ARCHIVING CRITERIA Free Criteria (1 to 5)
Document Origin N/A
Area PETRONAS
Unit By hand
Discipline 28-Mar-12
TECHNIP Eng./ Mat./ Work Code Rapid FEED
Equipment Reference Department
DISTRIBUTION A = for Action, I = for Information
Discipline Directorate POC - Paris LOC - Lyon KLOC - KL Note
Project Management I I I I
Administration Management Project Control Management Engineering Management Project Secretary
Document Control Management I Project Information Management
Cost Control Planning/ Scheduling Risk Management Quality Management HSE Management IT Management
Process/ Thermal Design/ WWT HSE Design Fired Equipment Packaged Equipment Rotating Equipment Pressure Vessels Plant Layout I I I I Piping Design
Piping Materials/ Corrosion
Civil/ Buildings I I I I
Geotechnical A I I I
HVAC Electrical
Instrumentation & Control Systems Advanced Automation Systems Procurement
Inspection
Home Office Construction I Subcontract
Precomm./ Commissioning/ Start-up
Paper Copy Archiving A
REMARKS, CLARIFICATIONS
PETRONAS
Project (Rapid FEED/ PMC) 0001
Discipline Arrival Date 1422
Received from Transmitted by INDEX
For attachments, refer to originals in PDB-REF (only technical report is part of PDF file). Transmittal Ref.:
INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT
(RAPID)
Geotechnical Interpretation
Report
Report Prepared for
Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd 2nd Floor, Menara Technip,
241, Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur
Client
PETRONAS Level 73, Tower 2, Petronas Twin Tower, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088 Kuala Lumpur
MARCH 2012
Mobile 019-3180656 Phone 03-92823855 Fax 03-92818289 Email [email protected]; [email protected] No: 18-2 Jalan 1/76D Desa Pandan 55100 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Petronas Site is located in West south-east of the city of Johor Bahru The site has an area of approximately
coarse grid (up to 250m spacing between test sites 300 boreholes;
98 Piezocone Penetration Tests; 40 test pits;
43 auger holes;
10 resistivity surveys; and associated laboratory testing.
The significant findings from this study are summarised below
1. Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges
demarcate boundaries for different ground im
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
West Pengerang, in the state of Johor, Malaysia, approximately 90 km Bahru.
an area of approximately 2607 hectares and has been investigated spacing between test sites) with.
98 Piezocone Penetration Tests;
10 resistivity surveys; and associated laboratory testing.
significant findings from this study are summarised below:
Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges and outcrops are present
demarcate boundaries for different ground improvement zones.
, in the state of Johor, Malaysia, approximately 90 km
and has been investigated on a relatively
Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground and outcrops are present and generally
2. The site is to be cut and filled to a platform 27 and 28 show the extent of cut and fill
3. Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It appears that constructing the platform to +7.5m
fill after allowance is made for compensating fill and (ii
4. The site has been divided into four (4) following sub-zones: Table 10 Major Zones Sub- Zones 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 4A 4B
The site is to be cut and filled to a platform specified at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures show the extent of cut and fill respectively.
Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It appears that constructing the platform to +7.5m MLSD will result in a short fall in fill after allowance is made for (i) Remove & Replace (R&R)
fill and (iii) surcharging.
The site has been divided into four (4) major ground improvement zones zones:
Potential Cut and Fill (Predominant soil type)
Types of Ground improvement
Cut
(silty CLAY / clayey SILT)
None
Fill
(silty CLAY / clayey SILT)
Expected to be minor
localised removal of soft material at subgrade level, minimal surcharging
Cut (rock)
None – rock to be cut to stable slope.
Fill (soft clays)
Preloading with PVDs
Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.
Fill
(Peaty organic soils over very soft clays)
Major improvement.
Removal of peaty organic soils, replace with structural fill. Preloading with PVDs.
Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.
Fill (very soft clays)
Major improvement. Preloading with PVDs. Vacuum Consolidation (VC)
Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.
at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures
Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It will result in a short fall in (i) Remove & Replace (R&R) (ii)
settlement-ground improvement zones with the
Types of Ground improvement
Expected to be minor – ie localised removal of soft material at subgrade level, minimal
rock to be cut to stable
Preloading with PVDs
Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.
Major improvement.
Removal of peaty organic soils, replace with structural fill. Preloading with PVDs. VC
Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.
Major improvement. Preloading with PVDs. Vacuum Consolidation (VC)
providing that residual acceptable.
5. The Zoning Plan is shown
from the site investigation grid which is typically are expected.
6. In Zones 1A and 1B
removal of soft materials to filling.
The Zoning Plan is shown below. The zonal boundaries have been determined from the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations
Figure 17
A and 1B, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised soft materials may be required as part of subgrade preparation
. The zonal boundaries have been determined 250m centres. Site variations
, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised as part of subgrade preparation prior
7. In rock cuts (Zone 2), an over recommended with backfilling
of structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts construction of shallow foot
8. Ground improvement is
platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to the ground conditions investigated
and shallower compared with Zone 4. 9. The worst ground is
has been subdivided into i. Zone 4A
14m but ii. Zone 4B
enrichment 10. The peaty organic soils
5m and replaced with structural fill. 11. Ground improvements are required
and Zone 4B to support the 12. Staged preloading with
consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is recommended that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary consolidation.
13. Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable the end user.
14. The required quantity of fill (i) Removal and R
(ii) Top soil stripping in other zones (iii) Filling from stripped subgrade to
plus (iv) Settlement
(v) Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill; plus
(vi) Surcharge to corridors.
In rock cuts (Zone 2), an over-excavation of 2m (ie RL+5.5m MLSD) is recommended with backfilling using structural fill to the platform.
of structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts is recommended to facilitate construction of shallow footings and trenching for services and drains.
Ground improvement is recommended in Zone 3. Under the weight of the platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to the ground conditions investigated. Generally the clays in Zone
and shallower compared with Zone 4.
The worst ground is located in Zone 4 over the western part of the site. has been subdivided into:
Zone 4A peaty organic soils and peats are present m but generally less than 5m; and
Zone 4B very soft ground to depths of 20m with some organic enrichment.
The peaty organic soils and peats in Zone 4A should be removed and replaced with structural fill.
round improvements are required for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils) to support the weight of the platform.
