geotechnical investigation early childhood education & care centre ...
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 010-199A, Dated: 4 November 2010
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION & CARE CENTRE MICHAELINA DRIVE BEAUDESERT Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Prepared for Project Services Project No. 010-199A, 4 November 2010
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 1
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Proposed Scope of Work .................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Commission ..................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 - THE SITE 2.1 2.2
4 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 4 Geology............................................................................................................................ 5
SECTION 3 - FIELDWORK 3.1 3.2
6 Drilling and Sampling Methods ......................................................................................... 6 Bore Locations and Supervision ....................................................................................... 6
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS 7 4.1 Reports ............................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 7 4.4.1 Erosion and Sediment Control ............................................................................. 7 4.4.2 Particle Size Distribution ...................................................................................... 8 4.4.3 Shrink-Swell ......................................................................................................... 8 4.4.4 California Bearing Ratio ....................................................................................... 8 4.4.5 Topsoil ................................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 5 - GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DISCUSSION 10 5.1 Ground Model ................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Existing Fill ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Earthworks ..................................................................................................................... 11 5.3.1 Excavation ......................................................................................................... 11 5.3.2 Site Preparation ................................................................................................. 11 5.3.3 Compaction........................................................................................................ 11 5.3.4 Traffickability ...................................................................................................... 12 5.3.5 Surface Water Control and Site Drainage .......................................................... 12 5.3.6 Silts.................................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Retaining Wall Pressures ............................................................................................... 12 5.5 Reactive Soil Movements ............................................................................................... 13 5.5.1 Estimated Characteristic Surface Movements .................................................... 13 5.5.2 Design Guidance ............................................................................................... 13 5.6 Foundations ................................................................................................................... 14 5.6.1 Stiffened Raft ..................................................................................................... 15 5.6.2 Deep Strip & Pad Foundations ........................................................................... 15 5.6.3 Piles................................................................................................................... 16 5.6.3.1 Bored .............................................................................................. 16 5.6.3.2 Screw .............................................................................................. 16 5.7 Pavements ..................................................................................................................... 17
Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report (2 pages)
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
TABLES: Table 1: Summary of Reported Emerson Class, pH and Conductivity Test Results ................................... 8 Table 2: Summary of Reported Particle Size Distribution Test Results ...................................................... 8 Table 3: Summary of Reported Shrink-Swell Index Test Results .............................................................. 8 Table 4: Summary of CBR Test Results .................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Working Bearing Pressure for Strip & Pad Footings .................................................................. 15 Table 6: Working Shaft/End Bearing Capacity for Bored Pile Design ...................................................... 16
butlerpartners.com.au
ATTACHMENTS: Drawing No. 1
Locality Plan & Test Locations
Appendix A Appendix B
Bore Report Sheets with Explanatory Notes Laboratory Report Sheets
Page 2
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1
Project
It is understood that the proposed development comprises an Early Childhood Education and Care Centre (ECEC) that will consist of two, single storey modular buildings, potentially supported on screw/bored piles. Each modular building will comprise stud framed walls supporting a skillion roof system. The approximate location and extent of the development are shown on Drawing No. 1. 1.2
Proposed Scope of Work
Project Services’ Terms of Reference for geotechnical investigation for the development requested the following scope of work: five (5) bores to 3m depth (or prior refusal); two (2) shrink-swell index tests; two (2) CBR tests; one (1) blended topsoil sample (from two locations); and three (3) pH and dispersivity tests. Using the results of the fieldwork and laboratory testing outcomes obtained from the required investigation scope, it was proposed that a report would be produced that would provide geotechnical design information on each of the following topics: subsurface conditions; laboratory test results; earthworks and site preparation; excavatability; reactive soil movement; retaining wall pressures; 1.3
suitable alternate foundation types; working bearing pressures; anticipated footing settlements; slab and pavement subgrade parameters; and anticipated construction aspects.
Commission
Based on the proposed nature of the development, the anticipated subsurface conditions and the scope of work nominated by Project Services, a fee to undertake the investigation was presented in a proposal of 26 July 2010. Butler Partners Pty Ltd was subsequently commissioned by Project Services to conduct the geotechnical investigation as proposed. This report was first issued in draft for comment on 22 October 2010.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 3
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 2 - THE SITE 2.1
Site Description
At the time of the investigation, the site was developed with a timber children’s play structure and covered sand pit, seats, concrete paths/slabs and the ground surface was covered by grass. Medium to large trees were located on and adjacent to the site. Ground surface levels over the site generally sloped downwards to the west from a high of approximately RL84.0m on the Michaelina Drive boundary to approximately RL82.3m on the western side of the site. Three general views of the site at the time of the investigation are given in Photograph 1 to Photograph 3.
Photograph 1: Panoramic view of the site looking north to north-east from near Bore 6
Photograph 2: Panoramic view of the site looking north-west to north from Birnam Street
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 4
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Photograph 3: Panoramic view of the site looking west to south-west from near Bore 5 2.2
Geology
Reference to the Queensland Government’s Department of Mine’s 1:100,000 Geological Series, Ipswich Sheet indicates that the site is located in an area mapped as Walloon Coal Measures (comprising shale, coal, siltstone and sandstone), close to a boundary with Jurassic Beaudesert Beds (comprising basalt, dolerite sills and minor carbonaceous shale).
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 5
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 3 - FIELDWORK 3.1
Drilling and Sampling Methods
The investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of six bores to between 0.5m and 3.0m depth approximately using a track mounted Geoprobe 6610DT drilling rig, operating solid flight augers. Strata identification was from the inspection of disturbed material returned to the surface by the augers, supplemented by the inspection of ‘undisturbed’ thin wall tube samples and ‘disturbed’ Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) samples, recovered at selected depths. 3.2
Bore Locations and Supervision
Bore locations were determined in the field by direct measurement from existing site features and are indicated approximately on the attached Drawing No. 1. The ground surface level at each bore location was estimated by interpolation from spot levels given on Norris Clarke and O’Brien Pty Ltd’s Beaudesert State Pre School, Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15 July 2010. An experienced geotechnician set out the test locations, logged the stratigraphy encountered in the bores and directed the in-situ sampling and testing program.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 6
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS 4.1
Reports
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are given on Bore Report Sheets included in Appendix A, using classification and descriptive terms defined in the accompanying notes. Laboratory test report sheets are included in Appendix B. 4.2
Subsurface Conditions
For a description of the stratigraphy encountered in the bores, the Bore Report sheets should be consulted. The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores were relatively variable, however, in broad summary, they generally comprised a discontinuous surface layer of either fill or loose silty sand to between 0.2m to 0.3m, underlain (or exposed from ground surface) by generally stiff to hard silty/sandy clay or stiff sandy silt to 3.0m depth in Bores 1 to 3. Strength inversions (i.e. ‘weaker’ materials below ‘stronger’ materials) were encountered in the soils (e.g. stiff clays below very stiff clays at 2.6m depth in Bore 3). In Bores 4 and 5 the silty/sandy clays and sandy silts were underlain at 1.9m to 2.3m depth by extremely low strength siltstone or low strength mudstone and bands of weathered mudstone were also encountered in the silty clays in Bore 2. It is considered possible that ‘harder’ rock may exist close below the termination depth of the bores or at shallower depth elsewhere on the site. 4.3
Groundwater
Free groundwater was only encountered during the drilling of Bore 3 at 2.3m depth; all other bores were dry during drilling. However, groundwater levels can vary seasonally and with prevailing weather (and vegetation) conditions. If construction is to be undertaken at a significant time following this investigation and/or following significant ‘wet’ weather, it would be prudent to confirm groundwater levels prior to construction. 4.4
Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples recovered from the bores were tested in geotechnical and chemical testing laboratories to determine erosion and sediment control parameters, particle size distribution, shrink-swell index, California bearing ratio and topsoil properties and the results are summarised and discussed in the following sections. 4.4.1
Erosion and Sediment Control
Three selected samples recovered from the bores were tested to determine Emerson Class Number, pH and electrical conductivity and a summary of the reported test results is presented in Table 1.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 7
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Table 1: Summary of Reported Emerson Class, pH and Conductivity Test Results Bore
Depth (m)
Sample Description
Emerson Class No.
pH
1 3 5
1.0 – 1.32 0.5 – 0.95 0.0 – 0.2
Silty Clay Sandy Silt Silty Sand
4 3 3
4.9 6.4 5.7
4.4.2
Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) 0.15 0.04 0.03
Particle Size Distribution
Two selected samples of soils recovered from Bores 3 and 6 were tested for measurement of particle size distribution using wash sieve grading techniques, and the reported results are summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Reported Particle Size Distribution Test Results
(1)
Bore
Depth (m)
Sample Description
3 6
0.5 – 0.95 0.2 – 0.5
Sandy Silt Silty Sand
Sample Moisture Content (%) 15.7 9.0
Gravel Fraction(1) (%)
Sand Fraction(2) (%)
Silt and Clay Fraction(3) (%)
5 1
46 53
49 46
Particle size 2 mm; (2) Particle size (approximately) 0.75 mm; (3) Particle size (approximately) 75mm size) should be excluded from use as structural fill. All fill proposed to support settlement sensitive structures/features should be placed in layers not greater than 250mm (loose thickness) and be uniformly compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 100% (Standard compaction). This compaction level is considered to be suitable for support of slabs, ‘light’ foundations and light to moderately trafficked pavements. The reactivity of fill used should be taken into account in design where placed to support movement sensitive structures/features. Where reactive materials cannot be excluded from use as fill, they should be placed and maintained at a moisture content not less than 1% wet of Standard OMC in order to minimise potential adverse shrink-swell movements. Over-compacting reactive fill (particularly at a moisture content below Standard OMC) should be avoided as potentially significant expansion could occur on ‘wetting up’. To assist with the adequate control over fill placement, geotechnical testing as set out in Section 8 of AS3798 – 2007 Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments is suggested. To control risk, ‘Level 1’ supervision is recommended for movement sensitive areas.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 11
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.3.4
Traffickability
Site traffickability is likely to be restricted to four-wheel drive or tracked plant during and following periods of rainfall/wet weather (or in ‘wet’ zones) and consideration should be given to placing a granular traffickability layer over the site (which would also assist in reducing the potential for drying out of exposed soil subgrade). 5.3.5
Surface Water Control and Site Drainage
During construction, the site should be graded such that water is readily shed and does not collect and pond over the site, otherwise softening of the subgrade will occur, especially under trafficking of construction plant and heavy vehicles. 5.3.6
Silts
Sandy silts (and silty sands) were encountered in most bores. The ‘silts’ are expected to be very moisture sensitive, will be very difficult to impossible to compact (and to compact over), without ‘very tight’ moisture control, will lose considerable strength when ‘over-wet’, and could be dispersive. It is strongly suggested that any ‘silt’ materials not be used as structural fill without removal of the organic matter and thorough mixing with bulk excavated ‘clay’ soils. However, it is anticipated that once all organic materials are removed from ‘silts’, the organic free soil could be used for non-structural fill (without blending) provided that the potential compaction difficulties nominated can be accepted/tolerated. 5.4
Retaining Wall Pressures
Permanent retaining wall pressures can be obtained for ‘flexible’ or ‘rigid’ walls under drained, unsurcharged conditions, with horizontal backfill, using a triangular pressure distribution in conjunction with the following parameters: Total Weight: Flexible Walls: ‘Active’ Earth Pressure Coefficient (k a): Rigid Walls: ‘At Rest’ Earth Pressure Coefficient (k o):
3
1.9t/m (soil/fill) 0.45 (soil/fill) 0.60 (soil/fill)
Due allowance must be included in retaining wall pressure calculations for groundwater pressure, backfill compaction stress, surcharge effects from adjacent structures and/or construction loading, the effects of sloping retained materials, reactive soil/fill pressures etc. Even if a drainage system is installed behind retaining walls, consideration should be given to the potential for water pressures to act on the wall as elevated groundwater levels may occur during or following prolonged ‘wet’ weather, or from blocked drainage etc. Drain design should incorporate free draining backfill and slotted pipe discharging into a sealed disposal system.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 12
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.5
Reactive Soil Movements
5.5.1
Estimated Characteristic Surface Movements
The magnitude of potential reactive soil movements has been estimated using the following equation (from Australian Standard AS2870 – 1996 Residential slabs and footings – Construction), and parameters for the subject site selected based on recommendations in AS2870, results of the laboratory testing and published information: Hs
ys
.I ss . u.dh 0
where Hs Iss u
is the maximum depth of seasonal moisture variation (estimated as 2.1m in Beaudesert); is the ratio of laterally restrained to laterally unrestrained movement; is the shrink-swell index (based on the results of the laboratory testing and taken as 2%/pF to 3%/pF); and is the soil suction change (estimated as 1.5pF in Beaudesert).
