GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED FOOTBRIDGE OVER

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED FOOTBRIDGE OVER EXISTING

TRACK

Motoring South West

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx Page i

Date: 10 January 2019

WML Name: Collie Motorplex Footbridge Additional GI

WML Project No: 8318

Distribution Record:

Revision Reviewed By Date Issued Purpose of Issue Issued To

A SM 10/01/2019 Draft for comments Steve Brake

Prepared by: Greg Tomasini

Signed:

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

About your geotechnical investigation and report………….

A geotechnical investigation is planned and conducted solely for the intended recipient of

the report and for the purposes stated in the report. The report should not be reproduced

in whole or part without agreement of WML Consultants.

A geotechnical investigation is planned and conducted based upon the information about

the site and proposed works that is made available to WML Consultants, as stated in the

report.

A geotechnical investigation typically includes investigation and testing at a few isolated

locations. The choice of the locations is usually made by the author having consideration

for the nature of the site and proposed works. Conditions for the remainder of the site are

necessarily extrapolated from the conditions observed at the locations investigated. Thus

the report will contain a mixture of facts, interpretation and professional judgement. Facts

will usually be confined to a description of the fieldwork carried out, the observations made

and any results of laboratory testing. However, field notes and logs contain estimates of

conditions observed at the time, and may differ from the results obtained from subsequent

laboratory testing of samples. Other comments and conclusions should be considered as

interpretation and professional judgement, unless specifically stated otherwise.

As the nature of geotechnical conditions is so variable WML Consultants accepts no liability

or responsibility for the conditions encountered beyond the limits of our investigation. Such

conditions may exist between test locations or in deeper strata than observed than can

reasonably be interpreted from the limited extent of this investigation.

For various reasons (e.g. seasonal effects), the site conditions encountered during

construction may differ from those observed or extrapolated from the initial investigation.

In this instance the recommendations in the geotechnical report may not be appropriate

and it is strongly recommended WML Consultants be requested to inspect the different

conditions, review the initial report and provide follow-up advice. Unless specifically

allowed for in the brief, the follow-up review will attract an additional fee.

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 SITE SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

3 GROUND INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 SERVICE LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 FIELDWORK ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

4 CPT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................... 5

5.1 SUB-SURFACE PROFILE ..................................................................................................................................... 5 5.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................................... 6 5.3 SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................................................................................... 6

5.4 SAFETY IN DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................. 7

6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

APPENDIX A

SITE INVESTIGATION MAP

APPENDIX B

SOIL LOGS

APPENDIX C

PREVIOUS REPORT

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

1 INTRODUCTION

Previously Calibre Consulting on behalf of their client, Motoring Southwest, requested a

geotechnical investigation for a proposed footbridge over the existing track. The purpose of

the investigation was to ascertain the subsurface profile, soil strength, bearing capacity and

possible settlement at the site. WML undertook the following scope of work as part of that

appointment:

• 4 machine excavated test pits to approximately 2m depth • 4 CPTs to 6m or refusal • Logging of boreholes and collecting of samples • Sampling of representative subgrade materials for laboratory testing.

• Taking notes and photographs of the site.

A report (7524-G-R-001) presenting the findings of the previous investigation is attached.

Since the previous report was issued the footbridge has been moved approximately 25 meters

from the original position and as such WML was appointed to undertake a follow-up

geotechnical investigation with the same purpose at the new location. The scope of works for

the new locations included the following:

• 2 machine excavated test pits to approximately 2m depth • 2 CPTs to 6m or refusal • Logging of boreholes • Taking notes and photographs of the site

This report presents the findings of the investigation.

2 SITE SETTING

2.1 Site Location and Description

The Motorplex is located approximately 15 km southeast of Collie.

The Motorplex will undergo development including the construction of a pedestrian

footbridge over the race track, located near to the existing control tower. Investigation is

required at the two foundation locations. It is assumed the bridge will be founded on spread

footings. An image of the proposed bridge is shown below:

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

2.2 Geology

The near surface ground conditions are relevant to the bridge foundations and an appropriate

investigation technique (discussed further in Section 3). The general sub-surface geology at

the site consists of:

• 0-3m depth: superficial sand, gravel and cap rock.

