Final Geotech Report - JKVersion

GEOTECHNICAL
INESTIGATION
REPORT
Engineering Your Vision”
KOMAGIN LIMITED
GARDEN HILL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT
Civil/Structural/Geotechnical Engineers
& Project Managers
DESIGN & BUILD (D & C) CONTRACTOR

Komagin Limited
Lot 58 Section 116
Hubert Murray Highway
P.O Box 4840
BOROKO, NCD
Papua New Guinea
Phone: +675 710 47168

Email: joelkoma@gmail.com
By: Komagin Limited

For: Zhong Tai Development Ltd
Date: 27th April, 2017

1
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................................ 4
Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviation .................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 6
Document Control .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Physiography ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Project Understanding ............................................................................................................ 8
1.3 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Summary of Approach ............................................................................................................ 9
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................ 9
2.1 Approach............................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Site Desktop Investigation ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Site Description...................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Site Observation .................................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Field Investigation ................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) probe test ....................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Soil Sampling....................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.3 Subsurface Exploration ......................................................................................................... 12
3.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITION ...................................................... 13
3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (and Subsurface Strata) ............................................................. 13
3.2 Visual Tactile Method (VTM) ................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Surface and Subsurface Condition (Inferred ground profile) ..................................................... 13
3.4 Laboratory Test Results ........................................................................................................ 13
4.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................... 14
4.1 Earthworks .......................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2 Slope Stability ...................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.3 Other General Earthworks Requirements ............................................................................... 15
4.2 Foundation .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Ground Profile and Foundations ............................................................................................ 15
4.2.2 Review of Foundation Drawings ............................................................................................ 17
4.2.3 Construction Certification ...................................................................................................... 17
4.2.4 Other Pile Capacities & Group Effects .................................................................................... 17
2
4.3 Earthquake Classification (Seismic Consideration) .................................................................. 18
4.4 Groundwater........................................................................................................................ 18
4.5 Liquefaction Potential ........................................................................................................... 18
4.6 Site Classification ................................................................................................................. 18
4.7 Unsuitable Material............................................................................................................... 19
4.8 Foundation Excavation and Preparation ................................................................................. 19
4.9 Foundation Selection and Parameter for the Proposed Structure .............................................. 19
4.10 Factors to be considered for the Design of Foundation System................................................. 20
5.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION ................................................................................................... 20
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................... 20
7.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATION ..................................................................................................... 22
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 23
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A DCP Tests Analysis Results ...................................................................................... 25
Appendix B Regional Geology Map of Port Moresby area (Circled) ................................................. 42
Appendix C Diagrammatic representation of the site soil profile ...................................................... 43
Appendix D Laboratory Test Results and Analysis ........................................................................ 45
Appendix E Proposed Site & Building Layout Plan ........................................................................ 46
Appendix F Investigation Photos ................................................................................................. 53
3
List of Figures and Tables
List of Figures
Figure 1 Aerial image caption of the project locality ...................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 Port Moresby Regional Geology Map (1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet No. SC 55-7 “PORT
MORESBY–KALO-AROA”) ....................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3 Seismicity Zonation in PNG for Building Construction .................................................................... 18
List of Tables
Table 1 (Inferred Profile) Summary of Subsurface Condition and Materials at depth. ..................................... 12
Table 2 PSD Results Comparisons ........................................................................................................ 14
Table 3 ULTIMATE CAPACITIES IN KN FOR PILES OF VARIOUS DIAMETERS – DEPTH 2m & 4m ............ 17
4
Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviation
Definitions
Geomorphology - Landforms.
Subsoil - Layer of earth below the topsoil.
Subsurface - Below the surface.
Savannah - Tropical grassland with scattered trees.
Bedrock - Solid rock in-place that existed at some depth below the ground Surface.
Strata - Layers of materials (soil) arranged one on top of the other.
Topography - Surface feature of a place.
Contour - Border lines denoting altitude.
Acronyms and Abbreviation

DCP - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
ABC - Allowable Bearing Capacity
kPa - kilopascal
CBRf - Field California Bearing Ratio
VTM - Visual Tactile Method
BGL - Below Ground Level
5
Executive Summary
Zhong Tai Development (“ZTDL”) commissioned Komagin Ltd to carry out foundation subsoil
investigation of the proposed two (2) split level 3-storey residential apartments with penthouse at the 4th
floor. The outcome of this exercise was to report on excavation depth, treatment to site founding
materials including slope stabilization, retaining wall and foundation system to be employed to safely
construct the said structure on the hill slope bordering Garden Hill and Hohola residential estate in Port
Moresby, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea.
This pre-design site condition geotechnical investigation was performed to design a suitable foundation
systems and associated works such as retaining solution for the given in-situ condition. The
investigation was conducted using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) probe Test and cut face
subsurface exploration to determine both the bearing capacities and subsurface conditions of the soil.
Representative soil samples were collected for further examination. Engineering analyses applied on
the DCP data, Visual Tactile Method (VTM) and laboratory results and were intended to determine the
safe working depth of foundation construction and selection of suitable foundation system.
In addition, this investigation was undertaken to determine if further drilling or bore hole logging is
required based on the subsurface condition revealed under this investigation. The conclusions and
recommendations shall be read in conjunction with the whole report. During construction, should
subsurface conditions vary from those anticipated, it is recommended that Komagin Ltd be consulted
for necessary review of the recommendations.
Document Control
Revision Revision Issue Author Reviewed By

No. Date
1.0 05/04/2017 Geotechnical Jeffery MAXION – BSc (Geology) Joel Y. KOMA – Msc Eng
Report – Draft with merit Engineering Geologist (Structural), BEng with Merit
Final (Civil) Structural Engineer –
(MIEPNG - Reg.1883)
1.0 27/04/2017 Geotechnical Jeffery MAXION – BSc (Geology) Joel Y. KOMA – Msc Eng
Report – Final with merit Engineering Geologist (Structural), BEng with Merit
(Civil) Structural Engineer –
(MIEPNG - Reg.1883)
6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Zhong Tai Development (“ZTDL”) commissioned Komagin Ltd to carry out foundation subsoil
investigation of the proposed two (2) split level 3-storey residential apartments with penthouse at the 4th
floor. The outcome of this exercise was to report on excavation depth, treatment to site founding
materials including slope stabilization, retaining wall and foundation system to be employed to safely
construct the said structure on the hill slope bordering Garden Hill and Hohola residential estate in Port
Moresby, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea (see aerial image in Figure 1 below).
In particular, the investigation was to assess existing site conditions in respect to soil profile, in-situ
bearing capacities of the underlying soil/rock strength, groundwater and other geomorphic features or
condition that may affect the proposed structure.
This report presents detail of approach to field investigation, data acquisition, engineering analysis and
recommendations on the subsurface geotechnical condition of the site and subsequently develop
recommendations on suitable foundation system to be adopted. As per Client’s request, this report
discusses the following aspects of geotechnical assessments:
• Subsurface material characteristics and descriptions

