Φ Geotech - Ironbark Ridge€¦ · Φ Geotech Solutions Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd ABN: 18 125 808...

Φ

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

IRONBARK RIDGE - STAGE 2A, 3B & 5

MUSWELLBROOK

ASHTONFIELD

Prepared for

McCloy Group

Prepared by

Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd

GS Ref: 928-002/0

July 2011

Geotech Solutions


ABN: 18 125 808 620

P.O Box 4224, Edgeworth 2285

Unit 4/5 Arunga Dr, Beresfield 2322

[P] 0249 494300

[F] 0249 660485

[E] [email protected]

Page i

McCloy Group Pty Ltd Φ Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Investigation Stage 2a,3b & 5 Ironbark Ridge, Muswellbrook GS ref: 928-002/0 July 2011

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 2

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ..................................................................... 2

4 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 3

4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 3

4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................... 3

4.3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ................................................................................... 5

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 6

5.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN .............................................................................................. 6

5.1.1 DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADINGS ....................................................................... 6

5.1.2 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 6

5.1.3 SUBSOIL DRAINAGE ................................................................................ 7

5.1.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS ................................................................................... 8

5.1.5 PAVEMENT COMPOSITIONS ....................................................................... 8

5.1.6 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ....................................................................... 10

5.1.7 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 11

6 DETENTION BASIN .................................................................................................... 12

7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 12

8 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 12

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A

DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B

ENGINEERING LOGS

GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTION SHEET

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Φ Geotech Solutions


ABN: 18 125 808 620

P.O Box 4224, Edgeworth 2285

Unit 4/5 Arunga Dr, Beresfield 2322

[P] 0249 494300

[F] 0249 660485

[E] [email protected]

GS928-002/0

13 July 2011

McCloy Group Pty Ltd PO Box 2214. Dangar NSW 2309

Attention: Shane Boslem


IRONBARK RIDGE- STAGES 2, 3B & 5

MUSWELLBROOK

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of pavement thickness investigation undertaken for the

McCloy Group associated with Stages 2, 3B & 5 of the residential subdivision known as

Ironbark Ridge, Muswellbrook.

The investigation was required in order to provide comment on the existing subgrade

conditions in the proposed subdivision road alignments, including pavement thickness

design and general issues regarding construction and earthworks.

For the purpose of the investigation plan and long section design drawings, MM Hyndes

Bailey & Co. Ref 205116 dated June 2011 were supplied by the client.



2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed development encompasses Stages 2, 3B & 5 of Ironbark Ridge residential

estate and comprises the part construction of sections of four (4) rural residential roads.

Construction will comprise approximately 1500 m of pavement and fifty one (51)

rural/residential lots. Stage 2, 3B & 5 are located to the south of Ironbark Road adjacent

stages 2A and 3C of the Ironbark Ridge Estate.

Topographically the site is located within regionally gentle to moderately undulating terrain

with slopes falling to the south west. The alignment of the proposed roads 2, 5 & 7 are

oriented generally parallel to the site slopes with while Road 3 is located towards the base

and generally perpendicular to the predominate site slopes. Roads 2 and 7 follow ridgelines

and road 5 follows a gully. Some rock outcrops were noted at the higher elevations in Road

2 and on the southern end of Road 3 & 7. Road 3 traverses a small rural dam around the

intersection with Road 3, at approximate CH 520.

Vegetation predominately comprised cleared open pasture, with thick grass cover along

with some mature native trees. Isolated thicker vegetation was noted predominately within

the southern end of Roads 3 & 7.

Surface drainage would be expected to follow surface contours, falling either side of the

ridgeline along Roads 2 and 7, with the majority of surface drainage eventually draining

south-westerly to a proposed detention basin in Stage 5.

Existing fill areas were noted during fieldwork and comprised contour drains in the natural

gully in the Road 5 alignment and the dam wall construction in Road 3. Stockpiled spoil

material understood to have been generated from previous stages was observed at the top

of the Road 5 alignment. A backfilled trench associated with the sewer installation was also

noted along the Road 3 alignment.

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

Field investigation work was undertaken on 2 May 2011 and involved excavation of twelve

(12) test pits (TP100-TP111) at the following locations:

TP100-TP108, TP110 and TP111 at locations along the proposed road alignment to

characterize subgrade conditions with samples collected for laboratory testing at

assumed subgrade depth; and

Test pits TP109 at the proposed detention basin in Stage 5.

A Komatsu 4t mini excavator with a 300mm toothed bucket was utilised for the excavation

of test pits to a target depth of 1.5m in the road alignments and 2m in the detention basin.



The approximate locations of test pits TP100-TP111 is shown on Drawing 1 attached as

Appendix A. The results of field investigation are summarised in Section 4.2 with detailed

logs attached in Appendix B.

Laboratory analysis comprised testing of samples recovered from test pits at approximate

subgrade depths in the road alignments. Details of the laboratory testing are shown on the

test results sheets attached in Appendix C and results are summarised in Section 4.3.

4 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS

4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Reference to the Hunter Coalfields Regional Geology Map, Geological series sheet 9033 and

part of 9133, 9032 and 9132 Second Edition 1993, indicates that the site is located within

the Middle Permian Age rock of the Greta Coal Measures in the vicinity of the Rowan

Formation. The formation is known to comprise rock types and soils derived from coal

seams, siltstone and sandstone.

4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

At the time of the field investigation, natural surface conditions across the site were

generally characterised by sandy/clayey silt, silty sand and silty clay topsoil materials,

overlying residual silty clays to silty sandy clays.

