Report to Masithu Consulting & Project Management on the ...

• Postal Address: PO Box 1461, Westville, 3630, South Africa

• Physical Address: 122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park, Durban, 4001, South Africa

• Tel: +27 (0)31 266 0458 • Fax: 086 689 5506 • Mobile: +27 (0) 82 784 0544

• E-Mail: [email protected]

www.geosure.co.za

LEVEL 1 BEE CONTRIBUTOR

Report to Masithu Consulting & Project Management on

the Results of a Geotechnical Investigation for the

Proposed KwaMashu Bridge City Urban Hub

Development, eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal

Geotechnical Engineering Services

Engineering Geology

Environmental and Groundwater

Pile Integrity Testing

SANAS Accredited Soil & Rock Laboratory

Earthworks/Materials Supervision & Control

Geotechnical Monitoring Systems

Road Pavement Materials and Design

Project Management

Reference: 136-20.R01 Revision 0

Dated: 10 August 2020

Geosure (Pty) Ltd www.geosure.co.za 136-20.R01 Revision 0





Reference : 136-20.R01 Revision 0

Dated : 10 August 2020

GEOSURE (PTY) LTD Geotechnical, Environmental & Groundwater Engineering Consultants

SANAS Accredited Soil and Rock Laboratory

Head Office & Civil Engineering Laboratory

Physical Address: 122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park, Durban, 4001, South Africa

PO Box 1461, Westville, 3630

Telephone: (+27) (0)31 266 04 58 /

0861 GEOSURE (4367873)

Fax: 086 689 5506

Mobile: +27 (0)82 784 0544

E- mail: [email protected]

Website: www.geosure.co.za

Gauteng

Physical Address: 44 Andries Street, Wynberg, Sandton, Johannesburg, 2090

Telephone: 0861 GEOSURE (4367873)

Mobile: 082 557 0473

E-mail: [email protected]

Civil Engineering Laboratory Western Cape

Telephone: 031 701 9732 Address: P.O. Box 34008, Rhodes Gift,

Cape Town, 7707 Fax: 086 689 5506

Mobile: 072 870 2621 Telephone: 0861 GEOSURE (4367873)

E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 086 689 5506

Mobile: 082 557 0473


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.geosure.co.za/





Document Control Record

Document prepared by:

Geosure (Pty) Ltd

122 Intersite Avenue

Umgeni Business Park

Durban

South Africa

4001

Tel: 031 266 0458

Fax: 086 689 5506


Website: www.geosure.co.za

A person using Geosure (Pty) Ltd documents must take note of the following:

a) Electronic copies to be checked against original hard copy version to ensure accuracy.

b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing with Geosure (Pty) Ltd is

prohibited.

Document Control

Report Title Report to Masithu Consulting & Project Management on the Results of a

Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed KwaMashu Bridge City Urban Hub


Report Reference 136-20.R01 Responsible Persons Ms P. Molefe

Client Name Masithu Consulting &

Project Management Client Contact Details

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 031 566 4899

Revision Date Revision Details/Status Author Reviewer 0 10/08/2020 Geotechnical report with recommendations Ms E. Angath Mr F. Smith

Current Revision 0

Author Reviewer

Author Signature

Name E. Angath F. Smith Pr. Sci. Nat

Title Engineering Geologist Associate


http://www.geosure.co.za/







Reference: 136-20.R01 Revision 0 Date: 10 August 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.............................................................................................................................................................................

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. SCOPE OF REPORT ...................................................................................................................................... 1

3. GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................ 1

4. INFORMATION SUPPLIED/UTILISED ..................................................................................................... 2

5. SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2

6. FIELDWORK .................................................................................................................................................. 4

TERRAIN RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................................................... 5 6.1

INSPECTION PITS ............................................................................................................................................ 5 6.2

AUGER HOLES................................................................................................................................................ 5 6.3

CBR DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) TESTS .................................................................................... 5 6.4

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER LIGHT (DPL) TESTS .................................................................................. 6 6.5

7. GEOLOGY AND INFERRED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 6

REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 6 7.1

INFERRED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 7 7.2

8. GROUNDWATER AND FLOOD RISK ....................................................................................................... 8

9. LABORATORY TESTS .................................................................................................................................. 9

10. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................11

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................11 10.1

GENERAL STABILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE SITE ....................................................................................11 10.2

EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................................12 10.3

10.4.1 General Fills ............................................................................................................................................12 10.4.2 General Cuts ............................................................................................................................................13

SUBGRADE TREATMENT FOR PROMENADE AND PARKING AREAS .................................................................15 10.6

INFERRED FOUNDING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................16 10.7

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................16 10.8

10.8.1 Option 1: Reinforced Concrete (RC) Footings and Raft on Improved Ground/Structural Fill ...............17 10.8.2 Option 2: Pile Foundation .......................................................................................................................17

DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROLS ............................................................................................................18 10.9

11. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................19

12. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................20

Appendix A: Inspection Pit, Auger Hole and Exposure Profiles

Appendix B: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Tests

Appendix C: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Light (DPL) Tests

Appendix D: Laboratory Test Results

Figure 1: Site Plan


Abbreviations and Expansions

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation

CBR California Bearing Ratio

DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

E east

EGL existing ground level

EXP exposure

Geosure Geosure (Pty) Ltd

GM grading modulus

GPS Global Positioning System

h horizontal

IMC insitu moisture content

IP inspection pit

km kilometre(s)

kN/m2 kilonewtons per metre square

LL liquid limit

LS linear shrinkage

m metre (s)

m/s metres per second

MDD maximum dry density

Ml Mega litre

mm Millimetre(s)

MPA MegaPascal

No. number

NP non plastic

OMC Optimum Moisture Content

PI plasticity index

SANS South African National Standards

S south

SM Silty Sand

TLB tractor loader backhoe

TMH Technical Manual for Highways

TRH Technical Recommendations for Highways (1985)

UCS unconfined compressive strength

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

v vertical

Unified Soil Classification System

SC Clayey sand

SM Silty sand

SP Poorly graded sands

1


Report to Masithu Consulting & Project Management on the Results of

a Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed KwaMashu Bridge City

Urban Hub Development, eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal

Reference: 136-20.R01 Revision 0 Date: 10 August 2020

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE

Geosure was requested by Masithu Consulting & Project Management on 06 February

2020 to submit a proposal and cost estimate for a geotechnical investigation for the

proposed KwaMashu Bridge City Urban Hub Development, eThekwini Municipality,

KwaZulu-Natal.

Accordingly, Geosure submitted a proposal and cost estimate to Masithu Consulting &

Project Management in letter referenced p281-20 (KwaMashu Safe Hub)/mb and dated

19 June 2020.

After subsequent information was received by Geosure on 29 June 2020, the Client

requested a revised cost estimate.

Accordingly, Geosure provided a revised proposal and cost estimate in a letter referenced

p281-20 Rev 1 (KwaMashu Safe Hub)/mb and dated 02 July 2020.

Subsequently, Geosure was authorised by Masithu Consulting & Project Management,

hereafter referred to as the Client, to carry out the geotechnical investigation, as proposed

in our fee proposal (Rev 1) dated 02 July 2020, in correspondence dated 03 July 2020 and

referenced p281-20 Rev 1 (KwaMashu Safe Hub)/mb, by signed acceptance of our

“Terms and Conditions for Geotechnical Support Services”.

2. SCOPE OF REPORT

This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed KwaMashu

Bridge City Urban Hub Development, eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal,

hereafter referred to as the site.

The soil and rock conditions underlying the site are described and comment is made on

the general stability of the site. Recommendations for earthworks, drainage, materials

excavatability, materials usage, subgrade treatment for roads and parking areas and

foundations are provided.

3. GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATION

The fieldwork for the investigation was carried out according to guidelines relevant to

geotechnical investigations of this nature.

The formation and weathering of geological materials are discontinuous processes and

unexpected variations in soil, rock and groundwater regimes may occur even on sites

where the conditions seem to be uniform or consistent. Variations in what is reported here

may become evident during construction and it is thus imperative that an appropriately

qualified and experienced geotechnical professional inspects all critical stages of

2


development including, but not limited to, excavations to assess the conditions

encountered and to assist in the interpretation of observations at variance with the

information supplied in this report.

This report was prepared for use by the Client and their professional team for the purpose

stated and should not be relied upon for any other purpose.

4. INFORMATION SUPPLIED/UTILISED

The following information was referenced to assist with the investigation and subsequent

reporting:

i. An image (PNG format) of the test positions were provided by the Client.

ii. Digital copy of a layout plans referenced ARC-26019-000, titled “Proposed New

KwaMashu Safe Hub Site Development Plan”, dated 14 July 2020 and prepared

by S’yabonya Shelembe Designs and the Client to scale 1:650, inclusive of

contour intelligence to intervals of 0.5m;

iii. Digital copy of an architectural layout, titled “Proposed New KwaMashu Safe

Hub”, referenced B and dated May 2020 and prepared by S’yabonya Shelembe

Designs not to scale;

iv. Digital copy of a layout plans referenced Revision C, titled “Proposed New

KwaMashu Safe Hub Ground Storey Plan”, dated 14 July 2020 and prepared by

S’yabonya Shelembe Designs to scale 1:100;

v. Digital copy of a layout plans referenced Revision C, titled “Proposed New

KwaMashu Safe Hub First Storey Plan”, dated 14 July 2020 and prepared by

S’yabonya Shelembe Designs to scale 1:100;

vi. Digital copy of a layout plans referenced Revision C, titled “Proposed New

KwaMashu Safe Hub Render 06”, dated 14 July 2020 and prepared by S’yabonya

Shelembe Designs to unconfirmed scale;

vii. Marked up aerial imagery (KML format) showing the location of the site prepared

by the Client.

viii. A regional geological map sheet titled “2930 Durban” by the Council for

Geoscience, (1988) to a scale of 1:250 000.

ix. Low-resolution satellite imagery (Google Earth, 2020).

5. SITE DESCRIPTION

The site for the proposed development is located north of Enkanyisweni, KwaMashu,

KwaZulu Natal, at the approximate latitude and longitude coordinates 29°44'6.24"S and

30°59'9.48"E, respectively. Access to the site is gained via Mkhwanazi Road.

3


The site comprises an existing sports field and is located alongside and south of Piesangs

River within a residential area. The majority of the site is generally level with a slight

southeastly slope, however, the extreme northern portion of the site includes a terrace

some 1m to 2m lower in elevation flanking the Piesangs River.

Vegetation comprising short grass and shrubs were observed at the site.

The regional and local contexts of the site are shown in Plates 1 and 2.

Plate 1: Regional context of the site

Plate 2: Local context of the site

4


Plate 3 and Plate 4 show general views across the site.

The general layout of the site is shown in Figure 1, attached.

