Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre Geotechnical Aspects

Proc. Znstn Cio. Engrs, Part 1,1986,80, Dec.
, 1479-1503
9138 GROUP ENGINEERING GROUND
Queen ElizabethI1 Conference Centre:

geotechnical aspects
J. B. BURLAND, DSc(Eng),FEng, FICE, MIStructE*

J. c.KALRA, BSc, MA, MIStructEt
This Paper describes the geotechnical aspects involved in the design and construction of the
Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre, which is located immediately to the south of the
building occupied by the Institution of Civil Engineers in London. The centre is founded
partly on an existing substructure and partly in a three-storey basement, giving rise to
problems of differential settlement and tilt. Methods of assessing these movements and a
comparison with measured movements are presented. The design of the basement raft was
complicated by high local column loads at its perimeter. A novel solution was developed by
making useof stress reducing piles designed to mobilize fully their shaft capacity under
working load. The approach is shown to provide a satisfactory and economic solution and
could find wider use inthe design of piled rafts on clay soils.
Introduction
The Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre is located immediatelyto the south of
the building occupiedby the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) as shownon the
site plan in Fig. 1. The details of its construction are given in a companion paper
by Kalra andWillows' but are summarizedbriefly here.
2. The planning and design of the conference centre wassignificantly influ-
enced by the presence of a massive reinforced concrete substructure occupying the
middle third of the site whichwasused as a telephone exchange and was too
expensive to move. Therefore the buildingwas divided into two blocks: the north
block founded in a new three-storey basement adjacentto the ICE and the south
block founded eccentrically on the existingstructure. Fig. 2 shows a cross-section
through the basement and foundations of the building. The ground beneath the
ICE is retained by means of a diaphragm retaining wall and the north block is
founded on a 2 m thick raft in the base of a 13.65 m deep excavation. A major
feature of the structure is the long spans over the main conference rooms and the
auditorium giving riseto heavy column loadsat afew localized points on theraft.
3. The main geotechnical problems associated with the conference centre were
(a) the assessment of the tilts and settlements of the south block founded on
the existing substructure
Discussion meeting 4.00 p.m., 27 January 1987. Written discussion closes 17 February 1987;
for further details see p. ii.
* Professor of Soil Mechanics, Imperial College of Science and Technology.
7 Superintendent Civil Engineer, Directorate of Civil Engineering Services, Property Services
Agency.
0Crown copyright.
1479
Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Location plan showing existing and new structures and the location of
levelling stations
(b) the design of the foundations of the north block to cater for the high
column loads and togive ground movements that were compatible with
those of the southblock
(c) the design of the retaining walls and associated construction sequence so
as not tocause any damageto the surrounding buildings.
This Paper describes the approach used in tackling these problems and the solu-
tions adopted. Inparticular a novel method is described of controlling the stresses
induced by the high column loadsin the raft by making use of stress reducing piles.
Ground conditions
4. Two previous site investigations, in 1950 and 1963, had shown that the
1480
QUEEN ELIZABETH I1 CONFERENCE CENTRE
ground conditions were reasonably uniform across the site. These gave a suc-
cession of made ground, alluvium, dense sand and gravel overlying London clay
with the groundwater at approximately 97 m SD (site datum, which represents a
level 100 m below the Newlyn Ordnance Datum). Both investigations mentioned
the existence of soft clay at the interface between the sandygravel and theLondon
clay which was a matter of concern both for the stability of any retaining structure
and the founding conditions for the basement raft.
5. Eight bore holes were sunk using shell and auger methods for the purposeof
obtaining samples. For fiveof the boreholes traditional U100 samples were
obtained. For the other three, samples were obtained by means of thin walled
tubes pushed in by a smooth continuous motionin an effort to obtainthe highest
possible quality of sample. At the time of the investigation (1978) the use of thin
walled sampling tubes in a clay as stiff as the London clay was unusual and
regarded with considerable scepticism. In the event it proved highly successful
with very few losses by tube buckling.
6. Some of the samples obtained by thethin walled tubes were split and
carefully examined and described. Fig. 3 shows a profile for the site. The succession
of strata was much as stated in the two previous site investigations. Careful
inspection and testing of the London clay at its interface with the overlying sand
and gravel showed no signs of softening or weathering. Therefore the sands and
gravels must have been deposited immediately after the erosion of the clay. This
finding contributed significantly to the decision to use primarily a raft foundation
and employ a proppedcantilever diaphragm retaining wall.
7. Two other features of the soil profile were revealed by inspection of the
samples (Fig. 3). Between the approximate levels 77.5 m and 84.5 m SD some fine
silt and sand partings occurred. A similar stratum was found at the nearby House
