PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BAYVIEW WINDFARM, OUTSIDE PORT ELIZABETH
MAY 2018 REVISION 00
Prepared for: ENGIE SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Prepared by: JG AFRIKA (PTY) LTD PORT ELIZABETH 1st Floor, Block 5, Greenacres Office Park, Second Avenue, Newton Park 6045 Telephone: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Project Manager: Dr Richard Fyvie
Form 4.3.1 VERIFICATION PAGE Rev 13
TITLE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BAYVIEW WINDFARM, OUTSIDE PORT ELIZABETH
JGA REF. NO. DATE: REPORT STATUS 4744 MAY 2018 Final CARRIED OUT BY: COMMISSIONED BY: JG AFRIKA (PTY) LTD ENGIE SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD PORT ELIZABETH
1st Floor, Block 5 Building 1, Country Club Estate, Greenacres Office Park, Second Avenue 21 Woodlands Drive, Newton Park Woodmead 2191 Tel.: +27 41 390 8700 Tel: +27 10 612 0204 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] AUTHOR CLIENT Tyrell Hayes Seshni Pillay SYNOPSIS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BAYVIEW WINDFARM, OUTSIDE PORT ELIZABETH
KEY WORDS: Geotechnical, Geology © COPYRIGHT: JG Afrika (Pty) Ltd. QUALITY VERIFICATION This report has been prepared under the controls established by a quality management system that meets the requirements of ISO9001: 2008 which has been independently certified by DEKRA Certification under certificate number 90906882
Verification Capacity Name Signature Date Author Geologist Mr Tyrell Hayes May 2018 Checked by: Snr Eng Geologist Dr Richard Fyvie May 2018 Authorised by: Executive Associate Dr Richard Fyvie May 2018
Filename: P:\00 JG AFRIKA\4744 - Bayview WF Development\10 GEOTECHNICAL
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BAYVIEW WINDFARM, OUTSIDE PORT ELIZABETH
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 1 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 1 3.1 Locality ...... 1 3.2 Topography and Land Use ...... 2 3.3 Climate ...... 3 4 SEISMICITY ...... 3 5 GEOLOGY AND GEOHYDROLOGY ...... 4 6 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY ...... 5 6.1 Trial Pits ...... 5 7 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...... 6 7.1 Trial Pits ...... 6 7.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test Results ...... 6 7.3 Laboratory Results ...... 6 8 GENERAL STABILITY OF THE SITE ...... 7 9 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 7 9.1 Excavation Conditions ...... 7 9.2 Founding Recommendations ...... 8 10 CONCLUSION ...... 9 11 REFERENCES ...... 9
FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 3.1: Regional Locality Plan ...... 2 Figure 3.2: Trial Pit Locality Plan with supplied conceptual layout plan overlaid...... 2 Figure 3.3: Climate Data ...... 3 Figure 4.1: Seismic Intensity for Southern Africa ...... 4 Figure 5.1: Regional Geological Plan...... 5
Table 7.1: Summary of laboratory results ...... 7 ANNEXURES Annexure A: Trial Pit Profiles Annexure B: DCP Results Annexure C: Laboratory Test Results
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BAYVIEW WINDFARM, OUTSIDE PORT ELIZABETH 1 INTRODUCTION JG Afrika (Pty) Ltd (JG Afrika) was appointed for to perform a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Bayview windfarm located on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development.
The work conducted is briefly summarized below: • Desktop study focussing on the local topography, regional geology and hydrological conditions. • Machine excavation, by means of a tractor-loader-backhoe (TLB), of six (6) trial pits to depths between 2.00 m and 2.80 m. • Soil profiling according to Jennings et al (1973). • The collection of disturbed samples from trial pits and analysis of the following: six (6) MOD/CBR tests, and six (6) Foundation Indicator tests. • The collection of a disturbed sample from the existing borrow pit on site and analysis of the following: one (1) MOD/CBR test, and one (1) Foundation Indicator test.
