App D2 - Geotechnical Report

PHASE 1 GEOTECHNICAL SITE
INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED SUBSIDY HOUSING PROJECT NIEU-

BETHESDA, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE
30 January 2015
Prepared by:
OUTENIQUA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
PO BOX 3186
GEORGE INDUSTRIA
6536
www.outeniqualab.co.za
Prepared for:
AURECON
LION ROARS OFFICE PARK
CNR HEUGH RD/3RD AVE
WALMER
PORT ELIZABETH
6001
Ref: 2014\Aurecon\Nieu-Bethesda\Geotech Report 30.1.2015 Rev0

Report review history:
Revision No Date Prepared by: Reviewed by:
I.Paton Pr.Sci.Nat D.McDonald Reg.Eng.Tech.

0 30.1.2015
Authors qualifications and affiliations:
Iain Paton is a professional engineering geologist with 15 years’ experience in the mining, energy and construction industries.
Iain Paton is a registered with the South African Council for Natural and Scientific Professions (Pr Sci Nat # 400236/07), the
South African Institute of Engineering and Environmental Geologists (SAIEG), the Geotechnical Division of the South African
Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE) and the Institute of Municipal Engineering of South Africa (IMESA).
Declaration of independence:
The author of this report is independent professional consultant with no vested interest in the project, other than remuneration for
work associated with the compilation of this report.
General limitations:
1. The investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice, and the opinions and
conclusions expressed in the report are made in good faith based on the information at hand at the time of the investigation.
2. The contents of this report are valid as of the date of preparation. However, changes in the condition of the site can occur
over time as a result or either natural processes or human activity. In addition, advancements in the practice of geotechnical
engineering and changes in applicable practice codes may affect the validity of this report. Consequently, this report should
not be relied upon after an eclipsed period of one year without a review by this firm for verification of validity. This warranty
is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
3. Unless otherwise stated, the investigation did not include any specialist studies, including but not limited to the evaluation or
assessment of any potential environmental hazards or groundwater contamination that may be present.
4. The investigation is conducted within the constraints of the budget and time and therefore limited information was available.
Although the confidence in the information is reasonably high, some variation in the geotechnical conditions should be
expected during and after construction. The nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evident until
construction. If variations then become apparent this could affect the proposed project, and it may be necessary to re-
evaluate recommendations in this report. Therefore, it is recommend that Outeniqua Geotechnical Services is retained to
provide specialist geotechnical engineering services during construction in order to observe compliance with the design
concepts, specifications and recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Any significant deviation from the expected geotechnical conditions
should be brought to the author’s attention for further investigation.
5. The assessment and interpretation of the geotechnical information and the design of structures and services and the
management of risk is the responsibility of the appointed engineer.
2|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Outeniqua Geotechnical Services was appointed by Aurecon to undertake a Phase 1

geotechnical site investigation for the proposed subsidy housing project in Nieu-Bethesda
in the Eastern Cape Province. The site investigation included a review of available data, a
subsurface investigation involving a series of test pits and in situ tests, laboratory tests
and a report detailing the findings of the investigation.
The project consists of the construction of single storey masonry dwellings on 9.6ha of
largely vacant land on the eastern side of the town. The topography of the site is
characterized by a fairly flat alluvial terrace at the foot of some prominent hills that
surround the town. The surface conditions on the site were dry at the time of the
investigation, and access across the site with machinery was relatively easy.
The climate of the region can be classified as dry (Weinert Climatic-N No. >10) where
mechanical disintegration as the dominant mode of weathering. The vegetation cover on
the site consists of sparse thorny shrubs and short grass. The site appears to have been
used for small scale agriculture as there is some evidence of tilling.
The site geology of the site is Quaternary alluvium/colluvium overlying Adelaide Subgroup
mudstone and sandstone at unknown depths. The Adelaide Group rocks are exposed on
the surrounding hills. The soil types are fine to medium grained alluvial/colluvial soils
consisting mainly of clayey silty sand or sandy fine gravel. The soil consistency is highly
variable with no consistent pattern emerging from DCP tests. The soils are potentially
collapsible and can be slightly active if subjected to drying and wetting cycles. No residual
soil or rock was encountered in the test holes. Localized minor surficial uncontrolled fill
were noted on around the site, consisting mainly of disturbed soil due to historical activity
on the site. A perched water table was noted in most test pits at an average depth of 2m.
No hard rock excavations are expected anywhere on the site up to a depth of at least 3m.
Minor earthworks will be required to clear site and level any irregular ground. The
envisaged foundation types for the proposed structures are lightly reinforced strip
foundations or light rafts at a nominal depth of 0.5m below NGL on compacted insitu soils.
Ultimate bearing capacity will not be a concern for the envisaged light structures but
conventional compaction will be required to reduce settlement and possible cracking
(serviceability). Storm water management systems will have to take into account the flat
site topography and the low permeability of the soil on the site. The 1:100 year flood lines
of the Gatsrivier should also be checked to determine if there is any impact on the site.
Otherwise, the site geology and geotechnical conditions are generally considered suitable
for the proposed development.
3|Page
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and terms of reference............................................................ 6
2. Information available .................................................................................. 6
3. Nature of the investigation .......................................................................... 7
4. Site description ........................................................................................... 7
5. Geology ....................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Engineering and material characteristics............................................. 10
5.2 Slope stability and erosion .................................................................. 17
5.3 Excavation classification with respect to services................................ 17
5.4 Impact of the geotechnical character of the site on subsidy housing

developments .............................................................................................. 17
6. Site classification ...................................................................................... 20
7. Foundation recommendations and solutions .............................................. 20
8. Storm water drainage recommendations ................................................... 22
9. Special precautionary measures ................................................................ 22
10. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 22
4|Page
List of appendices
Appendix 1 – Maps
Appendix 2 - Soil profiles
Appendix 3 - Lab tests
Appendix 4 - DCP tests
5|Page
1. Introduction and terms of reference
Outeniqua Geotechnical Services was appointed by Aurecon to undertake a Phase 1

geotechnical site investigation for the proposed subsidy housing project on Erven 46-50,
53-57 and 77-79, Nieu-Bethesda in the Eastern Cape (see locality map in Figure 1). The
physical and geotechnical nature of the site needs to be investigated in order to facilitate
the civil engineering design and town planning process.
Figure 1: Locality map
The investigation is carried out in accordance with the GFSH-2 guidelines published by the
Department of Housing (2002).
The general purpose of the investigation is to:
 Describe the location, topography and geology of the proposed site;

