View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
OS License Number : 100020449
Ground Investigationat
Buccleuch Academy,Kettering
Factual and Interpretative Report
for
Willmott Dixon ConstructionLimited
Project Number : PC104350
October 2010Issuing office :
Head Office CoventryGeotechnics LimitedThe Geotechnical Centre203 Torrington AvenueTile HillCoventryCV4 9APT: 024 7669 4664F: 024 7669 4642mail@geotechnics.co.uk
North West Office
Geotechnics Limited
The Geotechnical Centre
Unit 1, Borders Industrial Park
River Lane, Saltney
Chester
CH4 8RJ
T: 01244 671 117
F: 01244 671 122
mail@chester.geotechnics.co.uk
Scottish Office
Geotechnics Limited
The Geotechnical Centre
Block 1, Unit 8
Duckburn Business Park
Dunblane
FK15 0EW
T: 01786 823 328
F:01786 823 345
mail@dunblane.geotechnics.co.uk
South West Office
Geotechnics Limited
The Geotechnical Centre
7 Pinbrook Units
Venny Bridge
Exeter
EX4 8JQ
T: 01392 463 110
F:01392 463 111
mail@exeter.geotechnics.co.uk
Geotechnics Limited, Registered in England No. 1757790 at The Geotechnical Centre, 203 Torrington Avenue, Tile Hill, Coventry CV4 9AP
Ground Investigationat
Factual and Interpretative Report
Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
forWillmott Dixon Construction Limited
Project No:
PC104350
October 2010
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page No
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 OBJECT AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION 1
3.0 PRESENTATION 1
4.0 THE SITE 1
4.1 Location 1
4.2 Description 1
5.0 PROCEDURE 2
5.1 Commissioning 2
5.2 General 2
5.3 Boreholes 2
5.4 Drillholes 2
5.5 Trial Pits 3
5.6 Instrumentation and Monitoring 3
5.7 Soakaway Tests 3
5.8 In Situ Permeability Tests 4
5.9 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests 4
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING 4
6.1 Geotechnical 4
6.2 Contamination 4
7.0 DESK STUDY 5
7.1 General 5
7.2 Geology 5
7.2.1 Published Information 6
7.2.2 Previous Investigation Data 7
7.3 Conceptual Site Model 8
7.4 Hydrology 8
7.5 Hydrogeology 8
7.6 Environmental Issues 9
7.7 Site History 9
CO
NT
EN
TS
8.0 INTERPRETATION 9
8.1 Ground Conditions 9
8.1.1 Made Ground / Topsoil 10
8.1.2 Superficial Deposits 10
8.1.3 Great Oolite Limestone 10
8.1.4 Upper Estuarine Series 11
8.1.5 Lincolnshire Limestone Formation and Lower Estuarine Series 11
8.2 Groundwater 11
9.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 11
9.1 Proposals 11
9.2 Foundation Design Principles 12
9.3 Foundation Solutions 12
9.4 Excavations & Groundwater 12
9.5 Slab Design 13
9.6 Earthworks 13
9.7 Buried Concrete 13
9.8 Pavement Design 14
9.9 Soakaway Design 14
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 15
10.1 Legal Framework 15
10.2 Proposed Site Use 15
10.3 Conceptual Model 16
10.3.1 Sources 16
10.3.2 Pathways - General 16
10.3.3 Receptors - General 17
10.3.4 Site Specifice Contamination Linkages 17
10.4 Soil Testing 17
10.4.1 Introduction 17
10.4.2 Soil Results Summary 18
10.5 Monitoring Results 19
10.5.1 Groundwater 19
10.5.2 Ground Gas 20
10.6 Risk Assessment 20
10.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 21
CO
NT
EN
TS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 The Brief
APPENDIX 2 Site Location Plan
APPENDIX 3 Site Photographs
APPENDIX 4 Borehole Records
APPENDIX 5 Rotary Drillhole Records
APPENDIX 6 Trial Pit Records
APPENDIX 7 Exploratory Hole Location Plan
APPENDIX 8 Monitoring Results
APPENDIX 9 Soakaway Test Results
APPENDIX 10 In Situ Permeability Test Results
APPENDIX 11 DCP Test Results
APPENDIX 12 Laboratory Test Results - Geotechnical
APPENDIX 13 Laboratory Test Results - Contamination (Soil)
APPENDIX 14 Laboratory Test Results - Contamination (Groundwater)
APPENDIX 15 Sections
APPENDIX 16 Material Property Plots
APPENDIX 17 Existing Soakaway Inspection Report
APPENDIX 18 Investigation Techniques and General Notes
AP
PE
ND
ICE
S
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 1 of 22
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation
was undertaken by Geotechnics Ltd at the site of a
proposed school development at Weekley Glebe
Road, Kettering. The investigation was carried out
to the instructions of and on behalf of the Client,
Willmott Dixon Construction Limited. This report
describes the work undertaken and presents the
data obtained together with an evaluation of their
significance in relation to the proposed works.
This work supplements an investigation carried out
by Geotechnics Ltd on the existing school site
(PC093887, July 2009) and a preliminary
investigation on the present site (PC094085, Jan
2010).
2.0 OBJECT AND SCOPE OF
THE INVESTIGATION
The object of the investigation was to obtain
information on the ground and groundwater
conditions relating to the design of the proposed
works within the limitations posed by exploratory
hole numbers, locations, depths, methods adopted
and the scope of approved in situ and laboratory
testing. The Brief for the project is included in
Appendix 1. The investigation comprised boreholes,
drillholes and trial pits, in situ and laboratory testing
and reporting. A geotechnical and geoenvironmental
interpretation and evaluation of the data obtained
was also commissioned.
3.0 PRESENTATION
A description of the site and a summary of the
procedures followed during the investigation process
are presented in Sections 4 to 6. The factual data so
obtained are presented in Appendices 2 to 17 of this
report. The findings of desk studies previously
carried out for the school development, supplied by
the Client, are summarised and discussed in Section
7. An interpretation of the data obtained from the
investigation is presented in Section 8 and an
evaluation of its significance in relation to proposals
available at the time of preparation of this report in
Sections 9 and 10. The report is also presented in
electronic PDF format separately on disk.
Attention is drawn to the General Notes and
Investigation Procedures presented in Appendix 18
to aid an understanding of the procedures followed
and the context in which the report should be read.
4.0 THE SITE
4.1 Location
The site is located approximately 2km north east of
the centre of Kettering and about 1.5km south west
of Weekley Church, just to the north of Weekley
Glebe Road. The approximate Ordnance Survey
National Grid Reference for the site is SP 878 802
and an extract from the relevant 1:50,000 Scale O.S.
Map (Sheet No. 141) is included as Appendix 2.
4.2 Description
The main area of the site investigation under this
phase, comprises a grassed public open space
immediately east of the existing Montagu School.
The area includes football pitches and a cricket pitch
and measures approximately 160m by 180m. The
site sloped generally to the south east from
approximately 100m OD in the north west of the
area down to approximately 98m OD in the south
east of the area. In the south west corner, however,
the ground surface dipped towards the south west
down to 96m OD.
The existing school site to the west of this area
comprises the school buildings in the eastern part
and sports fields to the west. The buildings typically
consist of a variety of one and two storey brick
buildings surrounded by areas of hardstanding and
soft landscaping. The area of the buildings generally
slopes down towards the south west, with the
gradient generally increasing towards the south west,
from a height of approximately 101m AOD at the
north east corner of the area down to 92m AOD in
the south west corner.
Ground Investigation Factual and Interpretative Report
at
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, Project No: PC104350
KETTERING October 2010
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 2 of 22
The area of the sports fields is generally flat with a
gradient sloping down from 98.5m AOD in the
north east of the area, down to 91.0m AOD in the
south west, in a series of steps. A bank,
approximately 2m high, extends across the field from
east to west creating a level area for pitches and a
running track. The sports field area is separated
from the main school building area by a bank
approximately 1m high, leading down to the sports
field.
Photographs taken during the fieldwork of the main
area of the site where the investigation works were
carried out are presented in Appendix 3.
5.0 PROCEDURE
5.1 Commissioning
The work was awarded following submission of a
proposal for ground investigation of the site in
accordance with the Client’s requirements (see
Appendix 1). The scope of the work was revised
during the site works based on the ground
conditions encountered.
5.2 General
The procedures followed in this site investigation are
based on BS 5930 (1999) - Code of Practice for Site
Investigations and BS 10175 (2001) – Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites. The soils and rocks
encountered have been described in accordance
with Amendment 1 to BS5930, dated December
2007 and BS EN ISO 14688-1 (2002) and BS EN ISO
14689-1 (2003). The Standard Penetration Tests
(SPT's) were carried out in accordance with BS EN
ISO 22476-3 (2005). The Borehole, Drillhole and
Trial Pit Records are included in Appendices 4 to 6
and their approximate positions are shown on the
Exploratory Hole Location Plan in Appendix 7.
The Exploratory Hole locations were selected by
Geotechnics Ltd to cover the area of the proposed
buildings but avoiding the existing football pitches.
The levels shown on the Exploratory Hole Records
were obtained using a Leica Smart Rover Global
Positioning System linked to a Smartnet Network
and are related to Ordnance Datum. The depths
quoted are in metres below ground level.
5.3 Boreholes
Five (5 No.), 150mm diameter boreholes (numbered
BH1, BH3 to BH6) were sunk by Cable Percussion
Tool techniques to depths varying between 1.40m
and 10.00m below ground level. The work was
carried out between the 23rd and 26th August 2010.
An inspection pit was excavated at each borehole
location using hand tools to a depth of 1.20m below
ground level to check for the presence of
underground services.
Representative disturbed (D and B) and undisturbed
(U100) samples of the soils encountered were
obtained at regular intervals and SPTs undertaken in
appropriate deposits, in order to allow inspection
and obtain a measure of the engineering properties
of the proved strata. In addition, environmental
samples (E) were recovered at the depths indicated
on the Borehole Records.
No groundwater was encountered during the drilling
operations. On completion, standpipes were
installed in Boreholes BH4 and BH6 (see Section
5.6). The other boreholes were backfilled with
grout on completion.
5.4 Drillholes
Two (2 No.) 130mm diameter drillholes (numbered
R01 to R02) were sunk utilising open hole, rock-
roller drilling techniques to depths of 19.00m and
9.70m below ground level, respectively. The work
was carried out on the 24th August 2010. An
inspection pit was excavated at each borehole
location using hand tools to a depth of 1.20m below
ground level to check for the presence of
underground services.
The drilling equipment on this particular contract
utilised air-mist as the flushing medium. The strata
descriptions are the Drilling Foreman's estimate
based on sediment and chipping returns in the
flushing medium. The rate of penetration is also
used as an indicator of the type of material being
drilled, particularly where there is loss of flush
returns. Definitive classification in terms of geology
or degree of disturbance is not usually possible from
these sources.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 3 of 22
Groundwater observations are included on the
Drillhole Records where appropriate and any rise in
water level was recorded over 20 minutes whilst
drilling operations were suspended. On completion,
standpipes were installed in both boreholes (see
Section 5.6).
In addition, a single 130mm diameter drillhole
(numbered R03) was sunk utilising open hole and
rotary coring techniques to a depth of 9.00m below
ground level. The work was carried out on the 25th
August 2010. An inspection pit was excavated at the
borehole location using hand tools to a depth of
1.20m below ground level to check for the presence
of underground services.
The drilling equipment utilised air-mist as the flushing
medium. Where rock quality had improved
sufficiently, 92mm diameter rock coring commenced
at a depth of 3.00m below ground level. The
recovered rock cores were extruded horizontally in
plastic liners and placed into suitable core boxes.
Photographs of the individual core boxes are
included in Appendix 5.
On completion, a standpipe was installed in
Borehole R03 (see Section 5.6).
5.5 Trial Pits
Two (2 No.) Trial Pits (numbered TP5 and TP6)
were excavated to a depth of 1.00m below ground
level using a tracked mini-excavator. In addition five
(5 No.) trial pits (numbered TP1 to TP4 and TP7)
were excavated to depths of 1.00m to 1.40m below
ground level. The pits were excavated on the 24th
August 2010 and the work supervised on site by a
geotechnical engineer.
The profiles of strata or other features were
recorded as excavation proceeded and
measurements taken from ground level. Pits were
entered where safe to do so to allow in situ
measurement of strata conditions. Representative
samples were taken, where appropriate, for
laboratory examination and analysis and in addition,
Environmental samples (E) were recovered at the
depths indicated on the Trial Pit Records. At depths
in excess of 1.20m below ground level or in unstable
conditions, samples were taken directly from
excavated materials deposited at surface.
Groundwater observations and trench stability notes
are included on the Trial Pit Records.
5.6 Instrumentation and
Monitoring
Long term monitoring of the gas and groundwater
levels was made possible by the installation of
standpipes as follows:
Exploratory
Hole
Standpipe
Slotted pipe & Filter Zone
(m)
BH4 3.70 to 6.80
BH6 1.00 to 5.00
R01 6.00 to 19.00
R02 3.00 to 6.30
R03 3.00 to 9.00
Monitoring of the gas and groundwater levels at the
site commenced on 3rd September 2010 with a
further 5 No. visits on 10th September, 30th
September, 12th October, 26th October and 9th
November 2010. In addition to the standpipes
installed as part of this investigation, monitoring was
also undertaken in selected standpipes installed
during the previous investigation (PC093887) carried
out in May 2009 (see Section 7.2 below).
At each position a record of the groundwater level
was taken. On the 10th September 2010 where
water was recorded, samples were obtained
following a purging of 3 volumes of water in the
standpipe.
In addition to the groundwater levels, the following
parameters were measured and recorded in each
standpipe using a GA2000 Gas Analyser:-
• Concentrations (% Vol) of CH4, O2, CO2,
along with (% LEL) CH4, H2S , CO
• Flow Rate
• Differential Pressure
• Barometric Pressure
• Air Temperature
The results of the monitoring are presented in
Appendix 8.
5.7 Soakaway Tests
Two (2 No.) soakaway tests were carried out in
Drillholes R01 and R02 on the conclusion of the
drilling operations at depths of 19.00m and 9.70m
below ground level, respectively. The results of the
tests are presented in Appendix 9 and the findings
are discussed below in Section 9.9.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 4 of 22
5.8 In situ Permeability Tests
Following completion of the fieldwork an in situ
rising head permeability test was undertaken in the
standpipe installed in Drillhole R02, in accordance
with BS5930 (1999) Clause 25.4. The permeability
has been estimated using the initial groundwater
level measured in the standpipe and the results are
presented in Appendix 10.
5.9 Dynamic Cone Penetration
Tests
Three (3 No.) Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP)
Tests numbered CBR1 to CBR3 were carried out at
the locations marked on the Exploratory Hole
Location Plan (see Appendix 7). The tests were
commenced from Ground Level and were
performed to give an indication of CBR values at
shallow depths to aid pavement design. The test
comprises the measurement of increments of
penetration of a 60° cone driven into the ground
using an 8kg hammer falling a distance of 575mm.
The CBR is obtained from the relationship between
the CBR and the DCP readings defined in Interim
Advice Note 73/06 "Design Guidance for Road
Pavement Foundations" published by the Highways
Agency:-
Log10(CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057 x Log10(mm/blow).
The test results are presented in Appendix 11.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
6.1 Geotechnical
The laboratory testing schedule was formulated by
Geotechnics Ltd in order to relate to the proposed
development. The tests, where appropriate,
conform to BS 1377 - Methods of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes (1990) and were carried out in
Geotechnics Limited's UKAS accredited Laboratory
(Testing No. 1365). Any descriptions, opinions and
interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS
accreditation.
The tests undertaken can be summarised as follows:-
BS 1377 (1990)
Test No. Test Description
Part 2
3.2 17 No. Moisture Content
Determination
4.3 & 5.3 9 No. Liquid and Plastic Limit
Determination
9.2 & 9.3 6 No. Mechanical Analysis - Sieving
9.4 6 No. Mechanical Analysis -
Sedimentation
Part 4
3.3 4 No. Dry Density/Moisture Content
relationship determination.
Compaction Test - British
Standard (2.5 kg Rammer)
7 4 No. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Measurement
- recompacted
Part 5
3 3 No. One-Dimensional
Consolidation
Properties Determination.
Consolidation Test
Part 7
9 6 No. Shear Strength Measurement -
100mm diameter (Single Stage)
Quick Undrained Triaxial
Compression Test
The following testing was carried out at the
laboratories of Derwent Environmental Testing
Services (DETs):-
BRE Special Digest 1 Suite (Soil)
7 No. Suites comprising:-
Soluble Sulphate
Acid Soluble Sulphate
Total Sulphur
pH
The results of these tests are presented in Appendix
12.
6.2 Contamination
Selected samples of soil and groundwater were
tested in at the laboratories of Derwent
Environmental Testing Services (DETs) for a number
of determinands in order to check on potential site
contamination. The determinands were selected by
Geotechnics Limited.
Soil
Soil samples were tested for the following
determinands:-
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 5 of 22
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Vanadium
Organic Matter
Total Organic Carbon
PH
EPH (C5 – C10)
EPH (C10 – C40)
Phenol (Monohydric)
In addition provision was made for additional
dependant option analysis for:
Hexavalent Chromium (if Total > 100 mg/kg)
Speciated Hydrocarbons (if EPH >250 mg/kg)
Speciated PAH (IF PAH > 50 mg/kg)
Asbestos if fibrous or suspect materials were located
on site.
The results are presented in Appendix 13.
Groundwater
Groundwater samples taken from the standpipes
installed during this and the previous investigations
were tested for the following determinands:-
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
pH
Electrical Conductivity
Sulphate
Sulphide
Total Dissolved Solids
Phenol
Total Organic Carbon
Total Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
The results are presented in Appendix 14.
7.0 DESK STUDY
7.1 General
A number of existing reports on studies carried out
on or adjacent to the site have been supplied by the
Client and comprise:-
(1) "Northampton Academies, Kettering" Geo-
Environmental Site Fact Sheet, Mott
MacDonald Limited, Report
258960/ENV/01/A, April 2009.
(2) "The Kettering Buccleuch Academy –
Montagu Site" Phase 1 Preliminary Risk
Assessment, Update to Phase 1 Fact Sheet,
Mott MacDonald Limited, March 2010.
(3) "Montagu School, Weekley Glebe Road,
Kettering" GroundSure GeoInsight report,
GroundSure, Report HMD-326-387483,
30th March 2009.
The findings of these reports are summarised below.
They have been supplemented by the findings from
previous investigations carried out by Geotechnics
Limited for Northamptonshire County Council at
the site and by reports obtained from the British
Geological Survey (BGS). The previous investigations
carried out by Geotechnics Ltd are:-
(i) Ground Investigation at Northamptonshire
Academies, Montagu School, Report
PC093887, July 2009 (Volume 1 – Factual
Report and Volume 2 – Interpretative
Report).
(ii) Additional Ground Investigation at
Northamptonshire Academies, Montagu
School, Report PC094085, January 2010,
(Factual Report).
7.2 Geology
Information published by the BGS on published
geological maps of the area, geological memoirs and
other relevant literature was consulted. Where
appropriate, previous exploratory hole records have
been referred to, to give an indication of the regional
geology. For this site reference has been made to
the following:-
(i) Geological Survey Map 1:50.000
(Sheet No. 171)
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 6 of 22
(ii) Geological Survey Map 1:10,560
(Sheet No. SP 88 SE)
(iii) ''Geology of the Country around Kettering,
Corby and Oundle'' British Geological
Survey, 1963, HMSO
(iv) The BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units
(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/)
(v) Previous Exploratory Hole Records and
Study reports
7.2.1 Published Information
The 1:50,000 scale map shows the site (school and
field to the east of the school) to be underlain by
strata of the Great Oolite Formation of Middle
Jurassic age. Beneath the school the Rutland
Formation is shown with a tract of the
Wellingborough Limestone Member crossing the site
with a north west to south east alignment. An
outcrop of the Blisworth Limestone Formation is
shown below much of the field to the east
surrounded by the Rutland Formation.
The 1:10,560 scale geological map (Sheet SP 88 SE)
generally confirms the geology indicated on the
1:50,000 map but uses older geological names for
the strata. Below the field to the east of the school
the 1:10,560 map indicates that most of the site is
underlain by the Great Oolite Limestone (now the
Blisworth Limestone Formation) and the Upper
Estuarine Series (now the Rutland Formation). A thin
tract of the Upper Estuarine Limestone (now the
Wellingborough Limestone Member) is shown
outcropping in the south western corner.
