85566.00.R.001.Rev0.greenthorpe blacks bridge report€¦ · Geotechnical Investigation for Blacks Bridge over Tyagong Creek 85566.00.R.001.Rev0 Gambarra Road, Greenethorpe, Weddin

Report onGeotechnical Investigation

Replacement of Blacks Bridge over Tyagong CreekGambarra Road, Greenethorpe

Prepared forWeddin Shire Council

Project 85566.00August 2016

Geotechnical Investigation for Blacks Bridge over Tyagong Creek 85566.00.R.001.Rev0Gambarra Road, Greenethorpe, Weddin Shire Council August 2016

Table of Contents

Page

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

2. Site Description and Geology ........................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Site Description ....................................................................................................................1

2.2 Geology ................................................................................................................................2

3. Field Work ...................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Methods ...............................................................................................................................2

3.2 Results .................................................................................................................................3

4. Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................................... 4

5. Comments ...................................................................................................................................... 4

5.1 Proposed Development .......................................................................................................4

5.2 Foundations .........................................................................................................................5

5.2.1 Bored Piles ..............................................................................................................5

5.2.2 Driven Piles .............................................................................................................5

5.3 Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (AS2159) ............................................................6

5.4 Soil Aggressivity ...................................................................................................................7

6. Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Appendix A: About this Report

Table 4 - Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor

Drawings and Photos

Appendix B: Results of Field Work

Appendix C: Results of Laboratory Tests

1 of 8


Report on Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Replacement of Blacks Bridge over Gambarra Creek

Gambarra Road, Greenethorpe, Weddin Shire Council

1. Introduction

This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed construction of a replacement bridge over Tyagong Creek on Gambarra Road at Greenethorpe, NSW. The investigations were commissioned by and carried out for Weddin Shire Council. The construction of a new bridge is proposed at the site of an existing, single lane timber bridge (known as ‘Blacks Bridge’). Investigation was carried out to provide information on subsurface conditions for the planning and design of the bridge foundations. The investigation comprised test bores together with laboratory testing and field mapping in the vicinity of the bridge site. Details of the field work and laboratory testing are given in the report together with comments relevant to design and construction practice. 2. Site Description and Geology

2.1 Site Description

The site of the existing and proposed bridge is located at the crossing of Tyagong Creek on Gambarra Road, approximately 1.3 km north of Greenethorpe and 500 m west of the Bumbaldry (Cowra to Greenethorpe) Road intersection. The bridge site is located at approximately 0629955m E, 6238595m N (GDA 94/MGA 94, Zone 55). Gambarra Road is sealed on both approaches to the bridge site. Colour photos of the site at the time of field work are included in Appendix A. The existing bridge is an three span, single lane timber structure with a plywood deck overlay some 30 m long and 5.3 m wide (refer to Photos 1 and 2), which crosses the creek from east to west. DP understands from local land-owners that the bridge was possibly constructed around 1943, and was re-decked and repaired in about 1997. The deck of the existing bridge is typically 2.5 m to 3.2 m above the level of the creek bed and about 5.2 m above the bed of the 8 m wide central flow channel. There are pile driving marks visible on all four western abutment piles and on at least one of the eastern central piles supporting the existing bridge. These are 20 feet (6 m) driving marks marked as XX carved into the piles (refer to Photo 3). The marks are approximately 1.5 m to 1.8 m below the deck level of the bridge and around 1.1 m above the creek bed. There was no visible evidence that the existing timber piles or the bridge deck have settled excessively in the past. Tyagong Creek flows to the south-west at the site in a broad alluvial valley within near level to gently sloping country with grazing paddocks and wooded areas. The central bed of the creek in the vicinity

