EXHIBIT LIST

Reference No: HOC/10050

Petitioner: R Mair Tun Sett and Damage Teachin
Published to Collaboration Area: Friday 05-Jun-2015

Page 1 of 62

No Exhibit Name Page

1 R1246 Tun_sett_Teachin_V2_Final_5Jun15 (R1246) 2 - 62

HOC/10050/0001
 Tunnelling-induced ground
movements and their effects
Professor Robert Mair CBE FREng FICE FRS
Cambridge University
June 2015

R1246 (1) HOC/10050/0002

 Outline of Presentation
• Background
• Sources of ground movement
• Settlement assessment
• Additional considerations for listed buildings
• Mitigation measures
• Pile-tunnel interactions
• Utilities
• Conclusions

R1246
2/46 (2) HOC/10050/0003
 Background

• HS2 Route – Tunnelled Section (London

Area)
• Ground & Groundwater Conditions

R1246
3/46 (3) HOC/10050/0004
 Background

West Ruislip Portal to Old Oak

Common
R1246
4/46 (4) HOC/10050/0005
 Ground Conditions

West
London
Ruislip Clay
Portal
Tunnel Alignment
Old Oak Common

Lambeth
Group Thanet
100m Sand
4km Chalk
R1246
5/46 (5) HOC/10050/0006
 Lambeth Group Example (HS1, Stratford Box)

West
Ruislip Old Oak Common
Portal

Lambeth
Group

R1246
6/46 (6) HOC/10050/0007
 London Clay Example – Heathrow T5

West
Ruislip
Portal Old Oak Common

London
Clay

R1246
7/46 (7) HOC/10050/0008
 Groundwater Level in the Deep Aquifer
West
Ruislip
Portal
Tunnel Alignment
Old Oak Common

100m ATD

Groundwater level
in the deep aquifer

R1246
8/46 (8) HOC/10050/0009
 Sources of Ground Movement
• Why Settlement Occurs
• Tunnelling Methods
• Volume Loss & Patterns of Settlement
• Measured Volume Losses
• Portals and Shafts
• Long Term Settlement

R1246
9/46 (9) HOC/10050/0010
 Sources of Ground Movement
Why Settlement Occurs
• HS2 requires excavation of ground to form the tunnels,
shafts and portals

• The ground around these excavations requires structural

support - linings for tunnels and shafts, and walls for
portals

• Excavation and installation of support to the ground

inevitably produces small, controlled ground movements

• The ground movements cause settlement of the ground

surface and buildings and utilities

R1246
10/46 (10) HOC/10050/0011
 Tunnelling Methods:
– Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM)
 1.
1. Tunnel
Tunnel face
face

1  2.
2. Cutting
Cutting wheel
wheel
8
 3.
3. Excavation
Excavation chamber
chamber

 4.
4. Pressure
Pressure bulkhead
bulkhead

 5.
5. Thrust
Thrust cylinders
cylinders
4
7
2  6.
6. Screw
Screw conveyor
conveyor
6
3  7.
7. Segment
Segment erector
erector
 8.
8. Segmental
Segmental Lining
Lining
5

R1246 (11) HOC/10050/0012

 Tunnelling Methods:
– Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM)
 1.
1. Tunnel
Tunnel face
face

1  2.
2. Cutting
Cutting wheel
wheel
8
 3.
3. Excavation
Excavation chamber
chamber

 4.
4. Pressure
Pressure bulkhead
bulkhead

 5.
5. Thrust
Thrust cylinders
cylinders
4
7
2  6.
6. Screw
Screw conveyor
conveyor
6
3  7.
7. Segment
Segment erector
erector
 8.
8. Segmental
Segmental Lining
Lining
5

R1246 (12) HOC/10050/0013

 Crossrail Bond Street Station - Construction of
Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) Platform Tunnel

Pilot tunnel (5m diameter)

Monitoring
targets

12m outer diameter

R1246 (13) HOC/10050/0014

 SCL – Typical Excavation Sequence with Pilot
Tunnel Step 1: excavate pilot tunnel