The school site is also shown on the 1:10,560 map
to be underlain by the Upper Estuarine Limestone
and Upper Estuarine Series of Middle Jurassic age. A
fault is marked, trending south west to north east
across the north western part of the site with the
downthrow side to the south. To the south east of
the fault (which is most of the site) the Upper
Estuarine Series outcrops either side of a band of
Upper Estuarine Limestone about 50 to 60m wide
that runs approximately north – south from the
northern boundary to the centre of the site. A thin
tract of Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (now part of
the Linclonshire Limestone Formation) is shown
outcropping in the south western corner of the site.
To the north west of the fault, the Upper Estuarine
Series (no limestone) outcrops with a band of the
Lower Lincolnshire Limestone together with a small
area of the Lower Estuarine Series.
An area along the western boundary of the school
and in the north eastern corner, the site is shown as
a backfilled opencast ironstone quarry, the edge
being marked as up to about 40m inside the western
site boundary.
The Great Oolite Limestone or Blisworth Limestone
Formation, ranges in thickness from 4m to 8m,
consisting of light grey to white and yellowish
limestone with thin mudstone and calcareous
mudstone bands which are often found alternating.
The limestone can be oolitic, fossiliferous or shelly.
Oysters are particularly common. Around Kettering
the ooliths are less common and in the lower parts
of the formation the limestone is interbedded with
bands of clay. The base of the Great Oolite
Limestone overlies the Upper Estuarine Series.
The Upper Estuarine Series or Rutland Formation
forms an unconformable contact with the Lower
Lincolnshire Limestone (the Upper Lincolnshire
Limestone units being missing in this area) and
typically consist of mudstone with limestone and
sandstone beds. The basal beds of the Upper
Estuarine Series form a band of brown discontinuous
ironstone nodules and brown ferruginous
sandstones and are succeeded by pale grey clays and
silty clays. The upper beds are commonly found to
be grey marine mudstones which pass up into non
marine mudstones and siltstones. In this area the
Upper Estuarine Limestone beds (or
Wellingborough Limestone Member) outcrop within
the Upper Estuarine Series. These beds typically
range in thickness between 3m and 4m and comprise
bands of oyster bearing and sandy limestone and
calcareous mudstone along with greenish grey clays
with rootlets.
No superficial deposits are shown overlying the solid
geology.
The Groundsure Geoinsight Report (Ref: HMD-326-
387483) dated 30 March 2009, which was supplied
by the Engineer, confirms the geology indicated on
the published maps. The report also identifies a
section of artificial ground as shown on the
published maps and describes it as infilled ground.
This is likely to be the result of two phases of
historical surface ground workings shown in the
report to have taken place in 1950 and 1974. In
addition, the report gives a number of ground
related risk classifications including the following:-
• The site is in a radon affected area as between 10
and 30% of properties are above the Action
Level.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 7 of 22
• Shallow mining hazards are classified as negligible.
• Shrink-swell hazards from clays are classified as
negligible for the Lower Estuarine Series, Lower
Lincolnshire Limestone and the Great Oolite
Limestone. The Upper Estuarine Series, which
outcrop, are classified as low.
• Landslide hazards are classified as very low for
the site.
• Ground dissolution and soluble rocks are
classified as very low for the Great Oolite
Limestone including isolated pockets outcropping
to the west. A low hazard classification is given
to the Lower Lincolnshire Limestone and parts of
the Upper Estuarine Series.
• Compressible ground hazards are moderate
where infilled ground is indicated along the
western boundary of the site. The rest of the site
is considered negligible.
• Running sand hazards are very low where infilled
ground is indicated and negligible across the rest
of the site.
7.2.2 Previous Investigation Data
The previous ground investigation carried out on the
school site (PC093887) showed variable ground
conditions. The locations of the exploratory holes
from the previous investigations are shown on the
Plan in Appendix 7. They can be briefly summarised
as follows:-
Made Ground
Made Ground was found in all the exploratory holes
with a thickness between 0.30m and 8.50m where
the full thickness was proved. The greatest thickness
was found in BH1A (8.50m) which was located close
to the north western corner of the site where the
old backfilled ironstone quarry was located.
Elsewhere a thickness of up to 3m was found.
Lincolnshire Limestone
Material that may form part of the Lower
Lincolnshire Limestone was found in WS2 at 3.30m
bgl in the south western corner of the site and in
WS3 at 3.85m bgl which was located close to the
northern edge of the site.
Upper Estuarine Series
Material considered to form part of the Upper
Estuarine Series was found in most of the
exploratory holes including S1, S2 and WS2 to WS8,
at depths of between 0.30m and 1.90m bgl
underlying the Made Ground and also in BH4 at
2.20m bgl (96.16m OD) below what is thought to be
the Upper Estuarine Limestone. It was typically
described as firm to stiff varying to very stiff slightly
sandy clay or slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay with
shell fragments, black carbonaceous fragments and
rootlets/root tracks. The gravel was composed of
limestone and occasionally sandstone. In S1 and
WS7, limestone was found at 1.40m and 1.70m bgl,
respectively (99.11 and 99.01m OD) at the base of
each exploratory hole, both holes being located
close together near to the centre of the eastern
boundary.
Upper Estuarine Limestone
Material thought to be the Upper Estuarine
Limestone was found in BH4 and S3 below the Made
Ground at depths of 1.20m and 0.65m bgl,
respectively (97.16 and 96.79m OD). It was found
to be 1.00m thick in BH4 and 1.35m was proved in
S3. In BH4 it was described as light brown slightly
gravelly sandy clay (gravel is limestone) over
yellowish brown clayey gravelly sand and in S3, it
was described as grey brown slightly sandy slightly
gravelly clay with limestone cobbles and boulders.
Groundwater
No groundwater was found during the drilling or
excavation of the exploratory holes. Standpipes
were installed in BH1A, BH4 and WS5 and during
the monitoring period (5th to 18th June 2009) no
groundwater was found in BH1A and BH4 located in
the north western corner of the site and the central
southern part of the site, respectively. In WS5,
located in the central northern part of the site, a
maximum groundwater level of 2.44m bgl (97.77m
OD) was recorded. This limited data suggests a
water table falling below the site to the west and
south or a perched water table in the region of
WS5. The groundwater regime is likely to be
complex due to the variable ground conditions
below the site.
The exploratory holes put down in the southern
part of the field to the east of the school
(PC094085) typically encountered up to between
2.5m and 5.0m of slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay
that is probably part of the Upper Estuarine Series.
A layer of sand was found at the base of SA3 and
mudstone in WS9 at 2.60m. No groundwater was
observed during the drilling or excavation of these
exploratory holes.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 8 of 22
7.3 Site History
The summary included in the Geo-Environmental
Fact Sheets (Section 4, Mott MacDonald, April 2009
and Section 1, Update March 2010) indicates that
the site as a whole was used as agricultural land until
1952 and as allotments or open space thereafter. By
1992 the school had been developed on the site.
An Ironstone Quarry was operational on the edge
and to the north and northwest of the site from
1927. Evidence indicates that this was backfilled and
covered before 1992 and that more specifically it
was filled with household wastes between December
1968 and May 1973.
7.4 Hydrology
The works to date indicate that there are no surface
waters on the site and the closest noted open water
is the River Ise, 1.2km to the south east. Surface
water on site drains naturally into the ground or is
collected on the western site into a number of
soakaways presumably leading to the underlying
minor and major aquifer. A survey of these locations
was undertaken on 19th August 2010 and the findings
detailed in a Geotechnics Limited letter report dated
21st August 2010.
7.5 Hydrogeology
The underlying hydrogeology as detailed in previous
reports indicates several potential aquifers below the
site. These are the Blisworth Limestone, Lincolnshire
Limestone and Northampton Sand. The remainder
of the area is covered by largely impermeable Upper
or Lower Estuarine Beds.
The BGS GeoReport (BGS Report No.
GR_201337/1, September 2010) commissioned as
part of these works, details the anticipated
underlying conditions in the location of the
proposed eastern site soakaway as follows.
1) Blisworth Limestone, Minor Aquifer
(Secondary) with high soil leaching
potential, liable to be within a few metres of
the surface. Movement through fracture
flow and may contain perched waters above
underlying Rutland Formation mudstones.
2) Rutland Formation, multilayered aquifer
(Secondary or non-aquifer) with possibly
some water present in limestone and
sandstone horizons providing perched
waters.
3) Wellingborough Limestone Member, Minor
Aquifer (Secondary) with high soil leaching
potential if at surface. Movement by
fracture flow and may contain perched
waters under pressure where confined by
overlying mudstones.
4) Stamford Member, Minor Aquifer
(Secondary) probably unsaturated.
Movement mainly by intergranular flow.
5) Lincolnshire Limestone Formation, Major
Aquifer (Primary) probably unsaturated, but
very thin. Movement by fracture flow.
6) Grantham Formation, Non-Aquifer with
generally low permeability but intergranular
flow possible in sands to underlying
sandstones.
7) Northampton Sand Formation, Minor
Aquifer (Secondary). Movement by fracture
and intergranular flow, likely to be partially
saturated.
The general trend of underlying groundwaters could
possibly be to the south to south east for the site as
a whole, with the western side of the site probably
being biased slightly towards the south west, and the
eastern side towards the south east and the River
Ise. This is in an almost radial pattern away from the
high point to the north of the site and the Blisworth
Limestone outcrop in the centre of the site.
The report also details that whilst previously the
water level was considered to reside in the
Northamptonshire Sand Formation, this may have
been due to local workings and abstraction which
has now ceased. As such the true water level could
now reside in any of the underlying aquifers. This is
further complicated by the presence of units capable
of acting as aquitards that may also allow the local
transmission of groundwater.
The site is not currently within a designated
abstraction area but under the Water Framework
Directive and associated Basin Management plans,
could be considered as a potential future ground
water source.
The potential to act as a soakaway will depend
greatly on the level of interconnectedness of the
various underlying minor and major aquifers and the
local characteristics of the various intervening layers,
which may vary greatly over relatively small
distances.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 9 of 22
In general, the underlying groundwater is considered
likely to be hard to very hard and may be
ferruginous at depth with high dissolved solids
content. It is also liable to be generally alkaline in
perched waters from the limestone units, possibly
becoming more neutral or acidic at depth within the
sands.
In terms of the potential to soakaway, the report
considers that some form of on-site storage to
reduce the fines by allowing settling before
discharge. This will help reduce the potential for
local mounding of the waters and blockage within
the underlying units as well as even out the rate at
which the water will be recharged.
The site is noted as being in a nitrate vulnerable
zone for ground and surface waters and has a low
risk of flooding from fluvial sources. The
Environment Agency website provides no flood
designation or risk assessment for the site.
7.6 Environmental Issues
Aside from the landfill, the only other noted off-site
environmental issues of potential significance
identified in the Mott MacDonald reports appear to
be:
1) A minor pollution incident to the south-east
of the site detailed as an oil spill from a
residential property.
2) Fuel station site 492m west of the site.
3) Eleven contemporary trade entries within
500m, mostly commercial buildings, garage
services and car dealers.
4) Lies within a Radon affected area where full
Radon protection measures are required.
On-site, the report also makes the following
observations:
1) Workshops on site used for brickmaking.
2) Flammable gas is stored on the site as are
small amounts of scientific chemicals in
laboratories.
3) Gas and electrical sub-stations are present
in the south of the site by the current
entrance to the western site.
4) A Pavilion on the southern side of the
eastern site may contain asbestos.
5) Made Ground may be present on the
eastern side of the site as evidenced by a
small embankment on the eastern side of
the western site.
7.7 Conceptual Site Model
The Conceptual Model adopted for the current
assessment, is based on the work undertaken by
Mott MacDonald Limited in their Phase 1
Preliminary Risk Assessment, Update to Phase 1 Fact
Sheet, dated March 2010. A diagrammatic
representation of the model is included in Appendix
E of the same document. The model appears to
ignore the presence of the Blisworth Limestone on
the eastern side of the site, but is only intended to
be diagrammatic. The model is further discussed in
Section 10 where it relates to environmental
matters.
8.0 INTERPRETATION
8.1 Ground Conditions
On the basis of the expected geology discussed in
Section 7.2 and the findings of the exploratory holes
it has been possible to classify the various strata
proved in the investigation into the following
divisions:-
Made Ground / Topsoil
Superficial Deposits
Great Oolite Limestone
Upper Estuarine Series
Lincolnshire Limestone Group
Sections through the site are included in Appendix
15 to give an indication of the ground and
groundwater conditions at the site. These sections
are indicative only and reference should be made to
the Exploratory Hole Records for detailed
descriptions of the soils and the groundwater
conditions encountered. A summary of the material
properties are shown on Figures presented in
Appendix 16.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 10 of 22
8.1.1 Made Ground / Topsoil
Made Ground with a thickness of between 0.30 and
0.40m was found in R01, TP2, TP3 and TP7.
Elsewhere Topsoil between 0.05m and 0.20m thick
was encountered from the ground surface. The
Made Ground typically comprised brown clayey
sandy gravel or sandy gravelly clay, the gravel being
composed of ash, flint, quartzite and limestone.
Further variation in the nature and thickness of the
Made Ground should be expected in areas between
and away from the exploratory holes.
8.1.2 Superficial Deposits
Soils that have been classified as Superficial Deposits
have been found below the Topsoil or Made Ground
in BH3, BH4, BH6, R02, TP2 to TP4 and TP7 which
were located in the southern and western parts of
the site. Where the underlying strata were reached,
a thickness of between 0.60m and 1.30m was found.
In the trial pits a thickness of up to 1.25m was
penetrated. It was typically described as stiff and very
stiff brown fissured / desiccated slightly sandy slightly
gravelly clay, the gravel being quartzite and
limestone.
The Natural Moisture Content was found to range
from 17% to 36% with an average of 24% (Fig 2.2,
Appendix 16). The Atterberg Limits classified the
soil as a clay of medium to very high plasticity, with
the Plasticity Index ranging from 27% to 43% (Fig 5.2,
Appendix 16). Two samples tested within the
Superficial Deposits recorded Total Sulphate
concentrations of 0.02% and 0.03%, respectively,
Soluble Sulphate of 10mg/l and 22mg/l, pH of 8.4 and
8.2 and Total Sulphur of 0.01% and 0.02%.
Particle Size Distribution tests on samples show the
following gradings
Clay/Silt : 46-82%
Sand : 16-18%
Gravel : 2-36%
8.1.3 Great Oolite Limestone
Material considered to form part of the Great
Oolite Limestone was encountered in all the
exploratory holes except possibly R01. The stratum
was possibly below the terminations of TP2 to TP4
and TP7. It was at a depth of between 0.05m and
1.50m below ground level (bgl) across the site. A
thickness of between 0.50m and 5.50m was
encountered where soils classified as the underlying
Upper Estuarine Series were found. The greatest
thickness was found in BH4 (5.50m) but it is possible
that the soils encountered below 3.70m bgl are part
of the Upper Estuarine Series.
The soils found were generally described as either
very stiff light brown sandy gravelly clay or very
dense sandy angular gravel of limestone, both strata
sometimes containing a low, medium and high
limestone cobble content. The granular deposits
were only found in BH1, BH5, TP1 and TP6 on the
western and northern edges of the area investigated
together with a thin layer (0.2m thick) in BH4 at
3.5m bgl. Generally the granular deposits were found
in the upper 1m bgl and in BH1 were of such a high
relative density that further penetration using cable
percussive drilling techniques was not possible below
depths of 1.49m bgl.
The clay deposits were found in all the exploratory
holes where the Great Oolite Limestone was
encountered, except TP6. In BH5 it was of such a
strength / density that further penetration was not
possible below a depth of 2.66m bgl.
The Natural Moisture Content was found to range
from 7% to 17% with an average of 11% (Fig 2.1,
Appendix 16). The Atterberg Limits classified the
soil as a clay of medium plasticity, with Plasticity
Index values of 28% and 23% (Fig 5.1, Appendix 16).
Undrained shear strengths of 69kN/m2 and
146kN/m² were obtained from triaxial tests (Fig 4.1,
Appendix 16). A sample from BH4 3.20-3.55m was
too disturbed to undertake the triaxial test.. Where
full penetration of the SPT's occurred, 'N' values of
21, 23 and 27 were recorded (Fig 1.1, Appendix 16).
Full penetration was not achieved in 7 tests and
penetration after 50 blows ranged from 18mm to
247mm. Consolidation tests show Coefficients of
Volume Compressibility (Mv) values for an
approximate increase in stress of 100kN/m² of
around 0.2-0.3m²/MN (medium).
Four samples were analysed and recorded Total
Sulphate concentrations of between 0.03% and
0.07%, Soluble Sulphate of between 15mg/l and
90mg/l, pH of between 8.3 and 8.6 and Total Sulphur
of between 0.02% and 0.04%.
Particle Size Distribution tests carried out on
selected samples show the following gradings
Clay/Silt : 12-65%
Sand : 7-21%
Gravel : 15-81%
Cobbles : 0-33%
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 11 of 22
8.1.4 Upper Estuarine Series
Material considered to form part of the Upper
Estuarine Series was found in BH3, BH4, BH6 and
R01 to R03, below the eastern and southern parts of
the area investigated. It was typically found to
comprise very stiff dark grey and green grey sandy
calcareous clay or gravelly clay with shell fragments
and calcareous nodules. Layers of limestone or
siltstone were encountered and in the cable
percussive boreholes (BH3 and BH6) this layer
restricted progress of the hole and was recovered as
gravel sized fragments. In the drillholes they were
found to be between 0.30m (R01) and 1.90m (R03)
thick.
The Natural Moisture Content was found to range
from 19% and 26% with an average of 23% (Fig 2.3,
Appendix 16). The Atterberg Limits classified the
soil as a clay of medium plasticity, with the Plasticity
Index between 15% and 22% (Fig 5.3, Appendix 16).
The undrained shear strengths determined in four
samples ranged from 106kN/m2 to 247 kN/m2 (Fig
4.2, Appendix 16). Where full penetration of the
SPT's occurred, 'N' values of between 28 to 35 were
found with an average of 32 (Fig 1.2, Appendix 16).
Full penetration was not achieved in 6 tests and
penetration after 50 blows ranged from16mm to
283mm. A Consolidation test shows a Coefficient of
Volume Compressibility (Mv) value for an
approximate increase in stress of 100kN/m² of
around 0.18m²/MN (medium).
A single sample recorded a Total Sulphate of 0.08%,
Soluble Sulphate of <10mg/l, pH of 8.4 and Total
Sulphur of 0.04%.
8.1.5 Lincolnshire Limestone Formation
and Lower Estuarine Series
Material that may comprise the Lincolnshire
Limestone was proved in R01 at a depth of 12.2m
bgl. It should be noted that this was in an open-hole
section of the drillhole where the driller has
described it as brown clay with possible limestone
bands, over a 2.40m thick layer of fractured
limestone. At a depth of 17.4m bgl the driller has
described the soil underlying the limestone as grey
clay and this may form part of the underlying Lower
Estuarine Series.
8.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was only recorded during the drilling
of R01. In R01 the driller records the presence of
water at 7.50m bgl. It is possible that this water is
entering from the Upper Estuarine Series. No
groundwater was observed in the other exploratory
holes.
Standpipes were installed in BH4, BH6 and R01 to
R03. Maximum groundwater levels of between
4.00m and 14.99m bgl (92.57m and 80.60m OD)
were recorded in the standpipes over the
monitoring period (3rd September to 9th November
2010).
Standpipes installed during the previous investigation
(PC093887) in BH1A, BH4 and WS5 recorded no
groundwater in BH1A and BH4 but in WS5 a
maximum water level of 2.44m bgl (97.77m OD) was
recorded. The water levels measured indicate
possible isolated perched water levels in some of the
exploratory holes.
It should be noted that during the monitoring of
R01, water was heard flowing into standpipe from
above the standing water level. It is considered
likely that this could be water flowing into the
standpipe from the upper limestone layer found in
the drillhole at between 5.90m and 6.20m bgl
(89.39m to 89.69m OD), the lower section of the
layer being just below the seal to the standpipe. This
water probably represents a water table perched on
the clays of the Upper Estuarine Series.
Seasonal variations in the groundwater regime
should be expected and further perched water levels
should be anticipated during and after wet weather.
