Mannum Report - Word
Mannum Report - Word
investigation
report
Mannum Solar Farm
DATE: 17/12/2018
REVISION: Final
© Koukourou Pty Ltd trading as FMG Engineering
The work carried out in the preparation of this report has been performed in accordance with the requirements of FMG Engineering’s
Quality Management System which is certified by a third party accredited auditor to comply with the requirements of ISO9001.
This document is and shall remain the property of FMG Engineering. The document is specific to the client and site detailed in the
report. Use of the document must be in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission and any unauthorised use of
this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. No part of this report including the whole of same shall be used for any other
purpose nor by any third party without prior written consent of FMG Engineering.
FMG Engineering provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. FMG Engineering considers the printed
version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client’s convenience and FMG Engineering requests that the client
ensures the integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply
with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Cth).
Document Status
RE STATUS AUTHOR REVIEWER APPROVED FOR ISSUE
V
NO NAME SIGNATUR DATE NAME SIGNATUR DATE
. E E
0 Draft Fiona Maxwell 11/12/1 Maxwell
Sheldric Merryval 8 Merryval
k e e
1 Draft F. Maxwell 18/12/1 Maxwell 18/12/1
to Sheldric Merryval 8 Merryval 8
Clien k e e
t
This report shall not be interpreted or used for construction purposes. This is outside of the scope of the
investigations.
Zone 1
Existing shallow
Zone 1 gully
Existing
commercial
piggery Trees
A commercial piggery operation is located on the neighbouring property to the west. There are some areas
of trees within the site as indicated in Figure 2, and running along property boundaries.
A walk over inspection of the site was undertaken by FMG as part of the investigations. There were no
evidence of rock within the gully feature or elsewhere the site.
4 Geology
Reference has been made to
Rock including sandstone is shown on the reginal geological maps to the west of the site.
5 FMG Investigation
The FMG investigation was undertaken on 5th and 6th December 2018 and included:
Services check
Fifteen rotary machine boreholes
Push tubes were used to advance the boreholes to recover undisturbed soil samples.
The boreholes and trial pits were terminated at target depths or at refusal. Logging of materials was
undertaken by an experience FMG soil technician in accordance with AS1726-2017.
Standard Penetrometer Tests (SPT) were carried in accordance with AS1289.6.3.1.. The SPT results are
presented on the appended borehole logs.
The depths achieved by the investigation test points are summarised as follows.
6 Ground Conditions
6.1 Subsoils
Refer to the appended investigation logs for full material description.
Legend
BH4=FMG Borehole dated Dec 2018
[4.3m]=Depth to surface of rock relative to
existing ground surface
1=Inferred sandstone
The penetration depth into the rock by open barrel push tube was of limited nature.
The results of the Insitu soil testing including pocket penetrometer measurements and Standard
Penetrometer Tests (SPT) are summarised in Table 4 (Next page).
Note the borehole logs may show some thin layers described as firm. The strength classification in Table 4 is
intended as a typical representation of the soils.
Pocket penetrometer tests are made by hand and involve pushing steel probe (about 3mm diameter) into
the soils. The resistance is measure by a spring and is calibrated to give an insitu undrained shear strength.
Pocket penetrometers are considered a general guide in terms of soil strengths.
The insitu testing indicates clayey soils are considered stiff to very stiff in terms of the strength classification
of AS1727-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations. The pocket penetrometer values would indicate a higher
strength range of very stiff to hard.
6.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed during the investigations. All the borehole and testpits were dry.
The calcite capping rock is known to include voids and strengths may be variable. This material is considered
to be unreliable for support of foundations. In detailing foundations (including piles), the calcrete capping
rock shall be ignored for its full depth. In detailing foundations the upper 1.5 m depth of the soil should be
ignored even if the calcrete capping layer is found not to be present. The
Based on the guidelines of AS2159-2009 “Piling - Design and Installation” (Table 4.3.2C), a basic geotechnical
strength reduction factor, ɸgb, of 0.52 may be adopted for a low redundancy system or 0.60 for a high
redundancy system.
