This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
No groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits at the time of fieldwork, however
in situ moisture conditions in the adjacent lower sections of the site were noted to be
higher. It should be noted that groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate with variations in
climatic and site conditions.
4.3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The results of the shrink swell testing on samples of the clay soils encountered are detailed
on the laboratory reports attached in Appendix C, and summarised below in Table 2.
Table 2 - Summary of Shrink Swell Test Results
Test Pit Depth
(m) Soil Type
Esw (%)
Esh (%)
Iss (%)
TP301 0.50-0.80 Sandy Gravelly CLAY 0.7 1.1 0.8
TP301 1.40-1.80 Silty CLAY 0.0 3.2 1.8
TP302 0.70-1.00 Silty CLAY 0.2 6.3 3.5
TP302 1.80-2.00 Sandy CLAY 2.7 3.0 2.4
TP305 0.60-0.95 Sandy CLAY 0.9 3.6 2.2
TP307 0.60-0.90 Silty CLAY 1.1 6.1 3.7
TP308 0.80-1.00 Silty CLAY 2.1 4.0 2.8
TP308 1.20 Sandy silty CLAY 1.8 2.3 1.8
TP309 0.70-1.0 Clayey Silt 0.0 1.6 0.9
Notes to Table 2:
Esw Swelling strain
Esh Shrinkage strain
Iss Shrink swell Index
Page 5
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
5 SITE CLASSIFICATION
5.1 GENERAL
Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 [1] establishes performance requirements and specific
designs for common foundation conditions as well as providing guidance on the design of
footing systems using engineering principles. Site classes as defined on Table 2.1 and 2.3 of
AS 2870 are presented on Table 3 below.
Table 3 - General Definition of Site Classes
Site
Class Foundation
Characteristic
Surface Movement
A Most sand and rock sites with little or no ground movement from moisture changes
S Slightly reactive clay sites, which may experience only slight ground movement from moisture changes
0 - 20mm
M Moderately reactive clay or silt sites, which may experience moderate ground movement from moisture changes
20 - 40mm
H1 Highly reactive clay sites, which may experience high ground movement from moisture changes
40 - 60mm
H2 Highly reactive clay sites, which may experience very high ground movement from moisture changes
60 - 75mm
E Extremely reactive sites, which may experience extreme ground movement from moisture changes
> 75mm
P
Sites which include filled sites (refer to AS 2870 2.4.6), soft soils, such as soft clay or silt or loose sands; landslip; mine subsidence; collapsing soils; soils subject to erosion; reactive sites subject to abnormal moisture conditions or sites which cannot be classified otherwise.
Reactive sites are sites consisting of clay soils that swell on wetting and shrink on drying,
resulting in ground movements that can damage lightly loaded structures. The amount of
ground movement is related to the physical properties of the clay and environmental
factors such as climate, vegetation and watering. A higher probability of damage can occur
on reactive sites where abnormal moisture conditions occur, as defined in AS 2870, due to
factors such as:
Presence of trees on the building site or adjacent site, removal of trees prior to or after
construction, and the growth of trees too close to a footing. The proximity of mature
trees and their effect on foundations should be considered when determining building
areas within each allotment (refer to AS 2870);
Failure to provide adequate site drainage or lack of maintenance of site drainage, failure
to repair plumbing leaks and excessive or irregular watering of gardens;
Page 6
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
Unusual moisture conditions caused by removal of structures, ground covers (such as
pavements), drains, dams, swimming pools, tanks etc.
In regard to the performance of footings systems, AS 2870 states “footing systems designed
and constructed in accordance with this Standard on a normal site (see Clause 1.3.2) [1] that
is:
(a) not subject to abnormal moisture conditions; and
(b) maintained such that the original site classification remains valid and abnormal moisture
conditions do not develop;
are expected to experience usually no damage, a low incidence of damage category 1 and
an occasional incidence of damage category 2.”
Damage categories are defined in Appendix C of AS 2870, which is reproduced in CSIRO
Information Sheet BTF 18, Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A
Homeowner’s Guide.