1
Top
Heading

2a 1 2a

Step 2: enlarge in 3 stages

Bench
2b

2c 2a
Invert

2b

2c

R1246 (14) HOC/10050/0015

 Sources of Ground Movement
Developing Settlement Trough

Extent of
settlement trough

R1246
14/46 (15) HOC/10050/0016
 Sources of Ground Movement
Longitudinal Settlement Trough

R1246
15/46 (16) HOC/10050/0017
 Sources of Ground Movement - Volume Loss

A
Point of inflection

Transverse
settlement trough ssma
max

x
Settlement
Tunnel

B Typical EPBM VL is
consistently < 1%
Volume settlement trough (A) Typical SCL VL is
Volume loss (VL, %) 
Volume tunnel (B) consistently < 1.5%
R1246 (17) HOC/10050/0018
 Effect of Tunnel Depth - Schematic
Distance (m)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0 0
10
5
20 Flatter slopes
30 10
Settlement
Settlement (mm)

40

Depth (m)
15
50
20
60
Tunnels
70 25
80
30
90
100 35
R1246 (18) HOC/10050/0019
 Effect of Tunnel Diameter - Schematic
Distance (m)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0 0
10
5
20
30 10
Settlement
Settlement (mm)

40

Depth (m)
15
50
20
60
70 Tunnels 25
80
30
90
100 35
R1246
18/46 (19) HOC/10050/0020
 Measured Volume Losses in Various
Soil Strata

R1246
19/46 (20) HOC/10050/0021
 Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM)
- CTRL Contract 220 Geology
West Portal
Groundwater table in upper aquifer
40
Stratford Box
30 Made Ground &
Terrace Gravel Lambeth Group
Elevation (m)

20
10 London Clay

0 Woolwich & Reading Beds

-10 Upnor Formation

Thanet Sand
-20
-30 Chalk
Groundwater table in lower aquifer
-40
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Chainage (m)
R1246
20/46 (21) HOC/10050/0022
 Volume loss for Up-Line EPBM tunnel
CTRL Contract 220 (Wongsaroj et al, 2005)
West Portal Stratford Box
Thanet Sand
1.4 (TS)

1.2 TS+Chalk
Volume loss (%)

Typical EPBM VL consistently < 1% TS+ Upnor

1.0 Formation (UF)

Woolwich and
0.8 Reading Beds
(WRB)
0.6
WRB+UF

0.4 WRB+HF
WRB+HF+LC
0.2
London Clay
(LC)
0
1000 3000 5000 7000 9000
R1246
21/46 (22) Chainage (m) HOC/10050/0023
 Case Histories
Volume Loss in SCL Projects in London Clay
Project and SCL works in London Clay Volume loss measured at
end of construction
Redcross Way Trial 1.0%
Jubilee Line Extension Project, Waterloo Station 1.0% to 1.5%
Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel 1.05% to 1.37%
Heathrow Express Main
0.6% to 0.9%
Works - T4 Station Platform Tunnels
Heathrow Express Baggage Transfer Tunnel 0.5%
Kings Cross Station Redevelopment Phase II 0.65% to 1.25%
Crossrail
1) Whitechapel Station Platform 1.22% - 1.29%
2) Liverpool St Station Platform 0.92% - 1.41%
3) Stepney Green Caverns 1.25%

Typical SCL volume loss consistently less than 1.5%

R1246
22/46 (23) HOC/10050/0024
 Portals and Shafts
• Excavation of portals and shafts cause ground
movements
• Extent of settlement depends on shape and depth of
excavation (H)

In the range of H to 2.5H

props
Settlement
H Magnitude of settlement is related to
dimensions of excavation and stiffness
of the props and walls
Wall
R1246 (24) HOC/10050/0025
 Long Term Settlement
• The settlements described previously are immediate
- occurring during construction
• In the long term, further settlements could develop -
these occur as a result of slow drainage of pore water
from the soil into the new tunnel
• Long term movements occur very slowly and result
in much wider and flatter settlement troughs
• Long term settlements are not usually damaging to
structures and utilities

R1246 (25) HOC/10050/0026

 Settlement Assessment

• Settlement Assessment Process

• Definition of Risk Categories
• Basis of HS2 Assessments
• Examples from Crossrail & Jubilee Line
Extension
• Conclusions for HS2

