APPLICATION OF THE INVESTIGATIVE DRILLING METHOD

TO RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECTS

Dr Matthew Duthy1, Ben Juett2

1
Technical Director for Geotechnical Engineering, GHD
2
Managing Director, Civil Group

ABSTRACT
Australia is a world leader in the harnessing of renewable energy from wind power, solar and biogas, with many large
renewable projects having been developed over the preceding ten years. One issue for renewable energy sources is
characteristically the location of the resource that is to be exploited is typically not near the location of major demand for
energy. This means that a connection to the existing electricity network is required to transfer the energy generated from the
resource location into the grid, for transmission and distribution to users. The transmission line between the resource location
and the grid can itself be many tens of kilometres long and require hundreds of varying structure types (monopoles or lattice
towers) to support the overhead transmission line. The routes of the transmission lines are often difficult to access and
encompass significant variations in soil, geology, topography and site environment. Moreover, the design loads on the footings
to the transmission line support structures can also vary significantly between locations. The use of the Investigative Drilling
(ID) method is being increasingly accepted by project owners as a key component of geotechnical investigations for long
linear infrastructure, such as transmission lines from renewable projects to the grid. This paper outlines the application of the
ID method to geotechnically investigate the routes of proposed transmission lines for various major renewable projects. The
paper also demonstrates how the use of the ID method can manage geotechnical uncertainty and hence risk for both the design
and construction of support structure footings, while keeping the budget and time line for the geotechnical site investigation
to acceptable limits for the project. The use of the ID method does this in a way that is superior to traditional approaches to
geotechnical site investigation, footing design and footing construction.

1. INTRODUCTION
Renewable energy projects are increasingly being targeted and approved in Australia by private investors and by Federal
Government support, in response to reduced reliance on coal energy and to meet clean energy targets. However, there are
some challenges to overcome, to ensure that financial closure can be met for renewable energy projects. Geotechnical
investigations in the initial feasibility stage are highly important for many reasons, including risk mitigation associated with
ground conditions. Geotechnical investigations provide a basis for a footing design that will be economical, and not overly
conservative since that could render a project financially unviable and cause it to be shelved. Conversely, geotechnical
investigations also provide a basis for a footing design that will be robust and minimise cost blow-outs in the construction
phase due to large variations by the construction contractor for latent ground conditions.
As most engineering professionals are aware, unforeseen and/or variable ground conditions are one of the highest risk factors
for any construction cost. However, this risk factor, and the associated impacts to project budgets and work programmes, can
be confidently identified at a modest cost by undertaking the Investigative Drilling (ID) method as a major component of the
geotechnical investigation programme. In recent years, additional focus and project feasibility expenditure has been given to
geotechnical investigation and reporting to mitigate these factors. However, there are still large geographical gaps in
geotechnical investigations, due to the prohibitive costs of an extensive programme of conventional borehole drilling and
laboratory testing. The ID method, using Measure While Drilling (MWD) data acquisition, offers a highly affordable
alternative to the conventional geotechnical investigation approach. The ID method thus allows a substantial increase in the
number of boreholes that can be drilled for a given site investigation budget for long corridor and areally extensive project
works. Such projects include not only transmission lines associated with renewable projects, but also wind turbine generator
footings for wind farms, solar panel footings for solar farms, and the formation of access routes that may also encounter
variable ground conditions due to the large project footprint of wind farms and solar farms.
In this paper we overview the technical details of the ID method and outline its advantages and disadvantages compared with
a conventional geotechnical investigation approach. The much greater geographical coverage that the ID method approach
offers compared to a conventional geotechnical investigation approach is a key advantage of the ID method, since it greatly

17
reduces project costs and program risks associated with unknown ground conditions. This is because it is feasible to investigate
every structure location when using the ID method, whereas for a conventional site investigation a ground profile would have
to be assumed for a significant majority of structure locations since only a limited number of expensive conventional boreholes
could be drilled for the same site investigation budget.

