Urban site investigation

C. R. I. Clayton

School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton,

SO17 1BJ, UK
(e-mail: cric@soton.ac.uk)

Abstract: This paper provides a written version of a Keynote Presentation made at the 10th International Congress of the
Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG), held in Nottingham in September 2006. It identifies the
objectives of site investigation, as stated in the British Standard. It then reviews the difficulties that face the investigator,
and identifies factors that have in the UK been found to have an influence on the success of site investigations. Developments
in general UK ground investigation strategy are outlined. The challenges of urban site investigations are identified, as is the
vulnerability of urban development. Recent advances in investigation techniques are described, and conclusions drawn.

As noted in the introduction to BS5930 (BSE 1999), site
investigations are widely seen as ‘an essential preliminary
to the construction of all civil engineering and building
Works’. The unforeseen ground conditions that frequently
occur during construction, and that can lead to very large
cost and construction time over-runs, have frequently been
blamed on inadequate site investigations (e.g. Rowe 1972).
In the first part of this paper, recent developments in UK
site investigation practice are reviewed. In the second part,
some of the special challenges associated with site investi-
gation for urban redevelopment are discussed.
Recent developments of site investigation
in the UK
As a result of the perceived problems with UK site investi-
gation, there have been a number of attempts to improve
the effectiveness of UK site investigation, including work
by the Construction Industry Research and Information
Association (CIRIA) (Uff & Clayton 1986, 1991), the UK
Site Investigation Steering Group (ICE 1993a–d), and the
Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental
Specialists (e.g. AGS 2006).
Site investigation objectives
The British Standard Code of Practice for Site Investigations
(BS5930: BSI 1999) identifies the primary objectives in
making site investigations as follows.
(1) Suitability. To assess the general suitability of the site
and environs for the proposed works, including, where appli-
cable, the implications of any previous use or contamination
of the site.
(2) Design. To allow an adequate and economic design to
be prepared, including the design of temporary works.
(3) Construction. To plan the best method of construction;
to foresee and provide against difficulties and delays that may
arise during construction as a result of ground, groundwater
and other local conditions; in appropriate cases, to explore
sources of indigenous materials for use in construction; and
to select sites for the disposal of waste or surplus materials.
(4) Effect of changes. To determine the changes that may
arise in the ground and environmental conditions, either
naturally or as a result of the works, and the effect of such
changes on the works, on adjacent works, and on the
environment in general.
(5) Choice of site. Where alternatives exist, to advise on
the relative suitability of different sites, or different parts
of the same site.
(6) Existing works. Unless the contrary can be demon-
strated, it should be assumed that site investigations are
necessary in reporting upon the existing works, and for
investigating cases where failure has occurred.
These complex requirements cover most foreseeable uses
of site investigations. However, in almost all cases, routine
site investigations are carried out on land that is already in
the ownership, or control, of the project developer, before
planning, design and construction. The objectives of site
investigation are necessarily much more restricted. There
is generally no choice between different sites, and little or
no debate about the suitability of the given site, as the con-
struction professionals involved in the project are assumed
to be capable of producing a satisfactory design on any
given ground conditions. Given the lack of site investigation
data at this stage, key geotechnical details of construction
(e.g. pile types, diameters and depths, dewatering methods
and other temporary works) will probably remain unknown
until the main construction works are tendered.

From: CULSHAW , M. G., REEVES , H. J., JEFFERSON , I. & SPINK , T. W. (eds) Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities.
Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 22, 125–141.
DOI: 10.1144/EGSP22.9 0267-9914/09/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2009.
126 C. R. I. CLAYTON
In the author’s view, many of the primary objectives
stated in BS5930 are unlikely to be achieved and it is unrea-
listic to expect that they will be. Site investigation remains,
however, the key to good geotechnical design. The debate
should not be whether and how much it should be done but
how it can be most effective.
Site investigation philosophy in the UK
The traditional view in the UK has been that the ineffective-
ness of site investigations is the client’s fault. To obtain good
site investigations clients should, according to this view,
only employ competent professionals, spend sufficient to
provide a good amount of data, and use methods of procure-
ment that encourage quality.
Many countries around the world, and particularly in
southern Europe, appear to have legislation that restricts
those who can provide professional services to the public.
In the UK, very few professions enjoy this privilege. Prac-
titioners of civil engineering and engineering geology are
not restricted by law and there is little expectation that
they will be in the foreseeable future. In the absence of
legally restricted practice, one view is that we should
educate our clients, provide them information on levels of
competence needed for their work, and produce registers
of competent persons (AGS 2005a). A survey carried out
by the AGS has suggested that support for the concept for
or against a registration scheme is balanced amongst their
members but that, if a scheme were introduced, it should
include all the disciplines involved in ground engineering
and geoenvironmental issues.
The need to spend more on site investigation has been a
constant theme in the UK for many years (e.g. Williams &
Mettam 1971; Rowe 1972). If only clients would spend
more money on site investigation, runs the argument, then
site investigation would achieve ‘good’ results. There is
some evidence to support the idea that more expenditure on
site investigation results in more certainty of outcome for
the client. Figure 1 shows some statistics obtained from a
survey of UK highway projects (Mott MacDonald & Soil
Mechanics Ltd. 1994). The x-axis gives the percentage of
the tender price spent on ground investigation, and the
y-axis shows the cost over-run as a percentage of the tender
price. It can be seen that the maximum cost over-run is less
than 25% of tender price when expenditure on ground inves-
tigation is 5% or more of the tender price. In contrast, expen-
diture of less than 1% would appear to expose the client (in
this case the government) to up to 100% of cost over-run.
The lessons to be learnt from Figure 1 are, first, that cost
over-runs can be very high on certain types of contract,
particularly those with a high percentage of ground-related
work, such as highway construction and tunnelling. There-
fore, not all types of construction are equally risky. For
example, there will be lower levels of geotechnical risk
when constructing in an area with familiar ground
conditions, using well-tried geotechnical components and
processes, in geologically uniform ground.