• 3-30m depth: Nakina Formation (weakly cemented sandstone and claystone with a laterite hard cap).

The 1:50,000 scale geological map places the site upon ‘Sand’ and states that the area has been affected by mining activities.

3 GROUND INVESTIGATION

3.1 Service Location

A “Dial before You Dig” search for services was carried out before any excavation occurred.

Power and telecommunications services were found to be servicing the Motorplex however

they were not located in the vicinity of the work area. Electrical services were present for the

start line timing equipment however these were also not in the immediate work area.

3.2 Fieldwork

The fieldwork was carried out on 7th January 2019 by an engineer from WML. The fieldwork

consisted of the following works.

• 2 machine excavated test pits to approximately 2m depth.

• 2 CPTs

GPS location and photographs were also taken of the site. The locations of the test pits are

shown on Drawing 8318-G-001 with the test pit logs presented in the Appendices.

4 CPT ANALYSIS

CPT analysis was undertaken at 2 locations on site. CPT 1 and 2 were progressed to the target

depth of 6m. The analysis of CPT1 and CPT 2 are shown below.

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

Figure 1: CPT 1 Figure 2: CPT 2

5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Sub-Surface Profile

TP1 located at Abutment 1:

• GRAVELLY, SILTY SAND 0 - 0.65m – Some cementation was present in the material.

• ASPHALT SEAL - 0.65 – 0.7m – Old haul road seal

• SANDY GRAVEL – 0.7 - 1.25m – Haul road basecourse material

• SILTY SAND – 1.25 – 1.9m – Very dense material

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

TP2 located at Abutment 2:

• SILTY SAND TOPSOIL - 0 - 0.15m – Grass and roots present.

• SANDY GRAVEL – 0.15 - 0.35m – Old gravel basecourse material

• SILTY SAND – 0.35 – 0.45m

• GRAVELLY SAND – 0.45 – 0.9m

• SILTY SAND – 0.9+m – Very dense material

5.2 Design Parameters

5.3 Site Preparation

The existing in-situ material is well compacted. If existing material is over excavated and

needs to be replaced then compaction of placed material will be required.

Abutment 1: 0 to1.3m Abutment 2: 0 to 2.0m

Medium Dense Clayey / Silty Sand and Sandy Silt Fill

Parameter Design Value

E (Young’s modulus) 25 MPa

Φ (angle of internal friction) 32°

Cu (cohesion) 0 kPa

g (unit weight) 18 kN/m3

Abutment 1: 1.3 to 6.0m Abutment 2: 2.0 to 6.0m

Very Stiff/Dense Soils




Cu (cohesion) 0 kPa


Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

5.4 Safety in Design

This project has design elements, however these elements are considered rudimentary with

the associated risks and hazards being widely known and understood. Any competent person

carrying out this type of work should be aware of these hazards and apply standard industry

practices to mitigate the risks.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Tomasini Simon Maris

Civil Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Author Reviewer

For and on behalf of WML Consultants Pty Ltd

6 REFERENCES

1. Geological Series Map 1:50,000 Scale ‘Collie’

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

APPENDIX A


Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

APPENDIX B

SOIL LOGS

Not

Enc

ount

ered

SM

SM

GW

SP

Dry, pale brown, dense, fine to coarse grained, gravelly silty SAND.

Dry, cream mottled red, dense, fine to medium grained, silty SAND. Slightly cemented.

STONE SEAL

Dry, orange brown, dense, fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL. Old haul road basecourse.

Dry, cream, dense, fine to medium grained, silty SAND.

Hole Terminated at 1.90 mTarget depth

DE

PT

H (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

WA

TE

R

GR

AP

HIC

LOGSAMPLES OR

FIELD TEST

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOGGED: GT

LOGGED DATE: 07/01/2019

SURFACE RL:

CHAINAGE:

CONTRACTOR: WML Consultants

MACHINE: Excavator

CO-ORD SYSTEM: MGA94 Zone 50

POSITION:

TRIAL PIT: TP 1

CLIENT: Calibre

PROJECT: Collie Motorplex Geotech Investigation

LOCATION: Collie Motorplex

JOB NO.: 8318

SHEET: 1 OF 1

WM

L LI

B 1

.08.

