geotechnical investigation report for the propo … geotech report .pdf · and geotechnical drill...

Operational Plan & Design Report HWSF Prepared by USK Consulting

1

PREPARED BY: USK Environmental & Waste Engineering Service Ground Floor

Fancourt Office Park, Block 4 Loft D

Ground Floor

Northerumberland Ave. North Riding 2169

South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 11 704 6433

Fax: +27 (086) 2703976 web: www.uskconsulting.com

PREPARED FOR: E-SQUARE ENGINEERING AND

TRANSNET ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED

TRANSNET ENGINEERING HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL SITE AT

KOEDOESPOORT

Geotechnical Investigation Report G15_002/1/ Transnet Engineering – Koedoespoort of 37 Issue May 2015

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Client: E- SQUARE ENGINEERING

Report Title: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR PROPOSED TRANSNET ENGINEERING

HAZARDOUS LANDFILL SITE AT KOEDOESPOORT

Report No: G15_002/01

Version: 1.0

Date Issued: MAY 2015

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION:

Copy Type Recipient Organization

1 PDF/Email Mr. Hamilton Sitole E- Square Engineering

2 Hard Copy Mr. Innocent Masunungure E- Square Engineering

Note: Electronic copies of this report are issued in portable document format and distributed via one of the following media; CD-ROM, Email or Internet Secure Server. Copies held by USK Consulting are stored on mass storage media archive. Further copies will be distributed on CD-ROM.

Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By

TECHNICAL

NAME Samuel Jjuko

NAME Dr. Denis Kalumba (MSAICE)

NAME Dr. Steve K Kalule (Pr.Sc.Nat)

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

DATE May 2015

DESIGNATION Geotechnical Engineer

DESIGNATION Geotechnical Engineer

DESIGNATION Director

USK Environmental & Waste Engineering Service Head Office

Ground Floor

Fancourt Office Park, North Riding, Johannesburg

Tel: +27 (0) 11 704 6433/ Fax: (086) 2703976

Eastern Cape Office

Tel: +27 (0) 43 748 5567/45

Fax: +27 (0) 43 748 1114 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.uskconsulting.com

http://www.uskconsulting.com/


DECLARATION OF INTEREST

This report has been professionally independently prepared by USK Environmental & Waste Engineering (Pty) Ltd, which is a South African Professional Consulting firm, with a team of professionals specializing in a number of environmental science and environmental engineering fields. Company Contact Details Head Office Physical Address: Loft C Block 4 Fancourt Office Park, North Riding, Johannesburg 2169 Telephone Number: (011) 704 6433 Fax Number: (086) 2703679 E-mail: [email protected]

DECLARATION INTEREST. I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge USK Environmental & Waste Engineering (Pty) Ltd nor any of its members and consultants does not have any Interest in the project or associated projects. I undertake to inform the responsible representative of the client of any change in this information or any new information that needs to be reported, which occurs before or during the meeting or work itself and through the period up to the publication of the final report. Date: _________ Signature________________________________

Name Email Telephone

mailto:[email protected]


GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR PROPOSED TRANSNET

ENGINEERING HAZARDOUS LANDFILL SITE AT KOEDOESPOORT

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET ..................................................................................................................... 2

DECLARATION OF INTEREST ...................................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1. Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................. 6

2. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1. Site Location ................................................................................................................................ 7

3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. Field Work .................................................................................................................................... 8

4. ANALYSIS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY RESULTS ....................................................................... 11

4.1. General Site Description ............................................................................................................ 11 4.2. Site Geology .............................................................................................................................. 11 4.3. Site Hydrogeology ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.4. Description of the Soils .............................................................................................................. 12 4.5. Bedrock ...................................................................................................................................... 12 4.6. Bearing Capacity based on SPT – N Values ............................................................................. 13 4.7. Particle Size Analysis................................................................................................................. 13 4.8. Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit ..................................................................................................... 14 4.9. Compaction Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 15 4.10. California Bearing Ratio ............................................................................................................. 15 4.11. Excavation conditions ................................................................................................................ 15 4.12. Foundation Conditions ............................................................................................................... 16 4.13. Contamination Barrier and Cover .............................................................................................. 16

