: 500 SEK/Hour
• Ultrasonic testing of welds and staff: 760 SEK/pcs
Part 8e. Casting

In the casting process to restore floors and more, the following activities are considered:
• Formwork, reinforcement, concrete, pump incl. establishment, staff: 10 000 SEK/m3
In elements where more reinforcement is required, the reinforcement cost is:

• Reinforcement and staff: 1 500 SEK/m3
Part 8f. Establishment

The establishment costs occur per occasion for each transport and are the following:
• High pressure water pump: 6 000 SEK
• Transport, establishment, decommissioning with pile trailer: 7 100 SEK
• Transport, establishment, decommissioning with low loader: 9 600 SEK
• Staff cost for establishment: 500 SEK/hour
Part 8g. Project organization

The project organization consists of two workers, one production manager and one project
engineer. Added to this organization is a cost that includes operating costs, as well as a tractor.
This organization is assumed to be on the workplace for preparation and planning the work and
the establishment of machines and more. This cost is summed up to a total cost of 33 200
SEK/day. The organization is assumed to be in the workplace by the total time the works are
performed with 15 more working days added. A mark-up of 12 % is added to the final cost,
corresponding to other general costs.
Part 8h. Superstructure

The average value of the production costs for all the exemplified projects in the SBUF report
according to Lidgren & Widerberg (2010), with inflation taken into account is a cost of 27 938
SEK/m2. According to Mäklarstatistik (2020), the sales price of an apartment within the city
center of Stockholm the last 12 months is a price of 90 875 SEK/m2.
83
APPENDIX A
Part 9. Level of sea water conditions
The land elevation in Stockholm is presented in Figure A4, according to SMHI (2011).
Figure A4. The land elevation in Stockholm (SMHI, 2011).
84
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
Analytical calculations of storeys extended
1. Input data
Table B1. Distance restrictions according to BBR (SFS 2011:6).
Allowed properties for safety Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Maximum distance between
ℎ0#2'82.-C63'0&-%( 50 m Appendix A, part 1a
fire truck and the point of fire
Maximum distance between
ℎ0#2'7(8=63'0&-%( 9 m Appendix A, part 1a
fire truck and the building
Maximum number of floors
that requires only one elevator ?)(E 10 Pcs Appendix A, part 1a
Table B2. Dimensions for the existing building.

Existing building properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Total height of existing building ℎ!.#"%#$1H(88#- 26.84 m Appendix A, part 1b
Height of inclined part of attic ℎ(88#-3-%"3-(6 3.6 m Appendix A, part 1b
Height of straight part of attic ℎ(88#-'0$&3470 0.7 m Appendix A, part 1b
Number of existing floors ?'E#&8#$1 6 Pcs Appendix A, part 1b
Table B3. Dimensions for the extension building.

Extended building properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Minimum indoor height ℎ0"552 2.4 m Appendix A, part 2a
Largest height of inclined beam 9 0.78 m Appendix A, part 2b
Thickness of roof insulation 9#$&."(8#5$ 0.3 m Appendix A, part 2b
Thickness of floor joist H0"552 0.493 m Appendix A, part 2c
Thickness of strengthening floor H0"552'0$(-407 0.3 m Appendix A, part 2c
Figure B1. Dimensions in the existing building (Bjerking, 1974).
2. Calculations
When demolishing the existing roof (Figure B1), the total height of the building excluding the
attic is obtained by subtracting the height of the attic from the total existing height through
following equation:
ℎ!.#"%#$1G(88#- = ℎ!.#"%#$1H(88#- − ℎ(88#-3-%"3-(6 − ℎ(88#-'0$&3470 = 22.54 R
85
APPENDIX B
Using Pythagorean theorem referred to the given requirements in BBR (2011:6), the maximum
allowed height of the building with the extension is calculated with following equation:
@ @
^ℎ0#2'82.-C63'0&-%( _ = (ℎ(""5;'% )@ + ^ℎ0#2'7(8=63'0&-%( _ → ℎ(""5;'% ≈ 49 R
The allowed vertical height of the building due to the fire safety is chosen to be 48 m, as an
action of safety. The maximum allowed height of the extension is determined by subtracting the
height of the existing building from the allowed height as follows:
ℎ(""5;'%(20(-'3#- = ℎ(""5;'% − ℎ!.#"%#$1G(88#- = 25.46 R
The allowed number of storeys can therefore be calculated from the given data according to:
ℎ(""5;'%(20(-'3#- = 9#$&."(8#5$ + 9 + H0"552'0$(-407 + ?'E8'$&#5$ ∙ ℎ0"552 +

+ ?'E8'$&#5$ ∙ H0"552 − H0"552 → ?'E8'$&#5$ = 8.49 ≈ 8
The maximum number of storeys are therefore, determined to 8, since it is rounded down.
According to the maximum number of storeys, due to the requirement regarding rescue
elevators, the maximum possible number of storeys are therefore, calculated as follows:
?'E8'$%'% = ?)(E − ?'E#&8#$1 = 4
This gives a new total height of the extension through following equation:
ℎ'E8'$&#5$ = 9#$&."(8#5$ + 9 + H0"552'0$(-407 + ?'E8'$%'% ∙ ^ℎ0"552 + H0"552 _ − H0"552

= 12.46 R
The new total height of the building with both the existing and the extended part is obtained
through following equation:
ℎ!.#"%#$1 = ℎ!.#"%#$1G(88#- + ℎ'E8'$&#5$ = 35.0 R
The obtained total height is checked with the requirements of the maximum allowed building
height, according to the BBR (2011:6), as follows:
ℎ!.#"%#$1 < ℎ(""5;'% → 35 R < 48 R → d;
This gives that the requirement is fulfilled, which gives that the total number of storeys for the
existing building and the superstructure is calculated to 10 with a total height of 35 m, where the
extended building consists of 4 storeys.
86
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C
Analytical calculations of load distribution
1. Input data
Table C1. Building properties of the total building
Total building properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Width of the building / 11.6 m Appendix A, part 1b
Depth of the building 2 20 m Appendix A, part 1b
No. of floors existing ?'E#&8#$1 6 Pcs Appendix A, part 1b
Indoor height of a floor ℎ0"552 2.4 m Appendix A, part 2a
No. of floors extended ?'E8'$%'% 4 Pcs Appendix B
Height the building ℎ!.#"%#$1 35 m Appendix B
Table C2. Building properties on the existing walls.

Wall properties Outer wall Heart wall ePQRR Reference
Floor 2 – 6 1.5 bricks 1 brick 3.568 m Appendix A, part 1b
Floor 1 2 bricks 1.5 bricks 3.568 m Appendix A, part 1b
Floor 0 3 bricks 2 bricks 2.6 m Appendix A, part 1b
Table C3. Properties of the existing floor.

Material Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Plaster heaviness "7"(&8'2 16 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 1c
Plaster thickness H7"(&8'2 0.0635 m Appendix A, part 1c
Masonry bricks heaviness ")(&5$26 16 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 1c
Masonry bricks thickness H)(&5$26 0.062 m Appendix A, part 1c
Wood heaviness ";55%!"##$ 4.3 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 1c
Wood floor thickness H;55%!"##$ 0.0508 m Appendix A, part 1c
Filling heaviness "0#""#$1 18 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 1c
Filling and beams thickness H0#""#$1!'()& 0.1778 m Appendix A, part 1c
Blinds heaviness "!"#$%& 17 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 1c
Blinds and beams thickness H!"#$%&!'()& 0.0762 m Appendix A, part 1c
Table C4. Building properties of the new roof.

Properties of new roof Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Largest height of beam 9 0.78 m Appendix A, part 2b
Smallest height of beam ℎ 0.405 m Appendix A, part 2b
Width of the beam K 0.115 m Appendix A, part 2b
Slope of the roof f 3.7 ° Appendix A, part 2b
Load of outer roof B2550 0.85 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 2b
Heaviness of CLT "*+, 5 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 2b
87
APPENDIX C
Table C5. Building properties of the new floor.

Properties of new floor Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Thickness of floor joist H0"552 0.493 m Appendix A, part 2c
Load of extended floor B0"552 1.45 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 2c
Reinforced steel beam floor B&8''" 1 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 2c
Table C6. Properties of loads for both existing and the extended part.
Heaviness Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Load of residential load B2'&#%'$8#(" 2 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 2d
Non-bearing walls B$5$G!'(2#$1 0.2 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 2e
Bearing walls in extension B!'(2#$1 1.3 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 2e
Table C7. Properties of snow load.

Snow properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Exposure factor 0< 1 - Appendix A, part 3a
Thermal coefficient 08 1 - Appendix A, part 3b
Form factor of roof & 0.8 - Appendix A, part 3c
Characteristic snow load GC 2 kN/m2 Appendix A, part 3d
88
APPENDIX C
2. Load distribution for two sections
2.1 Cross-section A
The first cross-section is visualized in Figure C1a for the total building and in Figure C1b for the
existing building. The distances that each wall carries are determined according to symmetry,
where the heart wall is placed in the half of the width. This gives that the two outer walls have
the same load distribution.
a) b)
Figure C1. Cross-section A for a) the total building and for b) the existing building.
The saddle beam (Figure C2) has two heights, h and H. The difference between these heights are
h’, which is the height visualized in Figure C3 and calculated as follows:
ℎS = 9 − ℎ = 0.375 R
Figure C2. Cross-section on saddle beam.
89
APPENDIX C
Figure C3. Cross-section on the top of the saddle beam, showing where the walls are placed.
The load that is distributed from the roof towards the foundation through the whole building is
distributed between the two outer walls and the centrally placed heart wall. The width that the
outer walls takes is the width divided by 4, whereas the heart wall takes the width divided by 2
(Figure C3). The inclined length, L, according to Pythagorean theorem (Figure C3), is calculated
through following:
@
/
< = gℎS@ + h i = 5.81 R
2
The beams on the roof are placed with a center distance of 1200 mm, where the area that one
beam carries is calculated as follows:
2 ∙ < ∙ 2
-2550 = = 2 ∙ < ∙ 1.2 = 13.95 R@
2
1.2
The volume of one beam is calculated to:
9+ℎ
I!'() = K ∙ ∙ / = 0.79 RT
2
The heaviness from the roof truss is therefore:
I!'() ∙ "*+,
B25500$5'' = = 0.28 j>/R@
-2550
Another load that is acting on the roof is the snow load. It is calculated through following
equation:
B&$5; = & ∙ 0< ∙ 08 ∙ GC = 1.6 j>/R@
The existing floor is consisting of several materials. To obtain the heaviness of the composite
parts in the floor, they are calculated with the distribution of a certain percentage as follows:
"0#""#$1!'()& = "0#""#$1 · 97.5 % + ";55%!"##$ · 2.5 % = 3.14 j>/RT

"!"#$%&!'()& = "!"#$%& · 97.5 % + ";55%!"##$ · 2.5 % = 1.27 j>/RT
90
APPENDIX C
To obtain the load of the existing floor, it is calculated as follows:
B0"552(23'03-4 = ";55%!"##$ · H;55%!"##$ + "0#""#$1!'()& · H0#""#$1!'()& + "!"#$%&!'()&

· H!"#$%&!'()& + "7"(&8'2 ∙ H7"(&8'2 = 5.65 j>/R@
The attic is also consisting of several materials. To obtain the load, it is calculated as follows:
B(88#- = ")(&5$26 ∙ H)(&5$26 + ";55%!"##$ · H;55%!"##$ + "0#""#$1!'()& · H0#""#$1!'()&

+ "!"#$%&!'()& · H!"#$%&!'()& + "7"(&8'2 ∙ H7"(&8'2 = 6.64 j>/R@
The bottom floor is also a composite floor, consisting of several materials. To obtain the load, it
is calculated as follows:
B0"552/#00#1 = ";55%!"##$ · H;55%!"##$ + ")(&5$26 ∙ H)(&5$26 · 2.45 + "0#""#$1!'()&

