GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site at ... INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site at on behalf of...

GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

for the site at

*****************

on behalf of

*****************

Land Science (Brighton) Ltd • 28-29 Carlton Terrace • Portslade • Brighton • East Sussex • BN41 1UR

T: 0845 604 6494 • F: 01273 423 216 • W: landscience.co.uk

Ground Investigation of 19 *****************

D O C U M E N T C O N T R O L

Title:

GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

Site: *****************

Client: *****************

Date: 08/12/2010

Reference: LS0237

Version: v2 (updated to incorporate CP borehole)

Prepared by:

SALLY REDMAN M.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.), F.G.S., AIEMA

Engineer

Checked by:

ELLIOT TOMS CEnv., M.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.), F.G.S., MIEnvSci

Managing Director

Land Science (Brighton) Ltd is part of the Land Science Ltd group of companies, specialist

consultants in Geotechnical Engineering and Contaminated Land for construction, regulation,

property ownership, and due diligence. By understanding our client’s needs and appreciating

the role that ground issues play within a wider context, we are able to provide focused,

pragmatic, and technically excellent advice. For more information on how Land Science can

benefit your project, please visit www.landscience.co.uk


C O N T E N T S

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5

1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 The Site ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Form of Development ................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Geotechnical Objectives .............................................................................................. 5

1.5 Geo-Environmental Objectives ..................................................................................... 5

1.6 Scope of Works .......................................................................................................... 5

1.7 Schedule of Work ....................................................................................................... 6

1.8 Standards .................................................................................................................. 6

1.9 Conditions ................................................................................................................. 7

2.0 DESK STUDY ............................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Site Walkover Survey .................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Geology ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 9

2.5 Sensitive Land Uses ..................................................................................................... 9

2.6 Industrial Land Uses .................................................................................................... 9

2.7 Radon ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.8 Ground Gases........................................................................................................... 10

2.9 Historical Data .......................................................................................................... 10

2.10 Previous Ground Investigations .................................................................................. 11

3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ......................................................................................... 12

3.1 Contamination Sources ............................................................................................. 12

3.2 Identified Receptors .................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkages ............................................................................ 13

3.4 Environmental Investigation Strategy .......................................................................... 13

4.0 ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 14

4.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Obstructions ............................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Geotechnical Field Testing ......................................................................................... 14

4.5 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................................................ 15

5.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 16

5.1 Traditional Foundations............................................................................................. 16

5.2 Piled Foundations ..................................................................................................... 17

5.3 Ground Floor Slabs ................................................................................................... 17

continued…


5.4 Excavations .............................................................................................................. 17

5.5 Retaining Walls and Slope Stability ............................................................................. 17

5.5 Pavements ............................................................................................................... 18

5.6 Building Materials ..................................................................................................... 18

5.7 Soakaways ............................................................................................................... 19

F I G U R E S

FIGURE 1: Site Location Plan

FIGURE 2: Investigation Layout Plan

A P P E N D I C E S

APPENDIX A: Desk Study

APPENDIX B: Engineering Logs

APPENDIX C: Geotechnical Testing Results


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Land Science (Brighton) Limited was instructed by ***************** to undertake a phase I

and phase II geotechnical and geo-environmental investigation in relation to the proposed

redevelopment of the site at ***************** (see figure 1).

1.2 The Site

In summary, the site comprised two residential development plots which were situated on a

steeply sloping land within the grounds of *****************. A site walkover survey is

presented in section 2.0.

1.3 Form of Development

It was understood that the proposed development was to comprise the construction of two

residential properties together with private gardens, areas of car parking, provision of utility

services, and associated infrastructure. The steeply sloping nature of the site required a number of

low retaining walls to be constructed. Figure 2 illustrates the layout of the proposed development.

1.4 Geotechnical Objectives

A geotechnical investigation was required to provide an interpretation of ground conditions with

respect to foundation design, pavement construction, soakaways, concrete specification,

excavation stability, basement construction parameters, and basic slope stability considerations.

1.5 Geo-Environmental Objectives

Furthermore, an investigation into geo-environmental aspects of the site was required, in order to

provide a generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) in respect of the proposed redevelopment,

adjacent land uses, and the wider environment, in the context of the planning regime and PPS23.

1.6 Scope of Works

Phase I of the investigation was to comprise a desk study of geotechnical and environmental factors

pertaining to the site, in order to formulate a geo-environmental Conceptual Site Model (‘CSM’),

and to identify areas of geotechnical concern relevant to the proposed redevelopment.

In turn, this information was used in the design of the Phase II intrusive investigation and, within

the constraints of the original appointment, the investigative positions and laboratory testing were

to be targeted to geotechnical and geo-environmental areas of concern as appropriate.

The scope of works initially agreed with the client broadly comprised the drilling of a series of

window sampler boreholes and accompanying dynamic probes, with preliminary falling head

soakage tests undertaken in a number of positions.


Soft weak Head Deposits were identified in the location of one of the proposed new dwellings

(lower plot), and Land Science returned to site with the Client to excavate a two further trial holes

in this location. Based on the findings, it was agreed to that a piled foundation solution was likely to

be required in this location, it was agreed to return to site to drill a cable percussive borehole to

obtain pile design parameters.

1.7 Schedule of Work

The following table summarises the dates that the various elements of the investigation works

were conducted:

Element Details

Instruction An instruction to proceed with the investigation was received from

************ on behalf of ************ on 29th

October, 2010.

Desk Study The desk study was commenced immediately upon receipt of the Client’s

instruction to proceed. A site walkover survey was conducted as part of the

field work.

Fieldwork The initial phase of intrusive investigation was completed on 9th

November,

2010. Land Science returned on 29th

November 2010 to excavate two

further trial holes with the Client on the lower plot. Based on the results,

Land Science returned to site on 6th

December 2010 to drill a cable

percussive borehole.

Laboratory Analysis Samples were submitted to the geotechnical laboratory (K4 Soils Ltd)

immediately upon completion of the first phase of fieldwork, with the

analysis completed by 26th November 2010.

Schedule of completion of investigation works

1.8 Standards

Where practicable, the ground investigation and subsequent geotechnical and environmental

assessments were undertaken in accordance with the following documents and guidance:

o CLR11: Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, DEFRA and

Environment Agency 2004

o Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports, Version 1

dated July 2005.

o Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Pollution.

o Building Regulations Approved Document C: Site preparation and resistance to contaminants

and moisture.

o NHBC Standards Chapter 4.1 Land Quality - Managing Ground Conditions, September 1999.

Other technical sources have been identified in respect of specific aspects of the investigation, as

referenced throughout the text.


1.9 Conditions

Geotechnical and/or environmental interpretations are inherently dependant on the conditions

revealed by a limited set of data and the accepted means of interpreting that data in use at the

time of the investigation. Every effort is made to ensure that such data is accurate and

representative, and that any assessment is performed under current best practice. However, we do

not accept any liability for the scope of the investigation, for conditions that have not been directly

revealed through the investigation, or for the ultimate reliability of any published and current

assessment criteria or procedures adopted in interpreting that data.