Plate 3: Indicative easterly view of the site

Plate 4: Indicative view along Piesangs River

6. FIELDWORK

Fieldwork for the investigation was carried out on 14 July 2020, and comprised the

following:

i. Terrain Reconnaissance;

ii. Inspection Pits;

iii. Auger Holes;

5


iv. CBR Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Tests; and

v. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer - Light (DPL) Tests.

The approximate positions of the above field tests are shown in Figure 1.

Terrain Reconnaissance 6.1

A walkover reconnaissance was carried out to gauge site accessibility for the

investigation activities and to map features of major geotechnical significance, including

landforms, surface geology and general drainage patterns.

An exposure designated EXP1 was profiled in accordance with the South African

Geoterminology Guidelines (Brink & Bruin, 2002).

The detailed exposure profile is given in Appendix A.

Inspection Pits 6.2

Ten (10 No.) inspection pits, designated IP1 through IP10, were excavated using a TLB

machine at the approximate positions shown in Figure 1.

The inspection pits were advanced to final / refusal depths in the approximate range 2.2m

(IP3 refers) to 5.4m (IP5 refers) below EGL.

The inspection pits were profiled in accordance with the South African Geoterminology

Guidelines (Brink & Bruin, 2002), sampled for laboratory testing and backfilled on

completion.

Detailed inspection pit profiles are given in Appendix A.

Auger Holes 6.3

Six (6 No.) auger holes, designated AH1 through AH6, were excavated using a hand held

auger at the approximate positions shown in Figure 1.

The auger holes were advanced to final / refusal depths in the approximate range 1.5m

(AH6 refers) to 3.1m (AH4 refers) below EGL.

The auger holes were profiled in accordance with the South African Geoterminology

Guidelines (Brink & Bruin, 2002), sampled for laboratory testing and backfilled on

completion.

Detailed inspection pit profiles are given in Appendix A.

CBR Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Tests 6.4

Twenty three (23 No.) DCP tests, designated DC1 through DC23, were carried out at the

approximate positions shown in Figure 1.

6


DCP tests were advanced to refusal/final depths in the range 1.3m (DC2 refer) to 3m

(DC3 to DC5; DC7 to DC11; DC13 to DC17 and DC19 to DC21 refers) below EGL.

The results of the DCP tests comprising plots of blow counts versus depth are given in

Appendix B.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Light (DPL) Tests 6.5

Seven (7 No.) DPL tests, designated DPL1 through DPL7, were carried out at the

approximate positions given in Figure 1.

The DPL tests were advanced to refusal depths in the range 3.6m (DPL6 refers) to 8.1m

(DPL1 refers) below EGL.

Detailed DPL test results and graphs of blow count versus depth of penetration are given

in Appendix C.

7. GEOLOGY AND INFERRED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Regional Geology 7.1

Inferring from the regional geological map by the Council for Geoscience titled “2930

Durban” to scale 1: 250 000, the site is anticipated to be underlain by shale of the Ecca

Group.

An extract of the above map showing the geological formation of the site is given below

in Plate 5.

Plate 5: Extract of Geological Map of the site (Council for Geoscience)

The site

Key:

- Shale. Ecca Group

7


Inferred Subsurface Conditions 7.2

At the positions investigated, the site is observed to be underlain by poor quality fill,

alluvium (Floodpalin deposits), residual shale-sandstone (fully decomposed former rock),

and weathered shale rock of the Ecca Group.

The occurrence and general descriptions of these soil units are given below in Table 1.

Table 1: Geological Units Encountered, General Descriptions, Occurrence, and Depth

Range Observed at the Positions Investigated

Unit General Description IP

AH

EXP

Observed

Approximate

Depth Range

(m below

EGL)

Fill

Greyish brown/light

brown/dark grey, loose/

loose to medium dense/

medium dense, clayey

SAND/silty

SAND/gravelly

SAND/firm, sandy

CLAY/SANDY silty

CLAY, with particle and

organic contamination

including builder’s

rubble and domestic

waste

IP1 to IP10

AH1 to AH6

- 0.0 to 4.2

Alluvium

Dark grey/greyish

brown/yellowish brown

mottled orange, firm,

intact, pinholed, gravelly

silty sandy CLAY to

SANDY CLAY/silty

SAND

IP4 to IP7;

IP10

AH3 to AH4

- 0.4 to 5.4

Residual

Shale-

Sandstone

Dark yellow mottled

grey/Dark yellow

mottled grey blotched

orange, firm, clayey silty

SAND/sandy CLAY

IP9; IP10

AH1; AH3 - 0.6 to 3.1

Weathered

Shale Rock

Dark grey stained light

brown and reddish

brown, highly

weathered, very soft to

soft rock.

- - EXP1 0.5 to 3.7

Plate 6 and Plate 7 show general ground profiles observed in the inspection pits during

the field investigation.

8


Plate 6: View of soils in IP5

Plate 7: View of soils in IP7

8. GROUNDWATER AND FLOOD RISK

Groundwater seepage was observed in several of the inspection pits profiled during the

field investigation.

The occurrence and indicative severity of flow observed are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Occurrence of Groundwater Activity and Indicative Intensity of Groundwater

Flow

IP Depth (m below EGL) Relative Intensity of

Groundwater Flow

IP5 5.20 Moderate

IP6 2.60 Moderate

IP7 2.60 Moderate

AH6 1.34 Slight

The risk of a well-developed perched groundwater condition throughout the site is

considered high, taking into account the low lying nature of the site, presence of alluvial

soils observed at the site, and its close proximity to the Piesangs River along the northern

boundary of the site.

Owing to alluvium identified at the site, a flood risk may also apply to the site.

Generally, groundwater levels are also likely to fluctuate seasonally i.e. elevated during

high rainfall periods and depressed during the low rainfall periods.

Due cognisance of the shallow perched groundwater condition and flood risk should be

taken into consideration during the design and construction of the proposed development.

9


9. LABORATORY TESTS

The following laboratory tests were carried out on soil samples retrieved during the

investigation.

i. Grading Analysis to 0.075mm sieve with Atterberg Limit Determinations;

ii. Hydrometer Analysis;

iii. Modified AASHTO;

iv. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests; and

v. Soil Moisture Contents

The results of the laboratory tests are included in the relevant Appendix D and

summarised in Table 3 below.

10


Table 3: Summary of Results of Particle Size Distribution Analysis, Atterberg Limit Determinations, Insitu Moisture Contents, Modified AASHTO. California

Bearing Ratios and Material Classifications

Sample Information Particle Size Distribution (%)

GM IMC

(%)

Atterberg Limits

(%) MDD

(kg/m3)

OMC

(%)

California

Bearing Ratio

(%) Swell

(%)

Material Classifications

Field

No.

Depth

(m)

Description GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY LL PI LS 90 93 95 TRH14

(COLTO)

AASHTO

USC

FILL

IP1 0.01-0.77

Greyish brown

sandy gravelly

clayey SAND to

CLAY

26 27 47 1.20 - 30 10 6.0 2023 11.6 5.0 5.7 6.3 1.5 G10

(CBD) A-4 (2) SC

IP1 2.14-3.00

Light brown

blotched dark

yellow and light grey silty SAND

0 69 21 10 0.80 52.3 SP SP 0.5 - - - - - - - A-2-4 (0)

Low SM

IP2 1.00-2.40

Reddish brown

slightly sandy

CLAY

1 59 19 21 0.70 21.1 23 10 4.5 - - - - - - - A-4 (1)

Low SC

IP5 0.01-3.20 Light brown silty clayey SAND

2 59 39 0.70 - 19 4 2.0 1937 10.2 14 18 22 0.1 G7

(CBD) A-4 (0) SM-SC

IP6 0.22-1.20

Greyish brown

silty clayey

SAND

1 57 42 0.76 - 21 7 3.0 1987 9.7 8.3 13 17 0.4 G9

(G8) A-4 (0) SM-SC

IP9 0.64-1.45

Reddish brown and dark yellow

silty clayey

SAND to SANDY CLAY

2 52 46 0.74 - 27 13 6.5 1941 11.5 1.6 2.4 3.2 1.7

Poorer than

G10

(CBD)

A-6 (2) SC

ALLUVIUM

IP7 1.80-3.05 Dark grey SANDY CLAY

1 43 56 0.62 - 28 13 7.0 1943 11.7 1.1 1.9 2.9 2.0

Poorer than

G10

(CBD)

A-6 (4) CL

RESIDUAL SHALE

AH2 1.60-3.10

Brown mottled dark yellowish

orange slightly

clayey SAND

0 76 7 17 0.97 25.1 21 8 2.0 - - - - - - - A-2-4 (0)

Low SC

LL - Liquid Limit IMC - Insitu Moisture Content A-6(1) - Revised U.S Classification PI - Plasticity Index LS - Linear Shrinkage

GM - Grading Modulus MDD - Maximum Dry Density IMC - Insitu Moisture Content SC -Unified Classification OMC - Optimum Moisture Content

G10 - TRH14 Classification >G10/(CBD) - Poorer than G10 (Cannot Be Determined)

11


10. DISCUSSION

Proposed Development 10.1

It is understood that the proposed development will comprise the following:

i. Youth Development Centre/Safe Hub;

ii. Four Community Sportfields including an Astro Pitch and Basket-Ball Court;

iii. Promenade approximately 0.9km in length; and

iv. Parking Bays.

It is also understood that gabion wall construction is planned along the northern edge of

the promenade alongside the Piesangs River.

Foundation design loads regarding the above proposed structures were not confirmed

with Geosure at the time of preparation of this report. Nonetheless, it has been assumed

that foundation loads are likely to be low to moderate.

Geosure will need to be given the opportunity to review the recommendations in this

report once detailed information regarding the pavement design and foundation design

loads are confirmed with Geosure, as part of an extension of the current authorisation. If

necessary, updated recommendations may be proposed.

General Stability and Suitability of the Site 10.2

No signs of inherent ground instability such as slip scars, tension cracks or major

sloughing of the mantle of soils were evident in the areas investigated. In addition, no

known landslides were noted to occur at the time of the investigation at the positions

tested.

The site, however, does exhibit the following unfavourable to poor ground and drainage

characters, which may negatively affect stability of the site, as follows:

i. Close proximity to the Piesangs River and potentially located within a floodplain,

subject to flood analysis verification by a hydrological Engineer;

ii. High risk of perched groundwater activity;

iii. Susceptibility of the generally loosely consolidated weakly cohesive sandy soil cover

to destabilise during excavation, erosion and rainfall;

iv. Deep founding condition including extensive fill, alluvial and residual clays.

It is therefore considered that the feasibility of the proposed development is conditional

on the positive outcome of an analysis by a 1:100 floodline specialist which process is

to be prioritised.

Detailed design should proceed on the findings of the floodline analysis.

If wet up, the loosely consolidated and weakly cohesive sandy soils profiled may also

undergo a collapse settlement phenomenon under applied load.

