REPORT 7 r Tonkin +Taylor Exceptional thinkin: www.tonkintaylor.co.nzDocument Control Title: Ground Improvement Design Report Date Version | Description | Prepared by: Reviewed by: _| Authorised by: 23/03/2038 | 0 Draft for GuMc ry PMN Client Review 23/07/2038 | 1 Forconsent_| GUMC ry MM purposes Distrib Timaru Oil Services Limited Logicamms Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) Electronic copy Electronic copy Electronic copyTable of contents 1 Introduction 1 11 General 1 12 Scope 1 1.3 Site location and description 1 1.4 Overview of proposed development 1 2 Ground and groundwater conditions 3 2.1 Geotechnical model 3 2.2. Groundwater 3 3 Seismic considerations 4 4 Ground improvement design 5 4.1 Geotechnical issues and structure types 5 4.2 Design solution summary and performance 5 5 Tanks - Stone column ground improvement design 7 5.1 Design objective 7 5.2. Tankloading 7 5.3. Design methods 7 5.4 Design analysis 8 5.4.1 Design options for static settlement 8 5.42 Detailed settlement analysis 8 5.4.3 Liquefaction mitigation 9 5.4.4 Global punching stability 10 5.4.5 Local bearing capacity of concrete ring beam foundation ct 5.5. Pipework design ct 5.6 Design conclusion 2 6 Building foundations ~ Stone column ground improvement design B 6.1 Design objective 3 6.2 Design analysis B 6.2.1 Bearing capacity B 6.2.2 Settlement 4 6.2.3 Modulus of subgrade reaction 4 6.24 — Resistance to lateral loading 4 6.3 Design conclusions 4 7 Concrete bund wall ~ Foundation and in-situ mass ground improvement design 15 7.1 Design objective 15 7.2 Concrete bund details 16 73 Design method v7 7.4 Design analysis v 7.41 Liquefied bearing capacity to determine foundation width v7 7.4.2. Sliding and overturning 38 7.43 Settlement analysis Area 1 and 2 19 7.5. Design conclusions 20 8 Construction recommendations and risks 2 8.1 Comparison between stone columns and reinforced aggregate piers a 8.2 Stone column (or RAPS) field trial a 83 Contingency for pre-augering of stone columns a 8.4 Invsitu cement mass stabilising field trial 2 85 Fillremoval and excavation dewatering 2 Utend npc sen pr - one Cle annate i al e007 30885.4 Tanks 22 85.2 Bund wall 2B 8.6 Vibration effects from stone column installation 2B 86.1 Potential vibration levels, 2B 86.2 Mitigation during construction 2B 8.7 Hydrotest 25 8.8 Construction observations by T+T 25 9 Safetyin design 26 10 Ap a” Appendix A : Figures Appendix B Ground improvement drawings Appendix C: Ground improvement specifications Appendix D Geotechnical ground improvement design calculation for tanks Appendix E Geotechnical ground improvement design calculation for concrete bund wall Tein yore vecnaosExecutive Summary Timaru Oil Services Ltd (TOSL) has engaged Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T#7) to complete geotechnical design of ground improvement and provide geotechnical recommendations for a proposed bulk fuel storage facility (tank farm) located at 216 Totara St, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga. T+T has worked with Logicamms, the Project Manager and Civil and Mechanical Designer, throughout the design process. This report summarises the geotechnical assessment, design objectives, assumptions, methodology ‘and outcomes which are associated with the stone column and in-situ mass stabilising design works. The proposed development comprises of four large tanks (29.0 m diameter and 18.5 m tall) for storage of diesel, a fire water tank, support buildings and a concrete bund wall for secondary containment of fuel ‘A geotechnical investigation and interpretive report! was completed for this project by T+T in August 2018 and summarises the general ground conditions for the site as 1.0 m of fill overlying liquefiable dune sand to 10 m depth, Below 10 m depth the soils comprise soft compressible estuarine silt and clay. Groundwater has been assessed as typically being 1.0 m below ground level (mbg!) The site has a high seismic and liquefaction risk. The tank structures are considered to be importance level 3 in terms of NZS117.0:2002. ‘Stone column ground improvement design to 10 m depth has been completed underneath the proposed tank and building structures in order to mitigate liquefaction and lateral spreading effects. A settlement analysis has been completed and provided to Logicamms for the purpose of