CIRIA C583 London 2004

Engineering in the
Lambeth Group

D W Hight Geotechnical Consulting Group

R A Ellison British Geological Survey

D P Page High-Point Rendel

Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP

TEL +44 (0)20 7549 3300 FAX +44 (0)20 7253 0523
EMAIL enquiries@ciria.org
WEBSITE www.ciria.org
 Engineering in the Lambeth Group

Hight, D W; Ellison, R A; Page, D P

CIRIA

CIRIA C583 © CIRIA 2004 RP576 ISBN 0-86017-583-9

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record is available for this book from the British Library.

Keywords
Ground engineering, ground investigation and characterisation, soil-structure
interaction
Reader interest Classification
Geotechnical engineers, engineering AVAILABILITY Unrestricted
geologists, civil and structural
engineers, tunnelling engineers, CONTENT Review of available
highway engineers, construction guidance
professionals STATUS Committee-guided

USER Geologists, engineering

geologists, civil
engineers, and drilling
and tunnelling
contractors

Published by CIRIA, Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP, UK.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the
copyright-holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written
permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system
of any nature.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the
subject matter covered. It is sold and/or distributed with the understanding that neither the
author(s) nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any other
professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness
of the publication, no warranty or fitness is provided or implied, and the author(s) and publisher
shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or
damage arising from its use.

2 CIRIA C583
 Summary

The Lambeth Group underlies the London and Hampshire Basins. While of limited
outcrop, it is of considerable relevance to infrastructure developments in central London,
particularly those of tunnelling and deep foundations. Its complex stratigraphy has recently
been clarified. This, in turn, has led to a better engineering description and classification.
An improved understanding of the engineering behaviour and properties of its component
units has been gained from several recent major projects in central London with high-
quality ground investigations and laboratory testing.

This publication draws together this new information, coupling it with a review of case
histories of construction in the Lambeth Group. There is less information on
engineering properties of the Lambeth Group farther from London, but examples are
given of the engineering performance of these materials at their outcrop. Guidance is
given about the relation between engineering properties and the Group’s widely
differing lithologies, about the hazards they pose for construction, and appropriate ways
to overcome them. Recommendations are given for investigating these complex
materials. In addition to case study data, the report is supported by a comprehensive
reference list and bibliography.

CIRIA C583 3
 Acknowledgements

This report is one outcome of CIRIA Research Project 576 “The engineering properties
of major UK soils and rocks: Mercia Mudstone Group, Lambeth Group.”

Research contractor Maunsell Limited carried out the overall research project under a contract with CIRIA.
Dr D W Hight of the Geotechnical Consulting Group and Mr R A Ellison of the British
Geological Survey, were commissioned directly by CIRIA for this work.

Authors Dr D W Hight (Chapters 4, 6 and 7) is one of the founding directors of the Geotechnical
Consulting Group and has been responsible for specialist advice to consulting firms,
contractors, public authorities, solicitors and oil companies on various UK and overseas
projects involving foundations, retaining walls, earthworks design, slope stability, site
investigation and laboratory testing. Dr Hight has published widely on the subjects of
soil behaviour, offshore geotechnics, soil sampling, stability problems and foundations
and has delivered prestigious lectures at many venues worldwide including the Rankine
Lecture in 1998.

Mr D Page (Chapters 3, 5 and associated appendices) of High-Point Rendel. It was on

Darren’s first-ever geological field trip that he examined the Lambeth Group at
Newhaven. He went on to manage the geotechnical aspects of the Jubilee Line
Extension Project for London Underground Ltd. The boreholes and excavations for the
JLEP and investigations for the East London Line Extension and Crossrail formed the
basis of his MSc thesis.
Mr R A Ellison (Chapter 2 and Appendix 2) is principal geologist at the British
Geological Survey where he has worked for 30 years. He has been involved with work
on the Lambeth Group since the 1980s when he looked at borehole cores in Essex, and
later in south-east London for a proposed rail link from the Channel Tunnel.
Subsequently he was responsible for the geological mapping of Greater London and
acted as a consultant on the Lambeth Group, including the London Underground
Jubilee Line Extension, proposed Crossrail route and Channel Tunnel Rail Link. This
work led him to propose a subdivision of the Lambeth Group that has been adopted as
the standard for London. He has published several papers and geological memoirs
concerning Tertiary geology in the London Basin, most recently a Geology of London
memoir to be published in 2004. He is currently regional geologist for south-west
England.
The contribution of Mr R A Ellison is made with the permission of the director, British
Geological Survey.

CIRIA managers CIRIA’s research managers were Dr A J Pitchford and Mr F M Jardine.

4 CIRIA C583
Steering group Following CIRIA’s usual practice the research was guided by a steering group, which
comprised:
Chairman Dr J D Lewis TRL Ltd
Members Dr J P Apted Hyder Consulting Limited
Mr D F T Nash University of Bristol
Dr G Austin Austin Geotech
Mr M G Black London Underground Limited
Dr G B Card Card Geotechnics Limited
Mr N J Langdon Card Geotechnics Limited
Mr D T Shilston WS Atkins Consultants Limited

Project funders The project was funded under the Partners in Technology programme of the Construction
Directorate of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Additional project funding and support in kind was provided by:

CIRIA’s Core Programme
British Geological Survey
Geotechnical Consulting Group
Mr D P Page.

CIRIA and the authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these funding
organisations and the technical help and advice provided by the members of the
steering group and the many individuals and organisations who were consulted.
Contributions do not imply that individual funders necessarily endorse all views
expressed in published outputs.

Contributors The authors have benefited from discussions and information provided by the following
individuals and organisations:
James Apted Hyder
Fiona Chow Geotechnical Consulting Group (additional piling references)
Croydon Tramlink
East Sussex County Council
Highways Agency
Nick Langdon Card Geotechnics Limited
Mott MacDonald
David Pascall Arup
Jackie Skipper Natural History Museum
Southern Water
Tony Vaughan Shoreham Port Authority
West Sussex County Council

Figures Figures in Section 2 are reproduced with the permission of the director, British
Geological Survey and are copyright of the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC).

CIRIA C583 5
6 CIRIA C583
 Contents

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
LIST OF CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
1.2 Scope and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
1.3 Structure of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

2 GEOLOGY OF THE LAMBETH GROUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

2.1 Regional setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
2.2 Depositional environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
2.3 Historical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2.4 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
2.4.1 Upnor Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
2.4.2 Woolwich Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
2.4.3 Reading Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
2.5 Depositional environment and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
2.6 Geophysical log characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
2.7 Mineralogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
2.7.1 Upnor Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
2.7.2 Woolwich Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
2.7.3 Reading Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
2.8 Post-depositional features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
2.8.1 Structural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
2.8.2 Features related to glaciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
2.8.3 Features related to periglaciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
2.8.4 Features due to Chalk dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
2.8.5 The effect of rising groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

3 ENGINEERING HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

3.1 Uncertainties stemming from the geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
3.2 Engineering hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

4 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

4.1 Sources of data for London Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
4.2 Sources of data for Hampshire Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
4.3 Depositional environments and post-depositional processes . . . . . . . . . .51
4.3.1 Depositional history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

CIRIA C583 7
 4.3.2 Immediate post-depositional events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
4.3.3 Later post-depositional events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
4.4 Generalised geotechnical descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
4.5 Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
4.6 Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
4.7 Soil plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
4.8 Clay mineralogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
4.9 Liquidity index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
4.10 Bulk density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
4.11 Groundwater conditions and in-situ horizontal stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
4.11.1 Groundwater conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
4.11.2 In-situ horizontal stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
4.12 Undrained strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
4.12.1 UU triaxial compression on U100 samples of clay . . . . . . . . . . . .81
4.12.2 Natural versus induced variability in undrained strength . . . . . . .85
4.12.3 Undrained strengths of clays in triaxial extension . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
4.12.4 Undrained strength of sand units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
4.13 Effective stress strength parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
4.13.1 Upper and Lower Mottled Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
4.13.2 Laminated beds, Lower Shelly Clay, Upnor Formation . . . . . . .101
4.13.3 Residual strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
4.14 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
4.14.1 WIT and Angel Station: Upper Mottled Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
4.14.2 Crossrail: Upper and Lower Mottled Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
4.14.3 JLE: Upper and Lower Mottled Clays, Laminated beds,
Lower Shelly Clay, glauconitic sands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
4.14.4 Limehouse Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
4.14.5 Sizewell: body wave velocities and small strain shear moduli . .107
4.15 Penetration resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
4.15.1 SPT N values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
4.15.2 CPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
4.15.3 SPT-CPT comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
4.16 Consolidation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
4.17 Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

