proposed subdivision – the bower stage 5 site classification · proposed subdivision – the...

GEOTECHNICAL I LABORATORY I EARTHWORKS I QUARRY I CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL TESTING

Proposed Subdivision – The Bower Stage 5 Site Classification

Bower Road & Liberty Road, Medowie

NEW15P-0033H-AB 19 September 2018

Qualtest Laboratory (NSW) Pty Ltd ABN: 98 153 268 89 8 Ironbark Close Warabrook NSW 2304 T: (02) 4968 4468 F: (02)4960 9775 W: www.qualtest.com.au NEW15P-0033H-AB

19 September 2018

McCloy Development Management

Suite 1, Level 3, 426 King Street

NEWCASTLE WEST NSW 2302

Attention: Mr James Goode

Dear James

RE: Proposed Subdivision – The Bower Stage 5

Bower Road & Liberty Road, Medowie

Site Classification

Please find enclosed our geotechnical report for Stage 5 of ‘The Bower’ residential subdivision,

located off Bower Road and Liberty Road, Medowie.

The report includes recommendations for Site Classification in accordance with AS2870-2011,

“Residential Slabs and Footings”.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact Shannon

Kelly or the undersigned.

For and on behalf of Qualtest Laboratory (NSW) Pty Ltd

Jason Lee

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION – THE BOWER STAGE 5, MEDOWIE

19 September 2018 i NEW15P-0033H-AB

Table of Contents:

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Desktop Study .............................................................................................................. 1

3.0 Field Work ...................................................................................................................... 1

4.0 Site Description ............................................................................................................ 2

4.1 Site Regrade Works ......................................................................................................2

4.2 Surface Conditions ......................................................................................................2

4.3 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................3

5.0 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................... 7

6.0 Site Classification to AS2870-2011 ........................................................................... 8

7.0 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 10

Attachments:

Figure AB1: Approximate Test Pit Locations

Appendix A: Results of Field Investigations

Appendix B: Results of Laboratory Testing

Appendix C: CSIRO Sheet BTF 18

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION – THE BOWER STAGE 5 – BOWER ROAD, MEDOWIE

7 September 2018 1 NEW15P-0033H-AB

1.0 Introduction

Qualtest Laboratory NSW Pty Ltd (Qualtest) is pleased to present this geotechnical assessment

report on behalf of McCloy Development Management (McCloy), for “The Bower” residential

subdivision, Stage 4A, located off Bower Road and Liberty Road, Medowie.

Based on the brief and Sales Plan provided by the client, Stage 5 is understood to comprise of

26 residential allotments (Lots 501 to 526).

The scope of work for the geotechnical investigation included providing discussion and

recommendations on the following:

Site classification to AS2870-2011, “Residential Slabs and Footings”.

This report presents the results of the field work investigations and laboratory testing, and

provides recommendations for the scope outlined above.

The report also includes selected results from the previous geotechnical assessments carried

out for The Bower subdivision by Qualtest (Refer to Section 2.0), to supplement information

collected during the current investigation where applicable.

2.0 Desktop Study

The scope of work has included a review of the following reports by Qualtest:

Geotechnical Assessment report, ‘Proposed Subdivision, Stage 1, Boundary Road,

Medowie, (Report Reference: NEW15P-0033-AE, dated 31 May 2017);

Geotechnical Assessment report, ‘Proposed Subdivision, Stage 2, Boundary Road,

Medowie, (Report Reference: NEW15P-0033A-AA, dated 18 September 2017);

Geotechnical Assessment report, ‘Proposed Subdivision, Backfilled Dam Lots, Boundary

Road, Medowie, (Report Reference: NEW15P-0033A-AB, dated 29 September 2017);

Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment report, ‘Proposed Subdivision – The Bower Stages 3, 4,

5 & 6, Boundary Road, Medowie’ (Report Reference: NEW15P-0033B-AA, dated 30

November, 2017);

Geotechnical Assessment report, ‘Proposed Subdivision, Stage 4A, Liberty Drive, Medowie,

(Report Reference: NEW15P-0033E-AA, dated 30 May 2018);

Level 1 Site Re-grade Assessment Report, ‘Proposed Subdivision – The Bower Stage 5, Liberty

Drive, Medowie”, (Report Reference: NEW17P-0235A-AA, dated 23 August, 2018).

This report includes selected results from the reports referenced above, to supplement

information collected during the current investigations where applicable. Reference should be

made to the reports outlined above for further details of site conditions, field work and

laboratory testing conducted, site supervision and density testing carried out.

3.0 Field Work

The field work investigations were carried out on 14 and 15 October 2018, comprising of:

DBYD search was undertaken to check proposed test locations for the presence of

underground services;

Site walkover to make observations of surface features at the property and in the

immediate surrounding area;



Excavation of 23 test pits (TPQ-501, TPQ-503, TPQ-505 to TPQ-508, TPQ-510 to TPQ-514, TPQ-

514A and TPQ-515 to TPQ-525) using a 2.5 tonne rubber tracked excavator equipped with

a 450mm wide bucket to depths of up to 2.20m or prior refusal on weathered rock;

Undisturbed samples (U50 tubes) and small bag samples were taken for subsequent

laboratory testing;

Test pits were backfilled with the excavation spoil and compacted using the excavator

bucket and tracks.

Investigations were carried out by an experienced Geotechnical Engineer from Qualtest who

located the test pits, carried out the testing and sampling, produced field logs of the test pits,

and made observations of the site surface conditions.

Engineering logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A.

Approximate test pit locations are shown on the attached Figure AB1. Test pits were located in

the field by handheld GPS and relative to existing site features including topographic features,

lot boundaries and existing developments.

4.0 Site Description

4.1 Site Regrade Works

Site re-grading works were conducted on site for Lots 506 to 514 with Stage 5, between the

dates of 31 May 2017 and 19 March 2018. Initial filling was performed during bulk earthworks

undertaken for Stage 2 and Stage 4, which included the filling of a previous site dam, removal

of stockpiled fill and re-grading of lots to final design level.

Prior to filling, re-grade areas were stripped of all topsoil and unsuitable material to expose

suitable natural residual foundation profile. Re-grade works then consisted of filling with

approved site fill to finish design levels.

Filling was performed using site material won from excavations cut from around the site. The fill

material could generally be described as mixtures of Sandy CLAY and Silty CLAY, of medium to

high plasticity, fine to coarse grained sand, and with some fine to coarse grained gravel

inclusions.

The approximate depth of fill placed ranged in the order of about 0.3m to 1.5m for the lots. The

fill was compacted in maximum lifts of 0.3m thickness. Any unsuitable or deleterious material

within the fill was removed by hand or mechanical means prior to final compaction of layers.

As the geotechnical testing authority engaged for the project, we state that the filling

performed for the regrade areas within Stage 5 (Lots 506 to 514), was carried out to Level 1

criteria as defined in Clause 8.2 – Section 8, of AS3798-2007, ‘Guidelines on Earthworks for

Commercial and Residential Developments’.

4.2 Surface Conditions

Stage 5 is located off Bower Road and Liberty Road, Medowie, as shown in Figure AB1.

The site is bounded by adjoining subdivision Stages 1 & 2 to the south, by Stage 4 and future

Stage 8 to the east, by proposed future stages of the subdivision to the west and future park

area to the north. The area of the proposed future stages generally comprises mostly cleared

disused farmland and bushland.

