PRT... · PHASE 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT . PROPOSED SUBSIDY HOUSING PROJECT ON A PORTION OF REMAINDER...

PHASE 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED SUBSIDY HOUSING PROJECT ON A PORTION OF REMAINDER OF FARM 464

(METROGROUNDS), GEORGE, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

6 December 2013 (Rev 0)

Prepared by: OUTENIQUA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES PO BOX 3186 GEORGE INDUSTRIA 6536 www.outeniqualab.co.za Prepared for: ROYAL HASKONING DHV PO BOX 434 GEORGE 6530

Ref: 2013\Royal Haskoning\George-Knysna Office\PRT\George\Metrogrounds\Geotech Report 6.12.2013 Rev0

2 | P a g e

Report review history:

Revision No

Date Prepared by: Reviewed by:

0 6.12.2013

I.Paton Pr.Sci.Nat D.McDonald Reg.Eng.Tech.

Authors qualifications and affiliations:

Iain Paton holds a Bachelor of Science with Honours degree and has been trained as an engineering geoscientist with 15 years’ combined experience in the mining, energy and construction industries. Iain Paton is a registered professional with the South African Council for Natural and Scientific Professions (Pr Sci Nat # 400236/07), the South African Institute of Engineering and Environmental Geologists (SAIEG), the Geotechnical Division of the South African Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE) and the Institute of Municipal Engineering of South Africa (IMESA).

Declaration of independence:

The author of this report is independent professional consultant with no vested interest in the project, other than remuneration for work associated with the compilation of this report.

General limitations:

1. The investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice, and the opinions and conclusions expressed in the report are made in good faith based on the information at hand at the time of the investigation.

2. The contents of this report are valid as of the date of preparation. However, changes in the condition of the site can occur over time as a result or either natural processes or human activity. In addition, advancements in the practice of geotechnical engineering and changes in applicable practice codes may affect the validity of this report. Consequently, this report should not be relied upon after an eclipsed period of one year without a review by this firm for verification of validity. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.

3. Unless otherwise stated, the investigation did not include any specialist studies, including but not limited to the evaluation or assessment of any potential environmental hazards or groundwater contamination that may be present.

4. The investigation is conducted within the constraints of the budget and time and therefore limited information was available. Although the confidence in the information is reasonably high, some variation in the geotechnical conditions should be expected during and after construction. The nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations then become apparent this could affect the proposed project, and it may be necessary to re-evaluate recommendations in this report. Therefore, it is recommend that Outeniqua Geotechnical Services is retained to provide specialist geotechnical engineering services during construction in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Any significant deviation from the expected geotechnical conditions should be brought to the author’s attention for further investigation.

5. The assessment and interpretation of the geotechnical information and the design of structures and services and the management of risk is the responsibility of the appointed engineer.

3 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Outeniqua Geotechnical Services was appointed by Royal Haskoning to undertake a Phase 1 geotechnical site investigation for the proposed subsidy housing project on a portion of Remainder of Farm 464 (Metrogrounds), George in the Western Cape Province. A preliminary investigation was undertaken by this company in 2012 and this was followed by a Phase 1 subsurface investigation of the site which included a series of test pits, in situ tests and laboratory tests.

The project consists of the construction of single or double storey masonry units on vacant land with an area of approximately 21Ha. The topography of the site is characterised by gently sloping terrain becoming moderately steep towards the south and east where the site drains into a tributary of the Skaapkop River. The surface conditions were generally dry at the time of the investigation and access onto and across the site with machinery was relatively easy. The climate of the region can be classified as temperate and wet (Weinert Climatic-N No. ~1-2). The natural vegetation of the area is Garden Route Granite Fynbos (Mucina & Rutherford), although the vegetation has been completely transformed to long grass and some scattered alien trees.

The geological map indicates that the site is underlain by granite of the Maalgaten Suite. The natural soil types consist of transported silty clayey fine sands or sandy silts (topsoils), pedogenic ferricrete gravel (nodules) and residual clayey sand/sandy clay derived from the in situ weathering of the underlying granite. The residual clayey soils generally display low to medium plasticity and are potentially active. There is minor surficial uncontrolled fill soil on very localised parts of the site which will need to be removed or treated/compacted. The transported topsoils are generally loose and highly compressible, but the underlying pedogenic and residual soils are significantly denser as seen in the DCP tests, although tests indicate they are potentially collapsible. Some minor earthworks and terracing of the eastern and southern portions of the site may be required to create level platforms for dwellings due to the sloping topography. The envisaged foundation types for the proposed structures are lightly reinforced strip foundations at a nominal depth of 1m below NGL. The residual soils will have adequate bearing capacity for the envisaged structures but conventional compaction will be required to reduce potential settlement. Alternative systems could include shallow light rafts on well compacted topsoils. All excavations will be easy/soft and no rock is expected to a depth of at least 3m. The in situ soils may not be suitable for use in engineered fills and structural fill should be imported unless otherwise directed by the engineer. Storm water and subsoil drainage systems will have to take into account the site topography and the presence of perched water tables. The soils have poor drainage characteristics and subsurface seepage is common at shallow depths and this may affect earthworks. The site geology and geotechnical conditions are generally considered suitable for the proposed development but certain constraints will have an impact on development costs.

4 | P a g e

Table of Contents 1. Introduction and terms of reference .............................................................................. 6

2. Information available .............................................................................................................. 7

3. Nature of the investigation .................................................................................................. 8

4. Site description ............................................................................................................................ 9

5. Geology ........................................................................................................................................... 10

6. Geotechnical Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 12

6.1 Engineering and material characteristics .......................................................... 12

6.2 Slope stability and erosion ......................................................................................... 18

6.3 Excavation classification with respect to services ....................................... 18

6.4 Impact of the geotechnical character of the site on subsidy housing developments ................................................................................................................................. 18

7. Site classification ..................................................................................................................... 20

8. Foundation recommendations and solutions .......................................................... 21

9. Storm water drainage recommendations .................................................................. 23

10. Special precautionary measures ..................................................................................... 23

11. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 23

5 | P a g e

List of appendices Appendix 1 – Maps Appendix 2 - Soil profiles Appendix 3 - Lab tests Appendix 4 - DCP tests

6 | P a g e

1. Introduction and terms of reference

Outeniqua Geotechnical Services was appointed by Royal Haskoning DHV to undertake a Phase 1 geotechnical site investigation for the proposed subsidy housing project on a portion of Remainder of Farm 464 (Metrogrounds), George in the Western Cape (see Figure 1). The physical and geotechnical nature of the site needs to be investigated in order to facilitate the civil engineering design and town planning process.

Figure 1: Locality map

The investigation is carried out in accordance with the GFSH-2 guidelines published by the Department of Housing (2002).

The general purpose of the investigation is to:

• Describe the location, topography and geology of the proposed site; • Investigate and describe the soil types and expected founding conditions; • Highlight any problem soils, slope stability or drainage issues; • Estimate the bearing capacity, settlement and/or swell potential of the soil; • Classify the excavations in terms of SABS 1200D; • Determine the suitability of the site for housing purposes and make

recommendations for the design of earthworks, foundations and engineering services.

