Riverside Business Park, Bakewell: Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell
Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations
April 2023
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Check level 1 is a general check by another person of principles and application

Check level 2 is an arithmetic check by another person
Check level 3 is a fully independent design for comparison
Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell
Project Number 2838
Client Van Elle Limited
Document Name Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations
This document has been prepared for the sole benefit, use and information of Van Elle Limited for the purposes set out in
the document or instructions commissioning it. The liability of A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd in respect of the information
contained in this document is as per the A-squared Terms & Conditions and will not extend to any third party. All concepts
and proposals are copyright © April 2023. Issued in commercial confidence.
A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd

One Westminster Bridge Rd
London, SE1 7XW
020 7620 2868

contact@a2-studio.com
www.a2-studio.com
A2 Level of
Revision Date Prepared by Checked by Description Check
(1, 2 or 3)
00 24.04.2023 Sajjad Peima Richard Goodey First Issue 2
Check level 1 is a general check by another person of principles and application

Check level 2 is an arithmetic check by another person
Check level 3 is a fully independent design for comparison

2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Contents
1. Scope ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Relevant Documentation......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Rigid Inclusion Design Key Requirements............................................................................................................................................ 4
4. Ground Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
5. Adopted Ground Model .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
6. Design Philosophy ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
7. 2D Plaxis Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
8. Structural Calculations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
9. Design Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendices
Appendix A: CDM Risk Assessment
Appendix B: Ground Investigation Data
Appendix C: Plaxis Output
Appendix D: Structural Calculations

2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Area of Project Foundation Design Prepared by Sajjad Peima Date 28.04.23
Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23
Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 1
Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00
1. Scope
A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd (A-squared) have been commissioned by Van Elle Limited (Van Elle) to undertake the detailed design
of a rigid inclusion ground improvement solution for the proposed Block J (unit15) at Riverside Business Park, Bakewell.
Figure 1.1 Site boundary and different proposed units (15084-3-110 Proposed Site Plan)
Rigid inclusion minimum diameter is proposed to be 320mm.
The rigid inclusions are to be installed using Displacement Auger Piling (DAP) techniques, with soil being displaced laterally rather
than being removed to the ground surface.
Piling Platform for the Rigid Inclusions is expected to be just below finished floor level (FFL) (see Section 4).
Surcharge loads to be resisted at underside of reinforced concrete slab level, or beneath column foundation formation, have been
provided and are 37.5kPa (excluding the self-weight of the slab which is assumed to exert a further 4.8kPa), and 100kPa respectively.
This is a contractor designed element of the works.
The design has been classified as being Geotechnical Category 2 in accordance with BS EN 1997-1.
Note that this is a SLS ground improvement design and so all computed settlement predictions are primarily based upon ground
stiffness which is a parameter that has not been directly measured in the ground investigation. Ground stiffness is a parameter which
varies with strain and is non-linear and difficult to predict with certainty. Poisson’s ratio of soil is also an important parameter which
similarly is difficult to predict.
Platform construction is by others and is to be undertaken by a competent contractor in accordance with a detailed earthworks
specification (to be prepared by others and in accordance with the requirements of this design).
Slab design and construction is by others and is to be in accordance with the requirements of this design. A reinforced concrete slab
is recommended. A fibre-reinforced, or similar, concrete slab is not recommended. The slab design should consider the predicted
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
settlements and differential settlements, plus additional settlements associated with any cut and fill operations and perform at SLS
under these conditions. Substructure elements should be reinforced with a cage and not just have bottom reinforcement.
It is assumed that there are no other causes of additional ground settlement including, but not limited to, dewatering, filling,
surcharging, poor compaction of the piling platform or load transfer platform, or heave caused by the rigid inclusion installation
inducing excess pore water pressures.
A detailed CDM risk assessment for the proposed rigid inclusions works is provided in Appendix A. The Client & Designer for this
project are subject to certain duties under the CDM Regulations.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
2. Relevant Documentation
2.1. Documents
Ground investigation data:
• Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Phase II Report JPL Oct 2020