2. BACKGROUND
The Measure While Drilling (MWD) system, on which the Investigative Drilling (ID) method is based, consists of measuring
the mechanical responses of a drill rig during the process of advancing a drillhole through soil and/or rock layers. MWD was
originally developed for application to the oil industry. Since the 1960s, MWD has found increasing application to the mining
and quarrying industries, as well as for use in geotechnical investigations for infrastructure projects. A significant amount of
commercial development work for MWD has been done by Atlas Copco, whose focus was on the use of MWD to optimise
blast hole drilling and charging for quarry and open cut mining operations.
European Standard EN ISO 22476-15:2016 addresses measuring while drilling. The text below is taken from the introduction
section of that standard:
“The measuring-while-drilling (MWD) method deals with the recording of the machine parameters during the drilling
process. This can be done manually or with the use of computerized systems which monitor a series of sensors installed on
rotary and/or percussive drilling equipment. These sensors continuously and automatically collect data on all aspects of
drilling, in real time, without interfering with the drilling progress. The data are displayed in real time and are also recorded
for further analysis…The interpretation of the MWD results can be done in relation with the information provided by
sampling.”
An application of MWD is given in the paper by Gui at al. (2002). That paper documented the use of MWD for the drilling
of grout tube holes, in order to obtain supplementary geotechnical investigation data for use in the construction of a proposed
tunnel in London. Another application of MWD is given in the paper by Reiffsteck et al. (2018). Their paper outlined methods
for the interpretation of MWD results from drillholes that were advanced through a specially constructed test embankment
comprising layers of various known material types.

3. DETAILS OF ID METHOD
The Investigative Drilling (ID) method has been utilised on infrastructure projects by Civil Group (Aust) Pty Ltd for
approximately 10 years in Australia.
Essentially, the drilling systems of a track mounted drill rig (Civil Group uses Atlas Copco ROC D9C or ROC D65 drill rigs
– Figures 1 and 2) are fitted with sophisticated electronic sensors that continuously measure drilling data for a suite of drilling
metrics in real time as the drillhole is advanced. This drilling information is captured by a data acquisition and processing
system that is located in the cabin of the drill rig via an integrated electronic data management system. The data files can then
be downloaded by the driller from the on-board acquisition software onto a USB drive for further processing and analysis
(Figure 3).

Figure 1: Atlas Copco D9C Drill Rig for ID Figure 2: Atlas Copco D65 Drill Rig for ID
Method Data Acquisition– Top Head Hammer Method Data Acquisition – Down Hole Hammer

18
 Figure 3: Data Acquisition System and Data Summary Plots for ID Method
The drilling metrics measured and recorded by the ID method instrumentation are:
 Penetration rate (rate of penetration of the drilling tool into the ground)
 Feed pressure (down thrust hydraulic pressure in feed cylinder)
 Percussion pressure (air impact system pressure for the hammer action)
 Flush pressure (air flushing pressure at the level of the drilling tool)
 Rotary pressure (hydraulic pressure in rotational drive motor)
 Damper pressure (hydraulic back pressure, in top head hammer impact units only)
The drilling method is either rotary air impact by a hydraulically top driven impact hammer drive motor or an air driven down
the hole air hammer in rock and stiff clays, and rotary air blast using a blade bit in granular soils and soft clays. The processes
of drilling operation, adding drill rods to the drill string to advance a drillhole, and removing drill rods from the drill string
when pulling out of a completed drillhole, are fully automated by the on-board software management system. This, together
with the nature of the drilling techniques for the ID method, means that drilling productivity is much greater than that for a
conventional drillhole. For example, a 20 m deep ID method drillhole can be completed in about 30 minutes or less, whereas
a 20 m deep drillhole advanced by rotary hollow flight auger drilling in soil and then diamond coring in rock could take up to
one day to complete. This means that ID method drillholes are highly cost and time effective compared to conventional
boreholes. These large cost and time savings are a major advantage of the ID method over conventional drilling methods.
Furthermore, the tracked nature of the drill rig means that it can access a wide range of terrain. This is a key advantage for
green fields projects through undeveloped areas, because it minimises access track and work platform requirements for the
geotechnical investigation phase.

