Discharge of Conditions - P - 2016 - 00474 Geotechnical Reports - Ground Investigation Report

P/2016/00474
Received 24.03.2016
Ground Investigation
Report
Branston Locks Development
Phase 1
CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001
Revision 0
February 2016
Project Name Branston Locks Development Phase 1
Document Title Ground Investigation Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Branston Locks Housing Development is being undertaken by Nurton Development (Quintus)
Ltd, west of the A38, Burton upon Trent. Staffordshire County Council are overseeing the
expansion of the highways infrastructure associated with the development and have
commissioned Amey to develop the highways scheme; Phase 1 of the project is to develop new
access routes from Branston Road to the proposed Branston Locks Housing Development
including a new canal bridge across the Trent and Mersey Canal.
This Geotechnical Investigation Report briefly outlines existing information available for the Phase
1 site access area, and presents the findings of the Ground Investigation undertaken along the
proposed route of the Branston Locks Development Access Road. The ground investigation was
conducted in November 2015 and included two combined percussive/rotary boreholes with a
target depth of 20m, and six window sample holes with a target depth of 5m; the works were
evenly split on either side of the Trent and Mersey Canal. Due to difficult ground conditions the
bore hole on the eastern side of the canal was terminated before it reached a satisfactory depth;
however it was decided that sufficient information had been collected during the investigation to
not require further work. All other holes were advanced to depths sufficient to provide information
critical to geotechnical design.
In-situ testing was conducted and samples submitted for geotechnical and chemical laboratory
analysis. A ground water monitoring standpipe was installed in the borehole west of the canal.
Ground conditions were found to be River Terrace deposits composed of dense sands and
gravels to a depth of 4.70m below ground level (bgl), overlying Weathered Mercia Mudstone to a
depth of >16.20m bgl. The weathering grade of the mudstone is Grade IVa (matrix with
occasional claystone pellets) where first encountered, reducing to Grade II (angular blocks of
unweathered marl with virtually no matrix) by the terminal depth. The base of the Mercia
Mudstone was not determined.
Shallow thicknesses of made ground were encountered at three test locations, and was observed
to be reworked River Terrace Deposits. Where holes were advanced in the existing A38 Branston
Roundabout embankments Cohesive Fill was encountered to depths of 4.7m; this material
displays characteristics of reworked Mercia Mudstone. Inspection pits advanced in proximity to
the Trent and Mersey Canal showed Granular Fill material derived from River Terrace Deposits.
Geochemical testing provides no results of significant issue.
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- i - Issued: February 2016

Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ i
2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Scope and Objectives of Report .......................................................................... 5
2.2 Description of Project......................................................................................... 5
2.3 Geotechnical Category of Project ........................................................................ 6
2.4 Other Relevant Information ................................................................................ 6
3 EXISTING INFORMATION .................................................................................. 7

3.1 Topographic Maps (Old and Recent) ................................................................... 7
3.2 Geological Maps and Memoirs ............................................................................. 7
3.3 Aerial Photography ............................................................................................ 8
3.4 Records of Mines and Mineral Deposits ................................................................ 9
3.5 Land Use and Soil Survey Information ................................................................. 9
3.6 Archaeological and Historical Investigations ......................................................... 9
3.7 Existing Ground Investigation Data ..................................................................... 9
3.8 Consultation with Statutory Bodies and Agencies ................................................ 13
3.9 Flood Records ................................................................................................. 13
3.10 Contaminated Land ......................................................................................... 14
3.11 Other Relevant Information .............................................................................. 14
4 FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES .................................................................. 15

4.1 Walkover Survey ............................................................................................. 15
4.2 Geomorphological/Geological Mapping .............................................................. 16
4.3 Ground Investigations ...................................................................................... 16
4.4 Drainage Studies ............................................................................................. 18
4.5 Geophysical Surveys ........................................................................................ 18
4.6 Pile Tests ........................................................................................................ 18
4.7 Other Field Work ............................................................................................. 18
4.8 Laboratory Investigation .................................................................................. 18
5 GROUND SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 20

5.1 Geology and Ground Conditions ........................................................................ 20
6 GROUND CONDITIONS AND MATERIALS PROPERTIES.................................... 23

6.1 Granular Fill .................................................................................................... 23
6.2 Cohesive Fill .................................................................................................... 24
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- ii - Issued: February 2016

6.3 Made Ground .................................................................................................. 28

6.4 River Terrace Deposits ..................................................................................... 30
6.5 Mercia Mudstone ............................................................................................. 33
6.6 Material Properties Summary ............................................................................ 41
7 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT............................................................................ 43
7.1 Ground Model ................................................................................................. 43
7.2 Site Access Road ............................................................................................. 44
7.3 Branston Locks Canal Bridge ............................................................................ 45
8 COMPARISON OF PROJECT OPTIONS AND RISKS............................................ 53
9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 57
10 GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................ 59
11 FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 61
12 DRAWINGS....................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A Shepherd Gilmore Environment Limited: Report no. R0017 DH

ME1072 borehole locations & extracts
Appendix B CC Ground Investigation Ltd: Factual Ground Investigation Report
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- iii - Issued: February 2016

Tables
Table 3-1: Summary of Superficial Geology .......................................................................................... 8
Table 3-2: Summary of Solid Geology .................................................................................................. 8
Table 3-3: BGS Borehole Data [6] ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 3-4: Summary of Geology from SGE 2009 [9] ........................................................................... 11
Table 3-5: Summary of SGE Atterberg Limit Testing [9] ...................................................................... 11
Table 3-6 Summary of SGE One Dimensional Consolidation Test ......................................................... 11
Table 3-7: Summary of SGE PSD Testing [9] ...................................................................................... 12
Table 3-8: Summary of SGE pH, sulphate and sulphur analysis [9] ...................................................... 12
Table 4-1:2015 GI Borehole Summary [16] ........................................................................................ 17
Table 5-1: Borehole Log Summary .................................................................................................... 21
Table 5-2: Generalised Interpreted Ground Conditions ........................................................................ 22
Table 6-1: Granular Fill PSD analysis results ....................................................................................... 23
Table 6-2: Average Atterberg Limit Results – Cohesive Fill .................................................................. 25
Table 6-3: Cohesive Fill PSD analysis results ...................................................................................... 25
Table 6-4: Cohesive Fill Cu, mv value vs Depth ................................................................................... 27
Table 6-5: Average Atterberg Limit Results – Made Ground................................................................. 28
Table 6-6: Made Ground PSD analysis results ..................................................................................... 29
Table 6-7: Average Atterberg Limit Results – River Terrace Deposits ................................................... 30
Table 6-8: River Terrace Deposit PSD analysis results ......................................................................... 31
Table 6-9: Average Atterberg Limit Results – Mercia Mudstone ........................................................... 34
Table 6-10: Mercia Mudstone PSD analysis results .............................................................................. 34
Table 6-11: Corrected SPT values: Mercia Mudstone ........................................................................... 36
Table 6-12: Mercia Mudstone cu values – SPT derived and published data ........................................... 37
Table 6-13: Undrained Unconfined Triaxial testing – Mercia Mudstone Grade IVa ................................ 37
Table 6-14: One-dimensional Consolidation testing – Mercia Mudstone Grade IVa ............................... 38
Table 6-15: Mercia Mudstone Eu, E’ and v values ............................................................................... 39
Table 6-16: Point Load testing – Mercia Mudstone Grade II ............................................................... 40
Table 6-17: ACEC classifications – Mercia Mudstone ........................................................................... 40
Table 6-18: Summary of Material Properties....................................................................................... 41
Table 6-19: Characteristic Geotechnical Parameters ............................................................................ 42
Table 7-1: Settlement Reduction Options For Embankment Construction ............................................. 47
Table 7-2: Embankment Fill Options .................................................................................................. 48
Table 7-3: Options for Branston Locks Canal Bridge............................................................................ 49
Table 8-1: Risk Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................... 54
Table 8-2: Geotechnical Risk Register ................................................................................................ 55
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- iv - Issued: February 2016

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Scope and Objectives of Report
The scope and objectives of this Ground Investigation Report (GIR) is to interpret the
information gathered during the ground investigation (GI), and to present a geotechnical
evaluation of the information stating the assumptions made in the interpretation of the
test results.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (DMRB) Volume 4 Section 1 Part 2 HD22/08 [1] specifically Appendix D. As the
project is not currently understood to impact Highways England (HE) assets this report
will not be subjected to the HE certification process; however if planned works are
altered to such an extent that they do affect HE property Key Stage 2 Preliminary
Certification will be sought.
2.2 Description of Project
Branston Locks was identified as a principle Greenfield development site to establish a

new sustainable community on the periphery of Burton upon Trent. The scheme aims to
develop the Branston Locks area with appropriate infrastructure to become self-
sustaining, supporting local growth and contributing to the overall urban development of
Burton upon Trent. The housing development is being undertaken by Nurton
Development (Quintus) Ltd, with Staffordshire County Council (SCC) undertaking
highways infrastructure development.
Amey have been commissioned by SCC to undertake the following aspects of the
scheme, focused on providing information pertinent to Phase 1 of the scheme;
1. To assist in the design, delivery and interpretation of a site investigation

programme for Phase 1 of the works.
2. To assist in the design of the earthworks associated with the construction of the
access road for the Branston Locks development.
3. To assist in the design of the foundations of the new bridge structure associated
with the construction of the access road for the Branston Locks development.
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 5 - Issued: February 2016

The GI was commissioned in order to identify the ground conditions and material
properties along the proposed route of the Phase 1 access road. Amey invited four
ground investigation specialists to tender for the work, of which CC Ground
Investigations Ltd (CCG) was awarded the contract.
2.3 Geotechnical Category of Project
On the basis of the available information the scheme is considered to fall within
Geotechnical Category 2 as defined in HD22/08 [1]. As project area comes under the
jurisdiction of SCC rather than Highways England this document will not be submitted for
Geotechnical Certification.
2.4 Other Relevant Information
No other relevant information is known to be applicable to the project at the time of

writing.
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 6 - Issued: February 2016

3 EXISTING INFORMATION
Existing information has been comprehensively reviewed in the Branston Locks

Development Phase 1 Preliminary Sources Study Report (PSSR) [2]. The following
information summarizes the findings of the PSSR.
3.1 Topographic Maps (Old and Recent)
The topography of the site has been determined using historic Ordnance Survey (OS)
maps, and Current OS Maps Ref [3].
The Branston Locks Development Site is predominantly flat arable farm land with a
number of isolated domestic and farm buildings scattered across the area. The site is
roughly ‘bottle-shaped’ and is bound on the east by the A38; the north by Shobnall
Road; the west by wooded hills; and the south by Branston Lane. The site is
approximately 1.36 hectares in area. The Trent and Mersey Canal bisects the site on a
southwest-northeast trend, with approximately two-thirds of the site to the west of
the canal and one-third to the east. The Phase 1 Site Access area is located in the
south-eastern corner of the Development Site (Figure 1)
OS Maps indicate the site topography to be generally flat and low lying at an elevation
of approximately 48m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
Historical OS Maps available in the project Design Access Statement [4] have been
examined to determine historical land use and development. The earliest available
map from 1888 indicates that the site is predominantly defined farming fields, with a
small number residential and farm buildings scattered through the area. The Trent
and Mersey Canal is present on site, and the Branston Road overbridge is in place.
The Settlement of Branston is a short distance to the south-east of the site. The
historic layout and use of the site changes very little as successive OS maps are
viewed; field boundaries show minor changes and new farm buildings are erected,
but essentially the site remains the same. In the immediate vicinity to the site the A38
is constructed in between 1955 and 1991, during which time there is an increase in
the number of residential properties in the Branston Road areas.
3.2 Geological Maps and Memoirs
An examination of the British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 Sheet 140 [5] and
information provided by the BGS Geoindex [6] have been undertaken.
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 7 - Issued :February 2016

Artificial ground has not been identified by the BGS in close proximity to the proposed
route of the access road and canal bridge; however the historic construction of the
A38 and the canal are likely to have resulted in engineered fill material being
encountered within the Phase 1 Access site location.
The study area is recorded to be underlain by the superficial deposits described in

Table 3-1, and solid geology described in Table 3-2. Figure 2 provides geological map
extracts.
Table 3-1: Summary of Superficial Geology

Age Strata Description
Generally poorly sorted rounded sandy

gravels with syndepositional ice wedge
Pleistocene River Terrace Deposit
casts. May contain frequent clay and peat
(Quaternary) (Holme Pierrepont Terrace)
lenses. Typically 1 to 2m above the flood
plain
Table 3-2: Summary of Solid Geology

Age Strata Description
Mainly red-brown to dark red mudstone and

silty mudstone with subordinate bands
Triassic Mercia Mudstone Group
(skerries) of pale brown to grey sandstone
and grey-green siltstone
The Tutbury Gypsum is inferred to outcrop in proximity to the south-western border

of the Branston Locks Development site.
3.3 Aerial Photography
Recent aerial photography [3] reveals contemporary land use as predominantly arable
agriculture with a residential property (Bridgefield House) located immediately east of
the Trent and Mersey Canal. The Canal is seen to be active, with Narrow boats visible
in the channel and a tow path running parallel on the eastern bank. Overhead utility
cables are present within the fields on the western half of the site.

3.4 Records of Mines and Mineral Deposits
Branston is listed on the Coal Authority Coal Mining and Brine Gazetteer [7] as
potentially requiring a Coal mining and Brine subsidence report. Interrogation of the
BGS website [6], and the Coal Authority Gazetteer, indicates the location of mining
activities is outside the region of concern for the site.
Review of the historical OS maps [3] indicate a large opencast gravel pit to the south
west section of the site, as well as two old Marl Pits to the north west, no records of
mining activity within the site boundary have been ascertained.
The Tutbury Gypsum band is inferred to outcrop in proximity to the south-western

boundary of the site. The Tutbury Gypsum is recognised as an important resource,
and is commercially worked in both open cast and underground mining operations in
the region [8]
3.5 Land Use and Soil Survey Information
A review of historic maps [4] identified that the area that the site is located on has
been predominately agricultural since 1888, with a small number of residential and
farm building being constructed in the area. Between the 1950’s and 1990’s the A38
was constructed to the east of the site.
Soil Survey information is supplied in Section 3.7.
3.6 Archaeological and Historical Investigations
No historical or archaeological investigations have been conducted in the area of

interest.
3.7 Existing Ground Investigation Data
Six boreholes have been identified in BGS [6] records that are located within the
Branston Locks Development Site details of the strata encountered are given in Table
3-3 (depths given in metres below ground level – m bgl). No boreholes are located
within the Phase 1 Access Area (Figure 3).

Table 3-3: BGS Borehole Data [6]
River Terrace
Hole Mercia Mudstone Ground Water
Deposits
SK22SW138 0m – 4.2m 4.2m – 6.0m* 3.9m
SK22SW136 0m – 3.5m 3.5m – 6.0m* N/A
SK22SW135 0m – 2.4m 2.4m –5.5m* N/A
SK22SW39 0m – 4.3m 4.2m – 11.6m* N/A†
SK22SW60 0m – 8.0m 8.0m – 8.1m* 1.7m
SK22SW60 0m – 7.0m 7.0m – 7.5m* 1.5m
Notes: * Denotes base of stratum not defined
†
No groundwater noted, however geology record is from a well
A Geo-environmental Investigation and Quantitative Risk Assessment commissioned

by Nurton Developments Ltd and executed by Shepherd Gilmour Environment Limited
(SGE) in 2009 [9] across the Branston Locks Development Site. This GI work included
106 window sample hole, and 9 percussive boreholes; however only two of these
holes were within the Phase 1 site (location map and bore hole logs presented in
Appendix A). Information contained within the SGE report is useful in forming a
generalised ground profile for the area of interest, despite no in-situ or laboratory
testing was conducted within the Phase 1 area. The geology encountered is
summarised in Table 3-4.
Peat was encountered in five window sample holes located in the southwest of the
development site; these holes are located approximately 350m west of the Phase 1
area.
Groundwater strikes were observed in the sand and gravel deposits from 2m bgl to
5m bgl, rising to a minimum depth of 0.8m bgl.

Table 3-4: Summary of Geology from SGE 2009 [9]
Stratum General Description Depth m bgl
Topsoil Topsoil 0 to 0.10 – 1.20
Brown gravelly clay with gravels

Made Ground 0 to 0.25 - 1.0
and brick and roof tiles
Very soft, spongey, organic rich

Peat 0 to 0.8 – 1.20
peat
Clay Firm to stiff brown clay 0.10 – 1.00 to 0.80 – 4.90
Fine to course Sand and fine to

Sand and Gravel 0.30 – 2.90 to 4.50 – 8.10
course Gravels of mixed lithology
Weak to moderately weak

Mudstone 4.80 – 7.60 to >6.10 - > 9.15
mudstone
Two samples from clay deposits were subjected to Atterberg Limit testing. Results are
displayed in Table 3-5. Results of Atterberg limits test classify the clays as low to
intermediate plasticity.
Table 3-5: Summary of SGE Atterberg Limit Testing [9]
Property Range
Moisture Content 18 - 27%
Liquid Limit 30.8 - 49.6%
Plastic Limit 15.8 - 22.2%
Plasticity Indices 15.0 - 27.4%
A single sample from the clay deposits was tested for coefficient of compressibility,
the results of which are displayed in Table 3-6. This result corresponds to clays of
medium compressibility.
Table 3-6 Summary of SGE One Dimensional Consolidation Test [9]
Exploratory Hole Depth (m bgl) MV (m2/MN)
BH102 2.00-2.45 1.23

Fifteen sand and gravel samples were subjected to particle size distribution (PSD)
analysis, the results of which are summarized in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Summary of SGE PSD Testing [9]
Test Parameter Result
Cobbles 0% – 7%
Gravel 10% – 91%

Particle Size Distribution
Sand 9% – 64%
Silt 0%
Selected samples were subject to pH, sulphate and sulphur analysis, a summary of
these is provided in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8: Summary of SGE pH, sulphate and sulphur analysis [9]
Parameter Result
pH Conditions 6.1 – 8.8
Soluble sulphate content <0.10 g/l
Total sulphur content <0.01% to 1.7%
Chemical analysis of soils and groundwater from across the development site was
conducted as part of the Shepherd Gilmore’s site investigation; conclusions made for
the entire development site that may be applicable to the Phase 1 Development are:
 Elevated Chromium Levels across the site.
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) contamination and elevated Copper and

Zinc concentrations at Lawns Farm.
 TPH concentrations and elevated Copper sulphate and arsenic concentrations

within groundwater at the site which may represent a potential risk to
controlled water receptors.
 Isolated Selenium contamination within shallow soils.
 Potential for asbestos associated with the demolition of existing structures

 Heterogeneous ground conditions indicating the need for specific site

investigation and risk assessment prior to development.
3.8 Consultation with Statutory Bodies and Agencies
During the design of the GI works the Canal and Rivers Trust (CRT) were consulted;
works were not planned to take place within the CRT’s land, however given the
sampling methodology being used it was important to ensure the GI work did not
result in damage to the canal infrastructure. The CRT reviewed the Risk Assessments
and Method Statements (RAMS), as well as further detailed information relating to
sample locations and methodology. The CRT provided no objections to the planned GI
work as it was to be conducted at a sufficient distance from the canal infrastructure to
not pose a danger to the integrity of the canal.
The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) [10] was
interrogated to identify any points of concern to be considered. The following issues
were identified:
 The Branston Water Park local Nature Reserve is present approximately 200m
to the south of the site.
 Woodland on the hillside bordering the west of the site is listed in the
National Inventory of Woodland and Trees, and as a Priority Habitat
(Deciduous woodland).
 The land within the A38 Branston Roundabout gyratory is classified on the
Priority Habitat Inventory as Deciduous Woodland.
 Five species of birds are specified as being previously recorded within the
area. These include Curlew, Lapwing, Redshank, Tree Sparrow and Yellow
Wagtail.
3.9 Flood Records
Environment Agency (EA) flooding records [11] show the Site Access area to be
situated in an area generally of very low, to low risk from flooding from rivers and
surface water (Figure 4). It should be noted that the area to the west of the canal has
a higher risk of flooding than the area to the east.

A Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken by SGE in October 2012 [12]. This
report considers the entire Branston Locks Development Site and the area local to the
site. The report concludes that there are relatively low risks of flooding from
numerous sources in the vicinity of the development area and recommends mitigation
measures to reduce flood risk.
3.10 Contaminated Land
No pollution incidents, or previous land uses with potential to contaminate are

recorded within the study area on the EA website [11].
3.11 Other Relevant Information
No other relevant information is known to be applicable to the project at the time of

writing.

4 FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES
4.1 Walkover Survey
The primary function of the site walkover was is to confirm potential issues arising
from preliminary sources of information and also to identify any geotechnical
constraints that may not be discernible from desk study information. The site consists
predominantly of open fields adjacent to Branston Road and the Trent and Mersey
Canal. A residential building (Bridgefield House) and grounds are located in the south
east of the site, with Branston road bordering the grounds to the south and the Trent
and Mersey Canal to the west. The development area is relatively flat however
embankments rise to a height of approximately 5m in border the eastern extent along
Branston Road and the A38. A number of observations made during the site walkover
have been summarised below:
 Branston Bridge - located outside of the site area however is likely to be

utilised for site access. Branston Bridge connects Branston Road over the
Trent and Mersey Canal and has a weight limitation of 17 tonnes.
 Trent and Mersey Canal - observed to be active with Barges passing through
the area. Damage to the concrete on the western edge of the canal, which
suggests a canal survey may be required to assess the risk of any damage
during construction.
 Farmed Fields– surface soils within the farmed areas were observed to be
relatively firm however could not be closely inspected due to access
restrictions. The fields were identified as being recently harvested. Track
imprints from machinery on the soil surface were shallow and indicate intense
rainfall may induce soft ground conditions. Access to fields on both sides of
the canal is good, with gated access and flat conditions. An above ground
storage tank was observed 280m north-west of the existing canal bridge;
labelling indicated this held Liquid Fertiliser (Omex Nitroflo 30% N).