Characteristic surface movements for the site (with all uncontrolled fill removed) have been calculated to be approximately 35mm to 55mm using the methods and parameters discussed above, assuming normal seasonal moisture/suction variations. Based on the magnitude of the calculated characteristic surface movement, the site would be classified as ‘Class H’ (Highly Reactive). However, if the site clays are used to fill the site, then the calculated characteristic surface movement value would increase significantly. It should be carefully noted that the calculated surface movement values given above do not include any allowance for ‘abnormal’ influences such as vegetation effects. It is strongly recommended that the estimated characteristic surface movement values given above for the site be recalculated once site earthworks are completed. 5.5.2
Design Guidance
It is considered that the following issues must be carefully considered in design: Where controlled reactive fill is placed over a natural soil subgrade, higher characteristic movements than those nominated above could potentially occur (as AS2870 indicates that the ratio of lateral restrained to unrestrained movement will increase), particularly if fill reactivity is significantly greater than that of the existing site soils. If filling of the site is proposed, a revised site classification should be considered taking into account the actual reactivity, compaction and depth of fill used. Vegetation (particularly large trees) has the potential to significantly increase soil suction change magnitude and depth ( u and Hs respectively in the equation above), which leads to a significant increase in potential reactive soil movements adjacent to existing (or proposed) tree locations. If trees are to be planted ‘close’ to the building in the future (or are to remain close to the building site), consideration should be given to constructing root barriers around the trees, and footing design must allow for potentially (significantly) higher reactive soil movements than are nominated in Section 5.5.1. In addition, if trees and large shrubs are removed less then approximately one year (or longer in drought) from the time of building construction, then significantly greater characteristic surface movements than are nominated in Section 5.5.1 could also be expected. butlerpartners.com.au
Page 13
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Abnormal subgrade moisture variations could potentially result in adverse, non-uniform reactive movements that are significantly greater than those nominated above for ‘normal’ seasonal moisture changes. The risk of ‘abnormal’ movement occurring could be reduced by ensuring overwatering of gardens, ponding water, broken/leaking pipes, planting trees/shrubs ‘close’ to buildings, etc. do not occur. Buildings and/or relatively impermeable surface cover that currently exists on the site are likely to have established a (laterally) non-uniform moisture/suction profile, which could introduce a differential soil suction profile beneath the future building if it ‘straddles’ previous building/cover locations. Materials directly beneath previous buildings/cover may potentially be close to an ‘equilibrium’ moisture, whilst subgrades that were fully exposed will have a moisture/suction profile that varies with seasonal effects and tree root action. Unless buildings/cover are removed well in advance of construction (say one year), the design of the proposed building (if it ‘straddles’ locations of previous buildings/cover) will need to consider a potentially significant non-uniform suction profile across the building area. Significantly increased differential reactive movements could occur across the building, if the subgrade partly comprises natural soils (expected high reactive movements in general) and controlled reactive fill (expected very high reactive movements and possibly 60% higher than movements for a natural soil subgrade where existing site soils are used). Good ‘engineering practices’ should be adopted in building design and detailing if control of reactive ground movement is desired. In particular, the following are recommended: trees/shrubs should not be planted or be allowed to remain closer than twice their mature height to movement sensitive features (unless significantly greater reactive movements than those estimated above are designed for); subgrade moisture should not be allowed to change during or following construction; site grades should be designed to readily shed water and prevent ponding around footings and other movement sensitive areas; and services should be designed to be flexible and to prevent any leakage and to rapidly remove any leakage should it occur. 5.6
Foundations
Foundation selection will be dependent upon structural loadings, the tolerance of buildings to movements (including settlements under loads and shrink-swell movements), type and magnitude of floor loadings and groundwater conditions at the time of construction etc. It will be essential to ‘cut-off’ from the site the effects of adjacent trees, otherwise significant adverse affects could be experienced due to large and non uniform reactive soil movements, of a magnitude significantly greater than estimated in Section 5.5.1. It is suggested that structures be designed to be as ‘flexible’ as possible, including full-height construction joints, to allow for potentially significant differential movement due to reactive soil behaviour. The selection of foundation founding depths and pressures should include consideration of the potential for strength inversions to be present in the site soils.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 14
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Local variations in soil (and rock) strength and depth could be expected to occur over the site, and it is suggested that a ‘flexible’ approach be adopted for foundation design, construction methodology and costing so that foundation sizes and founding depths can be readily adjusted as required during construction without incurring significant construction cost/time penalties. In this regard, use of mass concrete to extend footings and/or raft stiffening beams to suitable founding strata may be required if areas of ‘soft’ ground are encountered. It is suggested that an experienced geotechnical engineer inspect all footing excavations prior to casting to ensure bearing capacity at foundation level is adequate and to confirm final foundation dimensions. All footing excavations should be clean, dry and free of loose/softened materials immediately prior to casting. 5.6.1
Stiffened Raft
Stiffened raft design could be based on the strength and reactivity (refer Section 5.5) of the site soils. The recommendations given in Australian Standard AS2870 – 1996 could also be adopted for foundation design, provided that the proposed building’s type/size/loading conform with AS2870; if it does not conform, engineering design by first principles would be required. 5.6.2
Deep Strip & Pad Foundations
Design of deep strip and pad footings could be based on the maximum working bearing pressures nominated in Table 5. It is suggested that perimeter footings should be continuous around the building (or a continuous ‘rat-wall’ should be installed) and should found at not less than 1m below external grade; internal footings to the building should also found at not less than 1m depth, to minimise adverse effects from potential shrink-swell movement. Table 5: Working Bearing Pressure for Strip & Pad Footings Material Controlled Fill - Level 1 (placed and compacted to Section 5.3) Silty Clay/Sandy Silt
Siltstone/Mudstone
Strength
Maximum Bearing Pressure (kPa)*
–
100
stiff
100
very stiff hard
150 250
extremely low
300
very low low
500 900
* Not underlain by any ‘softer’ material
At the values of stress nominated in Table 5, approximate individual footing settlements due to structural loads only (i.e. not including reactive ground movement), would not be expected to exceed 1.0% to 1.5% of footing width for properly constructed pad footings, or 2.0% to 2.5% of footing width for properly constructed strip footings. Actual foundation settlements should be checked by analysis once footing sizes and loads are confirmed. It would be preferable (to help minimise differential slab movement), if the floor slab was tied into (at least) the perimeter footing system. However, if floor slabs are not structurally connected to footings, then floor slabs must be detailed to allow for relative movement.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 15
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.6.3
Piles
5.6.3.1
Bored
The design of piles and ground beams should allow for potential uplift due to reactive soils/fill, where moisture content/suction change is possible, and placement of ‘void former’ beneath ground beams etc is suggested to minimise uplift pressure. In pile design, it is suggested that shaft adhesion for compressive load design in the upper 2.1m of pile shaft be neglected if shrinkage away from pile shafts due to soil moisture variations is considered possible. In assessment of bored pile structural capacity, an ultimate (unfactored) uplift stress of not less than 150kPa in clays should be allowed for over the upper 2.1m of pile shaft due to soil swell, if soil moisture variations are possible. Bored pile design could be based on the maximum allowable working end bearing and shaft adhesion values nominated in Table 6. If groundwater is encountered during construction, significant construction difficulties and reduced design stresses may result. Pile design stresses (and hence, pile dimensions) should be confirmed by engineering inspections at the time of construction. Table 6: Working Shaft/End Bearing Capacity for Bored Pile Design Shaft Adhesion
End Bearing*
(kPa)
(kPa)
–
10
–
stiff very stiff hard
10 15 20
125 200 300
extremely low
25 60 100
400 600 1,000
Material
Strength
Controlled Fill - Level 1(placed and compacted to Section 5.3) Silty Clay/Sandy Silt
Siltstone/Mudstone
very low low
* For pile length to pile diameter ratio >4.0 in founding strata and no ‘softer’ underlying materials
It would be preferable (to help minimise differential slab movement), if the floor slab was tied into (at least) the perimeter ground beam system. However, if floor slabs are not structurally connected, then floor slabs must be detailed to allow for relative movement. 5.6.3.2
Screw
Screw piles could be used at the site, with predrilling possibly being required to assist with installation. Pile capacity will be determined by the applied torque at installation. However, as a preliminary guide, the geotechnical capacity of individual piles could be estimated by using the appropriate end bearing working stress values given in Table 6.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 16
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.7
Pavements
Subgrade testing should be undertaken (once site earthworks are completed) to determine design subgrade properties. However, for preliminary assessment, it is considered that a CBR of approximately 2% could be adopted for preliminary pavement design in a silty clay subgrade area and approximately 10% in a silty sand/sandy silt subgrade area. The design CBR value will be significantly influenced by the properties of any compacted fill used to replace any uncontrolled fill and the proportion of gravel contained within the silty sands/sandy silts (and their moisture content). Additional testing following completion of site earthworks is recommended to confirm subgrade design parameters.