At the time of the site investigation, trafficability by way of 4WD vehicle was good.

http://www.saiglobal.com/online/Script/Details.asp?DocN=AS0733780962AT

http://www.saiglobal.com/online/Script/Details.asp?DocN=AS0733780962AT



Based on observations on the days of the investigation which was carried out during fine

weather, the site was judged to generally be moderately to well drained primarily by way of

surface runoff.

Selected photographs of the site taken on the day of the site investigation are shown below.

Photograph 1: Facing north-west from near

TPQ-507 (boundary of Lots 507 and 508). Spoil

from TPQ-507 visible in photo.

Photograph 2: Facing north from near TPQ-507

(boundary of Lots 507 and 508).

Photograph 3: Facing south-east from near

TPQ-513 (boundary of Lots 513 and 514).

Photograph 4: Facing north-west from near

TPQ-513 (boundary of Lots 513 and 514).

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

Reference to the 1:100,000 Newcastle Coalfield Regional Geology Sheet indicates the site to

be underlain by the Permian Aged Tomago Coal Measures, which are characterised by

Siltstone, Sandstone, Coal, Tuff and Claystone rock types.

Table 1 presents a summary of the typical soil types encountered at test pit locations during the

field investigation, divided into representative geotechnical units.

Table 2 contains a summary of the distribution of the above geotechnical units at the test pit

locations.



TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL UNITS AND SOIL TYPES

Unit Soil Type Description

1A FILL – TOPSOIL

& MULCH

Generally up between approximately 50mm and 200mm of

mulch, overlying:

Sandy CLAY – low to medium plasticity, mostly grey to dark

grey with some white, fine grained sand, trace of fine grained

angular gravel in places, root affected.

1B CONTROLLED FILL

CLAY – medium to high plasticity, dark grey to grey-brown, and

pale grey with some orange-brown to red-brown, with some

fine to medium grained sand, trace fine to medium grained

angular gravel in places. With some pockets of Sandy CLAY.

Sandy CLAY – medium plasticity, dark grey to dark brown, fine

to medium grained sand, with some silt.

Typically of stiff to very stiff consistency.

2 TOPSOIL

Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity, mostly grey to dark

grey, fine grained sand, trace charcoal fragments, root

affected; and,

Silty SAND – fine grained, grey, root affected.

3 SLOPEWASH /

COLLUVIUM

Sandy CLAY – low to medium plasticity, dark grey, fine grained

sand, trace charcoal fragments.

4 RESIDUAL SOIL

CLAY / Sandy CLAY – medium plasticity to high plasticity,

varying colours including brown and grey, orange-brown to

red-brown, grey to pale brown, fine to medium grained sand,

trace of gravel in places. Typically of very stiff consistency.

5

EXTREMELY

WEATHERED (EW)

ROCK

(with soil

properties)

Sandy SILTSTONE – extremely weathered with soil properties,

excavated as Clayey GRAVEL / GRAVEL – mostly fine to

medium grained, angular to sub-angular, grey to dark grey

and orange, fines of medium to high plasticity.

6

HIGHLY

WEATHERED (HW)

ROCK

Sandy SILTSTONE – highly weathered, pale grey to grey some

orange-brown, estimated to variable from low to high rock

strength. Generally fractured or semi-fractured.



TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL UNITS ENCOUNTERED AT EACH TEST PIT LOCATION

Location Unit 1A

Fill: Topsoil &

Mulch

Unit 1B

Controlled Fill

Unit 2

Topsoil

Unit 3

Slopewash /

Colluvium

Unit 4

Residual Soil

Unit 5

Extremely

Weathered Rock

Unit 6

Highly

Weathered Rock

Depth (m)

Current Geotechnical Assessment – Stage 5

TPQ-501 0.00 – 0.15 - 0.15 – 0.30 - 0.30 – 2.20 - -

TPQ-503 0.00 – 0.15 - 0.15 – 0.30 - 0.30 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-505 0.00 – 0.40 - - - 0.40 – 2.20 - -

TPQ-506 0.00 – 0.35 0.35 – 0.80 - - 0.80 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-507 0.00 – 0.40 0.40 – 1.30 - - 1.30 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-508 0.00 – 0.35 0.35 – 1.40 - - 1.40 – 2.00^ -

TPQ-510 0.00 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.60 - - 0.60 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-511 0.00 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.70 - - 0.70 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-512 0.00 – 0.10 0.10 – 0.80 - - 0.80 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-513 0.00 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.60 - - 0.60 – 2.20 - -

TPQ-514 0.00 – 0.10 0.10 – 0.60 - 0.60 – 0.80 0.80 – 2.10 - -

TPQ-514A 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.60 - - 0.60 – 0.90 - -

TPQ-515 - - 0.00 – 0.25 - 0.25 – 1.70 - 1.70 – 1.80^

TPQ-516 - - 0.00 – 0.15 - 0.15 – 1.00 - 1.00 – 1.05*

TPQ-517 - - 0.00 – 0.20 - 0.20 – 1.20 - 1.20 – 1.30*

TPQ-518 - - 0.00 – 0.30 - 0.30 – 1.30 - 1.30 – 1.35*

TPQ-519 - - 0.00 – 0.20 - 0.20 – 0.70 0.70 – 1.10^ -

TPQ-520 - - 0.00 – 0.15 - 0.15 – 0.65 - 0.65 – 0.68*

TPQ-521 - - 0.00 – 0.20 - 0.20 – 0.70 0.70 – 1.10 1.10 – 1.30*

TPQ-522 - - 0.00 – 0.25 - 0.25 – 0.60 0.60 – 1.20 1.20 – 1.25*

TPQ-523 - - 0.00 – 0.20 - 0.20 – 0.80 0.80 – 1.10 1.10 – 1.15*

TPQ-524 - - 0.00 – 0.10 - 0.10 – 0.75 0.75 – 1.20 1.20 – 1.25*

TPQ-525 0.00 – 0.15 - 0.15 – 0.25 - 0.25 – 0.80 0.80 – 0.85* -



Location Unit 1A

Fill: Topsoil &

Mulch

Unit 1B

Controlled Fill

Unit 2

Topsoil

Unit 3

Slopewash /

Colluvium

Unit 4

Residual Soil

Unit 5

Extremely

Weathered Rock

Unit 6

Highly

Weathered Rock

Depth (m)

Previous Geotechnical Assessment – Stage 4A (Ref: NEW15P-0033E-AA, May 2018)

TPQ-411 0.00 – 0.17 0.17 – 0.70 - - 0.70 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-412 0.00 – 0.25 0.25 – 1.80 - - 1.80 - 2.10 - -

TPQ-413 0.00 – 0.40 - - 0.40 – 0.42 0.42 – 2.00 - -

TPQ-414 0.00 – 0.30 - - 0.30 – 0.75 0.75 – 1.90 - -

Previous Geotechnical Assessment – Stages 3, 4, 5 & 6 (Ref: NEW15P-0033B-AA, November 2017)

TP502 - - 0.00 – 0.20 - 0.20 – 0.80 - 0.80 – 1.40^

TP503 - - 0.00 – 0.03 0.03 – 0.30 0.30 – 2.00 - -

TP504 - 0.00 – 0.65 - - 0.65 – 2.00 - -

Previous Geotechnical Assessment – Controlled Backfilled Dams (Ref: NEW15P-0033A-AB, September 2017)

TP411 0.00 – 0.10 0.10 – 0.65 - - 0.65 – 2.10 - -

TP511 - - 0.00 – 0.17 0.17 – 0.40 0.40 – 2.00 - -

TP512 - 0.00 – 0.60 - - 0.60 – 2.00 - -

TP513 0.00 – 0.07 0.07 – 1.30 - - 1.30 – 2.00 - -

Previous Geotechnical Assessment – Stage 2 (Ref: NEW15P-0033A-AA, September 2017)

TP210 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.50 - - 0.50 – 2.10 - -

TP211 0.00 – 0.18 0.18 – 0.65 - - 0.65 – 1.70 - 1.70 – 2.20^

Previous Geotechnical Assessment – Stage 1 (Ref: NEW15P-0033-AE, May 2017)

TP105 - - 0.00 – 0.25 - 0.25 – 2.00 - -

TP106 - - 0.00 – 0.25 - 0.25 – 2.00 - -

Notes: * = Refusal or Practical refusal of 2.5 tonne excavator met on Highly Weathered Rock.

