Mannum Report - Word

Geotechnical
investigation
report
Mannum Solar Farm
JOB NUMBER: S42750 - 263976
CLIENT: Canadian Solar (Australia) Pty Ltd
SITE: Mannum Solar Farm, MANNUM, SA 5238
DATE: 17/12/2018
REVISION: Final
© Koukourou Pty Ltd trading as FMG Engineering
The work carried out in the preparation of this report has been performed in accordance with the requirements of FMG Engineering’s
Quality Management System which is certified by a third party accredited auditor to comply with the requirements of ISO9001.
This document is and shall remain the property of FMG Engineering. The document is specific to the client and site detailed in the
report. Use of the document must be in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission and any unauthorised use of
this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. No part of this report including the whole of same shall be used for any other
purpose nor by any third party without prior written consent of FMG Engineering.
FMG Engineering provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. FMG Engineering considers the printed
version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client’s convenience and FMG Engineering requests that the client
ensures the integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply
with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Cth).
Document Status
RE STATUS AUTHOR REVIEWER APPROVED FOR ISSUE
V
NO NAME SIGNATUR DATE NAME SIGNATUR DATE
. E E
0 Draft Fiona Maxwell 11/12/1 Maxwell
Sheldric Merryval 8 Merryval
k e e
1 Draft F. Maxwell 18/12/1 Maxwell 18/12/1
to Sheldric Merryval 8 Merryval 8
Clien k e e
t
FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Page 2 of 26
Table of contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Purpose and Scope of investigation ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Purpose of FMG Investigations ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Scope of Investigations .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Site Description .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
4 Geology ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
5 FMG Investigation .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
6 Ground Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8
6.1 Subsoils ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11
7 Geotechnical Strength Parameters ............................................................................................................................................. 12
7 Site classification ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12
8 Laboratory testing ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13
8.1 Quality Control and Assurance .......................................................................................................................................... 13
8.2 California Bearing Ratio (Estimated) ................................................................................................................................. 13
8.3 Atterberg limit and particle size distribution .................................................................................................................. 13
8.4 Aggressivity test ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
8.6 Shrink-swell tests .................................................................................................................................................................... 15
8.7 Resistivity Testing ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
9 Foundations ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
9.1 Foundation Options .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
9.2 Recommendations for Piles..........................................................................................................................................................17
10 Earthquake site class .............................................................................................................................................................................17
11 Construction Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................17
11.1 Earthworks .................................................................................................................................................................................17
11.2 Pavements .................................................................................................................................................................................17
11.3 Excavation potential ...............................................................................................................................................................17
11.3 Health and Safety for Excations ......................................................................................................................................... 18
11.4 Construction phase inspections ......................................................................................................................................... 18
12 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
13 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18
14 Important notes about the interpretation and use of this geotechnical report ............................................................ 19
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Investigation Test Layout Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Borelogs, test pit logs and laboratory Report .......................................................................................................................... 23

Page 3 of 26
1 Introduction
FMG Engineering (FMG) has been commissioned by Canadian Solar to undertake a geotechnical
investigation for a proposed solar farm at Mannum, SA 5238.
The site is located approximately 3 km west of the rural service town of Mannum and measures
approximately 91 Hectares in total area. Once fully developed the solar farm will have an AC capacity of 30
MW. It is understood Zone 1 comprising the north western portion of the site will be developed first followed
by the remaining parts of the site.
It is understood that driven steel piles are the preferred foundation system.
A geotechnical investigation is required to verify the suitability and size of driven steel piles for the site.
Appropriate recommendations to assist design of foundations including geotechnical strength parameters
for detailing of the piles sizes are included in this report.
Google Maps 2018
Figure 1: Site Location
Google Maps 2018

Page 4 of 26
2 Purpose and Scope of investigation
2.1 Purpose of FMG Investigations
The purpose of the FMG investigations is to check founding conditions at the site. Appropriate
recommendations for foundations are included in this report. These include geotechnical soil strength
parameters for detailing of driven steel pile sizes and conventional shallow foundations.
2.1 Scope of Investigations

The scope of geotechnical services required of FMG include:
o Excavation of fifteen boreholes to a target depth of 6.5m or refusal
o Excavation of five test pits to a target depth of 3m
o Soil classification to AS2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footing
o Seismic classification of the site to AS1170.4 -2000
o Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)
o Laboratory testing including;
i) 3 Corrosively test
ii) 2 Atterburg test to AS1289.3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.13 and 3.4.1
iii) 4 shrink swell index test to AS 1289.7.1.1
iv) 4 Linear Shrinkage test to AS1289.3.4.1
v) 4 Particle Size Distribution Test to AS1289.3.6.1
vi) 4 Estimated CBR based on DPTI method TP133 utilising Atterberg and PSD
vii) 4 Moisture content tests (Included in the PSD Test AS1289.3.6.1)
o Issue of a geotechnical report
This report may be used in support of detail design.
This report shall not be interpreted or used for construction purposes. This is outside of the scope of the
investigations.