Fig. 1. Impact of expenditure on ground investigations on highway
contract cost over-runs in the UK (after Mott MacDonald & Soil
Mechanics Ltd. 1994). SI, site investigation.
However, it should be noted that current rates of expendi-
ture are considerably less than 1% of construction cost. It is
unthinkable that clients should increase expenditure on site
investigation by an order of magnitude but, even if they
did, the data in Figure 1 suggest that potential cost over-runs
would remain unacceptable, given that either the client or the
main works contractor will normally take the loss and
the level of profit margins in most businesses and in the
construction industry.
An analysis of the causes of cost over-runs on 12 major
(and relatively troublesome) highway contracts (Tyrrell
et al. 1983) is shown in Figure 2. These projects had, on
average, a 35% cost over-run. The data strongly support
the idea that highway cost over-runs are associated with
site investigation; on average, about 50% of the cost over-
runs were attributed to only two sources. However, it
should be noted that it was the planning and interpretation
of site investigation, rather than the quality or amount of dril-
ling, sampling and testing that was considered the cause of
the problems. These data suggest that: (1) effective risk
and hazard identification is the key, because only once geo-
technical hazards are identified and understood can site
investigation be properly planned; (2) knowledgeable
and realistic interpretation is very important; (3) the quantity
or quality of routine ground investigation drilling, sampling,
etc., may well be a secondary issue. The nature of ground-
related risks and hazards will be discussed below.
The issue of procurement has been thoroughly debated in
the UK (Uff & Clayton 1986, 1991). Procurement methods
that focus on minimizing cost through competitive tender
have been widely condemned because, as has been noted,
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION
Fig. 2. Analysis of the causes of cost over-runs on 12 highway con-
tracts (after Tyrrell et al. 1983).
the cost of site investigation is small compared with the cost
of construction but the effects of unforeseen ground con-
ditions can be very great (Fig. 1). Based on Uff & Clayton
(1986, 1991) it is suggested that a site investigation procure-
ment system should have the following aims.
(1) To ensure that a competent geotechnical adviser is
retained by the project promoter or developer at an early
stage during the conceptualization of the project, to ensure
that key elements such as an initial desk study and hazard
identification are carried out.
(2) As far as possible to give overall responsibility for all
geotechnical matters, at all stages of the project, to a single
company (or, for smaller projects, individual).
(3) To select geotechnical advisers and contractors on the
basis of their resources (staff, equipment, etc.) and experi-
ence with similar forms of construction and ground con-
ditions, and not primarily on the basis of their fee level
and unit rates. In the UK, two systems of procurement have
been recommended, as detailed in CIRIA Special Publi-
cation SP45 (Uff & Clayton 1986). The first uses a geotech-
nical advisor (an experienced and appropriately qualified
geotechnical specialist) to carry out the desk study and walk-
over survey, plan and supervise the ground investigation work,
and separately employs a specialist contractor to carry out
fieldwork, in situ and laboratory testing and factual reporting
of these. The second system, more often used for smaller pro-
jects, involves a package deal where all geotechnical activities
are carried out by a single organization.
Site investigation in an uncertain and
complex world
Terzaghi’s critical comments (Terzaghi 1936) on the
early and unrealistic expectations of civil engineers, that
127
‘engineers imagined that the future science of foundations
would consist in carrying out the following program: drill
a hole into the ground. Send the soil samples obtained
from the hole through a laboratory with standardized appar-
atus served by conscientious human automatons. Collect the
figures, introduce them into equations, and compute the
result’ seems as relevant today as in 1936. He complained
that ‘the major part of the college training of civil engineers
consists in the absorption of the laws and rules which apply
to relatively simple and well-defined materials, such as steel
and concrete. This type of education breeds the illusion that
everything connected with engineering should and can be
computed on the basis of a priori assumptions.’
The main problem still faced by engineering geologists
and geotechnical engineers is that much of engineering is
deterministic and, as geotechnical engineering is a branch
of engineering, there is an expectation of certainty from
our clients. However, experienced engineering geologists
and geotechnical engineers will recognize many factors
that can lead to uncertainty of outcome when dealing with
the ground, some examples of which are listed in Table 1.
Figure 3 gives an example of the uncertainty with which
the settlement of a foundation on sand can be calculated.
The graph shows (on the y-axis) the ratio of the observed
settlement divided by the predicted settlement. The x-axis
gives the predicted settlement for each case. All predictions
used data from the standard penetration test (SPT) which,
although known to be problematical (e.g. Clayton 1995) is
probably the most widely used test in the world for the engin-
eering characterization of granular materials. The data were
produced by collecting well-documented case records,
where the settlements of foundations had been observed
and SPT data were available, and then using a range of
methods to make predictions of settlements. It can be seen
that, approximately, actual (observed) settlements may be
up to five times larger or smaller than are predicted.
The second example (Wheeler 1999) involves the predic-
tion of the behaviour of piles under load. Figure 4 shows the
results of a pile prediction competition. Given the ground
conditions and pile construction, different teams of engin-
eers (marked A to P in Fig. 4) predicted the shaft and base
capacities of a pile that was subsequently load tested. The
results of load testing are shown at the top of the graph.
Table 1. Some uncertainties associated with
geotechnical work
Examples of geotechnical uncertainties
Ground model Software performance
Contaminant model Constitutive framework
Spatial and temporal variability Construction management
Parameters needed Whole-life performance
Groundwater model Engineering competence
Required volume of data Engineering knowledge
Method of calculation Engineering experience
128 C. R. I. CLAYTON
Fig. 3. Comparison of predicted and observed settlements of spread
foundations on sand (after Clayton et al. 1988).
The various predictions are shown in order of total pile
capacity and the lack of accuracy in almost all predictions
can be judged. Fortunately, in this case, most predictions
of performance were conservative.
