CIV4249

Foundation
Engineering
Task 1

A sample HD quality report for guidance ONLY. Please note

assessment criteria and focus changes year to year and groups
must meet their specific requirements.
Executive Summary
This report details the geotechnical site investigation and subsequent analysis conducted for the
proposed site of a mixed-used building with an 18-level tower and 5-level podium in the Melbourne
Docklands precinct.

A comprehensive analysis of the available literature, borehole data and cone penetrometer data is
performed to identify substrata material. Specifically, this revealed that the geological units underlying
the site are: Coode Island Silt, Fishermens Bend Silt, Moray Street Gravels and Melbourne Formation.
This analysis was used to construct geological models through three cross-sections at the site. Findings
from this indicate reasonable uniformity in the substrata material extent for the purpose of construction.

As part of the site investigation component of this study, four boreholes were drilled with standard
penetration tests and pocket penetrometer tests performed at various depths. Samples of soil and rock
were recovered from the boreholes and subsequent lab testing was performed. Moreover, two cone
penetrometer tests were also conducted. An in-depth analysis of these test results, in conjunction with
the relevant literature, was used to establish representative strength, deformation and compressibility
parameters for the geological units encountered. These properties are presented within and will be
incorporated in the detailed design of the foundations in a separate document.

Conceptual foundation designs to transfer both the tower column load (16000kN) and podium column
load (1640kN) to the ground are also considered. A shallow square-pad footing is deemed unfeasible
due to the required size (7m x 7m) and associated settlement problems. Ground improvement
techniques have been discussed which may warrant a shallow foundation option for the podium load.

For the tower structure, piled foundations are proposed as a practical solution. Specifically, rock
socketed bored piles are recommended and preliminary design indicates the need for two 1.0m
diameter piles socketed 3.5m into the Melbourne formation layer. The issue of corrosion resulting from
the chemistry of the soil is also elicited and due consideration should be given to the durability of the
installed foundation system.

i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1
Site Location ...................................................................................................................................................1
Site Geology ....................................................................................................................................................1
Site Investigation .............................................................................................................................................2
Geological Models ...........................................................................................................................................2
Design Parameters .........................................................................................................................................3
Concept Foundation Design............................................................................................................................4
Shallow Foundations ...................................................................................................................................4
Deep Foundations .......................................................................................................................................4
Field Investigation Assessment .......................................................................................................................5
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................5
References ......................................................................................................................................................5
Appendix A Site Location .............................................................................................................................6
Appendix B Site Geology .............................................................................................................................7
Appendix C Geological Models ....................................................................................................................9
Appendix D Design Parameter Determination for Soil ...............................................................................13
D1. Unit Weight .........................................................................................................................................13
D2. Coode Island Silt ................................................................................................................................13
D2.1 Undrained Cohesion.....................................................................................................................13
D2.2 Undrained Friction Angle ..............................................................................................................16
D2.3 Youngs Modulus ..........................................................................................................................16
D2.4 Poissons Ratio.............................................................................................................................17
D2.5 Consolidation Parameters ............................................................................................................18
D3. Fishermens Bend Silt .........................................................................................................................22
D3.1 Undrained Cohesion.....................................................................................................................22
D3.2 Undrained Friction Angle ..............................................................................................................24
D3.3 Youngs Modulus ..........................................................................................................................24
D3.4 Poissons Ratio.............................................................................................................................25
D3.5 Consolidation Parameters ............................................................................................................25
D4. Moray Street Gravel ...........................................................................................................................27
D4.1 Drained Cohesion.........................................................................................................................27
D4.2 Drained Friction Angle ..................................................................................................................27
D4.3 Youngs Modulus ..........................................................................................................................28
D4.4 Poissons Ratio.............................................................................................................................29
Appendix E - Design Parameter Determination for Rock ..............................................................................30
Appendix F Shallow Foundations ...............................................................................................................32
F.1 Natural Ground ...................................................................................................................................32
F.2 Improved Ground ................................................................................................................................33
Appendix G Deep Foundations ..................................................................................................................34
List of Tables
Table 1: Inferred Site Stratigraphy .......................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Strength and Deformation Parameters for Soil ......................................................................... 3
Table 3: Consolidation Parameters for CIS and FBS ............................................................................. 3
Table 4: Design Parameters for Melbourne Formation ........................................................................... 3

Table D1: Unit Weight for Soil Layers ................................................................................................... 13

Table D2: Inputs for Undrained Shear Strength-CPT Correlation (CIS) ............................................... 15
Table D3: Summary of Undrained Shear Strength Values for CIS ....................................................... 15
Table D4: Young's Modulus Range for Selected Soils ......................................................................... 16
Table D5: Summary of Undrained Young's Modulus Values for CIS ................................................... 17
Table D6: Poisson's Ratio for Selected Soils ........................................................................................ 17
Table D7: Liquid Limit Results around Proposed Site for CIS .............................................................. 18
Table D8: Moisture Content Results around Proposed Site for CIS ..................................................... 19
Table D9: Summary of Compression Index for CIS .............................................................................. 19
Table D10: Plasticity Index Results around Proposed Site for CIS ...................................................... 20
Table D11: Inputs for Undrained Shear Strength-CPT Correlation (FBS) ............................................ 23
Table D12: Undrained Shear Strength of FBS...................................................................................... 23
Table D13: Summary of Undrained Shear Strength Values for CIS ..................................................... 23
Table D14: Typical Ranges of Drained Modulus for Clays ................................................................... 24
Table D15: Summary of Undrained Young's Modulus Values for FBS ................................................ 24
Table D16: Liquid Limit Results around Proposed Site for FBS ........................................................... 25
Table D17: Plasticity Index Results around Proposed Site for FBS ..................................................... 26
Table D18: Correlation of SPT for Coarse Grained Soils ..................................................................... 28
Table D19: Summary of Drained Friction Angle Values for MSG ......................................................... 28
Table D20: Typical Ranges of Drained Modulus for Sand .................................................................... 29
Table D21: Summary of Youngs Modulus Values for MSG ................................................................. 29
Table D22: Poisson's Ratio for Selected Materials ............................................................................... 29

Table E1: Point Load and Moisture Content Test Results .................................................................... 30
Table E2: Melbourne Formation Design Parameter Summary ............................................................. 31

List of Figures
Figure A1: Proposed Site Location ......................................................................................................... 6
Figure A2: Proposed Site Extent ............................................................................................................. 6

Figure B1: Surface of Melbourne Geological Map .................................................................................. 7

Figure B2: Cross-Section of Substrata Material...................................................................................... 7
Figure B3: Surface Geology of Yarra Delta Region ................................................................................ 8
Figure B4: Cross-Section of Substrata Material through H-H ................................................................. 8

Figure C1: Alignment of Geological Models ............................................................................................ 9

Figure C2: Geological Model for CPT-1, BH2 and BH1 ........................................................................ 10
Figure C3: Geological Model for BH1, BH3 and BH4 ........................................................................... 11
Figure C4: Geological Model for BH1 and BH2 .................................................................................... 12

Figure D1: CIS Undrained Shear Strength using PP Results ............................................................... 14

Figure D2: CIS Undrained Shear Strength South Melbourne ............................................................ 15
Figure D3: Undrained Young's Modulus from Self Boring Pressuremeter Tests ................................. 17
Figure D4: Compression Index v Moisture Content for CIS ................................................................. 18
Figure D5: FBS Undrained Shear Strength using PP Results .............................................................. 22
Figure D6: MSG Undrained Friction Angle using SPT Results ............................................................. 27
Introduction
The continued development of the Melbourne Docklands precinct has been earmarked by the state
government of Victoria as a key driver in the ongoing strength of the Victorian economy. This has seen the
area experience a series of urban renewal projects in recent times. As part of this ongoing development,
a new mixed-use building has been proposed. The building will comprise an 18-level tower structure and
a 5-level podium structure including an above ground car parking area, occupying a total footprint area of
100m x 100m.

