Palmerston North City Council Longburn Fonterra Site, SH ... TR 1 - Liquefaction... · Longburn Fonterra Site, SH 56 Palmerston North Liquefaction Assessment T&T Ref. 85788 Palmerston

REPORT Palmerston North City Council

Longburn Fonterra Site, SH 56

Palmerston North

Liquefaction Assessment

3

4

REPORT

Report prepared for:

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report prepared by:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Distribution:

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Electronic

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

June 2014

T&T Ref: 85788

Palmerston North City Council

Longburn Fonterra Site, SH 56

Palmerston North

Liquefaction Assessment

5

Longburn Fonterra Site, SH 56 Palmerston North Liquefaction Assessment T&T Ref. 85788

Palmerston North City Council June 2014

Table of contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Site Description 1

2 Scope of investigations 1

2.1 Desktop review 1

2.2 Geotechnical investigations 2

3 Geological model 2

3.1 Published site geology 2

3.2 Soil profile 2

3.3 Groundwater 3

4 Liquefaction 5

4.1 Liquefaction description 5

4.2 Seismic setting and hazard 5

4.3 Soil susceptibility 6

4.4 Trigger 6

4.5 Liquefaction consequences 6

4.5.1 General consequences 6

4.5.2 Site specific consequences 7

4.5.3 Liquefaction summary – North west 8

4.5.4 Liquefaction summary – South east 9

4.6 Liquefaction summary 10

5 Other geotechnical considerations 10

5.1 Pavements 10

5.2 Settlements / bearing capacity 10

6 Applicability 11

Appendix A: Site plans & Sections

Appendix B: Investigation logs

Appendix C: Groundwater measurements

Appendix D: Laboratory testing

6

1



1 Introduction

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) has been engaged by Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) to carry out

a liquefaction assessment for land identified as a potential extension to the existing Fonterra site

at Longburn, Palmerston North.

This assessment is being undertaken as part of a Sectional District Plan Review with regard to the

extension of the existing industrial zoned land. The objectives of this report are to:

• Assess the extent of liquefaction susceptibility of the proposed industrial land;

• Comment on options for mitigation measures that may be required for future

development;

• Assess any other geotechnical conditions that may have an impact on industrial

development.

1.1 Site Description

The site proposed for re-zoning is located adjacent to the existing Fonterra factory at Longburn.

The site covers approximately 30ha and comprises a working dairy farm divided into a number of

farm paddocks. The farm sheds and other buildings are outside the site boundary. Aerial

photography and LiDAR data show that the site is relatively flat lying with little change in

elevation across the site.

2 Scope of investigations

A number of investigations were undertaken in the preparation of this geotechnical assessment.

The details of the investigations are outlined below.

2.1 Desktop review

T&T have reviewed the following published information and existing information held on file to

supplement our site specific investigation:

• Aerial photographs (sourced from Terralink International Ltd.).

• LiDAR data (supplied by Palmerston North City Council).

• Beetham, R.D.; Begg, J.G; Barker, P.; Levick, S.; Beetham, J. 2011. Assessment of

Liquefaction and related ground failure hazards in Palmerston North, New Zealand, GNS

Science Consultancy Report CR2011/108 90p.

• Begg, J. G., Johnston, M. R. (compilers) 2000: Geology of the Wellington area. Institute of

Geological & Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 10. 1 sheet + 64p. Lower Hutt,

New Zealand: Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Ltd.

• Borehole data for adjacent sites obtained from Horizons Manawatu Regional Council. The

borehole logs in excel format were provided to T&T by GNS, with the permission of

Horizons. This data provides drillers log information for deep drillholes installed around

Palmerston North.

• Recent T&T liquefaction assessment reports for the North East Industrial Zone, City West

and Whakarongo Growth areas.

This information is valuable in the assessment of liquefaction on the site and for the scoping of

subsurface investigations.

7

2



2.2 Geotechnical investigations

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd carried out site specific geotechnical investigations at the site in early March

2014. The location of these investigations are shown in Figure 1 of Appendix A. Subsurface

investigations help us understand the soil profile and groundwater conditions, which in turn is

important when assessing the liquefaction hazard. The investigations include:

16No. cone penetration tests (CPTs):

CPT 1 to CPT 16 were pushed from the ground surface until cone refusal on dense material. CPT

logs are provided in Appendix B of this report.

4No. boreholes:

BH 1 to BH 4 were drilled using a hollow stem auger to between 8.3m and 12.3m depth. Borehole

logs are provided in Appendix B of this report.

3No. standpipe piezometers:

Standpipe piezometers were installed in BH 1 to BH 3 after drilling. Groundwater measurements

have subsequently been collected by dipping the water level in each of the piezometers.

Measurements of groundwater level are provided in Appendix C of this report.

Laboratory testing:

Three samples of silty / sandy soil material were selected for laboratory testing. Each sample was

subject to the following tests:

o Atterberg limit testing to assess plasticity

o Natural moisture content test

o Percentage fines content

This testing assists us in determining the soils susceptibility to liquefaction. Laboratory test results

are provided in Appendix D of this report.

3 Geologicalmodel

3.1 Publishedsitegeology

The geology of Palmerston North area is described in the GNS report 2011/108 dated July 2011.

The geology of the site is shown on the GNS QMap for Wellington1.

These two publications indicate that the site comprises Holocene age, well sorted floodplain

gravels.

3.2 Soilprofile

Based on the site investigations described in Section 2.2, the shallow geology of the site can be

simplified into three layers of alluvial material.

An upper layer (Layer 1) of silt and minor sand caps the entire site to a depth of approximately

1.5m below the surface.

1 Begg, J.G., Johnston, M.R. (compilers) 2000. Geology of the Wellington Area. Institute of Geological & Nuclear

Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 10. 1 sheet + 64p. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Institute of Geological & Nuclear

Sciences Ltd.