In both the cases described above, the major uncertainty
arose from the effectiveness of the method of calculation
of a value (settlement, bearing capacity). Not only was the
problem well defined ab initio but ground geometry and par-
ameters were also well described, meaning that there were
far fewer uncertainties than would typically be experienced
in routine practice (see Table 1). In fact, it is hard for the
inexperienced engineer or engineering geologist to envisage
Fig. 4. Predicted and observed pile load capacity (after Wheeler
1999).
the many things that can go wrong during construction. As
Donald Rumsfeld said in February 2002: ‘There are known
knowns. These are things that we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things
that we now know we don’t know. But there are also
unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we
don’t know.’ To carry out successful site investigation we
need to accept the uncertainty of our situation and systema-
tically defend ourselves against it. We should also remember
that the upside of risk is opportunity. If we can work more
effectively with uncertainty than our competitors, we and
our clients can have an increased opportunity to cut costs
and make profits.
Recent site investigation philosophy in the UK
Geotechnical uncertainties represent only one of a number of
types of uncertainty that must be dealt with by the promoter
of a construction project. Other obvious examples include
financial risks and operational risks (e.g. Internal Control
Working Party of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in
England & Wales 1999). Therefore, it is important not
only that the riskiness of the ground-related phase of con-
struction is accepted by the client but that the risks that are
identified are incorporated in the overall project risk
analysis.
For the engineering geologist, it is obvious that the ground
is often heterogeneous and that the scale and degree of its
heterogeneity, as well as its structure, are, to a great
extent, the product of geological processes. For the engineer,
historian and archaeologist it is clear that geologically con-
trolled ground conditions are modified by subsequent land
use. Therefore, it is growing practice in the UK to develop
a number of conceptual ground models for the site under
investigation: (1) a geological model, which uses geological
knowledge to create a conceptual 3D model of the ground;
(2) a geotechnical model, which uses the geological
model and knowledge of the likely physical properties of
the ground and groundwater to identify key issues for
geotechnical design and construction; (3) a land-use model,
which uses historical, archaeological and other data to ident-
ify land contamination, the existence of archaeological heri-
tage, etc. These models must be developed very early in the
investigation process if direct methods of investigation, such
as drilling and in situ testing, are to be planned effectively.
Therefore, a thorough desk study is required, and this needs
to be supplemented (see the Donald Rumsfeld quote above)
by experience captured from senior specialists in the ground
conditions and the expected forms of construction. Figure 5
shows a (relatively simple) example of a geological model
from the first Glossop Lecture by Fookes (1997). Examples
of geotechnical and contamination models, provided in the
AGS ‘Client’s Guide to Desk Studies’ (AGS 2006), are
given in Figures 6 and 7.
It is obvious, given the variability in the ground created by
geological processes and subsequent land use, that a huge
amount of investigation would be necessary to completely
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION 129

Fig. 5. A geological model (after Fookes 1997).

Fig. 6. A geotechnical model (after AGS 2006). mAOD, metres above Ordnance Datum.
130 C. R. I. CLAYTON
Fig. 7. A contaminated land model (after AGS 2006).
remove uncertainties of geometry and material properties.
On a typical geotechnical project the amount of ground
sampled will be less than 1 part in 106 of that affected by
construction (Broms 1980). It is impossible to eliminate
these types of uncertainty. The author’s experience has
been that, even when exceptional amounts of drilling,
boring and testing have been carried out, the ground can
still produce major surprises during construction. So, as
von Clausewitz (1832) said, ‘Decisions that are made with
the awareness of doubt are in most cases better than
decisions in the case in which the doubt is pushed into the
background. Pushing doubt into the background will back
fire; correctly fostered doubt on the other hand can be used
to support well thought through actions.’
In addition to the problems created by complex subsoil geo-
metry, a ground investigation is increasingly hampered by a
lack of knowledge of exactly what will be constructed and
how. The use of specialist geotechnical knowledge through
subcontracted design and build (e.g. of piling, dewatering,
anchoring, grouting, temporary works) means that the
details of some construction may not be available until after
the main works tender period. This, coupled with the need
for early information on ground conditions, suggests that it
will be difficult to avoid up to four different phases of geotech-
nical site investigation: (1) desk study, walk-over survey and
capture of prior experience for risk analysis; (2) direct ground
investigation (geophysics, boring, drilling, in situ and labora-
tory testing of soils and rocks); (3) supplementary direct
investigations to obtain parameters for temporary works,
ground works and geotechnical processes; (4) observation
and monitoring of ground conditions during construction.
Communication of data on the risks perceived at different
stages of the project, by different people and organizations is
vital, and is increasingly being done through the use of risk
registers (Godfrey 1996; Clayton 2001; HR Wallingford
2001) (see below).
Desk studies are best carried out systematically, not only
by people experienced in engineering geology, geotechnics
and contaminated land but also by those with knowledge
and experience of the special needs and weaknesses of the
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION 131

types of construction that are envisaged, if the detection of Table 2. Survey of types of problem encountered during
hazard and all possible risks is to be achieved. Because geo- tunnelling and their costs (US National Committee on
technical engineering practice is regionalized, it would seem Tunneling Technology 1984)
sensible to search for hazards using lists based upon aggre-
gated experience, under the headings geological hazards, Type of problem Proportion of Claims
geomaterial hazards, geotechnical engineering hazards, projects on which (%)
and land-use hazards. Because risks are related to hazard encountered (%)
through vulnerability (Fig. 8), it can be seen that early use
Running ground 27 9
of engineering geological and geotechnical expertise, during Flowing ground 5 4
pre-project planning and conceptual design, can be used to Squeezing ground 19 8
avoid many issues. For example, buildings may be relocated Groundwater inflow 33 6
away from areas of made ground or pre-existing slope Noxious fluid 6 4
instability. Methane gas 7 2
The use of experience during desk studies and walk-over Existing utilities 1 0
surveys is vital. Some experience is necessarily tied up in Pressure binding of tunnel 4 4
individuals and can be best obtained by employing senior boring machine (TBM)
Mucking 5 2
staff (whether within the company of from outside it) Surface subsidence 9 2
during the desk study, for geotechnical design reviews and Face instability; soil 11 5
during construction. However, other types of experience Obstructions (boulders, etc.) 12 11
are in the public domain. As examples, Table 2 shows the Steering problems 4 0
results of a survey of the frequency of various types of
problem encountered during tunnelling, and their costs,
carried out by the US National Committee on Tunneling
Technology. Figure 9 shows similar data obtained for These are clearly the areas that it might pay to get right
general UK construction projects. during site investigation but, alternatively, identifying des-
The results of this type of study are invaluable, not only igns that are relatively insensitive to such changes (e.g. of
much because they warn us about what may go wrong but ground geometry) may be a more economical way forward.
