GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT · A visual appraisal of the site and a study of geological maps have also been undertaken. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation reported

River Crossing Ltd

PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AT CORNER CASS STREET AND SOUTH STREET ASHBURTON

G E O T E C H N I C A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N R E P O R T

River Crossing Ltd

PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AT CORNER CASS STREET AND SOUTH STREET, ASHBURTON

G E O T E C H N I C A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N R E P O R T

Fraser Thomas Limited Consulting Engineers, Licensed Surveyors Planners & Resource Managers Unit 7 Barry Hogan Place, Riccarton 8041 PO Box 39 154, Harewood Post Centre,8545 Christchurch, New Zealand Tel : +64 3 358-5936 Email: [email protected]

Project No. 66060 Approved for Issue

Version No. 1 Name M V Reed

Status Final Signature

Authors S GLADWIN

Reviewer M V Reed Date 19 July 2019

i

Fraser Thomas

SUMMARY The visual appraisal and geotechnical investigation reported herein address the geotechnical considerations relating to the proposed building development at the corner of Cass Street and South Street, Ashburton. The test pit logs presented in Appendix A of this report indicate that the site is generally underlain by a surficial layer of non-engineered fill material, which is in turn underlain by alluvial sediments inferred to be of Late Pleistocene to Holocene age. Foundation design and settlement considerations are discussed in Section 9.0 of this report. In general terms and within the limits of the investigation as outlined and reported herein, except for the issues associated with the existing non-engineered fill, no unusual problems are anticipated with the proposed building development at the site, along the general lines of that shown on Fraser Thomas drawing 66060/1. The site is, in general, considered suitable for its intended use, with satisfactory conditions for the proposed building development sited at the location shown on appended drawing 66060/1, subject to the recommendations and qualifications contained herein, provided the design and inspection of foundations are carried out as would be done under normal circumstances in accordance with the requirements of the relevant New Zealand Standard Codes of Practice. Conclusions arising from the investigation and recommendations affecting the proposed building development are presented in Section 16.0 of this report.

ii

Fraser Thomas

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER CASS STREET AND SOUTH STREET,

ASHBURTON

RIVER CROSSING LTD

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 PREVIOUS REPORTS 2 2.1 GENERAL 2 2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 2.3 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT 2 2.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 3

3.0 GEOLOGY 3

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4

5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 4 5.1 GENERAL 4 5.2 RESULTS OF VISUAL APPRAISAL 5 5.3 TEST PIT INVESTIGATION 5

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 6.1 GENERAL 6 6.2 FILL MATERIAL 6

6.2.1 Surficial Hardfill 6 6.2.2 Non-Engineered Fill 7

6.3 ALLUVIAL SEDIMENTS 7 6.3.1 Silty Sands 7 6.3.2 Sandy Gravels 8

6.4 GROUNDWATER LEVELS 8

7.0 SLOPE STABILITY APPRAISAL 8

8.0 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT 9 8.1 GENERAL 9 8.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 9 8.3 ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY 10

iii

Fraser Thomas

9.0 FOUNDATION AND SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 11 9.1 GENERAL 11 9.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING TEST PITS 13

10.0 ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES 13 10.1 GENERAL 13 10.2 SHALLOW PAD OR STRIP FOOTINGS 13 10.3 SAFE MAXIMUM VALUES 14

11.0 EARTHWORKS CONSIDERATIONS 14

12.0 EXISTING SERVICE LINES 15 12.1 GENERAL 15 12.2 EXISTING SOAKAGE PIT/CHAMBER 15

13.0 RETAINING WALLS 15

14.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 16

15.0 STORMWATER AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL 17

16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 16.1 CONCLUSIONS 17 16.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 20

17.0 LIMITATION 22

TABLES: 1 ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES FOR SHALLOW PAD OR STRIP

FOOTINGS

14

APPENDICES: A FIELD TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS: 66060/1 SITE PLAN

66060/2 CROSS SECTION PROFILES

Fraser Thomas

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER CASS STREET AND SOUTH STREET,

ASHBURTON

RIVER CROSSING LTD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for the proposed building development at the corner of Cass Street and South Street, Ashburton.

The site topography generally slopes slightly with an easterly aspect towards South Street. The crest of a steep bank abuts the south-western site boundary.

Several buildings are currently located within the subject site. It is understood that it is generally proposed to demolish the existing structures at the site, as part of the proposed building development. The approximate inferred location and extent of the existing buildings are shown on the appended Fraser Thomas Ltd drawing 66060/1.

It is understood that it is proposed to construct a new building (Large Format Retailer) at the site, which will be located in the south-western part of the site. It is understood that the proposed new building will generally be a single-storey structure with a concrete slab-on-ground flooring system.

It is understood that the structure will be of steel portal frame construction with precast concrete panel walls. It is understood that the steel portal frame columns will be supported on shallow concrete pad foundations and the concrete panel walls also on shallow concrete pad foundations.

It is understood that the proposed development will also involve the construction of new carpark area, located in the north-eastern part of the site.

The approximate locations and extent of the proposed new building and carpark areas are shown on the appended Fraser Thomas Ltd drawing 66060/1.

The subsurface conditions at the site have been investigated by means of 22 machine excavated test pits and associated Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests.

A visual appraisal of the site and a study of geological maps have also been undertaken.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation reported herein was to determine the subsoil conditions beneath the site as they may affect the proposed new building, with particular regard to foundation design considerations, and to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed building development in support of an application for building consent.

2

Fraser Thomas

2.0 PREVIOUS REPORTS 2.1 GENERAL

A previous report entitled “Ground Contamination, Geotechnical, Services and Flooding Assessment – Cnr East & South Streets, Ashburton”, dated August 2014, has been prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for the site located adjacent immediately to the north-west of the subject site. This site currently has a Countdown supermarket on it, and is identified as the “Countdown site” in our report. A geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the August 2014 report, which comprised five machine boreholes, and 14 machine excavated test pits.

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The August 2014 report states the following with regard to soil conditions at the Countdown site:

“Table 4. The main layers encountered are:

• Fill – pavement subbase: Based on the results of T&T’s investigations, the site appears to be generally covered by a gravel hardfill layer generally consisting of well graded, dense to very dense fine to coarse sandy gravel with minor silt and a trace of cobbles. This fill is of variable thickness but is identified as generally 0.3m over the majority of the site; • Uncontrolled Fill: This fill material generally consists of silt or gravelly silt containing varying amounts of building refuse (bricks, wood, organics). Based upon a visual assessment from test pits, T&T estimated the quarry fill contains less than 5 percent organic material. This may increase locally due to inherent variability within the material; • Alluvial deposits: A layer of inter-bedded alluvial silt and sands/gravelly sand, underlie the northern-most portions of the site. The non-plastic silts and sands/gravelly sand were generally loose to dense while the cohesive silts were generally firm to stiff with low to moderate plasticity; • Burnham Gravels: Medium dense to very dense sandy gravels were found in all of the onsite T&T borings and tests pits at depths ranging from about 1.5 to 3.2m bgl, an extending to the maximum depth explored. The depth of the gravels appears to generally increase towards the south of the site.”

2.3 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT

The August 2014 report states the following with regard to the liquefaction potential of the underlying soils at the Countdown site:

“Engineering analysis of the currently available geotechnical data indicates the risk of sand boils and liquefaction induced settlement as a result of a future earthquake shaking is very low. This is primarily due to the depth to the groundwater table and the characteristic of the site material below the groundwater table.”

3

Fraser Thomas

2.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The August 2014 report states the following with regard to foundation design recommendations for the Countdown site:

“The principal areas of geotechnical concern relate to the initial and ongoing settlement of the uncontrolled fill material.”

and that:

“Conventional shallow foundations comprising isolated pad and strip footings or a lightly reinforced concrete slab-on-grade are not considered to be an acceptable foundation system for proposed new development. The risk of settlement identified during the investigations presents a hazard to conventional shallow foundations, and may result in large differential settlements and/or cracking of floor slabs.”

and that:

“The following foundation options (in order of increasing expected performance) are assessed as being technically feasible for the proposed building:

• Foundation Option 1: Shallow foundations with ground improvement;• Foundation Option 2: Pile foundations.”

The “ground improvement” proposed by T&T generally appears to involve the following:

(i) Removal of “near surface” unsuitable material, such as topsoil, vegetation, abandonedservices and foundations and backfilling with “engineered fill”.

(ii) Localised undercutting of material from beneath the proposed foundations, a depthequivalent to the width of the foundation element (but not exceeding 1.5 m depthbelow the base of the foundation element). The undercuts should be backfilled withwell compacted AP65 hardfill material.

(iii) Prior to any backfilling, proof rolling of any excavation subgrade with a 15-tonne sheep’sfoot roller

The August 2014 report also limits the applied bearing pressures for the proposed foundations, so as to mitigate the risk of the applied foundation pressures resulting in settlement of the underlying fill material.

3.0 GEOLOGY

In carrying out the appraisal of the site, reference has been made to the New Zealand Geological Map 15, scale 1:250,000, Geology of the Aoraki Area.

