Construction Method Statement: 1 Lexham Mews, W8 6JW

Structural Engineers and Party Wall Surveyors
Office 17
Wingate Business Exchange
64-66 Wingate Square
London
SW4 0AF
www.toynbeeassociates.com
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD STATEMENT
1 Lexham Mews, W8 6JW
Job #: 1516 – 1 Lexham Mews
Date: 09 March 2018

Prepared by Paddy Gibson MEng
Checked Tristan Toynbee MEng CEng MIStructE
Revision Date Comment Engineer/reviewer

- 16.02.18 First issue for planning TT
A 09.03.18 2nd issue for planning TT
Page 1
1516 - 1 Lexham Mews - Construction Method Statement Final.docx
Date: 09 March 2018

1. Structural Design Information .......................................................................................................... 3
Non Technical Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4
1 Lexham Mews Structural Summary ................................................................................................... 5
Structural Defects Noted: .................................................................................................................... 6
Progressive Collapse ............................................................................................................................ 7
Lateral Stability.................................................................................................................................... 7
Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Trees ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Flooding .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Groundwater flow & Hydrology ........................................................................................................... 9
Ground Water Damning Affects ......................................................................................................... 10
Effects on Highways & Transport Infrastructure ................................................................................. 10
Areas of Archaeological interest and Conservation Areas................................................................... 10
Basement Design ............................................................................................................................... 11
Movement Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 12
Drainage & Damp Proofing ................................................................................................................ 14
Temporary Works .............................................................................................................................. 14
Party Wall Etc Act 1996...................................................................................................................... 15
Health & Safety ................................................................................................................................. 15
Structural Design not covered in the Brief.......................................................................................... 15
2. Structural Design ........................................................................................................................... 16
3. Basement Method Statement ........................................................................................................ 17
4. Structural Drawings ....................................................................................................................... 28
5. Architectural Drawings .................................................................................................................. 29
6. Ground Investigation Report .......................................................................................................... 30
7. Geotechnical Desk Study and Flood Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 31
Page 2
Date: 09 March 2018

1. Structural Design Information
As part of the application, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea requires that a construction
methodology statement is prepared. This document clarifies:
• Method of Excavation formations including temporary supports and sequence of construction.
• Details of subsoil
• Groundwater from a recent investigation
• A SUDS statement if in a flood risk area.
• This method statement has been completed by a Structural Engineer (M.I.Struct.E.)
This highlights that at the planning stage, sufficient investigation has been completed to demonstrate
works on the site can be completed with negligible risks. This report is produced for submission to the
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham planning department for planning application only and
should not be used for any other purposes, e.g. Party Wall Awards.
Toynbee Associates has over the past 10 years, completed numerous basement conversions and whole
house refurbishment projects of this nature. Toynbee Associates have completed many basement
designs in Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham, Wandsworth, and Lambeth. This has led us
to gain experience of soil conditions in most of the boroughs we operate, and the techniques required
for efficient construction of these basements.
Toynbee Associates works closely with builders to design projects with buildability, health and safety,
and to minimise risks in the construction process at all times.
The neighbouring properties are aptly cared for through the Party Wall Etc Act 1996 and a relevant Party
Wall award.
Page 3
Date: 09 March 2018

Non Technical Summary
The following report has been written to in relation to Figure 4 of the RBKC Final Basements SPD of April
2016.
The following is summary of the of finding of the report
• The ground conditions for the site show made ground to about 3.9m BGL, with the Kempton
Park gravels and then the London Clay below that.
• The site does not have a high water table, the site investigation did not encounter any water
within the bore hole.
• Flooding
o The site was shown to be within a Flood Zone 1
o The site was not within a Tidal or Fluvial Flood Warning Area.
o The area was shown to lie within an area with a very high (>75%) susceptibility for
Groundwater Flooding.
o The site was located in an area of increased potential for elevated groundwater due to
the presence of permeable Superficial Deposits (Kempton Park Gravel Member).
o The site was located in an area where the suitability of infiltration SUDS was uncertain,
with Enhanced Site Investigation required
• Ground Water and Hydrology
o No water table was encountered on site in the site specific investigation.
o The proposed development is located on a Secondary A Aquifer relating to the
superficial deposits of the Kempton Park Gravel Member. The underlying bedrock
deposits of the London Clay Formation were classified as an Unproductive Strata.
o Based on a visual inspection of the soil samples the Kempton park gravels have a
relatively high permeability.
o It was considered possible that perched water will be encountered within the Made
Ground, especially after periods of prolonged rainfall. However, it was considered
unlikely that water would be encountered within the deposits of the Kempton Park
Gravel Member during basement construction.
• It is not expected that the construction of the basement will have cumulative effects on the
ground water as the basement is above the water table and there are no adjacent basements
within the vicinity of the proposed address.
• As the total impermeable area (building plus hard landscaped areas) is not increasing, there is
no proposal for SUDS and the existing drainage system can be reused.
• A Ground movement assessment has been carried out and that this predicts the category of
damage to be negligible to the adjacent properties with in the immediate vicinity of 1 Lexham
Mews.
• The attached reports shows the permanent works design for the retaining walls and temporary
works details for propping and construction sequencing.
Page 4
Date: 09 March 2018
1 Lexham Mews Structural Summary
Figure 1 front elevation of 1 Lexham mews
The property is a two-storey, end of terrace Mews house. It is of masonry construction with timber
floors to all levels and timber joists to form the roof. The adjoining property at number two is assumed
to be of similar construction and looks to be in sound condition from an external non–intrusive visual
examination. Neither of the properties are listed on the Statutory List of Buildings of Special
Architectural or Historic Interest.
The proposed works require the construction of:
• A new basement under the property.
• Internal light wells to the rear of the property
• Superstructure works at top floor level.
The superstructure works has been considered but is not required to be detailed at planning so has not
been included in the Basement Impact Assessment.
The excavation method to be utilized at 1 Lexham Mews is as follows:
Excavation will commence from the front of the property, progressing towards the rear.
• A grab lorry will remove the spoil from the future patio.
• The existing property will be underpinned in the usual 1 to 5 underpinning sequence. See
drawing TW / 01 for the construction sequence of a typical underpin, and see Underpinning
Specification in the Appendices.
• The underpins to form the new basement may require horizontal propping until completion of
the basement slab.
• As excavation progresses, any existing foundations found will be broken out and removed from
site to make way for the new basement construction.
• The existing walls of the building over will be temporarily propped using steel beam needles at
regular centres, as necessary. Temporary concrete pad foundations may be required beneath
the props, or the props may be supported on the concrete bases of underpins already
constructed, wherever the location allows.
Page 5
Date: 09 March 2018

