Southwark

Appendix 12.
1: Geotechnical and Geochemical

Interpretative Report by Concept Consultants
November 2016
18 Blackfriars Road: Environmental Statement Volume 4

December 2016
Appendices
Appendix 12.1: Geotechnical and Geochemical
Interpretative Report by Concept Consultants
November 2016
18 Blackfriars Road: Environmental Statement Volume 4

December 2016
Appendices
CONCEPT
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOCHEMICAL CONCEPT
INTERPRETATIVE REPORT
CONCEPT
18 Blackfriars Road CONCEPT
Southwark
London CONCEPT
SE1 8NY
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
ISSUE 02 CONCEPT
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOCHEMICAL
INTERPRETATIVE REPORT
18 Blackfriars Road
Southwark
London
SE1 8NY
Prepared for: Pell Frischmann
Concept: 15/2724-IR 02 04/11/2016
Unit 8, Warple Mews,

Warple Way
London W3 0RF
Tel: 020 8811 2880
Fax: 020 8811 2881
e-mail: si@conceptconsultants.co.uk
www.conceptconsultants.co.uk
CONCEPT
Unit 8 Warple Mews, Warple Way, London W3 0RF
Tel: 0208 811 2880, Fax: 0208 811 2881
Email: si@conceptconsultants.co.uk
DOCUMENT ISSUE REGISTER

Project Name: Blackfriars Phase II
Project Number: 15/2724
Document Reference: 15/2724-IR 02 Current Issue Issue 02
Document Type: Geotechnical and Geochemical Interpretative Report
Development Name Signature Date

Prepared by: R Beaumont 04/11/2016
Checked by: J Windle 04/11/2016
Approved by: J Windle 04/11/2016
Issued to: Pell Frischmann
Date Issue Amendment Details/ Reason for issue Issued to

22/03/2016 Issue 00 Pell
Frischmann
06/07/2016 Issue 01 Factual Report updated with advanced test Pell
results Frischmann
04/11/2016 Issue 02 Updated following comments Pell
Frischmann
Notes:
Form SI 048
Rev 3/20 4 April 2015
G://0-SI/Excel Templates/Control Document
18 Blackfriars Road November 2016
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Interpretative Report Concept Site Investigations
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3
2 THE SITE ...........................................................................................................................................................5
2.1 TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 DESK STUDY REVIEW: PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL RISKS ....................................................................................... 6
3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................7
4 GEOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................................7
5 SITE INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................................8
6 GROUND CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................9
6.1 STRATIGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
6.2 HARDSTANDING/OBSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 10
6.3 MADE GROUND ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
6.4 ALLUVIUM...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
6.4.1 Index properties ............................................................................................................................................. 13
6.4.2 Strength and Stiffness Parameters......................................................................................................... 14
6.5 RIVER TERRACE DEPOSITS ......................................................................................................................................... 15
6.5.1 Index Properties............................................................................................................................................. 15
6.6 LONDON CLAY............................................................................................................................................................... 16
6.6.1 Classification Tests ....................................................................................................................................... 17
6.7 HARWICH FORMATION ................................................................................................................................................ 19
6.8 LAMBETH GROUP ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
6.8.1 Upper Mottled Clay ....................................................................................................................................... 20
6.8.2 Laminated Beds ............................................................................................................................................. 20
6.8.3 Lower Mottled Beds...................................................................................................................................... 21
6.8.4 Upnor Formation .......................................................................................................................................... 21
6.9 THANET SAND FORMATION........................................................................................................................................ 24
6.10 CHALK ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25
6.10.1 Index Properties ....................................................................................................................................... 26
6.10.2 Strength and Stiffness Parameters ................................................................................................... 26
6.11 GROUNDWATER ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
7 DESIGN PROFILE AND GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ................................................................. 30
8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 33
8.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................................................................ 33
8.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION ............................................................................................................. 33
8.3 RECEPTORS.................................................................................................................................................................... 34
8.4 PATHWAYS .................................................................................................................................................................... 34
8.5 ASSESSMENT OF POLLUTANT LINKAGES ................................................................................................................... 35
9 DATA EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................... 36
9.1 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT VALUES AND HAZARDOUS GROUND GAS............................................................ 36
9.2 SOIL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 36
9.2.1 General .............................................................................................................................................................. 36
9.2.2 Metal and Metalloids ................................................................................................................................... 36
9.2.3 Non-metallic inorganic Compounds ...................................................................................................... 36
9.2.4 Hydrocarbons ................................................................................................................................................. 36
10 RISK ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 37
10.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 37
10.1.1 Risks to human health during development ................................................................................. 37
15/2724 IR 02
10.1.2 Risks to human health after development ..................................................................................... 37

10.1.3 Risks to groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 37
10.1.4 Risk from ground gases and vapours .............................................................................................. 38
11 WASTE DISPOSAL ....................................................................................................................................... 38
12 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 40
12.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
12.2 BASEMENT RC RAFT ............................................................................................................................................. 40
12.3 PRELIMINARY PILE DESIGN .................................................................................................................................. 41
12.4 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 42
12.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN .................................................................................................................................... 43
12.6 GROUND MOVEMENTS........................................................................................................................................... 43
12.6.1 Construction Stage ................................................................................................................................. 44
12.6.2 Long Term Ground Movements ......................................................................................................... 44
12.6.3 Movement of Adjacent Structures .................................................................................................... 44
12.7 SUB-SURFACE CONCRETE...................................................................................................................................... 46
12.8 RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 48
13 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 51
14 FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
15 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure list:
Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Existing Building Plan
Figure 3: Exploratory Hole Location Plan
Figure 4a: Geological Section A-A
Figure 4b: Geological Section B-B
Figure 4c: Geological Section C-C
Figure 5: Moisture Content versus depth
Figure 6a: Plasticity Chart – London Clay
Figure 6b: Plasticity Chart – Lambeth Group
Figure 7a: SPT: Made Ground, Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits, London Clay
Figure 7b: SPT: Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand, Chalk
Figure 8a: Undrained triaxial results: Alluvium, London Clay
Figure 8b: Undrained triaxial results: Undrained triaxial results: Lambeth Group
Figure 9a: BH02 Piezometer results - Thanet Sand
Figure 9b: BH03 Piezometer results - Thanet Sand
Figure 9c: BH06A Piezometer results – Upper Mottled Clay
Figure 9d: BH07 Piezometer results – London Clay
Figure 10a: Preliminary Pile Design Chart – 900mm Bored Piles
Figure 10b: Preliminary Pile Design Chart – 1200mm Bored Piles
Figure 10c: Preliminary Pile Design Chart – 1500mm Bored Piles
15/2724 IR 02 2
1 INTRODUCTION
Concept Site Investigations has been instructed by Black Pearl Ltd to provide a Geotechnical & Geo-
environmental Interpretative Report of the site known as 18 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London. The
site comprises a large plot formerly occupied by a number of low rise (up to 5 storeys) buildings. The
proposed redevelopment will provide a mixed-use scheme comprising commercial, residential and public
spaces.
This report presents the ground conditions and the geotechnical properties of the soils encountered at
the site and makes recommendations on the geotechnical parameters to be used in retaining wall and
foundation design. In addition it provides an appraisal of the factors to be considered during the design
of the substructure and assesses the geotechnical risks to the development. Finally it provides
preliminary pile design charts for the sizing of the piles. The Geo-Environmental Interpretative Report, 18
Blackfriars Rd, London SE1 (15/2724/ER-01, 30/07/2015), has been reproduced in the relevant sections
of this report. It contains an appraisal of the levels of contamination present with the soils and
groundwater encountered on site and assesses the geo-environmental risks to the development. The
proposed geotechnical design options and recommendations summarised in this report relate to details
of the proposed development at the time of writing the report. Any substantial changes to the proposed
design may require reassessment of the implications of the risks identified and the recommendations
given herein.
The recommendations within this report are based on information obtained from the two phases of the
ground investigations carried out, Phase I between 21/04/2015 and 12/05/2015 and Phase II between
28/07/2015 and 09/10/2015 .This report refers to and takes into account the findings of the following
reports, which should be read in conjunction with it:
1. Pell Frischmann (2014). Phase 1 Geo-environmental and Geotechnical Desk Study (PF-A12371-
RP-001A, October 2014).
2. Concept Site Investigations (2015). Site Investigation Report, 18 Blackfriars Rd – Phase I, London
SE1 (15/2724/FR-00, 28-05-2015).
3. Concept Site Investigations (2015). Site Investigation Report, 18 Blackfriars Rd - Phase II, London
SE1 (15/2724/FR-01, 08-01-2015).
The Phase I and II factual site investigation reports are reproduced in Appendix B and C of this report.
This report has been prepared for Black Pearl Ltd based on the specific requirements and instructions
submitted by Pell Frischmann on their behalf (“Geotechnical Investigation Specification, April 2015” PF-
A1271-SP-002 SI Rev 01). Any other party using the information in this report for any other purpose
whatsoever does so at their own risk and any duty of care to that party is excluded. In particular, the
designers of the substructure elements should satisfy themselves of the suitability of the design
parameters given in this report for the needs of their designs. Concept does not accept responsibility for
the design of any elements that have incorporated assumptions stated within this report where the
responsibility of the design of such elements lies with a third party.
15/2724 IR 02 3
Reasonable skill and care has been exercised in the preparation of this report in accordance with the
technical requirements of the brief. Notwithstanding the efforts made by the professional team in
undertaking this investigation, it is possible that ground conditions other than those indicated in this
report may exist at the site.
15/2724 IR 02 4
2 THE SITE
The site is located in Blackfriars within the London Borough of Southwark (Figure 1). It is bordered to the
North by Stamford Street, to the East by Blackfriars Road, to the South by Colombo Street and to the
West by Paris Garden. The main entrance to the site is via Stamford Street with an additional entrance
on Blackfriars Road. The approximate centre of the site is located at National Grid Reference 531586,
180345.
The site
Figure 1 – Location of 18 Blackfriars Road site
The site comprises an area of 0.81 hectares. At the time of the first Phase of the site Investigation four
buildings shaped the site (see Figure 2).
Rennie House was located in the western portion of the site, and was bordered by Paris Gardens to the
west, Stamford Street to the north and Rennie Street to the east. The 5 storey building is the largest on
site and was constructed of reinforced concrete with large windows. A large industrial plant was located
on the roof of this building.
Wakefield House was located east of Rennie House and comprised a 4-storey light weight steel frame
structure with glazed façade. It was bordered to the north by Stamford Street, the pavement of which
had 5 medium sized trees. Adjoining Wakefield House is The Mad Hatter pub and hotel which is a 4
storey Victorian building made from brick. An adjoining vacant building (1 Blackfriars Road) on the
eastern boundary of The Mad Hatter pub forms the north-eastern corner of the site and is a 4 storey
Victorian building. South and adjoining 1 Blackfriars Road was 3-7, No.18 and 19-23 Blackfriars, located
on Blackfriars Road. It was of red brick construction and 4-storeys in height. A further building that was
previously the Paper Moon Public House was located to the south of 18-23 Blackfriars and was
demolished prior to the site investigation.
A single level basement was present beneath each of the aforementioned buildings.
15/2724 IR 02 5
Figure 2 – Site building plan
2.1 Topography
Spot levels indicate the site to vary between ~+3.0mOD and ~+5mOD. Spot levels indicate the north-
western portion of the site to be +5.03mOD, north-eastern +5.03 mOD, south-eastern +4.06 mOD and
south-western to be +4.10 mOD. In general, the sites topography slopes gently towards the southeast. A
topographical map of the site has been included in Appendix D of this report
2.2 Desk Study Review: Principal Geotechnical Risks
A summary of the preliminary geotechnical risk hazards identified within the Desk Study conducted by
Pell Frischmann are as follows:
- During the ground investigation there may be unforeseen ground conditions and groundwater
regime. There is the potential for cross contamination between the upper aquifer (River Terrace
Deposits) and lower aquifer (Thanet sand and Chalk)
- The thickness and nature of the materials across the site is unknown, and is proximal to the
River Thames. A historic scour may be present across the north of the site.
- The groundwater regime within the Terrace Gravel and pore water pressure profile within the
underlying geology is unknown.
- Corrosive soils may lead to the chemical attack and corrosion of buried concrete.
- Obstructions beneath the site may include any existing piles and foundations or other buried
structures.
- A BT tunnel is identified as running beneath the site. There is a risk of clashing with the Tunnel
and associated restrictions such as changes in loading and vibration.
- Piling operations may encounter obstructions and instability of pile bore due to water seepages.
Risk of ground movement and cross contamination.
15/2724 IR 02 6
- Any excavations may be susceptible to side slope instability, groundwater ingress and ground
movement. Heave pressure due to excavation.
3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed that all existing buildings are to be demolished and a mixed-use scheme constructed,
comprising primarily of commercial floor space, private residences and public areas. The new
development is to include a large 15m deep basement extending below the footprint of the buildings.
The superstructure comprises a residential building, two hotels and an office building. Hardstanding and
soft landscaped areas are incorporated into the overall site design.
4 GEOLOGY
The desk study submitted by Pell Frischmann consulted a number of sources of geological information
taken from British Geological Maps, historical boreholes and previous and new investigations carried out
at the site.
Based on this information the anticipated geological sequence at the site comprises Made Ground
overlying superficial deposits of Alluvium (ALL), described as silty clay and sandy gravelly silty clay,
possibly overlying a Sand and Gravel layer (likely to be River Terrace Deposits). This is underlain by the
London Clay Formation (LC), mostly silty clay with some layers of sandy clay, occasional carbonate
concretions and pyrite. The London Clay (LC) is underlain by the Lambeth Group (Reading, Woolwich and
Upnor Formations), encountered at about -33mOD which overlies the Thanet Sand Formation
encountered at about -51mOD. The Chalk is encountered beneath the Thanet Sand at about -60mOD.
15/2724 IR 02 7
5 SITE INVESTIGATION
The extent and scope of the site investigation was specified by Pell Frischmann and was carried out in
two phases. The locations of the intrusive holes and trial pits are shown in Figure 3 of this report.
Phase I of the ground investigation comprised the shallow window sample and trial pit works as well as
structural investigations and was carried out between 21th April and 12th May 2015. 13 No. Window
Samples were investigated using either a dynamic sampler, hand held, hand augured and diamond cored
techniques (depending the location) to a maximum depth of 5m. 5 No. Trial Pits were machine excavated
to a maximum depth of 2.80m bgl. 17 No. horizontal diamond cores were carried to a maximum length
of 2.50m. The cores were carried out through the basement walls of the properties to determine the
structure and dimensions of the existing walls. A suite of chemical tests on soils obtained from the
intrusive holes and trial pits were scheduled by Concept and carried out by i2 Analytical Ltd. The results
of these tests were summarised in Concept’s Factual Site Investigation Report and an assessment based
on these results was included on the Concept’s Geo-Environmental Interpretative Report (15/2724/ER-
01, 30/07/2015) and repeated in the relevant chapters of this report.
Phase II, carried out between 28th July and 9th October 2015 comprised seven boreholes (sunk utilising
cable percussion and rotary techniques) to depths varying between 40m and 71m. Standpipe
piezometers and gas monitoring wells were installed in 4 of the boreholes (BH02, BH03, BH06A, and
BH07) to ascertain the deep and shallow groundwater profiles. Geotechnical laboratory tests were
carried out on samples retrieved from the boreholes. These tests comprised classification tests including
moisture contents and Atterberg limit determinations, bulk, dry density, saturated moisture content,
particle size distribution and unconfined compression tests. Electro-chemical tests (suites C and D in
accordance to BRE Special Digest 1) and organic content tests were also carried out. In-situ Standard
Penetration Tests were carried out at regular intervals to determine the strength characteristics of the
soil layers. These were complimented with laboratory undrained triaxial compression tests in clay layers.
4 No. Oedometer tests were also carried out to determine the consolidation and swelling characteristics
of the clays. The results of the in situ and laboratory tests are presented in the factual site investigation
report and are discussed in Section 6 of this report. 5 No. undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure
measurements were specified to be carried out on 70mm samples obtained from carefully trimming off
the 100mm undisturbed samples obtained during drilling. The diameter of the samples tested was
reduced in order to promote a speedier completion of the tests. At the time of writing of this report the
tests are underway and the results will be produced and discussed in an addendum to this report once
completed.
15/2724 IR 02 8
6 GROUND CONDITIONS
6.1 Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy revealed by the ground investigation undertaken at the site confirmed the anticipated
geology. It comprised Made Ground to a maximum depth of approximately 4.10m bgl (+0.16mOD)
overlying silty sandy gravel or slightly gravelly to gravelly sand (River Terrace Deposits) or soft slightly
peaty to peaty silty clay and sandy gravelly silty clay (most likely Alluvium).
The top of the London Clay Formation was encountered between 9.40m and 11.55m bgl (-5.6mOD)
overlying the Lambeth Group (Reading, Woolwich and Upnor Formations) the top of which was
encountered between 35.45m bgl and 37.85m bgl (-32.21 mOD). The Thanet Sand was encountered in 3
No. boreholes between 54.3m bgl and 54.8m bgl. The top of the Chalk was encountered between 63.4m
bgl and 64.4m bgl (-60mOD) and was proven to 71m bgl.
A geological section across the site is shown on Figure 4a, 4b and 4c, and the stratigraphy encountered
has been summarized in Table 1:
Table 1 – Summary of ground conditions