The geological map indicates that the site is underlain by alluvial deposits comprising “grey and brownish grey gravel, sand and silt of low river terraces” of Late Pleistocene to Holocene age.

The results of the test pit investigation at the site, as reported herein, generally confirm the stratigraphy as indicated by the geological map.

4

Fraser Thomas

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT


It is understood that the structure will be of steel portal frame construction with precast concrete panel walls. It is understood that the steel portal frame columns will be supported on shallow concrete pad foundations and the concrete panel walls also on shallow concrete pad foundations.

It is understood that the proposed development will also involve the construction of new carpark area, located in the north-eastern part of the site.

It is understood that fill earthworks will be undertaken in order to form a suitable level building platform for the construction of the proposed new building and that the fill will be up to approximately 1.7 m deep (beneath the eastern corner of the proposed building footprint). It is understood that fill material will also be placed in order to provide suitable grades for the construction of the proposed carpark area. It is understood that the fill material will be imported to site and will likely comprise “pit-run” material.

The approximate location and extent of the proposed new building and carpark areas are shown on the appended Fraser Thomas Ltd drawing 66060/1.

It is understood that fill material placed adjacent to the south-eastern site boundary will be permanently retained by a proposed new retaining wall in this area, up to approximately 0.9 m in vertical height. The approximate location and extent of the proposed new retaining wall is shown on drawing 66060/1.

Several buildings are currently located within the subject site. It is understood that it is generally proposed to demolish the existing structures at the site as part of the proposed building development. The approximate inferred location and extent of the existing buildings are shown on the appended Fraser Thomas Ltd drawing 66060/1.

5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

5.1 GENERAL

The field investigation comprised a visual appraisal, 22 machine excavated test pits and associated Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests. Other shallow machine excavated test pits were also put down at the site for soil sampling purposes. The logs for these shallow test pits are not presented in this report.

The approximate locations of the investigation test positions are shown on drawing 66060/1.

5

Fraser Thomas

5.2 RESULTS OF VISUAL APPRAISAL

Visual appraisals of the subject site was undertaken by a qualified Fraser Thomas engineering geologist between October 2017 and June 2018.

The subject site is located on the corner of Cass Street and South Street, Ashburton.

The site, at the time of the investigations reported herein, was generally covered with a mixture of asphaltic concrete “hardstand” areas and hardfill material.

Several existing buildings are currently located within the subject site. It is understood that it is proposed to demolish the existing structures at the site as part of the proposed building development. The approximate inferred location and extent of the existing buildings are shown on the appended Fraser Thomas Ltd drawing 66060/1.

The existing buildings at the site generally comprise single storey structures of light timber frame and concrete block construction. The structures appear to have concrete slab-on-ground flooring systems, which are inferred to be supported on shallow concrete foundations. No obvious sign of any damage to the existing buildings, that could be attributed to any significant differential foundation movement, was observed for the existing buildings at the site.

An existing shed structure is located in the western corner of the footprint of the proposed new building. The shed has thick pre-cast concrete panel walls, which are inferred to be supported on shallow concrete foundations. The upper parts of the walls of the shed comprise light-steel frame construction. The shed has a concrete slab-on-ground flooring system. No obvious signs of any distortion/displacement of the pre-cast concrete walls or any significant cracking of the concrete floor, that could be attributed to differential foundation settlement, was observed for the shed structure.

The crest of a moderate sloping bank is located adjacent to the south-western site boundary. This bank slopes at between approximately 13o to the horizontal (1V:4.3H) and 26o to the horizontal (1V:2.0H) and is between approximately 1.7 m and 2.1m in vertical height. The bank is generally well vegetated with knee high grass/weeds and shrubs. The bank is inferred to comprise fill material, which appears to have been placed on top of a river terrace (comprising gravels). No obvious signs of any instability of the bank was observed at the time of the investigation reported herein.

The approximate location and extent the crest of the bank, in the vicinity of the subject site, is shown on drawing 66060/1. Cross section profiles of the bank are shown on drawing 66060/2.

An existing concrete cover/lid is located beneath the northern corner of the proposed building footprint. This lid appears to be covering an existing soakage pit/chamber, inferred to be associated with a previous vehicle wash-down area. The depth and extent of this soakage pit/chamber is not known. The approximate location of the existing concrete cover/lid is shown on drawing 66060/1.

5.3 TEST PIT INVESTIGATION

Twenty-two machine excavated test pits, numbered TP1 to TP22 inclusive, were put down at the site between October 2017 and June 2018, in order to determine the nature and extent of the subsoils underlying the site, and to take samples for laboratory testing purposes (for soil contamination assessment).

6

Fraser Thomas

The approximate locations of Test Pits TP1 to TP22 inclusive are shown on drawing 66060/1.

Eight shallow test pits were also put down in the vicinity of the south-western edge of the proposed building footprint, in order to collect further soil samples for soil contamination assessment purposes.

The test pits were inspected and logged by a qualified Fraser Thomas engineering geologist.

The test pits were excavated to depths ranging between approximately 1.6 m and 3.5 m below the ground surface existing at the time of the investigation reported herein (i.e. the existing ground surface).

The logs of Test Pits TP1 to TP22 inclusive are presented in Appendix A of this report.

Dynamic Cone Penetromer (DCP) scala tests were carried out at various depths in the test pits in order to determine the consistency of the cohesionless soils encountered in the test pits.

DCP scala tests were also performed from the existing ground surface, at the locations of DCP1 to DCP7 inclusive.

The results of the DCP scala tests are also presented in Appendix A of this report.

In situ undrained shear strength measurements were also carried out, where possible, using hand held shear vane equipment within the cohesive soils encountered in the test pits.

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 GENERAL

The test pit logs presented in Appendix A of this report indicate that the site is generally underlain by a surficial layer of non-engineered fill material, which is in turn underlain by alluvial sediments inferred to be of Late Pleistocene to Holocene age.

It has been assumed that even though the various subsoil strata, their depth and thickness and the locations of groundwater levels have been determined only at the locations and within the depths of the test pits recorded herein, these various subsurface features can be projected between the various test locations. Even though such inference is made, no guarantee can be given as to the validity of this inference or of the nature and continuity of these various subsurface features.

6.2 FILL MATERIAL

6.2.1 Surficial Hardfill

A surficial layer of fill material, generally comprising sandy silty gravels, was encountered at the locations of the test pits. The fill material was generally encountered to depths ranging between approximately 0.2 m and 0.4 m below the existing ground surface.

7

Fraser Thomas

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in these sandy silty gravels generally obtained DCP blow counts of between approximately 10 and greater than 20 blows per 50 mm penetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’ values of greater than 50, corresponding to a very dense consistency.

This surficial hardfill layer appears to have been subject to specific placement and compaction.

6.2.2 Non-Engineered Fill

The site is underlain by fill material. The fill material was generally encountered to depths ranging between approximately 0.4 m and 2.3 m below the existing ground surface. The origin of the fill is not known.

The fill generally comprises sandy silty gravels, sandy gravelly silts and silty gravelly sands intermixed with occasional brick, metal, wood and concrete inclusions. The material appears to have been subject to some specific placement and compaction. Generally the walls of the test pits remained stable, i.e. no frittering or sloughing of the side walls occurred during the investigations. Some isolated thin layers of looser material, comprising bricks, wood and gravels, was encountered at the locations of some test pits, but this material was generally found to be isolated, with no significant lateral extent, i.e. this fill appears to be in isolated pockets.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in the cohesionless fill material beneath the footprint of the proposed building, generally obtained DCP blow counts of between 2 and 12 blows per 50 mm penetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’ values of between approximately 13 and greater than 50, corresponding to a medium dense to very dense consistency.

In situ undrained shear strength values of between approximately 46 kPa and 200 kPa were measured in the cohesive fill material, using hand held shear vane equipment, corresponding to a firm to very stiff consistency.

The origin of the fill is not known. Our assessment of historic aerial photographs for the subject site indicates that the fill was likely placed at some time prior to 1980, which indicates that the fill has been in place for at least 38 years. Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that the material has been subject to some kind of specific placement and compaction, the nature of this placement and compaction, however, is not reliably known. Based on the foregoing and given the unknown origin of the fill material, the fill is inferred to be non-engineered.

6.3 ALLUVIAL SEDIMENTS

6.3.1 Silty Sands

The surficial fill material is generally underlain by a layer of soils (between approximately 0.1 m and 0.4 m thickness) generally comprising silty sands, inferred to be alluvial sediments of Holocene age. These soils were generally encountered at the locations of Test Pits TP4, TP8, TP10, TP11, TP14, TP19, TP20, TP21, and TP22, at depths ranging between approximately 0.4 m and 2.3 m below the existing ground surface.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in the silty sands generally obtained DCP blow counts of between 2 and 4 blows per 50 mm penetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’ values of between approximately 13 and 26, corresponding to a medium dense consistency.

8

Fraser Thomas

6.3.2 Sandy Gravels

Soils generally comprising sandy gravels, inferred to be alluvial sediments of Holocene age, were generally encountered beneath the surficial soils, at depths ranging between approximately 0.4 m and 3.2 m below the existing ground surface. These sandy gravels were encountered to the extent of the test pits, i.e. to depths of between approximately 1.6 m and 3.5 m below the existing ground surface. The vertical extent of the sandy gravels was not determined during the test pit investigation reported herein.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in the sandy gravels generally obtained DCP blow counts of between 5 and greater than 10 blows per 50 mm penetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’ values of between approximately 30 and greater than 50, corresponding to a dense to very dense consistency.