GLB

Lo

g W

ML

SO

IL

8318

SO

IL L

OG

S.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

08

/01/

2019

14:

15

10.0

.000

D

evel

oped

by

Dat

gel

Not

Enc

ount

ered

SM

GW

SM

SW

Dry, dark brown black, loose, fine to coarse grained, silty SAND.

Dry, orange brown, dense, fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL with a trace of clay. Possible old gravelhardstand.

Dry, pale white mottled black, dense, fine to medium grained, silty SAND.

Dry, pale orange, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, gravelly SAND.


DE

PT

H (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

WA

TE

R

GR

AP

HIC

LOGSAMPLES OR

FIELD TEST

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL


LOGGED: GT


SURFACE RL:

CHAINAGE:


MACHINE: Excavator


POSITION:

TRIAL PIT: TP 2

CLIENT: Calibre

PROJECT: Collie Motorplex Geotech Investigation


JOB NO.: 8318

SHEET: 1 OF 1

WM

L LI

B 1

.08.

GLB

Lo

g W

ML

SO

IL

8318

SO

IL L

OG

S.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

08

/01/

2019

14:

15

10.0

.000

D

evel

oped

by

Dat

gel

Date:

Report Name:

10 January 2019

8318-G-R-001.docx

APPENDIX C

PREVIOUS REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED FOOTBRIDGE OVER EXISTING

TRACK

Motoring South West

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx Page i

Date: 5 May 2017

WML Name: Collie Motorplex Footbridge GI

WML Project No: 7524

Distribution Record:

Revision Reviewed By Date Issued Purpose of Issue Issued To

A PAF 5/5/2017 Draft for comments Steve Brake

Prepared by: Greg Tomasini

Signed:

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

About your geotechnical investigation and report………….

A geotechnical investigation is planned and conducted solely for the intended recipient of

the report and for the purposes stated in the report. The report should not be reproduced

in whole or part without agreement of WML Consultants.

A geotechnical investigation is planned and conducted based upon the information about

the site and proposed works that is made available to WML Consultants, as stated in the

report.

A geotechnical investigation typically includes investigation and testing at a few isolated

locations. The choice of the locations is usually made by the author having consideration

for the nature of the site and proposed works. Conditions for the remainder of the site are

necessarily extrapolated from the conditions observed at the locations investigated. Thus

the report will contain a mixture of facts, interpretation and professional judgement. Facts

will usually be confined to a description of the fieldwork carried out, the observations made

and any results of laboratory testing. However, field notes and logs contain estimates of

conditions observed at the time, and may differ from the results obtained from subsequent

laboratory testing of samples. Other comments and conclusions should be considered as

interpretation and professional judgement, unless specifically stated otherwise.

As the nature of geotechnical conditions is so variable WML Consultants accepts no liability

or responsibility for the conditions encountered beyond the limits of our investigation. Such

conditions may exist between test locations or in deeper strata than observed than can

reasonably be interpreted from the limited extent of this investigation.

For various reasons (e.g. seasonal effects), the site conditions encountered during

construction may differ from those observed or extrapolated from the initial investigation.

In this instance the recommendations in the geotechnical report may not be appropriate

and it is strongly recommended WML Consultants be requested to inspect the different

conditions, review the initial report and provide follow-up advice. Unless specifically

allowed for in the brief, the follow-up review will attract an additional fee.

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 SITE SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

3 GROUND INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 SERVICE LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 FIELDWORK ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

4 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 ASS FIELD TESTING ................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4.2 SPOCAS TESTING .................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5 FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................................. 5

5.1 SUB-SURFACE PROFILE ..................................................................................................................................... 5

6 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN ................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6.2 ACID SULFATE SOILS ......................................................................................................................................... 6 6.3 SITE PREPARATION ................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

7 SAFETY IN DESIGN ................................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

APPENDIX A


APPENDIX B

SOIL LOGS

APPENDIX C

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS + CPT RESULTS

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

1 INTRODUCTION

Calibre Consulting on behalf of their client, Motoring Southwest, requested a geotechnical

investigation for a proposed footbridge over the existing track. The purpose of the

investigation was to ascertain the subsurface profile, soil strength, bearing capacity and

possible settlement at the site.