7 | P a g e

2. Information available

The following maps and plans were available for reference purposes and are reproduced in this report:

• Topocadastral data, obtained from the Directorate of Surveys & Mapping (see Figures 2&3);

• 1:250 000 Geological maps of the area, obtained from the Council for Geoscience; • 1:1000000 Seismic Hazard Map of SA, obtained from the Council for Geoscience; • A proposed site development plan, produced by Delplan.

Numerous other geotechnical reports for other developments in the vicinity of the site were also used for information purposes.

Figure 2: Aerial photo of site

8 | P a g e

Figure 3: Topography map

3. Nature of the investigation

A preliminary investigation was conducted on this site in 2012 to determine the feasibility of the project in terms of geotechnical constraints. The general suitability of the site was investigated for subsidy housing purposes using available databases and spatial information as a pre-cursor to a detailed Phase 1 investigation. No severe red flags were uncovered in this investigation.

The Phase 1 subsurface investigation involved conducting a total of 17 test pits with a TLB/Backactor to a maximum depth of 3.4m. Representative samples of selected soil horizons were taken for the following lab tests:

• Foundation Indicator tests (TMH1 and ASTM) to determine gradings, Atterberg limits and potential expansiveness (tested at Outeniqua Lab in George);

• MOD/CBR/Indicator tests (TMH1) to determine the suitability for possible road pavement materials use (tested at Outeniqua Lab in George);

• pH and Conductivity tests (tested at Soillab in Cape Town); • Consolidation tests (tested at Controlab in East London).

Handheld Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were conducted from present ground level at every test position.

9 | P a g e

The confidence in the information gained from the investigation is high as it generally concurs with expected conditions and experience gained from other investigations in the area. Further investigations are not deemed necessary at this stage of the project. A Phase 2 investigation should be carried out during construction phase to obtain a more accurate classification of soils on individual erven for home enrolment and detailed design purposes.

4. Site description

The proposed site for development is approximately 21Ha of gently to moderately sloping terrain, becoming steeper to the eastern side along the valley line. The site is presently vacant but some localised disturbance to the natural ground level is evident (see Figure 4).

The natural vegetation of the area is Garden Route Granite Fynbos, although this natural vegetation has been largely transformed to grass and minor clumps of small trees. The climate of the region can be classified as a temperate, wet climate with warm summers and cold wet winters (Weinert climatic No.~1-2), and the surface conditions were generally dry at the time of the investigation.

Figure 4: Photo looking northeast from TP5 (note hummocky ground due to heaps of fill)

10 | P a g e

Figure 5: Photo looking south from TP5 (note heaps of fill in right foreground)

5. Geology

The geological map indicates that the site is underlain by granite of the Maalgaten Suite which intruded into country rock of the Kaaimans Formation approximately 525 million years ago (see Figure 6). The natural soil types consist of dark to light brown transported clayey silty fine sands or sandy silts underlain by dark red orange pedogenic ferricrete gravel (nodules), followed by dark red orange to light yellow orange residual clayey sand/sandy clay or clayey gravel derived from the in situ weathering of the underlying granite (see Figure 7). There are no geological faults in the immediate vicinity of the site and the seismic activity of the area is generally considered low. The site is deemed to be macro-stable from a geological perspective.

11 | P a g e

Figure 6: Geological map

Figure 7: Typical soil types observed in test pits

12 | P a g e

6. Geotechnical Evaluation 6.1 Engineering and material characteristics 6.1.1 Topography, slopes and vegetation cover

Results of the investigation

The site is situated on gently to moderately sloping ground which becomes steeper towards the valley line along the eastern and southern boundary, where the site drains into a tributary of the Skaapkop River. The slope gradient ranges from less than 1v:50h on the western side to a maximum of 1v:5h along the eastern boundary. The vegetation cover generally consists of long grass and scattered alien trees.

Effect on the proposed development

The slope gradient is suitable for housing purposes but the eastern and southern edges may require some terracing and low retaining walls to create level platforms. No difficult bush clearing is expected.

6.1.2 Soil types and rock


The natural soil types consist of transported silty fine sands or sandy silts (topsoil), underlain by pedogenic ferricrete gravel (nodules) and residual clay or clayey sand derived from the in situ weathering of the underlying granite. The soils are dominantly fine grained and the residual soils are cohesive. No intact rock was encountered in test holes. The thickness of the various horizons varied quite considerably between test holes, but the general profile is fairly consistent.

A summary of the test pit data and the thickness of the different soil horizons is provided in Table 1.

13 | P a g e

Table 1: Summary of soil horizons recorded in test pits (in mm) Test Pit No

Imported (fill) soil

Transported soil

Pedogenic soil

Residual soil Rock Total depth

of test pit Refusal

1 - 1800 - 500 - 2300 No

2 - 300 - 2100 - 2400 No

3 - 400 - 2000 - 2400 No

4 - 500 300 1600 - 2400 No

5 800 900 200 800 - 2700 No

6 950 1150 200 1000 - 3300 No

7 - 1200 500 1700 - 3400 No

8 - 1000 800 900 - 2700 No

9 - 1100 300 1100 - 2500 No

10 - 950 350 1050 - 2350 No

11 - 900 600 1100 - 2600 No

12 - 600 600 1500 - 2700 No

13 - 1500 350 950 - 2800 No

14 - 800 300 1200 - 2300 No

15 - 1000 - 1200 - 2300 No

16 - 1050 - 1350 - 2400 No

17 - 650 - 1950 - 2600 No


The natural in situ soil types are dominantly fine grained and are sensitive to moisture. They are easy to excavate but can be difficult to work with and compact when wet. The geotechnical nature of the soils and their behavioural characteristics are dealt with in further detail in the chapters to follow.

6.1.3 Grading, Atterberg limits and potential expansiveness


Representative samples of various soil horizons were collected for Foundation Indicator tests in order to determine their basic geotechnical properties, estimate potential expansivity and evaluate their suitability as founding mediums. Abbreviated results of the tests are shown in Table 2.

14 | P a g e

Table 2: Grading and Atterberg limits test results summary Test Pit No

Sample Depth (mm)

Atterberg Limits Particle Analysis (%) MC1 PE2 USC3

PI LL LS Clay Silt Sand Gravel

1 500-1000 15 29 8 35 40 24 1 44.4 LOW CL

3 0-400 5 16 2 19 46 28 7 13.5 LOW CL-ML

5 800-1200 2 18 1 12 25 62 1 6.8 LOW SM

6 950-2100 NP NP 0 9 22 68 1 13.6 LOW SM

7 1700-3400 15 31 7 29 14 56 1 16.4 LOW SC

8 500-1000 NP NP 0 7 25 68 0 10.7 LOW SM

9 500-1100 16 38 8 25 11 54 10 17.5 LOW SC

10 600-950 NP NP 0 6 26 61 7 8.7 LOW SM

11 1500-2600 17 47 8 41 28 29 2 21.3 LOW ML

12 1200-2000 13 29 7 20 17 59 4 15.4 LOW SC

13 1850-2800 27 42 13 15 8 51 26 20.6 MED SC

14 1100-1750 20 51 10 46 12 32 10 17.7 LOW MH

15 1000-2300 18 33 9 19 20 59 2 12.7 MED SC

16 1050-2400 10 23 5 21 24 53 2 15.1 LOW SC

17 650-1300 17 44 9 18 14 52 16 16.1 LOW SM

Notes: 1 Moisture content 2 Potential expansiveness (Skemptons activity chart) 3 Unified Soil Classification System

The tests indicate that the soils can be broadly classified into the following types:

SC – Clayey sands with Atterberg Limits above the A-line and with PI>7. SM – Silty sands or clayey sands with PI<4 or Atterberg Limits below the A-line. CL – Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity ML – Inorganic silts and very fine sands of low plasticity The tests indicate the soils are dominantly fine-grained with low gravel content and plastic fines. As expected, the PI and clay content of the residual soils is generally higher than the transported and pedogenic horizons.


