TOP DOWN BASEMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AT ONE HYDE PARK,

LONDON
Dinesh Patel, Sarah Glover, Jenny Austin, Ove Arup & Partners, London, United Kingdom.

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in

Knightsbridge, using a top down construction method. The particular challenges
were excavating in a busy city centre constrained by existing buildings on two sides
and an LUL tunnel, with poor ground conditions occurring over one third of the site.
The typical construction methods and temporary works, analysis of walls using
FREW and 2D FE methods and subsequent monitoring are all described.

INTRODUCTION

The One Hyde Park development comprises four
luxurious apartment blocks on a prime
Knightsbridge site overlooking Hyde Park to the
north and Harrods to the south, Figure 1. The
apartment blocks vary in height from 11 to 14
storeys and have a common 3 to 4 level of
basement, 12 to 16m deep below street level. All
the buildings are founded on large diameter bored
piles (up to 1.8m diameter) founded in the London
Clay, and extending up to 56m below street level.
The new basement, 130m x 60m in plan, is
supported by a secant hard firm bored pile wall,
extending up to 33m below street level. A top
down method of construction was used for the
basement excavation. This paper describes the
design and construction of this top down basement
scheme. The results of the construction monitoring
of the new basement walls are also presented.
Figure 1: The new development
delays and this required a coordinated approach
by both the design and construction teams to
avoid delays in the contractor procuring
materials. Close communication between both
the Arup and LOR design teams was essential
and regular design meetings were set up to
ensure timely delivery of design information; to
avoid unnecessary duplication in design; and to
allow rapid solutions to be developed when
unexpected problems in construction occurred.
Designs were only changed when it was
recognised that a particular solution resulted in a
value added solution to LOR, either a major
saving in cost or programme.
SITE CONSTRAINTS IMPACTING ON DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION
The site was previously occupied by Bowater
House (Figure 2) which was a heavy 2 to 12
storey concrete structure, constructed in 1958,
founded on a combination of pads, strip and raft
foundations, some very deep. A single level
basement existed across the whole of the site
with sub basements beneath two 14 storey
towers. The basement was about 7m deep in the
northeast corner and about 4m deep in the
southeast corner of the site due to differences in
street levels across the site. These old
obstructions required specialist piling plant to
core foundations obstructing new secant pile
walls.

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN TEAMS

The contract was tendered as a single stage based

on an Arup scheme design. Laing O’Rourke (LOR)
was awarded the contract on the basis of a “one
stop” design and build contract, including fit out.
Arup provided a totally integrated design working
closely with LOR, and their subsidiary piling and
structures divisions (Expanded Piling and Figure 2: Previous Bowater House building
Expanded Structures). A “just in time” delivery of on site
materials on site was adopted to avoid programme
The site is constrained by listed buildings to the
east and west site boundaries, Figure 3.
Wellington Court on the west imposes pressures of
130-360kPa and the Mandarin Oriental (formerly
Hyde Park) Hotel on the east imposes up to
310kPa pressures with line loads of 190kN/m on
strip foundations against the new secant pile walls.
Figure 3: Original site layout with LUL tunnels
and road diversion and neighbouring
Wellington Court and Mandarin Oriental
Hotel.
The architectural scheme near the Mandarin
Oriental Hotel, also required a substantial core and
lift shaft (referred to as Core 5) immediately
abutting the hotel, and this posed particular
challenges in the design and construction of a
secant pile wall within a zone extending 1200mm
from the Hotel facade. Specialist piling plant and
construction sequence techniques were employed
at this lift shaft (Core 5) as described later in the
paper.
There are also London Underground Limited (LUL)
Piccadilly line tunnels at a crown level of -10mOD,
within 4m of the new basement outline, Figure 4.
Figure 4: Model of new basement with LUL
features
A nearby Knightsbridge LUL station (10m away)
exists with sensitive mechanical plant, including
long escalators with very tight movement
tolerances. This triggered discussions with LUL
and necessitated compliance with their approval
processes. Tight movement criteria (3mm
differential movements) were agreed with LUL to
reduce impact on the escalators.
To the north, along Hyde Park, several trees are
protected by preservation orders requiring
special measures for the design.
PHASED DEVELOPMENT
A new road alignment (see Figure 3) also
impacted on the design, requiring compliance
with highway codes and a Cat III checking and
approval process with the Highway Agency (HA).
To avoid programme delays, this also triggered
two distinct phases of foundation construction.
Phase 1, see Figure 3, comprised the
construction of the perimeter secant bored pile
wall along the Wellington Court boundary and
part of the north and south boundaries in addition
to construction of main bearing piles to support
the new road deck. This work necessitated piling
plant that could core through existing retaining
walls and pads from the previous development.
The Phase 1 works had to be carried out within
tightly controlled road closures, agreed with the
HA, and this was a particular challenge for the
main contractor. Phase 2 works followed
immediately after the road had been diverted.
GROUND CONDITIONS
The site slopes from a level of about of +15mOD
in the northwest corner, down to about
+10.4mOD in the south east corner over a
distance of 150m. The new basement at typically
-1.8mOD, is about 12m to 16m below street
level.
The basic stratigraphy at the site comprises
Made Ground overlying River Terrace Deposits
(comprising gravels, sands, silts and clays) and
London Clay. However, geology on this site is
complex as the London Clay has been severely
eroded away by the action of an old river channel
(River Westbourne) from the last ice age. This
has resulted in the clay being high, at about
+7.0mOD in the northwest corner, sloping down
to -2mOD in the southeast over a lateral distance
of about 150m, see contour map Figure 5. The
stiff to very stiff fissured clay is greater than 61m
deep at this site, see Table 1. Within the zone of
the River Westbourne the gravels were replaced
by soft clays overlying the London Clay and this
also happened to be in the area of the LUL
tunnels and Core 5, next to the Hotel. Therefore,
at these locations the design of the secant walls
was through up to 8m of soft clays overlying the
London Clay, with a high water pressure.
Table 1
Stratum Elevation of top Thickness
of stratum (mOD) (m)
Made Ground +11.14 to +7.25 3.5 to 4.30
River Terrace Deposits - Clay +6.84 to +6.59 1.8 to 6.3
River Terrace Deposits - Gravel +0.29 1.4
London Clay +6.24 to -1.11 >60.9

