June 2010

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Stage 2 Student Learning

Centre Development,
Curtin University of
Technology, Bentley

REPORT

Submitted to:
BG&E Pty Ltd
484 Murray St
PERTH WA 6000

Report Number.

097642481-002-R-Rev0

Distribution:
2 Copies - BG&E Pty Ltd (+ 1 Electronic)
2 Copies - Golder Associates Pty Ltd

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
3.0 FIELDWORK PROGRAMME .................................................................................................................................... 1
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 2
4.1

Regional Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 2

4.2

Subsurface Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 2

4.3

Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 3

5.0 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

5.1

Site Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 3

5.2

Foundation System ....................................................................................................................................... 3

5.3

Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................ 4

5.3.1

Compaction ............................................................................................................................................. 5

5.3.2

Approved Fill ........................................................................................................................................... 5

5.4

Excavations .................................................................................................................................................. 5

5.5

Earth Retaining Structures ............................................................................................................................ 5

5.6

Earthquake Site Sub-Soil Class .................................................................................................................... 6

5.7

Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 6

5.8

Stormwater Disposal..................................................................................................................................... 6

5.9

Pavements and Floor Slabs .......................................................................................................................... 6

6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

TABLES
Table 1: Pad Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement .................................................. 3
Table 2: Strip Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement ................................................. 4
Table 3: Earth Retaining Structure Design Parameters ...................................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Field Permeability .................................................................................................................................................. 6

FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Plan
Figure 2: Site Plan

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Cone Penetration Test Results
APPENDIX B
Perth Sand Penetrometer Test Results
APPENDIX C
Hand Auger Borehole Reports
APPENDIX D
Limitations

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

ii

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This letter presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Stage 2 Student Learning
Centre at the Curtin University of Technology, Bentley Campus. The work was authorised in an email from
Mr Simon Jewell of BG&E Pty Ltd dated 7 December 2009.
The proposed site for the development is located adjacent to Mechanical Engineering Building 205 at
Curtin University. The location of the development is shown on Figure 1 Location Plan. At the time of
investigation, the site was occupied by garden bed areas, trees and paved footpaths. A supplied survey plan
of the site shows the existing ground levels range between approximately RL 9.5 m and RL 10.5 m AHD.
At the time of investigation, a number of alternative arrangements for the development were under
consideration. Updated information on the proposed development was provided by Mr Simon Jewell of
BG&E Pty Ltd in an email dated 2 June 2010. Based on this information, it is now understood that the
2
proposed development includes a four level building which will cover an area of approximately 960 m . It is
also understood that the proposed development does not include any basement levels.

2.0

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the investigation were to:

assess subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the significant foundation support zone
across the proposed building area, including likely seasonal variation in groundwater levels;

provide recommendations on suitable footing systems for the proposed development;

provide allowable bearing pressure and settlement estimates for shallow footings;

provide recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for earth retaining structures;

provide a site classification(s) in accordance with AS 2870 Residential Slabs and Footings;

provide a site subsoil classification in accordance with AS 1170.4 2007 Earthquake actions in
Australia;

provide a qualitative assessment on the suitability for soak wells for the disposal of stormwater, plus the
completion of infiltration tests on the site;

provide recommendations on geotechnical site preparation requirements, including fill placement and
compaction;

provide a subgrade design CBR value for pavement and/or floor slab design; and

provide recommendations for excavated slope profiles (temporary and permanent).