2 of 8


of the bridge site is approximately 5 m to 7 m below the level of the surrounding country and is generally well covered with grass or reeds. There was approximately 1.5 m depth of water flowing within the central flow channel of the creek at the time of the field work (July 2016). There was a 1 m to 1.5 m thick accumulation of flood debris (timber and straw) beneath the eastern third of the bridge. Scattered mature eucalyptus and pine trees grow along the banks of the river. There is no bedrock outcrop in the bed of the creek or within the general vicinity of the bridge site. A previous low level crossing of the creek remains as excavations into the creek banks approximately 100 m downstream (south-west) of the existing bridge. There has been some minor erosion of sandy soils within the creek bed to around 0.5 m depth around the central western pile group (refer to Photo 5), but there was no evidence of significant creek bed erosion within the vicinity of the bridge site. Alluvial clayey sand and sandy clay soils exposed within the excavated road batters alongside both approach roads to the bridge display moderate rill erosion. Drawings provided by Dial-Before-You-Dig and marker posts on site indicate that buried Telstra lines cross the creek to the north of the bridge. The nearest farm residence is located approximately 430 m to south of the bridge site.

2.2 Geology

Reference to the 1:250 000 Geological Series Sheets SH 55-7 for Forbes indicates that the investigation site is underlain by Quaternary aged alluvial sands, silts, clays and gravel associated with Tyagong Creek. Bedrock in the general vicinity of the site is mapped as the Young Granodiorite of Silurian Age. The sub-surface drilling at the bridge site confirmed the geological mapping with alluvial clay and sandy clay soils found to extend to the full depth of investigation. 3. Field Work

3.1 Methods

A truck mounted Edson 3000 auger/rotary drilling rig was used to drill three test bores (Bores 1 to 3) at the locations shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix A. The bores were drilled on the road centre-line as close to practical to the bridge abutments (Bores 1 and 3) and within the creek bed from deck level at the centre of the bridge (Bore 2). A hole was cut in the plywood deck of the bridge by Council to allow Bore 2 to be drilled (refer to Photo 4). Bores 1 and 3 were drilled using 110 mm diameter solid spiral flight augers fitted with a tungsten carbide (TC) bit to depths of 14.45 m and 14.95 m respectively. Bore 2 was drilled from bridge deck level which was 5.2 m above the level of the creek bed. Bore 2 was lined with temporary steel casing from bridge deck level to a depth of 0.6 m below the creek bed and then extended to a depth of

3 of 8


12.65 m below the creek bed using rotary flush drilling methods. Each bore incorporated regular sampling and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) to provide information on the engineering properties of the alluvial soils underlying the site (refer to Photo 6). The field drilling was carried out under the supervision of a senior engineering geologist from Douglas Partners (DP) who set out the test locations, logged the bores on site, and also undertook geological mapping of the nearby area. The existing bridge and approach roads were closed to through traffic for the duration of the field work. Reduced levels at the test locations are given on the individual test bore report sheets. The levels were surveyed by DP staff, relative to an assumed datum that the Council have established for the site. The locations of the test bores as measured by the DP geologist relative to the existing bridge are summarised in Table 1 below. Table 1: Summary of Bore Locations relative to existing bridge and Assumed Levels

Location Chainage(1)

(m)

Offset from C/L of existing bridge

Level(2)

(m) Remarks

Bore 1 -1.7 Centre-line 339.1 Near western abutment

Bore 2 15.2 Centre-line 334.6 Creek bed below centre of bridge

Bore 3 31.5 Centre-line 340.0 Near eastern abutment

(1) measured in an easterly direction from the western end of the existing bridge

(2) measured relative to an assumed datum that Council have established for the site The locations of the bores were also recorded in the field using a hand-held Garmin eTrex GPS unit, with the co-ordinates provided on each test report sheet. The accuracy of the GPS unit used is in the order of ±5 m in the horizontal plane.

3.2 Results

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test bores are given in the borehole logs enclosed in Appendix B together with notes defining classification methods and descriptive terms. An interpreted geological section across Tyagong Creek at the bridge site (Cross-Section A-A’) is presented in Drawing 2 in Appendix A. The bores encountered a relatively consistent natural sub-surface profile across the site comprising interbedded sandy clays and silty clays for the full depth of the investigation. Bores 1 and 3 near the bridge abutments, encountered 3.5 m and 0.5 m of crushed sandstone or silty sand filling associated with the approach road formation, overlying natural alluvial sediments which persisted to the termination depth of drilling.