 Bridgefield House and Grounds was identified as a residential garden and

confirmed as ‘springy underfoot’ owing to turf. A septic tank including surface
assets were identified by the property tenants who reported the septic tank
soakaway as being defective. Additionally the area in front of the building
floods during intense rainfall. An overhead telephone line was observed
coming to Bridgefield House.
 Overheard power cables were identified crossing the development site from
southwest to north east. A spur of this line terminates close to the Trent and
Mersey Canal, where it is diverted underground.
4.2 Geomorphological/Geological Mapping
No additional geological or geomorphological mapping has been completed as part of

this geotechnical investigation.
4.3 Ground Investigations
4.3.1 Description of fieldwork
The GI fieldwork was undertaken between 12th and 18th October 2015 by CCG in
general accordance with the Eurocode 7 (EC7) Part 2, Ground Investigation and
testing (1997) [13], BS5930:2015 [14] and BS10175:2001 [15].
The GI scope was specified by Amey to provide geotechnical information required for
the preliminary and detailed design of the Branston Locks Development Site Access
(Phase 1). Specialist GI contractors CCG supplied the following:
 A single Commacchio MC300 multi-purpose track mounted rig to advance the

two combined percussive/rotary boreholes up to 20m bgl.
 A single Terrier 2002 track mounted rig to advance the six window sample
holes up to 5.00m bgl.
During the GI works adverse ground conditions resulted in hole P1-BH02 failing to
reach target depth; The Amey Engineer on site elected not to continue or re-drill the
hole as sufficient ground information was deemed to have been obtained. Two
additional inspection pits were advanced to identify the make-up of artificial ground
associated with the Trent and Mersey Canal (P1-BH01A) and the A38 embankments
(P1HP-01). Table 4-1 summarizes the locations, extent and installation of the ten
boreholes.

Table 4-1:2015 GI Borehole Summary [16]
Total National Grid Reference

Hole
Hole Type Depth
Number Easting Northing Elevation Installation
(m)
Combined Groundwater
BH01 Percussive/rotary 16.20 421714 321402 47.54 monitoring
Borehole Standpipe
BH01A Inspection Pit 0.75 421719 321397 48.16 No Installation
Combined
BH02 Percussive/rotary 3.20 421733 32171 47.76 No Installation
Borehole
WS01 Window Sample Hole 3.00 421614 321430 47.41 No Installation

HP01 Inspection Pit 1.05 421903 321329 48.08 No Installation
Drawing No. COSTCDX8620-GEO-002 illustrates the layout of the GI work.
4.3.2 Copy of Ground Investigation Report
Physical and digital copies of the report generated for the GI work have been supplied
by CCG. This factual report [16] presents the locations of all exploratory holes,
borehole logs, and laboratory results; a copy of the report is presented in Appendix B.
4.3.3 Results of in-situ tests
In-situ Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) utilising split spoon sampler or solid cone
methods were carried out at regular intervals in boreholes in accordance with BS
1377 Part 9 [17] and BS EN ISO 22476-3:2005 [18]. Results are given in the CCG
Factual Report [16] (Appendix B) and displayed in Figure 8 of this report.
BS EN ISO 22476 [18] provides the following equation for adjusting Standard
Penetration Resistance (N) values to account for the energy delivered to the drive
rods (N60 = N value adjusted to a reference energy ratio of 60%):

Where Er is the energy ratio of the specific test equipment.
The CCG factual report (Appendix B) gives the Er value for the test equipment as
60.76%, therefore the adjusted N60 value is only fractionally higher than the
uncorrected ‘N’ value; when decimal rounding is applied N60 = N, therefore
uncorrected N values are used for the derivations in Section 6.
4.4 Drainage Studies
No drainage studies were completed as part of this geotechnical investigation.
4.5 Geophysical Surveys
No geophysical surveys were completed as part of this geotechnical investigation.
4.6 Pile Tests
No pile testing was completed as part of this geotechnical investigation.
4.7 Other Field Work
On 13th November two inspection pits were excavated to determine the location of
the BskyB fibre optic cables installed in the tow path on the eastern canal bank. This
work was conducted by LG Construction and falls outside the scope of work of the
Ground Investigation being reported in the document. A visual inspection was made
of each hole by the Amey Geotechnical Engineer on site during the GI works. The tow
path appears to have been constructed form re-worked river terrace materials. The
cables were identified in a green four-inch duct at 0.51m depth in the north pit
(321383E, 421731N), and 0.575m depth in the south pit (321366E, 421722N). As the
pits did not form part of the GI work, and at the time of inspection no LG
Construction personnel were not present on site; the Engineer did not interfere with
the pits or services, and no samples were taken.
4.8 Laboratory Investigation
4.8.1 Description of tests
The following laboratory testing was undertaken on soil samples recovered from the
site:

Geotechnical laboratory testing:
• Natural moisture content (NMC);
• Liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and plasticity index (PI);
• Particle size distribution (PSD) and sedimentation;
• Quick undrained triaxial testing;
 One-dimensional consolidation testing; and
 Point load strength testing
Chemical & contamination tests:
• BRE SDI suite (Building Research Establishment);
 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Testing;
 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPH-CWG) testing;
 Midi-S suite testing; and
 Asbestos Screen.
Copies of laboratory testing results are contained within the CCG Factual Report 2015
[16] and are presented in Appendix B.

5 GROUND SUMMARY
The following geological units were anticipated within the study area following the
review of information sources.
 Made Ground
 River Terrace Deposits
 Weathered Mercia Mudstone
This GIR will utilize the in-situ and laboratory observations and results of the CCG
2015 GI work (Appendix B). Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters have been
derived from these ground investigations are outlined in Section 6.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of the general ground conditions present collected
from the borehole data. The determination of Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grades
is outlined in Section 6.5 of this document.
5.1 Geology and Ground Conditions
5.1.1 Geology
All exploratory hole information available to Amey has been reviewed for identifying
the geology across the site. A plan showing the locations of all exploratory holes and
cross-sections across the site are presented in Drawings No. COSTCDX8620-GEO-002
and COSTCDX8620-GEO-003.
The Code of Practice for Site Investigations [14] subdivides anthropogenic soils so as
to differentiate between disturbed natural ground and engineered fill. This report
therefore adopts the following terminology:
 “Fill” is placed in a controlled manner.
 “Made Ground” is placed without strict engineering control.
Made ground was observed on site, usually as the result of farming. Fill material was
observed in two forms:
1. Granular Fill material associated with the construction of the Trent and Mersey
Canal.
2. Cohesive Fill material associated with the construction of the A38.
Table 5-1 provides a borehole log summary of the encountered Strata.

Table 5-1: Borehole Log Summary
Stratum
BH01 BH01A BH02 WS01 WS02 WS03 WS04 WS05 WS06 HP01
(depth m bgl)
0.00 to
Granular Fill - - - - - - - - -
0.751
0.00 to 0.00 to
Cohesive Fill - - - - - - - -
4.701 1.051
0.00 to 0.00 to 0.00 to
Made Ground - - - - - - -
0.30 0.85 0.40
0.31 to 0.85 to 0.00 to 0.00 to 0.00 to 0.40 to 0.00 to
River Terrace Deposits - - -
4.70 3.201 3.001 3.001 3.001 2.001 2.001
4.70 to
Weathered Mercia Mudstone (Grade IVa)2 - - - - - - - - -
6.20
6.20 to
Weathered Mercia Mudstone (Grade III)2 - - - - - - - - -
12.05
12.05 to
Weathered Mercia Mudstone (Grade II)2 - - - - - - - - -
16.201
Ground water 0.90 - - 2.00 2.50 2.20 - 2.35 - -
1
Note: Indicates base of strata not observed
2
Weathering grades determined in Section 6.5

The generalised ground conditions expected to be found across the site are
displayed in Table 5-2 and are noted as metres Above Ordnance Datum (m AOD).
Note that this generalisation does not identify thicknesses of fill material in proximity
to the A38 or Trent and Mersey Canal as these are anticipated to change with the
varying alignment of these earthworks.
Table 5-2: Generalised Interpreted Ground Conditions
Stratum From (mAOD) To (mAOD)
Made Ground 47.7m 47.3m
River Terrace Deposits 47.3m 42.8m
Weathered Mercia Mudstone (Grade IVa)1 42.8m 41.3m
Weathered Mercia Mudstone (Grade III) 1 41.3m 35.5m
Weathered Mercia Mudstone (Grade II) 1 35.5m 31.34m 2
Groundwater 45.39m
1
Note: Weathering grade determined in Section 6.5.1
2
Indicates base of strata not observed

6 GROUND CONDITIONS AND MATERIALS PROPERTIES
The strata encountered during the 2015 GI programme, together with depths and
thicknesses are summarised in Section 5. In-situ and laboratory testing results can be
found in the GI Factual Reports attached in Appendices B. A summary of the material
properties for each stratum is provided in Table 6-18. A summary of the derived
geotechnical parameters of each stratum is presented in Table 6-19.
6.1 Granular Fill
6.1.1 Material Description
Granular Fill is observed in hole P1-BH01A only; this was an inspection pit advanced to
0.75m bgl in the ramp to the Branston Road Bridge from the track to the east of the
Trent and Mersey Canal. The Granular Fill is described as brown slightly clayey sandy
gravel, which changes to a slightly sandy clayey gravel at depth. The gravel in both
cases is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse siliceous material, siltstone, brick concrete
and porcelain.
6.1.2 Material Properties
Classification
One natural moisture content (NMC) tests was conducted on the Granular Fill returning a
NMC value of 13% (Figure 5). One Particle Size Distribution (PSD) tests with pipette
sedimentation was undertaken in the Granular fill, results are provided in Table 6-1 and
Figure 6. The average material is described as a clayey silty sandy gravel.
Table 6-1: Granular Fill PSD analysis results
Hole Depth Clay Silt Sand Gravel Grading
P1-BH01A 0.5m 4 7 22 67 Gap Graded
Bulk Unit Weight
Using guidance given in BS8002:2015 ( [19] Figure 1 p15), and assuming the Granular
Fill to be a medium density gravel / coarse engineered fill above the water table a bulk
density of 17kN/m³ has been assigned to this material.

Shearing Resistance
Due to the Granular Fill being observed only in a single inspection pit no SPT testing was
conducted in the material; therefore no correlations between SPT N values and strength
or stiffness have been possible.
BS8002:2015 allows for the estimation of the critical state effective angle of shearing
resistance (Φ’) based on soil angularity and grading ( [19]Equation 3 and Table 1 p16
and 18); using this equation the Granular Fill is determined to have Φ’=34°.
Chemistry
Classification of the Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) has been
undertaken on one sample from Granular Fill material. This has returned a Design
Sulfate class of DS-1, and ACEC class of AC-1.
One sample of Granular Fill was submitted for Midi-s analysis (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb,
Hg, Se, W, S, B, hexavalent chromium, total cyanide, free cyanide, total sulphate,
sulphide, total sulphur, pH, total PAH, phenols, thiocyanate). No results of concern were
received.
Two samples of Granular Fill were submitted for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon – Criteria
Working Group (TPH-CWG) analysis. No results of concern were received.
One sample of Granular Fill was submitted for Asbestos Screening; no asbestos was
detected.
6.2 Cohesive Fill
Cohesive Fill material was observed within P1-WS06 and P1-HP01; both of which were
advanced in the existing A38 embankment. Neither investigation points proved the base
of the stratum, and therefore total thickness of the Cohesive Fill. The material is
described as firm locally friable reddish brown and brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly
to locally gravelly clay. Gravel is angular to sub-rounded fine to coarse siliceous material,
concrete, mudstone, limestone, wood, sandstone and brick. At depth the material is
observed to become soft and the gravel to be made up of angular to sub-rounded fine to
coarse siliceous material and mudstone. The make-up of the Cohesive Fill indicates that
weathered Mercia Mudstone Formation provides a proportion of the source material.

Classification
Testing undertaken within the Cohesive Fill included four NMC tests and three Atterberg
Limits tests. Plasticity classification has been determined as per BS5930 (2015) [14];
results are displayed in Figures 5 and 7 and average values in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2: Average Atterberg Limit Results – Cohesive Fill
Attribute Average Value
Moisture Content 16%
Liquid Limit 37%
Plastic Limit 20%
Plasticity Index 17%
Three samples were submitted for PSD testing with pipette sedimentation; Figure 6 and
Table 6-3 displays results. The average material is described as a clayey silty gravelly
sand.
Table 6-3: Cohesive Fill PSD analysis results
Hole Depth clay Silt Sand Gravel Grading

1
P1-HP01 0.5m 12 19 36 33 Appears gap graded
1
P1-WS06 0.5m 26 33 31 10 Appears well graded
1
P1-WS06 4.0 26 38 28 8 Appears gap graded
Min 12 19 28 8
Max 26 38 36 33
Average 21 30 32 17
1
Note 10% fraction not recorded thus true grading undetermined.

Bulk Unit Weight
Using guidance given in BS8002:2015 [19] and assuming the Cohesive Fill to be have
characteristics of both coarse and fine engineering fill above the water table a bulk
Shearing Resistance
BS8002:2015 allows for the estimation of the critical state effective angle of shearing
resistance (Φ’) based on the soils Plasticity Index ( [19]Equation 7 p19);
( )
Using this equation with the average Plasticity Index the Cohesive Fill is determined to
have Φ’=26.6°.
Undrained Shear Strength
Cohesive Fill was encountered in one window sample hole (P1-WS06) resulting in five
SPT test being conducted within the material. A review of the results described in Figure
8 shows that the uncorrected SPT ’N’ value steadily decreases with depth, with the
exception of the deepest point in the hole returned an uncorrected ‘N’ value of 50 over
30mm, indicating refusal. Removing this result from the cohort gives an average ‘N’
value of 7. The correlation between uncorrected ‘N’ value, Plasticity Index (PI) and
undrained shear strength (cu) outlined by Stroud (1974) [20] has been utilised to
calculate an average cu value:
The PI of the cohesive fill gives an f1 value of 6, therefore an average cu value of

44kN/m2 can be assigned the Cohesive Fill material; alternatively the fill can be given the
cu value associated to its depth, as is indicated in Table 6-4 and Figure 9.

Table 6-4: Cohesive Fill Cu, mv value vs Depth
Depth (m bgl) cu (kPa) mv (MN/m2)
1 72 0.14
2 48 0.21
3 36 0.28
4 18 0.56
Deformability
Stroud & Butler (1975) [21] provide the following equation for determining the
coefficient of volume compressibility (mv):
Plasticity Index is used to determine f2. Using this equation an average mv value of
0.3m2/MN can be assigned the Cohesive Fill material; alternatively the fill can be given
the mv value associated to its depth, as is indicated in Table 6-4 and Figure 10.
Chemistry
Classification of ACEC has been undertaken on one sample from Cohesive Fill material.
This has returned a Design Sulfate class of DS-3, and ACEC class of AC-3.
Two samples of Cohesive Fill were submitted for Midi-s analysis. No results of concern
were received.
Four samples of Cohesive Fill were submitted for TPH-CWG analysis. No results of
concern were received.
Two samples of Cohesive Fill were submitted for Asbestos Screening. No asbestos was
detected.

One sample of Cohesive Fill was submitted for Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing.
The results of elute analysis are below that of limit values for inert waste; however the
sulphate value of 1600mg/kg exceeds the 1000 mg/kg upper limit for Inert Waste. This
indicates that excavated Cohesive Fill will be required to be disposed of in a licensed
hazardous waste landfill site; however testing will be required of excavated material to
determine the nature of the waste material.
6.3 Made Ground
Made Ground was seen within three of the exploratory holes (P1-BH01, P1-BH02 and P1-
WS04), up to a maximum depth of 0.85m bgl. Made Ground has been identified both
within arable agriculture fields, and within the grounds of Bridgefield House. The Made
Ground is described brown slightly sandy clayey gravel to slightly sandy gravelly clay. In
all instances the stratum was observed to have occasional rootlets (<2mm) and the
gravels were angular to rounded fine to coarse siliceous material and siltstone with a
varying content of metal fragments, clinker, slag, wood fragments and twine.
Classification
Testing undertaken within the Made Ground included one NMC test and one Atterberg
Limits test. Plasticity classification has been determined as per BS5930 (2015) [14];
results are displayed in Figures 5 and 7; average values are displayed in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5: Average Atterberg Limit Results – Made Ground
Moisture Content 13%
Liquid Limit 41%
Plastic Limit 25%

One sample was submitted for PSD testing with pipette sedimentation; Figure 6 and
Table 6-6 displays results. The average material is described as a clayey silty gravelly
sand.
Table 6-6: Made Ground PSD analysis results
Hole Depth clay Silt Sand Gravel Grading

1
P1-BH02 0.7m 15 23 36 26 Appears gap graded
1
Bulk Unit Weight
Using guidance given in BS8002:2015 [19], and assuming the Made Ground to be a
medium density gravel / sand above the water table a bulk density of 17kN/m³ has been
assigned to this material.
Shearing Resistance
Due to the Made Ground being observed only in inspection pits no SPT testing was
conducted in the material; therefore no correlations between SPT ‘N’ values and strength
or stiffness have been possible.
BS8002:2015 [19] allows for the estimation of Φ’ based on soil angularity and grading;
the Made ground is determined to have Φ’=34°.
Chemistry
ACEC classification has been undertaken on two samples from Made Ground material.
Both samples returned a Design Sulfate class of DS-2, and ACEC class of AC-2.
One sample of Made Ground was submitted for Midi-s analysis. No results of concern
were received.
Two samples of Made Ground were submitted for TPH-CWG analysis. No results of
concern were received.
One sample of Made Ground was submitted for Asbestos Screening. No asbestos was
detected.

6.4 River Terrace Deposits
The River Terrace material was identified within seven of the exploratory holes. Only P1-
BH01 encountered the base of the unit at 4.7m bgl, with a total thickness of 4.4m. The
unit is generally described as being grey to brown slightly clayey sandy gravel; however
areas tend to sandy gravelly clay and clay gravelly sand. The River terrace deposits are
observed to be interbedded, with significant variations of particle size and density
present over very small thicknesses.
The gravels were observed to be sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse siliceous

material, sandstone and siltstone; Cobbles were rarely observed. In sequences of finer-
grained material occasional observations were made of partially decomposed organic
matter.
Classification
Testing undertaken within the River Terrace deposits included twelve NMC test and two
Atterberg Limits test. Plasticity classification has been determined as per BS5930 (2015)
[14]; results are displayed in Figures 5 and 7; average values in Table 6-7.
Table 6-7: Average Atterberg Limit Results – River Terrace Deposits
Moisture Content 9.4%
Liquid Limit 38%
Plastic Limit 24%

Ten samples was submitted for PSD testing with three of those scheduled for additional
pipette sedimentation; Figure 6 and Table 6-8 displays results. River terrace deposit
material shows a wide variation of particle size distributions; however a general trend is
discernible showing low cohesive content, and significant sand and gravel components.
Material grading alternates between gap graded and uniform graded. The average
material is described as a slightly clayey silty very sandy gravel.
Table 6-8: River Terrace Deposit PSD analysis results
Hole Depth Clay Silt Sand Gravel Grading
P1-BH01 0.5m 9 12 47 32 Gap Graded
P1-BH01 1.5m 3 96 1 Uniformly Graded
P1-BH01 3.7m 24 25 51 Appears Gap Graded1
P1-BH02 1.55m 1 38 61 Gap Graded
P1-BH02 2.75m 2 23 75 Gap Graded
P1-WS01 1.4m 3 16 81 Uniformly Graded
P1-WS02 1.0m 5 26 69 Uniformly Graded
P1-WS03 0.2m 13 19 41 27 Appears Gap Graded1
P1-WS03 1.25m 2 9 85 4 Uniformly Graded
P1-WS04 0.5m 14 33 53 Appears Gap Graded1

2
Min 1 16 1
2
Max 32 96 81
2
Average 12 43 45
1
2
Min, Max and Average calculated for the sum of Clay and Silt fractions
Bulk Unit Weight
Using guidance given in BS8002:2015 [19], and assuming the River Terrace Deposits to
be dense sands and gravels with a silty component and above the water table a bulk
density of 19kN/m³ has been assigned to this material. Where the material is below the
water table a unit weight of 21kN/m³ has been assigned.

Eighteen SPT tests were conducted within the River Terrace Deposits. A review of the
results described in Figure 8 shows that the uncorrected SPT ’N’ value shows no specific
trend with depth down-hole; the average uncorrected ‘N’ value of the material is 35.
Utilizing the correlation between uncorrected ‘N’ value and undrained shear strength (cu)
outlined by Stroud (1974) [20] an average cu value of 246kN/m2 can be assigned the
River Terrace Deposit material.
Shearing Resistance
BS8002:2015 [19] allows for the estimation of Φ’ based on soil angularity and grading;
using this equation the River Terrace Deposit is determined to have Φ’=32°.
Thomlinson ( [22] Figure 2.13) allows for derivation of Ф’ using SPT results. Using the
average uncorrected ‘N’ value Ф’=37°.
The average Φ’ of 37° derived from the Tomlinson method is recommended for the
material parameter for the River Terrace Material
Stiffness
Bowles (1996) provides equations for the calculation of Undrained Young’s Modulus
(Table 5-6 in [23]) for soils. Using the average material classification described as slightly
clayey silty very sandy gravel the following equation has been used to determine the
Young’s Modulus (Eu):
( )
Therefore the River Terrace Deposits average Eu = 49 MPa.
Thomlinson [22] defines the relationship between undrained and drained Young’s
Modulus (E’) as:
Therefore the River Terrace Deposits average E’ = 29.4 MPa.
Poisson’s Ratio (v) for sands is defined by Thomlinson [22] as 0.1 to 0.3; it is
recommended that a conservative value of v = 0.3 be used for River Terrace Deposits.
Chemistry
Three samples of River Terrace Deposits were submitted for Midi-s analysis. The
following results of note were returned. No results of concern were received.