Min and Max Depth Min and Max Depth
Average
Formation to top of the unit to the base of the unit
Thickness (m)
(mOD) (mbgl)
Hardstanding + Made Ground 2.80 0 2.45 – 4.10
Alluvium 1.60 +2.02 – +0.16 2.80 – 5.90
River Terrace Sand and Gravel 6.25 +0.24 – -1.63 9.60 – 11.55
London Clay 26.40 -5.66 – - 7.31 35.45 – 37.85
Harwich Formation 0.22 -32.24 – 32.73 36.80 – 37.15*
Lambeth Group – Upper Mottled Beds - Clays 7.20 -32.01 – 33.03 43.10 – 44.40
Lambeth Group – Laminated Beds - Clays 1.75 -39.72 – -40.66 44.90 – 46.10
Lambeth Group – Lower Mottled Beds – Calcrete 0.85 -41.52 – -42.36 45.85 – 46.90
Lambeth Group – Lower Mottled Beds - Clay 2.25 -41.69 – -43.16 47.80 – 49.25
Lambeth Group – Lower Mottled Beds - Sand 1.50 -44.14 – -45.51 49.10 – 50.10
Lambeth Group – Mottled Upnor Formation - Pebble
4.00 -44.14 – -46.51 52.00 – 54.80
Bed (Clayey Gravel) overlying Glauconitic Clay and Sand
Thanet Sand Formation - Sand 9.00 -50.69 – 51.06 63.15 – 64.35
Thanet Sand Formation – Bullhead Beds 0.20 -59.76 – -60.09 63.40 – 64.45
Chalk – Seaford Chalk Formation 10 proven -60.01 - -60.19 Proven to 71
* Harwich was only encountered in 2 boreholes: BH02 and BH07
15/2724 IR 02 9
6.2 Hardstanding/Obstructions
Concrete slabs/old foundations/obstructions were encountered in most areas except in the area to the
south of the 18-23 Blackfriars building. This part of the site was occupied by a building that was
demolished prior to the onset of the investigation works. The concrete obstructions extended to a
maximum depth of 4.10m bgl (BH07 located in the basement of Rennie House). Core holes were sunk at
various locations to establish the nature of the existing substructures.
A summary of the concrete encountered at the various locations is presented in Table 2 below:
Table 2 – Concrete hardstanding/obstructions
Depth to top
Location Thickness (m) Remarks
(mbgl)
0.05 0.28 Reinforced concrete
BH01
0.48 0.17 Concrete
BH02 0.05 0.22 Reinforced concrete
0.00 0.25 Concrete
BH03
1.35 0.40 Concrete with plastic fragments at 1.50m
BH04 0.05 0.25 Reinforced concrete
Concrete. Note: BH05 aborted in Made Ground due
*BH05 0.09 0.11
to concrete cobble obstructions at 0.85mbgl.
Weak concrete. Note: BH06 aborted due to
*BH06 0.04 0.10
concrete obstructions at 1.35mbgl.
BH06A 0.05 0.25 Reinforced concrete
0.00 0.50 Concrete
BH07
3.20 0.90 Concrete
0.00 0.25 Concrete
WS01
0.90 0.20 Concrete
0.00 0.30 Concrete
WS02
0.80 0.20 Concrete
WS03 0.00 0.35 Concrete with 5mm rebar at 0.345mbgl
WS04 0.00 0.35 Concrete with 5mm rebar at 0.345mbgl
WS05 0.00 0.15 Concrete
Concrete. Note: window sample terminated at
*WS07 0.00 0.59
1.10mbg
*WS08 0.00 1.88 Concrete. Note: Core hole terminated at 1.88mbgl
Concrete. Note: Core hole terminated at 0.22mbgl
*WS09 0.00 0.22
due to presence of strong reinforcement.
*WS13 0.00 0.35 Concrete. Note: borehole terminated at 1.40mbgl.
TP02 0.10 0.20 Concrete
TP03 0.00 0.35 Concrete
*denotes termination of hole
15/2724 IR 02 10
6.3 Made Ground
The Made Ground layer mainly comprised very sandy GRAVEL and very gravelly to gravelly SAND layers
with brick and concrete fragments and rare clinker, ash, plastic, mortar and slate pieces. A layer of
gravelly sandy CLAY was encountered at the base of the Made Ground layer in boreholes BH01, BH02
and BH03.
The thickness of the Made Ground ranged between 0.20m and 3.05m with an average thickness of
1.60m. The layers of Made Ground encountered across the site are summarised in Table 3 below:
Table 3 – Made Ground depth and thickness
Depth to top Depth to top

Location Thickness (m) Location Thickness (m)
(mbgl) (mbgl)
0.25 0.65 0.28 0.20
WS01 BH01
1.10 0.60 0.65 1.80
0.30 0.50
WS02 BH02 0.27 3.83
1.10 0.45
0.25 1.10
WS03 0.35 3.05 BH03
1.75 1.75
WS04 0.35 2.55
BH04 0.30 2.20
WS05 0.15 3.15
BH05 0.20 0.65
WS06 0.15 2.30
BH06 0.14 1.21
Not encountered
WS07
Terminated at 1.10mbgl BH06A 0.30 2.50
0.06 0.01
BH07 Not encountered
WS08 1.62 0.03
0.00 0.10
Terminated at 1.88mbgl
TP02
0.00 0.02 0.30 2.20 proven
WS09
Terminated at 0.22mbgl TP03 0.35 1.45
WS10 Not encountered TP04 0.00 2.00 proven
WS11 1.00 0.40 TP04A 0.00 2.00 proven
WS12 Not encountered TP05 0.00 2.00 proven
0.35 0.80
WS13
Terminated at 1.40mbgl
15/2724 IR 02 11
A particle size distribution test carried out to a sample from BH01 shows the layer to comprise 52%
gravel, 21% sand and 14% fines of which the most is silt (12%) and 2% clay. 13% of the total percentage
was cobbles.
Atterberg limits carried out to the same sample show the fines to be of high plasticity with plasticity
index of 27%. Its natural moisture content was 28%.
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in this layer recorded N blow counts between 2 and 10 blows /300mm
suggesting the layer to be very loose (Figure 7a).
Although no specific tests have been carried out, a bulk density of 18kN/m3 can be assumed in the
design based on previous experience.
Characteristic design parameters for the layer are shown in Table 19a.
15/2724 IR 02 12
6.4 Alluvium
The alluvium encountered on site was a very soft brown slightly peaty to peaty silty Clay with occasional
shell fragments and slightly organic odour. It was encountered in BH02, BH06A and BH7 as well as WS01
to WS05 and WS10 to WS12. The distribution and extent of the alluvium was not consistent across the
site. The thicknesses were the greatest (approximately 2.75 - 3.15m bgl) to the west of the site (WS10,
WS12) gradually reducing under the middle part of the site towards the northeast and east to 1.7 – 0.7m
bgl. Alluvium was not present under the eastern part of the site (BH01, BH02, BH03 and WS06). The
thicknesses of Alluvium encountered across the site is summarised in the following table:
Table 4: Alluvium depth and thickness

(mbgl) (mbgl)
WS01 1.7 0.15 BH01 Not encountered
WS02 1.55 2.00
BH02 4.10 1.70
WS03 3.40 1.60 proven
WS04 2.90 1.10 proven
WS05 3.30 0.70 proven
BH05 Borehole terminated 0.85mbgl
WS06 Not encountered
WS07 Terminated at 1.10mbgl
BH06A 2.8 1.00
BH07 4.10 1.80
WS10 0.85 2.75
WS11 1.40 1.55
WS12 0.80 3.15
6.4.1 Index properties
Particle size distribution tests show the layer to comprise 0% to 3.4% gravel, 8% to 18% sand and 82% to
92% fines of which the Clay part is between 38% and 52%.
Atterberg limits carried out on samples retrieved from this layer show it to be of very high to extremely
high plasticity with plasticity index ranging between 55% and 104%.
Its natural moisture content ranged between 48% and 140% as shown on Figure 5.
Based on measurements of bulk density associated with triaxial compression tests carried out, a bulk
density of 18kN/m3 can be adopted for the layer and a dry density of 14-15 kN/m3.
15/2724 IR 02 13
6.4.2 Strength and Stiffness Parameters
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in this layer recorded N blow counts of 4 in BH02 and 16 in BH07
(Figure 7a). Two undrained triaxial tests were carried out on samples retrieved from the layer. The
results showed undrained shear strength (cu) between 21 and 63 kPa (Figure 8a).
It is recommended that a characteristic SPT value of Nchar = 6 and a characteristic design value of cu char=
30 kPa is adopted in the design. Characteristic design parameters for the layer are shown in Table 19b.
15/2724 IR 02 14
6.5 River Terrace Deposits
River Terrace Deposits (RTD) were encountered at depths varying between 2.45m (in BH01) and 5.90m
(in BH07) below the Alluvium and/or Made Ground layers. The greatest thickness of the layer was
encountered in the north and eastern parts of the site where the alluvium was either not present or of
relatively small thickness. The average thickness encountered across the site is 6.25m. The depths and
thicknesses of the layer are presented in Table 5.
The layer is described as light brown to greyish brown occasionally slightly silty or clayey, very sandy to
sandy angular to well rounded, fine to coarse flint GRAVEL. Light brown to brown slightly gravelly to
gravelly fine to coarse SAND layers between 0.20m and 1.50m thick are present within the layer in
boreholes BH01, BH03, BH04 and BH07.
Table 5: River Terrace Gravel depth and thickness

