1

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER’S SUGGESTED BASEMENT STRUCTURAL METHOD

STATEMENT (SMS) PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING

PROJECT REF: M 18241/LS

55 Huntingdon Street
SUBJECT ADDRESS:
London
N1 1BX
COMMISSIONING
Goran Mickovski
CLIENT:
DATE OF WRITING:
August 2018

This document has been checked by;

Luke Smith BSc (Hons). MSc.

Eur Ing Barry C. Smith BSc C. Eng. MICE FFPWS

www.mintstructures.co.uk
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

1. OVERVIEW 3

2 DESK STUDY 5

3. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 9

4 SUGGESTED STRUCTURAL MONITORING PLAN 12

5. SUGGESTED METHOD STATEMENTS 14

6 CONCLUSION 18

7 REFERENCES 19

8 APPENDICES 20
 3

1. OVERVIEW

ARCHITECT: Peter Brades Architects.

Disclaimer:
The primary details contained within this document are generated from drawings produced
by Peter Brades Architects.
Preliminaries This document is intended for the exclusive usage of the client /s listed above, the report
remains the property of MiNT Structures and must not be reproduced in full or in part or
used by any third party without prior written consent. This method statement is not
intended as an engineering design package and should not be relied on solely for any
construction processes and should be read in conjunction with relevant Structural
Engineering and Architectural packages.

Existing structure:
The subject property is a mid-terrace two-storey house; with brick external walls, assumed
traditional cut roof (tiled) and is located set back from the pavement behind a small
courtyard. A small garden is present to the rear.
The terrace that the subject property is a part of does not date from the same era as
Georgian/Victorian terraces surrounding it, having been constructed at a much later date
th
Summary of Proposed assumed to be around the mid-20 century.
Works
Proposed works:
1. Formation of a single storey basement & front lightwell under the ground floor
and rear garden at the above address.

2. Support of superstructure over to allow RC basement wall construction and

ground floor slab installation.

 External walls are cavity walls, supported on strip footings.

 Internal walls at ground floor level are solid masonry.

Assumptions made at  Ground & upper floors are of suspended timber construction.
time of writing
 Property currently remains mainly unchanged structurally from its original form with
any changes/repairs being in line with a property of its age.

 Reinforced concrete (RC) basement walls to be formed in one phase enabling the full
required basement depth to be achieved.

 Two rows of horizontal props will be required to all full height underpins spanning
across the whole site. Props should remain in place until the basement and any
Fundamental
Construction Areas ground floor slabs have been fully constructed and have sufficiently cured providing
permanent lateral restraint to the new RC retaining walls.

 All underpins and retained earth requires temporary works and shuttering during
excavation and casting until slabs are cast.

www.mintstructures.co.uk
 Position of site
(approx.)

Site Location

Fig.1 - Site map (Image from Google Maps, Copyright 2018).

The content of this document should be read in conjunction with temporary works drawing
set TW1-TW2 and the permanent works structural engineer’s package along with any other
relevant drawings/ details.
The purpose of this package is to provide a method statement and suggested construction
sequence to enable the required elements of temporary works to be installed thus allowing

Scope of document the construction of the permanent works to be carried out.

It should be noted that all temporary works drawings are indicative only and are not
intended as detailed construction drawings therefore all specific construction details should
be provided by the structural engineer or other relevant parties. Construction sequences are
illustrative only and should not be relied on to provide specific construction arrangements
or any dimensions; these should be specified by others and confirmed on site.

 Buildings of the age of the property in question have often reached equilibrium with
their surroundings. The superstructure slowly deforms with time during its life to
accommodate any minor settlements and therefore some work is likely to have been
carried out in the past and additional repairs may be necessary as a result of the
proposed works.

General Comments  Any modifications to the existing property should be investigated with local opening
up works to assess their potential impact on the proposed scheme.

 The contractor is responsible for the design and correct installation of all temporary
works required to safely install the proposed basement and any other affiliated works.
The contractor is to ensure that all excavations, any new structure and any
neighbouring structures are adequately supported for the full duration of the works.
 2 DESK STUDY

The 1:50000 Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) covering the area (Sheet 256,
‘North London’, Solid and Drift Edition) indicates the site is underlain by the London Clay
Formation close to a head propensity band.

Position of site
(approx.)

Geological
information

Fig.7 - Taken from BGS.ac.uk (BGS, 2018).

 Head propensity (if present) is a stratum consisting of geologically recent head deposits.
 The London Clay formation typically comprises clay, silt and sand with occasional
gypsum crystals and claystone at depth. At the site location the London Clay is likely to
be approximately 70-100m thick.
 Deeper bedrock stratum is beyond the scope of this report.
 A desk study of historic boreholes was carried out using the BGS archives, the results of which are
summarized below. See Appendix for records of boreholes.

Strata Depth to top of Depth to base

strata (mbgl) of strata
(mbgl)

Made Ground 0.00 1.50

Brown Clay Member 1.50 10.00

Existing site
investigation
Blue Clay Member 10.00 (Continuing)
data 
Groundwater was not encountered in the historical borehole holes. It should be noted that the
speed of excavation involved in borehole investigation means that there is the possibly that there
was insufficient time for seepages of groundwater to enter the boreholes and water was hence
undetected; this is particularly the case in cohesive soils.

It should also be noted that isolated pockets of perched groundwater may be present within
material of low permeability found at shallow depths (especially within bands of Made Ground).
It is recommended that prior to any construction, as a minimum, monitoring standpipes are
placed on site to measure groundwater levels over an extended period of 4-6 weeks. (It is also
recommended that the water levels at these monitoring points are periodically measured
immediately prior to, and during construction. This will help to ensure correct measures are taken
if water is likely to be encountered during excavation.)

At the time of writing, soil analysis results are not available with regard to chemical attack on
Chemical attack below ground concrete structures. Therefore we have assumed basic precautions based on
on buried previous experience. Within the London Clay layer there is a good chance segregations of gypsum
concrete
will be present which may attack buried concrete. As a result of this we would recommend that
buried concrete is designed in accordance with full Class DS-2 conditions.