Five samples of River Terrace Deposits were submitted for TPH-CWG analysis. No results
of concern were received.
One sample of Made Ground was submitted for WAC testing. Analysis results indicate
that excavated River Terrace Deposit can be classified as Inert Waste; however any
excavated material will require further WAC testing prior to disposal.
6.5 Mercia Mudstone
The Mercia Mudstone was identified within P1-BH01 from 4.70m bgl to 16.2m bgl; the
base of the unit was not encountered. The unit was described as reddish brown with
rare blue grey mottling (<10mm) firm slightly sandy clay, developing to a very stiff
slightly sandy gravelly clay with increased depth. The gravels were observed to be sub-
angular fine to coarse extremely weak lithorelics of mudstone. From 12.05m bgl the unit
was described as extremely weak thinly laminated reddish brown mudstone with
occasional veins of light grey gypsum up to 25mm in thickness. Gypsum veins were
observed to predominantly be orientated normal to the mudstone laminations; however
gypsum veins were observed perpendicular to the mudstone laminations linking
horizontal veins 25cm apart.
Weathering grade of the Mercia Mudstone has been determined using weathering
scheme and ranges of index and other properties outlined in CIRIA C570: Engineering in
Mercia Mudstone ( [24] Section 3.2 including Tables 3.2 and 3.3 p28-29). The
weathering profile of the Mercia Mudstone encountered during the 20115 GI is outlined
below:
 Grade IVa: 4.7m to 6.2m bgl
 Grade III: 6.2m to 12.05m bgl
 Grade II: 12.05m to 16.2m bgl

Classification
Testing undertaken within the Mercia Mudstone included six NMC test and four Atterberg
Limits test. Plasticity classification has been determined as per BS5930 (2015) [14];
results are displayed in Figures 5 and 7; average values in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9: Average Atterberg Limit Results – Mercia Mudstone
Grade IVa Grade III Grade II All Results
Attribute Average Average Average Average

Value Value Value Value
Moisture Content 20% 21% 16% 20%
Liquid Limit 29% 36% 32% 33%
Plastic Limit 19% 23% 19% 21%
Plasticity Index 10% 13% 13% 12%
Four samples were submitted for PSD testing with pipette sedimentation; Figure 6 and
Table 6-10 displays results. The Mercia Mudstone shows varying grain size distribution
which does not appear to be obviously linked with weathering grade, however the
sample cohort size does not allow for accurate interpretation. An average material
composed of all tested weathering grades is described as a slightly gravelly clayey sandy
silt.
Table 6-10: Mercia Mudstone PSD analysis results
Hole Depth Weathering Clay Silt Sand Gravel Grading
P1-BH01 4.7m Grade IVa 35 55 9 1 Appears Gap Graded1
P1-BH01 6.7m Grade III 15 22 27 36 Uniformly Graded
P1-BH01 9.5m Grade III 33 49 15 3 Appears Gap Graded1
P1-BH01 13.5m Grade II 15 22 52 11 Appears Gap Graded1
Min 15 22 9 1
Max 35 55 52 36
Average 25 37 26 13
1

Bulk Unit Weight
Bulk density values determined for Grade IVa material in consolidation and compression
testing indicate a bulk density of 2.08 Mg/m3, which provides an average bulk unit
weight of 20.4kN/m3.
Using guidance given in BS8002:2015 [19], and assuming the Mercia Mudstone
encountered to be below the water table and a slightly gravelly clayey sandy SILT a bulk
Shearing Resistance
BS8002:2015 [19] allows for the estimation Φ’ based on the soils Plasticity. Given the
average PI the Mercia Mudstone weathering grades Φ’ values are determined as follows:
 Grade IVa Φ’=29.5°
 Grade III Φ’=28.3°
 Grade II Φ’=28.1°
 Overall Φ’=28.5°
It is recommended that the average overall effective angle of shearing resistance (Φ’) of
28.5° be used for all weathering grades of Mercia Mudstone
Eight SPT test were conducted within the Mercia Mudstone; one in Grade IVa, four in
Grade III, and three in Grade II material. A review of the results described in Figure 8
shows that the uncorrected SPT ’N’ value increases with depth downhole. It should be
noted that seven of the eight SPT tests were halted at 50 blows as the tests were unable
to penetrate the required 300mm; these tests were all those carried out in Grade III and
II weathering categories. Table 6-11 provides raw (N) and corrected (N300) SPT values.

Table 6-11: Corrected SPT values: Mercia Mudstone
Depth Penetration Average Weathering

N N300
(m bgl) (mm) N300 Grade
6.7 34 300 34 34 IVa
7.9 50 240 63
8.7 50 210 71
65 III
10.2 50 210 71
11.7 50 270 54
13.2 50 20 750
14.7 50 100 150 353 II
16.2 50 90 158
The very low penetration rates observed in the Grade II weathered material indicate
refusal due to the material becoming increasingly competent; therefore derivation of
material properties from SPT values obtained from the Grade II material are not reported
in this document.
The correlation between uncorrected ‘N’ value, PI and cu outlined by Stroud (1974) [20]
has been utilised to calculate an average cu value. The CIRIA guide to Engineering in
Mercia Mudstone [24] gives the average f1 value for the formation as 5. Measured PI
values of the various grades of weathered Mercia Mudstone fall outside the given range
of f1 values; the conservative f1 value of 5 has been used. cu values derived from SPT
results are plotted in Figure 8 with average values for weathering grades are given in
Table 6-12.
Table 2.4 in the CIRIA guide to Piled foundations in weak rock [25] provides engineering
properties of the Mercia Mudstone weathering grades; cu values are displayed in Table 6-
12.

Table 6-12: Mercia Mudstone cu values – SPT

derived and published data
SPT Derived CIRIA 181

Grade
cu cu
IVa 170 kPa 850 kPa
III 324 kPa 1090 kPa
II - 1450 kPa
A single undrained unconfined triaxial shear strength test was conducted on Weathering
Grade IVa material obtained from a depth of 5.2 to 5.65m bgl. Table 6-13 displays shear
undrained shear strength versus cell pressure.
Table 6-13: Undrained Unconfined Triaxial testing

– Mercia Mudstone Grade IVa
Cell Pressure cu Equivalent Depth
(kPa) (kPa) (m bgl)
200 198 9.5
400 269 19.0
600 308 28.5
It is recommended that where derived parameters for cu and E’ are available they be
used in geotechnical design, where they are not figures from CIRIA 181 should be used.
The following values for cu are recommended:
 Grade IVa cu= 170 kPa
 Grade III cu = 324 kPa
 Grade II cu = 1450 kPa

Deformability
Using Stroud & Butler (1975) [21] to determine the coefficient of volume compressibility
from SPT ‘N’ Value and PI the following values for the weathering grades encountered
have been calculated. The PI values of the Mercia Mudstone range from 10% to 13%;
this results in correlations to f2 falling below the lowest part of the trend line provided by
Stroud and Butler. As a result the f2 value adopted for this calculation is the value
recommended in CIRIA C570 [24] of 0.5. Average values are given below and displayed
in Figure 10.
 Grade IVa mv= 0.06 m2/MN
 Grade III mv = 0.03 m2/MN
An mv value for Grade II weathering has not been provided as the uncorrected SPT ‘N’
values indicate refusal; thus providing unrealistic values.
A single one dimensional consolidation test was conducted on Weathering Grade IVa
material obtained from a depth of 5.2 to 5.65m bgl. Table 6-14 displays coefficient of
volume compressibility versus pressure range.
Table 6-14: One-dimensional Consolidation

testing – Mercia Mudstone Grade IVa
Pressure Range mv Equivalent Depth
(kPa) (m2/MN) (m bgl)
0 - 100 0.516 0-5
100 - 200 0.115 5 - 10
200 - 400 0.071 10 - 20
400 - 800 0.044 20 - 40
800 - 100 0.017 40 - 0
It is recommended that the following values of mv are used in geotechnical design:
 Grade IVa mv= 0.06 m2/MN

 Grade III mv = 0.03 m2/MN
 Grade II mv = 0.03 m2/MN
Stiffness
Table 2.4 in the CIRIA guide to Piled foundations in weak rock [25] provides engineering
properties of the Mercia Mudstone weathering grades; Eu values are displayed in Table
6-15.
Thomlinson [22] defines the relationship between undrained and drain Young’s modulus
(E’) as:
Using the methods described above average Eu and E’ for the varying grades of
weathered Mercia Mudstone have been calculated and are displayed in Table 6-15
Poisson’s Ratio (v) is defined by Thomlinson [22] for various material types, values
recommended for use in geotechnical design are listed in Table 6-15.
Table 6-15: Mercia Mudstone Eu, E’ and v values
Weathering CIRIA 181 Derived Thomlinson
Grade Eu E’ v
IVa 230 MPa 138 MPa 0.5
III 350 MPa 210 MPa 0.2
II 2830 MPa 1698 MPa 0.2
Point Loading
Point load testing was conducted on three samples of Grade II material; two samples
were of mudstone, one of gypsum. Valid fractures were achieved in each test, and Point
Load Strength Index (Is50) values obtained. The International Society for Rock Mechanics
[26] provides the following equation to determine Uniaxial Compressive Strength (C0)
from Is50

Table 6-16 provides Is50 and C0 values. Due to the low number of tests conducted Is50
values and information derived from these results should be considered to be indicative
rather than definitive.
Table 6-16: Point Load testing – Mercia Mudstone Grade II
Depth
Is50 C0
Material Downhole m
MPa MPa
bgl
Weak Mudstone 12.08 – 12.10 0.39 8.6
Gypsum Vein 14.64 – 14.70 0.22 4.8
Weak Mudstone 16.10 – 16.20 0.30 6.6
Chemistry
Classification of the ACEC has been undertaken on two samples from Mercia Mudstone
material; one from weathering Grade III, the other from Grade II. Table 6-17 provides
Design Sulfate and ACEC classes
Table 6-17: ACEC classifications – Mercia Mudstone
Design
Weathering ACEC Class
Sulfate Class
Grade III DS-2 AC-2
Grade II DS-3 AC-3

6.6 Material Properties Summary

Table 6-18 summarises material properties for the strata encountered during the GI
works, Table 6-19 lists summary geotechnical parameters for these materials.
Table 6-18: Summary of Material Properties
Atterberg Limits SPT Chemical
Water Soluble
NMC LL PL PI N300 pH
Sulphate
(%) (%) (%) (%) (mg/l)
Granular Fill 13 - - - - 9.1 230
Cohesive Fill 16 37 20 17 7 7.8 1600
Made Ground 13 41 25 16 - 8 395
River Terrace 35
9 38 24 14 - -
Deposit
Mercia
Mudstone 20 29 19 10 34 - -
Grade IVa
Mercia
Mudstone 21 36 23 13 65 8.4 570
Grade III
Mercia
Mudstone 16 32 19 13 353 8.2 1800
Grade II

Table 6-19: Characteristic Geotechnical Parameters
ACEC
γb Ф’ cu mv Eu E’ v DS Class
Strata Class
(kN/m3) (°) (kN/m2) (MN/m2) MPa MPa
Granular Fill 17 34 - - - - - DS-1 AC-1
Cohesive Fill 19 27 44 0.3 - - - DS-3 AC-3
Made Ground 17 34 - - - - - DS-2 AC-2
River Terrace Deposit 19 37 246 - 49 29 0.3 - -
Mercia Mudstone
21 30 170 0.06 230 138 0.5 - -
Grade IVa Weathering
Mercia Mudstone
21 28 324 0.03 350 210 0.2 DS-2 AC-2
Grade III Weathering
Mercia Mudstone
21 28 1450 0.03 2830 1698 0.2 DS-3 AC-3
Grade II Weathering
Notes for Table 6-18 and 6-19:

1. Information presented in Table 6-18 is factual values taken from the testing results. However, many of the recorded SPT N values have been extrapolated to an equivalent
300mm penetration with a correction for energy efficiency of 60%.
2. Information presented in Table 6-19 is interpreted design parameters for each material group encountered on site. Please refer to the main text in Section 6 for references
and correlations for the interpretations.
3. Abbreviations: γb = bulk unit weight, NMC = natural moisture content, LL= Liquid Limit, PI = plasticity index, SPT N = standard penetration test N60 , cu = undrained
shear strength, Ф’ = peak effective angle of shearing resistance, E’ = effective Young’s Modulus, Eu = undrained Young’s Modulus, v = Poisson’s Ratio, DS Class =
Design Sulphate Class, ACEC Class = Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete Class, mv = compressibility,

7 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
The PSSR document [2] outlined a preliminary engineering assessment based upon the
ground conditions as they were understood given the historic information available and the
planned alignment given in Drawing No. COSTCDX8620-GEO-001. The primary engineering
considerations were:
 Settlement of earthworks and structures constructed on susceptible soils – of

specific concern were clays and peat horizons identified in historic GI work.
 The type of material used to construct new embankments.
 Potential ground improvement techniques to allow shallow foundations for the new
Trent and Mersey Canal road overbridge.
 Piling systems for the new Trent and Mersey Canal road overbridge.
Extensive consideration was given to numerous solutions for these issues, the options
considered the most appropriate for the ground conditions and proposed construction as
were understood from the available information were:
 Extraction of problematic ground where necessary or pre-loading where

programme allows.
 Granular Fill Embankment.
 Continuous-Flight Auger (CFA) piling.
The 2015 GI work has greatly increased the understanding of the subsurface conditions at
the Phase 1 development site; as a result the preliminary engineering assessment has been
reviewed below.
7.1 Ground Model
The generalised ground model is presented in Section 5 of this report; this can be
summarised as:
 Made Ground 47.7 – 47.3m bgl
 River Terrace Deposit 47.3 – 42.8m bgl
 Mercia Mudstone (IVa) 42.8 – 41.3m bgl

 Mercia Mudstone (III) 41.3 – 35.5m bgl
 Mercia Mudstone (II) 35.5m bgl +
Engineered fill is present on site associated with the A38 embankments and the Trent
and Mersey Canal; the type and thickness of material is dependent on the location.
7.2 Site Access Road
The proposed Phase 1 Site Access Road is aligned with the existing A38 Branston
Roundabout exit currently used by Branston road. The new road will bear north-west
from the present alignment and cross the Mersey and Trent Canal approximately 15m
north of the existing overbridge. The new road will be constructed on material added to
the northern side of the existing embankment; as the road alignment diverges from the
current road alignment the new embankment will become independent of the existing
earthworks. The embankment leaves the A38 roundabout and loses elevation to meet
the new Mersey and Trent overbridge which requires a minimum clearance of 2.7m
between the level of the tow path and the underside of the bridge. Once the road has
crossed the canal it grades down to the planned ground level, as do planned spurs
leaving the access road.
7.2.1 Settlement Considerations
Settlement of the underlying materials has the potential to cause delays in construction
and damage the completed works; differential settlement an issue of particular concern
due to the following circumstances:
 Transition between loaded material types (i.e. where the embankment passes
from current embankment to River Terrace Deposits)
 Transition between loading conditions (changes in embankment thickness)
 Transition between the embankments and the new road bridge
Settlement of earthworks will be modelled using the information outlined in Section 6. It

is possible to limit the settlement through appropriate choice and design of foundation
solutions; removal of material prone to settlement/consolidation; pre-loading of the
ground to induce settlement and accelerate consolidation; or through construction
planning.

Table 7-1 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the options proposed to
reduce differential settlement and consolidation of the embankments.
7.2.2 Material Used for Embankment Fill
The widening of the existing embankments and construction of new embankment

lengths will require the importation of material for the earthworks construction.
Ordinarily either cohesive or granular materials can be used for embankment fill. Both
types of material offer a range of options for exact material type; this will be determined
through design analysis and required slope angles for new embankment, typically
constrained by land take requirements. Placement of both types of material is weather
dependant, as wet conditions will fundamentally change the material properties.
If the settlement or consolidation of the underlying strata is sufficiently problematic the

use of a light-weight fill material such as Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) might be considered
to reduce the loading of the soil. PFA is also potentially a cost-effective option if the local
supply of material is abundant, and the planned construction conforms to the criteria set
out in the EA Regulatory Statement 172 [27].
Table 7-2 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed embankment
fill options.
7.3 Branston Locks Canal Bridge
Branston Locks Canal Bridge will connect the proposed access road on either side of the
Trent and Mersey Canal. The design must conform to design standards set by the Canal
and River Trust and recommendations from the flood risk assessment undertaken by
SGE. These include an aesthetically pleasing appearance, 2.7m clearance from ground
level adjacent to the underside of the bridge and the design must not compromise or
influence inflows from external water sources. The bridge will require significant
foundations to allow it to perform as required. Shallow foundation techniques, such as
pad or raft foundations or a geogrid reinforced earth bridge abutments may be
considered for the development if the bridge loads can be supported by the River
Terrace Deposits. Alternatively, piling systems that may be considered for the
development are:
 Sheet piles
 Pre-cast driven piles

 CFA piles
 Cast in situ piles
Table 7-3 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed foundation
options.

Table 7-1: Settlement Reduction Options For Embankment Construction
Option Recommendation
For
 Can be easily designed and controlled to suit the ground conditions
 Many different systems available
 Rapid application, provides rapid results where there are granular soils
Against
Dynamic Compaction Not Recommended  Settlement will be accelerated, however consolidation will not be addressed, therefore not suitable for all soil types and ground
conditions
 Cost of mobilising, running and demobilising equipment
 Dynamic solutions will result in noise/vibration issues which will potentially have harmful effects on the existing infrastructure
(services, existing roads, canal)
 Effectiveness of treatment is highly dependable on the ground conditions; therefore a risk that the correct depth of treatment
may not be met.
For
 Once placed the system will only require monitoring until it is removed
 Settlement and consolidation of underlying material will be addressed
 The additional use of wick drains will increase the efficiency of the process
Recommended  Effective option if construction programme allows for the construction of embankments followed by a delay in construction of
Preloading
where the bridge.
and / or
programme Against
surcharging allows  Requires the importation and exportation of large quantities of load material
 Consolidation to required residual values will take a significant period of time (months)
 Use of wick drains will increase the cost of the process
 Placement of material will stop any other work being conducted if the preloading is not planned to take place within the
construction programme.

Table 7-2: Embankment Fill Options
For
 Wide range of materials can be considered for use depending on slope requirements
 Unit weight of cohesive material is likely to be lower than that of granular; therefore a lower load will be imposed on the
underlying material
Use of cohesive fill Not Recommended
Against
 Material will be subject to long-term consolidation
 Material placement will need to take place in specific weather conditions
 Shallower slope angles compared to other options, therefore a larger landtake will be required. Typical slope angles 1 in 3
For
 Wide range of materials can be considered for use depending on slope requirements
 Free draining
Use of granular fill Recommended
 Steeper slope angles than with the use of cohesive fill, therefore steeper slope angles of up to 1 in 2 can be used.
Against
For
 Light-weight nature will significantly reduce load on underlying strata
 Potential cost savings if source of material is local and abundant
Use of light-weight fill
Not Recommended Against
options (PFA)
 Some light-weight fills are classified as waste products, so require permits, specific handling techniques and base layers which
will increase complexity and cost.

Table 7-3: Options for Branston Locks Canal Bridge
For
Recommended if  Reinforcement can be added to carry tensile stresses and required loads
bridge loads do not  Economic

 Minimal vibration when compared to piling solutions
Pad Foundation exceed bearing
Against
capacity of River
 Must be supported on fairly stiff ground, which is unlikely to subside
Terrace Deposits
 Foundation size can be very large to cope with high point loads
 Requires the bearing capacity of the River Terrace Deposits to be greater than the loads imposed by the bridge
For
 Reinforcement of embankment material supports the tensile stresses and required loads imposed by the structure
 Economic
Recommended  Rapid implementation
subject superficial  Does not require materials to be driven in to the underlying formations and groundwater
deposits having  Minimal vibration when compared to piling solutions

Reinforced Earth  Design and construction can be undertaken by specialist contractors
suitable bearing
 Proprietary systems are supplied with high quality block facings which can be tailored to be sympathetic to the existing
capacity for the
infrastructure
required loads Against
 Must be supported on fairly stiff ground, which is unlikely to subside
 Foundation size can be very large to cope with high point loads
 Requires the bearing capacity of the River Terrace Deposits to be greater than the loads imposed by the bridge

For
 Traditional Construction Methods
 Quick and easy to implement
 Piles can be driven to formation height
 The relatively thin pile cross-section should allow the pile to be driven to depth more easily when compared to other piling
systems
Recommended Against
subject to  Vibration during installation may exceed limits required for working in the vicinity of the canal
Sheet Piling
successful pile  The flat cross-section of the sheet pile will impact on the stiffness of the pile
testing  A facia will be required to cover the sheet piles to aid aesthetics (e.g. concrete panels/block work, brickwork)
 Any movement of the pile due to bending will damage the proposed facia
 The drivability of the pile will depend on the ground conditions (large cobbles or boulders may deflect or stop piles being driven)
 The nature of the River Terrace Deposits may cause significant damage to the piles during installation – damage would be
undetected
 Large sheet pile sections may be required leading to the need for a crane on site
 Potential delivery issues if long pile lengths are required

For
 Piles can be manufactured to specification off-site; improved Health Safety Environment and Quality control.
 Low materials movement on and around site when compared to other methods
 Piles can be driven to current ground level for the bridge superstructure (wingwalls and abutment) to be constructed off the
piles
Against
Pre-cast driven piles Not Recommended
 Vibration during installation may exceed limits required for working in the vicinity of the canal
 Smooth shaft surface reduces skin friction, so reliance on end bearing pressure critical
 Potential for damage to pile during installation going undetected
 Pile tops will need to be broken down to the required height – vibration and HS issues
 Driving piles through the River Terrace Deposits may prove difficult to reach target depth
 River Terrace Deposits are likely to cause significant damage to the pile

For
 Piles are constructed on site to required specifications
 Simple, rapid process
 Is not a dynamic, impact intensive process
 No hole casing required
 Irregular shaft surface increases skin friction
 Low noise and vibration generation
Against
CFA piles Not Recommended
 Potential for hole collapse or voiding depending on ground conditions
 Multi-phase process
 Implemented at ground level and a traditional abutment and wingwall bridge structure is used.
 Integrity of piles dependent on timely concrete supply
 Pre-fabricated steel pile cages will be required
 River Terrace Deposits are likely to cause significant damage to equipment
 River Terrace Deposits are prone to collapse in open-hole situations

For
 Piles are constructed on site to required specifications
 Simple, rapid process
 Is not a dynamic, impact intensive process
Against
Driven Cast in situ  Multi-phase process

Not Recommended  Requires temporary casing be withdrawn from hole
piles
 Implemented at ground level and a traditional abutment and wingwall bridge structure is used
 Integrity of piles dependent on timely concrete supply
 Pre-fabricated steel pile cages will be required
 River Terrace Deposits have potential to collapse if insufficient restraining force is in place – upon removal of temporary casing
the pile may lose integrity

8 COMPARISON OF PROJECT OPTIONS AND RISKS
The options considered the most appropriate for the ground conditions and proposed
construction are summarised below:
 Pre-loading of ground susceptible to settlement where programme allows
 Granular Fill Embankment
 Reinforced Earth bridge abutments
OR
 Sheet Piling (subject to successful pile testing)
A review of the geotechnical and environmental risks associated with the proposed
works has been undertaken. The risks have been evaluated using a risk evaluation
matrix as presented below in Table 8.1. Reference has been made to Part 3 of HD 41/03
‘Maintenance of Highway Geotechnical Assets’ [28] as part of the risk assessment
process.
The risk register is detailed in Table 8.2. The risk register lists the anticipated
geotechnical and environmental hazards associated with the works and the potential
consequences of those hazards. The risk before control of the hazard has been assessed
quantitatively as has the anticipated risk following the proposed response to each
hazard.