5 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

5.1 Bored tunnels and shafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
5.1.1 History of construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
5.1.2 Tunnel and shaft lining design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
5.1.3 Tunnel construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
5.1.4 Shaft construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
5.1.5 Bored tunnels and shafts: key points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
5.2 Deep excavations and cut-and-cover structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
5.2.1 Groundwater control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
5.2.2 Temporary support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
5.2.3 Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

8 CIRIA C583
 5.2.4 Retaining system performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
5.2.5 Deep excavations and cut-and-cover structures: key points . . . .133
5.3 Groundwater control using dewatering techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
5.3.1 Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
5.3.2 Methods of groundwater control using dewatering . . . . . . . . . . .135
5.3.3 Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
5.3.4 Groundwater control using dewatering techniques: key points . .137
5.4 Slope stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
5.4.1 Natural slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
5.4.2 Cut slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
5.4.3 Embankments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
5.4.4 Slope stability: key points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
5.5 Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
5.6 Fill and pavement engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
5.6.1 Fill materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
5.6.2 Subgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
5.6.3 Chalk solution features below the Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . .144
5.6.4 Fill and pavement engineering: key points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
5.7 Piled foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
5.7.1 Pile selection and design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
5.7.2 Pile construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
5.7.3 Pile performance and design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
5.7.4 Piled foundations: key points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152
5.8 Shallow foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
5.8.1 Assessment of adequate bearing capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
5.8.2 Foundation behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
5.8.3 Shallow foundations: key points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155

6 GROUND INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

6.1 Desk study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
6.2 Stratigraphy and groundwater conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
6.2.1 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
6.2.2 Groundwater conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158
6.3 In-situ testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
6.3.1 Standard penetration testing (SPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
6.3.2 Cone penetration testing (CPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
6.3.3 Pressuremeter testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
6.3.4 In-situ plate testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
6.3.5 Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
6.4 Sampling methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
6.4.1 Block sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
6.4.2 Driven thick-wall tube sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
6.4.3 Pushed thin-wall tube sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
6.4.4 Rotary coring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164

CIRIA C583 9
 6.5 Sampling effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
6.5.1 Effects of laminations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
6.5.2 Effects of swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
6.5.3 Effects of tube sampling strains in clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
6.5.4 Effects of tube sampling in sands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
6.5.5 Damage to block samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
6.5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
6.6 Laboratory testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
6.6.1 Index properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
6.6.2 Bulk unit weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
6.6.3 Geochemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
6.6.4 Evaluation of sample quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
6.6.5 Strength and stiffness measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
6.7 Best practice for ground investigations in the Lambeth Group . . . . . . .174
6.7.1 Conventional practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
6.7.2 Best practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
6.8 Assessing engineering properties and selecting design parameters . . . .176
6.8.1 Natural and induced variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
6.8.2 Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
6.8.3 Initial fabric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
6.8.4 Cementing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
6.8.5 Fissuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
6.8.6 Selection of design parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

7 FURTHER WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

7.1 Characterisation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
7.2 Case histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

A1 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
A1.1 Memoirs of the British Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
A1.2 Other references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

A2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF CORES AND EXPOSURES OF THE

LAMBETH GROUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195

A3 CASE HISTORY DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201

A3.1 Summary of major case history data for tunnels constructed within
the Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
A3.2 Summary of major case history data for shaft construction within
the Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
A3.3 Summary of major case study data for deep excavations . . . . . . . . . . .206
A3.4 Summary of key references on pile behaviour in the Lambeth Group .207

10 CIRIA C583
 FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Distribution of the Lambeth Group: (a) Woolwich Formation,

(b) Reading Formation, (c) Upnor Formation, (d) underlying strata . . .22
Figure 2.2 The environment of deposition of the Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 2.3 Schematic section showing the variation in the Lambeth Group,
London Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Figure 2.4 Schematic section showing the variation in the Lambeth Group,
Hampshire Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Figure 2.5 Generalised Lambeth Group succession in central London . . . . . . . . . .29
Figure 2.6 Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thicknesses of
(a) Lambeth Group, (b) Reading Formation undivided and the Upper
Mottled Clay and Lower Mottled Clay, (c) Upper Shelly Clay,
(d) Laminated beds, (e) Lower Shelly Clay and (f) Upnor Formation . .30
Figure 2.7 Sections through Lambeth Group deposits: (1) Channel Tunnel Rail
Link, (2) Crossrail, (3) A102(M), (4) Jubilee Line Extension,
(5) south-east London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Figure 2.8 Representative gamma ray log of Lambeth Group in central London . .35
Figure 2.9 Generalised clay mineralogy profile of the Lambeth Group in central
London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Section 4.1 Figure 4.1 Location of recent and proposed projects involving construction in
Lambeth Group in London Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Figure 4.2 Cross-sections along new railway and road routes in the London
Basin: (a) Jubilee Line Extension, (b) Crossrail, (c) Channel Tunnel
Rail Link, (d) Limehouse Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Section 4.3 Figure 4.3 Calcrete in Lower Mottled Clay, JLE borehole 404T, Maltby Street,
Tower Bridge Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Figure 4.4 Calcrete below Lower Shelly Clay, Canada Water Station, Rotherhithe . .54
Figure 4.5 Four millimetre scale fissuring in Upper Mottled Clay, Newbury
Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Section 4.6 Figure 4.6 Grading envelope for Upper Mottled Clay (Reading Formation).
JLE: Green Park to Canada Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Figure 4.7 Grading envelope for Lower Mottled Clay (Reading Formation). JLE:
Green Park to Canada Water and Canada Water to Pioneer Wharf . . . .58
Figure 4.8 Grading envelope for Laminated beds (Woolwich Formation).
JLE: Green Park to Canada Water, Canada Water to Pioneer Wharf
and Limmo Site to Stratford Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Figure 4.9 Grading envelope for Lower Shelly Clay (Woolwich Formation).
JLE: Green Park to Canada Water, Canada Water to Pioneer Wharf
and Limmo Site to Stratford Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Figure 4.10 Grading envelope for pebble beds (Upnor Formation). JLE: Green
Park to Canada Water, Canada Water to Pioneer Wharf and Limmo
Site to Stratford Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Figure 4.11 Grading envelope for Glauconitic Sand (Upnor Formation). JLE:
Green Park to Canada Water and Limmo Site to Stratford Station . . . .60
Section 4.7 Figure 4.12 Ranges of plasticity index, Ip , in Upper Mottled Clay, Lower
Mottled Clay and Lower Shelly Clay. JLE, CTRL and Crossrail . . . . . .61

CIRIA C583 11
 Figure 4.13 Ranges of plasticity index, Ip , in Laminated beds and Upnor
Formation. JLE, CTRL and Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Figure 4.14 Distribution of plastic and liquid limits in Upper Mottled and
Lower Mottled Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Figure 4.15 Distribution of plastic and liquid limits in Lower Shelly Clay and
Laminated beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Figure 4.16 Distribution of plastic and liquid limits in Upnor Formation . . . . . . . . .63
Figure 4.17 Variation in plasticity index, Ip , with depth. Crossrail, JLE and
Farringdon Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Figure 4.18 Variation in plasticity index, Ip , with depth, CTRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Figure 4.19 Variation in plasticity index, Ip , with depth. Mottled Clay, Newbury
Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Figure 4.20 Variation in plasticity index, Ip , with depth versus height above base
of unit. Upper Mottled Clay, Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Figure 4.21 Plasticity index in Lambeth Group from west to east along
Jubilee Line Extension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Figure 4.22 Plasticity index in Lambeth Group from west to east along CTRL,
London Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Figure 4.23 Contrast between index properties in London Clay and Upper Mottled
Clay at (a) Waterloo International Terminal and (b) Angel Station,
Islington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Figure 4.24 Contrast between index properties in London Clay and Lambeth
Group at Farringdon Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Figure 4.25 Casagrande plots for Upper Mottled Clay, Lower Mottled Clay and
Lower Shelly Clay. JLE, CTRL and Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Figure 4.26 Casagrande plots for Laminated beds and Upnor Formation. JLE,
CTRL and Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Section 4.9 Figure 4.27 Variation in liquidity index, IL , with depth. Crossrail, JLE and
Farringdon Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Figure 4.28 Variation in liquidity index, IL , with depth, CTRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Figure 4.29 Variation in liquidity index, IL , with depth. Mottled Clay, Newbury
Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Section 4.10 Figure 4.30 Variation in bulk density with depth. Crossrail, JLE and Farringdon
Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
Figure 4.31 Variation in bulk density with depth. CTRL: London Tunnels and
Stratford Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
Figure 4.32 Contrast between bulk density in London Clay and Upper Mottled
Clay at Waterloo International Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
Figure 4.33 Contrast between bulk density in London Clay and Lambeth Group
at Farringdon Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Figure 4.34 Variation in bulk density with depth. Mottled Clay, Newbury Bypass . . .78
Section 4.11 Figure 4.35 Piezometric profiles, CTRL: (a) Farringdon Station, (b) Liverpool
Street Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Section 4.12 Figure 4.36 Variation in undrained shear strength with depth. Crossrail and
Farringdon Station (UU triaxial compression tests on U100 samples
and pressuremeter tests) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

