IT CARLOW

January 2013

Au

th

or

:J

oe

Interpretive Report
Dissertation
Joe McCormack

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................ 5

Non Technical Summary .................................................................................................................. 6

Site Description ............................................................................................................. 6 Site Environs .................................................................................................................. 7 Site History .................................................................................................................... 7 Ground Investigation ................................................................................................... 7 Ground Conditions ....................................................................................................... 7 Ground Contamination ................................................................................................ 8 Waste Disposal .............................................................................................................. 8

1.0
1.1 2

Au

Foundations ................................................................................................................... 9 Ground Floor Slab ........................................................................................................ 9 Health and Safety considerations ...........................................................................10

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................11
Aims and objectives ........................................................................................11

th

Excavation ...................................................................................................................... 9

or

:J

oe

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Development Proposal ...................................................................................11 Scope of Works ................................................................................................11 Project Deliverables .........................................................................................12 Limitations .........................................................................................................13 Disclaimer ..........................................................................................................14

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Reporting ...........................................................................................................15 Rationale and Design Philosophy.................................................................16 Fieldwork............................................................................................................16 Exploratory Holes .............................................................................................17 In-situ testing....................................................................................................19 Laboratory Testing ...........................................................................................20

3.0

Au

Ground Conditions ................................................................................................................22

Bearing Capacity for Area 1 (ULS) ...............................................................25 Settlement for Area 1 (SLS) ...........................................................................28 Site Characterisation........................................................................................30 Soil Strata Parameters.....................................................................................33

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

th

Groundwater Monitoring ...............................................................................21

or

:J

oe

or m

2.0

Ground Investigation ............................................................................................................15

ac k

January 29, 2013 3.5

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Groundwater .....................................................................................................34

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

7.1 7.2 7.3

Geotechnical Review .............................................................................................................36 Reusability of Material .........................................................................................................37 Contamination Report .........................................................................................................41 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................46
Conclusions........................................................................................................46 Recommendations ...........................................................................................47 References .........................................................................................................48

Table 1: Summary of Borehole equipment Table 2: Summary of boreholes Table 3: Summary of in-situ testing Table 4: Summary of laboratory testing Table 5: Summary of divisional areas Table 6: Summary of zone of influence

Au

th

or

:J

List of Tables

oe

8.0

Appendices ...............................................................................................................................49

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Table 7: Summary of friction angles Table 8: Meyerhof, Hansen, Vesic Table 9: Summary of bearing capacity Table 10: Summary of settlement Table 11: Summary of Plate Test Results Table 12: Soil strata Table 13: Groundwater status

Table 15: G/W contaminant analysis

Figure 2: Average immediate settlement of a loaded area

Au

th

Figure 1: 0

or

List of Figures

:J

Table 16: Stockpile contamination analysis

oe

Table 14: Base analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons TPH

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Non Technical Summary

I, Joe Mc Cormack, have been requested by the Civil Engineering dept., IT Carlow to carry out a interpretive report in relation to a proposed three bay portal frame heavy manufacturing facility. The company have buildings surrounding this property and this new factory is intended to facilitate the increased production of

undertaken to obtain information on the geotechnical and geo-environmental

The site is located in the outskirts of a town in the west of Ireland. The footprint of the intended structure is approximately 1.6ha, the outer extents of the site is unknown. The site originally rose from south to north at a slope of 17 however, earthworks carried out have since reduced the level of the site. A datum recorded prior to the earthworks indicates that the site had a reduced level of approximately 30.5mOD across the site with the exception of an embankment at the east side which also sloped from south (31.5mOD) to north (35.0mOD).

Au

th

or

:J

oe

Site Description

nature of the ground conditions.

or m

heavy equipment. As part of this assignment, a ground investigation was

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Site Environs
The site is bounded on the south by a national primary route, on the west by the existing production facility and on the east and north by a disused golf course, recently purchased by the company to facilitate expansion. A pond is located on the south east corner of the proposed building.

Site History

As previously stated, the property was in use as a golf course. There is no available information on the previous uses of the land.

Intrusive ground investigation works were completed between 11th June 2012 and

fitted with standpipes. Geophysics by seismic refraction and resistivity was carried out across the site and four longitudinal sections were produced as a result.

The ground conditions, identified from the exploratory boreholes and geophysics, generally comprised of silty, sandy GRAVEL conditions.

Au

Ground Conditions

th

or

:J

bgl) and four trial pits. None of the boreholes, with the exception of one, were

oe

6th July 2012. They comprised 17 cable percussion boreholes (1.10m to 11.50m

Ground Investigation

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Ground Contamination
An area, approximately 20m * 20m, is located south of the proposed development. This location was used for storage of hydraulic oils and brake fluids for factory plant. This area was excavated to 1m bgl, stockpiled on HDPE liner and covered using the same liner material. For a commercial/industrial land use scenario, the risks to long-term human health from soil contamination are

proposed development. Site workers will be required to adopt appropriate health

No ecological survey should be required as the site has previously been stripped of presumable topsoil and therefore any habitual areas have already been dealt with.