4. PROJECT APPLICATIONS OF ID METHOD

The ID method is applicable to geotechnical site investigations for a wide range of infrastructure projects. However, the ID
method is particularly advantageous for, and thus has particular applicability to, long linear infrastructure projects containing
multiple structures, such as overhead transmission lines. New overhead transmission lines are required whenever an existing
electricity transmission network is to be expanded or upgraded, for example to supply a new large energy user such as a new
mine site, or to replace an old or sub-size transmission line. A large number of wind farm projects have been completed in
Australia in the last 20 years, and a growing number of solar farm projects have also been completed in Australia in the last
10 years. Each wind farm project and solar farm project requires a connection to the existing electricity transmission network,
in order to export the energy that is generated by the wind farm or solar farm to the grid. This connection is via a new
transmission line. Thus, renewable energy projects have provided numerous opportunities to utilise the ID method.
The table and discussion that follows compares the conventional approach for the investigation, design and construction of
footings to structures (lattice towers or monopoles) that support overhead transmission lines, to an approach based on
application of the ID method.

19
Table 1: Comparison of Conventional Approach to ID Method Based Approach for Footings for Transmission Line
Support Structures
Item Conventional Approach
Geotechnical Investigation Only a small proportion of structure
sites are investigated (typically 1 in 5
to 1 in 10), due to cost and work
program restrictions.
Footing Design Except at the locations of
conventional drillholes, assignation of
appropriate footing designs to the
structure locations, from a suite of
pre-prepared designs covering a range
of assumed ground conditions, has
considerable uncertainty. This is
because the significant majority of
structure locations have no site
specific geotechnical investigation
data. Assignation of a footing design
for most structure locations is then
based only on review of geological
maps, perhaps supplemented by a site
inspection.
Footing Construction Except at the locations of
conventional drillholes, the
appropriateness of the assigned
footing design for a given location can
only be confirmed at the
commencement of footing
construction. This has a high potential
to have negative effects wherever the
assumed ground conditions and
footing design assigned to that
location differ considerably and the
particular location needs to be referred
back to the designer for re-design,
thus causing construction changes and
delays that will be costly in terms of
budget and work program.
ID Method Approach
Every structure site is investigated at a
minimum. Where highly variable sub-
surface conditions are present, each
individual footing location is
investigated, e.g. for lattice towers
supported by four legs.
For each structure location,
assignation of an appropriate footing
design can be made with confidence.
This is because there is site specific
geotechnical investigation data for
every structure location. Furthermore,
each design allocation can become
bespoke for that particular location to
accommodate identified conditions,
saving materials and construction
costs. This also identifies and
addresses any under-design that would
otherwise result from the proven
ground conditions being worse than
the initially assumed ground
conditions.
The appropriateness of the assigned
footing designs for all structure
locations is confirmed at the
completion of the geotechnical
investigation, before any footing
construction commences. This
minimises the likelihood of any
changes to the assigned footing
designs, and thus minimises the
potential for budget and work program
impacts. Due to the additional
information provided by the ID
method, the requirement for an on-site
geotechnical engineer review of the
ground conditions encountered during
construction is reduced, potentially
then only being required for those
locations that have significant near
scale sub-surface variability or
locations where there has been a
structure/footing relocation from the
original design and investigation
location.
20
The quality of the geotechnical information, and hence of the log, for an ID method drillhole is considerably less than that of
a much slower and more expensive conventional borehole. This is for two reasons:
 The samples that are recovered from an ID method drillhole are highly disturbed (Figure 4). This means that it is
not possible to assess the in situ structure of the strata. For the same reason, it is also more difficult to assess the
strengths and weathering grades of soil and rock strata using ID method drillholes.
 Laboratory strength testing of recovered soil and rock samples is not possible for ID method drillholes.
To combat the highly disturbed sample recovery, the following actions are available, depending on project requirements and
strata conditions.
At each of one or more pre-determined locations, a conventional borehole can be completed and backfilled, and then a control
ID method borehole is completed at a nominal offset of 0.5 m. This enables location and strata specific correlations to be
made between ID method drilling metric plots and the logs for conventional boreholes. These correlations can then be used
to assist in the interpretation of ID method boreholes at other locations where no conventional boreholes have been drilled
nearby but where similar ground conditions are expected and are indicated by the ID method data.
Additional information on the natures and strengths of the sub-surface strata can be obtained in both granular soils and
cohesive soils using ID method drilling rigs, since Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) and/or undisturbed push tube sampling
for subsequent laboratory strength testing can be undertaken by the ID method drilling rigs.