12


Sound earthworks and drainage controls to engineer’s design and monitoring of the

earthworks and site drainage works by the engineer’s representative in consultation with

the geotechnical professional, are therefore considered important and strongly

recommended.

Furthermore, open excavations, even to shallow depths, are considered likely to display

rapid sidewall collapse, especially when exacerbated by perched groundwater activity.

Based on the results of the fieldwork undertaken during this investigation, it is

considered, however, that this site is generally stable and suitable for the proposed

development from a geotechnical perspective, if the recommendations given in this report

are adhered to. These measures amount to no more than sound development controls

appropriate to the site conditions expected and the nature of the development proposals

confirmed with Geosure at the time of preparation of this report. The global slope

stability assessment is based on field data to the depths investigated.

Excavation Characteristics 10.3

Excavations within the fill, alluvium and residual shale-sandstone are likely to classify as

“SOFT” excavations in terms of SANS 1200 (current version) down to the depths

investigated on site. Such material can normally be excavated by plant similar to a TLB

of flywheel power approximately 0.10kW per millimetre of tined bucket width.

It is recommended that a contingency be allowed for “INTERMEDIATE”, “HARD” and

“BOULDER CLASS B” excavation at shallower depths to cater for potential geological

variations.

Excavations in saturated soil profiles are likely to result in slow excavation rates,

potentially requiring temporary shoring.

The type of excavation plant utilised during construction will determine the actual

excavatability depths.

General Earthworks 10.4

It is recommended that all earthworks be carried out in accordance with SANS 1200 D

(current version). All vegetation, topsoil and unsuitable subgrade material should be

cleared from areas over which fills are to be built. Under proposed fills of more than

three metres in height, further subgrade improvement may be necessary.

Cut and fill heights greater than approximately 1.5m will need to be analysed and

approved by a geotechnical professional. All cut slopes must be designed by, or in

consultation with, a geotechnical professional.

10.4.1 General Fills

General fills should be placed in layers not exceeding 0.25m when placed in loose

condition, and compacted to a minimum of 93% of Modified AASHTO maximum dry

density. Boulders larger than 0.2m should not be included in the fill material. Large

boulders or construction rubble within the fill could affect compaction and mask voids

13


into which fines could later migrate, resulting in subsidence. Boulders / rubble may also

adversely affect foundation excavations including piling.

If natural ground slopes are steeper than 1 vertical to 6 horizontal (6 degrees), the fill

must be benched into the slope. The bench widths and depths must be determined by a

geotechnical professional during the design of the fill embankments.

Density control testing of fill material should be undertaken at appropriate intervals

during fill construction.

Fill slopes in soils should be formed to batters of up to 1 vertical to 2 horizontal (≤ 26°)

and to a height not greater than approximately 1.5m where retaining walls are not

provided. Engineered fill slopes should be over constructed and thereafter trimmed back

to the required position.

10.4.2 General Cuts

Permanent cut slopes in soils should be formed to batters of up to 1 vertical to 2

horizontal (≤ 26°) and to a height not greater than approximately 2.0m where retaining

walls are not provided.

Cut slopes in competent weathered rock should be no steeper than 1 vertical to 0.75

horizontal (≤ 53°) and to a height not greater than 3.0m where lateral support is not

provided. Where joints or bedding planes are exposed during excavation, it is

recommended that a geotechnical specialist such as Geosure be appointed to assess their

effects on the stability of the cutting and the global stability of the slope.

As a guide, temporary side slopes of trench excavations should be restricted to the

following:

i. Fill and Transported soils – Batters should be formed to 1v:2h (≤ 26°) provided

there is no groundwater seepage. If seepage is observed, then trenches will need to

be temporarily shored.

ii. Residual clay soils – 1v:0.75h (≤ 53°); for deeper excavations up to 3m and / or

perched groundwater activity, batter to 1v:2h (≤ 26°);

iii. Highly to moderately weathered rock – Vertical (provided that no day-lighting

bedding planes nor planes of weakness such as clay gouge is visible);

iv. Competent tightly/jointed rock – 1v:0.5h (≤ 63°), provided that no daylighting

bedding planes nor planes of weakness such as clay gouge is visible.

Where excavations intersect or approach the water table, the sidewalls will tend to

become unstable and need to be drained and laterally supported or battered back at slopes

of the order of 1 vertical in 5 horizontal.

Workers should not enter any excavations deeper than 1.5m that are not shored or

battered back as described above. Sidewalls within sandy soils will be prone to collapse.

All excavations are to be inspected on a daily basis by a competent person to confirm

stability. These inspections should be formally documented. It remains the responsibility

14


of the contractor, however, to ensure compliance with the current Occupational Health

and Safety Act and Construction Regulations (Current Version).

Material Classification and Recommendation for Usage 10.5

A general assessment of materials encountered on site for the use in the construction of

fills for bulk earthworks and road/parking infrastructure has been based on the visual

assessment made is site and laboratory test results.

The characteristics of the material and their suitability for use in construction are

summarised below in Table 4.

Table 4: Classification of Materials and Recommendations for Usage in Construction

Material Description

AASHTO/

UCS/

(TRH14)

Remarks on Usage

FILL

Greyish brown sandy

gravelly CLAY

A-4(2)/

SC/

(G10)

i. Considered unsuitable subgrade due to the

potentially high organic content and particle

contamination.

ii. Considered suitable for use as general fill subject to

meeting Engineer’s design requirements and

screening/removal of any organic material and

particle contamination.

iii. Consideration could also be given to stockpiling this

material, after screening as above, for use as topsoil.

Light brown blotched

dark yellow and light

grey silty SAND

A-2-4(0)/

SM/

(Not Tested)

Reddish brown slightly

clayey SAND

A-4(1)/

SM/

(Not Tested)

Greyish brown silty

clayey SAND

A-4(0)

SM-SC/

(G7)

A-4 (0)

SM-SC/

(G8)

i. Considered suitable for use as general fill subject to




ii. Consideration could also be given to stockpiling this

material, after screening as above, for use as topsoil.

Reddish brown and dark

yellow silty clayey

SAND

A-6(2)/

SC/

(<G10)

i. Considered unsuitable subgrade.

ii. Considered suitable for use as general fill subject to




iii. Consideration could also be given to stockpiling this

material, after screening as above, for use as topsoil

15



AASHTO/

UCS/

(TRH14)

Remarks on Usage

ALLUVIUM

Dark grey sandy CLAY

A-6 (4)/

CL/

(<G10)

i. Considered unsuitable for use as select fill and/or

subgrade due to poor material quality.

ii. Will require undercutting and replacement with a

suitable select granular soil where encountered at or

below subgrade level.

iii. Considered suitable for use as general fill.

RESIDUAL SHALE

Brown mottled dark

yellowish orange slightly

clayey SAND and sandy

CLAY

A-2-4 (0)/

SC

(Not Tested)

i. Considered unsuitable for use as select fill and/or

subgrade due to the clay content.

ii. Will require undercutting and replacement with a

suitable select granular soil where encountered at or

below subgrade level.

iii. Considered suitable for use as general fill.

Where builder’s rubble and any rock boulders are encountered, they will need to be

selectively removed when found at or near subgrade or formation level. Boulders larger

than 63 mm or ⅔ layer thickness should not be included in fills. Large boulders will

inhibit compaction of the fills. Density control testing of fill material should be

undertaken at regular intervals during fill construction.

The classification of the subgrade materials given in Table 4 are only applicable to the

samples tested. Variations throughout the soils encountered on site are considered likely.

Subgrade Treatment for Promenade and Parking Areas 10.6

Where poor subgrade conditions (≥G10) are exposed at or near subgrade or formation

level, it is recommended that these materials be boxed out or undercut to the depth

specified by the design engineer. This material should then be replaced with a good

quality granular soil of at least G8 quality and compacted to at least 93% Modified

AASHTO maximum dry density to 1 – 2 % (wet / dry) of OMC.

Where granular soils meeting the subgrade requirements are encountered at subgrade

level, it is recommended that these materials be ripped to the specified depth and re-

compacted to 93% Modified AASHTO maximum dry density to 1 – 2 % (wet / dry) of

OMC.

The pavement formation layer should be designed to engineer’s detail, taking into

account anticipated traffic loads, volumes and design life.

16


Inferred Founding Conditions 10.7

The inferred founding conditions identified at site are characterised by the following:

i. Presence of extensive and variable fill materials at all positions profiled from EGL

down to depths in the approximate range 1.1m (IP10 refers) to 4.2m (IP5 refers)

below EGL.

ii. Presence of alluvium down encountered at IP4 to IP7, IP10, AH3 and AH4 to depths

in the approximate range 3.0m (IP4 refers) to 5.4m (IP5 refers) below EGL.

iii. Presence of residual shale clays down to depths in the approximate range 3.0m (IP9

refers) to 3.1m (IP10 refers) below EGL.

iv. Absence of rock at economic construction depths for shallow foundation systems

over virtually all of the development footprint other than at EXP1 along the southern

extremity of the site.

v. Loose soils of low bearing capacities occur down to depths in the approximate range

1.8m (DPL4 refers) to 2.7m (DPL2 & DPL3 refer) below EGL.

vi. Groundwater was observed in various inspection pits down to depths in the

approximate range 1.3m (AH2 refers) to 5.2m (IP5 refers) below EGL.

vii. Weakly cohesive and loosely consolidated fill and alluvial soils that exhibit a

potential for collapse of grain structure when subjected to an increase in insitu

moisture content under constant load.

viii. Risk of rapid destabilisation of trench / excavation sidewalls excavated into the

loosely consolidated fill and sandy residual shale, requiring shoring / battering back

to engineer’s detail.

Foundation Recommendations 10.8

Foundation and surface bed floor design loads were not confirmed with Geosure at the

time of preparation of this report and should be discussed in detail with Geosure when

available, under an extension of the current appointment.

Given the nature of the proposed building development, low to moderate foundation

design loads have been assumed for the purpose of this report.

Based upon the inferred founding conditions and assumed foundation design loads, the

establishment of footing foundations within the variable fill / insitu soil cover is not

recommended.

In view of the fact that the proposed riparian gabion structures are to be located in

areas underlain by floodplain deposits (alluvium), it is considered that the feasibility

and engineering design of this structure are informed by the results of a 1:100 flood

line analysis, prior to the preparation of foundation recommendations.

Taking the inferred founding conditions identified during the field investigation into

account, the economic employment of (strip or spread) footing foundations to support the

proposed building structures is not considered feasible.

17


Two foundations options can be considered for the proposed development, as follows:

i. Option 1: Reinforced Concrete (RC) Footings and Raft on Improved

Ground/Structural Fill;

ii. Option 2: Piled Foundation.

