Northamptonshire County Council · 2017-02-14 · Date July 2010 Project Reference 10.05.018 Client...

LISTERS Geotechnical Consultants

Northamptonshire County Council

Ground Investigation

Hardwick Infant & Junior Schools Olympic Way

WELLINGBOROUGH Northamptonshire

Report No: 10.05.018 June 2010

MAIN OFFICE & LABORATORIES Slapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northamptonshire NN12 8QD

Telephone:- (01327) 860060 Fax:- (01327) 860430 E.Mail:- [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LISTERS Geotechnical Consultants Midlands Office & Laboratories Slapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northants NN12 8QD Phone: (01327) 860060 Fax: (01327) 860430 Email: [email protected]

Project Engineer:- Matthew Johnston – Geoenvironmental Engineer

Date July 2010 Project Reference 10.05.018 Client Northamptonshire County Council Contact Mr Paul Tuff Client Reference Site Location Hardwick Infant & Junior Schools, Olympic Way, Wellingborough,

Northamptonshire. OS Grid Reference SP 872 682. Development Proposals

Redevelop the site with a major extension towards the north and east of the Hardwick Infant School building along with the demolition of the Junior School.

Published Geology Oadby Member of Quaternary age overlying the Blisworth Limestone Formation of Jurrasic age.

Topography The site slopes gently towards the south Vegetation Several trees were noted across the site and along its boundaries including ash,

sycamore and oak, up to approximately 10m in height. Existing Buildings The school buildings were both of brick construction with flat roofs Site History 1886 - the site is located with in an agricultural field.

1970-1973 - a school building is marked in the south of the site. 1983- a second school building marked in the north of the site.

Hydrology The nearest surface watercourse is a drain that flows towards the east, approximately 70m to the south of the site.

Hydrogeology The site is located on a Principal Aquifer, the Blisworth Limestone Formation. Geotechnical Hazards The risks of shrinking or swelling clay and ground dissolution stability hazards

are recorded as being low. Ground Conditions Encountered

Topsoil locally overlying Made Ground, which in turn overlies the Oadby Member.

Groundwater Encountered

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory holes during the fieldwork down to 6.0m depth below the existing ground level

Ground Contamination

The soil contamination tests carried out as part of this investigation revealed a slightly elevated concentration of arsenic in the soil, when compared to a residential end use (32mg/kg). However, the SAC for a primary school end usage has been calculated, using CLEA 1.06, at 104mg/kg. Therefore a source-pathway-receptor linkage does not exist at the site and consequently no additional human health risk assessment is considered necessary.

Groundwater Contamination

None of the contaminants tested for within the leachate samples recorded values higher than the UKDWS

Site Remediation Required

No remediation is required.

Soil Gases The ground gas monitoring results collected to date give a maximum gas screening value of 0l/h. This is equivalent to Characteristic Situation 1

Foundations The Oadby Member is considered to be a suitable bearing stratum for conventional shallow foundations at not less than 1.0m below existing ground level or 0.20m into the top of the formation, whichever is the deeper.

Owner

Continuation

Allowable Bearing Pressure/Safe Bearing Capacity

At this depth a safe bearing capacity of 120kPa may be adopted for foundations not exceeding one metre in width. This allows for a factor of safety of three against shear failure and for settlements generally not to exceed 25mm taking place over a number of years

Floor Slabs Provided all the Topsoil is stripped off, ground bearing floor slabs could be constructed placed on a layer of well compacted granular fill.

Waste Soil Classification

From the results of the CAT-Waste spreadsheets and the WAC testing, currently, the majority of the waste soil on this site is classified as non-hazardous with the sample from TPE at 0.3m classified as inert

Soakaways The average permeability was established to be 1.5x10-6m/s, indicating soils with low permeability.

Roads & Hard Standing Design

A subgrade CBR value of 3% be adopted for design purposes

Chemical Attack On Buried Concrete

Design Sulphate Class DS –2 ACEC Class AC-1s

Signed This executive summary should be read in conjunction with report number 10.05.018

Owner

Continuation

CONTENTS

GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT ............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION............................................................................................................. 1 PROPOSALS ........................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE INFORMATION AND WALKOVER SURVEY .................................................................................... 2 GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................................... 2

Published Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 2 DESK STUDY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................. 3

GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 3 HISTORY OF THE SITE........................................................................................................................... 3 HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 4 HYDROGEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 5 LANDFILL, WASTE TREATMENT AND INDUSTRIAL USAGE SITES........................................................ 5 RISK OF GASEOUS CONTAMINATION.................................................................................................... 6 RADON GAS.......................................................................................................................................... 6 GROUND RELATED HAZARDS .............................................................................................................. 6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE LAND USES.................................................................................................. 6 CONCEPTUAL MODEL........................................................................................................................... 7

EXPLORATION AND TESTING........................................................................................................ 9 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 9 SAMPLING STRATEGY........................................................................................................................... 9 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................... 9 GROUND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10

Sulphate and pH Tests................................................................................................................................... 12 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................................. 12 SOAKAWAY TESTING.......................................................................................................................... 12 EXISTING FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 12 GROUND GAS...................................................................................................................................... 13

GROUND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 14 SOIL TESTING ...................................................................................................................................... 14 RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES – HUMAN HEALTH ........................................................................... 14

Soil Guideline Values.................................................................................................................................... 14 Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) ............................................................................................................. 15 Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA)........................................................................................... 15 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 15

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES – GROUNDWATER............................................................................ 15 RESULTS OF TOTAL SOIL TESTS......................................................................................................... 15

Arsenic .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 RESULTS OF LEACHATE TESTS........................................................................................................... 16

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 17 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................ 17

GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 18 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................ 18

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 19 GROUND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 19 SITE EXCAVATION.............................................................................................................................. 19 FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS........................................................................................................... 20

Shallow Foundations..................................................................................................................................... 20 GROUND FLOOR SLABS ...................................................................................................................... 21 GAS PROTECTION .......................................................................................................................... 21 DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL........................................................................................................ 21

Owner

Continuation

European Waste Catalogue Determination .................................................................................................. 22 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Testing Results....................................................................................... 22 Waste Classification...................................................................................................................................... 22 Site Waste Management Plan........................................................................................................................ 23

SUBSURFACE CONCRETE.................................................................................................................... 23 ACCESS ROADS AND PARKING ........................................................................................................... 24 SOAKAWAY TESTING.......................................................................................................................... 24

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDICES

Appendix ‘A’ - Site Work Appendix ‘B’ - Laboratory Test Work Appendix ‘C’ - Envirocheck Report Appendix ‘D’ - ESI Statistical Analysis Appendix ‘E’ - CLEA 1.06 Worksheets Appendix ‘F’ - Cat Waste and WAC Testing Results

Owner

Continuation

1 Report No:-10.05.018 Date:- June 2010

GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

INTRODUCTION

A ground investigation has been undertaken at Hardwick Infant and Junior Schools, Olympic Way,

Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. A Site Location Plan is provided in Appendix A.

The Ordnance Survey National Grid reference for the site is approximately SP 872 682.

This report describes the desk study and intrusive site investigation activities carried out by Listers

Geotechnical Consultants in order to provide an evaluation of the ground conditions and the extent of

any soil contamination present on the site. The report presents initial, human health and groundwater

risk assessments based on the findings of the desk study information and subsequent contamination

laboratory testing. The contamination risk assessment has been carried out using the source-pathway-

receptor risk assessment methodology.

Instructions to undertake the investigation were received from Mr Martin Kirk of Bovis Lendlease, in

their letter dated 28th May 2010.

This report has been prepared for the sole use of the client and their professional advisors. This report

shall not be relied upon by third parties without the express written authority of Listers Geotechnical

Consultants. If an unauthorised third party comes into possession of this report they must not rely on it

and the authors owe them no duty of care and skill.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The scope of the investigation was to undertake a desk study and walkover survey, provide an

assessment of the geotechnical engineering properties of the ground and the extent of any soil

contamination on the site. A contaminated land risk assessment was undertaken based on the

Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) and Environment Agency R&D P20 guidelines.

PROPOSALS

It is proposed to redevelop the site with a major extension towards the north and east of the Hardwick

Infant School building with the demolition of the Junior School building in the south to be converted to

playing fields.

Owner

Continuation


SITE INFORMATION AND WALKOVER SURVEY

The site lies in a predominantly residential area, and is currently occupied by Hardwick Infant and

Junior School.

The site consists of a roughly rectangular parcel of land, trending approximately north to south.

Measuring approximately 170m by 100m the site extends to approximately 1.6ha in area.

The site slopes gently towards the south and is bordered by houses to the North, East and West and by

parkland to the south.

On the site area itself there was change in ground level of approximately 5m from the north down to the

south.

The school buildings were both of brick construction with flat roofs. No obvious signs of structural

damage was noted to the school buildings.

Several trees were noted along the sites boundary including ash, sycamore and oak up to approximately

10m in height. The north east of the site consisted of a grass covered soft landscaping with a tarmac

playing area to the northwest.

A tarmac car park with some grass covered soft landscaping was noted in the centre of the site between

the two schools. A swimming pool was also noted towards the centre of the site to the immediate

northeast of the Junior School building.

A single mature willow tree, up to approximately 10m in height, was noted in the centre of the site with

a number of semi mature deciduous trees up to 7m in height towards the centre of the site.

Tarmac covered play areas were noted to the east and southwest of the Junior School building.

There were no signs of any obvious contamination sources at the site, including above ground or

underground storage tanks, evidence of fly tipping, old fires or oil spills.

GEOLOGY

Published Geology

Reference to published geological information on the area indicates that the site is underlain by Oadby

Member of Quaternary age overlying the Blisworth Limestone Formation of Jurrasic age.

The Oadby Memeber is generally represented by a grey, weathering brown, silty clay, with chalk and

flint fragments and subordinate lenses of sand and gravel.

Owner

Continuation


The Blisworth Limestone Formation is generally represented by a pale grey to white or yellowish

limestone with thin marls and mudstones.

DESK STUDY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

GENERAL

A desk study review of the site and its history has been undertaken to establish the former land usage

and the potential for any historically derived sources of chemical contamination. A copy of the desk

study information is presented in Appendix C of this report.

