report - uploads-ssl.webflow.com

REPORT

25 Kennedy's Bush Road Geotechnical Site Investigation and Assessment

Prepared for Philip Middelberg Prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Date February 2018 Job Number 1004685

Document Control

Title: 25 Kennedy's Bush Road Geotechnical Site Investigation and Assessment

Date Version Changes since previous version Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by

12/02/18 1 N/A J. Allott H. Bowen M. Jacka

Distribution:

Philip Middelberg 1 copy (pdf)

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd 25 Kennedy's Bush Road Geotechnical Site Investigation and Assessment Philip Middelberg

February 2018 Job No: 1004685

Table of contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 General 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Scope of work 2 1.4 Site description 2

2 Geotechnical information 3 2.1 Published geological information 3 2.2 Geotechnical investigations 3 2.3 Generalised sub-surface geotechnical model 3 2.4 Hydrogeological model 5

3 General development considerations 6 3.1 Site subsoil class 6 3.2 Seismic shaking hazard 6

4 Liquefaction assessment 7 4.1 Liquefaction observations during the Canterbury earthquakes 7 4.2 Liquefaction susceptibility 7 4.3 Liquefaction triggering 8 4.4 Liquefaction consequences 9 4.5 Lateral spreading 10

5 Geotechnical implications for site development 11 5.1 MBIE Technical Category equivalence 11 5.2 Residential foundation recommendations 11 5.3 RMA Section 106 11

6 Applicability 12

Appendix A : Figures

Appendix B : Site investigation data and laboratory test results

Appendix C: Statement of Professional Opinion

1



1 Introduction

1.1 General

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation and assessment completed by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) for 25 Kennedy’s Bush Road in Christchurch. The work described in this report was commissioned by Philip Middelberg and has been carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in T+T’s letter of engagement dated 03 October 2017, and associated variation dated 20 December 2017.

1.2 Background

The site is located east of Kennedy’s Bush Road with an area of approximately 6.3 Hectares. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1.1 (below). We understand that a residential subdivision with associated infrastructure is proposed for the site. The proposed subdivision layout1 is included in Appendix A.

The purpose of this geotechnical assessment is to accompany and support a resource consent application for subdivision, which is to be prepared by others.

Figure 1.1: Site location (Image source: Google Earth, Imagery date: 2/9/16)

1 Davie Lovell-Smith (December 2017). 25 Kennedys Bush Road. Gilling. Dwg. E.19377, Sht. E01.1, Rev. 0.

!

Approximate site boundary

Approx Scale 1:12,500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 (m)

2



1.3 Scope of work

T+T has completed the following scope of work for the purposes of this geotechnical assessment:

x Desk-based review of readily available existing geotechnical information, reports and aerial photographs relevant to the site.

x Site walkover by a T+T geotechnical engineer. x Site-specific ground investigations comprising:

� 13 cone penetration tests (CPTs), two machine-drilled boreholes (BHs) and 6 heavy dynamic cone penetration tests (HDCPs). These investigations were carried out in order to assess the site subsurface geotechnical conditions.

� Installation of two standpipe piezometers in order to better assess the shallow groundwater regime at the site.

� Laboratory testing of selected soil samples from the boreholes. x Liquefaction and lateral spreading analysis. x Assessment of the equivalent Technical Category for the site. x Identification of foundation options for the proposed development. x Assessment of the site against Sections 106 1a) and 1b) of the Resource Management Act

(RMA). x Preparation of this geotechnical report outlining the findings of the above work.

1.4 Site description

The legal description of the site is Lot 1 and 2 DP 23364. The site is generally flat with an elevation difference of approximately one metre from the northwest down to the south east of the site.

At the time of the T+T site investigations the majority of the site was used for grazing with associated farm sheds and one residential building in the south west of the site

An open channel runs along the northern part of the eastern site boundary. The channel is approximately 1.7 deep and the depth to the water surface is approximately 1.6 mbgl measured relative to the ground level adjacent to the channel.

3



2 Geotechnical information

2.1 Published geological information

Published geological information2 indicates that the site is located on a raised alluvial channel and is generally underlain by alluvial silts, sands and gravels which are part of the Yaldhurst Member of the Springston Formation. These were deposited in a relatively low-energy (slow-moving) surface water environment over the last 10,000 years. These deposits are likely to be underlain at depth by dense gravels of the Riccarton Gravel formation.

2.2 Geotechnical investigations

Site-specific geotechnical investigations were completed in January 2018 and comprised:

x 13 CPTs advanced to refusal conditions. x 6 HDCP tests to a target depth of 12 mbgl. x Two machine-drilled boreholes advanced to depths of between 15.65 and 18.75 mbgl with

standard penetration tests (SPTs) at 1.5 m centres. Soil samples were collected from various soil layers during the borehole drilling, with samples from BH1 at 1.4, 6.8 and 7.3 mbgl and from BH102 at 8.05, 9.7 and 12.8 mbgl submitted to an IANZ accredited laboratory for fines content analysis or Atterberg limit testing.

Two standpipe piezometers were also installed on site for ongoing groundwater level monitoring. The standpipe piezometers were installed at the locations of CPT 102, and CPT113 to depths of 1.5 mbgl. The investigation locations are shown on Figure 1, Appendix A. CPT and HDCP results, borehole logs and lab testing results are included in Appendix B.

Four further CPTs have been carried out on the site in the past and the results have been made available to T+T for this assessment. The locations of these investigations are shown in Figure 1, Appendix A.

2.3 Generalised sub-surface geotechnical model

The generalised geotechnical profile expected to underlie the site that is inferred from the available investigation information is summarised in Table 2.1 (below). The nature and continuity of subsurface conditions away from the investigation locations is inferred.

2 Barrell, D. J. A. (2015) Geomorphological map of eastern Canterbury. In: Begg, J. G.; Jones, K. E; Barrell, D. J. A

(compilers) 2015. Geology and geomorphology of urban Christchurch and eastern Canterbury. GNS Science geological map 3. 1 DVD-ROM. Lower Hutt, New Zealand. GNS Science.

4



Table 2.1: Generalised geotechnical profile beneath the site

Soil layer no.

Typical depth to

top of layer

(mbgl)

Typical layer

thickness (m)

Geologic formation

Typical lithology Typical SPT

blow-counts (N60)

Typical CPT tip

resistance (MPa)

0 0 0.3 - Topsoil/Organic SILT - 0.5 – 1

1a 0.3 0.7 – 4.0

Yaldhurst Member of

the Springston Formation

Variable SILT and SAND (including gravelly sand)

mixtures, soft/loose 9 0.0 – 3

1b 1.0 – 4.0 3.5 – 8.0 GRAVEL, sandy, some silt, loose to dense 9 – 46 10 – 30+

(refusal)

1c 6.5 8

SAND and dilatant SILT mixtures, with some

organic/peat lenses, loose to dense, soft

0 – 11 1.0 – 10

2 14.5 Not confirmed

Riccarton Gravel

Medium dense to dense GRAVEL with some sand 27 – 45 N/A

Of interest within the soil profile is the presence of the intermediate gravel layer (Layer 1b) beneath the site. In general, the depth to the top of this layer varies between approximately 1.0 and 4.0 m, with the greater depth to gravels occurring in the central southern area of the site. The thickness of this gravel layer is up to approximately 8.0 m, although this reduces to approximately 3.5 m in the central southern area. In Figure 2.1 (below) the majority of the site with the shallow and thicker gravel layer is named Zone A and the central southern area with the great depth to gravel and thinner gravel layer is named Zone B.

Figure 2.1: Zones A and B showing areas of the site with different soil profiles (Image source: Google Earth,

Imagery date: 2/9/16)

5



2.4 Hydrogeological model

2.4.1 Published information

Groundwater information for nearby locations is available on the NZGD3, which is based on the medium-term monitoring of piezometers at hundreds of locations across Christchurch. This indicates that the median groundwater elevation at the site ranges from approximately 12.0 mLVD at the western site boundary to 11.0 mLVD at the eastern site boundary. This corresponds to a depth of approximately 1.0 mbgl across the entire site.

Groundwater levels at the site will fluctuate in response to rainfall and due to yearly and seasonal variation.

2.4.2 Site observations

During the January 2018 geotechnical site investigations, artesian groundwater pressure (at depth) was noted during the borehole investigations. Subsequent monitoring of the shallow standpipe piezometers during the period of late January 2018 gave ground water level measurements of between 1.2 and 1.4 mbgl. The water level in the stream on the neighbouring property to the east of the site is approximately 1.6 m below the ground level to the west of the stream and the water is approximately 0.1 m deep. Note that these measurements were taken during a period of generally dry summer weather.