Originally, 4 no. deep boreholes were drilled before

demolition of Bowater House but when this
channel was found, CPT’s were carried out during
the Phase 1 piling works to investigate the poor
ground conditions in the area of the lift shaft and
LUL tunnels.

Ground water was typically encountered at

+5.2mOD, 1m above London Clay, but this was
expected to be higher where the clay was low.
The pile design considered that the pore pressures
in the lower deep aquifer were hydrostatic to an
elevation of +5.0mOD.

Figure 6: Undrained shear strength profile

Figure 5: Contour map of London Clay

The design strength of the London Clay was based

on the undrained shear strength and two design
lines were used, one for the retaining wall and one
for the deep bored piles, as shown on Figure 6.

Pipette analysis carried out on samples of the clay,

Figure 7, showed that below about -45mOD, the %
clay fraction reduces and the % sand fraction Figure 7: Variation in % sand/clay fraction –
exceeds 10%. Because of concerns on the London Clay
stability of open pile bores, the design therefore
avoided piles extending below -45.0mOD. TOP DOWN BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION

At scheme design both bottom up and top down

methods of basement construction were
considered. The bottom up method offered the
advantage of a faster excavation but required
several levels of temporary propping for the
maximum 16m deep basement. The width of
excavation, at 60m, prevented use of flying props
across the basement. Excavations within berms
and using raking props would have had severe
impact on both the ground works and the
concrete framework contractor’s programme.
For these reasons a top down construction method
was used. This method of excavation also
provided the following benefits:
1. the concrete floors automatically provided
permanent stiff props, significantly reducing
wall deflections, and avoiding the need for
temporary steel props;
2. this in turn minimised ground movement
effects on the adjacent LUL and heavy
masonry structures;
3. to minimise damage to very sensitive adjacent
apartments and the Hotel, the perimeter walls
were designed limiting the wall deflection to
25mm maximum, which in turn would reduce
the ground movements to half this value
behind the buildings;
4. the main contractor agreed with the designers
assumed method of construction.
This method of construction was also agreed with
the 3rd Party wall engineers acting for the adjacent
owners at an early stage of the design process.
To improve buildability, the construction method
allowed skipping floors as shown on Figure 8a,
south section, where the B2 slab was omitted
allowing larger excavators to be used for faster
construction. Figure 8b shows the predicted
deflections for a secant bored pile wall for this
sequence of excavation, described later in this
paper.
Material from the top down excavation was
removed through a number of moling holes.
Figure 8a: Construction Sequence for the
South Wall
Along the northern boundary, the higher ground
meant that it was better to build the new secant
pile wall from the original basement level, 8m
below street level, see Figure 9. To hold back this
8m high reinforced concrete wall, it was decided to
Figure 8b: Predicted wall movements of
South Wall at different stages of construction
use prestressed ground anchors. However, to
comply with the Royal Park authorities, certain
conditions were imposed and these involved
using removable temporary ground anchors.
Two levels of temporary ground anchors,
typically 25m long, were drilled into the ground
beneath South Carriage Drive to allow the
basement to be constructed. The prestressing
strands wound around a wheel at the toe of the
concrete anchor in the London Clay and after
use, the strands could be pulled back around the
wheel, leaving only a short length of anchor
strand behind.
In top down construction, concrete cores pose a
problem to the main contractor. On this project
the structural designer avoided these problems
by using 4 main steel frame stability cores to
allow plunge column steel to be inserted into the
piles. However, during top down excavation
these columns needed mid bracing as shown in
Figure 10, to avoid bucking and shear problems.
Figure 9: North west wall – disposable ground
anchors installed from existing wall
and later removed
Another issue when constructing in saturated
cohesive material where significant unloading is
proposed is heave. Heave is the swelling of the
cohesive material when load is removed such as
during excavation of overburden or demolition of
structures above. This swelling can impose
upward forces on ground bearing slabs and
tension forces over the length of piles (where
piles are installed prior to the unloading such as
in top-down construction).

Figure 10: Braced frames to steel cores
BASEMENT SLAB OPTIONS
At concept/ scheme design various options for the
basement foundation solution were considered:
1. a suspended base slab to resist long term
heave pressure plus an underslab drainage
layer to resist water pressure;
2. a piled raft solution (where the piles are
