Report on the Geotechnical Investigation for

HYPERAMA PIPELINE
REIGER PARK
Gauteng Province, South Africa
Report no.: GWS18217/G00085-F0

OCTOBER 2018
 Specialist Tunneling, Engineering Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Consultancy

Emerging, BBBEE Level 2, Empowering Enterprise

Block B | Infinity Business Park | 4 Pieter Wenning Road | Fourways | Johannesburg

+27 (0)10 823 1621 | [email protected] | www.gageconsulting.co.za

Report to: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd

Building C, Knightsbridge
33 Sloane Street
Bryanston, 2191
Project name: Hyperama Pipeline

Report title: Geotechnical Investigation at Hyperama Pipeline, Reiger Park

Report number: GWS18217/G0084 revision F0

Revision Date Comment Prepared by Reviewed by

P0. Preliminary 11/09/2018 Letter report issued to client for review DS/BRJ FPP

F0. FINAL 08/10/2018 Issued to client for distribution DS/BRJ FPP

Revision Details: N/A

Report by Reviewed by:

Brendon Jones PrSciNat (400065/17) Fernando Pequenino PrEng (SA) 20070109

BSc Hons, MSc PhD Cand. (Eng Geology), MSAIEG BEng (Civil) BEng Hons (Geotech) MSAICE

This document is copyrighted and remains the property of GaGE Consulting (Pty) Ltd.

GaGE Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Reg No 2016/465250/07 VAT No. 4820276287

Directors: KA Mogotsi NDip(Civil) FP Pequenino PrEng BEng(Hons)(Geotech) MSAICE

Technical Directors: BR Jones PrSciNat MSc(Eng.Geology) MSAIEG FH van der Merwe PrEng MEng(Civil) MSAICE

Specialist Tunneling, Engineering Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Consultancy

Emerging, BBBEE Level 2, Empowering Enterprise
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

Figures...................................................................................................................................................................... iv

Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Terms of Reference................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Aims and Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.3. Scope and Limitations of the Assessment ............................................................................................... 5
1.4. Codes of Practice ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Information Sources ................................................................................................................................ 6

2. Site Characterisation and Description ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1. Site Location and Description ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Topography and Drainage....................................................................................................................... 6
2.3. Climate ................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Geology .................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.5. Seismicity ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2.6. Site History and Proposed Development ................................................................................................. 8

3. Geotechnical Investigation.............................................................................................................................. 8
3.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2. Trial Pits and Ground Conditions ............................................................................................................. 9
3.3. Laboratory and In-Situ Testing .............................................................................................................. 11
3.3.1. Foundation Indicator Testing and Electrical Conductivity ....................................................................... 11
3.3.2 pH and Electrical Conductivity .............................................................................................................. 11
3.3.3 CBR Testing ......................................................................................................................................... 12

4. Geotechnical Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 12

4.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2. Geotechnical Constraints and Overall Site Assessment ............................................................................... 12
4.3. Stream Crossing (Pipe Jacking) ................................................................................................................... 13
4.4. Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.5. Excavatability ............................................................................................................................................... 13
4.6. Stability of Trenches .................................................................................................................................... 14
4.7. Material Utilisation ....................................................................................................................................... 14
4.8. Construction Quality Assurance and Validation ............................................................................................ 14

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix A Trial Pit Profiles

Appendix B Logging Parameters

Appendix C Laboratory Test Results

Page | iii
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

Figures

Figure 2.1 Extract from Google Earth of the greater area of Reiger Park, showing the locality of the investigated site.6

Figure 2-2 Extract from 1:250 000 geological sheet 2628 East Rand (Geological Survey 1986), showing the local
geology. ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 3.1 Satellite image of site showing the locality of the excavated trial pits. ........................................................ 9

Figure 3.2 (a) Photograph of typical profile at test pit HRTP2 and (b) photograph of profile HRTP4.......................... 10

Figure 4.1 Geotechnical zoning map for proposed pipeline .................................................................................... 13

Tables

Table 3.1 Summary of excavated trial pits and termination conditions ....................................................................... 8

Table 3.2 Typical horizons observed during the geotechnical investigation .............................................................. 10

Table 3.3 Summary of foundation indicator test results ........................................................................................... 11

Table 3.4 Summary of pH and Electrical Conductivity ............................................................................................. 11

Table 3.5 CBR Test Results .................................................................................................................................... 12

Page | iv
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

1. Introduction

1.1. Terms of Reference

GaGE Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd to conduct a design-level geotechnical
investigation for the development of a new pipeline in the Reiger Park area. The investigation is aimed at assessing the
ground conditions and identifying geotechnical constraints that may limit the development or result in increased risk
or costs for the development. This report sets out the methodology and findings of the investigation and provides
recommendations for geotechnical and earthworks for the proposed development. The report is prepared in line with
the requirements of relevant Codes of Practice as noted below.

1.2. Aims and Methodology

The objectives of the study were to:

i. To analyse the geotechnical conditions prevalent on the site, with specific reference to the proposed area of
the new pipeline;
ii. To provide foundation and earthwork recommendations for the proposed new infrastructure and to comment
on the geotechnical factors that would have an impact on the development of the site, so as to enable
economic design and construction of proposed development; and
iii. To identify relevant ground-related features and determine the variability of ground conditions and effects
thereof on the new structures.

The following methodology was adopted in order to realise the aims of this study:

i. A general site walk-over along with a review of available geological and geotechnical records;
ii. Geotechnical investigation including the excavation of several trial pits; and
iii. Laboratory testing of soils and rock to establish geotechnical and materials design parameters.

1.3. Scope and Limitations of the Assessment

This report presents the findings of the ground conditions at the location of the new proposed pipeline in the Reiger
Park area from several discrete data points within close proximity of the proposed alignment. In particular, it sought
to provide insight into the geotechnical properties of the founding strata and utilisation potential of the in-situ soils.

The nature of geotechnical engineering is such that variations in what is reported here may occur over the site. It is
thus imperative that a Competent Person inspects all excavations to ensure that conditions at variance with those
predicted do not occur and to undertake an interpretation of the facts supplied in this report. This report has been
prepared for the exclusive use of the client, with specific application to the proposed project.