• 01 - Issue01 - P-108239-1 - Riverside Business Park CPT Report
• RBE Annotated - 46233 - CPT Locations[12475]
2.2. Drawings
Overview drawings
• 15084-3-110 Proposed Site Plan A1
General foundation arrangements for each unit
• 46233-ECE-XX-00-DR-S-100 – Unit J foundation plan Rev P1

• 46233-ECE-XX-GF-DR-S-102 – Ground slab layout Rev P1
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
3. Rigid Inclusion Design Key Requirements

Design in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1 and BS EN 1997-1.
The following criteria are specified:
• Thickness of Load Transfer Platform: 600mm

• Maximum total settlement of the slab or column / strip foundation: 25mm
• Maximum differential settlement: 1 in 500
• Maximum applied slab surcharge on top of slab: 37.5kPa
• Maximum applied pressure beneath a column foundation: 100kPa
• Thickness of slab: 200mm
Rigid inclusions are a ground improvement method and are not piles but are a ground improvement technique using higher vertical
stiffness columns constructed through compressible soils to reduce overall settlement and increase bearing capacity. The pile design
sections within BS EN 1997-1 and BS 8004:2015 are not applicable to rigid inclusions.
Ground improvement efficiency depends on the stiffness relationship between the ground and the columns. Load from the structure
is distributed to the soil and columns via a load transfer platform (LTP) or via a rigid foundation. This is thus a soil-structure interaction
problem and so the analysis requires the use of complex analytical computations.
The load transfer is illustrated by the sketches below:
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Figure 3.1 Indicative illustration of the load transfer through granular platform, rigid inclusions and subgrade
There are various load transfer mechanisms and sources of movement in a rigid inclusion foundation and these include:
• Bearing resistance of the load transfer platform (depends on strength of LTP)

• Settlement within the load transfer platform (depends on stiffness of LTP)
• Punching resistance of the load transfer platform at the head of the rigid inclusion (depends on strength of LTP and mobilized
soil reaction at base of the LTP)
• Punching movement of the head of the rigid inclusion into the load transfer platform (depends on stiffness of LTP)
• Load transfer through the reinforced weak soils (depends on the diameter and spacing of the rigid inclusions along with the
in-situ strength of these soils)
• Settlement of the reinforced weak soils (depends on the diameter and spacing of the rigid inclusions along with the in-situ
stiffness of these soils)
• Bearing resistance of the base of the rigid inclusions (depends on the strength of the underlying soil layer plus the penetration
of the rigid inclusion into this underlying layer)
• Settlement of the base of the rigid inclusions (depends on the stiffness of the underlying soil layer plus the penetration of
the rigid inclusion into this underlying layer).
If there is ongoing consolidation of the weak soils, either naturally as a recent deposit or due to a change in loading conditions from
(e.g.) raising ground level or lowering the groundwater level, then this will introduce additional loadings into the rigid inclusions and
induce additional settlements of the LTP. The performance of the rigid inclusions is thus intimately linked to the performance of both
the overlying platform and the reinforced concrete slab/foundation, along with any change to the existing in-situ conditions.
The designer of the reinforced concrete ground bearing slab may not be familiar with the additional requirements to be considered
associated with a competent subgrade (the load transfer platform) that is being forced to settle from beneath by the settlement of the
underlying ground.
The performance of the slab can be considered as being either “rigid” or “flexible”. Large areas of thin concrete slabs are likely to
perform closer to being “flexible” than being “rigid”. A rigid slab would have zero differential settlement across it. Another
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
consideration is that the wider the loaded area of the slab the more settlement there will be. These are illustrated in the example
below:
Figure 3.2 Indicative illustration stresses beneath ground bearing slab
The design of pavement slabs often assume a constant spring stiffness (sometimes presented as a CBR) of the subgrade, as illustrated
in the red box below. This thus assumes that the slab will perform as being “rigid”.
However, the permitted total and differential settlement of the slab according to the rigid inclusion permitted performance is more
relevant to a “flexible” slab, as illustrated in the green box below. The permitted differential settlement would need to be close to zero
for the slab to be considered as being “rigid”.
It is thus recommended that the designer of the reinforced concrete ground bearing slab considers the permitted total and differential
settlement of the slab in its design, with a varying subgrade stiffness. The design of the slab is not in A-squared’s scope.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Figure 3.3 Indicative subgrade spring stiffness for rigid and flexible slabs
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
4. Ground Conditions
4.1. BGS Geology
The BGS database, GeoIndex, indicates that the site is overlain by Alluvium and River Terrace deposits with the Monsal Dale
Limestone Formation below. The presence of varying depths of made ground and alluvium deposits indicates the ground conditions
are likely to be highly varied.
4.2. Site Investigation