Rainfall and run-off

The rainfall in the local area averages around 610mm which is a significantly lower level than the
national average which sits at approximately 900mm (See appendix for data extracted from
Regional Climate of the British Isles, Mayes (1997)).
Evapotranspiration is typically 330mm/year (see Fig.8 below) resulting in 280mm/year net
hydrologically effective rainfall available for infiltration into the ground or to act as surface run-
off.

Hydrology and
drainage

Fig.8 – Average annual evapotranspiration measured by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging

Spectroradiometer (MODIS) -NTSG, University of Montana.
The area in the immediate vicinity around the site is highly developed covered with a large
proportion of hardstanding. Therefore most of the rainfall in the area will run-off hard surface
areas and be collected by the local sewers.

Flood Risk
According to the EA flood map for planning, the site is situated in Flood Zone 1 meaning it is of
low risk from flooding, the extracted EA image below shows the proximity of the site to local
areas of likely flooding. The specific risks from flooding are then further analysed in the following
pages.

Fig.9 – Showing flood zone according to the Environment Agency (2018).

River or Tidal flooding

The site is not located within an area at risk of flooding from rivers (very low risk) according to
the EA flood warning information service (See below).

Fig.10 – Showing flood risk from local river flooding according to the EA (2018).
Very low risk means that each year this area has a chance of flooding of less than 0.1%. This
takes into account the effect of any flood defences in the area. These defences reduce but do not
completely stop the chance of flooding as they can be overtopped, or fail.

Surface water flooding

The site is again located in an area of low risk of flooding from surface water (see below).

Fig.11 – Showing flood risk from surface water flooding according to the EA (2018).

Subbasement groundwater flow.

Groundwater movement around this type of proposed structure is cited in the Camden Geological,
Hydrogeological and Hydrological Study which states that large excavations for subterranean
structures in London have to date not been seen to cause serious problems resulting from
damming groundwater. Therefore the proposed basement is not considered at risk of significantly
affecting the flow of water in the area local to the site.

Effect of development on local sewerage/surface water systems

The current sewerage system serving the property in its existing condition is assumed to have
sufficient capacity to manage any proposed foul water demands as little flow or volume change is
expected.

It should be noted that this is a pre-planning report and therefore specific drainage details are
not available at the time of writing. It can be safely assumed, however, that the drainage system
serving the new basement will utilize a pumped drainage arrangement, incorporating fail-safe
systems to minimize risks of flooding.
 3. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION

Basement walls
Basement walls are to be formed in reinforced concrete following the underpinning sequence shown (see fig 3). In the
permanent case the RC walls will support any load applied from the structure over as well as resisting the retaining
soil, surcharging & any water present behind them (see fig 2).

Fig .2 - Typical RC wall section. Fig .3 - Typical underpinning sequence.

Heave protection
The removal of excavated soil to form the basement will significantly reduce the loading on the deep clay layer likely
present below the property creating the possibility of heave occurring. Therefore heave protection to the slab is
recommended to avoid cracking within the basement slab (see fig 4.)

Fig .4 – Typical suggested slab make up with heave protection.

 Concrete used in underpinning/slabs
(Details below to be confirmed by appointed structural design engineer)
2
Mix designation: RC 40 Aggregate size: 20mm Cube strength: 40N/mm

Notes:
1. Unless otherwise instructed a 50mm thick blinding layer should be provided beneath all
reinforced concrete to provide a clean level surface and avoid pouring directly on to
Materials
ground/hard core.
2. High Alumina Cement (HAC) should not be used under any circumstances.

Concrete cover
All cover should adhere to minimum values specified by the Eurocodes (BS EN 1992-1-
1:2004).
It is recommended that: Concrete internal cover = 35mm
Concrete external cover = 50mm
Direct contact with ground = 75mm

A specialist designed waterproofing system will be required to give the correct level of
protection against the ingress of groundwater, the detailed design and specification of
measures of this type however are beyond the remit of this report. It is advised that a
Waterproofing
waterproofing specialist is contacted early on in the design process and that as a minimum
the final waterproofing system complies with BS8102:2009 - Code of practice for protection
of below ground structures against water from the ground.

2
Allowable GBP @ ground level = 100kN/m (Granular soil type TBC)
Allowable GBP @ formation level:
Ground Bearing
pressure Allow for enhancement of 25% to account for excavated soil mass;

Enhanced GBP @ formation level = (say) 125kN/m

2

When mass excavation is carried out a certain degree of upward movement results in the
base of the excavation. This occurs due to the unloading associated with the removal of
the excavated spoil the soil recovery is considered in two parts.

Heave which results from the “elastic rebound” of the soil and is often seen predominantly
during construction.
Ground movement
Swell which results from a change in pore water absorption as the formation level strata
adjusts to the new stress conditions.

The site is underlain by a London Clay Formation which has a propensity for high levels of
shrinkage and swelling in relation to variances in moisture content, this is detailed by the
NHBC Standards, Chapter 4.2 (2010).
 The actual amount of upward movement will depend on a combination of factors and as a
result is difficult to accurately predict, however to protect against these movements, floor
slabs should be fully suspended and cast over heave protection.
Any foundations that are required to be cast at shallow depths, within the zone of
influence of trees as specified by the NHBC, should adhere to the guidance given in the
aforementioned chapter NHBC Standards 4.2.

Mass excavations associated with the construction of basements increase potential that a
development will cause ground movement in the local area if the construction processes
are not managed correctly. However these movements can be mitigated with experienced
and proper design processes adhering to the relevant codes of practice. The design of both
the temporary works and permanent works must be carried out by a suitably qualified, and
crucially, experienced team of engineers, architects, designers and other specialists working
closely to ensure that as far as is practically possible the proposed scheme has any possible
weaknesses, where movements may occur, designed out.

As mentioned previously this report is a pre-planning document written prior to detailed

Differing site/
technical analysis being carried out, therefore a ground movement assessment is not
neighbouring
currently available. However providing the construction process is carried out with good
foundation depths.
workmanship and following well engineered construction sequences using engineer
designed temporary excavation support (alongside an approved groundwater management
plan) the proposed basement construction is unlikely to cause significant damage to the
surrounding structures.

