Report on Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Birrie River ... · Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement Project 87979.00 Goodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga

Report onGeotechnical Investigation

Proposed Birrie River Bridge ReplacementGoodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga

Prepared forProterra Group

Project 87979.00June 2016

Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement Project 87979.00Goodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga June 2016

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 2

3. Regional Geology ........................................................................................................................... 3

4. Field Work Methods ....................................................................................................................... 3

5. Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................... 4

6. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 5

7. Proposed Development .................................................................................................................. 6

8. Comments ...................................................................................................................................... 6

8.1 Appreciation of Geotechnical Conditions .............................................................................6

8.2 Excavatability .......................................................................................................................6

8.3 Re-Use of Excavated Materials ...........................................................................................7

8.4 Earthworks and Site Preparation .........................................................................................7

8.5 Safe Batter Slopes ...............................................................................................................7

8.6 Abutment Retaining Walls ...................................................................................................8

8.7 Foundations .........................................................................................................................8

8.7.1 Construction ............................................................................................................8

8.7.2 Vertical Capacity .....................................................................................................9

8.7.3 Lateral Capacity ....................................................................................................10

8.8 Aggressivity of Foundation Soils ........................................................................................11

8.9 Scour Protection ................................................................................................................11

8.10 Subgrade CBR ...................................................................................................................11

9. References ................................................................................................................................... 12

10. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A: About This Report Sampling Methods Soil Descriptions Symbols and Abbreviations

Appendix B: Drawing 1 – Site and Test Location Plan Drawing 2 – Inferred Geological Cross Section

Appendix C: Borehole Logs

Appendix D: Laboratory Test Reports

Appendix E: Lateral Capacity and Deflection of Piles Using Broms’ Theory

Page 1 of 13


Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement

Goodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for the proposed replacement of the Birrie River bridge located on the Goodooga-Brenda Road near Goodooga. The investigation was undertaken at the request of Proterra Group following receipt of Purchase Order No 100018 on 9 May 2015 in general accordance with Douglas Partners Pty Ltd’s (DP) Proposal BNE151088 dated 28 October 2015. The aim of the investigation, was to assess the conditions at the site in order to provide comments on:

subsurface conditions including regional geology and groundwater (if encountered);

excavatability;

earthworks and site preparation, and re-use of excavated materials;

safe batter slopes;

abutment retaining wall geotechnical design parameters comprising bulk unit weights and earth pressure coefficients;

suitable foundation options;

geotechnical design parameters for vertical and lateral loading including allowable and design skin and end bearing values and geotechnical reduction factors, Young’s Modulus, lateral modulus of subgrade reaction and estimated settlements;

soil aggressivity to buried concrete and steel based on AS 2159; and

design subgrade California bearing ratio (CBR) and comments on the suitability of subgrade stabilisation.

The investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of six boreholes, followed by laboratory testing, engineering analysis and reporting. Details of the field and laboratory work are presented in this report together with comments and recommendations on the items listed above. This report must be read in conjunction with the notes entitled ‘About This Report’ in Appendix A and any other explanatory notes, and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections.

Page 2 of 13


2. Site Description

The Birrie River bridge is located approximately 3 km northwest of Goodooga on Goodooga-Brenda Road. The Birrie River drains in an southwesterly direction and at the time of the investigation the river was essentially dry apart from some ponding to the southwest of the bridge. The existing timber bridge is orientated in an approximate east/west direction. The river banks generally slope down to the riverbed at approximately 3H:1V to 5H:1V (H = horizontal, V = vertical). Numerous eucalyptus trees up to 25 m in height and several small trees and shrubs were observed on both river banks in the vicinity of the bridge. Photographs of the site at the time of the field work are presented below as Figures 1 to 3.

Figure 1: Looking east-northeast with the rig (partly obscured by trees at centre) on Bore 1.

Figure 2: Looking southeast at the rig set up on Bore 1 (bridge in background at left).

Page 3 of 13


Figure 3: Looking east at the rig set up on Bore 3

3. Regional Geology

Reference to the 1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet SH/55-7 for Angledool (2nd edition) indicates that the site is underlain by soils of the Marra Creek Formation, which comprise meander plain facies described as “Unconsolidated dark to pale grey and pale yellow-grey clayey silt. Meander plain of existing rivers; narrow and not elevated above surrounding plain (ie. degradational). Terrain is flat and varies to gilgai-forming with cracking soils and generally hosts abundant trees, bushes, shrubs and grasses”. The soils encountered during the investigation comprised mostly silty clay and silty sand alluvium consistent with meander plain soils. 4. Field Work Methods

The field work was undertaken between 24 and 26 May 2016 and comprised the drilling of nine bores (designated Bores 1 to 9) using a truck-mounted drilling rig. Bores 1 to 3 were drilled to approximately 25 m depth at the midpoint and ends of the proposed bridge, using 115 mm diameter solid flight augers initially, then rotary washboring. Bores 4 to 9 were drilled to 1.5 m depth on the approach embankment alignments, using a combination of 300 mm diameter short flight auger and 15 mm diameter solid flight augers. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were undertaken at 1.5 m intervals from 1.0 m depth in Bores 1 to 3 to assess subsurface relative density/strength consistency and to recover samples for laboratory testing. Dynamic cone penetrometer tests (DCPs) were undertaken to a maximum of 1.5 m depth in accordance with test method AS 1289.6.3.2 adjacent to Bores 4 to 9 also to provide information on subsurface relative density/strength consistency. Strata identification was undertaken through observation of recovered SPT samples and cuttings. On completion of drilling, the bores were left open and purged using a plastic bailer to allow short term monitoring of groundwater levels.

Page 4 of 13


Bores 1 to 3 were set out by triangulation from the existing bridge using an unreferenced survey drawing (Filename 16-92 Birrie Bridge Survey Approx MGA Zone 55) and the remaining bores were set out by measurement from the proposed alignment of the bridge. The UTM coordinates of the bore locations were then recorded using a hand-held GPS accurate to approximately 5 m. The approximate locations are indicated on Drawing 1 in Appendix B. The bore levels were measured by level run survey relative to the south eastern corner of the existing bridge abutment and assigning it an arbitrary level of RL 100 (refer to Drawing 1). The field work was undertaken under the supervision of an experienced geotechnical engineer who positioned and logged the bores, collected samples for visual and tactile assessment and for laboratory testing and measured groundwater. 5. Field Work Results

Details of subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are given in the borehole logs in Appendix C. These should be read in conjunction with the notes About this Report and the explanatory notes in Appendix A which comment on sampling methods, soil descriptions, and symbols and abbreviations used in their preparation. An inferred geological cross section of the encountered conditions is shown on Drawing 2 in Appendix B. The subsurface conditions were relatively uniform, as described below: Topsoil and sandy silt: Encountered to 0.3 m depth in an estimated loose to medium dense

condition.

