Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Rail ...dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/Shared/ATSAttachment1.nsf/(attachment... · Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for . Proposed

Draft

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Rail Corridor Armstrong Creek Town Centre, Mt Duneed, Victoria Doc Ref 212145Report01.1 Prepared for Tract Consultants Pty Ltd July 2012

212145Report01.1

DOCUMENT CONTROL © Copyright 2012 Cardno Lane Piper Pty Ltd (ACN 120 109 935) Bldg 2, 154 Highbury Road, Burwood Vic 3125 Tel: (03) 9888 0100 Fax: (03) 9808 3511 www.lanepiper.com.au

This report is prepared solely for the use of Tract Consultants Pty Ltd (the client) to whom this report is addressed and must not be reproduced in whole or part or included in any other document without our express permission in writing. No responsibility or liability to any third party is accepted for any damages arising out of the use of this report by any third party.

Report Title: Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Rail Corridor Armstrong Creek Town Centre, Mt Duneed, Victoria

Doc. Ref: 212145Report01.1

Client: Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

Signatures: Prepared By:

Authorised By:

Simon Sheldrick BE(Civil) Project Manager

John Piper BE(Civil), MEngSci., MIEAust.,NPER, RBP EC-1027 Senior Principal

Revision Status: Rev No. Status Date Writer Reviewer

0 Draft 28 June 2012 SMS DBS

1 Draft for Comment 12 July 2012 SMS/DBS JPP

Documents Distribution (This Revision): Type Recipient Name Position & Company

Electronic Kirsten Kilpatrick Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

Electronic File 212145 Cardno Lane Piper Pty Ltd

http://www.lanepiper.com.au/

Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Rail Corridor Armstrong Creek Town Centre, Mt Duneed, Victoria

Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

212145Report01.1 Page ii

DRAFT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RAIL CORRIDOR

Armstrong Creek Town Centre, Mt Duneed, Victoria

Table of Contents DOCUMENT CONTROL ........................................................................................................... I 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 5 3 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................... 6 4 PREVIOUS REPORTS ...................................................................................................... 6 5 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 6 6 SITE GEOLOGY................................................................................................................ 7 7 FIELDWORK ..................................................................................................................... 7 8 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................. 8 9 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 8

9.1 Sub-Surface Profile ................................................................................................... 8 9.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 8 9.3 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................... 9

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 9 10.1 Design Batters ........................................................................................................ 10 10.2 Difficulty of Excavation ............................................................................................ 10 10.3 Groundwater Management ..................................................................................... 10 10.4 Detailed Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation ....................................... 11

Text Tables Table 9-1: Typical Subsurface Profile ....................................................................................... 8 Table 9-2: Groundwater Depth Summary ................................................................................. 9 Table 9-3: Summary of Laboratory & Field Results .................................................................. 9

Text Figures Figure 6-1: Geology Map (Geelong 1:63,360) .......................................................................... 7



212145Report01.1 Page iii

Appendices Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 1 Page Figures Figure 1: Site Plan

Appendix B ....................................................................................................... 5 Pages Bore Records BH1-BH4 Unified Classification System (UCS)

Appendix C ....................................................................................................... 3 Pages Laboratory Test Records Moisture Content Determination Atterberg Limit Test Particle Size Distribution

Appendix D ......................................................................................................... 1 Page Limitations of the Report



212145Report01.1 Page iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS

Technical Terms 1H:2V Slope Ratio of 1 Horizontal to 2 Vertical

AHD Australian Height Datum

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

AC Asphalt Cement

AMG Australian Map Grid

Base Course Upper Layer of the pavement

CBR California Bearing Ratio (%)

CTCR Cement Treated Crushed Rock

DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

DTL Daily Traffic Loading

EC Electrical Conductivity

ESA Equivalent Standard Axles

FoS Factor of Safety

GPS Global Positioning System

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HV Heavy Vehicles (Usually a %)

LF Loading Factor

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

PMB Polymer Modified Binder

Prime Application of a primer to a prepared base

Sub-Base Course Lower layer of the pavement

Subgrade Foundation material for the pavement

TDS Total Dissolved Solids (salinity of water)



212145Report01.1 Page 5

DRAFT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RAIL CORRIDOR

Armstrong Creek Town Centre, Mt Duneed, Victoria

1 INTRODUCTION Cardno Lane Piper was requested in emails from Tract Consultants Pty Ltd dated 11th and 14th May 2012 to provide a fee proposal for a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed rail corridor through the future Armstrong Creek Town Centre. The site is to be developed as a town centre precinct with allowance for a future below grade rail corridor running from north to south through the site.