• New concrete pad foundations and strip foundations will be constructed, where specified on the
structural drawings.
• New steel beams and columns will be installed, as specified on the structural drawings. These
will be supported on the underpins or on the new concrete foundations. Steel beams supported
by existing masonry walls will bear on concrete padstones, as specified on the structural
drawings. The pad stones will spread the load on the existing masonry down to acceptable
levels.
• The top of the new steel beams will be dry – packed to the underside of the existing walls
above, and the existing walls will be repaired and made good, as required.
• When all the underpins to the existing property have been completed, bulk excavation to the
whole site will be carried out.
• Horizontal propping across the site, if required by design, will be installed at high level. This will
be via a proprietary propping system such as Mabey props or similar.
• Once the bulk excavation is down to approximately 500mm above the proposed basement level,
a second level of horizontal props will be installed, if required by design.
• Excavation will then be carried out down to formation level provide Mabey Slimshor props at
1.0m centres across the site at 500 mm above formation level.
• The below – slab drainage for foul & ground water, sumps and pumps will then be installed. The
pumps will discharge the foul / ground water into the existing sewer system to the front of the
property.
• The new basement RC slab (ground – bearing slab) will then be constructed.
• Once the new basement slab has gained sufficient strength, the horizontal propping across the
site will be removed.
• After the new basement slab has cured, a drained – cavity layer will be laid to the slab and walls.
• A layer of insulation will be placed on top of the drained – cavity layer on the slab, and in front
of the drained – cavity layer on the walls.
• Finally a layer of screed will be laid to form the finished basement floor.
Waterproof internal space with an internal membrane system with internal sumps and drains.
Structural Defects Noted:

During the initial site visit/conditioning schedule, minor defects were noted as follows:
• Minor cracking to internal walls and lintels above windows which is expected for a building of
this age and type of construction.
The property has the entrance arch to the mews immediately adjacent to external wall and design of the
retaining wall will need to take account of the surcharge from the arch.
Intended use of structure: Family domestic use
UDL (kN/m2) Concentrated Loads (kN)
Domestic Single Dwellings 1.5 1.4
from: BS6399 pt2
Is live load reduction included in design: No
Page 6
Date: 09 March 2018

Progressive Collapse
Number of storeys: 2
Proposed number of storeys: 4
Multi-Occupancy: No
Class 1 Single occupancy houses not exceeding 4 storeys

Class 2A 5 storey single occupancy house
EN 1991-1-7:1996 Table A1
To NHBC guidance, compliance is only required to other floors if a material change of use happens to
property
Initial Building Class 1
Proposed Building Class 1
If class has changed No
Lateral Stability
Stability is not a concern of the basement design, as the existing superstructure provides lateral stability
for the property. The new basement will act as a reinforced concrete box. The internal wall density will
stay as it is at all floors.
Lateral Forces applied include soil pressure, surcharge pressures transmitted through the soil, and
hydrostatic pressures. These produce a lateral force which is spread through the basement slab and
resisted by the equal force from the counterpart retaining wall on the opposite side of the basement.
Geology
Geological surveying information from the British Geological Survey website shows that the bedrock
geology is London Clay, with the Kempton Park Gravels over lying this.
Figure 2 Bedrock Geology of site is shown as London Clay
Page 7
Date: 09 March 2018

Borehole samples taken near the site confirm the London Clay formation whilst informing us of soil
conditions nearer the surface.
Figure 3 Borehole Extract from ground and water report GWPR2385 Ground Investigation report
Page 8
Date: 09 March 2018

Site specific investigations shows a depth of made ground of around 3.0 m with the ideal founding level
of 3.9 m below ground.
For further details please refer to Geological Report GWPR2385 Ground Investigation Report, section 2.4
(pg. 5).
Trees
No existing trees will be felled during the construction of the proposed basement. In addition, there are
no trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders in the vicinity of the proposed basement that will be
damaged by the construction works.
Refer to the arboculturists report for the effects on nearby trees.
Flooding
For information regarding groundwater flow and hydrological, please refer to groundwater report
GWPR2385 FRA and Geotechnical Desk Study, Section 5.0 (pg 9) but a summary is below:
• The site was shown to be within a Flood Zone 1
• The site was not within a Tidal or Fluvial Flood Warning Area.
• The area was shown to lie within an area with a very high (>75%) susceptibility for
Groundwater Flooding.
• The site was located in an area of increased potential for elevated groundwater due to the
presence of permeable Superficial Deposits (Kempton Park Gravel Member).
• The site was located in an area where the suitability of infiltration SUDS was uncertain, with
Enhanced Site Investigation required
Groundwater flow & Hydrology

For information regarding groundwater flow and hydrological, please refer to groundwater report
GWPR2385 Ground Investigation report, section 2.5 (pg 5) summarised below
• No water table was encountered on site in the site specific investigation.
• The proposed development is located on a Secondary A Aquifer relating to the superficial
deposits of the Kempton Park Gravel Member. The underlying bedrock deposits of the London
Clay Formation were classified as an Unproductive Strata.
• Based on a visual inspection of the soil samples the Kempton park gravels have a relatively high
permeability.
• It was considered possible that perched water will be encountered within the Made Ground,
especially after periods of prolonged rainfall. However, it was considered unlikely that water
would be encountered within the deposits of the Kempton Park Gravel Member during
basement construction.
Page 9
Date: 09 March 2018

Ground Water Damning Affects
Figure 4 extract from Arup Report Camden geological, hydrogeological and hydrological study, Guidance for Subterranean
development.
While there may be seasonal ground water flow in with in the made ground there will be little or to
effects due to damming from the basement for the following reasons:
• The basement is isolated and bounded by a car park to one side and a road to the other under
which a basement is unlikely to be built.
• There is no recorded water table with in the site specific borehole and ground investigation
reports.
Effects on Highways & Transport Infrastructure

Site proximity to minor road and pedestrian footway. A 45° line from the basement outwards intersects
with the road, so the basement will be designed with a surcharge load of 10kN/m2. The opposing side of
the property is the communal carpark and so will also be designed for a surcharge load of 10kN/m2.
The property is within 500m of the Overground line, and within 350m of the District underground line.
Areas of Archaeological interest and Conservation Areas.