Page 5 of 26
3 Site Description
The site is relatively flat and is currently used for pastoral purpose. A shallow gully containing a dry creek
runs approximately north to south through the site (Refer to Figure 2).
Zone 1
Existing shallow
Zone 1 gully
Existing
commercial
piggery Trees
Figure 2: Site Features
A commercial piggery operation is located on the neighbouring property to the west. There are some areas
of trees within the site as indicated in Figure 2, and running along property boundaries.
A walk over inspection of the site was undertaken by FMG as part of the investigations. There were no
evidence of rock within the gully feature or elsewhere the site.
4 Geology
Reference has been made to

Page 6 of 26
o South Australian Geological Survey 1:100,000 Scale geological map series for the Mannum area.
o Online GIS database SARIG
The regional geological map show the site is overlain by undifferentiated Quaternary Alluvial deposits
associated with the Murray River flood plain. These soils are described as sand, silt, clay, gravels and mixtures.
Calcrete capping rock is also shown as irregular in occurrence. Calcrete (limestone) typically occurs as a
surface capping layer. Being close to the surface it is susceptible to weathering from water and can contain
voids and is typically unreliable in strength but may include indurated rock
Rock including sandstone is shown on the reginal geological maps to the west of the site.
5 FMG Investigation
The FMG investigation was undertaken on 5th and 6th December 2018 and included:
 Services check
 Fifteen rotary machine boreholes

Page 7 of 26
 Five testpits
 Laboratory testing (Refer to Section 2.1 of this Report)
Refer to Appendix A of this Report for the investigation Test Layout Plan. During the investigation, the
investigation test locations were positioned by GPS. Northing and eastings are included on the appended
logs.
Refer to Appendix B for borehole and testpit logs and Laboratory Report.
Push tubes were used to advance the boreholes to recover undisturbed soil samples.
The boreholes and trial pits were terminated at target depths or at refusal. Logging of materials was
undertaken by an experience FMG soil technician in accordance with AS1726-2017.
Standard Penetrometer Tests (SPT) were carried in accordance with AS1289.6.3.1.. The SPT results are
presented on the appended borehole logs.
The depths achieved by the investigation test points are summarised as follows.
Table 1: Borehole Summary
Borehole ID DEPTH Achieved (m) Reason for Termination

BH1 6.5 Target depth achieved
BH2 4.0 Refusal on Inferred Sandstone
BH3 4.1 Refusal on inferred Sandstone
BH5 0.7 Refusal on Calcrete
BH10 6.5 Target depth
BH12 6.5 Target depth
BH14 0.6 Refusal in Calcrete
Table 2: Trial Pit Summary
TestPit ID DEPTH Achieved (m) Reason for Termination

TP1 3.0 Target depth achieved
6 Ground Conditions
6.1 Subsoils
Refer to the appended investigation logs for full material description.

Page 8 of 26
The investigation indicate that it should be possible to drive 3000mm long steel piles at most locations but
some sandstone may be present at shallow depths in some areas of the site and surface calcrete capping
rock.
The following stratigraphy is indicated at investigation test locations.

o 0.0 – 1.0 m: Loose near surface sandy soils (Inferred natural soils)
o 1.0 – 6.5 m; Firm to stiff clayey soil/Medium dense sandy soils
o Within Zone 1; Weathered Sandstone at less than 3.0 m depth at one location (Borehole BH8)
o Other areas of the site: Calcrete capping rock at two location (Boreholes BH5 and BH14).
The depth to the surface of the rock as encountered in the investigation test points are shown in square
brackets on the following figure. Refer to Table 3 for tabulated depths.
Shallow rock at BH8

(Extend not defined)
Shallow Calcrete 0.6 m

depth at BH14 (Extend
not defined)
Shallow Calcrete 0.5 m depth at

BH5 (Extend not defined)
Legend
BH4=FMG Borehole dated Dec 2018
[4.3m]=Depth to surface of rock relative to
existing ground surface
Figure 3: Inferred Depth to Rock Surface
Table 3: Summary of depth to rock surface