1.4. Codes of Practice

The services performed by GaGE Consulting (Pty) Ltd were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical profession practising under similar conditions in the
locality of the project. The investigation was carried out according to standard practice codes and guidelines, including:

i. Inspecting the trial pits and recording the soil profiles using the standard procedures as recommended in the
guidelines by, AEG/SAICE/SAIEG (2001) “Guidelines for Soil and Rock Logging in South Africa; and
ii. The SAICE (2010) Geotechnical Division “Code of Practice for Site Investigations”.
iii. The SABS 1200 LB (1983) “South African Bureau of Standards Standardized Specification for Civil
Engineering Construction, LB: bedding (pipes)”.

Page | 5
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

1.5. Information Sources

The following principal sources were consulted and/or made available:

• Topocadastral map of Johannesburg (sheet 2628AA) at a scale of 1:50 000, published in 2002;
• Topocadastral map of East Rand (sheet 2628) at a scale of 1:250 000, published in 2004;
• Geological map of East Rand (sheet 2628) at a scale of 1:250 000, published in 1986; and
• Google Earth satellite imagery.

2. Site Characterisation and Description

2.1. Site Location and Description

The site, the Hyperama Pipeline, is located approximately 2.5km north of the N17 and Rondebult Road (R21)
interchange and to the immediate east of the Reiger Park township in Boksburg, in the Gauteng Province. Access to
the site by car was gained via an unnamed road taken from the corner of Rondebult Road and Espri Laan that passes
south of the Hyperama. The site location is shown on the satellite image in Figure 2.1.

The site is currently undeveloped with excavations and an active construction site on the eastern portion while the
western limit of the site is covered by dump material. A stream, a tributary of the Elsburgspruit, runs north-south
through the middle of the site with a bridge crossing that is only suitable for pedestrians. Overhead power lines are
present with an unground water pipe, which utilises a bridge to cross the stream, just to the north of the proposed
pipeline.

Figure 2.1 Extract from Google Earth of the greater area of Reiger Park, showing the locality of the investigated site.

2.2. Topography and Drainage

Regionally, the area is of gently undulating terrain and the site itself crosses through a depression with a perennial
stream running through the middle of the site. This stream flows from Boksburgmeer dam, situated roughly 800m to

Page | 6
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

the north of the site, towards Cinderella Dam located some 1.2km south of the site. The slope on the eastern side of
the river has an average gradient of 5% with a max of 11% whereas the western side has an average gradient of 2.8%.

2.3. Climate

The site under investigation lies within the Highvelds’ semi-arid warm climatic zone with mean annual temperate of
about 16.0°C. The average annual rainfall is approximately 400mm, most of which occurs in heavy isolated falls
between October and March.

Climate determines the mode of weathering as well as the rate of weathering, with the effect of climate on the
weathering process (i.e. soil formation) determined by the climatic N-value defined by Weinert (1964). The site, has an
N-value of 3 to 4, which implies it has a slight water surplus and suggests that chemical decomposition will prevail;
resulting in deep residual soil profiles.

2.4. Geology

Referring to Figure 2-2, according to sheet 2628 East Rand of the 1:250 000 geological map series, the regional
geology of the site (denoted by white arrow and the green line) comprises of sedimentary rocks of the Vryheid
Formation of the Ecca Group, of the Karoo Supergroup, and the Johannesburg Subgroup of the Central Rand Group
of the Witwatersrand Supergroup. The Johannesburg Subgroup (denoted by Rjo) consists predominately of quartzite
and bands of lesser conglomerates. The Vryheid Formation sandstones (denoted by Pv) weather to a sandy soil with
the potential of developing a collapse fabric. The presence of the Dwyka Group is inferred on the geological chart
(denoted by C-Pd) and consists primarily of diamictite and lesser mudrock.

Rjo

Pv

Symbol Age Supergroup Group Formation/Subgroup Rock Type

Pv Permian Ecca Vryheid Formation Sandstones with subordinate
Karoo siltstone
C-Pd Permian Dwyka - Diamictite and lesser mudrock
Rjo Randian Witwatersrand Central Rand Johannesburg Quartzite with bands of lesser
Subgroup conglomerates
Figure 2-2 Extract from 1:250 000 geological sheet 2628 East Rand (Geological Survey 1986), showing the local geology.

Page | 7
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

2.5. Seismicity

According to the Seismic Hazard Map of South Africa contained in SANS 10160 the peak ground acceleration (g) with
a 10% probability of being exceeded in a 50-year period in East Rand area is in the order of 0.2g, which would be
considered a moderate hazard. This activity is attributed to deep mining.

2.6. Site History and Proposed Development

According to historical satellite imagery, the site has remained vacant with no additional development of permanent
structures since ca-2002. The proposed new pipeline development will comprise of an underground UPVC pipe on
either a concrete bedding cradle or a cradle of compacted selected granular material.

3. Geotechnical Investigation

3.1. Overview

The investigated site is approximately 1.2km linear in length and was investigated on 07 September 2018, comprising
a site walkover, the machine-excavation of several trial pits using a Tractor Loader Backhoe (TLB) (Model: Volvo BL61
- 64kW). The trial pits were profiled according to the relevant soil profiling standards (AEG/SAICE/SAIEG, 2001)
photographed, and representative soil samples retrieved from selected horizons within designated excavations for
laboratory testing.

The location of the excavated trial pits is summarised in Table 3.1, and in conjunction with Figure 3.1, which shows
the locality of the trial pits across the site. Soil samples were submitted to Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd for
laboratory tests that included foundation indicator testing, which incorporated full grading (to 0.002 mm) and Atterberg
limits.

All trial pits were excavated in accessible areas as to not damage existing infrastructure and these profiles are
considered representative of the site conditions. The detailed trial pit profiles and accompanying photographs are
provided in Appendix A, with the associated logging parameters in Appendix B, and the detailed laboratory results in
Appendix C of this report.
Table 3.1 Summary of excavated trial pits and termination conditions

Co-ordinates Groundwater
Final Depth Termination
ID seepage
Latitude Longitude (m BGL) conditions
(m BGL)

HRTP1 26.229390 28.248040 1.98 AR None

HRTP2 26.228980 28.245460 1.20 R None
HRTP3 26.228790 28.242450 1.40 R (wet conditions)
HRTP4 26.229160 28.240950 2.30 Water strike 2.25 (slow)
HRTP5 26.228910 28.240570 1.50 R (wet conditions)
HRTP6 26.228510 28.239480 0.95 R None
HRTP7 26.228090 28.237590 1.05 R None
AR – Approaching refusal; R – Refusal

Page | 8
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

Figure 3.1 Satellite image of site showing the locality of the excavated trial pits.