· H0#""#$1!'()& · 1.75 + B&8''" = 9.15 j>/R@
The loads of the walls depend on the number of bricks in each wall. To obtain the load of each
wall it is calculated with the amount of bricks as follows:
BA/$3%B = 1 · ")(&5$26 · 12 · 0.0254 = 4.88 j>/R@
BA.V/$3%B = 1.5 · ")(&5$26 · 12 · 0.0254 = 7.32 j>/R@
B@/$3%B = 2 · ")(&5$26 · 12 · 0.0254 = 9.75 j>/R@
BT/$3%B = 3 · ")(&5$26 · 12 · 0.0254 = 14.63 j>/R@
2.1.1 Section A – wall 1: Outer wall
For the loads that acts and are distributed in the outer wall, the distance of the width
/ = 11.6 R is divided by 4.
Permanent loads from the extended part
The roof truss gives a self-weight with the following equation:
/
825500$5'' C) = B25500$5'' ∙ = 0.82 j>/R
4
The self-weight of the outer roof is given by:
/
82550C) = B2550 ∙ = 2.47 j>/R
4
The self-weight of the floor joist is given by:
/
80"552C) = B0"552 ∙ ∙? = 16.82 j>/R
4 'E8'$%'%
91
APPENDIX C
The self-weight of the bearing walls is given by:
8!'(2#$1C) = B!'(2#$1 ∙ ^ℎ0"552 + H0"552 _ ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 15.04 j>/R
The self-weight of the non-bearing walls is given by:
/
8$5$G!'(2#$1(20 C) = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ ∙? = 2.32 j>/R
4 'E8'$%'%
This is summarized to: 8'E8'$%'%C) = 37.48 j>/R
Permanent loads from the existing part
The self-weight of the reinforced strengthening floor is calculated as:
/
8&8''"LA = B&8''" ∙ = 2.9 j>/R
4
To obtain the self-weight for an existing floor, it is calculated as follows:
/
80"552(23'03-4 LA = B0"552(23'03-4 · ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 98.23 j>/R
4
The self-weight for the attic is calculated as follows:
/
8(88#-LA = B(88#- · = 19.25 j>/R
4
The self-weight for the bottom floor is calculated as follows:
/
80"552/#00#1 LA = B0"552/#00#1 · = 26.54 j>/R
4
The self-weight for the outer wall is calculated as follows:
8;(""LA = BA.V/$3%B · ℎ;(""*DE · ?'E#&8#$1 + B@/$3%B · ℎ;("") + BT/$3%B · ℎ;(""+ = 203.34 j>/R
/
8$5$G!'(2#$1(23 C) = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ ∙? = 3.48 j>/R
4 'E#&8#$1
This is summarized without the roof on the existing building to:
8'E#&8#$1C) = 353.73 j>/R
This is summarized with the roof on the existing building to:

8'E#&8#$1C) #-". = 357.03 j>/R
92
APPENDIX C
Variable loads from both the extended and the existing part
The variable load of the snow that is acting on the outer wall is calculated to be the following:
<
B&$5;LA = B&$5; ∙ = 4.65 j>/R
2
The variable residential load that is acting on the outer walls are calculated to be the following:
/
B2'&#%'$8#("LA(23'03-4 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 34.8 j>/R
4
/
B2'&#%'$8#("LA(20(-6(6 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 23.2 j>/R
4

Summary of variable loads from both the extended and the existing part
The variable load for the outer walls in section A is summarized into two parts, one for the
existing building and the second for the total building:
ALA(23'03-4 = B&$5;LA + B2'&#%'$8#("LA(23'03-4 = 39.45 j>/R
ALA0#0&" = B&$5;LA + B2'&#%'$8#("LA(23'03-4 + B2'&#%'$8#("LA(20(-6(6 = 62.65 j>/R
Summary of permanent loads from both the extended and the existing part
The self-weight for the outer walls in section A is summarized into two parts, one for the existing
building and the second for the total building:
7LA(23'03-4 = 8'E#&8#$1C) = 357.03 j>/R

#-".
7LA0#0&" = 8'E8'$&#5$C) + 8'E#&8#$1C) = 391.21 j>/R
2.1.2 Section A – wall 2: Heart wall
For the load that acts and are distributed in the heart wall, the distance of the width / = 11.6 R
is divided by 2.
/
825500$5'' = B25500$5'' ∙ = 1.64 j>/R
C* 2
/
82550C* = B2550 ∙ = 4.94 j>/R
2
93
APPENDIX C
/
80"552C* = B0"552 ∙ ∙? = 33.6 j>/R
2 'E8'$%'%
8!'(2#$1C* = B!'(2#$1 ∙ ^ℎ0"552 + H0"552 _ ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 15.04 j>/R
!
8$5$G!'(2#$1(20 C* = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ @ ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 4.64 j>/R
This is summarized to: 8'E8'$%'%C* = 59.91 j>/R
/
8&8''"L@ = B&8''" ∙ = 5.8 j>/R
2
/
80"552(23'03-4 L@ = B0"552(23'03-4 · ∙? = 196.45 j>/R
2 'E#&8#$1
/
8(88#-L@ = B(88#- · = 38.5 j>/R
2
/
80"552/#00#1 L@ = B0"552/#00#1 · = 53.08 j>/R
2
The self-weight for the heart wall is calculated as follows:
8;(""L@ = BA/$3%B · ℎ;(""*DE · ?'E#&8#$1 + BA.V/$3%B · ℎ;("") + B@/$3%B · ℎ;(""+ = 138.46 j>/R
/
8$5$G!'(2#$1C* = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ ∙? = 6.96 j>/R
2 'E#&8#$1

8'E#&8#$1C* = 439.24 j>/R
94
APPENDIX C

8'E#&8#$1C* #-". = 445.83 j>/R
The variable load of the snow that is acting on the heart wall is calculated to be the following:
B&$5;L@ = B&$5; ∙ < = 9.30 j>/R
/
B2'&#%'$8#("L@(23'03-4 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 69.6 j>/R
2
/
B2'&#%'$8#("L@(20(-6(6 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ ∙? = 46.4 j>/R
2 'E8'$%'%
The variable load for the heart wall in section A is summarized into two parts, one for the
AL@(23'03-4 = B&$5;L@ + B2'&#%'$8#("L@(23'03-4 = 78.90 j>/R
AL@0#0&" = B&$5;L@ + B2'&#%'$8#("L@(23'03-4 + B2'&#%'$8#("L@(20(-6(6 = 134.60 j>/R
The self-weight for the heart wall in section A is summarized to:
7L@(23'03-4 = 8'E#&8#$1C* #-". = 445.83 j>/R
7L@0#0&" = 8'E8'$&#5$C* + 8'E#&8#$1C* = 499.15 j>/R
95
APPENDIX C
2.2 Cross-section B
The second cross-section is visualized in Figure C4a for the total building and in Figure C4b for
the existing building. The distances that each wall carries are determined according to symmetry,
where the two heart walls are placed centrally of the building. The load that acts on each wall is
distributed with half of the lengths that each wall takes. Due to symmetry, the outer walls have the
same loads as well for the heart walls.
a) b)
Figure C4. Cross-section B for a) the total building and for b) the existing building.
Figure C5 visualize the location of the walls in cross-section B. This gives that the loads from the
roof are distributed dependent on the distance between the two walls divided by two, which are
calculated as follows:
2 1
25 = h − 1i · = 4.5 R
2 2
2 1
2= = h + 1i · = 5.5 R
2 2
Figure C5. Cross-section B showing where the walls are placed.
96
APPENDIX C
2.2.1 Section B – wall 1: Outer wall
For the loads that acts and are distributed in the outer wall, the distance 25 = 4.5 R is used.
825500$5'' F) = B25500$5'' ∙ 25 = 1.27 j>/R
82550F) = B2550 ∙ 25 = 3.83 j>/R
80"552F) = B0"552 ∙ 25 ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 26.1 j>/R
8!'(2#$1F) = B!'(2#$1 ∙ ^ℎ0"552 + H0"552 _ ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 15.04 j>/R
8$5$G!'(2#$1(20 F) = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ 25 ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 3.6 j>/R
This is summarized to: 8'E8'$%'%F) = 49.84 j>/R
8&8''"NA = B&8''" ∙ 25 = 4.5 j>/R
80"552(23'03-4 NA = B0"552(23'03-4 · 25 ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 152.4 j>/R
8(88#-NA = B(88#- · 25 = 29.9 j>/R
80"552/#00#1 NA = B0"552/#00#1 · 25 = 41.2 j>/R
The self-weight for the outer wall is calculated as follows:
97
APPENDIX C
8;(""NA = BA.V/$3%B · ℎ;(""*DE · ?'E#&8#$1 + B@/$3%B · ℎ;("") + BT/$3%B · ℎ;(""+ = 203.34 j>/R
8$5$G!'(2#$1F) = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ 25 ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 5.4 j>/R

8'E#&8#$1F) = 436.66 j>/R

8'E#&8#$1F) #-". = 441.76 j>/R
The variable load of the snow that is acting on the outer wall is calculated to be the following:
B&$5;NA = B&$5; ∙ 25 = 7.2 j>/R
B2'&#%'$8#("NA(23'03-4 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ 25 ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 54 j>/R
B2'&#%'$8#("NA(20(-6(6 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ 25 ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 36 j>/R
The variable load for the outer walls in section B is summarized into two parts, one for the
ANA(23'03-4 = B&$5;NA + B2'&#%'$8#("NA(23'03-4 = 61.20 j>/R
ANA0#0&" = B&$5;NA + B2'&#%'$8#("NA(23'03-4 + B2'&#%'$8#("NA(20(-6(6 = 97.20 j>/R
The self-weight for the outer walls in section B is summarized to:
7NA(23'03-4 = 8'E#&8#$1F) #-". = 441.76 j>/R
7NA0#0&" = 8'E8'$&#5$F) + 8'E#&8#$1F) = 486.5 j>/R
98
APPENDIX C
2.2.2 Section B – wall 2: Heart wall
For the loads that acts and are distributed in the outer wall, the distance 2= = 5.5 R is used.
825500$5'' = B25500$5'' ∙ 2= = 1.56 j>/R

F*
82550F* = B2550 ∙ 2= = 4.68 j>/R
80"552F* = B0"552 ∙ 2= ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 31.9 j>/R
8!'(2#$1F* = B!'(2#$1 ∙ ^ℎ0"552 + H0"552 _ ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 15.04 j>/R
The self-weight of the non-bearing walls for both extended and existing part is given by:
8$5$G!'(2#$1(20 F* = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ 2= ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 4.4 j>/R
This is summarized to: 8'E8'$%'%F* = 57.58 j>/R
8&8''"N@ = B&8''" ∙ 2= = 5.5 j>/R
80"552(23'03-4 N@ = B0"552(23'03-4 · 2= ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 186.2 j>/R
8(88#-N@ = B(88#- · 2= = 36.5 j>/R
80"552/#00#1 N@ = B0"552/#00#1 · 2= = 50.3 j>/R
99
APPENDIX C
The self-weight for the heart wall is calculated as follows:
8;(""N@ = BA/$3%B · ℎ;(""*DE · ?'E#&8#$1 + BA.V/$3%B · ℎ;("") + B@/$3%B · ℎ;(""+ = 138.46 j>/R
8$5$G!'(2#$1F* = B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ 2= ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 6.6 j>/R

8'E#&8#$1F* = 423.62 j>/R

8'E#&8#$1F* #-". = 429.86 j>/R
The variable load of the snow that is acting on the heart wall is calculated to be the following:
B&$5;N@ = B&$5; ∙ 2= = 8.8 j>/R
B2'&#%'$8#("N@(23'03-4 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ 2= ∙ ?'E#&8#$1 = 66 j>/R

B2'&#%'$8#("N@(20(-6(6 = B2'&#%'$8#(" ∙ 2= ∙ ?'E8'$%'% = 44 j>/R
The variable load for the heart walls in section B is summarized into two parts, one for the
AN@(23'03-4 = B&$5;N@ + B2'&#%'$8#("N@(23'03-4 = 74.80 j>/R
AN@0#0&" = B&$5;N@ + B2'&#%'$8#("N@(23'03-4 + B2'&#%'$8#("N@(20(-6(6 = 118.80 j>/R
The self-weight for the heart walls in section B is summarized to:
7N@(23'03-4 = 8'E#&8#$1F* #-". = 429.86 j>/R
7N@0#0&" = 8'E8'$&#5$F* + 8'E#&8#$1F* = 481.20 j>/R
100
APPENDIX C
2.3 Percentage increase in loads from the superstructure extension

Each wall in each cross-section has a load from the extension that are summed up and compared
to an increased percentage due to additional loads from the extension are in comparison to the
sum of loads for the existing building.
5'E8'$&#5$ + 5'E#&8#$1 ∑ 7'E8'$&#5$ + ∑ A'E8'$&#5$ + ∑ 7'E#&8#$1 + ∑ A'E#&8#$1

5% = =
5'E#&8#$1 ∑ 7'E#&8#$1 + ∑ A'E#&8#$1
5% = 20 %
2.4 Summary of loads from all the cross-sections and walls for the two cases
A long-term load in percentage are calculated for each wall in each cross-section with
the following equation. The results of characteristic loads for each wall in each cross-
section are presented in Table C8 to Table C11 for the two cases:
Case 1: Loads for only the existing building.

Case 2: Loads for the existing building with the extended superstructure.
Table C8. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section A and outer wall.
Cross-section A outer wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7LA 357.03 391.21 kN/m
Variable residential load A2'&#%'$8#("LA 34.8 58 kN/m
Variable snow load A&$5;LA 4.65 4.65 kN/m
Long-term load 7LA% 90 86 %
Table C9. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section A and heart wall.
Cross-section A heart wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7L@ 445.83 499.15 kN/m
Variable residential load A2'&#%'$8#("L@ 69.6 116 kN/m
Variable snow load A&$5;L@ 9.3 9.3 kN/m
Long-term load 7L@% 85 80 %
Table C10. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section B and outer wall.
Cross-section B outer wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7NA 441.76 486.5 kN/m
Variable residential load A2'&#%'$8#("NA 54 90 kN/m
Variable snow load A&$5;NA 7.2 7.2 kN/m
Long-term load 7NA% 88 83 %
Table C11. Obtained characteristic loads for cross-section B and heart wall.
Cross-section B heart wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7N@ 429.86 481.2 kN/m
Variable residential load A2'&#%'$8#("N@ 66 110 kN/m
Variable snow load A&$5;N@ 8.8 8.8 kN/m
Long-term load 7N@% 85 80 %
101
102
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D
Analytical calculations of wind and earth pressure
1. Input data
Table D1. Building properties of the total building.
Total building properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Width of the building / 11.6 m Appendix A, part 1b
Depth of the building 2 20 m Appendix A, part 1b
Height the building ℎ!.#"%#$1 35 m Appendix 2
Slope of the roof f 3.7 ° Appendix A, part 2b
Table D2. Properties of wind load.