Figure 4: Disturbed Samples from ID Method Drillhole

For the reasons outlined earlier, ID drillhole logs must not be regarded as definitive. However, notwithstanding the limitations
of ID method drillholes, ID method drillholes still provide a reasonable indication of the ground profile expected at the
drillhole location. This is because the ID method provides a series of representative disturbed samples from known depths.
This enables the lithologies of the individual sub-surface layers, and the stratigraphic sequence, to be determined, as well as
the approximate strengths, weathering grades and moisture contents of the sub-surface layers to be estimated or inferred (this
is discussed further in the next section). Therefore, an ID method drillhole log provides a sufficient basis for determining
which of a suite of pre-prepared footing designs (that typically collectively cover four to six separate idealised ground profiles)
is appropriate for each given structure location. This is because each pre-prepared footing design does not consider a single
specific set of defined values for layer types, depths and strengths, but rather a defined range of values for these parameters.
For example, an idealised profile on which a footing design is pre-prepared may consist of clay of not less than very stiff
consistency, and/or weathered rock of up to low strength, and no groundwater present.
When the construction phase commences for the footings of the transmission line structures, the ground conditions at a given
structure location may be found to be significantly different from (either better or worse than) those associated with the pre-
prepared footing design that was selected for that location. For example, based on a bored pile footing type, an unexpected
finding may be that very strong rock may be present from a shallow depth, which would then require the use of slow and

21
expensive “pepper drilling” prior to rotary coring in order to excavate the rock to form a bored pile. Alternatively, an
unexpected finding may be that loose sands and/or shallow groundwater are present, which would then require the use of a
casing to support a bored pile excavation, and the placement of the concrete by tremie pipe below the groundwater table to
form the bored pile. In either case, the diameter or length of a bored pile reinforcement cage, and/or the number or sizes of
bars in a reinforcement cage, may need to be adjusted. It may even be that an alternative footing type altogether may be
appropriate in lieu of the pre-prepared footing design that had been selected. Any such changes to the footing type, dimensions,
reinforcement or construction methodology is very likely to have significant impacts to the construction cost and program for
that location. These impacts will include some or all of the following:
 Re-design costs.
 Contractor claims for standby or re-mobilisation variations.
 Contractor claims for latent ground conditions.
 Program delays associated with footing re-designs and/or waiting for appropriate/alternative footing construction
equipment to be brought to the location in question.
 Consequential impacts to the work program for construction of the support structures, the overhead line and the
overall transmission line project.
The use of the ID method for the geotechnical investigation is likely to avoid, or at least minimise, these sorts of potential
impacts that may occur if the footing design and construction are based on the results from a limited conventional geotechnical
investigation. Several years ago, Civil Group undertook a study of overhead transmission line projects that were based on a
conventional geotechnical investigation. They found that on average, construction of the original footing designs had to be
aborted at 6 % of the total number of structure locations. Civil Group has estimated that the direct cost impact of such aborted
work could exceed $20,000 per footing location, so the direct cost impacts become significant even if only a small percentage
of footings are affected in this way.

5. INTERPRETATION OF MWD RESULTS

6.1 PREVIOUS MWD WORK BY OTHERS

EN ISO 22476-15:2016 includes two tables in Annex A that provide qualitative indications of the relative values of drilling
penetration rate, down thrust pressure, flushing medium pressure and drill head torque for different soil types and for rock,
and the relative significance of each parameter for each stratum type. One table is for MWD without hammering, and the
other table is for MWD with hammering. The use of MWD parameter values to assist in the interpretation of sub-surface
profiles and layer properties is analogous to the use of tip resistance and sleeve friction from a cone penetration test for the
interpretation of sub-surface profiles and layer properties. However, EN ISO 22476-15:2016 states: “It should be noted that
measured and calculated drilling parameters are relative and dependant of the test conditions, procedures and equipment.”
As noted by Gui et al. (2002): “If the rig is instrumented and monitored by a computer, it should therefore be possible to
establish an automatic expert system to derive soil properties through certain correlations.” Their paper presented a series
of equations, developed by themselves and others, which involved combinations of drilling parameters to identify soil layer
changes and to estimate the undrained shear strengths of clayey soils. However, those same authors also noted that “Drilling
data varies with drilling equipment and the precise way it is used. Attempts to correlate soil information with drilling results
using a mixture of types of drilling rig or drilling bits have been unsatisfactory. It is necessary to adopt a standardized method
if correlations are to be made for use on other sites.”
A similar point is made by Reiffsteck et al. (2018), who noted “Since its inception, the recording of drilling parameters has
seen steady development, but mostly as a qualitative technique to confirm data from other exploration methods and
geotechnical tests…This is in part because of a lack of repeatability of the recorded parameters as a result of the effects of
drilling tools, drilling rig types, and drilling techniques, in addition to a lack of general understanding of the drilling process.”
They explained that compound parameters (combinations of individual drilling parameters) can be used to normalise the
measurements, so as to reduce the influence of changes in the drilling conditions and methods. However, Reiffsteck et al.
(2018) also stated that “The applicability of each compound parameter varies with the type of material and the mechanical
property being evaluated for engineering purposes.” They applied the strategy of using compound drilling parameters with
reasonable success to the analysis of the results of MWD drillholes through a special test embankment, in order to identify
soil and rock types, layer boundaries, and general soil and rock behavior.