The site is not in an area of Archaeological interest. As shown below, from the government website, the
site is in the conservation area of Edwards Square/Scarsdale & Abingdon.
Page 10
Date: 09 March 2018
Figure 5 1 Lexham Mews is not in a conservation area.
Basement Design
We design our basement assuming worst case soil conditions, and with a water level 1000mm below soil
ground level, unless specific evidence is found from trial pit or borehole data. Our standard underpins
sizes have been refined from many previous designs with many contractors and have been designed
with constructability in mind. As the basement slab will act as an effective base prop, we only need to
design the retaining wall for overturning and bearing pressure checks, and not sliding. See section 2 for
specific, worst-case retaining wall design, to prove shape and form.
Page 11
Date: 09 March 2018
Figure 6 Standard RC underpin design.
As we do have a specific soil investigation for this project we can estimate the water table. As no water
table was struck during the borehole process it is likely that it is below basement formation level. But
the design will take into account a worst case design of 1.0 m below ground level for accidental water
levels from burst water mains or other external influences.
However, to air on the side of caution, we will still assume a water level 1000mm below ground level, as
the drilling process can sometimes obscure groundwater strikes. This also allows for unforeseen
circumstances such as a local failure at water mains or storm water.
As previously stated, all sides of the property will be designed with a 10kN/m2 surcharge load due to car
loading. The attached neighbour’s foundations will be taken as 1.5kN/m2 + 4kN/m2 for the concrete
ground-bearing slab.
Movement Assessment
Ground works such as a basement excavation naturally pose a threat to adjacent properties. The
disturbance of the soil near the footing of a neighbour could cause settlement issues resulting in cracks
in finishes or problems with fittings such as windows and doors. Certain precautions must be taken to
try to minimize the possibility of this settlement:
- The party wall is to be underpinned in 1m sections. This lowers the risk of movement to the
adjacent property.
- The works must be carried out in accordance with the party wall act and conditioning schedules
should be taken and the beginning and end of the works, to define what new damages have
been caused by the works.
- The method statement provided in this report is formed from experience gained in 5 years+
basement design experience.
- The design of retaining walls is completed to Eurocode 3.
Page 12
Date: 09 March 2018

It is not expected that any cracking will occur during the works. However, our experience tells us that
there is a chance this may happen, and the following steps should be taken to reduce the risk:
- Employ a reputable firm with extensive knowledge of basement works.
- Design the underpins to be stable with a simple propping system in the temporary case.
- Clearly define what propping is required, in clear method statements for the contractors.
- Have a specific ground investigation report done for the property (done)
- Before and after works are completed, have a conditioning schedule done on the internal and
external properties (under Party Wall Act).
- Allow for unforeseen ground conditions such as loose ground. Guidance from the underpinning
association recommends the use of precast lintels in these areas.
If all the points above are all followed, the maximum expected crack size is hairline cracking, which can
be easily made good with decorative repairs. A Party Wall Surveyor acting on behalf of the neighbours
can document these and the repairs can be settled for afterwards to rectify any damages.
Ground and Water have provided movement assessment calculations based on the geotechnical ground
conditions and these are detailed in their report and summarised below. The worst case damage
category is slight under the guidance in Ciria guide C580 to all adjacent building and those that share the
party walls.
It must be noted that C580 is written for imbedded walls and experience suggests the underpinning
method does not result in significant movement. Therefore, the use of C580 in this context could be
considered conservative. The stiffness of the wall will render the top 1m of soils insignificant with
respect to movement.
Entrance Arch
The entrance arch while this is in close proximity to the basement excavation would only suffer damage
similar to that of 2 Lexham Mews refer to the table below.
The temporary works design for the excavation for the underpins allows for support of soil below load
bearing walls with a surcharge from a load bearing wall of 100 kN/m² foundation pressures.
The permanent works design would allow for the wall surcharge and intermediate floor beams at
ground floor prop the top of the retaining wall preventing further movement of the wall in the
permanent condition.p
Page 13
Date: 09 March 2018
Figure 7 extract from BIA report GWPR2385 showing ground movements to adjacent buildings and predicted movement criteria
Drainage & Damp Proofing

Toynbee Associates do not take on liability for drainage and waterproofing of basements.
Under the new NHBC guidelines, all basements are recommended to have two separate forms of
waterproofing.
Normally, the basements we work on will have a drained cavity system with a sump pump, such as the
Delta system. This is a specialist item that can be ordered by your contractor. Other forms of secondary
waterproofing can be applied to the walls to form the 2nd barrier and a specialist consultant or firm
should be consulted on this matter.
Temporary Works
Our underpins are designed in both the temporary and permanent case. In the temporary case, we
sometimes require a top prop force to restrain the overturning moment, as the vertical load will be
lowered. In this situation it is important for the Temporary Works designer to know the force so they
can adequately design the prop system. This should be as simple as possible and is likely to be a system
of wailer beams, which are propped back to the central berm. Particular attention should be paid to
Page 14
Date: 09 March 2018

areas of localized higher loads, as they will not spread further than the 1m underpin until the wall as
whole is completed.
Party Wall Etc Act 1996

Property is end of terrace, and the basement level is approximately 3.1m below the footing of the
adjacent property.
Works to be completed to Party Wall include
• Underpinning of the party wall between No 1 and No 2 Lexham mews
• Excavation within 3m and to a depth o below the existing foundations of the neighbouring
buildings at No 2 Lexham Mews.
The structural design at 1 Lexham Mews has been completed to all relevant British Standard codes and
building regulations. Reasonable care has also been taken to minimize the effect of the works on the
neighbouring properties. The works have been designed with both the owner and adjoining owner’s
best interests in mind. The condition of the way is important to both parties.
- New footings and underpinning bearing pressures will not exceed the estimated allowable
pressure of 125kPa, when not in presence of more specific data.
- Overall vertical loading to wall is kept within a 10% increase.
- Use of padstones to spread point loads into sufficient areas of brickwork. Existing masonry
strength limited at 0.42N/mm2.
- The design has been checked and approved by a Chartered Engineer.
Under the Party Wall Act, Toynbee Associates do not provide duty of care of liability to the adjacent
owner, as this is held by the property owner. Special foundations consent is required, and must be
obtained from the neighbouring party wall surveyor.
Health & Safety

