Appendix D - NTEPA

Appendix DRecreational Lake and

Subgrade Suitability(Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation)

D

Recreational Lake and Subgrade Suitability

Unit 2, 2 Damaso Pl Woolner NT 0820

Australia

t: (08) 8925 5100

coffey.com

1

20 March 2015

Our ref: GEOTPARA15005AA-AB

Byrne Design PO Box 43420 Casuarina NT 0811

Attention: Norberto Ayala-Samalea

Dear Norberto

Noonamah Ridge Recreational Lake and Subgrade Suitability - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

1. Introduction

A preliminary geotechnical investigation has been undertaken by Coffey Geotechnics (Coffey) for the feasibility study of a recreational lake as part of the Noonamah Ridge residential development, which is located approximately 5 km east of Noonamah, Northern Territory. The investigation also assessed the suitability of subsurface material encountered during the investigations for future use as fill during development of the site.

The investigation was commissioned by Norberto Ayala-Samalea of Byrne Design (Byrne) in an email dated 11 February 2015. The scope of the investigation was broadly consistent with the proposal prepared by Coffey, reference GEOTPARA15005AAP Rev1 dated 25 November 2014.

Coffey has previously issued an interim report to Byrne, reference GEOTPARA15005AA-AA dated 2 March 2015, which presented a geotechnical assessment and made preliminary recommendations relating to potential construction issues and the long-term stability of the proposed recreational lake batters.

This report will provide recommendations on the suitability of the subsurface material, encountered during fieldwork, for re-use as subgrade fill and road material and should be read in conjunction with Coffey report GEOTPARA15005AA-AA. The suitability of the material encountered will be measured in accordance with the Department of Infrastructure’s Standard Specification for Roadworks 2014/2015 (the Standard).


Coffey GEOTPARA15005AA-AB 20 March 2015

2

2. Laboratory testing

Samples collected during our investigations were tested at Coffey’s NATA-accredited laboratories in Darwin, Northern Territory and Brisbane, Queensland.

Five (5) particle size distribution (PSD) tests, five (5) Atterberg limit tests and three (3) California bearing ratio (CBR) were carried out on selected material encountered in the test pits excavated at the proposed lake location.

Additionally, two (2) PSD tests, two (2) Atterberg limit tests, two (2) Los Angeles Abrasion tests and two (2) CBR tests were carried out on samples from the quarry stockpile (following crushing to <19 mm diameter).

The results of the geotechnical laboratory tests are summarised in Table 1 to Table 4 and the test certificates are presented in Attachment A.

Table 1 Summary of Atterberg limits and compaction test results on recreational lake test pit samples

Locati

on

Sample

Depth

(m) Material

Atterberg Limits Standard Compaction

CBR

(%) Plastic

Limit

(%)

Liquid

Limit

(%)

Plasticity

Index

(%)

Linear

Shrinkage

(%)

Maximum

Dry

Density

(t/m3)

Optimum

Moisture

Content

(%)

TP1 0.5-1.5 Alluvium 10 21 11 2.0 2.09 9.0 35

TP3 1.2-1.8 Pisolitic

Laterite NP NA NP NA 2.26 8.0 100

TP5 0.1-0.8 Nodular

Laterite 12 17 5 0.5 NT NT NT

TP6 0.9-1.5 Pisolitic

Laterite 18 28 10 4.5 NT NT NT

TP8 0.2-1.0 Nodular

Laterite 16 24 8 2.5 2.30 11.0 60

NA – Not applicable NP – Non-plastic NTS – Not tested



3

Table 2 Summary of PSD test results on recreational lake test pit samples L

oc

ati

on

Ma

teri

al % Passing Sieve Size (mm)

53.0 37.5 19.0 13.2 9.5 6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.15 0.075

TP1 Alluvium 100 90 79 73 65 59 54 50 48 45 42 37 27 20

TP3 Pisolitic

laterite 100 83 56 47 38 32 28 26 24 22 19 14 8 6

TP5 Nodular

laterite 100 100 99 98 96 89 77 40 34 33 32 29 20 13

TP6 Pisolitic

laterite 100 100 93 89 81 72 67 61 59 56 52 47 36 29

TP8 Nodular

laterite 100 100 98 96 88 76 65 37 27 26 24 22 16 12

Table 3 Summary of Atterberg limits and compaction test results on quarry samples