The transported soils can be potentially problematic in terms of compressibility, especially when soil moisture is high (e.g. pumping) and the residual cohesive soils can be potentially problematic in terms of collapsibility and/or expansivity where soil moisture fluctuates. All soils will have to be treated with some caution. Foundation recommendations are given in Chapter 8.

15 | P a g e

6.1.4 Moisture/density relationship and CBR


Representative samples of near-surface soils were collected for Mod/CBR/Indicator tests in order to determine the moisture-density relationship, compaction and CBR properties for road subgrade purposes. The results of the tests are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: CBR test results summary Test Pit No

Sample Depth (mm)

CBR at Swell (%)

PI (%) GM MDD/

OMC TRH14Class 100

% 98% 95% 93% 90%

1 0-500 54 45 33 24 12 0.22 NP 0.76 2061/8.8 G7

5 0-800 51 41 26 16 2 0.2 3 0.69 2046/7.2 G10

10 0-600 33 27 19 14 5 0.41 3 0.69 1978/8.1 G10

16 0-500 60 50 35 25 10 0.31 3 0.56 2032/9.0 G8

The tests indicate that the in situ subgrade topsoil is fine grained and generally marginal to poor quality in terms of road design.


Road designs should allow for subgrade improvement, including ripping and recompaction of the roadbed and imported a selected subgrade layer as standard procedure. Detailed recommendations for road construction are given in Chapter 8.2.

6.1.5 pH and conductivity


Samples of in situ soils were collected for soil chemistry tests (pH & Conductivity) in order to determine the aggressiveness of the soil which can affect buried services and concrete foundations. A summary of the results of the pH and conductivity tests are shown in Table 4. Table 4: pH and conductivity test results summary

Test Pit No.

Sample depth (mm) pH Conductivity (S/m)

7 1700-3400 4.7 0.01

11 1500-2600 5.5 0.02

13 1850-2800 6.5 0.05

14 1100-1750 6.2 0.04

18 1050-2400 6.5 0.02

16 | P a g e

Corrosion of metallic pipe fittings and concrete will be negatively influenced by low or high pH, and high conductivity (indicating high concentration of dissolved salts in the soils). An indication of the influence of pH and conductivity on the corrosiveness of soil is given in Table 5. Table 5: Influence of pH and conductivity on the corrosiveness of soil

pH Conductivity (S/m) Potential Corrosiveness

7-8 <0.1 Non corrosive

5-6 or 9-10 0.1-0.3 Mildly corrosive

3-4 or 11-12 0.3-0.5 Corrosive

<3 or >12 >0.5 Highly corrosive

The lab results generally indicate non-corrosive to mildly corrosive soil conditions. Effect on the proposed development

Standard HDPE or uPVC pipe products will be suitable and buried metallic valves and fittings should be powder coated as standard. Adequate rebar cover in buried concrete foundations is important to protect against corrosion.

6.1.6 Compressibility, collapse potential and bearing capacity


Soil compressibility is assessed by an experienced interpretation of soil profiles, laboratory tests and in situ tests. The tests indicate that the loose transported topsoils are highly compressible and will require adequate compaction to carry loads. Compaction may be difficult and impractical when these soils are wet. However, DCP tests indicate that soil consistency generally improves with depth and the underlying pedogenic and residual horizons are more suitable to carry foundations and can probably be compacted with relative ease. Consolidation test results indicate that the residual clayey sands/sandy clays are potentially collapsible and compressible when saturated under load (0.4-3.1% collapse observed). Conservative calculations indicate 5-10mm total consolidation (C1 category) of a typical foundation under the expected loads. Localised surficial deposits of uncontrolled fill are unsuitable to carry loads and will also require treatment (ripping, selection and re-compaction).

17 | P a g e

Effect on the proposed development Bearing capacity of residual soils is adequate for the proposed structures and conventional strip foundations with light reinforcement are envisaged but compaction of trenches is important to reduce settlement. Alternatively, shallow light raft systems can be used but adequate compaction of the transported soils will be necessary. Foundations are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.

6.1.7 Swell / heave


Foundation Indicator test results indicate low to medium potential expansion from residual clayey soils and the maximum total heave is estimated between 5 and 15mm (H/H1 category) according to the Van der Merwe method.


Light reinforcement of foundations and improved site drainage is recommended to cater for expected heave. Further details are provided in Chapter 8.

6.1.8 Soil moisture, permeability and groundwater


The site is located in a wet climatic area where prolonged rainfall is common. Subsurface infiltration is restricted due to lower permeability of clayey residual soils and shallow perched water tables are expected across the entire site.


Subsoil drains are recommended along roads and on the upslope side of structures as a precaution.

6.1.9 Existing structures


There are no existing structures on the site but there has been some minor disturbance of the natural ground surface as a result of historical dumping.


No special measures will be required to relocate existing residents or demolish existing structures. Site clearance should address any localised heaps of spoil.

18 | P a g e

6.2 Slope stability and erosion

The natural slope gradients are gentle across most of the site, but become slightly steeper towards the eastern and southern edges of the site. However, all slopes are generally suitable for low-cost housing and there are no signs of global slope instability on the site. The moderate slopes along the southern and eastern edges may require some earthworks and terracing to construct level platforms.

Temporary shallow excavations are likely to be generally stable at near vertical angles due to significant cohesion in the soils but perched water tables may affect stability of sidewalls. Deep excavations exceeding 1.5m high should be assessed by the engineer and/or a geotechnical specialist.

Erosion is not considered too problematic unless soils are loosened and stockpiled during heavy rainfall episodes. Stockpiles should not be placed near watercourses.

6.3 Excavation classification with respect to services

Bedrock was not encountered in test holes and is not expected within a depth of at least 3m. All excavations to this depth can be classified as soft.

6.4 Impact of the geotechnical character of the site on subsidy housing developments

The site is classified in Table 6 in accordance with the subsidy variation document, issued by the Department of Housing in March 2007.

