newland developers pty ltd level 1 inspection and testing...

Newland Developers Pty Ltd

Level 1 Inspection and Testing, Warralily Armstrong Creek Development

Stage 55 – GEOTABTF08569AE-BG

13 June 2014

ii

Quality information Revision history

Revision Description Date Author Reviewer Signatory

0 Level 1 Report 2/06/2014 Sotir Stojcevski

Hans Mulder Hans Mulder

Distribution

Report Status No. of copies Format Distributed to Date

Report v.1 1 PDF/Paper Martin O’Hanlon 12/06/2014

Report v.1 1 Paper Coffey library 12/06/2014

iii

Table of contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Project summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 3. Specifications/work instructions ............................................................................................. 1 4. Fill material ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Earthworks ................................................................................................................................. 2

5.1. Subgrade assessment ......................................................................................................... 2 5.2. Fill construction .................................................................................................................... 2 5.3. Survey data and fill thickness .............................................................................................. 2

5.3.1. Fill Pad 1 ...................................................................................................................... 3 5.3.2. Fill Pad 2 ...................................................................................................................... 3

6. Testing and results.................................................................................................................... 3 7. Statement of compliance .......................................................................................................... 3

Important information about your Coffey Report

Figures

Figure 1- Field Density Test Locations Figure 2 - Summary of Field Density Test Results

Appendices Appendix A - Photographs Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results Appendix C - Survey SMS-7278-0003 Appendix D - Extract from specifications by SMEC, ref 0557ESB-24


Coffey 1 GEOTABTF08569AE-BG 13 June 2014

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the Level 1 Inspection and Testing for fill placement within Stage 55 of Warralily Estate Armstrong Creek Development.

The works were commissioned by Martin O’Hanlon of Newland Developers Pty Ltd (Newland).

2. Project summary We understand that Newland requires fill placement within Stage 55 of the Warralily Armstrong Creek Development in the areas as shown in Figure 1, to be constructed under Level 1 Inspection and Testing undertaken by a Geotechnical Inspection and Testing Authority (GITA).

Level 1 Inspection and Testing, as defined in AS3798-2007 “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development,” provides for full time inspection of the construction of controlled fill and field and laboratory testing in accordance with AS1289 “Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes”.

The Level 1 Inspection was undertaken by geotechnical professionals from Coffey for a total of 6 working days over four periods 7 and 11 November 2013, 26 and 27 February 2014, 3 March 2014 and 29 May 2014.

The earthworks contractor for the project was Winslow. Coffey Testing and Ground Science undertook the compaction control testing in their NATA accredited laboratories, as part of the Level 1 Inspection and Testing process.

This report is applicable to fill placed by Winslow within Stage 55 of the Warralily Development in the areas shown in Figure 1. The filling area encompasses two fill pads as listed below:

- Fill Pad 1 - Inclusive of the area within lots 5501, 5502, 5503, 5504 and 5513. - Fill Pad 2 - Inclusive of the area within lots 5514, 5515, 5516, 5517 and 5518.

This report does not include fill other than where mentioned in this report or any other fill that may be placed during this period or subsequent periods at or surrounding the subject site. Excluded works such as trench backfill, foot paths, landscaping fill or topsoil are noted in section 7 of this report.

3. Specifications/work instructions

The specification for the project was prepared by SMEC Australia Pty Ltd (SMEC) for Armstrong Creek Development Corporation Pty Ltd under reference number 0557ESB-24. Extract of the specifications were provided to Coffey in an email sent by Shane McGlynn from SMEC on 5 October 2012. The extract of the specified requirements is provided in Appendix D and a short summary is provided below:

- All filling in excess of 300mm depth within the building envelope of allotments shall be undertaken to specifications satisfying the requirements of AS 3798-1996 “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development”.

- All such filling works shall be undertaken with supervision to the standard detailed as “Level 1 Inspection and Testing” in AS 3798-2007, such that the supervisor will issue a notice detailing that the works comply with the specifications and drawings.

- Material to be used for fill construction shall satisfy the requirements of AS 3798-2007


Coffey 2 GEOTABTF08569AE-BG 13 June 2014

- Fill to be compacted in near horizontal layers not exceeding 250mm loose thickness

- Compaction to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 95% Standard; and

- Moisture content of the fill material is to be within ±3% of the Standard Optimum Moisture Content (SOMC).

4. Fill material

Fill used for construction comprised of locally sourced silty clay. Fill was sourced from the road boxing excavations within Stage 55 as well stockpiled fill from of the Armstrong Creek Development location 6B.