of Commons car park’ and had a profound influence on the design of that struc-
ture. Below a level of 71 m SD the degree of fissuring of the clay reduces signifi-
cantly and the material becomes significantly more silty with depth.
8. Four Casagrande piezometers were installed at different depths and the
equilibrium water levels are shown alongside the soil profile in Fig. 3. Down to a
level of approximately 84 m SD the groundwater pressures are approximately
hydrostatic. However, below this level the pressures are below hydrostatic due to
underdrainage of the Londonclay.
9. Also plotted in Fig. 3 are the Atterburg limits and the results of unconsoli-
dated undrained triaxial tests on 100 mm diameter samples. The open circles are
for samples obtained with thin walled tubes andthe black circles for U100
samples. The samples obtained with thin walled tubes tended to give lower
strengths and less scatter over the upper levels. A striking feature of the results is
the sharp increase of strength below 71 m SD corresponding to the less fissured
more silty clay. The strength profile is almost identical to the one obtained at the
House of Commons.
10. The chain dotted line shown in Fig. 3 represents the design strength of the
clay mass for the purposeof bearing capacity and undrained stability calculations.
It corresponds to somewhere near the lower limit of the scatter of the result^.^ The
dashed line represents the mean of the laboratory strengths Z and is used in the
calculation of pile shaft friction rf = a?.
Laboratory testing
11. Special oedometer tests were carried out to assess the swelling and com-
148 1
1482
Q U E E N E L I Z A B E T H I1 C O N F E R E N C E C E N T R E
1483
B U R L A N D AND K A L R A
pression properties of the London clay to aid in the analysis of a possible raft
foundation. Oedometer tests do tend to overestimate the compressibility of stiff
clays. Nevertheless the investigation would not havebeen complete without such
tests being carried out. Three types
of test were performed, asfollows.
(a) Standard tests were carried out on U100 samples, in which the initial
vertical effective stress was applied to the specimen before flooding it;
the loadwas then doubledfor each increment.
(b) Swelling pressure tests, on samples obtained by thin walled tubes, were
carried out, inwhich swelling of the sample after flooding was prevent-
ed by adding weights to the hanger. Once equilibrium had been reached
the pressure was increased in increments of 0.50:~ to 4 4 , where , a is
:
the vertical effective overburdenpressure.Thepressure was then
decreased in decrements of 1 X , a .
:
(c) Swelling tests were done whereby the specimenswere set up at a pressure
of 20:~.The load was decreased in decrements of 0.50:~to a:,/2, then
increased again. Samples obtained by thin walled tubes were used.
12. For the threetypes of test the coefficient of compressibility m, did not vary
significantly with stress level for stresses varying by lessthan a factor of about two.
As the foundation movements were to be carried out in terms of elastic theory and
as the effective Poisson's ratio is known to be small, the values of m, were con-
verted to equivalent values of the vertical effective Young's modulus E: using the
expression E: = l/mv. The values of E" derived from the various loading and
unloading cycles in the oedometer tests are plotted in Fig. 4. Generally the values
of E: for unloading are greater thanfor loading but thedifferences are notlarge.
13. At the time that the laboratory testingwas under way the use of a tie-back
retaining wallwas beingconsidered.The stability of such a wallis critically
dependent on the passive resistance at the toe of the wall. Hence a programme of
consolidated drained and undrained triaxial tests was carried out to investigate
the lowstress effective strength parametersin the shallowpassive region in frontof
the wall. The samples were all taken from thetop 5 metres of the clay.
14. The results of the triaxial tests are plotted in Fig. 5. Before a test, each
sample was allowed to swell back to the appropriate effective confining pressure
from the well defined initial conditions for which a , lay within the range 162
:
kN/mZ to195 kN/m*. Theeffective stress paths for the undrained tests are plotted
in Fig. 5 with peak deviator stress depicted by black circles. The failure points for
the drained tests are shown as open circles. The drained and undrained strengths
are inclose agreement with each other.
15. It is unusual to carry out shear tests at such low confining pressures on
samples from a limited range of depth. It is evident from Fig. 5 that the failure
envelope is curved and gives 4' = 35" for confining pressuresless than 100 kN/m2.
It is notable that the cohesion interceptis zero. At higher confining pressures the
failure envelope flattens as the stresses approach the value of ato. For values of
confining pressure in excess of a:, a more familiar value of q!J' = 22" is obtained.
The high values of q!J' at low confining pressures could havebeen of considerable
benefit in the design of a tie-back retainingwall had it been decided to use one.
16. The undrained triaxial tests gave initial values of the pore pressure param-
eter A between 0.3 and 0.68 with a mean value of 0.48. The drained triaxial tests
gave values of effective Poisson's ratio v' between 0.06 and 0.17 with a mean value
0f0.125.
1484
E,‘:MN/m>
20 40
1
X Standard
consolldatlon
test
. } Swell pressure
m
0 Unload
Load test
A hr&ad) Seylllng/reload
X SD = Newlyn OD - 100-00 m
Fig. 4. Values of effective Young’s modulusfrom oedometer tests
Ground stiffness parameters