The majority of the pits were terminated in hard silty clay which was grading to an

extremely weathered extremely low strength siltstone or sandstone. While the excavator

encountered greater digging resistance it was not refused. So while rock structure was

evident, the material encountered prior to termination depth could be considered as a soil

for excavation purposes.

A general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits is shown in

Table 1.



Table 1 - Summary of subsurface conditions encountered in test pits

Test

pit

Road &

Chainage

Topsoil

Depth

(m)

Depth to

rock (m)

Practical

Refusal

(m)

Summary of subsurface profile

TP100 RD 3

/Ch240 0.15 0.70 – Topsoil; Sandy Silty CLAY; SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE

TP101 RD 3

/Ch330 0.40

(1) – Cobbles & gravel; Sandy Silty CLAY;

TP102 RD 3 /Ch430

– 0.7 0.70 Fill (Silty CLAY); Silty Sandy CLAY; SANDSTONE

TP103 RD 3 /Ch540

0.05 1.70(1)

– Topsoil; Silty Sand; Silty CLAY; Silty CLAY

TP104 RD 3 /Ch690

0.15 (1)

– Topsoil; Silty CLAY; Silty CLAY

TP105 RD 3 /Ch810

0.10 1.5(1)

– Topsoil; Sandy Silt; Silty CLAY; SANDSTONE

TP106 RD 2 /Ch125

0.10 0.6-1.4(2)

– Topsoil; Silty CLAY; SANDSTONE

TP107 RD 2 /Ch255

0.25 1.50(1)


TP108 RD 2 /Ch345

0.23 1.50(1)


TP109 Detention

Basin 0.1 – – Topsoil; Sandy Silt; Silty CLAY

TP110 RD

5/Ch209 – – – Silty CLAY

TP111 RD 5 /Ch90

– – – Fill (Silty CLAY); Sandy Silt; Silty CLAY

Notes to Table

(1) Rock structure observed within hard silty clay

(2) Refusal on one end of pit higher than the other

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pit locations at the time of the field

investigation. It should be noted that groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate with

variations in climatic conditions.

Table 1 are a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits. For

a more detail description, reference should be made to the report log sheets and

explanatory notes, which are attached in Appendix B. Notwithstanding, the above

conditions across the site could vary from those encountered in the test pits.



4.3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Details of the laboratory testing conducted on samples obtained from test pits are shown on

the laboratory test results sheets attached in Appendix C, and are summarised in Table 2

and Table 3.

The results of standard compaction and CBR testing undertaken on samples of likely

subgrade soils are summarised in Table 2. Samples were compacted to a target dry density

ratio of 100% Standard at standard optimum moisture content, surcharged with 4.5kg and

soaked for 4 days.

Table 2 - Summary of compaction and CBR test results

Test Pit Depth (m) Soil Type FMC

(%)

SMDD

(t/m3)

SOMC

(%)

CBR

(%)

Swell

(%)

TP100 0.60-0.70 Silty CLAY 12.9 1.57 22.0 5.0 0.7

TP103 0.50-0.60 Silty CLAY 17.9 1.56 23.0 2.0 3.6

TP107 0.40-0.50 Silty CLAY 12.8 1.74 18.0 4.0 0.1

TP110 0.30-0.40 Silty CLAY 12.8 1.80 15.5 3.5 1.8

Notes to Table 2

FMC Field Moisture Content

SMDD Maximum Dry Density (Standard compaction)

SOMC Standard Optimum Moisture Content

CBRCalifornia Bearing Ratio

The results summarised in Table 2 indicate that the field moisture content of the subgrade

materials tested ranged from dry to slightly dry of standard optimum moisture content at

the time of the field investigation. The potential swell indicates the clay soils encountered

are in the slightly to highly expansive range, with the CBR results indicating that the

subgrade is of relatively low strength.

The results of the electrical conductivity (EC) tests undertaken on samples of the residual

silty clay soils encountered in the proposed detention basin are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 –Summary of EC test results

Test Pit Depth (m) Soil Type EC

(µS/cm)

TP109 0.5 Silty CLAY 138

TP109 1.7 Silty CLAY 238

Notes to Table 2

EC Electrical Conductivity



For further detail of the laboratory testing, reference should be made to the laboratory test

results sheets attached in Appendix C.

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN

5.1.1 DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADINGS

Advice on design traffic loadings for the internal roads from Mr Siva Karthigesh , Design

Engineer from Muswellbrook Shire Council (MSC) indicated that the design should be

undertaken in accordance with Table 4 of MSC draft construction specification [Ref 1].

The design traffic loadings for the internal road are shown in Table .

Table 4 - Design Traffic Loadings

Road Name Road Type Design Traffic (ESA’s)

Road 2 Rural/Residential 3 x 105



If advice indicates different traffic loadings to those for which pavement design has been

undertaken, the pavement design may need to be reviewed.

5.1.2 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits and the supplied long

sections, subgrade conditions across the site of the proposed subdivision are generally

expected to comprise residual clay filling, silty sand, and silty sandy clays over

sandstone/siltstone bedrock. The residual clay soils could generally be expected to be the

critical subgrade materials for the purpose of pavement thickness design. The majority of

the road pavements will be in minor cut or fill.

The results of the laboratory CBR testing (summarised on Table 2) indicated soaked CBR

values in the order of 2.0% to 5.0% for the subgrade materials encountered, when

compacted to 100% relative density using standard compactive effort.



