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

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

• HS2 Route – Tunnelled Section (London Area) • Ground & Groundwater Conditions

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

West Ruislip Portal to Old Oak Common

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

London West Ruislip Clay Portal Tunnel Alignment Old Oak Common

Lambeth Group Thanet 100m Sand 4km Chalk

5R1246/46 (5) HOC/10050/0006 Lambeth Group Example (HS1, Stratford Box)

West Ruislip Old Oak Common Portal

Lambeth Group

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

West Ruislip Portal Old Oak Common

London Clay

7R1246/46 (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

8R1246/46 (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

9R1246/46 (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

10R1246/46 (10) HOC/10050/0011 Tunnelling Methods: – Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM) 1.1. TunnelTunnel faceface

1 2.2. CuttingCutting wheelwheel 8 3.3. ExcavationExcavation chamberchamber

4.4. PressurePressure bulkheadbulkhead

5.5. ThrustThrust cylinderscylinders 4 7 2 6.6. ScrewScrew conveyorconveyor 6 3 7.7. SegmentSegment erectorerector 8.8. SegmentalSegmental LiningLining 5

R1246 (11) HOC/10050/0012 Tunnelling Methods: – Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM) 1.1. TunnelTunnel faceface

1 2.2. CuttingCutting wheelwheel 8 3.3. ExcavationExcavation chamberchamber

4.4. PressurePressure bulkheadbulkhead

5.5. ThrustThrust cylinderscylinders 4 7 2 6.6. ScrewScrew conveyorconveyor 6 3 7.7. SegmentSegment erectorerector 8.8. SegmentalSegmental LiningLining 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

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

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

A Point of inflection Transverse settlement trough ssmamax Settlementx Tunnel

B Typical EPBM VL is consistently < 1% Volume settlement trough (A) Volume loss (VL, %)  Typical SCL VL is 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 10 30 Settlement 40 15 50 20

60 Depth(m) Tunnels Settlement (mm) Settlement 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 10 30 Settlement 40 15 50 20

60 Depth(m)

Settlement (mm) Settlement 70 Tunnels 25 80 30 90 100 35 18R1246/46 (19) HOC/10050/0020 Measured Volume Losses in Various Soil Strata

19R1246/46 (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

20 (m) 10 London Clay

0 Woolwich & Reading Beds -10 Upnor Formation

Elevation -20 Thanet Sand

-30 Chalk Groundwater table in lower aquifer -40 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Chainage (m) 20R1246/46 (21) HOC/10050/0022 Volume loss for Up-Line EPBM tunnel CTRL Contract 220 (Wongsaroj et al, 2005) West Portal Stratford Box 1.4 Thanet Sand (TS) 1.2 TS+Chalk 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 Volume loss (%) loss Volume 0.2 WRB+HF+LC London Clay 0 (LC) 1000 3000 5000 7000 9000 Chainage (m) 21R1246/46 (22) 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%

22R1246/46 (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

25R1246/46 (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

26R1246/46 (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.

27R1246/46 (28) HOC/10050/0029 Definition of Risk Categories (Building Research Establishment)

Damage Limiting Degree of Risk Description of typical damage tensile strain 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

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

Damage Limiting Degree of Risk Description of typical damage tensile strain 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

29R1246/46 (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

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

Compression Extension

SAGGING HOGGING

31R1246/46 (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

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

y

n d

o B

d

n B

o L

L & f t o s

y n t i T o C C

E

e y E l h t s R f

A 1

T o

3 3

L

8 1

S 1 3

y 5

4

- o t t G C y 9 , 3 R 1 d n 7 N t 15 7 B u s 2 3 O o n 1 B

3 L T C o 8 & L C I & t s o 5 y n M r City 1

t Gate House 2 6 o i o 1 1 C C B 5 ly

3 s 4 n A o L d Exc 2 G n ha M 9 , o ng ilto t L e

n C Mil s f Pla

o ton n o ce u o 1 rt C y Hig ourt C it hw ro C alk Posts o e Co 14.7m h ro B t

ne 5 f

r 2 o s S

C 2

3 1 3 8 y

1 t

t S 1 1

o a LB H

t n U to n 1 d KEY N u O C T S 35 o

o O urntable ffi rp WB T 9 1 ces n 25 RE 1 C PH T R E & T 3 0 ty N i

E 7 2 Drill C E Tower C D

R M I T

E T C

V E E H A R 13.3m P

Finsb T

ury C

ourt y P W

d 3 h

R S H i

Y t 6 e O B c r P LA N os R C E KI n P s M NG O o la A U T d ce K O S 2 Eliminated at Phase 1 N E S n B T L R RE 9 I o E L S S T 2 T W f