5. Earthworks

The earthworks for this project included stripping of topsoil, proof rolling the subgrade and placement and compaction of fill to construct engineered fill platforms.

5.1. Subgrade assessment

The subgrade assessment at Fill Pad 1 and 2 was undertaken on 7 November 2013 by Coffey following the removal of topsoil and before any fill was placed. In both areas the subgrades comprised natural silty clay. No soft spots were observed during subgrade proof rolling.

5.2. Fill construction

Fill material was placed generally in loose layers varying in thickness from 200mm to 300mm. Compacted layers were approximately 150mm to 250mm thick.

Fill from the road boxing was placed and spread by scrapers, stockpiled fill was trucked in and spread with a bulldozer. A water cart and a pad foot roller were present onsite during works for conditioning and compacting.

Coffey’s Level 1 Inspector was on site on a full time basis during the placement, compaction and testing of the fill on the dates noted in Section 1 of this report. Coffey was not present on site over prolonged periods between the commencement and the completion of the earthworks (7 November 2013 to 29 May 2014). Coffey understands that Winslow did not place any fill within the two construction areas during the period when Coffey was absent from the site.

5.3. Survey data and fill thickness

Winslow’s appointed surveyor Survey Management Solutions (SMS) conducted a survey of the subgrade level on the pads following the topsoil removal. SMS’s survey plan is provided in Appendix C of this report under reference number SMS-7278-0003 dated 4 December 2013.

The SMS survey plan gives a fill height value required to bring surface level to design height. This level is inclusive of 150mm topsoil which is to be added after our presence onsite and is not included as part of the Level 1 Inspection and Testing carried out by Coffey.


Coffey 3 GEOTABTF08569AE-BG 13 June 2014 (Revised 16 June 2014)

5.3.1. Fill Pad 1

Pad 1 required fill depth excluding the expected 0.15m of topsoil at finished surface level ranged from 0.65m to 0.1m. Surveys show the pad slopes down to the south, because of the slopping nature of the pad areas in the south subsequently required more fill layers. Three layers of fill were placed on the southern and eastern lots of the pad whilst only 2 layers required in the north of lot 5504 pad. The maximum fill layer thickness was 220mm meeting the specifications provided SMEC Australia Pty Ltd.

5.3.2. Fill Pad 2

Pad 2 required fill depth excluding the expected 0.15m of topsoil at finish surface level ranged from 0.66m to 0.15m. The Pad was filled in two layers averaging layer thickness of 180mm. The maximum fill layer thickness was 330mm slightly exceeding the specifications provided by SMEC Australia Pty Ltd, this was restricted to a small area in south east corner of Lot 5514.

6. Testing and results

Field density testing was undertaken progressively on the compacted fill. Testing was undertaken under Type 1 Earthworks (large scale operations) as defined in Table 8.1 of the AS 3798-2007. Frequency 1 test per material type per layer per 2500m2 or 1 test per 500m3 or 3 tests per lot.

The field density testing was conducted by Coffey Testing and Ground Science all laboratory testing was performed in their NATA accredited laboratories. A Hilf compaction test was performed for each field density test.

A total of 13 field density tests were performed during the earthworks. Three of the 13 tests did not meet the specified criteria and these areas were subsequently re-worked and re-tested. The remaining test results met the specified dry density ratio criteria of 95% Standard and moisture variation of ±3% of the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).

A summary of the test results obtained from the field density testing within Stage 55 fill platforms is provided in a table presented as Figure 2. The laboratory test reports of the field density tests are presented in Appendix B.

7. Statement of compliance Coffey personnel have provided Level 1 Inspection and Testing services during the construction of the two engineered fill areas within Stage 55 as shown in Figure 1. A geotechnical professional from Coffey (Level 1 Inspector) was on site on a full time basis during subgrade preparation and fill placement, and observed the construction techniques adopted.

Based on observations made by Coffey’s Level 1 Inspector and the results of field and laboratory tests, Coffey consider that the engineered fill areas within Stage 55 constructed by Winslow to the levels indicated in Section 5, as far as we have been able to determine, has been placed in general accordance with the intent of the specification.


As a client of Coffey you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. These notes have been prepared by Coffey to help you interpret and understand the limitations of your report.