22
6.2 ID METHOD
The ID method, as applied to investigations for long linear infrastructure routes such as transmission lines, uses a simpler
approach than the work documented by Gui et al (2002) and by Reiffsteck et al. (2018), which were for a major tunneling
project and for large scale applied research, respectively. However, the simplified approach of the ID method is robust and
suitable for practical application to engineering project work.
Civil Group has continued to optimise the controls of the ID method drilling plant to ensure that the results are not affected
by potential variability associated with drilling tools, rig types, operator interference/techniques, and different drilling
methodologies. The control measures that have been initiated are:
 Control size of drilling tool head for rotary air blast activities.
 Control size of drilling tool head and down hole hammer capability.
 Machine operation throughout the drilling process is fully automated and software controlled, for consistency.
 Quality records are generated throughout the drilling process to ensure data collection control.
There are three separate types of geotechnical information that are obtained from an ID method drillhole, which are
collectively considered in order to prepare an ID method drillhole log. The three information types are outlined below.
Plots of drilling metrics as a function of penetration depth
The most useful drilling metric is the penetration rate, particularly for application to geotechnical investigations for proposed
footings to structures such as supports to overhead transmission lines. EN ISO 22476-15:2016 states: “The penetration rate,
vA, is related to the mechanical strength of drilled formation. Penetration rate will increase in softer ground.” The work by
Reiffsteck et al. (2018) confirmed that the penetration rate was the most useful and reliable individual MWD parameter for
the identification of soil and rock layer boundaries, strata types and strengths.
For a constant down-thrust force on the drill string, then all else being equal, it is usually found that lower drilling penetration
rates correspond to stronger strata for clays, sands, gravels and especially for rock. However, softer, wetter clays can also
cause low drilling penetration rates (and high flush pressures) due to plugging effects. In rock, a penetration rate that is
essentially constant or only gradually varies with depth typically suggests a massive rock or a rock with widely spaced
structural defects. In contrast, rapid variations in the drilling penetration rate (and in the rotation pressure) about a given value
usually indicate the presence of closely spaced structural defects or fractured zones within the rock mass. Layers containing
coarse gravels or cobbles also often show very irregular profiles of penetration rate (and in the rotation pressure) with depth.
Furthermore, the drilling penetration rate for the ID method can also be approximately related to the excavation method that
is likely to be required to form the excavation for a bored pile footing, as summarised in the table below. This assists the
design and construction team to identify appropriate footing types and construction methodologies to suit the ground
conditions encountered by the ID method drillholes.

Table 2: Approximate Correlation Between ID Method Penetration Rate and Excavation

Method for Bored Pile Footings
ID Method Drilling Penetration Drilling Resistance Classification Required Excavation Method for
Rate (m/min) Bored Pile Footings
>2.5 Low Rotary auger with standard bit suitable
for soil.
2-2.5 Medium Rotary auger with standard bit suitable
for rock (Figure 5).
1-2 High Rotary core barrel suitable for rock
(Figure 6).

23
 ID Method Drilling Penetration
Rate (m/min)
<1
Note: required excavation method is with reference to the drillability of the ground when using a Soilmec 312-200 bored pile
rig, and is rock type dependent.
Drilling Resistance Classification Required Excavation Method for
Bored Pile Footings
Very high “Pepper drilling” (a form of relief
drilling comprising pre-drilling with
numerous small diameter air
hammered drillholes spaced in a
specific pattern around the
circumference and within the
proposed cored excavation) prior to
coring with a rotary core barrel
suitable for rock (Figure 7).
Alternative footing designs may also
be considered, such as rock anchors,
micro piles and mass gravity footings.