BUTLER PARTNERS PTY LTD BRUCE BUTLER Senior Principal
butlerpartners.com.au
Reviewed by: MIKE NEIGHBOUR Principal
Page 17
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
APPENDIX A BORE REPORT SHEETS WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES
Client: Project Services
BORE 1
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL82.3m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
82.3 SILTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, fine grained sand
0.0 D 0.2
SANDY SILT (ML) - firm to stiff, grey-brown, fine grained sand
82.0 D
SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) - stiff, grey mottled orange, trace fine subangular gravel 1
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.4 0.5 4,4,6
S N=10 0.95 1.0
- very stiff to hard
pp>600
U 81.0
1.32
SILTY CLAY (CH) - very stiff, grey and orange, fine grained sand
2
80.0 2.5 8,8,11 S N=19 3
2.95 End of Bore at 2.95 m
79.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 2
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL83.2m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
83.2 FILL - orange-brown, silty sandy clay, fine grained sand
83.0
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D 0.3
SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) - very stiff, orange and brown, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravel
D
- very stiff to hard, pale grey-brown
U
0.5 pp>600 0.84
1 82.0
SILTY SANDY CLAY (CH) - hard, grey, yellow and red, fine grained sand 2 81.0
2.5
3
15,26,30 for 130mm
S
- with mudstone bands
HB 2.93 End of Bore at 2.93 m 80.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 3
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL83.3m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
83.3 FILL - dark brown, silty sandy clay, fine grained sand
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D 0.2
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grey-brown, fine grained, trace fine subangular gravels
83.0
B 0.5 5,5,5 S N=10 0.95
1
82.0
SILTY CLAY (CH) - stiff to very stiff, grey and orange, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravel 2
2.0 pp=500
U - very stiff
81.0
2.35 2.5
- stiff
4,5,8 S N=13
3
2.95 End of Bore at 2.95 m
80.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 2.3m depth during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 4
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL83.3m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
83.3 SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grey-brown, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravels
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D
83.0
0.3 D 0.5 6,7,8
1
S
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) - very stiff, grey-brown mottled orange, fine grained sand, trace fine grained subangular gravels
SILTY SANDY CLAY (CH) - hard, grey, yellow and red, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravels
N=15 0.95 1.0
82.0
pp>600
U 1.5
2
81.0 MUDSTONE (DW) - low strength, grey, yellow and red
S
2.5 2.51
15 for 10mm HB
End of Bore at 2.51 m (Auger Refusal)
3
80.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 5
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL84.2m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
84.2 FILL - grey-brown, sandy silt, fine grained sand
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D
84.0
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grey-brown, fine grained sand
0.2 D 0.5 6,6,8 S
SILTY SANDY CLAY (CI/CH) - stiff, grey-brown and orange, fine grained sand
N=14 0.95 1.0
1 83.0 SILTY CLAY (CH) - hard, grey, yellow and red, fine grained sand
pp>600
U 1.5
2
SILTSTONE (XW) - extremely low strength, grey, yellow and red, with silty clay bands 82.0
2.5 13,18,28 S N=46 3
2.95 End of Bore at 2.95 m 81.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
BORE 6
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL82.4m*
0
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
Sample Type
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
82.4 SILTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, fine grained sand
Test Results
Client: Project Services
Sample Depth (m)
BORE REPORT
0.0 D 0.2
- grey-brown 82.0
B 0.5
End of Bore at 0.5 m
1
81.0
2
80.0
3
79.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Notes on Description and Classification of Soil The methods of description and classification of soils used in this report are generally based on Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations. Soil description is based on an assessment of disturbed samples, as recovered from bores and excavations, or from undisturbed materials as seen in excavations and exposures or in undisturbed samples. Descriptions given on report sheets are an interpretation of the conditions encountered at the time of investigation. In the case of cone or piezocone penetrometer tests, actual soil samples are not recovered and soil description is inferred based on published correlations, past experience and comparison with bore and/or test pit data (if available). Soil classification is based on the particle size distribution of the soil and the plasticity of the portion of the material finer than 0.425mm. The description of particle size distribution and plasticity is based on the results of visual field estimation, laboratory testing or both. When assessed in the field, the properties of the soil are estimated; precise description will always require laboratory testing to define soil properties. Where soil can be clearly identified as FILL this will be noted as the main soil type followed by a description of the composition of the fill (e.g. FILL – yellow-brown, fine to coarse grained gravelly clay fill with concrete rubble). If the soil is assessed as possibly being fill this will be noted as an additional observation. Soils are generally described using the following sequence of terms. In certain instances, not all of the terms will be included in the soil description. MAIN SOIL TYPE (CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOL) - strength/density, colour, structure/grain size, secondary and minor components, additional observations
Information on the definition of descriptive and classification terms follows. SOIL TYPE and CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOLS Major Divisions
Particle Size
BOULDERS COBBLES
> 200mm 63 – 200mm
Classification Group Symbol
GW
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (more than half of material is larger than 0.075 mm)
GRAVELS (more than half of coarse fraction is larger than 2.36mm)
Coarse: 20 – 63mm Medium: 6 – 20mm Fine: 2.36 – 6mm
GP GM GC SW
SANDS Coarse: 0.6 – 2.36mm (more than half of Medium: 0.2 – 0.6mm coarse fraction is Fine: 0.075 – 0.2mm smaller than 2.36mm)
SP SM SC ML
SILTS & CLAYS (liquid limit 50%)
CH OH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
OR-09 Soil Description and Classification Notes – Version 3 21 October 2008
Pt
Typical Names
Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines, uniform gravels. Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures. Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures. Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands; little or no fines, uniform sands. Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures. Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty/clayey fine sands or clayey silts with low plasticity. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils. Inorganic clays of high plasticity. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. Peat and other highly organic soils.
Page 1 of 2
PLASTICITY CHART FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS
(Reference: Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site investigations) DESCRIPTIVE TERMS FOR MATERIAL PROPORTIONS
% Fines 12
Coarse Grained Soils Modifier Omit, or use „trace‟ Describe as „with clay/silt‟ as applicable. Prefix soil as „silty/clayey‟ as applicable
Fine Grained Soils Modifier Omit, or use trace. Describe as „with sand/gravel‟ as applicable. Prefix soil as „sandy/gravelly‟ as applicable.
% Coarse < 15 15 – 30 > 30
STRENGTH TERMS – COHESIVE SOILS Strength Term Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Very stiff Hard
Undrained Shear Strength
Field Guide to Strength
< 12kPa 12 – 25kPa 25 – 50kPa 50 – 100kPa 100 – 200kPa > 200kPa
Exudes between the fingers when squeezed in hand. Can be moulded by light finger pressure. Can be moulded by strong finger pressure. Cannot be moulded by fingers, can be indented by thumb. Can be indented by thumb nail. Can be indented with difficulty by thumb nail.
DENSITY TERMS – NON COHESIVE SOILS Density Term Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense
Density Index < 15% 15 – 35% 35 – 65% 65 – 85% > 85%
SPT “N” 0–5 5 – 10 10 – 30 30 – 50 > 50
CPT Cone Resistance 0 – 2MPa 2 – 5MPa 5 – 15MPa 15 – 25MPa > 25MPa
COLOUR The colour of a soil will generally be described in a „moist‟ condition using simple colour terms (eg. black, grey, red, brown etc.) modified as necessary by “pale”, “dark”, “light” or “mottled”. Borderline colours will be described as a combination of colours (eg. grey-brown). EXAMPLE e.g. CLAYEY SAND (SC) – medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium grained with silt. Indicates a medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium grained clayey sand with silt.
OR-09 Soil Description and Classification Notes – Version 3 21 October 2008
Page 2 of 2
Notes on Description and Classification of Rock The methods of description and classification of rock used in this report are generally based on Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site investigations. Rock description is based on an assessment of disturbed samples, as recovered from bores and excavations, or from undisturbed materials as seen in excavations and exposures, or in core samples. Descriptions given on report sheets are an interpretation of the conditions encountered at the time of investigation. Notes outlining the method and terminology adopted for the description of rock defects are given below, however, detailed information on defects can generally only be determined where rock core is taken, or excavations or exposures allow detailed observation and measurement. Rocks are generally described using the following sequence of terms. In certain instances not all of the terms will be included in the rock description. ROCK TYPE (WEATHERING SYMBOL), strength, colour, grain size, defect frequency Information on the definition of descriptive and classification terms follows.
ROCK TYPE In general, simple rock names are used rather than precise geological classifications. ROCK MATERIALS WEATHERING CLASSIFICATION Weathering Symbol
Term
Definition
Residual soil
RS
Soil developed from extremely weathered rock; the mass structure and substance fabrics are no longer evident; there is a large change in volume but the soil has not been significantly transported.
Extremely weathered
XW
Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has ‘soil’ properties, i.e. it either disintegrates or can be remoulded in water.
Distinctly weathered *
DW
Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly discoloured, usually by ironstaining. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in pores.
- Highly weathered
HW
- Moderately weathered
MW
Slightly weathered
SW
Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that limonite staining or bleaching affects the whole of the rock substance and other signs of chemical or physical decomposition are evident. Porosity and strength may be increased or decreased compared to the fresh rock, usually as a result of iron leaching or deposition. The colour and strength of the original fresh rock substance is no longer recognisable. Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that staining extends throughout the whole of the rock substance and the original colour of the fresh rock may be no longer recognisable. Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock.
Fresh FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining. * Subdivision of this weathering grade into highly and moderately may be used where applicable. STRENGTH OF ROCK MATERIAL Point Load Index Is (50)
Term
Symbol
Field Guide To Strength
Extremely low
EL
10MPa
Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow; rock rings under hammer. Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact material; rock rings under hammer.
Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties.
Notes: 1. These terms refer to the strength of the rock material and not to the strength of the rock mass which may be considerably weaker due to the effect of rock defects. 2. The field guide visual assessment for rock strength may be used for preliminary assessment or when point load testing is not available. 3. Anisotropy of rock may affect the field assessment of strength.
COLOUR The colour of a rock will generally be described in a ‘moist’ condition using simple colour terms (e.g. black, grey, red, brown, etc) modified as necessary by ‘pale’, ‘dark’, ‘light’ or ‘mottled’. Borderline colours will be described as a combination of colours (e.g. grey-brown).
OR-08 Rocks Description and Classification Notes – Version 2 18 June 2009
Page 1 of 2
GRAIN SIZE Descriptive Term
Particle Size Range
Coarse grained
0.6 – 2.0mm
Medium grained
0.2 – 0.6mm
Fine grained
0.06 – 0.2mm
DEFECT FREQUENCY Where appropriate, a defect frequency may be recorded as part of the rock description and will be expressed as the number of natural (or interpreted natural) defects present in an equivalent one metre length of core; by use of the following defect frequency descriptive terms; or both. The descriptive terms refer to the spacing of all types of natural defects along which the rock is discontinuous and include, bedding plane partings, joints and other rock defects, but excludes known artificial fractures such as drilling breaks. Defect Frequency Fragmented Highly Fractured Fractured Fractured to Slightly Fractured Slightly Fractured Unbroken
Description Rock core is comprised primarily of fragments of length less than 20mm, and mostly of width less than the core diameter. Core lengths are generally less than 20mm to 40mm with occasional fragments. Core lengths are mainly 30mm to 100mm with occasional shorter and longer sections. Core lengths are mainly 100mm to 300mm with occasional shorter to longer sections. Core lengths are generally 300mm to 1,000mm with occasional longer sections and occasional sections of 100mm to 300mm. The core does not contain any fractures.
EXAMPLE e.g. SANDSTONE (XW) – low strength, pale brown, fine to coarse grained, slightly fractured.
ROCK DEFECT LOGGING Defects are discontinuities in the rock mass and include joints, sheared zones, cleavages and bedding partings. The ability to observe and log defects will depend on the investigation methodology. Defects logged in core are described using the abbreviations noted in the following tables. The depth noted in the description is measured in metres from the ground surface, the defect angle is measured in degrees from horizontal, and the defect thickness is measured normal to the plane of the defect and is in millimetres (unless otherwise noted). Defects are generally described using the following sequence of terms: Depth, Defect Type, Defect Angle (dip), Surface Roughness, Infill, Thickness
DEFECT TYPE B J S C
– Bedding – Joint – Shear Zone – Crushed Zone
SURFACE ROUGHNESS i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix
- rough or irregular, stepped - smooth, stepped - slickensided, stepped - rough or irregular, undulating - smooth, undulating - slickensided, undulating - rough or irregular, planar - smooth planar - slickensided, planar
INFILL Infill refers to secondary minerals or other materials formed on the surface of the defect and some common descriptions are given in the following table together with their abbreviations. Ls Fe Cl Mn Qtz Ca Clean
- limonite staining - iron staining - clay - manganese staining - quartz - calcite - no visible infill
EXAMPLE 3.59m, J, 90, vii, Ls, 1mm indicates a joint at 3.59m depth that is at 90° to horizontal (i.e. vertical), is rough or irregular and planar, limonite stained and 1mm thick.