• Site Classification for determination of Seismic Coefficient
• Seismic Zonation
• Liquefaction Potentials
• Groundwater / Soil Permeability
• Rock /Soil Strengths
• Foundation Design condition and estimates of relevant design parameters
• Recommendation of the suitable foundation system
• Slope stability and Earth retaining wall (R/W) system
Project Location
Figure 1 Aerial image caption of the project locality
7
1.1 Physiography
The proposed site is located on the hill-slope of the range which divides the Garden Hill Estate and
Hohoa residential zone. Access to the project site is by road opposite from Hohola PNG Power Head
Quarter. The two valleys which extend over huge hectares of landmass on both sides of the hill were
covered mainly with savannah except for the residential areas (see Figure 1 above). The vegetation is
typical in the region and is characterized by less dense trees scattered over a large spread of dried-up
brown grassland.
1.2 Project Understanding
The project is understood to be the construction of two (2) split level 3 story residential units apartments
with penthouse on the 4th floor over a new subdivision which is covering the entire Garden Hill Estate
for both commercial and residential purposes.
According to the preliminary issue layout plan, the two split level 3-storey residential building will be
stretched parallel to the right hand side of the entrance on a 5m high retaining wall with its balcony
suspending over the wall and its front facing the entrance. The car parks are situated in front of the
building and at ground floor or basement (see the layout plan in Appendix E). The basement car parks
buildings and the available spaces were 10 and 12 for building 1 and 2 respectively with a total space
of 402.64 m2.
The two split level 3 - Storey residential building is designated as follows:

 The ground floor will have a split level for both buildings at basement for car parks and upper
level as ground floor;
 The upper floor will have separated self-contain units and balconies but a common study room.
Building 1 has a total of 6 units (2 on each floor) with a total of 18 bedrooms (6 master
bedrooms, 1 in each unit, and 12 standard bedrooms, 2 in each unit. Building 2 has a total of
12 units (4 on each floor) with a total of 36 bedrooms (12 master bedrooms, 1 in each units,
and 24 standard bedrooms, 2 in each units.
 And a penthouse is situated on the 4th floor or roof level of the structure.
Building 1 and 2 are identical structure except that building 1, which is east bound, has two self-contain
units on each level and rose at a lower elevation while building 2, which is west bound, has four self-
contain units on each level and rose at a high elevation. Also, stairs connecting all 3 floors including
the penthouse begins right at the car park level and extended up as far as the roof level or area. Refer
to the design drawings for detail.
The retaining walls bordering and/or supporting each building both in front and at the back will have an
approved backfill and free draining materials between the concrete wall and cut face to relieve
hydrostatic pressure apart from retaining the earth pressure. Refer to the design drawings for detail.
1.3 Objective
The objectives of investigations were to:

 Identifying underlying soil conditions
 Determine soil parameters for geotechnical and structural foundation design qualification.
8
 Investigate existing cut and compaction integrity and material suitability.
 Characterize on-site soil strata/profile
 Identify potential geotechnical and subsequent sub-structure risks in light of geotech
investigation
 Slope stability assessment
 Assessment of any potential geotechnical issues and variability over the entire area covering
the two (2) building footprint.
1.4 Summary of Approach
The approaches taken for the investigation comes in two (2) parts: Site Desktop Investigation and Field
Investigation. The site desktop investigation is a passive approach which involves the desktop study
and literature review of the area’s physiography, geography, geology and seismicity potentiality. On the
other hand, Field Investigation, being the active approach undertaken, involves on-site visual
observations, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer probe test, subsurface exploration and soil sampling.
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
2.1 Approach
A sound geotechnical investigation is vital and necessary before commencement of any engineering
work as a structure is only as good as the integrity of geotechnical investigation and its subsequent
foundation design. The investigations done for this project comes in two parts: (1) Site Desktop Study;
and (2) Field Investigation.
2.2 Site Desktop Investigation
Site investigation was carried out passively and is presented in the following manner: Site descriptions
(including regional and local geology, geomorphology and seismic consideration of the area) and site
observations/inspections.
2.2.1 Site Description
Description of the project site is discussed in terms of the area’s published regional and local geology,
general geomorphology and seismic consideration.
2.2.1.1 Regional Geology
A desktop study according to Papua New Guinea 1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet No. SC 55-7
“PORT MORESBY –KALO-AROA” indicates that the site is underlain by Port Moresby Beds, now
known as POM Association, setting the bedrock throughout Port Moresby area. POM Association
9
bedrocks included argillite, calcilutite, sandstone, calcarenite, calcareous silt- and mudstone of burns-
peak formation, cherts and minor limestone.
Figure 2 Port Moresby Regional Geology Map (1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet No. SC 55-7 “PORT MORESBY–
KALO-AROA”)
Geological Series Sheet No. SC 55-7 ‘PORT MORESBY – KOLA-AROA in Figure 2 above generally
highlighted the regional geology of the Southern Region Province. From the map, Port Moresby area
(circled in red) is predominantly underlain by Port Moresby Association/Formation bedrocks. The
Formation is characterized by reddish orange, brownish yellow, greenish grey and ashy white bedrocks
on most cut-face walls in and around Port Moresby area.
2.2.1.2 Local Geology
Locally, the project area is underlain by Burns-peak Formation of Port Moresby Association bedrock
composing predominantly of thinly bedded argillite siltstone - calcareous siltstones and cherts. The
formation was heavily distorted and slightly weathered. The Cherts, however, occurs in less
abundance. (See photo 2, Appendix C).
2.2.1.3 Geomorphology
The proposed site is situated right at the mid height of the hill-range that separated Garden Hills Estate
from Hoholar Residential zone within Hohola area in NCD, Port Moresby (Figure 1). The site appears
to be well drained with lower moisture content and serviced with newly cut unsealed road access,
electricity and water supply. Topographical contour of the area indicated a moderately steep slope on
10
both sides and a large extent of a relatively flat valley extending out from the base of the hill-range.
The slope stability is considered firm and should pose no threat on the proposed area and the structure
itself.
2.2.2 Site Observation
The proposed site abuts behind existing residential homes on a hill mid height sloping towards Hohola
Residential area. The area is naturally stable, well drained and has low moisture content. Liquefaction
potentiality of the area is considered low given that the slope stability is sure and firm. The proposed
site for Building 1 was excavated to roughly 1.5m depth, backfilled and loosely compacted prior to this
investigation, whereas Building 2 site is green field (see photos in Appendix F).
Although there were no signs of water table and regional zones of structural weaknesses or linear fault
structures observed, the formation is believed to have undergone localized folding, turning and twisting,
faulting and shearing. In addition, the excavations have revealed slight-moderate weathered and
oxidized bedrocks down the hill slope (see Appendix C).
2.3 Field Investigation
Field investigation was carried out by Engineers, geologist and technicians from Komagin Limited on
the 25th and 26th March, 2017. The investigation comprise mainly of in-situ testing by Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) probe test, subsurface excavation & exploration and soil sampling.
All aspects of the investigations were carried out in accordance with AS1726 – 1993 “Geotechnical Site
Investigations” with on-site works comprising of:
 15 No. DCP Tests (8 on excavated & fill area and 7 on green field area)
 Subsurface exploration on the slope cut faces
 Soil sample and Visual Tactile Method (VTM) & Observations
2.3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) probe test
A total of fifteen (15) No. DCP tests were conducted on the site down to an average depth of 0.7m
BGL. Most of which register refusal at near subsurface depth and was evident that the site is located
on firm bedrock within the 1.5m subsurface depth. On the other hand, the test done on downhill backfill
area indicated loosely compacted and need to be re-excavated and reworked into required layered and
compaction. All fill material shall be excavated, removed to stockpile, controlled placement and
standard compaction shall be applied in layers not more than 200mm.
The equipment used is a Scalar Dynamic Penetrometer Cone device. Field California Bearing Ratio
(CBRf) and allowable Bearing Capacities (ABC) based on methods proposed by Webster Et al (1992)
and Stockweel (1977) respectively were estimated through the use of a hand held Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) probe test carried out by an experienced engineer with testing starting at ground
level and blows over each 100mm increment recorded down into the earth.
11
2.3.2 Soil Sampling
Soil sample extracted from the excavated rocks and soils were sealed in appropriate bags and have
undergone appropriate examinations and laboratory testing. The samples were sealed to prevent it
from being expose to the air and also to keep it in its initial moisture state for further examinations and
laboratory testing consistent with methods of soil sampling specified in AS 1726 – 1981 Site
Investigations, Australia Standards Council.
2.3.3 Subsurface Exploration
The site where Building 1 is to be built was already excavated down to about 2m depth exposing the
bedrocks depth prior to this investigation. From those cut-face walls, subsurface conditions and soil
profile were investigated and summarized in the Table 1 below. Diagrammatic with matching photo
representation of the subsurface profile is presented in Appendix C.
Table 1 (Inferred Profile) Summary of Subsurface Condition and Materials at depth.
Depth (m) Horizon (Layer) Description
0.0 - 0.20 Organic Layer This layer contains organic black colored soils. The
soil material is mostly silt and has lower moisture
content. The layer is thin and naturally tilted due to
the density of vegetation and geomorphology
respectively.
0.35 Mixture Horizon A & B This layer composite material typical of Horizon A &
B. The layer is also thin and was naturally in a tilt
position due to the geomorphology of the area. The
Material is silt predominant with minor clay and
fragments and/or blocks of slightly weathered and
distorted bedrock.
1.55 – 3.0 Fresh to minor Weathered Moderately oxidized, weathered and intensely
Bedrock fractured/distorted bedrocks with higher pressure
bearing capacity strength.
3.0 – 10.0 Fresh Bedrock Fractured, less weathered and/or oxidized bedrocks
with higher pressure bearing capacity strength.
The information presented in Table 1 above is a brief summary of the subsurface exploration or
profiling of the cut-face wall. The bedrocks are relatively fresher and has higher load bearing capacities
and shear strength as indicated in DCP probe test results.
12
3.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITION
The results and conclusions made from the different aspects of geotechnical investigation or
assessments undertaken are presented below.
3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (and Subsurface Strata)
Fifteen (15) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) probe tests (AS 1289.6.3.2) were carried out over the
proposed sites. However, most DCP probe tests were terminated at near subsurface depth when the
hammer registered refusal. This indicates that the material is firm to stiff for the entire site. It can be
seen from the DCP probe test results presented in Appendix A that the ABC values for most DCP tests
are consistent and increases with depth. On the other hand, the thickness of the filled materials at
Building 1 increases in the direction of DCP probe test 3 to a depth of about 0.7m. At the backfill
locations, it reveals presence of bedrock at near subsurface depth (1 – 2m) and more considerations
are needed to improve the back-filled locality.
3.2 Visual Tactile Method (VTM)
Samples extracted from excavation were visually inspected and by applying appropriate VTM, the site
is consistent and underlain predominantly of pale brown silty clay GRAVEL. The soils were classified
according to AS 2870 – 2011. The material composes fragments of Port Moresby formation bedrock of
the area with fines being mostly silt and minor clay. The moisture content was observed to be relatively
low probably due to the geologic setting of the area. Material generally is of moderate plasticity with
moderate shrinkage limits. Based on the analyzed results, the site contains soils having great increase
in the allowable bearing capacities with depth. The soil seems to be consistent throughout with minor
variations at the surface. This indicates that the soil is soft at the surface but becoming firm and steady
with increasing depth and again indicating presence of bedrock at near subsurface depth.
3.3 Surface and Subsurface Condition (Inferred ground profile)
The investigations revealed that materials at subsurface increasingly becomes firmer with increasing
depth. From the fifteen (15) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer probe tests conducted, it can be seen that
most of the fifteen tests were terminated at depths not more than a meter. This implies that bedrock is
sitting at a shallower depth and some tests were carried out on excavated bedrock surface. The
subsurface conditions witnessed here is encouraging and ideal for the construction of the proposed
structure.
The subsurface is less moist and well drained with slightly oxidized, weathered and fractured bedrocks
having very promising ABC strength. The bedrocks at depth (subsurface) are relatively fresh, very
strong and ideal to set high-raised structure foundations on (see photos Appendix C).
3.4 Laboratory Test Results
Specified minimum allowable bearing strength of the founding material is 100 kPa and the test results
demonstrate that the ABC values of the natural subgrade at the estimated founding depth are more
13
than 300 kPa. It is therefore, concluded that the building will be founded within firm medium and no
geotechnical issues relating to settlement during its service life is expected.
Based on the PSD results, no loose material is found at the founding depth and it depicts consistent
results with DCP as firm medium. Linear shrinkage limits have registered more than 6% specified
maximum (AS 1289 3.4.1) for all the three samples tested. Hence, the material at the founding depth
comprised predominantly of silty GRAVEL minor clay content.
There is a contrast between the particle size distribution results obtained and the specified grading
limits as shown in Table 1.0 below. Hence, it can be concluded that the material mostly contain Gravel with
fines loosely packed overtime.
Table 2 PSD Results Comparisons