9.0 GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION
9.1 Proposals
New school buildings are proposed on the open field
to the east of the existing school buildings. Most of
the existing school buildings are to be demolished
and a number of additional all-weather sports
pitches constructed in their place. The new school
buildings are to be of two to three storey
construction and the approximate footprint and
location is shown the Exploratory Hole Location
Plan in Appendix 7. A finished ground floor level of
approximately 98.5m OD is proposed. The area to
the south of the proposed building is to be given
over to hard-standing for car-parking and the access
road.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 12 of 22
9.2 Foundation Design Principles
In formulating proposals for foundation and floor
slab design, the two primary controlling factors are
soil strength and foundation settlement. In general it
is the latter which is the primary determinand of
what is perceived to be satisfactory performance.
For clay soils, allowable bearing capacity is based on
undrained shear strength, although a Factor of Safety
of 3 is commonly adopted in order to ensure that
the loading is on the sensibly linear component of
the stress/strain curve for the soil. With time, the
clays will strengthen under the higher loadings as any
excess pore water pressures dissipate. Hence, the
worst case is at the time of initial loading and, for
gradually applied or static loading, bearing capacity
should progressively increase. For eccentric loading,
where peak load is at an extremity of the foundation,
this can be higher than the allowable load, provided
that the mean equivalent stress is within the
allowable value.
For granular or essentially free draining soils the
frictional characteristics and density will dominate
bearing capacity and this is generally much higher
than for clay soils. For normal spread foundations
conventional design is typically based on the stress
which would give rise to 25mm settlement. Actual
settlements will depend upon the type, period, load
intensity and width of the loaded area and the
thickness and compressibility of the soils below.
A further issue for foundations is the degree of
variability in the foundation soils. The adoption of a
lower bearing pressure than strength criteria would
indicate implicitly results in a larger foundation which
is likely to behave more in line with average
conditions and hence, for a given load, to result in
less differential settlement.
9.3 Foundation Solutions
Shallow strip/pad foundations are likely to be
suitable for the proposed buildings. To avoid
unpredictable total and differential settlements, the
foundations should be taken beneath any Made
Ground and bear into the strata of the Superficial
Deposits, Great Oolite Limestone or the Upper
Estuarine Series. A minimum foundation depth of
0.90m bgl is recommended.
Based on the foundations bearing into the stiff/very
stiff sandy gravelly clays of the Superficial Deposits
and the Great Oolite Limestone, a net safe bearing
capacity of 125 to 150kN/m² should be available for
strip and pad foundations, respectively. A greater
bearing capacity would be available in the granular
soils but it is recommended that it is limited to that
for the clay soils. Ideally, foundations for an
individual building should be founded within the
same material in order to provide more uniform
foundation behaviour and minimise any differential
settlement and where this is not possible the design
should take into account possible differential
behaviour. The settlements of any footings bearing
into the granular soils are likely to be small and
occur soon after the application of the load. Where
the foundations bear into the very stiff sandy gravelly
clay settlements of the order of about 25mm are
possible for a 2m wide footing loaded to 150kN/m2.
Hence differential settlements of approximately
20mm should be allowed for in the design for such
foundations.
The depth of the foundations should be checked in
relation to any trees or shrubs present or proposed
on the site or to any that will be removed as part of
the construction following the guidelines given in the
NHBC Standards, Chapter 4.2. A medium volume
change potential should be used for this assessment.
9.4 Excavations & Groundwater
Excavations on the site should be readily achievable
using conventional earth moving plant, although
more difficult conditions may be present in the
granular deposits of the Great Oolite Limestone.
Where foundation excavations extend to depths
greater than 1.00m they will need to be fully shored
if entry by personnel is required. Even for shallow
excavations the need for support will still need to be
evaluated under CDM regulations.
When exposed, the formation level for the
foundations should be kept dry and steps taken to
avoid disturbance. Blinding with concrete as soon as
possible after excavation and inspection would also
help minimise disturbance. Prior to construction the
formation should be inspected and any soft spots
removed. Where deep excavations are envisaged,
they are likely to require battering back to a safe
angle or some form of support will be necessary,
possibly in the form of trench-shore type boxes or
sheet piles. If sheet piling is proposed the presence
of the very hard strata of the Great Oolite
Limestone should be noted. Temporary works
design for such piles will need to ensure that there is
sufficient embedment of the piles and/or that
sufficient props are provided to maintain stability of
the excavation sides and base particularly where
man-entry is required.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 13 of 22
Groundwater levels of up to about 4.48 to 6.72m bgl
(91.88 to 92.54m OD) have been recorded during
the investigation in the vicinity of the proposed
building and for excavations above this level,
groundwater is unlikely to present any significant
problems. Locally, perched water may be present
but this should be adequately dealt with by pumping
from sumps.
It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary
seasonally or following periods of prolonged wet or
dry weather and levels higher or lower than those
measured may be present during construction.
Further monitoring of the standpipes would give
more information in this regard.
9.5 Slab Design
No details are known regarding the proposed floor
slab. The long term settlement of the floor slab will
depend on a number of factors including the
structural design of the slab, the duration, intensity
and distribution of the applied loading as well as the
strength, compressibility and history of the soils
beneath slab. The preferred solution for the floor
slab will also depend on the type of foundation
adopted with a suspended floor slab typically being
used where the structural loads are carried on piled
foundations. The main types of floor slabs that could
be considered for the proposed buildings are:-
(i) A suspended floor slab
(ii) A ground bearing floor slab following the
removal of any Made Ground deposits and
replacement with imported granular material or
re-used soils excavated on site (following
removal of any unsuitable material) compacted
to an engineering specification.
9.6 Earthworks
As part of the development earthworks will take
place on the site to provide a platform for the
school buildings. A finished floor level of 98.5m OD
is proposed which is likely to require the excavation
of up to about 2m on the northern side of the
building and the placement of approximately 1 to 2m
of engineered fill along the southern side.
The materials excavated are likely to comprise the
deposits from the Superficial Deposits and the Great
Oolite Limestone. From the grading analyses carried
out these materials will probably conform to the
following classes as defined in the Specification for
Highways Works, Volume 1:-
Clay soils - Class 2B, 2C & 2D
Granular soils - Class 1A & 1C
A small amount of earthworks laboratory testing
was carried out and the results are summarised on
Figures 5 and 6 (Appendix 16). A tentative estimate
of the range of acceptable moisture contents for
each of the materials for re-use as engineering fill
based on these limited number of results assuming
minimum desirable CBR values or undrained shear
strengths for the compacted fill of 2% or 50kN/m²
respectively would be around 10% to 30%.
The variability of the deposits likely to be available is
such that defining an acceptable range of moisture
contents that covers all the available material is
difficult. This is likely to mean that the maximum use
of the available materials becomes difficult,
particulary where a Method Specification for
engineering fill (based on the guidelines contained in
the Specification for Highways Works) is adopted
using a single earthworks control factor such as
MCV or moisture content. A more appropriate
strategy may be to use an End-Product Specification
of density (an air voids ratio of less than 10% below
parking areas and 5% below buildings) and CBR
greater than 2%. This should be supplemented by
field compaction trials to maximise the use of the
available materials.
9.7 Buried Concrete
The results of the chemical testing can be
summarised as follows:-
Water Soluble Sulphate <10 to 90 mg/l
Total Sulphate 0.02 to 0.08 %
Total Sulphur 0.01 to 0.07 %
pH 7.7 to 8.6
Based on the procedures outlined in BRE Special
Digest 1 : 2005 and the test results, the Design
Sulphate Class for the site is DS-1 A check on the
potential presence of pyrite that can oxidise to form
sulphates has been undertaken and the Total
Potential Sulphate (TPS) determined from the Total
Sulphur Content and Acid soluble sulphate for the
stratum. The tests showed no oxidisable sulphates
to be present. Assuming mobile groundwater
conditions concrete should be designed for an
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete
(ACEC) Class of AC-1.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 14 of 22
9.8 Pavement Design
The conditions prevailing at the time of construction
will affect the CBR of the subgrade soil and its
strength. Research has shown the importance of the
equilibrium moisture content of the subgrade. The
relationship between soil suction and the moisture
content shows that a soil that becomes wet during
construction will retain water and will therefore be
weaker under the pavement in the equilibrium
condition than a foundation that has remained dry,
particularly for soils of low to medium plasticity.
Equilibrium CBR values for various materials for
poor and good construction conditions are given in a
report by the TRRL (Report 1132) and in Interim
Advice Note 73/06 "Design Guidance for Road
Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)" produced by
the Highways Agency. The soils likely to be exposed
at formation level are the Superficial Deposits and
the clay deposits from the Great Oolite Limestone
and the Plasticity Indices (PI) obtained from these
materials were between 15 and 43%. The following
equilibrium CBR values are indicated for poor and
good construction conditions assuming a low water
table in the TRRL Report and the interim Advice
Note.
Equilibrium CBR (%)
PI Poor Conditions Good Conditions
20 3-4 6-8
30 3-3.5 4-6
40 2.5 3-3.5
The CBR values estimated from the DCP tests
ranged from 2.6% to in excess of 20% at depths
down to around 0.70m and 0.80m below ground
level. Laboratory CBR tests on recompacted
samples showed values of 2.6% to 24% on both
granular and clay samples.
On the basis of the exploratory holes, it is likely that
the Superficial Deposits and Great Oolite Limestone
strata will be present at formation level. For the clay
strata a preliminary design CBR of around 2.5 to 3%
should be considered. For sands and gravels an
equilibrium CBR in excess of 20% is indicated.
Where the site level is to be raised, a CBR
appropriate to the fill material used should be used
in the design. Caution must be exercised to ensure
that any soft areas are over-excavated, filled with
acceptable material and compacted in accordance
with an Engineering Specification. Materials likely to
be exposed are moisture sensitive and will soften
rapidly in the presence of water. The formation
should be promptly protected or if not possible, cut
with a good cross-fall and adequate drainage
provided. Proof rolling would aid the detection of
loose or soft pockets and allow appropriate
measures to be taken.
9.9 Soakaway Design
The use of soakaways are being considered for the
drainage of storm water run-off from the school
development. Prior to the fieldwork an inspection of
the soakaway installations on the existing school site
was undertaken by Geotechnics Ltd in consultation
with Cox Turner Morse, who are carrying out the
drainage design for the Client. A copy of the report
of the inspection is included in Appendix 17. To
determine the infiltration rates for these soakaways
it would be necessary to measure the dimensions of
the soakaways, their volume and the area through
which water is discharged and carry out a soakaway
test.
As part of the Additional Ground Investigation
(PC094085) three soakaway tests were carried out
close to the southern edge of the field to the east of
the existing school and the results are presented in
Report PC094085. Of these tests, two (SA1 and
SA2) were unsuccessful. The test in SA3 in the south
western corner was slightly more successful due to
the presence of a sand layer at the base of the trial
pit. As the infiltration rate was estimated by
extrapolating the test curve and the extent and
thickness of the sand layer is unknown, the
infiltration rate obtained from SA3 should be used
with caution.
As part of this investigation two borehole soakaway
tests were carried out to check on the suitability of
such installations. In the test carried out in R01 a
large quantity of water was pumped into the
borehole but it was not possible to raise the water
level. A soakage rate for R01 has been estimated
from the amount of water pumped into the
borehole. This gave a discharge rate of 111l/m²/min.
In R02, it was not possible to determine a soakage
rate using the method outlined in BRE Digest 363
(method adapted to allow for a borehole rather than
a pit), possibly due to the groundwater level of
about 4m bgl. As an alternative, a soakage rate has
been estimated using a method published by Kent
County Council which gave a discharge rate of
around 0.47l/m²/min.
The discharge from these two boreholes is probably
through the fractured limestone between 15.0m and
17.4 m bgl in R01 and the limestone layer in R02
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 15 of 22
between 4.7m and 5.9m bgl. An estimate of the
permeability of the limestone layer in R02 was
obtained from a rising head permeability test in the
standpipe which gave a permeability of 3.9x10-9.m/s.
However, in Borehole R01 the water flowing into
the standpipe from the upper layer of limestone
layer would have affected any permeability test. This
water is probably perched on the underlying clays
forming an aquiclude. The discharge from this
borehole (R01) is probably through the lower
fractured limestone and based on the volume of
water pumped into the drillhole during the soakaway
test, a permeability of the order of between 5x10-4 -
1x10-5 m/s can be estimated. It is suggested that if a
soakaway is required in the vicinity of R02 that it is
designed to reach a similar layer of fractured
limestone to that found in R01 although further
testing in this regard would be required.
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
10.1 Legal Framework
Land contamination is an increasingly important
material planning consideration within the overall
planning regime. The planning authority is required
to consider the potential implications of
contamination both when it is developing structure
or local plans and when it is considering individual
applications for planning permission. Where
contamination is suspected or known to exist at a
site, a planning authority may require investigations
to be undertaken, for example, before granting
planning permission. Alternatively it may include
conditions on the permission itself requiring
appropriate investigation and, if necessary,
remediation.
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
has created a both a regime and framework within
which the identification and remediation of
contaminated land can be undertaken. This is then
further refined through the use of guidance on
specific aspects of the process produced by various
authorising bodies. Section 78A(2) of the Act
defines contaminated land for the purposes of Part
IIA as:
“any land which appears to the local authority in
whose area it is situated to be in such a
condition, by reason of substance in, on or under
the land that:
a) significant harm is being caused or there is a
significant possibility of such harm being caused;
or
b) significant pollution of controlled waters is
being, or is likely to be caused.”
Part IIA is intended to complement the Planning
Regime and both Part IIA and the Planning Regime
are intended to embrace a “suitable for use
approach”. In the context of Part IIA, action is
necessary only where there are unacceptable risks
to health or the environment, taking in to account
the current use of the land and its environmental
setting (CLR7).
This report provides an assessment of the
contamination conditions considered likely to be
found at the site in the context of the legal
framework discussed above. As such this assessment
is based solely on our current knowledge and
understanding of the site as determined by the
information made available to us and our
understanding of the proposed development.
This report follows the principles and methodology
outlined in CLR11 and BS10175 which are currently
determined as UK best practice. The primary issues
of concern are Risks to Human Health, for which the
regulator acting as Statutory Consultee under the
Planning Regime is generally the Local Authority and
Risks to Controlled Waters for which the
appropriate consultee is the Environment Agency.
10.2 Proposed Site Use
For the purposes of this report, the contamination
risk assessment in respect of human health is
considered in the context of a proposed site use of
either a) allotments, b) industrial/commercial or c)
residential with or without plant uptake. These are
detailed as follows.
(a) This categorisation assumes that no residents
are present on the site so occupation is not
continuous. However, the site is used for the
growing of food for consumption either on or
off site and therefore includes an exposure
contribution from eating home-grown
vegetables. It also assumes that users will come
into direct dermal contact with soil materials.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 16 of 22
(b) This categorisation assumes that no residents are
present and the site is normally used for
commercial and/or industrial purposes. Persons
using the site may potentially have short term
exposure only to open spaces on site.
(c) This categorisation assumes that residents may
have access to open space close to the home
with or without an exposure contribution from
eating home-grown vegetables.
The proposed use of the site will be the demolition
of the majority of the existing structures on the
western side of the site, with the area being
redeveloped as playing fields and possibly a
swimming pool. The eastern side of the site will be
redeveloped as a new school on the current open
land. The end use will therefore be similar to
current use but as such, none of the above
definitions truly reflects the real site situation. Given
that the CLEA residential models generally assume a
receptor younger than the age of those using the
school and does not have a specific open space or
school exposure model, the true model probably lies
somewhere between the industrial/commercial and
residential without plants models. On this basis, the
risk assessment has been undertaken using both
models concurrently. This will hopefully allow for
the incorporation of the precautionary principle to
allow for children as the most vulnerable receptors,
account for the potential for exposure to soil and
plant pathways but also to allow for a reduction in
the time that will be spent at the site and in the open
areas as opposed to using the assumptions made in
regard to the amounts of soil/plant/human
interaction in the residential model.
10.3 Conceptual Model
The Conceptual Model is a representation of the
current understanding of the site and the
surrounding environment. This includes and
incorporates an understanding of the geology,
groundwater, surface water bodies and potential
contamination processes acting on substances
present and migration pathways. It also takes into
account all identified potential pollutant linkages
using a source-pathway-receptor approach, based on
the proposed use of the site. Where any element of
the source-pathway-receptor linkage is absent, there
is considered to be no or negligible risk.
The Conceptual Model adopted for the current
assessment is based on the work undertaken by
Mott MacDonald Limited in their Phase 1
Preliminary Risk Assessment, Update to Phase 1 Fact
Sheet, dated March 2010.
10.3.1 Sources
The eastern half of the site and proposed location
for the new academy have historically been used as
open space, either as agricultural, allotment or
recreational land. The nearest identified potentially
significant source noted in the reports to date lies
adjacent to and under the north-western playing
fields on the western site at the location of an in-
filled former iron workings. This former landfill site
may potentially produce gas, vapours and leachate
including metals, organic and inorganic contaminants.
Other uses of the western site include its current
use as a school and previously as allotments and
agricultural ground.
The Mott MacDonald Update considers potential
contamination from possibly imported site fill
materials used in the construction of the school
buildings to be low and from the landfill to be
moderate. However, it should be noted that the
proposed new building on the eastern side of the
site would probably lie over 250m from the landfill
and would therefore be considered as lying beyond
its range of influence for a gas and vapour source.
10.3.2 Pathways - General
A pathway can be defined as: “A possible route or
means by which a receptor could be, or is exposed
to, or affected by a contaminant”. Pathways for
Human Health and Controlled Waters are
considered separately since they generally follow
different pathways.
Humans
The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment
(CLEAUK) Model designed for Human Health
includes ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation
pathways. All of these pathways must be considered
when undertaking risk assessment.
The Mott Macdonald Update identifies human
pathways for direct contact, ingestion and inhalation
from site fill materials and inhalation from the landfill.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 17 of 22
Controlled Waters
Controlled Waters for the purpose of this
investigation are defined as any lake, pond, river or
watercourse and groundwater. This therefore
includes water contained within the saturated
(phreatic) zone. Soil pore waters and waters
contained within the unsaturated (vadose) zone are
therefore outside the definition of controlled waters
and as such are not considered as receptors.
The Mott Macdonald Update identifies water
pathways for vertical and horizontal flow from site
fill materials and the potential for man made
pathways to be created during the works.
10.3.3 Receptors - General
A receptor in general terms is normally defined as
something that could be adversely affected by being
exposed to a contaminant. The receptors to be
considered in any assessment are therefore as
follows:
• Humans: End site users: children,
employees, adults, guests and construction
workers.
• Controlled Waters: Surface Water and
Groundwater
• Ecological receptors (wildlife)
• Building Fabric and Services
No ecological receptors have yet been identified that
could be adversely affected by site contamination
and as such they have been removed from
consideration. It has been assumed that no direct
linkage between the landfill and human receptors is
possible on the basis of its known location and that
it has sufficient cover material to prevent such direct
contact.
The River Ise should also be removed as a potential
surface water receptor due to the distance from the
site and that, given the intervening land use, no
direct surface flow is considered likely to reach the
river. Where a receptor is at one stage removed (i.e.
contamination has to pass through another receptor
to reach it) it should be considered as an extension
to the first receptor and does not usually require
separate consideration.
10.3.4 Site Specific Contamination Linkages
The following potential site specific Source-Pathway-
Receptor Linkages have been identified. These form
the basis of the most recently updated site specific
Conceptual Model:
• Metals, organic and inorganic contaminants
from the landfill reaching groundwater
receptors by leaching.
• Gas and vapours from the landfill reaching
human receptors by inhalation.
• Gas and vapours collecting in services and
building confined spaces leading to potential
build up of gas affecting human receptors
using such spaces.
• Metals, organic and inorganic contaminants
from site fill materials reaching groundwater
receptors by leaching.
• Metals, organic and inorganic contaminants
from site fill materials reaching human
receptors by direct contact, inhalation of
dusts and ingestion.
A diagrammatic representation of the Conceptual
Model is presented as Appendix E (Conceptual Site
Model) in the 2010 Mott Macdonald Update Report.
This preliminary model is of necessity generalised
and local variations may exist which have not been
taken into account.
10.4 Soil Testing
10.4.1 Introduction
Soil samples selected by Geotechnics Limited were
dispatched to laboratories for geochemical testing,
the results for which can be found in Appendix 13.
At the time of writing, Soil Guideline Values (SGVs)
have been published for five inorganic determinands;
arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and selenium and
six organic determinands; Benzene, Toluene, Xylene
Phenol, Dioxins and Ethylbenzene. These values are
provided mainly from the updated CLEA UK (V1.04)
model as screening values and are generally
considered conservative, hence where the SGVs are
not exceeded, the risk to humans from long term
exposure is considered low to negligible.