Page 9 of 26
Borehole ID Thickness of Surface Depth to Inferred Rock Type of rock
BH=Borehole soils (mm) Surface (mm)
TP=Testpit
BH1 6.5 >6500 1
BH2 4.0 4000 1
BH3 4.1 4100 1
BH4 4.3 4300 1
BH5 2.0 200 Calcrete capping
rock
BH6 4.0 4000 1
BH7 5.2 5200 1
BH8 2.0 2000 1
BH9 5.8 5800 1
BH10 6.5 >6500 No Rock
BH11 3.8 3800 (1)
BH12 6.5 >6500 No Rock
BH13 3.5 3500 (1)
BH14 2.0 200 Calcrete Capping
rock
BH15 3.0 3000 (1)
TP1 3.0 >3000 1
TP2 3.0 >3000 1
TP3 3.0 >3000 1
TP4 3.0 >3000 1
TP5 3.0 >3000 1
1=Inferred sandstone
The penetration depth into the rock by open barrel push tube was of limited nature.
The results of the Insitu soil testing including pocket penetrometer measurements and Standard
Penetrometer Tests (SPT) are summarised in Table 4 (Next page).
Table 4: Summary of SPT results

Page 10 of 26
Depth DEPTH (m) Insitu Undrained SPT N Values General Strength
Shear Strength Classification
(Su)1
(m) kPa
Clay/ sandy silty Varies to 6.5 100, 200 (1.0m) 16 to >50 Stiff to very stiff
clay in boreholes 200 (1.1m)
200 (1.4m)
200 (1.8m)
200 (1.8m)
500 (2.0m)
500 (2.5m)
500 (3.2m)
500 (3.0 m)
500 (3.7m)
500 (5.2m)
Clay/sandy silty 0.0-3.0 200, 200 (0.9m)
clay in Testpits 200 (1.30)
200, 200 (1.4m)
200 (1.1m)
200 (1.6m)
200 (2.0m)
Sandy soils - 9 to 15 Medium dense
0.0 - 6.5m
Sandy soils 2.0 - 6.5 m - >50 Dense
1=Measurement by handheld pocket penetrometer
Note the borehole logs may show some thin layers described as firm. The strength classification in Table 4 is
intended as a typical representation of the soils.
Pocket penetrometer tests are made by hand and involve pushing steel probe (about 3mm diameter) into
the soils. The resistance is measure by a spring and is calibrated to give an insitu undrained shear strength.
Pocket penetrometers are considered a general guide in terms of soil strengths.
The insitu testing indicates clayey soils are considered stiff to very stiff in terms of the strength classification
of AS1727-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations. The pocket penetrometer values would indicate a higher
strength range of very stiff to hard.
The sandy soils are considered medium dense to dense.
6.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed during the investigations. All the borehole and testpits were dry.

Page 11 of 26
7 Geotechnical Strength Parameters
The geotechnical soil strength parameters presented in the following table are based on the results of the
current investigations, engineering judgement, literature and other public domain information. These
parameter may be used for design purposes of the following foundations.
o Driven steel and bored concrete piles
o Conventional shallow footings
Table 5: Summary of Soil Strengths
Material Strength SPT N Ultimate Friction Bulk Ultimate Undrained

Depth (m)
Classification Value Pile Shaft Angle (∅) Density Lateral Youngs

Friction KN/M3 Capacity Modulus
(𝑬)
kPa KN/m3 kPa MPa

Near surface 0.0 - Variable - Ignore Zero - Ignore -
loose soils 1.5
including
Calcrete
capping
materials
Clayey soil 1.5- Firm 12 -15 50 30 19 500 7 - 12
6.5
Clayey soil 1.5- Very stiff >50 50 30 20 1000 7 -12
6.5
Sandy soil 1.5 to Medium 9-15 50 30 18 500 20 -30
6.5 m dense
Sandy soils 2.0 - Dense >50 300 35 19 1000 30 -50
6.5 m
The calcite capping rock is known to include voids and strengths may be variable. This material is considered
to be unreliable for support of foundations. In detailing foundations (including piles), the calcrete capping
rock shall be ignored for its full depth. In detailing foundations the upper 1.5 m depth of the soil should be
ignored even if the calcrete capping layer is found not to be present. The
Based on the guidelines of AS2159-2009 “Piling - Design and Installation” (Table 4.3.2C), a basic geotechnical
strength reduction factor, ɸgb, of 0.52 may be adopted for a low redundancy system or 0.60 for a high
redundancy system.
7 Site classification
Free swell Ys values have been calculated in accordance with AS2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings.
Although AS2870 is intended as a guide for residential development, the principals are considered applicable
to design of expected foundation types for the current project.
The following predicted surface movements are based on the results of the current investigation including
laboratory testing, engineering judgement, literature and other public domain information.
Table 6: Predicted Surface Movement
Predicted Surface movement ( AS2870 – 2011)