Figure 5: Rotary Auger with Bit Suitable for Figure 6: Rotary Core Barrel Suitable for Rock
Rock

24
 Figure 7: Recovered Core of Pepper Drilled Rock

“Driller’s log” prepared by the drill rig operator

An operator of an ID method drill rig who has considerable experience in completing ID method drillholes develops a good
sense of the nature of the strata that are being penetrated by the drill hammer or bit. This sense is based on the “feel” of the
rig in drilling the hole, the resistance of the ground to drilling, the values of other drilling metrics, and so on. This is the same
as an experienced drill rig operator, when drilling a hole by conventional means, being able to provide the supervising
geotechnical engineer with an approximate inferred sub-surface profile based on the driller’s previous experience with drilling
through similar strata. By the driller continually observing the drilling resistance and other aspects of the drill rig response to
the strata being drilled through, the driller is able to prepare a basic driller’s log that includes a broad categorisation of each
sub-surface layer and the depths of the boundaries between layers. This process is also assisted by the driller’s previous project
experience in relating the outcomes of ID method drillholes, in particular the drillability of the ground, to the subsequent
excavatabilities of the ground using a bored pile footing rig at the same locations.
Field logging of samples of the strata that are drilled through
The chippings from air hammer drilling or the cuttings from rotary air blast drilling are blown up to the ground surface by the
air flush almost instantly after being generated by the drilling, and can be collected by a shovel that is placed adjacent to the
drill stem. A representative composite sample at every 0.5 m or 1 m depth interval that is obtained in this manner can then be
placed into a core box or chip tray for later examination. Clearly, the recovered samples are highly disturbed and nothing can
be said about the in situ structures of the sub-surface strata. However, soil type and classification, and rock lithology, can all
be determined by visual-tactile logging of the disturbed samples as outlined in AS 1726-2017, as can the approximate depths
of the boundaries between successive strata. Crude estimates of the strengths of clayey strata and rock strata, and of the
weathering grade of rock strata, also can be made, based on visual-tactile logging of the chippings or cuttings. For rock strata,
it is usually found that weaker rocks are pulverized to a flour like product by the air hammer drilling, whereas stronger rock
is shattered to produce sand to gravel sized particles. The presence of a groundwater table can also be determined by reference
to the moisture contents within the recovered samples. The groundwater cut level and approximate inflow rate can be

25
determined where required. Groundwater inflow rates can be measured at the top of the drillhole by means of air lift testing,
such as would be used as part of water well drilling techniques and logging. Thus, a field log in accordance with AS 1726-
2017 can be prepared for each ID method drillhole.
Besides drilling an ID method drillhole at each structure location, it is recommended that a few conventional drillholes (rotary
auger drilling with SPTs in soil and then diamond coring in rock, with point load strength index tests and/or uniaixial
compressive strength tests of rock core samples) are also drilled for the transmission line project. The locations of the limited
number of these conventional drillholes are preferably guided by the results of the ID method drillholes, in order to optimise
the utility of the conventional drillholes. The purpose of the conventional drillholes is to “ground truth” (provide location and
strata specific verifications / correlations for) the ID method drillhole logs at a few key locations, by obtaining relatively
undisturbed core samples of the soil and rock that are tested for their strengths in the field (SPTs, pocket penetrometer tests)
and/or in the laboratory (triaxial strength tests, point load strength index tests, uniaxial compressive strength tests). These
correlations can then be extrapolated to other locations where only ID method drillholes were undertaken.
The geotechnical engineer considers all three information sources (ID method drilling metrics, the driller’s log, and the
engineer’s field log of recovered disturbed samples), and compares them to look for consistencies as well as to identify any
anomalies in any of the data. Previous experience is also utilised. The final ID method drillhole log represents the geotechnical
engineer’s synthesis of the three information sources, considering the quality and uncertainty that is associated with each
source.
ID method drillhole logs cannot be regarded as definitive, for the reasons previously outlined, but rather can be regarded as
providing a reasonable indication of the ground profile expected at the drillhole locations concerned. However, this is not a
major issue for transmission line projects, because the intention of an ID method based geotechnical investigation is often
simply to classify each ground profile using the same broad classes of ground profile that the design engineer’s team have
already considered when they pre-prepared the suite of footing designs for the project. The ID method thus provides a means
of identifying the numbers and locations of proposed structure sites with particularly problematic sub-surface profiles (e.g.
loose sands, shallow groundwater, very strong rock) or with anomalous sub-surface profiles.
The general overall outcome of an ID method based geotechnical investigation is that there should be far fewer unexpected
ground conditions encountered on site at the time of footing construction, and hence considerable reductions should be able
to be realised with respect to extra construction costs and extra construction delays associated with unexpected ground
conditions. Essentially, the ID method provides a highly cost effective means of reducing geotechnical risk and uncertainty
at the site investigation stage, before the footing construction begins.
An example of the application of the ID method to real life renewable energy project is described below.