17. Two types of finite element analysis were carried out for the design of the
foundations. The first was to evaluate the short and long-term movements of the
foundations and, in particular, thedifferential movements between the raft and the
telephone exchange. The second was a finite element analysis of the raft to evalu-
ate the bending moments and shear forces. Experience with previous buildings in
London has shown that routine laboratory tests give soil stiffness parameters that
are significantly less than the stiffness valuesderived from the back analysis of field
measurements of movement. In viewof the success of using such field derived
1485
BURLAND AND KALRA
.Range of uv0'
*
Undramed tests
0 Dramed tes:s
(U,' + u2')/2:kN/m2
Fig. 5. Results of consolidated drained and undrained triaxial tests on samplesfrom
between 97 m and 92 m S D
stiffness values at the New Palace Yard car parkit was decided to adopt the same
approach for this project.
18. Figure 6 shows the distribution of undrained Young's modulus E , with
depthderivedfrom sevenfield studiesavailable atthe time. In all cases E ,
increases with depth. It is evident that the cases involving vertical loading give
lower values of E , than for excavation retaining walls for which there are signifi-
cant horizontal stress changes. This result was believed to reflect the anisotropic
properties of the London clay. Curve 3 for the Hyde Park Cavalry Barracks was
adopted as a reasonably conservative design assumption for E , . It is represented
by the equation E , = (10+ 5.22) MN/m* where E , is the undrained Young's
modulus in the vertical direction and z is the depth in metres below the surface of
the clay. The broken line in Fig. 6 represents the horizontal undrained stiffness
given by E , = 1.6 X E , and is seen to be a conservative lower limit to the back
analysed field values for excavations.
19. The finite element analysis of the ground movements was carried out in
terms of effective stress parameters so that the undrained values of E , and v, had
to be expressed in terms of the equivalent effective stress values E' and v'. The
parameters used were
E;' = 7.5 + 3.92 (MN/m2)
EH= 16Ev
v ; ' ~= 0.125
VHH = 0
G,, = 1.44 X E ;
The value of v;, wasobtainedfromthedrained triaxial tests and theshear
modulus in the vertical plane G;', was assumed to be given bythe expression
1486
QUEEN ELIZABETH I1 C O N F E R E N C E C E N T R E
Eu MN/rn2
240 200
40 80
160 120
4-
a-
12-
16-
20 -
24 -
Plate tests
28 - (1) Chelsea (Marsland 1971)
(2) Hendon (Marsland 1971)
Full scale vertical loadlng
(3) Hyde Park (Hooper 1974)
(4) Comrnerclal Union (Green 1972)
32- Full scale excavation
(5) Britannic House (Cole and Burland 1972)
(6) New Palace Yard (Burland and Hancock 1977)
(7) YMCA (S1John 1975)
Fig. 6. Values of undrained Young's modulus deduced from various sites in London
which holds for an anisotropic elastic material but is not necessarily valid for an
anisotropic material. It can be shown that the aboveparameters give a value of the
pore pressure parameter A = 0.42 which is in reasonable agreement with the mean
of the laboratory determined values given in 8 16. It should be noted that the
values of E; used in the analysis are about three times larger than those derived
from the oedometer tests.
Analysis of foundation movements