It should be noted that the information provided in the desk study is obtained from independent third

party sources. It is provided in good faith, but no guarantee can be provided as to its accuracy. The

Client should make independent enquiries on information provided in the desk study information that

may impact on the proposed development. The desk study information is not necessarily exhaustive and

further information relevant to the site may be available from other sources.

The desk study comprises a review of the following consultations and information sources:-

1. Environment Agency (EA)

2. English Nature

3. Health Protection Agency

4. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

5. British Geological Survey (BGS)

6. Contemporary Trade Directories

7. Historical Ordnance Survey maps

Information from the above referenced sources has been utilised to develop a conceptual model of the

site for use in the geotechnical appraisal and source-pathway-receptor risk assessment.

HISTORY OF THE SITE

The history of the site has been established by reviewing the historical Ordnance Survey maps of the

area, collected as part of the desk study information. This has established the following:-

Owner

Continuation


On the 1886 map, the site is located with in an agricultural field. A reservoir is marked approximately

200m north of the site. The outskirts of Wellingborough town appears to be approximately 1km east of

the site.

No further obvious significant changes were noted on the maps until 1952 when Wellingborough is

shown to have undergone residential development to within 550m to the southeast of the site.

The 1970-1973 map shows a school building marked in the south of the site. This school building

appears to have a similar footprint to the currently existing Junior School building. Wellingborough

town has also undergone significant residential development to within 300m east of the site and 250m

south of the site.

The 1983 map shows a second school building marked in the north of the site. This school building

appears to have a similar footprint to the currently existing Infant School building. Wellingborough has

undergone further residential expansion with housing marked to the immediate east of the site and

approximately 75m west of the site.

The 1982-1991 shows further residential expansion of Wellingborough to the immediate west of the

site.

The 1990 map shows a number of large industrial buildings are marked to within 400m west of the site.

The 1993 map shows continued residential development with housing to the immediate north of the site.

No further obvious significant changes were noted on the remaining maps dated up until 2010 the final

map of the series.

HYDROLOGY

The nearest surface watercourse is a drain that flows towards the east, approximately 70m to the south

of the site. In this area the Harrowden Brook, located approximately 676m northwest of the site has

been designated as River Quality B with a flow of less than 0.31m3/s.

The River Quality scale is a grading system established by the Environment Agency and is based on

dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen demand and ammonia content of the river. Grade A is classified as

being very good, whilst Grade F is classified as being bad.

There are no current surface water abstraction licenses located within 1000m of the site.

Owner

Continuation


HYDROGEOLOGY

Information obtained from the Environment Agency indicates that the site is located on a Principal

Aquifer, the Blisworth Limestone Formation.

The aquifer designation data is based on geological mapping provided by the British Geological Survey.

The maps are divided into two different types of aquifer designation:

• Superficial (Drift) - permeable unconsolidated (loose) deposits. For example, sands and

gravels.

• Bedrock - solid permeable formations e.g. sandstone, chalk and limestone.

For each type there are Primary, Secondary A, Secondary B and Unproductive Strata, each with a

decreasing rank of importance.

There are no current groundwater abstraction licenses located within 1000m of the site.

According to information provided by the Environment Agency the site is outside of any Source

Protection Zones (SPZ). An SPZ is a protection zone placed around a well or borehole that supplies

groundwater of potable quality.

There have been no recorded pollution incidents to controlled waters within 250m of the site.

LANDFILL, WASTE TREATMENT AND INDUSTRIAL USAGE SITES

Reference to records from the BGS, the Environment Agency and the Local Authority indicates that

there are no waste transfer sites, no waste treatment sites and no waste management facilities within

1000m of the site area.

Reference to records also indicate that there are no current or historical landfill disposal sites within

1000m of the site.

There have been no applications for Integrated Pollution Control Licenses or Integrated Pollution

Prevention and Control (IPPC) licenses within 2000m of the site.

There is one trade directory entry that has been found within 250m of the site. This is named as the

Power Flushing Professionals, located approximately 129m northwest of the site. The full list is

included in Appendix C.

The nearest active fuel filling station is in excess of 1km from the site.

Owner

Continuation


RISK OF GASEOUS CONTAMINATION

We have provisionally assessed the risk of gaseous contaminants impacting the site, in consideration of

guidance documentation Building Regulations “Approved Document C” (2004).

The site does not appear to lie within 250m of a landfill, or where there is suspicion that it is within the

sphere of influence of a landfill.

The site does not lie on land subject to the deposition of biodegradable substances, including any

significant thicknesses of Made Ground or Fill.

The site does not lie on land that has been subject to a use that could give rise to significant petrol, oil or

solvent spillages.

The site lies in an area subject to naturally occurring carbon dioxide gas associated with the underlying

Blisworth Limestone Formation.

RADON GAS

Reference to information obtained from the Health Protection Agency indicates that the site lies within

an area where less than 1% of homes exceed the action level for radon gas. The BGS recommends that

no radon protection measures are necessary in the construction of new dwellings or extensions.

GROUND RELATED HAZARDS

The desk study information identified that the site does not lie within an area likely to be affected by

coal mining.

The risks of shrinking or swelling clay and ground dissolution stability hazards are recorded as being

low.

There is a very low risk of the occurrence of landslip or running sand ground stability hazards at the

site.

POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE LAND USES

The site located approximately 800m west of a local nature reserve and is located within a nitrate

vulnerable zone.

Owner

Continuation


CONCEPTUAL MODEL

A preliminary qualitative risk assessment has been carried out using the source-pathway-receptor

principle. As such, potential sources of contamination and potential receptors have been assessed using

the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Guidelines. The fact that a pathway must exist

between a potential source of contamination and a potential receptor for there to be a risk, has been

taken into account.

The results of the desk study and walkover indicate that the following potential sources of ground

contamination are present at or in close proximity to the site:

1. Some limited Made Ground is likely to be present at the site associated with the existing school

building.

2. Migrating natural carbon dioxide gases associated with the underlying limestone.

The following most sensitive receptors have been identified at the site:

Human Health

1. End users of the site (staff and pupils)

2. Surrounding residents

3. Construction workers

Environmental

1. Controlled Waters - the drain located approximately 70m south of the site.

2. Controlled Waters - the Blisworth Limestone Formation Principal Aquifer beneath the majority

of the site.

It is considered that a number of potential pathways exist between these potential sources and the above

identified receptors.

For the human receptors these include:

1. Direct soil ingestion in areas of exposed soil.

2. Inhalation of indoor and outdoor vapours and dust.

3. Dermal contact with contaminated soil.

4. Inhalation of soil gases or vapours migrating through permeable strata into the building.

For the environmental receptors the pathways include:

Owner

Continuation


1. Migration of contaminants through the unsaturated zone.

2. Migration of contaminants through the groundwater.

3. Movement of contaminants through drains or services runs.

4. Run-off to the nearby drain located approximately 70m south of the site.

Owner

Continuation


EXPLORATION AND TESTING

GENERAL

A total of seventeen exploratory holes were formed at the site, inclusive of three machine excavated trial

pits, five hand excavated trial pits, three hand auger boreholes, four window sample boreholes and two

dynamic probe holes, on the 4th June 2010.

SAMPLING STRATEGY

The positions of the exploratory holes were selected by Listers Geotechnical Consultants and BCAL

consulting to provide a wide coverage of information on the site area whilst avoiding numerous

underground services.

As the desk study and walkover survey had not identified any specific sources of potential

contamination on the site, the exploratory holes were non-targeted and positioned to create a semi

regular pattern across the site.

The position of all exploratory holes undertaken at the site as part of this investigation can be seen on

the Exploratory Hole Location Plan included in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory testing are

provided in Appendix B.

METHODOLOGY

The trial pits, TP1 to TP3 were excavated with a JCB type backhoe excavator to a maximum depth of

3.0m below ground level. Small-disturbed samples were taken at regular intervals down to the base of

the holes for subsequent laboratory testing and inspection.

The trial pits, TPA and TPB were excavated by hand to a maximum depth of 1.0m below ground level

to reveal existing foundations. Small-disturbed samples were taken at regular intervals down to the base

of the holes for subsequent laboratory testing and inspection.

The trial pits, TPC and TPE were excavated by hand to a maximum depth of 0.60m below ground level.

Small-disturbed samples were taken at regular intervals down to the base of the holes for subsequent

laboratory testing and inspection. Permeability testing was undertaken in TPC in accordance with

BS6297.

On completion, all trial pits were carefully backfilled with arisings in thin layers, ensuring that

excavated material was replaced in the same order as it had been removed.

Owner

Continuation


The window sample boreholes, WS1 to WS4, were put down using a Archway Competitor Dart rig to a

maximum depth of 6.0m. Boreholes were advanced using a plastic lined steel tube sampling system,

driven into the ground by a top drive percussive hammer. A near continuous 87mm – 67mm diameter

core sample was recovered of the sampled materials for future examination and sub-sampling.

Following the sampling, Super Heavy dynamic probing, SHDPWS1 to SHDPWS3, was carried out

adjacent to the position of all boreholes to give an indication of the relative density of the soils

encountered.

On completion of the boring, borehole WS1 was utilised for the installation of a 50mm diameter slotted

uPVC standpipe from the base of the borehole up to within 1m below existing ground level. From 1m

depth up to ground level a plain pipe was added. The slotted section of the standpipe was surrounded

with pea gravel, while expansive bentonite clay was added around the plain pipe and below the slotted

section to seal the borehole. The standpipe was finished with a stopcock cover, which was then

concreted flush with ground level.

Boreholes HA1 to HA3 were put down using a Dutch portable hand auger to a maximum depth of

0.65m below existing ground level. The 55mm diameter auger head was rotated and pushed down into

the soil by means of a T-handle to obtain selected disturbed soil samples at regular intervals.

Engineering and Geoenvironmental conclusions given in this report are based on data obtained from

these sources but it should be noted that variations, which affect these conclusions, may occur between

and beyond the test locations. Also water levels may vary with time.

GROUND CONDITIONS

The site and laboratory test work revealed that the general succession of strata can be represented by

Topsoil locally overlying Made Ground which in turn overlies the Oadby Member. It may be

summarised as follows:

Topsoil - encountered from ground level down to depths of between 0.05m and

0.30m, with an average thickness of 0.20m. Represented by a dark brown

slightly sandy silty clay Topsoil with some fine to coarse angular flint

gravel.

