Report on Geotechnical Investigation Midland Wastewater ...

Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Midland Wastewater Pump Station Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue

Prepared for Taliska Securities Pty Ltd

Project 88990.00 February 2018

Geotechnical Investigation, Midland Wastewater Pump Station 88990.00.R.001.Rev0 Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue February 2018

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed wastewater

pump station (WWPS) at Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue. The work was commissioned by Taliska

Securities Pty Ltd.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the soil and groundwater conditions at two possible

locations for a proposed Type 10 WWPS founded at RL 5.0 m and associated storage tanks founded

at RL 8.6 m and assess the suitability for open cut excavation with spear point dewatering. The

investigation included the drilling of two boreholes, four cone penetration tests and laboratory testing

of selected samples. Site 1 is located approximately 260 m to the west of Site 2.

Summary of Ground Conditions at Site 1

Site Test

location Ground Conditions

Layer RLs

(m AHD)

Groundwater

RL

(m AHD)

Site 1 BH1

Dense clayey, sandy gravel 13.9 – 12.7

7.0

Hard sandy clay – possibly cemented 12.7 – 11.5

Very dense clayey sand – possibly

cemented 11.5 – 9.3


Very stiff sandy clay 8.0 – 3.4

Note: RLs are based on an interpolated ground surface RL of 14.0 m.

Summary of Ground Conditions at Site 2

Site Test


Layer RLs

(m AHD)

Groundwater

RL

(m AHD)

Site 2 BH2


8.8

clayey sand 9.2 – 8.9


Medium dense sand 7.5 – 6.3

Firm sandy clay 6.3 – 4.5

Note: RLs are based on an interpolated ground surface RL of 13.5 m.

Both sites are considered suitable for development with open cut excavation and dewatering. From a

geotechnical prospective, Site 1 is the preferred site, as conditions are considered to be suitable for

steeper batter angles, leading to a theoretical reduction in the excavation volume, stronger founding

conditions at the well base, and will likely require less dewatering due to a lower groundwater level

and less permeable soils.

In general, sandy clay and clayey sand are considered suitable for re-use as backfill around the well

structure, with sand typically used around pipes and near finished ground surface. Supervision is


recommended to assess the suitability of the provisions adopted during the earthworks to suitably

control the soil moisture and to regularly test compaction when using clayey filling.


Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 2

3. Field Work Methods ....................................................................................................................... 4

4. Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Ground Conditions ............................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 5

5. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 6

6. Proposed Development .................................................................................................................. 7

7. Comments ...................................................................................................................................... 7

7.1 Geotechnical Constraints and Notable Ground Conditions ................................................. 7

7.2 Excavation Conditions ......................................................................................................... 8

7.3 Slope Stability and Earth Retention Parameters ................................................................. 9

7.4 Foundation Preparation and Backfilling .............................................................................10

7.5 Foundation Design .............................................................................................................11

8. References ................................................................................................................................... 12

9. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A: About This Report

Drawings

Appendix B: Results of Field Work

Appendix C: Laboratory Testing Results

of 13


Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Midland Wastewater Pump Station

Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for a proposed wastewater

pump station (WWPS) at Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue. The investigation was commissioned in

an email dated 15 January 2018 from Robert Revy on behalf of Taliska Securities Pty Ltd and was

undertaken in accordance with Douglas Partners' proposal PER170504 dated 21 November 2017.

It is understood that two locations are being considered for a Type 10 WWPS and associated storage

tanks. The proposed well is to be founded at approximately RL 5.0 m AHD and storage tanks are to be

founded at RL 8.6 m. It is understood that the preferred construction methodology includes open cut

excavation with spear point dewatering.

The aim of this geotechnical investigation was to assess the subsurface conditions beneath both of the

sites and comment on:

• The ability to excavate encountered materials and safe batter slopes required.

• suitability of material for reuse as structural backfill.

• ground conditions including organic materials, rock or reactive soils.

• the possibility for perched aquifers.

• the potential for confined aquifers its impact on open cut.

• suitable bearing pressures for foundations and long and short term settlement.

• foundation preparation, if necessary.

• aggressiveness of soil for reinforced concrete.

• suitability of sheet piled or caisson construction techniques.

• suitability for open cut excavation with spear point dewatering.

• suggested construction and groundwater control methodologies, if open cut excavation is not

feasible.

The investigation included the drilling of two boreholes, four cone penetration tests and laboratory

testing of selected samples. The details of the field work are presented in this report, together with

comments and recommendations on the issues listed above.

It is understood that the results of this investigation will be used to select the site of the proposed

wastewater pump station. Additional investigations for acid sulphate soils and a dewatering

management plan are planned for the selected site only.

of 13


2. Site Description

Two sites, approximately 260 m apart, are being considered for the development. Both are located on

the northern side off the Helena River. A tributary and associated alluvial plain have formed a channel

of relatively flat ground approximately 150 m wide near both sites. The flat ground was covered with

green grass and can be seen in Photo 2. Both sites are approximately 20 m north of the flat channel

and approximately 4 m higher in elevation.

Douglas Partners were provided with co-ordinates for the proposed development locations. A hand

held GPS was used to located the suggested test locations in the field.

Site Option 1 - at the time of the investigation, the proposed well location was in a tree line with steeply

sloping ground. It was not practical to drill at the proposed well location so the test was relocated

approximately 5 m to the north on flatter ground, as seen in Photo 1.

Photo 1: Site Option 1

Site Option 2 – at the time of the investigation, the location consisted of a gently sloping grass bank,

as seen on Photo 2. Survey data (received with the RFQ package) indicates that surface levels across

the site fall from RL 15 m to RL 10 m over 40 m in a southeast direction. The slope at the proposed

well location was too steep to drill so the test was moved to flatter ground approximately 10 m to the

north.

BH1

of 13


Photo 2: Site Option 2

The Perth 1:50,000 Environmental Geological Survey sheet indicates that shallow sub surface

conditions beneath Site 1 consists of Guildford Formation. Site 2 is shown on the boundary between

Alluvium and the Guildford Formation. Geologically, Alluvium is considered to be a relatively young

deposit and thus exists near or at ground surface and overlies older geological units such as the

Guildford Formation. Site observations at Site 2, including landform features (sloping ground and

relatively flat ground) and the vegetation colour (as seen on Photo 2) indicates the change in geology.