Waste Disposal

Chemical testing of soil samples from the stockpiled material suggest that the material can be considered as inert waste. Removal and/or treatment of the material is suggested as the appropriate remedial measure.

Au

th

or

:J

oe

contamination. No gas monitoring took place.

and

safety

measures

to

mitigate

risks

associated

or m
with

considered to be low and potential risks will be mitigated by the nature of the

ac k
potential

land

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Excavation
The ground is mainly GRAVEL and so it is likely that open trenches may not be stable in the short term. Battering and/or support mechanisms may be necessary in excavations deeper than 1.2m. Excavations should be within the capabilities of conventional site plant. There should be no requirement for rock breaking equipment unless unexpected ground conditions become evident during

potentially be re-used as backfill beneath the floor slab or as backfill material for

The foundation design will comprise of reinforced concrete pads. There will be no combination of foundation types and this is to accommodate differential settlement which is likely as a result of adopting such a procedure.

Ground Floor Slab

taking medium to low imposed loads. The formation of the material beneath the slab is a design consideration and the chosen material is likely to be re-used material from the embankment on the east of the site.

Au

The proposed development will include a ground bearing floor slab, capable of

th

or

:J

oe

Foundations

the pond.

or m

construction. A surplus of soil arising from excavating the ground could

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Health and Safety considerations

Cooperation with the PSD and PSC will remain ongoing in the initial stages of the project and a copy of this report shall be forwarded to both parties upon completion. Associated risks connected to construction processes are presented in Appendix

Principles of prevention (Eurocode 7) were considered as part of the design process of all aspects of design contained in this report.

10

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

ac k

6.

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

1.0
1.1

Introduction
Aims and objectives

As part of the appointment of the geotechnical works, an intrusive ground

geotechnical and geo-environmental ground conditions to assist with the preliminary design of foundations, re-usability of material and assess potential constraints in relation to the land contamination.

The proposal comprises construction of a three bay portal frame heavy

Evaluate the GI Report, Foundation Plan and Building Cross Sections Drawing No.s L3-500 and L31-508 (Appendix 7) respectively. Consider whether sufficient GI information is present to undertake the following: Understand the ground conditions across the project site. Size pad foundations to support the imposed structural loadings. Design the pad foundations to accommodate the structural loadings in accordance with Eurocode 7. 11

Au

th

or

1.3

Scope of Works

:J

equipment. The original factory was opened in 1985.

oe

manufacturing facility. The factory will facilitate increased production of heavy

1.2

Development Proposal

or m

ac k

investigation report has been undertaken to obtain information on the

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Analyse the reusability of onsite material as support under the ground floor slab.

Determine the appropriate chemical testing regime for the stockpiled material for disposal.

Make recommendations regarding the disposal of the stockpiled material. Evaluate the historic storage area so as to determine whether additional

1.4

Project Deliverables

Interpretation and analysis of GIR describing... Ground and groundwater conditions

Additional GI required to complete scopes of work stated above. The request for additional information must include the following: o The location, type and depth of each exploration

12

Au

th

o The in-situ tests required-type and depth at each location

o The samples required-type and depth o The laboratory tests required

or

:J

oe

Discrepancies or limitations of the existing GIR

or m

material should be removed.

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Additional GI required to evaluate the oil storage area and stockpiled material: o The location, type and depth of each exploration o The in-situ tests required-type and depth at each location o The samples required-type and depth

o Disposal and remediation options Scheme design report detailing information on:

The construction of the ground bearing slab-method statement describing how the proposed solution shall be constructed. The solution must be able

purposed development is altered. As a result of a limited number of sub-surface excavations or boreholes, there is the possibility that variations may occur between test locations. The investigation undertaken is an estimate of the general profile of the subsurface conditions.

13

Au

cannot be applied to an adjacent site nor can it be used if the nature of the

th

project-specific factors. Unless further geotechnical advice is obtained, this report

or

This report is based on a subsurface investigation, which was designed for

:J

1.5

Limitations

oe

proposed.

to be implemented. Include details of particular products or systems

or m

ac k

o The laboratory tests required

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

No subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all subsurface details and anomalies. The comments made on groundwater conditions are based on observations made during site work and the limited monitoring programme. It should be

Additional information was sought in order to build a complete profile of the site, this request was submitted on the 30th-Oct-2012. A copy of this report can be found in Appendix 8. It was deemed necessary to request this additional information in order to counteract limitations encountered during the preliminary

between exploratory holes. I accept no responsibility or liability for any inaccurate conclusions, assumptions or actions made by others.

14

Au

conducted in the field and in the laboratory, together with my interpretation

th

conditions encountered during the initial site work and on the results of tests

or

based on the information obtained from the desk study and on the ground

:J

The opinions expressed in this report and the recommendations specified are

oe

1.6

Disclaimer

stages of completing this report.

or m

ac k

noted that groundwater levels may vary owing to seasonal or other effects.