Table 8-1: Risk Evaluation Matrix

LIKELIHOOD (L) X SEVERITY (S) = RISK I
Severity
% Likelihood
TIME, COST, SHE, REPUTATION 1 2 3 4 5
Almost Certain 5 Negligible Impact 1 E.g. 5 5 10 15 20 25
Probable 4 Client and Contract strained 2 Programme, 4 4 8 12 16 20
Client dissatisfaction and damage budget,
Possible 3 3 3 3 6 9 12 15
to Amey relationships commercial
Threat to future schemes and sensitivity,
Unlikely 2 4 2 2 4 6 8 10
Likelihood
Client/business relationships SHE risks and
Negligible 1 Threat to contract credibility 5 reputation 1 1 2 3 4 5
Risk Ratings
1 to 5 Green Risk is negligible or of otherwise low severity and shall be set aside for further consideration.
5 to 12 Amber Risk is of concern and shall be subject to further analysis and evaluation.
12 to 25 Red Risk is unacceptable and shall be subject to immediate analysis and evaluation.

Table 8-2: Geotechnical Risk Register
Hazard Consequence Risk Before Control Response Risk After Control
(L) (S) I (L) (S) I
Branston Locks Development
Risk of poor ground Develop a ground model of settlement analysis

conditions under Unacceptable differential and total settlements during the detailed design stage. Design
4 4 16 2 2 4
embankment and due to poor ground conditions appropriate geotechnical solutions (piles and
structures settlement mitigation measures).
Pass all suitable ground investigation to the

Encountering Contamination within shallow soils was
appointed contractor. Any evidence of
Contaminated recorded in 2009. Health and Safety
4 2 8 contaminants being encountered to be recorded 2 1 2
Materials during implications to personnel. Delays dependent
and appropriate personnel notified. Suitable PPE
construction. on remedial actions.
must be worn at all times.
Encountering
Historical land use indicates extensive farming. Any evidence of contaminants being
unaccounted
Health and Safety implications to personnel encountered to be recorded and appropriate
contaminants from 3 2 6 2 1 2
with regards to contaminants associated with personnel notified. Suitable PPE must be worn at
historical land use
agriculture. all times.
(Agriculture).
Account for an increase in flooding risk during

The design may increase the flooding risk of the detailed design stage. Use the existing Flood
Risk of Flooding. 2 4 8 2 1 2
the site. Risk Assessment and incorporate design
solutions as recommended.

Table 8-2: Geotechnical Risk Register
Develop a comprehensive ground model. Pass

Low bearing capacity of the soil. Additional on all site investigation information to the
Settlement of final cost and delays to allow re-design. Implication designer and appointed contractor. Ensure
3 5 15 2 2 4
solution. to health and safety of site personnel and end appropriate parameters are utilised for the
users. design based on a comprehensive Ground
Investigation.
Trent and Mersey Damage to canal during construction of road Follow protocols set by the Canals and Rivers
2 5 10 1 2 2
Canal structures. Mass flooding Trust
Inability of piling
technique to reach
appropriate depth
(boulders in the Inappropriate geotechnical design leading to Undertake test piling to confirm the best piling
2 5 10 1 2 4
River terrace potential failure. method for the scheme
deposits, skerries in
the Mercia
Mudstone)

9 REFERENCES
[1] Highways Agency, “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 4 Section 1 Part
2 HD22/08,” Highways Agency, 2008.
[2] Amey, “Branston Locks Development Phase 1: Preliminary Sources Study Report. CON-GE-
BHAM-COSTCDX8620-PSSR,” Amey, Birmingham, 2015.
[3] Microsoft, “Bing Maps,” Microsoft, 27 November 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.bing.com/mapspreview?q=map&mkt=en&FORM=HDRSC4. [Accessed 27
November 2015].
[4] Branston Locks Design Access Statement, Birmingham: Node, 2012.
[5] British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Geological Sheet 140 (Burton Upon Trent) Solid and
Drift Edition.
[6] BGS, “Geoindex,” NERC, [Online]. Available: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/GeoIndex/. [Accessed
02 November 2015].
[7] Coal Authority, “Coal Mining and Brine Gazetteer,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coal-mining-and-brine-subsidence-claim-
search-directory-of-places. [Accessed 09 Novemeber 2015].
[8] BGS, “Gypsum Mineral Planning Fact Sheet.,” Office of the Deputy Prime Minister., 2006.
[9] Shepherd Gilmore, “ Geo-environmental site investigation and generic quantitative risk
assessment, Report no. R0017 DH ME1072.,” Shepherd Gilmour Environment Ltd. , 2009.
[10] DEFRA, “MAGIC,” Natural England, November 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.magic.gov.uk/. [Accessed 02 November 2015].
[11] Environment Agency, “What's in your Backyard?,” Environmental Agency, October 2015.
[Online]. Available: http://maps.environment-
agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e. [Accessed 02 Novemeber
2015].
[12] Shepherd Gilmore, “ Flood Risk Assessment; Branston Locks, Burton upon Trent,”
Shepherd Gilmour Environment Ltd. , 2012.
[13] British Standards Institution, “BS-EN1997-2:2007, EN Eurocode 7 Part 2: Ground

Investiation and Testing,” British Standards Institution, 2007.
[14] Bristish Standards Institution, “BS5930:2015. Code of Practice for Site Investigations,”
Bristish Standards Institution, 2015.
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0 Issued: February 2016

[15] British Standards Institution, BS10175:2011,Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially

Contamniated Sites, British Standards Institution, 2011.
[16] CC Ground Investigations Ltd, “Branston Locks Ground Investigation Report C4877,” CC
Ground Investigations Ltd, Gloucester, 2015.
[17] British Standards Institute, “BS1377-9:1990 Methods ofor Testing For Soils For Civil
Engineering Purposes Part 9. In-Situ Tests,” British Standards Institute, British Standards
Institute, 1990.
[18] British Standards Institute, “BS EN ISO22476-3:2005, Geotechnical Investigaion and

Testing: Standard Penetration Test,” British Standards Institute, 2005.
[19] British Standards Institution, “Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures,” British
Standards Institution, 2015.
[20] M. Stroud, “The Standard Penetration Test - its application and interpretation,” in
Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration Testing (ESOPT I), 1974.
[21] M. Stroud and B. F. Butler, “The standard penetration test and the engineering properties
of glacial materials,” in Proceedings of the Syposium on Engineering Properties of Glacial
Materials, Midlands Geotechnical Society, Birmingham, 1975.
[22] M. Tomlinson, “Foundation Design and Construction,” Pearson Education Ltd, 2001.
[23] J. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, 1996.
[24] Construction Industry Research and Information Association, “CIRIA C570: Engineering in
Mercia Mudstone,” Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London,
2001.
[25] CIRIA, “Piled Foundations in weak rock,” DTI, London, 1999.
[26] International Society for Rock Mechanics, “RTH 325-89: Suggested methods for
determining point load strength,” International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1984.
[27] Environment Agency, The Regulation of the Use of Unbound Pulverised Fuel Ash and
Furnace Bottom Ash, Environment Agency, 2014.
[28] The Highways Agency, “HD 41/03 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Maintenanve of
Highway Geotechnical Assets,” The Highways Agency, 2003.

10 GLOSSARY
Abbreviation Meaning
AOD Above Ordnance Datum
ACEC Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete
bgl Below Ground Level
BS British Standard
BGS British Geological Survey
BRE Building Research Establishment
CCG CC Ground Investigations (Ltd)
CFA Continuous-Flight Auger
CIRIA Construction Industry Research Information Association
CRT Canal and River Trust
cu Undrained Shear Strength
C0 Uniaxial Compressive Strength
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
EA Environment Agency
EC7 Eurocode 7
Er Energy Ratio
Eu Young’s Modulus
E’ Drained Young’s Modulus
GI Ground Investigation
GIR Ground Investigation Report
HE Highways England
Is50 Point Load Strength Index
kN Kilonewton
l Litre
LL Liquid Limit

Abbreviation Meaning
m Metre
mm Millimetre
MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside
mg Milligrams
MN Meganewton
mv Coefficient of Volume Compressibility
N Standard Penetration Resistance
N60 Standard Penetration Resistance adjusted to a reference energy ratio of 60%
N300 Standard Penetration Resistance corrected to 300mm drive
NMC Natural Moisture Content
OS Ordnance Survey
PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash
PI Plasticity Index
PL Plastic Limit
PSD Particle Size Distribution
PSSR Preliminary Sources Study Report
RAMS Risk Assessments and Method Statements
SCC Staffordshire County Council
SGE Shepherd Gilmore Environment Limited
SPT Standard Penetration Test
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TPH-CWG Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon - Criteria Working Group
v Poisson’s Ratio
WAC Waste Acceptance Criteria
Φ’ Critical State Effective Angle of Shearing Resistance

11 FIGURES
Figure Number Title
1 Site Location Maps
2 Superficial and Bedrock Geology
3 BGS Bore Hole Locations
4 Flood Risk Zones
5 Moisture Content, Plastic Limit and Liquid Limit vs. Depth – All Strata
6 Particle Size Distribution – All Strata
7 Atterberg Line Plot – All Strata
8 SPT ‘N’ Value vs. Depth Down-hole – All Strata
9 cu vs. Depth Down-hole – All Strata
10 mv vs. Depth Down-hole – All Strata

Burton Upon Trent Branston Locks Development Phase 1: Site Access
Phase 1 Site
Branston Locks
Development
Site Boundary
Branston Locks Development Site
Phase 1 Site
Report
Project: Brantson Locks Development: Phase 1 CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001
Reference:
Figure
Report: Ground Investigation Report Figure 01
Reference:
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of H.M.
Title: Site Location Maps Stationery Office © Crown copyright reserved. Licence no. 100033905
N
Branston Locks Development Site
Phase 1 Access Site
Source : BGS Geoindex
Project: Brantson Locks Development: Phase 1
Report: Ground Investigation Report
Title: Superficial and Bedrock Geology
Report CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620- Figure

Figure 2
Reference GIR-001 Reference
N
Phase 1 Access
Source : British Geological Survey [Ref 6]
Project: Brantson Locks Development: Phase 1
Title: BGS Borehole locations
Report CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620- Figure

Figure 3
Reference GIR Referece:
Flooding Risk from Surface Water Flooding Risk from Rivers & Seas
Chance of flooding/year Chance of flooding/year

greater than 1 in 30 greater than 1 in 30
1 in 100 to 1 in 30 1 in 100 to 1 in 30
1 in 1000 to 1 in 100 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100
less than 1 in 1000 less than 1 in 1000
Report
Project: Brantson Locks Development: Phase 1 CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001
Reference:
Figure
Report: Ground Investigation Report Figure 4
Reference:
Title: Flood Risk Zones
MC, PL and LL vs. Depth - All Strata
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
Depth (m AOD)
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content (%)
Made Ground MC Made Ground LL Made Ground PL
Granular Fill MC Cohesive Fill MC Cohesive Fill LL
Cohesive Fill PL River Terrace Deposits MC River Terrace Deposits LL
River Terrace Deposits PL Weathered Mercia Mudstone Formation MC Weathered Mercia Mudstone Formation LL
Weathered Mercia Mudstone Formation PL
Project: Branston Locks Development Phase 1
Title: Moisture Content, Plastic Limit and Liquid Limit vs. Depth - All Strata
Report
CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-001 Figure 5
Reference:
Particle Size Distribution - All Strata
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200
fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

CLAY COBBLES
SILT SAND GRAVEL
Particle Size (mm)
Cohesive Fill Granular Fill
Made Ground River Terrace Deposit
Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade IVa Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade III
Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade II
Title: Particle Size Distribution - All Strata
Report Figure
Reference: Reference:
60
CL CI CH CV
50
40
Plasticity Index(%)
30
20
10
ML MI MH MV
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (%)

Aline Cohesive Fill (Av) Cohesive Fill Made Ground River Terrace Deposit (Av)
River Terrace Deposit Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade IVa Mercia Mudstone all Grades (Av) Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade III Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade II
Title: Atterberg Line Plot - All Strata

Report Figure
SPT N value vs. Depth- All Strata
53
52
51
50
Cohesive Fill
49
47.84m SPT N = 500
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
Depth (m AOD)
40
39
38
37
36
Mercia Mudston G II
35 34.4m SPT N = 750
34
33
32
31
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
SPT N values
NOTES: - SPT derived Mass Shear Strength from Stroud c = f1*N (f1 = 5.5 - 5.8)
Cohesive Fill RTD
- HV Mass Shear Strength values limited to 120 kPa
Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade II
Title: SPT N Value vs. Depth Down-hole - All Strata
Report Figure
cu value vs. Depth- All Strata
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
Depth (m AOD)
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cu (kPa)
Cohesive Fill
RTD- HV Mass Shear Strength values limited to 120 kPa
Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade IVa
Mercia Mudstone Weathering Grade III
Title: cu vs. Depth Down-hole - All Strata
Report Figure
mv value vs. Depth- All Strata
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
Depth (m AOD)
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Mv values
- HV Mass Shear Strength values limited to 120 kPa
Cohesive Fill RTD

Title: mv vs. Depth Down-hole - All Strata
Report Figure
12 DRAWINGS
Drawing Number Title
COSTCDX8620-GEO-001 Branston Locks Development: Site Location Plan
COSTCDX8620-GEO-002 Branston Locks Development: Exploratory Hole Location Plan
COSTCDX8620-GEO-003 Branston Locks Development: Geological Cross-Section

100
F
Revision Drawing No.
NOTES
61 45
0.0 0.0
00 00
1. Phase Extents are approximate, they should be

60
0.0 44
0.0
used for guidance and site location purposes only.
00 00
59 43
0.0 0.0
00 00
58
2.4
38
580 42
0.0
.00 00
0
41
0.0
00
570.000
50
560.
000
40
0.0
00
Site Location
40
39
0.0
00
4
0. 0500
0.0
55
30
38
0.0
00
00
0.0
54
LEGEND
20
37
0.0
00
00
0.0
53
18
3.9
10
52 36
0.0
00
0
.00
520
Site Location
35
0.0
00
0
510.000
34
0.0
00 Approximate Extents of
A1
49
500
.000
Phase One Works
6.3
02
33
0.0
00
49
0.0
00
32
0.0
00 Approximate Extents of
48
0.0
00 Phase Three Works
31
0.0
00
47
0.0
00
30
0.0
00
46
0.0
00
45
7.9
08
29
0.0
00
450
.00
0
28
0.0
00
440.000
27
0.0
00
430.0
00
26
0.0
00
420.000
25
0.0
00
24
410.000 0.0
00
23
0.0
00
400.000
22
0.0
00
0
390.00
21
0.0
00
00
380.0
20
1.2
20 08
0.0
00
000
370.
19
0.0
00
360.000
18
0.00
0
.000 17
350
0.
00
0
Trim to this line for A1
16
0 0.
.00 00
340 0
5
00
.90
335
0.0
15
0.
000
00
0
10.
0
.00
330
000
20.
14
0.
000
00
0
30.
671
00
0.0
40.000
36.
32
0
13
50.00
0.
00
60.000
0
80.000
70.000
0.000
00
0.0
12
31
1.
76
12
4
0.
00
0
\\idhrs001\Consdata\RailData\Projects\IDH - Geotechnical Projects\Staffordshire Infrastructure+\Branston Locks Development\CAD\WIP\1 Live Drgs\COSTCDX8620-GEO-001.dwg
10.000
11
00 0.
0.0 00
30 0
17.854
10
0.
20.000 00 00
0.0 0
29
90
.0
0 00
30.00 0.00
28
0
80
0 .00
00 0
By
0.
Rev Date Detail

.0
40 27
00
0 70
.00
50
00
50
0. 0
.0.100
Revisions
26
21
60
.000
0
00
0. 60
25 .00
0
70
.000
0
00
0.
24
50
.00
80
0
.000
0
00
0.
23
89
.478
40
.00
0
0
00
0.
22
0
00
30.00
0.
0
21
13
9.
07
7
0
0.00
20
13
20.00
1.40 0
13
0
0.00
The Built County - Highways
6
00
0.0
19
98
6.8
12
18
0.0
1 Staffordshire Place
117
00
00
.40
0.0
10.00
6
18
0
11
0.0
C/O Wedgwood Building,

00
00
0.0
17
10
Tipping Street
0.
00
00
72
0.0
0
0.0
00
9.6
16
15
Stafford, ST16 2DH

0
91
.00
90 .2
20
150
.0
00
0
86
.00
.0
140
15
.000
80
.000
130
.000
120
Phase One
70
000
.00
67
0
110.
Branston Lock
0.000
.29
00
10.000
9
100.0
20.000
60.0
23.066
30.000
90.000
40.000
00
47.631
50.000
80.664
80.000
45
.37
70.000
42
3
.21
40
60.000
6
.00
50.000
0
0.000
Development
40.000
30.000
10.000
13.620
20.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
Site Location Plan
Prepared Produced Checked Scale
IT NM TB 1:1000
Grid Reference
SK2221
Date Size
21.09.15 A1
Drawing No. Revision
Phase Three
A1
COSTCDX8620-GEO-001 P1
Status
. Preliminary
P1
COSTCDX8620-GEO-002
100

NOTES
1. Borehole locations are accurate to six significant
figures as shown in the Borehole Location Table
below.
N
50
LEGEND
40
Combined Cable Percussive

30
and Rotary Boreholes
Window Sample Holes

20
Inspection Pits
10
A
003
A
003
Section Marker
0
A1
00
A
3
Borehole Location Table
Ground
Easting Northing
Hole ID Level
(x) (y)
(mAOD)
P1-BH01 421714 321402 47.54
P1-BH01A 421719 321397 48.16
P1-BH02 421733 321371 47.76
P1-WS01 421614 321430 47.41
P1-WS02 421649 321514 47.77
P1-WS03 421677 321445 47.54
P1-WS04 421787 321350 48.08
P1-WS05 421826 321413 47.87
P1-WS06 421841 321335 52.58
P1-HP01 421903 321329 48.08
\\IDHRS001\ConsData\RailData\Projects\IDH - Geotechnical Projects\Staffordshire Infrastructure+\Branston Locks Development\CAD\WIP\1 Live Drgs\COSTCDX8620-GEO-002 & 003.dwg
P1 27.11.15 For Issue NM

Rev Date Detail By
Revisions

Tipping Street
Stafford, ST16 2DH
Branston Lock
Development
Exploratory Hole
Location Plan
00
A
3
IT NM TB 1:500
Grid Reference
SK2221
Date Size
27.11.15 A1
002
COSTCDX8620-GEO-002
P1
Status
. SHARED
P1
COSTCDX8620-GEO-003
100

NOTES
1. For details of Weathering grades for Mercia
Mudstone, refer to Section 6.5 of the Ground
Investigation Report:
CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001.
2. Borehole strips are horizontally exaggerated for
better visibility.
50
LEGEND
40
Combined Cable Percussive

30
and Rotary Boreholes
Window Sample Holes

20
Inspection Pits
10
0
A1
LEGEND
Made Ground
Granular Fill
Cohesive Fill
River Terrace Deposits
Weathered Mercia Mudstone

(Grade IV)
Ground Water Encountered

\\IDHRS001\ConsData\RailData\Projects\IDH - Geotechnical Projects\Staffordshire Infrastructure+\Branston Locks Development\CAD\WIP\1 Live Drgs\COSTCDX8620-GEO-002 & 003.dwg
P1 06.01.16 For Issue NM

Rev Date Detail By
Revisions

Tipping Street
Stafford, ST16 2DH
Branston Lock
Development
Geological Long Section
IT NM TB 1:500
Grid Reference
SK2221
Date Size
27.11.15 A1
003
COSTCDX8620-GEO-003
P1
Status
. SHARED
Appendix A Shepherd Gilmore Environment

Limited: Report no. R0017 DH
ME1072 borehole locations &
extracts
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- A.1 - Issued: February 2016

Appendix B CC Ground Investigation Ltd:

Factual Ground Investigation
Report
Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- B.2 - Issued: February 2016

FACTUAL REPORT

SITE: Branston Lock Development

CLIENT: Staffordshire County Council / Nurton Development
(Quintus) LTD

ORDER No: 48000040114/006

DATE: 07 January 2016

REPORT No: C4877

CC Ground Investigations Ltd Report C4877

CONTENTS
REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGY 3
2.1 Site Description 3
2.2 Geology 3
3. GROUND INVESTIGATION 4
3.1 Fieldwork 4
3.2 In Situ Testing 6
3.3 Logging 6
3.4 Laboratory Testing 7
4. REFERENCES 9

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site Plan
Appendix B – Exploratory Hole Data
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – SPT Calibration Data

1. INTRODUCTION

This investigation was carried out by CC Ground Investigations Ltd (CCGI) on the
instruction and on behalf of Staffordshire County Council / Nurton Development
(Quintus) LTD (The Client) under the technical direction of Amey OWR Limited.