R1246
25/46 (26) HOC/10050/0027
 Assessment of Effects of Settlement
• Assessment of the risk of damage to assets is
carried out using a screening process
• The HS2 process is based on that used successfully
on Crossrail, Jubilee Line Extension, Channel
Tunnel Rail Link and many other projects
worldwide
• The approach is intentionally conservative
• Protective measures will be provided where
predicted effects are above acceptable limits

R1246
26/46 (27) HOC/10050/0028
 Settlement Assessment – 3 Phases
Phase 1: simple criteria based on settlement and
slope to eliminate buildings subjected to minimal
effects.

Phase 2: conservative assessment of potential

damage to buildings through distortions based on
‘greenfield’ settlements.

Phase 3: detailed assessment to determine risk of

potential damage and design of protective measures if
necessary
Experience has confirmed that results of Phase 2 are
conservative.
R1246
27/46 (28) HOC/10050/0029
 Definition of Risk Categories
(Building Research Establishment)
Damage Limiting
Degree of tensile strain
Risk Description of typical damage
Damage
Category (%)
0 Negligible Hairline cracks less than about 0.1mm 0-0.05
Fine cracks treatable during decoration
generally restricted to internal wall
1 Very Slight 0.05-0.075
finishes. Typical crack widths up to 1
mm
Cracks easily filled. Re-decoration
probably required. Cracks visible
2 Slight externally and repainting required. 0.075-0.15
Doors and windows may stick slightly.
Typical crack width up to 5 mm

Aesthetic significance only

R1246
28/46 (29) HOC/10050/0030
 Definition of Risk Categories
(Building Research Establishment)

Damage Limiting
Degree of tensile strain
Risk Description of typical damage
Damage
Category (%)
Cracks may require patching. Re-
pointing and replacement of parts of
3 Moderate external brickwork. Doors / windows 0.15-0.30
sticking. Utility service interruption.
Crack widths 5 to 15mm
Major structural damage requiring
Severe / extensive repair. Floors slope and wall
4/5 Very bulge noticeably. Loss of bearing in >0.30
Severe beams. Utility disruption. Crack widths
15 to 25mm

Potential impact on function or structural damage

R1246
29/46 (30) HOC/10050/0031
 Tunnels: Summary of Typical Volume Loss
Experience and Basis of HS2 assessments
EBP Machines
Channel Tunnel Rail Link: 0.5 – 1.0%
Jubilee Line Extension: 0.5 – 1.0%
DLR Woolwich Extension: 0.5 – 1.0%
Crossrail: 0.2 – 1.0%
Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL)
JLEP, HEX, KX & Crossrail: 0.6 – 1.5%

HS2 assessments based on:

1% for EPBM running tunnels
1.5% for SCL tunnels
smax

Volume settlement trough

Volume loss(%) 
Volume tunnel
Tunnel

R1246
30/46 (31) HOC/10050/0032
 Assessment – Deformation Types

Compression Extension

SAGGING HOGGING

R1246
31/46 (32) HOC/10050/0033
 Deformation of Building above a Tunnel

hogging zone sagging zone

building

Point of
inflection
i
Calculate the maximum
tensile strain to determine
damage risk category

tunnel

R1246
32/46 (33) HOC/10050/0034
 Example from Crossrail - Phase 2
Assessment Results – Liverpool St Station
Bdy
don

