Geotechnical Investigation, Jetty Development Clifton ......northern causeway of the boat harbour. This follows other works involving a small boat ramp and causeway which are to be

City of Greater Geelong

Geotechnical Investigation,

Jetty Development

Clifton Springs Boat Harbour

Report No: 880a/01/15

Date: 01 October 2015

FINAL VERSION 1 - 06 02 2016

(Issued Without Comments from Client)

Prepared for Ralph Roob

Senior Environmental Engineer

PO Box 104

Geelong, VIC, 3220

Geotechnical Investigation at Clifton Spring Boat Harbour.

A.S.Miner Geotechnical – Report 880/01/15

Contents

1. Introduction and Background 4

2. Desk Study 5

3. Regional Setting 6

Regional Geology 6

Regional Landscape Evolution 7

Local Geology 8

4. Fieldwork 9

Site Observations 9

CPT Investigation Program 9

5. Interpretation of Results at the Proposed Jetty Site at the CS Boat Harbour 12

Profile 12

Strength 12

6. Discussion and Recommendations 13

7. Information about this report 14

Geotechnical Investigation at Clifton Spring Boat Harbour.

A.S.Miner Geotechnical – Report 880/01/15

Appendices

A Site Photos

B Drilling Bore logs

C DCP results

D Lab testing results

Important Disclaimer

This document has been prepared for use by the City of Greater Geelong by A.S.Miner Geotechnical and has been compiled by using the consultants’ expert knowledge, due care and professional expertise. A.S.Miner Geotechnical do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for every purpose for which it may be used. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on the information contained within this report without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice.

To the extent permitted by law, A.S.Miner Geotechnical (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

A.S.Miner Geotechnical – Report 880a/01/15 4

1. Introduction and Background

As part of ongoing development and upgrade works at the Clifton Springs Boat Harbour (see

location plan in Figure 1), it is understood that a new jetty is to be built perpendicular to the

northern causeway of the boat harbour. This follows other works involving a small boat ramp

and causeway which are to be constructed on the foreshore in the southern shoreline sector of

the facility.

A.S.Miner Geotechnical (ASMG) understands the initial design for the jetty has yet to be

completed but that the jetty structure will include a lightweight deck and piled foundations. Tie

up facilities are to be provided from the jetty.

A series of discussions were held with the City of Greater Geelong (COGG) to assess

requirements for the foundations for this new jetty facility. In particular, it was requested that

geotechnical strength parameters be provided to allow the design of piles for the jetty once the

exact nature of the piles and the structure were known. This follows a similar investigation for

the boat ramp and causeway development to the south.

This investigation report details the results of specialist Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT)

conducted onshore at the proposed jetty site and makes relevant comments and

recommendations for future assessment and analysis once further details of the overall jetty

structure is known.

Figure 1 Location Map


2. Desk Study

A preliminary review of previous geotechnical information relating to the Clifton Springs Boat

Harbour was conducted by ASMG in September 2014. This report detailed information

obtained from the following studies:

• Coffey (2006a) Landslide Risk Assessment. The Dell, Clifton Springs. Prepared

for City of Greater Geelong. M6022/1-AG Dated 14th January 2006.

• Coffey (2006b) Assessment of risks to beach users from geological hazards

between Edgewater stairs and the Dell, Clifton Springs

• ASMG (2008) Clifton Springs Hydro Study Report 416/01/08 Dated 13 October

2008.

• ASMG (2011) Coastal erosion and stability study, Clifton Springs Report No

533/01/11. Dated 30 June 2011.

As part of this current investigation a number of other relevant reports and documents were

identified and these included:

• Ladd P.G. (1971). Some aspects of the geology of the Bellarine peninsula.

B.Sc. (Hons) Thesis. University of Melbourne, 1971.

• Glennon (1980) Coastal Slope Stability Investigation at Curlewis. Thesis

submitted in fulfilment of Bachelor of Engineering. School of Engineering and

Architecture, Deakin University. November 1980

• Peck W, Neilson, J., Olds, R and Seddon K (1992). Engineering geology of

Melbourne. Proceedings of seminar on engineering geology of Melbourne, 16

September 1992 Baklema, Rotterdam.