2.4.3 Site fill and dewatering

T+T understand that it is proposed to fill portions of the site as shown in the fill plan provided (See Appendix A) and that the site is to be dewatered using field drains, if required, to bring the ground water down to approximately 1.0 mbgl.

2.4.4 Groundwater levels summary

A groundwater level of 1.0 mbgl has been adopted for liquefaction assessment purposes.

Due to the relatively shallow groundwater and the possibility of artesian pressures at the site we recommend that careful consideration be paid to the effect any earthworks activities undertaken at the site. Where practical it would be preferable to avoid deep penetrations through the low-permeability near-surface soils which help to seal the artesian groundwater pressures below.

3 Canterbury Geotechnical Database (2014). GNS Science Median Groundwater Surface Elevations. Map Layer CGD5160

– 10 June 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com

https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com/

6



3 General development considerations

3.1 Site subsoil class

In terms of NZS 1170.54 the site subsoil class is assessed to be Class D (deep or soft soil) due to the presence of soil with an equivalent SPT blowcount of > 6 within the upper soil profile. This recommendation is also based on published geological information5 that indicates the depth to bedrock is greater than 100 m beneath the site.

3.2 Seismic shaking hazard

Evaluation of the seismic performance of the site (including liquefaction effects) is guided by the seismic shaking hazard assessed for the site and the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code, which considers the design earthquake scenarios derived from “NZS 1170 – Structural Design Actions” representing the following design performance requirements:

x Serviceability limit state 1 (SLS1) – the building should suffer little or no structural damage, and remain accessible and safe to occupy. There may be minor damage to building fabric that is readily repairable.

x Ultimate limit state (ULS) – the building is expected to suffer moderate to significant structural damage, but not to collapse.

The design earthquake scenarios are described in terms of an event moment magnitude (Mw) and peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGAH) and were derived assuming a building design life of 50 years and an Importance Level (IL) of IL2 as set out in NZS 1170. Two SLS1 scenarios (SLS1a and SLS1b) were assessed. The SLS1b scenario represents an alternative SLS1 scenario that is also considered when using the Boulanger and Idriss (2014)6 liquefaction triggering analysis in the Christchurch area, in accordance with guidance updates released recently by MBIE7 (MBIE Guidance). In addition, a 100 year return period event was also considered to evaluate the consequences of liquefaction in an intermediate earthquake level between the SLS and ULS cases.

The earthquake scenarios adopted for analysis are presented in Table 3.1 (below).

Table 3.1: Design earthquake scenarios

SLS1a SLS1b 100 yr ULS

Return period (years) 25 25 100 500

Moment magnitude (Mw) 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5

Peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGAH) 0.13 g 0.19 g 0.30 g 0.35 g

4 Standards New Zealand (2004) – NZS 1170.5:2004 – Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New

Zealand. 5 Brown, L. J. and Weeber, J. H. (1992), Geology of the Christchurch Urban Area. Institute of Geological & Nuclear

Sciences Limited Geological Map 1. Scale 1:25,000. 6 Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2014). CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Center for

Geotechnical Modeling, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis. 7 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (2014). Clarifications and updates to the guidance. Repairing and

rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes.

7



4 Liquefaction assessment

4.1 Liquefaction observations during the Canterbury earthquakes

4.1.1 Aerial photographs and ground-based liquefaction mapping

A review of satellite and aerial photographs taken following the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquake8 events indicates evidence of minor surface ejecta in the central southern area (approximately coincident with Zone B) of the site. Minimal sand ejecta is also visible on the property immediately to the south of the site.

No aerial photography is available following the 13 June 2011 and 23 December 2011 events.

Ground-based liquefaction mapping9 was undertaken by EQC in the surrounding residential area following the 4 September 2010, 22 February 2011 and 13 June 2011 earthquakes. This indicated scattered areas of minor to moderate liquefaction ejecta, consistent with the photography described above.

4.1.2 Shaking intensity

The estimated conditional PGAH levels that Christchurch experienced during each major event within the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) have been modelled by Bradley and Hughes (2012)10 based on records from ground motion recording stations all over the city.

The conditional mean PGAH levels modelled show that during the 4 September 2010 event the shaking intensity may have been around 0.28 g at the site, which roughly corresponds to a 100 year return period event. For the 22 February 2011 event the site may have experienced a peak shaking intensity of 0.38 g, which is estimated to be roughly equivalent to a 300 year return period event. The 13 June and 23 December 2011 events may have generated around 0.14 – 0.16 g shaking intensity at the site, which roughly correspond to less than 25 year return period events.

We note that the shaking intensities that the site likely experienced during the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events (190% to 210% of SLS level) mean that it has been “sufficiently tested at SLS” according to Section 13.5.1 of the MBIE Guidance. This means that liquefaction-related land damage at the site in a future SLS earthquake is expected to be no worse than what the site has already experienced.

4.2 Liquefaction susceptibility

Seismic liquefaction occurs when excess pore pressures are generated in loose, saturated, generally cohesionless soil during earthquake shaking, causing the soil to undergo a partial to complete loss of shear strength. Such a loss of shear strength can result in settlement and/or horizontal movement (lateral spreading) of the soil mass. The occurrence of liquefaction is dependent on several factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, soil density, particle size distribution and elevation of the groundwater table.

8 Canterbury Geotechnical Database (2012). Aerial Photography. Map Layer CGD0100 – 1 June 2012. Retrieved 31

January 2018 from https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com 9 Canterbury Geotechnical Database (2013) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Observations, Map Layer CGD0300 - 11

Feb 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com 10 Bradley and Hughes (2012). Conditional Peak Ground Accelerations in the Canterbury Earthquakes for Conventional

Liquefaction Assessment – Technical Report for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.



8



Based on experience gained during the CES, the various tools available for characterising and analysing the geotechnical nature of the soils underlying the site, and visual and tactile assessment of the materials encountered during the borehole drilling, the liquefaction susceptibility of each of the soil layers outlined in the geological model (Table 2.1) is assessed to be:

x Layer 1a (sand and silt mixtures) is considered to generally be susceptible to liquefaction. We note that the interbedded nature of this layer means that there are liquefiable sand and silt mixtures interlayered between non-liquefiable (more plastic) silts.

x Layer 1b (gravel) is generally considered to be non-liquefiable given its composition and density. Localised lenses of potentially-liquefiable sandier material may exist within the overall gravel layer, but this is not expected to result in significant ground surface consequences.

x Layer 1c (silt mixtures) is generally considered to be liquefiable, however the ground surface consequences are likely to be reduced by interbedding of the liquefiable material with non-liquefiable silts and the presence of the overlying gravel layer.

x Layer 2 (gravel) is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction given its composition and density.

4.3 Liquefaction triggering

A liquefaction triggering assessment was undertaken for the site using Idriss and Boulanger (2014). The four scenarios of ground shaking intensity outlined in Table 3.1 were analysed. In general, liquefaction is expected to be triggered in lenses of Layers 1a and 1c sands under SLS1 level shaking. The cumulative thickness of the materials expected to liquefy increases as the shaking intensity level increases from SLS1 to ULS.

Laboratory testing results from soil samples retrieved from the site and an assessment of the fines content predicted using methods recommended in the MBIE Guidance11 indicated that a fines fitting parameter (CFC) of 0.2 was appropriate, as demonstrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 – Correlation between CPT IC and fines content (FC). The solid black line represents the ‘typical’ relationship between IC and FC with CFC = 0. Laboratory test data from this site (green symbols with black borders), nearby sites with similar silty soils (coloured symbols) and sites across the wider Christchurch area (grey symbols) show that using CFC = +0.20 provides a better correlation between IC and FC.

11 Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M (2014). SPT and CPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-

14/01. University of California at Davis, April 2014.

9



4.4 Liquefaction consequences

The sand and sandy silt in Layers 1a and 1c is susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is expected to trigger in earthquakes with return periods greater than 25 years (using the liquefaction triggering method of Boulanger and Idriss 2014 and a CFC parameter of 0.2). This corresponds to an earthquake with M7.5 and PGA = 0.13g. In earthquakes greater than this, the consequences of liquefaction are expected to include loss of bearing capacity and differential settlements associated with liquefaction of Layers 1a and 1c. The effects are expected to be more pronounced in Zone B and may include sand boils and differential settlements. These are outlined in more detail in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Table 4.1 – Liquefaction consequences summary (excluding lateral spreading) for Zone A

Method SLS 100yr ULS Interpretation Implications for this site

Crust Thickness, H1 (1)

Range = 1 – 4m Average = 3m



Observations from Christchurch and other earthquakes are that the greater the depth to liquefied soils (crust thickness) the less damage is likely to be reflected at the ground surface. If the crust thickness is greater than 3.5m then no damage is expected.