 Investigate and describe the soil types and expected founding conditions;
 Highlight any problem soils, slope stability or drainage issues;
 Estimate the bearing capacity, settlement and/or swell potential of the soil;
 Classify the excavations in terms of SABS 1200D;
 Determine the suitability of the site for housing purposes and make
recommendations for the design of earthworks, foundations and engineering
services.
2. Information available
The following maps and plans were available for reference purposes and are reproduced
in this report:
6|Page
 Topocadastral data, obtained from the Directorate of Surveys & Mapping;
 1:250 000 Geological map of the area, obtained from the Council for Geoscience;
 1:1000000 Seismic Hazard Map of SA, obtained from the Council for Geoscience;
 A proposed test pit layout plan, provided by Aurecon.
3. Nature of the investigation
The Phase 1 site investigation involved a review of existing geotechnical databases and a
subsurface investigation on the site. The subsurface investigation involved conducting a
total of 10 test pits with a TLB/Backactor to a maximum depth of 3m, profiling the test
pits, collecting soil samples for testing and conducting insitu penetration tests.
Soil samples were taken for the following lab tests to determine basic soil characteristics:
 Foundation Indicator tests (TMH1 and ASTM) to determine gradings, Atterberg limits
and potential expansiveness (tested at Outeniqua Lab in Port Elizabeth);
 MOD/CBR/Indicator tests (TMH1) to determine the suitability for possible road
pavement materials use (tested at Outeniqua Lab in Port Elizabeth);
 pH and Conductivity tests (tested at Controlab in East London);
 Consolidation tests (tested at Controlab in East London).
Handheld Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were conducted in accordance with
TMH6 ST6 from present ground level at every test position to assess soil consistency.
The confidence in the information gained from the investigation is high as it generally
concurs with expected conditions and experience gained from other investigations in the
area. Further investigations are not deemed necessary at this stage of the project. A Phase
2 investigation should be carried out during construction phase to obtain a more accurate
classification of soils on individual erven for home enrolment and detailed design purposes.
4. Site description
The proposed site area is approximately 9.6Ha of vacant land on the eastern side of town
(see Figures 2&3) which is easily accessed via municipal roads. The terrain is generally
flat and it appears that the site has been used in the past for small scale agriculture, as
indicated by evidence of tilling and windmills. Presently the site is being used for grazing
for goats and horses and the surface conditions are dry with sparse vegetation, consisting
of small thorny shrubs and low grass (see Figure 4). The climate of the region can be
classified as dry with very hot summers and very cold dry winters (Weinert climatic
No.>10).
7|Page
Figure 2: Aerial photo of site
Figure 3: Topography map

8|Page
Figure 4: Photo of site looking north from the southern boundary
5. Geology
The site geology consists of Quaternary alluvium/colluvium of unknown thickness overlying

mudstone and sandstone of the Adelaide Subgroup (see Figure 5). The alluvium is
typically fine grained and consists of interbedded layers of clayey silty sand or sandy fine
gravel which have been deposited on the valley floor by the action of gravity and water
eroding the surrounding slopes (hillwash) and/or cyclical flooding of the riverbanks of the
Gatsrivier, which flows through town to the west of the site.
There are no mapped geological faults in the immediate vicinity of the site and the seismic
activity of the area is generally considered low. The site is deemed to be macro-stable
from a geological perspective.
9|Page
Figure 5: Geological map
Geotechnical Evaluation
5.1 Engineering and material characteristics

5.1.1 Topography, slopes and vegetation cover
Results of the investigation
The site is located on a flat alluvial terrace at the foot of some prominent hills which
surround the town. The surface conditions on the site were dry at the time of the
investigation, and access across the site with machinery was relatively easy. The site is
also located about 700m east of the present Gatsrivier, which flows through the town and
then south into the Nqweba Dam in Graaff-Reinet. Although the climate of the region is
classified as dry (Weinert Climatic-N No. >10), the region regularly experiences flash
floods, the most recent being 2011 when 100mm fell in 24 hours.
The natural vegetation cover on the site has been largely cleared due to historical
agricultural activity on the site and all that remains is scattered small thorny shrubs and
a few trees.
Effect on the proposed development
The site will be relatively east to clear and minimal earthworks will be required to level the
sites to make way for the proposed houses. The determination of the 1:100 year floodline
of the Gatsrivier should be carried out to establish whether this has any impact on the
proposed development.
10 | P a g e
5.1.2 Soil types and rock
The soil types are fine to medium grained alluvial/colluvial soils consisting mainly of clayey
silty sand or sandy fine gravel. The soil consistency is highly variable with no consistent
pattern emerging from DCP tests. A pin-holed structure was noted in some near-surface
horizons, indicating that the soils are potentially collapsible. No residual soil or rock was
encountered in the test holes. Localized minor surficial uncontrolled fill were noted on
around the site, consisting mainly of disturbed soil due to historical activity on the site
(see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Typical silty fine sand excavated from test pits
A summary of the test pit data and the thickness of the different soil horizons is provided
in Table 1.
11 | P a g e
Table 1: Summary of soil horizons recorded in test pits (in mm)
Test
Imported Transported Residual Total depth
Pit Rock Refusal
(fill) soil soil soil of test pit
No
NB1 - 2800 - - 2800 No
NB2 - 2900 - - 2900 No
NB3 - 2550 - - 2550 No
NB4 - 2500 - - 2500 No
NB5 - 2700 - - 2700 No
NB6 - 2400 - - 2400 No
NB7 - 2700 - - 2700 No
NB8 - 3050 - - 3050 No
NB9 - 2400 - - 2400 No
NB10 - 2300 - - 2300 No
The soils are very fine grained and can be problematic in terms of compressibility or
dilation under certain moisture conditions and this may affect the engineering design. The
soils are easy to excavate but the fine grained nature of the soils means that they may be
problematic for backfilling purposes due to their moisture sensitivity in terms of
compaction. The geotechnical properties of the soil types are discussed in further detail
below.
5.1.3 Grading, Atterberg limits and potential expansiveness
Representative samples of various soil horizons were collected for Foundation Indicator
tests in order to determine their basic geotechnical properties, estimate potential
expansivity and evaluate their suitability as founding mediums. Abbreviated results of the
tests are shown in Table 2.
12 | P a g e
Table 2: Grading and Atterberg limits test results summary
Test Atterberg Limits Particle Analysis (%)
Sample
Pit MC1 PE2 USC3
Depth (mm)
No PI LL LS Clay Silt Sand Gravel
NB1 1000-2400 4 19 2 2 24 59 15 5.7 LOW SM-SC
NB2 1300-2700 8 23 4 2 18 53 27 9.6 LOW SC
NB3 550-2100 SP 0 0.5 1 4 54 41 4 LOW SP
NB4 1700-2400 9 25 4.5 5 41 52 2 23.2 LOW SC
NB5 400-1500 17 35 8.5 9 46 45 0 30.1 LOW CL
NB6 700-1800 19 39 9.5 18 46 34 2 26.5 MED CL
NB7 1200-2700 6 22 3 7 35 58 0 25.2 LOW SM-SC
NB8 600-2000 11 27 5.5 7 43 48 2 16.8 LOW CL
NB9 1100-1800 12 27 6 12 44 43 1 28.7 MED CL
NB10 1000-2300 18 37 9 15 43 41 1 29.9 MED CL

Notes: 1 Moisture content 2 Potential expansiveness (Skempton’s activity chart) 3 Unified Soil Classification System
The tests indicate that the soils can be classified into the following categories according to
the Universal Soil Classification system:
CL – Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity;