This document proposes conceptual foundation design options for the working loads exerted by the tower
and podium structure respectively. To reach this end, detailed analysis has been undertaken of the ground
conditions including the classification and description of encountered materials, the construction of
geological models and the determination of soil and rock design parameters. This analysis is founded on
a comprehensive site investigation in conjunction with the relevant literature.

Site Location
The proposed location of the project is in the Docklands precinct between Bourke Street to the south-east
and Victoria Harbour to the north-west. The location of the site relative to its surroundings as well as the
proposed extent of the development site can be viewed in Figure A1 and Figure A2 of Appendix A.

Site Geology
A desk study was performed to identify the potential geological units at the site of the proposed building.
The site lies within the extent of the Yarra Delta, an area predominated by Quaternary sedimentation
(Neilson, 1992). The Geology of the Yarra Delta paper (Neilson, 1992) was used in conjunction with the
Melbourne geological map (Vandenberg, 1974) to infer the stratigraphy encountered at the site. Further
detail of this study can be attained in Appendix B. Descriptions of the geological units were sourced from
a number of papers (Ervin, 1992; Johnston, 1992; Neilson, 1992). The potential geological units along with
a brief description are given below in Table 1.

Table 1: Inferred Site Stratigraphy

Age Geological Unit Description

Silty clay, lesser clayey silt and sandy silt
Dark grey or grey-brown appearance
Coode Island
Contains fragmentary plant and marine shell material
Silt (CIS)
Generally soft to firm and of high plasticity
Depth exhibits great variation up to 28m thick
Silty clay, lesser sandy clay and clayey silt
Brown, yellow, pale grey in appearance
Quaternary Fishermens
Generally stiff to very stiff consistency
Bend Silt (FBS)
Generally low to medium plasticity.
Average thickness of layer is 7m.
Dense sands and gravels, primarily quartz
Moray Street Vary from clean to containing silt/clay
Gravels (MSG) Irregular beds of very stiff clay and silt
Thickness of layer generally below 15m.
Palaeozoic Melbourne Predominantly siltstone with lesser interbedded fine
(Silurian) Formation sandstone and claystone

1
Site Investigation
After the desk study component of this investigation, site specific analysis of the borehole and CPT data
was performed to identify the subsoil composition and extent of each geological unit. The type of material,
its characteristics and the depths at which the material is encountered is summarised below.

Anthropogenic Deposits (Fill) The fill material is encountered immediately below the asphalt.
It is predominantly a fine grained sandy gravel with subangular particles and of blue-grey appearance. The
fill layer appears well compacted, which is corroborated by large resistance values in the CPT logs. Clayey
sand is encountered in BH1 within the fill layer. This layer is encountered between approximately RL-2m
AHD and RL-0m AHD.

Coode Island Silt (CIS) - The CIS encountered is predominantly silty clay with a grey to dark-grey
appearance. The material is of high plasticity, with traces of shell fragments and a trace to moderate H 2S
odour at RL -3m AHD to RL -6m AHD. The CIS is generally soft to firm towards the surface and becomes
firm at a depth of around RL -10m AHD. This layer is encountered between approximately RL-0m AHD
and RL-15m AHD.

Fishermens Bend Silt (FBS) The FBS encountered is predominantly silty clay with a grey to
grey-brown appearance, and uncommonly, dark grey. Slight variations are seen towards the lower extent
of the FBS layer in BH2 and BH3, where sandy clay is encountered, and in BH4, where clayey sand and
clayey sandy silt material is encountered. Trace root fibre and fine grained quarzitic sand are also prevalent
in this layer. The material is generally of low to intermediate plasticity. The FBS is stiff towards the top of
the layer and becomes very stiff with depth. This layer is encountered between approximately RL-15m
AHD and RL-22m AHD.

Moray Street Gravels (MSG) The MSG layer exhibits significant variation through its extent.
The materials encountered are predominantly medium dense to dense sands, silty sand, clayey sand and
gravelly sands, commonly containing quarzitic gravels. The appearance is of varying nature, with colours
ranging from pale grey to grey and brown to pale brown. Sand particle sizes vary from fine grained to
coarse grained. Bands of silty clay and clayey silt are observed in BH3 and BH4 within the MSG layer, and
this is also observed in the CPT-1 log. This layer is encountered between approximately RL-22m AHD and
RL-31m AHD.

Melbourne Formation (MF) The MF layer is characterised by siltstone with a grey to dark grey
appearance. The material is extremely weathered to highly weathered at its upper extent, exhibiting low to
very low strength. With depth, the siltstone becomes highly weathered to moderately weathered and
exhibits low to medium strength. The fracturing profile is variant, but intermittent areas of high fracturing
are observed. The MF is encountered at approximately RL -31m AHD.

As part of this investigation, the groundwater table is observed at RL-3.5m AHD.

Geological Models
Analysis of the borehole logs and CPT logs yields the extent of the stratigraphic units within the substrata
at each respective borehole and CPT location. Using this information, three geological cross-sections are
produced in order to gauge the variability of the substrata across the proposed site and identify any critical
areas. Please refer to Appendix C for the constructed geological models.

The first cross-section considers the north extent of the site using data from BH1, BH2 and CPT-1. The
second cross-section illustrates the variation in substrata from the north-west extent to the south-east
extent of the site by using data from BH1, BH3 and BH4. The final cross-section considers the south extent
of the site using data from CPT-2 and BH4. These alignments are expected to provide a strong indication
of any variability throughout the site. The alignment of these cross-sections in plan view can be found in
Figure 1 of Appendix C.

2
The geological models illustrate that there is general uniformity in the extent of and depths at which each
geological unit is encountered across the site. However, the extent of the Coode Island Silt layer at the site
of CPT-2 is significantly greater than observed elsewhere (see Figure 3 in Appendix C), underlain by
thinner layers of both Fishermens Bend Silt and Moray Street Gravel. This suggests that the south-west
corner of the site is critical for design, especially with regard to shallow foundations, due to the high
compressibility of CIS. Thus, failure to recognise the larger depth here may result in foundation designs
that undergo excessive settlement.

Another important component of the geological models is the position of the groundwater table relative to
the soil strata. As can be observed in each model, the groundwater table exists towards the surface, and
therefore, the majority of the material is saturated. This observation is important because granular material
that is saturated will have a significantly reduced bearing capacity.

Design Parameters
After the geological units have been identified at the site, the relevant design parameters including both
strength and deformation properties need to be determined for the materials encountered. This was
achieved through detailed analysis of the in-situ and lab test results in conjunction with empirical
correlations, and benchmarked where possible against literature value ranges.