OR-08 Rocks Description and Classification Notes – Version 2 18 June 2009
Page 2 of 2
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
APPENDIX B LABORATORY REPORT SHEETS
EMERSON CLASS NUMBER, Test Procedure: AS1289.3.8.1 - 2006
CONDUCTIVITY and pH TEST REPORT Test Procedure: AS1289.4.3.1 – 1997
Client: Project: Location: Project No.:
Project Services Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert 010-199A
Tested by: Date: Checked by: Date: Report No.:
JE 4/10/10 MH 07/10/10 010-199A_ECN_1_1
Determination of Emerson Class Number Immerse air dried 2-4mm diameter crumbs of soil in water Slaking Complete Dispersion Class 1
No Slaking
Some Dispersion Class 2
No Dispersion
Swelling Class 7
No Swelling Class 8
Immerse moistened remoulded 3mm diameter soil balls in water Dispersion Class 3
No Dispersion
Calcite or Gypsum* Present Class 4
No Calcite or Gypsum Present
Make up 1:5 soil/water suspension. Shake 10 minutes, allow to stand 5 minutes Dispersion Class 5
Flocculation Class 6
Test Number Bore Number and Sample Depth
BH1_1 BH1_1 1.0-1.32m
BH3_1 BH3_1 0.5-0.95m
BH5_1 BH5_1 0.0-0.2m
Source Date Sampled Material Description
In Situ 29/09/10 Silty Clay (CI)(CH) grey & orange
In Situ 29/09/10 Sandy Silt (ML) grey brown
In Situ 29/09/10 Silty Sand (SM) grey brown
Water Type (distilled, potable, site) Water Temperature ( C) Emerson Class Number
Distilled 22 4
Distilled 22 3
Distilled 22 3
Conductivity (mS/cm)
0.15
0.04
0.03
pH
4.9
6.4
5.7
LF-05 Emerson Class Number, Conductivity and pH – Version 2 7 October 2010
Page 1 of 1
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT Test Procedure: AS1289.3.6.1 – 2009 Test Procedure: AS1289.2.1.1 - 2005
Client: Project: Location: Project No.:
Project Services Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert 010-199A
Tested by: Date: Checked by: Date: Report No.:
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Sample Moisture Content (%): AS SIEVE SIZE (mm) 75.0 37.5 26.5 19.0 13.2 9.5 6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.600 0.425 0.300 0.150 0.075
010-199A_3_1 3 0.5-0.95 15.7 PERCENT PASSING
100 99 97 96 95 94 94 93 92 87 49
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Sample Moisture Content (%): AS SIEVE SIZE (mm) 75.0 37.5 26.5 19.0 13.2 9.5 6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.600 0.425 0.300 0.150 0.075
LF-09 Particle Size Distribution Test Report – Version 2 7 October 2010
JE 04/10/10 MH 07/10/10 010-199A_PSD_3_1
010-199A_6_1 6 0.2-0.5 9.0 PERCENT PASSING
100 99 99 99 98 97 97 96 90 46
Page 1 of 1
SHRINK-SWELL INDEX TEST REPORT Test Procedure: AS1289.7.1.1 – 2003
Client: Project: Location: Project No.:
Project Services Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert 010-199A
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Specimen Description Specimen Shrinkage (%) Specimen Swell (%)
Tested by: Date: Checked by: Date: Report No.:
sh sw
Estimated Inert inclusions (%) Initial Moisture content of swell specimen (%) Final moisture content of swell specimen (%) Initial moisture content of shrinkage specimen (%) Extent of cracking of shrinkage specimen
Shrink-Swell Index (% per pF) Iss
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Specimen Description Specimen Shrinkage (%) Specimen Swell (%)
sh sw
Estimated Inert inclusions (%) Initial Moisture content of swell specimen (%) Final moisture content of swell specimen (%) Initial moisture content of shrinkage specimen (%) Extent of cracking of shrinkage specimen
Shrink-Swell Index (% per pF) Iss
LF-12 Shrink-Swell Test Report – Version 2 7 October 2010
MH 30/09/10 MH 07/10/10 010-199A_SSI_1_1
010-199A_1_1 1 1.0-1.32 Silty Clay (CI)(CH) 2.4 1.4 2 10.0 14.1 10.9 Slight
1.7
010-199A_3_2 3 2.0-2.35 Silty Clay (CH) 5.1 0.4 0 16.4 17.0 18.2 Slight
2.9
Page 1 of 1
BRISBANE LABORATORY 46 Grice Street Clontarf Q 4019 Phone: (07) 32848766 Fax: (07) 32844391
Report No: CBR:S102-1267 Issue No: 1
California Bearing Ratio Test Report Client: Butler Partners PO BOX 2267 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006
Approved Signatory: Mark Madden
Project:
Beaudesert ( 010-199A ) Date of Issue: 6/10/2010 THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
Sample Details Sample ID: S102-1267 Sampled By: Client Sampling Method: Unknown
Date Sampled:
30/09/2010
Source: Specification: Tested By:
Material: Location: Date Tested:
Refer to Log. BH: 3, Depth: 0.2m - 0.5m 1/10/2010
In-Situ Mark Madden
Load vs Penetration
Test Results AS 1289.6.1.1
CBR At 5.0mm (%):
45
Maximum Dry Density (t/m³): Optimum Moisture Content (%): Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³):
1.85
Density Ratio before Soaking (%): Moisture Content before Soaking (%):
13.6
Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%): Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³):
1.85
Swell (%):
-0.5
Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%):
14.2
Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%): 13.8 Compactive Effort:
Standard
Surcharge Mass (kg):
4.50
Period of Soaking (Days):
4
Oversize Material:
Replaced
Oversize Material (%):
0.0
Comments Note: As requested by client CBR placed at estimated OMC.
Form No: 18986.V1.00, Report No: CBR:S102-1267
Field Moisture AS1289.2.1.1: 14.5%
(c) 2000-2009 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com
Page 1 of 1
BRISBANE LABORATORY 46 Grice Street Clontarf Q 4019 Phone: (07) 32848766 Fax: (07) 32844391
Report No: CBR:S102-1268 Issue No: 1
California Bearing Ratio Test Report Client: Butler Partners PO BOX 2267 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006
Approved Signatory: Mark Madden
Project:
Beaudesert ( 010-199A ) Date of Issue: 6/10/2010 THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
Sample Details Sample ID: S102-1268 Sampled By: Client Sampling Method: Unknown
Date Sampled:
30/09/2010
Source: Specification: Tested By:
Material: Location: Date Tested:
Refer to Log. BH: 6, Depth: 0.2m - 0.5m 1/10/2010
In-Situ Patrick Hall
Load vs Penetration
Test Results AS 1289.6.1.1
CBR At 2.5mm (%):
30
Maximum Dry Density (t/m³): Optimum Moisture Content (%): Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³):
1.71
Density Ratio before Soaking (%): Moisture Content before Soaking (%):
8.7
Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%): Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³):
1.71
Swell (%):
0.5
Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%):
16.3
Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%): 15.9 Compactive Effort:
Standard
Surcharge Mass (kg):
4.50
Period of Soaking (Days):
4
Oversize Material:
Replaced
Oversize Material (%):
0.0
Comments Note: As requested by client CBR placed at estimated OMC.
Form No: 18986.V1.00, Report No: CBR:S102-1268
Field Moisture AS1289.2.1.1: 8.9%
(c) 2000-2009 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com
Page 1 of 1
Soil Chemistry Profile
Mehlich 3 - Multi-nutrient Extractant Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty Ltd Sample Drop Off: 16 Chilvers Road Thornleigh NSW 2120 Australia
16020
Batch N°:
Client Name: Client Contact: Client Job N°: Client Order N°: Address:
ABN 70 106 810 708
Mailing Address: PO Box 357 Pennant Hills NSW 1715
Tel: Fax: Em: Web:
02 9980 6554 02 9484 2427 [email protected] www.sesl.com.au
1
Sample N°:
Report Status:
Butler Partners Pty Ltd Mick Havana 010-199A
Project Name: Topsoil Testing Location: Beaudesert SESL Quote N°: Sample Name: Combined BH1 + BH4 Description: Soil Test Type: FSC (M3), OC-DC
PO Box 2267 FORTITUDE VALLEY BC QLD 4006
Draft
Final
Date Received: 1/10/10
RECOMMENDATIONS The soil was analysed to determine its nutrient status. The soil is slightly acidic within the desired range for most plant species. Salinity and sodicity levels are low which is desirable. The cation analysis indicates a fairly good balance between calcium to magnesium. Potassium is slightly low. The effective cation exchange capacity is low which can indicate a low nutrient and water holding capacity, this is typically seen in sandy soils and soils with low fertility. Nutrient analysis indicates nitrogen, phosphorus potassium, sulphur and calcium are low. Micronutrients are adequate. Manganese is high which can indicate a history of low aeration, waterlogging and or compaction. Organic matter is low. The addition of a recycled organic compost at 10% will improve the nutrient retention capacity of the soil. To improve calcium and sulphur apply gypsum at 150g/sqm. Apply a well balanced general purpose NPK fertiliser (e.g. 11:8:15) for phosphorus tolerant plant species to build low N, P and K levels. Alternatively for phosphorus sensitive species select a native plant food with low or zero phosphorus e.g. Patons Native Plant Food NPK (9:2:6)
SOIL SAMPLE DEPTH (mm):
100
150
FERTILITY RATING:
200
Low
Moderate
High
pH and ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY Extreme Acidity
!4.0
pH in H2O
(1:5)
pH in CaCl2
(1:5)
Salinity
(EC 1:5 dS/m)
Sodium (Na)
(mg/kg)
Chloride (Cl)
(mg/kg)
Very Strong Acidity
4.5
Strong Acidity
5.0
Medium Acidity
5.5
Slight Acidity
6.0
V. Slight Acidity
Slight Alkalinity
Neutral
6.5
7.0
7.5
Moderate Alkalinity
8.0
Strong Alkalinity
8.5
Very Strong Alkalinity
9.0
9.5
"10
6.3 5.8 0.03 Very low 9 Very Low Chloride only determined if EC (1:5) >0.25 dS/m
CATION BALANCE CATION RATIOS
EXCHANGEABLE CATION PERCENTAGE Note: Hydrogen only determined when pH in H2O
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION & CARE CENTRE MICHAELINA DRIVE BEAUDESERT Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Prepared for Project Services Project No. 010-199A, 4 November 2010
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 1
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Proposed Scope of Work .................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Commission ..................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 - THE SITE 2.1 2.2
4 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 4 Geology............................................................................................................................ 5
SECTION 3 - FIELDWORK 3.1 3.2
6 Drilling and Sampling Methods ......................................................................................... 6 Bore Locations and Supervision ....................................................................................... 6
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS 7 4.1 Reports ............................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 7 4.4.1 Erosion and Sediment Control ............................................................................. 7 4.4.2 Particle Size Distribution ...................................................................................... 8 4.4.3 Shrink-Swell ......................................................................................................... 8 4.4.4 California Bearing Ratio ....................................................................................... 8 4.4.5 Topsoil ................................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 5 - GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DISCUSSION 10 5.1 Ground Model ................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Existing Fill ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Earthworks ..................................................................................................................... 11 5.3.1 Excavation ......................................................................................................... 11 5.3.2 Site Preparation ................................................................................................. 11 5.3.3 Compaction........................................................................................................ 11 5.3.4 Traffickability ...................................................................................................... 12 5.3.5 Surface Water Control and Site Drainage .......................................................... 12 5.3.6 Silts.................................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Retaining Wall Pressures ............................................................................................... 12 5.5 Reactive Soil Movements ............................................................................................... 13 5.5.1 Estimated Characteristic Surface Movements .................................................... 13 5.5.2 Design Guidance ............................................................................................... 13 5.6 Foundations ................................................................................................................... 14 5.6.1 Stiffened Raft ..................................................................................................... 15 5.6.2 Deep Strip & Pad Foundations ........................................................................... 15 5.6.3 Piles................................................................................................................... 16 5.6.3.1 Bored .............................................................................................. 16 5.6.3.2 Screw .............................................................................................. 16 5.7 Pavements ..................................................................................................................... 17
Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report (2 pages)
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
TABLES: Table 1: Summary of Reported Emerson Class, pH and Conductivity Test Results ................................... 8 Table 2: Summary of Reported Particle Size Distribution Test Results ...................................................... 8 Table 3: Summary of Reported Shrink-Swell Index Test Results .............................................................. 8 Table 4: Summary of CBR Test Results .................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Working Bearing Pressure for Strip & Pad Footings .................................................................. 15 Table 6: Working Shaft/End Bearing Capacity for Bored Pile Design ...................................................... 16
butlerpartners.com.au
ATTACHMENTS: Drawing No. 1
Locality Plan & Test Locations
Appendix A Appendix B
Bore Report Sheets with Explanatory Notes Laboratory Report Sheets
Page 2
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1
Project
It is understood that the proposed development comprises an Early Childhood Education and Care Centre (ECEC) that will consist of two, single storey modular buildings, potentially supported on screw/bored piles. Each modular building will comprise stud framed walls supporting a skillion roof system. The approximate location and extent of the development are shown on Drawing No. 1. 1.2
Proposed Scope of Work
Project Services’ Terms of Reference for geotechnical investigation for the development requested the following scope of work: five (5) bores to 3m depth (or prior refusal); two (2) shrink-swell index tests; two (2) CBR tests; one (1) blended topsoil sample (from two locations); and three (3) pH and dispersivity tests. Using the results of the fieldwork and laboratory testing outcomes obtained from the required investigation scope, it was proposed that a report would be produced that would provide geotechnical design information on each of the following topics: subsurface conditions; laboratory test results; earthworks and site preparation; excavatability; reactive soil movement; retaining wall pressures; 1.3
suitable alternate foundation types; working bearing pressures; anticipated footing settlements; slab and pavement subgrade parameters; and anticipated construction aspects.