STANDARD SIEVE STANDARD LABOLATORY SOIL TEST RESULT
SIZES (mm) RESULTS
% by Wt % by Wt Passing
Passing Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
37.5 100 84
19 60 - 100 70
9.5 60 – 80 64
4.75 30 – 60 63
2.36 20 – 45 60
0.425 15 – 30 49
0.075 3 - 15 42
Distinct Soil Test Reports for the soil samples collected from the excavated test pits can be concluded
as having similar results to standard grading material. Accordingly, subsurface soils have low water
content and a higher liquid limits and plasticity index and compose of uneven particle size distribution
which is evident that the material has more Gravel content with minor silts and clay. This may probably
due to its strategic geological setting; that is, the area is on the Hill slope founded on Port Moresby bed
rock.
4.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Earthworks
The following are general recommendations with respect to earthworks applicable to most
developments. They may need to be modified, but nevertheless, generally are applicable.
4.1.1 Site Preparation
All site preparation works should generally be carried out in accordance with AS 3798-2007 “Guidelines
on earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments”. The site should be stripped off all
topsoil, (if any exist) from the cut and fill areas and road alignments/car parking areas and stockpiled for
later use.
14
4.1.2 Slope Stability
Slope stabilization measures are required as substantial cuts will be prepared for the building site. It is
recommended that this be reviewed by KOMAGIN and advice on stability provided.
4.1.3 Other General Earthworks Requirements
Prior to the placement of any structural fill, any proposed area should be proof rolled using a 10 tonne
(minimum) roller.
Where areas of soft to soft clays are encountered, these materials should be removed and replaced
with selected fill. In addition, where soft to firm clays exist beneath the proposed building areas, these
also need to be removed until strata that comply with the design bearing capacity is encountered.
Depressions form by the removal of vegetation, existing structures, underground services, etc., should
have all disturbed soil clean out and be backfilled with compacted selected fill material.
To minimize the potential for post compaction volume change, due to moisture content variations, any
structural fill should be placed in loose layers not greater than 200mm thick at a moisture content in the
range -1% to +3% of the modified optimum moisture content, and be compacted to minimum dry
density ratio of 98% modified compaction as per AS 1289.5.1.2. Lesser standards could be used
where fill areas are not critical.
It is recommended that the placement of all structural fill be tested by KOMAGIN, inspected and
certified by Project Manager/Engineer of KOMAGIN during earthworks operations to ensure that all fill
is placed in a “controlled manner” in accordance with AS 3798-2007.
No problems should be encountered in excavating the fill soil in trenches and all test pits were
excavated to the depth stated with vertical batters. No ground water was encountered during the time
of pit observations.
Once the area of the building levels of proposed buildings have been reached and exposed, it is
recommended that these be checked by a qualified engineer and written approval be obtained to
confirm that the ground complies with the design requirements for bearing capacity. Similarly, any
exposed subgrade for roads or carparks should also be checked and if necessary, further tested to
confirm that it complied with the design intent. After exposing the foundation or subgrade, whether this
is in soil of CWR, it is important that the area be quickly covered, by blinding concrete, or other covering
materials, to prevent it drying out or becoming inundulated. This is not necessary where on rock.
4.2 Foundation
4.2.1 Ground Profile and Foundations
As shown in the test pit logs, summarized in Table 1, the site is firm and has bedrock located at 500 –
700mm and 1.5 – 2m of fill at front underlain by low reactive silty clay GRAVEL which have been
classified as Class “M” for the purpose of AS 2870-Section 2. The site exhibit great increase in the
15
allowable soil bearing pressure with bedrock located at near subsurface depth. With fresh bedrocks
located at depth of about 2m and beyond, it is recommended that, this is the depth at which the
foundation of the proposed structure should sit.
For the given site condition, there are three main factors controlling the selection of the type of
foundation these being; a) the shrink/swell properties of the soil, b) the bearing capacity and, c)
settlement. In the design of foundations for the proposed structure, there are three options for
consideration:
 A raft footing
 Spread footing
 Bored piers
Both raft and spread footings may be design using AS 2870-1996 “Residential slabs and footings”. AS
2870 prohibits spread footings being used where the soil has less than 100 kPa allowable bearing
capacity and raft footings where there is less than 50kPa.
Although AS 2870 is designed for single story buildings, it can be used for structures of 2 to 3 story
where the design loads are similar, such as the building that is planned for this site. The classification
for the site is “M” as described in Section 4.6; footing and raft types and their sizes can be found in AS
2870. Further comments on the three foundations options follow;
Raft Footing
As Qa (Allowable Bearing Capacity) exceeds 50 kPa in the red ridge Gravel Fill and in the underlying
SM soils, theoretically, a raft foundation could be established at any depth. However, if established
within the fill, which had Qa = 200 kPa, it would then impose stresses on the underlying SM soils which
has Qa = 100 kPa, so that the raft would need to be designed for Qa = 100 kPa. In addition, as shown
by Table 1, the soils at this depth is class “M”.
For a raft established with its base around 0.6m there would also be settlement in the underlying 1.3m
of SM soil. Primary estimates show that with an applied DL of 100 kPa, total settlement could be up to
20mm, with differential settlement also of 20mm, both of which are considered within limits and
acceptable. Hence, unless subsequent settlement estimates when the raft dimensions and applied DL
are known, as shown to be acceptable, at this stage, a raft foundation cannot be recommended.
Spread Footing
According to AS 2870, spread footings are not allowed to be used where the allowable bearing capacity
of a soil is lower than 100 kPa. Thus if spread footings are used, they could be established at 1.5m
using ABC of 200 kPa. This option is as cost effective as short bored piers. In addition, if this option is
chosen, then settlement should be checked once the design loads and footing sizes have been
selected.
When it comes to construction, the depths at which soft or loose soils could be greater than what we
found in this investigation. KOMAGIN could be used to check the bearing capacities of soil/weathered
rock when it is reached just prior to construction of footings.
16
Deep / Pile Footing
This option would involve supporting a raft or spread footings on bored piers taken to 2.5m, 3.0m where
the soil is denser or 4.0m. As noted above, the piles would be sleeved to 2m to prevent soil heave from
breaking the piles in tension.
The Ultimate Pile Capacities for various dimeter piles taken to 2.0m, 3.0m and 4m depth below GL
(natural ground level) can be tabulated as outlined in Table 3.0.
Table 3 ULTIMATE CAPACITIES IN KN FOR PILES OF VARIOUS DIAMETERS – DEPTH 2m & 4m
Depth (m) 300mm 350mm 450mm 500mm 750mm 1000mm

