Appendix 8.3: Ground Investigation Report · PDF fileCAI Cerchar Abrasivity Index CEGB Central Electric Generation Board CE Clay of extremely high plasticity (w. L >90%) CH Clay of

6.8.3

Appendix 8.3: Ground Investigation Report

River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project

Under Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

D O

C U

M E

N T

Application Reference: EN060004

April 2015

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project

Ground Investigation Report 064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

0

Property and Infrastructure

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas

Pipeline Replacement Project

Ground Investigation Report

CS / 064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B



i

Quality Management

Job No CS/064298

Project Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project

Location Paull & Goxhill, Humber Estuary

Title Ground Investigation Report

Document Ref 064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B Issue / Revision Rev B

Date 25th November 2014

Prepared by Sophie Norgate

Martin Huggins

Asanka Amarasinghe

Ben Tucker

Trevor Muten

Signature (for file)

Checked by Tim Connolly

Neil Greenwood

Signature (for file)

Authorised by Andrew Petch Signature (for file)

Authorised by NG Signature (for file)

Revision Status / History

Rev Date Issue / Purpose/ Comment Prepared Checked Authorised

A 16/09/2014 Interim SN, MH, AA, BT, TM

TC, NG AP

B 25/11/2014 Incorporating Client comments & updated lab results

SN, MH, AA, BT, TM

TC, NG AP

Document Hold Points

Hold Point Description



ii

Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1

2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 GEOTECHNICAL CATEGORY OF PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 5

2.4 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 5

3. EXISTING INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................ 6

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 6

3.3 PUBLISHED GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.4 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 HYDROGEOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.6 CONTAMINATED LAND .................................................................................................................................... 10

3.7 INFORMATION FROM STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 13

3.8 FLOOD RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................ 14

3.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................................... 14

3.10 HISTORICAL GROUND INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................... 14

3.11 MINING INSTABILITY AND NATURAL UNDERGROUND CAVITIES ................................................................................ 16

3.12 RECORDS OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.13 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................................................................... 16

4. FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES ............................................................................................................... 17

4.1 WALKOVER SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 17

4.2 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.3 SERVICE SEARCH ............................................................................................................................................ 18

4.4 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS ................................................................................................................................... 18

4.5 GROUND INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 20

4.6 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................................................................... 25

4.7 SCOPE CHANGES AND GROUND INVESTIGATION FEEDBACK ..................................................................................... 26

5. GROUND SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 GROUND CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 GOXHILL GROUND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 32

5.3 HUMBER GROUND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 35

5.3 PAULL GROUND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 36

5.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 38

6. GROUND CONDITIONS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES ................................................................................... 41

6.1 ALLUVIUM .................................................................................................................................................... 41

6.2 GLACIAL DEPOSITS ......................................................................................................................................... 49

6.3 FLAMBOROUGH CHALK ................................................................................................................................... 54

6.4 BURNHAM CHALK .......................................................................................................................................... 70

6.5 CHEMICAL TESTING ........................................................................................................................................ 80

6.6 SOIL GAS MONITORING RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 87



iii

6.7 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................. 88

7. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 96

7.1 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES ............................................................................................................................. 96

7.2 GROUNDWATER PIEZOMETRY ........................................................................................................................... 97

7.3 GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY ............................................................................................................................ 98

7.4 HYDROGEOLOGICAL / GROUNDWATER – PERMEABILITY DATA AND GROUNDWATER FLOW ............................................ 98

8. GEOTECHNICAL RISK REGISTER .................................................................................................................. 100

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 108

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 110

DRAWINGS .............................................................................................................................................................. 115

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................................. 116

Appendix A Geophysical survey

Appendix B Generic Assessment Criteria

Appendix C Groundwater/Gas Monitoring Field Data

Appendix D Geological Markers



iv

List of Tables

Table 3.3.1 Generalised Geological Succession for Site Area

Table 3.6.2 Summary of Environmental Records Review

Table 3.6.1 Summary of Historic Land Uses

Table 3.10.1 Summary of Historical Ground Investigation Data

Table 4.5.1 Summary of Drilling Details and Installations for Land Boreholes

Table 4.5.2 Summary of Drilling Details for Marine Boreholes

Table 4.5.3 Summary of Specialist In situ Testing within Land Boreholes

Table 4.5.4 Summary of Specialist In situ Testing within Overwater Boreholes

Table 4.5.5 Summary of CPT Details

Table 4.5.6 Summary of Trial Pitting

Table 4.6.1a Summary of Geotechnical Testing - Soil

Table 4.6.1b Summary of Geotechnical Testing – Rock

Table 4.6.1c Summary of BRE SD1 Testing – Soil and Rock

Table 4.6.2 Summarised Geoenvironmental Testing

Table 4.7.1 Feedback from Drilling Operations

Table 5.1.1 Strata Thicknesses Encountered During Phase 1 Site Works

Table 5.2.2 Subdivisions of Chalk Grades

Table 6.1.1 Classification Tests - Alluvium

Table 6.1.2 Undrained Shear Strength and SPT Strength Test Summary – Alluvium

Table 6.1.3 Shear Box Tests - Alluvium

Table 6.2.1 Classification Tests – Glacial Deposits

Table 6.2.2 Strength Test Summary - Glacial Deposits

Table 6.2.3 Shear Box Tests - Glacial Deposits

Table 6.3.1 Classification of CAI

Table 6.3.2 Packer test results within the Flamborough Chalk

Table 6.3.3 Variable Head Test Results within the Flamborough Chalk

Table 6.3.4 Summary of HPD testing in Flamborough Chalk

Table 6.3.5 Summary of Results and Corresponding Modulus of Elasticity, E for Flamborough Chalk

Table 6.4.1 Packer Test Results within the Burnham Chalk

Table 6.4.2 Variable Head Test Results within Burnham Chalk

Table 6.4.3 Summary of HPD Testing in Burnham Chalk

Table 6.4.4 Summary of Results and Corresponding Modulus of Elasticity, E for Burnham Chalk

Table 6.5.1 Statistical Data for Key Determinands



Table 6.5.4 Leachate GAC Exceedances

Table 6.5.5 Summary of BRE SD1 Soil Chemical Test Results - Alluvium

Table 6.5.6 Summary of BRE SD1 Soil Chemical Test Results - Glacial

Table 6.5.7 Summary of BRE SD1 Soil Chemical Test Results - Chalk



v

Table 6.6.1 Soil Gas Statistics

Table 6.7.1a Groundwater Monitoring Results - Goxhill

Table 6.7.1b Groundwater Monitoring Results - Paull

Table 6.7.2 Field Permeability Values

Table 7.1.1 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory and In situ Testing



vi

List of Abbreviations

ACM Asbestos Contain Material

AGI Above Ground Installation

Alv Alluvial

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

BCk Burnham Chalk Formation

BGS British Geological Survey

BH Borehole

BRE Building Research Establishment

BS British Standard

BS EN British Standard European Norm

BT British Telecom

C4SL Category 4 Screening Levels

CAI Cerchar Abrasivity Index

CEGB Central Electric Generation Board

CE Clay of extremely high plasticity (wL>90%)

CH Clay of high plasticity (50%<wL<70%)

CI Clay of intermediate plasticity (35%<wL<50%)

CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information association

CL Clay of low plasticity (wL<35%)

CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment

CoC Contaminates of concern

CPT Cone Penetration Test

CWAC Controlled Water Acceptance Criteria

CV Clay of very high plasticity (70%<wl<90%)

DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DWS Drinking Water Standards

e Void Ratio

E Modulus of Elasticity

Eave Modulus of Elasticity average

Eur Modulus of Elasticity from unload reload loops

EA Environment Agency

EAC Environmental Assessment Criteria

ESG Environmental Scientifics Group

EQS Environmental Quality Standards

EU European Union

FCk Flamborough Chalk Formation

FFD Freshwater Fish Directive

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

G Shear modulus

Gi Initial Shear Modulus

Gur Shear Modulus from unload reload loop

GAC Generic Assessment Criteria

Gcl Glacial Deposits

GIR Ground Investigation Report

GPa Gigapascals



vii

GQRA Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment

H Head of Water

HPD High Pressure Dilatometer

IL Liquidity index

IP Plasticity index

Is(50) Point load Index normalised to an equivalent 50mm diameter sample

IBA Important Bird Area

JECFA Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives

k Permeability

kg Kilograms

kh Horizontal permeability

kv Vertical permeability

km kilometres

kN Kilonewton

kNm-3

Kilonewton per cubic metre

kPa Kilopascals or kN/m2

l Litres

m metres

m bgl metres below ground level

mcm/d million cubic metres per day

mm millimetres

ug/l microgram per litre

mg/l milligram per litre

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

m AOD metres above Ordnance Datum

m3 cubic metres

mv Coefficient of volume compressibility

ms Coefficient of volume expansibility

ME Silt of extremely high plasticity (wl>90%)

Mgm-3

Megagrams per cubic metre

MH Silt of high plasticity (50%<wl<70%)

MI Silt of intermediate plasticity (35%<wl<50%)

ML Silt of low plasticity (wl<35%)

MN Meganewton

MPA Mineral Planning Authority

MPa Megapascal

MV Silt of very high plasticity (70%<wl<90%)

N SPT N value or Newton

NG National Grid

NTS National Transmission System

OD Ordnance Datum

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

ppm Parts per million

PLT Pont Load Test

PTWI Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake

RAMSAR Wetlands of International Importance

qc Cone Resistance



viii

Q Flow rate

Rf CPT Friction Ratio

RQD Rock Quality Designation

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SCR Solid Core Recovery

SGV Soil Guidance Value

SMC Saturated moisture content

SOM Solid Organic Matter

SP Standpipe

SPA Special Protected Area

SPZ Source Protection Zone

SPT Standard Penetration Test

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

TCR Total Core Recovery

TP Trial Pit

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon

UCS Unconfined compressive strength

UU Unconsolidated Undrained

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometers

WAC Waste Acceptance Criteria

WFD Water Framework Directive

c' Apparent cohesion

cu Undrained shear strength

Bulk density

d Dry density

s Particle density

w Natural moisture content

wL Liquid limit

wP Plastic limit

' Friction angle

° Degrees oC Degrees Celsius

% Percentage

Poisson’s Ratio

Weight density



1

1. Executive Summary

The No. 9 Feeder National Transmission System (NTS) pipeline connects the above ground

installations (AGI’s) between Paull on the north bank of the Humber Estuary and Goxhill on the

southern bank. This 5 kilometer (km) long section of pipeline includes a 3 km crossing of the Humber

Estuary and provides a critical bulk transportation route for gas from the NTS entry points in East

Yorkshire into the wider transmission system in Lincolnshire.

Commissioned in 1984, the pipeline was laid in open trench along the Humber Estuary bed and

infilled. However, in 2010 it was found that sections of the pipeline were becoming exposed due to

erosion associated with strong tidal currents. This has required ongoing innovative remedial works in

the form of gravel filled bags and frond mattress protection. However, it is only considered a

relatively short term solution and consequently, it is proposed to construct a new replacement

pipeline mainly within tunnel with on-shore pipeline tie-ins and AGI modifications at Paull.

To facilitate the proposed works, numerous project surveys have been undertaken but most notably

a geophysical survey within the Humber Estuary in October / November 2013 and which informed

the design of the main Phase 1 Intrusive Ground Investigation. The Phase 1 site works were

completed in July 2014 and included land and marine exploratory holes and an extensive scope of

laboratory testing. At the time of writing, some laboratory testing is still ongoing and post site works

ground water monitoring continues.

This ground investigation report (GIR) reviews available information and characterises the lithology,

hydrology, hydrogeology and engineering properties of the various strata underlying the site. As

such, this report facilitates the choice of site specific ground models and geotechnical design

parameters pertinent to the proposed works. Residual hazards have also been discussed with the

need for further ground investigations identified where appropriate. This report has been written in

accordance with the requirements of BS EN 1997-1:2004 (+A1:2013), BS EN 1997-2:2007 with due

reference to National Grid document T/SP/CE/2.

The site is located at Goxhill, within the county of North Lincolnshire and crosses the Humber

Estuary into Paull within the county of East Riding in Yorkshire. Goxhill and Paull are both small

residential areas predominately surrounded by agricultural land. The actual site boundaries are

located outside the residential areas but are within agricultural land near National Grid AGI’s.

The Humber Estuary is an area of ecological importance and is an internationally designated

RAMSAR site; a European designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Special Protected

Area (SPA); a nationally designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an Important Bird

Area (IBA).

The River Humber is a busy and important shipping lane connecting the North Sea to the important

ports of Hull, Immingham and Grimsby. The main shipping channel is located to the east side of the

estuary. Within the area of interest, a large sand bank is located in the centre and to the west of the

river and has a transient morphology due to the high current flows and tidal influences. Tidal

variations in the order of 6.4 m are to be expected.



2

Historically, there has been little change in land use in the area other than recent extension works to

the Paull AGI, improvements in flood defence and development of the Paull Holm Strays Nature

Reserve and associated mudflats. Historical landfill sites are located at Paull proximate to the

proposed reception pit at Paull Cow Hill and Paull Holme Quarry. Information indicates these were

filled with construction and demolition waste, brick rubble, soils and hardcore. However, suspected

asbestos containing materials were confirmed in recent investigations at the site for the proposed

reception pit owned by Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd.

The site is underlain by a variable sequence of drift deposits comprising marine and estuarine

alluvium and/or glacial deposits, with thicknesses varying between 8.8 m to 13.8 m at Goxhill, 5.5 m

to 21.1 m across the Humber Estuary and 29.3 m to 34.0 m at Paull. Extended depths of alluvial

deposits up to 13.7 m were noted at Goxhill possibly associated with a former estuary alignment. At

Paull, localised depths of soft deposits in the order of 12 m were noted at the AGI with depths of soft

deposits reducing at the proposed location of the reception pit being replaced by more extensive

depths of granular deposits. The underlying bedrock is formed of the marl seam bearing

Flamborough Chalk Formation overlying the flint bearing Burnham Chalk Formation of the White

Chalk Subgroup. The Flamborough Chalk thins out to the west of the site to thicknesses of only 3 m.

The Flamborough and Burnham interface dips at approximately 1o so that on the Paull side, the

Burnham Chalk was not encountered at depths of up to 55 m. The upper 5 m to 10 m of chalk was

noted to be destructured and probably associated with periglacial effects during each ice age with

greater depths encountered at Goxhill.

The most significant hydrological feature at Paull is Thorngumbald Drain which is interconnected

with drains in the area that assist with land drainage. East Halton Beck is the main tributary entering

the Humber Estuary on the Goxhill side. Measured groundwater levels were near surface with

recorded values ranging from -0.45 m AOD to 1.83 m AOD at Paull and from -1.47 m AOD to 2.07 m

AOD at Goxhill.

The site is underlain by the principal aquifer in the White Chalk Subgroup with secondary aquifers

within the sand and gravel units of the Quaternary deposits.

The areas surrounding the Humber Estuary are identified by the Environment Agency as being at risk

of flooding in the case of a 1 in 200 year event. However, the areas of Goxhill and Paull both benefit

from flood defence systems which were installed within the past decade although part of the flood

protection was overtopped in December 2013 in response to an exceptional high tide resulting in

localised flooding at Goxhill.

Additional intrusive investigations are recommended to facilitate detailed design with the aim of

providing further geotechnical and geo-environmental information on the ground and groundwater

conditions. The scope includes areas of known data gaps following a review of available data and

feedback from findings from the recently completed Phase 1 ground investigation.

This Ground Investigation Report has been based on laboratory and field data received up to Friday

31st October 2014. As previously mentioned, the laboratory testing and in situ groundwater

monitoring is ongoing with the groundwater sampling just recently completed. As such, this report is



3

a live document and it is proposed to update and review in consideration of Client comments and

when additional laboratory and field data becomes available.



4

2. Introduction

2.1 Scope and Objective of Report

This Ground Investigation Report has been prepared for the Feeder 9 – River Humber Gas Pipeline

Replacement Project for National Grid (NG). The report has been written in general accordance with

the requirements of BS EN 1997-1:2004 (+A1:2013), BS EN 1997-2:2007 and with due reference to

National Grid document T/SP/CE/2.

The report has been written with the following objectives:

Summarise pertinent points considered relevant to the proposed works from the deskstudy;

Comment on the ground investigation works undertaken and the overall quality of the data

collected;

Describe the ground conditions to be encountered for the scheme;

Interpret the geological and geotechnical conditions along the proposed tunnel alignment,

including drive pit and reception pit and AGI tie-ins;

Provide appropriate information to facilitate the choice of ground model and geotechnical

design parameters required for design of pavements, foundations, earthworks, excavations,

pit and tunnelling as required;

Identify geotechnical risks and suggest suitable mitigation measures for each of the

identified geotechnical risks

This Ground Investigation Report includes a Geotechnical Risk Register associated with ground risk

on cost and programme along with any risk to health and safety of staff and the general public.

2.2 Description of project

The No. 9 Feeder National Transmission System (NTS) pipeline is one of the most critical pipelines on

the National Transmission System (NTS) transporting between 70 and 100 million cubic metres per

day (mcm/d) of gas from the NTS entry points in East Yorkshire into the wider transmission system in

Lincolnshire, through a crossing under the River Humber. However, in 2010 it was found that

sections of pipeline were becoming exposed due to erosion. A short to medium term solution was

put in place by installing fronded mattresses and gravel ‘dumpy’ bags to prevent further erosion but

due to the national importance of this pipeline, this is not considered an acceptable long term

solution.

National Grid proposes to replace the existing No. 9 Feeder NTS pipeline with a new pipeline in order

to safeguard supplies from future estuary erosion. The proposed solution will involve the

construction of a tunnel under the Humber Estuary with a drive pit to be located at Goxhill and a

reception pit at Paull; on-shore pipeline tie-ins between pits and AGI’s; and AGI modification at Paull.

The location of the site and the study area is shown in Figure 2.2.1 below.



5

Figure 2.2.1 Site Location Plan

2.3 Geotechnical Category of Project

In accordance with BS EN 1997-1:2004 (+A1:2013), the proposed works have been classified as a

Category 2 design as the proposed design includes conventional types of structures and foundations

with no exceptional risk or difficult ground or loading conditions. The Geotechnical Category of the

project requires reviewing throughout the project and on the receipt of any additional information.

2.4 Other Relevant Information

For information on historical ground investigations, environmental setting and the history of the site,

reference should be made to the Desk Study report (Capita, 2014 a).

The laboratory testing and in situ ground water monitoring are ongoing and this revision of the

Ground Investigation Report has been based on laboratory and field data received up to Friday 31st

October 2014. Additional laboratory and field monitoring data will become available subsequent to

the issue of this report. However, this report is a live document and it is proposed to update and

review in consideration of Client comments and when additional laboratory and field data becomes

available.

Paull

Goxhill

Approximate Location of Pipeline



6

3. Existing Information

A range of existing information has been reviewed as part of the Feeder 9 River Humber Gas Pipeline

Replacement Project and a full description of the findings are provided in the Desk Study Report. The

following sections summarise the main points considered pertinent to the project and reference

should be made to the Desk Study Report for more detailed discussions.

3.1 Site Description

The site starts in Goxhill, within North Lincolnshire, and crosses the River Humber into Paull, East

Riding of Yorkshire. The site is located approximately 5 km south of Hull and 15 km downstream of

the Humber Bridge.

The Goxhill area comprises mainly open fields and is bounded to the west by Horsegate Field Road

and Ruard Road to the north. Chapel Field Road coming from the south provides an access route to

the centre of the site.

The site then leads on in a north-easterly direction across the Humber Estuary for approximately 2.6

km to the marshland area of Paull.

The site area at Paull consists of farmland and fields, scattered with a few industrial sites. The Paull

site includes an area occupied by National Grid’s Paull AGI site, Paull Holme Strays Nature Reserve

and Fort Paull, which is located just off the River Humber to the north-west. St Andrew’s Church is

located 300 m north-east of this location. The residential area of the town of Paull is located on the

north-west side of the site.

3.2 Topography and Geomorphology

The site and the surrounding area are generally flat. Ground levels at Paull are around 2 m AOD with

a few small isolated hills reaching elevations of 15 m AOD. Ground levels at the Goxhill site are also

generally flat around 2 m AOD.

The Humber Estuary formed when pre-existing valleys were flooded at the end of the last glaciation.

It has a significant tidal range, amplified as the tide propagates up the estuary, producing a mean

spring tidal range of 5.7 m at Spurn Head, 7.4 m at Saltend and 6.9 m at Hessle 45 km inland.

Turbidity in the River Humber and estuary mainly derives from suspended sediment from the

eroding boulder clay cliffs along the Holderness coast, but also from riverine sediments. Deposition

of these sediments maintains the estuary's important mudflats, sandflats and saltmarsh habitats.

The tidal range moves substantial quantities of sediment over time, contributing to erosion of the

river bed resulting in the existing National Grid pipeline in parts becoming exposed and requiring

remedial works.

The landward geomorphology of the site is determined by the low-lying topography and drift

geology. On both sides of the estuary, the intertidal land below 5 m AOD comprises flat, estuarine

mudflats and marshland, underlain by alluvium. On the Paull side, the site of Fort Paull Battery is

located on an outcrop of Kelsey Hill gravels, rising to a height of approximately 12 m AOD.



7

3.3 Published Geology

The site lies within the Humber district which includes the Humber Estuary with most of the district

within the low-lying coastal plain. The main bedrock is the Northern Province Chalk which dips gently

towards the east at approximately 1°. The main outcrop of chalk is to the west of the site which

forms the Lincolnshire Wolds. The bedrock is largely concealed by Quaternary glacial deposits and in

areas surrounding the River Humber, additional superficial deposits associated with the river conceal

the glacial deposits.

The British Geological Survey (BGS) map and memoir for Patrington shows that the site area is

underlain by a variable sequence of drift deposits comprising alluvium, estuarine and beach deposits

and glacial deposits. These are underlain by solid deposits of Flamborough and Burnham Chalk

Formations. The generalised geological succession at the site from the memoir and map is presented

in Table 3.3.1.

Table 3.3.1 Generalised Geological Succession for Site Area

Age Geology Description

Quaternary

Made Ground Variable composition. Man-made superficial deposit

Alluvium Normally soft to firm consolidated, compressible silty clay, but can

contain layers of silt, sand, peat and basal gravel.

Tidal Flat Deposits Normally consolidated soft silty clay, with layers of sand, gravel and

peat.

Beach And Tidal Flat Deposits

(undifferentiated)

Shingle, sand, silt and clay; may be bedded or chaotic; beach deposits

may be in the form of dunes, sheets or banks, and 'Tidal Flat Deposits':

commonly silt and clay with sand and gravel layers; possible peat

layers; from the tidal zone.

Kelsey Hill Gravels (beds) Muddy sand and gravel with subordinate smooth red-brown clay.

Glacial Till Outwash sand and gravel deposits from seasonal and post glacial

meltwaters.

Cretaceous

Flamborough Chalk

Formation

White, well-bedded, flint-free chalk with common marl seams.

Common stylolitic surfaces and pyrite nodules.

Burnham Chalk Formation White, thinly-bedded chalk with common tabular and discontinuous

flint bands; sporadic marl seams.

The special reports produced by the BGS (2006 a and b) in relation to the chalk aquifers in Yorkshire

and Lincolnshire identifies that the chalk has undergone cyclic periods of glacial and interglacial

periods. This has caused significant erosion and weathering to the chalk in relation to periglacial

processes, mainly cryoturbation and solifluction forming fragmentation of the chalk matrix and a

vuggy1 porosity. These processes would have occurred during each ice age so the weathered layer of

chalk cannot be attributed to one specific event.

1 Porosity generated by dissolution of features.



8

The BGS memoir also discusses the Kirmington Buried Channel, a 2 km wide and up to 50 m deep

channel carved into the chalk bedrock traversing from Brocklesby to Immingham just south of the

site and thought to have been formed during the Anglian Ice Age. The channel is thought to have

formed during a catastrophic but localised escapement of melt water which was under huge

hydrostatic pressures near the periphery of an ice sheet. With a feature of this size the surrounding

chalk bedrock is likely to have undergone significant erosion and weathering during this event

alongside the normal periglacial weathering associated with the close proximity of the ice sheet.

In addition, the memoir notes that the lower glacial deposits from the Anglian Ice Age have been

affected by periglacial effects from proceeding ice ages and later paleogenesis.

3.4 Hydrology

A number of small and large water courses and tributaries connect with the River Humber, the

Humber Estuary and the mouth of the Humber along its course in the study area.

The most significant hydrological feature within the Paull site is a small tributary located to the south

of Fort Paull battlements and identified as the Thorngumbald Drain. This is interconnected with

numerous drains that assist in the management of water levels in the low lying areas. These drains

include the Haylands Drain, Green’s Drain, South Ends and Thorney Crofts Drain, the Pant Drain and

numerous unnamed field drains.

The East Halton Beck is the main tributary entering the River Humber on the Goxhill side that rises

north of Keelby and flows northwards into the East Halton Skitter, south of the Goxhill site. In areas

such as the Lincolnshire Wolds where there is little cover from superficial deposits, many of the

water courses have a groundwater fed baseflow. The water courses within the low permeability

superficial deposits are usually formed and fed by surface water runoff and infiltration rates are very

low within the cohesive materials. Over much of the low lying areas, including reclaimed marshes,

the water levels in the drains and tributaries are managed by sluice gates and weirs.

The desk study identified one active licensed surface water abstraction within the study area from a

tributary of the Carr Gutter.

3.5 Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of the area includes the principal aquifer in the Northern Province Chalk with

secondary aquifers within the sand and gravel units of the Quaternary deposits. From the desk study

and review of previous reports, it is undetermined whether the near-surface secondary aquifer units

are in hydraulic continuity with the chalk aquifer due to the presence of low permeability units

within the glacial till deposits and other low permeability horizons within the Quaternary deposits.

Localised shallow perched groundwater may also be present above low permeability layers within

the Quaternary glacial till, gravels, beach, tidal flat and alluvium deposits and within any made

ground that may be present.

Groundwater levels within the chalk and near surface Quaternary deposits are a function of several

factors including the recharge volumes and areas; the rate of groundwater movement and storage



9

volumes within the aquifer units; springs and outflows from the aquifer; the potential for hydraulic

interaction between the aquifer units where present; the volumes abstracted and localised

depression of the water table in response to present day abstraction and localised impact of

rebound from historic over abstraction.

The Environment Agency (EA) classifies the chalk as a principal aquifer and the productive

Quaternary strata as secondary aquifers

The Goxhill and Paull sites are not within any Source Protection Zone (SPZ). The nearest SPZ is a Zone

3 designation located over 2.4 km south-west from the Goxhill site boundary and approximately 3.6

km south-south-west from the position of the drive pit at Goxhill. The nearest SPZ Zone 2 boundary

is 4.1 km to the south-south-west from the Goxhill drive pit and approximately 3.0 km to the south

of the Goxhill site boundary. The nearest SPZ Zone 1 boundary is 4.6 km south-south-west from the

Goxhill drive pit and over 3.5 km south of the Goxhill site boundary. The nearest SPZ to the Paull site

is over 10 km to the west-north-west.

The Grimsby Ancholme Louth Chalk Unit (EA Waterbody ID GB40401G401500 including Goxhill) has

a current and 2015 predicted quantitative quality and the chemical quality status designated by the

EA as “Poor” with an upward chemical trend with an overall risk as “At Risk”.

The Hull and East Riding Chalk Unit (EA Waterbody ID GB 40401G700700 including the Paull site) has

a current and 2015 predicted quantitative quality and chemical quality designated by the EA as

“Poor” with an upward chemical trend with an overall risk designated as “At Risk”.

Groundwater Levels Regional groundwater flow tends to follow the dip of the chalk strata i.e. towards the North Sea

coast in a north-east direction. The groundwater level in the chalk aquifer is understood to vary

seasonally in response to rainfall and surface water infiltration recharge.

The majority of recorded historic borehole water strikes are in the alluvium. For boreholes in the

Paull site area, measurements of groundwater levels range from -0.45 m AOD to 1.83 m AOD over

the period 24 April 2014 to 22 October 2014. On the Goxhill side of the site, the groundwater levels

range from -1.47 m AOD to 2.07 m AOD over the same period. This demonstrates that groundwater

levels are generally shallow, with deeper water levels observed at Goxhill when compared with

Paull. There are a number of influencing factors to explain these observations (See Section 6.6).

Groundwater Abstractions Ten groundwater abstractions were identified in the desk study in the vicinity of the study area with

the respective licenses appearing to be active.

Historically induced saline intrusion in response to over abstraction within the aquifers surrounding

the River Humber (although not close to the Goxhill and Paull sites) has led to a progressive lowering

of the chalk groundwater level. More recent reductions in licensed groundwater abstractions have

helped alleviate the saline intrusion; although once common, artesian groundwater levels are rare.

This historic over abstraction of the chalk aquifer may have led to saline intrusions into the

secondary and principal aquifers along some coastal and estuarine areas of the Humber Estuary and



10

surrounding area. Sustained abstraction may have also reduced or removed artesian groundwater

conditions both within the site and the surrounding areas.

Groundwater Flooding The Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment completed by Hyder (2014) identifies that the surface water and

some groundwater levels at both Paull and Goxhill are controlled by a series of drainage ditches and

outflows to small streams and rivers discharging directly to the Humber. This flood risk assessment

shows that the risk of groundwater flooding of above ground construction infrastructure should only

be expected as a result of hydraulic continuity of groundwater in the alluvium and glacial deposits

with the land drains. These drains would only likely be a source of fluvial flood risk in times of

sustained high water levels within the drains and water levels in the interconnected stream, rivers

and Humber Estuary. The risk from groundwater flooding is regarded as low and would be far

outweighed by the risk of direct fluvial flooding from the drains and the estuary.

On the basis of geological outcrops, surface water drainage is expected to affect near surface and

perched water table levels in the superficial deposits rather than groundwater levels in the chalk

aquifer at depth.

3.6 Contaminated Land

The desk study report included a review of environmental records and historic land uses to identify

evidence from contaminative activities on site or in the surrounding area. Due to the size of the

study area, the Envirocheck report is sub-divided and reviewed into 11 slices, Slice A to Slice K (See

Figure 3.6.1). A summary of the key areas of interest within the study area are provided in Tables

3.6.1 and 3.6.2 below.

Figure 3.6.1 Envirocheck Report Slices



11

Table 3.6.1 Summary of Historic Land Uses

Slice Key Development Changes

A This area has comprised agricultural fields with isolated farm buildings since c.1886 with

very little change to the present.

B This area has comprised agricultural fields with isolated farm buildings, Skitter Road, and a

Coastguard Station since c.1886, with very little change to the present apart from the

disappearance of the Coastguard Station between 2006 and 2013.

C This area is largely occupied by the Humber Estuary with no change in land use from

estuary foreshore between 1855 and 2013.

D This area is largely occupied by the Humber Estuary with no change in land use from

estuary foreshore between 1855 and 2013.

E The area has comprised agricultural fields and marshland, with isolated properties and farm

buildings since c.1886 with very little change to the present.

F This area has comprised agricultural fields and marshland, with isolated properties

including Low Risby House and 2 brick yards since c.1887. Three isolated wind pumps

appear c.1956. In c.2006 Low Risby House has expanded and two pumping stations have

appeared.

G This area has comprised the Humber Estuary and agricultural fields adjacent to the estuary

foreshore since c.1855. A storage tank appeared in c.1910. Embankment type structures

(presumed to be quarry benches) appear in c.1951. “Ball Pigging Compound” appears

c.1971 which subsequently changes to “Gas Valve Compound” in c.1971.

H This area has comprised agricultural fields, with isolated properties and farms and Paull

Holm Tower since c.1855 and has remained largely unchanged to the present. A small

unlabelled pit appears c.1947 and disappears c.1993.

I This area is almost entirely occupied by the Humber Estuary

J This area has comprised agricultural fields, with isolated properties and farms since c.1855.

A small sand pit appears c.1910 and disappears c.1956. A small sewage works appears

c.1971. A transport depot appears c.2006 in the far south.

K This area has comprised agricultural fields to the west of Thorngumbald village since c.1855

with very little change to the present.

Table 3.6.2 Summary of Environmental Records Review

Key Area Of Interest Slice Relevant Information

Groundwater Abstractions A, E, F,

G

10 groundwater abstractions in total across the study

area generally for forming/agricultural and domestic

purposes.

Discharge consents E, F, G,

H, J

25 discharge consents in total across the study area

generally for the discharge of sewage into land/soak



12

Key Area Of Interest Slice Relevant Information

away/dyke and trade effluent to an unknown tributary.

Pollution Incidents F, H, I 4 pollution incidents to controlled waters in total across

the study area involving category 3 and 2 incidents of

unknown sewage and unknown oils.

Historic Landfill Sites G One historic landfill site within the study area was

registered to W J Johnson Esquire for the deposition of

waste including inert between 1978 and 1983.

Licensed Waste Management

Sites

G, H 2 licensed waste management sites within the study area

both located on Thorngumbald Road. One is registered to

Paul Holme Quarry (issued in 1997) and the other to an

unknown (issued in 1977 – referenced as Paul Cow Hill in

correspondence with East Riding of Yorkshire Council -

see Section 3.7), both for the landfill of non-

biodegradable wastes. North Lincolnshire Unitary Council

does not hold any data with regards to Local Authority

Landfill within the study area

Environmental Sensitivity The Humber Estuary is an area of ecological importance and is an internationally designated

RAMSAR site, a European designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Special Protected

Area (SPA), and a nationally designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an Important Bird

Area (IBA).

Previous Reports2 A review was undertaken of a factual site investigation report by Wardell Armstrong (2014)

concerning a trial pit investigation at the Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd. property3 at Paull (Slice

G). The works were undertaken as a result of suspected asbestos containing material (ACM)

identified during site walkover in March 2014 (See Section 4.7). Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd.

carried out the trial pitting and it was observed by Wardell Armstrong on behalf of National Grid.

The report refers to 13 trial pits which were excavated to between 2.9m and 4.0m depths and

spread out on a grid basis over the land. The logs enclosed in the report show made ground of

thicknesses between 0.2m and 0.7m to be present at all locations with the exception of TP3, TP8 and

TP13 (where topsoil was present).

2 A recent ground investigation was carried out by White Young Green at Paull Holme Strays. A Ground Investigation

Report has just been received although we are yet to receive the associated factual report. Findings will be incorporated

in a later revision of this GIR.

3 The field owned by Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd. will be identified as “Stoneledge” for ease of reference.



13

The made ground horizon was described as comprising brick rubble with occasional sand, fabric,

metal fragments, ash, clinker and at least one sample of asbestos cement material (TP11). Below the

made ground, the natural strata comprises firm brown, then soft blue grey clays. Groundwater

seepages were observed. Preliminary bulk analysis verified the presence of asbestos.

3.7 Information from Statutory Authorities

As part of the 2007 draft Environmental Statement assessment for the pipeline route, a consultation

response was received from East Riding of Yorkshire Council in relation to a request for information

concerning minerals and waste sites within the search area of the proposed route. With regard to

minerals sites, the consultation response revealed that the Council held:

No details of any past underground or surface mining/quarrying within the pipeline corridor

No current permissions or applications for mineral working within the pipeline corridor

No representations made to the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) in respect of land within

the pipeline corridor

No Allocated Sites or Areas of Search within the pipeline corridor, or sites previously

rejected or not brought forward.

The proposed location for the reception pit at Paull is in close proximity to mapped4 “recorded

landfill sites”. East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s consultation response revealed that the Council

held:

One possible landfill site and two known closed landfill sites.

The possible landfill site is a former gravel quarry located several hundred meters to the east

and dating from approximately 1886. Nothing is known about whether or not this former

quarry has been filled or the nature of the fill (if any).

The two known landfill sites are identified as Paull-Cow Hill (northern site) and Paul Holme

Quarry (southern site). Very little is known about these sites but the Council does have

information provided by the Environment Agency which indicates they were filled with

construction and demolition waste, brick rubble, soils and hardcore.

No investigations have taken place at any of the sites identified in this search therefore the

Council can neither confirm nor deny the presence of contamination.

Further details and information on statutory authorities can be found in the Desk Study report.

The Mineral Safe Guarding report indicates the presence of sand and gravel prospects within the site

at Paull. Theses sand and gravel deposits are likely Kelsey Hill glacial deposits. Although the statutory

authorities’ response indicates there has been no mineral extraction or current applications for

mineral extraction of these deposits, the guarded areas fall under the Councils Mineral and Waste

Resource Plan so will need permission from the MPA for extraction.

4 According to the Envirocheck Report



14

3.8 Flood Records

A review of the available flood record on the EA website indicates that both the Goxhill and Paull

areas fall within the Flood Level 3 category. This is summarised as:

“An area that could be affected by flooding, either from rivers or the sea, if there were no flood defences. This area could be flooded:

from the sea by a flood that has a 0.5 per cent (1 in 200) or greater chance of happening each year;

or from a river by a flood that has a 1 per cent (1 in 100) or greater chance of happening each year.”

It is noted that both areas benefit from flood protection measures which are earthwork or rock

bunds. The map indicates that these defences have been constructed within the last decade or so

and may incorporate old flood defences for smaller flood events. Part of the flood protection wall

was over-topped by river/sea water on 5th December 2013 in response to high tide. This was not a

breach of the flood defences, although the over-topping of the wall led to localised flooding of fields

to a depth of 200 mm to 300 mm beyond Goxhill AGI and East Marsh Road. Further details of

flooding in an area by area basis can be found within the desk study report.

Management of flood risk from the Humber forms part of a long-term strategy. The EA’s Humber

Flood Risk Management Strategy details ongoing and completed work. This includes the managed

realignment at Paull Holme Strays in 2003, comprising the construction of a new defence inland of

the existing defence and then breaching of the original defence in two places so the land between

the defences is flooded on most tides. The new reinforced grassed bank includes 20,000 tonnes of

rock armour and concrete block protection. An equivalent project is proposed for Goxhill in the

future.

3.9 Archaeological Investigations

Archaeological sites are known in the area and have been considered in earlier feasibility studies.

Further details on the archaeological Investigations undertaken for the scheme are found in the

report produced by AMEC (2007). Archaeological investigations undertaken as part of this phase of

works would be undertaken by Hyder under the environmental aspects of the scheme.

3.10 Historical Ground Investigations

A number of historical ground investigations or borehole logs were available for review. Only the

more recent investigations contain usable data / information as most of the reports received were

either incomplete or missing key information. From the usable information provided by National

Grid or collected from the British Geological Survey, a summary of the lab testing results can be

found in Table 3.10.1.



15

Table 3.10.1 Summary of Historical Ground Investigation Data

Test Type

Strata Type

Superficial Deposits1

Chalk Made Ground Alluvium Peat

Glacial Deposits

SPT N value(2)

1 to 4 (2.5) 0 to 65 (5.6) - 1 to 98 (24.9) 40 to 105 (54)

[2] [75] [90] [26]

pH 8 to 9 (8.36) 6.7 to 9 (8.0) 4.9 (4.9) 6.7 to 8.9 (8.27) 6.7 to 8.9 (7.8)

[11] [28] [1] [24] [2]

Water Soluble Sulphate SO4

(mg/l)

0.03 to 0.32 (0.1) 0.01 to 2.3

(0.41) 1.2 (1.2) 0.01 to 1.8 (0.25) -

[7] [29] [1] [21]

Natural Moisture

Content (%)

20 to 39 (28.8) 9 to 170 (44.9) - 9 to 240 (27.9) 12 to 22 (15.8)

[5] [76] [74] [17]

Plastic Limit (%)

23 to 63 (30.1) 14 to 94 (27.3) 49 to 94 (69.4) 11 to 99 (23.1) -

[7] [43] [5] [33]

Liquid Limit (%)

48 to 198 (76.9) 29 to 220

(62.7) 100 to 220

(185.2) 17 to 254 (52.7) -

[7] [43] [5] [33]

Plasticity Index (%)

25 to 135 (46.7) 13 to 129

(35.4) 51 to 138 (116.2) 3 to 155 (29.5) -

[7] [43] [5] [33]

Bulk Density (Mg/m

3)

- 1.48 to 2.12

(1.8) - 2.12 to 2.35 (2.18)

2.08 to 2.27 (2.16)

[15] [7] [16]

Dry Density (Mg/m

3)

- 0.75 to 1.8

(1.27) - 1.61 to 1.87 (1.75)

1.78 to 2.02 (1.87)

[12] [8] [16]

Particle Density (Mg/m

3)

- 2.29 to 2.66

(2.48) - 2.57 to 2.88 (2.71) -

[3] [3]

Undrained Shear

Strength cu (kPa)

- 5 to 57 (19.2) - 44 to 176 (93) -

[12] [7]

Unconfined Compressive

Strength

(MPa)

- - - - 2.7 to 8.7 (6.4)

[9]

Tensile Strength

(MPa)

- - - - 0.5 to 3.5 (2.3)

[7]

1. This includes the range, average () and number of test results [].

2. SPT Standard Penetration Test



16

3.11 Mining Instability and Natural Underground Cavities

A review of the coal authority report provided indicates that the risk from mining instability within

the site is minimal.

3.12 Records of Seismic Activity

An initial screening process concluded there was no significant regional seismic hazard, unfavourable

ground conditions or unfavourable structural features due to seismicity. It is therefore considered

that the structural design will not need to consider seismic design although the project specific

seismic design requirements will need to be guided by National Grid.

3.13 Aerial Photographs

Fifteen aerial photographs provided by National Grid were reviewed to identify features with geotechnical or geological issues. To the limit of detail provided on the photos, no obvious areas of geotechnical or geological issues are evident.



17

4. Field and Laboratory Studies

A number of field and laboratory studies were undertaken to gather information to inform the

design of the proposed gas pipeline. Details of these studies are described below.

4.1 Walkover Survey

Walkover surveys at Goxhill and Paull were undertaken as a series of visits during September and

October 2013. Details of the existing structures, ground conditions and site access were assessed

and any associated risk within the areas identified. Further walkovers were undertaken during

February and March 2014 with the Ground Investigation Contractors representative to discuss

access, constraints and methods of ground investigation. Further details of the findings of the

walkover surveys can be found in the Desk Study Report.

The site walkovers identified that outside of the AGI’s, the area of interest at Paull and Goxhill are

formed mostly of agricultural fields or overgrown areas of open space or mudflats with some

isolated properties. At Paull, the fields were ploughed during the site visits and appeared well

drained other than at the access points. Later in the year during the Phase 1 ground investigation,

the fields contained cereal crops. An area of overgrown hard standing owned by Stoneledge Plant

and Transport Ltd, was noted to contain construction rubble with suspected asbestos tiles requiring

further investigation. The area to the west of the AGI was protected by large flood defences

associated with the managed realignment at Paull Holme Strays and associated mudflats. Just south

of the Paull AGI was the EA car park and wildlife sanctuary. Thorngumbald drain was located north of

the AGI.

At Goxhill the fields were ploughed during the site visits and appeared well drained other than at the

access points and a few isolated areas near the river defence bank. During the walkover in February

2014, it was noted that a section of the river defence bank had failed during recent flooding. Later in

the year it was noted the fields contained cereal crops and beans. The area to the estuary side of the

flood defence bank was largely over grown. Small tributaries indicate that the mudflats do flood, but

not enough to impact on the vegetation.

4.2 Topographical Survey

A topographical survey of the two land based areas, Goxhill and Paull were undertaken using spot

heights in late 2013. The current topographical plans complied from this survey can be found in

Appendix 4 of the Desk Study Report.

During the topographical survey nothing unusual or unexpected was identified. The survey

confirmed the flat low lying land around Goxhill with the river defence bank along the edge of the

river. At Paull, it confirmed the river defence bank with the low lying flat fields with a slight incline to

the south of the site due to a small hill though to be formed of gravel deposits.



18

4.3 Service Search

A service search was under taken by 40Seven Ltd for the entire site area (See Appendix 6 of the

deskstudy). A number of services were found within the site boundary both onshore and offshore

which include:

Gas

Pipes (unidentified)

Overhead Electricity

British Telecom

Water

Underground Electricity

Pipes (unidentified)

Centrica Pipe

Foul Drainage

The service search at Paull identified the Centrica, Feeder 9 and Feeder 24 gas pipelines crossing the

proposed pipeline route. In addition, BT Cables and water services run along Thorngumbald.

The service search at Goxhill identified the presence of the Feeder 1 and Feeder 9 pipelines crossing

the proposed pipeline route with a BT cable near the river defence bank. The service plans do not

account for field drainage which is known to be present.

The service search across the River Humber indicates that the Centrica and Feeder 9 gas pipelines

are the only services the proposed pipeline route crosses.