The ground conditions described in this report refer specifically to those encountered in the excavated trial pits. It is therefore quite possible that conditions may vary at positions intermediate to trial pit positions. The information in this report is given in good faith, as an indication of materials and conditions likely to be encountered across the investigation area. Any opinions and interpretations expressed are given as a guide only. There is no warranty that the information is totally representative of the whole investigation area and no responsibility will be accepted for any consequences arising from actual conditions being different from those indicated in this document.
2 TERMS OF REFERENCE JG Afrika was approached by Engie Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd compile a quotation for a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Bayview windfarm. JG Afrika submitted a proposal dated November 2017 and a Service Level Agreement was signed.
3 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Locality The investigation area is located within the Uitenhage farms area on the north-eastern outskirts of the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, Eastern Cape (see Figure 3.1 and 3.2). The site can be accessed directly via the Regional Road R335.
P a g e | 1
Figure 3.1: Regional Locality Plan
Figure 3.2: Trial Pit Locality Plan.
3.2 Topography and Land Use The investigation site generally exhibits variation in topography across the site, with generally flat topography to the eastern portion of the site and moderately to steeply undulated in the western portion. The site is currently utilised for farming with most of the positions accessible via locked access gates. The site is bounded by existing farmland with PPC quarry and the Grassridge Windfarm located to south east of the site.
P a g e | 2
3.3 Climate
The climate of the area has an annual average rainfall of 281 mm, occurring throughout the year. Average Midday temperatures range from 20.7° to 28.2° Celsius, with a high variance to the average.
Figure 3.3: Climate Data
4 SEISMICITY According to the 1:6 000 000 Seismic Hazard Map of Southern Africa, indicated in Figure 4.1, the site falls within a level five area on the Modified Mercalli Scale (MMS). Peak horizontal ground acceleration of 50 - 100 cm/s2 has been recorded, with a 10% probability of this being exceeded at least once in a 50-year period.
P a g e | 3
Approximate site location
Figure 4.1: Seismic Intensity for Southern Africa
5 GEOLOGY AND GEOHYDROLOGY
According to the 1:50 000 geological map (3325DA ADDO) published by the Council for Geoscience, the investigation site is underlain by various geological units. Tertiary to Quaternary aged fluvial terrace deposits dominate the northern and eastern portions of the sites with the Alexandria Formation of the Algoa Group predominantly in the southern portions. The Sundays River Formation of the Uitenhage Group is present throughout the site. The Tertiary to Quaternary aged fluvial terrace deposits consist predominantly of gravels, sands and silts deposited by the Sundays River. The Alexandria Formation consists predominantly of calcareous sandstone with conglomerate and coquinite. The Sundays River Formation consists of grey mudstone, siltstone and sandstone. Deposits are all alluvial in origin.
According to the Groundwater Harvest Potential of the Republic of South Africa published by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the investigation area has a 10 000 – 15 000 m3/km2/annum maximum volume of groundwater that can sustainably be abstracted and an average borehole yield of 0.6 – 0.8 litres per second.
P a g e | 4
Figure 5.1: Regional Geological Plan.
6 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY The field investigations took place on the 10 April 2018, completed by JG Afrika Geologists. Soil profiling was conducted according to methods set out by Jennings et al (1973): Revised guide to Soil profiling for Southern African Civil engineering purposes and Brink & Bruin (2002): Guidelines for soil and rock logging in South Africa. All investigation positions were recorded with Garmin Etrex handheld GPS and are reflected on the trial pits logs provided in Annexure A.
6.1 Trial Pits A total of six (6) trial pits were machine excavated at predetermined positions across the investigation area by means of a Tractor-Loader-Backhoe (TLB), labelled BV01, BV12, BV22, BV31, BV32 and BV38. Trial pits were excavated to near-refusal depths of between 0.40 m and 2.10 m. All trial pits were immediately profiled by a JG Afrika Geologist.