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

2.0

Ground Investigation

A site investigation is the process of collecting information and evaluating the conditions of a particular site. It is undertaken for the purpose of designing and constructing the foundations of a particular structure. Good planning coupled with an experienced and knowledgeable team is key to obtaining sufficient and

geotechnical design parameters.

Geo-environmental issues associated with the potential for contamination of

addressed in this report.

This interpretive report is a part of a project which requests examination of boreholes which were constructed on a site, the whereabouts of which is not

as drawings, calculations and explanations. reading this report.

Au

known. Appendix 1 at the back of this report contains factual information such These should be at hand when

15

th

or

:J

2.1

Reporting

oe

materials to be encountered on site during the proposed works are also

or m

accurate site information. This report forms the basis for the derivation of the

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

2.2

Rationale and Design Philosophy

The scope of the ground investigation was designed on the basis of the recommendations in the design brief obtained on the 18th October 2012. The key objections of the investigation were as follows: Understand the ground conditions and geotechnical parameters across the site.

Analyse the samples recovered and translate the results into this report. Assess the contamination status of soils and groundwater.

The technique used to assess the geotechnical parameters of the ground were in

Details of the equipment and plant used are presented in Table1.

Table 1: Summary of Borehole Equipment.

Au

Operation Cable percussion Boring

th

of Tests for Soil for Civil Engineering Purposes, in situ Tests.

or

accordance with Eurocode 7; Code of Practise for Site Investigation and Method

Equipment

:J

The worked carried out in the construction of these boreholes was carried out in

oe

2.3

Fieldwork

Nominal dia, mm

M
Flush Comments Standard Penetration 200mm N/A Test, N-values, samples obtained

accordance with Eurocode 7.

Unknown

16

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

2.2

Exploratory Holes

The boreholes as completed during the ground investigation are listed in the following table: SUMMARY OF BOREHOLES (Table 2)
Table 2: Summary of Boreholes

Type

Quantity

Depth Range

Remarks

BH4 R/B1 - R/B2, BH1, BH2, Cable Tool Boreholes 17No. 0.00m 11.50m

Note: Borehole depth extended in some cases to varying depths by dynamic probing.

17

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

BH2 R/B, BH3, BH4, BH6, BH7, BH8, BH9,BH10, BH11, BH12, BH13, BH14, BH18

ac k

January 29, 2013

Borehole Number BH1 BH2 BH2 R/B BH3

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Depth of Underlying Soil type Borehole 8.30m 1.10m 4.20m 8.40m Medium dense silty sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles Loose brown gravelly SAND

Medium dense to dense, fine to course, sandy GRAVEL

BH4

1.50m

BH4 R/B 1

1.50m

BH4 R/B 2

1.50m

M oe

Medium dense fine to course sandy GRAVEL with cobbles

Stiff sandy gravelly SILT progressing into sandy gravel with some CLAY and boulders Firm sandy gravelly SILT progressing into clayey GRAVEL Gravelly SILT progressing into dense sandy GRAVEL

BH6

Au

BH8

th

BH7

or

:J

11.50m

7.50m

8.10m with cobbles and boulders 10.10m Gravelly SILT progressing into dense sandy GRAVEL Stiff gravelly SILT progressing into medium dense sandy

BH9

BH10

6.00m GRAVEL

18

Medium dense fine to course sandy GRAVEL with cobbles

or m
cobbles

Medium dense fine to course sandy GRAVEL with

ac k

Dense sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles

January 29, 2013

BH11

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

9.80m

Firm gravelly SILT progressing into medium dense sandy GRAVEL

Continued
Borehole Number BH12 BH13 BH14 Depth of Underlying Soil type Borehole 6.60m 5.50m 4.50m Loose sandy GRAVEL

Loose to medium dense very sandy GRAVEL

BH18

5.00m

Standard Penetration Tests were carried out on all seventeen boreholes.

oe

2.3

In-situ testing

Medium dense sandy GRAVEL progressing into boulders

or m

Loose sandy GRAVEL

ac k
Each

SPT was carried out in accordance with Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Investigation and Testing.

19

Au

th

or

:J

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Table 3: Summary of in-situ testing

Type Standard Penetration Test,

Quantity

Remarks N values ranging from 4 to 50

17No. N values Average N value: 21 Ranging from 0 to 40 Dynamic Probes 13 No.

Tested to 150kPa. 5 No. (457mm dia)

CBR Reload ranging from 4.9% to 24.6% Average CBR Relaod: 18%

spoon (SPT-S)

Testing carried out in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 Clause 9.2 and 9.5, BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 Method 5, BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 Wet Sieve, Clause 9.2, BS 1377: Part 4: 1990 Clause 3.6, BS 1377: Part 4: 1990 Clause 7, the results may be viewed in Appendix 9 at the back. Here follows a summary...