SM-SC – Silty/clayey sands with low plasticity;
SP – Poorly graded sands or sands with little or no fines.
The tests confirm that the soils are dominantly fine grained sands and silts, although some
gravelly soils were also encountered. The plasticity index is low to medium but the clay
content is generally low.
The soils can be potentially problematic in terms of compressibility or collapse if saturated

under load and some clay activity can be occur under certain moisture conditions. The
soils will have to be treated with some caution during preparation of foundations.
Foundation recommendations are given in Chapter 8.
5.1.4 Moisture/density relationship and CBR
Two representative samples of soils were collected for a Mod/CBR/Indicator tests in order
to determine the moisture-density relationship, compaction and CBR properties for road
subgrade purposes. The results of the tests is summarised in Table 3.
13 | P a g e
Table 3: CBR test results summary
Test Sample CBR at
Swell PI MDD/ TRH14
Pit Depth GM
100 (%) (%) OMC Class
No (mm) 98% 95% 93% 90%
%
NB1 0-1000 48 40 28 20 8 0.39 8 1.51 2100/8.8 G7
NB4 0-500 5 4 3 2 1 0.2 11 0.32 1666/17.5 G10
NB6 0-700 8 6 5 3 2 0.51 9 0.59 1915/11.2 G10
NB7 0-400 4 3 3 2 1 0.87 16 0.28 1602/18.6 G10
NB8 0-600 10 8 6 4 2 0.35 9 0.97 1996/10.5 G10
The tests indicate that the in situ roadbed is generally fine grained and poor quality in
terms of CBR.
Road designs should allow for subgrade improvement, including ripping and re-compaction
of the roadbed. Importation of a selected subgrade layer can be considered by the
engineers. Detailed recommendations for road construction are given in Chapter 8.2.
5.1.5 pH and conductivity
Samples of in situ soils were collected for soil chemistry tests (pH & Conductivity) in order
to determine the aggressiveness of the soil which can affect buried services and concrete
foundations. A summary of the results of the pH and conductivity tests are shown in Table
4.
Table 4: pH and conductivity test results summary

Test Pit No. Sample depth (mm) pH Conductivity (mS/m)
NB1 1000-2400 8.66 216
NB4 500-700 9.38 568
Corrosion of metallic pipe fittings and concrete will be negatively influenced by low or high
pH, and high conductivity (indicating high concentration of dissolved salts in the soils). An
indication of the influence of pH and conductivity on the corrosiveness of soil is given in
Table 5.
14 | P a g e
Table 5: Influence of pH and conductivity on the corrosiveness of soil
Potential
pH Conductivity (S/m)
Corrosiveness
7-8 <0.1 Non-corrosive
5-6 or 9-10 0.1-0.5 Mildly corrosive
3-4 or 11-12 0.5-1.0 Corrosive
<3 or >12 >1.0 Highly corrosive
The lab results indicate mildly corrosive soil conditions.
Standard HDPE or uPVC pipe products will be suitable and buried metallic valves and
fittings should be powder coated as standard. Adequate rebar cover in buried concrete
foundations is important to protect against rust.
5.1.6 Compressibility, collapse potential and bearing capacity
Soil compressibility, settlement and bearing capacity is typically estimated from an

experienced assessment of the geotechnical data in conjunction with the proposed
foundation geometry and expected loading.
In situ penetration tests (DCP) indicate highly variable soil consistency with no general
pattern emerging from these tests. Observations of soil horizons exposed in test pits also
indicated a pin-holed structure in some soils, which is fairly typical of these fine grained
alluvial soils in the Karoo. The pin-holed structure can collapse under load if saturated
(e.g. during heavy rainfall events) and this is indicated in the consolidation tests (see
Table 6) and it is estimated that up to 10mm settlement is possible under the expected
loading conditions (C1 category). Conventional compaction can remedy this to a certain
extent but bearing pressures should be limited to 75kPa as a precaution.
Table 6: Summary of consolidation/swell tests on undisturbed samples

Test position Swell (+) or Collapse (-) Comments
Oven dried for 4 hours
NB1 @ 400mm -0.1%
(1% MC), then saturated
NB1 @ 400mm -13.0% Saturated at 5% MC
Oven dried for 4 hours
NB2 @ 800mm +0.2% (3.8% MC), then
saturated
NB2 @ 800mm -0.3% Saturated at 10.5% MC
Any uncontrolled fill is deemed unsuitable to carry loads and will require treatment
(ripping, selection and re-compaction) during site clearing and initial earthworks.
Compaction may be difficult and impractical when soil is wet due to the fine grained nature
of the soils which makes them moisture sensitive. Further recommendations are given in
Chapter 8.1.
15 | P a g e
Modified foundations with light reinforcement are envisaged and compaction of trenches
is important to improve soil density and reduce collapse potential. Foundation
recommendations are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.
5.1.7 Swell / heave
The foundation Indicator test results report a significant variation in the plasticity indices
with a resulting low to medium potential expansiveness. Using Van der Merwe’s method
of have prediction on the worst case scenario taken from test position NB6, the maximum
expected heave is 13.6mm (H1 category). Refer to Appendix 3 for details. It is quite
likely that the actual heave will be lower than this but significant variation is expected
across the site.
Reinforcement of foundations and conventional compaction is recommended to cater for

the expected settlement. Further details are provided in Chapter 8.
5.1.8 Soil moisture, permeability and groundwater
The site is located in a dry climatic area where prolonged rainfall is uncommon but heavy
downpours do occur in summer. Infiltration of rainwater will be restricted by fine grained
soils (silts and fine sands) with low permeability and most rainfall will end up as run-off or
accumulate in localised depressions.
A strong perched water table was encountered in most test pits. A summary of the depth
of the water table is provided in Table 7.
Table 7: Depth to perched water table

Test pit No. PWT Depth (m)
1 -
2 2.7
3 -
4 2.0
5 1.7
6 1.9
7 1.7
8 3.0
9 1.8
10 1.7
AVE 2.0
16 | P a g e
Stormwater systems should take into account of the low slope gradients and low soil
permeability. The groundwater is unlikely to affect foundations but the construction of
deep service trenches may require dewatering.
5.1.9 Existing structures
There are no existing structures on the site. A brief inspection of some houses in the
vicinity indicates a moderate level of cracking, possibly due to soil movements.
No demolition of structures or relocation of informal dwellers will be required.
5.2 Slope stability and erosion
The natural slope gradients are low and there are no signs of global slope instability on
the site.
Temporary shallow excavations are likely to be generally stable at near vertical angles due
to significant cohesion in the soils but deep excavations exceeding 1.5m high should be
assessed by the engineer and/or a geotechnical specialist, especially if a perched water
table is encountered.
Erosion of fine grained soil can be a problem, but due to the low slope gradients, this is
unlikely to pose a significant threat.
5.3 Excavation classification with respect to services
No rock or hard excavations were encountered in test holes and all excavations to 3m can
be classified as soft in terms of SABS 1200D.
5.4 Impact of the geotechnical character of the site on subsidy housing