• PB (2003) The Dell Clifton Springs. Investigation and Monitoring of a Slow

Moving Landslide. Interim Report. Prepared for City of Greater Geelong 26th

August 2003.

• ASMG (2009) Edgewater Drive Stormwater Outfall Stability Assessment.

Prepared for City of Greater Geelong. Report No 479/01/09. Dated 31st May

2009.

• Wilson R. and Miner A. (2012). Landslides on the Bellarine and Nepean

Peninsulas, Victoria. Australian Geomechanics

A significant amount of previous soil parameter testing and overall profile understanding has

been able to be assessed from these previous reports and correlated.

As a result information has been correlated and cross referenced with the profile encountered

during the current investigation with these other sources of data appropriately identified in this

report.


3. Regional Setting

Regional Geology

The Bellarine Peninsula is about 30 km long (east – west) by about 15 km wide. Relief on the

Bellarine Peninsula is typically low with the exception being the prominent 20 m high cliffs that

extend along the north side of the peninsula. The highest point on the peninsula is Mt Bellarine

(RL 137 m AHD).

The Bellarine Peninsula is an uplifted horst block bounded by an unnamed fault in the west,

the Curlewis Monocline to the north and the Bellarine Fault in the east (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Geology of the Bellarine and Nepean Peninsula (modified after 1:250,000

Queenscliff Sheet). From Wilson and Miner (2012)

Despite its small size, the Bellarine Peninsula hosts an extensive sequence of Quaternary and

Tertiary geological units that include:

• Quaternary (Holocene) age alluvium including coastal and inland calcareous and

siliceous dunes and sand sheets, as well as alluvium, lacustrine and swamp

deposits.

• Quaternary (Pleistocene) age Bridgewater Formation calcareous and siliceous

dunes and Newer Volcanic basalt with minor scoria and ash.

• Tertiary (Pliocene) age non-marine to marginal marine, partly ferruginous sands,

clayey sands, clay, and gravels of the Moorabool Viaduct Sands (equivalent to

Brighton Group in Melbourne).


• Tertiary age marine sediments including limestones, marls, calcareous clays,

sand and silt of the Jan Juc Formation, Curlewis Limestone and Fyansford

Formation; overlying Tertiary age basalts and tuffs of the Older Volcanics and

non-marine gravels, sands and clays of the Werribee Formation.

• Cretaceous age sandstone, arkose, shale and mudstone of the Eumeralla

Formation and Barrabool Sandstones which generally form the basement to the

peninsula.

Regional Landscape Evolution

A summary of landscape evolution in the southern end of what is known as the Port Phillip

Sunkland (which includes the Bellarine Peninsula) was provided by Wilson and Miner (2012)

and is presented below as Table 1.

It is important to note the period of deposition under an advancing sea in the late Eocene to

Early Miocene resulted in the deposition of marls and calcareous clays of the Fyansford

Formation within a marine environment. Later deposition under a retreating sea deposited

much of the sandy marls, calcarenites and limestone of the Curlewis Formation so prevalent

along the northern Bellarine Peninsula coastline.

Renewed tectonic activity in the Late Miocene induced gradual uplift causing folding and

faulting on regional structural elements including the Curlewis Monocline. It is likely that

significant landslides and erosion were experienced at this time along the coast causing lateral

stresses and deformations in the Fyansford Formation.


Local Geology

Ladd (1971) provided insight into the local geology at the Clifton Springs Boat Harbour site

through detailed geological mapping during the early 1970’s

Ladd’s mapping of the onshore profile at the Boat Harbour site specifically records a sequence

as follows:

Pleistocene age Sandy Clays, gravel, carbonate nodules and buckshot

Overlying

Pliocene age Moorabool Viaduct sands (equivalent of the re designated Brighton Group)

comprising Sand, clay, sandy clay, calcified clay, ferruginous sandstone and gravel.

with a shoreline deposit of

Holocene age beach sand and in some places to the east raised beaches of shell beds and

coarse sands and mud.