Staged preloading with Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs)
consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary
Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable
quantity of fill can be estimated as the sum of following: Removal and Replace (up to 5m in Zone 4A), plus
Top soil stripping in other zones, plus
Filling from stripped subgrade to the specified platform at +7.5m MLSD Settlement-compensating fill;
Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill; Surcharge to minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service corridors.
excavation of 2m (ie RL+5.5m MLSD) is to the platform. The placement is recommended to facilitate ings and trenching for services and drains.
in Zone 3. Under the weight of the platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to 1m for Generally the clays in Zone 3 are stronger
in Zone 4 over the western part of the site. This zone
present to depths of
with some organic
in Zone 4A should be removed to a depth of
for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils)
ertical Drains (PVDs) and/or vacuum consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary
Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable to
the sum of following:
specified platform at +7.5m MLSD,
Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill; minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service
15. To provide an estimate of fill quantities, the following recommendations are made
Zone Top soil
stripping (m) 1A - 1B 0.1 2 - 3 0.3 4A - 4B 0.3
* based on upper bound estimates of fill settlement
16. In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing pressures should not exceed
• 100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15 • 200kPa in medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays • 500kPa on rock
17. In filled areas, spun
spun piles are given in Table
18. Safe working loads for bored piles ranging in diameter from 5 are given in Table 28.
19. Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. assessment is required for design of
20. Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after platform construction to m
Geotechnical Models for the design of different facilities.
21. Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty soils in Zone 4A.
To provide an estimate of fill quantities, the following recommendations are made Remove & Replace (m) Settlement-compensating FILL* (m) Secondary compression (m) - - - - 0.2 0.1 2.0 (over-excavation in rock cuts) - - - 1.0 0.2 5.0 (peaty soils) 2.5 0.3 - 3.5 0.4
* based on upper bound estimates of fill settlement
In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing pressures should not exceed
100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15 medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays 500kPa on rock
spun piles driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for spun piles are given in Table 27.
Safe working loads for bored piles ranging in diameter from 500mm to 1000mm given in Table 28.
Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. assessment is required for design of structures.
Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after platform construction to measure post improvement strengths and to determine Geotechnical Models for the design of different facilities.
Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty soils in Zone 4A.
To provide an estimate of fill quantities, the following recommendations are made Surcharge on platform at +7.5m MLSD - 1.0 - 3.0 5.0 5.0
In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing
driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for
0mm to 1000mm
Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. Site hazard
Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after easure post improvement strengths and to determine
Item Title
Executive Summary Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives of Final Report
2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
3.0 SITE GEOLOGY
4.0 SEISMIC HAZARD
4.1 Tectonic Setting
4.2 Generalised Seismic Hazard 4.3 Recent Earthquakes
4.4 Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia
4.5 Influence of Site Conditions on Ground Acceleration 4.6 Site Classification
4.7 Recommendations for Site
5.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION
6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
6.1 Land Use Map
6.2 Topography
6.3 Generalised Ground Conditions
6.3.1 Significant Strata
6.3.2 Peat and Organic Soils intersected by Boreholes
6.3.3 Peat and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT Results
6.3.4 Location of Organic Soils
6.3.5 Ground water
6.3.6 Contour Thicknesses of Soft Clays
6.3.7 Contours of SPT(N)>50 6.3.8 Resistivity Surveys 7.0 GROUND IMPROVEMENT 7.1 Zoning 7.2 Geotechnical Models 7.2.1 Zone 1A – Cut 7.2.2 Zone 1B – Fill Table of Contents Volume 1 of 2 Page 1 of 4 Executive Summary Table of Contents INTRODUCTION
Objectives of Final Report
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS SITE GEOLOGY
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Generalised Seismic Hazard Recent Earthquakes
Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia
Influence of Site Conditions on Ground Acceleration Site Classifications
Recommendations for Site-specific Seismic Hazard Assessment
SOIL INVESTIGATION SCOPE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Generalised Ground Conditions
and Organic Soils intersected by Boreholes Peat and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT Results Location of Organic Soils
Contour Thicknesses of Soft Clays Contours of SPT(N)>50 GROUND IMPROVEMENT Geotechnical Models Page 2 – 6 7 – 10 11 11 12 14 15 18 18 19 20 20 25 27 28 29 30 30 31 33 33 33 35 38 38 45 46 47 50 50 52 52 54
Item Title
7.2.3 Zone 3
7.2.4 Zone 4A – Peaty Organic Soils and Very Soft Clays
7.2.5 Zone 4B – Very soft Clays
7.2.6 Fill Parameters
7.2.7 Fill Settlement
7.3 Zone 3 Analysis
7.3.1 Platform Settlements
7.3.2 Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 3)
7.4 Zone 4A Analysis
7.4.1 Platform Settlements
7.4.2 Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4A)
7.5 Zone 4B Analysis
7.5.1 Platform Settlements
7.5.2 Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4B)
8.0 PROPOSED EARTHWORKS
8.1 Cut Areas 8.2 Fill Areas
8.3 Cut and Fill Quantities
8.3.1 Bulking Factors
8.3.2 Remove and Replace
8.3.3 Settlement-compensating FILL
8.3.4 Surcharging
8.3.5 Long term platform settlement
8.4 Cut Materials 8.5 Fill Types 8.6 Fill Zoning 8.7 Fill Processing
9.0 FOUNDATIONS
9.1 Shallow Foundations in Cut Areas 9.2 Piled Foundations in Filled Areas
9.2.1 General
9.2.2 DRIVEN Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads
9.2.3 BORED Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads
9.2.4 DRIVEN Pile Toe Levels
9.2.5 BORED Pile Toe Levels
9.2.6 Pile Testing
9.3 Corrosion Protection
10.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
12.0 CLOSURE
Table of Contents Volume 1 of 2
Page 2 of 4
Organic Soils and Very Soft Clays Very soft Clays – organic in places
Platform Settlements
Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 3) Platform Settlements
Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4A) Platform Settlements
Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4B)
PROPOSED EARTHWORKS
Cut and Fill Quantities
Remove and Replace compensating FILL Long term platform settlement
FOUNDATIONS
Shallow Foundations in Cut Areas Piled Foundations in Filled Areas
Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads BORED Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads DRIVEN Pile Toe Levels
BORED Pile Toe Levels
Corrosion Protection
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 56 58 60 62 62 63 63 68 71 71 74 75 75 78 83 83 84 85 85 86 86 86 86 87 87 88 89 90 90 90 90 91 92 93 93 93 94 95 100 101
List of Plates
Plate 1 Boreholes, Piezocone CPT and Testpit Locations (A1)
Plate 2 Zoning Plot (Ground Improvement)
Plate 3 Zoning Plot with location of Geotechnical Cross Sections 1
Plate 4 Longitudinal Cross Section 1
Plate 5 Longitudinal Cross Section 2
Plate 6 Transverse Cross Section 3
Plate 7 Surfer 3D Plot of Topo Levels
Plate 8 Surfer 2D Plot of Topo Contour Levels