Taking into consideration the surcharge of the overlying pavement a CBR of 3 % would be

considered appropriate for design. Given the reactivity of the site clays, and the lower CBR

values it is recommended that the subgrade be in-situ stabilised to aid in minimising

reactive movements associated with climatic moisture changes. It is essential that trafficking

of the subgrade be minimised or limited to construction traffic involved in the pavement

construction. While site conditions were dry at the time of the investigation, trafficking of

the subgrade particularly in an elevated moisture state will lead to excessive pore pressure

development and permanent deformation of the subgrade. It is noted from the laboratory

testing that the lower areas of the site and the gully area had higher moisture content than

the more elevated site soils. Similarly silty sands (slopewash) were noted to a depth of 0.4m

in the proposed sag point in Road 3 around Ch540.

While some rock was encountered during test pitting it was not consistent over any

observed length of the proposed pavement alignments and as such, the pavement thickness

design allows for a clay subgrade. Should consistent weathered rock be encountered over

sections of the road the need for lime stabilisation may be reassessed. It should be

appreciated that a lot of the weathered rock in the test pits comprises extremely low

strength siltstone which when reworked will produce a plastic silty clay.

5.1.3 SUBSOIL DRAINAGE

The subgrade should be constructed with sufficient cross fall (normally 3%) to assist with

any moisture entering the pavement not becoming trapped. The pavement design provided

assumes drained pavement conditions.

The selection of appropriate construction materials that are insensitive to moisture change

is essential in areas subject to periodic inundation, even if for relative short periods of time.

It is understood that some sections of the proposed internal pavement will be constructed

such that surface runoff will drain to the lots and will follow natural contours away from the

pavement on both sides of the road (i.e. Road 2 & 7). Provided that the surface water does

not pond adjacent to the road no specific additional subsoil drainage would be required.

However this should be subject to assessment during construction. Subsurface drainage

should be provided to protect the constructed pavements of the remaining roads in

accordance with MSC’s AUS-SPEC[1].



5.1.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS

CBR test results indicate that the subgrade material is of low strength and the clays have

moderate to high swell potential as defined in Table 5.2 of AUSTROADS 08 [3]. The subgrade

would have substantial potential for volume change due to moisture variations and

strategies to minimise volume change as outline in clause 5.3.5 of AUSTROADS 2008 [3]

should be employed including.

The specific considerations in relation to expansive soils should include but not limited to:

Specification of a moisture content range for preparation of the subgrade;

The need for subsoil drainage to not be located in the expansive soils;

The need for a low permeability lower subbase / select layer;

Recommendation for sealed shoulders and impermeable verge material;

Recommend appropriate construction techniques; and

Reduction of the volume expansion potential of the expansive soils by lime

stabilisation.

It is recommended that the subgrade be lime stabilised to aid in reducing the impact of the

reactive subgrade.

5.1.5 PAVEMENT COMPOSITIONS

Pavement design for the internal roads have been undertaken in accordance with guidelines

indicated in AUSTROADS 2008 AGPT02/08 [Ref 2] and using design chart Figure 8.4 with 95%

confidence level used for calculation of pavement thicknesses.

Two thickness designs based on construction on a CBR 3.0% clay subgrade or a clay

subgrade which is lime stabilised. Pavement compositions for the proposed internal roads

are shown on Table 5 and Table 6. Given the reactivity of the subgrade clay lime

stabilisation would be the preferred option.

The subgrade will require inspection by an experienced geotechnical consultant at

preliminary boxing depth, prior to final trimming of subgrade, in order to assess the

potential requirement for a select layer or localised treatment of soft zones.



Table 5 - Pavement compositions – proposed internal road

ROAD Road 2 Road 3 Road 5

Wearing Course (mm) Two coat seal Two coat seal Two coat seal

Basecourse (mm) 150 150 150

Subbase (mm) 290 290 290

Total Thickness (mm) 440 440 440

Subgrade (lime stabilised) CBR min 3.0% CBR min 3.0% CBR min 3.0%

Allowable ESAs 3 x 105 3 x 10

5 3 x 10

5

Table 6 - Pavement compositions – proposed internal road (lime stabilised subgrade)

ROAD Road 2 Road 3 Road 5

Wearing Course (mm) Two coat seal Two coat seal Two coat seal

Basecourse (mm) 150 150 150

Subbase (mm) 150 150 150

Lime stabilised

subgrade (mm) 300 300 300

Total Thickness (mm) 600 600 600

Subgrade (lime stabilised) CBR min 7.0% CBR min 7.0% CBR min 7.0%

Allowable ESAs 3 x 105 3 x 10

5 3 x 10

5



The pavement thicknesses shown in Table 6 are based on the assumption of a subgrade CBR

of minimum 7% following stabilisation with hydrated lime. Further testing is required to

confirm actual percentage of lime required; however, based on previous experience, 3% (by

weight) should be satisfactory to achieve the design CBR of 7%.

Table 7 - Pavement Materials and Compaction Requirements

Pavement Course Material Specification Compaction Requirements

Wearing course Material complying MSC’s

AUS-SPEC[1]

Material complying MSC’s

AUS-SPEC[4]

Basecourse

High quality crushed rock or base

quality gravel

Material complying with Clause 5.17 MSC’s

AUS-SPEC[1]CBR 80%

PI 6%

Min 98% Modified (AS 1289 5.2.1)

Sub-base

Sub-base quality gravel

Material complying with Clause 5.17 MSC’s

AUS-SPEC[1] CBR 30%

PI 12%

Min 95% Modified (AS 1289 5.2.1)

Fill

Select subgrade or subgrade

replacement

CBR 7% minimum Min 100% Standard (AS 1289

5.1.1)

Subgrade Min CBR 3.0% or 7% when lime stabilised Min 100% Standard (AS 1289

5.1.1)

Notes to Table

CBR California Bearing Ratio

PI Plasticity index

The moisture regime associated with a pavement has a significant influence on the

performance of the pavement since the stiffness /strength of the pavement materials and

subgrade is very dependent on the moisture content of the materials. Accordingly, to

protect the pavement materials and subgrade from wetting up and softening, particular

care would be required to provide a waterproof seal for the pavement materials and

adequate surface and sub-surface drainage of the pavement and adjacent area.