An onshore outcrop/exposure of Miocene age Curlewis Limestone comprising indurated

limestone, marl and fossiliferous clay is shown on Ladd’s maps approximately 500 m to the

east of the boat harbour site. Ladd’s mapping did not include any significant offshore mapping

other than limestone reefs of the Curlewis Formation.t

However Wilson and Miner (2102) did detail a cross section originally produced by Leonard

(1992) which passes almost directly through the boat harbour site providing a conceptual

model of both the onshore and offshore profile at this location. The cross section shows the

offshore profile possibly consisting of the calcareous clays and occasional limestone bands of

the Fyansford Formation overlying intercalated sequence of Older Volcanics and

gravels/sands of the Werribee Formation (see Figure 3)

Figure 3 Section through the Bellarine and Nepean Peninsula (modified after

Leonard, 1992). This section passes close to the Clifton Springs Boat Harbour site


4. Fieldwork

Site Observations

The area for construction of the new jetty facility is located on the northern shoreline of the

boat harbour facility and is adjacent to a short geotextile breakwater. A broad sandy beach

sweeps in from the west and terminates against the breakwater. The remains of an old timber

jetty are located approximately 100 m to the west.

A rock revetment armoured causeway which forms the outer arm of the harbour is located

directly above the beach and continues east onto the boat harbour entrances

The sand beach appears to have been renourished at some point in the past and there are no

other visible exposures or outcrops in the area. The offshore waters appear to be relatively

shallow with evidence of seagrass beds well offshore.

Selected site photos are shown in Appendix A.

CPT Investigation Program

Subsurface investigation was completed on the 28th September 2015. 4 x CPT tests were

conducted using a GeoProbe 7822DT drilling rig operated by Black Geotechnical.

CPT cone and rods were advanced using the GoeProbe rig with information recorded by an

infield data logger/ field computer.

CPT test details are provided in Appendix B as supplied by Black Geotechnical

Location of the 4 CPT tests are shown on Figure 5 and 6 with details of the tests shown in

Tables 2 to 5.

Interpreted soil classifications from the four locations are also detailed in Appendix B with a

summary of the inferred profile provided in Table 6

CPT 1

Northing 5774212.3

Easting 285473.7

Depth 4.5m

Depth to water at end of test 0.0 m

Reason for termination Unable to advance beyond hard layer (assumed to

be indurated/ferruginous sand) at base of hole

Other comments Tides were rising quickly as test was right on edge

of water

Table 2 Details for CPT 1


CPT 2

Northing 5774209.9

Easting 285478.3

Depth 5.25 m




Other comments Unscheduled test included due to inability to break

thru hard layer. Multiple hard bands noted with

depth


Bore CPT 3

Northing 5774195.2

Easting 285476.7

Depth 4.80 m




Other comments Initial location was closer to groyne but unable to

penetrate rock revetment. Hence move further

west.


Bore CPT 4

Northing 5774123.5

Easting 285607.1

Depth 8.45 m



be limestone /calcrete in silty clays) at base of hole

Other comments This location chosen to calibrate against previous

BH2



Material Type Geology CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3 CPT 4

Depth (m) Comment Depth (m) Comment Depth (m) Comment Depth (m) Comment

Not Defined (0): Upper

loose sands??