For substances for which there are no official
published SGVs or for which updated published
values are not yet available, comparison is made to
the previously published guidance to give an
indication of relative contaminant levels.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 18 of 22
Since in general, the updated published SGV’s are
returning new values higher than the previous values,
the former are still considered reasonable for
comparison and guidance. It is generally assumed at
the time of writing that most current SGV’s will
probably increase rather than decrease. However,
reassessment against the new screening values will
be required as and when they become available.
In addition, reference was made to Generic
Assessment Criteria (GAC) for Human Health
(Chartered Institute of Environmental Health – LQM
2009 Second Edition) - GAC(LQM/CIEH) and Soil
Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk
Assessment (CL:AIRE 2010) a collection of screening
values derived using the current CLEA UK model
but not formally adopted or endorsed by DEFRA or
the EA. SGVs and GAC's both make assumptions
about the methods by which contamination can
reach receptors and assumptions about the amounts
each pathway can transmit in order to derive generic
values for basic screening purposes. In this case
reference will be made to both the "residential
without plant uptake" and the "industrial and
commercial" model and values where appropriate, as
outlined in Section 10.2.
As part of the CLEA assessment process, statistical
analysis of the results employs the concepts of the
Mean Value Test and the Maximum Value Test. The
Mean Value Test applies a factor to the results to
account for inherent uncertainty and predominantly
uses the number of trial holes and/or samples to
determine this factor.
The Mean Value Test gives a 95% confidence limit
(known as a US95) that contaminant concentrations
are likely to fall below this value at any particular
point across the site. However, the Mean Value
Test assumes that the data set will be “normally
distributed”. Where the result of the Mean Value
Test is heavily biased as the result of a single high
contaminant concentration value (i.e. where the data
set does not appear to be “normal”), the Maximum
Value Test is used. The Maximum Value Test
statistically determines whether the highest
concentration recorded is likely to be a statistical
outlier or not given the characteristics of the data
set. If proven to a suitable degree of confidence, the
outlier value should be removed from the data used
in the original Mean Value Test and the US95 should
be recalculated. The results of both statistical
methods are highly dependent on the size of the
data set.
Analysis of the US95 results and average data values
for each contaminant (as recommended in
"Guidance on comparing soil contamination data
with a critical concentration" CL:AIRE/CIEH 2008)
was undertaken. This guidance states that both the
average for the data set and the calculated US95
value need to lie above the chosen guidance value
before they can potentially be considered as
significant. In this case the critical value is the
appropriate SGV for the substance being analysed.
The SGV indicates the level for a given exposure
scenario where there is unlikely to be any significant
possibility of significant harm. Therefore where both
the average and the US95 exceed the critical value,
there is an as yet un-quantified possibility of harm.
The results of the statistical analysis of the soil data
are presented as a spreadsheet following the
analytical certificates in Appendix 13.
10.4.2 Soil Results Summary
The soil results from this investigation are of similar
magnitude to those located over most of the
western site and eastern site during previous site
investigations. The only exception to this was the
results of analyses of Borehole 1 and 1a samples
taken from a location within the landfill to the west
that were considered outliers and have therefore
been removed from further statistical consideration.
Selected data excluding the landfill samples from the
previous Geotechnics Limited investigations
(PC093887, July 2009, Volume 1 – Factual Report
and Additional Report PC094085, January 2010
understood to have been forwarded to the Client -
Communication dated 28th June 2010) has been
incorporated into a second statistical summary. The
identified SA2 0.3m hydrocarbon outlier, believed to
be the result of tarmac or localised organic cross
contamination, has also been removed from
statistical consideration.
The elevated levels of Chromium noted in red on
the spreadsheet reflect the fact that this analyte is
now assessed against both the CrIII and CrVI values.
It is considered unlikely that the CrVI percentage of
the total Chromium will exceed 10% even when
derived from a manufactured source as may be the
case in the landfill for instance. If correct, this
assumption would place the true values for the
whole site as being an average of 3.7 mg/kg and a
US95 of 4.4 mg/kg respectively. The average value
for CrVI therefore probably lies below and the US95
only marginally above the residential SGV of 4.3
mg/kg and would not therefore be significant. No
asbestos fibres have been detected in the samples
analysed and no fibrous materials were recorded
during the investigation.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 19 of 22
Elevated levels of Vanadium in excess of the
residential SGV were detected in two samples (BH4
140mg/kg and WS8 0.1-0.3m) on the western site.
Arsenic was also elevated in excess of the residential
SGV at WS8 0.1-0.3m. It is noted however that both
samples also indicate slightly elevated results for
Nickel and Zinc, which could suggest a manufactured
source for these results. The sample underlying WS8
0.1-0.3m - WS8 0.3-1.2m - was also analysed and
showed no elevated levels of any of the above
contaminants suggesting that this is a highly localised
surface contamination and is probably unlikely to
significantly leach. It was noted on the day of the
soakaway monitoring visit (19th August 2010) that
motorcycle riding was being undertaken in this
general area.
However, on the basis that mineral abstraction for
metals (notably iron in the Northamptonshire
Sandstones) is known in the area, it could be the
case that the elevated levels are purely natural
increases or the result of incorporation of elevated
natural local material into site fills.
On removal of the values for the landfill and
erroneous SA2 hydrocarbon outlier, none of the
remaining combined samples were determined as
outliers to 95% or greater confidence levels and
therefore cannot be considered true hotspots. None
of the results to date are considered significant as
neither the average nor the US95 (or both) lie below
the residential SGV’s for that determinand.
10.5 Monitoring Results
10.5.1 Groundwater
The results of the groundwater samples taken on 9th
September 2010 are enclosed as Appendix 14. The
results indicate that the majority of analytes lie at
levels considered to be less significant than those in
the current drinking water standards. Sulphate is
slightly elevated in a couple of samples (HWS5 and
RO3) but could easily be the result of the hardness
expected in the waters from this area and the
underlying clay geology and is not therefore
considered significant from an environmental point.
Of more interest are the elevated Extractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbon (C10-C40) results from
RO2 and RO3. The results to date from the site
indicate that when elevated hydrocarbons are
located they tend to be heavy organic as opposed to
fuel materials and are also usually associated with
increases in organic matter.
However, whilst RO3 shows an appropriate increase
in organic matter and other determinands that
suggests it may be natural, a similar trend is not so
clearly apparent in the results for RO2. Whilst RO2
was being sampled, no visual or olfactory evidence of
oils was noted by the sampler and no significant bulk
gasses, carbon monoxide or sulphur dioxide that
might indicate the presence of fuel oils has been
found to date.
However, the value is still relatively low (1.6 ppm)
and the lack of elevated metals would tend to
contra-indicate it being a leachate from the landfill to
the west. RO2 was installed with a response zone
between 3.0 and 6.3m in presumed natural Upper
Esturine deposits. As such no definitive source for
this result has been located. The analytical
laboratory has provided a copy of the trace for this
sample and whilst there are some small individual
peaks, none stands out as being the prime source of
the elevated level. This would suggest it is not from
a fresh systematic single source such as would be
expected from contamination by the drilling, or
sampling process.
However it does have some slight similarities to
traces from very heavily degraded fuel oils and
rotting biological materials that have been in the
ground for long periods of time. This would also
explain the lack of any associated PAH, which would
usually disassociate from such material as transit
time increased. If the source were a local one (such
as school heating or brick laying area) it would be
generally expected that the other results would
reflect this more clearly. This leads either to the
conclusion that it is a highly localised source (past
spillage or storage in this area?) or that the
underlying fracture flow mechanism has
concentrated this material preferentially over other
locations. It may also be the case that this is the
result of the location being adjacent to a major
fracture receiving water from greater distance than
the other locations.
It is strongly recommended however, that further
samples be taken and analysed for organic materials
to determine whether or not this is an isolated or
systematic result for the location itself. Water can
vary quite significantly over time and as such the
particular waters sampled on the day of the visit may
not be representative of the underlying situation.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 20 of 22
10.5.2 Ground Gas
The results of monitoring undertaken to date
indicate that there were marginally elevated levels of
carbon dioxide in several locations but no methane
and no measurable flow over most of the site. As
previously, the one exception is Borehole 1A
associated with the landfill site which showed
elevated levels of both methane and carbon dioxide
but no flow. The results are enclosed in Appendix 8.
CIRIA C665 (Assessing risks posed by hazardous
ground gases to buildings: CIRIA, 2008) uses Gas
Screening Values (GSV's) to determine the risk from
ground gas to a development and the appropriate
measures that should be incorporated into the
building design. The GSV for the site based on the
monitoring visits is based on the maximum gas
concentration recorded in percent combined with
the worst case flow rate in litres per hour. Where
any figure is less than the detection level of the
instrument for that parameter, the value used in the
calculation is required to default to the detection
level.
The worst case for the site excluding the landfill
borehole is a recorded value of 4.3% carbon dioxide
in HBH4 (western site) on the fourth visit. This gives
a GSV of 0.043 x 0.1 = 0.0043 l/hr. This value lies
significantly below the upper limit of CS1 of <0.07
and is therefore characterised as Characteristic
Situation 1 (CS1) meaning no special measures are
required and risk is considered very low. However,
as there is certainly carbon dioxide and methane
recorded above 5% from the landfill, it may be
prudent to consider raising the level of protection to
CS2 for any buildings proposed within 250m of the
landfill. When considering only the gases recorded
on the eastern side of the site, none have show any
significant levels of gas to date and no additional
measures are considered likely to be required.
The lack of any significant levels of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide or hydrogen sulphide being
detected in the boreholes would normally indicate
that it is unlikely that significant levels of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC’s) are present. Given the
number of visits and the range of atmospheric
conditions under which the monitoring has been
undertaken and the results obtained, the confidence
in the results is considered very good.
10.6 Risk Assessment
On the basis of the works to date, no significant
evidence of potential ground contamination beyond
that previously identified within the landfill area to
the northwest has been positively identified.
However, this does not preclude the potential for
isolated hotspots that have not been identified
during the previous investigations referenced above.
On the basis of the results to date, the potential for
such hotspots and for them to be potentially
significant is considered low. No significant potential
sources of gas or vapour have been determined in
the non landfill materials analysed to date. Source S1
(on-site school, anticipated made ground from
construction) identified in the Mott Macdonald site
model has been assessed and on the basis of the
results to date is not considered to be potentially
significant. The general risk of ground contamination
over the site, excepting the landfill area, is therefore
considered low.
In relation to the identified gas and vapour risk,
whilst the landfill is clearly producing gas it does not
appear to be producing significant quantities of
vapour. On the basis of the results from all the
locations monitored, the landfill does not appear to
be producing a significant flow or causing gas to pass
in significant quantities below the site. However, this
does not preclude the possibility that gas is migrating
along unknown and unmonitored pathways from the
landfill such as the fault identified on the geological
map to the north of the main site.
The associated risk is considered low to moderate
for the western site and will probably increase with
proximity to the landfill and may increase with
proximity to the fault or other as yet unidentified
pathways. In practice it would therefore be prudent
to consider appropriate gas safety measures and/or
detection procedures when working below site
levels or in confined spaces, especially when in
proximity to the landfill area (Receptor R3 –
Construction and maintenance workers).
The eastern site and proposed buildings are
considered unlikely to require significant gas
measures as they will generally lie beyond 250m of
the landfill boundary and no evidence of significant
levels of gas have been noted to date in the
monitoring results. The risk is therefore considered
low to very low (CS1) on this area of the site.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 21 of 22
As only the landfill (Source S2 – off-site and on-site
historical landfill site) remains as a potentially
significant source, the risk to groundwater is
considered likely to be low to very low from on-site
sources. The risk from the landfill will depend mostly
on whether the site was a dilute and disperse
installation or was lined. In the first case it will then
also depend on the underlying geology in terms of
how it interacts to disperse the leachate (and at
what rate or reduction in concentration over
distance), in which directions it flows and at what
depth. If the latter case it will depend on how intact
the lining remains after nearly 40 years of burial. All
of these facts remain unknown and are beyond the
scope of the investigations to date. The water
samples analysed appear to indicate that no
significant leachate is reaching the eastern area of the
site though the result from RO2 remains
unexplained and further analysis (hydrocarbon
speciation) may provide additional information to
determine the source and if it is derived from the
western site.
On the basis of the results to date, potentially
significant risks may remain from the landfill (Source
S2) but these cannot yet be quantified fully. If it is
assumed that the site disperses into the underlying
aquifers, there is a potential for leachates to pass
below the site. This is considered unlikely to have
potentially significant effects on Site Workers
(Receptor R3) or Site End Users (Receptor R4)
simply due to the depth to such water below the site
(between 3 and 5 meters). However, such leaching
will also have a potential effect on underlying water
quality.
In regards to the potential to create man made or
preferential pathways (Pathway P4) the nature of the
underlying ground, its variable connectivity, the
existing soakaways and the water levels recorded to
date makes it appear unlikely that water significantly
rises from within the underlying aquifers when
encountered except possibly in times of exceptional
rain. As the underlying groundwater may already be
affected by the adjacent landfill, there is a potential
risk of upward movement of contamination, but this
is considered likely to be low to very low on the
basis of the results to date. Additional installations
are considered unlikely to make any significant
difference to the existing situation, especially given
they are likely to be restricted to the eastern side of
the site and that no on-site sources beyond the
landfill have been identified.
The addition of clean surface waters from the
eastern site into the underlying aquifer after
appropriate settlement in holding chambers or
ponds prior to disposal in the soakaway as
recommended by the BGS report, may improve the
underlying water quality by further diluting any
underlying landfill derived contamination.
10.7 Conclusions and
Recommendations
In conclusion, the only potential remaining links from
the Mott Macdonald model and comments would
appear to be:
1) A potential gas risk to site workers in
confined spaces (very low to moderate
depending on proximity to the landfill).
2) A risk from landfill leachate to the
underlying ground water primary and
secondary aquifers (low to moderate).
3) A risk from unidentified hotspots in site fill
materials (low to very low).
4) Radon gas (un-quantified – beyond scope of
works)
5) Asbestos in pavilion (un-quantified – beyond
scope of works).
In the case of gas, this can easily be mitigated by the
use of the appropriate safety protocols, monitoring
and testing being incorporated into the site works
procedures. Likewise in the case of unidentified
hotspots, procedures to identify and remove any
such hotspots located during the works should be
sufficient to mitigate any remaining risk rather than
undertaking significant amounts of additional testing
either pre or post demolition on the western site.
The risk to underlying waters will require further
consultation with the Environment Agency as
regulator of controlled waters and may be facilitated
by consideration of determining the source and
nature of the elevated result noted in the water
sample from RO2.
The above conclusions deliberately exclude any
consideration of works within the landfill boundary
on the basis that no works are currently proposed in
this area. If this situation was to change, a separate
risk assessment and possible additional investigation
works may be required. The conclusions also
specifically exclude consideration of Radon gas and
Asbestos in buildings, both of which issues are
beyond the scope of this report and risk assessment.
Geotechnics Limited Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
The Geotechnical Centre, Factual and Interpretative Report, Project No PC104350, October 2010.
203 Torrington Avenue,
Tile Hill, Coventry.
CV4 9AP Page 22 of 22
Signed for and on behalf of Geotechnics Limited.
C Lange
BSc
Senior Engineer
C G Swainston
BSc, PGCE, CGeol, FGS
Principal Geoenvironmental Engineer
D R Bracegirdle
BSc,MSc,CEng,FIMM,MICE,MHKIE,CGeol,FGS
Principal Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ESTIMATE
Date : 18th August 2010
Estimate No : QC100203b
Title : Buccleuch Academy, Additional Works
Client : Willmott Dixon Construction
Rate Amount
£ £ p
General
1 Provide mobile welfare vehicle if local facilities are not made
available on site
Sum R/Only
2 Locate and level hole locations (priced within existing SI) Sum Geotechnics Ltd
3 Skip for disposal of clean spoil (priced within existing SI) Sum Geotechnics Ltd
4 Mobilise safety barriers (heras or similar) Sum
Inspection of Existing on site Soakaways
5 Provide 2 man team to locate 6No. existing soakaways, lift
inspection covers and report findings
1 Day
Trial Pitting
6 Provide JCB to excavate trial pits. Pits to be backfilled with
arisings and compacted. Full reinstatement not included.
1 Day
Rotary Drilling
7 Mobilise rotary drilling rig, equipment and crew to and from
site, including preparation and submission of copies of daily
site records.
1 Sum
8 Setting up and dismantling rotary rig at the position of each
borehole, including the extraction of casings and backfilling
borehole with arisings (total time for above, not exceeding 1
hour).
2 No
Item
No.Description
Quant-
ityUnit
9 Rotary open hole drill 100mm diameter, 0-20m below
ground level.
30 Lin.m
10 Rotary open hole drill 100mm diameter, 20-40m below
ground level.
Lin.m R/Only
11 Standard Penetration Test in rotary hole (0-20m) No R/Only
12 E.O. Items 9 - 10 for casing. 16 Lin.m
13 Set up and dismantle variable head permeability test within
rotary drill hole
2 No.
14 Carry out variable head permeability test in rotary drill hole
(provisional allowance of time)
2 Hr.
15 Time related activities not covered by other rates e.g.
awaiting further instructions, hand excavation of inspection
pits, reinstatement, etc.
2 Hr.
Well Installation
16 Provide and install simple standpipe/standpipe piezometer,
c/w gravel filter and bentonite seal.
30 Lin.m
17 Provide and install lockable flush cover. 2 No
18 Monitor Installations (priced within existing SI) 6 Visit Geotechnics Ltd
Total fieldwork cost based upon estimated quantities above.
Laboratory Testing
19 Determination of moisture content 4 No.
20 Determination of particle size distribution 2 No.
21 Sedimentation by pipette 2 No.
22 Determination of dry density/moisture content relationship
using 2.5kg rammer
4 No.
23 E.O Item 22 using 4.5kg rammer No. R/Only
24 Determination of California Bearing Ratio - 2.5kg compaction
at natural moisture content
4 No.
25 E.O Item 24 using 4.5kg rammer No. R/Only
Professional Services & Reporting
21 Enquiries to Statutory Undertakers Sum Client
22 Provision of on site Services Information Sum Client
23 Provide desk top study to confirm the groundwater flow
regime of the site area
Sum
24 Engineering supervision on site 2 Day
25 Professional Services for carrying out project management,
logging and incorporate information into combined
factual/interpretation report.
Sum
26 Undertake interpretation/analysis.
a Principal Engineer - Geotechnical. 4 Hr
b Principal Engineer - Environmental (to update existing Mott
MacDonald Conceptual Site Model)
3 Hr
Estimate Total (excluding VAT)
Insurance excess to be reimbursed should services not
disclosed by the client prior to starting contract be
accidentally damaged during site works (see Clause 4 of our
Conditions of Offer
Sum
Your Ref : - Our Ref : AD/QC100203 Date : 15 September 2010 Willmott Dixon Construction Limited Chantry House High Street Coleshill Birmingham B46 3BP For the attention of Mr Chris Kinman Dear Sirs Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Investigation Quotation : Northamptonshire Academies,
Weekly Glebe Ground Investigation. We refer to our recent meeting of 25th June 2010 regarding additional Ground Investigation at the Montagu School site and respond with our quotation for a scope of work which we consider would fulfil your requirements within the area of the proposed new school site not previously covered by the original investigation undertaken by Geotechnics Ltd in May 2009 carried out to the instructions of Mott MacDonald (the Engineer) on behalf of the Client, Northamptonshire County Council. Our quotation is based on an investigation which involves the review of existing desk study information, a single day trial pitting survey to approximate depths of 4m, the sinking of 6No. boreholes using cable percussion techniques to approximate depths of 8m, in situ testing, laboratory testing, groundwater/gas monitoring and reporting as detailed on the attached estimate. All work will be re-measured on completion and Geotechnics Ltd will advise you verbally and subsequently in writing should site and ground conditions dictate that additional or amended works be considered necessary and the estimated costs and contract period are likely to be exceeded. In formulating our quotation, we have estimated quantities and costs on the following basis and included a provisional sum for laboratory testing: a) Undisturbed samples or Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) at 1m intervals to 5m depth and 1.5m
thereafter. b) Disturbed samples associated with each SPT or U100 and small disturbed samples at the approximate
rate of 1 no. per metre drilled or excavated and at each change in strata.
c) We have allowed for 1No. class one sample to be taken within each scheduled borehole to allow for undrained shear strength and consolidation testing to new euro code standards.
d) We have assumed drive on access by a Land Rover towed cable percussion boring rig and a mechanical
excavator is available, together with unlimited headroom. We have also provided rates for other activities which may be required such as: a) The excavation of inspection pits at every borehole location.
b) Chiselling obstructions c) Monitoring of existing standpipes installed during the original fieldworks (May 2009) for gas/groundwater
levels in the long term. We have included a contingency sum to cover these items, as considered appropriate to the available information. As detailed on the enclosed Conditions of Offer, the Employer, or his appointed representative, will be responsible for notifying Geotechnics Ltd of the location of any services, utilities or buried structures present on the site. No work can be started on site until such information is made available. In the absence of such information we would be pleased to undertake enquiries with the statutory undertakers or, in the case of private sites, organise an on-site services search by a specialist company. The costs for undertaking these services are included on the enclosed estimate as rate-only items. It should be recognised that the information from a specialist company can be provided in CAD format to become a permanent record for inclusion in the site H&S File for the project. We ask you to note that it is company policy to excavate service inspection pits to 1.2m at all borehole locations unless instructed in writing by the Client/Engineer not to do so. Any such written instruction would relieve Geotechnics Ltd of any liability for damage to underground apparatus. According to our present commitments we could implement the desk study review process immediately and, subject to its findings and the availability of the information on services, fieldwork would commence within about two weeks from receipt of your written instruction. We estimate that the fieldwork would take about one week and our final report would be submitted to you within six weeks of the end of site work. Preliminary information would be made available to you throughout. We would draw to your attention the enclosed Conditions of Offer, Investigation Techniques and General Notes and trust that you will find these of assistance in evaluating our submission. If you do not consider that our proposals meet your requirements and wish to amend the scope of work, we would be pleased to respond to your comments.