The scope of the preliminary geotechnical investigation is to determine the ground and groundwater conditions which are likely to be encountered along the alignment of the proposed rail corridor as well as construction issues which are likely to be encountered during excavation of the alignment.

The investigation was carried out in accordance with Cardno Lane Piper’s proposal 212145Proposal01.2 dated 22nd May 2012. The fee proposal was formally accepted in a letter of engagement from Kirsten Kilpatrick on behalf of Tract Consultants dated 4th June 2012.

The preliminary investigation includes the following: 1. The ground stratigraphy 2. The presence of groundwater, if any 3. The site geology 4. Design Batters to achieve temporary stable slopes 5. The degree of difficulty in the excavation of the onsite soils and the need for groundwater

management 6. Recommendations for future detailed geotechnical investigations

2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT According to the Armstrong Creek Town Centre, PSP and Master Plan Issue, Revision F dated May 2011 prepared by Tract Consultants for the City of Greater Geelong, as part of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre development it is proposed to set aside a rail reserve for the alignment of a future rail corridor.

The construction of the rail corridor is a long term plan and there are no short to medium plans for the construction of the rail corridor. The reserved space is to be used as community space in the short to medium term until the rail arrives.

As the rail corridor is a long term plan there are currently no details available with regard to the proposed slope for the embankments or whether retaining walls are proposed instead. Similarly, there are no details on the proposed depths of any cuttings, however, as the brief from Tract Consultants called for 8m deep boreholes it is assumed that any cutting excavations will be less than 8m deep.




3 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT This report is limited to a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the alignment of the rail easement and considerations for bulk excavation only. No recommendations are made or inferred on the design of pavements, foundations, wetlands, retaining walls, culverts, rail subgrades or geotechnical design parameters. The geotechnical investigation does not include an assessment of the site for its suitability for the design and construction of the railway tracks.

The report does not include any environmental or hydrogeological investigation of the site and does not include investigation of water inflow into any proposed cuttings.

The limitations of the geotechnical reports are contained in Appendix D.

4 PREVIOUS REPORTS Cardno Lane Piper (formerly Lane Piper) has undertaken geotechnical and groundwater investigations and provided recommendations for the Armstrong Creek Development in the past. The relevant recent projects are listed below. 209283.1Report01.1 - Ground Water Investigation of Old Sewer (Armstrong Creek

Development, Connewarre) 209283.1Report02.1 – Geotechnical Investigation Remediation of Abandoned Sewer

(Armstrong Creek Development, Connewarre) 209283.2Report01.1 – Ground Water Investigation (Armstrong Creek Development,

Connewarre) 210137Report01.2 – Geotechnical Investigation & Design of Proposed Pavements

(Armstrong Creek Stages 1-5, Barwon Heads Road, Connewarre) 210137.1Report01.1 – Geotechnical Investigation & Design of Proposed Pavements

(Warralily Boulevard/Barwon Heads Road Intersection, Connewarre) 210137.2Report01.2 – Geotechnical Investigation & Design of Proposed Pavements

(Warralily Estate Stages 6-11, Armstrong Creek) 210137.3Report01.1 – Geotechnical Investigation & Design of Proposed Pavements

(Warralily Estate Stages 50-52, Armstrong Creek) 210137.3Report02.1 – Geotechnical Investigation & Design of Proposed Pavements (Surf

Coast Highway, Mt. Duneed, Victoria) 210137.5Report01.1 – Geotechnical Investigation & Design of Proposed Pavements

(Warralily Estate Stages 53-58, Armstrong Creek)

5 SITE DESCRIPTION The Armstrong Creek Town Centre (ACTC) and rail corridor forms part of the wider Armstrong Creek Residential Development located between the Surf Coast Highway to the west and Barwon Heads Road to the east. The ACTC adjoins the Surf Coast Highway on the western boundary and is bound by Barwarre Road to the east, Burvilles Road to the south and Boundary Road to the north.