Plate 9 Surfer Plot of SPT(N) >50 Levels
Plate 10 Surfer Plot of soft ground from boreholes
Plate 11 Surfer Plot of Borehole Termination Levels
Plate 12 Surfer Plot of CPT Termination Levels
Plate 13 Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m M
Plate 14 Extent of FILL to RL+7.5m
Plate 15 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+1.0m M
Plate 16 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.0m M
Plate 17 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.5m M
Plate 18 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+7.5m M
Plate 19 Surfer Plots of water level measured in from boreholes
Plate 20 Distribution of organic soils
Plate 21 Distribution of Palaeozoic rocks in East Johor (Reference 1)
Plate 22 Pengerang Volcanics (Reference 1)
Plate 23 Stratigraphic column for Eastern Johor Table of Contents
Volume 1 of 2 Page 3 of 4
Boreholes, Piezocone CPT and Testpit Locations (A1)
Zoning Plot (Ground Improvement)
Zoning Plot with location of Geotechnical Cross Sections 1-1 to 4-4
Longitudinal Cross Section 1-1
Longitudinal Cross Section 2-2
Transverse Cross Section 3-3 & 4-4
Surfer 3D Plot of Topo Levels
Surfer 2D Plot of Topo Contour Levels
Surfer Plot of SPT(N) >50 Levels
Surfer Plot of soft ground from boreholes and CPTs – SPT(N)<4 & Qc<1MPa
Surfer Plot of Borehole Termination Levels
Surfer Plot of CPT Termination Levels
Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m MLSD (in non rock areas) and RL+5.5m MLSD (rock areas)
Extent of FILL to RL+7.5m MLSD
Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+1.0m MLSD
Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.0m MLSD
Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.5m MLSD
Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+7.5m MLSD
s of water level measured in from boreholes
Distribution of organic soils
Distribution of Palaeozoic rocks in East Johor (Reference 1)
Pengerang Volcanics (Reference 1)
Stratigraphic column for Eastern Johor (Reference 1)
SPT(N)<4 & Qc<1MPa
List of Appendices
Appendix A Borehole summaries
Appendix A1 Tabulated summary of Phase 1 boreholes (Geolab) Appendix A2 Tabulated summary of Phase 2 boreholes (Foundtest) Appendix A3 Tabulated summary of Phase 3 boreholes (Majumec)
Appendix B CPT analyses
Appendix B1 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Geolab) Appendix B2 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Foundtest) Appendix B3 Cone resistance and shea
Appendix B4 Robertson el al (1986) Profiling Charts
Appendix B5 Eslami-Fellenius (1997) Profiling Charts Appendix B6 Evaluation of Dissipation Tests
Appendix C Geotechnical database
Appendix C1 Zone 1A – cut Appendix C2 Zone 1B - fill Appendix C3 Zone 2 - rock Appendix C4 Zone 3 – soft ground
Appendix C5 Zone 4A – soft ground with peaty organic soils Appendix C6 Zone 4B – soft ground
Appendix D Platform settlements using sprea
Appendix D1 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D2 Platform settlements from CPT records
Appendix D3 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D4 Platform settlements from CPT records
Appendix D5 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D6 Platform settlements from CPT records
Appendix E Platform settlements using PLAXIS
Appendix E1 Platform settlement
Appendix E2 Platform settlement for BH830 (Zone 4) Table of Contents
Volume 1 of 2 Page 4 of 4
Borehole summaries
Tabulated summary of Phase 1 boreholes (Geolab) Tabulated summary of Phase 2 boreholes (Foundtest) Tabulated summary of Phase 3 boreholes (Majumec)
Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Geolab) Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Foundtest) Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Majumec) Robertson el al (1986) Profiling Charts
Volume 2 of 2
Fellenius (1997) Profiling Charts Evaluation of Dissipation Tests
Geotechnical database
soft ground
soft ground with peaty organic soils soft ground - no peat intersected
Platform settlements using spreadsheets
Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 3 Platform settlements from CPT records – Zone 3
Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 4A lements from CPT records– Zone 4A
Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 4B Platform settlements from CPT records– Zone 4B
Platform settlements using PLAXIS Platform settlement for BH27 (Zone 3) Platform settlement for BH830 (Zone 4)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (
Petrochemical Integrated Project
east of Johor Bahru in Malaysia. The site has an area of approximately the southern boundary as shown below:
Figure 1
Petronas has commissioned Technip investigation survey.
Technip has commissioned:
i. Geolab (M) Sdn Bhd carry out the soil ii. Ezam & Associates
iii. Soil and Rock Engineering ( INTRODUCTION
ERHAD (PETRONAS) proposes to develop a roject (R.A.P.I.D.) on a site at West Pengerang about 90k
approximately 2607 hectares and extends to the South China Sea along the southern boundary as shown below:
Figure 1 – Proposed Site Location
Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd (Technip) to carry out the soil
Sdn Bhd, Foundtest (M) Sdn Bhd and Majumec Bina soil investigation in Phases 1, 2 and 3 respectively Ezam & Associates to carry out the topographical survey. Soil and Rock Engineering (SRE) as a Geotechnical Consultant.
proposes to develop a Refinery And about 90km
south-extends to the South China Sea along
to carry out the soil
Bina Sdn Bhd to
1.2 Objectives of Final Report
The objectives of the Geotechnical Interpretation Report are
Ground conditions
i. Discuss site geology.
ii. Assess ground conditions and determine the soil and rock types that will be encountered in the construction of the working platform
include:
• Geotechnical Models with soil parameters • Suitability for fill
iii. Determine water levels and assess the corrosiveness of the environment iv. Identify unsuitable materials (within the coarse investigation grid
be removed.
v. Identify soft soils that will require ground improvement
vi. Determine geotechnical parameters for design of ground improvement of slope stability
vii. Identify rock types that will need to be drilled and blast viii. Assess liquefaction potential.
Ground improvement
ix. Provide a Ground Improvement Zoning Plan.
x. Recommend subgrade preparation measures in areas to be filled. xi. Recommend ground improvement in soft clay sites
xii. Recommend ground improvement in loose cohesionless deposits (sands & mixes) to prevent liquefaction.
of Final Report
The objectives of the Geotechnical Interpretation Report are as follows:
conditions
Discuss site geology.
Assess ground conditions and determine the soil and rock types that will be encountered in the construction of the working platform to RL+7.5m MLSD.
Geotechnical Models with soil parameters for fill
Determine water levels and assess the corrosiveness of the environment Identify unsuitable materials (within the coarse investigation grid
Identify soft soils that will require ground improvement prior to platform Determine geotechnical parameters for design of ground improvement
and foundations.
Identify rock types that will need to be drilled and blast. Assess liquefaction potential.
round improvement
Ground Improvement Zoning Plan.
subgrade preparation measures in areas to be filled.
ground improvement in soft clay sites including dewatering measures. Recommend ground improvement in loose cohesionless deposits (sands & mixes) to prevent liquefaction.
Assess ground conditions and determine the soil and rock types that will be to RL+7.5m MLSD. This will
Determine water levels and assess the corrosiveness of the environment
Identify unsuitable materials (within the coarse investigation grid ~250m centres) to
platform construction. Determine geotechnical parameters for design of ground improvement, assessment
subgrade preparation measures in areas to be filled.
including dewatering measures. Recommend ground improvement in loose cohesionless deposits (sands & silt
Filling
xiii. Provide compaction xiv. Provide an estimate of self
xv. Provide fill material acceptance criteria These criteria will include:
grading limits, Plasticity Indices, compaction and
CBR requirements for different fill materials.