The appended calculation shows that we currently assess the CIRIA C580 Damage Category
to be 2 (Slight).

A monitoring plan should be set out at the design stage, however an indicative suggested
plan is included in the next section (this is not for any on-site purposes and all monitoring
must be carried out by a specialist company to their own method statements).
The resistance of the existing and surrounding buildings is defined in BS 4866:2010 in
Annex B and the subject and neighbouring buildings fall in Group 1 in clause B.4.1
(traditionally built) - “Generally, this group is of heavy unframed construction and has a
very high damping coefficient due, for example, to soft lime mortar or plaster”.
The foundations for the subject and neighbouring buildings are assumed to fall into Class
C in clause B.5.3 (Strip footing).
The soil type from drift maps and historical boreholes is London clay, therefore according
clause B6 the soil is classified as type e – “soft cohesive soils (clays)”.
Resistance to vibration
According to table B.1 the subject and neighbouring buildings can be classed as Category 6
which indicates a medium to high resistance to vibration.
According to Table B.2 the resistance to vibration can be categorised as class 10, which
indicates a medium to high level resistance to vibration which require minor protective
measures against vibration. The method of construction detailed with the construction
method statement, coupled with the the contractors own method statements for Noise,
Dust and Vibration mitigation will protect the neighbouring buildings from the effects of
vibration during construction.
The proposed works are subject to the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and it is therefore advised
that the client starts the process/instructs a surveyor as early as possible to ensure that the
necessary party wall awards are in place before work commences.
Party Walls
(For further advice on the party wall process please contact the MiNT Structures party wall
department.)
 4 SUGGESTED STRUCTURAL MONITORING PLAN

The following suggested monitoring method statement is intended as a purely indicative

guidance document to establish a recommended 'base' monitoring level. All details
contained with the following pages must be confirmed by a specialist monitoring
contractor and are based on what MiNT Structures, as structural engineers consider
advisable procedures to minimise damage caused as a result of the proposed construction
Preliminaries activities. The monitoring specialist/principal contractor may choose to produce an
alternative method of monitoring for specific activities; specifications by the
contractor/specialist will supersede/overrule the indicative content of this document.
This statement should not be taken as the final monitoring specification and MiNT
Structures can accept no liability for any damage caused as a result of deficiencies in
monitoring specifications/methods undertaken.
It is proposed to install a retrofit basement at the above address, using non-sequential
underpinning to form perimeter basement walls linked at basement founding level with an
SCOPE OF WORKS in-situ cast RC base slab. These works have the potential to cause damage through ground
movement or construction related vibrations therefore monitoring is required to attenuate
this risk.
Monitoring should be carried out during construction to aid in ensuring that any movement
caused by the proposed construction is not excessive and also to act as a warning indicator
to help mitigate damage.
It is advised that the final monitoring plan includes the following:
• Production of schedules of condition at the neighbouring properties at the
beginning (prior to commencement) and end of the works, carried out by a
REQUIRED LEVEL OF relevant Party Wall representative.
MONITORING
• Exposure of perimeter existing footings through the digging of trial pits to
confirm foundation condition and that any bearing width assumptions made at
design stage are appropriate.
• Regular visual inspections of walls being underpinned.
• Vertical monitoring measurements.
• Lateral monitoring measurements.
- GENERAL VISUAL MONITORING OF THE PARTY WALLS
- CRACKING TO PARTY WALL MASONRY – ATTACH DEMEC PINS/TELL-TAILS TO RECORD OF
SIGNIFICANT CRACKING.
- SETTLEMENT MONITORING – AUTOMATIC LEVELLING EQUIPMENT AND TARGETS.
- LATERAL MONITORING – MEASURING OF DISTANCES BETWEEN EXTERNAL WALLS VIA
TARGETS/LASER MEASURING TO RECORD ANY RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WALL
FACES.
General notes:
METHODS OF 1. The number and positioning of levelling equipment will likely be required to change
MONITORING during construction, this should be agreed between contractor and motioning specialist
as work progresses.
2. It should be ensured that throughout construction all required monitoring can be
accomplished with ease.
3. Levelling equipment and targets should be protected against damage and clearly marked
on site.
4. Any monitoring equipment damaged during site works should be reported to the
monitoring specialist and replaced immediately.
5. All readings should be regularly distributed to the design team and should be presented
in a neat and easily comprehensible manner. A summary of readings should be
distributed within 2 working days following observations.
 1. The contractor must take responsibility for ensuring that all site working practices are
planned to minimise settlement as far as practically possible, this should also involve
ongoing review of working methods to mitigate progressive damage if settlement is
recorded.
PRINCIPAL
2. The contractor must also take responsibility for execution of immediate reparation works
CONTRACTOR
if required following settlement readings over specified trigger levels (see trigger values
RESPONSIBILITIES
below).
3. The contractor should review all monitoring readings with the monitoring specialist prior
to distribution to the design team and check all readings are accurate.

A ‘traffic light’ system should be adopted with the use of Green, Amber and Red trigger
levels as follows;
GREEN (0-5mm) – Activities OK to proceed.
AMBER (5-10mm) – Increase the monitoring frequently (minimum twice weekly),
review of structural scheme and start implementing contingency
measures if trends indicate the Red trigger may shortly be
reached. [Showing recorded values are close to maximum
projected settlement (say max. 80% of predicted settlement)]
RED (>10mm) - Implement measures to secure site, cease movements and stop
all construction works. [Showing recorded values are at, or above
tolerable levels, exceeding serviceability limit states.]
TRIGGER VALUES
Where maximum movements are recorded exceeding Amber/Red trigger values these
should immediately be reported to the design team along with a description of all recent
on- site activities. A review of the results should be undertaken and readings re-checked to
confirm their accuracy, the design team should not assess the movement focussing solely
on the affected areas but also review the site as a whole, checking for non-proximate
contributory factors. Appropriate repair specifications and reviews of working practices
should be specified and implemented to minimise risk of progressive settlement.
NOTE: The trigger levels suggested within this document are indicative only. Final
movement levels must adhere to Local Authority guidelines and these should be obtained
before confirmation of final trigger values.