3.0 FIELDWORK PROGRAMME
The fieldwork was conducted on 14 January 2010 and comprised the following:

cone penetration testing (CPT) at two locations P1 and P2, to a depth of about 12.5 m below ground
level;

excavation of hand auger boreholes at two locations BH1 and BH2, to depths of 2.0 m and 1.8 m for
each borehole respectively;

Perth sand penetrometer (PSP) testing adjacent to each hand auger borehole to a depth of 1.8 m; and

infiltration testing at two locations, IT1 and IT2, using the inverse auger hole method at a depth of about
1 m.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

The locations of the tests indicated above are shown on Figure 2 Site Plan. All test locations were
positioned using a tape measure off surveyed buildings and landmarks.
The CPT testing was performed using a 7 tonne track rig supplied and operated by Probedrill Pty Ltd. All
testing was performed in accordance with AS 1289 6.5.1-1999. The results of the testing are presented as
plots of cone resistance (Qc), sleeve friction (fs) and friction ratio (FR = (fs/Qc) 100%) versus depth in
Appendix A. A method of soil classification proposed by Robertson et al (1986) based on values of Qc and
FR is also presented in Appendix A.
PSP test results are presented in Appendix B.
Hand auger borehole and test pit reports, together with sheets providing an explanation of the notes,
abbreviations and terms and the method of soil description used in the reports are presented in Appendix C.
Infiltration test results are presented in Section 5.8.
A geotechnical engineer from Golder Associates was on-site to position the tests, monitor the CPTs, log the
materials encountered in the hand auger boreholes and perform the Perth sand penetrometer and infiltration
testing.

4.0
4.1

SITE CONDITIONS
Regional Geology

The Armadale Sheet of the 1:50,000 scale Environmental Geology Series of maps indicates that the site is
underlain by Bassendean Sand. The sand is described as white to pale grey at surface, yellow at depth,
fine to medium grained, moderately sorted, sub-angular to sub-rounded, minor heavy minerals, of eolian
origin. Previous investigations that Golder has carried out at Curtin University have encountered significant
organic matter (roots).
The investigation was generally consistent with expected conditions.

4.2

Subsurface Conditions

Based on the results of the investigation, the subsurface conditions at the site can be generalised as:

TOPSOIL: garden mulch, with SAND fine to medium grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, brown,
extending to a depth of about 0.1 m; overlying

FILL: SAND at BH1, P1 and P2 fine to medium grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, pale grey and
brown, medium dense to dense, extending to varying depths of up to about 1 m; overlying

FILL: Gravelly SAND at BH1, and possibly at P1 and/or P2 fine to medium grained, sub-rounded to
sub-angular, yellow, crushed limestone, dense to very dense, occurring in layers of about 0.1 m within
filled areas; overlying

SAND fine to medium grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, pale grey, medium dense to dense,
extending to about RL 4 m AHD (about 5.5 m to 6.5 m BGL - below ground level); overlying

SAND dense, extending to the depth of investigation at approximately RL -2.8 m AHD (about
12.5 m BGL).

The above summary has been generalised for descriptive purposes. Some variations to the above
generalised profile do occur. The individual borehole and CPT reports should be referred to for further
information.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

4.3

Groundwater

The Perth Groundwater Atlas 1997 Edition indicates that the historical maximum inferred groundwater level
at the site ranged between approximately RL 6 m AHD and RL 7 m AHD, which is approximately 3 m to 4 m
below the current ground surface. The Perth Groundwater Atlas 2004 Edition presenting inferred
groundwater level contours based on recorded groundwater levels in May 2003 (dry season) indicates that
the inferred groundwater level at the site was approximately RL 4 m AHD (6 m below current ground
surface). The groundwater level is generally highest during August to October and lowest during March to
June. Both atlases indicate that the direction of groundwater flow direction is toward the north-east.
Measurement of groundwater levels was attempted in the holes remaining after the CPT testing (P1 and P2),
which had collapsed at depths of 5.7 m and 4.9 m, respectively. No groundwater was encountered in either
of these holes.
Golder carried out a Department of Water (DoW) groundwater database search, which indicates that four
monitoring wells with historical groundwater level hydrographs are located approximately 1.5 km from the
site, of which three of the monitoring wells have been monitored until recently. The hydrographs indicate a
seasonal variation in groundwater level of approximately 1.0 m to 1.5 m and generally indicate a decreasing
1
trend in groundwater levels. This correlates well with Davidson (1995) , which indicates that seasonal
variations may vary from 1 m to 2 m.