The purpose of the ground investigation was to provide information to assist in the
design of Branston Locks Development Phase 1; a new access route from the A38
roundabout, canal bridge and roads in to the Branston Locks Development.

The scope of the ground investigation was defined in the Engineer’s specification,
reference: Ground Investigation Specification Staffordshire County council‐
Branston Locks Development (CON‐GE‐BHAM‐COSTCDX8620‐GI‐001‐Revision 0).

This report describes the work carried out by CC Ground Investigations Ltd and
presents the findings.

All information, comments and opinions given in this report are based on the
ground conditions encountered during the site work, and on the results of
laboratory and field tests performed during the investigation. There may however
be conditions at or adjacent to the site which have not been taken into account,
such as unpredictable soil strata and water conditions between or below
exploratory holes. A careful watch should be maintained during any future
groundworks and the comments of this report reviewed as necessary.

This report has been prepared for Staffordshire County Council / Nurton
Development (Quintus) LTD and Amey OWR Limited. This report shall not be
Page 1
relied upon or transferred to other parties without the written consent of CC
Ground Investigations Ltd. Should any information contained within this report
be used by any unauthorised third party it is done so at their own risk and shall
not be the responsibility of CC Ground Investigations Ltd.

Page 2
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGY

2.1 Site Description

The area of investigation comprises a small residential area and local nature
reserve, North of Branston Road with the land currently used for agricultural
purposes, which consists of predominantly open fields at, nearest postcode DE14
3EZ. The site is centred on the approximate National Grid Reference SK 21705
21302.

2.2 Geology

Geological Records (British Geological Survey (BGS), England and Wales sheet 140
Burton upon Trent 1:50,000 scale) indicate the site is underlain by superficial
deposits of Holme Pierrepont Sand and Gravel Member, part of the Trent Valley
Formation. Underlying solid geology comprising mudstones of the Mercia
Mudstone Group is recorded.

Page 3
3. GROUND INVESTIGATION

3.1 Fieldwork

Ten exploratory holes were carried out between 12th and 17th of November 2015.
All exploratory hole locations are shown on the site plan (Appendix A). The
exploratory hole locations were set out by CCGI as directed by the Client on site.

The fieldwork was carried out in general accordance with BS5930, Amendment 2
(2010).

The boreholes, referenced P1‐BH01, P1‐BH01A and P1‐BH02 (Exploratory Hole Data
– Appendix B) were formed using a track mounted Comacchio MC300 multi
purpose rig. Following CAT scanning hand tools were used to excavate an
inspection pit to a maximum depth of 1.20m to check for buried services. Bulk and
environmental soil samples were taken and retained from the inspection pits. The
boreholes were then advanced using percussive sampling techniques to produce
continuous disturbed samples ranging between 112mm and 98mm diameter.

On refusal of percussive sampling the boreholes were continued by rotary core
drilling techniques utilising a water/polymer flush. A double‐tube swivel core barrel
with a semi‐rigid plastic liner was utilised to recover continuous cores of 91mm
diameter.

Undisturbed samples of 100mm nominal diameter were taken in suitable cohesive
material using an open drive sampler U(T)100. The samples were wax sealed on site
to prevent moisture loss.
Page 4
The boreholes, referenced P1‐WS01 to P1‐WS06 (Exploratory Hole Data – Appendix
B) were formed using a track mounted Terrier drilling rig. Following CAT scanning
hand tools were used to excavate an inspection pit to a maximum depth of 1.20m
to check for buried services. Bulk and environmental soil samples were taken and
retained from the inspection pits. The boreholes were then advanced using
percussive sampling techniques to produce continuous disturbed samples ranging
between 83mm and 71mm diameter.

Soil samples were retained in semi‐rigid plastic liners, which were capped on site to
prevent moisture loss.

Boreholes were monitored for groundwater ingress as they were advanced. Upon
encountering water, sampling was temporarily stopped to allow the level to
stabilise. Water levels were also recorded at the start and finish of each shift, on
completion of the borehole and are presented on the relevant log.

On completion, a gas/water monitoring standpipes was installed in P1‐BH01. Each
installation consisted of a 50mm ID HDPE slotted tube set in a filter response zone
of limestone free gravel. The installation was sealed above and below with a
bentonite pellet seal and accessed via a valve assembly. The installation was
protected at the surface by a lockable stopcock cover set in concrete. Installation
details are given on the relevant borehole log.

The inspection pits, referenced P1‐BH01A and P1‐HP01 (Exploratory Hole Data –
Appendix B) were undertaken to provide further information in close proximity to
the existing embankment and canal towpath. Representative bulk disturbed and
environmental soil samples were taken at a range of depths.
Page 5
On completion, all remaining positions were backfilled with bentonite pellets and
arisings with the surface reinstated.

Subsequent to fieldwork, all exploratory hole positions were surveyed and National
Grid co‐ordinates and levels are presented on the relevant log.

On completion of fieldwork all samples were brought to CCGI’s office for storage.

3.2 In Situ Testing

Standard penetration tests (SPT) were carried out in general accordance with BS EN
ISO 22476‐3:2005. A split barrel or a solid cone was used depending upon the
materials encountered and the split barrel samples retained as small disturbed
samples. The SPT N value was taken as the number of blows to penetrate the
300mm test drive following a 150mm seating drive. Where low penetration was
recorded the seating drive was terminated at 25 blows and the test drive
completed after a further 50 blows. SPT results are summarised as uncorrected N
values on the borehole logs and . SPT hammer calibration data is presented in
Appendix D.

3.3 Logging

Soil and rock samples from the exploratory holes were logged by an Engineering
Geologist in general accordance with BS5930, Amendment 2 (2010). Bulk, small
disturbed, core and environmental soil samples were taken retained at a range of
depths. Environmental soil samples were stored on site in temperature controlled
conditions. Soil and rock descriptions are presented in the borehole logs together
Page 6
with details of sampling, in situ testing and relevant comments on drilling
techniques.

Prior to logging photographs of the samples were taken and are presented
following the relevant log.

3.4 Laboratory Testing

The following laboratory tests were carried out by Professional Soils Laboratory
(UKAS No. 4043) in accordance with BS1377:1990, Parts 1 to 8, unless otherwise
stated. The results are presented in Appendix C.

Test Type No. of Tests Remarks
The results are shown on the
Natural Moisture Content 24
summary of soil classification tests.
The results are shown on the
Liquid and Plastic Limits 11 plasticity chart and summary of soil
classification tests.
The fine fractions of 12 of these tests
Particle Size Distribution (wet sieving
19 were further analysed using the
method)
pipette method.
One Dimensional Consolidation 1
Multi‐stage Quick Undrained Triaxial Carried out on a full diameter UT100
1
Test sample.
Point Load Strength 3 ISRM RTH 325‐89 SR12
Testing carried out by Chemical
BRE SD1 chemical testing suite for soil
6 Testing Laboratories in accordance
and water
with BRE Special Digest 1.

Page 7
A range of chemical tests were carried out on soil and water samples by i2
Analytical (UKAS No. 4041). Testing was carried out in accordance with ISO 17025.
The results are tabulated and presented in Appendix C.

CC GROUND INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED
Mike Atherton BSc (Hons) FGS Rob Clarke. BSc (Hons) MSc (Eng) FGS
Senior Engineering Geologist Director
Page 8
4. REFERENCES
British Geological Society, Solid and Drift Sheet 140, Burton Upon Trent, 1:50,000 scale
BRE Special Digest 1:2003: Concrete in aggressive ground. Part 1.
BS 5930+A2:1999 (2010), Code of Practice for Site Investigations
BS 1377: Parts 1 to 9 (1990), Methods of Tests of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes
BS EN ISO 14688: Part 1: (2002), Identification and description of soil.
BS EN ISO 14688: Part 2: (2004), Principles for a classification of soil.
BS EN ISO 14689: Part 1: (2003), Identification and description.
BS EN ISO 22475: Part 1: (2006), Technical principles for execution.
BS EN ISO 22476: Part 3: (2005), Standard penetration test.
ISRM RTH 325‐89 SR12, Suggested Method for Determining Point Load Strength.

Page 9

APPENDIX A

Appendix A – Site Plan

Notes:
Reproduced from base plan
provided by Engineer
Site Layout Plan
Branston Lock Development
Staffordshire County Council
Appendix A
Contract No: C4877
Drawn by: Scale:
MA NTS

APPENDIX B

Appendix B – Exploratory Hole Data

CC Ground Investigations Ltd
KEY TO EXPLORATORY HOLE LOGS
Logging
The logging of soils and rocks has been carried out in general accordance with BS 5930:1999 (Amendment No.2, 2010).
Sample no/type
C Core run / sample

X Dynamic sample
D Small disturbed sample
B Large disturbed sample
U Undisturbed sample
UT Thin walled undisturbed sample
W Water sample
ES Environmental
SPT Standard Penetration Test carried out
CPT Solid Cone Penetration Test carried out
Water levels
Initial Water Strike Level after monitoring 3.00m Standing Level
Insitu Tests
S 30 Split spoon sampler (SPT) followed by N Value (EN ISO 22476-3:2005)

C 30 Solid cone (CPT) followed by N Value (EN ISO 22476-3:2005)
*240 Where full test drive not completed, linearly extrapolated N value reported.
** No effective penetration
H 30 Hand Vane – direct reading in kPa. Re* denotes refusal (i.e. >140 kPa)
Sample range
Undisturbed sample C Core run U(T)100 Rotary core sub-

Undisturbed sample
Installation Details sample
Porous Tip Screened Standpipe Bentonite seal
Plain standpipe Granular response zone Concrete
Grout Arisings backfill

CC GROUND INVESTIGATIONS LTD
Borehole No.
ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG P1-BH01

Telephone: 01452 739165 , Fax: 01452 739220 , Email: info@ccground.co.uk Sheet 1 of 3
Project Name: Branston Lock Development Project No: Hole Type
Co-ords: E 421714 N 321402
C4877 DS+RC
Location: Burton on Trent Scale
Level: 47.54mAOD 1 : 50.00
Client: Staffordshire County Council / Nurton Development Start: 12/11/2015 Logged By
(Quintus) LTD Dates:
End: 17/11/2015 DP
Core TCR
Water Core Run, Samples & Testing Depth Level
(m) Run & SCR Install Description Legend
Levels No/Type Depth (m) Result Sample RQD (m) (mAD)
MADE GROUND: Grass over brown slightly sandy clayey
B 0.10 GRAVEL with frequent roots and rootlets (<2mm). Gravel
ES 0.30 is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous 0.30 47.24
B material, siltstone and 1 no. metal fragment (<50mm). 0.50 47.04
ES 0.50
B Soft brown and orangish brown slightly gravelly sandy
ES CLAY with rare roots and rootlets (<1mm). Gravel is 0.85 46.69
Seepage sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous
1 B 1.00 1
material and siltstone.
ES Soft brown and dark grey locally black clayey very (0.65)
1.20 - 1.65 S 26
SPT gravelly SAND with a slight organic odour. Gravel is
B 1.50 - 2.20 sub-angular to sub-rounded fine to coarse of siliceous 1.50 46.04
Light grey and grey slightly clayey gravelly SAND. Gravel
2 is sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous (0.95) 2
SPT 2.20 - 2.65 S 30 1.20-1.50m: Locally very gravelly.
1.20-1.50m: Medium dense.
B 2.45 - 3.20 2.45 45.09
Light grey and grey slightly clayey slightly gravelly SAND.
Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to medium of
siliceous material.
3 2.20-2.65m: Medium dense to dense. 3
Grey and light grey locally mottled brown and off white
SPT 3.20 - 3.64 S*52 very clayey very sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content.
Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of
D 3.50 - 3.70 siliceous material, siltstone and sandstone. Cobbles are (2.25)
rounded of siliceous material.
D 3.70 - 3.90 3.20-3.64m: Very dense.
4 3.70-3.90m: Brown locally bluish grey clayey sandy 4
D 4.00 - 4.20 gravel.
CPT 4.20 - 4.65 C 18 4.00-4.20m: Very sandy.
4.50-4.70m: Slightly sandy.
B 4.70 - 5.20 4.70 42.84
Firm indistinctly thinly laminated brown and reddish
brown slightly sandy silty CLAY with rare light bluish grey
5 mottle (<10mm). 5
UT100 5.20 - 5.65
(1.50)
5.50-6.20m: Locally friable.
D 5.65 - 5.75
6 6
B 6.20 - 6.70 6.20 41.34
Very stiff indistinctly thinly laminated brown and reddish
brown slightly sandy silty CLAY with rare bluish grey
mottling (<10mm).
6.20-6.80m: Locally gravelly. Gravel is sub-angular fine
SPT 6.70 - 7.15 S 34
to coarse of extremely weak mudstone lithorelicts.
7 B 7.00 - 7.90 7
(3.00)
8 8
CC ROTARY LOG C4877.GPJ GINT STD AGS 3_1.GDT 7/1/16
REMARKS:
EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Comacchio MC300 multi purpose track mounted rig.
METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Continuous dynamic sampled (128mm and 113mm diam) 1.20-7.90m. Waterflush rotary coring using T6-116 core
barrel 7.90-16.20m.
CASING: SW diam to 1.50m, PW diam to 5.30m.
GROUNDWATER: Seepage at 0.90m. No rise recorded.
INSTALLATION: 50mm ID HDPE slotted pipe with washed gravel response zone: 1.00-16.00m, plain pipe with bentonite pellet seal: 0.20-1.00m, flush 150mm steel
cover set in concrete 0.00-0.20m. Gas valve fitted.
Groundwater: Seepage Hole Progress:

Date Strike Depth Casing Depth Depth After Date Hole Depth Casing Depth Water Depth
(m) (m) Observation (m) (m) (m) (m)
12/11/15 0.90 Nil 0.90 12/11/2015 3.20 3.20 0.00
13/11/2015 3.20 3.20 2.30
13/11/2015 7.90 5.30 1.90
16/11/2015 7.90 5.30 2.30
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421714 N 321402
C4877 DS+RC
Level: 47.54mAOD 1 : 50.00
End: 17/11/2015 DP
Core TCR
C 7.90 - 8.70 S*63 28% 7.90-8.40m: Limited recovery.
SPT 7.90 - 8.29 0% 7.90-8.29m: Very stiff to hard.
0% Very stiff indistinctly thinly laminated brown and reddish
brown slightly sandy silty CLAY with rare bluish grey
mottling (<10mm). (continued from previous sheet)
C 8.70 - 10.20 S*71 78% 8.70-9.06m: Hard.
SPT 8.70 - 9.06 0%
9 0% 9
9.20 38.34
Very stiff thinly laminated reddish brown slightly sandy
slightly gravelly silty CLAY with occasional thick
B 9.50 - 10.20 laminations of extremely weak mudstone (<15mm) and
rare light bluish grey mottling (<5mm). Gravel is angular
to sub-angular fine to coarse lof extremely weak (1.15)
10 mudstone lithorelicts. 10
C 10.20 - 11.70 C*71 89% 10.20-10.56m: Hard.
CPT 10.20 - 10.56 2% 10.35 37.19
Very stiff thinly laminated reddish brown slightly sandy
0%
gravelly CLAY with occasional thick laminations of
extremely weak mudstone (<20mm). Gravel is angular to
sub-angular fine to coarse of extremely weak mudstone
11 lithorelicts. 11
B 11.00 - 11.70
10.80m: Very thin bed of weak mudstone (<30mm). Non
(1.70)
intact.
10.90-11.00m: Thin bed of weak mudstone with
extremely closely to very closely spaced discontinuities.
11.20-11.25m: Very thin bed of weak mudstone with
C 11.70 - 13.20 C*54 100% extremely closely spaced discontinuities.
CPT 11.70 - 12.12 5%
11.80-12.00m: Occasional veins of light grey horizontal
12 0% 12.05 35.49 12
C 12.03 - 12.10 gypsum (<5mm).
B 12.20 - 12.90 Extremely weak thinly laminated reddish brown
MUDSTONE with rare light bluish grey mottling (<2mm)
and locally tending to a stiff clay with occasional
extremely weak sub-angular fine to coarse gravel sized
mudstone lithorelicts. Discontinuities are randomly
13 orientated extremely closely to very closely spaced 13
undulating rough and smooth.
C 13.20 - 14.00 C*750 100% 12.05-12.20m: Weak. Very closely space discontinuities. (2.35)
CPT 13.20 - 13.35 0% 12.25-12.70m: Occasional horizontal light grey gypsum
B 13.50 - 14.00 0% veins (<5mm).
13.00m: Horizontal light grey gypsum vein (<40mm).
13.20-13.40m: Weak. Non-intact.
14 C 14.00 - 14.70 14
95% 13.40-14.00m: Tending to firm gravelly clay. Gravel is
41% sub-angular fine to coarse of extremely weak mudstone
0% lithorelicts. 14.40 33.14
13.75-14.00m: Vertical light grey gypsum vein (<2mm
thick).
C 14.65 - 14.70 C*150 14.00-14.40m: Non-intact. Possibly drilling induced.
98% (0.75)
C 14.70 - 16.20 52%
CPT 14.70 - 14.89 Extremely weak thinly laminated reddish brown
15 14% MUDSTONE. Discontinuities are horizontal and 15
C 15.08 - 15.20 sub-horizontal very closely to closely spaced undulating 15.15 32.39
rough and smooth. (0.45)
14.40-14.45m: Vertical discontinuity.
14.50-14.52m: Non-intact. 15.60 31.94
14.65-14.70m: Horizontal off-white gypsum vein.
14.70-14.85m: Locally bluish grey. (0.60)
16 14.90-15.15m: Vertical off-white gypsum vein (<20mm 16
C 16.10 - 16.20 thick). 16.20 31.34

CPT 16.20 - 16.34 C*158 15.00-15.15m: Weak with closely spaced discontinuities.
Extremely weak thinly laminated reddish brown locally
bluish grey and light grey MUDSTONE with occasional
sub-horizontal and sub-vertical gypsum veins (<5mm)
and tending to a stiff clay with occasional extremely weak
17 sub-angular fine to coarse gravel sized mudstone 17
lithorelicts. Discontinuities are randomly orientated
extremely closely spaced planar smooth and rough.
Weak indistinctly thinly laminated reddish brown locally
bluish grey and light grey MUDSTONE with occasional
16/11/2015 14.00 5.30 2.70
17/11/2015 14.00 5.30 2.40
17/11/2015 16.20 5.30 2.47
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421714 N 321402
C4877 DS+RC
Level: 47.54mAOD 1 : 50.00
End: 17/11/2015 DP
Core TCR
horizontal gypsum veins (<2mm). Discontinuities are
horizontal and sub-horizontal very closely to closely
18 spaced undulating smooth and rough. 18
15.60-15.65m: Sub-vertical discontinuity.
15.85m: Sub-vertical discontinuity (<30mm).
15.87-15.90m: Non-intact.
Borehole completed at 16.20m
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27

Core Photograph
Contract ID: C4877 Borehole ID: P1 BH01
Contract Name: Branson Locks Box No: 1

Staffordshire County
Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 1.20m – 3.20m
Core Photograph

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 3.20m – 5.20m
Core Photograph

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 5.20m – 8.20m
Core Photograph

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 7.90m – 11.70m
Core Photograph

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 11.70‐14.70m
Core Photograph

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 14.70m – 16.20m
Pit No
INSPECTION PIT LOG P1-BH01A

Project Name: Branston Lock Development Project No: Co-ords: E 421719 N 321397 Date
C4877 Level: 48.16mAOD 12/11/2015
Location: Burton on Trent Dimensions: 0.30m Scale
Depth 1 : 12.5
0.30m
Client: Staffordshire County Council / Nurton Development 0.75m Logged By
(Quintus) LTD DP
Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level
(m) Description Legend
Levels No/Type Depth (m) Result (m) (mAD)
FILL: Grass over soft grey and brown slightly gravelly sandy CLAY with frequent
roots and rootlets (<2mm). Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of
concrete, sandstone and siliceous material. (0.15)
0.15 48.01
FILL: Brown slightly clayey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine
B 0.20 to coarse of siliceous material, siltstone, brick, concrete and porcelain.
ES
(0.30)
0.45 47.71
FILL: Brown and dark brown silty very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-angular to
B 0.50 rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material, brick and siltstone.
ES
(0.30)
B 0.70 0.70-0.75m: Locally brown and orangish brown. Locally sandy.

