CONE PENETRATION TESTING SOIL TYPE … daps... · 22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track/Truck) and...

Cone Resistan

ce, q

t

O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP18 CPT Interpretation.xlsxGalt Form PMP18

RL 0 October 2009

DEFINITIONSqt : Cone tip resistance corrected for pore water pressure

St : Sensitivity

e : Void ratioDr : Relative density

OCR : Overconsolidation ratio

OC : Overconsolidated

SOIL BEHAVIOUR TYPE ZONES1. Sensitive fine grained 7. Silty sand to sandy silt

2. Organic material 8. Sand to silty sand

3. Clay 9. Sand

4. Silty clay to clay 10. Gravelly sand to sand

5. Clayey silt to silty clay 11. Very stiff fine grained material (OC/cemented)

6. Sandy silt to clayey silt 12. Sand to clayey sand (OC/cemented)

NOTESA. Some overlap in type zones is expected

B. Local correlations are preferred and may indicate soil type boundaries that are different

from those shown above

Reference: Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Grieg, J. (1986) "Use of Piezometer Cone Data". Proceedings of the ASCE Speciality

Conference In Situ '86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, pp 1263‐80, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Friction Ratio (%)

CONE PENETRATION TESTING (CPT)

SOIL TYPE INTERPRETATION

O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP18 CPT Interpretation.xlsxGalt Form PMP18

RL 0 October 2009

File: Dummy probe to (m): Cone I.D. :

Refusal:

Water (m):

LOCATION: 271 Selby Street, Churchlands

PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Development

CLIENT: Psaros Builders

22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track/Truck)

and IRTP 2001 for friction reducerTested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Co-ordinates:

Job Number: J1401118

Probe No.: All Data

Date: 25/6/14

ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PENETROMETER

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26

Tip Resistance qc (MPa)

Dep

th (m

)

CP

T 1

CP

T 2

CP

T 3

CP

T 4

0 1 2 3 4 5

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26

Friction Ratio Rf (%)

Dep

th (m

)

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

400

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26

Friction Sleeve fs (kPa)

Dep

th (m

)

File: GL0248TT Dummy probe to (m): Cone I.D. : EC144

Refusal:

Water (m): Dry to 1.9






Co-ordinates:


Probe No.: CPT 1

Date: Wednesday, 25 June 2014


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 1 2 3 4 5

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

400

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)


Refusal:

Water (m): 1.7






Co-ordinates:


Probe No.: CPT 2



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 1 2 3 4 5

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

400

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)


Refusal:

Water (m): 1.7






Co-ordinates:


Probe No.: CPT 3



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 1 2 3 4 5

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

400

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)


Refusal:

Water (m): 1.7






Co-ordinates:


Probe No.: CPT 4



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 1 2 3 4 5

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

400

01

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

26


Dep

th (m

)

Galt Geotechnics Pty Ltd

www.galtgeo.com.au 2/39 Flynn St, WEMBLEY WA 6014

ABN: 73 292 586 155

Appendix C: Hand Auger Borehole Reports

EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE READ WITH BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTSMETHOD OF DRILLING OR EXCAVATION

AC Air Core E Excavator PQ3 PQ3 Core Barrel

AD/T Auger Drilling with TC‐Bit EH Excavator with Hammer PT Push Tube

AD/V Auger Drilling with V‐Bit HA Hand Auger R Ripper

AT Air Track HMLC HMLC Core Barrel RR Rock Roller

B Bulldozer Blade HQ3 HQ3 Core Barrel SON Sonic Rig

BH Backhoe Bucket N Natural Exposure SPT Driven SPT

CT Cable Tool NMLC NMLC Core Barrel WB Washbore

DT Diatube PP Push Probe X Existing Excavation

SUPPORTT Timbering

PENETRATION EFFORT (RELATIVE TO THE EQUIPMENT USED)

VE Very Easy E Easy F Firm

H Hard VH Very Hard

WATER

Water Inflow Water Level

Water Loss (complete)