Silty clay: stiff initially and grading to very stiff and hard with depth. Bores 4 to 9 were terminated in this unit. Encountered to between 6.1 m and 7.4 m depth in Bores 1 to 3.

Silty sand: Medium dense to dense and very dense, to between 13.3 m and 16.5 m depth.

Silty and sandy clay: Very stiff to hard, to between 18.2 m and 21.3 m depth.

Silty sand: Dense to very dense. Bore 2 was terminated in this layer, and it extended to 24.4 m and 22.9 m depth in Bores 1 and 3 respectively.

Silty or sandy clay: Very stiff, to termination of Bore 1 and 24.4 m depth in Bore 3. Silty sand was then encountered over the remaining depth of Bore 3.

No free groundwater was encountered in the bores during augering. Monitoring of the open bores indicated groundwater at depth. It should be noted, however, that groundwater levels are affected by climatic conditions and soil permeability, and potentially river levels at this site, and will therefore vary with time.

Page 5 of 13


6. Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was performed on selected disturbed samples from both bores, and comprised the following:

Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage tests on one sample (for soil classification purposes);

particle size distribution on one sample (for soil classification purposes);

four day soaked California bearing ratio (CBR) tests on six samples (for subgrade characterisation purposes); and

soil pH, chloride and sulfate content tests (for aggressitivity assessment) performed by Australian Laboratory Services Pty Ltd.

The results of laboratory testing are provided in detail in the test report sheets in Appendix C and are summarised in Tables 1 to 4 below. Table 1: Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage Testing Results

Bore Depth

(m) Description

WF

(%) WL

(%) WP

(%) PI

(%) LS (%)

1 0.5 – 0.95 Silty clay 8.5 35 11 24 8.5

Notes: WF – field moisture content; WL – liquid limit; WP – plastic limit; PI – plasticity index; LS – linear shrinkage.

Table 2: Particle Size Distribution Testing Results

Bore Depth (m) Description Particle Size Distribution (%)

Gravel Sand Silt/Clay

3 6.5 – 6.95 Silty sand 0 79 21

Table 3: CBR Testing Results

Bore Depth (m) Description WF

(%) SMDD (t/m3)

OMC (%)

Swell (%)

CBR (%)

4 0.1 – 0.5 Silty clay 14.4 1.58 19.5 7.7 2.0

5 0.1 – 0.5 Silty clay 13.8 1.60 19.5 7.7 2.5

6 0.1 – 0.5 Silty clay 15.3 1.57 21.3 5.6 2.5

7 0.1 – 0.5 Silty clay 12.2 1.66 18.3 2.6 4.0

8 0.1 – 0.5 Silty clay 11.2 1.62 18.1 4.3 3.0

9 0.1 – 0.5 Silty clay 13.0 1.64 18.4 3.4 2.5

Legend: SMDD – Standard maximum dry density

OMC – optimum moisture content for Standard compaction

CBR – California bearing ratio at close to 100% SMDD after four day soak

Page 6 of 13


Table 4: Aggressivity Testing Results

Bore Depth (m) Description pH Sulfates, SO4 (mg/kg) Chlorides (mg/kg)

1 2.0 – 2.45 Silty clay 7.7 40 30

2 0.5 – 0.95 Silty clay 8.6 10 340

7. Proposed Development

It is understood that the proposed replacement bridge will be a two span structure built approximately 50 m northeast of the existing bridge. Piles are proposed for mid-span and abutment support. No indication of proposed loadings, or expected cut and fill levels for the approaches, was available at the time of preparing this report. 8. Comments

8.1 Appreciation of Geotechnical Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered during the field work generally comprised an interbedded profile of very stiff to hard silty clay and dense to very dense silty sand, with some slightly weaker or looser bands, and minor sandy clay. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, it is envisaged that driven concrete or timber piles founding in the dense to very dense silty sand below about 7 m depth would be suitable for the support of the new bridge. Few difficulties are foreseen for construction of the replacement bridge foundations. Further interpretation of the investigation results, together with comments relating to design and construction practice, are given in the following sections.

8.2 Excavatability

Relatively straightforward soil conditions are anticipated for excavations (if required) at the site. Based on the conditions encountered in the bores, it is estimated that bulk excavation of the alluvial soils may be undertaken by medium (or larger) sized excavation plant such as 10 to 15 tonne excavators (or similar).

Page 7 of 13


8.3 Re-Use of Excavated Materials

The ground conditions encountered within the bores indicate that the majority of the materials won from shallow excavations will consist of silty clay which should generally be acceptable for re-use as filling. This is provided that care is taken to remove any organic matter during initial site preparation, and meeting placement and compaction requirements as indicated in the following section. It should be noted that the silty clay appears to be particularly susceptible to swelling and softening, therefore moisture control will be particularly relevant to the project.

8.4 Earthworks and Site Preparation

It is recommended that the following site preparation be carried out for pavement subgrade preparation and approach embankment construction:

Remove any deleterious, soft, wet or highly compressible material or material rich in organics or root matter. It is noted that none of the above materials were encountered during the investigation, although there will be some minor grass rootlets to be trimmed off and larger tree roots to be grubbed out following the clearing of the new alignment.

Scarify and moisture condition the exposed subgrade to within 2% of the optimum moisture content for Standard compaction (OMC).

Undertake a minimum of six passes with a 12-tonne smooth drum roller, and then test roll the exposed subgrade beneath any proposed approach embankments in order to detect the presence of any soft or otherwise compressible zones, which should be excavated and replaced with compacted select filling as appropriate.

Place approved filling, if required, in layers not exceeding 300 mm loose thickness, with each layer compacted to a minimum dry density ratio of 100% Standard within 2% of OMC. Over-compacted clays (i.e. dry density ratio of greater than 102% Standard) placed dry of OMC may swell significantly and lose strength if they are wetted after compaction, potentially exacerbating surface movements and reducing subgrade strengths assumed in design, and therefore should be avoided.

Promptly cover any exposed clay at subgrade level with the subbase layer or a minimum 150 mm of select granular fill (minimum CBR 15%) to reduce potential wetting and drying and trafficability problems.