12 CIRIA C583
 Figure 4.37 Variation in undrained shear strength with depth. Limehouse Link
(UU triaxial compression tests on U100 samples at dεa /dt = 2%/min) . .82
Figure 4.38 Variation in undrained shear strength with depth. CTRL, JLE West
Ham to Stratford, and Newbury Bypass (UU triaxial compression
tests on U100 samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Figure 4.39 Variation in undrained shear strength with depth in London Clay and
Lambeth Group. Crossrail (UU triaxial compression tests on U100
samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Figure 4.40 Dependence of peak and residual angles of shearing resistance,
ϕp′ and ϕr′, on soil plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Figure 4.41 Classification of stiff clay behaviour in undrained shear on basis of
soil plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Figure 4.42 Effective stress paths in undrained triaxial compression of low-
(Lower Mottled Clay and Upnor Formation) and high- (Upper
Mottled Clay) plasticity clays, Limehouse Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Figure 4.43 Effect of plasticity on undrained strength. Limehouse Link (UU tests
on U100 samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Figure 4.44 Effect of plasticity on undrained strength. Crossrail (UU tests on
U100 and cored samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Figure 4.45 Effect of plasticity on undrained strength. CTRL (UU tests on U100
and cored samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Figure 4.46 Simplified effects of cementing on behaviour in undrained shear of
fissured and non-fissured high- and low-plasticity clays . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Figure 4.47 Effective stress paths during undrained triaxial compression of
100 mm-diameter rotary cored samples of Upper Mottled Clay,
Waterloo International Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Figure 4.48 Effective stress paths during undrained triaxial compression of
100 mm-diameter rotary cored samples of Upper and Lower Mottled
Clays, Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Figure 4.49 Effective stress paths during undrained triaxial compression of
U100 samples of Upper and Lower Mottled Clays, Crossrail . . . . . . . .92
Figure 4.50 Comparison of SPT data for Upper Mottled Clay at Waterloo
International Terminal and Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Figure 4.51 Effective stress paths during undrained triaxial compression and
extension of rotary cored samples of sand from the Lambeth Group
at Sizewell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Section 4.13 Figure 4.52 Effective stress data at failure in undrained triaxial compression tests
with pore pressure measurement. Upper and Lower Mottled Clays:
(a) low-plasticity, (b) high-plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Figure 4.53 Effective stress data at failure in isotropically consolidated drained
triaxial compression tests. Upper and Lower Mottled Clays,
Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Figure 4.54 Drained direct shear box test results on block sample of Upper Mottled
Clay. Angel Station, Islington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Figure 4.55 Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for direct shear box tests
on Upper Mottled Clay. Angel Station, Islington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Figure 4.56 Effective stress failure envelopes from direct shear box tests on
U100 samples of Upper and Lower Mottled Clays, Crossrail . . . . . . .100

CIRIA C583 13
 Figure 4.57 Effective stress data at failure in triaxial compression tests.
Laminated beds, CTRL and Sizewell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Figure 4.58 Effective stress data at failure in triaxial compression tests. Lower
Shelly Clay, CTRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Figure 4.59 Effective stress data at failure in triaxial compression tests. Upnor
Formation, CTRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Figure 4.60 Variation in residual angle of shearing resistance, ϕ ′r , with plasticity
index, Ip , Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Section 4.14 Figure 4.61 Non-linear shear stiffness characteristics for Upper Mottled Clay.
Waterloo International Terminal and Angel Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Figure 4.62 Non-linear bulk stiffness characteristics for Upper Mottled Clay.
Waterloo International Terminal and Angel Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Figure 4.63 Non-linear shear stiffness characteristics for Upper and Lower
Mottled Clays, Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Figure 4.64 Non-linear shear stiffness characteristics for Upper and Lower
Mottled Clays, Laminated beds, Lower Shelly Clay and glauconitic
sands, JLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Figure 4.65 Inferred elastic shear modulus values from self-boring pressuremeter
tests, Limehouse Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Figure 4.66 Profiles of shear and compression wave velocities at Sizewell C . . . .108
Figure 4.67 Comparison of different shear wave velocities at Sizewell C . . . . . . .109
Figure 4.68 Variation in SPT N value with depth. Crossrail, JLE and Farringdon
Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Section 4.15 Figure 4.69 Variation in SPT N value with depth, CTRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Figure 4.70 Variation in SPT N value with depth, Newbury Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . .112
Figure 4.71 Contrast between SPT N value in London Clay and Upper Mottled
Clay, Waterloo International Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Figure 4.72 Contrast between SPT N value in London Clay and Lambeth Group,
Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Figure 4.73 CPT data, Stratford, JLE: (a) PJ1A, (b) PJ1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Figure 4.74 SPT-CPT data comparison, Sizewell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Figure 4.75 SPT-CPT data comparison, central London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Figure 5.1 Lambeth Group encountered during compressed air tunnelling west
of Stratford Station on the Central Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Figure 5.2 Ground treatment carried out on the Second Blackwall Tunnel:
(a) pattern of ground treatment adopted at the northern end of the
tunnel (Poplar), (b) particle size distribution curves of treated
Laminated beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
Figure 5.3 Step plate junction No 10 near Euston showing relative location of
sand lens encountered during tunnelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
Figure 5.4 Pingo remnant located on Three Valleys Tunnel, west London . . . . . .126
Figure 5.5 Seismic reflection survey along section of the Three Valleys Tunnel.
Note the prominent reflectors in the Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Figure 5.6 Ground settlement profile measured at Southwark Park . . . . . . . . . . .128
Figure 5.7 Park Hill Cutting on the former Woodside and South Croydon
Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

14 CIRIA C583
 Figure 5.8 Large-diameter bored piles for the British Library, Euston:
(a) pile test arrangement and ground conditions, (b) load-displacement
curve, (c) distribution of shaft resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Figure 5.9 Blowcounts when driving tubular steel piles at Canary Wharf . . . . . .148
Figure 5.10 Canary Wharf CFA piles founded on calcrete (duricrust) and in the
Upnor Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
Figure 5.11 Pile load test results for CFA piles in tension and compression founded
on calcrete (duricrust) at South Quay Plaza, London Docklands . . . . .151
Figure 5.12 Summary of axial and lateral load tests on driven tubular piles at
Canary Wharf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152
Figure 6.1 Borehole log, YMCA, Tottenham Court Road, London . . . . . . . . . . . .160
Figure 6.2 Loading procedure and details of plate confinement for plate loading
tests at YMCA, Tottenham Court Road, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
Figure 6.3 Results of down-hole logging, Bermondsey, JLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Figure 6.4 Comparison of IL and Ip for Stratford Box, London Tunnels West
and London Tunnels East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Figure 6.5 Comparison of initial effective stresses in rotary cored and
thin-wall tube samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167
Figure 6.6 Comparison of initial effective stresses in rotary cored samples of
London Clay and Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167
Figure 6.7 Effects of swelling in rotary cored samples, Sizewell C . . . . . . . . . . .168
Figure 6.8 Comparison of bulk densities measured on driven and cored samples,
Crossrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Figure 6.9 Liquidity index from driven and cored samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
Figure 6.10 Evidence of damage to block samples taken from tunnel side-wall,
Angel Station, Islington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Figure A2.1 Lambeth Group core photographs of Jubilee Line Extension
borehole 404T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
Figure A2.2 Detail of the Laminated beds in JLE borehole 305T . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
Figure A2.3 Detail of the boundary between Lower Shelly Clay and Lower
Mottled; arrow points to top of succession Clay in JLE borehole
305T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
Figure A2.4 Lower Shelly Clay at Upnor Quarry, north Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
Figure A2.5 Detail of Lower Shelly Clay at Upnor Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
Figure A2.6 General view of the Lambeth Group at Upnor Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Figure A2.7 Section at Orsett Cock Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Figure A2.8 General view of the Lambeth Group at Upnor Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . .200