Cuts
xvi. Provide bulking factors xvii. Recommend safe cut slopes xviii. Recommend use of rock in filling.
Foundations
xix. Recommend suitable foundations types
xx. Make recommendations on over excavations in rocky areas to accommodate shallow footings
xxi. Provide presumptive design parameters for Contract.
compaction factors for different soil types.
Provide an estimate of self-weight settlement for deep fills.
Provide fill material acceptance criteria for each type of fill for use in These criteria will include:
grading limits, Plasticity Indices, compaction and
CBR requirements for different fill materials.
Provide bulking factors
Recommend safe cut slopes in soils, weathered rock and intact rock. use of rock in filling.
Recommend suitable foundations types and bearing pressures.
Make recommendations on over excavations in rocky areas to accommodate shallow footings and to facilitate trenching for drains and services.
Provide presumptive design parameters for Front End Engineering Design for each type of fill for use in earthworks.
in soils, weathered rock and intact rock.
Make recommendations on over excavations in rocky areas to accommodate services.
2.0 REFERENCE DOCUM The following reports and advice
a. Factual Report (Package 1) b. Factual Report (Package 2 c. Factual Report (Package 3)
d. Topographic Survey Drawings received e. Geological Map
f. Land Use Map
g. The site is to be filled to a Reduced Level of Datum (ie RL+7.5m MLSD)
h. Tidal levels are based on Sg Belungkor Port (+0.00MLSD = +2.11m CD) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
reports and advice was supplied and forms the basis of this report. (Package 1) – 3 volumes - prepared by Geolab (M) (Package 2) – 2 volumes - prepared by Foundtest (Package 3) – 3 volumes - prepared by Majumec opographic Survey Drawings received from Ezam and Associates.
The site is to be filled to a Reduced Level of +7.5m to Malaysian Datum (ie RL+7.5m MLSD).
Tidal levels are based on Sg Belungkor Port (+0.00MLSD = +2.11m CD) Geolab (M) Sdn Bhd, prepared by Foundtest (M) Sdn Bhd.
Majumec Bina Sdn Bhd. rom Ezam and Associates.
+7.5m to Malaysian Land Survey
3.0 SITE GEOLOGY
The site is superimposed on the Geological Map below. The site has an area of hectares.
The site spans four (4) different geological sequences, namely; i. Recent deposits of Quaternary Age (last
predominantly sand and clay alluvium with bauxite conglomerates. are present.
ii. Residual soils and volcanic rocks
volcanic rocks have been produced by several volcanic activities
granitic intrusions, lava flows as well as pyroclastic flows. The clasts composed of lapili, lithic and re
Reference #1.
iii. Rhyolitic lavas with andesitic flows iv. Porphyritic granite
We estimate that residual soils and volcanic rock are present over about 70% of the site. Recent Quaternary alluvial deposits are present over the remainder.
SITE GEOLOGY
superimposed on the Geological Map below. The site has an area of
) different geological sequences, namely;
Recent deposits of Quaternary Age (last 10,000+ years). They comprise predominantly sand and clay alluvium with bauxite conglomerates.
Residual soils and volcanic rocks - predominantly acidic tuffs. olcanic rocks have been produced by several volcanic activities
granitic intrusions, lava flows as well as pyroclastic flows. The clasts composed of lapili, lithic and re-sedimented pyroclastic rocks. Refer Plates 2
Rhyolitic lavas with andesitic flows.
Porphyritic granite (intrusion during Triassic Period).
We estimate that residual soils and volcanic rock are present over about 70% of the site. Recent Quaternary alluvial deposits are present over the remainder.
superimposed on the Geological Map below. The site has an area of about 2607
years). They comprise predominantly sand and clay alluvium with bauxite conglomerates. Beach sands
The Pengerang olcanic rocks have been produced by several volcanic activities including granitic intrusions, lava flows as well as pyroclastic flows. The clasts composed Refer Plates 21 to 23 and
Figure
4.0 SEISMIC HAZARD
4.1 Tectonic Setting
The Malaysian Peninsula is a stable intraplate landmass (Zone 4, Sunda Plate) which has a low to moderate seismic hazard. Figure
and the proximity of the west coast of Malaysia to the more unstabl HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Tectonic Setting
The Malaysian Peninsula is a stable intraplate landmass (Zone 4, Sunda Plate) which has a low
Figure 3 shows the seismicity recorded for the period 1964 to 2000
and the proximity of the west coast of Malaysia to the more unstable zones.
The Malaysian Peninsula is a stable intraplate landmass (Zone 4, Sunda Plate) which has a low shows the seismicity recorded for the period 1964 to 2000
4.2 Generalised Seismic Hazard
The general seismic hazard determined by the USGS is shown below. The site is located within the 0.8 to 1.6m/sec2 (0.08 to 0.16
Seismic Hazard
The general seismic hazard determined by the USGS is shown below. The site is located within 16g) hazard zone.
Figure 4
(After U.S. Geological Survey)
4.3 Recent Earthquakes
A search of the NEIC earthquake data base of earthquakes recorded within radii from the Pengerang (latitude
Table 1 Distance from Pengerang Radius (km) (1) Number of Recorded Earthquakes (2) 100 0 200 1 300 4 400 22 500 307 600 1528 700 3500
4.4 Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia
Peterson (2004) developed maps showing seismic hazards at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the southern Malaysian Peninsula. The contours of peak horizontal accelerations shown on these maps are bedrock accelerations. Actual peak ground acceler will be greater and will depend on the magnification properties of the overburden soils.
Earthquakes
A search of the NEIC earthquake data base of earthquakes recorded within different (latitude 1.367N, longitude 104.117) gave the following results.
Number of Recorded Earthquakes Magnitude mb (3) n/a 3.8 3.8 – 4.4 3.8 – 5.0 307 3.8 – 7.3 1528 3.4 – 7.6 3500 3.1 – 7.6
Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia
(2004) developed maps showing seismic hazards at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the southern Malaysian Peninsula. The contours of peak horizontal accelerations shown on these maps are bedrock accelerations. Actual peak ground acceler will be greater and will depend on the magnification properties of the overburden soils.
different specified ) gave the following results.
(2004) developed maps showing seismic hazards at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the southern Malaysian Peninsula. The contours of peak horizontal accelerations shown on these maps are bedrock accelerations. Actual peak ground accelerations will be greater and will depend on the magnification properties of the overburden soils.