Ground surface damage (such as sand boils) may be expected

Calculated Free Field Settlements (2)

Range = 0 – 10mm Average = 2mm


Range = 0 – 30mm Average= 10mm

Ishihara (1996) produced guidelines correlating the magnitude of calculated settlement with observed ground damage. 0 – 100mm settlement was associated with light to no damage with minor cracks on the ground surface.

Light damage expected due to liquefaction in SLS, 100yr, ULS events

Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) (3)

Range = 0 – 5 Average = 1



LSN is a parameter calculated on the basis of investigation data considering liquefaction potential and its depth. This parameter has been correlated with evidence of surface ground damage in Christchurch. LSN = 5 - 15 indicates minor damage with relatively small deformation of the ground, settlements in the order of tens of millimetres, some small sand boils possible.

Minor damage expected due to liquefaction in SLS, 100yr, ULS events

(1) Bowen, H.J. and Jacka, M.E (2013) Liquefaction induced ground damage in the Canterbury Earthquake: Predictions versus reality. Proceedings of the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium. Editor CY Chin. Queenstown, New Zealand.

(2) Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) Guidance - Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes, Version 3, December 2012

(3) van Ballegooy, S., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M. and Malan, P. (2013) LSN – a new methodology for characterising the effects of liquefaction in terms of relative land damage severity. Proceedings of the 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium. Editor CY Chin. Queenstown, New Zealand.

10



Table 4.2 – Liquefaction consequences summary (excluding lateral spreading) for Zone B

Method SLS 100yr ULS Interpretation Implications for this site

Crust Thickness (1)

Range = 1.3 – 1.6m Average = 1.4m

Range = 1 – 1.3m Average = 1.1m

Range = 1 – 1.3m Average = 1.1m

Observations from Christchurch and other earthquakes are that the greater the depth to liquefied soils (crust thickness) the less damage is likely to be reflected at the ground surface.

Ground surface damage (such as sand boils) may be expected

Calculated Free Field Settlements (2)




Ishihara (1996) produced guidelines correlating the magnitude of calculated settlement with observed ground damage. 0 – 100mm settlement was associated with light to no damage with minor cracks on the ground surface.

Light damage expected due to liquefaction in SLS, 100yr, ULS events

Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) (3)




LSN is a parameter calculated on the basis of investigation data considering liquefaction potential and its depth. This parameter has been correlated with evidence of surface ground damage in Christchurch. LSN = 10 – 25 correlates with moderate damage, consisting of liquefaction occurring in layers of limited thickness and lateral extent; ground deformation results relatively small in differential settlements. LSN = 15 – 35 correlates with high damage, consisting of liquefaction occurring in significant portion of the deposit resulting in transient lateral displacements, moderate differential movements, and settlement of the ground in the order of 100mm to 200mm.

Minor damage expected due to liquefaction in SLS event, Moderate damage in 100yr event. This calculation suggests potential for high damage in ULS event, however this is considered to overestimate the likely damage, as the calculation does not fully account for the beneficial effect of interlayering with non-liquefied soils and the intermediate gravel layer.

4.5 Lateral spreading

Lateral spreading is not expected to occur on the site. Typically the site and surrounding areas are flat. The only potential feature which may cause lateral spreading in an earthquake is a newly formed stream which runs on a neighbouring property along the northern part of the eastern boundary. This channel is currently approximately 1.7 m deep.

We have undertaken a lateral spreading assessment adjacent to this stream. The conclusion was that near-surface liquefiable layers are not present in the north eastern end of the site therefore there is no significant risk of lateral spreading at the site. Any proposed stormwater basin or other changes to the land at the site or on neighbouring sites present a potential lateral spreading hazard and should be assessed accordingly.

11



5 Geotechnical implications for site development

5.1 MBIE Technical Category equivalence

As discussed in Section 4 we consider that the standard analysis methodology overestimates the consequences of liquefaction for the ground conditions present at the site. Based on our understanding of the ground conditions, the expected seismic response of the soil types present, and observations on the site and surrounding areas following the CES, we consider that the likely land performance in future earthquakes is TC2-equivalent for all lots in the proposed subdivision.

5.2 Residential foundation recommendations

NZS3604 timber piles or TC2 type concrete slabs in accordance with the MBIE guidance are recommended for the proposed houses at the site. A shallow geotechnical investigation will need to be carried out on each lot, consisting of hand augers and scala penetrometers to a depth of at least 2 m and carried out in accordance with NZS 3604:2011. If the shallow geotechnical investigations show that the bearing capacity is less than 200kPa then foundations should be specifically designed.

The existing deep site investigations indicate that a geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity of 200 kPa can be achieved on site, however this will need to be confirmed by shallow geotechnical investigations at each proposed building location.

5.3 RMA Section 106

With respect to Sections 106 1a) and 1b) of the 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA), we make the following comments:

x No erosion was observed on the site in its current state. The potential for any future erosion during construction will need to be managed by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the site (to be prepared by others).

x The site is not considered to be susceptible to falling debris or slippage given its topography and geographical location.

x Inundation from stormwater is expected to be addressed as part of the detailed civil engineering design for the subdivision (to be prepared by others).

x Liquefaction-related inundation and subsidence have the potential to affect the site. However, our assessment indicates that if the geotechnical recommendations outlined in this report are followed, then these effects will be reduced to an acceptable level (as per the MBIE Guidance and as defined in CCC Subdivision Bulletin 23.2), and the proposed site development works will comply with the intent of RMA Sections 106 1a) and 1b).

RMA Section 106 1c) is not relevant to a geotechnical assessment of the site.

12



6 Applicability

This report has been prepared for the benefit of Philip Middelberg with respect to the particular brief given to us. It may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose without our prior review and agreement.

Recommendations and opinions in this report are based on visual inspections and a limited number of discrete data points. The nature and continuity of the subsoil away from the sample locations is inferred, and future seismic demand has been estimated based on current industry practice. As with any model, there remain uncertainties regarding the actual conditions and future earthquake demands, however these uncertainties have been taken into account in performing our geotechnical assessment and presenting an earthworks and foundation design strategy.

It is recommended that the final building foundation designs, drawings and specification are reviewed by an appropriately qualified and experienced Geotechnical Chartered Professional Engineer, who is familiar with the contents of this report, prior to the commencement of construction.

During construction, all earthworks and foundation excavations should be examined by an inspector who is competent to confirm that the subsurface conditions encountered are compatible with the inferred conditions on which this report is based, and assess any additional undercut or support requirements.

It is important that Tonkin & Taylor Ltd be contacted immediately if there is any variation in subsoil conditions from those which are described in this report.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Report prepared by: Reviewed by:

.......................................................... ..........................................................

Julia Allott Hayden Bowen Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

…………………………………………………………..

Mike Jacka

Project Director

p:\1004685\1004685.1000\workingmaterial\report\2018-02-01.25kennedy'sbushrd.report.docx

Appendix A : Figures

PHILIP MIDDELBERG25 KENNEDY’S BUSH ROAD

HALSWELLInvestigation Location Plan1:2000

1004685.1000 Figure 1 0

JIMB

1004685.1000 Figure 1

Feb18

FILE :

DRAFTING CHECKED

DRAWN

APPROVED

FIG. No. REV.PROJECT No.

APPROX. SCALE (AT A4 SIZE)

www.tonkintaylor.co.nz

!

Notes:1. Aerial image sourced from NZGD. Date: 02/09/16.

Approximateproperty boundary

Approx Scale 1:20000 20 40 60 80 100 (m)

!

KEY

CPT/HDCP101

CPT/HDCP/PIEZO 102

CPT/HDCP103

CPT/HDCP105

CPT/HDCP106

CPT108CPTB

CPTD

CPTC

BH101/CPTACPT104

CPT107

CPT109

BH102/CPT110

CPT111

CPT112

CPT/HDCP/PIEZO113

2018 Borehole

CPT completed by others

2018 investigation location (CPT, HDCPand/or piezometer)

Appendix B : Site investigation data and laboratory test results

GEOTECHNICS LTD 45A Parkhouse Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 p. +64 3 361 0300 [email protected] P O Box 13055, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand f. +64 3 341 0219 www.geotechnics.co.nz

Our Ref: 1005648.0.0.0/REP1A Customer Ref: 1004685.1000

7 February 2018 Tonkin + Taylor PO Box 13055 Christchurch Attention: Julia Allot Dear Julia

Geotechnical Investigation at 25 Kennedy's Bush Road

Amended Site Report

Introduction

This report supersedes the original report number 1005648.0.0.0/REP1 dated 23 January 2018 due to corrections in the Borehole Logs.