CIRIA C583 15
 TABLES

Table 2.1 Lambeth Group terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Table 3.1 Summary of engineering issues that relate to lithological units of the
Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Table 4.1 Summary of depositional environments and post-depositional
processes associated with the Lambeth Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Table 4.2 Examples of engineering descriptions (London Basin) . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Table 4.3 Typical description of Lambeth Group units in the Hampshire Basin . .56
Table 5.1 Tunnelling methods adopted in the Lambeth Group and supporting
geotechnical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Table 5.2 Comparison of design values with those found by back-analysis for
the Limehouse Link road tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Table 5.3 Permeability of the Lambeth Group and lithological factors
influencing permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
Table 5.4 Maximum slope angles allowable for embankments to restrict the
percentages of failure to below 1 per cent within 22 years of
construction (Perry, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Table 6.1 Results of plate load tests in Lambeth Group, YMCA, Tottenham
Court Road, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
Table 6.2 Comparison of expansibility measured in rotary cored and thin-wall
tube samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Table 6.3 Sources of natural variability in engineering properties . . . . . . . . . . . .176

CASE STUDIES

Case study 5.1 Tunnel linings on the Northern Line at Old Street, London . . . . . .120
Case study 5.2 Construction of the Second Blackwall Crossing using permeation
grouting and compressed air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Case study 5.3 Construction of the Northern Line tunnels in 1905, their
subsequent modification in 1923 and the construction of the
Victoria Line 40 years later, near Euston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
Case study 5.4 Three Valleys Water Tunnel, Wraysbury to Iver, West London . . .126
Case study 5.5 Value engineering for the Limehouse Link road tunnel . . . . . . . . .131
Case study 5.6 Dewatering for the Limehouse Link Road Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
Case study 5.7 Park Hill railway cutting, Croydon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
Case study 5.8 Dredging for the River Thames at Limehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
Case study 5.9 Treatment of Chalk solution features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Case study 5.10 Damage to house constructed on the Lambeth Group in Harrow . .154

16 CIRIA C583
 Abbreviations

Bgl below ground level

BGS British Geological Survey
BRE Building Research Establishment
CA anisotropically consolidated (triaxial tests)
CI isotropically consolidated (triaxial tests)
CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association
CIU isotropically consolidated undrained (test)
CPT cone penetration test
CPTU piezocone test
CTRL Channel Tunnel Rail Link
DLR Docklands Light Railway
DSB drained shear box (test)
EPBM earth pressure balance (tunnelling) machine
GS glauconitic sand
HF Harwich Formation
JLE Jubilee Line Extension
Lb laminated beds
LC London Clay
LG Lambeth Group
LINK-CMR LINK Construction Maintenance and Refurbishment programme
LMC Lower Mottled Clay
LSC Lower Shelly Clay
M OD metres relative to Ordnance datum
NATM New Austrian tunnelling method
SCL sprayed concrete lining (tunnelling)
SPT standard penetration test
TC triaxial compression
TE triaxial extension
TG Terrace Gravel
TRL Transport Research Laboratory
TSF Thanet Sand Formation
U100 general purpose sample (10 mm dia. open drive tube sample)
UF Upnor Formation
UMC Upper Mottled Clays
UU unconsolidated undrained (triaxial) test
WIT Waterloo International Terminal
Xrail Crossrail
YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association

CIRIA C583 17
 Notation

C′ effective stress cohesion intercept

cu undrained shear strength
Cu undrained shear strength (both symbols are used in this document)
Cv coefficient of consolidation
D depth below ground level
E void ratio
E0 initial void ratio
Esec secant Young’s modulus
Eu undrained Young’s modulus
Eu0.1 undrained Young’s modulus at 0.1% axial strain
Eu0.01 undrained Young’s modulus at 0.01% axial strain
fs shaft friction
F(z/D) depth factor in borehole plate tests
G shear modulus
Gvh dynamic shear modulus
Ghv dynamic shear modulus
Ghh dynamic shear modulus
IL liquidity index
Ip plasticity index
K coefficient of permeability
kh coefficient of permeability (horizontal flow)
kv coefficient of permeability (vertical flow)
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest
mv coefficient of compressibility
N SPT blow-count
P load per unit area of plate
P′ effective stress
P′I initial effective stress
P′0 in-situ mean effective stress
Pult ultimate load in plate load tests
qc cone resistance
T time
Vvh shear wave velocity
Vhv shear wave velocity
Vhh shear wave velocity
W0 initial water content
wp plastic limit
wL liquid limit
δ settlement/plate diameter
∆e change in void ratio
Σv0 initial vertical total stress
Σ′ effective stress
Σ′n effective normal stress
E strain
N Poisson’s ratio
M Poisson’s ratio
Φ′ angle of shearing resistance
Φ′p peak angle of shearing resistance
Φ′r residual angle of shearing resistance

18 CIRIA C583
1 Introduction

The Lambeth Group (formerly known as the Woolwich and Reading Beds) is a
complex sequence of gravels, sands and clays of Tertiary (Palaeogene) age, which
exhibit considerable lateral and vertical variation. They were deposited in one or more
embayments on the western edge of a deep water marine basin centred on the present
North Sea over a period of about two million years (56–55 million years before
present). The strata underlies parts of south-east England and is encountered in sub-
surface engineering works throughout Greater London. Surface outcrops occur in Kent,
Essex and Suffolk and in the Hampshire Basin. These strata affect the construction
industry mainly in operations such as foundations, excavations and tunnelling. The
properties of the material vary between those of an engineering soil and those of a rock,
depending on the lithology, post-depositional diagenetic affects (eg cementation) and
state of weathering (where exposed).

An appreciation of the conditions under which the Lambeth Group was deposited and
its subsequent geological history are of considerable assistance in understanding its
geotechnical properties and behaviour in engineering situations.

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Lambeth Group underlies much of south-east England, particularly in the London
and Hampshire Basins. As a result the material is frequently encountered in major
construction projects, such as Jubilee Line Extension Project (JLEP). The lithological
variation in the strata and the lack of surface exposure resulted in generally poor
understanding of the nature of the deposit, its depositional history and how it had been
altered by post-depositional diagenetic changes. Work undertaken by the British
Geological Survey and others (helped by the availability of site investigation
information for projects including the JLEP) has improved understanding of the
environment in which the sediments were deposited. In turn this is allowing
engineering parameters to be applied to the materials with more confidence.

CIRIA identified the Lambeth Group as one of the “economically important UK soils
and rocks” for which engineering guidance was required. This report is one of a series
that covers engineering in glacial tills (Trenter, 1999), Chalk (Lord et al, 2002) and the
Mercia Mudstone Group (Chandler and Forster, 2000). All these engineering materials
are economically important to construction; they are difficult to sample and to test; and
understanding their engineering behaviour relies upon a sound appreciation of the
geological processes that have affected them since their deposition.

1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the research project was to establish, assess and make available up-to-
date information about the engineering properties of the Lambeth Group in order to
improve the investigation, design and construction of ground engineering works in
these materials.

Other weak rocks are not specifically considered in this report. Although information
presented here may be of value to those concerned with the geotechnical behaviour of
other weak rocks, care must be taken before extending experience with Lambeth Group
deposits to other materials, however similar they may appear to be.

CIRIA C583 19
 A useful discussion of the engineering properties of weak rocks, together with aspects
of pile design, some of which is of direct relevance to Lambeth Group deposits, is
given by Gannon et al (1999).

This account is a review of the current knowledge on the geology of the Lambeth
Group. It is written with the view that it will be the primary source of background
information on the Lambeth Group. It is aimed at those involved in all stages of
planning, execution and monitoring of engineering projects. This includes geologists,
engineering geologists, civil engineers, and drilling and tunnelling contractors.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

Chapter 2 presents the geological history of the Lambeth Group. This chapter is
supported by Appendix 1, which lists relevant Geological Survey Memoirs. Chapters 3
to 6 review the geotechnical aspects and recommend good practice when testing and
designing with the gravels, sands and clays of the Lambeth Group. The basic properties
of these heterogeneous materials are outlined, and the important issues for
understanding the geotechnics of the Lambeth Group are highlighted. Relevant case
studies are included in Chapter 5.

A comprehensive reference list and summaries of major case history data for tunnels,
shafts, deep excavations and piling are contained within the appendices at the end of
the report.

20 CIRIA C583
2 Geology of the Lambeth Group

The term Lambeth Group has been in the public domain since 1994 and replaces the
Woolwich and Reading Beds. The term was introduced in order to clarify the
stratigraphy shown on British Geological Survey maps, initially in the London area.

