Earthworks Completion Report

EARTHWORKS COMPLETION REPORT
ELLEN STIRLING PARADE,

ELLENBROOK
Ellenbrook, W.A.
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013

ELLEN STIRLING PARADE,
ELLENBROOK
Ellenbrook, W.A.
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd ABN 93 056 929 483

89-91 Burswood Road Burswood WA 6100 Australia
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EARTHWORKS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY OTHERS
COMPACTION CRITERIA
CONTRACTORS TEST RESULTS
COFFEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
8.1
Earthworks Monitoring
8.2
Audit Compaction Testing
DISCUSSION
9.1
General
9.2
Site Classification
10
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR COFFEY REPORT
Coffey Geotechnics
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013
ATTACHMENTS
Figures
1
PSP Test Location Plan 13/12/2012
Appendices
A
Cossill & Webley Earthworks Specification (14 pages)
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd Earthworks Confirmation Letter (1 page)
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd Site Compaction Records (14 pages)
Coffey PSP Field Test Results (10 pages)
Laboratory Test Results (6 pages)
Coffey Geotechnics
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013
ii

ELLEN STIRLING PARADE, ELLENBROOK
INTRODUCTION
This Earthwork Completion Report (ECR) presents the results of part time monitoring carried out by
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (Coffey) of the earthworks for Georgiou Group Pty Ltd (Georgiou) for Ellen
Stirling Parade located close to the town centre, Ellenbrook WA. Coffeys level of involvement is
equivalent to Level 2 Geotechnical Investigation Authority of AS3798-2007.
These services were provided and carried out in accordance with Coffeys proposal dated 7 November
2012 (Ref: GEOTPERT08050AZ-AC-P) and were commissioned by Sinisa Rakovic of Georgiou via a
completed and signed Consultancy Agreement form dated 31 October 2012.
It should be noted however, that the requirements of the proposal related specifically to Level 1
Inspection and Testing for the proposed Bunnings Store located on The Promenade and that
subsequently works for the nearby Urbano residential development and Ellen Stirling Parade were
included within this scope, though not the requirement for Level 1 Inspection and Testing.
This work was carried out to provide an independent review of the compaction of bulk earthworks
required to bring Ellen Stirling Parade and adjacent lots to design levels.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is understood that the project involves bulk fill earthworks along the Ellen Stirling Parade alignment
and adjacent lots to achieve design levels. Ellen Stirling Parade is aligned roughly east to west and is
about 325m north of Urbano and being parallel to The Promenade, to the north, and The Parkway, to
the south. The extent of earthworks associated with Ellen Stirling Parade covered by this report is about
420m. This is from its junction with Civic Terrace to the east and Barque Avenue to the west.
EARTHWORKS
Georgiou has provided drawings to Coffey illustrating the pre-earthworks, and the proposed final
earthworks elevations for the proposed earthworks area. It is understood that bulk earthworks for the
site have been carried out by Georgiou and comprised topsoil stripping and compaction of fill materials.
Specifications and drawings for the development were prepared by Cossill & Webley, a copy of the
specification is included in Appendix A.
The topography of the site, prior to these bulk earthworks, comprised an area of relatively low lying
ground, representing the natural ground surface. Land to the boundaries of the site had previously been
raised by earlier earthworks resulting in a trench up to three metres deep (at the western extent) of the
earthworks site. At the eastern extent the alignment graded to the existing ground level and less than
0.5m of fill was required to achieve finished levels.
Bulk earthworks for this stage typically required the stripping of root mat areas and organic rich topsoils,
proof compaction of the stripped surface, placement and compaction of sand fill to design levels under
the specified method.
Sand fill was sourced from the adjacent Bunnings site to the north west of the site.
A letter from Georgiou confirming that earthworks at the site have been carried out in accordance with
Cossill & Webleys contract earthworks specifications is attached as Appendix B.
Coffey Geotechnics
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Coffey has been involved with geotechnical investigation and earthworks monitoring during the ongoing
development of Ellenbrook since its inception in 2000.
Coffey has previously performed two site specific geotechnical investigations for the adjacent
Ellenbrook Town Centre Retail and Middle School sites in November 2002 and April 2005 respectively.
Prior to earthworks geotechnical investigation reports were prepared, dated 20 November 2002 (Ref:
P2572/16-AB) and 18 April 2005 (Ref: P2572.60-AA Rev 1). The conclusions and recommendations of
the reports have been reviewed during the preparation of this document.
Fieldwork during the investigation for the Ellenbrook Town Centre Retail site comprised 27 test pits, 27
Perth Sand Penetrometer (PSP) tests and 9 Electric Friction Cone Penetration (CPT) tests. The
investigations identified that these areas were underlain by Bassendean Dune Sand. The sand was
assessed as loose to medium dense within the top two metres of the natural ground surface.
CPTs were carried out at 6 locations to depth varying from 4.0m to 5.0m below the existing ground
surface of the Middle School site. The ground conditions encountered during the investigation
comprised medium dense to dense sand to a depth of 5.0m below the natural ground surface.
It should be noted that cohesive fill materials have previously been placed within the footprint of Ellen
Stirling Parade, as part of bulk earthworks for the adjacent Parkway road alignment in 2012. Details of
these works are presented in Coffeys earthworks completion report, dated 23 September 2012 (Ref:
GEOTPERT08050AY-AA) and letter, dated 13 June 2012 (Ref: GEOTPERT08050AY-AB), which
should be read in conjunction with this report.
INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY OTHERS
The following information has been supplied to Coffey by Georgiou:
Cossill & Webley Ellenbrook Town Centre Urbano, Earthworks Plan Areas 1 & 3 (ref:5683UR-100), dated 11.10.212;
Earthworks compliance letters from Georgiou; and
Compaction test certificate from Georgiou.
COMPACTION CRITERIA
Coffey has been involved with the numerous stages of the Ellenbrook development and has provided
ongoing geotechnical monitoring and testing for many stages. Based on our experience with similar
granular materials in the area and the sand fill being sourced from the adjacent Bunnings site, a PSP
blow count of 6 per 300mm (test interval 150mm to 450mm) was adopted as the compaction
acceptance criteria. Considering depth effects, blow counts of 8 (450-750mm) and 10 (750-1050mm)
were calculated for the succeeding layers. More details of the sand fill and compaction criteria are
presented in our earthworks completion report for the Bunnings site, dated 8 January 2013 (Ref:
GEOTPERT08050AX-AE).
As stated in the earthworks specification, a density ratio of 95% Modified Maximum Dry Density
(MMDD) was required for the granular fill.
Coffey Geotechnics
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013