Please note that the CIS layer was divided into two sub-layers for the purpose of identifying representative
design parameters. This was undertaken due to the variation in material strength and consistency with
depth. Furthermore, lower bound conservative values are presented here for the strength and deformation
parameters. This was deemed appropriate due to the reliance on empirical correlations and literature
values which suffer from inherent uncertainty. An exception to this is made for the MSG layer on the
premise that the loose material at its upper most extent will not serve as a founding material. The
parameters for the soil are summarised below in Table 2 and Table 3. Please refer to Appendix D for
derivation of these values.

Table 2: Strength and Deformation Parameters for Soil

Youngs
Drainage Cohesion Friction Poissons
Unit AHD (m) Modulus
Condition (kPa) Angle () Ratio
(MPa)
CIS (1) -2 to -10 Undrained 15 0 3.4 0.5
CIS (2) -10 to -15 Undrained 30 0 8 0.5
FBS -15 to -22 Undrained 50 0 25 0.5
MSG -22 to -31 Drained 0 35 52 0.3
Table 3: Consolidation Parameters for CIS and FBS

Compression Recompression Secondary Void Ratio

Unit AHD (m)
Index Index Compression Index
CIS 0 to -10 0.700 0.093 0.0175 1.99
FBS -10 to -15 0.423 0.040 0.0140 1.07

Similarly, the parameters for the rock material are summarised below in Table 4. Please refer to Appendix
E for derivation of these values.

Table 4: Design Parameters for Melbourne Formation

Parameter Value
Youngs Modulus (MPa) 300
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa) 2000
Cohesion (kPa) 500
Tensile Strength (kPa) -200
Peak Friction Angle (kPa) 36
Poissons Ratio 0.25

3
Concept Foundation Design
Shallow Foundations
At this preliminary phase of development, shallow square-pad footings have been considered. It is
anticipated that these footings will support an unfactored load of 1640kN generated by the podium
structure. These pad footings will be placed at a depth of 3m below the ground surface and therefore
founded approximately 1m within the CIS layer. Using the design properties determined for CIS Sub-Layer
1, the net ultimate bearing capacity for the square footing is calculated as 112kPa. Using limit state design
principles, a preliminary size for the footing is determined as 7m x 7m. Please refer to Appendix F for
supporting calculations.

Such a large footing size is not a feasible option. The client may like to consider the viability of ground
improvement techniques to increase the bearing capacity of the founding soils. One such available method
is dry deep soil mixing, which can improve undrained shear strength values to 100 250 kPa (Arulrajah et
al, 2010). Using the lower bound value here, a footing size of 3m x 3m is appropriate for the anticipated
podium load. This is a significant reduction in footing size which increases the practicality of a shallow
foundation option.

There are other issues associated with the use of shallow foundations. Specific to the proposed
development site, settlement is an important consideration due to the high compressibility of the CIS
material. Significant settlement is possible, and without due deliberation, serviceability requirements may
be violated. CIS has also been cited by the EPA as a Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (EPA Victoria, 2009).
Soils high in acid sulfate, like CIS, can deteriorate foundations over time by corroding concrete and steel
once oxidised.

Given these considerations, it is unlikely that shallow foundations will be considered further, especially
where no ground improvement is undertaken.

Deep Foundations
A practical foundation design that can be used to support both the load generated by the podium structure
(1640kN) and the tower structure (16000kN) are piled foundations. In comparison to pad footings founded
in the CIS layer, the settlement of piled foundations will be minimal.

One such option is driven precast prestressed concrete piles. These piles have a usual length of between
10m to 45m and can carry a maximum load of 7500kN to 8500kN (Das, 2011), which allows them to be
driven to refusal in the dense MSG or the underlying Melbourne Formation and via pile groups, adequately
support the tower load. A major concern with driven piles however is the noise and vibration caused by
installation methods. This should be avoided due the surrounding residential community and commercial
activities. Moreover, driven piles are displacement piles (Das, 2011), and consideration would need to be
given to the heaving that may be caused and subsequent impact on surrounding structures.

Alternative foundation options that minimise the issue of heaving as well as noise generation are bored or
continuous flight auger (CFA) piles. For these reasons, such methods of installation are preferred for the
proposed development. Specifically, a rock socketed bored pile is recommended. Preliminary design
reveals that two 1.0m diameter piles are required under each tower column, socketed at a depth of 3.5m
into the underlying mudstone. Please refer to Appendix G for supporting calculations.

As with the shallow foundations, the durability of these piles remains an important consideration, and this
is heavily influenced by the chemistry of the soil. The acidic sulphates present within the Coode Island Silt
strata and measured within the groundwater at 2,900mg/L can accelerate the corrosion of the concrete
and expose the underlying reinforcement. Moreover, because the site is near the coast, saline ground
conditions are expected as indicated by the high TDS reading of 23000 mg/L. This presence of ions
(specifically chloride ions) in conjunction with the high conductivity reading obtained, indicates a large
potential for metal corrosion (Moser et al, 2011). As such, adequate cover must be provided in accordance
with Section 4 of the AS3600 to protect the reinforcement from premature deterioration.
4
Field Investigation Assessment
The boreholes and CPT testing are considered comprehensive for the purpose of identifying substrata
material. The depths of each borehole are also adequate with sufficient intrusion into the underlying rock.
However, the current investigation is lacking site specific material testing to identify material parameters.
This is especially pertinent to undrained shear strength of the FBS which exhibits significant variation
depending on the method used. Moreover, the Youngs modulus values for all soils is highly empirical and
large ranges are yielded using various methods. Furthermore, the consolidation parameters for the CIS
and FBS layers are deemed highly uncertain due to the heavy reliance on empirical correlations and often
literature value ranges. Thus, the following is proposed to achieve confidence in the parameters for design:
The undrained shear strength is to be obtained for a few samples of FBS via consolidated
undrained triaxial testing and then to be used as a benchmark for empirical and literature values;
The Youngs modulus for the soils can be efficiently gauged via pressuremeter testing;
The consolidation parameters can be yielded via oedometer testing for a few samples of CIS and
FBS and then used as a benchmark for the empirical and literature values.

Conclusion
This report details the findings from a comprehensive desk study and site investigation analysis performed
at the proposed location for a multi-use combined podium and tower structure. In this process, geological
models were constructed for the site and representative strength, deformation and compressibility
properties were established for each respective geological unit.
With this background, foundation options were conceptually explored. Shallow foundations were deemed
unfeasible due to their size and settlement problems. However, ground improvement techniques can be
utilised to allow pad foundations under the podium structure. The tower load should be transferred to the
substrata via rock socketed bored piles. Finalisation of foundation options will be submitted during the
detailed design stage.