4 of 8


Below the road embankment filling, Bore 1 encountered very soft to soft saturated silty clay and loose silty sand which extended to 6 m depth, underlain by very stiff to hard clay and sandy clay. Below the filling Bore 3 encountered stiff to hard, natural silty clay and sandy clay. Bore 2, drilled through the bed of the creek, encountered firm to stiff silty clay to 1.5 m depth, underlain by a profile of stiff to hard alluvial sandy clay that was similar to that encountered by the abutment bores. Free groundwater inflow into Bore 1 was observed at 3.5 m depth with minor seepage into Bore 3 noted at the same depth. Groundwater observations in Bore 2 were obscured by creek water and water introduced into the bore for drilling purposes. 4. Laboratory Testing

Two samples of alluvial clayey sand collected from 3.7 m depth in Bore 2 and 8.5 m depth in Bore 3 were tested for pH, chloride and sulphate ion content and for electrical conductivity to determine soil aggressivity to buried structural elements. The results of the chemical analysis are given in Appendix C and are summarised in Table 2 below, together with the threshold limits given in AS 2159 (Australian Piling Code) for “Non-aggressive” soil conditions, for low permeability soils. These are provided for reference and are discussed below. Table 2: Summary of Chemical Laboratory Test Results

Bore No.

Sample Depth

(m) Sample Description pH#

EC (μS/cm)

Sulphate (mg/kg)

Chloride (mg/kg)

2 3.7 Grey brown & orange brown sandy clay

8.6 260 49 94

3 8.5 Grey & green grey mottled brown sandy clay

8.5 340 120 230

Criteria for “Non-aggressive” Soil Conditions (low permeability silts & clays and all soils which are above the groundwater table)

>5 <5000 <6250 <20000

EC = Electrical conductivity #pH = -log (Hydrogen ion concentration) 5. Comments

5.1 Proposed Development

It is understood that a new, two lane bridge will be constructed over Tyagong Creek at approximately the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the existing single lane timber structure. It is anticipated

5 of 8


that column loads on piled foundations for the new bridge would typically be in the range of 30 to 50 tonnes (300 - 500 kN) for a multi span concrete bridge. DP understands from Council that the replacement of the bridge will be undertaken by a contractor under a design and construct contract.

5.2 Foundations

Common foundation options for bridges of this type are bored or driven piers or mass concrete footings where shallow bedrock exists. The results of the investigation have revealed the presence of alluvial clays and sandy clays extending to at least 15 m depth. Therefore piles are the most appropriate solution and driven timber or precast concrete piles are probably the most effective foundation type for this site.

5.2.1 Bored Piles

Consideration has been given to the use of bored piles for support of the bridge on the creek banks and in the creek bed. Some groundwater inflow or seepage was observed with both of the abutment bores (Bores 1 and 3) at 3.5 m depth. Groundwater observations in the central bore (Bore 2) were obscured by creek and drilling water, although some sub-surface groundwater flow through the alluvial sediments below the creek bed could reasonably be expected to continue in all but the driest of seasons. It is possible that bored pile construction across the footprint of the replacement bridge could be hampered by saturated and/or partially collapsing ground conditions, requiring casing support for hole stability and concrete placement by tremmie methods. As bedrock was not encountered in the investigation, the capacity of bored piles will be limited to the end bearing on the alluvial soils.