(mbgl) (mbgl)
WS01 1.85 1.15 proven BH01 2.45 7.15
WS02 3.55 0.45 proven
BH02 5.80 4.90
WS03 Not proven
BH03 3.50 5.90
WS04 Not proven
BH04 2.50 8.05
WS05 Not proven
WS06 2.45 1.55 proven
BH06A 3.80 7.75
BH07 5.90 3.75
WS10 3.60 0.40 proven
WS11 3.95 0.05 proven
WS12 3.95 0.05 proven
6.5.1 Index Properties
Particle Size Distribution Tests (PSD) carried out in bulk samples retrieved from the layer show it to
comprise approximately 65% to 93% gravel, 5.% to 34% sand and <1% to 2.4% fines.
A bulk density of 20kN/m3 may be assumed in the design.
15/2724 IR 02 15
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the River Terrace Deposits recorded N-values to be 11 blows/300mm
at the top of the layer to 21 blows /300mm towards the base, suggesting the layers to be medium dense
(Figure 7a).
A characteristic SPT value of
N char = 10+1.4z is recommended to be adopted for the design
Where z is the depth from the top of the stratum.
No factors to correct for the influence of effective overburden pressure or for the presence of the
groundwater have been applied to this value.
Peck, Hanson and Thorburn’s (1974) relationship between SPT blow count and angle of shearing
resistance, φ’, gives corresponding values ranging from φ’ = 30°at the top of the stratum to φ’ = 33° at
the base of the stratum .
Stroud (1988) suggests a stiffness value, E’, for sands and gravels of 2500N. This gives a value of stiffness
2
E’= 25,000 + 3500z kN/m .
6.6 London Clay
The London Clay Formation was encountered at depths varying between 9.60mbgl (in BH01) and
11.55mbgl (in BH07) below the River Terrace Deposits. The thickness across the site ranges from 25.80
and 27.35m with an average thickness of 22.23m. Thin bands of claystone were encountered during
boring within this layer. The London Clay layer was encountered in all boreholes as presented in Table 6.
Table 6: London Clay depth and thickness with claystone encounters

Location Depth to top (mbgl) Thickness (m) Claystone records
Very weak to weak claystone (40mm) at
BH01 9.60 26.70
18.50m bgl
Very weak to weak claystone between:
BH02 10.70 25.80
22.80m and 22.95m bgl
Medium strong claystone between:
13.95m and 14.10m bgl
Strong to very strong claystone:
BH03 9.40 27.35
at 22.35m, 23.00m and 23.10m bgl
Claystone fragments at 23.50m, 23.60m
and 24.95m bgl
BH04 10.55 24.90 Not encountered
BH06A 11.55 26.30 Not encountered
BH07 9.65 27.35 Not encountered
Note: BH05 and BH06 were aborted at 0.85m and 1.35m respectively due to concrete obstructions
encountered at these depths.
15/2724 IR 02 16
A weathered layer was encountered at the top of the formation with thickness ranging between 0.30m
and 0.70m. It is described as brown to greyish brown silty slightly micaceous clay. Underlying this, the
unweathered London Clay formation is described as brown to grey slightly micaceous CLAY, occasionally
slightly sandy to sandy with pockets and partings of sand, and with occasionally pyrite nodules, fossilised
wood fragments and claystone layers. Claystone was encountered in BH01 to BH03 between 18.50m and
24.95mbgl as summarised in Table 6.
6.6.1 Classification Tests
Particle Size Distribution tests were carried out on samples from all boreholes. The London Clay is shown
to comprise between 2.5% to 42% sand and between 57% to 97.5% silt and clay content of which the
Clay part is 53% average. Table 7 below presents the particle proportions for the London Clay.
Table 7: Particle Size Distribution - London Clay

Particle proportions %
Location Depth (mbgl)
Silt and Clay Sand Gravel
11.00 91.2 8.8 -

16.00 92.4 7.6 -
BH01
28.60 81.4 18.6 -
35.00 70.7 29.3 -
12.00 97.5 2.5 -
BH02 24.00 85.9 14.1 -
32.00 91.7 8.3 -
BH03 28.00 95.7 4.3 -
12.00 89.2 10.8 -
BH04
28.60 70.5 29.5 -
25.76 57 42.4 0.7
BH06A
36.50 71.9 28.1 -
10.60 93.7 6.3 -
BH07
28.60 67.6 32.4 -
Atterberg limit tests show the layer to be of high plasticity between 37% and 52%, suggesting that the
London Clay layer has a high shrinkage potential (Figure 6a). Its natural moisture content varied between
21% and 33% and generally decreased from 36% at the top of the stratum to 17% at the bottom (Figure
5).
Based on measurements of bulk density associated with triaxial compression tests carried out, a bulk
3
density of 19 - 20kN/m3 can be adopted for the layer and a dry density of 15 – 16 kN/m .
15/2724 IR 02 17
The results of the SPT tests for the layer are plotted in Figure 7a. This stratum yielded SPT N-values
linearly increasing from about 10 blows/300mm near the top of the layer to 42 blows/300mm towards
the base.
The results of the undrained triaxial tests are plotted in Figure 8b. Undrained triaxial tests were carried
out on samples retrieved from the layer. The results showed undrained shear strength (Cu) between a
minimum of 48 kPa and a maximum of 440 kPa with a tendency for the values to range between 120 –
195kPa.
A correlation factor to obtain undrained shear strength is required if the results of the SPT’s are to be
combined with the results of the triaxial compression tests. For the site specific data obtained at the site
a correlation of Cu = 5.5N is recommended.
For comparison purposes this correlation fits well when compared with that proposed by Stroud (1988)
which proposes approximately Cu = 5.0N for a Plasticity Index of between 30 and 50% and that by Baxter
(2009) who proposes Cu = 5.2N for London Clay. It should be noted that both these values are based on
research from numerous sites within the London Clay and in the case of Stroud (1988) different types of
overconsolidated clay and therefore should be used for comparison only to site specific data.
It is recommended that the following design lines are adopted:
N char = 15+0.96z
And
2
Cu char = 82+5.28z kN/m
Where z is the depth below the surface of the London Clay – assumed to be at -6.0.0mOD (design
elevation of London Clay) to -33.0mOD (design elevation of the Upper Mottled Clay).
The following correlations between vertical and horizontal stiffness are recommended to be adopted in
the design:
Euv= 400 cu Euv= 32,800 + 2,112z
Euh= 1000 cu Euh = 82,00 + 5280z
E’v= 300 cu E’v = 24,600 + 1584z
E’h= 750 cu E’h = 61500 + 3960z
One-dimensional oedometer consolidation tests were carried out on 3 No. of undisturbed samples
recovered during the investigation at depths between -10.7 and -12.6mOD. The specimens were
allowed to swell before the loading was applied. The recorded swelling pressures ranged between 76kPa
and 228kPa. The results of the tests give coefficients of consolidation (Cv) ranging typically between 0.93
2
and 7.1m /year for the various applied stress increments. Based on the test results a coefficient of
2
compressibility mv= 0.07 m /MN for a pressure range of 300-600kPa is recommended to be adopted in
the design.
15/2724 IR 02 18
Multi-stage consolidated undrained triaxial tests were carried out on two samples within the London
Clay. The effective stress parameters derived were cohesion (c’ ) equal to 35kPa and 47kPa with an
0 0
angle of friction (φ’) between 19 to 25 . In drained conditions the shear strength of soils is principally
frictional with c’=0. Tests on undisturbed samples of overconsolidated clays may exhibit some apparent
cohesion intercept. The “real” cohesion in soil probably relates to bonding forces that have developed
between clay particles over long periods of time undisturbed in the ground. Once broken, these bonds
do not reform (Gaba, 2003). The effects of remoulding due to installation of foundations, wall
installation and swelling of the clay due to excavation may generate sufficient strains for cʹ to be
appreciably reduced. It is therefore likely that the value of cʹ mobilised during construction will be far
smaller than the values derived from laboratory tests. It is therefore recommended that the drained
parameters used in design are c’ = 0 and φ’ = 20 ° which correlates with recommended values of φʹcrit
for clay soils related to plasticity index (BS 8002:2015).
6.7 Harwich Formation
The Harwich formation was encountered in BH02 between 36.50m and 36.80m and in BH07 between
37m and 37.15m (at about -32mOD). Its thickness varied between 0.15m and 0.30m.
The Harwich Formation comprised greyish brown to dark greyish brown slightly glauconitic sandy silty
CLAY with rare black subrounded medium flint gravel.
As the Harwich formation under the site is of limited thickness and mainly clayey in nature it is
considered together with the London Clay for the purposes of the design.
6.8 Lambeth Group
The top of the Lambeth Group was encountered at depths varying between 35.45m and 37.85m bgl. The
base of the group and total thickness are shown in the following table:
Table 8 – Lambeth Group depths and thickness

Location Depth to top (mbgl) Thickness (m)
BH01 36.30 18.00
BH02 36.80 18.15
BH03 36.75 18.05
BH04 35.45 4.55 proven
BH06A 37.85 2.15 proven
BH07 37.15 2.85 proven
15/2724 IR 02 19
It comprised Upper Mottled Beds (Clays), Laminated Beds (Clays), Lower Mottled Beds (Calcrete – Clays –
Sands) and Mottled Upnor Formation (Clayey Gravel, Clay and Sand). The succession and thicknesses of
its constituent s layers is presented in Table 9:
Table 9 - Lambeth Group layers and average thicknesses

Formation Thickness (m)
Lambeth Group - Upper Mottled Clay 7.20
Lambeth Group – Laminated Beds 1.75
Lambeth Group – Lower Mottled Beds – Calcrete 0.85
Lambeth Group – Lower Mottled Beds – Clay 2.25
Lambeth Group – Lower Mottled Beds – Sand 1.50
Lambeth Group – Mottled Upnor Formation - Clayey gravel, Clay and Sand 4.00
6.8.1 Upper Mottled Clay
The Upper Mottled Clay layer was encountered in all boreholes between 35.45m and 37.85m bgl. It
comprised a very stiff to hard, brown occasionally mottled light bluish and yellowish brown silty CLAY.
The average thickness of this unit was 7.20m.
6.8.1.1 Classification tests
Particle Size Distribution analyses of the upper mottled clay shows the stratum to comprise 99.2% to
99.8% clay and 0.4% to 4.4% sand. Gravel was encountered in one sample, BH06A at 38.45mbgl (Table
10). Moisture contents for this layer ranged between 16% and 23% as presented in Figure 5. Atterberg
results have been presented in Figure 6b showing the layer to be of high plasticity.
Table 10 – Particle Size Distribution - Upper Mottled Clay
Sample Depth Particle proportions %

Location
(mbgl) Silt and Clay Sand Gravel
BH01 39.5 99.6 0.4 0
36.8 98.7 1.3 0
BH02
42.5 95.6 4.4 0
BH03 37.2 99.8 0.2 0
BH04 35.5 96.6 3.4 0
BH06A 38.45 98.5 1.2 0.3
BH07 37.5 99.2 0.8 0
AVERAGE - 98.3 1.7 0.04
6.8.2 Laminated Beds
The Laminated Beds were encountered in BH01, BH02 andBH03 and comprised a very stiff thinly
laminated, slightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional partings of light grey silty fine sand. It was
encountered between 43.1m and 44.4m bgl, with an average thickness of 1.75m.
15/2724 IR 02 20
Particle Size Distribution analyses of the Laminated Beds shows the stratum to comprise 99.7% to 90.5%
silt and clay and 8.1 to 1.3 sand (Table 11). 2No. moisture content tests were performed within this layer
showing 19% and 20% as presented in Figure 5. Atterberg results have been presented in Figure 6b
showing the layer to be of highly plasticity.
Table 11 – Particle Size Distribution - Laminated Beds