Customer’s Instructions

We were instructed to:

x Complete 13 piezocone 100MPa penetration tests CPT101 - CPT113 to a depth of 15m or refusal.

x Supervise Pro-Drill for BH101 & BH102 and log recovered core.

x Keep recovered core for potential further laboratory tests.

x Complete 6 Super Heavy Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests DPSH101 – DPSH103, DPSH105, DPSH113.

Specifications

None issued.

Dates of Procedures

9th to 19th January 2018

Determining the Test Locations

Test locations were determined by the engineer.

Refer to Test Remarks and General Remarks below for coordinates. Expected accuracy for locations is ±10m and ±10m for elevation.

Page 1 of 52

GEOTECHNICS LTD Geotechnical Investigation at 25 Kennedy's Bush Road - Amended Site Report Tonkin + Taylor

7 February 2018 Our Ref: 1005648.0.0.0/REP1A

Customer Ref: 1004685.1000

Location Plan

The attached plan provides indicative locations only and is not to scale. All other information we provide regarding location should be referenced to the asset owner.

Samples

The following samples have been collected by Geotechnics.

BH101 BH102 Depth (m) Test Depth (m) Test

1.4 FC & NWC 8.05 FC & NWC 6.8 FC & NWC 12.8 FC & NWC 7.3 FC & NWC 9.7 LL, PL & PI

Methods

ISO 22476-1: 2012(E) - Geotechnical investigation and testing – Field testing – Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration test

BS 1377: Part 9:1990 Test 3.2 - Determination of the Dynamic Probing Resistance using the 90˚ Cone (DPSH)

GEO190-13 – Fines Content

NZS 4402:1986 Test 2.2 – Liquid limit

NZS 4402:1986 Test 2.3 – Plastic limit

NZS 4402:1986 Test 2.4 – Plasticity index

Material Description

Material descriptions are provided in the attached results.

Results

The following is attached:

x CPT Plots

x Borehole Logs

x HDCP Results

x Laboratory Test Results

x Probe Calibration Certificate

x SPT Calibration Certificate

Raw CPTu data files have been supplied via email.

Test Remarks

Material Logging

Material logging and descriptions in the field are in general accordance with the New Zealand Geotechnical Society Inc in 'Guideline for the Field Classification of Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes' (December 2005), excluding geological information and are based on the observational

Page 2 of 52




behaviour of the material. (It should not be construed that a laboratory description is the in situ state or nature of a material.)

The logs represent our best assessment of the sub-surface conditions, but due to the subjective nature of material logging, we take no responsibility for any inaccuracies or misinterpretations.

SPT

SPT results have been provided by Pro-Drill and are not covered under the IANZ endorsement of this report.

DPSH

Dynamic probe tests were completed using Super Heavy (DPSH) apparatus and are not covered under the IANZ endorsements of this report. Geotechnics’ Dando Terrier rig has the following energy measurement parameters1: x Average DPSH Hammer Energy Efficiency: 75.95% x Average Theoretical Energy Transfer: 0.355kNm x Measurements taken between DPSH Hammer and Probing Rods

CPT

Test IDs CPT101 - CPT113

Operator ZPM

Machine Ingenjörsfirman Geotech AB 220, capacity 200 kN

Cone Probe No 4592

Porewater Pressure Location u2, Glycerine Saturated

Friction Reducer Ring type, Outer diameter 46mm, Amount 1, Located at 0.50m behind the base of the cone

1 As reported in “SPT Energy Measurements on Geotechnics Dando Terrier rig with DPSH 63.5kg Hammer” (by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, January 2014).

Page 3 of 52




CPT101 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 6.15m Actual Depth: 6.12m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735407 E 2475425 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 1.25m Test Notes: Test refusal at 6.12m > 40Mpa, Tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.69 118.80 241.90 Baseline(Initial - Final) -0.08 0.00 -0.50 % of MSO(Initial - Final) -0.16 0.00 -0.95 Max Measure value 47.48 571.60 52.40

Meets ISO 22476-1:2012 - Application class 1 (0m - 6.01m) - Application class 3 (6.01m - 6.09m) - Application class 4 (6.09m - 6.12m)

CPT102 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 4.02m Actual Depth: 4.02m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735505 E 2475445 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 1.25m Test Notes: Test refusal at 5.24m > 45 Mpa, truck lifting Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.61 118.90 241.10 Baseline(Initial - Final) 0.04 1.00 -0.20 % of MSO(Initial - Final) 0.08 0.22 -0.57 Max Measure value 48.25 446.10 35.10

Meets ISO 22476-1:2012 - Application class 1 (0m - 0.64m) - Application class 3 (0.64m - 4.02m)

Page 4 of 52




CPT103 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 1.68m Actual Depth: 1.64m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735535 E 2475522 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.4m Test Notes: Test refusal at 1.64m > 25Mpa, tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.68 119.00 240.30 Baseline(Initial - Final) 0.00 0.60 0.40 % of MSO(Initial - Final) -0.01 0.20 1.36 Max Measure value 27.66 300.10 29.50


CPT104 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 14.54m Actual Depth: 14.44m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735465 E 2475528 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.65m Test Notes: Test refusal at 14.44m > 45Mpa, tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.68 118.80 240.50 Baseline(Initial - Final) 0.02 0.30 0.50 % of MSO(Initial - Final) 0.05 0.05 0.14 Max Measure value 46.41 580.40 357.80


Page 5 of 52




CPT105 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 5.34m Actual Depth: 5.32m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735396 E 2475488 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 1m Test Notes: Test Refusal at 5.32m > 50Mpa, truck lifting Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.63 118.60 240.90 Baseline(Initial - Final) 0.01 1.10 -0.60 % of MSO(Initial - Final) 0.02 0.22 -1.92 Max Measure value 63.48 511.40 31.20


CPT106 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 3.4m Actual Depth: 3.38m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735558 E 2475588 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.8m Test Notes: Test refusal at 3.38m > 40Mpa, tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.70 119.10 239.80 Baseline(Initial - Final) -0.06 0.60 1.00 % of MSO(Initial - Final) -0.14 0.08 4.22 Max Measure value 42.10 790.00 23.70


Page 6 of 52




CPT107 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 4.9m Actual Depth: 4.88m Operation Date: 17/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735468 E 2475600 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.85m Test Notes: Test refusal at 4.88m > 70Mpa, truck lifting Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.63 118.70 240.00 Baseline(Initial - Final) 0.01 1.20 0.00 % of MSO(Initial - Final) 0.01 0.24 0.00 Max Measure value 72.86 503.70 38.40




Page 7 of 52






CPT110 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 2.82m Actual Depth: 2.8m Operation Date: 17/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735468 E 2475674 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.46m Test Notes: Test refusal at 2.8m > 20Mpa, tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.70 119.30 240.70 Baseline(Initial - Final) -0.01 0.40 -0.10 % of MSO(Initial - Final) -0.04 0.07 -0.42 Max Measure value 29.41 537.40 23.90


Page 8 of 52




CPT111 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 7.85m Actual Depth: 7.8m Operation Date: 15/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735561 E 2475710 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.68m Test Notes: Test refusal at 7.8m > 30Mpa, tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.62 119.40 240.00 Baseline(Initial - Final) 0.02 0.00 0.60 % of MSO(Initial - Final) 0.05 0.00 0.82 Max Measure value 49.51 685.50 73.20


CPT112 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 2.8m Actual Depth: 2.78m Operation Date: 16/01/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735490 E 2475737 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 0.85m Test Notes: Test refusal at 2.78m > 50Mpa, Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.69 119.00 240.00 Baseline(Initial - Final) -0.08 0.10 1.00 % of MSO(Initial - Final) -0.12 0.01 5.62 Max Measure value 68.37 803.50 17.80


Page 9 of 52




CPT113 - Target Depth: 15m Predrill Depth: 0m Penetration Length: 4.46m Actual Depth: 4.41m Operation Date: 16/09/2018 Coordinates: NZMG - N 5735431 E 2475773 10m (amsl) Ground Water Level: 1.2m Test Notes: Test refusal at 4.41m > 40Mpa, tilt spiked Other Tests: None qc (Mpa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) BaselineInital 11.60 119.80 239.60 Baseline(Initial - Final) -0.01 -0.10 0.90 % of MSO(Initial - Final) -0.02 -0.03 3.49 Max Measure value 56.50 378.70 25.80


Raw Data: The data presented in this report is factual and based on the results of CPTu testing undertaken with reasonable diligence. Any interpretation of the data is the sole responsibility of the user.

Measured Water Levels: Where water level measurements are reported, the depth was determined immediately after the test with an electronic water level meter. Where water level measurement was not successful, a hydrostatic line of best fit was added to the CPTu plot and is noted in the report as ‘assumed’.