5.2 SITE CLASSIFICATIONS
The results of the laboratory shrink swell tests summarised in Table 2 indicate that the
tested sandy clay and silty clay soils are slightly reactive to highly reactive.
Based on the soil profiles encountered in the test pits, and in accordance with AS 2870-
2011, the lots in their existing condition would be classified as Class M to Class H1 Highly
Reactive, provided that all footings are founded below any topsoil or fill. It is noted that the
incised gully located in the front section of lots 309 to 312 was filled. Reference to the
supplied General Arrangement Site plan, by MM Hyndes Bailey & Co, Job reference 205116,
Sheet 2 of 27 dated January 2012 indicated this filled section of the gully has a restriction on
development with no habitable structure permitted within a designated area. A copy of the
plan is contained in Appendix A and it should be noted that the fill area is excluded from the
site classification presented herein.
The lot classifications summarised in Table 4 below are recommended for lots in their
existing condition and in the absence of abnormal moisture conditions.
Table 4 - Recommended Site Classifications
Lot Numbers Site Classification
Lots 300 to 302 , 305 & 306 Class M-D, Moderately Reactive
Lots 303, 304, 307 to 315 Class H1-D, Highly Reactive
Notes: The ‘D’ suffix denotes that the lots are within an area of deep moisture change with a Hs of greater or
equal to 3m.
Page 7
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
It is noted that a variable depth to rock was encountered in the test pits with a shallow
depth to rock reducing the predicted free surface movement and hence the site
classification. Typically rock was shallower higher in the lots. Further investigation of
individual lots could be undertaken as part of the design process and may indicate a less
severe classification if the weathered rock was found uniformly under the proposed building
footprint and or granular material used to create building pads. Any building pad filling will
need to be placed and compacted in accordance AS3798-2007 “Guidelines on Earthworks
for Commercial and Residential Developments” [2].
Footing design should take into consideration the effect of recent removal and planting of
trees in the vicinity of the development on soil moisture conditions. If recent removal of
trees within the building area and surrounding area has been conducted, sufficient time for
the soil moisture to re-equilibrate should be allowed, or specific engineering assessment
and input would be required for foundation design.
Appendix B of AS 2870-2011 indicates that to reduce but not eliminate the possibility of
damage, trees should be restricted to a distance from the building ¾ × the mature height for
Class M sites and equivalent to the mature height of the trees for Class H1 sites. Where
rows or groups of trees are present the distance from the building should be increased.
The classification assumes that all footings (edge beams, internal beams and load support
thickenings) are founded below any topsoil, slopewash, fill or other deleterious material.
The above site classifications and footing recommendations are for the site conditions
present at the time of fieldwork and consequently the site classification may need to be
reviewed with consideration of any site works that may be undertaken subsequent to the
investigation and this report.
Site works may include:
Changes to the existing soil profile by cutting and filling;
Landscaping, including trees removed or planted in the general building area; and
Drainage and watering systems.
Designs and design methods presented in AS 2870-2011 [1] are based on the performance
requirement that significant damage can be avoided provided that site conditions are
properly maintained. Performance requirements and foundation maintenance are outlined
in Appendix B of AS 2870. The above site classification assumes that the performance
requirements as set out in Appendix B of AS 2870 are acceptable and that site foundation
maintenance is undertaken to avoid extremes of wetting and drying.
Details on appropriate site and foundation maintenance practices are presented in
Appendix B of AS 2870-2011 and in CSIRO Information Sheet BTF 18, Foundation
Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner’s Guide [3], which is attached as
Appendix D.
Page 8
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
Adherence to the detailing requirement outlined in Section 5 of AS 2870-2011 [1] is
essential, in particular Section 5.6 Additional requirements for Classes M, H1, H2 and E sites,
including architectural restrictions, plumbing and drainage requirements.
5.3 FOOTINGS
All foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2870-2011,
Residential Slabs and Footings [1], with consideration to the site classifications presented in
Section 5.2. Inspection of high level or pier footings excavations should be undertaken to
confirm the founding conditions and the base should be cleared of fall-in prior to the
formation of the footing.