5.2.2 Driven Piles

Driven piles are expected to be the most cost-effective solution for the foundations on the creek bank abutments and for the central piers in the creek channel. Driven pile types that could be used include cast-in-situ driven piles, precast concrete piles, timber piles and steel pipe piles driven with an end closing shoe and subsequently filled with concrete. Piles should be driven to found within the natural, stiff to hard sandy clays and silty clays which are indicated to lie beneath the full width of the creek. Note that the embedment depth of the piles below the creek bed level will need to take into account any potential for future flood erosion or scour of the creek bed. There was no evidence observed of significant recent flood scour of the creek bed in the general vicinity of the bridge site. Piles should be driven to refusal or a nominated set in accordance with the methodology described in the RTA bridgeworks specifications. If driven to refusal, the load capacity of the piles would then be

6 of 8


less than or equal to the structural capacity of the pile shaft, taking into consideration axial and lateral design loads, with allowance for load eccentricities. Actual pile capacities should be confirmed from driving data during construction. The design life of pile material should be equivalent to the design life of the bridge Cast-in-situ driven piles (Franki type piles), may be suitable and could be founded at shallower levels than other pile types and would have less wastage. The capability of driven piles to develop adequate resistance at the design contract levels should be demonstrated prior to construction, using pile driving prediction techniques based on wave equation analysis and the particular pile driving arrangement intended to be used by the Contractor (e.g. hammer type and stroke, cushion etc). Table 3 below provides estimates of pile design parameters for preliminary design purposes. The parameters are based on driven piles founded in the stiff to very stiff natural alluvial clay sediments. Table 3: Estimates of Pile Design Parameters for Preliminary Design Purposes

Assumed Founding Strata

Ult. Bearing Capacity (fb)

Ult. Skin Friction for compression(fS)1 Comments

Stiff to very stiff clay 1 MPa 300 kPa Adopt 75% of skin friction value for resistance to uplift

Note 1- Skin friction only accrued from below design scour depth.

5.3 Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (AS2159)

The geotechnical strength reduction factor for pile design is defined in the Piling Code. The design geotechnical strength of a pile (Rd,g) is the ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by the geotechnical strength reduction factor (g), such that: Rd,g = g . Rd,ug The calculated value Rd,g must equal or exceed the structural design action effect Ed. Selection of the geotechnical strength reduction factor (g) is based on a series of individual risk ratings (IRR) which are weighted and lead to an average risk rating (ARR). The individual risk ratings and final value of g depend on the following factors:

Site: the type, quantity and quality of testing;

Design: design methods and parameter selection;

Installation: construction control and monitoring;

Pile testing regime: testing benefit factor based on percentage of piles tested and the type of testing;

Redundancy: whether other piles can take up load if a given pile settles or fails.

7 of 8


Without clear details about the pile type, design method, testing regime and other construction factors it is not possible to calculate the appropriate g value. However, the following preliminary design value can be offered after making several assumptions in relation to the Design and Installation factors risk as outlined in AS2159-2009 and in Table 4 (in Appendix A):

Average Risk Rating (ARR) = 3.06 (Moderate category)

Basic Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (gb) = 0.48 (low redundancy)

Basic Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (gb) = 0.56 (high redundancy) It is anticipated that the pile configuration for the new bridge would be a low redundancy situation, and hence the appropriate basic geotechnical strength reduction factor is likely to be 0.48. The redundancy category should be confirmed by the structural engineer when the Design and Installation risk factors are known. Note also that Table 8.2.4(B) of AS2159-2009 requires that 5% to 15% of piles should be subject to integrity testing if the adopted g exceeds 0.4. Higher values of g can be justified by more comprehensive static or dynamic load testing.

5.4 Soil Aggressivity

The results of the chemical testing on two samples of alluvial soil obtained from Bores 2 and 3 are presented in Section 4 above. Based on these results it is considered that the ‘Non-aggressive’ exposure classification (as recommended in Table 6.4.2(A) in AS2150-2009) is applicable for this site. The results of the chemical testing undertaken imply that a classification of ‘Non-aggressive’ conditions applies for steel piles in soil. However, it should be noted that a ‘Moderate’ exposure classification would be applicable where steel piles are submerged in fresh (soft) running water (in accordance with Table 6.5.2(A) in AS 2159-2009). 6. Limitations

Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for the proposed replacement structure for Blacks Bridge on Gambarra Road at Greenethorpe in accordance with the proposal SYD160820 dated 30 June 2016 and Weddin Shire Council’s Requisition Order Number 34493 and Order to Proceed dated 1 July 2016. The work was carried out under DP Conditions of Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Weddin Shire Council for the specific project and purpose as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other sites or by a third party. DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are considered to be indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only to the depths investigated at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and only at the time the work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological

8 of 8


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 affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing 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 the attachments 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 stated 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. 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 Report

Table 4 - Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor

Drawings 1 and 2

Plate 1 – Site Photos 1 to 6

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.