10.8.1 Option 1: Reinforced Concrete (RC) Footings and Raft on Improved

Ground/Structural Fill

Based upon the favourable rectangular architectural building footprints and inferred

founding conditions, consideration could be given to the implementation of RC footings

and stiffened RC “waffle-type” raft foundation to engineer’s detail, on improved ground /

structural fill to geotechnical engineer’s design.

General guidelines in with regards to improved ground are presented below, as follows:

i. Undercut and spoil all poorly consolidated soils from beneath foundation level to a

level to be confirmed in a geotechnical design layout;

ii. Should the excavation intersect groundwater seepage, the excavation should then be

backfilled with clean free draining sand to engineer’s detail;

iii. The excavation will need to be backfilled and compacted with granular material of

at least G7 quality (TRH14 refers) to well above average compaction specification;

iv. Installation foundation may then proceed.

Anticipated total settlements in response to an applied foundation pressures up to

150kN/m2 are unlikely to exceed 10mm to 15mm, with differential settlement taken as

50% of total settlement. Actual settlements will vary proportionately to the sizing of the

foundation as well as the confirmed foundation design load.

The design of the ground improvement is to be carried out by an experienced

geotechnical specialist such as Geosure. Furthermore, this option requires on-going

process control/quality monitoring during construction.

10.8.2 Option 2: Pile Foundation

In the employment of a piled foundation solution for the proposed structures,

consideration can be given to using the pressure grouted Continuous Flight Auger (CFA)

pile system.

Consideration may also be given to Driven Cast Insitu (DCI) Pile system that are suited

to subsurface conditions anticipated on site. Vibrations associated with the installation of

the DCI type may result in damage to structures near the site. Given the proximity of

several existing dwellings on adjacent sites this pile type may prove unsuitable.

Typical working loads for the proposed pile diameters and approximate pile lengths are

given in Table 5 below as a guideline for budgetary purposes only.

18


Table 5: Typical Pile Working Loads and Pile Lengths (for Budgetary Purposes only)

*Working loads based on a maximum shaft stress of 5 MPa

A detailed pile design must be carried out by the piling contractor.

Pile lengths will be dependent on the final platform level(s) and the detailed pile design

must be provided by the piling contractor. Design should establish if the foundation loads

are to be supported in shaft friction or end bearing or a combination of both shaft friction

and end bearing.

Determination of the required diameter, depth and reinforcing of the piles will also be

influenced by factors such as configuration and spacing of the piles in groups beneath the

pile caps, depth of the bottom of the pile cap below ground level and factors of safety or

partial factors, in accordance with the design code adopted by the structural engineer.

Final pile founding levels will need to be reviewed by the pile designer by observing the

piles formed in the field.

Axial settlement of single isolated piles, excluding settlement that occurs during

construction of the superstructure, should not exceed elastic shortening of the pile shaft

plus 10mm. Additional settlement due to grouping of piles would depend on spacing,

depth and number of piles in each group.

It is recommended that static load capacity tests be carried out on selected piles in order

to confirm the pile working loads and pile design. The static load capacity tests should be

carried out prior to the commencement of the piling contract. Geosure offers this

specialist expertise and we would be pleased to assist with conducting and reviewing the

results of static load capacity tests under an extension of our current authorisation.

It is also recommended that low energy Frequency Response dynamic pile integrity tests

be carried out on all piles before they are covered by a pile cap. It should be specified in

the tender document that these quality assurance tests be conducted by an independent

specialist consultant to detect potential structural defects such as voids, honeycombing or

cracks that would normally be detected by quality assurance procedures for reinforced

concrete that was accessible after casting.

Drainage and Erosion Controls 10.9

A critically important factor in the stable development of the site is the control and

removal of both surface and groundwater from the site, to engineer’s detail.

Pile Type Diameter (mm) Typical Working Load

(kN)

Indicative Pile

Founding Level

(m)

CFA

250 245 8.3

300 300 - 425 9- 11.7

350 375 - 550 9.7- 13.1

DCI

300 250 - 450 7.2 – 12.2

355 500 - 650 11.5- 14.1

410 700 - 900 13.7- >15.9

19


Provision is to be made in the Bill of Quantities and Engineer’s design for permanent

subsoil drainage to manage the general risk of groundwater seepage identified at the site.

Earthworks and drainage measures should be designed in such a way as to prevent

ponding or high concentrations of stormwater or groundwater anywhere on the site, both

during and after the development.

The soil encountered on site is considered susceptible to rapid erosion due to river

action and uncontrolled / surplus surface water runoff. As such, it is imperative that

earthworks and drainage measures be designed in such a way as to prevent ponding of

or high concentrations of stormwater and/or groundwater anywhere on the site and to

address the high risk of erosion, both during and after completion of construction. To

this end, the provision of gabion or similar revetment measures is considered essential

and should be prioritised.

All stormwater from the proposed site development is to be directed in a controlled

manner, including suitable attenuation and siltation measures, into the nearest municipal

connection facility, or piped into the Piesangs River. Due to the unfavourable ground

conditions identified during the field investigation including a relatively shallow and

perched groundwater condition and the presence of clay soil of inferred low permeability,

the use of one or more soakaways for disposal of stormwater is not recommended.

Terraces should be shaped to a gradient to prevent water ponding on the surface and

should be graded to direct water away from the foundations and excavations into the on-

site stormwater reticulation system.

11. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed KwaMashu

Bridge City Urban Hub Development, KwaZulu-Natal.

The following observations, conclusions and recommendations are made:

i. Inferring from site observations at the positions and to the depths investigated, the

site is considered stable for the proposed development from a geotechnical

perspective, provided the recommendations in this report are adhered to.

ii. It is considered, however, that the feasibility of the proposed development is

conditional on the positive outcome of an analysis by a 1:100 floodline specialist

which process is to be prioritised. Detailed design should proceed on the findings of

the floodline analysis.

iii. At the positions investigated, the site was observed to be underlain fill, alluvium and

residual shale-sandstone. Limited signs of weathered shale rock was identified in the

vicinity of the southern site limits

iv. Groundwater seepage was observed at depths in the approximate range 1.3m and

5.4m below EGL.

v. All earthworks should be carried out in a manner to promote the stable development

of the site. It is recommended that earthworks be carried out along the guidelines

given in SANS 1200 (current version).

20


vi. The fill and alluvial soils tested generally classified as no better than G10 quality

material in terms of TRH14, with limited volumes of G8 – G7 anticipated, and may

accordingly be used as a general fill. The residual soils classify as suitable for use as

general fill only. Further guidance in this regard is set down in Section 10.5, Table 4.

vii. Two foundation solutions are discussed for the proposed building structure,

comprising RC footings and stiffened raft on structural fill (Option 1), and piled

foundations (Option 2). Further details in this regard are set down in Section 10.8.

viii. It is considered that the feasibility and engineering design of the proposed gabion

structure positioned on floodplain deposits alongside the Piesangs River are informed

by a 1:100 flood line analysis, prior to preparation of foundation recommendations.

ix. It is imperative that earthworks and drainage measures be designed in such a way as

to prevent ponding of or high concentrations of stormwater and/or groundwater

anywhere on the site, and to address the high risk of erosion, both during and after

completion of construction. To this end, the provision of gabion or revetment

protection to engineer’s detail is considered essential and should be prioritised.

The ground conditions given in this report refer specifically to the field tests carried out

on site and in the laboratory. It is, therefore, quite possible that conditions at variance

with those given in this report could be encountered elsewhere on-site during

construction. It is therefore important that Geosure be appointed to carry out periodic

inspections during construction. Any change from the anticipated ground conditions

could then be taken into account to avoid unnecessary expense.

12. REFERENCES

Brink, A. B. & Bruin, R. M., 2002. Guidelines for Soil and Rock Logging in South Africa.

s.l., Association of Engineering Geologists, South African Institute Civil Engineering -

Geotechnical Division, and South Africa Institue for Engineering and Environemntakl

Geologists, p. 47.

Commitee of State Road Authorities, 1985. TRH14: Technical Recommendations for

Highways - Guidelines for Road Construction Materials. Pretoria: Department of

Transport.

G.Byrne & A.D.Berry, 2008. A Guide to Pratical Geotechnical Engineering in South

Africa. s.l.:Franki.

SABS, 1990. SANS 10400: South African Standard Code of Practice for the Application

of National Building Regulations. In: s.l.:s.n.

South African Department of Labour, 1991. Occupational Health and Safety Amendment

Act, No. 181 of 1993. s.l.:Department of Labour - South Africa.

South African National Standards, 1990. SANS 1200 DA - Standardised Specification for

Civil Engineering Construction - Earthworks (Small Works). s.l.:South African National

Standards.

FIGURE 1 ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

INSPECTION PITS,

AUGER HOLES AND

EXPOSURE PROFILES

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

APPENDIX A

Geotechnical, Environmental & Groundwater Engineering Pile Integrity Testing & Civil Engineering Laboratory P O Box 1461, Westville, 3630, South Africa Tel: (031) 266-0458 Fax: 086 689-5506 email: geosure@ iafrica.com www.geosure.co.za

0.01--0.77

0.77--1.15

1.30--2.14

2.14--3.00

Masithu Consulting and Project ManagementProposed KwaMashu Safe Hub,Community Sports Fields and Promenade,KwaMashu, KwaZulu Natal

HOLE No: IP1Sheet 1 of 1


JOB NUMBER: 136-20JOB NUMBER: 136-20

0.77

0.00

1.15

1.30

2.14

3.00

Slightly moist, greyish brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained, clayey GRAVELLYSAND to sandy CLAY containing grass roots. FILL.

Moist, dark grey, firm, pinholed, slightly gravelly sandy CLAY. FILL.

Moist, light brown, loose, fine to medium grained, silty SAND. FILL.

Moist to very moist, brown, firm, pinholed, SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Very moist, light brown blotched dark yellow and light grey, loose, slightly clayey siltySAND. FILL.

Scale1:25

NOTES

1) No groundwater seepage observed.

2) Samples taken at:S1 0,01--0,77 (2 x Bulk)S2 0,77--1,15 (1 x Ind)S3 1,30--2,14 (2 x Bulk)S4 2,14--3,00 (1 x Ind)

3) Final depth at 3,00m.

CONTRACTOR :MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :SETUP FILE :

By hand

S.Chattergoon

K.KistasamySTANDARD.SET

INCLINATION :DIAM :DATE :DATE :

DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT

ELEVATION :X-COORD :Y-COORD :

-030 59'07.1"E29 43'59.3"S

dotPLOT 6008 PBpD069 Geosure (Pty) Ltd

HOLE No: IP1HOLE No: IP1


1.00--2.40

2.40--3.00





0.25

0.00

0.37

0.87

1.00

2.40

3.00

Slightly moist, dark brown blotched light grey, fine to medium grained, gravelly clayeySAND containing domestic waste and builder's rubble. FILL.

Slightly moist, light brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained, silty SAND. FILL.