20. An assessment of the foundation movements was carried out by means of a
finite element analysis using eight noded isoparametric elements assuming plane
strain conditions. The Woolwich and Reading beds underlie the London clay at a
1487
BURLAND AND KALRA
depth of 35 m at thesite and it was assumed that a rigid boundary existed atthis
level. Vertical rigid boundaries were inserted approximately 160 m away from the
northern and southern edges of the site.
21. Figure 7 shows a schematic north/south cross-section through the founda-
tions and subsoil with the loading conditions. For the purposes of analysis the
formation levels of the existing telephone exchange and the new raft foundation
were assumed to be the same. During excavation thestress removed from the raft
formation level is 262 kN/mZ. On completion of excavation a 2.0 m raft is cast.
During subsequent construction, loads are applied to the basement raft and the
existing telephone exchange.The equivalent loadings assumedfor the analysisare
shown in Fig. 7. They vary linearly across the raft and are uniform over a portion
of the telephone exchange.It can be seen that at the northernend of the raft there
is a net unloadingof 81 kN/m* whereas at the southern end there is a net increase
of load of 27 kN/m2. Theclay was assumed to have reached equilibriumafter the
construction of thetelephoneexchange. The analysisinvolvedthreestages:
undrained excavation removing262 kN/m2, emplacementof a 2.0 m thickraft and
application of structuralloadswithoutdrainage-short-termconditions,and
allowing theexcess pore pressure set up by stages 1 and 2 todissipate allowingfull
drainage to take placelong-term conditions.
22. Figure 8 shows the predictedvertical movements of the ground surface due
to each of the threestages. During excavation the formation level of the raft (before
its construction) was predicted to heave approximately40 mm and the ICEbuild-
ing was predicted to settle a maximumof about 12 mm. During construction of the
superstructure the raft was predicted to settle a maximum of 26 mm and tilt
slightly to the south. The existing telephone exchange was predicted to tilt 1 in
2000 to the north. Itwas recognized that thesagging of the raft was exaggerated as
considerable stiffness would be added during construction of the superstructure.
This would also tend to reduce the maximum settlement. During stage 3 (long-
term consolidation and swelling) the raft and the telephone exchange were both
predicted to tilt towards each other by about 1 in 600 giving an angular con-
vergence of 1in 300.
289 kN/m2
181 kN/m2
1
C l i l l l ~ i l 4~ - 1/
164 kN/m2
Existing
telephone
E',
E,'
+
7.5 3.9 z M N/m2
=
1.6 E,'
=
uvH' = 0.125
35 m I London clay
YHH' = 0
G,, = 0-444 E,
L
Woolwich and
Reading beds
Fig. 7. N-S cross-section showing loadings and stiflness properties
1488
23. As a result of thesecalculations itwas concludedthatthe differential
settlements and distortions inducedin the ICE building would be negligible. The
tilting of the raft and telephone exchange could be tolerated butit was decided to
separate the north and south blocks by articulated slabs which would be placed
towards the endof construction. Movement joints were designed so as to accom-
modate the predicted long-term convergence differential
and settlement of the two
blocks.
- North
I l
- 40-
/
/
.---
. \
I
\
!
-20-
0 I \
l
T.
20- (a)
Fig. 8. Predicted ground surface displacements for three stages of construction: ( a )