The above procedures will require geotechnical inspection and testing services to be employed during construction.

8.5 Safe Batter Slopes

Temporary batter slopes up to 2 m high may be designed at 1.5H:1V, and where incorporated into the final development, it should be flattened to 3H:1V or flatter to permit vegetation and maintenance.

Page 8 of 13


The above batter slopes are suggested with respect to slope stability only and do not allow for lateral stress relaxation which may result in movement of adjacent soils. It is further recommended that all batters incorporate crest and toe drains, and be covered with vegetation (or similar) to provide erosion protection. Details of any final embankment slopes had not been provided at the time of report preparation. As such, detailed stability analysis has not been carried out for abutment embankments adjacent to the riverbed.

8.6 Abutment Retaining Walls

The design of permanent retaining structures, constructed in front of batters and subsequently backfilled with filling, should be based on an average bulk unit weight for the retained material of 20 kN/m3. Where such structures act as gravity walls or as vertical cantilever walls with no greater than one row of props and are free to rotate or translate, they may be designed for a triangular earth pressure distribution based on an ‘active’ lateral earth pressure coefficient of 0.4. Further allowance should also be made for surcharge from vehicular loads being supported by the walls. Care should be taken when placing cohesive low permeability filling behind retaining walls to reduce the risk of damage associated with the use of heavy compaction plant. Self-propelled walk-behind or remote controlled rollers and ‘whacker-packers’ are preferable in this regard. Heavier compaction equipment should only be used in clay backfill if the abutment walls are temporarily propped to resist the high lateral pressures induced by such equipment and the increased pore water pressure. These pore water pressures in heavily compacted clays can load the walls in excess of that associated with an ‘at-rest’ earth pressure coefficient (‘at-rest’ can be assumed to be about 50% greater than ‘active’). Abutment walls should incorporate a zone of free draining granular backfill as described in Appendix G of AS 4678 (Ref 4). Any seepage should be collected by a regularly maintained geotextile lined slotted drain and piped away.

8.7 Foundations

8.7.1 Construction

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, it is considered that driven concrete piles would be the most suitable foundation option for this site. As granular soils and groundwater are expected, sacrificial steel casing and drilling under mud would be required for to prevent potential water ingress and sidewall collapse of bored piles. A tremmie would also be required to place concrete under mud. Driven piles may experience extra driving resistance due to premature “setting-up” from build up of excess pore pressures in the clays, especially if piles are not driven in a continuous operation. This phenomenon can result in future settlement of piles and it is recommended that the piles at the site be restruck at least 24 hours (preferably several days) after completion of initial driving/first set. It is suggested that specialist piling contractors be approached to give their assessment of predicted pile capacity and founding depths.

Page 9 of 13


8.7.2 Vertical Capacity

For the preliminary design of driven piles, the ultimate unfactored parameters given in Table 5 below are suggested. It should be noted that the level of support provided by the sand layers will depend on the pile diameter, founding depth, and hence the influence of the underlying clays. Suitable checks should be made to ensure that piles founding in dense to very dense sand maintain at least four pile diameters separation to the underlying clays, otherwise the lower bearing capacity for the underlying weaker layer should be adopted. Table 5: Ultimate Unfactored Preliminary Pile Design Parameters

Founding Material Ultimate Unfactored Pressure, Rd,ug (kPa)

End Bearing Shaft Adhesion

Very stiff clays - 50

Hard clays 1800 70

Medium dense silty sand 800H1 8H2*

Dense to very dense silty sand 1800H1 12H2*

Notes: * - shaft adhesion in compression only, reduce by 25% for piles in tension H1 – depth to base of pile (in metres), limiting value of 8 and15 times pile diameter for medium dense and dense to very dense sands respectively or 15 MPa (whichever is lower) H2 – depth to centre of pile shaft within layer (in metres), limiting value of four and seven times pile diameter for medium dense and dense to very dense sands respectively

Experience indicates that settlements of piles driven to refusal are unlikely to exceed the order of 0.5% of the pile diameter/width.

The design, installation and testing of piles should be undertaken with reference to AS 2159 (Ref. 1). The design geotechnical strength of a pile (Rd,g) is the ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by the geotechnical strength reduction factor (g). The calculated value Rd,g must equal or exceed the structural design action effect, Ed. AS 2159 suggests that a g would range from 0.65 to 0.85 where a significant number of piles (ie. 10-15%) are tested after installation, and 0.45 to 0.65 where no pile testing is undertaken. For the purpose of estimating pile capacities at this site, a g of 0.5 is recommended where no pile testing is carried out. If piles refuse/terminate significantly earlier than the expected refusal levels, pile load testing (PDA) with dynamic analysis for estimating pile capacity (CAPWAP) should be carried out to assess the pile capacity. It is recommended that the upper 2 m depth of soil, or any scour zone (whichever is greatest) be ignored in pile shaft adhesion calculations due to the shaft load development effects.

Page 10 of 13


8.7.3 Lateral Capacity

Lateral capacity of piles can be estimated using Broms’ Theory and the parameters indicated in Table 6 below. The notes in Appendix E provide guidance on the use of Broms’ Theory to calculate the lateral capacity and deflection of piles. In this theory, the ultimate lateral resistance is obtained from a diagrammatic relationship between undrained cohesion (cu) or relative density, the pile width and the ratio of pile embedment length to width. For long-term loading in ‘short’ piles, the ultimate lateral resistance is obtained by calculating passive resistance and by either:

taking moments about the base of the pile – for free-headed piles; or

equating horizontal forces – for fixed-headed piles. The above referred passive resistance in soil is calculated from the undrained cohesion or passive pressure coefficient (Kp) given in Table 6 and assuming a triangular distribution increasing linearly with depth. Resistance to lateral load is provided by the resistance of the soil against the pile (and pile cap) and by the bending strength of the pile. The anticipated length of pile should be sufficiently long that the lateral capacity will in effect be determined by the structural pile capacity. The response of piles to lateral load can be assessed by subgrade reaction, p-y curves, elastic continuum or finite element methods Table 6: Parameters for Lateral Capacity Design

Material Description

Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Undrained Cohesion, cu (kPa)

Drained Angle of

Friction (°)

Passive Earth

Pressure

Coefficient,

Kp

Coefficient of Modulus

Variation, ηh

(MPa/m)

