geotechnical investigation of proposed residential subdivision

Geotechnical Investigation of Proposed Residential Subdivision Lot 9001, 570-572 & 574 Murdoch Drive, South Hedland, WA

Doc Ref 213492Report01.1 Prepared for Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd January 2015

DOCUMENT CONTROL © Copyright 2015 Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd trading as Cardno Lane Piper (ABN 47 106 610 913) Level 4, 501 Swanston Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia Tel: +61 3 9888 0100 Fax: +61 3 9808 3511 www.lanepiper.com.au www.cardno.com

This report is prepared solely for the use of Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd (the client) to whom this report is addressed and must not be reproduced in whole or part or included in any other document without our express permission in writing. No responsibility or liability to any third party is accepted for any damages arising out of the use of this report by any third party.

Report Title: Geotechnical Investigation of Proposed Residential Subdivision, Lot 9001, 570- 572 & 574 Murdoch Drive, South Hedland, WA

Doc. Ref: 213492Report01.2

Client: Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Signatures: Prepared By: Authorised By:

Simon Sheldrick BE(Civil) Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Davin Slade BE(Civil), MIEAust. Senior Associate

Revision Status: Rev No. Status Date Writer Reviewer

0 Draft 22 October 2014 SMS DBS

1 Final 23 October 2014 SMS DBS

2 Final 27 January 2015 SMS DBS

Documents Distribution (This Revision): Type Recipient Name Position & Company

Electronic Ashwin Subramaniam Senior Town Planner, Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Electronic File 213492 Cardno Lane Piper

213492Report01.2 Page i

http://www.lanepiper.com.au/

http://www.cardno.com/


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

Lot 9001, 570-572 & 574 Murdoch Drive, South Hedland, WA

Table of Contents DOCUMENT CONTROL ........................................................................................................... I 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................... 5 2 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................... 6 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 6 4 SITE GEOLOGY................................................................................................................ 9 5 FIELDWORK ................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Safe Work Procedures ............................................................................................ 10 5.2 Geotechnical Investigation ...................................................................................... 10 5.3 In-situ Percolation Testing ....................................................................................... 10

6 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................ 11 7 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 11

7.1 Sub-Surface Profile ................................................................................................. 11 7.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 11 7.3 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................. 11 7.4 In-situ Percolation Testing ....................................................................................... 12

8 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 13 8.1 Dwellings ................................................................................................................ 13

8.1.1 General Site Classification......................................................................................... 13 8.1.2 Foundations ............................................................................................................... 13

8.2 Other Geotechnical Considerations ........................................................................ 14 8.2.1 In-situ Hydraulic Conductivity of the Sandy Soils ...................................................... 14 8.2.2 Construction Issues ................................................................................................... 14 8.2.3 Difficulty in Excavation ............................................................................................... 15 8.2.4 Battered Slopes ......................................................................................................... 15 8.2.5 Suitability of On-site Material as an Engineered Fill .................................................. 15 8.2.6 Underground Services ............................................................................................... 15

8.3 Further Geotechnical Investigation .......................................................................... 16 9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 16

Text Tables Table 7-1: Typical Subsurface Profile ..................................................................................... 11 Table 7-2: Summary of Laboratory Results ............................................................................ 12 Table 7-3: Results of In-situ Constant Head Permeability Testing .......................................... 12

213492Report01.2 Page ii


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Text Figures Figure 3-1: South of the Site Looking Northwest (April 2014) ................................................... 6 Figure 3-2: Centre of the Site Looking Northeast (April 2014)................................................... 7 Figure 3-3: South of the Site Looking West (April 2014) ........................................................... 7 Figure 3-4: South of the Site Looking North (April 2014) ........................................................... 8 Figure 3-5: The Western Drainage Channel (April 2014) .......................................................... 8 Figure 3-6: Cemented Sand Mound (April 2014) ...................................................................... 9 Figure 4-1: Port Hedland - Bedout Island Geology Map Extract (1:250,000, 2006) ................... 9

Appendices ......................................................................................................... 1 Page Appendix A

Figures Figure 1: Site and Testpit Location Plan

..................................................................................................... 21 Pages Appendix BTestpit Records CTP01 to CTP20 Unified Classification System

....................................................................................................... 4 Pages Appendix CGeotechnical Laboratory Testing Results Particle Size Distributions Atterberg Limit Tests Emerson Class Number Determinations

......................................................................................................... 1 Page Appendix DLimitations of the Report

213492Report01.2 Page iii


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS

Technical Terms µm Micrometre

1H:2V Slope Ratio of 1 Horizontal to 2 Vertical

AHD Australian Height Datum

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

AC Asphaltic Cement

Base Course Upper Layer of the pavement

CBR California Bearing Ratio (%)

cm Centimetre

cm3/min Cubic centimetres per minute

CTCR Cement Treated Crushed Rock

DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

DTL Daily Traffic Loading

EC Electrical Conductivity

ESA Equivalent Standard Axles

FoS Factor of Safety

GPS Global Positioning System

HV Heavy Vehicles (Usually a %)

kPa Kilopascal

Ksat Saturated hydraulic conductivity

LF Loading Factor

m Metre

m/day Metres per day

magl Metres Above Ground Level

mbgl Metres Below Ground Level

MGA Map Grid of Australia

MPa Megapascal

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

PLI Point Load Index

PMB Polymer Modified Binder

Prime Application of a primer to a prepared base

Sub-Base Course Lower layer of the pavement

Subgrade Foundation material for the pavement

TDS Total Dissolved Solids (salinity of water)

UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength

213492Report01.2 Page iv


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

Lot 9001, 570-572 & 574 Murdoch Drive, South Hedland, WA

1 INTRODUCTION Cardno Lane Piper was contacted in an email dated 9 December 2013 from Lorraine Elliott of Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd with regard to conducting a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the proposed residential development, located at Lot 9001, 570-572 & 574 Murdoch Drive in South Hedland, Western Australia. It is understood that a reticulated sewer system will be used on the site.