CONTRACTORS TEST RESULTS
Georgiou performed compaction testing on the compacted sand fill during fill placement using a Perth
Sand Penetrometer (PSP). The compaction testing was carried out between 24 November 2012 and 15
January 2013. The PSP test results are attached in Appendix C and indicate that the compaction
criteria has been achieved.
8
8.1
COFFEY FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING

Earthworks Monitoring
Site visits were carried out by personnel from Coffey to observe topsoil stripping and bulk fill placement.
Site visits were undertaken to assess earthworks Coffey personnel made site visits to assess topsoil
stripping, subgrade suitability and bulk earthworks compaction for Ellen Stirling Parade between
November 2012 and February 2013.
8.2
Audit Compaction Testing
The results of the PSP testing confirm that the sand fill has been compacted sufficiently to achieve the
requirements of the specification. Coffey PSP testing results are presented in Appendix D. Coffey PSP
test locations are presented on Figures 1 3.
9
9.1
DISCUSSION
General
Observations made by Coffey during the site visits and subsequent PSP testing together with
information provided by Georgiou confirm the earthworks were generally undertaken in accordance with
the requirements of the specifications.
It should be noted that Coffey did not observe all site preparation or all earthworks for this project, and
were not present at all times during the course of the works. As a result, Coffey are only able to offer
comments that relate to the sites on the days and times of the site visits and that relate to the test data
for the specific sites. Coffey did not test with trench backfills or at the locations of sewer connection or
other buried services.
The horizontal and vertical limits of the earthworks were determined by others and hence Coffey cannot
provide any comment as to whether these aspects of the earthworks are compliant with the plans and
specifications.
9.2
Site Classification
The conditions encountered by Coffey and the information provided by Georgiou confirm the earthworks
have been completed in accordance with the requirements of the C&W specifications. As such, the fill is
considered to be engineered fill. A classification of A is judged to be appropriate for the site in
accordance with the requirements outlined in the Australian Standards for Residential Slabs and
Footings (AS2870-2011).
Surface conditions may change over time, due (for instance) to surface disturbance by vehicles or
excavations for buried service connections. Furthermore, it is also part of the responsibility of the
Coffey Geotechnics
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013