Five machine boreholes were previously put down, under the direction of Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, at the Countdown site, located adjacent to the subject site. The logs for the machine boreholes indicate that sandy gravels are generally located at depths ranging between approximately 0.4 m and 2.7 m, which is consistent with the subsoil conditions encountered within the test pits put down at the subject site. The borehole logs indicate that these sandy gravels generally extend to a minimum depth of approximately 15 m below the ground surface, at the locations of the machine boreholes. Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the sandy gravels encountered at the subject site are likely to extend to depths of at least 15 m below the existing ground surface.

6.4 GROUNDWATER LEVELS

Based on the results of the field investigations undertaken at the site, the groundwater level is inferred to be at a depth ranging between approximately 1.6 m and 3.5 m below the existing ground surface.

7.0 SLOPE STABILITY APPRAISAL

As discussed in Section 5.2 of this report, the crest of a moderate sloping bank is located adjacent to the south-western site boundary. This bank slopes at between approximately 13o to the horizontal (1V:4.3H) and 26o to the horizontal (1V:2.0H) and is between approximately 1.7 m and 2.1m in vertical height. The bank is generally well vegetated with knee high grass/weeds and shrubs. The bank is inferred to comprise fill material, which appears to have been placed on top of a river terrace (comprising gravels). No obvious signs of any instability of the bank was observed at the time of the investigation reported herein.

The approximate location and extent the crest of the bank, in the vicinity of the subject site, is shown on drawing 66060/1. Cross section profiles of the bank are shown on drawing 66060/2.

The south-western edge of the proposed building, at its closest point, is located a horizontal distance of approximately 6.5 m from the crest of the bank. However, generally the south-western edge of the proposed building footprint is located a horizontal distance of between approximately 14 m and 30 m from the crest of the bank.

Although detailed slope stability analyses have not been undertaken for the moderate sloping bank abutting the south-western site boundary, given the bank profile and the nature of the material inferred to comprise the bank material, i.e. medium dense to very dense unsaturated cohesionless soils, it is our opinion unlikely that the bank, in its present state, will be subject to

9

Fraser Thomas

any significant deep seated failure in the future. Furthermore, given the horizontal distance from the crest of the bank to the south-western edge of the proposed building footprint, it is unlikely, in our opinion, that shallow foundations supporting the proposed new building, sited at the location shown on drawing 66060/1, will be adversely affected by any ground movement associated with any deep or shallow seated slope instability at the site.

8.0 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT

8.1 GENERAL

Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon that occurs when soils are subject to a sudden loss in shear stiffness and strength associated with a reduction in effective stress due to cyclic loading (i.e. ground shaking associated with an earthquake).

The two main effects of liquefaction on soils are:

(a) Consolidation of the liquefied soils

(b) Reduction in shear strength within the liquefied soils

Liquefaction is considered to occur when the soils reach a condition of “zero effective stress”. It is considered that only “sand like” soils can reach a condition of “zero effective stress” and therefore only “sand like” soils are considered to be liquefiable.

An indication that the underlying soils have been subject to liquefaction is the surface expression of ejected sand and water. This occurs as a result of the dissipation of excess pore water pressures generated within the liquefied soils as a result of the cyclic loading.

It should be noted that cohesive type materials or “clay like” soils are unlikely to be subject to liquefaction, as these soils (due to their nature) are unlikely to develop sufficient excess pore water pressures during cyclic loading to reach a condition of zero effective stress, i.e. the point of liquefaction. However, “clay like” soils do develop some excess pore water pressures during cyclic loading which can result in consolidation settlement and a temporary reduction of the shear strength (i.e. softening) of the soils. Sensitive “clay like” soils are in particular susceptible to softening as a result of cyclic loading.

A liquefaction potential assessment has been undertaken for the soils underlying the subject site.

8.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Guidelines for the assessment of the liquefaction potential of soils are provided by the New Zealand Geotechnical Society in the document entitled “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Practice: Module 1- Guideline for the identification, assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards”, dated July 2010.

The July 2010 guideline refers to the methods suggested by “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, dated October 2001. The October 2001 report, among others, refers to papers by Youd et al; Seed; Idriss; Boulanger; Robertson and Bray.

10

Fraser Thomas

The July 2010 guideline suggests a three step process for the liquefaction assessment of sites, being:

(i) Step 1: Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility

(ii) Step 2: Triggering of liquefaction

(iii) Step 3: Consequences of liquefaction

A liquefaction potential assessment of the soils underlying the subject site has been undertaken using the methods suggested by the July 2010 guideline.

8.3 ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY

The following soils are generally considered to be susceptible to liquefaction:

(a) Young (typically Holocene age) alluvial sediments (typically fluvial deposits laiddown in a low energy environment) or man-made fills

(b) Poorly consolidated/compacted sands and sandy silts

(c) Areas with a high groundwater level.

As discussed in Section 3.0 of this report, the geological map for the Aoraki area indicates that the site is likely to be underlain by alluvial sediments of Late Pleistocene to Holocene age.

As discussed in Section 6.0 of this report, the results of the field investigations indicate that the site is generally underlain by a surficial layer of fill which generally comprises medium dense to very dense unsaturated cohesionless soils, which is in turn underlain by dense to very dense sandy gravels (alluvial sediments).

As discussed in Section 6.5 of this report, the groundwater level is inferred to be at a depth ranging between approximately 1.6 m and 3.5 m below the existing ground surface at the time of the investigations reported herein.

Our appraisal of data obtained from machine boreholes located within the vicinity of the subject site indicates that the sandy gravels underlying the site are likely to extend to a depth of at least 15.0 m below the ground surface.

It is understood, that no obvious ejection of silt and sand was observed at the site following any of the damaging earthquakes of the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, which indicates that any significant liquefaction of the soils underlying the site, or in the vicinity of the site, is unlikely to have occurred as a result of the cyclic loading imposed by these earthquakes.

Based on the foregoing, given the nature of the soils underlying the subject site, it is our opinion that the surficial soils underlying the site are unlikely to be susceptible to liquefaction in response to a future large earthquake event and that the risk of any significant liquefaction induced ground deformation occurring at the site in response to a large earthquake event is low.

As a result of our assessment that the majority of the subsoils underlying the site are generally unlikely to be susceptible to liquefaction, Steps 2 and 3 of the liquefaction assessment for the site have not been undertaken, as these steps are not necessary if the soils are considered to generally not be susceptible to liquefaction.

11

Fraser Thomas

9.0 FOUNDATION AND SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 GENERAL


It is understood that the structure will be of steel portal frame construction with precast concrete panel walls. It is understood that the steel portal frame columns will be supported on shallow concrete pad foundations and the concrete panel walls on shallow concrete strip footings.

It is understood that fill earthworks will be undertaken in order to form a suitable level building platform for the construction of the proposed new building and that the fill will be up to approximately 1.7 m deep (beneath the eastern corner of the proposed building footprint). It is understood that fill material will also be placed in order to provide suitable grades for the construction of the proposed carpark area. It is understood that the fill material will be imported to site and will likely comprise “pit-run” material.

The approximate location and extent of the proposed new building is shown on the appended Fraser Thomas Ltd drawing 66060/1.

As discussed in Section 6.2.2 of this report, the site is underlain by fill material. The fill material was generally encountered to depths ranging between approximately 0.4 m and 2.3 m below the existing ground surface. The origin of the fill is not known.

The fill generally comprises sandy silty gravels, sandy gravelly silts and silty gravelly sands intermixed with occasional brick, metal, wood and concrete inclusions. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in the cohesionless fill material beneath the footprint of the proposed building, generally obtained DCP blow counts of between 2 and 12 blows per 50 mm penetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’ values of between approximately 13 and greater than 50, corresponding to a medium dense to very dense consistency.

In situ undrained shear strength values of between approximately 46 kPa and 200 kPa were measured in the cohesive fill material, using hand held shear vane equipment, corresponding to a firm to very stiff consistency.

The origin of the fill is not known. Our assessment of historic aerial photographs for the subject site indicates that the fill was likely placed at some time prior to 1980, which indicates that the fill has been in place for at least 38 years. Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that the material has been subject to some kind of specific placement and compaction, the nature of this placement and compaction, however, is not reliably known. Based on the foregoing and given the unknown origin of the fill material, the fill is inferred to be non-engineered.

12

Fraser Thomas

There is a risk that shallow foundations founded on non-engineered fill could be subject to differential foundation movement. However, based on the results of the site specific investigation and appraisal works presented herein, the risk of shallow foundations supporting the proposed building being subject to differential movement acceptable tolerable limits is considered to be low, for the following reasons:

(1) The fill material generally appears to have been subject to some kind of specificplacement and compaction

(2) The fill generally is generally cohesionless in nature and generally comprises ‘clean fill’material of a medium dense to very dense consistency

(3) Any thin layers of looser material, comprising bricks, wood and gravels, wasgenerally found to be isolated, with no significant lateral extent, i.e. this fill appears tobe in isolated pockets.