The shallow sub surface conditions beneath Site 2 (i.e. test locations BH2, CPT5 and CPT6) are

considered to consist of the Guildford Formation.

Figure 1: Geological Information

Site 1

Site 2

BH2

of 13


The Perth Groundwater Atlas (2004) indicates that the groundwater level was at RL 7 m AHD below

Site A and at RL 8 m AHD below Site B in May 2003.

3. Field Work Methods

The field work was undertaken on 31 January 2018, and comprised:

• drilling of two boreholes (BH1 at Site 1 and BH2 at Site 2); and

• cone penetration testing at four locations (CPT3 and 4 at Site 1 and CPT5 and 6 at Site 2).

The bores were drilled using a Geoprobe 7822DT drilling rig. Drilling using the push probe was started

at BH1 but reached refusal at shallow depth in hard conditions, and thus drilling was continued using

rotary and mud flush to target depths of 12.5 m (RL 1.5 m) at BH1 and 14.0 m (RL -0.5 m) at BH2.

Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were carried out at 1.5 m depth intervals to provide an indication of

the density of the soil and to collect samples for visual and tactile identification and laboratory testing.

Ground conditions were logged from recovered SPT samples in general accordance with AS 1726, by

a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer from Douglas Partners.

Following the completion of drilling, 50 mm diameter groundwater monitoring wells were installed in

boreholes to a depth of 9.5 m at BH1 and 12.0 m at BH2.

The CPTs were carried out by using a 36 mm diameter instrumented cone with a following 130 mm

long friction sleeve attached to rods of the same diameter, pushed continuously at a rate of 20 mm/sec

into the soil by hydraulic thrust from a ballasted truck mounted rig. Strain gauges in the cone and

sleeve measure resistance to penetration and this data allows assessment of the type and condition of

the materials penetrated. The CPT probe was pushed to a target depth of 11.0 m at CPT6, and

refusal above the target depth at the other locations. Upon withdrawing of the CPT probe, each

location was dipped to measure possible groundwater.

Test locations were determined using a GPS and are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix A. Surface

elevations at each test location were interpolated from a survey provided by the client and are quoted

in metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD).

4. Field Work Results

4.1 Ground Conditions

Ground conditions to the proposed excavation levels of RL 5.0 m for the well and RL 8.6 m for the

storage tanks are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 (next page). Detailed logs of the ground conditions

and results of the field testing are presented in Appendix B, together with notes defining descriptive

terms and classification methods.

of 13


Table 1: Summary of Ground Conditions at Site 1

Site Test


Layer Levels

(m AHD)

Site 1

BH1

Dense clayey, sandy gravel 13.9 – 12.7


Very dense clayey sand – possibly cemented 11.5 – 9.3



CPT3 Hard sandy clay – possibly cemented 14.0 - 12.2

CPT4 Hard sandy clay – possibly cemented 13.8 – 11.8

Very dense clayey sand – possibly cemented 11.8 – 11.4

Note: Table 1 RLs are based on an interpolated ground surface RL of 14.0 m, with an estimated accuracy of 0.5 m.

Table 2: Summary of Ground Conditions at Site 2

Site Test


Layer Levels

(m AHD)

Site 2

BH2


clayey sand 9.2 – 8.9


Medium dense sand 7.5 – 6.3

Firm to stiff sandy clay 6.3 – 2.3

CPT5A Dense gravelly sand 14.3 – 14.0


CPT6


Medium dense clayey sand 9.0 – 7.6


Note: Table 2 RLs are based on an interpolated ground surface RL of 13.5 m, with an estimated accuracy of 0.5 m.

4.2 Groundwater

The use of muds was required during rotary drilling, and restricted groundwater observations during

drilling. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed following the completion of drilling. A return visit

to measure groundwater levels was carried out on 16 February 2018 (approximately two weeks

following drilling), and observations are summarised in Table 3 (next page).

of 13


Table 3: Groundwater Observations on 16 February 2018

Location Groundwater depth

(m)

Ground Surface

(RL)

Groundwater Level

(RL)

BH1 6.96 14.0 7.04

BH2 4.69 13.5 8.81

Note: Table 3 RLs are based on ground surface levels interpolated from survey information.

Groundwater was measured at 1.0 m at CPT6, well above the groundwater levels observed in the

boreholes. This level possibly results from collapse of the test hole pushing water upwards or is an

indication of perched groundwater.

5. Laboratory Testing

A geotechnical laboratory testing programme was carried out by a NATA registered laboratory,

comprising the determination of:

• The particle size distribution (PSD) of six samples (three from each site);

• The Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage of four samples (two from each site); and

• The pH, chloride and sulphate analysis of six samples (three from each site).

Detailed test report sheets are given in Appendix C and the results are summarised in Table 4 (below)

and Table 5 (next page).

Table 4: Laboratory Test Results for Soil Characterisation

Test Depth

(m) Soil Description

Fines

(%)

Sand

(%)

Gravel

(%)

LL

(%)

PI

(%)

LS

(%)

BH1

0.8-1.3 Clayey, sandy

Gravel 26 27 47 37 22 9.0

3.0-3.23 Clayey sand 27 72 1 - - -

7.5-7.95 Sandy Clay 53 46 1 69 47 13.0

BH2

1.5-1.95 Sandy Clay 58 42 0 49 31 10.5

6.0-6.45 Sand with clay 11 89 0 - - -

7.5-7.95 Clay with sand 71 25 4 52 30 11.0

Notes: - Fines are particles smaller than 75 µm.

- LL: liquid limit - PI: plasticity index - LS: linear shrinkage ‘-‘ means ‘Not Tested’

To analyse the soil aggressivity, six samples were tested for pH, sulphate and chloride concentrations.

The results are provided in Table 5, along with the exposure classification following relevant

standards.

of 13


Table 5: Test Results Regarding Soil and Aggressivity

Test Depth

(m) pH

Sulphate

SO4-2

(mg/kg)

Chloride

(mg/kg)

Exposure Classification[1]

Exposure Classification[2]

Soil

Conditions

A [3]

Soil

Conditions

B [4]

Soil

Conditions

A [3]

Soil

Conditions

B [4]

BH1

1.5-1.95 8.1 60 120 A1 N/A Non-

aggressive N/A

6.0-6.45 6.1 1,500 5,700 A1 N/A Non-

aggressive N/A

9.0-9.45 7.2 1,100 5,100 A1 N/A Non-

aggressive N/A

BH2

1.5-1.95 6.6 540 8,600 A1 N/A Non-

aggressive N/A

6.0-6.45 7.6 40 50 N/A A2 N/A Mild

9.0-9.45 7.0 20 250 A1 N/A Non-

aggressive N/A

Notes: [1]: Exposure Classification in accordance with AS 3600-2009.