4.4 Geophysical Surveys

During the early stages of the project, overwater geophysical surveys were undertaken to help

inform the ground investigation design. The works were split into two phases as follows;

Phase 1 Survey

The Phase 1 geophysical survey was undertaken between 21st October 2013 and 18th November

2013 by Environmental Scientifics Group (ESG). The main aims of the survey were to provide

information on the following:

Information on seabed bathymetry

To identify seabed features and obstructions

Details on sub-bottom geology as part of the pre-engineering survey

The works were completed by undertaking a number of survey techniques to inform the later

interpretation undertaken by ESG and included:

Swathe Bathymetric Survey

Single Beam Bathymetric Survey

Side Scan Sonar Survey



19

Magnetometer Survey

Multichannel Seismic Reflection Survey (Bubble Pulsar)

Single Channel Seismic Reflection Survey (Pinger Uniboom)

Full details of the works undertaken and the results from the surveys alongside ESG’s interpretation

of geological boundaries and seabed features can be found in ESG report (2014 a).

The Phase 1 geophysics work established a detailed topography of the river bed which showed a

series of channels and bars within the river, with the main channel located on the eastern side of the

river. Areas of steep sided platforms and gullies were noted within the main shipping channel. The

survey also identified the presence of gas pipelines along the river bed including the areas of erosion

and remediation. No faulting or significant scour features were noted although a buried channel

probably associated with the previous river alignment was noted to the east of the survey area.

In addition it was possible to establish the predominant grain size of the river bed material and as

would be expected the grading size increased in the areas of high energy, with the finer materials in

the areas of low energy, usually close to the river banks or top of the bars. The magnetic survey

identified several magnetic anomalies within the survey area although the exact nature was not

established at the time.

The single channel and multichannel surveys identified the top of chalk rock head and in some areas

the boundaries between alluvial and glacial deposits and was used to inform the ground

investigation design. However, it should be noted that after completion of the Phase 1 intrusive

survey (See Section 4.5), the actual verified boundaries were not in agreement with the interpreted

geophysical data.

Phase 2 Survey

Following completion of the Phase 1 geophysical survey, the preferred route alignment option was

selected and the intrusive ground investigation scoped. The site had been designated as a high risk

area for Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) due to the number of air strikes during the war at the

harbours and battlements in the surrounding area. The UXO risk assessment ascertained the need

for mitigation measures, with the marine works requiring clearance for both the borehole location

and the jack up rig footprint. It was decided to undertake localised and detail surveys of each

borehole location in the form of a 50 m x 50 m box to allow some scope to move the boreholes

should an anomaly be encountered. Where anomalies were located preventing a safe positioning,

the survey box would be extended.

The Phase 2 survey commenced on the 10th February 2014 and was completed on the 20th February

2014. A total of 23 survey “boxes” were completed using:

Swathe Bathymetric Survey

Single Beam Bathymetric Survey

Side Scan Sonar Survey

Magnetometer Survey



20

A 10 m spacing between each survey line was adopted to ensure good coverage of the estuary bed.

A full summary of the works undertaken and the results from the survey alongside ESG’s

interpretation of magnetic features can be found in the ESG report (2014 b)

The Phase 2 geophysical works identified 43 metallic anomalies on the river bed within the areas of

the proposed jack up locations. The exact nature of the metallic objects was not established, but

exploratory holes were repositioned to ensure either the drilling string or jack up platform legs

would come within close proximity to any anomalies identified due to the risk of UXO.5

4.5 Ground Investigations

The Phase 16 intrusive ground investigation was undertaken by Soil Engineering Geoservices Ltd.

over 12 weeks with both the land and marine works running concurrently. The land works

commenced in late April 2014 during normal day working hours Monday to Friday. The marine works

begun 1 week later into the programme with 24 hour working including weekends and was

completed in 4.5 weeks. The land works were completed in mid-July. The as built borehole locations

areas are shown on drawings H160/BH/04/01/F9/102 (Sheets 1 to 3).

The completed land works consisted of 12 boreholes, 25 cone penetration tests (CPT) and 5 Trial

Pits. The Marine works consisted of 16 boreholes. All the boreholes drilled, with the exception of

L08, were constructed by cable percussive techniques with rotary used as a follow-on technique. L08

was constructed by cable percussive techniques only. In L16, blowing sands was noted during rotary

drilling resulting in a repositioning and redrilling of the borehole (L16A). A full summary of the cable

percussive and rotary drilling depths can be found in Table 4.51 and 4.5.2 split by land and marine

works. Depths are reported as metres below ground level (m bgl).

Table 4.5.1 Summary of Drilling Details and Installations for Land Boreholes

Hole Ref

Date Drilled (Start/Finish)

Hole Depth (m bgl)

Exploratory Hole Type

SPT Testing Monitoring Installations

Cable Percussive

(m bgl)

Rotary (m bgl)

From (m bgl)

To (m bgl)

No. Response

Zone (m bgl) Type

1 Strata

2

L01 23/04/14

09/05/14 27.90 12.00 27.90 2.00 17.60 7 9.30 to 12.30 SP FCk

5 Due to the proximity of proposed overwater boreholes to the existing Feeder 9 and Centrica gas pipelines, it was

important to establish a safe working distance to allow the overwater jack-up operations to progress safely. A desk based

study (CS-064298-F9-RPT-006 Establishing a Safe Working Distance for Undertaking Overwater Jack-up Operations

Proximate to Gas Pipeline Assets. Capita (2014)) was undertaken that assessed current industry practice and a qualitative

risk assessment was carried out to establish what was considered a conservative exclusion zone within which no jack-up

barge would encroach.

6 The Phase 1 Ground Investigation will be referred to as “Phase 1” for ease of reference and not to be confused with the

Phase 1 geophysical survey. The factual report (Soil Engineering Geoservices Ltd. (2014)) is currently in draft format

awaiting completion of laboratory testing and final commenting.



21

Hole Ref

Date Drilled (Start/Finish)

Hole Depth (m bgl)

Exploratory Hole Type

SPT Testing Monitoring Installations

Cable Percussive

(m bgl)

Rotary (m bgl)

From (m bgl)

To (m bgl)

No. Response

Zone (m bgl) Type

1 Strata

2

L02 24/04/14

15/05/14 28.00 12.40 28.00 2.00 11.50 5

1.00 to 5.00 SP Gcl3

21.00 to 24.00 SP BCk

L03 24/04/14

20/06/14 47.00 12.50 47.00 2.00 25.00 11

9.5 to 11.5 VWP Gcl / BCk

34.00 to 36.00 VWP BCk

L04 01/05/14

16/06/14 28.50 17.00 28.50 2.20 22.00 11

5.00 to 11.50 SP Alv

18.50 to 23.50 SP BCk

L05 28/04/14

03/06/14 31.80 19.00 31.80 2.00 18.50 9

6.50 to 8.00 VWP Alv

18.60 to 20.00 VWP BCk

L06 01/05/14

19/06/14 37.35 20.00 37.35 2.00 19.65 9

5.00 to 8.00 SP Alv

20.00 to 25.00 SP BCk

L08 01/05/14

21/05/14 15.00 15.00 - 2.20 12.50 5 3.00 to 6.00 SP Alv / Gcl

L14 30/04/14

03/06/14 53.50 36.00 53.50 3.20 35.50 13

9.70 to 12.70 SP Gcl

39.00 to 45.00 SP FCk

L15 30/04/14

26/06/14 50.00 34.00 50.00 2.50 33.50 20

2.20 to 5.20 SP Gcl

27.00 to 30.00 SP Gcl

L16 30/04/14

15/05/14 16.00 15.00 16.00 2.20 13.50 6 - - -

L16a 19/05/14

20/06/14 50.20 234.00 50.20 16.50 34.00 11

9.50 to 11.00 VWP Gcl

39.00 to 41.00 VWP FCk

L18 24/06/14

03/07/14 54.80 34.50 53.80 1.50 34.00 16

9.80 to 10.80 SP Gcl

17.50 to 19.50 SP Gcl

36.00 to 42.00 SP FCk

1. SP Standpipe; VWP Vibrating wire piezometer.

2. Alv Alluvial; Gcl Glacial Deposits; FCk Flamborough Chalk; BCk Burnham Chalk.

3 The material is likely to be alluvial in origin. See Section 5 for further discussion.

Table 4.5.2 Summary of Drilling Details for Marine Boreholes

Hole Ref Date Drilled

(Start/Finish) Hole Depth

(m bgl)

Exploratory Hole Type SPT Testing

Cable Percussive

(m bgl)

Rotary (m bgl)

From (m bgl)

To (m bgl)

No.

M01 15/05/14

17/05/14 36.70 19.00 36.70 1.20 18.50 14

M02 01/05/14

04/05/14 44.00 9.50 44.00 1.20 20.20 8

M03 11/05/14

15/05/14 49.50 18.60 49.50 1.20 17.00 13

M04 05/05/14

08/05/14 42.15 25.10 42.15 1.00 24.00 17

M05 17/05/14

19/05/14 42.00 21.00 42.00 1.20 19.50 15

M06 08/05/14 50.30 14.70 50.30 1.20 14.00 10



22

Hole Ref Date Drilled

(Start/Finish) Hole Depth

(m bgl)

Exploratory Hole Type SPT Testing

Cable Percussive

(m bgl)

Rotary (m bgl)

From (m bgl)

To (m bgl)

No.

10/05/14

M07 10/05/14

12/05/14 42.45 16.80 42.45 1.00 16.50 12

M08 12/05/14

14/05/14 40.00 18.00 40.00 1.00 17.50 14

M09 03/05/14

06/05/14 41.10 17.40 41.10 1.00 17.00 11

M10 06/05/14

09/05/14 38.15 15.50 38.15 1.00 15.00 12

M11 19/05/14

22/05/14 45.50 12.80 45.50 2.00 11.50 5

M12 22/05/14

25/05/14 36.10 13.00 36.10 2.00 12.00 6

M13 20/05/14

23/05/14 34.00 5.00 34.00 1.20 9.00 4

M14 25/05/14

27/05/14 37.00 20.00 37.00 2.00 27.00 11

M19 16/05/14

19/05/14 51.40 11.80 51.40 2.00 11.50 6

M20 23/05/14

25/05/14 45.00 20.00 45.00 1.20 19.00 9

A summary of the specialist in situ testing undertaken per borehole and spilt into land and marine works can be found in Tables 4.5.3 and 4.5.4. A discussion of the results is provided in Section 6 of this report. The downhole geophysics testing incorporated either a full cased or uncased suite. The suites

consisted of:

Full Uncased Suite - Gamma Density, Gamma Source, Neutron Porosity, Neutron Source, Fluid Temperature and Conductivity, Electrical Resistivity, Impeller Flow-meter, Caliper, Natural Gamma, Optical Imager and Acoustic Imager.

Full Cased Suite - Gamma Density, Gamma Source, Neutron Porosity, Neutron Source and Caliper.

Table 4.5.3 Summary of Specialist In Situ Testing within Land Boreholes

Hole Ref

In Situ Test

Packer Test Variable Head Test

Geophysics Rising Head Test Falling Head Test

Test Zone

(m bgl) Strata

Test Zone (m bgl)

Strata1 Test

Completed3 Test Zone

(m bgl) Strata1

Test Completed3

L01 - - 10.70 to 12.70 FCk / BCk SP 12.00 BCk Drilling -

L02 - - 1.00 to 5.00 Gcl

2 SP

7.50 to 8.50 Gcl Drilling - 21.00 to 24.00 BCk SP

L03 38.00

to BCk - - - 12.60 to 13.50 BCk Drilling

Uncased

Suite



23

Hole Ref

In Situ Test

Packer Test Variable Head Test

Geophysics Rising Head Test Falling Head Test

Test Zone

(m bgl) Strata

Test Zone (m bgl)

Strata1 Test

Completed3 Test Zone

(m bgl) Strata1

Test Completed3

39.00

L04 - - 5.50 to 11.00 Alv SP

12.50 to 13.00 Alv Drilling - 19.00 to 23.00 BCk SP

L05 - - - - - 12.00 to 13.00 Alv Drilling Cased Suite

L06 - - 5.00 to 8.00 Alv SP

- - - - 20.00 to 25.00 BCk SP

L08 - - 3.00 to 6.00 Alv / Gcl SP - - - -

L14

39.50

to

40.50

FCk

9.70 to 12.70 Gcl SP 35.50

to

36.00

FCk Drilling - 22.14 Gcl s Drilling

39.00 to 45.00 FCk SP

L15 - - 2.20 to 5.50 Gcl SP

- - - - 27.00 to 30.00 Gcl SP

L16 - - - - - 14.50 to 14.70 Gcl Drilling -

L16a - - 33.20 to 34.00 FCk Drilling - - - -

L18 - -

9.80 to 10.80 Gcl SP

- - -

Uncased

Suite 17.50 to 19.50 Gcl SP

36.00 to 42.00 FCk SP

1. Alv Alluvial; Gcl Glacial Deposits; FCk Flamborough Chalk; BCk Burnham Chalk.

2. The material is likely to be alluvial in origin. See Section 5 for further discussion.

3 Test completed either in a standpipe (SP) or within the borehole during drilling (Drilling).

Table 4.5.4 Summary of Specialist In Situ Testing within Overwater Boreholes

Hole Ref

In Situ Test

Packer Test High Pressure Dilatometer

Test Geophysics

Test Zone (m bgl) Strata1 Test Zone (m bgl) Strata

1

M01 24.50 to 25.50 FCk 20.10 to 23.10 FCk

Uncased Suite 28.60 to 31.60 BCk

M02 24.00 to 25.00 FCk

- - - 34.00 to 35.00 BCk

M03 - - 25.10 to 28.10 FCk

Uncased Suite 37.60 to 40.60 BCk

M04 27.50 to 28.50 FCk

- - - 37.50 to 38.50 BCk

M05 - - 25.30 to 28.30 FCk

Uncased Suite 31.60 to 34.60 FCk

M06 35.75 to 36.75 FCk - - Uncased Suite

M07 - - - - -

M08 - -

18.30 to 21.30 FCk


36.00 to 39.00 FCk

M09

29.70 to 30.70 FCk

- - - 30.70 to 31.70 FCk

35.00 to 36.00 FCk

M10 27.15 to 28.15 FCk

- - Uncased Suite 32.25 to 33.25 FCk



24

Hole Ref

In Situ Test

Packer Test High Pressure Dilatometer

Test Geophysics

Test Zone (m bgl) Strata1 Test Zone (m bgl) Strata

1

M11 44.50 to 45.50 FCk

5.60 to 8.60 Gcl / FCk


25.90 to 28.90 FCk

33.90 to 36.90 FCk

M12 25.50 to 26.50 FCk

- - Uncased Suite 30.60 to 31.60 FCk

M13 - -

21.40 to 24.40 FCk

- 19.40 to 22.40 FCk

28.40 to 31.40 FCk

M14 35.00 to 36.00 FCk - - -

M19 21.50 to 22.50 FCk

- - - 29.50 to 30.50 FCk

M20 35.50 to 36.50 FCk

- - - 40.00 to 41.00 FCk

1 Alv Alluvial; Gcl Glacial Deposits; FCk Flamborough Chalk; BCk Burnham Chalk.

Cone penetration testing was undertaken as part of the land works to facilitate ground characterisation between exploratory holes. Testing was also undertaken as part of the unexploded ordnance (UXO) mitigation to clear the borehole positions prior to drilling. A total of 25 CPT’s were completed and a summary is provided in Table 4.5.5 below. The results and interpretation of the CPT’s are discussed in Section 6 of this report.

Table 4.5.5 Summary of CPT Testing

CPT Ref. Ground Level

(m AOD)

CPT Depth

(m bgl)

CPT Level

(m AOD) Location

CPT01 1.66 9.89 -8.23

Goxhill

CPT02 1.85 12.06 -10.21

CPT03 1.73 9.16 -7.43

CPT04 1.63 9.65 -8.02

CPT05 1.67 12.87 -11.20

CPT06 2.19 13.79 -11.60

CPT07 1.98 10.13 -8.15

CPT08 1.87 9.89 -8.02

CPT09 1.96 10.92 -8.96

CPT10 1.90 8.78 -6.88

CPT11 2.03 9.09 -7.06

CPT13 2.08 12.63 -10.55

CPT14 2.28 14.38 -12.10

CPT15 2.17 8.86 -6.69

CPT16 2.89 18.86 -15.97

CPT17 2.11 19.12 -17.01

CPT18 2.09 16.01 -13.92

CPT19 2.27 15.71 -13.44



25

CPT Ref. Ground Level

(m AOD)

CPT Depth

(m bgl)

CPT Level

(m AOD) Location

CPT20 2.25 30.04 -27.79

CPTA01 3.50 11.03 -7.53

Paull

CPTA02 2.66 16.58 -13.92

CPTA03 2.41 12.03 -9.62

CPTA04 2.03 20.79 -18.76

CPTA05 1.92 20.87 -18.95

CPTA06 1.73 15.98 -14.25

Four trial pits were excavated at Goxhill in the area of the launch pit, with an additional trial pit excavated on the Feeder 9 pipeline at Goxhill to establish the depth to the crown of the pipe. An additional set of trial pits were excavated by third parties at Stoneledge, Paull in relation to an asbestos survey of the made ground (See Section 3.6). A summary of the trial pits excavated at Goxhill is found in Table 4.5.6.

Table 4.5.6 Summary of Trial Pitting

Trial Pit Ref. Ground Level Trial Pit Depth

(m bgl)

Ground Water (m bgl)

Comments

TP01A 1.82 3.85 2.60 Rise of 0.1m

TP01B 1.90 2.90 0.90 No Rise

TP01C 1.82 3.50 2.10 Rise of 0.3m

TP01D 2.03 4.00 1.65 Rise of 0.1m

TP15 1.91 1.36 - -

4.6 Laboratory Testing

A comprehensive scope of laboratory tests was undertaken on a selection of samples collected during the Phase 1 ground investigation to help inform the design. A summary of the geotechnical tests carried out is provided in Tables 4.6.1a, b and c with the suite of geoenvironmental testing summarised in Table 4.6.2. Discussion of the laboratory results can be found in Section 6 of this report.

Table 4.6.1a Summary of Geotechnical Testing - Soil

Soil Tests

Classification Compaction Consolidation Triaxial Shear Box Other Moisture Content

2.5 kg Hammer

Odometer with unload/reload

loops

Quick Undrained - Single stage and set

of 3

Shear Box peak small

Split and Describe Plasticity

Grading 4.5 kg Hammer

Effective Multistage LPCC and SAT

Abrasivity Sedimentation

Atterberg CBR Surcharged and Soaked

Effective single stage with local

instrumentation (axial, radial, pore pressure and shear

wave velocity)

XRD and SEM

Particle Density Permeability (Constant Head and Triaxial)

Bulk Density CBR Surcharged Organic Fraction



26

Table 4.6.1b Summary of Geotechnical Testing - Rock

Table 4.6.1c Summary of BRE SD1 Testing – Soil and Rock

Table 4.6.2 Summary of Geoenvironmental Testing

Leachate Tests

Metals, Semi Metals and Non Metals

Inorganics Organics Other

- -

SOM Primary Suite

SOM & TPHCWG Hexavalent Chromium

OCP & OPP Combined

Soil Tests

Metals, Semi Metals and Non Metals

Inorganic’s Organics Other

Metalloids pH PAHs (EPA 16)

speciated Primary Suite

Hexavalent Chromium

4.7 Scope Changes and Ground Investigation Feedback

Before the award of the ground investigation contract it was established that the intertidal borehole

locations would prove problematic to undertake. Due to the difficult access, associated risks and lack

of time to establish a safe working methodology and in turn secure timely consents, the intertidal

works were descoped from the Phase 1 ground investigation.

Prior to mobilisation to site, boreholes M21 and M22 were descoped due to their distance from the

proposed pipeline alignment and non-requirement to provide a 3D geological model covering the

original surveyed 1 km wide by 3 km long route corridor.

Prior to site works commencement, the revised scope of works consisted of 37 Boreholes (17 land

and 20 marine), 26 Cone Penetration Tests and 8 Trial Pits.

7 Building Research Establishment Special Digest 1:2005. Concrete in aggressive ground 3

rd Ed.

Rock Tests

Density Tests Strength Tests Mechanical Properties Chalk Tests

Other

Dry Density

Point Load ACV SMC

Triaxial Permeability UCS with Y and P Cerchar

UCS without Y and P Slake Durability CCV Particle Index

Rock Triaxial

Chemical Tests

Soil & Rock Water

BRE SD17 (Greenfield Suite)

BRE SD1 (Greenfield Suite) BRE SD1 (Brownfield Suite)

BRE SD1 (Pyritic Ground Suite) BRE SD1 (Brownfield Suite)



27

Suspected asbestos containing material was identified during a site visit in March 2014 at

Stoneledge, the location for the reception pit. Consequently, the ground investigation scope in this

field (3 boreholes, 6 CPT’s and 4 trial pits) was suspended pending further investigation. Trial pits

were undertaken in June 2014 by the landowner to ascertain whether any ACM was in fact present

at the site. The results of the landowner’s investigation are summarised in the Wardell Armstrong

report (2014) and separate bulk analysis confirmed the presence of Chrysotile and Amosite.

However, due to available time frame, it was decided to descope all the works planned at

Stoneledge, L11 to L13 and associated CPT’s and to undertake the works as part of a future

investigation. The original scope of proposed trial pits were undertaken as part of the landowners

trial pitting scope.

To ensure preliminary information was available to inform the design and reduce ground risks, the

closest borehole to the proposed reception pit, L15, was extended to 50 m bgl.

During the site works, marine boreholes M15 to M18 inclusive were descoped.

Boreholes L07 and L17 were located in environmentally sensitive locations that required consents

from the Environment Agency, Natural England and local authority. Due to the timeframes

associated with the application and approval of consents from the statutory bodies, L07 was

descoped. L17 was relocated from its originally proposed position at the end of the spit due to

difficulties associated with access and establishing a safe system of work. This was subsequently

descoped with a view to undertaking in a later phase of ground investigation.

CPT12 was descoped on site as a suitable location could not be found due to the presence of the

Feeder 9 Gas Pipeline and ecological constraints. CPT21 was also descoped as only one exploratory

hole was allowed in this area to ensure the consent could be signed off for L07.

During the field works it was agreed to undertake an additional 6 CPTs at Paull (CPTA01 to CPTA06)

to provide data associated with an option to relocate the reception pit south of Stoneledge.

Land based drilling was initially undertaken using cable percussion and conventional rotary drilling

techniques adopting air mist. In comparison, the overwater drilling used cable percussion and

geobor rotary drilling. However, recoveries were poor due to the destructured and fractured nature

of the chalk. In line with the contract, the ground investigation contractor was required to

demonstrate an optimal drilling technique was being adopted. Drilling speeds and cutter heads were

varied and an optimal cutter identified. To improve progress on land, geobor was adopted for rotary

drilling. A water flush trial was also undertaken. A feedback summary from the ground investigation

operations is provided in Table 4.7.1 below.

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement

Project Ground Investigation Report

064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

28

Table 4.7.1 Feedback from Drilling Operations

Feedback from Drilling

Operations

Boreholes

Affected Description

Airmist flush migration through

the ground

L02, L03

Potentially

L01)

During the rotary coring of L03, bubbling water was noted within the borehole installation and the upper bentonite

seal at L02. These boreholes are located some 120 m apart. The bubbling of the groundwater was assumed to be as a

result of the airmist flush migrating through the ground and effervescing out of the borehole. The bubbling lasted

several days before settling. Fluctuations in the water levels in L01 were also noted but not the same bubbling effects

noted in L03 and L02. This was not noted when conventional rotary drilling was adopted.

However, in a second phase of cone penetration testing (just completed), naturally occurring gas was recorded

bubbling from a CPT hole near L06 and was verified the next day with a ground gas monitor as being methane gas. This

requires further investigations and it is proposed that gas monitoring be undertaken with a ground gas monitor.

Loss of water during water /

polymer flush trial L04

A water polymer flush mix was trialled in borehole L04 to ascertain whether core recoveries could be improved with a

different flush medium and also whether the borehole could practically sustain the flush during the drilling.

Two 250 liter (l) water tanks were utilized during the trial and filled to the top before commencing drilling. Two water

bowsers (each 1000 l) were in place at the borehole location to refill the tanks as necessary. Three no core runs were

undertaken, each 0.5 m in length. During each run, all the water in the tanks was lost (500 l). The drillers estimated

that this water was lost within the first 5 minutes of coring each 0.5 m core run.

Loss of liquid grout during

borehole installation L05

During the installation of dual vibrating wire piezometers (VWP) into this borehole, significant volumes of liquid grout

were lost into the ground. The drilling team injected 230 l of thick grout using a tremmie pipe into the borehole,

bringing the base level up from 30 m bgl to 18 m bgl (12 m total thickness). This was 2 m above the tip depth (20 m

bgl) of the first VWP. This mix was left to set overnight. The following morning following a dip of the grout level, the

grout level had reduced to 25 m bgl. This was a loss of 7 m of the grout, approximately 134 l, into the ground.

The drilling team attempted to pump more grout into the borehole, but they recorded that it did not rise in the

borehole. The drillers did not record how much grout they had used in this second attempt. The remaining installation

was completed using bentonite pellets and sand filters around the VWPs.

Significant quantities of L02, L08 Significant quantities of bentonite pellets were used in the installation of the dual standpipes in these boreholes. In



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

29

Feedback from Drilling

Operations

Boreholes

Affected Description

bentonite pellets used during

borehole installation

borehole L02, a total of 63 standard bags of bentonite and 15 standard bags of gravel were used. The drillers noted

that 35 bags of bentonite were used between 8.50 m and 10 m.

In borehole L08, a cable percussion borehole, the drillers noted a substantial quantity of bentonite was necessary to

complete the installation. Between 9.70 m and 10.70 m bgl, 14 standard bags of bentonite were used.

Borehole Instability L04, L05,

L06

Due to the ground conditions, it was considered that undertaking down-hole geophysical logging and High Pressure

Dilatometer (HPD) testing was high risk with potential for ground collapse around the sensitive equipment. The highly

fractured nature of the chalk in borehole L04 resulted in an unstable test pocket being drilled for a HPD test between

17 m bgl and 20 m bgl. Consequently, the HPD equipment was not lowered into the borehole and the test was not

carried out. The second test scheduled deeper in the borehole was cancelled. The HPD tests scheduled for L06 were

also cancelled in anticipation that the ground conditions would be similar to those already encountered.

In the case of L05, the borehole was found to be highly unstable and so a cased suite of geophysics was undertaken

using a greatly reduced number of geophysical logging tools.

Packer Testing Pressures

L14, M04,

M09,

M10, M20

It was not possible due to the prevailing ground conditions to achieve the proposed test pressure in a number of the

packer tests.

In borehole L14 at a test center of approximately 40 m bgl, 1000 L of water was injected into the ground and did not

achieve test pressure. It was also not possible to achieve test pressures in the following packer tests, M04 at 28 m bgl

and 38 m bgl, M09 at 30.20 m bgl and 31.20 m bgl, M10 at 27.65 m bgl, M20 at 36 m bgl. The highly fractured nature

of the ground was thought to be the reason for the unsuccessful packer test as the seals could not form within the

borehole. In addition, the amount of fracturing within the chalk meant the water was lost quickly into the surround

chalk and would require high volume flows to achieve and maintain pressures.



30

5. Ground Summary

Based on pertinent available information8, a ground model cross-section was developed along the

line of the proposed tunnel route (see drawings H160/BH/07/01/F9/101 and

H160/BH/07/01/F9/104). To facilitate the development of the geological section and associated

ground model, it was necessary to indentify from the exploratory log descriptions the geological

formation for the strata encountered. This latter information is not always provided on

exploratory logs so it was necessary to review and identify where possible based on typical

geological markers associated with the deposition environment. A summary of the designated

geological formations and markers used as part of this identification has been provided in

Appendix D. It should be noted that sometimes, the markers are not clear or the differentiation

between alluvial and glacial was based solely on the presence of a gravel fraction, associated

angularity and reference to surrounding strata so the geological designation can be subjective.

The model has also been based on the Phase 1 ground investigation factual report which is

currently undergoing review so changes are to be anticipated. For example, soft deposits have

been noted in boreholes L01, L02 and L03 but with the presence of angular to subrounded gravel

fractions in the descriptions, these have been identified as glacial in origin. However, reference to

laboratory gradings and site observations indicate the lack of gravel fraction and are probably

alluvial in origin. Such discrepancies will be resolved on agreement of the final Phase 1 factual

report. However, regardless of the geology, it is the material behaviour and associated

geotechnical parameters that will dictate the design.

In the following section, ground conditions for the site as whole are discussed followed by more

detailed discussions of the conditions anticipated at the Goxhill, Humber and Paull sections of the

site. As will be seen, there is a significant variability in the depths and makeup of the superficial

deposits so ultimately, the development of localised ground models based on localised

exploratory hole information will be necessary for the structure under review.

5.1 Ground Conditions

Made Ground

No made ground was identified during the Phase 1 intrusive ground investigation, but made

ground was identified in the trial pits undertaken at Stoneledge as part of the asbestos

investigations. Details of the ground investigation at Stoneledge can be found in the report

produced by Wardell Armstrong (2014).

8 Only boreholes were used for the creation of the geological boundaries as these allow a visual assessment to be

undertaken in comparison to CPT’s although an assessment of the boundary from the CPT’s has also been undertaken

and identified in the section for comparison purposes. Due to the shallow depth of trial pits, these have also not been

included as they add no further information to the cross-section.



31

Topsoil

Topsoil was identified in all the land boreholes at both Goxhill and Paull ranging in thickness from

0.05 m to 0.4 m. No topsoil was identified in any of the marine boreholes as would be expected.

Marine and Estuarine Alluvium

Alluvium was identified in 20 boreholes, (13 marine and 7 land boreholes).The alluvium is

associated with a marine and estuarine environment and formed of both cohesive and granular

strata. These are generally described as either:

Loose to medium dense orangish brown mottled dark grey clayey, silty fine to

coarse sand. Sometimes containing subrounded to rounded fine to coarse gravel.

or

Very soft to soft, sometimes organic, brown mottled dark grey slightly sandy clayey silt or

silty clay.

The alluvial deposits were more typically cohesive at Goxhill but becoming more interlayered

granular / cohesive for the Humber and Paull areas.

Borehole’s L04, L05 and L08 at Goxhill all encountered layers of peat within the alluvial strata. The

peat was generally described as “soft to firm brown peat”. Peat was also noted within the

historical exploratory holes undertaken within the AGI at Paull.

Glacial Till

Glacial deposits were identified in 21 boreholes, (11 marine and 10 land boreholes). The glacial

deposits are formed of both cohesive and granular strata. These are generally described as either:

Dense to very dense, brown, slightly clayey, slightly gravelly, fine to coarse sand.

Gravel is fine to coarse angular to subrounded chalk and mixed lithologies.

Occasionally dense to very dense brown slightly clayey slightly sandy fine to coarse

gravel of angular to subrounded chalk and mixed lithologies. Sand is fine to coarse.

or

Firm to very stiff, brownish grey, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly silty clay. Sand is

fine to coarse. Gravel is angular to subrounded fine to coarse chalk and mixed

lithologies.

Flamborough Chalk

The Flamborough Chalk was identified in all boreholes drilled during the ground investigation

except L04 where the chalk was absent. The chalk was generally described as:

Weak medium to high density white chalk with extremely closely to closely spaced

laminations of grey marl and some trace fossils with occasional black sponges.

Burnham Chalk

The Burnham Chalk was identified in 12 boreholes (5 marine and 7 Land boreholes) The chalk is

generally described as:



32

Very weak to weak, medium density, white chalk with very closely to closely spaced

thin laminations of grey marl. Occasionally contains black sponges and angular to

subrounded fine to medium gravel sized fragments of grey and brown rinded flint.

A summary of the strata thickness proven during the Phase 1 ground investigation is provided in

Table 5.1.1. A more detailed discussion now follows for each of the sites at Goxhill, Humber and

Paull.

Table 5.1.1 Strata Thicknesses Encountered During Phase 1 Site Works

Location

Topsoil

Thickness

(m)

Alluvium

Thickness

(m)

Glacial

Deposits

Thickness

(m)

Flamborourgh Chalk

Formation

Thickness

(m)

Burnham Chalk

Formation

Thickness

(m)

Goxhill

0.05 – 0.4

(0.32)

[7/7]

3.9 – 13.65

(10.10)

[4/7]

2.6 – 9.8

(7.56)

[6/7]

0.94 – 6.9

(2.95)

[6/7]

2.8* – 34*

(16.66*)

[7/7]

Humber n/a

0.1 – 21.1

(10.14)

[13/16]

2.0 – 15.2

(6.62)

[11/16]

13.0 – 45.9

(26.35*)

[16/16]

6.75* – 16.17*

{9.82*)

[5/16]

Paull

0.4

(0.4)

[2/4]

2.55 – 9.4

(4.06)

[3/4]

22.0 – 34.0

(27.24}

[4/4]

16* – 23.4*

(20.83*)

[4/4]

Not Proven

*Thickness of strata not proven.

() Average thickness of strata from all boreholes where the material was encountered.

[ x/y ] = number of boreholes strata present (x); total number drilled (y).

5.2 Goxhill Ground Conditions

The site at Goxhill has varying thicknesses of superficial deposits overlying a small layer of

Flamborough Chalk which overlies the Burnham Chalk. Peat deposits were identified in some of

the boreholes.

Made Ground

No made ground was identified at Goxhill in either the historical borehole logs or the Phase 1

ground investigation.

Topsoil

Topsoil was identified with proven thicknesses ranging from 0.05 m to 0.4 m. However, none of

the historical boreholes reviewed referenced the presence of topsoil due to the lack of detail. The

hand dug pits for the CPT’s as well as trial pits undertaken during the Phase 1 ground

investigation provided additional details on the topsoil depths.



33


Alluvium was identified in 4 out of the 7 Phase 1 boreholes and in all of the 17 historical

boreholes reviewed but the thickness of the alluvium was only proven in 11 of these boreholes.

Based on the available data for strata identified as alluvium, a thickness range of >0.91 m to

>18.29 m was noted from all exploratory holes (proven thickness range of 2.8 m to 16.15 m).

Peat was identified in 3 out of the 7 Phase 1 boreholes and in 1 of the 17 historical boreholes

reviewed. Unfortunately most of the historical boreholes lack detail on the strata description.

Peat was also identified in one of the Phase 1 trial pits. Based on available data for strata

identified as peat, a proven thickness range of 1.82 m to 2.13 m was established.

Glacial Till

Glacial Deposits were identified in 5 out of the 7 Phase 1 boreholes and in 9 of the 17 historical

boreholes. Based on the available data for glacial deposits, they have a proven thickness range of

0.8 m to 16.46 m.

Chalk

Chalk was identified in all 7 Phase 1 boreholes and in 11 of the 17 historical boreholes reviewed

but the overall thickness of chalk was not proven. The Phase 1 boreholes identified the two chalk

formations underlying the site, but the historical boreholes reviewed lack this detail in the

descriptions. Based on the available data, chalk was verified to at least 102.4 m depth. Details on

the thickness of the Flamborough and Burnham Chalk formation established from the recent Soil

Engineering ground investigation can be found in Table 5.1.1.

General

Referring to the long section (drawings H160/BH/07/01/F9/101 and H160/BH/07/01/F9/104), a

buried channel is noted to the east of the Goxhill site with up to 13.7 m of alluvium encountered

overlying localised peat deposits in areas. The section also indicates very little, if any, glacial

deposits at the deepest point of the channel. The wider review of the historical boreholes

indicates areas of even deeper alluvium, with again some of the logs identifying no glacial

deposits between the alluvium and underlying chalk rock head. This supports the presence of

variable alluvial stratum, criss-crossed by a series of deeper cut channels and tributaries which in

places have removed all the underlying glacial deposits. The variable and changeable strata

emphasises the importance of adopting a structure specific ground model based on localised

exploratory logs during the design process due to the changeable ground characteristics over

short distances.

The CPT data from the Phase 1 ground investigation generally supports the long sections,

particularly through the buried channel. To the west of the site, the inferred base of alluvium

from an interpretation of the CPT results has been highlighted on the cross section as a dotted

red line. As discussed at the introduction to this chapter, geological formations have been

identified based on soil description markers from boreholes. However, in boreholes L01, L02 and

L03, whist descriptions on the logs identify the presence of angular to subrounded gravel and a



34

possible glacial origin, the gradings and site observations are not supporting the descriptions and

this material is more than likely alluvial in origin and in better agreement with the CPT

interpretation. Also included in the section as a solid blue line is the base of soft / loose deposits

from the boreholes and CPT’s for comparison.

The inferred chalk boundary from the CPT interpretation has also been included as a dotted green

line and is in very good agreement with the directly verified depths from the boreholes. Also

included is the base of destructured chalk as recorded in boreholes (CIRIA9,10 Grade Dc /Dm) with

thicknesses up to 9 m recorded. For ease of reference, a summary of the CIRIA chalk grades is

provided in Table 5.2.2.

Table 5.2.2 Subdivisions of Chalk Grades

Grade Discontinuity Aperture Suffix Discontinuity Spacing

A Discontinuities closed 1

2

3

4

5

t > 600 mm

200 < t < 600 mm

60 < t < 200 mm

20 < t < 60 mm

t < 20 mm

B Typical discontinuity aperture <

3mm

C Typical discontinuity aperture >

3mm

Grade Discontinuity

Aperture

Suffix Engineering

Behaviour

Dominant

Element

Comminuted

Chalk Matrix

Coarser

Fraction

D Structureless or

remoulded

melange

m

c

Fine soil

Coarse soil

Matrix

Clasts

Approx > 35%

Approx < 35%

Approx < 65%

Approx > 65%

It should be noted that there is an anomaly in L03 with grade A5 overlying grade Dc chalk.

However when referring to the specific exploratory log, rotary drilling was initially progressed

from 12.5 m bgl with grade Dc recorded to 13 m bgl improving to A5. However, due to potential

airflush migration issues as discussed in Table 4.7.1, the rotary drilling was terminated and cable

percussion was progressed again from 17.5 m bgl with a Dc grade recorded. The designation is

likely to be incorrect but requires further review on receipt of the expert logging core records11.

However, it is not deemed at this stage to have a significant bearing on the overall design

outcome.

9 CIRIA Construction Industry Research Information Association

10 CIRIA C574 (2002). Engineering in Chalk.

11 Expert chalk core logging is currently being undertaken by Professor Rory Mortimore on selected boreholes. The

findings will be included in a later revision of this report.



35

Regardless of the uncertainties in the geological profile, referring to the strength profile,

associated SPT N values and the base of soft / loose deposits, it is clear the depth of soft deposits

reduces from 13.7 m bgl to the east of the site to approximately 4 m bgl in the vicinity of the

proposed drive pit. This overlies more competent superficial deposits with the depth of

destructured chalk in the order of 8 m to 9 m below top of chalk.

5.3 Humber Ground Conditions

The ground model for the Humber crossing shows varying thicknesses of superficial deposits with

limited depths of glacial deposits to the western and central portion of the estuary and no alluvial

deposits within the main shipping channel. This overlies Flamborough Chalk and Burnham Chalk.

Made Ground

No made ground was identified across the River Humber in either the historical borehole logs or

the recent ground investigation by Soil Engineering.


Alluvium was identified in 13 out of the 16 Phase 1 boreholes and in 4 of the 6 historical

boreholes reviewed. It typically comprised interbedded sands with silts or clays. Based on the

available data for strata identified as alluvium, a thickness range of 0.4 m to 21.1 m was

established from all exploratory holes. The majority of material encountered was granular in

nature although the alluvium was notably absent from the main shipping channel. Peat was not

identified in either the historical borehole logs or the recent ground investigation.

Glacial Till

Glacial deposits, mainly cohesive, were identified in 11 out of the 16 boreholes drilled by Soil

Engineering and in 4 out of 6 historical boreholes. Outside of the main shipping channel, the

depths of glacial deposits where encountered were less than 4 m with a proven thickness

between 2.0 m and 34. m.

Chalk

Chalk was identified in all 16 Phase 1 boreholes and in all 6 historical boreholes reviewed but the

thickness of chalk was never proven. The more recent boreholes identified the two chalk

formations, but the historical boreholes reviewed lack this detail in the descriptions. Details on

the thickness of the Flamborough and Burnham Chalk formation established from the recent

Phase 1 ground investigation can be found in Table 5.1.1.

General

The long section (See drawing H160/BH/07/01/F9/101) indicates the presence of buried channels

over the western and central portions of the Humber Estuary with a proven thickness of alluvium

ranging between 14.9 m and 21.1 m associated with reduced depths or absence of glacial

deposits. Within the main channel and on the eastern slope, there is a general absence of alluvial

deposits probably associated with strong tidal currents and associated erosion. Referring to the

Central Electricity Governing Board (1968) exploratory holes completed directly north within the



36

estuary and a greater thickness of alluvium was recorded (10.97 m to 20.12 m) with an absence of

glacial deposits. As part of the Phase 1 Geophysical Survey, implied geological boundaries12 were

also identified over the 1 km wide survey area and thickened areas of alluvial deposits have been

identified although the differences between the intrusive and geophysical interpretations have

been previously highlighted. In general, there does appear to be buried channels running

approximately parallel to the present day main channel and are most likely historical main

channels or tributaries.

The glacial deposits begin to form a more laterally uniform layer to the east of the buried

channels under the large sand bar located roughly in the centre of the Humber. The thickness of

glacial deposits continues to thicken as you progress east, likely due to the dipping underlying

rock head.

Due to the dipping of the chalk, the Burnham Chalk was only identified up to M06. It should also

be noted that in comparison to Goxhill, there is a reduced thickness of destructured chalk in the

order of 5m to 6m.

5.3 Paull Ground Conditions

A reduced scope of Phase 1 exploratory holes were undertaken at Paull (See Section 4.7) although

it is proposed to carry out a Phase 2 ground investigation in the area to further inform the design.

Consequently, there are no exploratory holes between M20 and L16A with the latter located

approximately 150 m from the proposed tunnel route alignment. Similarly, no exploratory holes

have been undertaken at Stoneledge with reliance being placed on L15 and historical boreholes.

Reference to the available information identifies varying thicknesses of superficial deposits

overlying an increased thickness of Flamborough Chalk. The Burnham Chalk was not identified in

available exploratory holes. Varying depths of alluvium were also noted including organic deposits

with an increased thickness at Paull AGI.

Made Ground

Made ground was identified in 10 historical borehole logs and in the third party trial pitting

undertaken at Stoneledge but no made ground was identified during the recent Phase 1 ground

investigation. A thickness ranging from 0.1 m to 1.7 m were noted.

Topsoil

Topsoil was identified in the recent Phase 1 ground investigation and within 1 of the historical

boreholes. The hand dug pits for the Phase 1 CPT’s also provided additional detail on the topsoil

depths. A thickness ranging from 0.15 m to 0.8 m (PA40) was noted based on all exploratory

holes.

12 The survey was correlated against the Central Electricity Generating Board 1968 exploratory holes.



37


Alluvium was identified in 3 out of the 4 Phase 1 boreholes and in 50 of the 55 historical

boreholes reviewed although the thickness was only proven in 28 exploratory holes. Based on the

available data, a thickness range of >0.76 m to 14.9 m (proven thickness range of 2.55 m to 14.9

m) can be established.

Whilst peat was not identified in the Phase 1 ground investigation, it was noted in 7 of the 55

historical boreholes reviewed around and within the AGI although the peat thickness was only

proven in 3 of these boreholes. Based on the available data, a proven thickness range of 0.1 m to

0.7 m was established although a peat thickness in excess of 2.6 m was noted in historical

borehole PA26 at Paull.

Glacial Till

Glacial Deposits were identified in all 4 Phase 1 boreholes and in 30 of the 55 historical boreholes

reviewed but the thickness of the glacial deposits was only proven in 6 of these boreholes. Based

on the available data, a proven thickness range of 13.4 m to 40.99 m was established.

Chalk

Chalk was identified in all 4 Phase 1 boreholes and in 2 of the 55 historical boreholes reviewed

but the thickness of chalk was never proven and only the Flamborough chalk was encountered

due to the increased depth to the top of the Burnham Chalk Formation. Based on the available

data, chalk was verified to 102 m depth.

General

As discussed at the introduction to this chapter, geological formations have been identified based

on soil description markers from boreholes. However, in boreholes L15 and L18, whilst

descriptions on the logs identify the presence of angular to subrounded gravel of a possible

glacial origin, the gradings and site observations are not supporting the descriptions and

indications are the materials to 7.5 m bgl and 9.4 m bgl respectively are more than likely alluvial

in origin.

A review of the historical boreholes also indicates areas of even deeper alluvium particularly at

Paull AGI with depths reducing as you move further east/south-east from the area to higher

ground. This implies a variable alluvial strata sequence associated with a range of depositional

environments including possible organic rich ponds or tributaries in the areas of peat deposits. As

with Goxhill, the variable and changeable strata over short distances emphasises the importance

of adopting during the design process a structure specific ground model based on information

established from localised exploratory holes.