8

3



The middle soil layer can be divided into three sub-units (Layer 2a, 2b and 2c). Layer 2a comprises

beds of silt and sand, or silty sand and can be found only in the south eastern part of the site

immediately below Layer 1. Layer 2b comprises silt with trace organic fragments and underlies

Layer 2a in the south eastern part of the site, and Layer 1 in the north western part of the site.

Layer 2c comprises typically loose, fine to medium sand but is only locally present. Underlying the

whole site is a dense sandy, fine to coarse gravel (Layer 3).

Basement greywacke rock is inferred to be greater than 230m below the surface based on the

geological map2 and borehole data from an adjacent site.

The shallow soil profile is summarised in Table 3.1 below and illustrated in Figure 3 and 4 of

Appendix A.

3.3 Groundwater

Groundwater data was collected from standpipe piezometers installed in 3 of the boreholes. The

groundwater level was allowed to equalise over several weeks following installation.

Measurements of depth to groundwater were collected in early April, May and June 2014 and

ranged between 1.75m and 3.23m below the ground surface.

2 Begg, J.G., Johnston, M.R. (compilers) 2000. Geology of the Wellington Area. Institute of Geological & Nuclear

Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 10. 1 sheet + 64p. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Institute of Geological & Nuclear

Sciences Ltd.

9

4



Table 3.1: Shallow soil profile based on site investigation boreholes

Layer Description Typical depth to

top of layer (m)

Thickness

(m)

CPT qc (MPa) SPT N Liquefaction

Liquefaction Potential

Trigger SLS - 25 year event

(0.11g 7.5M)

ULS - 500 year event

(0.43g 7.5M)

1 SILT, minor sand, trace of

fine organic fragments.

Present across whole site.

0m

1.4 to 1.8

Typically 1.5m

2 to 10

Typically 4-5

7 to 14

Typically 9-10

N/A – Layer is

above groundwater

N/A – Layer is above

groundwater

N/A – Layer is

above

groundwater

2a Beds of:

SILT with minor sand

and

Silty fine SAND

Present on south eastern

side of site only.

1.4 to 1.8m 1.9 to 4.8m

Typically 3m

SILT typically 1 to 2

Sand 2 to 18,

typically 4 to 6

Silt typically 3 to

5

Sand typically

10 to 18

Low: 0 to 20% of

layer

High: 25-70% of layer

thickness

Typically 45%

0.14g

7.5Mw

50 year

2b SILT, trace of fine organic

fragments and / or fine

sand

Occasional moderately

thick beds of sand and very

thin organic beds


North: 1.4 to 1.8m

South: 3.3 to 6.7m,

typically c.4.7m

1.7 to 6.7m

Typically 3.6m

0.5 to 7

Typically 1 to 2

1 to 14

Typically 2 to 5

Low: 0 to 10% of

layer – confined to

localised sand beds

Typically <5%

Low: 3-20% of layer –

confined to localised sand

beds

Typically 10%

0.14g

7.5Mw

50 year

2c Fine – medium SAND,

mostly loose.

Some medium dense sand

and includes local silt beds

Only locally present across

approx. ½ of the site.

North: 3.9 to 5.4m

South: 7.4 to 8.6m

0.4 to 1.4m

1 to 25

Sand typically 8 to

12

Silt typically 1 to 3

10

(one SPT only)

5 to 30 % of layer

Typically 10 to 20%

of layer

Low: 10 to 30% where

medium dense or

including silt beds

Locally 70 to 90% of layer

where layer is mostly

loose sand (cumulative

thickness typically <1m)

0.2g

7.5Mw

100 year

3 Sandy fine to coarse

GRAVEL, dense.


4.5 to 10m >3m >50 50+ Not susceptible Not susceptible Not susceptible

4 Greywacke Rock >230m - - - N/A

10

5



4 Liquefaction

4.1 Liquefaction description

Liquefaction is a process where loose soils below the groundwater table lose strength and

stiffness in response to an applied cyclic force, such as earthquake shaking. Liquefaction can cause

damage to land, buildings and infrastructure.

Only some earthquakes are strong enough to cause liquefaction and only some soil types are

susceptible to liquefaction.

The process of liquefaction is shown in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Process of liquefaction

4.2 Seismic setting and hazard

The Palmerston North area is a seismically active area.

Although there is no evidence of active faults within the project site, there are a number of active

faults within 10-20km of the site that are shown on the GNS active fault database. They are

capable of generating large earthquakes (i.e. M6.5-M7.5) which could cause liquefaction in the

more susceptible soils (see soil layer 2 in Table 3.1).

The closest major fault (as defined by NZS1170.5:2004) is the Wellington – Mohaka Fault. This

fault is located some 15km east of the site at its closest point.

Table 4.1 below presents the seismic shaking hazard for the site as assessed on the basis of

NZS1170.5.

Table 4.1: Seismic hazard with reference to NZS1170.5: 2004

NSZ 1170.5 Limit State Magnitude PGA (g) Approx. Return Period

Ultimate limit state (ULS) 7.5 0.43 500

N/A 7.5 0.14 50

Serviceability limit state (SLS) 7.5 0.11 25

Note: PGA has been assessed based on NZS1170.5: 2004 for the following:

1. Building design life 50 years

2. Building importance level 2

3. Return period factor 1.0 for 500 years, 0.25 for 25 years.

11

6



4. Sub soil class D (Deep Soil)

5. Hazard factor 0.38 (Palmerston North)

6. Earthquake magnitude 7.5

4.3 Soil susceptibility

Liquefaction only occurs in some soils. Soils susceptible to liquefaction have the following

characteristics:

• Saturated – i.e. below the groundwater table; and,

• Have ‘sand like’ behaviour as defined by the NZGS guidelines.

Typically, liquefaction susceptible soils are saturated, cohesionless, uniform fine sands and coarse

silts.