BH01 44.9 99.7 0.3 0
BH02 45.5 90.5 8.1 1.5
6.8.3 Lower Mottled Beds
The Lower Mottled Beds were encountered in BH01, BH02 and BH03 a 2.5m to 3.2m thick layer of stiff to
very stiff, bluish grey mottled yellowish brown and purple slightly sandy silty CLAY with an 0.80m to
0.95m thick layer of calcrete forming its upper part in BH01 and BH03 with calcrete nodules encountered
in the upper part of BH02. The layer was underlain by an 1.3 to 1.7m thick very dense greenish brown
mottle bluish grey fine SAND layer encountered in BH01 and BH02 only.
Particle Size Distribution analyses in samples received from the lower mottled beds show the upper Clay
layer to consist 32% – 75% silt and clay with the underlying sand layer to contain 16 -23 % fines (silt and
Clay). Approximately 11% gravel was recorded in BH03 at 46.2mbgl (Table 12). Moisture contents for
this layer ranged between 15% and 16% as presented in Figure 5. Atterberg results have been presented
in Figure 6b showing the layer to be low plasticity clay.
Table 12 – Particle Size Distribution - Lower Mottled Beds

BH01 46.8 31.7 68.3 0
48.5 15.8 84.2 0
BH02 48.5 22.6 77.4 0
BH03 46.2 74.8 13.3 11.9
6.8.4 Upnor Formation
The Upnor Formation was encountered in BH01, BH02 and BH03. The Pebble Beds comprised the upper
layer of the formation and was encountered between 49m and 52.5m bgl, with a thickness between
2.5m and 3m. The layer comprised yellowish brown mottled greenish grey and purple sandy clayey
rounded to well rounder GRAVEL intermixed with layers of gravelly sandy Clay and clayey fine Sand.
15/2724 IR 02 21
Below the Pebble Beds a layer of dark green grey occasionally mottled yellowish brown layer of very
clayey, very gravelly glauconitic fine to medium SAND / very sandy, slightly gravelly CLAY was
encountered to a depth of approximately 55m. A layer of and comprised a mix of fine to medium Sand,
bluish grey mottled brown Clay and coarse flint Gravel. The layer was encountered between 49.10m and
50.10m bgl and had an average thickness of 4.0m.
Particle Size Distribution analyses of the Upnor Formation show the Pebble Beds to comprise 70% Sand
and 31% clay at the interface with the lower mottled beds with the gravel content increasing to up to
99% (Table 13).
Table 13 – Particle Size Distribution - Upnor Formation

50 42.3 31 26.8
BH01 52 18.5 78 3.4
53.5 50.1 49.7 0.2
BH02 50.3 0.5 0.5 99
BH03 49.35 31 68.9 0.1
The underlying glauconitic Sand layer comprised 50% to 78% Sand with 19-50% clay and up to 3% gravel
content. Moisture contents for this layer ranged between 17% and 29% as presented in Figure 5.
Atterberg results have been presented in Figure 6b showing this layer to be of intermediate plasticity.
The SPT N blowcounts in the Lambeth Group are presented in Figure 7b. The results have been
extrapolated to represent a 300mm penetration as the majority of the tests exceeded 50 blowcounts for
a lesser penetration.
SPT N blowcount values per 300mm within the Upper Mottled Clay ranged between 70 and 91 blows. In
the Laminated Beds one SPT was recorded of 40 blows. Those within the Lower Mottled Beds ranged
between 42 and 214 blows and in the Upnor Formation ranged between 80 and 215 blows.
7 No. undrained triaxial tests carried out in the Upper Mottled Clay showed strengths between 303kPa
to 550kPa. 2 No. undrained triaxial tests were carried out in the Laminated Beds showing strengths of
138kPa and 238kPa. 4 No. triaxial tests were conducted within the Lower Mottled Beds showing
strengths of 196kPa and 1018kPa. Finally a single triaxial test was carried out in the Upnor Formation
showing strength of 606kPa. Triaxial results for the Lambeth Group are presented in Figure 8b.
Based on the above tests and published data (Engineering in the Lambeth Group, CIRIA C583, 204) it is
recommended that the following characteristic parameters are adopted in the design. Multi-stage
consolidated undrained triaxial tests were carried out on three samples within the Upper Mottled Beds.
The effective stress parameters derived for cohesion were between 0kPa and 23kPa (c’ ) with an angle of
0 0
friction (φ’) between 21 and 32.5 . In drained conditions the shear strength of soils is principally
15/2724 IR 02 22
frictional with c’=0. Tests on undisturbed samples of overconsolidated clays may exhibit some apparent
cohesion intercept. The “real” cohesion in soil probably relates to bonding forces that have developed
between clay particles over long periods of time undisturbed in the ground. Once broken, these bonds
do not reform (Gaba, 2003). The effects of remoulding due to installation of foundations, wall
installation and swelling of the clay due to excavation may generate sufficient strains for cʹ to be
appreciably reduced. It is therefore likely that the value of cʹ mobilised during construction will be far
smaller than the values derived from laboratory tests. It is therefore recommended that the drained
parameters used in design are c’ = 0 and φ’ = 21 ° which correlates with published data for low plasticity
Lambeth Group clays (Engineering in the Lambeth Group, CIRIA C583, 204).
Upper Mottled Clay

2
Cu char= 300 KN/m
c’ = 0 φ’ = 21 °
2
Eu char = 120,000 KN/m
2
E’ char = 60,000 KN/m
Laminated Beds
2
Cu char= 150 KN/m
c’ = 0 φ’ = 14.5°
2
Eu char =60 ,000 KN/m
2
E’ char = 30,000 KN/m
Lower Mottled Beds - Clay

2
Cu char = 300KN/m
c’ = 0 φ’ = 14.5°
2
Eu char = 120,000 KN/m
2
E’ char = 60,000 KN/m
Lower Mottled Beds - Sand

c’ = 10 φ’ = 28°
E’ char = 200,000 KN/m2
Upnor Formation
c’ = 0 φ’ = 33°
E’ char = 260,000 KN/m2
15/2724 IR 02 23
6.9 Thanet Sand Formation
The Thanet Sand formation was encountered at depths varying between 54.30mbgl (-50.92mOD) and
54.95mbgl (-50.9mOD), with an average thickness of 9.20m. The boundary between the Thanet Sand and
the basal beds of the Lambeth Group is shown to be relatively flat across the site (Figure 4b & 4c).
The Thanet Sands was described as grey to brownish grey fine to medium sand with rare dark staining.
At the bottom of the formation a layer of dark grey angular to subangular fine to coarse flint gravel and
cobbles was encountered known as Bullhead Beds. Its thickness varied between 100mm and 250mm.
Table 14 – Thanet Sands depths and thicknesses

Location Depth to top (mbgl) Thickness (m)
BH01 54.30 8.85
BH02 54.95 9.40
BH03 54.80 8.70
BH04 Not encountered Not encountered
BH06A Not encountered Not encountered
BH07 Not encountered Not encountered
6.9.1 Classification Tests

Particle Size Distribution analysis carried out on the Thanet Sands showed it to comprise an average of
85% fine to medium sand with 12 – 16% clay and silt.

The SPT N blowcounts in the Thanet Sands are presented in Figure 7b. The results have been
extrapolated to represent a 300mm penetration with N-values ranging between 125 and 273 blows.
It is recommended that the following strength and stiffness values are adopted in the design:
c’ = 0 φ’ = 35°
E’ char = 260,000 KN/m2
15/2724 IR 02 24
6.10 Chalk
The Chalk stratum was encountered at depths between 63.40m and 64.45m bgl and was proven to a
depth of approximately 71.0 m bgl. In general it is described as very weak to moderately weak low
density off-white CHALK frequently recovered as structureless coarse soil (CIRIA grade Dc) composed of
silty gravel and cobbles. The gravel comprises very weak low density off-white subangular to
subrounded fine to coarse chalk fragments and rare subangular to subrounded medium rounded flint.
The percentages of rock versus structureless chalk recovered in each borehole are shown in the
following table:
Table 15 – Chalk Classification - Rock vs Structureless
BH01 BH02 BH03

Rock 65% 100% 54%
Structureless 35% - 46%
The RQD varied between 53 and 57% in BH01 , between 0 – 83% in BH02, and between 9 - 77% in BH03.
The factors influencing the engineering behaviour of the chalk mass are:
- Hardness of the intact chalk
- Bedding/discontinuity spacing and pattern
- Discontinuity aperture
Where the Chalk was not structureless some of the above factors could be noted:
In BH01 subvertical, close fractures were encountered between 63.80m and 63.95m bgl and horizontal,
very close, open fractures between 67.30 – 68m and 68.80 – 69.70m. Chalk is assigned a CIRIA grade B 3-
4/III-IV. In BH02 fractures were subvertical and subhorizontal, close, planar, rough locally undulating,
partly open, 250mm persistence at 64.45m and below 65m. Vertical and subvertical fractures, close,
planar, partly stepped, clean with 90mm and 620mm persistence were encountered at 68.98m and
70.15m respectively. Chalk is assigned a CIRIA grade A3/II-III. In BH03 vertical and horizontal, close to
very close, open fractures were encountered between 65.30m and 65.55m and between 69.60m and
69.73m. Chalk is assigned a CIRIA grade B3-4 / III-IV. The above grades should be considered as
indicative only as it is difficult to assess the fracture state of chalk on the basis of cores. Even with the
best drilling techniques disturbance can occur in the chalk, especially when it is weak and/or heavily
fractured.
15/2724 IR 02 25
6.10.1 Index Properties
Saturated Moisture Content (SMC) tests were carried out on a number of samples recovered from the
Chalk. The values ranged between 24% and 26%, with a mean SMC of 25%. Natural moisture contents
ranged between 24% and 26% with a mean NMC of 24% suggesting that the chalk underlying the site is
close or at saturation level.
One particle size distribution test carried out at a sample retrieved from the top of the chalk in BH01
showed it to comprise 96% fines and 4% sand. Fines are 52% silt and 48% clay. This result suggests that
the chalk at its top is most likely to behave as a fine soil.
Atterberg limits carried out on Chalk samples show the chalk to have a Liquid Limit between 30% and
32% suggesting that the Chalk moisture content is relatively close to its Liquid Limit. The plasticity Index
of the Chalk was low and ranged between 9% and 10%.
The bulk density of chalk was measured to be between 2.01 Mg/m3 and 2.04 Mg/m3. Intact dry density
2
tests were carried out on samples tested or SMC. The results in BH01 ranged from 1.63Mg/m at the top
2 2
of the Chalk to 1.62Mg/m at the base of the borehole. BH02 and BH03 show a dry density of 1.62Mg/m
2
and 1.59Mg/m respectively. There was no notable increase of the intact dry density with depth.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values in the Chalk layer are shown plotted in Figure 7b. The results
have been extrapolated to represent a 300mm penetration as the majority of the tests exceeded 50
blowcounts for a lesser penetration. N-values ranged between 83 and 250 blows.
CIRIA C574 recommends that lower bound N SPT values are adopted for the derivation of end bearing
capacity of piles. It is recommended that the following characteristic SPT value is adopted in the pile
design:
Nchar = 80
The design line is limited by the depth of the boreholes and should not be extrapolated to derive pile
capacities beyond this depth.
15/2724 IR 02 26
6.11 Groundwater
Standpipe monitoring wells and Vibrating Wire Piezometers were installed in various depths within some of the boreholes to allow long-term groundwater monitoring of the
th th
installation. However, due to the demolition activities on site only two visits were possible after the completion of the site investigation works (on 14 and 20 November
2015). The groundwater levels encountered during drilling and during the groundwater monitoring of the standpipe installations are presented in Table 16.
Table 16 - Groundwater Levels