The glacial deposits are significantly thicker at Paull than at Goxhill partly controlled by the

natural dip of the underlying chalk rock head and less erosion by the River Humber. The deposits

are interlayered granular and cohesive with significant depths of granular deposits noted in L15 in

particular.



38

Due to the dipping of the chalk, the Burnham Chalk was not identified. In comparison to Goxhill,

there is a reduced thickness of destructured chalk in the order of 5 m.

5.4 Groundwater Conditions

Top Soil

The top soil forms a thin non-continuous layer of varying thickness between 0.05 m to 0.4 m in

boreholes L01 to L08 at Goxhill and up to 0.4 m at Paull. It provides a pathway and minor

contribution to temporary storage of rainfall recharge to the near surface groundwater in the

Paull and Goxhill areas. However, the thickness and general understanding of the soil structure

indicates that it does not have a substantive impact on the groundwater or hydrogeology of the

area. For the purposes of this assessment, the soil is not expected to have a significant effect on

the hydrogeology and rainfall-recharge is not appreciably retarded due to the presence of the top

soil. No further assessment of the top soil has been advanced as part of this study.


The marine and estuarine alluvium was found to be highly variable laterally and vertically. Distinct

layers of soft to firm clays and silts are found both at the Paull and Goxhill sites, with variable

sand and gravel fractions within the clays and silts. Occasional gravelly silty sand or sand and

gravel are found towards the base of the alluvial deposits for example, at L04 at Goxhill. As the

sand and gravel horizons and sub-horizons are expected to be more transmissive than the sub-

units with significant clay and silt content, groundwater movement through the alluvium will be

characteristically through the more granular deposits.

The lateral extent of the sand and gravel dominant horizons and sub-horizons affects the

potential for groundwater movement. Groundwater may move along a laterally continuous sand

or gravel unit, either as a perched groundwater system or interconnected with the main

groundwater surface of the alluvium; whereas a lenticular sub-unit of sand or gravel may not

result in substantial release of groundwater.

There are also occasional peat layers in L04, L05 and L08 and TP01B at Goxhill. However, whilst

peat was not observed in the Phase 1 boreholes or trial pits at Paull or within the marine

boreholes, the historical boreholes at Paull have recorded peat within the AGI. The notable clay

component of the alluvium in the Goxhill and Paull sites affects the potential groundwater

movement, retarding vertical groundwater movement; and limiting substantive lateral

groundwater movement to within thin horizons.

The marine boreholes show a greater fraction of granular material than identified at the Goxhill

or Paull sites comprising sand, silty sand, gravelly silty sand and sandy silt. The larger grain sizes

infer a high permeability and potential for more groundwater within these beds than within the

alluvium at Goxhill and Paull with the higher clay and silt fraction. Therefore, groundwater

movement within the alluvium beneath the Humber has the potential to move more rapidly

through the sand and gravel layers than the silts and clay dominant layers with the added effect

of the River Humber.



39

Due to the variable grain size of the alluvium deposits, proximity to the Humber Estuary and

drainage channels means, it is likely that groundwater flows and seepages within the coarser

elements of the alluvium may interact with these channels and the tidal estuary with

groundwater emerging within cuttings and excavations. Therefore, monitoring of the

groundwater piezometry and flows will be required throughout construction, with the provision

for additional drainage and dewatering during the construction period.

Glacial Deposits

The glacial deposits are highly variable laterally and vertically. There are distinct layers of clays,

silts, sands and gravels containing a range of grain sizes, described as sand and gravel, sandy

gravelly clay, gravelly clay, clayey gravelly sand and clayey sand, with soft to firm. The glacial

deposits are present from near ground surface to between 8.8 m bgl to 9.8 m bgl in L01, L02 and

L0813 in Goxhill, with minimal alluvial cover. Therefore, to the west of the Goxhill site, the glacial

deposits form the main cover geology to the chalk aquifer but thins considerably from L04

eastwards across the Humber Estuary as far as M11, covered by a substantive thickness of marine

and estuarine alluvium. From M12 eastwards and at the Paull site, the alluvium thins or is absent

and the glacial deposits form a substantive thickness of cover to the chalk aquifer to a thickness

of between 22 m and 34 m in L18, L16, L14 and L15 at the Paull site.

As with the alluvial deposits, the variable grain size of the glacial deposits and network of

drainage channels and watercourses on low lying ground in the Goxhill and Paull areas means

that the groundwater flows and seepages are associated with the coarser elements of the glacial

deposits namely horizons with a significant sand and gravel fraction and with low clay and silt

content.

Chalk

The top of the Flamborough Chalk was noted to be weathered structureless chalk, comprising a

layer of “putty” 14 chalk with clays of variable thickness. There is a transition from the

structureless chalk to highly fractured extremely weak to weak medium to high density chalk with

laminations of grey marl. This leads to the upper layer of chalk underlying the structureless chalk

being highly transmissive extending up to 10 m to 20 m. The putty chalk, the highly fractured

chalk and other weathered characteristics of the top of the Flamborough chalk are associated

with glacial and periglacial processes.

The Flamborough Chalk underlies the study area from Goxhill to Paull and is entirely concealed

beneath Quaternary deposits. It has distinct and identifiable bedding surfaces with frequent marl

bands throughout and generally none or negligible flints. The chalk is characterised by white

chalk, softer than the underlying Burnham Chalk. Groundwater flow is affected and controlled by

its setting, lithostratigraphy and sub-structure. The overlying deposits limit recharge to the

aquifer at the Paull and Goxhill sites. Preferential groundwater movement is associated with

13 It is probable the upper soft deposits are actually alluvial in origin.

14 A term used in relation to destructured, remoulded chalk material.



40

fissures and fractures, developed through dissolution of structural weaknesses in the chalk.

Groundwater movement also preferentiates flows along bedding plains and either through the

more brittle and fractured marl seams or above such marl layers that form a vertical barrier to

groundwater movement.

The Burnham Chalk is thinly bedded and laminated, with continuous flint bands of varying

thickness from 10 mm to 300 mm. Much of the Burnham Chalk Formation outcrop is concealed

beneath thick Quaternary deposits. The Burnham Chalk underlies the Flamborough Chalk

Formation at the study area, and is characterised by hard, thinly bedded chalks with frequent

tabular flints and discontinuous flint bands (Sumbler, 1999). Gale and Rutter (2006) report that

the basal part of the Burnham Chalk Formation is particularly flinty, with individual flint bands of

up to 0.3 m or more in thickness.

Gale and Rutter (2006) establish from observations from groundwater recessions that the semi-

confined aquifer north of Hull and the semi-confined chalk aquifer west of the buried cliffline

indicate that there is a relatively high degree of connectivity between the drift deposits and the

chalk. This is probably the case in areas where the drift is dominated by glacial sand and gravel

and where boulder clay is thin or absent (Chadha et al., 1997). Hence in the area north of Hull –

such as Dunswell and Cottingham, the drift may be contributing a significant amount of water to

supply boreholes abstracting from the chalk. However, to the east of the buried Ipswichian

coastline, Gale and Rutter (2006) report that the thick cover of impermeable drift deposits

effectively mean that the chalk aquifer is confined. Barker et al. (1984) also assert that clay bands

within the chalk may also act as locally confining layers. The geology of both land sites along the

tunnel route is laterally and vertically changeable making it difficult to model the water flow and

recharge status for the chalk.



41

6. Ground Conditions and Material Properties

A review has been undertaken of the available geotechnical data up to the 31st October 2014 with

a summary of the findings presented below. It should be noted that laboratory testing and in situ

ground water monitoring are ongoing and additional results will become available subsequent to

the issue of this report. However, this is very much a “live” document and it is proposed to

update and review this report in consideration of National Grid comments and when additional

information becomes available. The overriding aim of this section to present the data to facilitate

the choice of ground models and associated design parameters.

It should be noted that ground levels at Paull and Goxhill are similar and due to the variable bed

levels along the Humber Estuary, results have generally been plotted against elevation although

comparisons were made using depth below ground level (or depth below top of chalk) to ensure

data trends were fully analysed. In general, data has been reported against elevation for ease of

interpretation and design use or depth below top of chalk.

Relevant historical results have also been included using the Paull (PA), overwater Humber (OW)

and Goxhill (GH) designations. Reference should be made to the deskstudy for relevant

exploratory logs.

6.1 Alluvium

6.1.1 General

The material was formed in a marine and estuarine environment and consists of both cohesive

and granular deposits. These are generally described as either loose to medium dense orangish

brown mottled dark grey clayey, silty fine to coarse sand sometimes containing subrounded to

rounded fine to coarse gravel; Very soft to soft brown mottled dark grey slightly sandy clayey silt

or clay with evidence of organic matter. Layers of dark brown to brown pseudo fibrous peat are

also present within this deposit.

6.1.2 Classification

Samples of alluvium were tested in the laboratory for index properties including natural moisture

content (w), liquid limit (wL), plastic limit (wP), particle density (s), bulk density () and particle

size distribution. A summary of classification tests carried out on alluvium can be found in Table

6.1.1

Particle Size Distribution

The results of particle size distribution tests are presented in Figure 6.1.1 divided into the land

(Paull and Goxhill) and overwater (Humber). In addition to the Phase 1 ground investigation,

results from historical ground investigations (as summarised in the deskstudy report) have also

been included. As previously discussed, minimal depths of granular deposits were encountered at



42

Goxhill and is reflected by the majority of tests, other than two, having in excess of 20 % fines (silt

and clay fraction < 0.063 mm) implying a cohesive material15.

For Paull, mixed granular and cohesive deposits were encountered and are represented by two

distinct grading envelopes with historic test results recording an increased fines fraction

associated with the alluvial deposits at Paull AGI.

For the overwater boreholes, a significant quantity of uniformly graded sands were noted in

comparison to tests undertaken at Paull and Goxhill but also reflects the extent of sands

encountered. The fines fraction varied between 2 % and 82 % in comparison to Paull and Goxhill

where increased quantities up to 100 % were recorded. Some gravels were noted in line with the

results for Paull and Goxhill but once again, there are two distinct grading envelopes. When the

results are reviewed as a whole, 3 distinct grading envelopes are noted covering the full spectrum

from clays to gravels.

Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits

The results from Atterberg Limit and natural moisture content tests are presented in Figure 6.1.2

along with historical data.

Referring to the moisture content w, historic and recent data are in overall agreement although

elevated values are noted for historic data at Paull associated with the alluvial deposits at the

AGI. The results are somewhat variable up to -10 m AOD with elevated values recorded up to 170

% associated within organic materials. There is a discernible trend of an initial moisture content

of around 10 % increasing to approximately 50 % around 0 m AOD then an apparent subsequent

reduction in moisture content with depth in line with a strength gain. This would be in agreement

with an initial stronger surface deposit as noted in the recent ground investigation overlying soft

deposits.

Reference to the plasticity indices (IP) shows values largely above 20 %, approaching a maximum

of 50 % (See Figure 6.1.3) over the upper 3 m (0 m AOD) with isolated elevated values associated

with organic materials. There does appear to be a trend of reducing IP with depth. There is also a

significantly reduced scatter in plastic limit wp values when compared to liquid limit wL results

(Figure 6.1.2).

The liquidity index (IL) is a relationship which allows a comparison of the soils natural moisture content with the plasticity index and is defined as follows:

IL = (w-wP)/(wL-wP)

A positive value indicates the material is “wet” of the plastic limit and conversely a negative value

is “dry” of the plastic limit. A value of 0 and 1.0 indicates a soil at plastic limit or liquid limit

respectively.

15 In the Highways Agency Series 600 Earthworks, the acceptability criteria for a Class 1 granular material is for < 15%

passing the 63um sieve i.e. the silt and clay fraction.



43

Referring to Figure 6.1.3, 20 % of samples have a liquidity index IL greater than 1.0 (mean 0.56)

indicating a material “wet” of liquid limit or a very low strength material. In line with an initially

stronger surface deposit, the liquidity index is seen to increase from approximately IL of 0.0 to

around 1.0 at approximately 0 m AOD where it appears to then levels off although due note

needs to be taken of the reduced test quantities.

Reference to the plasticity chart (Figure 6.1.4) shows the majority of tested samples plotting

above the A line as clays. Results for Paull and Goxhill show plasticity’s typically ranging from low

to very high with results for the Humber ranging from low to high. However, there are some

extremely high values noted at Paull and Goxhill. Once again, there is good agreement between

historical and Phase 1 test results.

Table 6.1.1 - Classification Tests - Alluvium

Index Property No Tests Min Mean Max Standard

Deviation

Moisture content w (%) 168 8.9 40.1

(39.3)1

170

(131) 1

21.5

(19.0) 1

Plastic Limit wP (%) 113 13 25.3

(24.5)2

111

(94) 2

14.0

(11.5) 2

Liquid Limit wL (%) 114 24 53.3

(48.1)3

220

(96) 3

29.0

(13.5) 3

Plasticity Index IP (%) 113 6 24.4

(25.6)4

129

(47) 4

17.2

(8.9) 4

Liquidity Index IL 109 -0.62 0.56 3.81 0.57

Particle Density s 34 2.29

(2.54) 5

2.62

(2.65)5

2.70 0.10

(0.04) 5

Bulk Density (Mg/m3)

6 43 1.48

[14.5]

1.83

[18.0]

2.33

[22.9]

0.16

[1.6]

1. Excludes 131 % at TP01B (0.3 m bgl), 130 % at PA63 (2.0 m bgl) and 170 % at PA63 (2.6 m bgl).

2. Excludes 111 % at TP01B (0.3 m bgl), 87 % at GH64 (12.4 m bgl), 68 % at PA63 (2.0 m bgl), 94 % at PA63 (2.6 m bgl)

and 55 % at PA40 (7.5 m bgl).

3. Excludes 152 % at TP01B (0.3 m bgl), 157 % at GH64 (12.4 m bgl), 112 % at PA63 (1.6 m bgl), 197 % at PA63 (2.0 m

bgl) and 220 % at PA63 (2.6 m bgl).

4. Excludes 70 % at GH64 (12.4 m bgl), 77 % at PA63 (1.6 m bgl), 129 % at PA63 (2.0 m bgl) and 126 % at PA63 (2.6 m

bgl).

5. Excludes 2.33 Mg/m3 at L05 (13 m bgl), 2.29 Mg/m

3 at PA40 (7.5 m bgl), 2.48 Mg/m

3 at PA40 (4.5 m bgl) and 2.42

Mg/m3

also at L05 (12.6 m bgl)

6. Unit weight [] kN/m3

Particle Density

Particle densities s for alluvium are given in Figure 6.1.3 and range primarily between 2.6 and 2.7

for cohesive material and between 2.65 and 2.7 for granular material. Some low values were

noted associated with organic materials.



44

Bulk Density

Bulk density () tests were undertaken on 43 cohesive samples (Figure 6.1.3) with values of

ranging between 1.47 Mg/m3 and 2.33 Mg/m3 with the low values associated with organic soils.

There is a significant scatter in the results due to the variable nature of the alluvial deposits and

there does appear to be initially higher values at surface reducing with depth before levelling off.

6.1.3 Strength

Laboratory and in situ testing included tests to measure the strength of the alluvium in the form

of unconsolidated “quick” undrained (UU) triaxial tests and indirectly through standard

penetration tests. A summary of the results is given in Table 6.1.2 below.

Undrained Shear Strength

Referring to Figure 6.1.5, a limited number of UU tests were undertaken due to the lack of intact

samples and what has been carried out, was undertaken on samples obtained through cable

percussive techniques. However, there does appear to be good agreement between historic and

Phase 1 test results with undrained shear strength cu values typically ranging between 5 kPa and

30 kPa or a material of extremely low to low strength in accordance with BS5930 (2010). When

results are viewed as a whole, there does appear to be a slight trend of increasing strength with

depth. There are several high values at shallow depths which would to be in agreement with the

lower moisture contents and liquidity indices at upper elevations. A UU test using 3 no. 38mm

diameter samples at 1.2 m depth from L08 has also been highlighted and demonstrates the

variation that can occur in laboratory results.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)

The results of the in situ SPT test are shown in Figures 6.1.6 and 6.1.7 differentiated on the basis

of cohesive and granular deposits.

Once again, there does appear to be reasonable agreement between historic and Phase 1 results

where available. Due to the reduced scope of site works undertaken at Paull and with the

majority of material encountered being granular in the Phase 1 ground investigation, there are

minimal Phase 1 cohesive results to compare in Figure 6.1.6. Referring to Table 6.1.2, on average,

the SPT N values in the granular materials are 3.5 times greater than the cohesive.

With reference to the cohesive tests, the majority of results are less than 6 which based on a cu/N

ratio of 4.5 (CIRIA 143 (1995) implies an undrained shear strength cu of less than 30 kPa or a

material of low strength at best. This is in agreement with the presence of extensive depths of

soft deposits at the site. Looking at the data as a whole, there does appear to be an increase in

strength with depth but it is not significant.

Referring to Figure 6.1.7 and the granular deposits, a much greater scatter in the results are

notable with N values typically ranging from 1 to 25 or very loose to medium dense16 based on

BS5930 with an indication of an increase in density with depth and associated strength increase.

16 Very Loose N = 0 - 4; Loose N = 4 - 10; Medium Dense N = 10 – 30; Dense N = 30 – 50; From BS5930 1999+A2:2010.



45

The results from M09 near the western edge of the main shipping channel are notable as they are

somewhat higher than the main group of results but some N values in M10 are also elevated.

Blow counts taken at PA31 and PA28 are not in line with the trend, but are located further east of

Stoneledge.

Table 6.1.2 Undrained Shear Strength and SPT Test Summary - Alluvium

Index Property No Tests Min Mean Max Standard Deviation

Undrained Shear Strength cu (kPa) 30 5 37 240 46

SPT N Value (Cohesive) 78 0 3.4 16 3.4

SPT N Value (Granular) 110 1 11.6 65 9.8

Shear Box

Table 6.1.3 and Figure 6.1.8 show the results of 10 shear box tests carried out on tamped samples

of alluvium. The records are arranged in order of decreasing dry density. Also provided are the

particle size distribution test results which were carried out on material taken from the same

disturbed sample used for the shear box test. To facilitate the interpretation, results from a linear

regression of the individual set of three test results has been provided in addition to a regression

with the intercept set to 0 kPa

In general, the results are showing an increase in strength with increasing density with a friction

angle 'increasing from 41o to 45o (for a cohesion c' of 0 kPa) although there are some anomalies.

The result for L04 (12.5 m) is actually for a cohesive material and hence the lower strength and

associated higher dry densities. Low results in comparison were also recorded for M03 (12.5 m)

and L04 (11.5 m) with nothing discernible to justify the difference. Whilst L04 was noted as

subrounded to rounded, M09 (4.0 m and 6.5 m) were both noted as subangular to rounded.

Triaxial Testing

A series of advanced triaxial tests are underway involving locally instrumented samples with shear

wave measurement. The tests are soon to be completed and results will be reviewed when

available.

6.1.4 Compressibility

Results from the oedometer tests are presented in Figure 6.1.9. As can be seen, there is a wide

range in initial void ratio associated with the material variability. Shown in Figure 6.1.10 is the

coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) and coefficient of expansion (ms) for the first loading

and reloading stages

The standard or first loading mv as well as the reloading is taken as the coefficient of volume

compressibility over the first load increment above the estimated in situ overburden pressure.



46

Similarly, the expansion ms values are taken as the first load decrement from the estimated in situ

overburden pressures. As to be expected, the reloading compressibility values are lower than the

first loading stage and are considered more representative of the in situ compressibility. In

general the compressibility of the material reduces with increasing depth.

6.1.5 Permeability

Results from permeability testing undertaken in situ and within the laboratory are shown in

Figure 6.1.11. Referring to Table 4.5.3, all rising head tests were carried out in standpipes

whereas the falling head tests were carried out in boreholes during drilling. The laboratory testing

were constant head tests in a permeameter.

For the rising head test, the test zone will have covered several strata but were generally either

clays or peat with measured pearmeability k ranging from 4 x 10-6 ms-1 to 9.4 x 10-6 ms-1. The

failing head tests were undertaken in either a gravel or a clay and hence the significant difference

in values (3.7 x 10-5 ms-1 and 9.4 x 10-8 ms-1). The constant head tests were undertaken on either

gravels (6.3 x 10-6 ms-1 and 6.5 x 10-5 ms-1) or sands (3.5 x 10-6 ms-1 and 6.0 x 10-6 ms-1).

What must be taken into consideration when comparing results is the difference between testing

techniques and flow directionality with the measured permeability highly affected by the in situ

anisotropy. Similarly, tests in the constant head permeameter will be based on placed densities

and may not replicate the in situ macrofabric although they do provide a useful indication of

values to be encountered. Further discussions of the results have been provided in Section 6.7.

6.1.6 Cone Penetration Testing

A total of 19 static cone penetration tests were undertaken at Goxhill and 6 at Paull. For Goxhill,

CPT’s 01 to 07 were undertaken around the proposed drive pit (Figure 6.1.12) with the remaining

CPT’s carried out along the tunnel alignment (Figure 6.1.13). The CPT’s at Paull were additional to

the main Phase 1 scope (Figure 6.1.14). It should be noted that Figures 6.1.12 to 6.1.14 include

results from CPT’s in the alluvial and glacial deposits and the following sections discuss the results

as a whole to facilitate comparison.

As previously discussed in Section 5, it is likely the upper 3 m to 4 m of material in CPT01 to CPT13

are alluvial in origin. Referring to Figure 6.1.12, values of cone end resistance qc are initially less

than 1 MPa to around -1m OD before increasing to around 5 MPa at -3 m OD and then dropping

to around 2 MPa at -6m OD before starting to increase again. The corresponding friction ratio Rf,

is showing a greater amount of scatter to -1 m OD with values ranging between 4 % and 11 %

before levelling off around 5 % on average with a slight increase in scatter at around -6 m OD.

The CPT response to -1 m OD is typically associated with organic materials becoming clays as the

qc increases. Based on the CPT response, it is likely alluvial deposits extend to around -1 m OD

with the resulting change being indicative of glacial deposits. This interpretation is more in

agreement with laboratory results and field observations during hand dug pitting. At -6m OD, the

behaviour is more associated with the chalk. In general, there is a noticeable uniformity in the

CPT results.



47

In Figure 6.1.13, CPT’s from outside the drive pit area have been compared. These correspond to

an increase in alluvial thickness as discussed in Section 5. Once again, what is noticeable is the low

qc values in CPT16, CPT17 and CPT18 corresponding to the greatest depths of alluvial deposits.

Similar low values have been noted for all the tests but to varying levels before increasing to

around 5 MPa as per CPT01 to CPT07. Similar trends are also noticeable with the friction ratio

with initially high values between 4 % and 13 % to 0 m OD before to reducing to values between 1

% and 5 %. Typically, low values of qc associated with low Rf values correspond to sensitive fine

grained materials whereas higher values of Rf correspond to more organic materials. Once again,

the depths of alluvial deposits when compared to nearby boreholes are corresponding to low qc

values.

For Paull, referring to Figure 6.1.13, there is a more marked variation in qc values with the higher

values noted in CPTA01 to CPTA03 corresponding to granular materials. The responses in CPTA04

to CPTA06 are indicative of organic clays to clays. Increased depths of alluvial deposits were

noted around Paull AGI with depths reducing and the material becoming more granular outside

the AGI. This localised variation in geology is visible in the CPT results.



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

48

Table 6.1.3 Shear Box Tests - Alluvium

Hole Ref

Depth (m bgl)

Sample ID

Bulk

Density

(Mg/m3)

Dry Density

d (Mg/m3)

Void Ratio

e(3)

c'

(kPa)

'

(Deg)

c' (kPa)

'

(Deg)

IP (%)

Grading(1), (2)

Clay

(<0.002mm)

Silt

(<0.063mm)

Sand

(<2mm)

Gravel

(<63mm)

Cobble

(<200mm)

L04(4)

12.5 B44 1.93 1.71 0.45 8 33.5 0 35.7 17 6 5 46 36 7

M07 8.0 B25 1.98 1.64 0.56 9 42.0 0 43.8

3 15 82 0 0

M07 4.0 B12 2.01 1.63 0.60 3 44.0 0 45.4

0 11 88 0 0

M09 6.5 B23 1.94 1.63 0.60 12 38.5 0 43.6

0 6 93 1 0

L04 11.5 B40 1.93 1.60 0.63 17 30.5 0 35.1

0 4 96 1 0

M03 12.5 B46 2.00 1.59 0.61 1 36.5 0 36.7

5 16 79 0 0

M09 4.0 B15 1.98 1.56 0.66 13 36.0 0 42.0

0 12 87 0 0

M10 4.0 B12 1.94 1.55 0.69 6 39.5 0 42.1

0 8 92 0 0

M03 3.0 B16 1.93 1.54 0.70 10 36.0 0 40.7

0 6 94 0 0

M10 6.5 D19 1.90 1.56 0.70 12 35.5 0 41.0

0 9 91 0 0

1. All gradings have been undertaken on the same sample from which the shear box sample was prepared.

2. Test specimens prepared from material passing the 2mm sieve.

3. Void ratio measured after consolidation of the sample

4. Sample location corresponds to an interface between a cohesive and granular deposit. The shear box sample has been described as cohesive but the grading at the same depth is

granular and considered unrepresentative of the tested material.



49

6.2 Glacial Deposits

6.2.1 General

The glacial deposits consist of interbedded layers of cohesive and granular deposits. The cohesive

deposits are described as firm to very stiff, brownish grey, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly silty clay.

Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is angular to subrounded fine to coarse chalk and mixed lithologies. The

granular deposits are typically described as dense to very dense, brown, slightly clayey, slightly

gravelly, fine to coarse sand. Gravel is fine to coarse angular to subrounded chalk and mixed

lithologies. Occasionally dense to very dense brown slightly clayey slightly sandy fine to coarse gravel

of angular to subrounded chalk and mixed lithologies. Sand is fine to coarse.

6.2.2 Classification

Samples of glacial deposits were tested in the laboratory for index properties including natural

moisture content (w), liquid limit (wL), plastic limit (wP), particle density (s), bulk density () and

particle size distribution. A summary of classification tests carried out on alluvium can be found in

Table 6.2.1

Particle size distribution The results of particle size distributions curves are presented in Figure 6.2.1. For Goxhill, the majority

of samples tested were cohesive containing between 18 % and 96 % clay and silt although some

gradings show high fractions of sands and gravels. When compared to tests undertaken in the

overwater boreholes and at Paull, there is a very similar envelope of results. However, a second

envelope ranging from uniformly graded sands to gravels is visible at Paull and the Humber. When

the results are reviewed as a whole, 2 distinct grading envelopes are noted covering the full spectrum

from clays to gravels.

Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits

The results from Atterberg Limit and natural moisture content tests are presented in Figure 6.2.2

along with historical data.

Referring to the moisture content w, historic and recent data are in overall agreement. The results

are somewhat variable to -5 m AOD with elevated values recorded up to 240 % associated with

organic materials. Below this elevation, the moisture content is reasonably consistent ranging

between 10 % and 30 %.

Reference to the plasticity indices (IP) shows values largely below 20 % although there is a reasonable

variation in results down to -5 m AOD with some elevated values up to 155 % recorded (Figure 6.2.3).

There does appear to be a trend of reducing IP with depth. There is also a significantly reduced

scatter in plastic limit wp values when compared to liquid limit wL results (Figure 6.2.2).

The majority of samples have liquidity indices IL less than 0.6 (mean 0.26) although there are some

tests, particularly at shallower depths closer to 1.0.

Reference to the plasticity chart (Figure 6.2.4) shows the majority of tested samples plotting above

the A line as clays with plasticity’s typically ranging from low to high. However, there are some



50

extremely high values noted at Paull in the historic boreholes and in the recent borehole L01 at

Goxhill. However, as previously discussed, the latter is more than likely alluvial in origin. Once again,

there is a good agreement between historic and recent test results.

Table 6.2.1 Classification Tests – Glacial Deposits


Deviation

Moisture content w (%) 184 6.3 23.6

(20.5)1

240

(76)1

26.2

(10.2)1

Plastic Limit wP (%) 126 10 17.7

(16.1)2

99

(35)2

11.0

(3.9)2

Liquid Limit wL (%) 133 17 36.5

(32.0)3

254

(102)3

31.6

(10.8)3

Plasticity Index IP (%) 126 3 19.2

(16.1)4

155

(67)4

21.6

(7.6)4

Liquidity Index IL 116 -0.63 0.26 1.57 0.36

Particle Density s 9 2.57 2.68 2.88 0.08

Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 61 1.49

[14.6]5

2.09

[20.5]5

2.35

[23.1]5

0.16

[1.6]5

1. Excludes 190 % (2.5 m bgl), 240 % (2.5 m bgl) and 200 % (3 m bgl) at borehole PA34.




5. Unit weight [] kN/m3.

Particle Density The results for particle densities are given in Figure 6.2.3 with values closely spaced between 2.66

and 2.68 although an elevated value is noted from historical testing at Paull.

Bulk Density

Bulk density () tests were undertaken on 61 samples (Figure 6.2.3) with values ranging between

1.49 Mg/m3 and 2.35 Mg/m3. The majority of tests had values in excess of 2.0 Mg/m3 although low

values are noted at shallow depth at Goxhill and are likely to be due to the material being alluvial in

origin rather than glacial.

6.2.3 Strength

Laboratory and in situ testing included tests to measure the strength of the alluvium in the form of

unconsolidated “quick” undrained (UU) triaxial tests and indirectly through standard penetration

tests. A summary of the results is given in Table 6.2.2 below.



51

Undrained Shear Strength

Referring to Figure 6.2.5, a limited number of UU tests were undertaken due to the lack of intact

samples and what has been carried out, was undertaken on samples obtained through cable

percussive techniques. Measured values of cu typically range from 20 kPa to 150 kPa although some

strengths up to 330 kPa were recorded. Looking at the data as a whole, there does appear to be an

increase in strength with depth and as previously discussed, it is likely the very low and low strength

materials at Goxhill are in fact alluvial in origin.

Standard penetration tests

The results of the in situ SPT test are shown in Figures 6.2.6 and 6.2.7 differentiated on the basis of

cohesive and granular deposits. Once again, there does appear to be reasonable agreement between

historic and Phase 1 results where available although the results from the overwater works

undertaken further north of the site (CEGB (1968)) show some deviation. A total of 173 SPT tests

were performed in the glacial deposits. Referring to Table 6.2.2, on average, the SPT N values in the

granular materials are 20 % lower than those in the cohesive deposits.

With reference to the cohesive tests, the majority of results are less than 40 which based on a cu/N

ratio of 4.5 (CIRIA 143 (1995) implies an undrained shear strength cu up to 180 kPa or a material of

high strength at best which is comparable to results reported in Figure 6.2.5. Looking at the data as a

whole, there does appear to be an increase in strength with depth but it is not significant.

Referring to Figure 6.2.7 and the granular deposits, a similar trend and scatter to the cohesive

deposits is noted although low values are recorded between -15 m AOD and -25 m AOD. With N

values typically ranging between 5 and 40, this corresponds to a very loose to dense material based

on BS5930 (2010) with an indication of an increase in density with depth and associated strength

increase.

Table 6.2.2 Strength Test Summary - Glacial Deposits


Deviation

Undrained Shear Strength cu (kPa) 29 18 87 330 80

SPT N Value (Cohesive) 88 1 27.0

(25.2)1

98

(59)1

17.7

(13.9)1

SPT N Value (Granular) 85 3 24.7

(20)2

87

(52)2

17.1

(11.9)2

1. Excludes N = 98 at PA39, N = 81 and N = 79 at PA32 and N = 4 at L14.

2 Excludes N = 50 (x4) at L15 (top of chalk), N = 42 at PA35, N = 52 at L14 (5.2 m bgl), N = 60, 41, 87, 63, 52, 59, 50

and 62 from 1968 boreholes.

Shear Box

Table 6.2.3 and Figure 6.2.8 show the results of 6 shear box tests with 5 tests carried out on tamped

granular samples and 1 sample (L08 U22 5.2 m) being intact. The results are arranged in order of

decreasing dry density. Also provided are the particle size distribution test results which were carried

out on material taken from the same disturbed sample used for the shear box test. To facilitate the



52

interpretation, results from a linear regression of the individual set of three test results has been

provided in addition to a regression with the intercept set to 0 kPa.

In general, the results are showing a nominal increase in strength with increasing density with a

friction angle 'increasing from 34o to 36o (for a cohesion c' of 0 kPa). However, the fines fraction

and variation in results due to the test procedure could readily account for the slight differences

recorded. The intact sample (L08) has recorded an elevated value in comparison but is from a very

stiff gravelly clay gravelly clay and the friction angles ' of 35.5o is not too dissimilar to values

reported in CIRIA C504 (1999).

Triaxial Testing

A series of advanced triaxial tests are underway involving locally instrumented samples with shear

wave measurement. The tests are soon to be completed and results will be reviewed when available.

Figure 6.2.9 shows the stress path of 4 multistage consolidated undrained triaxial tests carried out on

glacial samples obtained from L01, L02 and L14. The two tests at Goxhill recorded shear strengths c'

10 kPa, ' 33o and c' 32 kPa, ' 22o respectively while the two tests at Paull recorded shear strengths

c' 15 kPa, ' 22o and c' 32 kPa, ' 22o respectively. A detailed analysis will be undertaken of the test

results on completion of the scheduled triaxial testing.

6.2.4 Consolidation and Compressibility

Results from the oedometer tests are presented in Figure 6.2.10. As can be seen, there is a wide

range in initial void ratio associated with the material variability. Shown in Figure 6.2.11 is the

coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) and coefficient of expansion (ms) for the first loading and

reloading stages. As to be expected, the reloading compressibility values are lower than the first

loading stage and are considered more representative of the insitu compressibility. In general the

compressibility of the material reduces with increasing depth with the compressibility ranging from

0.08 m2/MN and 0.65 m2/MN.

6.2.5 Permeability

Results from permeability testing undertaken in situ and within the laboratory are shown in Figure

6.1.12. Referring to Table 4.5.3, all falling head tests were carried out in boreholes and all rising head

tests in standpipes other than the test in L14 at 22.14 m bgl which was a rising head tests carried out

in the borehole during drilling operations. Detailed discussions of the results have been provided in

Section 6.7.

6.2.6 Cone Penetration Testing

A total of 19 static cone penetration tests were undertaken at Goxhill and 6 at Paull. For Goxhil, CPT’s

01 to 07 were undertaken around the proposed drive pit (Figure 6.1.12) with the remaining CPT’s

carried out along the tunnel alignment (Figure 6.1.13). The CPT’s at Paull were additional to the main

Phase 1 scope (Figure 6.1.14). Reference should be made to Section 6.1.6 where the results have

been discussed in further detail.



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

53

Table 6.2.3 Shear Box Tests - Glacial Deposits

Hole Ref

Depth (m bgl)

Sample ID

Bulk

Density

(Mg/m3)

Dry Density

d (Mg/m3)

Void Ratio

e(3)

c' (kPa)

' c' (kPa)

' IP (%)

Grading(1), (2)

Clay

(<0.002mm)

Silt

(<0.063mm)

Sand

(<2mm)

Gravel

(<63mm)

Cobble

(<200mm)

L08

5.2 U22 2.15 1.86 0.38 27 35.5 0 41.8 12 26 33 35 4

L18 19.5 B41 2.09 1.72 0.48 15 33.5 0 35.5

0 14 70 16

L16 10.5 B36 1.96 1.65 0.58 6 36.0 0 37.6

0 9 90 1

L16A 24 B53 1.96 1.64 0.57 18 31.5 0 35.9

9 8 82 1

L16A 21 B49 1.90 1.59 0.64 21 32.5 0 35.3

0 9 90 1

L16A 22.5 B51 1.89 1.59 0.63 23 31.0 0 33.8

0 10 90 0

1. All gradings have been undertaken on the same sample from which the shear box sample was prepared.

2. Test specimens prepared from material passing the 2mm sieve.

3. Void ratio measured after consolidation of the sample



54

6.3 Flamborough Chalk

6.3.1 General

The Flamborough Chalk is described as very weak (locally extremely weak) to weak medium to high

density white chalk with extremely closely to closely spaced laminations of grey marl. Fractures are

extremely closely to medium spaced. The chalk is described as being locally stained orange and

comprising occasional black sponges, cream shell fragments and trace fossils. It was observed to be

generally free of flint.

6.3.2 Index Properties

Dry Density

Several authors have shown (CIRIA C574 (2002)) that the most easily measured property of chalk

indicative of its mass behaviour is the dry density d of intact blocks. Although a range of index tests

exist for intact chalk, CIRIA C574 goes on to suggest that dry density should be the index normally

reported.

Table 3.2 of CIRIA C574 notes the following divisions for dry density;

Low density < 1.55 Mg/m3

Medium density 1.55 to 1.70 Mg/m3

High density 1.70 to 1.95 Mg/m3

Very high density > 1.95 Mg/m3

Test results have been plotted against elevation and are presented as Figure 6.3.1

For the Flamborough Chalk, it can be seen that results are broadly between 1.75 Mg/m3 and 2.00

Mg/m3 with a mean value of 1.87 Mg/m3. This is indicative of a high to very high dry density chalk

with the mean value signifying high density.

The high density values recorded here are typical for the northern chalks of Yorkshire and

Lincolnshire. Clayton (1983) notes; While the chalk of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire is known to have a

uniformly higher density, chalks in southern England are much more variable.

Figures 12 and 13 in Clayton go on to quantify this with measured values provided. It is notable, that

although the values recorded here suggest high to very high density, the mean value for the

Flamborough Chalk is towards the lower range of values presented in the histogram for Yorkshire and

Lincolnshire (Figure 13 of Clayton). Figure 12 of Clayton’s paper presents measured values for

northern chalk in the form of values overlain on a map of eastern England. There are three values

provided around the Humber with a mean value of 2.09 Mg/m3. Around 50 km east-north-east of the

site, the chalk outcrops at Flamborough Head. The mean value from five values given here is 2.24

Mg/m3. Conversely, values reported for Cambridgeshire and Suffolk are around 1.50 Mg/m3.



55

Bulk density

Results from bulk densities are presented in Figure 6.3.2. Measured values from 273 tests broadly

range from 2.05 Mg/m3 to 2.25 Mg/m3 with a mean value of 2.16 Mg/m3. Although a few tests lie

outside the main body of results, the majority of tests lie within a fairly narrow range with no

discernible trend with elevation.

Saturated Moisture Content

Results for saturated moisture content (SMC) for Flamborough Chalk are presented as Figure 6.3.3.

The SMC is the percentage of water required to fill all voids and is directly related to dry density and

porosity and is derived from the intact dry density. Values from 112 tests typically range between 13

% and 20 %, mean 16.1 %, although one test in L14 was recorded at 32 % at -42.5 m AOD.

CIRIA C574 notes that there can be a large variation in SMC (and porosity) in chalk. This variability is

due to a variation of deposition and diagenesis followed by alteration and weathering. Figure 4.1 of

CIRIA C574 depicts a histogram from a survey of English chalk with a wide range of values between 4

and 40 %.

The results recorded here are in fairly narrow range when compared to variation reported in the

CIRIA Report.

Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits

Figure 6.3.4 presents the natural moisture content w, plastic limit wp, liquid limit wL, plasticity index

Ip, and liquidity index IL. Figure 6.3.5 depicts the A-Line plot for Flamborough Chalk.

Natural moisture content has been recorded as generally between 12 % and 22 %. There is a trend of

slightly higher values recorded in material recovered from higher elevations. However, caution

should be exercised when considering natural moisture values. It is noted in CIRIA C574 that

determination of the in situ water content is difficult owing to the rapid rate of evaporation that

occurs once the material is exposed. Notwithstanding this, the results reported above for SMC are

broadly in the same range as natural moisture content. On this basis, the recorded natural moisture

content values can be considered as appropriate for use.

Atterberg Limits testing has been undertaken on samples of the chalk that have been crushed. It can

be seen from Figures 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 that the plasticity index (IP) is generally low with values from the

majority of tests less than 10 %. Typically, the liquid limit (wL) is between 20 % and 30 %. Test results

indicate all material tested can be classified as clay or a silt of low plasticity (CL or ML respectively).

CIRIA C574 notes; while the Cenomanian contains sufficient clay to alter its plasticity the great

majority of chalk can be considered (with the exception of the flint) as almost pure calcium carbonate.

This “white chalk” has a very limited range of plasticity compared with that of the whole deposit. The

report goes on to note typical values for this “white chalk” of between 4 % and 9 % for plasticity

index and between 18 % and 32 % for liquid limit.

It can be concluded that results recorded are typically low plasticity and correlate with the “white

chalk” values quoted in CIRIA C574. However it should be noted that numerous thin to thick



56

laminations of marl have been recorded in the Flamborough Chalk which will typically exhibit higher

plasticity than those recorded here.

Slake Durability

Slake durability testing comprises rotating ‘rock’ within a wire drum in water. The weight retained

after a fixed time period is recorded and expressed as a percentage compared with the original value.

This value is known as the slake durability index.

The tests carried out here are dual cycle tests. A test is undertaken for a period of time (ten minutes)

and the durability index determined. This is then repeated and the durability index determined for

this second cycle.

The tests provide a useful index of material degradability, reflecting the behaviour of a ‘rock’ when

wet at a tunnel face. Attewell (1995) notes that such tests should be regarded as essential for

mudrocks, limestones, chalk, and dolomites in order to quantify possible slaking problems in the

tunnel.

The test results have been summarised in Figure 6.3.6 in terms of material retained after first cycle

and second cycle. It can be seen in this plot that for 52 tests, the first cycle lies between 95 and 99 %.

The second cycle lies between 92 % and 98 %. The difference between first and second cycles ranges

between 0 % and 3.6 %.

These results suggest that the material tested is durable. Attewell notes that slaking can be

problematic where values are less than 85 %. However it should be noted that intact chalk pieces

have been tested here rather than softer marl and that results need to be reviewed in the context of

local geology and hydrology.

Results have been compared with Figure 11.16 as presented by Harris et al (1996). This figure

presents data from slake durability tests undertaken in chalk for the Channel Tunnel. These are noted

as having relatively high slake durability with first cycle tests typically between 90 %and 98 % and

second cycle typically between 81 % and 92 %. Harris et al notes that this suggests that the calcium

carbonate present in the samples is acting as an effective cementing agent and suppressing

breakdown and swelling. The results achieved in Flamborough Chalk at the Feeder 9 site suggest that

the chalk here is more durable than that described by Harris et al.

Cerchar Abrasivity Test

The Cerchar Abrasivity Test is based on a steel pin with defined geometry and hardness that

scratches the surface of a rough rock sample over a distance of 10 mm under a static load of 70 N.

The Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) is calculated from the measured diameter of the resulting wear on

the pin.

Tests have been undertaken on chalk and flint where present and sampled. Table 6.3.1 (after Kasling

and Thuro, 2010) notes the following classification;



57

Table 6.3.1 Classification of CAI

CAI Abrasivity Classification Examples

0.0 to 0.3 Not abrasive Organic material

0.3 to 0.5 Not very abrasive Mudstone, marl

0.5 to 1.0 Slightly abrasive Slate, limestone

1.0 to 2.0 Medium abrasive Schist, sandstone

2.0 t0 4.0 Very abrasive Basalt, quartzitic sandstone

4.0 to 6.0 Extremely abrasive Amphibolite, quartzite

Results to date are presented in Figure 6.3.7. It can be seen that the values are generally zero with a

few tests having nominal values, the maximum being 0.19. Results suggest the chalk is not abrasive.

Flint is generally not present in the Flamborough Chalk and no flint samples have been tested.

6.3.3 Intact Properties

Unconfined Compressive Strength and Point Load Tests Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and point load tests (PLT) have been carried out on intact

chalk samples. It is notable that when compared to the amount of rotary coring undertaken, a

relatively small proportion of the core recovered was suitable for UCS testing.

UCS testing is universally used in rock mechanics to ascertain the unconfined compressive strength of

the material being tested. However, it is notable for chalk, that CIRIA C574 states the test should be

strictly regarded as an index test. The point load test was originally developed as an index test to

predict the UCS when recovered core was too broken for conventional UCS testing.

To obtain an equivalent UCS value from point load testing a correlation factor, K, must be applied

where K = UCS / (PLT index Is(50)). Is(50) is the point load index normalized to equivalent 50 mm

diameter samples.

Figure 6.3.8 presents correlated Is(50) values for UCS and measured UCS tests against elevation. Figure

6.3.9 presents the same data against depth below top of chalk.

In order to ascertain a suitable correlation between Is(50) and UCS, the measured UCS values have

been compared against the closest point load tests. Disregarding spurious results, the resultant mean

value of K is 21.6.