Wind properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Reference speed of
J2'0 24 m/s Appendix A, part 4a
wind
Characteristic speed qW (35) = 0.67
B7 (E) kN/m2 Appendix A, part 4b
pressure B7 (20) = 0.53
Factor D = 0.8
Factor E = -0.65
Factor F = -1.8
Factor of form 07' - Appendix A, part 4c
Factor G = -1.2
Factor H = -0.7
Factor I = 0.2
Table D3. Design parameters.

Parameters Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Partial coefficient EQU "9 ( 1.5 - Appendix A, part 5b
variable adverse :;<
Partial coefficient EQU "9 0 0 - Appendix A, part 5b

variable favorable :;<
Partial coefficient EQU "4 0 0.9 - Appendix A, part 5b

permanent favorable :;<
Safety class parameter "/ 1 - Appendix A, part 5f
Table D4. Properties of the soil.

Packed gravel Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Heaviness unsaturated "12(3'" 19 kN/m3 Appendix A, part 6a
Friction angle o′ 37 ° Appendix A, part 6a
2. Wind load in section B

The wind load is making a torque and is a horizontal acting load on the height of the building
only in cross-section B. The wind load is tested to ensure that the moment created due to the
wind is less than the stabilizing moment, which is the moment created by the self-weight of the
building. To obtain the design values from the characteristic wind forces, the wind force is
dimensioned as adverse. Whereas, the permanent and variable factors are favorable.
103
APPENDIX D
The characteristic speed pressure is categorized in the Eurocode to three different shapes of profile
of velocity pressure according to these ones:
Case 1: ℎ!.#"%#$1 ≤ 2
Case 2: / < ℎ!.#"%#$1 ≤ 2 · 2
Case 3: ℎ!.#"%#$1 > 2 · 2
Two separated characteristic speed pressures are needed for the two different heights,
ℎ!.#"%#$1 and 2 (Figure D1).
Figure D1. Wind pressure acting on the wall surface of the building.
The first part is to calculate how the wind load acts on the wall. The factor of form is calculated
to being able to calculate the acting wind load through adding the windward and the leeward
sides as following:
07'8&"" = r07' / r + r07' I r = 1.45
L' (35) = B7 (35) · 07'8&"" = 0.97 j>/R@
L' (20) = B7 (20) · 07'8&"" = 0.77 j>/R@
To obtain the design values of the wind loads acting on the wall, they are calculated as follows:
L'% (35) = L' (35) · "9 ( = 1.46 j>/R@
L'% (20) = L' (20) · "9 ( = 1.15 j>/R@
The second part is to calculate how the wind load acts on the roof, which is a saddle shaped roof.
The factor of form is calculated due to its shape, which is a flat roof (<5°) and for the windward
side, the factor and the wind load is calculated to:
07'$##!) = r07' r + r07' r = 3

X 4
2 1
L'$##! A (35) = B7 (35) · 07'$##!) · · = 4.03 j>/R@
10 cos (!)
07'$##!* = r07' M r = 0.7
104
APPENDIX D
2 1 2 1
L'$##! @ (35) = B7 (35) · 07'$##!* · h · − · i = 1.79 j>/R@
2 cos(!) 10 cos(!)
On the leeward side, the factor of form and the wind load is calculated to:
07'$##!H = r07' Y r = 0.2
/ 1
L'$##! T (35) = B7 (35) · 07'$##!H · · = 0.78 j>/R@
2 cos (!)
This gives a summary of the wind load acting orthogonal on the roof to be the following:
L'$##! = L'$##! A + L'$##! @ + L'$##! T = 6.59 j>/R@

#$07#
The horizontal part of the wind load as a design load is therefore calculated as:
L'$##!
L'%$##! = "9 ( · #$07#
= 0.64 j>/R@
sin(!)
All the designed wind loads are calculated with each height that wind acts on, this gives that each
floor joist is carrying a wind force according to the following equation:
5'% = L'% · ∆ℎ
The wind forces are summarized in Table D5, where the existing floor 0 is the ground surface,
which gives a small height that the wind acts on for the first-floor joist:
Table D5. Wind force acting on the building.

Floor +z [m] ∆e [y] {Z[ [|}/y\ ] ~Z[ [|}/y]
Roof 34.3 1.08 0.64 0.69
Extension 4 33.9 2.9 1.46 2.1
Extension 3 31 2.9 1.46 4.2
Extension 2 28.1 2.9 1.46 4.2
Extension 1 25.3 3.0 1.46 4.2
Existing 6 22.3 3.7 1.46 5.1
Existing 5 18.5 3.6 1.15 4.1
Existing 4 15.0 3.6 1.15 4.1
Existing 3 11.4 3.6 1.15 4.1
Existing 2 7.8 3.6 1.15 4.1
Existing 1 4.3 3.6 1.15 4.1
Existing 0 0.7 0.7 1.15 2.9
To obtain a moment, each wind force is multiplied with the height it is acting on and then
summarized to a total moment (Table D6). The outer walls have the same values due to
symmetry, as well for the both heart walls, since it has the same width that the wind is acting on.
=I%# = 5'% · 25 · E
=I%7 = 5'% · 2= · E
105
APPENDIX D
Table D6. Wind force acting on the building.

Height Outer wall Outer wall Heart wall Heart wall
Floor
z [m] ~Z[ · ] [kN] ÄZ[ ] [kNm] ~Z[ · ^ [kN] ÄZ[ ^ [kNm]
Roof 34.3 2.9 98 3.5 120
Extension 4 33.9 9.5 322 11.6 393
Extension 3 31 19 589 23.2 720
Extension 2 28.1 19 534 23.2 653
Extension 1 25.3 19 479 23.2 585
Existing 6 22.3 23.2 515 28.3 630
Existing 5 18.5 18.5 343 22.6 419
Existing 4 15.0 18.5 277 22.6 339
Existing 3 11.4 18.5 211 22.6 258
Existing 2 7.8 18.5 145 22.6 177
Existing 1 4.3 18.5 79 22.6 97
Existing 0 0.7 12.9 9 15.7 11
Summary - 198 3602 242 4402
The permanent weight that creates a moment that counteracts the moment of the wind, has a
width of 2 m due to wooden beams in the existing building. These beams can only carry 1 m per
side of a wall for the distributed area that acts on each part in the building.
The middle-placed walls only take 2 m of distributed characteristic self-weight, whereas the outer
walls only take 1 m. With the values obtained from Appendix C, the following permanent
characteristic loads are determined:
85.8'2;("" = 1 · h^B25500$5'' + B2550 + B&8''" + B(88#- + B0"552/#00#1 _ + B0"552 · ?'E8'$%'%
+ B0"552(23'03-4 · ?'E#&8#$1 + B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ ^?'E8'$%'% + ?'E#&8#$1 _i

+ 8!'(2#$1F) + 8;(""NA = 277.97 j>/R
8='(28;("" = 2 · h^B25500$5'' + B2550 + B&8''" + B(88#- + B0"552/#00#1 _ + B0"552 · ?'E8'$%'%
+ B0"552(23'03-4 · ?'E#&8#$1 + B$5$G!'(2#$1 ∙ ^?'E8'$%'% + ?'E#&8#$1 _i

+ 8!'(2#$1F* + 8;(""N@ = 272.67 j>/R
To obtain the design load, where the self-weight was favorable, the following equations are used:
75.8'2;("" = "4 0 · 85.8'2;("" = 250.17 j>/R
7='(28;("" = "4 0 · 8='(28;("" = 245.40 j>/R
These design loads of self-weight are calculated to a stabilizing moment with the dimension of
the building as its depth seen from the side where the wind force is acting and the distance b/6
due to the allowed eccentricity for a stabilizing moment, calculated in the following equations:
/
=&8(!#"#J#$1#50($8&"" = 75.8'2;("" · / · = 5611 j>R
6
106
APPENDIX D
/
=&8(!#"#J#$17(&$08&"" = 7='(28;("" · / · = 5504 j>R
6
The created overturned moment for wind, that is summarized in Table D6, is checked for
overturn:
=53'28.2$#50($ = 3602 j>R
=53'28.2$7(&$0 = 4402 j>R.
The overturn can be created if the vertical resultant is not within the distance b/6 from the
center, which is why the eccentricity is calculated as follows:
/ =53'28.2$ /
3 < → 3 = <
6 7;("" 6
The allowed eccentricity is:
/ 11.6
= = 1.93 R
6 6
The values for the eccentricity are calculated to:
=53'28.2$#50($
35.8'2 = = 1.3 R < 1.93 R → d;!
75.8'2;(""
=53'28.2$7(&$0
3='(28 = = 1.5 R < 1.93 R → d;!
7='(28;(""
The stabilizing moment should, therefore, be bigger than the overturned moment where the ratio
shall exceed 1, as follows:
=&8(!#"#J#$1
> 1
=53'28.2$
=&8(!#"#J#$1#50($8&""
= 1.6 > 1 → d;
=53'28.2$#50($
=&8(!#"#J#$17(&$08&""
= 1.3 > 1 → d;
=53'28.2$7(&$0
This gives that the moment that the wind creates does not exceed the stabilizing moment.
Therefore, the wind force does not have to be considered when designing the foundation with
for instance, inclined piles.
107
APPENDIX D
3. Earth pressure
The given soil strata sequence is presented in Figure D2 and Figure D3 for both cross-section A
and cross-section B. The soil strata sequence is the one that is used when the earth pressure is
analyzed for passive pressure. The soil surrounding the wall consists of packed gravel and the
height of the wall beneath the ground level is 1.9 m.
a) b)
Figure D2: Soil strata sequence for a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
The dry-stone wall is exposed to a triangular passive earth pressure from the surrounding soil.
The equation is valid for granular soil with effective cohesion equal to zero. The coefficient of
passive earth pressure ;7 is calculated as:
1 + GÇ?É′
;7 = = 4.0
1 − GÇ?É′
To find the passive resultant force in horizontal direction, following equation is used with a
triangular load considered:
1 @
@K = ∙ "12(3'" ∙ 9S ∙ ;7 = 138.0 j>/R
2
The force is acting per unit length of the wall. To get the total passive resultant acting on the
wall, the depth of the building in cross-section A is multiplied with @7 .
@858(",7 = @7 ∙ 2 = 138.0 ∙ 20 = 2759 j>
A check is done to analyze the possibility of the earth pressure to counteract the wind force. The
check is done by horizontal equilibrium through:
Ñ @=52#J5$8(" = 0
108
APPENDIX D
The wind loads acting on each wall are summarized in Table D7. The total wind load is
summarized to @;#$% = 879 j>.
Table D7. The total wind force acting on the walls in the building.
Horizontal wind loads Magnitude Unit
Outer wall 198 kN
Heart wall 242 kN
Heart wall 242 kN
Outer wall 198 kN
All walls summarized 879 kN
This gives following result:
@858(",7 − @;#$% = 2759 − 879 = 1880 j> → @858(",7 > @;#$% → d;!
The resultant of the earth pressure is larger than the total wind force, no further actions are
necessary.
109
110
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E
Analytical calculations of design load
1. Input data
Table E1. Design parameters.
Residential reduce factor ,< #)75&'% 0.7 - Appendix A, part 5a
Snow reduce factor ,< &$5; 0.6 - Appendix A, part 5a
Partial coefficient STR "4 ( 1.35 - Appendix A, part 5c
permanent adverse =>?
Partial coefficient STR "9 ( 1.5 - Appendix A, part 5c

variable adverse =>?
Coefficient permanent load STR ' 0.89 - Appendix A, part 5c

Partial coefficient GEO "4 ( 1.1 - Appendix A, part 5d
permanent adverse @:A
Partial coefficient GEO "9 ( 1.4 - Appendix A, part 5d

variable adverse @:A
Partial coefficient in SLS ":+: 1 - Appendix A, part 5e

Safety class parameter "/ 1 - Appendix A, part 5f
Design values is determined in limit states according to EKS with Eurocode and the IEG (2010).
The characteristic values are dimensioned with partial coefficient and calculated with the three
equations, named Eq. 6.10a, Eq. 6.10b and Eq. 6.10.
For structural bearing capacity, the Eq. 6.10a is with the permanent load as the main load and
therefore, put adverse. Whereas the Eq. 6.10b is with the variable load as the main load and
therefore, put adverse.
Eq. 6.10a 4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · ∑ 7#,F + "9 ( · ∑ ,<.C · A#,F Ü