Moist, dark brown, firm, pinholed, gravelly SANDY CLAY containing builder's rubble andshale fragments. FILL.


Moist, reddish brown, pinholed, slightly gravelly SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Moist, brown blotched dark yellow, firm, slightly gravelly SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Samples taken at:S1 1,00--2,40 (1 x Ind)S2 2,40--3,00 (1 x Ind)





By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'08.1"E29 43'58.9"S




1.51--2.20





0.37

0.00

1.51

2.20

Slightly moist, dark brown blotched light grey, fine to medium grained, gravelly clayeySAND to sandy CLAY containing domestic waste and builder's rubble. FILL.

Moist, dark brown, firm, pinholed, slightly gravelly SANDY CLAY containing occasionaldomestic waste. FILL.


Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Sample taken at:S1 1,51--2,20 (1 x Ind)





By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-29 43'58.8"E030 59'08.4"S




2.80--3.00





0.08

0.00

0.56

1.52

1.70

2.80

3.00

Moist, dark brown, loose, fine to medium grained, silty clayey SAND containing roots. FILL.

Dry, light grey, dense, fine to medium grained, gravelly SAND containing builders rubble.FILL.

Moist, dark brown, firm, pinholed, gravelly SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Moist, light brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained, silty SAND. FILL.

Moist, brown, firm, intact, sandy silty CLAY. FILL.

Moist, dark grey, firm, intact, sandy silty CLAY. Alluvium.

Scale1:25

NOTES







By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'09.8"E29 43'09.6"S




5.20m

0.01--3.20

5.10--5.40





3.20

0.00

3.70

4.20

5.10

5.40

Slightly moist, light brown, loose, fine to medium grained, slightly gravelly silty clayey SANDcontaining occasional domestic waste. FILL.

Slightly moist, brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained, clayey silty SAND containingoccasional domestic waste. FILL.

Slightly moist, light brown, loose, fine to medium grained, slightly gravelly silty SANDcontaining occasional domestic waste. FILL.

Moist to very moist, light orange brown, loose, fine to medium grained, silty SAND. Alluvium.

Wet, greyish brown, loose, fine to coarse grained, silty SAND. Alluvium.

Scale1:25






NOTES

1) Moderate groundwater seepage observed at 5,20m.

2) Inspection pit profiled from upper terrace.

3) Samples taken at:S1 0,01--3,20 (2 x Bulk)S2 5,10--5,40 (1 x Ind)





By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'12.6"E29 44'00.0"S




2.60m

0.22--1.20

1.85--2.90





0.22

0.00

1.20

1.85

2.90

Slightly moist, brown, loose, fine to medium grained, silty SAND containing domestic waste.FILL.

Moist, greyish brown, loose, fine to medium grained, silty clayey SAND containing domesticwaste. FILL.

Moist, brown, loose, fine to medium grained, silty SAND containing domestic waste androots. FILL.

Very moist to wet, dark grey, apparently soft, sandy silty CLAY. Alluvium.

Scale1:25

NOTES



3) Final depth at 2,90m due to collapsing sidewalls.




By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'10.3"E29 43'59.4"S




2.60m

1.30--1.80

1.80--3.05





1.30

0.00

1.80

3.05

Slightly moist to moist, dark greyish brown, firm, pinholed, gravelly sandy CLAY containingoccasional broken bricks and concrete fragments. FILL.

Moist to very moist, dark yellow mottled grey, firm, pinholed, gravelly sandy CLAY. FILL.

Moist to very moist becoming wet, firm, pinholed, SANDY CLAY. Alluvium.

Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Samples taken at:S1 1,30--1,80 (1 x Ind)S2 1,80--3,05 (2 x Bulk)





By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'05.6"E29 44'02.3"S




0.44--0.92





0.20

0.00

0.44

0.92

2.43

Dry to slightly moist, greyish brown, firm, pinholed, gravelly SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Slightly moist, greyish brown, firm, pinholed, gravelly SANDY CLAY containing concreteand brick fragments. FILL.

Slightly moist, greyish brown, firm, pinholed, gravelly SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Slightly moist to moist, greyish brown to dark greyish brown, medium dense, fine tomedium grained, gravelly clayey silty SAND to gravelly SANDY CLAY containing brick andconcrete fragments. FILL.

Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Inspection pit extended using hand auger from 1,41m.


4) Refusal depth at 2,43m on rubble.




By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'08.8"E29 44'01.2"S




0.64--1.45

1.45--3.00





0.30

0.00

0.64

1.45

3.00

Dry to slightly moist, brown, loose to medium dense, fine to medium grained, slightlygravelly silty SAND containing large amounts of grass roots and occasional domesticwaste. FILL.

Slightly moist, greyish brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained, gravelly silty SAND.FILL.

Slightly moist, brown reddish brown and dark yellow, medium dense, fine to mediumgrained, silty clayey SAND to SANDY CLAY containing occasional gravel. FILL.

Slightly moist to moist, dark yellow mottled grey, firm, sandy CLAY. Residual Sandstone.

Scale1:25

NOTES








By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'06.3"E29 43'58.5"S




2.20--3.14





0.31

0.00

0.42

1.12

1.46

2.20

3.14

Slightly moist, dark brown mottled orange, soft to firm, sandy CLAY containing plasticpieces and bottles. FILL.

Slightly moist, light brown mottled orange blotched dark grey, loose, fine to mediumgrained, silty SAND with pieces of plastic. FILL.

Slightly moist, dark grey mottled reddish orange blotched light orange, soft to firm, sandyCLAY with pieces of plastic and plant roots. FILL.

Slightly moist, light yellowish brown mottled orange blotched dark grey, loose, fine tomedium grained, silty SAND. Alluvium.

Slightly moist, light grey mottled orange blotched rusty brown, soft to firm, sandy CLAY.Residual Shale.

Slightly moist to moist, dark grey mottled orange, sandy CLAY. Residual Shale.

Scale1:25

NOTES



3) Samples taken at:S1 2,20--3,14 (1 x Ind)





By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-30 59' 12.8"E29 44' 01.6"S





HOLE No: EXP1Sheet 1 of 1

HOLE No: EXP1Sheet 1 of 1


0.34

0.00

0.52

3.70

Slightly moist, dark grey, soft, sandy CLAY with shale fragments, plastic and grass roots.FILL.

Slightly moist, light grey, soft, intact, sandy CLAY. Residual Shale.

Dark grey stained light brown and reddish brown, completely weathered, highly fractured,thinly laminated, very soft to soft rock. SHALE.

Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Refusal depth at 3,70m.




By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-30 59' 10.5"E29 44' 04.0"S


HOLE No: EXP1HOLE No: EXP1


1.32--2.80


HOLE No: AH1Sheet 1 of 1



0.33

0.00

0.44

0.62

1.32

2.80



Slightly moist, brown reddish brown and dark yellow, medium dense, fine to mediumgrained, clayey SAND to SANDY CLAY containing occasional gravel. FILL.

Slightly moist to moist, dark yellow mottled grey, firm, sandy CLAY. Residual Shale.

Moist, dark yellow mottled grey blotched orange, sandy silty CLAY. Residual Shale.

Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Slow advance of auger at 2,80m.






By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'05.0"E29 43'57.9"S


HOLE No: AH1HOLE No: AH1


1.60--3.10





0.33

0.00

0.52

0.88

1.41

1.60

3.10



Slightly moist, brown reddish brown and dark yellow, medium dense, fine to mediumgrained, clayey SAND to SANDY CLAY containing occasional gravel. FILL.

Moist, dark yellow blotched grey and white, gravelly SANDY CLAY. FILL.

Slightly moist to moist, dark yellow mottled grey, firm, sandy CLAY. Residual Shale.

Moist, brown mottled dark yellowish orange, clayey silty SAND. Residual Shale.

Scale1:25

NOTES







By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-030 59'04.0"E29 43'57.3"S




1.44--2.17





0.76

0.00

1.44

2.17

Slightly moist, dark brown mottled orange blotched light brown, sandy CLAY comprisesshale fragments and grass roots. FILL.

Slightly moist, dark grey mottled light brown blotched orange, sandy CLAY with occasionalshale fragments. Alluvium.

Slightly moist, light olive brown mottled orange blotched dark grey, sandy CLAY with shalefragments. Residual Shale.

Scale1:25

NOTES


2) Slow advance of auger at 2,17m.






By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-30 59' 14.3"E29 44' 02.6"S








0.38

0.00

0.89

1.17

2.31

3.10

Slightly moist, light brown blotched dark grey, fine to medium grained, silty SAND withgrass roots. FILL.

Slightly moist, light brown mottled orange, fine to medium grained, silty SAND. Alluvium.

Slightly moist, dark grey mottled orange, sandy CLAY. Alluvium.

Slightly moist, light brown mottled dark grey, silty SAND. Alluvium.

Slightly moist to moist, dark grey mottled orange, slightly clayey silty SAND to sandy CLAY.Alluvium.

Scale1:25

NOTES






By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-30 59' 16.1"E29 43' 59.6"S








0.76

0.00

1.00

1.14

1.92

Slightly moist, dak grey mottled orange blotched reddish brown, sandy CLAY with pieces ofstones, plastic and shale fragments. FILL.

Slightly moist, light brown mottled dark grey, fine to medium grained, silty SAND withpieces of plastic and shale fragments. FILL.

Slightly moist, light grey mottled orange, fine to medium grained, silty SAND with shalefragments. FILL.

Slightly moist, dark greyish brown, fine to medium grained, silty SAND with shalefragments. FILL.

Scale1:25

NOTES






By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-30 59' 05.6"E29 44' 00.2"S




1.32m





0.95

0.00

1.47

Slightly moist, dark grey mottled orange blotched light brown, sandy CLAY with pieces ofplastic and shale fragments. FILL.

Slightly moist to moist, light yellowish orange mottled dark grey blotched light brown, sandyCLAY with ferricrete nodules. Residual Shale.

Scale1:25

NOTES

1) Slight groundwater seepage observed at 1,32m.

2) Sidewall collapsed.