[2]: Exposure Classification in accordance with AS 2159-2009.

[3]: Soil conditions A refer to high permeability soils (sand and gravel) which are within groundwater.

[4]: Soil conditions B refer to low permeability soils (silt and clay) and all soil above groundwater.

6. Proposed Development

It is understood that the proposed development includes the construction of a Type 10 wastewater

pumping station founded at RL 5.0 m AHD with associated storage tanks founded at RL 8.6 m AHD.

7. Comments

7.1 Geotechnical Constraints and Notable Ground Conditions

Based on field results as summarised in Section 4, both sites are considered suitable for development,

with open cut excavation and dewatering during construction.

It is recommended that construction is undertaken during the summer months. Experience of

earthworks within the Guildford Formation indicates rapid deterioration of the clayey subgrade during

wet periods, particularly under vehicle movements generally resulting in a pause of the earthworks to

limit further damage. Moisture conditioning clayey backfill material is also difficult during wet periods.

Site 1

From a geotechnical perspective, Site 1 is the preferred site as the conditions are considered to be

suitable for steeper batter angles, leading to a theoretical reduction in the excavation volume, stronger

founding conditions at the well base, and will likely require less dewatering due to a lower groundwater

of 13


level and less permeable soils. The high SPT numbers recorded during drilling suggest that difficulty

could be expected if sheet pilling or installing dewatering spears above RL 6 m, unless pre-drilling is

implemented.

Site 2

Ground conditions include interbedded clayey sand, sandy clay and sand. Weaker material below

RL 6.3 m would require shallower batter angles and offer a lower design bearing capacity.

Encountered ground conditions at Site 2 also include a sand layer between RL 6.3 and RL 7.5 m,

which would likely increase groundwater pumping flows.

The Guildford Formation is predominately clayey soils and interbedded sand layers and thus has the

potential to collect rainwater as perched aquifers close to ground surface and to contain confined

aquifers in the interbedded sand layers. Such a sand layer was encountered in BH2 between 6.0 and

7.2 m. Groundwater monitoring results from February 2018 (refer to Section 4) are close to the

groundwater levels for May 2003 indicated in the Perth Groundwater Atlas (2004).

7.2 Excavation Conditions

A summary of anticipated equipment requirements is summarised in Table 6. The minimum

requirements are based on experience and ground density encountered at the test locations, and

suggested as a guide only. It should be noted that there are many other influencing factors that affect

excavation rates, such as the working zone (reach and depth), the quality of equipment, and the

operator’s ability.

Table 6: Excavation Equipment Requirement

Conditions SPT value Equipment (minimum

recommendation)

Medium dense to dense clayey

sand 10 - 50 20 tonne excavator

Very dense clayey sand 50 – Refusal

(in granular soil)

30 tonne excavator with toothed

bucket

Firm to very stiff sandy clay 8 – 30 20 tonne excavator

Hard sandy clay 30 - 40

(in cohesive soil)

30 tonne excavator with toothed

bucket

Cemented soil and low strength

rock

More than 40 in

cohesive soil or

refusal

Allow for ripping or rock breaker

Comparison of the site conditions summarised in Table 1 (Site 1) suggests that the excavation to the

base of the well would require a 30 tonne or heavier excavator with toothed bucket and the provision

for ripping harder materials (or using a rock breaker).

of 13


Conditions summarised in Table 2 (Site 2) indicates the need of a 30 tonne excavator with toothed

bucket and the provision for ripping harder materials (or using a rock breaker) to RL 9 m with the use

of a smaller excavator possible below RL 9 m.

Based on groundwater observations, dewatering will be required during the excavation for the WWPS.

The extent of dewatering will depend on the construction method and the time of year when the

excavation is undertaken. Dewatering should continue until the well installation and backfilling

operations are well above current groundwater levels.

7.3 Slope Stability and Earth Retention Parameters

Excavations should be undertaken in accordance with the 'WA Code of Practice - Excavation'

(WorkSafe Western Australia, 2005). Personnel should not enter an unsupported excavation unless

considered safe to do so by a competent person as defined by the Code of Practice.

For unsupported excavations with suitable dewatering, a benched excavation could be constructed

using the parameters set out in Table 7.

Table 7: Recommended Parameters for Excavations

Conditions SPT value Safe Batter Slope (H:V) Batter Height

Medium dense to dense

clayey sand 10 - 50 1.5:1 <3m

Very dense clayey sand

(when dry)

50 – Refusal

(in granular soil) 1:1 <3m

Firm to stiff sandy clay 8 – 15 1.5:1 <2m

Very Stiff to Hard sandy

clay

15 - 40

(in cohesive

soil)

1:1 <3m

Cemented soil and low

strength rock

More than 40 in

cohesive soil or

refusal

0.75:1 <4m

Addition loads such as equipment and excavated spoil should be set back from the top of batters. A

site specific assessment of stability should be undertaken if loads are applied at the top of batters.

It is further noted that dewatering will be required for open cut excavation due to shallow groundwater,

as discussed in Section 7.7. If dewatering is compromised during construction, groundwater has the

capacity to potentially destabilise excavated batter slopes. In the event of failure of the dewatering

system, all works within or near open cut excavation should cease until dewatering has been

successfully restored. Following such an event, the existing batter slopes should be inspected by a

geotechnical engineer prior the commencement of further works.

of 13


Should consideration be given to ground support to reduce the extent and volume of the excavation,

then secant continuous flight auger (CFA) piles may be feasible at the site. The drivability of sheet

piles and advancement of caissons through the hard very dense materials is likely to be restrictive.

Design Parameters for temporary and permanent retaining structures are suggested in Table 8.