=>? =>?
Eq. 6.10b 4% = "/ · Ö' · "4 ( · ∑ 7#,F + "9 ( · AA.F + "9 ( · ∑ ,<.C · A#,F Ü
=>? =>? =>?
For geotechnical bearing capacity, the Eq. 6.10 is used with both the permanent and variable
loads as adverse.
Eq. 6.10 4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · ∑ 7#,F + "9 ( · A#,F + "9 ( · ∑ ,<.C · A#,F Ü
@:A @:A @:A
For the serviceability limit state, for both structural and geotechnical bearing capacity, the
equation 6.10 is used without a safety class factor and the partial coefficients put equal to one.
Eq. 6.10 4% = ":+: · ∑ 7#,F + ":+: · ∑ ,<.C · A#,F
Two cases are calculated, where case 1 is for the existing building and case 2 is for the total
building, which includes the existing and the extended superstructure.
111
APPENDIX E
2. Cross-section A
2.1 Calculations for the design load in the outer wall

The characteristic values obtained from Appendix C for each cross-section and wall is
summarized in Table E2.
Table E2. Obtained characteristic loads for this cross-section and wall.
Cross-section A outer wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7LA 357.03 391.21 kN/m
Variable residential load B2'&#%'$8#("LA 34.8 58 kN/m
Variable snow load B&$5;LA 4.65 4.65 kN/m
From the first and the second equation, the highest value is the structural capacity in ULS. This
gives for the first equation, 6.10a, in ULS that following equation is used:
1) 4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7LA + "9 ( · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("LA + "9 ( · ,< &$5; ·
=>? =>? =>?
B&$5;LA Ü
This gives for the second equation, 6.10b, the following equation in ULS is used:
2) 4% = "/ · Ö' · "4 ( · 7LA + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("LA + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;LA Ü
=>? =>? =>?
The geotechnical capacity with equation, 6.10 in ULS gives the following equation is used:
4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7LA + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("LA + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;LA Ü

@:A @:A @:A
For the service limit state with Eq. 6.10. the following equation is used:
4% = ":+: · 7LA + ":+: · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("LA + ":+: · ,< &$5; · B&$5;LA
The results of the equations above for the two cases are summarized in Table E3.
Table E3. Obtained design loads for this cross-section and wall for the two cases.
Cross-section A outer wall ULS – STR ULS – GEO SLS Unit
Design load for case 1 6.10a) 523 445 384 kN/m
6.10b) 485
Design load for case 2 6.10a) 593 515 435 kN/m
6.10b) 561
The largest value is the chosen design load, which for the outer wall in section A is 523 kN/m
for case 1 and 593 kN/m for case 2.
112
APPENDIX E
2.2 Calculations for the design load in the heart wall

Cross-section A heart wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7L@ 445.83 499.15 kN/m
Variable residential load B2'&#%'$8#("L@ 69.6 116 kN/m
Variable snow load B&$5;L@ 9.3 9.3 kN/m
gives for the first equation, 6.10a, in ULS that the following equation is used:
(1) 4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7L@ + "9 ( · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("L@ + "9 ( · ,< &$5; ·
=>? =>? =>?
B&$5;L@ Ü
(2) 4% = "/ · Ö' · "4 ( · 7L@ + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("L@ + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;L@ Ü
=>? =>? =>?
4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7L@ + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("L@ + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;L@ Ü

@:A @:A @:A
4% = ":+: · 7L@ + ":+: · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("L@ + ":+: · ,< &$5; · B&$5;L@
Cross-section A heart wall ULS – STR ULS – GEO SLS Unit
6.10a) 683
Design load for case 1 596 500 kN/m
6.10b) 648
6.10a) 804
6.10b) 782
The largest value is the chosen design load, which for the heart wall in section A is 683 kN/m for
case 1 and 804 kN/m for case 2.
113
APPENDIX E
3. Cross-section B
3.1 Calculations for the design load in the outer wall
Cross-section B outer wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7NA 441.76 486.5 kN/m
Variable residential load B2'&#%'$8#("NA 54 90 kN/m
Variable snow load B&$5;NA 7.2 7.2 kN/m
gives for the first equation, 6.10a, in ULS that following equation is used:
(1) 4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7NA + "9 ( · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("NA + "9 ( · ,< &$5; ·
=>? =>? =>?
B&$5;NA Ü
(2) 4% = "/ · Ö' · "4 ( · 7NA + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("NA + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;NA Ü
=>? =>? =>?
4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7NA + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("NA + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;NA Ü

@:A @:A @:A
4% = ":+: · 7NA + ":+: · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("NA + ":+: · ,< &$5; · B&$5;NA
Cross-section B outer wall ULS – STR ULS – GEO SLS Unit
6.10a) 660
6.10b) 618
6.10a) 758
6.10b) 726
The largest value is the chosen design load, which for the outer wall in section B is 660 kN/m for
114
APPENDIX E
3.2 Calculations for the design load on the heart wall

Cross-section B heart wall Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Permanent load 7N@ 429.86 481.2 kN/m
Variable residential load B2'&#%'$8#("N@ 66 110 kN/m
Variable snow load B&$5;N@ 8.8 8.8 kN/m
gives for the first equation, 6.10a, in ULS that the following equation is used:
(1) 4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7N@ + "9 ( · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("N@ + "9 ( · ,< &$5; ·
=>? =>? =>?
B&$5;N@ Ü
(2) 4% = "/ · Ö' · "4 ( · 7N@ + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("N@ + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;N@ Ü
=>? =>? =>?
4% = "/ · Ö"4 ( · 7N@ + "9 ( · B2'&#%'$8#("N@ + "9 ( · ,< &$5; · B&$5;N@ Ü

@:A @:A @:A
4% = ":+: · 7N@ + ":+: · ,< #)75&'% · B2'&#%'$8#("N@ + ":+: · ,< &$5; · B&$5;N@
Cross-section B heart wall ULS – STR ULS – GEO SLS Unit
6.10a) 658
6.10b) 623
6.10a) 773
6.10b) 751
The largest value is the chosen design load, which for the outer wall in section B is 658 kN/m for
115
APPENDIX E
4. Summary of the design loads acting on each wall in each cross-

section
Two tables of all the values obtained for each part are summarized in Table E10 for case 1 and
Table E11 for case 2.
Table E10. Summarized table for obtained design loads for case 1 for each wall.
ULS ULS SLS
Wall Unit
Structural Geotechnical Structural & Geotechnical
A1 523 445 384 kN/m
A2 683 596 500 kN/m
B1 660 568 484 kN/m
B2 658 573 481 kN/m
Table E11. Summarized table for obtained design loads for case 2 for each wall.
ULS ULS SLS
Wall Unit
Structural Geotechnical Structural & Geotechnical
A1 593 515 435 kN/m
A2 804 719 586 kN/m
B1 758 667 554 kN/m
B2 773 691 563 kN/m
116
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX F
Calculations of geotechnical reinforcement methods
1. Input data
Table F1. Input data and properties in the foundation program provided by SSAB.
Properties Symbol Magnitude Unit Reference
Pile dimension outer 25.8'2 219.1 or 169.3 mm Appendix A, part 7a
Pile dimension thickness 28=#-C$'&& 12.5 or 10 mm Appendix A, part 7a
Steel grade of pile 66% 440 MPa Appendix A, part 7a
Corrosion thickness 2-5225&#5$ 2.2 mm Appendix A, part 7b
Class of concrete filling 0 C30/37 - Appendix A, part 7b
Creep coefficient + 2 - Appendix A, part 7b
Undrained shear
strength 1.C 10 kPa Appendix A, part 7c
Partial factor for
undrained shear strength "-. 1.4 - Appendix A, part 7c
Coefficient of modulus of
subgrade reaction - 58.8 - Appendix A, part 7c
Coefficient of extreme
value of lateral resistance . 6.6 - Appendix A, part 7c
Initial deflection %1 <-2 /300 mm Appendix A, part 7c

Number of splices each
?&7"#-'& 4 Pcs Appendix A, part 7c
steel pipe
Geotechnical carrying
?"'3'" Level 3 - Appendix A, part 7d
capacity verification level
Amount of piles that are
PDA measured ?K/L Min. 3 & 10 % Pcs Appendix A, part 7d
A software provided by SSAB are used for numerical calculations. This program takes short or
long-term into consideration, along with the design value for the undrained shear strength and the
actual thickness of the pile due to corrosion. From the Table F1, the given data are used as input
in the program RRCalcPile that SSAB provided. With initial deflection of a pile set to the worst
case, the program calculates the structural bearing capacity that a pile can have for both ultimate
limit state and service limit state, along with the geotechnical bearing capacity. The value that is the
lowest of the two in the ultimate limit state is the dimensioned bearing capacity that the pile has.
Two different graphs are provided, one with the capacity as a function of deflection (Figure F1a)
and one with the buckling length visualized (Figure F1b).
117
APPENDIX F
a) b)
Figure F1. One tested pile with a) the capacity as a function of deflection and b) buckling length SSAB (2019).
The program has a function called Advanced FEM, where the finite element method is testing
the pile divided into small parts dependent on its total installed length. This is to ensure that it
can carry the load with the second order moment taken into consideration along with the
inserted soil strata sequence. This gives sinus curve thus, where the axial load is tested in the
program due to buckling. The horizontal load can also be tested in this function if the pile would
be exposed to one.
Four different transfer methods are provided from Chapter 8. These methods are tested for each
cross-section to obtain how many piles that are required dependent on the method with the
design loads from Chapter 7 (Table F2) and the obtained bearing capacities provided by the
program.
Table F2. Design loads for each cross-section and wall.

Cross-section and wall A1 A2 B1 B2 Unit
Design loads for case 1 523 683 660 658 kN/m
Design loads for case 2 593 804 758 773 kN/m
The analytical calculations are checked to ensure that the design load, 4% , for each pile is less
than the bearing capacity of each pile, á% . It is verified with the equation: 4% ≤ á%
Each pile has a certain bearing capacity that is carried out in the program depending on the
dimension of it. The different bearing capacities obtained from the program for the two tested
dimensions RD220/12.5 and RD170/10 are presented in Table F3.
Table F3. Bearing capacities obtained in RRPileCalc for two different dimensions.
Bearing capacity RD220/12.5 RD170/10 Unit
ULS – structural bearing capacity 1689 980 kN
ULS – geotechnical bearing capacity 2053 1258 kN
SLS – STR and GEO bearing capacity 1581 918 kN
Buckling length due to the dimension 5.8 4.4 m
These bearing capacities for the two dimensions are checked towards the axial force that the pile
carries with a determined degree of utilization to 75 %. The axial force is calculated with an
118
APPENDIX F
iterative calculation to ensure that the normal force that is distributed to the pile is lower than the
value with 75 % of the bearing capacity. Therefore, these values need to be less than 1267 kN for
RD220/12.5 and 735 kN for RD170/10. To determine the normal axial force, the spacing
between the piles is required. These maximum distances depend on the material of the wall
(Table F4).
Table F4. Maximum and minimum spacing for walls with different materials and openings.
Center distances Maximum Minimum
Dry stone wall with full niche 2–3 m 0.5 - 1 m
0.8 for RD220
Dry stone wall with half a niche 2–3 m m
0.6 for RD170
0.8 for RD220
Masonry wall 1.5 – 2 m m
0.6 for RD170
The amount of piles is determined with the depth of the wall that the load is acting on divided by
the maximum center distance, as follows:
!
Cross-section A: ?7#"'& = --
%
Cross-section B: ?7#"'& = --
The amount of piles is rounded upwards to an integer. The design load for each wall is multiplied
with the width or depth of the wall where the load is acting and then divided by the amount of
piles, to obtain the axial force acting in one pile for each specific wall.
I · !
Cross-section A: > = $ 6
93"('
I6 · %
Cross-section B: > =
$93"('
This axial force is then inserted in the program and run with the function called Advanced FEM,
to expose the pile to second order moment to obtain if the force is small enough. The pile is
tested for the cross-sectional material capacity and the instability due to buckling capacity.
If the cross-sectional material capacity is not enough, the program does not proceed with the
calculations. This part is therefore, iteratively calculated. If the axial normal force is too large, one
pile is added to each case and a new axial normal force is calculated. This is tested in the program
and if the program continues to run without interruption, the force is small enough to be carried
by the pile.
Another parameter which needs to be considered is the geometric requirement. The different
transfer methods have different geometric requirements for each cross-section and each wall.
The amount of piles is necessary to be an uneven or an even number to place them correctly and
realistically (Table F5 to Table F8). Which may give an added pile before running the program.
Table F5. Geometric amount due to the method used on wall A1.
Wall: A1 Method 1 Method 2 & 4
No. of distribution points required Uneven amount Uneven amount
No. of piles required Uneven amount Even amount
119
APPENDIX F
Table F6. Geometric amount due to the method used on wall A2.
Wall: A2 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3
No. of distribution points required Uneven amount Uneven amount Uneven amount
No. of piles required Uneven amount Even amount Even amount
Table F7. Geometric amount due to the method used on wall B1.
Wall: B1 Method 1 Method 2 & 4
No. of distribution points required Even amount Even amount
No. of piles required Even amount Even amount
Table F8. Geometric amount due to the method used on wall B2.
Wall: B2 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3
No. of distribution points required Even amount Even amount Even amount
No. of piles required Even amount Even amount Even amount
To exemplify the even and uneven amount of piles and distribution points, the Figure F3 and
Figure F4 can illustrate the different locations of the walls. Where the walls with its depth in
cross-section B, due to geometric reasons needs to have an even distribution of points for both
sides, due to a heart wall placed in the middle. The walls with its depth in cross-section A need
uneven amount of piles, due to the two transverse heart walls, where one pile is needed to be
placed between them.
a) b)
Figure F3. The walls placed in a) cross-section A and b) cross-section B.
Figure F4. Cross-section C.
120
APPENDIX F
2. Case 1: The existing building