There are two reasons why the Lambeth Group warrants a review of this kind. First, the
strata within the group exhibit considerable lateral and vertical lithological variation.
Historically this has presented considerable engineering difficulties. Second, the
Lambeth Group is within 50 m of the surface beneath large tracts of London and
therefore has, and continues to be, an important issue in many engineering projects.

In the following account the principal constituent lithological units of the Lambeth
Group are defined. Their correlation and three-dimensional relationships are
demonstrated in a series of cross-sections and maps.

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING

Following deposition of the Chalk across much of Europe, there was increased tectonic
and volcanic activity related to the opening of the Atlantic Ocean in latest Cretaceous
and early Tertiary time. It was accompanied by a global fall in sea level, resulting in a
greater land area. A phase of folding associated with the building of the Alps in
southern Europe began, and a period of uplift caused tilting and the removal of the
youngest part of the Chalk in southern England.

The start of intermittent deposition of Tertiary sediments took place about 58 million
years ago when a shallow sea extended from the deeper water of the North Sea Basin to
cover the whole of south-east England. The Lambeth Group forms part of this
sedimentary sequence, laid down in a relatively short interval, about 56 to 55 million
years ago. Gentle folding of the Lambeth Group strata took place in Miocene time,
some 20 million years ago, when the London and Hampshire Basins became the
separated outcrops that are familiar on geological maps of the UK (Figure 2 1).

2.2 DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT

The Lambeth Group was laid down in one or more embayments on the western margin
of a deep water marine basin centred on the present North Sea. The period of deposition
was characterised by small but significant variations in sea level, caused partly by
contemporary earth movements and partly because of global climate changes. They
resulted in periodic migration of the depositional environments and were a major
contributory factor in the complex lithological changes observed in the Lambeth Group.
As the sea level fell the sediments became exposed, soils developed, and there was
downcutting by channels draining the new land. In contrast, sea level rising relative to
the land led to rapid inundation followed by a new phase of marine sedimentation.

In general terms, shallow marine sands dominate the Lambeth Group succession in the
east. Inland, towards the west, was a brackish water lagoon probably partly protected
from the sea by a barrier-beach and in which shell beds and interfingering sands, silts
and clays were laid down. Still further inland was a broad alluvial plain that may have
been periodically inundated. Clays and silts dominate this area and channels, now filled
with sand, meandered across it. The arrangement of these various environments is
shown in Figure 2.2.

CIRIA C583 21
 Figure 2.1 Distribution of the Lambeth Group: (a) Woolwich Formation, (b) Reading Formation,
(c) Upnor Formation, (d) underlying strata (© NERC)

22 CIRIA C583
 Figure 2.2 The environment of deposition of the Lambeth Group (© NERC)

2.3 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Exposures of deposits that constitute the Lambeth Group were first described in
pioneering work by Prestwich (1854) and systematically mapped by the Geological
Survey in the late nineteenth century. The findings of these surveys were published in
Geological Survey Memoirs covering the London Basin (Whitaker, 1872) and much of
the Hampshire Basin (Reid, 1898; 1902). Subsequently, memoirs covering the whole of
the London and Hampshire Basins have been published. The most recent of these, in
which there are accounts of the Lambeth Group, cover Southampton (Edwards and
Freshney, 1987) and Bournemouth (Bristow et al, 1991) in the Hampshire Basin, and
Chelmsford (Bristow, 1985) and Braintree (Ellison and Lake, 1986) in the London Basin.

Several distinct and well-known lithologies were identified in the Lambeth Group from
the outset. Thus the deposits at the base of the Group in the London and Hampshire
Basins were known as the Bottom Bed. These are now called the Upnor Formation,
see Table 2.1. Above it, the Reading Beds (now called the Reading Formation) are
predominant in the Hampshire Basin and in the north and west of the London Basin. In
the extreme east of the Hampshire Basin and the south and east of the London Basin,
deposits above the Bottom Bed were the Woolwich Beds (now called the Woolwich
Formation). The distribution of these constituent formations is shown in Figure 2.1.

In an area coinciding more or less with central and south London, Hester (1965)
identified a transition zone between what he termed the Reading type and Woolwich
type strata where beds of intermediate type occur. It is principally in this zone where a
new classification of the Lambeth Group has been achieved in recent years. Initially,
the interpretation of borehole records, the results of drilling by BGS of cored boreholes,
and detailed examination of exposures in Essex and Suffolk, led Ellison (1983) to
recognise a relationship between several units of the Lambeth Group.

This work was developed further, and in more detail, in London as a result of the
examination of numerous fully cored boreholes put down for major infrastructure
projects. The main site investigations involved were for the proposed Channel Tunnel
Rail Link (CTRL) route in south east London, the current CTRL route from Barking to
Kings Cross, Crossrail and the Jubilee Line Extension. A combination of these borehole
data and historical information on exposures and quarry sections has led to the
establishment of informal lithological units in the London area.

CIRIA C583 23
 Table 2.1 Lambeth Group terminology

Formation Previous usage Units with abbreviation used

in this report
London Basin Hampshire Basin

Reading Formation Reading Beds Reading Beds Upper Mottled Clay UMC
Lower Mottled Clay LMC
ferruginous sand*
lower mottled sand*
Woolwich Formation Woolwich Beds Woolwich Beds Upper Shelly Clay USC
Laminated beds Lb
striped loams *
1

Lower Shelly Clay LSC

Upnor Formation Bottom Bed Basement Bed (of glauconitic sand* GS

the Reading Beds) pebble bed *(at top)

1
Dewey et al, 1924
* units referred to but not defined in this account

2.4 STRATIGRAPHY

The three constituent formations of the Lambeth Group and their informal units are
described in this section. Their distribution and relationships in the London and
Hampshire basins, and detailed information covering London, is illustrated in Figures
2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6.

In the Hampshire Basin and the north-west of the London Basin the Lambeth Group
rests directly on Chalk. In the south and east of the London Basin it rests on Thanet
Sand, and in north Suffolk and Norfolk it overlies the Ormesby Clay (Knox et al, 1990)
(Figure 2.1c).

The Lambeth Group is overlain by sands and pebble beds of the Harwich Formation
(formerly the Blackheath and Oldhaven Beds and London Clay Basement Bed) (Ellison
et al, 1994), which in turn is overlain by the London Clay.

The thickness of the Lambeth Group in the London Basin (see Figure 2.6a) ranges from
less than 10 m in the south-east where much of it is eroded away beneath the Harwich
Formation (Oldhaven and Blackheath Beds) to about 30 m in the central part of the
basin, around Chertsey. In the Hampshire Basin the thickest sequence is estimated as
50 m on the Isle of Wight, but generally around 25 m and thinner in the far west.

2.4.1 Upnor Formation

The Upnor Formation was formerly known as the Bottom Bed (of the Woolwich and
Reading Beds) in the London Basin, and the Basement Bed (of the Reading Beds) in
the Hampshire Basin.

Distribution. See Figure 2.6f.

Boundary. The Upnor Formation is invariably at the base of the Lambeth Group (see
Figures 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6). The base is well defined, with burrows extending up to 2 m
below the contact. A basal bed containing flint pebbles is usually present. Where it rests

24 CIRIA C583
 on Chalk the basal bed also contains nodular unworn green-coated flints derived
directly from the Chalk. These may be up to cobble grade. In the east, relatively intense
bioturbation (disturbance by burrowing) has resulted in a gradational junction with the
Thanet Sand. In contrast with the underlying Thanet Sand the Upnor Formation
contains slightly coarser grade sand and the lower beds may be gritty and contain small
(sub-millimetre) subangular flint chips. In addition there may be a weak seepage at the
contact due to the silt and clay content in the Thanet Sand.

Thickness. In regional terms, in the London and Hampshire basins the thickness is
generally less than 3 m. The greatest thickness, 6–7 m, occurs in parts of central
London and in north Kent and Essex. In many areas it is not possible in borehole logs
to identify the Upnor Formation separately from the Thanet Sand.

Lithology. The dominant lithology of the Upnor Formation in the Hampshire and
London Basins is fine- to medium-grained sand and clayey sand with variable amounts
of glauconite grains of fine to medium sand grade and sporadic beds or stringers of
well-rounded flint pebbles. The sands are medium grey to greenish grey when fresh,
weathering to pale grey-brown and yellow-brown. The glauconite grains are dark green
and impart a speckled “pepper and salt” appearance. Shelly beds are seen in
unweathered sections and oyster shells may occur near the base in places. In the far
west of the Hampshire Basin the glauconite content declines and the flints are
decomposed and associated with irregularly developed ironstone.