Disturbed soil samples were retrieved from trial pits for MOD/CBR, and Foundation Indicator tests. An additional disturbed sample was retrieved from the existing borrow pit site located with the project boundary (see Figure 3.2) and subjected to MOD/CBR and Foundation Indicator tests.
P a g e | 5
7 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 7.1 Trial Pits
Six (6) trial pits were machine-excavated by TLB, to depths between 0.40 m and 2.10 m, across the investigation area. The positions of these trial pits are presented in Figure 3.2.
Trial pit profiles were typically dominated by alluvial horizons of silty SAND giving way to pedogenic horizons of CALCRETE. Variation was noted at positions BV31 and BV38. At BV31 the profile was dominated by alluvial silty sandy COBBLES which gave way to pedogenic CALCRETE with cobbles. At position BV38 the profile consisted of the alluvial silty SAND giving way to pedogenic horizons of CALCRETE and a gravelly silty SAND with calcrete nodules. This in turn gave way to silty SAND with cobbles of sandstone. Trial pit profiles and photographic plates are presented in Annexure A, while their positions are indicated on Figure 3.2.
7.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test Results
A total of six (6) DCP tests were conducted adjacent to the excavated trial pits. Tests were conducted to depths of 0.165 m to 1.020 m with refusal encountered at positions at all positions.
Estimated Allowable Safe Bearing Pressures EA“BP’s i di ated o the results showed a spread of values at the test positions, ranging from 161 kPa to 618 kPa. A minimum of four readings are required for the DCP tests, as such the results of the DCP tests, for BV01, BV12, BV22, BV31 and BV32 should not be utilised for design purposes due to the early refusal of the tests within the calcrete horizons. The DCP test conducted at position BV38 encountered refused at depth of 1.020 m, interpreted to have occurred in the dense calcrete horizon. The presence of gravels and cobbles could result in elevated EA“BP’s, a d as su h the results at this position should not be used for design purposes.
An aspect of DCP testing that should always be borne in mind is that results are affected by the moisture content of the soil profile, as well as any gravel, cobbles, rock fragments or fill material that may be present in the soil profile. A horizon saturated due to heavy rainfall will provide a lower set of results than a similar test in the dry season. Moisture content should thus always be noted and made mention of in any DCP investigation. Soil moisture content varied and was profiled as slightly moist to moist.
The full set of results for the DCP tests are presented in Annexure B.
7.3 Laboratory Results
The results of laboratory testing have been appended in Annexure C. A summation of these results is, however, provided below for ease of reference in Table 7.1.
P a g e | 6
Table 7.1: Summary of laboratory results
Atterberg Sieve Analysis including Hydrometer (% Passing) CBR Maximum Sample Trial Limits (%) MDD Swell COLTO Depth (m) Description OMC % No. Pit No. kg/m 3 MAASHTO Classification %
LL PI LS
75.0 63.0 53.0 37.5 26.5 19.0 13.2 4.75 2.00 90% 93% 95% 98%
0.425 0.075 0.060 0.006 0.002 100% Silty Sandy BV01 BV01 0.20 - 1.10 100 92 83 79 75 66 58 44 14 11 0 0 20 6 3.0 1884 13.7 6 7 8 8 9 0.1 The results of the laboratory tests indicate that the in-situ materials show variation in the overall gradings across the site. The sampled materials exhibit Plasticity Indices (PI) of 4 - 17, with Linear Shrinkage (LS) values of 2.0 – 8.5 %. LS values of 8.0 % or greater are considered problematic for moisture related shrinkage. Care should be taken on the site to maintain constant moisture levels. The Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of the tested materials ranged between 1719 – 2039 Kg/m3, with the corresponding CBR values being very low to high. The materials