The rail corridor site is currently occupied by three properties that utilise the land for cattle grazing purposes. Each of the properties has a house and sheds and is enclosed by fencing. At the time of the investigation the properties were occupied.




The site is well grassed and contains numerous mature trees particularly along fence lines and close to the residential premises. Four dams are located within the three properties, one in the north-western corner and three in the south-eastern corner.

The fall of the land is from the north and west towards the south eastern corner.

6 SITE GEOLOGY The geological map of the area (Geelong Sheet, 1:63,360, see Figure 6-1) indicates that the site is underlain by Moorabool Viaduct Sands (calcareous sand, clayey sand, quartzite, ferruginous sands and gravels) in the northern portion of the site, transitioning to Waurn Ponds Limestone (limestone, marl) through the middle of the site transitioning potentially to Newer Volcanics (basalt and residual basaltic soils) in the southern portion of the site.

Figure 6-1: Geology Map (Geelong 1:63,360)

The fieldwork observations were generally consistent with the published geological indications with very highly plastic silty clays intersected in all boreholes to the full depth explored. This clay is consistent with the Tertiary Aged Fyansford Clay (glauconitic silt, marl, minor limestone) which is known to overlie the Waurn Ponds Limestone and is exposed in several areas around Geelong including Corio Bay, along Moorabool River and as far as the eastern shore of Lake Connewarre.

However, the presence of the other indicated geologies on the site should not be precluded.

7 FIELDWORK Fieldwork was conducted on the 15th June 2012. A total of four boreholes, identified as BH1-BH4, were solid augered using a Landcruiser mounted drilling rig. The boreholes were drilled to a depth of between 8.2m and 8.4m below ground level. The boreholes were located on site using a Garmin GPS device which has an accuracy of +/- 5m.

Disturbed and undisturbed representative samples of the subgrade were taken from each of the boreholes. Pocket penetrometer tests were carried out to determine the in–situ shear strength of the cohesive soils.

Nv1 Site

R2: Quaternary River Alluvium

Mv: Moorarbool Viaduct Sands

Bwp: Waurn Ponds Limestone

Nv1: Newer Volcanics

Rail Corridor




At the completion of each borehole a temporary piezometer was installed in the borehole to allow the depth to groundwater to be determined. The temporary piezometer typically consisted of a Class 18, 25mm diameter PVC casing with a 3m slotted screen installed at the base of the borehole. The annulus of the borehole was packed with a sand filter to a depth of 0.2-0.4m above the top of the screen and then sealed with a 0.7-1.0m layer of bentonite. The remainder of the borehole was then filled to surface level using spoil from the borehole cuttings.

The boreholes were drilled at the locations approved by Tract Consultants and Council along the alignment of the proposed rail corridor, as shown on the Site Plan, appended as Figure No. 1, Appendix A. The records of the boreholes are appended as Figure No’s. 1 to 4, Appendix B and a Unified Classification System (UCS), appended as Figure No. 5.

The fieldwork was carried out by experienced geotechnicians, who logged the ground encountered and conducted the sampling and in-situ testing.

8 LABORATORY TESTING The testing was undertaken in Cardno Lane Piper’s NATA accredited soils laboratory and consisted of: Moisture Content Determinations Atterberg Limit tests Particle Size Distributions

The test records are appended as Figures No. 1 – 3, Appendix C.

9 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

9.1 Sub-Surface Profile

The typical subsurface profile encountered in the boreholes is detailed below. For further details, the reader is referred to the appended borehole records.

Table 9-1: Typical Subsurface Profile

ROOTMATTER Overlying

Clayey SILT (ML) low plasticity, moderate fissuring, dark brown, stiff, moist, encountered to depths between 0.25m and 0.4m

Overlying

Silty CLAY (CH) high plasticity, moderately fissured, brown, orange, red, light grey, stiff to very stiff, moist, with occasional ironstone gravels, encountered to the

maximum borehole depth of 8.4m

9.2 Groundwater

Groundwater inflow into the boreholes was not identified during the drilling of the boreholes. Temporary piezometers were installed in the four boreholes immediately after drilling and the




piezometers were read at the completion of the drilling of the boreholes prior to leaving the site.

As no groundwater was identified in the boreholes on the day of installation it was inferred that either groundwater inflow was slow or that no groundwater was present. In order to give the piezometers sufficient time to equilibrate, the piezometers were left for approximately 3.5 weeks. Groundwater was encountered in all four boreholes when measured 24 days after installation.

