(Rev2) - DP Report On Geotechnical Investigation, SIG Village Developments PDF

Report on
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Multistorey Residential Development

SIG Village Development
Marmion Avenue, Carine, WA
Prepared for
St Ives Villages Pty Ltd
Project 82346
November 2014
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1

2. Site Description ...............................................................................................................2
3. Previous Studies (2012 Investigation) .............................................................................2
3.1 Available Information............................................................................................. 2
3.2 In Situ Permeability Testing .................................................................................. 4
3.3 Laboratory Testing Results ................................................................................... 4
4. Field Work Methods ........................................................................................................5
5. Field Work Results ..........................................................................................................5
5.1 Summary of Ground Conditions ............................................................................ 5
5.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 7
6. Laboratory Testing ..........................................................................................................7
6.1 Laboratory Results ................................................................................................ 7
6.2 UCS-Is(50) Correlation............................................................................................. 8
7. Proposed Development ...................................................................................................8
8. Comments .......................................................................................................................9
8.1 Site Suitability........................................................................................................ 9
8.2 Site Classification .................................................................................................. 9
8.3 Site Classification for Earthquake Design ........................................................... 10
8.4 Liquefaction Potential .......................................................................................... 10
8.5 Site Preparation and Compaction ....................................................................... 10
8.6 Excavation Conditions and Groundwater ............................................................ 12
8.7 Safe Batter Slopes .............................................................................................. 13
8.8 Excavation Support Design ................................................................................. 13
8.9 Re-use of Uncontrolled Filling ............................................................................. 14
8.10 Re-use of Excavated Material and Imported Filling ............................................ 14
8.11 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................... 15
8.12 Pile Design .......................................................................................................... 17
8.13 Pavement Design Parameters ............................................................................ 19
8.14 Stormwater Disposal ........................................................................................... 19
9. Limitations .....................................................................................................................20
Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

SIG Village Development, Marmion Avenue, Carine, WA November 2014
10. References ....................................................................................................................21
Appendix A: About this Report

Appendix B: Drawings
Appendix C: 2012 Douglas Partners Ground Investigation Field Work Results
Appendix D: 2014 Douglas Partners Ground Investigation Field Work Results
Appendix E: 2012 Douglas Partners Laboratory Testing Results
Appendix F: 2014 Douglas Partners Laboratory Testing Results

1 of 21
Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Multistorey Residential Development
SIG Village Development, Marmion Avenue, Carine, WA
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken at the site of the proposed
multistorey residential development at SIG Village Development, Marmion Avenue in Carine, WA. The
investigation was commissioned on 8 September 2014 by Paul Perin from St Ives Villages Pty Ltd,
and was undertaken in accordance with Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) proposal dated
10 March 2014.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to determine the subsurface conditions across the
site and thus provide:
 Description of the ground conditions including topsoil depth, in-situ density and rock strength, if
encountered;
 A revision of the previously provided site classification in accordance with AS 2870-2011,
including recommendations to achieve a class “A” or “S” site;
 An earthquake site classification in accordance with AS1170.4;
 Comments on the risk of liquefaction potential of the soil under earthquake loading;
 Comments on the suitability of the site for multi-storey developments;
 Comments on suitable foundation types to support multi-storey developments;
 Geotechnical design parameters for foundation design, including bearing pressures and
estimates of short and long term settlements for pad footings, single rafts and pile design
parameters, as appropriate;
 Suitable temporary and permanent batter slopes ratio for cut and fill;
 Updated recommendations in relation to the founding of internal slab panels and external
pavements, including indicative external pavement CBR;
 Updated recommendations on the permeability of the soils within the existing storm water basin;
 Updated recommendations on site preparation, excavation conditions, compaction control,
earthworks and remediation, so as to allow the proposed developments;
 Updated comments on the excavation conditions and on the suitability of excavated materials for
use as filling materials; and
 Recommendations on suitable earth retaining structures for the proposed basements, and
geotechnical parameters for their design.
The investigation included four static cone penetration tests (CPT), the drilling of two boreholes using
the direct push method in sand and diamond core techniques in limestone, and laboratory testing of

2 of 21
selected samples. The details of the field work are presented in this report, together with comments
and recommendations on the items listed above.
2. Site Description
The site is identified as Lot 5 Almadine Drive in Carine, and comprises an irregular shaped area of
approximately 2 ha. The site is bound by Almadine Drive to the northwest, Silica Road and public
open space to the northeast, undeveloped land to the southeast and Marmion Avenue to the south-
west (Refer to Drawing 1, Appendix B). It is understood that the Carine TAFE campus formerly
occupied the site.
At the time of the investigation the site had been cleared and partially excavated, resulting in slopes up
to approximately 5 m in height with an estimated batter angle of 1 horizontal : 2 vertical. The
excavated site and slope surfaces comprised sand.
According to a survey plan produced by St Ives Villages Pty Ltd, the surface level generally slopes
from an elevation of approximately RL 26.5 m AHD over the north eastern two thirds of Lot 5, to
elevations of approximately between RL 26.5 m AHD and RL 27.5 m AHD within the south western
third.
The Perth 1:50 000 Environmental Geology sheet indicates that the site is underlain by sand overlying
Tamala Limestone.
The Perth Groundwater Atlas (2004) indicates that in May 2003 the groundwater level was around
RL 2 m AHD (i.e. around 23 m below the lowest existing surface level).
3. Previous Studies (2012 Investigation)
3.1 Available Information
Information on ground conditions within the proposed development area was available from a
geotechnical investigation undertaken by DP, associated with Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue project.
The reference of the available report is listed below:

 Douglas Partners Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development,
Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue, Carine, WA, dated February 2013.
The field testing undertaken during this investigation included a total of nine cone penetration tests
(CPT) and the excavation of thirty six test pits. However for the purposes of this report, only four
CPTs and ten test pits were undertaken within the proposed development area, as described below:
 CPT39 to CPT42; and

 TP14 to TP16, TP21 to TP24, TP29, TP30 and TP33.

3 of 21
Data from these tests are included in Appendix C and test locations are shown on Drawing 1,
Appendix B.
Results of this investigation indicate that the ground conditions beneath the current surface elevation
of the site comprise loose to dense sand, to depths of between 3.06 m (CPT41) and 10.83 m (CPT40)
overlying inferred Tamala limestone. At particular locations (see Table 1), variably compacted sand
filling was recorded overlying the in-situ sand. Furthermore, at TP30 location, a crushed limestone
basecourse layer approximately 0.38 m in thickness, was recorded overlying the in-situ sand.
The depths below existing surface level and relative level to the base of filling is summarised in
Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Depth and Relative Levels of Base of Filling
Surface Level Depth to Base of Level of Base of Filling

Test Location
(m AHD)[1] Filling (m) (m AHD)[1]
TP21 25.60 0.50 25.10
TP22 25.70 1.00 24.70
TP23 26.80 0.40 26.40
TP29 25.80 0.55 25.25

[2]
TP30 27.40 0.40 27.00[2]
CPT39 27.50 1.12 26.38
CPT40 25.80 1.46 24.34

Notes: [1] Surface level interpolated from survey provided by client.
[2] Depth to the base of existing crushed limestone basecourse layer.
The surface elevation of the limestone was inferred where the CPTs refused, with the exception of
CPT40 where inferred extremely low to very low strength limestone, was inferred between 10.83 and a
CPT termination depth of 12.92 m. The limestone surface varied from approximately RL 23.94 m AHD
(CPT41) to RL 14.97 m AHD (CPT40).
A summary of the depths and levels of CPT refusals (i.e. inferred limestone levels), are summarised in
Table 2, and shown in Drawing 2 in Appendix B. It should be noted that CPT refusal is not a definitive
indicator of limestone, as refusal can occur on overlying dense or cemented layers or debris within the
encountered uncontrolled filling.

4 of 21
Table 2: Depth and Levels of CPT Refusals
Ground Surface
Depth to CPT Refusal Level [2] of CPT Refusal
Test Location Level [1]
(m) (m AHD)
(m AHD)
CPT40 25.8 10.83 14.97

CPT41 30.2 6.26 23.94
CPT42 26.0 6.20 19.80
[2] Interpolated Level = interpolated surface level – depth to refusal.
3.2 In Situ Permeability Testing
In situ permeability test was carried out during the previous ground investigation works at BH47 (north
western corner of the proposed development area) at a depth of 1.65 m. A field permeability value
was estimated using the Horslev method (1951). A permeability value was also derived using grading
results from the laboratory testing and Hazen’s formula which applies for sand in a loose state.
Results of the permeability analysis are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of the In Situ Permeability Testing and Derived Values

Measured Derived
Depth
Test Permeability Permeability Material
(m)
(m/s) [1] (m/s) [2]
BH47 1.65 9.8 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-4 Sand with a trace of silt
Notes: - [1]: Horslev’s method.

- [2]: Hazen’s method.
3.3 Laboratory Testing Results
Laboratory testing during the 2012 ground investigation included a total of four particle size distribution
tests. However for the purposes of this report, only one was undertaken within the proposed
development area, as summarised in Table 4:
Table 4: Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Test Depth Fines d10 d60 Material

(m) (%) (mm) (mm)
BH46 1.0 3 0.11 0.56 Sand with a trace of silt
Notes- The % fines is the amount of particles smaller than 75 μm.

- A d10 of 0.17 mm means that 10% of the sample particles are finer than 0.17 mm.
- A d60 of 0.44 mm means that 60% of the sample particles are finer than 0.44 mm.