^ = Slow to very slow progress, close to practical refusal of 2.5 tonne excavator.



5.0 Laboratory Testing

Samples collected during the current field investigations were returned to our NATA accredited

Warabrook Laboratory for testing which comprised of:

(22 no.) Shrink / Swell tests.

Results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B, with a summary of the

Shrink/Swell test results presented in Table 3, which also includes a summary of laboratory

testing information where applicable from the previous reports by Qualtest.

TABLE 3 – SUMMARY OF SHRINK / SWELL TESTING RESULTS

Location Depth (m) Material Description Iss (%)

TPQ-501 1.10 - 1.20 (CH) CLAY 3.5

TPQ-503 0.50 - 0.68 (CH) CLAY 4.0

TPQ-505 1.00 - 1.15 (CH) CLAY 3.6

TPQ-506 0.90 - 1.20 FILL: (CH) CLAY 3.6

TPQ-507 0.85 - 1.00 FILL: (CH) CLAY 1.1

TPQ-508 0.60 - 0.75 FILL: (CH) CLAY 1.3

TPQ-510 0.70 - 0.85 (CH) CLAY 4.2

TPQ-511 1.10 - 1.35 (CH) CLAY 3.8

TPQ-512 0.50 - 0.75 FILL: (CH) CLAY 1.4

TPQ-513 1.20 - 1.50 (CH) CLAY 2.7

TPQ-514 0.45 - 0.60 FILL: (CH) CLAY 2.5

TPQ-515 1.10 - 1.25 (CH) CLAY 3.9

TPQ-516 0.70 - 0.85 (CH) CLAY 4.8

TPQ-517 1.00 - 1.15 (CH) CLAY 5.7

TPQ-518 0.70 - 0.85 (CH) CLAY 3.6

TPQ-519 0.40 - 0.50 (CH) CLAY 4.2

TPQ-520 0.40 - 0.55 (CH) CLAY 2.9

TPQ-521 0.40 - 0.60 (CH) CLAY 5.4

TPQ-522 0.40 - 0.50 (CH) CLAY 4.8

TPQ-523 0.50 - 0.80 (CH) CLAY 3.3

TPQ-524 0.45 - 0.55 (CH) CLAY 5.2

TPQ-525 0.60 - 0.80 (CH) CLAY 4.6



Previous Geotechnical Assessment (Ref: NEW15P-0033E-AA, May 2018)

TPQ-411 0.80 -1.00 (CH) CLAY 4.6

TPQ-412 0.40 – 0.60 FILL: (CH) Sandy CLAY 2.7

TPQ-413 1.00 – 1.15 (CH) CLAY 3.5

Previous Geotechnical Assessment (Ref: NEW15P-0033B-AA, November 2017)

TP502 0.40 - 0.60 (CH) CLAY 3.9

TP503 0.60 - 0.80 (CH) CLAY 2.6

TP504 0.70 - 1.10 (CH) CLAY 2.8

Previous Geotechnical Assessment (Ref: NEW15P-0033A-AB, September 2017)

TP411 0.90 - 1.05 Residual Soil – (CH) CLAY 4.5

TP512 0.40 - 0.60 Controlled Fill – (CH) CLAY 1.2


TP513 0.30 - 0.55 Controlled Fill – (CH) CLAY 3.8


Previous Geotechnical Assessment (Ref: NEW15P-0033A-AA, September 2017)

TP210 0.80 - 0.95 (CH) CLAY 2.8

TP211 0.90 - 1.20 (CH) CLAY 4.8

Previous Geotechnical Assessment (Ref: NEW15P-0033-AE, May 2017)

TP105 1.00 – 1.40 (CH) CLAY 3.9

TP106 0.40 – 0.58 (CH) CLAY 3.3

The results of laboratory shrink / swell tests indicate that the residual clays at the site are

generally highly reactive.

6.0 Site Classification to AS2870-2011

Based on the results of the field work, laboratory testing, and site regrade works carried out,

residential lots located within The Bower Stage 5, Medowie, as shown in attached Figure AB1

are classified in their current condition in accordance with AS2870-2011 ’Residential Slabs and

Footings’, as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5 – SITE CLASSIFICATION TO AS2870-2011

Stage Lot Numbers Site Classification

5 501 to 505 & 515 to526 H1

5 506 to 514 H2



A characteristic free surface movement in the range of 40mm to 60mm is estimated for the lots

classified as Class ‘H1’ in their existing condition.

A characteristic free surface movement in the range of 60mm to 75mm is estimated for the lots

classified as Class ‘H2’ in their existing condition.

The effects of changes to the soil profile by additional cutting and filling and the effects of past

and future trees should be considered in selection of the design value for differential

movement.

If site re-grading works involving cutting or filling are performed after the date of this assessment

the classification may change and further advice should be sought.

Final site classification will be dependent on the type of fill and level of supervision carried out.

Re-classification of lots should be confirmed by the geotechnical authority at the time of

construction following any site re-grade works.

Footings for the proposed development should be designed and constructed in accordance

with the requirements of AS2870-2011.

The classification presented above assumes that:

All footings are founded in controlled fill (if applicable) or in the residual clayey soils or rock

below all non-controlled fill, topsoil material and root zones, and fill under slab panels meets

the requirements of AS2870-2011, in particular, the root zone must be removed prior to the

placement of fill materials beneath slabs.

The performance expectations set out in Appendix B of AS2870-2011 are acceptable, and

that site foundation maintenance is undertaken to avoid extremes of wetting and drying.

Footings are to be founded outside of or below all zones of influence resulting from existing

or future service trenches.

The constructional and architectural requirements for reactive clay sites set out in AS2870-

2011 are followed.

Adherence to the detailing requirement outlined in Section 5 of AS2870-2011 ‘Residential

Slabs and Footings’ is essential, in particular Section 5.6, ‘Additional requirements for Classes

M, H1, H2 and E sites’ including architectural restrictions, plumbing and drainage

requirements.

Site maintenance complies with the provisions of CSIRO Sheet BTF 18, “Foundation

Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner’s Guide”, a copy of which is

attached in Appendix C.

All structural elements on all lots should be supported on footings founded beneath all

uncontrolled fill, layers of inadequate bearing capacity, soft/loose, wet or other potentially

deleterious material.

If any localised areas of uncontrolled fill of depths greater than 0.4m are encountered during

construction, footings should be designed in accordance with engineering principles for

Class ‘P’ sites.



7.0 Limitations

The findings presented in the report and used as the basis for recommendations presented

herein were obtained using normal, industry accepted geotechnical design practices and

standards. To our knowledge, they represent a reasonable interpretation of the general

conditions of the site.

The extent of testing associated with this assessment is limited to discrete test pit locations. It

should be noted that subsurface conditions between and away from the test pit locations may

be different to those observed during the field work and used as the basis of the

recommendations contained in this report.

If subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from those given in this report,

further advice should be sought without delay.