20

Au

th

or

:J

oe

2.4

Laboratory Testing

Note: SPT tests are remarked by the engineer to be carried out by solid cone (SPT-C) as opposed to split

or m

Plate Bearing Test

ac k

Average: 8.3

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Table 4: Summary of labratory testing

SOILS Type Determination of Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index Particle Size Distribution Determination of dry density / moisture content relationship Single Point Moisture Condition Value Test Determination of California Bearing Ratio Test No. 8 18 5 5 6 Remarks Low Plasticity Taken at various ranges, 2 taken on BH6, BH7 & BH8 mainly in SILT layers Material tested on samples taken from Material tested on samples taken from Material tested on samples taken from Trial Pits

2.5

Groundwater Monitoring

encountered water strikes and in most cases he has stated the time over which he has monitored the activity. He has installed only one standpipe in BH10 to assist in groundwater monitoring. The engineer has indicated no groundwater encountered in some boreholes, however he has neglected to comment on the groundwater status in many boreholes and therefore assumptions were made as to the direction taken by the groundwater. These assumptions are represented in Appendix 1: Graphical Interpretation of Ground and Groundwater conditions.

21

Au

th

or

:J

oe

Groundwater observations during drilling have indicated where the engineer has

There is a vague account of the groundwater status across the extents of the site.

or m

ac k
Trial Pits Trial Pits

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

3.0

Ground Conditions

Due to the large area of the building and the varying materials encountered across this area, it was decided to divide the site into 3 portions of relatively equal sizing. This division is marked clearly on the accompanying site map Appendix 2: Exploration Location Map. A variety of soil parameters will be

description. The various soils are annotated by colour. Appendix 1: Graphical

Table 5: Summary of divisional areas.

oe :J
Area 1

M
Area No.s
Area 2 Area of loose material, ground improvement may be required. Area 3 Pond located on SE corner, High Embankment to the East, good bearing achievable.

Au

division

th

Rationale for

The first set of criteria deals with the section of the site to the north, Area 1. By performing a quick calculation, it is possible estimate the zone of influence of the foundation in Area 1.

22

or

High N-Values, Good Bearing Capacities achievable.

visualising interpretations.

Interpretation of Ground and Groundwater conditions, will be useful for

or m

considered including friction angle, unit weight, N-values and engineers

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

A design load of 4000kN is estimated as the load being transmitted by the intended structure. By using Terzaghis model graph, for estimation of bearing capacity, multiplying the average N-value by 10 provides an estimate of the bearing capacity. A conservative N-value of 18 for Area 1 is estimated and by multiplying this by 10, an approximate bearing capacity of 180kPa is established. From here, proceed to find the approximate dimensions of the pad foundation

4000 180

of 29.4m OD. This is approximately 1.6m below the level of the finish floor slab. N-values increase significantly below the formation level of the foundation. A more accurate evaluation can now ensue for the true bearing capacity values in Area 1. A similar procedure has been carried out for the remaining areas, Area 2 & Area 3. Appendix 3 shows the calculations for this.
Table 6: Summary of zone of influence

Au

th

or

:J

oe
Area 1 10.0m

The formation level of the foundations for Area 1 is estimated to be in the region

C
Area 2 15.1m

= 22.22 2 ; 222 = 4.5 = ; Pad size 5 5 1 () . . = 2 = 2 5 = 10

or m

and subsequently find the zone of influence of the foundation.

Zone of Influence

23

ac k
Area 3 9.0m

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

The material in Area 1 is mainly GRAVEL. Friction angle calculation for GRAVEL ... An equation derived by Peck, Hansen, Thornburn (1974), has been used to calculate friction angle. = 27.1 + 0.360 0.00054[60 ]2

N60 = Standard penetration value or N-value

Considering the zone beneath the footing in Area 1, it is estimated that a reasonable average N-value would be N=21 for the GRAVEL material. This Nvalue is based on the average of N-values between the reduced levels of 29.4m OD and 22m OD. Within this zone the N-values increasingly improve with depth and N=21 seems a reasonably conservative estimate. = 27.1 + 0.3(21) 0.00054[21]2

Table 7: Summary of friction angles

Au

th

or

The calculations for Area 2 and 3 are included in appendix 4.

:J

oe
Area 1 33

= 33

C
Area 2 29

or m

Friction Angle

24

ac k
Area 3 33

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

It should be noted that for Area 2, the material is made up of a loose GRAVEL. It is proposed to improve the ground by method of dynamic compaction. For the purposes of this report, soil parameters shall be taken for the conditions as present and the proposed method of ground improvement will be listed as a recommendation.

3.1

Bearing Capacity for Area 1 (ULS)

The following calculations satisfy an ULS (Ultimate limit state) design for shallow pad foundations. Combination 2 was proposed as the design consideration due to the variability of soil conditions.

considered.

25

Au

th

or

:J

Applying the partial factor to the friction angle, a new friction angle is
1

oe

tan tan 33 = 1 = 26 1.25 1.25

Combination 2 requires factors to be applied which reduce the friction angle. = 33

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Table 8: Meyerhof, Hansen, Vesic.