5 of 21
The detailed test certificate is included in Appendix E of this report.
4. Field Work Methods
Field work was carried out on 13 September 2014 and comprised four static cone penetration tests
(CPT) and the drilling of two boreholes using the direct push method in sand and diamond core
techniques in limestone.
The CPTs (CPT3 to CPT6) were carried out by using a 36 mm diameter instrumented cone with a
following 130 mm long friction sleeve attached to rods of the same diameter, pushed continuously at a
rate of 20 mm/sec into the soil by hydraulic thrust from a ballasted truck mounted rig. Strain gauges in
the cone and sleeve measure resistance to penetration and this data allows assessment of the type
and condition of the materials penetrated. The CPTs were pushed to depths of between 7.8 m and
18.0 m. Upon withdrawing the CPT probe, each location was dipped to measure groundwater levels.
The boreholes (BH1 and BH2) were drilled using a Geoprobe 7822DT drilling rig to depths of 10 m
below existing surface level. The boreholes were drilled using the direct push method in sand, HQ
coring in limestone, with SPTs undertaken at 1.5 m intervals in soil.
Each borehole was logged in general accordance with test procedure AS 1726–1993 by a suitably
experienced geotechnical engineer from DP. Representative core samples were recovered from
selected locations for subsequent laboratory testing.
Test locations were determined using a GPS and are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. Surface
elevations at each test location were interpolated from a survey provided by the client and are quoted
in metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD).
5. Field Work Results
5.1 Summary of Ground Conditions
Detailed logs of the ground conditions, inferred soil behaviour at the CPT locations and results of the
field testing are presented in Appendix D.
The subsurface ground conditions can be summarised as follows:

 Filling (Sand and Gravelly Sand) – generally loose to dense dark grey, brown, fine to medium
grained sand with a trace of silt to depths of between 0.2 m at BH2 and 2.06 m at CPT4.
 Sand – generally medium to very dense within the CPTs and very loose to loose within the
boreholes, orange-brown, fine to medium grained sand with a trace of silt to depths of between
4.5 m at BH2 and to a CPT termination depth of 18.2 m at CPT5. Loose sand was encountered
in CPT4 (approximately between 12 m and 13.74 m depth).
 Tamala Limestone – Medium to high strength calcareous sandstone, below the sand to borehole
and CPT termination depths of between 7.82 m at CPT3 and 18.2 m at CPT6.

6 of 21
The depths below existing surface level and relative level to the base of filling is summarised in
Table 5.
Table 5: Summary of Depth and Relative Levels of Base of Filling
Surface Level Depth to Base of Level of Base of Filling

Test Location
(m AHD) [1] Filling (m) (m AHD) [1]
BH1 26 0.2 25.8
BH2 27 -[2] -[2]
CPT3 25 0.77 24.23
CPT4 27.5 2.06 25.44
CPT5 26 0.96 25.04
CPT6 26 0.93 25.07

[2] Depth to the base of existing crushed limestone basecourse layer.
Based on the rock strength recorded in the Tamala Limestone underlying the sand during the
investigation works, the weathering profile of the Tamala Limestone is likely to vary across the site.
Medium to high strength rock core was encountered in BH1, while low to high strength was
encountered in BH2. While core recovery was good in BH1, there was some core loss in BH2, with
RQD generally below 30%, indicating extremely low strength rock or possibly sand pockets. Rock
cores in the Tamala Limestone within BH1 was generally slightly fractured (300 mm to 1000 mm) with
some fractured zones (30 mm to 100 mm) up to 150 mm in thickness. Within BH2, rock cores in the
Tamala Limestone was generally fragmented to fractured (20 mm to 100 mm) with slightly fractured
zones (300 mm to 1000 mm) up to 1.0 m in thickness
The bedding planes were predominately 0 to 20 degrees (below the horizontal), with joints being
recorded at approximately 30 to 60 degrees to the bedding in the boreholes.
A summary of the depths and levels of CPT refusals (i.e. inferred limestone levels) and depth to the
top of the Tamala Limestone in the diamond core boreholes is presented in Table 6, and shown in
Drawing 2 in Appendix B. It should be noted that CPT refusal is not a definitive indicator of limestone,
as refusal can occur on overlying dense or cemented layers or debris within the encountered
uncontrolled filling.

7 of 21
Table 6: Depth and Levels to the Top of the Tamala Limestone in the Boreholes and CPT
Refusals
Ground Surface Depth to CPT Refusal and Level [2] of CPT Refusal and Depth
Test
Level [1] Depth to Limestone in to Limestone in Boreholes)
Location
(m AHD) Boreholes (m) (m AHD)
BH1 26 7.95 18.05

[3]
BH2 27 4.50 22.50[3]
CPT3 25 5.51[4] 19.49[4]
CPT4 27.5 14.2 13.30
- [5] - [5]
CPT5 26
CPT6 26 16.83 [4] 9.17 [4]
[2] Interpolated Level = interpolated surface level – depth to refusal.
[3] Possible limestone pinnacle encountered below 4.0 m depth.
[4] Inferred limestone recorded below this depth to CPT termination depth.
[5] Limestone was not encountered.
5.2 Groundwater
At the time of the field work on 13 September 2014, no free groundwater was observed at any of the
CPT locations to a maximum depth of 18.2 m and drilling fluid would have masked seepage in the
diamond cored boreholes. The boreholes and CPT holes were immediately backfilled following the
investigation, which precluded longer-term monitoring of groundwater levels.
The Perth Groundwater Atlas (2004) indicates that in May 2003 the groundwater level was around
RL 2 m AHD (i.e. around 23 m below the lowest existing surface level).
It should be noted that groundwater levels are affected by climatic conditions and soil permeability,
and will therefore vary with time.
6. Laboratory Testing
6.1 Laboratory Results
A geotechnical laboratory testing programme was carried out by a NATA registered laboratory on
selected samples from the diamond drilled boreholes, and comprised the determination of:
 The uniaxial compression strength on two core samples.
 The point load strength index on eight core samples.
Detailed test report sheets are given in Appendix F and the results are summarised in Table 7 (next
page).

8 of 21
Table 7: Results of Rock Strength Tests

Test Location Point Load Index Unconfined
Depth Derived Rock
Is(50) Compressive
(m) Strength
(MPa) Strength (MPa)
8.0 – 8.1 1.9 - High
8.1 – 8.3 - 17.9 Medium
Block 4 BH1 9.0 – 9.15 1.5 - High
9.5 – 9.75 - 7.45 Medium
9.75 – 9.85 2.4 - High
5.8 – 5.9 0.71 - Medium
8.4 – 8.5 0.19 - Low
Block 2 BH2 8.9 – 9.0 0.23 - Low
9.1 – 9.2 0.15 - Low
9.5 – 9.6 0.20 - Low
Notes - Not tested.
6.2 UCS-Is(50) Correlation
For the assessment of a foundation bearing on rock, the geotechnical strength involves the
assessment of the rock strength. Two unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests were undertaken
on rock core collected from the diamond cored boreholes undertaken at the site. Due to the relatively
simple testing procedure, point load index (Is(50)) strength testing was also carried out on the rock
cores. By establishing a correlation between UCS and Is(50) on samples taken from approximately the
same level in a borehole, it is then possible to make use of most of the available Is(50) values.
Appendix F includes a tabulation of the UCS and Is(50) results.
The UCS is commonly derived from Is(50) values using the following equation:
UCS = R x Is(50), where
R is a ratio that typically varies depending on rock type, weathering and testing procedures. Given the
limited available data to establish a correlation between UCS and Is(50), and according to published
correlations for similar rock types, R values can vary between 7 and 26 for limestone. For Is(50) values
of <2 MPa, a correlation factor of about 10 to 15 is suggested.
7. Proposed Development
It is understood that the proposed development will include the construction of 160 apartments (4
building blocks) varying between 2 to 6 storeys in height, including a basement car park
(RL 24.5 m AHD) at the north western corner (Block 4) and southern third (Block 1 and Block 2) of the
proposed development area. It is also understood that the proposed Block 3 ground floor level will be

9 of 21
at a RL 27.5 m AHD), and that a pool house and a audio studio and offices building are also proposed
at the centre of the proposed development area.
8. Comments
8.1 Site Suitability
The investigation indicates that the site is generally underlain by a profile consisting of sand and
gravelly sand filling overlying sand, which in turn overlies limestone, as described in Section 3.1 and
Section 5.1 above. From a geotechnical standpoint, the land is physically capable of development for
multi-storey buildings, provided that the provisions outlined in the subsequent subsections of the report
are taken into consideration, and recommendations are implemented.
8.2 Site Classification
The shallow ground conditions beneath the site generally comprise loose to dense and variably
compacted sand filling and gravelly sand filling, overlying medium dense to very dense natural sand.
Very loose and loose to medium dense zones were also recorded in the natural sand material, at
TP14, TP15, TP24, BH1, BH2, CPT4, CPT41 and CPT42 as follows:
 TP14 – immediately underlying the topsoil;

 TP15 – immediately underlying the crushed limestone basecourse;
 TP24 – immediately underlying the sand filling;
 BH1 and BH2 – from surface;
 CPT4 – between 12 m and 14.2 m depth;
 CPT41 – between 3.9 m and 6.26 m depth; and
 CPT42 – between 4.6 m and 6.2 m depth.
As a result, the site should be classified as “Class P” in strict accordance with AS2870-2011, owing to
the occurrence of loose and variably compacted sand and gravelly sand filing and very loose to loose
natural sand.
The current site classification could be amended to ‘Class A’ in accordance with AS 2870-2011,
provided the site preparation is carried out as outlined in Section 8.5, with particular attention given to
the removal of the filling material and uniform compaction of all soils.
It is noted that AS 2870 - 2011 applies to single houses, townhouses and the like classified as Class 1
and 10a under the Building Code of Australia. It also applies to light industrial and commercial
buildings if they are similar in size, loading and superstructure flexibility to those designs included in
AS 2870 - 2011. Given the proposed Block 1 to Block 4 structures are understood to be between
3 and 6 storeys in height, the above standard will not be applicable, and as such foundation design
should be based on engineering principles.