Data and opinions contained within the report may not be used in other contexts or for any

other purposes without prior review and agreement by Qualtest. If this report is reproduced, it

must be in full.

If you have any further questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact

Shannon Kelly or the undersigned.

For and on behalf of Qualtest Laboratory (NSW) Pty Ltd.

Jason Lee

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

FIGURE AA1

Approximate Test Pit Locations

Client: McCLOY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT Drawing No: FIGURE AB1

Project: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - THE BOWER, STAGE 5 Project No: NEW15P-0033H

Location: BOWER ROAD, MEDOWIE Scale: AS SHOWN

Title: APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2018

N

Based on sales plan provided by client.

TPQ-520

TPQ-521

TPQ-522

TPQ-523

TPQ-524

TPQ-525

TPQ-501

TPQ-519

TPQ-518

TPQ-517

TPQ-516

TPQ-515

TPQ-514

TPQ-514A TPQ-513

TPQ-512

TPQ-511

TPQ-510TPQ-503

TPQ-505

TPQ-506

TPQ-508

TPQ-412TPQ-411

TPQ-413

TPQ-414

TP210

TP211

TP106

514

TP411

TP511

TP512

TP513TPQ-507

TP503

TP504

TP502

LEGEND:

Approximate test pit location (Current Investigation, September 2018).

Approximate test pit location (Previous investigations, NEW15P-0033-AC.REV1 (August 2016), NEW15-0033-AE (May 2017), NEW15P-0033A-AA (September 2017), NEW15P-0033A-AB (September 2017), NEW15P-0033B-AA (November 2017) and NEW15P-0033E-AA (May 2018).

Approximate extent of Re-grade Works.

TP105

APPENDIX A:

Results of Field Investigations

VSt

0.15m

0.30m

2.20m

FILL: TREE MULCH

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U501.20m

1.10m

FILL: Tree Mulch.

TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity,dark grey, fine grained sand, root affected.

CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with someorange-brown.

Becoming grey with orange-brown to red-brown.

Hole Terminated at 2.20 m

HP 250

HP 320

HP 280

HP 290

HP 280

HP 310

HP 290

HP 280

HP 260

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test

PID Photoionisation detector reading (ppm)DCP(x-y) Dynamic penetrometer test (test depth interval shown)

HP Hand Penetrometer test (UCS kPa)

Material description and profile information

UCS (kPa)D DryM MoistW WetWp Plastic LimitWL Liquid Limit

Field Tests

Notes, Samples and Tests

Structure and additionalobservations

ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R

Gradational ortransitional strataDefinitive or distictstrata change

Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level

(Date and time shown)

Water Inflow

Water Outflow

VS Very SoftS SoftF FirmSt Stiff

VSt Very StiffH HardFb Friable

U50 50mm Diameter tube sampleCBR Bulk sample for CBR testing

E Environmental sample(Glass jar, sealed and chilled on site)

ASS Acid Sulfate Soil Sample(Plastic bag, air expelled, chilled)

B Bulk Sample

Consistency Moisture Condition

V Very Loose Density Index <15%L Loose Density Index 15 - 35%MD Medium Dense Density Index 35 - 65%D Dense Density Index 65 - 85%VD Very Dense Density Index 85 - 100%

Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Soil type, plasticity/particlecharacteristics,colour,minor components

Drilling and Sampling

<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool

CLIENT: McCLOY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT: STAGE 5, THE BOWER

LOCATION: BOWER ROAD, MEDOWIE

ENGINEERING LOG - TEST PIT

EQUIPMENT TYPE: 2.5 TONNE EXCAVATOR

TEST PIT LENGTH: 2.0 m WIDTH: 0.5 m

TEST PIT NO: TPQ-501PAGE: 1 OF 1

JOB NO: NEW15P-0033H

LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

H

0.15m

0.30m

1.10m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCH

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL /POSSIBLE COLLUVIUM

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U50

0.68m

0.50m

FILL: Tree Mulch.

TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity,dark grey, fine grained sand, root affected.

CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown, trace finefine grained sand.

Becoming brown with some red-brown.

CLAY - high plasticity, red-brown and grey.


HP 280

HP 250

HP 250

HP 300

HP 310

HP 320

HP 350

HP 410

HP 420

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

H

VSt

0.15m

0.40m

0.90m

2.20m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL /POSSIBLE COLLUVIUM

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U501.15m

1.00m

FILL: Tree Mulch

FILL - TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to mediumplasticity, grey to dark grey, with some white, fine tomedium grained sand.

Sandy CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown, finegrained sand, trace charcoal fragments.

CLAY - high plasticity, grey and red-brown.


HP 520

HP 450

HP 410

HP 400

HP 380

HP 330

HP 330

HP 350

HP 300

HP 250

HP 240

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

St

VSt

St

VSt

0.20m

0.35m

0.80m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U50

1.20m

0.90m

FILL: Tree Mulch

FILL - TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to mediumplasticity, grey to dark grey, with some white, finegrained sand.

FILL: CLAY - medium to high plasticity, dark grey togrey-brown, with some white and orange, trace fineto medium grained angular gravel.

CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown, with someorange-brown.

Becoming orange-brown and grey.


HP 160

HP 220

HP 300

HP 310

HP 160-

200

HP 150-

200

HP 180

HP 180

HP 180

HP 220

HP 230

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

St -VSt

VSt

0.20m

0.40m

1.30m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U501.00m

0.85m

FILL: Tree Mulch

FILL - TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to mediumplasticity, dark grey, fine grained sand, trace finegrained angular gravel.


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, grey andorange-brown to red-brown.


HP 140-

310

HP 150-

280

HP 180-

230

HP 220

HP 280

HP 320

HP 330

HP 330

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

0.15m

0.35m

1.40m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

U500.75m

0.60m

FILL: Tree Mulch

FILL - TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to mediumplasticity, dark grey, with some white, fine grainedsand, trace fine grained angular gravel.


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, grey andorange-brown to red-brown, trace fine to coarsegrained angular to sub-angular gravel.

Grey and red-brown.

Hole Terminated at 2.00 mVery slow progress

HP 100-

150

HP 150

HP 190

HP 420

HP 290

HP 200

HP 290

HP 180

HP 180

HP 280

HP 250

HP 280

HP 290

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

0.05m

0.30m

0.60m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U500.85m

0.70m

FILL: Tree Mulch


FILL: CLAY - medium to high plasticity, pale grey todark grey, with some red-brown, trace fine to coarsegrained angular to sub-angular gravel.

CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown.

Becoming pale grey and red-brown.


HP 200

HP 250

HP 250

HP 380

HP 350

HP 380

HP 380

HP 380

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

H

0.03m

0.20m

0.70m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCHFILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U50

1.35m

1.10m

FILL: Tree Mulch

FILL - TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to mediumplasticity, grey to dark grey, with some white, finegrained sand, trace fine grained angular gravel.

FILL: CLAY - medium to high plasticity, pale grey todark grey, with some red-brown, trace fine to coarsegrained angular to sub-angular gravel.




HP 280

HP 280

HP 280

HP 310

HP 320

HP 320

HP 350

HP 390

HP 440

HP 440

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

St -VSt

VSt

0.05m

0.10m

0.80m

2.00m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U50

0.75m

0.50m

FILL: Tree Mulch


FILL: CLAY - medium to high plasticity, grey to darkgrey, with some orange-brown and brown, trace fineto coarse grained angular to sub-angular gravel, withpockets of Sandy CLAY.




