Cite this article Research Article

Morrison P and Ganesharatnam L Paper 2200033

Driven pile foundation reuse in East London, UK. Received 28/11/2022; Accepted 15/08/2023
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Forensic Engineering, First published online 11/09/2023
https://doi.org/10.1680/jfoen.22.00033
Emerald Publishing Limited: All rights reserved

Forensic Engineering

Driven pile foundation reuse in East London,

UK
Paul Morrison PhD, CEng, MIEI Lohini Ganesharatnam BSc
Arup, London, UK (corresponding author: paul.morrison@arup.com) Arup, London, UK

Multiple phases of redevelopment of the London Docklands, UK, have resulted in the need to replace existing
structures with new, often larger, structures. This paper presents the case history of a 1980s low-rise office building
(three to four storeys) being replaced by a medium-rise (five storeys + roof terrace) recreational building structure.
The 1980s building was founded on driven closed-ended steel tube piles located within one of London’s historic
docks. Subsequent to the 1980s building construction, London Underground (LU) tunnels were constructed below
the dock in the late 1990s in close proximity to the structure. Piling in the dock adjacent to the LU tunnels resulted
in restrictions to pile construction methodology. The new structure reused the driven piles in the dock and added
new onshore bored piles to accommodate a larger building footprint landwards. The pile reuse justification used the
original preliminary pile load test and driving records along with current design codes. The 1980s allowable working
loads stated on the design drawing were lower than that required to support the new building, thereby requiring
reinterpretation of preliminary pile load test results. The pile reuse assessment justified an increase in pile working
load from 1050 to 1760 kN.

Keywords: foundation reuse/piles/sustainability/UN SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production

Notation (see Figure 1). The building was founded on driven closed-ended
cu undrained shear strength in clay steel piles in the dock along with several on-land bored piles just
N standard penetration test N value on the landward side of the listed Banana (intentionally shaped)
0
Nq pile bearing capacity factor on sv masonry gravity wall that formed the edge of the dock that was
0
N*q pile bearing capacity factor on sm built in the early 1800s. The driven steel tube piles were filled
Q pile resistance (units of force) with concrete following installation, which was to a minimum toe
q pile resistance (units of stress) level and thereafter a minimum set. Only the closed-ended steel
Rc total pile resistance (units of force) driven piles were considered for pile reuse, as the 1980s on-land
S settlement piles were not positioned appropriately to carry the new building
a pile shaft adhesion factor for clays columns and were substantially under-capacity. The new building
b pile shaft factor for sands again spanned over the Banana Wall sitting on the new landward
g partial factor piles, as well as the 1980s steel piles. The Red Sheds buildings
s0 effective stress were demolished to the top of the ground-floor slab level
f0 angle of soil shear resistance (structural slab level) in the early 2000s (see Figure 2).

Subscripts 2. Redevelopment
b pile base The redevelopment building is a steel-framed five-storey structure
cal calculated resistance that is straddles the listed banana-shaped quay wall (as per the
d design value illustration in Figure 3); the structure is mainly over the dock.
m mean (stress)
s pile shaft The redevelopment reused the 1980s driven closed-ended steel
v vertical (stress) piles for several reasons.

1. Introduction ■ To limit the design assessment of the London Underground

The redevelopment is in East London, UK, in one of London’s (LU) tunnels running adjacent to the building to that of an
historic docks. The previous building on the site was a pair of assessment of loading/ground movement rather than
mirror-image lightweight three- to four-storey steel-framed office construction assessment associated with piling through the
buildings known as ‘Red Sheds’ sitting on a common piled slab base of the dock (TFL, 2017).

1
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

■ To forego the need for overwater piling works, which would

have had to be with the agreement of LU. While not
discussed with LU, the following works and restrictions
would have been expected:

■ development and presentation of a risk assessment

according to the requirements of LU
■ potential probing for unexploded ordnance in the dock bed
■ tunnel monitoring for conditions and vibrations
■ restricted working hours, potentially limited to working in
engineering hours (working for limited hours overnight
Figure 1. View of previous Red Sheds buildings while the LU tube trains are not running) for piles closest
to the LU tunnels.