excavation: ( b ) during construction: ( c ) long-term
1489
BURLAND AND K A L R A
1490
Design ofraft foundation
24. Figure 9 shows a plan of the lower basement area with the location of the
principal columns and the loads transmitted by them. Over half of the total load
on the foundations within the lower basement area is transmitted through these
columns. Preliminary hand calculations had shown that a 2.00 m thick raft would
satisfy most of the structural requirements without presenting major construction
difficulties. However, there was concern about the presence of the five principal
columns along the southern edge of the raft and a heavily loaded one at the
northern edge. It wasfelt that these columns might induce excessive bending
stresses in the raft as well as local yielding and settlement in the underlying clay.
25. These effectswere purely local and a novel method of dealing with the
problems was evolved. Burland et a1.4 had pointed out that under certain circum-
stances the settlement of raft foundations on clay could be reduced to an accept-
able level by employing relatively few piles whose load carryingcapacity would be
fully mobilized. Such piles were called settlement reducing piles and their use is
confined to conditions in which no significant reductions in load carryingcapacity
occur with settlements inexcess of those required to mobilize fully the shaft
resistance (i.e. ductile settlement characteristics). This concept was adapted at the
conference centre by placing single straight shafted piles directly beneath each of
the five southern columns and onenorthern column. The settlement of the raft was
such that it was known that the shaft capacity of each of the piles would be
mobilized fully (for the base resistance to be mobilized much larger settlements
would be required). In this manner the loadstransferred from the columns into the
raft could be significantly reduced. The piles were designed to be 16 m longand 1.8
m in diameter. The average ultimate shaft friction T~ was calculated from the
expression T~ = U?. Taking U = 045 and ? = 150 kN/mZ (from Fig. 3) gave T~ =
67.5 kN/m2 and the shaft resistance as 6.1 MN. This was sufficient to reduce the
column loads transmittedto the raft by amounts ranging from 25% to 46%.
26. Because of the size of the raft and thecomplexity of loading an analysis of
the bending, shear and contact stresses was carried out by means of a finite
element code known as ‘Rafts, Mk 3, October 1977’.’ For this approach the raft is
modelled by means of rectangular plate elements and thedeflexions of the ground
are derived using elastic half-space theory. The raft was subdivided into 149 ele-
ments and involved 177 nodal points. The effective stress parameters representing
the soil are given in Fig. 7 and the initial and long-term values of E for concrete
were taken as 28 OOO MN/m2 and 14OOO MN/mz respectively with Poisson’s ratio
equal to 0.2 in both cases.
27. Five cases were analysed to cover the range of possible conditions and to
gain a feel for the sensitivity of the stress to changing assumptions. The five cases
are summarized in Table 1. Cases 1 and 2 analysed the final undrained conditions
Table 1. Raft analysis
1 I 1
Undrained Short-term
Undrained
Short-term Stress reducing piles
Drained
i
4
5
Drained
Undrained
Long-term
Short-term
Long-term
70% heave induced
Contact stress > 400 kN/m2
149 1
BURLAND AND KALRA
with and without the presence of stress reducing piles. The presence of the stress
reducing piles was modelled by reducing the appropriate column loads by the load
mobilized by thepiles. Case 3 represented long-term drained conditions.For case
4 an attempt was made to simulate the effects of heave after casting the raft and
beforeloading.This was achieved by superimposingupward stresses overthe
whole raft area sufficient to give rise to about70% of the total predicted long term
heave. For case 5 the influence of local yield of the soil at the southernedge of the
raft was examined by limiting the contact stresses to a maximum of 400 kN/m2.
Cases 1 and 2 were considered to represent the extremesof conditions with case 3
being intermediate. Cases 4 and 5 were felt to be unrealistic but were valuable in
assessing the possible effects of heave andlocal yield.
28. Figures 1qa) and (b)give two examplesof the variations in contact stresses
and orthogonal bending moments at critical locations on the raft (MNsand M,,
are
the
bendingmoments in the north-south and east-west directions
respectively). It can be seen thatthepresence of the stress reducing piles
(represented by case 2) isveryeffectivein reducing the contact pressures and
bending moments.
29. The quantities of steel in the north-south and east-west directions were
obtained by augmenting the orthogonal bending moments by the associatedtwist-
ing moments and multiplying the results by the appropriate partial safety factors
yr as stipulated in CP110. Over most of the raft the severest moments given by