The limited geotechnical investigation has been undertaken to provide a general assessment of the site for use as a residential, recreational open space and school development.

The investigation was undertaken in accordance with our email proposal dated 9 December 2013, which was accepted via a Business Unit Agreement dated 13 February 2014 from Lorraine Elliott from Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd.

1.1 Scope of Work

The investigation will provide general recommendations only and included a desktop study and preliminary site investigation.

The desktop study included a review of the geology and hydrogeology of the area. The desktop assessment was used to gain an understanding of the likely ground stratigraphy as well as the potential impacts of groundwater on the development.

The preliminary site investigation included an intrusive investigation using testpits to determine the stratigraphy and in-situ percolation testing to estimate the infiltration rate of the soils.

The outcomes of the desktop study and preliminary site investigation include the following: 1. Sub-surface ground profile and geological setting 2. A discussion of the site features 3. The results of the geotechnical laboratory testing 4. The results of the percolation testing 5. The likely issues relating to the design and construction of dwellings 6. A general preliminary assessment of the likely site classification for lots on the

development 7. An assessment of the likely allowable bearing pressures for footings for residential type

structures 8. A discussion of the potential impact of groundwater on the residential development 9. Other geotechnical issues that may impact on the suitability of the site for the proposed

residential development 10. Recommendations for further geotechnical investigation that will be required at the

construction stage.

213492Report01.2 Page 5


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

2 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The report is limited to the investigation of the proposed residential development and specifically covers the issues discussed in the project scope identified in Section 1.1. The investigation will provide general recommendations only and will not provide site classifications for the individual lots.

It does not include the geotechnical investigation and/or design of any embankments, cuttings or bridges, pavements, wetlands and does not include recommendations with regards the backfilling of service trenches or design or installation of septic systems.

No environmental conclusions or recommendations are made in this report.

The limitations of the geotechnical reports are contained in Appendix D.

3 SITE DESCRIPTION The Lot 9001, 570-572 & 574 Murdoch Drive site under investigation has an irregular shape, is approximately 124 hectares in size and is bounded by Murdoch Drive in the north, Brolga Way in the west, Outer Ring Road in the east and grassland to the south.

The site is currently grassland and is crossed with numerous dirt tracks, a power line easement and a significant drainage channel. There are no structures on the site with the exception of a contractor’s yard in the southwest corner.

A typical view of the site is shown in Figure 3-1 to Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-1: South of the Site Looking Northwest (April 2014)



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Figure 3-2: Centre of the Site Looking Northeast (April 2014)

Figure 3-3: South of the Site Looking West (April 2014)



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Figure 3-4: South of the Site Looking North (April 2014)

In general the site is flat, however, drainage channels exist along the east and western boundaries and numerous mounds of weakly cemented sands were also identified throughout the site. (see Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6). The side slopes of the drainage channels were severely eroded from surface flow. The bends of the channel were protected with concrete filled mattresses.

Figure 3-5: The Western Drainage Channel (April 2014)



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Figure 3-6: Cemented Sand Mound (April 2014)

At the time of the investigation, the site vegetation varied from being sparsely grassed to heavily grassed with small shrubs and the occasional small tress. No significant trees were identified on the site.

4 SITE GEOLOGY The geological map of the area (Port Hedland – Bedout Island Sheet, 1:250,000) indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary aged floodplain deposits of sand, silt, clay and gravel (A1f). Immediately to the south of the site Quaternary Aged mixed floodplain deposits of sand, silt and clay (A1i) are identified. See Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Port Hedland - Bedout Island Geology Map Extract (1:250,000, 2006)



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

The fieldwork observations were consistent with the published geological indications with sandy soils intersected to the depths explored in all testpit locations.

5 FIELDWORK

5.1 Safe Work Procedures

Prior to the fieldwork a utility information (Dial Before You Dig) asset search was conducted to identify underground services in the vicinity of the site and a Job Safety Analysis (JSA) was completed for the site and scope of work to help identify and mitigate potential hazards within the job tasks. The work was conducted in accordance with the documented Safe Work Procedures as set out in Cardno Lane Piper’s Safety Management Plan. At the beginning of the fieldwork, a toolbox meeting was conducted to clarify the work plan and identify any potential safety issues.

5.2 Geotechnical Investigation

The fieldwork was conducted between 2 and 4 April 2014 and consisted of a total of twenty testpits (20 No.) identified as CTP01 to CTP20 and shallow boreholes adjacent to the ten (10 No.) of the testpits. In-situ constant head percolation tests were conducted in each of the boreholes. The test locations were located on site using a Garmin GPS device.