Soil volume change 20mm
Effect of trees 15mm
Total surface movement 35mm

Page 12 of 26
8 Laboratory testing
.
8.1 Quality Control and Assurance
Laboratory testing of materials recovered from the site was undertaken by Research House (FMG), a NATA
accredited soil laboratory.
Refer to Appendix B of this report for the Laboratory Report.
8.2 California Bearing Ratio (Estimated)

Refer to the Laboratory Report presented in Appendix B of this Report.
Bulk samples were collected from the testpits excavated on the site for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing.
Estimated CBR values were derived using the following empirical relationship.
 Test TP133 of the South Australia Department of Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI)
Well established control testing by DPTI shows Test TP133 correlates to a 4 day soaked CBR test compacted
to 98% of modified compaction effort in accordance with AS1289.5.2.1.
Summary results of the CBR testing is shown in the following table.
Table 7: Estimated CBR Test summary
SAMPLE (DEPTH) SOILS ESTIMATED CBR TESTING METHOD

TP1 (1.9 – 2.4m) Sandy CLAY (CL) trace of Gravel 11% DPTI Test TP133
TP2 (0.8 – 1.3m) Sandy CLAY (CL) 7%
TP3 (0.7 – 1.1m) Sandy CLAY (CL) trace of Gravel 8%
TP4 (1.0 – 1.5m) Sandy CLAY (CL) 8%
For assumed light traffic loads and based on the results of the above laboratory testing, the following CBR
values may be used to detail the thickness of a standard flexible pavement.
 CBR of 7% for medium dense natural insitu sandy clay
 CBR OF 7% for firm natural insitu clayey soils
Recommendations from Section 11.2 of this report shall apply for construction of pavements.
8.3 Atterberg limit and particle size

distribution
Refer to Laboratory Report presented in Appendix B of this Report.
Determination of Atterberg limits and Particle Size Distribution (PSD) allows reliable predictions of the soil
behaviour.
 Testing Method; Australian Standard AS1289, “Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes”.
Samples were taken from the bulk samples collected in the testpits excavated on site.

Page 13 of 26
Table 8: Atterberg limit and PSD summary
TEST TEST MATERIAL LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTIC LINEAR %

LOCATION DEPTH LIMIT INDEX LIMIT SHRINKAGE PASSING
(m) (%) (%) (%) (%) 0.075mm
TP1 1.9 – 2.4 Sandy CLAY 28 15 13 6.5 44
(CL) trace of
Gravel
TP2 0.8 – 1.3 Sandy CLAY 44 28 16 10.5 49
(CI)
TP3 0.7 – 1.1 Sandy CLAY 43 25 18 12 54
(CI) trace of
Gravel
TP4 1.0 – 1.5 Sandy CLAY 41 26 15 9 49
(CI)
TP3 1.9 – 2.3 Sandy CLAY 33 14 19 7 N/A
TP5 0.7 – 1.1 Sandy CLAY 35 20 15 6.5 N/A
8.4 Aggressivity test

A total of three soil aggressively tests was undertaken. Summary results of the testing is shown in the
following table.
Table 9: Summary Results of Aggressivity Testing
TEST TEST MATERIAL pH Electrical Chloride Sulphate

LOCATION DEPTH conductivity (ppm) (ppm)
(m) (µs/cm)
TP1 1.0 – 1.5 Sandy Silty 8.7 320 42 27
CLAY
TP2 0.8 – 1.3 Sandy Silty 9.6 1,100 540 360
CLAY
TP5 0.7 – 1.1 Sandy Silty 9.9 540 100 64
CLAY
Soils that exhibit low pH levels or high concentrations of sulphate and chloride have the capacity to affect
durability of in-ground concrete and steel structures. Section 6 of AS2159-2009, Table 7 provides guidance on
soil aggresivity.
Table 10: Summary of chemical testing for Durability (Source: Extract AS2159-2009)
MATERIAL TYPE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION REFERENCE (AS2159-2009)

Soil Conditions B*
Concrete Non aggressive Table 6.4.2(c)
Steel Non aggressive Table 6.5.2(c)
Notes:
* Soil Conditions B – low permeability soils below ground water or all soils above groundwater
Based on the current laboratory testing, the soils are classified as non-aggressive in terms of AS2159 – 2009.