10 of 21
8.3 Site Classification for Earthquake Design
Shallow ground conditions encountered generally comprised loose to medium dense filling, overlying
medium dense to dense sand, with some zones of very loose to loose sand overlying limestone.
Deeper greound conditions are anticipated to include sand and limestone.
If the recommended ground improvement technique detailed in Section 8.5.1 is adopted, an

earthquake design soil sub-class of Ce is recommended for the site.
8.4 Liquefaction Potential
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby a saturated or partially saturated soil substantially loses
strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, usually earthquake shaking or other sudden
change in stress condition, causing it to behave like a liquid. This phenomenon is most often
observed in saturated, loose sandy soils.
As noted detailed in Section 5.2, groundwater was not observed to a maximum depth of 18.2 m
(RL 10.8 m AHD in CPT5 and CPT6) during the investigation on 13 September 2014. The Perth
groundwater Atlas indicates that the groundwater was at a level of approximately RL 2 m AHD in May
2003 (24 m below the lowest level at the site).
Based on the anticipated depth to groundwater, it is considered that the underlying materials present a
low risk for liquefaction potential.
8.5 Site Preparation and Compaction
All deleterious material at ground surface, including topsoil and vegetation should be stripped from
building envelopes and pavement areas. Topsoil could be re-used for landscaping purposes only.
8.5.1 Block 1, Block 2 and Block 4
The uncontrolled filling encountered within the proposed Block 4 building footprint, is considered to be
an unsuitable foundation material in its current condition. This is mainly due to the fact that concrete
pieces and roots were recorded during the ground investigation works within the filling material present
within this area. The occurrence of other unidentified unsuitable materials cannot be precluded. As a
result, irregular and unpredictable settlement could occur beneath shallow footings constructed on this
uncontrolled filling, if not excavated from beneath the proposed Block 1, Block 2 and Block 4 building
footprint or treated as outlined in Section 8.9, if re-used as structural filling.
Based on the findings of the ground investigation works, and proposed development (i.e. construction
of a single level basement at Block 1, Block 2 and Block 4), it is anticipated that the uncontrolled filling
materials will be fully removed during basement excavations.
Very loose to loose sand was encountered at some locations to depths of up to 8 m below current
ground level at BH1. Very loose to loose sand was encountered at BH1 and CPT4 within the
proposed Block 4 building footprint and BH2 and CPT41 within the proposed Block 1 building footprint.

11 of 21
The occurrence of very loose to loose sand cannot be precluded below the proposed Block 2 building
footprint.
Therefore, it is recommended that the following site preparation works be undertaken at the base of
any basement excavations:
 Once the excavation reaches the proposed basement level and prior to excavation for the footing,
undertake impact rolling over the entire proposed Block 4 basement footprint, and within the
eastern two thirds of the proposed Block 1 and Block 2 basement footprint. This method is a
ground improvement technique that densifies loose granular soils, utilising a non-circular
compaction module towed by a tractor. It is anticipated that this technique can generally increase
the density of granular material typically to a depth of 2 m, with a decreasing improvement to a
depth of 3 m to 4 m.
It is recommended that an initial field trial over an area of approximately 20 m by 20 m should be
carried out. The objective of this field trial will be to assess the suitability of the proposed
technique, and the number of passes required to achieve “effective refusal” (maximum number of
passes beyond which no significant ground improvement occurs). The degree of ground
improvement can be verified by Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) and survey monitoring to confirm
the achieved densification.
Furthermore, if impact rolling is adopted at the site, it is recommended that widening of the
proposed basement excavations be undertaken, in order to achieve an adequate level of
compaction around the perimeter of these. The presence of any deep decommissioned services
and/or relic footings may impede achieving an adequate level of compaction, and may present
some practicable constraints. These aspects should be discussed with a specialist provider.
 Undertake footing excavation;
 Assess the sand density at the base of each foundation excavation, in order to ensure that
medium dense or denser sand occur to a minimum depth of at least 1 m below footings
excavations.
 Test the footing area for limestone within 1 m of the foundation level using a PSP. Limestone
would be indicated by refusal of the PSP within the first 1 m. If limestone is present, over-
excavate the footing to a depth of 1 m, remove the limestone and back fill with imported/treated
filling or natural sand.
It is recommended that compaction control testing of sand be undertaken by a suitably experienced

geotechnical engineer who could properly interpret the PSP results for the encountered ground
conditions. As mentioned above, it is suggested that any sand subgrade should be compacted to
achieve a target resistance of 10 blows per 300 mm rod penetration to a depth of not less than 1.0 m
below foundation level. It should be noted that this compaction level has not been directly correlated
to a dry density of 95% relative to modified compaction. Lower blow counts than the above level may
be acceptable provided that a correlation between Perth sand penetrometer (PSP) test and dry density
ratio has been established by a NATA accredited laboratory and following review by a geotechnical
engineer.
The rapid impact compaction and impact rolling techniques is likely to loosen the shallow sand in the
vicinity of the footing and compaction of the surface using a conventional vibrating roller is
recommended following the above mentioned ground improvement operations.

12 of 21
The ground improvement methods described above generates vibrations. As a result, possible
sensitive structures (such as the residences and roads to the south and west of the proposed
development area) or underground services in the vicinity of the site should be identified prior to
commencement of the ground improvement operations. Dilapidation surveys, vibration trials and
monitoring are recommended to be implemented if such structures exist.
If the material at the base of the proposed Block 4 basement excavation does not respond to further
compaction using impact rolling techniques, consideration can be given to the use of other forms of
ground improvement such as rapid impact compaction at the footings location. This technique uses a
vertical pile-driver to create a column of dense sand below the point of application.
8.5.2 Block 3 and Art Studio/Offices Building
Based on the proposed Block 3 and Art Studio/Offices building finished level (RL 27.5 m AHD) and
existing site levels at these locations, and in accordance with the site level from survey plan provided
by the client (RL 26 m AHD), it is anticipated that imported filling, treated filling or/and natural sand
excavated from site will be required to raise site levels by approximately 1.5 m.
The filling material encountered during the ground investigation works at Block 3 and Art
Studio/Offices buildings footprint, is considered to be a suitable foundation material in its current
condition.
Following clearing operations within the proposed Block 3 and Art Studio/Offices buildings footprint,
the subgrade should be assessed by a geotechnical engineer, to determine whether previous natural
topsoil, vegetation or roots remain at the original surface level. Any deletrious material will require
removal. Once this has been assessed, it is recommended that the exposed subgrade beneath the
building envelope be compacted using a heavy (minimum of 12 tonne) smooth drum roller. Any areas
that show signs of excessive deformation during compaction should be further compacted until
deformation ceases. If the material does not respond to further compaction, it should be excavated
and replaced with suitable structural filling compacted to achieve a dry density ratio of not less than
95% relative to modified compaction. Care should be taken not to operate heavy plant immediately
adjacent to existing buildings and services.
8.6 Excavation Conditions and Groundwater
It is understood that the development will include a maximum excavation depth of 3 m, below the
current site levels associated with basement construction at Block 1, Block 2 and Block 4. It is
anticipated that excavation to a depth of 2 m will be undertaken at the location of the proposed pool
house, to enable pool construction.
Within and around the perimeter of the proposed basement envelope and assuming a basement
excavation level of RL 24.5 m AHD, and at the proposed pool house building, the ground conditions
generally include loose to dense filling overlying very loose to dense sand.
For these conditions, conventional earthmoving equipment should be suitable for excavations of the
sand across the site. However, limestone pinnacles may be encountered, particularly at the proposed
Block 1 location (BH2), and as such provision of rock breakers to remove these is recommended.

13 of 21
Groundwater was not observed to a maximum depth of 18.2 m (RL 10.8 m AHD in CPT5 and CPT6)
during the investigation on 13 September 2014. The Perth groundwater Atlas indicates that the
groundwater was at a level of approximately RL 2 m AHD in May 2003.
Therefore, it is anticipated that groundwater will not affect design and construction. However, high
level seepage may occur after prolonged rainfall, although the effects on construction are likely to be
minor.
8.7 Safe Batter Slopes
During construction, unsupported temporary batter slopes should be no steeper than 1.5H:1V
(Horizontal:Vertical) in basement excavations, and no greater than 3 m in height.
The above mentioned batter angle is only valid, provided no surcharge loads (including live loads such
as vehicles and machinery) apply at the top of the slope. If loads are applied at the top of the batter
(for example, excavated soil, equipment or building foundations), then a site specific assessment of
stability should be undertaken. DP would be pleased to provide such services.
8.8 Excavation Support Design
It is considered that contiguous piles, CFA secant piled wall would be suitable as an earth retaining
system to support basement excavations, based on the ground conditions encountered at the site.
Although, it is recommended that advice be sought from specialist contractors regarding the suitability
of their equipment for any approach chosen.
Consideration was also given to the use of sheet piles, however this is unlikely to present a viable
solution at the site, given the presence of limestone in close proximity to the proposed basement level.
The design of flexible or rigid walls that are free to rotate at the top can be undertaken using a
triangular pressure distribution and the parameters given in Table 8 to calculate lateral earth
pressures. In addition to the soil pressure, wall design should also allow for external loads such as
buildings and live loads.

14 of 21
Table 8: Soil Parameters for Retaining Wall Design
Coefficient At Rest Active

Drained Undrained
of Earth Coefficient Coefficient
Unit Weight Angle of Shear
Soil Type Pressure – of Earth of Earth
γ kN/m3 Friction Φ Strength Passive Pressure, Pressure,
(degrees) Cu (kPa) Kp K0 Ka
Very loose to
loose filling
20 30 0 3.0 0.50 0.33
and natural
sand
Medium dense
to dense filling
20 32 0 3.2 0.47 0.30
and natural
sand
Dense to Very
20 35 0 3.6 0.43 0.27
Dense Sand
Very low
strength 20 30 0 3.0 0.50 0.30
limestone
8.9 Re-use of Uncontrolled Filling
As detailed in Section 3.1 and Section 5.1, crushed limestone basecourse, sand and gravelly sand
filling was identified to the depths described in Table 1 and Table 5.
The sand and gravel fraction of the uncontrolled filling material could possibly be re-used to form a
structural filling material, following screening to remove organic particles, foreign materials and
particles greater than 150 mm in size. Any screened material should be approved by a geotechnical
engineer prior to re-use.
It is recommended that the material after treatment should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio
of not less than 95% within the proposed buildings envelope, relative to modified compaction.
Compaction control in sand could be carried out using a PSP as described in Section 8.5.1 above.
It should be noted that a preliminary contamination report has been produced by DP for this site in
order to assess whether unacceptable levels of contaminants exist within the uncontrolled filling
material.
8.10 Re-use of Excavated Material and Imported Filling
Naturally occurring site derived sand, or imported filling, should be suitable for use as structural fill,
provided it comprises free draining cohesionless sand with less than 5% by weight of particles passing
a 0.075 mm sieve. The material should be free from organic matter and particles greater than 150 mm
in size. It is recommended that naturally occurring sand or imported sand filling be compacted near its
optimum moisture content to achieve a dry density ratio of not less than 95% within the proposed
buildings envelope and 96 % within pavement areas, relative to modified compaction.