Commission
Based on the proposed nature of the development, the anticipated subsurface conditions and the scope of work nominated by Project Services, a fee to undertake the investigation was presented in a proposal of 26 July 2010. Butler Partners Pty Ltd was subsequently commissioned by Project Services to conduct the geotechnical investigation as proposed. This report was first issued in draft for comment on 22 October 2010.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 3
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 2 - THE SITE 2.1
Site Description
At the time of the investigation, the site was developed with a timber children’s play structure and covered sand pit, seats, concrete paths/slabs and the ground surface was covered by grass. Medium to large trees were located on and adjacent to the site. Ground surface levels over the site generally sloped downwards to the west from a high of approximately RL84.0m on the Michaelina Drive boundary to approximately RL82.3m on the western side of the site. Three general views of the site at the time of the investigation are given in Photograph 1 to Photograph 3.
Photograph 1: Panoramic view of the site looking north to north-east from near Bore 6
Photograph 2: Panoramic view of the site looking north-west to north from Birnam Street
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 4
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Photograph 3: Panoramic view of the site looking west to south-west from near Bore 5 2.2
Geology
Reference to the Queensland Government’s Department of Mine’s 1:100,000 Geological Series, Ipswich Sheet indicates that the site is located in an area mapped as Walloon Coal Measures (comprising shale, coal, siltstone and sandstone), close to a boundary with Jurassic Beaudesert Beds (comprising basalt, dolerite sills and minor carbonaceous shale).
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 5
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 3 - FIELDWORK 3.1
Drilling and Sampling Methods
The investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of six bores to between 0.5m and 3.0m depth approximately using a track mounted Geoprobe 6610DT drilling rig, operating solid flight augers. Strata identification was from the inspection of disturbed material returned to the surface by the augers, supplemented by the inspection of ‘undisturbed’ thin wall tube samples and ‘disturbed’ Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) samples, recovered at selected depths. 3.2
Bore Locations and Supervision
Bore locations were determined in the field by direct measurement from existing site features and are indicated approximately on the attached Drawing No. 1. The ground surface level at each bore location was estimated by interpolation from spot levels given on Norris Clarke and O’Brien Pty Ltd’s Beaudesert State Pre School, Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15 July 2010. An experienced geotechnician set out the test locations, logged the stratigraphy encountered in the bores and directed the in-situ sampling and testing program.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 6
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS 4.1
Reports
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are given on Bore Report Sheets included in Appendix A, using classification and descriptive terms defined in the accompanying notes. Laboratory test report sheets are included in Appendix B. 4.2
Subsurface Conditions
For a description of the stratigraphy encountered in the bores, the Bore Report sheets should be consulted. The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores were relatively variable, however, in broad summary, they generally comprised a discontinuous surface layer of either fill or loose silty sand to between 0.2m to 0.3m, underlain (or exposed from ground surface) by generally stiff to hard silty/sandy clay or stiff sandy silt to 3.0m depth in Bores 1 to 3. Strength inversions (i.e. ‘weaker’ materials below ‘stronger’ materials) were encountered in the soils (e.g. stiff clays below very stiff clays at 2.6m depth in Bore 3). In Bores 4 and 5 the silty/sandy clays and sandy silts were underlain at 1.9m to 2.3m depth by extremely low strength siltstone or low strength mudstone and bands of weathered mudstone were also encountered in the silty clays in Bore 2. It is considered possible that ‘harder’ rock may exist close below the termination depth of the bores or at shallower depth elsewhere on the site. 4.3
Groundwater
Free groundwater was only encountered during the drilling of Bore 3 at 2.3m depth; all other bores were dry during drilling. However, groundwater levels can vary seasonally and with prevailing weather (and vegetation) conditions. If construction is to be undertaken at a significant time following this investigation and/or following significant ‘wet’ weather, it would be prudent to confirm groundwater levels prior to construction. 4.4
Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples recovered from the bores were tested in geotechnical and chemical testing laboratories to determine erosion and sediment control parameters, particle size distribution, shrink-swell index, California bearing ratio and topsoil properties and the results are summarised and discussed in the following sections. 4.4.1
Erosion and Sediment Control
Three selected samples recovered from the bores were tested to determine Emerson Class Number, pH and electrical conductivity and a summary of the reported test results is presented in Table 1.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 7
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Table 1: Summary of Reported Emerson Class, pH and Conductivity Test Results Bore
Depth (m)
Sample Description
Emerson Class No.
pH
1 3 5
1.0 – 1.32 0.5 – 0.95 0.0 – 0.2
Silty Clay Sandy Silt Silty Sand
4 3 3
4.9 6.4 5.7
4.4.2
Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) 0.15 0.04 0.03
Particle Size Distribution
Two selected samples of soils recovered from Bores 3 and 6 were tested for measurement of particle size distribution using wash sieve grading techniques, and the reported results are summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Reported Particle Size Distribution Test Results
(1)
Bore
Depth (m)
Sample Description
3 6
0.5 – 0.95 0.2 – 0.5
Sandy Silt Silty Sand
Sample Moisture Content (%) 15.7 9.0
Gravel Fraction(1) (%)
Sand Fraction(2) (%)
Silt and Clay Fraction(3) (%)
5 1
46 53
49 46
Particle size 2 mm; (2) Particle size (approximately) 0.75 mm; (3) Particle size (approximately) 75mm size) should be excluded from use as structural fill. All fill proposed to support settlement sensitive structures/features should be placed in layers not greater than 250mm (loose thickness) and be uniformly compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 100% (Standard compaction). This compaction level is considered to be suitable for support of slabs, ‘light’ foundations and light to moderately trafficked pavements. The reactivity of fill used should be taken into account in design where placed to support movement sensitive structures/features. Where reactive materials cannot be excluded from use as fill, they should be placed and maintained at a moisture content not less than 1% wet of Standard OMC in order to minimise potential adverse shrink-swell movements. Over-compacting reactive fill (particularly at a moisture content below Standard OMC) should be avoided as potentially significant expansion could occur on ‘wetting up’. To assist with the adequate control over fill placement, geotechnical testing as set out in Section 8 of AS3798 – 2007 Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments is suggested. To control risk, ‘Level 1’ supervision is recommended for movement sensitive areas.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 11
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.3.4
Traffickability
Site traffickability is likely to be restricted to four-wheel drive or tracked plant during and following periods of rainfall/wet weather (or in ‘wet’ zones) and consideration should be given to placing a granular traffickability layer over the site (which would also assist in reducing the potential for drying out of exposed soil subgrade). 5.3.5
Surface Water Control and Site Drainage
During construction, the site should be graded such that water is readily shed and does not collect and pond over the site, otherwise softening of the subgrade will occur, especially under trafficking of construction plant and heavy vehicles. 5.3.6
Silts
Sandy silts (and silty sands) were encountered in most bores. The ‘silts’ are expected to be very moisture sensitive, will be very difficult to impossible to compact (and to compact over), without ‘very tight’ moisture control, will lose considerable strength when ‘over-wet’, and could be dispersive. It is strongly suggested that any ‘silt’ materials not be used as structural fill without removal of the organic matter and thorough mixing with bulk excavated ‘clay’ soils. However, it is anticipated that once all organic materials are removed from ‘silts’, the organic free soil could be used for non-structural fill (without blending) provided that the potential compaction difficulties nominated can be accepted/tolerated. 5.4
Retaining Wall Pressures
Permanent retaining wall pressures can be obtained for ‘flexible’ or ‘rigid’ walls under drained, unsurcharged conditions, with horizontal backfill, using a triangular pressure distribution in conjunction with the following parameters: Total Weight: Flexible Walls: ‘Active’ Earth Pressure Coefficient (k a): Rigid Walls: ‘At Rest’ Earth Pressure Coefficient (k o):
3
1.9t/m (soil/fill) 0.45 (soil/fill) 0.60 (soil/fill)
Due allowance must be included in retaining wall pressure calculations for groundwater pressure, backfill compaction stress, surcharge effects from adjacent structures and/or construction loading, the effects of sloping retained materials, reactive soil/fill pressures etc. Even if a drainage system is installed behind retaining walls, consideration should be given to the potential for water pressures to act on the wall as elevated groundwater levels may occur during or following prolonged ‘wet’ weather, or from blocked drainage etc. Drain design should incorporate free draining backfill and slotted pipe discharging into a sealed disposal system.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 12
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.5
Reactive Soil Movements
5.5.1
Estimated Characteristic Surface Movements
The magnitude of potential reactive soil movements has been estimated using the following equation (from Australian Standard AS2870 – 1996 Residential slabs and footings – Construction), and parameters for the subject site selected based on recommendations in AS2870, results of the laboratory testing and published information: Hs
ys
.I ss . u.dh 0
where Hs Iss u
is the maximum depth of seasonal moisture variation (estimated as 2.1m in Beaudesert); is the ratio of laterally restrained to laterally unrestrained movement; is the shrink-swell index (based on the results of the laboratory testing and taken as 2%/pF to 3%/pF); and is the soil suction change (estimated as 1.5pF in Beaudesert).