Precise locations for levelling targets should be prescribed by the monitoring specialist
however the following guideline is suggested;
As stated in the BRE digest 386 – Monitoring building and ground movement by precise
levelling - a minimum of 8-12 target locations should be installed around the whole site to
TARGET LOCATIONS
provide Northing, Eastings and Level measurements to an accuracy of ±0.3mm (It is
recommended that targets are installed at each storey height). Consideration should also
be given to the provision of monitoring locations on neighbouring structures (provisions of
this type TBC by monitoring specialist and relevant party wall representative).
• PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION MONITORING READINGS SHOULD BE
CARRIED OUT ONCE TO ESTABLISH A SET OF CONTROL VALUES.

• AS SOON AS BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES MONITORING SHOULD BE CARRIED

OUT, READINGS SHOULD BE TAKEN FOLLOWING THE CURING OF EACH OF THE FIRST FIVE
PINS POURED. IF LEVELS OF OBSERVED SETTLEMENT ARE WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
MONITORING
FREQUENCY FOLLOWING THE FIRST FIVE PINS, MONITORING FREQUENCY CAN BE REDUCED TO TAKING
READINGS FOLLOWING CASTING OF EVERY OTHER PIN.

• POST-CONSTRUCTION- FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ALL WORKS MONITORING SHOULD BE

TAKEN TWICE AS A MINIMUM.

Note: Final monitoring intervals and levels of pre- & post-construction readings must be
confirmed by the specialist monitoring contractor.
 5. SUGGESTED METHOD STATEMENTS

1. BASEMENT UNDERPINNING

1.1. Remove existing timber floor.

1.2. Hand excavate pins in sections not exceeding 1.0m following numbered sequence provided in temporary
works drawing package. (Typical number sequence shall be 1, 3, 5, 2, 4) under no circumstances are
adjacent pins to be opened during construction.

1.3. During excavations ensure vertical faces are shored at all times using 18mm ply, timber wailing pieces
and horizontal strutting. The exposed face of the excavation should be lined with ‘Hardie Backer 500’
cement board trench sheeting or similar permanent sacrificial shuttering with de-bonding membrane
installed to the inside face of trench sheets prior to concreting.

1.4. Reinforcement should be placed in position in preparation for casting the underpinning base, starter bars
should be provided to enable a connection between the base and the vertical stem to be formed.

1.5. Local authority building control officer or appointed inspector to inspect and pass reinforcement prior to
concreting base section.

1.6. Pour concrete base and kicker sections to structural engineer’s details. Use vibrating pokers to ensure full
compaction of concrete and removal of trapped air pockets within forms.

1.7. Once base has sufficiently cured (min 24 hours) place reinforcement to vertical stem including horizontal
dowel link bars to neighbouring pins (horizontal dowels to structural engineers specification).

1.8. Formwork to be secured with heavy timbers and “Leada Acrow” or similar trench props supported off of
the central earth mass to retain the concrete during pouring. Leave 75mm clearance between top of
concrete pour and underside of existing foundation.

1.9. Pour concrete stem section to structural engineer’s details, use vibrating pokers to ensure full compaction
of concrete within forms.

1.10. Allow 48 hours curing time between concrete pour and installation of dry pack. Clean underside of
existing foundation using wire brush or similar in preparation for installation of dry pack.

1.11. Use 1:3 dry pack well rammed into position between head of pin and underside of existing foundation
(Dry pack to be installed after each individual pin has been cured see point 2.1 regarding corbel removal.)

1.12. Strike formwork following lapsing of sufficient curing period (normally approximately 7 days)

1.13. Underpinning is to continue according to sequence specified in temporary works drawing package
following previously described method.
 1.14. Central earth mass is to be retained to enable local shoring of pins and trenches as underpinning
progresses.

1.15. Following completion of all underpinning the central soil mass can be excavated in stages to allow
installation of high level lateral “Mabey Mass 50” or similar engineer approved props in accordance with
propping plan (Drwg TW1).

1.16. The remaining central soil mass can now be removed and a second row of lateral props can be installed
rd
to restrain the lower 3 of the pins.

1.17. Excavate for reinforced concrete basement slab ensuring lateral propping remains in place at all times.

1.18. Compact base of slab excavation and place reinforcing bars to structural engineer’s specification.

1.19. Cast basement slab to structural engineer’s details using vibrating pokers to ensure full coverage of
concrete and removal of trapped air pockets.

1.20. Once basement slab has sufficiently cured (min 14 days) the remaining propping can be removed.

2. REMOVAL OF BRICK CORBELS

Upon completion of underpinning and sufficient curing of dry packing has been allowed, the existing brick corbel
foundation projection can be removed using hand tools to leave the wall over flush with the face of the RC
underpinning. Care should be taken when removing the corbel to avoid causing undue damage. Where brickwork
is in poor condition it should be carefully made good in small increments.
3. STEPPING OF BASEMENT FLOOR LEVELS

The below sequence specifies a suggested method of slab installation where steps in the basement floor level are
required. Construction details should be specified in, and installed in accordance with, the structural engineer’s
package.

5.1. Once underpinning is complete excavate central dumpling in stages down to formation level of higher
level slab installing propping as excavation progresses.

5.2. Place reinforcement for upper slab to structural engineer’s specification and drive starter bars for step at
slab edge ready for connection with step wall section and lower slab (see fig 5).

5.3. Once slab has had sufficient curing time (min 48 hours), excavate down to lower slab formation level.

5.4. Place reinforcement for lower slab and RC step to structural engineer’s specification.

5.5. Cast lower slab and step wall section and allow adequate curing time (48hours) before removing any slab
formwork. (Horizontal propping of walls across site to remain in place for min 14 days until slab has had
sufficient curing time).

Fig 5. – Typical RC slab step section

4. INSTALLATION OF STEEL BEAMS/FRAMES

The method described below is a typical generic steel beam/frame installation; full requirements for shoring of
superstructure should be assessed on site at the start of the project through opening up and inspection of
existing structure
Prior to any underpinning or steel work installation the contractor may also carry out the following works:

 Carry out a verticality survey to check plumb of walls.

 Provide bracing to openings including doors and windows with timber constructed frames.