All footings should be founded in stiff or better clay or weathered rock, below any topsoil,
slopewash, deleterious soils or uncontrolled fill. All footings for the same structure should
be founded on strata of similar stiffness and reactivity to minimise the risk of differential
movements, with articulation provided where appropriate.
High-level footing alternatives could be expected to comprise slabs on ground with edge
beams or pad footings for the support of concentrated loads. Such footings designed in
accordance with engineering principles and founded in stiff or better natural clay may be
proportioned on an allowable bearing capacity of 100kPa.
Piered footings are considered as an alternative to deep edge beams or high level footings.
It is suggested that piered footings, founded in the weathered rock, could be proportioned
on an end bearing pressure of 500kPa.
If foundations for proposed structures are located within the zone of influence of any
service trenching or test pits the structure should be supported by pier footings. The depth
of the pier footing should be extended below the zone of influence ignoring shaft adhesion.
A structural engineer should be consulted for detailing.
Where piered footing are utilised, the potential for volume change in the subsurface profile
should be taken into considered by the designer.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The investigation has identified a subsurface profile comprising of shallow residual clayey
silt silty clay and gravelly silty clays overlying weathered sandstone and siltstone. A topsoil
thickness up to 0.2m was encountered in all test pits.
Where footings are founded in the natural residual clay profile, below any topsoil,
slopewash, uncontrolled fill, or other deleterious materials; a classification based on those
assumed in Table 4 can be adopted.
Page 9
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
Potential for reduction in classification is available where rock is uniformly encountered at a
depth of 1.0m
High-level footings founded in the natural stiff or better residual clay soils may be
proportioned on an allowable bearing pressure of 100kPa. Where piered footings founded
in the underlying weathered rock are utilised, an allowable end bearing pressure of 500kPa
could be adopted.
7 LIMITATIONS
Geotech Solutions (GS) have performed investigation for this project in general accordance
with current professional and industry standards.
The extent of testing associated with the site classifications is limited to discrete test
locations, and variations in ground conditions can occur between and away from sub
locations. Site classifications are based on the presumption of similar subsurface conditions
between test locations.
A geotechnical consultant or qualified engineer should inspect footing and excavations to
confirm assumed conditions in this assessment. If subsurface conditions encountered during
construction differ from those given in this report, further advice should be sought without
delay.
Geotech Solutions, or any other reputable consultant, cannot provide unqualified
warranties nor does it assume any liability for the site conditions not observed or accessible
during the investigations. Site conditions may also change subsequent to the investigations
and assessment due to ongoing use.
This report and associated documentation was undertaken for the specific purpose of site
classification and should not be relied on for other purposes. This report was prepared
solely for the use by McCloy Group Pty Ltd and any reliance assumed by other parties on
this report shall be at such parties own risk.
Yours faithfully,
Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd
Ian G. Piper James Young
Associate Director
Page 10
McCloy Group Pty Ltd Cardno Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Site Classification Ironbark Ridge Estate Stage 3B, Muswellbrook GS ref 928-007/0, July 2012
REFERENCES
[1] Australian Standard AS 2870-2011: Residential Slabs and Footings, Standards
Australia, 2011.