developments
The site is classified in Table 8 in accordance with the Department of Housing’s subsidy
variations.
17 | P a g e
Table 8: Site specific subsidy variations
Geotechnical Category Precautionary Applicable Comment
Criteria
Conditions or type measures areas
Seepage / Category 1 Permanent or Subsurface None
groundwater perched water drainage/improved
tables less than damp-proofing
1.0m below measures to
ground surface houses, service
trenches to be
dewatered during
construction
Category 2 Permanent or Service trenches to None
perched water be dewatered
tables more during construction
than 1m but less
than 1.5m below
ground level
Erodability of Category 1 High risk Retaining walls & None
soil (Erodability earthworks to
index 1-8) reduce slopes &
surface drainage
Category 2 Medium risk Retaining walls & None
(Erodability earthworks to
index 9-15) reduce slopes
Hard Category 1 Hard rock Additional cost of None
excavation excavation to a trench and
depth of 1.5m foundation
excavation
Category 2 Boulder Additional cost of None
excavation to a trench, foundation
depth of 1.5m and road excavation
Dolomite Category 1 Risk class 1&2 Additional cost of None
(Dolomite area foundations
class D2)
Category 2 Risk class 3&4 Additional cost of None
(Dolomite area foundations
class D3)
Expansive Category 1 H1 Foundation design, All areas Heave will vary
Clays building procedures from H to H1
and precautionary
measures: Modified
normal
Category 2 H2 Foundation design, None
building procedures
and precautionary
measures:
Light/medium raft
Category 3 H3 Foundation design, None
building procedures
and precautionary
measures: Heavy
raft
Compressible Category 1 C1 Foundation design, All areas
and Collapsible building procedures
soils and precautionary
measures: Modified
normal
Category 2 C2 Foundation design, None
building procedures
and precautionary
measures: Light or
heavy raft
18 | P a g e
Geotechnical Category Precautionary Applicable Comment
Criteria
Conditions or type measures areas
Compressible Category 1 S1 Foundation design, None
soils building procedures
and precautionary
measures: Modified
normal
Category 2 S2 Foundation design, None
building procedures
and precautionary
measures: Light or
heavy raft
Mining Category 1 Old undermining Additional cost of None
subsidence to a depth of foundations:
between 90- Compaction below
240m below footings or raft
surface where
stope closure
has ceased
Category 2 Old undermining Additional cost of None
to a depth of foundations:
between 90- additional
240m below earthworks or soil
surface where reinforcement
total extraction
has taken place
Seismic Category 1 Mining induced Additional cost of None
activity seismic activity foundations:
> 100cm/s2 Stiffened strip
footings or raft
Category 2 Natural seismic Additional cost of None
activity > foundations:
100cm/s2 Stiffened strip
footings or raft
Topography Category 1 Average ground Increase depth of All areas Estimated
slope flatter sewer & provision of
than 1:20 pump station
Category 2 Average ground Terracing for houses None
slope of between & additional
1:11 and 1:20 earthworks to roads
& storm water
control measures
1:7.5 and 1:10 earthworks to roads
& storm water
control measures
1:5 and 1:7.4 earthworks to roads
& storm water
control measures
slope steeper & additional
than 1:5 earthworks to roads
& storm water
control measures
SCCCA Southern Area subjected Plaster and paint on None
Cape to severe all external walls &
Coastal condensation 6.4mm gypsum
Condensati conditions plasterboard
on Area ceilings & 80mm
thick glass fibre
insulation
Location of Site more than Additional cost of Yes
development 20km from transportation
site major centres
19 | P a g e
6. Site classification
In terms of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) Code of Practice for
Single Storey Structures of Masonry Construction (1995), the applicable site classifications
are shown in Table 9 (also refer to Figure 7).
Table 9: SAICE site classification

Expected
NHBRC Site
Terrain Unit Geotechnical Constraint movement
Classification
(mm)
Active soil <15 H-H1
Entire site
Compressible soil 5-10 C1
Figure 7: Geotechnical map of site
7. Foundation recommendations and solutions
The following recommendations are provided in good faith and are based on the
information gained from the investigation. Although the confidence in the information is
high, some variation can be expected between the data points and the design engineers
should take cognisance of this. The design of structures and services remains the
responsibility of the appointed engineers. Any significant variation from the expected
geotechnical conditions should be brought to the author’s attention for comment.
8.1 Earthworks and structural foundations
Earthworks should be conducted in accordance with SABS 1200D, COLTO 3300 or other
20 | P a g e
applicable standards. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the NHBRC
Home Builders Manual, SANS 10400-H and/or other applicable standards or as otherwise
directed by the engineer. Uncontrolled fill consisting mainly of soil or building rubble can
be ripped, selected and recompacted into platforms, but this must be closely supervised
by the engineers.
The recommended foundation system for the proposed single storey structures is modified
(lightly reinforced) strip foundations or light rafts at a nominal founding depth of 500mm
below NGL and with a design bearing pressure limited to 75kPa. The insitu soil must be
compacted with a trench rammer to 93% of Mod AASHTO density. The insitu soils are not
ideal for backfilling material due to the fine grained nature, but due to the low project
budget and lack of local alternatives, this material can be used with caution and should be
assessed by the engineer on site.
8.2 Road pavements
Roads should be constructed in accordance with SAPEM, SABS 1200, COLTO 3000, TRH4,
TRH14, The Red Book or other applicable standards, or as directed by the engineer.
Test results indicate that the subgrade quality is variable, ranging from G7 to G10 quality
(assume G10 with an expected insitu CBR of 3), and some improvement of the subgrade
is recommended for road pavement design.
General preparation of the subgrade:
 Cut roadbed to line and level;

 Rip 300mm and compact to 93% of Mod. AASHTO density. Recommended moisture
content before rolling is optimum moisture content (OMC) minus 2%;
 Remove any incompressible or wet soil and reinstate with imported G7 material or
suitably drier organic-free in situ soil, as directed by the engineer.
 Import and compact a 150mm G7 selected subgrade layer.
Table 10 serves as a guideline for the design of a Category C flexible pavement in a dry
region with a design life of 15 years with traffic loading of less than 3 x 106 E80s over 20
years (as per TRH4).
21 | P a g e
Table 10: Road layerworks recommendations (Cat C in dry climate)
Thickness Required
Layer Material
mm Compaction
Seal Cape Seal 13/19 TBD by engineer
Base Imported G2/3 150 100% MDD
Subbase Imported G5 150 95% MDD
SSG Imported G7 150 93% MDD
OR
Seal n/a n/a n/a