Reference to Figure 4 in Bowden et al (1998) suggests a value of K = 17 for a UCS of 7 MPa and K = 20

for UCS of 10 MPa. Albeit the figure relates to southern chalks. On the basis of the test results and

Bowden et al a K value of 18 is considered reasonable for Flamborough Chalk.

It can be seen that there is significant scatter in the results, especially with regard to the point load

tests with the measured UCS values showing less variability. However, there is no discernible increase

in strength with elevation or depth below top of chalk. A mean value of 7.1 MPa is recorded from 9

UCS tests. When correlated point load tests are considered, the mean value is 9.8 MPa. Results

generally indicate chalk to be very weak to weak.



58

It is notable that Figure 4.17 in CIRIA C574 depicts a plot of UCS versus density based on information

presented by Matthews and Clayton (1993). When the mean value for UCS is compared with mean

value for dry density as presented above, 1.87 Mg/m3, it can be seen that results here are close to

the ‘design line’ for saturated chalk.

Brazilian Tensile Testing

Results from 13 Brazilian Tensile tests undertaken on samples recovered from Flamborough Chalk are

presented in Figure 6.3.10. Measured values lie between approximately 0.6 and 1.0 MPa, with a

mean value 0.89 MPa recorded. Based on a mean value of 9.8 MPa for UCS, the resulting ratio

between compressive and tensile strength is 11.0.

Effective Strength Tests are ongoing and results will be reviewed when available.

Modulus of Elasticity (from UCS and Triaxial)

At time of writing, triaxial tests are ongoing and results will be reviewed when available. However,

the Modulus of Elasticity (E) has been directly measured on 8 UCS locally instrumented samples. Full

results have not been received for all tests with 3 tests received as Eave in tabular format only. As a

consequence, results have been summarised in Figure 6.3.11 and 6.3.12 as Eave versus elevation and

depth below top of chalk. Secant and tangential moduli are not considered at this time. As can be

seen, there is no discernible trend in Eave value with elevation or depth below top of chalk. Values

range between 6.97 GPa and 19.90 GPa with a mean value of 10.86 GPa.

Poisson’s Ratio (measured in UCS)

The Poisson’s Ratio was also measured on the 8 locally instrumented samples described above.

Results against elevation are presented in Figure 6.3.13 with values ranging between 0.185 and

0.399, with a mean value of 0.3 recorded.

Permeability Results from the triaxial permeability have not been received at time of writing.

6.3.4 Mass Properties

Rock Quality

Structureless / Grade Dc Chalk

Static cone penetration tests (CPTs) at Goxhill will have encountered structureless / Grade Dc chalk

below the glacial and alluvial deposits. However, due to the nature of static cone testing it is not

possible to distinguish which parts of the test were within the Flamborough Chalk and which were

completed in the Burnham Chalk. However, when comparing with the thickness of the Flamborough

Chalk encountered in the nearest exploratory holes, it is likely a significant amount of chalk

encountered by the CPTs is Flamborough Chalk.

A total of 13 CPTs penetrated at least 1m into the chalk layer. In Figures 6.3.14 and 6.3.15, cone end

resistance (qc) and friction ratio (Rf) recorded in chalk in all CPTs are plotted into two individual

graphs, qc and Rf against depth from top of chalk.



59

The typical qc value of the chalk is 5 MPa to 35 MPa, increasing to 10 MPa to 35 MPa when the chalk

becomes more competent / less weathered at 2m below top of chalk. The typical friction ratio of the

chalk is 0 % to 2 %, with the exception of first 1.5 m of the chalk where the friction ratio is slightly

higher, up to 6 to 8 % in places.

Within the cable percussive boreholes standard penetration tests were completed in the

structureless / Grade Dc chalk. Referring to Figure 6.3.16, SPT’s of between 30 and 50 / Refusal are

typically encountered within the structureless / Grade Dc Flamborough Chalk. However, CIRIA C574

warns against the correlation of SPT values with chalk weathering grade although it can be noted that

SPTs were generally not completed below 6m penetration into the Flamborough chalk.

Grade A Chalk

The quality of the chalk rock encountered was recorded through the Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

logging of the chalk cores. Total Core Recovery (TCR) and Solid Core Recovery (SCR) are not always

related to rock quality and are not discussed further.

RQD can be generally correlated to the common tunnelling classification as follows (after Deere et al,

1970):

Excellent 90 – 100 %

Good 75 – 90 %

Fair 50 – 75 %

Poor 25 – 50 %

Very Poor 0 – 25 %

A plot of all RQD data for the chalk (Flamborough and Burnham) has been presented in Figure 6.3.17.

This shows that for the initial 5 m of rock core the RQD was typically Very Poor and that an RQD of

Good or Excellent was not typically achieved until at least 10m penetration into chalk. It was not

until typically 20 m to 25 m penetration into the chalk that Very Poor rock was generally not

encountered.

Comparison of the RQD as logged from the recovered core was compared against the “theoretical”

RQD from fractures that were logged within the optical and acoustic geophysics logs (Figure 6.3.18).

Although the comparison should be treated with caution (the geophysics may have missed some

natural fractures) it does indicate that rock quality may be better than that recovered from the

borehole.

Down-hole Geophysics

The downhole geophysics are discussed in detail within Appendix A and examines the data provided

by the caliper, natural gamma, resistivity, density, porosity, fluid temperature, fluid conductivity,

salinity, fluid velocity and optical and acoustical borehole imager tools. Key points noted with respect

to the geophysics testing are:



60

In general the exploratory hole bores are relatively smooth which is backed up by the optical images and, to a lesser extent, acoustic images.

Breakouts recorded by the caliper are generally as a result of wide major fractures, multiple fractures, steeply inclined fractures or a combination of these.

In situ density (bulk density) recorded by the density tool (2.25 Mg/m3) correlates well with literature and laboratory test results. There is no noticeable difference in bulk density recorded by the density tool between the Flamborough and Burnham Chalks.

Porosity values of 23 % to 35 % recorded by the porosity tool correlates well with literature and laboratory test results and indicate a typically high to very high density chalk. There is no noticeable difference in porosity recorded by the porosity tool between the Flamborough and Burnham Chalks.

Water conductivity, salinity and temperature measurements are higher in the marine boreholes due to the use of water from the River Humber as a flush. Fluid velocities recorded indicate that there is no flow into or out of the chalk.

Optical and acoustical data indicates that rock quality of the chalk is generally better than that of the core recovered from the boreholes.

Structural data obtained from the optical and acoustical data indicates that the bedding is

approximately horizontal which correlates well with literature. The primary orientation of fractures is

approximately horizontal. There is no clear secondary fracture orientation.

Distribution of Flint / Marl The locations of flint gravel/cobbles and marl bands were obtained from the chalk descriptions within

the borehole logs. Generally the flint and marl was recorded within the logs at specific depths,

however, where they were included in the general description the depth of the flint / marl was

represented at the mid-point of the strata depth range. The locations were then plotted against

elevation (m AOD) for land boreholes (Figure 6.3.19) and marine boreholes (Figure 6.3.20).

As can be clearly seen in Figures 6.3.19 and 6.3.20 flint is largely absent from the Flamborough Chalk.

This is generally in accordance with the geological memoir (British Geological Survey, 1994) which

records the Flamborough Chalk as having “sporadic bands of white flint” with the “tabular grey flint

marker beds that typify the underlying formations absent”. Although flint is recorded in the

Flamborough Chalk on the Goxhill side of the site the thickness of the Flamborough Chalk is limited (0

m to 6.9 m thick / typically 2.3 m to 2.75 m thick) and structureless. Within the marine boreholes the

flint is restricted to the boreholes on the western side of the Humber (M01, M02, M03 and M05).

Flints within the Flamborough Chalk are typically described as light grey or white in colour and rarely

tabular.

Marl bands are recorded in the Flamborough Chalk within the marine boreholes and the land

boreholes at Paull. As the Flamborough chalk on the Goxhill side of the Humber is structureless chalk

it would not be expected for marl bands to be discernible. The marl bands are typically described as

soft grey thin (<6 mm) to thick laminations (6 mm to 20 mm) and are typically extremely closely (<20

mm) to closely (60 mm to 200 mm) spaced.



61

In situ Permeability Testing (packers and variable head tests)

Packer Testing

The packer testing results have been interpreted in accordance with the general principles set out in

Section 25.5.1 of BS 5930 (2010). The characteristic permeabilities were determined in accordance

with Appendix 5 of CIRIA Report R113 (1986), Houlsby (1976) and BS EN ISO 22282-3 (2012). Failed

tests were not used to obtain information on permeability except for a single test in borehole M20 at

40 m bgl where only the final test stage was not completed due to a failed pump. The use of “Divers”

to obtain detailed direct pressure measurements within and above the test zone was completed for

the majority of the tests although this data has not been received at the time of writing and

therefore all pressure measurements are based on the surface gauge reading. It should be noted that

the surface gauge was connected by a thin high pressure plastic pipe directly into the test section and

not to the top of the drill rods. Although this is not a direct measurement, the friction loss due to the

pipe has been confirmed as minimal by the ground investigation contractor. For all tests it has been

assumed that water has not been escaping past the packer.

For each test the permeability (k) and flow rate (Q) was plotted against the differential pressure head

(H) of water for each test stage. Additionally the Lugeon pattern was plotted against the test

pressures. Plots of Q against H were compared against the examples in Annex B of BS EN 22282-3 and

the Lugeon pattern was compared with Table 1 of Houlsby (1976). Where there were discrepancies

between flow type Q against H plot and the Lugeon pattern, the Lugeon pattern took precedence.

The flow behaviour was categorised into one of the following five categories according to the closest

matching graph / pattern:

GOUP A – Laminar Flow

GROUP B – Turbulent Flow

GROUP C – Dilation

GROUP D – Wash-out

GROUP E – Void Filling

Once the dominant flow type was identified, the stage of the test at which the characteristic

permeability would be recorded was identified in accordance with the guidance given in Table 1 of

Houlsby (1976).

The plots of Q and k against H and Lugeon Pattern for all tests in Flamborough Chalk are presented in

Figures 6.3.21 to 6.3.32 along with the selection of the “Characteristic Permeability”. The results of

this interpretation of the packer tests within the Flamborough Chalk is summarised in Table 6.3.2

below.

Permeability values quoted in the factual report are based on the slope of the “best fit” line for the Q

against H plot and an approximate conversion from Lugeon value to permeability. This is appropriate

for the factual report only and these values have not been considered in this interpretation.



62

The borehole log and core photography have been examined at each test location along with the

geophysics optical (where water clarity permitted) and acoustic logs. There is a significant

discrepancy between the quality of the core recovered and the apparent quality of the in situ rock

from the geophysics. This is discussed further in the geophysics interpretation in Appendix A

although in general the quality of the in situ rock appears to be significantly better than that

recovered. The number of fractures within the test section, as recorded by the geophysics, are noted

in Table 6.3.2 below although in general there are very few discontinuities recorded, most of which

are minor fractures. Although not all test locations were covered by the geophysics, it is worth noting

that the test failed at the only location where a major fracture (this was within the Flamborough

Chalk) was recorded in situ within the test section. The failure of the test (unable to record pressure

within the test section) may not be due to the permeability of the fracture however and it is not

possible to confirm that a successful test was completed in a section that contained such a fracture

or fracture zone. It is therefore possible that the permeabilities calculated from the packer testing

may only represent the lower end of the permeabilities within the chalk. Higher permeabilities

associated with fracture zones may not be represented within this testing.

It should be noted that the CIRIA C574 incorrectly references BS 5930 to recommend the use of 3m

long test sections. Tests completed on this project were completed over a 1m long test section in

accordance with CIRIA Report R113 (>10 x hole radius). This is deemed to be an appropriate test

length for the equipment used.

A total of 18 packer tests were completed within the Flamborough Chalk of which 6 of these tests

failed due to not being able to record a test pressure within the test section.



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

63

Table 6.3.2 Packer Test Results within the Flamborough Chalk

Hole Ref.

Test section Test Info.

Test Validity

Material at test depth Flow Type* Lugeon Range

Characteristic Permeability

(ms-1

) Comments m bgl m AOD

L14 39.50 to 40.50

-37.18 to -38.18

Double Packer /

Land (Goxhill)

Failed Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 23 to 100 %

N/A N/A N/A General: Unable to record any pressure within test section.

M01 24.50 to 25.50

-28.94 to -29.94

Double Packer /

Marine

Full Test Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A3/A4

RQD: 0 %

Group B: Turbulent Flow

42.5 to 137.4

2.01 x 10-6

Flow Behaviour: A noticeable element of wash-out behaviour is noted with the increased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5.

Geophysics: 1 fracture/fissure of approx. 25 dip

angle and 1 bedding reading of approx. 10 within test section.

M02 24.00 to 25.00

-29.74 to -30.74

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2 top part and Grade A3/A4 bottom part

RQD: 12 %

Group D: Wash-out

41.3 to 69.4

4.82 x 10-6

Flow Behaviour: An element of Turbulent Flow is noted with the drop in Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 2.

M04 27.50 to 28.50

-30.33 to -31.33

Single Packer /

Marine

Failed Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A3

RQD: 0 %


M06 35.75 to 36.75

-41.45 To -42.45

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 60 %

If: TBC

Group D: Wash-out

88.1 to 374.1

2.60 x 10-5

Geophysics: 1 fracture/fissure of approx. 10 dip angle within test section.

M09 29.70 to 30.70

-34.75 to -35.75

Single Packer /

Marine

Failed Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 48 %


M09 30.70 to 31.70

-35.75 to -36.75

Single Packer /

Marine

Failed Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 60 %




064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

64

Hole Ref.

Test section Test Info. Test Validity



(ms-1

)

Comments

M09 35.00 to 36.00

-40.05 to -41.05

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 50 %

Group E: Void Filling

0.0 to 3.3 2.32 x 10-7

General: Test Stages 4 and 5 registered no flow.

M10 27.15 to 28.15

-34.68 to -35.68

Single Packer /

Marine

Failed Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A2 top part and Grade A5 bottom part

RQD: 0 %


Geophysics: 5 fractures/fissures of approx. 0 to

60 dip angle and 1 major fracture/fissure of

approx. 60 within test section (possible reason for test failure).

M10 32.25 to 33.25

-39.78 to -40.78

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A5

RQD: 0 %

Group C: Dilation

1.2 to 6.3 8.45 x 10-8

Flow Behaviour: A noticeable element of void filling behaviour is noted with the decreased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5 plus 2 and 4.


70 dip angle within test section.

M11 44.50 to 45.50

-57.67 to -58.67

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 89 %

Group C: Dilation

0.5 to 3.2 1.22 x 10-7

Flow Behaviour: The increase in Lugeon value between Test Stages 1 and 5 would indicate an element of wash-out behaviour although the decrease in Lugeon value between Test Stages 2 and 4 would indicate an element of void filling behaviour. Test Stage 5 has been taken as a reasonable average of the lowest and medium pressures.

Geophysics: 1 fracture/fissure of approx. 5 dip angle within test section.

M12 25.50 to 26.50

-39.06 to -40.06

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2 top part and Grade A5 bottom part

RQD: 32 to 83 %

Group B: Turbulent

23.3 to 39.1

2.01 x 10-6

Flow Behaviour: A noticeable element of filling behaviour is noted with the decreased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5 plus 2 and 4.



M12 30.60 to 31.60

-44.16 to-45.16

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A5

RQD: 27 %

Group C: Dilation

6.9 to 11.4 4.77 x 10-7





064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

65

Hole Ref.

Test section Test Info. Test Validity



(ms-1

)

Comments

M14 35.00 to 36.00

-40.23 to -41.23

Double Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 63 %


21.6 to 42.0

1.50 x 10-6

Flow Behaviour: There is a possible indication of an element laminar flow initially as the Lugeon value of Test Stages 1 and 2 are the same.

General: Zone of core loss between 35.75 and 36.00 m bgl.

M19 21.50 to 22.50

-33.51 to -34.51

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2/A3

RQD: 81 %

Group B: Turbulent

216.9 to 280.9

1.62 x 10-5

Flow Behaviour: A minor element of void filling behaviour is noted with the decreased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5 plus 2 and 4.

M19 29.50 to 30.50

-41.51 to -42.51

Single Packer /

Marine


CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 50 to 80 %

Group B: Turbulent

24.5 to 33.4

1.82 x 10-6

Flow Behaviour: A minor element of void filling behaviour is noted with the decreased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5 plus 2 and 4.

General: Zone of core loss between 29.62 and 29.80 m bgl.

M20 35.50 to 36.50

-39.11 to -40.11

Single Packer /

Marine

Failed Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A2

RQD: 40 %


M20 40.00 to 41.00

-43.61 to -44.61

Single Packer /

Marine

Partial Test

Flamborough Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A5

RQD: 13 to 63 %


31.0 to 86.0

2.15 x 10-6

General: Pump failed during test – Test Stage 5 not completed. Test Stage 4 pressure taken although void filling behaviour would indicate that Test Stage 5 (likely lower Ludgeon value) would likely correspond to the Characteristic Permeability.



66

Variable Head Testing

The variable head testing results have been interpreted in accordance with the general principles set

out in Section 25.4 of BS 5930 (2010) and BS EN ISO 22282-2 (2012). The formulae used to calculate

the permeability are based on the assumption that the natural groundwater does not vary during the

test. It is acknowledged the water levels are likely to vary to some degree due to the site location

beside the Humber (as has been noted during the groundwater monitoring). However, the variation

over the time of the tests (maximum 1 hour) is considered to be small and so this assumption is

deemed to be valid. For example, groundwater monitoring within L06, close to the Humber, gives a

maximum variation of approximately 1.2 m over a 5.5 hour cycle (equates to approximately 200 mm

over the 60 minute duration of the test).

Geophysics testing was not completed at the location of any of the variable head tests so it was not

possible to review the condition of the bore at the location of the test.

Table 6.3.3 Variable Head Test Results within the Flamborough Chalk

Hole Ref.

Test Section Test Info. Material at Test Depth

Permeability (ms

-1)

Comments m bgl m AOD

L01 12.00 -10.03 Falling Head Flamborough Chalk CIRIA Grade: Ungraded

RQD: N/A

Burnham Chalk CIRIA Grade: Ungraded

RQD: 0 %

9.00 x 10-6

General: Test completed in base of borehole. Test completed at boundary between Flamborough and Burnham Chalk.

L14 35.5 to 36.00

-33.17 to -33.67

Falling Head Flamborough Chalk CIRIA Grade: Ungraded

RQD: N/A

2.10 x 10-5

General: Test completed in base of borehole.

L16A 33.20 to 34.00

-30.29 to -31.09

Rising Head Flamborough Chalk CIRIA Grade: Ungraded

RQD: N/A

3.80 x 10-6


L01 10.70 to 12.70

-8.73 to -10.73

Rising Head Boundary is at 12 m bgl

Flamborough Chalk CIRIA Grade: Ungraded

RQD: N/A


RQD: 0 %

5.50 x 10-7

General: Test completed in standpipe.

Permeability Summary

All of the in situ permeability tests results within the Flamborough Chalk are shown in Figures 6.3.33

and 6.3.34. The permeability values measured range from a minimum value of 8.45 x 10-8 ms-1 to a

maximum of 2.6 x 10-5 ms-1 with a mean of 5.74 x 10-6 ms-1 and the range of values is relatively evenly

spread with no obvious errors or trends. These values of permeability appear to contradict the data

in Table 4.7.1 “Feedback from Drilling Operations” of this report which summarised the anecdotal

evidence from site that the permeabilities of the chalk are of several orders higher than those



67

measured by the testing (note some of the anecdotal evidence within this table does not refer to the

chalk). It is therefore considered that the above values quoted are to be treated with extreme

caution. It is considered that a greater understanding of permeability will only be possible when full

scale pumping tests have been completed as part of the Phase 2 ground investigation. These will be

completed in the Burnham Chalk only on the Goxhill side.

Shear Modulus / Modulus of Elasticity – High Pressure Dilatometer Testing

High Pressure Dilatometer (HPD) testing was undertaken at marine borehole locations across the

site. The draft Soil Engineering Factual Report (2014) contains results for 12 tests undertaken in the

Flamborough Chalk.

HPD testing is a form of pressuremeter test developed for stiffer materials including weak rocks. The

aim of the test, as with all pressuremeter testing, is to determine the stiffness of the ground by

application of radial pressure and establishing a relationship between the applied pressure and

resulting deformation. The pressure is applied by means of a flexible membrane protected from

damage by a ‘Chinese lantern’ with strain measured from direct sensing equipment located at six

equally spaced positions around the centre of the expanding region. It is notable, given the nature of

the testing, that stiffness’s recorded are based on horizontal values, and that all geological materials

are likely to exhibit some form of anisotropy.

Tests were undertaken by Cambridge Insitu based on the procedure and specification given by Clark

and Smith (1992). A summary of tests is given in Table 6.3.4 below.

Table 6.3.4 Summary of HPD testing in Flamborough Chalk

Hole Ref.

Test No Test

Depth (m bgl)

RL at EGL (m AOD)

RL test (m AOD)

Top of Chalk

(m bgl)

Depth below top of Chalk

(m)

Material Remarks (by Cambridge In situ)

Logging Notes

M01 1 21.6 -4.44 -26.0 14.9 6.7 Flamborough

Chalk Failed. Pocket too large to test

Logged as NI

M03 1 26.6 -5.47 -32.1 17.3 9.3 Flamborough

Chalk

Poor core recovery over test length. Oversized yet competent material

Grade A2 to A3

M05 1 26.8 -4.39 -31.2 17.1 9.7 Flamborough

Chalk Pocket oversized

Grade A2 and NI - Assumed core loss

M05 2 33.1 -4.39 -37.5 17.1 16.0 Flamborough

Chalk

Pocket still large, but better. Some membrane extrusion, arms 2,3 ,4 went negative

Grade A2

M08 1 19.8 -4.53 -24.3 16.8 3.0 Flamborough

Chalk

Logged as NI

M08 2 26.1 -4.53 -30.6 16.8 9.3 Flamborough

Chalk Almost full recovery

Grade A2 to A3

M08 3 37.5 -4.53 -42.0 16.8 20.7 Flamborough

Chalk

Oversized pocket. Flush problems during drilling.

Grade A2



68

Hole Ref.

Test No Test

Depth (m bgl)

RL at EGL (m AOD)

RL test (m AOD)

Top of Chalk

(m bgl)


(m)


Logging Notes

Core bit blocked during 2nd run

M11 2 17.4 -13.17 -30.6 9.4 8.0 Flamborough

Chalk

Very broken core. Good recovery. New cutting shoe on barrel. 99mm OD

Grade A2. Locally recovered as NI

M11 3 27.4 -13.17 -40.6 9.4 18.0 Flamborough

Chalk

Could only drill 2.4m pocket; barrel blocked off

Grade A2. Locally recovered as NI

M11 4 35.4 -13.17 -48.6 9.4 26.0 Flamborough

Chalk Grade A2

M13 2 20.9 -10.15 -31.1 9.1 11.8 Flamborough

Chalk Could only get 2m into pocket

Grade A2. some core loss

M13 3 29.9 -10.15 -40.1 9.1 20.8 Flamborough

Chalk

Hole collapsed but cleared. Only got 2m in. Test had to be aborted due to operator working into next shift (too many hours worked). Two good loops

Grade A2. Local core loss and NI

Results in the factual report are presented as Shear Modulus, G. In general terms an initial shear

modulus, Gi, is obtained as the membrane is expanded. This modulus often results in low stiffness

values as a result of ‘bedding in’ to the predrilled test pocket.

Further to the initial test, typically three unload-reload loops are undertaken as the test proceeds

with a corresponding Gur determined. The Gur values can typically be expected to be several times

greater than Gi.

Values recorded in the tests are summarised below in Table 6.3.5. These results are presented in

terms of Shear Modulus, G, and Modulus of Elasticity, E. The values of E are based on the correlation

given below noting that Poisson’s Ratio, , is assumed to be 0.25.



69

Table 6.3.5 Summary of Results and Corresponding Modulus of Elasticity, E for Flamborough Chalk

Hole Ref. Test No


(m)

Test Elevation (m AOD)

Gi

(MPa) Gur1

(MPa) Eur1

(MPa) Gur2

(MPa) Eur2

(MPa) Gur3

(MPa) Eur3

(MPa)

M03 1 9.3 -32.1 835 511 1278 1658 4145 2178 5445

M05 1 9.7 -31.2 324 777 1943 1268 3170 868 2171

M05 2 16.0 -37.5 425 267 666 679 1698 1095 2738

M08 1 3.0 -24.3 33 321 801 395 987 448 1120

M08 2 9.3 -30.6 324 416 1040 882 2205 1157 2893

M08 3 20.7 -42.0 554 155 388 824 2061 1465 3661

M11 2 8.0 -30.6 571 236 589 725 1813 1115 2787

M11 3 18.0 -40.6 673 426 1065 1186 2965 1433 3581

M11 4 26.0 -48.6 766 908 2271 1247 3118 1428 3569

M13 2 11.8 -31.1 242 241 603 527 1317 775 1937

M13 3 20.8 -40.1 83 655 1638 1080 2701

When considering the results presented in the factual report it is notable that some of the initial

unload – reload loops (Gur1) suggest that the results presented are based on tests taken too early in

the expansion, i.e. ‘bedding in’; see M03, Test 1. For the purpose of determination of applicable

modulus values, the first loop may be ignored.

It can also be observed that successive loops almost always result in a stiffer response. This is purely

a function of the mean effective stress pertaining at the time the loop is taken. Chalk is generally too

porous for tests to give an undrained cavity expansion and the mean effective stress level is

increasing throughout the expansion. Third and fourth cycles may give misleadingly high values. For a

first approximation, the second cycle is judged appropriate as sufficient to erase insertion

disturbance but closest to in situ lateral stress.

Figures 6.3.35 and 6.3.36 present shear modulus, G, and modulus of elasticity, E respectively in terms

of values for second unload-reload loop against elevation. A study of these plots indicates an

increasing modulus with depth. Results have also been plotted against depth below top of chalk in

Figures 6.3.37 and 6.3.38. A trend of increasing modulus with depth can also be observed here and

trend lines have been included.



70

It should be noted that HPD tests have been undertaken where the chalk is of reasonable quality,

generally CIRIA grades A2 and A3. Due to collapse of boreholes, tests have, generally, not been

undertaken through Structureless, Grade Dc, chalk. The single test undertaken in non-intact chalk

indicated above is Test 1, M08. It is notable that results recorded here are the lowest values

recorded.

6.4 Burnham Chalk

6.4.1 General

The Burnham Chalk is described as very weak to weak medium (occasionally high) density white

chalk, occasionally stained orange or yellow, with very closely to closely spaced thin laminations of

grey marl. Fractures are extremely to medium spaced. Occasionally contains black sponges and

frequent angular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel sized (occasionally cobble sized) fragments of

grey and brown rinded flint.

6.4.2 Index Properties

Dry Density

The results for the Burnham Chalk are presented in Figure 6.4.1 and broadly range between 1.90

Mg/m3 and 2.10 Mg/m3 with a mean value of 1.95 Mg/m3. This is indicative of High to Very High dry

density as for the Flamborough Chalk, although the higher mean value for the Burnham Chalk

indicates very high density.

The high density values recorded here are typical for the northern chalks of Yorkshire and

Lincolnshire as described in the dry density section for Flamborough Chalk.

Bulk density

Results from bulk densities are presented in Figure 6.4.2. Measured values from 153 tests mainly

range from 2.1 Mg/m3 to 2.3 Mg/m3 with a mean value of 2.22 Mg/m3. The majority of tests lie

within a fairly narrow range with no discernible trend with elevation.

Saturated Moisture Content

Results for saturated moisture content (SMC) for Burnham Chalk are presented as Figure 6.4.3. The

SMC is the percentage of water required to fill all voids and is directly related to dry density and

porosity and is derived from the intact dry density. Values from 32 tests typically range between 10

and 20 %, mean of 14.7 %.

CIRIA C574 notes that there can be a large variation in SMC (and porosity) in chalk due to a variation

of deposition and digenesis followed by alteration and weathering. Figure 4.1 of CIRIA C574 depicts a

histogram from a survey of English chalk with a wide range of values between 4 and 40 %.

The results recorded here are in fairly narrow range when compared to variation reported in the

CIRIA Report.



71

Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits

Figure 6.4.4 presents natural moisture content w, plastic limit wp, liquid limit wL, plasticity index IP,

and liquidity index IL. Figure 6.4.5 depicts the A-Line plot for Burnham Chalk.

Natural moisture content has been recorded as generally between 12 and 24 %. There is a trend of

slightly higher values recorded in material recovered from higher elevations. However, caution

should be exercised when considering natural moisture values. It is noted in CIRIA C574 that

determination of the in situ water content is difficult owing to the rapid rate of evaporation that

occurs once material is exposed. Notwithstanding this, the results reported above for SMC are

broadly in the same range as natural moisture content. On this basis, the recorded natural moisture

content values can be considered as appropriate for use.

Atterberg Limits testing has been undertaken on samples of the chalk that have been crushed. It can

be seen from Figures 6.4.4 and 6.4.5 that the plasticity index (IP) is generally low with values less than

10 %. Typically, the liquid limit (wL) is between 20 % and 25 %. Test results indicate all material tested

can be classified as clay or silt of low plasticity (CL or ML respectively).

CIRIA C574 notes; while the Cenomanian contains sufficient clay to alter its plasticity the great

majority of chalk can be considered (with the exception of the flint) as almost pure calcium carbonate.

This “white chalk” has a very limited range of plasticity compared with that of the whole deposit. The

report goes on to note typical values for this “white chalk” of between 4 %and 9 % for plasticity index

and between 18 % and 32 % for liquid limit.

It can be concluded that results recorded are typically low plasticity and correlate with the “white

chalk” values quoted in CIRIA C574. However it should be noted that numerous thin to thick

laminations of marl have been recorded in the Burnham Chalk which will typically exhibit higher

plasticity than that recorded here.

Slake Durability

As previously discussed, slake durability tests provide a useful index of material degradability,

reflecting the behaviour of a ‘rock’ when wet at a tunnel face. A total of 16 tests were undertaken in

the Burnham Chalk and a summary is provided in Figure 6.4.6 in terms of material retained after first

cycle and second cycle. As can be seen, whereas the first cycle lies between 96 %and 99%, the second

cycle lies between 93 % and 98 %. The difference between first and second cycles ranges between

1.2 % and 2.6 %.

These results suggest that the material tested is durable. Attewell notes that slaking can be

problematic where values are less than 85 %. However it should be noted that intact chalk pieces

have been tested here rather than softer marl and that results need to be reviewed in the context of

local geology and hydrology.

Results have been compared with Figure 11.16 as presented by Harris et al (1996). This figure

presents data from slake durability tests undertaken in chalk for the Channel Tunnel. These are noted

as having relatively high slake durability with first cycle tests typically between 90 % and 98 % and

second cycle typically between 81 % and 92 %. Harris et al notes that this suggests that the calcium



72

carbonate present in the samples is acting as an effective cementing agent and suppressing

breakdown and swelling. The results achieved at the Feeder 9 site suggest that the chalk here is more

durable than that described by Harris et al.

Cerchar Abrasivity Test

Cerchar Abrasivity Tests have been undertaken on samples of chalk and flint where present and

sampled with the results presented in Figure 6.4.7.

Referring to Figure 6.4.7, it can be seen that for chalk, the values are generally zero with one test

having a nominal value of 0.04. Results suggest the chalk is not abrasive.

Cerchar tests have also been carried out on 9 flint samples recovered. Values recorded lie between

1.65 and 3.65 with a mean value of 3.12. On the basis of results recorded the flint may be classified

as very abrasive.

6.4.3 Intact Properties

Unconfined Compressive Strength and Point Load Tests Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and point load tests (PLT) have been carried out on intact

chalk samples. It is notable that when compared to the amount of rotary coring undertaken, a

relatively small proportion of the core recovered was suitable for UCS testing.

UCS testing is universally used in rock mechanics to ascertain the unconfined compressive strength of

the material being tested. However, it is notable for chalk, that CIRIA C574 states the test should be

strictly regarded as an index test. The point load test was originally developed as an index test to

predict the UCS when recovered core was too broken for conventional UCS testing.

To obtain an equivalent UCS value from point load testing a correlation factor, K, must be applied

where K = UCS / (PLT index Is(50)). Is(50) is the point load index normalized to 50 mm diameter samples.

Figure 6.4.8 considers correlated Is(50) values for UCS and measured UCS tests against elevation.

Figure 6.4.9 presents the same data against depth below top of chalk.

In order to ascertain a suitable correlation between Is(50) and UCS, the measured UCS values have

been compared against the closest point load tests resulting in a K of 27.5. However, only 2 UCS

results are recorded here so this value should be treated with caution.

Reference to Figure 4 in Bowden et al (1998) suggests a value of K=17 for a UCS of 7 MPa and K=20

for UCS of 10 MPa albeit the figure relates to southern chalks. On the basis of the test results and

Bowden et al a K value of 18 is considered reasonable for Burnham Chalk.

It can be seen that there is significant scatter in the results. However, there is no discernible increase

in strength with elevation or depth below top of chalk. A mean value of 10.5 MPa is recorded from

the UCS tests, but this is based on 2 tests only. When correlated point load tests are considered the

mean value is 10.6 MPa. Results generally indicate the chalk to be very weak to weak.



73

It is notable that Figure 4.17 in CIRIA C574 depicts a plot of UCS versus density based on information

presented by Matthews and Clayton (1993). When the mean value for UCS is compared with mean

value for dry density as presented above, 1.95 Mg/m3, it can be seen that results here are close to

the ‘design line’ for saturated chalk.

Brazilian Tensile Testing

Results from 2 Brazilian Tensile tests undertaken on samples recovered from Burnham Chalk are

presented in Figure 6.4.10. The test quantities were limited due to the quality of material recovered

which prevented further testing in this material. Measured values are 0.72 MPa and 0.84 MPa with a

mean value 0.78 MPa. Based on a mean value of 10.6 MPa for UCS, the resulting ratio between

compressive and tensile strength is 13.6 although this should be regarded with caution due to the

low number of tensile tests.

Effective Strength

Tests are ongoing and results will be reviewed when available

Modulus of Elasticity (from UCS and Triaxial)

At time of writing, triaxial tests are ongoing and results will be reviewed when available. However,

the Modulus of Elasticity (E) has been directly measured on 2 UCS locally instrumented samples. Full

results have not been received for both tests with one of the tests received as Eave in tabular format

only. As a consequence, results have been summarised in Figures 6.4.11 and 6.4.12 as Eave versus

elevation and depth below top of chalk. Secant and tangential moduli are not considered at this time.

A mean value of 20.3 GPa is recorded for the 2 tests.

Poisson’s Ratio (measured in UCS)

The Poisson’s Ratio has also been measured on the 2 locally instrumented UCS tests described above. Results against elevation are presented in Figure 6.4.13 with values of 0.421 and 0.160, with a mean value of 0.291 recorded.

Permeability Results from the triaxial permeability have been received at the time of writing.

6.4.4 Mass Properties

Rock Quality

Structureless / Grade Dc Chalk

The static cone penetration tests (CPTs) are likely to have encountered minimal thickness of

structureless / Grade Dc Burnham Chalk and are not considered further.

Within the cable percussive boreholes standard penetration tests were completed in the

structureless / Grade Dc Burnham Chalk. Referring to Figure 6.4.14, SPT’s of between 30 and 50 /

Refusal are typically encountered within the structureless / Grade Dc Burnham Chalk. CIRIA C574

warns against the correlation of SPT values with chalk weathering grade although it can be noted that

SPT’s were completed at up to 16 m penetration (below top of chalk) in the Burnham chalk.



74

Grade A Chalk

The quality of the chalk rock encountered was recorded through the Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

logging of the chalk cores. Total Core Recovery (TCR) and Solid Core Recovery (SCR) are not always

related to rock quality and are not discussed further.

RQD can be generally correlated to the common tunnelling classification as follows (after Deere et al,

1970):

Excellent 90 – 100 %

Good 75 – 90 %

Fair 50 – 75 %

Poor 25 – 50 %

Very Poor 0 – 25 %

A plot of all RQD data for the chalk (Flamborough and Burnham) has been produced in Figure 6.3.17.

This shows that for the initial 5 m of rock core the RQD was typically Very Poor and that an RQD of

Good or Excellent was not typically achieved until at least 10 m penetration into chalk. It was not

until typically 20 m to 25 m penetration into the chalk that Very Poor rock was generally not

encountered.

Comparison of the RQD as logged from the recovered core was compared against the “theoretical”

RQD from fractures that were logged within the optical and acoustic geophysics logs (Figure 6.3.18).

Although the comparison should be treated with caution (the geophysics may have missed some

natural fractures) it does indicate that rock quality in situ may be better than that recovered from the

borehole.

Down-hole Geophysics The downhole geophysics are discussed in detail within Appendix A which examines the data

provided by the caliper, natural gamma, resistivity, density, porosity, fluid temperature, fluid

conductivity, salinity, fluid velocity and optical and acoustical borehole imager tools. Key points noted

with respect to the geophysics testing are:

In general the exploratory hole bores are relatively smooth which is backed up by the optical images and, to a lesser extent, acoustic images.

Breakouts recorded by the caliper are generally as a result of wide major fractures, multiple fractures, steeply inclined fractures or a combination of these.

In situ density (bulk density) recorded by the density tool (2.25 Mg/m3) correlates well with literature and laboratory test results. There is no noticeable difference in bulk density recorded by the density tool between the Flamborough and Burnham Chalks.

Porosity values of 23 % to 35 % recorded by the porosity tool correlate well with literature and laboratory test results and indicate a typically high to very high density chalk. There is no



75

noticeable difference in porosity recorded by the porosity tool between the Flamborough and Burnham Chalks.

Water conductivity, salinity and temperature measurements are higher in the marine boreholes due to the use of water from the River Humber as a flush. Fluid velocities recorded indicate that there is no flow into or out of the chalk.

Optical and acoustical data indicates that rock quality of the chalk in situ is generally better than that of the core recovered from the boreholes.

Structural data obtained from the optical and acoustical data indicates that the bedding is

approximately horizontal which correlates well with literature. The primary orientation of fractures

is approximately horizontal. There is no clear secondary fracture orientation.

Distribution of Flint / Marl

The locations of flint gravel/cobbles and marl bands were obtained from the chalk descriptions within

the borehole logs. Generally the flint and marl was recorded within the logs at specific depths,

however, where they were included in the general description the depth of the flint / marl was

represented at the mid-point of the strata depth range. The locations were then plotted against

elevation (m AOD) for land boreholes (Figure 6.3.19) and marine boreholes (Figure 6.3.20).

As can be clearly seen in Figures 6.3.19 and 6.3.20 flint is present throughout the Burnham Chalk.

This is generally in accordance with the geological memoir (British Geological Survey, 1994) which

records the Burnham Chalk as having “tabular grey flint marker beds” typically near the base of the

formation as well as white and grey flints described at various levels within the formation. Flints

within the Burnham Chalk are typically described as grey, brown or black in colour and are

occasionally tabular.

Marl bands are recorded in all the boreholes within the Burnham Chalk. The marl bands are typically

described as soft grey thin (<6 mm) to thick laminations (6 mm to 20 mm) and are typically extremely

closely (<20 mm) to closely (60 mm to 200 mm) spaced.

In situ Permeability Testing (packers and variable head tests)

Packer Testing

For a detailed description of the theory for the interpretation of the packer testing refer to Section

6.3.3.

Only 3 packer tests were completed within the Burnham Chalk of which 1 of these tests failed due to

not being able to record a test pressure within the test section.

The plots of Q and k against H and Lugeon Pattern for all tests in Burnham Chalk are presented in

Figures 6.4.15 and 6.4.16 along with the selection of the “Characteristic Permeability”. The results of

this interpretation of the packer tests within the Burnham Chalk are summarised in Table 6.4.1

below.



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

76

Table 6.4.1 -Packer Test Results within The Burnham Chalk

Hole Ref.

Test section Test Info.

Test Validity


Characteristic Permeability (ms

-1)

Comments m bgl m AOD

L03 38.00

to

39.00

-35.78 to -36.78

Single Packer /

Land (Goxhill)

Full Test Burnham Chalk CIRIA Grade: A1

RQD: 78 %


219.3 to 382.5

1.48 x 10-5

Flow Behaviour: A minor element of wash-out behaviour is noted with the increased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5.

Geophysics: 3 fractures/fissures

between 5 to 35 dip angle within test section.

M02 34.00

to

35.00

-39.74 to -40.74

Single Packer /

Marine

Full Test Burnham Chalk

CIRIA Grade: A1

RQD: 0 %


27.4 to 87.3

1.90 x 10-6

Flow Behaviour: A noticeable element of wash-out behaviour is noted with the increased Lugeon value between Test Stage 1 and 5 plus 2 and 4.

Several zones of core loss within test section.

M04 37.50

to

38.50

-40.33 to-41.33

Single Packer /

Marine

Failed Test

Burnham Chalk CIRIA Grade: A3

RQD: 73 %




77

Variable Head Test

For a detailed description of the theory for the interpretation of the variable head testing refer to

Section 6.3.3.

Table 6.4.2 Variable Head Test Results within the Burnham Chalk

Hole Ref.

Test Section

Test Info. Material at test depth Permeability

(m/s) Comments

m bgl m AOD

L01 12.00 -10.03 Falling Head

Boundary is at 12 m bgl

Flamborough Chalk CIRIA Grade: Ungraded

RQD: N/A


RQD: 0 %

9.00 x 10-6


L03 12.60 To

13.50

-10.38 To-11.28

Falling Head


RQD: 0 %

4.00 x 10-6


L02 21.00 To

24.00

-18.84 To-21.84

Rising Head


RQD: 0 – 46 %

9.90 x 10-6


L04 19.00 To

23.00

-16.60 To-20.60

Rising Head

Burnham Chalk CIRIA Grade: A4/A5

RQD: 0 %

1.70 x 10-5


L06 20.00 To

25.00

-17.47 To-22.47

Rising Head


RQD: 0 %

5.40 x 10-6


Permeability Summary

All of the in situ permeability tests results within the Burnham Chalk are shown in Figures 6.4.17 and

6.4.18. The permeability values measured range from a minimum of 1.9 x 10-6 ms-1 to a maximum of

1.7 x 10-5 ms-1 with a mean of 8.86 x 10-6 ms-1. As can been seen in the plots the range of values is

relatively evenly spread with no obvious errors or trends. These values of permeability appear to

contradict the data in Table 4.7.1 “Feedback from Drilling Operations” of this report which

summarised the anecdotal evidence from site that the permeabilities of the chalk are of several

orders higher than those measured by the in situ testing (note some of the anecdotal evidence

within this table does not refer to the chalk). It is therefore considered that the above values quoted

are to be treated with extreme caution. It is considered that a greater understanding of permeability

will only be possible when full scale pumping tests have been completed as part of the Phase 2


Shear Modulus / Modulus of Elasticity – High Pressure Dilatometer Testing High Pressure Dilatometer (HPD) testing was undertaken at borehole locations across the site. The

draft Soil Engineering Factual Report contains results for 2 tests undertaken in the Burnham Chalk. It

is notable that there are relatively few tests in the Burnham Chalk when compared to the

Flamborough Chalk presented previously. However, difficulties with drilling were encountered

throughout the Goxhill side of the Humber where the Burnham Chalk is at comparative shallow



78

depths and attempts at testing were cancelled following collapse of boreholes on withdrawal of

casing.

HPD testing is a form of pressuremeter test developed for stiffer materials including weak rocks. The

aim of the test, as with all pressuremeter testing, is to determine the stiffness of the ground by

application of radial pressure and establishing relationship between the applied pressure and

resulting deformation. The pressure is applied by means of a flexible membrane protected from

damage by a ‘Chinese lantern’ with strain measured from direct sensing equipment located at six

equally spaced positions around the centre of the expanding region. It is notable, given the nature of

the testing, that stiffness’s recorded are based on horizontal values, and that all geological materials

are likely to exhibit some form of anisotropy.

Tests were undertaken by Cambridge In situ based on the procedure and specification given by Clark

and Smith (1992). A summary of tests is given in Table 6.4.3 below.

Table 6.4.3 Summary of HPD Testing in Burnham Chalk

Hole Ref

Test No

Test Depth (m bgl)

RL at EGL

(m AOD)

RL test

(m AOD)

Top of Chalk

(m bgl)


(m)


Logging Notes

M01 2 30.1 -4.44 -34.5 14.9 15.2 Burnham

Chalk

Could only drill 2m pocket. Barrel kept blocking up. Oversized

Logged as NI

M03 2 39.1 -3.89 -43.0 17.3 21.8 Burnham

Chalk Flint in core

Grade A2

Results in the factual report are presented as Shear Modulus, G. In general terms an initial shear

modulus, Gi, is obtained as the membrane is expanded. This modulus often results in low stiffness

values as a result of ‘bedding in’ to the predrilled test pocket.