Any spatial or temporal extrapolation or inference is conjectural and no liability can be accepted for

its accuracy; in particular, differing conditions may be revealed between or under points of

investigation, and the concentrations or levels of mobile liquid and gaseous materials are likely to

vary over time. It is also an inherent aspect of any investigation that areas of concern not previously

anticipated are identified as works progress, and elements of the project design may vary during or

after completion of the investigation; whilst every effort is made to tailor the investigation to suit

within practical constraints as works progress, it may become necessary to undertake additional

investigation work.

Information contained in this report is intended for the use of the Client and his agents for the

purposes set-out in the text, and Land Science (Brighton) Ltd makes no warranty or representation

whatsoever express or implied with respect to the use of this information by any other party or for

uses other than those described. We do not indemnify the Client or any third parties against any

dispute, claim or consequential losses arising from any finding or other result of this investigation

report. No aspect of this report should be taken as a guarantee that a site is free of hazardous or

potentially contaminative materials.


2.0 DESK STUDY

The findings of the Phase I Desk Study are summarised in the following section, with relevant

information obtained presented in Appendix A. Comments made in the following section are based

purely on the desk study.

2.1 Site Walkover Survey

Land Science undertook two formal inspections of the site, once during the fieldwork on 9th

November 2010, and again on 29th

November 2010 to inspect excavations being made as part of

site enabling works.

In summary, the areas under investigation comprised two residential development plots situated

on steeply sloping land within the grounds of *************.

The lower plot was situated adjacent to the *************, with a flat level area (upon which the

new dwelling was to be constructed) and a bank at the rear rising steeply at around 30O to 40

O. The

ground was noted to be soft under foot. The area was heavily wooded; there were numerous tall

mature trees around the perimeter of the plot, and a number of old tree stumps were noted within

the plot itself.

Conditions in this area had broadly remained unchanged by the time of the second visit, with the

exception of a small cut having been made into the toe of the existing slope revealing heavily

weathered light brown Chalk putty with abundant intact Chalk fragments.

Access to the plots was gained via a shared driveway with *************. The driveway

transversed the slope diagonally upwards to the upper plot, before turning back on itself towards

the existing dwelling. The upper plot sloped less steeply than the bank between the two plots, at an

angle in the order of 10O. This plot comprised more formal gardens of the existing dwelling, with

the area being mainly laid to lawn with shrubs and the like.

By the time of the second visit an excavation into the slope to create the working area for the

building construction had been made, with a cut face up-slope approximately 2.00m high standing

near vertically and comprising reasonably unweathered blocky chalk.

2.2 Geology

British Geological Survey 1:50,000 sheet number 300 entitled "Alresford” indicated the geology of

the site to comprise the Lewes Nodular Chalk Member (hard nodular chalk with flints) with a thin

tract of Head Deposits along the lower southern boundary (variable deposits of sandy silty clay,

locally gravelly, chalky and flinty in dry valleys).

2.3 Hydrogeology

The table overleaf summarises the relevant groundwater vulnerability data for the site:


Aspect Classification Details

Superficial Deposits

(south of the site)

Secondary Aquifer

(undifferentiated)

Assigned in cases where it has not been possible to

attribute either category A or B to a rock type.

Bedrock geology Principle Aquifer These are layers of rock or drift deposits that have

high intergranular and/or fracture permeability -

meaning they usually provide a high level of water

storage. They may support water supply and/or river

base flow on a strategic scale.

Groundwater vulnerability data

The site has been identified to lie within a Source Protection Zone III. An SPZ is a protection zone

placed around a well or borehole that supplies groundwater of potable quality. An SPZ is divided

into three zones defined as follows:

o Zone I - Travel time (of water) of 50 days or less to the groundwater source.

o Zone II - Either 25% of the source area or a travel time of 400 days whichever is greater.

o Zone III - The total area needed to support the abstraction.

There were no groundwater abstractions identified within 500m of the site.

2.4 Hydrology

There are no major watercourses on site or in the immediate vicinity. The site does not lie within an

area classified as being susceptible to flooding. There were no surface water abstractions, discharge

licenses, or pollution incidents identified within 500m of the site.

2.5 Sensitive Land Uses

No such sensitive land uses were identified within a 250m radius of the site.

2.6 Industrial Land Uses

No potentially contaminative land uses were identified on site or in the immediate vicinity.

2.7 Radon

In accordance with BRE 211:2007, the site lies in an area where between 1% and 3% of homes

exceed the government threshold for Radon gas in residential dwellings. A BGS report obtained by

Land Science confirmed that basic Radon Protection Measures are required at this site. Basic Radon

Protection Measures include the use of a well-constructed damp-proof membrane through wall

cavities and beneath the floor scree. Such details should be shown on proposed construction

drawings, and installation should be verified by the building inspector.


2.8 Ground Gases

A search waste treatment and disposal sites was undertaken as part of the desk study. Such sites

may form an artificial source of land gases, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, where wastes are

buried or disposed of to landfill. No such waste facilities or landfill sites were identified within a

1km radius of the site. The risk to the site is likely to be generally very low in this respect.

In terms of land gases generated from natural sources, it was noted that the site was underlain by

Chalk. The dissolution of carbonate cements by the infiltration of acidic waters may give rise to the

generation of low levels of Carbon Dioxide.

2.9 Historical Data

Historical maps dating back to 1870 were obtained as part of the desk study. A summary of the

apparent key features noted on the map extracts both on the site and within the local area is

presented on the table below.

Date On Site Off Site

1870 The site comprises open land and a

small area of woodland.

The surrounding area comprises open land

with small areas of woodland. Beech Farm is

located to the north-west. A track runs along

to the south of the site.

1896 No significant changes noted. No significant changes noted.

1910 ************* is indicated; the

dwelling is not in the same location as

the present day and lies within a

parcel of land larger than the present

day. The development plots fall within

the associated gardens.

Residential properties have been developed to

the east and west.

1939 An ancillary building is noted to the

north of the main property and a

possible garage located to the south,

adjacent to the drive.

Further residential properties have been

developed to the north and east. Beech Farm

is now known as The Old Farm.

1977 A further small ancillary building has

been developed adjacent to the north

of the main building. The driveway

appears to have been realigned onto

land to the east.

Further residential properties are indicated in

the immediate vicinity. The track to the south

is now labelled *************.

1993 Insufficient coverage. Insufficient coverage.

1997 The dwelling appears to have been

demolished and replaced with a new

structure, commensurate with the

present day house.

One residential property has been developed

adjacent to the site.

Summary of Historical Map extracts


In summary, the site appeared to initially comprise open fields and woodland until c.1910, whereby

the land fell within the grounds of *************. The dwelling was located to the west of the

current existing property, close to the proposed location of the new dwelling on the upper plot. A

number of outbuildings and a garage were shown on subsequent maps. The 1997 map shows the

old dwelling to have been replaced with the current dwelling.