(4) The fill has been in place for at least 38 years, which has allowed time forconsolidation/self- settlement of the fill to occur.

(5) The existing buildings at the site, which are inferred to be supported on shallowfoundations founded on or within the fill material, show no obvious signs of anydamage, that could be attributed to any significant differential foundation movement. Inparticular, the existing shed structure, located in the western corner of the footprint ofthe proposed new building, shows no obvious signs of any distortion/displacement ofthe pre-cast concrete walls or any significant cracking of the concrete floor, that couldbe attributed to differential foundation settlement.

Nevertheless, in order to mitigate the risk of the proposed foundation system being subject to differential settlement, as a result of any potential variable settlement of the underlying fill material, the following is recommended:

(a) Prior to placement of any fill material to form the building platform for the proposednew building, and in order to identify any localised surficial ‘soft spots’ in thesubgrade material, it is recommended that Fraser Thomas Ltd be engaged to observeproof rolling of the subgrade material beneath the proposed building footprint. Theproof rolling should be undertaken using either a heavy ride-on smooth rollercompactor or a fully loaded 6-wheel truck.

(b) Prior to the placement of any proposed building platform fill material at the site, it isrecommended that the subgrade be subject to compaction with a heavy rollercompactor.

(c) In order to reduce the bearing pressures imposed on the underlying soils, at the baseof the proposed shallow foundations, it is recommended that:

(i) The concrete pad foundations supporting the proposed steel portal columnsand the pre-cast concrete walls be a nominal 1.4 m by 1.4 m in plan dimension.

(ii) The concrete pad foundations supporting the internal posts associated with thesteel portal frames be a minimum 0.9 m by 0.9 m in plan dimension.

(iii) Any proposed shallow strip foundations be a minimum 0.5 m wide.

13

Fraser Thomas

(d) Following completion of the formation of the building platform, and prior to theconstruction of any building foundations, accurate survey monitoring of the buildingplatform surface should be undertaken, in order to confirm that the fill material placedto form the building platform is not being subject to any significant verticaldisplacement, as a result of settlement of the underlying fill material. It is anticipatedthat the survey monitoring would need to be undertaken for a minimum period of3 weeks following completion of the formation of the building platform.

9.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING TEST PITS

It should be noted that the field investigation reported herein, has resulted in the excavation of test pits in close proximity to, and within the footprint of the proposed new building.

It is our opinion that the compaction achieved for the backfilling of these test pits will be variable and there is a risk that the backfill material within the test pits may be subject to settlement over time, which may result in localised ground deformation in the vicinity of these test pits, which may adversely affect the foundations and floor of the proposed new building.

In order to mitigate the risk of ground deformation in the vicinity of these test pits adversely affecting the foundation system of the proposed new building, it is recommended that Fraser Thomas Ltd be engaged to inspect/test the subgrade of the proposed building footprint prior to the placement of any foundation material.

It is possible, depending on the results of the subgrade inspection/testing that backfill material within the test pits may need to be undercut and the undercut backfilled with well compacted hardfill material.

10.0 ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES

10.1 GENERAL

In this section of the report, ultimate bearing capacity values and strength reduction factors are provided in order to allow calculation of design (dependable) foundation bearing capacities, in accordance with the limit state design methods outlined in AS/NZS 1170: 2002, Structural Design Actions, by applying the appropriate strength reduction factors, as provided in this report, and the factored load combinations required by AS/NZS 1170. Allowable foundation bearing pressures are also provided, based on conventional factors of safety, for cases where unfactored load combinations are being considered.

10.2 SHALLOW PAD OR STRIP FOOTINGS

A minimum ultimate static bearing capacity value for vertical loading of 300 kPa is recommended for shallow foundations founded on the existing fill material or proposed new building platform fill material. It is recommended that a strength reduction factor (Φbc) of 0.5 be adopted for limit state design in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 1170, resulting in a design (dependable) bearing capacity value of 150 kPa.

If unfactored load combinations are to be considered, the allowable foundation bearing pressures presented in Table 1 are recommended for shallow pad or strip footings founded on the existing fill material or proposed new building platform fill material.

14

Fraser Thomas

TABLE 1: ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES FOR SHALLOW PAD OR STRIP FOOTINGS

Load Case Factor of Safety Allowable Bearing

Pressure (kPa)

Dead Load and Permanent Live Load

Dead plus Live plus Transient Load

3.0

2.0

100

150

10.3 SAFE MAXIMUM VALUES

The allowable foundation bearing pressures indicated in Table 1 are, in our opinion, safe maximum values. These values do not, however, take account of settlement considerations or the need to limit the foundation bearing pressures so as to limit the associated settlement. It is recommended that any foundation design be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 9.1 of this report. It is anticipated that the recommendations presented in Section 9.1 of this report, in particular the recommendations relating to the minimum/nominal foundation sizes/widths, will dictate the foundation design (not the allowable bearing pressures provided in Table 1).

11.0 EARTHWORKS CONSIDERATIONS

As discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, it is understood that fill earthworks will be undertaken in order to form a suitable level building platform for the construction of the proposed new building and that the fill will be up to approximately 1.7 m deep (beneath the eastern corner of the proposed building footprint). It is understood that fill material will also be placed in order to provide suitable grades for the construction of the proposed carpark area. It is understood that the fill material will be imported to site and will likely comprise “pit-run” material.

It is recommended that appropriate testing/assessment of any proposed fill to be imported to the site for formation of the proposed building platform, or carpark area, be undertaken so as to determine an appropriate fill specification for the fill material.

It is recommended that the fill material be placed in loose layers no thicker than approximately 150 mm thickness and that the fill be appropriately compacted in layers with an appropriate compactor.

It is also recommended, prior to the placement of any proposed building platform fill material at the site, that the subgrade be subject to compaction with a heavy roller compactor.

It is recommended that Fraser Thomas be engaged to observe any filling operations and to undertake testing so that the adequacy of the fill can be verified.

15

Fraser Thomas

12.0 EXISTING SERVICE LINES

12.1 GENERAL

It is not known if any existing service lines underlie the footprint of the proposed building development. It is expected that any existing service line trenches at the site would have been backfilled by conventionally acceptable means, which did not involve specific compaction. It would therefore be expected that some consolidation settlement of the service trench backfill could occur, which could result in lateral and vertical deformation of the undisturbed ground on each side of the trench backfill. The deformation is caused by the soil wedge behind the side wall of the trench moving downwards and inwards with time, towards the trench backfill as the backfill consolidates. The geometry of the soil wedge defines the theoretical zone of influence of the service trench backfill.

Due to the risk of consolidation settlement of the trench backfill occurring, it is recommended, if any foundations of the proposed building development are located within the zone of influence of any existing service line, that the trench backfill be excavated and replaced with compacted hardfill.

The zone of influence is defined by a theoretical line projecting upwards in both directions from the centreline of the pipeline at the invert level of the pipeline at an angle of 45o to the vertical. The zone of influence is defined by the zone between the intersection point of the theoretical line and the ground surface on each side of the pipeline.

It is recommended that any proposed foundation excavations in the vicinity of the inferred extent of the zone of influence of any existing service line be inspected by Fraser Thomas Ltd to ensure that the foundations are not underlain by any trench backfill which may be associated with any existing service line.

12.2 EXISTING SOAKAGE PIT/CHAMBER

An existing concrete cover/lid is located beneath the northern corner of the proposed building footprint. This lid appears to be covering an existing soakage pit/chamber, inferred to be associated with a previous vehicle wash-down area. The depth and extent of this soakage pit/chamber is not known. The approximate location of the existing concrete cover/lid is shown on drawing 66060/1.

It is recommended that the chamber either be removed/excavated and the excavation be backfilled with well compacted hardfill material or, if the chamber is left in place that the base of the chamber be broken-out (so as to allow free drainage) and the chamber be backfilled with well compacted hardfill material. If the chamber is left in place, it is recommended that the tops of the concrete walls of the chamber be broken-out, down to a depth of approximately 0.5 m below the existing ground surface.

13.0 RETAINING WALLS

As discussed in Section 4.0 of this report, it is understood that fill material placed adjacent to the south-eastern site boundary will be permanently retained by a proposed new retaining wall in this area, up to approximately 0.9 m in vertical height. The approximate location and extent of the proposed new retaining wall is shown on drawing 66060/1.

16

Fraser Thomas

On the basis of the logs of the boreholes put down at the site and our experience with similar soils elsewhere, the following soil parameters are recommended for the design of proposed new concrete block retaining wall at this location:

(a) Effective friction angle of retained soils: 30o

(b) Effective cohesion of retained soils: 0 kPa

(c) Bulk density of soil: 18.0 kN/m3

(d) At rest soil pressure coefficient (Ko)for cases where no lateral soil movementwill be able to occur against rigidretaining wall structures and assumingno slope surchargebehind the wall: 0.79

(e) Undrained shear strength of thesoils within the retaining wallfoundation zone: 80 kPa

The foregoing design parameters are considered to be reasonably conservative, the cohesion value in particular being generally likely to exceed the design value of 0 kPa.