A site investigation report, Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Phase II Report JPL Oct 2020, details 20no window samples (up to
5mbgl) and 4no. trial pits across the site supplemented by cone penetration tests.
The layers encountered by the site investigation were as follows and varied in thickness across the site:
Made Ground
Made Ground of various lithologies appears in thicknesses of up to 1.7m across the site which is commensurate with the site’s
previous use. The Made ground comprises concrete surfacing, medium dense gravels or firm clays.
Alluvium
Alluvium is present underlying the Made Ground across the site. They are generally described as very soft to soft clay or clayey silt.
River Terrace Deposits
Sand and gravels appear across the site at depth. They are generally described as dense to medium dense. Higher SPTN values are
recorded with depth in this layer, indicating higher strength sand and gravel from 3mbgl to 4mbgl.
4.2.1. Groundwater
Groundwater strikes were observed in several boreholes between 1m and 3m below ground level. Subsequent monitoring showed
that the shallowest groundwater was observed at approximately 1mbgl.
4.3. Ground Model

The variable conditions encountered in the boreholes is commensurate with the expected alluvium deposits, previous use and the
overall extent of the site. For the purposes of this design, the boreholes on the western and northwestern areas of the site (closer to
Unit 15) are more relevant.
The ground investigation does not confirm the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits. The ground investigation report states that
the information from the previous investigation carried out by Eastwood and Partners shows that the cable percussive borehole
encountered possible bedrock at a depth of 4.5mbgl (corresponding to limestone associated with the Monsal Dale Limestone).
The stratigraphy as determined from the boreholes is shown in Appendix B. The top of the Load Transfer Platform is assumed to be
at a level 200mm below FFL.
The FFL of Unit 15 is considered to be +126.31mOD which is similar to the existing ground level.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
5. Adopted Ground Model

The proposed ground model is based on the available site investigation information, technical literature and previous experience in
the local area. The stratigraphy and parameters adopted are based primarily on the information from the boreholes supplemented
with data from the CPTs.
The ground model and geotechnical parameters adopted for the purposes of design is summarised in Table 5.1 as follows:
Table 5.1 – Ground model and geotechnical parameters adopted for analysis
Top of Strata Thickness Bulk Density Φ Cu E’

Stratum
(mBGL) (m) (kN/m3) (degrees) (kPa) (MPa)
Piling Platform / Granular Load

0 0.6 20 45 - 80
Transfer Platform
Made Ground -0.6 0.4 18 28 - 10
Alluvium -1.0 1 18 - 15 7.5
River Terrace Deposits -2.0 NP 19 32 - 22.5 + 2.1z(1)
(1) z is the depth from the top of the strata
5.1. Groundwater
Groundwater strikes were observed in several boreholes between 1m and 3m below ground level. Subsequent monitoring showed
that the shallowest groundwater was observed at approximately 1mbgl. A value of 1mBGL is adopted for design.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
6. Design Philosophy
The rigid inclusions transfer the load from the Load Transfer Platform to stiffer layers below. In this scheme the embedment length
of the inclusions in any particular zone targets the denser layers where the SPT N value increases to around 25 – 50. The values are
taken from the in-situ testing within the window samples and corroborated with reference to the CPTs. In general, the target length
of the inclusions across the site will be 5m from the existing ground level.
6.1. Overall Scheme Design