Further to the initial test, typically three unload-reload loops are undertaken as the test proceeds

with corresponding Gur determined. The Gur values can typically be expected to be several times

greater than Gi.

Values recorded in the tests are summarised below in Table 6.4.4. These results are presented in

terms of Shear Modulus, G, and Modulus of Elasticity, E. The values of E are based on the correlation

given below noting that Poisson’s Ratio, , is assumed to be 0.25.



79

Table 6.4.4 Summary of Results and Corresponding Modulus of Elasticity, E. Burnham Chalk

Hole Ref Test No


(m)

Test Elevation (m AOD)

Gi

(MPa) Gur1

(MPa) Eur1

(MPa) Gur2

(MPa) Eur2

(MPa) Gur3

(MPa) Eur3

(MPa)

M01 2 15.2 -34.5 480 226 565 602 1506 1166 2915

M03 2 21.8 -43.0 870 587 1467 1331 3327 1800 4501

When considering the results presented in the factual report it is notable that some of the initial

unload – reload loops (Gur1) suggest that the results presented are based on tests taken too early in

the expansion, i.e. ‘bedding in’. For the purpose of determination of applicable modulus values, the

first loop may be ignored.

It can also be observed that successive loops almost always result in a stiffer response. This is purely

a function of the mean effective stress pertaining at the time the loop is taken. Chalk is generally too

porous for tests to give an undrained cavity expansion and the mean effective stress level is

increasing throughout the expansion. Third and fourth cycles may give misleadingly high values. For

a first approximation, the second cycle is judged appropriate as sufficient to erase insertion

disturbance but closest to in situ lateral stress.

Figures 6.4.19 and 6.4.20 present shear modulus, G, and modulus of elasticity, E respectively in terms of values for second unload-reload loop against elevation.



80

6.5 Chemical Testing

6.5.1 Soil Chemical Testing

A total of 48 soil samples from the ground investigation have been tested for commonly occurring

Contaminants of Concern (CoC) and those associated with the previous use of the site and

surrounding areas. These and other parameters tested are listed within Tables A, B and C of the

Capita Specification for Ground Investigation Report (2014 c) (not all samples were subject to the full

suite shown).

The vast majority of samples are taken from the land based exploratory holes, though a limited

number of samples have been collected from the bed of the estuary from the marine boreholes.

Samples are representative of topsoil, alluvium/estuarine, glacial and chalk materials. The testing

included total and leachate analyses.

In addition, thirteen waste acceptance criteria (WAC) tests were performed on a variety of strata

including alluvium/estuarine, glacial materials and chalk. Each of the WAC tests has a corresponding

Table A and Table B suite which accommodates the requirements of such reporting tools as

Hazwaste Online.

No testing was scheduled for the Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd. property at Paull as no access

was granted to this area.

Assessment Criteria for Human Health The assessment for risks to human health was undertaken in accordance with the Environment

Agency Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR 11 (2004). A first stage

approach to risk assessment was adopted comprising a Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment

(GQRA).

The long term health risk to human health from exposure to soil contamination is initially assessed

by comparing results of the soil laboratory analysis against generic assessment criteria (GAC). GACs

comprise either published Soil Guidance Values (SGVs) or are modelled using the CLEA v1.06

software tool. Derived values comply with the EA/DEFRA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment

(CLEA) Framework documents.

Capita note that currently there is ambiguity associated with the risk assessment approach for lead,

due to the withdrawal of the old Soil Guidance Values and a previously established provisional

tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) lead dose of 25 ug/kg bw (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food

Additives (JECFA)). It has therefore been considered appropriate to screen the lead concentrations

against the recently published Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SL) for lead (Residential Housing) of

310 mg/kg.

The depth profile of contaminants of concern for human health risks in soils are subdivided into two

groups, namely shallow soils at depths of less than one metre and deep soils at depths greater than

one metre. Modelled values are based on a scenario of residential housing without gardens, sandy

soil with 1 % soil organic matter for conservatism. Full screening tables are provided in Appendix B.



81

For clarity the top 1m GAC has been used for all depth horizons and it is only the chemical

concentrations in the screening tables which are bespoke for the relevant depth range.

A total of 25 soil samples taken above 1 metre below ground level have been screened against

appropriate GAC derived for Residential land use (refer to Appendix B). No CoC have been found to

exceed the GAC; however one pH value came back from the laboratory reading weakly acidic with a

value of 5.7 (sample: L14 ES 001 at 0.2 m). Table 6.5.1 below lists statistical data for key chemical

determinands for the aforementioned depth interval.

Table 6.5.1 Statistical data for key determinands

Contaminant of Concern

Minimum Maximum Mean GAC

pH (pH units) 5.7 8.1 7.46 -

Benzo (a) Pyrene (mg/kg)

<0.01 0.01 <0.01 1

Arsenic (mg/kg) 10 23 18.16 35

Lead (mg/kg) 16 41 27.48 310

Benzene (ug/kg) <1 1 <1 110

Chromium (mg/kg) 28 50 39.2 3010

Chromium Hexavalent (mg/kg)

<1 1 <1 4.12

A total of 2 soil samples taken above 1 metre below ground level (TP01A ES 002 at 0.3m to 0.4m and

TP01D ES 003 at 0.25 m to 0.35 m) have been tested for Organochlorene and Organophosphorous

Insecticides (refer to Appendix B for table of results). Concentrations for all tested insecticides fall

below the laboratory limit of detection of 0.01 mg/kg.

Soil Samples Below 1 metre A total of 13 soil samples taken below 1 metre below ground level have been screened against

appropriate GAC derived for Residential land use (additional sample results are awaited at the time

of writing this report). No CoC have been found to exceed the GAC. Table 6.5.2 below lists statistical

data for key chemical determinands.


Contaminant of

Concern Minimum Maximum Mean GAC

pH (pH units) 7.2 8.7 8.15 -

Benzo (a) Pyrene (mg/kg)

<0.01 0.01 <0.01 2.65

Arsenic (mg/kg) 2 17 6.69 -

Lead (mg/kg) 2 21 8.92 -

Benzene (ug/kg) <10 10 <10 111



82

Contaminant of

Concern Minimum Maximum Mean GAC

Chromium (mg/kg) 1 36 12.31 -

Chromium Hexavalent (mg/kg)

<1 1 <1 -

Soil Samples Humber Marine

A total of 10 soil samples were taken at depths varying from 0.2 m to 21.1 m below the estuary bed.

These samples have not been screened against the generic assessment criteria as above and have

been included merely for additional information only. For future use it is recommended that the

marine sediment chemical results be screened against the relevant Environmental Assessment

Criteria (EACs) for sediments and biota. Table 6.5.3 below lists statistical data for key chemical

determinands.


Contaminant of Concern Minimum Maximum Mean Limit of

Detection

pH (pH units) 7.7 8.3 8.09 -

Benzo (a) Pyrene (mg/kg) <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Arsenic (mg/kg) 2 14 5.5 2

Lead (mg/kg) 1 20 7.8 1

Benzene (ug/kg) <1 1 <1 1

Chromium (mg/kg) 1 24 10.4 1

Chromium Hexavalent (mg/kg) <1 1 <1 1

6.5.2 Groundwater Chemical Testing

Groundwater monitoring consisted of four rounds of in situ parameter monitoring and three rounds

of chemical analysis from August to October 2014. At the time of this report revision, two sets of

chemical data have been analysed with the third awaiting delivery from the laboratory.

At the time of this report, a total of 24 groundwater samples have been tested for CoC and specific

insecticides from 12 land based exploratory holes across the Paull and Goxhill sites. These and other

parameters tested are listed within Tables A, B and C of the Capita Specification for Ground

Investigation Report (2014 c) (not all samples were subject to the full suite shown, refer to Appendix

C).

Monitoring was undertaken in accordance with BD ISO 5667-11 (2009), the British Standards

guidance for water quality, sampling and guidance on sampling groundwater’s and consequently

adopted low flow pumped sampling techniques.



83

In all monitoring rounds water levels were dipped and the base of the well recorded before taking

parameter readings and water samples. Water level results can be found within Section 6.7 of this

report.

Assessment Criteria for Controlled Waters Groundwater laboratory results were screened against current published Controlled Water

Assessment Criteria (CWAC) values, which are the lower of the published EU Environmental Quality

Standards (EQS) within the Water Framework Directive (WFD) or the EU Drinking Water Standards

(DWS) for conservatism.

The groundwater results are described below in terms of the principal chemical constituents and

particular attention is made where these exceed the adopted CWACs.

Field Index Parameters The in situ index parameters were collected on all 4 monitoring visits (refer to Appendix C for data

table). During the first and second rounds, pH readings were fluctuating between high alkalinity and

moderately acidic not anticipated for this site setting. On return of the probe to the manufacturer

the pH element of the sonde was found to be faulty and was replaced. Therefore only field pH

readings for the third and fourth rounds have been included within this report. Stabilisation of the

chemistry of the pumped samples in all rounds was monitored using the dissolved oxygen,

temperature, conductivity and oxygen requirement potential sub probes with stabilisation of these

parameters achieved prior to collecting water samples on all occasions.

Results indicate that the waters are of near neutral pH status with an average of 7.28. All pH results

for rounds 3 and 4 fell between 6.90 and 7.55. The field conductivity varied largely between

locations and depth of well with the maximum concentrations being recorded at L04/117 (4.262

ms/cm) and the minimum concentration being recorded at L01, L14/2, L15/2 and L15/1 (0.0013

ms/cm). Throughout the 4 rounds of field data collection, well locations L04 and L06 appear to show

the highest conductivity levels indicating the likely presence of saline to brackish water, with the

further inland wells L01, L02 and L15 showing the lowest conductivity levels indicating a presence of

fresh water/near fresh. This is further endorsed by low levels of chloride and sodium within L01 and

L02 as described below.

Field dissolved oxygen readings were taken for each well location in each of over the 4 monitoring

rounds. Results provide a mean dissolved oxygen level for the Goxhill site of 0.84 mg/l (7 %

saturation using an average temperature of 11.07 oC) and the Paull site provided a level of 1.25 mg/l

(12 % saturation using an average temperature of 11.03 oC). All levels within the groundwater are

considered low when compared to the UK Freshwater Fish Directive (FFD) with a standard of 50 % >

/= 7 mg/l. The FFD screening standard has been used for the event of dewatering aquifers to nearby

streams and ditches.

17 In line with the ground investigation factual report, where dual installations, the deepest installation has a “/1” notation

added to the borehole reference i.e. L01/1 and the upper installation “/2” or L01/2. For L18, where there are 3

installations a “/3”notation is added to the borehole reference for the shallowest installation.



84

Groundwater Quality A total of 24 groundwater samples were tested for inorganic parameters. Sulphate was found to be

elevated relative to the adopted screening value on 9 occasions at borehole locations L06/2 (1600

mg/l), L08 (1700 mg/l and 1600 mg/l), L14/2 (490 mg/l and 520 mg/l), L14/1 (550 mg/l and 360 mg/l)

and L18 (270 mg/l). The concentrations of sulphate in L06/2 and L08 were the most elevated as

compared with the remaining wells.

Chloride concentrations were elevated above the DWS of 250 mg/l within all borehole locations

except L01, with a maximum concentration of 12000 mg/l within borehole L06/2. The pattern of

chloride concentrations at the Goxhill sub site for the chalk is one of decreasing chloride content as

you move inland from the estuary, for example L04/1 has a 3300 mg/l chloride content whereas as

L01/1 has 56 mg/l. There is no such pattern at Paull in the chalk where the levels are all in the

brackish range of 1400 mg/l to 2000 mg/l. The shallow (ie superficial) wells at each site show higher

chloride concentrations than its deep well counterpart.

Elevated levels of sodium were recorded within all borehole locations apart from L01. This supports

the fresher status of the chalk waters at L01 as found in the chloride test results. A maximum

concentration of 5600 mg/l was recorded within L06/2 considerably higher than the DWS screening

value of 200 mg/l.

Elevated concentrations of ammonia as NH4 were ubiquitous across each site. The maximum

exceedance value was almost 70 times GWAC of 33 mg/l in L04/2 and L06/2, which are both located

at Goxhill. This screening uses the screening criteria of 0.5 mg/l total ammonia as ammoniacal

nitrogen screening criteria for freshwater lakes (listed in the WFD).

The mean pH for the 24 groundwater samples was 7.79 which correspond with the field index

parameters mean over Round 3 and 4 of 7.28. All laboratory tested pH values fell between 7.00 and

8.00.

Nitrate concentrations within the data set all fell below the laboratory limit of detection of 0.5 mg/l,

and considerably below the GWAC of 50 mg/l. All nitrite concentrations fell below the laboratory

limit of detection of 0.1 mg/l apart from a single reading (0.4 mg/l in L18) and again considerably

below the GWAC of 50 mg/l.

Elevated levels of arsenic were found on 12 occasions within borehole locations L01 (11 mg/l), L04/2

(64 ug/l and 66 ug/l), L04/1 (24 ug/l), L06/1 (95 ug/l and 110 ug/l), L06/2 (43 ug/l and 29 ug/l), L08

(11 ug/l), L14/2 (11 ug/l), L14/1 (13 ug/l). As L01, L08, L14/2 and L14/1 only marginally exceed the

EQS screening value of 10 ug/l.

Boron was recorded marginally above the EQS screening value of 1 ug/l on 6 occasions with a

maximum concentration of 3.7 ug/l within L04/2 and a mean concentration of 0.79 ug/l across the

data set.

Elevated levels of nickel were found on 6 occasions within borehole locations L06/2 (20 ug/l and 21

ug/l), L06/1 (240 ug/l and 210 ug/l) and L08 (25 ug/l and 29 ug/l). L06/2 levels marginally exceeded



85

the GWAC of 20 ug/l and can be considered trace value; however, levels within L06/1 are more than

10 times that of the screen.

Selenium was recorded elevated within 19 groundwater samples with a maximum concentration of

93 ug/l within location L04S, more than 9 times the DWS screening value of 10 ug/l.

Speciated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (sPAH) analysis has identified that all 16 PAH

compounds fall below the laboratory limit of detection apart from aapthalene with a maximum

value of 0.29 ug/l (L04/1). Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and benzo(ghi)perylene results were recorded

above the EQS screening criteria of 0.002 ug/l. As the screening value is considerably lower than the

laboratory limit of detection it is not considered that significant PAH are present in groundwater at

the site.

No speciated phenols, monoaromatics and petroleum hydrocarbons was recorded in any of the

groundwater samples tested, with all results falling below the laboratory limits of detection.

A total of 22 groundwater samples were tested for the Herbicide Metazachlor. All results fell below

the laboratory limit of detection of 0.1 ug/l and the matching DWS screening value of 0.1 ug/l.

6.5.3 Leachate Chemical Testing

A total of 10 samples from the ground investigation have been tested on leachability for commonly

occurring CoC and those associated with the previous use of the site and surrounding areas. These

and other parameters tested are listed within tables A, B and C of the Capita Specification for

Ground Investigation Report (2014 c) (not all samples were subject to the full suite shown, refer to

Appendix C). A number of samples have exceeded the general assessment criteria for selected

speciated PAH’s and these are listed below within Table 6.5.4 along with the laboratory limits of

detection. No heavy metals have been found to exceed the GAC.

Table 6.5.4 Leachate GAC Exceedances

Contaminants of Concern Exceedances Laboratory Limit of

Detection

GAC

Acenaphthylene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.06 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.02 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Acenaphthene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.06 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.03 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Flourene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.09 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.03 ug/l)

L06 ES005 at 0.5m (0.02 ug/l)

L14 ES005 at 1m (0.02 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Phenanthrene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.1 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.09 ug/l)

L06 ES005 at 0.5m (0.03 ug/l)

L14 ES005 at 1m (0.04 ug/l)

TP01D ES039 at 0.25-0.35m (0.03)

0.01 0.01

Pyrene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.07 ug/l) 0.01 0.01



86

Contaminants of Concern Exceedances Laboratory Limit of

Detection

GAC

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.05 ug/l)

L14 ES005 at 1m (0.02 ug/l)

Benzo(a)Anthracene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.06 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.05 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Chrysene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.06 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.07 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoroanthene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.06 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.07 ug/l)

0.01 0.03

Benzo(k)fluoroanthene (ug/l) L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.06 ug/l) 0.01 0.03

Benzo(a)Pyrene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.08 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.05 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Indenol(123-cd)Pyrene (ug/l) L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.08 ug/l)

L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.04 ug/l)

L03 ES004 at 0.5m (<0.01 ug/l)

L06 ES005 at 0.5m (<0.01 ug/l)

L14 ES005 at 1m (<0.01 ug/l)

TP01A ES002 at 0.3-0.4m (<0.01)

TP01C ES003 at 0.3-0.5m (<0.01)

TP01D ES039 at 0.25-0.35m (<0.01)

0.01 0.002

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene (ug/l) L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.04 ug/l)

L01 ES039 at 0.5m (0.1 ug/l)

0.01 0.01

Benzo(ghi)Perylene (ug/l) L06 ES006 at 0.5m (0.04 ug/l)

L03 ES004 at 0.5m (<0.01 ug/l)

L06 ES005 at 0.5m (<0.01 ug/l)

L14 ES005 at 1m (<0.01 ug/l)

TP01A ES002 at 0.3-0.4m (<0.01)

TP01C ES003 at 0.3-0.5m (<0.01)

TP01D ES039 at 0.25-0.35m (<0.01)

0.01 0.002

The exceedances recorded (as provided in the table) are all at trace to very low values and at levels

that could be seen in soils with appreciable humic mater such as subsoil’s.

6.5.4 BRE SD1 Testing

A suite of chemical tests were undertaken in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1. A summary of

the results have been provided in Tables 6.5.5 to 6.5.7 with the data shown on Figures 6.5.1 to 6.5.3.



87

Table 6.5.5 Summary of BRE SD1 Soil Chemical Test Results - Alluvium

Water Soluble Sulphate pH

Water Soluble Chloride

Acid Soluble Sulphate Total Sulphur

WS (g/l SO4) (g/l Cl) AS (% SO4) TS (% S)

Overall 0.11 to 2.8 (0.57)

[30](1)

6.6 to 8.9 (8.16)

[30] (1)

0.22 to 2.5 (0.81) [31]

0.02 to 0.1 (0.06) [4]

0.01 to 0.17 (0.07) [4]

Goxhill 0.2 to 2.8 (1.38) [6] (1)

6.6 to 8.3 (7.5)

[6] (1)

0.34 to 1.5 (0.8)

[6]

Humber 0.11 to 0.95 (0.37)

[23] 7.2 to 8.9 (8.3)

[23] 0.3 to 2.5 (0.84)

[23] 0.02 to 0.07

(0.05) [3] 0.01 to 0.04

(0.03) [3]

Paull 0.45 [1] 7.6 [1] 0.22 [1] 0.1 [1] 6.17 1] 1. An anomalous result has been excluded - TP01B D2 0.33 WSS 16g/l and pH 2.2

Table 6.5.6 Summary of BRE SD1 Soil Chemical Test Results - Glacial





Overall 0.02 to 1.6 (0.36) [41] 4.6 to 9.4 (8.43)

[41] 0.02 to 1.3 (0.4)

[40] 0.02 to 0.22 (0.09) [20]

0.01 to 0.83 (0.22) [20]

Goxhill 0.02 to 1.6 (0.6) [7] 4.6 to 9.2 (8.05)

[7] 0.07 to 0.81

(0.37) [7]

Humber 0.02 to 0.43 (0.27)

[12] 8.2 to 9.4 (8.6)

[12] 0.36 to 1.3 (0.76)[12]

0.02 [1] 0.03 [1]

Paull 0.07 to 1 (0.33)[22] 8 to 8.8 (8.5)

[22] 0.02 to 0.75 (0.21)[21]

0.02 to 0.22 (0.09) [19]

0.01 to 0.83 (0.23) [19]

Table 6.5.7 Summary of BRE SD1 Soil Chemical rest results - Chalk





Overall 0.07 to 0.4 (0.15)

[21] 8.4 to 9.3 (8.92)

[21] 0.21 to 1.8 (0.77)[4]

0.03 to 0.15 (0.06) [19]

0.01 to 0.08 (0.03) [19]

Goxhill

Humber 0.07 to 0.4 (0.16) [16] 8.6 to 9.3 (8.99)

[16] 0.51 to 1.8 (0.96) [3]

0.03 to 0.15 (0.07) [14]

0.01 to 0.05 (0.03) [14]

Paull 0.07 to 0.15 (0.1)[5] 8.4 to 9.2 (8.7)

[5] 0.21 [1]

0.04 to 0.07 (0.06) [5]

0.03 to 0.08 (0.05) [5]

6.6 Soil Gas Monitoring Results

Three soil gas monitoring rounds were carried out alongside the groundwater monitoring between

August and October 2014 over 4 well locations L02/2, L04/1, L015/2 and L18/2. All soil gas

monitoring was undertaken in accordance with the British Standard BS 8576:2013 Guidance on

Investigations for Ground Gas (Paragraphs 9.3 to 9.5).



88

The equipment used for the monitoring was a GA2000 instrument from Geotechnical Instruments

and six gas parameters were measured (along with atmospheric pressure) on each monitoring round

(refer Table 6.6.1 for list of gas parameters).

Table 6.6.1 Soil Gas Statistics

Gas Flow Rate (l/h)

CH4 (%)

CO2 (%)

O2 (%)

CO (ppm)

H2S (ppm)

Minimum 0 0 0 20.8 0 0

Maximum 0.9 0.1 0.2 21.7 21 0

Average 0.075 0.058 0.108 21.26 4.5 0

The gas monitoring results recorded very low levels (similar to that of background) of methane and

carbon dioxide across the 4 monitoring wells, all being below the trigger levels of 1 % (CH4) and 5 %

(CO2) as stated within British Standard BS 8485:2007. See Table 6.6.1 for further statistics. A full

table of results is included within Appendix D. Carbon monoxide was recorded at low levels with a

maximum concentration of 21 ppm within well L02/2. Furthermore, hydrogen sulphide was not

found within any of the monitoring wells.

During well installation, preference went towards the instalment of diver loggers and consequently

reduced the sufficient sealing of the well needed for gas monitoring taps. Longer term monitoring

may produce more accurate results and enable the characterisation of the site.

6.7 Groundwater

The hydraulic testing of each observation borehole is supported by geological details from respective

borehole drilling logs and geological interpretation. Manual measurement of water levels following

the construction of the monitoring points enables an understanding of the piezometry of the

respective aquifer units and sub-units. This assessment also considers the time series continuous

water level data collected using diver transducer and vibrating wire piezometric level monitors

installed in the respective observation boreholes. Furthermore, the groundwater sample analysis

results have been collated and interpreted. Both the time series water level data and the

groundwater sample analysis data contributes to this assessment, particularly in assessing the

hydraulic connectivity between aquifer units and subunits and understanding the extent of control

determined with relation to the tidal saline waters on the groundwater system. The following

section should be read in conjunction with Figures 6.7.1 to 6.7.3 and Table 4.5.1, 4.5.3 and 4.5.4. A

summary of the groundwater readings has also been provided in Table 6.7.1a and 6.7.1b and

measured permeabilities in Table 6.7.2.

Top Soil

The top soil may have a contribution to the groundwater system in terms of affecting the rate and

volumes of rainfall recharge and runoff. However, there is no evidence of the top soil acting as a

barrier to the recharge of the aquifer or forming a perched water table. Therefore, the hydrogeology

of the top soil is not considered further in this assessment.



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

89

Table 6.7.1a Groundwater Monitoring Results - Goxhill Piezometer Installation

ID

Surface Datum (m AOD)

Response Zone (top, base, length) Geological

unit1

Monitoring Period

Monitoring

Installation

Minimum

Recorded Value

Maximum

Recorded Value

Average value Top Base Length

(m bgl) (m AOD) (m bgl) (m AOD) (m) From To

Data Type2

(m bgl) (m AOD)

(m bgl)

(m AOD)

(m bgl)

(m AOD)

Goxhill

L01 1.97 9.3 -7.33 12.3 -10.33 3 FCk 30/06/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.34 1.63 0.63 1.34 0.49 1.48

24/04/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 0.50 1.47 0.85 1.12 0.63 1.34

L02/2 2.16 1 1.16 5 -2.84 4 Alv/Gcl 01/07/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.18 1.98 1.01 1.15 0.75 1.41

24/04/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 0.35 1.81 1.00 1.16 0.77 1.39

L02/1 2.16 21 -18.84 24 -21.84 3 BCk 01/07/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.55 1.61 0.92 1.24 0.72 1.44

22/05/2014 24/06/2014 Dip 0.74 1.42 1.16 1.00 0.85 1.31

L03/2 2.22 9.5 -7.28 11.5 -9.28 2 Gcl/BCk 09/07/2014 28/08/2014 VW 0.46 1.76 0.85 1.37 0.64 1.58

24/04/2014 20/06/2014 Dip 0.64 1.58 1.50 0.72 0.88 1.34

L03/1 2.22 34 -31.78 36 -33.78 2 BCk 09/07/2014 28/08/2014 VW 0.15 2.07 0.39 1.83 0.25 1.97

L04/2 2.40 5 -2.60 11.5 -9.10 6.5 Alv 30/06/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.78 1.62 1.18 1.22 1.01 1.39

08/05/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 1.00 1.40 3.00 -0.60 1.31 1.09

L04/1 2.40 18.5 -16.10 23.5 -21.10 5 BCk 30/06/2014 25/09/2014 SP 1.14 1.26 1.46 0.94 1.32 1.08

17/06/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 0.83 1.57 1.55 0.85 1.33 1.07

L05/2 2.11 0.5 -1.90 8 -5.60 7.5 Alv 09/07/2014 28/08/2014 VW 2.33 -0.22 2.72 -0.61 2.54 -0.43

L05/1 2.11 0.5 -1.90 20 -17.60 19.5 BCk 09/07/2014 28/08/2014 VW 0.53 1.58 0.85 1.26 0.67 1.44

L06/2 2.53 5 -2.47 8 -5.47 3 Alv 30/06/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.67 1.86 1.53 1.00 0.95 1.58

16/05/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 0.87 1.66 1.86 0.67 1.42 1.11

L06/1 2.53 20 -17.47 25 -22.47 5 BCk 30/06/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.58 1.95 2.03 0.50 1.33 1.20

18/06/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 1.37 1.16 2.27 0.26 1.84 0.69

L08 1.87 3 -1.13 6 -4.13 3 Alv/Gcl 30/06/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.52 1.35 0.86 1.01 0.72 1.15

19/05/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 0.07 1.80 3.34 -1.47 0.45 1.42

1. Alv Alluvial; Gcl Glacial; FCk Flamborough Chalk; BCk Burnham Chalk

2. SP standpipe readings taken using divers; Dip readings taken from dipping the standpipe; VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

90

Table 6.7.1b Groundwater Monitoring Results - Paull

Piezometer Installation ID

Surface Datum (m AOD)

Response Zone (top, base, length) Geological

unit1

Monitoring Period

Monitoring

Installation

Minimum

Recorded Value

Maximum

Recorded Value

Average value Top Base Length

(m bgl) (m AOD) (m bgl) (m AOD) (m) From To

Data Type2

(m bgl) (m AOD)

(m bgl)

(m AOD)

(m bgl)

(m AOD)

Paull

L14/2 2.33 9.7 -7.37 13 -10.67 3.3 Gcl 20/06/2014 23/06/2014 SP 0.85 1.48 1.77 0.56 1.19 1.14

18/05/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 0.50 1.83 2.10 0.23 1.22 1.11

L14/1 2.33 39 -36.67 45 -42.67 6 FCK 20/06/2014 23/06/2014 SP 1.16 1.17 1.93 0.40 1.55 0.79

12/06/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 1.17 1.16 1.92 0.41 1.70 0.63

L15/2 2.09 2.2 -0.11 5.2 -3.11 3 Gcl 01/07/2014 25/09/2014 SP 1.08 1.01 1.59 0.50 1.20 0.89

13/06/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 1.00 1.09 2.54 -0.45 1.32 0.77

L15/1 2.09 27 -24.91 30 -27.91 3 Gcl 01/07/2014 25/09/2014 SP 0.96 1.13 1.54 0.55 1.25 0.84

27/08/2014 22/10/2014 Dip 1.21 0.88 1.54 0.55 1.36 0.73

L16A/2 2.92 9.5 -6.58 10.3 -7.38 0.8 Gcl 09/07/2014 25/09/2014 VW 1.24 1.68 1.72 1.20 1.44 1.48

06/05/2014 17/06/2014 Dip 1.50 1.42 2.30 0.62 1.78 1.14

L16A/1 2.91 39 -36.09 41 -38.09 2 FCk 09/07/2014 25/09/2014 VW 1.11 1.80 1.78 1.13 1.51 1.40

L18/33 2.72 9.8 -7.08 10.8 -8.08 1 Gcl n/a n/a SP - - - - - -

L18/2 2.72 17.5 -14.78 19.5 -16.78 2 Gcl 28/08/2014 25/09/2014 SP 1.74 0.98 2.04 0.68 1.93 0.79

26/08/2014 21/10/2014 Dip 1.41 1.31 1.97 0.75 1.79 0.93

L18/1 2.72 36 -33.28 42 -39.28 6 FCk 28/08/2014 25/09/2014 SP 1.58 1.14 2.04 0.68 1.84 0.88

1. Alv Alluvial; Gcl Glacial; FCk Flamborough Chalk; BCk Burnham Chalk

2. SP readings from dipping the standpipe; Diver readings; VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer

3. No readings were taken from L18/3 due to the diver getting stuck in the standpipe at shallow depth.

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline

Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

91

Table 6.7.2 - Field Permeability Values

Hole Ref Depth Interval

(m bgl) Geology

Permeability m/s

Rising Head

Test (ms-1

)

Falling Head

Test (ms-1

)

Packer Test

(ms-1

)

L04 12.50-13.00 Alluvium 3.7x10

-5

5.50-11.00 Alluvium 9.4x10-6

L05 12.00-13.00 Alluvium 7.0x10-7

L06 5.00-8.00 Alluvium 4.0x10-6

L08 3.00-6.00 Alluvium/ Glacial Deposits 5.0x10-6

L02 1.00-5.00 Glacial Deposits 1.1x10

-6

7.50-8.50 Glacial Deposits 6.8x10-8

L04 19.0 to 23.0 Glacial Deposits 1.7x10-5


-6

22.14 Glacial Deposits 2.1x10-5


-6


L16/L16A 14.50-14.70 Glacial Deposits 6.5x10-7


-6


L01 10.70-12.70 Flamborough/Burnham Chalk 5.5x10

-7

12.00 Flamborough Chalk 4.8x10-6

L02 21.00-24.00 Burnham Chalk 9.9x10-6

L03 12.60-13.50 Flamborough Chalk 2.6x10

-6

38.00-39.00 Burnham Chalk 1.6x10-5

L04 19.00-23.00 Burnham Chalk 1.7x10-5

L06 20.00-25.00 Burnham Chalk 5.4x10-6

M01 24.50-25.50 Flamborough Chalk 6.4x10-7

M02 24.00-25.00 Flamborough Chalk 9.3x10

-6

34.00-35.00 Burnham Chalk 8.8x10-7






-6

20.60-31.60 Flamborough Chalk 1.6x10-6



-5



L14 35.50-36.00 Flamborough Chalk 2.9x10

-5


1.2x10-5

L16/L16A 33.20-34.00 Flamborough Chalk 3.8x10-6

L18 36.00-42.00 Flamborough Chalk 2.1x10-5


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

92


Three groundwater monitoring points were installed in the alluvium at Goxhill referenced L04, L05

and L06. Groundwater piezometry measured in L04 and L06 from 08 May 2014 to 22 October 2014

found the piezometric levels ranging from 0.78 m bgl to 3.00 m bgl in L04 and from 0.67 m bgl to

1.86 m bgl in L06.

Variable (rising and falling) head tests were successfully undertaken in L04, L05, L06 and L08 with the

resultant data analysed to determine the permeability values. These are found to range between

7.0x10-7 ms-1 to 3.7x10-5 ms-1. Other hydraulic tests in the standpipes installed in the alluvium did not

yield meaningful results. The large range in permeability values determined for the alluvium reflects

the highly variable lithology, grain size, lateral continuity and hydraulic connectivity of these

deposits. The permeability of horizons with less clay and silts tend to be larger whereas clay and silt

dominated horizons tend to have lower permeability. The lateral extent and continuity of the more

permeable layers is unknown, and therefore the transmissivity of each layer has not been quantified.

It is observed that the water level measurements taken on 11 June 2014 show a similar piezometric

surface in L06 as observed in the glacial deposits in L02. However, in subsequent measurements in

June 2014, the water level in the alluvium was up to 0.3 m above that of the glacial deposits at the

Goxhill site. This infers that there is a degree of vertical and less so lateral hydraulic connectivity

between the alluvium and the glacial deposits in the Goxhill area. At this location it was observed

that L05 had a perched piezometric surface approximately 1 m below nearby locations L04 and L06.

This is understood to be a result of the marine and estuarine alluvium directly above the chalk

without a separation layer of glacial till as observed in L04 and L05. Furthermore, this infers a greater

degree of vertical connectivity between the alluvium and the chalk.

The continuous piezometric level data from the piezometers installed in the alluvium at Goxhill

confirm an observable diurnal tidal response in this area. This is particularly the case in L06, where

the tidal range in the groundwater level is up to approximately 1.3 m. The hydraulic influence of the

tide in L04 is less, with a tidal range in the order of 0.1m, inferring a pronounced tidal influence in

L06 with less of a tidal range than L04.

There is hydraulic inter-connectivity between the alluvium and glacial deposits at the Goxhill site,

with the continuous piezometric data showing a similar pattern between monitoring points in the

alluvium – L04 and L06 – and monitoring in the glacial deposits – L02 and L08. The piezometric levels

in the alluvium are between 0.4 m and 0.9 m lower than the piezometric levels in the glacial deposits

over the period 23 May 2014 to 25 September 2014.

Due to the reduced scope of works and the limited depths of alluvial deposits encountered, there

are currently no installations in the alluvial deposits at Paull. Consequently, the focus is on the glacial

deposits.

Glacial Deposits

Variable head tests in the glacial deposits were completed in L01 and L02 at the Goxhill site; and in

L14, L15, L16/L16A and L18 at the Paull site. These tests recorded permeability of the glacial deposits

ranging from 6.8x10-8 ms-1 in L02 to 9.0x10-6 ms-1 at L01 at the Goxhill site; and between 6.5x10-7 ms-

1 and 3.3x10-5 ms-1 in L14 at the Paull site.


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

93

The water levels in the glacial deposits observed from manual dip readings measured between 24

April 2014 to 22 October 2014 find the piezometric surface of the glacial deposits to be marginally

higher than the Alluvial deposits closer to the estuary at the Goxhill site. This piezometric head

difference is in the order of between 0.15 m to 0.5 m at the Goxhill site between observation

borehole measurements points over this period. Groundwater piezometry between the two

superficial deposit groups can be considered effectively hydraulically continuous, with some

perching or retardation of flow, particularly in the vertical rather than the lateral plane, associated

with clay and silt horizons. As the piezometric surface of the alluvium deposits has not been

explicitly monitored at the Paull site, the difference between the piezometry of the two superficial

deposits at Paull has not been determined.

Assessment of the continuous time series transducer and vibrating wire data compared with tidal

data shows there is influence on the piezometry of the Glacial Deposits at both Paull and Goxhill

sites.

There is a clear indication of tidal influence within the glacial deposits at the Paull site, with the

continuous piezometric data in L15 and L16 showing a distinct response to diurnal tidal fluctuations.

The piezometric surface in the glacial deposits at Goxhill as measured in L02 and L08 is found to be

similar to or slightly above the level of the low tide recorded in the Humber Estuary. This continuous

water level monitoring data in the glacial deposits display a hydraulic signal in response to the

diurnal tidal range is in the order of 0.05 m. This infers the tidal influence is dampened relative to

the tidal movements.

The tidal influence on the piezometry of the glacial deposits at Paull site is substantially greater than

Goxhill, with a notable diurnal hydraulic tidal response in L15 and L16, implying that there is a

notable tidal influence at the Paull site.

The conductivity signature for the Glacial Deposits in observation borehole L15 at the Paull site does

not show a diurnal fluctuation suggesting a degree of separation from the estuary water body.

Chalk

Analysis of the variable head tests completed in the chalk installed piezometers find that the

permeability of the Flamborough Chalk at Goxhill site at L01 and L03 ranges between 5.5x10-7 ms-1

and 4.8x10-6 ms-1; and the permeability of the Flamborough Chalk at the Paull site was identified in

the variable head tests to be between 3.9 x 10-7 ms-1 and 2.9 x 10-5 ms-1. Analysis of data from the

packer tests completed for the marine boreholes M01, M02, M04, M06, M09, M10, M11, M12, M14,

M19 and M20 found the permeability of the Flamborough Chalk beneath the Humber Estuary to

ranges between 1.0 x 10-7 ms-1 and 2.2 x 10-5 ms-1.

Packer tests18 and variable head tests in the Burnham Chalk beneath the Flamborough Chalk found

the permeability to range from 5.4 x 10-6 ms-1 to 1.7 x 10-5 ms-1 beneath the Goxhill site from tests

completed in L01, L02, L04 and L06; and 8.8 x 10-7 ms-1 beneath the Humber Estuary in M02. The

18 Quoted results are from the factual report.


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

94

groundwater in the Burnham Chalk beneath the Paull site was not assessed as part of the intrusive

investigation and hydraulic testing due to its depth.

The piezometric surface differs between the near-surface superficial aquifer and the chalk aquifer at

depth. This difference is nominal to the south of Goxhill, where the piezometric surface in the chalk

and glacial deposits is essentially the same in L01 and L02. The transducer continuous time series

piezometric data confirms and informs this understanding with a parallel time series within 0.04m

difference between L01 monitoring levels in the chalk and L02 monitoring levels in the glacial

deposits. It is unclear from the manual water level measurement data assessed whether there is

connectivity within the observation borehole L02 or not as the piezometric head in the upper and

lower monitoring levels in L02 tends to be identical. However, elsewhere in the Goxhill site, towards

the Humber Estuary, the piezometric surfaces in the superficial deposits and the chalk aquifer

diverge, with the piezometric head in the Flamborough Chalk at L06 approximately 0.6m lower than

the piezometric head in the alluvium; and the piezometric head in the Burnham Chalk approximately

0.5m lower than the piezometric head in the alluvium in L04. This divergence in the piezometry,

closer to the Humber, may infer the alluvium is isolated as a groundwater unit from that in the chalk

in this particular land sector. There is limited piezometric data available from the Paull site for the

chalk aquifer. However, the manual measurements indicate that the piezometric surface in the

Flamborough Chalk aquifer is approximately 0.6 m lower than the piezometric surface of the glacial

deposits in L14.

Measurements by manual dips in June 2014 finds the piezometric surface of the Burnham Chalk

aquifer at Goxhill in boreholes L01 L02, L04 and L06 to be at or close to the level of the low tide and

not affected by the rising or high tide water level. However, the continuous time series transducer

and vibrating wire piezometric data for the chalk aquifer confirms there is a tidal hydraulic

connectivity on the piezometry of the chalk aquifer units – notably within the chalk monitoring

boreholes L15 and L16 which show a distinct diurnal tidal cycle in piezometric head. The continuous

time series data is considered the more accurate in capturing the tidal variation.

The groundwater levels in the chalk aquifer are similar to the levels in the superficial deposits

overlying the chalk aquifer. Notably, the piezometric head in L01, L02 (shallow in the glacial deposits

and deep in the Burnham Chalk) and L06 shallow in the Alluvium have very similar groundwater

levels when measured manually. However, the level in the Burnham Chalk in L06/1 is approximately

0.1m below that of the alluvium at L06 in June 2014; therefore the interconnectivity between the

alluvium at L06 and the Burnham Chalk and glacial deposits at L01 and L02 is inferred. The

combination of glacial deposits and the alluvium to the south of Goxhill provides a degree of

confinement to the Flamborough and Burnham Chalk aquifer in this area.

Piezometric levels in the chalk beneath the Paull site in June 2014 were approximately 0.6m lower

than that of the glacial deposits at the near surface. This infers that there is limited hydraulic

continuity between the glacial deposits and the chalk aquifer and the glacial deposits form a

hydraulic barrier or protective cover to the chalk aquifer at depth.

In addition to the tidal hydraulic signal in some of the observation boreholes, the conductivity

loggers installed in the chalk aquifer in L04 and L06 inform the understanding of extent of the


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

95

hydraulic connectivity and chemical influence of the tidal and saline estuarine marine waters of the

Humber Estuary on the groundwater in the Flamborough and Burnham Chalk aquifer. The

conductivity signature for the two Goxhill wells both show a diurnal fluctuation indicating a degree

of connection with the estuary and the amplitude of fluctuation of the L06 is larger than that of L04

which reflects the closer position to the edge of the estuary. The conductivity of L06 in mid

September is unusually high (averaging in excess of 6 mS/cm) which may suggest the logger has lost

its calibration following removal for down loading. The conductivity of L06 in mid-September is

unusually high (averaging in excess of 6 mS/cm) which may suggest the logger has lost its calibration

following removal for down loading.

During the drilling of L03, a noticeable pressure response was reported in L02, located 120m south-

west from L03. Bubbling water was also observed in the bentonite seal and borehole installation in

L02 during the construction of L03. This bubbling was observed for several days. This implies a direct

and rapid hydraulic connectivity between L03 and L02. This is possibly associated with the highly

weathered Flamborough Chalk or its immediate overburden and the associated high transmissive

preferential flow along this horizon.

Substantial loss of water was recorded during the trial water flush coring of L04 with 500 litres of

water lost within the first 5 minutes of coring at each of the 0.5am core runs.

Similarly, during the construction of the dual vibrating wire piezometers (VWP) in L05, significant

volumes of liquid grout were lost to the ground over the interval 18 m bgl to 30 m bgl; with

additional group pumped into L05 in response to this loss. This interval is below the Flamborough

Chalk and below the top of the Burnham Chalk at 16 m bgl. This implies a transmissive preferential

flow horizon or developed void space within the Burnham Chalk at a lower depth than the

weathered surface of the chalk immediately beneath the Glacial Deposits, as observed in other

piezometers at the Goxhill site.


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

96

7. Engineering Assessment

7.1 Geotechnical Properties

A summary of the geotechnical laboratory and in situ testing results is provided in Table 7.1.1. The

table presents the range of values reported for each individual test, the mean value () and the no of

tests [].

Table 7.1.1: Summary of the Geotechnical Laboratory and In Situ Testing

Test Type

Strata Type

Superficial Deposits Chalk

Made Ground Alluvium Peat Glacial

Deposits Flamborough Burnham

SPT N value 1 to 4 (2.5) [2] 0 to 65 (8.2)

[188] 0 (0) [1]

0 to 98 (25.4) [187]

19 to 82 (46) [59]

27 to 50 (42) [15]

pH 8 to 9 (8.36) [11] 2.2 to 9 (8.0)

[60] 4.9 (4.9) [1]

4.6 to 9.4 (8.39) [71]

8.4 to 9.2 (8.70) [8]

-

Water Soluble

Sulphate, SO4 (g/l)

0.03 to 0.32 (0.1) [7]

0.03 to 16 (0.74) [61]

1.2 (1.2) [1] 0.01 to 1.8 (0.32) [62]

0.07 to 0.22 (0.12) [8]

-

Natural Moisture

Content (%)

20 to 39 (28.8) [5]

9 to 170 (40.1) [168]

74 to 174 (115.8) [5]

6 to 240 (23.6) [184]

11 to 270 (20.9) [120]

6 to 21 (13.6) [46]

Plastic Limit (%)

23 to 63 (30.1) [7]

13 to 111 (25.3) [113]

49 to 95 (73.6) [6]

10 to 99 (17.7) [126]

13 to 22 (18.0) [82]

15 to 19 (17.3) [31]

Liquid Limit (%)

48 to 198 (76.9) [7]

24 to 220 (53.3) [114]

100 to 220 (178.3) [6]

17 254 (36.5) [133]

20 to 30 (24.2) [83]

19 to 26 (22.2) [31]

Plasticity Index (%)

25 to 135 (46.7) [7]

6 to 129 (28.3) [113]

51 to 138 (105.8) [6]

3 to 155 (19.2) [126]

3 to 12 (6.2) [82]

3 to 8 (4.9) [31]

Bulk Density (Mg/m

3)

-

1.48 to 2.33 (1.83) [43]

-

1.49 to 2.35 (2.09) [61]

to (2.16) [273] (2.22) [153]

Dry Density (Mg/m

3)

-

-

1.75 to 2.0 (1.87)

1.9 to 2.1 (1.95)

Particle Density (Mg/m

3)

-

2.29 to 2.70 (2.62) [34]

-

2.57 to 2.88 (2.68) [9]

-

-

Undrained Shear

Strength cu (kPa)

-

5 to 240 (37) [30]

-

18 to 330 (87) [29]

-

-


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

97

Test Type

Strata Type

Superficial Deposits Chalk

Made Ground Alluvium Peat Glacial

Deposits Flamborough Burnham

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (MPa)

-

-

-

-

(7.1) [9] (10.5) [2]

Tensile Strength (MPa)

-

-

-

-

0.6 to 1.0 (0.89) [13]

0.72 to 0.84 (0.78) [2]

7.2 Groundwater Piezometry

The variable clays and silts with partial interconnectivity between the sand and gravel layers in the

alluvial and glacial deposits effectively form an aquitard above the chalk aquifer at depth. The

elevated piezometric head in the chalk aquifer at depth beneath the alluvium and glacial deposits is

expected to establish a hydraulic gradient from the Flamborough Chalk and Burnham Chalk into the

overlying deposits during the excavation and removal or breaching of the aquitard deposits.