15 of 21
During construction, some loosening of the surface sands in foundation excavations is expected.
Therefore the top 300 mm in the base of any excavation should be re-compacted using a vibratory
plate compactor prior to construction of any footings.
Compaction control in sand could be carried out using a PSP as described in Section 8.5.1 above.
8.11 Shallow Foundations
Shallow foundation systems comprising pad and strip footings founded on medium dense natural sand
should be suitable to support the proposed buildings.
Conventional shallow footing systems comprising slab, pad or strip footings are considered suitable for
the residential type buildings, provided site preparation is undertaken as described in Section 8.5
above. Footings should be designed in accordance with the requirements of AS2870 for the site
classification appropriate for the filling. A ‘Class A’ classification would apply, if the filling comprises a
cohesionless material compacted to a dry density of not less than 95% modified maximum dry density
(MMDD).
For the main multistorey buildings, foundation design should be based on engineering principles.
Preliminary maximum allowable bearing pressures for foundation design of strip and pad footings
founded in at least medium dense natural sand (Block 1 to Block 4) or sand filling (Art Studio/Offices
and Pool House buildings), and settlement estimates beneath various square pad and strip footing
widths are provided in Table 9.

16 of 21
Table 9: Estimated Settlement of Square Pad and Strip Footings

Minimum Allowable Bearing Estimated
Footing Footing Width
Location Founding Depth Pressure Settlement
Type (m)
(m) (kPa) (mm)
1.0 1.0 270 0-5
2.0 1.0 400 10 - 15

Square Pad
3.0 1.0 495 20 - 25
Block 1 and Block 2
4.0 1.0 370 20 - 25
1.0 0.5 190 5 - 10

Strip
1.5 0.5 250 10 - 15
1.0 1.0 270 5 - 10
2.0 1.0 400 15 - 20

Square Pad
3.0 1.0 440 <25
Block 3
4.0 1.0 325 <25
1.0 0.5 190 10 - 15

Strip
1.5 0.5 250 15 - 20
1.0 1.0 270 10 - 15
2.0 1.0 400 20 - 25

Square Pad
3.0 1.0 290 <25
Block 4
4.0 1.0 210 <25
1.0 0.5 190 10 - 15

Strip
1.5 0.5 250 15 - 20
1.0 1.0 180 10 - 15

Art Studio/Offices
Square Pad
and Pool House 1.5 1.0 230 15 - 20
Buildings
Strip 1.0 0.5 130 15 - 20
The majority of the settlement is anticipated to occur as loads are applied during construction, long-
term settlements are likely to be less than 5 mm. Differential settlements of between 5 mm and
10 mm are estimated for the proposed buildings.
If the loose sand cannot practicably be improved and the consequent total or differential potential
differential settlements between the proposed pad foundations is excessive for the proposed structure,
or heavier loading conditions than those listed in Table 9 are required, then raft or pile foundations
may be considered. A raft foundation on the untreated ground will reduce differential settlement but
result in increased total settlements. The raft would need to be designed for potential hogging over
shallow limestone pinnacles adjacent to loose sand. More advice is provided on pile foundations in
Section 8.12 below.
Preliminary concept design information from BG&E indicates peak bearing pressures under ultimate
loads of around 400 kPa to 500 kPa and 300 kPa, beneath core footings (approximately 6.5 m by

17 of 21
3.5 m) at proposed buildings stairs and lifts and retaining wall footings (up to 2 m in width),
respectively. Total settlements no greater than 25 mm (criteria provided by BG&E Pty Ltd) were
estimated by DP for the provided core and retaining wall footings peak bearing pressures.
It is also recommended that the allowable bearing pressure of all footings during construction is
verified by a geotechnical engineer, prior to placement of reinforcement and concrete.
8.12 Pile Design
8.12.1 CFA Piles
Continuous flight auger (CFA) concrete piles founded in limestone should form a suitable piling system
to support the proposed building where shallow footings in overlying sand are not suitable. Also, as
discussed in Section 8.8, the use of CFA piles is suggested to form a contiguous pile wall to construct
the basement walls. Given the inferred depths to the top of the limestone (see Table 2 and Table 6), it
is anticipated that the contiguous piles will be founded in limestone. As the bedrock surface is
expected to be highly variable, it is recommended that proof drilling be undertaken prior to pile
construction in order to assess variations in bedrock level across the site. Suitable geotechnical
advice should be sought to undertake this testing. Douglas Partners will be pleased to assist with this
matter.
The risk of causing “decompression” of the sand when the auger penetrates into limestone should be
considered during CFA piling. Decompression results from an excessive rotation of the auger when it
encounters the limestone; the auger loads soil from its side rather than its base, which results in both
loosening of the surrounding soil and possible settlement of adjacent structures. Loose sand is
particularly prone to decompression. Prospective piling contractors should be advised of this matter
and only CFA piling rigs with high torque capacity should be considered for this project.
The CFA piling method is referred to as a non-displacement, or replacement piling technique, that
involves removing the column of soil down to the nominated founding level and replacing it with
injected concrete. Thus, it should be noted that CFA piling will produce spoil that should be handled
and suitably disposed of, in accordance with the relevant WA waste classification guidelines, and
advice should be sought from a suitably qualified environmental consultant on this matter.
It is recommended that only experienced piling contractors with demonstrated experience in

successfully constructing CFA piles in similar conditions be considered for this project. Prospective
piling contractors are invited to inspect the cores recovered during the geotechnical investigation to
make their own assessment of plant requirements.
Alternatively to CFA piles, cased bored piles could be considered.
Consideration was also given to the use of screw piles, however they are not recommended for
transferring building loads into the limestone as the design capacity of such piles cannot be
reasonably predicted and might not be achieved during construction for the following reasons:
 The highly irregular limestone surface levels, including pinnacles, would impede achieving a
reliable base area contact and thus poor transfer of the pile axial load into the bedrock; and

18 of 21
 Any bending of the helix and pile deflection from contact against the limestone.
8.12.2 Design Ultimate Geotechnical Strength Rd,ug
The design parameters included in this section apply to CFA piles.
The pile capacity derived from the skin friction and base pressure values given in this section are the
design ultimate geotechnical strength Rd,ug and should be multiplied by the geotechnical strength
reduction factor g given in Section 8.12.3 in order to obtain the design geotechnical strengths Rd,g.
Suggested geotechnical parameters for the preliminary design of pile foundations are given in
Table 10.
Table 10: Suggested Pile Geotechnical Design Parameters

Ultimate Average
Ultimate Base
Material Skin Friction fm,s
Pressure fb (kPa)
(kPa)
Sand – very loose to loose, occurring from
surface at BH1 and BH2, underlying the filling
Piles should not found
and topsoil at CPT3 and TP14, respectively and 5
within this material
immediately above the inferred limestone at
CPT4, CPT41 and CPT42.
Medium dense to dense in situ sand 2,500 30
Dense to Very Dense Sand 5,000 100
Limestone - Extremely Low to Very Low Strength 1,500 75
Limestone - Low to Medium Strength 4,000 300
Limestone - Medium Strength or Stronger 10,000 800
It is emphasised that the parameters given in Table 10 for limestone are valid for the tested locations
and indicated depths.
No skin friction within the soil layers should be assumed for the assessment of the compression
capacity of piles socketed into limestone.
Pile shaft friction in soils should be assumed to be zero within 1 m of the ground surface owing to
ground disturbance during construction.
The skin friction for tension (or uplift) loading could be taken as 70% of the shaft friction given above
for compression.

19 of 21
Pile capacity is highly dependent on piling construction, therefore some contractors might achieve
higher end bearing and skin friction capacities than those indicated in Table 10.
8.12.3 Design Geotechnical Strength Rd,g
The Piling Standard (AS 2159-2009) requires the design action effect (Ed) to be not greater than both
the design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) and the design structural strength. The design geotechnical
strength (Rd,g) is the ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by the geotechnical strength
reduction factor (Φg), such that Rd,g = Φg. Rd,ug.
Selection of the geotechnical strength reduction factor (Φg) in accordance with AS2159-2009 is based
upon a series of individual risk ratings and the final value of Φg depends on the following factors:
 Site: the type, quantity and quality of geotechnical testing.
 Design: design methods and parameter selection.
 Installation: construction control and monitoring.
 Pile testing regime: testing benefit factor based on percentage of piles tested and the type of
testing.
 Redundancy: whether other piles can take up load if a given pile settles or fails.
The assessment of Φg should be undertaken by the pile designer. At this stage, a preliminary Φg value
of 0.55 is suggested, assuming that some pile testing will be undertaken during construction.
8.12.4 Settlement of Piles
The settlement of individual CFA piles founded in the limestone and designed with the parameters
provided in Section 8.12.2 would generally be limited to a maximum of 10 mm.
8.13 Pavement Design Parameters
For the medium dense to dense sandy soils underlying the site, and assuming the recommendations
in Section 8.5 are followed, a subgrade California bearing ratio (CBR) of 12% is suggested for
pavement design.
8.14 Stormwater Disposal
For the encountered ground conditions (sand filling and sand), disposal of stormwater using infiltration
systems is considered to be suitable at the site. The determination of the in situ permeability was not
included in the scope of works.
However based on the results of the permeability and particle size distribution testing and according to
DP’s experience with similar materials, a design permeability value of 1 x 10-4 m/s for natural sand
soils at this site is recommended. Consideration will need to be given to the long term impact of
siltation on the permeability of the sandy soils at the site is recommended.