In general terms, it is the sand or silty sand soils of this site that are considered susceptible to

liquefaction. Samples of silt soils were subject to laboratory testing to assess their susceptibility to

liquefaction. The results of the laboratory testing indicated that in general, the silt soils of Layer

2b are not susceptible to liquefaction.

Sand and silty sand beds included in Layer 2a, and locally in Layer 2b and 2c of this site are

considered to be susceptible to liquefaction.

4.4 Trigger

Soils which are susceptible to liquefaction require a certain level of earthquake shaking (trigger)

to cause them to liquefy. Denser soils require more intense and/or longer duration of shaking

(higher trigger) than less dense soil.

The trigger for each soil layer identified as being susceptible to liquefaction has been assessed

following the method proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008)3. This method is based on an

empirical relationship with cone tip resistance qc and soil fines content.

4.5 Liquefaction consequences

4.5.1 General consequences

Liquefaction can cause significant damage to land and infrastructure. A brief summary of potential

consequences of liquefaction is shown in Table 4.2 as follows:

Table 4.2: Consequences of liquefaction

Differential settlement A difference in ground settlement between two points which can cause

damage to foundations, services and roads.

Sand and water ejected to

the surface

This will result in damage to adjacent roads, pavements and

underground services.

Reduced support to

foundations bearing above

the liquefied soil

Bearing capacity of the soil could be reduced resulting is subsidence of

foundations.

3 Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquake. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

United States of America

12

7



Buoyancy effects Liquefaction causes a loss of soil strength and stiffness. As a result,

manholes and other underground services could be subject to uplift

buoyancy effects.

Lateral spread Land above the liquefied soil layer moving either down slope or toward

a free edge such as a stream channel. This can cause severe damage to

buildings and infrastructure.

4.5.2 Site specific consequences

A number of techniques have been applied to assess the severity of the consequences of

liquefaction at this site. These are:

• Non-liquefied crust thickness

• Calculated settlement

• Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN)

The crust thickness play a very important role in determining the severity of consequences of

liquefaction. The crust is the non-liquefiable material at the surface. It is material that is above the

water table or dense or plastic enough not to liquefy. A greater crust thickness reduces the

surface effects of liquefaction and resulting damage to land, structures, pavements and services.

Calculated settlement has been used in Christchurch to consider the performance of sites with

similar liquefaction. Methods of assessment are based on Part D – Guidelines for the investigation

and assessment of subdivisions in the Canterbury region, of the MBIE guidance document entitled

Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes, December 2012. Based

on this assessment and performance following the earthquakes, flat land in Christchurch has been

assigned into three land performance technical categories (or TC’s).

At a high level, each technical category is defined by amounts of vertical settlement or lateral

spreading that could be expected. Technical categories apply to Christchurch residential land.

They are not directly applicable outside Christchurch. However, in light of no equivalent national

document being available, the guidelines provide a useful framework of general principles for the

investigations and assessment of liquefaction potential. Suitably qualified geotechnical

engineering practitioners could apply the frame work to other regions using their own judgement

and considering local authority requests and objectives.

Liquefaction severity number (LSN) is a method of assessing the vulnerability of land to

liquefaction. LSN relates CPT data to ground damage as a result of liquefaction, based on

observations from the Canterbury Earthquakes4. A higher LSN number indicates a greater level of

surface ground damage as a result of liquefaction.

A summary of the indicators of liquefaction severity as listed above are shown on Figure 2 of

Appendix A. Figure 2 indicates that the site can be broadly divided into two areas of liquefaction

severity, namely – north western and south eastern.

The north west / south east distinction in severity of liquefaction effects is a result of the site

geology. A majority of the liquefaction potential is confined to sand or sandy silt soils, particularly

Layer 2a and 2c. Layer 2a is found only in the southern part of the site – resulting in greater

severity of liquefaction effects in this area. Liquefaction susceptible soils are in general, much

4 van Ballegory, S., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M. and Malan, P. (2013) LSN – a new methodology for characterising the effects

of liquefaction in terms of relative land damage severity. Proceedings of the the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium.

Editor CY Chin. Queenstown, New Zealand.

13

8



thinner or absent from the northern part of the site, resulting in lesser severity of liquefaction

effects.

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 below summarise the assessed severity of liquefaction for the north west and

south east parts of the site respectively and describe the implications for industrial development.

4.5.3 Liquefaction summary – North west

Table 4.3: Liquefaction assessment summary – North west

Method

Results

Interpretation Implications for this site and

industrial development

ULS Event

(PGA = 0.43g,

M=7.5)

Crust Thickness (m) (1) Range: 2m to

5.8m

Average: 3.4m

Observations from Christchurch

residential land are that with a

crust thickness of >3.5m sand

boils and loss of support to

shallow lightly loaded

foundations generally does not

occur.

Ground surface damage generally not

expected as a consequence of

liquefaction.

Calculated Free Field

Settlements (mm) (2)

Range: 4mm to

19mm

Average: 12

ULS settlement <25mm implies

the land is similar to land

performance equivalent

Technical Category 1 for

damaged land in Christchurch

Specific foundation design or ground

improvement to mitigate liquefaction

effects not likely to be required.

Liquefaction Severity

Number (LSN) (3)

Range: 1 to 6

Average: 3

LSN of 0-10 little or no

expression of liquefaction, with

minor effects of liquefaction.

Ground surface damage generally not

expected as a consequence of

liquefaction.

Lateral Spread Not expected.

LiDAR data

indicates site is

flat lying with no

free edges.

Not Applicable as lateral

spreading is not expected.

No specific requirements.

(1) Bowen, H.G. and Jacka, M.E (2013) Liquefaction induced ground damage in the Canterbury Earthquake: Predictions versus reality.

Proceedings of the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium. Editor CY Chin. Queenstown, New Zealand.

(2) Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) Guidance - Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury

earthquakes, Version 3, December 2012

(3) van Ballegory, S., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M. and Malan, P. (2013) LSN – a new methodology for characterising the effects of

liquefaction in terms of relative land damage severity. Proceedings of the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium. Editor CY Chin.