Dry ES 0.75 47.41
Inspection pit completed at 0.75m
1 1
2 2
CC INS PIT LOG C4877.GPJ GINT STD AGS 3_1.GDT 7/1/16
REMARKS:
EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools.
METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-0.75m.
GROUNDWATER: Not encountered.
BACKFILL: Upon completion hole backfilled with bentonite pellets 0.00-0.75m and the ground surface reinstated.
REMARKS: Terminated on engineer's instruction.
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421733 N 321371
C4877 DS+RC
Level: 47.76mAOD 1 : 50.00
End: 19/11/2015 DP
Core TCR
MADE GROUND: Grass over soft dark brown slightly
B 0.20 sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional roots and rootlets
ES (<2mm) and low cobble content. Gravel is angular to 0.35 47.41
rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material, clinker, slag
B 0.50 (0.50)
and wood fragments (<30mm). Cobbles are sub-angular
ES 0.70 of brick.
B 0.85 46.91
B 0.90 MADE GROUND: Soft friable grey and greyish brown
1 1
ES slightly gravelly sandy silty CLAY with rare roots and 1.10 46.66
1.10 rootlets (<2mm) and low cobble content. Gravel is
B 1.20 - 1.65 S 38
SPT angular to rounded fine to coarse of glass, brick,
siliceous material, slag, slate and porcelain. Cobbles are (0.75)
B 1.55 - 1.85 sub-angular of siliceous material.
0.70-0.85m: Locally gravelly.
B 1.85 - 2.20 1.85 45.91
Brown and orangish brown clayey sandy GRAVEL.
2 2
Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse of
B 2.20 - 2.75 C 47 siliceous material, sandstone and mudstone. 2.20 45.56
CPT 2.20 - 2.65 Dense brown and orangish brown locally orange slightly
clayey sandy locally very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is
sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous (1.00)
B 2.75 - 3.20 material and sandstone.
1.55-1.85m: Brown and reddish brown.
3 3
Brown and light reddish brown slightly clayey gravelly
SAND. Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of 3.20 44.56
siliceous material, siltstone and sandstone.
Dense brown slightly clayey very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel
is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous
material and sandstone.
4 2.20-2.75m: Recovered as slightly sandy gravel. 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
REMARKS:
EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Comacchio MC300 multi purpose track mounted rig.
METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Continuous dynamic sampled (128mm diam) 1.20-2.20m, (113mm diam) 2.20-3.20m.
CASING: SW diam to 1.30m, PW diam to 2.20m.
GROUNDWATER: None encountered prior to the use of a water flush.
Groundwater: Hole Progress:

18/11/2015 3.20 2.20 0.00
Core Photograph

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Depth: 1.20‐3.20m
Borehole No.
WINDOW SAMPLE LOG P1-WS01

Co-ords: E 421614 N 321430
C4877 WS
Level: 47.41mAOD 1 : 31.25
End: 16/11/2015 DP
(m) Sample Install Description Legend
Grass over soft brown and greyish brown slightly sandy slightly
B 0.10 gravelly CLAY with occasional roots and rootlets (<1mm).
B 0.20 Gravel is sub-angular to sub-rounded fine to coarse of siliceous (0.45)
ES material.
0.00-0.20m: Locally orangish brown.
0.45 46.96
Light grey and brownish grey locally orangish brown slightly
B 0.50
clayey very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-angular to rounded (0.30)
ES
fine to coarse of siliceous material, siltstone and sandstone.
0.75 46.66
Medium dense grey and light greyish brown slightly clayey
sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to
1 coarse of siliceous material, siltstone and sandstone. 1
B 1.00
ES
SPT 1.20 - 1.65 S 17
D 1.40 - 1.55 1.40-1.55m: Slightly sandy.
1.80-2.00m: Slightly clayey gravelly sand. (2.25)

2 B 2.00 - 2.50 S 27 2
SPT 2.00 - 2.45
B 2.50 - 3.00 2.50-3.00m: Very sandy.
3 3.00 44.41 3
4 4
5 5
REMARKS:
CC WS LOG C4877.GPJ GINT STD AGS 3_1.GDT 7/1/16
EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Terrier 2002 track mounted rig.

METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Continuous disturbed sampling using 101mm diam sample barrel: 1.20-3.00m.
CASING: 113mm diam to 3.00m.
GROUNDWATER: Standing at 2.00m following SPT 2.00-2.45m. No rise recorded.
BACKFILL: Upon completion hole backfilled with arisings 2.30-3.00m and bentonite pellets 0.00-2.30m and the ground surface reinstated.
REMARKS: Sand "blowing" inside casing to 2.30m following sample run 2.00-3.00m

16/11/15 2.00 2.00 2.00 16/11/2015 3.00 3.00 2.00
Window Sample Photograph
Contract ID: C4877 Hole ID: P1 WS01
Contract Name: Branston Lock Depth: 1.20 – 3.00m

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421649 N 321514
C4877 WS
Level: 47.77mAOD 1 : 31.25
End: 16/11/2015 DP
Grass over soft dark brown locally light grey slightly sandy
gravelly CLAY with rare roots and rootlets (<1mm). Gravel is
B 0.20 sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material and
ES siltstone.
(0.70)
B 0.50
ES
B 0.70 0.70 47.07
Medium dense brown and orangish brown locally light grey and
ES orange slightly clayey sandy locally very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel
is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material,
1 B 1.00 siltstone and sandstone. 1
ES 1.00-1.20m: Locally clayey.
B 1.20 - 2.00 S 27 1.20m: 1 no. rounded cobble of siliceous material.
SPT 1.20 - 1.65
(1.50)
1.90m: 1 no. rounded cobble of siliceous material.

2 SPT 2.00 - 2.45 S 47 2
B 2.20 - 2.60 2.20 45.57

Medium dense light brown and light greyish brown slightly
clayey gravelly SAND. Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to
coarse of siliceous material and sandstone. (0.40)
B 2.60 - 3.00 2.60 45.17

Light brown and light greyish brown locally orange slightly clayey
sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content. Gravel is sub-rounded
to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material and siltstone. (0.40)
Cobbles are rounded of siliceous material and sandstone.
3 SPT 3.00 - 3.45 S 19 3.00 44.77 3
4 4
5 5
REMARKS:

GROUNDWATER: Standing at 2.50m following sample run 2.00-3.00m. No rise recorded.

16/11/15 2.50 2.00 2.50 16/11/2015 3.00 2.00 2.50

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421677 N 321445
C4877 WS
Level: 47.54mAOD 1 : 31.25
End: 16/11/2015 DP
Soft dark brown and brown clayey very gravelly SAND with rare
roots and rootlets (<1mm). Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine
(0.35)
B 0.20 to coarse of siliceous material and siltstone.
ES 0.35 47.19
B 0.35 Brown and orangish brown locally light grey and orange slightly
clayey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to
B 0.50 coarse of siliceous material, siltstone and sandstone.
ES 0.35-0.50m: Locally clayey.
(0.90)
1 B 1.00 1
1.00-1.20m: Locally very sandy.
ES
SPT 1.20 - 1.65 S 25 1.25 46.29
B 1.25 - 1.60 Medium dense light brown locally dark brown slightly clayey
SAND with occasional black partially decomposed organic
(0.35)
matter (<2mm).
B 1.60 - 2.00 1.60 45.94

Light brown locally light grey and reddish brown slightly clayey
sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse
of siliceous material, sandstone and siltstone.
1.90-2.00m: 1 no. cobble of sub-rounded siliceous material.
2 SPT 2.00 - 2.45 S 20 2
2.10-2.25m: Locally very sandy.
B 2.30 - 2.70 (1.40)

2.30-3.00m: Occasional black partially decomposed organic
matter (<1mm).
B 2.70 - 3.00 2.70-3.00m: Locally very sandy.
3 3.00m: 1 no. rounded cobble of siliceous material. 3.00 44.54 3

SPT 3.00 - 3.45 S 21
4 4
5 5
REMARKS:


16/11/15 2.20 2.00 2.20 16/11/2015 3.00 2.00 2.20

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421787 N 321350
C4877 WS
Level: 48.08mAOD 1 : 31.25
End: 17/11/2015 DP
MADE GROUND: Grass over soft brown slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY with occasional roots and rootlets (<1mm).
B 0.20 Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous (0.40)
ES material and wood fragments (<40mm).
0.05m: Red twine across pit (<5mm). 0.40 47.68
Orangish brown and brown clayey very sandy GRAVEL with rare
B 0.50 (0.30)
roots and rootlets (<1mm). Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded
ES
fine to coarse of siliceous material, siltstone and sandstone. 0.70 47.38
Orangish brown and orange slightly clayey sandy locally very
sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to
coarse of siliceous material, mudstone and sandstone.
1 B 1.00 1
ES
SPT 1.20 - 1.65 S 43 1.20-1.65m: Dense. (1.05)
B 1.35 - 1.65 1.35-1.65m: Light grey locally off white and purplish brown.
Sandy.
B 1.75 - 2.00 1.75 46.33

Orangish brown and light brown slightly clayey very sandy
GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-rounded to rounded fine to coarse of (0.25)
2 Dry siliceous material and sandstone. 2.00 46.08 2
CPT 2.00 - 2.29 C*79 Borehole completed at 2.00m
3 3
4 4
5 5
REMARKS:

CASING: None used.
REMARKS: Borehole collapsed to 1.20m following sample run 1.20-2.00m.
Groundwater: Dry Hole Progress:

16/11/2015 2.00 Nil Dry

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421826 N 321413
C4877 WS
Level: 47.87mAOD 1 : 31.25
End: 16/11/2015 DP
Grass over soft brown and dark brown slightly sandy gravelly
CLAY with frequent roots and rootlets (<2mm). Gravel is
B 0.20 sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material and (0.45)
ES siltstone.
0.45 47.42
Brown and orangish brown locally orange and light grey slightly
B 0.50 (0.25)
clayey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to
ES
coarse of siliceous material, sandstone and siltstone. 0.70 47.17
Orangish brown and orange slightly clayey sandy GRAVEL with
low cobble content. Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to
coarse of siliceous material, sandstone and siltstone. Cobbles
1 B 1.00 are sub-rounded of siliceous material. 1
ES 0.90-1.20m: Locally very sandy.
SPT 1.20 - 1.65 S 36 1.20-1.65m: Dense.
D 1.30 - 1.50 1.30-1.50m: Locally very sandy. (1.30)
B 1.50 - 2.00 1.50m: 1 no. granite fragment (<20mm).
2 SPT 2.00 - 2.38 S*61 2.00 45.87 2

3 3
4 4
5 5
REMARKS:

METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Continuous disturbed sampling using 101mm diam sample barrels: 1.20-2.00m.
CASING: None used.

16/11/15 2.35 2.00 2.35 16/11/2015 2.00 Nil 2.35

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Borehole No.

Co-ords: E 421841 N 321335
C4877 WS
Level: 52.58mAOD 1 : 31.25
End: 17/11/2015 DP
FILL: Black and dark brown slightly clayey slightly sandy
B 0.10 GRAVEL. Gravel is angular to sub-angular fine to coarse of 0.15 52.43
ES 0.20 clinker.
B FILL: Firm locally friable reddish brown and brown slightly sandy
ES slightly gravelly, locally gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular to
sub-rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material, concrete,
B 0.50
mudstone, limestone, wood, sandstone and brick.
ES
1 B 1.00 1
ES
SPT 1.20 - 1.65 S 12
B 1.30 - 2.00
2 SPT 2.00 - 2.45 S8 (3.75) 2
B 2.25 - 3.00
2.30-2.40m: Dark brown.
3 ES 3.00 S6 3
SPT 3.00 - 3.45
B 3.40 - 3.90
3.60m: 1 no. black sub-angular slag piece (<40mm).
3.90 48.68
FILL: Soft reddish brown sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is
4 B 4.00 - 4.70 S3 sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material and 4
SPT 4.00 - 4.45 mudstone. (POSSIBLE NATURAL).
(0.80)
Dry SPT 4.70 - 4.77 S*500 4.70 47.88

5 5
REMARKS:

METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Continuous disturbed sampling using 101mm and 86mm diam sample barrels: 1.20-4.70m.
CASING: None used.
REMARKS: Window sample refused at 4.70m.
Groundwater: Dry Hole Progress:

17/11/2015 4.70 Nil Dry

Client:
Hole ID: Council
Pit No
INSPECTION PIT LOG P1-HP01

Project Name: Branston Lock Development Project No: Co-ords: E 421903 N 321329 Date
C4877 Level: 48.08mAOD 17/11/2015
Location: Burton on Trent Dimensions: 0.30m Scale
Depth 1 : 12.5
0.30m
Client: Staffordshire County Council / Nurton Development 1.05m Logged By
(Quintus) LTD DP
(m) Description Legend
FILL: Soft brown slightly sandy gravelly CLAY with frequent roots and rootlets
(<10mm). Gravel is sub-angular to rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material
and mudstone.
B 0.20 (0.40)
ES
0.30m: 1 no. sub-angular gypsum cobble (<70mm).
0.40 47.68
FILL: Soft friable light brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly locally gravelly CLAY
locally tending to a very clayey sand with occasional roots and rootlets (<2mm).
Gravel is angular to sub-rounded fine to coarse of siliceous material, porcelain,
B 0.50 mudstone, gypsum and sandstone.
ES
(0.65)
B 0.90
ES
1 1
Dry 1.05 47.03
Inspection pit completed at 1.05m
2 2
CC INS PIT LOG C4877.GPJ GINT STD AGS 3_1.GDT 7/1/16
REMARKS:
EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools.
METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.05m.
REMARKS: Terminated on engineer's instruction.
CC Ground Investigation Limited
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Telephone: 01452 739165, Fax: 01452 739220, Email: info@ccground.co.uk
CLIENT Staffordshire County Council
SITE Branston Lock Development
Borehole Borehole Bottom Casing Water Seating Drive Test Drive Test
No. Depth Depth Depth Level Blows Pen (mm) Blows Pen (mm) Type N
(m) (m) (m) (m)

BH01 1.20

1.65

Nil

0.90 4

6
75 75 6 7 7 6 75 75

75
75 S 26

BH01 2.20

2.65

2.20

GL
2
4
75 75 6 6 8 10 75 75

75
75 S 30
BH01

3.20

3.64

3.20

GL
2
9
75

75

13
15

12

10

75

75

75
65

S
*52

BH01

4.20

4.65

4.20

1.87 2

2
75 75 3 4 4 7 75 75

75
75 C 18
BH01

6.70

7.15

5.20

2.71 6

6
75 75 9 9 8 8 75 75

75
75 S 34
BH01

7.90

8.29

5.30

0.78 5

5
75 75 13 13 15 9 75 75

75
15 S *63
BH01

8.70

9.06

5.30

2.40 6

13
75 75 14 20 16 ‐ 75 75

60
‐ S *71
BH01

10.20

10.56

5.30

2.62 8

12
75 75 14 19 17 ‐ 75 75

60
‐ C *71
BH01

11.70

12.02

5.30

2.51 8

7
75 75 10 14 11 15 75 75

75
45 C *54
BH01

13.20

13.35

5.30

2.35 7

18
75

55

50
‐

‐

‐

20

‐

‐
‐

C
*750

BH01

14.70

14.89

5.30

2.58 18

7
75 15 30 20 ‐ ‐ 75 25

‐
‐ C *150
BH01

16.20

16.34

5.30

2.47 25

‐
45 ‐ 36 14 ‐ ‐ 75 20

‐
‐ C *158
BH02

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 3

6
75

75

8
9

10

11

75

75

75
75

S
38

BH02 2.20 2.65 1.50 Dry 3 7 75 75 10 11 12 14 75 75 75 75 C 47

WS01

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 4 4

75 75 5 4 4 4 75 75

75
75 S 17
WS01

2.00

2.45

2.00

Dry 4 6

75 75 8 8 6 5 75 75

75
75 S 27
WS02

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 2 4

75 75 5 6 8 8 75 75

75
75 S 29
WS02

2.00

2.45

2.00

Dry 5 9

75 75 11 12 12 12 75 75

75
75 S 47
WS02

3.00

3.45

2.00

2.50 2 4

75

75

5
4

5

5

75

75

75
75

S
19

WS03

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 3 3

75 75 5 5 7 8 75 75

75
75 S 25
WS03

2.00

2.45

2.00

2.20 5 5

75 75 5 5 5 5 75 75

75
75 S 20
WS03

3.00

3.45

2.00

2.20 2 3

75 75 3 5 5 8 75 75

75
75 S 21
WS04

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 7 7

75 75 9 10 11 13 75 75

75
75 S 43
WS04

2.00

2.29

Nil

Dry 20 5

75 20 16 22 12 ‐ 75 75

40
‐ C *79
WS05

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 4 6

75 75 8 9 9 10 75 75

75
75 S 46
WS05

2.00

2.38

Nil

2.35 12 13

75

60

13
17

16

4
75

75

75
20

S
61

WS06

1.20

1.65

Nil

Dry 3 4
y
75 75 3 3 3 3 75 75

75
75 S 12
WS06

2.00

2.45

Nil

Dry 2 1

75 75 2 2 2 2 75 75

75
75 S 8
WS06

3.00

3.45

Nil

Dry 0 1

75 75 1 1 2 2 75 75

75
75 S 6
WS06

4.00

4.45

Nil

Dry 0 0

75 75 0 0 2 1 75 75

75
75 S 3
WS06

4.70

4.77

Nil

Dry 25 ‐

40 ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30 ‐

‐
‐ S *500

Notes:
1. Test carried out in general accordance with BS. 1377: Part 9: 3.3.
2. N values have not been subjected to any correction.
3. Test carried out using split spoon S, solid cone C.
4. Where full test drive not completed, linearly extrapolated N value reported.
5. <1 Denotes hammer self weight penetration (sank under own weight).
6. ** Denotes no effective penetration. CONTRACT CHECKED

C4877 MA

APPENDIX C

Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results

LABORATORY
REPORT
4043
Contract Number: PSL15/5865
Report Date: 17 December 2015
Client’s Reference: C4877
Client Name: CC Ground Investigations Ltd

Unit A2 Innsworth Technology Park.
Innsworth Lane
Gloucester
GL3 1DL
For the attention of: Mike Atherton
Contract Title: Branston Lock
Date Received: 03/12/2015

Date Commenced: 03/12/2015
Date Completed: 17/12/2015
Notes: Opinions and Interpretations are outside the UKAS Accreditation

* Denotes test not included in laboratory scope of accreditation
$ Denotes test carried out by approved contractor
A copy of the Laboratory Schedule of accredited tests as issued by UKAS is attached to this report. This certificate is
issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results
reported herein relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. This certificate shall not be reproduced in full,
without the prior written approval of the laboratory.
Checked and Approved Signatories:
R Gunson A Watkins M Beastall

(Director) (Director) (Laboratory Manager)
D Lambe S Royle
(Senior Technician) (Senior Technician)
Page 1 of
5 – 7 Hexthorpe Road, Hexthorpe,
Doncaster DN4 0AR
tel: +44 (0)844 815 6641
fax: +44 (0)844 815 6642
e-mail: rgunson@prosoils.co.uk
awatkins@prosoils.co.uk
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
Hole Sample Sample Top Base

Description of Sample
Number Number Type Depth Depth
m m
P1-BH01 B 0.50 Brown very gravelly clayey silty SAND.
P1-BH01 B 1.50 2.20 Brown slightly gravelly slightly silty SAND.
P1-BH01 D 3.70 3.90 Reddish brown very sandy very clayey GRAVEL.
P1-BH01 B 4.70 5.20 Reddish brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-BH01 UT 5.20 5.65 Very stiff reddish brown sandy CLAY.
P1-BH01 D 5.65 5.75 Reddish brown slightly gravelly sandy CLAY.
P1-BH01 SPT 6.70 7.15 Reddish brown very gravelly very sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-BH01 B 7.00 7.90 Reddish brown gravelly very sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-BH01 B 9.50 10.20 Reddish brown slightly gravelly sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-BH01 B 13.50 14.00 Reddish brown gravelly very sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-BH01A B 0.50 Brown very sandy slightly clayey silty GRAVEL.
P1-BH02 B 0.70 Brown very gravelly very sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-BH02 B 1.55 1.85 Brown very sandy slightly silty GRAVEL.
P1-BH02 B 2.75 3.20 Brown very sandy slightly silty GRAVEL.
P1-HP01 B 0.50 Brown clayey very silty SAND & GRAVEL.
P1-WS01 B 1.00 Brown very sandy GRAVEL.
P1-WS01 D 1.40 1.55 Brown sandy slightly silty GRAVEL.
P1-WS02 B 1.00 Brown very sandy slightly silty GRAVEL.
P1-WS03 B 0.20 Brown very gravelly clayey very silty SAND.
Checked / Approved Date 17/12/15 Contract No:

PSL15/5865
Branston Lock Client Ref:
4043 C4877
PSL001 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of .

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
Hole Sample Sample Top Base

Description of Sample
Number Number Type Depth Depth
m m
P1-WS03 B 1.25 1.60 Brown slightly gravelly slightly clayey silty SAND.
P1-WS04 B 0.50 Brown very sandy silty GRAVEL.
P1-WS04 B 1.35 1.65 Brown very sandy GRAVEL.
P1-WS06 B 0.50 Reddish brown gravelly very sandy very silty CLAY.
P1-WS06 B 2.25 3.00 Reddish brown slightly gravelly very sandy CLAY.
P1-WS06 B 4.00 4.70 Reddish brown slightly gravelly very sandy very silty CLAY.