The SLS performance of the rigid inclusions is investigated using soil-structure interaction software Plaxis2D using the following
methods.
Axisymmetric analysis
For the rigid inclusions towards the centre of the slab, a 2D axisymmetric analysis is used to represent the overall performance of the
foundation and hence determine the general spacing across the scheme.
2D plane strain analysis
A 2D plane strain analysis has also been undertaken to investigate the differential settlements associated with the performance of the
column foundation and slab areas, assuming that all areas are loaded to their maximum. A representative section is chosen as
detailed in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 – Representative section used in Plaxis2D plane strain analysis
Unit Drawing Reference Section GL reference
1 46233-ECE-XX-GF-DR-S-102 Section through G.L F
2D plane strain analysis in accordance with DA-1 (BS EN 1997-1, 2004)
The ULS GEO performance of the rigid inclusions beneath the slab are also investigated by re-analysing the plane strain models with
factored actions and soil resistance, and this geotechnical design resistance calculated in accordance with Design Approach DA-1
as described in BS EN 1997-1 (2004).
Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1.
Combination 2: A2 “+” M1 “+” R1.
where “A” is the partial factor for the action, “M” for the material and “R” for the resistance.
Calculations have been undertaken for Combinations 1 & 2 using the partial factors provided in Table 6.2 below.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Table 6.2 – EC7 Partial factors
DA-1 (UK National Annex) Combination 1 Combination 2
Permanent action 1.35 1.0
Variable action 1.5 1.3
Angle of shearing resistance tan’  (coarse grained soils) 1.0 1.25
Undrained shear strength cu (fine grained soils) 1.0 1.4
Resistances 1.0 1.0
The 2D plane strain models include additional rigid inclusions underneath the column areas to support the additional bearing pressure.
These additional columns are assumed to be connected to the pad supporting the column. The number of inclusions underneath any
given pad is specified by considering the bearing pressure over the pad area and assuming an SLS compression capacity of 220kN
for the rigid inclusions. There are various sizes of pad included in the scheme and Table 6.3 below gives details of the number of
inclusions required underneath the pad.
Table 6.3 – Inclusions required underneath column pads
Pad type (m) Pad size (m) Depth (m) Inclusions required
A 1.5 x 1.5 0.600 1
B 2.0 x 3.5 0.600 4
C 1.5 x 1.5 0.935 1
D 2.0 x 3.5 0.935 4
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
7. 2D Plaxis Analysis
The performance of the slab with the 37.5kPa surcharge + 4.8kPa self-weight (200mm thick slab), and the foundations with 100kPa
surcharge have been analysed using Plaxis 2D software in axisymmetry and plane-strain as detailed above. In the analyses carried
out under DA-1 the factored loads have been calculated assuming that, for both slab and column areas, the variable load is 37.5kPa
with the remainder being the dead load (i.e. 4.8kPa and 62.5kPa for slab and foundation areas respectively).
The as-built diameter of the inclusions is expected to be at least 320mm, dependent on the density of the encountered ground
conditions.
It should be noted that displacements have been reset after placing the Load Transfer Platform as all soils are expected to be coarse-
grained so settlement under the loading of the platform should occur before the slab is placed.
The results are presented in Appendix C and summarised below:
Table 7.1 – Summary of Plaxis axisymmetric results
Maximum
Target depth Diameter of Design
Inclusion computed
Analysis of inclusions inclusions surcharge
spacing (m) settlement
(mbgl) (mm) (kPa)
(mm)
Axisymmetric 5 320 2.5 37.5 16
Table 7.2 – Summary of Plaxis plane strain results
Target Maximum
Section Diameter of design Computed
length of Inclusion computed
Analysis GL inclusions surcharge differential
inclusions spacing (m) settlement
reference (mm) (kPa) settlement
(mbgl) (mm)
Section
Plane strain
through 5.0 320 2.5 37.5 + 100 14 1 in 510
(SLS)
G.L F
Section
Plane strain
through 5.0 320 2.5 56.3 + 135 19 1 in 400
(ULS C1)
G.L F
Section
Plane strain
through 5.0 320 2.5 56.3 + 100 21 1 in 250
(ULS C2)
G.L F
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
It should be noted that, whilst the analyses carried out under DA-1 (Combination 1&2) do not always satisfy the settlement
requirements of this scheme, they demonstrate that the design satisfies the ULS requirements. The maximum settlement outputs
from the axisymmetric models are comparable with those from the plane-strain modelling despite the addition of the column loads.
Note that 2D plane-strain models can only consider a one way spanning ground bearing floor slab.
The predictions, and the actual performance, will be primarily related to the stiffness of the ground as well as to the spacing of the
inclusions and the characteristics of the platform and slab. Also, whether all areas are fully loaded at the same time will be important
and is not within the control of Van Elle.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
8. Structural Calculations
8.1. Concrete Strength
Once drilled to the required length, the rigid inclusions will be filled with a minimum C12/15 at 28 days concrete (with a maximum
aggregate size of 20mm).
8.2. Compression Capacity