Recent 0.0 to 1.1 Loose sands 0.0 to 1.5 Loose sands 0.0 to 0.1 Loose sands 0.0 to 1.9 Loose sands

SAND (6) to Gravelly

SAND (7): Mixed and

inter-layered

Moorabool

Viaduct

Sands

1.1 to 1.55 1.5 to 1.65 0.1 to 0.9 1.9 to 2.0

SAND (6) and SAND

mixtures (5) silty sands

to sandy silts

1.55 to 1.90 1.65 to 1.95 0.9 to 2.05

Very Stiff Fine Grained

(9) Sandy Clay over-

consolidated

1.90 to 2.70 1.95 to 2.65 2.05 to 2.65 Initial layer of stiff

silty clay

SAND (6) and

Dense/Cemented

SAND to Clayey

SAND(8)

2.70 to 4.5 Thicker sequence

of cemented sand

than other

locations

2.65 to 5.25 Numerous hard

cemented layers

Increasing

hardness

2.65 to 4.85 Dense sands with

occasional hard

cemented band

2.0 to 3.2 Only two distinct

hard bands within

dense sand

Cemented SAND (8)

very hard

4.5 Refusal

End of Test

Unable to

penetrate qc>30

MPa

5.25 Refusal

End of Test

Unable to

penetrate qc>30

MPa

4.85 Refusal

End of Test

Unable to

penetrate qc>28

MPa

Clayey SILT to Silty

CLAY (4) with some

lenses of Sand /silt

Mixtures(5)

Fyansford

Formation

3.2 to 8.4 Weathered marls as

calibrated from BH2

Hard Band

(limestone??)

8.4 Refusal

End of Test

Table 6 Summary of CPT Investigation on the 28th September 2015.


5. Interpretation of Results at the Proposed Jetty Site at the CS Boat Harbour

Profile

The onshore profile encountered at the site of the onshore section of the proposed jetty has

been interpreted to indicate the presence of between 4.5 and 5.25 m of recent sands and

deposits of the local geological unit known as the Moorabool Viaduct Sands. These deposits

present as a profile of medium dense sands overlying over consolidated very stiff sandy clays

which in turn overlie a sequence of interbedded layers of cemented (and possibly laterised)

sand and sandy clay. These lower layers are very hard in parts and caused refusal with a cone

resistance (qc) of >30 MPa.

No penetration below these hard cemented /laterised layers was possible at the jetty site due

to the hard layers encountered. However based on the local geology and the previous drilling

at the site of the small boat ramp and causeway, it is postulated that a deep sequence of stiff

Fyansford Formation marls/silty clays may exist directly below the hard layers encountered.

CPT4 (which coincides with the previous BH2) was able to penetrate deep into these clays at

the site of the proposed small boat ramp and causeway and a detailed description of the clays

based on classification of retrieved samples is provided in the previous geotechnical report

(ASMG 880/01/15).

Strength

The upper 1.0 m or so of the profile at the jetty site is comprised of very loose to loose sand.

A sequence of interlayered sand and gravelly sand (possibly more likely to be shell grit) is also

of a loose relative density with an end cone resistance of between 2 and 4 MPa. This

sequence in the profile extends to a depth of around 2.0m.

Below a depth of 2.0 m, a stiff to very stiff (Cu approximately 100 kPa), over-consolidated

(sandy) clay is present with a thickness of around 0.50 m to 0.80 m.

Underlying this clay is a sequence of interlayered medium dense to dense sands and harder

cemented sands. Cone resistance in the harder but relatively thin cemented bands is typically

> 16 MPa and can be as high as 30 MPa.

A very hard layer (possibly cemented and ferruginised sand) was present in all three CPTs at

the jetty site at depths ranging from 4.5 m to 5.25 m. Cone resistance was typically > 30 MPa

and caused refusal with no penetration beyond these layers possible

Whilst the upper sands are probably of recent deposition, the underlying sequence is thought

to represent Moorabool Viaduct Sands. It is postulated that directly below the Moorabool

Viaduct Sands lies deep deposits of the Fyansford Formation silty clays which have been

shown in the earlier geotechnical investigation at the boat harbour to be of a stiff consistency

with an undrained shear strength (Cu) typically =75 KPa..

IMPORTANT NOTE: It must however be emphasised that such clays were not directly

encountered at the jetty site due to refusal on the lower harder layers in the Moorabool Viaduct

Sand sediments.