20 of 21
Limestone is generally considered impervious at small scale and thus stormwater disposal might not
be suitable in areas of shallow limestone. A clearance of not less than 0.5 m is suggested between
the base of drainage systems and the top of the limestone.
Soak wells should be located away from all buildings, retaining walls and boundaries by a distance of
not less than the depth of the soak well (measured from ground level).
9. Limitations
Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for this project at the proposed multistorey residential
development at SIG Village Development, Marmion Avenue in Carine, WA, in accordance with DP’s
proposal dated 10 March 2014, and acceptance received from Mr Paul Perin from St Ives Villages Pty
Ltd. This report is provided for the exclusive use of St Ives Villages Pty Ltd for the specific project and
purpose as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or
purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. DP has necessarily relied upon information
provided by the client and/or their agents. This includes all subsurface information.
The results provided in the report are considered to be indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the
site only to the depths investigated at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and only at the
time the work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological
processes and also as a result of human influences.
DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered and reported by others. The accuracy of the
advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions
across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations.
This report must be read in conjunction with all the attached and should be kept in its entirety without
separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or
conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation,
outcome or conclusion stated in this report.
This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project,
without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and
opinion rather than instructions for construction.
The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the
Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the
hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This
design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent
upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life.
This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role
respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of
potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current
scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to
DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the geotechnical
components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design,
construction, maintenance and demolition.

21 of 21
10. References
1. Australian Standard AS 1289-2000, Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes.

2. Australian Standard AS 1726-1996, Geotechnical Site Investigation.
3. Australian Standard AS 2159-2009, Piling – Design and Installation
4. Australian Standard AS 3798-2007, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments.
5. Douglas Partners Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development,
Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue, Carine, WA, dated February 2013.
6. Department of Environment, Perth Groundwater Atlas, Second Edition, December 2004.
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Appendix A
About this Report

Introduction • A localised, perched water table may lead to
These notes have been provided to amplify DP's an erroneous indication of the true water
report in regard to classification methods, field table;
procedures and the comments section. Not all are • Water table levels will vary from time to time
necessarily relevant to all reports. with seasons or recent weather changes.
They may not be the same at the time of
DP's reports are based on information gained from construction as are indicated in the report;
limited subsurface excavations and sampling, and
supplemented by knowledge of local geology and • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will
experience. For this reason, they must be mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to
regarded as interpretive rather than factual be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must
documents, limited to some extent by the scope of first be washed out of the hole if water
information on which they rely. measurements are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by

Copyright installing standpipes which are read at intervals
This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty over several days, or perhaps weeks for low
Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a
for which it was commissioned and in accordance particular stratum, may be advisable in low
with the Conditions of Engagement for the permeability soils or where there may be
commission supplied at the time of proposal. interference from a perched water table.
Unauthorised use of this report in any form
whatsoever is prohibited.
Reports
The report has been prepared by qualified
Borehole and Test Pit Logs personnel, is based on the information obtained
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this from field and laboratory testing, and has been
report are an engineering and/or geological undertaken to current engineering standards of
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and interpretation and analysis. Where the report has
their reliability will depend to some extent on been prepared for a specific design proposal, the
frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or information and interpretation may not be relevant
excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed if the design proposal is changed. If this happens,
sampling or core drilling will provide the most DP will be pleased to review the report and the
reliable assessment, but this is not always sufficiency of the investigation work.
practicable or possible to justify on economic
grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
represent only a very small sample of the total interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion
subsurface profile. of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and
recommendations or suggestions for design and
Interpretation of the information and its application construction. However, DP cannot always
to design and construction should therefore take anticipate or assume responsibility for:
into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other The potential for this will depend partly on
than 'straight line' variations between the test borehole or pit spacing and sampling
locations. frequency;
• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy
by statutory authorities; or
• The actions of contractors responding to
Groundwater
commercial pressures.
Where groundwater levels are measured in
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with
boreholes there are several potential problems,
investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
namely:
• In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all
during the time the hole is left open;
July 2010
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on site
during construction appear to vary from those
which were expected from the information
contained in the report, DP requests that it be
immediately notified. Most problems are much
more readily resolved when conditions are
exposed rather than at some later stage, well after
the event.
Information for Contractual Purposes

Where information obtained from this report is
provided for tendering purposes, it is
recommended that all information, including the
written report and discussion, be made available.
In circumstances where the discussion or
comments section is not relevant to the contractual
situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a
specially edited document. DP would be pleased
to assist in this regard and/or to make additional
report copies available for contract purposes at a
nominal charge.
Site Inspection
The company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for geotechnical
and environmental aspects of work to which this
report is related. This could range from a site visit
to confirm that conditions exposed are as
expected, to full time engineering presence on
site.
July 2010
Appendix B
Drawings
217
10695
275
223
216 224
7 383 500mE
383 600mE
383 700mE
215
6 227
22
N
R 34928 225
5 20
MGA 518
VE 226 0 10 20 30 40 50m
I
4 DR
SIL
SCALE 1 : 1 250 at A4
IC
CPT3
A
V CROWN LAND 243
N E
DI 8003
MA TP21-2013
AL
RO
CPT42-2013
AD
BH1
TP14-2013 TP33-2013
R 34928
CPT6 20
TP22-2013
CPT40-2013 CPT5
TP29-2013
6 475 100mN
Lot 5
TP15-2013
2 Legend
TP23-2013 CPT4
82346-d01.dgn
Site Boundary
R 51468
1
CPT39-2013
Cadastral Boundary
BH2 TP30-2013
Easement Boundary
CPT41-2013
TP16-2013 Borehole Location
6 Cone Penetrometer
Test Location
TP24-2013
V CROWN LAND Test Pit Location
PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136
(DP, 2013)
3 8004
Cone Penetrometer
Test Location
CADASTRAL SOURCE: Landgate, October 2014. (DP, 2013)
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown September 2014.
CLIENT: St Ives Group Test Locations PROJECT No.: 82346

Douglas Partners
V CROWN LAND OFFICE: Perth SIG Village Developments V DRAWING No.: 1
CROWN LAND
Geotechnics Environment Groundwater
8005 7 DATE:
8 9 Oct 10
13 2014 11 12Carine,
13 14WA 15 8001
REVISION: A
217
10695
275
223
216 224
7 383 500mE
383 600mE
383 700mE
215
6 227
22
N
R 34928 225
5 20
MGA 518
VE 226 0 10 20 30 40 50m
I
4 DR
SIL
SCALE 1 : 1 250 at A4
IC
CPT3
A
V CROWN LAND 243
N E
DI 19.49 8003
MA
AL
RO
AD
CPT42-2013 BH1
19.80 18.05
R 34928
CPT6 20
CPT40-2013 9.17 CPT5
14.97 --
6 475 100mN
Lot 5
Legend
2 CPT4 Site Boundary
82346-d02.dgn
R 51468 13.30 Cadastral Boundary

1
BH2 Easement Boundary
23.00
CPT41-2013 Borehole Location
23.94
Cone Penetrometer
6 Test Location
Cone Penetrometer
Test Location
V CROWN LAND
PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136
(DP, 2013)
3 8004
14.97 Level of CPT Refusal
and Depth to Limestone
(m AHD)
CADASTRAL SOURCE: Landgate, October 2014.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown September 2014.
CLIENT: St Ives Group Level of CPT Refusal and Depth to Limestone PROJECT No.: 82346
Douglas Partners
V CROWN LAND OFFICE: Perth SIG Village Developments V DRAWING No.: 2
CROWN LAND
Geotechnics Environment Groundwater
8005 7 DATE:
8 9 Oct 10
13 2014 11 12Carine,
13 14WA 15 8001
REVISION: A
Legend:
Block 1
Block 2
Scale: 1:760
Block 4
10 m
CLIENT: St Ives Group TITLE: Proposed Basement Plan PROJECT No: 82346
OFFICE: Perth DRAWN BY: SN SIG Village Development DRAWING No: 3
SCALE: As shown DATE: 13.10.14 Carine, WA REVISION: A

Legend:
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
Block 4
Offices Building and Pool House
Scale: 1:760
10 m
CLIENT: St Ives Group TITLE: Proposed Ground Floor Plan PROJECT No: 82346
OFFICE: Perth DRAWN BY: SN SIG Village Development DRAWING No: 4
SCALE: As shown DATE: 13.10.14 Carine, WA REVISION: A

Appendix C
2012 Douglas Partners Ground Investigation Field Work Results

TEST PIT LOG
CLIENT: Tabec Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 25.8 m AHD* PIT No: TP14
PROJECT: Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue EASTING: 383554 PROJECT No: 76495
LOCATION: Carine, WA NORTHING: 6475125 DATE: 6/12/2012
SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
TOPSOIL - grey, sandy topsoil.
0.15
SAND - loose, yellow, medium to coarse grained, sand
with a trace of silt, dry to moist.
- becoming loose to medium dense from 0.75 m depth.

25
1 D 1.0 1
- becoming medium dense from 1.35 m depth.

24
2 2
23
3 3.0 3
Pit discontinued at 3.0m (Target)
RIG: Hyundai 5 tonne excavator with a 600 mm bucket. LOGGED: D Rubenis SURVEY DATUM: MGA94
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed.
REMARKS: * Surface level interpolated from survey plan provided by the client. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
0.04 ASPHALT PSP performed in the

BASECOURSE (CRUSHED LIMESTONE) - generally 0.1 ground beyond the
well compacted, light yellow, medium to coarse sized, fine asphalt.
29
to medium grained, sandy gravel, dry.