In accordance with BS EN 1992-1 the design concrete compression resistance of the proposed inclusions is calculated to be 317kN
(Appendix D).
The maximum load on a foundation inclusion is 225kN beneath the 1.5m x 1.5m pad. Based on the load split between permanent and
variable loads detailed above the DA1-C1 load per inclusion is computed to be 1.35 x 140.6 + 1.5 x 84.4 = 316kN < 317kN.
The resistance of the inclusions exceeds the maximum DA1-C1 structural loads computed to apply to any inclusion and can therefore
safely resist the axial structural compressive actions.
8.3. Aggressivity Assessment

The total sulphates and pH measurements reported in the Geoenvironmental investigation indicate that a design concrete
classification of DC-2 should be utilised.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
9. Design Summary
A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd (A-squared) have been commissioned by Van Elle Limited (Van Elle) to undertake the detailed design
of a rigid inclusion ground improvement solution for the proposed Block J (Unit 15) at Riverside Business Park, Bakewell.
Rigid inclusion minimum diameter is proposed to be 320mm.
The rigid inclusions can be summarised as follows:
• All inclusions should achieve an embedment of 0.5m into a denser sand layer or until practical refusal.
• Slab areas – 320mm diameter at a grid spacing of 2.5m, with a target depth of 5mbgl.
• Beneath foundation pads – no. of inclusions as per Table 6.3.
• Minimum C12/15 concrete, DC-2 class.
• Rigid inclusions are unreinforced.
The granular Load Transfer Platform beneath the slab areas can be summarised as follows:
• 600mm minimum thickness.

• A CBR compaction value of no less than 25% for a minimum depth of 300mm (the 25% is often required to suit the design
of the ground bearing slab and should be confirmed with the slab designer. 15% minimum is required for the design of the
inclusions / LTP)
• A CBR compaction value of no less than 15% for the underlying layer of 200mm or more.
• Design angle of friction of granular platform material at least 40 degrees after compaction.
• Less than 15% fines.
• Free of organic matter.
• Los Angeles abrasion coefficient less than 35.
• Minimum 95% optimum dry density after compaction.
• Particle size distribution to be well graded with a maximum particle size of 75mm.
• A separation layer (Terram 1000 or equivalent geotextile layer) to be placed beneath the granular platform on top of the
subgrade.
• Installation operations shall be supervised as appropriate in order to ensure platform distribution and requirements are as
per the design intent. An appropriate installation and compaction methodology shall be provided in general accordance
with the MCHW.
• Installation, testing of platform material and testing of platform performance shall be undertaken by the Contractor in order
to meet the specified stiffness criteria in this document. A method statement covering all of these aspects shall be provided
for review prior to commencement of the works.
• The Contractor shall provide and maintain drainage to prevent the build-up of groundwater within the platform over its design
life.
The reinforced concrete slab can be summarised as follows:
• 200mm depth assumed in this design.