The weathered, fractured chalk and associated putty chalk clays and overlying gravels form a

preferentially flow horizon at the top of the chalk and base of the glacial deposits. Connectivity with

this horizon in particular is expected to release substantial volumes of groundwater; driven by heads

associated with the level of the low tide in the Humber Estuary (see Figure 6.7.2 and 6.7.3).

Groundwater movement is understood to be constrained by the aquitard forming superficial

deposits overlying the chalk aquifer. However, groundwater could be driven upwards into the

overlying deposits following ground disturbance and excavation.

The manual measurement of groundwater indicate that the hydraulic interconnectivity with the tidal

estuarine waters is nominal as there is a tendency for the piezometry of the chalk, the glacial

deposits and the alluvium within the piezometers constructed at Goxhill and Paull sites to

correspond with the level of the low tide (as presented in Figure 6.7.1). However, this is based on

observations made in late May to October 2014 only and does not fully consider potential seasonal

fluctuation in groundwater piezometry and the impact of rainfall-recharge, storm surges and

flooding events.

The continuous water level monitoring data from water level transducers and vibrating wire

monitors over the period 03 June 2014 to 25 September 2014 finds that a number of the water

levels have a distinct hydraulic tidal signal at the same frequency to the diurnal tidal cycle in the

Humber. However, the magnitude of this signal in the groundwater monitoring is significantly less

that the tidal range in the Humber. The largest tidal ranges in the groundwater levels are observed in

the chalk monitoring boreholes L06, L15 and L16A; with notably dampened tidal hydraulic responses

less than 1 to 5 centimetres observed in the shallow observation piezometers L02, L03, L04, L06, L15

and L16; and in the deep observation piezometers L01, L02, L03, L04 and L08.


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

98

7.3 Groundwater Chemistry

Analysis of the continuous conductivity data monitored using the diver conductivity loggers shows

there are diurnal inflows of saline waters to affect the overall salinity of the chalk groundwater at

Goxhill. This does not appear to be the case at the single monitoring point installed at Paull.

Field conductivity monitoring during water sampling rounds and the laboratory testing for chloride

content show shallow well locations L04 and L06 at Goxhill to be of near saline condition. Most other

wells appear brackish with the exception of L01 and L02 which are chalk wells with near fresh water.

At Goxhill there is a pattern of less saline waters the further inland from the Humber Estuary

travelled.

Dissolved metal water quality status is on the whole good in the chalk and poorer in the shallow

wells. Elevated arsenic, nickel, selenium and sodium are present in the shallow wells, across both

Paull and Goxhill sites. Arsenic was recorded 10 times the EQS and sodium 28 times the DWS in the

shallow L06 well at Goxhill. Selenium was recorded at 9 times the DWS in the shallow L04 well at

Goxhill with nickel being recorded at 12 times the DWS in the deep L06 well. Marginally elevated

levels of boron were found only at the Goxhill site and not Paull however the majority of the levels

are considered trace value.

Dissolved phase nutrient analysis found no nitrate or nitrite concentrations above the laboratory

limit of detection; however ammonia as NH4 showed moderately elevated levels through but 66

times the EQS in shallow L04 and L06 wells. Total phosphate showed elevated levels within L04/2

and L06/2 wells as well as L04/1, with shallow L04 recording a concentration 24 times the DWS.

No impact with TPH fractions, speciated PAHs, speciated phenols and monaromatics with recorded

levels less than the laboratory limit of detection. Furthermore, the testing for herbicide metazachlor

was not recorded within any groundwater samples across all tested wells.

7.4 Hydrogeological / Groundwater – permeability data and groundwater flow

The Packer Tests and Variable Head Tests undertaken following construction of the observation

boreholes identify the permeability of the targeted horizons and the immediate strata and therefore

provide an invaluable understanding for the potential groundwater movement within more

permeable horizons and the retardation of groundwater within less permeable horizons such as clay

and silt layers. However, these short duration tests were principally focused on the water bearing

strata and sub-strata in the near vicinity of each observation borehole. Long terms pumping tests

would improve the understanding of the transmissivity of the aquifer units and sub-units and lead to

improve the analysis of lateral and vertical interconnectivity.

The site observations during the construction of the piezometers at Goxhill site indicate the possible

presence of a highly transmissive zone or horizon associated with the top of the chalk and the base

of the glacial deposits. Groundwater movement is expected to flow rapidly and preferentially along

this horizon. The loss of fluids, bentonite and gravel associated with this depth during the

construction of several of the Goxhill piezometers at the top of the chalk and base of the glacial


Replacement Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

99

deposits corresponds with a highly weathered, brittle fractured chalk with putty chalk and

weathered clay above as reported in the drillers’ logs. This horizon could allow for rapid hydraulic

interconnectivity over significant distances (for example gaseous response over 120 m between L02

and L03 during construction of L03) and requires consideration during the design and construction.

Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate there is a preferential flow horizon in the Burnham Chalk

Formation. The depth and detail of this horizon or group of horizons is undetermined. The

preferential flow may be associated with fractures or marl bands within the Burnham Chalk. Further

consideration of the preferential groundwater movement within the design and construction is

required to determine the anticipated risk and quantify the volume of groundwater associated with

the preferential flow horizons in the Burnham Chalk.



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

100

8. Geotechnical Risk Register

Activity, Design,

Process and Material

Hazard Cause Qualitative assessment

of Initial Risk

Consequence Actions taken by the Designer to reduce risk rating or

manage risk

Qualitative assessment of Residual

Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

Tunnelling

Inappropriate choice of TBM for

encountered ground conditions

Variability of soils. Chalk and glacial deposits.

Boreholes at Paull highlight variability of glacial

deposits. Around one km of tunnel below mudflats has

no GI at present

High Delays and additional

cost to project

Review of 1st

Phase GI highlights variability of glacial

deposits. 2nd

Phase of GI should include boreholes through ‘mudflats area’

Medium pending 2

nd

Phase GI

Tunnelling Settlement greater

than predicted Inaccurate ground model

and volume loss estimation Medium

May damage existing HP gas mains or other

infrastructure when tunnelling close to

Designer to provide tunnel settlement predictions around

infrastructure. Range of volume losses for typical tunnelling schemes to be

considered. Does not account for catastrophic event.

Horizontal alignment has avoided AGI on Paull side

Low

Tunnelling Loss of tunnel face

Tunnelling through untreated soft / loose alluvial deposits. Alluvial channel has been identified in GIR cross section

High

Unable to control face leading to settlement at surface. May be critical around existing infrastructure

Vertical alignment to avoid known alluvial channels. Further CPTs scheduled to highlight extent of alluvial channel

Medium



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

101

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

Tunnelling Loss of tunnel face

Tunnelling through solution features in chalk that have been filled with soft deposits. Most critical on Goxhill side

Medium

Unable to control face leading to settlement at surface. May be critical around existing infrastructure

1st

Phase GI (including CPTs) has not identified any solution features. Consider surface geophysics at Goxhill for 2

nd

Phase GI

Medium

Tunnelling Blow out of tunnel

Inability of ground to withstand face pressure, especially with regard to slurry tunnelling machines. It is notable on Goxhill side poor recovery and observational evidence suggests heavily fractured highly permeable chalk below superficial deposits.

High

Ground unable to balance applied pressure at TBM face. Delays to programme

Variable head tests undertaken during 1

st Phase GI suggest

fairly impermeable material. This contradicts observational evidence. 2

nd Phase GI to be

scheduled to provide more information

High to medium

pending 2nd

Phase GI

Tunnelling Blow out of tunnel

Loose deposits above tunnel while crossing under deep channel in river.

Medium Loss of tunnel beneath river with safety and programme implications

1st Phase GI suggests stiff to very stiff clay at Channel. Vertical alignment to be set with appropriate cover

Low

Tunnelling Obstructions Boulders in glacial deposits or very large flints (paramoudras) in chalk

Medium

Delays to programme. Possibility of man entry required to face (under compressed air) to facilitate removal / break up of obstruction

1st

Phase GI has not identified boulders or very large flints. Risk of boulders in glacial deposits should be highlighted to contractor. Geological markers should be identified in chalk and corresponding outcrop sought for visual examination for presence of

Medium



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

102

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

very large flints. Reference to literature should be made.

Tunnelling Pore water pressures vary significantly

Hydraulic conductivity leading to tidal variation in pore water pressures

Medium Design values for TBM pressures incorrect

Review Phase 1 GI in selecting appropriate pressures. Establish tidal connection to assess if pressures at tunnel face are likely to be under tidal influence. Further piezometric data to be collected for 2

nd

Phase GI.

Medium

Goxhill Launch Structure

Ground water inflow

Excessive water entering structure / pit

High Excavation instability / local collapse. Programme delays

Ground and ground water conditions to be considered to determine type of wall required

Low to medium


Ground water inflow

Excessive seepage below walls.

High to medium

Instability of base / piping, risk of flooding, Programme delays

2

nd phase GI required to model

conditions in upper part of chalk noting conflicting information from 1

st Phase.

Suitable wall length to be selected to reduce seepage to manageable levels. Consider dewatering

Medium



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

103

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference


Obstructions to installation of walls

Boulders / flints Medium Programme delays

Identification of potential obstructions. Selection of applicable techniques for wall construction

Low

Paull reception pit

Ground water inflow

Excessive water entering structure / pit

High Excavation instability / local collapse. Programme delays

Ground and ground water conditions to be considered to determine type of wall required. 2

nd Phase GI required

to determine ground conditions noting inability to undertake GI in land during 1

st Phase GI

Low to medium

Paull reception pit

Ground water inflow

Excessive seepage below walls.

High to medium

Instability of base / piping, risk of flooding, Programme delays

2

nd Phase GI required to

determine ground conditions noting inability to undertake GI in land during 1

st Phase GI.

Suitable wall length to be selected to reduce seepage to manageable levels. Consider dewatering

Medium

Paull reception pit

Obstructions to installation of walls

Boulders Medium Programme delays

Identification of potential obstructions. Selection of applicable techniques for wall construction

Low



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

104

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

AGI Connections Construction works Variable soils High Collapse/injury to site

personnel and programme

delays

Selection of conservative design

parameters. Undertake additional

ground investigation to

Medium

High pore water pressure Medium Collapse/injury to site


delays



ground investigation and ground

water monitoring for appropriate

time

Medium

Excessive water ingress High Collapse/injury to site


delays




Selection type of tunnelling machine

Contingency measures for

evacuation.

High

Ground settlements High Collapse/injury to site


delay

Nearby assets and

structures




water monitoring for appropriate

time

Medium

Use of

dewatering

measures to

control

groundwater

regime

Effects of nearby

structures and assets

Instability of existing structures

and assets

Medium Collapse/injury to site


delays




water monitoring for suitable time

Medium



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

105

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

Site wide

Archaeological

and Culture

Heritage

Delay to construction

programme

Encountering Archaeological

and Culture Heritage

Medium Delay to programme and

cost

Consider effect of design on known

sites.

Contingency measures for possible

presence of unidentified sites

Medium

Ecology Delay to construction

programme

Encountering RAMSAR and

SSSI sites

Medium Delay to programme and

cost

Avoidance such areas during design Low

Flooding Health hazard to site

personnel and

potential delay to

construction

programme

Flooding of works during

construction

Medium Collapse/injury to site


delays

Allow for mitigation measures during

design to deal with flooding for worst

possible flood event

Medium

Contaminated

Land

Health hazard to site

personnel and

potential delay to

construction

programme

Unexpected contamination

encountered during ground

works

High Mitigation measures likely to

be required, possible impact

on groundwater resources

Desk Study to identify any potential

sources of contamination.

Investigation and testing of any

potential sources

Medium

Health hazard to site

personnel and

potential delay to

construction

programme. Underlain

Chalk aquifer

Piling and tunnelling High Mitigation measures may be

required.

Ensure sufficient ground

investigation data is available. Use

of appropriate piling technique.

Control on pile length

Medium



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

106

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

Buried concrete

design and

protection

Chemical attack High sulphate levels, particularly

in London Clay

High Deterioration of concrete

leading to serviceability

problems

Further ground investigation and

testing undertaken. Buried concrete

classification and design in

accordance with BRE Special

Digest 1 and BS 8500

Medium

Hydrogeology

and

Groundwater

control measures

Lack of seasonal data

and extreme data Groundwater data collected over

summer 2014; not over whole

year.

High Unable to substantiate the

annual groundwater

piezometric highs; limited

understanding of the annual

range of piezometric head.

Underestimate inflow rates

and volumes during

dewatering and excavation.

Monitor groundwater piezometric

head levels over the course of the

year (12 months).

Medium

Weathered chalk

surface – putty chalk

and fractured chalk

Post-depositional weathering of

Chalk prior to deposition of

Glacial Deposits and Alluvium.

High Collapse/injury to site


delays

Design of excavations and piling to

minimise potential flows from at or

near the top of the Chalk, putty

chalk and the base of the superficial

deposits. No interference with the

ground water regime. Introduction of

permanent earth retaining structure.

Gl carried out to determine suitable

parameters for calculations

Medium



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

107

Activity, Design,



of Initial Risk


manage risk


Risk

Geotechnical Report

Reference

Heave of bedrock with

removal of over

burden

Release of over burden leading

to ground heave and

groundwater movement from

aquifer strata at depth.

High Collapse/injury to site

personnel, programme

delays and potential

damage to

services/adjacent road

No interference with the ground

water regime. Introduction of

permanent earth retaining structure.

Medium

Saline intrusion into

aquifer and earthworks

/ construction;

deterioration of

groundwater quality in

aquifer units.

Dewatering draws

saline/brackish water towards

construction, migration of the

saline interface.

High Deterioration of

groundwater quality in

aquifer units;

Monitor groundwater quality and the

position of the saline interface

during construction and dewatering

phases; amend activities if saline

interface moves appreciably

towards the construction and away

from the tidal estuary.

Medium

Groundwater quality

deterioration in the

aquifer units affecting

future potential for

aquifer use.

Deterioration or no

improvement to WFD

status.

Movement of saline, brackish or

poorer quality groundwater

towards the construction and

dewatering sites.

High Reduced current and future

potential for consumptive

and non-consumptive

groundwater use.

No improvement to the

WFD status.

Adequate ground investigation.

Monitoring of position of saline

interface and groundwater quality to

identify change.

Establish contingency plan for

mobilising dewatering equipment.

Medium



108

References

1. AMEC. (2007). Paull to Goxhill Pipeline – Desk Based Assessment and Field Reconnaissance Survey: Archaeology.

2. ATTEWELL, P.B. (1995). Tunnelling Contracts and Site Investigation. CRC Press. 3. BARKER, R D, LLOYD, J W, AND PEACH, D W. (1984). The Use of Resistivity and Gamma

Logging In Lithostratigraphical Studies of the Chalk in Lincolnshire and South Humberside. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology. Vol. 12 pp. 71 – 80.

4. BOWDEN, A. J., LAMONT-BLACK, J. & ULLYOTT, S. (1998). Point load testing of weak rocks with particular reference to chalk. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Volume 31, pp. 95-103.

5. BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. Geological Map for Patrington. 1:50,000 Scale, Sheet 81. London.

6. British Geological Survey (1994) Geology of the country around Grimsby and Partrington. 7. British Geological Survey (2006 a) The Chalk Aquifer System of Lincolnshire. Research Report

RR/06/06. 8. British Geological Survey (2006 b). The Chalk Aquifer of Yorkshire. Research Report

RR/06/04. 9. BRITISH STANDARDS (1997). Eurocode 7: BS EN 1997-1:2004 (+A1:2013) Part 1 Geotechnical

Design. General Rules. London: British Standards Institute. 10. BRITISH STANDARDS (1997). Eurocode 7: BS EN 1997-1:2007 Part 2 Ground Investigation and

testing:2007. London: British Standards Institute. 11. BRITISH STANDARDS (2009). BS EN ISO 5667-11. Water Quality. Sampling. Guidance on

Sampling of Groundwater’s. London: British Standards Institute. 12. BRITISH STANDARDS (2010). BS 5930:1999 (+A2:2010). Code of Practice for Site

Investigations. British Standards Institute. 13. BRITISH STANDARDS (2007). BS 8485:2007. Code of practice for the characterization and

remediation from ground gas in affected developments. London: British Standards Institute. 14. BRITISH STANDARDS (2013). BS 8576:2013. Guidance on investigations for ground gas -

Permanent gases and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). London: British Standards Institute.

15. BRITISH STANDARDS (2012). BS EN ISO 23282-2:2012. Geotechnical investigation and testing – Geohydraulic testing Part 2 Water permeability tests in borehole using open systems. British Standards Institute

16. BRITISH STANDARDS (2012). BS EN ISO 232282-3:2012. Geotechnical investigation and testing – Geohydraulic testing Part 3 Water pressure tests in rocks. British Standards Institute.

17. Building Research Establishment Special Digest 1:2005. Concrete in aggressive ground 3rd Ed. 18. CAPITA (2014 a). Desk Study Report. Report No. CS/064298/F9/GEO/RPT/001. 19. CAPITA (2014 b). Establishing a Safe working Distance for Undertaking Overwater Jack-up

Operations Proximate to Gas Pipeline Assets. Report No. CS/064298/F9/RPT/006. 20. CAPITA (2014 c). Specification for Ground Investigation. Report No.

CS/064298/F9/GEO/SCH/001. 21. Central Electricity Generating Board (1968). Proposed Transmission Circuit Crossing of the

River Humber : Report on Land and Marine Site Investigations. 22. CHADHA, D.S., KIRK, S. AND WATKINS, J. (1997). Groundwater pollution threat to public

water supplies from urbanisation. In: Groundwater in the Urban Environment: Problems, Processes and Management, ed: Chilton, J.C. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.297-301.

23. CIRIA 113 (1986). Control of groundwater for temporary works, 24. CIRIA 143 (1995). The Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Methods and Use.



109

25. CIRIA C504 (1999). Engineering in Glacial Tills. 26. CIRIA C574 (2002). Engineering in Chalk. 27. CLARK, B.G., SMITH, A. (1992). A Model Specification for Radial Displacement Measuring

Pressuremeters. Ground Engineering. March 1992. 28. CLAYTON, C.R.I. (1983). The Influence of Diagenesis on Some Index Properties of Chalk In

England. Geotechnique. Vol 33, pp 225-241. 29. Council of the European Union (1978). Council Directive 78/659/EEC. Council Directive on

the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (Freshwater Fish Directive).

30. Council of the European Union (1998). Council Directive 98/83/EC. Council Directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Drinking Water Directive).

31. Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Parker, H.Monsees, J.E. & Schmidt, B. (1970). Design of tunnel support systems. Highway Research Report, No. 339 pgs 26-33.

32. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIFICS GROUP. (2014 a). Feeder 9 – River Humber Pipeline Replacement Project marine Geophysical Survey. Reference no. L3224-13.

33. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIFICS GROUP. (2014 b). Feeder 9 - River Humber Pipeline Replacement Project marine Geophysical Survey, Report on UXO Survey. Reference no. L3224-13/02.

34. GALE, I N, AND RUTTER, H K. (2006). The Chalk aquifer of Yorkshire. British Geological Survey Research Report, RR/06/04. pp68.

35. HARRIS, C.S., HART, M.D., VARLEY, P., WARREN, C. (1996). Engineering Geology of the Channel Tunnel. London: Thomas Telford Ltd

36. HIGHWAYS AGENCY (2009). Manual of Contract Documents for Highways Works. Volume 1 Specification for Highways Work. Series 600 Earthworks.

37. HOULSBY, A. C., (1976). Routine Interpretation of the Lugeon Water-Test. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology. Volume 9, pp. 303-313.

38. Hyder (2014).Feeder No. 9 – Humber Pipeline Replacement Project Flood Risk Assessment Stage 1. Rep No. 0007-UA006029-UU41R-01.

39. Kasling, H. And Thuro, K. (2010). Determining rock abrasivity in the laboratory. Proc. European Rock Mechanics Symposium EUROCK 2010, Lausanne, Switzerland.

40. MATTHEWS, M.C., CLAYTON, C.R.I. Compressibility of jointed rock masses with specific reference to chalk. Proceedings Eurock ’92, Chester. Thomas Telford, London, pp445-450.

41. SOIL ENGINEERING GEOSERVICES LIMITED. (2014). Report on a Ground Investigation for Feeder 9 – River Humber Pipeline Replacement Project, GI (Volumes 1 to 4, Currently draft). Reference no. TA7335 D01.

42. SUMBLER, M. G. (1999). The Stratigraphy of the Chalk Group in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. British Geological Survey Technical Report WA/99/02.

43. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2009). Directive 2009/31/EC. Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive).

44. National Grid (2009). T/SP/CE/2). Specification for the Design, Construction and testing of civil and structural works – Geotechnical, Ground Works and Foundations.

45. WARDELL ARMSTRONG. (2014). Trial Pitting – Stoneledge Field. Reference no. LE12311 001. 46. WHITEHEAD, E J, AND LAWRENCE, A R. (2006). The Chalk Aquifer System of Lincolnshire.

British Geological Survey Research Report, RR/06/03. pp70.



110

Glossary

Term Description

Alluvium Material deposited by rivers, consisting of silt, sand, clay, and gravel, and often containing a good deal of organic matter.

Anglian Period of time between 320,000 and 480,000 years ago that includes an Ice Age.

Artesian Artesian conditions occur when the hydrostatic pressure exerted on an aquifer is great enough to cause the water to rise above the water table.

Aquiclude An impermeable body of rock or stratum of sediment that acts as a barrier to the flow of groundwater.

Aquifer A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.

Aquitard A confining bed that retards but does not completely stop the flow of water to or from an adjacent Aquifer.

Atterberg limits A basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. Depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state, the consistency and behaviour of a soil is different and thus so are its engineering properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be defined based on a change in the soil’s behaviour. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can distinguish between different types of silts and clays.

Borehole A hole excavated into the ground to obtain geological information.

Bulk density A property of materials and defined as the mass of particles divided by the total volume.

Burnham Chalk Formation White, thinly-bedded chalk with common tabular and discontinuous flint bands; sporadic marl seams. Formal subdivision; none as defined here, but there are many named marl and flint bands throughout the succession that are used to divide the formation. They are all of bed status.

Cenomanian The lowest stage of the Upper Cretaceous series spanning between 93.5 to 99.6 millions years ago.

Cerchar Abrasively Test A test to determine the potential abrasivity of the material.

Chalk In England, the Chalk topographically forms what are known as the ‘Downs’ in southern and eastern counties. It is comprised of a sequence of mainly soft, white, very fine-grained, extremely pure limestones which are commonly 300-400m thick. These rocks consist mainly of coccolith biomicrites formed from the skeletal elements of minute planktonic green algae, associated with varying proportions of larger microscopic fragments of bivalves, foraminifera and ostracods.

Cretaceous A geologic period and system from circa 145.5 ± 4 to 65.5 ± 0.3 million years (Ma) ago. In the geologic timescale, the Cretaceous follows on the Jurassic Period and is followed by the Paleogene Period of the Cenozoic Era. It is the youngest period of the Mesozoic Era and, at 80 million years long, the longest period of the Phanerozoic Eon. The end of the Cretaceous defines the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras. In many languages this period is known as ‘chalk period’.

The Cretaceous is divided into Early and Late Cretaceous epochs or Lower and Upper Cretaceous series.



111

Term Description

Cryoturbation The disturbance (stirring and churning) of soil by frost action

Desk study An investigation of relevant available historical, archival and current information associated with a site and used to inform the decision process.

Dewatering The removal of water from solid material or soil by wet classification, centrifugation, filtration, or similar solid-liquid separation processes, such as removal of residual liquid from a filter cake by a filter press as part of various industrial processes.

Construction dewatering is a term used to describe removal or draining groundwater or surface water from a riverbed, construction site, caisson or mine shaft, by pumping or evaporation.

Dry Density The density of a sample containing no water.

Erosion The wearing away of any part of the Earth’s surface by natural agencies. These may include: mass wasting, action of waves, winds, streams and glaciers.

Eurocodes A set of harmonized technical rules developed by the European Committee for Standardisation for the design of construction works in the European Union.

Flamborough Chalk Formation

White, well bedded, flint free chalk with common marl seams (typically about 1 per meter). Common stylolitic surfaces and pyrite nodules. Part of the White Chalk Subgroup (WHCK).

Glacial A period during an Ice Age in which there is a considerable increase in the total area covered by Glaciers and Ice Sheets.

Glacial deposits Deposits formed through glacial processes, either directly related to an ice sheet or on the margins of an advancing or retreating ice sheet. Material can be highly variable.

Groundwater Water located beneath the ground surface in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formations.

Holocene The Holocene is a geological epoch which began approximately 12,000 years ago (10,000

14C years ago). According to traditional geological thinking, the Holocene

continues to the present. The Holocene is part of the Quaternary period. It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1, and can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age.

Hydrogeology The area of geology that deals with the distribution and movement of groundwater in the soil and rocks of the Earth’s crust (commonly in aquifers).

Hydrology The study of the movement, distribution, and quality of water throughout the Earth, including the hydrologic cycle, water resources and environmental watershed sustainability.

Hydrostatic head The pressure at a given point in a liquid measured in terms of the vertical height of a column of the liquid needed to produce the same pressure

Interbedded Strata being positioned between or alternated with other layers of dissimilar character.

Interglacial The warmer interval between glacial periods during an Ice Age

Intertidal The intertidal zone, also known as the foreshore and seashore and sometimes referred to as the littoral zone, is the area that is above water at low tide and under water at high tide



112

Term Description

Invert Level The base interior level of a pipe, trench or tunnel.

Laminations The formation of laminae or the state of being laminated specifically the finest stratification.

Lithology The physical characteristics of a rock, including colour, composition and texture.

Lithostratigraphy Stratigraphy concerned with the organisation of strata into units based on lithological character and the correlation of these units.

Liquid Limit The minimum moisture content at which the soil can flow under its own weight.

Made ground Area of dry land that has been constructed by people, generally through the reclamation of marshes, lakes, or shorelines. An artificial fill (landfill) is used, consisting of natural materials, refuse, etc.

Moisture content The quantity of water contained in a material expressed as mass of water divided by mass of dry mass.

Natural moisture content The amount of water which can be removed when a soil sample is dried at the temperature of 105°C.

Oedometer An instrument for measuring the rate and amount of consolidation of a soil specimen under pressure.

Ordnance Datum A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey for deriving levels

Paedogenesis Formation of soil that formed over time as a consequence of climatic, mineral and biological processes.

Particle Density The density of the particles that make up the sample

Particle size distribution A list of values or a mathematical function that defines the relative amount of a sample, typically by mass, of particles present according to size.

Periphery A line that forms the boundary of an area

Periglacial Having locations, conditions, processes and topographical features that are adjacent to the boarders of a glacier.

Perched water Groundwater that is unconfined and separated from an underlying main body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone.

Permeability A measure of the ability of a material (such as rocks) to transmit fluids.

Piezometer A small-diameter observation well used to measure the hydraulic head of groundwater in aquifers; a standpipe, tube, vibrating wire piezometer or manometer used to measure the pressure of a fluid at a specific location in a column.

Plastic Limit The minimum moisture content in which the soil can be rolled into a 3mm diameter thread without breaking

Pleistocene The epoch from 2,588,000 to 12,000 years BC covering the world’s recent period of repeated glaciations.

Principal aquifer These are layers of rock or drift deposits that have high intergranular and/or

fracture permeability – meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage.

They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. In

most cases, principal aquifers are aquifers previously designated as major aquifer.

Putty (Chalk) A term used in relation to destructured, remoulded Chalk material



113

Term Description

Pyrite (FeS2) An iron sulphide with a metallic lustre and pale-to-normal, brass-yellow hue, also known as ‘fool’s gold’ because of its resemblance to gold.

Pyrite is the most common of the sulphide minerals and is usually found associated with other sulphides or oxides in quartz veins, sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock, as well as in coal beds, and as a replacement mineral in fossils.

Quaternary The most recent of the three periods of the Cenozoic Era in the geologic timescale of the ICS. It follows the Tertiary Period, spanning 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present. The Quaternary includes two geologic epochs: the Pleistocene and the Holocene Epochs.

Saline Intrusion The movement of saline water into freshwater aquifers, which can lead to contamination of drinking water sources and other consequences. Certain human activities, especially groundwater pumping from coastal freshwater wells, have increased saltwater intrusion in many coastal areas. Water extraction drops the level of fresh groundwater, reducing its water pressure and allowing saltwater to flow further inland.

Secondary Aquifer These include a wide range of rock layers or drift deposits with an equally wide

range of water permeability and storage. Secondary aquifers are subdivided into

two types:

Secondary A - permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local

rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base

flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers;

Secondary B - predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield

limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin

permeable horizons and weathering. These are generally the water-bearing parts

of the former non-aquifers.

Secondary Undifferentiated - has been assigned in cases where it has not been

possible to attribute either category A or B to a rock type. In most cases, this

means that the layer in question has previously been designated as both minor

and non-aquifer in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the

rock type.

Seismic Relating to or caused by earthquakes or artificially produced earth tremors.

Shear box An apparatus which can determine the resistance of a rock or soil to shearing. The soil is placed into a layered box. While a normal force is applied to the top layer, the bottom layer is pulled out sideways. The shear strength of the soil is the force which needs to be applied to deform the sample.

Silt Granular material of a grain size between sand and clay derived from soil or rock. Silt may occur as a soil or as suspended sediment (also known as suspended load) in a surface water body. It may also exist as soil deposited at the bottom of a water body.

Site of Special Strategic Importance

A conservation designation denoting a protected area.

Slake Durability A test to estimate the resistance of rocks, particularly argillaceous rocks, to a

combination of wetting and abrasion. Test results are expressed as a slake-



114

Term Description

durability index for each particular rock.

Solifluction The slow down slope movement of water-logged earth material. Usually occurs in areas of permafrost when formed in cold environments.

Source Protection Zones These zones show the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause

pollution in the area. The closer the activity, the greater the risk. The maps show

three main zones (inner, outer and total catchment) and a fourth zone of special

interest, which are occasionally applied, to a groundwater source.

Stratum (pl. Strata) A layer of rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers. Each layer is generally one of a number of parallel layers that lie one upon another, laid down by natural forces.

Stratigraphy (adj. Stratigraphic; stratigraphical)

The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks.

Superficial deposits Geological deposits typically of Quaternary age. May include stream channel and floodplain deposits, beach sands, talus gravels and glacial drift and moraine.

Topography The study of Earth’s surface shape and features or those of planets, moons, and asteroids. It is also the description of such surface shapes and features (especially their depiction in maps).

Triaxial test A common method to measure the mechanical properties of many deformable solids, especially soil, sand, clay, and other granular materials or powders.

Unexploded Ordnance Unexploded ordinance, mortar, artillery shells or cluster bombs which have not exploded.

Vuggy (Porosity) Due to vugs in calcareous rocks e.g the cavities formed by the dissolution of ooliths in limestone.

Weathering A destructive natural process by which rocks are altered with little or no transport of the fragmented or altered material. Maybe through mechanical or chemical weathering processes.



115

Drawings

H160/BH/07/01/F9/101 P2 Ground Model Long Section

H160/BH/04/01/F9/102 B As Built Exploratory Hole Location Plan (Sheet 1 of 3)



H160/BH/07/01/F9/104 P1 Goxhill Ground Model Long Section



116

Figures

Figure 2.2.1

Figure 3.3.1

Figure 3.6.1

Site Location Plan

Generalised Geological Succession for Site Area

Envirocheck Report Slices

Alluvium

Figure 6.1.1 Particle Size Distribution

Figure 6.1.2 Summary of Classification Data


Figure 6.1.4 Plasticity Chart

Figure 6.1.5 Undrained Shear Strength versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.1.6 SPT N versus Reduced Level in Cohesive Deposits

Figure 6.1.7 SPT N versus Reduced Level in Granular Deposits

Figure 6.1.8 Shear box Test

Figure 6.1.9 Oedometer Consolidation

Figure 6.1.10 In situ Coefficients of Volume Compressibility, mv and Swelling ms versus Elevation

Figure 6.1.11 Permeability versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.1.12 CPT Results around Drive Pit at Goxhill (Alluvial and Glacial Deposits)

Figure 6.1.13 CPT Results excluding Drive Pit at Goxhill (Alluvial and Glacial Deposits)

Figure 6.1.14 CPT Results at Paull (Alluvial and Glacial Deposits)

Glacial Deposits

Figure 6.2.1 Particle Size Distribution




Figure 6.2.5 Undrained Shear Strength versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.2.6 SPT N versus Reduced Level in Cohesive Deposits

Figure 6.2.7 SPT N versus Reduced Level in Granular Deposits

Figure 6.2.8 Shear box Test

Figure 6.2.9 Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test Multistage Stress Plot

Figure 6.2.10 Oedometer Consolidation

Figure 6.2.11 In situ Coefficients of Volume Compressibility, mv and Swelling ms versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.2.12 Permeability versus Reduced Level

Flamborough Chalk

Figure 6.3.1 Dry Density

Figure 6.3.2 Bulk Density

Figure 6.3.3 Saturated Moisture Content



117

Figure 6.3.4 Natural Moisture Content, Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Liquidity Index.


Figure 6.3.6 Slake Durability Index (first to second cycle)

Figure 6.3.7 Cerchar Abrasivity Index

Figure 6.3.8 UCS and Point Load Tests (Is50 correlation, K=18) against Reduced Level

Figure 6.3.9 UCS and Point Load Tests (Is50 correlation, K=18) against Depth Below Top of Chalk

Figure 6.3.10 Brazilian Tensile Test

Figure 6.3.11 Intact Modulus of Elasticity from UCS testing against Reduced Level

Figure 6.3.12 Intact Modulus of Elasticity from UCS testing against Depth Below Top of Chalk

Figure 6.3.13 Poisson’s Ratio

Figure 6.3.14 CPT Cone Resistance

Figure 6.3.15 CPT Friction Ratio

Figure 6.3.16 SPT N Value

Figure 6.3.17 RQD Values for all Boreholes

Figure 6.3.18 RQD Comparison with Geophysics

Figure 6.3.19 Flint and Marl Band Locations – Land Boreholes

Figure 6.3.20 Flint and Marl Band Locations – Marine Boreholes

Figure 6.3.21 Packer Test (M01 @ 24.5 m bgl)












Figure 6.3.33 Permeability Testing against Depth Below Ground Level

Figure 6.3.34 Permeability Testing against Reduced Level

Figure 6.3.35 HPD Testing - Shear Modulus against Reduced Level.

Figure 6.3.36 HPD Testing- Modulus of Elasticity against Reduced Level.

Figure 6.3.37 HPD Testing- Shear Modulus against Depth Below Top of Chalk.

Figure 6.3.38 HPD Testing- Modulus of Elasticity against Depth Below Top of Chalk.

Burnham Chalk

Figure 6.4.1 Dry Density



118

Figure 6.4.2 Bulk Density

Figure 6.4.3 Saturated Moisture Content

Figure 6.4.4 Natural Moisture Content, Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Liquidity Index.

Figure 6.4.5 Plasticity Chart Index

Figure 6.4.6 Slake Durability Index (first to second cycle)

Figure 6.4.7 Cerchar Abrasivity

Figure 6.4.8 UCS and Point Load Tests (Is50 correlation, K=18) against Reduced Level

Figure 6.4.9 UCS and Point Load Tests (Is50 correlation, K=18) against Depth Below Top of Chalk.

Figure 6.4.10 Brazilian Tensile Test

Figure 6.4.11 Intact Elastic Modulus from UCS testing against Reduced Level

Figure 6.4.12 Intact Elastic Modulus from UCS testing against Depth Below Top of Chalk

Figure 6.4.13 Poisson’s Ratio

Figure 6.4.14 SPT N Value

Figure 6.4.15 Packer Test (L03 @ 38.0 m bgl)


Figure 6.4.17 Permeability Testing Results against Depth Below Ground Level

Figure 6.4.18 Permeability Testing Results against Reduced Level

Figure 6.4.19 HPD Testing – Shear Modulus against Reduced Level

Figure 6.4.20 HPD Testing – Modulus of Elasticity against with Reduced Level

BRE SD1

Figure 6.5.1 BRE SD1 Testing - Alluvium

Figure 6.52 BRE SD1 Testing - Glacial

Figure 6.5.3 BRE SD1 Testing - Chalk

Groundwater

Figure 6.7.1 Manual Water Level Measurements

Figure 6.7.2 Goxhill Diver Data – Piezometric Head as m AOD

Figure 6.7.3 Paull Diver Data – Piezometric Head as m AOD


Ground Investigation Report CS/064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Particle Size Distribution

Figure 6.1.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

tag

e P

assin

g (

%)

Goxhill

Recent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

tag

e P

assin

g (

%)

Humber

Historic

Recent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

tag

e P

assin

g (

%)

Particle Size (mm)

Paull

Recent Historic

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Ground Investigation Report CS/064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Summary of Classification Data

Figure 6.1.2

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Moisture Content w (%)

130% PA63 2.0m

170% PA63 2.6m

131% TP01B 0.3m

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plastic Limit wP (%)

Goxhill Historic Humber Historic Paull Historic

Goxhill Recent Humber Recent Paull Recent

111% TP01B 0.3m

87% GH64 12.4m

68% PA63 2.0m

94% PA63 2.6m

55% PA40 7.5m

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Liquid Limit wL (%)

157% GH64 12.4m

89% L04 10.23m

80% GH64 1.7m

112% PA63 1.6m

152% TP01B 0.3m

197% PA63 2.0m

220% PA63 2.6m


Alluvium


Figure 6.1.3

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Plasticity Index IP (%)

70% GH64 12.4m

46% GH64 1.7m

126% PA63 0.68m

129% PA63 1.28m

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Liquidity Index IL

Goxhill Historic Humber Historic

Goxhill Recent Humber Recent

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Particle Density s (Mg/m3)

Paull Historic

Paull Recent

2.42 Mg/m3

L05 12.6m

2.33 Mg/m3

L05 13.8m

TP01A 0.3m, TP01C 0.3m TP01C 0.9m

TP01C 2m

Granular

2.29 Mg/m3

PA40 7.5m

2.48 Mg/m3

PA40 4.5m

Granular

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1


2.19 Mg/m3

PA40 10.5m

2.19 Mg/m3

L16A 15.2m

2.33 Mg/m3

M11 4m

1.54Mg/m3

L04 10m

1.48Mg/m3

PA40 7.5m


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Plasticity Chart

Figure 6.1.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex

IP (

%)

Liquid Limit wL (%)



CL

CI

ML

MI

CH

MV

CV

MH

CE

ME

wL157% IP 87% GH64 12.4m

wL80% IP 46% GH64 1.7m

wL 73% IP 42% TP01C 0.3m

wL89% IP 47% L04 10.2m

wL152% IP 41% TP01B 0.3m

wL112% IP 77% PA63 1.6m

wL197% IP 129% PA63 2.0m

wL220% IP 126% PA63 2.6m


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Undrained Shear Strength versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.1.5

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Undrained Shear Strength cu (kPa)

Historic Recent

EL L M H VL

L08 1.2m 3 x 38mm

Goxhill

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100


Historic Recent

EL L M H VL

Humber

240kPa M11 4m

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100


Historic Recent

EL L M H VL

Paull


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure SPT N Value versus Reduced Level in Cohesive Deposits

Figure 6.1.6

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 10 20 30 40

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Goxhill

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 10 20 30 40

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Humber

CEGB 1968

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 10 20 30 40

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Paull

14 PA07 1.9m (1968)


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure SPT N Value versus Reduced Level in Granular Deposits

Figure 6.1.7

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 10 20 30 40

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Goxhill

22 L04 5.5m

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 10 20 30 40

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Humber

M09

CEGB 1968

65 GH64 3.5m

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 10 20 30 40

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Paull

39 PA31 9m

PA28


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Shear box Test

Figure 6.1.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Sh

ear

Str

ess (

kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)

M03 3m

M07 4m

M07 8m

M09 4m

M09 6.5m

M10 4m

L04 11.5m

M03 12.5m

M10 6.5m

L04 12.5m

c' = 17kPa

' = 41

c' = 0

' = 33

Cohesive



Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Oedometer Consolidation

Figure 6.1.9

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id R

ati

o e

Goxhill

L05 3m

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id R

ati

o e

Humber

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id R

ati

o e

Vertical Stress 'v (kPa)

Paull


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure In situ Coefficients of Volume Compressibility, mv and

Swelling ms versus Reduced Level Figure 6.1.10

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

mv (m2/MN)

Goxhill

2.8m2/MN L05 3m

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

mv (m2/MN)

Reloading

Humber

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

mv (m2/MN)

Paull

+ All results are of historic loading

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

ms (m2/MN)

Goxhill

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

ms (m2/MN)

Humber

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

ms (m2/MN)

Paull


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Permeability versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.1.11

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2 1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Permeability k - rising head (ms-1)

Tests in Standpipes

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Permeability k - falling head (ms-1)

Goxhill

Tests in Boreholes

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Permeability k - triaxial (ms-1)

Paull

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Permeability k - constant head (ms-1)


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure CPT Results around Drive Pit at Goxhill (Alluvial and

Glacial) Figure 6.1.12

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Cone end Resistance qc (MPa)

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Friction Ratio Rf (%)

CPT01

CPT02

CPT03

CPT04

CPT05

CPT06

CPT07


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure CPT Results excluding Drive Pit at Goxhill (Alluvial and

Glacial) Figure 6.1.13

-13

-12

-11

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)


-13

-12

-11

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


CPT08

CPT09

CPT10

CPT11

CPT13

CPT14

CPT15

CPT16

CPT17

CPT18

CPT19

CPT20


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure CPT Results at Paull (Alluvial and Glacial)

Figure 6.1.14

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 4 8 12 16 20

Red

uc

ed

Le

ve

l (m

AO

D)


-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


CPTA01

CPTA02

CPTA03

CPTA04

CPTA05

CPTA06



Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Particle Size Distribution

Figure 6.2.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

tag

e P

assin

g (

%)

Goxhill

Recent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

tag

e P

assin

g (

%)

Humber

Historic

Recent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

tag

e P

assin

g (

%)

Particle Size (mm)

Paull

Recent

Historic


Glacial Deposits


Figure 6.2.2

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 20 40 60 80

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Moisture Content w (%)

190% PA34 2.5m

200% PA34 3m

240% PA34 2.5m

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 20 40 60 80




72% PA34 2.5m

76% PA34 3.0m

99% PA34

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 20 40 60 80

Liquid Limit wL (%)

102% L01 1.2m

210% PA34 2.5m

254% PA34 2.5m

228% PA34 3.0


Glacial Deposits


Figure 6.2.3

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 20 40 60

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)


67% L01 1.2m

138% PA34 2.5m

155% PA34 2.5m

152% PA34 3.0

3% PA07 6.0m

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

-1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

Liquidity Index IL

Goxhill Historic Humber Historic

Goxhill Recent Humber Recent

2.85 L18 9.7m

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90

Particle density s (Mg/m3)

Paull Historic

Paull Recent

2.88 Mg/m3

PA34 2.5m

cohesive

cohesive

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4


1.49 L01 1.2m


Glacial Deposits


Figure 6.2.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex

(%

)

Liquid Limit (%)



wL210%, IP138% PA34 2.5m

CL

CI

ML

MI

CH

MV

CV

MH

CE

ME

wL102%, IP 67% L01 1.2m

wL 254%, IP155% PA34 2.5m

wL 228%, IP152% PA34 3.0m


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Undrained Shear Strength versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.2.5

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 50 100 150 200 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)


Historic Recent

EL L M H VH VL

Goxhill

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 50 100 150 200


Historic Recent

VH EL L M H VL

330kPa M12 6m

Humber

320kPa M20 13.5m

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 50 100 150 200


Historic Recent

VH EL L M H VL

Paull


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure SPT N Value versus Reduced Level in Cohesive Deposits

Figure 6.2.6

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Goxhill

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Humber

1968

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Paull

PA35

98 PA39 7.5m

PA32 L14

1968


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure SPT N Value versus Reduced Level in Granular Deposits

Figure 6.2.7

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Goxhill

1968

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

1968

Humber

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

SPT N Value

Historic Recent

Paull

PA35

52 L14 5.2m

1968


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Shear Box Test

Figure 6.2.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Sh

ear

Str

ess (

kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)

L16A 24m

L08 5.2m

L16 10.5m

L16A 22.5m

L18 19.5m

L16A 21m

c' = 10kPa

' = 31

c' = 40kPa

' = 32

Cohesive


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Consolidated Undrained Multistage Triaxial Test

Figure 6.2.9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

t =

(

1'-

3')

/2 (

kP

a)

s' = (1'+3')/2 (kPa)

L01 7.6m

L14 5.03m

L02 5.72m

L14 8.23m



Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Oedometer Consolidation

Figure 6.2.10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id R

ati

o e

Goxhill

L01 1.2m

L03 5m

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id R

ati

o e

Humber

M10 9m

M20 5m

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id R

ati

o e

Vertical Stress 'v (kPa)

Paull

L15 3.5m

PA39 6m


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure In situ Coefficients of Volume Compressibility, mv and

Swelling, ms versus Reduced Level Figure 6.2.11

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

mv (m2/MN)

Goxhill

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

mv (m2/MN)

Loading Reloading

Humber

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

mv (m2/MN)

Paull

historic

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

ms (m2/MN)

Goxhill

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

ms (m2/MN)

Humber

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

ms (m2/MN)

historic


Glacial Deposits

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Permeability versus Reduced Level

Figure 6.2.12

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5 1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Red

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Permeability k - rising head (ms-1)

Borehole

cohesive

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Permeability k - falling head (ms-1)

Goxhill

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

1.0

E-1

1

1.0

E-1

0

1.0

E-0

9

1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

Permeability k - triaxial (ms-1)

Paull

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

1.0

E-0

8

1.0

E-0

7

1.0

E-0

6

1.0

E-0

5

1.0

E-0

4

Permeability k - constant head (ms-1)



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Dry Density

Figure 6.3.1

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) Dry Density d (Mg/m3)

L06

MO1

M02

MO4

M05

MO6

M08

M07

M09

M10

M11

M12

M19

M13

M14

M20

L16A

1.55 1.95 1.70

LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Bulk Density

Figure 6.3.2

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Bulk Density (Mg/m³) L06

L15

L16A

L18

M01

M03

M04

M05

M06

M07

M08

M09

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M19

M20



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Saturated Moisture Content

Figure 6.3.3

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

10 15 20 25 30 35

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

SMC (%)

L14

L15

L16A

L18

M01

M02

M04

M05

M06

M07

M08

M09

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M19

M20

M03

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Ground Investigation Report CS/064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101B


Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure

Natural Moisture Content, Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Liquidity Index

Figure 6.3.4

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Natural Moisture Content w (%)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30


-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30

Liquid Limit wL (%)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30


-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

-5 -3 -1 1

Liquidity Index IL (%)

P

G

H

2 Likely erroneous results

removed.