6. PROJECT EXAMPLE
Civil Group undertook an ID method based geotechnical investigation program for a new transmission line associated with a
wind farm development in regional New South Wales. The transmission line comprised a 38 km long, 132 kV overhead line
that was supported by 190 monopole structures. Each monopole was supported by a large diameter, bored and cast in place,
reinforced concrete pile, via a bolted base plate connection. Civil Group also undertook the construction of the bored pile
footings that supported the monopoles.
Based on the 1:250,000 scale published geological map for the region, the expected sub-surface conditions along the length
of the transmission line route comprised volcanic rock, in the form of Tertiary age basalt in the northern part of the route and
Palaeozoic age granite in the southern part of the route. A variable depth of residual soil profile was expected to overlie the
rock strength material. Near existing stream lines, low strength alluvial soils were expected to form the near surface ground
profile. Only six shallow boreholes had been drilled by others for an early investigation for the project.
The scope of work for the geotechnical investigation that was undertaken by Civil Group included the following:
 Drilling one ID method drillhole to 6 m depth at each monopole location.
 Drilling six conventional boreholes to nominal 6 m depth, at certain locations that were selected based on the results
of the ID method drillholes.
 Laboratory strength testing of rock cores that were recovered from those conventional boreholes that were in rock
and that were diamond cored.
 Geotechnical engineering site inspection of excavations for a number of bored pile footings in the early part of the
bored pile footing construction program.

26
  Laboratory strength testing of selected samples of rock that was excavated in forming the bored pile footings at
some of the monopole locations where rock was present. Those rock samples were obtained at the time of the
aforementioned geotechnical site inspection.
The foregoing additional geotechnical information that became available at some of the monopole locations enabled some
checks to be made of the logs that had been prepared based on the ID method drillholes at those locations.
Table 3 provides the plots of penetration rate versus depth, and the overall interpretations of the ID method results, which
were obtained from the ID method drillholes at four of the monopole locations.

Table 3: Summary of ID Method Results for Monopole Locations 83, 174, 184 and 190
Plot of Penetration Rate Versus Depth
Summary of ID Method Drillhole Results
Low / Medium drilling resistance to ~0.5 m depth.
High drilling resistance from ~0.5 m depth to ~2 m
depth.
High to very high drilling resistance below ~2 m
depth.
Ground profile inferred to represent medium strength,
moderately weathered granite, grading to high to very
high strength, slightly weathered granite below ~2 m
depth.
Low / Medium drilling resistance to ~ 1 m depth.
Very High drilling resistance below ~ 1 m depth.
Ground profile inferred to represent fractured dacite
to ~1 m depth over dacite of up to very high strength.

Low / Medium drilling resistance to ~2.5 m depth.

High drilling resistance between ~2.5 m depth and
~4 m depth.
Low / Medium drilling resistance between ~4 m depth
and ~5 m depth.
High to Very High drilling resistance below ~5 m
depth.
Ground profile inferred to represent clay soil to
~2.5 m depth, overlying dacite rock of up to high
strength.

27
 Plot of Penetration Rate Versus Depth Summary of ID Method Drillhole Results
Low / Medium drilling resistance to ~6 m depth.
Ground profile inferred to represent extremely to
completely weathered granite, in the form of sandy
clayey gravel.