Base Interlocking cement pavers 80 n/a
Subbase C4 (Imported G4/5) 150 95% MDD
SSG Imported G7 150 93% MDD
8. Storm water drainage recommendations
The design and construction of storm water drainage should be carried out in accordance
with The Red Book, SABS 1200LE, COLTO 2000, SANRAL Drainage Manual or other
applicable standards, or as directed by the engineer.
Infiltration into the soil will generally be slow and restricted by fine grained soils of low
permeability and a significant portion of rainfall will end up as run-off or standing water.
The site generally has a low slope gradient and storm water will tend to accumulate on
site. A well-planned road layout can assist with storm water management. Raised barrier
kerbs, mountable or semi-mountable kerbs along roads are recommended in order to
channel storm water along roads. Open lined side drains are also effective in dealing with
flash floods. Regularly spaced inlets and storm water pipes are recommended to prevent
storm water from overtopping channels and flowing into adjacent properties. Subsoil
drains along roads are not envisaged.
The ponding of storm water around the exterior of houses can be avoided by shaping the
ground levels around the exterior to create a fall away from the house and constructing a
1m wide a concrete apron with a 10% fall away from the house. This will also assist in
maintaining ground moistures stable and minimising erosion around the house. The
finished floor level of all houses should be a minimum of 150mm above final ground level
to prevent flooding.
9. Special precautionary measures
There are no special geotechnical engineering measures envisaged for this site.
10. Conclusions
In terms of the geotechnical information gained from the investigation, the site is
potentially suitable for the proposed development, but certain geotechnical constraints,
such as site drainage and potentially problematic soils may affect development costs.
22 | P a g e
Appendix 1
Maps
Appendix 2
Test pit profiles

Geotechnical Soil Profile
Client: Aurecon
Project: Nieu-Bethesda Housing Project
Area: Nieu-Bethesda
Date: 28.11.14
Excavator: TLB
Datum: NGL Co-ords: S31 51 51.2 E24 33 31.8 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Photo of Test Pit
NB 1 Key to symbols: Sample taken Groundwater
0
0 (0 to 1000) Dry, light brown, medium dense, pinholed, SILTY GRAVELLY SAND,
transported (Alluvium)
MOD/CBR/Indicator -500
A 500
Consolidation
-1000
1000 (1000 to 2400) Slightly most to dry, light brown, medium dense to dense, intact, CLAYEY A
Depth (mm)
GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, transported (alluvium).
Foundation Indicator -1500
1500
pH & Conductivity
B
-2000 B
2000
(2400 to 2800) Moist, dark brown, medium dense, intact, GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, -2500
2500
C transported (alluvium)
-3000
3000
0 20 40 60 80 100 C
(mm/Blow)
No water table
0
0 (0 to 1300) Dry, light brown, medium dense, slightly pinholed, SILTY GRAVELLY
SAND, transported (Alluvium)
Consolidation -500
500
A A
1000
-1000
Depth (mm)
1500 (1300 to 2700) Slightly moist to moist, dark brown, medium dense to dense, intact, -1500
SLIGHTLY CLAYEY GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, transported (Alluvium)
Foundation Indicator
B 2000 -2000
B
2500 -2500
(2700 to 2900) Wet, dark brown, medium dense to dense, intact, GRAVELLY CLAYEY
C SILTY SAND, transported (Alluvium)
3000 -3000 C
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
Perched water table @ 2700mm
Client: Aurecon
Area: Nieu-Bethesda
Date: 28.11.14
Excavator: TLB
0
0 (0 to 550) Dry, light brown, medium dense, intact, GRAVELLY SANDY SILT,
A transported. A
-500
500
(550 to 2100) Slightly most, light brown, medium dense to dense, intact, CLAYEY
SILTY GRAVELLY SAND, transported (Minor boulder sized particals)
-1000
1000 Foundation Indicator
Depth (mm)
B
-1500
1500
-2000 B
2000
(2100 to 2550) Slightly moist, light brown, medium dense to dense, intact, SILTY
C SANDY GRAVEL, transported. -2500
2500
-3000 C
3000
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
No water table
0
0 (0 to 500) Moist, dark red brown, medium dense, intact, SANDY SILT, transported.
A A
MOD/CBR/Indicator -500
500
(500 to 1700) Moist, dark brown, medium dense, intact, SILTY SAND, transported.
pH & Conductivity
-1000
1000 B
Depth (mm)
B
1500 -1500
(1700 to 2000) Moist to very moist, dark brown, dense, intact, GRAVELLY CLAYEY C
C SILTY SAND, transported.
2000 -2000
D to Wet, dark grey, dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SANDY GRAVEL,
(2000 2500)
D
2500 transported. -2500
3000 -3000
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
Client: Aurecon
Area: Nieu-Bethesda
Date: 28.11.14
Excavator: TLB
0
0 (0 to 400) Moist, dark red brown, medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND,
A transported (Topsoil) A
(400 to 1500) Moist to very moist, dark brown, medium dense to dense, intact, CLAYEY -500
500
SANDY SILT, transported.
-1000
B 1000
Depth (mm)
-1500 B
1500
(1500 to 2700) Wet, dark brown, dense, intact, GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, transported.
-2000
2000
C
C
-2500
2500
-3000
3000
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
0
0 (0 to 700) Slightly moist, light red brown, medium dense, intact, GRAVELLY SANDY
SILT, transported.
A MOD/CBR/Indicator -500
500
A
(700 to 1800) Moist, light brown to dark brown, firm-stiff, intact, GRAVELLY CLAYEY
-1000
1000 SANDY SILT, transported.
Depth (mm)
B Foundation Indicator
1500 -1500
B
(1800 to 2400) Wet, light grey, dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SANDY GRAVEL,
2000 -2000
C transported.
2500 -2500
C
3000 -3000
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
Client: Aurecon
Area: Nieu-Bethesda
Date: 28.11.14
Excavator: TLB
0
0 (0 to 400) Moist, dark red brown, medium dense, intact, GRAVELLY SANDY SILT,
A transported.
MOD/CBR/Indicator -500 A
500
(400 to 1200) Moist, dark brown, dense, intact, CLAYEY SAND, transported.
B
-1000
1000
Depth (mm)
(1200 to 2700) Very moist to wet, light brown, firm, micro-shatered, CLAYEY SILTY -1500 B
1500
C SAND, transported.
Foundation Indicator -2000
2000
C
-2500
2500
-3000
3000
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
0
0 (0 to 600) Dry, light brown, medium dense, intact, GRAVELLY SANDY SILT,
transported.
A A
500 MOD/CBR/Indicator -500
1000 (600 to 2000) Moist, dark brown, dense, intact, GRAVELLY CLAYEY SILTY SAND,
-1000
transported.
Depth (mm)
B Foundation Indicator
1500
-1500
2000 B
(2000 to 3050) Very moist to wet, dark brown, dense, intact, SILTY SANDY GRAVEL,
-2000
C 2500 transported (Alluvium)
3000
-2500
3500 -3000
0 20 40 60 80 100 C
(mm/Blow)
Client: Aurecon
Area: Nieu-Bethesda
Date: 28.11.14
Excavator: TLB
0
0 (0 to 300) Moist, dark red brown, medium dense, intact, GRAVELLY SILTY SAND,
A transported. A
(300 to 1100) Moist, dark brown, loose-medium dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, -500
500
B
-1000 B
1000
Depth (mm)
(1100 to 1800) Very moist to wet, light brown, firm-stiff, micro-shatered, GRAVELLY
CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported. -1500
C 1500
-2000
2000 (1800 to 2400) Wet, light brown, dense, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SANDY GRAVEL,
D transported.
-2500 C
2500
-3000
3000 0 20 40 60 80 100
D
(mm/Blow)
0
A 0 (0 to 150) Moist, dark red brown, loose, intact, CLAYEY SILTY SAND, transported.
A
(150 to 1000) Moist to very moist, dark brown to black, medium dense - dense, intact, -500
B 500
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, transported.
1000
-1000
Depth (mm)
(1000 to 2300) Very moist to wet, light brown to dark olive, stiff, fissured, GRAVELLY
1500 CLAYEY SANDY SILT , transported. -1500 B
C Foundation Indicator
2000 -2000
C
2500 -2500
3000 -3000
0 20 40 60 80 100
(mm/Blow)
Appendix 3
Lab test data