Very stiff clays 20 100 25 2.5

Hard clays 22 200 28 2.75

Medium dense silty sand

19 - 33 3.4 3

Dense to very dense silty sand

21 - 39 4.5 8

The lateral pile deflections are calculated by Broms using the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction (kh) which can be estimated sands, and firm to stiff and stronger clays using the following approximate relationships (shown respectively):

erPileDiamet

lGroundLeveDepthBelowk h

s

. (for sands)

erPileDiamet

ck u

s

.67 (for firm to stiff and stronger clay)

Page 11 of 13


More recent unpublished evidence suggests that the factor of 67 provided in the above equation (from Davisson 1970 (Ref. 2)) may be conservative, and that a factor of 125 may be more appropriate. It is therefore suggested that lateral movement be initially approximated using the former factor and that a sensitivity check be performed using the latter. It should also be noted that the above parameters (both for assessment of lateral load resistance and deflection) are ultimate values and do not incorporate a factor of safety. Because the stress-strain relationship curve for lateral loading is not linear, relatively large strains are required to mobilise full passive pressure but only relatively small strains are be required to mobilise approximately half the full passive pressure, therefore it would be prudent to incorporate a factor of safety of at least 2.

8.8 Aggressivity of Foundation Soils

The results of limited aggressivity testing (as presented in Table 3 in Section 6 above) were compared to values presented in AS 2159 to arrive at exposure classifications for buried concrete and steel. These suggest that soil and groundwater conditions would give rise to a ‘mild’ classification for buried concrete and steel. Recommendations are presented in AS 2159 for appropriate minimum concrete strengths and minimum cover to reinforcing steel for various aggressiveness categories.

8.9 Scour Protection

It is recommended that particular attention be paid to the protection of any abutment and/or embankment slopes from scour and erosion. Slope erodibility is dependent upon the batter angles, type of soil and stream flow velocities. Protection of the slopes against erosion with suitable surface treatment such as geosynthetic materials, rock mattresses, stone pitched concrete linings or by the use of retaining structures, is recommended. The design of such scour protection will require specialist hydrological input to predict flood flow velocities and levels. 8.10 Subgrade CBR

The subgrade at the site will comprise silty clay. Laboratory testing indicates soaked CBR values in the range of 2.0% to 4.0% with swell measurements during soaking between 2.6% and 7.7%. These results highlight the propensity of the silty clay for moisture softening and swelling. A preliminary design CBR value of 3% is suggested for the design of pavements relying on a silty clay subgrade prepared in accordance with Section 8.4, provided that the subgrade is elevated well above the surrounding land to provide immediate drainage of rainwater and drying prior to road reopening after flood events. If either of the above cannot be assured, then it may be prudent to adopt a lower subgrade CBR of 2%. The silty clay at the site is expected to be very suitable for lime stabilisation. Such stabilisation would improve the subgrade strength, with resultant decreases in necessary pavement thickness. Appropriate lime stabilisation rates should be assessed by laboratory based lime demand tests.

Page 12 of 13


9. References

1. Australian Standard AS 2159–2009 “Piling – Design and installation”, Standards Australia.

2. Davisson, MT, “Lateral Load Capacity of Piles”, Highway Research Record No 333, pp104 to 112, 1970.

10. Limitations

DP has prepared this report for the proposed Birrie River bridge replacement at Goodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga in accordance with DP’s Proposal BNE151088 dated 28 October 2015 and acceptance received from Proterra Group dated 3 November 2016. The work was carried out under DP’s “Conditions of Engagement”. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Proterra Group for this project only and for the purposes described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report, DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the subsurface conditions only at the specific sampling or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Subsurface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP's field testing has been completed. DP's advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be limited by undetected variations in ground conditions between sampling locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion given in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction.

Page 13 of 13


The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required by the Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a safety report specifying the hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life. This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the geotechnical components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design, construction, maintenance and demolition.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Appendix A

About This ReportSampling Methods

Soil DescriptionsSymbols & Abbreviations

July 2010

Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and the comments section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. DP's reports are based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of local geology and experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as interpretive rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this report are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not always practicable or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other than 'straight line' variations between the test locations.

Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes there are several potential problems, namely: • In low permeability soils groundwater may

enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all during the time the hole is left open;

• A localised, perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table;

• Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report; and

• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water measurements are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from a perched water table.

Reports The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed. If this happens, DP will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, DP cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.

The potential for this will depend partly on borehole or pit spacing and sampling frequency;

• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or

• The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.

If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with investigations or advice to resolve the matter.

July 2010

Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, DP requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event.

Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. DP would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.

July 2010

Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information on colour, type, inclusions and, depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure. Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information on structure and strength, and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils. Test Pits Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or an excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential disadvantage of this investigation method is the larger area of disturbance to the site.

Large Diameter Augers Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers, and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube samples. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils from the sides of the hole. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low

reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing or softening of samples by groundwater. Non-core Rotary Drilling The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from the rate of penetration. Where drilling mud is used this can mask the cuttings and reliable identification is only possible from separate sampling such as SPTs.

Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample can be obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in weak rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable method of investigation. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a means of estimating the density or strength of soils and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value is taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form.

• In the case where full penetration is obtained with successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:

4,6,7 N=13

• In the case where the test is discontinued before the full penetration depth, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for the next 40 mm as:

15, 30/40 mm

July 2010

The results of the SPT tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soils.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests / Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground using a standard weight of hammer falling a specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil the number of blows required to penetrate each successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be extended in certain conditions by the use of extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are commonly used.

• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This test was developed for testing the density of sands and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.

• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio have been published by various road authorities.

July 2010

Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard AS 1726, Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In general, the descriptions include strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type and inclusions. Soil Types Soil types are described according to the predominant particle size, qualified by the grading of other particles present:

Type Particle size (mm)

Boulder >200

Cobble 63 - 200

Gravel 2.36 - 63

Sand 0.075 - 2.36

Silt 0.002 - 0.075

Clay <0.002 The sand and gravel sizes can be further subdivided as follows:

Type Particle size (mm)

Coarse gravel 20 - 63

Medium gravel 6 - 20

Fine gravel 2.36 - 6

Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36

Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6

Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2

The proportions of secondary constituents of soils are described as:

Term Proportion Example

And Specify Clay (60%) and Sand (40%)

Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay

Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy Clay

With some 5 - 12% Clay with some sand

With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace of sand

Definitions of grading terms used are:

• Well graded - a good representation of all particle sizes

• Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of particular sizes within the specified range

• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular particle size

• Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular particle size with the range

Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the basis of undrained shear strength. The strength may be measured by laboratory testing, or estimated by field tests or engineering examination. The strength terms are defined as follows:

Description Abbreviation Undrained shear strength

(kPa)

Very soft vs <12

Soft s 12 - 25

Firm f 25 - 50

Stiff st 50 - 100

Very stiff vst 100 - 200

Hard h >200

Cohesionless Soils Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are classified on the basis of relative density, generally from the results of standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms are given below:

Relative Density

Abbreviation SPT N value

CPT qc value (MPa)

Very loose vl <4 <2

Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5

Medium dense

md 10 - 30 5 - 15

Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25

Very dense

vd >50 >25

July 2010

Soil Origin It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:

• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering of the underlying rock;

• Transported soils - formed somewhere else and transported by nature to the site; or

• Filling - moved by man. Transported soils may be further subdivided into:

• Alluvium - river deposits

• Lacustrine - lake deposits

• Aeolian - wind deposits

• Littoral - beach deposits

• Estuarine - tidal river deposits

• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium

• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported downslope by gravity assisted by water. Often includes angular rock fragments and boulders.

July 2010

Introduction These notes summarise abbreviations commonly used on borehole logs and test pit reports. Drilling or Excavation Methods C Core Drilling R Rotary drilling SFA Spiral flight augers NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia

Water Water seep Water level

Sampling and Testing A Auger sample B Bulk sample D Disturbed sample E Environmental sample U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm) W Water sample pp pocket penetrometer (kPa) PID Photo ionisation detector PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa S Standard Penetration Test V Shear vane (kPa)

Description of Defects in Rock The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation, Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling and handling breaks are not usually included on the logs. Defect Type B Bedding plane Cs Clay seam Cv Cleavage Cz Crushed zone Ds Decomposed seam F Fault J Joint Lam lamination Pt Parting Sz Sheared Zone V Vein

Orientation The inclination of defects is always measured from the perpendicular to the core axis. h horizontal v vertical sh sub-horizontal sv sub-vertical Coating or Infilling Term cln clean co coating he healed inf infilled stn stained ti tight vn veneer Coating Descriptor ca calcite cbs carbonaceous cly clay fe iron oxide mn manganese slt silty Shape cu curved ir irregular pl planar st stepped un undulating Roughness po polished ro rough sl slickensided sm smooth vr very rough Other fg fragmented bnd band qtz quartz

July 2010

Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock General

Soils

Sedimentary Rocks

Metamorphic Rocks

Igneous Rocks

Road base

Filling

Concrete

Asphalt

Topsoil

Peat

Clay

Conglomeratic sandstone

Conglomerate

Boulder conglomerate

Sandstone

Slate, phyllite, schist

Siltstone

Mudstone, claystone, shale

Coal

Limestone

Porphyry

Cobbles, boulders

Sandy gravel

Laminite

Silty sand

Clayey sand

Silty clay

Sandy clay

Gravelly clay

Shaly clay

Silt

Clayey silt

Sandy silt

Sand

Gravel

Talus

Gneiss

Quartzite

Dolerite, basalt, andesite

Granite

Tuff, breccia

Dacite, epidote

Appendix B

Drawing 1 – Site and Test Location PlanDrawing 2 – Inferred Geological Cross Section

D

R

A

IN

D

R

A

I

N

G

U

L

L

Y

G

U

L

L

Y

G

U

L

L

Y

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

B

O

T

T

O

M

O

F

B

A

N

K

B

O

T

T

O

M

O

F

B

A

N

K

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

TO

P O

F B

AN

K

G

ULLY

DR

AIN

L

I

N

E

O

F

G

A

U

G

E

S

GAUGE

SHED

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

T

O

P

O

F

B

A

N

K

STUMP

GONE

5

3

.

5

1

N

2

1

-

1

9

9

9

1

3

°

1

8

'

TREE

GONE

270°00'

85.295

N21-1999

3

1

5

°

0

0

'

2

3

7

.

2

7

N

2

1

-

1

9

9

9

NEW FENCE

352.045 ME & N21-1999

90°00'

V

E

R

Y

O

LD

F

E

N

C

E

O

N

B

O

U

N

D

A

R

Y

VERY OLD

FENCE POST

ADOPTED

COOLIBAH GONE

4

5

.

2

6

5

M

E

&

N

2

1

-

1

9

9

9

1

3

5

°

4

6

'

RM COOLIBAH

FOUND

237°35' 5.835

N21-1999

5

4

°

5

0

'

4

5

"

1

4

4

.

6

4

N

2

1

-

1

9

9

9

270°00'

317.04 BY DED'N R3018-1603

6

0

.

3

5

W

I

D

E

60.35 WIDE

CURRENT ROAD ALIGNMENT

C

U

R

R

E

N

T

R

O

A

D

A

L

I

G

N

M

E

N

T

FENCE

ABT 15.0

NO FENCING

N

O

F

E

N

C

I

N

G

BRIDGE

F

E

N

C

E

Y

Z

FENCE 6.0

LOT 4968

DP 769199

MATTHEW WOOD

WESTERN LANDS LEASE 26

R

I

V

E

R

BIR

RIE

R

IV

ER

LOT 7316

DP 1177238

STATE OF NSW

GOODOOGA - BRENDA ROAD

G

O

O

D

O

O

G

A

-

B

R

E

N

D

A

R

O

A

D

LOT 1

DP 755027

MATTHEW WOOD

9

8

7

1

32

4

5

6

Proterra Group

Birrie River Bridge Replacement


CLIENT:

DATE:

OFFICE:

87979.00

0

1DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

Brisbane

Geotechnics Environment Groundwater

Douglas Partners Site and Test Location Plan

20 June 2016

N

Site

Location Plan

JSTDRAWN BY:

LEGEND:-

Test Bore Location and Number

NOTE:-

1. Test locations are approximate only and are

shown with reference to existing site features.

2. Image obtained from Google Earth Pro. and

Near Map. Date of imagery 12-01-2016.