Top of Bottom of
Date
BH Type installation response response Water Level(mOD) Details Date of reading
Installation
zone (mOD) zone (mOD)
No installation
BH01
Water Strikes: -2.12 River Terrace Deposits 31/07/2015
SPGW -0.74 -6.24 -0.13 Alluvium 14/10/15 – monitoring well
08/10/2015
VWP -53.74 Thanet Sands (Results presented in Figure 9a)
BH02 -1.59 River Terrace Deposits 30/07/2015
Water Strikes: London Clay -sand and silt
-26.74 05/08/2015
lenses
SPG/GW 0.54 -5.46 -0.14 River Terrace Deposits 24/10/15 – monitoring well
BH03 09/09/2015
VWP -57.76 Thanet Sands (Results presented in Figure 9b)
No installation
BH04 -2.26 River Terrace Deposits 28/07/2015
Water Strikes:
-27.26 London Clay – sandy pocket 29/07/2015
BH05/06 No installation
SPG/GW 3.82 2.02 Dry 24/10/15 – monitoring well
12/08/2015 SPGW 0.72 -6.73 -0.11 River Terrace Deposits 24/10/15 - monitoring well
BH06A
VWP -34.98 Upper Mottled Beds (Results presented in Figure 9c)
Water Strikes: -1.68 River Terrace Deposits 11/08/2015
SPGW -1.63 -5.38 2.99 River Terrace Deposits 24/10/15 – monitoring well
11/08/2015
VWP -30.73 London Clay (Results presented in Figure 9d)
BH07
-1.63 River Terrace Deposits 07/08/2015
Water Strikes:
-27.48 London Clay – sandy pocket 10/08/2015
15/2724 IR 02
Water strikes during drilling were encountered within the River Terrace Deposits at depths of 5.50m bgl
to 6.50m bgl. The ground water recorded during the monitoring of the shallow standpipes installed
within the River Terrace Deposits layers varied between 3.88m and 4.93m bgl.
These groundwater levels are anticipated to increase during the wet winter and spring months.
Furthermore, the local hydrology may be influenced by flooding, damaged or leaking water mains,
leakage from foul or storm drainage systems.
Based on the above and in accordance with the recommendation of CIRIA C580 report (Embedded
Retaining Walls – Guidance for Economic Design) it is suggested that a design ground water level of 3.00
mbgl for serviceability limit state (SLS) design and an accidental water level at ground level is adopted for
ultimate limit state (ULS) design to take into account any flooding potential even though the area is
benefiting from flood defences.
Water seepage was encountered within the London Clay in BH02, BH04 and BH07 at similar depths (31,
30.5 and 31.75 mbgl respectively). The seepage was associated with sand and silt lenses at this depth.
Vibrating Ware Piezometers were installed at BH02, BH03, BH06A and BH07 within the London Clay,
Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands layers. The Vibrating Wire readings are presented in Section 9 of the
Blackfriars Phase II Concept’s Factual Report and are plotted in Figures 9a to Figures 9d. The results
show the porewater pressures to be stable in BH02 and BH03. The porewater pressures in BH06A and
BH07 are shown to be dropping. It should be noted that due to the short duration of the monitoring the
groundwater pressures may have not yet reached equilibrium, especially in the clay layers. The results
obtained during the last visit are presented in the attached table:
Table 17 – Vibrating wire piezometer details

Recorded porewater
Depth of the
BH Formation pressure during last
installation (m bgl)
visit (kPa)
BH02 58.00 Thanet Sand 206
BH03 61.50 Thanet Sand 207
BH06A 39.80 Lambeth Group – Upper Mottled Beds 245

BH07 35.00 London Clay 215
The influence of the underdrainage to the underlying lower aquifer (Thanet Sand and Chalk) is evident
within the London Clay and Upper Mottled Clay readings which are approximately at 65% of the
hydrostatic water pressures. The pressure within the Thanet Sand layer is shown to be approximately
40% the hydrostatic.
The lower aquifer was subject to significant water extraction in the past. There are 31 water abstraction
licenses located within 100m of the site, the closest of which is 14m to the north. It is possible that if
some or all of the water abstraction points were shut down the groundwater table could rise.
15/2724 IR 02
CIRIA Special Publication 69 ‘The Engineering Implications of Rising Groundwater Levels in the Deep
Aquifer beneath London’ (1989) classifies the area of the site is being in a zone where deep basements
and long piles could be affected by the rise in groundwater in the deep aquifer. The rate of the increase
will depend on the reduction of the abstraction points. Should all the abstraction points are shut a rise
of the groundwater level to ground level with the pore pressures within the clay layers reaching full
hydrostatic could be anticipated within the design life of the building.
Given the above and the lack of further monitoring data it is recommended that a hydrostatic pressure
distribution is adopted in the design.
15/2724 IR 02 29
7 DESIGN PROFILE AND GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Based on the ground condition described in Chapter 6, it is recommended that the following design
profile and characteristic geotechnical parameters are used for the design of the foundations.
Table 18 - Design geotechnical profile

Formation Top of the Stratum (mOD) Thickness (m)
Made Ground +4.0 4.0
Alluvium +1.0 2.0
River Terrace Sand and Gravel -1.0 5.0
London Clay -6.0 39
Upper Mottled Clay -33.0 7.0
Laminated Beds -40 2.5
Lower Mottled Beds - Clay -42.5 1.5
Lower Mottled Beds - Sand -44 2.0
Upnor Formation -46.5 5.0
Thanet Sand Formation -51.0 9.0
Chalk -60.0 7.0 proven
Table 19 – Geotechnical Design Parameters

Where parameters could not be derived, due to a lack of laboratory tests or appropriate empirical
correlations, such parameters have been conservatively assumed for the purposes of preliminary
foundation design and are denoted with **
19a - Made Ground
Design Parameter Unit Value
3
Bulk Unit weight (γ) KN/m 18
Angle of friction (φ’ ) Degrees (°) 29**
2
Modulus of Elasticity (E) kN/m 6,000
19b - Alluvium
3
3
Dry density KN/m 14 - 15
2
Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) kN/m 30
2
Modulus of Elasticity (E’) kN/m 8,000
15/2724 IR 02 30
19c - River Terrace Deposits

3
Angle of friction (φ’ ) Degrees (°) 30 – 33
SPT N 10+1.4z
2
Modulus of Elasticity (E’) kN/m 25000+ 3500z
19d - London Clay

3
Bulk Unit weight (γ) KN/m 19 - 20
Dry density KN/m3 15 - 16
2 *
Undrained Shear Strength (cu) kN/m 82 + 5.28z
Drained Angle of friction (φ’)** Degrees (˚) 25
2
Drained Cohesion (c’)** kN/m 5
2
400cu
Vertical Undrained Modulus of Elasticity E u kN/m
32,800 + 2112z
2
300cu
Vertical Drained Modulus of Elasticity E’ kN/m
24,600 + 1584z
2
1000cu
Horizontal Undrained Modulus of Elasticity E hu kN/m
82000 +5280z
2
750cu
Horizontal Drained Modulus of Elasticity Eh’ k/m
61500 + 3960z
2
Coefficient of Compressibility m /MN 0.07
*
Where z is the depth below the top of the London Clay in m
19 e - Lambeth Group
DESIGN PARAMETERS
STRATUM γ char Cu char C’ char φ‘ char Eu char E’ char
3 2 2 2 2
KN/m KN/m KN/m ° KN/m KN/m
Upper Mottled Clay 21 300 0 14.5 120,000 60,000
Laminated Beds 20 150 0 14.5 60,000 30,000
Lower Mottled Beds – Clay 20** 300 0 14.5 120,000 60,000
Lower Mottled Beds – Sand 19** - 10 28 - 200,000
Upnor Formation 19** - 0 33 - 260,000
15/2724 IR 02 31
19f - Thanet Sand

3
Angle of friction (φ’ ) Degrees (°) 36
2
Modulus of Elasticity (E’) kN/m 260,000
Where:
γ char : Bulk Unit weight
Cu char : Undrained Shear Strength
φ‘ char: Drained Angle of friction
C’ char: Drained Cohesion
Eu char : Undrained Modulus of Elasticity
E’ char : Drained Modulus of Elasticity
15/2724 IR 02 32
8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
8.1 General
The assessment of the potential impacts arising from contaminated land is based upon considerations of
pollution linkages between contamination sources and sensitive receptors. The UK framework for the
assessment of contaminated land endorses the principle of risk assessment and a suitable for use
approach to contaminated land. Remedial action is only required if there are unacceptable risks to
human health or the environment, taking into account the use of the land and its environmental setting.
The new structure to be developed on this site will include two basement levels, and as such pose no
risks to human health other than vapours and ground gases. The methodology of risk assessment is
normally set out in terms of significant pollutant linkages within a source-pathway-receptor model of the
site. All three of these elements must be present for a site, or area of a site, to be determined to be
contaminated.
A preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) was presented in the Geo-environmental and Geotechnical
Desk Study submitted by Pell Frischmann in October 2014. The CSM identified and described the
sources of potential contamination (on-site and off-site), the potential behaviour of the contamination in
environmental media such as soils, groundwater, surface water and air. The conceptual model has been
updated based on the results of the ground investigation and latest information regarding the proposed
development.
The exposure model is in line with the Statutory Guidance to Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act
1990, also known as a “potential pollution linkages” in the Model Procedures of CLR11 (DEFRA and
Environment Agency, 2004).
8.2 Potential Sources of Contamination
Historical sources of contamination considered as having the potential to impact on the site were noted
in the Pell Frischmann October 2014 Desk Study as being the following;
Onsite Sources:
x Made Ground containing metals/metalloids, Petroleum Hydrocarbon, Polycyclic Hydrocarbon,
and asbestos associated with historical use of the site including a factory (western quarter),
warehouse (centre), commercial/industrial (entire site from 1950) and car parking with
potential fuel/oil storage/spills.
Off Site Sources:

x Metals/metalloids, Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Polycyclic Hydrocarbon, associated with
historical features such as a saw mill/printing works (30m west), Tramway (on eastern
boundary), electrical sub-station (50m south west) and a lead works (200m south east).
15/2724 IR 02 33
The conclusions of the risk evaluation reported in the Desk Study showed the site to have a Moderate
risk from metal/organic contaminants and ground gases with a High risk from potential asbestos within
the made ground. The overall risk from potential contaminants on site was reported as being Moderate
to High.
8.3 Receptors
Receptors potentially at risk from significant contamination at the site in relation to the proposed
development are considered to include the following:
- On and off site residential and commercial site users
- Secondary and Principal aquifer during and after the development.
- Future maintenance workers.
- Building materials and underground services.
- Plants (flora) if new landscaping is provided.
- Surface Water.
- 10m excavation for basement; no information for deeper units at this time.
8.4 Pathways
The potential exposure pathways linking the identified receptors to the potential contamination sources
are considered to be as follows:
Human
- Inhalation of fibres and particulates (during development).
- Inhalation of vapours and gases following development.
Groundwater
- Soil leaching to groundwater after development.
- Disturbance and migration along new pathways created during construction.
Building Materials
- Contact with contaminated soil and groundwater.
Surface Water
- Soil leaching to groundwater then migrating to surface water.
- Disturbance and migration along new pathways created during construction then migration to
surface water.
15/2724 IR 02 34
8.5 Assessment of pollutant linkages
Following a review of the contamination testing of soils the below viable pollution linkages have been
identified.
Controlled Waters:
Leaching of metal contamination in areas exposed to precipitation and horizontal migration through the
Made Ground into the Secondary Aquifer (River Terrace deposits) was identified as being viable.
However, whilst no leachate or groundwater testing has been carried out during this phase of the
assessment the possibility of leachable metal contaminants impacting on the River Thames remains
viable. It is considered unlikely that potential leachable contaminants on site would migrate through the
London Clay and impact on the Principal Aquifer (Chalk) due London Clay acting as an impermeable
barrier. It should be noted that where contamination within the Made Ground has been identified and
the Made Ground remains in-situ a risk assessment of the pile design should be carried out to prevent
the creation of a new pollution pathway.
Ground Gas:
Any comments regarding the Ground Gas flow would be included in the Reports following the Phase II
works.
Flora and Fauna:

Due to the identification of metal and organic contamination within the Made Ground a viable pollution
linkage has been identified should planting be carried out in areas where Made Ground has been
encountered.
Building Materials and Services:

A viable linkage between metal and organic contaminants within the Made Ground on site has been
identified where new potable water supply pipes are to be laid in areas where Made Ground was
encountered.
15/2724 IR 02 35
9 DATA EVALUATION
9.1 Groundwater Assessment Values and Hazardous Ground Gas
No groundwater testing or gas monitoring was carried out during this phase of the assessment.
9.2 Soil Assessment
9.2.1 General
Thirteen soil samples were analysed for a range of potential contaminants including metals, other
inorganics, asbestos and various types of petroleum hydrocarbons. One additional sample was tested for
asbestos quantification. The additional asbestos test sample was taken from WS01 at 0.40m. Waste
Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing was carried out on four samples including leachability 2:1 and 8:1
leachate testing.
9.2.2 Metal and Metalloids

Concentrations of metals and metalloids within the made ground on site were generally recorded below
the S4UL and lead C4SL values. However, elevated levels of lead were recorded above the C4SL value of
760mg/kg at the location of WS06, WS03 and WS02 at concentrations of 8700mg/kg, 1600mg/kg and
1300mg/kg respectively. The lead contamination within WS03 was recorded within the profile of made
ground at depths from 0.50m to 2.75m.
For the purpose of assessment the levels of mercury within the made ground were considered to be
associated with inorganic mercury as this is retained in soils for longer periods as opposed to the highly
volatile elemental mercury. The source of the inorganic mercury is likely to be residual paint on
demolition rubble.
9.2.3 Non-metallic inorganic Compounds