Made Ground - encountered in TP2, TPA, TPB, TPD, TPE and HA2 from beneath the

Topsoil at depths of between 0.05m and 0.30m down to the base of TP2,

TPD and TPE at depth s of between 0.30m and 0.60m and a maximum

depth of 0.80m. Represented in general by a variable mix of very soft, soft

Owner

Continuation


to firm and firm friable brown slightly silty sandy clay with fine to coarse

angular to subrounded flint and occasional red brick.

In TP2 a French drain, composed of coarse gravel, was encountered at

0.20m depth adjacent to the tarmac area and an unmarked metal gas pipe

was encountered approximately 2m north of the tarmac surface in this area.

The gas pipe was undamaged and no further excavation was undertaken at

this position.

Classification tests on selected samples revealed moisture contents ranging

from 9% to 33%.

Loss on ignition tests revealed an organic content of 8%.

Oadby Member - encountered at each test location except TP2, TPD and TPE from beneath

the Made Ground or Topsoil at depths of between 0.08m and 0.80m down

to the base of each test location at a maximum depth of 6.0m Represneted

by an initially firm, becoming firm to stiff and stiff locally very stiff at

depth brown occasionally friable and fissure silty slightly sandy clay with

some fine to coarse angular to subrounded chalk and occasional flint

gravel.

Classification tests on selected samples revealed moisture contents ranging

from 10% to 38% with the fines fraction classified as a soil of medium

volume change potential.

Restricted sieve analyses on corresponding samples revealed a granular

soil fraction of between 17% and 37%.

On-site hand vane tests revealed undrained shear strengths ranging from

56kPa to 130+kPa with a general increase in strength with depth.

The results of the Super Heavy dynamic probing indicated that the strata

was generally firm to stiff.

Loss on ignition tests revealed an organic content of between 5 % and 7%.

Owner

Continuation


Sulphate and pH Tests

Soluble sulphate tests carried out on samples recovered from the exploratory holes recorded values

ranging from 0.04g/l to 0.75g/l, in conjunction with pH values ranging from 7.5 to 8.0.

GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory holes during the fieldwork down to 6.0m

depth below the existing ground level.

Long term monitoring carried out as part of the project has revealed that the borehole WS1 was dry

down to the base of the standpipe at 6m depth below the existing ground level.

SOAKAWAY TESTING

Soakaway testing was carried out in the TPC at 1.0m depth in accord with BS6297. The Vp results

were for the two tests undertaken were 4.1 and 0.1.

However, when the permeability is calculated using BRE 365 then the permeability would equate to

2.3x10-6m/s.

Permeability testing was also undertaken in WS1. The results of the permeability testing in the borehole

indicate that the soil beneath the site has a permeability in the order of 6.5x10-7m/s.

The results of the permeability testing are included in Appendix A.

EXISTING FOUNDATIONS

The existing foundations were revealed in the hand excavated trial pits TPA and TPB. Test positions

were selected by the client. The findings may be summarised in the following table:-

Trial Pit

Trial Pit Location

Foundation Depth (m)

Foundation Details Projection (m) Foundation Soil Type

TPA East face of Infant

School

0.95 Strip foundation 0.23 Oadby Member

TPB North face of

infant school

0.90 Strip foundation 0.24 Oadby Member

Owner

Continuation


GROUND GAS

Ground gas monitoring carried out as a part of this investigation, to date, has revealed oxygen levels of

19.6% by volume, carbon dioxide levels of 0.7% by volume, and methane levels of between 0% by

volume. Flow rates were recorded at 0l/h.

The results are provided in Appendix A.

Owner

Continuation


GROUND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

SOIL TESTING

Eight of the soil samples samples collected on site during this investigation were tested for a range of

contaminants. The suite of testing carried out on the samples was decided upon following consultation

of R&D CLR Publications, published as part of the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA),

a joint venture between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the

Environment Agency.

The test suite included a range of:-

• Metals and inorganic substances

• Speciated Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), with diesel and gasoline range determination

The soil samples were tested to obtain ‘Total’ values within the soil.

In addition, two soil samples were also tested from a solution obtained using the NRA R&D301

leachate procedure, simulating contaminant leachability to underlying groundwater.

The results of the tests from this investigation are included in Appendix B.

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES – HUMAN HEALTH

The human health risk assessment has been undertaken using the guidance provided in the Environment

Agency’s publication CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, published

in September 2004. Human health assessment criteria used are based upon the proposed final land use

of the site, in this case the guidelines for ‘Residential without plant uptake’ have been used as an initial

screen with further criteria being derived for a ‘Primary School’ model.

Soil Guideline Values

Currently in the UK, no statutory limits for the presence of contaminants in soils or groundwater exist.

Therefore, below is a summary of the results of the soil samples tested compared primarily to the new

SGVs published from March 2009 where available or the old Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) published

between 2002 and 2005, by DEFRA and the EA.

The new SGVs are baseline ground contamination standards calculated using the new CLEA software

described below.

Owner

Continuation


Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC)

Where SGVs are not available, the new CLEA software 1.06 version has been used to derive generic

assessment criteria (GAC).

The new CLEA software 1.06 version was released in October 2009 and is a deterministic exposure

model with altered exposure data to the original model. The model allows the creation of a generic

assessment criteria database with which to screen laboratory testing results. These GACs are

conservative and based upon common assumptions.

Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA)

Should any results exceed the GAC, then a DQRA is undertaken to establish site specific assessment

criteria. This final stage uses specific information regarding the contamination and its potential receptors

and pathways. The CLEA 1.06 software enables this to be achieved and produces less conservative,

more accurate, site specific soil assessment criteria (SAC).

In addition, where bio-accessibility can be taken into account, the CLEA 1.06 software has been used to

derive site specific assessment criteria (SSAC).

Data Sources

Where chemical specific data has been used in the above assessments, data has been sourced from

available TOX reports, published by DEFRA, The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working

Group (TPHCWG) literature and toxicological and physical data obtained from Environment Agency

Publication, ‘Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil’, August 2008.

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES – GROUNDWATER

The procedures set out in ‘Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and

Groundwater to Protect Water Resources’ Environment Agency R&D Publication 20 (1999), have been

followed.

The leachate test results are primarily compared to the UK Drinking Water Standards (UKDWS) set out

in The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000.

RESULTS OF TOTAL SOIL TESTS

Of all the contaminants tested only Arsenic recorded a value higher than its relevant environmental

standard value.

Owner

Continuation


Where this has occurred, statistical analyses using the methodology set out in the CL:AIRE Document

“Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration”, have been

undertaken on the laboratory test results in order to establish a ‘true mean concentration (µ)’ within the

planning scenario for each determinant over the whole site area.

These analyses establish whether the data is normally distributed as well as taking into account possible

erroneously high values and determine whether contamination ‘outliers’ features are present on the site.

Once this has been established the ‘upper confidence limit of 95% on µ’ are subsequently compared

with the relevant environmental standard value, or ‘Critical Concentration (Cc)’.

The results of the analyses are described below and presented in Appendix D of this report.

Arsenic

Of the eight samples tested, the values obtained ranged from 21mg/kg to 54mg/kg.

An outlier of 54mg/kg was identified at 0.30m depth, in TPC in the northeast of the site. No obvious

reason for this outlier was recognised and therefore this outlying data was assumed to be genuine and

reflective of the full range of concentrations to which the receptor may be exposed.

The data were non-normally distributed and the Chebychev test was undertaken on these results and a

95% upper confidence limit of 45mg/kg was established for the site.

The relevant SGV for arsenic has been set at 32mg/kg for residential, however, the SAC for a primary

school end usage has been calculated, using CLEA 1.06, at 104mg/kg. The CLEA results are provided

in Appendix E of this report.

RESULTS OF LEACHATE TESTS

Of the two samples tested neither recorded values in excess of their respective UK Drinking Water

Standard (UKDWS).

Owner

Continuation


HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

The following qualitative risk assessment has been carried out using the source-pathway-receptor

principle. As such, potential sources of contamination have been assessed using the CLEA Guidelines.

The fact that a pathway must exist between a potential source and potential receptor for there to be a

risk, has been taken into account. The potential human receptors evaluated for their individual risk are:-

• End users of the site (staff and pupils).

• Surrounding residents.

• Construction workers.

GENERAL

The soil contamination tests carried out as part of this investigation revealed a slightly elevated

concentration of arsenic in the soil, when compared to a residential end use (32mg/kg), with a 95%

upper confidence limit of 45mg/kg.

However, the SAC for a primary school end usage has been calculated, using CLEA 1.06, at 104mg/kg.

Therefore a source-pathway-receptor linkage does not exist at the site and consequently no additional

human health risk assessment is considered necessary. However, this should be confirmed by the

relevant Regulatory Authority as soon as possible prior to development.

Owner

Continuation


GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENT

The following risk assessment has, again, been carried out using the source-pathway-receptor principle.

The procedures set out in ‘Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and

Groundwater to Protect Water Resources’ Environment Agency R&D Publication 20 (1999), have been

followed. Results have been compared to the UK Drinking Water Standards. The potential

environmental receptors considered during this risk assessment were:-

• Controlled Waters, Receiving Stream – a drain that flows towards the east, approximately 70m to the south of the site.

• Controlled Waters – the Principal Aquifer, the Blisworth Limestone Formation.

GENERAL

As none of the contaminants tested for within the leachate samples recorded values higher than the

UKDWS; the most stringent values available; it is considered that neither of the two above recognised

environmental receptors will be at risk from groundwater pollution at the site.

However, the Environment Agency is the regulatory body charged with protection of controlled waters

and are likely to be a consultee in the planning process. As such we strongly recommend that the

conclusions of this report are agreed with the Agency, at the earliest stage, to reduce any potential

delays to the development should they require further clarification of this report or further testing.

Owner

Continuation


GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS

GROUND CONDITIONS

The site and laboratory test work confirmed the generally expected ground conditions with Topsoil

locally overlying Made Ground, which in turn overlies the Oadby Memeber.

The Topsoil was shown to occur across the site from ground level down to depths of between 0.05m and

0.30m, with an average thickness of 0.20m. This consisted of a dark brown slightly sandy silty clay

Topsoil with some fine to coarse angular flint gravel.

The Made Ground was locally encountered down to a maximum depth of 0.80m. This consisted of a

variable mix of very soft, soft to firm and firm friable brown slightly silty sandy clay with fine to coarse

angular to subrounded flint and occasional red brick.