■ The existing piles were located towards the property boundary

line, making a new pile arrangement (not reuse of piles)
inefficient. In addition, some of the existing steel driven piles
were raked, thereby resulting in a significant zone of the
ground being unavailable for new pile installation (assumed to
be bored rather than driven due to LU proximity). Adding
extra piles outside the footprint of the platform was not viable
without purchasing additional water area and also because it
would encroach further into the LU exclusion zone.
■ Pile load test data were available for the existing piles. Due to
the cost of pile testing, it would not have been financially
viable to carry out further pile load testing for a new pile
Figure 2. Platform over the piles
solution for the relatively small building being proposed.
■ The existing piles were built; this removed significant
environmental noise pollution associated with overwater
piling works from the construction impact.
■ Sustainability reasons for reuse rather than replace reducing
The resulting building section has three embodied carbon dioxide and material wastage.
lines of columns landing on the three ■ Lowest cost option.
rows of marine piles and one line of
columns set back from the new piles. The Therefore, it was proposed to utilise the full capacity of the 1980s
structure bridges over the banana wall steel piles.
and avoids loading it.
In short, the reuse of existing foundations in the dock was a cost-
effective solution, it overcame congestion in the ground if new
piles had to be positioned around the existing vertical and raking
piles and, critically, it is both a cost-effective and sustainable
solution (embodied carbon dioxide in the concrete-infilled steel
piles alone being approximately 500 tonnes carbon dioxide
equivalent). Additional new bored piles were installed on the
landside of the Banana Wall.

The major constraint on the building size and layout was the
geotechnical capacity of the in-dock concrete-infilled steel driven
piles. Therefore, the possibility of enhancing the pile geotechnical
resistance was investigated.

The work was commissioned by the client (building owner), and

Figure 3. Proposed development showing piles and the Banana
Wall. Note: 1980s marine piles in grey and 2017 new on-land
design work was carried out by the engineer under a bespoke
piles in green ‘engineer design’ contract. The same engineer had designed the
original piles in the 1980s and overseen their construction. The

2
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

new on-land piles required for the development were ‘engineer Table 1. Summary of information available (Butcher et al., 2006)
designed’ and contactor built. Information Availability
Desk study and site ✓
3. Reuse of the 1980s piles
investigation
The layout of the 1980s piles, which included in-dock and Geotechnical design and ✓
landside piles, is given in Figure 4. The original pile specifications
documentation was obtained from archive records: As-built pile location plan ✓
As-built pile schedule ✓
Pile construction record ✓
■ desk study and ground investigation reports (factual and
sheets and reinforcement
interpretative) schedule
■ pile design calculation Details of pile integrity ✓
■ preliminary pile load test data and interpretation testing
■ pile installation records (hand-recorded blow counts and Details of pile load testing ✓ (preliminary static pile load test
and dynamic working pile load
hammer details).
tests)
Details of all non- ✓
The approach to the pile reuse followed the best practice guide by conformances
the Building Research Establishment (BRE) (Butcher et al., 2006) on Records confirmed by an ×
the reuse of foundations for urban sites. The BRE guide included a independent body
Construction and post- ×
list of optimum information required to enable reuse of any
construction photographs
foundation. This list is given in Table 1, along with the availability of Added comment: other No settlement/heave measurements
the information for the 1980s development. Most information records of the piles from 1980s building
required by the BRE guide was available apart from (a) records were available
confirmed by an independent body and (b) construction and post-
construction photographs. The information available included pile Table 2. Details of driven tube piles
construction records, integrity testing and pile load testing.
Item Details

The details of the driven tube piles are given in Table 2. The pile Steel pile diameter 610 mm outside diameter
Tube steel thickness 20.6 mm
toe levels are in the Lambeth Group sands.
Concrete infill strength Grade 40
Reinforcement 6T16/6T25/6T32
4. Preliminary pile test analysis Working axial load (1980s) 1050 kN (factor of safety = 2.5)
The ground conditions at the site are shown in Table 3.
Note: the piles were designed according to BSI (1972)

The Reading and Upnor Formations are mainly silty, sand while
the Woolwich Formation is silty clay. settlement at the pile head was about 8 mm; this is only 1.4% of
the pile diameter. Part of the settlement recorded was due to
A preliminary pile static load test on a 610 mm dia. driven closed- shortening of the pile above the dock bed. The actual pile
ended steel pile with reinforced concrete infill was carried out in settlement ‘in ground’ would be less than that measured at the top
the dock in 1985. The test did not reach geotechnical failure (i.e. of the pile (the pile settlement at the bed level estimated to be
the settlement was much less than 10% of the pile diameter, as around 50–60% of the measured pile head settlement at maximum
seen in Figure 5). At a maximum applied load of 2735 kN, the the pile test load). Hence, the geotechnical settlement (equivalent
pile settlement at the mudline) was on the order of 5 mm or less
than 1% of the pile diameter at the end of the pile load test at
Marine pile (1980s) (reused)
2735 kN. The residual settlement, the settlement once the pile was
Land pile (1980s) (not reused) unloaded, was very low (approximately 1 mm for the penultimate
Rake 1 in 3 unload stage), as can be seen from the data in Figure 5.

