Geotech Report J1501056 001 R Rev0

Report on
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROWSE STREET APARTMENTS
14 PROWSE STREET, WEST PERTH

Submitted to:
A‐Lijn Built Forms
410 Oxford Street
MOUNT HAWTHORN WA 6016

www.galtgeo.com.au
2/39 Flynn St, WEMBLEY WA 6 014
T: +61 (8) 6272‐0200
J1501056 001 R Rev0 F: +61 (8) 9285‐8444 10 April 2015

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Site Description and Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 1
3. Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
4. Fieldwork ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
5. Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
5.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
5.2 Sub‐surface Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 3
5.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
6. Geotechnical Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 3
6.1 Site Classification................................................................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Site Subsoil Class ................................................................................................................................................. 3
6.3 Footings ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
6.3.1 Shallow Footings ........................................................................................................................................... 4
6.3.2 Piled Foundations .......................................................................................................................................... 5
6.4 Earth Retaining Structures .................................................................................................................................. 6
6.4.1 Retaining Options .......................................................................................................................................... 6
6.4.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 6
6.5 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................................. 7
6.6 Compaction ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
6.7 Approved Fill ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
6.8 Stormwater Disposal ........................................................................................................................................... 8
6.9 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................................................ 9
7. Closure ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Galt Geotechnics Pty Ltd
www.galtgeo.com.au Page | i ABN: 73 292 586 155

2/39 Flynn St, WEMBLEY WA 6014

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Tests .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table 2: Summary of Permeability Test Results .................................................................................................................. 2
Table 3: Pad Footing Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlements ................................................................. 4
Table 4: Strip Footing Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlements ............................................................... 4
Table 5: Design Parameters for CFA Piles (ultimate) .......................................................................................................... 5
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site and Location Plan
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B: CONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX C: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX D: UNDERSTANDING YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
www.galtgeo.com.au Page | ii ABN: 73 292 586 155


J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the outcomes of Galt Geotechnics Pty Ltd’s (Galt’s) geotechnical study for the proposed Prowse
Street Apartments at 14 Prowse Street, West Perth (the “site”). The location of the site relative to the surrounding
area is shown on Figure 1, Site and Location Plan.
The investigation was authorised by Chris Hazebroek of A‐Lijn Built Forms in a signed Client Authorisation Form dated
24 March 2015.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the supplied information, the site is roughly triangular in plan and covers 645 m2. The provided plan shows
that the surface elevation ranges from RL 29 m AHD along the northern edge to RL 31 m AHD at the southwest corner.
The site is bounded by Totterdell Park to the north, a two storey rendered brick building (with undercroft car parking)
to the east, Prowse Street to the south and by an access road to the west. Based on a review of historical aerial
imagery, a single residence has remained on site since prior to 1953. This has had various additions over the years and
was used as offices until recently. Localised trees are present in the south east corner and along the northern
boundary of the site. No signs of settlement related distress were noted in the exterior of the house.
Photographs of the site are presented in Appendix A, Site Photographs.
We understand that the proposed development will comprise a 7 level apartment building with 2 basement/sub‐
basement levels. Based on supplied drawings (02‐08 Rev 3), the lower basement (FFL: RL 25.6 m AHD) will comprise 8
parking bays, 18 store rooms, 2 water tanks and areas for access via lift, stairs and ramp. The upper basement (RL
28.3 m AHD) will comprise 10 parking bays, 9 store rooms, 2 locations for bins and areas for access via lift, stairs and
ramp. Above the ground floor (RL 31.0 m AHD), the proposed development comprises 7 levels with 2 to 3 apartments
per level.
3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study were to:
assess subsurface soil and groundwater conditions across the site;
provide recommendations on suitable footing systems for the proposed development;
provide allowable bearing pressures and settlement estimates for shallow foundations;
provide pile design parameters (if required);
provide a site classification(s) in accordance with AS 2870‐2011 “Residential Slabs and Footings”;
provide recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for earth retaining structures;
assess the appropriate site subsoil class for the site in accordance with AS 1170.4‐2007;
recommend appropriate site preparation procedures including compaction criteria;
assess the permeability of the soils at the site for potential on‐site disposal of stormwater by infiltration; and
provide a subgrade California bearing ratio (CBR) value for pavement thickness design by others.