exhibited a range of classifications, from G5 to 8 GENERAL STABILITY OF THE SITE No signs of inherent ground instability such as tension cracks, slip scars or sloughing of the soil mantle were evident during the visual inspection of the site. 9 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Excavation Conditions Excavations for the proposed development would be expected to utilise soft, intermediate and hard excavation techniques for the removal of alluvial, pedogenic and residual soils. It is recommended that all required earthworks be carried out in accordance with guidelines provided by SANS 1200D (latest edition). According to the COLTO classes of excavation, soft excavation techniques are used for material that can be efficiently removed or loaded by any of the following plant without prior ripping • Bulldozer: mass of at least 22 tons (including mass of ripper) and an engine developing approximately 145 kW at the flywheel; • Tractor scraper: mass of at least 28 tons and an engine developing approximately 245 kW, pushed by a bulldozer (as above) during loading; • Tractor-type front end loader: mass of at least 22 tons and an engine developing 140 kW at the flywheel. The medium dense to dense residual silty sand encountered on site is expected to require intermediate excavation techniques. These are used where material can be efficiently ripped by a bulldozer with a mass of at least 35 tons when fitted with a single tine ripper and an engine developing approximately 220 kW at the flywheel. P a g e | 7 Refusal during the excavation of trial pits is attributed to the occurrence of dense calcrete. Hard excavation techniques, such as the use of a rock pecker or explosives, are recommended for the removal of dense calcrete material. Should the use of explosives be considered, care should be taken during blasting to preserve the integrity of the surrounding material. All vegetation must be cleared from the areas over which construction will occur. Furthermore, the upper 200 mm of topsoil must be removed and stockpiled for later use in landscaping/rehabilitation of the site. 9.2 Founding Recommendations and Recommendations for Further Studies Alluvial, pedogenic and residual soil form the main component of the investigated subsoil profile. The results of the DCP tests did not provide sufficient penetration and, as such, should not be utilised for design purposes. All trial pits encountered shallow, near refusal within dense calcrete, or medium dense to dense silty sand at position BV38. Based on previous experiences with the dense calcrete in the area, it is typically difficult to penetrate the horizon with a TLB or excavator, due to the confined operating space within the trial pit. Also, due to the nature of the calcrete, it is difficult to estimate its vertical consistency, it is often found that the horizon can give way to less dense material. It is therefore recommended, in order for adequate founding recommendations to be provided, additional geotechnical investigations must be conducted as part of the Detailed Geotechnical Investigation. This study must include as a minimum the following: • Rotary core drilling at the centrepoint of each Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) position to a minimum depth of 1.5B, where B represents the diameter of the WTG base dimension, • Should the Client prefer to only drill every second position, intermediate positions will require the conductance of a Dynamic-Penetrometer-Super-Heavy (DPSH) to a depth of 15m each below natural ground level, as well as geophysics survey from which to infer geotechnical parameters Vs and Vp. This may be obtained through the conductance of CSW or MASW geophysics testing, • Trial pits ust e o du ted at ea h WTG positio . This should i lude a deep pit to a depth of 5 within the footprint of each WTG, as well as a 3m pit at the proposed laydown area for each WTG, • DCP testing at laydown