Queenstown, New Zealand.

Mitigation measures for industrial development

Based on our assessment, liquefaction severity for the north western part of the site is generally

low. Foundations for light or single story structures within this part of the site are not likely to

require modification to standard foundation types for liquefaction effects. Heavy or multi story

structures will require specific design consideration for bearing capacity and settlement– refer

Section 5.

14

9



4.5.4 Liquefaction summary – South east

Table 4.4: Liquefaction assessment summary – South east

Method

Results

Interpretation Implications for this site and

industrial development

ULS Event

(PGA = 0.43g,

M=7.5)

Crust Thickness (m) (1) Range: 1.8m to

2.7m

Average: 2.0m

Observations from Christchurch

are that with a crust thickness of

<3.5m ground damage due to

liquefaction effects is generally

evident

Minor ground surface damage including

sand boils and settlement expected in a

ULS event. Foundation design or ground

improvement required to mitigate.

Calculated Free Field

Settlements (mm) (2)

Range: 31mm to

82mm

Average: 52

ULS settlement <100mm implies

the land is similar to land

performance equivalent

Technical Category 2(1) for

damaged land in Christchurch

Specific foundation design or ground

improvement required.

Liquefaction Severity

Number (LSN) (3)

Range: 7 to 19

Average: 15

LSN of 10-20 indicates minor

expression of liquefaction, with

some sand boils

Minor ground surface damage including

sand boils and settlement expected in a

ULS event. Foundation design or ground

improvement required to mitigate.

Lateral Spread Not expected.

LiDAR data

indicates site is

flat lying with no

free edges.

Not Applicable as lateral

spreading is not expected.

No specific requirements

(1) Bowen, H.G. and Jacka, M.E (2013) Liquefaction induced ground damage in the Canterbury Earthquake: Predictions versus reality.

Proceedings of the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium. Editor CY Chin. Queenstown, New Zealand.

(2) Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) Guidance - Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury

earthquakes, Version 3, December 2012

(3) van Ballegory, S., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M. and Malan, P. (2013) LSN – a new methodology for characterising the effects of

liquefaction in terms of relative land damage severity. Proceedings of the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium. Editor CY Chin.

Queenstown, New Zealand.

Mitigation measures for industrial development

Based on our assessment, liquefaction severity for the south eastern part of the site is moderate.

Surface expression of liquefaction and moderate settlement of the land could be expected to

occur as a result of earthquake induced liquefaction within the design life of structures on the

site. Development of buildings in this part of the site is likely to require specific foundation design

to accommodate the effects of liquefaction. This could comprise enhanced shallow foundations

for single or two storey, lightweight buildings (i.e. a reinforced raft foundation similar to the

enhanced foundations specified in the MBIE Guidance5 for TC2 land), or piles extending into

dense gravel of Layer 3 (4.5 – 10m depth to top of layer) for heavier structures.

5 Part D – Guidelines for the investigation and assessment of subdivisions in the Canterbury region, of the MBIE guidance

document entitled Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes, December 2012.

15

10



Specific liquefaction mitigation works may not be required as part of the design and development

of infrastructure (i.e. pavements and underground services), however this should be reviewed as

part of the design for any specific development.

4.6 Liquefaction summary

This assessment has identified that there is potential for liquefaction effects on the site. The

potential for liquefaction is largely restricted to sand and sandy silt soils of Layer 2 and

summarised in Table 3.1. The severity of liquefaction effects are low to moderate and can be

divided into two areas as shown on Figure 2 of Appendix A. In general terms, the severity of

liquefaction effects are low for the north western part of the site and conventional shallow

foundations for single or two story, light weight structures are likely to be sufficient. Liquefaction

effects have been assessed to be moderate for the south eastern part of the site, and structures

here are likely to require specific design to account for liquefaction effects.

This assessment describes liquefaction potential in general terms only and cannot be relied upon

for design. Any development on the site will require specific investigation to supplement the

conclusions of this report.

5 Other geotechnical considerations

5.1 Pavements

The CPT investigations indicate that the upper 1m of soils across the site are typically silts with a

variable component of sand. Subgrade CBR could be locally <3% requiring care in pavement

design and construction. Specific investigation of any pavement areas with scala penetrometer

tests will be required prior to development of any pavements to confirm appropriate subgrade

design.

5.2 Settlements / bearing capacity

The site investigations undertaken as part of this assessment have identified loose sand and

compressible silt soils in the upper 5m to 10m. Specific investigation and foundation design will be

required to allow for these relatively weak conditions. For single and two storey light weight

structures, shallow foundations may be sufficient. For heavier structures, piles extending below 5

to 10m depth (to dense ground) are likely to be required. Foundation design is to consider

liquefaction effects including reduced bearing strength and cyclic displacements.

16

17

Appendix A: Site plans & Sections

• Figure 1: Investigations plan

• Figure 2: Severity of Liquefaction Consequences - ULS

• Figure 3: Cross Section 1

• Figure 4: Cross Section 2

18

19

20

21

22

Appendix B: Investigation logs

• T&T Engineering log terminology sheet

• Borehole logs – BH 1 to BH 4

• CPT logs – CPT 1 to CPT 16

23

Common types:

Bentonite seal

PMT

LT

LV

AL

UU

PSD

c’ O’

CONS

DS

COMP

UCS

IS

GENERAL

Water

Core recovery

Drilling method/casing

Water level on date shown

Water inflow

Water outflow

Expressed as percentage of the length of the core run recovered.

StandpipeSlotted screen

Engineering Log Terminology

VWP

Installation type

Graphic logs

The graphic log shows soil and rock types. The defect log indicates the location, orientation and abundance of defects of all types.

Typical material symbols:

Filter pack

Tests

• N=22:SPT uncorrected blow count for 300 mm

• 75/12:Undrained shear strength (peak /residual as measured by field vane.