The groundwater levels measured in each borehole are indicated in the table below (Table 9-2).

Table 9-2: Groundwater Depth Summary

Borehole No.

Water Depth Intersected During

Drilling 15/6/2012

(mbgl)

Water Depth in Piezometer After Installation

15/6/2012 (mbgl)

Water Depth in Piezometer 9/7/2012 (mbgl)

BH1 Not encountered Not encountered 7.82

BH2 Not encountered Not encountered 6.57

BH3 Not encountered Not encountered 8.27 BH4 Not encountered Not encountered 7.71

NOTES: mbgl = metres below ground level

A perched water table may develop in the silt layers overlying the clays after sustained rainfall or during the winter months.

9.3 Laboratory Testing

The results of the laboratory and field tests are summarized in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3: Summary of Laboratory & Field Results

Testpit No.

Depth (m) Subgrade Description

Field Moisture Content

(%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Percent Passing

75µm (%)

BH2 7.0-7.4 Silty CLAY orange, brown, grey 38.0 146 120 99

The laboratory testing indicated that the in-situ clays are predominantly fine grained with minimal sand content and very highly plastic.

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The boreholes conducted as part of the preliminary investigation indicated a shallow clayey silt soil overlying a deep, highly plastic silty clay profile to at least 8m in depth. Groundwater levels were measured between approximately 6.6 and 8.3m below ground level across the site.

Subject to the issues outlined in the following sections and further geotechnical investigation, the site is suitable for the proposed rail corridor alignment with regard to its suitability for excavation.




10.1 Design Batters

This investigation involves a preliminary assessment of slope stability only based on the encountered soil profile. No slope stability specific laboratory testing or geotechnical analysis has been conducted. A detailed geotechnical investigation including laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis will be required in order to design the rail cutting slopes.

The stability of the rail cutting slopes is likely to be one of the more significant issues when designing the rail corridor. The soils encountered on site are highly plastic clays which can be subject to slope stability issues when impacted by groundwater ingress, even when battered to relatively shallow angles. Slope failures have previously been identified in similar geologies with slope gradients of 1V:4H when influenced by groundwater ingress.

Dependant on the results of the detailed geotechnical investigation, it is considered likely that short term cut slopes of between 1V:2.5H and 1V:3H will be achievable provided that groundwater is not encountered. Steeper slopes are unlikely to be acceptable due to the potential for slickensided fissuring or sand lenses which can result in rapid failures of the slope, especially when saturated.

Where the slopes are to be permanently battered, cut slopes in the order of between 1V:3.5H and 1V:4H are likely to be achievable when located above the groundwater, again subject to a detailed geotechnical investigation. Flatter batters are likely to be required should the excavations penetrate to below the groundwater table.

These slopes should be protected from erosion with topsoiling and grassing or erosion control mats.

10.2 Difficulty of Excavation

The excavation of the silts and clays should be able to be handled with hydraulic excavators. No rock was encountered to the depths explored and it not expected to be encountered along the alignment at the proposed depth of the excavation.

During the excavation, measures may need to be taken by the contractor to account for water softened highly plastic clays or groundwater inflows. However, considering that the groundwater on site was encountered at depths of greater than 6.5m it is only in deeper excavation that these issues are likely to be encountered.

10.3 Groundwater Management

Groundwater levels were measured at depths between 6.57 and 8.27mbgl in the temporary piezometers installed in the boreholes. As the boreholes were not surveyed, the borehole elevations and groundwater relationship between the boreholes was not able to be determined.

For any excavations along the proposed rail corridor which extend deeper than approximately 6m, it is recommended that some form of groundwater management system be included. This would typically consist of a drain along each side of the track at the toe of the excavated slope. If any retaining walls are to be included along the rail corridor, suitable drainage control measures should be incorporated into the retaining wall system.

If substantial groundwater inflow is encountered, dewatering of the rail cutting may be required. This has the potential to impact the areas immediately surrounding the alignment of




the rail corridor depending on the depth of the cutting, the depth of the groundwater and the proximity of neighbouring properties to the cutting. However, considering the depth that groundwater was encountered on site, this is likely to be a significant issue if the cutting is restricted to less than 6m in depth.