HP 180-

320

HP 260

HP 290

HP 380

HP 360

HP 320

HP 260

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

St -VSt

VSt

0.05m

0.20m

0.60m

2.20m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U50

1.50m

1.20m

FILL: Tree Mulch


FILL: CLAY - medium to high plasticity, pale grey todark grey, with some orange-brown and brown, tracefine to coarse grained angular to sub-angular gravel,with pockets of Sandy CLAY.


Becoming grey and orange-brown.


HP 150-

310

HP 210-

320

HP 250

HP 240

HP 230

HP 230

HP 240

HP 270

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

St -VSt

VSt

0.05m

0.10m

0.60m

0.80m

2.10m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

COLLUVIUM / SLOPEWASH

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CL

CH

M >

wP

D - M

U500.60m

0.45m

FILL: Tree Mulch

FILL - TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to mediumplasticity, grey to dark grey, with some white, finegrained sand, trace fine grained angular gravel.


Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity, dark grey,fine grained sand, trace charcoal fragments.

CLAY - medium to high plasticity, grey-brown andorange-brown.

Pale grey and orange-brown to red-brown.

Pale grey with some pale orange.


HP 190-

250

HP 180-

210

HP 330

HP 340

HP 260

HP 280

HP 280

HP 320

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

0.05m

0.15m

0.60m

0.90m

FILL: TREE MULCH

FILL - TOPSOIL

CONTROLLED FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

E

CL

CH

CH

M >

wP

D - MFILL: Tree Mulch




Brown with orange-brown.


HP 250-

380

HP 280-

340HP 280

HP 320

HP 310

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool







TEST PIT NO: TPQ-514APAGE: 1 OF 1


LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

0.25m

1.70m

1.80m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

HIGHLY WEATHEREDROCK

E

CL

CHM

< w

PM

> w

P

D

U501.25m

1.10m

TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity,grey to dark grey, fine grained sand, trace charcoalfragments, root affected.

CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown toorange-brown.

grey and red-brown.

Sandy SILTSTONE- pale grey with some paleorange, estimated low to medium strength,semi-fractured.

Hole Terminated at 1.80 mSlow progress

HP 340

HP 300

HP 320

HP 340

HP 330

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

H

VSt

0.15m

1.00m

1.40m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


HIGHLY WEATHEREDROCK ENCOUNTERED AT1.0M ON EATERN END AND1.4M AT WESTERN END OFTEST PIT.

E

CL

CH

M <

wP

M >

wP

D

U500.85m

0.70m

TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity,grey to dark grey, fine grained sand, root affected.


pale grey and orange-brown to red-brown.


Hole Terminated at 1.05 mPractical Refusal

HP 550

HP 450

HP 330

HP 280

HP 280

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

0.20m

1.20m

1.30m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


E

CL

CH

U501.15m

1.00m

TOPSOIL: Sandy CLAY - low to medium plasticity,grey-brown, fine grained sand, root affected.


pale grey and orange-brown.



HP 280

HP 280

HP 360

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 14-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

0.30m

1.30m

1.35m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


E

CL

CH

M >

wP

D - M

D

U500.85m

0.70m


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with somered-brown.

grey and red-brown.



HP 260

HP 250

HP 280

HP 360

HP 380

HP 380

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:04

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

0.05m

0.20m

0.70m

1.10m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

EXTREMELY WEATHEREDROCK

E

CL

CH

GC

M >

wP

D - M

M

U500.50m

0.40m

TOPSOIL: Silty SAND - fine grained, grey, rootaffected.


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with somered-brown.

grey and red-brown.

Extremely weathered Sandy Siltstone with soilproperties: excavates as Clayey GRAVEL - fine tomedium grained angular to sub-angular, grey to darkgrey and orange.

Hole Terminated at 1.10 mSlow progress

HP 250

HP 280

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

0.15m

0.65m0.68m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


E

CL

CH

M <

wP

M >

wP

D

U500.55m

0.40m


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with someorange.

grey with some orange.

Sandy SILTSTONE- pale grey with some paleorange, estimated medium to high strength.


HP 350

HP 280

HP 200

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

VD

0.20m

0.70m

1.10m

1.30m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL



RESIDUAL CLAY TO 1.2MON NORTHERN TEST PITWALL

E

CL

CH

GC

M <

wP

M >

wP

M

D

U50

0.60m

0.40m


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with someorange-brown.

with some fine to medium grained angular tosub-angular gravel.

Extremely weathered Sandy Siltstone with soilproperties: excavates as Clayey GRAVEL - fine tomedium grained angular to sub-angular, grey to darkgrey and orange.



HP 320

HP 320

HP 310

HP 280

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

VD

0.25m

0.60m

1.20m

1.25m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL



E

CL

CH

GC

M <

wP

M >

wP

M

D

U500.50m

0.40m



Extremely weathered Sandy Siltstone with soilproperties: excavates as Clayey GRAVEL - fine tocoarse grained angular to sub-angular, grey to darkgrey and orange, fines of medium to high plasticity.



HP 280

HP 280

HP 270

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

VD

0.20m

0.80m

1.10m

1.15m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL



E

CL

CH

GC

M <

wP

M >

wP

M

D

U50

0.80m

0.50m



Grey with some orange-brown to red-brown.

Extremely weathered Sandy Siltstone with soilproperties: excavates as GRAVEL - fine to coarsegrained angular to sub-angular, grey to dark greyand orange, with some fine to coarse grained sand,with some clay, fines of medium to high plasticity.



HP 240

HP 240

HP 280

HP 240

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

VD

0.10m

0.75m

1.20m

1.25m

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL



E

CL

CH

GCM

< w

PM

> w

P

M

D

U500.55m

0.45m


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with someorange to red-brown.

pale grey with some orange.




HP 350

HP 280

HP 290

HP 260

HP 200Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

VSt

VD

0.15m

0.25m

0.80m

0.85m

FILL: TREE MULCH

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


E

CL

CH

GC

M >

wP

D - M

D

U50

0.80m

0.60m

FILL: Tree Mulch


CLAY - medium to high plasticity, brown with someorange to red-brown.

pale grey with some pale orange.



HP 250

HP 310

HP 360

Not

Enc

ount

ered

Field Test





Field Tests



ME

TH

OD

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

Tes

t T

ype

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

Water

WA

TE

R


Strata Changes

RL(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LOGDEPTH

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SAMPLES

Water Level


Water Inflow

Water Outflow






B Bulk Sample



Density

LEGEND:

Res

ult



<2525 - 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 400>400

QT

LIB

1.1

.GLB

Log

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE -

TE

ST

PIT

NE

W15

P-0

033A

- S

TA

GE

5 -

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 1

9-09

-201

8 08

:05

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool









LOGGED BY: BE

DATE: 15-8-18

SURFACE RL:

DATUM:

APPENDIX B:

Results of Laboratory Testing

Sample DetailsSample ID: NEW18W-2721--S01 Client Sample ID: -Test Request No.: - Sampling Method: Sampled by ClientMaterial: Clay Date Sampled: 14/08/2018Source: On-Site Date Submitted: 17/08/2018Specification: No SpecificationProject Location: Boundary Road, Medowie, NSWSample Location: TPQ-501 - (1.1 - 1.2m)Borehole Number: TPQ-501Borehole Depth (m): 1.1 - 1.2

Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 6.3Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 33.7Est. inert material (%): NilCrumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Minor

Swell Test AS 1289.7.1.1Swell on Saturation (%): -0.6Moisture Content before (%): 33.7Moisture Content after (%): 32.6Est. Unc. Comp. Strength before (kPa): 310Est. Unc. Comp. Strength after (kPa): 250Shrink Swell