6. Discussion and Recommendations

Based on the information reviewed and additional understanding gained from this study, the

following comments are made:

The site of the onshore section of the proposed jetty consist of around 4.80 m of recent sands

and deposits of the Moorabool Viaduct Sands. These deposits consist of medium dense sands

overlying over consolidated very stiff sandy clays which in turn overlie a sequence of

interbedded layers of cemented (and possibly laterised) sand and sandy clay.

Based on a geological model developed with input from the recent geotechnical investigation

on the southern shores of the facility, it is postulated that a deep sequence of stiff Fyansford

Formation silty clay exists below these deposits

The upper 1.0 m of the profile is comprised of very loose to loose sands and should be ignored

in the design of piled foundations.

Assessment of pile type, size and capacity will be dependent on a number of factors which

include:

• The overall nature of the final jetty structure including construction materials and

aesthetics.

• The final intended purpose for the jetty and the amenity required.

• The axial and lateral loadings to the pile foundations

• The availability of suitable pile driving equipment

Following the development of a conceptual design for the jetty including the overall amenity

required, it is recommended that a suitably qualified marine designer then provide loadings

and material recommendations for the piles.

Based on the geotechnical data obtained during this investigation, it is recommended that an

assessment of pile size, capacity and performance under axial and lateral loads be

undertaken.

Whilst it is expected that any piles would be founded in the upper Moorabool Viaducts Sands

and not penetrate deeper into the stiff clays below, (as is postulated to be the case with the

timber foundations for the old jetty structure to the west), it must be stated that any final pile

design decisions will be wholly dependent on the factors listed above.


7. Information about this report

Important Disclaimer

This document has been prepared for use by City of Greater Geelong by A.S. Miner

Geotechnical and has been compiled by using the consultants’ expert knowledge, due care

and professional expertise. A.S. Miner Geotechnical do not guarantee that the publication is

without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for every purpose for which it may be used. No

reliance or actions must therefore be made on the information contained within this report

without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice.

To the extent permitted by law, A.S. Miner Geotechnical (including its employees and

consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited

to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or

indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material

contained in it.

Currency of information

This report is based in part on information which was provided to us by the client and/or others

and which is not under our control. We do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this

information.

This document has been prepared as at the date stated within (or, if not date is stated, as at

the date of delivery to the named client). This document:

1. Supersedes any previous report or communications (whether interim or otherwise)

dealing with any matter that is the subject of this document; and

2. Takes no account of any matters coming to the notice of A.S. Miner Geotechnical after

the date of this document (including any matters that existed at that date but which were not

know to A.S. Miner Geotechnical until subsequently).

We believe that the conclusions and recommendations contained herein were reasonable at

the time of issue of the report. However, the user is cautioned that fundamental input

assumptions upon which this report is based may change with time. It is the user’s

responsibility to ensure that input assumptions remain valid.

Confidentiality

This report and its contents are confidential and may not be disclosed or published in any

manner (except as required by law) unless A.S. Miner Geotechnical has given its prior written

consent to the form and context of the disclosure or publication and the identity of the

person(s) to whom it is to be disclosed or published.

Distribution of report

This report has been prepared for specific purposes and persons. To avoid misuse of the

information contained within this report, it is recommended that you confer with A.S. Miner

Geotechnical before providing your report to another party who may not be familiar with the


background and the purpose of the report. The report should not be applied to any project

other than that originally specified at the time that the report was originally issued.

Unless specifically agreed otherwise in the contract of engagement, A.S. Miner Geotechnical

retains Intellectual Property Rights over the contents of this report. The client is granted a

licence to use the report for the purposes for which it was commissioned.

Reproduction of Reports

Where it is desired to reproduce the information contained in our report, or other technical

information, for the inclusion in contract documents or engineering specification or the subject

development, such reproductions should include at least all of the relevant figures, drawings,

logs, data, standard description sheets with remarks made in the report of a factual or

descriptive nature etc. These should not be redrawn for inclusion in any other document or

separated from the report in any way.

Reports are the subject of copyright and shall not be reproduced either totally or in part without

the express permission of A S Miner Geotechnical.