In machine excavated trial pit TP2 a French drain, composed of coarse gravel, was encountered at

0.20m depth adjacent to the tarmac area and an unmarked metal gas pipe was encountered

approximately 2m north of the tarmac surface in this area. The gas pipe was undamaged.

The Oadby Member was shown to occur from beneath the Made Ground or Topsoil at depths of

between 0.08m and 0.80m down a maximum depth of 6.0m. This consisted of an initially firm,

becoming firm to stiff and stiff locally very stiff at depth brown occasionally friable and fissure silty

slightly sandy clay with some fine to coarse angular to subrounded chalk and occasional flint gravel.

The laboratory testing shows the Oadby Memeber to have a medium volume change potential as defined

by NHBC Building Standards, Chapter 4.2.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory holes during the fieldwork down to 6.0m

depth below the existing ground level. Long term monitoring carried out as part of the project has

revealed that the borehole WS1 was dry down to the base of the standpipe at 6m depth below the

existing ground level.

SITE EXCAVATION

Conventional hydraulic plant should be satisfactory for excavating foundation and service trenches

within the soils at the site. However, specialist breaking plant may be required to assist in the removal

of the tarmac hardstanding.

Owner

Continuation


In line with recent HSE guidelines, all excavations requiring personnel access should be adequately

supported to avoid the risk of collapse. Excavations within the Oadby Member are likely to remain

stable in the short term.

Groundwater is not expected to be encountered down to depths of 6m bgl. Should minor groundwater

seepages be encountered then conventional pumping from sumps should be satisfactory in order to

maintain a dry excavation.

FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS

Shallow Foundations

The Made Ground is considered unsuitable as a bearing stratum due to its variability, and potential for

unacceptable total and differential settlement under applied foundation loadings.

The Oadby Member is considered to be a suitable bearing stratum for conventional shallow foundations

at not less than 1.0m below existing ground level or 0.20m into the top of the formation, whichever is

the deeper.

At this depth a safe bearing capacity of 120kPa may be adopted for foundations not exceeding one

metre in width. This allows for a factor of safety of three against shear failure and for settlements

generally not to exceed 25mm taking place over a number of years.

The soils should be considered as being of medium volume change potential.

Where foundations are to be constructed within the vicinity of trees or shrubs on this site then they will

require deepening in accord with guidelines given in NHBC Building Standards Chapter 4.2.

A proprietary compressible layer such as Claymaster or Clayshield should be placed along the sides of

foundation excavations in order to accommodate heave forces in the ground where any trees and shrubs

are removed in the vicinity of the proposed foundations or if the existing vegetation should die.

Care should be taken to ensure that any new planting in the development will not affect the new

foundations.

Given the plastic nature of the soils at founding depth, they will be prone to rapid softening when

wetted up. In the event that any delays occur between excavating for the foundations, and pouring of

the concrete, a blinding layer of concrete should be placed in the base of the open excavations to prevent

the occurrence of localized softening.

Owner

Continuation


GROUND FLOOR SLABS

Provided all the Topsoil is stripped off, ground bearing floor slabs could be constructed placed on a

layer of well compacted granular fill. However where it is required to deepen the main foundations

below 1.50m depth, due to the presence of vegetation and where seasonal desiccation is occurring then

ground floor slabs will require suspending in accord with NHBC guidelines. A void should be left

below the floor slab to accommodate future soil movements. This may be achieved by use of a

proprietary compressible material such as Clay board or Cellcore.

GAS PROTECTION

The results of the gas monitoring have revealed that very low levels of carbon dioxide are being

produced in the ground and no methane gas is being produced in the ground.

The results have been evaluated in relation to CIRIA report C665, ‘Assessing risks posed by hazardous

ground gases to buildings’, published December 2007.

The ground gas monitoring results collected to date give a maximum gas screening value of 0l/h. This

is equivalent to Characteristic Situation 1.

In consideration of a source-pathway-receptor methodology for ground gas risk assessment, the

sensitivity of the development is considered to be moderate, and the generation potential of the source is

considered to be very low.

Therefore, for a school building no levels of protection are considered necessary.

The BGS advises that no radon gas protection measures are necessary. A radon barrier should not be

confused with a gas protection membrane.

The above conclusions should be agreed with the relevant local Regulatory Authority as soon as

possible prior to development, to reduce any potential delays to the development should they require

further clarification of this report or further ground gas monitoring.

DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL

The excavation on site will produce a considerable amount of surplus soil. Under current waste

management legislation this soil is classified as waste and needs disposing of at a licensed facility.

If it is decided that the soil should be taken off-site as waste and disposed of, the implementation of the

Landfill Directive means that the waste soil requires classification prior to leaving site.

Owner

Continuation


European Waste Catalogue Determination

Using the ‘Total’ soil contamination test results from this investigation in conjunction with the CAT-

Waste spreadsheets used under license from Atkins and McArdle, all of the soil has been classified as

non-hazardous waste.

The results of the assessment are provided in Appendix F.

Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Testing Results

To further classify the waste soil Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing has been carried out on

three representative samples collected from site. The results show two of the samples obtained fails the

inert waste criteria due to the slightly elevated level of fluoride. The test result for fluoride from HA1

at 0.3m (Oadby Member) depth was 11.3mg/kg and the results from TPB at 0.5m (Made Ground) was

10.2mg/kg when compared to the inert waste limit value of 10mg/kg. The remaining sample, TPE at

0.3m (Made Ground), passed the inert waste criteria.

The laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix F.

Waste Classification

From the results of the CAT-Waste spreadsheets and the WAC testing, currently, the majority of the

waste soil on this site is classified as non-hazardous with the sample from TPE at 0.3m classified as

inert. However, further soil testing could be undertaken to try and reduce the volume of soil classified

as such, and reduce costs.

From 30th October 2007 The Landfill Regulations dictate that all waste must be treated before going to

landfill. This treatment should fulfil all of the following three criteria:

1. Physical, thermal, chemical or biological process including sorting.

2. Change the characteristics of the waste.

3. Reduce the volume, reduce the hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance its recovery.

The most basic method of pre-treatment is sorting of the waste and re-cycling any possible materials,

many waste disposals companies will have on-site recycling facilities that will be able to undertake this

process at the landfill site. However, if treatment would not reduce its quantity or the hazards it poses to

human health or the environment, then all three steps may not be necessary. The exception is inert waste

for which treatment is not technically feasible.

Owner

Continuation


From the 30th April 2008, the Environment Agency has stated that they expect all landfill operators to

obtain written evidence that the waste they accept has been pre-treated. We recommend that a signed

certificate should be obtained describing the treatment to give to the receiving landfill. Further testing

may be required after the treatment before the soil is accepted by the relevant landfill.

Analytical results relevant to the materials being disposed of should be provided to landfill operators to

confirm whether it meets their license agreements and to confirm tipping costs.

Site Waste Management Plan

In England, from 6 April 2008, you must have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new

construction projects worth more than £300,000.

The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding

VAT.

For projects estimated at between £300,000 and £500,000 (excluding VAT) the SWMP should contain

details of the:

• types of waste removed from the site • identity of the person who removed the waste • site that the waste is taken to.

For projects estimated at over £500,000 (excluding VAT) the SWMP should contain details of the:

• types of waste removed from the site • identity of the person who removed the waste and their waste carrier registration

number • a description of the waste • site that the waste was taken to • environmental permit or exemption held by the site where the material is taken.

At the end of the project, you must review the plan and record the reasons for any differences between

the plan and what actually happened.

SUBSURFACE CONCRETE

With respect to BRE Special Digest 1 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’ (2005), chemical tests on

selected soil samples have recorded soluble sulphate concentrations ranging from 0.04g/l to 0.75g/l. The

pH values ranged from 7.5 to 8.0.

This would correspond to a Design Sulphate Class of DS-2.

In terms of BRE Digest 1 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’ (2005) the current land use on the site

means that it should be considered as brownfield land.

Owner

Continuation


The groundwater beneath the site should be considered as static.

The chemical test results should be assessed in accord with BRE Special Digest 1 and appropriate action

taken for any new sub-surface concrete requirements. Reference to this document indicates that these

results correspond to AC-1s class (ACEC) ‘Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete’ in the

ground.

ACCESS ROADS AND PARKING

The structural design of a road or hard standing is based on the strength of the subgrade, which is

assessed on the California Bearing Ratio, CBR, scale. Past experience has indicated that the

measurement of the in-situ CBR value tends to give unreliable results because of the influence of the

moisture content of the materials. In practice, the correlation given in Transport and Road Research

Laboratory, Report LR1132, is usually more appropriate than direct determination of the CBR.

For pavement design, the correlation given in Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Report 1132,

has been used in association with the laboratory testing results to determine an appropriate CBR for the

site.

On the basis of laboratory classification tests it is recommended that for formation prepared in the clay,

a subgrade CBR value of 3% be adopted for design purposes. Any areas of soft or deleterious material

should be excavated and replaced with a properly compacted granular fill.

SOAKAWAY TESTING

Soakaway testing was carried out in the TPC at 1.0m depth in accord with BS6297. The Vp results

were for the two tests undertaken were 4.1 and 0.1.

However, should the permeability be calculated using BRE 365 then the permeability would equate to

2.3x10-6m/s.

Permeability testing was also undertaken in WS1. The results of the permeability testing in the borehole

indicate that the soil beneath the site has a permeability in the order of 6.5x10-7m/s.

The average permeability was established to be 1.5x10-6m/s, indicating soils with low permeability.

Owner

Continuation


REFERENCES

1. Building Research Establishment (BRE) BR 211, Radon: guidance on protective measures for

new buildings. 2007.

2. National House Building Council (NHBC) Standards, Chapter 4.2 Building near trees.

September 2006.

3. Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) R&D Publication CLR 8, ‘Potential

Contaminants for the Assessment of Land’, March 2002.

4. Environment Agency, ‘The Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’,

CLR 11, 2004

5. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Report 1132, ‘The Structural Design of Bituminous

Roads’. 1984.

6. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), “Protection of Workers and the General Public during

Development of Contaminated Land” HS(G) 66. HMSO London 1991.