Table 6: Site specific subsidy variations Geotechnical Conditions

Category or type Criteria Precautionary

measures Applicable

areas Comment

Seepage / groundwater

Category 1 Permanent or perched water tables less than 1.0m below ground surface

Subsurface drainage/improved damp-proofing measures to houses, service trenches to be dewatered during construction

All areas During wet season mainly

Category 2 Permanent or perched water tables more than 1m but less than 1.5m below ground level

Service trenches to be dewatered during construction

Erodability of soil

Category 1 High risk (Erodability index 1-8)

Retaining walls & earthworks to reduce slopes & surface drainage

None

Category 2 Medium risk (Erodability index 9-15)

Retaining walls & earthworks to reduce slopes

None

Hard excavation

Category 1 Hard rock excavation to a depth of 1.5m

Additional cost of trench and foundation excavation

None

Category 2 Boulder excavation to a depth of 1.5m

Additional cost of trench, foundation and road excavation

None

19 | P a g e

Geotechnical Conditions


measures Applicable

areas Comment

Dolomite Category 1 Risk class 1&2 (Dolomite area class D2)

Additional cost of foundations

None

Category 2 Risk class 3&4 (Dolomite area class D3)

Additional cost of foundations

None

Expansive Clays

Category 1 H1 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Modified normal

All areas

Category 2 H2 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Light/medium raft

None

Category 3 H3 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Heavy raft

None

Compressible and Collapsible soils

Category 1 C1 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Modified normal

All areas

Category 2 C2 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Light or heavy raft

None

Compressible soils

Category 1 S1 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Modified normal

None

Category 2 S2 Foundation design, building procedures and precautionary measures: Light or heavy raft

None

Mining subsidence

Category 1 Old undermining to a depth of between 90-240m below surface where stope closure has ceased

Additional cost of foundations: Compaction below footings or raft

None

Category 2 Old undermining to a depth of between 90-240m below surface where total extraction has taken place

Additional cost of foundations: additional earthworks or soil reinforcement

None

Seismic activity

Category 1 Mining induced seismic activity > 100cm/s2

Additional cost of foundations: Stiffened strip footings or raft

None

Category 2 Natural seismic activity > 100cm/s2

Additional cost of foundations: Stiffened strip footings or raft

None

Topography Category 1 Average ground slope flatter than 1:20

Increase depth of sewer & provision of pump station

30% Estimated from contour data

Category 2 Average ground slope of between 1:11 and 1:20

Terracing for houses & additional earthworks to roads & storm water control measures


20 | P a g e

Geotechnical Conditions


measures Applicable

areas Comment

Category 3 Average ground slope of between 1:7.5 and 1:10



Category 4 Average ground slope of between 1:5 and 1:7.4



Category 5 Average ground slope steeper than 1:5



SCCCA Southern Cape Coastal Condensation Area

Area subjected to severe condensation conditions

Plaster and paint on all external walls & 6.4mm gypsum plasterboard ceilings & 80mm thick glass fibre insulation

All areas

Location of development site

Site more than 20km from major centres

Additional cost of transportation

None

7. Site classification

In terms of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) Code of Practice for Single Storey Structures of Masonry Construction (1995), the applicable site classifications are shown in Table 7 (also refer to Figure 8).

21 | P a g e

Table 7: SAICE site classification Geotechnical Constraint Expected

movement (mm) NHBRC Site

Classification

Compressible or collapsible soil (entire site) 5-10 C1

Active soil (entire site) 5-15 H-H1

Uncontrolled fill (localised) P

Figure 8: Geotechnical map

8. Foundation recommendations and solutions

The following recommendations are given as a guideline based on the information gained from the investigation. Although the confidence in the information is high, some variation can be expected between the data points and the design engineers should take cognisance of this. The design of structures and services remains the responsibility of the appointed engineers. Any significant deviation from the expected geotechnical conditions should be brought to the author’s attention for comment.

8.1 Earthworks and structural foundations

Earthworks should be conducted in accordance with SABS 1200D, COLTO 3300 or other

22 | P a g e

applicable standards. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the NHBRC Home Builders Manual, SANS 10400-H and/or other applicable standards or as otherwise directed by the engineer.

The eastern and southern parts of site may require some minor terracing and low retaining walls to construct level platforms. The recommended retaining wall system is concrete retaining block (CRB) walls. All retaining walls must have subsoil drains and free-draining backfill behind the wall. The recommended compaction of fill behind retaining walls and in is 95% Mod AASHTO density.

The recommended foundation system for the envisaged single and double-storey structures is lightly reinforced concrete strip foundations with an estimated allowable safe bearing pressure of 100kPa on well compacted residual soil at a nominal depth of 1m below NGL. Foundations can be constructed at shallower depths provided adequate compaction is achieved in the surficial soils. The soil obtained from excavations may be suitable for use as filling material, but this is at the discretion of the engineer on site as it depends mainly on moisture at the time of construction. Alternative systems could include shallow light rafts on well compacted soil (min. 93% Mod AASHTO density).

The following additional recommendations are provided at the discretion of the engineer:

• The finished floor level of all houses should be a minimum of 150mm above final ground level to prevent flooding.

• The ponding of storm water around the exterior of houses can be avoided by shaping the ground levels around the exterior to create a fall away from the house and constructing a 1m wide a concrete apron with a 10% fall away from the house. This will also assist in maintaining ground moistures stable and minimising erosion around the house.

8.2 Road pavements

Roads should be constructed in accordance with SAPEM, SABS 1200, COLTO 3000, TRH4, TRH14, The Red Book or other applicable standards, or as directed by the engineer.

Test results indicate that the subgrade quality is highly variable G7-10 and it is recommended that a G10 quality is assumed with an inferred CBR of 3. This implies that additional SSG layers may be required, but this is at the discretion of the engineer as it is usually dictated by the budget.

General preparation of the road subgrade:

• Cut roadbed to line and level; • Proof roll the in situ roadbed and compact to 90% of Mod. AASHTO density.

Recommended moisture content before rolling is optimum moisture content (OMC) minus 2-3%;

• Remove any incompressible or wet soil and reinstate with imported G7 material or suitably drier organic-free in situ soil, as directed by the engineer.

Table 8 serves as a guideline for the design of a Category C flexible pavement in a wet region with a design life of 15 years with traffic loading of less than 3 x 106 E80s over 20

23 | P a g e

years (as per TRH4).

Table 8: Road layerworks recommendations (Cat C in wet climate)

Layer Material Thickness mm

Required Compaction

Seal Cape Seal 13/19 TBD by engineer Base Imported G2 150 100% MDD

Subbase Imported G4 150 95% MDD SSG Imported G7 gravel 300 93% MDD

OR

Seal n/a n/a n/a Base Interlocking cement pavers 80 n/a

Subbase C4 (Imported G4/5) 150 95% MDD SSG Imported G7 gravel 300 93% MDD

9. Storm water drainage recommendations

The design and construction of storm water drainage should be carried out in accordance with The Red Book, SABS 1200LE, COLTO 2000, SANRAL Drainage Manual or other applicable standards, or as directed by the engineer.

Infiltration of rainwater is typically restricted by soils of low permeability and a significant portion of rainfall will end up as run-off. However, perched water tables are also common, especially in the topsoil or underlying ferricrete gravels. The site has a gentle to moderate slope, draining towards the south and east, and storm water can be channelled into the adjacent natural watercourse. A well-planned road layout can assist with storm water management. Raised barrier kerbs, mountable or semi-mountable kerbs along roads are recommended in order to channel storm water along roads. The kerbs will also protect the road shoulder from erosion and edge break. Regularly spaced kerb inlets and storm water pipes are recommended to prevent storm water from overtopping kerbs and flowing into adjacent properties. Subsoil drains along upslope sides of roads and structures are recommended to cater for expected subsurface seepage across the site.