Characteristic surface movements for the site (with all uncontrolled fill removed) have been calculated to be approximately 35mm to 55mm using the methods and parameters discussed above, assuming normal seasonal moisture/suction variations. Based on the magnitude of the calculated characteristic surface movement, the site would be classified as ‘Class H’ (Highly Reactive). However, if the site clays are used to fill the site, then the calculated characteristic surface movement value would increase significantly. It should be carefully noted that the calculated surface movement values given above do not include any allowance for ‘abnormal’ influences such as vegetation effects. It is strongly recommended that the estimated characteristic surface movement values given above for the site be recalculated once site earthworks are completed. 5.5.2
Design Guidance
It is considered that the following issues must be carefully considered in design: Where controlled reactive fill is placed over a natural soil subgrade, higher characteristic movements than those nominated above could potentially occur (as AS2870 indicates that the ratio of lateral restrained to unrestrained movement will increase), particularly if fill reactivity is significantly greater than that of the existing site soils. If filling of the site is proposed, a revised site classification should be considered taking into account the actual reactivity, compaction and depth of fill used. Vegetation (particularly large trees) has the potential to significantly increase soil suction change magnitude and depth ( u and Hs respectively in the equation above), which leads to a significant increase in potential reactive soil movements adjacent to existing (or proposed) tree locations. If trees are to be planted ‘close’ to the building in the future (or are to remain close to the building site), consideration should be given to constructing root barriers around the trees, and footing design must allow for potentially (significantly) higher reactive soil movements than are nominated in Section 5.5.1. In addition, if trees and large shrubs are removed less then approximately one year (or longer in drought) from the time of building construction, then significantly greater characteristic surface movements than are nominated in Section 5.5.1 could also be expected. butlerpartners.com.au
Page 13
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Abnormal subgrade moisture variations could potentially result in adverse, non-uniform reactive movements that are significantly greater than those nominated above for ‘normal’ seasonal moisture changes. The risk of ‘abnormal’ movement occurring could be reduced by ensuring overwatering of gardens, ponding water, broken/leaking pipes, planting trees/shrubs ‘close’ to buildings, etc. do not occur. Buildings and/or relatively impermeable surface cover that currently exists on the site are likely to have established a (laterally) non-uniform moisture/suction profile, which could introduce a differential soil suction profile beneath the future building if it ‘straddles’ previous building/cover locations. Materials directly beneath previous buildings/cover may potentially be close to an ‘equilibrium’ moisture, whilst subgrades that were fully exposed will have a moisture/suction profile that varies with seasonal effects and tree root action. Unless buildings/cover are removed well in advance of construction (say one year), the design of the proposed building (if it ‘straddles’ locations of previous buildings/cover) will need to consider a potentially significant non-uniform suction profile across the building area. Significantly increased differential reactive movements could occur across the building, if the subgrade partly comprises natural soils (expected high reactive movements in general) and controlled reactive fill (expected very high reactive movements and possibly 60% higher than movements for a natural soil subgrade where existing site soils are used). Good ‘engineering practices’ should be adopted in building design and detailing if control of reactive ground movement is desired. In particular, the following are recommended: trees/shrubs should not be planted or be allowed to remain closer than twice their mature height to movement sensitive features (unless significantly greater reactive movements than those estimated above are designed for); subgrade moisture should not be allowed to change during or following construction; site grades should be designed to readily shed water and prevent ponding around footings and other movement sensitive areas; and services should be designed to be flexible and to prevent any leakage and to rapidly remove any leakage should it occur. 5.6
Foundations
Foundation selection will be dependent upon structural loadings, the tolerance of buildings to movements (including settlements under loads and shrink-swell movements), type and magnitude of floor loadings and groundwater conditions at the time of construction etc. It will be essential to ‘cut-off’ from the site the effects of adjacent trees, otherwise significant adverse affects could be experienced due to large and non uniform reactive soil movements, of a magnitude significantly greater than estimated in Section 5.5.1. It is suggested that structures be designed to be as ‘flexible’ as possible, including full-height construction joints, to allow for potentially significant differential movement due to reactive soil behaviour. The selection of foundation founding depths and pressures should include consideration of the potential for strength inversions to be present in the site soils.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 14
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
Local variations in soil (and rock) strength and depth could be expected to occur over the site, and it is suggested that a ‘flexible’ approach be adopted for foundation design, construction methodology and costing so that foundation sizes and founding depths can be readily adjusted as required during construction without incurring significant construction cost/time penalties. In this regard, use of mass concrete to extend footings and/or raft stiffening beams to suitable founding strata may be required if areas of ‘soft’ ground are encountered. It is suggested that an experienced geotechnical engineer inspect all footing excavations prior to casting to ensure bearing capacity at foundation level is adequate and to confirm final foundation dimensions. All footing excavations should be clean, dry and free of loose/softened materials immediately prior to casting. 5.6.1
Stiffened Raft
Stiffened raft design could be based on the strength and reactivity (refer Section 5.5) of the site soils. The recommendations given in Australian Standard AS2870 – 1996 could also be adopted for foundation design, provided that the proposed building’s type/size/loading conform with AS2870; if it does not conform, engineering design by first principles would be required. 5.6.2
Deep Strip & Pad Foundations
Design of deep strip and pad footings could be based on the maximum working bearing pressures nominated in Table 5. It is suggested that perimeter footings should be continuous around the building (or a continuous ‘rat-wall’ should be installed) and should found at not less than 1m below external grade; internal footings to the building should also found at not less than 1m depth, to minimise adverse effects from potential shrink-swell movement. Table 5: Working Bearing Pressure for Strip & Pad Footings Material Controlled Fill - Level 1 (placed and compacted to Section 5.3) Silty Clay/Sandy Silt
Siltstone/Mudstone
Strength
Maximum Bearing Pressure (kPa)*
–
100
stiff
100
very stiff hard
150 250
extremely low
300
very low low
500 900
* Not underlain by any ‘softer’ material
At the values of stress nominated in Table 5, approximate individual footing settlements due to structural loads only (i.e. not including reactive ground movement), would not be expected to exceed 1.0% to 1.5% of footing width for properly constructed pad footings, or 2.0% to 2.5% of footing width for properly constructed strip footings. Actual foundation settlements should be checked by analysis once footing sizes and loads are confirmed. It would be preferable (to help minimise differential slab movement), if the floor slab was tied into (at least) the perimeter footing system. However, if floor slabs are not structurally connected to footings, then floor slabs must be detailed to allow for relative movement.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 15
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.6.3
Piles
5.6.3.1
Bored
The design of piles and ground beams should allow for potential uplift due to reactive soils/fill, where moisture content/suction change is possible, and placement of ‘void former’ beneath ground beams etc is suggested to minimise uplift pressure. In pile design, it is suggested that shaft adhesion for compressive load design in the upper 2.1m of pile shaft be neglected if shrinkage away from pile shafts due to soil moisture variations is considered possible. In assessment of bored pile structural capacity, an ultimate (unfactored) uplift stress of not less than 150kPa in clays should be allowed for over the upper 2.1m of pile shaft due to soil swell, if soil moisture variations are possible. Bored pile design could be based on the maximum allowable working end bearing and shaft adhesion values nominated in Table 6. If groundwater is encountered during construction, significant construction difficulties and reduced design stresses may result. Pile design stresses (and hence, pile dimensions) should be confirmed by engineering inspections at the time of construction. Table 6: Working Shaft/End Bearing Capacity for Bored Pile Design Shaft Adhesion
End Bearing*
(kPa)
(kPa)
–
10
–
stiff very stiff hard
10 15 20
125 200 300
extremely low
25 60 100
400 600 1,000
Material
Strength
Controlled Fill - Level 1(placed and compacted to Section 5.3) Silty Clay/Sandy Silt
Siltstone/Mudstone
very low low
* For pile length to pile diameter ratio >4.0 in founding strata and no ‘softer’ underlying materials
It would be preferable (to help minimise differential slab movement), if the floor slab was tied into (at least) the perimeter ground beam system. However, if floor slabs are not structurally connected, then floor slabs must be detailed to allow for relative movement. 5.6.3.2
Screw
Screw piles could be used at the site, with predrilling possibly being required to assist with installation. Pile capacity will be determined by the applied torque at installation. However, as a preliminary guide, the geotechnical capacity of individual piles could be estimated by using the appropriate end bearing working stress values given in Table 6.
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 16
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
5.7
Pavements
Subgrade testing should be undertaken (once site earthworks are completed) to determine design subgrade properties. However, for preliminary assessment, it is considered that a CBR of approximately 2% could be adopted for preliminary pavement design in a silty clay subgrade area and approximately 10% in a silty sand/sandy silt subgrade area. The design CBR value will be significantly influenced by the properties of any compacted fill used to replace any uncontrolled fill and the proportion of gravel contained within the silty sands/sandy silts (and their moisture content). Additional testing following completion of site earthworks is recommended to confirm subgrade design parameters.