Material

Atterberg Limits Standard Compaction

CBR

(%)

Los

Angeles

Value

(%)

Plastic

Limit

(%)

Liquid

Limit

(%)

Plasticity

Index

(%)

Linear

Shrinkage

(%)

Maximum

Dry Density

(t/m3)

Optimum

Moisture

Content

(%)

Sandstone NP NA NP NA 2.17 7.5 120 66

Quartzitic

sandstone NP NA NP NA 2.10 5.0 80 42

NA – Not applicable NP – Non-plastic

Table 4 Summary of PSD test results on quarry samples

Material % Passing Sieve Size (mm)

26.5 19.0 13.2 9.5 6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.15 0.075

Sandstone 100 97 50 31 23 19 16 14 12 9 5 2 1

Quartzitic

sandstone 100 98 76 51 36 27 16 10 6 5 3 2 1



4

3. Standard requirements

3.1 Earthworks fill specifications

With reference to Section 4 of the Standard, Table 5 presents the required material characteristics of different types of fill during earthworks.

According to the Standard, a ‘sand clay’ (clayey sand) may be used as an alternative to Select Fill. The CBR value is that obtained following a soaked test at 95% modified maximum dry density. The testing carried out as part of this investigation was in line with this requirement.

Table 5 Material specifications for earthworks

Fill Type

% Passing Sieve Size (mm) Plasticity

Index

(%)

Linear

Shrinkage

(%)

CBR

(%) 100.0 75.0 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.425 0.075

General NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 2-15 NS >20

Standard 100 NS NS NS NS NS NS 2-15 NS >20

Select NT NT >30 NS 15-65 NS 5-25 2-15 2-6 30

Sand clay 100 100 100 >80 >60 30-60 14-28 <15 1-8 >30

NS – Not specified

3.2 Pavement specifications

With reference to Section 6 of the Standard, Table 6 presents the required grading of pavement material. Generally Type 2 and Type 3 would be used as base, Type 3 as shoulder material and either type as sub-base material. Table 7 present the required material characteristics for use as different pavement layers. The CBR value is that obtained following a soaked test at 95% modified maximum dry density. The testing carried out as part of this investigation was in line with this requirement.

Table 6 Pavement material types based on grading

Material % Passing Sieve Size (mm)

75.0 37.5 19.0 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.425 0.075

Type 1 100 >80 50-80 35-65 25-50 15-40 7-20 3-13

Type 2 100 100 >70 50-80 35-65 25-50 10-30 4-16

Type 3 100 100 100 >70 50-80 35-65 15-35 6-20

Type 4 100 >80 >60 50-95 40-80 30-65 20-50 5-25



5

Table 7 Pavement material specifications

Material

Liquid

Limit

(%)

Plasticity

Index

(%)

Linear

Shrinkage

(%)

CBR

(%) Los Angeles

Value (%)

Pl x % passing

0.425 mm

Sealed base <25 1-6 <3 >80 <50 <180

Unsealed based <35 4-12 2-8 >50 <60 <400

Sub-base <30 1-10 <6 >30 <60 <400

4. Material suitability

4.1 Quarry material

The materials encountered in the quarry stockpile were split into two distinct material types – coarse grained sandstone and quartzitic sandstone – both assumed to be part of the Acacia Gap Member. The two material types are interbedded and a mixture of the materials was encountered in the existing stockpile.

The materials found in the stockpile, crushed to the grading presented in Table 6, would be suitable for use as sub-base material only. Based on limited testing carried out as part of this investigation, it is not recommended the material encountered be used as a pavement base material or as a crushed rock material.

4.2 Pisolitic and nodular laterite

The lateritic material encountered in the test pits excavated at the proposed location of the recreational lake would be suitable for use as general or standard fill. In some cases it may be suitable as select fill. If this material was to be graded to the values presented in Table 6, it is also possible that it could be used as a sub-base. Further laboratory testing would be required to confirm the material characteristics and suitability as a sub-base material.