Under health and safety regulations, a few small points should be considered by the client, including:
- Sufficient time and funds should be allocated, so that health and safety is not compromised in
favour of either.
- Welfare and access to the site must be at a responsible level for the contractors.
- A suitably experienced contractor should be employed to complete the works.
Splices have been provided for the longer beams to assist the contractors in site access and weight
issues. If any other splices are required, they will be designed as soon as asked for.
Structural Design not covered in the Brief

• Glazed elements designed by supplier.
• Handrails and further fixings.
• Temporary supports and works. Loads can be provided on request.
• Setting out dimensions to be taken from architects drawings.
Page 15
Date: 09 March 2018

2. Structural Design
Page 16
Project Job Ref
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Drawing Ref Calculations by Checked by
Sheet of
TT
Part of Structure Date
Loading allowances Feb 18
The following calculations detail the structural design as per the architectural planning drawings.
Loading Assumptions Super Structure
Dead Loads
Floor (including joists, tile boards, tiles, ceiling and services) = 1.0 kN/m²
Pitched Roof (including tiles, rafters and ceilings) = 1.2 kN/m²
Flat Roof (including, joists, insulation, ceilings and services) = 1.0 kN/m²
Existing Concrete Slab nominal thickness 200 with screed and finishes = 6.3 kN/m²
Walls:
Stud = 1.2kN/m² on elevation

4.5” masonry and plaster = 2.3 kN/m² on elevation
9” masonry and plaster = 5.3 kN/m² on elevation
13.5” masonry and plaster = 7.4 kN/m² on elevation
Cavity Wall = 4.5 kN/m² on elevation
Live Loads
Floor Live (to BS6399 PT) = 1.5kN/m²
Roof (no access, snow load only) =0.65 kN/m²
Roof (Access) = 0.75 kN/m²
Roof Terrace = 1.5 kN/m²
The design of the structural elements will be carried out in such a way to limit the impact of the
structural works on the existing buildings construction and that of the neighbouring properties.
Deflection Limits
Dead Load only supporting masonry = span/500

Dead and Live Load = span/270
Live Load (new structure supporting brittle finishes) = span/360
Project Job Ref
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Sheet of
TT
New Basement Structure Feb 18
New Basement Structure
The existing load – bearing structure will be underpinned in a traditional ‘1 to 5’ sequence. The
underpins will comprise of a vertical stem which will be immediately beneath the existing wall and
will be at least the same thickness as the existing wall. In the case of a party wall, the rear face of
the stem will be in line with the face of the wall above so as not to encroach in to the adjacent
property’s space, should they wish to construct a similar basement in the future. The reinforcement
in the stems will be designed for bending about the top of the base in the permanent case.
The vertical loads applied to the underpin stems from the existing structure will be calculated
according to the thickness and height of the existing structure above. Any upper floors and roof
loads will be ignored as this will give a minimum value for the vertical load, which will be the most
onerous case for overturning and sliding of the underpin section.
The underpins will be designed for the temporary and permanent cases, as follows: In the
temporary case, the underpins will be designed for soil pressures and a surcharge. The factor of
safety against overturning and sliding will be taken as 1.5.
In the permanent case, the underpins will be designed for soil pressures, a surcharge and water
pressures calculated at 1 m below the retained height. The new basement slab will be structurally
connected to the underpinning bases using dowel bars, therefore it will be assumed that the new
basement slab will restrain the under pins against sliding.
Surcharge on the underpins will be taken as follows:
Internal live load (e.g. floors) = 1.5 kN/m2

Space underneath existing timber joists (nominal) = 1.5 kN/m2
External: gardens, footpaths, etc. = 5 kN/m2
External: highways, driveways, etc. = 10 kN/m2
The basement slab will be designed for uplift due to water pressure, spanning between the bases of
opposite underpins. The net uplift pressure is taken as the head of water minus the dead load of the
basement slab and any permanent finishes, e.g. screed.
Project Job Ref
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Sheet of
TT
Geotechnical Design Parameters Feb 18
Geotechnical Design
The basement retaining walls have been designed with the following geotechnical design
parameters:
SOIL PARAMETERS
Sand and Gravels
Dry Soils = 20 kN/m3
Wet soil = 10 kN/m3
Water = 10 kN/m3
φ = 38˚
Ka = 0.23
Clay
Dry Soils = 20 kN/m3
Wet soil = 10 kN/m3
Water = 10 kN/m3
φ = 23˚
Ka = 0.43
The retaining walls will be designed using ‘active’ pressures (where movement of the retaining wall
is likely and acceptable), as opposed to ‘at rest’ pressures (where movement of the retaining wall is
unlikely or unacceptable). The underpinning process, where soil is excavated underneath an existing
load – bearing wall and a vertical shear face of soil is exposed, allows the excavated face of soil to
move, thus mobilizing the ‘active’ pressures. In addition, once the underpin has been constructed
and is working as a retaining wall, the retaining wall is likely to deflect, thus mobilizing the ‘active’
pressures. These movements will be very slight and will most likely have a negligible effect on the
vertical settlement of the retained soil behind the underpinning / retaining walls. These movement
are considered acceptable.
Ground – bearing pressures below the underpinning bases will be calculated for the temporary
condition. In the permanent condition, the new basement slab will be tied in to the retaining wall
bases, hence the entire substructure will act as a raft foundation. Ground – bearing pressures will
not be an issue in this condition.
Water Table
Borehole records for the area do not show a high water table.
An assumed accidental case will be assumed of 1.0 m below ground level for design of uplift on the
slab and lateral forces on the retaining walls.
Project Job Ref
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Sheet of
TT
Geotechnical Design Parameters Feb 18
Bearing Pressures
The geological drift maps for the area indicate Kempton Par Gravels of variable thickness from 5-8
m above the London Clay formation at depth. Bearing pressure in the gravels formation will be of
250 kPa will be acceptable. We will design our basement on 150 kPa to limit the potential
movement of the party wall structures during and after construction and reduce overall bearing
pressures at the formation level. We do not take into account the beneficial surcharge load from
overburden pressure at the basement formation level, this further reduces the risks of potential
settlement of the building.
Project Job Ref
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Sheet of
TT
Temporary Works Feb 18
Temporary Works
The retaining walls will be designed where possible to be self supporting under surcharge and soil
loading in the construction stage of the project. The underpins will need to be propped during
construction to avoid any sliding failure at the abase in the granular materials, alternatively a nib
can be cast to stop the walls from kicking out at the base in the temporary case until the basement
slab is cast.
In the permanent case the walls bases will be propped by the slab and the structural topping.
Therefore the most onerous design case is the temporary condition.
Project Job no.
1 Lexham Mews 1516
Toynbee Associates Ltd Calcs for Start page no./Revision
Wingate Business Exchange Retaining Wall Design - WC BIA 1