Project 85566.00 Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor - Replacement Structure for Blacks Bridge, Gambarra Road, Greenethorpe

Table 4: Assessment of Preliminary Geotechnical Risk Factors and Basic Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factors (reference - Table 4.3.2(A) AS2159-2009 (Cl. 4.3.2)) Weighting factors and Individual Risk ratings for Risk factors. To calculate φgb enter individual risk rating (IRR) from Table 4.3.2(B) in yellow box in Column G

Risk Weighting Typical description of risk circumstances for individual risk rating Assigned

Factor factor (IRR) Risk

(wi) 1 3 5 Factor

(Very low risk) (Moderate) (Very high risk) (1 to 5) wi IRRi

Geological Horizontal strata, well-defined soil & rock Some variability over site, but without abrupt Highly variable profile or presence of karstic

complexity of Characterstics changes in stratigraphy features or steeply dipping rock levels or

site faults present on site, or combinations of these

Extent of ground Extensive drilling investigation covering whole Some boreholes extending at least 5 pile Very limited investigation with few shallow

investigation site to an adequate depth diameters below the base of the proposed boreholes

foundation level

Amount & quality Detailed information on strength & CPT probes over full depth of proposed piles or Limited amount of simple insitu testing

of geotechnical data compressibility of the main strata boreholes confirming rock at proposed (eg SPT) or index tests only

founding level for piles

Experience with similar Extensive Limited None

foundations in similar

geological conditions

Method of assessment Based on appropriate laboratory or insitu tests Based on site-specific correlations or on Based on non-site specific correlations with

of geotechnical or relevant pile load test data conventional laboratory or insitu testing (for example) SPT data

parameters for design

Design method adopted Well-established and soundly based method Simplified methods with well-established Simple empirical methods or sophisticated

or methods basis methods that are not well established

Method of utilising Design values based on minimum measured Design methods based on average values Design values based on maximum measured

results of insitu test values on piles loaded to failure values on test piles loaded up to only working

data and installation load, or indirect measurements used during

data installation, and not calibrated to static loading

tests

Level of construction Detailed with professional geotechnical Limited degree of professional geotechncial Very limited or no involvement by designer,

control supervision, construction processes that are well involvement in supervision, conventional construction processes that are not well

established and relatively straight forward construction procedures established or complex

Level of performance monitoring Detailed measurements of movements and pile Correlation of installed parameters with on-site No Monitoring

of the supported structure during load static load tests carried out in accordance with

and after construction this Standard

NOTE: The pile design shall include the risk circumstances for each individual risk category and consideration of all of the relevant construction factors.

Σwi = 15.5 Σwi IRRi= 47.5

Table 4.3.2(B) ARR = Σwi IRRi/Σwi = 3.06

Risk Level Individual risk rating (IRR)

Very Low 1 φgb (ex Table 4.3.2C) - LOW REDUNDANCY = 0.48

Low 2

Moderate 3 φgb (ex Table 4.3.2C) - HIGH REDUNDANCY = 0.56

High 4

Very High 5 Overall Risk Rating (ex Table 4.3.2C) = Moderate

3

3 3

2.5

Site

2 3 6

3

2

3

4

1

0.5

2 2

6

Installation

5

63

2

2

4

6

12

1

Design

2

2

85566.00

09.8.2016

Sydney PSCH

1:100 @ A3

Location of Tests

Replacement of Blacks Bridge over Tyagong Creek

Gambarra Road, GREENETHORPE

1DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

CLIENT:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE: DATE:

OFFICE:

TITLE:

Geotechnical Cross Section A-A' (refer to Dwg 2)