The 20 testpits were excavated with a Cat 432E backhoe with 0.3m wide bucket. The testpits were excavated to a depth of between 2.5m and 2.6m below the existing ground level.

The boreholes were drilled using a hand auger to a target depth 0.5m below the existing ground level.

Disturbed samples were taken from selected testpits for reference and laboratory testing.

The fieldwork was conducted by an experienced geotechnical engineer, who logged the ground encountered, conducted and recorded the sampling and in-situ testing.

The testpits were identified on site at locations as shown on the Testpit and Site Location Plan, appended as Figure No. 1, Appendix A. The records of the testpits are included in Appendix B as Figures 1 to 20, a geotechnical Unified Classification System (UCS) included as Figure 21.

5.3 In-situ Percolation Testing

In-situ percolation testing was conducted adjacent to ten of the testpit locations to estimate the in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the soils. The percolation testing was undertaken in accordance with the constant head testing methodology specified in AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management, Appendix G.

Prior to the percolation testing being undertaken, the borehole was filled with water and left overnight to saturate the surrounding soils.



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

6 LABORATORY TESTING The testing was undertaken in Cardno Lane Piper’s NATA accredited soils laboratory and consisted of: Particle Size Distributions Atterberg Limit Tests Emerson Class Number Determinations

The test records are appended as Figures No. 1 – 4, Appendix C.

7 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

7.1 Sub-Surface Profile

The typical generalized subsurface profile encountered in the testpits is shown in Table 7-1. For further details, the reader is referred to the appended testpit records.

Table 7-1: Typical Subsurface Profile

Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, red, brown, loose to very dense, very dry, weakly to strongly cemented, friable with fine to coarse

gravel and iron staining encountered to a depth of 2.5m and the maximum testpit depth explored of 2.6m

The variations to the encountered subsurface profiles are described below: Slightly moist from 2.4m in CTP02 and 1.2m in CTP08 Slightly moist and clayey from 2.4m in CTP05 Clayey from 2.4m in CTP12

7.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the testpits at the time of the investigation and the soils encountered were very dry to the depths explored. Shallow or perched groundwater cannot be precluded after sustained rainfall or in the wetter times of the year.

7.3 Laboratory Testing

The results of the geotechnical laboratory tests are summarized in Table 7-2.



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Table 7-2: Summary of Laboratory Results

Test Pit

Depth (m)

Subgrade Description

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Percent Passing

75µm (%)

Percent Passing 425µm

(%)

Emerson Class

Number

CTP03 0.8 Silty SAND, red 15 1 Class 2

CTP15 0.6 Silty SAND, red light brown 17 3 Class 2

CTP15 1.9 Silty SAND with gravel, red light brown 18 43

CTP18 2.4 Silty SAND, red yellow brown mottled 29 53

7.4 In-situ Percolation Testing

The results of the in-situ constant head permeability testing in accordance with AS/NZS 1547:2012 Appendix G are included in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3: Results of In-situ Constant Head Permeability Testing

Location Borehole

Depth (cm)

Borehole Diameter

(cm)

Initial Depth of Water

(cm)

Average Drawdown After Constant

Seepage (cm)

Flow Rate Q

(cm3/min)

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Ksat

(m/day) CTP01 500 10 25 52 890 7.4

CTP03 (1)1 500 10 25 105 1800 15.0

CTP03 (2)1 500 10 25 94 1610 13.4

CTP05 500 10 25 83 1420 11.8

CTP07 500 10 25 38 655 5.5

CTP09 (1)1 500 10 25 126 2160 18.0

CTP09 (2)1 500 10 25 108 1850 15.4

CTP12 500 10 25 68 1170 9.8

CTP13 500 10 25 60 1030 8.5

CTP14 500 10 25 72 1240 10.3

CTP16 500 10 25 56 965 8.0

CTP20 500 10 25 53 915 7.6 Notes: 1. Multiple tests conducted to confirm very high seepage rates

The in-situ testing indicated hydraulic conductivity values in the range of 5.5m/day to 18m/day for the in-situ silty sands. The results of the in-situ permeability tests are consistent with the estimated indicative hydraulic conductivity for a sandy or gravelly soil (>3 m/day) identified in Table 5.1 of AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management.

Limited particle size testing was conducted on the silty sands sampled from the site and the testing indicated a fines content of between 18% and 29% (% passing the 75µm sieve). Based



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

on the in-situ permeability testing results, this fines content appears to have little effect on reducing the in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the silty sand soils.

8 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS From a geotechnical aspect, the site is suitable for residential development. The sandy soils encountered should not prove significantly problematic for the development of the site. However, the designer needs to consider the impact of the following in the design and construction of the development: The highly erosive characteristics of the sandy soils as evident in the existing drainage

channels on the site and the results of the Emerson dispersion testing The variable cementation of the sandy soils The potential loss of strength and difficulty trafficking of the sandy soils due to disturbance,

construction activity or change in moisture condition. The difficulty in compacting the unconfined sands and the need to moisture condition

during engineered filling Slope stability and erosion can be an issue for exposed embankments within the sands. The difficulty in maintaining vegetation and groundcover used in erosion control in the drier

and hotter times of the year.