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 1 ABN: 73 292 586 155

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
4. FIELDWORK
The fieldwork was carried out on 30 March 2015 and comprised:
clearing the test locations for buried services;
cone penetration testing (CPTs) at 2 locations (CPT01 and CPT02), extending to a depth of 15 m in each
instance;
installation of a ground water monitoring well at one of the CPT locations (CPT01) at a depth of 6 m (i.e.
below proposed basement level) for permeability testing; and
infiltration tests using the ‘inverse auger hole’ technique in the well, at a depth of about 6 m below ground.
General
A geotechnical engineer from Galt located the test positions, supervised the service clearance, observed the CPT
testing and well installation, and performed the permeability testing.
The test locations are shown on Figure 1, Site and Location Plan and details are summarised in Table 1, Summary of
Tests. Photographs of the site are presented in Appendix A, Site Photographs.
Table 1: Summary of Tests
Test Test Depth Depth to Reason for
Stratigraphy1
Names (m) Groundwater (m) Termination
CPT01 15.0 D (13.9)2 Target depth SAND, medium dense becoming dense to
CPT02 15.0 ‐ Target depth very dense below 7.0 m
Notes 1. Stratigraphy from CPTs is inferred from the Robertson et al (1986) CPT interpretation

2. Dry to recorded depth – hole collapse occurred below this depth following removal of probe
Cone Penetration Tests
CPTs were undertaken using a 22 tonne truck‐mounted CPT rig supplied and operated by Probedrill Pty Ltd. The
results of the CPTs are provided in Appendix B, Cone Penetration Test Results along with a method of interpretation
proposed by Robertson et al (1986).
Permeability Test Results
The permeability testing was undertaken using the inverse auger hole method described by Cocks1. The results of the
permeability testing are presented in Appendix C, Permeability Test Results and the results are summarised in Table 2:
Summary of Permeability Test Results.
Table 2: Summary of Permeability Test Results
Minimum Unsaturated Permeability, k (m/day)
Test No. Soil Description Test Depth (m)
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
CPT01 SAND 6.0 12.9 13.7 15.0
Note: The minimum unsaturated permeabilities were recorded towards the end of the test, with pressure head varying
between 0.087 m and 0.09 m

1
Cocks, G (2007), “Disposal of Stormwater Runoff by Soakage in Perth Western Australia”, Journal and News of the Australian
Geomechanics Society, Volume 42 No. 3, pp 101‐114

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
5. SITE CONDITIONS
5.1 Geology
The Perth sheet of the 1:50,000 scale Environmental Geology series map indicates that the area is underlain by sand
derived from the weathering of Tamala Limestone. This is described as “SAND ‐ pale and olive yellow, medium to
coarse‐grained, sub‐angular to sub‐rounded quartz, trace of feldspar, moderately sorted.”
The findings of our investigation are in accordance with the geological mapping.
5.2 Sub‐surface Conditions
Based on the materials inferred from the CPTs, the soils are relatively consistent across the site and general
subsurface conditions can be summarised as comprising:
SAND (SP): medium dense, becoming dense below about 7.0 m, becoming dense to very dense below about
8.0 m to 9.0 m, present below the existing paving, extending to the maximum depth of investigation of
15.0 m.
Notes 1. Soil conditions are inferred from CPT data using Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and
Grieg, J. (1986) “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”
2. An old layer of asphaltic concrete and basecourse material was encountered within CPT02 at depths of
about 0.2 m to 0.5 m. Dummy probing was conducted through these layers to enable the CPT to
continue to target depth.
5.3 Groundwater
The Perth Groundwater Atlas (1997) shows the maximum historical groundwater level to be around RL 12 m AHD.
This is about 17 m below the current ground surface.
Groundwater was not encountered in the CPT holes left following extraction of the probe to a depth of 13 m (the
holes collapsed below this depth). We do not consider the presence of groundwater will influence the proposed
development.
6. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
6.1 Site Classification
We consider that the site is geotechnically capable of supporting the proposed Prowse Street Apartments.
We have assessed the site in accordance with AS2870 (2011) “Residential Slabs and Footings”. We consider that a site
classification of “Class A” is appropriate provided the site preparation measures outlined in Section 6.5 are followed.
Note: AS2870 is limited to single and double storey residential buildings and is not strictly applicable for the proposed
development. This must be taken into account by the structural designers.
6.2 Site Subsoil Class
We have assessed the site subsoil class in accordance with AS1170.4‐2007, “Earthquake Design Actions –
Australia”. We consider that a site subsoil class of ‘Ce’ is appropriate for the site given the presence of medium dense
to dense sands and the expected depth to rock being less than 45 m.