structural design of the tanks and the site. The concrete bund wall foundation has been increased to 4.0 m width to improve the post- liquefaction stability. Along the southern boundary the bund wall foundation is at risk of lateral spreading effects when liquefaction occurs. In-situ mass stabilising ground improvement to 2.8 m has been designed along this boundary to mitigate the effects of lateral spread. Construction risks and recommendations have been considered as part of the design report in Section 8, A field trial is recommended for both stone columns and in-situ mass stabilising in order to demonstrate performance of the ground improvement at ths site. Vibration monitoring is also recommended to be completed during the field trial in order to develop a vibration response curve for the ground at this site. Some CPTs showed potential for a localised dense sand layer to be between 8 to 10m depth, which presents a risk of refusal of the stone column vibroflot. If refusal does occur, then pre-augering may be considered on a case by case basis to penetrate the layer. Due to fill requiring removal beneath the tanks, dewatering of excavations may be required and based on the analysis and ground conditions presented in the report, a centrifuge pump (with sufficient flow capacity of 5 L/s is likely to be able to be used which meets this flow rate. However, afield scale pilot trial is also recommended to demonstrate this, as inflow calculations depend heavily on local conditions that cannot always be captured (i.e. flows can be substantially higher or lower than analysed). The drawings and a ground improvement specification has been developed with Logicamms input. The specification is in Appendix C. The drawings will be added to Appendix B following completion of detailed design drawings. The ground improvement design in this report is expected to require verification by T+T during construction and further detail is provided in Section 8.8 of this report. Safety in design has been considered throughout the design process and the key geotechnical health and safety risks (and recommended mitigation) are presented in Section 9 of this report. * Geotechnical investigation and interpretive Report, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Le for Timaru Oi Services, dated August 2018, T+T Ref: 1008678.0000.v0, Tein yore vecnaos1 Introduction 1.1 General Timaru Oil Services Ltd (TOSL) has engaged Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) to complete geotechnical design of ground improvement and provide geotechnical recommendations for a proposed bulk fuel storage facility (tank farm) located at 216 Totara St, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga, This report summarises the geotechnical assessment, design objectives, assumptions, methodology and outcomes which are associated with the stone column and in-situ mass stabilising design works. {A geotechnical investigation and interpretive report? was completed for this project by T#T in August 2018 for the purpose of defining ground conditions at the site, assessing the geotechnical risks and providing conceptual options for ground improvement. The geotechnical investigation and interpretive report should be read in conjunction with this design report. {A ground contamination investigation report® was completed for this project by T#T in October 2018 for the purpose of identifying soil contamination at the site and implications for the proposed development. ‘A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment report (PSHA)* was completed for this project by TT in December 2018 for the purpose of defining the seismic hazard for the site in more detail compared to what is provided in normal design codes. 1.2 Scope This ground improvement design has been completed in accordance with our variation order dated 10 September 2018. 1.3 Site location and description {As shown in the Figure 1 of Appendix A, the site is located adjacent to the Port of Tauranga, on the southern side of Hewletts Road at 216 Totara St (Lot 1 DPS 64636) in Mount Maunganui. The site is bounded by Totara St to the east and south, NZ Marine Services and Waste Management NZ to the west. Z Energy and BP bulk fuel storage facilities are to the north. The ground levels across the site are at an approximate elevation of RL 2.0 m to RL2.S m. The site is predominantly flat, with slopes flatter than 1(V) in 50(H). Except along northern boundary the round rises up as a batter (approx. 