5.0
5.1

DISCUSSION
Site Classification

We have assessed the site classification in accordance with AS 2870-2006, Residential Slabs and
Footings. The site classification recommended for the site is Class A, subject to the site preparation
requirements outlined in Section 5.3 being carried out.

5.2

Foundation System

Strip and pad footings are considered suitable for the proposed development. Allowable bearing pressures
and settlements for various footing sizes and embedment depths are presented in Table 1 and
Table 2. These assume that the recommended site preparation and compaction (Section 5.3) has been
carried out and achieved below all footings.
Table 1: Pad Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement
Minimum Depth of
Embedment (m)

0.5

Minimum Plan
Dimension (m)

Allowable Working
Bearing Pressure (kPa)

Expected Settlement at
Allowable Bearing
Pressure (mm)

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

240
250
250
250
250
250
250
250

<5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20
<5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20

Davidson, W.A. (1995), Hydrogeology and Groundwater Resources of the Perth Region, Western Australia, Geological Survey of Western Australia.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

Table 2: Strip Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement
Minimum Depth of
Embedment (m)

Minimum Plan
Dimension (m)

Allowable Working
Bearing Pressure (kPa)

Expected Settlement at
Allowable Bearing
Pressure (mm)

0.5
1
1.5
2
0.5
1
1.5
2

180
210
250
250
250
250
250
250

<5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20
<5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20

0.5

Allowable bearing pressures for footings of intermediate plan dimensions to those tabulated can be
interpolated. Footings that have a plan dimension either smaller or larger than those covered by the tables
will need to be considered individually along with other embedment depths. An allowable bearing pressure
of 250 kPa is considered to be an upper limit for shallow footings at this site to limit total and differential
settlement. Footings carrying significant eccentric loading, such as below retaining walls, may need to be
assessed separately.
Settlement of the proposed structures will depend upon a number of factors including the applied pressures,
footing size and base preparation. The estimates of settlement provided in Table 1 and
Table 2 assume that the foundation preparation measures detailed in Section 5.3 have been completed.
The estimated settlements are for the working bearing pressure values shown. Differential settlements of up
to half of the total estimated settlement values are likely between footings of similar dimensions and loads.
About 70% of the settlement is expected to occur during construction.

5.3

Site Preparation

The following site preparation procedures are recommended:

Remove all topsoil, pavements and any other deleterious materials from the site including grubbing out
roots and removing organic matter. Any unsuitable or deleterious material encountered during
excavation should be removed from the site.

Carry out proof compaction of the exposed surface with suitable vibratory compaction plant to achieve
the level of compaction required by Section 5.3.1 to a minimum depth of 0.9 m below underside of
footings, slabs on ground and the full depth of any fill.

Where required, place approved granular fill in layers of no greater than 0.3 m loose thickness and
compact each layer to achieve the level of compaction required by Section 5.3.1.

Confirm that the specified level of compaction has been achieved to a depth of 0.9 m below the
founding level by testing:

each spread footing excavation;

at 5 m centres along strip footing excavations; and
on a grid at 5 m centres beneath slab-on-ground floors.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

5.3.1

Compaction

Clean granular fill and on-site sand should be compacted to achieve a Perth sand penetrometer blow count
of at least 8 blows per 300 mm in accordance with AS 1289 6.3.3. If difficulties are experienced with
achieving this blow count, then in situ density testing may be required to confirm the correlation between
Perth sand penetrometer blow count and relative density. Where in situ density testing is carried out, the
material must achieve:

a density index of at least 75% in accordance with AS 1289.5.6.1 for sands with less than about 5%
fines; or

a dry density ratio of at least 95% (as determined using Modified compactive effort) in accordance with
AS 1289 5.2.1 for material containing a mix of gravel, cobble and sand sized particles.