cases 1 and 2 wereused. However, along the south side of the raft the stress
reducing pileswere assumed to be 50% effectiveinrelieving the characteristic
bendingmoments. For cases1 and 2 a value of yr = 1.5 wasused. Ina few
locations, where the unfactored moments for the conservative cases4 and 5 were
found to be higher than the factored moments forcases 1 and 2, the former values
were used for design.
30. The main reinforcement for the raft weighs about 580 t and consists of 40
mm and 32 mm hot rolled steel bars. Two examplesof the distributionof steel are
shown in Fig. 11. Shearreinforcement was required around eightprincipal
columns. Grade 30 concrete was used and, to slow down the rate of heat gener-
ation, 70% of the cementwas replaced by granulated blastfurnaceslag.
31. To relieve the groundwater pressures beneath the raft, and to minimize
softeningimmediatelyfollowingexcavation,a 300mm thicklayer of no-fines
concrete was laid on a permeable geotextile membranewhich was spread over the
clay immediately the formation level was reached. The system drains off to three
sumps equippedwith self priming pumps.A 100 mm thick blinding courseover the
no-fines concrete formed the base of the raft.
Construction aspects
32. Diaphragm retaining walls. The top-down method of construction adopted
for the basement is described in a companion paper by Kalra and Willows.' The
diaphragmretaining walls,used to supportthe sides of theexcavation, were
installed from the general groundlevel of 104.00 SD. The depthof penetration was
fixed by simple stability calculations employing the operational strength given in
Fig. 3. Simple bearing capacityand slip circle analyses gave factors of safety of 1.45
and 1.61 respectively. Along the boundarywith the ICE building an 800 mm thick
wall was cast in 1.8 m long panels.Elsewhere, where the surcharge pressureswere
lower and there was less risk of damage, a 600 mm thick wall with 3.2 m long
panels was adopted.
1492
33. Piles. During the excavation phase the floors were supported on tempo-
rary steel stanchions founded on short straight shafted or underreamed piles
which functioned as temporary footings. While underreaming the piles, difficulties
were experienced with two of them (P11 and P12 in Fig. 9) due to caving. The
decision was taken on site to convert the two piles into 16 m long straight shafted
piles. This action created a local hard spot in the raft. The caving is thought to
have been due toforming the bells at a shallow depth beneath the overlying gravel
in highly fissured clay. The problem could probably have been avoided by increas-
ing the depthof the piles bya few metres.
34. Raft. To limit and control ground movements around the site a very strict
sequence of excavation and supportwas imposed. These had a considerable influ-
ence on thedesign of certain structural details. Although the contractor was given
an opportunityto submitalternativeproposals, in the event he accepted the
procedure laid down by the designers. Excavation to raft level was initially con-
fined to thecentre of the site (see Fig. 12) thereby leaving a supportingberm of clay
around theperimeter. Burland et aL6 have shown that the action of such a berm is
to prevent softening of the clay in front of the toe of the retaining wall.
35. Only after the raft had been constructed over thecentralarea of the
basement did excavation around the perimeter begin. This took place in a care-
fully phased and timed sequence. A short length (between 5 and 8 m long) of the
perimeter berm was excavated and the exposed wall was immediately propped
from the central part of the raft as shown in section A-A in Fig. 12. A section of the
raft was then cast and the struts were removed 24 hours after completion of
concreting. The sequence was repeated until the whole raft had been completed.
(The excavation to raft formation level was followedwithin hours by the laying of
a geotextile membrane and the placing of no-fines concrete and the blinding. Each
raft section was completed within 14 days after laying the blinding. Concurrent
working in non-adjacent sections was permitted in some cases).
36. Originally the temporary struts were intended to bear on concrete thrust
blocks cast on top of the raft and cut away when no longer required. However, the
contractor conceived the idea of using steel uprights as thrust blocks which would
be dropped into pockets cast into the raft. The idea was developed and the details
shown in Fig. 12 were adopted. The design loads transmitted through the struts
amounted to 602 kN/m and 348 kN/m for the 800 mm and 600 mm walls respec-
tively. The struts were pre-loaded by wedges and flat jacks.
37. Inclinometers were installed in the 800 mm diaphragm wall and indicated a
maximum inward displacement of 8.6 mm which was considered entirely satisfac-
tory. A drainage channel is provided around the edges of the top of the raft to
intercept any water seeping throughthe walls. To date no seepage has been
apparent.
Observed ground movements