The following factors are intended to allow for the effect of the shape of the

= 25/3

Au

th

= 1.54; = 1.49; = 0.6

= 21/3 = 1.6 21/3 = 33.6/2

= (0/2 22.6 1.54) + (33.6/2 12.2 1.49) 1 + (3.5 21/3 13.2 0.6) 2 = 0/2 + 611/2 + 291/2 = /

26

or

1 = + + 2

:J

= 1 +

= 1 + tan

oe

taken from De Beer (1970).

foundation. These factors have been derived by means of laboratory tests and are

= 1 0.4

= 22.6 = 12.2

= 13.2

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

3.5 3.5 0.75 25/3 = 229.7 3.5 3.5 0.85 21/3 = 218.7 = 300 = 300 Surcharge due to soil = 2,700

Self-weight of R.C. foundation

Table 9: Summary of Bearing Capacities

Au

approximately similar to the formation level of the pond (approx. 25m OD)

th

the south east corner of the site where the foundation has a formation level

or

5. A subsequent bearing capacity calculation was carried out for foundations on

:J

Calculations for bearing capacities in Area 2 and Area 3 are included in Appendix

oe
Area 1

902/2 3.5 3.5 = 3.12 3 538

(1.0 3,148.4) + (1.3 300) = . =

C
Area 2

1 = 2 + 2 + 1

Apply partial factors from Design Approach 1 (Eurocode 7), Combination 2.

Area No.s
Area 3 859kN/m2 Bearing Capacities 902kN/m2 586kN/m2

27

or m

ac k

= 2,700 + 229.7 + 218.7 = 3,148.4

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Having now established and satisfied that the ground is stable in the ultimate limit state, it must also be satisfied in the short term i.e. the serviceability limit state. The following calculations will verify the reliability of the structure in the short term by analysing the expected settlement of the building.

Where Si = Initial Settlement

B = Width of Foundation (m) qapp = Applied Pressure (kPa) D/B = 1.6m/3.5m = 0.46 H/B = 6m/3.5m = 1.71

E = Youngs Modulus (MPa) (Table 2-8, Bowles, Pg.125)

Calculation of 0 can be obtained from the following graph

Au

th

0.95

or

:J

28

oe

Is = Influence factor based on foundation shape (College Notes)

M
Figure 1: 0

or m

ac k

3.2

Settlement for Area 1 (SLS)

0 1

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Calculation of 1 can be obtained from the following graph

Figure 2: Average immediate settlement of a loaded area

It was stated by the engineer that 15mm of settlement was tolerable for the building. Settlement calculations for the remaining two areas are included in Appendix 10.

1 = 0.006859 = 6.8 < (15)

Table 10: Summary of Settlement

th

or

:J

oe
Area 1 6.8mm

Au

1 =

0.95 0.5

3538 /2 3.5 (3.5 3.5) 70 000 /2

C
Area 2 9.6mm

Area No.s
Area 3 6.8mm

Settlement

29

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

3.3

Site Characterisation

Material was a mixture of loose and dense sandy GRAVEL or gravelly SAND. SILT was present in boreholes mainly those constructed to the east of the site where the embankment was situated. The highest percentage of SILT, recorded in a PSD test, was found in BH3 at 28.1m OD. BH12 was particularly loose with stiff bottom having being ceased at 6.6m. The extent of the loose material discovered at the

geophysical examination of the site confirms the material in this region to be

Examining the SPT, N-values described granular deposits as loose to dense with N-values ranging from 4 to 50 to depths 11.50m below ground level (bgl). CLAY was encountered at BH18, between 30m OD and 28.5m OD, N-value 8(approx),

The site was predominately made up of GRAVEL, and the PSD plots agree with this, however the PSD plots differ somewhat to the description of the boreholes. BH6 between 35m OD and 30.7m OD, the layer was described as being firm sandy gravelly SILT, however, the PSD plot argues this by showing 66% GRAVEL and just 6% SILT.

30

Au

th

or

engineers description was termed, loose grey brown sandy CLAY.

:J

oe

the geophysical examination carried out.

loose material. Appendix 11 shows a graphical representation of the findings of

or m

south west of the site is identified by BH12 with N-values as low as 4. A

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

A thick band of sandy GRAVEL was encountered between BH12 & BH13 to 1.5m bgl. The area of most concern lies within Area 2 where there is an extensive zone of loose gravel. Plate bearing tests carried out within this zone indicate a significant

procedure of carrying out the plate bearing test has actually compacted the material.
Table 11: Summary of Plate Test Results

Equivalent CBR % Plate Test No. Initial No.1 No.4 No.5 No.7 No.8 1.3 0.26 0.94 0.77 1.1

c
Reload 23

or m
Settlement (mm) Initial 5.25 11.75 5.45 6.5 5.5 Reload 5.75 13.25 5.55 7.25 6.0

oe

:J

or

In most cases the modulus of subgrade reaction was more than 3 times the initial in the reload. This suggests what was earlier touched upon, where the loading sequence during the test is compacting the ground. Ground improvement by dynamic compaction is a viable method of increasing the bearing capacity of this loose GRAVEL material. Plate test No.4 displayed a large degree of settlement, 31