SITE

Photo number with direction of view1

Weddin Shire Council

LEGEND

Test bore location

Locality Plan

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

FROM

GRENFELL

~30km

TO GREENTHORPE

~1.5km

'XX' (20 Feet) PILE DRIVING

MARKS ON ALL WESTERN

ABUTMENT PILES

ACCUMULATED FLOOD DEBRIS

BELOW EASTERN END OF

BRIDGE

EXISTING 3 SPAN

TIMBER BRIDGE

MINOR EROSION

AROUND WESTERN

CENTRAL PILES

'XX' (20 Feet) PILE MARKS

ON AT LEAST ONE EASTERN

ABUTMENT PILE

0 1 2 3 4 5

1:100 @ A3

10m7.5

GAMBARRA ROAD

OFFICE: DRAWN BY:

CLIENT: TITLE: PROJECT No:

DRAWING No:

REVISION:04.08.2016

2

0

DEM/LD

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (A

HD

*)

Asphaltic Concrete

Filling

Silty Clay

1:100 (H)

1:100 (V)

0 2

Horizontal Scale (metres)

SCALE: @ A3

Sydney

DATE:

LEGEND

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (m)

Silty Sand

Clay

Sandy Clay

Replacement of Blacks Bridge over Tyagong Creek

A A'

Natural Scale

Gambarra Road, Greenthorpe


Cross-section A-A'

85566.00

TESTS / OTHERSOIL CONSISTENCY

vs - very soft vl - very loose

s - soft l - loose

f - firm md - medium dense

st - stiff d - dense

vst - very stiff vd - very dense

h - hard

N - Standard penetration test value

- Water level

322

324

326

328

330

332

334

336

338

340

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

322

324

326

328

330

332

334

336

338

340

l

N = 6

N = 2

refusal

N = 7

N = 22

N = 22

N = 24

N = 23

N = 32

1

vst

vst-h

vst

f-st

vst

vst-h

st-vst

N = 8

N = 19

N = 40

N = 29

N = 22

N = 37

N = 47

N = 16

2

st-vst

st

vst

vst

vst-h

N = 9

N = 15

N = 12

N = 11

N = 24

N = 17

N = 30

N = 13

N = 32

3

vs-s

XX PILE DRIVING MARK

EXISTING 3 SPAN TIMBER BRIDGE

GAMBARRA ROAD

MINOR EROSION

FLOOD DEBRIS

ASSUMED FOUNDING

LEVEL OF EASTERN

ABUTMENT PILE

See Drawing 1 for location of Cross section A-A'

WEST

XX

EAST

ASSUMED FOUNDING

LEVEL OF WESTERN

ABUTMENT PILES

?

?

Photo 1: View of drilling rig at Bore 1 looking east Photo 2: View of drilling rig at Bore 3 looking southwest Photo 3 - Twenty feet (6m) pile mark on existing piles at west abutment

Photo 4: Council staff cutting hole in timber bridge deck for Bore 2 Photo 5: Minor flood erosion around central pile of existing bridge Photo 6: SPT sample of alluvial sandy clay from 14.5m depth in Bore 3

CLIENT: TITLE: Site Photographs - Geotechnical Assessment PROJECT No: 85566

OFFICE: Sydney DRAWN BY: DEM Proposed Replacement of Blacks Bridge over Tyagong Creek PLATE No: 1

SCALE: NA DATE: 26 Jul 2016 Gambarra Road, Greenthorpe REVISION: A


Appendix B

Results of Field Work

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

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

FILLING - light orange-brown ripped sandstone (humid)(road formation)

FILLING - brown fine silty sand (variably compacted)(humid) (road embankment)

SILTY CLAY - very soft to soft, dark brown sandy silty clay(saturated) (alluvial)

SILTY SAND - loose, brown, coarse silty sand (alluvial)(saturated)

CLAY - very stiff, light grey mottled orange-brown slightlysandy clay (alluvial) (slightly moist to moist) - sandy clay in parts

0.02

1.5

3.5

5.0

6.0

Typ

e

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

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Gambarra Road, Greenethorpe

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: 85566.00DATE: 26/7/2016SHEET 1 OF 2