As the groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored on the site, groundwater is not expected to have a significant impact on the development for most of the year. The presence of elevated groundwater in the wetter months cannot be precluded.

8.1 Dwellings

8.1.1 General Site Classification

Based on the soil strata encountered in the investigation, the site classifications for the lots will typically be ‘S’ (Slightly Reactive), provided there is no fill on the lots, in accordance with AS 2870 Residential Slabs and Footings.

If it is proposed to place engineered fill on the lots an increase in site reactivity can be expected depending on the depth and type of fill used. The slightly reactive sands can be used as engineered fill, but there is a potential for slightly increased surface movements of the fill and this needs to be considered by the designer in accordance with the guidelines in AS2870.

Individual site classifications will be required for the dwellings once the sub-division is developed.

8.1.2 Foundations

Residential Footings

The proposed residential structures can be founded on a stiffened raft footing.

All edge and internal beams for the stiffened rafts should penetrate through any fill (if encountered) with a minimum founding depth of at least 0.3m below the finished surface level assuming an articulated masonry veneer or similar construction in accordance with AS2870:2011. The edge and internal beams should be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 100kPa for beams founded in the silty sand.



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

No beams for the stiffened raft should be founded in fill material if encountered.

The slab panels may be placed on the stripped surface provided that it is proof rolled with a heavy flat drum roller. If the flat drum roller locates any soft spots, these should be excavated out and replaced with compacted sand in near horizontal layers. The internal slab panels can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of not greater than 25kPa.

Construction of Shallow Foundations

Once the excavation for the shallow footings is completed, it is recommended that a thin layer of blinding concrete be poured over the base of the excavation prior to the placement of the reinforcement to minimise the impact of weathering on the underlying soils. Trenches shall be dewatered and cleaned prior to concrete placement so that no significant softened or loosened material remains.

The sandy soils encountered on the site can be prone to saturation and subsequent loss of strength during wet periods or loosening due to disturbance from construction activity. In these circumstances for excavations through these soils the builder may need to support the sides of the excavations with the use of plywood shuttering and timber struts.

Site Preparation

It is recommended that the exposed natural ground surface is proof-rolled with at least six passes of a vibrating smooth drum roller to locate any soft spots. If any soft spots are located it is recommended that the soft spots be excavated and replaced with compacted sand. The sand should be placed in near horizontal layers of not greater than 200mm loose thickness and compacted to at least 98% Standard dry density ratio, in accordance with AS 1289, Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes.

Post Construction

No allowance has been made in these recommendations for any undisclosed variations or other post construction factors that may influence the performance of the footings. The reader is referred to the CSIRO publication BTF18 Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowners Guide for additional information. (Refer to CSIRO website for details).

8.2 Other Geotechnical Considerations

8.2.1 In-situ Hydraulic Conductivity of the Sandy Soils

The percolation testing on-site indicated that the silty sand soils are highly permeable with an in-situ hydraulic conductivity in excess of 5m/day. The high hydraulic conductivity of soils makes the site suitable for infiltration stormwater management systems such as suitably designed below ground stormwater soakage pits. Conversely, the high hydraulic conductivity of the silty sand soils makes the site unsuitable for septic tank and leaching field wastewater systems.

8.2.2 Construction Issues

The main construction issues on this site are expected to be associated with the underlying loose and weakly cemented silty sands. After heavy rains or during the wet season or as a



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

result of construction activity disturbance, the sands may be difficult to traffic by wheeled vehicles. Tracked vehicles such as excavators should be able to traffic the site all year round.

8.2.3 Difficulty in Excavation

The excavation of the silty sands should be able to be handled with hydraulic excavators. The sands were strongly cemented at variable depths across the site and may require loosening with a ripper attachment prior to excavation, particularly in confined areas.

Rock is not expected to be encountered in the expected excavation depths on the site.

8.2.4 Battered Slopes

It is recommended that any cut slopes in the sands be battered back to a slope of not greater than 1V:2H for the short term due to their potentially loose nature. If the slopes are to be permanently battered the slope should not exceed 1V:3H. These slopes should be protected from erosion with selected vegetation, shotcreting or permanent erosion control mats.

Minor slumps can fall from the sides of the excavation. These batter slopes are not appropriate in locations of critical underground services and are not applicable if the crest or slope is surcharged. Where the excavation is within a 1V:2H of critical underground services or the crest is surcharged; the excavation should be supported using an appropriate trench support system.

8.2.5 Suitability of On-site Material as an Engineered Fill

The on-site sands can be used as engineered fill but can be difficult to compact when unconfined. The sand fill will also need to be moisture conditioned during compaction and can be difficult to traffic with wheeled vehicles when loose or saturated. However, local contractors are likely to be aware of these issues and have established procedures for handling the issues.

Any imported structural fill should be primarily granular in nature. Suitable fills are non-descript crushed rock and clayey sands. All materials should have a maximum particle size of 50mm and not be gap graded. The plasticity index should not exceed 20%.

The structural fill should be placed in near horizontal layers not exceeding 200mm in thickness and be compacted to at least 95% Standard dry density ratio in accordance with Australian Standard 1289 5.1.1 - 1993. The upper 200mm thickness of the structural fill should be compacted to at least 98% Standard dry density ratio. The structural fill should be placed within ± 2% of the Standard Optimum Moisture Content.