Where frames are to be installed and supported at basement level, pin sections supporting columns/beams
should be excavated and cast first prior to any steel installation being carried out.

Connection details, splices and base plates to be installed in accordance with structural engineer’s specification.

Installation Method
6.1. First install securely diagonally braced “Leada Acrow” propping placed either side of the wall requiring
support, props should be sited on paving slabs bearing on well consolidated ground throughout.

6.2. Install 152x152x30UC needle beams at high level spanning between the Acrow dead shoring to provide
support to the brickwork over and enable removal of masonry panel below.

6.3. Once needling/propping is positioned and tightened brickwork below can be carefully removed by hand.

6.4. Where permanent steel framework is specified members needed to transfer loads in to RC pins should be
installed in accordance with structural engineer’s details to provide a bearing for the high level beam.

6.5. Where bearings are specified cut slots into walls to accept padstone or bearing plates as specified by
structural engineer (allowing 48 hours to cure where padstone are cast).

6.6. Insert permanent steel beam either fixed to columns or seated 100mm into walls at each end on bearings.

6.7. Dry packing should be placed between the top flange and the underside of the wall over allowing 48 hours
to cure. (Where beam is seated on bearings dry pack should also be placed 75mm above and below the
beam well rammed into position and any defective brickwork around beam ends should be removed and
made good using class B engineering bricks and 1:3 mortar once dry pack has cured.)

6.8. Following the provision of full support to the wall above, (and bracing has been securely fitted if frame
installation is being carried out) any temporary works in relation to its support can be removed.

6.9. Any voids in the brickwork where needles had been positioned should now be repaired by bricking up.

6.10. Once adequate support has been provided by the permanent works structure underpinning can proceed as
specified in fig.3.

5. DEWATERING DURING CONSTRUCTION

 3
7.1. If during any excavation work significant ground water ingress is found, a local 1m sump should be
provided formed at a level below the base of the excavation being worked on.

7.2. The vertical faces of the sump chamber should be supported with a pre-made shutter positioned in the
area excavated for the sump. The sump shutter should be constructed from 18mm thick plywood sheets
with drilled vertical faces to provide a porous surface allowing ground water to flow through.

7.3. Ground water will now flow into the excavated sump to be extracted using a suitable Semi Trash
dewatering pump and appropriate diameter discharge hose.

7.4. Discharge from the sump should be directed to the nearest manhole and a drain filter should be fitted to
avoid any large debris being deposited into the sewer.

7.5. After completion of the excavation and preparation for the concrete pour has been carried out ensure the
sump area is fully dewatered before removing pump and pouring concrete.

7.6. The process above should then be repeated for each excavation where ground water is found.

6 CONCLUSION

The result of this preliminary pre-planning report is that the proposed basement can be
completed successfully without undue impact on its surroundings provided it is constructed
in adherence to statutory guidelines, designed by a suitably experienced and qualified
CONCLUSION design team. It should be noted that the above conclusion is based on the information
available at the time of writing and is not based on site specific geotechnical analysis.
The proposed development is unlikely to significantly increase flood risk at the site and its
surrounding area.
 7 REFERENCES

1) Codes / Regulations

I) Eurocode : Basis of structural design (BS EN 1990:2002)

II) UK National Annex for Eurocode : Basis of structural design (NS BS EN 1990:2002)

III) Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures (BS EN 1991:2005)

IV) UK National Annex for Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures (NA BS EN 1991:2005)

V) Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures (BS EN 1992-1-1:2004)

VI) UK National Annex for Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures (NA BS EN 1991-1-1:2004)

VII) Eurocode 3 : Design of steel structures (BS EN 1993-1-1:2005)

VIII) UK National Annex for Eurocode 3 : Design of steel structures (NA BS EN 1993-1-1:2005)

IX) The Building Regulations 2000 : part A - Structure

2) Books / Manuals

I) Concrete Basements: Guidance on the design and construction of in-situ concrete basement structures – R. S.

Narayanan & C. H. Goodchild.

II) How to Design Concrete Structures using Eurocode 2 – A. J. Bond et al.

III) Manual for the design of steelwork building structures to Eurocode 3 (October 2010) – IStructE.

th
IV) Reynolds’s reinforced concrete designer’s handbook 11 Edition - C. E. Reynolds et al.

rd
V) Standard Method of Detailing Structural Concrete 3 Edition (June 2006) – IStructE.
 8 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Males. J. 1997 - Regional Climates of the British Isles

Appendix 2 –Historic Borehole records.

Appendix 3 –CIRIA C580 damage assessment calculation.

Appendix 4 –Preliminary retaining wall design.

Appendix 5 –Preliminary structural drawings. TW1 & TW2

Appendix 6 - Architectural Ground floor & Basement Plans

Appendix 1 – Males. J. 1997 - Regional Climates of the British Isles, p74 Average Precipitation for the period
1961-1990 (SJP-610mm).
Appendix 2 –Historic Borehole records.
 Job: 55 huntingdon Street, N1 1BX
Made By: LS Job No.: M18241
Date: Aug 2018

CIRIA C580 - Building Damage Assessment

The calculation below is purely intended as an initial indicative assessment of ground

movement, to give an assessment of the likely predicted level of damage for the
proposed development. The results of this analysis however do not remove any
necessity for a ground movement analysis to be carried out by finite element
modelling or any other ground modelling technique.

Establish L & H values :

Adacent building width on plan: L ≔ 5.7

Adjacent building height in H ≔ 7.85

section:

(Taken similar to that of the proposed building.)