5.1.6 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

Subgrade preparation for pavement formation for new pavements could generally be

expected to comprise the following:

Removal of topsoil, existing filling and slopewash and excavation (where required) to

subgrade formation level, with the spoiling of any deleterious material;

Proof rolling of the exposed subgrade with a heavy (minimum 10 tonne static) roller.

Any soft or weak areas detected during the proof rolling should be excavated and

replaced with a suitable compacted fill / subgrade replacement. Depending on the

depth below design subgrade levels some areas of unsuitable material could be

expected around the Road 3/5 intersection;



It is anticipated that some area of the subgrade may contain coarser gravel and rock

fragments which may need to be removed prior to In-situ stabilisation;

In-situ stabilisation to comprise spreading of the lime uniformly over the full

formation width to the target percentage by weight. Undertake at least two passes

with a dedicated insitu pulvi-mixer to achieve satisfactory mixing;

Compaction of the subgrade to achieve a minimum dry density ratio of 100%

Standard;

Protection of subgrade to prevent any excessive wetting or drying of the subgrade;

and

Formation of the pavement in accordance with the above recommendations and

specifications.

Based on the supplied long sections the design pavement levels are generally above existing

surface levels. While some coarser gravel or rock fragments are likely to be encountered,

uniform rock is not expected to be encountered during pavement construction. However,

given the variation in rock levels and strength in the test pits, there still is some potential for

rock to be encountered. Rock encountered at subgrade levels should be treated by ripping

to a minimum depth of 300mm below subgrade formation level and compaction of the

ripped rock subgrade to achieve a minimum dry density ratio of 100% Standard.

Any abrupt changes between subgrade conditions, such as transition from rock subgrade to

soil subgrade or sand / clayey sand (extremely weathered decomposed sandstone)

subgrade, should be eliminated during subgrade preparation. This could be expected to

involve subgrade preparation practices such as selective grading or mixing of material to

provide a transition between material types and moisture / density control of subgrade

compaction. This is particularly relevant where gravelly bands/pebbly sandstone are

observed, as they will provide potential pathways for groundwater to enter the pavement.

Particular care should be taken in the choice of compaction equipment and methods where

pavement construction is to be undertaken in the vicinity of existing residences.

Observation and monitoring of existing adjacent residences for any signs of distress should

be undertaken in conjunction with proof rolling and compaction of the subgrade and

pavement materials.

5.1.7 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION

Pavements should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of MSC’s AUS-

SPEC[1]., using recommendations in Section 5 of this report. Where recommendations differ

from MCC guidelines to that shown in this report, council requirements should take

precedence or clarification sought.



6 DETENTION BASIN

It is understood that a detention basin is proposed for construction as part of Stage 5. A

single test pit TP009 was excavated in the pegged centre of the proposed basin. A residual

clay soil was encountered over the 2m depth of the test pit.

Samples of the surficial soil and deeper soil profile were tested in the Laboratory for EC with

the results indicating soils have an ECe of less than 2 dS/m and therefore non saline.

At the time of investigation limited information was available in relation to the proposed

basin or its design Excavations for the proposed basin could be readily undertaken using

conventional excavation equipment. The design and construction of the basin should be

undertaken in accordance with the requirements of MSC’s AUS-SPEC[1].

7 DISCUSSION

A pavement design has been provided for the internal roads on the basis of construction on

clay subgrade with two options detailed. Given potential reactivity issues it is

recommended that the lime stabilised subgrade option be adopted. Due to the reactivity of

the subgrade, which is in the moderate to highly expansive classification range as defined in

Table 5.2 of Austroads 2008 [3], reference should be made to design consideration outlined

in Section 5.1.4 of this report. Subgrade inspection should be undertaken during boxing as it

is anticipated that subgrade conditions will vary along the various roads with some bands of

gravelly or weathered rock expected and additional treatment may be required.

8 LIMITATIONS

The extent of testing associated with the site classifications is limited to discrete test pit

locations, and variations in ground conditions can occur between and away from such

locations. Site classifications are based on the presumption of similar subsurface conditions

between test pits location. A geotechnical consultant or qualified engineer should inspect

footing and excavation to confirm assumed conditions in this assessment. If subsurface

conditions encountered during construction differ from those given in this report, further

advice should be sought without delay.

This report and associated documentation and the information herein have been prepared

solely for the use of McCloy Group Pty Ltd and any reliance assumed by other parties on this

report shall be at such parties own risk.



Yours faithfully,

GEOTECH SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

Ian Piper James Young

Associate Principal

REFERENCES

[1] Muswellbrook Shire Council AUS-SPEC (OCT 09) Muswellbrook Shire Council Draft

September 2010

[2] AGPT02/08 “Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural”

AUSTROADS (2008).