& LB
y of Lon

ly Const
the Cit
ET
STRE

,GL As

127-131
ty of
38 13
CR 17

y
39 to 45 15
ON

Coun

Bd
Const
3

LB
3
MILT

&
8
City &

st
City Gate House 15

Boro

on
21

C
6
35

ly
As
KEY

n
Exch

do
4

L
29 ange

on
Milto
Milton Pl

t,
nC

L
ace

ns
ourt

of
Cour

Co
High

y
t
1

Cit
walk

ro
Cor 14.7m Posts

Bo

e
oner

th
125
sC

of
t an SU 31 18

ty
SHOREDITCH
LB to 35
2
Offi d Corpn N

un
13
1 to Turntable ST
19

Co
ces WB 25 RE PH

NT

1
ET

&
37 20

y
Cit
Drill

PAVEME
Tower CR

Eliminated at Phase 1

ET
TRE
13.3m
Finsbury Court Whi
RO

Bdy
NS
tecr

PH
PE LACK oss

36
FINSBUR
MA INGT Pla

on
SO
KE ON ST ce 2

Lond
R REET

WIL
ST

29
Fire Station RE

ty of
ET 1
TCBs

e Ci
2
3

of th
19 Fins
FB to bury
24

ty
10 to

Coun
Eliminated at Phase 2
Ave
nue

13
Bro

&
70
ad

City
Lane

ET
City Point

Bdy
STRE

LB
ly &
N

m
L As
INIO

14.4
14.3m

14

t, G
DOM

1
Cons
21
Proceed to Phase 3
Bor
City o 1

Boro
an Con
dC st,G 4
ou LA
nty sl
of
the CR y Con

BISHOPSGATE WARD
C st &
ity

GREATER LONDON
LB
of L Bdy
on
don
Turn lar

3
table
cu

ouse

Broadgate
Vehi

Bank 6
ANE

ds H

nue
SO 3

Settlement contours in millimetres

Bank
RL

UT
rfiel

16

Ave
HP 33

CR

2 to
Moo

LA
O

TCBs CE 19 34

y
4
MO

WS

12
110

sbur
ME
to

Fin

32
Tent

ACE
120
155

s
Chu rfield

35
er H
ouse

H PL
P to 13 13.9m Broadgate

rch
(belowH

oo
12

SOUT
Circle

yM
)
walk

PH

2
45

1 Ice Rink

Mar

36
High

2 Arena

8
31
St
3 Liverpool Street Station
hby

UE
NEW 4
walk

UNION

AVEN
ug

5
ST REET War
Willo

walk

High

d Bdy 6

BURY
High

nnic

14 30
River Plate House 7 to

FINS
nnic

Finsbury Circus 9
Brita
Brita

16
11 House CR 37
Moo

1
rfiel EL
ds H D
21

141

to 31 ON
ighw S TR 13.1m

10
26
26
al
DS

k EE
Posts

T
31

FIEL

9 27
137

14.0m
OR

14
7 to 11
Moorgate MOO
MO

R PL to 25
Station ACE Britannic House 18

12

E
(London
24

AG
Transport)

PASS
7 FINSBURY
94

CIR 16 15
CU
109

ET
PH S 14 EL 11

WARD
20

STRE
to

DO
3 to Bank Oct
103

TCB N agon
Def

Tele 6 16 12.7m
to A

SUN
pho (bel rcad
TCPs

STRE
24 e
ne E AVE ow)
ATE

NU LB
16

xch E
T

an

ET
COLEMANPSTREET
REE

16 to 24
ge
ORG
y
d Bd

TCB
E ST

14

Unde
17

rgrou
War

Ban

Subway
MO

nd Ra

18
101

ilway
FOR

TCBs PO

6
e
Posts

5
Keat

y
lac
13

Bd
s Pl

CR
ace
Bank Bandstand

ard
W
12

PC SD

t
ee
4
Moor
95

Str
100

15

ST
91to

House Bowling Green Broad LB

7

19

LD
14
Site of
30

D Fn

FIE
TCPs
ity

13
6

20 Priory and Hospital

87

84

OM
3
ivers

PH 1

BL
s)