positions, • Material sampling from the rotary borehole core and trial pits, utilising disturbed and undisturbed sampling techniques, • Standard Penetrometer Testing (SPT) within each rotary borehole, conducted at 1.5m increments until refusal, • The installation of groundwater standpipe piezometers to facilitate groundwater sampling in drilled boreholes. Consideration may be given to the installation of such standpipes in 25% of the boreholes. The remaining boreholes be allowed to collapse in on themselves once the temporary casing in retracted, and position marked with a concrete block, • The conducting of trial pits to depths of 1.5m each at 500m intervals throughout the proposed gravel road network for the windfarm. Each trial pit may be accompanied by a DCP adjacent to the trial pit, to 1m depth, • The conducting of trial pits and DCPs at the substation structure position, accompanied by material sampling, • The conducting of electrical resistivity surveys at the electrical substation position, to inform upon earth-mat design, • The conducting of insitu thermal resistivity tests at the substation position at the desired cabling emplacement depth, • Assessment of all field data, laboratory testing and the generation of the relevant Geotechnical Investigation Report. An important element in the promotion of a stable site is the control and removal of surface water and groundwater from the site. The layers below the constructed foundations must be kept at a stable moisture P a g e | 8 content to reduce the risk of soil settlement. Surface water run-off water must be directed away from the structures so that it does not pond adjacent to the foundations. Vegetation that requires watering must not be planted adjacent to the structure, including large trees or shrubs that would locally affect the moisture regime. It is recommended that an experienced and competent geotechnical engineer be appointed to inspect the earthworks and foundation excavations during the development of the site to confirm founding depths, bearing pressures and validate the recommendations provided in this report. 10 CONCLUSION Alluvial, pedogenic and residual material characterise the trial pit profiles across the investigation site. Depending upon the final design layout, a moderate amount of earthworks may be required. Recommendations for earthworks, excavations and additional investigations have been provided. It must be borne in mind that the overall interpretation of geotechnical conditions is based upon point information derived from the respective test positions and that conditions intermediate to these have been inferred by interpolation, extrapolation and professional judgement. The extent of the investigations undertaken is deemed adequate, within the time and budget constraints, to present an overview of the geotechnical conditions across the investigation site. 11 REFERENCES • COLTO (1998). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Works for State Road Authorities. SAICE, Pretoria. • Council for Geoscience (2000). 1:50 000 Geological Map Series 3325DA ADDO. Government Printer, Pretoria. • Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1996). Groundwater Harvest Potential of the Republic of South Africa. Government Printers, Pretoria. • Draft TMH 6. Special Methods. Method ST6. Measurement of the In Situ Strength of Soils by the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), (1984). • Geological Survey (1992). 1:6 000 000 Seismic Hazard Map for Southern Africa. Government printer, Pretoria. • Jennings J.E, Brink, A.B.A. and Williams A.B. Revised Guide to Soil Profiling for Civil Engineering Purposes in Southern Africa. The Civil engineer in South Africa, January (1973). • SANS 1200 D. Standardised Specification for Civil Engineering Construction, Section D: Earthworks. South African National Standards, (1988). • Van der Merwe, D.H. (1964). Prediction of Heave from the Plasticity Index and Percentage of Clay Fraction of Soils. Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers, 6, 103 – 107. • Climatic Data from: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south-africa/climate/addo_climate.asp Accessed on 22/05/2018 • www.GoogleEarth.com P a g e | 9 Annexure A – Trial Pit Profiles Project Name:Bayview Windfarm Job Number: 4744 Site: Uitenhage Client: Engie Southern Africa Trial Pit: BV01 P.O. Box 27308, Greenacres, 6057 Tel: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Depth (m) Lithology Description Sample Photograph 0 Slightly moist, light grey brown, loose, intact, silty SAND with cobbles and 0.1 roots: Alluvial 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 BV01 Slightly moist, greyish white, medium dense to dense, intact, silty sandy moderately well formed to well formed hardpan CALCRETE: Pedogenic 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 Profiled By: TH Easting: 25.63722 Depth of Excavation (m): 1.10 Contractor: Pieter Rademeyer Plant Hire Northing: -33.65575 Machine: JCB3CX Samples: BV01: 0.20 - 1.10 m: MOD / CBR / Foundation Date Excavated: 10/04/2018 Indicator Date Profiled: 10/04/2018 Notes: 1 of 1 Project Name:Bayview Windfarm Job Number: 4744 Site: Uitenhage Client: Engie Southern Africa Trial Pit: BV12 P.O. Box 27308, Greenacres, 6057 Tel: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Depth (m) Lithology Description Sample Photograph 0 0.05 Slightly moist, greyish medium brown, medium dense, intact, silty SAND with cobbles and roots: Alluvial 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 BV12 Slightly moist, greyish white, dense, silty sand with well formed hardpan CALCRETE: Pedogenic 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 Profiled By: TH Easting: 25.65572 Depth of Excavation (m): 1.00 Contractor: Pieter Rademeyer Plant Hire Northing: -33.6302 Machine: JCB3CX Samples: BV12: 0.15 - 1.00 m: MOD / CBR / Foundation Date Excavated: 10/04/2018 Indicator Date Profiled: 10/04/2018 Notes: 1 of 1 Project Name:Bayview Windfarm Job Number: 4744 Site: Uitenhage Client: Engie Southern Africa Trial Pit: BV22 P.O. Box 27308, Greenacres, 6057 Tel: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Depth (m) Lithology Description Sample Photograph 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Slightly moist, medium brown, loose, intact, silty SAND with cobbles and roots: Alluvial 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 BV22 Slightly moist, greyish white, dense, silty sand with well formed hardpan CALCRETE: Pedogenic 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 Profiled By: TH Easting: 25.67397 Depth of Excavation (m): 0.40 Contractor: Pieter Rademeyer Plant Hire Northing: -33.66028 Machine: JCB3CX Samples: BV22: 0.15 - 0.40 m: MOD / CBR / Foundation Date Excavated: 10/04/2018 Indicator Date Profiled: 10/04/2018 Notes: 1 of 1 Project Name:Bayview Windfarm Job Number: 4744 Site: Uitenhage Client: Engie Southern Africa Trial Pit: BV31 P.O. Box 27308, Greenacres, 6057 Tel: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Depth (m) Lithology Description Sample Photograph 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 BV31 Slightly moist, reddish brown, medium dense, intact, silty sand matrix with 0.4 COBBLES and roots: Alluvial 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Slightly moist, greyish white, medium dense to dense, intact, silty sandy CALCRETE matrix with cobbles: Pedogenic 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 Profiled By: TH Easting: 25.69328 Depth of Excavation (m): 2.10 Contractor: Pieter Rademeyer Plant Hire Northing: -33.65489 Machine: JCB3CX Samples: BV31: 0.00 - 0.80 m: MOD / CBR / Foundation Date Excavated: 10/04/2018 Indicator Date Profiled: 10/04/2018 Notes: 1 of 1 Project Name:Bayview Windfarm Job Number: 4744 Site: Uitenhage Client: Engie Southern Africa Trial Pit: BV32 P.O. Box 27308, Greenacres, 6057 