A

'

A

Cross Section Location (Refer Dwg.2)

AutoCAD SHX Text

P:\87979.00 - GOODOOGA, Birrie River Bridge Replacemen\7.0 Drawings\87979.00.D.001.Rev0.dwg

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE 1: 2,000 (A4)

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

20

AutoCAD SHX Text

40

AutoCAD SHX Text

60

AutoCAD SHX Text

80m

87979.00

0

Brisbane JT

NTS

Proterra Group

Geological Cross-Section A-A'

Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement


2DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

CLIENT:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE: DATE:

OFFICE:

TITLE:

Geotechnics Environment Groundwater

Douglas Partners15 June 2016

A A'

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text

10

AutoCAD SHX Text

15

AutoCAD SHX Text

20

AutoCAD SHX Text

25

AutoCAD SHX Text

30

AutoCAD SHX Text

75

AutoCAD SHX Text

80

AutoCAD SHX Text

85

AutoCAD SHX Text

90

AutoCAD SHX Text

95

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 25

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 33

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 25

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 24

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 39

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 46

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 40

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 45

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 45

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 38

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 38

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 49

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 27

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bottom Depth

AutoCAD SHX Text

24.95 m

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

Topsoil

AutoCAD SHX Text

Silty Clay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Silty Sand

AutoCAD SHX Text

TESTS / OTHER

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (m)

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sandy Silt

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sandy Clay

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

-

AutoCAD SHX Text

Standard penetration test value

AutoCAD SHX Text

-

AutoCAD SHX Text

Water level

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 31

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 29

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 16

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 29

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 51

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 48

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 25

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 38

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 33

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 27

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 28

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 33

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 34

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 42

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bottom Depth

AutoCAD SHX Text

24.8 m

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 21

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 29

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 15

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 39

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 51

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 29

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 36

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 37

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 38

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 38

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 33

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 30

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 44

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

refusal

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 25

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 53

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bottom Depth

AutoCAD SHX Text

24.95 m

AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION (AHD)

AutoCAD SHX Text

70

AutoCAD SHX Text

75

AutoCAD SHX Text

80

AutoCAD SHX Text

85

AutoCAD SHX Text

90

AutoCAD SHX Text

95

AutoCAD SHX Text

GROUND SURFACE APPROXIMATELY DRAWN (FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY)

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 60

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 60

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 60

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 60

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 57

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 58

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 82

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 69

AutoCAD SHX Text

N = 64

AutoCAD SHX Text

STIFF-VERY STIFF TO HARD SILTY CLAY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SILTY SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY STIFF TO HARD SANDY/SILTY CLAY

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

35

AutoCAD SHX Text

?

AutoCAD SHX Text

INFERRED GEOLOGICAL BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

POSSIBLE GEOLOGICAL BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

P:\87979.00 - GOODOOGA, Birrie River Bridge Replacemen\7.0 Drawings\87979.00.D.002.Rev0.dwg

Appendix C

Borehole Logs

0.1

3.2

6.1

8.3

9.2

TOPSOIL - estimated loose, brown mottled dark brownsandy silt topsoil with some organics, moist; fine tomedium grained sand fraction

SILTY CLAY - estimated stiff, brown mottled darkbrown, medium to high plasticity silty clay with somefine to medium grained sand bands- very stiff

- hard, low plasticity

SILTY CLAY - very stiff, brown mottled orange-brownand dark grey brown, medium to high plasticity siltyclay with some fine grained sand, moist

- grading to sandy silty clay from 5.6m depth

SILTY SAND - estimated dense, brown toorange-brown silty fine to medium grained sand, moist- dense

SANDY SILT - dense/hard, brown mottledorange-brown, sandy low plasticity silt with a trace ofclay, moist; fine grained sand fraction

SILTY SAND - dense, light brown silty fine to mediumgrained sand with a trace of clay, moist

- very dense

Typ

e

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Goodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: 1PROJECT No: 87979.00DATE: 24/5/2016SHEET 1 OF 2

DRILLER: Ground Test LOGGED: Salcor CASING: HWT to 3.0m

Proterra GroupProposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement

REMARKS:

RIG: Hydrapower Scout

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed while augering

110 mm diameter auger to 2.5m, then rotary washbore

Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55J. Surface level relative to northern side of bridge deck at western abutment, assignedarbitrary level of RL100

SURFACE LEVEL: 97.8EASTING: 541681NORTHING: 6784682DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

Well

Construction

Details

8,10,15N = 25

10,16,17N = 33

7,9,16N = 25

8,11,13N = 24

12,19,20N = 39

16,23,23N = 46

11,19,21N = 40

15, 28, 30/140mm

11,18,27N = 45

15, 30/110mm

D

S

U50

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

0.1

0.5

0.951.01.17

2.0

2.45

3.5

3.95

5.0

5.45

6.5

6.95

8.0

8.45

9.5

9.95

11.0

11.44

12.5

12.95

14.0

14.26

16.5

19.3

21.3

24.4

24.95

SILTY SAND - dense, light brown silty fine to mediumgrained sand with a trace of clay, moist (continued)

SILTY CLAY - hard, grey mottled orange-brown, low tomedium plasticity silty clay with a trace of fine grainedsand, moist

SANDY CLAY - hard, brown mottled orange-brown,sandy medium plasticity clay with some silt, moist; fineto medium grained sand fraction

- grading to clayey sand from 21.1m depth

SILTY SAND - dense to very dense, grey-brown siltyfine to medium grained sand, moist

- very dense

SILTY CLAY - very stiff, grey mottled orange-brown,medium to high plasticity silty clay with some fine tomedium grained sand, moist

Bore discontinued at 24.95m depth - limit ofinvestigation

Typ

e

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

Depth(m)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





Well

Construction

Details

24, 30/130mm

12,19,26N = 45

8,17,21N = 38

13,17,21N = 38

13,19,30N = 49

20, 30/140mm

9,12,15N = 27

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

15.5

15.78

17.01

17.45

18.5

18.95

20.0

20.45

21.5

21.95

23.0

23.29

24.5

24.95

0.1

7.3

TOPSOIL - estimated loose, brown mottled dark brownsandy silt topsoil with some organics and fine gravel,moist; fine to medium grained sand fraction

SILTY CLAY - stiff to very stiff, brown, medium to highplasticity silty clay with some fine to medium grainedsand, moist- hard, low plasticity- brown mottled light brown

- very stiff

- stiff, high plasticity

- very stiff, medium to high plasticity

- grading to sandy with some fine gravel


SILTY SAND - dense, brown and orange brown siltyfine to medium grained sand, moist