Laboratory test(s) carried out:

Pressuremeter test

Lugeon test

Laboratory vane

Atterburg limits

Undrained triaxial

Particle size distribution

Effective stress

Consolidation

Direct shear

Compaction

Unconfined compression

Point load

Organic material

Clay

Silt

Sand

Gravel or Conglomerate

Mudstone

x

xxxxx Siltstone

Sandstone

Igneous rock

Metamorphic Rock

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

VVVVV

Open barrel

Wash

HQ triple tube

PQ triple tube

Hollow Stem Auger

Window Sampler

Hand Auger

High Frequency Sonic Drilling

Low Frequency Sonic Drilling

Soil and rock descriptions follow the “Guidelines for the field classification and description of soil and rock for engineering purposes” by the New Zealand Geotechnical Society (2005). Refer to this document for methods of field determination.

OB

W

HQ3

PQ3

HSA

WS

HA

HFS

LFS

SOIL DESCRIPTIONMoisture content

Dry, looks and feels dry

Moist, no free water on hand when remoulding

Wet, free water on hand when remoulding

Saturated, free water present on sample

Very soft

Soft

Firm

Stiff

Very stiff

Hard

S (kPa)

< 12

12 to 25

25 to 50

50 to 100

100 to 200

> 200

Consistency/undrained shear strength

VS

S

F

St

VSt

H

Very loose

Loose

Medium dense

Dense

Very dense

0 to 4

4 to 10

10 to 30

30 to 50

> 50

Density index

VL

L

MD

D

VD

SPT(N) - uncorrected u

Proportional terms definition (Coarse soils)

Fraction Term

Subordinate

Minor

(UPPER CASE)

(lower case)

with some...with minor...

Major

with trace of...(or slightly)...

% of soil mass

Major constituent

> 20

12 - 20 5 - 12

< 5

GRAVEL

Sandy

with some sand with minor sand

with trace of sand (slightly sandy)

Example

M

D

W

S

Coarse FineType

Size range (mm)

Boulders Cobbles Gravel

Coa

rse

Med

ium

Fine

Sand

Coa

rse

Med

ium

Fine

200 6020 6

0.0620.6 0.2

Silt Clay

0.002

Grain size criteria

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS www.tonkin.co.nz

SPT

Bulk sample

Sample type

Thin-wall tube

Other

Core or Sample loss

Core

50

24

Unweathered

Slightly weathered

Moderately weathered

Highly weathered

Completely weathered

Residual soil

Weathering

UW

SW

MW

HW

CW

RS

Bedding

Joint

Schistosity

Cleavage

Broken zone/crushed zone

Fault

Fault with gouge

Shear zone

Infilled seam

Extremely weathered seam

Drilling - induced defect

Signifcant defects

B

J

Sc

Cl

BZ

F

Fg

SZ

Iz

XD

DD

Defect shape

Stepped

Undulating

Planar

ST

UN

PL

Rough

Smooth

Slickensided

R

SM

SL

Roughness of defect surface

T

VN

N

MN

MW

W

VW

Tight

Very narrow

Narrow

Moderately narrow

Moderately wide

Wide

Very wide

nil

0 - 2

2 - 6

6 - 20

20 - 60

60 - 200

> 200

Clay gouge

Clay veneers

Penetrative limonite

Limonite stained

Coated

Cemented

Clean

CG

CV

PL

FeSt

CT, SC

CL, CS, CC

CN

Joints have openings between opposing faces of intact rock substance in excess of 1 mm filled with clay gouge. Clay is generally described in terms of soil properties.

Joints contain clay coating whose maximum thickness does not exceed 1 mm. Note: Describe clay in terms of soil properties.

Joint traces are marked in terms of well defined zones of slightly to moderately weathered ferruginised rock-substance within the adjacent rock.

Joint surfaces are stained or coated with limonite, although the rock substance immediately adjacent to the joints is fresh.

Joints exhibit coatings other than clay or limonite, e.g. Carbonate (CT) or Silica (SC).

Joints are cemented with limonite (CL), Silica (CS), or Carbonates (CC).

Joint surface show no trace of clay, limonite, or other coatings.

Infillings and coatings

J 60˚, PL, SL, T, CV, STIFF GREEN CLAY

Defect Orientation: for vertical unoriented boreholes defect orientation is measured normal to core axis e.g horizontal = 0˚(see diagram). For angled boreholes defect orientation is measured relative to core axis e.g parallel to core axis = 0˚.

Angle (perpendicular to core axis)Type

ShapeRoughness

ApertureInfilling/coating type

Infilling description (as per soil description)

ROCK DESCRIPTION

Engineering Log Terminology

Extremely weak

Very weak

Weak

Moderately strong

Strong

Very strong

Extremely strong

Field strength

EW

VW

W

MS

S

VS

ES

< 1

1 - 5

5 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 250

> 250

N/A

N/A

N/A

1 - 2

2 - 5

5 - 10

> 10

S (50)I (MPa)UCS (MPa)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS www.tonkin.co.nz

Aperture (mm)

O

Defect coding

Very wide

Wide

Moderately wide

Close

Very close

Extremely close

> 2 m

0.6 - 2 m

200 - 600 mm

60 - 200 mm

20 - 60 mm

> 20 mm

Spacing

SpacingTerm

RQD: Rock Quality Designation - percentage of core run consisting of sound rock longer than 10 cm.

Aperture

25

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

5//5/5N=10

1//1/2N=3

4//3/4N=7

0//0/2N=2

0//0/1N=1

0//1/4N=5

0//1/4N=5

4//32/18for 45mmN>50

25//50for 110mmN>50

25//50for 100mmN>50

Grass and topsoil

SILT, some fine sand; grey with minorred-brown staining. Firm, moist, lowplasticity.

Silty fine SAND, trace organics;brownish-grey with red-brown staining.Loose, moist-wet, low plasticity.

SILT; brownish-dark grey. Soft-firm,moist-wet, low plasticity.