3.2. Trial Pits and Ground Conditions

The seven (7) trial pits were excavated until terminated due to water seepage or refusal at a shallow depth using a
TLB. The generalised profiles observed in the trial pits excavated at the site are summarised in Table 3.2. No sidewall
instability was encountered in any of the trial pits with slow water seepage to wet conditions experienced in three (3)
holes in close proximity to the stream. Furthermore, presence of mottling and ferricrete in the soil profiles is indicative
of seasonal moisture changes.

As shown in Figure 3.2(a) and Table 3.2, the ground profiles to the east (HRPT 1, 2 and 3) and to the west (HRPT 5,
6 and 7) of the stream typically comprised of:

• A surficial colluvial or uncontrolled fill layer of medium dense to loose, slightly clayey silty fine to coarse sand with
traces of angular gravel and anthropogenic material to an average depth of 0.80 m below ground level (BGL); to a
alluvial loose (soft), clayey sand with traces of sub-rounded gravel to an average depth of 1.00 m BGL; which was
in turn underlain by

• An occasional pebble marker, found away from the stream, described as loose to medium dense, silty sand with
abundant angular gravel and cobbles to an average depth of 1.10 m BGL; underlain by

• Completely weathered sandstone (to the east of the stream) and completely weathered quartzite (to the west of
the stream) being described as dense, jointed, silty sand, with to abundant angular, highly to completely weathered,
coarse gravel and cobbles to an average depth of 1.50 m BGL; and further graded into

• A jointed, highly to medium weathered, soft rock (sandstone and quartzite) with depth.

HRPT7 was the only excavation to refuse in hardpan ferricrete at a depth of 1.05m (BGL).

Page | 9
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

As shown in Figure 3.2(b) and Table 3.2, the ground profile (HRTP4) to the immediate east of the stream comprised
of:

• A surficial colluvial, loose, slightly clayey silty sand to a depth of 0.40 m below ground level (BGL); which was in
turn underlain by

• Alluvial layer being described as slightly moist to wet with depth, soft (loose), silty clayey sand, increasing clay with
depth and traces of soft to hard gravel sized concretions to a depth of 2.30m (BGL).

Table 3.2 Typical horizons observed during the geotechnical investigation

Average depth Ground Unit

Description
(m BGL) Symbol Type

Uncontrolled
FILL Dry, grey brown, loose, clayey silty sand
fill

0.00 - 1.00 Slightly moist, light yellow brown, medium dense to loose,
COL Collvium
(max 2.30*) clayey silty sand

Moist to wet, light grey brown, loose (soft) to medium

ALL* Alluvium
dense, slightly clayey silty sand to silty clayey sand

Pebble Slightly moist, light brown, loose to medium dense, silty

1.00 - 1.10 PM
marker sand with abundant coarse gravel and cobbles.

Completely
Slightly moist, light yellow/orange brown, dense to very
1.10 - 1.50 CWR weathered
dense, sand matrix with abundant angular cobbles
rock

COL
FILL

COL

ALL

PM

CWR

(a) (b)

Figure 3.2 (a) Photograph of typical profile at test pit HRTP2 and (b) photograph of profile HRTP4

Page | 10
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

3.3. Laboratory and In-Situ Testing

The representative soil samples where submitted to Specialised testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd for testing, and the
following laboratory tests where scheduled:

i. 5 No. foundation indicator tests, with grading to 0.002 mm, Atterberg limits, and moisture contents;

ii. 5 No. pH and Electrical Conductivity tests; and

iii. 1 No. CBR test.

3.3.1. Foundation Indicator Testing and Electrical Conductivity

The foundation indicator results received from the laboratory are summarised in Table 3.2. According to these, the
upper colluvium (COL) and upper alluvium (ALL) tested as a clayey silty SAND with low plasticity. The lower alluvium
(ALL) unit, in close proximity to the stream, graded as a silty clayey SAND with moderate plasticity, and subsequently
test results as having a medium expansive potential (according to the van der Merwe method).
Table 3.3 Summary of foundation indicator test results

Particle Size (%) Atterberg Limits Classification

Ground Unit

MC USCS ASSHTO
Pit ID Depth (m) LL PI LS GM
Gravel
Sand
Clay

(%) PE
Silt

(%) (%) (%)

HRPT1 0.87 – 1.1 COL 15 17 65 3 23 11 5.0 7.7 Low 0.96 SC A-2-6

HRPT2 0.6 – 1 COL 16 15 65 4 19 7 3.0 5.9 Low 0.96 SC-SM A-4
HRPT3 0 – 0.72 ALL 7 10 82 1 0 SP 0.5 17.4 Low 1.09 SM A-2-4
HRPT4 1.7 -2.3 ALL 21 13 64 2 35 22 9.5 14.9 Medium 0.99 SC A-6
HRPT5 0.6 - 1.05 ALL 8 15 72 5 20 7 3.0 12.8 Low 1.10 SC-SM A-2-4
LL – Liquid Limit; PI – Plasticity Index; LS – Linear Shrinkage; MC - Moisture Content; PE - Potential Expansiveness; GM - Grading Modulus

3.3.2 pH and Electrical Conductivity

Soils encountered on the site have slightly acidic pH and have relatively high conductivities (for a soil) and are corrosive
to highly corrosive to buried steel.
Table 3.4 Summary of pH and Electrical Conductivity

Depth Electrcal
Pit ID Ground Unit pH Conductivity
(m BGL) (S/m)

HRPT1 0.87 – 1.1 COL 4.7 0.048

HRPT2 0.6 – 1 COL 4.0 0.032

HRPT3 0 – 0.72 ALL 4.6 0.038

HRPT4 1.7 -2.3 ALL 5.3 0.034

HRPT5 0.6 - 1.05 ALL 5.4 0.033

Page | 11
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

3.3.3 CBR Testing

CBR tests to obtain material compaction characteristics were undertaken on a sample of the surficial colluvium clayey
silty sand and gravelly sand pebble marker. The result is summarised in Table 3.4.:

Table 3.5 CBR Test Results

Material
Ground Unit MOD AASHTO CBR
Depth classification
Pit ID PI GM Optimum Maximum
(m) Swell
moisture dry density 93% 95% COLTO
(%)
content (%) (kg/m3)
COL +
HRTP1 0.87-1.2 11 0.96 6.4 2150 14 16 0.0 G8
PM

4. Geotechnical Evaluation

4.1. Overview

A geotechnical evaluation was conducted based on the site walk-over, desk-study, profiles observed in the excavated
trial pits, and the subsequent laboratory tests from the representative samples that were collected. The geology and
ground conditions are relativity consistent with a thin superficial uncontrolled fill layer above a clayey silty sand colluvial
layer, with a basal pebble maker, on a shallow completely weathered sandstone or quartzite bedrock; with exception
to ground conditions adjacent to the stream that comprises of superficial colluvial layer above a thick clayey sand
alluvial horizon.