The proposed permanent retaining walls should be provided with an adequate free draining zone to the rear with a suitable drainage outlet, so as to ensure the walls will not be subject to hydrostatic pressure.

It should be noted, depending on the locations of the proposed walls at the site and the finished site profile, that traffic surcharges may be imposed on the proposed retaining walls. It is recommended that any proposed retaining walls at the site be appropriately designed to take account of any surcharges which may be imposed on the retaining walls.

The proposed retaining walls, retaining compacted fill material, should also be appropriately designed to support any temporary “during construction” compactive forces associated with the placement and compaction of any fill material.

It is recommended that Fraser Thomas be engaged to inspect any foundation excavations for any proposed retaining wall, in order to confirm that the foundation excavations are founded in competent soils.

14.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the field investigation works reported herein, and for preliminary pavement design purposes, the alluvial sediment subgrade material should be assumed to have a Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 5%.

It is recommended, following excavation works to prepare the proposed pavement subgrade, and prior to the placement of any pavement material, that Fraser Thomas Ltd be engaged to undertake testing to confirm the CBR value of the subgrade for pavement design purposes.

17

Fraser Thomas

It should be noted that the field investigation reported herein have resulted in the excavation of test pits within the footprints of the proposed carpark areas.

It is our opinion that the compaction achieved for the backfilling of these test pits will be variable and there is a risk that the backfill material within the test pits may be subject to settlement over time, which may result in localised ground deformation in the vicinity of these test pits, which may adversely affect the proposed carpark pavement.

In order to mitigate the risk of ground deformation in the vicinity of these test pits adversely affecting the proposed carpark pavements, it is recommended that Fraser Thomas Ltd be engaged to inspect/test the subgrade of the proposed carpark prior to the placement of any foundation material.

It is likely that proof rolling of the subgrade will be required, in particular in the vicinity of the areas inferred to be underlain by the test pits. It is possible, depending on the results of the subgrade inspection/testing that backfill material within the test pits may need to be undercut and the undercut backfilled with well compacted hardfill material.

15.0 STORMWATER AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL

It is understood that issues relating to stormwater and effluent disposal will be addressed by others.

16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations should be read together and not be taken in isolation.

16.1 CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions based on the field data obtained from the site and as presented in this report, our visual appraisal of the site, our study of the geological maps relating to the area and our professional judgement and opinions, are as follows:

(a) In general terms and within the limits of the investigation as outlined and reportedherein, except for the issues associated with the existing non-engineered fill, no unusualproblems are anticipated with the proposed building development at the site, along thegeneral lines of that shown on Fraser Thomas drawing 66060/1.

The site is, in general, considered suitable for its intended use, with satisfactoryconditions for the proposed building development sited at the location shown onappended drawing 66060/1, subject to the recommendations and qualificationscontained herein, provided the design and inspection of foundations are carried out aswould be done under normal circumstances in accordance with the requirements of therelevant New Zealand Standard Codes of Practice.

In arriving at this conclusion and expressing this opinion, reliance has been based on thevarious topographical data as discussed herein and on subsoil information which hasonly been obtained at the locations and within the depths of the test pits reportedherein. It has been assumed that this subsoil information can be projected between the

18

Fraser Thomas

various investigation test positions. Even though such inference is made and forms the basis of the conclusions and opinions expressed herein, no guarantee can be given as to the validity of this inference or of the nature and continuity of the subsoils underlying the proposed building development.

(b) The site is underlain by fill material. The fill material was generally encountered todepths ranging between approximately 0.4 m and 2.3 m below the existing groundsurface. The origin of the fill is not known.

The fill generally comprises sandy silty gravels, sandy gravelly silts and silty gravellysands intermixed with occasional brick, metal, wood and concrete inclusions. Thematerial appears to have been subject to some specific placement and compaction.Generally the walls of the test pits remained stable, i.e. no frittering or sloughing of theside walls occurred during the investigations. Some isolated thin layers of loosermaterial, comprising bricks, wood and gravels, was encountered at the locations of sometest pits, but this material was generally found to be isolated, with no significant lateralextent, i.e. this fill appears to be in isolated pockets.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in the cohesionless fillmaterial beneath the footprint of the proposed building, generally obtained DCP blowcounts of between 2 and 12 blows per 50 mm penetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’values of between approximately 13 and greater than 50, corresponding to a mediumdense to very dense consistency.

(c) The origin of the fill is not known. Our assessment of historic aerial photographs for thesubject site indicates that the fill was likely placed at some time prior to 1980, whichindicates that the fill has been in place for at least 38 years. Based on the results of ourinvestigation, it appears that the material has been subject to some kind of specificplacement and compaction, the nature of this placement and compaction, however, isnot reliably known. Based on the foregoing and given the unknown origin of the fillmaterial, the fill is inferred to be non-engineered.

(d) Soils generally comprising sandy gravels, inferred to be alluvial sediments of Holoceneage, were generally encountered beneath the surficial soils, at depths ranging betweenapproximately 0.4 m and 3.2 m below the existing ground surface. These sandy gravelswere encountered to the extent of the test pits, i.e. to depths of between approximately1.6 m and 3.5 m below the existing ground surface. The vertical extent of the sandygravels was not determined during the test pit investigation reported herein.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) scala tests undertaken in the sandy gravels generallyobtained DCP blow counts of between 5 and greater than 10 blows per 50 mmpenetration, corresponding to SPT ‘N’ values of between approximately 30 and greaterthan 50, corresponding to a dense to very dense consistency.

(e) Based on the results of the field investigations undertaken at the site, the groundwaterlevel is inferred to be at a depth ranging between approximately 1.6 m and 3.5 m belowthe existing ground surface.

(f) Although detailed slope stability analyses have not been undertaken for the moderatesloping bank abutting the south-western site boundary, given the bank profile and thenature of the material inferred to comprise the bank material, i.e. medium dense to verydense unsaturated cohesionless soils, it is our opinion unlikely that the bank, in itspresent state, will be subject to any significant deep seated failure in the future.

19

Fraser Thomas

Furthermore, given the horizontal distance from the crest of the bank to the south-western edge of the proposed building footprint, it is unlikely, in our opinion, that shallow foundations supporting the proposed new building, sited at the location shown on drawing 66060/1, will be adversely affected by any ground movement associated with any deep or shallow seated slope instability at the site.

(g) Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon that occurs when soils are subject to asudden loss in shear stiffness and strength associated with a reduction in effective stressdue to cyclic loading (i.e. ground shaking associated with an earthquake).

(h) Given the nature of the soils underlying the subject site, it is our opinion that thesurficial soils underlying the site are unlikely to be susceptible to liquefaction in responseto a future large earthquake event and that the risk of any significant liquefactioninduced ground deformation occurring at the site in response to a large earthquakeevent is low.

(i) There is a risk that shallow foundations founded on non-engineered fill could be subjectto differential foundation movement. However, based on the results of the site specificinvestigation and appraisal works presented herein, the risk of shallow foundationssupporting the proposed building being subject to differential movement acceptabletolerable limits is considered to be low, for the following reasons:

(1) The fill material generally appears to have been subject to some kind of specificplacement and compaction

(2) The fill generally is generally cohesionless in nature and generally comprises‘clean fill’ material of a medium dense to very dense consistency

(3) Any thin layers of looser material, comprising bricks, wood and gravels, wasgenerally found to be isolated, with no significant lateral extent, i.e. this fillappears to be in isolated pockets.

(4) The fill has been in place for at least 38 years, which has allowed time forconsolidation/self- settlement of the fill to occur.

(5) The existing buildings at the site, which are inferred to be supported on shallowfoundations founded on or within the fill material, show no obvious signs of anydamage, that could be attributed to any significant differential foundationmovement. In particular, the existing shed structure, located in the westerncorner of the footprint of the proposed new building, shows no obvious signs ofany distortion/displacement of the pre-cast concrete walls or any significantcracking of the concrete floor, that could be attributed to differential foundationsettlement.

20

Fraser Thomas

16.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Our recommendations based on the field data obtained from the site and as presented in this report, our visual appraisal of the site, our study of the geological maps relating to the area and our professional judgement and opinions, are as follows:

(a) In order to mitigate the risk of the proposed foundation system being subject todifferential settlement, as a result of any potential variable settlement of the underlyingfill material, the following is recommended:

(1) Prior to placement of any fill material to form the building platform for theproposed new building, and in order to identify any localised surficial ‘soft spots’in the subgrade material, it is recommended that Fraser Thomas Ltd be engagedto observe proof rolling of the subgrade material beneath the proposed buildingfootprint. The proof rolling should be undertaken using either a heavy ride-onsmooth roller compactor or a fully loaded 6-wheel truck.

(2) Prior to the placement of any proposed building platform fill material at the site,it is recommended that the subgrade be subject to compaction with a heavyroller compactor.

(3) In order to reduce the bearing pressures imposed on the underlying soils, at thebase of the proposed shallow foundations, it is recommended that:

(i) The concrete pad foundations supporting the proposed steel portalcolumns and the pre-cast concrete walls be a nominal 1.4 m by 1.4 m inplan dimension.