Table 8: Soil Parameters for Earth Retaining Design

Soil Type

and Density

Soil Unit

Weight

Above Water

γ

(kN/m3)

Submerged

Soil Unit

Weight

γ’

(kN/m3)

Drained

Angle of

Friction

Φ’

(Degrees)

Undrained

Shear

Strength

Cu

(kPa)

Coefficient

of Earth

Pressure –

Active

Ka

Coefficient

of Earth

Pressure –

at Rest

Ko

Coefficient

of Earth

Pressure –

Passive

Kp

Compacted

Clayey

Sand/Sandy

Clay Filling

20 10 25 75 0.3 0.5 2.5

Compacted

Sand Filling 20 10 34 0 0.25 0.5 4.5

7.4 Foundation Preparation and Backfilling

Assuming that the earthworks are carried out in dry conditions, it is anticipated that minimal site

preparation will be required to provide a suitable founding material for the wet well and overflow

storage tanks. It is likely that the subgrade materials could become disturbed during the excavation of

overlying soils, thus it is recommended that the base is tested and if required compacted prior to the

construction of any footings.

Any residual groundwater inflow (assuming suitable dewatering previsions using wells or spears along

the perimeter of the excavation) should be manageable using pump and sumps from the base of the

excavation.

In general, sandy clay and clayey sand materials, are considered suitable for re-use as backfill around

the well structure. Clayey soils can be difficult to compact consistently, particularly in small areas,

however can be achieved when:

• large clods of clay are removed from the stockpile or broken down to less than 100 mm in size;

• the filling is moisture conditioned to within 2% of its optimum moisture content prior to placement;

and

• filling is placed in loose lift layers of less than 100 mm loose lift when using compactors less than

3 tonne in weight or less than 150 mm loose lift when using pad foot rollers heavier than 5 tonne.

Supervision of earthworks by an experienced person (such as a geotechnical engineer) is

recommended to control the soil moisture and regularly test compaction. Following AS3798, Level 1

(full time) supervision is recommended for all significant activities.

of 13


Compaction control of clayey filling is typically carried out using a nuclear surface moisture-density

gauge, in accordance with AS1289.5.8.1. This test is limited to a depth of up to 300 mm and can lead

to time delays when waiting for results. Alternatively, compaction can be assessed by an experienced

geotechnical engineer with regular site inspections and in situ testing using a dynamic cone

penetration and periodically supported with nuclear density testing results.

Imported sand is commonly used around pipework, tanks and near the proposed surface. A Perth

sand penetrometer can be used for compaction control of sand. A target value of 10 blows per

300 mm penetration is recommended. Calibration testing can be carried out to amend the target value.

It is recommended that any calibrations are assessed by Douglas Partners and a suitable value

agreed before commencing with an amended target value.

7.5 Foundation Design

The hard conditions encountered at Site 1 at the proposed well base (RL 5) and the proposed storage

tanks (RL 8.6) are considered suitable for a design net bearing capacity of 150 kPa with an estimated

total settlement of less than 10 mm.

The hard conditions encountered at Site 2 at RL 8.6 (storage tanks) also offer a design net bearing

capacity of 150 kPa with and estimated total settlement of less than 10 mm. However, at Site 2 firm to

stiff clayey soil overlying loose sand were encountered below RL 5 (well base). It is suggested that a

design net bearing pressure for the well at Site 2 be limited to 100 kPa to limit estimated total

settlement to less than 20 mm, or 50 kPa to reduce total settlement to less than 10 mm.

The wet well should also be designed to resist hydrostatic pressure uplift. Parameters for the

compacted clayey backfill are provided in Table 9 to calculate the shaft resistance to uplift, if required.

Table 9: Soil Parameters for Shaft Resistance to Uplift

Soil Type and

Density

Soil Weight

Above Water

γ

(kN/m3)

Submerged Soil

Unit Weight

γ’

(kN/m3)

Drained Angle of

Friction

Φ’

(Degrees)

Friction Angle

between

backfilling and

pre-cast

concrete

Φ’

(Degrees)

Coefficient of

Earth Pressure –

at Rest

Ko

Compacted

Clayey

Sand/Sandy Clay

Filling

18 8 20 15 0.5

Compacted Sand

Filling 18 8 34 20 0.5

of 13


8. References

• Australian Standard AS 1289.6.3.3-1999. Soil Strength and Consolidation Tests-Determination of

the Penetration Resistance of a Soil - Perth Sand Penetrometer Test

• Australian Standard AS 1289.6.3.2-1999, Soil Strength and Consolidation Tests-Determination of

the Penetration Resistance of a Soil - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test

• Australian Standard AS 3600-2009, Concrete Structures

• Australian Standard AS 1759-2009, Piling Design and Installation.

• Department of Environment, Perth Groundwater Atlas, Second Edition, December 2004

• Australian Standard AS 1726-2017, Geotechnical Site Investigation

• Code of Practice – Excavation, 2005, WorkSafe Western Australia

9. Limitations

Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for this project at Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue in

accordance with DP’s proposal PER170504 dated 21 November 2017 and acceptance received from

Taliska Securities Pty Ltd dated 15 January 2018. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of

Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Taliska Securities Pty Ltd for this project

only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other

projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report

beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of DP,

does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this

report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents.

The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the

specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the

work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological

processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing

has been completed.

DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the

advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions

across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations.

This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety

without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations

or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation,

outcome or conclusion stated in this report.

This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project,

without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and

opinion rather than instructions for construction.

of 13


The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the

Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the

hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This

design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent

upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life.

This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role

respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of

potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current

scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to

DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the (geotechnical /

environmental / groundwater) components set out in this report and to their application by the project

designers to project design, construction, maintenance and demolition.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Appendix A

About This Report Drawing

July 2010

Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and the comments section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. DP's reports are based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of local geology and experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as interpretive rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this report are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not always practicable or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other than 'straight line' variations between the test locations. Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes there are several potential problems, namely: • In low permeability soils groundwater may

enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all during the time the hole is left open;

• A localised, perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table;

• Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report; and

• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water measurements are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from a perched water table. Reports The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed. If this happens, DP will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, DP cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.

The potential for this will depend partly on borehole or pit spacing and sampling frequency;

• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or

• The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.

If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with investigations or advice to resolve the matter.

July 2010

Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, DP requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event. Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. DP would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.

Aerial image obtained from Nearmap (flown 12 February 2018)

CLIENT: Taliska Securities Pty Ltd

Location of Site 1 and Site 2 PROJECT No: 88990.00

OFFICE: Perth Midland Wastewater Pump Station DRAWING No: 1

DATE: 21-02-2018 Lot 799 Katherine Street, Bellevue REVISION: A

750m 500m 250m 0m 1000m

Legend

Site location

Note: Scale is approximate.