Should you require any other information in the meantime or wish to discuss the scope of the work proposed, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully A Demetriou - Estimator for GEOTECHNICS LIMITED – Head Office email: ademetriou@geotechnics.co.uk Enc
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ESTIMATE
Date : 30th June 2010
Estimate No : QC100203a
Title : Northamptonshire Academies, Weekly Glebe Ground
Investigation
Client : Willmot Dixon Construction Limited
Rate Amount
£ £ p
General
1 Provide on site toilet and store including mobilisation to and
from site
Sum
2 Locate and level hole locations Sum
3 Skip for disposal of clean spoil Sum
Trial Pitting
4 Provide JCB to excavate trial pits. Pits to be backfilled with
arisings and compacted. Full reinstatement not included.
1 Day
5 Provide breaker attachment for JCB. Day R/Only
Cable Percussion Boring
6 Mobilise cable percussion boring rig, equipment and crew to
and from site, including preparation and submission of copies
of daily site records.
Sum
7 Setting up and dismantling cable percussion boring rig at the
position of each borehole, including the extraction of casings
and backfilling borehole with arisings (total time for above,
not exceeding 1 hour).
6 No.
8 Time related activities not covered by other rates e.g.
awaiting further instructions, hand excavation of inspection
pits, reinstatement, etc.
6 Hr.
Item
No.Description
Quant-
ityUnit
9 Cable percussion boring 150mm dia.through soils and fills, 0-
10m below ground level.
48 Lin.m
10 Cable percussion boring 150mm dia. through soils and fills,
10-20m below ground level.
Lin.m R/Only
11 E.O. Item 9 - 10 for advancing borehole through rock or
other obstruction.
Hr R/Only
Sampling and Insitu Testing
12 Undisturbed 100mm diameter sample (U100) 12 No
13 Undisturbed class one - 100mm diameter sample (UT100) 6 No
14 Standard Penetration Test (0-20m) 24 No
15 Small disturbed/groundwater sample. 48 No
16 Bulk disturbed sample. 24 No
17 Environmental/contamination sampling setts 12 No
Well Installation
18 Provide and install simple standpipe/standpipe piezometer,
c/w gravel filter and bentonite seal.
24 Lin.m
19 Provide and install lockable flush cover. 3 No
20 Monitor Installations 6 Visit
21 E.O item 20 to monitor existing 3No. Installations present on
site from orginal GI dated July 2009 on same day
Visit R/Only
Total fieldwork cost based upon estimated quantities above.
Laboratory Testing - Geotechnical
22 Suggested allowance for Laboratory Testing (at enclosed
Standard Rates April 2010) Includes 15% discount
Allow
Laboratory Testing - Contamination
23 Geotechnics - Soil Suite 1 10 Suite
24 Geotechnics - Soil Suite 2 (Dependant option) Suite R/Only
25 Geotechnics - Soil Suite 6 10 Suite
26 Geotechnics - Soil Suite 8 (Dependant option) Suite R/Only
27 Geotechnics - Soil Suite 9 (Dependant option) Suite R/Only
28 Suggested allowance for Contamination Analysis based on
CLR8 guidelines - Water (if encountered)
Suite R/Only
Professional Services & Reporting
29 Enquiries to Statutory Undertakers Sum Client
30 Provision On Site Services Information Sum Client
31 Review of existing Groundshore desk study dated March
2009
Sum
32 Engineering supervision on site 5 Day
33 Professional Services for carrying out project management,
logging and preparation of factual report.
Sum
34 Undertake interpretation/analysis.
a Principal Engineer - Geotechnical. 8 Hr
b Principal Engineer - Environmental. 6 Hr
Estimate Total (excluding VAT)
Insurance excess to be reimbursed should services not
disclosed by the client prior to starting contract be
accidentally damaged during site works (see Clause 4 of our
Conditions of Offer
Sum
From: Adam Demetriou Sent: 18 August 2010 13:16 To: 'Chris Kinman'; 'steve.brown@ctm-uk.com' Cc: Terry Clark; Trevor Hardie; Chris Swainston; Clive Lange; Tomasz Zuk; PC104350 Subject: RE: Buccleuch Academy, Additional Works Attachments: Site Investigation Pre-Meeting160810.doc; Buccleuch Academy, Original Scope of Works) - BoQ.xls; Exploratory Hole Location Plan.pdf; Buccleuch Academy, Additional Works - Quotation QC100203b.xls
Dear Chris Please find attached our quotation to provide additional Site Investigation Services for the above site as per attached Minutes of our Meeting dated 16th August 2010. Our intention is to incorporate the additional site works into the investigation already agreed (attached original scope of works) to commence Monday 23rd to Friday 27th August 2010 Also attached is the revised exploratory hole location plan. Proposed groundwater and gas monitoring
installations are preliminary scheduled to be installed within BH2, BH4, BH6, RO1 & RO2. Please can you advise at your earliest convenience if works are to proceed on this basis. Kind Regards
Adam Demetriou - Estimator
Geotechnics Ltd - Head Office
The Geotechnical Centre 203 Torrington Avenue Tile Hill Coventry CV4 9AP Tel: 024 76694664 Fax: 024 76694642 Mob: 07919215719 ademetriou@geotechnics.co.uk www.geotechnics.co.uk
SITE LOCATION PLAN
Ground InvestigationatBuccleuch Academy, KetteringforWillmott Dixon Construction Limited
© Crown Copyright Reserved, OS License Number: 100020449
Location of Soakaway east of Sports Hall (SA1) SA1 Eastern Chamber
SA1 Central Chamber SA1 Western Chamber with borehole
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
SA2 Northern Chamber SA2 Southern Chamber
Soakaway West of Sports Hall with Borehole (SA2)
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway Far West of Sports Hall (SA3) SA3 Western Chamber
SA3 Central Chamber SA3 Eastern Chamber with Borehole
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway south of Humanities Block (SA4) SA4 Western Chamber
SA4 Central Chamber
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway west of Former English Block (SA5) SA5 Eastern Chamber
SA5 Western Chamber with Borehole
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway north of Former English Block (SA6) SA6 No borehole visible
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Form REP002 Rev 1
DATA SHEET - Symbols and Abbreviations used on Records Sample Types B Bulk disturbed sample
BLK Block sample
C Core sample
D Small disturbed sample (tub/jar)
E Environmental test sample
ES Environmental soil sample
EW Environmental water sample
G Gas sample
L Liner sample
P Piston sample (PF - failed P sample)
TW Thin walled push in sample
U Open Tube - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UF - failed U sample)
UT Thin wall open drive tube sampler - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UTF - failed UT sample)
V Vial sample
W Water sample
# Sample Not Recovered
Insitu Testing / Properties S Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) C SPT with cone VN Strength from Insitu Vane HV Strength from Hand Vane PP Strength from Pocket
Penetrometer (All other strengths from undrained
triaxial testing) w% Water content N SPT Result -/- Blows/penetration (mm)
after 150mm seating. -*/- Total blows/penetration (mm) ( ) Extrapolated value
Rotary Core
RQD Rock Quality Designation (% of intact core >100mm) FRACTURE INDEX Fractures/metre FRACTURE Maximum SPACING (mm) Minimum NI Non-intact core NR No core recovery (where core recovery is unknown it is assumed to be at the base of the run)
Groundwater Water Strike Depth Water Rose To
Instrumentation Seal Filter Seal
Strata
Made Ground Type 1 Type 2 Topsoil Cobbles and Boulders Gravel
Sand Silt Clay Peat Note: Composite soil types shown by combined symbols Chalk Limestone Sandstone Coal
Strata, Continued Mudstone Siltstone Metamorphic Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained Igneous Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained
Backfill Materials Arisings Bentonite Seal Concrete Fine Gravel Filter General Fill Gravel Filter Grout Sand Filter Tarmacadam
Form REP002 Rev 1
DATA SHEET - Symbols and Abbreviations used on Records Sample Types B Bulk disturbed sample
BLK Block sample
C Core sample
D Small disturbed sample (tub/jar)
E Environmental test sample
ES Environmental soil sample
EW Environmental water sample
G Gas sample
L Liner sample
P Piston sample (PF - failed P sample)
TW Thin walled push in sample
U Open Tube - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UF - failed U sample)
UT Thin wall open drive tube sampler - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UTF - failed UT sample)
V Vial sample
W Water sample
# Sample Not Recovered
Insitu Testing / Properties S Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) C SPT with cone VN Strength from Insitu Vane HV Strength from Hand Vane PP Strength from Pocket
Penetrometer (All other strengths from undrained
triaxial testing) w% Water content N SPT Result -/- Blows/penetration (mm)
after 150mm seating. -*/- Total blows/penetration (mm) ( ) Extrapolated value
Rotary Core
RQD Rock Quality Designation (% of intact core >100mm) FRACTURE INDEX Fractures/metre FRACTURE Maximum SPACING (mm) Minimum NI Non-intact core NR No core recovery (where core recovery is unknown it is assumed to be at the base of the run)
Groundwater Water Strike Depth Water Rose To
Instrumentation Seal Filter Seal
Strata
Made Ground Type 1 Type 2 Topsoil Cobbles and Boulders Gravel
Sand Silt Clay Peat Note: Composite soil types shown by combined symbols Chalk Limestone Sandstone Coal
Strata, Continued Mudstone Siltstone Metamorphic Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained Igneous Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained
Backfill Materials Arisings Bentonite Seal Concrete Fine Gravel Filter General Fill Gravel Filter Grout Sand Filter Tarmacadam
Form REP002 Rev 1
DATA SHEET - Symbols and Abbreviations used on Records Sample Types B Bulk disturbed sample
BLK Block sample
C Core sample
D Small disturbed sample (tub/jar)
E Environmental test sample
ES Environmental soil sample
EW Environmental water sample
G Gas sample
L Liner sample
P Piston sample (PF - failed P sample)
TW Thin walled push in sample
U Open Tube - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UF - failed U sample)
UT Thin wall open drive tube sampler - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UTF - failed UT sample)
V Vial sample
W Water sample
# Sample Not Recovered
Insitu Testing / Properties S Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) C SPT with cone VN Strength from Insitu Vane HV Strength from Hand Vane PP Strength from Pocket
Penetrometer (All other strengths from undrained
triaxial testing) w% Water content N SPT Result -/- Blows/penetration (mm)
after 150mm seating. -*/- Total blows/penetration (mm) ( ) Extrapolated value
Rotary Core
RQD Rock Quality Designation (% of intact core >100mm) FRACTURE INDEX Fractures/metre FRACTURE Maximum SPACING (mm) Minimum NI Non-intact core NR No core recovery (where core recovery is unknown it is assumed to be at the base of the run)
Groundwater Water Strike Depth Water Rose To
Instrumentation Seal Filter Seal
Strata
Made Ground Type 1 Type 2 Topsoil Cobbles and Boulders Gravel
Sand Silt Clay Peat Note: Composite soil types shown by combined symbols Chalk Limestone Sandstone Coal
Strata, Continued Mudstone Siltstone Metamorphic Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained Igneous Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained
Backfill Materials Arisings Bentonite Seal Concrete Fine Gravel Filter General Fill Gravel Filter Grout Sand Filter Tarmacadam
TP4 (inside)
TP4 (Spoil)
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
FIELDWORK - Water Level MonitoringProject
Client
Project No
Borehole
Instrument (dia. mm)
Depth to Base (m)
Filter Zone
Level
(m)
Depth
(m)Date
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERINGPC104350
Sheet No
Time LevelDepth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
BH4 BH6 HBH1A HBH4 HBS5 RO1
S (50mm)
6.80
0.50-6.80
97.74 m OD
S (50mm)
5.00
0.50-5.00
97.07 m OD
(0mm)
8.60
(0mm)
9.94
(0mm)
4.65
S (50mm)
19.00
6.00-19.00
95.59 m OD
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1
3 Sep 2010 5.86 91.88
3 Sep 2010 DRY
3 Sep 2010 11.30 84.29
10 Sep 2010 6.00 91.74
10 Sep 2010 DRY
10 Sep 2010 DRY
10 Sep 2010 DRY
10 Sep 2010 2.32
10 Sep 2010 14.60 80.99
30 Sep 2010 6.32 91.42
30 Sep 2010 DRY
30 Sep 2010 DRY
30 Sep 2010 DRY
30 Sep 2010 2.04
30 Sep 2010 14.99 80.60
12 Oct 2010 5.75 91.99
12 Oct 2010 DRY
12 Oct 2010 DRY
12 Oct 2010 DRY
12 Oct 2010 2.27
12 Oct 2010 10.96 84.63
26 Oct 2010 6.04 91.70
26 Oct 2010 DRY
26 Oct 2010 DRY
26 Oct 2010 DRY
26 Oct 2010 2.31
26 Oct 2010 14.94 80.65
9 Nov 2010 5.90 91.84
9 Nov 2010 4.37 92.70
9 Nov 2010 8.59
Remarks
Symbols andabbreviations areexplained on theaccompanyingkey sheet.
All dimensionsare in metres.
FIELDWORK - Water Level MonitoringProject
Client
Project No
Borehole
Instrument (dia. mm)
Depth to Base (m)
Filter Zone
Level
(m)
Depth
(m)Date
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERINGPC104350
Sheet No
Time LevelDepth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
BH4 BH6 HBH1A HBH4 HBS5 RO1
S (50mm)
6.80
0.50-6.80
97.74 m OD
S (50mm)
5.00
0.50-5.00
97.07 m OD
(0mm)
8.60
(0mm)
9.94
(0mm)
4.65
S (50mm)
19.00
6.00-19.00
95.59 m OD
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1
9 Nov 2010 DRY
9 Nov 2010 1.38
9 Nov 2010 14.83 80.76
Remarks
Symbols andabbreviations areexplained on theaccompanyingkey sheet.
All dimensionsare in metres.
FIELDWORK - Water Level MonitoringProject
Client
Project No
Borehole
Instrument (dia. mm)
Depth to Base (m)
Filter Zone
Level
(m)
Depth
(m)Date
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERINGPC104350
Sheet No
Time LevelDepth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
Depth
(m)Level
RO2 RO3
S (50mm)
6.30
0.50-6.30
96.57 m OD
S (50mm)
9.00
0.50-9.00
99.26 m OD
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 2
3 Sep 2010 4.48 92.09
3 Sep 2010 6.72 92.54
10 Sep 2010 4.64 91.93
10 Sep 2010 6.82 92.44
30 Sep 2010 4.89 91.68
30 Sep 2010 7.22 92.04
12 Oct 2010 4.39 92.18
12 Oct 2010 6.58 92.68
26 Oct 2010 4.68 91.89
26 Oct 2010 6.64 92.62
9 Nov 2010 4.00 92.57
9 Nov 2010 6.48 92.78
Remarks
Symbols andabbreviations areexplained on theaccompanyingkey sheet.
All dimensionsare in metres.
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
BH4
Standpipe 50mm
6.80m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 6.80m 97.74 m OD
25 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 5.86 <1 <1
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.6 18.3
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.7 18.0
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.7 17.6
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.7 17.6
10-Sep-2010 6.00 <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 <0.1 20.7
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.3
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.4 19.6
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.7 18.4
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.7 18.4
30-Sep-2010 6.32 <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.1 17.1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.3 16.1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.4 15.5
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.4 15.5
12-Oct-2010 5.75 <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.4 20.3
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.4 20.3
26-Oct-2010 6.04 <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.3
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.4
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.4
9-Nov-2010 5.90 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.9 17.8
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.8 18.6
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.8 18.6
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
BH4
Standpipe 50mm
6.80m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 6.80m 97.74 m OD
25 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 1006 12.50 +0.26 -0.0
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010 1000 15.00 +0.23 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.40 +0.37 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.80 -0.03 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1005 8.00 +0.00 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 961 7.10 +0.10 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
BH6
Standpipe 50mm
5.00m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 5.00m 97.07 m OD
26 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 DRY <1 <1
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.7
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.7
10-Sep-2010 DRY <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.0 19.7
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.0 19.7
30-Sep-2010 DRY <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 18.0
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 18.0
12-Oct-2010 DRY <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
26-Oct-2010 DRY <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 1.2 19.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 1.2 19.5
9-Nov-2010 4.37 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 3.9 13.8
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 3.9 13.0
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 3.9 13.0
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
BH6
Standpipe 50mm
5.00m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 5.00m 97.07 m OD
26 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 1006 12.80 +1.57 -0.0
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010 1001 15.00 +1.51 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.30 +0.30 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.80 +1.36 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1004 7.80 +1.05 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 961 7.10 +0.29 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
HBH1A
Electronic piezometer -
8.60m
-
10-Sep-2010 DRY <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 21.0 >lel 22.0 1.2
10-Sep-2010 21.6 >lel 22.0 0.3
10-Sep-2010 21.9 >lel 22.0 <0.1
10-Sep-2010 21.9 >lel 22.0 <0.1
30-Sep-2010 DRY <1 4
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.3
30-Sep-2010 32.2 >lel 24.1 1.0
30-Sep-2010 32.7 >lel 24.0 <0.1
30-Sep-2010 32.7 >lel 24.0 <0.1
12-Oct-2010 DRY <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
12-Oct-2010 25.9 >lel 23.5 3.5
12-Oct-2010 25.9 >lel 22.6 1.2
12-Oct-2010 26.1 >lel 22.6 0.9
12-Oct-2010 26.1 >lel 22.6 0.9
26-Oct-2010 DRY <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.2
26-Oct-2010 13.5 >lel 20.3 1.0
26-Oct-2010 13.6 >lel 20.3 <0.1
26-Oct-2010 13.6 >lel 20.3 <0.1
9-Nov-2010 8.59 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.4
9-Nov-2010 35.2 >lel 24.3 1.6
9-Nov-2010 35.2 >lel 24.5 <0.1
9-Nov-2010 35.2 >lel 24.5 <0.1
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
HBH1A
Electronic piezometer -
8.60m
-
10-Sep-2010 1001 14.30 +0.78 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.20 +0.66 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.70 +0.99 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1005 7.20 +1.20 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 961 7.00 +1.38 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
HBH4
Electronic piezometer -
9.94m
-
10-Sep-2010 DRY <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 4.1 13.4
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 4.1 13.0
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 4.1 13.0
30-Sep-2010 DRY <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 3.1 17.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 3.2 17.4
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 3.6 17.0
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 3.7 16.8
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 3.7 16.8
12-Oct-2010 DRY <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.6
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 3.0 17.2
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 3.2 16.8
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 3.2 16.8
26-Oct-2010 DRY <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 4.3 15.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 4.3 14.4
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 4.3 14.4
9-Nov-2010 DRY <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 4.1 16.0
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 4.1 14.9
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 4.1 14.9
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
HBH4
Electronic piezometer -
9.94m
-
10-Sep-2010 1001 14.40 +1.00 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.10 +0.57 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.60 +0.56 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1005 6.80 +0.27 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 960 7.00 +1.99 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
HBS5
Electronic piezometer -
4.65m
-
10-Sep-2010 2.32 <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.3
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.3 20.3
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.3 20.3
30-Sep-2010 2.04 <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.0
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.0
12-Oct-2010 2.27 <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.5 19.4
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.5 19.4
26-Oct-2010 2.31 <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 19.7
9-Nov-2010 1.38 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 19.9
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 19.9
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
HBS5
Electronic piezometer -
4.65m
-
10-Sep-2010 1000 14.60 +0.53 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 997 15.70 +0.39 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.60 +0.37 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1005 6.80 +1.67 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 960 7.20 +2.03 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
RO1
Standpipe 50mm
19.00m Flush lockable protective cover
6.00 - 19.00m 95.59 m OD
24 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 11.30 <1 <1
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.1
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.1
10-Sep-2010 14.60 <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
30-Sep-2010 14.99 <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.3
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.3
12-Oct-2010 10.96 <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 14.94 <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 2.7 17.9
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 2.7 17.9
9-Nov-2010 14.83 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
RO1
Standpipe 50mm
19.00m Flush lockable protective cover
6.00 - 19.00m 95.59 m OD
24 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 1007 12.40 +0.94 -0.0
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010 1001 14.60 +0.87 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.00 -0.04 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.70 -0.21 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1005 7.20 +0.46 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 961 7.10 -0.57 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
RO2
Standpipe 50mm
6.30m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 6.30m 96.57 m OD
25 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 4.48 <1 <1
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 4.64 <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.6 19.9
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.6 19.9
30-Sep-2010 4.89 <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 15.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.5 16.5
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.5 16.5
12-Oct-2010 4.39 <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.4
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.6
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.6
26-Oct-2010 4.68 <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.8 17.6
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.6 18.6
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.6 19.7
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.3 19.7
9-Nov-2010 4.00 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 1.5 16.3
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 3.6 14.6
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 3.7 13.9
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 3.7 13.9
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
RO2
Standpipe 50mm
6.30m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 6.30m 96.57 m OD
25 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 1007 12.90 +0.67 -0.0
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010 1001 14.30 -0.10 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.20 +0.18 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.70 +0.55 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1004 7.80 +0.06 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 961 7.20 +0.53 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Depth to Water
(m bgl)
Methane
CH4 (% VOL)
Methane
CH4 (% LEL)
Carbon Dioxide CO2
(% VOL)
Oxygen
O2 (% VOL)
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S
(ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (1 of 2)
RO3
Standpipe 50mm
9.00m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 9.00m 99.26 m OD
25 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 6.72 <1 <1
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.8
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 18.6
3-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 18.6
10-Sep-2010 6.82 <1 <1
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 <0.1 20.7
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.3 20.4
10-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.3 20.4
30-Sep-2010 7.22 <1 <1
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 <0.1 20.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.6
30-Sep-2010 <0.1 <2 0.2 20.6
12-Oct-2010 6.58 <1 <1
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
12-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.7
26-Oct-2010 6.64 <1 <1
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 1.0 20.0
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 1.3 19.7
26-Oct-2010 <0.1 <2 1.3 19.7
9-Nov-2010 6.48 <1 <1
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 0.1 20.5
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 1.2 19.3
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 19.0
9-Nov-2010 <0.1 <2 1.9 19.0
FIELDWORK - Insitu Gas Monitoring - Instrument RecordProject Project No
BoreholeClient Sheet No.