• Using high tensile steel reinforcement, and not fibres or similar.
• The slab design should consider the predicted rigid inclusion settlements of up to 25mm and the differential settlements of
1 in 500.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Other points to note:
• Substructure elements should be reinforced with a cage and not just have bottom reinforcement.
• Any expansive soils within the ground to be removed in entirety.
• Obstructions within the ground to be removed and any excavations backfilled with compacted granular fill – positions to be
recorded and made available to all parties.
• For the design of the temporary piling platform design refer to 2838-A2-XX-XX-RTP-0001-00. The platform required for the
piling rig proposed is 750mm thick with 3 layers of geogrid. This may be reused as the permanent load transfer platform
provided the load transfer platform can be demonstrated to be of the required strength and stiffness over its full volume after
completion of the installation of the rigid inclusions. If to be reused, as the piling platform is thicker than the load transfer
platform, the top can be scraped off after use.
• Similarly, the piling platform may be locally removed and then replaced to facilitate the trimming of the head of the inclusions,
provided the load transfer platform can be demonstrated to be of the required strength and stiffness over its full volume after
completion of the installation of the rigid inclusions.
• Inclusions may be integrity tested by 300mm plate load testing directly on top of an inclusion, prior to construction of the
granular platform or reinforced concrete foundation.
• The performance of the combined rigid inclusion and granular platform foundation may be validated by dummy foundation
testing.
• No significant raising of ground levels is permitted without the design of the rigid inclusions being re-evaluated.
• No lowering of groundwater is permitted without the design of the rigid inclusions being re-evaluated.
• It is to be noted that this design does not provide an assessment of any possible impacts of the earthworks and inclusions
activities on any buildings, underground assets or utilities within the vicinity of the site.
• Any departure/deviation from the design assumptions shall be raised with the designer immediately (prior to resuming site
work).
• The use of the coefficient of subgrade reaction Ks for the design of the slab may not be appropriate as the Ks value will
inevitably vary beneath the slab.
• Note that 2D plane-strain models can only consider a one way spanning ground bearing floor slab. Two way spanning slabs
can be expected to have lower design bending moment and shear forces.
• Note that the assessment described in this document assumes uniform loading across a continuous floor slab and does not
take into account the actual floor loading patterns, patch loads or point loads. Neither does it take into account the influence
of joints and edge effects, and similar, that affect the design of the ground bearing slab.
• Total observed settlement of the slab will be the relative slab settlement into the load transfer platform plus the settlement
of the rigid inclusion platform and foundation.
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet Appendix
Appendix A: CDM Risk Assessment
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Designers Risk Assessment
Project Name: Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Rev. 00 Date: 25.04.2023
Title Designers Risk Assessment
Plant - Person Interface Third Parties / Public
Fatal Risks: Overturning of Plant Existing Services
Lifting Operations Uncontrolled Excavations
Project No: 2838
Designer Sajjad Peima
Checker Richard Goodey
Ref. Stage Hazard Possible consequences Risk Design Action Residual Risk Residual Risk Risk Owner Comments / Actions
(Construction, without mitigation / Control Measures
Operational or
Maintenance)
L S Risk L S Risk
Project specific risks
Construction Rigid inclusions reach design length Ground improvement fails to meet 2 2 4 Inclusions should be installed to practical 1 2 2 Piling
before practical refusal due to variable SLS loads and/or displacement refusal Contractor
ground conditions requirements
1
General construction risks related to the design
1 Construction Piling rig used in the platform design Piling rig overturning 3 4 12 Piling Contractor to ensure piling rig type 1 4 4 Piling contractor still changes the piling rig Principal If piling rig changes the designer of the
does not change. without informing the platform designer Contractor piling platform must be informed
2 Construction Strength of subgrade affecting the Piling rig overturning 3 4 12 Subgrade to be inspected. Excavation to 1 4 4 Subgrade not inspected properly. Principal Competent persons to inspect the
stability of the piling platform be deepened if design strength not Contractor subgrade
encountered.
3 Construction Piling rig instability Piling rig overturning 3 4 12 Adequate piling platform to be designed, 1 4 4 Design not adequate. Construction, Principal Competent person to design the
constructed, tested and maintained. testing, maintenance not in accordance Contractor platform. Competent contractor to
with best practice. construct, test and maintain the
platform.
4 Construction Use of piling rigs, plant or equipment Damage of constructed piles 2 1 2 Piling rig etc to be used as planned and 1 1 1 Affect the integrity of the piles. Principal Competent contractor to be used with
not to undertake any uncontrolled Contractor trained operatives.
activities.
5 Construction Services below ground level Injury to persons or damage to plant 3 3 9 No works to commence until a permit to 1 2 2 Unchartered services are encountered Principal Best practice to be followed.
dig has been provided. Contractor
6 Construction Ensure no uncontrolled excavations for Instability of temporary slopes 3 3 9 Contractor to ensure safe battered 1 3 3 Excavation design not adequate. Principal Competent contractor to design and
foundation construction excavations within the piling platform Contractor provide the safe excavation.
material. Sides need to slope at a safe
angle.
Page 1 of 2 Uncontrolled when printed