BUTLER PARTNERS PTY LTD BRUCE BUTLER Senior Principal
butlerpartners.com.au
Reviewed by: MIKE NEIGHBOUR Principal
Page 17
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
APPENDIX A BORE REPORT SHEETS WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES
Client: Project Services
BORE 1
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL82.3m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
82.3 SILTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, fine grained sand
0.0 D 0.2
SANDY SILT (ML) - firm to stiff, grey-brown, fine grained sand
82.0 D
SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) - stiff, grey mottled orange, trace fine subangular gravel 1
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.4 0.5 4,4,6
S N=10 0.95 1.0
- very stiff to hard
pp>600
U 81.0
1.32
SILTY CLAY (CH) - very stiff, grey and orange, fine grained sand
2
80.0 2.5 8,8,11 S N=19 3
2.95 End of Bore at 2.95 m
79.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 2
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL83.2m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
83.2 FILL - orange-brown, silty sandy clay, fine grained sand
83.0
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D 0.3
SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) - very stiff, orange and brown, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravel
D
- very stiff to hard, pale grey-brown
U
0.5 pp>600 0.84
1 82.0
SILTY SANDY CLAY (CH) - hard, grey, yellow and red, fine grained sand 2 81.0
2.5
3
15,26,30 for 130mm
S
- with mudstone bands
HB 2.93 End of Bore at 2.93 m 80.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 3
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL83.3m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
83.3 FILL - dark brown, silty sandy clay, fine grained sand
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D 0.2
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grey-brown, fine grained, trace fine subangular gravels
83.0
B 0.5 5,5,5 S N=10 0.95
1
82.0
SILTY CLAY (CH) - stiff to very stiff, grey and orange, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravel 2
2.0 pp=500
U - very stiff
81.0
2.35 2.5
- stiff
4,5,8 S N=13
3
2.95 End of Bore at 2.95 m
80.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: Free groundwater encountered at 2.3m depth during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 4
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL83.3m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
83.3 SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grey-brown, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravels
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D
83.0
0.3 D 0.5 6,7,8
1
S
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) - very stiff, grey-brown mottled orange, fine grained sand, trace fine grained subangular gravels
SILTY SANDY CLAY (CH) - hard, grey, yellow and red, fine grained sand, trace fine subangular gravels
N=15 0.95 1.0
82.0
pp>600
U 1.5
2
81.0 MUDSTONE (DW) - low strength, grey, yellow and red
S
2.5 2.51
15 for 10mm HB
End of Bore at 2.51 m (Auger Refusal)
3
80.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Client: Project Services
BORE 5
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL84.2m*
0
Sample Type
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
84.2 FILL - grey-brown, sandy silt, fine grained sand
Sample Depth (m)
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
Test Results
BORE REPORT
0.0 D
84.0
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grey-brown, fine grained sand
0.2 D 0.5 6,6,8 S
SILTY SANDY CLAY (CI/CH) - stiff, grey-brown and orange, fine grained sand
N=14 0.95 1.0
1 83.0 SILTY CLAY (CH) - hard, grey, yellow and red, fine grained sand
pp>600
U 1.5
2
SILTSTONE (XW) - extremely low strength, grey, yellow and red, with silty clay bands 82.0
2.5 13,18,28 S N=46 3
2.95 End of Bore at 2.95 m 81.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
BORE 6
Project: Early Childhood Education and Care Centre
Page No: 1 of 1 Ground Surface Level: RL82.4m*
0
RL (m)
Depth (m)
Description
Sample Type
Date: 29 September 2010
Project No: 010-199A
Lithology
Location: Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert
82.4 SILTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, fine grained sand
Test Results
Client: Project Services
Sample Depth (m)
BORE REPORT
0.0 D 0.2
- grey-brown 82.0
B 0.5
End of Bore at 0.5 m
1
81.0
2
80.0
3
79.0
Is(50) Point Load Test Result (MPa) E Environmental Sample U Undisturbed Tube (50mm diameter) pp Pocket Penetrometer Test (kPa)
Up Pushtube Sample C NMLC Coring HB SPT Hammer Bouncing ( ) No Sample Recovery
S (d) (a) V
Standard Penetrometer Test (SPT) D Diametral Point Load Strength Test B Axial Point Load Strength Test Vane Shear Strength, Uncorrected (kPa)
Disturbed Sample Bulk Sample
Rig: Geoprobe 6610DT Drilling Method: Auger Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered during auger drilling Remarks: *Ground surface level interpolated from Norris Clarke & O'Brien Pty Ltd's 'Beaudesert State Pre School', Drawing No. 9055D1, dated 15.07.10
Notes on Description and Classification of Soil The methods of description and classification of soils used in this report are generally based on Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations. Soil description is based on an assessment of disturbed samples, as recovered from bores and excavations, or from undisturbed materials as seen in excavations and exposures or in undisturbed samples. Descriptions given on report sheets are an interpretation of the conditions encountered at the time of investigation. In the case of cone or piezocone penetrometer tests, actual soil samples are not recovered and soil description is inferred based on published correlations, past experience and comparison with bore and/or test pit data (if available). Soil classification is based on the particle size distribution of the soil and the plasticity of the portion of the material finer than 0.425mm. The description of particle size distribution and plasticity is based on the results of visual field estimation, laboratory testing or both. When assessed in the field, the properties of the soil are estimated; precise description will always require laboratory testing to define soil properties. Where soil can be clearly identified as FILL this will be noted as the main soil type followed by a description of the composition of the fill (e.g. FILL – yellow-brown, fine to coarse grained gravelly clay fill with concrete rubble). If the soil is assessed as possibly being fill this will be noted as an additional observation. Soils are generally described using the following sequence of terms. In certain instances, not all of the terms will be included in the soil description. MAIN SOIL TYPE (CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOL) - strength/density, colour, structure/grain size, secondary and minor components, additional observations
Information on the definition of descriptive and classification terms follows. SOIL TYPE and CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOLS Major Divisions
Particle Size
BOULDERS COBBLES
> 200mm 63 – 200mm
Classification Group Symbol
GW
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (more than half of material is larger than 0.075 mm)
GRAVELS (more than half of coarse fraction is larger than 2.36mm)
Coarse: 20 – 63mm Medium: 6 – 20mm Fine: 2.36 – 6mm
GP GM GC SW
SANDS Coarse: 0.6 – 2.36mm (more than half of Medium: 0.2 – 0.6mm coarse fraction is Fine: 0.075 – 0.2mm smaller than 2.36mm)
SP SM SC ML
SILTS & CLAYS (liquid limit 50%)
CH OH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
OR-09 Soil Description and Classification Notes – Version 3 21 October 2008
Pt
Typical Names
Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines, uniform gravels. Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures. Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures. Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands; little or no fines, uniform sands. Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures. Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty/clayey fine sands or clayey silts with low plasticity. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils. Inorganic clays of high plasticity. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. Peat and other highly organic soils.
Page 1 of 2
PLASTICITY CHART FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS
(Reference: Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site investigations) DESCRIPTIVE TERMS FOR MATERIAL PROPORTIONS
% Fines 12
Coarse Grained Soils Modifier Omit, or use „trace‟ Describe as „with clay/silt‟ as applicable. Prefix soil as „silty/clayey‟ as applicable
Fine Grained Soils Modifier Omit, or use trace. Describe as „with sand/gravel‟ as applicable. Prefix soil as „sandy/gravelly‟ as applicable.
% Coarse < 15 15 – 30 > 30
STRENGTH TERMS – COHESIVE SOILS Strength Term Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Very stiff Hard
Undrained Shear Strength
Field Guide to Strength
< 12kPa 12 – 25kPa 25 – 50kPa 50 – 100kPa 100 – 200kPa > 200kPa
Exudes between the fingers when squeezed in hand. Can be moulded by light finger pressure. Can be moulded by strong finger pressure. Cannot be moulded by fingers, can be indented by thumb. Can be indented by thumb nail. Can be indented with difficulty by thumb nail.
DENSITY TERMS – NON COHESIVE SOILS Density Term Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense
Density Index < 15% 15 – 35% 35 – 65% 65 – 85% > 85%
SPT “N” 0–5 5 – 10 10 – 30 30 – 50 > 50
CPT Cone Resistance 0 – 2MPa 2 – 5MPa 5 – 15MPa 15 – 25MPa > 25MPa
COLOUR The colour of a soil will generally be described in a „moist‟ condition using simple colour terms (eg. black, grey, red, brown etc.) modified as necessary by “pale”, “dark”, “light” or “mottled”. Borderline colours will be described as a combination of colours (eg. grey-brown). EXAMPLE e.g. CLAYEY SAND (SC) – medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium grained with silt. Indicates a medium dense, grey-brown, fine to medium grained clayey sand with silt.
OR-09 Soil Description and Classification Notes – Version 3 21 October 2008
Page 2 of 2
Notes on Description and Classification of Rock The methods of description and classification of rock used in this report are generally based on Australian Standard AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site investigations. Rock description is based on an assessment of disturbed samples, as recovered from bores and excavations, or from undisturbed materials as seen in excavations and exposures, or in core samples. Descriptions given on report sheets are an interpretation of the conditions encountered at the time of investigation. Notes outlining the method and terminology adopted for the description of rock defects are given below, however, detailed information on defects can generally only be determined where rock core is taken, or excavations or exposures allow detailed observation and measurement. Rocks are generally described using the following sequence of terms. In certain instances not all of the terms will be included in the rock description. ROCK TYPE (WEATHERING SYMBOL), strength, colour, grain size, defect frequency Information on the definition of descriptive and classification terms follows.
ROCK TYPE In general, simple rock names are used rather than precise geological classifications. ROCK MATERIALS WEATHERING CLASSIFICATION Weathering Symbol
Term
Definition
Residual soil
RS
Soil developed from extremely weathered rock; the mass structure and substance fabrics are no longer evident; there is a large change in volume but the soil has not been significantly transported.
Extremely weathered
XW
Rock is weathered to such an extent that it has ‘soil’ properties, i.e. it either disintegrates or can be remoulded in water.
Distinctly weathered *
DW
Rock strength usually changed by weathering. The rock may be highly discoloured, usually by ironstaining. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or may be decreased due to deposition of weathering products in pores.
- Highly weathered
HW
- Moderately weathered
MW
Slightly weathered
SW
Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that limonite staining or bleaching affects the whole of the rock substance and other signs of chemical or physical decomposition are evident. Porosity and strength may be increased or decreased compared to the fresh rock, usually as a result of iron leaching or deposition. The colour and strength of the original fresh rock substance is no longer recognisable. Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that staining extends throughout the whole of the rock substance and the original colour of the fresh rock may be no longer recognisable. Rock is slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock.
Fresh FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining. * Subdivision of this weathering grade into highly and moderately may be used where applicable. STRENGTH OF ROCK MATERIAL Point Load Index Is (50)
Term
Symbol
Field Guide To Strength
Extremely low
EL
10MPa
Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow; rock rings under hammer. Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to break through intact material; rock rings under hammer.
Easily remoulded by hand to a material with soil properties.
Notes: 1. These terms refer to the strength of the rock material and not to the strength of the rock mass which may be considerably weaker due to the effect of rock defects. 2. The field guide visual assessment for rock strength may be used for preliminary assessment or when point load testing is not available. 3. Anisotropy of rock may affect the field assessment of strength.
COLOUR The colour of a rock will generally be described in a ‘moist’ condition using simple colour terms (e.g. black, grey, red, brown, etc) modified as necessary by ‘pale’, ‘dark’, ‘light’ or ‘mottled’. Borderline colours will be described as a combination of colours (e.g. grey-brown).
OR-08 Rocks Description and Classification Notes – Version 2 18 June 2009
Page 1 of 2
GRAIN SIZE Descriptive Term
Particle Size Range
Coarse grained
0.6 – 2.0mm
Medium grained
0.2 – 0.6mm
Fine grained
0.06 – 0.2mm
DEFECT FREQUENCY Where appropriate, a defect frequency may be recorded as part of the rock description and will be expressed as the number of natural (or interpreted natural) defects present in an equivalent one metre length of core; by use of the following defect frequency descriptive terms; or both. The descriptive terms refer to the spacing of all types of natural defects along which the rock is discontinuous and include, bedding plane partings, joints and other rock defects, but excludes known artificial fractures such as drilling breaks. Defect Frequency Fragmented Highly Fractured Fractured Fractured to Slightly Fractured Slightly Fractured Unbroken
Description Rock core is comprised primarily of fragments of length less than 20mm, and mostly of width less than the core diameter. Core lengths are generally less than 20mm to 40mm with occasional fragments. Core lengths are mainly 30mm to 100mm with occasional shorter and longer sections. Core lengths are mainly 100mm to 300mm with occasional shorter to longer sections. Core lengths are generally 300mm to 1,000mm with occasional longer sections and occasional sections of 100mm to 300mm. The core does not contain any fractures.
EXAMPLE e.g. SANDSTONE (XW) – low strength, pale brown, fine to coarse grained, slightly fractured.