R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Outeniqua Lab EC cc.
Materials Testing Laboratory
Registration No. 2009/230653/23
170 Sidwell Avenue, Sidwell, Port Elizabeth : PO Box 3186, George Industria, 6536
Tel: 041 4512464 : Fax: 041 4534959 : e-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]
Aurecon Project : Housing Project - Nieu Bethesda
Lion Roars Office Park Date Received : 01/12/14
Customer :
Cnr of Heugh Rd/3rd Ave Walmer, Port Elizabeth Date Reported : 22/01/15
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
Attention : Derek Jacobs No. of Pages : 1/10
TEST REPORT
FOUNDATION INDICATOR - (TMH 1 Method A1(a),A2,A3,A4,A5) & (ASTM Method D422)
Material Description: Gravelly Silty Sand Sample Number: 5902
Position: NB 1 - Layer 2 Liquid Limit 19 Linear Shrinkage 2
Depth: 1000-2400 Plasticity Index 4 Insitu M/C% 5.7
Sieve Size(mm) % Passing
75.0 100 Particle Size Distribution
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
Cumulative percentage Passing
13.2 99
9.5 97 70
6.7 95
60
4.75 92
2.36 87 50
1.18 80
0.600 63 40
0.425 48
0.075 28 30
0.0632 27
20
0.0478 20
0.0229 12 10
0.0070 5
0.0050 3 0
0.0036 2 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0025 2 Particle Size (mm)
0.0015 2
% Clay 2 % Silt 24 % Sand 59 % Gravel 15
Unified Soil Classification SM-SC PRA Soil Classification A-2-4
Plasticity Chart Potential Expansiveness

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
Plasticity Index Of Whole Sample
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit Clay Fraction Of Whole Sample
Notes:
∙
Specimens delivered to Outeniqua Lab in good order.
L Malgraff (Member)
For Outeniqua Lab EC cc.
1. The test results are reported with an approximate 95% level of confidence.
2. This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Technical Director of Outeniqua Lab.
3. Results reported in this Test Report relate only to the items tested and are an indication only of the sample provided and/or taken.
4. Measuring Equipment, traceable to National Standards is used where applicable.
5. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or
any erroneous conclusions drawn therefrom or for any consequence thereof.
Members: D McDonald (Reg. Eng. Tech. Civil) : L Heathcote (B-Tech. Civil) : Miss A Govender : L Malgraff (N Dip. Civil) : I Paton (Pr.Sci.Nat. Geol)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
Material Description: Clayey Gravelly Silty Sand Sample Number: 5903
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 98 80
13.2 96
9.5 93 70
6.7 91
60
4.75 88
2.36 78 50
1.18 63
0.600 50 40
0.425 44
0.075 21 30
0.0617 20
20
0.0464 16
0.0223 11 10
0.0068 6
0.0049 4 0
0.0035 3 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 2
Unified Soil Classification SC PRA Soil Classification A-2-4

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
Material Description: Silty Sandy Gravel Sample Number: 5904
Position: NB 3 - Layer 2 Liquid Limit 0 Linear Shrinkage 0.5
Depth: 550-2100 Plasticity Index SP Insitu M/C% 4
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 96
19.0 92 80
13.2 89
9.5 86 70
6.7 81
60
4.75 77
2.36 64 50
1.18 48
0.600 31 40
0.425 23
0.075 5 30
0.0623 5
20
0.0468 4
0.0225 3 10
0.0068 1
0.0049 1 0
0.0035 1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 1
Unified Soil Classification SP PRA Soil Classification A-1-b / A-2-4

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
Material Description: Silty Sand Sample Number: 5906
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 99 50
1.18 97
0.600 96 40
0.425 95
0.075 48 30
0.0601 46
20
0.0451 38
0.0218 26 10
0.0068 12
0.0049 9 0
0.0035 8 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 4
Unified Soil Classification SC PRA Soil Classification A-4

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
Material Description: Clayey Silty Sand Sample Number: 5907
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 100 50
1.18 100
0.600 99 40
0.425 99
0.075 59 30
0.0601 55
20
0.0443 49
0.0212 37 10
0.0066 20
0.0048 16 0
0.0034 13 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 8
Unified Soil Classification CL PRA Soil Classification A-6

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 99 50
1.18 97
0.600 96 40
0.425 95
0.075 69 30
0.0591 64
20
0.0440 55
0.0207 46 10
0.0064 32
0.0046 26 0
0.0033 22 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 16

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 100 50
1.18 99
0.600 99 40
0.425 98
0.075 45 30
0.0617 43
20
0.0464 34
0.0221 24 10
0.0068 13
0.0049 11 0
0.0035 9 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 7
Unified Soil Classification SM-SC PRA Soil Classification A-4

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 98 50
1.18 96
0.600 93 40
0.425 92
0.075 53 30
0.0610 50
20
0.0453 43
0.0215 33 10
0.0066 19
0.0048 14 0
0.0035 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 6

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 99 50
1.18 98
0.600 97 40
0.425 97
0.075 61 30
0.0610 57
20
0.0464 44
0.0219 33 10
0.0066 21
0.0048 17 0
0.0034 14 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 10

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
R-FIND-1-4 May 09
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
63.0 100
100
53.0 100
37.5 100 90
26.5 100
19.0 100 80
13.2 100
9.5 100 70
6.7 100
60
4.75 100
2.36 99 50
1.18 98
0.600 96 40
0.425 95
0.075 64 30
0.0610 59
20
0.0453 50
0.0217 37 10
0.0065 29
0.0047 22 0
0.0034 19 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.0014 13

A Line
60 40
VERY HIGH
50
Plasticity Index
30
40 HIGH
LOW
30 20 MEDIUM
20 LOW
10
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
Notes:
∙
L Malgraff (Member)
Potential Heave Calculations
Site: Nieu‐Bethesda TP no: NB6
From To Layer Average
Depth Heave
(Depth in (Depth in Thickness Depth Activity % Heave (%) NHBRC Cat
Factor (mm)
mm) mm) (mm) (mm)
0 700 700 350 0 0.88 0.0 0.00
700 1800 1100 1250 2 0.62 13.7 1.25
1800 2400 600 2100 0 0.45 0.0 0.00
Total 13.7 0.57 H1
Potential Expansiveness Activity %
Very High 8
High‐Very High 6
High 4
Medium‐high 3
Medium 2
Low‐Medium 1
Low 0
R-CBR-1-5 May 10
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO - (TMH 1 Method A1(a),A2,A3,A4,A5,A7,A8)
Material Indicators 05901
Sample Position (SV) NB 1 - Layer 1 Spec. NB 4 - Layer 1 Spec.
Opinion
Opinion
Sieve Analysis
Depth (mm) 0-1000 G7 - 0-500 G10 - 100
90
Sample No 05901 TRH 14 05905 TRH 14 80
Percentage Passing
70
Source Trial Pit Trial Pit
Description
Materials
60
Colour Light Brown Dark Reddish Brown 50