2.0
3.0
4.0
4.5
Note: this table will be populated at design level
Notes to Table 3;
 Piles sleeved to 2m
 All depths are below CURRENT GL
 One depth should be adopted for all foundations for any one building
The following F/S are suitable; F/S = 3 for DL; F/S = 2 for DL + LL, F/S = 1.5 or less for
DL+LL+Seismic, depending on intensity and frequency of seismic event, type of structure and life
endangerment. Wind loads are included as a live Live Load. For this site, the option of a spread would
appear to be the best foundation option. But once again this needs to be confirmed once layouts and
loads are available.
4.2.2 Review of Foundation Drawings
Once preliminary drawings have been prepared for the proposed structures, KOMAGIN will calculate
the applied loads and review these and provide values of likely settlement, both total and differential.
4.2.3 Construction Certification
All foundations need to be checked by KOMAGIN once they have been excavated or bored and
certified, with in-situ testing as appropriate. Testing usually comprises Schmidt Hammer Test readings
in rock and DCP testing.
4.2.4 Other Pile Capacities & Group Effects
All of the above capacities apply to single piles and the effects of pier or pile group needs to be
considered, particularly with respect to settlement, which may result in lower capacities than those
stated in the table. KOMAGIN will provide pile capacities, for a range of conditions, groups and
loadings if warranted by site condition and applied loadings.
17
4.3 Earthquake Classification (Seismic Consideration)
As shown on the seismic zonation map of Papua New Guinea below, Port Moresby is within a less
seismically active region ranked as Seismic Risk Zone 4 for building construction in accordance with
PNG Standard (PNGS 1001 – 1982) “General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Building;
Part 4 – Earth Quake Loadings”. For the purpose of determining the Basic Seismic Coefficient Factor,
C, the site can be referred to as being “firm” in accordance with Clause 3.4.2 of the above standard.
Figure 3 Seismicity Zonation in PNG for Building Construction
4.4 Groundwater
Water table was not encountered. The site is considered to be well drained and thus no groundwater
related construction problem is envisaged during construction.
4.5 Liquefaction Potential
Based on the field results, nature of the topsoil and well graded silty clay – GRAVEL content indicated
presence of dense substructure near sub-surface depth in its natural state. Thus, it is considered that
liquefaction potential within the material is equally low.
4.6 Site Classification
Base on the classification and shrink/swell examination, the estimated surface movement of the
existing (in-situ) soil profile as a direct factor of moisture variations is considered to be low and in the
order of 15mm. With such movement expected within the natural unimproved soils, this site may be
18
classified as Class ‘M’ in accordance with AS 2870 – 1996 ‘Residential Slabs & Footings’, based on
the shrink/swell potential of the minor clay material.
4.7 Unsuitable Material
Unsuitable material on site shall be deemed as being unable to support construction works or lacking
the necessary engineering properties required to provide required outcomes. In general for material to
be defined as unsuitable they would meet the following criteria:
 Swamp, bog or marsh material
 Refuse
 Material where moisture content of material has reduced its consistency or it is a saturated
material in which desired results, i.e., density and compaction are not achieved.
 Any other material deemed unsuitable by the superintendent.
According to the criteria presented above, topsoil to about 300mm depth material on-site is considered
unsuitable and therefore should be excavated and removed from the site. Material below this depth
can be the working depth and used as subgrade materials for the proposed structure.
4.8 Foundation Excavation and Preparation
Prior to the setting of the designed foundation system for the proposed structure, it is recommended
that 300mm of the topsoil be removed from the site as unsuitable material. Further excavations of 2m
at locations of fill area down the hill slopes is recommended and all suitable fill material recovered from
previous excavation be removed to stockpile. After reaching the natural subgrade, a proof test shall be
conducted by KOMAGIN Ltd to confirm the natural subgrade strength and ensure no soft spot is
detected. Thereafter, standard compaction shall be applied not more than 200mm layer to line and
level until building level is reached. Once the building foundation level is reached, compaction test shall
be carried out over the entire building foot print to ascertain the compaction integrity.
Again, the excavated materials be carefully levelled out (not more than 200mm) and compacted to final
level to reduce any likelihood of differential or total settlement as a direct result of post construction
consolidation and/or seasonal moisture variations. If need be and only if necessary, granular materials
can be brought in from hill side subgrade to improve the base material for the said structure.
However, the retaining walls must be constructed prior to bedrock excavation, leveling and compaction
of the subgrade materials. Given the terrain features and size of the building, a reinforced concrete
retentions system is recommended and shall be built according to a certified engineer’s design
specifications.
4.9 Foundation Selection and Parameter for the Proposed Structure
It is considered appropriate to employ shallow spread footing foundation system for the proposed
structure given most of the other conditions was satisfied. The specification on the type to be employed
should be in accordance to the engineer’s discretion and description based on the assessment made.
However, it is recommended that the foundation should be set at depth of 2 – 3m or even deeper below
the surface on top of the fresher and stronger bedrocks and or natural subgrade beneath. Given the
site is on hill slope, potential slope failure and overturning effect induced by wind/earthquake, can be
regulated by considering deep foundation based on structural engineer’s recommendation.
19
4.10 Factors to be considered for the Design of Foundation System
The designed foundation system employed for the proposed structure should be such that any
unanticipated differential or total settlement due to post-construction consolidation or seasonal
variations or seismically induced movements shall not have a significant impact on the structure.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
It is recommended that placement of all structural fill and footing excavations be inspected and certified
where necessary by client’s project manager or by KOMAGIN, to ensure recommendations made in this
report is adhered.
KOMAGIN can complete DCP testing, once the foundations levels have been reached, to ensure that
the bearing capacities are achieved and this is recommended. During excavation, should subsurface
conditions significantly vary from those anticipated, it is recommended that the Komagin Limited or
similar competent geotechnical engineering company be advised immediately so that any necessary
reviews can be undertaken of the presented recommendations.
The site preparation work should generally be carried out in accordance with AS 3798-1996 “Guidelines
on earthworks for commercial and residential developments”.
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This report has provided design parameters which will allow the design of proposed building
foundations as requested by client. For the proposed buildings, the report provides a range of
foundation options using rafts, spread footings, or short bored piers. Depending on the applied loads, it
is likely that, subject to cost studies, a spread or short bored piers with floor slab on grade may prove
most suitable. It is recommended that all earthworks and building foundations be tested and certified
by KOMAGIN during construction. This to include full compaction testing and the testing of all materials
used in the works.
KOMAGIN will check the chosen foundation layouts and calculate settlements once the applied loads
are known through detail analysis and necessary reviews will be made to design a foundation system
consistent with the founding medium.
This investigation was performed and reported by qualified and experienced engineers, geologists and
geotechnicians. The contents of this report were carefully put together and is restricted only to the
stated area and therefore should not be applied to the surrounding areas or manipulated for other
purposes.
Finally, based on this investigation, no further subsurface exploration using drilling or bore hole is
recommended as the bed rock is found at near subsurface depth.
20
Yours Sincerely;
……………………………
Joel Y. KOMA – Msc Eng (Structural), BEng with Merit (Civil) Structural Engineer – (MIEPNG - Reg.1883)
Director – Engineering Manager
21
7.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATION
This Report is provided by Komagin Limited “Komagin” subject to the following limitations.
A complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances referenced in the Report may not
be performed. Thus, services/information not indicated should not be assumed to be provided by
Komagin.
There may exist conditions which are undetectable due to its limited nature or other special conditions
pertaining to the site may not be revealed in the investigation leading to this Report. In such cases,
further investigations and actions may be required.
Opinions expressed are based duly upon information gathered at the time of production of this Report.
This information cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes of the site, or its
surroundings over time.
Any assessments made in this Report are based on conditions indicated by the investigations
described or from referenced published sources. There is no assurance included, either expressed or
implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.
Where data is supplied by any other external sources (including the client), it has been assumed that
the Information is correct unless otherwise noted. No responsibility is accepted by Komagin for
incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.
This Document is confidential and strictly provided for sole use by the Client and its professional
advisers. Komagin does not assume responsibility for any negative consequences or repercussions
arising from the utilization of this report by any person or organization other than the Client.
22
REFERENCES
1. The Papua New Guinea 1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet No. SC 55-7 “PORT MORESBY–
KALO-AROA”
2 Papua New Guinea Standard 1001 – 1982 Part 4 “General Structural Design and Design
Loadings for Buildings: Part 4 – Earthquake Loadings
3 Australian Standard 2870 – 1986 “Residential Slabs and Footings”.
4. AS1726 – 1993, “Geotechnical Site Investigations”
5 Stockwell, M.J, 1997, Determination of Allowable Bearing Pressure under small structure.
6 AS 1289 – 1997 Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes, Australia Standards
Council
7 Curtin, W.G, Shaw, G, Parkinson, G.I and Golding, J.M, 2000, Structural Foundation Designers
Manual, Curtains Consulting Engineers, Blackwell Science, London, Oxford
8 Jie Han 2015, Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement, Wiley, Canada.
9 Burt Look 2006, Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables, Taylor &
Francis/Balkema, London, UK 2007
10 Webster SL, Grau RH, Williams TP-1992, Description and Application of Dual Mass Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer, Instruction Report GL-92-3, US Waterways Experiemental Station, 50p.
11 Peters, P. 1:250 000 Geological Series, Sheets SC55-6, 7 & 11 Port Moresby – Kalo-Aroa
Papua New Guinea, Department of Mineral and Energy
23
APPENDICES
24
Appendix A DCP Tests Analysis Results
BUILDING 1 & 2
25
Table 1 Analysed Results of DCP Test 1.
Komagin Limited
Engineering Your Vision
Project: Proposed 2 x 3 Storey Residential Units - Garden Hill Estate
Location:National Capital District (NCD) - Port Moresby (PNG)
Client: Zhong Tai Development LTD