Page 14 of 26
8.6 Shrink-swell tests
A total of four shrink Swell tests was undertaken. Tests were carried out in accordance with Australian
Standard AS1289, “Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes.
A summary of the results is shown in the following.
Table 11: Shrink swell test summary
TEST LOCATION TEST DEPTH (m) MATERIAL SHRINK MDD MOISTURE

SWELL INDEX (t/m3) CONTENT %
%
TP1 1.0 – 1.5 Silty SAND 0.3 1.80 6.3
TP2 2.0 – 2.4 Sandy CLAY 1.1 1.70 16.0
TP4 2.1 – 2.5 Sandy CLAY 0.9 1.77 12.9
TP5 1.8 – 2.2 Silty Sandy CLAY 0.6 1.86 6.9
8.7 Resistivity Testing

The earth resistivity of soil varies with soil type, density, structure and moisture content. The results for the
testing taken as representative of the site soils are presented in the following table.
Table 12: Earth Resistivity Testing
TEST LOCATION TEST DEPTH MATERIAL Resistivity

(m) ohm.cm
TP1 1.0 – 1.5 Sandy Silty CLAY 31
TP3 1.5 -2.0 Sandy silty CLAY 40
TP4 2.5 -3.0 Sandy silty CLAY 60

Page 15 of 26
9 Foundations
9.1 Foundation Options
The investigation indicate that stiff to very stiff clayey soils and medium dense to dense sand are generally
present to depths of about 3.0m to greater than 6.5 m. Shallow seated sandstone and Calcrete capping rock
may be present in some areas.
The following foundations options are considered appropriate for the site
Option 1: Driven Steel piles

Where the rock is sufficiently deep, driven steel piles may be used. Alternatively where the rock is shallow
consideration may be given to using a greater number of piles.
The upper soil for the full depth of any capping layer and any loose near surface soils would need to be
ignored in determining the pile lateral capacity and uplift resistance (Refer to Pile Recommendation Section
of this report).
Option 2: Bored piles

Bored piles infilled with mass concrete and steel reinforcement would be suitable in areas where the rock is
not shallow.
Option 2: Shallow foundations

In areas where the rock is shallow, mass concrete foundations may be used. Detailed to resist overturning
and upward forces. Footings would need to bear in the natural soils beneath any calcrete capping layer. The
calcrete may contain voids and be of variable strength and is considered nor reliable for support to any
foundations. Alternatively within foundation areas and exiting 1.0 m beyond foundation perimeter lines,
calcrete capping may be ripped and recompacted as engineered fill to 96 % of relative compaction under
Level 1 site supervision.
Option 4: Screw Piles

Depending on the upward and lateral forces, screw pile may be suitable provided a robust QA/QC program is
implemented by the Contractor. The pile shafts would require sufficient torsional strength so they are to
penetrate dense sand and weathered sandstone. Lateral splays are likely to be required to provide sufficient
lateral capacity to resist overturning moments.
Spread footings shall bear on firm natural clayey soils or medium dense sandy soil. They shall be designed to
resist the expected shrink swell movements outlined in Section 8 of this Report.
Square or rectangular pad footings, may be proportioned to an allowable bearing pressure of 100kPa.
In assessing the allowable bearing strength a factor of safety of 2.5 is assumed. The ultimate geotechnical
capacity (Rd,ug), may be estimated at 2.5 times the recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure.
Under transient and short-term loads, such as wind and earthquakes, the maximum allowable bearing
pressure may be increased by 25%.
Differential settlement would not be a problem for foundations bearing in firm to very stiff clay and medium
dense sand.
Recommendations form Section of this report (Construction inspections) shall apply to prepared foundation
areas prior to pouring of concrete.