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 17

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 20


Figures Figure 1 Locality Map of Study Site 7 Figure 2 Test Pit Excavations using TLB during the field investigation 10 Figure 3: 1:50 000 geological map of the Silverton area (2528 CB – Silverton) 12 Figure 4 Plasticity Chart 16

Tables

Table 1 GPS coordinates indicating the borehole positions ............................................................... 9 Table 2: Standard Test Methods ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Log of BH01 ................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 4: Log of BH02 ................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 5: Log of BH03 ................................................................................................................................. 14


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project Background

USK Environmental & Waste Engineering were appointed by E-Square Engineering (Pty) on

acting on behalf of Transnet Engineering, to undertake a geotechnical investigation for the

proposed Hazardous Waste Landfill Site at Koedoespoort, Pretoria. This geotechnical

investigation report is part of a suite of supporting documentation which is required as part of an

application for environmental authorization for the remediation of the contaminated sites at the

Koedoespoort, but also forms an important and integral part for the engineering design for the

proposed landfill site which is being planned to be the central tenet of the remedial approach

and plan.

1.2. Scope of Work

The main objectives of investigations comprised of the following:

To evaluate geo-technical parameters of the sub base soil at the site.

To conduct field investigations, tests pit excavations, in-situ testing, bulk soil sampling for

laboratory testing,

Laboratory testing on the redeemed bulk samples,

Review the geotechnical requirements for the development of foundations for the

proposed structures at the site,

Review the geotechnical requirements for the development of cells and associated

infrastructure for a landfill at the site,

Assess the requirements, and availability and suitability of cover material for the

operations of the landfill.

Assess the requirements, and availability and suitability of capping material for the

closure of the landfill.

Assess and evaluate the requirements, and risk issues for the landfill including, slope

stability, and permeability of soil.

Assess and evaluate the requirements for the landfill containment barrier system

(geomembrane lining) in accordance with the current legal framework and make key

recommendations in relation to the above site investigations.

Develop a suit of site-specific recommendations for consideration during the engineering

design of the proposed landfill site and associated infrastructure.

Compilation of a detailed report


2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Site Location

The Site is located on Portion 201 of Farm Hartebeespoort, situated in Silverton approximately

6.5 Km to the East of Pretoria Central Business District. Access to the site is off Trans Road,

which links to Dykor Road, connecting to Derdepoort Main Road in Silverton, Pretoria. (See

locality map in Figure 1).

Figure 1 Locality Map of Study Site


3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Field Work

The field investigations for the site were conducted on 5th and 6th February 2015 in accordance

with South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) Site Investigation Code of Practice

2010. The key aspects of the investigation comprised of the following:

Identification of suitable test pit positions,

Pit excavations with a Caterpillar 428F 4x4 Tractor Loader & Backhoe (TLB),

Profiling of Test Pit excavations,

Borehole drilling by augering using the AMS 9500 VTR PowerProbeTM Environmental

and Geotechnical drill rig in accordance with method ASTM D6151-081,

Conducting standard penetration tests (SPT) in accordance with method ASTM D1586-112),

Recovery of bulk representative soils samples,

Description of soil properties,

The investigations consisted of:

Siting of seven (7) test pits and three (3) boreholes positions at strategic places for the

investigation program. The locations of the pits and boreholes based on GPS reading are

given in Table 1.

At the time of the investigation the landfill had been proposed to be in the centre of the site

with associated infrastructure, i.e., structures for the recycling plant, reverse logistics,

weigh bridge, etc. to be situated in the South, while the leachate dam was to be in the far

North East of the property. So the positions of the geotechnical test points were within the

respective footprints as shown in Figure 1.