The proposed scope of work consisted of:

• 4 machine excavated test pits to approximately 2m depth • 4 CPTs to 6m or refusal • Logging of boreholes and collecting of samples • Sampling of representative subgrade materials for laboratory testing.

• Taking notes and photographs of the site.

This report presents the findings of the investigation.

2 SITE SETTING

2.1 Site Location and Description

The Motorplex is located approximately 15km southeast of Collie.

The Motorplex will undergo development including the construction of a pedestrian

footbridge over the race track, located near to the existing control tower. Investigation is

required at four locations. It is assumed the bridge will be founded on spread footings.

2.2 Geology

The near surface ground conditions are relevant to the bridge foundations and an appropriate

investigation technique (discussed further in Section 3). The general sub-surface geology at

the site consists of:

• 0-3m depth: superficial sand, gravel and cap rock.

• 3-30m depth: Nakina Formation (weakly cemented sandstone and claystone with a laterite hard cap).

The 1:50,000 scale geological map places the site upon ‘Sand’ and states that the area has been affected by mining activities.

3 GROUND INVESTIGATION

3.1 Service Location

A “Dial before You Dig” search for services was carried out before any excavation occurred.

Power and telecommunications services were found to be servicing the Motorplex however

they were not located in the vicinity of the work area. Electrical services were present for the

start line timing equipment however these were also not in the immediate work area.

3.2 Fieldwork

The fieldwork was carried out on 24th March 2017 by an engineer from WML. The fieldwork

consisted of the following works. One CPT and test pit was unable to be undertaken due to

unknown services on the inside of the track area.

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

• 3 machine excavated test pits to approximately 2m depth.

• 3 CPTs

The sampling of representative materials, GPS location and photographs were also taken of

the site. The locations of the test pits are shown on Drawing 7485-G-001 with the test pit logs

presented in Appendix A.

4 LABORATORY TESTING AND ANALYSIS

4.1 PSD Testing

Samples of representative material were submitted to Civitest Australia, a NATA accredited

laboratory for Particle Size Distribution (PSD) Testing. The test results are summarised below

with the certificates attached at the end of this report in Appendix C:

Table 1: Laboratory Testing Summary

Location Depth

(m) Test

PSD Atterberg’s

Fines

(%)

Sand

(%)

Gravel

(%)

PI

(%)

LS

(%)

TP1 1.5 PSD 29 60 11 15 6.5

TP3 0.8 PSD 17 68 15 12 4.5

Note: PSD – Particle Size Distribution; PI – Plasticity Index; LS – Linear Shrinkage;

4.2 CPT Analysis

CPT analysis was undertaken at 3 locations on site. CPT 1 and 3 were progressed to full target

depth while CPT 2 refused after pushing a dummy probe down to 1m. The analysis of CPT1

and CPT 3 are shown below.

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

Figure 1: CPT 1 Figure 2: CPT 3

5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Sub-Surface Profile

The site was consistent in soil profile

1. SANDY CLAY – Dry to moist, orange, very stiff, fine to coarse grained, low plasticity

clay. Some cementation was present in the material.

A 400mm gravel layer was found in TP 2 which may have been a part of an old haul road. A

CPT attempt refused in this area immediately.

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

5.2 Design Parameters

5.3 Site Preparation

The existing in-situ material is well compacted. If existing material is over excavated and

needs to be replaced then compaction of placed material will be required.

5.4 Safety in Design

This project has design elements, however these elements are considered rudimentary with

the associated risks and hazards being widely known and understood. Any competent person

carrying out this type of work should be aware of these hazards and apply standard industry

practices to mitigate the risks.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Tomasini Paul Foley

Civil Engineer Group Manager Geotechnical & Pavements

Author Reviewer

For and on behalf of WML Consultants Pty Ltd

Soils From 0 to 2.2m (Firm Clayey Sand/Sandy Clay)




Cu (cohesion) 0 kPa


Very Stiff Soils from 2.3m to 6m




Cu (cohesion) 5 kPa


Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

6 REFERENCES

1. Geological Series Map 1:50,000 Scale ‘Collie’

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

APPENDIX A


Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

APPENDIX B

SOIL LOGS

Not

Enc

ount

ered

GW

SC

SC

SC

Moist, brown, very dense, fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL. FILL.