8.2.6 Underground Services

Based on the findings of the investigation, open trenching or directional drilling (or other similar trenchless technology) is suitable for the installation of services on the site depending on the depth of the service.

Open Trenching

Shallow underground services will encounter loose sand overlying weakly or more cemented silty sands. While it is considered unlikely that a significant collapse of the side walls of the excavation will occur if the excavation is entirely within the weakly or more cemented sands,



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

minor collapses and slumping of the loose sands could occur that would not pose a significant risk to the machinery but would be a risk to any workers within the excavation. If workers are required to enter an excavation deeper than 1.5m then shoring using an appropriate trench support system will be required or the sides of the excavation should be flattened back to a maximum slope of 1V:2H.

Directional Drilling

Directional drilling (or other similar trenchless technology) is suitable for the installation of deeper services on the site. The use of casing during directional drilling (or other similar trenchless technology) will be required to prevent borehole collapse. It is anticipated that the loose to very dense variably cemented sands can be readily drilled and reamed by a directional drilling machine.

The presence of fine to coarse grained sands and gravels and the impact on the protective coating of pipes needs to be considered by the designer. These coarse grained soils may abrade and cause damage to the pipe protection as it is drawn through the borehole.

8.3 Further Geotechnical Investigation

It is recommended that detailed geotechnical investigation, including intrusive investigation and laboratory testing, is undertaken for all aspects of the proposed development including pavements, wetlands, individual residential lots and commercial spaces. The detailed testing would need to be undertaken in accordance with the local Council and Authority Guidelines and be targeted based on the proposed development.

9 REFERENCES AS 1289 Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes

AS 1726 - 1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations

AS 2870 - 2011 Residential Slabs and Footings

AS/NZS 1547 - 2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management

Geological Survey of Western Australia, Port Hedland – Bedout Island Geological Map 1:250,000 2006.



Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Appendix A1 Page

Figures

Figure 1: Site and Testpit Location Plan

213492Report01.2 Appendix A

PROJECT

1FIG. NO.3

SCALE (A3):

213492_Site_Plan_R3.tcwCardno LanePiperA3-Turbocad-Landscape.tct

DRAWN:

REF:

DATE:

JOB No.:

REV No.:

SMS

1:10,000 TITLE14 AUGUST 2014

CLP213492

N

CTP01

LEGEND

TESTPIT

CTP01TESTPIT &PERCOLATION TEST

CTP03 CTP05

CTP07

CTP20

CTP16

CTP14

CTP09

CTP01

CTP13

CTP02

CTP06

CTP12CTP08

CTP11

CTP10

CTP04

CTP15

CTP17

CTP18

CTP19

OUTER RI

NG ROAD

MURDOCH DRIVE

BROLGA W

AY

LANDFILL

PONDS

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

DRAIN

metres20016012080400.0

EXTENT

S OF S

ITE

EXTENT

S OF S

ITE

EXTENTS OF SITE

EXTENTS OF SITE

EXTENTS OF SITE


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Appendix B21 Pages

Testpit Records

CTP01 to CTP20 Unified Classification System

213492Report01.2 Appendix B

End of CTP01 at 2.5m

Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redbrown, loose, dry, weakly cemented, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming red and medium dense from 0.4m

Becoming moderately cemented from 1.4m

Becoming very dense, strongly cementedwith occasional fine to coarse gravel and ironstaining from 1.8m

0.0

D/1.8

Description of Strata

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples

SMS / JZLLogged/Checked:

CAT 432E BackhoeEquipment:

3 April 2014Date Excavated:77420580668802Position:

Natural SurfaceSurface Level:

213492Job No.:

Murdoch DriveLocation:

Residential SubdivisionProject:

South Hedland, WA 0.3m Bucket

Testpit Record: CTP01 of1 1

Remarks

50 K E:N:

Groundwater Observations:Groundwater not encountered during excavation

Key:For explanation of abbreviationsand symbols, refer to CardnoLane Piper UCS or Rock Notes

Notes:

Geotech TP Log 11/09



2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming medium dense from 0.5m

Slightly moist at 2.4m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to coarse grained, red,medium dense, very dry, friable withoccasional medium to coarse grained gravel

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


Difficult excavation from 1.0m

Becoming dense and moderately cementedwith abundant fine to coarse grained gravelfrom 1.4mBecoming very dense, fine to coarse grainedsand and fine to coarse grained gravel from1.5m

0.0

D/0.8


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


Becoming dense and strongly cemented withoccasional fine to medium grained gravelfrom 0.6m

0.0

D/2.2


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to coarse grained, redbrown, loose, dry, weakly cemented, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming red from 0.2m


Strongly cemented and difficult to excavatefrom 1.8m

Occasional fine to coarse gravel with ironstaining from 2.3mSlightly moist and clayey from 2.4m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redbrown, loose, dry, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming red, slightly cemented and friablefrom 0.15m

Becoming moderately cemented and difficultto excavate from 0.6m

Becoming fine to coarse grained sand,moderately cemented with iron staining from1.2m

Occasional fine to medium grained gravelfrom 2.0mBecoming very dense ang strongly cementedfrom 2.1m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redbrown, loose, dry, weakly cemented,occasional rootmatter