Map showing 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years Peak horizontal acceleration
Figure 5
Map showing 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (1 in 475 year return period)
Map showing 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years Peak horizontal acceleration
Figure 6
Map showing 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years ( I in 2,475 year return period)
The rapid increase in seismic risk towards the Sunda trench is apparent from
Peterson points out that the predicted ground motions for the Malaysian Peninsula are probably higher than any that have occurred in the 19
earthquakes in 1892 and 1909 produced Modified Mercalli intensities consistent with the projected levels of 0.05g.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that for the Pengerang site, peak horizontal accelerations at bedrock level may be:
i. 0.06g for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 475 years).
ii. 0.11g for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 10,000 years)
Peterson makes two additional important observations:
1. The projected ground motions represent hazard levels that are appropriate for structural design standards in modern
2. The projected ground motions (Figures
the rock accelerations by the overburden soils. They can increase ground motions and must be considered in any site
cannot be used i
site-specific magnification factors) but rather are intended to show regional hazard.
the predicted ground motions for the Malaysian Peninsula are probably higher than any that have occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. The large Sumatran fault earthquakes in 1892 and 1909 produced Modified Mercalli intensities consistent with the
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that for the Pengerang site, peak horizontal accelerations
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 475
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in
important observations:
The projected ground motions represent hazard levels that are appropriate for structural design standards in modern codes.
The projected ground motions (Figures 5 & 6) do not consider the amplification of the rock accelerations by the overburden soils. They can increase ground motions and must be considered in any site-specific analyses. The above maps cannot be used in their current state for site-specific design (as they do not use specific magnification factors) but rather are intended to show regional the predicted ground motions for the Malaysian Peninsula are probably centuries. The large Sumatran fault earthquakes in 1892 and 1909 produced Modified Mercalli intensities consistent with the
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that for the Pengerang site, peak horizontal accelerations
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 475
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in
The projected ground motions represent hazard levels that are appropriate for
) do not consider the amplification of the rock accelerations by the overburden soils. They can increase ground specific analyses. The above maps specific design (as they do not use specific magnification factors) but rather are intended to show regional
4.5 Influence of Site Conditions
Local site conditions strongly influence the peak acceleration
response spectra. The approximate relationship between bedrock acceleration and peak ground acceleration on soil sites is shown on
For a bedrock acceleration of say 0 soft soils could be 0.13g (using the medi
Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions and the response spectra that they produce. This is shown in
For soft to medium clay and sand sites, it can be seen from
acceleration (for SDOF structures subject to 5% damping) is about 2.4 times the peak ground acceleration. For a peak ground acceleration of 0.1
spectral acceleration is 0.31g.
For the very soft clays present in Zones 3 and 4 ground accelerations will be greater
Influence of Site Conditions on Ground Acceleration
strongly influence the peak acceleration, amplitudes and the shapes of the response spectra. The approximate relationship between bedrock acceleration and peak ground acceleration on soil sites is shown on Figure 8.
For a bedrock acceleration of say 0.045g (from Figure - Petersen curves), then the acceleration in using the median relationship in Figure 8).
Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions and the response This is shown in Figure 9 for different overburden conditions.
For soft to medium clay and sand sites, it can be seen from Figure 9 that the spectral acceleration (for SDOF structures subject to 5% damping) is about 2.4 times the peak ground acceleration. For a peak ground acceleration of 0.13g (median curve in Figure
in Zones 3 and 4 (Refer Section 6.0), it is possible that the peak greater than 0.13g.
amplitudes and the shapes of the response spectra. The approximate relationship between bedrock acceleration and peak ground
Petersen curves), then the acceleration in
Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions and the response for different overburden conditions.
hat the spectral acceleration (for SDOF structures subject to 5% damping) is about 2.4 times the peak ground
Figure 8), then the
Our experience with very soft marine clays in accelerations in the order of 0.5g to
It is therefore important that site detailed engineering phase. The Section 4.7.
Figure 9
Our experience with very soft marine clays in Melaka and Lumut is that higher spectral 0.5g to 0.6g are possible.
It is therefore important that site-specific seismic hazard assessments be carried out during the detailed engineering phase. The proposed technical framework for these stud
is that higher spectral
specific seismic hazard assessments be carried out during the technical framework for these studies is given in
4.6 Site Classification
An alternative method of calculating site response is to first classify the site and then use codified methods to calculate the design response spectrum.
Table 2 summarises site classifications in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) 97.
Site Class (1) Soil Profile Generalisation (2) SA Hard Rock SB Rock
SC Very dense soil and
soft rock
SD Stiff soil
SE Soft Soil
SF Special
Category
Metric units rounded
Site conditions vary from Special Category (Sections 7.2 and 7.3), it is expected that the S
Testing after platform construction is recommended to quantify the improvement in the seismic site classification.
Site Classifications
An alternative method of calculating site response is to first classify the site and then use codified the design response spectrum.
classifications in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) 97.
Generalisation Average Shear Wave Velocity Vs (m/sec) (3) Average Standard Penetration Resistance (N) (4) Shear Strength Su
Hard Rock >1500 N.A.
750 – 1500 N.A.
Very dense soil and 370 – 750 N > 50
180 – 370 15< N < 50
Soft Soil <180 N<15
Special Category
Any profile with more than 3m of soil having following characteristics
Plasticity Index > 20% Water content > 40%
Undrained shear strength Su < 25kPa
Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics
Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading (eg liquefiable soils, highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils)
Peats or highly organic clays > 3m thick Very high plasticity clays (PI>75%) > 7.5m thick Soft or medium stiff clays > 37m thick
Special Category (SF) to hard rock (SA). After ground improvement
it is expected that the SF and SE classifications may improve to S
Testing after platform construction is recommended to quantify the improvement in the seismic An alternative method of calculating site response is to first classify the site and then use codified
classifications in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) 97.
Average Undrained Shear Strength Su (kPa) (5) N.A. N.A. 100 50 < Su <100 Su < 50 Any profile with more than 3m of soil having following
Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading (eg liquefiable soils, highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented
. After ground improvement improve to SD.
4.7 Recommendations for
A site-specific seismic hazard assessment
detailed engineering phase to generate bedrock motion overburden. Details of these study objectives are
Table 3
Item Description
1 1) Review literature on available regional geological and tectonic setting.
2) Identify regional earthquake activity. 3) Prepare a seismic sources zone for
analyses
2 1) Develop Seismo-tectonic Model for the region surrounding the
site.
2) Determine site-specific ground motion criteria
3 Select ground motion attenuation relationships appropriate for fault types
4 Determine seismic hazard parameters such as:
• a-b value
• slip rate
• maximum magnitude
that will be used in a Probabilistic
5 Carry out PSHA to determine the maximum ground acceleration
and response spectra at bedrock level for different return period of earthquake loading.
6 Carry de-aggregation hazard analyses to determine the controlling earthquake and selection of ground motions from the de aggregation hazard analysis for input into a 1
analysis.
7 Carry out site response analyses using 1
theory to determine the peak ground acceleration and spectra at the ground surface.
8 Carry out liquefaction assessment
SANDS (N<15 for clean sands and N<10 for silty & clayey SANDS with up to 30% fines).
9 Calculate the design response spectra (spectral acceleration for different periods) for the design return period of the earthquake
10 Provide recommendations of peak ground acceleration and design response spectra to IBC2000.
Recommendations for Site-specific Seismic Hazard Assessment
seismic hazard assessment and site response studies should be carried out to generate bedrock motions and amplifications through the Details of these study objectives are summarised below.