10. Special precautionary measures

The following special measures are recommended as a precaution:

• A geotechnical specialist should be involved in earthworks and the construction of foundations to assist the civil and structural engineers with quality control.

• Compaction control testing is essential during construction.

11. Conclusions

In terms of the geotechnical information gained from the investigation, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development, but certain geotechnical constraints may affect development costs.

Appendix 1

Maps

S33.98311 E22.46798

S33.9898 E22.46002

George

Scale 1:50000

0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 km

N

Legend Project data Metrogrounds George

Site Boundary

PROJECT: Proposed new subsidy housing projectSITE: A portion of Remainder of Farm 464 (Metrogrounds), George

DRAWING: Locality mapDATE: 22 November 2013

Outeniqua Geotechnical ServicesPO Box 3186 George Industria6536

26/197

115/197

RE/100/197

199/197

193/197

194/197

RE/100/197

S33.98311 E22.46798

S33.9898 E22.46002

Scale 1:12500

0 75 150 300 450 600 750 m

N


Site Boundary


DRAWING: Aerial orthophoto mapDATE: 22 November 2013


S33.98311 E22.46798

S33.9898 E22.46002

Scale 1:15000

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 km

N


Site Boundary


DRAWING: Topography mapDATE: 22 November 2013


S33.98311 E22.46798

S33.9898 E22.46002

George

Scale 1:75000

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 km

N


Site Boundary


DRAWING: Geological mapDATE: 22 November 2013


Maalgaten Granite

Kaaimans Group

Peninsula Fm

Appendix 2

Test pit profiles

Co-ords:

(0 to 500)

MOD/CBR/Indicator(500 to 1000)

Foundation Indicator(1000 to 1800)

(1800 to 2300)

Perched water table @ 300mm

(0 to 300)

(300 to 700)

(700 to 2400)

Sample taken Groundwater

Datum:

Datum: S33 59 01.7 E22 27 56.4Key to symbols:

Photo of Test PitNGL Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)Groundwater

Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Sample taken

Photo of Test PitNGL

Very moist to wet, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)

Very moist, dark brown mottled dark red orange, medium dense to dense, intact, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, transported.

MG 1 S33 59 01.3 E22 27 53.6

MG 2

Key to symbols:

Area:Date:Excavator:

Moist, dark red to dark red orange, soft-firm, fissured, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)Moist, light yellow orange, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Moist, light red orange, dense, intact, SILTY SAND, transported.

Moist, dark red orange, stiff, fissured/shattered, GRAVELLY SILTY SANDY CLAY, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Moist to very moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)

Geotechnical Soil ProfileRoyal HaskoningDHV (Pty) LtdMetrogrounds Housing Project

28.10.13TLB

George

Client:Project:

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

D

C

B

A

A

B

D

A

B

C

C

Co-ords:

(0 to 400) Moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)Foundation Indicator

(400 to 800)

(800 to 2400)

(0 to 350)

(350 to 500)

(500 to 800)

(800 to 1700)

(1700 to 2400)

Very moist to wet, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)Very moist, dark brown mottled dark red orange, soft to firm, intact, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, transported.

Moist, dark brown, dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete layer)

Moist, light yellow orange to light red orange, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Moist, dark red, stiff, fissured, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Co-ords:

Client:Project:


Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Sample taken

Sample taken GroundwaterPhoto of Test PitNGL

Moist, dark red orange, firm-stiff, fissured, GRAVELLY SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)


Moist, light yellow orange, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, residual (Completely weathered granite)

MG 3 S33 59 04.9 E22 27 57.4

MG 4

Key to symbols:Datum:

Datum: S33 59 08.7 E22 27 59.3Key to symbols:



28.10.13TLB

George

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

D

C

B

A

A

B

C

A B C

D

E

E

Co-ords:

(0 to 800)

MOD/CBR/Indicator

(800 to 1200) Moist, dark red brown, dense, intact, SILTY SAND, transportedFoundation Indicator

(1200 to 1700)

(1700 to 1900)

(1900 to 2700)



28.10.13TLB

George

Photo of Test PitNGL Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)GroundwaterSample taken

Moist, dark red brown, loose, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, imported (Fill, soil)

MG 5

Moist, dark yellow orange, stiff, fissured, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, transported.Moist, dark red orange to dark red brown, dense, fissured, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete)Moist, dark yellow orange, stiff, fissured, GRAVELLY SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Client:Project:

S33 59 07.8 E22 27 56.9Key to symbols:Datum:

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

A

B

A

C

D

A

B

C

D

E

E

Co-ords:

(0 to 950)

(950 to 2100)

Foundation Indicator

(2100 to 2300)

(2300 to 3300)

(0 to 300) Moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)

(300 to 1200)

(1200 to 1700)

(1700 to 3400)




28.10.13TLB

George

MG 6 S33 59 05.7 E22 27 56.3

MG 7


Moist, dark red orange, loose, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, imported (Fill clayey soil)


Moist, dark brown, medium dense, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)

Moist, light brown to dark red orange, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete layer)

Key to symbols:Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Moist, dark red brown, loose to medium dense, intact, SILTY SAND, transported.

Moist, dark red brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete)Moist, dark red orange to dark yellow orange, stiff to very stiff, shattered, SILTY CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite with some unusual fragments of other rocks - xenoliths?)

Sample taken


Moist, dark red orange to dark red, stiff, fissured, CLAYEY SILT CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Datum: S33 59 09.0 E22 27 55.6

Client:Project:


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

D

D

C

B

A

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Co-ords:


(500 to 1000)


(1800 to 2700)

(0 to 500)

(500 to 1100)


(1400 to 2500)

Client:Project:

Datum:


Sample taken


28.10.13

MG 8 S33 59 07.7 E22 27 52.9 Photo of Test PitTLB

George

Moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)

Moist, dark red brown, loose to medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.

MG 9


Moist, dark red orange, medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.

Moist, light red brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete)

Moist, light red orange, dense to stiff, fissured, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

NGL

S33 59 04.1 E22 27 49.5Key to symbols:

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)Groundwater

Photo of Test PitNGL Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)Sample taken Groundwater

Moist, dark red brown to light red brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete)Moist, dark red to light yellow orange, dense to stiff, fissured, SILTY GRAVELLY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

D

D

C

B

A

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Co-ords:

(0 to 600) Moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)MOD/CBR/Indicator

(600 to 950)


(1300 to 2350)


(350 to 900)

(900 to 1500)

(1500 to 2600)

Foundation IndicatorConsolidation



28.10.13TLB

George

MG 10 S33 59 05.9 E22 27 47.6

MG 11


Moist, dark red brown, loose to medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.

Moist, light red brown, dense to very dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete layer)Moist, dark red orange, stiff, fissured, SILTY GRAVELLY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Datum: Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Moist, light red brown, medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.