Water Loss (partial)

SAMPLING AND TESTINGB Bulk Disturbed Sample P Piston Sample

BLK Block Sample PBT Plate Bearing Test

C Core Sample U Undisturbed Push‐in Sample

CBR CBR Mould Sample U50: 50 mm diameter

D Small Disturbed Sample SPT Standard Penetration Test

O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP19 Explanatory Notes Rev1.xlsxGalt Form PMP19

RL1 February 2010

D Small Disturbed Sample SPT Standard Penetration Test

ES Environmental Soil Sample Example: 3, 4, 5 N=9

EW Environmental Water Sample 3,4,5: Blows per 150 mm

G Gas Sample N=9: Blows per 300 mm after

HP Hand Penetrometer 150 mm seating interval

LB Large Bulk Disturbed Sample VS Vane Shear; P = Peak

M Mazier Type Sample R = Remoulded (kPa)

MC Moisture Content Sample W Water Sample

ROCK CORE RECOVERY

TCR = Total Core Recovery (%)

SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%)

RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)

TCL Length of Core Run

CRL Recovered Length of Core

CCR Total Length of Cylindrical Pieces of Core RecoveredALC>100 Total Length of Axial Lengths of Core Greater than 100 mm Long

100TCL

CRL

100TCL

CCR

100100

TCL

ALC

O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP19 Explanatory Notes Rev1.xlsxGalt Form PMP19

RL1 February 2010

METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONBOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTSGRAPHIC LOG & UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) SYMBOLSGraphic USCS Soil Name Graphic USCS Soil Name

FILL (various types) SM

COBBLES ML

BOULDERS MH

GP GRAVEL (poorly graded) CL

GW GRAVEL (well graded) CI

GC Clayey GRAVEL CH

SP SAND (poorly graded) OL

SW SAND (well graded) OH

SC Clayey SAND Pt

RESISTANCE TO EXCAVATIONSymbol Term

VE Very easy

E Easy

F Firm

H Hard

VH Very hard

SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHYSoil descriptions are based on AS1726‐1993, Appendix A. Material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods

in combination with field testing techniques (where used).

PARTICLE SIZE PLASTICITY PROPERTIESParticle Size (mm)

>200

63 to 200

Coarse 20 to 63

Medium 6 to 20

Fine 2 to 6

Coarse 0.6 to 2.0

Medium 0.2 to 0.6

Fine 0.075 to 0.2

SILT 0.002 to 0.075

CLAY <0.002

MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726‐1993

Symbol Term

D Dry

M Moist

W Wet

CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726‐1993 and HB160‐2006

Symbol Term

Undrained Shear

Strength (kPa) SPT "N"

DCP blows

per 100 mm Symbol Term

Density

Index (%) SPT "N"

DCP blows

per 100 mm

PSP Blows

per 300 mm

VS Very Soft 0 to 12 0 to 2 <1 VL Very Loose <15 0 to 4 <1 0 to 2

S Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 <1 L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10 1 to 2 2 to 6

F Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 1 to 2 MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30 2 to 3 6 to 8

St Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15 3 to 4 D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50 4 to 8 8 to 15

VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 5 to 10 VD Very Dense >85 >50 >8 >15

H Hard >200 >30 >10 Note: PSP correlations only valid to 450 mm depth

Consistency and density may also be inferred from excavation performance and material behaviour.

Description

All resistances are relative to the selected method of excavation

Soil Name

Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays and silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.

Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.

Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.