Silty fine-medium SAND bedSandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor silt;grey. Very dense, saturated. Gravel isrounded, slightly weathered greywacke.

End of borehole - target depth.

3/4

/201

4

Notused

Hol

low

ste

m a

uger

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Q1a - AlluviumLayer 1

Layer 2b

Layer 3

F

L

S-F

VD

M/-

M-W/-

S/-

CA

SIN

G

TESTS

SA

MP

LES

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

ST

RE

NG

TH

/DE

NS

ITY

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

R.L

. (m

)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

BOREHOLE LOG

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Soil type, minor components, plasticity orparticle size, colour.

ROCK DESCRIPTION

Substance: Rock type, particle size, colour,minor components.

Defects: Type, inclination, thickness,roughness, filling.

WA

TE

R

ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION

FLU

ID L

OS

S

ME

TH

OD

GEOLOGICAL

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

GEOLOGICAL UNIT,

GENERIC NAME,

ORIGIN,

MINERAL COMPOSITION.

DE

PT

H (

m)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

MO

IST

UR

E

CO

ND

ITIO

N

10 25 50 100

200

1 5 20 50 100

50 250

1000

2000

250

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(MP

a)

1 2 3 4 5 60 7

DE

FE

CT

SP

AC

ING

(mm

)

1 2 3 40 5

SH

EA

R S

TR

EN

GT

H(k

Pa)

1 2 3 40 5

HOLE STARTED: 7/3/14

HOLE FINISHED: 7/3/14

DRILLED BY: Geotech Drilling

LOGGED BY: MJRB CHECKED: NCP

17.73 m

NZTM, GRS80

DRILL TYPE: Truck rig

DRILL METHOD: Auger + SPTs

DRILL FLUID: N/A

CO-ORDINATES:

R.L.:

DATUM:

SHEET 1 OF 1

BOREHOLE No:BH 1

Log Scale 1:75

T+

T_D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.G

DT

mjr

b

BORELOG FONTERRA BH LOGS.GPJ 14-May-2014

5527050.97 mN1816365.25 mE

Hole Location: Adjacent toexisiting factory

PROJECT: PNCC-FONTERRA LOCATION: SH 56, Longburn JOB No: 85788

TONKIN & TAYLOR LTD

26

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

7//6/8N=14

1//2/3N=5

0//1/1N=2

0//1/1N=2

15//25/25for 135mmN>50

19//38/12for 20mmN>50

18//50for 140mmN>50

18//40/10for 20mmN>50

Grass and topsoil

SILT, minor fine sand; brownish-grey withre-brown staining. Firm-stiff, moist, lowplasticity.

SILT, trace organics; brown-dark grey.Firm, moist, low plasticity. Organics includepieces of wood.

Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor silt;grey. Very dense, saturated, poorly sorted.Gravel is sub-rounded to sub-angular,slightly weatherd greywacke.


3/4

/201

4

Notused

Hol

low

ste

m a

uger

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100


Layer 2b

Layer 3

St

F

VD

M/-

S/-

CA

SIN

G

TESTS

SA

MP

LES

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

ST

RE

NG

TH

/DE

NS

ITY

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

R.L

. (m

)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

BOREHOLE LOG

SOIL DESCRIPTION


ROCK DESCRIPTION



WA

TE

R


FLU

ID L

OS

S

ME

TH

OD

GEOLOGICAL

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

GEOLOGICAL UNIT,

GENERIC NAME,

ORIGIN,


DE

PT

H (

m)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

MO

IST

UR

E

CO

ND

ITIO

N

10 25 50 100

200

1 5 20 50 100

50 250

1000

2000

250

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(MP

a)

1 2 3 4 5 60 7

DE

FE

CT

SP

AC

ING

(mm

)

1 2 3 40 5

SH

EA

R S

TR

EN

GT

H(k

Pa)

1 2 3 40 5





16.29 m

NZTM, GRS80



DRILL FLUID: N/A

CO-ORDINATES:

R.L.:

DATUM:

SHEET 1 OF 1

BOREHOLE No:BH 2

Log Scale 1:75

T+

T_D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.G

DT

mjr

b


5527440.43 mN1816419.62 mE

Hole Location: North west end ofsite


TONKIN & TAYLOR LTD

27

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

4//4/4N=8

1//2/3N=5

1//3/7N=10

3//7/11N=18

0//0/1N=1

3//5/7N=12

1//2/4N=6

1//1/3N=4

0//2/8N=10

15//35/15for 30mmN>50

25//50for 100mmN>50

25//38/12for 15mmN>50

Grass and topsoil

SILT, minor fine sand; brownish-greystained red-brown. Firm, moist, lowplasticity.

Silty fine SAND; light greyish-brown.Loose, wet.

Fine to medium SAND; dark grey. Mediumdense, moist.

Interbedded SILT, trace medium sand andsilty SAND; dark grey. Soft-firm, moist, lowplasticity.

Blueish-grey. Wet.

Fine - medium SAND; dark blueish-grey.Loose, wet, well sorted.

Fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor sand andsilt; blueish-grey. Medium dense, saturated,poorly sorted. Gravel is sub-angular (fine)and sub-rounded (coarse), slightlyweathered greywacke.


* = laboratory testing.