Very wet, light red brown to light brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete)Moist, light red orange to dark yellow orange, stiff, shattered, SANDY GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Sample taken

Sample taken GroundwaterPhoto of Test PitNGL S33 59 04.7 E22 27 52.6

Key to symbols:

Client:Project:


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

A

B

A

C

D

D

C

A

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D B

Co-ords:


(300 to 600)

(600 to 1200)

(1200 to 2000)



(600 to 1500)

(1500 to 1850)

(1850 to 2800)

Foundation IndicatorConsolidation

Client:Project:

Photo of Test PitNGL Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)GroundwaterSample taken


Moist, light yellow orange, dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, residual (Completely weathered granite)

S33 59 07.8 E22 27 45.5Key to symbols:

Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Moist, light brown, medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.

Moist, light red brown, medium dense to dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete layer)Moist, dark red orange, stiff, shattered, CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

MG 12 S33 59 10.9 E22 27 52.1

MG 13


Moist, light red brown, medium dense, intact, SILTY SAND, transported.

Moist, light red brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete)Moist, dark red orange, stiff, shattered, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Datum:



28.10.13TLB

George

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

D

D

C

B

A

A B

C

D

A

B

C

E

D

D

Co-ords:


(800 to 1100)

(1100 to 1750)


(0 to 400)

(400 to 1000)

(1000 to 2300)




28.10.13TLB

George

MG 14 S33 59 09.4 E22 27 42.6

MG 15


Very moist to wet, dark red brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, transported/pedogenic (Ferricrete layer)

Purched water table @ 1600mm

Moist, dark red orange, stiff, shatterd/fissured/slickensided, SILTY SANDY CLAY , residual (Completely weathered granite)

Datum: Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Moist to very moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)Moist, dark red brown, medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.Moist, dark red orange, stiff, fissured/shattered, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Sample taken


Moist, light yellow orange, dense, fissured, SILTY CLAYEY SANDY GRAVEL, residual (Completely weathered granite)

S33 59 11.9 E22 27 39.6Key to symbols:

Client:Project:


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

D

D

C

B

A

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

A

B

C

Co-ords:

(0 to 500) Moist, dark brown, loose, intact, SILTY SAND, transported (Topsoil)MOD/CBR/Indicator

(500 to 1050)

(1050 to 2400)



(500 to 650)

(650 to 1300)




22.10.13TLB

George

MG 16 S33 59 13.4 E22 27 47.4

MG 17


Moist, dark red brown, medium dense, intact, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, transported.

Moist, dark red orange, stiff, shattered/fissured, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Datum: S33 59 18.9 E22 27 45.7Co-ords: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Moist, dark red brown, medium dense/firm, fissured, GRAVELLY SILTY CLAYEY SAND, transported (Minor ferricrete)Moist, dark red orange, stiff, micro-shattered/fissured, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Moist, light yellow orange, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, residual (Completely weathered granite)

Sample taken


Key to symbols:

Client:Project:


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dep

th (m

m)

(mm/Blow)

B

A

C

C

B

A

A

B

C

A

B

C

D

D

Appendix 3

Lab test data

Notes:

∙ Specimens sampled by Outeniqua Lab according to sampling Plan TMH 5 Methods MB1 & MC1

∙ All specimen sampled by : Shane Gallant

∙ The weather conditions are such that there is no detrimental effect on the sample taken.

1.

2.

3.

4.5.

Directors/Direkteure: D McDonald Reg. Eng. Tech (Managing/Bestuurende) L Heathcote B-Tech. Civil Miss A Govender

Sampling falls outside the scope of Outeniqua Lab's SANAS accreditation.

L Heathcote (Director)

24 % Gravel 1% Clay 35 % Silt 40

0.0023 350.0013 35

0.0064 380.0045 380.0032 37

100

26.5

0.0440 660.0210 50

0.075 790.0595 75

1.18 98

0.425 850.600 92

Metrogrounds (-15ha) Housing Project - George30/10/13

1/15

FOUNDATION INDICATOR - (TMH 1 Method A1(a),A2,A3,A4,A5) & (ASTM Method D422)

Customer :

Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd. Project :

Theo Adams No. of Pages :

Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5

This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Technical Director of Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd.

1002.36

100

100

For Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd.

% Sand

100

63.0 10075.0

500-1000

Measuring Equipment, traceable to National Standards is used where applicable.6. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions

drawn therefrom or for any consequence thereof.

37.5

13.2

Results reported in this Test Report relate only to the items tested and are an indication only of the sample provided and/or taken.

The test results are reported with an approximate 95% level of confidence.

15

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13

Sieve Size(mm) % Passing

Material Description: Dark Brown to Dark Reddish Orange - Sandy Clay-Silt

Depth: Plasticity Index

May 09

53369

44.4Linear Shrinkage 8

Tel: 044 8743274 : Fax: 044 8745779 : e-mail: [email protected]

TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13

OUTENIQUA LAB (Pty) LtdMaterials Testing LaboratoryRegistration No. 95/07742/07

6 Mirrorball Street, George : PO Box 3186, George Industria, 6536

R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:

GeorgeDate Received :

Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationCL A-6

Liquid Limit 29Insitu M/C%

MG1 - Layer 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

ercen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)

Particle Size Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Chart A Line

0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sam

ple

Clay Fraction Of Whole Sample

Potential Expansiveness

MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0024 190.0014 19

0.0067 220.0048 210.0034 21

100

26.5

0.0447 580.0218 38

0.075 680.0607 66

1.18 89

0.425 720.600 78


2/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 99

53.0

9.5


982.36

100

100


% Sand

95

63.0 10075.0

0-400



37.5

13.2



5

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Brown - Clayey Sandy Silt


May 09

53371



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationCL-ML A-4


MG3 - Layer 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0025 120.0014 12

0.0068 160.0049 130.0035 12

100

26.5

0.0490 340.0221 33

0.075 400.0679 39

1.18 99

0.425 860.600 94


3/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


1002.36

100

100


% Sand

100

63.0 10075.0

800-1200



37.5

13.2



2

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Brown - Clayey Silty Sand


May 09

53373



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationSM A-4


MG5 - Layer 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0024 90.0014 8

0.0067 120.0048 110.0034 10

100

26.5

0.0462 290.0217 23

0.075 330.0638 32

1.18 99

0.425 840.600 94


4/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


992.36

100

100


% Sand

99

63.0 10075.0

950-2100



37.5

13.2



NP

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Brown - Silty Sand


May 09

53374



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationSM A-2-4

Liquid Limit NPInsitu M/C%

MG6 - Layer 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.

Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationSC A-6


MG7 -Layer 4



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


May 09

53375



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/136530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange to Dark Yellow Orange - Clayey Sand


75.0

1700-3400



37.5

13.2



15


1002.36

100

100


% Sand

100

63.0 100100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


5/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

1.18 99

0.425 920.600 97

100

26.5

0.0500 400.0225 38

0.075 500.0693 46

0.0024 300.0014 28

0.0065 360.0046 340.0033 32





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.