Figure 6.3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex I P

(%

)

Liquid Limit IL (%)

L Low

I Inter

H High

V Very High

CL

ML

CI

MI

CH

MH

CV

MV





Slake Durability Index (first to second

cycle)

Figure 6.3.6

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Slake durability Index, %

L14 L14 L14 L15 L15 L16A L16A L18 M02

M02 M03 M03 M03 M04 M05 M05 M05 M06

M06 M06 M06 M07 M07 M07 M08 M09 M09

M10 M10 M11 M11 M11 M11 M12 M12 M12

M13 M13 M13 M13 M13 M14 M14 M14 M19

M19 M20 M20 M20 M20 M20




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Cerchar Abrasivity Index

Figure 6.3.7

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Cerchar Abrasivity Index

M02

M03

M04

M07

M08

M09

M10

M13

M14

M19



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure UCS and Point Load Test (Is50 correlation, K=18) against

Reduced Level Figure 6.3.8

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) UCS (MN/m2)

Point Load Test

UCS Test

VERY WEAK WEAK MEDIUM STRONG



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure UCS and Point Load Test (Is50 correlation, K=18) against

Depth Below Top of Chalk. Figure 6.3.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 D

epth

Bel

ow

To

p o

f C

hal

k (

m)

UCS (MN/m2)

Point Load Test

UCS Test




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Brazilian Tensile Test

Figure 6.3.10

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D) Tensile Strength (MN/m²)

M03

M07

M08

M09

M14

M19



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Intact Modulus of Elasticity from UCS testing against


-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Average Modulus of Elasticity Eave (Mpa)




Depth Below Top of Chalk Figure 6.3.12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Dep

th b

elo

w t

op

of

chal

k (m

) Average Modulus of Elasticity Eave (MPa)



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Poisson’s Ratio

Figure 6.3.13

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Poisson's Ratio ()




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure CPT Cone Resistance

Figure 6.3.14

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

Cone End Resistance qc (MPa)

CPT01 CPT02 CPT05 CPT06 CPT07 CPT08 CPT09

CPT13 CPT14 CPT16 CPT17 CPT19 CPT20




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure CPT Friction Ratio

Figure 6.3.15

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)


CPT01 CPT02 CPT05 CPT06 CPT07 CPT08 CPT09

CPT13 CPT14 CPT16 CPT17 CPT19 CPT20



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure SPT N Value

Figure 6.3.16

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

SPT N Value

SPT values

Refused




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure RQD Values for all Boreholes

Figure 6.3.17

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%)

BH L01 BH L02 BH L03 BH L04 BH L05

BH L06 BH L14 BH L15 BH L16A BH L18

BH M01 BH M02 BH M03 BH M04 BH M05

BH M06 BH M07 BH M08 BH M09 BH M10

BH M11 BH M12


Flamborough Chalk Formation Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure RQD Comparison with Geophysics

Figure 6.3.18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%) L03

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%) L18

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%) M01

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%) M03

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%)

M05

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%) M06

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%)

M08

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%)

M10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%)

M11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

RQD (%) M12


Flamborough Chalk Formation Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Flint and Marl Band Locations – Land Boreholes

Figure 6.3.19

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

RIVER

L01 L08 L02 L03 L04 L05 L06

BURNHAM CHALK

FORMATION

L16A L18 L15 L14

FLAMBOROUGH CHALK

FORMATION

SUPERFICIAL FORMATION


FLAMBOROUGH CHALK

FORMATION

FLAMBOROUGH CHALK FORMATION

Goxhill Paull


Flamborough Chalk Formation Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Flint and Marl Band Locations – Marine Boreholes

Figure 6.3.20

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 M06 M08 M07 M10 M11 M09

FLAMBOROUGH CHALK

FORMATION

BURNHAM CHALK

FORMATION

M12 M20 M14 M13 M19





Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Packer Test (M01 @ 24.5 m bgl)

Figure 6.3.21

0.0E+00

2.0E-05

4.0E-05

6.0E-05

8.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.2E-04

1.4E-04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.5E-06

2.0E-06

2.5E-06

3.0E-06

3.5E-06

4.0E-06

4.5E-06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3/s

)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Permeability

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

1

2

3

4

5

Test Pressures (Bar)

0 50 100 150

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY = 2.01 X 10-6

m/s




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Packer Test (M02 @ 24.0 m bgl

Figure 6.3.22

0.0E+00

1.0E-04

2.0E-04

3.0E-04

4.0E-04

5.0E-04

6.0E-04

7.0E-04

8.0E-04

9.0E-04

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3/s

)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3/s

)

Head (Bar)


0 2 4 6 8

1

2

3

4

5


0 20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern


m/s

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY (Group D - Wash-out)





Figure 6.3.23

0.0E+00

2.0E-04

4.0E-04

6.0E-04

8.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.2E-03

1.4E-03

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.5E-05

2.0E-05

2.5E-05

3.0E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 100 200 300 400

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY (Group D- Wash-out)


m/s





Figure 6.3.24

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

7.0E-06

8.0E-06

9.0E-06

1.0E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.5E-07

2.0E-07

2.5E-07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern


m/s

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY (Group E - Void Filling)





Figure 6.3.25

0.0E+00

5.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.5E-05

2.0E-05

2.5E-05

3.0E-05

3.5E-05

4.0E-05

4.5E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.5E-07

2.0E-07

2.5E-07

3.0E-07

3.5E-07

4.0E-07

4.5E-07

5.0E-07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 2 4 6 8

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern

CHARACTERISTIC

PERMEABILITY = 8.45 X 10

-8

m/s

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY (Group C - Dilation)





Figure 6.3.26

0.00E+00

5.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.50E-05

2.00E-05

2.50E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.00E+00

5.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.50E-07

2.00E-07

2.50E-07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3/s

)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY (Group C - Dilation)

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY

= 1.22 X 10-7

m/s





Figure 6.3.27

0.0E+00

2.0E-05

4.0E-05

6.0E-05

8.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.2E-04

1.4E-04

1.6E-04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.5E-06

2.0E-06

2.5E-06

3.0E-06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1

2

3

4

5


0 10 20 30 40 50

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern

CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY (Group B - Turbulent Flow)


= 2.01 X 10-6

m/s





Figure 6.3.28

0.0E+00

1.0E-05

2.0E-05

3.0E-05

4.0E-05

5.0E-05

6.0E-05

7.0E-05

8.0E-05

9.0E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3/s

)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern CHARACTERISTIC PERMEABILITY

(Group C - Dilation)


= 4.77 X 10-7

m/s





Figure 6.3.29

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3/s

)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.5E-06

2.0E-06

2.5E-06

3.0E-06

3.5E-06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 10 20 30 40 50

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern



= 1.50 X 10-6

m/s





Figure 6.3.30

0.0E+00

2.0E-04

4.0E-04

6.0E-04

8.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.2E-03

1.4E-03

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Flo

w R

ate

(m3/s

)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.5E-05

2.0E-05

2.5E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1

2

3

4

5


0 50 100 150 200 250 300

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern



= 1.62 X 10-5

m/s





Figure 6.3.31

0.0E+00

2.0E-05

4.0E-05

6.0E-05

8.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.2E-04

1.4E-04

1.6E-04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.5E-06

2.0E-06

2.5E-06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1

2

3

4

5


0 10 20 30 40

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern



m/s





Figure 6.3.32

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Flo

w R

ate

(m3/s

)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

7.0E-06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3/s

)

Head (Bar)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1

2

3

4

5


0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern



= 2.15 X 10-6

m/s




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Permeability Testing against Depth

Below Ground Level Figure 6.3.33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01

Test

Dep

th (

m b

gl)

Permeablity k (ms-1)

Failling Head

Rising Head

Packer




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Permeability Testing against Reduced

Level Figure 6.3.34

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Permeability k (ms-1)

Failling Head

Rising Head

Packer



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure HPD Testing - Shear Modulus plotted against

Reduced Level. Figure 6.3.35

-60.0

-50.0

-40.0

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) Shear Modulus Gur (loop 2) (MPa)



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure HPD Testing - Modulus of Elasticity against Reduced

Level Figure 6.3.36

-60.0

-50.0

-40.0

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

E' (based on HPDs loop 2), Modulus of Elasticity (MPa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 D

epth

bel

ow

to

p o

f C

hal

k (m

) Shear Modulus Gur (loop 2) (MPa)

G = 360 + 26z



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure HDP Testing - Shear Modulus against Depth

Below Top of Chalk Figure 6.3.37



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure HPD Testing - Modulus of Elasticity against Depth

Below Top of Chalk Figure 6.3.38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Dep

th b

elo

w t

op

of

Ch

alk

(m)

Modulus of Elasticity, E' (based on HPDs loop 2)(MPa)

E = 900 + 64z


Burnham Chalk Formation

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Dry Density

Figure 6.4.1

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

)

Dry Density (Mg/m3)

LO1

LO2

L03

L04

L05

L06

MO1

M02

M04

MO6

M07

1.55 1.95 1.70

LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Bulk Density

Figure 6.4.2

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) Bulk Density (Mg/m³)

L01

L02

L03

L04

L05

L06

M01

M03

M06

L03

L04

L05

L06

M01

M02

M03

M04

M06



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Saturated Moisture Content

Figure 6.4.3

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) SMC (%)

L03

L04

L05

L06

M01

M02

M03

M04




Natural Moisture Content, Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Liquidity Index

Figure 6.4.4

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Natural Moisture Content w (%)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30


-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30

Liquid Limit wL (%)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 10 20 30


-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

-5 -3 -1 1

Liquidity Index IL (%)

P

G

H




Figure 6.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex I P

(%

)

Liquid Limit IL (%)

L Low

I Inter

H High

V Very High

CL

ML

CI

MI

CH

MH

CV

MV





Slake Durability Index (first to second

cycle)

Figure 6.4.6

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Slake durability Index, %

L03 L03 L04 L05 L05 L06 L06 M01

M01 M01 M01 M02 M03 M03 M04 M06



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Cerchar Abrasivity Index

Figure 6.4.7

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) Cerchar Abrasivity Index

L01

L02

L03

L04

L05

L06

M01

M03

M04

Flint

Chalk



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure UCS and Point Load Test (Is50 correlation, K=18)

against Reduced Level Figure 6.4.8

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) UCS (MN/m2)

Point Load Data

UCS Data




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure UCS and Point Load Test (Is50 correlation, K=18)

against Depth Below Top of Chalk Figure 6.4.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 D

epth

Bel

ow

To

p o

f C

hal

k (m

)

UCS (MN/m2)

Point Load Test

UCS Test




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Brazilian Tensile Test

Figure 6.4.10

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) Tensile Strength (MN/m²)

L03

M03




Reduced Level. Figure 6.4.11

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 R

edu

ced

Lev

el (

m A

OD

) Average Modulus of Elasticity E (MN/m2)




Depth Below Top of Chalk Figure 6.4.12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Dep

th b

elo

w t

op

of

chal

k (m

) Average Modulus of Elasticity Eave (MPa)



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Poisson's Ratio

Figure 6.4.13

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500 El

evat

ion

(m

AO

D)

Poisson's Ratio ()




SPT N Value

Figure 6.4.14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 D

epth

Bel

ow

to

p o

f C

hal

k (m

) SPT N Value

SPT

Refused




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Packer Test (L03 @ 38.0 m bgl)

Figure 6.4.15

0.0E+00

2.0E-04

4.0E-04

6.0E-04

8.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.2E-03

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Flo

w R

ate

(m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

5.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.5E-05

2.0E-05

2.5E-05

3.0E-05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3 /

s)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 100 200 300 400 500

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern


m/s






Figure 6.4.16

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

0 1 2 3 4

Flo

w R

ate

(m3/s

)

Head (Bar)

Head vs. Flow Rate

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

7.0E-06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Per

mea

bili

ty (

m3/s

)

Head (Bar)


0 1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

5


0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

5

Lugeon Pattern



m/s




Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Permeability Testing Results against

Depth Below Ground Level Figure 6.4.17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01

Test

Dep

th (

m b

gl)

Permeability k (m/s)

Failling Head

Rising Head

Packer





Permeability Testing Results

against Reduced Level. Figure 6.4.18

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

1.00E-08 1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01

Red

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Permeability k (m/s)

Failling Head

Rising Head

Packer




HPD Testing - Shear Modulus against Reduced Level

Figure 6.4.19

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Red

uce

ed L

evel

(m

AO

D)

ShearModulus Gur (loop 2) (MPa)



Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure HPD Testing – Modulus of Elasticity against


-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

REd

uce

d L

evel

(m

AO

D)

Modulus of Elasticity E' (based on HPD Loop 2) (MPa)


Alluvium

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure BRE SD1 Testing

Figure 6.5.1

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)

Water Soluble SO4 (g/l)

16g/l TP01B 0.3m

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5

pH

Goxhill Recent

2.2 TP01B

6.6 L04

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6

Water Soluble Cl (g/l)

Humber Recent

2.5g/l M01 2m

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Total SO4 (%)

Paull Recent

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.1 0.2

Total Sulphur (%)

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Organic Matter (%)


Glacial Deposits


Figure 6.5.2

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)


1.1mg/l L01 1.2m

1.6 mg/l L02

1mg/l L15 3.5m

1200 mg/l TP01D

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5

pH

Goxhill Recent

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0


Humber Recent

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Total SO4 (%)

Paull Recent

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Total Sulphur (%)

0.83% L15 3.5m

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Organic Matter (%)


Chalk


Figure 6.5.3

-45.0

-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 R

ed

uc

ed

Le

vel (m

AO

D)


-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

8.2 8.6 9.0 9.4

pH

Goxhill Recent

-45.0

-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0


Humber Recent

-45.0

-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

Total SO4 (%)

Paull Recent

-45.0

-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

0.00 0.05 0.10

Total Sulphur (%)


Groundwater

Property and infrastructure Capita Symonds House, Wood Street, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1UU T 01342327161 http://www.capita.co.uk/infrastructure Manual Water Level Measurements

Figure 6.7.1

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

24/04/14 14/05/14 03/06/14 23/06/14 13/07/14 02/08/14 22/08/14 11/09/14 01/10/14 21/10/14

Wat

er

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

L01 Burnham Chalk L02/2 Glacial L02/1 Burnham Chalk L03/2 Flamborough Chalk L04/2 Marine and Estuarine Alluvium

L04/1 Burnham Chalk L06/2 Marine and Estuarine Alluvium L06/1 Burnham Chalk L08/2 Glacial L14/2 Glacial

L14/1 Flamborough Chalk L15/2 Glacial L15/1 Flamborough Chalk L16/L16A/2 Glacial L16/L16A/1 Flamborough Chalk

Low Tide [Humber] High Tide [Humber]

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Ground Investigation Report CS/064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101B



Goxhill Diver Data – Piezometric Head as m AOD

Figure 6.7.2

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

-0.8

-0.3

0.2

0.7

1.2

1.7

2.2

2.7

25/06/14 09/07/14 23/07/14 06/08/14 20/08/14 03/09/14 17/09/14

Hu

mb

er

Estu

ary

Tid

al D

ep

ths

(mA

OD

)

Wat

er

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

L01 L02/1 L02/2 L03/1 L03/2 L04/1 L04/2 L05/1 L05/2 L06/1 L06/2 L08 Humber Tide

L03/1 Burnham Chalk

L02/1 Burnham Chalk

L04/2 Glacial Deposits

L08 Marine & Estuarine Alluvium / Glacial Deposits

L01 Flamborough / Burnham Chalk

L06/1 Burnham Chalk


L03/2 Flamborough Chalk

L06/2 Marine & Estuarine Alluvium

L04/1 Burnam Chalk

L05/1 Burnham Chalk

L05/2 Marine & Estuarine Alluvium




Goxhill Diver Data – Piezometric Head as m AOD

Figure 6.7.3

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

25/06/14 09/07/14 23/07/14 06/08/14 20/08/14 03/09/14 17/09/14

Bo

reh

ole

Gro

un

dw

ate

r Le

vel (

m A

OD

)

L15/1 L15/2 L16A/1 L16A/2 L18/1 L18/2 Humber Tide

Hu

mb

er

Estu

ary

Tid

al D

ep

ths

(m)


L16/1 Flamborough CHalk



L18/1 Flamborough Chalk


APPENDIX A – Geophysical Testing

A-1

APPENDIX A: GEOPHYSICS TESTING

A1.1 Caliper

The caliper tool was run through both the cased and uncased sections of borehole in all boreholes in

which geophysics surveys were completed. Where the tool was run through the cased section the

information is of limited use as only the internal diameter of the casing is confirmed. Where the tool

is run through the uncased section it confirms the general bore diameter and localised increases in

diameter due to washout, breakout or fissures.

The caliper logs have been compared against the optical and acoustical images of the borehole face

to determine the likely reasoning for bore diameter variation. Comparison of the log with the

borehole log and core photographs is not practical in some cases due to the poor core recovery and

uncertainty on the exact location of core loss resulting in slight variations in recorded depths. These

reasons are discussed further in Section A1.6 below on the optical and acoustical imaging.

It is clear from review of the caliper logs that the bore diameter is generally around 150 mm as

would be expected when Geobor S (barrel / core bit of 147 mm) was utilised for drilling. There was

some general variation in the bore size of typically +5 to 10 mm / -5 mm. This magnitude of variation

is likely due to general oversizing of the hole due to drill string “wobble” during coring and rock

relaxation due to stress release after removal of the casing. Where a variation in the bore diameter

was recorded by the caliper log, which was considered over and above this background variation,

the location has been recorded on the image summary in Figures APPENDIX A/01 to 03. Additionally

the information from the optical and acoustical images, borehole log and core photography at this

depth has been summarised below in Table A1 which should be read in conjunction with Figures

APPENDIX A/01 to 03.



A-2

Table A1: Summary of Caliper Peak Readings

Hole

Ref.

Depth

(m bgl) Optical / Acoustic Image Borehole Log Core Photograph

L18

40.1

Structural: 3 Major Fractures / Fissures recorded

centred at between 40.05 and 40.15 m.

Optical: No image due to opaque bore fluid.

Acoustical: Shows heavily fractured area.

40.20 to 40.50 m recorded as

“Non-Intact”.

Shows core as non-intact at the same

approximate depth as logged.

41.7

Structural: 1 Major Fracture approximately 100 mm

thick centred at 41.8 m and 1 Minor Fracture centred

at 41.6 m.




“Non-Intact”.



44.0


thick centred at 44.2 m.




“Non-Intact”.



48.0


thick centred at 48.1 m.




“Non-Intact”.



M01 19.8

Structural: 1 Major fracture centred at 20.1 m.

Optical: Distorted image at this depth.

Acoustical: Distorted image at this depth.


“2 Angular Cobbles”.


“Assumed Zone of Core Loss”.

Shows core immediately above this depth

as non-intact. No core is shown

immediately below this depth.



A-3

Hole

Ref.

Depth


20.3

Structural: 2 Major Fractures centred at 20.1 and 20.6

and 1 Minor Fracture centred at 20.55 m.

Optical: Slightly distorted image. Shows fractured

rock between approximately 20.4 to 20.7 m.

Acoustical: Slightly distorted image. Shows fractured

rock between approximately 20.4 to 20.7 m.


“Non-intact”.

Shows core between 20.00 and 20.35 m

as non-intact. No core is shown between

20.35 and 20.50 m.

M05 24.6

Structural: 1 Major Fracture centred at 24.5 m and 2

Major Fractures centred at 24.75 m and 1 Minor

Fracture centred at 24.9 m.

Optical: Shows heavily fractured area between 24.5

and 25.0 m.

Acoustical: Shows heavily fractured area between

24.5 and 25.0 m.


“Non-intact”.



Shows solid core between approximately

24.46 and 24.75 m (Note the optical /

acoustical images do not agree with this).

Shows core loss between 24.75 and 25.65

m.

M06

18.3

Structural: 1 Major Fracture centred at 18.5 m.

Optical: Image is slightly distorted but shows the

discontinuity and possible voiding due to breakout.

Acoustical: Image is slightly distorted but shows the

discontinuity.

18.02 to 18.32 m records 1

discontinuity (stained).

18.30 to 18.52 m records

striated discontinuities

(stained).

Shows fractured but intact core that is

stained.

18.9

Structural: 1 Major Fracture centred at 18.8 m.


discontinuity and possible voiding due to breakout.


discontinuity.


“Non-intact”.

18.94 m a fossil recorded.


“Non-intact”.

Shows non-intact core either side of a

short section of core.



A-4

Hole

Ref.

Depth


19.5

Structural: 1 Major Fracture and 1 Minor Fracture

both centred at 19.4 m.


discontinuity.


discontinuity.


“Non-intact”.

19.4 to 19.75 m records 1

discontinuity (unstained).

Shows non-intact core either side of a

short section of core.

M08 21.3

Structural: No structural features are recorded.

Optical: Distorted image at this depth.

Acoustical: Distorted image at this depth.


“Non-intact”.



M10 19.5

Structural: 2 Major Fractures shown centred at 19.5

and 19.6 m and 1 Minor Fracture shown centred at

19.8 m.


Acoustical: Image shows heavily fractured rock.


“Non-intact”.

Shows steeply dipping discontinuity with

non-intact core above. Core appears

solid below but is recorded as “Non-

intact”.

M11 33.4

Structural: 2 Minor Fractures shown at 33.4 and 33.5

m.

Optical: Both fractures are clearly shown.

Acoustical: Image is distorted but the upper fracture

is still just visible.

33.05 to 33.5 is recorded as


No core due to core loss.



A-5

Although fractures are recorded by the geophysics throughout the boreholes surveyed they rarely

result in significant breakout of the bore which can be recorded by the caliper and is visible above

the background variation. Where the breakouts were recorded by the caliper log these are generally

where a major fracture is recorded. A review of all the major fractures within the geophysics

indicates that single horizontal / sub-horizontal fractures generally do not result in a breakout.

Breakouts recorded by the caliper are generally as a result of wide major fractures / multiple

fractures / steeply inclined fractures. In general the bore is relatively smooth which is backed up by

the optical images and, to a lesser extent, acoustic images as discussed in Section A1.6.

A1.2 Natural Gamma / Resistivity

The natural gamma tool was run through both the cased and uncased sections of borehole in all

boreholes in which geophysics surveys were completed. The resistivity was run through the uncased

sections of the borehole only. The purpose of the gamma and resistivity was to pick up marl seams

within the chalk.

Due to the relatively low CPS (Counts Per Second) values recorded by the natural gamma probe it is

very difficult to pick out any peaks that could be associated with marl bands. Additionally the

resistivity data, which assists in the recognition of marl bands with low values of resistance recorded,

shows little or no variation for the vast majority of borehole logged.

A review of literature (Barker et al. 1984) indicates that the two main marl seams within the

Burnham Chalk Formation (Ulceby and North Ormsby Marls) are towards the base of the formation

which will not have been encountered within this ground investigation. This literature also indicates

that variations of 10 CPS or more are generally associated with marl bands within this strata.

Reviewing the natural gamma logs it appears that peaks of this magnitude were not recorded within

the boreholes. Where peaks close to this value have been logged the resistivity data shows no

variation which would indicate the variation is not due to a marl band.

A1.3 Density

The density tool was run through both the cased and uncased sections of borehole in all boreholes in

which geophysics surveys were completed. The information within the cased sections has been

treated as qualitative only. A review of the apparent density data highlighted only 2 locations where

a significant drop in density was recorded. These were both in borehole L03 at approximately 9.5

and 14 to 15 m bgl. The low density area at 9.5 m bgl is possibly associated with localised loosening

of the cohesive alluvial deposits or underlying granular deposits during drilling as a water strike and

a low SPT value were recorded at this approximate depth. There is no indication from the borehole

log or core photography why there was a low density recording around the depth of 14 to 15m bgl.

The values of density returned within the uncased section have been corrected for borehole effects

and mud invasion (where applicable) to produce a density log. The density measured using this tool

was typically 2.25 g/cm3 which equates to 2.25 Mg/m3. Variation in all of the logs was noted to be

small with values generally ranging between 2.15 Mg/m3 and 2.3 Mg/m3. A density of 2.15 Mg/m3 is

shown in close proximity to the site in Figure 4.5 in CIRIA Report C574 (Lord et al 2002) although this

is believed to be Dry Density rather than bulk density. Laboratory test data recorded bulk densities



A-6

in the range of 2.05 Mg/m3 to 2.25 Mg/m3 (2.15 Mg/m3 average) for the Flamborough Chalk and 2.1

Mg/m3 to 2.3 Mg/m3 (2.2 Mg/m3 average) for the Flamborough Chalk which correlates well with the

geophysics results. There was no noticeable difference in the density recorded by the density tool in

the Flamborough and Burnham chalks.

A1.4 Porosity

The porosity tool was run through both the cased and uncased sections of borehole in all boreholes

in which geophysics surveys were completed. The information within the cased sections has been

treated as qualitative only.

The values of porosity measured using this tool were typically between 25 and 35%. A range of

porosity values of 9 % to 52 % is quoted for chalk within CIRIA Report C574 (Lord et al 2002)

although more specifically these porosity values recorded correspond with “High” and “Very High”

density chalk as defined by CIRIA Report C574 (Lord et al 2002). Porosity values between 35 % to 40

% were occasionally recorded which indicates that “Medium” density chalk is occasionally present.

These values compare well with the British Geological Survey reports on the chalk aquifers of

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (Whitehead et al 2006 and Gale and Rutter 2006) which record porosity

values of 29.2 % for the Burnham Chalk and 35.4 % for Flamborough/Burnham Chalk

(Undifferentiated).

A1.5 Fluid Readings

Geophysics tools measuring fluid temperature, salinity, electrical conductivity (corrected to 25 C)

and velocity were run through the uncased sections of borehole in all boreholes in which geophysics

surveys were completed.

The typical values were extracted from the logs and are summarised below in Table A2.

Table A2: Typical values recorded by geophysics fluid logs

Borehole

Location

Electrical Conductivity

- Normalised to 25C

(µS/cm)

Salinity (mg/l) Temperature (C) Fluid Velocity

(mm/s)

Land 5,000 to 6,000 Approximately

3,000

10 to 11 (rising with

depth)

-10 to +10

Marine 20,000 to 30,000 10,000 to 18,000 14 to 11 (dropping

with depth)

-10 to +10

As can be clearly seen the electrical conductivity is considerably higher in the marine boreholes. This

is due to the expected increased salinity, which is also considerably higher, within the marine

boreholes.

The water temperature within the marine holes is slightly higher which is likely due to the use of

water flush within the borehole that was extracted from the Humber.



A-7

Fluid velocity readings indicate that there are no significant flows into or out of the boreholes. Flow

readings above the typical values recorded in Table A2 above were ignored as these were

concentrated around the base of the casing.

A1.6 Optical and Acoustical Imaging

The optical and acoustical image tools were run through both the cased and uncased sections of

borehole in all boreholes in which geophysics surveys were completed. The optical information

within the land holes is generally poorer than the marine holes which were more stable and

therefore were able to be flushed prior to completing the geophysics. Even though the land holes

were left to settle prior to the geophysics being completed the optical images from these boreholes

are of no practical use. For the marine holes some very clear images were recorded which give the

best indication of the in situ condition of the chalk. The optical and acoustic results are plotted

against logged chalk grade, logged RQD value and “Assumed Zones of Core loss” and presented in

drawings APPENDIX A/01 to 03. Several sections of core have been summarised below in Table A3 as

a comparison of what was recovered in terms of core sample and how this compares with the in situ

condition of the chalk.

Table A3: Comparison of Core Recovery against Geophysics Optical and Acoustic Results

Hole

Ref.

Depth

(m bgl)

TCR

(%)

SCR

(%)

RQD

(%)

Core Photograph Optical / Acoustic Image Comments

L03 31.5 to

33.0

100 75 60

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

ind

icat

e go

od

rec

ove

ry a

nd

aver

age

con

dit

ion

co

re.

A

cou

stic

im

age

and

inte

rpre

ted

str

uct

ura

l in

form

atio

n s

ho

ws

on

ly a

few

min

or

feat

ure

s.

Co

mp

arin

g co

re p

ho

togr

aph

wit

h

aco

ust

ic i

mag

e in

dic

ates

rel

ativ

ely

go

od

co

re w

ith

seve

ral d

rilli

ng

ind

uce

d f

ract

ure

s.



A-8

L18 40.5 to

42.0

100 45 21

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

ind

icat

e go

od

co

re r

eco

very

bu

t ve

ry p

oo

r co

re c

on

dit

ion

. A

cou

stic

imag

e sh

ow

s

seve

ral

min

or

and

se

vera

l m

ajo

r fe

atu

res.

Co

mp

arin

g co

re

ph

oto

grap

h

wit

h

aco

ust

ic

imag

e

ind

icat

es

area

s o

f si

gnif

ican

t d

rilli

ng

ind

uce

d

dis

turb

ance

.

M01 20.0 to

21.5

23 0 0

TCR

/

SCR

/

RQ

D

valu

es

ind

icat

e ve

ry

po

or

core

reco

very

an

d v

ery

po

or

core

co

nd

itio

n.

Op

tica

l an

d

aco

ust

ic i

mag

es s

ho

w s

ever

al m

ino

r fe

atu

res

and

a

cou

ple

o

f m

ajo

r fe

atu

res.

Co

mp

arin

g o

pti

cal

and

aco

ust

ic i

mag

es w

ith

co

re p

ho

togr

aph

in

dic

ate

s th

e

wh

ole

co

re h

as e

xper

ien

ced

sig

nif

ican

t d

rilli

ng

ind

uce

d

dis

turb

ance

. N

ote

th

is

app

ears

to

be

a sm

all c

ore

fo

r

HP

D.

M03 34.5 to

36.0

53 43 40

TCR

/

SCR

/

RQ

D

valu

es

ind

icat

e ve

ry

po

or

core

reco

very

an

d

po

or

core

co

nd

itio

n.

O

pti

cal

and

aco

ust

ic

imag

es

sho

w

on

ly

a fe

w

min

or

feat

ure

s.

Co

mp

arin

g o

pti

cal

and

aco

ust

ical

im

ages

wit

h c

ore

ph

oto

grap

h in

dic

ates

th

e w

ho

le c

ore

has

exp

erie

nce

d

sign

ific

ant

dri

llin

g in

du

ced

d

istu

rban

ce.

N

ote

th

is

app

ears

to

be

a sm

all c

ore

fo

r H

PD

.



A-9

M05 31.5 to

33.0

67 15 15

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

ind

icat

e av

erag

e co

re r

eco

very

and

ver

y p

oo

r co

re c

on

dit

ion

. O

pti

cal

and

aco

ust

ic

imag

es s

ho

w o

nly

a f

ew m

ino

r fe

atu

res

and

a s

ingl

e

maj

or

feat

ure

.

Co

mp

arin

g o

pti

cal

and

ac

ou

stic

al

imag

es w

ith

co

re p

ho

togr

aph

in

dic

ates

th

e w

ho

le c

ore

has

ex

pe

rien

ced

si

gnif

ican

t d

rilli

ng

ind

uce

d

dis

turb

ance

. N

ote

th

is

app

ears

to

be

a sm

all

core

fo

r

HP

D.

M06 36.75 to

38.25

91 88 57

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

in

dic

ate

go

od

co

re r

eco

very

and

ave

rage

co

re c

on

dit

ion

.

Op

tica

l an

d a

cou

stic

imag

es s

ho

w o

nly

a f

ew m

ino

r fe

atu

res.

C

om

par

ing

op

tica

l an

d a

cou

stic

al i

mag

e w

ith

co

re p

ho

togr

aph

ind

icat

es

the

wh

ole

co

re h

as e

xper

ien

ced

nu

mer

ou

s

dri

llin

g in

du

ced

fra

ctu

res.

M08 30.95 to

32.45

91 79 48

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

ind

icat

e go

od

co

re r

eco

very

bu

t p

oo

r co

re

con

dit

ion

.

Op

tica

l an

d

aco

ust

ic

imag

es s

ho

w s

eve

ral m

ino

r fe

atu

res

and

a c

ou

ple

of

maj

or

feat

ure

s.

Co

mp

arin

g o

pti

cal

and

aco

ust

ical

imag

e w

ith

co

re p

ho

togr

aph

in

dic

ates

th

e w

ho

le

core

h

as

exp

erie

nce

d

seve

ral

dri

llin

g in

du

ced

frac

ture

s.



A-10

M10 25.75 to

27.25

97 87 87

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

in

dic

ate

goo

d c

ore

rec

ove

ry

and

go

od

co

re c

on

dit

ion

. O

pti

cal a

nd

aco

ust

ic im

ages

sho

w s

ever

al m

ino

r fe

atu

res

and

a c

ou

ple

of

maj

or

feat

ure

s.

C

om

par

ing

op

tica

l an

d

aco

ust

ical

im

age

wit

h c

ore

ph

oto

grap

hy

ind

icat

es

the

wh

ole

co

re h

as

exp

erie

nce

d v

ery

limit

ed

dri

llin

g in

du

ced

dis

turb

ance

.

M11 23.15 to

24.65

100 93 93

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

in

dic

ate

goo

d c

ore

rec

ove

ry

and

go

od

co

re

con

dit

ion

.

Op

tica

l an

d

aco

ust

ic

imag

es s

ho

w n

um

ero

us

min

or

feat

ure

s.

Co

mp

arin

g

op

tica

l an

d a

cou

stic

al i

mag

e w

ith

co

re p

ho

togr

aph

y

ind

icat

es

the

wh

ole

co

re

has

ex

per

ien

ced

ve

ry

limit

ed d

rilli

ng

ind

uce

d d

istu

rban

ce.

M12 19.6 to

21.1

100 93 87

TCR

/ S

CR

/ R

QD

val

ues

in

dic

ate

goo

d c

ore

rec

ove

ry

and

go

od

co

re

con

dit

ion

.

Op

tica

l an

d

aco

ust

ic

imag

es s

ho

w n

um

ero

us

min

or

feat

ure

s.

Co

mp

arin

g

op

tica

l an

d a

cou

stic

al i

mag

e w

ith

co

re p

ho

togr

aph

y

ind

icat

es

rela

tive

ly g

oo

d c

ore

wit

h s

ever

al d

rilli

ng

ind

uce

d f

ract

ure

s.

It is clear from reviewing the examples in Table A3 above and drawings Appendix/01 to 03 that the

in situ condition of the chalk is generally better than the core that is recovered from the borehole.



A-11

Chalk is particularly difficult to accurately sample which is borne out in the comparison between the

geophysics and the logged core condition and core photography. Where HPD tests were completed

this has had a significant impact on the condition of the core and this should be taken into account

when reviewing core condition. Fractures generally impact on the condition of core recovery with

major and inclined fractures generally having a greater impact on core condition. However, there are

examples of core of good condition being recovered where major and/or inclined fractures were

encountered indicating there are too many factors to correlate core disturbance with any single

factor. Therefore examination of the optical and acoustical images along the alignment of the tunnel

should be used as a key indicator of the in situ condition.

Structural data on fabric (bedding) and fractures obtained from the optical and acoustic imaging has

been plotted using DIPS software. These are presented as pole and contour stereonet plots in

Figures A1 to A4. Although there are limited fabric points there is reasonable consistency between

Flamborough and Burnham Chalks showing approximately horizontal bedding (Figures A1 and A3).

This correlates well with the structural information within the geological memoir (BGS 1994) which

records an average dip of 1 to the east and the borehole data which records an apparent dip to the

east of the Flamborough / Burnham boundary of approximately 1. The fractures in both the

Flamborough and Burnham Chalks can be seen to be predominantly horizontal (Figures A2 and A4).

There is insufficient data within the Burnham Chalk (11 fracture planes) to interrogate for a

dominant secondary orientation. For the Flamborough Chalk there is sufficient data (571 fracture

planes) there is a reasonable degree of scatter of non-horizontal fractures with no dominant

secondary orientation. This can be clearly seen in the contour plot but was also confirmed by

reviewing a rosette plot (not presented).

The optical and acoustical imaging data (and the structural data taken from this) have been used in

the interpretation of the packer testing data which is discussed in Section 6.3.4 and 6.4.4.

The structural data was also used to produce “theoretical” logs of RQD with depth which were

compared with RQD logged from the recovered core. These are discussed further in Sections 6.3.4

and 6.4.4 of the main report.

References:

Barker, R D, Lloyd, J W, and Peach, D W. 1984. The use of resistivity and gamma logging in

lithostratigraphical studies of the Chalk in Lincolnshire and South Humberside. Quarterly Journal of

Engineering Geology. Vol. 12 pp. 71 – 80

Lord, R A, Clayton, C R I, and Mortimer, R N. 2002. Engineering in Chalk. CIRIA Report C574.

Gale, I N, and Rutter, H K. 2006. The Chalk aquifer of Yorkshire. British Geological Survey Research

Report, RR/06/04.

Whitehead, E J, and Lawrence, A R. 2006. The Chalk aquifer system of Lincolnshire. British Geological Survey Research Report, RR/06/03.

A-12

A-13

A-14

Feeder 9 - River Humber Gas Pipeline Replacement Project Ground Investigation Report

064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

APPENDIX B – Generic Assessment Criteria



B-1

Generic Assessment Criteria - Water

Sample ID: L01 L01 L02 L02 L04S L04S L04D L04D L06S L06S L06D L06D L08 L08 L14S L14S L14D L14D L15S L15S L15D L15D L18 L18

Sample date: 10/09/2014 09/10/2014 10/09/2014 09/10/2014 10/09/2014 08/10/2014 10/09/2014 08/10/2014 10/09/2014 08/10/2014 10/09/2014 08/10/2014 10/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014

Analytical Parameter

(Water Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

dete

ctio

n

No. Max. Min. Mean GWAC No. > WGAC

pH pH Units N/A 24 8 7.4 7.79 - 0 7.7 7.9 8 8 8 8 7.8 8 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.9 8 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.6

Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 0.5 24 1700 0.5 402.59583 250 9 28 26 83 96 < 0.5 < 0.5 2.5 1.8 1600 1600 76 110 1700 1600 490 520 550 360 88 74 88 98 270 200

Chloride mg/l 1 24 12000 56 2618 250 22 66 56 370 450 5800 6200 860 3300 11000 12000 1000 1800 2100 2300 1900 2200 2500 2000 780 770 1500 1500 980 1400

Phosphorous (total) mg/l 1 24 4 1 1.4166667 - 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3 3 < 1 < 1 4 4 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total Phosphate as P mg/l 0.5 24 17 0.5 2.7875 0.7 6 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 9.1 17 < 1 6.6 11 13 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Cyanide (free) mg/l 0.05 24 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Ammoniacal Nitrogen NH4 mg/l 0.05 24 33 0.05 7.5504167 0.5 18 0.07 < 0.05 0.26 0.24 32 33 3.5 16 33 33 3.7 9.1 0.99 0.9 3.6 0.28 0.46 1.70 1 0.96 2 2 1.5 1.9

Ammonia expressed as NH3 mg/l 0.05 24 40 0.05 9.1683333 - 0 0.09 < 0.05 0.31 0.29 39 40 4.3 20 40 40 4.5 11 1.2 1.1 4.3 0.34 0.56 2.00 1.3 1 2.4 2 1.8 2.3

Ionic Balance % 24 40 0.72 6.93625 - 0 0.97 7.2 0.89 13 1.1 18 0.72 14 0.92 13 0.93 8.3 0.98 40 0.89 15 0.85 2.6 0.86 11 0.9 2.4 0.96 11

Nitrate as N mg/l 0.5 24 0.5 0.5 0.5 50 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Nitrite as N mg/l 0.1 24 0.4 0.1 0.1125 50 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 < 0.1

Total Oxidised Nitrogen mg/l 0.1 24 0.6 0.1 0.15 - 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.6 < 0.1

Alkalinity (CaCO3) mg/l 10 24 6510 290 825 - 0 300 300 350 370 1100 1150 500 820 1420 1550 430 510 320 6510 420 450 390 360 550 590 290 440 320 360

Chemical Oxygen Demand (Total) mg/l 5 22 870 6 128.90909 - 0 6 8 16 23 270 310 46 140 870 530 41 57 67 78 - 51 - 55 44 39 49 57 30 49

Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/l 1 22 200 7 40.363636 - 0 34 7 38 8 140 57 44 32 200 13 43 11 42 13 - 9 - 9 64 11 44 8 52 9

Naphthalene µg/l 0.01 24 0.29 < 0.01 0.04125 2.4 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.29 < 0.01 0.20 < 0.01 0.03 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01

Acenaphthylene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Acenaphthene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluorene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Phenanthrene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Anthracene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Pyrene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)anthracene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Chrysene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.002 24 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.002 24 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total EPA-16 PAHs µg/l 0.2 24 0.29 0.01 0.04125 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.29 < 0.01 0.20 < 0.01 0.03 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01

Arsenic (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 24 110 2.7 23.7875 10 12 11 7.3 3.9 2.7 64 66 5.1 24 95 110 43 29 11 11 11 9.2 13 9.4 7.5 5.4 10 7.3 7.5 7.6

Boron (dissolved) mg/l 0.01 24 3.7 0.01 0.7983333 1 6 0.03 < 0.01 0.18 < 0.01 3.7 2.2 0.32 1.3 2 2 0.27 0.13 1.4 0.94 0.73 0.52 0.76 0.35 0.72 0.67 0.41 0.14 0.27 0.1

Cadmium (dissolved) µg/l 0.02 24 0.09 0.02 0.0366667 5 0 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.07 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.03

Chromium (dissolved) µg/l 1 24 19 3 7.2916667 50 0 6 3 5 4 16 14 4 10 19 17 7 6 5 5 6 5 6 4 9 6 6 3 5 4

Copper (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 24 47 0.5 8.5041667 2000 0 < 0.5 1.1 < 0.5 2.9 19 23 1.6 12 30 47 1.6 8.4 6 9.6 5.5 9.6 < 0.5 7.4 1.3 4.7 1.7 4.5 1.6 4.1

Lead (dissolved) µg/l 0.3 24 3.7 0.3 0.5458333 10 0 < 0.3 0.7 < 0.3 1.4 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 0.5 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 3.7 < 0.3 0.4 < 0.3 0.7 < 0.3 0.5 < 0.3 0.4

Mercury (dissolved) µg/L 0.05 24 0.46 0.05 0.095 10 0 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.46 0.29 0.14 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.10 < 0.05 0.14 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.25 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Nickel (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 24 240 3 28.583333 20 6 4 4 4 4 5 7 3 5 21 20 240 210 45 29 4 4 6 9 6 7 6 6 16 21

Zinc (dissolved) µg/l 2 24 85 2 11.583333 125 0 4 3 4 5 3 4 < 2 < 2 8 9 85 65 16 31 3 6 4 3 3 3 < 2 2 6 5

Calcium mg/l 0.1 24 520 40 182.20833 - 0 90 91 72 71 42 40 100 75 340 520 110 150 520 410 110 120 130 210 86 76 250 250 240 270

Magnesium mg/l 0.1 24 910 18 187.5 - 0 18 18 32 33 350 290 52 160 910 880 73 110 390 290 110 100 140 100 37 36 91 100 91 89

Selenium (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 24 93 2.3 35.25 10 19 2.3 2.6 7.8 9.3 88 93 10 69 48 56 21 33 53 48 39 41 48 42 16 17 27 31 18 26

Potassium mg/l 0.1 24 250 4.3 67.654167 - 0 4.4 4.3 18 19 150 120 30 93 250 220 39 57 87 82 65 68 74 52 34 40 30 30 27 30

Sodium mg/l 0.1 24 5600 46 1201 200 22 48 46 240 210 3700 2400 340 1400 5600 4700 530 780 880 930 1100 1000 1300 820 500 430 550 490 410 420

Cresols µg/l 0.5 24 19 0.5 1.4708333 - 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 2.3 1.8 19 2.2 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Phenol µg/l 0.5 24 6.9 0.5 0.7875 7.7 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 1.0 < 0.5 6.9 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Xylenols µg/l 0.5 24 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Phenols µg/l 0.5 24 19 0.5 1.7958333 - 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 2.3 2.7 19 9.1 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Benzene µg/l 1 24 1 1 1 10 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Toluene µg/l 1 24 2 1 1.0416667 40 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Ethylbenzene µg/l 1 24 1 1 1 - 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

p & m-xylene µg/l 1 24 1 1 1 30 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

o-xylene µg/l 1 24 1 1 1 30 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/l 1 22 1 1 1 - 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH (C10-C35) mg/l 0.01 24 0.03 0.01 0.0108333 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

TPH (C35-C40) mg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

TPH - Aliphatic C5 - C6 mg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 10 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01



TPH-DW - Aliphatic C10 - C12 mg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 10 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01




TPH - Aromatic C6 - C7 mg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 10 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01



TPH-DW - Aromatic C10 - C12 mg/l 0.01 24 0.01 0.01 0.01 10 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01




Metazachlor µg/l 0.1 22 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 - < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

AA-EQS Inland Surface Waters (Water Framework Directive)

EU Standard Drinking Water Directive

Goxhill Paull

Monoaromatics

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Trace Organics

Herbicides

General Inorganics

Speciated PAHs

Total PAH

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Phenols (Speciated)



B-2

Generic Assessment Criteria – Paul and Goxhill Soil Above 1m

Sample ID: L01 ES 004 L02 ES 002 L02 ES 006 L02 ES 008 L03 ES 002 L03 ES 004 L04 ES 005 L04 ES 007 L05 ES 002 L05 ES 007 L06 ES 005 L08 ES 004 L09 ES 001 L09 ES 002 L10 ES 001 L10 ES 005 L14 ES 001 L14 ES 005 L15 ES 002 L15 ES 005 L16 ES 002 TP01A ES 002 TP01C ES 003 TP01C ES 006 TP01D ES 003

Sample Depth (m): 0.5 0.2 0.5 1 0.2 0.5 0.5 1 0.2 1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.3-0.4 0.3-0.5 0.9-1.1 0.25-0.35

Combined GAC used other than where a comment is inserted Sample date: 23-Jul-14 24-Apr-14 24-Apr-14 24-Apr-14 24-Apr-14 24-Apr-14 01-May-14 01-May-14 01-May-14 01-May-14 01/05/2014 01-May-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 Deviating 23/06/2014 24/06/2014 24/06/2014 24/06/2014


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Limit o

f

detectio

n

No. Max. Min. Mean GAC No. > GAC

Stone Content % 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Moisture Content % N/A 24 32.00 19.00 23.88 25 26 32 27 22 19 19 22 23 21 22 20 20 23 23 25 22 22 23 30 29 25 32 21

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

Asbestos Identification Name (Subcontracted) Type N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.D. N.D. N.D.