By hand

S.Chattergoon



DATE :TEXT :

14 July 202016 July 2020

11/08/20 10:52..C:\LOGS\PITS.TXT


-30 59' 05.8"E29 44' 03,0"S



APPENDIX B

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

RESULTS OF CBR DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) TESTS

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

GEOSURE (PTY) LTD.Geotechnical Engineering Consultants

Tel: (031) 266 0458 Fax: 086 689 5506 Email: [email protected]

Client: Masithu Consulting and Project Management Ref.No. 136-20

Project: Proposed KwaMashu Safe Hub, Community Date: 14-16/07/2020

Sports Fields and Promenade Operator: S. Chattergoon

Section: KwaMashu, KwaZulu Natal

C B R P e n e t r o m e t e r P r o b e --------------- T e s t N o. DC 1

THE STRENGTH AND CBR VALUES ARE EMPIRICAL AND DEPEND ON FACTORS SUCH AS MOISTURE CONTENT WHICH HAVE

NOT BEEN DETERMINED. THEY ARE THEREFORE INDICATIVE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY TEST OR OBSERVATION

Depth Blows/ Inferred CBR

(m) 100mm Consistency %

0

0.1 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

0.2 19 Very Stiff >150 kPa 35


0.4 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29

0.5 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

0.6 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25



0.9 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

1 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

1.1 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

1.2 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

1.3 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.4 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.5 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.6 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.7 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.8 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19

1.9 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19

2.1 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

2.2 12 Dense 36 deg 21

2.3 15 Dense 37 deg 27

2.4 12 Dense 36 deg 21

2.5 11 Dense 36 deg 19

2.6 13 Dense 37 deg 23

2.7 14 Dense 37 deg 25

2.8 14 Dense 37 deg 25

2.9 14 Dense 37 deg 25

3 17 Dense 37 deg 31

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm

Z:\2020\136-20 (Kwamashu Safe Hub)\DCP\DCP12020/08/12












0

0.1 14 Dense 37 deg 25

0.2 19 Dense 37 deg 35

0.3 22 Dense 38 deg 42

0.4 16 Dense 37 deg 29

0.5 19 Dense 37 deg 35

0.6 14 Dense 37 deg 25

0.7 39 Very Dense >38 deg >55



1 25 Very Stiff >150 kPa 49




Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 10 Med.Dense 36 deg 17




0.5 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

0.6 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

0.7 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

0.8 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

0.9 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

1 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.1 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

1.2 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.3 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

1.4 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

1.5 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

1.6 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1.7 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.8 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.9 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

2 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

2.1 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19



2.4 28 Very Stiff >150 kPa >55

2.5 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27

2.6 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.7 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

2.8 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

2.9 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

3 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.2 3 Loose <30 deg 5







0.9 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1 3 Loose <30 deg 5


1.2 16 Dense 37 deg 29

1.3 13 Dense 37 deg 23

1.4 12 Dense 36 deg 21






2 4 Med.Dense 30 deg 7

2.1 3 Loose <30 deg 5










End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.4 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.5 1 Very Loose <29 deg 2

0.6 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.7 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.8 2 Loose <30 deg 3


1 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.1 3 Loose <30 deg 5


1.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.4 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.5 3 Loose <30 deg 5









2.4 2 Loose <30 deg 3

2.5 3 Loose <30 deg 5

2.6 2 Loose <30 deg 3

2.7 2 Loose <30 deg 3

2.8 2 Loose <30 deg 3

2.9 2 Loose <30 deg 3


End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

0.2 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

0.3 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

0.4 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

0.5 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

0.6 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

0.7 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

0.8 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

0.9 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1.1 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1.2 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.3 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.4 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.5 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19

1.6 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

1.7 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27

1.8 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29


2 21 Very Stiff >150 kPa 40




Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

0.2 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

0.3 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

0.4 18 Stiff 150 kPa 33

0.5 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

0.6 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

0.7 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

0.8 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

0.9 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

1 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

1.1 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.2 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1.3 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.4 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.5 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

1.6 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

1.7 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1.8 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1.9 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

2 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

2.1 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

2.2 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.3 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

2.4 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

2.5 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

2.6 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31




3 31 Very Stiff >150 kPa >55

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

0.2 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21


0.4 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

0.5 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29

0.6 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

0.7 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

0.8 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

0.9 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.1 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.2 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.3 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

1.4 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

1.5 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.6 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.7 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.8 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.9 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19

2 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

2.1 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

2.2 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

2.3 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

2.4 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

2.5 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

2.6 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

2.7 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

2.8 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.9 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

3 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.4 2 Loose <30 deg 3



0.7 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2

0.8 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2


1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.4 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.5 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.6 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.7 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.8 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.9 2 Loose <30 deg 3



2.2 3 Loose <30 deg 5

2.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3

2.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5







End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 1 Very Soft <20 kPa 2

0.2 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

0.3 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

0.4 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

0.5 2 Soft 20 kPa 3




0.9 0 V.V.Soft <5 kPa <2

1 1 Very Soft <20 kPa 2


1.2 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

1.3 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

1.4 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

1.5 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

1.6 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.7 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.8 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.9 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

2 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

2.1 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

2.2 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

2.3 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.4 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.5 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.6 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

2.7 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

2.8 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

2.9 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29

3 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0


0.2 13 Dense 37 deg 23

0.3 12 Dense 36 deg 21

0.4 18 Dense 37 deg 33




0.8 16 Dense 37 deg 29

0.9 15 Dense 37 deg 27


1.1 25 Dense 38 deg 49

1.2 14 Dense 37 deg 25

1.3 20 Dense 38 deg 37

1.4 12 Dense 36 deg 21

1.5 14 Dense 37 deg 25

1.6 11 Dense 36 deg 19






2.2 12 Dense 36 deg 21

2.3 14 Dense 37 deg 25

2.4 16 Dense 37 deg 29

2.5 11 Dense 36 deg 19


2.7 11 Dense 36 deg 19

2.8 21 Dense 38 deg 40

2.9 14 Dense 37 deg 25


End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5


0.5 21 Dense 38 deg 40

Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3


0.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5










1.4 11 Dense 36 deg 19

1.5 14 Dense 37 deg 25

1.6 13 Dense 37 deg 23





2.1 13 Dense 37 deg 23

2.2 21 Dense 38 deg 40

2.3 18 Dense 37 deg 33

2.4 23 Dense 38 deg 44

2.5 21 Dense 38 deg 40


2.7 22 Dense 38 deg 42

2.8 15 Dense 37 deg 27


3 31 Very Dense >38 deg >55

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0



0.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5




0.7 3 Loose <30 deg 5




1.1 11 Dense 36 deg 19





1.6 11 Dense 36 deg 19

1.7 13 Dense 37 deg 23

1.8 16 Dense 37 deg 29

1.9 21 Dense 38 deg 40


2.1 18 Dense 37 deg 33

2.2 15 Dense 37 deg 27

2.3 13 Dense 37 deg 23

2.4 19 Dense 37 deg 35

2.5 20 Dense 38 deg 37

2.6 16 Dense 37 deg 29


2.8 26 Very Dense >38 deg 51



End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0


0.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5


0.6 3 Loose <30 deg 5


0.8 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.9 3 Loose <30 deg 5


1.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3



1.5 3 Loose <30 deg 5







2.2 11 Dense 36 deg 19


2.4 13 Dense 37 deg 23


2.6 14 Dense 37 deg 25

2.7 12 Dense 36 deg 21

2.8 17 Dense 37 deg 31

2.9 25 Dense 38 deg 49

3 26 Very Dense >38 deg 51

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0


0.2 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2

0.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3



0.6 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

0.7 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

0.8 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

0.9 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27

1 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

1.1 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

1.2 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

1.3 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

1.4 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19


1.6 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27

1.7 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29

1.8 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

1.9 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

2 18 Stiff 150 kPa 33

2.1 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

2.2 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29

2.3 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

2.4 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

2.5 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

2.6 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

2.7 13 Stiff 110 kPa 23

2.8 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

2.9 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27

3 29 Very Stiff >150 kPa >55

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0




0.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5



0.7 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.8 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

0.9 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.1 10 Stiff 85 kPa 17

1.2 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.3 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

1.4 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

1.5 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

1.6 6 Firm 50 kPa 10






2.2 11 Dense 36 deg 19



2.5 11 Dense 36 deg 19

2.6 15 Dense 37 deg 27

2.7 21 Dense 38 deg 40

2.8 15 Dense 37 deg 27



End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0



0.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.5 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.6 2 Loose <30 deg 3







1.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.4 13 Dense 37 deg 23





Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.3 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.4 2 Loose <30 deg 3



0.7 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2

0.8 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2

0.9 0 V.V.Soft <5 kPa <2

1 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

1.1 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

1.2 3 Loose <30 deg 5


1.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.5 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.6 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.7 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.8 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.9 3 Loose <30 deg 5

2 3 Loose <30 deg 5

2.1 3 Loose <30 deg 5

2.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

2.3 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

2.4 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

2.5 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

2.6 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

2.7 2 Soft 20 kPa 3

2.8 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

2.9 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

3 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0


0.2 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2

0.3 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2

0.4 0 V.V.Loose <28 deg <2


0.6 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.7 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.8 2 Loose <30 deg 3

0.9 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.1 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.2 2 Loose <30 deg 3

1.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.4 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.5 3 Loose <30 deg 5



1.8 3 Loose <30 deg 5

1.9 3 Loose <30 deg 5






2.5 12 Dense 36 deg 21

2.6 14 Dense 37 deg 25

2.7 15 Dense 37 deg 27

2.8 20 Dense 38 deg 37

2.9 22 Dense 38 deg 42


End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

0.2 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

0.3 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

0.4 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19

0.5 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

0.6 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

0.7 8 Firm 65 kPa 14






1.3 23 Dense 38 deg 44

1.4 21 Dense 38 deg 40

1.5 22 Dense 38 deg 42

1.6 15 Dense 37 deg 27

1.7 15 Dense 37 deg 27

1.8 12 Dense 36 deg 21

1.9 16 Dense 37 deg 29





2.4 18 Dense 37 deg 33

2.5 19 Dense 37 deg 35

2.6 22 Dense 38 deg 42

2.7 24 Dense 38 deg 47




End

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

0.2 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

0.3 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27

0.4 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

0.5 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

0.6 11 Stiff 90 kPa 19

0.7 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

0.8 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

0.9 6 Firm 50 kPa 10

1 3 Soft 25 kPa 5

1.1 4 Soft 35 kPa 7

1.2 5 Firm 40 kPa 8

1.3 7 Firm 60 kPa 12

1.4 8 Firm 65 kPa 14

1.5 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

1.6 9 Stiff 75 kPa 15

1.7 17 Stiff 140 kPa 31

1.8 14 Stiff 115 kPa 25

1.9 12 Stiff 100 kPa 21

2 16 Stiff 130 kPa 29

2.1 15 Stiff 125 kPa 27




Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 15 Dense 37 deg 27

0.2 11 Dense 36 deg 19

0.3 17 Dense 37 deg 31

0.4 20 Dense 38 deg 37

0.5 21 Dense 38 deg 40

0.6 13 Dense 37 deg 23

0.7 11 Dense 36 deg 19






1.3 3 Loose <30 deg 5


1.5 11 Dense 36 deg 19


1.7 11 Dense 36 deg 19

1.8 13 Dense 37 deg 23

1.9 18 Dense 37 deg 33


2.1 17 Dense 37 deg 31

2.2 16 Dense 37 deg 29

2.3 18 Dense 37 deg 33

2.4 23 Dense 38 deg 44

2.5 23 Dense 38 deg 44



Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm













0

0.1 3 Loose <30 deg 5

0.2 3 Loose <30 deg 5




0.6 2 Loose <30 deg 3



0.9 12 Dense 36 deg 21








1.7 14 Dense 37 deg 25

1.8 19 Dense 37 deg 35

1.9 23 Dense 38 deg 44

2 27 Very Dense >38 deg 54

2.1 22 Dense 38 deg 42

2.2 16 Dense 37 deg 29

2.3 21 Dense 38 deg 40


Refusal

Shear

Strength

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 100mm


APPENDIX C

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER –

LIGHT (DPL) TEST

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●







L i g h t D y n a m i c P e n e t r o m e t e r P r o b e --------------- T e s t N o. DPL 1