2.1 Cross-section A with dimension RD220/12.5
For the first cross-section and outer walls, the following parts are obtained through the
calculations explained above (Table F9).
Table F9. Results of calculations for RD220/12.5 for methods subjected on wall A1.
Case 1 - A1 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Design load 523 523 kN/m
75 % of bearing capacity 1267 1267 kN
No. of piles rounded up 10 7 Pcs
Normal force 1045 1493 kN
Is the normal force less than Yes No → add pile -
maximum bearing capacity?
Adding extra piles - 7+1=8 Pcs
New normal force - 1307 kN
Meet geometric requirements? No → add pile No → add pile -
Adding extra piles 10 + 1 = 11 8 + 2 = 10 Pcs
New normal force 950 1045 kN
Meet all requirements? Yes Yes -
Chosen amount of piles 11 10 Pcs
Chosen calculated normal force 950 1045 kN
Calculated average center distance 1.82 2.00 m
Chosen calculated installed meters 231 210 m
For the first cross-section and heart walls, the following parts are obtained through the
Case 1 - A2 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
Design load 683 683 683 kN/m
75 % of bearing capacity 1267 1267 1267 kN
No. of piles rounded up 10 10 10 Pcs
Normal force 1367 1367 1367 kN
Is the normal force less than No → add No → add pile No → add pile -
maximum bearing capacity? pile
Adding extra piles 10 + 1 = 11 10 + 1 = 11 10 + 1 = 11 Pcs
New normal force 1242 1242 1242 kN
Meet geometric requirements? Yes No → add pile No → add pile -
Adding extra piles - 11 + 3 = 14 11 + 3 = 14 Pcs
New normal force - 976 976 kN
Meet all requirements? Yes Yes Yes -
Chosen amount of piles 11 14 14 Pcs
Chosen calculated normal force 1242 976 976 kN
Calculated average center distance 1.82 1.43 1.43 m
Chosen calculated installed meters 231 294 294 m
121
APPENDIX F
2.2 Cross-section B with dimension RD220/12.5

For the second cross-section and outer walls, the following parts are obtained through the
Table F11. Results of calculations for RD220/12.5 for methods subjected on wall B1.
Case 1 - B1 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Is the normal force less than No → add pile No → add pile -
Adding extra piles 6+1=7 4+3=7 Pcs
For the second cross-section and heart walls, the following parts are obtained through the
Case 1 - B2 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
Is the normal force less than No → add pile No → add pile No → add pile -
Adding extra piles 6+1=7 6+1=7 6+1=7 Pcs
Meet geometric requirements? No → add pile No → add pile No → add pile -
122
APPENDIX F
2.3 Cross-section A with dimension RD170/10

Table F13. Results of calculations for RD170/10 for methods subjected on wall A1.
Case 1 - A1 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Meet geometric requirements? Yes No → add pile -
Adding extra piles - 15 + 3 = 18 Pcs
Case 1 - A2 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
123
APPENDIX F
2.4 Cross-section B with dimension RD170/10

Table F15. Results of calculations for RD170/10 for methods subjected on wall B1.
Case 1 - B1 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Case 1 - B2 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
124
APPENDIX F
3. Case 2: The total building

3.1 Cross-section A with dimension RD220/12.5
Case 2 - A1 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Is the normal force less than Yes No → add pile -
Meet geometric requirements? No → add pile Yes -
Adding extra piles 10 + 1 = 11 - Pcs
New normal force 1079 - kN
Case 2 - A2 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
125
APPENDIX F
3.2 Cross-section B with dimension RD220/12.5

Case 2 - B1 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Is the normal force less than maximum No → add pile No → add pile -
bearing capacity?
Case 2 - B2 for RD220/12.5 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
Meet geometric requirements? Yes Yes Yes -
Adding extra piles - - - Pcs
New normal force - - - kN
126
APPENDIX F
3.3 Cross-section A with dimension RD170/10
Case 2 - A1 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Meet geometric requirements? Yes No → add pile -
Case 2 - A2 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
127
APPENDIX F
3.4 Cross-section B with dimension RD170/10

Case 2 - B1 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Unit
Meet geometric requirements? Yes Yes -
Adding extra piles - - Pcs
New normal force - - kN
Case 2 - B2 for RD170/10 Method 1 Method 2 & 4 Method 3 Unit
128
APPENDIX F
4. Summary of the two cases

Table F25. Amount of piles and installed meters for RD220/12.5 piles for case 1.
Wall Outer Heart
Method 1 2 4 1 2 3 4
11 piles 10 piles 10 piles 11 piles 14 piles 14 piles 14 piles
950 kN 1045 kN 1045 kN 1242 kN 976 kN 976 kN 976 kN
CS A
1.82 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 1.82 m 1.43 m 1.43 m 1.43 m
231 m 210 m 210 m 231 m 294 m 294 m 294 m
956 kN 956 kN 956 kN 953 kN 953 kN 953 kN 953 kN
CS B
1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m
168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m
Table F26. Amount of piles and installed meters for RD170/10 piles for case 1.
Wall Outer Heart
Method 1 2 4 1 2 3 4
697 kN 581 kN 581 kN 719 kN 621 kN 621 kN 621 kN
CS A
1.33 m 1.11 m 1.11 m 1.05 m 0.91 m 0.91 m 0.91 m
315 m 378 m 378 m 399 m 462 m 462 m 462 m
638 kN 638 kN 638 kN 636 kN 636 kN 636 kN 636 kN
CS B
0.97 m 0.97 m 0.97 m 0.97 m 0.97 m 0.97 m 0.97 m
252 m 252 m 252 m 252 m 252 m 252 m 252 m
Table F27. Amount of piles and installed meters for RD220/12.5 piles for case 2.
Wall Outer Heart
Method 1 2 4 1 2 3 4
1079 kN 1186 kN 1186 kN 1237 kN 1149 kN 1149 kN 1149 kN
CS A
1.82 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 1.54 m 1.43 m 1.43 m 1.43 m
231 m 210 m 210 m 273 m 294 m 294 m 294 m
1099 kN 1099 kN 1099 kN 1121 kN 1121 kN 1121 kN 1121 kN
CS B
1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m 1.45 m
168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m 168 m
Table F28. Amount of piles and installed meters for RD170/10 piles for case 2.
Wall Outer Heart
Method 1 2 4 1 2 3 4
698 kN 659 kN 659 kN 699 kN 731 kN 731 kN 731 kN
CS A
1.18 m 1.11 m 1.11 m 0.87 m 0.91 m 0.91 m 0.91 m
357 m 378 m 378 m 483 m 462 m 462 m 462 m
732 kN 732 kN 732 kN 641 kN 560 kN 560 kN 560 kN
CS B
0.97 m 0.97 m 0.97 m 0.83 m 0.73 m 0.73 m 0.73 m
252 m 252 m 252 m 294 m 336 m 336 m 336 m
129
130
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
Cost calculations for geotechnical reinforcement methods
1. Case 1: The existing building

The dimensions for a pile of type RD220/12.5 and RD170/10 (Table G1). All costs are given in
Appendix A, Part 8.
Table G1. Dimensions of a RD220-pile and a RD170/10.

Pile Diameter [mm] Length [m]
RD220/12.5 219.1 21
RD170/10.0 168.3 21
1.1 Method 1: Full niche
The number of piles and the installed pile lengths for each wall and each pile are given in Chapter
8 (Table G2) (Table G3). The dimensions of one full niche (Table G4).
Table G2. The number of piles and the installed pile length for each wall for RD220/12.5.
Piles per Total piles per Installed Total installed meter
Wall Unit Unit
wall cross-section meter per wall per cross-section
Wall A1 11 22 Pcs 231 462 m
Wall A2 11 11 Pcs 231 231 m
Wall B1 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Wall B2 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Table G3. The number of piles and the installed pile length for each wall for RD170/10.
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A1 15 30 Pcs 315 630 m
Wall A2 19 19 Pcs 399 399 m
Wall B1 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
Wall B2 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
Table G4. The dimensions for one full niche.

Height [m] Width [m] Depth [m] Area [m2] Volume [m3]
Full niche 2.20 0.80 1.00 1.76 1.76
-$#-=' = 93Ç8ℎH$#-=' ∙ LÇ2Hℎ$#-=' = 1.76 R@

I$#-=' = -$#-=' ∙ à3âHℎ$#-=' = 1.76 RT
Wall A1
The volume for sawing and demolishing the niches is calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 38.72 RT

RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 52.80 RT
The number of penetrations through rust bed and planks is equal to the total amount of piles.
131
APPENDIX F
The welding work of the top plate and ring bit together with the top plate itself have a cost per
pile. The quantity is therefore, set to the total amount of piles for each activity. The cost for the
RD-pile is set to the total installed pile meter, which is 462 m for RD220/12.5 and 630 m for
RD170/10. The same quantity is set for the rent of the pilot. The activity of cutting micro piles
occurs two times per pile. The rent of the hammer is given as a cost per day, where the duration
is the required amount of time with four added days to consider preparation and decommission.
The process of drilling and filling the piles with concrete is set to the total installed pile meter.
The total quantity of piles which needs to be controlled is set to the total amount of piles. The
casting of the niches is set to the total volume of niches, which was calculated above to 38.72 m3
for RD220/12.5 and to 52.80 m3 for RD170/10. The costs for establishment include
establishment, decommission and transport. These activities are only done once. The activities
are assumed to last during two working days, which requires staff for 16 hours.
The same process is used when the quantities for the rest of the walls are calculated. The number
of piles and the total installed pile length are changed in accordance to Table G2 and Table G3.
Wall A2
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 19.36 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ V$#-=' = 33.44 RT
Wall B1
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 28.16 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 42.24 RT
Wall B2
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 28.16 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 42.24 RT
Total quantities
The quantities are summarized in Table G5 and Table G6 for each wall and each pile dimension.
Table G5. Total quantities for each wall for RD220/12.5.

Activity Wall A1 Wall A2 Wall B1 Wall B2 Unit
Sawing and demolition
Sawing and demolition of full niche 38.72 19.36 28.16 28.16 m3
Penetration
Penetration through rust bed and planks 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 462 231 336 336 m
Cutting of micro pile 220/12.5 mm 44 22 32 32 Pcs
Welding of top plate 220/12.5 mm 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 220/12.5 mm 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Top plate 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 462 231 336 336 m
Rent of hammer 26 15 20 20 Day
Drilling
Drilling of pile 220/12.5 mm 462 231 336 336 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 220/12.5 mm with concrete 462 231 336 336 m
132
APPENDIX F
Controls
Stop-driving 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Staff for stop-driving: Machine operator 22 11 16 16 Hour
Straightness measuring 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Staff for straightness measuring: Machine operator 22 11 16 16 Hour
Ultrasonic testing of weld 22 11 16 16 Pcs
Casting
Casting of full niche 38.72 19.36 28.16 28.16 m3
Establishment
High pressure water pump 1 1 1 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, decommission: Pile trailer 1 1 1 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, decommission: Low loader 1 1 1 1 Occasion
Staff: Machine operator 16 16 16 16 Hour
Table G6. Total quantities for each wall for RD170/10.