Statement of Limitations - Geotechnical Investigations

The following statement of limitations is in accordance with the standard adopted by ASMG for

reports and data presentations. As such it applies to any data or full or partial elements of the

report produced by ASMG.

The report contains results of a geotechnical investigation conducted for a specific purpose

and client. The results should not be used by other parties, or for other purposes, as they may

contain neither adequate nor appropriate information. In particular, the investigation does not

cover contamination issues unless specifically required to do so by the client.

Test Hole Logging

The information on the test hole logs (boreholes, test pits, exposures etc.) is based on a visual

and tactile assessment, except at the discrete locations where test information is available

(field and/or laboratory results). The test hole logs include both factual data and inferred

information. Reference should be made to the relevant sheets for the explanation of logging

procedures (Soil and Rock descriptions, core log Sheet Notes etc.).

Groundwater

Unless otherwise indicated, the water levels presented on the test hole logs are the levels of

free water or seepage in the test hole recorded at the given time of measuring. The actual

groundwater level may differ from this recorded level depending on material permeabilities (i.e.

depending on response time of the measuring instrument). Further variations of this level could

occur with time due to such effects as seasonal, environmental and tidal fluctuations or

construction activities. Confirmation of groundwater levels, phreatic surfaces or piezometric

pressures can only be made by appropriate instrumentation techniques and monitoring

programmes.


Interpretation of Results

The discussion or recommendations contained within this report normally are based on a site

evaluation from discrete test hole data. Generalised, idealised or inferred subsurface

conditions (including any geotechnical cross-sections) have been assumed or prepared by

interpretation and must be considered as a guide only.

Change in Conditions

Local variations or anomalies in the generalised ground conditions do occur in the natural

environment, particularly between discrete test hole locations. Additionally, certain design or

construction procedures may have been assumed in assessing the soil-structure interaction

behaviour of the site. Furthermore, conditions may change at the site from those encountered

at the time of the geotechnical investigation through construction activities and constantly

changing natural forces.

Any change in design, in construction methods, or in ground conditions as noted during

construction, from those assumed or reported should be referred to ASMG for appropriate

assessment and comment.

Geotechnical Verification

Verification of the geotechnical assumptions and/or model is an integral part of the design

process – investigation, construction verification, and performance monitoring. Variability is a

feature of the natural environment and, in many instances, verification of soil or rock quality, or

foundation levels, is required. There may be a requirement to extend foundation depths, to

modify a foundation system or to conduct monitoring as a result of this natural variability.

Allowance for verification by geotechnical personnel accordingly should be recognised and

programmed during construction.

Foundations

Where referred to in the report, the soil or rock quality, or the recommended depth of any

foundation (piles, caissons, footings etc.) is an engineering estimate. The estimate is

influenced, and perhaps limited, by the fieldwork method and testing carried out in connection

with the site investigation, and other pertinent information as has been made available. The

material quality and/or foundation depth remains, however, an estimate and therefore liable to

variation. Foundation drawings, designs and specifications should provide for variations in the

final depth, depending upon the ground conditions at each point of support, and allow for

geotechnical verification.

.

A.S.Miner Geotechnical – Report 880a/01/15

Appendix A

Site Photos


Photo A1 Overview of Clifton Springs Boat Harbour site

Photo A2 Area of proposed jetty adjacent to existing geotextile groyne


Photo A3 GeoProbe set up at CPT1 with cone penetrometer rods on the rack in the foreground

Photo A4 Installation of one of the ground anchors used to generate pull out capacity for the CPT

test.


Photo A5 Pushing of cone and rods with cabling running back to on site laptop computer/logger.