40
30
Soil Type Silty Sandy Gravel Gravelly Silty Sand 20
10
Classification In-situ In-situ 0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Max. Stone size in hole (mm)
Sieve Size
75.0 mm 100 100
63.0 mm 100 100 CBR Chart
53.0 mm 100 100 100.0
Percentage Passing
37.5 mm 100 100
CBR (%)
26.5 mm 100 100
10.0
19.0 mm 100 100
13.2 mm 99 100
4.75 mm 88 100 1.0
90 92 94 96 98 100 102
2.00 mm 75 98
Compaction (%)
0.425 mm 48 88
0.075 mm 26.8 82.8 05905
Soil Mortar & Constants Sieve Analysis
Grading Modulus 1.51  P 0.32 100
90
Coarse Sand <2.0 >0.425 36.6 10.1 80
Percentage Passing
70
Med. <0.250 >0.150 27.7 5.0 60
50
Silt <0.075 35.7 84.8 40
30
Liquid Limit (%) 24 27 20
Plasticity Index (%) 8  P 11 10

0
Linear Shrinkage (%) 4.0 5.5 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size
CBR / Density Relationship
Max Dry Density (kg/m3) 2100 1666 CBR Chart
MOD
Opt Moisture Content (%) 8.8 17.5 10.0
Mould Moisture Con. (%) 8.9 17.5

@100% Mod AASHTO 100.2 99.1
CBR (%)
Swell (%) 0.39  P 0.20  P

Proc NRB
100% NRB 95.8 94.3

Swell (%) 0.67 0.38 1.0
100% Proctor 91.0 89.3 85 90 95 100
Compaction (%)
Swell (%) 0.94 0.61
@ 100% Mod AASHTO 48 5 05901 05905
@ 98% Mod AASHTO 40 4 Wearing Course Graph
CBR
550.0
@ 95% Mod AASHTO 28 3 500.0

Shrinkage Product (Sp)
Slippery
@ 93% Mod AASHTO 20 P 2 450.0
400.0
@ 90% Mod AASHTO 8 1   350.0
300.0
Good
(May be Dusty)
250.0 Erodible
Insitu Moisture Content (%) N/A N/A 200.0 Materials Ravels
150.0 Good
Soil Classification 100.0
50.0
TRH 14 G7 G10 0.0
Ravels and Corrugates
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
PRA System A-2-4 A-6
Grading Coefficient (Gc)
Unified System SC CL
∙ Specimens delivered to Outeniqua Lab in good order.
L Malgraff (Member)
Technical Signatory
1. The opinion column is an interpretation of the direct comparison between the quoted specification and the single test sample results obtained. The compliant ( P), non compliant () and uncertain () opinion indicators are based on an approximate
95% level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2.
2. The uncertain () indicates that the test result is either equal to or is above / below the specified limit by a margin less than the measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not possible to state compliant ( P) or non compliant () based on a 95%
level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2.
3. This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Technical Director of Outeniqua Lab EC cc.
4. Measuring Equipment, traceable to National Standards is used where applicable. Results reported in this Test Report relate only to the items tested and are an indication only of the sample provided and/or taken.
5. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn
therefrom or for any consequence thereof.
R-CBR-1-5 May 10
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
Sample Position (SV) NB 6 - Layer 1 Spec. NB 7 - Layer 1 Spec.
Opinion
Opinion
Sieve Analysis
Depth (mm) 0-700 G10 - 0-400 G10 - 100
Sample No 05908 TRH 14 05910 TRH 14 90

80
Source Trial Pit Trial Pit
Percentage Passing
70
Description
60
Materials
Colour Light Reddish Brown Dark Reddish Brown 50

40
Soil Type Gravelly Silty Sand Gravelly Silty Sand 30
20
10
Classification In-situ In-situ 0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Max. Stone size in hole (mm) Sieve Size
75.0 mm 100 100
63.0 mm 100 100 CBR Chart
53.0 mm 100 100 10.0
Percentage Passing
37.5 mm 100 100
CBR (%)
26.5 mm 100 100
1.0
19.0 mm 100 100
13.2 mm 100 100
4.75 mm 99 99 0.1
85 90 95 100 105
2.00 mm 95 97
Compaction (%)
0.425 mm 81 91
0.075 mm 64.1 84.0 05910
Grading Modulus 0.59 0.28 100
90
Coarse Sand <2.0 >0.425 14.9 6.4 80
Percentage Passing
70
Med. <0.250 >0.150 17.9 7.1 60
50
Silt <0.075 67.2 86.5 40
30
Liquid Limit (%) 25 33 20
Plasticity Index (%) 9 16 10

0
Linear Shrinkage (%) 4.5 8.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size
Max Dry Density (kg/m3) 1915 1602 CBR Chart
MOD
Opt Moisture Content (%) 11.2 18.6 10.0
Mould Moisture Con. (%) 11.1 18.6

CBR (%)
@100% Mod AASHTO 100.2 101.1

Swell (%) 0.51  P 0.87  P
Proc NRB
100% NRB 95.4 95.8

Swell (%) 0.96 1.46 1.0
100% Proctor 87.8 88.8 85 90 95 100 105
Compaction (%)
Swell (%) 1.35 1.87
@ 100% Mod AASHTO 8 4 05908 05910
@ 98% Mod AASHTO 6 3 Wearing Course Graph
CBR
550.0
@ 95% Mod AASHTO 5 3 500.0
Slippery
450.0
@ 93% Mod AASHTO 3 2 400.0
@ 90% Mod AASHTO 2   1   350.0
300.0
Good
(May be Dusty)
250.0 Erodible
Insitu Moisture Content (%) N/A N/A 200.0 Materials Ravels
150.0 Good
50.0
TRH 14 G10 G10 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
PRA System A-4 A-6
Unified System CL CL
L Malgraff (Member)
Technical Signatory
1. The opinion column is an interpretation of the direct comparison between the quoted specification and the single test sample results obtained. The compliant (P), non compliant () and uncertain () opinion indicators are based on an approximate 95%
2. The uncertain () indicates that the test result is either equal to or is above / below the specified limit by a margin less than the measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not possible to state compliant (P) or non compliant () based on a 95% level of
confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2.
5. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn therefrom or
for any consequence thereof.
R-CBR-1-5 May 10
Customer :
6001 Req. Number : 917/14
TEST REPORT
Sample Position (SV) NB 8 - Layer 1 Spec.
Opinion
Opinion
Sieve Analysis
Depth (mm) 0-600 G10 - 100
90
Sample No 05912 TRH 14 80
Percentage Passing
70
Source Trial Pit
Description
Materials
60
50
Colour Light Brown 40
30
Soil Type Silty Sand 20
10
Classification In-situ 0
Max. Stone size in hole (mm) 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size
75.0 mm 100
63.0 mm 100 CBR Chart
53.0 mm 100 10.0
Percentage Passing
37.5 mm 100
CBR (%)
26.5 mm 100
19.0 mm 100
13.2 mm 100
4.75 mm 94 1.0
90 92 94 96 98 100
2.00 mm 84
Compaction (%)
0.425 mm 68
0.075 mm 50.3
Grading Modulus 0.97 100
90
Coarse Sand <2.0 >0.425 19.4 80
Percentage Passing
70
Med. <0.250 >0.150 21.0 60
50
Silt <0.075 59.6 40
30
Liquid Limit (%) 24 20
Plasticity Index (%) 9 10