Moist, orange, very dense, fine to coarse grained, clayey SAND. Some laterite boulders present.

Moist, orange, very dense, fine to coarse grained, clayey SAND.

Moist, mottled grey, very dense, fine to coarse grained, clayey SAND.


DE

PT

H (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

WA

TE

R

GR

AP

HIC

LOGSAMPLES OR

FIELD TEST

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL


LOGGED: GT


SURFACE RL:

CHAINAGE:


MACHINE: Excavator


POSITION:

: TP 1

CLIENT: Motoring South West

PROJECT: Collie Motorplex GI


JOB NO.: 7524

SHEET: 1 OF 1

CO

PY

OF

WM

L LI

B 1

.06.

GLB

Log

WM

L S

OIL

752

4 S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

8/03

/201

7 15

:29

10.

0.00

0 D

evel

oped

by

Dat

gel

Not

Enc

ount

ered

SC

GC

SC

Dry, orange, very dense, fine to coarse grained, clayey SAND.

Dry, brown red, very dense, fine to coarse, clayey GRAVEL. Possible old haul road material.



DE

PT

H (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

WA

TE

R

GR

AP

HIC

LOGSAMPLES OR

FIELD TEST

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL


LOGGED: GT


SURFACE RL:

CHAINAGE:


MACHINE: Excavator


POSITION:

: TP 2




JOB NO.: 7524

SHEET: 1 OF 1

CO

PY

OF

WM

L LI

B 1

.06.

GLB

Log

WM

L S

OIL

752

4 S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

8/03

/201

7 15

:29

10.

0.00

0 D

evel

oped

by

Dat

gel

Not

Enc

ount

ered

SC



DE

PT

H (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

WA

TE

R

GR

AP

HIC

LOGSAMPLES OR

FIELD TEST

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SY

MB

OL


LOGGED: GT


SURFACE RL:

CHAINAGE:


MACHINE: Excavator


POSITION:

: TP 3




JOB NO.: 7524

SHEET: 1 OF 1

CO

PY

OF

WM

L LI

B 1

.06.

GLB

Log

WM

L S

OIL

752

4 S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

8/03

/201

7 15

:29

10.

0.00

0 D

evel

oped

by

Dat

gel

Date:

Report Name:

5 May 2017

7524-G-R-001-A.docx

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Page 1 of 1

CLIENT: SAMPLE NO:

PROJECT: JOB NO:

LOCATION: FIELD DESCRIPTION:

DATE TESTED:

PROPOSED USE: DEPTH TESTED mm:

CLIENT REF:

Liquid Limit % AS 1289.3.1.2

Plastic Limit % AS 1289.3.2.1

Plasticity Index % AS 1289.3.3.1

Linear Shrinkage % AS 1289.3.4.1

Length of Mould mm

Sample history

Sample Preparation Method

Nature of Shrink

Notes:

Approved Signatory:

Date:

Report Number: / 1

TEST REPORT

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Collie Motorplex

Collie

24-1-454

Clay

10-Apr-17

W.M.L Consultants CT 61484

Stockpile

TP1 1.5m

-

PO7524

Sampled by Client

AS 1289.3.6.1

6.5

250

2.36 mm

75.0 mm

37.5 mm

16

15

100

100

82

31

1.18 mm

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AS 1289 .3.6.1

Sieve Size Sieve Size % Passing

70

100

95 0.300 mm

0.600 mm

0.150 mm

% Passing

PLASICITY INDEX & LINEAR SHRINKAGE

0.075 mm

19.0 mm

9.5 mm

0.425 mm 60

53

NATA Accredited Laboratory

No. 20040

Accredited for compliance

with ISO/IEC 17025

This document shall not be

reproduced,

except in full

36

29

H.Yama

CT 61484

22-Apr-17

Sample site selected by Client

4.75 mm Oven Dried

89 Dry Sieved

Flat

92

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assin

g

Sieve Size (mm)

CT-REP-011

Jul 2016

Bunbury Base Laboratory

Ph: 08 9726 2204

PO Box 5068, Bunbury WA 6231

29 Halifax Drive, Bunbury WA 6230 civitest.com.au

Page 1 of 1

CLIENT: SAMPLE NO:

PROJECT: JOB NO:

LOCATION: FIELD DESCRIPTION:

DATE TESTED:

PROPOSED USE: DEPTH TESTED mm:

CLIENT REF:

Liquid Limit % AS 1289.3.1.2

Plastic Limit % AS 1289.3.2.1

Plasticity Index % AS 1289.3.3.1

Linear Shrinkage % AS 1289.3.4.1

Length of Mould mm

Sample history

Sample Preparation Method

Nature of Shrink

Notes:

Approved Signatory:

Date:

Report Number: / 1

TEST REPORT

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Collie Motorplex

Collie

24-1-454

Clay

10-Apr-17

W.M.L Consultants CT 61485

Stockpile

TP3 0.8m

-

PO7524

Sampled by Client

AS 1289.3.6.1

4.5

250

2.36 mm

75.0 mm

37.5 mm

15

12

100

100

70

27

1.18 mm

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AS 1289 .3.6.1

Sieve Size Sieve Size % Passing

52

100

96 0.300 mm

0.600 mm

0.150 mm

% Passing

PLASICITY INDEX & LINEAR SHRINKAGE

0.075 mm

19.0 mm

9.5 mm

0.425 mm 42

34

NATA Accredited Laboratory

No. 20040

Accredited for compliance

with ISO/IEC 17025

This document shall not be

reproduced,

except in full

22

17

H.Yama

CT 61485

22-Apr-17

Sample site selected by Client

4.75 mm Oven Dried

85 Dry Sieved

Flat

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assin

g

Sieve Size (mm)

CT-REP-011

Jul 2016

Bunbury Base Laboratory

Ph: 08 9726 2204

PO Box 5068, Bunbury WA 6231

29 Halifax Drive, Bunbury WA 6230 civitest.com.au

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PEN

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

Collie

Collie Motorplex Geotechnical Investigation

Motoring South West

Refusal: Inclination

Approx. Water (m): Dry to 0.2

Dummy probe to (m):

0 1 2 3

01

23

45

67

89

Tip Res

Dep

th (m

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

01

23

45

67

89

Friction Sleeve fs (kPa)

Tip Resistance qc (MPa)

Dep

th (m

)

Tip

Res

ista

nce

Fric

tion

Sle

eve

Co-ords:

RL (m):

Job No.:

24-Mar-17

Probe I.DNETROMETER

CPT 1

Rig Type: 22 tonne truck (Merc)

7524

File: WM0163G

Cone I.D.: EC21

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

01

23

45

67

89

Friction Ratio Rf (%)

Dep

th (m

)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

istance qc (MPa)

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:



Collie


Motoring South West

Refusal:


Dummy probe to (m): 0.4

0 1 2 3

01

23

45

67

89

Tip Res

Dep

th (m

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

01

23

45

67

89



Dep

th (m

)

Tip

Res

ista

nce

Fric

tion

Sle

eve

Co-ords:

RL (m):

Job No.:

24-Mar-17

Probe I.DNETROMETER

CPT 1A


7524

File: WM0164G

Cone I.D.: EC21

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

01

23

45

67

89


Dep

th (m

)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

istance qc (MPa)

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:



Collie


Motoring South West

Refusal: 75MPa / Rod Friction



0 1 2 3

01

23

45

67

89

Tip Res

Dep

th (m

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

01

23

45

67

89



Dep

th (m

)

Tip

Res

ista

nce

Fric

tion

Sle

eve

Co-ords:

RL (m):

Job No.:

24-Mar-17

Probe I.DNETROMETER

CPT 2


7524

File: WM0165G

Cone I.D.: EC21

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

01

23

45

67

89


Dep

th (m

)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

istance qc (MPa)

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:



Collie


Motoring South West

Refusal:



0 1 2 3

01

23

45

67

89

Tip Res

Dep

th (m

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

01

23

45

67

89



Dep

th (m

)

Tip

Res

ista

nce

Fric

tion

Sle

eve

Co-ords:

RL (m):

Job No.:

24-Mar-17

Probe I.DNETROMETER

CPT 3


7524

File: WM0166G

Cone I.D.: EC21

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

01

23

45

67

89


Dep

th (m

)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

istance qc (MPa)

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED FOOTBRIDGE OVER