Tel: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Depth (m) Lithology Description Sample Photograph 0 0.04 0.08 Slightly moist, grey brown, loose, intact, gravelly silty SAND with cobbles and roots: Alluvial 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 0.44 0.48 BV32 0.52 Slightly moist, greyish white, dense, silty sand with moderately well formed becoming well formed hardpan CALCRETE: Pedogenic 0.56 0.6 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.8 0.84 Profiled By: TH Easting: 25.69564 Depth of Excavation (m): 0.85 Contractor: Pieter Rademeyer Plant Hire Northing: -33.67314 Machine: JCB3CX Samples: BV32: 0.20 - 0.85 m: MOD / CBR / Foundation Date Excavated: 10/04/2018 Indicator Date Profiled: 10/04/2018 Notes: 1 of 1 Project Name:Bayview Windfarm Job Number: 4744 Site: Uitenhage Client: Engie Southern Africa Trial Pit: BV38 P.O. Box 27308, Greenacres, 6057 Tel: (041) 390 8700 Email: [email protected] Depth (m) Lithology Description Sample Photograph 0 0.1 Slightly moist to moist, light grey brown, loose, intact, silty SAND with roots: Alluvial 0.2 0.3 Slightly moist, greyish white, medium dense, intact, poorly to moderately well formed CALCRETE: Pedogenic 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Slightly moist, pale red brown, medium dense, intact, gravelly silty SAND with calcrete nodules: Alluvial / Pedogenic 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 BV38 Slightly moist, tan brown, medium dense to dense, intact, silty SAND with cobbles of sandstone (rounded at upper contact: Residual 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Profiled By: TH Easting: 25.64986 Depth of Excavation (m): 1.90 Contractor: Pieter Rademeyer Plant Hire Northing: -33.66097 Machine: JCB3CX Samples: BV38: 1.00 - 1.90 m: MOD / CBR / Foundation Date Excavated: 10/04/2018 Indicator Date Profiled: 10/04/2018 Notes: 1 of 1 Annexure B – DCP Results EASBP FROM DCP, sand Job Name Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Bayview Windfarm File No: Job No: 4744 Date of Test: 10/04/2018 DCP No: BV01 Location: Adjacent to BV01 note: EASBP from Terzaghi & Peck p49for 25mm settlement 500 450 400 Penetration Guide SPT DCP 350 mm/blow DN Consistency < 5 132-210 Very Dense 300 5 - 10 78-132 Dense 250 10 - 30 25-78 Med Dense 30 - 75 10 25 Loose 200 75 -100 <10 Very Loose 150 NOTE : Stated consistencies 100 do not apply to 50 cohesive materials. Describe using "stiff EstimatedallowableBearing Pressure, kPa 0 or firm or soft". 0 50 150 100 500 450 400 250 350 200 300 DEPTH bgl, (mm) Depth of hole in which DCP was taken : 0 mm below NGL Applied Factor : 1 times Terzaghi's value Remarks : Refusal at 0.545 m Reading Layer Layer Average DCP Level DCP Equiv. Approx Approx No. From To Layer DN Below NGLpenetration SPT N In-situ EASBP Depth Blows/300mm mm mm/blow Value CBR kPa 1 0 300 150 35 150 9 13 28 185 2 300 600 450 90 450 3 34 96 444 EASBP FROM DCP, sand Job Name Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Bayview Windfarm File No: Job No: 4744 Date of Test: 10/04/2018 DCP No: BV12 Location: Adjacent to BV12 note: EASBP from Terzaghi & Peck p49for 25mm settlement 350 300 Penetration Guide SPT DCP 250 mm/blow DN Consistency < 5 132-210 Very Dense 200 5 - 10 78-132 Dense 10 - 30 25-78 Med Dense 150 30 - 75 10 25 Loose 75 -100 <10 Very Loose NOTE : 100 Stated consistencies do not apply to 50 cohesive materials. Describe using "stiff EstimatedallowableBearing Pressure, kPa 0 or firm or soft". 