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming red from 0.25m



Becoming strongly cemented and difficult toexcavate, iron stained, with occasional fineto coarse grained gravel and fine to coarsegrained sand from 1.9m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming medium dense, moderatelycemented and slightly moist from 1.2m

Becoming dense, strongly cemented anddifficult to excavate, fine to coarse grainedsand, fine to coarse grained gravel and ironstained from 1.6m

Occasional fine to coarse grainedironstone/calcareous gravel from 2.4m

0.0

D/0.5


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


With fine to coarse grained sand andoccasional fine to coarse grained gravel from0.8m

Becoming red light brown, moderatelycemented, dense and difficult to excavate,with abundant fine to coarse grained gravelfrom 1.6m

With iron staining and occasional calcareousgravel from 2.1mBecoming strongly cemented and densefrom 2.2m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


weakly cemented from 0.65m


Becoming dense with occasional fine tocoarse grained gravel from 2.0m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


Becoming dense, moderately cemented anddifficult to excavate from 1.3m

With fine to coarse grained gravel from 2.0m

Strongly cemented from 2.1m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redbrown, loose to medium dense, dry, weaklycemented, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming medium dense and moderatelycemented from 1.2m

Difficult to excavate from 1.4m

Becoming fine to coarse grained sand, fineto medium grained gravel (smokey quartz),red light brown, very dense and stronglycemented from 1.6m

Clayey from 2.4m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained,light brown red, loose to medium dense, dry,weakly cemented, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming red brown and medium densefrom 0.4m


Very difficult to excavate from 2.1m

Fine to coarse grained sand, fine to coarsegrained gravel and strongly cemented from2.3m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redbrown, loose to medium dense, dry, weaklycemented, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

With fine to coarse grained gravel (smokeyquartz), dense and strongly cemented from1.4m

Difficult to excavate from 1.8mRounded coarse gravel at 1.85m

Less gravelly from 2.3m

0.0

D/1.8


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redlight brown, loose to medium dense, dry,weakly cemented, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


Becoming dense and difficult to excavatefrom 0.85m

With medium to coarse grained gravel(smokey quartz) from 1.0m

Abundent fine to coarse grained sand andfine to coarse grained gravel from 1.6m

Occasional fine to coarse grained calcareousgravel and fine to coarse grained ironstonegravel from 2.0m

0.0

D/0.6

D/1.9

D/2.3


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


Fine to coarse grained sand from 0.5m

Trace fine to medium grained gravel from1.2m


Becoming dense, strongly cemented withiron staining from 1.7m

Becoming very dense with occasional fine tocoarse grained gravel (smokey quartz) from1.9m

0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:



Silty SAND (SM) fine to medium grained, redbrown, loose, dry, friable

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Becoming red and weakly cemented from0.3m


Becoming dense, strongly cemented anddifficult to excavate from 1.4m

Becoming strongly cemented and verydifficult to excavate from 2.2m

0.0

D/1.2


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0




Becoming strongly cemented and verydifficult to excavate from 1.5m

Becoming red yellow brown mottled, fine tocoarse grained sand, with occasional fine tocoarse grained gravel (smokey quartz) from2.2m

0.0

D/2.4


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0



Becoming fine to coarse grained sand, withfine to coarse grained gravel and very densefrom 1.5m

Abundant fine to coarse grained roundedgravel from 1.9m

0.0

D/2.3


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:




2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0



Becoming fine to coarse grained sand, withfine to coarse grained gravel, stronglycemented with iron staining from 1.1m


0.0


Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th(m

bgl

)

Dept

h(m

bgl

)

In s

ituTe

stin

g

Sam

ples





213492Job No.:





Remarks

50 K E:N:



Notes:


Unified Classification System (Geotechnology) (in accordance with AS1726)

Revision: 1 T6.02 – Unified Classification System (Geotechnology) Page 1 of 1 Approved: 7 January 2014

PARTICLE SIZES TERM SIZE (mm)

BOULDER COBBLE GRAVEL Coarse Medium Fine SAND Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY

>200 60 to 200 20 to 60 6 to 20 2 to 6 0.6 to 2 0.2 to 0.6 0.06 to 0.2 0.002 to 0.06 < 0.002

COHESIVE SOILS TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR

STRENGTH (kPa) Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard

0 to 12.5 12.5 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 200 ≥ 200

COHESIONLESS SOILS

TERM ‘N’ (SPT) VALUE (blows / 300mm)

RELATIVE DENSITY

(%)

ANGLE SHEAR

RESISTANCE (degrees)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50

< 15 15 to 35 35 to 65 65 to 85 ≥ 85

25 to 30 27 to 32 30 to 35 35 to 40 38 to 43

STRUCTURE TERM SIZE OF BLOCKS (mm)

Blocky Cloddy Nutty Granular Prismatic Shattered

> 60 20 to 60 6 to 20 0.6 to 6 Stated < 10

SAMPLES BS = Bulk sample D = Disturbed sample U(n) = Undisturbed tube sample (‘n’ denotes internal dia in mm) = Undisturbed tube recovery .. = Undisturbed tube non-recovery .. = SPT Disturbed sample