Where the required level of compaction cannot be achieved below footings and slabs on ground, it may be
necessary to over-excavate, compact the base of the excavation and replace with compacted sand fill.
All fill should be placed in horizontal layers of not greater than 0.3 m loose thickness. Each layer should be
compacted by approved compaction equipment, carefully controlled to ensure even compaction over the full
area and depth of each layer.
It may be necessary to limit the size of compaction equipment to minimise the influence of vibration on
nearby structures. Tynan (1973) 2 provides assistance with the selection of compaction equipment for use
adjacent to structures.

5.3.2

Approved Fill

The use of imported approved fill may be necessary to build up levels. Fill must comply with the material
requirements as stated in AS 3798-2007, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments. Structural fill material should be clean granular material containing less than 5% fines
(material less than 0.075 mm in size).

5.4

Excavations

Excavations in sand are particularly prone to instability unless support is provided. Care must be exercised
in such excavations and appropriate safety measures adopted where necessary. As a guide, a short-term
slope angle of 1V:1.5H should be acceptable for sands provided that heavy vibration is not applied in the
vicinity and that surcharge loads are not present near the slope crest. Even at this angle, some erosion or
rilling could occur. Long-term slope angles should not exceed 1V:2.5H without the use of rock pitching or
1V:2H with the use of rock pitching.
Excavations at the site should generally be achieved using standard earthmoving equipment.

5.5

Earth Retaining Structures

It is understood that the proposed development does not include any basement levels. Any modification of
the current design to include basement or subsurface levels will require careful consideration of the type of
retaining system to be employed.
The geotechnical parameters for design of earth retaining structures are provided in Table 3.

Tynan (1973) Ground Vibration and Damage Effects on Buildings, Australia Road Research Board, Special Report No. 11.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

Table 3: Earth Retaining Structure Design Parameters

Layer

SAND - medium
dense to dense
SAND - dense

Angle of
Internal
Friction,
'

Coefficient of
Drained Earth
Pressure at
Rest, K0

Soil
Density,

Coefficient of
Drained Active
Earth Pressure,
Ka

Coefficient of
Drained Passive
Earth Pressure,
Kp

36

0.5

18

0.26

3.85

38

0.5

18

0.24

4.20

Note: Wall interface friction angle () assumed to be 0.

5.6

Earthquake Site Sub-Soil Class

Based upon the requirements of Australian Standard AS 1170.4 2007, available geological maps and
subsurface conditions encountered, an earthquake site sub-soil class of Ce shallow soil is considered
appropriate for this site.

5.7

Groundwater

As discussed in Section 4.3, groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. Groundwater is
therefore not likely to influence the development.

5.8

Stormwater Disposal

In situ permeability tests were performed at about 1 m depth within two hand auger boreholes. The test
results are given in Table 4 and show field permeability values of 8 m/day and 13 m/day.
Table 4: Field Permeability
Location

Field Permeability, K
(m/day)

IT1
IT2

8
13

For design purposes, we recommend that a field permeability of no greater than 5 m/day be used to allow
for:

densification of the in situ sands during site preparation;

migration of fines into the subsurface soil through infiltration basins or soak wells; and

clogging of soak wells or infiltration basins by other means during their service life.

An adequate factor of safety must be incorporated into the design of any stormwater disposal system.

5.9

Pavements and Floor Slabs

It has been assumed that pavements will be founded on clean sand fill or the in situ sands. A subgrade
design CBR value of 12% is recommended for pavement design where the recommended site preparation
(Section 5.3) has been carried out. The sand subgrade should be compacted to a minimum dry density ratio
of 96% (Modified compaction) in accordance with AS 1289 5.2.1.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

6.0

LIMITATIONS

Your attention is drawn to the document - Limitations, which is included in Appendix D of this report. The
statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this
report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the
groundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by
Golder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the
responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Daniel Brooks
Geotechnical Engineer