Builder to ensure that footing designs and construction are compliant with the building foundation
design for the lot in accordance with the Lot classification referenced to AS 2870-2011 and to carry out
their own compaction checks on a lot by lot basis and compact any localised loose soil zones identified.
The owner of the property has a requirement to maintain the property and foundations in accordance
with AS 2870-2011, including but not limited to, maintaining adequate drainage away from the house
foundations. Purchasers should be provided with a copy of the CSIRO Information Sheet BTF 18
(Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner's Guide) available for download at
http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/7076.htm
10 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR COFFEY REPORT

The readers attention is drawn to the important information about this report which follows the main
text.
Coffey Geotechnics
GEOTPERT08050AZ-AH
27 March 2013
Important information about your Coffey Report

As a client of Coffey you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction
problems than any other factor. These notes have been prepared by Coffey to help you
interpret and understand the limitations of your report.
Your report is based on project specific criteria
Your report has been developed on the basis of your
unique project specific requirements as understood
by Coffey and applies only to the site investigated.
Project criteria typically include the general nature of
the project; its size and configuration; the location of
any structures on the site; other site improvements;
the presence of underground utilities; and the additional
risk imposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed
by the client. Your report should not be used if there
are any changes to the project without first asking
Coffey to assess how factors that changed subsequent
to the date of the report affect the report's
recommendations. Coffey cannot accept responsibility
for problems that may occur due to changed factors
if they are not consulted.
Subsurface conditions can change

Subsurface conditions are created by natural processes
and the activity of man. For example, water levels
can vary with time, fill may be placed on a site and
pollutants may migrate with time. Because a report
is based on conditions which existed at the time of
subsurface exploration, decisions should not be based
on a report whose adequacy may have been affected
by time. Consult Coffey to be advised how time may
have impacted on the project.
Interpretation of factual data

Site assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken and
when they are taken. Data derived from literature
and external data source review, sampling and
subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by
geologists, engineers or scientists to provide an
opinion about overall site conditions, their likely
impact on the proposed development and recommended
actions. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred
to exist, because no professional, no matter how
qualified, can reveal what is hidden by
earth, rock and time. The actual interface between

materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than
assumed based on the facts obtained. Nothing can
be done to change the actual site conditions which
exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of
unexpected conditions. For this reason, owners
should retain the services of Coffey through the
development stage, to identify variances, conduct
additional tests if required, and recommend solutions
to problems encountered on site.
Your report will only give

preliminary recommendations
Your report is based on the assumption that the
site conditions as revealed through selective
point sampling are indicative of actual conditions
throughout an area. This assumption cannot be
substantiated until project implementation has
commenced and therefore your report recommendations
can only be regarded as preliminary. Only Coffey,
who prepared the report, is fully familiar with the
background information needed to assess whether
or not the report's recommendations are valid and
whether or not changes should be considered as
the project develops. If another party undertakes
the implementation of the recommendations of this
report there is a risk that the report will be misinterpreted
and Coffey cannot be held responsible for such
misinterpretation.
Your report is prepared for

specific purposes and persons
To avoid misuse of the information contained in your
report it is recommended that you confer with Coffey
before passing your report on to another party who
may not be familiar with the background and the
purpose of the report. Your report should not be
applied to any project other than that originally
specified at the time the report was issued.
Important information about your Coffey Report

Interpretation by other design professionals
Rely on Coffey for additional assistance
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals

develop their plans based on misinterpretations
of a report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain
Coffey to work with other project design professionals
who are affected by the report. Have Coffey explain
the report implications to design professionals affected
by them and then review plans and specifications
produced to see how they incorporate the report
findings.
Coffey is familiar with a variety of techniques and

approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for
all parties to a project, from design to construction. It
is common that not all approaches will be necessarily
dealt with in your site assessment report due to
concepts proposed at that time. As the project
progresses through design towards construction,
speak with Coffey to develop alternative approaches
to problems that may be of genuine benefit both in
time and cost.
Data should not be separated from the report*

The report as a whole presents the findings of the site
assessment and the report should not be copied in
part or altered in any way.
Logs, figures, drawings, etc. are customarily included
in our reports and are developed by scientists,
engineers or geologists based on their interpretation
of field logs (assembled by field personnel) and
laboratory evaluation of field samples. These logs etc.
should not under any circumstances be redrawn for
inclusion in other documents or separated from the
report in any way.
Geoenvironmental concerns are not at issue