Advancing boreholes by means of augering as deep as practicable using 108 mm hollow

stem augers. This auger method was used because the ground was stable and did not

have the tendency to collapse or cave into the borehole. So no casing was installed in

boreholes. The rig was equipped to perform standard penetration testing (SPT) using a

63.5 kg auto-drop hammer and 50 mm diameter split spoons. The depths investigated

ranged from 1.0 m to 3.6 m below ground level.

Excavation of trial pits by the TLB machine to a maximum depth of approximately 4.0 m or

to refusal when soft rock was encountered at shallow depth (Figure 2). Therefore, the

depth of exploration for test pits was greatly influenced by the nature of soils and rock in

the area.

1 Standard Practice for Using Hollow-Stem Augers for Geotechnical Exploration and Soil Sampling

2 Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils


Soil profiling of 7 trial pits. Detailed soil profiles were drawn up from visual examination of

the in-situ material observed from the trial pits according to recommended standard

procedures. Individual soil profile descriptions are given in the in the Appendix.

Recovery of representative disturbed soil samples from trial pits at various depths and

placing them in dedicated labelled sample bags. These were sent to ROADLAB, 207

Rieffontein Road, Primrose Germiston, 1401, South Africa (Pty). The foundation indicators

and strength tests were then conducted according to standard test methods (Table 2). Full

results are presented in the appendix.

An assessment of field and laboratory results.

Geotechnical recommendations.

Table 1 GPS coordinates indicating the borehole positions

Bo

reh

ole

Nu

mb

er

ID GPS Location

Latitude Longitude

SB01 S 25o43’30.9” E 028

o17’14.3”

SB02 S 25 o

43’30.9” E 028o17’14.2”

SB03 S 25o43’33.9” E 028

o17’14.8”

Pit

nu

mb

er

TPI01 S 25o43’33.2” E 028

o17’16.9”

TP I02 S 25o43’28.4” E 028

o17’17.1”

TPI03 S 25o43’25.3” E 028

o17’20.3”

TPJ01 S 25o43’25.4” E 028

o17’20.2”

TPA/B01 S 25o43’33.7” E 028

o17’14.6”

TPH/Q01 S 25o43’33.2” E 028

o17’14.2”

TPF01 S 25o43’30.9” E 028

o17’14.3”


Figure 2 Test Pit Excavations using TLB during the field investigation

Table 2: Standard Test Methods

Name of Test Standard Test Method Sample Status

Grading/ Sieve Analysis TMH1 1986: A1 (a) Disturbed

Atterberg Limits TMH1 1986: METHOD A2 & A3; TMHA4 1974 Disturbed

California Bearing Ratio TMH1 1986: A7 & A8 Disturbed


4. ANALYSIS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY RESULTS

4.1. General Site Description

The property covers approximately 5 hectares most of which are covered with bushy grass and

shrubs. The entire property could be classified into three major zones: a) a rubble recycling

area in the North; b) concrete manufacturing plant in the Southeast and; c) an open

undeveloped land. The first two shall be of significance when developing the site. No access to

them had been granted at the time of study.

The open area, which consist of the bulk of the land, has been largely disturbed over several

years by previous activities related to grading, dozing and dumping of mixed waste including:

stock piles of concrete and other construction rubble, paint, tar, scrap metal, tyres, etc. There is

evidence of illegal dumping of material now mostly covered in over grown vegetation.

Environment significance of all this has to be considered during the development stage of the

land.

There is a drainage line that traverses through the site from the southwest towards the eastern

portion of the site. The eastern portion of the site is a low laying area and is characterized by

marshy, swampy and wetland like conditions. This marshy character could have been created

by the impounding of water from the surface water drainage over time, and/or as result of a

natural perched water table i.e. an is an accumulation of groundwater that is above the water

table in the unsaturated zone or marshland in the portion of the site.

No buried services were seen within site area. But it is expected that unidentified services could

be present and may be encountered during the performance of the excavation activities.