4.2. Geotechnical Constraints and Overall Site Assessment

Based on the observations during the investigation, the site can be classified as two zones with Zone I being adjacent
to the stream being characterised by deep alluvial clayey soils and shallow (perched) water table and Zone II being
characterised by generally shallow bedrock profile. The extent of these Zones is shown in Figure 4.1. The principal
geotechnical constraints are summarised in the table below.

Table 4.1 Summary of geotechnical zoning

ZONE Geotechnical constraint

I Area subjected to flooding

Seasonal perched watertable
Moderate soil heave potential
Materials unsuitable for reuse
II Difficult excavation (shallow bedrock)
Seasonal perched watertable
Moderate slopes

Page | 12
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

ZONE II
ZONE I

ZONE II

Figure 4.1 Geotechnical zoning map for proposed pipeline

4.3. Stream Crossing (Pipe Jacking)

The pipe crossing is proposed as a horizontal directional drill of approximately 50m in length and 2m below the stream
level. Investigations indicate a generally shallow bedrock profile along the entire project area, although locally some
variation is encountered with deep alluvial deposits on the banks of the stream. Test pit HRTP4 terminated at 2.3m
due to strong water seepage (corresponding to river level) but bedrock is expected at a shallow depth below this.
Consequently it reasonable to assume the most of the pipe jacking/drilling will occur through the bedrock. Bedrock
comprises quartzite on which refusal of the TLB occurred and logged as hard rock (UCS > 30MPa). The quartzite will
grade rapidly with depth and in the absence of deeper investigative methods (eg. core drilling), it must be assumed
that fresh competent bedrock may be intercepted. Quartzite is a competent metamorphosed rock and UCS exceeding
250MPa are typical (Brink ABA, 1976), furthermore the rock is highly abrasive. A relatively high cost for the jacking is
thus anticipated given the challenging conditions. This cost should be evaluated against a conventional pipe bridge
crossing utilising conventional shallow pad foundations.

4.4. Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater seepage was encountered in close proximity to the stream with wet soil conditions being prevalent a
substantial distance from the stream. The water table was reached at a depth of roughly 2.25 m BGL in an excavation
adjacent to the stream and subsequently terminated at a depth of 2.30 m. The presence of ferricrete is indicative of
seasonal moisture changes.

4.5. Excavatability

Refusal on shallow bedrock and hardpan ferricrete was reached at a depth less than 1.50 m in five (5) of the
excavations. Difficult excavation conditions are expected throughout most of the site, with expectation to the area
adjacent to the stream where an excavation was terminated at a depth greater than 1.5 m BGL.

Page | 13
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

4.6. Stability of Trenches

No sidewall instabilities were observed during the geotechnical site investigation and this gives an indication that no
problems should be encountered with regards to the stability of long trench excavations, however any excavation
deeper than 1.5m must be shored as prescribed in the relevant act.

4.7. Material Utilisation

The usability of the on-site materials for construction purposes can be assessed according to the AASHTO, Unified
Soil Classifications and the CBR test results.

The low grading modulus for the alluvium near the river stream is indicative of the significant amount of fines in these
soils and is not suitable for engineered cradle bedding for pipes.

However, most soils encountered (over the bedrock) on site classify as SC to SM, according to the ASSHTO
classification, and therefore are expected to have fair to good workability as a construction material and have fair to
good compaction characteristics. The upper transported material in the site soil profile can be utilized as G8 fill material
to be placed above the bedding cradle in accordance with SANS 1200 LB.

The materials encountered on the site are not suitable for pipe bedding and this would need be sourced commercially.

4.8. Construction Quality Assurance and Validation

Based on the above evaluation, ground conditions are favourable and consistent. No further investigations are
recommended.

Notwithstanding, the nature of geotechnical engineering is such that variations in what is reported here may become
evident during construction, once the site has been excavated and opened-up. It is thus imperative that a competent
person inspect excavations and/or foundation platforms to sure the conditions at variance with those predicted, do
not occur and to undertake an interpretation of the facts applied in this report so as to validate the design and
recommendations made.

References

AEG/SAICE/SAIEG Association of Engineering Geologists – South African Section, South African Institution of Civil
Engineering - Geotechnical Division, and South African Institute for Engineering and Environmental Geologists (2001)
Guidelines for Soil and Rock Logging in South Africa, 2nd Impression, Brink, A.B.A. and Bruin, R.M.H. (eds.),
Proceedings of the Geoterminology Workshop, 1990.

Partridge T.C., Wood C.K. and Brink A.B.A.. Priorities for urban expansion within the PWV metropolitan region. The
primary of geotechnical constraints. South African Geographical Journal: Vol. 75, 1973.

South African Institution of Civil Engineering SAICE (1995) Code of Practice: Foundations and superstructures for
single storey residential buildings of masonry construction. Joint Structural Division, Johannesburg. 1st edition.

South African Institution of Civil Engineering SAICE - Geotechnical Division (2010) Site Investigation Code of Practice,
1st Edition, January 2010.

SANS, South African National Standards (2009) SANS10160-5: Basis of Structural Design and Actions for Buildings
and Industrial Structures — Part 5: Basis of Geotechnical Design and Actions, Pretoria, SANS.

SANS, South African National Standards (1983) SANS 1200 LB: bedding (pipes)

Page | 14
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

Appendix A. Trial Pit Logs

A
 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT1
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine SAND
Dry, medium brown, mottled red and orange, medium
dense, pinholed with open root channels, slightly clayey
silty fine sand with abundant mixed gravel and cobbles.
Fill. Roots.
0,34
Loose, silty fine SAND
Slightly moist, dark grey brown, loose, voided silty fine
sand with abundant angular to sub rounded, coarse
gravel and cobbles mixed fragments. Fill. Few roots.