Appendix A

Drawing

PROJECT REFERENCE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING NUMBER:

SCALE:

OFFICE:

DRAWN BY:

APPROVED BY:

DATE:

Ф Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Unit 4, 5 Arunga

Drive, Beresfield

NSW 2322


IRONBARK RIDGE, MUSWELLBROOK

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

GS928

McCloy Group Pty Ltd NTS

Beresfield

15 June 2011

NR

IGP

SITE

NOTES:

Drawing adapted from MM Hyndes, Bailey & Co, Plan showing proposed lot layout, Sheet 1, Job Ref. 205116, dated February 2010

LEGEND:

Approximate test pit locations and numbers

TP110

TP111

TP103

TP102

TP101

TP100

TP104

TP105

TP106

TP107

TP108

TP109

Appendix B

Engineering Logs

General Soil Description Sheet

0.15m

0.70m

1.50m

TOPSOIL, Silty CLAY, brown, dry, with organics

Sandy Silty CLAY, very stiff, brown, dry, medium to high plasticity

SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE, yellow brown extremely weatheredextremely low strength

Testpit TP100 terminated at 1.50 m

D

D

XW

VSt

EL - VL

Grassed Area, Mature trees

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

0.70m

B

0.80m

TESTPIT LOG

File: GS928 TP100 Page 1 OF 1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONSoil Type, colour, plasticity or particle characteristic

Rock Type, colour, grain sizeSecondary and minor components

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Komatsu PC40MR

LOGGED BY : IGPDATE EXCAVATED : 02/05/11

METHOD : 300mm toothed bucket

STRUCTURE& Other Observations

LOCATION : Road 3 CH 240

CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR

- Residual soil- Extremely weathered- Distinctly weathered- Slightly weathered- Fresh rock

- Extremely low- Very low- Low- Medium- High- Very high- Extremely high

ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL

CONSISTENCYSAMPLES & FIELD TESTSWATER / MOISTURE

See Explanatory Notes fordetails of abbreviations& basis of descriptions.

- Dry- Moist- Wet- Optimum MC- Plastic Limit

- Undisturbed Sample- Disturbed Sample- Environmental sample- Bulk Disturbed Sample- Standard Penetration Test- Hand/Pocket Penetrometer

UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH

- Very Soft- Soft- Firm- Stiff- Very Stiff- Hard

- Very Loose- Loose- Medium Dense- Dense- Very Dense

VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1

CLIENT : McCloy Group Pty Ltd

PROJECT : Geotechnical Investigation

LOCATION : Ironbark Ridge Estate

PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP100

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.40m

1.50m

GRAVEL / COBBLES, red brown (iron cement siltstone rock) dry,

Silty CLAY, mottled yellow brown grey, dry, with trace sand, with rocklenses


D

Bare ground no topsoiladjacent stand of 2-4 m saplings

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

0.50m

D

D

TESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP101

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.10m

0.35m

0.70m

FILL, Silty CLAY, brown, medium to high plasticity, dry, with trace coarsegravel

FILL, Silty CLAY, yellow brown grey, dry to moist, with trace of sand andsome coarse gravel,medium to high plasticity

SIlty CLAY, yellow brown grey, dry to moist, with trace of sand and somecoarse gravel,medium to high plasticity

becoming weathered sandstone


Refusal

D

D to M

D to M

VSt

Toe of damwall/spillway

Not

Enc

ount

ere

dTESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP102

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.10m

0.40m

1.50m

TOPSOIL, Silty SAND, brown, fine grained sand, dry, with organics

Silty SAND, brown, fine grained sand, dry

Silty CLAY, brown, dry to moist, very stiff, high plasticity, with tracesiltstone gravel


D

D

D to M VSt

Further adjacent test pitting at CH570 confirmed the presence of thedeeper silty sand

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

0.50m

B

0.60m

TESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP103

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.15m

1.60m

TOPSOIL, Silty SAND, brown, fine grained sand, dry, with organics

Silty CLAY, yellow brown, very stiff, dry to moist, medium to high plasticity,with trace sand and some gravel


D to M VSt

Open Grassland

Not

Enc

ount

ere

dTESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP104

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.10m

0.25m

1.70m

TOPSOIL,Sandy SILT, brown, dry,with organics

Sandy SILT, dry, pale brown

Silty CLAY, yellow brown, dry to moist, stiff to very stiff, medium plasticity,with sandsand content varies



D

D

D to M St to VSt

Not

Enc

ount

ere

dTESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G





LOCATION : Road 3 CH810

CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP105

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.10m

1.60m

TOPSOIL,Sandy SILT, brown, dry, with organics

Silty CLAY, red brown, dry to moist, medium to high plasticity, with finesub-rounded gravel

same as above but becoming yellow brown



D

D to M

Sandstone possible floater oneastern side of pit

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

0.40mD

TESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G





LOCATION : Road 2 Ch135

CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP106

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.25m

1.50m


Silty CLAY, red brown, dry to moist, very stiff,medium to high plasticity,with sandstone cobbles and gravel

becoming weathered rockTestpit TP107 terminated at 1.50 m

D

D to M VSt

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

0.40m

D

0.50m

10

9

15

15

TESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G





LOCATION : Road 2 Ch 255

CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DC

P(B

LOW

CO

UN

T)

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP107

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.23m

1.60m


Silty CLAY, red brown, dry to moist, very stiff medium to high plasticity,with sandstone cobbles and gravel

as above but yellow brown



D

D to M

Not

Enc

ount

ere

dTESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP108

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.10m

0.40m

2.00m


Sandy SILT, pale brown,dry, low plasticity with some fine gravel

Silty CLAY, brown, dry to moist, very stiff, medium to high plasticity, withsand and some fine gravel