The Upnor Formation is best known in the London area where two units, namely
glauconitic sand (GS) and pebble bed were recognised by Ellison (1991). It is proposed
not to apply these units elsewhere.

In the central and eastern parts of the London Basin some of the sandy beds contain up
to 25 per cent glauconite. The clay content of the Upnor Formation is variable with
beds up to 300 mm thick, and laminae, of grey clay common in the east of the basin
and in London.

The pebbles in the London Basin are generally less than 30 mm in diameter, but may
reach 200 mm, for example around Gravesend. In central and south-east London there
is a persistent pebble bed (Ellison, 1991) up to 3 m thick at the top of the formation
(see Figure 2.7). It consists of well-rounded flint pebbles. At Orsett, south Essex, a
wedge of pebbles up to 9 m thick occurs at the base of the formation.

Where the Upnor Formation is overlain by the Reading Formation (see Figure 2.1) the
highest beds are mottled brown and purple-brown, even at depths below the level of
surface weathering. In the pebble bed at the top of the Upnor Formation, a clay matrix
is developed and the pebbles are brittle and red stained. Other alteration features are
irregular-shaped carbonate concretions, which locally may be 0.5 m in diameter (these
have been mistaken for limestones in the past), small ironstone nodules, and clay
coatings on sand grains and pebbles. These secondary alterations may locally occur
throughout the entire formation in the western part of the London Basin and Hampshire
Basin. They are caused by pedogenic processes that operated when the deposits were
close to the surface during deposition of the Reading Formation.

There is no well-developed bedding in much of the formation due to bioturbation by

organisms churning up the sediment while it was being laid down. Locally, in well-
bedded or laminated parts of the sequence, individual burrows are seen and sands may
contain small-scale cross lamination and ripple lamination.

CIRIA C583 25
2.4.2 Woolwich Formation

It has long been known that there are several distinctive lithological units within the
Woolwich Formation. In this account four units are described and the distribution
shown on Figure 2.6.

Lower Shelly Clay (LSC)

This unit is probably the best known and easily distinguished in the Lambeth Group. It
occurs principally in south-east London and north Kent, and at outcrop
characteristically gives rise to finely comminuted shell debris in a clay soil.

Distribution. See Figures 2.1 and 2.6e.

Basal boundary. Everywhere it is well-defined and sharp (disconformable contact) on

Lower Mottled Clay with burrows up to 10 mm in diameter extending to a depth of 1 m
into the underlying strata.

Thickness. In the London Basin: up to 6 m; thickening generally from central London

towards the south east. In the Hampshire Basin: about 9 m in the east at Newhaven.
(Dupuis and Gruas-Cavagnetto, 1996).

Lithology. Dark grey to black clay with beds containing abundant shells, dominated by
bivalves and gastropods of only two or three species. Some beds, up to 1 m, are almost
entirely of shells forming a coquina; they are locally weakly cemented. An oyster-rich
bed occurs locally near the base. A few beds, of brownish grey clay, are slightly
cemented with siderite. Finely comminuted carbonaceous debris, some of which may be
pyritised, occurs in places. In the London Basin beds of medium-grained sand become
increasingly frequent towards the east.

Laminated beds
This unit is equivalent to the “laminated sands and silts” of Ellison (1991).

Distribution. Recognised only in the south-east part of the London Basin (Figure 2.6d
and 2.7), but similar beds occur in association with the Lower Shelly Clay at Newhaven
in the Hampshire Basin.

Basal boundary. Usually a rapid gradation with Lower Shelly Clay.

Thickness. Generally less than 4 m but up to 9 m south of Stratford.

Lithology. A thinly interbedded succession of fine to medium sand, silt and clay with
scattered intact bivalve shells. Beds are generally less than 50 mm thick and typically
finely laminated on a millimetre scale. Lenticular bedding, ripple lamination, burrows
and some bioturbated, structureless, beds are usual. Localised bodies of sand (probable
channels) up to about 4 m thick occur, particularly around Lambeth and Bermondsey in
south-east London. Sands are more extensive between Docklands and Stratford.
Typically the sand is pale olive to pale brown, medium-grained, well sorted and cross
laminated, with some clay drapes and scattered bivalves. Thin beds of colour mottled
clay and silt, interpreted as Upper Mottled Clay of the Reading Formation, occur within
the Laminated beds between Docklands and Stratford.

Included in the Laminated beds is a sequence known as striped loams (Dewey et al,
1924). These beds were formerly exposed at Loam Pit Hill, Lewisham and include
clays that contain leaf fossils. It is probable that these beds occupy an erosional hollow
cut into the main thickness of the Laminated beds (Figures 2.5 and 2.7).

26 CIRIA C583
 Upper Shelly Clay (USC)
Distribution. Mainly in south London between Westminster and Bermondsey in the
north, to Mitcham and Lewisham in the south (Figure 2.6c). There are also outliers of
the Upper Shelly Clay proved in boreholes south-east of the main area and to the north-
west, in Essex. It seems likely that these occurrences are in shallow channels in the top
part of the Lambeth Group.

Basal boundary. Sharp (disconformable) contact on Upper Mottled Clay or sharp

contact or rapid gradation into Laminated beds.

Thickness. Probably no more than 3 m. In many borehole records it may have been
classified as shelly basal beds of London Clay.

Lithology. Grey shelly clay, thinly interbedded with grey brown silt and very fine sand.
A greater number of bivalve species than in the Lower Shelly Clay are present sporadically
throughout. In the south-east of the area the beds are generally of sand (Figure 2.6c).
The unit is generally thinly laminated. It includes weakly cemented shell beds (up to
0.43 m thick) containing Ostrea, bioturbated sand beds, sands and silts with rip-up clay
clasts (less than 5 mm) and clays and silts with sand-filled burrows. Scattered glauconite
grains may occur throughout. A limestone bed, generally 0.1–0.3 m thick (the maximum
recorded thickness is 1.89 m) known as the Paludina Limestone, forms a significant
marker bed that is probably persistent in the area between Bermondsey and Lewisham.
It is a fossiliferous grey calcisiltite with an earthy texture. It contains unbroken and
comminuted gastropods, the latter in the basal 30 mm.

2.4.3 Reading Formation

Distribution. Occurs throughout the Hampshire Basin and in all but the south-east of
the London Basin. In London the formation divides into two leaves separated by
Woolwich Formation (Figures 2.5 and 2.7). The leaves are termed the Upper Mottled
Clay and the Lower Mottled Clay. In areas where the Woolwich Formation does not
intervene it is not possible, using lithological criteria, to identify the two leaves.
However, when current biostratigraphical research is completed it may be possible to
discriminate them using fossil spores.

Basal boundary. The base of undivided Reading Formation and the base of the Lower
Mottled Clay (overlying the Upnor Formation) is usually diffuse and difficult to place
precisely because of clay translocation and colour mottling caused by pedogenic
processes affecting the top of the Upnor Formation. The Upper Mottled Clay generally
rests on Laminated beds, this contact also being difficult to place due to diffuse colour
mottling. The Upper Mottled Clay interdigitates with the Laminated beds in the
Stratford area of London.

Lithology. Clay is the dominant lithology in the Reading Formation. The bulk of the
formation consists of largely unbedded, colour-mottled silty clay and clay. This
lithology is the principal characteristic of the Reading Beds or plastic clay of former
authors. Colours include pale brown and pale grey-blue, dark brown, pale green , red-
brown and crimson depending on the oxidation state of the sediments. The clays
contain numerous fissures, many of them spoon-shaped (listric) and polished, which
give rise to a blocky texture.

Beds of silt and sand may constitute up to 50 per cent of the formation. Their dominant
colour is brown, red hues being less prevalent than in the clays. Many of these beds are
thinly laminated with small burrows and root traces, and minor brecciation caused by

CIRIA C583 27
 soft sediment deformation has been noted. Beds of well-sorted fine to medium-grained
sand also occur sporadically throughout the Reading Formation, mainly in the west of
the London Basin and the Hampshire Basin. Their three-dimensional structure is not
known in detail but they appear to fill steep-sided channels, perhaps in the order of
100–200 m wide and up to 4 m deep.

Detailed examination of borehole core in the undivided Reading Formation, the Upper
Mottled Clay, and to a lesser extent the Lower Mottled Clay, reveals a series of small
fining upwards cycles. At the base of each unit is a laminated sand or silt with minor
burrowing and locally ripple lamination. It passes up into mottled clays, brecciated in
places, with root traces, and culminates in mottled clay with carbonate nodules.