7. Environment Agency, ‘Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil’,

August 2008

8. Amherst Scientific Publishers; ‘The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group

(TPHCWG) - Volumes 1 -5’, March 1998

9. Site Investigations, Code of Practice, BS5930, 1999

10. Soils for Civil engineering Purposes, BS1377, 1990

11. Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice, BS10175, 2000

12. Foundations, BS8004, 2000

13. Soakaway design, BRE Digest 365, 2007

14. Concrete in Aggressive Ground, BRE Special Digest 1, 2003

15. Design and Installation of Small Treatment Works and Cesspools, BS6297, 1983

Owner

Continuation


LISTERS 10.05.018

Prepared By: - Signed................................................. Matt Johnston B.Sc (Hons) Checked By: - Signed................................................. Murray Bateman B.Sc (Hons), M.Sc, DIC, FGS, C.Geol For and on behalf of Listers Geotechnical Consultants

Owner

Continuation

DPH and SHDP DYNAMIC PROBING This is a simple test consisting of driving a rod with an oversize point at its base into the ground. A uniform, regular, hammer blow is used. The blow count is recorded for every 100mm of driving (N100) and the results presented as a plot of blow count against depth. Outside the UK this type of testing has been used extensively in a wide range of formats (ie. various hammer weights, hammer drops, point sizes, etc.) for many years. Since 1985 Dynamic Probing has become widely accepted in this country and the first British Standard for this test was published in 1990. The standard equipment is a petrol powered unit using a 50kg hammer dropping through 0.50m 32mm diameter rods and a 15cm2 area cone. This is the Heavy Dynamic Probe (DPH) and the equipment has been selected for general use as giving a good compromise between sensitivity in loose materials and penetration rates in denser materials. A sacrificial cone is used for each probing. A damper is used between the hammer and anvil. The Super Heavy Dynamic Probe (DPSH) is a heavier version, using a 63.5kg hammer dropping through 0.75m, 32mm diameter rods and a 20cm2 area cone. The hammer operation is automated and driving is carried out as a continuous operation from ground level without a borehole. The test therefore not only provides a continuous record for the full depth penetration but also avoids many of the problems associated with poor operator technique when carrying out SPTs in boreholes. Dynamic Probing provides an excellent method for locating boundaries between strata of differing density and driving resistance as well as comparative assessments of a single strata across a site. Comparisons between Dynamic probing results, SPT values and other soil parameters are given in DIN4094. Information on UK practice and correlation data in UK soils was published at the ICE Conference on Penetration Testing in 1988. The complete machine weights 140kg stands 2.5m high and measures 750mm wide x 850mm deep when erected. For movement between positions the mast is lowered and the machine wheeled on an integral axle. Probing can be carried out within 300mm of a vertical wall. References: 1. Subsoil; exploration by penetration tests -DIN4094. December 1990 (Standard and supplement) 2. Soils for civil engineering purposes. In-situ tests. - BS1377 Part 9 1990 3. Penetration testing in the UK. (Proceedings of the geotechnology conference organised by the Institution of

Civil Engineers and held in Birmingham 6-8 July 1988) 4. Code of Practice for Site Investigations – BS5930 1999 Section 4

DPH and SHDP DYNAMIC PROBING

Owner

Continuation

Lab Ref:Date

Harwick Infant & Junior School, Olympic Way, Wellingborough,Northamptonshire

June 2010

04/06/2010

SHDPWS1

10.05.018

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Probe No:Site:

Date Probed:

.

PENETRATION PROBE

Dep

th (-

m)

.

Client Ref:

Blows per 100mm penetration

Owner

Continuation

Lab Ref:Date

Harwick Infant & Junior School, Olympic Way, Wellingborough,Northamptonshire

June 2010

04/06/2010

SHDPWS3

10.05.018

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Probe No:Site:

Date Probed:

.

PENETRATION PROBE

Dep

th (-

m)

.

Client Ref:

Blows per 100mm penetration

Owner

Continuation

1.0 SOIL/ROCK SYMBOLS 1.1 Soils

Made Ground Sand

Topsoil Silt

Boulders and Cobbles Clay

Gravel Peat 1.2 Rocks, Sedimentary

Chalk Siltstone

Limestone Mudstone

Conglomerate Breccia

Coal Sandstone

SOIL/ROCK SYMBOLS

Owner

Continuation

Water StrikeWater (Standing Level)Water SampleBulk SampleSmall Disturbed SampleUndisturbed Sample(No. of blows shown in brackets)

Description of StrataStrata Change Samples

LegendScale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m

LOCATION: BOREHOLE NO.Date of Boring:

Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

BDU

*

BOREHOLE LOGDate Report No:

Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

..

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: by hand auger1.2. No Groundwater Encountered3. Sides Stable

June 2010

Harwick Infant & Junior School, Olympic Way,Wellingborough, Northamptonshire

-

04/06/2010HA1

10.05.018

DRY

55mm

0.08

(0.52)

0.60

0.30

0.60

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy silty clayey TOPSOILwith some fine to coarse angular flint gravel

OADBY MEMBERVery stiff brown slightly silty slightly sandy CLAYwith fine to coarse subrounded to round flint, chalkand limestone gravel

Base of borehole at 0.60 m

0.0

1.0

Owner

Continuation



LegendScale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

BDU

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

..

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)


June 2010


-

04/06/2010HA2

10.05.018

DRY

55mm

0.10

0.55

0.65

0.40

0.65

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy slightly silty clayTOPSOIL with some fine to coarse angular chalk,limestone and flint gravel

MADE GROUNDFirm friable brown slightly silty sandy CLAY withfine to coarse angular to subrounded flint gravel and occasional red brick

OADBY MEMBERFirm brown slightly silty CLAY with some fine tocoarse subrounded flint and chalk gravel


0.0

1.0

Owner

Continuation



LegendScale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

BDU

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

..

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: by hand auger1.No Groundwater Encountered2.Sides Stable3.

June 2010


-

04/06/2010HA3

10.05.018

DRY

55mm

0.30

0.60

0.30

0.60

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly silty CLAY with occasional fineto coarse angular chalk, flint and limestone gravel

OADBY MEMBERStiff friable slightly sandy silty CLAY with somefine to coarse subrounded flint and chalk gravel


0.0

1.0

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR

TRIAL PIT LOGDate Report No.

New Text

Water StrikeWater (Standing Level)Water SampleBulk SampleSmall Disturbed SampleVane TestPenetrometer TestMexe Penetrometer

Description of Strata

Strata Change Samples

Legend Depth -mScale

Depth

UF Under Foundations

-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m

LOCATION: TRIAL PIT:Date of Excavation:

- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Trial Pit terminated at 1.00m1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.35 x 0.35 x 1.00m3. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010

Harwick Infant & Junior School,Olympic Way, Wellingborough,Northamptonshire

TPA

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.05)0.05

(0.70)

0.75

(0.25)

1.00

0.50

0.95

D

UF

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy silty clay TOPSOIL withsome fine to medium angular flint gravel

MADE GROUNDFirm brown mottled light brown slightly sandyslightly silty CLAY with abundant mediumsubangular gravel, concrete cobbles red rick, metal andfibre glass

OADBY MEMBERFirm grey brown slightly silty slightly sandy CLAYwith some fine chalk gravel

Trial Pit terminated at 1.00 m

0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

0.70m

0.95m

0.23m

0.25m

Diagramatic only, not to scale

Report No.TRIAL PIT PROFILE 10.05.018

DateJune 2010

TRIAL PIT A

BRICK

CONCRETE

GROUND LEVELGL

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Trial Pit terminated at 1.00m1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.30 x 0.40 x 1.00m3. Groundwater Encountered at 0.70m

June 2010


TPB

04/06/2010

10.05.018

(0.30)

0.30

(0.28)

0.58

(0.22)

0.80

(0.20)

1.00

0.50

0.60

0.70

1.00

D

D

D

UF

TOPSOILSoft grey brown slightly sandy slightly silty clayTOPSOIL with some fine to medium subangular gravel

MADE GROUNDSoft to firm brown mottles light grey light brownslightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional finesubangular gravel and soft fine chalk blocks

MADE GROUNDVery soft light grey brown silty CLAY with some finegravel

OADBY MEMBERFirm grey mottled light brown silty slightly sandyCLAY with abundant fine to medium subangular flintand chalk gravel


0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

APPENDIX ‘A’

Site Work

Owner

Continuation

Site Location Scale: 1:50,000 Crown Copyright

Date June 2010

SITE LOCATION MAP

Report No. 10.05.018

Owner

Continuation

APPENDIX ‘A’

Site Work

Owner

Continuation

Site Location Scale: 1:50,000 Crown Copyright

Date June 2010

SITE LOCATION MAP

Report No. 10.05.018

Owner

Continuation

1.0 SOIL/ROCK SYMBOLS 1.1 Soils

Made Ground Sand

Topsoil Silt

Boulders and Cobbles Clay

Gravel Peat 1.2 Rocks, Sedimentary

Chalk Siltstone

Limestone Mudstone

Conglomerate Breccia

Coal Sandstone

SOIL/ROCK SYMBOLS

Owner

Continuation



LegendScale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

BDU

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

..

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)


June 2010


-

04/06/2010HA1

10.05.018

DRY

55mm

0.08

(0.52)

0.60

0.30

0.60

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy silty clayey TOPSOILwith some fine to coarse angular flint gravel

OADBY MEMBERVery stiff brown slightly silty slightly sandy CLAYwith fine to coarse subrounded to round flint, chalkand limestone gravel


0.0

1.0

Owner

Continuation



LegendScale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

BDU

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

..

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)


June 2010


-

04/06/2010HA2

10.05.018

DRY

55mm

0.10

0.55

0.65

0.40

0.65

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy slightly silty clayTOPSOIL with some fine to coarse angular chalk,limestone and flint gravel

MADE GROUNDFirm friable brown slightly silty sandy CLAY withfine to coarse angular to subrounded flint gravel and occasional red brick

OADBY MEMBERFirm brown slightly silty CLAY with some fine tocoarse subrounded flint and chalk gravel


0.0

1.0

Owner

Continuation



LegendScale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

BDU

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

..

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: by hand auger1.No Groundwater Encountered2.Sides Stable3.