(ii) The concrete pad foundations supporting the internal posts associatedwith the steel portal frames be a minimum 0.9 m by 0.9 m in plandimension.

(iii) Any proposed shallow strip foundations be a minimum 0.5 m wide.

(b) Following completion of the formation of the building platform, and prior to theconstruction of any building foundations, accurate survey monitoring of the buildingplatform surface should be undertaken, in order to confirm that the fill material placedto form the building platform is not being subject to any significant verticaldisplacement, as a result of settlement of the underlying fill material. It is anticipatedthat the survey monitoring would need to be undertaken for a minimum period of3 weeks following completion of the formation of the building platform.

(c) In order to mitigate the risk of ground deformation in the vicinity of these test pitsadversely affecting the foundation system of the proposed new building, it isrecommended that Fraser Thomas Ltd be engaged to inspect/test the subgrade of theproposed building footprint prior to the placement of any foundation material.

It is possible, depending on the results of the subgrade inspection/testing that backfillmaterial within the test pits may need to be undercut and the undercut backfilled withwell compacted hardfill material.

21

Fraser Thomas

(d) That appropriate testing/assessment of any proposed fill to be imported to the site forformation of the proposed building platform, or carpark area, be undertaken so as todetermine an appropriate fill specification for the fill material.

(e) That the fill material be placed in loose layers no thicker than approximately 150 mmthickness and that the fill be appropriately compacted in layers with an appropriatecompactor. It is also recommended, prior to the placement of any proposed buildingplatform fill material at the site, that the subgrade be subject to compaction with aheavy roller compactor.

(f) That Fraser Thomas be engaged to observe any filling operations and to undertaketesting so that the adequacy of the fill can be verified.

(g) It is recommended, if any foundations of the proposed building development are locatedwithin the zone of influence of any existing service line, that the trench backfill beexcavated and replaced with compacted hardfill.

The zone of influence is defined by a theoretical line projecting upwards in bothdirections from the centreline of the pipeline at the invert level of the pipeline at anangle of 45o to the vertical. The zone of influence is defined by the zone between theintersection point of the theoretical line and the ground surface on each side of thepipeline.

It is recommended that any proposed foundation excavations in the vicinity of theinferred extent of the zone of influence of any existing service line be inspected byFraser Thomas Ltd to ensure that the foundations are not underlain by any trenchbackfill which may be associated with any existing service line.

(h) It is recommended that the existing soakage pit/chamber located beneath the northerncorner of the proposed building footprint, either be removed/excavated and theexcavation be backfilled with well compacted hardfill material or, if the chamber is left inplace that the base of the chamber be broken-out (so as to allow free drainage) and thechamber be backfilled with well compacted hardfill material. If the chamber is left inplace, it is recommended that the tops of the concrete walls of the chamber be broken-out, down to a depth of approximately 0.5 m below the existing ground surface.

(i) That the proposed retaining wall, located along the south-eastern site boundary, bedesigned in accordance with the soil parameters and recommendations presented inSection 13.0 of this report.

(j) It is recommended, following excavation works to prepare the proposed pavementsubgrade, and prior to the placement of any pavement material, that Fraser Thomas Ltdbe engaged to undertake testing to confirm the CBR value of the subgrade for pavementdesign purposes.

(k) In order to mitigate the risk of ground deformation in the vicinity of these test pitsadversely affecting the proposed carpark pavements, it is recommended that FraserThomas Ltd be engaged to inspect/test the subgrade of the proposed carpark prior tothe placement of any foundation material.

It is likely that proof rolling of the subgrade will be required, in particular in the vicinityof the areas inferred to be underlain by the test pits. It is possible, depending on the

22

Fraser Thomas

results of the subgrade inspection/testing that backfill material within the test pits may need to be undercut and the undercut backfilled with well compacted hardfill material.

17.0 LIMITATION

The professional opinion expressed herein has been prepared solely for, and is furnished to the Ashburton District Council and our client, River Crossing Ltd, for their purposes only with respect to the particular brief given to us, on the express condition that it will not be relied upon by any other person or for any other purposes without our prior written agreement.

No liability is accepted by this firm or by any principal, or director, or any servant or agent of this firm, in respect of its use by any other person, and any other person who relies upon any matter contained in this report does so entirely at its own risk. This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that this report may be made available to any person by any person in connection with any application for permission or approval, or pursuant to any requirement of law.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the circumstances at the subject site change with respect to topography or the proposed development concept, or if a period of more than three years has elapsed since the date of this report, this report should not be used without our prior review and written agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions and recommendations, any proposed building development should be designed to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Building Code, and so as to ensure compliance with the Building Act.

The conclusions and recommendations expressed herein should be read in conjunction with the remainder of this Geotechnical Investigation Report and should not be referred to out of context with the remainder of this report.

Report prepared by: Report reviewed and approved by: FRASER THOMAS LTD

S P GLADWIN M V REED Engineering Geologist Director

Chartered Professional Engineer J:\66 series\66060_South Street Ashburton\RIVER South Street REP 180618 SG.doc

9

99

9

.....

... ...

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

RESOURCE MANAGERS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

SURVEYORS & PLANNERS

Fraser

BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS SYMBOLS AND TERMS(Based on New Zealand Geotechnical Society “Field Description of Soil and Rock,

Guideline for the Field Classification and Description of Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes" December 2005)

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Symbol Description

Clay

Bulk disturbed(arrows denote depth interval)

Small disturbed

"Undisturbed" tube

Block

Standard Penetration Test

Silt

Fill

Sand

Gravel

Boulders and Cobbles

Organic Material

Limestone

Mudstone

Sandstone

Conglomerate

Breccia

Volcanic Rock

Fossiliferous

Notes1. Composite soil types are signified by combined symbols

RLEOBXUTP

SPTN35/90

(s)

GWL

WWWRQDSG% FPSDCONSCOMPUCSkLSOC

f

P

L

Symbol Description

SAMPLE TYPES

SOIL STRENGTH

STRENGTH

WEATHERING SPACING OF DISCONTINUITIES

Description

Description Spacing (mm)

Unconfined CompressiveStrength (MPa)

(a) Cohesive Description

Very softSoftFirmStiffVery stiffHard

Extremely weakVery weakWeakModerately strongStrongVery strongExtremely strong

UWSWMWHWCW

unweatheredslightly weatheredmoderately weatheredhighly weatheredcompletely weathered

Very widely spacedWidely spacedModerately widely spacedClosely spacedVery closely spacedExtremely closely spaced

<11 to 55 to 2020 to 5050 to 100100 to 250>250

>2000600 to 2000200 to 60060 to 20020 to 60<20

less than 1010 to 2525 to 5050 to 100100 to 200>200

0 to 44 to 1010 to 3030 to 50>50

Very looseLooseMedium denseDenseVery dense

(b) Non-cohesive Description

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

SPT "N" Value

ROCK

Reduced levelEnd of boreholeShear vane test resultUnable to penetratePocket penetrometer test resultStandard Penetration TestSPT blows per 300mm penetration35 blows per 90mm penetrationafter seating for SPTInclusive of seating blow count for SPTRecorded water levelGroundwater level

Field water contentPlastic limit (%)Liquid limit (%)Rock quality designationSpecific gravityPercentage fines (<75 micron)Particle size distributionConsolidation testCompaction testUnconfined compressive strengthPermeability coefficient (m/s)Linear shrinkage (%)Organic content (%)

X

~ ~~~~ ~

.

v

v

v

v v

v

v

v

v v

9

9

9

9

9

9SHELLS

VOLCANIC

(Koala Font - 8pt - normal )

(transform/rotate & skew (-75)

Edit, duplicate to get moresymbols - after selecting symbol

Thomas

SILT, clayey, cream streaked orange, slightlyplastic, very stiff

TP1

09/10/2017 S.Gladwin

16 T EXCAVATOR

Groundwater encountered at 3.4 m on 09/10/17

~

1

SAND Clayey SAND Silty SANDSAND, silty, clayey

CLAYCLAY, silty CLAY, silty, sandy CLAY, sandy

SILT SILT, sandy SILT, clayey SILT, sandy, clayey

GRAVEL SILT, sandy, clayey, contains gravels

CLAY, siltycontains gravels

CLAY, silty, sandycontains gravels

TOPSOIL

~

ORGANIC MATERIAL GRAVEL, sandy FILL

SAND, gravelly GRAVEL, silty, sandy

EOTP @ 3.4 m - TARGET DEPTH

RIVER CROSSING LTDCORNER CASS AND SOUTH STREETASHBURTON66060

Refuse material comprising plastic bottles,plastic bags, brick, cloth, wood, pottery, gravels,topsoil, in a silt matrix. Test pit walls not collapsing [LANDFILL MATERIAL]

CLAY, silty, gravelly (fine to medium), dark grey, moist [FILL-CAPPING LAYER]

refuse material comprising timber, bricks, corrugated iron, branches, gravels, in a siltmatrix

water entering test pit

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine), silty, grey, very dense, moist [HARDFILL]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, light brown, very dense, moist, dense, carbonaceous material, brick fragments, wood planks. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine), grey, stif to very stiff, moist, low plasticity, brick fragments, concrete,

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, very dense, moist [RIVER ALLUVIUM]


TEST PIT LOG

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:

GROUNDWATER DATA AND REMARKS:

PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS

Vane readings corrected as perBS 1377

SHEAR(kPa)

E N

Date Drilled Logged by Checked

W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE

X Shear Vane Residual Shear Vane

TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP2


16 T EXCAVATOR

Groundwater not encountered on 09/10/17

~

1







TOPSOIL

~




GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, light brown, dense to very dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse), cobbly, sandy (fine), grey, moist, concrete, metal shards [FILL]


GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, brownish grey, dense to very dense, moist, bricks, reinforced concrete, metal shards [FILL]



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP3


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~




GRAVEL (fine to coarse), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, light brown, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

SILT, sandy (fine), clayey, light brown, stiff to very stiff, moist, low plasticity [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, very dense, moist

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, brownish grey, dense to very dense, moist, bricks, concrete, metal shards.