4.2. Site Geology

The site is underlain by shallow shale of the Silverton Formation on the South and the diabase

in the northern third of the site. Whilst the shale is relatively resistant to weathering and thus

the soil cover in the south is relatively thin, the diabase is resistant too and forms quite a

prominent ridge. The hard rock geology is covered by varying thicknesses of an overburden

that typically grades from mature residual soil through completely decomposed and weathered

rock to fresh bedrock. The evidence of the shale and diabase was intersected in all test pits

with the decomposed rock retaining the original rock structure. The 2528 CB Silverton 1:50 000

geological map confirms diabase intrusions underlying the study area.


Figure 3: 1:50 000 geological map of the Silverton area (2528 CB – Silverton)

4.3. Site Hydrogeology

At the time of the investigation, there were no indications of presence of groundwater within the

top 4 m from the surface as no water table was encountered in all boreholes and trial pit

locations. However, there was seepage of water from sides of two trial pits TPA/B01 and

TPH/Q01 at 2.8 m and 3.2 m respectively. This was attributed to a possible localized patched

water table. As discussed previously, an open channel drainage line traverses eastwards

through the site to a marshy ground on the lowest areas of the property.

4.4. Description of the Soils

The site is characterized by the residual soils comprising clayey sand or sandy clay with pockets

of silty clay. The typical site soil profile may be described as:

0.0 - 0.2m Slightly moist, brown to dark brown, slightly stiff, silty with abundant organic

matter overlying

0.2 - 1.0m Moist, light/reddish brown to olive brown, stiff to very stiff, sandy clay overlying

1.0 - 2.0m Moist, light grey mottled orange in places, dense to very dense, clayey sand

(residual) overlying

2.0 - 4.5m Slightly moist to dry, light brown and grey, dense clayey sand/ very stiff sandy

clay, (residual shale/diabase).

Due to the weathering of the shale and diabase, variations to the above profile do occur across

the site. Generally, the soil profile tends to be more deeply weathered in the northern than in the

southern portions.

Koedoespoort site


The moisture content in the observed soil profile decreases with depth indicative of a relatively

deep regional water table.

4.5. Bedrock

The refusal in all boreholes and trial pits, except three trial pits (TPI01, TPI02 and TPI03), was

attributed to the shale formation in the south and diabase rock in the north. According to

borehole and trial pit logs, the depth to hard rock is therefore in excess of about 4.0 and 2.5 m in

the northern and southern portions respectively – with soft rock being probably between depths

of 2 m and 3 m. Tests were terminated between these depths


4.6. Bearing Capacity based on SPT – N Values

Based on the analysis of field SPT – N values, a safe bearing capacity of more than 300 kPa is

achieved at a depth of 600 mm from the ground surface at all three borehole locations. The

recorded logs in Tables 3, 4 and 5 show obtained SPT – N values. Detailed analysis is

presented in the appendices as Tables A2, A3 and A4.

Table 3: Log of BH01

Depth (m) Material Description SPT

Depth (m) N value (No. of blows)

0.0 – 0.4 Slightly moist, brown, slightly stiff, clayey silt with abundant organic matter (mixed with construction rubble/burnt bricks)

0.4 – 1.6 Slightly moist, yellow-brown, soft rock, highly weathered

1.00 – 1.45 35

1.6 – 3.6 Slightly moist, brown grey, medium hard rock, highly weathered

2.40 – 2.85 3.60 – 4.05

41 Refusal




0.0 – 0.4 Slightly moist, brown, slightly stiff, clayey silt with abundant organic matter

0.4 – 1.0 Slightly moist, red-brown, dense to very dense, clayey

1.00 – 1.45 Refusal




0.0 – 0.2 Slightly moist, brown, slightly stiff, clay silt with abundant organic matter