64-66 Wingate Square Calcs by Calcs date Checked by Checked date Approved by Approved date
London SW4 0AF PG 16/02/2018 TT 16/02/2018 TT 16/02/2018
RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS

In accordance with EN1997-1:2004 incorporating Corrigendum dated February 2009 and the recommended values
Tedds calculation version 2.6.11
Retaining wall details

Stem type; Cantilever
Stem height; hstem = 3150 mm
Stem thickness; tstem = 350 mm
Angle to rear face of stem; α = 90 deg
Stem density; γstem = 25 kN/m3
Toe length; ltoe = 1650 mm
Base thickness; tbase = 350 mm
Base density; γbase = 25 kN/m3
Height of retained soil; hret = 3150 mm; Angle of soil surface; β = 0 deg
Depth of cover; dcover = 0 mm
Height of water; hwater = 2150 mm
Water density; γw = 9.8 kN/m3
Retained soil properties

Soil type; Medium dense well graded sand
Moist density; γmr = 21 kN/m3
Saturated density; γsr = 23 kN/m3
Characteristic effective shear resistance angle; φ'r.k = 30 deg
Characteristic wall friction angle; δr.k = 0 deg
Base soil properties

Soil type; Medium dense well graded sand
Soil density; γb = 18 kN/m3
Characteristic effective shear resistance angle; φ'b.k = 30 deg
Characteristic wall friction angle; δb.k = 15 deg
Characteristic base friction angle; δbb.k = 30 deg
Presumed bearing capacity; Pbearing = 125 kN/m2
Loading details
Variable surcharge load; SurchargeQ = 2.5 kN/m2
Vertical line load at 1825 mm; PG1 = 55.4 kN/m
; PQ1 = 8.2 kN/m
Project Job no.
1 Lexham Mews 1516

1650 350
1825
P1
0.8 kN/m 2
7.8 kN/m 2
3150
3150
3500
2150
Prop
350
43.4 kN/m 2
52.3 kN/m 2 56.3 kN/m 2
2000
General arrangement
Calculate retaining wall geometry

Base length; lbase = 2000 mm
Saturated soil height; hsat = 2150 mm
Moist soil height; hmoist = 1000 mm
Length of surcharge load; lsur = 0 mm
Vertical distance; xsur_v = 2000 mm
Effective height of wall; heff = 3500 mm
Horizontal distance; xsur_h = 1750 mm
Area of wall stem; Astem = 1.103 m2; Vertical distance; xstem = 1825 mm
2
Area of wall base; Abase = 0.7 m ; Vertical distance; xbase = 1000 mm
Using Coulomb theory
Active pressure coefficient; KA = 0.333; Passive pressure coefficient; KP = 4.977
Bearing pressure check
Vertical forces on wall
Total; Ftotal_v = Fstem + Fbase + Fwater_v + FP_v = 108.7 kN/m
Horizontal forces on wall
Total; Ftotal_h = Fsat_h + Fmoist_h + Fpass_h + Fwater_h + Fsur_h = 63 kN/m
Moments on wall
Total; Mtotal = Mstem + Mbase + Msat + Mmoist + Mwater + Msur + MP = 110 kNm/m
Check bearing pressure
Propping force; Fprop_base = 63 kN/m
Project Job no.
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Bearing pressure at toe; qtoe = 52.3 kN/m2; Bearing pressure at heel; qheel = 56.3 kN/m2
Factor of safety; FoSbp = 2.219
PASS - Allowable bearing pressure exceeds maximum applied bearing pressure
RETAINING WALL DESIGN

In accordance with EN1992-1-1:2004 incorporating Corrigendum dated January 2008 and the recommended values
Concrete details - Table 3.1 - Strength and deformation characteristics for concrete
Concrete strength class; C32/40
Char.comp.cylinder strength; fck = 32 N/mm2; Mean axial tensile strength; fctm = 3.0 N/mm2
2
Secant modulus of elasticity; Ecm = 33346 N/mm ; Maximum aggregate size; hagg = 20 mm
Design comp.concrete strength; fcd = 21.3 N/mm ; 2
Partial factor; γC = 1.50
Reinforcement details
Characteristic yield strength; fyk = 500 N/mm2; Modulus of elasticity; Es = 200000 N/mm2
Design yield strength; fyd = 435 N/mm ; 2
Partial factor; γS = 1.15
Cover to reinforcement
Front face of stem; csf = 50 mm; Rear face of stem; csr = 50 mm
Top face of base; cbt = 50 mm; Bottom face of base; cbb = 75 mm
Loading details - Combination No.1 - kN/m2 Shear force - Combination No.1 - kN/m Bending moment - Combination No.1 - kNm/m
1.25
9.45
9.45
Stem
101.7
11.81
11.81
1.25
9.45
12.76
28.47
X
-73.3 71.5
Toe
70.9
75.98
82.7
Project Job no.
1 Lexham Mews 1516

Loading details - Combination No.2 - kN/m2 Shear force - Combination No.2 - kN/m Bending moment - Combination No.2 - kNm/m
1.08
8.59
8.59
Stem
81.4
8.75
8.75
1.08
8.59
11.6
21.09
X
-61.3 61.1
Toe
46.31
69.83
72.5
Check stem design at base of stem