7 Site classification
Free swell Ys values have been calculated in accordance with AS2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings.
Although AS2870 is intended as a guide for residential development, the principals are considered applicable
to design of expected foundation types for the current project.
The following predicted surface movements are based on the results of the current investigation including
laboratory testing, engineering judgement, literature and other public domain information.
For assumed light traffic loads and based on the results of the above laboratory testing, the following CBR
values may be used to detail the thickness of a standard flexible pavement.
CBR of 7% for medium dense natural insitu sandy clay
CBR OF 7% for firm natural insitu clayey soils
Recommendations from Section 11.2 of this report shall apply for construction of pavements.
Determination of Atterberg limits and Particle Size Distribution (PSD) allows reliable predictions of the soil
behaviour.
Testing Method; Australian Standard AS1289, “Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes”.
Samples were taken from the bulk samples collected in the testpits excavated on site.
Soils that exhibit low pH levels or high concentrations of sulphate and chloride have the capacity to affect
durability of in-ground concrete and steel structures. Section 6 of AS2159-2009, Table 7 provides guidance on
soil aggresivity.
Table 10: Summary of chemical testing for Durability (Source: Extract AS2159-2009)
Notes:
* Soil Conditions B – low permeability soils below ground water or all soils above groundwater
Based on the current laboratory testing, the soils are classified as non-aggressive in terms of AS2159 – 2009.
The following foundations options are considered appropriate for the site
The upper soil for the full depth of any capping layer and any loose near surface soils would need to be
ignored in determining the pile lateral capacity and uplift resistance (Refer to Pile Recommendation Section
of this report).
Spread footings shall bear on firm natural clayey soils or medium dense sandy soil. They shall be designed to
resist the expected shrink swell movements outlined in Section 8 of this Report.
Square or rectangular pad footings, may be proportioned to an allowable bearing pressure of 100kPa.
In assessing the allowable bearing strength a factor of safety of 2.5 is assumed. The ultimate geotechnical
capacity (Rd,ug), may be estimated at 2.5 times the recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure.
Under transient and short-term loads, such as wind and earthquakes, the maximum allowable bearing
pressure may be increased by 25%.
Differential settlement would not be a problem for foundations bearing in firm to very stiff clay and medium
dense sand.
Recommendations form Section of this report (Construction inspections) shall apply to prepared foundation
areas prior to pouring of concrete.
Piles shall be provided with appropriate embedment to resist the expected shrink swell movements outlined
in Section 8 of this Report.
For detailing driven piles sizes including lateral resistance the geotechnical strength parameters may be used
from Table 4 of this report. Based on the guidelines of AS2159-2009 “Piling - Design and Installation” the
following basic basic geotechnical strength reduction factor (ɸ) may be applied to the recommended
ultimate pile shaft friction resistance and lateral capacity values.
o Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (ɸ) of 0.52 may be adopted for a low redundancy system or
0.60 for a high redundancy system.
It is recommended that an appropriate number of pull out tests are undertaken in support of detail design.
11 Construction Recommendations
11.1 Earthworks
It is understood that no earthworks are proposed for the site development. If any earthworks are proposed
including access roads, it is recommended that they shall be undertaken under engineering supervision
including Level 1 site supervision.
11.2 Pavements
Engineering supervision shall apply to any pavement construction
Steel driven piles are unlikely to be able to penetrate significant depths into the sandstone and care would
be required not to damage the piles.
In terms of the calcrete capping layer. Heavy universal columns would act as a rock breaker and may be able
to punch through depending on the layer thickness and strength of the rock. In areas where the capping
layer is indurated or thick, heavy hydraulic excavators and rock breaking equipment may be required.
Bore piles are expected to have adequate temporary for pouring of concrete. Debris falling in the excavation
form disturbed calcrete capping rock poses a construction risk as some sizeable blocks may fall down. These
may be difficult to remove prior to pouring of concrete.