Asbestos Quantification (Subcontracted) % 0.001 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

pH pH Units N/A 25 8.10 5.70 7.46 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.8 8.1 7.6 8 8.1 7.9 7.6 5.7 6.6 7.4 7.9 7.9 6.7 7.2 7 7.4

Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 100 25 2.10 0.04 0.20 0.2 0.12 0.14 0.24 0.2 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.1 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.29 2.1 0.31 0.23 0.08

Water Soluble Sulphate (Soil Equivalent) g/l 0.0025 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water Soluble Sulphate as SO4 (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.0013 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sulphide mg/kg 1 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Organic Matter % 0.1 10 3.00 1.30 1.86 1.5 1.3 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.7 3 1.7 1.8

Total Organic Carbon % 0.1 1 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.5

Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 2 2 8.10 7.90 8.00 3.09E+02 0 8.1 7.9

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.03 0.01 0.01 6.96E-01 0 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.39E+03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.37E+03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluorene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.51E+03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.01 25 1.00 0.01 0.05 8.24E+02 0 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 < 0.01 0.01 0.04 < 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 < 1.00 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Anthracene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.92E+04 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.05 0.01 0.01 9.76E+02 0 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01

Pyrene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.04 0.01 0.01 2.34E+03 0 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 4.06E+00 0 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Chrysene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 8.95E+00 0 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.03E+00 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.01E+01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.00E+00 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 4.19E+00 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 8.74E-01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.01 25 0.01 0.01 0.01 4.69E+01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total PAH mg/kg 0.01 25 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.09 < 0.01 0.04 0.12 < 0.01 0.2 0.07 0.06 0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg - 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 25 23.00 10.00 18.16 3.50E+01 0 17 22 23 22 17 10 15 14 21 18 13 18 15 18 21 20 13 20 17 18 21 18 22 19 22

Boron (water-soluble) mg/kg 1 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03E+04 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.49E+01 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.12E+00 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 25 50.00 28.00 39.20 3.01E+03 0 49 42 40 43 50 28 35 29 41 40 28 39 36 35 44 45 28 38 40 42 39 42 45 37 45

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 25 26.00 16.00 20.28 6.20E+03 0 26 23 25 21 20 16 21 16 22 20 17 22 19 18 22 20 16 18 20 21 18 19 22 19 26

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 25 41.00 16.00 27.48 3.10E+02 0 41 27 27 25 38 16 20 17 25 25 18 28 28 23 30 28 38 24 25 26 24 38 35 27 34

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.38E+02 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 25 55.00 22.00 39.32 1.27E+02 0 38 41 47 52 36 26 34 29 50 37 35 47 29 36 43 39 22 38 41 39 43 34 47 45 55

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 3 25 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.95E+02 0 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 25 130.00 66.00 97.40 4.04E+04 0 130 110 110 110 110 66 85 72 92 92 73 100 84 85 95 97 84 90 95 100 110 95 120 120 110

Benzene µg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10E+02 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Toluene µg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.58E+05 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.98E+04 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.21E+04 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

o-xylene µg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.21E+04 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Sum of Xylenes µg/kg 6 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.21E+04 0 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.77E+04 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.01 6 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.69E+01 0 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.38E+01 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.59E+02 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.91E+04 0 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 1 6 3.00 1.00 1.33 2.91E+04 0 < 1 < 1 3 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.01 6 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.09E+02 0 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.41E+01 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 1 6 2.00 1.00 1.17 8.00E+02 0 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1



TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C5 - C6) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C6 - C7) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C7 - C8) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C8 - C10) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C10-C35) mg/kg 1 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH (C35-C40) mg/kg 1 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

PCB E7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

PCB BZ#101 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#118 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#138 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#153 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#180 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#28 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#52 ug/kg 0.05 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05

Organochlorine Insecticides 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Aldrin mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Chlordane (sum od cis and trans isomers) mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

DDD mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

DDT mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Endosulphan mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Endrin mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Hexachlorocyclohexane (sum of alpha, beta and gamma mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Organophosphorous Insecticides mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Azinphos methyl mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Diazinon mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dichlorvos mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dimethoate mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fenitrothion mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Malathion mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Mevinphos mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Parathion mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Pirimiphos mg/kg 0.01 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Notes: Inorganic Mercury GAC used as not expecting elemental mercury to be present

GAC - Residential with No Gardens Sand Soil 1% SOM (mg/kg)



B-3

Generic Assessment Criteria – Paul and Goxhill Soil Below 1m

Sample ID: L02 ES 002 L03 ES 012 L03 ES 024 L04 ES 038 L04 ES 052 L05 ES 047 L06 ES 047 L14 ES 047 L15 ES 039 L16A ES 061 L18 ES 008 L18 ES 017 L18 ES 042

GAC - Residential with No Gardens Sand Soil 1% SOM (mg/kg) Sample Depth (m): 11.5 2 5 11.5 14.5 15.5 15 24 15.5 29 3.5 7 20

Combined GAC used other than where a comment is inserted Sample date: 30/04/2014 25/04/2014 28/04/2014 Deviating Deviating 06/05/2014 16/05/2014 02/05/2014 17/06/2014 22/05/2014 24/06/2014 24/06/2014 24/06/2014


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

No. Max. Min. Mean GAC No. > GAC

Stone Content % 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Moisture Content % N/A 13 29.00 2.50 16.42 13 29 15 18 15 11 15 23 15 24 2.5 17 16

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D N.D N.D N.D

Asbestos Identification Name (Subcontracted) Type N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.D. N.D.

Asbestos Quantification (Subcontracted) % 0.001 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

pH pH Units N/A 13 8.70 7.20 8.15 8.6 7.2 8.5 8.3 8.7 8.3 8.5 8.3 7.8 7.8 8 7.8 8.2

Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 0.01 13 1.00 0.03 0.40 0.06 1 0.78 0.99 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.53 0.3 0.38 0.08 0.05 0.83

Water Soluble Sulphate (Soil Equivalent) g/l 0.0025 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water Soluble Sulphate as SO4 (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sulphide mg/kg 1 10 2.00 1.00 1.10 < 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Soil Organic Matter % 0.1 3 2.70 0.10 0.97 < 0.1 < 0.1 2.7

Total Organic Carbon % 0.1 3 6.40 0.80 2.80 6.4 1.2 0.8 N.D. N.D.

Phenol mg/kg 0.1 6 0.10 0.10 0.10 3.10E+02 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.09 0.01 0.02 6.96E-01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.09 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.02 0.01 0.01 1.95E+03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.91E+03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluorene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.02 0.01 0.01 2.82E+03 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.07 0.01 0.02 4.60E+03 0 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.07 < 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01

Anthracene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.02 0.01 0.01 9.16E+04 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.04 0.01 0.01 3.01E+04 0 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Pyrene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.03 0.01 0.01 7.03E+04 0 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.02 0.01 0.01 6.39E+00 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Chrysene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.02 0.01 0.01 2.01E+01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.81E+01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 2.69E+01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 2.65E+00 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.06E+01 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 2.19E+00 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.01 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.29E+02 0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total PAH mg/kg 0.01 13 0.36 0.01 0.06 < 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.01 0.36 0.04 0.1 0.03 0.11 0.08 < 0.01 0.02 0.02

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 13 17.00 2.00 6.69 3 17 13 < 2 2 < 2 < 2 6 6 8 11 6 9

Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 1 13 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 1 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 36.00 1.00 12.31 2 36 26 4 < 1 1 2 15 9 25 13 7 19

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 23.00 2.00 9.85 3 17 18 3 4 2 2 11 7 23 15 8 15

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 21.00 2.00 8.92 5 21 14 3 2 2 2 9 7 19 12 7 13

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 32.00 3.00 14.92 7 32 28 6 3 4 4 18 12 29 18 10 23

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 3 13 3.00 3.00 3.00 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 13 90.00 15.00 43.85 23 90 58 16 15 17 17 42 88 70 65 20 49

Benzene µg/kg 10 10 10.00 10.00 10.00 1.11E+02 0 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Toluene µg/kg 10 10 10.00 10.00 10.00 2.62E+05 0 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Ethylbenzene µg/kg 10 10 10.00 10.00 10.00 7.04E+04 0 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

p & m-xylene µg/kg 10 10 10.00 10.00 10.00 2.21E+04 0 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

o-xylene µg/kg 10 10 10.00 10.00 10.00 2.47E+04 0 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Sum of Xylene's µg/kg 10 20.00 20.00 20.00 2.21E+04 0 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.77E+04 0 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.69E+01 0 < 0.01



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.39E+01 0 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.67E+02 0 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.10E+02 0 < 0.01



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.52E+01 0 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.63E+02 0 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1

TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C5 - C6) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C6 - C7) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C7 - C8) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C8 - C10) mg/kg 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

TPH (C10-C35) mg/kg 1 13 3.00 1.00 1.23 < 1 < 1 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

TPH (C35-C40) mg/kg 1 13 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 < 1

PCB E7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

PCB BZ#101 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#118 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#138 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#153 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#180 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#28 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB BZ#52 ug/kg 0.05 13 0.05 0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Notes: Inorganic Mercury GAC used as not expecting elemental mercury to be present



B-4

Generic Assessment Criteria – Paul and Goxhill Leachates

Sample ID: L01 ES 039 0.50 L02 ES 006 0.50 L03 ES 004 0.50 L06 ES 005 0.50 L08 ES 004 0.50 L10 ES 005 1.00 L14 ES 005 1.00 TP01A ES 002 0.3-0.4 TP01C ES 003 0.3-0.5 TP01D ES 039 0.25-0.35

Sample date: 23-Jul-14 24-Apr-14 24-Apr-14 01-May-14 01-May-14 30-Apr-14 30-Apr-14 24-Jun-14 24-Jun-14 24-Jun-14


(Leachate - Analysed as

Water)

Un

its

Test

Limit o

f detectio

n

No. Max. Min. Mean GWAC No. > WGAC

Speciated PAHs

pH pH Unit 10:01 3 7.70 7.30 7.53 0 7.3 7.7 7.6

Naphthalene ug/l 11:01 0.01 8 0.17 0.01 0.05 2.4 0 0.08 0.04 < 0.01 0.17 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02

Acenaphthylene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 2 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Acenaphthene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 2 0.06 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluorene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.01 4 0.09 0.03 < 0.01 0.02 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Phenanthrene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.01 5 0.1 0.09 < 0.01 0.03 0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03

Anthracene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.1 0 0.05 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Fluoranthene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.1 0 0.07 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Pyrene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 3 0.07 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)Anthracene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 2 0.06 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Chrysene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 2 0.06 0.07 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 2 0.06 0.07 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 1 0.03 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(a)Pyrene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01 2 0.08 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.002 8 0.08 0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.01 2 0.1 0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo(ghi)Perylene ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.002 8 0.15 0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

PAH(total) ug/l 10:01 0.01 8 1.20 0.01 0.30 0 1.2 0.73 < 0.01 0.24 0.13 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.05

Heavy Metals

As (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.2 10 5.80 0.50 1.91 10 0 5.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 3 3.8 2

B (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.01 10 200.00 0.07 60.15 1000 0 0.1 200 84 0.1 150 100 67 0.07 0.1 0.1

Cd (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.02 10 0.06 0.02 0.03 5 0 0.06 0.03 0.03 < 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 < 0.02 < 0.02

Cr (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 1 10 5.00 1.00 2.30 50 0 5 2 2 < 1.00 2 3 2 3 1 2

Cu (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.5 10 14.00 0.50 2.94 2000 0 14.0 < 0.50 1.4 < 0.50 0.5 1 < 0.50 2.2 4.3 4.5

Pb (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.3 10 0.90 0.30 0.40 10 0 0.9 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 0.4 0.6

Hg (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.05 10 0.05 0.05 0.05 1 0 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Ni (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 1 10 14.00 1.00 3.00 20 0 6 2 1 1 1 1 < 1.00 14 2 1

Se (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 0.5 10 4.90 0.50 2.26 10 0 3 1.6 1.2 3.2 1.4 < 0.50 < 0.50 4.6 4.9 1.7

Zn (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 2 10 10.00 2.00 4.10 3000 0 10.0 < 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 3 < 2.00 9 4 5

Vanadium (Dissolved) ug/l 10:01 2 4 4.00 2.00 3.00 0 < 2.0 3 4 3



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

APPENDIX C – Groundwater/Gas Monitoring Field Data



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

C-1

Groundwater Monitoring Field Data

Date - 26th/27th August 2014

Weather Conditions - Sunny and Cloudy - 60% cloud cover

Atmospheric Pressure - 26th = 1013 27th =1014mb

Location/

BH IDTime/Date

Depth to

water (m bgl)

Depth to base

(m bgl)

Depth of

Sample (m bgl)RDO (mg/l)

Conductivity

(S/m)

Temperature

(deg C)pH ORP (mV)

L01 13:35 27.08.2014 0.58 12.49 11 0.16 0.007 10.49 9.98 -115

L02 14:40 27.08.2014 0.8 23.9 19 0.64 0.018 10.86 9.98 -135

L04S 16:20 27.08.2014 1.1 9.65 7

L04D 16:50 27.08.2014 1.41 23.65 19 0.46 0.0224 10.8 9.6 -134

L06S 18:00 27.08.2014 1.37 7.36 5

L06D 17:40 27.08.2014 1.85 24.7 21 0.32 0.0374 10.89 9.39 -86

L08 19:15 27.08.2014 0.81 6.06 5 2.35 0.0831 11.02 9.65 -127

L14S 08:40 27.08.2014 1.35 12.57 10.5 0.3 0.0027 10.61 11.5 -217

L14D 16:15 27.08.2014 1.87 >30 18.6 0.82 0.0013 11.16 12.56 -239

L15S 11:10 27.08.2014 1.14 5.12 4 5.29 0.0013 10.09 11.79 -109

L15D 10:30 27.08.2014 1.27 30 17 0.94 0.0013 12.57 9.96 -106

L18 17:25 27.08.2014 1.93 >30 20 0.32 1.353 10.65 12.87 -209

pH probe broken - readings not accurate

Date - 9th/10th September 2014

Weather Conditions - Very good - 30% cloud cover

Atmospheric Pressure - 9th = 1020mb 10th = 1018

Location/

BH IDTime/Date

Depth to

water (m bgl)

Depth to base

(m bgl)

Depth of


Conductivity

(S/m)

Temperature

(deg C)pH ORP (mV)

L01 10:55 10.09.2014 0.58 12.57 11 0.61 0.0013 11.83 7.57 -225

L02 10:00 10.09.2014 0.73 24.04 19 0.68 0.0529 10.86 7.81 -150

L04S 13:45 10.09.2014 1.19 9.69 7 0.03 3.332 10.49 8 -197

L04D 14:10 10.09.2014 1.4 23.69 17 0.14 0.059 11.05 4.56 -194

L06S 12:20 10.09.2014 1.17 7.33 5 1.18 2.492 10.93 8.31 -240

L06D 12:10 10.09.2014 1.2 24.8 21 0.03 0.0207 11.08 10.92 -271

L08 15:20 10.09.2014 0.85 6.03 5 1.15 0.0309 11.5 11.34 -165

L14S 15:15 09.09.2014 1.34 12.6 10.5 0.84 0.0358 10.67 8.77 -260

L14D 14:50 09.09.2014 1.9 >30 18.6 1.58 0.0508 11.63 10.49 -297

L15S 17:00 09.09.2014 1.26 5.23 5 1.95 0.0312 11.66 6.33 -262

L15D 16:50 09.09.2014 1.54 >30 17 0.71 0.0599 11.19 6.78 -276

L18 14:10 09.09.2014 1.97 >30 20 1.56 0.15 10.75 12.39 -305

pH probe broken - readings not accurate

Did not Stabilise

Did not Stabilise

ROUND 1

ROUND 2



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

C-2

Groundwater Monitoring Field Data

Date - 8th/9th October 2014

Weather Conditions - Overcast with heavy rain showers on the 8th, 15 degrees C. Overcast with light rain showers on 9th, 15 degrees C

Atmospheric Pressure - 8th = 991mb 9th = 993mb

Location/

BH IDTime/Date

Depth to

water (m bgl)

Depth to base

(m bgl)

Depth of


Conductivity

(S/m)

Temperature

(deg C)pH ORP (V)

L01 09:30 09.10.2014 0.51 12.53 11 1.26 1.243 10.52 7.29 0

L02 08:45 09.10.2014 0.74 24.05 19 0.31 1.242 11.16 7.4 -0.06

L04S 17:00 08.10.2014 1.18 9.68 5 0.96 DNS 11.96 7.53 -0.14

L04D 16:00 08.10.2014 1.47 23.5 17 2.55 4.262 12.17 7.39 -0.12

L06S 14:45 08.10.2014 1.34 7.34 5 - - - - -

L06D 14:00 08.10.2014 1.82 24.78 21 0.1 DNS 11.35 7.01 -0.03

L08 12:00 09.10.2014 0.81 5.69 5 1.54 3.541 11.92 6.9 -0.01

L14S 15:45 09.10.2014 1.3 12.72 10 0.98 DNS 10.94 7.26 -0.01

L14D 15:15 09.10.2014 1.86 >30 19 -0.01 DNS 10.95 7.25 -0.02

L15S 16:15 09.10.2014 1.28 5.3 4 0.32 DNS 11.45 7.42 -0.04

L15D 16:45 09.10.2014 1.41 >30 19 0.26 DNS 11.35 7.2 -0.08

L18 16:45 09.10.2014 1.41 >30 19 0.26 DNS 11.35 7.2 -0.08

DNS = Parameter Did Not Stabalise

BH L08 - First sampled on the 8th but the pump was playing up. Re-sampled on the 9th

Date - 21st/22nd October 2014

Atmospheric Pressure - 21st = 1002mb 22nd = 1018mb

Location/

BH IDTime/Date

Depth to

water (m bgl)

Depth to base

(m bgl)

Depth of


Conductivity

(S/m)

Temperature

(deg C)pH ORP (mV)

L01 15:15 22.10.2014 0.54 12.51 11 0.59 0.0058 10.42 7.28 -257

L02 14:20 22.10.2014 0.76 23.98 19 0.55 0.0057 10.91 7.47 -211

L04S 12:10 22.10.2014 1.1 9.7 5 0.72 0.1316 10.65 7.55 -263

L04D 12:30 22.10.2014 1.41 23.54 17 0.99 0.021 10.7 7.31 -241

L06S 11:00 22.10.2014 1.16 7.24 5 2.01 0.0956 10.95 7.31 -160

L06D 10:30 22.10.2014 1.3 24.82 21 0.37 0.042 10.97 7.21 -163

L08 13:45 22.10.2014 0.79 6.01 5 1.28 0.1108 11.25 6.92 -222

L14S 15:15 21.10.2014 1.25 12.53 10 2.05 0.0062 10.6 7.3 -241

L14D 16:00 21.10.2014 1.78 24.65 19 -0.04 0.0366 10.64 7.2 -318

L15S 17:45 21.10.2014 1.14 5.23 4 1.62 0.0478 11.45 7.39 -233

L15D 18:10 21.10.2014 1.21 29.95 19 2.57 0.0199 10.37 7.31 -239

L18 16:45 21.10.2014 1.85 19.63 2.61 0.0267 10.54 7.27 -204

L06S - Borehole ran dry, parameters did not stabalise but reading were taken anyway.

L14D - ORP did not stabalise, reading taken at 17.64% change with the target of 10%

ROUND 3

ROUND 4

BH L06S - Borehole ran dry during purging and so parameters did not stabalise. Sample team waited for well to recharge before taking the sample

Weather Conditions - Overcast with rain showers and very strong winds on the 21st, 9 degrees C. Overcast with light rain showers on 22nd, 12

degrees C



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

C-3

ROUND 1

Date - 26th/27th August 2014

Background CH4 (%) - 0 Weather Conditions - Sun and Cloud - 60% cloud cover

Background CO2 (%) - 0.1 State of Ground - Agricultural poughed field, dry soil

Background O2 (%) - 21.5 Evidence of condensation inside pipe? - Slight

Location/BH ID: L02S L04D L15S L18S

Time/Date14:40

27.08.2014

16:30

27.08.2014

10:30

26.08.2014

08:30

26.08.2014

Flow Rate (l/hr) 0 0 0 0.9

O2 (%) 20.9 21.6 21 21.3

CH4 (%) 0.1 0.1 0 0

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

CO (ppm) 21-0 7-0 1-0 2-0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 20.9 21.6 21 21.3

CH4 (%) 0.1 0.1 0 0

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

CO (ppm) 0 0 0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 20.9 21.6 21 21.4

CH4 (%) 0.1 0.1 0 0

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO (ppm) 0 0 0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

Depth to Water (m bgl) 0.8 1.1 1.27 obstruction

Depth to Base (m bgl) 23.9 9.65 30 obstruction

Soil Gas Monitoring Field Data

Atmospheric Pressure (mb) - 1014

After 30 seconds

After 60 seconds

After 120 seconds

Notes: Divers were located within all bore holes. Diver string was drilled and tied through cap, therefore

cap was not sealed



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

C-4

ROUND 2

Date - 9th/10th September 2014

Background CH4 (%) - 0 Weather Conditions - Sun and Cloud - 30% cloud cover

Background CO2 (%) - 0.1 State of Ground - Agricultural poughed field, dry soil



Time/Date09:50

10.09.2014

14:10

10.09.2014

16:55

09.09.2014

14:10

09.09.2014

Flow Rate (l/hr) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 21.3 20.8 21 21

CH4 (%) 0 0.1 0 0

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO (ppm) 2-0 3-0 15-0 1-0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 21.2 20.8 21 21

CH4 (%) 0 0.1 0 0

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO (ppm) 0 0 0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 21.2 20.8 20.9 21

CH4 (%) 0 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0 0

CO (ppm) 0 0 0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0


Depth to Base (m bgl) 24.04 23.69 5.23 obstruction


Atmospheric Pressure (mb) - 1020/1019

After 30 seconds

After 60 seconds

After 120 seconds

Notes: Divers were located within all bore holes. Diver string was drilled and tied through cap, therefore

cap was not sealed



064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

C-5

ROUND 3

Date - 21st/22nd October 2014

Background CH4 (%) - 0.1 Weather Conditions - Sun and Cloud - 700% cloud cover strong winds up to 50 mph

Background CO2 (%) - 0.1 State of Ground - Agricultural harrowed and planted field, wet soil



Time/Date14:00

22.10.2014

12:20

22.10.2014

17:20

21.10.2014

16:00

21.10.2014

Flow Rate (l/hr) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.6

CH4 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO (ppm) 1-0 0 1-0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.6

CH4 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO (ppm) 0 0 0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0

O2 (%) 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.6

CH4 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO2 (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CO (ppm) 0 0 0 0

H2S (ppm) 0 0 0 0


Depth to Base (m bgl) 23.98 23.54 5.23 obstruction

Notes: Divers were located within all bore holes. Diver string was drilled and tied through cap, therefore cap was not sealed

After 120 seconds

Atmospheric Pressure (mb) - 1001/1017

After 30 seconds

After 60 seconds




064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-1

APPENDIX D – Geological Formation Identification


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-2

L01 Start End Strata Key Indicator to Strata in Description Additional Comments

0 0.1 Top Soil - -

0.1 1.5 Glacial Deposits

Firm

Dark Brown

Gravel is Subangular – Subrounded

Clasts = Chalk & Mixed Lithologies

Note – Lab results indicate no Gravel content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Firm

Mottled Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Flint & Mixed Lithologies

Note – Lab results indicate no Gravel content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Firm - Stiff

Mottled Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Flint, Sandstone & Mixed Lithologies

Note – Reference to pockets of black organic material? Possibly from Glacial Deposits lakes etc? More evidence in support of Glacial Deposits than Alluvium with overlying deposits. Note - Lab results indicate higher gravel content that overlying strata so further supports Glacial Deposits.


Firm

Brown


Clasts = Chalk & Flint

Note – Possible Change in Glacial Deposits unit due to changes in clasts Lithologies? Indicates Skipsea Till

8.8 9.25 Erosional Chalk? Gravel is Subangular – Subrounded Note – Indicated a Dm grade chalk


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-3

Clasts = Chalk, Flint supported by sandy matrix. Erosion zone?

9.25 12 Chalk - -

12 27.9 Chalk - -


0 0.3 Top Soil -

-

0.3 2 Glacial Deposits

Soft - Firm

Dark Brown



Note – Strength description indicates soft layers. No SPT to confirm if this observation is accurate. In addition near surface so upper section of unit may have undergone weathering? Note –Lab results indicate no Gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works

2 2.4 Glacial Deposits

(Laminated Layer?)



Note – Although descriptions allude to Alluvium the description of gravel indicates Glacial Deposits and some phase of high energy. Dimlington Silts found between Skipsea Till and Basement Tills. Note – Strength description indicates soft layers. SPT supports this observation is accurate. Lab results indicate very little Gravel content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm.


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-4

Further supported if strata between 0.3 – 2m is confirmed as Alluvium. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works.


(Laminated Layer?)



Note – Although descriptions allude to Alluvium the description of gravel indicates Glacial Deposits and some phase of high energy. Dimlington Silts found between Skipsea Till and Basement Tills. Note – Strength description indicates soft layers. SPT supports this observation is accurate. Lab results indicate very little Gravel content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm. Further supported if strata between 0.3 – 2m is confirmed as Alluvium. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Firm - Stiff

Mottled Dark Brown



-


Firm

Brown



Note – Possible Change in Glacial Deposits unit due to changes in clasts Lithologies? Indicates Skipsea Till

10 12.4 Chalk - -

12.4 28 Chalk - -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-5


0 0.3 Top Soil - -


Firm

Brown



Note - Lab results indicate no Gravel content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Dark Brown



Note – Reference to pockets of black organic material? Possibly from Glacial lakes etc? Indicates soft? Note - Lab results indicate no Gravel content as indicated in Log description. Material may represent Alluvium, so will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Stiff

Mottled Dark Brown



-

9.8 10.5 Erosional Chalk? Gravel is Subangular – Subrounded

Clasts = Chalk, Flint

Note – Indicated a Dm grade chalk supported by sandy matrix. Erosion zone?

10.5 13 Chalk - -

13 47 Chalk - -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-6


0 0.14 Top Soil - -

0.14 1.2 Marine & Estuarine

Alluvium Reddish Brown

Note – although description would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits and Peat indicate Alluvium. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium, so will remain Alluvium Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works



Sandy Clay

Note – although description would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits and Peat indicate Alluvium. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium, so will remain Alluvium Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Alluvium Very Soft – Soft

Dark Grey -


Alluvium Dark Grey

Subrounded - Rounded -


Alluvium

Soft

Greyish

Subrounded - Rounded

-


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-7


Alluvium Peat -


Alluvium Soft

Bands of Peat -

10.5 11 Marine & Estuarine

Alluvium Peat -

11 12.08 Marine & Estuarine

Alluvium Grey

Subrounded – Rounded -


Alluvium Grey -


Alluvium Subrounded – Rounded -


Firm

Brown

Gravel is Angular – Subrounded


-


Medium

Brown



-

13.8 28.5 Chalk - -


0 0.05 Top Soil - -


Alluvium

Lack of gravel & laminations (if fine water lain material) in description to indicate Glacial Deposits

-

3 7 Marine & Estuarine

Alluvium Very soft – Soft

Dark Grey -

7 9 Marine & Estuarine Very soft – Soft -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-8

Alluvium Dark Grey



Dark Grey -


Alluvium Peat -

13.7 16 Chalk - -

16 31.8 Chalk - -


0 0.2 Top Soil -



Note – although description would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. SPT support material is soft through depth. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Alluvium Sandy Clay

Note – although description would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. SPT support material is soft through depth. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Further


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-9

supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works


Alluvium Very soft – Soft -


Stiff

Brown


Clasts = Chalk

Note - Lab results indicate higher gravel content that overlying strata so further supports Glacial Deposits.


Firm

Yellowish Brown


Clasts = Chalk


12.6 19.5 Chalk - -

19.5 37.35 Chalk - -


0 0.2 Top Soil - -


Alluvium Thinly Laminated

Note – although description would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling Peat deposits would indicate Alluvium. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Further supported by observations made during the recent additional CPT works



Organic material -

3.8 4.1 Marine & Estuarine Peat -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-10

Alluvium


Firm - Stiff

Brown





Very Stiff

Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Flint, Mudstone & Sandstone


9.7 12.2 Chalk - -

12.2 15 Chalk - -


0 0.4 Top Soil - -


Alluvium Grey Clay -


Firm - Stiff

Dark Brown



Note - Lab results indicate presence of gravel so further confirms Glacial Deposits.


Medium Dense

Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Flint, Quartzite, Sandstone & Mixed Lithologies

Some cobbles

-


Stiff

Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Mudstone, Sandstone & Mixed

-


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-11

Lithologies

11 12 Glacial Deposits

Medium Dense

Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Flint, Quartzite, Sandstone & Mixed Lithologies

-


Stiff

Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Mudstone, Sandstone & Mixed Lithologies

-

18.5 21 Glacial

Deposits(Laminated Layer)

Dark Brown

Note – Although descriptions allude to Alluvium the description of gravel indicates Glacial Deposits and some phase of high energy. Dimlington Silts found between Skipsea Till and Basement Tills. Remain Glacial Deposits until review of lab results of material properties. (none received to date)


Medium Dense

Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Flint, Maidstone & Mixed Lithologies

-


Stiff

Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk, Mudstone, Sandstone & Mixed Lithologies

-


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-12

30.5 53.5 Chalk - -



Soft - Firm

Dark Brown



Note – Strength description indicates soft layers. Strengthening with depth so top layers could be due to weathering? Remain Glacial Deposits until review of lab results on material strength as remaining details indicates Glacial Deposits. Note – Labe results indicate no gravel present until 7.5m/bgl. This may indicate a strata change note represented with the upper layer strata formed of Alluvium? Will require additional review on receipt of final factual report to confirm.

10.2 25 Glacial Deposits Medium Dense

Dark Brown




Dense

Brown


Clasts = Chalk


34 50 Chalk - -

L16 / L16A Start End Strata Key Indicator to Strata in Description Additional Comments

0 0.4 Top Soil - -


Alluvium Grey Clay -


Alluvium Mottled Grey Clay

Rootlets -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-13


Alluvium Orange Clay -


Alluvium

Soft

Grey – Dark Grey

Gravel is Subrounded

-

4.7 6.4 Glacial Deposits Brown


Clasts = Flint & Mixed Lithologies

Note – Although descriptions allude to Alluvium the description of gravel indicates Glacial Deposits and some phase of high energy. Dimlington Silts found between Skipsea Till and Basement Tills. Note – Lab result confirm the presence of gravel.

6.4 9.2 Glacial Deposits Soft - Firm

Brown

Clasts = Flint

Note – Although descriptions allude to Alluvium the description of gravel indicates Glacial Deposits and some phase of high energy. Dimlington Silts found between Skipsea Till and Basement Tills. Note – Lab result confirm the presence of gravel.

9.2 11.7 Glacial Deposits Medium Dense

Yellowish Brown -

11.7 12.5 Glacial Deposits Firm – Stiff

Yellowish Brown -

12.5 13 Glacial Deposits Dark Brown


Clasts = Chalk

-


Firm - Stiff

Dark Brown



-

16.4 25.3 Glacial Deposits Medium Dense -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-14

Brown

25.3 29.3 Glacial Deposits Stiff


Clasts = Chalk, Chert & Mixed Lithologies

-

29.3 50.2 Chalk - -


0 1.2

- Hand dug pit info not provided


Alluvium No clasts descriptions

Note – although description would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. SPT support material is soft through depth. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium.


Alluvium

Loose

Rounded – Subrounded


-


Alluvium

Very Loose

Rounded – Subrounded


-


Brown -

9.8 10.8 Glacial Deposits Medium Dense

Brown -


Brown


-

16.9 20.8 Glacial Deposits Loose

Brown -

20.8 26.8 Glacial Deposits Soft - Firm

Brown -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-15

26.8 28.4 Glacial Deposits Stiff

Angular – Subrounded


-


Medium Dense

Brown



-

31.4 54.8 Chalk - -

M01 Start End Strata Key Indicator to Strata in Description Additional Comments


Alluvium Very Soft

Soft Dark Grey -


Alluvium Dark grey

Gravel sized pockets of Silt -

14.9 27.9 Chalk - -

27.9 36.7 Chalk - -



Alluvium Loose

Brown -


Alluvium Brown -


Alluvium Very Soft

Brownish Grey -


Alluvium Loose - Medium Dense

Grey -

9.2 33.7 Chalk - -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-16

33.7 44 Chalk - -



Alluvium Loose

Brown & Black -


Alluvium Very soft - Soft

Greenish Brown -


Alluvium Medium Dense

Greyish Brown

Note - although descriptions would indicate Glacial Deposits, lack of gravel (except from 15.00m - 15.50m) indicates Alluvium, so will remain Alluvium until review of lab results of material properties. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel. Material is likely representing Alluvium.

15.5 17.3 Glacial

Greyish Brown

Gravel is Angular - Subrounded

Clasts = Chalk, chert, flint and mixed igneous Lithologies

-

17.3 33.33 Chalk - -

33.33

49.5 Chalk - -



Alluvium Very Loose

Brown speckled black -


Alluvium

Very soft

Brown

Very thinly to thinly interbedded

-

9 10.5 Marine & Estuarine Loose -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-17

Alluvium Greyish Brown


Alluvium

Medium Dense

Greyish Brown

Thickly to medium interbedded

-


Alluvium

Medium Dense

Brown mottled Orangish brown

Closely spaced thick laminations (19.00m to 21.10m)

-

21.1 35.4 Chalk - -

35.4 42.15 Chalk - -



Alluvium

Very Loose - Loose

Orangish Brown

Note – although description of the clasts would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. SPT support material is soft through depth. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel. Material is likely representing Alluvium.


Alluvium Very Soft - Soft

Brown mottled dark grey -


Alluvium Loose

Orangish Brown mottled dark grey -



Dark Brown mottled dark grey -


Alluvium Loose

Dark orangish brown mottled dark grey -





Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-18


Alluvium Loose






Alluvium Loose

Dark orangish brown -





Alluvium Loose





17.1 42 Chalk - -



Alluvium Very loose - loose

Orangish Brown

Note – although description of the clasts would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. SPT support material is soft through depth. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium.


Alluvium Loose - medium dense

Gravel sized pockets of silt -

9.2 11.2 Glacial (Skipsea Till -

Basement Unit)

Firm - Stiff

Gravel is Subangular to Subrounded

Clasts = Chalk

-

11.2 43.2 Chalk - -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-19

43.2 50.3 Chalk - -



Alluvium

Loose

Brown

Very closely to medium spaced thin laminations

-


Alluvium Very soft - soft

Dark brown and grey -


Alluvium

Dark brown

Gravel is Subrounded to Rounded

Clasts = Chert, chalk and mixed igneous Lithologies

Note – Although clasts described are the same type as in the Glacial Deposits, they are more rounded than expected to be found in the Glacial Deposits. This would indicate additional transportation in an environment like water.

9.8 11.9 Glacial

Firm - Stiff

Gravel is Angular to Subrounded

Clasts = Chalk & mixed igneous Lithologies (rarely)

-

11.9 42.45 Chalk - -



Alluvium Loose

Dark Brown

Note – although description of the clasts would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. SPT support material is soft through depth. Could not have Glacial Deposits over Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-20

representing Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium.


Alluvium Loose

Dark Brown mottled dark grey

Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium.


Alluvium Loose to medium dense

Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel and very little sand content as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of gravel as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium.

14.4 16.8 Glacial

Medium Dense

Yellowish Brown

Gravel is Angular to Rounded

Clasts = quartzite, flint, chert, chalk, sandstone, coal and mixed Lithologies

Note - The inclusion of varied clasts lithology and the presence of more angular clasts indicates Glacial Deposits. Note - Lab results indicate higher gravel content that overlying strata so further supports Glacial Deposits.

16.8 40 Chalk - -



Alluvium Medium dense

Dark yellowish brown

Note – Would appear there may be a change within the strata. Will remain Alluvium until review of lab results. Note – Lab results indicate no presence of


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-21

gravel as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium.

7.9 12.2 Glacial

Stiff

Gravel is Subangular to Subrounded

Clasts = sandstone, mudstone, chalk, flint and mixed Lithologies.


12.2 41.1 Chalk - -



Alluvium

Loose - medium dense

Brown

Occasional pockets of thin lamina (3.45m - 4.45m)

-


Alluvium Very soft

Dark grey -


Alluvium

Loose

Brown

Occasional pockets of thin lamina

-


Alluvium Transgression

Dense

Dark brown

Gravel is subrounded to rounded

Clasts = Chalk, chert and mixed igneous Lithologies

Note - although strata could potentially allude towards Glacial Deposits, the lack of angular clasts and being only slightly clayey indicates a marine transgression.

8.2 10.3 Glacial

Stiff

Brown

Gravel is angular to subrounded

Clasts = chalk and chert

-

10.3 38.15 Chalk - -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-22



Alluvium Brown


Alluvium

Soft - Firm

Brown

Extremely closely to very closely spaced thin to thick laminations

Note – although description of the clasts would indicate Glacial Deposits the underling soft deposits would indicate Alluvium. Note – Lab results indicate very low presence of gravel as indicated in Log description. Material is likely representing Alluvium.

2.6 3 Glacial

Brown


Clasts = chalk, chert and mixed igneous Lithologies


3 6.6 Glacial

Stiff

Brownish Grey

Gravel is subangular to subrounded

Clasts = chalk, chert (rarely) and mixed igneous Lithologies

-

6.6 9.4 Glacial

Stiff

Dark greyish brown


Clasts = chalk, chert and sandstone

-

9.4 45.5 Chalk - -



Alluvium

Grey


Clasts = flint, chalk and shale

Note – although description of the clasts would indicate Glacial Deposits no strength information. Material on site appeared to be loose .

0.1 3 Glacial Stiff -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-23

Brownish Grey


Clasts = chalk and flint

3 6.8 Glacial Stiff

Brownish Grey

6.8 8.6 Glacial

Stiff

Brownish Grey


Clasts = chalk

-

8.6 36.1 Chalk - -


0 0.4 Glacial

Dark Brown


Clasts = chalk, chert, mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, quartzite and other mixed Lithologies

-

0.4 0.8 Glacial

Firm - Stiff

Dark Brown


Clasts = chalk, chert, mudstone and other mixed Lithologies

-

0.8 2.4 Glacial

Dense to very dense


Clasts = chalk, chert, quartzite, mudstone and other mixed Lithologies

-

2.4 4.3 Glacial Firm

Dark Brown -

4.3 8.4 Glacial Firm to Stiff

Gravel is angular to subrounded -


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-24

Clasts = chalk, mudstone, sandstone, chert and other mixed igneous and sedimentary Lithologies

8.4 8.67 Glacial Stiff – Very Stiff


Clasts = chalk

-

8.67 9.14 Glacial

Firm

Greyish brown


Clasts = chalk, chert (rarely) and mixed sedimentary Lithologies

-

9.14 34 Chalk - -


0 9 Glacial

Firm - stiff

Dark brown


Clasts = chalk and coal

-

9 11.2 Glacial Firm - Stiff

Dark brown -

11.2 15.2 Glacial

Firm - stiff

Dark brown


Clasts = chalk and coal

-

15.2 37 Chalk - -



Alluvium Brown

Note – although description of the clasts would indicate Glacial Deposits no strength information. Material on site appeared to be


Project


064298/F9/GEO/RPT/101 B

D-25

loose .

0.4 5.5 Glacial

Stiff

Brown


Clasts = chalk

Note - Lab results indicates the presence of gravel content so further supports Glacial Deposits.

5.5 51.4 Chalk - -


0 3.9 Glacial

Firm

Brown


Clasts = chalk

-

3.9 4.1 Glacial Brown


Clasts = chalk and flint

-

4.1 7 Glacial Firm Brown

7 14.8 Glacial

Stiff to Very Stiff

Dark brown


Clasts = chalk, coal, chert and mudstone

-

14.8 15.6 Erosional Chalk? Gravel is Subangular – Subrounded

Clasts = Chalk, Flint

Note – Indicated a Dm grade chalk supported by sandy matrix. Erosion zone?

15.6 45 Chalk - -