- gas pipe observed at 0.1 m depth.
D 0.3
- reticulation pipe and black poly pipe observed at 0.2 m
depth.
0.5
SAND - loose to medium dense, yellow, medium to coarse
grained, sand with a trace of silt, dry to moist.
1 1
28
2 2
27
3 3.0 3
26
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING (CRUSEHD LIMESTONE) - generally well

compacted, light yellow, medium to coarse grained, fine to
coarse sized, gravelly sand filling, dry to moist.
- reticulation pipe observed at 0.2 m depth.
0.35
SAND - dense, yellow-brown, medium to coarse grained,
sand with a trace of silt, dry to moist.
- becoming yellow from 0.5 m depth.

29
1 1

28
D 1.9
2 2
2.8
27
Pit discontinued at 2.8m (Collapsing)
3 3
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING (SAND) - variably compacted, yellow-brown,

medium to coarse grained, sand filling, dry.
- 400 mm piece of concrete observed at 0.25 m depth.

- 50 mm diameter tree roots observed between 0.1 m and
0.3 m depth.
0.5
SAND - medium dense, dark grey, medium to coarse
grained, sand with some roots and a trace of silt, dry.
25
- becoming yellow with little to no roots from 0.6 m depth.
1 1
D 1.2
24
2 2
23
3 3.0 3
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING (SAND) - generally well compacted, yellow,

medium to coarse grained, fine to coarse sized, slightly
gravelly sand filling, dry to moist. Gravel is limestone and
concrete.
25
D 0.9
1 1.0 1
SAND - medium dense, yellow, medium to coarse
24
2 2
2.5
Pit discontinued at 2.5m (Collapsing)
23
3 3
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
TOPSOIL - dark grey, sandy topsoil.

0.1
FILLING (SAND) - generally well compacted, yellow-grey,
fine to medium grained, sand filling, dry.
0.4
SAND - dense, yellow, medium to coarse grained, sand
with a trace of silt, dry.
26
1 1

- 50 mm tree roots observed to 1.1 m depth.
D 1.3
25
2 2
24
3 3.0 3
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
29
FILLING (SAND) - generally poorly compacted,

grey-brown, fine to medium grained, sand filling, moist.
0.5
SAND - loose to medium dense, light yellow, medium to
coarse grained, sand with a trace of silt, moist.
- 50 mm to 100 mm diameter tree root observed between

0.7 m and 1.0 m depth.
28
1 1
D 1.4
27
2 2
3.0
26
3 3
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING (SAND) - variably compacted, grey, fine to

medium grained, sand filling with some gravel, dry to
moist.
0.55
SAND - medium dense, yellow, medium to coarse
grained, sand with a trace of silt, moist.
25
1 D 1.0 1
24
2 2
23
3 3.0 3
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
0.02 ASPHALT PSP performed in the
BASECOURSE (CRUSHED LIMESTONE) - generally 0.1 ground beyond the
well compacted, light yellow, medium to coarse sized, fine asphalt.
to medium grained, sandy gravel, dry.
- reticulation pipe observed at 0.3 m depth.

0.4
27
SAND - medium dense, dark grey, medium to coarse

- becoming light yellow from 0.5 m depth.
1 1
- some 50 mm to 100 mm diameter tree roots to 1.2 m

depth.
26
D 1.9
2 2
25
3 3.0 3
24
TEST PIT LOG
SHEET 1 OF 1
Graphic
Water
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 150mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING (SAND) - generally well compacted,

yellow-brown, medium to coarse grained, sand with some
gravel, dry.
25
D 0.8
1 1.0 1
FILLING (GRAVELLY SAND) - generally well compacted,
lightl yellow, medium to coarse grained, fine to coarse
sized, gravelly sand filling, dry.
1.2
SAND - dark grey, medium to coarse grained, sand with a
trace of silt, dry to moist.
24
2 2
- 50 mm diameter tree roots observed to 2.1 m depth.

23
3 3.0 3
CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION: Carine, WA CPT39
Page 1 of 1
CLIENT: Tabec Pty Ltd
REDUCED LEVEL: 27.5 m AHD* DATE 12/12/2012
PROJECT: Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue
COORDINATES: PROJECT No: 76495
Cone Resistance Sleeve Friction Inclination Friction Ratio

qc (MPa) fs (kPa) i (°) Rf (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 0 2 4
Depth Depth
(m) Soil Behaviour Type (m)
0.0 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
SAND (FILLING?): Loose to Medium Dense
1 1
1.12
SAND: Medium Dense
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
- becoming Dense from 6.8 m depth.

7 7
8 8
9 9
CPT terminated at 10.2 m depth (Target

10 depth) 10
End at 10.20m qc = 21.3 10.20
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
REMARKS: * Surface level interpolated from survey plan provided by client. File: P:\76495 Carine, Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue\Field\CPT39.CP5
Cone ID: Probedrill Type: ECF21
ConePlot Version 5.9.1

© 2003 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Page 1 of 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 0 2 4
Depth Depth
0.0 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
SAND (FILLING?): Loose to Medium Dense
1 1
1.46
SAND: Medium Dense
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
- becoming Dense from 6.5 m depth.

7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
10.83
11 LIMESTONE (inferred): Extremely Low to 11
Very Low strength
12 12
CPT terminated at 12.92 m depth due to

refusal on limestone (Inferred)
13 End at 12.92m qc = 41.8 12.92 13
14 14
15 15
16 16

Page 1 of 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 0 2 4
Depth Depth
0.0 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
SAND: Loose to Medium Dense
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 - becoming Loose from 3.9 m depth. 4
5 5
CPT terminated at 6.26 m due to refusal on

6 limestone (Inferred) 6
End at 6.26m qc = 24.3 6.26
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16

Page 1 of 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 0 2 4
Depth Depth
0.0 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
SAND: Medium Dense
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
- becoming Loose from 4.6 m depth.

5 5
CPT terminated at 6.2 m depth due to

6 refusal on limestone (Inferred) 6
End at 6.20m qc = 19.8 6.20
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16

Appendix D
2014 Douglas Partners Ground Investigation Field Work Results

Introduction
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is a
sophisticated soil profiling test carried out in-situ.
A special cone shaped probe is used which is
connected to a digital data acquisition system.
The cone and adjoining sleeve section contain a
series of strain gauges and other transducers
which continuously monitor and record various soil
parameters as the cone penetrates the soils.
The soil parameters measured depend on the type

of cone being used, however they always include
the following basic measurements
• Cone tip resistance qc
• Sleeve friction fs
• Inclination (from vertical) i Figure 2: Purpose built CPT rig
• Depth below ground z
The CPT can penetrate most soil types and is
particularly suited to alluvial soils, being able to
detect fine layering and strength variations. With
sufficient thrust the cone can often penetrate a
short distance into weathered rock. The cone will
usually reach refusal in coarse filling, medium to
coarse gravel and on very low strength or better
rock. Tests have been successfully completed to
more than 60 m.
Types of CPTs
Douglas Partners (and its subsidiary GroundTest)
owns and operates the following types of CPT
cones:
Type Measures
Standard Basic parameters (qc, fs, i & z)
Piezocone Dynamic pore pressure (u) plus
basic parameters. Dissipation
tests estimate consolidation
parameters
Conductivity Bulk soil electrical conductivity
(σ) plus basic parameters
Seismic Shear wave velocity (Vs),
compression wave velocity (Vp),
Figure 1: Cone Diagram plus basic parameters
The inclinometer in the cone enables the verticality

of the test to be confirmed and, if required, the Strata Interpretation
vertical depth can be corrected. The CPT parameters can be used to infer the Soil
Behaviour Type (SBT), based on normalised
The cone is thrust into the ground at a steady rate values of cone resistance (Qt) and friction ratio
of about 20 mm/sec, usually using the hydraulic (Fr). These are used in conjunction with soil
rams of a purpose built CPT rig, or a drilling rig. classification charts, such as the one below (after
The testing is carried out in accordance with the Robertson 1990)
Australian Standard AS1289 Test 6.5.1.
July 2010
Pile Capacity
The cone is, in effect, a small scale pile and,
therefore, ideal for direct estimation of pile
capacity. DP's in-house program ConePile can
analyse most pile types and produces pile capacity
versus depth plots. The analysis methods are
based on proven static theory and empirical
studies, taking account of scale effects, pile
materials and method of installation. The results
are expressed in limit state format, consistent with
the Piling Code AS2159.
Dynamic or Earthquake Analysis

CPT and, in particular, Seismic CPT are suitable
for dynamic foundation studies and earthquake
response analyses, by profiling the low strain
shear modulus G0. Techniques have also been
developed relating CPT results to the risk of soil
liquefaction.
Other Applications
Other applications of CPT include ground
Figure 3: Soil Classification Chart improvement monitoring (testing before and after
works), salinity and contaminant plume mapping
DP's in-house CPT software provides computer (conductivity cone), preloading studies and
aided interpretation of soil strata, generating soil verification of strength gain.
descriptions and strengths for each layer. The
software can also produce plots of estimated soil
parameters, including modulus, friction angle,
relative density, shear strength and over
consolidation ratio.
DP's CPT software helps our engineers quickly