[2] AS 3798 - 2007: “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments”, Standards Australia
Appendix A
Drawings
PROJECT REFERENCE:
CLIENT:
DRAWING NUMBER:
SCALE:
OFFICE:
DRAWN BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Ф Geotech Solutions Pty Ltd Unit 4, 5 Arunga
Drive, Beresfield
NSW 2322
SITE CLASSIFICATION
IRONBARK RIDGE STAGE 3B, MUSWELLBROOK
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GS928-007-1
GS928
McCloy Group Pty Ltd NTS
Beresfield
16 July2012
JD
IGP
SITE
NOTES:
Drawing adapted from “Lot Layout” plan, Ironbark Ridge, MM Hyndes Bailey & Co, Job Ref: 205116, dated January 2012
LEGEND:
Approximate test pit locations and numbers
N
TP304
TP301
TP302
TP303
TP305
TP306
TP310
TP307
TP308
TP309
Appendix B
Engineering Logs
Explanatory Notes
TOPSOIL, Clayey SILT, brown, with organics, trace sand, trace gravel
Silty CLAY, high plasticity, light yellow brown, with some sand and gravel,fine to coarse grained
Mottled yellow brown grey
Testpit TP301 terminated at 2.80 m
M
M VSt
Thick grass, occasional mature tree
Gravel and sand content vary overdepth of pit
0.25m
2.80m
Not
Enc
ount
ere
d
0.50m
1.40m
U5050
0.80m
U5050
1.80m
CO
NS
IST
EN
CY
/R
EL
DE
NS
ITY
/R
OC
K S
TR
EN
GT
H
MO
IST
UR
E /
WE
AT
HE
RIN
G
EQUIPMENT TYPE : 5t Excavator
LOGGED BY : IGPDATE EXCAVATED : 22/3/12
METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket
STRUCTURE& Other Observations
LOCATION : See Drawing for location
CHECKED BY : IGP
TESTPIT LOG
File: GS928 TP301 Page 1 OF 1
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONSoil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colourSecondary and minor components
- Very Loose- Loose- Medium Dense- Dense- Very Dense
VLLMDDVD
Water inflow
GE
OT
EC
H_S
OLU
TIO
NS
_03
LIB
RA
RY
.GLB
Log
GS
_TE
ST
HO
LE_L
OG
_02
GS
_928
_IR
ON
BA
RK
E R
IDG
E.G
PJ
21/
06/2
012
15:1
0 8
.30.
002
Φ
Subsurface investigation may be conducted by one or a combination of the following methods.
Method
Test Pitting: excavation/trench
BH Backhoe bucket
EX Excavator bucket
X Existing excavation
Natural Exposure: existing natural rock or soil exposure
Manual drilling: hand operated tools
HA Hand Auger
Continuous sample drilling
PT Push tube
Hammer drilling
AH Air hammer
AT Air track
Spiral flight auger drilling
AS Large diameter short spiral auger
AD/V Continuous spiral flight auger: V-Bit
AD/T Continuous spiral flight auger: TC-Bit
Rotary non-core drilling
WS Washbore (mud drilling)
RR Rock roller
Rotary core drilling
HQ 63mm diamond-tipped core barrel
NMLC 52mm diamond-tipped core barrel
NQ 47mm diamond-tipped core barrel
Concrete coring
DT Diatube
Sampling is conducted to facilitate further assessment of selected materials encountered.
Sampling method
Disturbed sampling
B Bulk disturbed sample
D Disturbed sample
ES Environmental soil sample
Undisturbed sampling
SPT Standard Penetration Test sample
U# Undisturbed tube sample (#mm diameter)
Water samples
EW Environmental water sample
Field testing may be conducted as a means of assessment of the in-situ conditions of materials encountered.
Field testing
SPT Standard Penetration Test (blows/150mm)
HP/PP Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Dynamic Penetrometers (blows/150mm)
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
PSP Perth Sand Penetrometer
VS Vane Shear
PBT Plate Bearing Test
If encountered with SPT or dynamic penetrometer testing, refusal (R), virtual refusal (VR) or hammer bouncing (HB) may be noted.
The quality of the rock can be assessed be the degree of fracturing and the following.
Rock quality description
TCR Total Core Recovery (%) (length of core recovered divided by the length of core run)
RQD Rock Quality Designation (%)
(sum of axial lengths of core greater than 100mm long divided by the length of core run)
Notes on groundwater conditions encountered may include.
Groundwater
Not Encountered Excavation is dry in the short term
Not Observed Groundwater observation not possible
Seepage Groundwater seeping into hole
Inflow Groundwater flowing/flooding into hole
Perched groundwater may result in a misleading indication of the depth to the true water table. Groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate with variations in climatic and site conditions.
Notes on the stability of excavations may include.
Excavation conditions
Spalling Material falling into excavation, may be described as minor or major spalling
Unstable Collapse of the majority, or one or more face, of the excavation
Geotech Solutions
The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. Material descriptions are deduced from field observation or engineering examination, and may be appended or confirmed by in situ or laboratory testing. The information is dependent on the scope of investigation, the extent of sampling and testing, and the inherent variability of the conditions encountered.