Concentrations of total cyanide were below the method detection Limit (MDL) <1 mg/kg. Asbestos was
identified at the location of WS01 in one sample of made ground from a depth of 0.50m. Asbestos
quantification was carried out with the results reported as being bellow the human health criteria of
0.001% The samples were generally neutral in pH with in one sample of made ground at the location of
WS01 being very neutral at a pH of 10.8.
9.2.4 Hydrocarbons
The results of the contamination testing identified a very slight exceedances of benzo(b)fluoranthene
and benzo(a)pyrene by 0.1mg/kg and dibenz(a,h)anthracene by 0.42mg/kg at the location of WS01. It
should be noted that site specific modelling of these exceedances is likely to increase the assessment
criteria.
No further exceedance of the assessment criteria was recorded for hydrocarbon contaminants with
phenol and VOC’s being recorded below laboratory detection limits. In addition the highest recorded
level of total PAH was identified within WS02 at a concentration of 68mg/kg. TPH analysis recorded the
15/2724 IR 02 36
presence of TPH aromatic EC12 to EC16 at concentrations of 6.1mg/kg and EC21 to EC35 at 140mg/kg
with the respective S4UL being 5100mg/kg and 3800mg/kg.
10 RISK ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Introduction
A preliminary risk assessment of the proposed development land use has been undertaken based on the
information currently available on the site. The risk characterisations provided below has been assessed
qualitatively using the CIRIA 552 guidance which reports a range of risk levels from very high/ high/
moderate/ low to very low.
10.1.1 Risks to human health during development

Should any potentially contaminated made ground be excavated during the development of the site a
potential pollutant linkage would exists for construction workers (direct contact/ingestion, inhalation)
and neighbours (from inhalation of dust emissions). The risk to construction workers and neighbouring
site users is considered very low based on the use of appropriate P.P.E and reduced exposure
frequencies.
Areas of the site that have not been subject to investigation due to site restrictions may contain as yet
unidentified contamination. It is recommended that a watching brief for the identification of unexpected
contamination is included in the principal contractor risk assessment. Should any conditions arise other
than those identified previously, then the soils of concern should be assessed and the risks revaluated
accordingly. In addition general precautionary methods should be taken to limit direct exposure to soils
and dust during the development for instance from unexpected contamination. This should include the
use of appropriate PPE based on the findings of this site investigation and dust control during
earthworks. Dust suppression will also mitigate the risks of fugitive dust emissions impacting on
neighbouring sites.
10.1.2 Risks to human health after development

It is likely that Made Ground on site will either be disposed of offsite or reused on site. Where made
ground excavated from the location of WS6, WS03 and WS02 is to be reused we recommend this is place
under hardstanding or retained on site under a clean capping layer of 900mm subsoil and topsoil. This is
not required if basement is to be constructed.
Providing the identified contaminated made ground on site is suitably covered or removed from site the
risks to the end users from the contaminants within areas investigated during this phase of works is Very
Low.
10.1.3 Risks to groundwater

The site is underlain by a Secondary Aquifer with no groundwater encountered during this phase of
works. It is unlikely that the contaminants within the Made Ground would have an adverse impact on the
groundwater due to the low leachability as indicted by the WAC test results.
15/2724 IR 02 37
Further assessment of the groundwater is to be carried out during the next phase of works with the
estimated risks to the Secondary Aquifer from contaminants on site being Low.
10.1.4 Risk from ground gases and vapours

Assessment of the risks from ground gases will be discussed as part of the next phase of works.
11 WASTE DISPOSAL
The results of the WAC testing carried out on the alluvial soils (WS10) reports the natural soils underlying
the site to be classified as inert material for the purposes of waste disposal.
A further two WAC tests on Made Ground located at WS04 and WS13 report the waste classification of
made ground in those areas to be Inert waste. However, the remaining sample from TP03 reported the
Made Ground in that area to be stable none reactive hazardous waste (non-hazardous) due to slightly
elevated levels of sulphate.
Due to the high level of lead at the location of WS06 the Made Ground at this location is classified as
Hazardous Waste. Made Ground excavated from this location should be disposed of at a hazardous
waste landfill. If storing the excavated Made Ground on site it is recommended to be stockpiled
separately and covered at the end of each working day so as to prevent mixing of the waste and leaching
of lead from the Made Ground.
The proposed development may produce a quantity of spoil material from the excavation of the
foundations although that might be re-used on site. Spoil generated from the site will require disposal in
accordance with the various legislation and guidance related to waste. All material removed from site
must be adequately described by reference to the appropriate codes in the List of Waste regulations.
Appropriate documentation should be retained, and be available for inspection, that demonstrates the
nature of the material to be disposed of including chemical analysis where appropriate.
Basic waste characterisation (as defined by the guidance) must be carried out by, or on behalf of, the
waste holder before landfilling. The general principle is that the composition, long-term behaviour and
general properties of a waste to be landfilled must be known as precisely as possible. Waste received by
a landfill operator will be subject to compliance checking and verification prior to landfilling, which will
include periodic detailed analysis. The existing information from the site investigations will be useful in
this respect.
Soils arising from the groundwork, requiring disposal, will require classification before disposal to a
suitably licensed waste disposal facility. There are now three main types of landfill (inert, non-hazardous
and hazardous). However soils can often be sent off site for treatment and recovery or reuse under
certain circumstances if appropriate and supported by various protocols.
15/2724 IR 02 38
Recommendations
x It is recommended to investigate inaccessible areas using a 30m grid as a guide. This phase of
work should confirm the presence and depth of Made Ground and Alluvial deposit with the
installation of ground gas monitoring wells where necessary.
x Due to the potential for the migration of off-site sources of contamination and ground gas to
pass through the site it is recommended to carry out two rounds of groundwater sampling with
appropriate contamination testing and four rounds of ground gas monitoring. Should
significant levels of contaminated groundwater and elevated ground gas levels be identified
then further monitoring is likely to be required.
x If storing lead contaminated Made Ground excavated from WS06 on site it is recommended
that the material be segregated from other excavations and stockpiled separately. The
stockpile should be covered at the end of each working day so as to prevent mixing of the
waste and leaching of lead from the Made Ground.
x Delineation of the hazardous and non-hazardous waste made ground at the location of WS06
and TP3 would better define the volumes of Made Ground for disposal off site. Should this be
required it is recommended to be carried out during the next phase of works. Alternatively a
portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyser could be used at the time of excavation and
disposal of Made Ground from the location of WS06.
x Due to the identification of asbestos within the Made Ground a watching brief and toolbox talk
on the identification and disposal of asbestos containing material is recommended to be
implemented by the principal contractor.
x Due to the potential for as yet unidentified contamination to be present on site we would
recommend a watching brief on the procedures for dealing with unforeseen contamination.
During construction.
15/2724 IR 02 39
12 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 Introduction
The proposed building will have a large deep basement excavated to depths between 16m and 18m bgl
(-11mOD and -13mOD) extending under the entire footprint of the building. The superstructure will
comprise variable height towers ranging between 12 and 45 storeys.
The excavation for the construction of the basement will take place within the Made Ground, Alluvium,
the River Terrace Deposits(RTD) and the Weathered London Clay. The majority of these deposits are
likely to be unstable in an open excavation. Any open excavations formed within the RTD layer should be
battered to a maximum angle of 27° for temporary earthworks purposes.
Alternatively and in order to minimise the influence of the excavation on adjacent structures, prior to the
excavation commencing, embedded retaining walls such as sheet pile walls, secant pile walls, diaphragm
walls can be constructed to support the sides of the excavations close to existing buildings.
The foundations of the superstructure are likely to be a piled raft with the piles potentially extending to
the Thanet Sand layer.
Care should be exercised to prevent the basement excavations from influencing the foundations of
adjacent structures within a slope of 1 (horizontal) to 2 (vertical) from the base of the excavation
(Tomlinson, 1989). Any shallow foundations within this line are likely to be affected and may require
underpinning subject to a damage assessment of the structure.
It is not recommended that any ancillary structures / ground slabs bear within the Alluvium layer as such
structures will need to be designed to overcome potentially significant differential settlements resulting
from the ongoing consolidation of the compressible Alluvium layer which is likely to continue for a
considerable period as its organic matter continues to degrade.
12.2 Basement RC Raft
The basement slab will be required to overcome upward pressures resulting from the removal of the
overburden pressure, existing building loads as well as the ground water pressures.
Uplift occurs immediately following excavation. The removal of 18m of overburden will result in
2
maximum uplift pressures of up to 348 kN/m in the areas of the site where there are no existing
basements. In addition to the uplift pressures resulting from the removal of the overburden there will
be further uplift pressures resulting from the removal of the load imposed by the existing buildings once
these are demolished and before the full load of the superstructure is imposed. Uplift pressures at the
parts of the site where basement structures are already present are likely to be less.
2
In addition, a ground bearing raft will need to withstand uplift water pressures up to 180kN/m based on
an accidental long term water table taken at ground level.
15/2724 IR 02 40
Once the superstructure is constructed the remaining pressures on the slab will be the net difference
between the heave and the imposed load. Water pressures will continue acting at the underside of the
basement slab during its design life.
The basement raft can either be designed to be fully suspended from the piles with a void former layer
under it of sufficient thickness to withstand the anticipated heave movement or it can be ground bearing
thus distributing the majority of the loads onto the piles and some load directly onto the ground.
A ground bearing raft will require a significant thickness to be able to withstand the magnitude of the
anticipated uplift pressures and may lead to uneconomic design. A suspended piled raft is likely to
require a reduced thickness, potentially leading to a more economical design.
A more accurate assessment of the anticipated magnitude of heave/settlement/differential movements
should be carried out at detailed design stage in order to determine the movements likely to be
experienced by the structure and determine the required raft thickness and reinforcement.
Underslab drainage can prevent the build-up of water pressures under the slab which may be significant
in the case of the basement slab. Drainage channels leading to perimeter drained cavities can be
installed in the void to collect any ground water. This will then be discharged to the main drains by
pumping from permanent sumps. Reduction of the water pressures adopted in the design of the slab
should only be permitted following detailed analysis of the drainage system. The effect of possible
malfunctioning of the underslab drainage should be allowed for in the design.
12.3 Preliminary Pile Design
The piles will mainly carry the column loads from the superstructure. They may also be subject to tension
loads resulting from the anticipated heave. The choice of piles will need to take into account the
likelihood of seepages that will be encountered in the high permeability layers of the Lambeth Group,
Upnor formation and Thanet Sands. These layers are likely to collapse if unsupported. Bored piles under
bentonite are considered to be the most appropriate option for this site.
Preliminary pile design charts for 900mm, 1200mm and 1500mm bored piles are shown in Figures 10a,b,
and c respectively. The charts assume piles starting from basement level taken at -13mOD.
The design is based on the adoption of an “α” factor of 0.5 in the London Clay and an “α” factor of 0.4 for
the clay layers within the Lambeth Group. Effective stress parameters are adopted for the design of the
piles within the Upnor formation and Thanet Sand. The clayey sand layer of the Lower Mottled Beds was
not differentiated from the overlying clays as it was not present throughout the site.
The heterogeneity of the Lambeth Group makes difficult to rely on the piles achieving the high end
bearing pressures of its sand horizons. Furthermore the calcrete was not present in all the boreholes
and has therefore not been differentiated from the Lower Mottled Clay in the design. It is recommended
that when high end bearing pressures are required in the design the piles are taken into the Thanet Sand
layer. Base grouting of the piles will ensure that the required end bearing pressures are achieved and
will overcome the uncertainties associated with the condition of the base of the bore being drilled under
15/2724 IR 02 41
bentonite. Ground penetration to at least 1.5 -2.0 x pile diameters within the founding layer is
recommended to mobilise the bearing capacity of the layer.
The design has been carried out in accordance to BS EN1997-1, UK National Annex. The charts show
design lines for the following conditions associated with the performance of pile load testing:
A. No pile testing proposed.
B. (a) Pile testing to at least 1% of preliminary/working piles loaded to at least 1.5 the
representative load for which they are designed
Or
(b) Settlement is explicitly predicted by a means no less reliable than in (a)
Or
(c) Settlement at the serviceability state is of no concern.
The design lines shown on the charts represent the design resistance. This is dictated in all the results
by the Geotechnical limit state and in this respect the factors stated in table NA.A1 of the National Annex
to BS EN 1990 should be applied when comparing the design resistance to the applied actions (γ= 1 for
permanent and γ=1.35/0 for variable unfavourable/ favourable respectively as stated in Design Approach
1: Combination 2).
Adopting higher factors of safety will limit the anticipated pile settlements and will not require
confirmation of the design assumptions with pile tests. It may however lead to uneconomical designs.
Adopting lower factors of safety will be subject to the type and frequency of pile testing proposed. It is
prudent to seek agreement for the pile testing proposals with the local building control office. The final
design of the piles should be carried out by the piling contractor.
It should be noted that at depth the pile capacity may be governed by the compressive strength of
concrete.
12.4 Basement Construction
As the site is surrounded by existing buildings, the excavation must be carried out in a supported manner
in order to maintain stability of the surrounding ground and adjacent foundations. Any open excavation
within the granular deposits encountered on site is likely to be unstable.
The sidewalls of the excavation can be supported using a cased hard/soft CFA secant pile wall system
and/or diaphragm walling. The earth retention system can be incorporated into the permanent concrete
box structure forming the foundation of the perimeter walls which are likely to be the most heavily
loaded parts of the structure.
The excavation of the basement will take place below the water table. Adoption of secant pile walling
embedded into the London Clay would significantly reduce or abate possible seepages from the
excavation sides. If pumping from within the preformed secant piled basement is required to deal with
15/2724 IR 02 42
any potentially heavy seepages, its effect on the surrounding structures should be assessed prior to its
use.
The proposed basement system should be designed such as to prevent the formation of a dam that
could potentially divert the ground water around the basement and cause the rise of the water level
below the adjoining properties.
The piled wall can be lined with a reinforced in-situ concrete lining to provide waterproofing of the
basement. An alternative is to form a drainage channel between the piled wall and an internal RC
concrete water tight skin, where any seepage run off along with any underslab drainage runoff will be
collected and directed to a sump. This would also deal with potential seepages present above the water
table as well as with accidental flood incidents.
Consideration should to be given to the water tightness of the completed structure, in accordance with
BS8102:1990 - Protection of structures against water from the ground (and subsequent 2009 revision).
12.5 Retaining Wall Design
The parameters presented in Chapter 7 should be adopted in the design for vertical stiffness. Horizontal
stiffness is stress/strain dependent and will need to be considered in the design report as the scheme
details progress.
For granular materials it is reasonable to adopt an earth pressure coefficient at rest K0 = 1 (CIRIA C580,
2003). Active (Ka) and Passive (Kp) coefficients can be derived from the equations and charts in Appendix
A6 of the CIRIA C580 report.
The following should be taken into account in the design:
- Allowance for 0.5m to 1.0m over-excavation at the front of the wall;
- Groundwater Levels:
- 1.0m bgl for ULS design
- 3.5m bgl for SLS design
- Surcharge pressure equivalent to the foundation pressures of adjacent buildings
- Surcharge pressure of 10kN/m2 at the ground surface on the retained road side of the
excavation to allow for traffic and vehicle loading
- Surcharge pressures from potential piling work platforms and heavy plant traffic.
- Stiffness parameters for the walls in accordance with the recommendations of CIRIA Report
C580 of 0.7 x EI for undrained design and 0.5 x EI for drained design.
12.6 Ground Movements
The movements experienced by the various parts of the substructure and superstructure will depend on
the uplift versus load distribution and need to be assessed during detailed design stage.
15/2724 IR 02 43
12.6.1 Construction Stage