1V:2H) to the elevation of the neighbouring site, which is at an elevation of approximately RL 3.0m. A stormwater open swale drain (or "V drain’) is located along, the outside of the southern boundary (within the road reserve) with a depth ranging between 0.5 m and 1.4m deep. 1.4 Overview of proposed development The proposed development comprises the construction of the following 2 Tanks a. Four bulk fuel storage tanks of 29.0 m diameter and 18.5 m height. 2 Geotechnical investigation and interpre 2018, ToT Ref: 1006878.0000.v0, 3 Ground Contamination Investigation Report, prepared by Tonkin & Tayler Ltd for Timaru Oil Services, dated October 2018, T+ Ref: 1006678.1000 ‘ probabilistc Seismic Hazard Assessment Repor, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for Timaru Oil Services, dated December 2018, ToT Ref, 1008678.0000., sive Report, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor te for Timaru OilSeries, dated August Tein yore vecnaosb. One fire water tank of approximately 17 m height and 17 m diameter. 2 — Buildings a. Athree bay truck load out area with portal frame canopy structure of approximately 600 m’. b. A master control building and office building in the north east corner of the site. 3° Conerete bund wall ‘a. A15to2m high concrete containment bund wall will surround the bulk fuel storage tanks. Tein yore a ES2 Ground and groundwater conditions 2.1 Geotechnical model The generalised design soil profile has been inferred based on the site specific geotechnical investigations that were completed as part of the August 2018 Geotechnical Investigation and Interpretive Report? The locations of investigation and design soil profile are shown in the figures in Appendix A. For investigation borehole logs, please refer to the Geotechnical Investigation and Interpretive report? The adopted design soil profile is summarised in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1: Soll profile adopted for design Dean] Tana unit | ests! | carson deseptin (Sattit| tba) | "ter | gC, | ya wt | espe | ric soitesegtin tel |) | 30 | positnce | Ser mm |208 | eines | "Say | sae oval ondsand mmedum dense 1 Jon [Eimewinceme 2 | oven [988525 | ae | wre snvpopei mater (steel etc.). Son ose 2 Deposits. medium dense, fine to , tto10 ° a 5ros case gamed Su and GAY wh ; 3 [ftiame | onesmdsotnes | 8 | |g 620 | oto2 plasticity, - a Send oes thin 4 Mac dense, fine to medium 16 18+ + 10 to 23 Suberoup | grained (20) ‘Notes i, Numbers in brackets indieate adopted value for ground mode 2 Result not obtained due to hydro vacuum excavation for service clearance, 2.2 Groundwater Groundwater monitoring has been completed at the site as part of the August 2018 Geotechnical Report?. A further measurement was taken during the design process to determine whether the site may be affected by seasonal variation. A measurement taken on 24 January 2019 showed a ground water level of 1.03 mbgl. This is similar to previous readings completed in August 2018 which suggests there is no seasonal variation. A design groundwater level of 1.0 mbgl has therefore been sed as part of the design and is consistent with our Geotechnical Report’ Tein yore vecnaos3 Seismic considerations The ground improvement design has been completed based on the site response provided in the PHA The unweighted Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA’s) and magnitude recommended for liquefaction analysis and geotechnical design are provided in Table 3.1 below based on the PSHAS, The structures are considered by Logicamms and T+T to be Importance Level 3 (IL3) in accordance with NZS 1170 — Structural Design Actions®. Therefore, a return period of 1000 years has been used for design for ultimate limit state (ULS). Table 3.1: Recommended PGA and magnitude for design (IL3 structure) Return period PGA Le) Magnitude 25. Serviceabilty iit State (15) 008 58 500 028 58 1000 Uitimate Limit state (ULS) 038 59 2500 aa 38 For structural design of the tanks please refer to the PSHA‘. Sub soil class Dis considered appropriate for ths site. * New Zesland Standara (2008) NZS1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions Part S Earthquake Actions, CL.2.1.4 Tota Tord