Description

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

SAND

FINES

Silty SAND

SILT (low liquid limit)

PEAT

Organic SILT (high liquid limit)

Organic SILT (low liquid limit)

CLAY (high plasticity)

CLAY (medium plasticity)

CLAY (low plasticity)

SILT (high liquid limit)

0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Plasticity Index (%

)

Liquid Limit (%)

CL ‐ low plasticity clay

CI ‐mediumplasticity clay

CH ‐ high plasticity clay

OH or MH ‐high liquid limit siltOL or ML ‐

low liquid limit silt

OL or ML ‐ low liquid limit silt

CL/ML ‐ clay/silt

\\Galt‐sbs2011\data\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP17 Method of Soil Description‐Rev3.xlsx

Galt Form PMP17

RL2 January 2011

RickPiovesan

Line

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

HA

Possible FILL: SAND, fine to medium grained, sub-angular tosub-rounded, yellow, trace organics, trace rootlets

Black-brown

Yellow, trace fine to medium grained, red-orange gravel

Hole Terminated at 1.00 mTarget depthGroundwater Not Encountered

M

W

SP

Sketch & Other Observations

ME

TH

OD

Field Material DescriptionSamplingDrilling

WA

TE

R

RLDEPTH

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

See Explanatory Notes and Method of Soil Description sheets fordetails of abbreviations and basis of descriptions

Sheet 1 OF 1

Operator: SM

Inclination: -90°

Date: 27/06/2014

Logged: SMChecked Date: 18/07/2014

Checked By: ORW


Client: PsarosProject: Site Investigation

Location: 271 Selby Street, Wembley

Comments:

HAND AUGER BOREHOLE: HA01G

ALT

LIB

1.0

1.G

LB L

og G

G_E

XC

AV

AT

ION

J14

0111

8.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

18/

07/2

014

10:1

9 8

.30.

003

Dat

gel D

GD

, CP

T, P

hoto

, Mon

itorin

g T

ools

| Li

b: G

ALT

1.0

1 20

13-0

2-21

Prj:

GA

LT 1

.01

2013

-02-

21

STRUCTURE ANDADDITIONAL

OBSERVATIONS

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

AC

ID S

ULP

HA

TE

SA

MP

LE

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

HA

Possible FILL: SAND, fine to medium grained, sub-angular tosub-rounded, yellow, trace non-plastic fines

Dark brown, trace fines, trace organics

Grey becoming white with depth

Hole Terminated at 1.00 mTarget depthGroundwater Not Encountered

M

W

SP

Sketch & Other Observations

ME

TH

OD

Field Material DescriptionSamplingDrilling

WA

TE

R

RLDEPTH

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

See Explanatory Notes and Method of Soil Description sheets fordetails of abbreviations and basis of descriptions

Sheet 1 OF 1

Operator: SM

Inclination: -90°

Date: 27/06/2014

Logged: SMChecked Date: 18/07/2014

Checked By: ORW


Client: PsarosProject: Site Investigation

Location: 271 Selby Street, Wembley

Comments:

HAND AUGER BOREHOLE: HA02G

ALT

LIB

1.0

1.G

LB L

og G

G_E

XC

AV

AT

ION

J14

0111

8.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

18/

07/2

014

10:1

9 8

.30.

003

Dat

gel D

GD

, CP

T, P

hoto

, Mon

itorin

g T

ools

| Li

b: G

ALT

1.0

1 20

13-0

2-21

Prj:

GA

LT 1

.01

2013

-02-

21

STRUCTURE ANDADDITIONAL

OBSERVATIONS

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

AC

ID S

ULP

HA

TE

SA

MP

LE



ABN: 73 292 586 155

Appendix D: Permeability Test Results

Permeability Calculation - Inverse Auger Hole MethodGalt Geotechnics Spreadsheet author: ORW 17-Oct-09

Job No: J1401118Client: Psaros Builders

Site: 271 Selby StLocation: ChurchlandsCalc by: SM

BH Name: HA01 Parameter Description Value UnitsTest Depth: 0.67 m K Permeability m/sSpreadsheet Legend r radius of test hole 0.045 m

Required input t time since start of measurement sCalculated field hr reference point height above base 0.8 mComment field dt depth from reference point to water at time t mField not used ht Water column height at time t mFixed field h0 ht at t=0 m

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day) t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day) t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day)