4.3 Alluvium

Although the material tested as part of this investigation showed characteristics of material suitable for use as general, standard and select fill, Coffey does not recommend its use due to possible heterogeneity and that alluvium encountered in other areas on the site may be distinctly different and unsuitable.

5 Additional services

It is recommended that further investigation is carried out on site using larger plant to gain a better understanding of the subsurface materials at greater depth than investigated during this investigation. It is also recommended that further investigation is carried out at the quarry area which may involve excavations with larger plant or the drilling of boreholes. Coffey is able to provide these services under the supervision of an experienced engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.

6 Limitations

The findings contained within this report are the result of limited investigations conducted in accordance with appropriate practices and standards. To the best of our knowledge, they represent



6

reasonable interpretations of the general condition of this site. However, under no circumstances can it be considered that these findings represent the actual state of the site at all points.

For and on behalf of Coffey

Mark Argent

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Attachment A Results of Laboratory Testing

Important information about your Coffey Report

As a client of Coffey you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. These notes have been prepared by Coffey to help you interpret and understand the limitations of your report.

Your report is based on project specific criteria

Your report has been developed on the basis of your unique project specific requirements as understood by Coffey and applies only to the site investigated. Project criteria typically include the general nature of the project; its size and configuration; the location of any structures on the site; other site improvements; the presence of underground utilities; and the additional risk imposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. Your report should not be used if there are any changes to the project without first asking Coffey to assess how factors that changed subsequent to the date of the report affect the report's recommendations. Coffey cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur due to changed factors if they are not consulted.

Subsurface conditions can change

Subsurface conditions are created by natural processes and the activity of man. For example, water levels can vary with time, fill may be placed on a site and pollutants may migrate with time. Because a report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Consult Coffey to be advised how time may have impacted on the project.

Interpretation of factual data

Site assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken and when they are taken. Data derived from literature and external data source review, sampling and subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by geologists, engineers or scientists to provide an opinion about overall site conditions, their likely impact on the proposed development and recommended actions. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter how qualified, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than assumed based on the facts obtained. Nothing can be done to change the actual site conditions which exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of unexpected conditions. For this reason, owners should retain the services of Coffey through the development stage, to identify

variances, conduct additional tests if required, and recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.

Your report will only give preliminary recommendations

Your report is based on the assumption that the site conditions as revealed through selective point sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout an area. This assumption cannot be substantiated until project implementation has commenced and therefore your report recommendations can only be regarded as preliminary. Only Coffey, who prepared the report, is fully familiar with the background information needed to assess whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not changes should be considered as the project develops. If another party undertakes the implementation of the recommendations of this report there is a risk that the report will be misinterpreted and Coffey cannot be held responsible for such misinterpretation.

Your report is prepared for specific purposes and persons

To avoid misuse of the information contained in your report it is recommended that you confer with Coffey before passing your report on to another party who may not be familiar with the background and the purpose of the report. Your report should not be applied to any project other than that originally specified at the time the report was issued.

Important information about your Coffey Report

Interpretation by other design professionals

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain Coffey to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the report. Have Coffey explain the report implications to design professionals affected by them and then review plans and specifications produced to see how they incorporate the report findings.

Data should not be separated from the report*

The report as a whole presents the findings of the site assessment and the report should not be copied in part or altered in any way. Logs, figures, drawings, etc. are customarily included in our reports and are developed by scientists, engineers or geologists based on their interpretation of field logs (assembled by field personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. These logs etc. should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in other documents or separated from the report in any way.

Geoenvironmental concerns are not at issue

Your report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site unless specifically required to do so by the client. Specialist equipment, techniques, and personnel are used to perform a geoenvironmental assessment. Contamination can create major health, safety and environmental risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site to be contaminated or create an environmental hazard, you are advised to contact Coffey for information relating to geoenvironmental issues.

Rely on Coffey for additional assistance

Coffey is familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a project, from design to construction. It is common that not all approaches will be necessarily dealt with in your site assessment report due to concepts proposed at that time. As the project progresses through design towards construction, speak with Coffey to develop alternative approaches to problems that may be of genuine benefit both in time and cost.