Basement depth: D ≔ 3.7

Estimated depth (say D+0.45m): P ≔ D + 0.45 = 4.15

Distance to adjacent property (worst case): d ≔ 0.0

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 huntingdon Street, N1 1BX
Made By: LS Job No.: M18241
Date: Aug 2018

Estimate ground surface movements due to wall installation

From CIRIA C580 - table 2.2 for contiguous bored piles

Horizontal

Surface movement at wall (% of wall depth): Sh ≔ 0.05%

Distance behind wall to negligible movement: Dh ≔ 1.5

∴ Surface movement at wall (mm): δih ≔ Sh ⋅ P = 2.075

∴ Distance to negligible movement(mm): lih ≔ Dh ⋅ P = 6.225

δih
Decrease in movement with distance (per m): Δh ≔ ― = 0.333 ――
lih

Vertical

Surface movement at wall (% of wall depth): Sv ≔ 0.05%

Distance behind wall to negligible movement: Dh ≔ 1.5

∴ Surface movement at wall (mm): δiv ≔ Sv ⋅ P = 2.075

∴ Distance to negligible movement(mm): liv ≔ Dh ⋅ P = 6.225

δiv
Decrease in movement with distance (per m): Δv ≔ ― = 0.333 ――
liv

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 huntingdon Street, N1 1BX
Made By: LS Job No.: M18241
Date: Aug 2018

Estimate ground surface movements due to excavation in front of wall

From CIRIA C580 - table 2.4 for contiguous bored piles

Stiffness catagory taken - HIGH

Horizontal

Surface movement at wall (% of excavation depth): Sh ≔ 0.15%

Distance behind wall to negligible movement: Dh ≔ 4

∴ Surface movement at wall (mm): δeh ≔ Sh ⋅ D = 5.55

∴ Distance to negligible movement(mm): leh ≔ Dh ⋅ D = 14.8

δeh
Decrease in movement with distance (per m): Δh ≔ ―― = 0.375 ――
leh

Vertical

Surface movement at wall (% of wall depth): Sv ≔ 0.1%

Distance behind wall to negligible movement: Dv ≔ 3.5

∴ Surface movement at wall (mm): δev ≔ Sv ⋅ D = 3.7

∴ Distance to negligible movement(mm): lev ≔ Dv ⋅ D = 12.95

δev
Decrease in movement with distance (per m): Δv ≔ ―― = 0.286 ――
lev

Determine Total ground surface movement estimation

Total horizontal surface movement: δTh ≔ δih + δeh = 7.625

Total vertical surface movement: δTv ≔ δiv + δev = 5.775

Determine Horizontal tensile strain

Maximum affected width: Lh ≔ max ⎛⎝lih , leh⎞⎠ = 14.8

δTh
Horizontal strain (expressed as a percentage): εh ≔ ―― ⋅ 100 = 0.052 %
Lh

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 huntingdon Street, N1 1BX
Made By: LS Job No.: M18241
Date: Aug 2018

Determine anticipated damage catagory from table 2.5 (Burland et al

2001)
Limiting tensile strain for Negligible damage (Cat. εlim0 ≔ 0.05%
0):
Limiting horiz movement for Cat. 0: Hlim0 ≔ εlim0 ⋅ L = 2.85

Limiting tensile strain for very slight damage (Cat. 1): εlim1 ≔ 0.075%

Limiting horiz movement for Cat. 1: Hlim1 ≔ εlim1 ⋅ L = 4.275

Limiting tensile strain for slight damage (Cat. 2): εlim2 ≔ 0.15%

Limiting horiz movement for Cat. 2: Hlim2 ≔ εlim2 ⋅ L = 8.55

Maximum affected width: Lh ≔ max ⎛⎝lih , leh⎞⎠ = 14.8

Actual anticipated horizontal strain (expressed as a εh = 0.052 (Cat. 1)

percentage):

Actual anticipated horizontal movement: εh ⋅ L = 2.937

ANTICIPATED DAMAGE CLASS MAY BE CATAGORISED AS "VERY SLIGHT"

END OF WORK SHEET

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING DESIGN

DESIGN DATA [taken from BS EN1997-1, BS8002:1994, BS8110, BS648] :

Grade of basement to be designed: Grade 3 - Domestic

Typical material weights:

-3
Concrete [normal reinforced] - (unit load) : ≔ 24 ⋅

-3
Soil [Firm clays / Dense Gravel] - (unit load) : ≔ 18 ⋅

-3
Water - (Bulk density) : ≔ 9.81 ⋅

Concrete and Reinforcement specifications:

-2
Characteristic tensile strength of reinforcement: ≔ 500 ⋅

-2
Characteristic compressive cube strength of concrete : ≔ 35 ⋅

Cover to reinforcement: Wall: ≔ 50

Base: ≔ 75

Assumed diameter of reinforcing bars: ≔ 20

Soil characteristics:

Soil Type (1=Clay 2=Granular) - ≔1

Angle of friction -
Granular Soils - [BS8002, 2.2.4 - ＝ 30 + A + B
A & B taken as 0, worst case]
≔ 30

Clay Soils - [BS8002 - ≔ 21

Table 2, Based on plasticity Index of
30% (London clay)]
Cohesion -

-2
Granular soil types taken as - ≔ 0.1 ⋅

Clay soil types-

-2
≔ 20 ⋅

[Taken from Geotechdata.info, for inorganic clay of high plasticity (London clay) - 15-25kN/m²]

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Soil charicteristics continued:

Earth Pressure:
The calculation below for the coefficient of earth pressure is designed to take in to
account both 'active' and 'at rest' pressure influences. The value taken accounts for the
stem not being infinitely stiff but also in the permanent case resisting lateral pressure with
little deflection. Therefore an intermediate median value between Ka and Ko is used.
(An additional value for any inclination of the ground level is allowed for with the
addition of the angle beta.)

Incline of top surface to horizontal - (assumed nominal 5°) : ≔5

Internal angle of friction : = 21

Rankine's coefficient of active lateral earth pressure:

1
―
2
⎛ 2 2⎞
cos (( )) - ⎝((cos (( )))) - ((cos (( )))) ⎠
≔ ――――――――――― 1
= 0.48
―
2
⎛ 2 2⎞
cos (( )) + ⎝((cos (( )))) - ((cos (( )))) ⎠

≔ ((1 - sin (( )))) ⋅ ((1 + sin (( )))) = 0.698

Meadian coefficient:
⎛ - ⎞
≔ + ⎜―――⎟ = 0.59
⎝ 2 ⎠

Rankine's coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure:

1
―
2
⎛ 2 2⎞
cos (( )) + ⎝((cos (( )))) - ((cos (( )))) ⎠
≔ ――――――――――― 1
= 2.07
―
2
⎛ 2 2⎞
cos (( )) - ⎝((cos (( )))) - ((cos (( )))) ⎠