- medium dense, brown and light brown

- dense

- medium dense

Typ

e

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





Well

Construction

Details

9,14,17N = 31

pp >600

9,13,16N = 29

4,7,9N = 16

5,13,16N = 29

15,21,30N = 51

13,24,24N = 48

8,13,12N = 25

9,18,20N = 38

9,15,18N = 33

7,12,15N = 27

D

S

U50

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

0.1

0.5

0.951.01.23

2.0

2.45

3.5

3.95

5.0

5.45

6.5

6.95

8.0

8.45

9.5

9.95

11.0

11.45

12.5

12.95

14.0

14.45

15.4

19.5

24.8

SILTY CLAY - very stiff, grey mottled orange-brown,high plasticity silty clay with a trace of fine grainedsand, moist

- hard, low to medium plasticity

SILTY SAND - dense, brown and grey silty fine tomedium grained sand with a trace of high plasticityclay, moist

- very dense


Typ

e

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

Depth(m)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





Well

Construction

Details

6,13,15N = 28

10,13,20N = 33

7,14,20N = 34

13,21,21N = 42

18,30refusal

24,30refusal

17,30refusal

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

15.5

15.95

17.0

17.45

18.5

18.95

20.0

20.45

21.5

21.8

23.0

23.3

24.5

24.8

0.1

6.4

13.3

SANDY SILT - estimated loose, brown mottled darkbrown sandy silt with some fine gravel, moist; fine tomedium grained sand fraction

SILTY CLAY - estimated stiff, dark brown mottledbrown and orange-brown, high plasticity silty clay withsome fine to medium grained sand bands, moist- very stiff, medium plasticity

- light brown mottled orange-brown

- stiff to very stiff


SILTY SAND - very dense, brown and light brown siltyfine to medium grained sand, moist

- medium dense to dense

- orange-brown and brown

- with some bands of high plasticity silty clay

SILTY CLAY - hard, light grey mottled orange-brown,low to medium plasticity silty clay with a trace of finegrained sand, moist

Typ

e

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





Well

Construction

Details

5,10,11N = 21

pp=500-600

7,14,15N = 29

5,8,7N = 15

11,18,21N = 39

15,23,28N = 51

7,12,17N = 29

11,17,19N = 36

8,15,22N = 37

11,19,19N = 38

7,15,23N = 38

D

S

U50

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

0.1

0.5

0.951.01.27

2.0

2.45

3.5

3.95

5.0

5.45

6.5

6.95

8.0

8.45

9.5

9.95

11.0

11.45

12.5

12.95

14.0

14.45

16.3

18.2

22.9

24.4

24.95

SILTY CLAY - hard, light grey mottled orange-brown,low to medium plasticity silty clay with a trace of finegrained sand, moist (continued)

SANDY CLAY - very stiff to hard, grey mottled brown,sandy medium to high plasticity clay with some silt,moist; fine to medium grained sand fraction

SILTY SAND - dense, grey-brown silty fine to mediumgrained sand, moist

- very dense

- with some bands of silty clay, grey mottledorange-brown (interbedded layers)

SANDY CLAY - very stiff, brown mottled orange-brownand brown, sandy medium to high plasticity clay withsome silt, moist; fine to medium grained sand fraction

- grading to brown and orange brown clayey fine tomedium grained sand

SILTY SAND - very dense, brown and orange-brownsilty fine to medium grained sand, moist


Typ

e

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

Depth(m)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:





Well

Construction

Details

7,17,16N = 33

9,13,17N = 30

16,23,21N = 44

11, 24, 30/140mm

12, 21, 30/140mm

12,11,14N = 25

16,20,33N = 53

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

15.5

15.95

17.0

17.45

18.5

18.95

20.0

20.44

21.5

21.94

23.0

23.45

24.5

24.95

0.1

0.2

1.5

TOPSOIL - loose, brown mottled dark brown sandy silttopsoil with some organics, moist; fine to mediumgrained sand fraction

SANDY SILT - loose, brown and grey brown sandy siltwith a trace of fine gravel, moist; fine to mediumgrained sand fraction

SILTY CLAY - stiff, brown mottled dark brown, highplasticity silty clay with some fine to medium grainedsand, moist

- very stiff, medium plasticity

- hard

Bore discontinued at 1.5m depth - limit of investigation

Typ

e

99

98

Depth(m)

1

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1




DRILLER: Gound Test LOGGED: Salcor CASING: Nil


REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed

110 mm diameter auger

Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55J. Surface level relative to northern side of bridgedeck at western abutment, assigned arbitrary level of RL100


Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 100mm)

5 10 15 20

Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3 Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2

pp = 220

B

D

D

D

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.1

0.2

1.5



SILTY CLAY - soft to firm, brown mottled dark brown,high plasticity silty clay with some fine to mediumgrained sand, moist


- hard


Typ

e

99

98

Depth(m)

1

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1




DRILLER: Ground Test LOGGED: Salcor CASING: Nil


REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:






5 10 15 20


pp = 270

B

D

D

D

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.1

0.2

1.5



SILTY CLAY - very stiff, brown mottled dark brown,high plasticity silty clay with some fine to mediumgrained sand, moist

- very stiff to hard, medium plasticity


Typ

e

99

98

Depth(m)

1

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:






5 10 15 20


pp = 50

B

D

D

D

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.1

0.2

1.5



SILTY CLAY - stiff, brown mottled dark brown, highplasticity silty clay with some fine to medium grainedsand, moist

- hard


Typ

e

97

96

Depth(m)

1

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:






5 10 15 20


pp = 230

B

D

D

D

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.1

0.2

1.5



SILTY CLAY - very stiff to hard, brown mottled darkbrown, medium to high plasticity silty clay with somefine to medium grained sand, moist

- hard

- brown mottled dark brown dark grey brown


Typ

e

97

96

Depth(m)

1

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:






5 10 15 20


pp = 80

B

D

D

D

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.1

0.2

1.5



SILTY CLAY - stiff, brown mottled dark brown, highplasticity silt clay with some fine to medium grainedsand, moist


- brown mottled dark brown and white

- hard


Typ

e

99

98

Depth(m)

1

RL

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1






REMARKS:


WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:






5 10 15 20


pp = 220

B

D

D

D

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

Appendix D

Laboratory Test Reports

0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 2EB1614133

:: LaboratoryClient DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD Environmental Division Brisbane

: :ContactContact MR BRUCE STEWART John Pickering

:: AddressAddress 439 MONTAGUE ROAD

WEST END QLD, AUSTRALIA 4101

2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053

:Telephone +61 07 32378900 :Telephone +61 7 3552 8634

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

:Project Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement Date Samples Received : 30-May-2016 14:20

:Order number 120878 Date Analysis Commenced : 31-May-2016

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 06-Jun-2016 16:23

Sampler : MARC SALCOR

Site : ----

Quote number : ----

2:No. of samples received

2:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Andrew Epps Senior Inorganic Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD

Andrew Epps Senior Inorganic Chemist Brisbane Inorganics, Stafford, QLD

R I G H T S O L U T I O N S | R I G H T P A R T N E R

2 of 2:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB1614133

Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement:Project

DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

Analytical Results

------------BH1 2.0-2..45BH2 0.5-0.95Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

------------[24-May-2016][25-May-2016]Client sampling date / time

------------------------EB1614133-002EB1614133-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result ---- ---- ----

EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.6 7.7 ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA055: Moisture Content

12.3 5.8 ---- ---- ----%1----Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

ED040S : Soluble Sulfate by ICPAES

190Sulfate as SO4 2- 40 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1014808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

340Chloride 30 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1016887-00-6

Appendix E

Lateral Capacity and Deflection of Piles Using Broms’ Theory

Page 1 of 4

Lateral Capacity and Deflection of Piles Using Broms September 2013

Lateral Capacity and Deflection of Piles Using Broms

A. Background

The methods of Broms (Ref 1 and 2) can be used to calculate the resistance of soil to lateral loads on

piles. Solutions are provided for both ‘short’ and ‘long’ piles, for ‘free head’ and ‘fixed head’ restraint,

and for both cohesive soils (Ref 1) and cohesionless soils (Ref 2). If it is not clear whether a pile is

‘short’ or ‘long’, then the pile should be checked for both, and the lesser value adopted.

The Broms methods are relatively simplistic, compared to more complex finite element solutions, but

can be applied without using complex software packages.

The methods are limited to homogeneous soils, adopting either undrained shear strength (cu) for short

term loading in cohesive soils (eg silts and clays), or friction angle (Ø) for either short term or long term

loading in cohesionless soils (eg sands and gravels). For long term sustained loading in cohesive

soils, the cohesionless approach can be adopted using effective stress parameters (c', Ø'), but with c'

equal to zero.

For the cohesive soils model, ultimate lateral resistance is assumed as zero down to a depth of 1.5B

(where B is the pile diameter) and 9cuB below this depth. For the cohesionless soils model, the

ultimate lateral resistance is estimated as three times the passive Rankine earth pressure, ie 3KpγBL

(where Kp is the coefficient of passive earth pressure, γ is soil density, and L is pile depth below

ground level).

Calculation of deflection is usually considered as indicative only (it may not be as accurate as other

methods), and corresponds to application of working stress (ie where the ultimate lateral load is

factored down by 2 or 3).

B. Calculation of Ultimate Lateral Load

To calculate the ultimate lateral load ,Pu, for a ‘short’ pile, use Figure 1 for the cohesive soil model and

Figure 2 for the cohesionless soil model. Enter the x-axis by calculating the length to diameter, L/B,

ratio. Select the appropriate line to use, based on ground restraint conditions, and, where ‘free head’,

the load eccentricity to pile diameter, e/B, ratio. After obtaining the appropriate values on the y-axis,

multiply this by cuB2 for cohesive soil or KpB

3γ for cohesionless soil to obtain the ultimate lateral load,

Pu.

To calculate the ultimate lateral load ,Pu, for a ‘long’ pile, corresponding to the yield moment, Myield,

use Figure 3 for the cohesive soil model and Figure 4 for the cohesionless soil model. Enter the x-axis

by calculating Myield/cuB3. Select the appropriate line to use, based on ground restraint conditions,

and, where ‘free head’, the load eccentricity to pile diameter, e/B, ratio. After obtaining the appropriate

Page 2 of 4


values on the y-axis, multiply this by cuB2 for cohesive soil or KpB

3γ for cohesionless soil to obtain the

ultimate lateral load, Pu.

Fig 1: Ultimate lateral resistance for Fig 2: Ultimate lateral resistance for

cohesive soil, short pile (Ref 1) cohesionless soil, short pile (Ref 2)

Fig 3: Ultimate lateral resistance for Fig 4: Ultimate lateral resistance for

cohesive soil, long pile (Ref 1) cohesionless soil, long pile (Ref 2)

C. Estimating Lateral Deflection

At working lateral load H (ie Pu divided by 2 to 3) the lateral deflection can be estimated by assuming

that, at any particular pile depth, the unit soil reaction, p, increases linearly with increasing lateral

deflection, as follows:

Page 3 of 4


p = khy

where kh = the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction (kN/m3);

p = unit soil reaction (kN/m2);

y = lateral deflection (m)

Cohesive Soil (‘stiff’ or better): For ‘stiff’ and overconsolidated clay soils, kh is assumed to be

constant with depth, resulting in the dimensionless lateral deflections being plotted in Figure 5 as a

function of dimensionless length βL in which:

β = (khB/4EI)1/4

where E = the elastic modulus of the pile material;

I = the moment of inertia of the pile;

B = pile diameter

After entering the x-axis on Figure 5 with the βL value, select the line appropriate to the restraint

condition, and, in the case of a ‘free-head’ pile, the load eccentricity to pile depth, e/D, ratio. The

lateral deflection at ground surface due to the applied working load, H, is then calculated by dividing

the y-axis value by khBL/H.

Fig 5: Lateral deflection at ground surface for cohesive soil

Cohesionless Soil (and ‘soft’ clays): For sands and gravels and ‘soft’ clays, kh is assumed to

increase linearly with depth as follows:

kh = ηhz/B

where kh = the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction (kN/m3);

z = depth below ground level (m);

ηh = coefficient of modulus variation with depth;

B = pile diameter

Page 4 of 4


This results in the dimensionless lateral deflections being plotted in Figure 6 as a function of

dimensionless length ηL in which:

η = (ηh/EI)1/5

After entering the x-axis on Figure 6 with the ηL value, select the line appropriate to the restraint

condition, and, in the case of a ‘free-head’ pile, the load eccentricity to pile depth, e/D, ratio. The

lateral deflection at ground surface due to the applied working load, H, is then calculated by dividing

the y-axis value by (EI)3/5

.(ηh)2/5

/(HL).

Fig 6: Lateral deflection at ground surface for cohesionless soil

D. References

1. Broms, Bengt B, “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils”, Proceedings of the American

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol 90,

SM2, 1964.

2. Broms, Bengt B, “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils”, Proceedings of the

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,

Vol 90, SM3, 1964.

Documents

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Birrie River ... · Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Birrie River Bridge Replacement Project 87979.00 Goodooga-Brenda Road, Goodooga