INDEX PROPERTIES ρ = bulk density (t/m3) DD = dry density (t/m3) mc = field moisture content (%) LL = Liquid Limit (%) PL = Plastic Limit (%) PI = Plastic Index (%)

FIELD TESTS W = Field permeability test P = Pressuremeter test ID = Insitu density test SPT(9) = Standard Penetrometer Test (blows per 300 mm) (63.5 kg hammer dropped 760mm) pp = Pocket penetrometer (kPa)

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

FINE GRAINED SOILS

GROUNDWATER GW = Groundwater depth (m) or level (RL) bgl = Below ground level swl = Standing water level

Sands 50%

<2.36m

Gravels 50%

>2.36mm

GW Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GM Silty gravels and gravel- sand-

clay mixtures

GC Clayey gravels, gravel- sand-clay mixture

SW Well graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM Silty sand, sandy silt mixture

SC Clayey sands, sandy clay mixtures

ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands of low plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to CI medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts of high plasticity

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays

OH Organic clays and silts of medium to high plasticity Pt Peat and other highly organic soils Highly Organic

Soils

FILL

Coarse-grained soils

(<50% fines)

Silts & Clays

LL> 50

Silts & Clays

LL< 50

Fine-grained soils

(>50% fines)


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Appendix C4 Pages

Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results

Particle Size Distributions Atterberg Limit Tests Emerson Class Number Determinations

213492Report01.2 Appendix C

Client : Report Number: 213492 - 1a

Client Address : Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date: 27/01/2015

Job Number : 213492 Test Method :

Project :

Location :

Lab No: 14-700 Date Sampled: 2/04/2014

ID No : Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1.6.5.4

Lot No : BH / TP. No. : CTP15

Date Tested: 23/04/2014 Depth (m) : 1.9

Soil Description : Silty SAND with gravel red, light brown

Remarks: This Report replaces report numbered 213492 - 1; ammended project details

Sample Total Dry Mass: 908.0g

Percentage Passing of

TotalSieve Aperture (µm)


Total

100 1180 63

100 600 51

100 425 43

100 300 35

100 212 29

100 150 24

53

75

Cardno WA

Residential Subdivision

Sieve Aperture (mm)

63

37.5

26.5

19.0

Bldg 2, 154 Highbury Road

Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

Determination of Particle Size Distribution of a Soil

Standard Method of Analysis by Sieving

11 Harvest Terrace, West Perth, WA, 6005

AS1289.3.6.1

Lots 9001, 570-572 & 574 Murdoch Drive ,

South Hedland

100 150 24

98 75 18

95

90

84

73

APPROVED SIGNATORY FIGURE NUMBER

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The

13.2

9.5

6.7

4.75

2.36

19.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PERCENTAGE P

ASSIN

G (%

)

SILT FRACTION SAND FRACTION GRAVEL FRACTIONCLAY COBBLES

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20.0 60.0

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

FINE MEDIUM FINE MEDIUMCOARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE COARSE

Esko Rissanen

NATA Accred No:3145 FORM NUMBER : CLP014-1-1


results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements

included in this document are traceable to

Australian/national standards.

1

Client : Report Number: 213492 - 2a

Client Address : Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date: 27/01/2015

Job Number : 213492 Test Method :

Project :

Location :

Lab No: 14-703 Date Sampled: 3/04/2014

ID No : Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1.6.5.4

Lot No : BH / TP. No. : CTP18

Date Tested: 23/04/2014 Depth (m) : 2.4

Soil Description : Silty SAND red yellow brown mottled


Sample Total Dry Mass: 608.8g


TotalSieve Aperture (µm)


Total

100 1180 82

100 600 61

100 425 53

100 300 46

100 212 40

100 150 35

53

75

Cardno WA


Sieve Aperture (mm)

63

37.5

26.5

19.0


Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

Determination of Particle Size Distribution of a Soil

Standard Method of Analysis by Sieving

11 Harvest Terrace, West Perth, WA, 6005

AS1289.3.6.1


South Hedland

100 150 35

100 75 29

100

100

99

94



13.2

9.5

6.7

4.75

2.36

19.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PERCENTAGE P

ASSIN

G (%

)

SILT FRACTION SAND FRACTION GRAVEL FRACTIONCLAY COBBLES

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20.0 60.0

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

FINE MEDIUM FINE MEDIUMCOARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE COARSE

Esko Rissanen

NATA Accred No:3145 FORM NUMBER : CLP014-1-1


results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements

included in this document are traceable to

Australian/national standards.

2

Client: Cardno WA Report Number : 213492 - 3a

Client Address: Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date : 27/01/2015

Job Number: 213492 Test Method:

Project:

Location

Lab No: 14-695 14-699

Date Sampled: 2/04/2014 2/04/2014

Date Tested: 22/04/2014 22/04/2014

Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1.6.5.4 AS1289.1.2.1.6.5.4

Sample History: Air-Dried Air-Dried

Sample Preparation: Dry-Sieved Dry-Sieved

BH / TP No: CTP03 CTP15

Sample Depth (m): 0.8 0.6

Liquid Limit (%): 15 17

Plastic Limit (%): 14 14

Plasticity Index (%): 1 3 #N/A #N/A

Group Symbol SM SM


Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

Atterberg Limits & Unified Classification


11 Harvest Terrace West Perth WA 6005


South Hedland

AS1289.3.1.2,

AS1289.2.1.1,

AS1289.3.2.1 &

AS1289.3.3.1


Lab Number: Soil Description :

14-695 Silty SAND red

14-699 Silty SAND red, light brown



results of the tests, calibrations and/or

measurements included in this document are

Plasticity Chart for classification of fine grained soil - Table A1 AS1726 - 1993

10

20

30

40

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

%)

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY CHART

CL CI CH

A-LINE

CL - ML ML or OL MH or OH

Esko Rissanen

NATA Accred No:3145 FORM NUMBER : CLP002-3


traceable to Australian/national standards.