proportionally more heavily loaded than the
raft) with or without an underslab drainage
layer;
3. a settlement reducing piled raft (where the raft
is proportionally more heavily loaded than the
piles) with or without an underslab drainage
layer.
The last two solutions are effectively piled raft
solutions where the slab is also resisting long term
heave pressures; as a result it would require a raft
at least 1.2m deep.
After discussing these solutions with the main
contractor, Option 1 was selected for the following
reasons:
• a thin base slab, (ranging in thickness from
350mm to 450mm), could be used requiring
less reinforcement than a raft in a pile raft
scheme,
• this made construction of the base slab and
pouring of concrete much faster than a heavily
reinforced raft option within confined space;
• the design process was simplified and hence
more rapid as it was not sensitive to the
superstructure or substructure construction
sequence and loads;
• the use of complicated and time consuming FE
modelling of the top down construction was
largely avoided (minimised to the Core 5 and
Mandarin Hotel area only) thus allowing the
designer to produce construction information
quickly to the contractor.
Flotation of the suspended base slab was
avoided by using a 300mm thick granular
drainage layer placed under the slab.
BEARING PILE CONSTRUCTION
The new bearing piles, which ranged in diameter
from 900mm to 1800mm, were drilled in open
bores to a maximum depth of about 55m
(-45mOD), thus avoiding the sandy London Clay
below this level (see Figure 7). A plan showing
the layout of these piles and the secant bored
pile walls are shown in Figure 11. To resist
heave all the piles were fully reinforced to the
toe. All piles were C32/40 concrete grade.
Due to the residential area, working hours for the
site were restricted to typically 12 hours/day with
an extension to a maximum of 15 hours/day for
pre-agreed processes that were not considered
noisy works. By installing temporary casings the
day before, all but the largest piles were
constructed within the 12 hour working day
including installation of the plunge columns.
Extensions were granted for piles of 1800mm
diameter. However, Expanded Piling advised
that larger piles of 2100mm and 2400mm
diameter could not be completed within even the
extended working hours so the pile diameters
had to be kept to a maximum of 1800mm.
Figure 11: Main pile, secant pile wall and Main
Core Layout
Embedded steel columns were typically 356x406
UC sections up to 500kg/m, with studded steel
embedded between 3m and 8m into concrete
below pile cut off level. To avoid loading through
end bearing of the steel column (and thus to
avoid overstressing the pile concrete), a 20mm
compressible material was placed at the base of
the steel column, Figure 13. The specified
plunged column tolerances were: 1:400
verticality; and positional 15mm at piling mat
level.
Expanded Piling used a custom-built special
alignment frame inserted within the temporary
pile casing to control alignment of the plunged
steel columns, using a system of rollers and
horizontal jacks to control verticality and laser
targets at top and bottom of the frame to control
positional tolerances. Once the pile and column
was built, granular fill was carefully placed around
each column up to the top of the casing, Figures
12 and 13.
Figure 12: Plunging the steel columns
Figure 13: Plunge column detail
MAIN BEARING PILE DESIGN
The loads on the main bearing piles varied
between 3MN and 17MN. The top down
construction drove the design as it dictated a
single pile per column solution. A preliminary
test pile was essential to minimise pile sizes and
to allow the restricted working hours to be met.
A preliminary pile test was conducted on a
900mm diameter pile, 40m long of which 10m
was sleeved off (Figure 14 shows the test rig set
up). The test was conducted successfully to
2.35SWL (SWL=11.5MN) exceeding the
2.25SWL design criteria. This allowed the design
team to:
a) design the piles with an overall factor of
safety of 2.25, and ensure that no piles had a
factor of safety less that 1.2 on skin friction;
b) confirm the short term alpha value, α=0.6
with the design line shown in Figure 6;
c) minimise pile lengths and diameters to allow
all piles to be built within the restricted site
working hours;
d) avoid any contract pile testing;
e) comply with Building Control requirements.
Figure 14: Preliminary Pile test
The compression piles were designed using a
total stress approach (αcu) in the London Clay for
the short term end of construction loading. An
effective stress approach was used in the long
term with the skin friction computed based on
Burland et al (1979), assuming a water table at
the underslab drainage layer:
τsf = Ko σ’v tan δ
Where Ko was computed using the Mayne and
Kulhawy (1982) method. The “most probable”
interface friction angle, δ = 16° was used
following Patel (1992). A comparison between
the shaft frictions from these two methods is
given in Figure 15. This shows that to about
-15mOD, the effective stress shaft friction
governs the pile design but below this level the
total stress governs.