0
Linear Shrinkage (%) 4.5 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve Size
Max Dry Density (kg/m3) 1996 CBR Chart
MOD
Opt Moisture Content (%) 10.5 1.0
Mould Moisture Con. (%) 10.5

@100% Mod AASHTO 98.8
CBR (%)
Swell (%) 0.35  P

Proc NRB
100% NRB 94.7

Swell (%) 0.43 0.1
100% Proctor 90.5 0 1 2 3 4
Compaction (%)
Swell (%) 0.51
@ 100% Mod AASHTO 10 05912
@ 98% Mod AASHTO 8 Wearing Course Graph
CBR
550.0
@ 95% Mod AASHTO 6 500.0
Slippery
450.0
@ 93% Mod AASHTO 4 400.0
@ 90% Mod AASHTO 2   350.0
300.0
Good
(May be Dusty)
250.0 Erodible
Insitu Moisture Content (%) N/A 200.0 Materials Ravels
150.0 Good
50.0
TRH 14 G10 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
PRA System A-4
Unified System SC
L Malgraff (Member)
Technical Signatory
1. The opinion column is an interpretation of the direct comparison between the quoted specification and the single test sample results obtained. The compliant ( P), non compliant () and uncertain () opinion indicators are based on an approximate
95% level of confidence with reference to SAMM GUIDANCE 1, Issue 2 : 20 June 2007 Section 2.
2. The uncertain () indicates that the test result is either equal to or is above / below the specified limit by a margin less than the measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not possible to state compliant ( P) or non compliant () based on a 95%
5. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn
therefrom or for any consequence thereof.
Appendix 4
DCP test data

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

Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
26 Cove Street, Knysna : PO Box 3186, George Industria, 6536

Tel: 044 3820502 : Fax: 044 3820503 : e-mail: [email protected]
Aurecon Project : Housing Project, Nieu-Bethesda
Lion Roars Office Park Date Received : 24.11.14
Customer :
Cnr Heugh Road & 3rd Ave Date Reported : 28.11.14
Walmer, PE Req. Number :
Attention : Derek Jacobs No. of Pages : 1 of 10
TEST REPORT
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) - (TMH 6 Method ST6)
Position: 1 Datum Level: NGL
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
For Outeniqua Geotech. Services cc.
Technical Signatory
1. This report (with attachments) is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced other than with full written approval from the Members of Outeniqua Geotechnical Services cc.
3. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Outeniqua Lab nor its employees shall be liable in any way whatever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn there from
or for any consequence thereof.
Members: D McDonald (Reg. Eng. Tech. Civil) : I Paton (Pr.Sci.Nat. Geol) : L Heathcote (B-Tech. Civil) : Miss A Govender
Associates: A Cook Pr. Eng.
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory
R-DCP-1-4 May 10


Customer :
TEST REPORT
-200
-400
-600
-800
Depth (mm)
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm/Blow
Notes:
I Paton (Member)
Technical Signatory

App D2 - Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

App D2 - Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHASE 1 GEOTECHNICAL SITE

PROPOSED SUBSIDY HOUSING PROJECT NIEU-

Ref: 2014\Aurecon\Nieu-Bethesda\Geotech Report 30.1.2015 Rev0

Revision No Date Prepared by: Reviewed by:

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

Authors qualifications and affiliations:

Outeniqua Geotechnical Services was appointed by Aurecon to undertake a Phase 1

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

2. Information available .................................................................................. 6

3. Nature of the investigation .......................................................................... 7

4. Site description ........................................................................................... 7

5. Geology ....................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Engineering and material characteristics............................................. 10

5.2 Slope stability and erosion .................................................................. 17

5.3 Excavation classification with respect to services................................ 17

5.4 Impact of the geotechnical character of the site on subsidy housing

6. Site classification ...................................................................................... 20

7. Foundation recommendations and solutions .............................................. 20

8. Storm water drainage recommendations ................................................... 22

9. Special precautionary measures ................................................................ 22

10. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 22

Outeniqua Geotechnical Services was appointed by Aurecon to undertake a Phase 1

Figure 1: Locality map

The general purpose of the investigation is to:

 Describe the location, topography and geology of the proposed site;

3. Nature of the investigation

Figure 3: Topography map

The site geology consists of Quaternary alluvium/colluvium of unknown thickness overlying

5.1 Engineering and material characteristics

Results of the investigation

Effect on the proposed development

Results of the investigation

Figure 6: Typical silty fine sand excavated from test pits

NB2 - 2900 - - 2900 No

NB3 - 2550 - - 2550 No

NB4 - 2500 - - 2500 No

NB5 - 2700 - - 2700 No

NB6 - 2400 - - 2400 No

NB7 - 2700 - - 2700 No

NB8 - 3050 - - 3050 No

NB9 - 2400 - - 2400 No

NB10 - 2300 - - 2300 No

Effect on the proposed development

5.1.3 Grading, Atterberg limits and potential expansiveness

Results of the investigation

NB1 1000-2400 4 19 2 2 24 59 15 5.7 LOW SM-SC

NB2 1300-2700 8 23 4 2 18 53 27 9.6 LOW SC

NB3 550-2100 SP 0 0.5 1 4 54 41 4 LOW SP

NB4 1700-2400 9 25 4.5 5 41 52 2 23.2 LOW SC

NB5 400-1500 17 35 8.5 9 46 45 0 30.1 LOW CL

NB6 700-1800 19 39 9.5 18 46 34 2 26.5 MED CL

NB7 1200-2700 6 22 3 7 35 58 0 25.2 LOW SM-SC

NB8 600-2000 11 27 5.5 7 43 48 2 16.8 LOW CL

NB9 1100-1800 12 27 6 12 44 43 1 28.7 MED CL

NB10 1000-2300 18 37 9 15 43 41 1 29.9 MED CL

CL – Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity;

Effect on the proposed development

The soils can be potentially problematic in terms of compressibility or collapse if saturated

5.1.4 Moisture/density relationship and CBR

Results of the investigation

NB4 0-500 5 4 3 2 1 0.2 11 0.32 1666/17.5 G10

NB6 0-700 8 6 5 3 2 0.51 9 0.59 1915/11.2 G10

NB7 0-400 4 3 3 2 1 0.87 16 0.28 1602/18.6 G10