Depth of section; h = 350 mm
Rectangular section in flexure - Section 6.1
Design bending moment; M = 71.5 kNm/m; K = 0.026; K' = 0.196
K' > K - No compression reinforcement is required
Tens.reinforcement required; Asr.req = 589 mm2/m
Tens.reinforcement provided; 12 dia.bars @ 100 c/c; Tens.reinforcement provided; Asr.prov = 1131 mm2/m
2
Min.area of reinforcement; Asr.min = 462 mm /m; Max.area of reinforcement; Asr.max = 14000 mm2/m
PASS - Area of reinforcement provided is greater than area of reinforcement required
Deflection control - Section 7.4
Limiting span to depth ratio; 47.7 Actual span to depth ratio; 10.7
PASS - Span to depth ratio is less than deflection control limit
Crack control - Section 7.3
Limiting crack width; wmax = 0.4 mm; Maximum crack width; wk = 0.173 mm
PASS - Maximum crack width is less than limiting crack width
Rectangular section in shear - Section 6.2
Design shear force; V = 73.3 kN/m; Design shear resistance; VRd.c = 148.6 kN/m
PASS - Design shear resistance exceeds design shear force
Horizontal reinforcement parallel to face of stem - Section 9.6
Min.area of reinforcement; Asx.req = 350 mm2/m; Max.spacing of reinforcement; ssx_max = 400 mm
Trans.reinforcement provided; 8 dia.bars @ 200 c/c; Trans.reinforcement provided; Asx.prov = 251 mm2/m
FAIL - Area of reinforcement provided is less than area of reinforcement required
Check base design at toe
Depth of section; h = 350 mm
Rectangular section in flexure - Section 6.1
Design bending moment; M = 82.7 kNm/m; K = 0.036; K' = 0.196
K' > K - No compression reinforcement is required
Tens.reinforcement required; Abb.req = 745 mm2/m
Tens.reinforcement provided; 12 dia.bars @ 100 c/c; Tens.reinforcement provided; Abb.prov = 1131 mm2/m
2
Min.area of reinforcement; Abb.min = 423 mm /m; Max.area of reinforcement; Abb.max = 14000 mm2/m
Project Job no.
1 Lexham Mews 1516


Crack control - Section 7.3
Limiting crack width; wmax = 0.4 mm; Maximum crack width; wk = 0.281 mm
PASS - Maximum crack width is less than limiting crack width
Rectangular section in shear - Section 6.2
Design shear force; V = 101.7 kN/m; Design shear resistance; VRd.c = 143 kN/m
PASS - Design shear resistance exceeds design shear force
Secondary transverse reinforcement to base - Section 9.3
Min.area of reinforcement; Abx.req = 226 mm2/m; Max.spacing of reinforcement; sbx_max = 450 mm
Trans.reinforcement provided; 8 dia.bars @ 200 c/c; Trans.reinforcement provided; Abx.prov = 251 mm2/m
50 50
8 dia.bars @ 200 c/c

horizontal reinforcement
parallel to face of stem
12 dia.bars @ 100 c/c 12 dia.bars @ 100 c/c

50
150
75

transverse reinforcement
in base
Reinforcement details
Date: 09 March 2018

3. Basement Method Statement
Ground Conditions and Temporary back shuttering.
a. Ground conditions for the site indicate the Kempton Park Gravel Member overlying the
London Clay Formation, with a significant depth of made ground down to 3.9 BGL.
b. Sacrificial back shuttering will be required in the upper soil layers to retain the friable soil
at high level.
c. For single underpins no more than 1000 mm wide in London clay the site foreman will need
to assess the local ground conditions during the excavation of the underpins to determine
if sacrificial back shuttering is required.
Underpinning to Walls (Party Walls, Front and Rear Walls) [TW01]
a. Note the externals and Party Walls are assumed to be 9” thick, 225 wide. The walls will
have a mass concrete foundation and the setting out of the RC underpin should take this
into account to ensure the back face of the underpin aligns with the back face of the party
wall.
b. In maximum 1.0m segments excavate down to new basement formation level. Shore the
faces of the trench with Mabey M6/KD4 lap trench sheeting driving into the soil to provide
a toe-in depth of 500mm. Shore the back face of the excavation with Sacrificial shuttering
of knauf Cementous board. If required and original footing is of poor condition install
sacrificial acrow prop to the base of the wall. Back Shuttering to be propped as per side
and rear faces, using trench props or similar in boxed out holes to be infilled once main
shuttering has been struck. The front face of the excavation is to be shored as per the sides
of the excavation.
c. Install C24 timber walers to shore the sides of the excavation. Install trench props to walers
one at each end. Cross Propping between the vertical trench sides with minimum 2 props,
one at high level and one at minimum 500mm above proposed SSL. Walers and trench
props at regular centres to the base of the excavation.
d. 4”x2” timber posts, double handrail and toe boards will be erected around the top of all
excavations to prevent falls.
e. All the underpin sections shown on drawing (S-RC(1)) will be excavated by hand.
f. If required and ground conditions dictate blind the base of the excavation as soon as
formation level is reached.
g. If required and the quality of the existing mass concrete underpinning is loose install
sacrificial trench props to hold the mass concrete base in place until the underpin has
been completed. Note this is cast in place and not removed
h. Reinforced Concrete underpins to have H20 dowel bars 600(lg) @ 600 c/c vertically with
equal embedment between sections. Dowels to be driven into earth faces with corrosion
protection to exposed ends.
i. Fix the reinforcement as per the permanent works drawings for the base. Continuity
reinforcement between the RC Bases and the Insitu Infill RC Slab are to be driven into
the Earth berm with sufficient corrosion protection to the exposed legs of the bars. And
cast with concrete. Note chamfer the back face of the underpin to allow for the mass
concrete heels and support to the soil above.
j. Fix wall reinforcement, remove back shutter if possible and ground conditions allow and
form shuttering to front face, prop back to the central berm with trench props at 500
vertical centres, note trench props at base of wall to avoid kicking out of shuttering under
concrete pressure.
k. The underpins are to be cast up to 50 mm (but no more than 75 mm) from the underside
of the existing masonry walls to allow for installation of the dry pack.
Page 17
Date: 09 March 2018