Responsibility

Reporting relies on interpretation of factual information based on judgement and opinion and has a level of uncertainty attached to it, which is far less exact than the design disciplines. This has often resulted in claims being lodged against consultants, which are unfounded. To help prevent this problem, a number of clauses have been developed for use in contracts, reports and other documents. Responsibility clauses do not transfer appropriate liabilities from Coffey to other parties but are included to identify where Coffey's responsibilities begin and end. Their use is intended to help all parties involved to recognise their individual responsibilities. Read all documents from Coffey closely and do not hesitate to ask any questions you may have.

* For further information on this aspect reference should be

made to "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical information in Construction Contracts" published by the Institution of Engineers Australia, National headquarters, Canberra, 1987.

Attachment A – Results of Laboratory Testing

On SiteSource:

In SituMaterial:

Sample Details

WOOL15S-00476Sample ID:

12/02/2015Date Sampled:

7313.2mm

659.5mm

596.7mm

7919.0mm

10053.0mm

9037.5mm

% PassingSieve Size

Particle Size Distribution

Result

Sample History AS 1289.1.1

Other Test Results

MethodDescription

Limits

45600µm

42425µm

37300µm

481.18mm

544.75mm

502.36mm

27150µm

2075µm

Chart

Limits

Preparation AS 1289.1.1

Linear Shrinkage (%) AS 1289.3.4.1

Mould Length (mm)

Crumbling

Curling

Cracking

Liquid Limit (%) AS 1289.3.1.2

Method

Plastic Limit (%) AS 1289.3.2.1

AS GradingSpecification:

Plasticity Index (%) AS 1289.3.3.1

Date Tested

Sampled by ClientSampling Method:

Noonamah,Northern TerritoryProject Location:

TP 1Sample Location:

Client Sample:

0.5m-1.5m

Oven-dried

Dry Sieved

2.0

150

No

No

Yes

21

One Point

10

11

26/02/2015

Method:

Note:

AS 1289.3.6.1

Sample Washed

Date Tested: 25/02/2015

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. The results of the tests, calibrations and/ormeasurements included in this document are traceableto Australian/national standards.

3/03/2015

Material Test Report

Report No: WOOL15S-00476-1

Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number:431

Approved Signatory: Daniel Currie

(Laboratory Manager)Project Name: GEOTPARA15005AA - Noonamah Ridge Lake and Subgrade Suitability

ABN 92 114 364 046

Woolner, Darwin Laboratory

Coffey Testing Pty Ltd

2 Damaso PlaceWoolner DARWIN NT 0820

Phone: +61 8 8925 5100

Project No.: INFOWOOL00400AA

Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1

Unit 2, 2 Damaso PlaceWoolner NT 0820

Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (Parap)

Page 1 of 1© 2000-2013 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: WOOL15S-00476-1

N/A

Comments

On SiteSource:

In SituMaterial:

Sample Details



4713.2mm

389.5mm

326.7mm

5619.0mm

10053.0mm

8337.5mm

% PassingSieve Size


Result


Other Test Results

MethodDescription

Limits

22600µm

19425µm

14300µm

241.18mm

284.75mm

262.36mm

8150µm

675µm

Chart

Limits



Mould Length (mm)

Crumbling

Curling

Cracking


Method




Date Tested




Client Sample:

1.2m-1.8m

Oven-dried

Dry Sieved

0.0

250

No

No

Yes

N/A

One Point

NP

NP

25/02/2015

Method:

Note:

AS 1289.3.6.1

Sample Washed



19/03/2015



Issue No: 3

Client:

Date of Issue:



(Laboratory Manager)

This report replaces all previous issues of report no 'WOOL15S-00477-1'.