Doug Stewart
Principal

DMB-DPS/ARC/djl

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

j:\geo\2009\097642481 - bge curtin uni\03 correspondence & report\097642481-002-r-rev0.docx

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

APPENDIX A
Cone Penetration Test Results

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PENETROMETER

CLIENT: BG&E

Date: 15/01/10

PROJECT: Curtin University - Stage 2

Probe No.: P 1

LOCATION: Bentley

Job Number: 097642481

7
8

10

10

11

11

13

12

12
13
1000

900

800

0
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7

Friction Sleeve

Tip Resistance

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth (m)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Friction Ratio (%)

35
700

50

30
600

45

25
500

Tip Resistance Qc (MPa)

40

20
400

10
200

15

5
100

300

0
0

Tip Resistance Qc (MPa)

Friction Sleeve (kPa)

Water (m): Dry to 5.7

Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

and IRTP 2001 for friction reducer

Refusal:
File: GA9299T.txt

Dummy probe to (m):

Cone I.D. : EC20

7 tonne track mounted CPT Rig.

10

Co-ordinates:

ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PENETROMETER

CLIENT: BG&E

Date: 15/01/10

PROJECT: Curtin University - Stage 2

Probe No.: P 2

LOCATION: Bentley

Job Number: 097642481

7
8

10

10

11

11

13

12

12
13
1000

900

800

0
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7

Friction Sleeve

Tip Resistance

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth (m)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Friction Ratio (%)

35
700

50

30
600

45

25
500

Tip Resistance Qc (MPa)

40

20
400

10
200

15

5
100

300

0
0

Tip Resistance Qc (MPa)

Friction Sleeve (kPa)

Water (m): Dry to 4.9

Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

and IRTP 2001 for friction reducer

Refusal:
File: GA9300T.txt

Dummy probe to (m):

Cone I.D. : EC20

7 tonne track mounted CPT Rig.

10

Co-ordinates:

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

APPENDIX B
Perth Sand Penetrometer Test Results

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

PERTH SAND PENETROMETER TEST RESULTS

Job No: 097642481 ______By: DMB
Project: CURTIN UNI STAGE 2

Date: 14/01/2010

Location: BENTLEY

Page 1

of 1

Checked: DPS

Test No./Blow Count

Depth
(mm)

BH1

BH2

0-150

SEAT

SEAT

150-300

300-450

450-600

10

600-750

14

750-900

18

900-1050

10

1050-1200

11

1200-1350

10

1350-1500

1500-1650

1650-1800

1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
Site Sketch/Comments:
1. All tests conducted adjacent to hand auger borehole location. Refer to Figure 2 Site Plan for these locations.

Test performed in accordance with AS 1289.6.3.3

Golder Associates
Golder Form: PF033 RL1
Updated 12/06/08
J:\Geo\2009\097642481 - BGE Curtin Uni\06 Fieldwork\Fieldwork 2010-01-14\PSP Test Results.Doc

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

APPENDIX C
Hand Auger Borehole Reports

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION

USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
FILL

CLAY (CL, CI or CH)

GRAVEL (GP or GW)

ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)

SAND (SP or SW)

COBBLES or BOULDERS

SILT (ML or MH)

Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.

CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY

Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in
AS1726 1993, (Amdt1 1994 and Amdt2 1994), Appendix A. The material properties are assessed in the field by
visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size

GRAVEL

SAND

Sub Division

Particle Size

BOULDERS

> 200 mm

COBBLES

63 to 200 mm

Coarse

20 to 63 mm

Medium

6.0 to 20 mm

Fine

2.0 to 6.0 mm

Coarse

0.6 to 2.0 mm

Medium

0.2 to 0.6 mm

Fine

0.002 to 0.075 mm

CLAY

< 0.002 mm

Term

Dry

Moist

Wet

CI
Medium
plasticity
clay

CL
Low plasticity
clay

30

CH
High plasticity
clay

20

OH or MH
High liquid limit
silt

10

OL or ML
Low liquid
limit silt

CL/ML Clay/Silt

0.075 to 0.2 mm

SILT

MOISTURE CONDITION
Symbol

40

Plasticity Index (%)

Major Division

Plasticity Properties

OL or ML - Low liquid limit silt

0
0

10

20

30
40
50
Liquid Lim it (%)

60

70

80

AS1726 - 1993

Description
Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.
Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.

CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY

Undrained Shear
Strength

AS1726 - 1993
Symbol
Term

Symbol

Term

Density Index %

SPT N #

VS

Very Soft

0 to 12 kPa

VL

Very Loose

Less than 15

0 to 4

Soft

12 to 25 kPa

Loose

15 to 35

4 to 10

Firm

25 to 50 kPa

MD

Medium Dense

35 to 65

10 to 30

St

Stiff

50 to 100 kPa

Dense

65 to 85

30 to 50

VSt

Very Stiff

100 to 200 kPa

VD

Very Dense

Above 85

Above 50

H
Hard
Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.

GAP Form No. 5

RL8

EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS

USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS*
Auger Screwing
AD*
Auger Drilling
*V
V-Bit
*T
TC-Bit, e.g. ADT
HA
Hand Auger
ADH
Hollow Auger
DTC
Diatube Coring
WB
Washbore or Bailer

RD
RT
RAB
RC
PT
CT
JET
NDD

Rotary blade or drag bit

Rotary Tricone bit
Rotary Air Blast
Reverse Circulation
Push Tube
Cable Tool Rig
Jetting
Non-destructive drilling

HQ
NMLC
NQ
BH
EX
EE
HAND

Diamond Core - 63 mm
Diamond Core - 52 mm
Diamond Core - 47 mm
Tractor Mounted Backhoe
Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
Existing Excavation
Excavated by Hand Methods

PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L

Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used.

Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used.

High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significant
effort from the equipment.

Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to
the digging implement or machine.

These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition
of excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level at date shown

Partial water loss

Water inflow

Complete water loss

GROUNDWATER NOT
OBSERVED

The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling
water, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.

GROUNDWATER NOT
ENCOUNTERED

The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be
present in less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit
been left open for a longer period.

SAMPLING AND TESTING

SPT
4,7,11 N=18
30/80mm
RW
HW
HB

Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004

4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
Hammer double bouncing on anvil

DS
BDS
G
W
FP
FV
PID
PM
PP
U63
WPT

Disturbed sample
Bulk disturbed sample
Gas Sample
Water Sample
Field permeability test over section noted
Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)
Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
Pressuremeter test over section noted
Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
Water pressure tests

Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects)
R=0
No visible evidence of contamination
R=A
No non-natural odours identified
R=1
Slight evidence of visible contamination
R=B
Slight non-natural odours identified
R=2
Visible contamination
R=C
Moderate non-natural odours identified
R=3
Significant visible contamination
R=D
Strong non-natural odours identified
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%)
=

Length of core recovered

100
Length of core run

SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%)

=

Length of cylindrical core recovered 100

Length of core run

RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)

=

Axial lengths of core > 100 mm 100

Length of core run

GAP Form No. 6

RL6

REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1

SHEET: 1 OF 1
DRILL RIG: Hand Auger

CLIENT:

BG&E

PROJECT:

CURTIN UNIVERSITY - STAGE 2

SURFACE RL: 10.4 m DATUM: AHD

CONTRACTOR:

LOCATION:

BENTLEY

INCLINATION: -90

LOGGED: DMB

DATE: 14/1/10

JOB NO:

097642481

HOLE DEPTH: 2.00 m

CHECKED: DPS

DATE: 8/2/10

0.0

10.40
0.10
10.30

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MOISTURE
CONDITION
CONSISTENCY
DENSITY