The load–settlement curve was extrapolated using methods such

as that by Fleming (1992). The pile test results and extrapolated
load–settlement curves are shown in Figures 5–7. The Fleming
analysis (Figure 7) gave lower values than simpler methods (e.g.
Chin, 1972) in Figure 6. At a settlement equal to 10% of the pile
Banana wall
diameter, the ultimate shaft and base resistances were assessed to
be kN and 4000 kN, respectively (total geotechnical resistance
Figure 4. The 1980s driven piles and on-land piles 6400 kN), from the Fleming analysis. Applying a factor of safety
of 2.5, the working load would be 2560 kN, which is significantly

3
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

Table 3. Ground stratigraphy

Design ground profile
Stratum
Typical stratum thickness: m Typical top of stratum: mOD
Dock silt (ignored) 2 −2
River terrace deposits 1 −4
Lambetd Group Woolwich Formation (typical SPT N = 25–40) 6 −5
Reading Formation (Lower) (typical SPT N = 50+) 3 −11
Upnor Formation (typical SPT N = 50+) 3 −14
Thanet Sand Formation 14 −17

SPT, standard penetration test. mOD, metres above Ordnance Datum

Selected data Pile test data A pile resistance calculation based on engineering parameters was
performed to assess the acceptability of the extrapolated ultimate
3000
pile resistances given by the Fleming analysis was based on
2500 published pile design empirical parameters recommended by
Poulos and Davis (1980). The requirement to follow the
2000 calculation route stemmed from the following.
Pile load: kN

1500
■ There is a difference in groundwater level between the long-
1000 term design condition (higher groundwater level) and the pile
test condition (lower groundwater level). The calculated long-
500 term design resistance needs to accommodate this rise in
groundwater level (a rise in groundwater level will result in a
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 reduction in calculated, and actual, pile resistance).
Pile head settlement: mm
■ Eurocode 7 part 1 (BSI, 2013) clause 7.4.1 gives the
requirements for design of piles. Importantly. design methods
Figure 5. Pile test: load–settlement data should be based on comparable experience informed by
results of pile load tests.

The pile shaft and base resistances for the pile test conditions
Shaft (Chin) Base (Chin)
Total (Chin) Pile test data
(groundwater levels at the time of the test etc.) were calculated to be
10 000
Total (Chin)
1584 and 2992 kN, respectively (total resistance 4576 kN). These
values were significantly less than the values extrapolated from the
10% pile diameter = 61 mm
8000 Fleming analysis; see Table 4 for the calculations. With a factor of
safety of 2.5 considered appropriate for a 1980s design, the allowable
Resistance, R: kN

6000 Base (Chin) working load would be about 1830 kN, which was clearly greater
than the design load on the piles (1050 kN). Further, at a load of
4000 1830 kN, the pile load test had settled some 5 mm, which included
Shaft (Chin)
pile shaft shortening above the mudline some 10 m below the top of
2000
the pile; this would still be a stiff pile.

0
5. As-built records
0 20 40 60 80 The same engineers were the 1980s pile designers as for the 2017
Settlement, s: mm development. In the 1980s, the resident engineer’s handwritten
Figure 6. Extrapolated load–settlement curves (Chin, 1972) records were produced for each pile and archived. These records
included the following:

■ reference level
greater than the design load of the piles (1050 kN) and only ■ pile length
marginally less than the maximum load applied during the pile ■ pile rake and orientation
load test. Given the mudline settlement at maximum pile loading ■ date and driving time
of approximately 1% of pile diameter in the pile load test, this ■ position (coordinates and offset from the ‘design position’)
finding was not surprising. ■ hammer type and energy (weight by fall height)

4
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

Shaft (Fleming) Base (Fleming) Blows/250 mm

Total (Fleming) Pile test data 0 50 100 150 200 250
10 000
–2
10% pile diameter = 61 mm
8000
Test pile
Total (Fleming)
Resistance, R: kN

6000 –4

Base (Fleming)
4000
Shaft (Fleming)
–6
2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Reduced level: mOD

Settlement, s: mm –8

Figure 7. Extrapolated load–settlement curves (Fleming, 1992)

–10
■ blows per 250 mm penetration initial drive (or penetration per
X number of blows at refusal)
■ Penetration per ‘X’ number of blows for the pile redrive
–12
■ dynamic (case method) pile load test data.