Angle of base friction : ≔ 18.6

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Underpinning Conditions:

(A) Preliminary main body party wall retaining wall design

NOTES / ASSUMPTIONS:

1. The Basement slab is 300mm thick and will be screeded for domestic use.
2. The basement walls are supporting the building over supported on the substrata
beneath.
3. Soil type is taken as London Clay (BGS Sheet 256) to be confirmed by specialist
site investigations.
4. Water - Allow for 9.81kN/m² at ground level.
5. Passive pressures generated due soil present in front of base are ignored due to
excavations for slab installation.
6. The following design does not check against rotational side failure, it is assumed
pins will be fully propped/shored to contractor's designs at all times.
7. The following design does not include deflection checks as these are assumed to
be negligible.
8. The calculation does not include SLS checks for either cracking or shrinkage.
9. The calculation does not allow for the effect of ground water seepage beneath
the wall.
10.In the absence of geotechnical data GBP is taken as 125kN/m^2 allowing for
100kN/m^2 @ ground level + 10kN/m^2 enhancement at formation level (this is
conservative estimate but cannot be increased without a full SI report)

SEE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR RETAINING WALL CALULCATIONS.

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

CONDITION A

Length of conditon A - ≔ 8.0

[Note: Forces calculated act on 1.0m of wall]

Wall Details:
Wall Height - ≔ 3.7

Soil Height - ≔

Toe length - ≔ 1.5

Heel length - ≔ 0.2

Stem Thickenss - ≔ 0.3

Base Thickness - ≔ 0.45 fig.1 - Retaining wall diagram

Base length (inc. heel) - ≔ + + =2 Note:

Wall Height taken directly
Stem Height - ≔ - = 3.25 from archtetural plan +
450mm slab thickening

Water Height - ≔ - = 3.25

Vertical Loads:
NOTE: All line loads are assumed to be acting centrally on wall stem.

-1
Permenant line load on wall (say) - ≔ 75 ⋅

-1
Imposed line load on wall (say) - ≔ 15 ⋅

-1
Total line load on wall - ≔ + = 90 ⋅

Weight of retaining wall stem - ≔ ⋅ ⋅ ⎛⎝ - ⎞⎠ ⋅ 1.0 = 23.4

Total wall load - ≔ ⎛⎝ ⋅ 1.0 ⎞⎠ + = 113.4

Weight of retaining wall base - ≔ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1.0 = 21.6

Weight of soil over heel - ≔ ⋅ ⋅ ⎛⎝ - ⎞⎠ ⋅ 1.0 = 11.7

Total vertical force - ≔ + + = 146.7

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Foundation Design (A) continued:

Horizontal forces:

Active Pressure : NOTE: Temporary case consider drained only.

-2
≔ ⋅ ⋅ = 39.3 ⋅

≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1.0 = 72.71

-2
Surcharge magnitude - ≔ 5.0 ⋅

≔ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1.0 = 10.92

CHECK OVERTURNING: Factor of safety: ≔ 2.0

⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
≔⎜ ⋅ ――⎟+⎜ ⋅ ――⎟ = 109.87 ⋅
⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞
≔ ⎜⎛⎝ ⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜ - - ⎜―― ⎟⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⋅ ―⎟ + ⎜ ⋅ ⎜ - ――⎟⎟ = 230.94 ⋅
⎝ ⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠

Mres
Check: ―― > γot ; = 2.1 = “SO OK”
Mot

CHECK SLIDING: Factor of safety: ≔ 1.5

Angle of base friction : = 21 [See deisgn data]

-2
Base adhesion: = “Clay” ∴ = 20 ⋅ [See deisgn data]

∴ ≔ ⎛⎝ ⋅ tan (( ))⎞⎠ + ⎛⎝ ⋅ 2⎞
⎠ = 136.31

≔ + = 83.62

Fresist
Check: ――> γslide ; = 1.63 = “SO OK”
Fslide

∴ IN TEMPORARY CASE WALL TO BE PROPPED at a 1/3 AND MID HEIGHT TO RESIST

BOTH OVERTURNING AND SLIDING. IN PERMANENT CASE CONSIDER STRUCTURE
MONOLITHIC WITH BASE SLAB TO PROVIDE SIMILAR RESISTANCE.

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Foundation Design (A) continued:

CHECK BEARING PRESSURE:

-2
= 125 ⋅ = “Clay”

Taking moments about CL of Base:

⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞
≔ ⎜⎛⎝ ⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜―- ⎜ + ―― ⎟⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⋅ ⎜―- ――⎟⎟ = 84.24 ⋅
⎝ ⎝2 ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎝2 2 ⎠⎠
= 109.87 ⋅ ; ≔ - = 25.63 ⋅

Resultant eccentricity, e: ≔ = 174.69 ; ―= 333.33

6

B
Check within middle 3rd: e<― = “SO OK”
6
Max/ Min pressures:

-2
Pressure @ heel: = 34.91 ⋅

-2
Pressure @ toe: = 111.79 ⋅

Check: GBPMax < GBPAllowable = “SO OK”

DESIGN REINFORCING FOR PERMANENT, UNDRAINTED CONDITION:

Single pin width : ≔ 1000

Active Pressure :
(Permanent case case undrained)
≔ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1.0

-1
= 34.52 ⋅

Horizontal forces:
≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⋅ = 56.1

≔ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1.0 = 9.59

⎛⎝1.0 ⋅ ⎞⎠
2
fig.2 - Retaining wall diagram.
≔ ⋅ ――――― ⋅ 1.0 = 51.81
2 [Water table taken at full height of wall]
Design moment at base of wall, M
⎛⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎞
≔ 1.5 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⋅ ――⎟ + ⎜ ⋅ ――⎟ + ⎜ ⋅ ――⎟⎟ = 198.72 ⋅
⎝⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎠

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Foundation Design (A) continued:

Effective depth, d

≔ - - ―= 240
2
Ultimate moment of resistance, Mu

2
≔ 0.156 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = 314.5 ⋅

Check: Mu > M = “SO OK”

∴ SO NO COMPRESSION REINFORCEMENT NEEDED.