DEPTH
RL

USCS SYMBOL

SAMPLE OR
FIELD TEST

Field Material Description

RECOVERED

Sampling

GRAPHIC
LOG

DEPTH
(metres)

WATER

PENETRATION
RESISTANCE

METHOD

Drilling

PERTH PENETROMETER TEST

(AS1289.6.3.3)
Blows per 150 mm
0

10

15

20

25

TOPSOIL: predominantly mulch with SAND, fine to medium

grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to sub-angular, brown.
SP

FILL: SAND
fine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to
sub-angular, pale grey and brown

MD D
0.40
10.00
0.5

0.50
9.90

SP /
GP

FILL: Gravelly SAND

fine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to
sub-angular, yellow, crushed limestone gravel

SP

SAND
fine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to
sub-angular, pale grey

GAP 8_05A LIB.GLB Log GAP NON-CORED FULL PAGE CURTIN UNI - STAGE 2 LOGS.GPJ DWG68822.GDW 15/02/2010 11:34 8.2.006

HA

DVD

L-M

1.0

MD
1.5

2.0

8.40

END OF BOREHOLE @ 2.00 m

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
BACKFILLED

2.5

This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for
information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.

GAP gINT FN. F01b

RL3

REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH2

SHEET: 1 OF 1
DRILL RIG: Hand Auger

CLIENT:

BG&E

PROJECT:

CURTIN UNIVERSITY - STAGE 2

SURFACE RL: 10.5 m DATUM: AHD

CONTRACTOR:

LOCATION:

BENTLEY

INCLINATION: -90

LOGGED: DMB

DATE: 14/1/10

JOB NO:

097642481

HOLE DEPTH: 1.80 m

CHECKED: DPS

DATE: 8/2/10

0.0

10.50
0.10
10.40

HA

0.5

L-M

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MOISTURE
CONDITION
CONSISTENCY
DENSITY

DEPTH
RL

USCS SYMBOL

SAMPLE OR
FIELD TEST

Field Material Description

RECOVERED

Sampling

GRAPHIC
LOG

DEPTH
(metres)

WATER

PENETRATION
RESISTANCE

METHOD

Drilling

PERTH PENETROMETER TEST

(AS1289.6.3.3)
Blows per 150 mm
0

10

15

20

25

TOPSOIL: predominantly mulch with SAND, fine to medium

grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to sub-angular, brown.
SP

SAND
fine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to
sub-angular, pale grey and brown

0.50
10.00

pale grey

0.90
9.60

pale grey and yellow

1.10
9.40

brown

1.30
9.20

pale grey

MD

GAP 8_05A LIB.GLB Log GAP NON-CORED FULL PAGE CURTIN UNI - STAGE 2 LOGS.GPJ DWG68822.GDW 15/02/2010 11:34 8.2.006

1.0

1.5

8.70

END OF BOREHOLE @ 1.80 m

COLLAPSE
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
BACKFILLED

2.0

2.5

This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for
information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.

GAP gINT FN. F01b

RL3

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

APPENDIX D
Limitations

June 2010
Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0

LIMITATIONS
This Document has been provided by Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder)
subject to the following limitations:
This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in
Golders proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this
Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.
The scope and the period of Golders Services are as described in Golders
proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform
a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may
exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly
indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do
not assume that any determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.
Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the
enquiry Golder was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in
conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special
conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the
investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the
Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.
In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and
assessment provided in this Document. Golders opinions are based upon
information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is
understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an
opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and
cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of
the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.
Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated
from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is
included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform
exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.
Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous
site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the
information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by
Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.
Golder may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Golder to provide
Services for the benefit of Golder. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the
Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, and
waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Golders affiliated
companies, and their employees, officers and directors.
This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and
its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this
Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which
a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be
made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of
decisions made or actions based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

GAP Form No. LEG 04 RL 1

Golder Associates Pty Ltd

Level 2, 1 Havelock Street
West Perth, Western Australia 6005
Australia
T: +61 8 9213 7600