References
1. Arulrajah, A., Abdullah, A., Bouazza, A. and Bo, M. (2009). Ground improvement techniques for railway
embankments. Proceedings of the ICE - Ground Improvement, 162(1), pp.3-14.
2. Bowles, J. (1997). Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Companies.
3. Budhu, M. (2011). Soil mechanics and foundations. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4. Chiu, H. (1981). Geotechnical properties and numerical analyses for socketed pile design in weak rock, Ph.D thesis,
Monash University.
5. Das, B. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
6. Department of Civil Engineering (n.d). Soil Manual Chapter 5, Clayton, Monash University.
7. EPA (2009). Acid Sulfate Soil and Rock, EPA Victoria. Viewed on 17/08/2015 at
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/655%201.pdf
8. Ervin, M. (1992). Engineering properties of Quaternary age sediments of the Yarra Delta. In: W. Peck, J. Neilson,
R. Olds and K. Seddon, ed., Engineering Geology of Melbourne. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 245 - 259.
9. Ervin, M. and Finlayson, J. (2006). Piled foundations for Eureka Tower, Melbourne, Australia. Proceedings of the
ICE - Geotechnical Engineering, 159(3), pp.187-194.
10. Johnston, I. W. (1992). Silurian and Lower Devonian engineering properties. In: W. Peck, J. Neilson, R. Olds and
K. Seddon, ed., Engineering Geology of Melbourne. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp.95 - 108.
11. Moser et al. (2011), Durability of Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles in Marine Environment: Reinforcement
Corrosion and Mitigation Part 1, Georgia Institute of Technology
12. Nagaraj, T. and Srinivasa Murthy, B. (1986), A Critical Reappraisal of Compression Index. Geotechnique, 36(1),
March, pp. 27-32
13. Nakase, A., et al. (1988), Constitutive Parameters Estimated by Plasticity Index. JGED, ASCE, vol.114, GT 7, July,
pp. 844-858.
14. Neilson, J. (1992). Geology of the Yarra Delta. In: W. Peck, J. Neilson, R. Olds and K. Seddon, ed., Engineering
Geology of Melbourne. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp.223 - 243.
15. Pells, P. (1999) State of practice for the design of socketed piles in rock. 307 - 328
16. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
17. Vandenberg, A. (1974). Melbourne: Geological Survey of Victoria, 1:63360

5
Appendix A Site Location

Figure A1: Proposed Site Location

Figure A2: Proposed Site Extent

6
Appendix B Site Geology

Figure B1: Surface of Melbourne Geological Map

The Melbourne Geological Map (Vandenberg, 1974) provides a cross-section of substrata materials
encountered. This is denoted by the white line in Figure B1. By drawing a perpendicular line (red dashed
line in Figure B1), the cross section yielded at the closest point to the proposed development site (black
box in Figure B1) can be viewed. This is illustrated below in Figure B2.

Figure B2: Cross-Section of Substrata Material

The red dashed line in Figure B2 corresponds to the nearest cross-section to the proposed site. Observing
the substrata material at this point, the stratigraphy can be inferred to comprise a thin layer of fill overlying
Coode Island Silt, Fishermens Bend Silt, Moray Street Gravel and the Melbourne Formation.

Neilson (1992) also presents a series of cross-sections within the Yarra Delta region. This is utilised here
to support the findings from the Melbourne Geological Map.

7
 Figure B3: Surface Geology of Yarra Delta Region

As observed in Figure B3, cross-section H (red line) has a borehole within only a few hundred metres of
the proposed development site (black box). The stratigraphy encountered in this borehole is compared to
that yielded from the Melbourne Geological Map.

Figure B4: Cross-Section of Substrata Material through H-H

The red dashed line in Figure B4 corresponds to the borehole of closest proximity to the development site.
Observing the substrata material here, again the constituents are, from the surface down, Coode Island
Silt, Fishermens Bend Silt, Moray Street Gravel and the Melbourne Formation. This supports the
conclusion reached using the Melbourne Geological Map.

There is thus strong evidence to suggest that these are the potential geological units that will be
encountered at the site.

8
Appendix C Geological Models
The alignment of the three respective geological models can be observed in Figure C1 below.

Figure C1: Alignment of Geological Models

The geological models are presented below in Figure C2, Figure C3 and Figure C4.

9
 Fill Fill
0

-5

CIS CIS
-10

AHD (m)
-15

FBS FBS
-20

-25
MSG MSG

-30

Melbourne Formation
Melbourne Formation
-35
Distance (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

BH2
Scale

5m 10m
8m

Groundwater Table
CPT-1 BH1

22m
50m

Figure C2: Geological Model for CPT-1, BH2 and BH1

10
 Fill Fill
0

-5

CIS CIS

-10
AHD (m)

-15

FBS
FBS
-20

-25
MSG MSG

-30

Melbourne Formation Melbourne Formation

-35
Distance (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Scale
Groundwater Table
BH1 BH3 BH4
5m 10m

36m
66m

Figure C3: Geological Model for BH1, BH3 and BH4

11
 Fill
0

-5

-10
CIS
AHD (m)

-15

-20

FBS

-25

MSG
-30

Melbourne Formation
-35
Distance (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Scale
Groundwater Table
BH1 CPT-2
5m 10m

55 m

Figure C4: Geological Model for BH1 and BH2

12
Appendix D Design Parameter Determination for Soil
D1. Unit Weight
Prior to establishing the material strength and deformation properties, the unit weight of the soil was
determined for use in the relevant empirical correlations presented within this appendix.

The unit weight of each soil unit was not determined as part of the site investigation process. Therefore,
the relevant unit weights are sourced from literature. The unit weight for the CIS and FBS layer is assumed
as per Ervin (1992). The MSG and fill layer unit weight are adopted from Table A.11 in Budhu (2011), with
the MSG and fill layer considered to be medium-dense and dense respectively.

The unit weights for each respective layer are tabulated below.

Table D1: Unit Weight for Soil Layers

Geological Unit Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Fill 20
CIS 15.3
FBS 18.5
MSG 19

D2. Coode Island Silt

D2.1 Undrained Cohesion
The process undertaken to obtain a suitable undrained shear strength value for the CIS layer is presented
below. A number of approaches were taken and these are detailed herein.

Pocket Penetrometer Test

The first method undertaken was relating the average pocket penetrometer readings at each test depth
with the unconfined compressive strength of the material, and ultimately the undrained shear strength. This
relationship is given below.

UCS PP
cu = 2 = 2 Equation D1

where cu = undrained shear strength

UCS = unconfined compressive test

PP = average pocket penetrometer reading at test depth

This was undertaken for all the available pocket penetrometer readings, yielding values for undrained
shear strength for each borehole at each pocket penetrometer test depth using Equation D1. This is
illustrated below.

13
 Figure D1: CIS Undrained Shear Strength using PP Results

Figure D1 illustrates that the undrained shear strength of the CIS layer increases markedly with depth.
This is due to the material becoming stiffer as expounded on in the body of this report. For this reason, the
CIS layer will be divided into two sub-layers as illustrated in Figure C1 above, with the Sub-Layer 1
encountered from RL-0m to RL-10m and Sub-Layer 2 encountered below RL-10m. This is undertaken to
better identify representative material parameters.

From Figure D1, the undrained shear strength values for Sub-Layer 1 range from 21kPa to 35kPa.
Similarly, the undrained shear strength values for Sub-Layer 2 range from 30kPa to 48kPa.

Cone Penetrometer Test

The second method undertaken was through empirically correlating the CPT data to the undrained shear
strength of the soil. The correlation equation is given below (Bowles, 1997).

qc - po
cu = Nk Equation D2

where cu = undrained shear strength

qc = cone resistance

po = overburden pressure

Nk = cone factor = 15

The undrained shear strength was determined at the top and bottom of Sub-Layer 1 and Sub-Layer 2
respectively to yield a range of possible undrained shear strength values.

The inputs for Equation D2 are given in Table D2 below. Please note the following:

The unit weights used in calculating the overburden pressure are given in Section D1 above.
Linear interpolation is used to identify cone resistances within the CIS layer.