Explanatory Notes
Φ
Soil types are described according to the dominant particle size on the basis of the following assessment.
Soil Classification Particle Size
CLAY < 0.002mm
SILT 0.002mm 0.075mm
SAND fine 0.075mm to 0.2mm
medium 0.2mm to 0.6mm
coarse 0.6mm to 2.36mm
GRAVEL fine 2.36mm to 6mm
medium 6mm to 20mm
coarse 20mm to 63mm
COBBLES 63mm to 200mm
BOULDERS > 200mm
Soil types are qualified by the presence of minor components on the basis of field examination or grading.
Description Percentage of minor component
Trace < 5% in coarse grained soils
< 15% in fine grained soils
With 5% to 12% in coarse grained soils
15% to 30% in fine grained soils
The strength of cohesive soils is classified by engineering assessment or field/laboratory testing as follows.
Strength Symbol Undrained shear strength
Very Soft VS < 12kPa
Soft S 12kPa to 25kPa
Firm F 25kPa to 50kPa
Stiff St 50kPa to 100kPa
Very Stiff VSt 100kPa to 200kPa
Hard H > 200kPa
Cohesionless soils are classified on the basis of relative density as follows.
Relative Density Symbol Density Index
Very Loose VL < 15%
Loose L 15% to 35%
Medium Dense MD 35% to 65%
Dense D 65% to 85%
Very Dense VD > 85%
The moisture condition of soil is described by appearance and feel and may be described in relation to the Plastic Limit (PL) or Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).
Moisture condition and description
Dry Cohesive soils; hard, friable, dry of plastic limit. Granular soils; cohesionless and free-running
Moist Cool feel and darkened colour: Cohesive soils can be moulded. Granular soils tend to cohere
Wet Cool feel and darkened colour: Cohesive soils usually weakened and free water forms when handling. Granular soils tend to cohere
The plasticity of cohesive soils is defined as follows.
Plasticity Liquid Limit
Low plasticity ≤ 35%
Medium plasticity > 35% ≤ 50%
High plasticity > 50%
The structure of the soil may be described as follows.
Zoning Description
Layer Continuous across exposure or sample
Lens Discontinuous layer (lenticular shape)
Pocket Irregular inclusion of different material
The structure may include; defects such as softened zones, fissures, cracks, joints and root-holes; and coarse grained soils may be described as strongly or weakly cemented.
The soil origin may also be noted if possible to deduce.
Soil origin and description
Fill Man-made deposits or disturbed material
Topsoil Material affected by roots and root fibres
Colluvial soil Transported down slopes by gravity
Aeolian soil Transported and deposited by wind
Alluvial soil Deposited by rivers
Lacustrine soil Deposited by lakes
Marine soil Deposits in beaches, bays, estuaries
Residual soil Developed on weathered rock
The origin of the soil generally cannot be deduced on the appearance of the material and may be assumed based on further geological evidence or field observation.
Geotech Solutions
The methods of description and classification of soils used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In practice, if the material can be remoulded by hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a soil. The dominant soil constituent is given in capital letters, with secondary textures in lower case. In general, descriptions cover: soil type, strength / relative density, moisture, colour, plasticity and inclusions.
Explanatory Notes - General Soil Description
Φ
Sedimentary rock types are generally described according to the predominant grain size as follows.
Rock Type Description
CONGLOMERATE Rounded gravel sized fragments >2mm cemented in a finer matrix
SANDSTONE Sand size particles defined by grain size and often cemented by other materials fine 0.06mm to 0.2mm medium 0.2mm to 0.6mm coarse 0.6mm to 2mm
SILTSTONE Predominately silt sized particles
SHALE Fine particles (silt or clay) and fissile
CLAYSTONE Predominately clay sized particles
The classification of rock weathering is described based on definitions outlined in AS1726 as follows.