Page 16 of 26
9.2 Recommendations for Piles
For pile foundations, the upper soil to a depth of 1.5 m including the full thickness of any calcrete capping
layers shall be ignored for determining the pale shaft friction and lateral pile capacities.
Piles shall be provided with appropriate embedment to resist the expected shrink swell movements outlined
in Section 8 of this Report.
For detailing driven piles sizes including lateral resistance the geotechnical strength parameters may be used
from Table 4 of this report. Based on the guidelines of AS2159-2009 “Piling - Design and Installation” the
following basic basic geotechnical strength reduction factor (ɸ) may be applied to the recommended
ultimate pile shaft friction resistance and lateral capacity values.
o Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (ɸ) of 0.52 may be adopted for a low redundancy system or
0.60 for a high redundancy system.
It is recommended that an appropriate number of pull out tests are undertaken in support of detail design.
10 Earthquake site class

Using the Classification System presented in AS1170.4-2007 “Structural design actions Part 4: Earthquake
actions in Australia”, it is assessed that the following should be adopted:
Site sub-soil class “Ce” (Shallow or Soft Soil).
Hazard Factor (Z) 0.08.
11 Construction Recommendations
11.1 Earthworks
It is understood that no earthworks are proposed for the site development. If any earthworks are proposed
including access roads, it is recommended that they shall be undertaken under engineering supervision
including Level 1 site supervision.
11.2 Pavements
Engineering supervision shall apply to any pavement construction
11.3 Excavation potential

It is not expected that driven steel piles would have significant problems penetrating the site soils. How, the
site soils include very stiff clay and dense sand with SPT N>50. The actual energy delivered to the SPT anvil
probe is relatively small. However variations in soil strength may occur including higher strength soils. As a
precautionary measure, it is recommended that an appropriate number of test piles are driven to give
confidence that the piles can be driven to the required depth.
Steel driven piles are unlikely to be able to penetrate significant depths into the sandstone and care would
be required not to damage the piles.
In terms of the calcrete capping layer. Heavy universal columns would act as a rock breaker and may be able
to punch through depending on the layer thickness and strength of the rock. In areas where the capping
layer is indurated or thick, heavy hydraulic excavators and rock breaking equipment may be required.

Page 17 of 26
Depending on the level of induration it may also be possible to weaken the capping layer by adding water to
collapse the materials.
Bore piles are expected to have adequate temporary for pouring of concrete. Debris falling in the excavation
form disturbed calcrete capping rock poses a construction risk as some sizeable blocks may fall down. These
may be difficult to remove prior to pouring of concrete.
11.3 Health and Safety for Excations

All excavations shall be made safe and shall comply with all relevant Health and Safety Legislation in force.
11.4 Construction phase inspections

It is recommended that excavations and fills, retention systems and any engineered slope constructions, pile
footings, and roads and other pavements be inspected at appropriate stages of their construction by an
experienced geotechnical engineer. This is in order to verify that the actual ground conditions are consistent
with the advice and recommendations given in this report.
12 Conclusions
The current investigation included the excavation of fifteen borehole to depths of 6.5 m and five trial pits to a
depth of 3.0 m. Loose near surface sandy soils (inferred to be natural soil) are present to a depth of about
1.0m and then generally stiff to very stiff clayey soils and medium dense to dense sand down to 6.5 m being
the maximum depth achieved by the boreholes (6.5m depth).
Sandstone rock and capping rock (Limestone) may be encountered at shallow depth in some areas but are
expected to be localised.
o Shallow seated sandstone; Encountered in one borehole (BH8), north western corner of Zone 1;
Depth to surface of rock=2.0m below ground surface.
o Calcrete in two boreholes in the centre of the site at a depth of 0.2m below the surface.
The depth to rock is shown on Figure 2 of this report. This information can be used as a guide of the depth
of the rock surface.
Steel driven piles are considered suitable for the site in areas where the rock is deeper. The current
investigation would indicate it should be possible to use 3000 mm long driven steel piles (depth below
ground surface level) in most places. In some areas where the rock is shallow, driven piles may not be
suitable. Refer to Section 9.1 of this report for foundation options.
The current investigation have not identified the extent of the shallow sandstone nor the extent and
thickness of any calcrete capping rock.
13 Recommendations
It is recommended that further investigations are undertaken to verify the extent of the shallow seated rock
and calcrete capping materials. This would help to give the project confidence and manage risk.
The geotechnical soil strength parameters provided in this report may be used for detailing driven steel piles.
It is recommended that the assumed parameters are verified by appropriate number of pull out tests.