2
4

of
85

udie
walk

20
ll Un

31
PH 119 PH
2
1 High

St Mary of Bethlehem
s St
uildha

Moo 118 12.8m

83

rfiel TCBs
sines

ds 118a
(Founded AD 1247)
1
on G

TCP Bank
l of Bu
Lond

5
oo

8
Posts 13.4m 50
(Sch

23

9
15
Live LIV
ERP

10
Bank rpoo
FIN LB

CR
Moor PH l St OO
Salisbury House SB SB Stat LS

11
Gate UR (LRT ion TREE
)
n

Y T
e

(site of)
Albio
Plac
72

CIRCUS 17

BISHOPSGATE WARD
28
LB

BISHOPSGATE WARD
12
18

80

74
19

T
25
SL SL

76 to
s

EE
Car Park 115
20
ing
21

R
ild

ST
23
12.8m

73
BM 13
Bu
22
BROAD 24
STREET

LD
Aust .25m
E

34 26
AVENUE

IE
ral H
S PLAC

Wall
27
LOND

MF
ouse on

70
25
ON WA 168
Lond
28

O
14.4m
73

Armourers LL 150 to 12 11 10
29

BL
4

30
8 7 6
81

CIRCU

Hall 2 1

REET
The Arcade
2

Def 41 Bank 14 13
ET

32
64

16
62

17
12.5m 47 20 19 18
N STRE

Swedbank 22
Turn cular

D ST
e

42 24 26
tabl

LB 43
New Broad Street
Bank House
Vehi

46 23
67

25
y

BROA
45 33
Bd

42 House

91
56 to

16
MA

Girdlers' Hall New 42

80

ard

1
Broad

81 to
St
W

49
COLE
y

AVENUE
d Bd

OLD
60
63

CITY AND COUNTY OF THE CITY OF LONDON

3.5

55
2
12.5m
War

Def 3 Alde
COLEMAN STREET WARD Wa El Su White Hart rm
Hous ans
59

NEW
COPTHALL

rd Bd
CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BORO Petty BROA b Sta Court
e
30 to 20

y FB
48 to

Franc
CONST Postern
53
e D ST
REET
Posts

69
Bank BISHOPSGATE (site of)
(site of)
CITY AND COUNTY OF THE CITY OF LONDON
54

19

Und 54
63 to 64 Posts Alderm
55

65 WARD Posts an's

25

60 62

Churc h's
ll
Def Und 54 to Walk

h Ha
PH

tolp
2 85
2

LB

St Bo
Bank
Def

25

Und Church
War Def
30 to 20

COLEMAN STREET WARD BM

46

64
BPs Capel House

52 to
Bank
d Bd
Nun Court CITIESBank
OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER 13.1
0m y Wall FW 63 St Botolph without
BORO CONST BROAD STREET WARD
4

Def 7 8 BISHOP
1

91
Bishopsgate Church

57
44

El CHURCHSGATE
CITY AND EAST GL ASLY CONST
40

72
Bank Bisho
36

All Ha
74

87 to
Sub llows YARD psga
Sta Carpenters' Hall on the te Ch
LO Wall CITY AND COUNTY OF THEurcCITY
hyard