14
 Table D2: Inputs for Undrained Shear Strength-CPT Correlation (CIS)

Sub-Layer Input CPT-1 CPT-2

qc top (kPa) 300 400
qc bottom (kPa) 663.6 652.6
1
po top (kPa) 40 40
po bottom (kPa) 162.4 162.4
qc top (kPa) 663.6 652.6
qc bottom (kPa) 800 1000
2
po top (kPa) 162.4 162.4
po bottom (kPa) 208.3 330.7

Using Table D2 and Equation D2, we yield an undrained shear strength range of 17kPa to 33kPa for Sub-
Layer 1. Similarly, we yield an undrained shear strength range of 33kPa to 44kPa for Sub-Layer 2.

Literature Range

Ervin (1992) presents the undrained shear strength values obtained from series of testing in the South
Melbourne area, which is in close proximity to the site. This is illustrated below.

Figure D2: CIS Undrained Shear Strength South Melbourne

Figure D2 illustrates a range of undrained shear strength between ~15kPa to ~70kPa. This corroborates
the ranges obtained using the pocket penetrometer and cone penetrometer results. Towards the top of
Sub-Layer 1 at a depth of 2m, the undrained shear strength is around 15kPa. Similarly, towards the top of
Sub-Layer 2 at a depth of 12m, the undrained shear strength is around 50kPa.

Summary

Table D3: Summary of Undrained Shear Strength Values for CIS

CIS Sub-Layer PP Test (kPa) CPT Test (kPa) Ervin (kPa)

1 21 35 17 33 15 50
2 30 48 33 44 50 - 70

At this stage, conservatism is shown in establishing the material properties due to the empirical correlations
used. There are as such, many unknowns. Moreover, a shallow foundation will lie over the weakest region

15
of this layer. Therefore, for CIS Sub-Layer 1, the undrained shear strength is taken as 15kPa and for
CIS Sub-Layer 2, the undrained shear strength is taken as 30kPa.

D2.2 Undrained Friction Angle

The friction angle is considered to be 0 because the CIS layer comprises saturated clay.

D2.3 Youngs Modulus

Empirical Relationship

An empirical relationship between the undrained shear strength and Youngs modulus of cohesive soils is
presented in Bowles (1997), depending on the consolidation and sensitivity of the soil material. CIS is
predominantly a normally consolidated material and the appropriate correlation is as below.

Es = (200 to 500) x cu Equation D3

where Es = Youngs modulus

cu = undrained shear strength

For Sub-Layer 1, the undrained shear strength was established above as 17kPa, giving a range of Youngs
modulus values of 3.4MPa to 8.5MPa.

Similarly, for Sub-Layer 2, the undrained shear strength was established above as 30kPa, giving a range
of Youngs modulus values of 6MPa to 15MPa.

Literature Range

Bowles (1997) presents a value range for the Youngs modulus for a selection of soils. This is presented
below.

Table D4: Young's Modulus Range for Selected Soils

The CIS encountered at the proposed development site is predominantly soft, indicating a Youngs
modulus range of 5MPa to 25MPa for the layer. Though this range is quite large, it validates the
reasonableness of the Youngs modulus values selected using the empirical relationship above.

More relevantly, Ervin (1992) presents the undrained Youngs modulus obtained from a series of self boring
pressuremeter tests conducted on CIS at Fishermens Bend. This is presented below.

16
 Figure D3: Undrained Young's Modulus from Self Boring Pressuremeter Tests

From Figure D3, it can be observed that the majority of Youngs modulus values fall within the range of
4MPa to 14MPa. These findings are consistent with the Youngs modulus obtained using the empirical
relationship above. Importantly, at the top of Sub-Layer 1 (a depth of 2m), the undrained Youngs modulus
is around 4MPa. Similarly, at the top of Sub-Layer 2 (a depth of 12m), we observe that the undrained
Youngs modulus is around 10MPa.

Summary

Table D5: Summary of Undrained Young's Modulus Values for CIS

CIS Sub-Layer Empirical (MPa) Bowles (MPa) Ervin (MPa)

1 3.4 8.5 4 10
5 25
2 6 15 10 14

For the reasoning explained above, conservative values are again selected. Thus, for Sub-Layer 1 and
Sub-Layer 2, the Youngs modulus are considered to be 3.4MPa and 8MPa respectively.

D2.4 Poissons Ratio

Bowles (1997) presents a value range for the Poissons ratio for a selection of soils. This is presented
below.

Table D6: Poisson's Ratio for Selected Soils

The appropriate range for CIS, being a saturated clay layer, is 0.45 0.50 as indicated in Table D6 above.
As an undrained case has been considered (friction angle = 0), no volume change occurs on loading and
thus, the Poissons ratio is 0.5 by definition (Soil Manual Chapter 5, n.d.).

17
D2.5 Consolidation Parameters
D2.5.1 Compression Index
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) provide a correlation between the liquid limit of a soil and the compression index
of that soil as below.

Cc = 0.009 (wL 10) Equation D4

where Cc = compression index

wL = liquid limit (%)

Ervin (1992) provides the results yielded from a series of Atterberg limit testing performed throughout the
Yarra Delta region. The findings from this are summarised below for those areas deemed within close
proximity to proposed development site.

Table D7: Liquid Limit Results around Proposed Site for CIS

Location Average Liquid Limit (%)

Cecil Street 79
Charles Grime Bridge 58
Lorimer Street (1) 81
Lorimer Street (2) 83
Footscray Road 74
Appleton Dock 75
Dynon Road 82
Todd Road 85
Port Melbourne 77
Average 77

For Equation D4 above, the average liquid limit for the test data from Table D7 is used. Without any site
specific consolidation testing, an average is considered to provide the best measure of central tendency.
Thus, using a liquid limit of 77%, Equation D4 gives a compression index of 0.603.

Ervin (1992) finds that moisture content is a better indicator than liquid limit in determining the compression
index for CIS. Their findings are presented in the following chart.

Figure D4: Compression Index v Moisture Content for CIS

18
Similar to the method used to obtain an indicative liquid limit for the CIS, an average moisture content can
also be derived using Ervin (1992). The relevant findings are summarised below.

Table D8: Moisture Content Results around Proposed Site for CIS

Location Average Moisture Content (%)

Cecil Street -
Charles Grime Bridge 68
Lorimer Street (1) 71
Lorimer Street (2) 72
Footscray Road -
Appleton Dock 64
Dynon Road -
Todd Road 79
Port Melbourne -
Average 71

However, in this case, we can compute the average moisture content from the CIS lab tests as 76%. Table
D8 is presented to illustrate the consistency of this value with literature.

Then, using the average moisture content from the lab tests of 76% in conjunction with Figure D4, we yield
a value of for the compression index of ~0.8.

Summary

Table D9: Summary of Compression Index for CIS

Unit Terzaghi & Peck Ervin Selected

CIS 0.603 0.80 0.70

The selected value for the compression index in Table D9 above gives the average of the values obtained
via the two methods explored here. Again, an average is rendered suitable due to the lack of site specific
information and testing.

To further confirm the reasonableness of this value, the compression ratio can be computed and compared
to the value range provided by Ervin (1992) which indicates that the compression ratio varies from about
0.15 to 0.45.

The compression ratio is defined as below.