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
6.3 Footings
6.3.1 Shallow Footings
We consider the proposed structure may be founded on shallow pad and strip footings placed within the sand
encountered across the site, provided the site preparation recommendations outlined in Section 6.5 are followed.
Table 3 and Table 4 give allowable bearing pressures and estimated settlements for various sizes of pad footings and
strip footings founded at embedment depths of 0.5 m and 1.0 m below ground surface level and below the basement
level.
Table 3: Pad Footing Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlements
Footings below
Shallow Footings
Minimum Basement Level (~6 m deep)
Min. Footing
Footing Allowable Estimated Allowable Estimated
Embedment (m)
Dimension (m) Bearing Pressure Settlement Bearing Pressure Settlement
(kPa) (mm) (kPa) (mm)
0.5 18 <5 220 <5
1.0 200 5‐10 240 <5
1.5 240 10‐15 250 <5
0.5
2.0 250 15‐20 250 5‐10
3.0 250 25‐30 250 5‐10
4.0 250 30‐40 250 5‐10
0.5 200 <5 250 <5
1.0 220 5‐10 250 <5
2.0 250 10‐15 250 <5
1.0
3.0 250 20‐25 250 <5
4.0 250 25‐30 250 <5
5.0 250 30‐40 250 5‐10
Table 4: Strip Footing Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlements
Footings below
Shallow Footings
Min. Footing Footing Width Basement Level (~6 m deep)
Allowable Estimated Allowable Estimated
Embedment (m) (m)
Bearing Pressure Settlement Bearing Pressure Settlement
(kPa) (mm) (kPa) (mm)
0.5 160 <5 170 <5
1.0 200 10‐15 210 <5
0.5 1.5 240 20‐25 250 <5
2.0 250 25‐30 250 5‐10
3.0 250 30‐40 250 5‐10
0.5 250 5‐10 250 <5
1.0 250 10‐15 250 <5
1.0 1.5 250 20‐25 250 <5
2.0 250 20‐25 250 <5
3.0 250 30‐40 250 5‐10

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
Allowable bearing pressures for footings of intermediate plan dimensions to those tabulated can be interpolated.
Footings that have a plan dimension either smaller or larger than those covered by the tables above will need to be
considered individually along with other embedment depths. An allowable working bearing pressure of 250 kPa is
considered to be an upper limit for shallow footings at this site to limit total and differential settlements.
Footings carrying significant eccentric loading, such as below retaining walls, must be assessed separately.
The settlement of the proposed structure will depend upon a number of factors including the applied pressures,
footing size and base preparation. The estimates of settlement provided above assume that the site preparation
measures detailed in Section 6.5 have been completed. Differential settlements of up to half of the total estimated
settlement values are likely between footings of similar sizes, loads and elevations. About 70% of the settlement is
expected to occur during construction.
We note that significant differential settlements are likely to occur between shallow footings and footings below
basement level.
The estimated settlements indicated in the above tables do not include interaction effects from footings founded near
other footings. Interaction effects will need to be considered if the spacing between adjacent footings are smaller
than the dimension of the footings (i.e. the centre‐to‐centre spacing of footings are less than twice the width of the
footings). This could act to double the nominated settlements, dependent on the footing configuration.
All foundation excavations should be assessed by a competent person prior to blinding.
6.3.2 Piled Foundations
The structural designers may consider the use of piles to limit the total and differential settlements of the structure
and to avoid settlement of adjacent structures. In general, we consider the use of continuous flight auger (CFA) piles
to be the most suitable pile type for founding the structure. However, other pile types may also be considered.
CFA pile design parameters have been adopted from the Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) 2 pile design method which
is based on CPT data. Pile design parameters for other pile types can be provided if required.
The soil profile and assumed parameters are presented in Table 5: Design Parameters for CFA Piles (ultimate). For
piles founded below the basement level (about 6 m below current ground level), the upper sand layers are not
relevant for pile design and must be ignored. Furthermore, the top 1 m of any pile should not be considered to
contribute to pile shaft resistance.
Table 5: Design Parameters for CFA Piles (ultimate)
Depth Layer Description qc1 qc design Rf ’3 ’4 fm,s5 fb6
2
(mbgl) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (°) (kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa)
0 to 2.0 Loose to medium dense 1‐10 ignore ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2.0 to 7.0 Medium dense sand 5‐12 7 0.5 ‐ 1 34 17 70 2,800
7.0 – 9.0 Dense sand 12‐20 15 0.5 ‐ 1 36 18 100 4,500
9.0 – 15.0 Very dense sand 20‐30 20 0.5 ‐ 1 38 18 120 6,000
NOTES:
1. qc – Cone Tip Resistance 2. Rf – CPT Friction ratio
3. ’ – Friction angle (effective) 4. ’ – Effective unit weight (above water table)
5. fm,s – unit shaft resistance (ultimate) 6. fb – unit base resistance (ultimate)