EPBM running tunnels usually

ND Churc Boston
OF LONDON
21

Guildhall Bank ON h
16

53
CW

WA House
4

Chambers 83 BP
5

LL
42

13.1m
38

White Horse 3 82 Broad

3

Yard Colema Street

n Street BM 13 House Tennis Court
Bldgs LANGTHOR LOND .82m
N COUR ON WA Und
Def

T 75
6

LL
E PLACE

27 to 34 Fn
FW
51
67

Bank BPs
30 to

PH
Bank 13.4m 26
MOORGAT
34

do not cause significant

Bank TCB's 25

7
25

10
Great Swan Institute of 10 22 to
Alley
41

5 to
Chartered Accountants WORM 24
16

WO 14.4m 5
11

75
OD ST 21

10
5 to

FB REET
24

Bank Bank
7

LB
64 to 66

14

Woolgate Exchange GREAT SWAN GREA 1

Bank ALLEY T Bank
39

WIN

45
LONDON EER

BPs CHES
35 to

TER
23

Garde STRE
Def

CW
12

R1246 (34)
8
ns 21 ET
pers

damage
9
63

ENUE

10

Bank
20

Dra

Piercy House

HOC/10050/0035
FW

9 to
LL AV

19

33/46
19

Bank
PTHA

15
6
CO
 Case History (JLE)
Elizabeth House
PH
PH

Shell Centre El SubSta

El Sub Sta

8
Shell Centre

e
Air
Air
Shaft
Shaft

us
Ho
3.6m

4.0m

eth
10

zab
onry

rsrs
eltltee
g mas

Shhe
Bank

S
Slopin

133
Eli
6655 to
to
eo
use
usH
eHtho
th
eb
aba
BM 4.20m

ziz
Elil
E
CHIC
HEL
EY S
TRE
ET

AR
CH
24
5
Bank

AR
CH
24
4
3.7m Bank

AR
CH

G7
24
3

F7
67

DO
OR

Waterloo
69

AR
CH
24
2
International
r
elte

AR
Sh

CH
24
3.7m

G8
Terminal

F8
AD

AR
CH
E RO

24
0
AD

LE
RO
EDER

AK
E
RK

ST
BELV

YO

RE
ET
r
75
elte

to

AR
Sh

CH
239
79

SL
SL

R1246 (35) 0m 50m 100m

34/46 Jubilee HOC/10050/0036
 Elizabeth House (JLE)
Comparison of Observations to Predictions
0 The Phase 2 assessment is
intentionally conservative
-10

-20
Settlement (mm)

-30 No damage observed

in Elizabeth House due
-40 to tunnelling

-50 Phase 2 Assessment (2%)

Phase 3 Prediction
-60 Observed (building)

-70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (m)
R1246
35/46 (36) HOC/10050/0037
 Conclusions for HS2
London Area
• A conservative and internationally accepted process is
used to assess the risk of excavation-induced damage to
buildings by the HS2 Project
• For buildings affected by the EPBM tunnelling, the
potential damage category is Negligible to Slight (i.e.
Category 0 to 2)
• For some buildings close to shallow SCL tunnels, shafts
and portals the potential damage category can be Slight,
occasionally Moderate (i.e. Category 2 to 3)

R1246
36/46 (37) HOC/10050/0038
 Additional Considerations for Listed
Buildings
• All listed buildings within the 10mm contour are
automatically subject to a Phase 3 assessment.
• Additional considerations are taken into account
for listed buildings, allowing for:
i. Structural condition;
ii. Structural sensitivity, and
iii. Sensitivity of heritage features

R1246
37/46 (38) HOC/10050/0039
 Additional Considerations for Listed
Buildings
Criteria

Score Sensitivity of the structure to Sensitivity to movement of particular

ground movements and features within the building
interaction with adjacent
Increasing buildings
vulnerability Masonry building with lime mortar No particular sensitive features
not surrounded by other buildings.
0 Uniform facades with no particular
large openings.

Buildings of delicate structural form Brittle finishes, e.g. faience or tight-jointed

or buildings sandwiched between stonework, which are susceptible to small
1 modern framed buildings which are movements and difficult to repair.
much stiffer, perhaps with one or
more significant openings.

Buildings which, by their structural Finishes which if damaged will have a

2 form, will tend to concentrate all significant effect on the heritage of the
their movements in one location. building, e.g. cracks through frescos.

R1246
38/46 (39) HOC/10050/0040
 Mitigation Measures

• General
• Compensation Grouting
• Big Ben Case History

R1246
39/46 (40) HOC/10050/0041
 Mitigation Measures
• Industry best practice during construction,
including comprehensive monitoring
• Good control of the EPBM and good SCL
construction - minimising volume losses
• If ground movements are still excessive, other
measures include strengthening, underpinning,
jacking or compensation grouting

R1246
40/46 (41) HOC/10050/0042
R1246 (42) HOC/10050/0043
R1246 (43) HOC/10050/0044
R1246 (44) HOC/10050/0045
 Big Ben Clock Tower
JLE Westminster Station Under Construction

R1246
42/46 (45) HOC/10050/0046
 Big Ben & Westminster Station (JLEP)

Δ
Tilt =
H

H = 55m

31m

R1246
43/46 (46) HOC/10050/0047
 Big Ben & Westminster Station (JLEP)

R1246
44/46 (47) HOC/10050/0048
 Big Ben & Westminster Station (JLEP)
Plan Layouts of Grout Tube Arrays

Big Ben

R1246
45/46 (48) HOC/10050/0049
 Control of tilt of Big Ben Clock Tower
by compensation grouting
40
Tunnel Progress:
Pilots Enlargements
Tilt of Clock Tower (mm/55m)

WB EB WB EB
30

Construction
20 Control
Range

Grouting Episodes
10

Start of
Grouting

0
Box Excavation
Progress [m]:
9 13 16 22 25 31 35 39

-10
Nov-94 Nov-95 Nov-96 Nov-97 Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-2000