0 0.35 0.45 0 0.35 0.45 0 0.4 0.430 0.46 0.34 2.0E-04 17.2 30 0.445 0.355 1.7E-04 14.5 30 0.465 0.335 1.3E-04 10.860 0.525 0.275 1.7E-04 15.0 60 0.5 0.3 1.4E-04 12.4 60 0.52 0.28 1.3E-04 10.890 0.565 0.235 1.5E-04 13.1 90 0.55 0.25 1.4E-04 11.9 90 0.555 0.245 1.1E-04 9.9120 0.6 0.2 1.4E-04 12.2 120 0.58 0.22 1.2E-04 10.8 120 0.585 0.215 1.1E-04 9.3150 0.625 0.175 1.3E-04 11.3 150 0.61 0.19 1.2E-04 10.3 150 0.61 0.19 1.0E-04 8.9180 0.655 0.145 1.3E-04 11.2 180 0.64 0.16 1.2E-04 10.3 180 0.635 0.165 1.0E-04 8.8

AVERAGE 1.5E-04 13.3 AVERAGE 1.4E-04 11.7 AVERAGE 1.1E-04 9.7

REFERENCE: Cocks, G. Disposal of Stormwater Runoff by Soakage in Perth Western Australia, Journal and News of the Australian Geomechanics Society, Volume 42 No 3 September 2007, pp101-114

0

t10010

tt

)r21h(log)r

21h(log

r15.1K

O:\Jobs\2014\J1401118 - Psaros 271 Selby St Wembley\08 Analysis\Permeability Inverse Auger Hole Method

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Per

mea

bilit

y, k

(m/d

ay)

Test time, t (seconds)

Permeability by Inverse Auger Hole Method

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

HA01


Permeability Calculation - Inverse Auger Hole MethodGalt Geotechnics Spreadsheet author: ORW 17-Oct-09

Job No: J1401118Client: Psaros Builders

Site: 271 Selby StLocation: ChurchlandsCalc by: SM

BH Name: HA02 Parameter Description Value UnitsTest Depth: 0.68 m K Permeability m/sSpreadsheet Legend r radius of test hole 0.045 m

Required input t time since start of measurement sCalculated field hr reference point height above base 0.8 mComment field dt depth from reference point to water at time t mField not used ht Water column height at time t mFixed field h0 ht at t=0 m

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day) t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day) t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day)

0 0.35 0.45 0 0.32 0.48 0 0.3 0.530 0.41 0.39 1.0E-04 8.8 30 0.38 0.42 9.5E-05 8.2 30 0.34 0.46 6.0E-05 5.260 0.46 0.34 9.9E-05 8.6 60 0.42 0.38 8.3E-05 7.2 60 0.38 0.42 6.2E-05 5.490 0.5 0.3 9.5E-05 8.2 90 0.455 0.345 7.8E-05 6.8 90 0.405 0.395 5.6E-05 4.8120 0.53 0.27 9.0E-05 7.8 120 0.49 0.31 7.7E-05 6.7 120 0.43 0.37 5.4E-05 4.6150 0.555 0.245 8.5E-05 7.4 150 0.51 0.29 7.1E-05 6.1 150 0.455 0.345 5.3E-05 4.6180 0.575 0.225 8.1E-05 7.0 180 0.54 0.26 7.2E-05 6.2 180 0.475 0.325 5.1E-05 4.4

AVERAGE 9.2E-05 8.0 AVERAGE 7.9E-05 6.9 AVERAGE 5.6E-05 4.8

REFERENCE: Cocks, G. Disposal of Stormwater Runoff by Soakage in Perth Western Australia, Journal and News of the Australian Geomechanics Society, Volume 42 No 3 September 2007, pp101-114

0

10010 )21(log)

21(log

15.1tt

rhrhrK

t


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Per

mea

bilit

y, k

(m/d

ay)

Test time, t (seconds)

Permeability by Inverse Auger Hole Method

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

HA02




ABN: 73 292 586 155

Appendix E: Understanding Your Geotechnical Engineering Report



Page | 1 ABN: 73 292 586 155

UNDERSTANDING YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

GALT FORM PMP11 Rev1

1. EXPECTATIONS OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

This document has been prepared to clarify what is and is not provided in your geotechnical report. It is intended to inform you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be and how to manage your risks associated with geotechnical conditions.