Penetration
Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 630 399 504 504 m
Cutting of micro pile 170/10 mm 60 38 48 48 Pcs
Welding of top plate 170/10 mm 30 19 24 24 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 170/10 mm 30 19 24 24 Pcs
Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 630 399 504 504 m
Drilling
Drilling of pile 170/10 mm 630 399 504 504 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 170/10 mm with concrete 630 399 504 504 m
Controls
Casting
Establishment
Total cost
To find the total cost of each activity, the cost per piece is multiplied with the total quantity for
each activity. The total cost for each activity is summed up and a total cost for each wall,
respectively, is obtained for RD220/125 (Table G7) and for RD170/10 (Table G8).
133
APPENDIX F
Table G7. Total cost for each wall when using RD220/12.5 and method 1.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 3 704 504 SEK
Wall A2 1 867 981 SEK
Wall B1 2 702 764 SEK
Wall B2 2 702 764 SEK
Table G8. Total cost for each wall when using RD170/10 and method 1.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 4 964 558 SEK
Wall A2 3 155 754 SEK
Wall B1 3 977 938 SEK
Wall B2 3 977 938 SEK
1.2 Method 2: Ground beam with a half a niche

The number of piles and the installed pile lengths for each wall and each pile are given by
Chapter 8 (Table G9 and Table G10).
Piles per Total piles per Installed meter Total installed meter
Wall Unit Unit
wall cross-section per wall per cross-section
Wall A1 10 20 Pcs 210 420 m
Wall A2 14 14 Pcs 294 294 m
Wall B1 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Wall B2 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Total piles per Installed meter Total installed meter
Wall Piles per wall Unit Unit
cross-section per wall per cross-section
Wall A1 18 36 Pcs 378 756 m
Wall A2 22 22 Pcs 462 462 m
Wall B1 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
Wall B2 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
The dimensions for the ground beams, the half a niche in the outer walls and the required hole in
the heart walls and are valid for both pile dimension (Table G11). The inner distance between the
walls is used to determine the length of the ground beams (Figure G1).
a) b)
Figure G1. The distance between the walls in a) cross-section A and in b) cross-section B.
134
APPENDIX F
Table G11. Dimensions of the ground beams, one half a niche and one hole.
Height [m] Width [m] Length [m] Volume [m3]
Ground beam: Wall A1 0.8 0.8 2.325 1.49
Ground beam: Wall A2 0.8 0.8 4.650 2.98
Ground beam: Wall B1 0.8 0.8 3.925 2.51
Ground beam: Wall B2 0.8 0.8 4.625 2.96
Half a niche 0.8 0.8 0.733 0.47
Hole 0.8 0.8 0.600 0.38
I125.$% !'(),LA = 93Ç8ℎHLA ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 1.49 RT

I125.$% !'(),L@ = 93Ç8ℎHL@ ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 2.98 RT
I125.$% !'(),NA = 93Ç8ℎHNA ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 2.51 RT
I125.$% !'(),N@ = 93Ç8ℎHN@ ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 2.96 RT
I=("0$#-=' = 93Ç8ℎH=("0$#-=' ∙ LÇ2Hℎ=("0$#-=' ∙ <3?8Hℎ=("0$#-=' = 0.47 RT

I=5"' = 93Ç8ℎH=5"' ∙ LÇ2Hℎ=5"' ∙ <3?8Hℎ=5"' = 0.38 RT
Wall A1
The total quantity for demolishing the 0.2 m thick existing concrete floor are calculated as the
total amount of half a niche times the cross-section area of the ground beam:
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 37.20 R@

RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 66.96 R@
The demolition of dry-stone wall is equal to the total amount of piles multiplied with the volume
of one half a niche. The total volume is calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 9.39 RT

RD170/10: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 16.90 RT
Since the ground beam requires a height of 0.8 m and only 0.2 m existing concrete floor has been
excavated, an excavation of 0.6 m thick soil is required. The volume is calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 22.32 RT

RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ WÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 40.18 RT
Regarding the casting of the ground beams and the half niches, the cost is given in m3. This
corresponds to the total volume, which is determined by the sum of the total volume for the
ground beam and the total volume for the half a niche, which is calculated to:
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),LA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 39.15 RT

RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),LA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 70.46 RT
of piles and the total installed pile meter are changed in accordance to Table G9 and Table G10.
Wall A2
The number of holes in the heart wall is set to 7 for RD220/12.5 and 11 for RD170/10, which is
equal to the number of beams and in turn, equal to the total amount of piles divided by two.
135
APPENDIX F
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 26.04 R@

RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 2.69 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 15.62 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 23.52 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 40.92 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 4.22 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858`",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 24.55 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 36.96 RT
Wall B1
The number of half a niche in the outer walls is equal to the number of piles for both
RD220/12.5 and RD170/10, respectively.
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 50.24 R@

RD220/12.5: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 7.51 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 30.14 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),NA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 47.70 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 75.36 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 11.26 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 45.22 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),NA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 71.55 RT
Wall B2
The number of holes in the heart walls is set to 8 for RD220/12.5 and to 12 for RD170/10.
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 29.60 R@

RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 3.07 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 17.76 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),N@ + I858(",=5"'& = 26.75 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 44.40 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 4.61 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 26.64 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),N@ + I858(",=5"'& = 40.13 RT
Total quantities
The quantities for each wall are summarized in Table G12 and Table G13 for each wall and pile.

Demolition of 0.2 m thick existing concrete floor on ground 37.20 26.04 50.24 29.60 m2
Demolition of masonry wall 0 2.69 0 3.07 m3
Demolition of dry-stone wall 9.39 0 7.51 0 m3
136
APPENDIX F
Excavation of soil 22.32 15.62 30.14 17.76 m3

Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 420 294 336 336 m
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 420 294 336 336 m
Drilling
Filling of pile
Controls
Casting
Casting of ground beams 39.15 23.52 47.70 26.75 m3
Reinforcement including staff 39.15 23.52 47.70 26.75 m3
Establishment

Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 756 462 504 504 m
Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 756 462 504 504 m
Drilling
Filling of pile
Controls
137
APPENDIX F

Casting
Establishment
Transport, establishment, liquidation: Pile trailer 1 1 1 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, liquidation: Low loader 1 1 1 1 Occasion
Total cost
The cost for each wall is calculated with the same method as for the full niche, for both
RD220/12.5 (Table G14) and RD170/10 (Table G15).
Table G14. Total cost for each wall when using RD220/12.5 and method 2.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 2 469 146 SEK
Wall A2 1 440 756 SEK
Wall B1 2 210 882 SEK
Wall B2 1 640 293 SEK
Table G15. Total cost for each wall when using RD170/10 and method 2.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 4 328 577 SEK
Wall A2 2 190 629 SEK
Wall B1 3 240 115 SEK
Wall B2 2 384 231 SEK
1.3 Method 3: Yoke beam
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A2 14 14 Pcs 294 294 m
Wall B2 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A2 22 22 Pcs 462 462 m
Wall B2 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
138
APPENDIX F
This method requires holes in the heart walls to make space for the yoke beams. It also requires
an excavation of the existing floor and soil to make space for both the yoke beams and the beams
longitudinal with the wall. The beams consist of steel and needs to be casted in with concrete.
The dimensions of the hole in the heart wall (Table G18) and the dimensions for the concrete
beams longitudinal with the wall (Table G19 and Table G20) are presented below.
Table G18. Dimensions of the holes in the heart walls.

Diameter [m] Cross-section area [m2] Volume [m3]
Hole 0.410 0.132 0.079
àÇ!R3H3å=5"' @ @
-=5"' = h i ∙ ç = 0.132 R@
2
I=5"' = 93Ç8ℎH=5"' ∙ LÇ2Hℎ=5"' ∙ <3?8Hℎ=5"' = 0.079 RT
Table G19. Dimensions of the longitudinal concrete beams for pile RD220/12.5.
Wall Height Unit Width Unit Length Unit Volume Unit
Wall A2 0.68 m 0.50 m 5.72 m 1.95 m3
Wall B2 0.68 m 0.50 m 2.90 m 0.99 m3
Table G20. Dimensions of the longitudinal concrete beams for pile RD170/10.
Wall A2 0.68 m 0.50 m 7.28 m 2.48 m3
Wall B2 0.68 m 0.50 m 3.88 m 1.32 m3
RD220/12.5: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ = 93Ç8ℎHL@ ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 1.95 RT

RD220/12.5: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),N@ = 93Ç8ℎHN@ ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 0.99 RT
RD170/10: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ = 93Ç8ℎHL@ ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 2.48 RT
RD170/10: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),N@ = 93Ç8ℎHN@ ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 1.32 RT
The lengths of the longitudinal beams are determined through the determined average center
distance between the piles, given in Chapter 8. The center distance regards the spacing between
the total amount of piles, which needs to be multiplied with 2, since half the total amount of piles
is located on each side of the wall. For wall A2 and pile RD220/12.5, the center distance is
determined to 1.43 m in Chapter 8 and the final distance to 2.86 m. Since wall A2 requires 14
piles in total, one yoke beam needs to connect 2 piles between the walls B2, and 6 yoke beams
needs to connect 12 piles at the rest of the wall. Due to symmetry, 3 yokes beams connect 6 piles
at each sides of the walls B2, which in turn, requires 4 longitudinal beams of length 5.72 m. The
number of yoke beams and the numbers of holes in the heart wall is therefore, set to 7.
For wall A2 and pile RD170/10, the center distance is determined to 0.91 m and the final
distance to 1.82 m. Due to this, 4 longitudinal beams with length 7.28 m are required. The
number of yoke beams and the numbers of holes in the heart walls is set to 11.
The center distance is determined to 1.45 m for wall B2 and pile RD220/12.5 and the final
distance to 2.90 m. The required number of total piles is set to 16. This leads to a need of 8 yoke
beams that connects 16 piles in total, 2 yoke beams and 4 piles on respective wall B2 and on
respective side of wall A2. In turn, this gives 8 longitudinal beams with length 2.90 m.
For wall B2 and pile RD170/10, the center distance is set to 0.97 m and the final one to 1.94 m.
The required number of piles is set to 24, which gives 12 yoke beams. This in turn, gives 8
139
APPENDIX F
longitudinal beams with a length of 3.88 m. The longitudinal beams consist of HEB220 and the
yoke beams consist of HEB260. The data is summarized in Table G21 and Table G22.
Table G21. Dimensions of the longitudinal steel beams for RD220/12.5.

Length Number of Number of Number
Wall longitudinal Unit longitudinal Unit holes in Unit of yoke Unit
beam beams heart wall beams
Wall A2 5.72 m 4 Pcs 7 Pcs 7 Pcs
Wall B2 2.90 m 8 Pcs 8 Pcs 8 Pcs
Table G22. Dimensions of the longitudinal steel beams for RD170/10.

Wall A2
The total quantity for demolition of the 0.2 m thick existing concrete floor are calculated as:
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 11.44 R@

RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 14.56 R@
The total volume of demolition of masonry to make space for the yoke beam through the heart
wall is calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.55 RT

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.87 RT
Since the excavation requires a height of 0.68 m and only 0.2 m existing concrete floor has been
excavated, an excavation of 0.48 m thick soil is required. The volume of the excavation is
calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 5.49 RT

RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 6.99 RT
The costs for the steel beams are given per meter and the quantity for each steel beam are
calculated by multiplication of the length of the beam with the numbers of beams. 2 welders are
required and needs 2 hours each per beam, which gives the total time of 4 hours per beam. The
total time is therefore, multiplied with the numbers of beams.
Regarding the casting, the cost is given in m3 and the volume corresponds to the space where the
beams are located. The volume is determined by the sum of the volume for the longitudinal
beams and of the volume for the holes, which is calculated to:
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 8.33 RT

RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 10.77 RT
140
APPENDIX F
Wall B2
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 11.60 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.63 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 5.57 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 8.52 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 15.52 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.95 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 7.45 RT
RD170/10: I85a(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 11.50 RT
Total quantities
The quantities for each wall are summarized in Table G23 and Table G24 for each wall and pile.

Activity Wall A2 Wall B2 Unit
Demolition of 0.2 m thick existing concrete floor on ground 11.44 11.60 m2
Demolition of masonry wall 0.55 0.63 m3
Excavation of soil 5.49 5.57 m3
Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 294 336 m
Cutting of micro pile 220/12.5 mm 28 32 Pcs
Welding of top plate 220/12.5 mm 14 16 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 220/12.5 mm 14 16 Pcs
Top plate 14 16 Pcs
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 294 336 m
Rent of hammer 18 20 Day
Drilling
Drilling of pile 220/12.5 mm 294 336 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 220/12.5 mm with concrete 294 336 m
Controls
Stop-driving 14 16 Pcs
Staff for stop-driving: Machine operator 14 16 Hour
Straightness measuring 14 16 Pcs
Staff for straightness measuring: Machine operator 14 16 Hour
Ultrasonic testing of weld 14 16 Pcs
Yoke-beam
HEB220 longitudinal beam 22.88 23.20 m
HEB260 yoke beam 9.80 11.20 m
Staff: Welder 44 64 Hour
Casting
Casting of beam 8.33 8.52 m3
Establishment
High pressure water pump 1 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, decommission: Pile trailer 1 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, decommission: Low loader 1 1 Occasion
Staff: Machine operator 16 16 Hour
141
APPENDIX F

Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 462 504 m
Cutting of micro pile 170/10 mm 44 48 Pcs
Welding of top plate 170/10 mm 22 24 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 170/10 mm 22 24 Pcs
Top plate 22 24 Pcs
Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 462 504 m
Drilling
Drilling of pile 170/10 mm 462 504 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 170/10 mm with concrete 462 504 m
Controls
Yoke-beam
Casting
Establishment
Total cost
The cost for each wall is calculated with the same methodology as for the first and the second
method and are summarized for RD220/12.5 (Table G25) and for RD170/10 (Table G26).
Table G25. Total cost for each wall when using RD220/12.5 in method 3.
Wall Total cost
Wall A2 1 687 253 SEK
Wall B2 1 883 145 SEK
Table G26. Total costs for respectively wall when using RD170/10 in method 3.
Wall Total cost
Wall A2 2 457 158 SEK
Wall B2 2 674 905 SEK
142
APPENDIX F
1.4 Method 4: Slab with half a niche
Table G27. The number of piles and the installed pile length for RD220/12.5.
Wall Total piles Unit Total installed meter Unit
Wall A1 & Wall B1 36 Pcs 756 m
All walls 66 Pcs 1 386 m
Table G28. The number of piles and the installed pile length for RD170/10.
Wall A1 & Wall B1 60 Pcs 1 260 m
All walls 106 Pcs 2 226 m
This method requires holes in the heart walls and a longitudinal half a niche along the outer walls.
The existing concrete floor needs to be removed along with the underlying soil to make space for
the slab. The dimensions of one hole in the heart wall and the inner dimensions for the slab
(Figure G1) is presented in Table G29 and Table G30.
Table G29. Dimensions of the holes in the heart walls.