Fire R o Station N E 1 E I y

t

T i F T 2 CBs C

e 3 h t

1 f 9 o F t ins

o y b FB 1 u

24 t ry

0 n

u t o A

o v

en 1 C

ue

3 7 &

0 B y r t oa i d L C ane

T City Point y E d Eliminated at Phase 2 E B

R B L T S &

y l N s m O A 4

I . 1 L 4 N

14.3m I 4 G 1

, 1 M t s O 1 n o D 2 B C o C ro 1 o i r ty Co an ns o 4 d C t,G B ou L A nty sly B of C Co the R ns C t & I ity LB S

N of B

L d H r o y Proceed to Phase 3 n a e d O 3 l l o

n O u b c i a e D

t h s P n Broadgate e r u Bank 6 N V u E o S T H

O N G s e

3 L

A d u

l S 6 A L Ban 1 e k O n

i U f 2 e

R

r T T

R H R v

t 33 o o

P C A

E E

O o L 1

TCBs 1 A y 9 3

2 1 S C 4 r 1 4 M T

O 0 E u

W W

b

t E

M A

o s

M 1 n

i A

E Settlement2 contours in millimetres 2 E

5 s F 3 3 T 0

5 C 5 e d R

n l R

te 1 A

r L 3 e

1 i

H

D P o f o t

u r G

s 2 h B e 1 1 roadgate PH H 3.9m o c (bel T o r ow U u k ) M Circle l O h PH 2 a S y C 5 r

w 4 1 Ice Ri 3 a nk

h 6

g M 8 i Arena

2 t H 1

y 3 S 3 E Liverpo b ol Street Station U h k 4 l NE g W N a UN 5 u ION E o k w S l l T W V l h RE a i a ET r A g d i B 6 W w d Y

h H y R

g 0 i c U i 3 H 1 n B 4 n 7 S c R to i iver P a late House 9 N t n i I r Fin s F

n bury Circus

a B

t 1

i 1 1

r 6 3

House C 7 B R M 1

oo E

r 1

fi 1 3 L

e 1 D

l o

d t

s 2 4 O 1

6

H 2 N 1 0

igh ST 13 6 w 2 a S R .1 lk s E m 1 D t E 3 s T

L

o

E 2 P 7 9 I F 7 3 R 1 14.0m

o 11 14

O 7 t

5

2

M o

Moo O t

rgate O

O 8 1 R 1 M

PL Britannic H 2 Station ACE ouse

(Lon 2 E don 4 G

Tran A

sport) S

7

9

FIN 5 S

SB 1 4 UR Y 1 A C 6 P

9 IR

T 0 C 4

1 2 U 1 E

S PH 0 E 11 o L E t

D D O R 3 3 T TC f Ba N O to B 0 n c 6 e k R ta S 1 16 g T D 12.7m S o e t n N s o A le A T r p 2 (b c U

h P 4 R e ad o 1 lo e S

n A C E w e VE 6 LB E ) T W E NU E x T T E 1 ch T a E A 6 n T g e E y t d G o

E

R B 1 TCB 2 T R

7 d 4 4 E S 1 r k U O nd a n erg 1

E ro 8 Subwa

u R y

W a 1 O nd 6 R 5 TC R 0 ailw B a T e Bs P Posts 1 M y y O O 3 Ke c d F 1 at a s S R P l B lac P C

e Bank Bandstand rd 1 a

N PC 2 SD W

t A e4

e

M

5 tr 1 Moo 5 r 9 S 10 o T 0

t E

8 S

House 7 1 Bowling Gree d 1 n a L LB ro 4 19 9 B D

0 L Site of O

3 D Fn E

1 I 6 TCPs

3

8 y F

4 t 7 C

20 i 3 M 8 s

1 Priory and

P r O Hospital H e ) 2 L

4 v s B i k 5 e l i 8 n 2 a 0 1 of d

U 2 3 w 1 l u PH 19 h l t g P i H a S St Mary of Beth h lehem

M H 1 s

o 1 3 d 12.8m o 8 l s r T 1 fie C 8 i ld Bs 1 e s 1 18 u a n (F i ounded AD 1247) T G CP s Bank n u o B