Term and symbol Definition
Residual Soil
RS Soil developed on extremely weathered rock; mass structure and substance are no longer evident
Extremely
weathered
XW Weathered to such an extent that it
has ‘soil’ properties
Distinctly weathered
DW Strength usually changed and may be highly discoloured. Porosity may be increased by leaching, or decreased due to deposition in pores
Slightly weathered
SW Slightly discoloured; little/no change of strength from fresh rock
Fresh Rock FR Rock shows no sign of decomposition or staining
Rock material strength (distinct from mass strength which can be significantly weaker due to the effect of defects) can be defined based on the point load index as follows.
Term and symbol Point Load Index Is50
Extremely low EL < 0.03MPa
Very Low VL 0.03MPa to 0.1MPa
Low L 0.1MPa to 0.3MPa
Medium M 0.3MPa to 1MPa
High H 1MPa to 3MPa
Very High VH 3MPa to 10MPa
Extremely High EH > 10MPa
For preliminary assessment and in cases where no point load testing is available, the rock strength may be assessed using the field guide specified by AS1726.
The defect spacing and bedding thickness of rocks, measured normal to defects of the same set or bedding, can be described as follows.
Definition Defect Spacing
Thinly laminated < 6mm
Laminated 6mm to 20mm
Very thinly bedded 20mm to 60mm
Thinly bedded 60mm to 0.2m
Medium bedded 0.2m to 0.6m
Thickly bedded 0.6m to 2m
Very thickly bedded > 2m
Defects in rock mass are often described by the following.
Terms
Joint JT Sheared zone SZ
Bed Parting BP Sheared surface SS
Contact CO Seam SM
Dyke DK Crushed Seam CS
Decomposed Zone DZ Infilled Seam IS
Fracture FC Foliation FL
Fracture Zone FZ Vein VN
The shape and roughness of defects are described using the following terms.
Planarity Roughness
Planar PR Very Rough VR
Curved CU Rough RF
Undulating U Smooth S
Irregular IR Polished POL
Stepped ST Slickensides SL
The coating or infill associated with defects can be described as follows.
Definition Description
Clean No visible coating or infilling
Stain No visible coating or infilling; surfaces discoloured by mineral staining
Veneer Visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral substance (<1mm). If discontinuous over the plane; patchy veneer
Coating Visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral substance (>1mm)
Geotech Solutions
The methods of description and classification of rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In general, if a material cannot be remoulded by hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a rock, is classified by its geological terms. In general, descriptions cover: rock type, degree of weathering, strength, colour, grain size, structure and minor components or inclusions.
Explanatory Notes - General Rock Description
Φ
Graphics Symbols Index
Geotech Solutions
CLAYS
SILTS
SANDS
GRAVELS SEDIMENTARY ROCK
MISCELLANEOUS
METAMORPHIC ROCK
IGNEOUS ROCK
CLAY
Silty CLAY
Sandy CLAY
Gravelly CLAY
GRAVEL
Clayey GRAVEL
Silty GRAVEL
Sandy GRAVEL
COBBLES & BOULDERS
Organic SILT
SILT
Clayey SILT
Sandy SILT
Gravelly SILT
CONGLOMERATE
BRECCIA
SANDSTONE
STONE
SILTSTONE
SHALE
SAND
Clayey SAND
Silty SAND
Gravelly SAND
MUDSTONE / CLAYSTONE
COAL
FILL
TOPSOIL
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
CORE LOSS
PAVEMENT GRAVEL
PAVEMENT (Natural Gravels)
PAVEMENT (Crushed Rock)
SLATE / PHYLLITE / SCHIST
GNEISS
QUARTZITE
GRANITE
BASALT
TUFF
Appendix C
Laboratory Testing Reports
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 15
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/04/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/2325 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 23/03/2012
Date Tested: 3/04/2012
Sampled By: Ian Piper
Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
14.25 14.6
1.1 17.8
2 >600
0.7 310
0.8
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Minor
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP301
U50
0.5 - 0.8m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy Gravelly CLAY, pale brown/brown.