Plots of the working pile driving records for the two buildings
together with the driving records of the preliminary test pile are –14
given in Figures 8 and 9. The working piles were driven using a
BSP-DE50B hammer to a level of around −7.5 metres above
Ordnance Datum (mOD) and a Delmag D55 hammer from this
level to the toe level; the test pile was driven using BSP-DE30B –16
and Delmag D55 hammers. Therefore, down to −7.5 mOD, the
blows required for the working piles would differ from those seen Figure 8. Pile driving records – building 7 (redrive not included)
at the test pile, which used a less powerful initial hammer.

All piles were subjected to redriving following completion of the piles and the preliminary test pile. The maximum measured force at
initial driving, and all piles had redrived blow counts in excess of 90 the transducer location was between 4960 and 4980 kN for the
blows per 250 mm with the Delmag D55 hammer. Dynamic tests building piles and 4880 kN for the test pile. These showed
(case method) were carried out on selected piles during the works, comparable pile performance (working and test piles), as well as a
based on choosing those piles that had softer pile driving responses. resistance that was greater than the calculated pile resistance assessed
Case dynamic pile load testing was carried out on three working in Table 4 (4576 kN compared with, e.g., 4880 kN).

Table 4. Calculated pile resistances for stress conditions at the time of the pile test
Shaft resistance qs and base resistance qb: Calculated resistance:
Resistance contribution Level: mOD Parameters
kPa kN
Pile shaft: Lambeth Group – −6.0 to −11.0 qs ¼ ac u a = 0.6 Qs;cal = 724
clay cu = 52.5 + 21
(z)
Pile shaft: Lambeth Group – −11.0 to qs ¼ bsv0 b = 1.2 Qs;cal = 860
sand −13.3
0
Pile base −13.3 qb ¼ N q svb Nq = 60 Qb;cal = 2992
Calculated total pile resistance at the time of pile tests Rc;cal = 4576

Note: z is the depth below −5 mOD. Effective stresses account for the water level in Lambeth Sand and dock water loading. The dock water level was at +4 mOD,
and the water level in the Lambeth Sand strata was at −7.5 mOD. The contribution of the dock silt and very thin layer of gravel was ignored, as these would have
provided minimal shaft resistance. Main stratum unit weights of 20 kN/m3. Qs;cal, calculated shaft resistance; Qb;cal, calculated base resistance; Rc;cal, calculated total
resistance

5
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

Blows/250 mm (failure modes involving the structural component(s)) and GEO

0 50 100 150 200 250 (failure modes involving the ground strength) limit states.
–2

Design approach 1 combination 1 (DA1C1) and design approach

Test pile 1 combination 2 (DA1C2) in accordance with the BSI (2013)
–4
were checked (combination 2 controlling for the GEO limit state
in this case) (see table A.NA.6 of BSI (2014) applicable to driven
piles) according to the following equation:

–6
Rs;cal Rb;cal
Rc;d ¼ þ
1. model factor  g s model factor  g b

–8
Reduced level: mOD

While the preliminary pile load test was taken to over 2.5 times
the 1980s working load, it did not reach (due to limitations in the
load being applied and not excessive settlement) the 2017
–10 reinterpreted ultimate calculated resistance. To utilise lower partial
factors (the model factor in this case), clause A.3.3.2 of BSI
(2014) required that a preliminary test be taken to the ultimate
calculated resistance. Thus, the design adopted the full model
–12 factor. However, because the preliminary pile load test was taken
to more than 1.5 times the 2017 representative pile load, it was
possible to use the lower values for the resistance factors on the
shaft and base according to table A.NA.6 of BSI (2014), which
–14
states that where explicit verification of the serviceability limit
state (SLS) is achieved, reduced values of the R4 partial
resistance factors can be used. Hence, the following partial factors
–16
were used in the design:

Figure 9. Pile driving records – building 8 (redrive not included) ■ DA1C1 (R1) partial factors gs = 1.0 and gb = 1.0; model
factor = 1.4 (+set B factors on actions)
■ DA1C2 (R4 appropriate for driven piles with explicit
6. Geotechnical design of the steel tube verification of SLS) partial factors gs = 1.3 and gb = 1.3;
piles according to Eurocode model factor = 1.4 (+set C factors on actions).
Redesign of the piles was carried out according to BSI (2013),
Eurocode 7, BS EN 1997-1, and the UK National Annex (BSI The calculated geotechnical design resistance of the piles is given
(2014), which required the piles to be designed to the STR in Table 5.