ROCK DEFECT LOGGING Defects are discontinuities in the rock mass and include joints, sheared zones, cleavages and bedding partings. The ability to observe and log defects will depend on the investigation methodology. Defects logged in core are described using the abbreviations noted in the following tables. The depth noted in the description is measured in metres from the ground surface, the defect angle is measured in degrees from horizontal, and the defect thickness is measured normal to the plane of the defect and is in millimetres (unless otherwise noted). Defects are generally described using the following sequence of terms: Depth, Defect Type, Defect Angle (dip), Surface Roughness, Infill, Thickness
DEFECT TYPE B J S C
– Bedding – Joint – Shear Zone – Crushed Zone
SURFACE ROUGHNESS i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix
- rough or irregular, stepped - smooth, stepped - slickensided, stepped - rough or irregular, undulating - smooth, undulating - slickensided, undulating - rough or irregular, planar - smooth planar - slickensided, planar
INFILL Infill refers to secondary minerals or other materials formed on the surface of the defect and some common descriptions are given in the following table together with their abbreviations. Ls Fe Cl Mn Qtz Ca Clean
- limonite staining - iron staining - clay - manganese staining - quartz - calcite - no visible infill
EXAMPLE 3.59m, J, 90, vii, Ls, 1mm indicates a joint at 3.59m depth that is at 90° to horizontal (i.e. vertical), is rough or irregular and planar, limonite stained and 1mm thick.
OR-08 Rocks Description and Classification Notes – Version 2 18 June 2009
Page 2 of 2
Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert Project No.: 64882 Site No.: 20650 Project No.: 010-199A 4 November 2010
APPENDIX B LABORATORY REPORT SHEETS
EMERSON CLASS NUMBER, Test Procedure: AS1289.3.8.1 - 2006
CONDUCTIVITY and pH TEST REPORT Test Procedure: AS1289.4.3.1 – 1997
Client: Project: Location: Project No.:
Project Services Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert 010-199A
Tested by: Date: Checked by: Date: Report No.:
JE 4/10/10 MH 07/10/10 010-199A_ECN_1_1
Determination of Emerson Class Number Immerse air dried 2-4mm diameter crumbs of soil in water Slaking Complete Dispersion Class 1
No Slaking
Some Dispersion Class 2
No Dispersion
Swelling Class 7
No Swelling Class 8
Immerse moistened remoulded 3mm diameter soil balls in water Dispersion Class 3
No Dispersion
Calcite or Gypsum* Present Class 4
No Calcite or Gypsum Present
Make up 1:5 soil/water suspension. Shake 10 minutes, allow to stand 5 minutes Dispersion Class 5
Flocculation Class 6
Test Number Bore Number and Sample Depth
BH1_1 BH1_1 1.0-1.32m
BH3_1 BH3_1 0.5-0.95m
BH5_1 BH5_1 0.0-0.2m
Source Date Sampled Material Description
In Situ 29/09/10 Silty Clay (CI)(CH) grey & orange
In Situ 29/09/10 Sandy Silt (ML) grey brown
In Situ 29/09/10 Silty Sand (SM) grey brown
Water Type (distilled, potable, site) Water Temperature ( C) Emerson Class Number
Distilled 22 4
Distilled 22 3
Distilled 22 3
Conductivity (mS/cm)
0.15
0.04
0.03
pH
4.9
6.4
5.7
LF-05 Emerson Class Number, Conductivity and pH – Version 2 7 October 2010
Page 1 of 1
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT Test Procedure: AS1289.3.6.1 – 2009 Test Procedure: AS1289.2.1.1 - 2005
Client: Project: Location: Project No.:
Project Services Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert 010-199A
Tested by: Date: Checked by: Date: Report No.:
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Sample Moisture Content (%): AS SIEVE SIZE (mm) 75.0 37.5 26.5 19.0 13.2 9.5 6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.600 0.425 0.300 0.150 0.075
010-199A_3_1 3 0.5-0.95 15.7 PERCENT PASSING
100 99 97 96 95 94 94 93 92 87 49
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Sample Moisture Content (%): AS SIEVE SIZE (mm) 75.0 37.5 26.5 19.0 13.2 9.5 6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.600 0.425 0.300 0.150 0.075
LF-09 Particle Size Distribution Test Report – Version 2 7 October 2010
JE 04/10/10 MH 07/10/10 010-199A_PSD_3_1
010-199A_6_1 6 0.2-0.5 9.0 PERCENT PASSING
100 99 99 99 98 97 97 96 90 46
Page 1 of 1
SHRINK-SWELL INDEX TEST REPORT Test Procedure: AS1289.7.1.1 – 2003
Client: Project: Location: Project No.:
Project Services Early Childhood Education & Care Centre Michaelina Drive, Beaudesert 010-199A
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Specimen Description Specimen Shrinkage (%) Specimen Swell (%)
Tested by: Date: Checked by: Date: Report No.:
sh sw
Estimated Inert inclusions (%) Initial Moisture content of swell specimen (%) Final moisture content of swell specimen (%) Initial moisture content of shrinkage specimen (%) Extent of cracking of shrinkage specimen
Shrink-Swell Index (% per pF) Iss
Sample No.: Bore: Depth (m): Specimen Description Specimen Shrinkage (%) Specimen Swell (%)
sh sw
Estimated Inert inclusions (%) Initial Moisture content of swell specimen (%) Final moisture content of swell specimen (%) Initial moisture content of shrinkage specimen (%) Extent of cracking of shrinkage specimen
Shrink-Swell Index (% per pF) Iss
LF-12 Shrink-Swell Test Report – Version 2 7 October 2010
MH 30/09/10 MH 07/10/10 010-199A_SSI_1_1
010-199A_1_1 1 1.0-1.32 Silty Clay (CI)(CH) 2.4 1.4 2 10.0 14.1 10.9 Slight
1.7
010-199A_3_2 3 2.0-2.35 Silty Clay (CH) 5.1 0.4 0 16.4 17.0 18.2 Slight
2.9
Page 1 of 1
BRISBANE LABORATORY 46 Grice Street Clontarf Q 4019 Phone: (07) 32848766 Fax: (07) 32844391
Report No: CBR:S102-1267 Issue No: 1
California Bearing Ratio Test Report Client: Butler Partners PO BOX 2267 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006
Approved Signatory: Mark Madden
Project:
Beaudesert ( 010-199A ) Date of Issue: 6/10/2010 THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
Sample Details Sample ID: S102-1267 Sampled By: Client Sampling Method: Unknown
Date Sampled:
30/09/2010
Source: Specification: Tested By:
Material: Location: Date Tested:
Refer to Log. BH: 3, Depth: 0.2m - 0.5m 1/10/2010
In-Situ Mark Madden
Load vs Penetration
Test Results AS 1289.6.1.1
CBR At 5.0mm (%):
45
Maximum Dry Density (t/m³): Optimum Moisture Content (%): Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³):
1.85
Density Ratio before Soaking (%): Moisture Content before Soaking (%):
13.6
Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%): Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³):
1.85
Swell (%):
-0.5
Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%):
14.2
Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%): 13.8 Compactive Effort:
Standard
Surcharge Mass (kg):
4.50
Period of Soaking (Days):
4
Oversize Material:
Replaced
Oversize Material (%):
0.0
Comments Note: As requested by client CBR placed at estimated OMC.
Form No: 18986.V1.00, Report No: CBR:S102-1267
Field Moisture AS1289.2.1.1: 14.5%
(c) 2000-2009 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com
Page 1 of 1
BRISBANE LABORATORY 46 Grice Street Clontarf Q 4019 Phone: (07) 32848766 Fax: (07) 32844391
Report No: CBR:S102-1268 Issue No: 1
California Bearing Ratio Test Report Client: Butler Partners PO BOX 2267 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006
Approved Signatory: Mark Madden
Project:
Beaudesert ( 010-199A ) Date of Issue: 6/10/2010 THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
Sample Details Sample ID: S102-1268 Sampled By: Client Sampling Method: Unknown
Date Sampled:
30/09/2010
Source: Specification: Tested By:
Material: Location: Date Tested:
Refer to Log. BH: 6, Depth: 0.2m - 0.5m 1/10/2010
In-Situ Patrick Hall
Load vs Penetration
Test Results AS 1289.6.1.1
CBR At 2.5mm (%):
30
Maximum Dry Density (t/m³): Optimum Moisture Content (%): Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³):
1.71
Density Ratio before Soaking (%): Moisture Content before Soaking (%):
8.7
Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%): Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³):
1.71
Swell (%):
0.5
Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%):
16.3
Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%): 15.9 Compactive Effort:
Standard
Surcharge Mass (kg):
4.50
Period of Soaking (Days):
4
Oversize Material:
Replaced
Oversize Material (%):
0.0
Comments Note: As requested by client CBR placed at estimated OMC.
Form No: 18986.V1.00, Report No: CBR:S102-1268
Field Moisture AS1289.2.1.1: 8.9%
(c) 2000-2009 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com
Page 1 of 1
Soil Chemistry Profile
Mehlich 3 - Multi-nutrient Extractant Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty Ltd Sample Drop Off: 16 Chilvers Road Thornleigh NSW 2120 Australia
16020
Batch N°:
Client Name: Client Contact: Client Job N°: Client Order N°: Address:
ABN 70 106 810 708
Mailing Address: PO Box 357 Pennant Hills NSW 1715
Tel: Fax: Em: Web:
02 9980 6554 02 9484 2427 [email protected] www.sesl.com.au
1
Sample N°:
Report Status:
Butler Partners Pty Ltd Mick Havana 010-199A
Project Name: Topsoil Testing Location: Beaudesert SESL Quote N°: Sample Name: Combined BH1 + BH4 Description: Soil Test Type: FSC (M3), OC-DC
PO Box 2267 FORTITUDE VALLEY BC QLD 4006
Draft
Final
Date Received: 1/10/10
RECOMMENDATIONS The soil was analysed to determine its nutrient status. The soil is slightly acidic within the desired range for most plant species. Salinity and sodicity levels are low which is desirable. The cation analysis indicates a fairly good balance between calcium to magnesium. Potassium is slightly low. The effective cation exchange capacity is low which can indicate a low nutrient and water holding capacity, this is typically seen in sandy soils and soils with low fertility. Nutrient analysis indicates nitrogen, phosphorus potassium, sulphur and calcium are low. Micronutrients are adequate. Manganese is high which can indicate a history of low aeration, waterlogging and or compaction. Organic matter is low. The addition of a recycled organic compost at 10% will improve the nutrient retention capacity of the soil. To improve calcium and sulphur apply gypsum at 150g/sqm. Apply a well balanced general purpose NPK fertiliser (e.g. 11:8:15) for phosphorus tolerant plant species to build low N, P and K levels. Alternatively for phosphorus sensitive species select a native plant food with low or zero phosphorus e.g. Patons Native Plant Food NPK (9:2:6)
SOIL SAMPLE DEPTH (mm):
100
150
FERTILITY RATING:
200
Low
Moderate
High
pH and ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY Extreme Acidity
!4.0
pH in H2O
(1:5)
pH in CaCl2
(1:5)
Salinity
(EC 1:5 dS/m)
Sodium (Na)
(mg/kg)
Chloride (Cl)
(mg/kg)
Very Strong Acidity
4.5
Strong Acidity
5.0
Medium Acidity
5.5
Slight Acidity
6.0
V. Slight Acidity
Slight Alkalinity
Neutral
6.5
7.0
7.5
Moderate Alkalinity
8.0
Strong Alkalinity
8.5
Very Strong Alkalinity
9.0
9.5
"10
6.3 5.8 0.03 Very low 9 Very Low Chloride only determined if EC (1:5) >0.25 dS/m
CATION BALANCE CATION RATIOS
EXCHANGEABLE CATION PERCENTAGE Note: Hydrogen only determined when pH in H2O