0.2 – 1.0 Slightly moist, red-brown, dense to very dense, clayey

1.00 – 1.45 31

1.0 – 2.0 Slightly moist to moist, yellow brown and grey, dense clayey sand/very stiff silty clay

2.00 – 2.45 Refusal

4.7. Particle Size Analysis

The main parameter of interest in understanding the behavior of soils is percentage of particles

passing the No. 200 sieve (75 µm sieve). Samples from trial pits TPI01 (0.3 – 2.2 m), TPI02 (0.5

– 4.0 m), TPA/B01 (0.0 – 1.2 m), TPH/Q01 (1.0 – 2.5 m), TPH/Q01 (2.5 – 3.2 m) and TPH/Q01

(0.2 – 1.0 m) exhibited a percentage passing the No. 200 sieve that was below 50%. This is

indicative of coarse-grained soils. Such soils are easy to compact, little affected by moisture,


less pervious and more stable. Samples from trial pits TPI03 (0.4 – 1.2 m), TPI04 (1.2 – 4.0 m),

TPJ01 (0.2 – 1.2 m), TPJ01 (1.2 – 2.2 m) and TPA/B01 (1.4 – 3.0 m) had a percentage passing

the No. 200 sieve that was above 50%. The high amounts of fines are indicative of presence of

clay and silt soil that is vulnerable to swelling and shrinkage with changes in water content. It is

also indicative of low permeability, which can result in deep excavations bottom heave when

such excavations are conducted in wet weather. If the floor basin is to be located on the shale

or diabase, this will not be an issue.

4.8. Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit

The liquid limit and plasticity index of obtained soil samples varied from 34.0 % to 59.0 % and

12.0 % to 26.0 % respectively. The linear shrinkage ranged between 6.1 % and 13.3 %. The

Linear Shrinkage values represent minimum percentage of water necessary to allow a soil to be

moulded. From figure 3 the soil layers were predominantly silts of intermediate to high plasticity

except TPA/B01 (0.0 – 1.2 m), TPH/Q01 (2.5 – 3.2 m) and TPH/Q01 (0.2 – 1.0 m) which were

clays of intermediate plasticity. Clays and silts of intermediate to high plasticity are associated

with medium to high expansion potential characteristics in presence of water hence cracking in

buildings and failure of foundations.

Soil layers from trial pits TPI01 (0.3 – 2.2 m), TPI02 (0.5 – 4.0 m), TPA/B01 (0.0 – 1.2 m) and

TPH/Q01 (1.0 – 2.5 m) had a grading modulus of greater than 2 indicative of good road building

quality material. The rest of the sampled soil layers had grading modulus of less than 2

indicative of poor road building quality material.


Figure 4 Plasticity Chart

Samples from trial pits TPI01 (0.3 – 2.2 m), TPJ01 (0.2 – 1.2 m) and TPH/Q01 (1.0 – 2.5 m)

were classified as G7 materials according to TRH14. The rest of the samples were below the

quality of G10 material.

4.9. Compaction Characteristics

The maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) values ranged between

1569 kg/m3 and 1996 kg/m3, and 11.6 % and 23.1 % respectively. Well-graded soils exhibit

higher MDDs than poorly graded soils while finer soils exhibit higher OMCs and lower MDDs

than coarser soils. Usually soils with MDD greater than 2000 kg/m3 and OMC less than 15%

are easier to compact and recommended for road construction. The MDD is also directly

proportional to the strength characteristics of a soil.

4.10. California Bearing Ratio

The California bearing ratio varied between 1.2 % and 33 % for the tested soil samples at 100 %

maximum dry density. Usually soils with CBR greater than 3 % are suitable for use as subgrade

materials in pavement construction. All soil layers classified, as below the quality of G10

materials would not be suitable for use in road construction. Therefore, only soil layers TPI01

(0.3 – 2.2 m), TPJ01 (0.2 – 1.2 m) and TPH/Q01 (1.0 – 2.5 m) would suitable.