Table 5. Revised geotechnical resistances in the long term (design situation)

Resistance contribution Level: mOD Unit resistance: kPa Parameters Resistance: kN
Pile shaft in Lambeth Group – clay −6.0 to −11.0 qs ¼ ac u a = 0.6 Qs;cal = 724
cu = 52.5 + 21(z)
Pile shaft in Lambeth Group – sand −11.0 to −13.3 0 0
qs ¼ bsv,test þ 1:0Dsv tan f 0 b = 1.2 Qs;cal = 657
f0 = 36°
−13.3 q test
qb ¼ Nq* sm;b
0
Pile base (assumed) Nq* ¼ b;k, ¼ 54:6 Qb;cal = 2494
0
smb,test
Calculated total pile resistance under long-term conditions Rc;cal = 3875
DA1C1 design pile resistance under long-term conditions Rc;d = 2767
DA1C2 design pile resistance under long-term conditions Rc;d = 1946

Note: z is the depth below −5 mOD. The pile shaft resistance in the Lambeth Sand has been reduced to allow for an increase in water level in the Lambeth Group
0
strata; hence, Dsv will have a negative value. The assumption that the reduction in horizontal stress acting on the pile shaft is the same as the reduction in vertical
effective stress due to a rise in water level is conservative (a ratio of 0.25 would be more likely). The pile base resistance design has been converted to a mean
effective stress (sm0 ) design approach with long-term effective stresses used in the calculation for long-term conditions. The Rc;cal for the long-term case is lower
than that for the test situations due to the change in water level: 3875 kN (this table) compared with 4576 kN (Table 4) at the time of the test

6
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

The pile design resistance for DA1C2 is approximately 1950 kN.

This resistance is equivalent to a working load (SLS) of 1760 kN,
which is a 68% increase in the design load (1050 kN) given for the
1980s design. It is noted that time effects, which will tend to increase
pile resistance, particularly in sand, have been conservatively ignored
in this assessment.
300 mm
Approximate Pile cap
sampling zone
The overall factor of safety (Rc;cal/‘SLS load’) is calculated as 2.2. water level
300 mm
The 1980s design had a factor of safety of 2.5, albeit the design
standard at the time of construction allowed a 25% overload on
foundations associated with wind loads, which was no longer
adopted (wind loads were included in SLS and ultimate limit state
load calculations when using Eurocodes).

An alternative pile base resistance calculation using limit pressure

data from a nearby site provided a similar or greater result for
base resistance assuming a pile base in a clayey sand (Plim ‘k’
factor taken between sand and clay given the hard driving that the
piles were subjected to as they penetrated the denser strata of the
Lambeth Sand).

A comparison of the 1980s and 2017 design values is given in Figure 10. Pile cap sampling in a temporarily dewatered area of
Table 6. dock

While not presented in this paper, the limiting load that any one
pile could carry was rigorously adhered to in the structural design. water conditions in the connected docks were the same (brackish
This meant that the stability elements of the structure, and the water), and the as-built records of both sets of piles were similar.
order in which they were installed, had to be assessed carefully so
that the superstructure distributed the dead and live loads in a In the area of material assessment and testing, the dock piles were
manner that satisfied the geotechnical design (this was to a certain within a dewatered cofferdam.
extent the reverse of usual engineering where piles were located
to satisfy the superstructure loading and stiffness). This required The spot ultrasonic thickness measurement tests showed that the
additional bracing so that the structural stiffness was adjusted to minimum measured steel thickness was, after removal of the layer
not overload piles that would ‘naturally’ attract loads beyond their of tightly adhering corrosion product, around 19.8 mm. Piling
geotechnical design limit (DA1C2 controlling). records showed that the steel original nominal thickness was
20.6 mm, to a maximum of 22 mm considering thickness
7. Condition of the driven tube piles tolerances during fabrication. Therefore, it was concluded that
The redevelopment has a 50-year design life. The original design of very little loss of material section had occurred during the
the piles and the pile caps for the 1980s construction stated that the intervening 30 years since construction.
piles and pile caps had a 100-year design life. Therefore, there were
some 60+ years remaining before reaching this theoretical limit. The petrographic analysis of the concrete samples showed the
concrete to be in good condition inside the steel pile casings and
To assess the remaining design life, a check of the pile the pile cap casings. (Note that the main structural element was
deterioration over the last 30 years on an adjacent similar 1980s the reinforced concrete within the pile, while the closed-ended
building in a partly dewatered dock (Figure 10) was carried out. steel tube provided the structural capacity for installation,
The adjacent building was of the same style and had the same temporary works support to the concrete (particularly through the
610 mm closed-ended driven pile foundations. The prevailing dock) and the soil-to-pile interface material.)