2 Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L., Pile bearing capacity prediction by means of static penetrometer CPT, Proc. 2nd European Symp.
on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, 1982, pp 493‐500

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
Individual piles must be designed such that the toe extends into the dense or very dense sand.
Furthermore, we note that the end‐bearing capacity of a CFA pile is highly dependent on the condition of the base and
any disturbance of soil below the pile toe. We therefore advise that the piles need to be designed to take the full
working load in shear on the pile shaft.
Pile design must be done in accordance with AS2159‐2009, including selection of an appropriate testing regime and
associated geotechnical strength reduction factor.
A suitably experienced contractor must be appointed to design, install and test the piles.
6.4 Earth Retaining Structures
6.4.1 Retaining Options
Given the proximity of the proposed building to the site boundaries, adjacent buildings close to these boundaries
must be taken into account when designing and constructing basement retaining walls. We do not consider that the
basement excavation can be undertaken without retention (temporary or permanent) being installed prior to
excavation as there is insufficient space to form safe batters.
Any retention system used must be designed to minimise vertical and horizontal movements and the associated
potential for damage to adjacent structures.
The designer of the retaining structure must assess the likely ground movement and the influence on adjacent
structures. We can assist with such design if required. The amount of ground movement is largely controlled by the
stiffness of the retaining structure, the anchoring or strutting system and the construction method.
Temporary supports may be needed to provide adequate strutting. The excavation should also be scheduled in such a
way that the necessary support of the retaining system is available throughout the whole construction process prior to
the permanent lateral support being provided by the structure.
This information is provided for guidance only and the designer of the retaining structure must assess the likely
ground movement and the influence on adjacent structures. Further advice and detailed design can be provided if
necessary. Irrespective of the above, a dilapidation survey of adjacent properties should be conducted prior to
construction.
The type of retaining system must be carefully selected to avoid noise and vibration disturbance. Given the
requirements, we consider a contiguous pile wall system to be the most appropriate system for this site.
6.4.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Retaining structures may be designed in accordance with AS 4678‐2002 “Earth‐Retaining Structures”.
We recommend that all retaining walls at the site be backfilled with free‐draining fill, e.g. sand (either site‐derived or
imported free draining sand fill with less than 5% fines).
For the design of retaining structures, the following parameters are considered appropriate for in situ medium dense
sand and compacted sand backfill:
angle of internal friction,  = 36°;
coefficient of active earth pressure Ka = 0.26;
coefficient of passive earth pressure Kp = 3.85;

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
at rest coefficient of earth pressure K0 = 0.41;
bulk density: 18 kN/m3; and
Compaction plant can augment the lateral earth pressure acting on retaining walls. Hand operated compaction
equipment is recommended within 2 m of any retaining walls to minimise compaction pressures.
It is important to note that some ground movement is to be expected behind any soil retaining system, including
gravity retaining walls.
6.5 Site Preparation
The site preparation measures outlined below are aimed at preparation of the site prior to construction of the
building and pavement subgrades. Landscaped areas (if any) will not require this preparation.
The following site preparation measures must be followed:
Demolish existing buildings as required and remove demolition debris and any other deleterious material
from site including old footings, slabs, soak wells, buried services, paved areas and building rubble.
Strip uncontrolled fill from the site (where encountered) and if suitable, stockpile it for potential re‐use as
non‐structural fill. If contaminated, dispose of it off site. We did not encounter uncontrolled fill during the
investigation.
Construct temporary/permanent retaining walls (see Section 6.4) around the periphery of the basement
excavation.
Excavate to basement level and dispose of material off site. The excavated material is considered suitable for
re‐use as structural fill if required, however there will be a surplus of spoil on the site.
Compact the exposed base of the basement to achieve the level of compaction specified in Section 6.6 to a
depth of at least 0.9 m below the base of the excavation.
Any areas of loose sand or unsuitable material must be removed and replaced with approved fill as outlined
in Section 6.7.
Where fill is required to build up levels, use approved fill (see Section 6.7), placed and compacted in layers no
greater than 300 mm loose thickness.
Excavate for pad and strip footings and compact the exposed bases to achieve the level of compaction
specified in Section 6.6 to a depth of at least 0.9 m below the underside of all footings. Remove, replace and
compact as required with approved fill any zone not achieving the level of compaction specified in Section
6.6.
6.6 Compaction
In situ sand and granular fill must be compacted using suitable compaction equipment to achieve a dry density ratio
(DDR) of at least 95% of maximum modified dry density (MMDD) as determined in accordance with AS 1289 5.2.1 at a
moisture content within 2% of optimum moisture content (OMC).
Where sand (containing less than 5% fines) is used as fill, a Perth sand penetrometer (PSP) may be used for
compaction control. The following minimum PSP blow counts are considered to correlate to the required DDR:
150 mm‐450 mm: 8
450 mm‐750 mm: 10
750 mm‐900 mm: 12
If difficulties are experienced in achieving the required blow count, an on‐site PSP calibration should be undertaken to
determine the site‐specific PSP blow count required to achieve the required dry density ratio.