Cc
Compression Ratio = 1 + e Equation D5
0

where Cc = compressive index

e0 = initial void ratio

The void ratio can be computed by using the moisture content yielded from lab testing on the CIS samples
as below. Please note that Equation D6 assumes full saturation which is applicable in this case.

e0 = wN Gs Equation D6

As given above, the average moisture content from the CIS lab tests is 76%. The specific gravity for soil
material can be taken as 2.6. Thus, the void ratio is calculated as 1.99. This compares favourably to
the average void ratio for CIS of 1.92 yielded from a series of test results compiled by Ervin (1992).

19
Substituting this value into Equation D5 above, in conjunction with the compression index value of 0.7, we
yield a compression ratio of 0.234. This falls within the 0.15 to 0.45 range indicated above and further
indicates the reasonableness of the compression index value obtained.

D2.5.2 Recompression Index

Nagaraj and Srinivasa Murthy (1985) provide a correlation between the liquid limit of a soil, its specific
gravity and the recompression index of that soil as below.

Cr = 0.000463wLGs Equation D7

where Cr = recompression index

wL = liquid limit (%)

Gs = specific gravity

The liquid limit is taken from Table D7 above and the specific gravity has been specified above as 2.6.
Using these values and Equation D7, the recompression index is 0.093.

To confirm the reasonableness of this value, the recompression ratio can be computed and compared to
the value range provided by Ervin (1992) which indicates that the recompression ratio from 65 test results
ranged from 0.010 to 0.333.

The recompression ratio is defined as below.

Cr
Recompression Ratio = 1 + e Equation D8
0

where Cr = compressive index

e0 = initial void ratio

As above, a void ratio of 1.99 is used. Substituting into Equation D8 yields a recompression ratio of
0.031. This falls within the range indicated by Ervin (1992) and confirms the reasonableness of the
recompression index value obtained.

C2.5.3 Secondary Compression Index

Nakase et. al. (1988) provide a correlation between the plasticity index of a soil and the secondary
compression index of that soil as below.

C = 0.00168 +0.00033Ip Equation D9

where C = secondary compression index

Ip = plasticity index (%)

The average plasticity index for a number of sites around the proposed development site can also be
obtained using Ervin (1992). The relevant findings are summarised below.

Table D10: Plasticity Index Results around Proposed Site for CIS

Location Average Plasticity Index (%)

Cecil Street 46
Charles Grime Bridge 34
Lorimer Street (1) 53
Lorimer Street (2) 55
Footscray Road 53
Appleton Dock 46
Dynon Road -

20
 Todd Road 54
Port Melbourne 39
Average 48

The average value is used here for the same reasons indicated above when computing the compression
index and recompression index. From Table D10, the average plasticity index is 48%.

Substituting into Equation D9 yields a secondary compression index value of 0.0175.

21
D3. Fishermens Bend Silt
D3.1 Undrained Cohesion
As for the CIS layer, a number of approaches were taken to obtain a suitable undrained shear strength
value for the FBS layer. These are presented herein.

Pocket Penetrometer Test

As with the CIS, the pocket penetrometer readings were converted to undrained shear strength values
using Equation D1. This was undertaken for all the available pocket penetrometer readings, yielding values
for undrained shear strength for each borehole at each pocket penetrometer test depth. This is illustrated
below.

Figure D5: FBS Undrained Shear Strength using PP Results

As illustrated in Figure D6, the undrained shear strength is relatively confined to a range of 50kPa to
80kPa. Within this range, the average strength is around 65kPa. A number of large positive outliers exist,
and this is due to bands of very stiff FBS at greater depth. However, for the purpose of determining design
parameters, these values are not representative of the undrained shear strength and are not considered
further.

Cone Penetrometer Test

The second method undertaken was through empirically correlating the CPT data to the undrained shear
strength of the soil, as was conducted with the CIS layer above. For this purpose, Equation D2 was again
utilised.

As above, the undrained shear strength was determined at the top and bottom of the FBS layer to yield a
range of possible undrained shear strength values. The inputs for Equation D2 are given in Table D11
below.

22
 Table D11: Inputs for Undrained Shear Strength-CPT Correlation (FBS)

Unit Input CPT-1 CPT-2

qc top (kPa) 1000 1200
qc bottom (kPa) 1500 1800
FBS
po top (kPa) 269.5 391.9
po bottom (kPa) 380.5 447.4

Using Table D11 above and Equation D2, we yield an undrained shear strength range of 49kPa to
75kPa and average of 62kPa using the test results from CPT-1. Similarly, we yield an undrained shear
strength range of 54kPa to 90kPa and an average of 72kPa using the test results from CPT-2. Together,
the CPT results indicate a range of undrained shear strength from 49kPa to 90kPa with an average
undrained shear strength value of 65kPa.

Literature Range

Ervin (1992) presents the undrained shear strength obtained through triaxial and shear box testing at a
number of sites near the proposed development. For presentation here, the findings from consolidated
undrained triaxial tests performed at Ingles Street and South Melbourne are selected. This is because
consolidated tests reflect the in-situ condition of the soil.

Table D12: Undrained Shear Strength of FBS

No. of Results Undrained Shear Undrained Shear

Site
Strength Range (kPa) Strength Average (kPa)
South Melbourne 19 50 258 126
Ingles St 11 50 218 123

The range of values indicated in Table D12 compare favourably with the values derived using the pocket
penetrometer and cone penetrometer testing methods above. It is important to note that the derived values
fall towards the lower end of this band. This may be due, in part, to the positive outliers in Figure D6, being
disregarded and may also indicate that the FBS encountered at the site does not achieve the same strength
as elsewhere in the Yarra Delta. The large variation however suggests additional testing on the FBS
encountered may be prudent.

Summary

For the FBS layer, value near the lower bound are again adopted in determining the design parameters.
This is because, similar the CIS layer, there is considerable uncertainty and variation between empirical
correlations and literature values. The undrained shear strength values are summarised below.

Table D13: Summary of Undrained Shear Strength Values for CIS

Unit PP Test (kPa) CPT Test (kPa) Ervin (kPa)

FBS 50 80 49 90 50 258

Thus using Table D13, for the FBS layer, the undrained shear strength is taken as 50kPa.

23
D3.2 Undrained Friction Angle
The friction angle is considered to be 0 because the FBS layer comprises saturated clay.

D3.3 Youngs Modulus

Empirical

An empirical relationship between the undrained shear strength and Youngs modulus of cohesive soils is
presented in Bowles (1997), depending on the consistency or plasticity of the soil material. FBS is
predominantly a stiff material with low to intermediate plasticity and the appropriate correlation is as below.

Es = (500 to 1500) x cu Equation D10

where Es = Youngs modulus

cu = undrained shear strength

For the FBS layer, the undrained shear strength was established above as 50kPa, giving a range of
Youngs modulus values from 25MPa to 75MPa using Equation D10. This is a large range, and lower
bound values are again preferred due to the inherent uncertainty.

Literature Range

The Soil Manual Chapter 5 (n.d) correlates the consistency of clay with the Youngs modulus as below.

Table D14: Typical Ranges of Drained Modulus for Clays

The FBS encountered is predominantly a stiff clay. Therefore, using Table D14, a value range for the
Youngs modulus of 8MPa to 20MPa is attained.

Moreover, Table D4 presented above (Bowles, 1997) can also be used to provide an indicative value
range. A stiff clay can be considered as corresponding to a medium consistency in the table, leading to a
value range of 15MPa to 50MPa for the FBS layer.