12 Conclusions
The current investigation included the excavation of fifteen borehole to depths of 6.5 m and five trial pits to a
depth of 3.0 m. Loose near surface sandy soils (inferred to be natural soil) are present to a depth of about
1.0m and then generally stiff to very stiff clayey soils and medium dense to dense sand down to 6.5 m being
the maximum depth achieved by the boreholes (6.5m depth).
Sandstone rock and capping rock (Limestone) may be encountered at shallow depth in some areas but are
expected to be localised.
o Shallow seated sandstone; Encountered in one borehole (BH8), north western corner of Zone 1;
Depth to surface of rock=2.0m below ground surface.
o Calcrete in two boreholes in the centre of the site at a depth of 0.2m below the surface.
The depth to rock is shown on Figure 2 of this report. This information can be used as a guide of the depth
of the rock surface.
Steel driven piles are considered suitable for the site in areas where the rock is deeper. The current
investigation would indicate it should be possible to use 3000 mm long driven steel piles (depth below
ground surface level) in most places. In some areas where the rock is shallow, driven piles may not be
suitable. Refer to Section 9.1 of this report for foundation options.
The current investigation have not identified the extent of the shallow sandstone nor the extent and
thickness of any calcrete capping rock.
13 Recommendations
It is recommended that further investigations are undertaken to verify the extent of the shallow seated rock
and calcrete capping materials. This would help to give the project confidence and manage risk.
The geotechnical soil strength parameters provided in this report may be used for detailing driven steel piles.
It is recommended that the assumed parameters are verified by appropriate number of pull out tests.
The level of investigation and degree of certainty required is dependent upon the complexity of the
proposed construction.
Should a more conclusive assessment be required regarding the subsoil conditions at the property, FMG
Engineering can arrange to undertake a more detailed study including further sampling and laboratory
testing. There will always be uncertainties arising from the practical limitations of the extent and nature of
site testing and localised changes in soil conditions may not be found in any cause.
This report should be read as a whole. Borelogs should not be separated from the body of the report and
interpreted independently. The whole of this report should be provided to contractors in order to provide
the best available information to the contractors. To avoid any misinterpretation of the contents of the
report consult the geotechnical engineer for any queries or proposed changes or unexpected conditions.
To help avoid costly problems, refer to your consultant to determine how any factors which have changed
subsequent to the date of the report may affect our recommendations.
A report prepared for the purposes of the geotechnical engineer’s direct client may not meet the objectives
of a third party or contractor. Consult the geotechnical engineer for guidance in the application of the report
to your purposes.
Unforeseen conditions
Should conditions encountered on site be markedly different from those anticipated and described in this
report then FMG Engineering should be notified immediately. Early identification of site anomalies generally
results in any problems being more readily resolved and allows reinterpretation and assessment of the
implications for future work.
Safety in design
This Geotechnical Report presents factual information about the soil conditions at the subject site. At the
time that this report was prepared, FMG Engineering were not informed of the details at the proposed
building (workplace) to be constructed. Consequently, FMG Engineering have not carried out a Preliminary
Hazard Analysis nor been able to consider Safety in Design for the proposed development. It is the
responsibility of the designer to use the information contained within this report when undertaking a Safety
in Design assessment for the specific development.
Please contact FMG Engineering if Safety in Design analysis is required as the project develops.
Borelog symbols
The appropriate symbols are selected on the results of visual examination, field tests and available
laboratory tests, such as, sieve analysis, liquid limit and plasticity index.
Plasticity
The potential for undergoing change in volume with moisture change is assessed from its degree of
plasticity. The classification of the degree of plasticity in terms of the Liquid Limit (%) is as follows:
Description of plasticity
Condition
The consistency of a cohesive soil is defined by descriptive terminology such as very soft, soft, firm,
stiff, very stiff and hard. These terms are fixed by the shear strength of the soil as observed visually by
the pocket penetrometer values and resistance to deformation to hand moulding.
Relative density terms such as very loose, loose, medium, dense and very dense are used to describe
silt and sandy materials, and these are usually based on resistance to drilling penetration. Other
condition terms, such as friable, powdery or crumbly may also be used.