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
Over‐excavation and replacement of loose materials may be required where the minimum density cannot be
achieved.
Fill must be placed in horizontal layers of not greater than 300 mm loose thickness. Each layer must be compacted by
suitable compaction equipment, and carefully controlled to ensure even compaction over the full area and depth of
each layer.
Care will need to be taken when compacting in the vicinity of existing structures. This is particularly important if
vibratory compaction is being carried out. Tynan (1973)3 provides assistance with the selection of compaction
equipment for use adjacent to structures. Of particular concern are the existing buildings to the east and west.
After compaction, verify that the level of compaction has been achieved by testing to a minimum depth of 0.9 m:
On each lift of fill on a 10 m grid;
At each spread footing location;
At 5 m centres along strip footings; and
On a grid of 7.5 m centres below on‐ground slabs and paved areas.
6.7 Approved Fill
Imported granular fill must comply with the material requirements as stated in AS 3798‐2007, “Guidelines on
Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments”.
Generally, the in situ sand and sand fill present at the site will be suitable for re‐use as inert structural fill. Any
organic‐rich sand or sand containing significant proportions of fines (material less than 0.075 mm in size) must not be
used.
Where doubt exists, a geotechnical engineer must be engaged to inspect and approve the use of potential fill
materials.
6.8 Stormwater Disposal
The results of permeability testing are presented in Appendix C, Permeability Test Results and summarised in Table 2:
Summary of Permeability Test Results. The minimum measured permeability was 12.9 m/day.
We assume that stormwater will be disposed of using soak‐wells or similar below the lower basement level
(RL 25.6 m AHD). Permeability testing was conducted 6.0 m below the ground level at approximately RL 24 m AHD to
RL 25 m AHD. Notwithstanding the results of the permeability testing, we recommend a design value of permeability
(k) not greater than 5 m/day be used for the sand fill to allow for the variability in materials and reduced permeability
as a consequence of:
densification of sand during site preparation works;
natural variation in sands; and
clogging of the sand around soakwells and soakage basins over time with fines.
Soak wells should be placed outside a line of 1V:2H extending below the edge of the nearest footing (or at least 3 m of
footings or on‐ground slabs) subject to local council regulations. Discharge from soak wells has been known to
promote densification of loose sandy soils, leading to settlements of footings and slabs. Soak wells should be carefully
wrapped with geotextile to prevent migration of sand and fines into the soak well.

3 Tynan (1973) Ground Vibration and Damage Effects on Buildings, Australia Road Research Board, Special Report No. 11.

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
6.9 Pavement Design
Where pavement subgrades comprise the surficial sandy soil present across the site at the current surface level (or at
basement floor level), a design subgrade CBR of 12% may be assumed provided the site preparation measures
identified in Section 6.5 are followed.
7. CLOSURE
We draw your attention to Appendix D of this report, Understanding your Geotechnical Engineering Report. The
information provided within is intended to inform you as to what your realistic expectations of this report should be.
Guidance is also provided on how to minimise risks associated with groundworks for this project. This information is
provided not to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Galt, but to ensure that all parties who rely on this
report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.
GALT GEOTECHNICS PTY LTD

Rick Piovesan CPEng James Harris
Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer
O:\Jobs\2015\J1501056 ‐ Alijn Built SI West Perth\03 Correspondence\J1501056 001 R Rev0.docx


Figures
www.galtgeo.com.au ABN: 73 292 586 155
Rail
wa y Pd
e
Colin Pl
Subiaco Rd Ra
ilw
a yS
t
Art
St
hur
St
as
om
Th
Wes St
t St Prowse
Cam pbel
l
wP
v
kno
ro P
eA
Luc
l
enc
Dou
St
r
Well )
Delhi St (a
Law
in gto
n St
St
St
tram
in
Col
Ou
Legend
Site Boundary
Cone Penetration Test

I
#
CPT01
I
#
±
6,465,100
6,465,100
0 4 8 12 16 20
Meters
SCALE 1:250 (A3)
DRAWN DAC
DATE DRAWN 31/03/2015

CPT02 SITE LOCATION PERTH
I
# CHECKED JH
DATE CHECKED 10/04/2015
PROJECTION GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

ACN : 138 490 865
Tel : +61 (0)8 6272-0200
Fax : +61 (0)8 9285 8444
Address : U2, 39 Flynn Street,
_Wembley, WA, 6014
COPYRIGHT 2015 THIS FIGURE AND ITS CONTENTS REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF GALT
©
GEOTECHNICS PTY LTD AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL.
l
ro P
THIS FIGURE SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT.