The demolition of the existing structure and removal of the overburden to form the proposed basement
will cause the underlying high plasticity clays to heave. The magnitude of the heave across the site will be
variable depending on the presence of the existing basements and the magnitude of the loads imposed
by the existing buildings.
The timing of the demolition of the existing buildings in relation to the excavation works and the
construction of the superstructure will dictate the overall magnitude of the heave experienced by the
various parts of the substructure.
The piled raft will be constructed before the rest of the superstructure. Once constructed, and before it
is fully loaded it will experience uplift due to the ground heave which is likely to be around 50% to 60% of
the overall anticipated heave (immediate heave). The piles will need to be designed to withstand upward
movements.
As the load of the superstructure is gradually imposed on the raft and surrounding walls the ground will
settle and the heave will be counteracted.
12.6.2 Long Term Ground Movements
The remaining long term heave following completion of construction will be counteracted by the
settlement resulting from the imposition of the building loads. If the reloading of the soil exceeds the
unloading it is unlikely that any residual heave will remain. The ground will begin to settle under the
excess load and the clay layers will begin to consolidate due to the net additional superstructure loading.
As the load applied by the new structures is likely to be greater than the net unloading, long term heave
is unlikely to be a problem.
12.6.3 Movement of Adjacent Structures
The foundations of the adjacent structures are likely to be affected by the development depending on
their depth and distance from the excavations.
The heave potential of the ground surrounding the excavation will be counteracted by the settlement
caused by the lateral movement of the faces of the excavation. Settlement of the ground surface will not
occur to any appreciable extent beyond a line drawn at a slope of 1 (horizontal) to 2 (vertical) from the
base of the excavation (Tomlinson, 1989). The effect of the excavation to any shallow foundations within
this line needs to be considered at detailed design stage.
Anticipated ground movements associated with the construction works and assumed construction
sequence should be calculated for the various stages of construction (for both temporary and permanent
works). These may be due to the following:
- Settlement of the ground surface behind the excavation caused by the drawdown of the water
table due to dewatering of the excavation. This is not likely to be significant if a secant pile wall
system is to be adopted which will limit the requirement for dewatering.
15/2724 IR 02 44
- Settlement of the adjoining foundations caused by collapse of the excavation. This will be
prevented by the use of the proposed walling system.
- Settlement of the ground surface behind the piled walls resulting from their installation. This
could be of the order of 0.04% of the pile depth reducing gradually over a distance of twice the
pile depth (CIRIA C580).
- Heave related movement associated with the excavation in front of the walls. Heave/settlement
of the surrounding structures/ utility services will be minimised as the excavation will be carried
out within supported sides.
- Short and long term settlement related movements associated with the deflection of the walls
which are dependent on the wall stiffness and the temporary / permanent propping scheme.
Once estimates of the above movements and related strains are determined the potential cracking to
adjoining structures can be evaluated on the basis of the Boscardin and Cording (1989) and Burland
damage classifications.
Monitoring of the adjoining structures situated within influencing distance of the proposed development
should be carried out at agreed time intervals during and after construction in accordance with the
Observational Method in Ground Engineering (CIRIA Report 185 (1999)).
Movements can be measured by means of total monitoring stations installed at the top of the piled walls
/ capping beam, and / or on adjacent structures. This monitoring should be carried out in combination
with regular visual inspections of the adjoining properties for signs of cracking.
An alternative or additional means of monitoring is the installation of inclinometers in boreholes or in
the piles to measure lateral ground movements. The data from the inclinometers should be monitored
continually during the construction phase and for a period subsequent to construction. A communication
system should be established prior to the commencement of the works where the acceptable levels of
movement are established and where the designer/ main works contractor is alerted if any movements
exceed the predetermined levels in order to take appropriate action.
15/2724 IR 02 45
12.7 Sub-surface Concrete
Concrete to be placed in contact with the soil or groundwater should be designed in accordance with the
recommendations of Building Research Establishment Special Digest 1 “Concrete in Aggressive Ground”
(2005) taking into account the pH of the soils.
During the investigation there were pyrite nodules noted within the London Clay Formation at various
depths. The presence of pyrite suggests that there may be an elevated total potential sulphate content
that may result from oxidation following ground disturbance. Any structures within the London Clay
need to be assessed for the presence of pyrite.
A total of 3 No. BRE Suite B (pyrite present) SD1 Suites were carried out on samples retrieved from the
London Clay Formation which includes testing of total sulphate and total sulphur to provide a calculation
of the total potential sulphate. Another 2 No. tests were carried out on samples retrieved from the Made
Ground layer, 2 No. for the River Terrace Gravels and 3 No. for Alluvium.
In the Made Ground the sulphate 2:1 values (mg/I SO4) reported concentrations between 27mg/l and
210mg/l. The pH values recorded varied between 9.0 and 7.7. In the River Terrace Deposits the sulphate
2:1 values (mg/l SO4) reported concentrations between 9.6mg/l and 42 mg/l. The pH values recorded
varied between 8.3 and 7.8. In the Alluvium the sulphate 2:1 values varied between 120mg/l and
2900mg/l. The pH values recorded varied between 7.7 and 6.9.
The sulphate 2:1 values (mg/I SO4) reported concentrations between 350mg/l and 1500mg/l in the
London Clay with total sulphur between 5400mg/kg and 12000mg/kg. The pH values recorded varied
between 7.4 and 8.2.
In accordance with the BRE guidelines, where a limited data set of results are available the highest value
is considered to be the characteristic concentration for the layer.
On this site a characteristic value of 2900mg/l is taken for the Alluvium. For pH> 6.5 and mobile ground
water , Table C2 of the BRE Digest suggests a Design Sulphate Class of DS-3 and an ACEC classification of
AC-3 for concrete in contact with these layers.
Where alluvium is not present the highest concentrations recorded for the Made Ground and River
Terrace Gravel layers where 42mg/l and 210mg/l respectively. Tables C1 and C2 of the BRE Digest for pH
> 6.5 and mobile ground water suggest the same class for both layers of DS-1 with an ACEC classification
of AC-1.
The maximum characteristic Total Potential Sulphate was calculated in the London Clay to be 4% (BRE
Digest, 2005). Table C1 for mobile ground water suggests a Design Sulphate Class of DS-5 and an ACEC
classification of AC-4 for concrete exposed to disturbed pyritic ground as it is likely to be the case of
large excavations (e.g for basements or the placement of ground bearing slabs). However in accordance
with BRE Special Digest1:2005 (Figure C5 and Box C8) piling is unlikely to cause sufficient ground
disturbance that could result in oxidation of the exposed soil. In such cases the Digest recommends that
the concrete is designed in accordance with the results obtained from assessing the water-soluble
sulphates.
15/2724 IR 02 46
Assuming mobile groundwater Table C1 suggests a Design Sulphate Class of DS-2 and an ACEC
classification of AC-2 to be adopted for piling operations within the London Clay.
15/2724 IR 02 47
12.8 Risk Assessment
The site investigation mitigated some of the risks identified at desk study stage. The remaining key geotechnical risks that need to be considered during detailed design stage
and during the construction of the development are summarised below:
Key Geotechnical Hazards Consequences Risk Proposed Mitigation Residual Risk
Unstable excavations within Made Ground, Collapse of excavation if Use embedded retaining walls to support excavation
High Low
Alluvium and Terrace Gravel layers unsupported. sides.
Variable and compressible nature of Made Avoid founding on these layers.

Excessive Settlements High Low
Ground and Alluvium layers
Carry out a desk based study of available substructure

Obstructing the boring of new information and verify on site by carrying out intrusive
Existing piles and other foundation piles surveys.
High Low
obstructions Increase in demolition and Where possible re-use existing foundations by carrying
piling costs out structural investigations to establish condition of
existing piles and adopt a risk based design approach.
Carry out detailed UXO risk assessment in accordance

Accidental Detonation of with CIRIA (2009). Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) A guide
Presence of UXO High Medium to Low
Bombs during excavations for the construction industry’. C681 to identify whether
UXO in-situ survey is required during excavations
Detailed mapping and surveying of services running

Death/Injury/Damage to third
Accidental Strike of Underground Services High under the site. Isolate all services before commencement Medium to Low
party assets
of works.
Instability of permeable sands and gravels Collapse of pile bores

within the Lambeth Group, Upnor and High Support pile shafts during construction using bentonite Low
Thanet Sand deposits
15/2724 IR 02
High ground water pressures in the Thanet Reduced pile base capacity Use base grouting.
Medium Low
Sands Carry out pile tests to confirm design assumptions
Dam effect causing rise of

Impact of basement to the hydrology of the Ensure adopted retaining wall scheme and basement
ground water below adjacent Medium Low
area design incorporates measures to minimize impact.
structures
Carry out detailed movement analysis to establish

Excessive ground movements cumulative movements likely to be experienced by the
Presence of BT tunnel running under the impairing its serviceability tunnel are within acceptable levels.
Medium to High Low
south west corner of the site.
Physical damage to the asset. Survey tunnel and establish exclusion zone.
Liaise with BT
Establish likely damage category for each affected

Ground movements impacting
Basement construction High structure. Design to minimize unacceptable impact. Low
on adjacent structures
Establish movement monitoring regime
Heave movements affecting Carry out detailed movement analysis for each stage of
Deep Basement excavation High Low
superstructure construction and incorporate results in the design.
Provide water cut off with embedded walls

Settlements of adjacent
If dewatering still necessary, design scheme to minimize
Dewatering structures caused by water High Low
external drawdown
table drawdown
Monitor implementation
Variability of ground properties within the Carry out sensitivity analyses of soil structure interaction
Inadequate substructure design Medium Low
Lambeth Group models as part of detailed design.
15/2724 IR 02 49
The presence of the scour feature noted in the desk

Unexpected variability in study was not detected during the site investigation. The
Potential Presence of Scour Feature ground conditions impacting Medium to Low soil succession during excavation of the basement should Low
construction be observed for signs of variability with anticipated
ground conditions to inform the design
15/2724 IR 02 50
13 REFERENCES
The following documents were referenced or used in the production of this report:
1. A R Gaba, B Simpson, W Powrie, D R Beadman CIRIA (2003) – Embedded retaining walls –

guidance for economic design: CIRIA Report C580
2. Baxter, D.J.,Innovation in the design of continuous flight auger and bored displacement
piles, Loughborough University , 2009
TH
3. British Geological Survey (1996). London and the Thames Valley. London HMSO. 4
Edition.
4. BS 5930 (1999) Code of Practice for Site Investigations (incl. Amd. No. 1 December 2007).
5. BRE Special Digest 1. (2005). Concrete on Aggressive Ground.
6. Clayton, C.R.I (1995) CIRIA Report 143: The Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Methods and
Use. CIRIA.
7. Carter, M. and Bentley, S. P. (1991). Correlations of Soil Properties. Pentech Press,
London.
8. Hight, D.W., Ellison, R.A. and Page, D, P. (2004). Engineering in the Lambeth Group: CIRIA
Report C583
9. Peck, R. B. and Bazaraa, A. R. S. S. (1969). Discussion. Proc. ASCE J. Soil Mech. &
Foundation Engineering. 95 (SME), 305-309.
10. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation Engineering, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 514 pp
11. Stroud, M. A. (1988). The Standard Penetration Test- Its application and interpretation.
Penetration Testing in the UK.
nd
12. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 2 Edition,
Wiley, New York, 729p.
th
13. Tomlinson, M. J. (1994). Pile Design and Construction Practice. 4 Edition.
14. Tomlinson, M. J. (2001). Foundation Design and Construction. Prentice Hall. 7th Edition.
15/2724 IR 02
14 FIGURES
15/2724 IR 02 52
Moisture Content (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.00
MADE GROUND
ALLUVIUM
RIVER TERRACE DEPOSITS
10.00 BH07 - MC of 140% at 4.1mbgl