Table 6. Comparison with 1980s design values Results from the material testing demonstrated that there was no
significant deterioration to the concrete, or loss of steel section
Document 1980s design 2017 design
reference thickness; therefore, the piles were considered suitable for reuse.
Unfactored load: 1050 (ignore wind 1760 (wind loading
kN load) included) 8. Conclusions
Bulk factor of 2.5 (no wind) 2.2 (with wind) The previous buildings on the site had a 100-year design life for
safety
piles and pile cap. At the time of the redevelopment. there were

7
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Forensic Engineering Driven pile foundation reuse in East
London, UK
Morrison and Ganesharatnam

60+ years remaining before reaching this theoretical limit; the concrete tests showed that the concrete inside the pile and pile cap
redevelopment had a 50-year design life. Therefore, it was casings to be in good condition. The main load-transfer structure
prudent to consider reuse of the driven piles in the dock, as they was the reinforced concrete within the piles and not the piles
provided a cost-effective and sustainable solution. themselves.

Sufficient as-built information was available for the 1980s closed- A superstructure construction sequence and bracing system was
ended driven piles in the dock to enable the reuse of the piles for introduced to distribute loads evenly to circumvent piles beneath
the new development. key structural stability elements being overloaded.

The preliminary pile test carried out in the 1980s showed a very The building had been successfully completed. The reuse of the
stiff response for loading to 260% of the 1980s design load 1980s in-dock piles had the following benefits:
(1050 kN). The ‘in-ground pile’ (excluding the pile length through
dock water) settlement was less than 1% of the pile diameter. ■ zero ‘carbon dioxide’ solution
Extrapolation of the pile load test using Fleming methodology ■ very low-cost solution (design fees and material investigation
suggested an ultimate geotechnical resistance greater than 6000 kN. testing)
Reanalyses of the pile test using conventional design parameters ■ minimal (essentially zero) risk to LU tunnels (no dock base
gave a calculated total geotechnical resistance of 4576 kN for the penetrations made)
effective stress conditions at the time of the pile test. ■ programme saving (only on-land piles needed).

For the redevelopment, the piles were designed according to REFERENCES

Eurocode 7, BS EN 1997-1 (BSI, 2013), which required the piles BSI (1972) CP 2004:1972: Code of practice for foundations. BSI, London,
to be designed to the STR and GEO limit states. The DA1C2 (set UK.
BSI (2013) BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
C) design geotechnical pile resistance was calculated as 1950 kN
design. General rules. BSI, London, UK.
for long-term conditions that allowed for a rise in groundwater BSI (2014) UK National Annex to BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013. BSI,
level in the pile base stratum. The SLS load applied to the pile London, UK.
was assessed to be 1760 kN; this was a 68% increase compared Butcher AP, Powell JJM and Skinner HD (eds) (2006) Reuse of Foundations
with the 1980s ‘working load’. for Urban Sites: A Best Practice Handbook. BRE Press, Bracknell, UK.
Chin FK (1972) The inverse slope as a prediction of ultimate bearing
capacity of piles. In Proceedings of the Third Southeast Asian
Structural material (steel and concrete) testing was carried on Conference on Soil Engineering (Lumb P (ed.)). Libra Press, Hong
similar driven piles of a nearby building in the same 1980s Kong, pp. 83–91.
development. This material testing showed that the piles were in Fleming WGK (1992) A new method for single pile settlement prediction
good condition. The spot thickness of the tubes was about and analysis. Géotechnique 42(3): 411–425, https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1992.42.3.411.
19.8 mm (compared with a design thickness at installation of
Poulos HG and Davis EH (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and Design.
20.6 mm); the average thickness at installation would be about Wiley, Chichester, UK.
20–22 mm. Therefore, very little loss of material had occurred TfL (Transport for London) (2017) S1023: Infrastructure protection. TfL
during the past 30 years. The petrographic analysis of the various and London Underground, London, UK.

How can you contribute?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to
the editor at support@emerald.com. Your contribution
will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if
considered appropriate by the editorial board, it will be
published as discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the

civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

8
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF BATH] on [20/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.