The surrounding area comprised open land with small woodland/scrubland areas, with a farm

(Beech Farm) located to the north-west up until c.1910 (later Beech Place). By c.1910, residential

properties had been developed within the immediate vicinity of the site, with further dwellings

being built after this date.

2.10 Previous Ground Investigations

Land Science (Brighton) Ltd was not aware of any previous investigation that may have been

undertaken on the site.


3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

The following sections summarise the anticipated environmental factors likely to impact upon the

site in the context of the proposed redevelopment, in order to provide a justification and rationale

for the subsequent phase II ground investigation.

3.1 Contamination Sources

Possible sources of contamination identified or discounted as part of the desk study are

summarised on the following table:

Source Description Notes

Land Gases Carbon Dioxide generated from the

dissolution of carbonate cements

within the New Pit Chalk Formation.

Possible trace levels of Carbon

Dioxide (CO2).

Radon Gas Naturally occurring Radon gas Basic Radon Protection Measures are

required for new dwellings at this

site.

Possible Sources of Contamination

3.2 Identified Receptors

Furthermore, potential receptors associated with the site and its redevelopment, identified or

otherwise discounted, are summarised on the following table:

Receptor Description Notes

Site Workers Persons involved in construction and

future maintenance.

Major ground works are proposed

including foundation excavation.

End Users Occupants of the proposed

redevelopment.

Residential development with private

domestic gardens.

Soft Landscaping Areas of planting including lawns,

shrubs, trees, etc.

Substantial areas of private soft

landscaping are proposed.

Building Materials Elements of the built environment in

direct contact with the ground.

Buried plastics (e.g. water supplies)

and concrete (e.g. foundations) may

be laid.

Adjacent Land

Users

Sensitive land uses identified within

the immediately vicinity

Residential gardens were identified

immediately adjacent to the site.

Ground Water Controlled Waters contained within

the aquifer(s) beneath the site

The site overlies a major aquifer and

the site lies within a groundwater SPZ

III (total catchment).

Possible Receptors of Contamination

Surface water and ecological receptors have not been identified as significant receptors.


3.3 Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkages

Whilst the various possible sources and receptors have been identified, the following matrix

illustrates the identified pathways by which a contaminant linkage might plausibly exist:

Source

Land Gases Radon Gases

Re

cep

tors

Site Workers Asphyxiation None

End Users None None

Soft Landscaping None None

Building Materials None None

Adjacent Land Users Not applicable Not applicable

Ground Water None None

Identified Source-Pathway-Receptor linkages

The proposed dwellings will include basic Radon Protection Measures. Such measures are also

sufficient to protect against low concentrations of Carbon Dioxide. No other sources have been

identified. As such no risks are posed to End Users.

Radon Gas and Land Gases (Carbon Dioxide) will not pose a risk to soft landscaping, building

materials, or groundwater, and pathways between off-site receptors and ubiquitous sources of

contamination that exist both on-site and off-site are not applicable to this assessment.

The concentrations of Radon Gas at this site are such that the workplace exposure limit set at

200Bq.m-3

is unlikely to be exceeded; thus no significant risk is posed in this respect.

Whilst a plausible risk may exist with respect to trace levels of Carbon Dioxide and site personnel

working in confined spaces such as deep excavations, pre-entry monitoring in accordance with

Health and Safety requirements should ensure that any risks posed in this respect are adequately

dealt with.

3.4 Environmental Investigation Strategy

On the basis that no significant plausible source-pathway-receptor linkages have been identified,

no environmental investigation was considered necessary. Deep excavation must be pre-monitored

for Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen (amongst any other gases as identified by a confined space risk

assessment) prior to personnel entry.


4.0 ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS

A factual record of the conditions encountered during the physical investigation of the site is

presented in the following sections.

4.1 Soils

According to published information the anticipated geological succession beneath the site was

indicated to comprise Lewes Nodular Chalk with a thin tract of Head Deposits in the southern lower

part of the site. The investigation generally confirmed the anticipated geological succession.

Topsoil was encountered in all window sampler boreholes, to depths in the range of 0.30m and

0.50mbgl. In summary, these materials generally comprised dark brown clayey sandy gravelly silt

with rootlets.

Head Deposits were encountered on the lower plot within WS2, WS3, the two further trial holes,

and BH1, and were proved to a maximum depth of 2.70mbgl (within the trial holes). Generally

these materials were identified as brown silty, sandy very gravelly CLAY (the gravel being fine to

coarse angular flint).

A further zone of similar materials was also encountered within WS6 to a depth of 2.80mbgl, close

to the location of the garage at the upper plot. These materials may represent localised weathering

of the underlying Chalk.

The Lewes Nodular Chalk was encountered across the site from depths in the range of 0.30m to

2.80mbgl, and was proved to a maximum depth of 15.50mbgl within the cable percussive borehole.

In the lower plot, the Chalk was noted to comprise white to light brown putty CHALK with limited

proportions of gravel sized medium density Chalk fragments. In the upper plot, these materials

were recovered as weak off-white gravel to cobble sized intact CHALK with horizons bearing limited

proportions of weathered Chalk putty; the in-situ Chalk exposed in the ongoing excavation at the

upper plot inspected during the second site visit was noted to be blocky and structured with widely

spaced and open (<3mm) joints and occasional flint beds.

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during excavation of any of the investigative positions, and was

not anticipated at shallow depth.

4.3 Obstructions

No below ground artificial impenetrable solid obstructions were encountered during the fieldwork.

4.4 Geotechnical Field Testing

Super Heavy Dynamic Probes were undertaken at positions WS1 and WS4.


Generally the results from WS1 ranged between DP’N’=1 to DP’N’=13, (predominantly less than

DP’N’=9, and averaging DP’N’=4); the values increased considerably between at 5.70m and 5.90m,

and the probe was terminated at 5.90m upon a flint or similar.

The results from WS4 generally ranged between DP’N’=3 to DP’N’=20 (predominantly less than

DP’N’=12, averaging approximately DP’N’=8); the values increased considerably between 5.50m to

6.00m with the position being terminated at 6.00m.

In-situ SPT tests were undertaken at 1.5m centres within the cable percussive borehole. A test

result of SPT’N’=9 was obtained for the Head Deposits. For the Chalk, two identical results of

SPT’N’=16 were obtained for the more weathered putty, increasing to between SPT’N’=18 and

SPT’N’=41 within the more intact Chalk below 6.00m.

4.5 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

The results of two Particle Size Distribution determinations undertaken on the New Pit Chalk

indicated the proportion of gravel was 32.9%-38.4%, sand 19.5%-24.6%, and silt/clay 36.9%-47.6 %.

The laboratory description of this material was off white putty CHALK with occasional fine to

medium intact chalk fragments.

The results of two Particle Size Distribution determinations undertaken on the Head Deposits

indicated the proportion of gravel was 43.3%-55.1%, sand 10.7%-12.5%, and silt/clay 34.2%-44.2%.