June 2010


-

04/06/2010HA3

10.05.018

DRY

55mm

0.30

0.60

0.30

0.60

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly silty CLAY with occasional fineto coarse angular chalk, flint and limestone gravel

OADBY MEMBERStiff friable slightly sandy silty CLAY with somefine to coarse subrounded flint and chalk gravel


0.0

1.0

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Trial Pit terminated at 1.00m1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.35 x 0.35 x 1.00m3. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010


TPA

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.05)0.05

(0.70)

0.75

(0.25)

1.00

0.50

0.95

D

UF


MADE GROUNDFirm brown mottled light brown slightly sandyslightly silty CLAY with abundant mediumsubangular gravel, concrete cobbles red rick, metal andfibre glass

OADBY MEMBERFirm grey brown slightly silty slightly sandy CLAYwith some fine chalk gravel


0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

0.70m

0.95m

0.23m

0.25m



DateJune 2010

TRIAL PIT A

BRICK

CONCRETE

GROUND LEVELGL

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Trial Pit terminated at 1.00m1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.30 x 0.40 x 1.00m3. Groundwater Encountered at 0.70m

June 2010


TPB

04/06/2010

10.05.018

(0.30)

0.30

(0.28)

0.58

(0.22)

0.80

(0.20)

1.00

0.50

0.60

0.70

1.00

D

D

D

UF

TOPSOILSoft grey brown slightly sandy slightly silty clayTOPSOIL with some fine to medium subangular gravel

MADE GROUNDSoft to firm brown mottles light grey light brownslightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional finesubangular gravel and soft fine chalk blocks

MADE GROUNDVery soft light grey brown silty CLAY with some finegravel

OADBY MEMBERFirm grey mottled light brown silty slightly sandyCLAY with abundant fine to medium subangular flintand chalk gravel


0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

0.70m

0.24m

0.20m

0.90m



DateJune 2010

TRIAL PIT B

GROUND LEVELGL

BRICK

CONCRETE

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Hand Excavated trial pit, terminated at 0.60m1.2. Soakaway test undertaken3. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010


TPC

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.15)

0.15

(0.45)

0.60

0.30

0.60

D

D


OADBY MEMBERFirm orange brown slightly silty sandy CLAY withsome medium subangular flint gravel


0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Method of excavation: by hand1.2. Trial Pit dimensions: 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.40m3. Maximum depth of visible roots: 0.40m4. No Groundwater Encountered5. Sides Stable

June 2010


TPD

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.20)

0.20

(0.20)

0.40

0.30 D


MADE GROUNDLoose brown sand with fine to coarse angularsandstone and concrete gravel with occasional brickplastic and wood

At 0.40m concrete blockTrial Pit terminated at 0.40 m

0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Method of excavation: by hand1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.40 x 0.40 x 0.60m3. Maximum depth of visible roots: 0.40m4. No Groundwater Encountered5. Sides Stable

June 2010


TPE

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.30)

0.30

(0.30)

0.60

0.30 D

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy clayey silty TOPSOILwith abundant fine roots and abundant fine roots andabundant fine to medium angular flint gravel

MADE GROUNDStiff friable brown silty CLAY with abundant fine tocoarse subrounded to angular flint gravel andoccasional brick


0.00

1.00

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Method of excavation: JCB 3CX1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.6 x 2.5 x 3.00m3. Maximum Depth of visible roots: 0.50m4. No Groundwater Encountered5. Sides Stable

June 2010


TP1

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.12)0.12

(2.88)

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

D

D

D

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown sandy silty TOPSOIL with some fine tocoarse angular gravel and occasional red brick

OADBY MEMBERFirm to stiff brown slightly sandy CLAY withabundant fine to coarse subrounded to rounded chalkgravel

Becoming stiff mottled grey and orange brown withsome subrounded flint gravel

At 1.90m with occasional pockets of fine to mediumsand


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Method of excavation: JCB 3CX1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.6 x 2.1 x 0.30m3. Maximum Depth of visible roots: 0.30m4. Sides Stable

June 2010


TP2

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.10)0.10(0.20)

0.30 0.30 D

TOPSOILDark brown sandy silty TOPSOIL with abundant finerocks and fine to coarse angular flint gravel

MADE GROUNDFirm to stiff sandy CLAY with abudant fine to coarseangular flint gravelFrench drain, coarse gravel encountered at 0.20mdepth adjacent to tarmac area. Metal gas pipeencountered at 0.30m depth approximately 2m fromfrench drainTrial Pit terminated at 0.30 m

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Owner

Continuation

Strata

Client Ref:

W

CBR Sample

BDVPMCBR


New Text





Depth


-mType

HandVane

WaterLevel

-m


- 0.00

(Cu)

Remarks

(kPa)

Method of excavation: JCB 3CX1.2. Trial Pit Dimensions: 0.6 x 2.3 x 2.2m3. Maximum Depth of visible roots: 0.50m4. No Groundwater Encountered5. Sides Stable

June 2010


TP3

04/06/2010

10.05.018

DRY

(0.22)

0.22

(1.98)

2.20

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.20

D

D

D

D

D

TOPSOILDark brown sandy silty clayey TOPSOIL with somefine to coarse angular flint and chalk gravel andabundant roots

OADBY MEMBERStiff friable brown slightly sandy clay with somefine to coarse subrounded to rounded chalk andoccasional flint gravelAt 0.60m become mottled grey and orange brown


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Owner

Continuation

Water Strike

Water (Standing Level)

Water Sample

Bulk Sample

Small Disturbed Sample

Undisturbed Sample

(No. of blows shown in brackets)



Legend

Scale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m

LOCATION: BOREHOLE NO.

Date of Boring:

Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

B

D

U

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: Window sampling rig1.2. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010


Gas/Groundwater monitoring installation installed to 6.00m depth

-

04/06/2010

WS1

10.05.018

DRY

87mm

0.20

(5.80)

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.504.50

5.00

5.50

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

56

83

73

80

110

100

102

TOPSOILDark brown slightly silty slightly sandy clayTOPSOIL with some fine to coarse angular flint gravel

OADBY MEMBERFirm to stiff brown mottled grey slightly siltyslightly fissured any CLAY with occasional finesubangular chalk gravel

At 2.00m becoming stiff with occasional subangularflint gravel

At 3.00m becoming dark grey

At 4.5m becoming very stiff


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

to 57mm

Owner

Continuation

Water Strike


Water Sample

Bulk Sample


Undisturbed Sample




Legend

Scale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Date of Boring:

Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

B

D

U

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: window sampling rig1.2. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010


-

04/06/2010

WS2

10.05.018

87mm

0.20

(3.80)

4.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

D

D

D

D

D

D

90

108


OADBY MEMBERFirm, friable medium brown silty slightly sandyfissured CLAY with some fine to medium subangularchalk gravelAt 1.00m becoming firm to stiff mottled grey

At 2.00m becoming stiff

At 2.50m becoming dark grey


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

to 57mm

Owner

Continuation

Water Strike


Water Sample

Bulk Sample


Undisturbed Sample




Legend

Scale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Date of Boring:

Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

B

D

U

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: Window sampling rig1.2. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010


-

04/06/2010

WS3

10.05.018

87mm

0.10

(3.90)

4.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

D

D

D

D

D

D

102

90

+130

+130

+130

+130

TOPSOILDark brown slightly sandy silty clay TOPSOIL withsome fine to coarse angular flint gravel

Firm to stiff brown slightly silty slightly sandyCLAY with occasional fine angular gravel and somefine to medium roots

At 1.20m becoming mottled grey


At 2.00m becoming grey brown


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

to 57mm

Owner

Continuation

Water Strike


Water Sample

Bulk Sample


Undisturbed Sample




Legend

Scale

Depth -m Depth-m

Type

Hand

kPa

WaterLevel

-m


Date of Boring:

Strata

W

Extrapolated Value

B

D

U

*


Borehole Diameter:

Remarks:

Client Ref:

.

Vane

Lining Tubes:

Ground Level:

Instrumentation:

(Cu)

Method of excavation: window sampling rig1.2. No Groundwater Encountered

June 2010


-

04/06/2010

WS4

10.05.018

87mm

0.20

(3.80)

4.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

D

D

D

D

D

D

86

+130

108

100

+130

+130

TOPSOILDark brown slightly silty sandy clay TOPSOIL withsome fine medium sandy flint gravel

OADBY MEMBERFirm to stiff grey brown mottled grey slightly siltyCLAY with some fine chalk gravel

At 1.50m becoming firm to stiff



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

to 57mm

Owner

Continuation

Client: BCAL Consulting TEST-1Site: Hardwick Junior & Infants SchoolsReport No: 10.05.018Date Tested: 8th July 2010

WS10.05 m1.8 m

0.0019625 m6 m

Time (min) Depth to water (m) Head of water (m)0.01 1.8 4.2

1 1.83 4.175 1.87 4.1310 1.89 4.1130 1.9 4.160 1.92 4.08

1.43E-06 m/s3.85E-07 m/s1.46E-07 m/s

6.54E-07 m/s

Email: [email protected]

Permeability of soil to BS 5930:1999

Borehole Number

LISTERS Geotechnical Consultants

Slapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northants. NN12 8QDTelephone: 01327 860060

Maximum initial head or depth-1Area of Borehole

For an Open Hole

Depth to base of hole

Borehole Diameter

Permeability (k)

Average result=

Results

LISTERS Geotechnical ConsultantsSlapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northants. NN12 8QDTelephone: 01327 860060 Email: [email protected]

Client: BCAL Report No: 10.05.018Site: Hardwick Infant & Junior Schools Date Tested: 04/07/10

Dimensions: 0.30m x 0.30m x 1.00m Test Location: TPC Test 1

TEST 1Time Depth BGL Time Depth BGL Time Depth BGL

0 0.27 8 0.38 0 01 0.28 9 0.39 0 02 0.29 10 0.395 0 03 0.31 15 0.424 0.35 20 0.455 0.36 30 0.476 0.37 40 0.4757 0.38 0 0

Comments: Calculated result based on extrapolation.

Calculated Average Soil Infiltration Rate = 2.3*10-6m/s

Trial Pit Soakaway Testingto BRE Digest 365

TPC Test 1

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Time (minutes)

Hea

d of

Wat

er (m

)

LISTERS Geotechnical ConsultantsSlapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northants. NN12 8QDTelephone: 01327 860060 Email: [email protected]

Client: BCAL Report No: 10.05.018Site: Hardwick Infant & Junior Schools Date Tested: 04/07/10

Dimensions: 0.30m x 0.30m x 1.00m Test Location: TPC Test 2

TEST 1Time Depth BGL Time Depth BGL Time Depth BGL

0 0.22 8 0.3 90 0.51 0.25 9 0.31 0 02 0.26 10 0.31 0 03 0.27 15 0.334 0.28 20 0.355 0.29 30 0.3956 0.29 45 0.437 0.3 60 0.47

Comments: Calculated result based on extrapolation.