also because they show how frequently the same problems We are lucky that there are a great many ready sources of
occur. In the UK a similar survey was carried out as part desk study information in the UK. Examples of desk study
of the ICE/DETR project on ‘Managing Geotechnical information and advice on undertaking walk-over surveys
Risk’, to identify ground-related problems on more routine can be found in textbooks (e.g. Clayton et al. 1995) and else-
civil engineering construction sites (University of Surrey where (BRE 1987, 1989; DoE 1994a, b; BSI 1999; AGS
1999; Clayton 2001). The results of a survey of 28 projects 2006). Figure 10 gives some examples of on-line topographi-
(Fig. 9) showed that just five types of problem, associated cal maps, aerial photographs, geological maps, old topogra-
with soil boundaries, soil properties, groundwater, contami- phical maps, existing borehole records and the British
nated ground and obstructions produced 75% of the unfore- Geological Survey’s borehole database available through
seen ground-related problems during routine construction. their GeoIndex (NERC 2008). Increasingly, sources of infor-
mation and desk study services (e.g. for land contamination
and other environmental factors) are Web-based and their
use in the UK has become routine. It is now easy to
produce a basic desk study at low cost.
The key to good hazard and risk identification remains the
use of high-level expertise and experience in the interpret-
ation of the desk study and walk-over survey data during
pre-project planning. The UK’s Highways Agency (1996)
suggested the use of risk workshops, focusing on: risk identi-
fication (brainstorming), based upon the desk study; risk
ranking for impact (based upon group experience); establish-
ment of the risk register; association of risks with the phases
of the project when they may be encountered; estimation of
costs and variances, and probability (based upon group
experience). Figure 11 shows an example of a risk register.
These should be simple documents based on relatively few
levels (four or five) of impact and probability of occurrence.
A simple approach to the creation of geotechnical risk regis-
ters is given in Appendix A of the ICE/DETR Managing
Fig. 8. Classification of hazards. Geotechnical Risk document (Clayton 2001). An Excel
132 C. R. I. CLAYTON
Fig. 9. Causes of unforeseen problems on UK construction sites (after Clayton 2001).
add-on is available from the UK Construction Industry
Research and Information Association (HR Wallingford
2001). It is widely agreed that these documents should be
updated continuously throughout both the design and con-
struction of the project and should be made available to all
organizations connected with ground work.
The urban environment
At the beginning of the 20th century, 7% of the world’s
population could be considered ‘urban’. Most urban dwellers
lived in developed countries. By 1950 30% of the population
lived in urban areas and by 2000 47% was urban. By 2030, it
is expected that more than 60% of the world’s population
will live in towns and cities. Most of the new urban areas
will be in developing countries.
The urban environment is more difficult for site investi-
gators than the rural one. To the normal challenges presented
to new construction by the geology are added the vulner-
ability of the proposed project to more difficult shallow
ground conditions, the effects of development on existing
buildings and infrastructure, and the special difficulties of
carrying out site investigations in urban areas.
Urban ground
Ground conditions in urban areas, and particularly in old or
ancient cities, can be even more demanding than those in a
green-field or recently developed areas. The geometry of
the ground is made more complex, and its properties more
variable, by previous land use. Previous land use can also
leave chemical or biological contaminants in the ground,
which may pose a hazard for drilling rig operators (ICE
1993d) and laboratory technicians, and is likely to have
left obstructions, thus limiting the volume of ground that
can be satisfactorily be investigated.
However, the importance of the geological model, and of
local geological knowledge, must not be forgotten, and
should continue to be the starting point for site investigation.
The 1:50 000 geological map shown in Figure 10 is for an
area near Bristol, which was some years ago developed for
a superstore. The map shows the presence of thin coal
seams beneath the site and, as a result of the recognition
that coal mining might have taken place in the 18th or
19th century, an additional site investigation was required
to assess the possibility that cavities might be present.
Figure 12 shows the geometry of steep-sided ‘scour
hollows’ to be found beneath Battersea Power Station,
near Central London (Buro Happold Consulting Engineers,
pers. comm.). These features, which are probably inter-
glacial (Berry 1979) in origin, penetrate the Pleistocene
Thames Terrace Gravels (Bridgland 1994) and, at this
location, can also cut right through the London Clay
Formation. Because of their steep-sided 3D form, they are
extremely difficult to locate with routine quantities of
site investigation.
Previous land use produces increased complexity of
ground and groundwater conditions. Examples from the
London area include: (1) the existence of significant thick-
nesses of artificial deposits (termed ‘fill’ or ‘made ground’
in the UK); (2) lowered groundwater as a result of local
but widespread abstraction (e.g. Amos 1860; see also
Mather 2004); (3) significant undiscovered ordnance (such
as bombs) in the ground, as cities have often been important
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION 133

Fig. 10. Examples of desk study information available in the UK.