Your report is based on project specific criteria

Your report has been developed on the basis of your unique project specific requirements as understood by Coffey and applies only to the site investigated. Project criteria typically include the general nature of the project; its size and configuration; the location of any structures on the site; other site improvements; the presence of underground utilities; and the additional risk imposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. Your report should not be used if there are any changes to the project without first asking Coffey to assess how factors that changed subsequent to the date of the report affect the report's recommendations. Coffey cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur due to changed factors if they are not consulted. Subsurface conditions can change

Subsurface conditions are created by natural processes and the activity of man. For example, water levels can vary with time, fill may be placed on a site and pollutants may migrate with time. Because a report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Consult Coffey to be advised how time may have impacted on the project. Interpretation of factual data

Site assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken and when they are taken. Data derived from literature and external data source review, sampling and subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by geologists, engineers or scientists to provide an opinion about overall site conditions, their likely impact on the proposed development and recommended actions. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter how qualified, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than assumed based on the facts obtained. Nothing can be done to change the actual site conditions which exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of unexpected conditions. For this reason, owners should retain the services of Coffey through the development stage, to identify variances, conduct additional tests if required, and recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.

Your report will only give preliminary recommendations

Your report is based on the assumption that the site conditions as revealed through selective point sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout an area. This assumption cannot be substantiated until project implementation has commenced and therefore your report recommendations can only be regarded as preliminary. Only Coffey, who prepared the report, is fully familiar with the background information needed to assess whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not changes should be considered as the project develops. If another party undertakes the implementation of the recommendations of this report there is a risk that the report will be misinterpreted and Coffey cannot be held responsible for such misinterpretation. Your report is prepared for specific purposes and persons

To avoid misuse of the information contained in your report it is recommended that you confer with Coffey before passing your report on to another party who may not be familiar with the background and the purpose of the report. Your report should not be applied to any project other than that originally specified at the time the report was issued. Interpretation by other design professionals

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain Coffey to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the report. Have Coffey explain the report implications to design professionals affected by them and then review plans and specifications produced to see how they incorporate the report findings.


Data should not be separated from the report*

The report as a whole presents the findings of the site assessment and the report should not be copied in part or altered in any way. Logs, figures, drawings, etc. are customarily included in our reports and are developed by scientists, engineers or geologists based on their interpretation of field logs (assembled by field personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. These logs etc. should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in other documents or separated from the report in any way. Geoenvironmental concerns are not at issue

Your report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site unless specifically required to do so by the client. Specialist equipment, techniques, and personnel are used to perform a geoenvironmental assessment. Contamination can create major health, safety and environmental risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site to be contaminated or create an environmental hazard, you are advised to contact Coffey for information relating to geoenvironmental issues.

Rely on Coffey for additional assistance

Coffey is familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a project, from design to construction. It is common that not all approaches will be necessarily dealt with in your site assessment report due to concepts proposed at that time. As the project progresses through design towards construction, speak with Coffey to develop alternative approaches to problems that may be of genuine benefit both in time and cost. Responsibility

Reporting relies on interpretation of factual information based on judgement and opinion and has a level of uncertainty attached to it, which is far less exact than the design disciplines. This has often resulted in claims being lodged against consultants, which are unfounded. To help prevent this problem, a number of clauses have been developed for use in contracts, reports and other documents. Responsibility clauses do not transfer appropriate liabilities from Coffey to other parties but are included to identify where Coffey's responsibilities begin and end. Their use is intended to help all parties involved to recognise their individual responsibilities. Read all documents from Coffey closely and do not hesitate to ask any questions you may have. * For further information on this aspect reference should be made to "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical information in Construction Contracts" published by the Institution of Engineers Australia, National headquarters, Canberra, 1987.

Figures Figure 1- Field Density Test Locations

Figure 2 - Summary of Field Density Test Results


GEOTABTF08569AE-BG

13 June 2014

Appendix A - Photographs (1 page)

Photo 1 - Fill Placement in Stage 55 by use of Scrapper. 7/11/2013

Photo 2 –Clearing off topsoil to re work Layer 3 in lot 5501 and 5502. 29/05/2014

Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results

(6 pages)

Sample DetailsLocation:Client Request ID:Specification Requirements: MINIMUM HILF DENSITY RATIO OF 95% of Standard Compaction + or -3% OMC (as advised by

client)Field Test procedures: AS 1289.5.8.1Laboratory Test procedures: AS 1289.5.7.1, AS 1289.2.1.1Sampling Method: AS1289.1.2.1 Clause 6.4 (b)Source: On SiteMaterial: Insitu

Sample DataSample ID ABTM13S-01567Field Sample ID Test 1Date Tested 7/11/2013Time Tested 13:00

Location Lot

5501 Layer 1Soil Description Clay Field and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 17.0Field Wet Density (t/m³) 2.14Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.82Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.11Optimum Moisture Content (%) 16.5Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 103.0Moisture Variation (%) 0.5 wetHilf Density Ratio (%) 101.5legend * adjusted for oversize material .