Summary

Table D15: Summary of Undrained Young's Modulus Values for FBS

Unit Empirical (MPa) Soil Manual (MPa) Bowles* (MPa)

FBS 25 75 8 20 15 50
* Table D4

As can be observed in Table D15, there is considerable variation from 8MPa to 50MPa as given in Table
D15. Thus further testing ought to be performed to obtain site relevant values. With this caution in mind,
the lower band value from the empirical approach of 25MPa is used.

24
D3.4 Poissons Ratio
As with the CIS layer, an undrained case has been considered and therefore the Poissons ratio used is
0.5.

D3.5 Consolidation Parameters

D3.5.1 Compression Index
The compression index can be computed using the correlation given by Equation D4 above.

Ervin (1992) provides the results yielded from a series of Atterberg limit testing performed throughout the
Yarra Delta region. The findings from these sites are summarised below.

Table D16: Liquid Limit Results around Proposed Site for FBS

Location Average Liquid Limit (%)

Arts Centre 36
South Melbourne 40
Appleton Dock 85
Port Melbourne 56
Webb Dock 68
Average 57

For the reasoning provided in the Section D.2.5.1 and D.2.5.2 for the CIS material, average values are
also taken here.

Then, using Equation D4 and the average liquid limit of 57% from Table C16 gives a compression index
of 0.423.

To verify the reasonableness of this value, the compression index yielded can be converted into a
compression ratio using Equation D5, and this compression ratio then compared to a range of compression
ratios obtained at the nearby Ingles Street provided in Ervin (1992). The range indicated is between 0.177
and 0.300 with an average of 0.227.

The void ratio for the FBS unit can be calculated using Equation D6. The average moisture content from
the lab tests results on the FBS material yields an average moisture content of 41%. The specific gravity
of soil is again considered to be 2.6. Thus, the void ratio of the FBS material is calculated as 1.07. This
falls well within a range of 0.54 to 1.42 provided by Ervin (1992).

Substituting this and the compression index obtained into Equation D5 yields a compression ratio of
0.204 This falls within the value range obtained from testing at Ingles Street and is similar to the average
obtained at that site. As such, this provides some grounds for validating the reasonableness of the
empirically derived value.

D3.5.2 Recompression Index

The recompression index can be computed using the correlation given by Equation D7 above.

The liquid limit is taken from Table D16 above and the specific gravity is taken as 2.6. Using these values
and Equation D7, the recompression index is 0.069.

To confirm the reasonableness of this value, the recompression ratio can be computed using Equation D8
and then compared to the value range provided by Ervin (1992) which gives that the recompression ratio
from data collected from the South Melbourne and Ingles Street sites ranged from 0.007 to 0.027,
averaging 0.015.

25
Using a void ratio of 1.07 as above and a recompression index value of 0.069 as calculated, the
recompression ratio yielded is 0.033. This is beyond the upper band indicated by Ervin (1992) and may
suggest that the recompression index generated by empirical means needs to be readjusted downwards.
For this reason, a recompression index value of 0.040 is selected for the FBS layer. Further testing is
required to verify the representativeness of this value.

D3.5.3 Secondary Compression Index

The secondary compression index can be computed using the correlation given by Equation D9 above.

The average plasticity index for a number of sites around the proposed development site can also be
obtained using Ervin (1992). The relevant findings are summarised below.

Table D17: Plasticity Index Results around Proposed Site for FBS

Location Average Plasticity Index (%)

Arts Centre 24
South Melbourne 22
Appleton Dock 58
Port Melbourne 37
Webb Dock 49
Average 38

Using the average value for the plasticity index from Table D17 and substituting into Equation D9 yields a
secondary compression index of 0.014.

26
D4. Moray Street Gravel
D4.1 Drained Cohesion
The MSG is considered here as a cohesionless soil. Therefore, the drained cohesion (c) = 0.

D4.2 Drained Friction Angle

Standard Penetration Test

An empirical relationship between the drained friction angle and corrected SPT blow count is presented in
Das (2011). The correlation equation is given below.

= [20 (CNN)]0.5 + 20 Equation D11

where = drained friction angle

pa
CN = correction factor = [p ]0.5
o

po = overburden pressure

pa = atmospheric pressure = 100kPa

N = raw blow count

Using Equation D11, the drained friction angle was computed for all the standard penetration tests
performed, yielding values for the drained friction angle within each borehole at each standard penetration
test depth. This is illustrated below.

Figure D6: MSG Undrained Friction Angle using SPT Results

In Figure D6 above, a large proportion of the drained friction angles has been enclosed by the black box.
Friction angles yielded outside of this box to the smaller side (left) are typically those yielded from the small
band of loose material encountered at the top of the layer. As this material will not be used for founding
purposes, it is omitted here. Using the data points within the black box as representative of the layer, the
drained friction angle has a range of 35 to 42, with an average of ~38.

27
Cone Penetrometer Test

The cone penetrometer test readings are difficult to interpret due to their high variability. The frequent
spikes in cone resistance may be explained by the cone coming into contact with coarse gravel particles
(Ervin, 1992). For this reason, correlations between the cone resistance and drained friction angle are not
performed here.

Literature Range

Budhu (2011) presents an empirical correlation between the SPT blow count and the drained friction angle
for coarse-grained soils as below.

Table D18: Correlation of SPT for Coarse Grained Soils

The average SPT blow count is 27. Assuming a standard 60% efficient hammer is used, this corresponds
to, on average, a dense material with a peak drained friction angle range of 38 to 45. This is consistent
with the SPT correlation performed above.

Summary

Table D19: Summary of Drained Friction Angle Values for MSG

Unit SPT () Budhu ()

MSG 35 42 38 45

Conservatism will be shown in the selection of an appropriate drained friction angle. The reason behind
this is twofold: (1) empirical correlations are used which are subject to considerable uncertainty and (2) the
MSG layer can often be adopted as the founding layer for piles. Thus, a drained friction angle of 35 is
selected.

D4.3 Youngs Modulus

Empirical

Bowles (1997) presents a generic relationship between the SPT blow count and the Youngs modulus of
all sands as below.

Es = (2600 to 2900)N Equation D12

where Es = Youngs modulus

N = SPT blow count (55% efficiency)

For this case, the N60 blow count will be used which will provide marginally lower Youngs modulus values
(and therefore more conservative). The average SPT blow count that yields a friction angle of 35 2 is
20, yielding a range of Youngs modulus from 52MPa to 58MPa.

28
Literature Range

Using Bowles (1997) table given in Table D4 above, a value range for the Youngs modulus of the MSG
can be achieved. Considering the MSG to be a dense sand and gravel material, the corresponding range
for Youngs modulus is 100MPa to 200MPa.

The following value range table for a normalised elastic modulus is given is adopted from Soil Manual
Chapter 5 (n.d).

Table D20: Typical Ranges of Drained Modulus for Sand

Normalised Youngs
Consistency
Modulus (Es/pa)
Loose 100 200
Medium 200 500
Dense 500 1000

The MSG encountered is predominantly a dense sand. Then, using Table D20, the range for Youngs
modulus is 50MPa to 100MPa.

Summary

Table D21: Summary of Youngs Modulus Values for MSG

Unit Empirical (MPa) Bowles (MPa) Soil Manual (MPa)

MSG 52 58 100 200 50 100

There is considerable variation between the ascertained Youngs modulus values. This suggests a need
to conduct appropriate testing on the material encountered on site. For the purpose of this report, a lower
bound value of 52MPa is adopted.