D to M

St

VSt

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

0.50m

1.70m

D

D

TESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G





LOCATION : Detention Basin - See Drawing for location

CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP109

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

1.50m

Silty CLAY, brown, high plasticity, with fine gravel, with trace sand

Organics and tree roost to 50mm over full depth, test pit located adjacenta tree


D - M VSt

Not

Enc

ount

ere

dTESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DY

NA

MIC

PE

NE

TR

OM

ET

ER

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP110

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

0.60m

0.80m

1.70m

FILL, Silty CLAY, brown, some gravel

Sandy SILT, light brown,dry, low plasticity

Silty CLAY, yellow to light brown, moist stiff, medium to high plasticity


Fill associated with a surface flowdiversion berm and dam

OLD TOPSOIL LAYER

Not

Enc

ount

ere

d

2

4

4

5

8

TESTPIT LOG




CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

/R

EL

DE

NS

ITY

/R

OC

K S

TR

EN

GT

H

MO

IST

UR

E /

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G






CHECKED BY : IGP

ROCK WEATHERING

RSXWDWSWFR



ELVLLMHVHEH

ROCK STRENGTH


RELATIVE DENSITY

DMWOMCPL





UDESBSPTHP

VSSFStVStH



VLLMDDVD

Water inflow

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

RLE

VE

LS

SA

MP

LES

&F

IELD

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DC

P(B

LOW

CO

UN

T)

100

200

300

400

HA

ND

PE

NE

TR

O-

ME

TE

R(k

Pa)

SHEET : 1 OF 1




PROJECT REF : GS928

HOLE NO : TP111

GE

OT

EC

H_S

OLU

TIO

NS

_03

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

Log

GS

_TE

ST

HO

LE_L

OG

_02

GS

_928

_IR

ON

BA

RK

E R

IDG

E.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

12/

07/2

011

14:0

7 8

.2.0

04

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Φ

Subsurface investigation may be conducted by one or a combination of the following methods.

Method

Test Pitting: excavation/trench

BH Backhoe bucket

EX Excavator bucket

X Existing excavation

Natural Exposure: existing natural rock or soil exposure

Manual drilling: hand operated tools

HA Hand Auger

Continuous sample drilling

PT Push tube

Hammer drilling

AH Air hammer

AT Air track

Spiral flight auger drilling

AS Large diameter short spiral auger

AD/V Continuous spiral flight auger: V-Bit

AD/T Continuous spiral flight auger: TC-Bit

Rotary non-core drilling

WS Washbore (mud drilling)

RR Rock roller

Rotary core drilling

HQ 63mm diamond-tipped core barrel

NMLC 52mm diamond-tipped core barrel

NQ 47mm diamond-tipped core barrel

Concrete coring

DT Diatube

Sampling is conducted to facilitate further assessment of selected materials encountered.

Sampling method

Disturbed sampling

B Bulk disturbed sample

D Disturbed sample

ES Environmental soil sample

Undisturbed sampling

SPT Standard Penetration Test sample

U# Undisturbed tube sample (#mm diameter)

Water samples

EW Environmental water sample

Field testing may be conducted as a means of assessment of the in-situ conditions of materials encountered.

Field testing

SPT Standard Penetration Test (blows/150mm)

HP/PP Hand/Pocket Penetrometer

Dynamic Penetrometers (blows/150mm)

DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

PSP Perth Sand Penetrometer

VS Vane Shear

PBT Plate Bearing Test

If encountered with SPT or dynamic penetrometer testing, refusal (R), virtual refusal (VR) or hammer bouncing (HB) may be noted.

The quality of the rock can be assessed be the degree of fracturing and the following.

Rock quality description

TCR Total Core Recovery (%) (length of core recovered divided by the length of core run)

RQD Rock Quality Designation (%)

(sum of axial lengths of core greater than 100mm long divided by the length of core run)

Notes on groundwater conditions encountered may include.

Groundwater

Not Encountered Excavation is dry in the short term

Not Observed Groundwater observation not possible

Seepage Groundwater seeping into hole

Inflow Groundwater flowing/flooding into hole

Perched groundwater may result in a misleading indication of the depth to the true water table. Groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate with variations in climatic and site conditions.

Notes on the stability of excavations may include.

Excavation conditions

Spalling Material falling into excavation, may be described as minor or major spalling

Unstable Collapse of the majority, or one or more face, of the excavation

Geotech Solutions

The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. Material descriptions are deduced from field observation or engineering examination, and may be appended or confirmed by in situ or laboratory testing. The information is dependent on the scope of investigation, the extent of sampling and testing, and the inherent variability of the conditions encountered.

Explanatory Notes

Φ

Soil types are described according to the dominant particle size on the basis of the following assessment.

Soil Classification Particle Size

CLAY < 0.002mm

SILT 0.002mm 0.075mm

SAND fine 0.075mm to 0.2mm

medium 0.2mm to 0.6mm

coarse 0.6mm to 2.36mm

GRAVEL fine 2.36mm to 6mm

medium 6mm to 20mm

coarse 20mm to 63mm

COBBLES 63mm to 200mm

BOULDERS > 200mm

Soil types are qualified by the presence of minor components on the basis of field examination or grading.

Description Percentage of minor component

Trace < 5% in coarse grained soils

< 15% in fine grained soils

With 5% to 12% in coarse grained soils

15% to 30% in fine grained soils

The strength of cohesive soils is classified by engineering assessment or field/laboratory testing as follows.