Installation Details
Installation Type DiameterDepth to Base Cover TypeFilter Zone Ground LevelDate Installed
Date Time
Remarks
Form 003/1
Barometric Pressure
(mBars)
Air Temp.
(DegC)
Diff. Pressure
(mBars)
Flow Rate (Peak/Stable)
(l/hr)
Remarks
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING PC104350
WILLMOTT DIXON CONSTRUCTION LTD 1 (2 of 2)
RO3
Standpipe 50mm
9.00m Flush lockable protective cover
0.50 - 9.00m 99.26 m OD
25 August 2010
3-Sep-2010 1006 12.60 +0.03 -0.0
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
3-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010 1000 15.10 +0.03 -0.0
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
10-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010 998 16.30 +0.53 -0.0
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
30-Sep-2010
12-Oct-2010 1005 11.80 +0.00 -0.0
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
12-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010 1004 8.00 +0.11 -0.0
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
26-Oct-2010
9-Nov-2010 961 7.00 +0.93 -0.0
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
9-Nov-2010
Project No
Hole dia (m)=0.110
Pipe dia (m)= 0.050
(minutes) (m) (minutes) (m)
0.0 6.080 Datum (m) =
0.5 6.070
1.0 6.070
1.5 6.060
2.0 6.060
2.5 6.060
3.0 6.060
3.5 6.060 WL
4.0 6.060 Before 6.250
4.5 6.050 After 6.250
5.0 6.050
6.0 6.050
7.0 6.050
8.0 6.050
9.0 6.050
10.0 6.050
15.0 6.040
20.0 6.040
25.0 6.040 m
30.0 6.040 m
40.0 6.030 m
50.0 6.020 m
60.0 6.020 m
m
m2
m
mins
5.839
0.000 mins
60.000 mins
(1.440)
(1.380)
Depth of
borehole below
GL (m)
(GENERAL APPROACH)VARIABLE HEAD TEST
Differential head at start (Ho)
Diameter for shape factor (Ds)
(1.440)
3.350
Depth to
Ground
water (m) =
0.110
PC104350
Project RO2Borehole
Top of
Casing
Test No
Date 10.09.10
1 ( C)
ELAPSED TIME
Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
ELAPSED
TIME
(Continued)
(negative value if above ground)
Height of
casing/Datum
above GL (m) =
Remarks
Head at Time t1 (H1)
Head at Time t2 (H2)
0.00
Depth of casing
below GL (m)=
Depth to Standing Water Level
Depth to Induced Water Level 6.080
4.640
1.96E-03
0.050
1.380
60.000
3.98E-09
KS
m/sec
Intake factor (F)
Time (t1)
Time (t2)
Permeability (K)=A/(F[t2-t1])*loge(H1/H2)
Area of borehole (A)
Persons present during test:
Head at end of Test (Hf)
Time Elapsed at end of test (tf)
Type of Test
INSITU TESTING - Permeability (Borehole)Form INS005 Rev 1
Sheet 1 of 2
Depth of water
below Top of
Casing
(continued)
4.64
Length of
test section
(m) = 3.35
2.90
Depth of water
below Top of
Casing
Shape factor derived from BS5930: 1999: Section 4
Diameter for flow (D f)
Test Length (L)
Falling Head
Project No
(mins) (m) (m)
6.08 (1.44) 1.00
0.50 6.07 (1.43) 0.99
1.00 6.07 (1.43) 0.99
1.50 6.06 (1.42) 0.99
2.00 6.06 (1.42) 0.99
2.50 6.06 (1.42) 0.99
3.00 6.06 (1.42) 0.99
3.50 6.06 (1.42) 0.99
4.00 6.06 (1.42) 0.99
4.50 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
5.00 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
6.00 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
7.00 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
8.00 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
9.00 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
10.00 6.05 (1.41) 0.98
15.00 6.04 (1.40) 0.97
20.00 6.04 (1.40) 0.97
25.00 6.04 (1.40) 0.97
30.00 6.04 (1.40) 0.97
40.00 6.03 (1.39) 0.97
50.00 6.02 (1.38) 0.96
60.00 6.02 (1.38) 0.96
6.05
6.04
PC104350 Date
6.05
6.05
Time
Remarks
6.07
6.07
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.04
INSITU TESTING - Permeability (Borehole)
Relative Depth
from Ground
Level
Form INS005 Rev 1
Sheet 2 of 2
Buccleuch Academy, Kettering Borehole RO2
Test No 1 ( C)Project
10.09.10
Shape factor derived from BS5930: 1999: Section 4
Ht Ht/HoMeasured
Depth
(m)
6.08
6.04
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.06
6.05
6.05
6.05
6.03
6.02
6.02
Time at ratio H/Ho=.37 :
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
0.101.00
Head ratio Ht/Ho (log scale)
Ela
pse
d t
ime t
(m
inu
tes)
Form REP002 Rev 1
DATA SHEET - Symbols and Abbreviations used on Records Sample Types B Bulk disturbed sample
BLK Block sample
C Core sample
D Small disturbed sample (tub/jar)
E Environmental test sample
ES Environmental soil sample
EW Environmental water sample
G Gas sample
L Liner sample
P Piston sample (PF - failed P sample)
TW Thin walled push in sample
U Open Tube - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UF - failed U sample)
UT Thin wall open drive tube sampler - 102mm diameter with blows to take sample. (UTF - failed UT sample)
V Vial sample
W Water sample
# Sample Not Recovered
Insitu Testing / Properties S Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) C SPT with cone VN Strength from Insitu Vane HV Strength from Hand Vane PP Strength from Pocket
Penetrometer (All other strengths from undrained
triaxial testing) w% Water content N SPT Result -/- Blows/penetration (mm)
after 150mm seating. -*/- Total blows/penetration (mm) ( ) Extrapolated value
Rotary Core
RQD Rock Quality Designation (% of intact core >100mm) FRACTURE INDEX Fractures/metre FRACTURE Maximum SPACING (mm) Minimum NI Non-intact core NR No core recovery (where core recovery is unknown it is assumed to be at the base of the run)
Groundwater Water Strike Depth Water Rose To
Instrumentation Seal Filter Seal
Strata
Made Ground Type 1 Type 2 Topsoil Cobbles and Boulders Gravel
Sand Silt Clay Peat Note: Composite soil types shown by combined symbols Chalk Limestone Sandstone Coal
Strata, Continued Mudstone Siltstone Metamorphic Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained Igneous Rock Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained
Backfill Materials Arisings Bentonite Seal Concrete Fine Gravel Filter General Fill Gravel Filter Grout Sand Filter Tarmacadam
INSITU TESTING - DCP field test
0 0 1 110 0
1 1 1 180 70
1 2 1 210 100
2 4 1 290 180
2 6 1 340 230
2 8 1 380 270
2 10 1 430 320
2 12 1 470 360
2 14 1 510 400
2 16 1 530 420
2 18 1 570 460
2 20 1 595 485
3 23 1 630 520
3 26 1 670 560
3 29 1 710 600
3 32 1 750 640
3 35 1 780 670
3 38 1 850 740
3 41 1 880 770
3 44 1 910 800
3 47 1 940 830
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 0 1
180 4 1
180 4 1
400 14 1
400 14 1
670 35 1
670 35 1
740 38 1
740 38 1
830 47 1
Remarks
Depth below
ground level
(mm)
22.00
12.86
Blows
No.Blows Total
45.00 5.40
DCP
mm/blow
CBR %
(TRRL)
Ro
d
20.31
10.82
26.49
23.33
10.00
11.51
Reading
(mm)
Depth bgl
(mm)
BLOW S
No.
Sheet
1 of 2
Client Willmot Dixon Construction Ltd
Section/Chainage No
Test No
Project No
Initial Zero Reading
Date
Test Started at (m)
Project Buccleugh Academy, Kettering
Form INS003 Rev 3
25/08/2010
0.00
DCP1
PC104350
110
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 10 20 30 40 50
No. of BLOWS
Dep
th b
elo
w g
ro
un
d level (m
m)
INSITU TESTING - DCP field test
Client Willmot Dixon Construction Ltd
Section/Chainage No
Test No
Project No
Initial Zero Reading
Date
Test Started at (m)
Project Buccleugh Academy, Kettering
Form INS003 Rev 3
25/08/2010
0.00
DCP1
PC104350
110
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 110 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Remarks
Sheet
2 of 2
Reading
(mm)
Depth below
ground level
(mm)
Ro
d
Blows Total
Depth bgl
(mm)
BLOW S
No.
DCP
mm/blow
CBR %
(TRRL)
Blows
No.
Final Reading
940
Zero
ReadingRod No
INSITU TESTING - DCP field test
0 0 1 100 0
1 1 1 190 90
1 2 1 230 130
1 3 1 250 150
1 4 1 290 190
1 5 1 340 240
1 6 1 390 290
1 7 1 460 360
2 9 1 510 410
2 11 1 570 470
2 13 1 610 510
2 15 1 660 560
2 17 1 710 610
2 19 1 760 660
2 21 1 790 690
2 23 1 830 730
2 25 1 865 765
2 27 1 900 800
2 29 1 920 820
1 30 1 940 840
1 31 1 950 850
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 0 1
90 1 1
90 1 1
190 4 1
190 4 1
360 7 1
360 7 1
660 19 1
660 19 1
800 27 1
Remarks
Depth below
ground level
(mm)
33.33
56.67
Blows
No.Blows Total
90.00 2.60
DCP
mm/blow
CBR %
(TRRL)
Ro
d
4.23
10.05
14.66
25.00
17.50
7.42
Reading
(mm)
Depth bgl
(mm)
BLOW S
No.
Sheet
1 of 2
Client Willmot Dixon Construction Ltd
Section/Chainage No
Test No
Project No
Initial Zero Reading
Date
Test Started at (m)
Project Buccleugh Academy, Kettering
Form INS003 Rev 3
25/08/2010
0.00
DCP2
PC104350
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No. of BLOWS
Dep
th b
elo
w g
ro
un
d level (m
m)
INSITU TESTING - DCP field test
Client Willmot Dixon Construction Ltd
Section/Chainage No
Test No
Project No
Initial Zero Reading
Date
Test Started at (m)
Project Buccleugh Academy, Kettering
Form INS003 Rev 3
25/08/2010
0.00
DCP2
PC104350
100
1
1
1
1
800 27 1
850 31 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 100 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Remarks
Sheet
2 of 2
Reading
(mm)
Depth below
ground level
(mm)
Ro
d
Blows Total
Depth bgl
(mm)
BLOW S
No.
DCP
mm/blow
CBR %
(TRRL)
12.50 20.92
Blows
No.
Final Reading
950
Zero
ReadingRod No
INSITU TESTING - DCP field test
0 0 1 100 0
1 1 1 170 70
1 2 1 210 110
1 3 1 240 140
1 4 1 270 170
1 5 1 300 200
1 6 1 320 220
2 8 1 360 260
3 11 1 410 310
3 14 1 460 360
3 17 1 500 400
3 20 1 550 450
3 23 1 590 490
3 26 1 630 530
3 29 1 680 580
3 32 1 730 630
3 35 1 790 690
2 37 1 840 740
2 39 1 890 790
2 41 1 930 830
1 42 1 950 850
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 0 1
110 2 1
110 2 1
220 6 1
220 6 1
490 23 1
490 23 1
580 29 1
580 29 1
690 35 1
Remarks
Buccleugh Academy, Kettering
Form INS003 Rev 3
25/08/2010
0.00
DCP3
PC104350
100Client Willmot Dixon Construction Ltd
Section/Chainage No
Test No
Project No
Initial Zero Reading
Date
Test Started at (m)
Project
Sheet
1 of 2
9.09
Reading
(mm)
Depth bgl
(mm)
BLOW S
No.
16.24
17.25
13.96
15.00
18.33
Depth below
ground level
(mm)
27.50
15.88
Blows
No.Blows Total
55.00 4.37
DCP
mm/blow
CBR %
(TRRL)
Ro
d
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 10 20 30 40 50
No. of BLOWS
Dep
th b
elo
w g
ro
un
d level (m
m)
INSITU TESTING - DCP field test
Buccleugh Academy, Kettering
Form INS003 Rev 3
25/08/2010
0.00
DCP3
PC104350
100Client Willmot Dixon Construction Ltd
Section/Chainage No
Test No
Project No
Initial Zero Reading
Date
Test Started at (m)
Project
1
1
1
1
690 35 1
850 42 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 100 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Remarks
Final Reading
950
Zero
ReadingRod No
Depth bgl
(mm)
BLOW S
No.
DCP
mm/blow
CBR %
(TRRL)
22.86 11.05
Blows
No.
Reading
(mm)
Depth below
ground level
(mm)
Ro
d
Blows Total
Sheet
2 of 2
Form REP001 Rev 1
DATA SHEET - Laboratory Test Symbols
Classification and Strength
Symbol C - Clay M - Silt (0 - containing organic matter) Plasticity L - Low I - Intermediate H - High V - Very High E - Extremely High Ip Plasticity Index
% % Retained on 425 µm sieve, shown under Ip value
wL Liquid Limit
wP Plastic Limit
NP Non-Plastic
NAT Sample tested in natural state
w Moisture Content
p Particle Density
Test Quick undrained triaxial tests SS Single stage - 102mm diameter.
S3 Single stage - set of 3
38mm diameter.
MS Multistage - 102mm diameter.
D Drained Test
HV Hand Vane
PP Pocket Penetrometer (kg/cm²)
UT Unsuitable for Test
γb Bulk Density
σ3 Triaxial Cell Pressure
σ1 - σ3 Deviator Stress
## Excessive Strain
cu Undrained Cohesion
c Cohesion Intercept
φ Angle of Shearing Resistance
Linear Linear Shrinkage Shrink
Consolidation
mv Coefficient of Volume Compressibility
cv50 Coefficient of Consolidation - Log t
cv90 Coefficient of Consolidation - √t
Rock
UF Unacceptable Failure
Chemical Analysis
Acid Soluble Total sulphate in specimen, expressed as SO3 %, value in brackets expressed as SO4 %
Water Soluble Soluble sulphate in 2:1 water : soil extract, expressed as SO3 g/l, value in brackets expressed as SO4 g/l
In Water Sulphate content of groundwater, expressed as SO3 g/l, value in brackets expressed as SO4 g/l
pH pH value
Organic content Organic content expressed as a percentage of dry weight
Chloride Chloride Ion content expressed as a percentage of dry weight
MCV, Compaction, CBR
MCV Moisture Condition Value at natural
moisture content
MCC Moisture Condition Calibration
CCV Chalk Crushing Value
Compaction
Type 2.5 = BS 2.5 kg Rammer 4.5 = BS 4.5 kg Rammer V = BS Vibrating Hammer
γb Bulk Density
γd Dry Density
CBR California Bearing Ratio
Type 2.5 = Test on Specimen Recompacted using BS 2.5 kg Rammer 4.5 = As above but using BS 4.5 kg Rammer V = As above but using BS Vibrating Hammer M = Test on open drive mould specimen cut in field S = Soaked Specimen
Top CBR at top of mould
Bottom CBR at bottom of mould
ND None Detected
All tests performed in accordance with BS 1377 : Parts 1-9 : 1990 incorporating amendments where appropriate.
d
LABORATORY RESULTS - Classification and Strength
Project Project No:
Sample
Hole Depth Type Description
Depth)
Sample
PC104350BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Ref
m
(Specimen
Classification Strength
Symbol lp Test γb σ σ −σ cw w w
L p 3 31
Mg/m kN/m3 2
kN/m2
kN/m2
(>425)
c
kN/m2
upd
( )
%
γd
( )(
%%%
Avg
BH1 B C449690.40-
0.90
(0.40)
Light brown silty sandy GRAVEL with
cobbles
6.9
BH3 D C454580.40
(0.40)
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
CLAY
CH 27
(5%)
53 26 17
BH3 U C449551.20-
1.55
(1.20)
Brown sandy CLAY CI 28
(42%)
47 19
16 SS 2.03 25 139 69
##
69
BH3 B C449751.60-
2.20
(1.60)
Light brown slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY
10
BH3 U C449543.00-
3.45
(3.00)
Brown sandy CLAY CI 15
(NAT)
36 21
25 SS 1.99 60 254 127 127
BH4 D C454750.30
(0.30)
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
CLAY
CH 32
(15%)
53 21 21
BH4 U C449911.20-
1.65
(1.20)
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
CLAY
17 SS 2.15 25 292 146
##
146
BH4 U C449923.20-
3.55
(3.20)
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
CLAY
(See Test Remarks Sheet for further
information)
CI 23
(20%)
38 15
7.4 SS UT 60 UT
BH5 B C449840.30-
0.80
(0.30)
White grey silty sandy GRAVEL 10
BH5 B C449861.20-
1.70
(1.20)
Light brown slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY
12
BH6 D C454981.00
(1.00)
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
CLAY
CI 28
(7%)
48 20 19
BH6 U C449942.20-
2.65
(2.20)
Grey mottled brown slightly sandy
slightly CLAY
CI 22
(NAT)
42 20
20 SS 1.99 50 233 117 117
RO3 C C460463.70-
3.95
(3.70)
Brown slightly sandy silty CLAY CI 21
(NAT)
47 26
19 SS 2.11 80 493 247 247
RO3 C C460455.25-
5.50
(5.25)
Greenish grey slightly sandy CLAY 26 SS 2.09 110 212 106 106
TP5 B C449670.50
(0.50)
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
CLAY
CV 43
(10%)
73 30 36
Remarks Tests performed in accordance with BS 1377: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Classification and Strength
Project Project No:
Sample
Hole Depth Type Description
Depth)
Sample
PC104350BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Ref
m
(Specimen
Classification Strength
Symbol lp Test γb σ σ −σ cw w w
L p 3 31
Mg/m kN/m3 2
kN/m2
kN/m2
(>425)
c
kN/m2
upd
( )
%
γd
( )(
%%%
Avg
TP5 B C449660.75
(0.75)
Brown gravelly slightly sandy gravelly
CLAY.