0,86
Loose, clayey, silty SAND
Slightly moist, brown orange, loose, intact, clayey silty
1,0 sand with few subrounded gravel. Colluvium. Few
1,10 Roots.
Loose, clayey, silty SAND
1,20
Slightly moist, brown orange, loose, intact, clayey silt
sand with abundant subrounded slightly weathered
coarse gravel and cobbles. Pebble marker. Few Roots.
Loose to medium dense, clayey, silty SAND
Slightly moist, orange brown mottled red, yellow and
orange and stained black loose to medium dense,
jointed, slightly clayey silty sand matrix with abundant
angular cobble sized completely to highly weathered
sandstone. Completely to highly weathered sandstone.
Vryheid Formation.

1,98
2,0 Approaching refusal of soft rock, SANDSTONE
End of Log

NOTES 1: FI sample at 0.87 - 1.10 5:

2: CBR sample at 0.87 - 1.20 6:
3: Stable sidewalls 7:
4: No water seepage 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT2
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Loose, silty fine SAND
0,10
Slightly moist, dark grey brown, loose, silty fine sand
with abundant mixed rubble coarse gravel and boulders.
Fill. Roots.
Medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, SAND
Slightly moist, light grey brown, medium dense, intact,
slightly clayey silty sand. Colluvium. Roots.

0,60
Medium dense, slightly clayey, silty SAND
Slightly moist, light, yellow grey, occasionally mottled
orange and black, medium dense, pinholed, slightly
clayey silty sand. Colluvium.

1,00
1,0
Medium dense, slightly clayey, silty SAND
Slightly moist, light yellow grey, occasionally mottled
1,20 orange and black, medium dense, pinholed, slightly
clayey silty sand with abundant subrounded coarse
gravel. Pebble marker.
Dense, silty SAND
Dry, orange yellow mottled grey orange and red, dense,
intact, silty sand. Completely to highly weathered
sandstone. Vryheid Formation.
Refusal on soft rock, SANDSTONE
End of Log

2,0

NOTES 1: FI sample at 0.60 - 1.00 5:

2: Stable sidewalls 6:
3: No water seepage 7:
4: 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT3
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Loose, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND
Moist, light brown grey, loose, intact, slightly clayey silty
fine to medium sand with abundant subrounded cobbles
and coarse gravel. Pebble marker. Roots.

0,86
Loose, silty SAND
1,00 Wet, grey mottled orange red and yellow, loose, intact,
1,0 silty sand, matrix with abundant completely to highly
weathered subangular sandstone cobbles. Reworked
residual sandstone. Vryheid Formation.
Medium dense to dense, silty, SAND
Wet, yellow red, mottled orange grey and black, medium
dense to dense, jointed, silty sand, matrix with abundant
1,40 slightly to highly weathered subangular to angular
sandstone cobbles. Completely weathered sandstone.
Vryheid Formation.
Refusal on soft rock, sandstone
End of Log

2,0

NOTES 1: FI sample at 0.00 - 0.73 5:

2: Stable sidewalls 6:
3: No water seepage 7:
4: 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT4
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Loose, slightly clayey, silty SAND
Slightly moist, light grey brown, loose, pinholed with
open root channels, slightly clayey, silty sand. Colluvium.
Roots.

0,40
Loose to medium dense, clayey, silty, SAND
Slightly moist, dark purple, grey mottled orange, loose to
medium dense, intact, clayey, silty sand. Alluvium.

0,97
1,0 Soft (loose), silty, clayey SAND
Wet, grey mottled orange, soft (loose), intact, silty,
clayey sand. Alluvium.

1,70
Soft (loose), silty, clayey SAND
Wet, grey mottled orange, soft (loose), intact, silty,
clayey sand with orange hard to soft gravel-sized
concretions. Alluvium.
2,0

2,30
Hole stopped due to seepage
End of Log

NOTES 1: FI sample at 1.70 - 2.30 5:

2: Stable sidewalls 6:
3: Water seepage at 2.25m 7:
4: 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT5
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Loose, clayey, silty fine SAND
Slightly moist, light grey brown, loose, clayey, silty fine
sand, intact with plastic and mixed gravel. Fill. Roots.

0,30
Medium dense, clayey, silty, SAND
Moist, dark grey brown, medium dense, voided with
open root channels clayey, silty sand. Alluvium. Roots.

0,60
Clayey, silty SAND
Wet, yellow brown, mottled black, voided, slightly clayey,
silty sand with occasional subrounded quartz coarse
gravel. Alluvium.

1,0 1,05
Clayey, silty SAND
Wet, yellow brown, mottled black, voided, slightly clayey,
silty sand with abundant subrounded quartz coarse
gravel and cobbles and completely weathered quartzite
cobbles and boulders. Alluvium.
Soft to firm, clayey, silty SAND
1,50 Wet, grey mottled, orange, soft to firm, intact, clayey,
silty sand matrix with abundant subrounded to angular
mixed coarse gravel and cobbles. Alluvium.
Hard rock, QUARTZITE
1,70 Highly weathered, hard rock quartzite. Johannesburg
Subgroup.
Refusal in hard rock, QUARTZITE
End of Log
2,0

NOTES 1: FI Sample at 0.60 - 1.05 5:

2: Stable sidewalls 6:
3: No water seepage 7:
4: 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT6
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Loose, slightly clayey silty fine SAND
Slightly moist, light grey brown, loose, intact, slightly
clayey silty fine sand. Colluvium. Roots.

0,50
Loose to medium dense, slightly clayey silty fine
SAND
Moist, yellow brown, loose to medium dense, occasional
open root channels slightly clayey silty sand with
occasional translucent rounded quartz coarse gravel and
0,85 rounded Fe & Mn nodules. Colluvium.

0,95 Very dense, silty SAND

Slightly moist, yellow brown, mottled red orange and
1,0 purple, very dense, jointed, silty sand with abundant
highly to completely weathered angular quartzite
cobbles. Completely weathered quartzite. Johannesburg
Subgroup.
Refusal in hard rock, QUARTZITE
End of Log

2,0

NOTES 1: No sample 5:
2: Stable sidewalls 6:
3: No water seepage 7:
4: 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

 TRIAL PIT LOG HOLE NO: HRPT7
CLIENT: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd X COORD:
PROJECT: HYPERAMA PIPELINE, REIGER PARK Y COORD:
PROJECT NO: GWS18217 ELEVATION:
SITE: PAGE 1 of 1
Dynamic Probe Light
Equivalent SPT-N
Depth

Description
10 20 30 40

0,00 Ground Surface

0,0
Medium dense to dense, slightly clayey silty fine
SAND
Slightly moist, brown grey, medium dense to dense,
intact, clayey, silty sand. Alluvium/colluvium. Roots.