DRILLER: A J Briton LOGGED: Murray CASING: Uncased

Weddin Shire CouncilReplacement of Blacks Bridge over Tyagong

REMARKS:

RIG: Edson 3000

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Free groundwater observed at 3.5m. Standing water at 3.7m and bore collapsed at 4.7m 15 min after end of drilling

Solid flight auger to 14.0m

SURFACE LEVEL: 339.9 *EASTING: 629937NORTHING: 6238597DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55. *Assumed Council Datum

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

339

338

337

336

335

334

333

332

331

330

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

3,3,3N = 6

2,1,1N = 2

N=0sunk under own weight

2,3,4N = 7

4,8,14N = 22

4,8,14N = 22

A

A

S

S

S

S

S

S

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.45

2.5

2.95

4.0

4.45

5.5

5.95

7.0

7.45

8.5

8.95

CLAY - very stiff, light grey mottled orange-brown slightlysandy clay (alluvial) (slightly moist to moist) - sandy clay in parts (continued)

SANDY CLAY - very stiff, light grey mottled orange-brownsandy clay (alluvial) (moist)

- very stiff to hard below 13.0m

Bore discontinued at 14.45m - in very stiff alluvial sandy clay

11.0

14.45

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19






REMARKS:

RIG: Edson 3000

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Free groundwater observed at 3.5m. Standing water at 3.7m and bore collapsed at 4.7m 15 min after end of drilling



Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55. *Assumed Council Datum

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

329

328

327

326

325

324

323

322

321

320

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

6,9,15N = 24

7,8,15N = 23

9,12,20N = 32

S

S

S

11.0

11.45

12.5

12.95

14.0

14.45

SILTY CLAY - firm to stiff, dark grey and grey-brown siltyclay (alluvial)

SANDY CLAY - very stiff, grey and green-grey mottledorange-brown sandy clay (alluvial) - slightly sandy in parts

SANDY CLAY - very stiff to hard, grey-brown andorange-brown sandy clay (alluvial) - some medium to coarse sandy clay layers

- a trace of fine to medium angular quartz gravel below9.0m

1.5

3.5

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9




DRILLER: A J Briton LOGGED: Murray CASING: Bridge Deck to 0.6m


REMARKS:

RIG: Edson 3000

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Obscured by creek water and drilling water

Rotary to 12.2m


Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55. *Assumed Council Datum. Drilled from bridge deck level, 5.2m above creek bed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

4,4,4N = 8

5,8,11N = 19

11,16,24N = 40

6,12,17N = 29

6,9,13N = 22

8,17,20N = 37

10,20,27N = 47

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

0.1

0.55

2.1

2.55

3.7

4.15

5.2

5.65

6.7

7.15

8.2

8.65

9.7

SANDY CLAY - very stiff to hard, grey-brown andorange-brown sandy clay (alluvial) - some medium to coarse sandy clay layers (continued)

SANDY CLAY - stiff to very stiff, grey-brown andorange-brown fine sandy clay (alluvial) - very sandy clay in parts

Bore discontinued at 12.65m - in stiff to very stiff alluvial sandy clay

11.0

12.65

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19




DRILLER: A J Briton LOGGED: Murray CASING: Bridge Deck to 0.6m


REMARKS:

RIG: Edson 3000

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Obscured by creek water and drilling water

Rotary to 12.2m


Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55. *Assumed Council Datum. Drilled from bridge deck level, 5.2m above creek bed

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

324

323

322

321

320

319

318

317

316

315

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

8,9,7N = 16

S

S

10.15

12.2

12.65

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

FILLING - light orange-brown crushed sandstone (roadformation)

SILTY CLAY - stiff to very stiff, brown to dark brownslightly sandy silty clay (alluvial) (slightly moist)

- stiff, very silty, moist below 3.5m

SILTY CLAY - stiff, light grey, green-grey and greymottled orange-brown, very silty clay (alluvial) (moist) - slightly sandy in parts