d f n o

o l 5

L o 8

Posts o 3 5

13.4m 2 0 9 5 h 1

c

S 1 ( 0 Li LI Ban ver VE

k R LB po RP 1 o

Moor F C PH l OO IN 1 S Salisb S SB t St L S Gate ury House BU (LR atio TR

n n E

e T E 7 R )

o T

(site of c Y ) i 2 7

b a 1

l l C

8 IR

CU B A P 2 S

1 8

1

LB 2

I

0 7

D 9

S 1

8 4

2 5 T 0

SL 2 o

R

H SL

E t

C 1

ar Pa 1 s E 2

rk 15 g 6

A

O

R 7 3

n 2

i 7

T 2

2 3 d 4

il S 2

12.8m P

BM u W BR

OA 6

4 1 D 2

3 3.2 B D STRE

5 S E E L T A m 7 AVENUE 2 u E E

s C I

tr G a l 7

l F 5 2

l A 8

a T

H 2

L 0 8 W

9

O 6

o L M

1 2

N n

A u o

D t o

4 0

s O 0 d 3 A 5 O e N P n 3 14.4 1 o 1 m W 2 7

8 A L L 11 10

Armourers L T 1 L S B 8 7

G 6

U E

2 T 2

Ha 3 ll 1 1 1 S 4

4

C 1 The

E A

r

D 6 cade 6

6 1

e T B 2

an 7

k 1

f R

W 4 8

P E 1 3

I 9 2 1

0

E 2

2

4 R 2 2 C 4

7 2 r E 4

6 12.5m 2

O T

a e S A

l l wedbank

R 3

u b 4 S

LB T 3

H 2 c R

i a N

t ew 5 Broad 2

House Street 3 D 3 h S 7 5 n 4 B 4

r a y 6

n S e 6

k d D A

1 u 5

V N I 1

8 B 4 Ho

6 2 use 6 T 1 9 O

A 0 d

Girdle r N 42

rs' H B

all t e

w o R 9 o 4 a t

M Br

o a B

y d 6 W 1 E E St

d

0 8

L U D

B 3 5 2

3 .

N 5 L O 5

d 6

r E O CITY C 1 3 A V 2 N a D COUNTY OF THE CIT De .5m Ald Y OF LONDO A f er N W White Hart ma 9 L n

COLEM 3 Wa N El S Ho s

5 AN

S L C

4 TREE r E u ourt u

T WARD 0 d Bd P W b S se 8 3 B

A y e t

5 t R a CIT ty O 6

t IES O F

F LOND F A B Posts H

o ON r D

t AN

D WESTM an S 9 o INSTER c T T

BORO CON Postern e R

2 ST E

E

P

5 T 1

0

4 (

5 s 4

i

6 t 9 Ba o 4 nk e

t

O BISHOP o

3 (site of) SGATE f) 6

5 P

5 U 6 o

nd C A 0 s

2 C t l 6 I s

6 TY A d N

5 D C e o O

t UNT r WA P Y OF m RD 4 TH 5 o E l C s 5 s ITY O a F l

ts LONDON ' n's

2 W h a 2 Def Und alk p PH 8 l H

2 5 o LB t h c f o r e Bank B u

5 t D h

2 S

3 Un C Church 4 d 4

0 6 5

6 De

B f W 2

k

BP t M a s o r

C d n 3

OLEMA 1 Capel 6

N STRE 3 B F House t

ET W d W ARD . o 1 y a

Nu CITIESBank 2 0 W St Botolph witho O ut

n F L m a 8

C ONDO 1 o B

u N 0 l

rt AND l 5 4 W

E 7 4 ST

MINSTER 2

BO 2 1 7 4 RO

CON 7 BI

4 ST D S

3 e HO Bishopsgate Ch 9 0 B f P urch

7 ROAD S El STR G

6 EET WARD CHU ATE B

4 R Bank A o CH ish Sub CITY AN ll H t YA op D Carpente EAST GL ASLY CONS allow RD sgat T 7 Sta rs' Hall s on e Ch L the 8 ur O Wall chya 1 N Ch Bost CITY AND COUN rd 6 D u o TY Guildhall 3 Bank 2 O rch n OF THE CITY OF LON W D 1 O 5 N H N 4 ou C s 5 W e