3/4

/201

4 Hol

low

ste

m a

uger

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100


Layer 2a

Layer 2b

Layr 2c

Layer 3

F

L

MD

S

L

VD

M/-

W/-

M/-

W/-

S/-

CA

SIN

G

TESTS

SA

MP

LES

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

ST

RE

NG

TH

/DE

NS

ITY

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

R.L

. (m

)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

BOREHOLE LOG

SOIL DESCRIPTION


ROCK DESCRIPTION



WA

TE

R


FLU

ID L

OS

S

ME

TH

OD

GEOLOGICAL

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

GEOLOGICAL UNIT,

GENERIC NAME,

ORIGIN,


DE

PT

H (

m)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

MO

IST

UR

E

CO

ND

ITIO

N

10 25 50 100

200

1 5 20 50 100

50 250

1000

2000

250

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(MP

a)

1 2 3 4 5 60 7

DE

FE

CT

SP

AC

ING

(mm

)

1 2 3 40 5

SH

EA

R S

TR

EN

GT

H(k

Pa)

1 2 3 40 5





18.83 m

NZTM, GRS80



DRILL FLUID: N/A

CO-ORDINATES:

R.L.:

DATUM:

SHEET 1 OF 1

BOREHOLE No:BH 3

Log Scale 1:75

T+

T_D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.G

DT

mjr

b


5527252.26 mN1816717.67 mE

Hole Location: East side of site


TONKIN & TAYLOR LTD

28

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

HS

AS

PT

5//4/3N=7

1//1/2N=3

1//3/4N=7

7//5/5N=10

0//1/1N=2

0//0/2N=2

0//0/3N=3

0//1/3N=4

16//37/13for 100mmN>50

16//36/14for 20mmN>50

16//50for 140mmN>50

17//50for 140mmN>50

Grass and topsoil

SILT, minor fine sand, trace organics; greymottled / stained orange brown. Firm, moist,low plasticity.

Thin beds of silty fine SAND. Wet.

Silty fine SAND; dark blueish-grey. Loose,wet, non plastic.

Fine to medium SAND; dark blueish-grey.Medium dense, saturated.

SILT, minor organics; dark brownish-grey.Soft, wet, low plasticity. Very fine beds oforganics.

Trace fine sand, trace organics; becomingblueish-grey.

Saturated.

Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL;blueish-grey. Very dense, saturated, poorlysorted. Gravel is sub-angular (fine) andsub-rounded (coarse), slightly weatheredgreywacke.

Minor silt.


* = laboratory testing.

Notused

Hol

low

ste

m a

uger

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100


Layer 2a

Layer 2b

Layer 3

F

L

MD

S

VD

M/-

W/-

S/-

W/-

S/-

CA

SIN

G

TESTS

SA

MP

LES

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

ST

RE

NG

TH

/DE

NS

ITY

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

R.L

. (m

)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

BOREHOLE LOG

SOIL DESCRIPTION


ROCK DESCRIPTION



WA

TE

R


FLU

ID L

OS

S

ME

TH

OD

GEOLOGICAL

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

GEOLOGICAL UNIT,

GENERIC NAME,

ORIGIN,


DE

PT

H (

m)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

MO

IST

UR

E

CO

ND

ITIO

N

10 25 50 100

200

1 5 20 50 100

50 250

1000

2000

250

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(MP

a)

1 2 3 4 5 60 7

DE

FE

CT

SP

AC

ING

(mm

)

1 2 3 40 5

SH

EA

R S

TR

EN

GT

H(k

Pa)

1 2 3 40 5





18.32 m

NZTM, GRS80



DRILL FLUID: N/A

CO-ORDINATES:

R.L.:

DATUM:

SHEET 1 OF 1

BOREHOLE No:BH 4

Log Scale 1:75

T+

T_D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.G

DT

mjr

b


5527185.75 mN1816605.44 mE

Hole Location: South east end ofsite


TONKIN & TAYLOR LTD

29

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

3.6

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:

1Project ID: Client:

TONKIN & TAYLOR LTDProject:

FONTERA SITE

S 40'38.0881 E 175'54.8502

Position:

X: 0.00 m, Y: 0.00 mLocation:

PALMERSTON NORTHGround level:

0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT01.CPT

U2

Sleeve area [cm2]: 150

Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990

Gravelly sand to sand (7)

Very stiff sand to clayey sand (8)

Clean sands to silty sands (6)


Clayey silt to silty clay (4)

Silty sand to sandy silt (5)



Clays; clay to silty clay (3)










30

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

2.6

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.9825 E 175'54.9087

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT02.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990



Very stiff fine grained (9)












31

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

2.6

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.9825 E 175'54.9087

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT02.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990















32

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

2.4

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.9246 E 175'55.0200

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT04.cpd

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990





















33

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

3.6

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'38.0499 E 175'55.0876

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT05.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990
















34

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

1.4

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.7951 E 175'54.9389

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT06.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990
















35

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

2.9

>22.884>28.081>30.838

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.6679 E 175'54.8649

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT07.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990








36

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

4

>36.756

>36.647

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

>489.700>1208.100

>515.100

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.5458 E 175'54.7772

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT08.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990





Organic soils-peats (2)




37

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

>39.431>55.925

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

>314.600

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.4478 E 175'54.8614

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT09.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990










38

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.5523 E 175'54.9239

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT10.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990









39

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

>24.820>25.456

>31.585>26.524>38.219

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.6530 E 175'55.0329

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT11.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990











40

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

>31.462

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

>343.600

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.7767 E 175'55.1632

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT12.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990














41

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

1.7

>41.980>52.263>33.854>37.379

>39.281>45.717

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.7143 E 175'55.2867

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT13.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990


















42

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

3.6

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.6108 E 175'55.2030

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT14.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990










43

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

2.8

>34.106>27.794>34.486>37.229

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.4947 E 175'55.0767

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT15.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990









44

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820

qc [MPa]

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Dep

th [

m]

2.1

>25.225>22.178>23.191>47.478>60.095>47.061>36.485>42.746>36.031>39.513>37.904>39.564>46.198>52.671>43.748>31.950>31.584>33.742>37.114

>35.746>53.344>49.511>38.708>40.171

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

fs [MPa]

>492.300>368.900>550.000

>338.900

>679.600>534.500>609.200>398.300

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf [%]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

u2 [MPa]

Test no:



FONTERA SITE

S 40'37.3535 E 175'54.9763

Position:



0.00Date:

6/03/2014Scale:

1 : 50Page:

1/1Fig:

File: CPT16.CPT

U2


Tip area [cm2]: 10

Cone No: 4341

Classification by

Robertson 1990












45

Appendix C: Groundwater measurements

• Measured groundwater level – BH 1 to BH 3

46

Table A1: Measured groundwater level – BH 1 to BH 3

Borehole

No.