P.O Box 78, GORDONS, NCD Job No.: S01
Papua New Guinea (PNG) Date: M ar-17
DCP TEST # 1
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
Depth Field Data e' Value ABC CBR E 143⁰01'08.73"
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 1 100 41 1
100
0.2 1 100 41 1
0.3 15 7 301 55
DCP Resistance
0.4 15 Refusal
0.5
0.6 10
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0 1
1.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 Depth (m)
1.3
1.4 Ra w D ata (blo ws/1 00mm) 'e' Va lue (1 00mm/blow )
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.5 1) Bedrock was found to be at 1.5 - 2m depth 10
2.6 2) Test done on excavated subsurface depth
2.7 at 2m down hill slope
2.8 3) No ground watertable encountered
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
3.1
3.2 Plot of CBR vs depth) Plot of ABC vs depth)
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
DCP 'e' Values & Allowable Bearing Capacity (ABC) vs Depth
26
Table 2 Analysed Result of DCP Test 2.
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 2
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 10 10 223 31
100
0.2 3 33 92 5
0.3 8 13 190 22
DCP Resistance
0.4 17 6 330 66
0.5 17 Refusal
0.6 10
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0 1
1.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5
1.2 Depth (m)
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.7 at 0.8m down hill slope
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
27
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 3
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 2 50 68 3
100
0.2 2 50 68 3
0.3 3 33 92 5
DCP Resistance
0.4 3 33 92 5
0.5 1 100 41 1
0.6 3 33 92 5 10
0.7 7 14 172 18
0.8 11 9 240 35
0.9 12 8 255 40
1.0 22 5 399 96 1
1.1 8 13 190 22 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6
1.2 8 Refusal Depth (m)
1.3
1.4 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
28
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 4
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 8 13 190 22
100
0.2 12 8 255 40
0.3 21 5 385 90
DCP Resistance
0.4 21 Refusal
0.5
0.6 10
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0 1
1.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 Depth (m)
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
29
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 5
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 12 8 255 40
100
0.2 8 13 190 22
0.3 12 8 255 40
DCP Resistance
0.4 11 9 240 35
0.5 12 8 255 40
0.6 6 17 153 15 10
0.7 3 33 92 5
0.8 3 33 92 5
0.9 6 17 153 15
1.0 6 17 153 15 1
1.1 8 13 190 22 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
30
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 6
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 6 17 153 15
100
0.2 3 33 92 5
0.3 2 50 68 3
DCP Resistance
0.4 1 100 41 1
0.5 1 100 41 1
0.6 5 20 134 11 10
0.7 2 50 68 3
0.8 11 9 240 35
0.9 5 20 134 11
1.0 4 25 114 8 1
1.1 3 33 92 5 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 4 25 114 8 Depth (m)
1.3 3 33 92 5
1.4 3 33 92 5 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5 4 25 114 8
1.6 2 50 68 3
1.7 7 14 172 18
1000
1.8 5 20 134 11
1.9 5 20 134 11
2.0 5 20 134 11
2.1 11 9 240 35 100
2.2 12 8 255 40
2.3 15 7 301 55
2.4 Soft fill material beyond
2.5 10
2.6 Note:
2.7 1) Bedrock was found to be at 1.5 - 2m depth
2.9 at 0.5m down hill slope 1
3.0 3) No ground watertable encountered 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
31
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 7
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 5 20 134 11
100
0.2 3 33 92 5
0.3 4 25 114 8
DCP Resistance
0.4 2 50 68 3
0.5 2 50 68 3
0.6 3 33 92 5 10
0.7 2 50 68 3
0.8 3 33 92 5
0.9 7 14 172 18
1.0 17 6 330 66 1
1.1 25 4 438 116 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
32
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 8
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 8 13 190 22
100
0.2 7 14 172 18
0.3 7 14 172 18
DCP Resistance
0.4 7 14 172 18
0.5 3 33 92 5
0.6 2 50 68 3 10
0.7 4 25 114 8
0.8 9 11 207 27
0.9 5 20 134 11
1.0 4 25 114 8 1
1.1 9 11 207 27 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 7 14 172 18 Depth (m)
1.3 6 17 153 15
1.4 5 20 134 11 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5 5 20 134 11
1.6 5 20 134 11
1.7 20 5 372 84
1000
1.8 20 Refusal
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
33
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 9
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 7 14 172 18
100
0.2 15 7 301 55
0.3 7 14 172 18
DCP Resistance
0.4 3 33 92 5
0.5 4 25 114 8
0.6 3 33 92 5 10
0.7 3 33 92 5
0.8 4 25 114 8
0.9 3 33 92 5
1.0 5 20 134 11 1
1.1 4 25 114 8 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 5 20 134 11 Depth (m)
1.3 5 20 134 11
1.4 7 14 172 18 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5 5 20 134 11
1.6 4 25 114 8
1.7 4 25 114 8
1000
1.8 4 25 114 8
1.9 Soft fill material beyond
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
34
BUILDING 2
35
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 1
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 2 50 68 3
100
0.2 3 33 92 5
0.3 7 14 172 18
DCP Resistance
0.4 3 33 92 5
0.5 3 33 92 5
0.6 3 33 92 5 10
0.7 4 25 114 8
0.8 5 20 134 11
0.9 4 25 114 8
1.0 10 10 223 31 1
1.1 7 14 172 18 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 6 17 153 15 Depth (m)
1.3 6 17 153 15
1.4 6 17 153 15 Ra w D ata (blo ws/1 00mm) 'e' Va lue (1 00mm/blow )
1.5 8 13 190 22
1.6 24 4 425 109
1.7 24 Refusal
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
36
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 2
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 2 50 68 3
100
0.2 8 13 190 22
0.3 8 Refusal
DCP Resistance
0.4
0.5
0.6 10
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0 1
1.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5
1.2 Depth (m)
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.6 2) Test done on natural surface down to 0.3m
2.7 down hill slope
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
37
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 3
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 2 50 68 3
100
0.2 3 33 92 5
0.3 4 25 114 8
DCP Resistance
0.4 4 Refusal
0.5
0.6 10
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0 1
1.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6
1.2 Depth (m)
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.6 2) Test done on natural surface down to 0.3m
2.7 down hill slope
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
38
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 4
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 3 33 92 5
100
0.2 2 50 68 3
0.3 3 33 92 5
DCP Resistance
0.4 2 50 68 3
0.5 2 50 68 3
0.6 3 33 92 5 10
0.7 3 33 92 5
0.8 3 33 92 5
0.9 5 20 134 11
1.0 2 50 68 3 1
1.1 6 17 153 15 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 3 33 92 5 Depth (m)
1.3 8 13 190 22
1.4 17 6 330 66 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5 32 3 525 165