l. The excavation can be backfilled with excavation spoil or granular material in 300 mm
layers, each layer compacted with 3 passes of a whacker plate. Or propping to central
berm to remain.
m. On the following day, the gap between the top of the underpin and the bottom of the
existing foundation will be dry packed with 3:1 sharp sand to cement hand dry mix with
non-shrinkable cementitious additive (Combex 100 admixture by FOSROC or similar
approved).
n. Note at the chimney breast locations the contractor is to inspect the area immediately
behind the underpin, if there are voids with behind the under a Cementous grout is to be
poured into the void behind to stabilise the ground. The dry packing is to then be rammed
beyond the underpin to fill the void, until the area will take no more dry pack. The
remaining area of the under pin will then be dry packed as per note n above
o. Once the dry pack has gained sufficient strength after minimum of 48 hours curing time,
any protruding foundation will be trimmed back to be flush with the front face of the
underpinning using diamond saw or drilling equipment.
p. The existing mass concrete underpinning will be cut back by cutting 50 mm deep vertical
cuts into the concrete at 75 mm centres. The protruding section of concrete will then be
broken off using a hand held breaker and appropriate attachment. If further protrusions
occur the same process will be carried out until the mass concrete is flush with the
Adjoining Owner’s property.
q. Shuttering will be struck after 3 days and props to the base and top of the wall will remain
until the wall has reached min 14 days strength.
r. The next sections of underpins marked 2, following the sequence of 1 to 5 for the
underpinning sequence, will then be constructed.
s. Continue in the same around the proposed basement until all underpin sections marked
have been cast and cured.
Bulk Excavation
a. Carry out the bulk excavation from the rear of the property moving back. Install system
Maybe S3/KP/7 props a 1.0 m centres at 500 mm above basement slab level, provide
temporary shoring to front light well berm using trench street and trench props. Refer to
TW-03p for details.
b. Once bulk excavation complete.
c. Install below slab drainage.
d. And fix slab rebar and cast slab.
e. Once 5 days has accrued remove cross propping.
f. Once main slab has been completed, refer to light well construction section for final
sections of Lightwell slab to be constructed.
Padstone Cutting
a. Cut the pad stones (as per structural engineer drawings/specifications) using angle
grinder and hand chisel no hand held percussive tools allowed.
b. Padstones to be a maximum of a half brick thickness/depth of the party wall.
c. Shutter and cast the pad stones where required
d. Install spreader beams as per structural engineers details, line and level, grout and dry
pack to underside of masonry above.
e. After 48 hours of the pad stones spreaders being cast cut/remove brickwork (to be done
by hand chisel and using angle grinder to minimise any vibration) to allow for the
installation of the steel beams
f. Install the beams and cast concrete/brick up around the steels and Dry pack between the
top of the steels and the brickwork approximately 50mm
g. Repair and make good to leave it flush with the party wall.
Page 18
Date: 09 March 2018
Installation of Ground Floor Steelwork

a. New ground floor steelwork to be installed on the padstones as per the ground floor
engineering drawings.
b. New beam and block beams to be installed into pockets cut into the existing masonry
wall as per the padstone cutting method above.
Page 19
Date: 09 March 2018

Underpinning Specification
Specification: Underpinning
Project: 1 Lexham Mews
Date of issue: February 2018
Prepared by: Tristan Toynbee
Revision: -
General Underpinning Specification
1. The walls to the perimeter of the new basement shall be underpinned in reinforced concrete.
The underpins shall take the vertical loads from the walls and horizontal loads from the earth.
2. Underpinning bases shall be excavated in short sections not exceeding 1000mm in width.
3. The sequence of the underpinning shall be such that any given underpin will be completed, dry-
packed and a minimum period of 48 hours lapsed before an adjacent excavation commenced to
form another underpin.
4. In the event that the existing foundations to the wall are found to be unstable, sacrificial steel
jacks shall be installed underneath the foundation to prop the bottom few courses of bricks.
These steel jacks shall be left in place and shall be incorporated into the concrete stem.
5. In the event that the ground is unstable, lateral propping shall be provided as required to the
rear of the excavation and to the sides of the excavated working trench. The front and side faces
of the excavation shall be propped using trench sheeting or 2 layers of plywood, timber boards
and acrow props as appropriate. Sacrificial back shutters shall be used to the rear face of the
excavation (i.e. underneath the wall) if required. Cementitious grout will be poured behind the
back – shutters to fill up the voids behind the back – shutters.
6. The rear of the underpin is to be flush with the back face of the party wall on the adjoining
owners side.
7. Excavation for an underpin section shall be dug in a day, and the concrete to the base shall be
poured by the end of the same day.
8. The concrete to the stem of the underpin shall be poured the following day. This shall be poured
up to within 50 – 75mm of the underside of the existing wall foundations.
9. On the following day, the gap between the concrete and the underside of the existing
foundation shall be drypacked with C35 concrete using 5 – 10mm coarse aggregate and
“Combex 100” expanding admixture by Fosroc UK Ltd in accordance with their instructions.
Page 20
Date: 09 March 2018

10. Once the drypack has gained sufficient strength, any protrusions of the footings into building
owners site shall be carefully trimmed back using hand tools to avoid causing any damage to the
foundation. The protrusions shall be trimmed back to be flush in-line with the face of the wall
above.
11. A minimum of 48 hours shall be allowed before adjacent sections are excavated to form a new
underpin.
12. Adjacent underpins shall be connected using T16 dowel bars 600mm long, 300mm embedment
each side, at 300mm vertical centres.
13. Concrete cover to reinforcement shall be 35mm for cast against shutter or the top surface of the
basement slab, 50mm for cast against blinding and 75mm for cast against earth.
14. Grade of concrete shall be C35 with minimum cement content 300kg/m3, maximum free water
to cement ratio 0.60, slump 100mm.
See drawing S-TW-01 in the Section 4 for an underpinning sequence to the property and a section of the
underpin, and light well construction.
Page 21
Date: 09 March 2018

Shored Trench Design
DEFINE:
Soil Depth, Dsoil = 3200 mm

Surcharge, sur = 100 kN/m2
Soil Density, γ = 20 kN/m3
Angle of Friction, φ = 26 deg
κα = (1 – sin(φ)) / (1 + sin(φ)) = 0.390

κρ = 1 / κα = 2.561
Soil pressure bottom, soil = κα * γ * Dsoil = 24.990 kN/m2

Surcharge pressure, surcharge = sur * κα = 1.952 kN/m2
DEFINE SELECTED SHEETING: KD4 / KD6
Effective width per sheet wsheet = 400 mm

Thickness, t = 3.4 mm
Depth, Dsheet = 35 mm
Weight per linear meter, W m = 21.9 kg/m
Weight per m2, Wsq = 55.2 kg
Section Modulus per meter width, Mm = 101 cm3
Section Modulus per sheet, M = 40.43 cm3
I value per meter width, Im = 250 cm4
I value per sheet, Isheet = 101 cm4
Total rolled meters per tonne, Roll = 45.659
3-SPAN 2D ANALYSIS
Page 22
Date: 09 March 2018
Analysis
Geometry
Geometry (m)
Z
1 2 3 4
0.5 2.2 0.5
X
1 2 3
Loading
Self Weight - Loading
Soil - Loading
24.99
21.09
21.09
3.9
3.9
Surcharge - Loading
Results
Total deflection
ALL (Strength) - Total deflection
Total base reactions

Load case/combination Force
FX FZ
(kN) (kN)
ALL (Strength) 0 50.5
Page 23
Date: 09 March 2018