Calculated Average Soil Infiltration Rate = 2.3*10-6m/s

Trial Pit Soakaway Testingto BRE Digest 365

TPC Test 2

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Time (minutes)

Hea

d of

Wat

er (m

)

LISTERSGeotechnical ConsultantsDate of Test Methane Carbon Oxygen Flow Water Barometric

Sampling Location Dioxide Level PressureBH CH4(%) CO2(%) O2(%) Flw(l/h) H2O(m) aP(mb)

08/07/2010 BH1 - 0.7 19.6 0 0 1005

I. Gas measurements taken using a portable Gas Data LMS xi gas monitor

DateJune 2010

Report No.10.05.018

GAS MONITORING

APPENDIX ‘B’

Laboratory Test Work

Owner

Continuation

GroundTech LaboratoriesGeotechnical Testing FacilitySlapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northants. NN12 8QD

Telephone:- 01327 860947/860060 Fax:- 01327 860430 Email: [email protected]

Site Location:- Laboratory Tests Undertaken:-

TEST TYPE TESTED

Northamptonshire Natural Moisture Contents (MC%) (BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 3.2)

Liquid Limits (%) (BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 4.3)

Client:- Plastic Limits (%) (BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 5.3)

Plasticity Index (%) (BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 5.4)

Linear Shrinkage (%) (BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 6.5)

PSD - Wet Sieving (BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.2)

Client Reference:- Engineering Sample Descriptions

Passing 425/63 ( m)

Hydrometer

Date Samples Received:- 7 June 2010 Loss on Ignition (%)

Date Testing Completed:- 25 June 2010 Soil Suctions (kPa)

Bulk Density (Mg/m3)

Strength Tests

Soluble Sulphate Content (SO4g/l)

pH value

California Bearing Ratios (CBR)

Compaction Tests

The results relate only to the samples tested

Signed on behalf of GroundTech Laboratories:-____________________________________ Technical Signatory

Report Date

June 2010

Hardwick Infant and Junior School

PROJECT INFORMATION

Laboratory testing in accord with BS EN ISO/IEC 17025-2000 and

Quality Management in accord with ISO 9001

This test-report may not be reproduced, except with full and written approval of

GROUNDTECH LABORATORIES

(BS 1377:Part 4:1990 Clauses 3.0-3.6)

(BS 5930 : Section 6)

Olympic Way, Wellingborough

BCAL Consulting

(BS 1377:Part 7:1990 Clause 8 & 9)

(BS 1377:Part 3:1990 Clause 5.3)

-

BRE Digest IP 4/93, 1993

(BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 7.2)

-

(BS 1377:Part 3:1990 Clause 9.4)

(BS 1377:Part 4:1990 Clause 7)

Project Ref

10.05.018

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Quality Assured

to ISO 9001

SAMPLE INFORMATION

TEST METHOD

-

(BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.5)

Page 1 of 6

GroundTech LaboratoriesGeotechnical Testing FacilitySlapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester, Northants. NN12 8QDTelephone:- 01327 860947/860060 Fax:- 01327 860430 Email: [email protected]

TestLocation

SampleType

SampleDepth

-m

TestType

MC %LL%

PL%

PI%

Passing425 m

%

ModifiedPI%

ClassPassing63 m

%

MC/LL

PL+2%

LiquidityIndex

Loss on Ignition

%

SoilSuction

kPa

BulkDensity

Mg/m3

TestType

CellPressure

kN/m2

DeviatorStress

kN/m2

ApparentCohesion

kN/m2pH Value

SolubleSulphate

Content SO4 g/l

HA 1 D 0.30 16D 0.60 PI/63 20 47 20 26 93 24 CI 79 0.43 22 -0.01 7

HA 2 D 0.40 33D 0.65 29

HA 3 D 0.30 18D 0.60 18 7.7 0.04

TP A D 0.50 24UF 0.95 PI/63 17 43 19 24 91 22 CI 81 0.39 21 -0.07

TP B D 0.20 32 8D 0.50 22D 0.60 30D 1.00 PI/63 21 42 19 24 91 22 CI 78 0.49 21 0.09

TP C D 0.30 16D 0.60 PI/63 21 41 19 22 83 19 CI 63 0.51 21 0.11

TP D D 0.30 16 7.7 0.13TP E D 0.30 9TP 1 D 0.50 18

D 1.00 PI/63 18 43 19 24 95 23 CI 82 0.42 21 -0.04D 1.50 19

U Undisturbed Sample R Remoulded PI Plasticity Index T Triaxial Undrained L 100mm specimen

D Disturbed Sample 63 Passing 63 m F Filter Paper Suction Tests M Multistage Triaxial S 38mm specimen

B Bulk Sample H Hydrometer HP Hand Penetrometer

W Water Sample PSD Wet Sieving V Vane Test

June 2010 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project Ref Client Ref10.05.018 -

CHEMICALSAMPLES CLASSIFICATION TESTS STRENGTH TESTS

Symbols:

Report Date

Quality Assuredto ISO 9001

TESTSCLASSIFICATION TESTS

Page 2 of 6


TestLocation

SampleType

SampleDepth

-m

TestType

MC %LL%

PL%

PI%

Passing425 m

%

ModifiedPI%

ClassPassing63 m

%

MC/LL

PL+2%

LiquidityIndex

Loss on Ignition

%

SoilSuction

kPa

BulkDensity

Mg/m3

TestType

CellPressure

kN/m2

DeviatorStress

kN/m2

ApparentCohesion

kN/m2pH Value

SolubleSulphate

Content SO4 g/l




TP 1 D 2.00 17D 2.50 PI/63 17 39 18 21 82 17 CI 71 0.44 20 -0.06D 3.00 17 7.5 0.67

TP 2 D 0.30 9 7.9 0.08TP 3 D 0.50 18

D 1.00 PI/63 19 43 19 25 93 23 CI 81 0.44 21 0.01D 1.50 19D 2.00 20 7.9 0.31D 2.20 PI/63 19 40 19 22 92 20 CI 78 0.47 21 0.02

WS 1 J 0.50 14 5B 1.20 PI/63 19 44 19 26 90 23 CI 77 0.43 21 0.01B 1.50 18B 2.00 13B 2.50 PI/63 14 40 18 22 91 20 CI 79 0.35 20 -0.20B 3.00 16B 3.50 16 7.6 0.21B 4.00 PI/63 16 50 20 30 92 28 CH 83 0.32 22 -0.14D 4.50 10D 5.00 15





June 2010Project Ref Client Ref10.05.018 -

Symbols:

Report Date LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Page 3 of 6


TestLocation

SampleType

SampleDepth

-m

TestType

MC %LL%

PL%

PI%

Passing425 m

%

ModifiedPI%

ClassPassing63 m

%

MC/LL

PL+2%

LiquidityIndex

Loss on Ignition

%

SoilSuction

kPa

BulkDensity

Mg/m3

TestType

CellPressure

kN/m2

DeviatorStress

kN/m2

ApparentCohesion

kN/m2pH Value

SolubleSulphate

Content SO4 g/l




WS 1 D 5.50 PI/63 13 51 20 30 95 29 CH 85 0.26 22 -0.24WS 2 J 0.50 13

B 1.20 PI/63 19 41 18 23 89 20 CI 77 0.46 20 0.04 5 8.0 0.75B 1.50 18B 2.00 19B 2.50 PI/63 19 39 18 20 93 19 CI 80 0.49 20 0.04B 3.00 16B 3.50 PI/63 13 36 17 20 86 17 CI 76 0.36 19 -0.19

WS 3 J 0.50 PI/63 26 51 20 31 92 28 CH 79 0.51 22 0.19 7B 1.20 18B 1.50 PI/63 19 44 19 25 92 23 CI 79 0.43 21 0.01B 2.00 19B 2.50 17 7.5 0.27B 3.00 17B 3.50 PI/63 16 41 18 23 93 21 CI 79 0.39 20 -0.10

WS 4 J 0.50 15 6B 1.20 PI/63 19 41 19 22 90 20 CI 79 0.46 21 0.01B 1.50 19 7.9 0.08B 2.00 18





June 2010

Symbols:

Report Date LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project Ref Client Ref10.05.018 -

Page 4 of 6


TestLocation

SampleType

SampleDepth

-m

TestType

MC %LL%

PL%

PI%

Passing425 m

%

ModifiedPI%

ClassPassing63 m

%

MC/LL

PL+2%

LiquidityIndex

Loss on Ignition

%

SoilSuction

kPa

BulkDensity

Mg/m3

TestType

CellPressure

kN/m2

DeviatorStress

kN/m2

ApparentCohesion

kN/m2pH Value

SolubleSulphate

Content SO4 g/l




WS 4 B 2.50 PI/63 17 39 18 21 84 17 CI 72 0.43 20 -0.06B 3.00 15B 3.50 PI/63 16 38 17 21 92 20 CI 79 0.42 19 -0.04





June 2010Project RefLABORATORY TEST RESULTSReport Date

Symbols:

10.05.018 -Client Ref

Page 5 of 6

TP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1

June 2010

Harwick Infant & Junior School, Olympic Way, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire

10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1TP 2

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1TP 2TP 3

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1TP 2TP 3WS 1

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1TP 2TP 3WS 1WS 2

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1TP 2TP 3WS 1WS 2WS 3

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3TP 1TP 2TP 3WS 1WS 2WS 3WS 4

Assured to

Geotechnical Testing FacilitySlapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester,Telephone:- 01327 860947/860060 Fax:- 01327 860430

GroundTech Laboratories

Lab. Ref.DatePLASTICITY CHART

ISO9001

Client Ref.

QualityNorthants. NN12 8QD

Low Intermediate High Very HighExtremely

High

UPPER PLASTICITY RANGE

CVCE

ME

CH

CI

CL

ML

MI

MH

MV

A LINE

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

0

Pla

stic

ity I

ndex

(%

)

Liquid Limit (%)

.

Site:

June 2010


10.05.018

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90TP A

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP B

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP C

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP D

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP E

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2

June 2010


10.05.018

TP ATP BTP CTP DTP EHA 1HA 2HA 3

June 2010


10.05.018

TP A

Page 6 of 6

.