- very stiff below 6.5m

SANDY CLAY - very stiff, grey and green-grey mottledbrown sandy clay (alluvial) (moist)

0.02

0.5

5.0

8.0

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9






REMARKS:

RIG: Edson 3000

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Minor seepage at 3.5m. Water level at 12.2m 30 minutes after conclusion of drilling



Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55. *Assumed Council Datum. (S) indicates no SPT sample recovery

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

340

339

338

337

336

335

334

333

332

331

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

4,4,5N = 9

5,6,9N = 15

3,4,8N = 12

4,5,6N = 11

4,10,14N = 24

4,7,10N = 17

A

A

S

S

S

S

S

S

0.1

0.5

1.0

1.45

2.5

2.95

4.0

4.45

5.5

5.95

7.0

7.45

8.5

8.95

SANDY CLAY - very stiff, grey and green-grey mottledbrown sandy clay (alluvial) (moist) (continued) - some medium to coarse clayey sand layers below10.0m

SANDY CLAY - very stiff to hard, grey and brown coarsesandy clay (alluvial) (moist)

Bore discontinued at 14.95m - in very stiff to hard coarse sandy clay

13.0

14.95

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19






REMARKS:

RIG: Edson 3000

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

Minor seepage at 3.5m. Water level at 12.2m 30 minutes after conclusion of drilling



Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 55. *Assumed Council Datum. (S) indicates no SPT sample recovery

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

330

329

328

327

326

325

324

323

322

321

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

6,13,17N = 30

4,6,7N = 13

7,11,21N = 32

S

(S)

S

10.0

10.45

12.0

12.45

14.5

14.95

Appendix C

Results of Laboratory Tests

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 150955

Client:

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

96 Hermitage Rd

West Ryde

NSW 2114

Attention: David Murray

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: 85566.00, Blacks Bridge Green Thorpe

No. of samples: 2 Soils

Date samples received / completed instructions received 29/07/2016 / 29/07/2016

Analysis Details:

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 5/08/16 / 3/08/16

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 6Envirolab Reference: 150955

Revision No: R 00

Client Reference: 85566.00, Blacks Bridge Green Thorpe

Misc Inorg - Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 150955-1 150955-2

Your Reference ------------

-

2 3

Depth ------------ 3.7 8.5

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/07/2016

Soil

26/07/2016

Soil

Date prepared - 01/08/2016 01/08/2016

Date analysed - 01/08/2016 01/08/2016

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 8.6 8.5

Electrical Conductivity 1:5

soil:water

µS/cm 250 340

Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 94 230

Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 49 120


Revision No: R 00


Method ID Methodology Summary

Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note

that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Inorg-002 Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25oC in accordance with APHA latest edition

2510 and Rayment & Lyons.

Inorg-081 Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA latest edition,

4110-B. Alternatively determined by colourimetry/turbidity using Discrete Analyer.


Revision No: R 00


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Misc Inorg - Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 01/08/2

016

150955-1 01/08/2016 || 01/08/2016 LCS-1 01/08/2016

Date analysed - 01/08/2

016

150955-1 01/08/2016 || 01/08/2016 LCS-1 01/08/2016

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] 150955-1 8.6 || 8.7 || RPD: 1 LCS-1 101%

Electrical Conductivity

1:5 soil:water

µS/cm 1 Inorg-002 <1 150955-1 250 || 230 || RPD: 8 LCS-1 102%

Chloride, Cl 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 150955-1 94 || 69 || RPD: 31 LCS-1 85%

Sulphate, SO4 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 150955-1 49 || 43 || RPD: 13 LCS-1 95%


Revision No: R 00


Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NR: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample


Revision No: R 00


Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted

during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics

and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples

respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),

the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse

within the THT or as soon as practicable.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity

of the analysis where recommended technical holding times may have been breached.

Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.


Revision No: R 00

Documents

85566.00.R.001.Rev0.greenthorpe blacks bridge report€¦ · Geotechnical Investigation for Blacks Bridge over Tyagong Creek 85566.00.R.001.Rev0 Gambarra Road, Greenethorpe, Weddin