Au

th

M
4.9 23.73 13.44 24.6

ac k

difference in the initial and reload values leading to the suggestion that the

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

however when compared against the dynamic probe results at the same depth, a significant improvement was noted beyond this depth. This leads to the conclusion that this plate test was possibly carried out on a pocket of slightly soft, non-representative soil. Plate test No. 7 agrees with the dynamic probe and BH12, carried out adjacent to this test, and also the geophysical examination in this region, so there is continuity in most cases and it is reasonable to consider

In most cases, N-values increase significantly with depth and therefore it is reasonable to assume that bearing capacities are also greater at greater depths. The values chosen for design purposes are of the less dense state and therefore are conservative representations of the true potential of most materials when considering degree of compaction and allowable bearing stresses achievable. Dynamic compaction can offer a maximum improvement by raising the bearing capacity to approximately 125kN/m2. A design consideration would be to limit this value to 100 kN/m2 in the zone of loose material and subsequently base the pad dimensions to suit this bearing capacity accordingly. A report attached, outlines various methods of dynamic compaction, Appendix 12.

32

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

all forms of data when analysing the ground conditions.

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

3.4

Soil Strata Parameters

Table 12: Soil strata

Layer No. Stratum

GRAVEL, some silt and sand, angularity unknown, groundwater

(kN/m3) Depth(m) Colour

(deg)

conditions vague primarily at 27m OD. N-value average 25. Ground stiffer at 5.0m bgl. Area 2 has loose GRAVEL, improvement proposed. Mixture of SILT & GRAVEL, angularity unknown. N-value average 15. Likely

36

21

c
30 32 34 0

C
0.30m to 17 4.5m 0.00m to 18 2.0m 19 Varying 19 Varying

4.0m bgl, engineers report vague.

of GRAVEL.

Au

th

33

or

slightly silty, angularity unknown, groundwater not present. N-value average 13

SAND, some gravel, angularity

unknown, groundwater not present. N-value average 13

CLAY, some gravel, silt and sand, angularity unknown, groundwater@ 28.0m OD. N-value average 13 Boulders with some cobbles, angularity unknown, caused refusal in most SPT tests

:J

Mixture of both SAND and GRAVEL,

oe

PSD plot confirms higher quantities

formed by river, groundwater @3.0m-

or m

ac k
0.30m to 11.50m

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Note: depths extended in some cases by dynamic probing. Unit weight values taken from Bowles

text book, pg.141, Table 3-4. Refer to Appendix 1 for colour scheme.

3.5

Groundwater

The description throughout most of the borehole logging is vague and assumptions were made in cases where the engineer did not make comment on

may have been the case where due to the small diameter of the boreholes (200mm), veins of water could have been missed. Water strikes were noted in some cases. Groundwater monitoring took place at BH10, a slotted standpipe was installed to 6.0m bgl, with flush cover, fine pea-gravel filter and a bentonite seal.

Location

oe :J

Groundwater Level, bgl Groundwater Details (m) ------3.30m ------5.0m 4.0m

No comment on G/W status No comment on G/W status No G/W encountered Water depth at start of day 3.30m bgl AND end of day 3.90m bgl. No G/W encountered No G/W encountered No G/W encountered Water depth at start of day 5.0m bgl AND end of day 10.20m bgl. Water at start of day 27/06/12 4.0m bgl

BH1 BH2

34

Au

th

BH2 R/B BH3 BH4

BH4 R/B 1 BH4 R/B 2 BH6 BH7

or

Table 13: Groundwater status

or m

ac k

the direction or datum. Groundwater was not encountered in all boreholes. It

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

BH8 BH9

3.60m 4.90m 5.60m: not clear see

Water at start of day 26/06/12 3.60m bgl and at end of day 6.1m bgl No comment on G/W status

BH10 Appendix 13 BH10 BH11 BH12 BH13 BH14 BH18 4.10m ---------

Installed standpipe 6.0m bgl

Water at start of day 29/06/12

No comment on G/W status

Groundwater levels indicate groundwater is not considered likely to cause any significant upthrust forces and in most cases formation levels of foundations are found significantly higher than the water table. Monitoring of groundwater also took place to examine whether water was contaminated in the area (20m*20m) on the north face of the building. The details of this monitoring is dealt with and discussed in the contamination report.

35

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

No comment on G/W status No comment on G/W status No comment on G/W status

ac k
4.5m bgl

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

4.0
5.1

Geotechnical Review
Ground Model

The site ground model was defined by very sandy slightly silty GRAVEL form

GRAVEL. Further investigations may be required in Area 2 where an extensive area of loose GRAVEL is present. The attached geophysical investigation gives a good outline on the extent of this loose gravel.

A drawing is included in appendix 1 of this report which is an interpretation of

the information obtained from the borehole logs, geophysical examination and SPT values.