Photo A6 CPT test at site of previous BH2 on temporary causeway


Appendix B

CPT logs as supplied by Black Geotechnical

CPT4

CPT3

CPT1CPT2

Client:

Project:

Title: Figure 1Report No. 880a

City of Greater Geelong

Boat Harbour JettyGeotechnical InvestigationCPT Testing Locations

Scale

Data: CoGG - Imagery 2012Filename: 880_Location_Plan_A4.mxd

Map Created:01 Octobert 2015

(at A4 page size)1:1,000

0 2010Metres

Corio Bay

CliftonSprings

0 500Metres

LegendCPT Locations Je

tty R

oad

CPT3

CPT1CPT2

0 5 10Metres

Detailed Map at Right

Client :A.S.Miner Geotechnical

G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

0.00 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_01 1/2

Project:Location:Position: 0, 0

Boat harbourClifton Springs

u2

cm² cm² 150 10

Processed : TH Checked: RB

1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa

Refusal at 4.51m Max safe push

Water at surface

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Sleeve f riction (fs) in MPa


Water at surface

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


Water at surface

0 2 4 6 8

Friction ratio (Rf ) in %


Water at surface


G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

0.00 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_01 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 8 16 24 32 40

Cone resistance (qc) in MPa


Water at surface

Soil Classification (using Fr)

(0)

(6)

(9)

(8)

(0) Not defined(1) Sensitive, fine grained(2) Organic soils-peats(3) Clays-clay to silty clay(4) Clayey silt to silty clay(5) Sand mixtures(6) Sands(7) Gravelly sand to sand(8) Very stiff sand to clayey sand(9) Very stiff fine grained


G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.10 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_02 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


0 2 4 6 8




G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.10 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_02 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 8 16 24 32 40




(0)

(6)

(9)

(8)

(6)

(8)



G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.57 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_03 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


0 2 4 6 8




G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.57 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_03 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 8 16 24 32 40




(6)

(6)

(4)

(6)

(6)

(7)

(6)



G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.80 m Predrilled

-0.80 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_04 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa

Refusal at 8.44m Inclination

Hole dipped to 0.8m

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



Hole dipped to 0.8m

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


Hole dipped to 0.8m

0 2 4 6 8



Hole dipped to 0.8m


G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.80 m Predrilled

-0.80 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_04 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 8 16 24 32 40



Hole dipped to 0.8m


(0)

(6)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(4)



G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

0.00 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_01 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa


Water at surface

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



Water at surface

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


Water at surface

0 2 4 6 8



Water at surface


G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

0.00 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_01 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40 50

Equivalent SPT N60 Value


Water at surface

0 20 40 60 80 100

Relative density (consolidated) in %


Water at surface

0 10 20 30 40 50

Internal friction angle in degrees


Water at surface


G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.10 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_02 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


0 2 4 6 8




G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.10 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_02 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40 50



0 20 40 60 80 100


143.53 ->


0 10 20 30 40 50




G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.57 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_03 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


0 2 4 6 8




G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.00 m Predrilled

-0.57 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_03 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40 50



0 20 40 60 80 100


139.46 ->

124.6 ->


0 10 20 30 40 50




G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.80 m Predrilled

-0.80 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_04 1/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 10 20 30 40

qt in MPa


Hole dipped to 0.8m

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



Hole dipped to 0.8m

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

u2 in MPa


Hole dipped to 0.8m

0 2 4 6 8



Hole dipped to 0.8m


G.L.:

Predrill:

W.L.: Date:

Cone no.:

Project no.:

CPT no.:

0.80 m Predrilled

-0.80 m 28/09/20150.00 m

C10CFIIP.C12130D157CPT_04 2/2



u2

cm² cm² 150 10


1.44

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

-5.5

-6

-6.5

-7

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

<- D

epth

in m

bel

ow g

roun

d le

vel (

G.L

.) / c

orre

cted

for i

nclin

atio

n

0 8 16 24 32 40

Corrected cone resistance (qt) in MPa


Hole dipped to 0.8m

0 40 80 120 160 200

Su(min) in kPa


Hole dipped to 0.8m

0 40 80 120 160 200

Su(max) in kPa


Hole dipped to 0.8m

Documents

Geotechnical Investigation, Jetty Development Clifton ......northern causeway of the boat harbour. This follows other works involving a small boat ramp and causeway which are to be