25
TP6 B C449650.75
(0.75)
Light brown clayey GRAVEL with
cobbles
9.4
Remarks Tests performed in accordance with BS 1377: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Particle Size Distribution
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
BH1
0.40-0.90m
B
C44969
Sample Description
Light brown silty sandy GRAVEL with cobbles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm)
% F
iner
CLAY
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT
Classification Fine Medium Coarse
SAND
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
% of each
3
11
43
33
0
Size Percentage Finer Size Percentage Finer
Sieving Method
Fine Particle Analysis
Method
Pre-treated
with
% loss on
Pre-treatment
Particle
Density
Wet sieve
Hydrogen
Peroxide
0.80
2.65
(Assumed)
125mm
100mm
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
6.3mm
5mm
3.35mm
2mm
1.18mm
600 m
425 m
300 m
212 m
150 m
75 m
63 m
20 m
6 m
2 m
µ
100
100
67
-
54
52
-
38
35
33
-
28
-
24
22
20
-
17
-
14
-
13
9
6
3
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
Pipette
Uniformity Coefficient
2468.49
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
BOULDERS
Classification
10
CLAY
SILT
Remarks 21/09/2010Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Particle Size Distribution
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
BH3
1.60-2.20m
B
C44975
Sample Description
Light brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm)
% F
iner
CLAY
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT
Classification Fine Medium Coarse
SAND
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
% of each
7
14
35
0
0
Size Percentage Finer Size Percentage Finer
Sieving Method
Fine Particle Analysis
Method
Pre-treated
with
% loss on
Pre-treatment
Particle
Density
Wet sieve
Hydrogen
Peroxide
0.53
2.65
(Assumed)
125mm
100mm
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
6.3mm
5mm
3.35mm
2mm
1.18mm
600 m
425 m
300 m
212 m
150 m
75 m
63 m
20 m
6 m
2 m
µ
100
100
100
100
100
97
-
88
85
81
-
71
-
65
63
60
-
57
-
54
-
51
38
17
7
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
Pipette
Uniformity Coefficient
225.99
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
BOULDERS
Classification
44
CLAY
SILT
Remarks 21/09/2010Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Particle Size Distribution
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
BH5
0.30-0.80m
B
C44984
Sample Description
White grey silty sandy GRAVEL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm)
% F
iner
CLAY
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT
Classification Fine Medium Coarse
SAND
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
% of each
4
7
81
0
0
Size Percentage Finer Size Percentage Finer
Sieving Method
Fine Particle Analysis
Method
Pre-treated
with
% loss on
Pre-treatment
Particle
Density
Wet sieve
Hydrogen
Peroxide
0.66
2.65
(Assumed)
125mm
100mm
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
6.3mm
5mm
3.35mm
2mm
1.18mm
600 m
425 m
300 m
212 m
150 m
75 m
63 m
20 m
6 m
2 m
µ
100
100
100
100
74
57
-
35
32
28
-
22
-
19
17
16
-
15
-
14
-
12
9
6
4
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
Pipette
Uniformity Coefficient
1556.38
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
BOULDERS
Classification
8
CLAY
SILT
Remarks 21/09/2010Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Particle Size Distribution
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
BH5
1.20-1.70m
B
C44986
Sample Description
Light brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm)
% F
iner
CLAY
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT
Classification Fine Medium Coarse
SAND
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
% of each
9
21
15
0
0
Size Percentage Finer Size Percentage Finer
Sieving Method
Fine Particle Analysis
Method
Pre-treated
with
% loss on
Pre-treatment
Particle
Density
Wet sieve
Hydrogen
Peroxide
0.86
2.65
(Assumed)
125mm
100mm
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
6.3mm
5mm
3.35mm
2mm
1.18mm
600 m
425 m
300 m
212 m
150 m
75 m
63 m
20 m
6 m
2 m
µ
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
96
-
91
-
85
83
81
-
79
-
75
-
64
47
23
9
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
Pipette
Uniformity Coefficient
22.72
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
BOULDERS
Classification
55
CLAY
SILT
Remarks 21/09/2010Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Particle Size Distribution
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
TP5
0.50m
B
C44967
Sample Description
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm)
% F
iner
CLAY
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT
Classification Fine Medium Coarse
SAND
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
% of each
43
16
2
0
0
Size Percentage Finer Size Percentage Finer
Sieving Method
Fine Particle Analysis
Method
Pre-treated
with
% loss on
Pre-treatment
Particle
Density
Wet sieve
Hydrogen
Peroxide
4.40
2.65
(Assumed)
125mm
100mm
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
6.3mm
5mm
3.35mm
2mm
1.18mm
600 m
425 m
300 m
212 m
150 m
75 m
63 m
20 m
6 m
2 m
µ
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
99
-
98
-
98
97
97
-
93
-
85
-
82
57
46
43
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
Pipette
Uniformity Coefficient
Not Available
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
BOULDERS
Classification
39
CLAY
SILT
Remarks 21/09/2010Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - Particle Size Distribution
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
TP5
0.75m
B
C44966
Sample Description
Brown gravelly slightly sandy gravelly CLAY.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm)
% F
iner
CLAY
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT
Classification Fine Medium Coarse
SAND
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
% of each
16
18
36
0
0
Size Percentage Finer Size Percentage Finer
Sieving Method
Fine Particle Analysis
Method
Pre-treated
with
% loss on
Pre-treatment
Particle
Density
Wet sieve
Hydrogen
Peroxide
0.21
2.65
(Assumed)
125mm
100mm
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
6.3mm
5mm
3.35mm
2mm
1.18mm
600 m
425 m
300 m
212 m
150 m
75 m
63 m
20 m
6 m
2 m
µ
100
100
100
100
100
86
-
75
72
70
-
66
-
64
63
62
-
59
-
52
-
46
32
21
16
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
Pipette
Uniformity Coefficient
Not Available
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
BOULDERS
Classification
30
CLAY
SILT
Remarks 21/09/2010Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
LABORATORY RESULTS - MCV, Compaction, CBR
Project Project No:
Sample
Hole Depth Type Description
Depth)
Sample
PC104350BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Ref
m
(Specimen
Compaction CBR
MCV Typeγb
BottomType w
w
%
CBR
%
Top
w
%
CBR
%Mg/m3
w
MCV
ddρ γ
Mg/m3
(Opt) (Max)
% % Mg/m3
BH5 B C449861.20-
1.70
(1.20-
1.70)
Light brown slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY
2.5kg (10)
12*
3.5
6.6
9.2
16
2.65a
2.11
*2.11
1.86
1.95
2.05
2.10
1.89
(1.90)
*1.89
1.80
1.83
1.88
1.82
2.5kg 23 12 20 12
TP5 B C449670.50
(0.50)
Brown slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY
2.5kg (23)
32*
14
19
29
12
26
2.65a
1.84
*1.84
1.66
1.74
1.86
1.59
1.87
1.39
(1.50)
*1.39
1.46
1.46
1.45
1.42
1.49
2.5kg 5.7 33 5.2 31
TP5 B C449660.75
(0.75)
Brown gravelly slightly sandy
gravelly CLAY.
2.5kg (18)
27*
8.8
13
19
23
2.65a
1.90
*1.90
1.60
1.75
1.97
1.96
1.50
(1.66)
*1.50
1.47
1.55
1.65
1.59
2.5kg 2.8 26 2.6 28
TP6 B C449650.75
(0.75)
Light brown clayey GRAVEL with
cobbles
2.5kg (13)
11*
8.8
13
14
26
2.95a
2.02
*2.02
1.99
2.13
2.18
2.07
1.82
(1.90)
*1.83
1.83
1.89
1.91
1.64
2.5kg 24 11 27 11
Remarks Particle Density - a=assumed, m=measured
Tests performed in accordance with BS 1377: 1990
* = at natural moisture content
LABORATORY RESULTS -
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
BH5
1.20-1.70m
B
C44986
Compaction
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture Content (%)
Dry
Density
(M
g/m
^3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
CB
R %
2.5kg rammer at natural moisture content
2.5kg rammer�
�
�
Optimum Moisture Content
��
CBR % Top
CBR % Bottom
Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 4: 1990Remarks
Light brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY
Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum Dry Density
Gravel retained on
20mm sieve
Particle Density10
1.90
0
1
2.65
37.5mm sieve
Preparation 2.5kgMg/m3
%
%
Description
21/09/2010
(Assumed)
LABORATORY RESULTS -
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
TP5
0.50m
B
C44967
Compaction
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture Content (%)
Dry
Density
(M
g/m
^3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
CB
R %
2.5kg rammer at natural moisture content
2.5kg rammer�
�
�
Optimum Moisture Content
��
CBR % Top
CBR % Bottom
Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 4: 1990Remarks
Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY
Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum Dry Density
Gravel retained on
20mm sieve
Particle Density23
1.50
0
0
2.65
37.5mm sieve
Preparation 2.5kgMg/m3
%
%
Description
21/09/2010
(Assumed)
LABORATORY RESULTS -
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
TP5
0.75m
B
C44966
Compaction
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture Content (%)
Dry
Density
(M
g/m
^3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
CB
R %
2.5kg rammer at natural moisture content
2.5kg rammer�
�
�
Optimum Moisture Content
��
CBR % Top
CBR % Bottom
Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 4: 1990Remarks
Brown gravelly slightly sandy gravelly CLAY.
Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum Dry Density
Gravel retained on
20mm sieve
Particle Density18
1.66
1
6
2.65
37.5mm sieve
Preparation 2.5kgMg/m3
%
%
Description
21/09/2010
(Assumed)
LABORATORY RESULTS -
Project:
Project No: PC104350
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING Hole
Sample Depth
Sample Type
Sample Ref
TP6
0.75m
B
C44965
Compaction
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture Content (%)
Dry
Density
(M
g/m
^3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
CB
R %
2.5kg rammer at natural moisture content
2.5kg rammer�
�
�
Optimum Moisture Content
��
CBR % Top
CBR % Bottom
Test performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 4: 1990Remarks
Light brown clayey GRAVEL with cobbles
Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum Dry Density
Gravel retained on
20mm sieve
Particle Density13
1.90
17
29
2.95
37.5mm sieve
Preparation 2.5kgMg/m3
%
%
Description
21/09/2010
(Assumed)
LABORATORY RESULTS - Test Remarks
Project Project No:
Sample
Hole Depth Type
Depth)
Sample
PC104350BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Ref
m
(SpecimenLaboratory Remark
BH4 U C449923.20-
3.55
(3.20-
3.55)
Quick Undrained Triaxial Test - UT = Sample too disturbed
Remarks
2139 Certificate Number: 10-41258Date: 16/09/2010
Client: Geotechnics LTD203 Torrington AvenueTile HillCoventryCV4 9AP
Our Reference: 10-41258
Client Reference: PC104350
Contract Title: Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
Description: 10 soil samples
Date Received: 08/09/2010
Date Started: 08/09/2010
Date Completed: 16/09/2010
Test Procedures: Identified by prefix DETSn, details available upon request.
Notes: Observations and interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation
Certificate of Analysis
Notes: Observations and interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation* denotes test not included in laboratory scope of accreditation# denotes test that holds MCERT accreditation$ denotes tests completed by an approved subcontractorI/S denotes insufficient sample to carry out testN/S denotes that the sample is not suitable for testingDETSM denotes tests carried out by DETS Midlands laboratorySolid samples will be disposed 1 month and liquids 2 weeksafter the date of issue of this test certificateAsbestos subsamples will be kept for 6 months
Approved By:
Authorised Signatories: Rob BrownBusiness Manager
This certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported herein relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. This certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the prior written approval of the
laboratory.
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services LimitedUnit 2, Park Road Industrial Estate South, Consett, Co Durham, DH8 5PY
Tel: 01207 582333 • Fax 01207 582444 • email: info@dets.co.uk • www.dets.co.uk Page 1 of 7
Our Ref: 10-41258
Client Ref: PC104350
Sample ID Depth DETS Ref Matrix Description Date Sampled Time Sampled Preservation Analysis Complete
BH1 0.30 279891 brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
BH3 0.70 279892 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
BH4 0.40 279893 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
BH5 1.80 279894 light brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
BH6 0.40 279895 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
TP1 0.30 279896 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
TP2 0.20 279897 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
TP3 0.20 279898 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
TP4 0.80 279899 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
TP5 1.25 279900 dark brown gravelly sandy CLAY odd rootlets Not Provided Not Provided None 16/09/2010
Contract Title: Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
Sample Details
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 2 of 7
Soil SamplesOur Ref: 10-41258Client Ref: PC104350
279891 279892 279893 279894 279895BH1 BH3 BH4 BH5 BH60.30 0.70 0.40 1.80 0.40
Test Units DETSxxArsenic mg/kg DETS 042# 14 18 15 5.5 16Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042# 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0Chromium mg/kg DETS 042# 87 48 54 18 54Copper mg/kg DETS 042# 19 17 19 6 19Lead mg/kg DETS 042# 18 15 17 6 17Manganese mg/kg DETS 042# 1200 370 570 490 530Mercury mg/kg DETS 081# < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05Nickel mg/kg DETS 042# 57 37 38 12 38Selenium mg/kg DETS 042# < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Zinc mg/kg DETS 042# 81 69 82 28 73Vanadium mg/kg DETS 042# 64 60 75 28 76Chloride Aqueous Extract mg/l DETS 055Nitrate Aqueous Extract as NO3 mg/l DETS 055Magnesium Aqueous Extract mg/l DETS 076*Organic matter % DETS 002# 2.2 0.8 1.4 0.2 1.0Total Sulphate as SO4 % DETS 075#Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076#Total Sulphur as S % DETS 064Total Organic Carbon % DETS 002 1.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.6pH DETS 008# 7.6 8.0 7.9 8.1 7.9PAH mg/kg DETS 050 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6EPH (C5-C10) mg/kg DETS 051 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10EPH (C10-C40) mg/kg DETS 051# 11 < 10 < 10 < 10 12Phenol - Monohydric mg/kg DETS 067# < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3Ammonia Aqueous Extract as N mg/l DETS 019
Sample Type
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Contract Title: Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
Lab No.Sample ID
DepthSample Ref
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 3 of 7
Soil SamplesOur Ref: 10-41258Client Ref: PC104350
Test Units DETSxxArsenic mg/kg DETS 042#Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042#Chromium mg/kg DETS 042#Copper mg/kg DETS 042#Lead mg/kg DETS 042#Manganese mg/kg DETS 042#Mercury mg/kg DETS 081#Nickel mg/kg DETS 042#Selenium mg/kg DETS 042#Zinc mg/kg DETS 042#Vanadium mg/kg DETS 042#Chloride Aqueous Extract mg/l DETS 055Nitrate Aqueous Extract as NO3 mg/l DETS 055Magnesium Aqueous Extract mg/l DETS 076*Organic matter % DETS 002#Total Sulphate as SO4 % DETS 075#Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076#Total Sulphur as S % DETS 064Total Organic Carbon % DETS 002pH DETS 008#PAH mg/kg DETS 050EPH (C5-C10) mg/kg DETS 051EPH (C10-C40) mg/kg DETS 051#Phenol - Monohydric mg/kg DETS 067#Ammonia Aqueous Extract as N mg/l DETS 019
Sample Type
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Contract Title: Buccleuch Academy, Kettering
Lab No.Sample ID
DepthSample Ref
279896 279897 279898 279899 279900TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP50.30 0.20 0.20 0.80 1.25
13 17 14 13 121.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.836 50 38 40 4519 28 19 15 1526 45 31 14 12
900 900 710 340 420< 0.05 0.06 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05
23 31 25 29 29< 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5
84 130 82 64 6158 62 59 56 62
111.1
< 104.0 5.2 2.8 1.2 1.1
0.0838
0.072.3 3.0 1.6 0.7 0.67.8 7.7 7.7 8.2 8.1
< 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
18 19 < 10 < 10 < 10< 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3
< 10
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 4 of 7
Appendix A - Details of Analysis
Method details are shown only for those determinants listed in Annex A of the MCERTS standard. Anything not included on this list falls outside the scope of MCERTS.No Recovery Factors are used in the determination of results. Results reported assume 100% recoveryFull method statements are available on request.
Method Units Sub-Contracted UKAS MCERTS
DETS 002 Organic Matter % Yes Yes
DETS 003 Loss on Ignition % Yes Yes
DETS 004 Total Sulphate % Yes Yes
DETS 075 Total Sulphate % Yes Yes
DETS 004 Water Soluble Sulphate mg/l Yes Yes
DETS 076 Water Soluble Sulphate mg/l Yes Yes
DETS 006 Chloride mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 008 pH pH Units Yes Yes
DETS 042 Selenium mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 019 Ammonia mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 020 Boron (Water Soluble) mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 024 Sulphide mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Antimony mg/kg No No
DETS 042 Arsenic mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Barium mg/kg Yes Yes
DET S 042 Beryllium mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Cadmium mg/kg Yes Yes
10.00 Air Dried No
10.00 Air Dried No
0.01 Air Dried No
0.20
1.50
0.20
0.10 Air Dried
0.01
0.10
0.50
0.02
0.20
10.00
1.00
Sample Preparation
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Name of Parameter Limit of Detection
0.01
0.01
0.01
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
Air Dried
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Air Dried
No
No
No
No
No
No
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 5 of 7
Appendix A - Details of Analysis
Method details are shown only for those determinants listed in Annex A of the MCERTS standard. Anything not included on this list falls outside the scope of MCERTS.No Recovery Factors are used in the determination of results. Results reported assume 100% recoveryFull method statements are available on request.
Method Units Sub-Contracted UKAS MCERTSSample PreparationName of Parameter Limit of Detection
DETS 042 Cobalt mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Copper mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Chromium mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Iron mg/kg Yes No
DETS 042 Lead mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Manganese mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 081 Mercury mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Molybdenum mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Nickel mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Thallium mg/kg No No
DETS 042 Vanadium mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 042 Zinc mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 049 Sulphur (Free) mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 050 PAH mg/kg Yes No
DETS 051 TPH (C10 - C40) mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 052 PCB mg/kg Yes Yes
20.00 Air Dried No
Air Dried No
0.30 Air Dried
0.20 Air Dried No
0.05 Air Dried No
0.40 Air Dried No
No
1.00
0.70
0.20
Air Dried
0.15
Air Dried
Air Dried
No
No
No
1.00 Air Dried No
0.80 Air Dried No
1.00 Air Dried No
0.50 As Received No
0.10 As Received No
20.00 As Received No
0.01 As Received No
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 6 of 7
Appendix A - Details of Analysis
Method details are shown only for those determinants listed in Annex A of the MCERTS standard. Anything not included on this list falls outside the scope of MCERTS.No Recovery Factors are used in the determination of results. Results reported assume 100% recoveryFull method statements are available on request.