The laboratory description of this material was brown sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional fine to

medium chalk fragments (gravel is fine to medium and sub rounded to angular).

Atterberg Limit analysis on a sample of the New Pit Chalk gave a plasticity index of 6% (or 3.1%

when modified to account for the proportion passing the 425µm sieve). Within the Head Deposits,

plasticity indexes ranged between 20% and 40%, or between 11.8% and 21.2% when modified to

account for the proportion passing the 425µm sieve.

Water soluble Sulphate determination were undertaken on a total of two samples of soil, with the

results ranging between 0.09g/l and 0.10g/l; the accompanying pH results ranged between pH7.4

and 7.6. Elevated Sulphate and highly acidic soil is not generally associated with Chalk strata.


5.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

Subsequent to intrusive investigation of the site and receipt of the laboratory results, the following

interpretative assessments have been made with respect to engineering considerations.

5.1 Traditional Foundations

Based on the ground and groundwater conditions encountered within the boreholes on the upper

(northern) plot, it is considered that traditional foundations are appropriate for the proposed

development in that location.

However, on account of the deep Head Deposits and soft weathered putty nature of the underlying

Chalk, and on account of potential requirements for trench stability and heave precautions, it is

recommended that an alternative foundation such as the use of piles is considered for the Lower

(southern) plot.

The following recommendations in respect of traditional foundations apply to the northern plot

only.

The Chalk should be treated as not being susceptible to volume change as defined by the NHBC

Standards 4.2 (i.e. non shrinkable).

Based on the in-situ testing results and typical settlement parameters for the types of soil

encountered, a maximum net allowable bearing capacity of 150kPa is applicable to trench

foundations taken through any Made Ground, soft or loose zones, or disturbed soils, and wholly

into or onto the intact blocky Chalk of the Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation. This assessment

includes an appropriate factor of safety against shear failure, and total settlements should remain

within tolerable limits.

A zone of Head Deposits was identified at WS6, outside the footprint of the proposed main dwelling

structure but in close proximity to the nearby garage. The foundation excavations for the garage

should be carefully inspected, and where Head Deposits are encountered it is recommended that

either the widths are increased based on a maximum net allowable bearing capacity of 50kPa and

foundation nominally reinforced, or that they are taken down onto the less weathered blocky

Chalk. It should also be noted that the Head Deposits corresponded to a medium volume change

potential as defined by the NHBC Standards, and that heave precautions would be required within

the zone of influence of trees. It might be prudent to set out the foundations in this area and

excavate a number of strategically placed trial holes prior to construction to assess ground

conditions in this area.

No evidence of solution features was noted on the site during the investigation. The site lies within

an area where solution features may be present, and care should be taken during construction to

identify any possible suspect soil conditions. Special precautions may be required where evidence

of solution features is identified.


5.2 Piled Foundations

Piled foundations are recommended for the lower (southern) plot on account of the significant

thicknesses of soft shrinkable Head Deposits and weathered Chalk. The construction of piled

foundations is a specialist job and the advice of a reputable local contractor familiar with the type

of ground and groundwater conditions encountered on this site should be sought prior to finalising

the design. The actual working load for proposed piles will depend on the particular type of pile and

method of installation adopted.

The contractor should design piles in accordance with CIRIA Project Report 11, and in particular

should adopt factors of safety of 2.5 and 5 on the skin friction and end bearing working loads

respectively. For pile groups, the bearing value of each individual pile should be reduced by a factor

of 0.8 and a calculation made to check for the factor of safety against block failure. All piles should

be taken at least five times their diameter into the founding strata. Where bored piles are adopted,

casing may be required in the upper sections to prevent necking.

In accordance with the NHBC Standards, heave precautions may be required on the upper portions

of piles and on ground beams within the zone of influence of trees, and the piles should be

designed to resist uplift forces that may develop.

5.3 Ground Floor Slabs

Ground floor slabs on the upper dwelling may be constructed as ground bearing, with a maximum

net allowable bearing capacity of 25kN/m2. The sub-grade should be carefully proof rolled and any

soft or loose zones replaced with compacted granular engineering fill.

The use of a ground bearing floor slab for the garage at the upper plot will depend on ground

conditions exposed at the formation level; where significant thicknesses of Head Deposits are

encountered it would be necessary to adopt a suspended ground floor slab.

On account of the soil conditions at the lower plot, ground floor slabs should be fully suspended.

5.4 Excavations

Excavations within the Head Deposits may be generally stable in the short term, being susceptible

to possible localised spalling and collapse; shallow trenches to be left open for short periods may

simply be battered back to a safe angle, whilst appropriate trench support should be considered for

deeper trenches to be left open for prolonged periods. Excavations within the Chalk should remain

generally stable.

5.5 Retaining Walls and Slope Stability

A number of retaining walls are proposed, independent of the building construction, in order to

accommodate the new dwellings. A full engineering assessment of slope stability issues was outside

the scope of this report, although the following advice is given for preliminary purposes.


The excavations for the retaining walls at the upper plot had already been commenced at the time

of the second site visit by Land Science. The cut face was up to approximately 2.00-2.50m in height,

and exposed blocky and structured Chalk with broadly horizontal widely spaced and open (<3mm)

joints and occasional flint beds. Whilst cut faces in structured blocky Chalk can stand near vertically,

there are issues with long-term instability associated with spalling, issues related to weathering and

surface protection, and issues associated with serviceability. Where a cut slope is to be

incorporated into the final landscaping design, the angle should not exceed 60O and faces should be

provided with a basic surface protection to prevent spalling and weathering; above this angle, it is

recommended that a basic form of retaining wall is constructed.

Retaining walls approximately 1.50m in height are also required at the rear of the lower plot,

involving excavation along the toe of the slope, and special care and consideration should be given

when designing the associated temporary and permanent works. Materials in this area comprise a

mixture of weathered putty Chalk and soft Head Deposits, and it is likely that some form of

embedded retaining wall would be most appropriate. With reference to BS8002:2004, parameters

for retaining wall design in Head Deposits have been assessed as follows:

Parameter Value

Co-efficient of active earth pressure (Ka) 0.28

Co-efficient of passive earth pressure (Kp) 5.0

Saturated bulk density (γ) 18.0

Angle of shearing resistance of the soil (φ’) 30O

Preliminary retaining wall design parameters

These values are based on a number of critical assumptions, which must be checked and verified as

part of the actual retaining wall design:

o Angle of shearing resistance between the ground and the wall, δ = 20O

o The surface of the ground level to the rear of the wall is inclined at an angle, ß = 30O

o The retained soil may be characterised as a firm clay

5.5 Pavements

Given the variability of the likely sub-grade, it is recommended that the formation should be

treated as being frost susceptible for pavement design purposes, and therefore a minimum

pavement thickness of 450mm adopted. The formation should be carefully proof rolled and any

soft or loose zones replaced with well compacted granular fill.