evaluate the critical soil layers and then focus on
developing practical solutions for the client's
project.
Engineering Applications
There are many uses for CPT data. The main
applications are briefly introduced below:
Settlement
CPT provides a continuous profile of soil type and
strength, providing an excellent basis for
settlement analysis. Soil compressibility can be
estimated from cone derived moduli, or known
consolidation parameters for the critical layers (eg.
from laboratory testing). Further, if pore pressure
dissipation tests are undertaken using a
piezocone, in-situ consolidation coefficients can be Figure 4: Sample Cone Plot
estimated to aid analysis.
July 2010
Description and Classification Methods
The methods of description and classification of Definitions of grading terms used are:
soils and rocks used in this report are based on • Well graded - a good representation of all
Australian Standard AS 1726, Geotechnical Site particle sizes
Investigations Code. In general, the descriptions • Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
include strength or density, colour, structure, soil particular sizes within the specified range
or rock type and inclusions.
• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular
particle size
Soil Types
Soil types are described according to the • Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading particle size with the range
of other particles present:
Cohesive Soils
Type Particle size (mm) Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the
Boulder >200 basis of undrained shear strength. The strength
may be measured by laboratory testing, or
Cobble 63 - 200
estimated by field tests or engineering
Gravel 2.36 - 63 examination. The strength terms are defined as
Sand 0.075 - 2.36 follows:
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Clay <0.002 Description Abbreviation Undrained
shear strength
(kPa)
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
Very soft vs <12
subdivided as follows:
Soft s 12 - 25
Type Particle size (mm) Firm f 25 - 50
Coarse gravel 20 - 63 Stiff st 50 - 100
Medium gravel 6 - 20 Very stiff vst 100 - 200
Fine gravel 2.36 - 6 Hard h >200
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36
Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6 Cohesionless Soils
Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2
classified on the basis of relative density, generally
from the results of standard penetration tests
The proportions of secondary constituents of soils (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
are described as: penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below:
Term Proportion Example
And Specify Clay (60%) and Relative Abbreviation SPT N CPT qc
Sand (40%) Density value value
(MPa)
Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay
Very loose vl <4 <2
Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy
Clay Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5
With some 5 - 12% Clay with some Medium md 10 - 30 5 - 15
sand dense
With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25
of sand Very vd >50 >25
dense
July 2010
Soil Origin
It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
of the underlying rock;
• Transported soils - formed somewhere else
and transported by nature to the site; or
• Filling - moved by man.
Transported soils may be further subdivided into:

• Alluvium - river deposits
• Lacustrine - lake deposits
• Aeolian - wind deposits
• Littoral - beach deposits
• Estuarine - tidal river deposits
• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium
• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported
downslope by gravity assisted by water.
Often includes angular rock fragments and
boulders.
July 2010
Rock Strength
Rock strength is defined by the Point Load Strength Index (Is(50)) and refers to the strength of the rock
substance and not the strength of the overall rock mass, which may be considerably weaker due to defects.
The test procedure is described by Australian Standard 4133.4.1 - 1993. The terms used to describe rock
strength are as follows:
Term Abbreviation Point Load Index Approx Unconfined

Is(50) MPa Compressive Strength MPa*
Extremely low EL <0.03 <0.6
Very low VL 0.03 - 0.1 0.6 - 2
Low L 0.1 - 0.3 2-6
Medium M 0.3 - 1.0 6 - 20
High H 1-3 20 - 60
Very high VH 3 - 10 60 - 200
Extremely high EH >10 >200
* Assumes a ratio of 20:1 for UCS to Is(50)
Degree of Weathering
The degree of weathering of rock is classified as follows:
Term Abbreviation Description

Extremely weathered EW Rock substance has soil properties, i.e. it can be remoulded
and classified as a soil but the texture of the original rock is
still evident.
Highly weathered HW Limonite staining or bleaching affects whole of rock
substance and other signs of decomposition are evident.
Porosity and strength may be altered as a result of iron
leaching or deposition. Colour and strength of original fresh
rock is not recognisable
Moderately MW Staining and discolouration of rock substance has taken
weathered place
Slightly weathered SW Rock substance is slightly discoloured but shows little or no
change of strength from fresh rock
Fresh stained Fs Rock substance unaffected by weathering but staining
visible along defects
Fresh Fr No signs of decomposition or staining
Degree of Fracturing
The following classification applies to the spacing of natural fractures in diamond drill cores. It includes
bedding plane partings, joints and other defects, but excludes drilling breaks.
Term Description
Fragmented Fragments of <20 mm
Highly Fractured Core lengths of 20-40 mm with some fragments
Fractured Core lengths of 40-200 mm with some shorter and longer sections
Slightly Fractured Core lengths of 200-1000 mm with some shorter and loner sections
Unbroken Core lengths mostly > 1000 mm
July 2010
Rock Quality Designation
The quality of the cored rock can be measured using the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index, defined
as:
RQD % = cumulative length of 'sound' core sections ≥ 100 mm long

total drilled length of section being assessed
where 'sound' rock is assessed to be rock of low strength or better. The RQD applies only to natural
fractures. If the core is broken by drilling or handling (i.e. drilling breaks) then the broken pieces are fitted
back together and are not included in the calculation of RQD.
Stratification Spacing
For sedimentary rocks the following terms may be used to describe the spacing of bedding partings:
Term Separation of Stratification Planes

Thinly laminated < 6 mm
Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm
Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm
Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m
Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m
Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m
Very thickly bedded >2m
July 2010
Introduction
These notes summarise abbreviations commonly Orientation
used on borehole logs and test pit reports. The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.
Drilling or Excavation Methods h horizontal

C Core Drilling v vertical
R Rotary drilling sh sub-horizontal
SFA Spiral flight augers sv sub-vertical
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia Coating or Infilling Term
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia cln clean
co coating
he healed
Water inf infilled
Z Water seep stn stained
V Water level ti tight
vn veneer
Sampling and Testing

Coating Descriptor
A Auger sample
ca calcite
B Bulk sample
cbs carbonaceous
D Disturbed sample
cly clay
E Environmental sample
fe iron oxide
U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
mn manganese
W Water sample
slt silty
pp pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
Shape
S Standard Penetration Test
cu curved
V Shear vane (kPa)
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
Description of Defects in Rock un undulating
The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on Roughness
the logs. po polished
ro rough
Defect Type sl slickensided
B Bedding plane sm smooth
Cs Clay seam vr very rough
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault Other
J Joint fg fragmented
Lam lamination bnd band
Pt Parting qtz quartz
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein
July 2010
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock
General Sedimentary Rocks
Asphalt Boulder conglomerate
Road base Conglomerate
Concrete Conglomeratic sandstone
Filling Sandstone
Soils Siltstone
Topsoil Laminite
Peat Mudstone, claystone, shale
Clay Coal
Silty clay Limestone
Sandy clay Metamorphic Rocks
Gravelly clay Slate, phyllite, schist
Shaly clay Gneiss
Silt Quartzite
Clayey silt
Igneous Rocks
Sandy silt Granite
Sand Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Clayey sand Dacite, epidote
Silty sand Tuff, breccia
Gravel Porphyry
Sandy gravel
Cobbles, boulders
Talus
July 2010
Sampling reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing
Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting or softening of samples by groundwater.
to allow engineering examination (and laboratory
testing where required) of the soil or rock.
Non-core Rotary Drilling
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with
information on colour, type, inclusions and, water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill
depending upon the degree of disturbance, some rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill
information on strength and structure. cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can
be determined from the cuttings, together with
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin- some information from the rate of penetration.
walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it Where drilling mud is used this can mask the
to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively cuttings and reliable identification is only possible
undisturbed state. Such samples yield information from separate sampling such as SPTs.
on structure and strength, and are necessary for
laboratory determination of shear strength and
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally Continuous Core Drilling
effective only in cohesive soils. A continuous core sample can be obtained using a
diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm
internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is
Test Pits achieved (which is not always possible in weak
Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
an excavator, allowing close examination of the in- very reliable method of investigation.
situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth
of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe
and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential Standard Penetration Tests
disadvantage of this investigation method is the Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a
larger area of disturbance to the site. means of estimating the density or strength of soils
and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed
sample. The test procedure is described in
Large Diameter Augers Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing
Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1.
short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in
diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50
rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of
intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is
disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture normal for the tube to be driven in three
content. Identification of soil strata is generally successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value
much more reliable than with continuous spiral is taken as the number of blows for the last 300
flight augers, and is usually supplemented by mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak
occasional undisturbed tube samples. rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be
practicable and the test is discontinued.
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The test results are reported in the following form.
The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm • In the case where full penetration is obtained
diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are with successive blow counts for each 150 mm
withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:
testing. This is a relatively economical means of 4,6,7
drilling in clays and sands above the water table. N=13
Samples are returned to the surface, or may be • In the case where the test is discontinued
collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but before the full penetration depth, say after 15
they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for
from the sides of the hole. Information from the the next 40 mm as:
drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs 15, 30/40 mm
or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low
July 2010
The results of the SPT tests can be related
empirically to the engineering properties of the
soils.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests /

Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests
Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are
carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground
using a standard weight of hammer falling a
specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil
the number of blows required to penetrate each
successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally
there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be
extended in certain conditions by the use of
extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are
commonly used.
• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter
flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer
dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This
test was developed for testing the density of
sands and is mainly used in granular soils and
filling.
• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod
with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven
using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS
1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed
initially for pavement subgrade investigations,
and correlations of the test results with
California Bearing Ratio have been published
by various road authorities.
July 2010
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: St. Ives Group SURFACE LEVEL: 26 m AHD BORE No: BH1
PROJECT: SIG Village Developments EASTING: 383588 PROJECT No: 82346
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 2
Degree of Rock Fracture Discontinuities Sampling & In Situ Testing
Description
Graphic
Weathering Strength
Water
Depth Spacing
Log
RL
Test Results
Rec. %
of
Very High
Very Low
Type
RQD
Core
(m) (m) B - Bedding J - Joint
Medium
Ex High
Ex Low
%
S - Shear F - Fault
&
High
Strata
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
Low
MW
HW
EW
SW
Comments
FR
FS
26
FILLING (SAND) - dark grey

brown, fine to medium grained
0.2 sand with a trace of silt and a trace
of rootlets.
SAND - loose, orange brown, fine
to medium grained sand, with a
trace of silt.
100
25
3,3,3
S 89
N=6
24
100
23
2,3,3
S 96
N=6
100
22
3,4,4
S 100
N=8
RIG: Geoprobe 7822DT DRILLER: National Geotech LOGGED: SJ CASING:

TYPE OF BORING:
REMARKS: *Surface level interpolated from survey plan provided by the client.