1.6 33 3 537 172
1.7 33 Refusal
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5 10
2.6 Note:
2.7 1) Bedrock was found to be at 1.5 - 2m depth
2.9 at 0.5m down hill slope 1
3.0 3) No ground watertable encountered 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
39
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 5
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 4 25 114 8
100
0.2 4 25 114 8
0.3 3 33 92 5
DCP Resistance
0.4 3 33 92 5
0.5 4 25 114 8
0.6 7 14 172 18 10
0.7 10 10 223 31
0.8 8 13 190 22
0.9 10 10 223 31
1.0 11 9 240 35 1
1.1 11 9 240 35 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 9 11 207 27 Depth (m)
1.3 8 13 190 22
1.4 9 11 207 27 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5 11 9 240 35
1.6 9 11 207 27
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9 Natural Soil Profile
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
40
Komagin Limited

DCP TEST # 6
S 03⁰52'30.14" 66 m ASL
(m) (Blw/100mm) (100mm/Blw) (kPa) (%)
0.1 3 33 92 5
100
0.2 2 50 68 3
0.3 2 50 68 3
DCP Resistance
0.4 3 33 92 5
0.5 3 33 92 5
0.6 2 50 68 3 10
0.7 2 50 68 3
0.8 5 20 134 11
0.9 3 33 92 5
1.0 5 20 134 11 1
1.1 6 17 153 15 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 20 5 372 84 Depth (m)
1.3 21 5 385 90
1.4 30 3 501 150 Serie s1 Serie s2
1.5 23 4 412 103

1.6 23 Refusal
1.7
1000
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1 100
2.2
2.3
2.4 Note:
2.9 1
3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
3.1
3.2 Series1 Series2
3.3
3.4
3.5
APPENDIX A
41
Appendix B Regional Geology Map of Port Moresby area (Circled)
Figure 1: Regional Geology Map (1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet No. SC 55-7 “PORT MORESBY–KALO-AROA”)
42
Appendix C Diagrammatic representation of the site soil profile
Legend Description Depths (m)

This layer denoted the top most part where loose gravels and short
0
grasses grew
This layer marks the organic black soils composing predominantly of
clay and SILT. The layer is thin because of the less dense vegetation 0.2
cover over the area
This layer composes of materials characterizing both Horizon A and
B. It consisted of Silty-Clay-GRAVEL enclosing the bedrock 0.2 - 0.8
fragments or remnants.
This layer (Horizon C) denoted the less oxidized, weathered and
fractured and more fresher-looking bedrock. The rocks here are 0.8 – 2.0
intact and strong possessing high shear strength and ABC.
43
44
Appendix D Laboratory Test Results and Analysis
45
DEPARTMENT OF WORKS REPORT No.
RESEARCH & MATERIALS TESTING BRANCH 16P088
Materials Testing Laboratory File No. 42 - 60 - C04
 Port Moresby Lae Mt Hagen Annex Lab _____

(1)
DATE :07 / 04 /17
Page 1 of 1
SOIL TEST REPORT

CLIENT: KOMAGIN SAMPLE / LAB No: 17/S/40
PROJECT: GARDEN HILL ESTATE SAMPLED BY: CLIENT
LOCATION: HOHOLA SAMPLING DATE: NIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: BUILDING 2 MATERIAL SOURCE: Dept: 1.4 m