Height [m] Width [m] Length [m] Volume [m3]
Hole 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.384
I=5"' = 93Ç8ℎH=5"' ∙ LÇ2Hℎ=5"' ∙ <3?8Hℎ=5"' = 0.384 RT
Table G30. Inner dimensions of the concrete slab.

Height [m] Width [m] Length [m] Area [m2]
Slab 0.8 9.3 17.1 159.03
-#$$'2,&"(! = LÇ2Hℎ#$$'2,&"(! ∙ <3?8Hℎ#$$'2,&"(! = 159.03 R@

The required number of holes in the heart walls are set to the total amount of piles for the heart
walls divided by two. For pile RD220/12.5, the number of holes is set to 15 and for pile
RD170/10, the number of holes is set to 23.
The longitudinal half a niche required in the outer walls has a width of 2/3 times the dry-stone
wall thickness, which is equal to 0.73 m. The height is set to the same height as the slab. The
length of the half a niche is determined to 9.9 m in cross-section A and to 18.3 m in cross-section
B (Figure G2). The dimensions of the longitudinal half’s niches are presented in Table G31.
143
APPENDIX F
a) b)
Figure G2. The distance between the walls in a) cross-section A and in b) cross-section B.
Table G31. Dimensions of the longitudinal half’s niches.
Width [m] Height [m] Length [m] Total area [m2]
Cross-section A 0.73 0.8 9.9 14.52
Cross-section B 0.73 0.8 18.3 26.84
-"5$1,$#-=',L = LÇ2Hℎ"5$1,$#-=',L ∙ <3?8Hℎ"5$1,$#-=',L ∙ 2 = 14.52 R@

-"5$1,$#-=',N = LÇ2Hℎ"5$1,$#-=',N ∙ <3?8Hℎ"5$1,$#-=',N ∙ 2 = 26.84 R@
The total volume of the longitudinal half a niche is summed to: -"5$1,$#-=',858 = 41.36 R@
All walls
The total quantity for demolition of the 0.2 m thick existing concrete floor are equal to the area
for the inner slab:
RD220/12.5 and RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = -#$$'2,&"(! = 159.03 R@
The total volume of demolition of masonry to make space for the slab through the heart walls is
calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 5.76 RT

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 8.83 RT
The total volume of demolition of dry-stone wall is calculated as:
RD220/12.5: I858(",=("0$#-=' = -"5$1,$#-=',858 ∙ 93Ç8ℎH"5$1,$#-=',L = 33.09 RT

RD170/10: I858(",=("0$#-=' = -"5$1,$#-=',858 ∙ 93Ç8ℎH"5$1,$#-=',N = 33.09 RT
Since the slab needs to have a height of 0.8 m and only 0.2 m existing concrete floor has been
excavated, an excavation of 0.6 m thick soil is required. The volume of the excavation is
calculated as:
RD220/12.5 and RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = 0.6 ∙ -#$$'2,&"(! = 95.42 RT
Regarding the casting, the cost is given in m3. The volume is determined by the sum of the total
volume of the inner slab, the total volume of the longitudinal half a niche and the total volume of
the holes in the heart walls.
RD220: I858(" = I858(",=("0$#-=' + I858(",=5"'& + -#$$'2,&"(! ∙ 93Ç8ℎH#$$'2,&"(! = 166.7 RT
144
APPENDIX F
RD170: I858(" = I858(",=("0$#-=' + I858(",=5"'& + -#$$'2,&"(! ∙ 93Ç8ℎH#$$'2,&"(! = 169.1 RT
Total quantities
The quantities are summarized in Table G32 and Table G33 for all walls and each pile.
Table G32. Total quantities for all walls and for RD220/12.5.
Activity All walls Unit
Demolition of 0.2 m thick existing concrete floor on ground 159.03 m2
Demolition of masonry wall 5.76 m3
Demolition of dry-stone wall 33.09 m3
Excavation of soil 95.42 m3
Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 1386 m
Cutting of micro pile 220/12.5 mm 132 Pcs
Welding of top plate 220/12.5 mm 66 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 220/12.5 mm 66 Pcs
Top plate 66 Pcs
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 1386 m
Rent of hammer 70 Day
Drilling
Drilling of pile 220/12.5 mm 1386 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 220/12.5 mm with concrete 1386 m
Controls
Stop-driving 66 Pcs
Staff for stop-driving: Machine operator 66 Hour
Straightness measuring 66 Pcs
Staff for straightness measuring: Machine operator 66 Hour
Ultrasonic testing of weld 66 Pcs
Casting
Casting of slab 166.07 m3
Reinforcement including staff 166.07 m3
Establishment
High pressure water pump 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, decommission: Pile trailer 1 Occasion
Transport, establishment, decommission: Low loader 1 Occasion
Staff: Machine operator 16 Hour

145
APPENDIX F
Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 2226 m
Cutting of micro pile 170/10 mm 212 Pcs
Welding of top plate 170/10 mm 106 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 170/10 mm 106 Pcs
Top plate 106 Pcs
Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 2226 m
Drilling
Drilling of pile 170/10 mm 2226 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 170/10 mm with concrete 2226 m
Controls
Stop-driving 106 Pcs
Casting
Establishment
Total cost
The total cost for all walls is presented in Table G34 and Table G35 for both pile dimensions.
Table G34. Total cost for all walls when using RD220/12.5 in method 4.
RD220/12.5 Total cost
All walls 8 669 438 SEK
Table G35. Total costs for all walls when using RD170/10 in method 4.
1.5 Combinations of transfer methods
The combinations of the methods and their costs are presented in Table G36 and Table G37 for
each pile dimension. The slab method can only be combined with itself, therefore, the method is
calculated for all walls in both cross-sections. This gives that it is not possible to divide the cost
per each cross-section or wall. Combination 7 and combination 8, which includes the slab
method on all walls in both cross-sections, is therefore, presented as a total cost for the total
combination below.
146
APPENDIX F
Table G36. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each combination and for RD220/12.5.
Number Installed
Combination Type of wall Cost per method Total cost
of piles meters
Wall A1: Method 1 3 704 504 SEK
Combination 1 5 572 485 SEK 33 Pcs 693 m
Wall B1: Method 1 2 702 764 SEK
Table G37. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each combination and for RD170/10.
Number Installed
of piles meters
147
APPENDIX F
The combinations are combined once again, to a total combination. The total combinations and
their costs are presented for RD220/12.5 in Table G38 and for RD170/10 in Table G39.
Table G38. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each total combination for RD220/12.5.
Number Installed
Cross-section A & B Total cost
of piles meters
Combination 1
Combination 4
Combination 1
Combination 5
Combination 1
Combination 6
Combination 2
Combination 4
Combination 2
Combination 5
Combination 2
Combination 6
Combination 3
Combination 4
Combination 3
Combination 5
Combination 7
Combination 8
Table G39. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each total combination for RD170/10.
Number Installed
of piles meters
Combination 1
Combination 4
Combination 1
Combination 5
Combination 1
Combination 6
Combination 2
Combination 4
Combination 2
Combination 5
Combination 2
Combination 6
Combination 3
Combination 4
Combination 3
Combination 5
Combination 7
Combination 8
148
APPENDIX F
The cost regarding the project organization is given as a cost per day. Since the capacity is
installing one pile per day, the cost is multiplied with the total number of piles for the total
combination with 15 more added days to consider time for planning, preparation and
establishment. The project organization cost is then added to the total cost for the total
combination, where the sum is multiplied with 1.12 to consider the central general cost of a
mark-up of 12 %. This is done for each pile dimension (Table G40 and Table G41).
Table G40. The total cost for each total combination for RD220/12.5.
Total combination Total cost
Total combination 1 15 272 963 SEK
Table G41. The total cost for each total combination for RD170/10.
149
APPENDIX F
3 key performance indicators can be determined from the cost estimation (Table G42 and Table
G43). By dividing the total cost for the total combination with the total number of piles, the cost
per pile is obtained. By dividing the total cost with the total installed pile meter, the cost per
meter is determined and by multiply the same ratio with 10 the cost per 10-meter pile is obtained.
Table G42. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD220/12.5.
Indicator 1: Indicator 2: Indicator 3:
Cross-section A & B Cost per pile Cost per meter Cost per 10 meters
[SEK/Pcs] [SEK/m] [SEK/10m]
Table G43. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD170/10.
150
APPENDIX F
2. Case 2: The total building

The estimations are performed with the same method as for the existing one.
2.1 Method 1: Full niche
The number of piles and the installed pile length for each wall and each pile are given in Chapter
8 (Table G35) (Table G36).
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A1 11 22 Pcs 231 462 m
Wall A2 13 13 Pcs 273 273 m
Wall B1 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Wall B2 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A1 17 34 Pcs 357 714 m
Wall A2 23 23 Pcs 483 483 m
Wall B1 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
Wall B2 14 28 Pcs 294 588 m
Wall A1
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 38.72 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 59.84 RT
Wall A2
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 22.88 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 40.48 RT
Wall B1
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 28.16 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",W#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 42.24 RT
Wall B2
RD220/12.5: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 28.16 RT
RD170/10: I858(",$#-='& = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I$#-=' = 49.28 RT
Total quantities
The quantities are summarized in Table G37 and Table G38 for each wall and pile.

Penetration
151
APPENDIX F

Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 462 273 336 336 m
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 462 273 336 336 m
Drilling
Filling of pile
Controls
Casting
Establishment

Penetration
Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 714 483 504 588 m
Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 714 483 504 588 m
Drilling
Filling of pile
Controls
152
APPENDIX F

Casting
Establishment
Total cost
The cost is presented in Table G39 and Table G40 for each wall and pile.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 3 704 504 SEK
Wall A2 2 201 894 SEK
Wall B1 2 702 764 SEK
Wall B2 2 702 764 SEK
Table G40. Total costs for respectively wall when using RD170/10 in method 1.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 5 622 304 SEK
Wall A2 3 813 501 SEK
Wall B1 3 977 938 SEK
Wall B2 4 635 684 SEK
2.2 Method 2: Ground beam with half a niche

Piles Total piles per Installed meter Total installed meter
Wall Unit Unit
per wall cross-section per wall per cross-section
Wall A1 10 20 Pcs 210 420 m
Wall A2 14 14 Pcs 294 294 m
Wall B1 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Wall B2 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
Piles Total piles per Installed meter Total installed meter
Wall Unit Unit
per wall cross-section per wall per cross-section
Wall A1 18 36 Pcs 378 756 m
Wall A2 22 22 Pcs 462 462 m
Wall B1 12 24 Pcs 252 504 m
Wall B2 16 32 Pcs 336 672 m
153
APPENDIX F
Wall A1
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 37.20 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",b`cdefgbh = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 9.39 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 22.32 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),LA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 39.15 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 66.96 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 16.90 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎLA ∙ <3?8HℎLA = 40.18 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),LA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 70.46 RT
Wall A2
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 26.04 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 2.69 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 15.62 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 23.52 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 40.92 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 4.22 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 24.55 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 36.96 RT
Wall B1
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 50.24 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 7.51 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ Li2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 30.14 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),NA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 47.70 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 75.36 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=("0$#-=' = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I=("0$#-=' = 11.26 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎNA ∙ <3?8HℎNA = 45.22 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",7#"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),NA + I858(",=("0$#-=' = 71.55 RT
Wall B2
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"5i2 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 29.60 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 3.07 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 17.76 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ V125.$%!'(),N@ + I858(",=5"'& = 26.75 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 59.20 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 6.14 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ 0.6 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 35.52 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I125.$%!'(),N@ + I858(",=5"'& = 53.50 RT
154
APPENDIX F
Total quantities
The quantities are summarized in Table G43 and Table G44 for each wall and pile.

Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 420 294 336 336 m
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 420 294 336 336 m
Drilling
Filling of pile
Controls
Casting
Establishment

Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 756 462 504 672 m
155
APPENDIX F

Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 756 462 504 672 m
Drilling
Filling of pile
Controls
Casting
Establishment
Total cost
The cost is presented in Table G45 and Table G46 for each wall and pile.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 2 469 146 SEK
Wall A2 1 440 756 SEK
Wall B1 2 210 882 SEK
Wall B2 1 640 293 SEK
Table G46. Total cost for each wall when using RD170/10 in method 2.
Wall Total cost
Wall A1 4 328 577 SEK
Wall A2 2 190 629 SEK
Wall B1 3 240 115 SEK
Wall B2 3 168 489 SEK
2.3 Method 3: Yoke beam
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A2 14 14 Pcs 294 294 m
Wall B2 8 16 Pcs 168 336 m
156
APPENDIX F
Wall Unit Unit
Wall A2 22 22 Pcs 462 462 m
Wall B2 16 32 Pcs 336 672 m
The dimensions for the concrete beams longitudinal with the wall are shown in Table G49 and
Table G50 for each pile and wall.
Table G49. Dimensions of the longitudinal concrete beams for RD220/12.5.

Wall A2 0.68 m 0.50 m 5.72 m 1.95 m3
Wall B2 0.68 m 0.50 m 2.90 m 0.99 m3
Table G50. Dimensions of the longitudinal concrete beams for RD170/10.