Geotechnical engineering is a less exact science than other engineering disciplines. We include this information to help you understand where our responsibilities as geotechnical engineers begin and end, to help the client recognise his responsibilities and risks. You should read and understand this information. Please contact us if you do not understand the report or this explanation. We have extensive experience in a wide variety of geotechnical problems and we can help you to manage your risk.

2. THIS REPORT RELATES TO PROJECT-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

This report was developed for a unique set of project-specific conditions to meet the needs of the nominated client. It took into account the following :

The project objectives as we understood them and as described in this report; the specific site mentioned in this report; and the current and proposed development at the site.

It should not be used for any purpose other than that indicated in the report. You should not rely on this geotechnical report if any of the following conditions apply:

the report was not written for you; the report was not written for the site specific to your development; the report was not written for your project (including a development at the correct site but other than that listed in the

report); or the report was written before significant changes occurred at the site (such as a development or a change in ground

conditions).

You should always inform us of changes in the proposed project (including minor changes) and request an assessment of their impact.

Where we are not informed of developments relevant to your geotechnical engineering report, we cannot be held responsible or liable for problems that may arise as a consequence.

Where design is to be carried out by others using information provided by us, we recommend that we be involved in the design process by being engaged for consultation with other members of the design team and by being able to review work produced by other members of the design team which relies on geotechnical information provided in our report.

Form PMP11 Rev1 16 December 2009



Page | 2 ABN: 73 292 586 155

3. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LOGS

Our reports often include logs of intrusive and non-intrusive geotechnical investigation techniques. These logs are based on our interpretation of field data and laboratory results. The logs should only be read in conjunction with the report they were issued with and should not be re-drawn for inclusion in other documents not prepared by us.

4. THIRD PARTY RELIANCE

We have prepared this report for use by the client. This report must be regarded as confidential to the client and the client’s professional advisors. We do not accept any responsibility for contents of this document from any party other than the nominated client. We take no responsibility for any damages suffered by a third party as a consequence of any decisions or actions they may make based on this report. Any reliance or decisions made by a third party based on this report are the responsibility of the third party and not of us.

5. CHANGE IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The geotechnical recommendations in this report are based on the ground conditions that existed at the time when the study was undertaken. Changes in ground conditions can occur in numerous ways including as a result of anthropogenic events (such as construction on or adjacent to the site) or natural events (such as floods, groundwater fluctuations or earthquakes). We should be consulted prior to use of this report so that we can comment on its reliability. It is important to note that where ground conditions have changed, additional sampling, testing or analysis may be required to fully assess the changed conditions.

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

Practical constraints mean that we cannot know every minute detail about the subsurface conditions at a particular site. We use engineering judgement to form an opinion about the subsurface conditions at the site. Some variation to our evaluated conditions is likely and significant variation is possible. Accordingly, our report should not be considered as final as it is developed from engineering judgement and opinion.

The most effective means of dealing with unanticipated ground conditions is to engage us for construction support. We can only finalise our recommendations by observing actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction. We cannot accept liability for a report’s recommendations if we cannot observe construction.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Unless specifically mentioned otherwise in our report, environmental considerations are not included. The investigation techniques used by us in developing our report differ from those for an environmental investigation. Our report was not prepared with environmental considerations in mind and it is the client’s responsibility to satisfy himself that environmental considerations have been taken into account for the site. If you require guidance on how to proceed on evaluating environmental risk at the site, we can provide further information and contacts.

O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP11 Understanding your Geotechnical Engineering Report.docx



ABN: 73 292 586 155

Appendix F: Understanding your Environmental Report

CONE PENETRATION TESTING SOIL TYPE … daps... · 22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track/Truck) and...

Documents

Transcript of CONE PENETRATION TESTING SOIL TYPE … daps... · 22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track/Truck) and...