THE INSITU STRENGTH DEPENDS ON SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT AND GRAIN STRUCTURE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED AND

MAY CHANGE. THE VALUES GIVEN ARE THEREFORE INDICATIVE ONLY AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY TEST OR OBSERVATION

Hammer: 10kg falling 550mm

Cone: 25mm diameter with 60 degree apex angel

Depth Blows Inferred Rods: 16mm diameter, 22mm diameter couplings

metres per 300mm Consistency

0

0.3 33 Stiff 145 kPa

0.6 34 Stiff 150 kPa

0.9 45 Very Stiff 195 kPa



1.8 29 Med.Dense 34 deg




3 18 Med.Dense 31 deg

3.3 13 Loose <30 deg




4.5 55 Dense 37 deg

4.8 50 Dense 36 deg

5.1 55 Dense 37 deg

5.4 61 Dense 37 deg

5.7 75 Dense 37 deg

6 78 Dense 38 deg

6.3 74 Dense 37 deg

6.6 69 Dense 37 deg

6.9 76 Dense 37 deg

7.2 44 Dense 36 deg

7.5 60 Dense 37 deg

7.8 86 Dense 38 deg

8.1 78 Dense 38 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm

Z:\2020\136-20 (Kwamashu Safe Hub)\DPL\DPL1














0

0.3 8 Loose <30 deg





1.8 6 Soft <40 kPa

2.1 7 Soft <40 kPa

2.4 13 Firm 60 kPa

2.7 13 Firm 60 kPa

3 16 Firm 75 kPa






4.8 67 Dense 37 deg


5.4 43 Dense 36 deg

5.7 57 Dense 37 deg

6 50 Dense 36 deg

6.3 66 Dense 37 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm















0

0.3 3 Very Loose <29 deg

0.6 8 Loose <30 deg



1.5 7 Loose <30 deg


2.1 8 Loose <30 deg




3.3 48 Dense 36 deg

3.6 62 Dense 37 deg

3.9 60 Dense 37 deg

4.2 52 Dense 37 deg

4.5 47 Dense 36 deg

4.8 63 Dense 37 deg

5.1 83 Dense 38 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm















0


0.6 9 Loose <30 deg

0.9 7 Loose <30 deg

1.2 8 Loose <30 deg












4.8 41 Dense 36 deg

5.1 64 Dense 37 deg

5.4 43 Dense 36 deg

5.7 73 Dense 37 deg

6 63 Dense 37 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm















0


0.6 70 Dense 37 deg

0.9 86 Dense 38 deg

1.2 109 Very Dense >38 deg

1.5 51 Dense 36 deg


2.1 59 Dense 37 deg


2.7 50 Dense 36 deg

3 42 Dense 36 deg


3.6 47 Dense 36 deg

3.9 54 Dense 37 deg

4.2 49 Dense 36 deg

4.5 60 Dense 37 deg

4.8 66 Dense 37 deg

5.1 56 Dense 37 deg

5.4 90 Dense 38 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm















0










3 77 Hard >300 kPa

3.3 88 Dense 38 deg

3.6 104 Very Dense >38 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm















0


0.6 8 Loose <30 deg




1.8 9 Loose <30 deg

2.1 7 Loose <30 deg







4.2 49 Dense 36 deg

4.5 51 Dense 36 deg

4.8 57 Dense 37 deg

5.1 52 Dense 37 deg

5.4 67 Dense 37 deg

5.7 78 Dense 38 deg

6 81 Dense 38 deg

Refusal

Insitu Shear

Strength

-15

-14.4

-13.8

-13.2

-12.6

-12

-11.4

-10.8

-10.2

-9.6

-9

-8.4

-7.8

-7.2

-6.6

-6

-5.4

-4.8

-4.2

-3.6

-3

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (

m)

Blows per 300mm


APPENDIX D

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

of 16

CLIENT : Geosure (Pty) Ltd PHYSICAL ADDRESS : 122 Intersite Avenue, Springfield Park, Umgeni Durban, 4001 ATTENTION : Mr D. Naidoo PROJECT : KwaMashu Safe Hub

TEST REPORT REFERENCE NUMBER: 49887 Dear Sir/Madam, Enclosed herewith, please find the original reports pertaining to the above-mentioned project. Date Received 21.07.2020 Date Tested 23.07.2020 to 02.08.2020

Sample Location Refer to Report

Sampling Method N/A

Sample Condition Moist

Sampling Environmental Condition N/A

Sampler(s) Name Client

Total Number of Pages 16

Test Carried Out SANS3001 GR1

TMH1 Method C3

SANS3001 GR10, GR12

TMH1 Method C4a

SANS3001 GR30

TMH1 Method B6

SANS3001 GR40

Hydrometer Analysis - ASTM D422

TMH1 Method A10(b) SABS1200 (Compactibility Factor)#

TMH1 Method A13T + A14app SANS 5862-1

TMH1 Method A15d SANS 5860, 5861-1, 5861-2, 5861-3

TMH1 Method A13T + A16T TMH1 Method B9

- Tick denotes tests that were carried out. #Denotes non accredited tests We would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for your continued support. Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully ___________________ Technical Signatory, Dheeran Ramcharan for Geosure (Pty) Ltd. This report may not be reproduced except in full, without written permission from Geosure (Pty) Ltd. While every care is taken to ensure the correctness of all tests and reports, neither Geosure (Pty) Ltd or its employees shall be liable in any way whatsoever for any error made in the execution or reporting of tests or any erroneous conclusions drawn there from or any consequence thereof. This report relates only to the sample/s tested. Head Office 122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park, Durban 4091, South Africa PO Box 1461, Westville, 3630, South Africa Tel.: +27 (0)861 GEOSURE / 0861 436 7873 Fax: +27 (0)86 689 5506 Mobile: +27 (0)82 784 0544 E-mail: [email protected]

Civil Engineering Laboratory 122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park, Durban, 4091, South Africa PO Box 1461, Westville, 3630, South Africa Tel: 031 701 9732 Fax: +27 (0) 86 684 9785 Mobile: 072 870 2621 E-mail: [email protected]

Gauteng Branch P. O. Box 32381, Kyalami 1684 Tel.: 0861 GEOSURE / 0861 436 7873 Fax: 086 689 8327 Mobile: 083 377 6559 Email: [email protected]




User

New Stamp

LABORATORY AND HEAD OFFICE ADDRESS: 122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park, Durban, 4091

LABORATORY CONTACT INFO.: Tel.: +27(0) 31 701 9732 Fax: 086 684 9785Mobile: +27(0) 72 870 2621 e-mail: [email protected]

HEAD OFFICE CONTACT INFO.: Tel.: +27(0) 31 266 0458 Fax: 086 689 5506Mobile: +27(0) 82 784 0544 e-mail:[email protected]

WEBSITE: www.geosure.co.za

Client : Geosure (Pty) Ltd Our Ref. : 49887Project : Your Ref. : 136-20

Date Tested : 29.03.2020 to 04.08.2020

Attention : Mr D. Naidoo Date Reported : 05.08.2020

T26104 T26105 T26110IP1 IP2 AH2

Layer 5 Layer 5 Layer 62.14-3.00 1.00-2.40 1.60-3.10

100.0 mm 100 100 10075.0 mm 100 100 10063.0 mm 100 100 10050.0 mm 100 100 10037.5 mm 100 100 10028.0 mm 100 100 10020.0 mm 100 100 10014.0 mm 100 99 1005.00 mm 100 99 1002.00 mm 100 99 100

0.425 mm 86 87 770.250 mm 69 71 500.150 mm 50 56 340.075 mm 34 44 26

0.060 mm 31 40 240.050 mm 29 37 230.040 mm 27 35 220.026 mm 24 31 200.015 mm 20 29 190.010 mm 17 26 190.0074 mm 17 26 190.0036 mm 13 22 180.0020 mm 10 21 170.0015 mm 9 19 16

% 14 12 23

% 17 16 28% 19 15 16% 16 12 7% 34 44 26

0.80 0.70 0.97

Liquid Limit % SP 23 21Plasticity Index % SP 10 8Linear Shrinkage % 0.5 4.5 2.0AASHTO Classification (Group Index)* A-2-4 (0) A-4 (1) A-2-4 (0)

SM SC SCMoisture Content % 52.3 21.1 25.1Remarks: Date Received: 21.07.2020

This report relates only to sample(s) received. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior consent of GEOSURE (PTY) LTD.

Fine Fine Sand

Version 06/09/2016

*Opinions expressed herein fall outside the scope of SANAS accreditation.

Coarse Fine SandCoarse Sand

Medium Fine Sand

Mechanical analysis - SANS3001 GR1 - Percent of Soil Mortar (<2 mm) for Grain Size range

% P

assi

ng

Hydrometer Analysis - ASTM - D422 - Percent Passing Particle Diameter (<0.425mm)

Sieve Analysis ( Wet Preparation ) - SANS3001 GR 1 - Percent Passing Sieve Size

Sample No.

KwaMashu Safe Hub

Light brown blotched dark yellow and light

grey SANDY silty CLAY. Fill

Reg.No.: 92/03145/07

Page 2 of 16

Field No.Position in FieldDepth (m)

Unified Classification*

Silt & ClayGrading Modulus


Brown mottled dark yellowish orange

clayey silty SAND. Fill

Reddish brown slightly gravelly

SANDY CLAY. Fill

Sampled by Client.

Atterberg Limits - SANS3001 GR10, GR12 (<0.425mm)

% P

assi

ng


mailto:e-mail:[email protected]

http://www.geosure.co.za





Client : Geosure (Pty) Ltd Job No. :Project : KwaMashu Safe Hub Your Ref.No. :

Date Tested :Attention : Mr D. Naidoo Date Reported :

Sample Number : T26104: IP1

Sample Description : Light brown blotched dark yellow and light grey SANDY silty CLAY. FillEquivalent PI : : 10

50

NPNP


Version 24/03/2016

Reg.No.: 92/03145/07

Page 3 of 16

POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS GRAPH

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART

49887136-2029.03.2020 to 04.08.202005.08.2020

Clay fraction of whole sample (% <2µ)

Field No.