Source Material Group Usage Specification Grading
Acid Igneous Sedimentary Duricrust Road Base Course DoW's Type 1 2 3 DoW's
Intermediate Igneous Natural Gravel Sub Base Course Sub-type 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E
Metamorphic Coronous Backfill Other … Other …
Base Igneous Other ________________________ Other ____________
Natural Water Content AS 1289 2.1.1 Dry Density / Moist. Content AS 1289 5.1.1 or 5.2.1 California Bearing Ratio AS 1289 6.1.1 Specification
Nat. Water Content 10.0% Maximum Dry Density CBR Value >80%
Limits AS 1289 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.9, 3.3.1, 3.3.2 Specification Moisture Content Penetration
Liquid Limit * 47.0 <25 Standard Modified Moisture > 30 mm
Plastic Limit 29.6 70 % > 19 mm Crushed Discarded Mass of Surcharge
Plasticity Index 17.4 3-6 Wet/Dry Strength AS1141.22 Specification Period of Soaking
Plastic Modulus (PI/%0.425) NR Wet Strength NT
* Atterberg 4 pts (3.1.1) 1 pt (3.1.2) Cone (3.9) Dry Strenght - Los Angeles Value AS1141.23 Specification
Nat State Air Dried Oven Dried W/D Strength Var. - LA value NT
Wet Sieved Dry Sieved Size test cylinder - Test Grading -
Linear Shrinkage AS 1289 3.4.1 Specification Flakiness Index AS1141.15 Specification PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Longitudinal Shrinkage 11.6% Index NT Washed Not Washed
Shrinkage Modulus (LS/%0.425) NR Sodiun Sulfate Soundness AS1141.24 Specification Specification
AS Sieve size % Passing
Cracking Crumbling Curling Weighted loss - fine NT Min Max
Soil Particle Density AS 1289 3.5.1 Weighted loss-coarse - 75 mm

Appar. Density < 2.36 NT Weighted loss - mix - 63 mm 100 100
Appar. Density > 2.36 - Fracturated Faces QTT215 Specification 37.5 mm 84 85 100
Soil Particle Density - Average FF NT 26.5 mm 76
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AS 1289 3.6.1 and AS 1141 11.4 19 mm 70 55 90
For Coronous Cu (Mod) = For non coronous 13.2 mm 66
Cc (Mod) = Ratio 0.075 / 0.425 = 0.86 9.5 mm 64 40 70
100 6.7 mm 63
90 4.75 mm 63 28 55
80 2.36 mm 60 20 45
70 1.18 mm 56
PERCENTAGE PASSING %
60 0.6 mm 51
50
0.425 mm 49 10 25
40
0.3 mm 47
30
0.15 mm 44
20
0.075 mm 42 4 15
10
SUMMARY GRAVEL SAND CLAY& SILT
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 % 40 18 42
SIEVE SIZES (mm)
PNGLAS Accredited Laboratory
10
REMARKS:
No :
NT- NOT TESTED
This laboratory is accredited by the Papua New Guinea
Laboratory Accreditation Scheme. The tests reported herein
have been performed in accordance with its scope of
accreditation and PNGLAS requirements which include the
requirements of ISO/IEC 17025. This document shall not be
reproduced, except in full.
Approved Signatory
Lab (POM) not accredited for tests no. AS 1289 3.1.2, 3.9, 3.5.1, AS 1141.22 and QTT 215
(1)
LEKA.H.BONORO Signature Date 7/04/2017

FORM No. : STR 1 Authorised by: AS (Research & Materials Testing Branch) Revised Worksheet: 13/03/2014
Appendix E Proposed Site & Building Layout Plan
Figure 3a: Roof layout plan
46
47
48
49
Figure 3b: Ground Floor Plan
50
51
Figure 3c: Upper Floor Plan.
Figure 3d: Retaining Wall designs
52
Appendix F Investigation Photos
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Final Geotech Report - JKVersion

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final Geotech Report - JKVersion

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GEOTECHNICAL

DESIGN & BUILD (D & C) CONTRACTOR

Phone: +675 710 47168

By: Komagin Limited

Date: 27th April, 2017

Figure 1 Aerial image caption of the project locality ...................................................................................... 7

Acronyms and Abbreviation

Revision Revision Issue Author Reviewed By

• Subsurface material characteristics and descriptions

Figure 1 Aerial image caption of the project locality

1.2 Project Understanding

The two split level 3 - Storey residential building is designated as follows:

The objectives of investigations were to:

1.4 Summary of Approach

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

2.2 Site Desktop Investigation

2.2.1 Site Description

2.2.1.1 Regional Geology

2.2.1.2 Local Geology

2.2.2 Site Observation

2.3 Field Investigation

2.3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) probe test

2.3.3 Subsurface Exploration

Table 1 (Inferred Profile) Summary of Subsurface Condition and Materials at depth.

Depth (m) Horizon (Layer) Description

3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (and Subsurface Strata)

3.2 Visual Tactile Method (VTM)

3.3 Surface and Subsurface Condition (Inferred ground profile)

3.4 Laboratory Test Results

Table 2 PSD Results Comparisons

4.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1.1 Site Preparation

4.1.3 Other General Earthworks Requirements

4.2.1 Ground Profile and Foundations

Table 3 ULTIMATE CAPACITIES IN KN FOR PILES OF VARIOUS DIAMETERS – DEPTH 2m & 4m

Depth (m) 300mm 350mm 450mm 500mm 750mm 1000mm

4.2.2 Review of Foundation Drawings

4.2.3 Construction Certification

4.2.4 Other Pile Capacities & Group Effects

Figure 3 Seismicity Zonation in PNG for Building Construction

4.5 Liquefaction Potential

4.6 Site Classification

4.7 Unsuitable Material

4.8 Foundation Excavation and Preparation

4.9 Foundation Selection and Parameter for the Proposed Structure

5.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION

6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

3 Australian Standard 2870 – 1986 “Residential Slabs and Footings”.

4. AS1726 – 1993, “Geotechnical Site Investigations”

Project: Proposed 2 x 3 Storey Residential Units - Garden Hill Estate

Location:National Capital District (NCD) - Port Moresby (PNG)

Client: Zhong Tai Development LTD

Project: Proposed 2 x 3 Storey Residential Units - Garden Hill Estate

Location:National Capital District (NCD) - Port Moresby (PNG)

Client: Zhong Tai Development LTD

Project: Proposed 2 x 3 Storey Residential Units - Garden Hill Estate

Location:National Capital District (NCD) - Port Moresby (PNG)

Client: Zhong Tai Development LTD

Project: Proposed 2 x 3 Storey Residential Units - Garden Hill Estate

Location:National Capital District (NCD) - Port Moresby (PNG)

Client: Zhong Tai Development LTD

Project: Proposed 2 x 3 Storey Residential Units - Garden Hill Estate

Location:National Capital District (NCD) - Port Moresby (PNG)