Ground

surface

Elevation (m)

3-Apr-14 7-May-14 13-Jun-14 Average

Depth to

groundwater

(m)

Groundwater

RL

Depth to

groundwater

(m)

Groundwater

RL

Depth to

groundwater

(m)

Groundwater

RL

Depth to

groundwater

(m)

Groundwater

RL

1 17.73 1.75 15.98 1.99 15.74 2.34 15.39 2.03 15.70

2 16.29 2.68 13.61 3.23 13.06 2.66 13.63 2.86 13.43

3 18.83 2.35 16.48 2.11 16.72 1.62 17.21 2.03 16.81

NOTE 1: Ground surface elevation is in terms of the GRS80 ellipsoid datum and has been extracted from LiDAR data covering the site.

NOTE 2: Groundwater measurements in CPTs not included. Measurements of depth to groundwater at CPT locations were taken immediately after each

test was completed. In some cases, measurements were not possible due to collapse of the hole. Where measurements were possible, the water levels in

these holes was unlikely to have equalised with the surrounding water levels and these measurements have not been relied upon in our assessment.

47

Appendix D: Laboratory testing

• Atterberg limit test results

• Percentage fines content test results

48

Geotechnics Project ID 650979

Customer Project ID 85788

Customer Name Mike Blakely

Geotechnics Sample ID GEOT201404106 GEOT201404107 GEOT201404108

Date Received 10/04/2014 10/04/2014 10/04/2014

Sample Description

Specimen N/A N/A N/A

Specimen Description

Natural Water Content 52.0% 54.5% 32.9%

Fines Content <75µm Sieve 97.9% 94.5% 98.0%

Fines Content <63µm Sieve 97.5% 93.2% 97.0%

Not IANZ Accredited Not IANZ Accredited Not IANZ Accredited

Approved By RWM RWM RWM

Date 22/04/2014 22/04/2014 22/04/2014

15c Amber Crescent,

Judea

Tauranga 3110

New Zealand

Page 1

+64 7 571 0280

Determination of the Water Content & Fines Content - GEO190-13

Sample Details

SamplePNCC - Palmerston North - BH3

(5.00m)

PNCC - Palmerston North - BH4

(5.00m)


(7.00m)

SILT with trace sand; grey. Moist.

SILT with minor sand and organics;

grey mottled light brown with black

specks. Moist.

SILT with trace sand; grey mottled

brown. Dry to moist.

N/A N/A N/A

Test Result(s)

Test Remark(s)

The material used for testing was

natural, whole soil.





GEOTECHNICS LTD

FINES Multiple Sample Report.xlsm

Page 1 of 1

Version 1 - 14 February 2014

49





Date Received 10/04/2014 10/04/2014 10/04/2014

Sample Description

Specimen N/A N/A N/A

Specimen Description

Liquid Limit 47 61 36

Plastic Limit 30 32 22

Plasticity Index 17 29 14

15c Amber Crescent,

Judea

Tauranga 3110

New Zealand

Page 1.1

p. +64 7 571 0280

Determination of Liquid & Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index - ASTM Test D4318-10 (Method A)

Sample Details

SamplePNCC - Palmerston North - BH3

(5.00m)


(5.00m)


(7.00m)

SILT with trace sand; grey. Moist.

SILT with minor sand and organics;

grey mottled light brown with black

specks. Moist.

SILT with trace sand; grey mottled

brown. Dry to moist.

Test Results

N/A N/A N/A

GEOTECHNICS LTD

ATT ASTM Multiple Sample Report.xlsm

Page 1 of 3


50





Not IANZ Accredited Not IANZ Accredited Not IANZ Accredited

Approved By RWM RWM RWM

Date 22/04/2014 22/04/2014 22/04/2014

15c Amber Crescent,

Judea

Tauranga 3110

New Zealand

Page 1.2

p. +64 7 571 0280

Determination of Liquid & Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index - ASTM Test D4318-10 (Method A)

Sample Details

Sample / SpecimenPNCC - Palmerston North - BH3

(5.00m)


(5.00m)


(7.00m)

The maximum grain size was

approximately <2mm.


approximately <2mm.


approximately <2mm.

Test Remark(s)







The sample description follows the

"NZGS Guidelines for field

description of soil and rock".













The liquid limit was done with a

manual device. The plastic limit

was mechanically rolled. A metal

grooving was used.




grooving was used.




grooving was used.

GEOTECHNICS LTD


Page 2 of 3


51


Client Project ID 85788

Client Name Mike Blakely


p. +64 7 571 0280

15c Amber Crescent,

Judea

Tauranga 3110

New Zealand

Page 1.3

Plasticity Chart

The plasticity chart is provided for your inference only and is not covered under our scope of IANZ accreditation. Due to the nature of classifications it is possible to have discrepancies between observational behaviour descriptions and measured

parameters.

Plasticity Chart - ASTM D2487-06

Sample Details

Sample / SpecimenPNCC - Palmerston North - BH3

(5.00m)


(5.00m)


(7.00m)

PNCC - BH3 (5.00m)

PNCC- BH4 (5.00m)

PNCC - BH4 (7.00m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Pla

stic

ity

In

de

x (P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL)

Plasticity Chart - D2487-06

A Line

U Line

ML or OL

MH or OH

CL -- ML

Soil Type

M - Silt

C - Clay

O - Organic

Plasticity

L - Low

H - High

GEOTECHNICS LTD


Page 3 of 3


52

•

53

Documents

Palmerston North City Council Longburn Fonterra Site, SH ... TR 1 - Liquefaction... · Longburn Fonterra Site, SH 56 Palmerston North Liquefaction Assessment T&T Ref. 85788 Palmerston