Remarks
Review literature on available regional geological and tectonic Identify regional earthquake activity.
Prepare a seismic sources zone for use in seismic hazard
An alternative approach is to assume bedrock acceleration from a site zoning and then to select a “relevant” bedrock acceleration time history from a PEER database. The selected accelerogram should have the same basic characteristics of the local earthquake.
Probabilistic approach yield less conservative motions than deterministic analysis. Required to remove all fore & after-shocks from the database must be independent events for probabilistic analyses.
tectonic Model for the region surrounding the specific ground motion criteria
Select ground motion attenuation relationships appropriate for fault
Determine seismic hazard parameters such as:
that will be used in a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Carry out PSHA to determine the maximum ground acceleration and response spectra at bedrock level for different return period of
aggregation hazard analyses to determine the controlling earthquake and selection of ground motions from the de-aggregation hazard analysis for input into a 1-D wave propagation
Carry out site response analyses using 1-D shear wave propagation theory to determine the peak ground acceleration and response spectra at the ground surface. Carry out liquefaction analyses
Software such as SHAKE 2000, ERA. NERA, Cyclic
for site response analyses
Carry out in accordance with the
recommendations of NCEER
(1996).
Check whether the ampli factors recommended by IBC2000 are appropriate to this site.
assessment in areas of loose to very loose for clean sands and N<10 for silty & clayey SANDS
response spectra (spectral acceleration for different periods) for the design return period of the earthquake. Provide recommendations of peak ground acceleration and design response spectra to IBC2000.
ssessment
should be carried out in the and amplifications through the
An alternative approach is to assume bedrock acceleration from g and then to select a “relevant” bedrock acceleration– time history from a PEER database. The selected accelerogram should
basic characteristics of the local earthquake.
Probabilistic approach yield less conservative motions than the deterministic analysis.
Required to remove all fore-shocks shocks from the database – must be independent events for probabilistic analyses.
Software such as SHAKE 2000, ERA. NERA, Cyclic v4 are available for site response analyses. Carry out in accordance with the
recommendations of NCEER
Check whether the amplifications factors recommended by IBC2000 are appropriate to this site.
5.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION
The soil investigation was carried out in three (3) Contractors:
Phase 1 – Geolab Phase 2 – Foundte Phase 3 - Majumec
Site supervision of the fieldwork was carried out by Technip’s geotechnical personnel. personnel visited the site and specified laboratory testing programmes.
The scope of investigation for all three phases
300 boreholes with 14 standpipe piezometers; 98 Piezocone Cone Penetration Tests (PCPTs) 40 Test pits (TPs);
10 electrical resistivity surveys; 43 hand auger borings; associated laboratory testing. The approximate locations of boreholes and PCPTs A summary of the significant borehole features is made to Factual Reports for description
which samples were taken and tests carried out.
Plots of cone resistance, inferred undrained shear strengths
presented in Appendix B. Reference should be made to Factual Reports for
Penetration Test (PCPT) records giving:
Cone resistance; Sleeve friction;
Friction ratio (sleeve friction / cone resistance expressed as %); Generated pore water pressure relative to hydrostatic;
Inferred soil types
Results of dissipation tests
Laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the main soil Tests included:
i. Particle size distribution with hydrometer analyses to determine the amount of silt and clay;
ii. Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index); iii. Compaction tests;
iv. Strength tests (unconfined compressive strength and p rock fragments);
v. Consolidation tests (oedometer); and vi. Chemical tests (pH, sulphates, chlorides, Summaries of the test results and test certificates are
geotechnical parameters in different ground improvement zones are presented in INVESTIGATION SCOPE
was carried out in three (3) phases by the following specialist SI Geolab (M) Sdn Bhd … (Geolab)
ndtest (M) Sdn Bhd … (Foundtest) Majumec Bina Sdn Bhd … (Majumec)
the fieldwork was carried out by Technip’s geotechnical personnel. personnel visited the site and specified laboratory testing programmes.
for all three phases comprised: with 14 standpipe piezometers;; zocone Cone Penetration Tests (PCPTs); Test pits (TPs);
10 electrical resistivity surveys; 43 hand auger borings; and associated laboratory testing.
boreholes and PCPTs are shown on Plate 1 at the rear of
A summary of the significant borehole features is presented in Appendix A. Reference should be made to Factual Reports for descriptions of strata intersected by the boreholes and depths at which samples were taken and tests carried out.
inferred undrained shear strengths and analysis of dissipation tests . Reference should be made to Factual Reports for
) records giving: Cone resistance;
(sleeve friction / cone resistance expressed as %); Generated pore water pressure relative to hydrostatic;
Inferred soil types; and Results of dissipation tests.
Laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the main soil Particle size distribution with hydrometer analyses to determine the amount of silt Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index);
Compaction tests;
Strength tests (unconfined compressive strength and point load index testing on rock fragments);
tests (oedometer); and
Chemical tests (pH, sulphates, chlorides, organic contents and TDS). test results and test certificates are presented in Factual Reports. geotechnical parameters in different ground improvement zones are presented in
by the following specialist SI
the fieldwork was carried out by Technip’s geotechnical personnel. SRE
rear of the text. Reference should be of strata intersected by the boreholes and depths at
and analysis of dissipation tests are . Reference should be made to Factual Reports for PiezoCone
Laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the main soil types. Particle size distribution with hydrometer analyses to determine the amount of silt
oint load index testing on
TDS).
presented in Factual Reports. Plots of geotechnical parameters in different ground improvement zones are presented in Appendix C.
6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
6.1 Land Use Map
The site is partly developed with
present. Land Use Map is shown in Figure
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
developed with kampong housing and small plantations. No natural swamps are se Map is shown in Figure 10.
6.2 Topography
The site contains a series of ridges that trend north
outcrops. The elevations of the ridges vary to about +45m (MLSD). The highest +90m MLSD) is located on the western boundary.
Sungai Pengerang flows through the site towards the sea. Its path is shown on the Geological Map (Figure 2).
The ground adjacent to the ridges lower than +1.0m MLSD to +5m (MLSD).
Figure 11 shows a 3D projection of the site developed from survey points imported into SURFER software.
site contains a series of ridges that trend north-east to south-west across the site . The elevations of the ridges vary to about +45m (MLSD). The highest
located on the western boundary.
Sungai Pengerang flows through the site towards the sea. Its path is shown on the Geological
The ground adjacent to the ridges and outcrops is generally low lying with elevation +5m (MLSD).
projection of the site developed from survey points imported into SURFER west across the site and rock . The elevations of the ridges vary to about +45m (MLSD). The highest outcrop (about
Sungai Pengerang flows through the site towards the sea. Its path is shown on the Geological
is generally low lying with elevations ranging from
Ground level contours are shown in Figure
The majority of the site has an elevation less achieve the platform specified at +7.5m MLSD. The areas of the site having ground (bracketed Plates): Less than RL+1.0m MLSD Less than RL+2.0m MLSD Less than RL+2.5m MLSD Less than RL+7.5m MLSD
Ground level contours are shown in Figure 12.