MG8 - Layer 2



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


May 09

53376



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/136530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Silty Sand


75.0

500-1000



37.5

13.2



NP


1002.36

100

100


% Sand

100

63.0 100100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


6/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

1.18 99

0.425 810.600 94

100

26.5

0.0441 260.0218 16

0.075 330.0587 31

0.0024 70.0014 7

0.0066 100.0048 80.0034 7





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0022 250.0013 25

0.0060 290.0043 270.0031 26

100

26.5

0.0447 350.0203 33

0.075 370.0626 36

1.18 81

0.425 630.600 68


7/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 98

53.0

9.5


972.36

100

100


% Sand

94

63.0 10075.0

500-1100



37.5

13.2



16

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Brown - Clayey Sand


May 09

53377



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:




MG9 - Layer 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0025 60.0014 5

0.0068 90.0049 70.0035 6

98

26.5

0.0440 300.0223 16

0.075 330.0607 32

1.18 91

0.425 780.600 87


8/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 96

53.0

9.5


962.36

100

100


% Sand

93

63.0 10075.0

600-950



37.5

13.2



NP

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Brown - Silty Sand


May 09

53379



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:




MG10 - Layer 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.

Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationML A-7-5


MG11 - Layer 4



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


May 09

53380



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/136530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Light Reddish Orange to Dark Yellowish Orange - Silty Sandy Clay


75.0

1500-2600



37.5

13.2



17


1002.36

100

100


% Sand

99

63.0 100100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


9/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

1.18 97

0.425 900.600 93

100

26.5

0.0401 670.0185 63

0.075 700.0561 69

0.0021 410.0012 41

0.0058 490.0042 440.0030 43





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.



MG12 - Layer 4



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


May 09

53381



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/136530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Silty Clayey Sand


75.0

1200-2000



37.5

13.2



13


992.36

100

100


% Sand

97

63.0 100100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


10/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

1.18 93

0.425 890.600 91

100

26.5

0.0413 340.0209 23

0.075 370.0568 36

0.0022 200.0013 20

0.0060 230.0043 220.0031 21





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0021 160.0012 15

0.0060 160.0042 160.0030 16

93

26.5

0.0435 210.0204 18

0.075 230.0600 23

1.18 70

0.425 600.600 64


11/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

9819.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 89

53.0

9.5


832.36

100

100


% Sand

76

63.0 10075.0

1850-2800



37.5

13.2



27

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Gravelly Sand


May 09

53382



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationSC A-2-7


MG13 - Layer 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.

Unified Soil Classification PRA Soil ClassificationMH A-7-5


MG14 - Layer 3



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:


May 09

53383



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/136530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Sandy Clay


75.0

1100-1750



37.5

13.2



20


962.36

100

100


% Sand

92

63.0 100100

9919.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 97

53.0

9.5


12/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

1.18 86

0.425 810.600 83

98

26.5

0.0413 570.0188 54

0.075 590.0578 58

0.0020 460.0012 45

0.0056 500.0040 490.0028 48





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0023 190.0013 19

0.0063 200.0045 200.0032 20

100

26.5

0.0432 340.0202 30

0.075 400.0585 38

1.18 96

0.425 810.600 88


13/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


1002.36

100

100


% Sand

99

63.0 10075.0

1000-2300



37.5

13.2



18

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Clayey Silty Sand


May 09

53384



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:




MG15 - Layer 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0023 210.0013 20

0.0065 220.0046 220.0033 21

100

26.5

0.0440 420.0223 23

0.075 470.0607 46

1.18 97

0.425 850.600 91


14/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


1002.36

100

100


% Sand

99

63.0 10075.0

1050-2400



37.5

13.2



10

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Clayey Silty Sand


May 09

53385



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:




MG16 - Layer 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex O

f W

hole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Notes:




1.

2.

3.

4.5.





0.0022 190.0013 18

0.0056 270.0043 200.0031 19

100

26.5

0.0418 300.0190 29

0.075 320.0581 32

1.18 73

0.425 570.600 62


15/15


Customer :



Date Reported :

100

10019.0 100

4.75

100

6.7 100

53.0

9.5


992.36

100

100


% Sand

89

63.0 10075.0

650-1300



37.5

13.2



17

6530 Req. Number : 3120/13


Material Description: Dark Reddish Orange - Clayey Sand


May 09

53387



TEST REPORT

Attention :

17/11/13



R-FIND-1-4

Position:

PO Box 434

Sample Number:




MG17 - Layer 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

ercen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sam

ple



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Materials Testing LaboratoryRegistration No. 95/07742/07

6 Mirrorball Street, George : PO Box 3186, George Industria, 6536Tel: 044 8743274 : Fax: 044 8745779 : e-mail: [email protected]

P

P

P P

P


∙ Specimens sampled by : Shane Gallant


L Heathcote (Director)For Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd

1. Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of SANAS accreditation. Technical Signatory

4.5.

May 10Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd. R-CBR-1-5

A-4

6530 Req. Number : 3120/131/2

Grading Modulus

T0347

88

100

317

49.8Coarse Sand <2.0 >0.425

Med.

Spec.

Soil Type

Directors: D McDonald (Reg. Eng. Tech. Civil) : L Heathcote (B-Tech. Civil) : Miss A Govender

This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Technical Director of Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd.Measuring Equipment, traceable to National Standards is used where applicable. Results reported in this Test Report relate only to the items tested and are an indication only of the sample provided and/or taken.

The opinion column is an interpretation of the direct comparison between the quoted specification and the single test sample results obtained. The compliant (P), non compliant () and uncertain () opinion indicators are based on an approximate 95% level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2. The uncertain () indicates that the test result is either equal to or is above / below the specified limit by a margin less than the measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not possible to state compliant (P) or non compliant () based on a 95% level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2.

3.

6.

2.

While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn therefrom or for any consequence thereof.

MG1 - Layer 1

0.76

40.6

Max. Stone size in hole (mm)

G7 - TRH

14

Depth (mm)

Mat

eria

ls

Des

crip

tion

0-50053370Sample No

SourceColour

In-situ

0.425 mm

Trial PitDark Brown

43.59.77.5

<0.250 >0.150

75.0 mm 10063.0 mm

<0.075

0.69

46.742.7

Soil Mortar & Constants

0.075 mm

Perc

enta

ge P

assi

ng

2.00 mm

Swell (%)

Liquid Limit (%)Silt

53372

100100

8895

92.10.2451

95.0

Linear Shrinkage (%)

7.22046

1.0

Max Dry Density (kg/m3)Opt Moisture Content (%)Mould Moisture Con. (%)@100% Mod AASHTO

2061

MO

D

CBR / Density Relationship

0.0

0.2299.8

45.6

4.75 mm

100100100

9898

100

100

19.0 mm13.2 mm

53.0 mm

97100100

37.5 mm26.5 mm

NP

8.5

95.10.30

NP

8.8

Swell (%)

@ 98% Mod AASHTO

100% Proctor

@ 100% Mod AASHTO

91.80.3854

100% NRB

Swell (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Customer : 30/10/13Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd.