134 C. R. I. CLAYTON
Fig. 11. Example of a risk register (courtesy of Arup; after Clayton 2001).
targets in 20th-century wars; (4) both shallow and deep
foundations, left in the ground by previous use; (5) services,
tunnels and cellars in close proximity.
Made ground will typically be loose-tipped and will be
variable both in composition and mechanical properties. It
can be associated with chemical or biological contaminants;
for example, derived from previous industry on the site, or
simply from previous sanitation arrangements.
Figure 13 shows an archaeological reconstruction of the
extent of the River Thames and the islands within it in
Roman times. Before it was confined by the construction of
the embankments in Victorian times, about 150 years ago,
the Thames was much wider. As can be seen, in this area
its right bank was over 1 km south of its present position.
The large area to the north of the old river bank is underlain
by penecontemporaneous (relatively recent) alluvium as
well as the (relatively ancient) made ground described below.
Most cities have been redeveloped very significantly over
the centuries. Figure 14 shows a record of an excavation for a
hotel lift shaft in the London Bridge area, which is one of the
older areas of development in London. About 3 m of geome-
trically complex medieval (.500 years old) and Roman
(.1600 years old) backfill exists, all of which is potentially
rich in archaeological material and the geometry of which
has archaeological significance in itself (see below).
Figure 15 shows street plans from the 18th and 20th centu-
ries. Realignment of streets since the 18th century means
that 19th- and 20th-century services may pass through old
basements in this area.
Since the 1920s, repetitive reconstruction of areas of
central London, sometimes as a result of wartime bombing
but also simply because of the needs to modernize office
buildings, has resulted in the construction of several
phases and types of foundation. The introduction of concrete
and steel piling in the early 20th century has allowed pro-
gressively taller buildings to be constructed. Because, gener-
ally, it is impossible to remove existing foundations (and
particularly piled foundations), a build-up of obstructions
is occurring. The simplest approach is to locate and avoid
existing foundations, tunnels and services, but in areas
such as central London this is likely to become impossible
in the near future. Obstructions are clearly a major target
for urban site investigations.
One option is to reuse these foundations, but this requires
even greater investigation of the site. Figure 16 shows a
sketch of the existing foundations within Battersea Power
Station (Buro Happold Consulting Engineers, pers.
comm.), a large derelict power plant in central London that
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION 135

Fig. 12. Scour hollow geometry, Battersea Power Station (courtesy of Buro Happold Consulting Engineers).

Fig. 13. Archaeological reconstruction of the extent of the Thames in central London, in Roman times (after Yule 1988).
136
Fig. 14. Record of an excavation for a hotel lift shaft in the London
Bridge area of central London.
is being redeveloped. An immense amount of investigation
and testing is required to determine not only the location
of all foundations but, also, their likely load-carrying
characteristics.
Fig. 15. Eighteenth- and 20th-century street plans in the London Bridge area, showing realignment.
C. R. I. CLAYTON
Ground-related vulnerability of urban development
Variable, compressible and metastable ground, such as
made ground, can have a significant effect on the behaviour
of shallow foundations and services during construction.
It is obvious that building new foundations or services on
such ground is undesirable. It is perhaps less obvious that
new construction can have a significant effect on existing
and, perhaps, very old buildings and pipelines, which
may have been poorly constructed (these issues were not
well understood even in the first half of the 20th century)
and may now be in poor condition. Such infrastructure
is very common in many cities. Depending upon whether
you are the developer of new buildings or construction, or
the owner of existing buildings or infrastructure, damage
caused by new construction is either an ‘accident waiting
to happen’ or the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’.
The cost-effectiveness of urban redevelopment can be
significantly affected by the possible presence of archaeo-
logical remains. There is a growing need to recognize the
importance of archaeological heritage and obtain site inves-
tigation data in a way that will help archaeologists; this is
even more important in urban areas. Failure to recognize
the presence of potentially important archaeological
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION
Fig. 16. Three-dimensional visualization of existing foundations inside Battersea Power Station, London (Buro Happold
Consulting Engineers, pers. comm).
evidence and artefacts can lead to long delays during rede-
velopment, as the discovery of the remains of the
16th-century Shakespearean Rose Theatre, during the rede-
velopment of an office block in London, in 1989, shows
(Rose Theatre Trust 2008). Not only did the archaeological
excavation delay construction but redesign of the substruc-
ture was necessary to ensure the preservation of archaeolo-
gical heritage.
The UK Department of the Environment’s Planning
Policy Guidance Note PPG 16 (DoE 1990) required local
planning authorities to make archaeological concerns a
‘material consideration’ for all planning applications.
There is now a demand on many sites that the archaeological
resource, if significant, be preserved in situ by ‘good
engineering practices’. Sites must be thoroughly evaluated
archaeologically and often require a separate archaeological
investigation. This investigation may involve geophysical
137
prospecting and extensive hand-dug trenching. Methods of
obtaining greater archaeological information from routine
ground investigation are under development.
Given that urban and inner-city sites have often been the
subject of a number of phases of land use and redevelop-
ment, the opportunities for the land to become contaminated
are greatly increased. Contaminated land is a risk not only
for the public and those who may ultimately work or live
in the development. Site investigation personnel are in the
front line and need to be protected (ICE 1993d).
Site investigation challenges
As discussed above, urban site investigation needs more skill
and care because of the following factors.
(1) The underlying geology can be expected to be no less
complex than elsewhere.
138 C. R. I. CLAYTON
(2) There will be limited (if any) exposures of the geology
in an urban area and its surface expression will often be
suppressed.
(3) Previous land use will have made near-surface
materials more geometrically complex, whilst adding the
chance of contamination and the presence of ordnance.
(4) Regional dewatering (e.g. for water supply; Mather
2004) and future movements of the groundwater table need
to be understood.
(5) Archaeological features and artefacts may be present,
which need to be identified, perhaps excavated, and at least
avoided during construction.