Figure 15: Shaft Friction used for Bearing Pile
Design
The heave assessment of the piles was made
considering both the short term unloading, caused
by the top down construction and the long term
case. Initially, a simplified approach was used
following the method described by O’Reilly (1990)
assuming an incompressible pile. The Maximum
Tension Force (MTF) occurs at a point of zero
shear strain when the pile is initially not loaded by
the structure (Figure 16a). At the end of
construction, the structural loads will reduce this
tension force as shown in Figure 16b.
a) No External loading b) Pile with vertical downward
load
Figure 16: Heave induced tension in piles
Where ground bearing slabs are employed, the
long term swelling pressures acting on the
underside of a slab can be even higher than the
initial MTF state when piles are lightly loaded as
shown on Figure 17. In such cases the
reinforcement in the piles will be dictated by the
long term swelling pressures and not the unloaded
pile state.
At One Hyde Park, these swelling pressures were
avoided by incorporating a heave “void” former (a
Cordek product) – a layer which collapses at a
predefined pressure, reducing the swelling
pressure imposed on the suspended slab to a
much smaller value (in this instance less than
20kPa). Lightly loaded piles supporting the
basement substructures therefore required less
tension reinforcement than would have been
needed under a raft.
c) With long term swelling where |ΔS| > |Q|
Figure 17: Long term swelling pressures
governing tension loads in piles.
The magnitude of the heave movement was
determined using the Oasys VDisp programme,
which assumes linear elastic behaviour of
layered soils, so that the relative movement at
the top and bottom of the pile could be
determined. The tension force in the pile was
calculated by integrating the shear stresses from
the top and bottom of the pile as shown in
Figures 16 and 17 to calculate the maximum
tension force and the depth in the pile at which
this force occurs. Assuming a relative movement
of the soil and pile of 10mm at the zero shear
strain (neutral) point allows a reduced maximum
tension force to be calculated. Further
refinement was made to this simplified approach
which considered the compressibility of the pile
and the relative displacement of the soil and pile
along the entire pile shaft. This refined design
method significantly reduced the heave tensions
in the piles and was used in the pile design.
Typical pile reinforcement percentages are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Typical percentage reinforcement for
piles in tension
Pile diameter, mm Tension reinforcement,
% pile area
900 0.6
1500 1.0
1800 1.0
In addition to these tension forces the pile
reinforcement was also designed for the
following:
a) forces and moments induced by lateral loads
and eccentric column connections;
b) anti-bursting cages around plunge columns;
c) minimum pile reinforcement as per BS EN
1536:2000.
Generally the ground heave tension governed
vertical rebar requirements while anti bursting
reinforcement governed the shear link
requirements around plunge columns.
SECANT PILE WALL DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
The perimeter walls were designed for both
horizontal stability and vertical loading. Line loads
were typically 350 to 1100KN/m (north) and 300 to
850 kN/m (south) and piles were typically 25m long
below street levels.
A hard-firm secant pile wall (wall of interlocking
piles with structural concrete used in both piles, but
where a weaker mix is used in female piles and
only male piles are reinforced) was used as it
offered the advantage of dealing with obstructions
in the ground from previous developments using
core barrels. A typical section of the basement
wall is shown in Figure 18. Along Wellington Court
and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, space was a
premium and therefore the wall size was restricted
to 1000mm diameter at 1520m centres between
male piles, and using a cut of 240mm between
male and female piles. Adjacent to roads, where
surcharges were smaller, an 880mm wall at 1280m
male to male centres was used.
Figure 18: General wall section
For wall sections in the west of the site beneath
the new roadway, the Highways Agency insisted
the new secant pile walls be designed to control
crack widths, to a maximum of 0.25mm, in
accordance with Highways codes. This
increased the reinforcement requirements in the
wall. The basement was designed to Grade 2
(except for the office and leisure areas which are
designed Grade 3) criteria and this was provided
by using a block work wall cavity drainage
system in front of the secant pile walls. Base
slabs were tied into the wall by pre-drilling short
reinforcement bars into the male piles and post
grouting.
The top down construction method required the
designers to work closely with Expanded Piling,
developing the wall design to ease construction
given that the B2 floors were temporarily omitted
and other temporary holes in the slab might have
resulted in underestimation of the bending steel
in the piles because of less stiff props.