Wall A2 0.68 m 0.50 m 7.28 m 2.48 m3
Wall B2 0.68 m 0.50 m 4.38 m 1.49 m3
RD220/12.5: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ = 93Ç8ℎHL@ ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 1.95 RT

RD220/12.5: I"5$1#8.%#$(c !'(),N@ = 93Ç8ℎHN@ ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 0.99 RT
RD170/10: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ = 93Ç8ℎHL@ ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 2.48 RT
RD170/10: I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),N@ = 93Ç8ℎHN@ ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 1.49 RT
For wall A2 and pile RD220/12.5, the average center distance is determined to 1.43 m and the
final one is set to 2.86 m. 4 longitudinal beams of length 5.72 m are required. The number of
yoke beams and the number of holes in the heart wall is set to 7.
For wall A2 and pile RD170/10, the average center distance is determined to 0.91 m and the final
one is set to 1.82 m. 4 longitudinal beams of length 7.28 m are required. The number of yoke
beams and the numbers of holes in the heart walls is set to 11.
For wall B2 and pile RD220/12.5, the average center distance is determined to 1.45 m and the
final one is set to 2.9 m. 8 longitudinal beams of length 2.90 m are required. The number of yoke
For wall B2 and pile RD170/10, the average center distance is determined to 0.73 m and the final
one is set to 1.46 m. 8 longitudinal beams of length 4.38 m are required. The number of yoke
The data is summarized for RD220/12.5 (Table G51) and for RD170/10 (Table G52).
Table G51. Dimensions of the longitudinal beams for RD220/12.5.

157
APPENDIX F
Table G52. Dimensions of the longitudinal beams for RD170/10.

Wall A2
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 11.44 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.55 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 5.49 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 8.33 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 14.56 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.87 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎL@ ∙ <3?8HℎL@ = 6.99 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 10.77 RT
Wall B2
RD220/12.5: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 11.60 R@
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 0.63 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 5.57 RT
RD220/12.5: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 8.52 RT
RD170/10: -858(",0"552 = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 17.52 R@

RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 1.27 RT
RD170/10: I858(",&5#" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ 0.48 ∙ LÇ2HℎN@ ∙ <3?8HℎN@ = 8.41 RT
RD170/10: I858(" = ?858(",MIN@@< ∙ I"5$1#8.%#$(" !'(),L@ + I858(",=5"'& = 13.18 RT
Total quantities
The quantities for each wall are summarized in Table G53 and Table G54.

Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 294 336 m
Cutting of micro pile 220/12.5 mm 28 32 Pcs
Welding of top plate 220/12.5 mm 14 16 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 220/12.5 mm 14 16 Pcs
Top plate 14 16 Pcs
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 294 336 m
Drilling
158
APPENDIX F
Drilling of pile 220/12.5 mm 294 336 m

Filling of pile
Filling of pile 220/12.5 mm with concrete 294 336 m
Controls
Yoke-beam
Casting
Establishment

Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 462 672 m
Cutting of micro pile 170/10 mm 44 64 Pcs
Welding of top plate 170/10 mm 22 32 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 170/10 mm 22 32 Pcs
Top plate 22 32 Pcs
Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 462 672 m
Drilling
Drilling of pile 170/10 mm 462 672 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 170/10 mm with concrete 462 672 m
Controls
Yoke-beam
159
APPENDIX F
Casting
Establishment
Total cost
The cost is summarized in Table G55 and Table G56 for each wall and pile.
Wall Total cost
Wall A2 1 687 253 SEK
Wall B2 1 883 145 SEK
Table G56. Total cost for each wall when using RD170/10 in method 3.
Wall Total cost
Wall A2 2 457 158 SEK
Wall B2 3 442 437 SEK
2.4 Method 4: Slab with half a niche

Table G57. The number of piles and the installed pile length for RD220/12.5.
All walls 66 Pcs 1386 m
Table G58. The number of piles and the installed pile length for RD170/10.
Wall A1 & Wall B1 60 Pcs 1 260 m
All walls 114 Pcs 2394 m

The required number of holes in the heart walls are set to 15 for RD220 and 27 for RD170.
All walls
RD220/12.5: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 5.76 RT
RD220: I858(" = I858(",=("0$#-=' + I858(",=5"'& + -#$$'2,&"(! ∙ 93Ç8ℎH#$$'2,&"(! = 166.07 RT
RD170/10: I858(",=5"'& = ?858(",=5"'& ∙ I=5"' = 10.37 RT

RD170: I858(" = I858(",=("0$#-=' + I858(",=5"'& + -#$$'2,&"(! ∙ 93Ç8ℎH#$$'2,&"(! = 170.68 RT
160
APPENDIX F
Total quantities
The quantities are summarized in Table G59 and Table G60 for all walls and each pile.
Table G59. Total quantities for all walls and for RD220/12.5.
Pile
RD-pile 219.1 x 12.5 mm 1386 m
Cutting of micro pile 220/12.5 mm 132 Pcs
Welding of top plate 220/12.5 mm 66 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 220/12.5 mm 66 Pcs
Top plate 66 Pcs
Rent of pilot 220/12.5 mm 1386 m
Drilling
Drilling of pile 220/12.5 mm 1386 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 220/12.5 mm with concrete 1386 m
Controls
Stop-driving 66 Pcs
Casting
Establishment

Pile
RD-pile 168.3 x 10 mm 2394 m
Cutting of micro pile 170/10 mm 228 Pcs
Welding of top plate 170/10 mm 114 Pcs
Welding of ring bit 170/10 mm 114 Pcs
161
APPENDIX F
Top plate 114 Pcs

Rent of pilot 170/10 mm 2394 m
Drilling
Drilling of pile 170/10 mm 2394 m
Filling of pile
Filling of pile 170/10 mm with concrete 2394 m
Controls
Stop-driving 114 Pcs
Casting
Establishment
Total cost
The total cost for all walls is presented in Table G61 and Table G62 for both pile dimensions.
Table G61. Total cost for all walls when using RD220/12.5 in method 4.
Table G62. Total costs for all walls when using RD170/10 in method 4.
2.5 Combinations of transfer methods

The combinations of the methods and their costs are for RD220/12.5 presented in Table G63
and for RD170/10 presented in Table G64.
Table G63. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each combination for RD220/12.5.
Number Installed
of piles meters
162
APPENDIX F

Table G64. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each combination for RD170/10.
Number Installed
of piles meters
The total combinations, each cost and each installed meter (Table G65 and Table G66).
Table G65. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each total combination for RD220/12.5.
Number Installed
of piles meters
Combination 1
Combination 4
Combination 1
Combination 5
Combination 1
Combination 6
Combination 2
Combination 4
Combination 2
Combination 5
Combination 2
Combination 6
Combination 3
Combination 4
Combination 3
Combination 5
Combination 7
Combination 8
163
APPENDIX F
Table G66. The cost, the number of piles and the number of installed meter for each total combination for RD170/10.
Number Installed
of piles meters
Combination 1
Combination 4
Combination 1
Combination 5
Combination 1
Combination 6
Combination 2
Combination 4
Combination 2
Combination 5
Combination 2
Combination 6
Combination 3
Combination 4
Combination 3
Combination 5
Combination 7
Combination 8
When the project organization cost and the central general cost is considered, following total
costs for each pile type and each total combination is obtained (Table G67 and Table G68).
Table G67. The total cost for each total combination for RD220/12.5.
164
APPENDIX F
Table G68. The total cost for each total combination for RD170/10.
The key performance indicators from each total combination, for RD220/12.5 (Table G69) and
for RD170/10 (Table G70).
Table G69. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD220/12.5.
Table G70. Key performance indicators for each total combination for RD170/10.
Cross-section A & B Indicator 1: Indicator 2: Indicator 3:
Cost per pile Cost per meter Cost per 10 meters
165
166
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX H
Cost calculations for the total construction
1. Input data
Table H1. Input data and properties of the total building.
Living space of one storey -(2'( 175 m2 Chapter 4, the model
No. of floors extended ?'E8'$%'% 4 Pcs Appendix B
Superstructure production costs 1725% 27 938 SEK/m2 Appendix A, part 8h
Sales price in Stockholm City 1&("'& 90 875 SEK/m2 Appendix A, part 8h
Costs for cheapest geotechnical
0?/@@<%&'() 12 530 117 SEK Appendix G
work for case 1 and RD220
0?/AB<%&'() 17 718 532 SEK Appendix G
0?/@@<%&'(* 12 530 117 SEK Appendix G
0?/AB<%&'(* 18 731 670 SEK Appendix G
2. Calculations
The production cost for a superstructure is calculated with the living space of four added storeys
to a final cost for the second case to the following:
0725% = 1725% · ?'E8'$%'% · -(2'( = 19 556 600 é4;
The total costs are summed up for the second case to the following for RD220:
0èGH?/@@<%&'(* = 0725% + 0?/@@<%&'(* = 32 086 717 é4;
The total costs are summed up for the second case to the following for RD170:
0èGH?/AB<%&'(* = 0725% + 0?/AB<%&'(* = 38 288 270 é4;
The revenue is obtained with the sales price for the 4 added storeys that could be sold to:
0&("'& = 1&("'& · ?'E8'$%'% · -(2'( = 63 612 500 é4;
Through the differences in revenues and costs, the following result is obtained for the second
case for both RD220 and RD170, respectively:
02'&."8**+ = 0&("'& − 0èGH?/@@<%&'(* = 31 525 783 é4;
02'&."8),+ = 0&("'& − 0èGH?/AB<%&'(* = 25 324 230 é4;
167
APPENDIX H
3. Results
The results of the investment cost, revenue and profitability for the two cases for both RD220
and RD170 are presented in the two following tables:
Table H2. Results for the first case for any profitability.
Investment cost for case 1 and RD220 12 530 117 SEK
Revenue for case 1 and RD220 0 SEK
Revenue for case 1 and RD170 0 SEK
Results for case 1 and RD220 -12 530 117 SEK
Results for case 1 and RD170 -17 718 532 SEK
Table H3. Results for the second case for any profitability.
Revenue for case 2 and RD220 63 612 500 SEK
Revenue for case 2 and RD170 63 612 500 SEK
Results for case 2 and RD220 31 525 783 SEK
Results for case 2 and RD170 25 324 230 SEK
168

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEGREE PROJECT IN CIVIL ENGINEERING AND URBAN

Geotechnical reinforcement work

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Malin Karlbom & Lovisa Hallman

Master of Science Thesis, 2020

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Keywords: geotechnical reinforcement work of foundation, drilled piles, steel piles,

Nyckelord: grundförstärkning, borrade pålar, stålpålar, våningspåbyggnad, påbyggnation av trä

Greek symbol Explanation Unit

Table no. Explanation

2. METHODS AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 3

3. LITERATURE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 7

4. THE CONSTRUCTED MODELS .......................................................................................................35

6. ANALYSIS OF HORIZONTAL FORCES ACTING ON THE BUILDING .....................................43

7. DESIGN LOADS ...................................................................................................................................45

8. ANALYSIS OF GEOTECHNICAL REINFORCEMENT ..................................................................47

9. COST ESTIMATIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL WORK ................................................................... 51

10. COST ASSESSMENT FOR TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................55

11. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................................................57

12. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................63

TABLE OF CONTENT FOR APPENDICES .............................................................................................. 71

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................... 103

APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................................................ 117

APPENDIX G ................................................................................................................................................ 131

APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................................................... 167

1.2 Aim and objective

• Which potential methods for geotechnical reinforcement work are possible to

• Is it profitable to expand an existing building with a superstructure when an

1.3 Assumptions and delimitations

2. METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Literature survey

Table 2.1.1. The used search terms for each subject.

2.2 Construction of the model

• Case 1: The existing building

2.3 Analytical and numerical analyzes

3.1 Theoretical background and review

3.2 Geological conditions

Figure 3.2.1. The districts of Stockholm (SGU, 2017).

3.3 Stockholm’s building and architectural history

3.4 Structure of existing building

3.5 Building material for a superstructure

Connection between the existing and extended building

A foundation construction for the extended superstructure suggested by Aron Lindgren

The various elements of the superstructure

3.6 Methods for reinforcement work of foundation

To clarify the definition of geotechnical reinforcement work, it is a strengthening of the

The need of geotechnical reinforcement work

The work before the geotechnical reinforcement work

• Investigation of possible contamination in groundwater that may cause degradation of the

• If possible, an ocular inspection of the obliquity of an exposed pile.

• Checking the geotechnical load bearing capacity of existing piles by a stress-wave

Methods of geotechnical reinforcement work

Methods to transfer loads to the foundation

Console cantilever beam

Ground beam with half a niche

Figure 3.6.7. The yoke beam through a wall. (Skanska, 2014).

Slab with half a niche

Activities for the geotechnical reinforcement works

• Establishment: The activities required to establish the different necessary machines. It

• Sawing, demolition, excavation and penetration: The activities required to

Considerations regarding strengthening the foundation

This transferability factor is between 50 - 80 %, according to Sadek Baker (Personal

3.7 Legislated regulations and requirements

• Eurocode: The European National Construction Standards