(6) Property owners and developers will have paid a
premium for an urban site and, generally, will wish to maxi-
mize the use of it, perhaps by using deep basements and
construction up to the property line.
(7) Nearby buildings, tunnels and services must be taken
into account, their condition assessed and the effects of con-
struction on them estimated. In London, as in most cities, the
presence of very close pre-existing buildings and critical
infrastructure such as tunnels is the norm, as described in
many academic papers (e.g. Clayton et al. 1991; Mair &
Harris 2001).
(8) Access for drilling rigs will be restricted and may
be difficult.
The consequences of a geotechnical failure in a built-up
environment are generally far more severe than in a rural
setting, as failures of the Heathrow Express tunnels in
London (Health and Safety Executive 2000), the Merrie-
spruit tailings dam in South Africa (Strydom & Williams
1999) and the Po Shan slope in Hong Kong (Au 1998) all
show. Even if fatalities are avoided, the financial effects
can be very large. As has been described above, ground con-
ditions in urban areas are likely to be more challenging but
because the cost of urban development is, generally,
greater and every piece of development is likely to affect
numbers of adjacent structures and services, higher levels
of certainty are likely to be needed before urban develop-
ment can proceed.
Responses
Despite the potential difficulties inherent in urban site inves-
tigations, there are likely to be some compensating factors.
High property values and the severe consequences of geo-
technical failures can encourage clients to spend more on
direct methods of site investigation, if this can be justified
in terms of greater exploitation of the site (e.g. deeper base-
ments, or building closer to existing buildings or infrastruc-
ture) and reduced risk. Written records and maps relating to
previous land use are likely to exist for both the site itself and
its environs. Borehole and other data may be available from
previous site investigations.
The following strategies have developed in the UK.
(1) There is heavy reliance on desk studies; for example,
to investigate existing services, old foundations and the
potential for land contamination, and as a basis for planning
direct further ground investigations.
(2) As a result of this, national and company borehole data-
bases and urban geological models have been developed.
(3) Specialist drilling and sampling apparatus is used to
deal with shallow and potentially contaminated ground.
(4) In uniform ground, sophisticated drilling, sampling,
in situ and laboratory testing methods are used to obtain
advanced geotechnical design parameters for complex
numerical (finite-element or finite-difference) modelling.
(5) At the same time, index testing and back-analysed par-
ameters from monitoring of previous construction in similar
ground conditions, are used as a check on site investigation
data and for use in more routine design work.
(6) Methods of adapting geotechnical investigations to
meet archaeological needs are under current consideration.
Site investigation workers can be at risk if they work on
contaminated sites. The first and most cost-effective phase
of any assessment of likely contamination will rely heavily
on desk study records (BS10175, BSE 2001). In urban site
investigation this must be carried out very early during
pre-project planning, so that the nature and extent of
possible contamination hazards can be identified and con-
trolled. In the UK, the British Drilling Association has pre-
pared a classification system that provides a framework
within which the investigation of urban and brownfield
sites can take place (ICE 1993d) and this is currently
under revision.
Site investigation databases are in common use in the UK.
Major and local specialist geotechnical consultants and con-
tractors and local authorities have traditionally maintained
collections of site investigation reports but for a very long
period there were no publicly available records. The decision
of the British Geological Survey to build a borehole data col-
lection (NERC 2008) and the widespread use of the AGS
electronic data transfer format (AGS 2005b) in the UK
(and increasingly elsewhere) has meant that paper borehole
records have become easily accessible for desk study pur-
poses and are likely to be replaced with downloadable elec-
tronic records (and possibly additional data) in the future.
Although borehole records can rarely be used to avoid a
new, bespoke, ground investigation, they are invaluable
when used in conjunction with an engineering geological
interpretation, as they can give information on the local
thickness of formations, the composition of the material
(through the engineering descriptions they contain), the
approximate value of properties of different strata (such as
SPT N value and undrained shear strength), and the level
of groundwater strikes.
Specialist compact drilling equipment is increasingly
being used for the investigation of shallow, often contami-
nated, urban ground. An example of a drilling rig and
some samplers is shown in Figure 17. Such machines are
typically track mounted and have an automatic hammer
that can be used to drive sampler tubes into the ground, or
carry out dynamic penetration testing. Additionally, they
may have some limited hydraulic rotary drilling capability.
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION
Fig. 17. Example of compact drilling rig and associated equipment
(courtesy of Dando and Archway Engineering).
A conventional soft ground drilling rig operates by advan-
cing the borehole, cased or uncased, and then carrying out
in situ tests or sampling from the base of the borehole. A
dynamic probe rig takes tube samples as a means of advan-
cing the hole or, alternatively, can carry out continuous
dynamic penetration testing, typically in the UK using a
trip hammer with the same weight and height of drop as
for the SPT but at a considerably faster rate. Samples can
be taken using a window sampler, essentially a tube with
an opening in its side, allowing recovery of disturbed
material or, preferably, with a composite, thick-walled,
open-drive sampler (termed a ‘windowless sampler’),
which has a inner, clear, plastic liner, allowing identification
of the material in the field, and provides a container in
which the material can be sent to the laboratory for further
description and testing.
It is often the case in geotechnical engineering that soil
parameters obtained from back analysis of monitored struc-
tures (e.g. of foundation settlements, movement around
excavations and tunnels, seepage into excavations) are
more reliable and accurate than data obtained from in situ
tests or laboratory tests on soil samples. Urban geotechnical
design should be more reliable as a result of the intensity
and frequency of construction, leading not only to the
139
establishment of precedent practice but, also, to case his-
tories of the performance of different structures. In the stiff
London Clay, for example, conventional laboratory
measurements of stiffness (using, for example, the oedo-
meter test) can be very much (about an order of magnitude)
lower than estimates made on the basis of movements around
deep basement excavations. The difference results, primar-
ily, from bedding during testing and, if good estimates of
stiffness are required, it may be better to use back-analysed
data than carry out routine testing (e.g. Clayton et al. 1991).