Lift Core (Core 5) to Mandarin Oriental
The secant piling for this core posed a major
challenge to the design and construction team as
there was limited space for piling against the
Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Piles had to be
installed within a zone extending 1200mm from
the hotel boundary wall and the piles would have
to span both vertically and horizontally through a
16m deep lift shaft. Mini piles were not an
appropriate solution in this area as they had
insufficient bending capacity, even with closely
spaced temporary propping, and posed concerns
over lack of secanting in poor ground with high
water pressure behind the wall.
As a result a bespoke and specialist Martello
Piling rig was used to construct the lift shaft wall,
using a low headroom rig constructing 840mm
diameter male and 690mm diameter female
secanted piles to 25m depth against the adjacent
Hotel wall, Figure 19. The male piles were
heavily reinforced with bespoke fabricated H
columns so that piles could span in both
directions within the lift shaft.
A 2D finite element model of this section of the
wall was carried out using Oasys SAFE to inform
the designers on wall deflections, impact on
adjacent foundations, and the extensive
temporary works that was required at this area.
To further mitigate risk, the designers stipulated
that the piled lift pit box, including any propping,
and structural lining be completed ahead of the
excavation for top down construction outside of
the box.
 Vertical capacity of wall
As for the main bearing piles, the design for
vertical loading was checked using both total and
effective stress pile design. The female piles
were terminated short, at 2m below formation
level. The total stress approach considered the
whole circumference of the male pile below the
female pile wall toe levels and assumed the
undrained strength design line shown on Figure
20 and an alpha-cu design approach as per the
bearing piles, assuming shaft controlled
behaviour and using F= 2.25.
Figure 19: Martello piling rig next to Core 5
In the effective stress pile design approach the
output from FREW for the horizontal effective
Wall design for stability
stresses acting on the active and passive sides
The design of the secant wall was carried out using
of the wall below the formation were used to
CIRIA C580 and considering both SLS (Table 3)
compute the ultimate shaft capacity of the wall
and ULS parameters. Because the walls were
(after redistribution of earth pressures has
vertically loaded no friction was assumed on the
occurred between props). The calculated skin
active side. Undrained total stress parameters
friction from both design methods are compared
were used in the short term case, assuming using
on Figure 20 and show that short walls are
minimum equivalent fluid pressures on the active
governed by effective stress design methods and
side from ground level. The Oasys programme
long walls by total stress. The walls at One Hyde
FREW was used to analyse the wall including
Park were typically 16m below formation and
calculation of movements, forces and moments in
therefore effective stress governs the design for
the wall.
vertical capacity.
Table 3: General Soil Design Parameters (SLS
values)
Stratum γ' φ' c' Cu E' Eu
(kN/m3) (°) (kPa) (kPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Made 19 25 0 - 10 -
Ground
River 20 27 0 40 10 10
Terrace
Clay
River 20 28 2 - 7.5 -
Terrace
Silt
River 20 28 1 - 15 0
Terrace
Sandy
Silt
River 20 30 0 - 20 -
Terrace
Gravel
London 20 24 0 110+3.9z 750Cu 1000Cu
Clay
(wall
design)
(i) z is depth below the top of the London Clay (assumed to be +5mOD
and limited to -20mOD) Figure 20: Shaft Friction for Vertical Capacity
Design of the Secant walls
The ULS design followed the CIRIA C580
guidance, using a material factor of 1.5 on CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
undrained shear strength parameters and 1.2 on
effective shear strength parameters. On the Throughout the construction works, the perimeter
passive side, the clay was assumed to be softened secant pile walls were monitored using
to 1m depth. Overdig was generally assumed to inclinometers and the adjacent buildings were
be 0.5m on the passive side except for the wall monitored with precise levelling at the base and
sections adjacent to buildings where the 3D reflector targets at various elevations up the
excavation sequence proceeded slowly and was façade to roof level. Settlements behind the wall,
carefully controlled by the contractor to eliminate in pavements, were also monitored but as
the risk of overdig. The forces and bending secondary instruments. The monitoring
moments from the 1.35xSLS runs were compared frequency was varied depending on the
with the ULS values and the higher of the two construction activity. The measured wall
results was used in the pile wall design. In most deflections were closely monitored on site
cases, the ULS values governed the design. against:
a) amber and red trigger movement criteria; and
b) using predicted “onion “ deflection profiles at
each stage of the dig to provide early warning
should any triggers be violated (Fig 8b).