05

10152025303540455055606570

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Equi

vale

nt P

I

Clay fraction of whole sample ( % <2µ )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

% F

iner

Tha

n

LowMedium

HighVery High

FINE COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSEMEDIUM FINE MEDIUM COARSE

CLAY FRACTION SILT FRACTION SAND FRACTION GRAVEL FRACTION










Sample Number : T26105: IP2

Sample Description : Reddish brown slightly gravelly SANDY CLAY. FillEquivalent PI : 9 : 21

50

NPNP


Version 24/03/2016 Page 4 of 16

Reg.No.: 92/03145/07



49887136-2029.03.2020 to 04.08.202005.08.2020


Field No.

05

10152025303540455055606570

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Equi

vale

nt P

I


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

% F

iner

Tha

n

LowMedium

HighVery High












Sample Number : T26110: AH2

Sample Description : Brown mottled dark yellowish orange clayey silty SAND. FillEquivalent PI : 6 : 17

NPNP


Version 24/03/2016

49887136-20

Reg.No.: 92/03145/07

Field No.

29.03.2020 to 04.08.202005.08.2020


Page 5 of 16



05

10152025303540455055606570

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Equi

vale

nt P

I


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

% F

iner

Tha

n

LowMedium

HighVery High






LABORATORY: Reg. No. : 92/03145/07 HEAD OFFICE:122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park, Durban, 4091 122 Intersite Avenue, Umgeni Business Park,P.O. Box 1461, Westville 3630 Durban, 4091, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.Mobile: +27(0)72 870 2621 Fax: 086 684 9785 Tel: +27 (0)31 266 0458 Fax: 086 689 5506Tel.: +27 (0)31 701 9732 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] www.geosure.co.za

Client : Your Ref No. : 136-20Project : Our Ref No. : 49887Attention : Date Reported : 05/08/2020

Sample_No1 Sample_No2 Sample_No3 Sample_No4 Sample_No5

Sample No. T26103 T26106 T26107 T26108 T26109Field No. IP1 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP9Position Layer 1 Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 3Depth ( m ) 0.01-0.77 0.01-3.20 0.22-1.20 1.80-3.05 0.64-1.45Method of Preparation Scalped N/A N/A N/A N/A


Greyish brown clayey

GRAVELLY SAND. Fill

Light brown slightly gravelly silty SAND. Fill

Greyish brown silty SAND. Fill

Sandy CLAY. Alluvium

Reddish brown and dark yellow clayey SAND to SANDY CLAY.

Fill

100.00 100 100 100 100 100

75.00 100 100 100 100 100

63.00 100 100 100 100 100

53.00 100 100 100 100 100

50.00 98 100 100 100 100

37.50 98 100 100 100 100

28.00 97 100 100 100 100

26.50 97 100 100 100 100

20.00 95 100 100 100 100

19.00 95 100 100 100 100

14.00 94 100 100 100 100

13.20 94 100 100 100 100

5.00 84 99 100 100 100

4.750 84 99 100 100 1002.000 74 98 99 99 980.425 58 93 83 83 820.075 47 39 42 56 46

Grading Modulus 1.20 0.70 0.76 0.62 0.74

Coarse Sand 2.000 - 0.425 22 5 17 16 16Coarse-Fine Sand 0.425 - 0.250 8 15 16 14 16Medium-Fine Sand 0.250 - 0.150 4 20 12 8 11Fine-Fine Sand 0.150 - 0.075 3 20 13 6 10Silt and Clay < 0.075 63 40 42 57 47

Liquid Limit % or symbol 30 19 21 28 27Plasticity Index % or symbol 10 4 7 13 13Linear Shrinkage % 6.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 6.5

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m³) 2023 1937 1981 1943 1941Optimum moisture content (%) 11.6 10.2 9.7 11.7 11.5

CBR @100% Compaction % 7.9 34 34 7.7 6.1CBR @ 98% Compaction % 7.2 28 26 5.2 4.7CBR @ 97% Compaction % 6.9 26 22 4.3 4.1CBR @ 95% Compaction % 6.3 22 17 2.9 3.2CBR @ 93% Compaction % 5.7 18 13 1.9 2.4CBR @ 90% Compaction % 5.0 14 8.3 1.1 1.6Swell @100% Compaction % 1.5 0.1 0.4 2.0 1.7

COLTO Classification (1998)†** Cannot be Determined

Cannot be Determined G8 (#) Cannot be

DeterminedCannot be

Determined

TRH 14 Classification (1985)** G10 G7 G9 Poorer than G10.

Poorer than G10.

AASHTO Classification (Group Index)** A-4 (2) A-4 (0) A-4 (0) A-6 (4) A-6 (2)Unified Classification ** SC SM-SC SM-SC CL SCThis report relates only to sample(s) received. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior consent of GEOSURE (Pty) Ltd.

Remarks: *Subject to further testing as required by TRH14.

** Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of SANAS accreditationVersion 5.05 - 14 February 2018

Siev

e Ap

ertu

re (m

m)

KwaMashu Safe HubGeosure (Pty) Ltd

Mr D. Naidoo

Mechanical analysis - Percent of Soil Mortar (<2 mm) for Grain Size range

Atterberg Limits SANS 3001 on <0.425 mm fraction

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content

† Subject to further testing as required by COLTO. COLTO above uses only: Atterberg Limits (<0.425 mm fraction; not arithmetic mean), Nominal Max Size, Grading Curve, Coarse Sand Ratio, Grading Modulus, Strength (CBR), and Swell.# Check that Max Size <= 2/3 of compacted layer thickness.

Test Report - SANS 3001

Sieve Analysis - Percent Passing Sieve Size

California Bearing Ratio

ReportT26103.xls Page 6 of 16





Client : Geosure (Pty) Ltd Your Ref No.:Project : KwaMashu Safe Hub Our Ref No. :Attention : Mr D. Naidoo Date Reported :

100 10075 10063 10053 10050 9838 9828 9727 9720 9519 9514 9413 94

5 844.8 84

2 740.4 580.3 530.2 500.1 47

Thick Red Line is the Grading Curve (COLTO Classification = Cannot be Determined) (TRH 14 Classification = G10)Sieve Aperture Size 0.075 0.150 0.250 0.425 2.00 4.75 5.00 13.20 14.00 19.00 20.00 26.50 28.0 37.5 50.0 53.0 63 75 100Percentage Passing 47% 50% 53% 58% 74% 84% 84% 94% 94% 95% 95% 97% 97% 98% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Grading Curve for Sample T26103 – SANS 3001

136-204988705/08/2020

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assi

ng

Grain Size (mm)







100 10075 10063 10053 10050 10038 10028 10027 10020 10019 10014 10013 100

5 994.8 99

2 980.43 930.25 780.15 580.08 39

Thick Red Line is the Grading Curve (COLTO Classification = Cannot be Determined) (TRH 14 Classification = G7)Sieve Aperture Size 0.075 0.150 0.015 0.026 0.05 0.06 5.00 13.20 14.00 19.00 20.00 26.50 28.0 37.5 50.0 53.0 63 75 100Percentage Passing 39% 58% 78% 93% 98% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


136-204988705/08/2020

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assi

ng

Grain Size (mm)







100 10075 10063 10053 10050 10038 10028 10027 10020 10019 10014 10013 100

5 1004.8 100

2 990.4 830.3 670.2 550.1 42

Thick Red Line is the Grading Curve (COLTO Classification = G8 (#)) (TRH 14 Classification = G9)Sieve Aperture Size 0.075 0.150 0.250 0.425 2.00 4.75 5.00 13.20 14.00 19.00 20.00 26.50 28.0 37.5 50.0 53.0 63 75 100Percentage Passing 42% 55% 67% 83% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


136-204988705/08/2020

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assi

ng

Grain Size (mm)







100 10075 10063 10053 10050 10038 10028 10027 10020 10019 10014 10013 100

5 1004.8 100

2 990.4 830.3 700.2 620.1 56

Thick Red Line is the Grading Curve (COLTO Classification = Cannot be Determined) (TRH 14 Classification = Poorer than G10.)Sieve Aperture Size 0.075 0.150 0.250 0.425 2.00 4.75 5.00 13.20 14.00 19.00 20.00 26.50 28.0 37.5 50.0 53.0 63 75 100Percentage Passing 56% 62% 70% 83% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


136-204988705/08/2020

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assi

ng

Grain Size (mm)







100 10075 10063 10053 10050 10038 10028 10027 10020 10019 10014 10013 100

5 1004.8 100

2 980.4 820.3 670.2 560.1 46

Thick Red Line is the Grading Curve (COLTO Classification = Cannot be Determined) (TRH 14 Classification = Poorer than G10.)Sieve Aperture Size 0.075 0.150 0.250 0.425 2.00 4.75 5.00 13.20 14.00 19.00 20.00 26.50 28.0 37.5 50.0 53.0 63 75 100Percentage Passing 46% 56% 67% 82% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


136-204988705/08/2020

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assi

ng

Grain Size (mm)






Client : Geosure (Pty) Ltd Your Ref No. : 136-20Project : KwaMashu Safe Hub Our Ref No. : 49887Attention : Mr D. Naidoo Date Reported

Sample No. : T26103 Field No. : IP1Method of preparation : Scalped Depth (m) : 0.01-0.77Natural/Stabilised : Natural Origin : Layer 1Material Description Compaction Effort : Mod AASHTO

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m³) 2023 11.6

Plotted Values:Moisture (%) 9.8 10.8 11.8 12.8 13.8Dry Density (kg/m³) 1952 1992 2020 1936 1889

Remarks:

- 14 February 2018Page 12 of 16

This report relates only to sample(s) received. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior consent of GEOSURE (Pty) Ltd.

: 04.08.2020

SANS 3001 Moisture/Density Relationship

Optimum Moisture Content (%)

: Gr.Br.clayey GRAVELLY SAND. Fill

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m³)

Moisture (%)






Sample No. : T26106 Field No. : IP5Method of preparation : N/A Depth (m) : 0.01-3.20Natural/Stabilised : Natural Origin : Layer 1Material Description Compaction Effort : Mod AASHTO



Remarks:



: 04.08.2020



: Lt.Br.Sl.gravelly silty SAND. Fill

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m³)

Moisture (%)









Remarks:



: 04.08.2020



: Gr.Br.silty SAND. Fill

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m³)

Moisture (%)









Remarks:



: 04.08.2020



: sandy CLAY. Alluvium

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m³)

Moisture (%)









Remarks:



: 05.08.2020



: Red.Br.Dk.Yell.clayey SAND to SANDY CLAY. Fill

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14

Dry

Den

sity

(kg/

m³)

Moisture (%)




FIGURE 1 ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

SITE PLAN

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

FIGURE 1

Report to Masithu Consulting & Project Management on the ...

Documents

Transcript of Report to Masithu Consulting & Project Management on the ...