Shrink Swell Index - Iss (%): 3.5

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

29/08/2018

Shrink Swell Index ReportReport No: SSI:NEW18W-2721--S01

Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 18686Approved Signatory: Brent Cullen(Senior Geotechnician)Project Name: Stage 5 The Bower

F: 02 4960 9775

QUALTEST Laboratory (NSW) Pty Ltd (20708) T: 02 4968 4468E: [email protected]: www.qualtest.com.auABN: 98 153 268 896

8 Ironbark Close Warabrook NSW 2304

Project No.: NEW15P-0033HPrincipal:

Suite 1 Level 3, 426 King StreetNewcastle West NSW 2300McCloy Development Management Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 1Form No: 18932, Report No: SSI:NEW18W-2721--S01 © 2000-2018 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 7.1Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 38.9Est. inert material (%): NilCrumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Nil




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 6.5Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 28.5Est. inert material (%): NilCrumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Nil




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 6.4Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 26.5Est. inert material (%): NilCrumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Moderate




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 1.9Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 20.8Est. inert material (%): NilCrumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Moderate

Swell Test AS 1289.7.1.1Swell on Saturation (%): -1.3Moisture Content before (%): 20.7Moisture Content after (%): 22.6Est. Unc. Comp. Strength before (kPa): >600Est. Unc. Comp. Strength after (kPa): 480Shrink Swell



29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 2.3Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 21.3Est. inert material (%): 2%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Moderate

Swell Test AS 1289.7.1.1Swell on Saturation (%): -0.4Moisture Content before (%): 21.2Moisture Content after (%): 29.6Est. Unc. Comp. Strength before (kPa): >600Est. Unc. Comp. Strength after (kPa): 250Shrink Swell



29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments

Sample DetailsSample ID: NEW18W-2721--S07 Client Sample ID: -Test Request No.: - Sampling Method: Sampled by ClientMaterial: Clay Date Sampled: 14/08/2018Source: On-Site Date Submitted: 17/08/2018Specification: No SpecificationProject Location: Boundary Road, Medowie, NSWSample Location: TPQ510 - (0.7 - 0.85m)Borehole Number: TPQ-510Borehole Depth (m): 0.7 - 0.85

Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 7.6Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 37.2Est. inert material (%): <1%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Nil\




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments






29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 2.5Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 26.5Est. inert material (%): 6%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Major




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 4.8Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 29.9Est. inert material (%): <1%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Major




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments






29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 7.0Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 37.2Est. inert material (%): <1%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Moderate




29/08/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 8.7Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 39.5Est. inert material (%): <1%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Minor




3/09/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 10.3Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 39.0Est. inert material (%): <1%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Nil




3/09/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments


Shrink Test AS 1289.7.1.1Shrink on drying (%): 6.5Shrinkage Moisture Content (%): 30.1Est. inert material (%): 2%Crumbling during shrinkage: NilCracking during shrinkage: Minor




3/09/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments






3/09/2018


Issue No: 1

Client:


F: 02 4960 9775






Comments

APPENDIX C:

CSIRO Sheet BTF 18

Foundation Maintenance and Footing

Performance: A Homeowner’s Guide

Soil Types

The types of soils usually present under the topsoil in land zoned forresidential buildings can be split into two approximate groups –granular and clay. Quite often, foundation soil is a mixture of bothtypes. The general problems associated with soils having granularcontent are usually caused by erosion. Clay soils are subject tosaturation and swell/shrink problems.

Classifications for a given area can generally be obtained byapplication to the local authority, but these are sometimes unreliableand if there is doubt, a geotechnical report should be commissioned.As most buildings suffering movement problems are founded on claysoils, there is an emphasis on classification of soils according to theamount of swell and shrinkage they experience with variations ofwater content. The table below is Table 2.1 from AS 2870, theResidential Slab and Footing Code.

Causes of Movement

Settlement due to constructionThere are two types of settlement that occur as a result ofconstruction:• Immediate settlement occurs when a building is first placed on its

foundation soil, as a result of compaction of the soil under theweight of the structure. The cohesive quality of clay soil mitigatesagainst this, but granular (particularly sandy) soil is susceptible.

• Consolidation settlement is a feature of clay soil and may takeplace because of the expulsion of moisture from the soil or becauseof the soil’s lack of resistance to local compressive or shear stresses.This will usually take place during the first few months afterconstruction, but has been known to take many years inexceptional cases.

These problems are the province of the builder and should be takeninto consideration as part of the preparation of the site for construc-tion. Building Technology File 19 (BTF 19) deals with theseproblems.

ErosionAll soils are prone to erosion, but sandy soil is particularly susceptibleto being washed away. Even clay with a sand component of say 10%or more can suffer from erosion.

SaturationThis is particularly a problem in clay soils. Saturation creates a bog-like suspension of the soil that causes it to lose virtually all of itsbearing capacity. To a lesser degree, sand is affected by saturationbecause saturated sand may undergo a reduction in volume –particularly imported sand fill for bedding and blinding layers.However, this usually occurs as immediate settlement and shouldnormally be the province of the builder.

Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of soilAll clays react to the presence of water by slowly absorbing it, makingthe soil increase in volume (see table below). The degree of increasevaries considerably between different clays, as does the degree ofdecrease during the subsequent drying out caused by fair weatherperiods. Because of the low absorption and expulsion rate, thisphenomenon will not usually be noticeable unless there areprolonged rainy or dry periods, usually of weeks or months,depending on the land and soil characteristics.

The swelling of soil creates an upward force on the footings of thebuilding, and shrinkage creates subsidence that takes away thesupport needed by the footing to retain equilibrium.

Shear failureThis phenomenon occurs when the foundation soil does not havesufficient strength to support the weight of the footing. There aretwo major post-construction causes:• Significant load increase.• Reduction of lateral support of the soil under the footing due to

erosion or excavation.• In clay soil, shear failure can be caused by saturation of the soil

adjacent to or under the footing.

Buildings can and often do move. This movement can be up, down, lateral or rotational. The fundamental causeof movement in buildings can usually be related to one or more problems in the foundation soil. It is important forthe homeowner to identify the soil type in order to ascertain the measures that should be put in place in order toensure that problems in the foundation soil can be prevented, thus protecting against building movement.

This Building Technology File is designed to identify causes of soil-related building movement, and to suggestmethods of prevention of resultant cracking in buildings.

Foundation Maintenanceand Footing Performance:A Homeowner’s Guide

GENERAL DEFINITIONS OF SITE CLASSES

Class Foundation

A Most sand and rock sites with little or no ground movement from moisture changes

S Slightly reactive clay sites with only slight ground movement from moisture changes

M Moderately reactive clay or silt sites, which can experience moderate ground movement from moisture changes

H Highly reactive clay sites, which can experience high ground movement from moisture changes

E Extremely reactive sites, which can experience extreme ground movement from moisture changes

A to P Filled sites

P Sites which include soft soils, such as soft clay or silt or loose sands; landslip; mine subsidence; collapsing soils; soils subject to erosion; reactive sites subject to abnormal moisture conditions or sites which cannot be classified otherwise

BTF 18replaces

InformationSheet 10/91

Tree root growthTrees and shrubs that are allowed to grow in the vicinity of footingscan cause foundation soil movement in two ways:

• Roots that grow under footings may increase in cross-sectionalsize, exerting upward pressure on footings.

• Roots in the vicinity of footings will absorb much of the moisturein the foundation soil, causing shrinkage or subsidence.

Unevenness of Movement

The types of ground movement described above usually occurunevenly throughout the building’s foundation soil. Settlement dueto construction tends to be uneven because of:

• Differing compaction of foundation soil prior to construction.• Differing moisture content of foundation soil prior to construction.