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP4


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~




SAND (fine to medium), silty, yellowish brown, medium dense, moist [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, silty, clayey, grey, dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing



GRAVEL (fine to coarse), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, brownish grey, moist, bricks, reinforced concrete, metal shards. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

Concrete, bricks, oil drum lid, steel wire, wood. Part of test pit wall becoming looserwithin this material.

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, medium dense, moist, plant remains[RIVER ALLUVIUM]

SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), clayey, grey, very stiff, moist, low plasticity

x


TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP5


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~


SAND, gravelly GRAVEL, silty, sandy EOTP @ 2.7 m - TARGET DEPTH

GRAVEL (fine to coarse), cobbly, silty, clayey, grey, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]




Concrete, bricks, oil drum lid, steel wire, wood. Test pit wall becoming looser.

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, moist, plant remains [RIVER ALLUVIUM]

SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), brown, very stiff, moist, low plasticity, bricks, asphalt, black staining. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

x

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, brown, very dense, dry [HARDFILL]

SILT, sandy (fine to medium), grey, very stiff, moist, low plasticity, black staining


TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP6


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~






GRAVEL (fine to coarse), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, very dense, moist


Logs and plant material. Test pit walls becoming looser.

SAND (fine to medium), gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, silty, brown, medium dense to dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), brown, moist, bricks, asphalt, black staining. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine), silty, brown, very dense, moist [HARDFILL]

SILT, sandy (fine to medium), grey, low plasticity, stiff to very stiff, moist low plasticity [RIVER ALLUVIUM]


TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP7


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~








Concrete, bricks, oil drum lid, steel wire, wood. Test pit wall becoming looser.

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, moist, plant remains [RIVER ALLUVIUM]

SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), blackish grey, very stiff, moist, low plasticity, bricks [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to medium), silty, brown, very dense, dry [HARDFILL]

SILT, sandy (fine to medium), brownish grey, very stiff, moist, low plasticity


GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), sandy (fine to medium), silty, brown, dense to very dense, dry, bricks, steel rope and metal shards. Test pit walls not collapsing

TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP8


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~







SAND (fine to medium), gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), silty, brown, medium dense, dry. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]


x

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, medium dense, moist, plant remains[RIVER ALLUVIUM]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), brown, medium dense to dense, dry, bricks, concrete, asphalt.



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP9


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~







loose


x

SAND (fine to medium), gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), silty, brown, medium dense, moist, bricks, wood, steel pipes, metal cans

SILT, gravelly (fine to medium), sandy (fine to coarse), grey, very stiff, moist, low plasticity. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), silty, brown, very dense, moist



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP10


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~








loose


x

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, medium dense, moist, plant material[RIVER ALLUVIUM]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), silty, grey, medium dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, very dense, moist



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP11


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~






GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, dense to very dense, moist


loose


x

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, moist, roots [RIVER ALLUVIUM]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), silty, grey, loose to dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, moist [HARDFILL]

SILT, sandy (fine to medium), brown, low plasticity, very stiff, moist, low plasticity [FILL]SAND (fine to medium), silty, light brown, medium dense, moist [RIVER ALLUVIUM]



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP12


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~








loose

SAND (fine to medium), silty, light brown, dense, dry. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

x




SILT, sandy (fine to medium), brown, low plasticity, very stiff, moist [RIVER ALLUVIUM]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), light brown, dense, moist



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP13


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~






GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrouned), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, very dense, moist

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to medium), silty, brown, very dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

loose


x





SAND (fine to medium), silty, light brown, dry, loose [FILL]



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP14


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~






GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brown, medium dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

loose


x






SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse), sandy (fine to coarse), dark grey, stiff, moist, low plasticity, oily odour, brick, wood, reinforced concrete, oil drum remainsSAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, loose, moist, plant remains [RIVER ALLUVIUM]GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, dense to very dense, moist



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP15


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~






GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, medium dense to dense, moist. Test pit walls collapsing [RIVER ALLUVIUM]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brown, loose, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

loose


x






SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, stiff to very stiff, moist, low plasticity [FILL]

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, moist, loose, roots [RIVER ALLUVIUM]



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP16


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~





SILT, gravelly (fine to medium), sandy (fine to coarse), dary grey, firm to stiff, moist, low plasticity [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, very dense, saturated [RIVER ALLUVIUM]


loose







SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, moist


GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), silty, brown, medium dense to dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing

Brick, metal, glass and plastic

x

x

x



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP17


16 T EXCAVATOR

Groundwater encountered below 1.8 m on10/10/17. Test pit walls collapsed before measurement could be taken

~

1







TOPSOIL

~






GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, medium dense to dense, moist. [RIVER ALLUVIUM]


loose


x






SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, moist low plasticity [FILL]




GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, medium dense to dense, dry. Test pit walls not collapsing

TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP18


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~





SILT, gravelly (fine to medium), sandy (fine to coarse), dark grey, low plasticity, moist, oily odour, bricks [FILL]

GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), brownish grey, medium dense to very dense, moist.[RIVER ALLUVIUM]


loose


x






SILT, gravelly (fine to coarse), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, moist


GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), silty, brown, very dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing

Brick, metal, glass and plastic



TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP19


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~








loose


x

SAND (fine to medium), silty, grey, medium dense, moist, plant remains[RIVER ALLUVIUM]

SILT, gravelly (medium to coarse, subrounded), dark brownish grey, stiff to very stiff, moist, low plasticity, brick fragments, oily odour


GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine), silty, grey, very dense, moist [HARDFILL]GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), silty, brown, very dense, moist, brick fragments. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

>200

xMetal shards, wood

TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP20


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~







loose


x


SILT, gravelly (medium to coarse, subrounded), dark brownish grey, stiff to very stiff, moist,low plasticity, concrete, bricks, oily odour



>200

x

Steel wire, copper pipe, wood


TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP21


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~







loose


x


SILT, gravelly (medium to coarse, subrounded), sandy (fine to coarse), brown, very stiff, moist, low plasticity, bricks, tree stumps



>200

x

GRAVEL (medium to coarse, subrounded), trace cobbles, trace sand (fine to coarse), brown, medium dense, moist


TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1



TP22


16 T EXCAVATOR


~

1







TOPSOIL

~







loose


x

SAND (fine to medium), silty, brown, medium dense, moist [RIVER ALLUVIUM]

SILT, sandy (fine), brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity


GRAVEL (fine to medium, subrounded), sandy (fine), silty, grey, medium dense, moist [HARDFILL]GRAVEL (fine to coarse, subrounded), cobbly, sandy (fine to coarse), silty, brown, medium dense, moist. Test pit walls not collapsing [FILL]

>200

x


TEST PIT LOG


DE

PT

H (

m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

PROJECT

TEST PIT PROFILE:

DISTANCE (m)

DE

PT

H (

m)

EXCAVATION METHOD:


PROJECT NO.

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.

PROJECT1 27000 TEXT

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1

UNIFORM PROFILE


TEST PIT LOG


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAM

PLE

TYPE

SHEET OF

CO-ORDINATES

GROUND LEVEL DATUM

UNDRAINEDSTRENGTH

WATER CONTENT(%)

WAT

ER

CO

NT

EN

T (%

)

TESTING

AND

COMMENTS


SHEAR(kPa)

E N


W W Wp f l

X l

50 100

150

200

20 40 60 80

TEST PIT NO.1


DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST

TEST METHOD : NZS 4402 : 1988, TEST 6.5.2. PROJECT NAME: RIVER CROSSING LTD CORNER CASS STREET AND SOUTH STREET

ASBURTON

PROJECT No.: 66060

Sheet 1 Of 5

Date tested: 09/10/2017

Tested by: Checked by:

S.GLADWIN

TABLE OF BLOWS PER PENETRATION INCREMENT Test No. TP1 TP1 TP1 TP4 TP4 TP5 TP5 TP6 TP6

Start Depth (mbgl) 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 50mm 11 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2