A detailed hydrogeological study will be required at the design stage to more clearly identify the impact of the proposed cutting on groundwater and in turn the effects this will have on nearby infrastructure.

Other issues that need to be considered include when lowering the groundwater table include the impact on the clays themselves. The highly reactive clays can dry out when the slope is drained, especially in the vicinity of the slope face. This can result in drying and shrinkage of the clays making them more susceptible to erosion and slope instability.

10.4 Detailed Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation

As indicated above, the most significant geotechnical issues with regard to the excavation of a rail cutting along the currently proposed alignment are likely to be the slope stability of the cutting including the impact of groundwater on the cutting and the impact of dewatering of the cutting on the neighbouring areas.

During the detailed design, it is recommended that a detailed hydrogeological investigation and geotechnical investigation be undertaken in the area of the rail corridor.

The purpose of the hydrogeological investigation would be to develop a detailed hydrogeological model of the site. Once the model has been developed it could be used to assess the impact of the proposed excavation on the groundwater in the vicinity of the rail corridor.

The geotechnical investigation would be used to assess the slope stability and groundwater issues as well as to provide earthworks, rail formation, foundation and retaining wall design parameters and construction recommendations.

The investigations would involve additional deeper boreholes including monitoring bores both along the alignment and away from the alignment conducting insitu testing and soil sampling for laboratory testing.

The hydrogeological model would also be used as an input into the geotechnical slope stability analysis to allow the short and long term batter slopes to be more accurately defined. The model would also be used to assess the effect of groundwater draw-down on nearby infrastructure.

The scope of the detailed geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations should be based on the final design layout.

Cardno Lane Piper 2012



212145Report01.1 Appendix A

Appendix A 1 Page

Figures

Figure 1: Site Plan

DateRev Description

ScaleDate Size

Designed

Drawn

Checked

Authorised

Status

Client

Project

TitleProject Number Revision

A3

Check AuthorisedDesign

Sheet Number

Drawn Check- -SMS- 04-06-12-

SMS

-

TRACT CONSULTANTS

MT DUNEED, VICARMSTRONG CREEK TOWN CENTREPROPOSED RAIL CORRIDOR

BOREHOLE LOCATIONSGEOTECHNICAL 04-06-2012 AS SHOWN

-212145 -

0

Metres1:5000

200m15010050

BOREHOLE

LEGEND

BH1

BH1E: 0267705N: 5766308

BH2E: 0267569N: 5766056

BH3E: 0267369N: 5765720

BH4E: 0267236N: 5765312

BARWARRE ROAD

SURFCOAST HIGHWAY

BURVILLES ROAD

BOUNDARY ROAD

RAIL CORRIDOR



212145Report01.1 Appendix B

Appendix B 5 Pages

Bore Records

BH1-BH4 Unified Classification System (UCS)

End Cap (8.2m bgl)

ROOTMATTERClayey SILT (ML) low plasticity,moderately fissured, dark brown, stiff,moistSilty CLAY (CH) high plasticity,moderately fissured, brown orange redlight grey, very stiff, moist, with ironstonegravel

0.00.050.3

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

D/1.0

D/1.9

U50

D/3.0

D/4.0

D/5.0

U50

D/7.0

D/8.0

End of BH1 at 8.2m

becoming light grey red with no gravelfrom 1.5m

becoming light grey orange and stiff from3.5m

Backfill (0.0-4.0mbgl)

Class 18, 25mmdia. PVC Casing(0.0-5.2m bgl)

Bentonite (4.0-4.8mbgl)

Sand Filter(4.8-8.2m bgl)

Class 18, 25mmdia. PVC Screen(5.2-8.2m bgl)

pp=350

pp=280

pp=350

pp=310

pp=320

pp=280

pp=280

pp=270

pp=290

pp=280

pp=280

pp=270

Description of Strata

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Remarks

Wel

lG

raph

ic

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Insi

tuTe

stin

g

Borehole Record: BH1 of1 1

MJE / SMSLogged/Checked:

Solid AugerDrilling Method:

CardnoLanePiper 4WDDrill Rig:

15-Jun-12Date Drilled:N5766308

E0267705Position:

Surface Level:

212145Job No.:

Barwarre RdLocation:

ACTC ProposedProject:

Mt Duneed Top of Casing:Inclination:

0.16m AGL

Vertical

Sam

ples

Groundwater Observations:Key:For explanation of abbreviationsand symbols, refer to CardnoLane Piper UCS or Rock Notes

Notes:None encountered during drilling

Geotech GW_SPT_U38-U65 Log 10/10

7.82m BGL on 9/7/2012

End Cap (8.3m bgl)

ROOTMATTERClayey SILT (ML) low plasticity,moderately fissured, dark brown, stiff,moistSilty CLAY (CH) high plasticity,moderately fissured, orange brown grey,very stiff, moist

0.00.050.25

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

D/1.0

D/1.5

D/2.0

U50

D/4.0

D/5.0

D/6.0

U50

D/8.0

End of BH2 at 8.3m

becoming grey orange from 2.5m






pp=300

pp=320

pp=290

pp=320

pp=360

pp=340

pp=360

pp=370

pp=400

pp=370


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Remarks

Wel

lG

raph

ic

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Insi

tuTe

stin

g






E0267569Position:

Surface Level:

212145Job No.:




0.19m AGL

Vertical

Sam

ples




6.57m BGL on 9/7/2012

End Cap (8.4m bgl)

ROOTMATTERClayey SILT (ML) low plasticity,moderately fissured, dark brown, stiff,very moistSilty CLAY (CH) high plasticity,moderately fissured, orange brown grey,stiff, moist

0.00.050.4

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

D/1.0

D/1.5

U50

D/3.0

D/4.0

D/5.0

D/7.0

D/8.0

End of BH3 at 8.4m

becoming light grey orange and very stifffrom 2.0m






pp=280

pp=270

pp=260

pp=320

pp=300

pp=320

pp=360

pp=360

pp=370

pp=350

pp=340


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Remarks

Wel

lG

raph

ic

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Insi

tuTe

stin

g






E0267369Position:

Surface Level:

212145Job No.:




0.21m AGL

Vertical

Sam

ples




8.27m BGL on 9/7/2012

End Cap (8.3m bgl)

ROOTMATTERClayey SILT (ML) low plasticity,moderately fissured, dark brown, stiff,moistSilty CLAY (CH) high plasticity,moderately fissured, dark orange browngrey, stiff, moist

0.00.060.35

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

D/0.5

D/1.5

D/2.0

D/3.0

D/4.0

D/5.0

D/6.0

D/7.0

D/8.0

End of BH4 at 8.3m

becoming lighter in colour from 1.3m

with red from 1.7m

becoming orange grey from 2.5m

becoming grey orange from 3.2m






pp=250

pp=230

pp=260

pp=240

pp=260

pp=250

pp=280

pp=250

pp=270

pp=260

pp=240

pp=250


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Remarks

Wel

lG

raph

ic

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Insi

tuTe

stin

g






E0267236Position:

Surface Level:

212145Job No.:




0.25m AGL

Vertical

Sam

ples




7.71m BGL on 9/7/2012

Unified Classification System (Geotechnology) (in accordance with AS1726)

Revision: 2 QT6.02 – Unified Classification System (Geotechnology) Page 1 of 1 Approved: 25 November 2011

PARTICLE SIZES TERM SIZE (mm)

BOULDER COBBLE GRAVEL Coarse Medium Fine SAND Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY

>200 60 to 200 20 to 60 6 to 20 2 to 6 0.6 to 2 0.2 to 0.6 0.06 to 0.2 0.002 to 0.06 < 0.002

COHESIVE SOILS TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR

STRENGTH (kPa) Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard

0 to 12.5 12.5 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 200 ≥ 200

COHESIONLESS SOILS

TERM ‘N’ (SPT) VALUE (blows / 300mm)

RELATIVE DENSITY

(%)

ANGLE SHEAR

RESISTANCE (degrees)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50

< 15 15 to 35 35 to 65 65 to 85 ≥ 85

25 to 30 27 to 32 30 to 35 35 to 40 38 to 43

STRUCTURE TERM SIZE OF BLOCKS (mm)

Blocky Cloddy Nutty Granular Prismatic Shattered

> 60 20 to 60 6 to 20 0.6 to 6 Stated < 10

SAMPLES BS = Bulk sample D = Disturbed sample U(n) = Undisturbed tube sample (‘n’ denotes internal dia in mm) = Undisturbed tube recovery .. = Undisturbed tube non-recovery .. = SPT Disturbed sample