Site 1

Site 2


Site 1 Test Location Plan PROJECT: 88990.00

Midland Wastewater Pump Station Drawing No: 2

Lot 799 Katherine Street, Bellevue REV: A

CLIENT: Taliska Securities Pty Ltd DATE: 21-02-2018

60m 40m 20m 0m 80m

Legend

Borehole Location

CPT Location Note: Scale is approximate.

BH1

CPT4

CPT3


Site 2 Test Location Plan PROJECT: 88990.00

Midland Wastewater Pump Station Drawing No: 3

Lot 799 Katherine Street, Bellevue REV: A

CLIENT: Taliska Securities Pty Ltd DATE: 21-02-2018

60m 40m 20m 0m 80m

Legend

Borehole Location

CPT Location Note: Scale is approximate.

BH2

CPT6

CPT5

Appendix B

Results of Field Work

May 2017

Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of

soils and rocks used in this report are based on

Australian Standard AS 1726-1993, Geotechnical

Site Investigations Code. In general, the

descriptions include strength or density, colour,

structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.

Soil Types Soil types are described according to the

predominant particle size, qualified by the grading

of other particles present:

Type Particle size (mm)

Boulder >200

Cobble 63 - 200

Gravel 2.36 - 63

Sand 0.075 - 2.36

Silt 0.002 - 0.075

Clay <0.002

The sand and gravel sizes can be further

subdivided as follows:

Type Particle size (mm)

Coarse gravel 20 - 63

Medium gravel 6 - 20

Fine gravel 2.36 - 6

Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36

Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6

Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2

The proportions of secondary constituents of soils

are described as:

Term Proportion Example

And Specify Clay (60%) and

Sand (40%)

Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay

Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy

Clay

With some 5 - 12% Clay with some

sand

With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace

of sand

Definitions of grading terms used are:

• Well graded - a good representation of all

particle sizes

• Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of

particular sizes within the specified range

• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular

particle size

• Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular

particle size with the range

Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the

basis of undrained shear strength. The strength

may be measured by laboratory testing, or

estimated by field tests or engineering

examination. The strength terms are defined as

follows:

Description Abbreviation Undrained shear strength

(kPa)

Very soft vs <12

Soft s 12 - 25

Firm f 25 - 50

Stiff st 50 - 100

Very stiff vst 100 - 200

Hard h >200

Cohesionless Soils Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are

classified on the basis of relative density, generally

from the results of standard penetration tests

(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic

penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms

are given below:

Relative Density

Abbreviation SPT N value

CPT qc value (MPa)

Very loose vl <4 <2

Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5

Medium

dense

md 10 - 30 5 - 15

Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25

Very

dense

vd >50 >25

May 2017

Soil Origin It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin

of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:

• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering

of the underlying rock;

• Transported soils - formed somewhere else

and transported by nature to the site; or

• Filling - moved by man.

Transported soils may be further subdivided into:

• Alluvium - river deposits

• Lacustrine - lake deposits

• Aeolian - wind deposits

• Littoral - beach deposits

• Estuarine - tidal river deposits

• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium

• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported

downslope by gravity assisted by water.

Often includes angular rock fragments and

boulders.

May 2017

Introduction These notes summarise abbreviations commonly

used on borehole logs and test pit reports.

Drilling or Excavation Methods C Core drilling

R Rotary drilling

SFA Spiral flight augers

NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia

NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia

HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia

PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia

Water � Water seep

� Water level

Sampling and Testing A Auger sample

B Bulk sample

D Disturbed sample

E Environmental sample

U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)

W Water sample

pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)

PID Photo ionisation detector

PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa

S Standard Penetration Test

V Shear vane (kPa)

Description of Defects in Rock The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should

be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,

Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling

and handling breaks are not usually included on

the logs.

Defect Type

B Bedding plane

Cs Clay seam

Cv Cleavage

Cz Crushed zone

Ds Decomposed seam

F Fault

J Joint

Lam Lamination

Pt Parting

Sz Sheared Zone

V Vein

Orientation

The inclination of defects is always measured from

the perpendicular to the core axis.

h horizontal

v vertical

sh sub-horizontal

sv sub-vertical

Coating or Infilling Term

cln clean

co coating

he healed

inf infilled

stn stained

ti tight

vn veneer

Coating Descriptor

ca calcite

cbs carbonaceous

cly clay

fe iron oxide

mn manganese

slt silty

Shape

cu curved

ir irregular

pl planar

st stepped

un undulating

Roughness

po polished

ro rough

sl slickensided

sm smooth

vr very rough

Other

fg fragmented

bnd band

qtz quartz

May 2017

Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock General

Soils

Sedimentary Rocks

Metamorphic Rocks

Igneous Rocks

Road base

Filling

Concrete

Asphalt

Topsoil

Peat

Clay

Conglomeratic sandstone

Conglomerate

Boulder conglomerate

Sandstone

Slate, phyllite, schist

Siltstone

Mudstone, claystone, shale

Coal

Limestone

Porphyry

Cobbles, boulders

Sandy gravel

Laminite

Silty sand

Clayey sand

Silty clay

Sandy clay

Gravelly clay

Shaly clay

Silt

Clayey silt

Sandy silt

Sand

Gravel

Talus

Gneiss

Quartzite

Dolerite, basalt, andesite

Granite

Tuff, breccia

Dacite, epidote

July 2010

Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information on colour, type, inclusions and, depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure. Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information on structure and strength, and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils. Test Pits Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or an excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential disadvantage of this investigation method is the larger area of disturbance to the site. Large Diameter Augers Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers, and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube samples. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils from the sides of the hole. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low

reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing or softening of samples by groundwater. Non-core Rotary Drilling The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from the rate of penetration. Where drilling mud is used this can mask the cuttings and reliable identification is only possible from separate sampling such as SPTs. Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample can be obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in weak rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable method of investigation. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a means of estimating the density or strength of soils and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value is taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form. • In the case where full penetration is obtained

with successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:

4,6,7 N=13

• In the case where the test is discontinued before the full penetration depth, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for the next 40 mm as:

15, 30/40 mm

July 2010

The results of the SPT tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soils. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests / Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground using a standard weight of hammer falling a specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil the number of blows required to penetrate each successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be extended in certain conditions by the use of extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are commonly used. • Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter

flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This test was developed for testing the density of sands and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.

• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio have been published by various road authorities.