Project Name: GEOTPARA15005AA - Noonamah Ridge Lake and Subgrade Suitability

ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




NP = Non Plastic

Comments

On SiteSource:

In SituMaterial:

Sample Details



889.5mm

766.7mm

654.75mm

9613.2mm

10026.5mm

9819.0mm

% PassingSieve Size


Result


Other Test Results

MethodDescription

Limits

24425µm

22300µm

16150µm

26600µm

372.36mm

271.18mm

1275µm

Chart

Limits



Mould Length (mm)

Crumbling

Curling

Cracking


Method




Date Tested




Client Sample:

0.2m-1.0m

Oven-dried

Dry Sieved

2.5

150

No

No

Yes

24

One Point

16

8

26/02/2015

Method:

Note:

AS 1289.3.6.1

Sample Washed



3/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




N/A

Comments

On SiteSource:

In SituMaterial:

Sample Details



819.5mm

726.7mm

674.75mm

8913.2mm

10026.5mm

9319.0mm

% PassingSieve Size


Result


Other Test Results

MethodDescription

Limits

52425µm

47300µm

36150µm

56600µm

612.36mm

591.18mm

2975µm

Chart

Limits



Mould Length (mm)

Crumbling

Curling

Cracking


Method




Date Tested




Client Sample:

0.9m-1.5m

Oven-dried

Dry Sieved

4.5

150

No

No

Yes

28

One Point

18

10

28/02/2015

Method:

Note:

AS 1289.3.6.1

Sample Washed



3/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




N/A

Comments

On SiteSource:

In SituMaterial:

Sample Details



969.5mm

896.7mm

774.75mm

9813.2mm

10026.5mm

9919.0mm

% PassingSieve Size


Result


Other Test Results

MethodDescription

Limits

32425µm

29300µm

20150µm

33600µm

402.36mm

341.18mm

1375µm

Chart

Limits



Mould Length (mm)

Crumbling

Curling

Cracking


Method




Date Tested




Client Sample:

0.1m-0.8m

Oven-dried

Dry Sieved

0.5

150

No

No

Yes

17

One Point

12

5

26/02/2015

Method:

Note:

AS 1289.3.6.1

Sample Washed



3/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




N/A

Comments

On SiteSource:In SituMaterial:

Sample Details



AS GradingSpecification:Sampled by ClientSampling Method:Noonamah,Northern TerritoryProject Location:


Client Sample:

0.5m-1.5m

Test Results

9.694.51.98

9.22.09

35

9.02.0912.7

ResultMoisture Content (%) AS 1289.2.1.1

MethodDescription Limits

Modified Maximum Dry Density (t/m³) AS 1289.5.2.1Modified Optimum Moisture Content (%)Oversize Sieve (mm)Oversize Material (%)CBR At 2.5mm (%) AS 1289.6.1.1Maximum Dry Density (t/m³)Optimum Moisture Content (%)Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³)Density Ratio before Soaking (%)Moisture Content before Soaking (%)

104.0Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%)1.98Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³)

94Density Ratio after Soaking (%)0.0Swell (%)

11.6Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%)11.3Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%)

ModifiedCompactive Effort4.50Surcharge Mass (kg)

4Period of Soaking (Days)Oversize Material (%)

2/03/2015Date Tested


4/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




N/A

Comments


Sample Details





Client Sample:

1.2m-1.8m

Test Results

8.295.02.14

8.12.26100

8.02.26

8.3Result

Moisture Content (%) AS 1289.2.1.1MethodDescription Limits



95Density Ratio after Soaking (%)0.0Swell (%)9.0Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%)8.8Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%)





4/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




N/A

Comments


Sample Details





Client Sample:

0.2m-1.0m

Test Results

10.995.52.1911.12.30

60

11.02.3011.7

ResultMoisture Content (%) AS 1289.2.1.1




95Density Ratio after Soaking (%)0.0Swell (%)

12.5Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%)12.3Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%)





4/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 8 8925 5100


Principal:

Lot No.: - TRN: 1




N/A

Comments


17/03/2015


Report No: NEWS15S-00725-1

Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:


Approved Signatory: Glen Wratt

(Senior Geotechnician)Project Name: GEOTPARA15005AA - Noonamah Ridge Lake and Subgrade Suitability

ABN 92 114 364 046

Newstead, Brisbane Laboratory


47 Doggett StreetNewstead QLD 4006

Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805

Project No.: INFONEWS00847AA

Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:

P.O. Box 750Darwin NT 804

Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (Darwin)