The majority of the site has an elevation less than +5m MLSD. Significant filling will be required to achieve the platform specified at +7.5m MLSD.
ground levels less than the following levels are shown on the
RL+1.0m MLSD (Plate 15) RL+2.0m MLSD (Plate 16) Less than RL+2.5m MLSD (Plate 17) Less than RL+7.5m MLSD (Plate 18)
Significant filling will be required to
6.3 Generalised Ground Conditions 6.3.1 Significant Strata
Significant ground conditions, in the context of platform construction 1. Ridges and rocky outcrops
borehole logs in Factual Reports for rock types and descriptions. 2. Ground conditions in the
soils and silty and
than 20m. Significant strata are identified in the Geotechnical Models in Section 7.2.
3. Peaty organic soils and o borehole logs as
part of the site.
Idealised cross sections showing distributions of soil and rock types across the site are presented as Plates 4 to 7.
6.3.2 Peaty and Organic Soils
Organic soils intersected by boreholes are tabulated below: Table 4 Organic soils intersected by boreholes
Borehole (0.0 = GL at time of investigation) 809 817 821 824 825 828 829 835 836 839 840 841 845 846
Generalised Ground Conditions Significant Strata
in the context of platform construction, include:
and rocky outcrops containing weathered volcanic rocks. Refer to borehole logs in Factual Reports for rock types and descriptions.
Ground conditions in the low lying areas comprise a mixture of very soft cohesive silty and clayey sands. In places, the very soft clays extend
Significant strata are identified in the Geotechnical Models in Section
Peaty organic soils and organic-enriched soils (commonly described
as peaty with decayed wood present) are present over the western
Idealised cross sections showing distributions of soil and rock types across the site are presented
Peaty and Organic Soils intersected by boreholes oreholes are tabulated below: Organic soils intersected by boreholes
Peaty Organic Soils reported at following depths (m)
From (0.0 = GL at time of investigation) To 5.8 8.8 2.8 5.8 0.0 8.8 11.8 13.4 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 7.4 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8
weathered volcanic rocks. Refer to borehole logs in Factual Reports for rock types and descriptions.
comprise a mixture of very soft cohesive the very soft clays extend to more Significant strata are identified in the Geotechnical Models in Section
described on the are present over the western
Table 4 cont’d. Organic soils intersected by boreholes Borehole (0.0 = GL at time of investigation) 847 851 853 854 855 856 857 858
The results of pH and organic content boreholes are summarised below:
Table 5 Borehole Sample depth pH (m) (1) 2) ( 809 6.0 7.5 6.4 821 3.0 6.6 9.0 7.2 12.0 6.5 829 1.5 6.6 4.5 6.5 835 1.5 6.7 3.0 6.8 4.5 6.4 851 1.5 6.8 3.0 856 1.5 6.7 4.5 6.6 7.5 6.5 9.0
Organic soils intersected by boreholes
Peaty Organic Soils reported at following depths (m)
From (0.0 = GL at time of investigation) To 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 8.8 0.0 2.8 1.4 5.6
pH and organic content tests carried out on samples taken in summarised below: pH Organic Contents Classification (see note) % (3) (4) (5) 59.3 O 6.4 68.0 PtO 6.6 25.1 O 7.2 2.6 CO 6.5 23.7 O 6.6 81.3 Pt 6.5 58.0 O 6.7 62.8 PtO 6.8 68.4 PtO 6.4 68.3 PtO 6.8 35.8 O 5.3 O 6.7 53.5 O 6.6 82.9 Pt 6.5 7.7 O 2.1 CO
Note:
The descriptions in Column (5 proposed by Landva et al, 1983. In this classification:
• Peats (Pt) are defined as having organic content > 80%
• Peaty Organic soils (PtO) are defined as having organic content between 60% and 80% • Organic soils (O) are defined as having organic content between 5% and
• Soils with organic contents (MO, CO) are defined as having organic content between 1 and 5%.
6.3.3 Peaty and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT results Organic soils can be inferred from
methods of analyses were used.
i. Campanella & Robertson cone resistance
Appendix B4.
ii. Eslami – Fellenius (1997) resistance vs sleeve friction independent of each other. The Campanella & Robertson plots
plotting cone resistance (qc) against the inverse of itself (friction ratio = f
dispose the plot to a hyperbolically
abscissa values through to small ordinate values at large abscissa values. The resolution of data for fine grained soils is exaggerated as opposed to the resolution of the data for co
soils. Fellenius (2009) advises that plotting the cone resistance against the inverse of itself distorts the information. This approach is included as is a widely used practice.
The Eslami-Fellenius plots cone stress against sleeve friction a original Begemann (1965) plots.
5) are based on the classification of peats and organic soils
Peats (Pt) are defined as having organic content > 80%
Peaty Organic soils (PtO) are defined as having organic content between 60% and 80% anic soils (O) are defined as having organic content between 5% and
Soils with organic contents (MO, CO) are defined as having organic content between 1 and
Peaty and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT results
Organic soils can be inferred from the PiezoCone Penetration Test (PCPT) results. The following methods of analyses were used.
Robertson (1988) plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a cone resistance (qc) vs friction ratio (fs/qc) plot. These results are presented in
Fellenius (1997) plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a cone sleeve friction plot. This approach plots two parameters that are independent of each other. These results are presented in Appendix
plots follow the trend of post Begemann (1965) ) against the inverse of itself (friction ratio = fs / q
a hyperbolically-shaped plot ranging from large ordinate values at small abscissa values through to small ordinate values at large abscissa values. The resolution of data for fine grained soils is exaggerated as opposed to the resolution of the data for co
soils. Fellenius (2009) advises that plotting the cone resistance against the inverse of itself distorts the information. This approach is included as is a widely used practice.
Fellenius plots cone stress against sleeve friction and is more of a throwback and organic soils
Peaty Organic soils (PtO) are defined as having organic content between 60% and 80% anic soils (O) are defined as having organic content between 5% and 60%
Soils with organic contents (MO, CO) are defined as having organic content between 1 and
results. The following
plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a lot. These results are presented in
plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a cone This approach plots two parameters that are These results are presented in Appendix B5.
post Begemann (1965) researchers of
c). This will
pre-shaped plot ranging from large ordinate values at small abscissa values through to small ordinate values at large abscissa values. The resolution of data for fine grained soils is exaggerated as opposed to the resolution of the data for coarse grained soils. Fellenius (2009) advises that plotting the cone resistance against the inverse of itself
Fig 13
Profiling Chart for BH801 Campanella & Robertson (1986)
Fig 14
Profiling Chart for BH801 Eslami & Fellenius (1997)
6.3.4 Locations of Organic soils
Plate 20 shows the boreholes where organic soils were intersected and the CPTs where they were inferred from the profiling charts.