TOPSOIL (Silty SAND) - dark grey-brown, fine to mediumgrained, silty sand topsoil with trace gravel, dry to moist.

Clayey Sandy GRAVEL - Dense, orange-brown, mediumplasticity, clayey sandy gravel, dry to moist.

- becoming orange-brown mottled red-brown from 0.8 mdepth.

Sandy Clay - Hard grey mottled red-brown, mediumplasticity, sandy clay.

- becoming grey mottled brown from 1.5 m depth.

Clayey SAND - very dense, brown, fine to mediumgrained, clayey sand with trace gravel, dry to moist.

Sandy CLAY - hard, grey, high plasticity, sandy clay, dry.

0.1

1.3

2.5

4.7

Typ

e

1413

1211

10

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

1

2

3

4

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue, WA

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH1PROJECT No: 88990.00DATE: 31/1/2018SHEET 1 OF 3

DRILLER: National Geotech LOGGED: YC CASING:

Taliska SecuritiesProposed Waste Water Pump Station

REMARKS:

RIG: Geoprobe 7822DT

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Drilling method precluded groundwater observations

Push probe to 1.5 m then rotary mud flush

SURFACE LEVEL: 14.0 m AHD*EASTING: 407619NORTHING: 6469710DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)

5 10 15 20

Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2

28,31,41N = 72

35,50,Rrefusal

19,20,27N = 47

D

D

D

S

S

S

0.2

0.8

1.3

1.5

1.95

3.0

3.23

4.5

4.95

Sandy CLAY - hard, grey, high plasticity, sandy clay, dry.(continued)

- becoming very stiff from 6.0 m depth.

- becoming grey mottled brown from 6.5 m depth.

- becoming grey mottled red-brown and brown from 7.0 mdepth.

- becoming grey, red-brown and brown from 9.0 m depth.

10.0

Typ

e

98

76

5

Depth(m)

6

7

8

9

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


6

7

8

9






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:




BOREHOLE LOG


5 10 15 20


6,8,12N = 20

4,8,11N = 19

7,12,15N = 27

S

S

S

6.0

6.45

7.5

7.95

9.0

9.45

Sandy CLAY - very stiff, grey, red-brown and brown,medium plasticity, sandy clay with trace gravel, dry.

Clayey SAND - medium dense, grey mottled brown, fine tomedium grained, clayey sand, moist.

Sandy CLAY - very stiff, brown mottled grey and darkbrown, medium plasticity, sandy clay, dry to moist.

Bore discontinued at 12.5m (Target depth)

10.6

11.5

12.5

Typ

e

43

21

0

Depth(m)

11

12

13

14

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


11

12

13

14






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:




BOREHOLE LOG


5 10 15 20


4,5,7N = 12

5,8,12N = 20

S

S

10.5

10.95

12.0

12.45

TOPSOIL (Sandy CLAY) - brown, sandy clay topsoil withsome roots, dry to moist.

Sandy CLAY - hard, brown mottled orange-brown, sandyclay, medium plasticity, with trace gravel, dry to moist.

- becoming grey-brown and brown from 3.0 m depth.

Clayey SAND - brown, medium to coarse grained, clayeysand.

Sandy CLAY - very stiff, brown and grey-brown, mediumplasticity, sandy clay, dry to moist.

0.1

4.3

4.6

Typ

e

1312

1110

9

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1

2

3

4






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Rotary mud flush


BOREHOLE LOG


5 10 15 20


7,12,20N = 32

12,21,27N = 48

10,7,10N = 17

S

S

S

1.5

1.95

3.0

3.45

4.5

4.95

Sandy CLAY - very stiff, brown and grey-brown, mediumplasticity, sandy clay, dry to moist. (continued)

SAND - medium dense, light grey, fine to mediumgrained, sand with clay.

Sandy CLAY - firm, dark brown mottled grey, mediumplasticity, sandy clay.

- becoming stiff from 9.0 m depth.

6.0

7.2

Typ

e

87

65

4

Depth(m)

6

7

8

9

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


6

7

8

9






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Rotary mud flush


BOREHOLE LOG


5 10 15 20


5,7,10N = 17

2,3,3N = 6

2,4,5N = 9

S

S

S

6.0

6.45

7.5

7.95

9.0

9.45

Sandy CLAY - firm, dark brown mottled grey, mediumplasticity, sandy clay. (continued)

Clayey SAND - loose grey, fine to medium grained, clayeysand.

- becoming brown from 12.2 m depth.

Bore discontinued at 14.0m (Target depth)

11.2

14.0

Typ

e

32

10

-1

Depth(m)

11

12

13

14

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


11

12

13

14






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:


Rotary mud flush


BOREHOLE LOG


5 10 15 20


2,4,7N = 11

1,4,3N = 7

SPT samples split:12.0-12.2 & 12.2-12.45

7,5,2N = 7

S

S

S

10.5

10.95

12.0

12.45

13.5

13.95

July 2010

Introduction The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is a sophisticated soil profiling test carried out in-situ. A special cone shaped probe is used which is connected to a digital data acquisition system. The cone and adjoining sleeve section contain a series of strain gauges and other transducers which continuously monitor and record various soil parameters as the cone penetrates the soils. The soil parameters measured depend on the type of cone being used, however they always include the following basic measurements • Cone tip resistance qc • Sleeve friction fs • Inclination (from vertical) i • Depth below ground z Figure 1: Cone Diagram The inclinometer in the cone enables the verticality of the test to be confirmed and, if required, the vertical depth can be corrected. The cone is thrust into the ground at a steady rate of about 20 mm/sec, usually using the hydraulic rams of a purpose built CPT rig, or a drilling rig. The testing is carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS1289 Test 6.5.1.