5.6 Building Materials

The results of the Sulphate and pH analyses fell into Class DS-1 of the current revision of BRE

Special Digest 1. An ACEC class of AC-1 is appropriate based on the pH results and known site

history. The advice of this publication should be taken for the design and specification of all sub

surface concrete.


5.7 Soakaways

Preliminary falling head soakage tests were undertaken within WS3 and WS6, which gave

infiltration rates of 1.4x10-4

m.s-1

and 5.8x10-6

m.s-1

respectively. Both boreholes were drilled

through Head Deposits with Chalk towards the base; the higher result in WS3 may be on account of

more granular materials within the Head Deposits. Given this variability, soakaways constructed

into the Head Deposits should be designed based on the more conservative lower infiltration rate

of 5.8x10-6m.s-1. Higher infiltration rates may be realised within the blocky fissured Chalk. Should

improve infiltration rates be required, it would be necessary to conduct full-scale soakage tests in

accordance with BRE365.

Given the sites location within a groundwater Source Protection Zone, and in order to protect

groundwater resources, the Environment Agency might have special requirements for the design of

soakaways including water seals, closed surface entries or interceptors. The consideration of the

Agency should be sought in this respect.

Concentrated discharges into the Chalk from surface water drainage may cause the dissolution of

carbonate cements within rock matrix, which may in turn lead to voiding, instability, and surface

collapse. Such discharges may also potentially reactivate any inactive dissolution features. It is

therefore recommended that all soakaways be located a minimum of 10m distant from any

sensitive structures.

Finally, soakaways should be carefully positioned so as to avoid concentrated point discharges close

to the existing slope, as this may cause instability.

TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: VERSION

CLIENT: FIGURE:

PREPARED: CHECK: DATE: SHEET No:

page: 1 of 1

CARLTON HOUSE, 28-29 CARLTON TERRACE, PORTSLADE, BRIGHTON, BN41 1UR

TEL: 0845 604 6494 FAX: 01273 423 216 EMAIL: [email protected]

LS0237

v1

1

SR ET 29/10/2010

Site Location Plans

TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: VERSION

CLIENT: FIGURE:


page: 1 of 1SR ET 29/10/2010

Investigation Layout Plans

**************************

**************************



LS0237

v1

1

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4 WS5

WS6

BH1

APPENDIX A

TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: VERSION

CLIENT: FIGURE:


page: 1 of 1



LS0237

v1

1

SR ET 30/11/2010

1870 Historical Map 1:2500

**************

**************

TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: VERSION

CLIENT: FIGURE:


page: 1 of 1

1896 Historical Map 1:2500 LS0237

************** v1

************** 1

SR ET 30/11/2010



TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: VERSION

CLIENT: FIGURE:


page: 1 of 1


************** v1

************** 1

SR ET 30/11/2010



APPENDIX B

REMARKS TITLE: REFERENCE: POSITION:Stability:

Groundwater: PROJECT: ELEVATION: CO-ORDINATES:

Chiselling:CLIENT: METHOD:

Casing/dia:

Backfilling: STARTED: SCALE:

Obstructions:COMPLETED: SHEET No:

Others:

Dark brown SILT with fine to coarse angular gravel and

cobbles, and rootlets. (TOPSOIL)

Weak white and occasional light brown putty CHALK with

layers of gravel sized medium density chalk fragments.

(LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

Continued on next page.

No obstructions encountered

Hand excavated to 0.40mbgl

No instability encountered

No groundwater encountered

Not applicable

Not recorded

Position backfilled with arisings

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

INPUTTED BY:

SR Page: 1 of 2

Not to scale

Archway "Dart" Windowless Sampler

N/A

LOGGED BY:

SRAA DRILLING

DRILLED BY:



**************

**************

Not to scale

WS1

09/11/2009

09/11/2009

LS0237

D

D

ET

0.00

Borehole log

0.00

0.10 0.50

5.00

0.50 0.50

1.501.00 -

1.50 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.50

2.50 - 3.00

3.00 - 3.50

3.50 - 4.00

4.00 - 4.50

4.50 - 5.00

- 1.00 D

0.10

-

FILLWATERDESCRIPTION TESTING SAMPLING

CHECKED BY:

-




Casing/dia:



Others:09/11/2009 Page: 2 of 2



Continued…..Weak white and occasional light brown putty

CHALK with layers of gravel sized medium density chalk

fragments. (LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

Borehole complete at 6.00m.

No obstructions encounteredINPUTTED BY: CHECKED BY:

Hand excavated to 0.50mbgl SR ET

Not recorded ************** Archway "Dart" Windowless Sampler

Position backfilled with arisings DRILLED BY: LOGGED BY:

AA DRILLING SR 09/11/2009 Not to scale

No instability encountered Borehole log LS0237 WS1No groundwater encountered

************** N/A Not to scaleNot applicable

6.00

D5.50 - 6.00

D

FILL

5.00 5.00 - 5.50

DESCRIPTION TESTING SAMPLING WATER




Casing/dia:



Others:



Dark brown clayey SILT with rootlets. (TOPSOIL)

Brown silty, sandy gravelly CLAY. (HEAD DEPOSITS)


Not to scaleNo obstructions encountered

INPUTTED BY: CHECKED BY:

Hand excavated to 0.30mbgl SR ET 09/11/2009 Page: 1 of 1


AA DRILLING SR 09/11/2009




No instability encountered Borehole log LS0237 WS2

3.00

- 3.00 D2.50

- 2.50 D2.00

- 2.00 D1.50

-1.30 1.50 D1.30

-1.00 1.30 D1.00

- 1.00 D0.50

-0.30 0.50 D0.30

- 0.30 D

SAMPLING WATER FILL

0.00 0.00

Off white slightly weathered CHALK, very weak. Structurless

mélange composed of 70% subangular medium to coarse

gravel sized fragments set in 30% soft, off white chalk matrix;

Grade Dc. (LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

Off white CHALK, medium to high density. Discontinuities

very closely spaced (20mm), open (<3mm); medium to high

density Grade B5. (LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

DESCRIPTION TESTING




Casing/dia:



Others:


Not to scale

Dark brown wood chippings. (TOPSOIL)

Brown silty, sandy slighty gravelly CLAY with fine to medium

angular chalk. (HEAD DEPOSITS)

Light brown silty sandy very gravelly CLAY. Gravel is fine to

coarse angular flint. (HEAD DEPOSITS)

Brown clayey silty sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is fine to coarse

angular flint. (HEAD DEPOSITS)

Brown silty sandy very gravelly CLAY. Gravel is fine to coarse

angular flint. (HEAD DEPOSITS)

Off white slightly weathered. CHALK, weak. Structureless

mélange composed of 80% subangular to rounded medium to

coarse high density grzel sized fragments set in 20% soft, off

white, silt sized chalk matrix; Grade Dc. (LEWES NODUALR

CHALK MEMBER)

Position backfilled with arisings DRILLED BY:

Hand excavated to 0.40mbgl SR ET



09/11/2009 Page: 1 of 1

LOGGED BY:

AA DRILLING SR 09/11/2009No obstructions encountered






3.00

-2.80 3.00 D2.80

-2.00 2.50 D2.00

-1.60 2.00 D1.60

- 1.50 D1.00

- 1.00 D0.50

0.40

-0.30 0.40 D0.30

D

FILL

0.00 0.00 - 0.30





Casing/dia:



Others:



Loose dark brown clayey sandy SILT with rootlets and

occasional fine to coarse gravel sized angular chalk.