4.11. Excavation conditions

The boreholes were auger drilled to depths of 1,0 m to 3.6 m below the surface. The trial pits

were excavated with depths varying between 2.9 m and 4.0 m. The shale and diabase rocks

caused the drilling machine and TLB refusal at those respective depths. On this evidence the

use of a TLB could be utilized to excavate to a depth of about 1.4 m to 4.0 m below the surface.

(The observations regarding depth of excavation refer to depths measured from existing natural

ground level). Hard residual soils and rocks at deeper depth may result in difficult excavation

conditions. The use of a large excavator (18-20 ton) would probably be required to allow deeper

excavations in excess of 4.0 m over most of the site.

Due to the abundant fines content in the soil matrix material - includes silt and clay - within the

residual soils overlying the rock formations, saturation of the soils during extending raining

periods may result in difficulty working conditions. It is accordingly recommended that the bulk

earthworks be carried out with this in mind and preferably in the drier season.


4.12. Foundation Conditions

The top approximately 0.4 m of the soils intersected in the boreholes and trial pits comprised

clayey silt / silty clay with abundant organic matter of variable composition. These soils are

considered to be nonstructural for supporting any imposed loading. Based on the detailed

examination of the SPT test results, the residual underlying the site from as little as 1.0 m below

existing ground level can be considered to be of sufficient strength for satisfactory support of

conventional spread footing foundations for the landfill associated infrastructure, dimensioned

not to exceed an average maximum permissible bearing pressure of 300 kPa. Differential

settlements should be minimal.

4.13. Contamination Barrier and Cover

Although the highly weathered to completely weathered residual soil in majority of the site can

be regarded as suitable construction material, much of the clayey or fine material found was

highly variable with considerable portions of silt, sand, etc. that were non plastic. Laboratory

results confirmed it to be of low to medium plasticity. Therefore, because of its quality and

contamination in several places (refer to previous USK Consulting reports of the site), it cannot

form an effective seal between the surface and the underlying rocks (and any associated

aquifer). Neither can it be suitable as one of the layers for the capping design.


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the field work undertaken and laboratory results obtained, no unstable geotechnical

conditions should prevent the development of this site into a landfill.

The following specific conclusions and recommendations are made:

The property is dominated by disturbed ground surface from previous activities related to

grading, dozing and dumping of mixed waste including: stock piles of concrete and other

construction rubble, paint, tar, scrap metal, tyres, etc. All of which have to be considered

before and during the development stage of the plot.

The in situ clayey or fine material was highly variable with considerable portions of silt,

sand, etc. that were non plastic. Laboratory results confirmed it to be of low plasticity.

Therefore, because of its quality and contamination in several places (refer to previous

reports submitted by USK Consulting), it cannot be suitable as one of the layers for the liner

or capping system.

Although ground water was not encountered in this investigation, the trickling water from

sides of two trial pits at depths between 2.8 m and 3.2 m is of concern. This indicates that

groundwater seepages during bulk deep excavation can however not be ruled out especially

during the wetter months.

Depending on the quantity of the waste to be landfilled, the proposed landfill cell basin floor

levels could be extended between 3.0 m and 4.0 m below the ground surface. Water

seepage at 2.8 in some regions may limit the levels in specific places to approximately 1.0

m above the localized water level. Additionally a subsurface drain channel would have to

be considered to protect the floor liner from becoming saturated from the seeping water.

This is especially relevant during the construction of the basin floor and lining system.

The rock sequence of shale and diabase has undergone weathering producing an

overburden grading from mature residual soil through completely decomposed and

weathered rock to fresh bedrock. The weathered residual material, composed of a matrix of

clayey sands and sandy clay soils, ranging from stiff to very stiff. This can suitably support

conventional spread footing foundations, for the landfill associated infrastructure,

dimensioned not to exceed an average maximum permissible bearing pressure of 300 kPa.

Differential settlements should be minimal.