Dou
Prowse St CLIENT
A-LIJN BUILT FORMS
PROJECT PROWSE STREET APARTMENTS
LOCATION 14 PROWSE STREET
WEST PERTH
TITLE SITE & LOCATION PLAN
J1501056 FIGURE 1 A
Job No Fig No Rev
O:\Jobs\2015\J1501056 - Alijn Built SI West Perth\09 GIS\04 MXD\J1501056-001.mxd (DamonClark) 31/03/2015 1:30:50 PM

Appendix A: Site Photographs

J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
Photograph 1: CPT rig at CPT02 location
Photograph 2: Locating services at CPT02
www.galtgeo.com.au Page | A1 ABN: 73 292 586 155


J1501056 001 R Rev0
10 April 2015
Photograph 3: Looking northwest towards CPT01
Photograph 4: Looking north from Prowse Street towards CPT02 location
www.galtgeo.com.au Page | A2 ABN: 73 292 586 155


Appendix B: Cone Penetration Test Results

Cone Resistance, qt
Friction Ratio (%)
DEFINITIONS
qt : Cone tip resistance corrected for pore water pressure
St : Sensitivity
e : Void ratio
Dr : Relative density
OCR : Overconsolidation ratio
OC : Overconsolidated
SOIL BEHAVIOUR TYPE ZONES
1. Sensitive fine grained 7. Silty sand to sandy silt
2. Organic material 8. Sand to silty sand
3. Clay 9. Sand
4. Silty clay to clay 10. Gravelly sand to sand
5. Clayey silt to silty clay 11. Very stiff fine grained material (OC/cemented)
6. Sandy silt to clayey silt 12. Sand to clayey sand (OC/cemented)
NOTES
A. Some overlap in type zones is expected
B. Local correlations are preferred and may indicate soil type boundaries that are different
from those shown above
Reference: Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Grieg, J. (1986) "Use of Piezometer Cone Data". Proceedings of the ASCE Speciality
Conference In Situ '86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, pp 1263‐80, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
CONE PENETRATION TESTING (CPT)
SOIL TYPE INTERPRETATION
Galt Form PMP18
O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP18 CPT Interpretation.xlsx RL 0 October 2009
ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PENETROMETER
CLIENT: A-Lijn Built Forms Date: Monday, 30 March 2015
PROJECT: Proposed Prowse Street Apartments Probe No.: All Data
LOCATION: 14 Prowse Street, West Perth Job Number: J1501056

RL (m): Co-ordinates:
Tip Resistance qc (MPa) Friction Sleeve fs (kPa) Friction Ratio Rf (%)
100
200
300
400
500
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
CPT 2A
6
6
6
7
7
7
CPT 2
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
8
8
CPT 1
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
Water (m): Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

and IRTP 2001 for friction reducer
Refusal:
File: Cone I.D. : Dummy probe to (m): 22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track Truck)
PROJECT: Proposed Prowse Street Apartments Probe No.: CPT 1
100
200
300
400
500
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
Water (m): Dry to 13.9 Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Refusal:
File: GL0343TT Cone I.D. : EC38 Install 32mm Standpipe to (m): 6.0 22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track Truck)
PROJECT: Proposed Prowse Street Apartments Probe No.: CPT 2A
100
200
300
400
500
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
Water (m): Dry to 15.2 Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Install 32mm Standpipe to (m): 6.0
File: GL0345TT Cone I.D. : EC38 Dummy probe to (m): 0.5 22 tonne truck mounted CPT Rig (Track Truck)

