Dealing with Made Ground: Risks and Mitigation Tactics
Made Ground, sometimes called anthropogenic or disturbed ground, is a common feature of many UK construction sites. It is defined as material placed or significantly altered by human activity, often consisting of reworked soils, demolition debris, fill from previous development, or mixed waste. While Made Ground can be practical for levelling or reclaiming land, it presents significant challenges for civil, structural, and geotechnical engineers.
The variability, uncertainty, and potential hazards associated with Made Ground mean it must be treated with caution. The engineering response requires a multidisciplinary approach: robust investigation, clear risk assessment, foundation design adapted to the conditions, and site-specific mitigation strategies.
This article outlines the principal risks of Made Ground, the investigative methods used in the UK, and practical approaches to mitigation that align with modern standards and good practice.
Risks of Made Ground
The risks associated with Made Ground are both geotechnical and geoenvironmental. They include:
Unpredictable settlement: Poor compaction and variability in fill material can cause differential movement, threatening structural integrity.
Contamination: Previous industrial or landfill uses may leave behind hazardous substances requiring remediation.
Ground gas emissions: Methane, carbon dioxide, or other gases may be present, with potential implications for health and safety.
Buried obstructions or voids: Demolition rubble, tanks, or old foundations may be concealed, complicating excavation and piling works.
Instability: Inclusion of degradable or compressible materials reduces long-term stability and can undermine load-bearing capacity.
Historic examples highlight the consequences of insufficient assessment. At several UK brownfield housing developments, inadequate investigation of Made Ground led to cracked foundations and costly remedial piling. In 2024, a newbuild development had to be demolished in Cambridge had to be demolished because of this . These cases underline the need for thorough geotechnical and geoenvironmental appraisal before construction.
Investigation and Risk Assessment
The first step in managing Made Ground is understanding it. UK practice follows a phased investigation strategy, beginning with desk-based studies and progressing to intrusive and laboratory testing.
Desk studies draw on historical maps, aerial photographs, and environmental records to identify past land uses.
Site investigation involves trial pits, boreholes, in-situ testing, and sampling to determine the composition and variability of the Made Ground.
Laboratory testing assesses strength, compressibility, and contamination levels.
Monitoring may extend through construction and into occupation, particularly for ground gas or groundwater behaviour.
Risk assessment is central to this process. Tools such as risk registers and Geotechnical Baseline Reports (GBRs) help catalogue hazards and define responsibilities between stakeholders. Quantitative risk assessments may also be required to justify the design of gas protection measures or remediation works.
Foundation and Structural Solutions
Designers typically avoid reliance on Made Ground as a sole bearing stratum. Acceptable solutions include:
Piled foundations: Piles transfer loads through Made Ground into competent natural strata.
Raft foundations: Used only where settlement can be tightly controlled, typically limited to 25 mm long-term settlement and 1/500 differential settlement.
Ground improvement: Methods such as vibro-compaction, grouting, or soil stabilisation can enhance bearing capacity and reduce settlement risk.
Warranty providers and technical standards provide strict tolerances. For example, NHBC guidance specifies 10 mm long-term settlement limits for piles, while raft foundations must demonstrate compliance with both vertical and differential limits. Designers must align foundation selection with both geotechnical data and structural tolerances to avoid long-term serviceability issues.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Mitigation
Mitigation measures are often site-specific but may include:
Soil replacement or stabilisation where fill material is unsuitable for support.
Gas protection systems, including membranes and venting, where methane or carbon dioxide concentrations exceed safe thresholds.
Drainage control to prevent softening, instability, or groundwater rise that could compromise foundation performance.
Consideration of nearby hazards such as dissolution features, mine workings, or old basements, which may exacerbate settlement risks.
Guidance from Eurocode 7, BS 5930, BS 8004, and industry documents such as CIRIA C665 (Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases) and BRE guidance on radon and ground gases provides frameworks for managing these risks consistently.
Legal and Contractual Considerations
Ground risk is not only technical but contractual. Construction projects often face disputes when unexpected Made Ground conditions emerge on site.
Best practice includes:
Transparent tendering: Site investigation results and risk registers should be shared with contractors to ensure fair pricing and allocation of risk.
Defined baselines: Geotechnical Baseline Reports establish the assumed ground conditions, providing a benchmark for contractual claims if conditions differ materially
Shared responsibility: Contracts may apportion responsibility for unforeseen ground conditions, reducing the likelihood of adversarial claims.
Examples from major infrastructure projects, such as the Crossrail development, demonstrate the effectiveness of detailed GBRs in reducing disputes and clarifying risk ownership.
Conclusion
Made Ground presents both opportunities and challenges. It allows the redevelopment of brownfield land, unlocking sites that would otherwise be unavailable, but it introduces variability, contamination risks, and geotechnical uncertainty.
For civil, structural, and geotechnical engineers, the approach is consistent: thorough investigation, robust risk assessment, careful foundation and structural design, and site-specific mitigation strategies. Technical guidance and contractual controls are critical tools in managing uncertainty and delivering safe, durable, and cost-effective outcomes.
Future developments in digital ground modelling, improved in-situ testing, and integrated risk management will continue to support engineers in dealing with Made Ground effectively.
If you found this article useful, explore other CEFS blogs on geotechnics, structures, and construction best practice. Subscribe to the CEFS newsletter for technical insights delivered weekly, and explore our bespoke training packages to strengthen your professional development.