Penetration Speed: Adding 1m length rods requires a pause in penetration and the testing is therefore non-continuous. Where materials may damage equipment, penetration speed is reduced to protect equipment and limit inclination deviation. Penetration speed is recorded in the tab data and when reduced to <20mm/second is not in accordance with the test method.

Tip Resistance (qc): The CPTu plots show tip resistance as qc.

The static pore water pressure line shown is assumed to be hydrostatic from the phreatic surface. The validity of this assumption must be checked by the user.

Pore Pressure (u2): The test method for taking pore pressure readings may not be suitable for the type of material being tested. Therefore, the corrected or calculated parameters bases on u2 values are not included in this report.

Friction Ratio (Rf): There is no offset between tip resistance and sleeve friction used for friction ratio determination.

Page 10 of 52




General Remarks Location(s) Northing(s) Easting(s) RL

BH101 5735440 2475773 10

BH102 5735468 2475668 10

Method used to determine Locations: GPS\GNSS (Handheld) Method used to determine RL: GPS\GNSS (Handheld)

This report has been prepared for the benefit of Tonkin + Taylor, with respect to the particular brief given to us and it cannot be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose without our prior review and agreement. The inherent uncertainties of site investigation work, mean the nature and continuity of subsoil away from the test location could vary from the data logged.

We provide the results and logs for your interpretation and inference.

Descriptions and logs are enclosed for your information, but are not covered under the IANZ endorsement of this report.

Samples not destroyed during testing will be retained for one month from the date of this report before being discarded.

Please reproduce this report in full when transmitting to others or including in internal reports.

If we can be of any further assistance, feel free to get in touch. Contact details are provided at the bottom of the letterhead page.

GEOTECHNICS LTD

Report prepared by: ...........................….......…............... Zach Mooney Geotechnical Technician

Authorised for Geotechnics by: ...........................….......…............... Paul Burton Project Director Approved Signatory

Report checked by: ...........................….......…............... Corey Papu-Gread Christchurch Manager

7-Feb-18 t:\geotechnicsgroup\projects\1005648\workingmaterial\20180124.zpm.1005648.0.0.0.rep01a.docx

Page 11 of 52

Paul BurtonI have reviewed thisdocument2018.02.08 10:18:45 +13'00'




LOCATION PLAN CPT101 - CPT103, BH101, BH102 - 9/1/2018 to 16/1/2018 Locations are indicative only

45A Parkhouse Road Wigram Christchurch 8042

Site 25 Kennedy's Bush Road Our Ref 1005648.0.0.0/REP1A Drawn ZPM Date 23/01/2018

Location Halswell, Christchurch Your Ref 1004685.1000 Checked SWT Date 23/01/2018

Project Geotechnical Investigation at 25 Kennedy's Bush Road Lab Ref N/A Scale Not to Scale

Aerial photograph sourced from Google (Copyright 2018)

Page 12 of 52

CPT101 25 Kennedy's Bush Road - 15 January, 2018 45a Parkhouse Rd, Christchurch Pre-Drill: 0m NZMG 2475425mE 5735407mN 10m(amsl) e. [email protected]

Measured GWL: 1.25m (BGL) Other Tests: None p.+64 (0)3 361 0300

Operator: ZPM Comments: Located By: Hand GPS/GE (el) Geotechnics Ref: 1005648.0.0.0

Test refusal at 6.12m > 40Mpa, Tilt spiked

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Sleeve friction fs (kPa)

Cone Resistance qc (MPa)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10Friction Ratio (%)

GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-100 0 100 200 300Pore Pressure u2 (kPa)

Data entered by: ZPM Date: 17/01/2018Checked by: SWT Date: 17/01/2018

Geotechnics Ltd. T:\GeotechnicsGroup\Projects\1005648\WorkingMaterial\CPT\Processing\25 Kennedy's Bush - CPT101.xlsm25 Kennedy's Bush - CPT101.xlsm

Page 13 of 52




Test refusal at 5.24m > 45 Mpa, truck lifting

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5



Geotechnics Ltd. T:\GeotechnicsGroup\Projects\1005648\WorkingMaterial\CPT\Processing\25 Kennedy's Bush Road - CPT102.xlsm25 Kennedy's Bush Road - CPT102.xlsm

Page 14 of 52


Assumed GWL: 0.4m (BGL) Other Tests: None p.+64 (0)3 361 0300


Test refusal at 1.64m > 25Mpa, tilt spiked

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2




Page 15 of 52





0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16




Page 16 of 52


Measured GWL: 1m (BGL) Other Tests: None p.+64 (0)3 361 0300


Test Refusal at 5.32m > 50Mpa, truck lifting

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 17 of 52





0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 18 of 52




Test refusal at 4.88m > 70Mpa, truck lifting

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 19 of 52





0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 20 of 52





0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 21 of 52





0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 22 of 52





0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11




Page 23 of 52




Test refusal at 2.78m > 50Mpa,

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 24 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

6:58

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f

DRILLED BY: Scott & Matt

LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD

START DATE: 09/01/2018

FINISH DATE: 09/01/2018

CONTRACTOR: Pro-Drill

SHEET: 1 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH101

R.L. GROUND: 10.00mR.L. COLLAR:

SURVEY: Handheld GPSDATUM:

PROJECT: 25 Kennedy's Bush Road.

LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:

ANGLE FROM HORIZ.: -90°

(WGS84)172.572182-43.587706

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG

SOIL: Classification, colour, consistency / density, moisture, plasticity

ROCK: Weathering, colour, fabric, name, strength, cementation Roc

k W

eath

erin

g

Description

& Additional Observations

Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

0.00m: Organic sandy SILT, trace gravel, tracerootlets; brown. Soft, moist; non-plastic, non-dilatant;sand, fine; gravel, fine, sub-rounded, sandstone;organics, amorphous.

0.35m: Sandy SILT; light brown. Soft, moist, non-plastic, non-dilatant; sand, fine.

0.54m: SILT, trace sand; light brown. Soft, moist,non-plastic, non-dilatant; sand, fine.

0.70m: Silty fine SAND; grey with orange mottling.Loosely packed, wet to saturated, poorly graded.

1.50-1.58m: core loss.1.58m: Silty fine SAND; grey with orange mottling.Loose, wet to saturated, poorly graded.

2.15m: Sandy fine to medium GRAVEL, some silt;greyish brown. Loosely packed, saturated, poorlygraded; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fine.

1

2

3

4

0.15m: dry.

0.40m: brown with grey mottling.

0.60m: grey with orange mottling.

2.20m: minor cobbles, trace silt. Gravel, fine to coarse;cobbles, sub-rounded, sandstone.

2.60m: sand, fine to medium.

2.80m: cobbles absent, brownish grey.3.00m: medium dense.3.10m: minor cobbles, sub-rounded, sandstone.

4.50m: loose.

4.95m: trace sand, silt absent; grey.

98

76

Box

1, 0

.0-2

.8m

Box

2, 4

.2-0

.0m

1/01/33/2N=9

5/55/54/4

N=18

4/72/22/3N=9

4.20m: gravel and cobbleshave brown staining onsurface.

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

8210

010

010

010

0

Drilled by Sonic Rig - MS 1000. Ground water not measured due to artesian pressure.Hole Depth

18.75m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 25 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

6:58

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 2 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH101




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.572182-43.587706

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

6.55m: Fine to medium SAND, trace silt; brownishgrey. Medium dense, wet to saturated, poorly graded.

8.30m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, traceorganics; grey. Loosely packed, saturated, poorlygraded; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fineto medium; organics, amorphous.8.60m: SILT, minor sand; grey. Very soft to soft,saturated, low-plasticity, quick-dilatant behaviour;sand, fine.

9.90m: PEAT, dark brown. Firm, moist to wet.

6

7

8

9

6.10m: medium dense.

8.05m: grey. Saturated.

8.80m: trace sand.

43

21

0

Box

2, 2

.8-7

.1m

Box

3, 7

.1-1

0.2m

2/23/69/9

N=27

2/21/23/5

N=11

0/00/00/0N=0

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

100

100

100

100

100


18.75m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 26 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

6:58

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 3 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH101




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.572182-43.587706

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

10.20m: SILT, trace sand, trace peat; grey, Very soft,moist to wet; low-plasticity, dilatant; sand, fine; peat,fibrous.

12.20m: Fine to medium SAND, minor silt; grey.Loose, saturated, poorly graded.

14.15m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, tracecobbles; grey. Medium dense, wet, well graded;gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fine to coarse;cobbles, sub-rounded, sandstone.