Thus, one approach is to restrict site investigation to simple
(but numerous) index tests (in the London Clay this might
involve moisture content, plasticity and undrained shear
strength and SPT tests). These can then be used to identify
monitored sites in similar ground for which back-analysed
data are available.
As noted above, urban site investigation is often special
because the land being developed is expensive, structures
are larger, with deeper basements, and are surrounded by
existing structures and significant services and tunnels,
often in poor condition. Responses to this seem to differ,
depending upon the complexity of the subsoil geometry. In
the London Clay, complex, high-cost, site investigation
techniques, involving pushed thin-walled tube sampling,
wire-line core drilling, self-boring pressuremeter testing,
seismic cone penetration testing (CPT) and laboratory
stress path triaxial testing with local strain and mid-plane
pore pressure measurement have become reasonably
common. The results of such site investigation are typically
used in advanced (finite-element or finite-difference) num-
erical modelling of the ground movements around exca-
vations and tunnels, which is justified because the simple
ground geometry can be modelled in a simple way.
However, in many other situations (e.g. Manhattan and
Amsterdam, where the ground geometry is far more
complex), a precise knowledge of soil parameters is of sec-
ondary importance. In these areas much more effort is put
into profiling, for example using the CPT.
Conclusions
Site investigation philosophy is changing from one where
engineers imagined that they had a reasonable chance
(given enough skill and expenditure) of determining the
entire subsoil geometry and the properties of the ground,
to one where the geometric complexity of the ground is
recognized, its hazards and risks are identified, and the
uncertainty that can be involved in determining even rela-
tively simple outcomes, such as the settlement of a foun-
dation, are recognized. In this context, engineering
geology plays an important role in helping to construct the
geological model for a site, in aiding an understanding of
the likely variability of ground and groundwater conditions,
and in identifying the full range of hazards that might be
present. Risk analysis and risk registers are vital as means
140 C. R. I. CLAYTON
of communicating information on ground-related risks to all
those involved in a project.
The urban environment provides particular challenges
for ground investigations. The geometry of the deeper
ground will be no less complex than that on an equivalent
green-field site but, at shallow depth, the presence of uncom-
pacted and, perhaps, organic made ground, contamination
and obstructions can make the work of site investigation con-
siderably more challenging. Gathering information to assist
in identifying archaeological heritage has also become
important.
In an urban area, site investigation also has a wider range
of targets. Providing data to assess the effects of new con-
struction on existing buildings and on surrounding infra-
structure such as services and tunnels can be more of a
challenge than determining the likely performance of the
new construction, particularly as the geometry, location
and condition of existing services, foundations and tunnels
may all be uncertain. The consequences of a geotechnical
failure are likely to be much more severe in an urban
environment, so that the standards of certainty required are
likely to be greater before planning permission can be
obtained. This applies as much to off-site features (such as
surrounding slopes and structures) as to the project itself.
There have been a number of responses to these chal-
lenges. First, repetitive construction in a relatively small
area means that desk studies are likely to be even more
fruitful than in a non-urban area, and that experience and
reports of problems and successes in previous construction
(precedent practice) can be very useful. The drilling and
probing of large numbers of exploratory holes in a relatively
small area gives the opportunity to build databases and to
incorporate these in 3D geological models (Neber et al.
2009), helping to extrapolate the data in the context of an
engineering geological interpretation. Second, it has been
recognized that under favourable ground conditions, back
analysis of monitored data from previous construction may
provide a better measure of ground parameters such as stiff-
ness and permeability than the techniques commonly used
during routine site investigation. Third, specialist drilling,
sampling and testing equipment has been developed to
deal with shallow depths of contaminated ground and
with greater depths of more uniform soil. Techniques are
evolving for other specialist urban investigation issues,
such as the investigation of existing foundations with a
view to reuse.
References
AGS 2005a. Position Paper—Registration. Association of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, Beckenham. World
Wide Web Address: http://www.ags.org.uk/aboutus/Registra-
tionGeotechnicalEngineers.pdf.
AGS 2005b. Electronic transfer of geotechnical and geoenviron-
mental data using XML data format. Progress Report. Associ-
ation of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists,
Beckenham. World Wide Web Address: http://www.ags.org.
uk/agsml/AGSMLAugust2005Report.pdf.
AGS 2006. A Client’s Guide to Desk Studies. Association of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, Beckenham.
World Wide Web Address: http://www.ags.org.uk/publi-
cations/Deskstudies.pdf.
A MOS , C. E. 1860. On the government waterworks in Trafalgar
Square. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 19,
21–52.
A U , S. W. C. 1998. Rain-induced slope instability in Hong Kong.
Engineering Geology, 51, 1– 36.
B ERRY , F. G. 1979. Late Quaternary scour-hollows and related
features in central London. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 12, 9– 29.
BRE 1987. Site investigation for low-rise building: desk studies.
BRE Digest, 318.
BRE 1989. Site Investigation for low-rise buildings: the walk-over
survey. BRE Digest, 348.
B RIDGLAND , D. R. 1994. The Pleistocene of the Thames. In:
B RIDGLAND , D. R. (ed.) Quaternary of the Thames. Chapman
& Hall, London, Geological Conservation Review Series, 7,
1– 30.
B ROMS , B. B. 1980. Soil sampling in Europe: state-of-the-art. Pro-
ceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106, 65–98.
BSI 1999. BS5930. Code of practice for site investigations. British
Standards Institution, London.
BSI 2001. BS10175. Code of practice for the investigation of
potentially contaminated sites. British Standards Institution,
London.
C LAYTON , C. R. I. 1995. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT):
methods and use. CIRIA Special Publication Report, R143.
C LAYTON , C. R. I. 2001. Managing geotechnical risk: improving
productivity in UK building and construction. Institute of Civil
Engineers/Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions Report. Thomas Telford, London.