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS
(BS1377 : PART 2 : 1990)
Moisture Linear Particle Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing

Hole Sample Sample Top Base Content Shrinkage Density Limit Limit Index .425mm Remarks
Number Number Type Depth Depth % % Mg/m3 % % % %
m m Clause 3.2 Clause 6.5 Clause 8.2 Clause 4.3/4 Clause 5.3 Clause 5.4
P1-BH01 B 0.50 14 37 24 13 47 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-BH01 B 1.50 2.20 18
P1-BH01 D 3.70 3.90 8.0
P1-BH01 B 4.70 5.20 22 29 19 10 93 Low plasticity CL.
P1-BH01 UT 5.20 5.65 19
P1-BH01 D 5.65 5.75 20
P1-BH01 B 7.00 7.90 21 36 23 13 80 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-BH01 B 9.50 10.20 21 35 23 12 87 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-BH01 B 13.50 14.00 16 32 19 13 49 Low plasticity CL.
P1-BH01A B 0.50 13
P1-BH02 B 0.70 15 41 25 16 57 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-BH02 B 1.55 1.85 8.2
P1-BH02 B 2.75 3.20 6.0
P1-HP01 B 0.50 9.8
P1-WS01 B 1.00 4.5
P1-WS01 D 1.40 1.55 6.1
P1-WS02 B 1.00 6.7
P1-WS03 B 0.20 19 38 24 14 57 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-WS03 B 1.25 1.60 11 NP
SYMBOLS : NP : Non Plastic * : Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Wet Sieved.

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

PLASTICITY CHART FOR CASAGRANDE CLASSIFICATION.
(BS5930 :2015)
90
CL CI CH CV CE
80
70
60
Plasticity Index (PI%).
50
40
30
20
10
ML MI MH MV ME
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (LL%).
Checked /Approved Date 17/12/15 Contract No:

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS
(BS1377 : PART 2 : 1990)
Moisture Linear Particle Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing

Hole Sample Sample Top Base Content Shrinkage Density Limit Limit Index .425mm Remarks
Number Number Type Depth Depth % % Mg/m3 % % % %
m m Clause 3.2 Clause 6.5 Clause 8.2 Clause 4.3/4 Clause 5.3 Clause 5.4
P1-WS04 B 0.50 9.7
P1-WS04 B 1.35 1.65 2.2
P1-WS06 B 0.50 16 40 21 19 77 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-WS06 B 2.25 3.00 19 36 19 17 83 Intermediate plasticity CI.
P1-WS06 B 4.00 4.70 19 35 19 16 82 Intermediate plasticity CI.
SYMBOLS : NP : Non Plastic * : Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Wet Sieved.

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

PLASTICITY CHART FOR CASAGRANDE CLASSIFICATION.
(BS5930 :2015)
90
CL CI CH CV CE
80
70
60
Plasticity Index (PI%).
50
40
30
20
10
ML MI MH MV ME
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (LL%).
Checked /Approved Date 17/12/15 Contract No:

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST
BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Wet Sieve & Pipette Analysis, Clause 9.2 & 9.4
Hole Number: P1-BH01 Top Depth (m): 0.50
Sample Number: Base Depth(m):
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).
BS Test Percentage Particle Percentage Soil Total

Sieve Passing Diameter Passing Fraction Percentage
125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 18 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 32
37.5 97 0.006 14 Sand 47
20 90 2 2 Silt 12
10 81 0.002 9 Clay 9
6.3 77
3.35 71
2 68
1.18 65
0.6 59
0.3 40
0.212 30 Remarks:
0.15 25 See summary of soil descriptions.
0.063 21

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877
PSL005 Nov 15 Page of

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Wet Sieve, Clause 9.2
Sample Number: Base Depth(m): 2.20
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).
BS Test Percentage 1 1 Soil Total

Sieve Passing 1 1 Fraction Percentage
125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 1
37.5 100 1 1 Sand 96
20 100 1 1 Silt/Clay 3
10 100 1 1
6.3 100
3.35 99
2 99
1.18 99
0.6 96
0.3 26
0.212 9 Remarks:
0.063 3

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: D
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 51
37.5 100 1 1 Sand 25
20 76 1 1 Silt/Clay 24
10 62 1 1
6.3 58
3.35 53
2 49
1.18 46
0.6 41
0.3 30
0.212 27 Remarks:
0.063 24

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 66 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 1
37.5 100 0.006 48 Sand 9
20 100 2 2 Silt 55
10 100 0.002 35 Clay 35
6.3 100
3.35 100
2 99
1.18 98
0.6 96
0.3 93
0.212 92 Remarks:
0.063 90

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: SPT
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 32 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 36
37.5 100 0.006 25 Sand 27
20 94 2 2 Silt 22
10 91 0.002 15 Clay 15
6.3 85
3.35 73
2 64
1.18 57
0.6 50
0.3 45
0.212 42 Remarks:
0.063 37

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 61 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 3
37.5 100 0.006 45 Sand 15
20 100 2 2 Silt 49
10 100 0.002 33 Clay 33
6.3 99
3.35 98
2 97
1.18 95
0.6 91
0.3 86
0.212 84 Remarks:
0.063 82

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 32 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 11
37.5 100 0.006 24 Sand 52
20 95 2 2 Silt 22
10 95 0.002 15 Clay 15
6.3 95
3.35 94
2 89
1.18 77
0.6 56
0.3 45
0.212 42 Remarks:
0.063 37

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Hole Number: P1-BH01A Top Depth (m): 0.50
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 9 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 67
37.5 90 0.006 6 Sand 22
20 74 2 2 Silt 7
10 49 0.002 4 Clay 4
6.3 41
3.35 36
2 33
1.18 29
0.6 25
0.3 19
0.212 16 Remarks:
0.063 11

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 33 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 26
37.5 92 0.006 25 Sand 36
20 89 2 2 Silt 23
10 82 0.002 15 Clay 15
6.3 79
3.35 77
2 74
1.18 71
0.6 66
0.3 53
0.212 45 Remarks:
0.063 38

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 61
37.5 100 1 1 Sand 38
20 85 1 1 Silt/Clay 1
10 55 1 1
6.3 48
3.35 42
2 39
1.18 38
0.6 34
0.3 15
0.212 5 Remarks:
0.063 1

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 75
37.5 88 1 1 Sand 23
20 71 1 1 Silt/Clay 2
10 45 1 1
6.3 35
3.35 29
2 25
1.18 23
0.6 19
0.3 7
0.212 4 Remarks:
0.063 2

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Hole Number: P1-HP01 Top Depth (m): 0.50
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 26 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 33
37.5 93 0.006 20 Sand 36
20 86 2 2 Silt 19
10 77 0.002 12 Clay 12
6.3 73
3.35 69
2 67
1.18 65
0.6 59
0.3 44
0.212 38 Remarks:
0.063 31

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Hole Number: P1-WS01 Top Depth (m): 1.40
Sample Type: D
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 81
37.5 100 1 1 Sand 16
20 82 1 1 Silt/Clay 3
10 45 1 1
6.3 35
3.35 23
2 19
1.18 16
0.6 12
0.3 6
0.212 4 Remarks:
0.063 3

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 69
37.5 100 1 1 Sand 26
20 80 1 1 Silt/Clay 5
10 56 1 1
6.3 46
3.35 36
2 31
1.18 27
0.6 16
0.3 8
0.212 7 Remarks:
0.063 5

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 28 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 27
37.5 100 0.006 21 Sand 41
20 96 2 2 Silt 19
10 83 0.002 13 Clay 13
6.3 79
3.35 75
2 73
1.18 71
0.6 66
0.3 52
0.212 42 Remarks:
0.063 32

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 7 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 4
37.5 100 0.006 4 Sand 85
20 100 2 2 Silt 9
10 99 0.002 2 Clay 2
6.3 98
3.35 97
2 96
1.18 95
0.6 93
0.3 81
0.212 51 Remarks:
0.063 11

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 1 1
75 100 1 1 Cobbles 0
63 100 1 1 Gravel 53
37.5 100 1 1 Sand 33
20 84 1 1 Silt/Clay 14
10 59 1 1
6.3 53
3.35 49
2 47
1.18 45
0.6 41
0.3 25
0.212 19 Remarks:
0.063 14

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 51 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 10
37.5 100 0.006 39 Sand 31
20 96 2 2 Silt 33
10 94 0.002 26 Clay 26
6.3 92
3.35 91
2 90
1.18 87
0.6 84
0.3 74
0.212 67 Remarks:
0.063 59

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

BS1377 : Part 2 : 1990
Sample Type: B
0.020
0.300
0.002
0.006
0.063
0.150
0.600
0.212
2.00
20.0
3.35
10.0
37.5
1.18
125
6.3
63
75
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percentage Passing.
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm).

125 100 2 2
75 100 0.02 53 Cobbles 0
63 100 2 2 Gravel 8
37.5 100 0.006 40 Sand 28
20 99 2 2 Silt 38
10 96 0.002 26 Clay 26
6.3 95
3.35 94
2 92
1.18 89
0.6 85
0.3 80
0.212 76 Remarks:
0.063 64

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST
BS 1377: Part 5: 1990: Clause 3
Sample Number: Base Depth (m) : 5.65
Sample Type: UT
Initial Conditions Pressure Range Mv Cv Specimen location

Moisture Content (%): 19 kPa m2/MN m2/yr within tube: Top
Bulk Density (Mg/m3): 2.08 0 100 0.516 13.603 Method used to
Dry Density (Mg/m3): 1.75 100 200 0.115 2.746 determine CV: T90
Voids Ratio: 0.513 200 400 0.071 3.093 Nominal temperature
Degree of saturation: 97.1 400 800 0.044 2.400 during test ' C: 20
Height (mm): 20.12 800 100 0.017 10.615 Remarks:
Diameter (mm) 75.08 See summary of soils description.
Particle Density (Mg/m3):
2.65
Assumed
16.0
14.0
12.0
Cv - m2/yr
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
10 100 1000
Pressure -kPa
10 100 1000
0.440
0.430
0.420
Voids Ratio
0.410
0.400
0.390
0.380
0.370

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877
PSL025 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
WITHOUT MEASUREMENT OF PORE PRESSURE
BS1377 : Part7 : 1990: Clause 9
Sample Number: Base Depth (m): 5.65
Sample Type UT
700
600
500
Deviator Stress kPa
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial Strain %
Diameter (mm): 102 Height (mm): 158 Test: UU Multistage Remarks

Moisture Bulk Dry Cell Corr. Max. Shear Failure Mode Sample taken from top of tube
Specimen Content Density Density Pressure Deviator Strength Strain of Rate of strain = 2 %/min
(%) (Mg/m3) (Mg/m3) (kPa) Stress Cu (%) Failure Latex Membrane used 0.2 mm thick
(kPa) (kPa) Membrane Correction applied (kPa)
1
θ3 (θ1−θ3)f /2(θ1−θ3)f 0.36 0.36 0.35
1 19 2.08 1.74 200 395 198 6.8 See summary of soil descriptions
400 539 269 8.7
600 617 308 11.0 Brittle

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877
PSLR030 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of .

SUMMARY OF POINT LOAD TEST RESULTS
ISRM Suggested Methods : 2007
Dimensions 2
Borehole Sample Test Orientation Area De De Failure Load (P) Is Corr Fac Is50 Failure
Depth (m) (mm) Remarks
Number Ref Type Type
Par / Perp W D (mm2) (mm) (Mpa) (kN) (MPa) F (MPa)
P1-BH01 12.03-12.10 I N/A 45 21 441 1203.21 34.69 0.410 0.55 0.455 0.848 0.39 Valid
P1-BH01 14.64-14.70 I N/A 49 31 961 1934.05 43.98 0.340 0.45 0.235 0.944 0.22 Valid
P1-BH01 16.10-16.20 I N/A 64 32 1024 2607.59 51.06 0.590 0.79 0.302 1.010 0.30 Valid
*Note All testing carried out on samples at as received water content Par = parallel, Perp = perpendicular, N/A = Not Applicable

PSL15/5865
4043 C4877
PSL029 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of

Certificate of Analysis
Certificate Number 15-53754
23-Dec-15
Client Professional Soils Laboratory Ltd

5/7 Hexthorpe Road
Hexthorpe
DN4 0AR
Our Reference 15-53754

Client Reference PSL15/5865
Order No (not supplied)
Contract Title PSL15/5865
Description One Soil sample.
Date Received 17-Dec-15
Date Started 17-Dec-15
Date Completed 23-Dec-15
Test Procedures Identified by prefix DETSn (details on request).
Notes Opinions and interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation. This
certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United
Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported herein relate only to the material
supplied to the laboratory. Observations and interpretations are outside the scope of
ISO 17025. This certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the prior
written approval of the laboratory.
Approved By
Rob Brown
Business Manager
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Limited

Unit 2, Park Road Industrial Estate South, Consett, Co Durham, DH8 5PY
Tel: 01207 582333 • email: info@dets.co.uk • www.dets.co.uk Page 1 of 3 .
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Soil Samples
Our Ref 15-53754
Client Ref PSL15/5865
Contract Title PSL15/5865
Lab No 917573
Sample ID P1-BH01
Depth 6.20-6.70
Other ID
Sample Type SOIL
Sampling Date n/s
Sampling Time n/s
Test Method LOD Units
Metals
Magnesium Aqueous Extract DETSC 2076* 10 mg/l 20
Inorganics
pH DETSC 2008# 8.4
Chloride Aqueous Extract DETSC 2055 1 mg/l 9.9
Nitrate Aqueous Extract as NO3 DETSC 2055 1 mg/l < 1.0
Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 DETSC 2076# 10 mg/l 570
Total Sulphur as S DETSC 2320 0.01 % 0.05
Total Sulphate as SO4 DETSC 2321# 0.01 % 0.14
Key: * -not accredited. # -MCERTS (accreditation only implied if report carries the MCERTS logo). n/s -not supplied. Page 2 of 3
Information in Support of the Analytical Results
Our Ref 15-53754
Contract PSL15/5865
Containers Received & Deviating Samples

Inappropriate
Date container for
Lab No Sample ID Sampled Containers Received Holding time exceeded for tests tests
917573 P1-BH01 6.20-6.70 SOIL PT 500ml Sample date not supplied
Key: P-Plastic T-Tub
DETS cannot be held responsible for the integrity of samples received whereby the laboratory did not undertake the sampling. In this instance samples received may
be deviating. Deviating Sample criteria are based on British and International standards and laboratory trials in conjunction with the UKAS note 'Guidance on
Deviating Samples'. All samples received are listed above. However, those samples that have additional comments in relation to hold time and/or inappropriate
containers are deviating due to the reasons stated. This means that the analysis is accredited where applicable, but results may be compromised due to sample
deviations. If no sampled date (soils) or date+time (waters) has been supplied then samples are deviating. However, if you are able to supply a sampled date (and
time for waters) this will prevent samples being reported as deviating where specific hold times are not exceeded and where the container supplied is suitable.
Soil Analysis Notes

Inorganic soil analysis was carried out on a dried sample, crushed to pass a 425µm sieve, in accordance with BS1377.
Organic soil analysis was carried out on an 'as received' sample. Organics results are corrected for moisture and expressed on a dry weight basis.
The Loss on Drying, used to express organics analysis on an air dried basis, is carried out at a temperature of 28°C +/-2°C.
Disposal
From the issue date of this test certificate, samples will be held for the following times prior to disposal :-
Soils - 1 month, Liquids - 2 weeks, Asbestos (test portion) - 6 months
Page 3 of 3
Certificate of Analysis
Certificate Number 15-53055
18-Dec-15
Client Professional Soils Laboratory Ltd

5/7 Hexthorpe Road
Hexthorpe
DN4 0AR
Our Reference 15-53055

Client Reference PSL15/5865
Order No (not supplied)
Contract Title Branston Lock
Description 5 Soil samples.
Date Received 10-Dec-15
Date Started 10-Dec-15
Date Completed 18-Dec-15
Test Procedures Identified by prefix DETSn (details on request).
Notes Opinions and interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation. This
certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United
Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported herein relate only to the material
supplied to the laboratory. Observations and interpretations are outside the scope of
ISO 17025. This certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the prior
written approval of the laboratory.
Approved By
Rob Brown
Business Manager
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Limited

Unit 2, Park Road Industrial Estate South, Consett, Co Durham, DH8 5PY
Tel: 01207 582333 • email: info@dets.co.uk • www.dets.co.uk Page 1 of 3 .
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Soil Samples
Our Ref 15-53055
Contract Title Branston Lock
Lab No 913777 913778 913779 913780 913781
Sample ID P1-BH01 P1-BH01 P1-BH01A P1-BH02 P1-WS06
Depth 0.30 12.20-12.90 0.70 0.50 1.00
Other ID
Sample Type SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL
Sampling Date 03/12/15 03/12/15 03/12/15 03/12/15 03/12/15
Sampling Time n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Test Method LOD Units
Metals
Magnesium Aqueous Extract DETSC 2076* 10 mg/l < 10 70 < 10 < 10 92
Inorganics
pH DETSC 2008# 7.7 8.2 9.1 8.3 7.8
Chloride Aqueous Extract DETSC 2055 1 mg/l 3.1 7.1 6.5 14 4.3
Nitrate Aqueous Extract as NO3 DETSC 2055 1 mg/l 1.9 < 1.0 47 34 < 1.0
Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 DETSC 2076# 10 mg/l 330 1800 230 460 1600
Total Sulphur as S DETSC 2320 0.01 % 0.05 1.8 0.12 0.12 0.22
Total Sulphate as SO4 DETSC 2321# 0.01 % 0.16 5.0 0.20 0.26 0.73
Key: * -not accredited. # -MCERTS (accreditation only implied if report carries the MCERTS logo). n/s -not supplied. Page 2 of 3
Information in Support of the Analytical Results
Our Ref 15-53055
Contract Branston Lock
Containers Received & Deviating Samples

Holding time Inappropriate
Date exceeded for container for
Lab No Sample ID Sampled Containers Received tests tests
913777 P1-BH01 0.30 SOIL 03/12/15 PT 500ml
913778 P1-BH01 12.20-12.90 SOIL 03/12/15 PT 500ml
913779 P1-BH01A 0.70 SOIL 03/12/15 PT 500ml

913780 P1-BH02 0.50 SOIL 03/12/15 PT 500ml
913781 P1-WS06 1.00 SOIL 03/12/15 PT 500ml
Key: P-Plastic T-Tub
DETS cannot be held responsible for the integrity of samples received whereby the laboratory did not undertake the sampling. In this instance samples received may
be deviating. Deviating Sample criteria are based on British and International standards and laboratory trials in conjunction with the UKAS note 'Guidance on
Deviating Samples'. All samples received are listed above. However, those samples that have additional comments in relation to hold time and/or inappropriate
containers are deviating due to the reasons stated. This means that the analysis is accredited where applicable, but results may be compromised due to sample
deviations. If no sampled date (soils) or date+time (waters) has been supplied then samples are deviating. However, if you are able to supply a sampled date (and
time for waters) this will prevent samples being reported as deviating where specific hold times are not exceeded and where the container supplied is suitable.
Soil Analysis Notes

Inorganic soil analysis was carried out on a dried sample, crushed to pass a 425µm sieve, in accordance with BS1377.
Organic soil analysis was carried out on an 'as received' sample. Organics results are corrected for moisture and expressed on a dry weight basis.
The Loss on Drying, used to express organics analysis on an air dried basis, is carried out at a temperature of 28°C +/-2°C.
Disposal
From the issue date of this test certificate, samples will be held for the following times prior to disposal :-
Soils - 1 month, Liquids - 2 weeks, Asbestos (test portion) - 6 months
Page 3 of 3
Iss No 15-83305-1
This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory.
The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis. Page 1 of 5
i2 Analytical Telephone: 01923 225404
7 Woodshots Meadow Fax: 01923 237404
Croxley Green Business Park email:reception@i2analytical.com
Watford, WD18 8YS
Waste Acceptance Criteria Analytical Results

Report No: 15-83305
Client: CCGROUND
Location Branston Lock Development

Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria
Lab Reference (Sample Number) 511096 Limits
Sampling Date 17/11/2015 Stable Non-
Sample ID P1-BH02 reactive
Inert Waste HAZARDOUS Hazardous
Landfill waste in non- Waste Landfill
Depth (m) 0.90 hazardous
Landfill
Solid Waste Analysis
TOC (%)** 0.9 3% 5% 6%
Loss on Ignition (%) ** - -- -- 10%
BTEX (µg/kg) ** - 6000 -- --
Sum of PCBs (mg/kg) ** - 1 -- --
Mineral Oil (mg/kg) - 500 -- --
Total PAH (WAC-17) (mg/kg) - 100 -- --
pH (units)** 7.7 -- >6 --
Acid Neutralisation Capacity (mol / kg) 0.71 -- To be evaluated To be evaluated
Eluate Analysis Limit values for compliance leaching test

2:1 8:1 Cumulative 10:1
using BS EN 12457-3 at L/S 10 l/kg (mg/kg)
(BS EN 12457 - 3 preparation utilising end over end leaching
procedure) mg/l mg/l mg/kg
Arsenic * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.050 0.5 2 25

Barium * 0.021 0.029 0.28 20 100 300
Cadmium * < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0020 0.04 1 5
Chromium * 0.0025 0.0063 0.058 0.5 10 70
Copper * 0.019 0.0089 0.10 2 50 100
Mercury * < 0.0015 < 0.0015 < 0.010 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum * 0.0051 < 0.0030 < 0.020 0.5 10 30
Nickel * 0.0022 0.0031 0.030 0.4 10 40
Lead * 0.010 0.017 0.16 0.5 10 50
Antimony * < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.024 0.06 0.7 5
Selenium * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.040 0.1 0.5 7
Zinc * 0.0065 0.0141 0.13 4 50 200
Chloride * 6.9 < 4.0 < 15 800 4000 25000
Fluoride 0.73 0.47 5.1 10 150 500
Sulphate * 15 2.1 37 1000 20000 50000
TDS 60 20 250 4000 60000 100000
Phenol Index (Monhydric Phenols) * < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.50 1 - -
DOC 10 9.3 94 500 800 1000
Leach Test Information
Stone Content (%) < 0.1 0

Sample Mass (kg) 2.0
Dry Matter (%) 94
Moisture (%) 5.9
Stage 1
Volume Eluate L2 (litres) 0.34
Filtered Eluate VE1 (litres) 0.23
Results are expressed on a dry weight basis, after correction for moisture content where applicable
Stated limits are for guidance only and I2 cannot be held responsible for any discrepencies with current legislation
*= UKAS accredited (liquid eluate analysis only)