DESIGN WALL AS SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM:

⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾⎞
≔ ―――― = 0.1 ; ≔ 0.5 + ⎜ 0.25 - ―― ⎟
⋅ ⋅ 2 ⎝ 0.9 ⎠

Check: μz < 0.95 = “PASS” ∴ = 0.87

Lever arm, z : ≔ ⋅ ∴ = 209.95

So area of steel required is :

2
≔ ―――――― = 1834.91 [in per meter i.e. mm²/m]
0.95 ⋅ ⋅ ((0.95 ⋅ ))

Reinforcing bar dia. specified : ≔ 20 Spacing : ≔ 150

2
= 2094.4 [mm²/m]

Check: > Asreq = “SO OK”

So use - H20 bars @ 150 centres (2094 mm²/m) in NF [Near Face]

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Design reinforcement within foundation base:

Toe length - ≔ 1.45 ; Stem Thickenss - ≔ 0.35

Base length (not inc. heel) - ≔ + = 1.8

Factored bearing pressure (conservatively factored as imposed loads

-2 -2
Heel: ≔ 1.6 ⋅ = 55.85 ⋅ Pressure @ toe: ≔ 1.6 ⋅ = 178.87 ⋅

Bearing pressure split in to consituent parts ( Uniform and vary pressure)

⎛⎝ - ⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎛⎝ - ⎞⎠ -2
Bearing pressure @ int. face of wall : ≔ + ―――――――= 89.68 ⋅

-2
Maximum varying bearing pressure : ≔ - = 89.18 ⋅

Design moment at internal face of wall (Base self weight omitted conservatively)

Vertical forces from bearing pressure components:

≔ ⎛⎝ ⋅ 1.0 ⎞⎠ ⋅ = 130.04 ; ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝ ⋅ 1.0 ⎞⎠ ⋅ = 64.66

⎛ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎞
Design moment, Mb : ≔⎜ ⋅⎜ ⋅― ⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⋅⎜ ⋅― ⎟⎟ = 156.78 ⋅
⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎠

Effective depth of base, d ≔ - - ―= 365

2
DESIGN BASE AS SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM:
⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾⎞
≔ ―――― = 0.03 ; ≔ 0.5 + ⎜ 0.25 - ―― ⎟
⋅ ⋅ 2 ⎜⎝ 0.9 ⎟⎠

Check: μzb < 0.95 = “Use 0.95” ∴ = 0.95

Lever arm, z : ≔ ⋅ ∴ = 346.75

So area of steel required is :

2
≔ ――――――= 951.89 [in per meter i.e. mm²/m]
0.95 ⋅ ⋅ ⎛⎝0.95 ⋅ ⎞⎠

Reinforcing bar dia. specified : ≔ 16 Spacing : ≔ 200

2
= 1005.3 [mm²/m]

Check: > Asreq = “SO OK”

So use - min. H16 bars @ 200 centres (1005 mm²/m) in btm of base

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Foundation Design (A) continued:

Minimum steel area calculations:

1. Provide reinforcement to FF of wall stem:

[ Definitions below taken from EC2 9.6.2(1),(2) & 9.6.3(1) ]

2
≔ 0.002 ⋅ ⋅ = 700 (half in each face so divide by 2 to get FF req.)

2
≔ ⋅ 0.5 = 350 [mm²/m]

Reinforcing bar dia. specified : ≔ 12 Spacing : ≔ 200

2
= 565.5

Check: > AsFFmin = “SO OK”

So use - H12 bars @ 200 centres in far face bars to prevent excessive cracking

2. Distribution reinforcement, steel area required is minimum horiz. steel area:

2
≔ max ⎛⎝0.001 ⋅ ⋅ , 25% ⋅ ⎞⎠ = 350 [mm²/m]

Reinforcing bar dia. specified : ≔ 10 Spacing : ≔ 200

2
= 392.7 [mm²/m]

Check: > Ashmin = “SO OK”

So use - H10 bars @ 200 centres (393mm²/m) as horizontal reinforcement.

NOTE: Heel is to remain unreinforced (if required), to avoid special foundation

clause of party wall act.

END OF CALCULATION

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Job: 55 Huntingdon St, N1 Job No.: 18241
Made By: LS Revision: -
Date: Aug 2018 Page no:

Condition A - Detailing summary

Wall dimension summary

Wall Height - = 3700

Stem Thickenss - = 350

Base length (not inc. heel) - = 1800

Heel length - = 200

Base Thickness - = 450

Reinforcement summary

Near face reinforceing bar diameter : = 20 at = 200 c/c

Far face reinforceing bar diameter : = 12 at = 200 c/c

Wall base reinforceing bar diameter : = 16 at = 200 c/c

Horizontal distribution bar diameter : = 10 at = 200 c/c

Concrete cover summary

Internal bar cover: ≔ 35

External bar cover : ≔ 50

Underpin base cover : ≔ 75

END OF DETAIL SUMMARY

Created with PTC Mathcad Express. See www.mathcad.com for more information.
 Hamdan House, 2nd fl.,
760 High Road, London, N12 9QH.
T: 020 8446 4650
E: [email protected]
W: www.mintstructures.co.uk
 Hamdan House, 2nd fl.,
760 High Road, London, N12 9QH.
T: 020 8446 4650
E: [email protected]
W: www.mintstructures.co.uk
0 1 2 3 4 5m

PROJECT

DRAWING

NUMBER Rev

Scale

Date 201 Upper Street

copyright protected London N1 1RQ
020-7226 3884
PETER BRADES ARCHITECTS
www.peterbradesarchitects.co.uk PB A
0 1 2 3 4 5m

PROJECT

DRAWING

NUMBER Rev

Scale

Date 201 Upper Street

copyright protected London N1 1RQ
020-7226 3884
PETER BRADESARCHITECTS
www.peterbradesarchitects.co.uk PBA
Address Telephone Web

Hamdan House Phone: 020 8446 4650 e: [email protected]

760 High Road w: www.mintstructures.co.uk
London
N12 9QH
“Mint Structures” is a trading name of Mint Structures Limited | Director: B. C. Smith, | Registered in England No. 11114076
Registered Offices: Battle House, 1 East Barnet Road, New Barnet, Herts, EN4 8RR