D4.4 Poissons Ratio

Bowles (1997) presents a value range for the Poissons ratio for a selection of materials. This is presented
below.

Table D22: Poisson's Ratio for Selected Materials

The commonly used values for sand, as observed in Table D22 above are between 0.3 and 0.4. The
value adopted here is 0.3.

29
Appendix E - Design Parameter Determination for Rock
Point load tests with moisture content were conducted at two depths within each borehole for the
Melbourne Formation layer. These are tabulated below.

Table E1: Point Load and Moisture Content Test Results

Borehole Weathering Depth (m) RL (m) Is (50) (MPa) MC (%)

BH1 HW-MW 40.1 -37.97 0.24 12.2
BH1 HW-MW 41.9 -39.77 0.18 12.9
BH2 MW 38.6 -36.57 0.32 11.5
BH2 MW 41.6 -39.57 0.37 10.1
BH3 HW-MW 33.9 -32.06 0.15 15.4
BH3 MW 37.5 -35.66 - 13.2
BH4 MW 34.5 -32.61 0.22 11.5
BH4 MW 35.8 -33.91 0.37 10.1
Average 0.26 12.1

Using the empirical relationships established by Chiu (1981) for Melbourne Formation, the relevant
design parameters can be obtained. These are presented below.

log E = 3.511 0.078w Equation E1

log qu = 4.07 0.063w Equation E2

log c = 3.459 0.0603w Equation E3

log (-t) = 3.35 0.08w Equation E4

tan = 0.986 0.0208w Equation E5

where E = Youngs modulus (MPa)

qu = unconfined compressive strength (kPa)

c = cohesion (kPa)

t = tensile strength (kPa)

= peak friction angle

w = water content (%)

Generally, the testing and analysis of Melbourne Formation is conducted using drained conditions
(Johnston, 1992). As such, the above relationships give drained parameters.

Johnston (1992) also presents a series of graphs relating the saturated water content of the Melbourne
Formation to other design parameters. These graphs are analysed and the relevant material properties
corresponding to the water content of the Melbourne Formation encountered are presented in Table E2
below. These are provided here as a basis for comparing the values achieved from the relationships above
(Equation E1 Equation E5).

The values obtained from both sources are tabulated below. Please note that the average water content
from testing (12.1%) is used for this purpose. The reasoning here is that there is not excessive variation in
the water contents or weathering observed and an average is therefore deemed appropriate to categorise
the material properties.

30
 Table E2: Melbourne Formation Design Parameter Summary

Parameter Chiu (1981) Johnston (1992) Selected Value

E (MPa) 368 ~300 300
qu (kPa) 2027 ~2000 2000
c (kPa) 535 ~500 500
t (kPa) -240 ~ -200 -200
(kPa) 36 ~36 36
Poissons Ratio - ~0.25 0.25

NB: The figures used from Johnston (1992), in descending order as the parameters appear in Table E2, are Figure 11, Figure 3,
Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 4 and Figure 14 from his paper.

Due to the empirical relationships involved, there is again considerable uncertainty in the ascertained
values presented in Table E2. Moreover, is it is possible that the Melbourne Formation layer may be the
founding layer for a piled foundation option and thus, greater care must be exercised.

Thus, the selected values presented in Table E2 are lower bound values.

31
Appendix F Shallow Foundations
F.1 Natural Ground
For the preliminary design of the square pad footings, the following relationship from Das (2011) is used.

qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4BN Equation F1

where qu = ultimate bearing capacity

c = cohesion of soil

= unit weight of soil

q = overburden pressure

B = footing width

Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors

The CIS is an undrained material (friction angle = 0), and the corresponding bearing capacity factors Nc,
Nq and N are 5.7, 1.0 and 0.0 respectively (Das, 2011). Thus, Equation F1 can be simplified to that below
in Equation F2.

qu = 7.41c + q Equation F2

The net bearing capacity of the soil is given as below.

qu(net) = qu q Equation F3

where qu = ultimate bearing capacity

qu(net) = net ultimate bearing capacity

q = overburden pressure

Thus, simplifying Equation F3 we yield:

qu(net) = 7.41c = 111.15kPa

Das (2011) suggests that a safety factor (FOS) of 3 should at least be applied. This can be incorporated
by determining the allowable bearing capacity (qallow) as below.

qallow = qu(net)/FOS Equation F4

Substituting in the relevant values we yield:

qallow = 111.15/3 = 37.05kPa

The applied load from the podium structure (P1) is 1640kN. The required footing size (B) can then be
determined using the following relationship.

P1 0.5
B > [q ] Equation F5
allow

Substituting in the relevant values yields:

1640
B > [37.05 ]0.5 = 6.65m

Thus, a footing with dimensions 7m x 7m satisfies ultimate limit state design for the anticipated load.

32
F.2 Improved Ground
The case for dry deep soil mixing is identical to that presented above. The only adjustment made is that
the cohesion value of the CIS (c) is now considered to be 100kPa (Arulrajah et al., 2009).

Using this value, we yield that the allowable bearing capacity is now 247kPa. With this significantly larger
allowable bearing capacity, the minimum footing width is 2.6m. Thus, with the ground improvement
technique, a footing with dimensions 3m x 3m satisfies ultimate limit state design for the anticipated load.

33
Appendix G Deep Foundations
For a rock socketed pile, the ultimate bearing capacity is comprised of the shaft resistance and base
resistance and can be calculated as follows. Please note that at this preliminary phase, the self-weight of
the pile is ignored.

Qult = Asfsu + Abfbu Equation G1

where Qult = ultimate bearing capacity

As = surface area of shaft

fsu = ultimate strength of rock around shaft

Ab = surface area of base

fbu = ultimate strength of rock around base

The ultimate strength of rock around the shaft can be calculated as follows.

fsu = UCS Equation G2

where = 0.3 (Figure 2 in Pells, 1999)

= 1 (Figure 4 in Pells, 1999)

UCS = 2MPa (Table E2 in Appendix E)

The ultimate strength of rock around the base can be calculated as follows.

fsu = KUCS Equation G3

where K = 12.5 (Figure 2 in Pells, 1999)

A standardised pile diameter of 1.2m is socketed 2.5m into the siltstone in the foundations for the Eureka
tower (Ervin & Finlayson, 2006). Therefore, a 1.0m diameter pile is proposed to be socketed 3.5m into the
Melbourne Formation material. With this, the area of the shaft and the area of the base socketed in the
rock can be determined.

Substituting all the relevant values into Equation G1 yields an ultimate bearing capacity of 26.2MPa.

The allowable bearing capacity can be calculated by applying an appropriate factor of safety as below.

Qallow = Qult /FOS Equation G4

where Qult = ultimate bearing capacity

Qallow = allowable bearing capacity

FOS = factor of safety

For the piles, a factor of safety of 2.5 is considered appropriate. This yields an allowable bearing capacity
of 10.5MPa.

The allowable bearing capacity can be converted into an allowable bearing load (Pallow) as below.

Pallow = Qallow x Ab Equation G5

Using Equation G5, the allowable bearing load can be calculated as 8241kN. The number of required
piles can be determined as below.

No. of piles = P2/Pallow Equation G6

where P2 = tower load (16000kN)

34
Thus, the required number of piles per column is 2.

35