Movement due to non-construction causes is usually more unevenstill. Erosion can undermine a footing that traverses the flow or cancreate the conditions for shear failure by eroding soil adjacent to afooting that runs in the same direction as the flow.

Saturation of clay foundation soil may occur where subfloor wallscreate a dam that makes water pond. It can also occur wherever thereis a source of water near footings in clay soil. This leads to a severereduction in the strength of the soil which may create local shearfailure.

Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of clay soil affects the perimeter ofthe building first, then gradually spreads to the interior. The swellingprocess will usually begin at the uphill extreme of the building, or onthe weather side where the land is flat. Swelling gradually reaches theinterior soil as absorption continues. Shrinkage usually begins wherethe sun’s heat is greatest.

Effects of Uneven Soil Movement on Structures

Erosion and saturationErosion removes the support from under footings, tending to createsubsidence of the part of the structure under which it occurs.Brickwork walls will resist the stress created by this removal ofsupport by bridging the gap or cantilevering until the bricks or themortar bedding fail. Older masonry has little resistance. Evidence offailure varies according to circumstances and symptoms may include:

• Step cracking in the mortar beds in the body of the wall orabove/below openings such as doors or windows.

• Vertical cracking in the bricks (usually but not necessarily in linewith the vertical beds or perpends).

Isolated piers affected by erosion or saturation of foundations willeventually lose contact with the bearers they support and may tilt orfall over. The floors that have lost this support will become bouncy,sometimes rattling ornaments etc.

Seasonal swelling/shrinkage in claySwelling foundation soil due to rainy periods first lifts the mostexposed extremities of the footing system, then the remainder of theperimeter footings while gradually permeating inside the buildingfootprint to lift internal footings. This swelling first tends to create adish effect, because the external footings are pushed higher than theinternal ones.

The first noticeable symptom may be that the floor appears slightlydished. This is often accompanied by some doors binding on thefloor or the door head, together with some cracking of cornicemitres. In buildings with timber flooring supported by bearers andjoists, the floor can be bouncy. Externally there may be visibledishing of the hip or ridge lines.

As the moisture absorption process completes its journey to theinnermost areas of the building, the internal footings will rise. If thespread of moisture is roughly even, it may be that the symptoms willtemporarily disappear, but it is more likely that swelling will beuneven, creating a difference rather than a disappearance insymptoms. In buildings with timber flooring supported by bearersand joists, the isolated piers will rise more easily than the stripfootings or piers under walls, creating noticeable doming of flooring.

As the weather pattern changes and the soil begins to dry out, theexternal footings will be first affected, beginning with the locationswhere the sun’s effect is strongest. This has the effect of lowering theexternal footings. The doming is accentuated and cracking reducesor disappears where it occurred because of dishing, but other cracksopen up. The roof lines may become convex.

Doming and dishing are also affected by weather in other ways. Inareas where warm, wet summers and cooler dry winters prevail,water migration tends to be toward the interior and doming will beaccentuated, whereas where summers are dry and winters are coldand wet, migration tends to be toward the exterior and theunderlying propensity is toward dishing.

Movement caused by tree rootsIn general, growing roots will exert an upward pressure on footings,whereas soil subject to drying because of tree or shrub roots will tendto remove support from under footings by inducing shrinkage.

Complications caused by the structure itselfMost forces that the soil causes to be exerted on structures arevertical – i.e. either up or down. However, because these forces areseldom spread evenly around the footings, and because the buildingresists uneven movement because of its rigidity, forces are exertedfrom one part of the building to another. The net result of all theseforces is usually rotational. This resultant force often complicates thediagnosis because the visible symptoms do not simply reflect theoriginal cause. A common symptom is binding of doors on thevertical member of the frame.

Effects on full masonry structuresBrickwork will resist cracking where it can. It will attempt to spanareas that lose support because of subsided foundations or raisedpoints. It is therefore usual to see cracking at weak points, such asopenings for windows or doors.

In the event of construction settlement, cracking will usually remainunchanged after the process of settlement has ceased.

With local shear or erosion, cracking will usually continue to developuntil the original cause has been remedied, or until the subsidencehas completely neutralised the affected portion of footing and thestructure has stabilised on other footings that remain effective.

In the case of swell/shrink effects, the brickwork will in some casesreturn to its original position after completion of a cycle, however itis more likely that the rotational effect will not be exactly reversed,and it is also usual that brickwork will settle in its new position andwill resist the forces trying to return it to its original position. Thismeans that in a case where swelling takes place after constructionand cracking occurs, the cracking is likely to at least partly remainafter the shrink segment of the cycle is complete. Thus, each timethe cycle is repeated, the likelihood is that the cracking will becomewider until the sections of brickwork become virtually independent.

With repeated cycles, once the cracking is established, if there is noother complication, it is normal for the incidence of cracking tostabilise, as the building has the articulation it needs to cope withthe problem. This is by no means always the case, however, andmonitoring of cracks in walls and floors should always be treatedseriously.

Upheaval caused by growth of tree roots under footings is not asimple vertical shear stress. There is a tendency for the root to alsoexert lateral forces that attempt to separate sections of brickworkafter initial cracking has occurred.

Trees can cause shrinkage and damage

The normal structural arrangement is that the inner leaf of brick-work in the external walls and at least some of the internal walls(depending on the roof type) comprise the load-bearing structure onwhich any upper floors, ceilings and the roof are supported. In thesecases, it is internally visible cracking that should be the main focusof attention, however there are a few examples of dwellings whoseexternal leaf of masonry plays some supporting role, so this shouldbe checked if there is any doubt. In any case, externally visiblecracking is important as a guide to stresses on the structure generally,and it should also be remembered that the external walls must becapable of supporting themselves.

Effects on framed structuresTimber or steel framed buildings are less likely to exhibit crackingdue to swell/shrink than masonry buildings because of theirflexibility. Also, the doming/dishing effects tend to be lower becauseof the lighter weight of walls. The main risks to framed buildings areencountered because of the isolated pier footings used under walls.Where erosion or saturation cause a footing to fall away, this candouble the span which a wall must bridge. This additional stress cancreate cracking in wall linings, particularly where there is a weakpoint in the structure caused by a door or window opening. It is,however, unlikely that framed structures will be so stressed as to sufferserious damage without first exhibiting some or all of the abovesymptoms for a considerable period. The same warning period shouldapply in the case of upheaval. It should be noted, however, that whereframed buildings are supported by strip footings there is only one leafof brickwork and therefore the externally visible walls are thesupporting structure for the building. In this case, the subfloormasonry walls can be expected to behave as full brickwork walls.

Effects on brick veneer structuresBecause the load-bearing structure of a brick veneer building is theframe that makes up the interior leaf of the external walls plusperhaps the internal walls, depending on the type of roof, thebuilding can be expected to behave as a framed structure, except thatthe external masonry will behave in a similar way to the external leafof a full masonry structure.

Water Service and Drainage

Where a water service pipe, a sewer or stormwater drainage pipe is inthe vicinity of a building, a water leak can cause erosion, swelling orsaturation of susceptible soil. Even a minuscule leak can be enoughto saturate a clay foundation. A leaking tap near a building can havethe same effect. In addition, trenches containing pipes can becomewatercourses even though backfilled, particularly where brokenrubble is used as fill. Water that runs along these trenches can beresponsible for serious erosion, interstrata seepage into subfloor areasand saturation.