3

Client: Cardno WA Report Number : 213492 - 4a

Client Address: Page Number : 1 of 1

Report Date : 27/01/2015

Job Number: 213492 Test Method:

Project:

Location

Lab No: 14-695 14-699

ID No: - -

Lot Number: - -

Date Sampled: 2/04/2014 2/04/2014

Date Tested: 22/04/2014 22/04/2014

Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1.6.5.4 AS1289.1.2.1.6.5.4

BH / TP No: CTP03 CTP15

Sample Depth (m): 0.8 0.6

Determination of Emerson Class Number of a Soil


Burwood, VIC 3125

Australia

11 Harvest Terrace West Perth WA 6005

AS 1289.3.8.1



South Hedland

Immerse Air - dried 2 to 4mm dia. crumbs of soil

in a beaker

Slaking No Slaking

Type of Water Used (T 1): Distilled Water Distilled Water

Temp. of Water (°C) (T 1): 20 20

Emerson Class No. (T 1): Class 2 Class 2

Type of Water Used (T 2): N/A N/A

Temp. of Water (°C) (T 2):

Emerson Class No. (T 2): N/A N/A

Remarks :

Lab Number: Soil Description :

14-695 Silty SAND red

14-699 Silty SAND red, light brown

APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER


results of the tests, calibrations and/or


This Report replaces report numbered 213492 - 4; ammended project details

Complete DispersionClass #1

Some Dispersion Class #2

No DispersionSwellingClass #7

No SwellingClass #8

Immerse moistened remoulded 3mm dia. soil balls

in a beaker

DispersionClass #3

No Dispersion

No Calcite or Gypsum present

Calcite or Gypsum present

Class #4

Make up 1:5 soil/water suspension in a test tube

DispersionClass #5

FlocculationClass #6

Esko Rissanen

NATA Accred No:3145 FORM NUMBER : CLP005-2


traceable to Australian/national standards.

4


Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

Appendix D1 Page

Limitations of the Report

213492Report01.2 Appendix D

LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

Doc: Limitations of Geotechnical Reports Last Revised: 25-Feb-13

The purpose of this report is to provide a geotechnical assessment of the sites examined. The information provided herein will reduce the exposure to risks, but no geotechnical assessment can eliminate them. Nonetheless, even a rigorous assessment may fail to detect all of the geotechnical conditions on a site. Site variations may have occurred in areas not investigated or sampled.

This geotechnical report should not be used when the nature of the proposed site usage changes, when the size, layout, or location of the development is modified, when the site ownership changes nor should it be applied to a nearby area. No environmental assessment has been undertaken nor is implied.

This site geotechnical assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions where the samples were taken and at the time they were taken. Any soil tests completed, were carried out in Cardno Lane Piper’s NATA accredited soil laboratory. Geotechnical engineers then interpreted the laboratory results and field data and rendered an opinion about the overall subsurface conditions, including the soil type, extent of the soil layers, and their likely impact on the proposed development, with a discussion of the implications considered likely. The actual conditions may differ from the inferred conditions, as no person (no matter how qualified) or even the most detailed subsurface investigation can predict with confidence what may be hidden by soil or water or may have altered with time. Often the interface between different geotechnical areas may be more abrupt or gradual than anticipated. The actual conditions in an area may differ from those predicted.

Site assessments are limited by time, and natural processes such as erosion, or mankind altering the ground conditions, including the site levels or filled areas, may affect a site assessment. This geotechnical assessment is prepared in response to a client’s specific requirements. No person other than the client should apply the report without first conferring with Cardno Lane Piper.

Costly problems can occur if the report is misinterpreted. To avoid these problems, Cardno Lane Piper should be retained to work with the appropriate design professionals and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to the geotechnical matters.

This report should only be reproduced in its entirety. Reproduction of borehole or testpit logs alone without the entire report should not be permitted. Redrafting of the borehole or testpit logs for inclusion in drawings or other reports should not be allowed as errors in the drafting can occur. It is recommended that the report be made available in entirety to persons and organisations involved in the project such as contractors. Simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of the subsurface or geotechnical information does not insulate the organisation from liability. The more information a contractor has available to him, the better able he is to avoid costly construction problems and costly adversarial situations.

Finally, geotechnical reports are based extensively on opinion and judgment and are less exact than other sciences. The report may contain a number of explanatory clauses or limitations on the results to inform the client about the restrictions of the report. These clauses are not meant to be exculpatory clauses to foist liability onto another person, but to identify where Cardno Lane Piper’s and the client’s responsibilities start and finish. Their use is to clarify where individual responsibilities lie and to allow the individual to take appropriate actions.