Figure 2: Purpose built CPT rig The CPT can penetrate most soil types and is particularly suited to alluvial soils, being able to detect fine layering and strength variations. With sufficient thrust the cone can often penetrate a short distance into weathered rock. The cone will usually reach refusal in coarse filling, medium to coarse gravel and on very low strength or better rock. Tests have been successfully completed to more than 60 m. Types of CPTs Douglas Partners (and its subsidiary GroundTest) owns and operates the following types of CPT cones:

Type Measures Standard Basic parameters (qc, fs, i & z) Piezocone Dynamic pore pressure (u) plus

basic parameters. Dissipation tests estimate consolidation parameters

Conductivity Bulk soil electrical conductivity (σ) plus basic parameters

Seismic Shear wave velocity (Vs), compression wave velocity (Vp), plus basic parameters

Strata Interpretation The CPT parameters can be used to infer the Soil Behaviour Type (SBT), based on normalised values of cone resistance (Qt) and friction ratio (Fr). These are used in conjunction with soil classification charts, such as the one below (after Robertson 1990)

July 2010

Figure 3: Soil Classification Chart DP's in-house CPT software provides computer aided interpretation of soil strata, generating soil descriptions and strengths for each layer. The software can also produce plots of estimated soil parameters, including modulus, friction angle, relative density, shear strength and over consolidation ratio. DP's CPT software helps our engineers quickly evaluate the critical soil layers and then focus on developing practical solutions for the client's project. Engineering Applications There are many uses for CPT data. The main applications are briefly introduced below: Settlement CPT provides a continuous profile of soil type and strength, providing an excellent basis for settlement analysis. Soil compressibility can be estimated from cone derived moduli, or known consolidation parameters for the critical layers (eg. from laboratory testing). Further, if pore pressure dissipation tests are undertaken using a piezocone, in-situ consolidation coefficients can be estimated to aid analysis.

Pile Capacity The cone is, in effect, a small scale pile and, therefore, ideal for direct estimation of pile capacity. DP's in-house program ConePile can analyse most pile types and produces pile capacity versus depth plots. The analysis methods are based on proven static theory and empirical studies, taking account of scale effects, pile materials and method of installation. The results are expressed in limit state format, consistent with the Piling Code AS2159. Dynamic or Earthquake Analysis CPT and, in particular, Seismic CPT are suitable for dynamic foundation studies and earthquake response analyses, by profiling the low strain shear modulus G0. Techniques have also been developed relating CPT results to the risk of soil liquefaction. Other Applications Other applications of CPT include ground improvement monitoring (testing before and after works), salinity and contaminant plume mapping (conductivity cone), preloading studies and verification of strength gain. Figure 4: Sample Cone Plot

CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT 03Page 1 of 1

CLIENT: Taliska Securities

PROJECT: Proposed Waste Water Pump Station

LOCATION: Lot 799 Katharine Street, Bellevue, WA

REDUCED LEVEL: 14.0m

COORDINATES: 407614E 6469705N

DATE 31/01/2018

PROJECT No: 88990

REMARKS: Surface level interpolated from site option planDry to 1.8 m

File: P:\88990.00 - BELLEVUE, Lot 799 Katharine Street\4.0 Field Work\CPT\88990 - CPT 03.CP5Cone ID: Probedrill Type: EC24

ConePlot Version 5.9.2© 2003 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Cone Resistanceqc (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Sleeve Frictionfs (kPa)

0 5 10 15 20

Inclinationi (°)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Friction RatioRf (%)

Soil Behaviour Type

CLAY with some GRAVELLY SAND: Hard

Terminated at 1.8m due to refusalEnd at 1.80m qc = 39.2 1.80





REDUCED LEVEL: 13.8 m


DATE 31/01/2018

PROJECT No: 88990




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


0 5 10 15 20

Inclinationi (°)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


Soil Behaviour Type

CLAY and SAND / CLAYEY SAND: Hard

SAND / CLAYEY SAND and GRAVELLYSAND: Very Dense. Terminated at 2.4 m dueto refusalEnd at 2.40m qc = 46.5

1.97

2.40







DATE 31/01/2018

PROJECT No: 88990




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


0 5 10 15 20

Inclinationi (°)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


Soil Behaviour Type

GRAVELLY SAND with some SAND: Dense toVery Dense

CLAY with some SAND / CLAYEY SAND: Hard

Terminated at 3.9 m due to refusalEnd at 3.92m qc = 13.6

0.61

3.92

CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT 05APage 1 of 1






DATE 31/01/2018

PROJECT No: 88990


File: P:\88990.00 - BELLEVUE, Lot 799 Katharine Street\4.0 Field Work\CPT\88990 - CPT 05A.CP5Cone ID: Probedrill Type: EC24


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


0 5 10 15 20

Inclinationi (°)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


Soil Behaviour Type

SAND with some GRAVELLY SAND: MediumDense to Very Dense


Terminated at 4.8 m due to refusalEnd at 4.84m qc = 43.3

0.35

4.84





REDUCED LEVEL: 11.0


DATE 31/01/2018

PROJECT No: 88990

REMARKS: Surface level interpolated from the site option plangroundwater measred after test at 1.0 m



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Depth(m)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


0 5 10 15 20

Inclinationi (°)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


Soil Behaviour Type


SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT and SAND:Medium Dense

SILTY CLAY / CLAYEY SILT: Very Stiff to Hard

CLAY with some SILTY CLAY / CLAYEY SILT:Very Stiff

SAND with some CLAYEY/SAND: MediumDense

CLAY with some SILTY CLAY / CLAYEY SILT:Stiff to Very Stiff

SAND with some CLAYEY/SAND: Loose toMedium Dense

Terminated at target depth of 11.0 m.End at 11.00m qc = 10.6

1.97

3.43

3.95

7.85

8.71

10.04

11.00

Appendix C

Laboratory Testing Results

LABORATORY REPORT

Job Number: 18-02077

Revision: 00

ADDRESS: Liquid Labs WA Date: 16 February 2018

4/96 Briggs Street

Welshpool WA 6106

ATTENTION: Matt Van Herk

DATE RECEIVED: 9/02/2018

YOUR REFERENCE: LLS/18

PURCHASE ORDER:

APPROVALS:

REPORT COMMENTS:

This report is issued by Analytical Reference Laboratory (WA) Pty Ltd

Samples are analysed on an as received basis unless otherwise noted.