Page 18 of 26
14 Important notes about the
interpretation and use of this
geotechnical report
These notes are offered to help in the interpretation of your Geotechnical Report.
The level of investigation and degree of certainty required is dependent upon the complexity of the
proposed construction.
Should a more conclusive assessment be required regarding the subsoil conditions at the property, FMG
Engineering can arrange to undertake a more detailed study including further sampling and laboratory
testing. There will always be uncertainties arising from the practical limitations of the extent and nature of
site testing and localised changes in soil conditions may not be found in any cause.
This report should be read as a whole. Borelogs should not be separated from the body of the report and
interpreted independently. The whole of this report should be provided to contractors in order to provide
the best available information to the contractors. To avoid any misinterpretation of the contents of the
report consult the geotechnical engineer for any queries or proposed changes or unexpected conditions.
The limitations of a geotechnical investigation

Although the information provided by a geotechnical investigation can reduce exposure to such risks, no
geotechnical investigation, however diligently carried out, can eliminate them. Even a rigorous professional
assessment may fail to detect all subsoil and ground water variations on a site. The geology of the site may
make predicting changes difficult.
A geotechnical investigation is based upon a unique set of project conditions.
Your report should not be used:

When the nature of the proposed development or use is changed, for example if a residential development is
proposed instead of a commercial one
When the size or configuration of the proposed development is altered
When the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified
When there is a change of ownership
For application to an adjacent site.
The circumstances about a particular development or contract may require a specified approach to the
assessment of soil and groundwater conditions.
To help avoid costly problems, refer to your consultant to determine how any factors which have changed
subsequent to the date of the report may affect our recommendations.
Geotechnical ‘findings’ are professional estimates

Site assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing is interpreted by
geologists, engineers or scientists who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions and the
nature and homogeneity of subsurface conditions. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
because no professional, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface exploration programme, no matter how
comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials
may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ
from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help
minimise its impact. For this reason, owners should retain the services of their consultants through the
development stage, to identify variations, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend

Page 19 of 26
solutions to problems encountered on site or during the tender process.
A report prepared for the purposes of the geotechnical engineer’s direct client may not meet the objectives
of a third party or contractor. Consult the geotechnical engineer for guidance in the application of the report
to your purposes.
Unforeseen conditions
Should conditions encountered on site be markedly different from those anticipated and described in this
report then FMG Engineering should be notified immediately. Early identification of site anomalies generally
results in any problems being more readily resolved and allows reinterpretation and assessment of the
implications for future work.
Safety in design
This Geotechnical Report presents factual information about the soil conditions at the subject site. At the
time that this report was prepared, FMG Engineering were not informed of the details at the proposed
building (workplace) to be constructed. Consequently, FMG Engineering have not carried out a Preliminary
Hazard Analysis nor been able to consider Safety in Design for the proposed development. It is the
responsibility of the designer to use the information contained within this report when undertaking a Safety
in Design assessment for the specific development.
Please contact FMG Engineering if Safety in Design analysis is required as the project develops.

Page 20 of 26
Appendix A
Investigation Test Layout Plan
Figure A1: Investigation Test Layout Plan
BH=FMG Borehole, Dated December 2018

TP=FMG Testpit, Dated December 2018
Appendix B
Borelogs, test pit logs and laboratory Report
Borelogs, test pit logs and laboratory test results
Soil description notes

The dominant soil constituents are given in capital letters followed by secondary textures. The
dominant feature is determined from the Unified Soil Classification System and a soil symbol is used
to define a soil layer as follows:
Borelog symbols
USC SYMBOL SYMBOL MEANING

GW Well graded gravel
GP Poorly graded gravel
GM Silty gravel
GC Clayey gravel
SW Well graded sand
SP Poorly graded sand
SM Silty sand
SC Clayey sand
ML Silt of low plasticity
CL Clay of low plasticity
OL Organic soil of low plasticity
CI Clay of intermediate plasticity
MH Silt of high plasticity
CH Clay of high plasticity
OH Organic soil of high plasticity
Pt Peaty soil
The appropriate symbols are selected on the results of visual examination, field tests and available
laboratory tests, such as, sieve analysis, liquid limit and plasticity index.
Plasticity
The potential for undergoing change in volume with moisture change is assessed from its degree of
plasticity. The classification of the degree of plasticity in terms of the Liquid Limit (%) is as follows:
Description of plasticity
DESCRIPTION OF LIQUID LIMIT FOR LIQUID LIMIT FOR

PLASTICITY SILT (%) CLAY (%)
Low ≤ 50 ≤ 35
Medium Not Applicable >35 - ≤ 50
High >50 >50
Condition
The consistency of a cohesive soil is defined by descriptive terminology such as very soft, soft, firm,
stiff, very stiff and hard. These terms are fixed by the shear strength of the soil as observed visually by
the pocket penetrometer values and resistance to deformation to hand moulding.
Relative density terms such as very loose, loose, medium, dense and very dense are used to describe
silt and sandy materials, and these are usually based on resistance to drilling penetration. Other
condition terms, such as friable, powdery or crumbly may also be used.