0,43
Medium dense to dense, slightly clayey silty fine
SAND
0,60 Slightly moist, yellow brown, mottled orange, medium
dense to dense, intact, clayey, silty sand. Colluvium.
Very dense, silty SAND
Slightly moist, yellow brown, mottled orange, very dense,
intact, clayey, silty sand matrix with abundant translucent
0,90 rounded to angular slightly weathered quartz coarse
gravel and Fe&Mn nodules. Honeycomb ferricrete.
1,0 1,05 Cemented.
Hardpan FERRCRETE
Slightly moist, orange red, mottled orange, yellow and
black, very dense. Hardpan ferricrete. Strongly
cemented.
Refusal on hardpan, FERRICRETE
End of Log

2,0

NOTES 1: No sample 5:
2: Stable sidewalls 6:
3: No water seepage 7:
4: 8:

MACHINE: TLB: Volvo BL61 (64kW) DATE PROFILED: 07/09/2018

DIAM: Test Pit PROFILED BY: D Swart Prof Reg:
FILE REF: CHECKED BY: F. Pequenino Prof.Reg: 20070109 www.gageconsulting.co.za

Template: GaGE TP01

Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

Appendix B. Profiling and Logging

Parameters

B
 SOIL DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

Reference: Brink, ABA and Bruin, RMH (2002) Guidelines for Soil and Rock Logging in South Africa, AEG/SAICE/SAIEG

DESCRIPTIVE ORDER: 1. Moisture condition; 2. Colour; 3. Consistency; 4. Soil structure; 5. Soil type; and 6. Origin

1a Consistency: Granular Soils 1b Consistency: Cohesive Soils

SPT GRAVELS & SANDS Dry density SPT SILTS & CLAYS and combination with SANDS UCS
“N” Generally free draining soils (kg/m3) “N” Generally slow draining soils (kPa)
<4 VERY Crumbles very easily when scraped < 1450 VERY Pick point easily pushed in 100mm. Easily
<2 < 50
LOOSE with geological pick SOFT moulded by fingers
Pick point easily pushed in 30-40mm. Moulded
4-10 LOOSE Small resistance to penetration by 1450-1600 2-4 SOFT by fingers with some pressure. Easily 50-125
sharp pick point penetrated by thumb.
Pick point penetrates up to 10mm. Very
10-30 MEDIUM Considerable resistanche to 1600-1750
4-8 FIRM difficult to mould with fingers. Indented by 125-500
DENSE penetration by sharp pick point
thumb with effort. Spade just penetrates.

30-50 DENSE Very high resistance to penetration 1750-1925 Slight indentation by pushing in pick point.
by sharp pick point. Requires many 8-15 STIFF Cannot be moulded by fingers. Penetrated by 250-500
blows of pick for excavation thumbnail. Pick necessary to excavate.
> 50 VERY High resistance to repeated blows > 1925 VERY Slight indentation by blow of pick point.
DENSE of geological pick. Requires power 15-30 500-1000
STIFF Requires power tools for excavation.
tools for excavation

3 Moisture Condition
2 Soil Type
DRY No water detectable
SOIL TYPE” PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
SLIGHTLY MOIST Water just discernable
CLAY < 0,002
MOIST Water easily discernable
SILT 0,002 – 0,06
VERY MOIST Water can be squeezed out
SAND 0,06 – 2
WET Generally below the water table
GRAVEL 2 – 60*
COBBLES 60 – 200*
* Specify average and maximum sizes, hardness, shape as well as proportion 5 Soil Structure
INTACT No structure present
FISSURED Presence of discontinuities, possibly cemented
4 Colour
SLICKENSIDED Very smooth, glossy, often striated discontinuity planes
Described at natural moisture content, as seen in profile (unless otherwise
specified) and using bedding thickness criteria. (e.g. thickly banded, thinly Presence of open fissures. Soil breaks into gravel size
SHATTERED
streaked, etc.) blocks

SPECKLED Very small patches of colour < 2 mm MICRO- Small scale shattering, very closely spaced open fissures.
SHATTERED Soil breaks into sand size crumbs
MOTTLED Irregular patches of colour 2 – 6 mm
RESIDUAL
BLOTCHED Large irregular patches 6 – 20 mm Relict bedding, lamination, foliation, etc.
STRUCTURES
BANDED Approximately parallel bands of varying colour
STREAKED Randomly orientated streaks of colour
5 Origin
Local colour variations: associated with discontinuity
STAINED TRANSPORTED Alluvium, hillwash, talus, etc.
surfaces
RESIDUAL Weathered from parent rock e.g. residual granite
PEDOCRETES Ferricrete, laterite, silcrete, calcrete, etc.

Pedocretes
UCS
DEGREE OF CEMENTATION
(MPa)
VERY WEAKLY
Some material can be crumbled between finger and thumb. Disintegrates under knife blade to a friable state. 0,1 – 0,5
CEMENTED
Cannot be crumbled between strong fingers. Some material can be crumbled by strong pressure between thumb and hard
WEAKLY CEMENTED 0,5 – 2
surface. Under light hammer blows disintegrates to friable state.
CEMENTED Material crumbles under firm blows of sharp pick point. Grains can be dislodged with some difficulty by a knife blade. 2–5
STRONGLY
Firm blows of sharp pick point on hand-held specimen show 1-3mm indentations. Grains cannot be dislodged by knife blade. 5 – 10
CEMENTED
VERY STRONGLY
Hand-held specimen can be broken by single firm blow of hammerhead. Similar appearance to concrete. 10 - 25
CEMENTED

www.gageconsulting.co.za
 ROCK DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

Reference: Brink, ABA and Bruin, RMH (2002) Guidelines for Soil and Rock Logging in South Africa, AEG/SAICE/SAIEG
DESCRIPTIVE ORDER: 1. Colour; 2. Weathering; 3. Grain size; 4. Fabric spacing; 5. Discontinuity spacing; 5. Hardness; 6. Rock
type; 7. Rock formation

1a Rock Hardness: <25 MPa 1b Rock Hardness: >25 MPa

UCS UCS
HARDNESS DESCRIPTION HARDNESS DESCRIPTION
(MPa) (MPa)
Material crumbles under firm blows of pick point.
VERY SOFT Can be peeled with a knife. SPT refusal. Too hard 1–3 HARD ROCK 25 – 70
to cut triaxial sample by hand
Breaks with difficulty, rings when struck
Firm blows with pick point: 2-4mm indents. Can just VERY HARD
SOFT ROCK 3 - 10 Point load or laboratory test results necessary 70 – 200
be scraped with a knife ROCK
to distinguish between categories
MEDIUM Firm blows of pick head will break hand-held
EXTREMELY
HARD specimen. Cannot be scraped or peeled with a 10 - 25 > 200
HARD ROCK
ROCK knife.