6.3.5 Groundwater
Contours of water levels observed in the boreholes during drilling are plotted below
were measured during of the boreholes and may be influenced by the wash boring operations. They are not established ground water levels.
:
Figure 15 Water level contours (measurements made during drilling) Locations of Organic soils
shows the boreholes where organic soils were intersected and the CPTs where they were inferred from the profiling charts.
Contours of water levels observed in the boreholes during drilling are plotted below
were measured during of the boreholes and may be influenced by the wash boring operations. They are not established ground water levels.
Water level contours (measurements made during drilling)
shows the boreholes where organic soils were intersected and the CPTs where they
Contours of water levels observed in the boreholes during drilling are plotted below. These levels were measured during of the boreholes and may be influenced by the wash boring operations.
The water levels contoured in Figure
summarised below. Boreholes where standpipes were installed are shown shaded. Table 6 Borehole Coords Northing (1) (2) BH 1 -77205.327 BH 2 -77009.302 BH 3 -76993.837 BH 4 -77009.302 BH 5 -76809.302 BH 6 -76809.302 BH 7 -76775.089 BH 8 -76809.302 BH 9 -76809.302 BH 10 -76807.517 BH 11 -76779.845 BH 12 -76609.302 BH 13 -76609.302 BH 14 -76609.302 BH 15 -76571.030 BH 16 -76631.432 BH 17 -76609.295 BH 18 -76609.302 BH 19 -76590.893 BH 20 -76602.117 BH 21 -76609.302 BH 22 -76609.302 BH 23 -76409.302 BH 24 -76409.302 BH 25 -76409.302 BH 26 -76409.302 BH 27 -76415.560 BH 28 -76409.302 BH 29 -76409.302 BH 30 -76377.346 BH 31 -76409.302 BH 32 -76409.302 BH 33 -76409.302 BH 34 -76417.332 BH 35 -76409.302 BH 36 -76411.342 BH 37 -76397.210 BH 38 -76209.302 BH 39 -76209.302 BH 40 -76209.302 BH 41 -76209.302 BH 42 -76209.302 BH 43 -76209.302 BH 44 -76209.302 BH 45 -76209.302
he water levels contoured in Figure 15 and observed during borehole drilling and are . Boreholes where standpipes were installed are shown shaded.
Ground Surface Reported water level Easting RL(m, LSD) RL(m. LSD) (3) (4) (5) 64701.710 3.010 -0.790 66916.939 3.988 2.238 64904.984 5.330 3.230 64516.939 4.043 0.643 67066.939 2.988 2.488 66716.939 4.120 4.120 66347.412 4.044 4.044 65916.939 4.451 3.951 65516.939 4.256 4.256 65150.700 3.056 2.556 64709.188 5.061 0.961 67316.939 3.366 2.616 66916.939 3.005 0.605 66516.939 2.365 0.265 66127.933 2.158 0.158 65708.908 4.106 2.906 65516.939 3.815 2.015 65316.939 2.963 1.163 65141.850 3.722 1.922 64889.212 3.432 1.332 64716.939 16.991 15.691 64516.939 7.214 3.214 67716.939 2.960 2.660 67516.939 2.553 2.553 67116.939 3.455 3.455 66916.939 2.373 2.373 66733.758 2.391 -0.409 66516.939 2.561 1.311 66316.939 2.117 0.817 66168.287 2.780 1.580 65916.939 2.497 0.097 65716.939 4.150 2.450 65516.939 4.389 2.289 65323.288 4.401 2.101 65116.939 3.296 3.296 64897.294 4.649 4.349 64716.265 6.200 5.900 68116.939 2.283 1.483 67716.939 2.110 0.310 67316.939 2.422 2.422 67116.939 3.353 3.353 66916.939 2.762 -0.238 66716.939 1.634 1.134 66516.939 3.111 2.461 66316.939 2.847 0.847
observed during borehole drilling and are . Boreholes where standpipes were installed are shown shaded.
Table 6 cont’d Borehole Coords Northing (1) (2) BH 46 -76239.207 BH 47 -76247.344 BH 48 -76209.302 BH 49 -76209.302 BH 50 -76126.339 BH 51 -76209.302 BH 52 -76209.302 BH 53 -76009.302 BH 54 -76009.295 BH 55 -76009.302 BH 56 -75995.336 BH 57 -76009.302 BH 58 -76009.302 BH 59 -75992.344 BH 60 -76022.171 BH 61 -76009.302 BH 62 -76009.302 BH 63 -76007.186 BH 64 -76009.302 BH 65 -76005.349 BH 66 -76009.302 BH 67 -76009.302 BH 68 -76009.302 BH 69 -76045.495 BH 70 -76054.348 BH 71 -76009.302 BH 72 -75809.302 BH 73 -75809.302 BH 74 -75809.302 BH 75 -75809.302 BH 76 -75809.302 BH 77 -75809.302 BH 78 -75820.360 BH 79 -75852.170 BH 80 -75835.347 BH 81 -75809.302 BH 82 -75809.302 BH 83 -75809.302 BH 84 -75782.342 BH 85 -75809.302 BH 86 -75809.302 BH 87 -75772.352 BH 88 -75809.302 BH 89 -75809.302 BH 90 -75709.302 BH 91 -75609.302 BH 92 -75607.163 BH 93 -75609.302 BH 94 -75609.302 Ground Surface Reported water level Easting RL(m, LSD) RL(m. LSD) (3) (4) (5) 66165.263 1.856 -0.244 65896.221 2.372 2.372 65716.939 2.867 -0.233 65516.939 5.895 4.695 65218.354 9.871 9.871 64916.939 4.917 4.917 64516.939 8.211 8.211 68316.939 2.875 1.975 68116.939 2.803 0.703 67916.939 2.831 0.331 67737.245 0.917 -0.483 67516.939 2.709 0.209 67316.939 3.053 1.553 67090.138 1.597 0.397 66961.275 2.035 0.935 66716.939 1.798 1.348 66516.939 2.167 2.167 66272.259 1.776 -7.224 66116.939 1.995 1.995 65858.574 2.292 2.292 65716.939 2.224 0.724 65516.939 3.529 0.329 65316.939 4.516 3.016 65126.270 19.560 13.560 64922.560 3.140 1.140 64716.939 23.501 21.501 68516.939 4.894 3.794 68116.939 4.000 1.700 67916.939 2.912 2.612 67716.939 2.381 2.381 67516.939 2.223 1.023 67316.939 2.597 2.597 67128.107 1.495 -0.805 66903.216 1.991 1.991 66711.341 1.353 -4.647 66516.939 2.425 2.425 66316.939 2.135 0.135 66116.939 2.145 2.145 65884.257 1.312 -1.688 65716.939 1.941 -1.559 65516.939 2.312 1.012 65264.570 8.691 7.391 64916.939 12.505 9.005 64516.939 44.471 44.471 65116.939 33.612 32.612 68316.939 4.384 0.384 68164.246 4.537 1.337 67916.939 2.722 2.222 67716.939 1.099 -1.301