Attention : Theo Adams No. of Pages :

Metrogrounds (-15ha) Housing Project - GeorgePO Box 434 Date Received :

Project :

17/11/13George Date Reported :

In-situ

100

TEST REPORT

Spec.MG5 - Layer 153370

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO - (TMH 1 Method A1(a),A2,A3,A4,A5,A7,A8)

Sample Position (SV)Material Indicators

Opi

nion

53372

Silty Sand

Trial PitDark Reddish Brown

Clayey Silty Sand

G10 -

TRH 14 Opi

nion

0-800

Classification

SM

100100

A-4PRA System

45 41

TRH 14

26

216

122433

Unified System SM

@ 90% Mod AASHTO@ 93% Mod AASHTO@ 95% Mod AASHTO

53370 53372

NR

B

7.299.8

0.22

0.20

Pro

c

CB

R

Soil Classification

Insitu Moisture Content (%)

G7 G10

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Pe

rce

nta

ge

Passin

g

Sieve Size

Sieve Analysis

1.0

10.0

100.0

90 92 94 96 98 100 102

CB

R (

%)

Compaction (%)

CBR Chart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Pa

ss

ing

Sieve Size

Sieve Analysis

1.0

10.0

100.0

90 92 94 96 98 100 102

CB

R (

%)

Compaction (%)

CBR Chart

0.0 50.0

100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Sh

rin

ka

ge

Pro

du

ct (S

p)

Grading Coefficient (Gc)

Wearing Course Graph

Slippery

Erodible

Materials

Good

(May be Dusty)

Good

Ravels

Ravels and Corrugates

Materials Testing LaboratoryRegistration No. 95/07742/07

6 Mirrorball Street, George : PO Box 3186, George Industria, 6536Tel: 044 8743274 : Fax: 044 8745779 : e-mail: [email protected]

P P


∙ Specimens sampled by : Shane Gallant


L Heathcote (Director)For Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd

1. Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of SANAS accreditation. Technical Signatory

4.5.

May 10Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd. R-CBR-1-5

A-4

6530 Req. Number : 3120/132/2

Grading Modulus

T0347

90

100

316

44.8Coarse Sand <2.0 >0.425

Med.

Spec.

Soil Type

Directors: D McDonald (Reg. Eng. Tech. Civil) : L Heathcote (B-Tech. Civil) : Miss A Govender

This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Technical Director of Outeniqua Lab (Pty) Ltd.Measuring Equipment, traceable to National Standards is used where applicable. Results reported in this Test Report relate only to the items tested and are an indication only of the sample provided and/or taken.

The opinion column is an interpretation of the direct comparison between the quoted specification and the single test sample results obtained. The compliant (P), non compliant () and uncertain () opinion indicators are based on an approximate 95% level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2. The uncertain () indicates that the test result is either equal to or is above / below the specified limit by a margin less than the measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not possible to state compliant (P) or non compliant () based on a 95% level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2.

3.

6.

2.

While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn therefrom or for any consequence thereof.

MG10 - Layer 1

0.69

43.6

Max. Stone size in hole (mm)

G10 -

TRH 14

Depth (mm)

Mat

eria

ls

Des

crip

tion

0-60053378Sample No

SourceColour

In-situ

0.425 mm

Trial PitDark Brown

35.38.411.4

<0.250 >0.150

75.0 mm 10063.0 mm

<0.075

0.56

56.343.8

Soil Mortar & Constants

0.075 mm

Perc

enta

ge P

assi

ng

2.00 mm

Swell (%)

Liquid Limit (%)Silt

53386

100100

88100

91.20.6160

95.5

Linear Shrinkage (%)

9.02032

1.0

Max Dry Density (kg/m3)Opt Moisture Content (%)Mould Moisture Con. (%)@100% Mod AASHTO

1978

MO

D

CBR / Density Relationship

1.0

0.4199.9

55.4

4.75 mm

100100100

9998

100

100

19.0 mm13.2 mm

53.0 mm

100100100

37.5 mm26.5 mm

18

8.4

95.40.53

3

8.1

Swell (%)

@ 98% Mod AASHTO

100% Proctor

@ 100% Mod AASHTO

91.10.5933

100% NRB

Swell (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Customer : 30/10/13Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd.

Attention : Theo Adams No. of Pages :

Metrogrounds (-15ha) Housing Project - GeorgePO Box 434 Date Received :

Project :

17/11/13George Date Reported :

In-situ

100

TEST REPORT

Spec.MG16 - Layer 153378

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO - (TMH 1 Method A1(a),A2,A3,A4,A5,A7,A8)

Sample Position (SV)Material Indicators

Opi

nion

53386

Silty Sand

Trial PitDark Brown

Silty Sand

G8 - TRH

14 Opi

nion

0-500

Classification

ML

100100

A-4PRA System

27 50

TRH 14

35

1025

51419

Unified System SM

@ 90% Mod AASHTO@ 93% Mod AASHTO@ 95% Mod AASHTO

53378 53386

NR

B

9.299.9

0.38

0.31

Pro

c

CB

R

Soil Classification

Insitu Moisture Content (%)

G10 G8

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Pe

rce

nta

ge

Passin

g

Sieve Size

Sieve Analysis

1.0

10.0

100.0

90 92 94 96 98 100 102

CB

R (

%)

Compaction (%)

CBR Chart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Pa

ss

ing

Sieve Size

Sieve Analysis

1.0

10.0

100.0

90 92 94 96 98 100 102

CB

R (

%)

Compaction (%)

CBR Chart

0.0 50.0

100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Sh

rin

ka

ge

Pro

du

ct (S

p)

Grading Coefficient (Gc)

Wearing Course Graph

Slippery

Erodible

Materials

Good

(May be Dusty)

Good

Ravels

Ravels and Corrugates

Appendix 4

DCP test data

Geotechnical Engineering ConsultantsRegistration No. 1999/062743/23

26 Cove Street, Knysna : PO Box 3186, George Industria, 6536Tel: 044 3820502 : Fax: 044 3820503 : e-mail: [email protected]

1 of 17

1

I Paton (Member)For Outeniqua Geotech. Services cc.

Technical Signatory1.2.

Customer :

Associates: A Cook Pr. Eng.

Position:

Attention :

Members: D McDonald (Reg. Eng. Tech. Civil) : I Paton (Pr.Sci.Nat. Geol) : L Heathcote (B-Tech. Civil) : Miss A Govender

This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Members of Outeniqua Geotechnical Services cc.Measuring Equipment, traceable to National Standards is used where applicable. Results reported in this Test Report relate only to the items tested and are an indication only of the sample provided and/or taken.

3. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn there from or for any consequence thereof.

Datum Level: NGL

TEST REPORTDynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) - (TMH 6 Method ST6)


May 10Outeniqua Geotechnical Services cc. R-DCP-1-4

6530 Req. Number :

Date Received :Project :Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd

09.10.13Metrogrounds Housing Project, George

P.O. Box 434George Date Reported : 21.11.13

-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



2 of 17

2



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



3 of 17

3



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



4 of 17

4



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



5 of 17

5



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



6 of 17

6



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



7 of 17

7



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



8 of 17

8



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



9 of 17

9



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



10 of 17

10



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



11 of 17

11



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



12 of 17

12



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



13 of 17

13



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



14 of 17

14



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



15 of 17

15



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



16 of 17

16



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow



17 of 17

17



Customer :


Position:

Attention :




Datum Level: NGL




6530 Req. Number :




-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Depth

(m

m)

mm/Blow

PRT... · PHASE 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT . PROPOSED SUBSIDY HOUSING PROJECT ON A PORTION OF REMAINDER...

Documents

Transcript of PRT... · PHASE 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT . PROPOSED SUBSIDY HOUSING PROJECT ON A PORTION OF REMAINDER...