INDEX PROPERTIES ρ = bulk density (t/m3) DD = dry density (t/m3) mc = field moisture content (%) LL = Liquid Limit (%) PL = Plastic Limit (%) PI = Plastic Index (%)

FIELD TESTS W = Field permeability test P = Pressuremeter test ID = Insitu density test SPT(9) = Standard Penetrometer Test (blows per 300 mm) (63.5 kg hammer dropped 760mm) pp = Pocket penetrometer (kPa)

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

FINE GRAINED SOILS

GROUNDWATER GW = Groundwater depth (m) or level (RL) bgl = Below ground level swl = Standing water level

Sands 50%

<2.36m

Gravels 50%

>2.36mm

GW Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GM Silty gravels and gravel- sand-

clay mixtures

GC Clayey gravels, gravel- sand-clay mixture

SW Well graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM Silty sand, sandy silt mixture

SC Clayey sands, sandy clay mixtures

ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands of low plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to CI medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts of high plasticity

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays

OH Organic clays and silts of medium to high plasticity Pt Peat and other highly organic soils Highly Organic

Soils

FILL

Coarse-grained soils

(<50% fines)

Silts & Clays

LL> 50

Silts & Clays

LL< 50

Fine-grained soils

(>50% fines)



212145Report01.1 Appendix C

Appendix C 3 Pages

Laboratory Test Records

Moisture Content Determination Atterberg Limit Test Particle Size Distribution

Client : Tract Consultants Report Number : 212145 - 1

Client Address : Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date : 27/06/2012

Job Number : 212145 Test Method :

Project : ACTC Proposed Rail Corridor

Location :

Lab No : 12-369

ID No : -

Lot No : -

Date Sampled : 15/6/2012

Date Tested : 25/6/2012

BH / TP No : BH 2

Sample Depth (m) : 7.0 - 7.4

Moisture Content(%): 38.0

Lab No :

Bldg 2, 154 Highbury Road

Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

Determination of the Moisture Content of a Soil – Oven Drying Method (Standard Method)

195 Lennox Street Richmond VIC 3121

Barwarre Road , Mt Duneed

AS1289.2.1.1

ID No :

Lot No :

Date Sampled :

Date Tested :

BH / TP No :

Sample Depth (m) :

Moisture Content(%):

Remarks :

Lab Number: Soil Description

12-369

APPROVED SIGNATORY FIGURE NUMBERThis document is issued in accordance with NATA's

accreditation requirements. Accredited for compliance

with ISO/IEC 17025. The results of the tests,

calibrations and/or measurements included in this

Silty CLAY orange brown, grey

Esko Rissanen

NATA Accred No:3145 FORM NUMBER : CLP001-1


document are traceable to Australian/national

standards. This document shall not be reproduced,

except in full.

Client: Tract Consultants Report Number : 212145 - 3

Client Address: Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date : 3/07/2012

Job Number: 212145 Test Method:

Project:

Location

Lab No: 12-370

ID No: -

Lot Number: -

Date Sampled: 15/06/2012

Date Tested: 2/07/2012

Sample Method: AS1289.1.3.1.5.5(a)

BH / TP No: BH 1

Sample Depth (m): 5.8 - 6.1

Liquid Limit (%): 146

Plastic Limit (%): 26

Plasticity Index (%): 120 #N/A #N/A #N/A

Group Symbol CH


Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

Atterberg Limits & Unified Classification

ACTC Proposed Rail Corridor

195 Lennox Street Richmond VIC 3121


AS1289.3.1.2,

AS1289.2.1.1,

AS1289.3.2.1 &

AS1289.3.3.1

Remarks:

Lab Number: Soil Description :

12-370 Silty CLAY light grey, orange





Plasticity Chart for classification of fine grained soil - Table A1 AS1726 - 1993

10

20

30

40

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

%)

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY CHART

CL CI CH

A-LINE

CL - ML ML or OL MH or OH

Esko Rissanen





except in full.