Your report is not likely to relate any findings,
conclusions, or recommendations about the potential
for hazardous materials existing at the site unless
specifically required to do so by the client. Specialist
equipment, techniques, and personnel are used to
perform a geoenvironmental assessment.
Contamination can create major health, safety and
environmental risks. If you have no information about
the potential for your site to be contaminated or create
an environmental hazard, you are advised to contact
Coffey for information relating to geoenvironmental
issues.
Responsibility
Reporting relies on interpretation of factual information
based on judgement and opinion and has a level of
uncertainty attached to it, which is far less exact than
the design disciplines. This has often resulted in claims
being lodged against consultants, which are unfounded.
To help prevent this problem, a number of clauses
have been developed for use in contracts, reports and
other documents. Responsibility clauses do not transfer
appropriate liabilities from Coffey to other parties but
are included to identify where Coffey's responsibilities
begin and end. Their use is intended to help all parties
involved to recognise their individual responsibilities.
Read all documents from Coffey closely and do not
hesitate to ask any questions you may have.
* For further information on this aspect reference should be

made to "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical
information in Construction Contracts" published by the
Institution of Engineers Australia, National headquarters,
Canberra, 1987.
Figures
PSP1
PSP2
PSP5
PSP4
PSP3
PSP8
PSP6
PSP7
PSP14
PSP13
PSP12
PSP9
PSP10
drawn
LB
LEGEND
PSP11
PSP15
PSP16
client:
project:
approved
ELLEN STRILING PARADE

ELLENBROOK, WA
APPROXIMATE PSP LOCATION

EARTHWORKS BOUNDARY
0
20
40
60
80m
date
20/03/2013
scale
1:2000
original size
REF: 5683-UR-101
DWG: F:\GEOTPERT\00000\08050AZ Ellenbrook Town Centre - Bunnings Site EWM\DWG\GEOTPERT08050AZ ELLEN STIRLING PARADE.dwg
GEORGIOU GROUP PTY LTD
A4
title:
project no:
PSP TEST LOCATION PLAN - 13/12/2012

GEOTPERT08050AZ
fig no:
FIGURE 1
rev:
PSP2
PSP3
PSP4
PSP12 PSP14
PSP5
PSP1
PSP17
PSP13
PSP11
PSP16
PSP15
PSP6
PSP10
PSP7
PSP8
drawn
LB
LEGEND
PSP9
client:
project:
approved

ELLENBROOK, WA
PSP LOCATION
EARTHWORKS BOUNDARY
0
20
40
60
80m
date
20/03/2013
scale
1:2000
original size
REF: 5683-UR-101
A4
title:
project no:

GEOTPERT08050AZ
fig no:
FIGURE 2
rev:
PSP1
PSP9
PSP8
PSP2
PSP3
PSP5
PSP7
PSP4
PSP22
PSP23
PSP11
PSP10
PSP13
PSP12
PSP6
PSP21
PSP16
PSP14
PSP15
PSP19
PSP17
PSP18
PSP20
drawn
LB
LEGEND
client:
project:
approved

ELLENBROOK, WA
PSP LOCATION
EARTHWORKS BOUNDARY
0
20
40
60
80m
date
20/03/2013
scale
1:2000
original size
REF: 5683-UR-101
A4
title:
project no:

GEOTPERT08050AZ
fig no:
FIGURE 3
rev:
Appendix A
Cossill & Webley Earthworks Specification
Appendix B
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd Earthworks Confirmation Letter
Appendix C
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd Site Compaction Records
Appendix D
Coffey PSP Field Test Results
PERTH SAND PENETROMETER
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
SCALA PENETROMETER TEST
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Client: Georgiou Group Pty Ltd
Principal:
Project: Ellenbrook Town Centre - Ellen Stirling Parade
Location: Ellenbrook, WA
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
1
2
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
2
4
8
12
14
12
Set
2
6
11
19
20+
Test Report No.

Job No: GEOTPERT08050AZ
Office: Perth
date: 13/12/2012
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
penetrometer used: Coffey 1
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
3
3
8
6
13
13
19
20
20+
20+
Note:
Testing was continuous without augering to target depth except where shown.
*Test location as marked on Figure.
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000
Set
3
6
11
18
20+
Set
2
4
10
16
20+
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
7
8
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
3
4
9
13
17
19
Set
3
5
10
14
15
17
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
date: 13/12/2012
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
10
11
12
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
4
3
7
7
12
13
17
15
20+
20+
Set
3
7
12
20+
Set
3
6
9
15
18
20
Note:
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
13
14
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
3
7
9
14
18
19
Set
4
8
12
18
20+
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
date: 13/12/2012
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
15
16
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
3
3
5
8
9
13
12
20
14
20+
15
Note:
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000