BH02 - MC of 87% at 4.1mbgl
LONDON CLAY
20.00
30.00
Depth (mbgl)
Upper Mottled Clay

40.00
Laminated Beds
LAMBETH GROUP
Lower Mottled Beds
50.00
Upnor Formation
60.00
CHALK
BH 01 NMC
BH 02 NMC
70.00 BH 03 NMC
BH 04 NMC
BH 06A NMC
BH 07 NMC
80.00
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 5: MOISTURE CONTENT

15/2724 BLACKFRIARS II PHASE
70
CL CI CH CV CE
60
50
PlasticityIndex(%)
40
BH01ͲLondonClay
30 BH02ͲLondonClay
BH03ͲLondonClay
BH04ͲLondonClay
20 BH06AͲLondonClay
BH07ͲLondonClay
10
ML MI MH MV ME
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS LiquidLimit(%) FIGURE 6a: PLASTICITY CHART - LONDON CLAY
15/2724 BLACKFRIARS PHASE II
70
CL CI CH CV CE
60
50
PlasticityIndex(%)
40
UpperMottledClay
LaminatedBeds
LowerMottledBeds
30
UpnorFormation
20
10
ML MI MH MV ME
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS LiquidLimit(%) FIGURE 6b: PLASTICITY CHART - LAMBETH GROUP
15/2724 BLACKFRIARS PHASE II
SPT N-value (Blow Count/300mm penetration)
-30.00
30 80 130 180 230 280 330
Note: SPT values shown in this plot have been

extrapolated for all site test results where N>50
(refusal) to reflect penetration/300mm.
-35.00
Upper Mottled Clay
BH01
BH02
-40.00 BH03
BH04
Laminated Beds
BH06A
BH07
Lower Mottled Beds
-45.00
Upnor Formation
Elevation (mOD)
-50.00
-55.00
Thanet Sands
-60.00
CHALK
-65.00
-70.00
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 7b: STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESULTS

15/2724 Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands and Chalk
BLACKFRIARS ROAD, PHASE II
UndrainedShearStrength(kPa)
5.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
BH01
BH02
0.00 BH03
ALLUVIUM
BH04
BH6A
BH07
-5.00
LONDONCLAY
-10.00
DesignLine:
Ͳ LondonClay: 82.5+5.28Z
Elevation(mbgl)
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
-30.00
-35.00
CONCEPTSITEINVESTIGATIONS FIGURE8a:UNDRAINEDTRIAXIALRESULTS
AlluviumandLondonClay
15/2724 BLACKFRIARSROAD,PHASEII
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
-30.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
BH01
BH02
-32.00 BH03
BH04
BH6A
-34.00
-36.00
Upper Mottled Clay
-38.00
Elevation (mOD)
-40.00
Laminated Beds
-42.00
-44.00
Lower Mottled Beds
-46.00
Upnor Formation
-48.00
-50.00
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 8b: UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RESULTS

15/2724 Lambeth Group
BLACKFRIARS ROAD, PHASE II
SPTNͲvalue(BlowCount/300mmpenetration)
6.00
5.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
4.00
MADEGROUND
3.00
2.00
1.00
RIVERTERRACEDEPOSITS
0.00
Ͳ1.00
Ͳ2.00 ALLUVIUM
circledinRED
Ͳ3.00
Ͳ4.00
Ͳ5.00
Ͳ6.00
Ͳ7.00
Ͳ8.00
HighNͲvalue attributedto
Ͳ9.00 claystoneencouteredinBH03
between14.50and16.15mbgl
Ͳ10.00
Ͳ11.00
Ͳ12.00
Elevation(mOD)
LONDONCLAY
Ͳ13.00
Ͳ14.00
Ͳ15.00
Ͳ16.00
DesignLine:
Ͳ17.00 Ͳ TerraceGravels:10+1.4Z
Ͳ18.00 Ͳ LondonClay: 15+0.96Z
Ͳ19.00
Ͳ20.00
Ͳ21.00
Ͳ22.00
Ͳ23.00
Ͳ24.00
Ͳ25.00
Ͳ26.00 BH01
Ͳ27.00
BH02
Ͳ28.00
BH03
Ͳ29.00
BH04
Ͳ30.00
BH06A
Ͳ31.00
Ͳ32.00 BH07
Ͳ33.00
Ͳ34.00
Ͳ35.00
CONCEPTSITEINVESTIGATIONS FIGURE7a:STANDARDPENETRATIONTESTRESULTS
MadeGround,RiverTerraceDepositsandLondonClay
15/2724 BLACKFRIARSROAD,PHASEII
250
200
150
Pressure (kPa)
100
50
BH01 - Thanet Sands at 58mbgl
0
13/09/2015 23/09/2015 03/10/2015 13/10/2015 23/10/2015 02/11/2015 12/11/2015 22/11/2015 02/12/2015
Date of reading
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 9a: BH01 PIEZOMETER RESULTS - THANET SANDS
250
200
150
Pressure (kPa)
100
50
BH02- Thanet Sands at 61.5mbgl
0
03/09/2015 13/09/2015 23/09/2015 03/10/2015 13/10/2015 23/10/2015 02/11/2015 12/11/2015 22/11/2015 02/12/2015
Date of reading
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 9b: BH02 PIEZOMETER RESULTS - THANET SANDS
300
250
200
150
Pressure (kPa)
100
50
BH03 - Upper Mottled Clay at 39.8mbgl
0
04/08/2015 24/08/2015 13/09/2015 03/10/2015 23/10/2015 12/11/2015 02/12/2015
Date of reading
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 9c: BH03 PIEZOMETER RESULTS - UPPER MOTTLED CLAY
300
250
200
150
Pressure (kPa)
100
50
BH07 - London Clay at 45mbgl
0
15/07/2015 04/08/2015 24/08/2015 13/09/2015 03/10/2015 23/10/2015 12/11/2015 02/12/2015
Date of reading
CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS FIGURE 9d: BH07 PIEZOMETER RESULTS - LONDON CLAY
5000
London Clay Upper Mottled Laminated Lower Mottled Upnor Thanet Sand
4500 Formation
Clay Beds Beds
4000 This preliminary pile chart is in

accordance with BS EN1997-1,
UK National Annex for single
3500
piles acting in compression and
should be read in conjunction
3000 with chapter 12.3 of this
report. The user will need to
2500
satisfy themselves of its
suitability in relation to their
adopted piling scheme.
2000
Design load KN/m2

1500
1000
500
0
-13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -26 -27 -28 -29 -30 -31 -32 -33 -34 -35 -36 -37 -38 -39 -40 -41 -42 -43 -44 -45 -46 -47 -48 -49 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 -55
Depth (mOD)
NO pile tests Pile test to 10% of constructed piles
FIGURE 10a: PRELIMINARY PILE DESIGN CHART

CONCEPT SITE INVESTIGATIONS 900mm Bored Piles
15/2724 BLACKFRIARS ROAD, PHASE II
9000
LondonClay UpperMottled Laminated Lower Mottled Upnor ThanetSand

8000 Clay Beds Beds Formation
Thispreliminarypilechartisin
7000
accordancewithBSEN1997Ͳ1,
UKNationalAnnexforsingle
6000 pilesactingincompressionand
shouldbereadinconjunction
withchapter12.3ofthis
5000 report. Theuserwillneedto
satisfythemselvesofits
suitabilityinrelationtotheir
4000 adoptedpilingscheme.
Design load KN/m2

3000
2000
1000
0
Ͳ13 Ͳ14 Ͳ15 Ͳ16 Ͳ17 Ͳ18 Ͳ19 Ͳ20 Ͳ21 Ͳ22 Ͳ23 Ͳ24 Ͳ25 Ͳ26 Ͳ27 Ͳ28 Ͳ29 Ͳ30 Ͳ31 Ͳ32 Ͳ33 Ͳ34 Ͳ35 Ͳ36 Ͳ37 Ͳ38 Ͳ39 Ͳ40 Ͳ41 Ͳ42 Ͳ43 Ͳ44 Ͳ45 Ͳ46 Ͳ47 Ͳ48 Ͳ49 Ͳ50 Ͳ51 Ͳ52 Ͳ53 Ͳ54 Ͳ55
Depth (mOD)
FIGURE 10b: PRELIMINARY PILE DESIGN CHART

15/2724 BLACKFRIARS ROAD PHASE II
14000
London Clay Upper Mottled Laminated Lower Mottled Upnor Thanet Sand
Clay Beds Beds Formation
12000
This preliminary pile chart is in
accordance with BS EN1997-1,
10000 UK National Annex for single
piles acting in compression and
should be read in conjunction
with chapter 12.3 of this
8000
report. The user will need to
satisfy themselves of its
suitability in relation to their
6000 adopted piling scheme.
Design load KN/m2

4000
2000
0
-13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -26 -27 -28 -29 -30 -31 -32 -33 -34 -35 -36 -37 -38 -39 -40 -41 -42 -43 -44 -45 -46 -47 -48 -49 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 -55
Depth (mOD)
FIGURE 10c: PRELIMINARY PILE DESIGN CHART

15/2724 BLACKFRIARS ROAD PHASE II
15 APPENDIX
15/2724 IR 02 53

Southwark

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

Southwark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix 12.

1: Geotechnical and Geochemical

18 Blackfriars Road: Environmental Statement Volume 4

18 Blackfriars Road: Environmental Statement Volume 4

Prepared for: Pell Frischmann

Concept: 15/2724-IR 02 04/11/2016

Unit 8, Warple Mews,

DOCUMENT ISSUE REGISTER

Development Name Signature Date

Checked by: J Windle 04/11/2016

Approved by: J Windle 04/11/2016

Issued to: Pell Frischmann

Date Issue Amendment Details/ Reason for issue Issued to

10.1.2 Risks to human health after development ..................................................................................... 37

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 1 – Location of 18 Blackfriars Road site

Figure 2 – Site building plan

2.2 Desk Study Review: Principal Geotechnical Risks

Table 1 – Summary of ground conditions

Alluvium 1.60 +2.02 – +0.16 2.80 – 5.90

London Clay 26.40 -5.66 – - 7.31 35.45 – 37.85

Harwich Formation 0.22 -32.24 – 32.73 36.80 – 37.15*

Thanet Sand Formation - Sand 9.00 -50.69 – 51.06 63.15 – 64.35

Chalk – Seaford Chalk Formation 10 proven -60.01 - -60.19 Proven to 71

* Harwich was only encountered in 2 boreholes: BH02 and BH07

Table 2 – Concrete hardstanding/obstructions

6.3 Made Ground

Table 3 – Made Ground depth and thickness

Depth to top Depth to top

WS10 Not encountered TP04 0.00 2.00 proven

WS11 1.00 0.40 TP04A 0.00 2.00 proven

WS12 Not encountered TP05 0.00 2.00 proven

Table 4: Alluvium depth and thickness

Depth to top Depth to top

WS10 0.85 2.75

WS11 1.40 1.55

WS12 0.80 3.15

WS13 Terminated at 1.40mbgl

6.4.1 Index properties

6.4.2 Strength and Stiffness Parameters

6.5 River Terrace Deposits

Table 5: River Terrace Gravel depth and thickness

Depth to top Depth to top

WS10 3.60 0.40 proven

WS11 3.95 0.05 proven

WS12 3.95 0.05 proven

WS13 Terminated at 1.40mbgl

6.5.1 Index Properties

6.5.2 Strength and Stiffness Parameters

6.6 London Clay

Table 6: London Clay depth and thickness with claystone encounters

BH05 Borehole terminated 0.85mbgl

BH06 Borehole terminated 1.35mbgl

BH06A 11.55 26.30 Not encountered

BH07 9.65 27.35 Not encountered

6.6.1 Classification Tests

Table 7: Particle Size Distribution - London Clay

11.00 91.2 8.8 -

6.6.2 Strength and Stiffness Parameters

It is recommended that the following design lines are adopted:

6.7 Harwich Formation

6.8 Lambeth Group

Table 8 – Lambeth Group depths and thickness

BH01 36.30 18.00