BOREHOLE LOG
Description
Graphic
Weathering Strength
Water
Depth Spacing
Log
RL
Test Results
Rec. %
of
Very High
Very Low
Type
RQD
Core
Medium
Ex High
Ex Low
%
S - Shear F - Fault
&
High
Strata
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
Low
MW
HW
EW
SW
Comments
FR
FS
21
SAND - loose, orange brown, fine 100

trace of silt. (continued)
100
20
3,4,4
S 96
N=8
100
19
- becoming very loose from 7.5 m

depth.
2,1,2
S 89
N=3
7.95 <<
LIMESTONE - high strength, highly
18
8
fractured, well cemented,
yellow-white, fine to coarse grained
calcareous sandstone.
100 94
8.73m: B, 0°, Pl
8.85m: B, 20°, Pl
17
9.35m: B, 0°, Pl
9.45m: J, 60°, Pl
9.5m: J, 60°, Pl
100 100
10.0
Bore discontinued at 10.0m(target)
TYPE OF BORING:

Core Photographs PROJECT: 82346.00
SIG Village Development PLATE : 1
BH1 - Box 1 and 2 REV: A
CLIENT: St Ives Group DATE: 10 Oct 2014
BOREHOLE LOG
Description
Graphic
Weathering Strength
Water
Depth Spacing
Log
RL
Test Results
Rec. %
of
Very High
Very Low
Type
RQD
Core
Medium
Ex High
Ex Low
%
S - Shear F - Fault
&
High
Strata
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
Low
MW
HW
EW
SW
Comments
FR
FS
27
SAND - very loose, orange brown,

fine to medium grained sand, with
a trace of silt.
100
26
1,2,2
S 89
N=4
25
2.5 48
CORE LOSS 2.5m: CORE LOSS:
500mm
24
3 3.0
SAND - loose, orange brown, fine
trace of silt. 2,3,3
S 89
N=6
100
23
4
- with some yellow-white, low
strength, highly fractured limestone
gravel (possible pinnacle).
4.5
LIMESTONE - medium strength,
highly fractured, well cemented,
calcareous sandstone. 100 0
<<

TYPE OF BORING:

BOREHOLE LOG
Description
Graphic
Weathering Strength
Water
Depth Spacing
Log
RL
Test Results
Rec. %
of
Very High
Very Low
Type
RQD
Core
Medium
Ex High
Ex Low
%
S - Shear F - Fault
&
High
Strata
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
Low
MW
HW
EW
SW
Comments
FR
FS
22

highly fractured, well cemented,
calcareous sandstone. (continued)
<<
<<
66 27
5.9m: B, 0°, Pl
21
6 6.0
CORE LOSS 6m: CORE LOSS:
1000mm
20
7 7.0
LIMESTONE - high strength, well
cemented, yellow-white, fine to
coarse grained calcareous
sandstone. 66 67
19
8 8.0
SAND - yellow white, fine to coarse
grained sand.
8.15
well cemented, yellow-white, fine to 8.25m: B, 0°, Pl
coarse grained calcareous 8.3m: B, 0°, Pl
sandstone. 8.4m: B, 0°, Pl
- becoming low strength from 8.5m: J, 30°, Pl
8.3 m depth.
8.6m: J, 40°, Pl
8.65m: B, 10°, Pl
8.7m: B, 0°, Pl 100 77
8.75m: B, 0°, Pl
8.8m: B, 10°, Pl
8.85m: B, 10°, Pl
18
9
9m: B, 10°, Pl
- becoming medium strength from

9.4 m depth.
- becoming low strength from
9.5 m depth. 9.65m: J, 30°, Pl
100 90
9.75m: J, 30°, Pl
9.8m: 9.95m: B, 0°, Pl
10.0
Bore discontinued at 10.0m(target)
TYPE OF BORING:

Core Photographs PROJECT: 82346.00
SIG Village Development PLATE : 2
BH2 - Box 1 and 2 REV: A
CLIENT: St Ives Group DATE: 10 Oct 2014
CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION: Carine, WA CPT 3
Page 1 of 1
CLIENT: St Ives Group
REDUCED LEVEL: 26 m AHD DATE 13/09/2014
PROJECT: SIG Village Developments
COORDINATES: 383587 6475149 PROJECT No: 82346

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth Depth
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
FILLING (SAND): Loose to Dense
0.77
1 SAND: Loose to Medium Dense 1
2 2
- becoming Medium Dense below 2.7 m

3 depth. 3
4 4
5 5
5.51
POSSIBLE LIMESTONE: Extremely
6 6
weathered, extremely low strength
7 7
Test terminated at 7.83 m (refusal on

8 End at 7.82m qc = 68.3 inferred limestone) 7.82 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
REMARKS: *Surface level interpolated from survey plan provided by the client. File: P:\82346 Carine TAFE SIG Village Development\Field\CPT\DP\82346 - CPT 3.CP5
Cone ID: Probedrill Type: EC36

Page 1 of 1
REDUCED LEVEL: 27.5 m AHD DATE 13/09/2014

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth Depth
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
FILLING (SAND): Loose to Medium Dense
1 1
2 2.06 2
SAND: Medium dense
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
- becoming dense from 6.2 m depth.
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
- becoming medium dense from 10.8 m

11 11
depth
12 - becoming loose from 12.0 m depth. 12
13 13
14 14
Test terminated at 14.2 m (refusal on 14.20
End at 14.20m qc = 27.4
inferred limestone)
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20

Page 1 of 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth Depth
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
FILLING (SAND and GRAVELLY SAND):
Loose to Medium Dense
1 0.96 1
SAND: Dense
2 2
- becoming medium dense from 2.2 m
depth.
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6

7 7
8 8
- becoming very dense from 8.5 m depth.

9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
Test terminated at 18.2 m (target depth) 18.20
End at 18.20m qc = 37.8
19 19
20 20

Page 1 of 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth Depth
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
FILLING (GRAVELLY SAND): Loose to
Dense
1 0.93 1
SAND: Medium Dense
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
- becoming very dense from 9.2 m depth
10 10
11 - becoming dense from 11.0 m depth. 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
- becoming very dense from 14.5 m depth.

15 15
16 - becoming dense from 16.0 m depth. 16
17 17
18 - Test terminated at 18.2 m (refusal on 18

End at 18.20m qc = 37.8 inferred limestone). 18.20
19 19
20 20

Appendix E
2012 Douglas Partners Laboratory Testing Results

Particle Size Distribution &
Plasticity Index tests
Mining &
Civil sheet 1 of 1
Geotest Pty Ltd Job No: 60017
unit1/1 Pusey Road, Jandakot, WA 6164 Report No: 60017-P12/3973
Ph (08) 9414 8022 Fax (08) 9414 8011 Sample No: P12/3973
Email: kevin@mcgeotest.com.au Issue Date: 20 December 2012
Client: TABEC Pty Ltd Sample Location: BH47
Project: Lot 9378 Marmion Avenue Sample Depth: 1.65
Location: Carine
100
90
80
70
% Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
SIEVE ANALYSIS WA 115.1

Sieve Size (mm) % Passing
75.0
37.5
19.0 Plasticity index tests
9.5 Australian Standard 1289.
4.75 Liquid limit 3.1.1 NA %
2.36 100 Plastic limit 3.2.1 %
1.18 100 Plasticity index 3.3.1 %
0.600 78 Linear shrinkage 3.4.1 %
0.425 39
0.300 13 Cracked
0.150 4
0.075 3 Curled
0.0135 3
Client address: 36 O'Malley Street, Osborne Park Sampling Procedure: Tested as received
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation

requirements. This Document may only be reproduced in full. Approved signature
Accreditation No 15545 Kevin M Jones
WA PSD PI April 2009
Appendix F
2014 Douglas Partners Laboratory Testing Results

(Rev2) - DP Report On Geotechnical Investigation, SIG Village Developments PDF

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

(Rev2) - DP Report On Geotechnical Investigation, SIG Village Developments PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report on

Proposed Multistorey Residential Development

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

Appendix A: About this Report

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

3. Previous Studies (2012 Investigation)

3.1 Available Information

The reference of the available report is listed below:

 CPT39 to CPT42; and

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

Table 1: Summary of Depth and Relative Levels of Base of Filling

Surface Level Depth to Base of Level of Base of Filling

TP21 25.60 0.50 25.10

TP22 25.70 1.00 24.70

TP23 26.80 0.40 26.40

TP29 25.80 0.55 25.25

CPT39 27.50 1.12 26.38

CPT40 25.80 1.46 24.34

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

Table 2: Depth and Levels of CPT Refusals

CPT40 25.8 10.83 14.97

3.2 In Situ Permeability Testing

Table 3: Summary of the In Situ Permeability Testing and Derived Values

Notes: - [1]: Horslev’s method.

3.3 Laboratory Testing Results

Table 4: Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Test Depth Fines d10 d60 Material

BH46 1.0 3 0.11 0.56 Sand with a trace of silt

Notes- The % fines is the amount of particles smaller than 75 μm.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

The detailed test certificate is included in Appendix E of this report.

4. Field Work Methods

5. Field Work Results

5.1 Summary of Ground Conditions

The subsurface ground conditions can be summarised as follows:

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

Table 5: Summary of Depth and Relative Levels of Base of Filling

Surface Level Depth to Base of Level of Base of Filling

BH1 26 0.2 25.8

BH2 27 -[2] -[2]

CPT3 25 0.77 24.23

CPT4 27.5 2.06 25.44

CPT5 26 0.96 25.04

CPT6 26 0.93 25.07

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

BH1 26 7.95 18.05

6.1 Laboratory Results

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

Table 7: Results of Rock Strength Tests

6.2 UCS-Is(50) Correlation

Appendix F includes a tabulation of the UCS and Is(50) results.

UCS = R x Is(50), where

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

8.1 Site Suitability

8.2 Site Classification

 TP14 – immediately underlying the topsoil;

Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multistorey Residential Development Project 82346

8.3 Site Classification for Earthquake Design

If the recommended ground improvement technique detailed in Section 8.5.1 is adopted, an

8.4 Liquefaction Potential