Strength Symbol Undrained shear strength

Very Soft VS < 12kPa

Soft S 12kPa to 25kPa

Firm F 25kPa to 50kPa

Stiff St 50kPa to 100kPa

Very Stiff VSt 100kPa to 200kPa

Hard H > 200kPa

Cohesionless soils are classified on the basis of relative density as follows.

Relative Density Symbol Density Index

Very Loose VL < 15%

Loose L 15% to 35%

Medium Dense MD 35% to 65%

Dense D 65% to 85%

Very Dense VD > 85%

The moisture condition of soil is described by appearance and feel and may be described in relation to the Plastic Limit (PL) or Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).

Moisture condition and description

Dry Cohesive soils; hard, friable, dry of plastic limit. Granular soils; cohesionless and free-running

Moist Cool feel and darkened colour: Cohesive soils can be moulded. Granular soils tend to cohere

Wet Cool feel and darkened colour: Cohesive soils usually weakened and free water forms when handling. Granular soils tend to cohere

The plasticity of cohesive soils is defined as follows.

Plasticity Liquid Limit

Low plasticity ≤ 35%

Medium plasticity > 35% ≤ 50%

High plasticity > 50%

The structure of the soil may be described as follows.

Zoning Description

Layer Continuous across exposure or sample

Lens Discontinuous layer (lenticular shape)

Pocket Irregular inclusion of different material

The structure may include; defects such as softened zones, fissures, cracks, joints and root-holes; and coarse grained soils may be described as strongly or weakly cemented.

The soil origin may also be noted if possible to deduce.

Soil origin and description

Fill Man-made deposits or disturbed material

Topsoil Material affected by roots and root fibres

Colluvial soil Transported down slopes by gravity

Aeolian soil Transported and deposited by wind

Alluvial soil Deposited by rivers

Lacustrine soil Deposited by lakes

Marine soil Deposits in beaches, bays, estuaries

Residual soil Developed on weathered rock

The origin of the soil generally cannot be deduced on the appearance of the material and may be assumed based on further geological evidence or field observation.

Geotech Solutions

The methods of description and classification of soils used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In practice, if the material can be remoulded by hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a soil. The dominant soil constituent is given in capital letters, with secondary textures in lower case. In general, descriptions cover: soil type, strength / relative density, moisture, colour, plasticity and inclusions.

Explanatory Notes - General Soil Description

Φ

Sedimentary rock types are generally described according to the predominant grain size as follows.

Rock Type Description

CONGLOMERATE Rounded gravel sized fragments >2mm cemented in a finer matrix

SANDSTONE Sand size particles defined by grain size and often cemented by other materials fine 0.06mm to 0.2mm medium 0.2mm to 0.6mm coarse 0.6mm to 2mm

SILTSTONE Predominately silt sized particles

SHALE Fine particles (silt or clay) and fissile

CLAYSTONE Predominately clay sized particles

The classification of rock weathering is described based on definitions outlined in AS1726 as follows.

Term and symbol Definition

Residual Soil

RS Soil developed on extremely weathered rock; mass structure and substance are no longer evident

Extremely

weathered

XW Weathered to such an extent that it

has ‘soil’ properties

Distinctly weathered

DW Strength usually changed and may be highly discoloured. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or decreased due to deposition in pores

Slightly weathered

SW Slightly discoloured; little/no change of strength from fresh rock

Fresh Rock FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining

Rock material strength (distinct from mass strength which can be significantly weaker due to the effect of defects) can be defined based on the point load index as follows.

Term and symbol Point Load Index Is50

Extremely low EL < 0.03MPa

Very Low VL 0.03MPa to 0.1MPa

Low L 0.1MPa to 0.3MPa

Medium M 0.3MPa to 1MPa

High H 1MPa to 3MPa

Very High VH 3MPa to 10MPa

Extremely High EH > 10MPa

For preliminary assessment and in cases where no point load testing is available, the rock strength may be assessed using the field guide specified by AS1726.

The defect spacing and bedding thickness of rocks, measured normal to defects of the same set or bedding, can be described as follows.

Definition Defect Spacing

Thinly laminated < 6mm

Laminated 6mm to 20mm

Very thinly bedded 20mm to 60mm

Thinly bedded 60mm to 0.2m

Medium bedded 0.2m to 0.6m

Thickly bedded 0.6m to 2m

Very thickly bedded > 2m

Defects in rock mass are often described by the following.

Terms

Joint JT Sheared zone SZ

Bed Parting BP Sheared surface SS

Contact CO Seam SM

Dyke DK Crushed Seam CS

Decomposed Zone DZ Infilled Seam IS

Fracture FC Foliation FL

Fracture Zone FZ Vein VN

The shape and roughness of defects are described using the following terms.

Planarity Roughness

Planar PR Very Rough VR

Curved CU Rough RF

Undulating U Smooth S

Irregular IR Polished POL

Stepped ST Slickensides SL

The coating or infill associated with defects can be described as follows.

Definition Description

Clean No visible coating or infilling

Stain No visible coating or infilling; surfaces discoloured by mineral staining

Veneer Visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral substance (<1mm). If discontinuous over the plane; patchy veneer

Coating Visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral substance (>1mm)

Geotech Solutions

The methods of description and classification of rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In general, if a material cannot be remoulded by hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a rock, is classified by its geological terms. In general, descriptions cover: rock type, degree of weathering, strength, colour, grain size, structure and minor components or inclusions.