** = MCERTS accrediited
Iss No 15-83305-1
Watford, WD18 8YS

Report No: 15-83305
Client: CCGROUND

Sample ID P1-WS06 reactive
Landfill
TOC (%)** 0.3 3% 5% 6%
BTEX (µg/kg) ** - 6000 -- --
pH (units)** 6.6 -- >6 --
Acid Neutralisation Capacity (mol / kg) -0.37 -- To be evaluated To be evaluated

Arsenic * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.050 0.5 2 25

Barium * 0.090 0.055 0.59 20 100 300
Cadmium * < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0020 0.04 1 5
Chromium * < 0.0010 0.0012 0.012 0.5 10 70
Copper * 0.0088 0.0066 0.069 2 50 100
Mercury * < 0.0015 < 0.0015 < 0.010 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum * < 0.0030 < 0.0030 < 0.020 0.5 10 30
Nickel * < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.4 10 40
Lead * 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.020 0.5 10 50
Antimony * < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.045 0.06 0.7 5
Selenium * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.040 0.1 0.5 7
Zinc * 0.0028 < 0.0010 < 0.020 4 50 200
Chloride * < 4.0 < 4.0 < 15 800 4000 25000
Fluoride 0.64 0.61 6.1 10 150 500
Sulphate * 620 90 1600 1000 20000 50000
TDS 620 160 2200 4000 60000 100000
DOC 3.3 1.5 18 500 800 1000

Dry Matter (%) 90
Moisture (%) 10
Stage 1
Iss No 15-83305-1
Analytical Report Number : 15-83305
Project / Site name: Branston Lock Development
* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS
validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and loam (MCERTS) soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.
Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 10 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.
Lab Sample Sample Sample

Number Reference Number
Depth (m) Sample Description *
511096 P1-BH02 None Supplied 0.90 Brown sandy loam with gravel.
511097 P1-WS06 None Supplied 0.50 Brown loam and clay with gravel.
Iss No 15-83305-1
Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW)
Method Wet / Dry Accreditation

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method Reference number Analysis Status
Acid neutralisation capacity of soil Determination of acid neutralisation capacity by In-house method based on Guidance an L046-PL W NONE
addition of acid or alkali followed by electronic Sampling and Testing of Wastes to Meet
probe. Landfill Waste Acceptance
Chloride in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of Chloride colorimetrically by In house based on MEWAM Method ISBN L082-PL W ISO 17025
12457-3 Prep) discrete analyser. 0117516260.
DOC in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457- Determination of dissolved organic carbon in In-house method based on Standard L037-PL W NONE
3 Prep) leachate by TOC/DOC NDIR analyser. Methods for the Examination of Water and
Waste Water, 21st Ed.
Fluoride in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of fluoride in leachate by 1:1ratio In-house method based on Standard L033-PL W NONE
12457-3 Prep) with a buffer solution followed by Ion Selective Methods for the Examination of Water and
Electrode. Waste Water, 21st Ed.
Metals in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457- Determination of metals in leachate by acidification In-house method based on Standard L039-PL W ISO 17025
3 Prep) followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Examination of Water and
Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L019-UK/PL W NONE
1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests
pH in soil Determination of pH in soil by addition of water In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L005-PL W MCERTS
followed by electrometric measurement. 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests
Phenol Index in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of monohydric phenols in leachate In-house method based on Examination of L080-PL W ISO 17025
12457-3 Prep) by continuous flow analyser. Water and Wastewater 20th Edition:
Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)
Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless In-house method based on British Standard L019-UK/PL D NONE
otherwise detailed. Gravimetric determination of Methods and MCERTS requirements.
stone > 10 mm as % dry weight.
Sulphate in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of sulphate in leachate by In-house method based on Standard L039-PL W ISO 17025
12457-3 Prep) acidification followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Examination of Water and
TDS in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Determination of total dissolved solids in leachate In-house method based on Standard L004-PL W NONE
Prep) by electrometric measurement. Methods for the Examination of Water and
Total organic carbon in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L023-PL D MCERTS
with potassium dichromate followed by titration 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests
with iron (II) sulphate.
For method numbers ending in 'UK' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in the United Kingdom.
For method numbers ending in 'PL' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in Poland.
Soil analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Where analysis is carried out on as-received the results obtained are multiplied by a moisture
correction factor that is determined gravimetrically using the moisture content which is carried out at a maximum of 30oC.
Iss No 15-83305-1
Dan Page
CC Ground Investigation Ltd i2 Analytical Ltd.
Unit A2 7 Woodshots Meadow,
Innsworth Tech Park Croxley Green
Innsworth Lane Business Park,
Gloucester Watford,
GL3 1DL Herts,
WD18 8YS
t: 01452 739 165 t: 01923 225404
f: 01452 739 220 f: 01923 237404
e: dan@ccground.co.uk e: reception@i2analytical.com
Project / Site name: Branston Lock Development Samples received on: 19/11/2015
Your job number: C4877 Samples instructed on: 26/11/2015
Your order number: Analysis completed by: 04/12/2015
Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 04/12/2015
Samples Analysed: 15 soil samples
Signed: Signed:
Rexona Rahman Emma Winter

Reporting Manager Assistant Reporting Manager
For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd. For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.
Other office located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland
Standard sample disposal times, unless otherwise agreed with the laboratory, are : soils - 4 weeks from reporting
leachates - 2 weeks from reporting
waters - 2 weeks from reporting
asbestos - 6 months from reporting
Excel copies of reports are only valid when accompanied by this PDF certificate.
Iss No 15-83303-1
Analytical Report Number: 15-83303
Lab Sample Number 511070 511071 511072 511073 511074

Sample Reference P1-BH01 P1-BH01 P1-BH01A P1-BH01A P1-BH01A
Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied
Depth (m) 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.70
Date Sampled 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015
Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied
Accreditation
detection
Analytical Parameter Limit of
Status
Units
(Soil Analysis)
Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1
Moisture Content % N/A NONE 15 14 - 13 8.2
Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1.6 2.0 - 2.0 2.0
Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 - - Not-detected - -
General Inorganics
pH pH Units N/A MCERTS 6.8 - - - 7.7
Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS <1 - - - <1
Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE <1 - - - <1
Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE < 5.0 - - - < 5.0
Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS 1900 - - - 1100
Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - 12
Total Sulphur mg/kg 50 NONE 1600 - - - 1200
Total Phenols
Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - < 1.0
Speciated PAHs
Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 - - - < 0.05
Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 - - - < 0.05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 - - - < 0.10
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 - - - < 0.05
Total PAH
Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 MCERTS < 1.60 - - - < 1.60
Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 5.3 - - - 18
Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 1.9 - - - 3.5
Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 - - - < 0.2
Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 - - - < 4.0
Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 11 - - - 10
Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 7.7 - - - 120
Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 13 - - - 140
Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 - - - < 0.3
Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 9.5 - - - 46
Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - < 1.0
Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 22 - - - 84
Iss No 15-83303-1

Sample Reference P1-BH01 P1-BH01 P1-BH01A P1-BH01A P1-BH01A
Depth (m) 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.70
Date Sampled 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015
Accreditation
detection
Status
Units
(Soil Analysis)
Monoaromatics
Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 - < 10 < 10
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 < 2.0 - < 2.0 < 2.0
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 - < 10 < 10
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 - < 10 < 10
TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 - < 10 < 10
Iss No 15-83303-1

Sample Reference P1-BH02 P1-BH02 P1-WS01 P1-WS02 P1-WS04
Depth (m) 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50
Date Sampled 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 16/11/2015 16/11/2015 17/11/2015
Accreditation
detection
Status
Units
(Soil Analysis)
Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
Moisture Content % N/A NONE 16 13 17 16 8.5
Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7
Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 - Not-detected - - -
General Inorganics
pH pH Units N/A MCERTS - 7.2 - 6.6 7.3
Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - <1 - 1 <1
Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE - <1 - 1 <1
Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE - < 5.0 - < 5.0 < 5.0
Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS - 950 - 870 350
Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
Total Sulphur mg/kg 50 NONE - 530 - 700 200
Total Phenols
Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
Speciated PAHs
Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05
Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.69 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.14 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 2.4 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 2.1 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.2 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 1.4 - < 0.05 < 0.05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.2 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.1 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.2 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.47 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.51 - < 0.05 < 0.05
Total PAH
Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 MCERTS - 12.3 - < 1.60 < 1.60

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 13 - 1.1 2.2
Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - 2.3 - 0.9 < 0.2
Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - 0.4 - 0.4 < 0.2
Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS - < 4.0 - < 4.0 < 4.0
Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 14 - 9.2 11
Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 61 - 18 6.5
Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 200 - 41 14
Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS - < 0.3 - < 0.3 < 0.3
Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 20 - 6.6 7.7
Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0
Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 170 - 44 34
Iss No 15-83303-1

Sample Reference P1-BH02 P1-BH02 P1-WS01 P1-WS02 P1-WS04
Depth (m) 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50
Date Sampled 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 16/11/2015 16/11/2015 17/11/2015
Accreditation
detection
Status
Units
(Soil Analysis)
Stone Content
Monoaromatics % 0.1 NONE
Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS 27 11 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 30 11 < 10 < 10 < 10
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS 4.6 2.8 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS 26 19 < 10 < 10 < 10
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS 87 41 < 10 < 10 < 10
TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 120 63 < 10 < 10 < 10
Iss No 15-83303-1

Sample Reference P1-WS06 P1-WS06 P1-WS06 P1-HP01 P1-HP01
Depth (m) 0.10 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.50
Date Sampled 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 17/11/2015
Accreditation
detection
Status
Units
(Soil Analysis)
Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 -
Moisture Content % N/A NONE 7.4 11 9.9 12 -
Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.6 -
Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 - - Not-detected - Not-detected
General Inorganics
pH pH Units N/A MCERTS - 7.6 7.7 - -
Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - <1 <1 - -
Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE - <1 <1 - -
Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE - < 5.0 < 5.0 - -
Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS - 10000 5000 - -
Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 < 1.0 - -
Total Sulphur mg/kg 50 NONE - 3400 1700 - -
Total Phenols
Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 < 1.0 - -
Speciated PAHs
Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 < 0.05 - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - < 0.10 < 0.10 - -
Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.46 < 0.10 - -
Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.45 < 0.10 - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 3.7 < 0.10 - -
Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.3 < 0.10 - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 4.8 0.24 - -
Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 3.7 0.26 - -
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.7 < 0.10 - -
Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 1.4 < 0.05 - -
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.5 < 0.10 - -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.87 < 0.10 - -
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 1.2 < 0.10 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - 0.56 < 0.10 - -
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS - < 0.10 < 0.10 - -
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.61 < 0.05 - -
Total PAH
Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 MCERTS - 22.2 < 1.60 - -

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 1.8 7.1 - -
Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - < 0.2 0.3 - -
Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - < 0.2 < 0.2 - -
Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS - < 4.0 < 4.0 - -
Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 23 22 - -
Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 30 16 - -
Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 8.8 12 - -
Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS - < 0.3 < 0.3 - -
Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 20 22 - -
Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 < 1.0 - -
Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 40 48 - -
Iss No 15-83303-1

Sample Reference P1-WS06 P1-WS06 P1-WS06 P1-HP01 P1-HP01
Depth (m) 0.10 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.50
Date Sampled 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 17/11/2015 17/11/2015
Accreditation
detection
Status
Units
(Soil Analysis)
Stone Content
Monoaromatics % 0.1 NONE
Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 -
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS 470 43 < 8.0 10 -
TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 480 46 < 10 13 -
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 -
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 1.2 < 1.0 < 1.0 -
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 7.4 < 2.0 < 2.0 -
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 21 < 10 < 10 -
TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS 830 49 < 10 25 -
TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 830 79 < 10 35 -
Iss No 15-83303-1

511070 P1-BH01 None Supplied 0.50 Brown loam and sand.

511071 P1-BH01 None Supplied 1.00 Brown sand with gravel.
511072 P1-BH01A None Supplied 0.20 -
511073 P1-BH01A None Supplied 0.50 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation.
511074 P1-BH01A None Supplied 0.70 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation.
511075 P1-BH02 None Supplied 0.20 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation.
511076 P1-BH02 None Supplied 0.50 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation.
511077 P1-WS01 None Supplied 0.20 Brown loam and clay with vegetation.
511078 P1-WS02 None Supplied 0.20 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation.
511079 P1-WS04 None Supplied 0.50 Light brown loam and sand with gravel.
511080 P1-WS06 None Supplied 0.10 Brown gravelly loam with vegetation.
511081 P1-WS06 None Supplied 0.20 Light brown loam and clay with gravel.
511082 P1-WS06 None Supplied 1.00 Light brown loam and sand with gravel.
511083 P1-HP01 None Supplied 0.20 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation.
511084 P1-HP01 None Supplied 0.50 -
Iss No 15-83303-1

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised In house method based on HSG 248 A001-PL D ISO 17025
light microscopy in conjunction with disperion
staining techniques.
Boron, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble boron in soil by hot In-house method based on Second Site L038-PL D MCERTS
water extract followed by ICP-OES. Properties version 3
BTEX and MTBE in soil Determination of BTEX in soil by headspace GC-MS. In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073B-PL W MCERTS
Free cyanide in soil Determination of free cyanide by distillation In-house method based on Examination of L080-PL W NONE
followed by colorimetry. Water and Wastewater 20th Edition:
Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)
Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by In-house method L080-PL W MCERTS
extraction in water then by acidification, addition of
1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.
Metals in soil by ICP-OES Determination of metals in soil by aqua-regia In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 L038-PL D MCERTS
digestion followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Soil.
Monohydric phenols in soil Determination of phenols in soil by extraction with In-house method based on Examination of L080-PL W MCERTS
sodium hydroxide followed by distillation followed Water and Wastewater 20th Edition:
by colorimetry. Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)
pH in soil (automated) Determination of pH in soil by addition of water In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L099-PL D MCERTS
Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D MCERTS
extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed
by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal
standards.
Sulphide in soil Determination of sulphide in soil by acidification In-house method L010-PL D MCERTS
and heating to liberate hydrogen sulphide, trapped
in an alkaline solution then assayed by ion selective
electrode.
Thiocyanate in soil Determination of thiocyanate in soil by extraction In-house method L049-PL D NONE
in caustic soda followed by acidification followed by
addition of ferric nitrate followed by
spectrophotometer.
Total cyanide in soil Determination of total cyanide by distillation In-house method based on Examination of L080-PL W MCERTS
followed by colorimetry. Water and Wastewater 20th Edition:
Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)
Total sulphate (as SO4 in soil) Determination of total sulphate in soil by extraction In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L038-PL D MCERTS
with 10% HCl followed by ICP-OES. 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests
Total Sulphur in soil Determination of total sulphur in soil by extraction In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L038-PL D NONE
with aqua-regia, potassium bromide/bromate 1990, and MEWAM 2006 Methods for the
followed by ICP-OES. Determination of Metals in Soil
TPHCWG (Soil) Determination of hexane extractable hydrocarbons In-house method L076-PL W MCERTS
in soil by GC-MS/GC-FID.
Iss No 15-83303-1

Iss No 15-83303-1
Watford, WD18 8YS

Report No: 15-83305
Client: CCGROUND

Sample ID P1-WS06 reactive
Landfill
TOC (%)** 0.3 3% 5% 6%
BTEX (µg/kg) ** - 6000 -- --
pH (units)** 6.6 -- >6 --
Acid Neutralisation Capacity (mol / kg) -0.37 -- To be evaluated To be evaluated

Arsenic * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.050 0.5 2 25

Barium * 0.090 0.055 0.59 20 100 300
Cadmium * < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0020 0.04 1 5
Chromium * < 0.0010 0.0012 0.012 0.5 10 70
Copper * 0.0088 0.0066 0.069 2 50 100
Mercury * < 0.0015 < 0.0015 < 0.010 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum * < 0.0030 < 0.0030 < 0.020 0.5 10 30
Nickel * < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.4 10 40
Lead * 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.020 0.5 10 50
Antimony * < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.045 0.06 0.7 5
Selenium * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.040 0.1 0.5 7
Zinc * 0.0028 < 0.0010 < 0.020 4 50 200
Chloride * < 4.0 < 4.0 < 15 800 4000 25000
Fluoride 0.64 0.61 6.1 10 150 500
Sulphate * 620 90 1600 1000 20000 50000
TDS 620 160 2200 4000 60000 100000
DOC 3.3 1.5 18 500 800 1000

Dry Matter (%) 90
Moisture (%) 10
Stage 1
Iss No 15-83305-1

511096 P1-BH02 None Supplied 0.90 Brown sandy loam with gravel.
511097 P1-WS06 None Supplied 0.50 Brown loam and clay with gravel.
Iss No 15-83305-1

Acid neutralisation capacity of soil Determination of acid neutralisation capacity by In-house method based on Guidance an L046-PL W NONE
addition of acid or alkali followed by electronic Sampling and Testing of Wastes to Meet
probe. Landfill Waste Acceptance
Chloride in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of Chloride colorimetrically by In house based on MEWAM Method ISBN L082-PL W ISO 17025
12457-3 Prep) discrete analyser. 0117516260.
DOC in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457- Determination of dissolved organic carbon in In-house method based on Standard L037-PL W NONE
3 Prep) leachate by TOC/DOC NDIR analyser. Methods for the Examination of Water and
Fluoride in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of fluoride in leachate by 1:1ratio In-house method based on Standard L033-PL W NONE
12457-3 Prep) with a buffer solution followed by Ion Selective Methods for the Examination of Water and
Electrode. Waste Water, 21st Ed.
Metals in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457- Determination of metals in leachate by acidification In-house method based on Standard L039-PL W ISO 17025
3 Prep) followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Examination of Water and
pH in soil Determination of pH in soil by addition of water In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L005-PL W MCERTS
Phenol Index in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of monohydric phenols in leachate In-house method based on Examination of L080-PL W ISO 17025
12457-3 Prep) by continuous flow analyser. Water and Wastewater 20th Edition:
Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)
Sulphate in WAC leachate (BS EN Determination of sulphate in leachate by In-house method based on Standard L039-PL W ISO 17025
12457-3 Prep) acidification followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Examination of Water and
TDS in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Determination of total dissolved solids in leachate In-house method based on Standard L004-PL W NONE
Prep) by electrometric measurement. Methods for the Examination of Water and
Total organic carbon in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, L023-PL D MCERTS
with potassium dichromate followed by titration 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests
with iron (II) sulphate.
Iss No 15-83305-1
Iss No 15-83305-1

APPENDIX D

Appendix D – SPT Calibration Data

Discharge of Conditions - P - 2016 - 00474 Geotechnical Reports - Ground Investigation Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Discharge of Conditions - P - 2016 - 00474 Geotechnical Reports - Ground Investigation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P/2016/00474

Geochemical testing provides no results of significant issue.

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- i - Issued: February 2016

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ i

3 EXISTING INFORMATION .................................................................................. 7

4 FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES .................................................................. 15

5 GROUND SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 20

6 GROUND CONDITIONS AND MATERIALS PROPERTIES.................................... 23

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- ii - Issued: February 2016

6.3 Made Ground .................................................................................................. 28

8 COMPARISON OF PROJECT OPTIONS AND RISKS............................................ 53

Appendix A Shepherd Gilmore Environment Limited: Report no. R0017 DH

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- iii - Issued: February 2016

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- iv - Issued: February 2016

2.1 Scope and Objectives of Report

2.2 Description of Project

Branston Locks was identified as a principle Greenfield development site to establish a

1. To assist in the design, delivery and interpretation of a site investigation

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 5 - Issued: February 2016

2.3 Geotechnical Category of Project

2.4 Other Relevant Information

No other relevant information is known to be applicable to the project at the time of

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 6 - Issued: February 2016

Existing information has been comprehensively reviewed in the Branston Locks

3.1 Topographic Maps (Old and Recent)

3.2 Geological Maps and Memoirs

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 7 - Issued :February 2016

The study area is recorded to be underlain by the superficial deposits described in

Table 3-1: Summary of Superficial Geology

Generally poorly sorted rounded sandy

Table 3-2: Summary of Solid Geology

Mainly red-brown to dark red mudstone and

The Tutbury Gypsum is inferred to outcrop in proximity to the south-western border

3.3 Aerial Photography

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 8 - Issued :February 2016

3.4 Records of Mines and Mineral Deposits

The Tutbury Gypsum band is inferred to outcrop in proximity to the south-western

3.5 Land Use and Soil Survey Information

Soil Survey information is supplied in Section 3.7.

3.6 Archaeological and Historical Investigations

No historical or archaeological investigations have been conducted in the area of

3.7 Existing Ground Investigation Data

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 9 - Issued :February 2016

Table 3-3: BGS Borehole Data [6]

SK22SW138 0m – 4.2m 4.2m – 6.0m* 3.9m

SK22SW136 0m – 3.5m 3.5m – 6.0m* N/A

SK22SW135 0m – 2.4m 2.4m –5.5m* N/A

SK22SW39 0m – 4.3m 4.2m – 11.6m* N/A†

SK22SW60 0m – 8.0m 8.0m – 8.1m* 1.7m

SK22SW60 0m – 7.0m 7.0m – 7.5m* 1.5m

Notes: * Denotes base of stratum not defined

A Geo-environmental Investigation and Quantitative Risk Assessment commissioned

Doc. Ref.:COSTCDX8620 /CON-GE-BHAM-COSTCDX8620-GIR-001 Rev. 0- 10 - Issued :February 2016

Table 3-4: Summary of Geology from SGE 2009 [9]

Stratum General Description Depth m bgl

Topsoil Topsoil 0 to 0.10 – 1.20

Brown gravelly clay with gravels

Very soft, spongey, organic rich

Clay Firm to stiff brown clay 0.10 – 1.00 to 0.80 – 4.90

Fine to course Sand and fine to

Weak to moderately weak

Table 3-5: Summary of SGE Atterberg Limit Testing [9]

Moisture Content 18 - 27%