36

Au

th

or

:J

oe

the ground conditions below ground level. The interpretation was created with

or m

ac k

0.00m to 11.50m in most cases. In some cases there was stiff CLAY underlain the

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

5.0

Reusability of Material

Four trial pits were constructed on material from the embankment on the east of the site. Various samples were recovered from the trial pits in order to determine if the material was suitable for reuse as a sub-base for the ground bearing floor slab. The locations of the trial pits is unknown, however the samples taken can be

There were 3 main considerations for the suitability of reuse for this material Grading Degree of potential compaction Moisture Content

The most important material parameter for the intended purpose of this material

Manual for Roads and Bridges). Material is defined with regard to Description Properties Expected results and degree of improvement

37

Au

type material and should be designed in conjunction with the DMRB (Design

th

compaction for its intended use. The specification for this material is a capping

or

density and MCV to establish whether or not this material can achieve enough

:J

is the moisture content. This should be used in conjunction with the CBR, dry

oe

or m

considered representative of the entire material present in the embankment.

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

From consulting the PSD plot results, it is clear that the material in the embankment is predominantly very sandy GRAVEL with some SILT. When considering this material for use as a capping layer, the DMRB divides material into sub-classes. The material in the embankment is referred to by the DMRB as 6F3 material. 6F3 material is considered a natural granular fill type material. Another reason for selecting this class was that it accepted 15% SILT and a

content. The maximum percentage of SILT found in the material was 13.4%. The

Upon studying the test results it became clear very quickly that the material had a large variety in moisture contents ranging from 7.38% to 12.4%. The average optimum moisture content of the material lies approximately at 7.5%. In some

differences in these values. Standard procedure in a laboratory environment requests lab technicians to mix the undisturbed samples in such a manner that any smaller sample taken thereafter is representative of the entire sample. If attention is drawn toward TPR1, the natural moisture content recorded during dry density versus m/c is 7.9%, which is ideal material to work with because it is very close to the optimum m/c. However, material taken from the same sample to 38

Au

th

close, however there were equal amount of times when there was large

or

cases the natural moisture content and the optimum moisture content were very

:J

oe

material.

moisture content of the material raises questions about the suitability of the

or m

moisture content between the optimum moisture content and -2% moisture

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

perform CBR has m/c of 12%. Again the sample has a wide variety of moisture contents. This conspires that the embankment material is the same. When the moisture content was close to the optimum, the values for CBR, MCV and dry density were good. In order to consider the material as appropriate for reuse, the material should be allowed to dry for a period of time. This can be prepared by laying material out in thin layers in weather that enables drying to occur reasonably quickly. This may not be suitable due to the type of weather normally experienced in this area. Another method of drying the material is by method of introducing an additive

dry out the material, is not as suitable and as useful as something like cement. The material which is representative of the embankment is similar to that of a concrete mix material, made up of sandy GRAVEL with some silt. With that said, a cement based additive may be more suitable as a solution for improving the material. The amount of cement required to improve this material is generally in 39

Au

from the PSD plot that this is not the case and therefore Lime, although it would

th

reaction that binds the material together into a pottery type material. It is evident

or

the Lime to induce whats known as a pozzolanic reaction, which is a chemical

:J

has a minimum of 10% of CLAY. This percentage of CLAY is required in order for

oe

When considering Lime as a solution, it is important that the material considered

such as Lime or Cement or a combination of both.

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

the range of 4-5% of the dry weight of the soil, this should quantify enough improvement in order to stabilize the material sufficiently. The DMRB provides the adequate compactive effort required from plant in order to compact material sufficiently after addition of cement. This includes number of passes, weight and vibratory effort required from the various plant. Subsequent tests to quantify improvement of material should be carried out by performing plate bearing tests. Any GRAVEL material which may be left over and not used beneath the slab, should be considered appropriate as a fill material for the pond. The material would not require the same degree of compaction and the addition of additives such as cement would not be required as the disused pond is not required for structural loading of any great significance, except for construction traffic over the course of development.

40

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

6.0

Contamination Report

An area, 20m * 20m, at the south end of the site was discovered to be contaminated due to storage of hydraulic oils and brake fluids for plant that was in operation in the existing factory. An excavation took place which removed a volume of the material in this area of 20m * 20m * 1m deep. This material was stockpiled on a HDPE liner and the same liner material was used to cover the material. Investigations then began in order to understand the extent of the

understanding the range of TPH C1-C40. Two main considerations are important when evaluating this scenario. Has the full extent of contaminants been excavated

It is known that the site falls from north to south and it was dually accepted that the groundwater somewhat followed the topography of the site. Due to the

41

Au

considering 3 things... Source

Pathway Receptor

th

the full extent of contamination was discovered. This was simply done by

or

A risk assessment was designed for the area where it was still unknown whether

:J

material?

oe

from the area? What is the appropriate means of dealing with the stockpiled

contamination beyond the already known effected area. Tests were focussed on

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

granular nature of the material, it was assumed that the groundwater would continue this fashion and further travel south away from the proposed building. A bored well is proposed to be a viable monitoring procedure and should therefore be positioned just south of the area already excavated. If it is deemed that a high degree of contamination is present, a pump may be lowered into the bored well to remove the contamination.

Results from laboratory test samples reveal the extent of the contamination. There were 6 samples taken from the base of the contaminated area and the results were positive.