Appendix C: Permeability Test Results

Permeability Calculation - Inverse Auger Hole Method
Galt Geotechnics Spreadsheet author: ORW 17-Oct-09 REFERENCE: Cocks, G. Disposal of
Job No: J1501056 Stormwater Runoff by Soakage in Perth
Western Australia, Journal and News of
Client: A-Lijn Built Form 1 1 the Australian Geomechanics Society,
Site: 14 Prowse Street log10 (h0 + r ) − log10 (h t + r ) Volume 42 No 3 September 2007,
Location: West Perth K = 1.15r 2 2 pp101-114
Calc by: JH 30-Mar-15 t − t0
BH Name: CPT01 Parameter Description Value Units
Test Depth: 6 m K Permeability m/s
Spreadsheet Legend r radius of test hole 0.016 m
Required input t time since start of measurement s
Calculated field hr reference point height above base m
Comment field dt depth from reference point to water at time t m
Field not used ht Water column height at time t m
Fixed field h0 ht at t=0 m
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day) t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day) t (s) dw (m) ht (m) K (m/s) K (m/day)
0 1.277 0 1.866 0 1.662
10 0.691 4.9E-04 42.0 10 0.869 6.1E-04 52.4 10 0.826 5.5E-04 47.9
20 0.465 4.0E-04 34.5 20 0.618 4.4E-04 37.9 20 0.597 4.1E-04 35.1
30 0.314 3.7E-04 31.9 30 0.446 3.8E-04 32.7 30 0.434 3.5E-04 30.6
40 0.223 3.4E-04 29.6 40 0.326 3.4E-04 29.8 40 0.315 3.3E-04 28.4
50 0.169 3.2E-04 27.4 50 0.245 3.2E-04 27.6 50 0.234 3.1E-04 26.7
60 0.139 2.9E-04 25.0 60 0.194 3.0E-04 25.6 60 0.189 2.8E-04 24.6
70 0.122 2.6E-04 22.6 70 0.151 2.8E-04 24.3 70 0.151 2.7E-04 23.2
80 0.111 2.4E-04 20.5 80 0.135 2.6E-04 22.2 80 0.131 2.5E-04 21.4
90 0.101 2.2E-04 18.9 90 0.120 2.4E-04 20.6 90 0.116 2.3E-04 20.0
100 0.099 2.0E-04 17.2 100 0.113 2.2E-04 18.9 100 0.106 2.1E-04 18.5
110 0.093 1.8E-04 15.9 110 0.108 2.0E-04 17.5 110 0.099 2.0E-04 17.2
120 0.091 1.7E-04 14.8 120 0.104 1.9E-04 16.2 120 0.091 1.9E-04 16.3
130 0.086 1.6E-04 13.9 130 0.098 1.8E-04 15.2 130 0.090 1.7E-04 15.0
140 0.087 1.5E-04 12.9 140 0.095 1.7E-04 14.3
150 0.088 1.6E-04 13.7
AVERAGE 2.7E-04 23.4 AVERAGE 2.8E-04 24.6 AVERAGE 2.9E-04 25.0
O:\Jobs\2015\J1501056 - Alijn Built SI West Perth\08 Analysis\J1501056 Permeability Inverse Auger Hole Method
Permeability by Inverse Auger Hole Method
CPT01
60.0
50.0
40.0
Permeability, k (m/day)
Test 1
30.0 Test 2
Test 3
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Test time, t (seconds)
O:\Jobs\2015\J1501056 - Alijn Built SI West Perth\08 Analysis\J1501056 Permeability Inverse Auger Hole Method

Appendix D: Understanding Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report

UNDERSTANDING YOUR GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING REPORT
GALT FORM PMP11 Rev1
1. EXPECTATIONS OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
This document has been prepared to clarify what is and is not provided in your geotechnical report. It is intended to inform you
of what your realistic expectations of this report should be and how to manage your risks associated with geotechnical
conditions.
Geotechnical engineering is a less exact science than other engineering disciplines. We include this information to help you
understand where our responsibilities as geotechnical engineers begin and end, to help the client recognise his responsibilities
and risks. You should read and understand this information. Please contact us if you do not understand the report or this
explanation. We have extensive experience in a wide variety of geotechnical problems and we can help you to manage your risk.
2. THIS REPORT RELATES TO PROJECT-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
This report was developed for a unique set of project-specific conditions to meet the needs of the nominated client. It took into
account the following :
The project objectives as we understood them and as described in this report;

the specific site mentioned in this report; and
the current and proposed development at the site.
It should not be used for any purpose other than that indicated in the report. You should not rely on this geotechnical report if
any of the following conditions apply:
the report was not written for you;

the report was not written for the site specific to your development;
the report was not written for your project (including a development at the correct site but other than that listed in the
report); or
the report was written before significant changes occurred at the site (such as a development or a change in ground
conditions).
You should always inform us of changes in the proposed project (including minor changes) and request an assessment of their
impact.
Where we are not informed of developments relevant to your geotechnical engineering report, we cannot be held responsible
or liable for problems that may arise as a consequence.
Where design is to be carried out by others using information provided by us, we recommend that we be involved in the design
process by being engaged for consultation with other members of the design team and by being able to review work produced
by other members of the design team which relies on geotechnical information provided in our report.