38. A number of levelling points were established on the buildings surround-
ing the site and in particular on the ICE building. Six points (51R to 56R) were
installed on the existing substructure at the locations shown in Fig. 1. Within the
initial excavation no measurements could be made of the heave of the formation
level. However, after excavation down to reduced levels and the installation of
piles and theassociated columns, levelling stations were fixed on the first floor slab
cast at 100.78 SD. The locations of these levelling stations (M1 to M10) are shown
in Fig. 9. The maindatum for levelling wasestablished on the base of the Abraham
1493
BURLAND AND KALRA
r
7I
l
I
II
Il
I l1
P
I
l
I
I
I
I
>+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F+
/
I
;p
I
I,
m
U
I
I 1I
I
l
l
1
b
I /
I
I
0 0 0
0 0 0
" - ( D
1494
* 0 -
1495
B U R L A N D AND K A L R A
.
.
(a)
0.66%
0.50%
0-38%
l 0.25% ll
Fig. 1I. N-S raft reinforcement (percentage of gross CrOSS-SeCtiOnal area) : ( a ) top
of raji: ( b ) botrom of raji
Lincoln statue in Parliament Squarewhich isapprox. 200 m from thesite.

39. The measured uplift of four of the piles during and subsequent to excava-
tion is shown in Fig. 13. Most of the heave occurred during the excavation period.
By the end of 1981 all the piles had been tied into the raft. It can be seen that a
small amount of heave continued during1982 when, followingthe constructionof
the ground floor slab, little activity took place. It is important to note that, before
tying thepiles into theraft, points M5 and M7reflect ground movementat a depth
of 4.5 m below raft formation level whereas points M2 and M6 (which are located
close to the hard spot formed by pile P12 mentioned in 5 33) reflect the ground
movement at a depth of 16.75 m below raft formation level. This explains why
points MS and M7exhibit nearlytwice as muchuplift as point M6. The maximum
recorded heavewas 18.1 mm for M5.
40. Figures 1qa) and (b) show the settlements of the raft and existing tele-
1496
QUEEN ELIZABETH I1 C O N F E R E N C E C E N T R E
phone exchange respectively during construction from first floor to completion.
The maximum settlement was 19.6 mm for M5, giving a net settlement of only 1.5
mm. The maximum differential settlement across the raft was about 10 mm and it
would appear that the two straight shafted piles P11 and P12 in the vicinity of
point M6 (see Fig. 9) created a hard spot.
41. As anticipated the existing substructure underwent significant tilting to the
north (Fig. lqb)). Point 52R settled 20 mm whereas points 54R and 55R only
settled about 4 mm, giving a differential settlement of 16 mm across the structure.
An independent check on point 52R was provided by a vertical shaft immediately
beneath it which connects the substructure to a Post Office tunnel at considerable
depth. The shaft contains a central free standing concrete lift shaft. It proved
possible to measure the movement of the existing substructure relative to the lift
shaft and the results are shown as a broken line in Fig. 14(b). The relative move-
ments between the existing substructure and the lift shaft are less than theabsolute
settlement of point 52R. This may be due to theunderlying tunnel being within the
depth of influence of the foundations.The monitoring showed that the movements
induced in the ICE building were negligible.
Comparison between observed and predicted movements

42. It was not possible to measure the heave of the raft formation level.
However, the measurements made on the piles reflect the ground movements at
their founding levels. Some heave would have taken place before installation of the
piles and this was estimated by scaling in proportion to the relative depth of
excavation. Therefore the predicted heave following pile installation was assumed
to be 0.78 times the total predicted heave. Figs 15(a) and (b) show the predicted
distribution of heave with depth along the centre east-west line of piles and the
southern line of piles respectively.These are compared with the observed heaves at
completion of excavation. It can be seenthat the agreement is excellent.
43. Figure 16 shows a comparison between the predicted and observed settle-
ments of the raft and existing substructures during construction.Within the exca-
vation the observed settlements are less than the predictions. The settlements of
the existing substructure are larger than predicted but the measured tilt is lessthan
predicted. The under-prediction of settlement of the south block is believed to
arise from the diaculties of correctly predicting interaction effects between two
adjacent loaded areasusing linear elasticity. Theoretically, the ground tothe north
of the loaded area of the raft is predicted to heave by about 10 mm (see Fig. 8(b))
and this did not occur. This effect resulted in a suppression of the settlement of the
south block by about the same amount. The result serves to emphasize the difli-
culties of makingaccurate soil-structure interaction calculations even with a
material as widely researched as London clay.
44. In general the agreement between the observed and predicted foundation
movements is good and confirms the validity of the overall design concepts. There
is no reason to believe that the long-term behaviour should not be equally satisfac-
tory.
45. As discussed in 8 24 and 25 a key foundation design decision was to make
use of a few straight shafted piles at critical locations to reduce the stresses in the
raft. It was recognized that in order to fulfil their function, and because of the
settlements imposed on them, the piles would be operating close to or at their
ultimate load carrying capacity. The use of piles as stress or settlement reducers
was first suggested by Burland et a1.4 and this project appears to be the first time a
1497
BURLAND AND KALRA
1498
1499
BURLAND AND KALRA
Fig. IS. Observed heave within basement area during excavation (see Fig. 9 for
location of levelling stations)
deliberate and conscious decision has been taken to use them in this manner. In
view of the novelty of this approach the Building Research Establishment was
invited to instrument one of the piles to measure the magnitudeof the loadcarried
by it. A full description of this important investigation is described by Price and
Wardle in a companion paper.' The measurements show that the shaft capacity of
the piles has indeed been fully mobilized and the load carried by them is within a
few percent of the design value. The longer-term performance of the piles will be of
particular interest. The current trends indicate that the load carried by the piles is
increasing with time.
46. The use of piles as stress or settlement reducers offers the prospects of
considerable savings for piled rafts in clay soils. However, itis importantto
emphasize that their use in this way requires that the load-settlement character-
istics of the piles should be ductile i.e. there should be no significant reduction in
load carrying capacitywith increasing settlement.
Conclusions
47. The two main geotechnical problems encountered in this project were the
assessment of the movements associated with partially founding the super-
structure on an existing substructure and the design of the raft to cope with local
very high column loads.
48. The ground movements were predicted using ground stiffness parameters
derived from measurements on other buildings in London. These parameters give
stiffnesses which are significantly greater than those from high quality sampling
and commercial testing. Settlement observations on the structure show good
agreement with the predictions but emphasize the difficulties of making accurate
soil-structure interaction calculations.
49. A novel method of tackling the high column loads on the raft was devel-
oped by employing stress reducing piles beneath the columns. These piles are
designed to mobilize fully their shaft carrying capacity under working load
1500
1983 1984 1985