14.65m: Fine to medium GRAVEL, some sand, tracesilt; reddish brown. Loosely packed, saturated, poorlygraded; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fineto coarse.

11

12

13

14

9.95 - 10.00m: fibrous.10.00 - 10.20m: minor silt, brownish grey. Firm.

13.50m: trace silt.


14.75m: gravel fine to coarse, well graded.

-1-2

-3-4

-5

Box

4, 1

0.2-

13.3

m

1/11/22/1N=6

0/10/22/2N=6

1/23/22/4

N=11

14.50m: Brown staining ongravel faces.

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

100

100

100

100

100


18.75m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 27 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

6:58

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 4 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH101




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.572182-43.587706

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

18.30-18.45m: core loss.

18.45m: Fine to medium GRAVEL, some sand, tracesilt; reddish brown. Medium dense, saturated, poorlygraded; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fineto coarse.

16

17

18

19

14.90m: minor cobbles, sub-rounded, sandstone.

15.20m: dense.

15.60m: brownish grey.

-6-7

-8-9

Box

5, 1

3.3-

16.3

mB

ox 6

, 16.

3-18

.8m

18.75m: Target depth

8/1011/1012/12N=45

5/88/109/3

N=31

9/98/76/6

N=27

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

100

100

100

100

66


18.75m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 28 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

7:00

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 1 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH102




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.574741-43.587466

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

0.00m: Organic SILT, trace sand, trace rootlets;brown. Soft, moist; non-plastic, non-dilatant; sand,fine; organics, amorphous.

0.60m: Silty fine to medium SAND; grey. Looselypacked, moist to wet, poorly graded.0.70m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor silt,trace cobbles; grey. Loosely packed, wet tosaturated, poorly graded; gravel, sub-rounded,sandstone; sand, fine to coarse; cobbles, sub-rounded, sandstone.

1.20m - 1.50m: core loss.

1.50m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor silt,trace cobbles; grey. Loose, wet to saturated, poorlygraded; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fineto medium; cobbles, sub-rounded, sandstone.

1.95m: Gravely fine to medium SAND, brownishgrey. Loose, wet, poorly graded, gravel, fine tocoarse, sub-rounded, sandstone.

2.40m: Fine to medium SAND, some gravel; grey.Loosely packed, wet, poorly graded; gravel, fine tocoarse, sub-rounded, sandstone.

2.70m-3.00m: core loss.

3.00m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace cobbles;grey. Medium dense, wet, poorly graded; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fine to coarse.

1

2

3

4

0.25m: grey mottling.0.30m: rootlets absent.0.35m: grey with orange mottling.0.50m: some sand.

4.50m: dense.

98

76

Box

1, 0

.0-3

.5m

4/43/32/1N=9

6/67/54/4

N=20

6/89/12

12/13N=46

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

8010

080

100

100

100


15.65m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 29 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

7:00

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 2 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH102




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.574741-43.587466

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og6.10-6.35m: core loss.

6.55m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL; yellowishbrown. Medium dense, wet, poorly graded; gravel,sub-rounded, sandstone; sand, fine to coarse.

8.05m: Fine to coarse SAND, minor silt, trace gravel;grey. Dense, saturated, poorly graded; gravel, fine tomedium, sub-rounded, sandstone.8.25m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL; grey. Looselypacked, saturated, poorly graded; gravel, sub-rounded sandstone; sand, fine to coarse.8.40m: Fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel; grey.Loosely packed, saturated, poorly graded; gravel,fine to coarse, sub-rounded, sandstone.8.60m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL; grey. Looselypacked, saturated, poorly graded; gravel, sub-rounded sandstone; sand, fine to coarse.8.90m: SILT, trace sand, trace gravel; grey. Soft, wet,low-plasticity, non-dilatant; sand, fine; gravel, fine,sub-rounded, sandstone.

6

7

8

9

7.20m: grey.

7.60m: dense.

8.95m: gravel absent.

9.70m: medium-plasticity.

9.80m: trace organics. Organics, amorphous.

43

21

0

Box

2, 3

.5-6

.6m

Box

3, 6

.6-9

.6m

3/45/34/3

N=15

3/35/9

14/12N=40

0/21/22/2N=7

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

4410

010

010

010

0


15.65m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 30 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

7:00

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 3 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH102




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.574741-43.587466

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

10.30m: Sandy SILT, trace organics; grey. Soft,saturated; non-plastic, non-dilatant; sand, fine tomedium; organics, amorphous.

11.05m: SILT, trace sand, trace organics, grey. Soft,wet to saturated, non-plastic, non-dilatant; sand, fine;organics, amorphous.

11.80m: Silty fine SAND, trace organics; grey.Loosely packed, saturated, poorly graded; organics,amorphous.

13.15m: Sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace silt,grey. Loosely packed, saturated, poorly graded;sand, fine to coarse; gravel, sub-rounded, sandstone.

11

12

13

14


12.70m: organics absent.

12.85m: Sand, fine to medium.

13.50m: greyish brown.13.70m: very dense.

-1-2

-3-4

-5

Box

4, 9

.6-1

2.7m

1/12/12/3N=8

1/22/24/6

N=14

11/1618/1612/4

N>=50

PQ

HFS

SP

TP

Q H

FSS

PT

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

100

100

100

100

100


15.65m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 31 of 52

Gen

eral

Log

- 7/

02/2

018

12:1

7:00

p.m

. - P

rodu

ced

with

Cor

e-G

S b

y G

eRoc

v3.1

f


LOGGED BY: GAND

CHECKED: MRD




SHEET: 4 OF 4

BOREHOLE No.:

BH102




LOCATION:

JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

CO-ORDINATES:

DIRECTION:


(WGS84)172.574741-43.587466

GE

OLO

GIC

AL

UN

IT

DESCRIPTION OF CORE

RQ

D (%

)

Wat

er L

evel

Frac

ture

Spa

cing

(mm

)

BOREHOLE LOG



k W

eath

erin

g

Description


Cas

ing

Inst

alla

tion

Cor

e B

ox N

o

ROCK DEFECTS

2000

600

200

60 20UW

SW

MW

HW

CW ES

VS S MS W VW

EW

Flui

d Lo

ss (%

)25 50 75

Dep

th (m

)

Gra

phic

Log

RL

(m)

Roc

k S

treng

th

Sam

plin

g M

etho

d

Cor

e R

ecov

ery

(%)

Test

ing

Def

ect L

og

16

17

18

19

15.25m: dense.

-6-7

-8-9

Box

5, 1

2.7-

15.7

m

15.65m: Target depth

11/1212/10

7/9N=38

PQ

HFS

SP

T

100

100


15.65m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:25

Page 32 of 52

CPT113 25 Kennedy's Bush Road - 16 September, 2018 45a Parkhouse Rd, Christchurch Pre-Drill: 0m NZMG 2475773mE 5735431mN 10m(amsl) e. [email protected]




0 100 200 300 400 500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50



0 2 4 6 8 10


GW

L

-100 0 100 200 300

0

1

2

3

4

5




Page 33 of 52

Dyn

amic

Pro

beLo

g - 2

5/01

/201

8 2:

50:5

9 p.

m. -

Pro

duce

d w

ith C

ore-

GS

by

GeR

ocv3

.1f

SHEET: 1 OF 1

HOLE Id: DPSH101

PROJECT: 25 Kennedy's Bush Road. LOCATION: 25 Kennedy's Bush Road, Halswell. JOB No.: 1005648.0.0.0

WA

TER

DYNAMIC PROBE LOG

DE

PTH

(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

RL

(m)

CO-ORDINATES: 5173796 mN1565427 mE(NZTM)

R.L.: 10.00mDATUM:

TEST TYPE: DPSH-BDRILL METHOD: DCPDRILL TYPE: Dando Terrier

PREDRILL DEPTH:

DRILLED BY: Geotechnics

CHECKED: MRDLOGGED BY: ZPM

HOLE FINISHED: 18/01/2018HOLE STARTED: 18/01/2018

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

READINGS(Blows/100mm)

DE

PTH

(m)

TOR

QU

E (N

m)

SA

MP

LES

BLOW DIAGRAM(Blows/100mm)

Hammer Mass: 63.5kg Hammer Drop: 750mm Cone Angle: 90° Damper: DandoAnvil: Dando

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

98

76

54

32

10

-1-2

45

42222

1111

22

42

56

56

54

66

344

66

23

2333

5444

57

1110

1110

67

99

77777

1110

131212

99

87

87

47

61010

88

98

76

78

99

78

67

677

67

666

56

7666

544

34444

58

96

56

56

7

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

4

2

0

1

2

5

4

3

5

7

6

7

10

9

4

8

6

7

7

6

6

4

4

5

5

2

0

1

5

4

4

2

4

11

7

7

13

8

7

8

7

8

7

6

6

3

5

6

4

0

0

2

6

6

6

3

4

10

9

7

12

7

6

9

8

6

6

5

6

4

8

5

2

0

1

2

5

6

6

3

4

11

9

7

12

8

10

8

9

7

7

6

5

4

9

6

2

0

1

4

6

3

2

3

5

10

7

11

9

7

10

7

9

6

6

7

4

4

6

7End of test at 12mbgl, Target depth.