METHOD REFERENCES:

Methods prefixed with "ARL" are covered under NATA Accreditation Number: 2377

Methods prefixed with "PM" are covered under NATA Accreditation Number: 2561

ARL No. 138 pH in Soil and Biosolid

ARL No. 306 Chloride in Soil and Sediment by Discrete Analyser

ARL No. 302 Sulphate in Soil and Sediment by Discrete Analyser

ARL GROUP

46-48 Banksia Road, Welshpool, Western Australia 6106

Telephone: 08 6253 4444 Facsimile: 08 6253 4440 www.arlwa.com.au www.promicro.com.au

Page 1 of 2

LABORATORY REPORT

Liquid Labs WA

ARL Job No: 18-02077 Revision: 00 Date: 16 February 2018

Misc. Inorganics in Soil

Sample No: LOR UNITS 18-02077-1 18-02077-2 18-02077-3 18-02077-4 18-02077-5

Sample Description: BH1 (1.5-1.95) BH1 (6.0-6.45) BH1 (9.0-9.45) BH2 (1.5-1.95) BH2 (6.0-6.45)

Sample Date:

pH 0.1 pH units 8.1 6.1 7.2 6.6 7.6

Chloride 10 mg/kg 60 1,500 1,100 540 40

Sulphate 10 mg/kg 120 5,700 5,100 8,600 50

Misc. Inorganics in Soil

Sample No: LOR UNITS 18-02077-6

Sample Description: BH2 (9.0-9.45)

Sample Date:

pH 0.1 pH units 7.0

Chloride 10 mg/kg 20

Sulphate 10 mg/kg 250

Result Definitions

LOR Limit of Reporting [NT] Not Tested [ND] Not Detected at indicated Limit of Reporting

* Denotes test not covered by NATA Accreditation

FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING - The data in this report may not be representative of a lot, batch or other samples and may not necessarily justify the acceptance

or rejection of a lot or batch, a product recall or support legal proceedings. Tests are not routinely performed as duplicates unless specifically requested. Changes

occur in the bacterial content of biological samples. Samples should be examined as soon as possible after collection, preferably within 6 hrs and must be stored at 4

degrees Celsius or below. Samples tested after 24 hrs cannot be regarded as satisfactory because of temperature abuse and variations.

ARL GROUP

46-48 Banksia Road, Welshpool, Western Australia 6106

Telephone: 08 6253 4444 Facsimile: 08 6253 4440 www.arlwa.com.au www.promicro.com.au

Page 2 of 2

Client Ticket No. S1333

Client Address Report No. LLS18/601 _1_PSDPI

Project Sample No. LLS18/601

Sampling Location Sampled By Client

Sample Identification

Sampling Method Preparation Method AS 1289.1.1 / WA 105.1

Sample History Wet or Dry Sieved Dry Sieved

Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Sieve (%)

75.0

37.5 100

19.0 93

9.5 73

4.75 70

2.36 53

1.18 50

0.600 46

0.425 44

0.300 41

0.150 33

0.075 26

AS 1289.3.1.1 AS 1289.3.2.1 AS 1289.3.3.1

Mould Length (mm) Condition of Dried Specimen

37 15 22 9.0 125 250 Cracked Curled

Comments:

Approved Signatory

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing Name M. van Herk

Accreditation No. 19872 Function Laboratory Manager

This document may not be reproduced except in full Issue Date 19-February-2018

SOIL CLASSIFICATION - TEST REPORTIn accordance with AS 1289.3.6.1, 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1

Linear Shrinkage (%)Plasticity Index (%)Plastic Limit (%)Liquid Limit (%)

Taliska Securities

Proposed Waste Water Pump Station

Lot 799 Katherine Street, Bellevue WA

Shrinkage Specimen Details

BH1 0.8-1.3m

Tested as received

Air Dried

-

AS 1289.3.4.1

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION - ANALYSIS BY SIEVINGAS 1289.3.6.1

CONSISTENCY LIMITS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Particle Size (mm)

%PA

SSIN

G

LLWA/TECH/Forms/Testing/Soils/AS_1289.2.1.1,3.6.1,3.1.1-3.4.1/Soil_Classification/Test_Report/REV001/SEP17 Page 1 of 1


Client Address Report No. LLS18/603 _1_PSD







75.0

37.5

19.0

9.5

4.75 100

2.36 99

1.18 92

0.600 74

0.425 63

0.300 51

0.150 33

0.075 27

AS 1289.3.1.1 AS 1289.3.2.1 AS 1289.3.3.1


- - - - 125 250 Cracked Curled

Comments:

Approved Signatory






Taliska Securities




BH1 3.0-3.23m

Tested as received

Air Dried

-

AS 1289.3.4.1


CONSISTENCY LIMITS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Particle Size (mm)

%PA

SSIN

G










75.0

37.5

19.0

9.5

4.75 100

2.36 99

1.18 88

0.600 82

0.425 79

0.300 75

0.150 63

0.075 53

AS 1289.3.1.1 AS 1289.3.2.1 AS 1289.3.3.1


69 22 47 13.0 125 250 Cracked Curled

Comments:

Approved Signatory






Taliska Securities




BH1 7.5-7.95m

Tested as received

Air Dried

-

AS 1289.3.4.1


CONSISTENCY LIMITS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Particle Size (mm)

%PA

SSIN

G










75.0

37.5

19.0

9.5

4.75

2.36 100

1.18 96

0.600 88

0.425 83

0.300 78

0.150 67

0.075 58

AS 1289.3.1.1 AS 1289.3.2.1 AS 1289.3.3.1


49 18 31 10.5 125 250 Cracked Curled

Comments:

Approved Signatory






Taliska Securities




BH2 1.5-1.95m

Tested as received

Air Dried

-

AS 1289.3.4.1


CONSISTENCY LIMITS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Particle Size (mm)

%PA

SSIN

G



Client Address Report No. LLS18/608 _1_PSD







75.0

37.5

19.0

9.5

4.75

2.36 100

1.18 93

0.600 56

0.425 33

0.300 21

0.150 14

0.075 11

AS 1289.3.1.1 AS 1289.3.2.1 AS 1289.3.3.1


- - - - 125 250 Cracked Curled

Comments:

Approved Signatory






Taliska Securities




BH2 6.0-6.45m

Tested as received

Air Dried

-

AS 1289.3.4.1


CONSISTENCY LIMITS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Particle Size (mm)

%PA

SSIN

G










75.0

37.5

19.0

9.5

4.75 100

2.36 96

1.18 91

0.600 85

0.425 83

0.300 81

0.150 77

0.075 71

AS 1289.3.1.1 AS 1289.3.2.1 AS 1289.3.3.1


52 22 30 11.0 125 250 Cracked Curled

Comments:

Approved Signatory






Taliska Securities




BH2 7.5-7.95m

Tested as received

Air Dried

-

AS 1289.3.4.1


CONSISTENCY LIMITS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Particle Size (mm)

%PA

SSIN

G


Report on Geotechnical Investigation Midland Wastewater ...

Documents

Transcript of Report on Geotechnical Investigation Midland Wastewater ...