Designers Risk Assessment
Project Name: Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Rev. 00 Date: 25.04.2023
Title Designers Risk Assessment
Plant - Person Interface Third Parties / Public
Fatal Risks: Overturning of Plant Existing Services
Lifting Operations Uncontrolled Excavations
Project No: 2838
Designer Sajjad Peima
Checker Richard Goodey
Ref. Stage Hazard Possible consequences Risk Design Action Residual Risk Residual Risk Risk Owner Comments / Actions
7 (Construction,
Construction Manual work within excavations Injury to without
persons mitigation 3 3 9 Manual work within excavations to be 1 1 1 Safe methods not followed. Principal Competent contractor to be used with
minimised as much as possible. Contractor trained operatives.
8 Construction Excavation access and egress Injury to persons 3 3 9 Safe access and egress to the 1 2 2 Safe access / egress not used. Principal Competent contractor to be used with
excavations to be detailed in a site Contractor trained operatives.
specific plan.
9 Construction Safe access to the pile for integrity Injury 3 3 9 Testing to be suitably programmed by 1 2 2 Safe access / egress not provided or is Principal To be planned properly.
testing the Principal Contractor prior to placing concurrent with steelfixing activities. Contractor
cap reinforcement. Contractor RAMS to
incorporate.
Page 2 of 2 Uncontrolled when printed

Appendix B: Ground Investigation Data
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Appendix C: Plaxis Output
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Output Version 22.1.0.452
-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 [*10-3 m]
1.00
0.00 0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-2.00 -3.00
-4.00
-5.00
-4.00 -6.00
-7.00
-8.00
-6.00 -9.00
-10.00
-11.00
-8.00
-12.00
-13.00
-14.00
-10.00
-15.00
-16.00
Total displacements uy (scaled up 20.0 times)
Maximum value = 0.000 m (Element 298 at Node 4900)

Minimum value = -0.01590 m (Element 18 at Node 1189)
Project description Date
2838 Riverside Business Park 25/04/2023