Hole Depth

12m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:65 Rev.: A

6

13

24

22

38

55

90

79

102

117

129

134

Page 34 of 52

Dyn

amic

Pro

beLo

g - 2

5/01

/201

8 2:

50:5

9 p.

m. -

Pro

duce

d w

ith C

ore-

GS

by

GeR

ocv3

.1f

SHEET: 1 OF 1

HOLE Id: DPSH102


WA

TER

DYNAMIC PROBE LOG

DE

PTH

(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

RL

(m)


R.L.: 10.00mDATUM:


PREDRILL DEPTH:




5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


DE

PTH

(m)

TOR

QU

E (N

m)

SA

MP

LES



0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

98

76

54

32

10

-1-2

1222

12

1

222

34

610

910

1213

1212

1311

88

51212

1414

1212

107

566

88

67

811

1018

211818

1512

119

1010

88

777

888

1110

89

1114

1514

1212

1012

1112

1315

1614

121212

1313

111111

1212

118

67777

88

65

611

666

56

77

88

1099

109

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

1

2

0

4

12

11

12

10

8

11

18

10

7

11

14

10

15

12

11

6

8

11

6

10

2

1

2

6

13

8

14

7

8

10

15

10

7

10

15

12

16

13

12

7

8

6

7

9

2

0

2

10

12

8

14

5

6

18

12

8

8

8

14

11

14

13

12

7

6

6

7

9

2

0

2

9

12

5

12

6

7

21

11

8

8

9

12

12

12

11

11

7

5

6

8

10

1

0

3

10

13

12

12

6

8

18

9

7

8

11

12

13

12

11

8

7

6

5

8


Hole Depth

12m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:65 Rev.: A

6

21

80

53

86

97

102

121

143

159

190

175

Page 35 of 52

Dyn

amic

Pro

beLo

g - 2

5/01

/201

8 2:

51:0

1 p.

m. -

Pro

duce

d w

ith C

ore-

GS

by

GeR

ocv3

.1f

SHEET: 1 OF 1

HOLE Id: DPSH103


WA

TER

DYNAMIC PROBE LOG

DE

PTH

(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

RL

(m)


R.L.: 10.00mDATUM:


PREDRILL DEPTH:


CHECKED: MRDLOGGED BY: ARM


5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


DE

PTH

(m)

TOR

QU

E (N

m)

SA

MP

LES



0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

98

76

54

32

10

-1-2

12

31

155

6666

41

66

44

68

99

88

911

129

55

66

78

77

911

1214

129

77

99

1113

101010

89

119

1011

1010

1315

1311

1413

1514

1312

1311

1099999

101212

1312

1516

1312

101212

1514

1616

1112

877

87

69

1517

131111

107

91313

1615

16

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

0

0

1

6

6

9

11

6

7

12

9

10

10

15

15

11

9

13

12

14

8

6

11

13

1

0

5

6

4

9

12

6

9

9

11

8

11

13

14

10

9

12

10

16

7

9

11

13

2

0

5

4

4

8

9

7

11

7

13

9

10

11

13

9

10

15

12

16

7

15

10

16

3

0

6

1

6

8

5

8

12

7

10

11

10

14

12

9

12

16

12

11

8

17

7

15

1

0

6

6

8

9

5

7

14

9

10

9

13

13

13

9

12

13

15

12

7

13

9


Hole Depth

12m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:65 Rev.: A

0

21

34

48

65

62

116

88

160

141

208

210

Page 36 of 52

Dyn

amic

Pro

beLo

g - 2

5/01

/201

8 2:

51:0

2 p.

m. -

Pro

duce

d w

ith C

ore-

GS

by

GeR

ocv3

.1f

SHEET: 1 OF 1

HOLE Id: DPSH105


WA

TER

DYNAMIC PROBE LOG

DE

PTH

(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

RL

(m)


R.L.: 10.00mDATUM:


PREDRILL DEPTH:




5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


DE

PTH

(m)

TOR

QU

E (N

m)

SA

MP

LES



0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

98

76

54

32

10

-1-2

64

322222

333

44

33

2111111

1

12

11

3222

34

31

222

68

1015

1315

2014

1211

1413

111010

65

34

566

87

22

56

899

88

99

8111111

910

95

455

64

33

25

65

666

33

43333

54

33

544

55

6666

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

6

2

3

2

1

0

1

2

2

10

14

11

3

8

6

8

11

5

4

6

3

3

3

5

4

2

4

1

1

1

1

3

2

15

12

10

4

7

8

9

11

4

3

5

3

3

5

6

3

2

4

1

0

0

3

4

2

13

11

10

5

2

9

9

9

5

3

6

4

5

4

6

2

3

3

1

0

1

2

3

6

15

14

6

6

2

9

8

10

5

2

6

3

4

4

6

2

3

3

1

0

2

2

1

8

20

13

5

6

5

8

11

9

6

5

6

3

3

5


Hole Depth

12m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:65 Rev.: A

12

13

20

29

69

46

62

78

76

84

107

106

Page 37 of 52

Dyn

amic

Pro

beLo

g - 2

5/01

/201

8 2:

51:0

3 p.

m. -

Pro

duce

d w

ith C

ore-

GS

by

GeR

ocv3

.1f

SHEET: 1 OF 1

HOLE Id: DPSH106


WA

TER

DYNAMIC PROBE LOG

DE

PTH

(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

RL

(m)


R.L.: 10.00mDATUM:


PREDRILL DEPTH:




5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


DE

PTH

(m)

TOR

QU

E (N

m)

SA

MP

LES



0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

98

76

54

32

10

-1-2

23

21

2222

3333

544

655

68

38

977

66

57

1010101010

91111

121111

1216

1212

97

101010

119

810

1112

1112

1111

101111111111

1211

101212

1011

1212

111111

129

1414

1312

106

46

89

111111

1210

899

107

65

2023

2425

2935

454949

4848

4650

4033

3536

37

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

0

2

3

4

8

7

10

9

11

9

11

12

10

11

12

11

14

6

11

8

6

25

49

40

2

2

3

6

3

6

10

11

12

7

9

11

11

12

10

11

14

4

11

9

5

29

48

33

3

2

3

5

8

6

10

11

16

10

8

12

11

11

11

11

13

6

11

9

20

35

48

35

2

2

5

5

9

5

10

12

12

10

10

11

11

10

12

12

12

8

12

10

23

45

46

36

1

3

4

6

7

7

10

11

12

10

11

11

11

12

12

9

10

9

10

7

24

49

50


Hole Depth

12m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:65 Rev.: A

0

12

14

91

102

131

109

136

126

130

187

193

Page 38 of 52

Dyn

amic

Pro

beLo

g - 2

5/01

/201

8 2:

51:0

4 p.

m. -

Pro

duce

d w

ith C

ore-

GS

by

GeR

ocv3

.1f

SHEET: 1 OF 1

HOLE Id: DPSH113


WA

TER

DYNAMIC PROBE LOG

DE

PTH

(m)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

RL

(m)


R.L.: 10.00mDATUM:


PREDRILL DEPTH:




5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


DE

PTH

(m)

TOR

QU

E (N

m)

SA

MP

LES



0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

98

76

54

32

10

-1-2

11

344

56

11999

888

77

69

26

78

108

99

101111

129

77

89

1113

108

91111

1012

161616

1519

1519

2224

1616

2319

201515

1416

179

64

54

3444

55

46

56

56

87

8888

1112

1313

1110

121212

111010

79

88

99

109

1010

79

1012

151414

131212

13

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

0

4

9

7

6

9

12

9

9

16

15

16

15

6

4

4

6

8

13

12

9

10

9

14

1

5

9

7

7

9

9

11

11

16

19

23

14

4

4

6

8

8

11

11

8

9

10

13

1

6

8

6

8

10

7

13

11

16

22

19

16

5

4

5

7

11

10

10

8

10

12

12

3

11

8

9

10

11

7

10

10

15

24

20

17

4

5

6

8

12

12

10

9

10

15

12

4

9

8

2

8

11

8

8

12

19

16

15

9

3

5

5

8

13

12

7

9

7

14


Hole Depth

12m

COMMENTS:

Scale 1:65 Rev.: A

5

10

68

52

157

145

92

127

170

176

211

198

Page 39 of 52

Approved By PB Date 18/01/2018

TEST REMARKS• The material used for testing was natural, fraction passing a 425um sieve.