(TOPSOIL)

Off white CHALK, weak with high density chalk fragments.

Discontinuities closely spaced (20-60mm), open (<3mm); high

density Grade B5. (LEWES NODUALR CHALK MEMBER)

White CHALK, medium density. Discontinuities very closely

spaced (<20mm), open (<3mm); medium density Grade B5.

(LEWES NODUALR CHALK MEMBER)

Off white CHALK, weak. Structureless mélange composed of

80% subangular to rounded, low density chalk fragments set

in 20% soft, off white, silt size chalk matrix; Grade Dc.


White CHALK, very weak. Structureless mélange composed of

20% subangular to rounded medium sized fragments set in

80% soft, off white/brown silt size chalk matrix; Grade Dm.










Continued on next page


5.00

4.50 - 5.00 D

4.00 - 4.50 D4.00

3.50 - 4.00 D

2.50 - 3.00 D2.50

2.00 - 2.50 D

1.50 - 2.00 D1.50

1.00 - 1.50 D

0.50 - 1.00 D

0.30

D

FILL

0.00 0.00 - 0.30





Casing/dia:



Others: Hand excavated to 0.30mbgl

SR

09/11/2009 Page: 2 of 2



Continued…White CHALK, very weak. Structureless mélange

composed of 20% subangular to rounded medium sized

fragments set in 80% soft, off white/brown silt size chalk

matrix; Grade Dm. (LEWES NODUALR CHALK MEMBER)



N/A

SR ET



AA DRILLING 09/11/2009 Not to scale

No instability encountered Borehole log LS0237 WS4No groundwater encountered

************** Not to scaleNot applicable

6.00

D

FILL

5.00 5.00 - 6.00





Casing/dia:



Others:



Loose light brown clayey sandy gravelly SILT with rootlets.

Gravel is fine to coarse chalk and brick. (MADE GROUND)

Off white, slightly weathered CHALK, weak. Structureless

mélange composed of 80% medium to coarse high density

chalk fragments set in 20% soft, brown silt size chalk matrix;

Grade Dc. (LEWES NODUALR CHALK MEMBER)

Off white CHALK, strong, high density. Discontinuities closely

spaced (20-60mm), open (<3mm); High density Grade B4.


Off white/grey very high density gravel of CHALK. (LEWES

NODUALR CHALK MEMBER)











3.00

Off white CHALK, strong, high density. Discontinuities very

closely spaced (<20mm), open (<3mm); High density Grade

B4. (LEWES NODUALR CHALK MEMBER) 2.50 - 3.00 D

2.30

1.50 - 2.00 D1.50

1.00 - 1.50 D

0.50 - 1.00 D0.50

0.30 - 0.50 D0.30

D

FILL

0.00 0.00 - 0.30


REMARKS TITLE: REFERENCE: POSITION:

Stability:



Casing/dia:



Others:



SR ET 09/11/2009

LOGGED BY:




Loose dark brown silty sandy gravelly CLAY with rootlets.

Gravel is fine to coarse chalk. (TOPSOIL)

Brown silty sandy very gravelly CLAY with rootlets. Gravel is

fine to coarse angular and sub rounded flint and chalk. (HEAD

DEPOSITS)

Brown very silty sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is fine to

coarse angular to sub rounded flint and chalk. (HEAD

DEPOSITS)

Brown silty sandy very gravelly CLAY with rootlets. Gravel is

fine to coarse angular and sub rounded flint and chalk. (HEAD

DEPOSITS)

Off white, slightly weathered CHALK, low density.

Discontinuities very closely spaced (<20mm), open (<3mm);

Low density Grade B5. (LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

Page: 1 of 1

Position backfilled with arisings DRILLED BY:







3.00

-2.60 3.00 D2.60

-2.00 2.50 D2.00

- 2.00 D1.50

-1.20 1.50 D1.20

-0.50 1.00 D0.50

D

FILL

0.00 0.00 - 0.50


Interval DP N100 Interval DP N100

m blows/100mm m blows/100mm

0.0 - 0.1 * 5.0 - 5.1 6

0.1 - 0.2 * 5.1 - 5.2 9

0.2 - 0.3 * 5.2 - 5.3 11

0.3 - 0.4 * 5.3 - 5.4 9

0.4 - 0.5 1 5.4 - 5.5 7

0.5 - 0.6 2 5.5 - 5.6 4

0.6 - 0.7 3 5.6 - 5.7 5

0.7 - 0.8 4 5.7 - 5.8 46

0.8 - 0.9 3 5.8 - 5.9 50

0.9 - 1.0 2 5.9 - 6.0

1.0 - 1.1 3 6.0 - 6.1

1.1 - 1.2 2 6.1 - 6.2

1.2 - 1.3 2 6.2 - 6.3

1.3 - 1.4 3 6.3 - 6.4

1.4 - 1.5 2 6.4 - 6.5

1.5 - 1.6 2 6.5 - 6.6

1.6 - 1.7 2 6.6 - 6.7

1.7 - 1.8 3 6.7 - 6.8

1.8 - 1.9 2 6.8 - 6.9

1.9 - 2.0 2 6.9 - 7.0

2.0 - 2.1 3 7.0 - 7.1

2.1 - 2.2 2 7.1 - 7.2

2.2 - 2.3 3 7.2 - 7.3

2.3 - 2.4 2 7.3 - 7.4

2.4 - 2.5 3 7.4 - 7.5

2.5 - 2.6 3 7.5 - 7.6

2.6 - 2.7 2 7.6 - 7.7

2.7 - 2.8 2 7.7 - 7.8

2.8 - 2.9 2 7.8 - 7.9

2.9 - 3.0 2 7.9 - 8.0

3.0 - 3.1 4 8.0 - 8.1

3.1 - 3.2 5 8.1 - 8.2

3.2 - 3.3 7 8.2 - 8.3

3.3 - 3.4 4 8.3 - 8.4

3.4 - 3.5 2 8.4 - 8.5

3.5 - 3.6 2 8.5 - 8.6

3.6 - 3.7 3 8.6 - 8.7

3.7 - 3.8 7 8.7 - 8.8

3.8 - 3.9 5 8.8 - 8.9

3.9 - 4.0 6 8.9 - 9.0

4.0 - 4.1 5 9.0 - 9.1

4.1 - 4.2 6 9.1 - 9.2

4.2 - 4.3 9 9.2 - 9.3

4.3 - 4.4 5 9.3 - 9.4

4.4 - 4.5 4 9.4 - 9.5

4.5 - 4.6 6 9.5 - 9.6

4.6 - 4.7 8 9.6 - 9.7

4.7 - 4.8 6 9.7 - 9.8

4.8 - 4.9 4 9.8 - 9.9

4.9 - 5.0 13 9.9 - 10.0

Hammer mass 63.5 kg Rod weight 6 kg Date Completed

Gravity constant 9.8 N/kg Base of cone 0.002 m2

Ground level Not available

height of fall 0.750 m Friction correction Drilling rig Archway Dart

Anvil weight 30 kg Friction precautions Contractor AA Drilling

Methodology EN DD1997-3:1999 "Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical Design - design assisted by field testing", Clause 6

Remarks No interuptions. No calibration data.

TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: POSITION:

CLIENT: GRID REF:

OPERATIVES: CHECKED: DATE: SHEET:

*********** WS1

09/11/2010

None

None

Super Heavy Dynamic Probing (SHDP) record LS0237



*********** N/A

AJ/TR ET 18/11/2010 1 of 1

0 10 20 30 40 50

fell under own weight

to 0.40m

0 10 20 30 40 50

position terminated

at 5.9m

Interval DP N100 Interval DP N100

m blows/100mm m blows/100mm

0.0 - 0.1 - 5.0 - 5.1 6

0.1 - 0.2 - 5.1 - 5.2 6

0.2 - 0.3 3 5.2 - 5.3 9

0.3 - 0.4 4 5.3 - 5.4 15

0.4 - 0.5 4 5.4 - 5.5 7

0.5 - 0.6 5 5.5 - 5.6 21

0.6 - 0.7 7 5.6 - 5.7 36

0.7 - 0.8 7 5.7 - 5.8 41

0.8 - 0.9 7 5.8 - 5.9 36

0.9 - 1.0 8 5.9 - 6.0 38

1.0 - 1.1 8 6.0 - 6.1

1.1 - 1.2 8 6.1 - 6.2

1.2 - 1.3 5 6.2 - 6.3

1.3 - 1.4 5 6.3 - 6.4

1.4 - 1.5 5 6.4 - 6.5

1.5 - 1.6 5 6.5 - 6.6

1.6 - 1.7 6 6.6 - 6.7

1.7 - 1.8 6 6.7 - 6.8

1.8 - 1.9 6 6.8 - 6.9

1.9 - 2.0 6 6.9 - 7.0

2.0 - 2.1 12 7.0 - 7.1

2.1 - 2.2 10 7.1 - 7.2

2.2 - 2.3 9 7.2 - 7.3

2.3 - 2.4 9 7.3 - 7.4

2.4 - 2.5 9 7.4 - 7.5

2.5 - 2.6 8 7.5 - 7.6

2.6 - 2.7 8 7.6 - 7.7

2.7 - 2.8 7 7.7 - 7.8

2.8 - 2.9 8 7.8 - 7.9

2.9 - 3.0 10 7.9 - 8.0

3.0 - 3.1 9 8.0 - 8.1

3.1 - 3.2 10 8.1 - 8.2

3.2 - 3.3 11 8.2 - 8.3

3.3 - 3.4 9 8.3 - 8.4

3.4 - 3.5 17 8.4 - 8.5

3.5 - 3.6 20 8.5 - 8.6

3.6 - 3.7 10 8.6 - 8.7

3.7 - 3.8 11 8.7 - 8.8

3.8 - 3.9 11 8.8 - 8.9

3.9 - 4.0 10 8.9 - 9.0

4.0 - 4.1 10 9.0 - 9.1

4.1 - 4.2 14 9.1 - 9.2

4.2 - 4.3 15 9.2 - 9.3

4.3 - 4.4 11 9.3 - 9.4

4.4 - 4.5 6 9.4 - 9.5

4.5 - 4.6 6 9.5 - 9.6

4.6 - 4.7 7 9.6 - 9.7

4.7 - 4.8 6 9.7 - 9.8

4.8 - 4.9 6 9.8 - 9.9

4.9 - 5.0 4 9.9 - 10.0

Hammer mass 63.5 kg Rod weight 6 kg Date Completed

Gravity constant 9.8 N/kg Base of cone 0.002 m2

Ground level Not available

height of fall 0.750 m Friction correction Drilling rig Archway Dart

Anvil weight 30 kg Friction precautions Contractor AA Drilling

Methodology EN DD1997-3:1999 "Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical Design - design assisted by field testing", Clause 6

Remarks No interuptions. No calibration data.

TITLE: REF:

PROJECT: POSITION:

CLIENT: GRID REF:

OPERATIVES: CHECKED: DATE: SHEET:AJ/TR ET 18/11/2010

None

None

Super Heavy Dynamic Probing (SHDP) record

***********

***********

09/11/2010



LS0237

N/A

1 of 1

WS4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Hand dug to 0.20m

0 10 20 30 40 50

position terminated

at 6.0m


Stability:



Casing/dia:



Others:

FILLWATERDESCRIPTION TESTING SAMPLING

CHECKED BY:

36=9.00 SPT (12,8,8,8)

= (6,7,6,5)227.50 SPT

18=6.00 SPT (4,5,4,5)

= (4,3,4,5)164.50 SPT

16=3.00 SPT (4,4,4,4)

=SPT (2,2,2,3)1.50

10.00

6.00

1.90

ET

0.00

Borehole log

9



*******************

*******************

Not to scale

BH1

06/12/2010

06/12/2010

LS 0251

INPUTTED BY:

ET Page: 1 of 2

Not to scale

Light Cable Percussive

N/A

LOGGED BY:

SRPB

DRILLED BY:

150mm, cased to 3.00m

Position backfilled with arisings

Brown silty, sandy gravelly CLAY. (HEAD DEPOSITS)

Off white CHALK, medium to high density. Discontinuities very

closely spaced (20mm), open (<3mm); medium to high density

Grade B5. (LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

Weak white and occasional light brown putty CHALK with layers

of gravel sized medium density chalk fragments and scattered

flints. (LEWES NODULAR CHALK MEMBER)

…increasing proportions of intact chalk fragments from 3.00m

No obstructions encountered


Contnued on next sheet

No instability encountered

No groundwater encountered.

Occasional chiselling through flints (1hr)


Stability:



Casing/dia:



Others:

DESCRIPTION TESTING SAMPLING WATER FILL

10.00

10.50 SPT = 27 (5,6,8,8)

12.00 SPT = 29 (7,7,8,7)

13.50 SPT = 29 (7,8,7,7)

15.00 SPT = 41 (12,12,8,9)

15.50

Not to scaleOccasional chiselling through flints (1hr)

SR 06/12/2010 Not to scale

No instability encountered Borehole log LS 0251 BH1No groundwater encountered.