Project filename Step Company
2838 Riverside Business ... 54 A-Squared Studio Consulting Engineers

Output Version 22.1.0.452
-6.00 -3.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 [*10-3 m]
1.00
9.00
0.00
-1.00
6.00
-2.00
-3.00
3.00
-4.00
0.00 -5.00
-6.00
-3.00
-7.00
-8.00
-6.00
-9.00
-9.00 -10.00
-11.00
-12.00
-12.00
-13.00
-15.00
-14.00
Total displacements uy (scaled up 200 times)

Maximum value = 0.01116*10-3 m (Element 153 at Node 8312)
Minimum value = -0.01343 m (Element 91 at Node 4183)
Project description Date
2838 Riverside Business Park 25/04/2023

Project filename Step Company
2838 Riverside Business ... 21 A-Squared Studio Consulting Engineers

Appendix D: Structural Calculations
2838-A2S-XX-XX-CA-Y-0001-00
Project: River Side Business Park, Bakewell
Title: Axial Structural Capacity

Section: EC2 structural Capacity Check
Project no.: Revision: Date: Prepared by: Checked by: Sheet no.
2838 0 25/04/2023 SP rg 1 of 1
Based on EC2 Design

Maximum Structural Capacity for 320 mm diameter pile
The Value of design compressive strength of concrete is defined as:
fcd = ( αcc * fck ) / ( yc * kf ) Clauses 2.4.2.5 & 3.1.5
Therefore for C 12/15 Concrete, characteristic cylinder strength = 12 N/mm2
Where:
αcc = 0.6
fck = 12 N/mm2
yC = 1.5
kf = 1.1
Therefore
fcd = 4.36 N/mm2
Design Axial Resistance of 320 mm diameter pile
Nrd = Ac * fcd + As * fyd
Where:
dnom 304 mm
Ac = 72583.357 mm2
fcd = 4.3636364 N/mm2
As Ignore
fyd Ignore
Basing Design on Compressive Strength of Concrete Area alone
Nrd = Ac * fcd
For a 320 mm diameter pile

Ac = 72583.357 mm2
Therefore
Nrd = 317 kN
A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd
One Westminster Bridge Rd
London, SE1 7XW
020 7620 2868

contact@a2-studio.com
www.a2-studio.com

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell: Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell: Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell

Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

Check level 1 is a general check by another person of principles and application

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

Project Number 2838

Client Van Elle Limited

Document Name Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd

020 7620 2868

Check level 1 is a general check by another person of principles and application

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

3. Rigid Inclusion Design Key Requirements............................................................................................................................................ 4

4. Ground Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

5. Adopted Ground Model .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

6. Design Philosophy ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

7. 2D Plaxis Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

8. Structural Calculations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

9. Design Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix B: Ground Investigation Data

Appendix C: Plaxis Output

Appendix D: Structural Calculations

Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 1

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

Rigid inclusion minimum diameter is proposed to be 320mm.

This is a contractor designed element of the works.

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 2

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 3

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

• Riverside Business Park, Bakewell - Phase II Report JPL Oct 2020

• 15084-3-110 Proposed Site Plan A1

General foundation arrangements for each unit

• 46233-ECE-XX-00-DR-S-100 – Unit J foundation plan Rev P1

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 4

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

3. Rigid Inclusion Design Key Requirements

The following criteria are specified:

• Thickness of Load Transfer Platform: 600mm

The load transfer is illustrated by the sketches below:

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 5

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

• Bearing resistance of the load transfer platform (depends on strength of LTP)

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 6

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

Figure 3.2 Indicative illustration stresses beneath ground bearing slab

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 7

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 8

Calculations Title Rigid Inclusions Design Calculations Revision 00

4.2. Site Investigation

River Terrace Deposits

4.3. Ground Model

Project Number 2838 Checked by Richard Goodey Date 28.04.23

Project Name Riverside Business Park, Bakewell Sheet 9