Location Lot

5503 Layer 1Soil Description Clay Field and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 20.5Field Wet Density (t/m³) 2.16Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.80Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.07Optimum Moisture Content (%) 20.0Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 101.5Moisture Variation (%) 0.5 wetHilf Density Ratio (%) 104.5legend * adjusted for oversize material .

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results of the tests, calibrations and/ormeasurements included in this document are traceableto Australian/national standards.

8/11/2013

HILF Density Ratio ReportReport No: HDR:ABTM13W00398

Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:NATA Accredited Laboratory Number:431

Approved Signatory: Owen Clapton(Geotechnician)Project Name: GEOTABTF08569AE - Stage 55

ABN 92 114 364 046

Abbotsford, Melbourne Laboratory

Coffey Testing Pty Ltd3G Marine ParadeAbbotsford VIC 3067

Phone: +61 3 8413 6900Fax: +61 3 8413 6999

Project No.: INFOABTM00082AAPrincipal:

Lot No.: TRN:

P.O. Box 40Kew VIC 3101

Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (Abbotsford)

Page 1 of 1Form No: 18996, Report No: HDR:ABTM13W00398 © 2000-2013 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

Comments

Sample DetailsLocation: Mt Duneed Client Request ID:Specification Requirements: MINIMUM HILF DENSITY RATIO OF 95% of Standard Compaction + or - 3% of OMC (as advised by

client)Field Test procedures: AS 1289.5.8.1Laboratory Test procedures: AS 1289.2.1.1, AS 1289.5.7.1Sampling Method: AS1289.1.2.1 Clause 6.4 (b)Source: On SiteMaterial: Insitu


Location Lot 5515

Layer 1Soil Description Silty Clay Field and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 20.0Field Wet Density (t/m³) 1.93Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.61Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.06Optimum Moisture Content (%) 21.5Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 91.5Moisture Variation (%) 2.0 dryHilf Density Ratio (%) 94.0legend * adjusted for oversize material .

Sample DataABTM13S-01575

Test 48/11/2013

11:50

Lot 5502

Layer 2

Silty Clay

Field and Laboratory Data20022.52.131.742.2024.5

Standard92.5

1.5 dry96.5

.


Location Lot 5504

Layer 2Soil Description Silty Clay Field and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 20.5Field Wet Density (t/m³) 2.14Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.78Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.08Optimum Moisture Content (%) 20.5Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 98.5Moisture Variation (%) 0.5 dryHilf Density Ratio (%) 103.0legend * adjusted for oversize material .


11/11/2013


Issue No: 1

Client:


Approved Signatory: G. Samaradiwakara(Associate Engineering Technician)Project Name: GEOTABTF08569AE - Stage 55

ABN 92 114 364 046



Phone: +61 3 8413 6900Fax: +61 3 8413 6999


Lot No.: TRN:




Comments

Sample DetailsLocation: Mt DuneedClient Request ID:Specification Requirements: MINIMUM HILF DENSITY RATIO OF 95% of Standard Compaction + or -3% of OMC (as advised by

client)Field Test procedures: AS 1289.5.8.1Laboratory Test procedures: AS 1289.2.1.1, AS 1289.5.7.1Sampling Method: AS1289.1.2.1 Clause 6.4 (b)Source: ImportedMaterial: Clay

Sample DataSample ID ABTM14S-00311Field Sample ID Test 6Date Tested 27/02/2014

Location Layer 2

Lot 5564 Soil Description Brown ClayField and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 300Field Moisture Content (%) 17.5Field Wet Density (t/m³) 2.08Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.77Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.10Optimum Moisture Content (%) 17.0Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 102.0Moisture Variation (%) 0.5 wetHilf Density Ratio (%) 99.0legend * adjusted for oversize material .


Test 727/02/2014

Layer 2

Lot 5502

Brown Clay


Standard99.50.0

98.5.


Test 827/02/2014

Layer 3

Lot 5503

Brown Clay


Standard99.50.0

99.0.


Test 927/02/2014

Layer 1

Lot 5515

Retest of Test 3

Brown Clay


Standard94.0

1.0 dry95.5

.