42

Au

th

or

:J

oe

Table 14: Base analysis for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

The laboratory test results for TPH prove that the full extent of contamination has been recovered and it can be assumed all contaminated material rests in the stockpile. BH3 was the only borehole which registered any sign of remaining hydrocarbons. Aliphatic analysis C10 C12 registered 2.3mg/kg with a target value of 11mg/kg and C12 C16 registered 9mg/kg with a target value of 430mg/kg. No further analysis is required for the base of this affected area as

Analysis of groundwater also took place in the vicinity of this area. The following table shows the results.
Table 15: G/W contaminant analyses

Au

43

th

or

:J

groundwater. These values are not however tested to drinking water standards and therefore it should be considered a non-potable source until such time that analysis is performed to argue this. Benzene is shown here as <5ug/l. The Water Framework Directive states that this particular parameter be tested to satisfy a drinking water target value of <1ug/l. It is not clear from this laboratory analysis that the level of Benzene in the water is at a safe limit for consuming

oe

which exceed target values, finding their way into

Again these results indicate that there is no contaminants,

or m

TPH results indicate no further threat.

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

as a potable source. This may alarm people living in the vicinity to learn of a potential contamination scare. Laboratory analysis was carried out on the material stockpiled and wrapped in the HDPE liner. The results of this laboratory analysis can be found below.

44

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

ac k

Table 16: Stockpile Contamination Analysis

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Values highlighted in yellow represent parameters whom have exceeded the target limits specified in the column outlined in red. In other cases the parameters were significantly lower than the target limit, however, all this material must be considered the same as the material is mixed in the stockpile and there is no way of distinguishing between contaminated and uncontaminated materials. It was investigated to determine the cost of disposal of the stockpiled material. A contaminated soil disposal business, ENVA, was contacted in order to determine an approximate price for the disposal of the stockpiled material. They quoted a price of 150.00/tonne. It was then calculated how much it would cost to dispose of the entire stockpile.

volume of 400m3 removed and placed in the stockpile.

stockpiled material. A cost was not established with this company but it is assumed to be in the same region as stated above.

45

Au

Another company, RILTA Environmental LTD, were considered for to treat the

th

720 150/ = 108000

or

4003 1.8/3 = 720

:J

oe

A density of 1.8tonnes/m3 was assumed for the material. There was an overall

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

7.0
7.1

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions
The site in question was characterised by loose to dense, soft to stiff in

There were minimal volumes of both SILT and COBBLES, only minor

Bedrock was identified at various depths throughout the exploration. The water struck during construction of boreholes was at depths not

Laboratory and in-situ testing was carried out including o Particle Size Distribution o SPT

o Determination of the Plastic Limit and PI

These tests helped characterise the different materials discovered. Engineers report was vague in areas and at times it was hard to distinguish the true classification of the materials from the borehole logs.

46

Au

th

o Dynamic Probing

o Geophysical Examination

or

o Plate bearing test

:J

o Sample natural m/c

oe

exceeding 5.6m and no higher than 3.3m.

or m

deposits found throughout layers.

ac k

depths ranging from 0.00m to 11.50m bgl.

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

When dividing the site into the different areas, it could be argued that Area 2 was made too big and that it turned out that the zone of loose material was confined to a smaller area further into the south west corner of the proposed building.

Provide support for foundations whose depth exceeds 1.2m

A pump may be required to extract water from excavations which extend beyond the natural water table. This may be encountered at the south east corner where the formation level of the foundation is at 25m OD.

binding the sub-base material taken from the embankment. There is not enough CLAY content present in the material to bind the material together.

where the material is loose (BH12). Appendix 12 contains information

47

Au

about the various methods of dynamic compaction. Contaminated area on the north face of the building should be tested in accordance with water framework directive parameters so that the source can satisfy a drinking water standard.

th

or

Dynamic compaction may be required on the south west side of the site

:J

oe

Cement should be used as the additive for the purpose of drying out and

or m

ac k

7.2

Recommendations

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

7.3

References

Bowles: Foundation Analysis and Design (5th edition) De Beer: Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations. Lambe and Whitman: Series in Soil Mechanics R.Day: Foundation Engineering Eurocode 7: Designers guide to BS EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Ground investigation and testing I. Smith: Smiths Soil Mechanics

48

Au

th

or

:J

oe

or m

ac k

January 29, 2013

INTERPRETIVE REPORT

8.0

Appendices

APP 1. Graphical Interpretation of Ground Conditions APP 2. Exploration Location Map APP 3. Zone of Influence Calculations APP 4. Friction Angle Calculations APP 5. Bearing Capacity Calculations APP 6. Health and Safety Risk Assesment APP 7. Portal Frame Drawings (A1) APP 8. Additional Information request

APP 9. MCV, PSD, DD/Moisture content for Trial Pits APP 10. APP 11. APP 12. APP 13. Settlement Calculations

49

Au

APP 14.

th

and PSD plots Supervision meetings minutes

or

Dynamic Compaction report Original borehole logs with dynamic probe results, plate test results

:J

Geophysics Investigation

oe

or m

ac k