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

HA 1

HA 2

HA 3

TP 1

TP 2

Client Ref.


June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

Quality

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

HA 1

HA 2

Northants. NN12 8QD

HA 3

TP 1

TP 2

TP 3


June 2010

10.05.018

Dep

th -

m

Assured to

TP A

TP B

TP C

Geotechnical Testing Facility

TP D

TP E

HA 1

HA 2

HA 3

TP 1

TP 2

TP 3

WS 1


June 2010

10.05.018

Slapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road, Slapton, Towcester,

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

HA 1

HA 2

HA 3

TP 1

TP 2

TP 3

WS 1

WS 2


June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

HA 1

HA 2

HA 3

TP 1

TP 2

TP 3

WS 1


WS 2

WS 3


June 2010

10.05.018

June 2010

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

10.05.018

TP E

HA 1

HA 2

HA 3

TP 1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

TP 2

TP 3

WS 1

WS 2

WS 3

WS 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

TP A


June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

TP B


June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

TP B

TP C


June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D


June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E


Telephone:- 01327 860947/860060

June 2010

10.05.018

TP A

TP B

TP C

Fax:- 01327 860430

TP D

TP E

HA 1


June 2010

10.05.018

GroundTech Laboratories

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

Moisture Content %

HA 1

HA 2


June 2010

10.05.018Lab Ref.

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

HA 1

Site:

HA 2

HA 3


June 2010

10.05.018DateMOISTURE CONTENT v DEPTH

TP A

TP B

TP C

TP D

TP E

ISO9001

HA 1

HA 2

HA 3

TP 1


June 2010

10.05.018

Listers Geotechnical Consultants

Slapton Hill Barn, Blakesley Road

Slapton, Towcester

Northamptonshire

NN12 8QD

FAO Matthew Johnston

LABORATORY TEST REPORT Results of analysis of 8 samples

received 08 June 2010

Report Date

16 June 2010

10.05.018 - Hardwick Infant & Junior School, Welli

88924AF02073 AF02074 AF02075 AF02076 AF02077 AF02078 AF02079 AF02080

HA1 HA2 HA2 HA3 TP1 TPB TPC TPE

07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/20100.3m 0.4m 0.65m 0.3m 0.5m 0.5m 0.3m 0.3m

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

2120 Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428 mg kg-¹ M 1.2 2.8 2.0 1.0 2.5 <0.4 0.9 1.2

2450 Arsenic 7440382 mg kg-¹ M 23 21 27 24 28 26 54 22

Cadmium 7440439 mg kg-¹ M 0.13 0.21 0.43 0.12 <0.10 <0.10 0.18 0.13

Chromium 7440473 mg kg-¹ M 34 41 51 42 39 27 39 29

Copper 7440508 mg kg-¹ M 27 35 24 19 77 17 20 26

Mercury 7439976 mg kg-¹ M 0.16 0.15 <0.10 <0.10 0.22 <0.10 <0.10 0.10

Nickel 7440020 mg kg-¹ M 36 40 57 38 41 34 41 34

Lead 7439921 mg kg-¹ M 51 44 31 26 100 13 22 99

Selenium 7782492 mg kg-¹ M <0.20 0.33 0.25 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20

Zinc 7440666 mg kg-¹ M 95 130 110 93 160 58 110 100

2670 TPH >C6-C10 mg kg-¹ N < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH >C10-C21 mg kg-¹ N 12 24 < 1 < 1 11 < 1 < 1 13

TPH >C21-C40 mg kg-¹ N 31 26 < 1 < 1 22 < 1 < 1 36

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ M 42 49 < 10 < 10 33 < 10 < 10 49

2700 Naphthalene 91203 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Acenaphthylene 208968 mg kg-¹ M 0.14 < 0.1 0.21 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Acenaphthene 83329 mg kg-¹ M 0.12 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1

Fluorene 86737 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Phenanthrene 85018 mg kg-¹ M 0.17 0.14 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.22 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Anthracene 120127 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Fluoranthene 206440 mg kg-¹ M 0.35 0.24 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.54 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Pyrene 129000 mg kg-¹ M 0.34 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.47 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[a]anthracene 56553 mg kg-¹ M 0.26 0.35 0.16 0.15 0.33 0.13 0.12 < 0.1

Chrysene 218019 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 0.17 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.27 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205992 mg kg-¹ M 0.41 0.13 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.55 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207089 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 0.23 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[a]pyrene 50328 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.2 < 0.1 0.28 < 0.1

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 53703 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 193395 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 0.14 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.17 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Login Batch No

Chemtest LIMS ID

Sample ID

Sample No

Depth

SOPi

Matrix

Determinandi CAS Noi Unitsi *

Sampling Date

All tests undertaken between 11-Jun-2010 and 16-Jun-2010 1

2ofReport page

This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page

1

Column page

AF02073 AF02080toReport sample ID range

* Accreditation status



Slapton, Towcester

Northamptonshire

NN12 8QD




Report Date

16 June 2010




07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/20100.3m 0.4m 0.65m 0.3m 0.5m 0.5m 0.3m 0.3m


2700 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 191242 mg kg-¹ M 0.25 0.25 < 0.1 0.18 0.23 < 0.1 0.14 < 0.1

Total (of 16) PAHs mg kg-¹ M 2.1 3.1 < 2 < 2 4 < 2 < 2 < 2


2ofReport page


2

Column page





Slapton, Towcester

Northamptonshire

NN12 8QD




Report Date

23 June 2010


88924AF05214 AF05215

HA2 TP1

16/06/2010 16/06/20100.4m 0.5m

LEACHATE LEACHATE

1450 Arsenic 7440382 µg l-¹ U 2.5 3.4

Boron 7440428 µg l-¹ U 39 36

Cadmium 7440439 µg l-¹ U <0.080 <0.080

Chromium (total) 7440473 µg l-¹ U 2.6 2.7

Copper 7440508 µg l-¹ U 3.3 14

Mercury 7439976 µg l-¹ U <0.50 <0.50

Nickel 7440020 µg l-¹ U <1.0 <1.0

Lead 7439921 µg l-¹ U 3.2 5.3

Selenium 7782492 µg l-¹ U <1.0 <1.0

Zinc 7440666 µg l-¹ U 6.6 10

1670 TPH (Aqueous Phase) µg l-¹ U <10 <10

1700 Naphthalene 91203 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Acenaphthylene 208968 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Acenaphthene 83329 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Fluorene 86737 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Phenanthrene 85018 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Anthracene 120127 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Fluoranthene 206440 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Pyrene 129000 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[a]anthracene 56553 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Chrysene 218019 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205992 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207089 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[a]pyrene 50328 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 53703 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 193395 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 191242 µg l-¹ N <0.01 <0.01

Total (of 16) PAHs µg l-¹ N <0.2 <0.2

Login Batch No

Chemtest LIMS ID

Sample ID

Sample No

Depth

SOPi

Matrix


Sampling Date


3ofReport page


1

Column page





Slapton, Towcester

Northamptonshire

NN12 8QD




Report Date

23 June 2010




07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/20100.3m 0.4m 0.65m 0.3m 0.5m 0.5m 0.3m 0.3m


2120 Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428 mg kg-¹ M 1.2 2.8 2.0 1.0 2.5 <0.4 0.9 1.2

2450 Arsenic 7440382 mg kg-¹ M 23 21 27 24 28 26 54 22

Cadmium 7440439 mg kg-¹ M 0.13 0.21 0.43 0.12 <0.10 <0.10 0.18 0.13

Chromium 7440473 mg kg-¹ M 34 41 51 42 39 27 39 29

Copper 7440508 mg kg-¹ M 27 35 24 19 77 17 20 26

Mercury 7439976 mg kg-¹ M 0.16 0.15 <0.10 <0.10 0.22 <0.10 <0.10 0.10

Nickel 7440020 mg kg-¹ M 36 40 57 38 41 34 41 34

Lead 7439921 mg kg-¹ M 51 44 31 26 100 13 22 99

Selenium 7782492 mg kg-¹ M <0.20 0.33 0.25 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20

Zinc 7440666 mg kg-¹ M 95 130 110 93 160 58 110 100

2670 TPH >C6-C10 mg kg-¹ N < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH >C10-C21 mg kg-¹ N 12 24 < 1 < 1 11 < 1 < 1 13

TPH >C21-C40 mg kg-¹ N 31 26 < 1 < 1 22 < 1 < 1 36

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ M 42 49 < 10 < 10 33 < 10 < 10 49

2700 Naphthalene 91203 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Acenaphthylene 208968 mg kg-¹ M 0.14 < 0.1 0.21 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Acenaphthene 83329 mg kg-¹ M 0.12 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1

Fluorene 86737 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Phenanthrene 85018 mg kg-¹ M 0.17 0.14 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.22 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Anthracene 120127 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Fluoranthene 206440 mg kg-¹ M 0.35 0.24 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.54 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Pyrene 129000 mg kg-¹ M 0.34 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.47 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[a]anthracene 56553 mg kg-¹ M 0.26 0.35 0.16 0.15 0.33 0.13 0.12 < 0.1

Chrysene 218019 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 0.17 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.27 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205992 mg kg-¹ M 0.41 0.13 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.55 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207089 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 0.23 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo[a]pyrene 50328 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.2 < 0.1 0.28 < 0.1

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 53703 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 193395 mg kg-¹ M < 0.1 0.14 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.17 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Login Batch No

Chemtest LIMS ID

Sample ID

Sample No

Depth

SOPi

Matrix


Sampling Date


3ofReport page


2

Column page





Slapton, Towcester

Northamptonshire

NN12 8QD




Report Date

23 June 2010




07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/20100.3m 0.4m 0.65m 0.3m 0.5m 0.5m 0.3m 0.3m


2700 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 191242 mg kg-¹ M 0.25 0.25 < 0.1 0.18 0.23 < 0.1 0.14 < 0.1

Total (of 16) PAHs mg kg-¹ M 2.1 3.1 < 2 < 2 4 < 2 < 2 < 2


3ofReport page


3

Column page



Northamptonshire County Council · 2017-02-14 · Date July 2010 Project Reference 10.05.018 Client...

Documents

Transcript of Northamptonshire County Council · 2017-02-14 · Date July 2010 Project Reference 10.05.018 Client...