A conventional borehole that was drilled at the location of Pole 83 showed that granite boulders with a soil matrix was present
to 1.4 m depth, below which granite rock was present (Figure 8). Uniaxial compressive strength test results of 129 MPa and
177 MPa, and point load strength index test results in the range of 8.3-14.1 MPa were obtained for the granite core recovered
from that borehole. This showed that the rock was up to very high strength.
No conventional borehole was drilled at the location of Pole 174, but rock was observed to outcrop adjacent to the site and
was subsequently encountered by the bored pile excavation (Figure 9). The rock was found to be exceptionally difficult to
excavate. Several buckets of teeth were required to replace worn out or broken teeth on the rotary core barrel that was used
to excavate the bored pile footing at this location after pepper drilling, which indicated that the dacite was very high to
extremely high strength. Lumps of excavated rock were collected and submitted for point load strength index testing. The test
results were in the range 8.3-12 MPa, which confirmed the very high to extremely high strength nature of the dacite that was
sampled.

28
Figure 8: Granite Rock Below 1.4 m Depth in Conventional Borehole Drilled at Location of Pole 83

29
 Figure 9: Dacite Rock Encountered at Location of Pole 174
No conventional borehole was drilled at the location of Pole 184, but an inspection of the bored excavation indicated that clay
soil was present to about 2.5 m depth, and overlay dacite rock (Figure 10). Lumps of excavated rock were collected and
submitted for point load strength index testing. The test results were in the range 2.5-3.6 MPa, corresponding to high to very
high strength rock.

30
 Figure 10: Clay over Dacite Rock Encountered at Location of Pole 184
No conventional borehole was drilled at the location of Pole 190, but an inspection of the bored pile excavation (Figure 11)
and excavated spoil indicated that no rock strength material was present and instead the sub-surface profile comprised
extremely weathered granite to completely weathered granite(residual soil) with a significant clay content. Civil Group
encountered no difficulty in excavating the shaft for the bored pile footing at this location.

Figure 11: Bored Pile Excavation for Pole 190

The additional information that has been presented for the ground conditions at the locations of Poles 83, 174, 184 and 190
can be compared with the ID method drillhole information for those locations that is summarised in Table 3. The comparison
shows that overall, the ID method is effective in identifying the sub-surface profiles for a range of strata types and layering.
In particular, the ID method correctly identified the presence and depth of soil and soil type, the presence, depth and strength

31
of rock, and the presence or absence of groundwater. Following the completion of all bored footings for the project, Civil
Group’s overall finding was that the ground conditions inferred from the ID method drillholes were proven to be quite
accurate, with no significant variances from expectations having been encountered at any of the pole sites. This outcome was
pleasing and demonstrated that the desired overall outcome of the geotechnical investigation using ID method drillholes,
being a reduction of geotechnical risk and uncertainty, was achieved for the project.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The ID method has been successfully used in Australia for the last 10 years on a significant number of major infrastructure
projects, many of which were renewable energy projects. The quality of the recovered samples from ID method drillholes is
less than the quality of samples that would be obtained from conventional boreholes. However, the outstanding productivity
of ID method drillholes compared to conventional boreholes means that many more ID method drillholes can be drilled for a
given investigation budget and time frame, compared to conventional boreholes that are much slower and hence more
expensive. For long, linear infrastructure such as transmission lines, or areally extensive infrastructure such as wind farms or
solar farms, this represents a compelling advantage for the ID method. This is because an ID method drillhole can be
undertaken at each structure location, whereas only a small minority of the structure locations could be investigated by
conventional boreholes for the same investigation budget and time frame.
This means that for such projects where the geotechnical investigation has been undertaken using the ID method, there should
be far fewer unexpected ground conditions encountered on site at the time of footing construction, and hence considerable
reductions should be able to be realised with respect to extra construction costs and extra construction delays associated with
unexpected ground conditions. Essentially, the ID method provides a cost effective means of reducing geotechnical risk and
uncertainty, before the footing construction programme begins.

8. REFERENCES
Australian Standard AS 1726:2017 “Geotechnical site investigations. Standards Australia, published 2 May 2017.

European Standard EN ISO 22476-15:2016 “Geotechnical investigation and testing – Field testing. Part 15: Measuring
while drilling” (2016)

Gui MW, Soga K, Bolton MD and Hamelin JP “Instrumented Borehole Drilling for Subsurface Investigation”. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 128, no. 4, April 2002.

Reiffsteck P, Benoit J, Bourdeau C and Desanneaux G “Enhancing Geotechnical Investigations Using Drilling Parameters”.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 144, no. 3, March 2018.

32