100 12 2 2 11 1 2 7 1 150 9 2 2 6 1 2 1 9 2 200 10 2 2 6 1 1 1 7 2 250 8 4 2 5 2 1 1 8 1 300 7 3 2 9 3 1 1 10 2 350 3 4 1 20 2 2 6 1 400 3 3 2 UTP 1 1 1 4 1 450 3 2 3 1 2 2 4 1 500 2 2 10 2 1 3 4 1 550 3 2 UTP 3 1 3 4 2 600 3 2 2 2 6 4 1 650 2 2 1 2 10 2 1 700 3 3 3 2 UTP 3 1 750 2 2 2 2 2 1 800 2 2 1 2 2 4 850 2 3 2 3 2 2 900 3 9 3 2 2 950

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

Remarks: mbgl metres below ground level R Refusal UTP Unable to penetrate

J:\66 series\66060_South Street Ashburton\RIVER South Street DCP 171020 SG.docx.doc


TEST METHOD : NZS 4402 : 1988, TEST 6.5.2. PROJECT NAME: RIVER CROSSING LIMITED CORNER CASS AND SOUTH STREET

ASBURTON

PROJECT No.: 66060

Sheet 2 Of 5



S.GLADWIN

TABLE OF BLOWS PER PENETRATION INCREMENT Test No. TP8 TP8 TP9 TP9 TP10 TP10 TP11 TP11 TP12 TP12

Start Depth (mbgl) 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.0 50mm 2 1 3 3 5 1 1 2 1 UTP

100 3 3 3 3 6 1 1 3 5 150 7 3 3 3 5 2 2 4 7 200 7 3 2 2 6 1 2 4 9 250 5 5 2 2 5 2 2 6 7 300 7 10 5 5 3 3 2 6 7 350 3 5 7 7 3 5 2 7 4 400 4 4 5 5 3 2 UTP UTP 6 450 5 3 UTP UTP 2 2 10 500 7 3 2 2 6 550 10 3 3 1 UTP 600 UTP 2 5 1 650 2 3 2 700 8 2 1 750 10 3 2 800 10 3 8 850 UTP 2 8 900 1 950

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000





ASBURTON

PROJECT No.: 66060

Sheet 3 Of 5



S.GLADWIN

TABLE OF BLOWS PER PENETRATION INCREMENT Test No. TP13 TP13 TP14 TP14 TP15 TP15 TP16 TP16 TP18 TP18

Start Depth (mbgl) 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.5

1.0 0.6 1.0 0.7 1.1 50mm 3 UTP 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3

100 UTP 2 1 2 5 1 5 UTP 150 2 1 3 5 1 5 200 3 1 2 5 1 4 250 3 1 1 3 3 1 5 300 4 1 UTP 6 1 2 UTP 350 2 1 9 1 2 400 1 4 10 3 450 3 10 UTP 1 8 500 3 10 1 4 550 3 6 1 10 600 6 5 2 UTP 650 5 10 1 700 4 UTP 1 750 3 1 800 2 1 850 3 1 900 3 950

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000





ASBURTON

PROJECT No.: 66060

Sheet 4 Of 5



S.GLADWIN

TABLE OF BLOWS PER PENETRATION INCREMENT Test No. TP19 TP19 TP20 TP21 TP21 TP22 TP22 DCP1 DCP2 DCP3

Start Depth (mbgl) 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 50mm 14 1 5 3 1 1 1 16

7 4 100 25+ 3 6 12 3 25+ 7 7 150 2 7 14 2 10 15 200 3 7 12 1 4 1 7 20 250 1 4 12 1 3 8 5 23 300 1 3 16 4 8 5 22 350 2 3 3 3 25+ 5 25+ 400 1 4 3 1 2 6 450 1 6 3 1 3 5 500 1 3 3 1 2 7 550 2 4 5 1 1 13 600 2 3 3 1 2 7 650 2 6 3 2 1 7 700 1 6 2 1 1 8 750 1 4 1 1 1 8 800 2 3 1 1 1 10 850 9 4 3 3 1 11 900 13 3 3 7 2 11 950 9

1000 6 1050 6 1100 9 1150 9 1200 11 1250 12 1300 15 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000




TEST METHOD : NZS 4402 : 1988, TEST 6.5.2. PROJECT NAME: RIVER CROSSING LIMITED

CORNER CASS AND SOUTH STREET ASBURTON

PROJECT No.: 66060

Sheet 5 Of 5



S.GLADWIN

TABLE OF BLOWS PER PENETRATION INCREMENT Test No. DCP4 DCP5 DCP6 DCP7

Start Depth (mbgl) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 50mm 4 10

2 5 100 6 25+ 5 7 150 7 7 9 200 3 4 12 250 5 7 8 300 4 18 4 350 4 12 2 400 10 25+ 3 450 6 1 500 10 2 550 7 1 600 7 1 650 5 1 700 17 1 750 15 800 7 1 850 7

1 900 1 950

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000



#37

#35

#2

#10

Lot 2

DP 501126

Section 409

TN OF Ashburton

Section 388

TN OF Ashburton

Section 389

C

a

s

s

S

t

r

e

e

t

S

o

u

t

h

S

t

r

e

e

t

PROPOSED

BUILDING

COUNTDOWN

SITE

PROPOSED

PARKING

B

A

Shed

A

B

The copyright of this design and drawing is vested in FraserThomas Ltd, unless otherwise indicated.

SHEET ............. of .............

DRAWING No

SCALE

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

REVISION

(A3)

NOTES

REVISION CHANGES

SURVEYED

DESIGNED

CAD

CHECKED

DRAWN

CHECKED DATE

APPROVED DATE

Thomas

Fraser

ENGINEERS RESOURCE MANAGERS SURVEYORS21 EL KOBAR DRIVE, HIGHBROOKPO BOX 204006, HIGHBROOK BOXLOBBY, AUCKLAND 2161TEL+64-9-278 7078

UNIT 7 BARRY HOGAN PLACE, RICCARTIONPO BOX 39 154, CHRISTCHURCH 8545TEL+64-3-358 5936

RIVER CROSSING LTD

CORNER CASS STREET

AND SOUTH STREET

ASHBURTON

SITE PLAN

1:750

66060/1

1 1

B

SG 29/06/18

G SINGH 29/06/18

G SINGH 29/06/18

MVR 19/07/19

MVR

JULY 2019

A Initial Building Footprint MVR JULY 18

B Revised Building Footprint MVR JULY 19

1 This plan is adopted from Quick Map.

The locations of the site boundaries and

site features are therefore considered to

be approximate only.

DCP5

Approximate location and number of

machine excavated test pit.

TP1

Legend

TP1/

DCP1

TP4

TP2

TP8

TP3/

DCP2

TP6

TP7

TP21

TP5/

DCP3

T22

TP14/

DCP4

TP20

TP9

TP19

TP10

TP17

TP11

TP12/

DCP6

TP15

TP16/

DCP7

TP18

TP13


Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests.

DCP1

Approximate location of existing buildings at the site

Approximate location and extent of existing fenceline

Approximate location and extent of the crest of the

existing moderate sloping bank

Approximate location of existing chamber cover/lid,

and associated concrete lined shallow channel

Approximate location and extent of proposed

retaining wall

CROSS SECTION A-A

Scale 1:150

(EXISTING FILL - NON ENGINEERED)

(SANDY GRAVELS - ALLUVIAL SEDIMENTS)

TP4

12

m o

ffse

t

so

uth

-e

ast

A

A

CROSS SECTION B-B

Scale 1:150

TP2

B

B

Site

b

ou

nd

ary

Site

b

ou

nd

ary

Existing ground Surface

Existing ground Surface

Approximate inferred

level of proposed fill

Proposed new building footprint

Proposed new building footprint

Approximate inferred

level of proposed fill

TP8

9m

o

ffse

t

so

uth

-e

ast

(EXISTING FILL - NON ENGINEERED)

(SANDY GRAVELS - ALLUVIAL SEDIMENTS)

TP1

4m

o

ffse

t

so

uth

-e

ast

26°

15°

The copyright of this design and drawing is vested in FraserThomas Ltd, unless otherwise indicated.

SHEET ............. of .............

DRAWING No

SCALE

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

REVISION

(A3)

NOTES

REVISION CHANGES

SURVEYED

DESIGNED

CAD

CHECKED

DRAWN

CHECKED DATE

APPROVED DATE

Thomas

Fraser

ENGINEERS RESOURCE MANAGERS SURVEYORS21 EL KOBAR DRIVE, HIGHBROOKPO BOX 204006, HIGHBROOK BOXLOBBY, AUCKLAND 2161TEL+64-9-278 7078

UNIT 7 BARRY HOGAN PLACE, RICCARTIONPO BOX 39 154, CHRISTCHURCH 8545TEL+64-3-358 5936

RIVER CROSSING LTD

CORNER CASS STREET

AND SOUTH STREET

ASHBURTON

CROSS SECTION PROFILES

1:150

66060/2

1 1

B

SG 09/07/18

G SINGH 09/07/18

G SINGH 09/07/18

MVR 19/07/19

MVR

JULY 2019

A Initial Building Footprint MVR JULY 18

B Revised Building Footprint MVR JULY 19

1 The existing ground profiles shown on

these cross-sections have been adopted

from site specific topographical survey

results.

Legend

Sandy Gravels

Existing Fill


machine excavated test pit.

TP4

Proposed Fill

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT · A visual appraisal of the site and a study of geological maps have also been undertaken. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation reported