R1246 (49) Optical Plumb HOC/10050/0050

46/46
R1246
47/46 (50) HOC/10050/0051
 Pile-Tunnel Interactions

• Examples for buildings

• Examples for piled bridges

R1246
48/46 (51) HOC/10050/0052
 Crossrail – Kempton Court
• Residential Flats
 Constructed in 1996, Load bearing masonry
 No basement – 4 storeys
 Piled

R1246
49/46 (52) HOC/10050/0053
 Crossrail – Kempton Court
• Bored Piles
o Pile cutting necessary for
EB Tunnel
tunnel enlargement
o Most piles within 4 m of
tunnel crown

~110 - 111 mATD ~+112.0 mATD

Superficial
WB Tunnel Deposits
River Terrace
Gravels
Toe
Levels
o 350 mm Diameter Piles ~ +98.0
16 m length mATD
London Clay
o 10.7m Diameter Platform +92.0
mATD
~+87.5 mATD
Tunnels with 6.3m
diameter Pilot Tunnels

R1246
50/46 (53) HOC/10050/0054
 Crossrail – Kempton Court
Perpendicular Distance from PTE (m)
Displacement (mm)

20 30 40 50 60 Greenfield
0 Section
−10 GF 07
−20
Building o Building settlements very
−30
−40
Section similar to `Greenfield’
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 KC 04
surface settlements
Perpendicular Distance from PTW (m) A A

o Building settlements were

D tolerable

B D
B
A

R1246
51/46 (54) HOC/10050/0055
 Crossrail Whitechapel Station -Swanlea School

R1246
52/46 (55) HOC/10050/0056
 Case Histories – HS1, London (bridges)
• Renwick Road (end-bearing piles in gravel), Jacobsz et
al (2005) South North
15.5m 42m

Railway lines Bridge deck

Made ground
Driven Alluvium, peat
Prop piles
Terrace Gravels

Upline Downline

London Clay

 Driven piles 8m diameter tunnels

 1% Volume Loss
 Piles settled similarly to ‘greenfield’ settlements at pile toe
R1246
53/46 (56) HOC/10050/0057
 Case Histories – HS1, London (bridges)
• A406 Viaduct (friction piles), Jacobsz et al (2005)
North South
Pier 6 Pier 7 Pier 8
38m 38m

Railway lines
Made ground

Terrace Gravels
London Clay

Harwich silt & clay

Bored Lambeth Group
piles
Upnor

Downline Upline
Zone of
influence Thanet Sands

8m diameter tunnels Upper Chalk

 Low Volume Loss ~ 0.3%

 Pile settled similarly to `greenfield’ surface settlements
R1246
54/46 (57) HOC/10050/0058
 Pile-Tunnel Interactions -Conclusions

• On HS1 and Crossrail new tunnels were

successfully constructed beneath and through
existing piles
• The settlement of the buildings and bridges
were acceptable

R1246
55/46 (58) HOC/10050/0059
 Utilities
• Similar to buildings, a risk-based, damage
assessment process will be adopted for key
utilities potentially affected by HS2

• These utility assessments will be undertaken in

full consultation with the utility providers.

• Mitigation and monitoring measures (if

necessary) will be developed with the utility
providers.

R1246
56/46 (59) HOC/10050/0060
 Conclusions
• There is considerable experience in UK from
Crossrail, Jubilee Line Extension, HS1 and many
utility tunnels – very little building damage occurred
• A conservative, internationally recognised
methodology for the assessment of the risk of
damage to buildings is being used
• Proven and effective protective measures are
available - these will ensure that the planned works
can be undertaken without significant settlement
impacts

R1246
57/46 (60) HOC/10050/0061
 References

DoT (2013) IMPACTS OF TUNNELS IN THE UK Non-

technical summary, August 2013

HS2 (2013) - Impacts of tunnels in the UK, May 2013

C3: Ground Settlement

Mair (2009) What’s going on underground? Tunnelling into

the future. Royal Society public lecture (video)
https://royalsociety.org/events/2009/underground-
tunnelling/

R1246
58/46 (61) HOC/10050/0062