In the west of the London Basin and the Hampshire Basin thin, black, carbonaceous
clays are recorded locally in the middle of the sequence. These may be roughly at the
horizon of the Lower Shelly Clay (see Figure 2.4). Also in the west of the Hampshire
Basin, red mottled clays, identical in lithology to the Reading Formation are known as
the West Park Farm Member of the London Clay (see Figure 2.4) (Bristow et al, 1991).

The Lower Mottled Clay contains carbonate nodules up to 0.5 m in diameter

particularly in the top part. They may be hard and splintery or softer and powdery.
Exceptionally, in east London, they have coalesced to form a massive limestone up to
1.6 m thick. Purple hues are a feature of the Lower Mottled Clay and minor amounts of
irregularly iron-cemented and partially cemented calcareous clayey sands are recorded
locally in east London. Sands become increasingly dominant east of London and may
be referred to as lower mottled sand. Farther east, in Essex and Kent, it passes into a
pale grey-brown to purple-brown structureless medium to coarse-grained sand. In
places in north Kent this is iron-cemented and known locally as the Winterbourne
Ironstone. It was informally referred to as ferruginous sand by Ellison (1983).

The Upper Mottled Clay is not distinguished lithologically either from the Lower
Mottled Clay or the main bulk of undivided Reading Formation. It is identified simply
as an upper leaf of the Formation lying above the Lower Shelly Clay. In cores in central
and east London it consists largely of mottled clays, silty clays and silts with colours
similar to those of the Lower Mottled Clay, the only exception being the absence of
purple hues.

Figure 2.3 Schematic section showing the variation in the Lambeth Group, London Basin
(© NERC)

28 CIRIA C583
 Figure 2.4 Schematic section showing the variation in the Lambeth Group, Hampshire Basin
(© NERC)

Figure 2.5 Generalised Lambeth Group succession in central London (© NERC)

CIRIA C583 29
 Figure 2.6a Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thickness of Lambeth Group
(© NERC)

Figure 2.6b Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thicknesses of Reading Formation
undivided and the Upper Mottled Clay and Lower Mottled Clay (© NERC)

30 CIRIA C583
 Figure 2.6c Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thickness of Upper Shelly Clay
(© NERC)

Figure 2.6d Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thickness of Laminated beds
(© NERC)

CIRIA C583 31
 Figure 2.6e Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thickness of Lower Shelly Clay
(© NERC)

Figure 2.6f Distribution of Lambeth Group units in London: thickness of Upnor Formation
(© NERC)

32 CIRIA C583
 Figure 2.7 Sections through Lambeth Group deposits: (1) Channel Tunnel Rail Link, (2) Crossrail,
(3) A102(M), (4) Jubilee Line Extension, (5) south-east London (© NERC)

2.5 DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND PROCESSES

Typical photographs of cores and exposures of the different units that make up the
Lambeth Group are presented in Appendix 2.

The Upnor Formation was deposited in a shallow sea (< 20 m water depth), in which
sedimentation was influenced by tidal flows. A reduction in sea level, possibly
combined with uplift, led to emergence and establishment of a terrestrial environment
in which the Reading Formation was laid down on marshy mudflats, which formed an
alluvial plain crossed by river channels. The prevailing climate had high temperatures
and pronounced wet and dry seasons. Sub-tropical subaerial weathering occurred and
soil forming processes (pedogenesis) affected the sediments, including the Upnor
Formation, where this was close to the ground surface. This was particularly intense at

CIRIA C583 33
 the top of the Lower Mottled Clay, in the east of the London Basin, where calcrete and
ferricrete precipitation took place during a major hiatus in deposition (the mid-Lambeth
Group hiatus of Page, 1994).

In the east of the London Basin, a transgressive event then led to the deposition of the
Lower Shelly Clay and Laminated beds of the Woolwich Formation in a brackish-water
lagoonal or estuarine environment. Also in the east of the basin, a second emergent
phase and return to a terrestrial environment led to deposition of the Upper Mottled
Clay, overlying the Woolwich Formation. A further transgression was responsible for
the formation of the Upper Shelly Clay in central and southern London.

The sediments laid down in these alternating conditions are preserved mainly in central
London, and locally in the east of the Hampshire Basin. The transgressive events did
not reach far into the west of the London Basin, and in the east much of the succession
was removed by erosion prior to deposition of the Harwich Formation and London Clay.

Processes active during deposition included bioturbation, pedogenesis and weathering. Each
of these has given rise to distinctive structures and lithologies within the Lambeth Group.

Burrows of various types occur throughout the Lambeth Group. They are comparatively
uncommon in the Reading Formation and Woolwich Formation but a particularly strong
burrowed horizon occurs at the junction between the Lower Mottled Clay and the
Lower Shelly Clay, coincident with the Mid-Lambeth Group hiatus. Bioturbation is
prevalent only in the Upnor Formation.

Pedogenic processes in a sub-tropical climate affected the Upnor Formation, and the
Upper and Lower Mottled Clay. These processes involved dissolution, precipitation,
transport, oxidation and reduction associated with fluctuating water tables, and
reduction associated with root development. The processes led to:
z colour mottling due to varying degrees of oxidation
z clay enrichment caused by downward migration of clay into sands, resulting in clay
coatings developing on sand grains and pebbles
z dissolution of shells and removal of organic material by oxidation
z the formation of duricrusts caused by precipitation of carbonate cements derived
from the dissolution of shells. The form of carbonate cementing depended on the
local permeability, and proximity of sources of cementing agents. Carbonate cement
forms a weak cement locally in the Upnor Formation pebble bed, a hard limestone
(particularly in the vicinity of the shell beds), and calcrete nodules particularly in
the Lower Mottled Clay. Calcrete occurs as fine to medium gravel-sized powdery
concretions in the sandier Lower Mottled Clay in east London. Large nodules and
more extensive carbonate cementing in irregular masses up to 1 m thick, occurs also
in the Lower Mottled Clay. Examples of these calcretes are shown in Figures 4.3
and 4.4. Locally in north London, sandy beds in the base of the Lower Mottled Clay
or at the top of the Upnor Formation contain silica cemented beds, interpreted as
silcretes, formed during pedogenesis. The best known of these is the Hertfordshire
Puddingstone. Ferricretes are recorded rarely, usually in strata close below the base
of the Lower Shelly Clay, also caused by emergence at the mid Lambeth Group
hiatus (for example, at Newhaven).

Fissures with polished and slickensided surfaces have developed as a result of

syndepositional desiccation during seasonal changes in ground moisture in the mottled
clays. Relatively minor amounts of fissuring occur also in the clays of the Woolwich
Formation.

34 CIRIA C583
2.6 GEOPHYSICAL LOG CHARACTERISTICS

Downhole geophysical logs are helpful for correlating Lambeth Group successions
proved in boreholes, particularly when they are calibrated with a continuous core. Used
in this way they are of considerable assistance in determining the lithological units
present where no core has been taken or where core is not recovered.

In general terms the gamma ray log has been most commonly used. The neutron trace is
thought to be the next most useful, particularly in the Reading Formation where it
responds well to sand bodies (Whitaker et al, 1985).

An example of a gamma log taken in a representative central London borehole for

which full core was available is shown on Figure 2.8. The boundaries of the units were
defined in the core.

Figure 2.8 Representative gamma ray log of Lambeth Group in central London (© NERC)

CIRIA C583 35
2.7 MINERALOGY

There are no systematic studies of the mineralogy of the Lambeth Group but some
trends can be inferred from published material. A generalised clay minerals profile
through a typical Lambeth Group sequence in central London is shown on Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9 Generalised clay mineralogy profile of Lambeth Group in central London (© NERC)

2.7.1 Upnor Formation

The non-clay minerals are dominated by quartz, with up to 30 per cent glauconite
grains. The quartz grains are generally well-rounded to sub-rounded but with some
evidence of corrosion. The glauconite grains vary from well-rounded to angular and
weather at outcrop to goethite or ilmenite. Samples from the northern outcrops of the
London Basin (Bateman and Moffat, 1987) also contain grains of feldspar, quartzite,
ironstone, chert chalcedony and pyrite.