C LAYTON , C. R. I., S IMONS , N. E. & I NSTONE , S. J. 1988. Research
on dynamic penetration testing of sands. In: D E R UITER , J. (ed.)
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Penetration
Testing, Florida, Vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, 415– 422.
C LAYTON , C. R. I., E DWARDS , A. & W EBB , M. J. 1991. Displace-
ments within the London Clay during construction. In: A SSO-
CIAZONE G EOTECNICA I TALIANA (ed.) Proceedings of the
10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Florence, Vol 2. Balkema, Rotterdam, 791–796.
C LAYTON , C. R. I., M ATTHEWS , M. C. & S IMONS , N. E. 1995. Site
Investigation. Blackwell, Oxford.
D O E 1990. Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and
planning. PPG16. Department of the Environment, London.
D O E 1994a. Guidance on preliminary site inspection of contami-
nated land. CLR Report, 2.
D O E 1994b. Documentary research on industrial sites. CLR Report, 3.
F OOKES , P. G. 1997. The geological model, prediction and perform-
ance. 1st Glossop Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 30, 293–424.
G ODFREY , P. S. 1996. Control of risk: a guide to the systematic
management of risk from construction. CIRIA Special Publi-
cation Report, SP125.
H EALTH AND S AFETY E XECUTIVE 2000. The collapse of NATM
tunnels at Heathrow Airport. Health and Safety Executive
Books, London.
H IGHWAYS A GENCY 1996. Value for money manual. Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
HR W ALLINGFORD 2001. RiskCom. Software tool for managing
and communicating risks. Software C561 [CD].
 URBAN SITE INVESTIGATION
ICE 1993a. Site investigation in construction. Volume 1: Without
site investigation ground is a hazard. Site Investigation Steering
Group. Thomas Telford, London.
ICE 1993b. Site investigation in construction. Volume 2: Planning,
procurement and quality management. Site Investigation Steer-
ing Group. Thomas Telford, London.
ICE 1993c. Site investigation in construction. Volume 3: Specifica-
tion for ground investigation. Site Investigation Steering Group.
Thomas Telford, London.
ICE 1993d. Site investigation in construction. Volume 3: Guidelines
for the safe investigation by drilling of landfills and contami-
nated land. Site Investigation Steering Group. Thomas
Telford, London.
I NTERNAL C ONTROL W ORKING P ARTY OF THE I NSTITUTE OF
C HARTERED A CCOUNTANTS IN E NGLAND & W ALES 1999.
Internal control—guidance for Directors on the Combined
Code. Chaired by Nigel Turnbull. (‘The Turnbull Report’).
World Wide Web Address: http://www.icaew.co.uk/.
M AIR , R. J. & H ARRIS , D. 2001. Innovative engineering to control
Big Ben’s tilt. Ingenia, 9, August, 23– 27.
M ATHER , J. 2004. British hydrogeology—a brief history. World
Wide Web Address: http://www.groundwateruk.org.
M OTT M AC D ONALD & S OIL M ECHANICS L TD . 1994. Study of the
efficiency of site investigation practices. Transport Research
Laboratory Project Report, PR60.
N EBER , A., A UBEL , J., C LASSON , F., H OEFER , S., K UNZ , A. &
S OBISCH , H. G. 2009. From the Devonian to the present:
landscape and technogenic relief evolution in an urban
environment. In: C ULSHAW , M. G., R EEVES , H. J., J EFFERSON ,
I. & S PINK , T. W. (eds) Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s
Cities. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology
Special Publications, 22 [on CD-ROM insert, Paper 517].
NERC 2008. GeoIndex. Natural Environment Research Council.
British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham. World
Wide Web Address: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/index.
htm.
R OSE T HEATRE T RUST 2008. The Rose. World Wide Web
Address: http://www.rosetheatre.org.uk/.
141
R OWE , P. W. 1972. The relevance of soil fabric to site investigation
practice. 12th Rankine Lecture. Geotéchnique, 22, 195– 300.
S TRYDOM , J. H. & W ILLIAMS , A. A. B. 1999. A review of impor-
tant and interesting technical findings regarding the tailings dam
failure at Merriespruit. Journal of the South African Institution
of Civil Engineers, 41, 1 –9.
T ERZAGHI , K. 1936. Relation between soil mechanics and foun-
dation engineering. Presidential address. In: Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Harvard, Vol 3. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 13–18.
T YRRELL , A. P., L AKE , L. M. & P ARSONS , A. W. 1983. An inves-
tigation of the extra costs arising on highway contracts. Trans-
port and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Supplementary
Report, SR814.
U FF , J. F. & C LAYTON , C. R. I. 1986. Recommendations for the pro-
curement of ground investigation. CIRIA Special Publication, 45.
U FF , J. F. & C LAYTON , C. R. I. 1991. Role and responsibility in site
investigation. CIRIA Special Publication, 73.
U NIVERSITY OF S URREY 1999. Task 5 Report. Case histories and
their interpretation. Unpublished report for DETR/PIT Project
on: Managing geotechnical risk: improving productivity in UK
building and construction.
US N ATIONAL C OMMITTEE ON T UNNELING T ECHNOLOGY 1984.
Geotechnical site investigations for underground projects.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
V ON C LAUSEWITZ , K. 1832. Vom Kriege. Dümmlers, Berlin.
W HEELER , P. 1999. Scattering predictions—Imperial College pre-
dictions competition shows pile design remains a big uncer-
tainty. New Civil Engineer, December 2, 34.
W ILLIAMS , J. T. & M ETTAM , J. D. 1971. Summary of lecture
and discussion. National Ports Council—Port Structures
Report. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
48, 475.
Y ULE , B. 1988. The natural topography of north Southwark. In:
H INTON , P. (ed.) Examinations in Southwark 1973–6, Lambeth
1973–9. London and Middlesex Archaeological Society and
Surrey Archaeological Society Joint Publication, 3, 13–18.