Page 24 of 26
Moisture content
For cohesive soils, the following code is used:
Code for cohesive soils

SYMBOL PLASTIC CONDITION MOISTURE CONDITION
MC≈LL Moisture content near the liquid limit Moist to wet
MC<LL Moisture content less than liquid limit Moist to wet
MC>PL Moisture content greater than plastic limit Damp to moist
MC≈PL Moisture content near the plastic limit Damp to moist
MC<≈PL Moisture content less than or equal to plastic limit Dry to damp to moist
MC<PL Moisture content less than plastic limit Dry to damp
MC«PL Moisture content much less than plastic limit Dry
For cohesionless soils, the following code is used:
Code for cohesionless soils

MOISTURE CONDITION DEGREE OF SATURATION
Dry 0
Humid 1 to 25
Damp 25 to 50
Moist 50 to 75
Wet 75 to 99
Saturated 100
Cohesive Consistency – Pocket Penetrometer (PP)

The instrument is used in the field or the laboratory to provide approximate determination of
unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils. The values are recorded in kPa, as follows:
Values for cohesive consistency

STRENGTH SYMBOL READINGS (KPA)
Very soft VS <25
Soft S 25 to 50
Firm F 50 to 100
Stiff St 100 to 200
Very stiff VSt 200 to 400
Hard H >400

Page 25 of 26
ADELAIDE MELBOURNE SYDNEY
67 Greenhill Rd 2 Domville Ave Suite 28, 38 Ricketty St
Wayville SA 5034 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Mascot NSW 2020
Ph: 08 8132 6600 Ph: 03 9815 7600 Ph: 1300 975 878
ABN: 58 083 071 185

Mannum Report - Word

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Mannum Report - Word

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Geotechnical

JOB NUMBER: S42750 - 263976

CLIENT: Canadian Solar (Australia) Pty Ltd

SITE: Mannum Solar Farm, MANNUM, SA 5238

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Google Maps 2018

Figure 1: Site Location

Google Maps 2018

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

2.1 Scope of Investigations

This report may be used in support of detail design.

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Figure 2: Site Features

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Table 1: Borehole Summary

Borehole ID DEPTH Achieved (m) Reason for Termination

Table 2: Trial Pit Summary

TestPit ID DEPTH Achieved (m) Reason for Termination

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

The following stratigraphy is indicated at investigation test locations.

Shallow rock at BH8

Shallow Calcrete 0.6 m

Shallow Calcrete 0.5 m depth at

Figure 3: Inferred Depth to Rock Surface

Table 3: Summary of depth to rock surface

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Table 4: Summary of SPT results

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

1=Measurement by handheld pocket penetrometer

The sandy soils are considered medium dense to dense.

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Material Strength SPT N Ultimate Friction Bulk Ultimate Undrained

Classification Value Pile Shaft Angle (∅) Density Lateral Youngs

kPa KN/m3 kPa MPa

Table 6: Predicted Surface Movement

Predicted Surface movement ( AS2870 – 2011)

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Refer to Appendix B of this report for the Laboratory Report.

8.2 California Bearing Ratio (Estimated)

Summary results of the CBR testing is shown in the following table.

Table 7: Estimated CBR Test summary

SAMPLE (DEPTH) SOILS ESTIMATED CBR TESTING METHOD

8.3 Atterberg limit and particle size

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

TEST TEST MATERIAL LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTIC LINEAR %

8.4 Aggressivity test

Table 9: Summary Results of Aggressivity Testing

TEST TEST MATERIAL pH Electrical Chloride Sulphate

MATERIAL TYPE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION REFERENCE (AS2159-2009)

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

A summary of the results is shown in the following.

Table 11: Shrink swell test summary

TEST LOCATION TEST DEPTH (m) MATERIAL SHRINK MDD MOISTURE

8.7 Resistivity Testing

Table 12: Earth Resistivity Testing

TEST LOCATION TEST DEPTH MATERIAL Resistivity

FMG Job Number: 263976 Date: 7/12/2018 Revision: 0

Option 1: Driven Steel piles

Option 2: Bored piles

Option 2: Shallow foundations

Option 4: Screw Piles