AS1289.6.3.3-1997
AS1289.6.3.2-1997
Principal:
Project: Ellenbrook Town Centre - Urbano
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
Test Depth (mm)

0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
Test Location*
Test Depth (mm)

0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
Note:
Date: 16/01/2013
Tested by: TC
Hammer mass: 9kg
Hammer drop: 600mm
Penetrometer used: Coffey 1
SET
3
4
7
11
15
19
SET
4
7
11
17
20+
SET
2
5
10
18
20+
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
SET
2
6
9
16
20+
Blows/150mm
SET
SET
4
3
7
8
11
14
18
20+
20+
10
Blows/150mm
SET
SET
3
2
7
5
12
10
19
14
20+
20+
SET
7
12
16
20+
SET
4
11
17
20
20+
11
12
SET
2
6
10
15
20+
SET
3
5
10
16
20+
RW = Retaining wall, E = East, N = North, S= South, W = West, R = Refusal,
HB = Hammer bouncing
P97-001
Issue 6
Rev 5
July 2000
F:\GEOTPERT\00000\08050AZ Ellenbrook Town Centre - Bunnings Site EWM\Docs\REPORT APPENDICES\AH
- Ellen
Stirling Parade\Appendix D\16.01.2013.Docx

AS1289.6.3.3-1997
AS1289.6.3.2-1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
Test Depth (mm)

0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
Test Location*
Test Depth (mm)

0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
Note:
13
Date: 16/01/2013
Tested by: TC
Hammer mass: 9kg
Hammer drop: 600mm
14
SET
2
4
6
12
20
SET
3
6
11
18
20+
19
20
SET
3
5
7
7
8
9
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
SET
2
4
8
13
17
20+
15
16
Blows/150mm
SET
SET
3
3
6
5
10
9
19
17
20+
20
21
22
Blows/150mm
SET
SET
2
3
5
7
10
11
16
18
19
20+
20
17
18
SET
4
7
11
16
20+
SET
2
5
6
9
9
9
23
24
SET
3
7
11
20
20+
SET
4
9
14
18
20
P97-001
Issue 6
Rev 5
July 2000
- Ellen

AS1289.6.3.3-1997
AS1289.6.3.2-1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
Test Depth (mm)

0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
Note:
25
SET
4
7
11
16
19
20+
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
Date: 16/01/2013
Tested by: TC
Hammer mass: 9kg
Hammer drop: 600mm
26
SET
3
7
9
10
10
10
Blows/150mm
SET
SET
SET
SET
P97-001
Issue 6
Rev 5
July 2000
- Ellen
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
1
2
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
3
8
12
16
20+
Set
3
6
8
13
19
20+
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
date: 08/02/2013
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
4
3
9
5
16
10
20+
17
20+
Note:
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000
Set
2
6
9
14
20
20+
Set
2
4
8
11
18
20
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
7
8
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
3
6
11
20+
Set
2
4
6
11
20
20+
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
date: 08/02/2013
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
10
11
12
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
3
3
5
5
8
9
10
16
17
20+
19
Set
2
5
7
10
15
18
Set
2
4
6
8
13
15
Note:
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
13
14
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
3
6
10
17
19
20+
Set
2
4
6
8
10
13
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
date: 08/02/2013
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
15
16
17
18
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
4
2
8
6
15
13
19
18
20+
20+
Set
3
7
14
17
20+
Set
4
7
8
12
18
20
Note:
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000
AS1289.6.3.3 - 1997
AS1289.6.3.2 - 1997
Principal:
Soil type: Sand
Soil moisture:
Depth to water:
Test Location*
19
20
Test Depth mm
0-150
150-300
300-450
450-600
600-750
750-900
900-1050
1050-1200
1200-1350
1350-1500
1500-1650
1650-1800
1800-1950
1950-2100
2100-2250
2250-2400
2400-2550
2550-2700
2700-2850
2850-3000
3000-3150
3150-3300
3300-3450
Set
4
9
13
16
20+
Set
5
10
17
20
20+
Test Report No.

Office: Perth
date: 08/02/2013
tested by: TC
hammer mass: 9kg
hammer drop: 600mm
21
22
23
Blows/150mm
Set
Set
4
2
7
6
12
10
17
18
17
20+
20
Set
4
7
11
14
20
20+
Note:
P97-001
Issue:6 Rev:5
July 2000
Appendix E
Laboratory Test Results

Earthworks Completion Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earthworks Completion Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHWORKS COMPLETION REPORT

ELLEN STIRLING PARADE,