Location Layer 2

Lot 5514 Soil Description Brown ClayField and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 21.5Field Wet Density (t/m³) 1.89Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.55Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 1.99Optimum Moisture Content (%) 21.5Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 100.0Moisture Variation (%) 0.0Hilf Density Ratio (%) 95.0legend * adjusted for oversize material .


4/03/2014


Issue No: 1

Client:


Approved Signatory: Mitchell Hindmarsh(Senior Geotechnician)Project Name: GEOTABTF08569AE - Stage 55

ABN 92 114 364 046



Phone: +61 3 8413 6900Fax: +61 3 8413 6999


Lot No.: TRN:




Comments

field density test results

A C N 105 704 078

13 Brock Street Thomastown VIC, P 03 9464 4617 F 03 9464 4618

client : COFFEY GEOTECHNICS PTY LTD (ABBOTSFORD) job No: GS3289/1

project : GEOTABTF08569AE - WARRALILY - ARMSTRONG CREEK STAGE 55 report No. AA

location : MT DUNEED test date: 3-Mar-14

Test Number 1

Coffey Geo sample number 11

Lot 5501

Layer number 1

Time of tests -

Depth of Test mm 225

Field Wet Density t/m3 1.984

*Field Moisture Content % 11.0

Oversize Material Wet % 0

Sieve Size mm 19.0

Peak Converted Wet Density t/m3 2.016

*Optimum Moisture Content % 16.0

Compactive Effort Used std / mod std

Moisture Ratio % 69

Moisture Variation % -5.0

Moisture Variation Dry

Density Ratio % 98.5

Specification Requirements 95% Standard compaction & +/- 3% of Optimum moisture content.

Notes: Moisture Variation: (-) indicates dry; (+) indicates wet

Material description Gravelly CLAY (FILL)

Test Methods AS1289 5.8.1 5.7.1 2.1.1 1.2.1 (6.4)

Chris SenserrickApproved SignatoryDate 06-Mar-14

ENATA Accredited Laboratory No. 15055 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements in this document are traceable to Australian/National Standards

GS001/R Aug 12Version 5 App EG

Sample DetailsLocation: Mt DuneedClient Request ID:Specification Requirements: MINIMUM HILF DENSITY RATIO OF 95% of Standard Compaction + or -3% OMC (as advised by

client)Field Test procedures: AS 1289.5.8.1Laboratory Test procedures: AS 1289.5.7.1, AS 1289.2.1.1Sampling Method: AS1289.1.2.1 Clause 6.4 (b)Source: On SiteMaterial: Silty Clay


Location Lot 5501

Layer 3 Retest of Test 11Soil Description Silty ClayField and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 17.0Field Wet Density (t/m³) 1.89Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.62Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.11Optimum Moisture Content (%) 18.5Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 91.5Moisture Variation (%) 1.5 dryHilf Density Ratio (%) 90.0legend * adjusted for oversize material .


2/06/2014


Issue No: 1

Client:



ABN 92 114 364 046



Phone: +61 3 8413 6900Fax: +61 3 8413 6999


Lot No.: TRN:




Comments

Sample DetailsLocation: Mt DuneedClient Request ID:Specification Requirements: MINIMUM HILF DENSITY RATIO OF 95% of Standard Compaction + or -3% OMC (as advised byField Test procedures: AS 1289.5.8.1Laboratory Test procedures: AS 1289.5.7.1, AS 1289.2.1.1Sampling Method: AS1289.1.2.1 Clause 6.4 (b)Source: On SiteMaterial: Silty Clay


Location Lot 5501

Layer 3 Retest of Test 12Soil Description Silty ClayField and Laboratory DataDepth of Test (mm) 200Field Moisture Content (%) 19.5Field Wet Density (t/m³) 2.10Field Dry Density (t/m³) 1.75Peak Converted Wet Density* (t/m³) 2.00Optimum Moisture Content (%) 20.5Compactive Effort StandardMoisture Ratio (%) 96.5Moisture Variation (%) 0.5 dryHilf Density Ratio (%) 104.5legend * adjusted for oversize material .


30/05/2014


Issue No: 1

Client:



ABN 92 114 364 046



Phone: +61 3 8413 6900Fax: +61 3 8413 6999


Lot No.: TRN:




Comments

Appendix C - Survey SMS-7278-0003

(1 page)

Appendix D - Extract from specifications

by SMEC, ref 0557ESB-24 (4 pages)

newland developers pty ltd level 1 inspection and testing...

Documents