2 Rock Type 4 Colour

Quartzite, sandstone, granite, limestone, etc. Described in the wet state unless otherwise indicated

3. Weathering
DEGREE OF EXTENT OF FRACTURE ORIGINAL GRAIN BOUNDARY
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
WEATHERING DISCOLOURATION CONDITION FABRIC CONDITION
UNWEATHERED None Closed or stained Unchanged Preserved Tight
< 20% of fracture spacing Discoloured, may Partial discolouration. Often
SLIGHTLY WEATHERED Preserved Tight
on both sides of fracture contain thin filling unweathered rock colour
MODERATELY >20% of fracture spacing Discoloured, may Partial to complete discolouration. Not
Preserved Partial opening
WEATHERED on both side of fracture contain thick filling friable except poorly cemented rocks
Partial separation. Not
Mainly
HIGHLY WEATHERED Throughout - Friable, possibly pitted easily indented with knife.
preserved
Does not slake
Complete separation.
COMPLETELY Partially
Throughout - Resembles a soil Easily indented with knife.
WEATHERED preserved
Slakes

5 Fabric/Discontinuity Spacing 6a Discontinuity Surface Description: Joint Filling

SEPARATION SPACING (foliation, cleavage, SPACING (fractures,

JOINT FILL TYPE DEFINITION (wall separation specified in mm)
(mm) bedding, etc.) joints, etc.)
<6 very intensely CLEAN No fracture filling
very highly
6 – 20 intensely STAINED Colouration of rock only. No recognisable filling material
20 – 60 very thinly FILLED Fracture filled with finite thickness filling material
highly
60 – 200 thinly
200 – 600 medium moderately 6b Discontinuity Surface Description: Orientation
600 – 2000 thickly slightly
> 2000 very thickly very slightly
Discontinuity inclinations (i.e. of joints, bedding, faults)

6c Discontinuity Surface Description: Roughness of Discontinuity Planes 7 Grain size

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION SIZE (mm) RECOGNITION

Appears smooth and is essentially smooth to the touch. Individual grains cannot be seen with a
SMOOTH VERY FINE GRAINED < 0.2
May be slickensided * hand lens
Asperities on the fracture surface are visible and can be Just visible as individual grains under
SLIGHTLY ROUGH FINE GRAINED 0.2 – 0.6
distinctly felt hand lens
Asperities are clearly visible and fracture surface feels Grains clearly visible under hand lens,
MEDIUM ROUGH MEDIUM GRAINED 0.6 – 2
abrasive just visible to the naked eye
Large angular asperities can be seen. Some ridge and COARSE GRAINED 2–6 Grains clearly visible to the naked eye
ROUGH
high side angle steps evident VERY COARSE
>6 Grains measurable
Near vertical steps and ridges occur on the fracture GRAINED
VERY ROUGH
surface
*Where slickensides occur the direction of the slickensides should be recorded
8 Rock Formation

Pietermaritzburg Formation, Cape Granite Suite etc.

www.gageconsulting.co.za
Geotechnical Investigation for Hyperama Pipeline
Reiger Park

Appendix C. Laboratory Results

C
Client Name: GaGE Consulting
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline
Job Number: GGC-07
Date: 01-Oct-18
Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR3 GR10, GR12 GR20, GR30, GR31, GR40, GR50, GR53, GR54 & BS 1377 (where applicable)

SUMMARY OF TEST DATA

Grading & Hydrometer Analysis (% Passing)
Sample HRPT 1 HRPT 2 HRPT 3 HRPT 4 HRPT 5
Depth (m) 0.87 - 1.1 0.6 - 1.0 0 - 0.72 1.7 - 2.3 0.6 - 1.05
Lab No GGC-07-28 GGC-07-29 GGC-07-30 GGC-07-31 GGC-07-32
53.0 100 100 100 100 100
37.5 100 100 100 100 100
26.5 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 100 100 100 100 100
13.2 100 100 100 100 100
9.5 100 99 100 100 99
6.7 100 99 100 100 99
4.75 99 98 100 99 98
2.00 97 96 99 98 95
1.00 91 91 96 91 88
0.425 72 72 71 65 68
0.250 62 59 48 52 53
0.150 48 47 34 45 40
0.075 35 36 21 38 27
0.060 32 31 17 34 23
0.050 30 30 16 33 21
0.035 24 28 14 31 16
0.020 21 25 11 28 14
0.006 17 19 8 24 11
0.002 15 16 7 21 8
GM 0.96 0.96 1.09 0.99 1.10
Atterberg Limits
LL (%) 23 19 0 35 20
PI (%) 11 7 SP 22 7
LS (%) 5.0 3.0 0.5 9.5 3.0
pH & Conductivity
pH 4.7 4.0 4.6 5.3 5.4
EC (S/m) 0.048 0.032 0.038 0.0340 0.033
MDD / OMC
MDD (kg/m³) 2150
OMC (%) 6.4
CBR
100% 26
98% 21
97% 19
95% 16
93% 14
90% 11
Swell (%) 0.0
UCS (MPa)
100%
97%
90%
COLTO Classification
G8
Remarks:

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can
be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be
kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.
Client Name: GaGE Consulting
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline
Job Number: GGC-07
Date: 2018-10-01
Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR3, GR10 GR12 & BS 1377 (where applicable)