These measures allowed good control of the top

down construction and any variations made and
reduced the risk of damage on adjacent buildings
and LUL assets. It allowed confidence to 3rd Party
Wall engineers checking the works. As a result the
construction ran smoothly except in one location,
next to Wellington Court, when in the early Phase
1 works, the 3D targets on adjacent properties Figure 22: East elevation adjacent to London
approached red trigger values. The works were Underground assets
immediately stopped and following a rigorous
review, the construction methods and monitoring
regime were adjusted to allow works to continue
without further problems.

Figures 21 to 23 show the predicted “onion” wall

deflections on three wall sections, and the actual
measured movements. These show that
measured wall deflections were always smaller
than those predicted from the FREW analysis.

SUMMARY

The top down construction of the One Hyde Park
development posed many challenges in both the
design and construction and these have been
presented in this paper. The close working
relationship between the designers, Arup, and the
construction team, Laing O’Rourke and Expanded
Piling, meant that many of the design and
construction related issues associated with top
down construction were discussed well in advance
of secant pile wall and bearing pile installation to
mitigate ground risk and provide an economical
design and construction solution. Early
discussions with TfL, LUL and 3rd Party Wall
engineers also resulted in obtaining early
approvals for the works ahead of contract award,
thus reducing risks and potential delays once the
contract was awarded to Laing O’Rourke.
Figure 23: North Elevation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The success of the complex construction work at
One Hyde Park could only be achieved through a
close collaboration between the design and
construction teams. Accordingly, the authors
wish to acknowledge the Laing O’Rourke team
and particularly Expanded Piling and Expanded
Structures for their support and cooperation
throughout the project.
REFERENCES
Burland, J.B. and Twine, D. (1988) “The shaft
friction of bored piles in terms of effective
strength”. Proceedings Of the 1st International
Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles, Gent.

Mayne and Kulhawy (1982), Ko-OCR

relationships in soil. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 108(6),851-72.

Patel D, (1992) Piling European Practice and

Worldwide trends, Proceedings of a conference
organised by the ICE and held in London on 7-9
April 1992).

O’Reilly, M.P. (1990) Heave induced pile tension:

a simple one dimensional analysis Ground
Figure 21: West wall adjacent to Wellington Crt Engineering, (June, 1990) pp.28-33