The in situ clayey sands and sandy clay soils are capable of forming the basin floor. It is

recommended that the preparation operation involves spreading, level and compacting to

98% standard proctor density.

Being generally cohesive or semi-cohesive, the ground did not have tendency to collapse

when disturbed. Excavation slopes of 45 in non-marshy areas could be sustained without

posing slope instability issues.

The excavation conditions between 1.0 m to 4.0 m below the ground surface will require a

TLB unless portions of outcrops of diabase and shale rocks are encountered. For deeper

layers, a 20 ton excavator should be capable of excavating with little difficulty.

Finally, it should be noted that an investigation of this nature is aimed at describing broad areas

in which problems may occur. It may be found that soil conditions at variance with those

discussed in this report do occur locally. The variant conditions should be inspected by

competent personnel to ensure that these conditions do not pose a problem for the development

of the proposed landfill site. More detailed testing in certain areas may be required in order to

produce the most suitable design with associated cost saving.

The USK consultants should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so

comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical

recommendations in the design and specifications. They should also be retained to provide

observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other

earth-related construction phases of the project.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the

project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

engineering practices. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety,

excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event

that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are

planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered

valid unless the consultants review the changes and either verify or modify the conclusions of

this report in writing.


REFERENCES

1. BRINK, A.B.A. 1979, Engineering geology of Southern Africa. - Vol.1, Building Publications, Pretoria.

2. BRINK, A.B.A. 1982, PARTRIDGE, T.C. AND WILLIAMS, A.A.B., -Soil survey for engineering –

Monographs on Soil Survey, Oxford Press.

3. BRINK, A.B.A. 1983, Engineering geology of Southern Africa. - Vol.3, Building Publications, Pretoria.

4. BRYNE, G. AND BERRY, A.D. 2008, A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in Southern

Africa. –Franki, Fourth Edition.

5. JENNINGS, J.E. BRINK, A.B.A., AND WILLIAMS, A.A.B., 1973, Revised guide to soil profiling for

civil engineering purposes in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in S.A., Vol. 15 No. 1, January.

6. KRUGER, F.J., 2013, Short Geological Report on the Transnet Koedoespoort Site, GeoActiv (Pty)

Ltd

7. BURLAND, J.B., BURBIDGE, M.C. (1984), Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel,

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, 1985, 78, Dec., 1325-1381.

8. HATANAKA, M., UCHIDA, A. (1996). Empirical correlation between penetration resistance and

effective friction of sandy soil. Soils & Foundations, Vol. 36 (4), 1-9, Japanese Geotechnical Society.

9. MAYNE, P.W. (2001), Geotechnical site characterization using Cone, piezocone, SPTu, and VST,

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Georgia Institute of Technology

10. MEYERHOF, G.G. (1956), Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils, Journal of

the soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. SM1, January, pp. 1-19.

11. SCHMERTMANN, J.H. (1975), Measurement of insitu shear strength, keynote lecture, Proceedings

of the conference on in-situ measurement of soil properties, June 1-4, 1975, vol. II, American Society

of Civil Engineers.

12. SAICE Site Investigation Code of Practice, 2010.

13. SANS3001 – AG21:2011: Determination of the bulk density, apparent density and water absorption

of aggregate particles passing the 5 mm sieve for road construction materials.

14. TMH1: Method A2: The determination of the liquid limit of soils by means of the flow curve method.

15. TMH1: Method A3: The determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils.

16. TMH1: Method A4: The determination of the linear shrinkage of soils.

17. TMH1: Method A5: The determination of the percentage of material, in a soil sample, passing a 0,075

mm sieve.