Method Units Sub-Contracted UKAS MCERTSSample PreparationName of Parameter Limit of Detection
DETS 062 Benzene mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 062 Toluene mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 062 Ethylbenzne mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 062 Xylene mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 067 Phenol - Monohydric mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 067 Easily Liberatable Cyanide mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 067 Complex Cyanide mg/kg Yes No
DETS 067 Total Cyanide mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 067 Thiocyanate mg/kg Yes Yes
DETS 068 VOC mg/kg No No
0.01 As Received No
0.01 As Received No
0.01 As Received No
0.01 As Received No
0.3 Air Dried No
0.1 Air Dried No
0.30 Air Dried No
0.01 As Received No
0.40 Air Dried No
0.6 Air Dried No
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 7 of 7
Great Oolite Limestone
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 1.1
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of SPT - Depth Profile
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT 'N' ValueD
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Upper Estuarine Series
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 1.2
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of SPT - Depth Profile
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT 'N' ValueD
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Great Oolite Limestone
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 2.1
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Moisture Content - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content %D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Superficial Deposits
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 2.2
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Moisture Content - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content %D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Upper Estuarine Series
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 2.3
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Moisture Content - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture Content %D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Great Oolite Limestone
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 3.1
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Bulk Density - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40
Bulk Density (Mg/m3)D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Upper Estuarine Series
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 3.2
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Bulk Density - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40
Bulk Density (Mg/m3)D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Great Oolite Limestone
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 4.1
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Shear Strength - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Shear Strength (kPa)D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Upper Estuarine Series
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 4.2
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plot of Shear Strength - Depth Profile
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Shear Strength (kPa)D
ep
th (
m b
gl)
Soil Type Plasticity Characteristics
C Clay L Low
I Intermediate
M Silt H High
V Very High
E Extremely High
Great Oolite Limestone
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 5.1
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plasticity Chart
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit %
Pla
sti
cit
y I
nd
ex %
CH
CV
CE
MLMI
MV
ME
CL
CI
Low Medium High Very High Extremely High
Plasticity
Soil Type Plasticity Characteristics
C Clay L Low
I Intermediate
M Silt H High
V Very High
E Extremely High
Superficial Deposits
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 5.2
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plasticity Chart
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit %
Pla
sti
cit
y I
nd
ex %
CH
CV
CE
MLMI
MV
ME
CL
CI
Low Medium High Very High Extremely High
Plasticity
Soil Type Plasticity Characteristics
C Clay L Low
I Intermediate
M Silt H High
V Very High
E Extremely High
Upper Estuarine Series
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 5.3
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Plasticity Chart
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit %
Pla
sti
cit
y I
nd
ex %
CH
CV
CE
MLMI
MV
ME
CL
CI
Low Medium High Very High Extremely High
Plasticity
Great Oolite Limestone
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 6.1
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Summary of Particle Size Distribution
Analyses
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Particle Size (mm)
% F
ine
r
BH1 0.40m B BH3 1.60m B BH5 0.30m B BH5 1.20m B
GravelSandSiltClay
Superficial Deposits
Job No PC104350
Date 23/09/2010
Figure 6.2
BUCCLEUCH ACADEMY, KETTERING
Summary of Particle Size Distribution
Analyses
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Particle Size (mm)
% F
ine
r
TP5 0.75m B TP5 0.50m B
GravelSandSiltClay
Your Ref : Kettering Beccleuch Academy Our Ref : CGS/PC104350 Date : 15 September 2010
Willmott Dixon Construction Limited Chantry House High Street Coleshill Birmingham B46 3BP For the attention of Mr Chris Kinman Dear Sirs Re : Soakaway inspection visit of 19th August 2010, Montagu School, Kettering.
Please find enclosed a selection of photographs taken on 19th August 2010 at Montagu School, Kettering and our comments. Geotechnics Limited attended the site on the above date in the presence of Mr. Carl Hanson of Cox Turner Morse and investigated all of the noted soakaways on the Proposed Surface Water Drainage Strategy Map produced by Mott MacDonald (Ref: MMD-258960-C-00-XX-SK-002) as enclosed in the site flood risk assessment report provided by yourselves. The soakaways have been numbered SA1-SA6 clockwise from the site entrance for ease of reference and to record the order in which they were investigated. These locations are marked on the enclosed sketch plan based on the above noted Mott Macdonald document. Generally it would appear that there are two sets of installations and possibly two strategies of installation. SA1, SA3 and SA4 appear to be of an older age, probably dating from the first phase of the school. These soakaways contain three linked oblong chambers generally 1.2m by 1.5m, though in the case of SA1 the eastern chamber may possibly be several meters wide as this location was heavily obscured by silt. Generally, one of the three chambers contains a borehole installation. We presume the boreholes pass through the clay and into the underlying Lincolnshire Limestone. In all three cases, the bases appeared to be heavily silted to varying degrees and the depths from the tops of the covers to the silt are noted in Table 1. In the case of SA4, the eastern cover was buried below ground level and therefore direct access was not possible and the presence of a borehole within the eastern chamber has been inferred. The second set of soakaways (SA2, SA5 and SA6) appears to date from either the time of the building of the Sports Hall or the English Block. These are more recent installations and comprise a variable number of deep circular chambers approximately 3-4m in diameter, one of which may contain a borehole as above. SA2 comprises three chambers in a J shape, SA5 comprises two in a line and SA6 is a single chamber. In SA6 no evidence of a borehole was noted, though access was limited and the location appeared heavily silted and therefore the borehole may have been buried. Alternatively, given that this location only appears to take water from one half of the English Block roof, it may be that no borehole is in fact present.
Cont.
CGS/PC104350/2 With reference to carrying out soakage tests in these soakaways, access to most locations should be relatively easy for most mobile equipment. However, such tests may include the transport of large volumes of water and/or relatively heavy equipment over grassed areas. As such it is probable that any such works may involve a degree of disturbance to some grassed areas, with possible re-instatement implications depending on the method, precise access routes and the weather/soil conditions at the time of the works. A fire hydrant location suitable for the supply of water on site was noted to us by the facilities manager in front of the main entrance to reception. However, the use of this standpipe may require a licence. Whilst the condition of the soakaways appeared generally good during this limited investigation, it is recommended that further more detailed investigation of the depth of the silt, the exact dimensions of the chambers and their connectivity as well as a more detailed inspection of the interiors if they are to be retained. This work would need to be undertaken by competent persons suitably trained in confined space works with appropriate safety equipment, procedures and method statements. As noted in our meeting of the 16th August 2010, Geotechnics Limited does not currently employ any appropriately trained or certified staff capable of undertaking such works. The relatively recent age of some of the soakaways may indicate that plans, manuals and details may still be available from the local Council or may be held on site by Mr Richard Adshead the Facilities Manager. We understand that Mr. Carl Hanson of Cox Turner Morse will be undertaking to locate and retrieve such information if possible. Table 1:
Location Chamber Dimensions (m)*
Depth to base(m Bgl)
Borehole Notes
SA1 (East of Sports Hall) Eastern 1.2 x 2.0 1.9
Central 1.2 x 1.5 1.9
Western 1.2 x 1.5 2.3 Yes
SA2 (West of Sports Hall) Northern 3.5 Depth to Water 5.4m
Central 3.5 Depth to Water 5.4m
Western 3.5 5.4 Yes
SA3 (Far West of Hall) Western 1.2 x 1.5 4.4 Damp Base
Central 1.2 x 1.5 4.5
Eastern 1.2 x 1.5 4.6 Yes
SA4 (SW of Humanities) Western 1.2 x 1.5 4.9
Central 1.2 x 1.5 5.2
Eastern No Access No Access Possibly Inferred
SA5 (West of English) Eastern 3.5 4.2 Damp base
Western 3.5 4.4 Yes
SA6 (North of English) Single 3.5 3.4 Not known if Borehole present
* Dimensions Estimated from Surface. Single value indicates estimated circular chamber diameter.
Cont.
CGS/PC104350/3 We trust these comments and the enclosed photographs are sufficient to your needs, but if you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully C Swainston For and on behalf of GEOTECHNICS LIMITED
Enc Sketch Plan based on Mott MacDonald Drawing Number: MMD-258960-C-00-XX-SK-002 Site Photographs
Location: Montagu School, Kettering
Project Number: PC104350
Date: August 2010
Sketch of Soakaway Locations at Montagu School, Kettering as of 19th August 2010.
Based on Mott MacDonald Plan (Ref: MMD-258960-C-00-XX-SK-002)
SA2 SA3
SA1
SA4
SA5
SA6
Location of Soakaway east of Sports Hall (SA1) SA1 Eastern Chamber
SA1 Central Chamber SA1 Western Chamber with borehole
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
SA2 Northern Chamber SA2 Southern Chamber
Soakaway West of Sports Hall with Borehole (SA2)
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway Far West of Sports Hall (SA3) SA3 Western Chamber
SA3 Central Chamber SA3 Eastern Chamber with Borehole
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway south of Humanities Block (SA4) SA4 Western Chamber
SA4 Central Chamber
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway west of Former English Block (SA5) SA5 Eastern Chamber
SA5 Western Chamber with Borehole
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Location of Soakaway north of Former English Block (SA6) SA6 No borehole visible
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number : PC104350
Project : Montagu School, Kettering
Geotechnics Limited © The Geotechnical Centre, 203 Torrington Avenue, Tile Hill, Coventry. CV4 9AP
INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES INTRODUCTION The following brief review of Ground Investigation techniques, generally used as part of most Site Investigations in the UK, summarises their methodology, advantages and limitations. Detailed descriptions of the techniques are available and can be provided on request. This review should be read in conjunction with the accompanying General Notes. TRIAL PITS The trial pit is amongst the most simple yet effective means of identifying shallow ground conditions on a site. Its advantages include simplicity, speed, potential accuracy and cost-effectiveness. The trial pit is most commonly formed using a backacting excavator which can typically determine ground conditions to some 4 metres below ground level. Hand excavation is often used to locate, expose and detail existing foundations, features or services. In general, it is difficult to extend pits significantly below the water table in predominantly granular soils, where flows can cause instability. Unless otherwise stated, the trial pits will not have been provided with temporary side support during their construction. Under such circumstances ground conditions to some 1.20 metres can be closely inspected, subject to stability assessment, but below this depth, entrance into the pit is not permitted in the absence of shoring and hence observations will have been made from ground surface and samples taken from the excavator bucket. Trends in strata type, level and thickness can be determined, shear surfaces identified and the behaviour of plant, excavation sides and excavated materials can be related to the construction process. They are particularly valuable in land slip investigations. Some types of insitu test can be undertaken in such pits and large disturbed or block samples obtained. CABLE PERCUSSION BORING The light Cable Percussion technique of soft ground boring, typically at a diameter of 150mm, is a well established simple and flexible method of boring vertical holes and generally allows data to be obtained in respect of strata conditions other than rock. A tubular cutter (for cohesive soils) or shell with a flap valve (for granular soils) is repeatedly lifted and dropped using a winch and rope operating from an “A” frame. Soil which enters these tools is regularly removed and either sampled for subsequent examination or test, or laid to one side for backfilling. Steel casing will have been used to prevent collapse of the borehole sides where necessary. A degree of disturbance of soil and mixing of layers is inevitable and the presence of very thin layers of different soils within a particular stratum may not be identified. Changes in strata type can only be detected on recognition of a change in soil samples at surface, after the interface has been passed. For the foregoing reasons, depth measurements should not be considered to be more accurate than 0.10 metre. In cohesive soils cylindrical samples are retrieved by driving or pushing in 100mm nominal diameter tubes. In soft soils, piston sampling or vane testing may be undertaken. In granular soils and often in cohesive materials, insitu Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) are performed. The SPT records the number of standard blows required to drive a 50mm diameter open or cone ended probe for 300mm after an initial 150mm penetration. A modified method of recording is used in more dense strata. Small disturbed samples are obtained throughout. The technique can determine ground conditions to depths in excess of 30 metres under suitable circumstances and usually causes less surface disturbance than trial pitting. ROTARY DRILLING Rotary Drilling to produce cores by rotating an annular diamond-impregnated tube or barrel into the ground is the technique most appropriate to the forming of site investigation boreholes through rock or other hard strata. It has the advantage of being able to be used vertically or at an angle. Core diameters of less than 100mm are most common for site investigation purposes. Core is normally retrieved in plastic lining tubes. A flushing fluid such as air, water or foam is used to cool the bit and carry cuttings to the surface. Examination of cores allows detailed rock description and generally enables angled discontinuity surfaces to be observed. However, vertical holes do not necessarily reveal the presence of vertical or near-vertical fissures or joint discontinuities. The core type and/or techniques used. Where open hole rotary drilling is employed, descriptions of strata result from examination at surface of small particles ejected from the borehole in the flushing medium. In consequence, no indication of fissuring, bedding, consistency or degree of weathering can be obtained. Small scale plant can be used for auger drilling to limited depths where access is constrained. Depths in excess of 60 metres can be achieved under suitable circumstances using rotary techniques, with minimal surface disturbance.
WINDOW SAMPLING This technique involves the driving of an open-ended tube into the ground and retrieval of the soil which enters the tube. The term “window sample” arose from the original device which had a “window” or slot cut into the side of the tube through which samples were taken. This has now been superseded by the use of a thin-walled plastic liner within a sampler which has a solid wall. Diameters range from 36 to 86mm. Such samples can be used for qualitative logging, selection of samples for classification and chemical analysis and for obtaining a rudimentary assessment of strength. Driving devices can be hand-held or machine mounted and the drive tubes are typically in 1m lengths. The hole formed is not cased, however, and hence the success of this technique is limited when soils and groundwater conditions are such that the sides of the hole collapse on withdrawal of the sampler. Obstructions within the ground, the density of the material or its strength can also limit the depth and rate of penetration of this light-weight investigation technique. Nevertheless, it is a valuable tool where access is constrained such as within buildings or on embankments. Depths of up to 8m can be achieved in suitable circumstances but depths of 4m to 6m are more common. EXPLORATORY HOLE RECORDS The data obtained by these techniques are generally presented on Trial Pit, Borehole, Drillhole or Window Sample Records. The descriptions of strata result from information gathered from a number of sources which may include published geological data, preliminary field observations and descriptions, insitu test results, laboratory test results and specimen descriptions. A key to the symbols and abbreviations used accompanies the records. The descriptions on the exploratory hole records accommodate but may not necessarily be identical to those on any preliminary records or the laboratory summaries. The records show ground conditions at the exploratory hole locations. The degree to which they can be used to represent conditions between or beyond such holes, however, is a matter for geological interpretation rather than factual reporting and the associated uncertainties must be recognised. DYNAMIC PROBING This technique typically measures the number of blows of a standard weight falling over a standard height to advance a cone-ended rod over sequential standard distances (typically 100mm). Some devices measure the penetration of the probe per standard blow. It is essentially a profiling tool and is best used in conjunction with other investigation techniques where site-specific correlation can be used to delineate the distribution of soft or loose soils or the upper horizon of a dense or strong layer such as rock. Both machine-driven and hand-driven equipment is available, the selection depending upon access restrictions and the depth of penetration required. It is particularly useful where access for larger equipment is not available, disturbance is to be minimised or where there are cost constraints. No samples are recovered and some techniques leave a sacrificial cone head in the ground. As with other lightweight techniques, progress is limited in strong or dense soils. The results are presented both numerically and graphically. Depths of up to 10m are commonly achieved in suitable circumstances. The hand-driven DCP probing device has been calibrated by the TRL to provide a profile of CBR values over a range of depths of up to 1.50m. INSTRUMENTATION The most common form of instrument used in site investigation is either the standpipe or else the standpipe piezometer which can be installed in investigation holes. They are used to facilitate monitoring of groundwater levels and water sampling over a period of time following site work. Normally a standpipe would be formed using rigid plastic tubing which has been perforated or slotted over much of its length whilst a standpipe piezometer would have a filter tip which would be placed at a selected level and the hole sealed above and sometimes below to isolate the zone of interest. Groundwater levels are determined using an electronic “dipmeter” to measure the depth to the water surface from ground level. Piezometers can also be used to measure permeability. They are simple and inexpensive instruments for long term monitoring but response times can limit their use in tidal areas and access to the ground surface at each instrument is necessary. Remote reading requires more sophisticated hydraulic, electronic or pneumatic equipment. Settlement can be monitored using surface or buried target plates whilst lateral movement over a range of depths is monitored using slip indicator or inclinometer equipment.
Geotechnics Limited © The Geotechnical Centre, 203 Torrington Avenue, Tile Hill, Coventry. CV4 9AP
GENERAL NOTES 1. The report is prepared for the exclusive use of the Client named in the
document and copyright subsists with Geotechnics Limited. Prior written
permission must be obtained to reproduce all or part of the report. It is
prepared on the understanding that its contents are only disclosed to
parties directly involved in the current investigation, preparation and
development of the site.
2. Further copies may be obtained with the Client's written permission,
from Geotechnics Limited with whom the master copy of the document
will be retained.
3. The report and/or opinion is prepared for the specific purpose stated in
the document and in relation to the nature and extent of proposals
made available to Geotechnics Limited at that time. Re-consideration
will be necessary should those details change. The recommendations
should not be used for other schemes on or adjacent to the site without
further reference to Geotechnics Limited.
4. The assessment of the significance of the factual data, where called for,
is provided to assist the Client and his Engineer and/or Advisers in the
preparation of their designs.
5. The report is based on the ground conditions encountered in the
exploratory holes together with the results of field and laboratory testing
in the context of the proposed development. The data from any
commissioned desk study and site reconnaissance are also drawn upon.
There may be special conditions appertaining to the site, however, which
are not revealed by the investigation and which may not be taken into
account in the report.
6. Methods of construction and/or design other than those proposed by the
designers or referred to in the report may require consideration during
the evolution of the proposals and further assessment of the
geotechnical and any geoenvironmental data would be required to
provide discussion and evaluations appropriate to these methods.
7. The accuracy of results reported depends upon the technique of
measurement, investigation and test used and these values should not be
regarded necessarily as characteristics of the strata as a whole (see
accompanying notes on Investigation Techniques). Where such
measurements are critical, the technique of investigation will need to be
reviewed and supplementary investigation undertaken in accordance
with the advice of the Company where necessary.
8. The samples selected for laboratory test are prepared and tested in
accordance with the relevant Clauses of BS 1377 Parts 1 to 8, where
appropriate, in Geotechnics Limited’s UKAS accredited Laboratory,
where possible. A list of tests is given.
9. Tests requiring the use of another laboratory having UKAS accreditation
where possible are identified.
10. Any unavoidable variations from specified procedures are identified in
the report.
11. Specimens are cut vertically, where this is relevant and can be identified,
unless otherwise stated.
12. All the data required by the test procedures are recorded on
individual test sheets but the results in the report are presented in
summary form to aid understanding and assimilation for design
purposes. Where all details are required, these can be made
available.
13. Whilst the report may express an opinion on possible
configurations of strata between or beyond exploratory holes, or on
the possible presence of features based on either visual, verbal,
written, cartographical, photographic or published evidence, this is
for guidance only and no liability can be accepted for its accuracy.
14. Classification of materials as Made Ground is based on the
inspection of retrieved samples or exposed excavations. Where it is obvious that foreign matter such as paper, plastic or metal is present, classification is clear. Frequently, however, for fill materials that arise from the adjacent ground or from the backfilling of excavations, their visual characteristics can closely resemble those of undisturbed ground. Other evidence such as site history, exploratory hole location or other tests may need to be drawn upon to provide clarification. For these reasons, classification of soils on the exploratory hole records as either Made Ground or naturally occurring strata, the boundary between them and any interpretation that this gives rise to should be regarded as provisional and subject to re-evaluation in the light of further data.
15. The classification of materials as Topsoil is generally based on
visual description and should not be interpreted to mean that the material so described complies with the criteria for Topsoil used in BS 3882 (2007). Specific testing would be necessary where such definition is a requirement.
16. Ground conditions should be monitored during the construction of
the works and the report should be re-evaluated in the light of
these data by the supervising geotechnical engineers.
17. Any comments on groundwater conditions are based on
observations made at the time of the investigation, unless specifically stated otherwise. It should be noted, however, that the observations are subject to the method and speed of boring, drilling or excavation and that groundwater levels will vary due to seasonal or other effects.
18. Any bearing capacities for conventional spread foundations which
are given in the report and interpreted from the investigation are for bases at a minimum depth of 1m below finished ground level in naturally occurring strata and at broadly similar levels throughout individual structures, unless otherwise stated. The foundations should be designed in accordance with the good practice embodied in BS 8004:1986 - Foundations, supplemented for housing by NHBC Standards. Foundation design is an iterative process and bearing pressures may need adjustment or other measures may need to be taken in the context of final layouts and levels prior to finalisation of proposals.
19. Unless specifically stated, the investigation does not take account
of the possible effects of mineral extraction or of gases from fill or
natural sources within, below or outside the site.
20. The costs or economic viability of the proposals referred to in the
report, or of the solutions put forward to any problems
encountered, will depend on very many factors in addition to
geotechnical or geoenvironmental considerations and hence their
evaluation is outside the scope of the report.
Recommended