Pipe leakage and trench water flows also encourage tree and shrubroots to the source of water, complicating and exacerbating theproblem.Poor roof plumbing can result in large volumes of rainwater beingconcentrated in a small area of soil:

• Incorrect falls in roof guttering may result in overflows, as maygutters blocked with leaves etc.

• Corroded guttering or downpipes can spill water to ground.• Downpipes not positively connected to a proper stormwater

collection system will direct a concentration of water to soil that isdirectly adjacent to footings, sometimes causing large-scaleproblems such as erosion, saturation and migration of water underthe building.

Seriousness of Cracking

In general, most cracking found in masonry walls is a cosmeticnuisance only and can be kept in repair or even ignored. The tablebelow is a reproduction of Table C1 of AS 2870.

AS 2870 also publishes figures relating to cracking in concrete floors,however because wall cracking will usually reach the critical pointsignificantly earlier than cracking in slabs, this table is notreproduced here.

Prevention/Cure

PlumbingWhere building movement is caused by water service, roof plumbing,sewer or stormwater failure, the remedy is to repair the problem. It is prudent, however, to consider also rerouting pipes away fromthe building where possible, and relocating taps to positions whereany leakage will not direct water to the building vicinity. Even wheregully traps are present, there is sometimes sufficient spill to createerosion or saturation, particularly in modern installations usingsmaller diameter PVC fixtures. Indeed, some gully traps are notsituated directly under the taps that are installed to charge them,with the result that water from the tap may enter the backfilledtrench that houses the sewer piping. If the trench has been poorlybackfilled, the water will either pond or flow along the bottom ofthe trench. As these trenches usually run alongside the footings andcan be at a similar depth, it is not hard to see how any water that isthus directed into a trench can easily affect the foundation’s ability tosupport footings or even gain entry to the subfloor area.

Ground drainageIn all soils there is the capacity for water to travel on the surface andbelow it. Surface water flows can be established by inspection duringand after heavy or prolonged rain. If necessary, a grated drain systemconnected to the stormwater collection system is usually an easysolution.

It is, however, sometimes necessary when attempting to preventwater migration that testing be carried out to establish watertableheight and subsoil water flows. This subject is referred to in BTF 19and may properly be regarded as an area for an expert consultant.

Protection of the building perimeterIt is essential to remember that the soil that affects footings extendswell beyond the actual building line. Watering of garden plants,shrubs and trees causes some of the most serious water problems.

For this reason, particularly where problems exist or are likely tooccur, it is recommended that an apron of paving be installedaround as much of the building perimeter as necessary. This paving

CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE WITH REFERENCE TO WALLS

Description of typical damage and required repair Approximate crack width Damagelimit (see Note 3) category

Hairline cracks <0.1 mm 0

Fine cracks which do not need repair <1 mm 1

Cracks noticeable but easily filled. Doors and windows stick slightly <5 mm 2

Cracks can be repaired and possibly a small amount of wall will need 5–15 mm (or a number of cracks 3to be replaced. Doors and windows stick. Service pipes can fracture. 3 mm or more in one group)Weathertightness often impaired

Extensive repair work involving breaking-out and replacing sections of walls, 15–25 mm but also depend 4especially over doors and windows. Window and door frames distort. Walls lean on number of cracksor bulge noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted

should extend outwards a minimum of 900 mm (more in highlyreactive soil) and should have a minimum fall away from thebuilding of 1:60. The finished paving should be no less than 100mm below brick vent bases.

It is prudent to relocate drainage pipes away from this paving, ifpossible, to avoid complications from future leakage. If this is notpractical, earthenware pipes should be replaced by PVC andbackfilling should be of the same soil type as the surrounding soiland compacted to the same density.

Except in areas where freezing of water is an issue, it is wise toremove taps in the building area and relocate them well away fromthe building – preferably not uphill from it (see BTF 19).

It may be desirable to install a grated drain at the outside edge of thepaving on the uphill side of the building. If subsoil drainage isneeded this can be installed under the surface drain.

CondensationIn buildings with a subfloor void such as where bearers and joistssupport flooring, insufficient ventilation creates ideal conditions forcondensation, particularly where there is little clearance between thefloor and the ground. Condensation adds to the moisture alreadypresent in the subfloor and significantly slows the process of dryingout. Installation of an adequate subfloor ventilation system, eithernatural or mechanical, is desirable.

Warning: Although this Building Technology File deals withcracking in buildings, it should be said that subfloor moisture canresult in the development of other problems, notably:

• Water that is transmitted into masonry, metal or timber buildingelements causes damage and/or decay to those elements.

• High subfloor humidity and moisture content create an idealenvironment for various pests, including termites and spiders.

• Where high moisture levels are transmitted to the flooring andwalls, an increase in the dust mite count can ensue within theliving areas. Dust mites, as well as dampness in general, can be ahealth hazard to inhabitants, particularly those who areabnormally susceptible to respiratory ailments.

The gardenThe ideal vegetation layout is to have lawn or plants that requireonly light watering immediately adjacent to the drainage or pavingedge, then more demanding plants, shrubs and trees spread out inthat order.

Overwatering due to misuse of automatic watering systems is acommon cause of saturation and water migration under footings. Ifit is necessary to use these systems, it is important to remove gardenbeds to a completely safe distance from buildings.

Existing treesWhere a tree is causing a problem of soil drying or there is theexistence or threat of upheaval of footings, if the offending roots aresubsidiary and their removal will not significantly damage the tree,they should be severed and a concrete or metal barrier placedvertically in the soil to prevent future root growth in the direction ofthe building. If it is not possible to remove the relevant rootswithout damage to the tree, an application to remove the tree shouldbe made to the local authority. A prudent plan is to transplant likelyoffenders before they become a problem.

Information on trees, plants and shrubsState departments overseeing agriculture can give informationregarding root patterns, volume of water needed and safe distancefrom buildings of most species. Botanic gardens are also sources ofinformation. For information on plant roots and drains, see BuildingTechnology File 17.

ExcavationExcavation around footings must be properly engineered. Soilsupporting footings can only be safely excavated at an angle thatallows the soil under the footing to remain stable. This angle iscalled the angle of repose (or friction) and varies significantlybetween soil types and conditions. Removal of soil within the angleof repose will cause subsidence.

Remediation

Where erosion has occurred that has washed away soil adjacent tofootings, soil of the same classification should be introduced andcompacted to the same density. Where footings have beenundermined, augmentation or other specialist work may be required.Remediation of footings and foundations is generally the realm of aspecialist consultant.

Where isolated footings rise and fall because of swell/shrink effect,the homeowner may be tempted to alleviate floor bounce by fillingthe gap that has appeared between the bearer and the pier withblocking. The danger here is that when the next swell segment of thecycle occurs, the extra blocking will push the floor up into anaccentuated dome and may also cause local shear failure in the soil.If it is necessary to use blocking, it should be by a pair of finewedges and monitoring should be carried out fortnightly.

This BTF was prepared by John Lewer FAIB, MIAMA, Partner,Construction Diagnosis.

The information in this and other issues in the series was derived from various sources and was believed to be correct when published.

The information is advisory. It is provided in good faith and not claimed to be an exhaustive treatment of the relevant subject.

Further professional advice needs to be obtained before taking any action based on the information provided.

Distributed by

CSIRO PUBL ISHING PO Box 1139, Collingwood 3066, AustraliaFreecall 1800 645 051 Tel (03) 9662 7666 Fax (03) 9662 7555 www.publish.csiro.au

Email: [email protected]

© CSIRO 2003. Unauthorised copying of this Building Technology file is prohibited

Gardens for a reactive site

proposed subdivision – the bower stage 5 site classification · proposed subdivision – the...

Documents