Clay minerals are largely in the sand matrix and constitute up to 50 per cent of the
Upnor Formation. In the Hampshire Basin and more eastern parts of the London Basin
smectite is the dominant clay, with illite and a little or no kaolinite. Mixed layer illite-
smectite is also present. The smectite is generally well-crystallised and derived from the
weathering of ash falls from volcanoes active mainly during deposition of the Upnor
Formation. In the west and north of the London Basin illite is usually the dominant clay
mineral and kaolinite also tends to become more common (Gilkes, 1968; Bateman and
Moffat, 1987; Ellison and Lake, 1986). There are also a few thin beds (less than 10 mm)
containing a particularly high proportion of smectite which may indicate relatively
un-reworked volcanic ash.

36 CIRIA C583
2.7.2 Woolwich Formation

Little mineralogical information is available on the Woolwich Formation. High levels

of organic material are found in the Laminated beds in particular. Thin lignite beds are
recorded from several places, in the east of the Hampshire Basin and in the London
Basin, associated with the Laminated beds and at the base of the Lower Shelly Clay.
Iron minerals such as pyrite, magnetite and limonite occur at several horizons. The
ferruginous sands, in the east of the London Basin are locally silicified, suggesting
leaching and iron segregation in conditions of a variable water table.

The clay minerals in the more sandy beds are generally dominated by kaolinite,
whereas clay beds contain illite, smectite and kaolinite (Blondeau and Pomerol, 1968).

2.7.3 Reading Formation

Quartz, from sand to clay grade, is usually the dominant non-clay mineral of the Reading
Formation. Mica and feldspar are minor components. The composition of the few percent
of iron minerals is dependent on the redox conditions during and immediately following
deposition. Jarosite, haematite, limonite, collophane and magnetite/ilmenite may also be
present in the oxidised zones; pyrite occurs in some clays dominated by grey hues.

The lower part of the undivided Reading Formation in Essex and the Lower Mottled
Clay in London has a smectite-dominated clay mineral assemblage, similar to the
Upnor Formation. In contrast, the Upper Mottled Clay and the top part of the undivided
Reading Formation is dominated by illite with less smectite and some kaolinite that
appears to replace smectite in places (Ellison and Lake, 1986).

In the Hampshire Basin the Reading Formation on the Isle of Wight contains mainly
illite and kaolinite, smectite becoming abundant only in the top of the formation
(Gilkes, 1968; Buurman, 1980). Regional trends in the Hampshire Basin suggest that
smectite increases generally towards the north and west (BGS unpublished data),
although it may occur in relatively high proportions in specific bands, reflecting its
primary origin as ash falls. However, weathering of the ashes in an environment, which
led to the formation of strongly red mottled clays of the Reading Formation is more
likely to give rise to kaolinite rather than smectite.

2.8 POST-DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES

The principal post-depositional influences on the Lambeth Group are tectonic forces,
glacial and periglacial processes, and changing groundwater level. In areas of outcrop,
surface weathering effects also may have modified the deposits.

2.8.1 Structural features

The Lambeth Group has been gently folded on a regional scale and the beds in the
majority of the London and Hampshire Basins dip generally at less than 1º. Steep dips,
greater than 45º occur along the Hogs Back and in the Isle of Wight. In these areas the
Lambeth Group, mainly Reading Formation may contain shear planes and minor faults.
Steep dips have also been recorded in association with the Greenwich Fault in south-
east London such as in the open, upright folds, probably associated with disturbance
close to the fault in south London (Bromehead, 1922).

Also in London the Tertiary strata and Chalk are broken by small faults trending
NW–SE, probably with throws less than 2 m. These are rarely recorded but are inferred
from an evaluation of the regional structure and hydrogeological models.

CIRIA C583 37
2.8.2 Features related to glaciation

Glacial disturbance of the Lambeth Group is a potential issue only in outcrops and
subcrop (occurrences below drift deposits) in north Essex and Suffolk. There is no
specific information on this but it is possible that release of high hydrostatic pressure
beneath an ice margin may have caused disruption of bedding in sands within the
Lambeth Group.

2.8.3 Features related to periglaciation

Periglacial conditions existed in southern England during at least two glacial episodes
in the past 500 000 years. The thinly bedded nature of the Lambeth Group, in particular
the presence of water-bearing sands, resulted in a relatively high susceptibility to
disturbance caused by ground ice and cryoturbation.

Pingos, large dome-shaped bodies of ground ice developed below the ground surface,
grow by the progressive addition of water, probably under artesian pressure. Melting of
pingos is thought to be at least partly responsible for more than 25 anomalously deep
subsurface depressions in the rockhead beneath London (Hutchinson, 1980). Associated
with some of these hollows are masses of Lambeth Group sediments that have been
injected, under high hydrostatic pressure, through the London Clay into the base of the
hollow. Artesian groundwater conditions formerly occurred in much of the central part
of the London Basin, and therefore potentially there is the possibility that there are
undiscovered areas of similarly disturbed Lambeth Group.

Modification of the Lambeth Group at outcrop by active-layer processes such as

cryoturbation is largely unstudied. It is likely to have resulted in the development of
small scale structures such as involutions and the diapiric injection of sands. These
features may be particularly well developed in interbedded sand and clay because of the
potential contrast in the freezing point of groundwater in coarser compared to fine
grained sediments, dependent on the relative pore pressures. Slopes formed of the clay-
dominated Reading Formation owe their present form to periglacial slope processes and
are likely to be mantled by 1–3 m of Head deposits containing shear surfaces, aligned
roughly parallel to the ground surface. Immediately beneath the Head, periglacially
weathered clay is generally brecciated and softer than the clay beneath (see for example
Spink, 1991). Periglacial shearing of the Reading Formation is likely to be exacerbated
by the presence of pre-existing shears in the mottled clays.

Valley bulging is broad anticlinal deformation of strata, under periglacial conditions,

underlying valley floors. It is commonly associated with clay-dominated strata and is
likely to affect all valleys that have been rapidly incised. This releases large horizontal
stresses, which under favourable conditions may be sufficient to initiate lateral
deformation of the deposits towards the valley axis.

2.8.4 Features due to Chalk dissolution

The Chalk dissolves to give a karstic surface with pipes and swallow holes up to
several metres deep. The most significant dissolution has occurred at the margin of
overlying impermeable deposits where surface drainage is concentrated, for example
close to the junction with the Lambeth Group. Although many of the dissolution
features are filled with superficial deposits, it is likely that, particularly close to the
edge of the outcrops, the Lambeth Group, and the underlying Thanet Sand, are let down
into Chalk dissolution features.

38 CIRIA C583
2.8.5 The effect of rising groundwater

The current rise in groundwater levels in London, caused by a reduction in water

abstraction, is well documented (see for example Environment Agency, 1997). It has an
influence on the Lambeth Group because the sandy Upnor Formation is regarded as being
in hydrogeological continuity with the underlying Thanet Sand and the Chalk. Historically,
these sandy Tertiary beds together have been known as the Basal Sands aquifer.

The abstraction of water from the aquifer, starting in the early part of the 19th century,
led to a fall in groundwater levels in the central region of the basin (Water Resources
Board, 1972). Consequently the top of the Chalk was probably dewatered over an area
of several square kilometres in the centre of the basin (Lucas and Robinson, 1995).

The recovery of groundwater levels in London has several implications, which were
considered in CIRIA SP69 (Simpson et al, 1989). Basements or tunnels excavated
above the water table and not sealed against the ingress of water would be subject to
flooding. Sealed structures submerged by rising water would become buoyant and
liable to uplift pressures detrimental to stability. Structures originally below the water
table might not be sufficiently watertight to contend with increased hydrostatic head
and remedial sealing or continuous pumping would be required.

Tunnels are already suffering from increased seepage, and chemical attack. One
example is on the London Underground Northern Line, where very acidic waters
caused deterioration of the tunnel linings south of Old Street station. Investigations
there suggested that the source of the acid was oxidised pyrite in sands in the Lambeth
Group, probably in the Laminated beds. These beds had originally been saturated, but
subsequently dewatered as the water table was lowered. The pyrite was subsequently
oxidised by air from the railway tunnels, in particular by the piston effect of passing
trains and by changes in barometric pressure. Water seeping from the overlying London
Clay, resulted in the production of highly acidic, aggressive groundwater (Robins et al,
1997). As the water table rises, increasing amounts of oxidised pyrite will give rise to
potentially corrosive acidic groundwater (Rainey and Rosenbaum, 1989).

During conditions of falling water table, the resultant underdrainage and consolidation
of strata resulted in the lowering of the ground surface in central London by several
hundred millimetres. It also increased the bearing strength of the London Clay and
clays in the Lambeth Group. As a result of rising groundwater, increases in pore water
pressure and the swelling of clay may result in a reduction in shear strength, and hence
bearing capacity.

CIRIA C583 39
40 CIRIA C583