Chambers 4 A 83 BP

3

2 L 8 L White Horse 13.1m 3 3 82 B Yard Colem road an Str Stree

eet Bld LAN L BM 1 t Hou Tennis Court gs GTH 5 O 3 se 7 . O f 8 RN COU NDO 2m Und e 6 N RT WAL D L

E

6 2 Fn 1 7

C to

3 7 3 EPBM5 running tunnels usually 4 FW A

0 B

Bank L Ps

t P

o PH

E 3

T

Bank 4 13.4m 26 A 7 5 TCB's 25 Bank 0 G 2 9 Gre Institute of 1 at S R 1 2 wan 1 0 2 t

Al 1 o o le O

y 4 t

6 W 2 5 4 7 O

O Chartered R 5 5 Acco 5 untants 1 M

W 14.4m 0 O M 2

1 O 1 t D 1

o STR

4 FB EE 7 T

Ba 2 6 nk

L 1 Bank

4 B

4

t

Wo o GREAT SW G 1

olgate Exchange AN A RE 4

6 LLE A 9 Y

T L

6 B ank W Bank 5 3 I NC BPs H O o E dot not cause significant S

3 TE

f 1 R 5 2

N

8 S 2 G

e T

3 CW a R rd 1 E

e 2 E

D n T

s D 6 9 s

r

3

e O

1 2 E

p 0

0 U a 9

Piercy r Bank N

House N

W t

E D o

9 F

V 1

1

E A 9

L E L

A 6 5 Bank R R1246 (34) H 1 HOC/10050/0035 T P O 33/46 damage C Case History (JLE) Elizabeth House

PH Shell Centre El SubSub Sta Sta Shell Centre 8

Air e Shaft s u o 3.6m H 4.0m h 0 1 t e

y r s sr n er et o ltl s be e a h S Bank m

g a n

i

1 p 1

3

o 3

l

t

t

z o

S o

6

6 i 5 l 5

e s E u o e sH u tho e H th eb ba BM 4.20m za zi lil E

CHI CHE LEY

STR

E A

E R C

T H

2

4

5

A

R

C

Bank H

2

4 4

3.7m Bank

A

R

C

H

G

7 2

4

3

F

7 6

7 D

OO

R 6

9

A

R

C

H

2 4 Waterloo 2

r e

lt

A

R

e C

H

h 2 4

International 1

S

G

8

F

3.7m 8

A

D R

C

H

2

A 4 0 O Terminal R D

E A O L R E R A E K D K E

E S R T V O R

L Y E

E r 7 E

e 5 T

B t

l t

A

o

R

e C

H

7

h 2

3

9 S 9

SL 0m 50m 100m 34R1246/46 (35) Jubilee HOC/10050/0036 Elizabeth House (JLE) Comparison of Observations to Predictions

0 The Phase 2 assessment is intentionally conservative -10

-20

-30 No damage observed in Elizabeth House due

-40 to tunnelling Settlement (mm) Settlement

-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) 35R1246/46 (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)

36R1246/46 (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

37R1246/46 (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.

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

• General • Compensation Grouting • Big Ben Case History

39R1246/46 (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

40R1246/46 (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

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

Δ Tilt = H D

H = 55m

31m

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

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

Big Ben

45R1246/46 (48) HOC/10050/0049 Control of tilt of Big Ben Clock Tower by compensation grouting

40

Tunnel Progress: Pilots Enlargements

30 WB EB WB EB

Construction 20 Control Range

10 Grouting Episodes

Start of Grouting

0

Tilt of Clock Tower (mm/55m) Tower Clock of Tilt 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

Optical Plumb 46R1246/46 (49) HOC/10050/0050 47R1246/46 (50) HOC/10050/0051 Pile-Tunnel Interactions

• Examples for buildings • Examples for piled bridges

48R1246/46 (51) HOC/10050/0052 Crossrail – Kempton Court

• Residential Flats . Constructed in 1996, Load bearing masonry . No basement – 4 storeys . Piled

49R1246/46 (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 +92.0 o 10.7m Diameter Platform mATD Tunnels with 6.3m ~+87.5 mATD diameter Pilot Tunnels

50R1246/46 (53) HOC/10050/0054 Crossrail – Kempton Court

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

o Building settlements were D tolerable

A

B D B A

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

52R1246/46 (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

53R1246/46 (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 54R1246/46 (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

55R1246/46 (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.

56R1246/46 (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

57R1246/46 (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/

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