This test result is IANZ accredited.

TEST RESULTSLiquid Limit 38Plastic Limit 25Plasticity Index 13

Description SILT with minor sand, grey. Moist, medium plasticity.

SPECIMEN Reference 1 Depth N/A

Description N/A

BH102 Depth 9.70m

Data N/A

SAMPLE Geotechnics ID GEOT201801165 Date Received 11/01/2018

Reference

DETERMINATION OF LIQUID & PLASTIC LIMIT, PLASTICITY INDEX - NZS 4402: 1986 Tests 2.2 (4 Point), 2.3 & 2.4

TEST DETAILSLOCATION ID 25 Kennedys Bush Road

Description 25 Kennedys Bush Road

Customer Project ID 1004685.1

p. +64 3 361 0300 Customer Project Name G- CH TT25 Kennedys Bush Road

45A Parkhouse Road, Wigram Christchurch 8042 New Zealand

Geotechnics Project ID 1005648.0.0.0

GEOTECHNICS LTDATT Single Sample Report

Page 1 of 1Version 3.3 - 21 September 2015

Page 40 of 52





DETERMINATION OF THE WATER CONTENT & FINES CONTENT - GEO190-13



Data N/A


Reference BH101 Depth 1.40m

Description Silty fine to medium SAND, grey. Wet.


Description N/A

TEST RESULT

Natural Water Content 22.3%


Fines Content Passing 75µm Sieve 47.2%

Fines Content Passing 63µm Sieve N/A

TEST REMARKS• The material used for testing was natural, whole soil.


GEOTECHNICS LTDFINES Single Sample Report

Page 1 of 1Version 3.3 - 29 February 2016

Page 41 of 52








Data N/A



Description Fine to coarse SAND with some gravel and trace silt, brownish grey. Wet. Gravel fine to medium.


Description N/A

TEST RESULT









Page 42 of 52








Data N/A



Description Fine to medium SAND with some silt, brownish grey. Wet.


Description N/A

TEST RESULT









Page 43 of 52








Data N/A



Description Fine to coarse SAND with minor silt and trace gravel, grey. Wet. Gravel fine to medium.


Description N/A

TEST RESULT









Page 44 of 52








Data N/A



Description Silty fine to medium SAND, grey. Wet.


Description N/A

TEST RESULT









Page 45 of 52

Pro-Drill SPT Calibration

Certification

RIG: MS 1000

Calibrated on: 28th March 2017

Page 48 of 52

Pile Dynamics, Inc. Page 1Case Method & iCAP® Results PDIPLOT2 2016.1.56.3 - Printed 29-March-2017

MOBILE DRILL 1000 - 10.0m CenterportOP: Scott Date: 28-March-2017AR: 11.68 cm² SP: 7.88 t/m³LE: 12.0 m EM: 2,109 t/cm²WS: 5,123.0 m/s JC: 0.00 []CSX: Max Measured Compr. Stress RAT: SPT Length RatioDMX: Maximum Displacement VMX: Maximum VelocityEFV: Energy of FV FMX: Maximum ForceETR: Energy Transfer Ratio - Rated DFN: Final DisplacementBPM: Blows per MinuteBL# Depth BLC TYPE CSX DMX EFV ETR BPM RAT VMX FMX DFN

m bl/m Mpa mm J (%) bpm [] m/s tn mm5 0.0 0 AV4 153.9 12 452.83 95.4 23.9 1.1 4.44 18 0

10 0.0 0 AV5 155.9 10 457.51 96.4 29.3 1.1 4.51 19 -7

15 0.0 0 AV5 152.5 9 452.99 95.5 29.2 1.1 4.38 18 -7

20 0.0 0 AV5 152.8 9 458.55 96.6 29.2 1.1 4.42 18 -4

25 0.0 0 AV5 153.1 9 464.26 97.8 29.2 1.1 4.46 18 -4

30 0.0 0 AV5 155.1 9 466.69 98.3 29.2 1.1 4.52 18 -6

35 0.0 0 AV5 149.8 9 467.53 98.5 29.2 1.1 4.42 18 -7

40 0.0 0 AV5 154.8 10 466.11 98.2 29.2 1.0 4.50 18 1

45 0.0 0 AV5 154.2 9 468.14 98.7 29.2 1.0 4.62 18 -5

50 0.0 0 AV5 155.3 9 469.47 98.9 29.2 1.0 4.65 18 -6

55 0.0 0 AV5 155.4 9 465.61 98.1 29.2 1.0 4.60 18 -9

60 0.0 0 AV5 156.5 9 464.99 98.0 29.2 1.0 4.57 19 -11

65 0.0 0 AV5 157.3 10 468.08 98.6 29.2 1.0 4.63 19 -10

70 0.0 0 AV5 157.1 11 464.18 97.8 29.2 1.0 4.59 19 -11

71 0.0 0 AV1 154.5 11 461.86 97.3 29.1 1.0 4.56 18 -11Average 154.6 10 463.48 97.7 28.9 1.0 4.52 18 -6

Total number of blows analyzed: 70

BL# Sensors

2-71 F2: [468BW1] 211.7 (1.00); F4: [468BW2] 211.4 (1.00); A1: [K5724] 322.0 (1.00);A3: [K5608] 300.0 (1.00)

Time Summary

Drive 2 minutes 29 seconds 10:05 a.m. - 10:08 a.m. BN 1 - 71

Page 49 of 52

Pile Dynamics, Inc. - PDIPLOT2 Ver 2016.1.56.3 - Case Method & iCAP® ResultsPrinted: 29-March-2017 Test started: 28-March-2017

MOBILE DRILL 1000 - 10.0mCSX (Mpa)

Max Measured Compr. Stress

DMX (mm)Maximum Displacement

0

14

28

43

57

71

0 40 80 120 160

0 10 20 30 40

EFV (J)Energy of FV

ETR ((%))Energy Transfer Ratio - Rated

0 120 240 360 480

0 30 60 90 120

BPM (bpm)Blows per Minute

RAT ([])SPT Length Ratio

0 10 20 30 40

0 1 2 3 4

Page 50 of 52

Appendix C: Statement of Professional Opinion

Updated: 14.06.13 1 of 2 P-055

Statement of Professional Opinion on the Suitability of Land for Subdivision (Appendix I to the Infrastructure Design Standard)

Issued by: Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (Geotechnical engineering firm or suitably qualified engineer)

To: Phillip Middleburg (Owner/Developer)

To be supplied to: Christchurch City Council (Territorial authority)

In respect of: Proposed residential subdivision (Description of proposed infrastructure/land development)

At: 25 Kennedys Bush Road, Halswell, Christchurch (Address)

I (Geotechnical engineer) Mike Jacka on behalf of (Geotechnical engineering firm) Tonkin & Taylor Ltd hereby confirm: 1. I am a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer and was retained by the owner/developer as the

geotechnical engineer on the above proposed development. 2. My/the geotechnical assessment report, dated February 2018 has been carried out in accordance with the

Department of Building and Housing Guidelines for geotechnical investigation and assessment of subdivisions and includes: (i) Details of and the results of my/the site investigations. (ii) A liquefaction assessment. (iii) An assessment of rockfall and slippage, including hazards resulting from seismic activity. (iv) An assessment of the slope stability and ground bearing capacity confirming the location and

appropriateness of building sites. (v) Recommendations proposing measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential hazards on the land

subject to the application, in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. In my professional opinion, I consider that Council is justified in granting consent incorporating the following

conditions:

House foundations are constructed in accordance with recommendations from the Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Report dated February 2018 (Ref: 1004685)

4. This professional opinion is furnished to the territorial authority and the owner/developer for their purposes alone, on the express condition that it will not be relied upon by any other person and does not remove the necessity for the normal inspection of foundation conditions at the time of erection of any building.

5. This certificate shall be read in conjunction with my/the geotechnical report referred to in Clause 2 above, and

shall not be copied or reproduced except in conjunction with the full geotechnical completion report. 6. The geotechnical engineering firm issuing this statement holds a current policy of professional indemnity

insurance of no less than $ 200,000

Updated: 14.06.13 2 of 2 P-055

(Minimum amount of insurance shall be commensurate with the current amounts recommended by IPENZ, ACENZ, TNZ, INGENIUM.)

......................................................................................... (Signature of Engineer) Date: 12 Feb. 18 Qualifications and experience: ME (Dist) 2001, BE (Hons) 1999

report - uploads-ssl.webflow.com

Documents