Reactions
Load combination: ALL (Strength)
Node Force Moment
Fx Fz My
(kN) (kN) (kNm)
1 0 -9.2 0
2 0 46.2 0
3 0 13.4 0
Element end forces
Element Length Nodes Axial force Shear force Moment
(m) Start/End (kN) (kN) (kNm)
1 0.5 1 0 9.2 0
2 0 -22.4 -8
2 2.2 2 0 -23.9 8
3 0 -10.8 -0.6
3 0.5 3 0 -2.6 0.6
4 0 0 0
Forces
Strength combinations - Moment envelope (kNm)
Strength combinations - Shear envelope (kN)
Member results
Member Shear force Moment
Pos Max abs Pos Max Pos Min
(m) (kN) (m) (kNm) (m) (kNm)
Member1 0.5 23.9 1.717 5.4 0.5 -8
Page 24
Date: 09 March 2018
4-SPAN 2D ANALYSIS
Analysis
Geometry
Geometry (m)
Z
1 0.5 2 1.1 3 1.1 4 0.5 5
X
1 2 3 4
Loading
Self Weight - Loading
Surcharge - Loading
1.95 24.99
1.9521.09
1.9521.09
12.5
12.5
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
3.9
3.9
Results
Total deflection
ALL (Strength) - Total deflection
1 2 3 4 5
X
Total base reactions

Load case/combination Force
FX FZ
(kN) (kN)
ALL (Strength) 0 50.5
Page 25
Date: 09 March 2018

Reactions
Node Force Moment
Fx Fz My
(kN) (kN) (kNm)
1 0 3.2 0
2 0 21.7 0
3 0 18.5 0
4 0 7 0
Element end forces
Element Length Nodes Axial force Shear force Moment
(m) Start/End (kN) (kN) (kNm)
1 0.5 1 0 -3.2 0
2 0 -9.9 -1.8
2 1.1 2 0 -11.8 1.8
3 0 -10.3 -1.8
3 1.1 3 0 -8.2 1.8
4 0 -4.4 -0.6
4 0.5 4 0 -2.6 0.6
5 0 0 0
Forces
Strength combinations - Moment envelope (kNm)
Strength combinations - Shear envelope (kN)
Page 26
Date: 09 March 2018

Member results
Member Shear force Moment
Pos Max abs Pos Max Pos Min
(m) (kN) (m) (kNm) (m) (kNm)
Member1 0.5 11.8 1.028 1.3 1.6 -1.8
Using KD4 Trench lap sheeting: - Approx 2 sheets per 1m run

Allowable moment, MA = 2no. x Mm x py
Mm = 101 cm3
MA = 2 * Mm * 275 MPa = 55.550 kNm
3.1 kNm < MA ∴ OK
For 3-Span, R = 69 kN
PROVIDE: Mabey System 160 props @ 2m C/C
For 4-Span, R = 31kN

PROVIDE: Type 1 Acrow props OR strongboys @ 1m C/C
Cross Props
Cross props should be placed one third of the way up the wall as measured from bottom slab.
Surcharge; sur = 10 kN/m2
Soil Density; γ = 20kN/m3
Angle of Friction; φ = 25°
Soil Depth; Dsoil = 3000mm
ka = (1-sin(φ))/(1+sin(φ)) = ?
kp = 1/ ka = ?
1 – sin(φ) = ?
Retaining Wall Design

Below is a design for the assumed worst case loading for a single underpin at 1 Lexham Mews.
insert pdf of design?
Page 27
Date: 09 March 2018

4. Structural Drawings
Page 28
Office 17
London SW4 0AF
Tel: +44 (0)208 622 5302
info@toynbeeassociates.com
© Toynbee Associates 2018
Office 17
London SW4 0AF
Tel: +44 (0)208 622 5302
© Toynbee Associates 2018
Office 1
London SW4 0AF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8622 5302
www.toynbeeassociates.com © Toynbee Associates 2015
Date: 09 March 2018

5. Architectural Drawings
Refer to the architectural drawings package
Page 29
Date: 09 March 2018

6. Ground Investigation Report
Refer to the Ground Investigation report by Ground and Water
Page 30
Date: 09 March 2018

7. Geotechnical Desk Study and Flood Risk Assessment
Refer to the Desk Study and Flood Risk Assessment report by Ground and Water.
Page 31

Construction Method Statement: 1 Lexham Mews, W8 6JW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Construction Method Statement: 1 Lexham Mews, W8 6JW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Method Statement: 1 Lexham Mews, W8 6JW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Engineers and Party Wall Surveyors

Date: 09 March 2018

Revision Date Comment Engineer/reviewer

Date: 09 March 2018

Date: 09 March 2018

Date: 09 March 2018

Date: 09 March 2018

1 Lexham Mews Structural Summary

Figure 1 front elevation of 1 Lexham mews

Date: 09 March 2018

Structural Defects Noted:

Is live load reduction included in design: No

Date: 09 March 2018

Class 1 Single occupancy houses not exceeding 4 storeys

Figure 2 Bedrock Geology of site is shown as London Clay

Date: 09 March 2018

Date: 09 March 2018

Groundwater flow & Hydrology

Date: 09 March 2018

Effects on Highways & Transport Infrastructure

Areas of Archaeological interest and Conservation Areas.

Date: 09 March 2018

Figure 5 1 Lexham Mews is not in a conservation area.

Date: 09 March 2018

Figure 6 Standard RC underpin design.

Date: 09 March 2018

Date: 09 March 2018

Drainage & Damp Proofing

Date: 09 March 2018

Party Wall Etc Act 1996

Health & Safety

Structural Design not covered in the Brief

Date: 09 March 2018

1 Lexham Mews 1516

Loading allowances Feb 18

Loading Assumptions Super Structure

Stud = 1.2kN/m² on elevation

Floor Live (to BS6399 PT) = 1.5kN/m²

Roof (no access, snow load only) =0.65 kN/m²

Roof (Access) = 0.75 kN/m²

Roof Terrace = 1.5 kN/m²

Dead Load only supporting masonry = span/500

1 Lexham Mews 1516

New Basement Structure Feb 18

New Basement Structure

Surcharge on the underpins will be taken as follows:

Internal live load (e.g. floors) = 1.5 kN/m2

1 Lexham Mews 1516

Geotechnical Design Parameters Feb 18

1 Lexham Mews 1516

Geotechnical Design Parameters Feb 18

1 Lexham Mews 1516

Temporary Works Feb 18

Toynbee Associates Ltd Calcs for Start page no./Revision

Wingate Business Exchange Retaining Wall Design - WC BIA 1

RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS

Retaining wall details

Retained soil properties