5
Moderate
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 20
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/04/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/2330 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2012
Date Tested: 3/04/2012
Sampled By: Ian Piper
Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
16.94 16.1
3.2 18.4
1.96 350
0.0 350
1.8
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP301
U50
1.4 - 1.8m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy CLAY, pale brown, trace of Gravel.
1
Minor
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 16
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/04/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/2326 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2012
Date Tested: 3/04/2012
Sampled By: Ian Piper
Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
29.22 27.1
6.3 33.1
1.84 190
0.2 170
3.5
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP302
U50
0.7 - 1.0m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Silty CLAY, dark brown, trace of Gravel.
1
Major
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 17
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/04/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/2327 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2012
Date Tested: 10/04/2012
Sampled By: Ian Piper
Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: Remoulded at field moisture content. Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
17.74 18.2
3.0 20.6
2.05 >600
2.7 270
2.4
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP302
D
1.8 - 2.0m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy CLAY, pale grey/brown.
5
Minor
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 18
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/04/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/2328 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2012
Date Tested: 4/04/2012
Sampled By: Ian Piper
Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
19.55 19.1
3.6 22.6
1.91 570
0.9 270
2.2
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP305
U50
0.6 - 0.95m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy CLAY, brown, trace of Gravel.
2
Major
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 19
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/04/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/2329 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 22/03/2012
Date Tested: 4/04/2012
Sampled By: Ian Piper
Sample Method: AS1289.1.2.1 c6.5.4 Backhoe
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
16.26 18.4
1.1 22.7
1.96 >600
0.9 290
0.9
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP305
U50
1.6 - 1.9m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy Gravelly CLAY, brown.
5
Major
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 21
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/06/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/4413 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 18/06/2012
Date Tested: 22/06/2012
Sampled By: James Dillon
Sample Method: AS 1289 1.2.1 c 6.5.4 Test Pit
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
25.19 27.0
6.1 29.6
1.86 550
1.1 210
3.7
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP307
U50
0.6 - 0.9m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Silty CLAY, mottled dark grey/brown.
2
Minor
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 22
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/06/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/4414 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 18/06/2012
Date Tested: 22/06/2012
Sampled By: James Dillon
Sample Method: AS 1289 1.2.1 c 6.5.4 Test Pit
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
17.92 20.6
4.0 24.5
1.97 >600
2.1 190
2.8
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Nil
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP308
U50
0.8 - 1.0m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy CLAY, brown.
2
Nil
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 23
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/06/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/4415 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 18/06/2012
Date Tested: 22/06/2012
Sampled By: James Dillon
Sample Method: AS 1289 1.2.1 c 6.5.4 Test Pit
Material Source: In Situ
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: Remoulded with 3% moisture added. Item Number : -
16.14 16.6
2.3 20.3
1.94 570
1.8 320
1.8 FMC(%) : 13.2
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document
are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Minor
Shrink Swell Index Report
Swell MC Before(%):
Swell MC After(%) :
PP Before (kPa):
Page 1 of 1
TP308
D
1.2m
Shrink Swell Index (Iss %):
Sandy Silty CLAY, pale grey mottled brown.
5
Minor
PP After (kPa):
Shrinkage Moisture Content (%) :
Shrinkage (%) :
Unit Weight (t/m³) :
Swell (%) :
Client: McCloy Group Pty Ltd Report Number: GS/928 - 24
Client Address: PO Box 2214 Dangar NSW 2309 Page 1 of 1
Job Number: GS/928 Report Date: 27/06/2012
Project: Ironbark Ridge Stage 3b Order Number:
Location Ironbark Road , Muswellbrook Test Method : AS1289.7.1.1
Lab No: 12/4416 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 18/06/2012
Date Tested: 25/06/2012
Sampled By: James Dillon
Sample Method: AS 1289 1.2.1 c 6.5.4 Test Pit
Material Source: -
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Item Number : -
21.53 19.4
1.6 20.8
1.97 350
0.0 350
0.9
Visual Classification :
Inert Material Estimate(%):
Cracking :
Crumbling :
APPROVED SIGNATORY FORM NUMBER
RP106-2Simon Richards
NATA Accred No:15689
This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results
of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document