Form PMP11 Rev1
16 December 2009
3. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LOGS
Our reports often include logs of intrusive and non-intrusive geotechnical investigation techniques. These logs are based on our
interpretation of field data and laboratory results. The logs should only be read in conjunction with the report they were issued
with and should not be re-drawn for inclusion in other documents not prepared by us.
4. THIRD PARTY RELIANCE
We have prepared this report for use by the client. This report must be regarded as confidential to the client and the client’s
professional advisors. We do not accept any responsibility for contents of this document from any party other than the
nominated client. We take no responsibility for any damages suffered by a third party as a consequence of any decisions or
actions they may make based on this report. Any reliance or decisions made by a third party based on this report are the
responsibility of the third party and not of us.
5. CHANGE IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The geotechnical recommendations in this report are based on the ground conditions that existed at the time when the study
was undertaken. Changes in ground conditions can occur in numerous ways including as a result of anthropogenic events (such
as construction on or adjacent to the site) or natural events (such as floods, groundwater fluctuations or earthquakes). We
should be consulted prior to use of this report so that we can comment on its reliability. It is important to note that where
ground conditions have changed, additional sampling, testing or analysis may be required to fully assess the changed conditions.
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Practical constraints mean that we cannot know every minute detail about the subsurface conditions at a particular site. We use
engineering judgement to form an opinion about the subsurface conditions at the site. Some variation to our evaluated
conditions is likely and significant variation is possible. Accordingly, our report should not be considered as final as it is
developed from engineering judgement and opinion.
The most effective means of dealing with unanticipated ground conditions is to engage us for construction support. We can only
finalise our recommendations by observing actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction. We cannot accept
liability for a report’s recommendations if we cannot observe construction.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Unless specifically mentioned otherwise in our report, environmental considerations are not included. The investigation
techniques used by us in developing our report differ from those for an environmental investigation. Our report was not
prepared with environmental considerations in mind and it is the client’s responsibility to satisfy himself that environmental
considerations have been taken into account for the site. If you require guidance on how to proceed on evaluating
environmental risk at the site, we can provide further information and contacts.
O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP11 Understanding your Geotechnical Engineering Report.docx


Geotech Report J1501056 001 R Rev0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotech Report J1501056 001 R Rev0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | i ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | ii ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 1 ABN: 73 292 586 155

Notes 1. Stratigraphy from CPTs is inferred from the Robertson et al (1986) CPT interpretation

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 2 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 3 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 4 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 5 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 6 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 7 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 8 ABN: 73 292 586 155

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 9 ABN: 73 292 586 155

Cone Penetration Test

SCALE 1:250 (A3)

DATE DRAWN 31/03/2015

DATE CHECKED 10/04/2015

PROJECTION GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Galt Geotechnics Pty Ltd

THIS FIGURE SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT.

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | A1 ABN: 73 292 586 155

Photograph 3: Looking northwest towards CPT01

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | A2 ABN: 73 292 586 155

PROJECT: Proposed Prowse Street Apartments Probe No.: All Data

LOCATION: 14 Prowse Street, West Perth Job Number: J1501056

Tip Resistance qc (MPa) Friction Sleeve fs (kPa) Friction Ratio Rf (%)

Water (m): Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Tip Resistance qc (MPa) Friction Sleeve fs (kPa) Friction Ratio Rf (%)

Water (m): Dry to 13.9 Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Tip Resistance qc (MPa) Friction Sleeve fs (kPa) Friction Ratio Rf (%)

Water (m): Dry to 15.2 Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

AVERAGE 2.7E-04 23.4 AVERAGE 2.8E-04 24.6 AVERAGE 2.9E-04 25.0

1. EXPECTATIONS OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

2. THIS REPORT RELATES TO PROJECT-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

The project objectives as we understood them and as described in this report;

the report was not written for you;

Galt Geotechnics Pty Ltd

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 1 ABN: 73 292 586 155

3. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LOGS

4. THIRD PARTY RELIANCE

5. CHANGE IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

O:\Administration\Standard Forms and Documents\PMP11 Understanding your Geotechnical Engineering Report.docx

Galt Geotechnics Pty Ltd

www.galtgeo.com.au Page | 2 ABN: 73 292 586 155

You might also like