18. TMH1: Methods A1: The wet preparation and sieve analysis of gravel, sand and soil samples.


APPENDICES


Table A.1 Laboratory testing regime

Trial Pit Sample Depth(m) Indicator

Tests

Compaction

(Proctor)

Test

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

California

Bearing Ratio

TPI01 0.3 – 2.2 x x x x

TPI02 0.5 – 4.0 x x x x

TPI03 0.4 – 1.2 x x x x

TPI04 1.2 – 4.0 x x x x

TPJ01 0.2 – 1.2 x x x x

TPJ01 1.2 – 2.2 x x x x

TPA/B01 0.0 – 1.2 x x x x

TPA/B01 1.4 – 3.0 x x x x

TPH/Q01 1.0 – 2.5 x x x x

TPH/Q01 2.5 – 3.2 x x x x

TPH/Q07 0.2 – 1.0 x x x x


Table A.2: Bearing Capacity Calculations from SPT – N values Analysis for BH1

Input values

N (average value between depth between D and

D+B) 19.75

ER 60

SPT Correction factors

Cs 1

Cr 1

Cb 1

Ce 1

N60 19.75

Design parameters

D/B 0.5

Effective unit weight (kN/m^3) 9.23

Foundation Width (m) 0.6 1 1.5 2 2.5

Depth of interest (m) 0.6 1 1.5 2 2.5

Vertical effective stress (kPa) 5.538 9.23 13.845 18.46 23.075

Liao & Witman depth correction factor 0.2353 0.3038 0.3721 0.4297 0.4804

N1,60 39.50 39.50 39.50 39.50 39.50

TERZAGHI BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION FOR SANDS

Applied Factor of Safety 3.00

Using Hatanaka & Uchida (1996), Mayne (2001) equation

Friction angle (degrees) 44.7 44.7 44.7 44.7 44.7

Ngamma (Chen) 349.8 349.8 349.8 349.8 349.8

Ngamma (Brinch-Hansen) 188.1 188.1 188.1 188.1 188.1

Nq (same for all) 127.9 127.9 127.9 127.9 127.9

Ultimate capacity (kPa) 875.0 1458.3 2187.4 2916.6 3645.7

Allowable stress (kPa) 291.7 486.1 729.1 972.2 1215.2

Using De Mello (1971), Schmertmann (1975) and Mayne (2001) equation


Ngamma (Chen) (not used) 835.5 743.8 649.9 573.5 510.6


Nq (same for all) 257.1 234.0 209.9 189.8 172.9



DEFORMATION CRITERION

Using Burland & Burbridge (1984) Approach

Allowable settlement (mm) 25.4

Inducing mean-σ stress KPa 761.9 532.9 401.2 328.0 280.6

Inducing mean stress (kPa) 1386.5 969.7 730.1 596.9 510.6 )nducing mean+σ stress KPa 2523.0 1764.5 1328.5 1086.2 929.1



Input values


D+B) 21

ER 60


Cs 1

Cr 1

Cb 1

Ce 1

N60 21

Design parameters

D/B 0.5






N1,60 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00





Ngamma (Chen) 408.0 408.0 408.0 408.0 408.0


Nq (same for all) 144.5 144.5 144.5 144.5 144.5







Nq (same for all) 286.2 260.1 232.8 210.2 191.1










Input values


D+B) 21.25

ER 60


Cs 1

Cr 1

Cb 1

Ce 1

N60 21.25

Design parameters

D/B 0.5






N1,60 42.50 42.50 42.50 42.50 42.50





Ngamma (Chen) 420.7 420.7 420.7 420.7 420.7


Nq (same for all) 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1







Nq (same for all) 292.3 265.5 237.6 214.4 194.9









Table A.5: Trial Pit TPI01 Soil Profile


Table A.8: Trial Pit TPJ01 Soil Profile


Table A.9: Trial Pit TPA/B01 Soil Profile


Table A.10: Trial Pit TPH/Q01 Soil Profile


Table A.11: Trial Pit TPF01 Soil Profile


Table A.12: Laboratory Test Results


Table A.13: Laboratory Test Results cont.


Table A.14: Laboratory Test Results cont.

geotechnical investigation report for the propo … geotech report .pdf · and geotechnical drill...

Documents