******************* N/A

Hand excavated to 1.00mbgl ET ET

150mm, cased to 3.00m ******************* Light Cable Percussive


PB

borehole complete at 15.50mbgl

06/12/2010 Page: 2 of 2



LEWES NODULAR CHALK… continued

…water added from 12.00m to assist drilling


APPENDIX C

Project Name: K4 SOILSK4 SOILSK4 SOILSK4 SOILS

Client: Project no:Our job no: 10218

Borehole No: Sample No:

Depth m

pH Sulphate content (g/l)

WS1 2 1.00 7.6 0.10

WS6 2 0.50 7.4 0.09

Summary of Test Results Checked and

Date Approved

26/11/2010 Initials : kp

Unit 8 Olds Close Olds Approach Watford Herts WD18 9RU

Land Science LS0237

BS 1377 : Part 3 :Clause 5 : 1990 Determination of sulphate content of soil and ground water : gravimetric method

Description

Off white putty CHALK with occasional fm intact chalk fragments

Brown slightly sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional chalk fragments and roots (gravel is fmc angular to sub angular)

Project Name: Samples Received:

Project Started:

Client: Testing Started:

Project No: Our job/report no: Date Reported:

Borehole No:

Sample No:

Depth (m)

Moisture content

(%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Passing 0.425

mm (%)

WS1 1-30.50 - 2.00

25 32 26 6 53

WS2 20.30 - 0.50

35 80 40 40 53

WS3 3-40.50 - 1.50

27 43 23 20 59

WS6 20.50 - 1.00

33 59 29 30 45

Summary of Test ResultsInitials: K.P

BS 1377 : Part 2 : Clause 5 : 1990 Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index. Date: 26/11/2010

2519 BS 1377 : Part 2 : Clause 3.2 : 1990 Determination of the moisture content by the oven-drying method.

Test Report by K4 SOILS LABORATORY Unit 8 Olds Close Olds Approach Watford Herts WD18 9RU

Test Results relate only to the sample numbers shown above. Approved Signatories: K.Phaure (Tech.Mgr) J.Phaure (Lab.Mgr)

All samples connected with this report ,incl any on 'hold' will be stored and disposed off according to Company policy.Acopy of this policy is available on request. MSF-11/R2

Off white putty CHALK with occasional fm intact chalk fragments

Checked and Approved

Dark brown sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional fm chalk fragments (gravel is fm and sub rounded to angular)

Brown sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional fm chalk fragments and wood remains (gravel is fm and sub angular to angular)

Description

Land Science

10218LS0237

12/11/2010

15/11/2010

24/11/2010

26/11/2010

K4 SOILS

Remarks

Brown slightly sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional chalk fragments and roots (gravel is fmc angular to sub angular)

BS 1377 : Part 2 : Clause 4.4 : 1990 Determination of the liquid limit by the cone penetrometer method.

Approved Signatories:

Initials: kp

Test results relate only to the sample numbers shown above Date:

All samples connected with this report, incl any on 'hold' will be disposed off according to company policy. A copy of this policy is available on request. Sheet 3/3 MSF-11/R9

90

75

100

100

10218

Borehole / Pit No

WS1BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 9

K4 SOILS

LocationSample No

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Job/report no:

1-3

Depth 0.50 - 2.00 mVisual Soil Description

Off white putty CHALK with occasional fm intact chalk fragments Sample type D

Sieving Sedimentation Test Method

Particle Size mm

% PassingParticle Size

mm% Passing

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990

Sieving Clause

Sedimentation N/A

63 100

125 100

37.5 94

50 100

Sample Proportions

20 74 Cobbles 0.0

28 82

14 68

10 65

Gravel 43.3

Sand 12.5

6.3 61

5 60

Silt & Clay 44.2

2 57

3.35 58

1.18 55

0.6 54

0.212 51

0.3 52

49

D60 5.0

D100 125.0

Grading Analysis

N/A

0.15

D10

0.425 53

Uniformity Coefficient0.063 44


2519

K4 SOILS LABORATORYUnit 8 Olds Close Olds Approach Watford Herts WD18 9RU. E-mail: [email protected]

K.Phaure(Tech.Mgr) J.Phaure(Lab.Mgr)

26/11/2010

200

6020620.6

0.2

0.06

0.03

0.006

0.002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Per

cen

tag

e P

assi

ng

- %

CLAYSILT SAND GRAVEL

COBBLESFine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse


Initials: kp



90

75

100

100

10218

Borehole / Pit No

WS2BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 9

K4 SOILS

LocationSample No


2


Dark brown sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional fm chalk fragments (gravel is fm and sub rounded to

angular)Sample type D


Particle Size mm


mm% Passing

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990

Sieving Clause

Sedimentation N/A

63 100

125 100

37.5 100

50 100

Sample Proportions

20 100 Cobbles 0.0

28 100

14 79

10 75

Gravel 38.4

Sand 24.6

6.3 70

5 67

Silt & Clay 36.9

2 62

3.35 64

1.18 60

0.6 56

0.212 47

0.3 50

43

D60 1.3

D100 125.0

Grading Analysis

N/A

0.15

D10

0.425 53



2519



26/11/2010

200

6020620.6

0.2

0.06

0.03

0.006

0.002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Per

cen

tag

e P

assi

ng

- %




Initials: kp



90

75

100

100

10218

Borehole / Pit No

WS3BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 9

K4 SOILS

LocationSample No


3 - 4


Brown sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional fm chalk fragments and wood remains (gravel is fm and sub

angular to angular)Sample type D


Particle Size mm


mm% Passing

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990

Sieving Clause

Sedimentation N/A

63 100

125 100

37.5 100

50 100

Sample Proportions

20 100 Cobbles 0.0

28 100

14 94

10 89

Gravel 32.9

Sand 19.5

6.3 80

5 76

Silt & Clay 47.6

2 67

3.35 72

1.18 64

0.6 61

0.212 55

0.3 58

53

D60 0.5

D100 125.0

Grading Analysis

N/A

0.15

D10

0.425 59



2519



26/11/2010

200

6020620.6

0.2

0.06

0.03

0.006

0.002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Per

cen

tag

e P

assi

ng

- %




Initials: kp



26/11/2010


2519




Grading Analysis

N/A

0.15

D10

0.425 39

36

D60 7.9

D100 125.0

0.212 38

0.3 38

1.18 42

0.6 40

2 45

3.35 49

Silt & Clay 34.26.3 56

5 52

Gravel 55.1

Sand 10.710 65

14 71

Sample Proportions

20 78 Cobbles 0.0

28 91

37.5 100

50 100

Sedimentation N/A

63 100

125 100


Particle Size mm


mm% Passing

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990

Sieving Clause

Visual Soil Description

Off white putty CHALK with occasional fm intact chalk fragments Sample type D

2-3

Depth 0.50 - 1.50 m

K4 SOILS

LocationSample No

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Job/report no: 10218

Borehole / Pit No

WS4BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 9

90

75

100

100

200

6020620.6

0.2

0.06

0.03

0.006

0.002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Per

cen

tag

e P

assi

ng

- %



GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site at ... INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site at on behalf of...

Documents

Transcript of GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site at ... INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site at on behalf of...