Sample Washed

319.5mm236.7mm194.75mm

5013.2mm

10026.5mm9719.0mm

% PassingSieve Size Limits

9425µm5300µm2150µm

12600µm

162.36mm141.18mm

175µm


Borrow QuarrySource:SandstoneMaterial:

Sample Details

NEWS15S-00725Sample ID:


AS GradingSpecification:Submitted by clientSampling Method:

Noonahma, Northern TerritoryProject Location:Borrow Quarry StockpileSample Location:

1Client Sample:

Note:

Atterberg Limit:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Linear Shrinkage (%):

Sample Description:

Grading:

N/A

NP

NP

N/A

AS 1289.3.6.1Particle Size Distribution

CLAY FRACTION

SILT FRACTION

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND FRACTION

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL FRACTION

Fine Medium Coarse

COBBLES

75

µm

15

0µ

m

21

2µ

m 3

00

µm

42

5µ

m 6

00

µm

1.1

8m

m

2.3

6m

m

4.7

5m

m

6.7

mm

9.5

mm

13

.2m

m

19

.0m

m

26

.5m

m

37

.5m

m 5

3.0

mm

75

.0m

m

20

0m

m

Particle Size (mm)

Page 1 of 3© 2000-2013 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: NEWS15S-00725-1


17/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Sample Details

N/ANo

NoNo

0N/A

Dry Sieved

11/03/2015B

66






1Client Sample:

Result

Los Angeles Value (%) AS 1141.23

Other Test Results


Test GradingDate TestedSample History AS 1289.1.1

Preparation AS 1289.1.1 Linear Shrinkage (%) AS 1289.3.4.1Mould Length (mm)CrumblingCurling

CrackingLiquid Limit (%) AS 1289.3.1.2

One PointMethod

NPPlastic Limit (%) AS 1289.3.2.1

NPPlasticity Index (%) AS 1289.3.3.1

2.17Modified Maximum Dry Density (t/m³) AS 1289.5.2.1

7.5Modified Optimum Moisture Content (%)Retained Sieve 19mm (%)

120CBR At 5.0mm (%) AS 1289.6.1.1

2.17Maximum Dry Density (t/m³)

7.7Optimum Moisture Content (%)

2.06Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³)

95.0Density Ratio before Soaking (%)

7.6Moisture Content before Soaking (%)

99.5Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%)

2.07Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³)

95Density Ratio after Soaking (%)


Liquid Limit not achieved due to material slipping in bowl.

Comments


17/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Sample Details

13/03/2015

44.50

Modified9.2

10.2

0.0






1Client Sample:

Result

Swell (%)

Other Test Results


Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%)

Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%)Compactive Effort

Surcharge Mass (kg)Period of Soaking (Days)Oversize Material (%)Date Tested



Comments

Sample DetailsSample ID: NEWS15S-00725 Sampling Method: Submitted by client

Date Sampled: 12/02/2015 Material: Sandstone

Date Submitted: 25/02/2015 Source: Borrow Quarry

Date Tested: 13/03/2015 Specification: AS Grading

Project Location: Noonahma, Northern Territory

Sample Location: Borrow Quarry Stockpile

Test ResultsAS 1289.6.1.1

CBR At 5.0mm (%): 120

Maximum Dry Density (t/m³): 2.17

Optimum Moisture Content (%): 7.7

Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³): 2.06

Density Ratio before Soaking (%): 95.0

Moisture Content before Soaking (%): 7.6

Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%): 99.5

Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³): 2.07

Density Ratio after Soaking (%): 95

Swell (%): 0.0

Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%): 10.2

Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%): 9.2

Compactive Effort: Modified

Surcharge Mass (kg): 4.50

Period of Soaking (Days): 4

Oversize Material (%):

———— Moisture Content ————

Field Moisture Content (%): 0.1

Load vs Penetration


17/03/2015

California Bearing Ratio Test Report

Report No: CBR:NEWS15S-00725

Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Page 1 of 1Form No: 18986, Report No: CBR:NEWS15S-00725 © 2000-2013 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

Comments


17/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Sample Washed

519.5mm366.7mm274.75mm

7613.2mm

10026.5mm9819.0mm

% PassingSieve Size Limits

5425µm3300µm2150µm

6600µm

162.36mm101.18mm

175µm

Drying by: Oven


Borrow QuarrySource:QuartziteMaterial:

Sample Details





2Client Sample:

Note:

Atterberg Limit:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Linear Shrinkage (%):

Sample Description:

Grading:

N/A

NP

NP

N/A

AS 1289.3.6.1Particle Size Distribution

CLAY FRACTION

SILT FRACTION

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND FRACTION

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL FRACTION

Fine Medium Coarse

COBBLES

75

µm

15

0µ

m

21

2µ

m 3

00

µm

42

5µ

m 6

00

µm

1.1

8m

m

2.3

6m

m

4.7

5m

m

6.7

mm

9.5

mm

13

.2m

m

19

.0m

m

26

.5m

m

37

.5m

m 5

3.0

mm

75

.0m

m

20

0m

m

Particle Size (mm)



17/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Sample Details

N/ANo

NoNo

0N/A

Dry Sieved

11/03/2015B

42






2Client Sample:

Result

Los Angeles Value (%) AS 1141.23

Other Test Results


Test GradingDate TestedSample History AS 1289.1.1

Preparation AS 1289.1.1 Linear Shrinkage (%) AS 1289.3.4.1Mould Length (mm)CrumblingCurling

CrackingLiquid Limit (%) AS 1289.3.1.2

One PointMethod

NPPlastic Limit (%) AS 1289.3.2.1

NPPlasticity Index (%) AS 1289.3.3.1

2.10Modified Maximum Dry Density (t/m³) AS 1289.5.2.1

5.0Modified Optimum Moisture Content (%)Retained Sieve 19mm (%)

80CBR At 5.0mm (%) AS 1289.6.1.1

2.10Maximum Dry Density (t/m³)

5.1Optimum Moisture Content (%)

1.98Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³)

94.5Density Ratio before Soaking (%)

5.2Moisture Content before Soaking (%)

101.0Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%)

2.00Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³)

95Density Ratio after Soaking (%)



Comments


17/03/2015



Issue No: 1

Client:

Date of Issue:




ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Sample Details

13/03/2015

44.50

Modified7.06.7

-0.5






2Client Sample:

Result

Swell (%)

Other Test Results


Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%)

Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%)Compactive Effort

Surcharge Mass (kg)Period of Soaking (Days)Oversize Material (%)Date Tested



Comments

Sample DetailsSample ID: NEWS15S-00726 Sampling Method: Submitted by client

Date Sampled: 12/02/2015 Material: Quartzite

Date Submitted: 25/02/2015 Source: Borrow Quarry

Date Tested: 13/03/2015 Specification: AS Grading

Project Location: Noonahma, Northern Territory

Sample Location: Borrow Quarry Stockpile

Test ResultsAS 1289.6.1.1

CBR At 5.0mm (%): 80

Maximum Dry Density (t/m³): 2.10

Optimum Moisture Content (%): 5.1

Dry Density before Soaking (t/m³): 1.98

Density Ratio before Soaking (%): 94.5

Moisture Content before Soaking (%): 5.2

Moisture Ratio before Soaking (%): 101.0

Dry Density after Soaking (t/m³): 2.00

Density Ratio after Soaking (%): 95

Swell (%): -0.5

Moisture Content of Top 30mm (%): 6.7

Moisture Content of Remaining Depth (%): 7.0

Compactive Effort: Modified

Surcharge Mass (kg): 4.50

Period of Soaking (Days): 4

Oversize Material (%):

Load vs Penetration


17/03/2015

California Bearing Ratio Test Report

Report No: CBR:NEWS15S-00726

Issue No: 2

Client:

Date of Issue:



(Senior Geotechnician)

This report replaces all previous issues of report no 'CBR:NEWS15S-00726'.

Project Name: GEOTPARA15005AA - Noonamah Ridge Lake and Subgrade Suitability

ABN 92 114 364 046




Phone: +61 7 3608 2500Fax: +61 7 3852 2805


Principal:

Lot No.: TRN:



Preliminary Report Issued - Issue No.:1

Page 1 of 1Form No: 18986, Report No: CBR:NEWS15S-00726 © 2000-2013 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

Comments

Documents

Appendix D - NTEPA