Explanatory Notes - General Rock Description

Φ

Graphics Symbols Index

Geotech Solutions

CLAYS

SILTS

SANDS

GRAVELS SEDIMENTARY ROCK

MISCELLANEOUS

METAMORPHIC ROCK

IGNEOUS ROCK

CLAY

Silty CLAY

Sandy CLAY

Gravelly CLAY

GRAVEL

Clayey GRAVEL

Silty GRAVEL

Sandy GRAVEL

COBBLES & BOULDERS

Organic SILT

SILT

Clayey SILT

Sandy SILT

Gravelly SILT

CONGLOMERATE

BRECCIA

SANDSTONE

STONE

SILTSTONE

SHALE

SAND

Clayey SAND

Silty SAND

Gravelly SAND

MUDSTONE / CLAYSTONE

COAL

FILL

TOPSOIL

CONCRETE

ASPHALT

CORE LOSS

PAVEMENT GRAVEL

PAVEMENT (Natural Gravels)

PAVEMENT (Crushed Rock)

SLATE / PHYLLITE / SCHIST

GNEISS

QUARTZITE

GRANITE

BASALT

TUFF

Appendix C

Laboratory Test Results

Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 1

Client address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309

Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/05/2011

Project: Ironbark ridge stage 2a, 3b & 5 Order Number:

Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook

Lab No: 11/2160 Sample Location

Date Sampled: 6/05/2011

Date Tested: 20/05/2011

Sampled By: Ian Piper

Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe

Material Source: Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.6.1.1

For Use As: - Lot Number: -

Remarks: - Item Number : -

Soil Description :

Approved Signatory Form Number

RP29-3Simon Richards

NATA Accred No:15689

Swell (%) / Surcharge (kg):

Minimum Specified CBR Value (%) :

Achieved Percentage of Maximum Dry Density

(%) :

Achieved Moisture Content (%) :

Silty CLAY, yellow brown.

CBR Value (%) :

Density Ratio after Soak (%) :

Field Moisture Content (%) :

Moisture Content (Top) after Penetration

(%) :

Moisture Content (Total) after Penetration

(%) :

Achieved Percentage of Optimum Moisture

Content (%) :

Test Condition (Soaked/Unsoaked) / Soaking

Period (Days) :

Maximum Dry Density - MDD (t/m³) :

Optimum Moisture Content - OMC (%) :

Compactive Effort :

Nominated % Maximum Dry Density

Compaction :

Nominated % Optimum Moisture Content

Compaction :

Achieved Dry Density before Soak (t/m³) :

California Bearing Ratio Report (1 Point)

25.9

5.0

This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation

requirements.

5

5

-

1.568

100

12.9

30.5

20.8

95

Soaked / 4 days

CBR 2.5mm (%) :

CBR 5.0mm (%) :

Oversize o%

21.8

Standard

25.6

Dry Density after Soak (t/m³) :

Moisture Content after Soak (%) :

0.7 / 4.5 kg

100

100

1.579

101

Page 1 of 1

Pit No. TP 100

Sample Type Bulk

Sample Depth 0.6 -0.7m

1.566














Soil Description :


RP29-3Simon RichardsNATA Accred No:15689

Swell (%) / Surcharge (kg): 0.1 / 4.5 kgCBR Value (%) :

4.0

SILTY CLAY- Brown


requirements. The results of the tests, calibrations, and /or

measurements included in this document are traceable to Australian

/National Standards. This document shall not be reproduced, except in

full.


Content (%) : 99 Minimum Specified CBR Value (%) : -


Period (Days) : Soaked / 4 days Oversize %


(%) : 100 CBR 2.5mm (%) : 4

Achieved Moisture Content (%) : 17.8 CBR 5.0mm (%) : 4


Compaction : 100


(%) : 22.3

Achieved Dry Density before Soak (t/m³) : 1.737


(%) : 19

Compactive Effort : Standard Density Ratio after Soak (%) : 100


Compaction : 100 Field Moisture Content (%) : 12.8

Maximum Dry Density - MDD (t/m³) : 1.738 Dry Density after Soak (t/m³) : 1.736

Optimum Moisture Content - OMC (%) : 18.0 Moisture Content after Soak (%) : 20


Page 1 of 1

Pit No. TP 107

Sample Type Bulk















Soil Description :







(%) :


CLAY, red brown, with Gravel.

CBR Value (%) :




(%) :


(%) :


Content (%) :


Period (Days) :



Compactive Effort :


Compaction :


Compaction :



19

4.0


requirements.

4

4

-

1.736

100

12.8

22.3

17.8

99

Soaked / 4 days

CBR 2.5mm (%) :

CBR 5.0mm (%) :

Oversize 0%

18.0

Standard

20.0



0.1 / 4.5 kg

100

100

1.737

100

Page 1 of 1

Pit No. TP 107

Sample Type Bulk


1.738














Soil Description :







(%) :


Silty CLAY, brown, trace of Gravel.

CBR Value (%) :




(%) :


(%) :


Content (%) :


Period (Days) :



Compactive Effort :


Compaction :


Compaction :



16.4

3.5


requirements.

3.5

3

-

1.767

98

12.8

22.2

15.6

101

Soaked / 4 days

CBR 2.5mm (%) :

CBR 5.0mm (%) :

Oversize 0%

15.5

Standard

18.3



1.8 / 4.5 kg

100

100

1.799

100

Page 1 of 1

Pit No. TP 110

Sample Type Bulk


1.800

Φ Geotech - Ironbark Ridge€¦ · Φ Geotech Solutions Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd ABN: 18 125 808...

Documents

Transcript of Φ Geotech - Ironbark Ridge€¦ · Φ Geotech Solutions Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd ABN: 18 125 808...