10

20

30

40

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

%)

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY CHART

CL CI CH

A-LINE

CL - ML ML or OL MH or OH

Client : Report Number: 212145 - 2

Client Address : Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date: 27/06/2012

Job Number : 212145 Test Method :

Project :

Location :

Lab No: 12-369 Date Sampled: 15/06/2012

ID No : Sample Method: AS1289.1.3.1.5.5(a)

Lot No : BH / TP. No. : BH 2

Date Tested: 26/06/2012 Depth (m) : 7.0 - 7.4

Soil Description : Silty CLAY orange brown, grey

Remarks:

Sample Total Dry Mass: 156.7g

Percentage Passing of

TotalSieve Aperture (µm)

Percentage Passing of

Total

100 1180 100

100 600 100

100 425 100

100 300 100

100 212 100

37.5

26.5

19.0


Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

Determination of Particle Size Distribution of a Soil

Standard Method of Analysis by Sieving

195 Lennox Street, Richmond, VIC, 3121

AS1289.3.6.1


Tract Consultants

ACTC Proposed Rail Corridor

Sieve Aperture (mm)

63

13.2 100 212 100

100 150 100

100 75 99

100

100




13.2

9.5

6.7

4.75

2.36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

PERCENTAGE P

ASSIN

G (%

)

SILT FRACTION SAND FRACTION GRAVEL FRACTIONCLAY COBBLES

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20.0 60.0

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

FINE MEDIUM FINE MEDIUMCOARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE COARSE

Esko Rissanen






except in full.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

PERCENTAGE P

ASSIN

G (%

)

SILT FRACTION SAND FRACTION GRAVEL FRACTIONCLAY COBBLES

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20.0 60.0

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

FINE MEDIUM FINE MEDIUMCOARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE COARSE



212145Report01.1 Appendix D

Appendix D 1 Page

Limitations of the Report

LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

Doc: Limitations of Geotechnical Reports Last Revised: 31-Jan-12

The purpose of this report is to provide a geotechnical assessment of the sites examined. The information provided herein will reduce the exposure to risks, but no geotechnical assessment can eliminate them. Nonetheless, even a rigorous assessment may fail to detect all of the geotechnical conditions on a site. Site variations may have occurred in areas not investigated or sampled. This geotechnical report should not be used when the nature of the proposed site usage changes, when the size, layout, or location of the development is modified, when the site ownership changes nor should it be applied to a nearby area. No environmental assessment has been undertaken nor is implied. This site geotechnical assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions where the samples were taken and at the time they were taken. Any soil tests completed, were carried out in Cardno Lane Piper’s NATA accredited soil laboratory. Geotechnical engineers then interpreted the laboratory results and field data and rendered an opinion about the overall subsurface conditions, including the soil type, extent of the soil layers, and their likely impact on the proposed development, with a discussion of the implications considered likely. The actual conditions may differ from the inferred conditions, as no person (no matter how qualified) or even the most detailed subsurface investigation can predict with confidence what may be hidden by soil or water or may have altered with time. Often the interface between different geotechnical areas may be more abrupt or gradual than anticipated. The actual conditions in an area may differ from those predicted. Site assessments are limited by time, and natural processes such as erosion, or mankind altering the ground conditions, including the site levels or filled areas, may affect a site assessment. This geotechnical assessment is prepared in response to a client’s specific requirements. No person other than the client should apply the report without first conferring with Cardno Lane Piper Pty Ltd. Costly problems can occur if the report is misinterpreted. To avoid these problems, Cardno Lane Piper Pty Ltd should be retained to work with the appropriate design professionals and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to the geotechnical matters. This report should only be reproduced in its entirety. Reproduction of borehole or testpit logs alone without the entire report should not be permitted. Redrafting of the borehole or testpit logs for inclusion in drawings or other reports should not be allowed as errors in the drafting can occur. It is recommended that the report be made available in entirety to persons and organisations involved in the project such as contractors. Simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of the subsurface or geotechnical information does not insulate the organisation from liability. The more information a contractor has available to him, the better able he is to avoid costly construction problems and costly adversarial situations. Finally, geotechnical reports are based extensively on opinion and judgment and are less exact than other sciences. The report may contain a number of explanatory clauses or limitations on the results to inform the client about the restrictions of the report. These clauses are not meant to be exculpatory clauses to foist liability onto another person, but to identify where Cardno Lane Piper’s and the client’s responsibilities start and finish. Their use is to clarify where individual responsibilities lie and to allow the individual to take appropriate actions.