Dec, Jan Dec Jan Dec, Jan Dec
O , ~ l l , l l l , , , , , , , ~ l , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , r , , , , , , (
..,.
,..-
M7
"I
16-
20 -
20
~~ ______
Superstructure Flnlshes and servlces
(W
Fig. 14. Observed settlements during construction: ( a ) within basement area (see
Fig. 9 for location of levelling stations): (b) existing substructure (see Fig. 1 for
location of levelling stations)
1501
BURLAND AND KALRA
Heave: mm
7
/i
Predicted
Oo M8, M9, M10
20
Fig. 15. Comparison of predicted and measured heaves during excavation
Telephone exchange
l
Raft
Y///////////A
- 20r
Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted and measured settlements during construction
thereby significantly reducing the magnitude of the loads transmitted to the raft.
The observed behaviour of these piles has proved entirely satisfactory. Wider use
of the method of settlement reducing and stress reducing piles in appropriate
circumstances could result in considerable economies in the design of piled rafts
on clay soils.
1502
Acknowledgements
50. The Authors acknowledge with gratitude the contributions made by Dr D.
Robak to the design of the project and the preparation of this Paper. The finite
element analysis of the ground movements was carried out by Dr D. W. Potts,
Imperial College. Precision surveying was carried out under the direction of the
Central Survey Unit of the PSA. The Paper is published by the permission of R. F.
Hughes, Director of the Directorate of Civil Engineering Development, Property
Services Agency and the Authors are grateful to him for his encouragement in the
preparation of the Paper.
References
1. KALRAJ. C. and WILLOWSK. R. Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre: design and
construction. Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs, Part 1, 1986,80, Dec., 1451-1477.
2. BURLAND J. B. and HANCOCK R. J. R. Underground car park at the House of Commons,
London: Geotechnical aspects. Struct Engr, 1977,55,2,87-100.
3. BURLAND J. B. et al. The behaviour and design of large diameter bored piles in stiff clay.
Symposium on Large Bored Piles, London, 51-71.
4. BURLAND J. B. et al. Behaviour of foundations and structures-state of the art report.
Proc. 9th Int. Conf: Soil Mech., Japanese Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Tokyo, 2,495-546.
5. WOODL.User manualfor rafts (Mark 3, October 1977) 8 Broad Walls, Cranleigh, Surrey
GU6 7LS.
6. BURLAND J. B. et al. Movements around excavations in London clay. Proc. 7th Eur. ConJ
Soil Mech., Brighton, ICE, London, 1977,1,13-29.
7. PRICE G. and WARDLEI. F. Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre: monitoring of load
sharing between piles and raft. Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs, Part 1, 1986, 80, Dec., 1505-
1518.
1503

Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre Geotechnical Aspects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre Geotechnical Aspects

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

Queen Elizabeth I1 Conference Centre Geotechnical Aspects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proc. Znstn Cio. Engrs, Part 1,1986,80, Dec.

Queen ElizabethI1 Conference Centre:

J. B. BURLAND, DSc(Eng),FEng, FICE, MIStructE*

Fig. 4. Values of effective Young’s modulusfrom oedometer tests

Ground stiffness parameters

Analysis of foundation movements

Fig. 8. Predicted ground surface displacements for three stages of construction: ( a )

Table 1. Raft analysis

Observed ground movements

Lincoln statue in Parliament Squarewhich isapprox. 200 m from thesite.

Comparison between observed and predicted movements

1983 1984 1985

Superstructure Flnlshes and servlces

Oo M8, M9, M10

Fig. 15. Comparison of predicted and measured heaves during excavation

Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted and measured settlements during construction

You might also like