0 50 150 100 500 450 400 250 350 200 300 DEPTH bgl, (mm) Depth of hole in which DCP was taken : 0 mm below NGL Applied Factor : 1 times Terzaghi's value Remarks : Refusal at 0.360 m Reading Layer Layer Average DCP Level DCP Equiv. Approx Approx No. From To Layer DN Below NGLpenetration SPT N In-situ EASBP Depth Blows/300mm mm mm/blow Value CBR kPa 1 0 300 150 62 150 5 24 59 312 2 300 600 450 31 450 10 12 24 166 EASBP FROM DCP, sand Job Name Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Bayview Windfarm File No: Job No: 4744 Date of Test: 10/04/2018 DCP No: BV22 Location: Adjacent to BV22 note: EASBP from Terzaghi & Peck p49for 25mm settlement 250 200 Penetration Guide SPT DCP mm/blow DN Consistency < 5 132-210 Very Dense 150 5 - 10 78-132 Dense 10 - 30 25-78 Med Dense 30 - 75 10 25 Loose 100 75 -100 <10 Very Loose NOTE : Stated consistencies 50 do not apply to cohesive materials. Describe using "stiff EstimatedallowableBearing Pressure, kPa 0 or firm or soft". 0 40 20 80 60 160 140 120 100 DEPTH bgl, (mm) Depth of hole in which DCP was taken : 0 mm below NGL Applied Factor : 1 times Terzaghi's value Remarks : Refusal at 0.165 m Reading Layer Layer Average DCP Level DCP Equiv. Approx Approx No. From To Layer DN Below NGLpenetration SPT N In-situ EASBP Depth Blows/300mm mm mm/blow Value CBR kPa 1 0 300 150 40 150 8 15 33 208 EASBP FROM DCP, sand Job Name Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Bayview Windfarm File No: Job No: 4744 Date of Test: 10/04/2018 DCP No: BV31 Location: Adjacent to BV31 note: EASBP from Terzaghi & Peck p49for 25mm settlement 700 600 Penetration Guide SPT DCP 500 mm/blow DN Consistency < 5 132-210 Very Dense 400 5 - 10 78-132 Dense 10 - 30 25-78 Med Dense 300 30 - 75 10 25 Loose 75 -100 <10 Very Loose NOTE : 200 Stated consistencies do not apply to 100 cohesive materials. Describe using "stiff EstimatedallowableBearing Pressure, kPa 0 or firm or soft". 0 40 20 80 60 160 140 120 100 DEPTH bgl, (mm) Depth of hole in which DCP was taken : 0 mm below NGL Applied Factor : 1 times Terzaghi's value Remarks : Refusal at 0.545 m Reading Layer Layer Average DCP Level DCP Equiv. Approx Approx No. From To Layer DN Below NGLpenetration SPT N In-situ EASBP Depth Blows/300mm mm mm/blow Value CBR kPa 1 0 300 150 127 150 2 48 110 618 2 300 600 450 60 450 5 23 56 303 EASBP FROM DCP, sand Job Name Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Bayview Windfarm File No: Job No: 4744 Date of Test: 10/04/2018 DCP No: BV32 Location: Adjacent to BV32 note: EASBP from Terzaghi & Peck p49for 25mm settlement 258 256 Penetration Guide 254 SPT DCP 252 mm/blow DN Consistency < 5 132-210 Very Dense 250 5 - 10 78-132 Dense 10 - 30 25-78 Med Dense 248 30 - 75 10 25 Loose 75 -100 <10 Very Loose 246 NOTE : Stated consistencies 244 do not apply to 242 cohesive materials. Describe using "stiff EstimatedallowableBearing Pressure, kPa 240 or firm or soft". 0 50 150 100 500 450 400 250 350 200 300 DEPTH bgl, (mm) Depth of hole in which DCP was taken : 0 mm below NGL Applied Factor : 1 times Terzaghi's value Remarks : Refusal at 0.350 m Reading Layer Layer Average DCP Level DCP Equiv. Approx Approx No. From To Layer DN Below NGLpenetration SPT N In-situ EASBP Depth Blows/300mm mm mm/blow Value CBR kPa 1 0 300 150 47 150 6 18 41 241 2 300 600 450 50 450 6 19 44 256 EASBP FROM DCP, sand Job Name Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Bayview Windfarm File No: Job No: 4744 Date of Test: 10/04/2018 DCP No: BV38 Location: Adjacent to BV38 note: EASBP from Terzaghi & Peck p49for 25mm settlement 350 300 Penetration Guide SPT DCP 250 mm/blow DN Consistency < 5 132-210 Very Dense 200 5 - 10 78-132 Dense 10 - 30 25-78 Med Dense 150 30 - 75 10 25 Loose 75 -100 <10 Very Loose NOTE : 100 Stated consistencies do not apply to 50 cohesive materials. Describe using "stiff EstimatedallowableBearing Pressure, kPa 0 or firm or soft". 0 400 200 600 800 1200 1000 DEPTH bgl, (mm) Depth of hole in which DCP was taken : 0 mm below NGL Applied Factor : 1 times Terzaghi's value Remarks : Refusal at 1.020 m Reading Layer Layer Average DCP Level DCP Equiv. Approx Approx No. From To Layer DN Below NGLpenetration SPT N In-situ EASBP Depth Blows/300mm mm mm/blow Value CBR kPa 1 0 300 150 40 150 8 15 33 208 2 300 600 450 59 450 5 22 55 298 3 600 900 750 64 750 5 24 61 322 4 900 1200 1050 30 1050 10 11 23 161 Annexure C – Laboratory Test Results