FOUNDATION INDICATOR
Grading & Hydrometer Analysis
Atterberg Limits & Classification
(Particle Size (mm) & % Passing)
Sample HRPT 1 HRPT 2 HRPT 3 Sample HRPT 1 HRPT 2 HRPT 3
Depth (m) 0.87 - 1.1 0.6 - 1.0 0 - 0.72 Depth (m) 0.87 - 1.1 0.6 - 1.0 0 - 0.72
Lab No GGC-07-28 GGC-07-29 GGC-07-30 Lab No GGC-07-28 GGC-07-29 GGC-07-30
53.0 100 100 100 Liquid Limit (%) 23 19 0
37.5 100 100 100 Plastic Limit (%) 12 12 0
26.5 100 100 100 Plasticity Index (%) 11 7 SP
19.0 100 100 100 Linear Shrinkage (%) 5.0 3.0 0.5
13.2 100 100 100 PI of whole sample 8 5 0
9.5 100 99 100
6.7 100 99 100 % Gravel 3 4 1
4.75 99 98 100 % Sand 65 65 82
2.00 97 96 99 % Silt 17 15 10
1.00 91 91 96 % Clay 15 16 7
0.425 72 72 71 Activity 0.7 0.4 0.0
0.250 62 59 48
0.150 48 47 34 % Soil Mortar 97 96 99
0.075 35 36 21
0.060 32 31 17 Grading Modulus 0.96 0.96 1.09
0.050 30 30 16 Moisture Content (%) 7.7 5.9 17.4
0.035 24 28 14 Relative Density (SG)* 2.65 2.65 2.65
0.020 21 25 11
0.006 17 19 8 Unified (ASTM D2487) SC SC-SM SM
0.002 15 16 7 AASHTO (M145-91) A-2-6 A-4 A-2-4
Remarks: *: Assumed
N / T: Not Tested

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors
can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full.
Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.
Client Name: GaGE Consulting
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline
Job Number: GGC-07
Date: 2018-10-01
Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR3, GR10 GR12 & BS 1377 (where applicable)

FOUNDATION INDICATOR
PSD
100

80

60
% Passing

40

GGC-07-28
20
GGC-07-29
GGC-07-30
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Size (mm)

Potential Expansiveness Casagrande Plasticity Chart

60 60
LOW

VERY HIGH
MEDIUM

CH or OH
PI of Whole sample

HIGH

50 50
Plasticity Index

40 40
30 30 CL or OL
CL-ML
20 20 MH or OH

10 10
MLorOL
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Clay Fraction of Whole sample Liquid Limit

GGC-07-28 GGC-07-29 GGC-07-30 GGC-07-28 GGC-07-29 GGC-07-30

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors
can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full.
Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.
Client Name: GaGE Consulting
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline
Job Number: GGC-07
Date: 2018-10-01
Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR3, GR10 GR12 & BS 1377 (where applicable)

FOUNDATION INDICATOR
Grading & Hydrometer Analysis
Atterberg Limits & Classification
(Particle Size (mm) & % Passing)
Sample HRPT 4 HRPT 5 Sample HRPT 4 HRPT 5
Depth (m) 1.7 - 2.3 0.6 - 1.05 Depth (m) 1.7 - 2.3 0.6 - 1.05
Lab No GGC-07-31 GGC-07-32 Lab No GGC-07-31 GGC-07-32
53.0 100 100 Liquid Limit (%) 35 20
37.5 100 100 Plastic Limit (%) 13 13
26.5 100 100 Plasticity Index (%) 22 7
19.0 100 100 Linear Shrinkage (%) 9.5 3.0
13.2 100 100 PI of whole sample 14 5
9.5 100 99
6.7 100 99 % Gravel 2 5
4.75 99 98 % Sand 64 72
2.00 98 95 % Silt 13 15
1.00 91 88 % Clay 21 8
0.425 65 68 Activity 1.1 0.9
0.250 52 53
0.150 45 40 % Soil Mortar 98 95
0.075 38 27
0.060 34 23 Grading Modulus 0.99 1.10
0.050 33 21 Moisture Content (%) 14.9 12.8
0.035 31 16 Relative Density (SG)* 2.65 2.65
0.020 28 14
0.006 24 11 Unified (ASTM D2487) SC SC-SM
0.002 21 8 AASHTO (M145-91) A-6 A-2-4
Remarks: *: Assumed
N / T: Not Tested

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors
can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full.
Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.
Client Name: GaGE Consulting
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline
Job Number: GGC-07
Date: 2018-10-01
Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR3, GR10 GR12 & BS 1377 (where applicable)

FOUNDATION INDICATOR
PSD
100

80

60
% Passing

40

20 GGC-07-31

GGC-07-32
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Size (mm)

Potential Expansiveness Casagrande Plasticity Chart

60 60
LOW

VERY HIGH
MEDIUM

CH or OH
PI of Whole sample

HIGH

50 50
Plasticity Index

40 40
30 30 CL or OL
CL-ML
20 20 MH or OH

10 10
MLorOL
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Clay Fraction of Whole sample Liquid Limit

GGC-07-31 GGC-07-32 GGC-07-31 GGC-07-32

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors
can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full.
Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.
Client Name: GaGe Consulting Job Number: GGC-07
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline Lab Number: GGC-07-28
Sample: HRTP 1 Method: SANS 3001 GR40
Depth: (m) 0.87 - 1.1 Date: 01-Oct-18

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

Mod. AASHTO Values Compaction Data: CBR

Swell CBR at (mm) CBR Values
MDD OMC Dry Dens. MC Comp.
(kg/m³) (%) (kg/m³) (%) (%) (%) 2.5 5.0 7.5 Compaction (%) CBR
100 26
2150 6.4 2138 6.9 100.0 0.0 26 30 34 98 21
97 19
2150 6.4 2058 6.9 96.3 0.0 18 22 25 95 16
93 14
2150 6.4 1963 6.9 91.8 0.0 13 13 12 90 11

1000
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

100

10

1
91.0 92.0 93.0 94.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0 99.0 100.0 101.0
Compaction (%)

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any
error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in
place.
Client Name: GaGe Consulting Job Number: GGC-07
Project Name: Hyperama Pipeline Lab Number: GGC-07-28
Sample: HRPT 1 Method: SANS 3001 GR30
Depth: (m) 0.87 - 1.1 Date: 01-Oct-18

MDD & OMC DETERMINATION (Mod. AASHTO)

Maximum Dry Density: 2150 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture Content: 6.4 %

Moisture Content (%): 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2

Dry Density (kg/m³) 2040 2098 2145 2130 2085

2160

2140

2120

2100
Dry Density (kg/m³)

2080

2060

2040

2020
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Moisture Content (%)

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can be held liable for any damages whatsoever
arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless
other arrangements are in place.